Flying Saucers?

.
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.
.

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.   (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

.
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   ).



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

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
.

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

.
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.
.

.
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.
.

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. .  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!   )

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.

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

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

.
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.  
.

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.

.
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.
.

.
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 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?

.
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?
.

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.

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.

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 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.
.

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 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.

.

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

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.

.

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
https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t207-gravity-affected-by-rotation-on-the-macro-level-demonstrated-by-professor-eric-laithwaite#1323
.

This particular finding might be worthy of some experimentation with Lifters/Ionocraft.

The direction of "charge" on graphene can be set...similar to the copper sheeting to quickly focus charge:

https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t123-mathis-on-graphene-any-hints#2150

(snippet)

Graphene Effectively Filters Electrons According to the Direction of Their Spin
December 26, 2013

New research from MIT shows that graphene can effectively filter electrons according to the direction of their spin, something that cannot be done by any conventional electronic system.

Graphene has become an all-purpose wonder material, spurring armies of researchers to explore new possibilities for this two-dimensional lattice of pure carbon. But new research at MIT has found additional potential for the material by uncovering unexpected features that show up under some extreme conditions — features that could render graphene suitable for exotic uses such as quantum computing.

The research is published this week in the journal Nature, in a paper by professors Pablo Jarillo-Herrero and Ray Ashoori, postdocs Andrea Young and Ben Hunt, graduate student Javier Sanchez-Yamaguchi, and three others. Under an extremely powerful magnetic field and at extremely low temperature, the researchers found, graphene can effectively filter electrons according to the direction of their spin, something that cannot be done by any conventional electronic system.

Under typical conditions, sheets of graphene behave as normal conductors: Apply a voltage, and current flows throughout the two-dimensional flake. If you turn on a magnetic field perpendicular to the graphene flake, however, the behavior changes: Current flows only along the edge, while the bulk remains insulating. Moreover, this current flows only in one direction — clockwise or counterclockwise, depending on the orientation of the magnetic field — in a phenomenon known as the quantum Hall effect.

In the new work, the researchers found that if they applied a second powerful magnetic field — this time in the same plane as the graphene flake — the material’s behavior changes yet again: Electrons can move around the conducting edge in either direction, with electrons that have one kind of spin moving clockwise while those with the opposite spin move counterclockwise.
...

From the Period 4 paper..more points from Miles that need to be remembered. I forgot completely his mentioning the Arsenic-Copper-Iron connection that Nevyn pointed out.

Miles Mathis wrote:I have now fielded a good question from a reader. He asks, “Don't you have charge being affected in opposite ways here? When channeled charge passes through the axis level, you say it interferes with conduction. But then you say it 'boosts' charge in Selenium. Isn't interference the opposite of boosting? How can that work?” It works because Selenium isn't conducting. You get conduction with elements like Arsenic and Copper, which have different numbers of protons top and bottom. Or you can get magnetic conduction with elements like Iron, but then you need more protons in the axis than in the carousel. Neither of those things is true of Selenium. Therefore, when the crossing charge meets the main axis charge in Selenium, it can only boost the charge. Some charge gets captured, you see, which acts like a boost. Remember, the interference I was talking about with conduction is actually a capturing of charge as well. But because it is captured by charge that is being conducted through the axis instead of charge being channeled into the carousel level, it ends up lowering the total instead of increasing it. Just think about it: we add an equal amount of charge to the top and bottom inner holes. So the north charge is increased by the same amount as the south charge. But the south charge was twice as strong as the north to start with (because the south has two protons pulling in charge while the north has one). Therefore, after adding equal amounts to both, the north charge is no longer half the south. It is a tiny bit more than half. Which means when they meet, we now get a tiny bit more cancellation. The north charge is a tiny bit stronger than it was, so it cancels a bit more than half of the south charge, giving us less conduction. But since Selenium isn't conducting, it doesn't feel experience this cancellation. It only experiences the boost. When elements have equal numbers of protons north, south and in the carousel level, the axis charge is pulled into the carousel level from the nuclear center, and so it never crosses.

http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf

Cr6, thanks for the help. My atomic understanding needs plenty of work. I’ve just reread the Selenium quote several times. Here’s my takeaway: 1. I believe that when“conduction” is used in this paragraph, it refers primarily to the main N/S charge flow within the atom; 2. Electric conduction occurs when the main N/S charge current through an element is unobstructed and there is an imbalance in the number of top and bottom protons which favors one predominant direction of charge current - such as we would find with Copper; 3. Magnetic conduction occurs when the main N/S charge current is unobstructed and there is an equal number of top and bottom protons - such as we would find with Iron; 4. Obstructed main channel charge flow occurs when protons occupy the hook positions – the locations of the four single protons in the Selenium diagram shown; 5. Charge traffic through the carousal level does not block the main N/S charge current; 6. Atoms capture charge from the field, Selenium hook position cross currents will add some charge to the main N/S charge current. Note. I’m no doubt missing several points and I’d greatly appreciate corrections.

With respect to the Lifter, I believe charge blockage is occurring between atoms sharing charge channels, between the individual air and Lifter atoms. For example, main upward charge channels from the air just below and entering the aluminum are redirected by the 30kV DC energization horizontally to the left or right, or perhaps in or out of the foil.

Cr6 quoted. Under an extremely powerful magnetic field and at extremely low temperature, the researchers found, graphene can effectively filter electrons according to the direction of their spin, something that cannot be done by any conventional electronic system.

I believe this statement completely agrees with our charge field understanding, atoms are either matter or antimatter. Powerful magnetic field at extremely low temperature sounds a bit oxymoronic. It seems researchers are perfectly aware of electron spin and atomic polarity, and are adopting charge field ideas whatever their operating theory happens to be.

Cr6 quoted. Under typical conditions, sheets of graphene behave as normal conductors: Apply a voltage, and current flows throughout the two-dimensional flake. If you turn on a magnetic field perpendicular to the graphene flake, however, the behavior changes: Current flows only along the edge, while the bulk remains insulating. Moreover, this current flows only in one direction — clockwise or counterclockwise, depending on the orientation of the magnetic field — in a phenomenon known as the quantum Hall effect.

That is a perfect example of charge “blockage”, turning the charge thereby adding to the charge’s path length. Under high energetic conditions, with orthogonal magnetic field applied, charge current may be “turned” from vertical to horizontal, along the horizontal edges of the Lifters. A very nice possibility. With the Lifter, there’s no magnetic field. Can Al emit a magnetic field? What kind of current will the 30kV DC generate in the Al?

At this point, I enjoyed and highly recommend the paper, Force on an Asymmetric Capacitor, by Thomas B. Bahder and Chris Fazi, http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/arl_fac/index.html, and found at http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm. The paper provides a good background – cleared for release or disposal. It has definitely added to my awareness.  

From the Introduction:

Biefeld-Brown effect, i.e., when a high voltage (~30 kV) is applied to the electrodes of an asymmetric capacitor, a net force is observed on the capacitor. By asymmetric, we mean that the physical dimensions of the two electrodes are different, i.e., one electrode is large and the other small. According to the classical Biefeld-Brown effect.

The Biefeld-Brown Effect is expressed by the paper’s title - Force on an Asymmetric Capacitor.
The paper includes background of the work done by Thomas Townsend Brown. Brown initially believed he had discovered an electromagnetic control of gravity. Brown had many followers, Fran De Aquino comes to mind. A few technical details.

the largest force on the capacitor is in a direction from the negative (larger) electrode toward the positive (smaller) electrode. … In fact, these experiments indicate that there is a force on the capacitor independent of polarity of applied voltage.

And a fine admittance of the lack of a theoretical explanation.

At the present time, there is no accepted detailed theory to explain this effect, and hence the potential of this effect for applications is unknown.

The authors built their own Lifters to verify the veracity of the device, including an aluminum covered Styrofoam lunch box and straws.

I’ll include a few more excerpts from the paper:

Furthermore, the force on the capacitor always appeared in the direction toward the small electrode—independent of the orientation of the capacitor with respect to the plane of the Earth's surface. The significance of this observation is that the force has nothing to do with the gravitational field of the Earth and nothing to do with the electric potential of the Earth's atmosphere. (There are numerous claims on the Internet that asymmetric capacitors are antigravity devices, or devices that demonstrate that there is an interaction of gravity with electric phenomena, called.)

I’m including the following because rather than saying the effect works in a vacuum or not, it would be good to know precisely when these effects are observed in order to, as they state, determine the effect’s possible usefulness in the future.  

As discussed, the most pressing question is whether the Biefeld-Brown effect occurs in vacuum. It seems that Brown may have tested the effect in vacuum, but not reported it (Appendix B). More recently, there is some preliminary work that tested the effect in vacuum, and claimed that there is some small effect—smaller than the force observed in air; see the second report cited in reference [2]. Further work must be done to understand the effect in detail. A set of experiments must be performed in vacuum, and at various gas pressures, to determine the force versus voltage and current. A careful study must be made of the force as a function of gas species and gas pressure. In order to test the thermodynamic theory presented here, the dielectric properties of the gas must be carefully measured. Obtaining such data will be a big step toward developing a theoretical explanation of the effect. On the theoretical side, a microscopic model of the capacitor (for a given geometry) must be constructed, taking into account the complex physics of ionization of air (or other gas) in the presence of high electric fields. Only by understanding the Biefeld-Brown effect in detail can its potential for applications be evaluated.

Sorry for the prior JNL mistake, it should be jln Labs.

I’ll stop there.
.

Thanks for JLN Labs links...brings back a lot!  

Found a few things related.

https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2017/08/30/New-nano-sized-device-can-lift-165-times-its-weight/6331504120731/
...

http://www.gerbertechnology.com/news/first-unmanned-aerial-vehicle-takes-to-the-skies-during-farnborough-2016/


First Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Takes to the Skies during Farnborough 2016

Thursday, July 14, 2016•Categories: Laser Templating
WATERLOO, Ontario, Canada

Virtek Vision International, a market leader in the field of laser-based manufacturing technologies, announced lift off with the first unmanned aerial vehicle! A pioneering research collaboration between the University of Central Lancashire (UCLan) and The University of Manchester’s National Graphene Institute (NGI) will result in the world’s first public flights of Prospero, the first unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) with graphene constructed wings.  

The flights will take place at Farnborough Air Show 2016 July 15-17, 2016 between 2:00 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. GMT.

Carlos Pinto, sales territory manager for Virtek, said, “We are happy to be in partnership with the UCLan’s Engineering Innovation Centre (EIC) and their partners, demonstrating continuous innovation within aerospace using graphene. We are excited to see where this new material will go in benefiting aerospace carriers for future projects using graphene applications. On behalf of all of Virtek, congratulations on the hard work and progress you have made on this project and delivering innovation to aerospace.”

Virtek maintains a strong partnership with UCLan, continuing to innovate together in creating benefits to the manufacturing process in the aviation industry. Virtek Laser Projectors have the ability to guide a beam of laser light onto a work surface or part with a high degree of accuracy, speed and precision for applications such as composite ply layup, paint masking, placement of components or materials, and assists with assembly processes.

Billy Beggs, UCLan’s engineering innovation manager, said, “Graphene has huge potential for aerospace. It is incredibly strong, yet lightweight and flexible at the same time. Through our partnership with the National Graphene Institute at The University of Manchester, and alongside a number of Lancashire-based SMEs, we aim to develop a route map that enables graphene to play a key role in the future development of the aviation industry.”

Visit UCLan at the North West Aerospace Alliance, (NWAA) booth, Hall 1/B140, and visit with Virtek during Farnborough, Canada Area, Ontario Pavilion, Hall 4 E90.

Continue to connect with us @VirtekVision to hear more about “PROSPERO’s” next adventure. Also check out our new website: www.virtek.ca.

Photos accredited and provided by: University of Central Lancashire (UCLAN)

About Virtek
Virtek is the global leader in laser templating and quality inspection systems, providing exceptional expertise and engineering for manufacturers around the world. The Virtek name has become synonymous with precision, reliability, and innovation.
....

https://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology-news/newsid=38064.php

Posted: Nov 11, 2014
Graphene-toughened composites for next generation aerospace structures

(Nanowerk News) The School of Engineering at Cardiff University and Haydale have announced new research demonstrating significant improvements in mechanical performance including impact resistance in carbon fibre composites.
These results, particularly the increased damage tolerance, could have significant implications for the development of future composite structures, demonstrating the potential in future aircraft design for weight saving and the consequent environmental benefits such as reductions in CO2 emissions.
The research was undertaken by the Cardiff School of Engineering with additional funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework programme under the Clean Sky Joint Technology Initiative. The Clean Sky Initiative is one of the largest existing European research programmes with the aim of accelerating technological advancements in aircraft design and green aviation technology. The project was based on requirements specified by the Centro Italiano Richerche Aerospaziale (CIRA) for developing new composite technologies for Green Regional Aircraft (GRA), and was managed by an integrated team from CIRA, Cardiff School of Engineering and Haydale.

....


Researchers unlock the secrets of dragonfly wings
21 August 2017 | Cordelia Sealy
From left to right: The dragonfly B. contaminata. The black rectangles on the wings show the parts of the wings investigated in this study, the nodus. (Top) SEM image of the nodus of the dragonfly. (Middle) Sketch of the nodus. (Bottom) CLSM image of the nodus. The blue color shows the resilin-dominated part.
From left to right: The dragonfly B. contaminata. The black rectangles on the wings show the parts of the wings investigated in this study, the nodus. (Top) SEM image of the nodus of the dragonfly. (Middle) Sketch of the nodus. (Bottom) CLSM image of the nodus. The blue color shows the resilin-dominated part.

Since humans have attempted to fly, we have tried to mimic the flapping action of birds and insects. Scientists have continued to design bioinspired micro-air vehicles (MAVs) with flapping wings, but there is a gap between the proficiency of even the most novel flying machine and the simplest insect. That gap can only be addressed by a better understanding of exactly how insect wings work.

Researchers from Kiel University in Germany and the Islamic Azad University in Iran believe that their approach can unlock the design principles of the wings of one of nature’s most remarkable aeronauts, the dragonfly [Rajabi et al., Acta Biomaterialia (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2017.07.034].

“Dragonflies are known for their impressive flight performance,” says Hamed Rajabi of Kiel University. “They exhibit several flight styles and maneuvers of which many other insects are not capable.”

Although scientists have theorized about the origin of dragonflies’ superior flight capabilities, the role of each wing component in facilitating flight has remained elusive. Now Rajabi and coworkers are taking a new approach to untangling the structure-property-function of different wing components using a combination of wide-field fluorescence microscopy, confocal laser scanning microscopy, micro-computed tomography, scanning electron microscopy, numerical analysis and mechanical testing.

“Dragonfly wings are complex biological composite structures,” explains Rajabi. “At first glance, they appear to consist of two main structural components: an ultrathin membrane supported by reinforcing hollow veins. But, in more detail, they are a unique combination of further specialized components.”

https://www.materialstoday.com/biomaterials/news/researchers-unlock-the-secrets-of-dragonfly-wings/

...


Wing Manufacture

Many of today’s airplanes are made of carbon-fibre composite, but putting graphene in the carbon-fibre coating made the plane’s wings stronger.  

It has better impact resistance and is lighter and more drag resistant than a comparable with conventional carbon-fibre wings.  The material’s strength means the wings of the plane would need to be coated with only one layer of graphene-infused carbon fibre rather than four or five layers of the conventional composite.  If you can build a stronger aircraft with less material, it’s lighter, and you’ll fly farther.  In tests, a graphene-enhanced skin on the wings improved impact damage, a standard measurement of potential in-flight damage, by at least 60 percent.

Further advantages of graphene’s relatively high electrical conductivity remain to be tested.  Conductivity protects a plane from lightning strikes, and because carbon fibre has low conductivity, current airplane wings usually include a copper mesh that provides this protection.  In theory, this copper mesh could be eliminated if graphene is used in the wing, making the plane even lighter and more fuel efficient.  Graphene’s conductivity also could be used to electrically de-ice a plane, according to a study released in ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces, thus eliminating the equipment costs associated with today’s chemical de-icing technology.

A thin coating of graphene nanoribbons in epoxy developed at Rice University has proven effective at melting ice on a helicopter blade.  The coating by the Rice lab may be an effective real-time de-icer for aircraft, wind turbines, transmission lines and other surfaces exposed to winter weather, according to a new paper in the American Chemical Society journal ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces.

Further reading:

https://phys.org

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161128084523.htm

.
Hi Cr6, I see you've recently posted some new subject matter. I'm still on the Lifter.

Repeating the end of the final quote of my previous post. From - Force on an Asymmetric Capacitor, by Thomas B. Bahder and Chris Fazi, http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/arl_fac/index.html.

On the theoretical side, a microscopic model of the capacitor (for a given geometry) must be constructed, taking into account the complex physics of ionization of air (or other gas) in the presence of high electric fields. Only by understanding the Biefeld-Brown effect in detail can its potential for applications be evaluated.

A challenge! A model must be constructed. Given the charge field, easy, I thought. I had every expectation of using the ideas I’d shared with Cr6; but the first observation from the previous excerpt I’d quoted finally sunk in.

Furthermore, the force on the capacitor always appeared in the direction toward the small electrode—independent of the orientation of the capacitor with respect to the plane of the Earth's surface.

All my thinking up till now has been assuming that the Lifter force has been upward, toward the small electrode, in line with the Earth charge emissions from the Earth directly below. For example, my previous comment, “main upward charge channels from the air just below and entering the aluminum are redirected by the 30kV DC energization horizontally to the left or right, or perhaps in or out of the foil” is wrong. My model needs improvement.
 
Below, I’ve modified the image below to include its source and title.  http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/docs/UnconventionalScience.pdf.

Electrostatic Field around Lifter Electrodes. The electrostatic field around – looking down along - two Lifter electrodes are shown. The wire appears as a circle just below the center of the image, about the size of the period at the end of this sentence. The aluminum foil covers the rounded top and one of the two - right or left - sides of the thin white rectangle below the wire. Both the wire and aluminum foil are perpendicular - in or out - to the image. The energized electrostatic field shown is oriented with respect to the electrodes and is the same regardless of the direction of the Earth - up may be in any direction.

The image is a slice, or cross section, and an easy way to compare the asymmetric surface areas (line lengths in this diagram) of the thin wire and a two sided wide strip and a rounded top surface edge of the aluminum foil. The foil electrode is charged at its highest energy level, 30kV DC, the top red color shown on the energy scale on the right edge of the image. The wire is at the bottom of the energy scale shown. The separation distance between the electrodes has been chosen to avoid arcing - a breakdown of the air, where sparks bridge the gap between the electrodes - at the desired operating voltage. Two of the three sides of a Lifter may be thought of as coming together in the white rectangle, with little to no interference at the Lifter’s 60 degree corners. I believe the lines of constant electrostatic strength, the wide lodes to the right and left are an accurate representation of the extent and degree of ionization present in the air around and between the electrodes.

I was wrong to believe the important boundary was the bottom air/foil interface (bottom edge center zero mark). I now believe, as the image nicely conveys, the important boundary is the foil/air interface between the electrodes, including the electrostatic charge strength of the ionized air to the sides of the energized foil. The foil is emitting a very high B-photon emission rate in sufficient quantity to ionize the air to the various energization levels shown. This is a demonstration of charge path lengthening, it appears most charge is emitted far to the sides of the foil instead of directly toward the wire. There is a relative charge vacuum at the wire. The result is a slow net motion of the electrodes in the direction of the small electrode regardless of the direction of the Earth’s emission field.

Yeah, Nay? I'll move on, but I'd prefer your ideas to help make this Lifter idea agreeable to all of us.
.

Yeah, it seems like (to me, obviously) that the Lifter would work better if the aluminum foil were draped across horizontally it in terms of catching upward charge from the Earth. Very interesting that this works with the foil vertical. I'm curious to try one myself, maybe compared both designs and see if the flat method works at all, or how well. Combining them might be interesting too, but of course there are electrical current considerations.

Really cool stuff.

Yeah LTAM, I can definitely see the Lifter force pushing via the Charge field from the electrodes as you state! Nice perspective on that. Like Jared, It makes me want to build one too and then get some pencil leads and create some graphene with scotch tape.

http://phys.org/news/2010-12-graphene-pencil-sticky-tape-videos.html

.

Jared wrote. Yeah, it seems like (to me, obviously) that the Lifter would work better if the aluminum foil were draped across horizontally it in terms of catching upward charge from the Earth.

Thanks for the “Yeah” Jared. Acknowledging what I’d hoped was a legitimate charge field interpretation for the Lifter. However, your words indicate a misunderstanding I’d be remiss to ignore. I don't want you or Cr6 accidentally hurting yourselves. You can re-vote after I describe: 1) the Lifter; 2) the Lifter and the upward charge of the Earth; and 3) the Lifter and a horizontal aluminum foil electrode - in slightly more detail.


J Naudin agrees with the need for a large horizontal electrode orientation in the image above, although I’m not at all sure which way the small electrode lies (360 Degrees?).

With respect to Lifter, the Earth’s emission field holds up the air and creates the ambient background energy level; beyond that, in my charge field estimation, the Earth’s emission field may be disregarded. The Lifter electrodes emit a strong local electrostatic field that overwhelms Earth’s much weaker emissions; I suppose the Lifter reaches a neutral buoyancy in the air. At which time the asymmetric imbalance of the electrodes and direction of charge emitted by the Lifter allow the demonstration of the Biefeld-Brown effect - a force in the direction of the smaller electrode. The Lifter operates within a given Earth emission field. The Lifter is said to exhibit a force toward the smaller electrode regardless of the direction of the Earth. We do not want to catch additional charge from the Earth, all the effective lift is caused by a local asymmetrical high voltage field.

Modifying the Lifter design to rotate the foil electrode from a vertical to a horizontal orientation directly below the wire will lose the Biefeld-Brown effect. Recall in the electrostatic field image that most of the aluminum foil emissions occur perpendicular to the foil – left or right - away from the foil, at the same time increasing distance away from the small wire electrode above. Rotating the foil 90 degrees would point the foil’s majority perpendicular B-photon emissions directly toward the small wire electrode. The resulting direct charge flow would mean that arcing would be a problem. The electrodes would require a greater separation distance. Most importantly, if charge is not turned or blocked, there’s no charge lift.


http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/liftercraft/index.htm

JNaudin wrote. I am currently in search of sponsors to finance this project.

J. L. Naudin, T. T. Brown, Fran De Aquino, and apparently Tesla too, all believed that gravity could be controlled electromagnetically. That is a false notion, we cannot control gravity. We may, however, control charge in limited ways.

Thanks for the help.
.

This makes sense to me, from a charge perspective, though I'll of course admit to misunderstanding it in my last comment the and Biefeld-Brown effect. I thought it was the Earth's charge contributing to the lift in a similar (but obviously different) way to a helicopter, only "priming the pump" with the electrical input. I'll study it more so as not to sound like a dumbass on the topic - it's a new one to me.

.

http://myfavoritecrafts.com/385249-otc-x1-space-crafts.html

Let’s look at a Flying Saucer I was told makes regular runs to the planets. Going back to the prototype, about 1958 designed by Otis Carr. I've assembled some images. If you know a better source, please share.


http://hello-earth.com/otistcarr/otistcarr.html

Circular Foil Spacecraft
Utron Electrical Accumulator
Using Space itself as the catalyst for the
interchangeable forces of electromagnetism and gravity

http://hello-earth.com/otistcarr/interviewotistcarr15november1958part1.html

The hello-earth site has three recorded interviews with Otis Carr. I haven’t heard them, I’m satisfied with the transcriptions.  

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

Otis Carr – Technical
https://everipedia.org/wiki/otis-carr-technical/

Otis T. Carr has some information in the public domain for anyone who may be technically minded or interested in furthering Carr's research.  As a protégé of Nikola Tesla much of Carr's theory, dynamics and mechanics re gravity / anti-gravity are Tesla-based.

According to Carr:
"Any vehicle accelerated to an axis rotation relative to its attractive inertial mass, immediately becomes activated by free-space-energy and acts as an independent force... We have shown that a charged body, accelerated to an axis rotation relative to this attractive inertial mass, indicates polarity[3] in a given direction.

The dip-needle points, say, up toward the top of the body.  But mount this while rotating body, with its spindle, on another platform and rotate this platform on a spindle, then if the counter-rotation is greater than the inertial forward rotation of the body, a dip-needle on the second platform will point down while the first dip-needle points up, indicating complete relativity of polarity.  When the exact counter-rotation matches the forward rotation the body loses its polarity entirely and immediately becomes activated by free-energy (tensor stresses in space) and acts as an independent force... The above-described assembly of counter-rotating charged masses becomes weightless and will escape the immediate attraction of gravitational forces."

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

I’ll try to give the OTC-X1 a Charge Field assessment.
.

Please help, I want to understand but I’m confused... this looks very important.

Carr wrote:"Any vehicle accelerated to an axis rotation relative to its attractive inertial mass,

by vehicle he means this saucer, right? What is the acctractive inertial mass? How can we say if an axis is relative to it?

immediately becomes activated by free-space-energy and acts as an independent force...

The vehicle acts as a force? What does it mean?

We have shown that a charged body, accelerated to an axis rotation relative to this attractive inertial mass, indicates polarity[3] in a given direction.

By indicates polarity he means we can see the effects of a N/S magnet?

The dip-needle points, say, up toward the top of the body.  But mount this while rotating body, with its spindle, on another platform and rotate this platform on a spindle, then if the counter-rotation is greater than the inertial forward rotation of the body, a dip-needle on the second platform will point down while the first dip-needle points up, indicating complete relativity of polarity.  When the exact counter-rotation matches the forward rotation the body loses its polarity entirely and immediately becomes activated by free-energy (tensor stresses in space) and acts as an independent force... The above-described assembly of counter-rotating charged masses becomes weightless and will escape the immediate attraction of gravitational forces."

The platform has to always be in contact with the body for it to be weightless? If not, this effect could have no need for the rotating platform.

.

… When the exact counter-rotation matches the forward rotation the body loses its polarity entirely and immediately becomes activated by free-energy (tensor stresses in space) and acts as an independent force... The above-described assembly of counter-rotating charged masses becomes weightless and will escape the immediate attraction of gravitational forces..."

Ciaolo wrote. Please help, I want to understand but I’m confused... this looks very important. The platform has to always be in contact with the body for it to be weightless? If not, this effect could have no need for the rotating platform.
Airman. Ciaolo, I must apologize, I’m in a bit of a quandary myself. Armed with Miles’ papers and charge field perspective, I’m absolutely certain we can understand physical problems better than mainstream. Go ahead, point anywhere and I’ll prove it, just find an interesting subject and we’ll give it go. Real physical details are best, Otis T. Carr’s OTC-X1 turned out to be a scam. I don’t know what, if anything, about it is real.

Here a few of the “facts” I’ve learned are claimed about the operational saucer. It required a blue crystal and was driven by mind control. It travels instantly between planets or wherever you would wish it to go. An advanced technology - Utrons - provide power without wires. The operational vehicles were confiscated by the military. The diagrams I’d provided above were said to have been converted to an amusement park ride in order to make it past a Patent Office ban against flying saucer designs. Otis Carr collected a large sum of money from investors for which he was later convicted.

Another good site for OTC-X1 info, http://www.rexresearch.com/carr/1carr.htm

Interview: "Long John" Nebel (WOR Radio, NY) with Otis Carr, et al. (1959) ---
OTC (Otis T. Carr): "Our system utilizes gravity, electromagnetism, and electromotive force and a relative field to get its functional operation. We use an electrified sender. It's a sensor power core. Now this is what we call an accumulator... It is a storage cell, an accumulation of storage cells which provide an electromotive force in the same manner that any known battery produces and electromotive force...

This [the Utron] is a dimensional product. It was designed with the dimensions of space itself. We say it is truly the geometric form of space, because it is completely round and completely square. It has been proven in scientific laboratories that the very smallest unit of mass matter ever photographed in the electron microscope are square in shape... We have applied this principle into an electrified system, which is the power core of our space vehicle. Now what makes this unique and novel from a battery is the fact that this is a piece of moving machinery that rotates. Our average storage battery is an inanimate object set in an inertial spot and then the electromotive force is conducted by wires from this battery to animate some object.

I'm sorry, I cannot take anything he says seriously. If Otis was a con man he could spout jargon with the best of them. I’d be more than happy to examine something of value here, but I’m not seeing it.

The OTC-X1 is a bust.
.

.

Moving on. With respect to rotation as a velocity orthogonal to the Earth’s emission field, you may recall I mentioned discs. I’m afraid Jared’s interest in a charge field lift theory for helicopters may be way too complicated for me to even begin to figure out - discs are much easier to grasp . Can the charge field add to our understanding?

Full disclosure, I love disc. I played Ultimate Frisbee for most days every week for a few years. My specialty was tossing long hang time discs - leading a running target in all kinds of weather. I miss the team. I haven’t watched any sports since ESPN decided not to show a particular Ultimate competition over twenty five years ago.

I grabbed a document describing disc physics from the intertoobs, looks like it could use a charge field review. First I’m posting it in its entirety. Corrections will hopefully follow. With all due respect, please consider,

The Physics of Disc Flight.
Australia Flying Disc Association, Ultimate Australia
https://afda.com/the-physics-of-disc-flight

A flying disc is a little like a cross between a gyroscope and a wing.

A wing works by having the top and bottom sides of different lengths. The air flow moves over the longer surface faster, creating a low pressure region on top of the wing. The higher pressure region underneath the wing tries to move toward the low pressure region, and as a result lifts the wing.

A disc is like a gyroscope in that it uses gyroscopic inertia, the tendency of a gyroscope to keep spinning in the same plane without twisting and turning.

With no spin, a disc is inherently unstable, and with no speed, no lift is generated, so a combination of these factors is needed for a disc to fly. The exact combination varies significantly from disc to disc, since different discs have different "wing" shapes. Combining the wing and the gyroscope also introduces other factors, as the two are not mutually independent.

The most obvious one is a torque on the disc. If the disc is spinning clockwise and moving forward when viewed from the top, then the left side of the disc is moving faster than the right side. There is a corresponding pressure drop over the left side and that side will produce greater lift, and the disc will try to twist clockwise when viewed from behind. As mentioned above, the gyroscopic inertia acts to counter this, and the greater the spin, the higher the inertia.

Spin
There is almost never any reason for not trying to put as much spin as possible on a disc, all other factors being equal. Spin provides stability, so that the disc will continue to fly in the direction it is already flying. A disc that is lacking in spin will tend to "turn over", that is, twist about the axis of flight, and will generally not go as far as one which has more spin. Lack of spin is probably one of the two major problems encountered when trying to throw accurately over any reasonable distance.

One time when too much spin is possible is when throwing some golf discs. Their flight characteristics are such that they have a very narrow window of stability. Too much spin and they can twist one way, and too little spin and they will twist the other. In general, however, too much spin is better countered by other factors in the throw, such as speed and angle of release, rather than by simply spinning the disc less.

Particular discs are termed "overstable", "stable", and "understable" depending on how they to spin and speed. A disc which needs a lot of spin to be stable at a given speed is called "understable", while a disc which needs little spin to be stable at a given speed is called "overstable". "Stable" generally refers to discs which are stable at a wide range of speeds for a given spin.

Most discs can be thrown "understably" or "overstably" by decreasing or increasing the amount of spin put on the disc.

Speed
The speed of a disc is a major (but not the only) factor in determining how far a disc goes and how quickly it gets there. Unlike spin, it is possible to put too much speed on a disc. The stability of a disc changes as it gets faster, and the stable range of the disc is determined both by the shape of the disc and its spin rate. Most discs used for throwing to other people are stable, that is, they fly flat at a range of speeds. Golf discs on the other hand are usually not very stable - they tend to fly flat only for brief periods during their flight. The rest of the time they are banked either one way or the other.

A generally stable disc thrown with too much speed in relation to the spin will act understably. That is, it will turn over. For this reason, hucking the disc requires plenty of spin and speed. Not enough speed results in the throw landing short, while not enough spin results in the throw diving into the ground.

Most inexperienced players find it easier to get more spin on their backhand, and as a result most inexperienced players will huck on their backhand side.

Rotation Angle
The title does a poor job of explaining what this section is about. Apart from amount of spin, the other major factor in lack of accuracy and distance is the difference between the angle of spin of the disc and the angle of the plane of the disc. The disc often wobbles at the start of its flight, and this is the problem. Ideally, the disc should be spinning flat and wobble-free. If the thrower puts spin on the disc at an angle to the flat plane of the disc, it will wobble and lack control.

This is usually most obvious when teaching beginners the air bounce. For an air bounce, the disc is being thrown downwards, and at release the thumb is dragged across the trailing edge of the disc. This results in a slow upward flight. The thrower’s wrist is at a sharp angle to their arm, and beginners often find that getting the arm to move one way while spinning the disc with their wrist in another direction entirely is very difficult.

The end result is a wobbly throw that lacks spin in the right direction, and hence lacks both stability and the ability to get much distance. Similar problems usually result when teaching the high release backhand.

There is often no easy solution. In the case of air bounces and high release backhand the cure is generally practice. The wrist needs time to learn that it can impart spin at a different angle to that of the arm. In the case of normal throws, the thrower may be swinging the disc in a loop instead of straight back and then straight through. The trick may be just to get them moving the disc straight back on the backswing and straight through on the follow through. This is often harder to do than it sounds. Also, it may not be the problem. Plenty of good players use a slightly loopy backswing, but they are able to get their wrist and arm in the right line just before release, usually just through practice.

Attitude (Pitch)
Here we are borrowing a term from aviation to describe one of the angles of release. Pitch refers to how steeply an aircraft is pointed, rotating about an axis through the wings. For a disc, it refers to the angle of release where the front edge of the disc is pointed up or down. Basically the pitch helps determine how far the disc travels, and more importantly, along which path. By keeping the front edge well up the disc will travel well into the air, but will probably stall and float down at the end of the flight. Keeping the front edge down results in a low trajectory, relatively fast flight.

Roll (Bank)
Roll, or bank, refers to the angle of the disc rotated about the direction of travel. This means whether the outside edge of the disc is held up or down. The amount of bank on the disc mainly determines the flight path, and can be used to good effect to throw around players who are between thrower and target. The disc will curve in the direction of the lowest edge of the disc.

Wind
Wind can have a marked effect on all of the five factors mentioned above, depending mostly on which direction it is coming from. An important point to remember is that regardless of how much wind there appears to be, there is no wind at ground level, and there is less wind the closet to the ground you are. This means that to avoid the effects of the wind as much as possible it is a good idea to release and keep throws as close to the ground as practicable.

A headwind increases the apparent air speed of the disc. This means that the amount of spin necessary to keep it stable becomes greater. A headwind also reduces the distance possible, and lifts under discs that are pitched with the leading edge up, sending them into the air.

A tailwind conversely decreases the air speed of the disc, but can increase ground speed. While distance may increase there is a drop in lift, which means that the disc needs to be thrown at a higher angle of attack to counteract the wind that tends to push the disc into the ground.

Crosswinds have the most effect on banked discs, either by pushing the raised edge up and lifting the disc, or by pushing down on a lowered edge and possibly making the disc dive into the ground. Crosswinds also make it difficult to keep the disc flat on release, and even experienced players may find it difficult to keep the angle of spin in the plane of the disc.
.

.
OTC-X1 note. I ended my review rather abruptly. I'll try to do a better job here. You probably noticed my main interest is in the Utron, the OTC-X1 “power supply”. Not because it is both square and round - and painful for me to hear O.T.C. describing it so - but because it spins. A large utron mounted with a vertical spin axis will suck in Earth’s vertical emissions at its spin axis and turn that charge horizontally outward – thus creating charge lift. In the amusement ride, the central Utron is absent, replaced with a large vertical (expandable (?)) column, along with any lift it might have created. Without further details, such as wiring, the utron looks like a low friction free mounted flywheel.

Then there are the two outer horizontal counter-rotating frames with: 12 each copper coils and iron cores (electromagnets), 6 smaller utrons, 6 large capacitor plates and supporting structure. These rotating structures must also turn upward charge outward and so cause charge lift, although the utrons, capacitors and electromagnets may greatly alter the nature of the overall energized charge field. The Lifter worked because the entire lifter is energized as an asymmetric capacitor; the distributed electromagnetic components in the OTC-X1 would leave the entire structure subject to the Earth’s charge field alone. By the way, I failed to mention that images I linked to showed copper coils being wired in place – granted, a very difficult task - with such poor craftsmanship, I believe the thing could never have “worked”. No surprise if they didn’t make it to the moon, the amusement ride also seems to have been a bust.
   
All I see is a public relations fantasy with no substance. Rational description and substantiated claims are lacking, or I’m missing them. If you know of any significant claims I haven’t mentioned or that I should pay closer attention too, please feel free to share.
 
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Back to Flying Discs. Reviewing The Physics of Disc Flight. Australia Flying Disc Association, Ultimate Australia. https://afda.com/the-physics-of-disc-flight

A flying disc is a little like a cross between a gyroscope and a wing.

I must add. “A disc moves with both a forward velocity, as well as a tangential spin velocity”.

In Billiards, a struck cue ball is given an initial velocity, direction, and spin. Likewise, a flying disc is thrown with initial nose and attack angles, velocity and spin. Like the soft surface of a billiard table slows the cue ball’s motion to just a few cushion rebounds, the air slows the flying disc to just a few tens of meters before it hits the ground.

A wing works by having the top and bottom sides of different lengths. The air flow moves over the longer surface faster, creating a low pressure region on top of the wing. The higher pressure region underneath the wing tries to move toward the low pressure region, and as a result lifts the wing.

In his Lift paper, Miles quickly dispenses with the common belief that unequal top and bottom path lengths cause lift by pointing out there’s no reason for air separated by the wing to rejoin at the same place. I may also point to the fact that one may throw a disc “upside-down” without worrying about unequal path lengths accelerating discs downwards to the earth.

Replace the lined-out above with a portion of Miles’ quote at the top of the thread. (From Lift).

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.

A disc is like a gyroscope in that it uses gyroscopic creates a spin inertia, the tendency of a gyroscope to keep spinning in the same plane without twisting and turning.

Replaced "uses gyroscopic" with "creates a spin".

With no spin, a disc is inherently unstable, and with no speed, no lift is generated, so a combination of these factors is needed for a disc to fly. The exact combination varies significantly from disc to disc, since different discs have different "wing" shapes. Combining the wing and the gyroscope also introduces other factors, as the two are not mutually independent.

Good to know. So, in the case of flying discs, spin is necessary. How much spin would that be? I offer the observation that a disc’s spin is the same as the disc’s roll rate. For example, if I throw the disc low to roll edgewise along the ground, tilted over a bit like a sail, the disc rolls forward at the same velocity and spin rate as another disc flying through the air just above it. The disc need rotate roughly once for each circumference of forward distance traveled.
 
The most obvious one is a torque on the disc. If the disc is spinning clockwise and moving forward when viewed from the top, then the left side of the disc is moving faster than the right side. There is a corresponding pressure drop over charge lift increase felt by the left side and that side will produce greater lift, and the disc will try to twist clockwise when viewed from behind. As mentioned above, the gyroscopic inertia acts to counter this, and the greater the spin, the higher the inertia.

Replaced "pressure drop over" with "charge lift increase felt by".

If spinning can contribute an eighth of the total charge lift a disc received, where is that charge lift felt? In the example given, that would be the left side of the disc which is moving at twice the disc's forward velocity (or ground velocity); the right side of the disc is traveling at zero velocity. Experienced players always release the disc with nose and attack angles specifically allowing for the “torgue” charge rotation. I must admit, finding a charge field basis for the observed “torque” charge rotation (not) is quite satisfying. When the disc is simply spinning on the top of that dude’s finger, all charge lift felt by the spinning disc will be due to rotation alone, and it will be distributed mainly near the disc’s spinning rim.

I do not agree that gyroscopic inertia would counter the so called "torque" charge rotation.

The rest of the document covers technique, I agree with all the remaining comments made in The Physics of Disc Flight.

Your comments are welcome.
.

.
Frisbee Flying Discs - continued.

As Miles states in the Lift paper, the Charge lift felt by an object – say a wing, is determined by the wing’s orthogonal velocity with respect to the earth’s vertical charge emissions. The same definition also applies to Frisbee throwing discs. The disc’s motion is slightly more complicated than a wing’s, in addition to motion forward, the disc is also spinning. For the flying disc, the orthogonal velocity is determined by the sum:

Orthogonal velocity = linear forward velocity + tangential spin velocity.

Consider tangential spin alone, let forward velocity equals zero. Each atom within a spinning disc will travel at different velocities determined by their radial position in the disc. The least tangential spin velocity occurs at the disc’s center and the maximum tangential spin velocity occurs at the spinning disc’s edge. Charge lift due to tangential spin velocity alone occurs primarily near the spinning disc’s edge. Without a finger to rest on, the spinning disc will fall downward, maintaining its vertical spin axis, slower than one gravity, probably due to a stable spin and some air resistance.
 
Now include both linear forward velocity and tangential spin velocity. I’m afraid vector addition is required. I’ll assume that there is one rotation per every circumference of forward distance traveled. In that case, I believe the tangential velocity = the forward velocity = v. Such throws maintain their lifts very well. Given a RHBH (right hand back hand) throw – the disc spins clockwise as it travels forward. Let’s look at the orthogonal velocities of a few of the disc’s locations in detail.

1) 1200, the leading front edge of the disc. The tangential spin velocity at the 1200 position is to the right, orthogonal to the forward velocity yet still orthogonal to the earth’s emission field. The vector sum points in a direction 45 degrees to the right of the forward direction. I believe the magnitude of the resulting orthogonal velocity is given by: Orthogonal velocity = sqrt[forward velocity^2 + tangential velocity^2] = sqrt[2* forward velocity^2 ] = 1.41*forward velocity = 1.41v.

2) 0300, the right edge of the disc. The 0300 position is rotating clockwise, back towards the thrower, opposite to the forward direction. The tangential spin velocity = - forward velocity. Orthogonal velocity = linear forward velocity + tangential spin velocity = forward velocity - forward velocity = 0v.

3) 0600, the disc’s back edge, closest to the thrower. As in the 0000 case, the tangential spin velocity is at right angles to the forward velocity, this time in the opposite direction, to the viewer’s left. As in the 0000 case, I believe that we are concerned with only the magnitude (and not the direction) of the vector addition giving the same magnitude orthogonal velocity. Orthogonal velocity = sqrt[forward velocity^2 + tangential velocity^2] = sqrt[2* forward velocity^2 ] = 1.41*forward velocity = 1.41v.

4) 0900, the left edge of the disc. The 0900 position is traveling at forward velocity plus tangential spin velocity. That edge of the disc is traveling at the highest total velocity and so it will receive the largest share of charge lift. Orthogonal velocity = tangential spin velocity + forward velocity = 2*forward velocity = 2v.

5) Center of disc. Tangential spin velocity = 0. Orthogonal velocity = forward velocity = v.

As I’ve shown above, the least amount of orthogonal velocity, and zero charge lift occurs at 0300; the most charge lift occurs at at 0900. A RHBH throw develops the highest charge lift along its left edge; a well thrown RHBH disc will slowly rotate in a clockwise (when viewed from behind) direction. A well thrown LHBH – left hand back hand - thrown disc will slowly rotate in a counter-clockwise rotation for the same reasons and at the same rate. In my opinion that is true disc behavior, another confirmation of charge theory.

That rule works over the majority of the thrown disc’s path traveled, the disc loses energy and drops before too long. The initially vertical disc spin axis slowly turns CW, at some point, the spin axis will rotate to a sufficiently horizontal direction where the disc may accelerate into the dirt. Each toss involves various choices and skills, beginning with the disc.

To give the reader a flavor of disc performance - pertaining to variations in charge lift generation capacities, what little there may be, I’ll merely point out a typo and suggest a correction in the The Physics of Disc Flight. The third paragraph and final sentence in the Spin section:

Particular discs are termed "overstable", "stable", and "understable" depending on how they to spin how quickly they react to spin and speed. A disc which needs a lot of spin to be stable at a given speed is called "understable", while a disc which needs little spin to be stable at a given speed is called "overstable". "Stable" generally refers to discs which are stable at a wide range of speeds for a given spin.

Most discs can be thrown "understably" or "overstably" by decreasing or increasing the amount of spin put on the disc.

I replaced “how they to spin” with “how quickly they react to spin”. I believe quickly refers to the how quickly the disc rotates CW or CCW in reaction to the uneven charge lift.
.

A paper....my guess is that only after a researcher begins to really tap into charge field effects ... they either go "Skunkworks" or "Tesla" (quiet without publication)... maybe it is the latter for Evgeny Podkletnov if he really found something. Perhaps, this is what is behind the whole "Russia did it conspiracy" along with Russia's new hypersonic missles... stop if this is too physics-politico-imaginative  (lol):

http://www.eurekaselect.com/100222/chapter/study-of-light-interaction-with-gravity-impulses-and-measurements-of-the-speed-of-gravity-impulse

Gravity-Superconductors Interactions: Theory and Experiment

DOI: 10.2174/978160805399511201010169
eISBN: 978-1-60805-399-5, 2012
ISBN: 978-1-60805-400-8
...
Study of Light Interaction with Gravity Impulses and Measurements of the Speed of Gravity Impulses

Pp. 169-182 (14) 06/01/2012

Evgeny Podkletnov and Giovanni Modanese

Abstract

An attempt has been made in this work to study the scattering of laser light by the gravity-like impulse produced in an impulse gravity generator (IGG) and also an experiment has been conducted in order to determine the propagation speed of the gravity impulse. The light attenuation was found to last between 34 and 48 ns and to increase with voltage, up to a maximum of 7% at 2000 kV. The propagation time of the pulse over a distance of 1211 m was measured recording the response of two identical piezoelectric sensors connected to two synchronized rubidium atomic clocks. The delay was 631 ns, corresponding to a propagation speed of 64c. The theoretical analysis of these results is not simple and requires a quantum picture. Different targets (ballistic pendulums, photons, piezoelectric sensors) appear to be affected by the IGG beam in different ways, possibly reacting to components of the beam which propagate with different velocities. Accordingly, the superluminal correlation between the two sensors does not necessarily imply superluminal information transmission. Using the microscopic model for the emission given in Chapter 5, we also have estimated the cross-sectional density of virtual gravitons in the beam and we have shown that their propagation velocity can not be fixed by the emission process. The predicted rate of graviton-photon scattering is consistent with the observed laser attenuation.

Keywords:
Theories of gravitation, superconductors, high-Tc superconductors, type-II superconductors, superluminal quantum correlations, x-shaped waves, graviton-photon scattering, virtual gravitons, piezoelectric sensors, rubidium atomic clocks, gravity-like fields.
Affiliation:
Tampere University, Korkeakoulunkatu 1, FI-33720 Tampere, Finland

....
Update on Podkletnov gravity modification work and rumors
brian wang | May 17, 2014

For nearly two decades Dr. Podkletnov has been researching the link between gravitation and high-temperature superconductors, and just recently published the peer-review results of new experiments he’s conducted to measure the speed of a force-beam projected by a stationary superconducting apparatus he’s developed.

Podkletnov is well-known for his experiments involving YBCO superconductors, which produced a gravity-shielding effect that was investigated by NASA and has been the subject of many peer-review papers. He describes continuing his experiments in this area, and indicates that he has made continuing progress in creating an antigravity effect that partially shields the mass of objects placed above the rotating disks.

Dr. Podkletnov also describes his “force beam generator” experiment in detail, and provides insights into improvements that he’s made over the last decade to increase the force produced by this experimental gravity-beam. The force beam is generated by passing a high-voltage discharge from a Marx-generator through a YBCO emitter suspended in a magnetic field, and Podkletnov has described it as being powerful enough to knock over objects in the lab, as well as capable of being tuned by even punch holes in solid materials.

Podkletnov recently published a peer-review paper on the force beam experiment entitled “Study of Light Interaction with Gravity Impulses and Measurements of the Speed of Gravity Impulses” along with co-author Dr. Giovanni Modanese, and describes the findings of his study, which involved measuring the speed of the force-beam using two separate, but cross-correlated measurement techniques. After careful testing, Podkletnov has found the speed of the antigravity impulse to be approximately 64 times the speed of light (64c), which he indicates does not conflict with modern interpretations of Relativity Theory.

Podkletnov describes an antigravity effect generated by rotating magnetic fields that requires no superconductors to be generated, and suggests that it may provide an economical tool for future space & energy research.

Podkletnov maintains that a laboratory installation in Russia has already demonstrated the 4in (10cm) wide beam’s ability to repel objects a kilometre away and that it exhibits negligible power loss at distances of up to 200km. Such a device, observers say, could be adapted for use as an anti-satellite weapon or a ballistic missile shield. Podkletnov declared that any object placed above his rapidly spinning superconducting apparatus lost up to 2% of its weight.  

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2014/05/update-on-podkletnov-gravity.html

.......

Gravity beam

Also during the 1997 telephone interview with Platt, Podkletnov said that he was continuing to work on gravitation, claiming that with new collaborators at an unnamed "chemical research center" in Moscow he has built a new device. He said:

   "Normally there are two spheres, and a spark jumps between them. Now imagine the spheres are flat surfaces, superconductors, one of them a coil or O-ring. Under specific conditions, applying resonating fields and composite superconducting coatings, we can organize the energy discharge in such a way that it goes through the center of the electrode, accompanied by gravitation phenomena - reflecting gravitational waves that spread through the walls and hit objects on the floors below, knocking them over...The second generation of flying machines will reflect gravity waves and will be small, light, and fast, like UFOs. I have achieved impulse reflection; now the task is to make it work continuously."[1]

Rumors of this work, presumed to be the results of the experiment described to Platt, appeared in 2001.[11] A paper was finally published in 2003, coauthored by Podkletnov's friend,[1] Italian physicist Giovanni Modanese. The published version of the paper does not include any gravity beams, claiming only that the "force beam" was not "electromagnetic".[12]

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

LongtimeAirman wrote:.

Celestial disc golf. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/508343876659517737/

...
The Physics of Disc Flight.
Australia Flying Disc Association, Ultimate Australia
https://afda.com/the-physics-of-disc-flight
...
Crosswinds have the most effect on banked discs, either by pushing the raised edge up and lifting the disc, or by pushing down on a lowered edge and possibly making the disc dive into the ground. Crosswinds also make it difficult to keep the disc flat on release, and even experienced players may find it difficult to keep the angle of spin in the plane of the disc.
.

Hey LTAM,

This guy mentions a "Kutta Condition"??? What do you think?

As the air flow travels across the surface of the disc, many interesting things happen to it.  One of these being the Kutta Condition.  This condition states that a fluid ( in this case air) will tend to travel along the contour of a curved surface.  This effect actually contributes to the lift force.

http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/645fall2003_web.dir/Mike_Abrams/Lift.htm

.
Hey Cr6, I've been reading your suggestions. Well, all except for Study of Light Interaction with Gravity Impulses and Measurements of the Speed of Gravity Impulses. The abstract and a 2 page promotional flyer is all the information we are given. The cost is $30 for a chapter, or $119 for the book, I’ll pass. I'd be happy to do a line by line of the abstract, but I don’t see sufficient material or detail to work with. Despite all the reading, detailed diagrams were lacking. The one I'd posted previously must do.



I believe I’ve developed the proper physics-politico-imaginative fiction thriller understanding the Podkletnov effect truly deserves, thank you very much. Or were you simply answering my request “does anyone know what happened to the spinning superconducting anti-gravity experiments”? As far as I know, Podkletnov’s experimental findings have never been officially reproduced; on the other hand, everyone seems to know they have.

It turns out this was the perfect time for me to re-read, The Allais Effect and Majorana*. I found it by searching for a superconductor description I’d half recalled. In the Allais paper Miles primarily describes non-standard experimental findings present during solar eclipses. Miles uses the charge field to explain the results. The moon is blocking solar charge, the overall charge field within the eclipse is thereby less diminished, causing a slight weight loss in the eclipse’s shadow.

As a related effect, Miles explains how superconductivity behavior is due to the loss of resistance to the motions of electrons and ions within the superconductor, caused by the fact that the superconductor’s atomic matter is channeling far less charge, thus “freeing” the ions. The superconductor will also present a diminished resistance to earth’s upward moving charge emissions, resulting in a measured weight loss above the superconductor. Miles covers many more details I would urge you to read yourself rather than have me recount.

*186. The Allais Effect and Majorana. http://milesmathis.com/allais.html Plus commentary on LeSage, Podkletnov, NASA, Wiki, and others. Showing how my compound field answers anomalies where other fields do not. 32pp.
.

.
Hey Cr6. Kutta Condition? Ok, after a quick search, including Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutta_condition#The_Kutta_condition_in_aerodynamics) and some reading, I liked a stackexchange question/exchange best. I’ll quote the first 5 sentences (the emphasis is included in the original).

What is a Physically Accurate Explanation for the Kutta Condition?
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/135707/what-is-a-physically-accurate-explanation-for-the-kutta-condition

Countless arguments between highly intelligent people have been waged (on this very site in fact) as to exactly how lift can be explained in an experimentally and mathematically rigorous way. Taking the potential flow approximation and invoking the experimentally-observed Kutta condition provides a fairly accurate model. A majority of explanations for the Kutta condition involve Nature avoiding the infinite velocities implied by potential flow around a corner of zero radius. This, however, is where the problem arises. No man-made object has a zero radius of curvature.

The stackexchange link includes many more detail and further links.

Like the gentleman states, countless arguments have been made to explain lift. It appears the Kutta Condition is one of the latest standard theory models. It seems that when the Kutta Condition is applied to the sharp lagging edges behind airfoils the tangential velocity of the viscous fluid flowing past the edge become may become infinite. The stackexchange questioner argues that shouldn’t happen in reality. I would agree.

As we have seen, the charge field greatly simplifies lift theory. An objects lift is generated by that object’s velocity orthogonal to the earth’s emission field. That definition allowed me to do simple relative lift calculations between individual points on a forward moving and spinning Frisbee disc using velocity vectors alone. The fact that the thrown disc’s original vertical spin axis slowly rotates CW or CCW at the rate it does, agreeing with my experience and my simple vector analysis convinces me that Miles’ charge field definition agrees with the lift observed.

I agree that there’s probably more to the definition of lift in air. Why is the attack angle critical? Why does the spinning disc fall slower than gravity? Is there higher air pressure below the disc? Or does viscous air above the disc – in contact with the disc’s ridged top surface – resist the spinning disc’s downward motion, preventing the disc from dropping faster?  

Here’s another quote from stackexchange:

John Anderson Jr explains in Fundamentals of Aerodynamics (emphasis in text):

... in real life, the way that nature insures the that the flow will leave smoothly at the trailing edge, that is, the mechanism that nature uses to choose the flow... is that the viscous boundary layer remains attached all the way to the trailing edge. Nature enforces the Kutta condition by means of friction. If there were no boundary layer (i.e. no friction), there would be no physical mechanism in the real world to achieve the Kutta condition.

So, how does a Frisbee fly?
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/645fall2003_web.dir/Mike_Abrams/Lift.htm

After all that I looked at Mike Abrams’ Lift page. Like the Ultimate spinning disc Frisbee physics page I previously reviewed, Mike believes that the motion of air across the disc will form high air pressure below the disc and low air pressure above the disc, caused by unequal air path lengths. This is the standard theory lift model. The Kutta Condition is somehow an extension of that model – giving the air viscosity along the two path lengths (?).

Once again, Miles’ idea that velocity orthogonal to the earth’s emission field causes lift allows us to do away with that standard theory differential air pressure model.

Sorry, Cr6, just to be safe I suppose we'll need to include air in our charge field lift model before we can say whether there's any value to the Kutta Condition, but I doubt it.
.

Fantastic (re-) read LTAM!
I have to believe that this paper's contents were lodged somewhere in my sub-conscious after I read it a few years ago and then forgot everything about it.  A trace of Miles' paper did remain somewhere in my brain (gravimeters, LeSage, Podkletnov) and I just didn't realize it.

Gulp -- it literally has it all!

Miles Mathis wrote:*186. The Allais Effect and Majorana. http://milesmathis.com/allais.html Plus commentary on LeSage, Podkletnov, NASA, Wiki, and others. Showing how my compound field answers anomalies where other fields do not. 32pp.

.
Thanks Cr6, for me it really was a perfect re-read.

Jared, if you’re still reading, ready your dragon, I'm after helicopters.

Here’s a great source document, Chapter two - Aerodynamics of Flight, describing helicopter aeronautics from the US Federal Aviation Administration. In my limited experience FAA documents were mandatory, free, and intended to be the best resources available, more than adequate for the current discussion. Quoting the intro and lift diagram.  

Chapter two - Aerodynamics of light, https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/helicopter_flying_handbook/media/hfh_ch02.pdf

Introduction. This chapter presents aerodynamic fundamentals and principles as they apply to helicopters. The content relates to flight operations and performance of normal flight tasks. It covers theory and application of aerodynamics for the pilot, whether in flight training or general flight operations.
...

Lift. The text basically states that lift is generated on an airfoil by redirecting airflow. This illustration is basically the same that Miles includes in LIFT on a Wing. Quoting Miles' paper, concerning how the shape of the airflow causes lift,

But neither the speed nor the shape can cause more or less pressure without a mechanism. We have never seen a mechanism.

Here is the closest thing we get. The dots stand for air pressure, we have more dots below, therefore more air pressure, therefore lift. Many problems here, … .

Miles goes on to show that the standard model of lift is wrong, charge is the source of lift. I’ll attempt to add to the charge field perspective by examining a quote from chapter 2’s text.  

The object may be moving through a stationary fluid, or the fluid may be flowing past a stationary object—these two are effectively identical as, in principle, it is only the frame of reference of the viewer which differs.

That statement is false; it seems to justify the current standard model and it disregards the charge field. Miles has explained that increased charge lift is felt by an object when that object is moving at a velocity orthogonal to Earth’s emission field. That is roughly comparable to the first case, an object moving through a stationary fluid, although I wouldn’t describe the earth’s emission field as a stationary fluid. More importantly, in the second case, air flowing past a stationary object does not generate charge lift between that object and the earth, the lift generated is between the air and the earth. Given the earth’s charge field, the two cases are not equivalent. The viewer’s frame of reference has not distinguished what is receiving charge lift and is beside the point.

In the wind tunnel, it is the air and not the object that receives charge lift. Further, the standard theory models lift according to wind tunnel data. The stationary object encounters increased high velocity air and air emissions which is currently interpreted as lift and drag. Given the charge field, we know that the wind tunnel data obtained is fundamentally wrong, it doesn't actually model the earth's charge lift correctly, nevertheless the data obtained is close enough to be described as fluid air flow. In the wind tunnel the shape of the airfoil must minimize air resistance while providing surfaces that will create real charge lift in an actual aircraft. And so the current mainstream belief that lift is being caused by differential air pressures.

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

No luck this time.

To Be Continued!
.

I always wanted to make a question about that paper.

Miles never talks about wings that produce downforce, for example in Formula 1.
They produce both downforce and drag (resistance to speed). In F1 there is a mechanism called DRS (drag reduction system) that changes the inclination of a wing to reduce downforce while cars go on certain straights of the circuits, an incentive to overtakes.

Charge is important for lift, don’t you think air pressure difference is also important and plays a role both in lift and downforce?

.
Ciaolo wrote. Charge is important for lift, don’t you think air pressure difference is also important and plays a role both in lift and downforce?

Airman. Absolutely, I agree. For almost all intents and purposes the standard air pressure differential lift model is valid. The only problem, as Miles explained, was that the standard model has never provided a mechanism to explain the observed air pressure differentials. That is, until the charge field came along. I know very little of high performance racing, yet I can well appreciate that at highest speeds, road angle and who knows what atmospheric and road conditions the F1 intercepts far more charge lift than the air pressure model can explain, hence the need to prevent the F1 from becoming air borne, by use of lift preventers such as downforce and drag. Also, it’s not enough to say that the earth’s emission field holds up the atmosphere, we need to understand how air changes the charge lift model. Incorporating charge lift into Formula 1 calculations should improve an efficiency or two, or it might result in a radical new development. Who knows what progress the charge field might bring? Would you hire me on as a co-consultant?
.

.
Propellers.

As usual, I’ve bitten off more than I can chew trying to learn helicopter aeronautics in my as of late, often busy schedule. Thinking about propellers at odd times, like the dentist’s chair – just cleaning - aligning and tilting my head to and fro, this way and that, like a helicopter rotor changing direction as the copter maintains a course through sometimes fierce and variable headwinds; sorry. Anyway, a simple demonstration of the existence of the charge field occurred to me at the time, so simple I’m certain it’s been done many times and ways - does anyone know of the results?  

Drone in a vacuum. An experiment to prove (or disprove) the existence of the charge field.
Place a small drone with several (3-6) vertical spin axis mounted propellers in a large glass container resting on a scale. Remove the air from the container. Use the remote to turn the drone on. What happens? The drone must either:
a) Lift.
b) Lose weight.
c) No change in the drone weight is observed.

That's common sense, everyone knows that propellers work by pulling, or pushing, fluid or air; ergo (?), the drone should just sit there with spinning props and no resulting change in the drone’s weight – the answer would be c. Hold on, real vacuums are impossible to achieve, even a small amount of air may allow the spinning propellers to achieve a small weight reduction – ok, the answer could be b. We, I would argue, should pick a.

