By definition, nothing that works can "break physics". The most it can do is break our current understanding of physics. That said, this asymetric-capacitor phenomenon certainly warrants further investigation. At the very least, it sounds like it's going to expand and refine our understanding of physics.
I love your response. I see too many comments saying something like "you can't break the paws of physics". Well if you couldn't, then we would not be able to fly or do a whole bunch of other things. People who "believe" in science are not the dreamers of the future and they frustrate me to no end when I read their comments. All "new" physics (or other things we can't explain) should be investigated, not poo-pooed and dismissed because they break the laws of physics. It should be investigated to see if it somehow changes our understanding. I have to wonder if it isn't something to do with what is in this paper. This paper says that magnetism can be derived from Einsteins relativity equations. In short that means that magnetism, like gravity, is not a force, but a warping of space itself. Could we warp space in such a way to create motion/acceleration? I think CZcams stops links, so I will spoace this out so you can get the link to look at it. sciencex.com/ news/ 2021-07-electromagnetism-property-spacetime .html
Science is the way we explain how the universe works with limited knowledge we have today ... If one thinks the "unknown" is "breaking science", they're neither scientists, nor are they smart ... Only "Fixed Minded Know-It-Alls" think science knows and explains everything ... that's DUMB! There's far too many "Seen, and Unseen" or "Known and Unknown" realities we don't yet know.
@@ronrothrock7116How did you arrive at this conclusion? Flying doesn't break the laws of physics, and didn't even challenge our understanding of physics. It's only because of physics that we were certain it could be done. Nothing "defies physics".
@@SwervingLemon For flying I was referring back to before Newton's time. Not counting hot air balloon's people would have said you cannot fly. Granted it was probably not thought of as a "law of physics", but it was common knowledge people cannot fly, yet here we are flying.
Dr Buhler presented this at APEC in January. If you don't know APEC it's a free online conference that happens once a month. I highly recommend it. It's the Alternative Propulsion Engineering conference apec.
Jesse Ventura I think is the name of the guy who works at APEC, I've seen footage from APEC from watching Jeremy Rys' CZcams channel called "Alien scientist" - very interesting channel & viewing, as he's constantly doing ongoing work regarding anti-gravity propulsion & alien tech.. If you're not aware of Jeremy's channel then I recommend watching it. 👍
@@raycar1165 ah right, yeah Tim D'oh!!! well thankyou for letting me know, yeah isn't he the ex navy seal (Jesse)? ...I could be wrong, but I think I know who you mean.
Ionic wind effect should be pretty easy to detect, right? The air would be blowing. Also, if the device is capable of producing more thrust than its weight (which is claimed) then it is also extremely easy to detect. So, my question is, where is the video of the levitating product?
That's right so they test in vaccum. The team's drive produces a mere 10 milliNewtons, so I am thinking they are comparing some sub component to the thrust. In space, this is great for constant acceleration but on Earth it's very little. But we have to figure out what the effect even is (I don't think it's quantized inertia at all)
No it does not work. They are ignoring the interaction between the device & the metal vacuum chamber. Its just electrostatic force between the metal vacuum container & the HV charged plates. Same thing with the Q-Drive that was the rage a few years ago.
Their claim is that the part of the apparatus which produces "thrust" can lift it's own weight, but not the weight of the entire system (power source, control electronics, etc). They expect to be able to have a self contained, "levitating" craft in the next 12 months.
Super awesome! I know the title is just catcy, but I would like to emphasize, nothing defies the laws of physics, only our current understanding until we do understand it
Actually they ,put in orbit on observed anonymous behaviour but could not conclude it reaction against aether.Still a work in progress, mainly theoretical work
Stop messing around with high cost and time consuming experiments. Just mount it in a box and measure the thrust of the box. Then the air in there does not matter to proof the point.
There's some things that I think are funny. It would suggest that if an electrogravitic effect is a thing, then when gravitational and electromagnetic fields are both present, it should be possible to transfer rotational momentum around an axis into momentum that is "linear" along a trajectory. Some of the stuff that leads to that is hinted by hysteresis effects of the electric properties of a vacuum and the product of the permeability and permittivity of a vacuum is the speed of light squared. Tie that back into other formulas that show mass and energy equivalence, and you can also see there is a relationship between electric and gravitational fields through a kind of mechanism there. It's a thing Einstein really didn't want to deal with (part of the "spooky action at a distance" type effects), and one or two guys were dabbling with it before wandering off into the territory of string theory rather than trying to see if there was something more immediately practical about it. The later quantum stuff is likely distantly related to it too, although that also went off into another direction as well.
We've been building these at home for years. It's just that we finally have a team of researchers with the proper equipment able to do the proper experiments now. A lot of us that have built these are limited in the amount of voltage and amperage we're willing to work with. I myself don't go above 30,000 volts. That's just because that's the biggest transformer I have. I made that from an old neon sign transformer that I modified and boosted. We've been able to build these for almost a decade and a half now the problem is that the power supply is not small enough to fit in the craft. You can't say it's a propellant list system because it's using the air around it as repellent and it's using the electricity as the oxidizer. This means that you still have to generate power and you have to have that power flow like fuel, energy flows like water, so that your system will be able to support itself off the ground. That's the problem right now. We've been able to fly these for almost 15 years on cables but we could never get it to fly without being tethered.
No I'm not talking about an ionic lifter by the way. I have watched his video and made his cell. It's kind of tedious when you make the little tea in the middle can you go up to the other plate but it wasn't super hard. He's posted about four or five videos of how to make this unit.
@@SteveSiegelin In space there would be no gravity so the weight of the power supply might not be an issue. The weight would cause inertia that would impact steering and braking. Something like this with solar sails might develop great speed, but it would be vulnerable to any solid matter it encountered. I saw a little ionic thrusted airplane a couple of years ago. It's an interesting start, not my field . Do think electrostatics are an infant science with great promise.
Andrew Aurigema - Propellantless Drive Engineering Test 4k - Exodus 2024 The video title above gives detailed analysis of the work that is being done, whether you believe it's accurate or not. It's an in depth discussion with the engineer who is working with the lead researcher on the project. Their primary goal is to create something to keep satellites correctly oriented and positioned.
@@Tech_Planet I don't really understand your focus on whether it works in space. Their testing is done is a vacuum cylinder. A shoe string one because of their budget, but vacuum non-the-less. The only negative options I am aware of are either there is some complex experimental error and there is no force, or they are doing something deceptive. They've gone to great lengths to rule out ionic wind as a possibility.
They seem to be pretty straight forward about it, this should be easily replicable in other labs. But I do agree space is probably last step in the process.
Considering the atmosphere extends quite aways into space (ions present as far as the moon). A low to mid orbit satilite shouldn't have any difficulties if it's just ion effect. But if it's not simply/only ion effects, say aether flow/field effect due to localized high voltage disequilibrium/nonlinear mass inertial distribution etc. this could get interesting.
I built a lifter with my daughter for her school science project and one thing not mentioned here is the corona effect that accompanies the lifting effect as well as the fact that the force was higher at different distances between the plates which was not always closer to the
Townsend himself said that he tested his device in an oil bath to negate the electronic wind hypotheses, and he still got thrust. He also did not know how his device produced thrust, but he experimented to magnify the effect as much as he could.He did eventually test his device in a vacuum chamber and said it worked even better. I do not know how his device works, but saying that it does break the laws of physics might just mean that we are not yet aware of just how it works or what it might be interacting with to produce thrust. I did see a paper published by two British physicists about the state of gravity research in the 1950's and they did mention Townsend's work and said that his device "Discs" ( Thats what they said ) would work in space. Just imagine if it is true and that the Americans have advanced space vehicles that they have kept secret for over 70 years??? wow. Why would they keep it secret? probably because it would enable easy access to space and the solar system and they did not want nations like North Korea, China or Iran to gain easy access to space, how could they monitor them, they could do anything, so they sat on the research so that if anyone wanted to get into space they had to go the very expensive and dangerous rocket path.
Good points, it's inevitable that we will see the answers because a lot of people are asking the same questions. If anything (despite the criticism), I'm glad that this has drawn some attention to Buhler's work/
I am endlessly fascinated in breakthrough research, however, when we come to the known variables to which we are limited, I would always seek evidence. Are NASA going to trial this in orbit or further? My considerable respect for the good professor suggests we need to rattle the cage of science now.
There is another issue that is often overlooked with these propellentless drives. And that is electromagnetic radiation can produce thrust. If you turn on an electric torch (aka flashlight) it will push you in space... But only very slightly. And this effect can even be observed with infrared radiation (aka heat radiation). With the minute levels of thrust these devices put out this effect can actually be what actually is providing thrust. So you need to take that in to amount and do better than that. Else you may as well just used a high efficiency electric torch drive (or something similar)
This isn’t new pal brown isn’t the only person to discover this, I believe a dozen scientists/ engineers have investigated this one of the most recent was the Chinese scientist who worked for NASA who life became bizarre then ended after being missing for a while
So basically we need to test the absolute shit out of this so we can find out if it's one of the two possible major revolutions in human technology or still just a neat toy with odd effects.
I heard about an old theory from my physics professor that matter can be converted into electromagnetic waves and sent to another place and then the electromagnetic wave can be reshaped and translated back to its original state.
@@flstateuguy83 I've always wondered if what we currently see as our government is but a facade. I really hope there is a competent governing body that is for the people.
Finding a propulsion system that isn't a reaction engine is the best way to open space to practical lengths of time. I think they should send a small scale of the system to space to see if it works.
Even if it is fruitless, I am glad research like this is conducted to just to make sure we don't overlook possibilities. A lot of discoveries were 'accidents', so I don't know why scientists try so hard to predict the unpredictable when it comes to possible new technologies and electromechanics?
Also if you want to get super technical about it we're already using this technology because it's the same damn technology as an ionic thruster. If you took his design and you cleared out a little bit of the styrofoam and past Krypton or argon through that channel you would have an ion thruster. . . There's a better way to make a pellet list drive. The reason I haven't built it yet even though I've had the plans for for over 20 years from the guy that designed it is that we haven't reached a material strength that's readily available for me yet so that the thing won't grenade. It actually uses a counteracting force in an egg shape to overbalance one side of The Craft. You're not actually beating gravity, you're throwing weights in a certain direction and frequency so that it counteracts the force of gravity below you. This is the only propellant list drive that I know works and was this paper was also one of the reasons why we have reaction wheels from nasa. It was written by a family member back during the Cold war when he was living on a military base, he was too young back then to have a job but growing up with everybody in physics in our family and having early chemistry sets he's a bit of a genius. Very eccentric but a genius. His design works the same way as his reaction will did better to higher volume and continuous frequency.. I've managed to render it on fusion and now I'm learning to change them together before I actually build my first one. Again it's stupidly simple, just like most of our advanced technology. The problem is it's also super dangerous and if one of these breaks loose it's like a bullet.
Also, radiation carries energy in the form of momentum. Laser beams do have recoil, but only at extremely high energy levels. Also, lasers cook matter, so it has to have some form of kinetic effect. I think people just can't wrap their head around it.
Electrons do have mass, and free electrons do exist -- I mean that's what a cathode ray tube does. But electrons, free or otherwise, are always attracted to an opposing charge. So if you're expelling free electrons from your ship expecting to them to disappear into the ether, well that's just not going to happen. You're soon going to be dealing with a charge imbalance problem. For every negative charge you expel from the ship, the ship gains an equal positive charge, attracting the electron you just expelled or another free electron to the ship. When you expel a particle and gain a particle the conservation of momentum guarantees a net thrust of zero. Perhaps if you had some way of creating electron-positron pairs en masse, say either through laser irradiation or some other technique. You could direct your negatively charged electrons through a positively charge thruster and an equal number of positively charged positrons through a negatively charged thruster... literally a matter/anti-matter engine. This would avoid the problem of charge imbalance but the energy required to produce a useful number of particle pairs for this motor is now and for the foreseeable future science fiction. We can create particle pairs with very powerful lasers, it's a real technique. So, you know, just multiply that by ten billion or so and power it with some currently unheard of power source and you have your antimatter thruster.
@@StoneUSA I wonder if it might be electron thrust and buildup of positive charge causes electrons to jump off the surrounding vacuum chamber walls and end up on the positively charge "ship". Of course that wouldn't work in space if this were the case.
Charles admits himself that he’s not 100% sure what physical phenomena are at work here. One possibility could be virtual particles with mass. See dynamical Casimir effect, works of Hal Puthoff for example. Based on those, I’ve started with a thought experiment of building a propeller that would work in space. Because of lack of certain measurements (e.g. density of virtual particles, their mass, etc.) I’ve decided to test my idea, still not 100% convinced, but very encouraging. The link to the paper and a short presentation is on my channel. My testing continues...
I don't want to exaggerate here, so let me just say I want propellant-less hover-cars more than I want my next breath!!! If this product actually pans out it will change the world as we know it. Like the transistor this technology could theoretically perform a technological facelift on the planet. Imagine going outside to your driveway and jumping in your hover car and lifting off. I want this more than I want to be able to walk, and I've wanted that my whole life! To the scientist involved in this, please don't let yourselves disappear be assassinated! Luke
It isn't ionic wind nor is it "breaking physics". It is DEFINITELY teaching us new/ overlooked physics and when we truly hone the devices' shape to maximize thrust we will be able to have safe, flying/floating vehicles. I really look forward to the day when we can take a floating cruise over land, sea, or even air! I wonder if it would be a long, cigar shaped object? Thanks for the video. The hexagonal craft with those thicker metal bars than the "lifters" made of aluminum foil was encouraging. The only other video on CZcams that I have seen that mentioned the lift being generated without ionic wind propulsion used a cut out proportionately heavy pie plate, lifting with enough force to overcome it's own weight with such speed that it really showed the triangle shape isn't necessary. It was round like a flying saucer. Well.. it was a pie plate so.. The power source would be much lighter and be able to be housed onboard if they used a wimshurst style generator. A watch battery could power the motor that would need to be used to turn the wheels. We have better capacitors than leyden jars so using them would be prudent. ❤ thanks for stoking the hope for futuristic vehicles that our grandparents would be expecting us to use by now. ❤
If electrons are the propellant (i.e. if the device emits electrons), it's not actually a propellant-less device. Since the electrons used as a propellant have to come from somewhere, they're probably from the power generator (i.e. battery or reactor). If this works, it could be very useful for space travel.
The idea behind these “reactionless” thrusters is that a small force applied over a long period of time can result in significant acceleration of an object. The forces involved are too weak to lift any significant mass on Earth and even air resistance would greatly diminish their effect. However in a vacuum and already travelling fast enough to at least orbit the Earth, such thrusters could accelerate a spacecraft without throwing out mass in the way a rocket works. But, you cannot defy the laws of physics, so what is happening is that pure energy is effectively forming the propellant, hence the relatively low thrust forces. Using a nuclear reactor for power is feasible and the amount of power drawn from the system will be related directly to the efficiency of the reactor and the conversion of fissile materials into energy. Such a system does not defy the laws of physics in any way, it just uses directed energy as the propellant.
" Such a system does not defy the laws of physics in any way, it just uses directed energy as the propellant." That is a violation of the known laws of physics. For example, pointing a laser behind a spaceship will not drive it forward.
@@James-wk1ym No, it won't have any effect at all. That's not how the physics works. You need to push some knd of propellant out of the space ship to move it. Now you can put a solar sail on a starship and let another laser on a planet push on it but a laser on the starship won't do anything at all.
@@jeffjwatts em radiation carries energy and momentum, so yes it would. Exceptionally small though, which is why i said if the laser was powerful enough, which it never would be in reality.
@@jeffjwatts The fact that solar sails are acted upon directly by light means that light leaving a laser must impart a reaction on the laser emitter. These two things either must both be true or neither can be true.
Space is technically not empty, there's particles out there. The relative density is negligible but not zero. With sufficient energy, would it be possible to move that medium, like an electromagnetic version of a ramjet? Then you don't need your own propellant. You'd just need an energy density equivalent of a whole nuclear power plant in a small vehicle. Like whenever we get fusion to work.
IVO's quantum drive test failed because the cubesat it was attached to failed according to them so they will try again next year I think, and Exodus have their own in-space testing planned iirc
I think this tested in space will uncover and entirely new understanding of space and the aether/quantum foam that we find ourselves in, vibrating just off kilter with our own and this 'zero point energy field' will take us to the stars. very much like Star Trek: First Contact and probably some very bad things too!
As long as the Shivans don't show up after we discover Subspace travel It'll be fiinnne. In seriousness: I suspect testing in space would instead unveil some things about Earth's electric field that have been eschewed, ignored, etc.
@@Tech_Planet Cool video! Appreciate your open minded skepticism. If you’re interested in seeing a model that could have some additional explanation to how this propulsion works then Id recommend checking out Energy Wave Theory by Jeff Yee The model seems incredibly useful. It’s a classical mechanics model capable of describing particle formation. It provides explanations for spin and explanations for the shapes of various electron orbitals. Using this model He’s been able calculate the Electron orbital distances for Hydrogen through Calcium with a high degree of accuracy. Just as one example.
Buhler claims that his new-and-improved EmDrive shows a force of 10 mN in a ‘stacked system’, yet no credible paper on the experiments can be found other than APEC presentations. Until their prototype is tested and firmly disproven, the way the EmDrive was tested by M. Tajmar, it seems fair to assume that the rules of physics as we know them today remain firmly intact.
Does the process/principle violate Newton's Third Law? Or does it illustrate previously unknown/unquantified digression from accepted premises which are naturally based on what we have observed to date? To paraphrase a science fiction author whose name I cannot now recollect "nothing is hidden in the realms of science rather lack of ability to discern what we do not yet know is predicated on absence for knowledge and other tools requisite to us perceiving and understanding".
In space it would work, but it is as you said. If you have enough energy. Gravity would need more than we can furnish at this time in a small enough package. I looked at the plans and determined that quickly.
I made a capacitive thruster as a kid. I didn't make any measurements or anything, but based on my power supply... you are wrong. I was getting a lot of thrust. And it was not from "electric wind" , the voltages were very low 50-60volt range, and EXTREMELY powerful forces. Dont assume what people say till you've tried it yourself. Sometimes people just go by age old math that only "approximates" reality. I use that word loosely in this case.
A time machine is in the works with the "Flux Capacitor". All we need now is a "Mr. Fusion" gadget to produce power for the flux capacitor drive engine, and a DeLorean to put the engine into. "Yur the Doc., Doc"!
Space _isn't_ a vacuum. It is just really low pressure. Part of the reason we even have a solar system, is because the ionic solar wind is pushing a lot of stuf away from the star. So an ionic effect would work in space, the trick is making it stronger than natural solar wind.
The directional "thrust" doesn't require power after the initial charge except to replace loss of charge from leakage. I think this is because this is hot conventional thrust but rather a form of buoyancy. I believe there is an omnidirectional pull on everything that the asymmetric capacitor directionally attenuates creating a force gradient.
Whether it works in space or not, we will eventually find out. Either way, it could be of use here on earth even if the only thing we ever get out of it are small drones instead of flying cars. As far as not believing it could be possible... I don't know, maybe? Could it be reacting with the quantum foam, background radiation, or with whatever the heck actually fills up space? Sort of like a propeller in water? In which case then its not reactionless.
Townsend Brown developed two distinctly different types of thruster. The ionic wind devices were never considered as a space drive, his other device does not use ions or ionic wind in any form. After continued exploration since then we are now looking at the potential distortion of both space-time and the quantum vacuum due to an as yet unidentified interactions between the device and its local surroundings, as the reason his other device does work and works in a full vacuum
"Permittivity is the measure determining the electric field produced by charge in a particular medium." The value of permittivity in space is not zero. Therefore there is a "dielectric" for an electric field to act on. The limitation is that the electric field must be non symmetrical. The question is, is it this dielectric allowing the field to produce thrust?
Have you read the T.T. Brown papers and what he said about the dielectric? Every scientist that I point this out to, seems to just ignore it, or not respond. - If you know where I am going with this, then let me know...
ε₀μ₀ = c² And substitute that into something like ϰ=(8πG)/c⁴... Thus ϰ=(8πG)/(ε₀μ₀)² Playing around with stuff like that is kind of funky. Another funny one is m=E/(ε₀μ₀), which is what happens from re-arranging E=mc². That has some implications that an electrogravitic effect is a thing when both fields are simultaneously present.
If one accelerates at a constant rate of one G (the acceleration of falling bodies in a vacuum under Earth’s gravity) for a period of one (1) solar Earth year, one will achieve a speed that very closely equates to what is said to be the “speed of light”. That seems oddly geocentric for what we are told is a universal constant. What say you?
That's not correct. Buhler never demonstrated lift in a vacuum. His results are measured in micronewtons, making it difficult to confirm that this thing even works. The lifting you saw were normal ion thrust vehicles attracting and expelling the Earth's atmosphere. So you're conflating two experiments.
phyternl "Attracting and expelling" is propulsion. You just have to do it correctly in order to obtain the optimum process for any inertia, and...since nothing is empty, not even the so-called "vacuum of space"...you draw the correct conclusion!🤔😯
Goes from lifting in air, to barely measurable in vacuum. Yeh, this is not some breakthrough drive. It's ionic thrust and an interaction with vacuum chamber.
daves7 • That's where "optimizing" enters the scene. No vacuum is ever empty, no matter how low. In the absence of the correct understanding, the many ways of doing different kinds of experiments is the way to go, like many times before.
I thought they already tried the EM drive in space on the ISS and it was shown to work. This was years ago. I remember reading articles about it working in space and they need to make larger versions with higher voltages and trying again
Pretty sure it's propelling against the aether/quantum-field or whatever name you give it. A very fine medium that is difficult to detect easily or reliably.
Actually, if true, what he may have done is built an anti-gravity device. Gravity is static electricity- an effect produced by the electrons in atoms. If you can somehow manipulate this effect, you *may* eliminate the effect gravity.
Ok for magnetic lift to low orbit,ground and vehicle based magnetic generation, however one must look at the universe as a living breathing organism, any interstellar object must indeed use harmonics in a very specific way, it must breathe.
lol "technology like the transistor". I doubt you know but the research team that found the semiconductor transistor effect withdrew their paper. Published an announcement saying it was an error and dropped it. They could not replicate their own discovery. One staff member took the process to Japan where it was cheap to make lots of transistors in batches. 8 in 10 batches failed but the tested working semiconductor transistors sold to cover the cost of the failed ones. The fact that he was making commercial transistors from a debunked theory forced a re think. They realized it was not a property of the silicon but the impurities. All the researchers in the field had been trying to get rid of the very impurities, now called dopants, that make it work. Historically, when people a generation ago said "technology like the transistor" they were referring to both its ubiquity and the irony of its discovery.
Amazing bit of history, Thanks! On my YT channel, patents, and website are the answers with solid verification to most of this. All people need to do is look at the info provided there. At this point my time is best spent improving the machine further. Best regards.
I would not fear hyper velocity weapons, the same thing can be done on Earth 🌎 with nuclear ☢️ weapons. Hyper velocity in space gives us a real defense against Earth threatening asteroids ☄️ and practical technologies to mine the solar system.
If I understand something correctly, propelantless drive doesn't have to violate law of conservation of impulse. However, it has to produce gravitational waves as reaction force.
Nice assessment. It will be interesting to see further developments or proof of the concept. As an aside, the vacuum of space has energetic components, ala virtual particles that manifest and disappear, so that might need consideration as an enabler of the effect. Also, there is the solar magnetic field energy in the heliosphere that might contribute to making this affect viable. So, there are at least several potential energetic "catalysts" to explore using this phenomenon. This could be a ground breaking discovery.
Surely enclosing the "drive" inside a suitably sized airtight box or bag is all that's necessary? Suspend the thing inside a room made of material that is electromagnetically transparent and then achieve a convincing, sustained horizontal deflection... A very simple experiment.
So the ion wind effect would be a lot more force than the actual electrostatic force being proclaimed. The only difference is that the electrostatic might work in vaccum/space.
Two things: First it may be that there is another natural background field that are neutral to us and our current technology, and that these devices interact this field mildly and inefficiently, like the first electric devices of the 1700s. It is likely over time, the coming decades new devices, theories, math will lead to much more efficient devices and technologies. The second thing is just a comment on the video at 3:27 the view of the Earth getting showered in particles: Those particles are going 6x the speed of light. Light is fast but NOT that fast. There is an excellent video that illustrates the speed of light where a camera is "mounted" on a photon as it leaves the Sun and in real time the 45 minute long video shows how long it takes to pass all the planets and what it would look like. "Riding Light - Traversing the Solar System at the speed of light" : czcams.com/video/1AAU_btBN7s/video.htmlsi=ghicWAGy7YcAptro .
When TT Brown made his device he took it to France because they had the only vacuum chamber at that time. According to Bifield and Brown it worked better in a vacuum.
Quantized inertia was tested by several researches already, including in vacuume. It works based on understanding of minimum accelleration of 2x10^-10, and modifying newton theory by adding a small part which doesnt have effects significant on earth from thrust perspective but has allot of weight in galaxy edge, wide binaries, and metal cavities. Research Unruh radiation. Mike McCullough just published his 3rd book which explains the theory and applies it to 52 anomalies from the planck scale to the hubble cosmic scale.
Any ionic imbalance is kinetic potential. It's simply the abhorance of vacuum that causes thrust. In principle it bends nor breakes rules. Electric thrust is pure Nutonian physics. Nothing is pushed, rather, all motivation is pulled.
What is pushing against the galaxies? Is there a space fabric? How do we get ahold of it? If Light is a wave then there is a medium to regulate that wave and limit it. That very thing might be a kind of fabric of space. Does it effect light as well as other means of energy? Does it restrict it somehow to keep it under the speed of light? If so there must be a net force pulling back on it. Perhaps a laser would produce a thrust in space. Ion thrusters have not shown to be effective in a vacuum.
This type of propulsion does not violate Newton's laws. On the contrary, they fit right in, just fine. Not all thrust is achieved by blatant physical thrust, but also by magneto/electrical forces which we are only learning about now, leaving out Nikolai Tesla's work.
I'm still hoping for that flying car ride before I keel over.
Před měsícem
The Biefeld-Brown effect was pushing towards the positive electrode, while ionic wind is the opposite, wasn't it? This could be because the high voltage creates x-rays that ionise the air in front of it, could be that there are streams of air with different speeds above than below, or the setup creates a bubble of air that is less dense than the surrounding (or all of the above). The effect was first seen in x-ray tubes, their ionic wind is mostly contained.
I wonder if that is what those of little imagination say about every other scientific breakthrough. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it is the writings of a madman.
@ronrothrock7116 I won't say I'm a professional astronomer, but I've been studying cosmology for the past 10 years. The things mentioned have nothing to do with one another, this is buzzword salad and you fell for it. Galaxies accelerate away from one another due to the universe expanding and not dark matter, dark matter is being studied for making up most galactic mass.
@@Ben-sh1dl Your lack of comprehension of what the video said shows you struggle with these issues outside of known science. When he said "galaxies accelerating" he did not mean the dark energy causing the universe to expand. He meant the acceleration of the spinning galaxies. Please don't bother to reply if you don't understand how rotation is related to acceleration.
@ronrothrock7116 it's just a different kind of buzzword salad. You can fantasize about some physical model where it magically explains the acceleration of the outer galactic edge without assuming a dark matter halo, but then this breaks for many other phenomena where we'd otherwise assume dark matter presence. That's why it's a "fringe" theory. This guy doesn't actually know what he's talking about, he just read that in some pop science article while doing research and put it in there. This guy just makes infotainment.
I've never accepted "It just works" as an answer, but I'd like to see it tested it space asap, even if we don't have an answer for where the energy is coming from, just yet It may just be the case that it's intensely efficient, and just pushes off of the Earth's magnetic field in some way. There's no way to test if it's pushing off of that field, but it might could be proven that it pushes off of other synthesized magnetic fields. Who knows! It's a neat as hell prospect, anyway
Townsend Brown did achieve the results with the B bomber read the book by his daughter. I met a scientist in California that said this craft is real. I worked at a high end electronics company. I was a chemist and made parts for military. When I met this man. He had a body guard that never left his side. He was dying to talk about it. He said it was a 100.000 volt leading edge of wings allowed plane to go through air with no resistance. Said the bomber could fly just with the special system. Or both or jet. The lifting capacity increased. Also its distance increased.
I suspect there's an interaction with Earth's magnetic field at play ... or whatever fields happen to be relevant and of sufficient strength. They'd need to test that in the EM equivalent on an Anechoic Chamber to rule it out.
Technically there's no such thing as a vacuum. That means that a thruster still should work in space, it's only going to have three or four particles add a time that's giving it any Force though😅. Remember folks, when you're doing calculations there is no vacuum but only an absence of pressure. Just like there is no such thing as cold there's only an absence of heat. Don't yell at me, yell at science.
Watch video where doc explains. Their main problem was paying for a vacuum chamber that was good enough to do experiments in. If it works in a vacuum chamber it should work in space. Gravity is overcome on Earth in his newest experiments but needs to be tested in space. 1 G is just the beginning and is only a milestone. Who knows, he thinks a lot more G’s are possible and I concur. Doc is a very humble man and wants to share all science. His greatest fear is other scientists ripping off his patents since his team is on a tight budget. Proof of concept is out there for anyone that wants to investigate. Science doesn’t lie.
Well, there was a study that said the proposed Bussard ramjet created more drag than thrust but this could be used to brake an interstellar spaceship. Even if this was not the case, a Bussard ramjet could be configured as a retro drive so that both the drag from collecting the interstellar hydrogen nuclei and the thrust from the fusion of said interstellar material would act to brake the spaceship. Then there's the star that you wish to visit is also spewing out a solar wind which would get stronger as you approach it so solar sails could be effective at helping to slow down the craft without propellent. Stopping might actually be easier then getting up to speed...
Why do you need a vacuum to proof that the electric drive is not relying on ionic wind? Just put it in a box that doesn't let air pass through and measure the thrust of the box. If there is only ionic thrust then the thrust of the ionic wind generated from the drive will interact with the walls of the box and cancel with the thrust of the drive over the (solid) path to the mounting points of the drive to the box.
Nice nice, but this is just one of the all possibilities, driven by cold electricity, this is the key principal, and Nikolay Kozyrev time energy theory. Its coming from Eric Cartan torsion field spacetime theory.
Constant force for a given charge state is also over-unity - ie. doubling 'on' time will double velocity while also doubling power consumption, yet doubling the velocity means four times the kinetic energy.. In other words any craft using this drive will reach higher kinetic energies than the work / energy expended internally by the drive system. This would likewise be true of any drive applying constant thrust for a constant given power draw, regardless of how inefficient it may seem initially. For example even if only 1% of input energy goes to mechanical acceleration, the other 99% dissipated as waste heat, there will still be some threshold velocity beyond which net of KE plus losses is greater than total input energy / work done (and below which the system is similarly under-unity, showing a non-dissipative loss). This is just the inevitable intersection of a quadratic plot (KE) versus a straight-line diagonal one, the system is thermodynamically open because it's also proceeding under conditions of inertial isolation, ie. without pushing or pulling against some other inertia, and conservation of energy - specifically PE:KE symmetry - is dependent upon conservation of momentum and ultimately Newton's 3rd law..
this device needs an atmosphere/partial vacuum to create any thrust the only thing i can compare this to is an ion thruster and works by ionizing Xenon and redirecting it there is a way to create thrust whilst seeming to push off nothing but its a well documented and scientifically proven phenomena, the Yarkovsky effect as of such, it does not involve half baked experiments and pseudoscience electrostatic shenanigans. its based on the redirection of photons to create a force on a surface. but that takes WAY too much power to be practical e.g. 12TW of power would apply only approx 1 ton of force to put that in perspective that's 12TW is 300,000 liters of kerosene every second
I think this is the same old technology that's being reintroduced to a new generation. Many of us knew that the "Lifer" technology worked long ago. I've built many of them. I think someone is dusting off an old patent and looking for some more GOV/PUBLIC funding. The main problem with this tech will always be the power source. Currently, the available power systems are just too bulky. I could have been up flying around back in late 90s 🫡 4 real...
By definition, nothing that works can "break physics". The most it can do is break our current understanding of physics. That said, this asymetric-capacitor phenomenon certainly warrants further investigation. At the very least, it sounds like it's going to expand and refine our understanding of physics.
I love your response. I see too many comments saying something like "you can't break the paws of physics". Well if you couldn't, then we would not be able to fly or do a whole bunch of other things. People who "believe" in science are not the dreamers of the future and they frustrate me to no end when I read their comments. All "new" physics (or other things we can't explain) should be investigated, not poo-pooed and dismissed because they break the laws of physics. It should be investigated to see if it somehow changes our understanding.
I have to wonder if it isn't something to do with what is in this paper. This paper says that magnetism can be derived from Einsteins relativity equations. In short that means that magnetism, like gravity, is not a force, but a warping of space itself. Could we warp space in such a way to create motion/acceleration? I think CZcams stops links, so I will spoace this out so you can get the link to look at it. sciencex.com/ news/ 2021-07-electromagnetism-property-spacetime .html
Exactly. It either works or it doesn't. Physics is fine, *we* need to fix our theories.
Science is the way we explain how the universe works with limited knowledge we have today ...
If one thinks the "unknown" is "breaking science", they're neither scientists, nor are they smart ...
Only "Fixed Minded Know-It-Alls" think science knows and explains everything ... that's DUMB!
There's far too many "Seen, and Unseen" or "Known and Unknown" realities we don't yet know.
@@ronrothrock7116How did you arrive at this conclusion?
Flying doesn't break the laws of physics, and didn't even challenge our understanding of physics. It's only because of physics that we were certain it could be done.
Nothing "defies physics".
@@SwervingLemon For flying I was referring back to before Newton's time. Not counting hot air balloon's people would have said you cannot fly. Granted it was probably not thought of as a "law of physics", but it was common knowledge people cannot fly, yet here we are flying.
Dr Buhler presented this at APEC in January. If you don't know APEC it's a free online conference that happens once a month. I highly recommend it. It's the Alternative Propulsion Engineering conference apec.
Jesse Ventura I think is the name of the guy who works at APEC, I've seen footage from APEC from watching Jeremy Rys' CZcams channel called "Alien scientist" - very interesting channel & viewing, as he's constantly doing ongoing work regarding anti-gravity propulsion & alien tech..
If you're not aware of Jeremy's channel then I recommend watching it. 👍
@@MickyBee73 Tim Ventura
Jesse is Jesse "The Body" Ventura, former governor of Minnesota
No relation
@@raycar1165 ah right, yeah Tim D'oh!!!
well thankyou for letting me know, yeah isn't he the ex navy seal (Jesse)?
...I could be wrong, but I think I know who you mean.
@@MickyBee73 yeah, he was a navy seal and wwf wrestler/commentator.
Ionic wind effect should be pretty easy to detect, right? The air would be blowing. Also, if the device is capable of producing more thrust than its weight (which is claimed) then it is also extremely easy to detect. So, my question is, where is the video of the levitating product?
That's right so they test in vaccum. The team's drive produces a mere 10 milliNewtons, so I am thinking they are comparing some sub component to the thrust. In space, this is great for constant acceleration but on Earth it's very little. But we have to figure out what the effect even is (I don't think it's quantized inertia at all)
No it does not work. They are ignoring the interaction between the device & the metal vacuum chamber. Its just electrostatic force between the metal vacuum container & the HV charged plates. Same thing with the Q-Drive that was the rage a few years ago.
Their claim is that the part of the apparatus which produces "thrust" can lift it's own weight, but not the weight of the entire system (power source, control electronics, etc).
They expect to be able to have a self contained, "levitating" craft in the next 12 months.
@@guytech7310Wow! They're really bad scientists. They should hire you.
@@bnjmnwst Wow! They're really bad scientists. They should hire you.
Yup. Same with the Q-Drive guys. I am Not interested in working for them.
Super awesome! I know the title is just catcy, but I would like to emphasize, nothing defies the laws of physics, only our current understanding until we do understand it
Stop messing about just make one put in space and save time
Actually they ,put in orbit on observed anonymous behaviour but could not conclude it reaction against aether.Still a work in progress, mainly theoretical work
No shit they couldn't conclude a 'reaction against aether', what century is this.
@@greggregory8311 there's no such thing as aether, what nonsense are you peddling? tinfoil hat much?
Can you put in time and save space? 😁
Stop messing around with high cost and time consuming experiments. Just mount it in a box and measure the thrust of the box. Then the air in there does not matter to proof the point.
There's some things that I think are funny. It would suggest that if an electrogravitic effect is a thing, then when gravitational and electromagnetic fields are both present, it should be possible to transfer rotational momentum around an axis into momentum that is "linear" along a trajectory. Some of the stuff that leads to that is hinted by hysteresis effects of the electric properties of a vacuum and the product of the permeability and permittivity of a vacuum is the speed of light squared. Tie that back into other formulas that show mass and energy equivalence, and you can also see there is a relationship between electric and gravitational fields through a kind of mechanism there. It's a thing Einstein really didn't want to deal with (part of the "spooky action at a distance" type effects), and one or two guys were dabbling with it before wandering off into the territory of string theory rather than trying to see if there was something more immediately practical about it. The later quantum stuff is likely distantly related to it too, although that also went off into another direction as well.
Sir, how do you know this??!
We've been building these at home for years. It's just that we finally have a team of researchers with the proper equipment able to do the proper experiments now. A lot of us that have built these are limited in the amount of voltage and amperage we're willing to work with. I myself don't go above 30,000 volts. That's just because that's the biggest transformer I have. I made that from an old neon sign transformer that I modified and boosted. We've been able to build these for almost a decade and a half now the problem is that the power supply is not small enough to fit in the craft. You can't say it's a propellant list system because it's using the air around it as repellent and it's using the electricity as the oxidizer. This means that you still have to generate power and you have to have that power flow like fuel, energy flows like water, so that your system will be able to support itself off the ground. That's the problem right now. We've been able to fly these for almost 15 years on cables but we could never get it to fly without being tethered.
No I'm not talking about an ionic lifter by the way. I have watched his video and made his cell. It's kind of tedious when you make the little tea in the middle can you go up to the other plate but it wasn't super hard. He's posted about four or five videos of how to make this unit.
@@SteveSiegelin In space there would be no gravity so the weight of the power supply might not be an issue. The weight would cause inertia that would impact steering and braking. Something like this with solar sails might develop great speed, but it would be vulnerable to any solid matter it encountered. I saw a little ionic thrusted airplane a couple of years ago. It's an interesting start, not my field . Do think electrostatics are an infant science with great promise.
Andrew Aurigema - Propellantless Drive Engineering Test 4k - Exodus 2024
The video title above gives detailed analysis of the work that is being done, whether you believe it's accurate or not. It's an in depth discussion with the engineer who is working with the lead researcher on the project. Their primary goal is to create something to keep satellites correctly oriented and positioned.
It will be interesting to see what it will do in space.
@@Tech_Planet I don't really understand your focus on whether it works in space. Their testing is done is a vacuum cylinder. A shoe string one because of their budget, but vacuum non-the-less. The only negative options I am aware of are either there is some complex experimental error and there is no force, or they are doing something deceptive. They've gone to great lengths to rule out ionic wind as a possibility.
They seem to be pretty straight forward about it, this should be easily replicable in other labs. But I do agree space is probably last step in the process.
Considering the atmosphere extends quite aways into space (ions present as far as the moon). A low to mid orbit satilite shouldn't have any difficulties if it's just ion effect.
But if it's not simply/only ion effects, say aether flow/field effect due to localized high voltage disequilibrium/nonlinear mass inertial distribution etc. this could get interesting.
@@dananorth895Still, ion wind effects hav3 to have enough mass to make thrust which is dubious in LEO. It’s not ion wind.
Really great. One day soon we will miss the days of driving black asphalt looking out the windshield to open sky.
I built a lifter with my daughter for her school science project and one thing not mentioned here is the corona effect that accompanies the lifting effect as well as the fact that the force was higher at different distances between the plates which was not always closer to the
Townsend himself said that he tested his device in an oil bath to negate the electronic wind hypotheses, and he still got thrust. He also did not know how his device produced thrust, but he experimented to magnify the effect as much as he could.He did eventually test his device in a vacuum chamber and said it worked even better. I do not know how his device works, but saying that it does break the laws of physics might just mean that we are not yet aware of just how it works or what it might be interacting with to produce thrust. I did see a paper published by two British physicists about the state of gravity research in the 1950's and they did mention Townsend's work and said that his device "Discs" ( Thats what they said ) would work in space. Just imagine if it is true and that the Americans have advanced space vehicles that they have kept secret for over 70 years??? wow. Why would they keep it secret? probably because it would enable easy access to space and the solar system and they did not want nations like North Korea, China or Iran to gain easy access to space, how could they monitor them, they could do anything, so they sat on the research so that if anyone wanted to get into space they had to go the very expensive and dangerous rocket path.
Good points, it's inevitable that we will see the answers because a lot of people are asking the same questions. If anything (despite the criticism), I'm glad that this has drawn some attention to Buhler's work/
I am endlessly fascinated in breakthrough research, however, when we come to the known variables to which we are limited, I would always seek evidence. Are NASA going to trial this in orbit or further? My considerable respect for the good professor suggests we need to rattle the cage of science now.
Thanks for being a real person, with real sources. new fan here.
Thanks!
T. Townsend Brown had a vacuum chamber and successfully tested many models in it.
There is another issue that is often overlooked with these propellentless drives. And that is electromagnetic radiation can produce thrust. If you turn on an electric torch (aka flashlight) it will push you in space... But only very slightly. And this effect can even be observed with infrared radiation (aka heat radiation). With the minute levels of thrust these devices put out this effect can actually be what actually is providing thrust. So you need to take that in to amount and do better than that. Else you may as well just used a high efficiency electric torch drive (or something similar)
This isn’t new pal brown isn’t the only person to discover this, I believe a dozen scientists/ engineers have investigated this one of the most recent was the Chinese scientist who worked for NASA who life became bizarre then ended after being missing for a while
So basically we need to test the absolute shit out of this so we can find out if it's one of the two possible major revolutions in human technology or still just a neat toy with odd effects.
I heard about an old theory from my physics professor that matter can be converted into electromagnetic waves and sent to another place and then the electromagnetic wave can be reshaped and translated back to its original state.
He might be talking about scalar waves.
I read somewhere that Townsend Brown had very good test results in a vacuum. Then the government classified his work.
Lots of research in the 1950's till it all went Black around 1956.
The hypercompetent government required for that scenario has not been my expierence.
@@flstateuguy83 I've always wondered if what we currently see as our government is but a facade. I really hope there is a competent governing body that is for the people.
Finding a propulsion system that isn't a reaction engine is the best way to open space to practical lengths of time. I think they should send a small scale of the system to space to see if it works.
Even if it is fruitless, I am glad research like this is conducted to just to make sure we don't overlook possibilities. A lot of discoveries were 'accidents', so I don't know why scientists try so hard to predict the unpredictable when it comes to possible new technologies and electromechanics?
Also if you want to get super technical about it we're already using this technology because it's the same damn technology as an ionic thruster. If you took his design and you cleared out a little bit of the styrofoam and past Krypton or argon through that channel you would have an ion thruster. . . There's a better way to make a pellet list drive. The reason I haven't built it yet even though I've had the plans for for over 20 years from the guy that designed it is that we haven't reached a material strength that's readily available for me yet so that the thing won't grenade. It actually uses a counteracting force in an egg shape to overbalance one side of The Craft. You're not actually beating gravity, you're throwing weights in a certain direction and frequency so that it counteracts the force of gravity below you. This is the only propellant list drive that I know works and was this paper was also one of the reasons why we have reaction wheels from nasa. It was written by a family member back during the Cold war when he was living on a military base, he was too young back then to have a job but growing up with everybody in physics in our family and having early chemistry sets he's a bit of a genius. Very eccentric but a genius. His design works the same way as his reaction will did better to higher volume and continuous frequency.. I've managed to render it on fusion and now I'm learning to change them together before I actually build my first one. Again it's stupidly simple, just like most of our advanced technology. The problem is it's also super dangerous and if one of these breaks loose it's like a bullet.
Bare electrons do have mass. How come nobody have entertained the posibility that escaping electrons are the misterious source of said thrust???
Also, radiation carries energy in the form of momentum. Laser beams do have recoil, but only at extremely high energy levels. Also, lasers cook matter, so it has to have some form of kinetic effect. I think people just can't wrap their head around it.
Electrons do have mass, and free electrons do exist -- I mean that's what a cathode ray tube does. But electrons, free or otherwise, are always attracted to an opposing charge. So if you're expelling free electrons from your ship expecting to them to disappear into the ether, well that's just not going to happen. You're soon going to be dealing with a charge imbalance problem. For every negative charge you expel from the ship, the ship gains an equal positive charge, attracting the electron you just expelled or another free electron to the ship. When you expel a particle and gain a particle the conservation of momentum guarantees a net thrust of zero.
Perhaps if you had some way of creating electron-positron pairs en masse, say either through laser irradiation or some other technique. You could direct your negatively charged electrons through a positively charge thruster and an equal number of positively charged positrons through a negatively charged thruster... literally a matter/anti-matter engine. This would avoid the problem of charge imbalance but the energy required to produce a useful number of particle pairs for this motor is now and for the foreseeable future science fiction. We can create particle pairs with very powerful lasers, it's a real technique. So, you know, just multiply that by ten billion or so and power it with some currently unheard of power source and you have your antimatter thruster.
@@StoneUSA I wonder if it might be electron thrust and buildup of positive charge causes electrons to jump off the surrounding vacuum chamber walls and end up on the positively charge "ship". Of course that wouldn't work in space if this were the case.
Charles admits himself that he’s not 100% sure what physical phenomena are at work here. One possibility could be virtual particles with mass. See dynamical Casimir effect, works of Hal Puthoff for example. Based on those, I’ve started with a thought experiment of building a propeller that would work in space. Because of lack of certain measurements (e.g. density of virtual particles, their mass, etc.) I’ve decided to test my idea, still not 100% convinced, but very encouraging. The link to the paper and a short presentation is on my channel. My testing continues...
I don't want to exaggerate here, so let me just say I want propellant-less hover-cars more than I want my next breath!!! If this product actually pans out it will change the world as we know it. Like the transistor this technology could theoretically perform a technological facelift on the planet. Imagine going outside to your driveway and jumping in your hover car and lifting off. I want this more than I want to be able to walk, and I've wanted that my whole life! To the scientist involved in this, please don't let yourselves disappear be assassinated! Luke
🎶"We've only just begun..."🎶
It isn't ionic wind nor is it "breaking physics". It is DEFINITELY teaching us new/ overlooked physics and when we truly hone the devices' shape to maximize thrust we will be able to have safe, flying/floating vehicles. I really look forward to the day when we can take a floating cruise over land, sea, or even air! I wonder if it would be a long, cigar shaped object? Thanks for the video. The hexagonal craft with those thicker metal bars than the "lifters" made of aluminum foil was encouraging. The only other video on CZcams that I have seen that mentioned the lift being generated without ionic wind propulsion used a cut out proportionately heavy pie plate, lifting with enough force to overcome it's own weight with such speed that it really showed the triangle shape isn't necessary. It was round like a flying saucer. Well.. it was a pie plate so..
The power source would be much lighter and be able to be housed onboard if they used a wimshurst style generator. A watch battery could power the motor that would need to be used to turn the wheels. We have better capacitors than leyden jars so using them would be prudent. ❤ thanks for stoking the hope for futuristic vehicles that our grandparents would be expecting us to use by now. ❤
If electrons are the propellant (i.e. if the device emits electrons), it's not actually a propellant-less device. Since the electrons used as a propellant have to come from somewhere, they're probably from the power generator (i.e. battery or reactor). If this works, it could be very useful for space travel.
The idea behind these “reactionless” thrusters is that a small force applied over a long period of time can result in significant acceleration of an object. The forces involved are too weak to lift any significant mass on Earth and even air resistance would greatly diminish their effect. However in a vacuum and already travelling fast enough to at least orbit the Earth, such thrusters could accelerate a spacecraft without throwing out mass in the way a rocket works. But, you cannot defy the laws of physics, so what is happening is that pure energy is effectively forming the propellant, hence the relatively low thrust forces. Using a nuclear reactor for power is feasible and the amount of power drawn from the system will be related directly to the efficiency of the reactor and the conversion of fissile materials into energy. Such a system does not defy the laws of physics in any way, it just uses directed energy as the propellant.
" Such a system does not defy the laws of physics in any way, it just uses directed energy as the propellant." That is a violation of the known laws of physics. For example, pointing a laser behind a spaceship will not drive it forward.
@@jeffjwatts yes it would if the laser was somehow powerful enough.
@@James-wk1ym No, it won't have any effect at all. That's not how the physics works. You need to push some knd of propellant out of the space ship to move it. Now you can put a solar sail on a starship and let another laser on a planet push on it but a laser on the starship won't do anything at all.
@@jeffjwatts em radiation carries energy and momentum, so yes it would. Exceptionally small though, which is why i said if the laser was powerful enough, which it never would be in reality.
@@jeffjwatts The fact that solar sails are acted upon directly by light means that light leaving a laser must impart a reaction on the laser emitter. These two things either must both be true or neither can be true.
Space is technically not empty, there's particles out there. The relative density is negligible but not zero. With sufficient energy, would it be possible to move that medium, like an electromagnetic version of a ramjet? Then you don't need your own propellant.
You'd just need an energy density equivalent of a whole nuclear power plant in a small vehicle. Like whenever we get fusion to work.
Yes, that's the theoretical principle of the Bussard Ramjet. The problem is getting it up to operating speed.
IVO's quantum drive test failed because the cubesat it was attached to failed according to them so they will try again next year I think, and Exodus have their own in-space testing planned iirc
It would be one heck of a test to show whether it's real or not.
Sounds cool! Will be interesting to see where this goes in the future. Great video too! Liked and subbed.
I think this tested in space will uncover and entirely new understanding of space and the aether/quantum foam that we find ourselves in, vibrating just off kilter with our own and this 'zero point energy field' will take us to the stars. very much like Star Trek: First Contact and probably some very bad things too!
It would definitely open a new sector of innovation. I think this is equivalent to impulse drive if it did work everywhere.
This is exactly what I think aether string theory
As long as the Shivans don't show up after we discover Subspace travel
It'll be fiinnne.
In seriousness: I suspect testing in space would instead unveil some things about Earth's electric field that have been eschewed, ignored, etc.
@@Tech_Planet
Cool video! Appreciate your open minded skepticism.
If you’re interested in seeing a model that could have some additional explanation to how this propulsion works then Id recommend checking out Energy Wave Theory by Jeff Yee
The model seems incredibly useful. It’s a classical mechanics model capable of describing particle formation. It provides explanations for spin and explanations for the shapes of various electron orbitals.
Using this model He’s been able calculate the Electron orbital distances for Hydrogen through Calcium with a high degree of accuracy. Just as one example.
Buhler claims that his new-and-improved EmDrive shows a force of 10 mN in a ‘stacked system’, yet no credible paper on the experiments can be found other than APEC presentations. Until their prototype is tested and firmly disproven, the way the EmDrive was tested by M. Tajmar, it seems fair to assume that the rules of physics as we know them today remain firmly intact.
Thank you so much for stating your sources. Subscribed!
Does the process/principle violate Newton's Third Law?
Or does it illustrate previously unknown/unquantified digression from accepted premises which are naturally based on what we have observed to date?
To paraphrase a science fiction author whose name I cannot now recollect "nothing is hidden in the realms of science rather lack of ability to discern what we do not yet know is predicated on absence for knowledge and other tools requisite to us perceiving and understanding".
In space it would work, but it is as you said. If you have enough energy. Gravity would need more than we can furnish at this time in a small enough package. I looked at the plans and determined that quickly.
I made a capacitive thruster as a kid. I didn't make any measurements or anything, but based on my power supply... you are wrong. I was getting a lot of thrust. And it was not from "electric wind" , the voltages were very low 50-60volt range, and EXTREMELY powerful forces. Dont assume what people say till you've tried it yourself. Sometimes people just go by age old math that only "approximates" reality. I use that word loosely in this case.
This on makes the question of the tic tac flying video 😅
A time machine is in the works with the "Flux Capacitor". All we need now is a "Mr. Fusion" gadget to produce power for the flux capacitor drive engine, and a DeLorean to put the engine into. "Yur the Doc., Doc"!
Space _isn't_ a vacuum. It is just really low pressure. Part of the reason we even have a solar system, is because the ionic solar wind is pushing a lot of stuf away from the star. So an ionic effect would work in space, the trick is making it stronger than natural solar wind.
A combination of atomic clock topological condensates between phase conjugated mirrors are essentially battery powered solar sails
The directional "thrust" doesn't require power after the initial charge except to replace loss of charge from leakage. I think this is because this is hot conventional thrust but rather a form of buoyancy. I believe there is an omnidirectional pull on everything that the asymmetric capacitor directionally attenuates creating a force gradient.
Whether it works in space or not, we will eventually find out. Either way, it could be of use here on earth even if the only thing we ever get out of it are small drones instead of flying cars.
As far as not believing it could be possible... I don't know, maybe? Could it be reacting with the quantum foam, background radiation, or with whatever the heck actually fills up space? Sort of like a propeller in water? In which case then its not reactionless.
The Navy and Air Force have been flying this type of drive around our solar system since the 1960s !!!
advancements in technology are amazing. if this succeeds whoopie, if not, something else will.
Townsend Brown developed two distinctly different types of thruster. The ionic wind devices were never considered as a space drive, his other device does not use ions or ionic wind in any form. After continued exploration since then we are now looking at the potential distortion of both space-time and the quantum vacuum due to an as yet unidentified interactions between the device and its local surroundings, as the reason his other device does work and works in a full vacuum
If it works it’s not because it violates physics but rather it is using an unknown process that is generating thrust.
But now it’s known because Dr. Buhler figured it out.
"Permittivity is the measure determining the electric field produced by charge in a particular medium." The value of permittivity in space is not zero. Therefore there is a "dielectric" for an electric field to act on. The limitation is that the electric field must be non symmetrical. The question is, is it this dielectric allowing the field to produce thrust?
Have you read the T.T. Brown papers and what he said about the dielectric?
Every scientist that I point this out to, seems to just ignore it, or not respond.
- If you know where I am going with this, then let me know...
ε₀μ₀ = c² And substitute that into something like ϰ=(8πG)/c⁴... Thus ϰ=(8πG)/(ε₀μ₀)²
Playing around with stuff like that is kind of funky. Another funny one is m=E/(ε₀μ₀), which is what happens from re-arranging E=mc².
That has some implications that an electrogravitic effect is a thing when both fields are simultaneously present.
If one accelerates at a constant rate of one G (the acceleration of falling bodies in a vacuum under Earth’s gravity) for a period of one (1) solar Earth year, one will achieve a speed that very closely equates to what is said to be the “speed of light”. That seems oddly geocentric for what we are told is a universal constant.
What say you?
so much for a demonstration of this propulsion breakthrough its all talk and no demo
The cool thing is this showed lift in a vacuum so it's not ionized wind.
That's not correct. Buhler never demonstrated lift in a vacuum. His results are measured in micronewtons, making it difficult to confirm that this thing even works. The lifting you saw were normal ion thrust vehicles attracting and expelling the Earth's atmosphere. So you're conflating two experiments.
phyternl "Attracting and expelling" is propulsion.
You just have to do it correctly in order to obtain the optimum process for any inertia, and...since nothing is empty, not even the so-called "vacuum of space"...you draw the correct conclusion!🤔😯
Goes from lifting in air, to barely measurable in vacuum. Yeh, this is not some breakthrough drive. It's ionic thrust and an interaction with vacuum chamber.
daves7 • That's where "optimizing" enters the scene.
No vacuum is ever empty, no matter how low.
In the absence of the correct understanding, the many ways of doing different kinds of experiments is the way to go, like many times before.
The point of using a vacuum chamber is to see if the thrust drops off in proportion to atmospheric pressure.
I thought they already tried the EM drive in space on the ISS and it was shown to work. This was years ago. I remember reading articles about it working in space and they need to make larger versions with higher voltages and trying again
Pretty sure it's propelling against the aether/quantum-field or whatever name you give it. A very fine medium that is difficult to detect easily or reliably.
Actually, if true, what he may have done is built an anti-gravity device.
Gravity is static electricity- an effect produced by the electrons in atoms. If you can somehow manipulate this effect, you *may* eliminate the effect gravity.
Not sure what this is about but tests in vacuum have been done since the 60's.
Thomas Townsend Brown, Project Montgolfier.
Ok for magnetic lift to low orbit,ground and vehicle based magnetic generation, however one must look at the universe as a living breathing organism, any interstellar object must indeed use harmonics in a very specific way, it must breathe.
lol "technology like the transistor". I doubt you know but the research team that found the semiconductor transistor effect withdrew their paper. Published an announcement saying it was an error and dropped it. They could not replicate their own discovery. One staff member took the process to Japan where it was cheap to make lots of transistors in batches. 8 in 10 batches failed but the tested working semiconductor transistors sold to cover the cost of the failed ones. The fact that he was making commercial transistors from a debunked theory forced a re think. They realized it was not a property of the silicon but the impurities. All the researchers in the field had been trying to get rid of the very impurities, now called dopants, that make it work. Historically, when people a generation ago said "technology like the transistor" they were referring to both its ubiquity and the irony of its discovery.
Amazing bit of history, Thanks! On my YT channel, patents, and website are the answers with solid verification to most of this. All people need to do is look at the info provided there. At this point my time is best spent improving the machine further. Best regards.
I would not fear hyper velocity weapons, the same thing can be done on Earth 🌎 with nuclear ☢️ weapons. Hyper velocity in space gives us a real defense against Earth threatening asteroids ☄️ and practical technologies to mine the solar system.
If I understand something correctly, propelantless drive doesn't have to violate law of conservation of impulse.
However, it has to produce gravitational waves as reaction force.
Nice assessment. It will be interesting to see further developments or proof of the concept. As an aside, the vacuum of space has energetic components, ala virtual particles that manifest and disappear, so that might need consideration as an enabler of the effect. Also, there is the solar magnetic field energy in the heliosphere that might contribute to making this affect viable. So, there are at least several potential energetic "catalysts" to explore using this phenomenon. This could be a ground breaking discovery.
Surely enclosing the "drive" inside a suitably sized airtight box or bag is all that's necessary? Suspend the thing inside a room made of material that is electromagnetically transparent and then achieve a convincing, sustained horizontal deflection...
A very simple experiment.
Rolls Royce does have the best turbines on the planet. Can't imagine a physics teacher without kids. [oh no]
The Black Projects need to just come clean about the anti-gravity drives they've been sitting on for 70 or 80 years.
Is it possible that a electrostaic drive causes clumped together ions to act like a ion wind affect? Is this a good speculative question to ask?
So the ion wind effect would be a lot more force than the actual electrostatic force being proclaimed. The only difference is that the electrostatic might work in vaccum/space.
This is something that SpaceX could trial with their satellites
You know, I would really hope that this is real and it's not just a con of some kind because that would be really cool.
so what you're saying is, true hoverboards may or may not actually be a thing in 30 years?
Two things: First it may be that there is another natural background field that are neutral to us and our current technology, and that these devices interact this field mildly and inefficiently, like the first electric devices of the 1700s. It is likely over time, the coming decades new devices, theories, math will lead to much more efficient devices and technologies.
The second thing is just a comment on the video at 3:27 the view of the Earth getting showered in particles: Those particles are going 6x the speed of light. Light is fast but NOT that fast. There is an excellent video that illustrates the speed of light where a camera is "mounted" on a photon as it leaves the Sun and in real time the 45 minute long video shows how long it takes to pass all the planets and what it would look like. "Riding Light - Traversing the Solar System at the speed of light" : czcams.com/video/1AAU_btBN7s/video.htmlsi=ghicWAGy7YcAptro .
When TT Brown made his device he took it to France because they had the only vacuum chamber at that time. According to Bifield and Brown it worked better in a vacuum.
Quantized inertia was tested by several researches already, including in vacuume. It works based on understanding of minimum accelleration of 2x10^-10, and modifying newton theory by adding a small part which doesnt have effects significant on earth from thrust perspective but has allot of weight in galaxy edge, wide binaries, and metal cavities. Research Unruh radiation.
Mike McCullough just published his 3rd book which explains the theory and applies it to 52 anomalies from the planck scale to the hubble cosmic scale.
QI might work but this is different.
It's not likely breaking Newton's third law of motion. It more likely is establishing it outside of the box
Any ionic imbalance is kinetic potential. It's simply the abhorance of vacuum that causes thrust. In principle it bends nor breakes rules. Electric thrust is pure Nutonian physics. Nothing is pushed, rather, all motivation is pulled.
Does someone not believe that ions exhist in space? They would be mistaken.
Not enough to exactly match the predict and design thrust.
What is pushing against the galaxies? Is there a space fabric? How do we get ahold of it? If Light is a wave then there is a medium to regulate that wave and limit it. That very thing might be a kind of fabric of space. Does it effect light as well as other means of energy? Does it restrict it somehow to keep it under the speed of light? If so there must be a net force pulling back on it. Perhaps a laser would produce a thrust in space. Ion thrusters have not shown to be effective in a vacuum.
no one ever defied physics what a crazy thumbnail
Waiting for Malcolm Bendal to build his Vajra Implosive Turbine.
This type of propulsion does not violate Newton's laws. On the contrary, they fit right in, just fine. Not all thrust is achieved by blatant physical thrust, but also by magneto/electrical forces which we are only learning about now, leaving out Nikolai Tesla's work.
Oddly enough, an array of highly charged capacitors was the primary driving force in the Hannebu ARV...
I'm still hoping for that flying car ride before I keel over.
The Biefeld-Brown effect was pushing towards the positive electrode, while ionic wind is the opposite, wasn't it?
This could be because the high voltage creates x-rays that ionise the air in front of it, could be that there are streams of air with different speeds above than below, or the setup creates a bubble of air that is less dense than the surrounding (or all of the above). The effect was first seen in x-ray tubes, their ionic wind is mostly contained.
Yes as I understand it. That’s one way they know it’s not ionic wind.
"..and it could explain why galaxies are accelerating the way they do without the dark matter hypothesis"
-the writings of an utter madman
I wonder if that is what those of little imagination say about every other scientific breakthrough. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it is the writings of a madman.
@ronrothrock7116 I won't say I'm a professional astronomer, but I've been studying cosmology for the past 10 years. The things mentioned have nothing to do with one another, this is buzzword salad and you fell for it.
Galaxies accelerate away from one another due to the universe expanding and not dark matter, dark matter is being studied for making up most galactic mass.
@@Ben-sh1dl Your lack of comprehension of what the video said shows you struggle with these issues outside of known science. When he said "galaxies accelerating" he did not mean the dark energy causing the universe to expand. He meant the acceleration of the spinning galaxies. Please don't bother to reply if you don't understand how rotation is related to acceleration.
@ronrothrock7116 it's just a different kind of buzzword salad. You can fantasize about some physical model where it magically explains the acceleration of the outer galactic edge without assuming a dark matter halo, but then this breaks for many other phenomena where we'd otherwise assume dark matter presence. That's why it's a "fringe" theory. This guy doesn't actually know what he's talking about, he just read that in some pop science article while doing research and put it in there. This guy just makes infotainment.
I've never accepted "It just works" as an answer, but I'd like to see it tested it space asap, even if we don't have an answer for where the energy is coming from, just yet
It may just be the case that it's intensely efficient, and just pushes off of the Earth's magnetic field in some way. There's no way to test if it's pushing off of that field, but it might could be proven that it pushes off of other synthesized magnetic fields.
Who knows! It's a neat as hell prospect, anyway
If the drive works regardless of direction relative to ambient magnetic fields, it could maybe used as support in space when passing magnetic objects?
i was thinking about a hoverboard or floating car like in total recall 😂
Townsend Brown did achieve the results with the B bomber read the book by his daughter. I met a scientist in California that said this craft is real. I worked at a high end electronics company. I was a chemist and made parts for military. When I met this man. He had a body guard that never left his side. He was dying to talk about it. He said it was a 100.000 volt leading edge of wings allowed plane to go through air with no resistance. Said the bomber could fly just with the special system. Or both or jet. The lifting capacity increased. Also its distance increased.
I suspect there's an interaction with Earth's magnetic field at play ... or whatever fields happen to be relevant and of sufficient strength. They'd need to test that in the EM equivalent on an Anechoic Chamber to rule it out.
This would be really cool. But I'll probably be dead before it happens.
Technically there's no such thing as a vacuum. That means that a thruster still should work in space, it's only going to have three or four particles add a time that's giving it any Force though😅. Remember folks, when you're doing calculations there is no vacuum but only an absence of pressure. Just like there is no such thing as cold there's only an absence of heat. Don't yell at me, yell at science.
Watch video where doc explains. Their main problem was paying for a vacuum chamber that was good enough to do experiments in. If it works in a vacuum chamber it should work in space. Gravity is overcome on Earth in his newest experiments but needs to be tested in space. 1 G is just the beginning and is only a milestone. Who knows, he thinks a lot more G’s are possible and I concur. Doc is a very humble man and wants to share all science. His greatest fear is other scientists ripping off his patents since his team is on a tight budget. Proof of concept is out there for anyone that wants to investigate. Science doesn’t lie.
They have tested it in a vaccum already with positive results. Rhey need to test in space with a small sat
Getting there is the easy part. Coming to a safe stop, is another matter.
Well, there was a study that said the proposed Bussard ramjet created more drag than thrust but this could be used to brake an interstellar spaceship. Even if this was not the case, a Bussard ramjet could be configured as a retro drive so that both the drag from collecting the interstellar hydrogen nuclei and the thrust from the fusion of said interstellar material would act to brake the spaceship. Then there's the star that you wish to visit is also spewing out a solar wind which would get stronger as you approach it so solar sails could be effective at helping to slow down the craft without propellent. Stopping might actually be easier then getting up to speed...
It's insane how I just saw this full video on tiktok, and u just uploaded it.
The interview with Ventura? I only uploaded to here so I'm curious what you mean.
Why do you need a vacuum to proof that the electric drive is not relying on ionic wind? Just put it in a box that doesn't let air pass through and measure the thrust of the box. If there is only ionic thrust then the thrust of the ionic wind generated from the drive will interact with the walls of the box and cancel with the thrust of the drive over the (solid) path to the mounting points of the drive to the box.
Nice nice, but this is just one of the all possibilities, driven by cold electricity, this is the key principal, and Nikolay Kozyrev time energy theory. Its coming from Eric Cartan torsion field spacetime theory.
Constant force for a given charge state is also over-unity - ie. doubling 'on' time will double velocity while also doubling power consumption, yet doubling the velocity means four times the kinetic energy.. In other words any craft using this drive will reach higher kinetic energies than the work / energy expended internally by the drive system. This would likewise be true of any drive applying constant thrust for a constant given power draw, regardless of how inefficient it may seem initially. For example even if only 1% of input energy goes to mechanical acceleration, the other 99% dissipated as waste heat, there will still be some threshold velocity beyond which net of KE plus losses is greater than total input energy / work done (and below which the system is similarly under-unity, showing a non-dissipative loss). This is just the inevitable intersection of a quadratic plot (KE) versus a straight-line diagonal one, the system is thermodynamically open because it's also proceeding under conditions of inertial isolation, ie. without pushing or pulling against some other inertia, and conservation of energy - specifically PE:KE symmetry - is dependent upon conservation of momentum and ultimately Newton's 3rd law..
That is the point of propellent less propulsion and why it is so important to figure out.
@@RV-qj6gm Ultimately you'll never get anywhere by accelerating (how passé?), but at least it's a step in the right direction eh..
Why does this remind me of the meme of the car with the magnet in front of itself to propel it
The is long known affect. It is like a magnet it works but no one explains it in a satisfactory way.
The secret is in the ionic field.Spin the ionic field that must be at very high voltage with very strong magnetic field.
this device needs an atmosphere/partial vacuum to create any thrust
the only thing i can compare this to is an ion thruster
and works by ionizing Xenon and redirecting it
there is a way to create thrust whilst seeming to push off nothing but
its a well documented and scientifically proven phenomena, the Yarkovsky effect
as of such, it does not involve half baked experiments and pseudoscience electrostatic shenanigans.
its based on the redirection of photons to create a force on a surface.
but that takes WAY too much power to be practical
e.g. 12TW of power would apply only approx 1 ton of force
to put that in perspective that's 12TW is 300,000 liters of kerosene every second
it is interesting, will follow progress but for now I remain sceptical
I think this is the same old technology that's being reintroduced to a new generation. Many of us knew that the "Lifer" technology worked long ago. I've built many of them. I think someone is dusting off an old patent and looking for some more GOV/PUBLIC funding. The main problem with this tech will always be the power source. Currently, the available power systems are just too bulky. I could have been up flying around back in late 90s 🫡 4 real...