It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

New discoveries are confirming electric sun theories.

page: 7
114
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Here is some proof against the electric model I dunno what to think about it, so:

www.tim-thompson.com...




posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Abovetopstupid
Here is some proof against the electric model I dunno what to think about it, so:

www.tim-thompson.com...


And here's the response www.electric-cosmos.org...
It's been written quite a while ago I think, still no response from Tim.

BTW that's an awesome name you have there.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Yet more fuel to the controversies... NASA reverses IPCC findings on AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), says that global climate change is forced by the Sun!


Changes in the sun's surface that are cyclic and predictable to over 90% accuracy have been identified by Director of SSRC, John Casey and his team, and could mean the start of a cooling period within the next three years.

www.spaceandscience.net...

Dr Theodore Landscheidt would have been very happy to be vindicated


Abstract:
Analysis of the sun's varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC's speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8° C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected. It is shown that minima in the 80 to 90-year Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of the rotary force driving the sun's oscillatory motion about the centre of mass of the solar system. As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth. This forecast should prove skillful as other long-range forecasts of climate phenomena, based on cycles in the sun's orbital motion, have turned out correct as for instance the prediction of the last three El Niños years before the respective event.


Hmm, interesting... Here's the prior article they linked to:

science.nasa.gov...


May 10, 2006: The Sun's Great Conveyor Belt has slowed to a record-low crawl, according to research by NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. "It's off the bottom of the charts," he says. "This has important repercussions for future solar activity."

The Great Conveyor Belt is a massive circulating current of fire (hot plasma) within the Sun. It has two branches, north and south, each taking about 40 years to perform one complete circuit. Researchers believe the turning of the belt controls the sunspot cycle, and that's why the slowdown is important.



"Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second—walking pace," says Hathaway. "That's how it has been since the late 19th century." In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. "We've never seen speeds so low."

According to theory and observation, the speed of the belt foretells the intensity of sunspot activity ~20 years in the future. A slow belt means lower solar activity; a fast belt means stronger activity. The reasons for this are explained in the Science@NASA story Solar Storm Warning.

"The slowdown we see now means that Solar Cycle 25, peaking around the year 2022, could be one of the weakest in centuries," says Hathaway.

[...]


Now, I just happened to be perusing Don Scott's The Electric Sky and Thornhill/Talbott's The Electric Universe recently. So I had a particular diagram fresh in my head, and as some may know, I love to compare and contrast, plucking odd snippets out of the entrained aether...

Doesn't the solar circuit proposed by Alfven, and quoted in The Electric Sky and The Electric Universe look suspiciously like the stripped-down "conveyor belt" image from the NASA release? Only more technical, and probably more accurate, being based on predictions coming out of actual lab work with plasmas.



Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenThunders
This model is quite intriguing.
However from what I've read of electric universe and electric sun theories, stars are positively charged anodes and thus current sources, drawing electrons throughout the universe into these sources. This model does beg a few questions however.

1) How did the positive charges aggregate into a relatively small area (by cosmic standards) as the sun? Electric forces are far stronger than gravitational. What could possibly have caused stars to form in the first place?

2) What holds these charges in place? One would expect them to fly apart. I've seen some models that predict an E field spike that counteracts the expected flow, but it seems somewhat amazing to me.

I haven't been able to find adequate answers to these issues yet on the sites I've read.


As you say, quite interesting...

I don't profess to be an expert. I've done a bit of reading (being new, there's a learning curve; sometimes a steep one), but there's still plenty more reading to be done. Enough to last a lifetime, methinks.

I might proffer a roundabout quote from Alfven. It went something to the effect that "gravitational systems can be considered the ashes of prior electrical systems." IE, the electrical interactions do the "heavy lifting," until such point as gravitation interactions are capable of taking over and the electrical current quenches. One would assume that if the materials are insufficient for gravity to "take over" after the current, then it wouldn't and you get something more like a nebula or some such? Hard to say. I probably wouldn't speculate. You may wish to send an inquiry to the thunderbolts.info site administrators. Being busy, I don't know if they could guarantee a timely response. But, it's worth a shot. They're generally a friendly bunch and try not to bite folks with courteous questions.


