It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Real Physics Principle Of UFO's

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 09:00 PM

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.


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.


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 1950s 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.


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.


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:


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 its 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.


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 not equal.


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 unimaginably high.

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 Ohms 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 replaced.


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.


This is the question that should be asked. It is the one that bothers me the most. You cant 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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


The strength of the charge of a monopole is directly related to the amount of ENERGY that monpole carries.


But this charge is symmetrical. It the charges are each balanaced by the opposing charge.


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.


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.


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.


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 poles.

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.


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.


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]

posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 09:17 PM
I wrote this a while back as a compilation of electro-kinetic information and my ramblings about how, and why.

It all sounds real convincing until you throw in INERTIA

I have dreamed up a new design for an electro-kinetic lifter that maximizes the asymmetry. When I have time I will build it, and put up some pics if it flies.

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 02:51 AM
that's just BS. No evidence brown effect works, and I've seen abstracts of attempted experimental replications---negative results.

Remember, there is already complex electrodynamics involved with fields, field gradients and dielectrics---look up electrostriction.

real gravity modification is *inertia* modification. You cannot do this without new electromagnetism-gravity coupling terms.

Why haven't we seen them astrophysically?

I don't think they can exist classically---if there were unknown degrees of freedom in these fields (like the ridiculous scalar EM) all sorts of thermodynamics of photons, say like the black body spectrum, would be wrong. but it isn't.

It woudl have to be something invovled in quantum gravity----because that's where all the dragons are.

I was a little hopeful about the Podkletnov claims with superconductors----which are macroscopic fully QUANTUM systems.

but so far, years have gone by with no independent replication. bummer.

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 08:10 AM
"Remember, there is already complex electrodynamics involved with fields, field gradients and dielectrics---look up electrostriction."

I have a BS in Electrical Engineering so I understand what is happening in the lifter as general physics applies. But what I have observed in many experiments leads me to believe that there is something else happening other then ionic wind.

In an experiment I did last year I built a lifter in two parts. I placed 10 sheets of formica between them and the bottom lifted when the top was brought near.

The movement was restricted to less than half an inch, but it did lift, and Ionic wind could not be the cause.

" No evidence brown effect works, and I've seen abstracts of attempted experimental replications---negative results. "

The experiments by Talley, and Purdue were positive. Talley repeated the results many times.

I read a coppy of the report years ago. It was commented on by many in the scientific media, but it seemed to me that none of them had read the reprot because what 'they' had to say did not match the resutls of the tests.

A significant asymmetrical force was generated in the tests.

From what I understand about the subject I must also say that the Talley tests, while using high quality vacuum chamber, and measuring equipment was flawed.

There was hardly enough asymmetry in the surfaces, or potential difference between them to create a strong force. Smaller wire, and higher voltage would have yielded a much stronger force. It seems to me that there is a threshold for the secondary effects. The Talley device at only 19KV was just over this threshold.

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 08:22 AM
Ok Archangel, now I'm hooked and reading all your posts.... good stuff~

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 08:29 AM

Originally posted by intelgurl
Ok Archangel, now I'm hooked and reading all your posts.... good stuff~
though I must admit I have to bookmark and finish later. You've been doing your homework huh?

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 09:24 AM
For the rational minded who refuse to accept that there is something strange happening in the lifter, but would like to understand how it works the short answer is ionic wind.

The positive wire strips electrons off of the air around it creating ions. These are attracted to the opposingly charged plate through electro-static attraction much the same way that dust particles jump onto clothes fresh from the dryer, or how your hair stands up on end some days. It is not a magentic effect, but an electro-static effect.

The same amount of force that pulls the air down towards the plate also pulls the plate upwards. When these positive ions finally strike the plate they absorb at least one electron to become neutral, and maybe another becoming a negative ion.

Since the negative ion, and the plate have the same charge they are repeled from eachother.

This repulsion would go in random directions were it not for the motion in the medium from the original attraction. This repulsive force is instead directed down, and away from the foil because of the established direction of the medium.

The voltage should be pulsed for greater efficiency, and the reasons are not obvious at first.

i will go into more detail later.

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 04:16 PM
generating a force is not enough to show gravitational effects.

i think the electrodynamics would be very difficult to analyze---after all you will induce image charges in the apparatus surrounding it, and induce dielectric effects.

i believe that something can move. I don't believe from evidence given that it is gravitational or would work out doors.

gravity control has to be inertia control---that would be the huge breakthrough. you need a scientific test that can find that.

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 04:19 PM
I would describe it as a linear kinetic force that is independant of gravity. Turn it upside down and the force is down. Turn it sideways on a turntable and it will rotate.

And, yes it works fine outside. I don't see how being inside would make any difference other than being able to control air humidity(Low humidity is better).

The question is are there effects other than the expected ionic wind.

It is NOT anti-gravity.

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by ArchAngel]

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 04:26 PM
You will notice in the lifter experiment that the powerplant does not rise with the lifter. The heavy powerplant stays on the workbench, while the balsawood and mylar lifter flies around. If the power supply was aboard the lifter, then I would be genuinely impressed.

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 04:31 PM
try and buy a huge dipole and see what happens(hello cia
'they' don't want us playing with magnetics.

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 04:36 PM
I really DO hope that you are able to take this far enough to achieve self lifting powerplant. I think you are going to need the help of a zero point energy source.......or some ununpentium.

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 04:39 PM
I could be mistaken but an ionic drive is merely a type of propulsion or at best a disruptor of gravity effects.

True anti-gravity means the ability to generate and oppositional gravity wave.

This is not easy to do especially when modern science cannot measure gravity nor does it even believe that gravity is a wave and constituent energy of the universe (binding agent and attraction of all matter and bodies and not just of significant masses as now believed).

Anyways I am not expert on this stuff and I may not have my concept entirely correct.

BTW, excellent thread and I am impressed with the work done here and your efforts.

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 04:50 PM
"You will notice in the lifter experiment that the powerplant does not rise with the lifter."

The lifter does not consume very much energy. It's weight to power ratio is not much worse than a helicopter. The problem is the high potentials required.

Look at this experiment at JLN LAbs:

With vacuum isolation the same force can be generated consuming much less energy.

What is needed is a lightweight method of developing high voltages.

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by ArchAngel]

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 05:02 PM
This may sound far out but Bob Lazar claimed that aliens used a similar system in one craft he help to reverse engineer. The coronal dialectric charge applied to a bi-metal skin of the craft required a very high voltage and current only able to be generated from a fusion nuclear reactor.

The anti-gravity drive was partly annother separate device ( I believe they shared the same power source, the fusion powered generator).

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 09:52 PM
I was curious as to what kind of research you guys were involved in who have this kind of knowledge. It is interesting to postulate about such things, I wish I had the mental acuity to understand the principles of them all. My college physics class was about as far as I went.

posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 12:41 AM
Well that explains how these things can float but how are they controlled I mean how do they turn etc?

[Edited on 14-1-2004 by littlegreenmen]

posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 12:49 AM
Well that explains how these things can float but how are they controlled I mean how do they turn etc?

This could be accomplished in several ways. The easiest way would be to change the geometry of the device. Instead of a wire running parallel to the larger surface there would be the tip of the wire pointing down towards the center of a toroid negative electrode. The direction of the force would be controled by moving the wire, and the strength by changing the voltage.

Or you could use multiple cells and adjust the voltage individually.

Either way computer control will likely be needed.

[Edited on 14-1-2004 by ArchAngel]

[Edited on 16-1-2004 by ArchAngel]

posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 12:56 AM
I was curious as to what kind of research you guys were involved in who have this kind of knowledge. It is interesting to postulate about such things, I wish I had the mental acuity to understand the principles of them all. My college physics class was about as far as I went.

I have a BS in eletrical engineering, but have not ever really used my education other than a period where I serviced and repaired AM transmitters. It was after hearing(false) stories of flying vacuum capacitors I began looking into it and ran across the typical literature.

Over the years I have built dozens of ionic experiments at home. From all my experience I believe that there is great potential with this tech. The real preoblem is not how to do it, or if it works, or the amount of energy required.

The problem is the weight of the system that produces the high voltages. Curent draw is low, but potentials must be extremely high to produce useful effects.

posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 12:53 PM
While lifters are intriguing....I think that UFOs are working on a different principle... Remember, it isn't the question of atmospheric flight...we've got discs that can do that....its the issue of interstellar flight...

I'm leaning towards some kind of space-folding technique, in which they don't break relativity, but rather skirt around warping the fabric of space itself....

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in