Please look at these pages. They do contain the secrets of flight of the classic UFO. It is not a hoax. The principals are sound. I have built many
working flying saucers myself using the principal. Laughing off your chair already? Fine, go read another post. If you have ever seen a UFO this may
help. It is a rational explanation behind the observed effect.
IS IT AN ION DRIVE
Maybe you are thinking it is an ion drive? No, it is not. They need a propelant. They give as much energy they can to the reactive mass, but it still
is a reaction. The electro-kinetic effect is reactionless, and it needs no propelant.
HISTORY OF THE ELECTRO-KINETIC EFFECT
The electro-kinetic effect was first documented over 180 years ago. It is another one of those things that science "forgot". The measured effect was
very small so it was ignored, or not noticed at all by almost everyone who ever did electrical research. That is until Townsend Brown decided to
research the effect. By the 1950´s he was testing 3 foot flying disks.
They were not self powered, and neither are my experiments, but connected to an external power supply by wires. That is not because a self powered
electro-kinetic craft is not possible. It would not be simple to do, but it is possible. So much so that I believe that if any of the flying saucers
people claim to see are real they must use this principal. There have only been a few serious studies since Townsend Brown did his research.
REAL EXPERIMENTS BY REAL SCIENTISTS
This paper from a study at Perdue University had this to say:
"Electrokinetic Propulsion is an effect that produces thrust when an electrical potential is placed across a capacitor. The reason that this force is
of such importance is that there seems to be no apparent reaction force associated with it."
"This thrust cannot be presently explained by any previous theories such as electrostatic forces, ion wind effects or corona discharges, thus further
research is needed to provide an adequate explanation of what is observed."
"The expected theoretical result in vacuum is off by a factor of more than a thousand"
As you can see it is a simple device. It is an air capacitor. Unless you are in space, then it is a vacuum capacitor. What could be more simple?
Motion with no moving parts, or propelant. It is a reactionless force, or propelantless propulsion(?).
Something of profound importance is in this patent, if true:
"Except for the insignificantly small forces of electrostatic attraction and repulsion, electrical energy has not been used for the direct production
of force and motion."
Generating an asymmetrical force without consuming energy. Both implications are staggering. The importance of free energy is obvious, but I want to
focus on the other part: asymmetrical forces.
EVERY ACTION HAS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION
This can be taken to mean that all forces are symmetrical. But are they really? I question the fundemental laws of energy and motion. The experiments
I have done clearly show an asymmertical force. There is no reaction to the action of the motion. It simply is not there. By any other method of
flight there are reactions to all the actions that create flight. The action of lift generated by a wing, or propeler, or helicopter blade is balanced
by the reaction of drag. The action of thrust in a jet, or rocket is balanced by the reaction of expeling propelant. What if you had a craft with
reactionles propulsion? It would fly wherever you pointed it. It would be silent, and appear to just hang in the air. If you are interested in the
effect there are experiments you can do at home that are simple enough for most people to build. I would give you some help if you want. This web page
will be very helpful to you:
The DEVICE IS A CAPACITOR
Take a regular capacitor and connect it to any DC power supply. Current will flow from the power supply to the capacitor until the capacitor reaches
the same potential as the the power supply. After that current flow stops. You could then disconnect the capacitor from the power supply. The electric
energy from the power supply has not been consumed, it has been stored. It can be used later. This would discharge the capacitor. But this is what we
want to avoid. The charged capacitor will hold the energy as long as it does not leak. But of course the typical capacitor will leak. Newer capacitors
are made from solid dielectric materials, older capaciotrs capacitors were made from two thin flat conductors separated by an insulator. The insulator
is not perfect. A very tiny amount of current will leak across. Leakage will also occur at the terminals of the capacitor if it exposed to the air. It
will ionize some of the air present there.
But what if the capacitor was designed to not leak? Is this possible? YES!
How? Vacuum isolation. Place the two conductors in separate vacuums. Current has no where to leak too. In theory the vacuum isolation capacitor can
hold it´s charge forever. The only current draw is durring the initial charging. This energy is stored, not consumed. It still exists as an electrical
potential. The energy waits until it has somewhere to go. I would like to see it wait forever.
Please do not start talking about cold cathodes, or thermionic emissions. These principals only apply if the conductors are in the same vacuum. If the
conductors are in separate vacuums, and isolated from each other the electrons have no way to get through.
Is a vacuum isolation capacitor a practical electrical device? NO!
They are larger, much more expensive, and very fragile compared with a typical capacitor. The only advantage it has is that it does not leak down, and
can store a large potential.
Why would anyone ever bother building a device like this? Typical AC circuits plan for capacitor leak down, or purposely discharge them when power is
disconected for safety and to prolong the life of the capacitor. (There are systems that are an exception to this such as the quick power on monitor I
am looking at now, but this does not apply to my points) The energy used to charge the capacitor is thrown away. It is not very much energy, so it
does not matter. There is no NEED for a vacuum isolation capacitor in typical circuits. A regular capacitor works at least as well and costs many
times less than the vacuum isolation capacitor would.
The device I propose is a vacuum Isolation capacitor.
