A place to engage extended discussions of things that come up on the ttbrown.com website. Anything goes here, as long as it's somehow pertinent to the subject(s) at hand.
Mikado14 wrote:I haven't a clue. I just remember seeing something back in the sixties and it just kinda popped up from the spinning vortex within my cranium.
Ah, you've got one of those too? Nice to see I'm not the only one.
Lately, I wish something usefull would pop up instead of who starred in what movie back in the thirties.....
Please, whatever you do, don't let my wife think that's not useful knowledge...
--PS
Paul Schatzkin
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
Its a long article just peppered with references to Dr. Browns work.
I've seen that Ted Loder paper, even spoke to the man once a while back. It's a pretty good read. Here's a version from the SEAS site (sister site to Stephen Greer's Disclosure Project) sight that is not center-justified (why DO people do that??) :
I just can't wait for Paul to get there with his book and at least TRY to tell us what was really going on in the mans life.
Yeah, I can't wait either <g>.
In the meantime, anybody wanna read about the rest of his Navy career in a Chapter 43? What're y'all doing Thursday?
It has been said that if the American people knew what the military had in their arsenal today, they wouldn't believe it, and would think that someone was fantasizing about a George Lucas Star Wars movie episode.
Hmm, given the current state of "National Intelligence," maybe it's a better idea that we -- and certain of our leaders, hopefully -- don't know what might be in the arsenal.
But it's not science-fiction. The future is already here."
Hmmmm... I dunno if it's "here," but I suspect it's out there somewhere...
--PS
Paul Schatzkin
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
Perhaps just a tad defensive here about any kind of slight about "intelligence."
You know where my loyalties lie and where I usually find disappointments. In the political system at work today its just so very convenient to blame "flaulty intelligence" .
The "Faulty" part normally occurs when good sound information is handed over, at no small risk and hardship , to people who do not see what they have. Or see it but prefer to look toward their own agenda. So they cherry pick your information until it no longer even resembles what you handed in.
Then later you have to watch some talking head berate the intelligence branch for being inept. I try to smile through it.
But Paul. Someday in the future perhaps, Fabreeze might work.
twigsnapper wrote:Perhaps just a tad defensive here about any kind of slight about "intelligence."
I apologize for the slight. But you should know by now that when I talk that way about "intelligence," I don't mean the people doing the hard and dangerous work in the trenches; I'm impugniing the "intellgence" of the people at the very top who make bad decisions regardless of what they're getting from their most reliable sources.
In the political system at work today its just so very convenient to blame "flaulty intelligence"
It's not the intelligence gatherers and analysts that I'm finding fault with, its... uh... you know... the "Deciders."
The "Faulty" part normally occurs when good sound information is handed over, at no small risk and hardship , to people who do not see what they have. Or see it but prefer to look toward their own agenda. So they cherry pick your information until it no longer even resembles what you handed in.
Exactly. No disagreement at all there.
But Paul. Someday in the future perhaps, Fabreeze might work.
OK, ya got me with that one.
BTW, you get my msg re: Eire in October?
--PS
Paul Schatzkin
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
The psychopropulsier (as pointed out in the book The Good-bye man by Linda Brown and Jan Lofton) is a Quantum entanglement project under development using Quantum Junctions. Join us at http://www.Peeteelab.com
Wonderful! spectacular! Misty and romantic! Magical! (Say hello to the old man with the white ponies in the field, if you "happen" across him. I found his words of wisdom about what humanity REALLY wants very enlightening.)
OH BOYOHBOYOBOY! Another chapter! I have enjoyed all the discussions that we have had going in so many different directions but it will be GREAT having new material!
Through his Navy career you say? I have always wondered about that "mental breakdown" thing. That too? The REAL story? (Of course, forgive me. Of course it will be the real story! )
I can't wait! I'll just bet that its not what others will be expecting! Maybe I'm wrong but I never bought that "mental breakdown" story one bit.
And there is REALLY hope in the world for romance folks! Speaking first hand. "Ah! " Paul sighs with relief " Thankyou mysterious gentleman for taking the heat off of me!" Well ...... maybe for a while! Victoria
Elizabeth Helen Drake wrote:So, what you are saying Mikado .... is (????) ... if people were not so absorbed in trying to get these balsa and straw lifters off the ground ..... that perhaps they might see something else? <g>(?????) I don't want to put words in your mouth so please correct me here if I have misread. Isn't it sort of strange? Since the twenties Townsend Browns work has been ignored or ridiculed publically .... (all the time it seems someone somewhere has been paying attention to the technology) ..... but everytime most of us look in that direction there is something else there to draw us off again. Now when his name is being recognized .... where is the attention? The ionic breeze? A lifter in someones garage? That feels as strange to me as it does to you. Paul made an interesting comment in response to that picture of Linda and her Dad (where Dr. Brown is pointing to the sky) He said that Morgan had made the statement to him something like "Sly old fox, point to the sky and go underwater!) We haven't even really talked about the submarines out there that might be using Dr. Browns work ...... and its getting more and more obvious to me that there is other stuff out there too .... that is being protected by our obsession with "lifters". Paul said that Dr. Brown called them "ashtray products" .............. so what is REALLY out there, waiting for us to see it?? My gut feeling is that it is a major development ... not just a propulsion system.
Someone elses turn. Elizabeth
Red You pretty well have the gist. It would be analogous to everyone building incandescent lights with carbon filaments and exclaiming how great it is.
Green I am new to who Dr. Brown is, I only wish I knew of him about 30 years ago. The only response I can give and I hope you or some of you understand is this, Energy follows thought.
Blue I don't feel that I can comment on that other than it appears that Morgan knows something that we don't by that statement.
Violet My observations, to answer your statement is to look to David Copperfield, if he has you busy watching his left hand, you can't see what he is doing with his right hand, for he doesn't want you to.
Mikado
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
I like that Mikado and you are right "Energy follows thought"
And is that what makes up our reality? Forgive me here if I am on a little bit of a mind burst.
Elizabeth and Paul keep mentioning Einsteins answer to that one question and he said "If you DECIDE that the world is a friendly place then ............"
So is that the deal? We just have to get wise enough to realize that? grinder
I just wanted you folks to notice that the discussion still is going on in the "lifters group" forum. And the scarey thing to me is that our last post here in OUR lifter section was September 06!!! So here is another. Maybe the new members will enjoy this exchange.
I especially liked these parts.
This is from Leon Tribe and addressed to David Thompson
"I should qualify my term. By 'conventional model', I mean the ion cloud
model ascribed to Lifters. This gives a complete model for the mechanics of
Lifter operation through the associated differential equations. The downside
of this model is that the equations are only solvable in the 1-D
approximation. To reach solutions in 2 or 3 dimensions requires numerical
simulation. As for proof, if it is proof you want, science can't help you.
Science can disprove but cannot prove anything. Science is about
usefullness, not truth."...........................
(SCIENCE IS ABOUT USEFULNESS, NOT TRUTH. Now that reminds me of something someone said to Edison about the electric light bulb being to " fragile" to be good for anything ..............)
"If we are to assume the lost momentum has been taken up by the Aether rather
than air, then this is a departure from modern physics regardless of the
labels used. There is no branch of modern physics, as far as I know, that
allows for momentum loss to the curvature of space. The only way I can see
this reconciling with modern physics is if we interpret gravity in this way
somehow, although I can't see clearly how"
(AND PERHAPS THAT VISION IS ONE OF THE REASONS THAT PAUL IS WRITING THIS BOOK.)
"The only problem is every time a modern experimenter
tries to get a Lifter to lift in a vacuum they get no observable force."
(YES WELL, WHAT OTHER THINGS DID? take note of the tests in Paris)
AND THE ORIGINAL LETTER WHICH INSTIGATED THIS RESPONSE IS INTERESTING TOO.........
"Do you really believe that an
aether that has been undetected by science for 70 years is going to have a mass and interact so readily with ions?"
UNDETECTED BY SCIENCE PERHAPS, BUT NOT BY ALL SCIENTISTS ...
"It isn't that Aether has been undetected. Magnetic fields, electrostatic
fields, gravitational fields, space-time, particle spin, solitons, phonons,
and frame dragging are all based upon empirical measurements of real
phenomena. The Aether has been detected all along, but is hidden by a
plethora of disconnected concepts and names. The Aether is "undetectable"
only because modern science irrationally chooses to deny its existence."
WHY IS THAT? That is the BIG question here folks. How can something exist right in front of us and yet we fail to see it? Sort of like the deer in the forest Paul?
Damn Elizabeth. How do you keep finding these people. This guy is great!
David Thomson? Are you already part of our forum? Are you reading this? Can you join us? I would like to hear more of your ideas!
This is from the Lifter Group exchange that Elizabeth referenced before.
"And don't be so smug is saying that modern physics can properly account for lifter and thruster operation. Nobody, not even you, have proven how to quantify lifter and thruster action, or quantifiably explained the mechanics involved.
I have given up discussions with you on this matter because you, like the
rest of modern thinkers, irrationally choose to ignore the Aether and any
valid quantifications put forth. I have presented solid math, based upon a
new paradigm, and you just completely blow me off each time.
How can anybody make progress on the cutting edge of science, when they are
constantly being cutoff? You are literally throwing the baby out with the
bath water by not investigating the Aether theories, especially the fully
quantified Aether Physics Model."
Join us David! We promise we won't "cut you off" grinder
David Thomson. I just read a post that you put up on the Lifter Group forum and I hope its alright ... I am going to transfer your remarks to our forum here. Of course I think that you demonstrate a brilliant point of view, but maybe thats just because I happen to agree entirely with you. Join us directly? Until then here is what you had to say to the lifter group"
Wed, 7 Feb 2007 08:43:28 -0600
Subject: RE: [Lifters] a simple measurement
Hi Leon,
> As for you particular Aether model, I have not dismissed it out of
> disbelief but simply out of utility. By your own admission, your model
> does not offer a model of mechanics on the 'Newtonian' scale i.e. everyday
> objects.
Actually, you dismissed it out of ignorance. You did not comprehend my
statement about the difference between quantum structure and quantum
mechanics. Since there is no solid science concerning quantum structure in
modern physics, you have no way of understanding what quantum structure is
until you take the time to investigate it.
My theory provides the foundation for quantum structure and is fully
consistent with already existing quantum mechanics. There is no pressing
need for me to work out a new system of quantum mechanics while the present
system is already useful. The only need I have for working out the quantum
mechanics is to make the two systems thoroughly compatible with each other.
But you should already be used to working with incompatible theories, as you
are a firm believer in Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, two
theories predicting opposite outcomes.
It isn't that my theory predicts an opposite outcome to Quantum Mechanics,
but that it predicts structure in a different system of units. When I say I
need to work out the mechanics, I simply mean that QM needs to be rewritten
within this new paradigm of distributed charges.
> Therefore, until it is further developed, it will be of limited use in
> describing the forces, in a quantifiable manner, associated with the
> Lifter.
It is your ignorance, which is of limited use, not the theory of quantum
structure. You need to understand this.
> Give me the Aether version of F=Id/k with derivation and I'll be very
> interested.
Give me the Standard Model version of unified forces and I'll be interested
in your ideas. The model you rely on cannot unify the forces, so how can
you trust it if you don't know how the electrostatic force, strong force,
and gravitational force relate to each other? Any concept about force you
have is automatically made useless if you have no certainty it is correct.
Also, if you want me to work on an equation, you need to define the
variables. I assume the equation reads force equal change of current per
some constant? If this is correct, the APM version would be force equal
current times electromagnetic momentum.
forc = curr * emgm
You could work out the differential current as long as you also work out the
differential electromagnetic momentum. As the current increases, the
electromagnetic momentum decreases, and vice versa. The electromagnetic
momentum is the amount of momentum per strong charge. If you don't know
what strong charge is, then you'll have to study the theory. There is no
analog for strong charge in the Standard Model of physics, other than to say
it is the carrier of the strong force. However, since the strong force is
neither defined nor related to the other forces in the Standard Model, even
that is useless for you to know.
The Aether Physics Model is a completely different system of physics with a
completely different foundation. If you don't take the time to study it,
you will never understand it.
Your silly challenge to me sounds like a freshman physics student telling
his teacher, "show me why an 800 pound gorilla can sit wherever it wants and
I'll study physics." You don't even have the forces unified and you dare
challenge me to give a better explanation for a force equation? How would
you know a better explanation if you saw one?
> If we are to assume the lost momentum has been taken up by the Aether
> rather than air, then this is a departure from modern physics regardless
> of the labels used.
What is this "either air or Aether" attitude? The laws of physics applies
to the entire physical universe, not to just the parts you think you
understand. Just because you adhere to a system of physics, which has
denied the existence of Aether while renaming aspects of it to "space-time, "
"vacuum," "phonons," "solitons," "electric field," "magnetic field,"
"gravitational field," "quantum foam," "frame dragging," and others doesn't
mean the Aether does not exist.
