Lifter Ions and Some
Controlling ion direction and charge is one way of beginning to create a force field. One such experiment that can be done relatively cheaply is to make a ‘Lifter’ – essentially cast as anti-gravity machines; a whole subculture has spawned from people making these devices. Here, different areas of the scientific community are battling it out between how and why, although all are interested in the actual verifiable and well-documented results of these experiments.
The concept is old – Thomas Townsend Brown, an electrogravitics inventor from the early 20th century who needless to say died penniless in 1985 despite having invented the popular domestic air ioniser contributed much of the early research into the field.
In the 1920’s TTBrown began experimenting with capacitors – electronic components that store and release charge. He noticed that when a high voltage was pumped through a capacitor it produced a small propulsive force in a single direction. This became known as the Biefeld-Brown effect.
In an article in articles such as “How I control Gravity” 1929 Science and Invention, he mused on the possibilities for the future
“While the gravitator is at present primarily a scientific instrument, perhaps even an astronomical instrument, it also is rapidly advancing to a position of commercial value. Multi-impulse gravitators weighing hundreds of tons may propel the ocean liners of the future. Smaller and more concentrated units may propel automobiles and even airplanes. Perhaps even the fantastic “space cars” and the promised visit to Mars may be the final outcome. Who can tell?”
Like ourselves, he was a bit of a tinkerer. His empirical rigour was, well, less than empirical. His version of the Biefeld-Brown effect was that the reason this was occurring was through a new, mysterious force that interacted with the Earth’s pull. He attempted to explain his results in terms of Unified field Physics, but departed from most orthodox science by believing in an observable coupling effect between gravity and electricity.
The newly discovered force was quite obviously the resultant physical effect of an electro-gravitational interaction. It represented the first actual evidence of the very basic relationship. The force was named “gravitator action” for want of a better term and the apparatus or system of masses employed was called a “gravitator.”
He ruminated that the Biefeld-Brown effect could be utilized for propulsion purposes both within and outside the earth’s atmosphere. He set up the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (essentially the search for super-flying Et’s). This together with a report that he had been aligned closely with the Philadelphia experiment project (the navy allegedly teleporting a warship) essentially put paid to his reputation.
Brown’s version of the physics behind these experiments has been widely contested and investigated by many different people. One idea is that the recent ‘lifters’ rexcently made are just a cheap physics gag – these light balsawood lifter structures are just pushing air fast enough to lift them up.
Another idea is that this has nothing to do with antigravity – they are just propelled by ion-wind.
Lifter enthusiasts don’t deny that an ion wind exists however. They also don’t actually push away from the earth (they’re not anti-earth / anti-gravity) – depending on the direction that they’re pushed around in, they’ll go in that direction.
The problem however, for some enthusiasts is that ion-wind shouldn’t occur in a vacuum (i.e. space). If they DO work in a vacuum, they MUST work on different and as yet unknown principles. Which brings us back to the “gravitator action” that some lifter enthusiasts are calling the real deal – or that at least ion wind isn’t the whole story. NASA have been investigating Lifters, with the obvious application being – if it isn’t ion wind then how can they harness it for space research.
Some ‘flights in vacuum’ experiments have been conducted but none of these have had the conclusive proof needed by the scientific community as a whole and no extended peer to peer reviewing essential for credibility.
Hector Serrano talks of work his company –Gravitec Inc – has been doing as a subcontractor to NASA on flights in a vacuum.
On July 1st, 2nd, and 3rd I was at the National Space Science and Technology Centre (NSSTC) testing the Thomas Townsend Brown Effect in one of its large diameter vacuum chambers. While we did have some serious complications, on day three, test device number 2 did show a visible force.
However, while NASA scientist seem to agree that the rotary motion observed could not have been ion wind, they disagree with our conclusion that it is a new effect, in their opinion this is some common EMF effect.
Note: We asked which EMF effect could account for the observed rotary motion and the answer was that they did not know.
It is frustrating to see scientist shoot down empirical evidence with verbal speculation.
This has become the norm not the exception.
The force was observed at 1.86 * 10-6 Torr and decreasing towards 10-7 Torr.
I just wanted to inform you guys, because I know you are interested. I have to complete a full analysis, however I don’t know if I will be able to publish the results. There are some complications as you can tell.
While I did the work, it was done under my company Gravitec Inc.
It’s clear that there are still no definitive theories as to why these things work then – interference from known and unknown sources affecting the likely outcomes being a primary one.
Links to ttBrown aswell as… can be found under antigravity for the masses links in Resources page