And the design I propose would make a very poor one at that. The amount of energy held by a capacitor is related to the surface area of the
conductors. My design would use a very small surface area for the positively charged conductor.
THIS IS THE SECRET TO THE ELECTRO-KINETIC FLYING CRAFT
Imagine a small ring of very thin wire encased in a vacuum.
Imagine a hollow taurus shaped conductor encased in a separate vacuum.
The Taurus would be much larger than the wire ring.
This is the capacitor. The two parts could be miles apart, and still be a capacitor. It is the potential difference that matters. But I would place
them very close. Where the closest points are at a 45 degee angle to the horizontal plane of the taurus. Connecting them to a high voltage DC power
supply would charge them. The power is then disconnected, and the terminals of the vacuum rings insulated. All of the energy used to charge them
exists as a potential difference. There would be no current. There would be no energy CONSUMED. The energy would still be there.
When the device is being charged the DC power supply basicly pumps electrons out of the ring, and into the Taurus. But the ring is much smaller,
because of the laws of thermodynamics an equal ENERGY transfer must occur durring the charging of the capacitor, even though the ELECTRON transfer is
EQUAL ENERGY TRANSFER
UNEQUAL ELECTRON TRANSFER.
We now have asymmetricial geometry and surface area with a large symmetrical electrical potential, and electrostatic potential difference. The fields
would be static, not dynamic, because of lack of current flow. They would attract without expending energy in much the same way as magnets attract
without expending energy. This is electro-static attraction. But The attraction would be asymmetrical, or unequal. The greater electrostatic potential
will be attracted to the lower potential more than the smaller potential towards the largwer potential.
It lifts itself up by its butt!!!
The device would exert an asymmetrical force as long as these conditions existed.
If the vacuums were broken the energy would discharge in an instant though an arc. It would be a one shot lightning machine.
It has been my observation with the lifters I have built that the higher the potential, the greater the asymmetrical force. But I cannot raise the
voltage very far before flashover occurs. This would not be a problem with the vacuum isolation capacitor. The potential difference could be
I have also observed that the closer the conductors are, the greater the lift. But again flashover occurs before I can get them very close. Again,
this is not a problem with the vacuum isolation capacitor. They could be brought to within touching each other. Taking the observations to the logical
extremes would yield a huge force. There would be zero current. Throw a zero anywhere into Ohm´s law and the result is zero energy consumption.
A very small surface area, and a very large surface area charged to a potential difference of billions of volts, and brought very close together. It
would be a spark gap without vacuum isolation. The larger half would try move towards the smaller half forever, without consuming energy. In the
lifter experiments on the web there is energy consumed. But lift is related directly to potential difference(voltage), not current draw. It is the
difference between electrical potential, electrostatic potential, and surface area that creates the effect. The energy consumed is wasted mostly from
ionizing the air. The only reason the power supply must stay on in these experiments is because energy leaks out of the system, and must be
This is the key. Since the device is charged from a common dipole the electrostatic attraction is equal for EVERY ATOM in the system. Yet the smaller
ring has far FEWER ATOMS. The total elecrostatic attractive force of the small wire towards the larger surface is less than the total attractive force
of the larger surface towards the small wire. We just created an asymmetrical electrostatic attractive force. With this you can create any motion
without an apparent reactive force.
WHERE IS THE REACTION
This is the question that should be asked. It is the one that bothers me the most. You can´t do the math for it in a conventional manner unless you
create another asymmetry in the system. You could throw in time, or gravity, or warp space, but that implies so much more. Or it may simply be a
direct conversion of electrical energy into motion. The asymmetry of the device is a paradox.
ARE THERE ELECTRO DYNAMIC EFFECTS IN THE EXPERIMENTS?
Yes. I never said there were not any. Only that it might be possible to eliminate the electro- dynamic effects by perfect isolation. Understand that
this is just my dream, and not a stated fact that I see as the only possiblity. The electro-dynamic effects are very small, and not related to lift.
They are waste. They are secondary effects that can be excluded when considering the action of lift. Although present they are not a factor important
to generating the motion.
THE FLYING MAGNETS:
Magnets are very odd objects. Countless people have dreamed of some way to use magnets to create a flying object. I myself am guilty of it. It seems
that it should be possible to use the magnetic force to create motion. But of course it it not possible. The ones who are dreaming of flying magnets
are half way there. The ideas you have in your head of energy and motion are missing one point.
MAGENTS ARE DIPOLES
A magnet has a positive pole, and a negative pole. It is symmetrical. The positive charge is balanced by an equal, and opposite negative charge. All
the molecules(well most) are individual dipoles. Each molecule has a positive side, and a negative side. There are dipole molecules everywhere around
you, this does not make everything a magnet. What makes them into a magnet is that all the molecules are lined up in such a way that the charges all
point in the same direction. If you rotated half the molecules in a magnet 180 degrees it would no longer be a magnet. It is the combined opposing
charge of each and every molecule in the magnet that create the magnetic field.
MAGNETS CAN CREATE MOTION
Yes, this is true. But because they are a dipole you cannot ever get anwhere other than closer(attraction) or further away(repuslion). You never go
anywhere with magnetic drive.
