Hi,
First, I'd like to say Hello and tell a bit about me. I'm actually surprised to have made an account here. I've done a lot of research over the years (1998-), though I had decided to set down all thoughts a few years back. I'm a bit of a closet type person (AS) and stick to myself. I'm also very friendly and humble (learned enough to realize I know nothing at all...which means I learned something).
I'm not a college graduate or some high paid engineer. I'm a nobody I suppose; however I have been paid to do this researching and engineering before. I guess I've looked at myself most like BASF "don't make the products, just make the products better". I suppose most who know me would say that's my strong suit.
Lastly here, I delved into a lot of areas; always looking for connection in all things (not a chaos man). I got into various aspects of physics, electronics, etc. There were (still are) many things I wanted people to just know, but never did anything with. I guess I've decided to relay some findings / perceptions a bit, hoping to maybe further someone in their work.
Please note again, I am nice, friendly, compassionate and humble person; please know I understand a lot of things are perception. I always try to make sure and convey ideas as opinions or beliefs; however if I fail in this, ...it is not intended.
Sorry to blabber, so onto lifters.
I did most of my work with lifters from 99-03 and I find it a bit sad to see them dying off. There's quite a bit of things I had advancements with, though have not seen on the net. Some aspects I was never able to test e.g. with Beifelds' later contributions (magnetics). I was able to recreate a number of browns devices / experiments (some more success than others). I was able to recreate a few of Glenn Hagens' devices (not sure if anyone even knows of him).
-JLNs' site used to have some University documents that corroborated the concept that these DO have a larger effect than could be accounted by static alone.
Though this extra was small (most likely less than would be apparent in a vacuum and a 3 cell design)
-Mybusters', I do not feel did a good job of even constructing a lifter, though I was glad they figured out how to get mere lift off.
A key point here, that struck me as odd no one has mentioned.
-IF there is a gravitational effect (most likely constriction or Lorenz) that would only be testable (If even) IN the gap between electrodes. NOT under the ground neutralized unit. To me that seemed obvious, but I doubt a person wants to stick that kinda money in a 30Kv gap.
-There's another guy who did a patent in 64' that was a bit different than TT. Brown and had some more information; along with different take. I was able to replicate the first 2 devices (fig. 1-6) and they performed as noted. Figure 7 was almost finished but I didn't get to test; However I learned a bit from this.
Glenn E. Hagen 3,120,363
-Most early / odd units were used on my TT Brown "rotator" shown in his patents. This allowed tests of lift, velocity and direction. Early testing was done with a Spellman 180Kv 2ma DC supply and later tests with a Bertan 50Kv 10ma DC supply. - HV filtered DC on both.
-I believe in total I had around 40 designs and 200+ recorded tests (V, A, Speed, payload, etc). I will say it's very difficult to find "Variation" or improvement. As well, a large chunk of results did have me wondering if it was all static; for a long time.
-I was able to get only one device to go OPPOSITE the ion wind direction as TT brown noted was possible. This unit was a "half-pipe" shape, straight in length (picure a rounded barn roof instead of peaked) with the wire in the center "half pipe" radius. The units' weight was well in excess of being lift-able and was used on the "rotator". The key point from this was; it started in normal direction }>, however as more power was applied it slowed?! Eventually came to a stop at "near peak V" then slowly (very slowly) rotated opposite. }<. I never furthered this, but it was some reinforcement "to me" that it wasn't all static.
-I was able to do some heated wire tests (because of rotator), which was very nice. The results with heat were pretty straight forward. Approximately 30% increase in power, 20% lower breakdown Volts (if I remember there) and 10% speed increase. Yay, but not what I considered "better" nor an improvement (considering added heat batt weight).
-I tested as many wire types as could find (most extreme bismuth coated silver wire) and as many foil / skirt variations (most extreme lead and polished stainless steel with ceramic supports). Also as many shapes / designs as I could think of (not including a wire over vertical foil); this included a replication of TT Brown's "rocket" design from a later patent. That rocket showed no thrust btw. (overall TT accuracy 50% not great) Also tested gaps from .25" all the way to 6" (100KV lol). Everything possible was used; half globes, beer cans (easy series parallel testing), dielectric backed AL etc.
- A note on wires I suppose. It follows what one would expect mostly. Steel draws slightly more current per KV though, usually, without improvement in efficiency. Most wires show very little difference, comparing like gauges; however draw and max voltage are dictated by emissivity of the material e.g. why steel draws more than copper. With gauge, similarly you increase draw and lower max Kv as gauge increases; good for fine tuning draw.
-I had only 1 lifter or design (besides slight heat increase) that showed any marked increase in velocity. Having the rotator was nice, since I could test velocities along with "heavies", but ya all designs = same max velocity excluding one. A Lead skirt offered more than 2 times the velocity of any lifter for the same given power. Top speed was 25mph. This is pretty huge considering the weight of the unit HAD to and some resistive drag to it's movement. Here again, another case of reinforcement of this NOT being totally static.
