Free Energy?

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Jim or Eva FitzGerald

unread,
May 26, 2002, 6:17:43 PM5/26/02
to
Here is something for all you techno-minded people to sink your teeth into.
A "Motionless Electromagnetic Generator"!
Who is taking what side of the argument?
That it will work vs. it will not work
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg.htm

Vaughn Simon

unread,
May 26, 2002, 7:09:05 PM5/26/02
to
Please be sure to check back and tell us as soon as these units are
available at Home Depot.
Until then, I choose to remain happily ignorant of this great
scientific/engineering triumph.

Vaughn

CM

unread,
May 26, 2002, 7:52:11 PM5/26/02
to

"Jim or Eva FitzGerald" <jf...@gvtc.com> wrote in message
news:jadI8.263$tw1....@eagle.america.net...

Basically, it is a transformer with a permanent magnet inside,
and using coils to "switch" the magnetic flux back and forth.
It does produce an output, but less than the power required
by the switching coils.

It "works", but it is not "over-unity", it will not produce
"free power". It isn't even a particularly efficient transformer,
running about 50% efficiency.

What is really amazing is the bafflegab contained in links
to the site, pretending to be quantum physics but is really
just pure BS. They are basically trying to claim that it is
"extracting energy from the vacuum", when it does
nothing of the sort. The much discussed "vacuum
energy" is a theoretical artifact that remains unproven.

2 links that were supposed to be to the US Dept. of Energy
were not found. I suspect they did not want to be
linked to dubious information.

I suspect they are raising hype to get investors
to pony up a lot of money, then they skip out...

CM


Steve Spence

unread,
May 27, 2002, 8:22:05 AM5/27/02
to
Won't work.

--
Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter:
http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm

Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/
Human powered devices, equipment, and transport -
http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/2000/humanpower.htm
ssp...@webconx.com


"Jim or Eva FitzGerald" <jf...@gvtc.com> wrote in message
news:jadI8.263$tw1....@eagle.america.net...

CS

unread,
May 28, 2002, 6:55:24 PM5/28/02
to
If you believe this claim.... I have some land to sell you right beside a
nuclear dump.

"Jim or Eva FitzGerald" <jf...@gvtc.com> wrote in message
news:jadI8.263$tw1....@eagle.america.net...

mswink

unread,
May 28, 2002, 9:30:55 PM5/28/02
to
For those who know bearden this is just a step in the right direction. It is
a viable source of energy that doe not need outside sources to keep it
going. Where so many have failed in the past was due to electrical
conversion into supplying energy force.
His site leads you to others which can show you that by trickle chargeing
deep cell batteries and not trying to tap directly to any device gives it
more options which are for the real world.
No doubt you cannnot get funding for this. For the goverment is still
forceing us to use upside down appliances where the heat source is
underneath the very thing we are trying to cool. Irs calls all products
dream machines which pay taxes either through a meter or replacement
batteries etc.
The reason fuel cells are a given is the sheer fact they offer a devices to
collect taxes when you go to restore that it needs.
I suggest that beardens and telsa units be approach on a very small scale
where they will no doubt find endless uses.
If you want a glimpse of the future go to E-Ink,Inc I think their url is
http://www.eink.com look till you find the paper thin displays.
You might have to do a search on thin film technology or E Ink. the
electronics will run on battery instead of light from room or outside.
Everything we have seen so far is allready obsolete when it comes to nano
biotech and microelectronics. All that we see today is also allready in play
in nature. And no need for wires. Guess our grand kids will be the only ones
to accept what I just said.

"Jim or Eva FitzGerald" <jf...@gvtc.com> wrote in message
news:jadI8.263$tw1....@eagle.america.net...

ugu...@nowhere.net

unread,
May 28, 2002, 9:39:06 PM5/28/02
to

Reeks of perpetual motion equivelent in energy production.

Offbreed

unread,
May 29, 2002, 1:15:43 PM5/29/02
to
"mswink" <msw...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<ad1b1u$ds3$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>...

