Added: 4 years ago
From: gryphonfilms
Views: 64,761
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (185)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • By the way guys... The man who invented lifters did not call them antigravity as this video states. He called it an "Ionocraft". Hmm... I wonder why the word Ion would be in there if it was not operating by using Ion wind?

  • This is not antigravity. This is ion wind. If you like I have documents that I recieved directly from NASA which clearly state the results of all thier tests on lifters and other asymmetrical capacitors showed no evidence that they any thing more than a simple example of ion propultion. And I will gladly give a copy of those documents to any one who asks for them.

  • @MrAwsome514 I would like please if you still have them around? Could you message them me please?

  • @Sandcat87 Yes I still have my copy. However, it is a PDF file so I can not simply copy and paste it into the form of a private message so I will give you the the adress of the page on the NASA site where you can get it.

    gltrs(dot)grc(dot)nasa(dot)gov­/citations/all/cr-2004-213312(­dot)html

  • Вот когда повесите груз с диаметром таким же и весом больше, хотя бы в два раза, тогда интересно, а пока ваши игрушки надоели.

  • look into gravity emitting diodes

  • These "lifters" are not anti-gravity. No more than a helicopter or airplane is anti-gravity.

    The device takes advantage of a high energy electron flow (electron wind) to push against the surface. This is NOT anti-gravity. It's much like how a helicopter flies by forcing air beneath it to make it raise in the air.

    It isn't canceling gravity, it's flying on a stream of electrons, pushing itself away from the table. Do your research before making such claims.

  • lol you got a bunch of negative ratings for explaining that it isn't anti-gravity! People are funny!

  • sgow for kids...

  • Nice anti-gravity strings fool !

  • better would be to test the weight those engines could load ! .. oh how many fake there be before a real well and tested experiment... which can be reproduce by anyone ! .. here just buzz ...

  • These has never been a successful vacuum test..... Beamshipcaptain = scammer, he profits from selling this bullshit.

  • It has been replicated in a vacuum, it's just not been publicly acknowledged for so call military secrecy reasons, if you search ion lifters do work in a vacuum you will see that they do, well your at it look at John Hutchinson's work, Stan dayo's work, Boyd Bushman's work, then look up monoatomic gold anti gravity, if your able to connect the dots you will see they all disrupt or remove electrons to be able to ride gravity's wave.

  • Successful vacuum test at Societe de Nationale Construction Aeronautique in Paris in 1955-56, AH Bahnson Labs i Winston-Salem NC, 1957-58,and at General Electric Space Center (now Lockheed-Martin Space) in 1959.

  • Jonathan W. Campbell,(NASA) "Cylindrical Asymmetrical Capacitor devices for SPACE APPLICATIONS" US Pat.#6,775,123,issued Aug 10,2004.

  • nelson3300 the nazi's tried that with mercury once in "The Bell" and it just made gamma radiation eventually in a large scale application of the same concept. Watch out for anything with a violet glow in a vortex of mercury, well actually I take that back, if you see a violet glow in a vortex of mercury it is really too late to do much with a nice dose of gamma radiation like that.

  • Betty Cash and Viki Landrum received high Roentgen-exposure, and resulting radiation-sickness from such a diamond-shaped UFO, December, 1980, in Texas. They sued the US Govt., to no effect, because of the above top-secrecy surrounding such-work.

  • this isn't antigravity pfff what a commantator

  • this is false...the current in the wires ionise the air and the ionised air is attracted to the alluminium foil, this movement creates thrust that lifts the thingymajig...antigravity is when something totally neglects the gravitational field of earth by reducing it to a magnitude of 0...

  • i heard... somewhere on the internet that seemed credible at the time, that taking a super-dense liquid metal like mercury, and spinning it really really fast in a sort of ring would disrupt the electro-magnetic field surrounding it... or something like that. just saying!

  • By the way, it's not JUST magnetics or JUST electrical fields. It's ELECTROMAGNETIC fields (electricity AND magnetics).

  • its bad for you.

    the electric field causes brain damage if you were in it too often.

    lol.

  • Yes, well, the electromagnetic field is comparable to a microwave. Watch out the next time you cook your hotpocket.

    lol

  • What you think these guys didn't start off with some brain damage?

  • it's funny how ppl will belive anything they see on tv... this lifting effect is cause by the ionization of the air surrounding the the electrically charged wire that surounds the top of the device. the charge the ionized parcticles are then drawn to the negitavely charged foil underneath and bring with it air which creates...thrust...

