Lifter Inertial Anomalies
By Tim Ventura, December 19, 2004
This is a brief introduction to some of the inertial
anomalies that have become apparent during experimentation
with Lifters. These anomalies are not readily explainable,
but do seem to effect the inertial properties of Lifters
while in operation.
Overview
A debate has been raging for several decades now about whether
the Biefeld-Brown Effect is a real, tangible physical effect
present in high-voltage asymmetrical capacitor systems,
or whether it is merely a mistaken side effect of the Ion-Wind
commonly found in those systems.
The two effects are very closely linked – Ion-Wind,
the effect most easily described and acknowledged by mainstream
science, is a well-known dielectrophoresis effect that occurs
between a two charged metal objects when a high-voltage
is applied. In brief, ion-wind is the movement of ionized
charge-carrying air-molecules moving directionally between
the two wires, which create a net directional airflow that
produces forward thrust. This can be visualized as being
comparable to a “bucket-brigade” system for moving
electrons from the positive cathode and the negative anode,
with the surrounding air being a non-conductive medium that
is propelled downward via collisions with the rapidly moving
air-molecules as they carry charges.
The Biefeld-Brown Effect is believed to occur in most Ion-Wind
systems, but has generally been described as a “net
directional thrust that occurs in high-voltage asymmetrical
capacitor systems”. In the case of the Lifter, a high-voltage
direct current is applied to a wire emitter that has been
suspended above a foil collector. While ion-wind does occur
between the wire and the foil, a large capacitance also
occurs between the two components. This capacitance is asymmetrical
because the wire and foil have differing geometries, which
is believed to contribute to the existing Ion-Wind thrust
by facilitating the Biefeld-Brown Effect.
As you may guess, the debate about the actual method of
thrust is relatively obscure – while it has been of
interest in the physics and aerospace communities, it means
little to the general public because it has little actual
impact of Biefeld-Brown Effect technologies being used in
the atmosphere. In other words, Lifters still fly regardless
of what the actual effect is that creates thrust. The primary
impact of this debate has resulted in a single experiment
that has been claimed to show the difference between the
Biefeld-Brown Effect and Ion-Wind – namely, testing
the effect in a complete vacuum environment. Further adding
confusion to this question is the fact that ion-wind produces
thrust in the same direction in an asymmetrical capacitor
no matter what the actual polarization of the current is:
A positive or negatively charged emitter will still produce
unidirectional ACT thrust.
Vacuum-chamber testing for Lifters and Biefeld-Brown technologies
have been difficult to conduct, because a hard vacuum is
required to eliminate all trace-gasses from the chamber
prior to testing. Nonetheless, a number of organizations
have been able to achieve hard vacuum at 10–7 Torr
or lower pressure, and have run experiments with varying
results.
The suggestion of variance in vacuum-chamber results has
been claimed to be the product of experimental error because
of the conflict in overall results. Purdue University research
Hector Serrano was able to create hard vacuum during testing,
and yet still observed measurable thrust in his asymmetrical
capacitor apparatus. Other testing, such as that by Dr.
Jonathan Campell at NASA, indicate quite the opposite –
without the presence of an atmosphere, Campbell saw no propulsive
motion, which led him to the conclusion that ion-wind was
the key to producing propulsive force in Lifters.
Thus, after nearly 50 years of experimentation into Ion-Wind
and Biefeld-Brown technologies, we arrive at the crux of
a nearly irresolvable debate about the actual production
of this force and what it means to physics.
Why this is Important
At present, there are literally thousands of independent
researchers experimenting the Biefeld-Brown Effect in the
form of the popular and easy to build Lifter technology.
These independent researchers share a common link of interest
in this technology with scientists in academia, as well
as those involved in space-research and aerospace industry.
Why is it so important to discover the actual root cause
for Lifter propulsion?
The answer is deceptively simple: If the Biefeld-Brown
effect is indeed a non ion-wind force on an asymmetrical
capacitor, then it means we have finally witnessed the discovery
of the world’s first reactionless-drive system. That
entails the ability to travel both within the Earth’s
atmosphere as well as around the solar system without the
requirement for either rocket fuel or the xenon-gas currently
used in satellite ion-drives.
At present, traveling to space means throwing mass-overboard
in the process – that mass may be rocket fuel, in the
case of conventional rocketry, or could be xenon gas used
in ion-drives. Whatever the case, the use of mass as propellant
has a variety of associated issues – including the
extra energy requirements to transport that propellant mass
in the first place, as well as a much larger limitation:
propulsion of a space-craft using Newtonian mass-ejection
roughly limits the speed of the craft to half that of the
mass being expended. Therefore, the top speed for a rocket
is approximately half the speed of the exhaust gases coming
out the back.
On a deeper level, definitive proof of the Biefeld-Brown
Effect is a confirmation that conventional physics has made
some incorrect assumptions about the nature of time and
space, and serves as proof for the concept that space can
indeed be warped to create high-speed propulsion through
the use of electromagnetic fields.
While the idea of reactionless electrodynamic propulsion
currently runs against the trend of mainstream physics,
the idea is gaining rapid support through the early work
of Sakharov, as well as more recent theories by Puthoff,
Haisch and Rueda among others into the concept of Quantum-Foam
models of space-time. These models postulate that the high-voltage
fields in a Biefeld-Brown system may interact in a pseudo-propulsive
mode with virtual-particles inherent in the background of
time-space. Additionally, these models obtain further theoretical
support from relativity theory itself, as proposed in the
context of space-warp propulsion in the Alcubierre Drive.
The Lifters of today are far from perfect, but while the
Lifter technology itself suffers from some deep seated efficiency
issues relating to how it uses power, the concept of a reactionless
drive could be as important to space-travel as the advent
of the locomotive was to settlement of the Western United-States
over 200 years ago.
Subtle Discrepancies in Inertial Mass
The goal of this document is not to describe the standstill-debate
regarding Lifter propulsion, but instead to suggest a third-alternative
– that the Biefeld-Brown effect is actually an inertial
modification to the existing thrust present from ion-wind.
Critics of the Biefeld-Brown Effect will be quick to ask
the question of why an inertial multiplier is required for
ion-wind, as the concept of ion-wind itself is propulsive,
and accounts for what most critics believe is the sum total
of propulsive force in Lifter experiments. The answer comes
from a number of subtle anomalies noticed during experimentation
with Biefeld-Brown Effect systems that cannot in any way
be accounted for by Ion-Wind. These anomalies, which will
be outlined below, demonstrate that inertial effects are
unquestionably occurring in Biefeld-Brown and Lifter systems,
and that these may be the key to finally resolving the debate
about the root cause of propulsive force.
Conventional experiments with Lifters and the Biefeld-Brown
effect fall into one of two design configurations –
that of either a dual-thruster balanced system mounted horizontally
to test spin rate, or else the conventional Lifter design
built to measure upward propulsive force against gravity.
While both of these experiments have been highly successful
in terms of demonstrating that either ion-wind or Biefeld-Brown
thrust is being produced, this thrust is the only aspect
normally being measured. Hence, any inertial effects occurring
in these systems are typically very difficult to detect.
Inertial anomalies in Lifters are well known, but are also
very subtle. In practice, this means that the one-shot testing
done by mainstream science has failed to detect them, but
they tend to become apparent to experimenters working with
Lifters over long periods of time. Additionally, because
of the very subtle nature of these effects, and because
experimenters have not specifically focused on detecting
only these anomalies, these side-effects have been difficult
to fully describe in a focused, scientific manner. However,
well described or not, these anomalies do exist, and the
experiments below serve to illustrate two of the more well
known examples.
