*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 817
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #80 on: June 13, 2019, 02:48:13 PM »
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2178412#msg2178412 (formula for the maximum weight loss of a capacitor, the reason why various researched failed to record the Biefeld-Brown in vacuum)

I have included several videos with the Biefeld-Brown effect in vacuum, look for them.

Satellites require the use of Tesla's cosmic ray device combined with Hans Koller's apparatus and Reich's ether box to provide the voltage for the capacitors.

I'm sure you will have no problem providing proof of the cosmic ray device.
I don't have to go to the gym, I get all my exercise jumping to conclusions.-sandokhan

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #81 on: June 13, 2019, 03:34:22 PM »
I have harnessed the cosmic rays and caused them to operate a motive device. Cosmic ray investigation is a subject that is very close to me. I was the first to discover these rays and I naturally feel toward them as I would toward my own flesh and blood. I have advanced a theory of the cosmic rays and at every step of my investigations I have found it completely justified. The attractive features of the cosmic rays is their constancy. They shower down on us throughout the whole 24 hours, and if a plant is developed to use their power it will not require devices for storing energy as would be necessary with devices using wind, tide or sunlight. All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are justified in calling them neutrons. They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light. More than 25 years ago I began my efforts to harness the cosmic rays and I can now state that I have succeeded in operating a motive device by means of them. I will tell you in the most general way, the cosmic ray ionizes the air, setting free many charges ions and electrons. These charges are captured in a condenser which is made to discharge through the circuit of the motor. I have hopes of building my motor on a large scale, but circumstances have not been favorable to carrying out my plan.

N. Tesla, 1932

(at that time the concept of neutrinos and neutrons was not figured out yet)





The solar panels resemble very well Tesla's cosmic ray device.

« Last Edit: June 13, 2019, 03:50:58 PM by sandokhan »

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #82 on: June 13, 2019, 04:38:10 PM »
It is very possible that the B-2 bomber also uses supercapacitors which greatly increase the force.

You do know the B-2 uses four thermal avionic fuel turbofan engines, General Electric F118-GE-100, 17300 lbf each, right?
Those are not to generate electricity for your dream BB lifting, they generate trust moving air, to push the wing flying beast.
Huge hundreds super-caps for such monster BB lift would require a thousands MW nuclear power plant to charge them rapidly.
Even if possible, there would be a tremendous problem to control the lift, mostly for rapid ascent and descent, remember, B-2 was also made for low altitude terrain topography follower aerial vehicle.
You really need to stop writing about things you have it all wrong.
ゆっくり行きなさい

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #83 on: June 13, 2019, 04:53:55 PM »
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2178412#msg2178412 (formula for the maximum weight loss of a capacitor, the reason why various researched failed to record the Biefeld-Brown in vacuum)

I have included several videos with the Biefeld-Brown effect in vacuum, look for them.

Satellites require the use of Tesla's cosmic ray device combined with Hans Koller's apparatus and Reich's ether box to provide the voltage for the capacitors.
One of the links you provided, https://web.archive.org/web/20050216062907/http://www-personal.umich.edu/~reginald/liftvac.html directly shows a strong negative correlation between energy required and pressure. The guy only has to go down to 700 mbar (525 torr), which can hardly be called a vacuum, and he already can't even lift his lifter.

This link you provided also can't get his lifter to work below 500 torr: https://web.archive.org/web/20070212193741/http://www.t-spark.de/t-spark/t-sparke/liftere.htm

This link actually does get some motion at 1e-6 torr, although it is visibly much worse in a vacuum. Can't say much more since there are no numbers. Also the whole thing is written in comic sans lmao.
http://lifters.online.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm

So it looks like the better the vacuum, the less this effect works. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it probably barely works at all in the vacuum of space. Am I missing something?
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #84 on: June 13, 2019, 05:39:06 PM »
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1913909#msg1913909

In-depth discussion on the videos featured in the link:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22120.0

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=64843

The largest ever Biefeld-Brown effect experiment in vacuum was done by Townsend Brown in 1956, in France:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120302051748/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20120311003726/http://projetmontgolfier.info/PHOTOGRAPHS.html

There, T. Brown successfully flew a pair of saucer air foils in a high vacuum (less than one billionth of an atmosphere). Not only did the discs propel themselves more efficiently, but they also sped faster since without ion leakage, they could be energized with greater voltages.

Here is the report:




Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #85 on: June 13, 2019, 06:20:27 PM »
I don't see anything flying on those old photographs, just people drinking and a big cooking pan lid hang by wire.

Talking about people spending money just because they can, you can include the following in your collections:
Google "rar energia" and select "images", or click here:  https://bit.ly/2Kiahax

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #86 on: June 13, 2019, 07:58:45 PM »
If it could be measured in a vacuum, then it would be repeatable. Given those 3 links I sent you earlier, it's clearly not repeatable.

I guess you've already read this as well:
http://www.forbiddentechnology.org/pdfs/Twenty%20First%20Century%20Propulsion%20Concept.pdf

You can believe in it if you want, I guess, but experimentally the B-B effect doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is known.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #87 on: June 13, 2019, 08:35:04 PM »
Now you have at your disposal an exact formula: it should be easy to understand where those other attempts went wrong. Of course it is repeatable if the strict requirements of the experiment are being met.