> For those who know bearden this is just a step in the right direction. It is
> a viable source of energy that doe not need outside sources to keep it
> going. Where so many have failed in the past was due to electrical
> conversion into supplying energy force.

<rambling snipped>

Okay, what wise ass spiked the thorazine?

Scott Willing

unread,
May 30, 2002, 12:34:08 AM5/30/02
to

<ugu...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:taj8fug0ej9e1mnei...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 28 May 2002 22:55:24 GMT, "CS" <chr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >If you believe this claim.... I have some land to sell you right beside
a
> >nuclear dump.

Should be able to get some free energy out of the dump, though, right? ;-)

-=s

CS

unread,
May 30, 2002, 7:30:57 PM5/30/02
to
I guess you could get some free energy out of the dump...

but would probably be a lot easier to rob a gas station!


"Scott Willing" <NOTwillin...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:SYhJ8.163$sd....@news1.mts.net...

Steve Spence

unread,
May 30, 2002, 7:41:29 PM5/30/02
to
if your grandkids accept what you just said, you'll have stupid
grandkids......

--
Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter:
http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm

Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/
Human powered devices, equipment, and transport -
http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/2000/humanpower.htm
ssp...@webconx.com

"mswink" <msw...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ad1b1u$ds3$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...

Steve Spence

unread,
May 30, 2002, 7:44:05 PM5/30/02
to
"Scott Willing" <NOTwillin...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:SYhJ8.163$sd....@news1.mts.net...
>
> <ugu...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:taj8fug0ej9e1mnei...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 28 May 2002 22:55:24 GMT, "CS" <chr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >If you believe this claim.... I have some land to sell you right
beside
> a
> > >nuclear dump.
>
> Should be able to get some free energy out of the dump, though, right? ;-)
>

sure, it's called a TEG.

sa...@omegatechware.hypermart.net

unread,
May 31, 2002, 3:08:35 AM5/31/02
to
On Thu, 30 May 2002 23:41:29 GMT, "Steve Spence" <ssp...@webconx.com>
decided to enlighten us with :

>if your grandkids accept what you just said, you'll have stupid
>grandkids......

I have to interject here, and disagree. :)

For those of you who haven't read my rants (in that _other_
newsgroup), I'll reiterate.

We, as human beings, simply aren't as well-versed in physics as we
could wish. Furthermore, the person that puts forth the impression
that they know all, is a fool. We truly do not know all there is to
know! Simply put, we, as a race, do not know everything, so out of
necessity, we need to temper our findings and/or opinions with
personal beliefs and conclusions; those being further tempered by the
theories and findings maintained by orthodox science.

The 'Law of conservation of energy' is not necessarily violated by Mr.
Bearden's work. It simply proposes the existence of a form of energy
of which we are not currently aware. Once again, I refer to the fool
who attempts to tell you that they know everything there is to know.

Consider, as an example, the 'Casimir Effect'. Basically put, this
states that the smaller the gap between objects, the more force that
is applied to effectively bring those objects together. The cause for
this effect is that the distance between the two objects in question
filters out specific wavelengths, or frequencies, of radiation,
allowing a certain pressure differential to exist in the space between
the two objects, compared to the surrounding area. This effect is
quite similar to the effect of gravity, in that we can extract usable
energy from that particular effect, but the books don't balance, in
that we would need to expend more energy to pry those objects apart
than we would gain by making use of the particular phenomena.

Definition : ZPE - Zero Point Energy. It was once assumed that at
absolute zero (0K), _everything_ stopped moving. ZPE was defined as
being what energy was still in existence at zero degrees Kelvin.

ZPE does indeed exist, as such illustrious scientists such as Richard
Feynmann have posited (email me for specific citations). We used to
think that, at absolute zero, all elements became solids, but we were
wrong. Not all elements in the standard periodic table become solids
at 0K. My question is : How much of what we think we know is truly
fact, and how much has been extrapolated from conventional science,
which may also be incorrect ?

I would wager my life that we (human beings) do not know all there is
to know about the universe. Is it so difficult to imagine that one of
us has looked into a different aspect of physics in a different
manner, and has arrived at an entirely different conclusion than the
remainder of orthodox science, yet their beliefs are equally as valid
as the others ? Personally, I have enough faith in humanity to, at the
very least, entertain such notions as put forth by my peers.

Believe me when I tell you that I am not a crackpot! I'm just
open-minded enough that I can accept new theories, but not so
open-minded that my brain falls out! (Actually, it has, but through
the knowledge given to me by the Saurians from the inner-earth, I was
successfully able to re-implant my cerebellum into my cranium. :)
Yeah, I've read the wierd side of 'science' as well!)

Basically, I'm saying that we should not dismiss postings such as
these out of hand, but only after we have proven beyond the ubiquitous
shadow of a doubt, can we dismiss them! We should use our
tried-and-true scientific methods to determine, for ourselves, if we
believe the findings of any single researcher, whether they be
supported by orthodox science or not. Further, we should realise that
our knowledge is far from being complete, and there may possibly be
concepts that are true, but simply do not fall into one category or
another as we deem them to be.

From my experience in reading T. Bearden's contributions, it seems to
me that he is taking the proverbial scientific approach to his
experiments, yet there is one caveat, in that he is completely
open-minded as to his results. He does not seem to be given to
personal pride to the extent that he will mislead anyone. In that
instance, I would recommend that we give him his due as a scientist,
and review his work as we would the work of any other in the field.

Further, I would recommend that anyone who is truly interested in
alternative energy research the works of John Keely and Nikola Tesla.
I am not in any way, shape, or form, endorsing the following site, but
I think it would behoove us to at the very least pay attention to what
goes on at http://www.keelynet.com .

As to the works of Edward Leedskalnin, the jury is still out as far as
I'm concerned. :) There is a bit too much political posturing in his
writings as far as I am concerned.

PS - If you gained nothing else from this diatribe, my message to you
is to remain open-minded, but do not be naive!

My 2 cents, worth what you paid. :)

J.
Jeremiah D. Seitz
Porch karaoke king and the guy who runs with 8< scissors >8
Omega Techware
http://www.omegatechware.com

Anthony Matonak

unread,
May 31, 2002, 5:42:49 AM5/31/02
to
sa...@omegatechware.hypermart.net wrote:
...

> We, as human beings, simply aren't as well-versed in physics as we
> could wish. Furthermore, the person that puts forth the impression
> that they know all, is a fool.
...

I'll agree that humanity doesn't know it all.

That said, extraordinary claims are going to require extraordinary proof.
For the past few hundred years there has been constant work on overunity
and perpetual motion devices and not a single one of them has worked yet.

All anyone really expects is proof that the claims are true. If you have
a working machine this proof shouldn't be very difficult to produce.

...


> Basically, I'm saying that we should not dismiss postings such as
> these out of hand, but only after we have proven beyond the ubiquitous
> shadow of a doubt, can we dismiss them!

...

I can dismiss any drivel and rantings that I so choose. It is up to the
person making a claim to prove it, not up to ME to disprove it.

...


> PS - If you gained nothing else from this diatribe, my message to you
> is to remain open-minded, but do not be naive!

...

To paraphrase a quotation (which I don't recall the exact wording of)...
"The problem with having an open mind is all the garbage people try to
stuff into it."

Anthony

fred b mcgalliard

unread,
May 31, 2002, 11:02:12 AM5/31/02
to
Verily. All such claims are as irrelevant as the wild theories that graduate
students share over their 3rd beer. An independent proof of principal is
essential. Thanks Tim.

"Tim Perdue" <t...@gotocity.com> wrote in message
news:NjKJ8.23309$0A2.22988@rwcrnsc54...
> X-No-archive: yes
> <sa...@omegatechware.hypermart.net> wrote in message
> news:3cfa0e7c...@news-central.giganews.com...


> >The 'Law of conservation of energy' is not necessarily violated by Mr.
> >Bearden's work.
>

> Irrelevant until he has a working device which is independently confirmed
by
> a respectable individual or organization.
>
> In other words, don't hold your breath that Tom has done anything except
> make measuring errors, if not outright lie.
>
> Tim
>
>


sa...@omegatechware.hypermart.net

unread,
May 31, 2002, 4:32:30 PM5/31/02
to
On Fri, 31 May 2002 09:42:49 GMT, Anthony Matonak <res0...@gte.net>

decided to enlighten us with :

>sa...@omegatechware.hypermart.net wrote:

>That said, extraordinary claims are going to require extraordinary proof.
>For the past few hundred years there has been constant work on overunity
>and perpetual motion devices and not a single one of them has worked yet.
>
>All anyone really expects is proof that the claims are true. If you have
>a working machine this proof shouldn't be very difficult to produce.

I agree with you on this point completely. I was not in the least
insinuating that Mr. Bearden has produced a working model, merely that
he has shown himself to be a student of the empirical method, and as
such, has my respect for that reason.

>I can dismiss any drivel and rantings that I so choose. It is up to the
>person making a claim to prove it, not up to ME to disprove it.

Granted, the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the person who
is trying to prove something, as it always has.

>To paraphrase a quotation (which I don't recall the exact wording of)...
>"The problem with having an open mind is all the garbage people try to
>stuff into it."

Never heard that before, but I will keep that in mind, if I can. :)

>Anthony

BTW, I'm not trying to espouse any radical OU/PM devices or theories;
I would simply hate for us to be so caught up in jeering and
attempting to prove everyone wrong that we miss the one true
breakthrough. It has happened before, and it could possibly happen
again ...

sa...@omegatechware.hypermart.net

unread,
May 31, 2002, 4:37:08 PM5/31/02
to
On Fri, 31 May 2002 12:49:49 GMT, "Tim Perdue" <t...@gotocity.com>

decided to enlighten us with :

>Irrelevant until he has a working device which is independently confirmed by


>a respectable individual or organization.

As stated in a previous reply, I will grant that without hesitation!

>In other words, don't hold your breath that Tom has done anything except
>make measuring errors, if not outright lie.

My faith in Mr. Bearden's work is not based so much on his results,
but on his methods. Time and again he has proven himself to be honest
in his findings, and I see no reason for him to change direction
mid-stream and sensationalize erroneous results. I believe that if Mr.
Bearden is wrong, he will be the first to admit it.

>Tim

Peace,

Steve Spence

unread,
Jun 3, 2002, 7:59:29 PM6/3/02
to
If you understood what bearden pretends to, then you'd understand he is the
fool. disagree if you want, it's still pseudoscience. as is about everything
on keelynet.

--
Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter:
http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm

Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/
Human powered devices, equipment, and transport -
http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/2000/humanpower.htm
ssp...@webconx.com

<sa...@omegatechware.hypermart.net> wrote in message
news:3cfa0e7c...@news-central.giganews.com...

sa...@omegatechware.hypermart.net

unread,
Jun 3, 2002, 10:36:21 PM6/3/02
to
On Mon, 03 Jun 2002 23:59:29 GMT, "Steve Spence" <ssp...@webconx.com>

decided to enlighten us with :

>If you understood what bearden pretends to, then you'd understand he is the


>fool. disagree if you want, it's still pseudoscience. as is about everything
>on keelynet.

You know, the more I read of his work, the more I tend to agree with
you. It all sounds very impressive, with references to Lorentzian
transformations and Heaviside components, but one would have to be
quite well-versed in the underlying theories to gain even the most
rudimentary understanding of his theories. I am, sadly, not one of
those people, but I hope to become one of them in the future.

>--
>Steve Spence
>Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter:
>http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm

Thanks,

daveem Dave M

unread,
Jun 4, 2002, 3:33:25 AM6/4/02
to

N. Thornton

unread,
Jun 4, 2002, 8:04:00 AM6/4/02
to
sa...@omegatechware.hypermart.net wrote in message news:<3cfa0e7c.26920870@news-

> On Thu, 30 May 2002 23:41:29 GMT, "Steve Spence" <ssp...@webconx.com>

> We, as human beings, simply aren't as well-versed in physics as we


> could wish. Furthermore, the person that puts forth the impression
> that they know all, is a fool. We truly do not know all there is to
> know! Simply put, we, as a race, do not know everything, so out of
> necessity, we need to temper our findings and/or opinions with
> personal beliefs and conclusions; those being further tempered by the
> theories and findings maintained by orthodox science.

This is true, but I dont think the point. _If_ the summary posted
earlier in this thread is a correct summary of Joseph's work, that
would simply make him a fool scientifically. The account posted here
demonstrates a total lack of comprehension of motor functioning - not
one or 2 points we disagree on, just plain cluelessness. Of course I
could be more cyncal.

I do think there are real technologies that get dismissed sometimes -
but I dont believe at all that this is one of them.

Now to be controlversial - is there sucha thing as free energy out of
the air? Yes, its called a lightning conductor, or a crystal radio.

Regards, NT

Steve Spence

unread,
Jun 5, 2002, 5:56:59 AM6/5/02
to
a lightning conductor isn't free energy, as it's just a dissipation device,
and doesn't give you storable, useable energy. crystal radio isn't quite
free energy either, as the radio station has to pump out the signal to make
the crystal oscillate. they stop transmitting, you stop receiving. a pv
panel or a wind generator is as close to a "free" energy device as you'll
find. even that takes an input, but it's one that doesn't require an
expenditure on mans part to keep going. intermittent yes, but the "fuel" is
free. there is no magic box that outputs more energy than is inputted.

--
Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter:
http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm

Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/
Human powered devices, equipment, and transport -
http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/2000/humanpower.htm
ssp...@webconx.com

"N. Thornton" <big...@meeow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a7076635.02060...@posting.google.com...

sa...@omegatechware.hypermart.net

unread,
Jun 5, 2002, 10:02:59 PM6/5/02
to
On 4 Jun 2002 05:04:00 -0700, big...@meeow.co.uk (N. Thornton) decided
to enlighten us with :

>This is true, but I dont think the point. _If_ the summary posted


>earlier in this thread is a correct summary of Joseph's work, that
>would simply make him a fool scientifically. The account posted here
>demonstrates a total lack of comprehension of motor functioning - not
>one or 2 points we disagree on, just plain cluelessness. Of course I
>could be more cyncal.

Ok, now you've got me. Who's Joseph ?

>I do think there are real technologies that get dismissed sometimes -
>but I dont believe at all that this is one of them.

I agree. Here's an interesting link for you :
http://www.americanantigravity.com . So far there hasn't been much
interest that I can see, but the technology looks promising.

(I know this isn't that type of newsgroup, but hopefully I can be
forgiven.)

>Now to be controlversial - is there sucha thing as free energy out of
>the air? Yes, its called a lightning conductor, or a crystal radio.

I think that is where many people get tripped up, in that their
definitions of 'free' energy differ. I would consider a crystal radio
free energy, as it doesn't cost me anything, but technically, it isn't
what the purists would consider 'free'.

>Regards, NT

N. Thornton

unread,
Jun 6, 2002, 11:20:11 AM6/6/02
to
"Steve Spence" <ssp...@webconx.com> wrote:

> > Now to be controlversial - is there sucha thing as free energy out of
> > the air? Yes, its called a lightning conductor, or a crystal radio.

> a lightning conductor isn't free energy, as it's just a dissipation device,

Its actually a collector. Usually theyre grounded, but they dont have
to be.


> and doesn't give you storable, useable energy.

Sure it does. People used to look to lightning strikes as an
electricity supply before generators were invented.

How to store it: a big room sized metal ball style capacitor. Famous
for being deadly dangerous and killing people.

How to use it: discharge ir thru a photoflash tube, or thru the
swimming pool to warm the water. Or use it for electrical experiments,
thats what people used to do wi it. You can use a smaller ball to tap
off a fraction of the charge, so you can use it lots of times.


> crystal radio isn't quite
> free energy either, as the radio station has to pump out the signal to make
> the crystal oscillate. they stop transmitting, you stop receiving.

Not so. Crystal radios pick up energy from the earths numerous
lightning strikes. So does any a.m. radio (crackle). Radio
transmitters do blur the picture, but nevertheless a crystal radio is
a genuine free energy receiver. Tesla is known for receiving energy
from the weather.


> a pv
> panel or a wind generator is as close to a "free" energy device as you'll
> find. even that takes an input, but it's one that doesn't require an
> expenditure on mans part to keep going. intermittent yes, but the "fuel" is
> free.

Yep, there are lots of free energy receivers about. Pv panel,
windmill, most types of microphone and speaker will also collect
energy is hung up outdoors, solar oven, solar hot water heater... they
all collect free energy.


> there is no magic box that outputs more energy than is inputted.

By definition. The trick is to see the sources of energy. I once
designed a pool heater that used the sky's electrical charges to
operate. It has been done by others too. But of course it isn't
practical.

Regards, NT

CM

unread,
Jun 7, 2002, 2:16:39 AM6/7/02
to
>>I do think there are real technologies that get dismissed
sometimes -
>>but I dont believe at all that this is one of them.

> I agree. Here's an interesting link for you :
> http://www.americanantigravity.com . So far there hasn't been
> much interest that I can see, but the technology looks promising.
> (I know this isn't that type of newsgroup, but hopefully
> I can be forgiven.)


The name "american antigravity" is misleading - it isn't really
anti-gravity. It's a cute parlor trick (and potentially dangerous).
They are using high voltage static electric fields to levitate
lightweight foil frames, tethered to keep them from drifting off. It's
hard to imagine any practical use for it.

CM

sa...@omegatechware.hypermart.net

unread,
Jun 7, 2002, 3:38:23 AM6/7/02
to
On Fri, 07 Jun 2002 06:16:39 GMT, "CM" <C...@CM.not.really> decided to
enlighten us with :

>The name "american antigravity" is misleading - it isn't really


>anti-gravity. It's a cute parlor trick (and potentially dangerous).
>They are using high voltage static electric fields to levitate
>lightweight foil frames, tethered to keep them from drifting off. It's
>hard to imagine any practical use for it.

From the website, this isn't the same effect as an ion-wind,
considering the device still (supposedly) works equally as well in a
near-vacuum.

Certainly it can be extremely dangerous, but so can wiring one's home
for homepower. :) Either one of them are dangerous, but still perhaps
worth the risk, as far as I'm concerned.

>CM

Cheers,

fred b mcgalliard

unread,
Jun 7, 2002, 12:23:42 PM6/7/02
to
Fun, but it looks just like what I would build to make an ion wind
helicopter. I have not seen any proof that it is not ion wind. For example,
lift inside a vacuum chamber with no ions to wind. Put it inside a large tin
can, let it levitate, and measure the weight of the tin can et all. If the
weight drops you may have a story. If it does not then it must fly by
pushing down on either the can or the air. Measure the lift as a function of
air pressure perhaps?

<sa...@omegatechware.hypermart.net> wrote in message
news:3d006248...@news-central.giganews.com...

ugu...@nowhere.net

unread,
Jun 7, 2002, 5:50:32 PM6/7/02
to

acutally, a crystal radio is not using "free energy" as it was
transmitted by a radio station at some expense. :)

ugu...@nowhere.net

unread,
Jun 7, 2002, 5:55:23 PM6/7/02
to
On Fri, 07 Jun 2002 07:38:23 GMT, sa...@omegatechware.hypermart.net
wrote:

>On Fri, 07 Jun 2002 06:16:39 GMT, "CM" <C...@CM.not.really> decided to
>enlighten us with :
>
>>The name "american antigravity" is misleading - it isn't really
>>anti-gravity. It's a cute parlor trick (and potentially dangerous).
>>They are using high voltage static electric fields to levitate
>>lightweight foil frames, tethered to keep them from drifting off. It's
>>hard to imagine any practical use for it.
>
>From the website, this isn't the same effect as an ion-wind,
>considering the device still (supposedly) works equally as well in a
>near-vacuum.
>

no, not without a gas to be ionized,, e.g. deep space 1 used xenon gas
to be ionized and accelerated by this same proceedure, but, it
requires a ionizable gas to be accelerated.. good old' newton is right
again.

CM

unread,
Jun 8, 2002, 8:44:55 PM6/8/02
to
"CM" <C...@CM.not.really> decided to enlighten us with :
> >The name "american antigravity" is misleading - it isn't really
> >anti-gravity. It's a cute parlor trick (and potentially dangerous).
> >They are using high voltage static electric fields to levitate
> >lightweight foil frames, tethered to keep them from drifting off.
It's
> >hard to imagine any practical use for it.
>
> From the website, this isn't the same effect as an ion-wind,
> considering the device still (supposedly) works equally as well in a
> near-vacuum.

"fred b mcgalliard"


> Fun, but it looks just like what I would build to make an ion wind
> helicopter. I have not seen any proof that it is not ion wind. For
example,
> lift inside a vacuum chamber with no ions to wind. Put it inside a
large tin
> can, let it levitate, and measure the weight of the tin can et all.
If the
> weight drops you may have a story. If it does not then it must fly
by
> pushing down on either the can or the air. Measure the lift as a
function of
> air pressure perhaps?

As far as I could tell from the illustrations, it was simple
electrostatic repulsion. Apply a static charge to a lightweight
object, apply the same charge to a mat underneath said object, and if
the charge is sufficiently high the object hovers! It's not pushing
down air, it's pushing down the charged mat, so it will work in a
vacuum - but the range is limited.

CM


fred b mcgalliard

unread,
Jun 10, 2002, 10:30:06 AM6/10/02
to
Maybe I misread the thing, but I thought the wire was positive and the
aluminum foil structure underneath was grounded. To get it to fly on
repulsion you would have to have the base plate at the same high voltage as
the structure. This is very hard to do on a conductive object, since when
they get closer together the charge tends to suck an opposite reflection
into the nearest conductive surface. This would be very easy to prove. The
ion wind effect would increase rather sharply when the breakdown voltage is
exceeded. Reduction of pressure or preionization, say with a strong UV
light, should increase the current at a fixed voltage and increase the lift.
A big flat plate would have no lift at all. If electrostatic repulsion,
would work better in a hard vacuum, with no current at all. Would work as
well with good corona dope paint on all metal, Would work as well for a big
flat plate as a fancy shape with wires. And last, if you balanced it to make
a good measurement of the lifting force, electrostatic would match the
voltage and show a predictable decrease with distance (not a polite inverse
square for large objects, but predictable).

"CM" <C...@CM.not.really> wrote in message
news:byxM8.3881$k85...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
...>

sa...@omegatechware.hypermart.net

unread,
Jun 10, 2002, 4:12:52 PM6/10/02
to
On Sun, 09 Jun 2002 00:44:55 GMT, "CM" <C...@CM.not.really> decided to
enlighten us with :

>As far as I could tell from the illustrations, it was simple


>electrostatic repulsion. Apply a static charge to a lightweight
>object, apply the same charge to a mat underneath said object, and if
>the charge is sufficiently high the object hovers! It's not pushing
>down air, it's pushing down the charged mat, so it will work in a
>vacuum - but the range is limited.

According to the plans, there is no mat against which to push. The
negative is connected to 30 gauge magnet wire at the top of the
device, and the positive is connected to the foil skirt. I may have
the polarities switched, however.

>CM

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages