Flying Saucers?

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

Go down

Flying Saucers?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:42 pm

.
Flying Saucers?

264. Lift on a Wing. http://milesmathis.com/lift.pdf
Plus extended comments on buoyancy and on the raindrop problem. 14pp.

QUOTE.
Charge is always arrayed against gravity in the vector equations, which means that it is moving
straight up out of the Earth. The Earth is receiving charge from the Sun and recycling it throughout its
entire body. This means that everything is being partially lifted by charge all the time. Charge is .1%
of gravity, which means that if the charge were turned off, you would weigh .1% more. I have shown
that this charge field is what keeps the atmosphere up. In this sense, the lift pre-exists. We don't
explain it from the flight equations, we explain it from the unified field equations.

Of course, in most cases it isn't powerful enough to lift anything. We have seen it lifting air and some
smaller ions in my paper on the atmosphere, and in my paper on plant physiology we saw it lifting
substances in the xylem and phloem, but it can't lift anything bigger than that without thrust. Why does
thrust help? Simply because it increases the amount of charge under the object during each second.
The only way to increase the charge lift is to increase the charge, but since the charge is constant in
each area during each interval, the only way to increase charge is to go into as many different areas
during the same interval as you can. In other words, you have to move fast, and you have to move
perpendicular to the field.
UNQUOTE

Somebody needs to tell Miles to make another addendum. Imagine a metal saucer, spin it. Rotation also increases the amount of charge received by any given portion of surface area over a given time interval. Receiving increased charge decreases the saucer's overall weight. The least rotational velocity occurs at the center of rotation and the greatest velocity occurs at the saucer’s rim. What rotation rates are necessary to actually lift things?

This paper justifies the physics. If we weren’t such a bloodthirsty band of misfits I believe we could design us a craft, or modify some old mainstream rejected design.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 936
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by Cr6 on Sat Apr 07, 2018 3:26 am

You know LTAM.  We may have to move Brazil first with a few cheap smoke-detectors and Mercury fluorescent lamps to get going.  J.J...hmmm...might need to include a few bottles of fine whiskey as well.

On his old website he (De Aquino) pointed to this experiment as real and working.  Who knows... perhaps it could be cooked up in a garage and possibly tweaked "Mathis" wise if there are any real actual effects behind it.   tongue (Never saw a clear cut video of it working though.)
----------

Gravity Control by means of Electromagnetic Field through Gas or Plasma at Ultra-Low Pressure
Fran De Aquino
Maranhao State University, Physics Department, S.Luis/MA, Brazil.
Copyright ©️ 2007-2010 by Fran De Aquino. All Rights Reserved

It is shown that the gravity acceleration just above a chamber filled with gas or plasma at ultra-low pressure can be strongly reduced by applying an Extra Low-Frequency (ELF) electromagnetic field across the gas or the plasma. This Gravitational Shielding Effect is related to recent discovery of quantum correlation between gravitational mass and inertial mass. According to the theory samples hung above the gas or the plasma should exhibit a weight decrease when the frequency of the electromagnetic field is decreased or when the intensity of the electromagnetic field is increased. This Gravitational Shielding Effect is unprecedented in the literature and can not be understood in the framework of the General Relativity. From the technical point of view, there are several applications for this discovery; possibly it will change the paradigms of energy generation, transportation and telecommunications.

Key words: Phenomenology of quantum gravity, Experimental Tests of Gravitational Theories, Vacuum Chambers, Plasmas devices. PACs: 04.60.Bc, 04.80.Cc, 07.30.Kf, 52.75.-d.

I. INTRODUCTION

It will be shown that the local gravity acceleration can be controlled by means of a device called Gravity Control Cell (GCC) which is basically a recipient filled with gas or plasma where is applied an electromagnetic field. According to the theory samples hung above the gas or plasma should exhibit a weight decrease when the frequency of the electromagnetic field is decreased or when the intensity of the electromagnetic field is increased. The electrical conductivity and the density of the gas or plasma are also highly relevant in this process.

With a GCC it is possible to convert the gravitational energy into rotational mechanical energy by means of the Gravitational Motor. In addition, a new concept of spacecraft (the Gravitational Spacecraft) and aerospace flight is presented here based on the possibility of gravity control. We will also see that the gravity control will be very important to Telecommunication.
...
By comparing equations (14) (15) (18) and (19) we see that Eq. (19) shows that the better way to obtain a strong value of in practice is by applying an Extra Low-Frequency (ELF) electric field through a mean with high electrical conductivity.

Fig. 3 – Schematic diagram of Gravity Control Cells (GCCs). (a) GCC where the ELF electric field and the ionizing electric field can be the same. (b) GCCwhere the plasma is ionized by means of a RF signal. (c) GCC filled with air (at ambient temperature and 1 atm) strongly ionized by means of alpha particles emitted from radioactiveions sources (Am 241, half-life 432 years). Since the electrical conductivity of the ionized air depends on the amount of ions then it can be strongly increased by increasing the amount of Am241 in the GCC. This GCC has 36 radioactive ions sources each one with 1/5000th of gram of Am 241, conveniently positioned around the ionization chamber, in order to obtain1310−≅mSair.σ.

http://vixra.org/abs/1401.0119
...
(The kit needed)
Epoxy, wood sheets, minor insulation
Aluminum sheets (1mm)
ELF Voltage Source (0 – 1.5V, 1mHz – 0.1mHz)
Extra Low-Frequency Electric Field(1mHz – 0.1mHz)  EELF20W T-12
Fluorescent Lamp lit(F20T12/C50/ECO GE, Ecolux®️ T12)

....

ELF waves are curious:

Natural sources

Naturally occurring ELF waves are present on Earth, resonating in the region between ionosphere and surface seen in lightning strikes that make electrons in the atmosphere oscillate.[31] Though VLF signals were predominantly generated from lightning discharges, it was found that an observable ELF component - slow tail - followed the VLF component in almost all cases.[32] Also, the fundamental mode of the Earth-ionosphere cavity has the wavelength equal to the circumference of the Earth, which gives a resonance frequency of 7.8 Hz. This frequency, and higher resonance modes of 14, 20, 26 and 32 Hz appear as peaks in the ELF spectrum and are called Schumann resonance.

ELF waves have also been tentatively identified on Saturn's moon Titan. Titan's surface is thought to be a poor reflector of ELF waves, so the waves may instead be reflecting off the liquid-ice boundary of a subsurface ocean of water and ammonia, the existence of which is predicted by some theoretical models. Titan's ionosphere is also more complex than Earth's, with the main ionosphere at an altitude of 1,200 km (750 mi) but with an additional layer of charged particles at 63 km (39 mi). This splits Titan's atmosphere into two separate resonating chambers. The source of natural ELF waves on Titan is unclear as there does not appear to be extensive lightning activity.[31]

Huge ELF radiation power outputs of 100,000 times the Sun's output in visible light may be radiated by magnetars. The pulsar in the Crab nebula radiates powers of this order at the frequency 30 hertz.[33] Radiation of this frequency is below the plasma frequency of the interstellar medium, thus this medium is opaque to it, and it cannot be observed from Earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_low_frequency

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 1069
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sat Apr 07, 2018 1:01 pm

.
Hi Cr6. Gravity Control by means of Electromagnetic Field through Gas or Plasma at Ultra-Low Pressure, is copy written, math insane and way too complicated.