T. Brown spells out very clearly that the torsion increased rapidly with voltage in full vacuum.

Not only did the discs propel themselves more efficiently, but they also sped faster since without ion leakage, they could be energized with greater voltages.

Here is the report:



By 1956, T. Brown had some 33 years of experience in the field, he was the foremost expert in the world on the subject. That is why his experiments worked out perfectly. The other researchers in the field need to meet those requirements (dielectric constant, voltage) if they want to replicate Brown's legendary experimental feats.


*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #88 on: June 13, 2019, 08:50:59 PM »
Now you have at your disposal an exact formula: it should be easy to understand where those other attempts went wrong.
It should be easy, and yet I cannot see. Please enlighten me.
All I see is a single unrepeatable result from 60 years ago.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #89 on: June 13, 2019, 09:04:44 PM »
Re-read the paper I linked
http://www.forbiddentechnology.org/pdfs/Twenty%20First%20Century%20Propulsion%20Concept.pdf

It looks like they observed the B-B effect in atmosphere, but didn't observe it in vacuum. What part of the experiment is badly performed, considering that it was good enough to measure the B-B effect in atmosphere? It looks like the only difference is turning on some pumps.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2019, 10:59:54 PM by Tim Alphabeaver »
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #90 on: June 14, 2019, 04:51:34 AM »
T. Brown used 50 Kv, 110 Kv, and 150 Kv. R. Talley utilized 19 Kv.

T. Brown used a variety of electrically insulating materials in vacuum, and then at the end he included plexiglass and barium titanate. It worked. R. Talley used acrylic and lead titanate.

In vacuum, one has to increase the voltage and use a high dielectric constant material to obtain results: once that it done, the torsion will be even faster than in the atmosphere.

Here is the report issued by the government of France on the vacuum experiments (pg 26-27):

https://web.archive.org/web/20120302051748/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf

More details here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140602175747/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_2F__Annexe_4.pdf (annex 4.3 describes the positive results obtained in vacuum (vide) using plexiglass and 80 Kv)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140602175742/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_2E__Annexes_3.4-3.6.pdf (report on vacuum results)

They did exactly what BlazeLabs, Mythbusters, R. Talley and J. Campbell did in vacuum. No results.

Then, Brown changed the dielectric material and increased the voltage: full results were recorded.

Read this carefully, T. Brown's own report on the vacuum experiments:



« Last Edit: June 14, 2019, 05:04:13 AM by sandokhan »

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #91 on: June 14, 2019, 08:12:25 AM »
Read this carefully, T. Brown's own report on the vacuum experiments:

I've already read it. Je ne parle pas le francais, so I can't really read the full report since it's in French.
The problem isn't that I don't understand Brown's report, it's that an unrepeatable result isn't a meaningful result. I don't think that Brown was lying.

Really we need some further experimentation to know for sure, but unless you can explain why the below report is fundamentally flawed, believing Brown's report over any other report is just blind faith. Dismissing experimental evidence just because it doesn't agree with what you've already decided is illogical.

http://www.forbiddentechnology.org/pdfs/Twenty%20First%20Century%20Propulsion%20Concept.pdf
I'll reiterate: they measured the B-B effect in atmosphere, and then it went away when they pumped down the vacuum chamber. This report actually goes into a lot of detail about removing other sources of interference etc., so I hardly think it's reasonable to dismiss it with hardly a second glance. It seems to me to be a well-designed experiment.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #92 on: June 14, 2019, 08:30:04 AM »
Brown couldn't have been lying. He was invited by the government of France to conduct the experiments in full vacuum, they even built the largest ever vacuum chamber for this purpose.

Those reports were made by the French government, not by Brown.

The reports, written in French, clearly describe the very successful torsion experiments in full vacuum.

Really we need some further experimentation to know for sure, but unless you can explain why the below report is fundamentally flawed, believing Brown's report over any other report is just blind faith. Dismissing experimental evidence just because it doesn't agree with what you've already decided is illogical.


Nothing of the sort.

It could be that in vacuum one needs to use a higher voltage, coupled with a better kind of dielectric, to start the torsion.

R. Talley, mythbusters, blazelabs simply do not have the experience in the field that Brown had. They used the SAME voltage and dielectrics which they utilized in the atmosphere, and then claimed failure.

In the reports, we can clearly see that a higher voltage is needed at first in vacuum to develop torsion/rotation.

The experiments done after Brown did not meet the high standards set by him (voltage, dielectric).

Moreover, there are daily/seasonal variations in the ether drift, a fact clearly observed and documented by Brown.

Here are two videos with experiments done in vacuum, and they do work.



(vacuum test performed by Gravitec, increasing the voltage from 15kv to 18 kv, clear movement/thrust of the capacitor can be seen; near the end the power is switched off, and then turned on again, and we can the visible thrust of the capacitor for a second time)



(torsion/rotation seen clearly)

Tests results :

At the atmospherical pressure, we can observe a thrust in the plan of rotation and directly applied on the asymmetrical capacitors when the voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV. This produces a torque on the apparatus. When the voltage is back down to 0 V, the device retrieves its initial position.

At the pressure of 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ( High Vacuum conditions ), the apparatus rotates when the High Voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV. However the thust observed is weaker than at the atmospherical pressure. When the voltage is back down to 0 V, the device retrieves its initial position.

Conclusions : This experiment is very interesting and shows definitely that a force is produced on asymmetrical capacitors when a High Voltage of +45KV is applied between their armatures in a High Vacuum ( 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ).


A clear replication of the experiments done in France.

Brown used higher voltages (80 Kv, 110 Kv and 150 Kv).

He observed that the discs sped faster in vacuum, once the correct voltage is applied.

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #93 on: June 14, 2019, 09:12:13 AM »
https://web.archive.org/web/20140602175747/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_2F__Annexe_4.pdf (annex 4.3 describes the positive results obtained in vacuum (vide) using plexiglass and 80 Kv)

Page 100 (pg 11 of the pdf document)



Essais sous vide (vacuum tests)

Le système commence à entrer à rotation vers 80 Kv et en forcant la tension l'on peut parvenir a des rotations de l'ordre de 1 tour/seconde.

The system begins to rotate at 80 Kv and by forcing the tension one can achieve rotations of the order of 1 turn/second.


https://web.archive.org/web/20140602175742/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_2E__Annexes_3.4-3.6.pdf

Essais sous vide (vacuum tests)

On obtient des rotations entretenues a des vitesses de l'ordre des 1 tour/seconde.

We obtain rotations maintained at speeds of the order of 1 turn/second.




Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #94 on: June 14, 2019, 02:45:22 PM »
The reason why the voltage has to be increased in the vacuum experiments has everything to do with the value of G which is a variable, when expressed in terms of Planck units (quantum vacuum). This can be proved using the mass-density equivalent of the vacuum ZPF fields formula derived in 2000 by B. Haisch and A. Rueda.

That is, in the formula derived using Weyl fields, √G = 2.58 x 10-4. In the vacuum tests, this value will be lower (the density of ether will increase), that is why one needs a higher voltage than usual.


*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #95 on: June 14, 2019, 08:28:47 PM »
The reason why the voltage has to be increased in the vacuum experiments has everything to do with the value of G which is a variable,
Isn't big G a constant? Is this something about aether theory that I don't understand?
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #96 on: June 14, 2019, 08:50:04 PM »
In the mainstream Newtonian theory, G varies slightly:

https://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw15.html

https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/rapportBIPM/1983/01.pdf

The G "constant" is correctly defined in terms of the ether (ZPF) mass-density equivalent and Planck time and is a vacuum repulsion reaction and a quantum function.




*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #97 on: June 16, 2019, 12:27:05 AM »
In the mainstream Newtonian theory, G varies slightly:

https://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw15.html

https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/rapportBIPM/1983/01.pdf

The G "constant" is correctly defined in terms of the ether (ZPF) mass-density equivalent and Planck time and is a vacuum repulsion reaction and a quantum function.
If I can summarise your links, this is a hypothesis that has been experimentally verified a grand total of... one time. In 1922. This is far from "mainstream newtonian".
Perhaps, the paper speculates, there is new and very weak force associated with hypercharge which is responsible for the anomalies in both the gravitational and the kaon measurements.
What part of this is Newtonian?

I think you really need to rethink your general approach to how you interpret scientific results. This isn't the first time you've pointed to a single experiment and basically said "this experiment therefore it must be true", and happily ignored the fact that the result hasn't been reproduced in the last 60+ years. You have a remarkably low bar for evidence before you'll believe something is true.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #98 on: June 16, 2019, 12:35:29 AM »
Additionally this "hypercharge" force seems to be proportional to the number of nucleons, and is apparently such a small effect that it wasn't noticed until 1986 (It looks like this effect must be <G/2000). How is this effect relevant to charging a capacitor? Does the number of nucleons in the capacitor change when the capacitor is placed into a vacuum chamber? How does this tiny effect make such a huge difference to the voltage required for the B-B effect?

The B-B effect is proportional to sqrt(G), so a small change in G will produce a squared-small change in the B-B effect. I'm really not buying this explanation, even if you can show me that there is some tiny variation in G.
What am I missing?
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #99 on: June 16, 2019, 07:35:07 AM »
You demanded an explanation for the results obtained by Talley during the vacuum tests.

I began by drawing your attention to the fact that G varies slightly, the Eotvos gravitational effect, a fact which has no explanation in mainstream science.

In view of the results published by Roland Eotvos, Dr. E. Fischbach (Purdue University) has proposed the following modification to the law of universal gravitation:



Thus, G is not a constant as we have been led to believe.

http://mek.oszk.hu/02000/02054/html/onehund.html


Here is the correct equation for G, which is a quantum function:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2179065#msg2179065


The B-B effect is proportional to sqrt(G), so a small change in G will produce a squared-small change in the B-B effect.

No.

A change in √G means that in vacuum you need a higher voltage and/or a dielectric constant.

In vacuum, √G < 2.58 x 10-4.