reply to post by stealthyaroura
Have you heard the term "Electrogravatics" As in say "ion wind" etc.
I've heard it. An "Ion wind" is considerably different from 'electrogravitics.' Namely, Ion-based propulsion systems utilize a reaction mass -
ions (charged atomic particles). Different systems work a little differently, but the basic idea behind your classic ion propulsion system is to have
a noble gas ionized by a high voltage cathode. Electrostatic principles will diffuse the charged gas far more rapidly than through thermal expansion,
alone - and will be drawn to materials possessing fewer charge carriers. In most cases, an ion drive system has an anode in the form of a grid to
improve the thrust yield and overall engine efficiency.
Note that the system does not work without a source of ions - meaning that it does not work in a vacuum without a supply of reaction mass.
To date, no one has ever successfully replicated claims of devices that operate via manipulating or emulating gravity.
Note A: Electrogravatics may be deemed "psuedoscience" to some
who only conform to mainstream science, others seem to be making
breakthroughs in the field like Dr. Harold E. Puthoff P.H.D.
There is no such thing as "psuedoscience" to me. There are merely ideas that lead to the creation of successful devices, and ideas that do not.
Until an idea produces a device (working or not) - it's not really much more or less than an idea. The fact is, however, that no one has built a
working device that produces something that can be described as 'electrogravitic.'
If it were as simple as "just make a coil of wire and pulse electricity through it" - your computer would be halfway to Andromeda.
You may want to look him up pal or should I say "son".
Enough poop er i mean colons for ya?
Already did. His notable achievements involve his work with the project codename Star Gate. He's now the CEO of Earth Tech International out of
Austin, Texas. www.earthtech.org...
I have nothing harsh or bad to say about someone willing to dabble in topics that have attained a near-taboo status. However, I'm not creaming my
pants about electrogravity because of doodles on paper and theories. For every one person who has doodled the right doodles and chanted the right
theory, a thousand others have gotten it wrong. The proof has to be in the pudding, for me.
You do have a sense of humour rite?
It comes and goes. I generally do not appreciate being lectured about my lack of understanding of electronics from someone who doesn't know the
difference between ions and gravity because you've "done your research" on YouTube.
It's not about mainstream versus the occult. It's about knowing what you're talking about. I'd enjoy a chat with Dr. Puthoff - I may not agree
with the conclusions he comes to, but at least he's not brimming with forbidden knowledge gained via YouTube. He also seems rather willing to apply
science to theories and ideas. Which places him in the category of people that deserve my respect.
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
Not only ions are used as there are 100 to 500 ions per cubic centimeter surrounding us
caused by cosmic rays and particles but everything else in space is put to use in the
propulsion system, that is the great thing about the Tesla system.
Great. Where can I buy one?
Lets see how wrong we have been steered.
We? You're obviously not one of us who have been misguided.
The famous motor windings Tesla made to rotate is forced by back emf, a voltage that
opposes the 60 cycle powered windings. One can view this as strict electrostatic
induction and as voltage and frequency goes higher Tesla proved the mechanism.
You're getting induction confused with the collapse of a magnetic field, there, sparky.
While I am not familiar with research into the interactions of EMF in free space, there is some merit to the idea of experimenting with
topographically phased waveforms attempting to structure electromagnetic potentials in 3d space.
Of course, this is well beyond the technological capability of Tesla, and would require operational frequencies in the gigahertz. You have to have
frequencies that produce usable wavelengths - in the centimeter range. Radios operate in the megahertz range and have wavelengths in meter ranges -
60 cycles produces something like a five thousand kilometer wavelength... not really useful for our scale of engineering, and also a poor choice as
each cycle is relatively weak in terms of radiated energy (why modern devices often use far higher frequencies, since it enables the use of smaller
components and improves efficiency).
He may have certainly seen the same merit in the idea as I do, but would have likely had extreme difficulty engineering methods of experimenting. To
accurately experiment, you need -very- tight frequency control and physical metrics (where antennae are placed and the like). The mechanical
constraints could have been met in his era - the electrical, however, would have been an entirely different story. Working with a one centimeter
wavelength, you would have to be able to manipulate the leading and trailing edges of standing and 'running' wave forms within a millimeter, which
requires accurate frequency control out to 30 gigahertz.
We also call that a microwave oven.
Some how the back emf or pressure wave just propels a tuned wire through space.
I haven't seen it done unless the sparky flier I saw one time is a decedent mechanism.
What you are describing sounds more similar to induction. When any conductor is exposed to a changing magnetic field, an electrical current will
begin to flow through it. This is, precisely, how transformers work. The induced flow of electrons will generate a magnetic field in the opposite
direction as the source - creating two like poles facing each other, and repelling.
Back in one of my early electronics classes, we had a device that was simply a coil of wire around a steel bar. The coil was connected, almost
directly, to the mains. An aluminum ring was placed around the bar and atop the coil. When turned on, the aluminum ring would 'shoot' away from
the coil, almost as high as the ceiling, under the right conditions.
It wouldn't really work as a form of propulsion in space, however. Unless you were planning to shoot bits of metal out the back of your ship as a
reaction mass. The other option would be if you could somehow create free-standing magnetic fields - such as through some manipulation of waveforms
as I described above (and, again, I have no idea if that would actually work). If this were the case, you may be able to find a little loophole in
physics and get acceleration without a reaction mass. You would have to make up for it, though - the raw power necessary to accelerate an object has
to come from somewhere.