Let’s start this as simply as possible. Spinning plates.



To properly appreciate the physics, I’ll include the following how-to. (Jared, please forgo comments on his hippie headgear. I’m sure he’s just cushioning his head or covering up scars or on a quick break from his act or whatever  flower ).



----------------------------------

You probably realized that the spinning plates are just behaving like gyroscopes, or are they?



Given the theoretical lift properties of an object with a velocity perpendicular to the Earth's vertical charge field, is it correct to say that a gyroscope is held up by gyroscopic forces? No, I think not. I can now argue that as it spins, the gyroscope is held vertically by equilibrium with a greatly increased charge lift distributed about the rim of the main horizontally mounted flywheel rotor.

Any objections? Comments?

P.S. Adding the youtube names and addresses for link clarity.
Chinese Plate Spinners. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRkZN27Hp_k
Spinning plate tutorial: getting started (beginner) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5Lwj6HxmWA
.


Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Sat Apr 07, 2018 2:03 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Added PS)

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 936
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by Cr6 on Sat Apr 07, 2018 2:25 pm

You are correct. It should start with Chinese spinning plates - or else a lot of broken dishes and head gashes result. I like the idea of traveling to Brazil.

Strangely enough though, De Aquino wasn't too far off from this early experiment which helped give birth to Quantum Physics.  I was looking for if Miles discussed this one specifically but couldn't find anything. He talks about this though in this classic:

The COMPTON EFFECT, DUALITY
and the Klein-Nishina Formula

by Miles Mathis
http://milesmathis.com/comp.html

....

Franck–Hertz experiment



Graph. The vertical axis is labelled "current", and ranges from 0 to 300 in arbitrary units. The horizontal axis is labelled "voltage", and ranges from 0 to 15 volts.
Anode current (arbitrary units) versus grid voltage (relative to the cathode). This graph is based on the original 1914 paper by Franck and Hertz.

In 1914, Franck teamed up with Hertz to perform an experiment to investigate fluorescence. They designed a vacuum tube for studying energetic electrons that flew through a thin vapour of mercury atoms. They discovered that when an electron collided with a mercury atom it could lose only a specific quantity (4.9 electron volts) of its kinetic energy before flying away. A faster electron does not decelerate completely after a collision, but loses precisely the same amount of its kinetic energy. Slower electrons just bounce off mercury atoms without losing any significant speed or kinetic energy.

These experimental results provided confirmation of Albert Einstein's photoelectric effect and Planck's relation (E = fh) linking energy (E) and frequency (f) arising from quantisation of energy with Planck's constant (h). But they also provided evidence supporting the model of the atom that had been proposed the previous year by Niels Bohr. Its key feature was that an electron inside an atom occupies one of the atom's "quantum energy levels". Before a collision, an electron inside the mercury atom occupies its lowest available energy level. After the collision, the electron inside occupies a higher energy level with 4.9 electron volts (eV) more energy. This means that the electron is more loosely bound to the mercury atom. There were no intermediate levels or possibilities.

In a second paper presented in May 1914, Franck and Hertz reported on the light emission by the mercury atoms that had absorbed energy from collisions. They showed that the wavelength of this ultraviolet light corresponded exactly to the 4.9 eV of energy that the flying electron had lost. The relationship of energy and wavelength had also been predicted by Bohr.[14][17] Franck and Hertz completed their last paper together in December 1918. In it, they reconciled the discrepancies between their results and Bohr's theory, which they now acknowledged.[18][19] In his Nobel lecture, Franck admitted that it was "completely incomprehensible that we had failed to recognise the fundamental significance of Bohr’s theory, so much so, that we never even mentioned it once".[20] On 10 December 1926, Franck and Hertz were awarded the 1925 Nobel Prize in Physics "for their discovery of the laws governing the impact of an electron upon an atom.".[1]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franck%E2%80%93Hertz_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Franck

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 1069
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:37 pm

.
Ok Cr6, with respect to flying saucers I suppose we might as well consider Fran De Aquino’s mainstream rejected ideas.

Gravity Control by means of Electromagnetic Field through Gas or Plasma at Ultra-Low Pressure
http://www.rexresearch.com/aquino/aquinog.pdf by Fran De Aquino
Cover paragraph:
It is shown that the gravity acceleration just above a chamber filled with gas or plasma at ultra-low pressure can be strongly reduced by applying an Extra Low-Frequency (ELF) electromagnetic field across the gas or the plasma. This Gravitational Shielding Effect is related to recent discovery of quantum correlation between gravitational mass and inertial mass. According to the theory samples hung above the gas or the plasma should exhibit a weight decrease when the frequency of the electromagnetic field is decreased or when the intensity of the electromagnetic field is increased. This Gravitational Shielding Effect is unprecedented in the literature and can not be understood in the framework of the General Relativity. From the technical point of view, there are several applications for this discovery; possibly it will change the paradigms of energy generation, transportation and telecommunications.

I'll answer each sentence individually.

1. It is shown that the gravity acceleration just above a chamber filled with gas or plasma at ultra-low pressure can be strongly reduced by applying an Extra Low-Frequency (ELF) electromagnetic field across the gas or the plasma.
Aquino states that gravity can be blocked by an ELF EMF field; unfortunately, we know that cannot be correct. Gravity is a function of mass radius alone and it cannot be blocked by photons. You could say he may be confusing a charge field effect with gravity, can we interpret his idea in a more charge favorable light? I think you'd be correct. Aquino is introducing an ELF EMF field between an object and the Earth; according to my understanding of the unified field theory, if there’s an increase in photons between an object and the Earth, the object should appear to weigh less.  

2. This Gravitational Shielding Effect is related to recent discovery of quantum correlation between gravitational mass and inertial mass.
There may be a quantum correlation between gravitational mass and inertial mass, but it’s clear that mainstream science hasn’t properly identified it. Miles has explained how mass is divisible by density and volume, charge and gravity are ‘correlated’ by G. Gravitational mass and inertial mass are not correlated with respect to the charge field since inertial mass is not equivalent to charge.

3. According to the theory samples hung above the gas or the plasma should exhibit a weight decrease when the frequency of the electromagnetic field is decreased or when the intensity of the electromagnetic field is increased.
Which theory? Given that the ELF EMF field adds photons to the field of photons already emitted by the Earth, the closer the object is to the ELF EMF source, the greater the charge repulsion it will receive, and the greater the measured weight reduction. Measured weight = true weight – charge repulsion (of the Earth plus that of ELF EMF field). The measured weight may indeed change as the ELF EMF frequency or intensity changes, I assume there are test results that agree with what he is saying.   
The closer the samples are hung above the ELF EMF field, the greater the repulsion, the greater the energy received (1/r^3 (?)). If the samples are too high, the weight reduction observed will diminish. As in our answers in the thread, Can someone explain the following paragraphs regarding the pyramid article?
 

4. This Gravitational Shielding Effect is unprecedented in the literature and can not be understood in the framework of the General Relativity.
According to the unified field interpretation I’ve described above, gravitational shielding is a misnomer. The ELF EMF supplements Earth’s charge repulsion of the object and so I might call it a “Charge Lift Effect”. At the top of this thread, I talked about rotational velocity as a way to increase Charge Lift, apparently Charge Lift may also occur through introducing an ELF EMF.

5. From the technical point of view, there are several applications for this discovery; possibly it will change the paradigms of energy generation, transportation and telecommunications.

Fran De Aquino is a bigger thinker than I am, even when working from a bad theory. I wonder what he might think of this charge field interpretation? I’m certain things will change, but not as he may envision it. We’re here to get a better idea what’s next.

I only looked at part of this one paper, but I'm pleasantly surprised to find that it was easy to explain Fran De Aquino's work using the unified charge field theory. I agree that his work deserves further review.

.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 936
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Mon Apr 09, 2018 10:06 pm

.
Continuing my previous post, reinterpreting Fran De Aquino’s statements according to my understanding of the unified charge field theory. This time, I cover the INTRODUCTION and a diagram or two.

Gravity Control by means of Electromagnetic Field through Gas or Plasma at Ultra-Low Pressure
http://www.rexresearch.com/aquino/aquinog.pdf
by Fran De Aquino

I. INTRODUCTION

It will be shown that the local gravity acceleration can be controlled by means of a device called Gravity Control Cell (GCC) which is basically a recipient filled with gas or plasma where is applied an electromagnetic field. According to the theory samples hung above the gas or plasma should exhibit a weight decrease when the frequency of the electromagnetic field is decreased or when the intensity of the electromagnetic field is increased.

You may recall, controlling gravity is a completely erroneous notion – you’d have to control the object’s size in order to control the object’s gravity. We can however, add charge. Weight is a measurement with respect to the Earth. Sample objects are weighed in the Earth’s charge and gravity fields. One must subtract the Earth’s charge field to determine the Earth’s true gravitational acceleration or the object’s ‘true’ weight. The GCC devices emit a charge field. The measured weight reduction will be due to increased charge repulsion the sample object feels from from below, from both the GCC and the Earth.
The electrical conductivity and the density of the gas or plasma are also highly relevant in this process.
Agreed. Gas or plasma is necessary (I’d argue a solid shell may work better). We’d want as many charge particle sources recycling charge as actively as possible in order to maximize the GCC charge emissions felt by the sample objects above. Aquino has taken an added step of adding smoke detector type radioactive alpha particle emitters to the GCC gas or plasma in order to ensure maximum ionization of the enclosed gas or plasma.

Charge emissions are usually equatorial, or horizontal, with minimum emissions vertically upwards, yet the solution here would benefit from maximum emissions vertically upward. Has Aquino redirected charge in any fashion? The orthogonal ELF frequency emitters may answer that.
With a GCC it is possible to convert the gravitational energy into rotational mechanical energy by means of the Gravitational Motor.
Hold on, a Gravitational Motor is crazy talk, the GCC must be a charge emitter. Rotational mechanical energy sounds interesting but this is the first mention I’ve seen; pardon my interruption, I’ve included the motor diagram below.
In addition, a new concept of spacecraft (the Gravitational Spacecraft) and aerospace flight is presented here based on the possibility of gravity control. We will also see that the gravity control will be very important to Telecommunication.
Aerospace or spaceflight? I can almost imagine being the silver surfer with charge emitting surfboard, although the problem may be closer to me trying to lift me and the chair I’m sitting on.

//////////////////////////////////////



Examining a sample object’s weight above a horizontally mounted fluorescent lamp, what a great idea. It seems like the scale location might be some cause for concern. Are the data results as dramatic as shown?



From Fig 9 – The Gravitational Motor. We see a massive rotor mounted with a horizontal spin axis perpendicular to the Earth’s emission field and gravity. We are looking “down the shaft”. GCC units are mounted to one side. Evidently the massive rotor is expected to rotate due to the imbalance in gravity felt between the GCC and non GCC sides of the massive rotor.

As far as I can tell, the Gravitational Motor won’t work. It is impossible to block gravity or to expect that a gravity differential could rotate a massive rotor. The GCCs are emitting charge fields. I do not believe the two GCCs could turn the rotor like a paddlewheel. Or rather, I suppose they could if they worked together in a coherent enough manner to cause a net charge flow. The motor would turn, but it probably requires energy to turn it.  

Where is the data? I like the modified scale at the end of the paper.

I’m beginning to see most of Aquino’s ideas involve the false idea that gravity can be blocked.

Well Cr6, it took a while but I finally got the Brazil, cheap smoke-detectors and Mercury fluorescent lamps reference. I miss the whiskey sometimes. I don’t think we need to look closely at the math. Is there a specific idea you wanted to discuss? Have you ever seen any of Aquino’s ideas work? Is http://milesmathis.com/comp.html a clue? Thanks.

//////////////////////////////////////

Where your Flying Saucer sightings are always welcome.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 936
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by Cr6 on Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:46 pm

I don't want to detract too much from Mathis' paper:  
http://milesmathis.com/lift.pdf
It is a good one.

I think you have definitely debunked the GCC.  I would be concerned about the garage roof blowing off if the GCC was really for real. affraid .  The "initial mass" is what the whole thing was held on and it shows a lot of imagination but the experiment looks simple and should have cited results...but it looks like a big "nothing" type claim. But if he did it for real and saw real results then I'm leaning towards a better Charge Field explanation rather than his baked formulas. I lean heavily towards the "nothing" side but I haven't done the experiment, or seen definitive results, so I can't really say at this point.   Your explanation LTAM was very clear and useful. Thank you for putting things in their place.

I would say though that RF waves can apparently produce certain superconducting effects in certain materials.  I'm going to back out and let this post take its course concerning the "lift" paper.

Here are more claims. It includes "space-time" which immediately means that it can be shot-down where it stands.

January 11, 2016 Sparkonit Technology
Artificial Gravity Can Be Created Using Superconducting Electromagnets

In space, artificial gravity can be practically achieved by spinning a spacecraft or space station. The rotational motion produced as a result of spinning generates a force known as the centrifugal force and this can be used to simulate gravity in space; and creating an artificial gravity on Earth, although maybe possibly achieved, remains just a theory. However, a physicist André Füzfa of Namur University in Belgium has just proposed that artificial gravity can be created, controlled and detected at will using superconducting electromagnets.

At present condition, Füzfa and his team could only observe and study existing gravitational fields produced by large inertial masses, such as stars or the Earth, and they could do nothing to manipulate them even with the magnetic fields used. Füzfa expressed his frustration at this passive studies of gravitational fields and his frustration led him to come up with a revolutionary approach in which gravitational fields can be created at will from well-controlled magnetic fields and observed how these magnetic fields could bend space-time, according to news release.

https://sparkonit.com/2016/01/11/artificial-gravity-created-using-superconducting-electromagnets/

Effects occur at higher RFs than ELF/VLF all in cold cavities -- there are related Charge Field effects here apparently:
...
The amount of loss in an SRF resonant cavity is so minute that it is often explained with the following comparison: Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) was one of the first investigators of pendulous motion, a simple form of mechanical resonance. Had Galileo experimented with a 1 Hz resonator with a quality factor Q typical of today's SRF cavities and left it swinging in a sepulchered lab since the early 17th century, that pendulum would still be swinging today with about half of its original amplitude.

The most common application of superconducting RF is in particle accelerators. Accelerators typically use resonant RF cavities formed from or coated with superconducting materials. Electromagnetic fields are excited in the cavity by coupling in an RF source with an antenna. When the RF frequency fed by the antenna is the same as that of a cavity mode, the resonant fields build to high amplitudes. Charged particles passing through apertures in the cavity are then accelerated by the electric fields and deflected by the magnetic fields. The resonant frequency driven in SRF cavities typically ranges from 200 MHz to 3 GHz, depending on the particle species to be accelerated.

The most common fabrication technology for such SRF cavities is to form thin walled (1–3 mm) shell components from high purity niobium sheets by stamping.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_RF (Radio Frequencies...higher than ELF/VLF though...but all one needs is the right vibration... )
....
The Earth's nominal magnetic flux of 0.5 gauss (50 µT) translates to a magnetic field of 0.5 Oe (40 A/m) and would produce a residual surface resistance in a superconductor that is orders of magnitude greater than the BCS resistance, rendering the superconductor too lossy for practical use. For this reason, superconducting cavities are surrounded by magnetic shielding to reduce the field permeating the cavity to typically <10 mOe (0.8 A/m).
...
Some Gravimeter stuff:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimeter

Gravimeters display their measurements in units of gals (cm/s2), nanometers per second squared, and parts per million, parts per billion, or parts per trillion of the average vertical acceleration with respect to the earth. Some newer units are pm/s2 (picometers per second squared), fm/s2 (femto), am/s2 (atto) for very sensitive instruments.

Gravimeters are used for petroleum and mineral prospecting, seismology, geodesy, geophysical surveys and other geophysical research, and for metrology. Their fundamental purpose is to map the gravity field in space and time.

Most current work is earth-based, with a few satellites around earth, but gravimeters are also applicable to the moon, sun, planets, asteroids, stars, galaxies and other bodies. Gravitational wave experiments monitor the changes with time in the gravitational potential itself, rather than the gradient of the potential which the gravimeter is tracking. This distinction is somewhat arbitrary. The subsystems of the gravitational radiation experiments are very sensitive to changes in the gradient of the potential. The local gravity signals on earth that interfere with gravitational wave experiments are disparagingly referred to as "Newtonian noise", since Newtonian gravity calculations are sufficient to characterize many of the local (earth-based) signals.
...
The current standard for sensitive gravimeters are the superconducting gravimeters, which operate by suspending a superconducting niobium sphere in an extremely stable magnetic field; the current required to generate the magnetic field that suspends the niobium sphere is proportional to the strength of the Earth's gravitational acceleration.[4] The superconducting gravimeter achieves sensitivities of 10−11ms−2 (one nanogal), approximately one trillionth (10−12) of the Earth surface gravity. In a demonstration of the sensitivity of the superconducting gravimeter, Virtanen (2006),[5] describes how an instrument at Metsähovi, Finland, detected the gradual increase in surface gravity as workmen cleared snow from its laboratory roof. (FINLAND??? I need to ticket to Brazil ASAP!  drunken )


Last edited by Cr6 on Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:05 am; edited 1 time in total

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 1069
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by Jared Magneson on Tue Apr 10, 2018 12:57 am

The problem with spinning disks is that they're not moving laterally - they're just spinning. They are receiving exactly the same upwards charge as if they were still. Spin doesn't increase rising charge over any given Δt.

With helicopter blades, they are much lighter than a full disc of the same material would ever be, and therefore much easier for the motor to spin. They have lateral movement, and thus encounter "new" upwards charge the faster they spin. This means that they are experiencing much more "lift charge" over any given Δt.

So the saucer/lift thing is a non-starter for me. I can't see any reason a disc would generate lift simply by spinning in place.

With the plates, we have centrifugal motion helping to balance the plate out, but not inducing lift itself. It's a different mechanism.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 437
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by Ciaolo on Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:26 am

I must disagree, if the disc is large enough and it has a hollow (or lighter) center, it could work.

Ciaolo

Posts : 133
Join date : 2016-09-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by Jared Magneson on Wed Apr 11, 2018 2:46 am

How does applying spin to the disc expose it to more upward charge than it's already feeling?

Jared Magneson

Posts : 437
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:46 am

.
Jared wrote. The problem with spinning disks is that they're not moving laterally - they're just spinning. They are receiving exactly the same upwards charge as if they were still. Spin doesn't increase rising charge over any given Δt. … How does applying spin to the disc expose it to more upward charge than it's already feeling?

Airman. I disagree. Lay a disc on the table. All the atomic matter of which the disc is comprised receives constant photon emissions from the Earth. However, when you compare the number of Earth’s emission photons that actually strike the disc versus the number of emission photons that pass through the disc without collision, we find that that number of collisions each dt is extremely small, the disc is virtually transparent to photons. To the individual photons the disc isn’t a solid, it’s more like a huge open chicken wire atomic structure, more empty space than 'solid matter'.

Spinning the disc introduces a velocity perpendicular to the emission field, directly increasing the number of collisions the disc will feel each dt, which is still a tiny number of the photons passing through the disc without contact. The increased emissions felt by the disc will be a function of the disc radius, with the least charge increase at the spinning disc's center, and the greatest charge increase at the spinning disc's rim.

The problem is that the emission field felt by the disc is roughly a thousandth the strength of gravity. I suppose it would take several thousands of rotations each second in order to match the force of gravity here on Earth.  
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 936
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by Jared Magneson on Wed Apr 11, 2018 12:55 pm

So by spinning the disc, it has the propensity to feel more charge per time interval than is already coming up?