It's not to say that the Electric Universe eschews the force of gravity. To the contrary. It has been observed and used successfully for some time. Its origins, however are still a bit mysterious. Wal Thornhill has some ideas on where gravity may originate from. I haven't yet fully read his material on that just yet. It's on something of a to-do list.

Returning to the "gravitational systems being the ashes of prior electrical systems" bit, I might point toward something called Marklund convection. In essence it is a scavenging of charges and materials from surrounding regions of space in the process of a z-pinch, if I recall correctly. Thus, if I recall right, the very process of a current filament pinching down also draws in surrounding materials A) enriching the regions of the discharge with more material B) depleting the region AROUND the discharge. This might be one reason the universe appears to display a filamentary nature with voids between. The voids may have been literally vacuumed out by the filaments and/or Marklund convection. Just a thought.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by DogHead
And so for the umpteenth time, science and society in general owes Velikovskii an enormous apology.


Before my time. But, if it's so, so be it.

I think that, from what I've heard, Velikovsky was a "mixed bag" so to speak. Some things may have been right (opening the door to the discussion of electrical interactions in interplanetary, interstellar & intergalactic space), some things may have been wrong (specific timelines and interpretations of some celestial events and/or local / non-universal mythological archetypes)...

Again, from my second-hand understanding, if nothing else we owe Velikovky a debt for "starting the conversation," so to speak, even if his work doesn't turn out to be the definitive "end-all, be-all" and requires a bit more thorough reconsideration.

But, one last time: before my time, so I've nothing invested in that particular discussion.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
the page at plasma universe on electric stars has been chnaged, so the old links wont work any more. The title of it has changed to the more generic title of Sun and stars. All the refernces to non peer reviewed material had to be removed (even NASA's material), as the site owner is trying to avoid ideas that are considered unorthodox to stop any critisism of his site, which is fair enough.

meanwhile i found Ralph E. Juergens work (one of the original pioneers of the electric sun model) on a website. It was the very first full ES model proposed. A lot of it is still true to this day, some is a bit dated, and the main concept of the electric sun idea is all there;

# The Photosphere: Is It the Top or the Bottom of the Phenomenon We Call the Sun?
From Kronos Vol. IV No. 4 (Summer 1979)

# Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy (Part I)
From Kronos Vol. VIII No. 1 (Fall 1982)

# Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy (Part II)
From Kronos Vol. VIII No. 2 (Winter 1983)


One might also rightly point to the pioneering work of Charles Bruce:
Selected works of Charles Bruce

Likewise, one might point to some of the works of Eric Crew:
Lightning in Astronomy
New Light on the Sun
Solar Physics: Magnetism's Blind Alley
Electrons in the early Universe

Though they perhaps don't go specifically into the "Electric Sun model," they do make for interesting reading...

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Next thing the tabloids will be posting this as more proof we live in an artificial universe or miniverse on someones night stand or table and they're plugged into it like the Matrix with a temporal connection in some type of simulated reality game.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by mgmirkin
 


Some very interesting reading material you have linked us to. I guess I'll be busy on this for a while, trying to wrap my head around this. Just skimming, it seems that here we can get a bit more of the basics, which helps with understanding some of the finer points of the arguement for this theory.

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   
I found this interesting in light of the THEMIS discovery.
From the TRACE site.


The Sun-Earth connection?

