v/r Ken Carrigan
PS... Static to me infers DC! Not AC. Both leak electrons
and AC of course more than DC.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DMBoss1021@aol.com [mailto:DMBoss1021@aol.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 2:02 AM
> To: Interact@keelynet.com
> Subject: RE: Capacitor Array Gravity Warp Drive - Tested & Verified?
>
>
> Hi folks:
>
> Ken Carrigan writes:
> <<Read some of this and have read and seen Jean's Website with
> his HV charged 'capacitor' flight vehicles.
> ... Ion drive! Now, this high voltage scenario brings to
> mind the charging of air molecules - ions. This infers, however,
> a loss of electrons in a certain direction from the HV.
> >>
>
> I believe the key to understanding Carrigan's rather negative
> attack on the
> report of an actual device, which demonstrated an apparently
> significant
> force - is in the second word of his message: - "Read SOME of this".
>
> The next error in this message from Carrigan is his statement
> "This infers,
> however,
> a loss of electrons in a certain direction from the HV." I
> would like to
> respectfully point out that air can have both positive, and
> negative ions.
> (one having excess electron(s); and the other a deficit of an
> electron(s) ).
>
> There is a great deal of evidence, and other verification of
> the Biefeld -
> Brown effect: where a thrust is produced from an asymmetrical
> "capacitor",
> charged to high voltage. T.T. Brown himself proved that this
> thrust is not
> solely from an ion "wind". A Brown electrogravitic device
> can be shown to
> produce a serious thrust in air; in a vacuum; and immersed in
> an insulating
> oil (with a very high breakdown voltage - hence NO ionization)
>
> If indeed, you find Bearden's postulates, and mathematical
> proofs, plausible
> - as to large areas of accepted EM theory being off the mark,
> then why do you
> find it so impossible that there could also be a link between
> capacitance, or
> highly charged plates of special geometry, and gravity?
>
> This report of a replication of the multilayer capacitor, of unusual
> geometry, indicates that a thrust of 6.44 kg is produced,
> from a device that
> weighs less than 1 kg! (this is the approximate thrust to
> weight ratio of a
> launching Space Shuttle) (X-Prize anyone?)
>
> Carrigan's "jump to conclusion" dismissal of this finding via
> the (not well
> thought out) explanation of an ion wind is totally without
> merit, if the 6.44
> kg thrust is real.
>
> The reason I challenge Carrigan's explanation in such strong
> terms is that
> for a thrust of 14+ pounds, from an opening as small as the
> core of this
> capacitor (3.5 cm, or 1 3/8"), would require a velocity, and
> volume of air
> flow that is staggering - and would surely blow over lamps,
> and any loose
> object within 5 or 10 feet of the "core". (All you math or
> engineering
> "experts" - go figure out how many CFM's of air, at what
> velocity is required
> to generate 14+ pounds of thrust from this diameter core!)
> (it surely is not
> feasable from an ion wind!)
>
> I have some experience with R/C helicopters, and mine was
> about 9 pounds with
> full fuel; and had a .60 cu in engine, running nitromethane, and this
> developed close to two horsepower. Driving the main rotors
> at 1500 rpm (34"
> in dia) - and in a stable hover in a large room (50' x 50' x
> 20' ceiling)
> created a wind from the downwash that was felt as far away as
> 20 feet, and
> was at least a 10 or 15 mph breeze, within 10 feet of the beast.
>
> So I reiterate - if this device did/does generate 14+ pounds
> of thrust
> (comparable to my model helicopter which required 2 HP) then this is
> significant. And before I dismiss it out of hand - I would
> want to see it
> replicated (or find this report may justify building one
> myself, as I have a
> VDG coming soon for other work).
>
> Even if it is an ion wind (highly unlikely) then this level
> of thrust is far
> more Power, than the fractional horsepower motor used in a
> Van De Graaf, to
> drive the belt!
>
> Perhaps by using a unique geometry of electric field, and
> very high potential
> gradient, as would be the case in the description of this
> device; combined
> with some sort of catalysing reaction caused by the movement
> of a small ion
> wind (movement of electric and magnetic fields - all ions
> have 'em); that a
> significant warping of spacetime (gravity) can occur? But if
> you dismiss it
> out of hand, without a sound basis for doing so, you will
> never find anything
> new.
>
>
> Carrigan writes further:
> <<Static electric fields, pure static, can not make anything move
> just as static magnetic fields do not make things move.
> .....ion drives in our atmosphere are really not sufficient to
> to do work on substantial masses.
> >>
>
> So if I understand correctly: Carrigan states earlier that
> dust accumulates
> in and around a television or monitor (cathode ray tube) due
> to the ions from
> a static charge, and then states that a static charge can do
> no work? (if the
> dust has mass, and has been moved, or attracted to the
> surfaces, then work
> has been done by this "static" charge!)
>
> Is not gravity a "static" field as an electric or magnetic
> field? If you
> step off a cliff does this mean that the "static" gravity
> field will NOT
> plunge your mass down, to certain discomfort, injury or death?
>
> (yes the act of stepping off the cliff changes the potential
> energy gained by
> your mass from the height of the cliff, to kinetic energy -
> but could this
> same process be occurring in the "gravity capacitor?
> Something - geomtery,
> field shape or gradient, or a secondary effect like the small
> ion wind that
> would occur, may act as trigger for this change from
> potential to kinetic?)
>
> The charge separation that occurs between ground and clouds in a
> thunderstorm, is merely a static charge, once it has been
> accumulated. And
> is ionic in nature, by most accounts of the theory of why this charge
> separation occurs. So by Carrigan's reasoning the MILLIONS
> of WATTS of power
> in each bolt of lightening, producing a 10,000 K plasma, and a sonic
> shockwave, and when striking the ground or trees, explosive
> disintigration of
> said objects - this is all a figment of our imagination?
>
> I think an error has been made in this blanket dismissal
> without careful
> consideration of the facts!
>
> Or if I may postulate: if one is willing to dismiss out of
> hand, the reports
> of a successful demonstration of the stated goals of this
> discussion group,
> without carefully reading that account, or considering a
> replication, as
> details are clearly provided; then why is such an individual
> even reading or
> participating in the discussion group?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> DMBoss1021
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
> with the body text: leave Interact
> list archives and on line subscription forms are at
> http://keelynet.com/interact/
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
-------------------------------------------------------------
To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
with the body text: leave Interact
list archives and on line subscription forms are at
http://keelynet.com/interact/
-------------------------------------------------------------