You say:
Airman wrote:...we find that that number of collisions each dt is extremely small, the disc is virtually transparent to photons. To the individual photons the disc isn’t a solid, it’s more like a huge open chicken wire atomic structure, more empty space than 'solid matter'.

But that is not what we actually find. The disc isn't transparent to charge, since it's A) not transparent to visible light (one would assume it's not made of glass) and B) it's not acting as a perfect conduit either. Infrared photons aren't passing right through this solid matter any more than any other natural wavelength. If you shine a flashlight under a metal or wood disc, for example, you cannot see the light through the disc. That's hardly a chicken-wire density, since the amount of photons making it through is zero. Almost the same with heat. There will be some transfer through the medium, causing it to heat up of course, but that's not the same as the infrared photons passing right through without a collision. If that were the case, the disc wouldn't heat up measurably at all. The temperature above and below the disc would be identical and the temperature of the disc would be lower, but that's not how heat flows through solid objects at all...

...thus, cooking. If a metal frying pan were chicken-wire transparent to heat, the pan wouldn't be hot at all, only the area above it. But that's not what we find in any hot frying pan, you see. The pan is also hot, in fact more hot than the air above it by far. The photons have been trapped briefly, due to collisions.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 437
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:12 pm

.
Granted, visible light doesn’t penetrate atomic matter. Miles has described an Earth emission field that opposes gravity 0.1%. What is it composed of? If just those few ounces of matter equivalence (I’m not exactly svelt) were constantly being emitted as visible light photons at the Earth’s surface, I believe the Earth would quickly blind and roast us, that’s not what we see.

Grab your IR goggles, placing a large coin from my pocket onto a cold concrete slab in the middle of the night. The coin is much brighter than the surrounding concrete surface, after a while it dims, becoming almost indistinguishable from the surrounding slab, coming into heat equilibrium with its surroundings. Heat reflects an ambient matter charge recycling rate energy level, a function of the emission photons that do happen to collide with the local atomic structures. Heat is a measure of the photon collision rate, not a measure of the photons that pass through the matter without collision. You seem to suggest the emission field can be blocked by most anything.

So then, what is the 0.1% emission field? I believe the chicken-wire explanation I’ve described above applies perfectly well to the B-photons that do easily penetrate atomic matter.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 936
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Apr 11, 2018 5:22 pm

.
As Cr6 suggested,

I looked at 'Anti-gravity' device gives science a lift By Robert Matthews and Ian Sample.
Retrieved from the WayBacMmachine by Admin (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2016 (MST) from https://web.archive.org/web/20050314023910/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1996/09/01/ngrav01.html


SCIENTISTS in Finland are about to reveal details of the world's first anti-gravity device. Measuring about 12in across, the device is said to reduce significantly the weight of anything suspended over it.

I also looked for but didn’t find any confirmation of the expected results.

Does anyone know what happened?

Oh, and when did Tesla invent Flying Saucers?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haurcUcDiiA
Nikola Tesla's Antigravity UFO:What happened his greatest Invention
The Cosmos News
Published on Apr 18, 2015
Over a hundred years ago, during the first decade of the twentieth century, Tesla filed a request to patent a peculiar aircraft, which he called “the world’s first flying saucer,” the worlds first manmade UFO.

///////////////////////////////////////////

Uncovered: Tesla’s Patent For World’s 1st “Flying Saucer”
April 20, 2015
http://yournewswire.com/uncovered-teslas-patent-for-worlds-1st-flying-saucer/

///////////////////////////////////////////

Nikola Tesla’s Flying Saucer: Electromagnetic Field Lift Experiments.
[url= http://humansarefree.com/2015/05/nikola-teslas-flying-saucer.html]http://humansarefree.com/2015/05/nikola-teslas-flying-saucer.html[/url]
Nikola Tesla, inventor of alternating current motors, did the basic research for constructing electromagnetic field lift-and-drive aircraft/space craft. From 1891 to 1893, he gave a set of lectures and demonstrations to groups of electrical engineers.




The hull is best made double, of thin, machinable, slightly flexible ceramic. This becomes a good electrical insulator, has no fire danger, resists any damaging effects of severe heat and cold, and has the hardness of armor, besides being easy for magnetic fields to pass through.



///////////////////////////////////////////

Nikola Tesla Invented “The World’s First Flying Saucer” – Did Aliens Help? [Video]

///////////////////////////////////////////

I hadn’t heard about Tesla, Flying Saucers and aliens. I’m afraid I’ve gone a little mad.

Nevyn, Jared, I believe you’ve both studied Tesla, is this stuff for real?
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 936
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by Jared Magneson on Wed Apr 11, 2018 6:20 pm

LongtimeAirman wrote:.
Granted, visible light doesn’t penetrate atomic matter. Miles has described an Earth emission field that opposes gravity 0.1%. What is it composed of? If just those few ounces of matter equivalence (I’m not exactly svelt) were constantly being emitted as visible light photons at the Earth’s surface, I believe the Earth would quickly blind and roast us, that’s not what we see.

Grab your IR goggles, placing a large coin from my pocket onto a cold concrete slab in the middle of the night. The coin is much brighter than the surrounding concrete surface, after a while it dims, becoming almost indistinguishable from the surrounding slab, coming into heat equilibrium with its surroundings. Heat reflects an ambient matter charge recycling rate energy level, a function of the emission photons that do happen to collide with the local atomic structures. Heat is a measure of the photon collision rate, not a measure of the photons that pass through the matter without collision. You seem to suggest the emission field can be blocked by most anything.

So then, what is the 0.1% emission field? I believe the chicken-wire explanation I’ve described above applies perfectly well to the B-photons that do easily penetrate atomic matter.
.

I tend to use ambient charge as "all photons in the nearby field", be they infrared or visible or whatever wavelength is around. Visible light has energy as well. There's a lot less of it often, but it's there.

But even infrared light, the average charge, also doesn't necessarily dodge atomic matter, as you inadvertently admitted in your adage. The coin is brighter because it was warmer in your pocket (pocket-temperature), and then it balanced with the ambient field as the ambient field blows out all the pocket-field photons. On their own, they have no propensity or "reason" to go up. It's the ambient charge that pushes them up, through direct collisions. Thus, the ambient charge is not just penetrating the coin, but replacing it (tamping down) with the charge you had filled it with, in-pocket.

But that's not to the point. The coin still experiences the same amount of up-charge whether still or spinning, as far as I can tell. Have you tried IR-viewing the coin while spinning it? That would be the relevant experiment to fit your adage. If it's colliding with more charge while being spun, it should appear hotter, by your theory. The faster you spin it, the hotter it should become?

Jared Magneson

Posts : 437
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Apr 11, 2018 6:58 pm

.
All matter is constantly bombarded with emission B-photons, a ridiculously small number of the emission photons passing through the object will actually hit it. Those that do will largely determine the object's temperature; however the great majority of B-photons will pass through the matter as if it were a vapor. Spinning the disc (with vertical spin axis) will allow the disc to intercept a greater amount of the B-photon charge which is passing through it.

I've asked twice already, please define the 0.1% of gravity strength Earth's charge field emissions. What is it's composition? How can a coin block Earth's emissions or be the source of that emission over it's surface area?
.


Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:00 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Added "Spinning the disc ... ." sentence)

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 936
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by Nevyn on Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:33 pm

With respect to the Tesla and Flying Saucers, I think that is just him playing with ideas. I take it as extrapolation of his experiments in electromagnetism. No more, no less. You can often find Tesla playing with ideas in this way and some people like to take them as real devices or to read more into it than is really there. Same thing with the Death Ray stuff. He might have been able to get something working but that is not the same as actually having a real device.

Another perspective is that it is just marketing hype. Tesla needed investors and to get them he had to excite them. Or it may have just been the same sort of 'journalists' that we have today. They don't really understand such a man and his ideas but they write about it anyway. Often mixing popular culture with science to get more readers.

There's plenty of exciting stuff in his actual work, so I don't feel the need to go into these sorts of claims. In my opinion they only detract from such a great body of work. I often feel the same way about Miles conspiracy stuff. He may be right about some of it, but it still provides an excuse to write-off his physics work. Let's face it, the mainstream don't need much reason to do that as it is. When someone wants to ignore something, then any excuse will do.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1231
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by Jared Magneson on Thu Apr 12, 2018 12:30 am

LongtimeAirman wrote:.
All matter is constantly bombarded with emission B-photons, a ridiculously small number of the emission photons passing through the object will actually hit it. Those that do will largely determine the object's temperature; however the great majority of B-photons will pass through the matter as if it were a vapor. Spinning the disc (with vertical spin axis) will allow the disc to intercept a greater amount of the B-photon charge which is passing through it.

I've asked twice already, please define the 0.1% of gravity strength Earth's charge field emissions. What is it's composition? How can a coin block Earth's emissions or be the source of that emission over it's surface area?
.

I agree that most charge doesn't immediately collide, but to use the example of the Earth vs the Sun, we have a great amount of direct and indirect collision. Direct collision would be the sunlight you feel during the day. Indirect collisions would be the main charge channels, coming in at the poles. More charge is coming in at the poles, bouncing around in the planet, and then re-emitting as the Earth's charge than not, it seems to me. Most indirect charge doesn't pass straight through to the opposite pole and out, that I'm aware of. The poles would be much warmer.

Most direct charge (insolation) also produces collision, since not only can we feel it quite readily (imagine your skin on a sunny day, warming up) but if it WERE able to penetrate the planet very readily, the far side of the planet (where it's night) should demonstrate a similar warmth as the near side. If most of the insolation is penetrating with no collision, wouldn't the night side of the Earth be emitting more charge than the day side? It would be emitting the Earth's charge PLUS insolation. That's not what we see at night.

But back to the spinning disc, spinning it faster doesn't necessarily mean it will receive more NET or total charge per interval, because a given atom or molecule can only receive the upcoming charge photons that strike it and still achieve lift. It can't be in more than one place at once, and if it's not in one place it can't receive charge from there. If an atom collides sideways with an upcoming photon dead-on at 90° for example, it won't necessarily gain any "up vector". It will blast the photon out sideways and keep on spinning, simply due to the greater inertia pushing it. No lift can be generated by a lateral pressure, you see.

It's different with a helicopter because you have the thin blades increasing their surface coverage per interval as they speed up - but with a disc there's no difference in surface coverage, since it's an entire disc already. The other reason is air pressure itself, which a disc cannot take into account since it has no gaps. A helicopter is pulling itself up into the air much like a fan sucks air and pushes it, and charge isn't the only lift mechanism involved. If you set a box fan down on the floor with no support and crank it all the way up, it blows itself over. That's not lift being generated from charge, it's fluid dynamics in a push/pull. A disc or saucer cannot perform like this as it has no push/pull mechanism in the thin-fluid atmosphere. It's the same mechanism that gives boats propulsion, for another example. A helicopter is more like a boat than it is a plane, at least until lateral movement is achieved.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 437
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by Jared Magneson on Thu Apr 12, 2018 4:14 am

Well, I must amend my stance on thetopic of collision density. I've been re-reading papers again, and stumbled across this in Miles' Drude-Sommerfield paper:

Miles wrote:But since it was always photons that were making it through and carrying the field energy, they didn't need to go to all that trouble. You don't need these tricks to show how photons pass through the lattice, since photons are around 100 million times smaller than electrons. They dodge the lattice more easily. And since charge photons are also channeling through the nucleus (and electrons aren't), even the photons that don't dodge the lattice also make it through.

So I must recant, that the permeability is not what I thought. Most charge evidently does make it through, most of that unscathed by collisions.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 437
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:42 pm

.
Jared wrote. So I must recant, that the permeability is not what I thought. Most charge evidently does make it through, most of that unscathed by collisions.

Airman. Great, that’s a relief. You must admit you’re pretty fierce at times. How much charge lift a spinning disc (or any object) can acquire is still under debate. Please reconsider your definition of charge lift, I believe the lateral pressure idea is wrong.

Jared wrote. But back to the spinning disc, spinning it faster doesn't necessarily mean it will receive more NET or total charge per interval, because a given atom or molecule can only receive the upcoming charge photons that strike it and still achieve lift. It can't be in more than one place at once, and if it's not in one place it can't receive charge from there. If an atom collides sideways with an upcoming photon dead-on at 90° for example, it won't necessarily gain any "up vector". It will blast the photon out sideways and keep on spinning, simply due to the greater inertia pushing it. No lift can be generated by a lateral pressure, you see.

Miles wrote. The only way to increase the charge lift is to increase the charge, but since the charge is constant in each area during each interval, the only way to increase charge is to go into as many different areas during the same interval as you can. In other words, you have to move fast, and you have to move perpendicular to the field.

Airman. Charge lift is the direct emission field repulsion felt by an object. You’ve mentioned helicopter blades. Miles has described aircraft flight in detail. I would suggest studying Frisbee flying disc aerodynamics. We all know that those examples of lift are primarily determined by the atmosphere. The atmosphere of course, is charge lifted. We can appreciate those particular lift characteristics much better if we also knew the charge lift on any given object.

You guys in the choir, your comments, questions or suggestions are welcome.

.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 936
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by Jared Magneson on Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:56 pm

I think a frisbee is a great example, but it's also moving laterally, which isn't the same thing as our saucer thought-problem.

All we get on helicopters from Mathis is an aside from a reader, in his lift paper:

"2. A helicopter rotor blade can lose up to 30% of its weight in flat pitch mode alone."

So while I believe charge lift is acting on the helicopter to some degree, that degree is stated as 30%. That leaves a helicopter's lift at 70% generated by fluid (fan) dynamics, it would seem to me.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 437
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Thu Apr 12, 2018 5:09 pm

.
Jared wrote. I think a frisbee is a great example, but it's also moving laterally, which isn't the same thing as our saucer thought-problem.

Airman. Lateral motion, or linear velocity, is one of the components that effect the charge lift of any object. There’s no need to exclude linear velocities in our saucer thought-problem. For example, say our saucer rotation rate is fixed, what’s our stall speed?
 
Jared wrote. All we get on helicopters from Mathis is an aside from a reader, in his lift paper:

"2. A helicopter rotor blade can lose up to 30% of its weight in flat pitch mode alone."

So while I believe charge lift is acting on the helicopter to some degree, that degree is stated as 30%. That leaves a helicopter's lift at 70% generated by fluid (fan) dynamics, it would seem to me.
Airman. The November Addendum is full of interesting technical details provided by an expert witness. There are several other helicopter, or applicable to helicopter comments worth mentioning. My favorite is,
1. A three-blade propeller works better than a two-blade propeller. Efficiency goes up as you add blades until you reach 7 blades. 5 blades being the most efficient with the highest cavitation frequency. 4 and 8 having the worst cavitation properties.
Or,
3. A Harrier jump jet needs 32,000 lbs of jet thrust to lift 32,000 lbs. A helicopter can lift 2,000 lbs with a 100 horsepower engine. Such as a Bell 47.
Or,
4. Old WW2 era planes were made out of copper-clad metal because wings made with copper-clad produced the highest lift. Except that is for wooden winged aircraft such as the mosquito aircraft and the Hughes Hercules. Certain tree wood had better lift properties than others based on how much charge they could store.
Or, I’ll just post it.

Addendum, November 2015.

I have to admit that most pilots have not liked this paper.  Reaction in emails was running about 2 to 1 against (which is very high for my papers, which normally run about 8 to 1 in favor), but of course that is because experts don't like to be told they are wrong by outsiders like me. Understandable. However, since none of their comments indicated to me I was wrong—most having little or no content other than anger—I haven't mentioned them.   However, I finally got a comment from an expert with some content, and it was in support  of my charge field here.   He gave me permission to prints his comments, but not his name.  Here they are with only spelling corrections:

In reference to your paper on aerodynamic lift and charge, I have included a few facts most people don’t know about:

1.  A three-blade propeller works better than a two-blade propeller.  Efficiency goes up as you add blades until you reach 7 blades.   5 blades being the most efficient with the highest cavitation frequency.  4 and 8 having the worst cavitation properties.
 
2.  A helicopter rotor blade can lose up to 30% of its weight in flat pitch mode alone.

3.  A Harrier jump jet needs 32,000 lbs of jet thrust to lift 32,000 lbs.  A helicopter can lift 2,000 lbs with a 100 horsepower engine.  Such as a Bell 47.

4. Old WW2 era planes were made out of copper-clad metal because wings made with copper-clad produced the highest lift.  Except that is for wooden winged aircraft such as the mosquito aircraft and the Hughes Hercules.  Certain tree wood had better lift properties than others based on how much charge they could store.

5. The WW2 Horton German flying wing used wood and graphite to increase lift.  It was not for radar or other stealth purposes as claimed.  This is well documented. The English Mosquito used birch and balsawood in layers for charge storage.

6. The German ME-262 jet used "MU-Metal".   It had magnetic shielding properties.  So did the V-2. Germany was the second largest producer of aluminum after the US during WW2.  They had no shortage.  After the war all of the German Mu-metal was recovered by the US and scrapped for reuse. It was later used in the Northrup Flying wing of the late 1940's. All of the flying wings were then scrapped to recover their  MU-metal.  It was later used on the X-15 and some early rocket tests using rotating bodies in order to break up what was then called airframe ground resonance.

7.  In the early days of aircraft HF radio communications 1920-1950, wing noise or airframe noise was a big problem. The velocity of the aircraft determined what frequency the air frame would oscillate at in mid-flight.  Usually between 6 to 12 MHz. The longer the wing the lower the oscillating frequency would be. The wing acted as a self oscillating dipole antenna or an open oscillator.

8.  A spinning gyroscope will lose weight in a gas medium but not in a vacuum due to charge build up.

9.  A below-wing propeller-driven aircraft has more speed, less lift.   An above-wing propeller-driven aircraft has more lift. Where you put the propeller and how big it is makes a difference.

All these facts support my thesis, as you see.  As for wood creating lift, it is not precisely due to charge storage.  It is due to charge blockage, and it takes us back to my paper on charge flow in the xylem  and phloem.  In short, when a tree dies, its channels are closed.  Meaning, the plant is no longer channeling the charge stream, so all charge channels will be locked in the perpendicular position.  In this position, charge that wants to go through the wood will have to take many perpendicular paths, instead of one straight path. Since the charge path is greatly lengthened, we have a temporary blocking of charge, and hence more lift. You could also call this charge storage, but since it is just a lengthened path, the storage is temporary.

The same analysis applies to the various metals he mentions.   He mentions copper and magnetic shielding, but the mechanism for increased lift is not immediately clear.   Copper normally conducts, so it seems it would create straight paths and thereby be bad for lift.  But notice the wings are copper-clad, with only a thin layer of copper on the outside.   In that shape and position, the copper is arrayed perpendicular to the Earth's charge field rising.  The copper will be conducting left to right, say, while the Earth's field is moving up.  So the copper is conducting in x-y, and the charge is rising in z.  So once again the copper is forcing the charge to move in longer paths, which creates blocking.  If the copper achieved enough thickness in z to begin conducting in z, it would indeed interfere with lift.  In fact, any copper-cladding on the sides of the fuselage or on the tail would fit this description, and interfere with lift. The cladding should have been placed only on the wings and perhaps on the top and bottom of the fuselage.  Any other cladding would be counter-productive.  

Graphite is used for the same reason: charge blockage.   Any material that interfered with charge channeling would work as well, and the substance that created the longest path  for rising charge would cause the most lift.  

A spinning gyroscope loses weight because it recycles more charge.  Just like the proton and nucleus and Earth, the gyroscope recycles from pole to equator.  So when it is spinning fast, it pulls charge in most at its south or lower pole, feeding on the Earth's rising charge.  But this charge can't go straight through and out the north pole, since angular momentum is forcing it sideways and out the equator. So again, the gyroscope is effectively blocking the rising charge stream, forcing it out sideways and into longer paths. This is what causes the lift and thereby the weight loss.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 936
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by Cr6 on Fri Apr 13, 2018 1:52 am

Something to look at as well in terms of the copper plating on wooden wings... Ionocraft (aka Lifters):
...
Ionocraft

An ionocraft or ion-propelled aircraft (commonly known as a lifter or hexalifter) is a device that uses an electrical electrohydrodynamic (EHD) phenomenon to produce thrust in the air without requiring any combustion or moving parts.

