Thomas, and all, As far as 'electrogravitics' goes, I can speak to this a bit, as I've experimented with it for quite a number of years.
The first thing I'll say is, Townsend Brown obviously meant something different by electrokinetics and electrogravitics. This is glossed over in modern times. The former is almost entirely (probably IS entirely) driven by electric wind and differential excitation of oxygen and nitrogen. It does not work in a vacuum. The "Lifter" is this sort of thing. So is the thruster worked on by Miklos Borbas. These things won't produce any external thrust if you shield them properly against wind effects and field effects, from interacting with the surrounding environment. There's been so much disinformation and bad research here, that little progress can be made in anything that may be real, assuming it exists. As to Brown's original 'electrogravitics', it is plagued by trying to "cast out artifacts"...such as, eliminating all spurious, conventional causes for thrust. This is not easy, especially when you get towards 60 or 70kV. It gets worse and worse the higher you go. The highest voltages I worked with in my experiments were about 300kV, and these were very definitely hard to wrestle with. The power supply was just too big to mount on the torsion platform I used for testing, so you'd get things that looked compelling, but were never able to be conclusively proved. One of the things I tried to test for was whether or not the 'massiveness' of the dielectric had any effect, as Brown claimed, on thrust. I used a thruster made of two lead plates, about 4" square apiece, separated by a block of paraffin wax, with large plexiglas spark shields between the plates and the wax dielectric, so as to prevent arcover. This gave some weak thrust towards the positive pole. Replacing the wax block with an identical sized block of lead monoxide mixed with paraffin gave greater thrust...probably about 3 or 4 times as much. Replacing this with a block of barium titanate and wax gave identical thrust. Putting the block of barium titanate and the block of lead oxide both in between the plates gave something interesting, at least at first glance: the thrust was always towards the heavier end, the lead oxide one, regardless of polarity. BUT...replacing the oxide block with a block of styrofoam (unquestionably lighter than the barium titanate block) didn't change things...it moved always in the direction of the styrofoam block. It then seemed that motion was always in the direction of the LEAST k dielectric. This was in contradiction to what Brown said. I fought with it, and with artifacts and shielding for years. Then the Lifter thing came along, and has so polluted this field of study, that I gave up. There is no separating what MIGHT be something, from the pseudoscience. As to the PDF...I looked it over. It doesn't really say much, does it? As far as Wallace's work, I have no experience here, so cannot comment on it. Trying to make something like that out of brass would be expensive, and require some careful machining. --Kyle --- thomas malloy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Vortexians; > > I just received the following. The question is, will > it fly, eh? > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Dear Thomas, > > > > I just released a free e-book that I think you'd > enjoy. It's at > > http://www.ufohowto.com/How%20UFOs%20Work.pdf. > Let me know what you > > think. > > > > Thanks and best regards, > > Luke > > > > > > > > --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! > -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html --- > >