Rejection of Angular Momentum (Saviour)
Saviour, a European alt-sci researcher and founder of the
Blaze-Labs experimental website, created the first experiment
to demonstrate a unique and anomalous inertial effect in
Lifters. The experiment, conducted in 2002, utilized a six-sided
Lifter mounted upright in a gimballing system to allow the
Lifter to rotate freely.
Saviour’s experimental setup is one of the only known
experiments to deal exclusively with inertial effects –
his gimbal-restrained Lifter, mounted upright, was connected
to a power-supply so that a high-voltage power could be
applied to the Lifter. While this would normally produce
lift, in this case the mounting of the Lifter prevented
this, but still allowed a normal electrodynamic operating
field to be maintained.
Saviour filmed the experiment, which consisted of using
a normal kitchen-fan blowing on the side of the Lifter to
increase the rotation speed of the gimbaled Lifter to several
rpm. The Lifter was spun using air-pressure alone, and was
spun up to a rotational speed of approximately 25 rpm while
turned off. The Lifter spun freely, and Savoiur let the
system operate in this state for a prolonged period of time
to demonstrate that no binding was occurring in the gimballing
system, and to ensure that the system was rotating in a
state of dynamic equilibrium.
The anomaly occurs in the film immediately after Saviour
applies power to the Lifter. Upon the establishment of the
Biefeld-Brown Effect field, the Lifter immediately ceases
spinning, despite the absence of any directional thrust
by the Lifter to oppose the spin imparted by the fan. The
Lifter, in fact, is mounted in a normal flight position,
which means that the only directional thrust occurring is
pushing the device straight up, and yet the devices rejects
an existing inertial spin of approximately 25 rpm, as well
as rejecting any additional spin being continually imparted
on it by fan-pressure.
Various proposals have been suggested to discount this
experimental result – such as the idea that perhaps
the upwards force was causing friction inside the gimballing
system, or that some unaccounted for airflow was opposing
the fan-induced air-pressure. As a means to further demonstrate
this effect, Saviour examined the gimbal to ensure that
binding was not a factor even with upward applied force,
and then conducted the following experiment:
In Saviour’s second-experiment, the same six-sided
Lifter and gimbal system are used, but in this case the
Lifter has been enclosed in a non-conductive box to ensure
that it has been completely sealed from the outside environment.
While some capacitance no doubt has leaked out the edges
of the box’s plastic-film sides, the air inside of
the box and surrounding the Lifter has been completely isolated
to ensure that no aerodynamic effects are creating the inertial
anomaly.
Using the fan once again, Saviour applies a spin to the
containment box and the Lifter inside it – both are
mounted in the gimbal to facilitate unencumbered rotation.
Despite a minor weight imbalance in the box, the apparatus
still attains several rpm in rotation, and Saviour allows
it to rotate freely again to ensure that the apparatus is
functioning normally.
Once again, Saviour turns on the power to the Lifter, and
once again, the Lifter immediately ceases rotating, as does
the box surrounding it. This effectively demonstrates that
the Lifter is rejecting both a pre-existing internal &
continuously applied external angular momentum, as well
as creating its own inertial frame of reference while operating.
Rejection of Linear Momentum (Hoagland)
In addition to anomalies involving angular moment, another
inertial anomaly has been tentatively revealed to impact
the direction of flight in Lifters immediately upon takeoff
from the test surface. In brief, when the Lifter first takes
off, it has a tendency to fly west until it is restrained
near maximum height by its flight-tethers.
Dr. Richard C. Hoagland deserves credit for being the first
to recognize this anomaly, which is subtle enough to have
eluded experimenters working with these effects for decades.
Part of the reason that it had gone unnoticed was because
of the complexity of Lifter flight. A set of 3 tethers are
typically connected to the bottom 3 corners of a Lifter
– these tethers are normally constructed from equal
lengths of sewing thread, and serve only the purpose of
restraining the Lifter so that it doesn’t exceed the
limits of the test area, which would sever it from power-supply
leads typically attached to two of the upper Lifter corners.
The power-supply leads themselves do often produce a directional
pull in a poorly-constructed Lifter experiment, however,
testing Lifters oriented in a variety of directions tends
to show a westerly takeoff no matter what the orientation
of the power-supply wires.
At Hoagland’s suggestion, I went through approximately
400 megabytes of Lifter experimental video clips that I
have on file in search of confirmation for this idea. The
advantage of this approach is that since the media was filmed
in a variety of conditions over a two-year period of time,
and without the concept of inertial effects in mind, that
I would not be putting subconscious bias into a new experiment.
After analyzing over 100 video clip segments, to my surprise
I found confirmation of Hoagland’s hypothesis –
that of the 200+ Lifters that I have tested and flown, nearly
all of them take off in at a westerly-skew immediately upon
takeoff. The remaining exceptions seem to be accounted for
as a result of wind-current variations during outdoor testing
and major weight-imbalances that force the Lifter to accelerate
at a hard-angle upon takeoff.
Obviously, the major criticism in this case is a lack of
consistent control measures – over a 2 year period
of time, a variety of changes to the test apparatus may
have damaged the idea of setting up a controlled environment.
However, as much of the testing was done in my garage, I
can vouch for the lack of major air-currents under any condition
in that environment (I have done extensive smoke-testing
with Lifters in the garage, and have never noticed any large
air-movement in that environment).
Hoagland’s suggestion is based on the concept that
Lifters and the Biefeld-Brown effect not only reject angular,
or spin momentum, but that they additionally reject linear
momentum as well, and once again establish a unique inertial
frame of reference while operating that is ambivalent to
the inertial reference frame of the outside environment.
In laymans’ terms, what this means is that Hoagland
was predicting the Lifter to skew West during takeoff, for
the simple reason that the Earth is rotating East underneath
it. When the Lifter is off the ground, and before it has
reached a height where the restraining tethers pull it back
into position, the Lifter accelerates directly upwards –
even to the neglect of the directional movement it had while
sitting on the test-bench even seconds beforehand.
Admittedly, more work is required to validate Hoagland’s
concept of linear inertial rejection than in the case of
Saviour’s experiment, however, it forms the basis of
a growing body of evidence to suggest that inertial nullification
is occurring in Lifters during operation.
Conclusion
The argument about whether the Biefeld-Brown Effect is a
mistaken component of Ion-Wind or a force of its own has
been a bit too simplistic for a real analysis of the forces
at work in BB-Effect and Lifter technologies.
Certainly Ion-Wind is a real phenomenon, and produces a
motive thrust to some degree in Lifter technology –
however, from this analysis of inertial anomalies in Lifter
technologies, I hope to have shown that the Biefeld-Brown
Effect also exists as a modifier to the existing force contributed
by Ion-Wind.
The idea of Biefeld-Brown as an inertial modifier solves
two of the most troublesome problems of testing these technologies
– first, that Lifters tend not to produce much (if
any) thrust in a vacuum, and second that experimenters continue
to report strange anomalies in Lifter flight that have not
yet been addressed in theory.
More work is required to fully describe the exact scope
and nature of the inertial anomalies present in Biefeld-Brown
systems, but greater consideration should definitely be
given to addressing these issues in the future.
References
Saviour’s Inertial Lifter Experiment (Blaze Labs Online)
http://www.blazelabs.com/e-exp01.asp
Hal Puthoff's Polarized Vacuum Theory (Earth Tech Online)
http://www.earthtech.org/
Haisch & Rueda PV-Theory
“Mass Medium”, by Marcus Chown , published in
New Scientist, Vol. 169, No. 2276, 3 Feburary 2001
http://www.calphysics.org/articles/newscientist.html
|
![Help American Antigravity by Donating -- we're a 501c[3] non-profit. Click here to learn more!](graphics/arrows/sidebar_donate_140x45.gif){kind=small}