The term "ionocraft" dates back to the 1960s, an era in which EHD experiments were at their peak. In its basic form, it simply consists of two parallel conductive electrodes, one in the form of a fine wire and another which may be formed out of wire grid, tubes or foil skirts with a smooth round surface. When such an arrangement is powered by high voltage (in the range of a few kilovolts), it produces thrust. The ionocraft forms part of the EHD thruster family, but is a special case in which the ionisation and accelerating stages are combined into a single stage.

The device is a popular science fair project for students.[citation needed] It is also popular among anti-gravity or so-called "electrogravitics" proponents, due to the research of Thomas Townsend Brown, who built these devices in the 1920s and incorrectly believed that he had found a way to modify gravity using electric fields.

The term "lifter" is an accurate description because it is not an anti-gravity device; rather, it produces lift using the same basic principle as a rocket, i.e. from the equal but opposite force upward generated by the driving force downward, specifically by driving the ionized air downward in the case of the ionocraft. Much like a rocket or a jet engine (it can actually be much more thrust efficient than a jet engine[1]), the force that an ionocraft generates is consistently oriented along its own axis, regardless of the surrounding gravitational field. Claims of the device also working in a vacuum have been disproved.[2]

Ionocraft require many safety precautions due to the high voltage required for their operation; nevertheless, a large subculture has grown up around this simple EHD thrusting device and its physics are now known to a much better extent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 1069
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by Cr6 on Fri Apr 13, 2018 1:55 am

Also:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/richardhaberkern/ultrasonic-levitation-machine-learn-the-science-of/

Precautions need to be taken when working with ultrasonic devices powerful enough for levitation. They can produce ear shattering pressure waves beyond the range of human hearing. Limiting long term exposure to the pressure wave or wearing earplugs is recommended. It is because of this high power acoustic radiation that the sound pressure can become strong enough to overcome the pull of earth's gravity. An extremely intense sound is the key to acoustic levitation -- the transducers in many acoustic or ultrasonic levitation systems can produce sounds in excess of 150 decibels (dB). Ordinary conversation is about 60 dB, a loud nightclub is closer to 110 dB and a jet engine can reach sound pressure levels over 120dB. Each 3dB increase represents a doubling of the sound level. While the sound wave pressure is intense, it doesn't travel very far through the air.

This Sonic Levitation Machine produces an ultrasonic wave of 28,000 cycles per second with a wavelength of 12.14286 millimeters. It uses up to 70 watts of power to produce an intense sound wave powerful enough to levitate objects. The good news is that bulk the pressure wave only travels about 300mm-450mm (12-18 inches) from the transducer when in air so you and your pets are perfectly safe around the Sonic Levitation Machine. As extra precaution, be sure to wear ear plugs when you are experimenting with this device for long periods of time.


Cr6
Admin

Posts : 1069
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Fri Apr 13, 2018 6:08 pm

.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft

Thanks for the Lifter post Cr6. I must add to it, please forgive the commentary.
 
Lifters are an excellent demonstration of charge lift and proof of the Earth’s emission field.

My discarded notes included, “I hadn’t read any Fran De Aquino, but I had read about JNL labs - check for progress on the Lifter”. When I’d first read about them, I wasn’t sure if they were real or not; tiny indoor kites made of balsa and aluminum foil floating without wind. How exactly? All I knew was, another mystery that science wasn’t adequately explaining. Of course that was before I learned about the charge field. My update on Lifters includes: the Lifter doesn’t operate in a vacuum; there seems to be a growing worldwide acceptance; the theoretical explanation is ionic thrust.

Here’s the main site, http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm. Also what appears to be a nice defense ministry contractor Lifter study slideshow pdf document. That document includes mention of several other unconventional topics that may be worthy of discussion in their own threads. http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/docs/UnconventionalScience.pdf

Jean-Louis Naudin provides building instructions.  

How to build an HexaLifter for your experiments, http://lifters.online.fr/lifters/hexalifter/index.htm
These two images are from the Hexa Lifter. Jean-Louis Naudin includes several other images as well as technical drawings perfectly suited for a high schooler. The kV voltage supply means adult supervision is required.


Repeating part of the wiki quote Cr6 cited above, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft.
The term "lifter" is an accurate description because it is not an anti-gravity device; rather, it produces lift using the same basic principle as a rocket, i.e. from the equal but opposite force upward generated by the driving force downward, specifically by driving the ionized air downward in the case of the ionocraft. Much like a rocket or a jet engine (it can actually be much more thrust efficient than a jet engine[1]), the force that an ionocraft generates is consistently oriented along its own axis, regardless of the surrounding gravitational field. Claims of the device also working in a vacuum have been disproved.[2]

According to my understanding of the unified field theory, the Lifter is charge lifted by the Earth’s emission field with a necessary assist from the charge lifted atmosphere. The tiny electrified wires, energized strips of aluminum foil, balsa wood and air molecules are somehow blocking Earth’s charge emission. In his Lift paper, Miles explains that blocking is accomplished by interfering or breaking up the natural upward flow of the emission field.

A few of the Addendum notes seem to apply, such as balsa wood and aluminum - MU metal (?). Consider #8.  A spinning gyroscope will lose weight in a gas medium but not in a vacuum due to charge build up. Ok, the Lifter, like gyroscopes, does not lose weight in a vacuum. I recall good old Professor Laithwaite easily swinging his spinning 40lb weight with 3ft shaft over his head *. Charge lift gave him all the help he needed, a rotating spin axis perpendicular to the Earth’s emission field causes a charge build up and weight loss – weight loss is real. Here, an electrified Lifter causes a charge buildup, or charge blockage between itself and the air, thereby neutralizing the Lifter's weight.

30 kV DC is required. The design behaves as a horizontally mounted capacitor. The slideshow includes the Lifter’s electrostatic field profile and other preliminary results. Unfortunately, there’s still an awful lot we don’t know about E/M current flows. How does the energized Lifter oppose the Earth’s or the air molecules’ emissions? How much of the surrounding air is ionized? Does the “capacitor” tend to reverse the Lifter’s un-electrified main N/S channel direction? Does aluminum foil have a predominant main N/S charge channel? In other words, does the sideways mounted foil help? Sorry, too many questions.

Feel free to chime in.

* Gravity affected by rotation on the macro level? Demonstrated by Professor Eric Laithwaite
http://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t207-gravity-affected-by-rotation-on-the-macro-level-demonstrated-by-professor-eric-laithwaite#1323
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 936
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Flying Saucers?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum