I am not a scientist but I read a lot of science and have a fairly good grasp of electrical theory. I am not saying that makes me an expert but it does make me a damn good sceptic. My question about tis video is why with a supposedly highly accredited research institute in 2003 the best they can produce is a grainy, out of focus black and white video image that would have been appropriate for a 1968 lunar landing. Prove that the device was not moving beore current was applied under both cond.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
actually it works in a vaccum better than what it does in air mythbusters are debunkers they did the same thing with h2o as fuel they said water/ hydrogen/ cannot be used as fuel and its being use as we speak
This is not a lifter. It IS an ion motor. I have a book that has a project to make one. It has the explanation on how and why it works. I have had this book for over 20 years. There is no ETHER. That notion has been done away with for over 50 years. It was an idea invented to explain how light and radio waves propagate through space, when they were though to be waves of energy. Now science knows better and light and radio transmissions are capable of traveling through a vacuum.
I didn't see anything lift up at any point in any of the tests. I can't make sense of this video. I would love to see a lifter tested in a vacuum.
I believe the effect is due to ion propulsion, which to me can be just as useful as gravity. The problem is no this force vs that force. The real question is how do we power it?
This is about as fake as they get, and the comments here are sad. I guess this is what happens when you stop teaching the scientific method in schools and replace it with "I don't understand this, so god/supernatural/aliens are involved". No wonder the entire western world is slowly collapsing.
It's actually a video from the Kenmore Corporation, it's a vertical rotisserie brace that goes inside an industrial oven, built to cook thirty chickens at a time. The chicken goes on the 'assymetrical capacitor' but that's not what the engineers at Kenmore call it. They call it a 'torso mount'. The fuzzyness of the video is from the heat inside the oven.
@MrFixErit I guess the foolish must have dreams too. NO, not everything is possible. Anti-gravity is impossible. Time travel is impossible (at least to the past). Interlinking two solid rings together without cutting one is impossible. Getting you to learn a little science also appears to be impossible.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@LReminds Mythbusters also failed to make the Bedini motor work! Yet many on Youtube and elsewhere, including a schoolgirl have them working. They did not even bother to contact John Bedinin to do it right! Proving the mythbusters are jokesters. not serious esearchers.
@Beamshipcaptain I have check out many bedini motor videos, none of them can sustain the motion for long. They do not work. I could explain why, but I theorize that you would not understand, or would refuse to listen.
Oh, no, I responded before I saw who I posted to. I know you live in a fantasy world, from the stuff you have spoken of. I regret that I have posted to you and cringe at the nonsense you are about to verbalize.
Oh, if only you'd come out of your fantasy world and see how amazing reality is. By the way, who let you out of your rubber room. You know you are a danger to yourself.
@LReminds Their negative results are consistent with many others that have tried to test for this effect. I myself have had countless of failed experiments, prior to my success. Even now we still struggle to transition the concept to the next level. The 2003 experiments have nothing over the 2009-2010 experiments and the video of those experiments are very high resolution. Don't ask because I still can't show them.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@LReminds This is proof of concept in vacuum. THe effect works because of COulmb's law, and electrohydrodynamics, and is more efficient in vacuum for those reasons. Physics.
@LReminds From what i undesrtood, in this experiment there is no anty-gravity,
but a thrust generated from Ionized Air flowing through the coper wire causing the light structure to raise... Maybe u can continue with ur experiment to proff we are wrong... Thanks for the Video Anyways
@Beamshipcaptain Are you absolutely certain the video is from NASA? The video only shows an ion motor working in a vacuum. This is ion thrust, something NASA has been working on for years, trying to develop an ion thrust engine. This is NOT anti-gravity or a gravity producing device of any kind. Plus, this is not a lifter. Lifters rely on ion wind to generate the thrust needed to lift itself into the air.
@LReminds The force was on the horizontal not vertical plane. As for Ion wind, I don't think you are going to find any plasma physicist that will publicly claim that Ion wind effects are possible at pressures as low as 1.7E-7 Torr. Ion propulsion maybe, but Ion wind, not possible.
@hec031 Ion propulsion still is not anti-gravity, which too many people are claiming. They delude themselves that anti-gravity is possible. Not unless they can generate power measuring the mass of the earth (using E=MC²). Then you have to figure out how to unbend space-time using it.
@MatueszZuba2c That was my exact though, not all of this was a NASA video, I could make a better video with my web cam or better yet my 300 dollar HD Flip video. Fake.
beam, what you just read of mine was a direct writing i copied and pasted.Beam your the first person that hasnt dogged me the hell out over saying that. Im glad someone else is studying and reading up and not just taking what the gov post on th efront page.i have the page i copied that from saved some where if i can find it ill link it.
demonstrations were given first in England, it was on the Continent, under the auspices (SNCASO), that things really began to look promising. During tests performed within the company's research laboratory, Brown succeeded in flying his discs in a high vacuum with amazing results. not only had he succeeded in proving that his discs flew more efficiently without air, but he had also shown that the speed and efficiency of his craft could be increased by providing greater voltage.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@tripwire80 Funny how noone mentions that TT Brown, the inventor, proved over half a century ago, that they functioned better in vacuum! Takaaki Musha showed that also in 2007 at the AIAA annual meeting.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@ryanb418 The mythbusters could not get the Bedini motor to work, either! Check who their corporate sponsors are. Experoments spnsored by the French Government in France in 1955, done here in King of Prussia, PA at GE Space Center in 1959, and Winston Salem, NC in 1056-58, AND NASA and the US Army on 2000, and Purdue University in 200, AND experiments with one of my Beamships by my client from 8 years ago, John Fiala, show positive vacuum-function. This is VACUUM tube theory. Physics.
@ryanb418 The mythbusters testing only tested for the ability of a Lifter to generate enough thrust to Lift its own weight vertically, while my tests were focused on whether there was any detectable thrust whatsoever. The sensitivity of a torsion pendulum far exceeds that of any 1:1 thrust test.
@hec031 They mybhbusters test proved that the lifter does not generate anti-gravity, as so many deluded people claim. It proves that the device relies on an ion wind, moving air, to lift off the tabletop.
Now if you want to argue semantics over ion wind or ion thrust, then fine. Quit calling it anti-gravity.
@UnderManlac I agree 100%, the device does not generate an antigravity effect. What the device does is produce thrust. It's a thruster. The work falls under Propellantless propulsion, which is not the same as Antigravity. I've never claimed that the device produces an Antigravity effect, those are your words, not mine. As for ion propulsion, this is not supported by the evidence since the devices did not loose any measurable mass down to .01 grams of measurement accuracy.
@hec031 Most people who post this kind of device claim antigravity is proven here.
The device doesn't LOSE electrons, the electrons (ions) are supplied by the power supply driving the device. The free electrons escape the wire/foil and the laws of action and reaction cause the arms of the device to move. It is ion propulsion. There will be no mass loss whatsoever (except through deterioration of materials).
@UnderManlac The thrust mechanism you describe is not how Ion propulsion systems work. Please refer to the common literature on devices like XIPS and Hall thrusters for a full explanation. However if we accept your explanation that the thrust is the result of electron mass ejection, the force can never be accounted for because of the extremely low mass of the electron and the equally low current rate observed under testing. The numbers don't come even close to the observed force.
@hec031 In the "NASA" test the results are exactly what would be expected, as calculated. In atmosphere the remaining thrust boils down to ion wind. I am familiar with XIPS and Hall thrusters. The device depicted here is nothing more than an ion motor.
@UnderManlac Not according to our findings. So which NASA tests are you referring to? I suspect you're about to say CR-2004-213283. Keep in mind that those test where published in a STI report and not a peer reviewed journal and their finding are being contested in a peer reviewed journal by Dr. Alexandre Martins. The paper can be found at Sciencedirect. Title is "On the propulsive force developed by asymmetric capacitors in vacuum". I could not disagree more with your conclusions.
@hec031 For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Do you agree?
A rocket in space has nothing the the thrusters to push against and should not move. That was one of the theories before we sent rockets into space. Now, however, we understand that it moves due to reaction to the thrusters. The ion motor does the exact same thing in a vacuum. Giving off electrons causes the device to react in the opposite direction. Simply, nothing more than that.
@hec031 I doubt that the ion motor effect was taken into account. You were/are looking for other explanations on how the device works in a vacuum, but the idea of action and reaction didn't occur to you. When ANY object produces a force (in this case, electrons being given off at the ends of the foil) there has to be an equal and opposite force expended. That would be the movement of the ion motor arms. Can you not see what I am talking about?
@UnderManlac I took all of the above into account. I showed to the satisfaction of subject matter experts that these conventional mechanisms cannot account for the observed force. One even wrote a book on the subject matter. Trust me they agree that the effect cannot be accounted for via Ion wind or Ion propulsion. The main reason is that we can achieve the same effect in a Faraday caged hermetically sealed encapsulated device. Ion propulsion is not possible in those devices.
@hec031 First of all, this device is not a lifter. Why haven't you built a lifter, put it in a vacuum chamber, and tried to get a result?
Secondly, I really doubt that you took Newton's 3rd law into account.
There is a simple explanation for the motion observed on your whirlygig.. I submit it to be a reaction to electrons flying off the foil plane causing it to turn.
There is nothing mysterious about it. You haven't done the proper experiments and measurements.
@hec031 You must make a lifter (the triangle device, or some geometry) and test that in a full vacuum. As tested by the Mythbusters, who actually did the test with a LIFTER, it has been proven not to work in a vacuum. No lift was observed. Also, using a gravity detecting machine the device showed no manipulation of gravity.
One day someone will figure out the propulsion of your device and will verify what I am saying. It is the only explanation that makes any sense.
@hec031 I have read the article you refer to. It's a one-paragraph document which goes into NO detail on his assumptions.
I ask one question: Why would there be electrode corrosion when you are supplying the current from a high voltage source? The probe is supplied with an electron current (voltage potential) with no place to go. At a high enough voltage these electrons will escape the probe at the tips. This release of electrons causes a reaction from the probe in the form of movement.
@UnderManlac It's an excerpt of the whole article. You have to purchase the paper, that's how most Journals do it. All evidence shows that while the system is at high potential there is a small but continues current being drawn from the power supply which maintains the applied voltage. So the system consumes power as it converts it to thrust. Your mechanism can't account for the force in the encapsulated devices, which show the same level of performance to the one on the video.
@hec031 I have done further research and nobody can seem to come to a verifiable conclusion. I wish I had the equipment to do experiments with this device. How do you account for the thrust then? What is the mechanism that causes your device to spin? Ion (electron) thrust must be the answer. Electrons are much heaver than the protons and neutrons in an atom.
@UnderManlac Now your talking like a researcher. All I'm trying to say is that you have to leave room for possibilities. Our own work has moved beyond Ion propulsion and Ion wind as an explanation. Our current focus is to eliminate Electrostatics as a possible source of the observed force. If you limit physics to our current understanding than there is nowhere to go. In my case I believe that there maybe exceptions to today's understanding of the laws of physics. Would not be the first time.
@UnderManlac - Uhm, your whole comment proves that you're the dumbass. The lifter operates on what's called the Biefield-Brown effect. There is NO SUCH THING as anti-gravity, and YOU are a moron if you believe in anti-gravity. Nonetheless the lifter DOES work in atmosphere. Countless repeatable experiments have proved this.
...whether or not it works in vacuum has not been proven nor disproven in consistently (some experiments have "proven" it works in vacuum, and some have "proven" that it does not).
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@tripwire80 Of COURSE they are more efficient in vacuum. No coronal losses or ionic leakage to attenuate the electrokinetic force. Think outside your little box, folks. Now's the time. Look in the News every day.
The device shown in this video looks similar to an ion motor. Look up ion motor to see the similarities. This does not show a lifter as illustrated by lifter proponents.
First of all, the "lifter" moves much more in atmospheric pressure than it does in a vacuum, it barely moves. This video does not appear to be related to lifter technology. Why wouldn't they put the triangle or hexagonal lifter to the test in a vacuum instead? Point me to a video of that experiment please.
can someone xplain to me exactly wat proves or disproves antigravity, when its tested in a spacial void or vaccuum where there is no gravity ? Doesn't it need to be tested under gravity conditions? if there is no gravity in space, and u have an anti gravity device, why should it work outside a mass with a gravitational field?if it did kinda indicates its something else dont it? kinda of an apple and oranges kinda thing isnt it?
earth, planets, etc, have gravitational fields etc, space its self doesn't from the way i see understand it. there is gravitational pull but not from "space" you both state there is gravity around "mass" what about outer space outside the pull from the planets and sun itself? is there gravity?. Inside the fields why not tune a craft to the frequency or pull of the planet ur headed to? would that be an effective propulsion? I have a questions about this in general and about vaccuum tests.
And think of me crazy or what, but yes i do think light has a charge, everything has a charge, or it couldnt not move. maybe not a positive or neg. charge as most think of charge or what not, but in general yes its a charged particle, without the energy from light most things would not exist. Im willing to toss some ideals back and forth, but not to someone who cant think outside the box from what we have been bred to think. I about 99.9999999% sure Nasa nor any gov. assembly tells us 100%ofit.
@tripwire80 I don't understand how you think there is no gravity in space. Around any mass there is gravity. The earth is caught in the sun's gravity well. The moon is caught in the earth's gravity well.
The lifter is nothing more than an ion wind generator. Basically a solid state thrust engine, requiring kilovolts to run it.
in MY opInion, this is nor electrogravity nor anti-gravity. the 30,000+ watts going thru the wire ionicaly charges the air around it creating subtle thrust. you can smell the ozone from these lifters. i have witnessed them. and well its easy to lift a piece of balsa wood and foil with the little thrust it creates. are we gonna some day fly around in unstable high voltage dangerous balsa wood n tinfoil spaceships? highly doubfful its just not practical, well with the miles of extension cords.
@spittheproper If we are to believe this video is genuine, then the experiment would seem to show that there was movement of the device in a vacuum. Vacuum means that there is no air to be moved by ions. These are technology/theory demonstrations, I doubt seriously that these models can simply be scaled up to a fully functional spacecraft.
oh i tottaly agree, i was saying in gerneral when they are not in vacuum they lift, therefore its just propeltion and not anti gravity. mind my spelling
If you read the NASA report NASA/CR—2004-213312, you'll find that the video is a short clip and not representative. Metals tend to absorb ions in atmosphere. Outgassing of metal alloys is actually required for some metallurgical processes.
Once the metals outgassed which took about 30 minutes, there was no movement associated with the rotor in vacuum. As atmosphere was readmitted, the rotor motion became evident once again.
@Cp1Punishment I read the report very carefully and I noticed that the test rig on this experiment could not have measured the force produced by one of these asymmetrical capacitors in vacuum. The average force we have measure in vacuum has been just over 2mN@41.4Kv. The test stand on the report had a far greater breakaway force requirement. So even if you were producing an effect you would have never measured it. What was your current (I) draw? There is always a current draw if it's working.
@spittheproper Lol. I like your style. Yes the lifter is an ion thrust engine, basically. Claims of anti-gravity or electro-gravity (a term that does not truly exist), are exaggerated. They will never accept your (our) explanation of their experiment. I've been blocked for explaining what's going on.
Their own experiments with smoke proves an ion wind, yet they still claim antigravity.
Yep. Without the air, the corona drive aspect disappaears, but the capacitor effect remains. What would need to be tested in a much larger chamber is a lifter device without a neutralizing path. Beyond about 4 feet or without a neutralizing path, they sort of stop working. Look up "The Casimir Effect" to see what I mean.
i belive most all physics experiments are eather experiments. all there findings are reactions to and with the eather. i always thought magnets moved eather at a rate close to the spin of irn and produced the effects on that material, and if you changed the freqincey you could have magnets for most everything. im so tired of all established scionce asking me to set aside my comen sence when i have ben seeing capacitors jump on discharge for years.
The problem seems to be that bulking up it's propulsion requires more power. And more power requires bigger machinery. I've never seen a self contained lifter or beamship =(
A professor in toky used a modified version of the Alpha micro-piezoelectricbased power supply (124 grams including battery-leads) flew a slef-contained onboard power with a very large lifter and a 3-cell,2000mAh lithium-polymer battery, in Spring of 2003 in Tokyo Japan. we keep input pwer fairly low for safety. THrust is exponential with increasing Voltage, with TT Brown patented devices, which I have built since January, 1990.
Interesting! Thanks for the info. =D I wonder, I've watched your videos for a very long time over and over, where do you stand on lifters? Anti-gravity or ion wind lift?
I ask regardless of the video, because either way someone always ends up poking holes in someone else' logic.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
ARTIFICIAL GRAVITY. Not antigravity. Even the Searl Levity Disc or Inverse Gravity vheicle is artificial gravity: HTe highly negatively charged rim repls all matter approaching the rim, includinc the Earth, and the center hub, is positively charged, attractive to matter. TBoth methodologies cancel all inertia and G-forces.
Ion wind as a force, is too weak by at least THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE, to cause levitation of even a 5-gram model, and you can do the mathematics yourself to figure the upper-physical limit on ion-wind. Read FORCE ON AN ASYMMETIRIC CAPACITOR, from 200, and the US ARMY RESEARCH LAB, Adelphi, MD.
@Beamshipcaptain Why, then, is it NOT working in VACUUM? When the air was in there, it worked. When the air was removed, it didn't anymore! Why is that?
@mike4ty4 Or at least, not doing what it was doing in air... there's a slight "jitter", but it's nothing like what was seen in air, could also be vibrations from the high voltage/current or something causing it to wobble off axis. You said explicitly that vacuum INCREASES the efficiency. Thus it should be working a whole lot BETTER with the air evacuated, than with the air present. Why isn't it? Can you answer that question, Beamshipcaptain? Put a real LIFTER in that chamber and it WON'T LIFT.
It works more efficiently in vacuum, without coronal and ionic losses as occur in air. Why would it not. Do you understand how and why VACUUM TUBES WORK? This test by NASA is proof of concept. It was believed in the 1920s, that ROCKETS would not work in vacuum either. "Nothing to PUSH against".
@Beamshipcaptain Then why doesn't it look that way from this test? If it was going "more efficiently" you should see MORE movement, not less. Why less movement? I only care about one thing here: EVIDENCE.
@Beamshipcaptain You may not believe me, but I'd _love_ to see a real Anti-Gravity propulsion system. It's just that I'm not going to believe every claim out there. I need some evidence. And when the claims actually contradict known evidence, then I need even MORE evidence. And when I see "evidence" that doesn't show what is proported to be shown (e.g. this video vs. your claims), my skepticism goes up much higher. The burden of proof is on you, not on me.
The vast majority of vacuum tests in the literature show increased efficiency: "Towards Flight Without Stress, Strain or Weight," INTERAVIA, March 23rd, 1956, FORCE ON AN ASYMMETRIC CAPACITOR, US ARMY(2000), "The Flying Saucer," by Dr. Mason Rose, SCIENCE AND INVENTION, AUGUST, 1929, "How I Control Gravitation," TT Brown, SCIENCE AND INVENTION, Aug. 1929, The Unified Field Theory for Gravitation and Electricity, A. Einstein (zur Einheitlichen Feld Therie), published in NEW YORK TIMES, Jan12,1929
@Beamshipcaptain So far the "proof" doesn't seem to hold up to the claims. If you don't like my skepticism, fine, but I think it more rational than just swallowing claims that contradict evidence. OK?
Lab devices weighing 100 grams have produced thrust of 110 grams,for electrical pwr expenditure of 500 Watts (250,000 Volts @ 2.0 milliAmperes)..Experiment performed in air of 1 Atmosphere. Supplementary research indicates much greater efficiency results (same thrust for less power input) when operated in vacuum (10^-4 mm Hg or better), when current drops to around 2.0 microAmperes.
@Beamshipcaptain Now post one video showing a lifter LIFTING OFF in HARD VACUUM and I might give it a WEE bit more weight (just "WEE", of course, because anything can be hoaxed). Failing that, provide me with plans to build my own lifter that will lift in vacuum and describe the complete experimental apparatus (details of the vac chamber, etc.). Then if I can get access to the equipment someday, I can run the test and see if you're right. Give every detail, please.
Why do I have to do everyone's homework for them since juniour Highschool?At Societe Nationale du Constructions Aeronautiques du Sud Oest, in Paris, TT Brown tested miniature saucers 1 billionth of an Atmosphere. Not only did the discs propel themselves more efficiently, but also sped faster;without ion-leakage,they could be energised with more Voltage.Tests used a 200 Watt power source to supply DC potentials ranging from 70 to 220 kiloVolts.
These and similar devices you can see levitating inside evacuated Belljars on Youtube and elswhere. I obtained these TT Brown home movies from the late 1950s Bahnson labs experiments (leading to patents which I successfully replicated in early 1990) from Sev Bonnie, a scientist I met who worked with Brown.
I know. Newton's 3rd law. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. But still, in the 1920s, thru the 1950s, the prevailing sisdom was that rockets would not work in vacuum "with no air to PUSH against"!
it doesn't matter if this can work in space the real question is, is it worth it, is this the most efficient way to create thrust in space when there are ion drives that provide more force for less energy using less propellent (stuff throne out)
NASA's ion propulsion engine weighs 10 times as much as TT Brown's saucer, and produces only 28 grams of force for an input power of 1,200 Watts, or just 0.23 newton per kiloWatt, Hence NASA's ion prpulsion engine is 10,000 times less efficient than Thomas Townsend Brown's Elecctrokinetic discs. Which I first built 2 foot models of exactly 20-years ago, January,1990.
Lift by ionisation of air within reach of earths magnetic field, ok, but in space, vacuum, there is a solar wind of ionised particles. This solar wind is not in a vacuum tank on earth. Has Nasa or Mythbusters done any research on the effect of solar wind to a flyer there? No? So what is the value of their proof? The vacuum of space contains hydrogen, can this be ionised? If so, the flyer will move in space. Better first put the right questions before making a conclusion based on wrong axiomas.
THis is high-energy electrostatics. Electrostatic attration works in a vacuum. How the heck do you think vacuum tubes work? The cathode skirt, or saucer, is pulled into the anode wire, or copper tube forward-electrode in the flying saucers, that I built starting 20-years ago, with 2-foot and later 3-foot models.
Of cours hydrogen can be ionised. Did you not go to high-school? Even if no hydrogen, the device polarizes the random-flux of Zero-Point energy which is the vacuum and is a staggering amount of Energy (Read GEOMETRODYNAMICS, by JA Wheeler), and produces a recoil by the Ether, or Zero-point energy of vacuum. Gravitation is due to a converging flux of ZPE.
there is no such thing as perfect vacuum, even in space particles are created suddently (casimir effect). and yes mythbusters were damn wrong its not air, its converting electrical energy in kinetic energy. the lifter is rotating in vacuum slowly cuz the electricity cant flow in (absolute) vacuum without emitting electrons
The effect is solely due to high energy electrostatics. Electrostatics works in vacuum. That is the basis behind vacuum-tube technology. At higher energies, for higher force, the devices work better in vacuum, without ion-leakage losses to attenuate the force. So effects with large saucers in vacuum in 1955, three foot saucers powerd with 250 Watts and more in vacuum had no limit to speed, resulting in the Air Force slapping CLASSIFIED on this work, from 1955, until 1995.
Questions are welcomed... Curiosity encouraged. However, start some ridiculous Flame War, or make Derogatory Personal Attacks upon myself or others, and you will be blocked from this account. Stick to the Facts, and well be just fine. I assume this Lifer in Vacuum test to be genuine, but you can investigate the background for yourself. Only continued research will provide any lasting proof of Electrogravity (not AntiGravity)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Thanks only1. You might want to do some house cleaning. Fight for Truth. Artificial gravity is a much better term. Read Einstein's Zur Einheitlichen Feld Therie (The Unified Field Theory for Gravitation and Electricity) which was published January 10,1929, and released to NY TIMES Jan.12,1929. In the 1930s, artificial gravity and giant airships as envisioned by Tesla and the Germans became popular. But like much of Tesla's more interesting work, the Unified Field theory was forgotten. Or was it?
@Cp1Punishment Thank you very much cp1punishment. I noticed this device looked a lot like an ion motor. It sure does not depict the ion lifter in any way. It reacts exactly like an ion motor would, both in atmosphere and in a vacuum.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Because the force works everytime the power is activated in vacuum, the force can be related instead of wind, which cannot happen in vacuum (no air), to purely electrostatic forces (electrogravity). The Cathode produces the lifting force, as it tries to fall into the anote plate, or electrode. See Jean Louis Naudin's UNCONNECTED LIFTER experimets, with the two halves of the devices in airtight contaners, and inconnected. The cathode skirt FLIES UP to meet the anode, even without any connection!
@hypnotekk Actually a friend of mine was blocked from this sight. He is a physicist from UofA. He is a remarkably patient and respectful person. I have a hard time believing he was attacking only1egg. In fairness I was not witness to their exchanges. I am newer to youtube and don't spend too much time here. I do, however, believe him when he tells me he was blocked for explaining, in a respectful manner, where only1egg is in error regarding his physics.
@hypnotekk Correct me if I'm wrong but some people think this shows antigravity or something equally as strange for the following reason; The device that is turning is believed to turn because it produces ion wind, therefore moving because it causes air displacement. This test is being preformed in a vacuum, no air, so how/why could it still be moving?
@bendouek While ion wind has now been eliminated as a possible source of the observed effects,have also been addressed. Recent tests new generation devices were exposed to very high static magnetic fields with no measurable change in performance. We also saw no change in performance between air and vacuum tests. Image/mirror charge tests could not account for the observed force either. We can't prove what it is, but we can prove what it is not.
@hec031 The device is nothing more than an ion motor. The device is propelled due to ions being cast off the end of the metal plates. I have the design in one of my books dealing with high voltage devices. It does not have to do anything with an ion wind when in a vacuum chamber. The "lifter" (not the device shown in this video) produces ions which influence the air molecules nearby causing them to create a wind (ion wind) to lift that device into the air. It is not anti-gravity!
@hypnotekk Correct me if I'm wrong but some people think this shows antigravity or something equally as strange for the following reason; The device that is turning is believed to turn because it produces ion wind, therefore moving because it causes air displacement. This test is being preformed in a vacuum, no air, so how/why could it still be moving?
@bendouek The device is an ion motor. It moves due to ion thrust. Ions leave the plate causing the device to turn. There is no mystery here. It is not anti-gravity, not is it an ion wind. The device is not a lifter and is not akin to one. The lifter does rely on ion wind generated to lift into the air.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Pleas read ETHER TECHNOLOGY, by Rho Sigma (The late Dr. Rolf Schaffranke, of Huntsville, AL). Yes the device reacts with its surroundings. In vacuum, its surroundings are the ETHER. The phenomenotn of Casimir Force and gravitation (as well as magnetic-fields and electrostatic-fields) are simply a flux of ETHER. Gravitation is due to a converging-flux of ETHER, Casimir PUSH is due to a ether low-pressure-zone between 2 conductive-parallel -plates, Magnetism is due to ether-currents.
Hey everyone, peace and love: I used to make a real pest of myself trying to tell everyone that lifters would fly in vacuums, and I was wrong. It's only an ion-wind effect, You can see for yourself: NASA/CR—2004-213312 (google that) and look at page 6, paragraph one. Also google 'gravitec inc data talley', download the pdf and read the conclusions on page 91. They are both PDF's that everyone can find, and I apologize for being so insane.
Nah, RL Talley concluded it was just reacting to the chamber, what tiny response he saw. Hey, look, you can find the document I just referred to at the Gravitec Inc website! (the folks who supplied the video!!)
It's called "21st Century Propulsion" , RL Talley May 1991
google 'gravitec inc data talley'. Read the conclusions, doc pg 91, that first finding. NASA included these findings in their 2004 doc: google NASA/CR—2004-213312
Takaaki Musha and Honda R & D showed the Biefeld-Brown effect is more efficient in vacuum, as TT Brown showed 50-years ago- without ion losses that exist in air, the saucers work more efficiently than in air, at less than a billionth of an atmosphere in Paris France sponsored by the French Govt., also in 1959 2 miles from here, in King of Prussia, PA at General Electric Space Centre (Now Lockheed Martin Space)
Patrick Cornille, "Newton's 3rd Principle in Post-Newtonian Physics," GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS 10(3)(1999):33-34, P. Cornille, "Electrostatic Pendulum Experiment which Pumps Energy from the ETHER(unpublished,1999),P. Cornille, "Review of the Application of Newton's Third Law in Physics," PROGRESS IN ENERGY AND COMBUSTION SCIENCES 25 (1999):161-210.
Whitehall-Rand,Inc., "Electrohydrodynamics," Bala Cynwyd,PA, March 4,1960, M. Perl "THe Gravitics Situation,"(London:Aviation Studies/Gravity Rand, Ltd.,December 1956),also published in INTERAVIA XI(5)(1956) 373-74.
No, you did not start the lifter craze, there is no Russell Anderson in any of the scientific or electrical engineering journals about these experiments. Where is your pat # BTW, video is not a lifter, it spins using similar methods that spin an armature. Now an armature will work in a vacuum. Now, you claimed the Tri-lifters will fly in a vacuum they don't, run one of those in smoke, you will see the air flow then post it. Inertia dampeners, all fantasy. The burden of proof is on you.
This was not a lifter, this set up used electromagnetism. It is not the same as these tin foil balsa wood lifters. I challenge anyone to turn on their lifter, then turn on a smoke or fog machine and surround their lifter by the smoke or fog. It reveals the effect of the air being pumped to provide thrust. I do not even know why I am wasting my time on this subject. Just read popular mechanics article on the lifter craze.
I started the "lifter craze" in 1999, when I flew 2 and 3-foot TT Brown saucers. I later built "lifters" wich are the vertical version of the same patent, and surrounded them with fog. The weak airflaw with results is insufficient to cause lift, let aalone rapid movement of heavy 2 and 3 kilo 3-foot diameter flying saucers. The effect of Biefeld-Brown also dampens inertia, so right-angle turns at any speed are no problem, you feel nothing within the field, as every atom moves uniformly.
This was a test by NASA, and Hector Serrano of Gravitec, who invented the ELECTRIC ROCKET, which works more efficiently in a vacuum. Actyally, this is TT Brown's work. Obviously, the device needs no air to move. Read SUBQUANTUM KINETICS, by Paul A La Violette.
No. NASA's ion propulsion engine weighs 10 times as much as Brown's saucer, and produced only 28 grams of force for input of 1200 Watts, or just 0.23 Newtons of thrust, hence NASA's ion engine is 10,000 times less efficient than TT Brown's electrokinetic disc. In hard vacuum, a force of 110-grams(1.1Newtons) could be achieved for power input of just0.5 Watt(250.000 Volts times 2x10^-6 Amps), or 2,200 Newtons of thrust per kilowatt in hard vacuum for TT Brown's flying capacitor.
Yes it does, go check it out. Take that as a challege! Read: SECRETS OF ANTIGRAVITY PROPULSION (2008), by Paul A LaViolette, PhD. I saw Dr. Laviolette lecture At Colorado Springs in 1990. Read: ANTIGRAVITY, THE DREAM MADE REALITY(1993), By John Thomas.
Certainly are verified, with peer review by NATURE, PHYSICAL REVIEW, STAIF, AIAA, NASA, and INTEGRITY INSTITUTE, SAIC corporation, EG & G, DARPA, and ATIC Foreighn Technology DIVISION at Wright Patterson AFB in Ohio, and Indian Springs in Nevada.
It's actually a video from the Kenmore Corporation, it's a vertical rotisserie brace that goes inside an industrial oven, built to cook thirty chickens at a time. The chicken goes on the 'assymetrical capacitor' but that's not what the engineers at Kenmore call it. They call it a 'torso mount'. The fuzzyness of the video is from the heat inside the oven.
I am not a scientist but I read a lot of science and have a fairly good grasp of electrical theory. I am not saying that makes me an expert but it does make me a damn good sceptic. My question about tis video is why with a supposedly highly accredited research institute in 2003 the best they can produce is a grainy, out of focus black and white video image that would have been appropriate for a 1968 lunar landing. Prove that the device was not moving beore current was applied under both cond.
21batbat 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is one very "vacuous" video. =p
albell616 2 weeks ago
Your vid went viral on Honduras
dailypinoyshowbiz 3 weeks ago
You fucking morons.... This is what happens when liberal arts students take an interest in science and tinfoil hats...
Well, this and AGW.
Heathh49008 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
actually it works in a vaccum better than what it does in air mythbusters are debunkers they did the same thing with h2o as fuel they said water/ hydrogen/ cannot be used as fuel and its being use as we speak
TheSaltysack 3 months ago
the explanation???
marcosvelarde83 5 months ago
This is not a lifter. It IS an ion motor. I have a book that has a project to make one. It has the explanation on how and why it works. I have had this book for over 20 years. There is no ETHER. That notion has been done away with for over 50 years. It was an idea invented to explain how light and radio waves propagate through space, when they were though to be waves of energy. Now science knows better and light and radio transmissions are capable of traveling through a vacuum.
UnderManlac 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Have a new video of an Asymmetric capacitor in vacuum on my Youtube page. Feel free to check it out.
hec031 7 months ago
I didn't see anything lift up at any point in any of the tests. I can't make sense of this video. I would love to see a lifter tested in a vacuum.
I believe the effect is due to ion propulsion, which to me can be just as useful as gravity. The problem is no this force vs that force. The real question is how do we power it?
zigzigerblat 8 months ago
This is about as fake as they get, and the comments here are sad. I guess this is what happens when you stop teaching the scientific method in schools and replace it with "I don't understand this, so god/supernatural/aliens are involved". No wonder the entire western world is slowly collapsing.
rushius 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's actually a video from the Kenmore Corporation, it's a vertical rotisserie brace that goes inside an industrial oven, built to cook thirty chickens at a time. The chicken goes on the 'assymetrical capacitor' but that's not what the engineers at Kenmore call it. They call it a 'torso mount'. The fuzzyness of the video is from the heat inside the oven.
adrastea99 9 months ago
I wonder why the camera footage of the lifter in the vaccume chamber is so crappy.
wavsyntax 10 months ago
SO MANY IGNORANT SHITTERS WITH AN AGENDA. F OFF and DIE.Quantum and eastern knowledge shows ANYTHING is possible. WAKE THE F UP U STUPID SHEEP.
MrFixErit 11 months ago
@MrFixErit I guess the foolish must have dreams too. NO, not everything is possible. Anti-gravity is impossible. Time travel is impossible (at least to the past). Interlinking two solid rings together without cutting one is impossible. Getting you to learn a little science also appears to be impossible.
UnderManlac 6 months ago
Even the myth busters have twice put of this possibility...
Simply search for :
Myth busters, anti- gravity I and II
LReminds 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@LReminds Mythbusters also failed to make the Bedini motor work! Yet many on Youtube and elsewhere, including a schoolgirl have them working. They did not even bother to contact John Bedinin to do it right! Proving the mythbusters are jokesters. not serious esearchers.
Beamshipcaptain 1 year ago
@Beamshipcaptain I have check out many bedini motor videos, none of them can sustain the motion for long. They do not work. I could explain why, but I theorize that you would not understand, or would refuse to listen.
UnderManlac 6 months ago
Oh, no, I responded before I saw who I posted to. I know you live in a fantasy world, from the stuff you have spoken of. I regret that I have posted to you and cringe at the nonsense you are about to verbalize.
Oh, if only you'd come out of your fantasy world and see how amazing reality is. By the way, who let you out of your rubber room. You know you are a danger to yourself.
UnderManlac 6 months ago
@LReminds Their negative results are consistent with many others that have tried to test for this effect. I myself have had countless of failed experiments, prior to my success. Even now we still struggle to transition the concept to the next level. The 2003 experiments have nothing over the 2009-2010 experiments and the video of those experiments are very high resolution. Don't ask because I still can't show them.
hec031 8 months ago
@hec031 And why can't you show the experiments? Because they don't exist perhaps?
UnderManlac 6 months ago
FYI,
" Lifting technology " DOES NOT work in a Vacuum enviroment...
Simple laws of fisics.
LReminds 1 year ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@LReminds This is proof of concept in vacuum. THe effect works because of COulmb's law, and electrohydrodynamics, and is more efficient in vacuum for those reasons. Physics.
Beamshipcaptain 1 year ago
@LReminds From what i undesrtood, in this experiment there is no anty-gravity,
but a thrust generated from Ionized Air flowing through the coper wire causing the light structure to raise... Maybe u can continue with ur experiment to proff we are wrong... Thanks for the Video Anyways
LReminds 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@LReminds This experiment by NASA and GRAVITEC prove airflow is not the source of the force. Proof of concept.
Beamshipcaptain 1 year ago
@Beamshipcaptain Are you absolutely certain the video is from NASA? The video only shows an ion motor working in a vacuum. This is ion thrust, something NASA has been working on for years, trying to develop an ion thrust engine. This is NOT anti-gravity or a gravity producing device of any kind. Plus, this is not a lifter. Lifters rely on ion wind to generate the thrust needed to lift itself into the air.
UnderManlac 6 months ago
@LReminds Ionized air in vacuum..?
DaMatta11 1 year ago
@LReminds The force was on the horizontal not vertical plane. As for Ion wind, I don't think you are going to find any plasma physicist that will publicly claim that Ion wind effects are possible at pressures as low as 1.7E-7 Torr. Ion propulsion maybe, but Ion wind, not possible.
hec031 8 months ago
@hec031 Ion propulsion still is not anti-gravity, which too many people are claiming. They delude themselves that anti-gravity is possible. Not unless they can generate power measuring the mass of the earth (using E=MC²). Then you have to figure out how to unbend space-time using it.
UnderManlac 6 months ago
@MatueszZuba2c That was my exact though, not all of this was a NASA video, I could make a better video with my web cam or better yet my 300 dollar HD Flip video. Fake.
ryanb418 1 year ago
if E=mc2 then 3.14 squared should equal pi? or am I on the wrong track people?
weldon0m 1 year ago
beam, what you just read of mine was a direct writing i copied and pasted.Beam your the first person that hasnt dogged me the hell out over saying that. Im glad someone else is studying and reading up and not just taking what the gov post on th efront page.i have the page i copied that from saved some where if i can find it ill link it.
tripwire80 1 year ago
Why does the video have to be so utterly crap? It's 2003!!!
allowambeBOWWAMB 1 year ago
demonstrations were given first in England, it was on the Continent, under the auspices (SNCASO), that things really began to look promising. During tests performed within the company's research laboratory, Brown succeeded in flying his discs in a high vacuum with amazing results. not only had he succeeded in proving that his discs flew more efficiently without air, but he had also shown that the speed and efficiency of his craft could be increased by providing greater voltage.
tripwire80 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@tripwire80 Funny how noone mentions that TT Brown, the inventor, proved over half a century ago, that they functioned better in vacuum! Takaaki Musha showed that also in 2007 at the AIAA annual meeting.
Beamshipcaptain 1 year ago
@Beamshipcaptain Doesn't make sense the Mythbusters couldn't get it to work in a vacuum!
ryanb418 1 year ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ryanb418 The mythbusters could not get the Bedini motor to work, either! Check who their corporate sponsors are. Experoments spnsored by the French Government in France in 1955, done here in King of Prussia, PA at GE Space Center in 1959, and Winston Salem, NC in 1056-58, AND NASA and the US Army on 2000, and Purdue University in 200, AND experiments with one of my Beamships by my client from 8 years ago, John Fiala, show positive vacuum-function. This is VACUUM tube theory. Physics.
Beamshipcaptain 1 year ago
@ryanb418 The mythbusters testing only tested for the ability of a Lifter to generate enough thrust to Lift its own weight vertically, while my tests were focused on whether there was any detectable thrust whatsoever. The sensitivity of a torsion pendulum far exceeds that of any 1:1 thrust test.
hec031 8 months ago
@hec031 They mybhbusters test proved that the lifter does not generate anti-gravity, as so many deluded people claim. It proves that the device relies on an ion wind, moving air, to lift off the tabletop.
Now if you want to argue semantics over ion wind or ion thrust, then fine. Quit calling it anti-gravity.
UnderManlac 6 months ago
@UnderManlac I agree 100%, the device does not generate an antigravity effect. What the device does is produce thrust. It's a thruster. The work falls under Propellantless propulsion, which is not the same as Antigravity. I've never claimed that the device produces an Antigravity effect, those are your words, not mine. As for ion propulsion, this is not supported by the evidence since the devices did not loose any measurable mass down to .01 grams of measurement accuracy.
hec031 6 months ago
@hec031 Most people who post this kind of device claim antigravity is proven here.
The device doesn't LOSE electrons, the electrons (ions) are supplied by the power supply driving the device. The free electrons escape the wire/foil and the laws of action and reaction cause the arms of the device to move. It is ion propulsion. There will be no mass loss whatsoever (except through deterioration of materials).
UnderManlac 6 months ago
@UnderManlac The thrust mechanism you describe is not how Ion propulsion systems work. Please refer to the common literature on devices like XIPS and Hall thrusters for a full explanation. However if we accept your explanation that the thrust is the result of electron mass ejection, the force can never be accounted for because of the extremely low mass of the electron and the equally low current rate observed under testing. The numbers don't come even close to the observed force.
hec031 6 months ago
@hec031 In the "NASA" test the results are exactly what would be expected, as calculated. In atmosphere the remaining thrust boils down to ion wind. I am familiar with XIPS and Hall thrusters. The device depicted here is nothing more than an ion motor.
UnderManlac 6 months ago
@UnderManlac Not according to our findings. So which NASA tests are you referring to? I suspect you're about to say CR-2004-213283. Keep in mind that those test where published in a STI report and not a peer reviewed journal and their finding are being contested in a peer reviewed journal by Dr. Alexandre Martins. The paper can be found at Sciencedirect. Title is "On the propulsive force developed by asymmetric capacitors in vacuum". I could not disagree more with your conclusions.
hec031 6 months ago
@hec031 For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Do you agree?
A rocket in space has nothing the the thrusters to push against and should not move. That was one of the theories before we sent rockets into space. Now, however, we understand that it moves due to reaction to the thrusters. The ion motor does the exact same thing in a vacuum. Giving off electrons causes the device to react in the opposite direction. Simply, nothing more than that.
UnderManlac 6 months ago
@hec031 I doubt that the ion motor effect was taken into account. You were/are looking for other explanations on how the device works in a vacuum, but the idea of action and reaction didn't occur to you. When ANY object produces a force (in this case, electrons being given off at the ends of the foil) there has to be an equal and opposite force expended. That would be the movement of the ion motor arms. Can you not see what I am talking about?
UnderManlac 6 months ago
@UnderManlac I took all of the above into account. I showed to the satisfaction of subject matter experts that these conventional mechanisms cannot account for the observed force. One even wrote a book on the subject matter. Trust me they agree that the effect cannot be accounted for via Ion wind or Ion propulsion. The main reason is that we can achieve the same effect in a Faraday caged hermetically sealed encapsulated device. Ion propulsion is not possible in those devices.
hec031 6 months ago
@hec031 First of all, this device is not a lifter. Why haven't you built a lifter, put it in a vacuum chamber, and tried to get a result?
Secondly, I really doubt that you took Newton's 3rd law into account.
There is a simple explanation for the motion observed on your whirlygig.. I submit it to be a reaction to electrons flying off the foil plane causing it to turn.
There is nothing mysterious about it. You haven't done the proper experiments and measurements.
UnderManlac 6 months ago
@hec031 You must make a lifter (the triangle device, or some geometry) and test that in a full vacuum. As tested by the Mythbusters, who actually did the test with a LIFTER, it has been proven not to work in a vacuum. No lift was observed. Also, using a gravity detecting machine the device showed no manipulation of gravity.
One day someone will figure out the propulsion of your device and will verify what I am saying. It is the only explanation that makes any sense.
UnderManlac 6 months ago
@hec031 I have read the article you refer to. It's a one-paragraph document which goes into NO detail on his assumptions.
I ask one question: Why would there be electrode corrosion when you are supplying the current from a high voltage source? The probe is supplied with an electron current (voltage potential) with no place to go. At a high enough voltage these electrons will escape the probe at the tips. This release of electrons causes a reaction from the probe in the form of movement.
UnderManlac 6 months ago
@UnderManlac It's an excerpt of the whole article. You have to purchase the paper, that's how most Journals do it. All evidence shows that while the system is at high potential there is a small but continues current being drawn from the power supply which maintains the applied voltage. So the system consumes power as it converts it to thrust. Your mechanism can't account for the force in the encapsulated devices, which show the same level of performance to the one on the video.
hec031 6 months ago
@hec031 I have done further research and nobody can seem to come to a verifiable conclusion. I wish I had the equipment to do experiments with this device. How do you account for the thrust then? What is the mechanism that causes your device to spin? Ion (electron) thrust must be the answer. Electrons are much heaver than the protons and neutrons in an atom.
UnderManlac 6 months ago
@UnderManlac Now your talking like a researcher. All I'm trying to say is that you have to leave room for possibilities. Our own work has moved beyond Ion propulsion and Ion wind as an explanation. Our current focus is to eliminate Electrostatics as a possible source of the observed force. If you limit physics to our current understanding than there is nowhere to go. In my case I believe that there maybe exceptions to today's understanding of the laws of physics. Would not be the first time.
hec031 6 months ago
@ryanb418 - Mythbusters aren't scientists. They're filmmakers, stuntmen, and entertainers.
HungryGuyStories 8 months ago
@HungryGuyStories Mythbusters have science advisors dumbass. You certainly don't qualify if you believe this proves anti-gravity.
UnderManlac 6 months ago
@UnderManlac - Uhm, your whole comment proves that you're the dumbass. The lifter operates on what's called the Biefield-Brown effect. There is NO SUCH THING as anti-gravity, and YOU are a moron if you believe in anti-gravity. Nonetheless the lifter DOES work in atmosphere. Countless repeatable experiments have proved this.
HungryGuyStories 5 months ago
...whether or not it works in vacuum has not been proven nor disproven in consistently (some experiments have "proven" it works in vacuum, and some have "proven" that it does not).
HungryGuyStories 5 months ago
@ryanb418 The lifter and the device depicted in this video are two different things. The object in the video is an ion motor, not a lifter.
UnderManlac 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@tripwire80 Of COURSE they are more efficient in vacuum. No coronal losses or ionic leakage to attenuate the electrokinetic force. Think outside your little box, folks. Now's the time. Look in the News every day.
Beamshipcaptain 1 year ago
What is this a video of bigfoot? Why is the quality of the lifter so bad
ronmann606 1 year ago
The Mighty NASA CAN'T get camera who shows clear images.... SHIT :/
nida1965 1 year ago
The device shown in this video looks similar to an ion motor. Look up ion motor to see the similarities. This does not show a lifter as illustrated by lifter proponents.
First of all, the "lifter" moves much more in atmospheric pressure than it does in a vacuum, it barely moves. This video does not appear to be related to lifter technology. Why wouldn't they put the triangle or hexagonal lifter to the test in a vacuum instead? Point me to a video of that experiment please.
UnderManlac 1 year ago
can someone xplain to me exactly wat proves or disproves antigravity, when its tested in a spacial void or vaccuum where there is no gravity ? Doesn't it need to be tested under gravity conditions? if there is no gravity in space, and u have an anti gravity device, why should it work outside a mass with a gravitational field?if it did kinda indicates its something else dont it? kinda of an apple and oranges kinda thing isnt it?
tripwire80 1 year ago
@tripwire80
Where did you get the idea that there is no gravity in vacuum/space?
Cp1Punishment 1 year ago
earth, planets, etc, have gravitational fields etc, space its self doesn't from the way i see understand it. there is gravitational pull but not from "space" you both state there is gravity around "mass" what about outer space outside the pull from the planets and sun itself? is there gravity?. Inside the fields why not tune a craft to the frequency or pull of the planet ur headed to? would that be an effective propulsion? I have a questions about this in general and about vaccuum tests.
tripwired80 1 year ago
And think of me crazy or what, but yes i do think light has a charge, everything has a charge, or it couldnt not move. maybe not a positive or neg. charge as most think of charge or what not, but in general yes its a charged particle, without the energy from light most things would not exist. Im willing to toss some ideals back and forth, but not to someone who cant think outside the box from what we have been bred to think. I about 99.9999999% sure Nasa nor any gov. assembly tells us 100%ofit.
tripwired80 1 year ago
@tripwire80 I don't understand how you think there is no gravity in space. Around any mass there is gravity. The earth is caught in the sun's gravity well. The moon is caught in the earth's gravity well.
The lifter is nothing more than an ion wind generator. Basically a solid state thrust engine, requiring kilovolts to run it.
UnderManlac 1 year ago
in MY opInion, this is nor electrogravity nor anti-gravity. the 30,000+ watts going thru the wire ionicaly charges the air around it creating subtle thrust. you can smell the ozone from these lifters. i have witnessed them. and well its easy to lift a piece of balsa wood and foil with the little thrust it creates. are we gonna some day fly around in unstable high voltage dangerous balsa wood n tinfoil spaceships? highly doubfful its just not practical, well with the miles of extension cords.
spittheproper 1 year ago
@spittheproper If we are to believe this video is genuine, then the experiment would seem to show that there was movement of the device in a vacuum. Vacuum means that there is no air to be moved by ions. These are technology/theory demonstrations, I doubt seriously that these models can simply be scaled up to a fully functional spacecraft.
Rotoplooker2000 1 year ago
@Rotoplooker2000
oh i tottaly agree, i was saying in gerneral when they are not in vacuum they lift, therefore its just propeltion and not anti gravity. mind my spelling
spittheproper 1 year ago
@Rotoplooker2000
If you read the NASA report NASA/CR—2004-213312, you'll find that the video is a short clip and not representative. Metals tend to absorb ions in atmosphere. Outgassing of metal alloys is actually required for some metallurgical processes.
Once the metals outgassed which took about 30 minutes, there was no movement associated with the rotor in vacuum. As atmosphere was readmitted, the rotor motion became evident once again.
Cp1Punishment 1 year ago
@Cp1Punishment I read the report very carefully and I noticed that the test rig on this experiment could not have measured the force produced by one of these asymmetrical capacitors in vacuum. The average force we have measure in vacuum has been just over 2mN@41.4Kv. The test stand on the report had a far greater breakaway force requirement. So even if you were producing an effect you would have never measured it. What was your current (I) draw? There is always a current draw if it's working.
hec031 8 months ago
@spittheproper Lol. I like your style. Yes the lifter is an ion thrust engine, basically. Claims of anti-gravity or electro-gravity (a term that does not truly exist), are exaggerated. They will never accept your (our) explanation of their experiment. I've been blocked for explaining what's going on.
Their own experiments with smoke proves an ion wind, yet they still claim antigravity.
UnderManlac 1 year ago
every singul solitary particle of the universe is in constant motion, the key is tapping it, not working against it.
tripwired80 1 year ago
Yep. Without the air, the corona drive aspect disappaears, but the capacitor effect remains. What would need to be tested in a much larger chamber is a lifter device without a neutralizing path. Beyond about 4 feet or without a neutralizing path, they sort of stop working. Look up "The Casimir Effect" to see what I mean.
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
It does not appear to be doing any thing.
kurisu925 1 year ago
i belive most all physics experiments are eather experiments. all there findings are reactions to and with the eather. i always thought magnets moved eather at a rate close to the spin of irn and produced the effects on that material, and if you changed the freqincey you could have magnets for most everything. im so tired of all established scionce asking me to set aside my comen sence when i have ben seeing capacitors jump on discharge for years.
now hover out the tr-3,,,lol
DANTHETUBEMAN 1 year ago 3
@DANTHETUBEMAN Wow, I didn't understand anything you said here.
UnderManlac 1 year ago
@DANTHETUBEMAN How come you can't spell Mr. Science?
mrthebillman 10 months ago
The problem seems to be that bulking up it's propulsion requires more power. And more power requires bigger machinery. I've never seen a self contained lifter or beamship =(
sharkhead7854 2 years ago
A professor in toky used a modified version of the Alpha micro-piezoelectricbased power supply (124 grams including battery-leads) flew a slef-contained onboard power with a very large lifter and a 3-cell,2000mAh lithium-polymer battery, in Spring of 2003 in Tokyo Japan. we keep input pwer fairly low for safety. THrust is exponential with increasing Voltage, with TT Brown patented devices, which I have built since January, 1990.
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
Interesting! Thanks for the info. =D I wonder, I've watched your videos for a very long time over and over, where do you stand on lifters? Anti-gravity or ion wind lift?
I ask regardless of the video, because either way someone always ends up poking holes in someone else' logic.
sharkhead7854 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ARTIFICIAL GRAVITY. Not antigravity. Even the Searl Levity Disc or Inverse Gravity vheicle is artificial gravity: HTe highly negatively charged rim repls all matter approaching the rim, includinc the Earth, and the center hub, is positively charged, attractive to matter. TBoth methodologies cancel all inertia and G-forces.
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
What if a lifter was turned upside down?
sharkhead7854 2 years ago
It gets heavier, trying to burrow into the floor.
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
Ion wind as a force, is too weak by at least THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE, to cause levitation of even a 5-gram model, and you can do the mathematics yourself to figure the upper-physical limit on ion-wind. Read FORCE ON AN ASYMMETIRIC CAPACITOR, from 200, and the US ARMY RESEARCH LAB, Adelphi, MD.
Beamshipcaptain 1 year ago
@Beamshipcaptain Why, then, is it NOT working in VACUUM? When the air was in there, it worked. When the air was removed, it didn't anymore! Why is that?
mike4ty4 1 year ago
@mike4ty4 Or at least, not doing what it was doing in air... there's a slight "jitter", but it's nothing like what was seen in air, could also be vibrations from the high voltage/current or something causing it to wobble off axis. You said explicitly that vacuum INCREASES the efficiency. Thus it should be working a whole lot BETTER with the air evacuated, than with the air present. Why isn't it? Can you answer that question, Beamshipcaptain? Put a real LIFTER in that chamber and it WON'T LIFT.
mike4ty4 1 year ago
Ive been doing this work for 20 years, since 1990. Where were YOU in 1990?
Beamshipcaptain 1 year ago
It works more efficiently in vacuum, without coronal and ionic losses as occur in air. Why would it not. Do you understand how and why VACUUM TUBES WORK? This test by NASA is proof of concept. It was believed in the 1920s, that ROCKETS would not work in vacuum either. "Nothing to PUSH against".
Beamshipcaptain 1 year ago
@Beamshipcaptain Then why doesn't it look that way from this test? If it was going "more efficiently" you should see MORE movement, not less. Why less movement? I only care about one thing here: EVIDENCE.
mike4ty4 1 year ago
@Beamshipcaptain You may not believe me, but I'd _love_ to see a real Anti-Gravity propulsion system. It's just that I'm not going to believe every claim out there. I need some evidence. And when the claims actually contradict known evidence, then I need even MORE evidence. And when I see "evidence" that doesn't show what is proported to be shown (e.g. this video vs. your claims), my skepticism goes up much higher. The burden of proof is on you, not on me.
mike4ty4 1 year ago
The vast majority of vacuum tests in the literature show increased efficiency: "Towards Flight Without Stress, Strain or Weight," INTERAVIA, March 23rd, 1956, FORCE ON AN ASYMMETRIC CAPACITOR, US ARMY(2000), "The Flying Saucer," by Dr. Mason Rose, SCIENCE AND INVENTION, AUGUST, 1929, "How I Control Gravitation," TT Brown, SCIENCE AND INVENTION, Aug. 1929, The Unified Field Theory for Gravitation and Electricity, A. Einstein (zur Einheitlichen Feld Therie), published in NEW YORK TIMES, Jan12,1929
Beamshipcaptain 1 year ago
@Beamshipcaptain Then what is going on with THIS test?
mike4ty4 1 year ago
@Beamshipcaptain So far the "proof" doesn't seem to hold up to the claims. If you don't like my skepticism, fine, but I think it more rational than just swallowing claims that contradict evidence. OK?
mike4ty4 1 year ago
Lab devices weighing 100 grams have produced thrust of 110 grams,for electrical pwr expenditure of 500 Watts (250,000 Volts @ 2.0 milliAmperes)..Experiment performed in air of 1 Atmosphere. Supplementary research indicates much greater efficiency results (same thrust for less power input) when operated in vacuum (10^-4 mm Hg or better), when current drops to around 2.0 microAmperes.
Beamshipcaptain 1 year ago
@Beamshipcaptain Now post one video showing a lifter LIFTING OFF in HARD VACUUM and I might give it a WEE bit more weight (just "WEE", of course, because anything can be hoaxed). Failing that, provide me with plans to build my own lifter that will lift in vacuum and describe the complete experimental apparatus (details of the vac chamber, etc.). Then if I can get access to the equipment someday, I can run the test and see if you're right. Give every detail, please.
mike4ty4 1 year ago
Why do I have to do everyone's homework for them since juniour Highschool?At Societe Nationale du Constructions Aeronautiques du Sud Oest, in Paris, TT Brown tested miniature saucers 1 billionth of an Atmosphere. Not only did the discs propel themselves more efficiently, but also sped faster;without ion-leakage,they could be energised with more Voltage.Tests used a 200 Watt power source to supply DC potentials ranging from 70 to 220 kiloVolts.
Beamshipcaptain 1 year ago
These and similar devices you can see levitating inside evacuated Belljars on Youtube and elswhere. I obtained these TT Brown home movies from the late 1950s Bahnson labs experiments (leading to patents which I successfully replicated in early 1990) from Sev Bonnie, a scientist I met who worked with Brown.
Beamshipcaptain 1 year ago
rockets dont push, thay recoil. you dont have to be a rocket sciontist to know that, hahaha
dr moray got electron flow in cold tubes, so thay wouldent grant his pattent.
DANTHETUBEMAN 1 year ago
I know. Newton's 3rd law. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. But still, in the 1920s, thru the 1950s, the prevailing sisdom was that rockets would not work in vacuum "with no air to PUSH against"!
Beamshipcaptain 1 year ago
it doesn't matter if this can work in space the real question is, is it worth it, is this the most efficient way to create thrust in space when there are ion drives that provide more force for less energy using less propellent (stuff throne out)
TinBryn 2 years ago
Nasa's ion drive ises more input power, and has far less thrust to power ratio than TT Brown's apparati.
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
@Beamshipcaptain
i'm probably being ignorant, but can this apparatus actually propel its own power source?
projectisaac 2 years ago
Why not???
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
The force is very powerful. 2,200 newtons of force per kiloWatt in a vacuum is mighty impressive.
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
NASA's ion propulsion engine weighs 10 times as much as TT Brown's saucer, and produces only 28 grams of force for an input power of 1,200 Watts, or just 0.23 newton per kiloWatt, Hence NASA's ion prpulsion engine is 10,000 times less efficient than Thomas Townsend Brown's Elecctrokinetic discs. Which I first built 2 foot models of exactly 20-years ago, January,1990.
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
gee did they use a tv camera from the 50s
derrick713 2 years ago
Comment removed
liorhenco 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hii...
from where you get this video?
they did not remember in any artical of NASA.
not in Francis X. Canning or Tajmar.....
liorhenco 2 years ago
do you know hec031 that upload 6 video?
liorhenco 2 years ago
Shame that 'NASA' couldn't afford a microphone.
chrisofnottingham 2 years ago
Lift by ionisation of air within reach of earths magnetic field, ok, but in space, vacuum, there is a solar wind of ionised particles. This solar wind is not in a vacuum tank on earth. Has Nasa or Mythbusters done any research on the effect of solar wind to a flyer there? No? So what is the value of their proof? The vacuum of space contains hydrogen, can this be ionised? If so, the flyer will move in space. Better first put the right questions before making a conclusion based on wrong axiomas.
fredjekroketje 2 years ago
THis is high-energy electrostatics. Electrostatic attration works in a vacuum. How the heck do you think vacuum tubes work? The cathode skirt, or saucer, is pulled into the anode wire, or copper tube forward-electrode in the flying saucers, that I built starting 20-years ago, with 2-foot and later 3-foot models.
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
Of cours hydrogen can be ionised. Did you not go to high-school? Even if no hydrogen, the device polarizes the random-flux of Zero-Point energy which is the vacuum and is a staggering amount of Energy (Read GEOMETRODYNAMICS, by JA Wheeler), and produces a recoil by the Ether, or Zero-point energy of vacuum. Gravitation is due to a converging flux of ZPE.
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ha and the guys at Mythbusers insisted it was air thrust lifting the unit and that it wouldn't work in a vacuum.
I knew they were dead wrong!
JonDeth 2 years ago
there is no such thing as perfect vacuum, even in space particles are created suddently (casimir effect). and yes mythbusters were damn wrong its not air, its converting electrical energy in kinetic energy. the lifter is rotating in vacuum slowly cuz the electricity cant flow in (absolute) vacuum without emitting electrons
akademiker23 2 years ago
You're bothering me with this why?
Next time, try having a POINT, good grief.
JonDeth 2 years ago
The effect is solely due to high energy electrostatics. Electrostatics works in vacuum. That is the basis behind vacuum-tube technology. At higher energies, for higher force, the devices work better in vacuum, without ion-leakage losses to attenuate the force. So effects with large saucers in vacuum in 1955, three foot saucers powerd with 250 Watts and more in vacuum had no limit to speed, resulting in the Air Force slapping CLASSIFIED on this work, from 1955, until 1995.
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
Infact...
mentzsana 2 years ago
How does this show antigravity?
Am i going to get blocked for questioning antigravity? is that how it works?
hypnotekk 2 years ago
Questions are welcomed... Curiosity encouraged. However, start some ridiculous Flame War, or make Derogatory Personal Attacks upon myself or others, and you will be blocked from this account. Stick to the Facts, and well be just fine. I assume this Lifer in Vacuum test to be genuine, but you can investigate the background for yourself. Only continued research will provide any lasting proof of Electrogravity (not AntiGravity)
only1egg 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Thanks only1. You might want to do some house cleaning. Fight for Truth. Artificial gravity is a much better term. Read Einstein's Zur Einheitlichen Feld Therie (The Unified Field Theory for Gravitation and Electricity) which was published January 10,1929, and released to NY TIMES Jan.12,1929. In the 1930s, artificial gravity and giant airships as envisioned by Tesla and the Germans became popular. But like much of Tesla's more interesting work, the Unified Field theory was forgotten. Or was it?
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
@only1egg
Well rather than just a silent video alone it helps if the results are presented.
From the NASA website... Document Reference NASA/CR—2004-213312.
Published 2004.
Conclusion given in the report: The effect is entirely explainable and predictable by ion drift.
There is no gravitational effect.
There is no new technology here.
Cp1Punishment 1 year ago
@Cp1Punishment Thank you very much cp1punishment. I noticed this device looked a lot like an ion motor. It sure does not depict the ion lifter in any way. It reacts exactly like an ion motor would, both in atmosphere and in a vacuum.
UnderManlac 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Because the force works everytime the power is activated in vacuum, the force can be related instead of wind, which cannot happen in vacuum (no air), to purely electrostatic forces (electrogravity). The Cathode produces the lifting force, as it tries to fall into the anote plate, or electrode. See Jean Louis Naudin's UNCONNECTED LIFTER experimets, with the two halves of the devices in airtight contaners, and inconnected. The cathode skirt FLIES UP to meet the anode, even without any connection!