  • I dunno why people marked Gixxxer01 down, he is 100% correct.

  • it's cause they are fucking stupid... oh and ignorant. people belive there is an alien colony on the moon too, look it up, "thats why nasa hasn't gone back". seriously look it up, i'm always astoished about how much of what people belive is bullshit.

  • I totally agree, I was just reading some of that crock about "reptilians" and "Greys" (or "Dows" to some people) being on the moon. It made me laugh. The stories are really interesting and could make some money if published as books, but they are totally ridiculous and unbelieveable when speculated upon. You're right, Gixxxer01.

  • this is not anti gravity, it is magnetics. we use this on such common things as bullet trains currently.

  • Its not magnets its using ionization of particles.

  • Technically, this IS "antigravity," at least for the moment. The only other options for "antigravity," or a no-gravity situation, would be:

    1) To make the Earth's rotation cease, which would be extremely stupid and dangerous, if even possible.

    2) Find some way to isolate an area from the gravitational field of an object without actually leaving the field itself. This would most likely require something of a higher dimension (existing in more than 3 dimensions at one time).

  • look up mythbusters anti gravity lifter. this is thrust caused by ionization, if there was no air, it doesn't work. they test it in a vacum chamber and....nothing. fucking STUPID PPL.

  • If the earth's rotation stopped, everything would get HEAVIER, from the lack of the Earth spinning at 1000 mph, producing centrifugal-force, which counteracts the PUSH of gravity to the center of Earth.

  • true, more so near the equator and less so near the poles in fact. it's a very small change in weight either way

  • if the current theory of gravity is correct,or it might be the opposite and wede have no gravity if the earth stopped spinning

  • NO! If the Earth stopped spinning, the force of gravity would be GREATER, since there would be no centrifugal-force counteracting some of the Earths' gravitation. Read a physics book!

  • it would be like standing on the north or south polls you woulnt feel it

  • There is no current theory of gravity, but gravity is a wave function, you can call it a by product of electromagnetism if you want, disturbing the communication inside an atom between the electrons and other elements can create anti gravity, it's not anti gravity so to speak though, it is increasing the wave function of the nucleus, (the repulsing field of atoms that keeps the electrons and protons away form the nucleus.) this enables is you ride gravity's waves.

  • Glad you know more about how gravity works then anyone else.

    I guess the facts don't matter.

  • You are the one the ignoring the facts,,, do some research.

  • uurrgghhhhh fuck I'm sick of people like this.

  • Why not just look at your history to see suppression, when Tesla announced he was going to supply free energy JP Morgan made phone call to the government and they came and took all his funding away, and work, i am not asking you, i am telling you, please watch the war on cold fusion.

  • Oh now we're onto the suppression of free energy, who would have seen that one coming.

    Tesla was cool, Tesla was smart....... Why is it everytime someone points out a nutjob is crazy someone will point to Tesla and try to make a comparison between "random youtube nutjob" vrs "Tesla". There is no comparison.

  • Tesla's work was taken away because he was going to supply the world with free energy, they could not put a meter on it, that's right in the the history books, i suggest you go watch the war on cold fusion to see some more suppression, and yes I know exactly what gravity is and how to negate it, i have achieved anti gravity with no external power source, by simply draining electrons.

  • I'm glad someone knows *exactly* how gravity works, while understanding how to negate it and getting 100% success rates.

    It's good that there is one person on earth that knows that.

    You must be very clever lol.

  • 136 IQ last I checked, I can send you my thesis on anti gravity if you would like.

  • Cool only 9 points lower then mine :-P

    pfft it's bullshit metric anyway.....

    No I don't want to waste my time viewing your anti-gravity thesis :-P

  • I call BS, if it where true you would know that over unity is possible, i will explain to you 3 ways this can be proven, this also shows us how the law of thermodynamics is false, the history of science is the history of over unity suppression, inside an atom there is a constant spin with no input of energy, (perpetual motion,) and there is no entropy,(energy loss,)and it puts out energy,(electromagnetism.)also planets orbits are perpetual motion,as well as splitting an atom is over unity energy

  • lol

  • He's not the only one. There are hundreds to thousands of others, all over the globe. World is undergoing a silent revolution in energy, propulsion, and medicine, as we speak.

  • It's only silent because you're all nutjobs and most people unlike me know it's best to just laugh and ignore you.

  • A puzzling attitude. Thankfully some of us are DO-ers instead of idle dreamers, and have been published, and help kids win science-fairs, with Thomas Townsend Brown's 80-year old methodology, which is used in the B2-Bomber. TT Brown's 80-year old technology has recently been declassified and released by James L. Jones, president Obama's National Security advisor.

  • The B2 is a flying wing not a anti-gravity machine LOL!!!!! Flying wing are nothing amazing, they work very well. A good friend of mine took one to 31,400ft for a record.

    I don't buy this "DO-er" thing...... all these nuts working on perpetual motion in the like would better spend their time working on real-world inefficiencies that will make a real difference.

    While you yourself..... all you care about is selling "beamships".

  • The B-2 charges the carbon leading-edge positively, and shoots negative charges out the exhaust. This is TT Brown's FLAME JET GENERATOR, that can provide potential differences up to 15-million volts. THis explains how the B2 can go twice around the world without refueling, and has no radar-signature, or heat-signature, and no sonic boom. Read SECRETS OF ANTIGRAVITY PROPULSION, by Paul A LaViolette, PhD, and THE US ANTIGRAVITY SQUADRON, by THomas Valone, PhD.

  • I like when ppl assume that stealth means no radar signature.....

    It's actually got a rather huge radar signature, all those angles plus the textured paint etc are designed to disperse the radar. Thus it appears as a large flock of birds or similar..... Not a single bird or invisible like some state.

  • Means no radar-signature, in that the leading edge of craft is charged to a high-positive-potential, and negative-charges are shot out the exhaust, for an electrostatic potential of 15-million-Volts. A positive space-charge induces a G-well, negative space charge induces a G-hill. The high-energy electrostatic-field bends the radar-beams around the ship, and they go on their merry way, without reflecting back. Same technique is used on re-entry-vehicle (MIRV) nose-cones of Nuclear weaponry.

  • Wow what a load of bullshit.

    How much u make selling spaceships plans to morons anyway?

    Stealth = radar obfuscation

    Stealth != radar invisibility

    This may well be possible at some stage in the future, however it's not how the B2 works.

    It makes a lot of noisy radar, not invisible, not lack of reflection, but LOTS of reflection in odd angles.

    Press like to say "it looks like an insect to radar" but in-fact it looks much bigger and much more dispersed.

  • Wrong. I have been researching electrogravitics for 27-years. What were YOU doing 27-years ago? My work has been published: look it up. B2 is electromagnetic STEALTH, and Electrogravity auxiliary propulsion. No skin-heating with increased velocity, with this electrogravitcs, either. Greatly increased range. Can go round the world without refueling, and has as good or better hi-speek performance than the Lockheed SR-71 when electrogravitics drive engaged.

  • It could go around the world twice without refueling a few moments ago :-)

    Published? Tabloid magazines don't count.

  • JANES DEFENCE WEEKLY, from Nick Cook, former govt official in charge of aerospace for MoD, Paul A La Violette, PhD (SECRETS OF ANTIGRAVITY PROPULSION, 2008), and Tom Valone, PhD: THE US ANTIGRAVITY SQUADRON, and ELECTROGRAVITCS II.

  • Cool I guess military rags that publish "interesting" stories, count as scientific peer-reviewed journals now-a-days.

    So I guess it was you that designed the B-2 and that's how you know. Maybe you spoke to the aliens that gave the tech to the government. :-)

  • Nope. Maybe Beamshipcaptain studied the Biefeld-Brown effect in his home laboratory and one of his friends like him happened to work for the government in Area 51 who shared the info. That kinda thing would only happen because of people like HIM, because their decent enough to get off their lazy, nerdy, asses and actually TRY the experiment.

  • Nope, no friends in government. Just private aerospace, for decades. The only reason after 8-years my antigravs are the larges and most energy efficient in the world (next to a 5-meter Japanese design) is because I used the tools of science, and researched and optimised, etc, been researching artificial gravity since 1982.

  • @Tdog283 I built my first 2 foot diameter Biefeld Brown effect saucers in 1990, of sheet metal and copper tube. They flew great with very little Wattge (input power).

  • @Beamshipcaptain STATUS REPORT: my Biefeld Brown sausages work very well in functional tests this morning.

  • @DancingSpiderman Ha haaahh. LOL

  • @Beamshipcaptain ...they lifted.

  • @DancingSpiderman Seriously? If so, good on you!