> There is no branch of modern physics, as far as I know, that
> allows for momentum loss to the curvature of space.
You said it yourself, "as far as you know."
> The only way I can see this reconciling with modern physics is if we
> interpret gravity in this way somehow, although I can't see clearly how.
I clearly show that gravity and the strong force are orthogonally different
views of the same thing. I further show that the so-called "weak
interaction" is simply the proportion of the electrostatic force to the
strong force. If you study the theory, you will understand this and it will
make perfect sense. Instead, you adhere to the ignorance of the Standard
Model and speak down to me as though you held the key to the Universe.
> If we do interpret gravity as some form of momentum interaction with
> spacetime, then why would we see such a profound effect with Lifters?
You are like a man dying of thirst lying three inches from a lake full of
crystal clear water. It is a pity to see you ask these questions and tell
me you're not going to study the Aether Physics Model until you know why you
should.
> There
> is no significant curvature of space around a Lifter (Mythbusters
> established this one) so why would a force be created such that the thing
> could lift up?
As though the clowns on Mythbusters are capable? How do you prove something
does not exist if your physics deny it exists in the first place? You don't
have the right paradigm to work from.
Space time is curved, that does not mean it is necessarily stretched all the
time. Space-time only stretches when there is a huge mass adjacent to a
huge "empty space." Think of curved space-time as simply a bunch of
adjacent spheres, although it is not quite that simple. Space-time
curvature occurs in five dimensions, whereas physical matter only exists in
four dimensions. Also, the curvature is due to dynamic quantum frequency.
It is as though you rapidly cycled a stretched rubber band (length) up and
down and then right and left. Through the dynamic movement it would appear
to a person in less dimensions (a time-lapsed photograph, for example) that
they were looking at a four point star with concaved curved lengths between
the points.
What is really happening is that the curved space-time is beginning to
create a space-time bubble around the lifter. The stronger the bubble
becomes, the more disconnected the lifter becomes from the space-time around
it. When the fabric of space-time produces a self-contained bubble, the
forces between the matter inside the bubble are no longer connected to the
forces acting on the matter outside of it. The lifter, apparently, is a
very poorly defined bubble, which allows for only partial disconnection.
Apparently, the bubble in this case is dynamic and turning in on itself
relative to the surrounding Aether, thus creating relative movement with the
surrounding space-time.
> What makes an inbalance in electrostatic charge so
> susceptible to momentum exchange with an otherwise inaccessible medium?
Electrostatic charge is a direct quality of the Aether, not of matter.
Since each subatomic particle must be totally encapsulated by a single
Aether unit, each subatomic particle will pick up the electrostatic charge
on the portion of the Aether unit where it resides. The Aether unit is a
dipole structure existing in five dimensions. When matter (which is primary
angular momentum, or dark matter) is encapsulated by an Aether unit, the
angular momentum interacts with the Aether unit to produce strong charge.
Thus a subatomic particle is dark matter encapsulated in an Aether unit and
the Aether unit donates the electrostatic charge of the dipole end on which
the dark matter resides, but also generates strong charge. The weak
interaction is the ratio of the electrostatic charge to the strong charge.
Further, the electrostatic charge and strong charge are reciprocal
dimensions to each other. It would take a couple weeks to properly explain
the quantum structure, just as it takes a couple weeks to properly explain
quantum mechanics.
The short of it is, if you don't study quantum structure in the Aether
Physics Model, you won't understand it. Instead, you will rely on your
ignorance as your source of knowledge.
> My most fundamental problem though is why would we leap to the conclusion
> of an Aether interaction when we can just as easily speculate an
> interaction with the ionisable air,
If your speculation of ionized air were correct, we wouldn't be having this
discussion. Ionized air is only part of the solution. Air molecules are
made from atoms. Atoms are built up from subatomic particles. Subatomic
particles are directly intertwined with the Aether. When you discuss
"ionized air" you are talking about Aether and dark matter in a lumped form.
The ionized air, the metal wires, the non-conducting structures holding the
lifter together, and the Aether (electric, magnetic, and gravitational
fields, particle spin, space-time, resonance, speed of light, permeability,
permittivity, etc, etc) all work together to produce the physical Universe
we experience. You can't explain the whole Universe just by looking at
ionized air molecules, which is why your physics is limited in scope.
> especially in light of no modern evidence of Lifters
> working in a non-ionisable, but presumably Aether laden, vacuum?
There wasn't a high enough potential used. Ionized air molecules can bias
the electrostatic charge in the medium, just like permanent magnets can bias
an electromagnet. If you don't have a biased electromagnet, it requires a
higher current to generate a stronger magnetic field. When potential is
applied to a lifter, it gives off electrons, or strips them as the case may
be, from surrounding air molecules. Now you have a biased electrostatic
medium. Aether units are bipolar, having equal positive and negative
electrostatic charge. Ions are monopolar in their effect. Therefore, to
get all the surrounding charge in a total vacuum pointing in the same
direction to act on the lifter would require a higher and constant
potential.
> The only problem is every time a modern experimenter
> tries to get a Lifter to lift in a vacuum they get no observable force.
Actually, since the Aether is not expected to exist, the experiment is not
adjusted appropriately to look for it.
Dave
I COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT ANY BETTER. THANK YOU SO MUCH FROM ONE OF YOUR MAJOR FANS. ELIZABETH
David Thompson,
You have my respect and admiration for providing the public with a brilliant explanation of the physics that many of us are silently aware of. I'm wondering if you have predicted any new kinds of communications technology, or are you more interested in the manipulation of the "Newtonian force". (I suppose that energy sources would fall under this category too).
Secondly, I hope you will consider looking into our the discussions in this forum, (which I sometimes get frustrated over because of general confusion). Without throwing out the baby with the bath-water, I would remind everyone that we allways need a balanced point of view. I myself have left a huge trail of complex posts which most people complained were much too difficult to sort through.
(My warmest regards to Victoria who still owes me a "pm" on the last issue we talked about together).
I'm still looking for someone to try and tear down my speculations, just to see if they hold up to the expected standards of being "Consistent with general knowledge".
You see there is this REALLY nagging issue in this science we have called the "FTM technology". It is causing a "general crust" to occur between "the point in time" where we finally acheive "Time travel", and the point where we are about to discover "HOW to acheive Time travel".
I see a subtle conflict occuring similar to boundary layer sciences in the Microcosm. "Polydimensional Nanotribology" is a term that comes to mind.
How about the posibility that maintaining a stable complex plasma sphere involves the participation of "multiple subjective consciousness"? May be it is almost like looking at a soap bubble and hoping that it will remain stable and last a lot longer as it floats away. But suddenly.....It's gone and all there is left is the smell of ozone.
Perhaps true "long duration" time travel is next to impossible. Perhaps all we can expect or hope to acheive is an environment whereby we have made it possible for a very near future advanced technology to reach back and open the door and speak to us.
Now here is a real new brain teaser for you folks. The fact that you are reading this post today does not make it necessarilly so for someone else who will read this post in the future. Either way, at both points in time the reader will understand that they are reading this post NOW. Therefore,in reality it can also be trues that not all of us are experiencing the exact same NOW. What I'm trying to say here is that the present sometimes also feels a little foggy. Our exploitation of technology is reaching mind numbing proportions. Computers are becomming obsolete within a few years of their purchase and usage.
I predict that fully field programmable "atomic structuring" will shortly be possible at the nanolevel. If any technology can be engineered to work as "Quantum Structures" then I suppose we will have to begin with the communication of "information structures", "systems", and "forces" using math and physics. Either way we are rapidly approaching technological singularity. Future scientist must take the issue of consciousness and the workings of the subjective mind into consideration when attempting to understand "technological singularity".
Trickfox
The psychopropulsier (as pointed out in the book The Good-bye man by Linda Brown and Jan Lofton) is a Quantum entanglement project under development using Quantum Junctions. Join us at http://www.Peeteelab.com
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:26:41 +1000
Subject: RE: [Lifters] Bahnson Lab Video On YouTube Shows TT Brown Vacuum Chamber Work
It shows a couple of guys tinkering with scientific equipment which
looks
like it involves vacuum or pressure. It shows the guys pouring some
champagne. The cut-away text joins the gaps. What the videos don’t
have is
any kind of movement being shown, establishment that we’re actually
looking
at vacuum experiments (although I see no reason to doubt this one
point) or
any kind of audio for corroboration.
They could have been celebrating a birthday for what the video shows.
Hopefully this is not the best evidence we can muster for demonstrating
movement in a vacuum.
Thanks for the link though. Its good to see a human side to the story.
Leon Tribe
-____________________________________________________________
MY RESPONSE IN CAPS!
It shows a couple of guys tinkering with scientific equipment which
looks COUPLE OF GUYS/ IT ALWAYS HELPS TO KNOW WHO IS PICTURED, MAYBE THEN IT MIGHT LOOK LESS LIKE "TINKERING"
like it involves vacuum or pressure. It shows the guys pouring some
champagne. The cut-away text joins the gaps. What the videos don’t
have is
any kind of movement being shown, establishment that we’re actually
looking
at vacuum experiments (although I see no reason to doubt this one
point) or NOTE THAT LEON PROBABLY HAS ALREADY FIGURED THAT THE ACTUAL MOVEMENT IS NOT GOING TO BE SHOWN IN THIS LITTLE FILM. THATS WHY HE SAYSS"HE HAS NO REASON TO DOUBT?"
any kind of audio for corroboration. MR. TRIBE, IT MAKES MORE SENSE IF YOU KNOW HOW THAT PARTICULAR FOOTAGE CAME INTO EXISTANCE TO BEGIN WITH. THAT IT STARTED AS A LITTLE FILM BEING MADE BY AGNEW BAHNSONS DAUGHTER AND WENT FROM THERE. WHAT COULD BE MORE PERSONAL AND MORE BENEATH THE RADAR THAN A FILM SIMPLY CALLED "DADDYS LAB"
They could have been celebrating a birthday for what the video shows.
Hopefully this is not the best evidence we can muster for demonstrating
movement in a vacuum. ABSOLUTELY. THEY COULD HAVE BEEN DOING ANYTHING. YOU HAVE TO KNOW MORE BEFORE YOU COME TO ANY CONCLUSIONS.
Thanks for the link though. Its good to see a human side to the story. AND HERE IS THE KEY TO THE WHOLE PICTURE. YOU DO HAVE TO SEE THE HUMAN SIDE. YOU HAVE TO KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT TOWNSEND BROWN TO KNOW THAT HE REALLY HATED CHAMPAGNE, IT GAVE HIM A HEADACHE AND MADE HIM SICK. HE WOULD NOT HAVE TOASTED WITH IT UNLESS SOMETHING REALLY IMPORTANT WAS BEING CELEBRATED.
note how they say that this was " at its peak?" in the 60s?
An ionocraft or ion-propelled aircraft, commonly known as a lifter, is an electrohydrodynamic device that produces thrust in air using electrical energy without 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 of either a wire grid, tubes or foil skirts with a smooth round surface. When such an arrangement is powered up 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"
and then this?
However, its use for propulsion was first given serious thought by Thomas Townsend Brown in 1928 and later on by Major Alexander Prokofieff de Seversky, who contributed much to its basic physics and construction variations in 1960. In fact, it was Major De Seversky himself that in 1964 coined the term Ionocraft in his (U.S. Patent 3,130,945 ). The basic external design of these devices can be found in older patents, dating back to 1960 filed by Thomas Townsend Brown, titled "Elektrokinetic Apparatus". More recent research has cleared up many ambiguous issues relating to Brown's original work, and the somewhat elusive Biefeld–Brown effect
Elusive indeed. "More recent research has cleared up many ambiguous issues relating to Browns original work? " No kidding. grinder
If Townsend Brown went to Paris to test his devices in a vacuum and there are pictures of him holding SOLID discs ... then he is not talking about these little mayfly lifters and people should not try to make a lifter fly in a vacuum to prove any sort of point because THATS NOT what Townsend Brown was doing. As I see it sometimes people only see what they want to see and not what is actually there. Look at what he was doing and then read what some serious researchers have to say about this. Blaze Labs is one of the best. Try this
"The link above is an example of why I wrote the research note — the authors took lifters to be examples of the biefeld-brown effect when in truth that effect only dominates in gravitators and Brown’s larger disc-shaped devices. Lifters have a weak electrogravitational field but strong nitrogen ion drift, gravitators have a strong electrogravtational field but are designed to minimize ionic leakage. That’s where the confusion comes in: both overlap but overall there is still a critical difference. I don’t have a problem with either class of devices, only a problem with a certain device assigned to the wrong class."