Active Region 10375 flared again: at 23:19 UT on 10 June 2003, an X1.3 flare was observed by TRACE in its 195Å passband. During these observations, the TRACE camera was hit by a storm of dangerous, high-energy particles (only a dozen other 195Å images have been recorded in the past three years that are that badly affected out of a total of 121,000). Did these particles originate from the solar flare? If so, how did the particles get here?
The possible connection, shown in the large image (smaller version here), may have started three days before the flare. At that time, our models of the solar coronal field (shown in panel A) showed that the solar wind leaving the Sun in the direction of the Earth was originated in the magnetic field of AR10375 (the red line traces the field from the region into the heliosphere). That wind flowed towards the Earth with a speed of order 500 km/s, taking more than three days to reach the Earth, and pulling a thread of magnetic field from AR10375 directly to Earth. When the flare went off, the Sun had rotated quite a bit, with AR10375 approaching the edge of the Sun (panel B). Any flare particles that reached into the open field would have flowed along the field pulled by the solar wind (see the top view in panel C).
What did TRACE see? Did the particle storm reach Earth just as TRACE flew over the Earth's magnetic pole, so that it was exposed to the storm without the protection of the Earth's magnetic field some 30 minutes after the flare as particles moving at about 1/3rd the speed of light went through the spacecraft, detector and all? Or is it merely a coincidence in which TRACE saw unusually many particles from within the Earth's magnetosphere fortuitously just after a major solar flare? Energetic particle sensors around Earth didn't see what TRACE saw: GOES 12 did see something in its electron flux measurements, but not particularly strong, and GOES 10 saw nothing - but then, these satellites are within the Earth's magnetic region, over the equator. ACE also did not see an energetic-particle event - but it is a million miles from Earth. Finding out what really caused the TRACE `snow' continues ...


I’d say we have a pretty good answer for that now.



trace.lmsal.com...

And add another to the list…


Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle
Gamma rays from a solar flare in Active Region 10039 on 23 July 2002 with the RHESSI spacecraft spectrometer indicate that the CNO cycle occurs at the solar surface, in electrical discharges along closed magnetic loops….
……other quantitative measurements on the Sun revealed puzzling hints that a solar CNO cycle operates near the solar surface, where H, He, C and N are abundant, rather than in the Sun's interior.
Gamma-rays from nuclear reactions in a solar-flare-induced electrical discharge.

arxiv.org...



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Hasn't this already been proven by NASA during the tether experiment? It was my understanding that they were able to capture waaaaaaaaaay more energy than the tether could withstand.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by mgmirkin
Well, another prediction confirmed! Dual hotspots of Saturn. Mainstream didn't expect it. EU did. Not much more to say.


Seems there was a news post on the topic elsewhere on ATS.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I've added a link to my Slashdot journal post(s) over there. Feel free to check it out:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I guess that if folks want to add to the discussion over there, they can feel free. Don't know if the folks over there will be quite as interested in in the words "universe" and "electric" appearing in the same sentence (not necessarily in that order). So, I've not alluded to it. I don't want to make it a knee-jerk type issue, which it shouldn't be. It's simply about a news release and interpretation, an experimentum crucis and a confirmation of the prediction. That's all it should be about, in my opinion. Anything about EU tends to polarize the discussion and sometimes leads toward EU-bashing rather than a discussion of the issue at hand. Granted, the predictions was experimentum crucis for the EU. But I'd rather simply talk about it being an experimentum crucis between Wal Thornhill's prediction and the original Keck interpretation, which is all that it should be rightly about in discussion (which interpretation had better predictive ability?).

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by aleon1018
Next thing the tabloids will be posting this as more proof we live in an artificial universe or miniverse on someones night stand or table and they're plugged into it like the Matrix with a temporal connection in some type of simulated reality game.


Yeah, but they base their gamey cr@p on mysticism, metaphysics and what they think the "pulp fiction" audience wants to hear to sell papers.

Would be nice if they'd base an article or two on ACTUAL physics / science, once in a while. Just to throw people a curve ball. :wink:

C'est la vie...