-stacked designs do not increase efficiency (e.g. wire, skirt, skirt, skirt)
-Offsetting wire does not increase efficiency (e.g. 1 wire 2 skirt with wire above and in between)
-Onto payload stuff. I suppose I'll only cover the best results (which was a proof / scale-up in itself). For payloads I used the standard (wire over foil) design.
* The unit was 3 (reducing size) octagons constructed with single 1 length of foil for all sides (1 piece per 8 sides). After 3 octagons were done, foil / skirt "spars" were placed on octagons edges going inward (edge to edge). Lastly foil / skirt spars were run inward from side "centers" (center to center). Overall size was 20" (sides width). This design was to accomplish several things; high total linear cell length (6m I think), compact space, low loss to adjacent cells, small degree outer edges to reduce plasma leakage, self- supporting ultra-lightweight.
* All balsa used in construction was 1/16 x 3/16". All balsa sections were "tight grain" pieces (be sure to check the grain) Top and trailing edges are the 1/16" sides. All the top edges were hand sanded with 200g sandpaper to a rounded edge (smooth even round) This is important!
*To glue the foil skirt to the balsa on a single cell I made tabs in the foil __-----------__ on the ends. (If the cell is 200 mm then the skirt is 210 (overlap) and you cut 6mm x 5 mm tabs on the sides.) For the octagon the continual length of foil had tabs cut every cell distance (+5mm corner). _----_----_----_. When glued, the bottom 1/16" goes along the top notched foil edge _
-------_. Then a bit of glue was placed beside the balsa on the foil and it was "tight rolled" onto its' 3/16" side. Next, glue again was placed on foil and was "tight rolled" over top 1/16" sanded edge. Lastly glue was placed again and it was rolled to the final 3/16" side, finishing mounting the balsa to the foil. THIS IS IMPORTANT. This accomplishes several things; rolled top edge reduces plasma leakage and uneven loading, balsa spar is completely encased in foil increasing capacitance, leading edge of foil is now under and facing the skirt to eliminate ion / plasma leakage.
*The wire was copper 28ga (I believe) magnet wire. A single wire was run for the entire skirt area and only directly over the foil. The start of the wire was glued onto the balsa upright; facing up (wire tip protruding up). It was then brought down and wrapped around an outer edge, then glued. Supporting spars were placed on every octagonal corner and cross spar and the copper was glued to each. The wire height was 28mm. The wire's insulation was NOT removed until after fully glued in place (yes risky but with practice easy). the coating was burnt off of each section and wiped clean of residue. Insulation was left on approximately 12mm of wire around any supports. THIS IS IMPORTANT. The wire was chosen for draw based on gauge and leaving coating on corners helps reduce plasma leakage; also uneven power draw or low breakover.
*Very little total glue was used, be careful. Used Dollar Store Aluminum foil (thinnest you can find!) End foil must be perfectly smooth no kink, points,nothing.
- So finally, finished unit weight 15gm. Max payload was 30gm (30gm weight ADDED to lifter weight). Max power draw was 18w @ 17K
-The smaller unit, this scaled from, was 2m length 5 gm weight @ carried 7gm (7gm added to lifter weight). Max power was 10w @17kv
-with this design you can expect between .65-.75gm / 100mm skirt length predictably
-So my best payload is a bit better than the most efficient flying device we have today; a helicopter at 2gm /watt.
I'm sure there's a bunch of lesser points that I could ramble about, but I know; the items above were the most notable.
To try to conclude my blabber with some conclusive perception...
-I DO believe (feel I've decent proof) there's an additional effect going on; though static (ion wind) is predominate if not required. (e.g. no spacey flyey)
-Can I tell you this is a gravitational effect or not,... no.
-I do believe, though, it's one of two things causing this "additional effect".
*A constriction, so to speak, in the tension of gravity; barely showing as an unknown effect. I assume here there is most likely a mass-offset relative to this constriction (if that's the case) in order to balance the cause.
*Or a Lorenz force caused by the charged ions moving in a spiral direction in the gap. If this is the case, there's nothing new in terms of effect; but a new practical exploitation of it.
-Are lifters practical, well I suppose in the same sense as a blimp would be; in current form, but Yes. You can scale up the (avg).7gm per 100mm to any weight you like and 200% payload is plenty. However is it practicable, probably not.
-Lastly, do I feel this effect can be improved; Most definitely! Though most likely with dopants and special materials.
I'm terribly sorry for being so wordy, it's an issue for me
. I would like to hear any thoughts as to why Lead would've netted so much velocity increase, please post. I can't recall ever coming to a conclusion on that particular one.
I hope this information can help someone working on this. Also I can try and offer help if I'm able.
Thanks,
PB