  • @Tdog283 What about the NASA paper from 2004 detailing all of their experiments with liters and other asymetrical capacitors. You know the one in which they specifically state that the only effect they found any evidence for was ion wind.

  • Wow, you are too brainwashed. This stuff isn't nearly perpetual motion or anything of that sort. Do-ers are people who don't just look at technological advances like you do and go like,"Oh, that's very interesting. The machine must work in someway related to my theory, even if my theory doesn't cover such phenomena." Do-ers take the extra step and build that tesla coil, van DeGraff, EMP, Lifter, Rf-Generator, ect. The AC polyphase system was invented by Nikola Tesla,a doer, not Edison,a thinker.

  • No problem with trying.

    It's when people have evidence in-front of them that explains how things work, or at least by which mechanism and that information is ignore in favour of the more mystical version which generates more interest.

    Lifters don't work in a vacuum, no matter how often they repeat that claim.

  • Purdue Flew lifters in hard vacuum in 2000, as did Takaaki Musha in 1996, as did Hector Serrano in 1999, and Thomas Townsend Brown over half a century ago, and many others. THe age of suppression of science and technology are over, with shattering finality. It is 2010. The Future that I have waited for since 1964, when I visited the futuristic New York Worlds Fair at Flushing Meadows, has arrived.

  • Edison had HUNDREDS of patents. He was also a DOER.

    Secondly, Beamshipcaptain is a hippy who plays Billy Joel covers, and programs C++.

    He has NEVER worked in aerospace. Unless he fixed NASA's photocopyer once.

  • Tesla had over 700 fundamental patents, most of which we still use a century later. Edison was a trial and error KING, that was his method. Tesla was a seer and a scientist, he built from blueprnts he saw in his mind, and everything he built worked the first time, unlike Edison. We still use Tesla's AC today. Edison championed ineficcient DC electricity. Tesla electrified the WORLD a hundred years ago.

  • ps, the world is not flat, we are not the center of the universe, heaver than air flight is possible, microwaves are not a scam, anti gravity is possible, and over unity energy has been created thousands of times, people have been killed for there work, and the text books are full of some false information, and peer review panels are set up by the very people that dont want us to know this stuff, as well as they put what they want you to think in text books.

  • over-unity has worked thousands of times LOL!!!!

    Why mix up so much nonsense into a sentence you expect to be taken seriously?

  • You should do some research before you comment, go to google and type over unity energy suppression, a lot of these people where killed as well.

  • 100 years old, -can rely on tesla's wireless power transmitter, and so how would this not work with, lets say an entire planet covered with cellular relay towers?

  • This isn't anti-gravity.

  • You're all crazy.

  • i dont mean to clog up the page but i just wanted to give this info to people on this blog

  • Honda Research Scientist, Takaaki Mush of Japan verified the Biefeld-Brown Effect and presented a paper to the IAA this year, linking it to Zero Point Field theory.

    TT Brown was a great American scientist!!

  • TT Brown was the American Father of ANTIGRAVITY.

    FORCEFIELD PROPULSION FOR DYNAMIC COUNTERBARY (Gravity - Control, Inertia - Dampening)

  • ok here is a real antigravity! not a lifter either.i searched a capcitor,antigravity. and it looks like a black and white picture. this is the link

    watch?v=tE_ZZq_kRYw

    this shows that the lifter capacitor can float in a vaccumm without ion wind.

  • Ignorant passion and disinformation have no place in science, if anyone wants to talk shit, do your homework first.

  • I even have the book, dated 1872 with all the equations...

    I can explain it, and tell you everything you want to know about the operation.

    want the book?

    you can have it for a small fee say 200 hundred dollars, it will explain everything..

    otherwise ask me, and i will take it right out of the book..

  • 1. Can you use insulated wire instead of just "naked" metal surface?

    2. Usually there are some variables that make it work better and more efficiently. Is there a way to use less electricity for bigger lift-force, such as decreasing metal structure diameter, or increase the area of the structure. Thanks

  • You must use NAKED metal, and some kind of dielectric that is solid workds best, instead of air or vacuum-gap.

  • Not progressive technology. Requires mass amounts of enegry and is extremely unstable. I saw one that required 2 hr car batteries to power and it couldn't even carry 1kg - nor anything.

  • Requires less energy than a small household light-bulb to lift a 6-foot, 2-meters diameter model. Under 60-Watts! Power-up and you may lift TONS of craft and payload, INERTIALESS.

  • Ok the lifting is thus solved, but how do you insulate the metal?

  • Please clarify your question. High-Voltages are difficult to insulate...

  • where is the mathematical proof/explanation for these "authentic" devices? there have been too many hoaxes and scams in the fields of 'free energy' and 'anti-gravity' for me to believe what i see here

  • TRY IT YOURSELF

  • Google: Zur Einheitlichten Feld-Therie, von A. Einstein (1927).

  • i'm not saying the lifters don't work, i'm saying they don't work by anti-gravity. They work by ionising the air beneath them, and using magnetism (opposite charges attract), to attract the ionised air back, creating a pressure differential on the bottom of the craft, causing it to 'fly'.

  • Well, I've been researching the Biefeld-Brown effect for 25-years, been published, and my understanding of the effects and causes enabled meto build the worlds largest, and most energy thrisft, after experimenting all thru the 90's with TT Brown saucers, wrapped them in plastic, and they still flew. Read:

    POSSIBILITY OF A STRONG COUPLING BETWEEN ELECTRICITY AND GRAVITATION, by Takaaki Musha (Japan).

  • He's correct. It need air to hover. And yes it does work similarly to a fan.

  • ok here is a real antigravity! not a lifter either.i searched a capcitor,antigravity. and it looks like a black and white picture. this is the link

    watch?v=tE_ZZq_kRYw

    this shows that the lifter capacitor can float in a vaccumm without ion wind.

  • actually theres a video on youtube of a similar capacitor based invention in a lab floating in a vaccumm. its a new principle showing that there is no air ionization in the vaccumm. thus its floating by some others means. its a really good video, the guy who put it up seems alittle scared about showing the public what he has.

  • Please provide link. That is fascinating, and more independent confirmation of force-field effect gravity-control.

  • ok here it is i searched a capcitor,antigravity. and it looks like a black and white picture. this is the link

    watch?v=tE_ZZq_kRYw

  • Read above paper by Takaaki Musha for the Theoretical-math.

  • its not anti gravity, its just moving the air like a fan. i have built one so i know it works!

  • Read- POSSIBILITY OF A STRONG COUPLING BETWEEN ELECTRICITY AND GRAVITATION, T. Musha (Yokohama, Japan). Paper with the theoretical proofs is in the book ELECTROGRAVITICS II, by Thomas Valone, PhD.

  • no such thing as anti gravity....called magnetism

  • that is not propulsion is just a antigravity system!

  • It works equally well in any direction. Tilt the device slightly, and like a helicopter, it flies of rapidly in the direction of tilt. A balance of vector-forces. Dynamic Counterbary.

  • Wrong. There's no such thing as an antigravity system.

  • So!,then what is that? jaja! is a flyer machine? mm...i dont think SO

  • actually on the contrary the engines for the voyager probe are basically of the same desine so it is enoph force to propell somthing elce and another thing it will work in a vacume if you have a insilator(dialectric) inbetween the capasitors rather than air like when its not in a vacume infact almost all insilators are oveousely more resistant to the electricle flow between the caparitors than air itself so it would actually work better in a vacume if you build it right

  • And my retort

    what? (in baffled confusion of exactly what was said and how it could even possibly be construde as a working design)

  • Don't retort. Look it up yourself. Try the experiment yourself. I am a teacher; I'll show you how. That is my job!

  • My retort was a reply to chronos for many misspellings to the point that I was baffled into exactly what he was talking about. As for the science surrounding such experiments, as stated in another "anti-grav" film, is simply this...with enough amps, a leakage of electrons occurs which then gets thrusted. So even in vacuum, it will work with enough power because it creates the air needed to thrust.

  • Actually, its more complicated than that, but the specific-impulse is many orders of magnitude beyond chemical-propulsion, or even the NERVA systems, tested in the 1960s and early 70s in California and Nevada.

  • You went from a possible debating science person to a complete bafoon talking about some black-budget crap. There is no flying cars, and there's no way with this technology as it stands to make such a thing. The idea is only good for ion propulsion and that's like shooting a pellet gun at an asteroid to make it move, it will eventually, but it'll take a lot of them. Newton remember? F=MA...if you beat the formula, you break the laws of thermodynamics as well.

