Chapter 42 - Your First Lesson

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

Remember the comment about coming to conclusions with only partial information?

Mikado, when you started this discussion you admitted to the fact that you had not yet read Chapter 39. Please read it carefully. It might help with the discussion that you and Andrew have been having.

On page 7 of chapter 39 you will find this statement " In Browns own words (from a letter he wrote in 1977) the "Biefeld Brown effect is ........

"A departure from the Coulomb Law of electrostatic attraction, in that the opposite forces are NOT EQUAL. The negative electrode appears to "chase" the positive electrode. so that there is a net force of the system in the negative-to-positive direction"

In every book I ever read the Law says egual and opposite ..... but you see .... that is not the truth. Sometimes you can follow all the rules of the science that you know and draw perfectly valid conclusions BASED ON WHAT YOU KNOW AT THE TIME ...... but that does not mean ...... in the very long run .... that your conclusions have been right.

In chapter Four (HOW MANY GENERALS DOES IT TAKE?) (page two I think), Paul relates the story of a meeting between Townsend Brown and his daughter Linda with the illustrious scientist Dr. Edward Teller. They were showing him a prototype of what would eventually become the thing that you see advertised on late night TV .... the IONIC BREEZE principle was demonstrated there at Dr. Tellers private residence. The year is 1967. Look at the way Dr. Teller responded to it. I believe that the quote was " I don't understand what makes it work."

I love the conversations everybody! Thank you so much for spending the energy and the time that you are putting in this direction. Elizabeth

[Mikado14]

OOOPPPs

So sorry, it was Capter 36, for some reason, I can't seem to load it. Upon further investigation, I see it was not ready.

I was not and have not been exposed to EHD or the concept, etc.

I am familiar with MHD.

As I see it, if you put two plates with different polarities in sea water, a certain amount of electrolysis will occur. No matter how you cut it, there will almost (never say never) always be some conductivity to sea water. I was searching and asking if there was a way around it or if Dr. Brown was able to minimize this or if he found a way around. I fail to see how Coulombs law of electrostatic attraction would apply here to reduce it. Perhaps I have missed something and will meditate upon it. As to cavitation, it is a concern with propellors and they are designed to minimize this, however there are some that are porous to increase wetting action, etc. I can see how MHD virtually eliminates it but I quess, again, I am missing something when it comes to EHD.

As to the laws of attraction, I understand that and have seen it in the laboratory as to the derivation from Coulombs Law of Electrostatic charges.

As to the Ionic Breeze machine, I can buy one for 5 easy payments of 69.99 last night on the tube, had a chuckle on that one. (That would be the day)

I understand the operation of electrostatic precipitators. The principle was first discovered by Cottrell in the first decade of this century and the only way I remember this is from working on them. Did Dr. Brown expand or extrapolate his ideas from Cottrell?

I apologize for my apparent redundancy or if I have offended anyone with my questions. I can be that way when I see something that I am not familiar with and wish to understand better.

Peace

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

I wish that I were the scientist that it would take to answer the questions that you have presented Mikado. Its a delight to see them but a consternation because I am not able to help you out myself.

But its interesting to see your questions because I think that you may be realizing (along with us) that there are other situations at work here that make simple explanations difficult.

I am disadvantaged in this response because Paul has been pulled away on family matters for a few days so he will be unavailable to us. ( as he explained on another recent post. )

Perhaps from his studies of Townsend Browns work he could answer your questions better. It is my immediate reaction that Dr. Brown did not draw on Cottrells work at all. (Of course I may be forming that opinion in error).
I do realize that electrostatic precipitation is quite an old field but with EHD, as you learn more about it, you will discover that it is not a simple situation and not at all understood, even by todays experts. There always seems to be some part of the puzzle missing.

Or perhaps in your questions ( about Dr. Brown possibly "finding a way around that problem") you are actually asking yourself a very important question. Perhaps YOU are the one that will be able to answer that.

I have the pretty solid hunch that if he had devised a way to solve the problem that you mentioned, it would not be readily available to us.

Trickfox once said that there are several ways to find out secret technologies. One is for someone to tell you. One is to steal it from the other guy And still another is to develop it independently and under your own steam.

I don't understand what it is that you are sensing here but maybe you might consider what you already suggested to yourself when you said that you might just meditate on the situation . I think you might find that a productive path to the third solution.

Paul will symapthize with you. Its tough sensing that there is a piece of the picture missing and you can't quite seem to get it to go together. And I suspect that there is something left out of this technology which makes it even harder to grasp.Welcome to our world.

No need to for worrying about redundancy. We know what that is like around here too! The situation can lend itself to banging your head against a wall. But the company is always appreciated. Elizabeth

[grinder]

What I love about the story of Townsend Brown. There is always this little twist. Like talking about electrostatic precipitatiors. But with Dr. Browns unit. it could be a loudspeaker. (I have been half afraid to ask what else the thing could do!)

Great discussion. grinder

[Chris Knight]

Hi All,

Sorry to disappear there for awhile. I'm painting a couple rooms in the house.

Yes, If there were two, oppositely charged electrodes exposed to seawater, I would expect some degree of electrolysis based on the amperage, conductivity of the water, etc. EHD doesn't really require much more current than to overcome internal and coronal losses (it is a voltage-based technology rather than current-based) so any electrolysis would be minimal at best. Plus, since EHD uses asymmetric electrostatic (ES) fields, the electrodes could be insulated from the seawater with no loss of effect (since plastics, for example, are transparent to electrostatic fields).

I'm not too familiar with MHD myself. I'm no expert on Fredrick Cottrell either - about what anyone else knows. That he reportedly invented the electrofilter in 1906, but patented it around 1938 (I think). Out-gases, such as in smokestacks, are pushed through the electrofilter which ionizes particlulates in the gas by means of a high voltage positive electrode. The charged particulates are then attracted to grounded plates. The plates are shaken off, or otherwise cleaned periodically.

The apparatuses appear quite similar at first glance. Whether Brown and Cottrell had any interaction I couldn't say. However, there are a few fundamental differences in the functioning of say, the electrofilter (EF) and the electrostatic precipitator (EP).

Cottrell's EF used a HV positive electrode to ionize particulates as the air containing them was forced through the apparatus, causing them to accumulate on the grounded plates. Brown's EP works on the dielectric aspect of a material, say air, and uses the K of the material coupled with asymmetric ES fields to force it through the apparatus, creating a "pumping" action. And yes, ionized particulates do also accumulate on the trailing electrode. That's why a Sharper Image air cleaner (EP), which is based on Brown's work, can be easily turned into a loudspeaker (albeit not a great one based on the design maximizing airflow rather than sound production).

If you get a chance (as I said), I'm no expert on MHD, and I'd like to know a bit about how MHD works and the history of its use.

Best,

Andrew

[grinder]

Forgive me guys. I did poorly in my science classes and so I have a much more difficult trail to climb.

So, what you are saying Andrew is that the "working gear' of such a "propulsion system" can simply be kept from the saltwater by some sort of plastic shield, and it would still work? In other words, the "field" would still do the work on the saltwater? Am I kinda right? And if I am, does that sort of answer Mikados question here? Or did I fall off the train of conversation here? grinder

[Chris Knight]

Grinder,

That is my understanding - the current required is to compensate for internal (heat generation, leakage) and coronal losses. However, there was some question later on that perhaps a minor amount of leakage, or more precisely, charge on the (dielectric medium), would at least accentuate the effect.

On the other hand, the whole point is almost moot, because of other characteristics which allow it to be installed within the vessel or as the vessel itself. We all tend to get stuck on the wheel, propeller, transmission, axle, engine, exhaust, or whatnot, which translate energy into motion, which is then transferred to the body of the vessel. That is what our civilization's transportation is based on.

For example, Brown's tri-arcuate discs were the engine with all of the systems inside.

Andrew

[grinder]

Here I go again. What?

Are you saying that we all get caught up in worrying about the mechanisms which drive something forward .... driveshafts, pistons,propellers, whatever.

Browns stuff did not have that to worry about? I am trying to get a handle on what you exactly said.

I know I have always heard this "no moving parts " thing but I don't think that I have really understood what that all means. Can you just THEORETICALLY tell me what that would mean in a ship. No propellers? No crankshafts? Gee, no noise? no nothing that moves? Except the ship through the water?

Forgive me again but I don't have the slightest idea what you meant in that first paragragh. Can you run that down for me again in like, REALLY simplistic language?

Installed IN THE VEHICLE or ....AS THE VEHICLE ITSELF. tHE TRI-ARCUATE DISCS WERE the ENGINES. IN OTHERWORDS THE SHAPE OF THE FLYING SAUCER ITSELF WAS THE ENGINE???? and the "systems" were inside? Is that what you just said? I am trying to get my brain around that. grinder

[Victoria Steele]

Hey guys, following this discussion I just typed up "electrogravitics" which is a word that I have seen Elizabeth and Paul both use, maybe Andrew too and golly take a little look at this comment.

http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/Book-ES.html

"2) The book also contains the intelligence think tank paper "Electrogravitics Systems" (prepared in 1956 by the Special Weapons Study Unit of Aviation Studies Ltd., a UK-based aviation industry intelligence firm). Formerly classified as confidential, this paper is now available for public view and reveals early interest by the U.S. and European aircraft industry in pursuing the electrogravitics gravity control technology pioneered by Townsend Brown. Paul LaViolette first discovered this paper in 1985 while browsing a card catalog at the U. S. Library of Congress in Washington, looking for information on electrogravitics. He was keenly interested in anything on the subject because the field theory he had been developing predicted the electro-gravitic coupling effect. He was surprised to find that this study, the only one of its kind listed in the catalog, was missing from the stacks! A quick library search indicated that only one library in the U. S. carried this study, the Wright Patterson Air Force Base Technical Library. He submitted an interlibrary loan request and to his surprise a copy was sent."

Maybe that will help draw some open loops closed Mikado. Maybe not. But it sure is interesting. Electricity and gravity coupled? Isn't that what Townsend Brown said he had discovered in the twenties? Pretty amazing here folks! And this is not our imagination!

Victoria

[Mark Culpepper]

Take another look at that site http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/Book-ES.html

And then look a little further .... say .... at this ......

"Additional information about electrogravitic propulsion may be found in the book Subquantum Kinetics: A Systems Approach to Physics and Cosmology, by Paul LaViolette. The book presents a field theory which forms an excellent basis for understanding electrogravitic phenomena. This new physics framework played a key role in allowing Dr. LaViolette to reverse engineer the B-2's propulsion system.
We believe that in the future subquantum kinetics will be the main physics reference that will allow engineers to construct the aerospace vehicles of the future. When these principles are completely understood, superluminal propulsion is real, not science fiction"

and this ..... "This 111-page book presents information indicating that antigravity has been and is being seriously investigated by leading aircraft companies as well as governments. An underlying theme is that T. T. Brown propulsion, once developed, will usher in an age of flight so revolutionary it will make all previous aviation, from the Wright brothers to space shuttles, constiute the Stone Age of flight.
This book can be appreciated by anyone who is interested in electrogravitics. It contains basic information for the neophyte (such as glossaries, patent lists and basics on T. T. Brown research) as well as clippings and information which make a case for the reality of electrogravitics technology. . . The book is thought-provoking.
Having made a theoretical case for electrogravitics, the book also makes a historical one. Hints of electrogravitics in the history of aviation, revealed through developments and statements made by major aircraft companies in articles from Aviation Report in the mid-1950's are reprinted. T. T. Brown's work is described in detail."

The interesting thing about the above is that I find that we seem to have been covering those subjects ..... They say T.T. Browns work is "described in detail" but how could that actually be? I just get the impression that these other writers are all working with only what the man wanted them to have and there is a whole treasure load of stuff that he with held! Comments Paul? Whenever you can?

Nobody has even MENTIONED OR EVEN HINTED SUBMARINES. And yet you admit that your "sources" have sent you pages and pages of information about submarines. Gee Paul, whodathunk? Have you ever asked yourself " Why ME?"

To borrow Morgans words to you again "Sly old fox ..... point to the sky, then go underwater!

I didn't ever meet him but I can tell you from what you have told us about Townsend Brown and his family .... I like and admire them very much. Mark C.

[Chris Knight]

Hi All,

I was wondering where everyone was.

Well, yes, the whole disc design was to create a situation that would, in essence, place the interior containing the crew and systems within a gravitational shield. It's hard to make 90 degree turns going thousands of mph without squishing the crew, but within the engine field, the crew would theoretically be unaffected by radical manuevers. It's all about electromagnetic gravitational coupling.

He never really got into "electrogravitics" or "anti-gravity," but you can find "The Gravitics Situation" and a couple of other documents of interest at http://www.qualight.com under the "Stress in Dielectrics" section, which is the term Brown typically used (I'm wondering if anyone goes over there anymore with all the excitement here !).

I apologize for not having the "Electrogravitics Systems" document on there - I will put it on as soon as I can. In fact I will start it now, but it won't look pretty for a few days. Someone should really get on my case about Winterhaven as well, since I don't think I've put that up either.

Andrew

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

Thanks for that Andrew. I figured that you would have that report at your fingertips. "One stop shop that you are for information on Townsend Brown" ( inside joke folks, I'll tell you about it sometimes!)

Oh Jeeze, I never thought I would be repeating something I had heard on Art Bells late night ufo radio show! AND I don't even remember when it was, but as I recall the program centered on John Lear talking about his father (William Lear, of Lear Jets) and Townsend Brown! John Lear said that he a was sure that the two of them had "something in the works" in the fifties and sixties. (Or at least that was my impression of the conversation.)

And that phrase about the cabin being somehow insulated against g forces which would enable the "crew" to handle those impossible turns and shifts of speed was repeated. (I think that statement was made originally by Bill Lear himself. My question is ...... where did Bill Lear get his insporation on that subject?)

My brain is not back up to pre-vacation speed but I think I have seen somewhere that William Lear and Townsend Brown were actually long time friends )

From what John said in this late night interview his Dad believed that "flying saucers " were absolutely real and he made no bones about saying that in public. ( remember that it would have taken guts to be so outspoken about stuff like that in the fifties. This was in an age when you were called loony if you reported seeing something strange in the sky.)

I don't know why I got off on that topic.

Oh. Andrew mentioned the effects "in the cabin". So maybe Bill Lear was just refelecting his belief because he had already seen the concept in action? Is that possible that he knew that such a thing would work because he had already SEEN it?

Elizabeth

[LongboardLOVELY]

Mikado,
thanks for joining the forums. If you haven't seen this yet, check out
http://www.soteria.com/
then
http://www.soteria.com/hydro/
and
http://www.soteria.com/ecomm/ (electrogravitic communications)

This is where IT all started. Someone (we don't know who, just his/her handle) directed Paul to my husband's site. This site has gone though quite a few iterations... but much of Brown's documents and lifework are there. As well as quite a few references, including LaViolette's stuff.

My scientific background is limited to biology and the science and medicine of the human body. Therefore, I cannot really contribute much to this current Physics discussion... but I see that many of you who have just written have forgotten to review Andrew's site. No worries, but go read it NOW!

LindaB

[twigsnapper]

Steady LOVELY. Nobody has forgotten Andrews contribution.

And Elizabeth, that comment about the cabin occupants being insulated I believe originated in a report generated by the FBI and then picked up by the writer Michael Gladych. strange how leaks happen sometimes.

It was Gladychs 1956 article that was photocopied and then mysteriously left on Nick Cooks desk. His reaction to it can be read in his first chapter of the book that spark generated. ( The Hunt for Zero Point)

then on page 3 of that book Nick Cook writes

" A little further on, it quoted "William P. Lear, the chairman of Lear Inc, makers of autopilots and other electronic controls." It would be another decade before Bill Lear went on to design and build the first of the sleek business jets that still carry his name. But in 1954, according to Gladych, Lear had his mind on other things.

"All matter within the ship would be influenced by the ships gravitation only." Lear apparently said of the wondrous G-craft. " This way, no matter how fast you accelerated or changed course, your body would not feel it any more than it now feels the tremendous speed and acceleration of the earth. " The G-ship Gladych explained could take off like a cannon shell, come to a stop with equal abruptness and the passengers wouldn't even need seat belts. This ability to accelerate rapidly the author continued, would make it ideal as a space vehicle capable of acceleration to a speed approaching that of light."

Elizabeth. Look closer at your FBI records. You will find this thread. William P. Lear was a man of GREAT interest to the FBI at the same time that he was escorting certain generals to demonstrations held by Townsend Brown upon his return from Hawaii. Look again. Its all there, though mis spelled.

And Ann S. Condolences to you and your family my dear. Twigsnapper

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

First of all, Thank you Mr. Twigsnapper for your sentiments.

Paul will be back up on line I am sure but until then you will always have me, banging my head against the nearest wall.

My attention turned to Nick Cook again with your assistance and I found another statement out of many that was very interesting to me. On page 7 of my well- worn copy he simply stated his main reason for not looking at the material that was there for him, but not picked up.

"I gazed out over the slate rooftops. For Interavia to have written about antigravity there had to have been something in it. The trouble was, it was HISTORY. My bread-and-butter beat was the aerospace industry of the 1990s not this DISTANT COZY WORLD OF THE FIFTIES with its heady whiff of jet engine spirit and the developing cold war."

So I guess you guys, up to your ankles in that "distant cozy world of the fifties" decided to find someone else, maybe? , to write the story of Townsend Brown?

I am attempting to answer for myself here why, perhaps, Paul Schatskin was hand picked for this project? Because as LOVELY pointed out .... the idea came to him in the same mysterious way as the suggestion for The Hunt for Zero Point reached Nick Cook. A mysterious message left on a desk, in Pauls case it was his Email.

My response to that similarity is ...... OK, Now what? Elizabeth