Now some people have thought of making an asymmetrical magnet. One where the charges are not equal. This has never been done. Einstein could tell you
why, but I do not want to argue other than to say it is the nature of a dipole to be balanced.
DIPOLES CAN ATTRACT OR REPEL EACH OTHER
If two dipoles are placed where the negative side of one is opposite the positive side of the other they will attract. If they placed with either both
positve, or both negative poles opposite each other they will repel. The attractive force and the repulsive force will be equal.
DIPOLES AND MONOPOLES
A DIPOLE has both negative, and positive charge. The energy of each separate positve, and negative charge is equal.
A MONOPOLE has only one pole. Either negative, or positive. It is a charged particle.
IS THERE A POINT TO ALL OF THIS
I am getting there. I would not need to go though all this if you simply read this patent:
And understand it fully. It contains all the secrets to electro-kinetic flight. I do not expect anyone to do that, it is not simple. Or you could
listen to my explanation.
PLEASE ask questions.
ALL DIPOLES ARE ALL THE SAME
They are all the same in the fact that the charges are always equal. One dipole may have more ENERGY than another, but it is still symmetrical
ALL MONOPOLES ARE NOT ALL THE SAME
Dipoles carry both negative and positive charges. A monopole only carries one charge. So there are two kinds of monpoles: Positively charge monopoles,
and negativly charged monopoles.
A MONOPOLE CARRIES A CHARGE
The strength of the charge of a monopole is directly related to the amount of ENERGY that monpole carries.
A DIPOLE ALSO CARRIES CHARGE
But this charge is symmetrical. It the charges are each balanaced by the opposing charge.
THE CHARGE OF A MONOPOLE IS ASYMMETRICAL
The charge of a monopole is not balanced by an opposing charge as seen in the dipole. It can be said to be an asymmetrical charge.
OPPOSITELY CHARGED MONOPOLES ATTRACT
This is ELECTRO STATIC attraction. It seems like it works the same as magnetic attraction, but it is different in many ways. This is what I am trying
to focus on.
WHAT IS ENERGY?
I really stepped in "it" when I asked this question. You could fill a library with all the debates about this one question. I only want to address
it as simply as I can in the ways it applies to my points.
ENERGY IS THE ABILITY TO DO WORK
If you told the three stooges that a fishing net IS the abilty to catch fish, then told them to go get a net, they would all bring back fishing
Describing what something can do does not describe what it IS. It only describes what it can do. Or does it? Energy IS an ability. Energy is the
POTENTIAL to do work. It is not something you can see, or touch, or really even measure. You can measure the amout of work the energy does, but not
the energy itself. The energy is a POTENTIAL.
THERE ARE TWO BASIC KINDS OF ENERGY
STATIC energy, and kinetic energy. The most obvious kind of energy is kinetic energy of an object. A moving object is said to have kinetic energy. The
kinetic energy can be easily transfered from to another object. Any used golf ball can verify this. An electro-magnetic wave has both electric energy,
and kinetic energy. It is moving, hence the kinetic energy, and it carries an electrical potential. A battery, which is another dipole, stores
electrical energy. It is Potential electric energy. The energy exists in the battery as the DIFFERENCE in the charge of the two poles. When you
connect the battery to a circuit and current flows the STATIC electric energy becomes Kinetic Electric energy, or more properly DYNAMIC electric
energy. The energy is then moving. It is this kinetic motion that enables all those wonderful electro-magnetic effects. As long as the electrical
energy exists as the difference in potentials of the two poles of the battery there are no electro-dynamic effects.
There are however electroSTATIC effects. Each pole of the battery creates an electro-static field. This field attracts oppositly charged pole, or
monopoles. The battery is a dipole, so the forces are equal. The potential difference is not very high, so the electrostatic forces are weak. The
poles are kept as far apart as they can be, so the effect is very weak. IT has been shown that two poles of a battery pull towards each other with a
very mild force. THIS IS NOT A MAGNETIC ATTRACTION. It is an Electro-static attraction.
ELECTRO STATIC ATTRACTION
If you are reading this forum I bet you have tried this electrostatic attraction experiment. You tore small pieces off of a paper napkin and placed
them on the table. Then you rubbed a plastic spoon on the back of your head. When you bring the spoon close to the paper they stand up, and maybe jump
up towards the spoon.
Is this a magnetic attraction? No.
The paper is not a magnet, and neither is the spoon. The attraction is electro-static.
The same force is present in a high voltage switch. Any high voltage DC switch is designed with a latch of some kind to restrain the switch, or it is
designed with friction to restrain it. If the two poles of the switch are brought close they will exert an electrostatic attractive force. If nothing
is restraining the switch it will pull itself closed. It has happened in the past that high voltage switches have pulled themselves closed. This is
not a ghost in the machine, it is an electrostaic force. No energy is consumed by pulling them together much in the same way that magnets can pull
together without using energy.
To be continued?
[Edited on 12-1-2004 by ArchAngel]
[Edited on 16-1-2004 by ArchAngel]