  • I see youve done little research in this area. The thrust is far more that inon-thrust, I proved that, and others as well. JANES DEFENCE WEEKLY admitted years ago the B2 is electrogravitic, and patents granted decades ago and recently fpor successful vacuum-work. Force is totally dependent on Input power. I replicated TT Brow'ns 3-foot saucer experiments in 1990s. They worked so well in 155, Air Force classified entire subject until 1995.

  • Did you not read my comment that I "tried these experiments" before, and I have concluded based on both propeller and laser testing that there is no gravity change within the confines of the unit or even with 1 mile of the unit. There is no electrogravitic (even if such a word existed) occurance. And what patents? Patents are given to bogus designs every year, they don't have to work, only a prototype has to be built and no other patents for it to get one.

  • I built several electrogravitics patents. They all work as stated. Do I have to build every blessed patent until you are satisfied? What have YOU built, or contributed to science?

  • And you stated that "the thrust is far more than ion thrust"...you said it, not me, it is still THRUST. Put enough electricity into anything and it'll move, that doesn't prove anti-gravity...can you even conceptualize the word 'antigravity'. If an object were to completely neutralize the gravity field, it would cause it to accelerate to near light speed instantly...

  • Nearly instantly, and that is what several clear videos and films of UFOs show; Gulf Breeze, Bulgaria, Manhattan, etc.

  • So because you built 1 triangle foil thruster and made it go up at about 4 feet per second and have like 5+ videos on it, you have somehow come across antigravity? What I find most hilarious is the fact that you keep using "electrogravitics" word when that word was created on the HYPOTHESIS of research done by TTBrown. 1 man with a bottle of wine in an old film does not make it theory nor fact.

  • I was the one who also built, bagged, and demoed TTBrown,s 3-foot saucer experiment at the 2nd antigravity conference in Reno, Nevada, hosted by Jim Cox (ANTIGRAVITY AND SPACEDRIVE NEWS). They flew backward when sealed in plastic. I also degreeed in computer programming.

  • They are also the largest in the world, and I have researched electrogravitcs since 1982, when I was 21. I have twenty-five years of experience in this field, which explains why my award-winning devices are still the worlds largest and most energy-thrifty in history.

  • Try it yourself, o ye of little faith!

  • What did *I* build for science? What did *I* attribute? Oh, nothing really, just advancement on artificial neural network and self-consciousness devices, not to mention bending 5 inches of space on a plane, redesigning the stirling engine for linearity and better efficiency, creating a cpu architecture, and a computer language.

  • I am impressed, really. Good on ya!

  • That's only the surface of the experiments I have dealt with, and I'm only 27, so I have plenty of time to deal with many more areas of science. Currently, I am working on HHO, operating system, permanent magnet power through potential decay, self-awareness device, and cloaking theory and devices just for starters.

  • OK, Just checking. Really, Ive built a lot more than this, and Ive yet to find a patent that didnt work as stated in the claims area. Build some of your own, but I know you are quite busy already, like I.

  • ...it's like that coin donation bowl that you find at malls, where you place a coin into it and it starts to spin around the center hole until its momentum drives it down. If you imagine that the center is a gravity well, when you negate it completely, it's like you change the bowl into a flat plane instantly, the coin will spin out in the direction it was facing. We don't see that in these videos.

  • F=mA is right in fact if the Force(F) is stong enough A becomes very large and m very small.

  • Close, but mass doesn't change in this situation as the object is moving through space, but the other part is correct, as force is applied, the acceleration of the mass increases.

  • Inertial-mass is reduced or eliminated by such methods, but gravitational-mass stays same.

  • Try this experiment if you don't get what I'm talking about: Place one of those fans that kids play with (you blow on it and it spins) facing up, above which you place one of these lifters, contain it all in a sealed vacuum. Turn it on, you'll notice the spinner begins to rotate, why? As I stated, still thrust, not antigravity.

  • Have you tried the experiment yourself? I have, and I asgree with the findings of the US ARMY, who state " THE thrust is several orders of magnitude more than ion-thrust can account for". And the US Patent office, as of 2002, agrees.

  • No, they are not. Ion engines generate thrust by charging a propellant gas and jeting it out; they are nothing more than rockets that do not ignite their fuel. Lifters work by cahrging the air and creating airflow. Since their is no air in space, they generate zero lift so they are pretty much useless.

  • You are quite wrong cybjon. If you were paying attention to the comments at all. Ion thrusters leak electrons into a chamber and superaccelerate them (thanks to newton and F=MA). Lifters use the same principle, at low energy they ionize the air true, but at higher energy, electrons are leaked from the thin wire cord through skinning effect and drawn to the aluminum or foil at moderately accelerated speeds.

  • Therefore it DOES work in a vacuum with enough energy input.

  • The key phrase is WITH ENOUGH ENERGY INPUT. Yes there are 50-year old and recent video of devices working in hard vacuum, and under OIL, which does not ionise.

  • This isn't anti-gravity, this is an ion potentiation propulsion system. It produces a potential well at the foils for the high-voltage electricity to flow through causing air around it to ionize and thrust it. So far it has only the ability to lift the foils, not enough to lift the power source. In a complete vacuum, it won't lift at all, bad for space.

  • In Japan in 2003, a scientist with a modified ALPHA power-supply from Applied Electrogravitics, lifted a similar device WITH onboard power. Force is totally dependent on input-energy. My 6-footer is in a stable hover with less than 50-Watts. De Seversky's ion-wind device uses 90-watts, and is smaller and lighter. You do the math, and do the experiments yourself.

  • I was going to type out this entire thing, but honestly, believe what you want, good luck with the design, I did try this experiment and yields nothing of value. You may have it better, who knows, again...good luck. I still see no flying cars even after this design went public 10+ years ago.

  • The flying cars are jealously guarded by the black-budget world, and are known in the Black World as FASTWALKERS. Sometims detected on radar.

  • I wonder if it is using a form of electromagnetism.

  • ... you're all insane.

  • I take that as the highest form of flattery, and a wonderful compliment. Now, back to the lab... The stars beckon...

  • These things are just inducing airflow. No one has answered my challenge; I want to see one working in a vacuum.

  • Knock yourself out.

  • There are videos onYouTube showing devices working in harder vacuum than outer space!

  • If you guys want to see another season of shows like this- please post a commment on Discovery's viewer response- they don't think enough people like this kind of programming. Thanks. Peter von Puttkamer- Producer. This is on the Science Channel; Please write comments at this site:

    discovery com viewerrelations

  • On June 1, exactly one month ago, SCIENCE-CHANNEL had on a really great programme on successful FREE-ENERGY and ANTIGRAVITY (they did'nt mince words!), showing working devices, and the devisors. Oil prices starting to affect decisions at top-level. After being cajoled into buying Hummers, the owners are seeing red at spending $200-400 a week in petrol!

  • Thanks for that! Much appreciated in this time. If you haven't already done so- please post (and encourage your friends) to go to Viewer Response section at Discovery Channel- and tell them you want to see more of Beyond Invention- future episodes in the series.

  • Will do. AND, let them know there are others in the world that have gotten even better results, with all manner of devices. The new age. It has BEGUN. Peace.

  • Note: All Beyond Invention programs will be aired back to back on the Science Channel on July 4th, 2007! Please tune in. Peter, Director/Producer

  • Thanks for heads up. Peace. Will program DVR!

  • Sounds good!

  • One thing that should be done is to test it in a vacuum chamber to see whether it really is cutting off gravity or just a case of electrohydro - or is it areo - dynamics.

  • It does not CUT OFF GRAVITY!!! It produces its own electrostatically produced gravity well, and simply FALLS into it. It works equally well in ANY dierction. It is like putting a surfboard on a wave. Only the wave is constantly moving the vehicle that propagates it from an area of MINUS potential to an area of PLUS potential. That is ELECTROGRAVITICS.

  • Or a more credible, more mundane explaination; it charges air particals, the differential creates lift. That rig is very light, so it could easily bull itself upwards by generating airflow.

  • They work best, least power consumption and MOST FORCE, when there is little to no airflow. Build a Beamship to Applied Electrogravitics' specs. TRY IT!

  • Like your site...very nice big lifters- have you ever taken these outside- tried for more altitude?

  • Yup. I have DVD of a demo that a kid built a a school I wnt to in Delaware, Dec. 2002. We had it up about 15-feet in the air. Lifters will not work in vacuum with out a bigger electrode-gap, higher potentials, or SOLID DIELECTRICS (Serrano's Electric Rocket patent). Beamships have bigger spark gap, so MAY work in vacuum with higher potentials and slight modifications.

  • Show me one working in a vacuum and then I might be impressed. All I can see is a perfectly normal effect that has nothing to do with gravity and a lot to do with airflow.

  • After a quick look on google I found that NASA have been trying this out and got amazing results in air. They even patented their design. When they tried it in a vacuum, and it didn't work.