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
@hypnotekk Actually a friend of mine was blocked from this sight. He is a physicist from UofA. He is a remarkably patient and respectful person. I have a hard time believing he was attacking only1egg. In fairness I was not witness to their exchanges. I am newer to youtube and don't spend too much time here. I do, however, believe him when he tells me he was blocked for explaining, in a respectful manner, where only1egg is in error regarding his physics.
pauliexcludedable 1 year ago
@hypnotekk that isn't antigravity
Shift4chizzle 1 year ago
@hypnotekk it isn't antigravity
Shift4chizzle 1 year ago
@hypnotekk Correct me if I'm wrong but some people think this shows antigravity or something equally as strange for the following reason; The device that is turning is believed to turn because it produces ion wind, therefore moving because it causes air displacement. This test is being preformed in a vacuum, no air, so how/why could it still be moving?
bendouek 1 year ago 2
@bendouek While ion wind has now been eliminated as a possible source of the observed effects,have also been addressed. Recent tests new generation devices were exposed to very high static magnetic fields with no measurable change in performance. We also saw no change in performance between air and vacuum tests. Image/mirror charge tests could not account for the observed force either. We can't prove what it is, but we can prove what it is not.
hec031 8 months ago
@hec031 The device is nothing more than an ion motor. The device is propelled due to ions being cast off the end of the metal plates. I have the design in one of my books dealing with high voltage devices. It does not have to do anything with an ion wind when in a vacuum chamber. The "lifter" (not the device shown in this video) produces ions which influence the air molecules nearby causing them to create a wind (ion wind) to lift that device into the air. It is not anti-gravity!
UnderManlac 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hypnotekk Correct me if I'm wrong but some people think this shows antigravity or something equally as strange for the following reason; The device that is turning is believed to turn because it produces ion wind, therefore moving because it causes air displacement. This test is being preformed in a vacuum, no air, so how/why could it still be moving?
bendouek 1 year ago
@bendouek The device is an ion motor. It moves due to ion thrust. Ions leave the plate causing the device to turn. There is no mystery here. It is not anti-gravity, not is it an ion wind. The device is not a lifter and is not akin to one. The lifter does rely on ion wind generated to lift into the air.
UnderManlac 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Pleas read ETHER TECHNOLOGY, by Rho Sigma (The late Dr. Rolf Schaffranke, of Huntsville, AL). Yes the device reacts with its surroundings. In vacuum, its surroundings are the ETHER. The phenomenotn of Casimir Force and gravitation (as well as magnetic-fields and electrostatic-fields) are simply a flux of ETHER. Gravitation is due to a converging-flux of ETHER, Casimir PUSH is due to a ether low-pressure-zone between 2 conductive-parallel -plates, Magnetism is due to ether-currents.
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
Comment removed
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey everyone, peace and love: I used to make a real pest of myself trying to tell everyone that lifters would fly in vacuums, and I was wrong. It's only an ion-wind effect, You can see for yourself: NASA/CR—2004-213312 (google that) and look at page 6, paragraph one. Also google 'gravitec inc data talley', download the pdf and read the conclusions on page 91. They are both PDF's that everyone can find, and I apologize for being so insane.
BeanshipCaptain 2 years ago
Purdue University tested a lifter inside an evacuated chamber, with power from outside, it still worked.
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
Nah, RL Talley concluded it was just reacting to the chamber, what tiny response he saw. Hey, look, you can find the document I just referred to at the Gravitec Inc website! (the folks who supplied the video!!)
It's called "21st Century Propulsion" , RL Talley May 1991
google 'gravitec inc data talley'. Read the conclusions, doc pg 91, that first finding. NASA included these findings in their 2004 doc: google NASA/CR—2004-213312
And they found it was the only written evidence!!
TTSpinsInHisGrave 2 years ago
No, the Purdue experiment was flawed.
hypnotekk 2 years ago
Takaaki Musha and Honda R & D showed the Biefeld-Brown effect is more efficient in vacuum, as TT Brown showed 50-years ago- without ion losses that exist in air, the saucers work more efficiently than in air, at less than a billionth of an atmosphere in Paris France sponsored by the French Govt., also in 1959 2 miles from here, in King of Prussia, PA at General Electric Space Centre (Now Lockheed Martin Space)
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
Doesn't NASA have an HD camera?
zallmsk 2 years ago
the illuminati stole it to hide the evidence....
korgri 2 years ago
Patrick Cornille, "Newton's 3rd Principle in Post-Newtonian Physics," GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS 10(3)(1999):33-34, P. Cornille, "Electrostatic Pendulum Experiment which Pumps Energy from the ETHER(unpublished,1999),P. Cornille, "Review of the Application of Newton's Third Law in Physics," PROGRESS IN ENERGY AND COMBUSTION SCIENCES 25 (1999):161-210.
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
Whitehall-Rand,Inc., "Electrohydrodynamics," Bala Cynwyd,PA, March 4,1960, M. Perl "THe Gravitics Situation,"(London:Aviation Studies/Gravity Rand, Ltd.,December 1956),also published in INTERAVIA XI(5)(1956) 373-74.
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No, you did not start the lifter craze, there is no Russell Anderson in any of the scientific or electrical engineering journals about these experiments. Where is your pat # BTW, video is not a lifter, it spins using similar methods that spin an armature. Now an armature will work in a vacuum. Now, you claimed the Tri-lifters will fly in a vacuum they don't, run one of those in smoke, you will see the air flow then post it. Inertia dampeners, all fantasy. The burden of proof is on you.
MainzerA 2 years ago
This was not a lifter, this set up used electromagnetism. It is not the same as these tin foil balsa wood lifters. I challenge anyone to turn on their lifter, then turn on a smoke or fog machine and surround their lifter by the smoke or fog. It reveals the effect of the air being pumped to provide thrust. I do not even know why I am wasting my time on this subject. Just read popular mechanics article on the lifter craze.
MainzerA 2 years ago
I started the "lifter craze" in 1999, when I flew 2 and 3-foot TT Brown saucers. I later built "lifters" wich are the vertical version of the same patent, and surrounded them with fog. The weak airflaw with results is insufficient to cause lift, let aalone rapid movement of heavy 2 and 3 kilo 3-foot diameter flying saucers. The effect of Biefeld-Brown also dampens inertia, so right-angle turns at any speed are no problem, you feel nothing within the field, as every atom moves uniformly.
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
Comment removed
MainzerA 2 years ago
This is not a lifter
adrastea99 2 years ago
Quite; it does not even produce any nett movement, but simply oscillates.
I wonder if they took the precaution of making sure that the materials were completely degassed.
flowerbower 2 years ago
I severely doubt this is a NASA test of an ionocaft
If you or someone else knows the lead scientist on this project send me an email with the info
adrastea99 2 years ago
OK, will do
flowerbower 2 years ago
adrastea99 (at) hotmail (dot) com
Not the YouTube email
adrastea99 2 years ago
What's the difference?
flowerbower 2 years ago
I can't access my youtube email (it does not get updated)
adrastea99 2 years ago
This was a test by NASA, and Hector Serrano of Gravitec, who invented the ELECTRIC ROCKET, which works more efficiently in a vacuum. Actyally, this is TT Brown's work. Obviously, the device needs no air to move. Read SUBQUANTUM KINETICS, by Paul A La Violette.
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
You mean the ion engine? Well everyone already knows about that
adrastea99 2 years ago
No. NASA's ion propulsion engine weighs 10 times as much as Brown's saucer, and produced only 28 grams of force for input of 1200 Watts, or just 0.23 Newtons of thrust, hence NASA's ion engine is 10,000 times less efficient than TT Brown's electrokinetic disc. In hard vacuum, a force of 110-grams(1.1Newtons) could be achieved for power input of just0.5 Watt(250.000 Volts times 2x10^-6 Amps), or 2,200 Newtons of thrust per kilowatt in hard vacuum for TT Brown's flying capacitor.
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
GTFO
adrastea99 2 years ago
Its just science and technology. Onward and upward, to the stars!
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
No, what you said makes no sense
adrastea99 2 years ago
What I said makes perfect sense to anyone with half a brain.
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
WTF does mass have to do with force?
adrastea99 2 years ago
The greater the MASS of the dielectric between the cpacitor electrodes or plates, the greater the force.
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
What you are talking about does not exist
adrastea99 2 years ago
Yes it does, go check it out. Take that as a challege! Read: SECRETS OF ANTIGRAVITY PROPULSION (2008), by Paul A LaViolette, PhD. I saw Dr. Laviolette lecture At Colorado Springs in 1990. Read: ANTIGRAVITY, THE DREAM MADE REALITY(1993), By John Thomas.
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
I don't read fiction
Not one of the claims by these people are verified
It is not even a theory since it is untested independently, meaning it is still just a hypothesis
adrastea99 2 years ago
Certainly are verified, with peer review by NATURE, PHYSICAL REVIEW, STAIF, AIAA, NASA, and INTEGRITY INSTITUTE, SAIC corporation, EG & G, DARPA, and ATIC Foreighn Technology DIVISION at Wright Patterson AFB in Ohio, and Indian Springs in Nevada.
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
Dude just GTFO, this is too funny
adrastea99 2 years ago
It's actually a video from the Kenmore Corporation, it's a vertical rotisserie brace that goes inside an industrial oven, built to cook thirty chickens at a time. The chicken goes on the 'assymetrical capacitor' but that's not what the engineers at Kenmore call it. They call it a 'torso mount'. The fuzzyness of the video is from the heat inside the oven.
JimBeamship 2 years ago
That's pretty funny
adrastea99 2 years ago