Assuming:
c is the answer. I believe that would tend to disprove the existence of the charge field.
b is the answer. Closer examination must follow.
a is the answer. Hu Ahh. The world would notice. One should anchor the drone to the scale’s surface and measure negative weight – lift. One should provide graphs of lift vs rpm. In vacuum and in air. Given only a vacuum, we might also replace the propellers – designed for use in air - and the ever present earth’s charge field - with alternate shaped blades for performance comparisons, or perhaps replace the props with a disc.

Also assuming a. I believe Jared suggested above that charge lift may amount to a third of the lift generated in the atmosphere. I'd suggest that the charge lift alone contributes half the lift strength obtained by propellers rotating through the earth's atmosphere. This will never be resolved without an actual experiment.  

I’m tempted to ask Miles what he thinks, but I’ve never done that. I would prefer to have one of you talk me down, pull it apart or agree that the demonstration seems valid. Your comments are welcome.

P.S. A problem occurred to me, drones probably use air/fuel engines. I suppose electric drones are available.
.

.
Discs. A little review. Frisbee flying discs offer a clear demonstration of charge field mechanics. Spin is essential, a disc thrown without spin catches air, flops and drops; while a disc with spin alone is gyroscopic, allowing it to be balanced on the top of your finger or providing stability to any proper throw. Disc stability is enhanced by the fact that most of the disc’s mass is close to the rim, which provides a handle for the thrower, but with the downside that the built up rim increases the disc’s forward surface area and resulting drag. Charge lift increases with velocity orthogonal to the earth’s emission field; given a disc’s forward and tangential spin velocities, we can calculate the magnitude of the orthogonal velocity at any given location across the disc in vector fashion. The majority of lift for a spinning occurs near the disc’s rim, with little to no charge lift felt at the center of the disc. A RHBH thrown disc in flight feels maximum lift at the 0900 position (spin and forward velocities add), and the least lift at the 0300 position (spin and forward velocities cancel), resulting in a slow CW disc rotation when viewed from behind. The opposite is true for a LHBH throw.

Discs versus propellers. How does a spinning disc compare to spinning propellers? I believe the primary difference lies in the fact that spinning propellers can create thrust - a forward velocity in the direction of the propeller spin axis. A spinning disc does not generate thrust. Propellers are attached to a shaft driven by an engine which can vary the propeller rpms. For ocean vessels or old aircraft, spinning propellers could pull/push fluid or air well enough to accelerate a horizontal forward velocity from zero to maximum, or cruise along at speed. Please note that on the earth’s surface and in a vacuum, horizontal spin axis mounted propellers will not generate thrust or charge lift. Under those same conditions, vertical spin axis mounted propellers or discs will generate increased charge lift. Perhaps it’s fair to say that the only thrust generated by a propeller spinning in a vacuum is equal to the increased charge lift received. We can then calculate the charge lift received for each portion of the “propeller” as was done for the spinning disc.

DARPA disco-copter.

DARPA funds radical disco-copter concept Spinning-platter switchblade chopper takes wing
By Lewis Page 5 Sep 2008 at 15:06
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/05/darpa_disco_copter/

The idea of the DiscRotor is that of a helicopter with a large circular saucer-like hub and ordinary rotor blades extending out from it. The disco-copter takes off, lands and hovers just as an ordinary whirlybird does; but at high speed the blades retract into the central hub disc, which continues to rotate and so functions as a "rotating circular wing".
...

The Disc-Rotor Compound Helicopter program [will] develop a new type of compound helicopter capable of high-efficiency hover, high speed flight, and seamless transition between these flight states. The aircraft will be equipped with a rotating circular wing having blades that can be extended from the disc edge, enabling the aircraft to takeoff and land like a helicopter. Transition from helicopter flight to airplane flight would be achieved by gradually retracting and stowing the blades as the circular wing assumes the task of lifting. An aircraft capable of long range high speed (300-400 kts) and VTOL/hover will provide mobility and responsiveness for troop and cargo insertion, satisfy an ongoing military interest for higher speed VTOL and hover capable vehicles, be survivable and bridge the gap in helicopter escort and insertion missions.

Airman. I've also included a gizmodo article that refers back to the Register article as its source. I included it for convenience in reviewing additional readers’ comments.  

DARPA Developing a Helicopter with a Spinning Disc Instead of Blades
https://gizmodo.com/5046020/darpa-developing-a-helicopter-with-a-spinning-disc-instead-of-blades

Airman. I appreciated but didn’t include any of the first author’s ridicule for this DARPA Funded project. Generally speaking, I would rise to DARPA’s defense by pointing out that someone needs to fund ideas, in this case, according to my current understanding of charge lift, the Disc-Rotor is a flawed concept that deserves some well-intentioned ridicule. I'll try to explain why.

During takeoff, landing or hovering: 1. The vertical spin axis, circular spinning wing receives only the spin component – no forward velocity - of the earth's emission charge lift; and 2. The horizontally extended blade tips provide additional charge lift as well as vertical thrust through air. This suggests excellent takeoff, landing or hovering characteristics.

However, during airplane mode, we have a major problem, a spinning circular wing with vertical spin axis cannot maintain or generate a horizontal thrust. Even with blade tips extended, the circular wing cannot lean over to create any additional forward velocity without increasing the aircraft's forward area, downward deflection and drag resisting the forward velocity. It appears the disco-rotor offers poor forward velocity and no forward high-speed velocity capabilities.  

Close but no cigar.

Any questions, comments, disagreement? Does anyone know the official results?

P.S.

Yesterday, Airman wrote. Please note that on the earth’s surface and in a vacuum, horizontal spin axis mounted propellers will not generate thrust or charge lift. Under those same conditions, vertical spin axis mounted propellers or discs will generate increased charge lift.

Today, I realize that's not true. I must be more precise. It’s true that in a vacuum and on the earth’s surface, propellers spinning with vertical spin axis interact directly in conjunction or opposition with the earth’s emission field, receiving maximum (or negative maximum) charge lift. That's due to the fact that all vertical spin axis tangents are orthogonal to earth's emissions.

It was wrong for me to say that under the same conditions, a horizontal spin axis will not create charge lift. For example, a horizontal spin axis propeller’s top and bottom edge spin tangent velocities are moving orthogonal to the earth’s emissions. In fact there’s an orthogonal, horizontal component of velocity present over half the horizontal spin. The slightly unequal charge lift felt between the top and bottom edges will turn the horizontal spin into a vertical spin axis.
.

.
Big news yesterday, search on “Helicopter to Mars”.

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

From Axios.

NASA is sending a helicopter to Mars
https://www.axios.com/

NASA is deploying The Mars Helicopter, "a small, autonomous rotorcraft, [that] will travel with the agency’s Mars 2020 rover mission, currently scheduled to launch in July 2020," the agency announced in a press release.

The problem facing NASA engineers: How to overcome Mars’ relatively thin atmosphere, which would doom any conventional craft. Proving this concept could help with future human exploration of the planet.

The details: "The full 30-day flight test campaign will include up to five flights of incrementally farther flight distances, up to a few hundred meters, and longer durations as long as 90 seconds, over a period. On its first flight, the helicopter will make a short vertical climb to 10 feet (3 meters), where it will hover for about 30 seconds."

It's goals: "The rover will conduct geological assessments of its landing site on Mars, determine the habitability of the environment, search for signs of ancient Martian life, and assess natural resources and hazards for future human explorers."

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

And here’s a little of the “press-release”.


NASA's Mars Helicopter, a small, autonomous rotorcraft, will travel with the agency's Mars 2020 rover, currently scheduled to launch in July 2020, to demonstrate the viability and potential of heavier-than-air vehicles on the Red Planet. Credits: NASA/JPL-Caltech
 
Mars Helicopter to Fly on NASA’s Next Red Planet Rover Mission
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/mars-helicopter-to-fly-on-nasa-s-next-red-planet-rover-mission

NASA is sending a helicopter to Mars.
The Mars Helicopter, a small, autonomous rotorcraft, will travel with the agency’s Mars 2020 rover mission, currently scheduled to launch in July 2020, to demonstrate the viability and potential of heavier-than-air vehicles on the Red Planet.

…

Mars Helicopter
…

“The altitude record for a helicopter flying here on Earth is about 40,000 feet. The atmosphere of Mars is only one percent that of Earth, so when our helicopter is on the Martian surface, it’s already at the Earth equivalent of 100,000 feet up,” said Mimi Aung, Mars Helicopter project manager at JPL. “To make it fly at that low atmospheric density, we had to scrutinize everything, make it as light as possible while being as strong and as powerful as it can possibly be.”

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

Alien Flying Propellers on Mars eh? Kinda sounds like the Drones in a vacuum experimental suggestion above - with vacuum at 1% earth standard atmosphere. I expect the drone will work, more on that later. Considering the stated 40,000ft helicopter altitude limit here on Earth vice the 100,000ft equivalent atmospheric pressure on Mars, why would they expect the drone to work at all? Wouldn't it be easier to perform the experiment at 1% standard air pressure or vacuum first? After all, they don't know that on its surface, Mars emits a stronger charge field than Earth does on its surface. It's such a tiny experiment. I must be missing something.  
.