~Michael Gmirkin

[edit on 9-1-2008 by mgmirkin]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
reply to post by mgmirkin
 


Some very interesting reading material you have linked us to. I guess I'll be busy on this for a while, trying to wrap my head around this. Just skimming, it seems that here we can get a bit more of the basics, which helps with understanding some of the finer points of the arguement for this theory.

Thanks.


Any time!
Always good to meet open-minded fellows.

Hopefully not TOO open minded (to the point of not knowing up from down). :wink:

Way too much stuff to read in one lifetime. But that never stopped me from trying!

~Michael Gmirkin

[edit on 9-1-2008 by mgmirkin]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by djcloudy
Hasn't this already been proven by NASA during the tether experiment? It was my understanding that they were able to capture waaaaaaaaaay more energy than the tether could withstand.


I seem to recall the tether basically shorted a small portion of the ionosphere, which was the end of that experiment pretty quickly. Probably passed through a double layer, or simply moving the conductor through the charged particles / magnetic fields induced a current in the tether.

It's been a while since I read the interpretations of the event. So, don't quote me on it. ;o] Not an authority, by any stretch...

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Full stop. Experiment is the criterion of truth. We've got plenty. They match our theory that planets move according to gravity, and we need to sometimes include corrections due to relativity for more precision (Mercury orbit being one).


please stop saying that gravity has been tested, gravity has never been directly tested.


Wait a second. How much more "directness" do you want in a measurement, compared to the study of celestial bodies? An object moves under the influence of a force, you map out that force... Same applies to studying electromagnetic interactions. I say what we see is pretty damn direct.

If you are talking about very large distances, you are right, there hasn't bee a direct confirmation. We all know that. However, inside the Solar system things cross-check to an amazing degree.


You are speaking as if you have found the illusive graviton, or as if you have found out why gravity causes mass to attract, no-one knows that.


I never said I found the elusive graviton or that I have a firm grap of how gravity works (not any more than most physisists). Likewise, I could say that you sound like you fully understand electromagnetism. Do you? What is the nature of attraction between negative and positive charges?

All I said was that we know gravity fairly well, enough to send space vehicles around and calculate subtle effects in the behavior of planet Mercury and such. You want to replace gravity with electromagnetism for some reason, and you can't offer any model for that. I just find this bizzare. Kepler's laws work, trust me.



Your statement that gravity has been tested is exactly what is wrong with modern astronomy. Gravity (or the force that is currently thought to be caused only by the attraction of mass, i should say) is unbelievably weak, which makes testing its exact nature nearly impossible without the other forces interfering with the experiment.


Wait a sec, didn't Cavendish first tackle pretty subtle measurements of gravity, centuries ago? A lot of mesurements in science are difficult, so what, what kind of argument is that? Nearly impossible? Not for those who know what they are doing. Detecting neutrinos ain't easy either, and yet we do it rather well now.



It is now more than 300 years since Newton devised this little formula; and we still do now know what causes gravity.


That does not invlaidate it in any way, and it doesn't mean that it's due to EM phenomena, at all. As I said, we don't know why exactly charges attract. We can draft field equations that describe such things, but that's about it. So your point is moot.


If the mass of the Earth is wrong, then so are our estimates for those of other bodies. If the mass of the Earth has been overstated, then it follows that the masses of all other bodies in the solar system have also been overstated.


That's bull. When you fly a probe to Saturn, you have a direct way of watching its trajectory and seeing whether it behaves like it should, in the gravitational field.


As gravity is so unbelievably weak


I don't recommend stepping into an open elevator shaft, because you may find otherwise.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Wait a second. How much more "directness" do you want in a measurement, compared to the study of celestial bodies? An object moves under the influence of a force, you map out that force... Same applies to studying electromagnetic interactions. I say what we see is pretty damn direct.


The force that we measure is direct, correct. The cause of that force is not direct. I have always tended to favour some of the electrogravitic models that have been proposed, mainly due to the large amount of gravitational anomalies associated with electrical processes. You have the Podkletnov gravitational-shielding machines, the Casmir effect, the Bifield brown effect and many more process's that seem to be able to negate gravity. There have been many effects achieved with rotating superconductors, and superconductors get their characteristics from electrical processes also. This lifter is a fine example;



When it lifts off the ground the whole of the earths mass should be pulling it back down, and yet a simple high voltage electrical effect seems to be able to overpower it.


All I said was that we know gravity fairly well, enough to send space vehicles around and calculate subtle effects in the behaviour of planet Mercury and such. You want to replace gravity with electromagnetism for some reason, and you can't offer any model for that. I just find this bizzare. Kepler's laws work, trust me.


If you look at the amount of effects associated with electrical devices and gravitational anomalies i would say that is pretty damn good evidence that gravity works electromagnetically.

This is one of the better models i have seen about for electrogravitics, which is based on the effects that an ions non uniform electrical field will have on the geometry of electron orbits. Although i would not call it a definitive model, it does well to show that a secondary effect of EM forces and fields could occur from geometric properties of particles.


In order to understand gravity as an electro-magnetic phenomena, we must first separate the primary cause and effect form the secondary and tertiary effects. Included in these secondary and tertiary effects are curved space, red shift, and time dilation. Implicit in the term "Electrogravitics" is the assumption that electro-magnetism is the root cause of the gravitational effect. This assumption is not new. Both James C. Maxwell and Michael Faraday believed in the electro-magnetic basis of gravitational interactions, though neither was able to marshal the needed experimental evidence or mathematical models to prove their assertion. Many key pieces of supporting evidence and physical models required to understand the nature of gravity did not exist until the beginning of the 20th century.


In most electrical models it is useful to consider electrical fields as uniform, for one it makes the equations a lot easier to manage and secondly the larger up in scale you go the more uniform they do become. However at an atomic level the electric fields are not uniform, they diverge away from each other as they increase in distance from the source. It is very hard to conceptualize this unless you illustrate the magnetic field lines in a completely different way than they are usually described. By drawing the lines of the field parallel to the atom, and not in the usual circular form, you can see this more clearly.



and since the proton and the electron repel this will result in the atom being attracted to the area of highest electrical field, ie where the most particles are.


Atomic response to a non-uniform electric field:
In a non-uniform electric field, the atom is deflected because the force on the proton and electron while opposite, are no longer equal to each other. What is surprising is the nature of the deflection. The atom is always deflected to the vicinity of highest electric field density regardless of field polarity. This result is due to deformation of the electron orbit. Upon reflection it is obvious that orbital deformation will always result in the attracted part of the atom being on average in a stronger electric field than the repulsed part of the atom (figure 4). Therefore the force exerted on the attractive part of the atom will always be greater (on average) than the force exerted on the repulsive part and deflection will be in the direction of attraction regardless of electric field polarity.





If the mass of the Earth is wrong, then so are our estimates for those of other bodies. If the mass of the Earth has been overstated, then it follows that the masses of all other bodies in the solar system have also been overstated.


That's bull. When you fly a probe to Saturn, you have a direct way of watching its trajectory and seeing whether it behaves like it should, in the gravitational field.


The problem is the probes that map out the forces in space then use these forces to calculate what the mass of every planet in the solar system is and of other bodies in space, and all that assumes that the only thing causing this force is the mass of the planets and gravity. So it follows that if the force attributed to gravity is not due exclusively to the attraction of mass then these calculations to work out the mass of bodies in space are completely worthless. That was the main point i was trying to make.

curious.astro.cornell.edu...

The only way we can measure a planet's mass is through its gravity. This has been the way Earth's mass was measured, too (we can't directly probe what's in Earth's interior, but we can measure the gravity on the surface). Since nobody ever visited other planets and was able to measure gravity on the spot, we usually have to resort to other methods. The most commonly used technique is to observe a body orbiting or passing close to the planet and see how its path is affected by the planet's gravity.



[edit on 10-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Squiz, did you also post this thread on another board? If so, that's fine, but if not, it appears that your thread has been plagiarized pretty much word for word and link for link by one of our competitors.

www.godlikeproductions.com...



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
There have been many effects achieved with rotating superconductors, and superconductors get their characteristics from electrical processes also. This lifter is a fine example


Zeuzz, I don't know what to make of your statement, as you surely understand that the shown experiment has nothing to fo with superconductors or rotating superconductors.


When it lifts off the ground the whole of the earths mass should be pulling it back down, and yet a simple high voltage electrical effect seems to be able to overpower it.


Zeuss, if you want to learn physics, you need to tone down the drama in your descriptions of simple physics processes. Whole earth and all that.

I have an air purifier that's based on applying high voltage to a set of electrodes. There is a very noticeable airflow emanating from this small device. The inside construction is generally similar to what was shown in the video.

It is important that you realize that there is no electro-gravitics in this. Electric discharge produces ions, ions are ejected by high voltage. Same principle as in ion drive used in spacecraft. I've seen an actual drive to be installed on a Soviet craft once.


If you look at the amount of effects associated with electrical devices and gravitational anomalies i would say that is pretty damn good evidence that gravity works electromagnetically.


I just happen to totally disagree. I need to see a paper in a peer-reviewed journal which contains the specifics.


The problem is the probes that map out the forces in space then use these forces to calculate what the mass of every planet in the solar system is and of other bodies in space, and all that assumes that the only thing causing this force is the mass of the planets and gravity.


Right, because there is no reason to assume that on the scale we've studied so well there is absolutely anything in addition to plain old gravity. Things may work differently in other situations, but -- things cross-check in the Solar system. If you postulate that there is force X that behave in a way identical to gravity, I find this a completely extraneous proposition.



[edit on 10-1-2008 by buddhasystem]



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Right, because there is no reason to assume that on the scale we've studied so well there is absolutely anything in addition to plain old gravity. Things may work differently in other situations, but -- things cross-check in the Solar system. If you postulate that there is force X that behave in a way identical to gravity, I find this a completely extraneous proposition.



You really dont get it do you. I am not saying that anything behaves identically to gravity, i am saying that the force that we think is due to the attraction of mass (gravity) could be caused by other EM properties.

The force due to gravity is known, and the key point here, which is assumed to be caused by the attraction of mass. As my previous post showed the attraction could be achieved from atoms electromagnetic properties. If that were true then the only way to overcome gravity is with mass, but electric devices seem to produce similar effects. And you cant just pass it off as an ion wind as most people do, please call it an electric current. Its the same as the solar 'wind', it gives the completely wrong impression about what flowing charge is.

I have seen it described as a "Ionic Breeze" mechanism, "Ion drift" "Ionic propulsion" and others, but what it really should be called is an electric current, as it is the flow of ions traversing a potential difference.

wikipedia has quite a detailed page on these, and even there they describe it as an electrogravitic, or "electrohydrodynamic" device.


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.


[edit on 10-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ZeuZZ
 


I invite you to read more from the Wiki article you quoted:


The device is a popular science fair project for students. It is also popular among non-mainstream anti-gravity or electrogravitics proponents, especially on the Internet, where it is commonly referred to as a lifter. This term is somewhat of a misnomer, since it implies the force can act only against gravity, which is clearly not the case; the magnitude of thrust is totally independent from the mass of the device and its direction is always in the direction of its own axis. Claims of the device working in a vacuum have also been disproven. Due to its popularity, the lifter was featured and vacuum tested in the Discovery Channel science program MythBusters, episode 68. The effect was determined to be thrust rather than anti-gravity.


You, as they say, a reference to "gravity" is a misnomer here. I find it astounding that you choose to drag gravity into this, even though it must be obvious that it doesn't belong in this issue.



new topics

top topics



 
114
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join