Rebuttal to NASA's Criticism of Lifter Technology

Dear Sterling,

We had great coverage of these topics in the “Exotic Research Report” V2N4 (Oct/Nov/Dec 1998) with articles on BOTH types of devices… and two speakers at our 1999 conference covered these topics.  Despite that, I’ve written more on this subject in the last few days than I have combined in the previous 20 years.  

 The rebuttal page of NASA’s was written by a summer student (stated at top of the NASA page) who doesn’t realize the difference between the operation of a lifter and the Biefeld-Brown effect… and probably has never touched one in person , let alone build and operate one.  Armchair skepticism… about par for the course.  

 I support this statement with a series of letters below that fully explain the difference between lifter theory and Biefeld –Brown effects, and the fact that the “author” does not know the difference destroys any credibility he has on this matter whatsoever.  If you want to work in alternative technologies, I encourage you to become members of TeslaTech and get our magazine…. It’s not peer-reviewed… it’s Steve-reviewed… that is, I check articles to make sure they are coherent, have a certain degree of logic behind them, and that they are understandable by the general public. Being human, I, and my authors, may be all wet behind the ears from time to time… due to a wrong assumption about  a particular aspect… but overall, I find the skeptics arguing more about claims and attacking the researcher rather than the actual line of reasoning.

 Why? It’s hard to attack logic with logic when you are wrong…. So the fallback is a pyrrhic victory over the demise of a researcher’s reputation, but the idea lives on.  I’d appreciate any feedback (logical only) others may have with the line of reasoning I presented below.  The names have been changed to protect the innocent.  I refer to the correspondent as X and a third party as Y.

Steve Elswick, BSEE -- steve@teslatech.info
Publisher/Editor - ExtraOrdinary Technology
520-463-1994 - http://www.teslatech.info

INITIAL QUESTION:

Steve, are you seriously suggesting that an ordinary foil, wire and balsa wood lifter uses the same ion drive principles as a deep space craft? That was the original question, how do those work. Yes, ion drives can work in space, but that's not what's going on with "lifters."

MY RESPONSE:

Yes XXXXX… note that I am replying off list as I am tired of beating my head against the wall on this. Did you ever build a balsa wood glider when you were a kid?  The ones that carried men and equipment use the same basic physic principles of flight. Sure the manned version is much bigger and has flight controls… but the physics they use for “unpowered” flight is the same. 

Apply similar reasoning to lifter technology and the ion space engine. Ion propulsion in lifters received significant publicity in the 1960s… and a 1964 issue of Popular Mechanics shows photos of Major Alexander P. DeSeversky operating his Ionocraft.  However, one should note that NASA developed primitive ion drive rocket engines in the 1950s. 

The first principle I am defending is that when you have a pair of electrified grids… one positive and one negative, an  pull is exerted on the ions in the direction of  the negative grid at speeds so tremendous that they shoot past the negative grid.  Thus an ionic “wind” is created providing an upward thrust on the craft (as in lifters, the top grid is positive and the lower is ground [negative in relation to the top grid]).  

*I will note that in YYYY’s original email he was claiming the ions exerted an UPWARD force… the exact opposite  effect and also he is attributing quite a lot to thermal effects like heat expansion..

Now, let’s look at NASA’s description of the heart of their propulsion system (I copied this from one their pages):

At the rear of the chamber, a pair of metal grids is charged positively and negatively, respectively, with up to 1,280 volts of electricity. The force of this electric charge exerts a strong electrostatic pull on the xenon ions. The xenon ions shoot out the back of the engine at a speed of 100,000 km/h (60,000 mph). At full throttle, the ion engine will consume 2,500 watts of electrical power, and put out 1/50th of a pound of thrust. That's far less than the thrust of even small chemical rockets. But an ion engine can run for months or even years, and it's up to 10 times more efficient.

Now, where is the difference in principles?  

The second principle I am defending is that if you take lifter technology which does not work in a vacuum, and use some innovation to encase it in a chamber with an atmosphere, poke a hole in it for exhaust, you have an ion drive spacecraft.  The rate of speed of the ionized particles that exit the exhaust is orders of magnitude greater than the exhaust that would be created if you had a chamber filled with an atmosphere and just opened a hole in it.

Perhaps, these lifter guys should study vacuum tube technology… there may be some clues there that might help them develop a better craft.

Finally, with regards to all of the posts regarding this topic today was the quantitative analysis by YYYYYYYY. First the attempt itself. There was insufficient data to compute any kind of comparison…. For instance, does all of the 2.5KW used by the spacecraft go into the ion drive. NASA is really misleading on this one… they don’t tell you that the entire power supply for the craft is 2.5KW (you have to search the site to learn that one, and I unfortunately took the liberty of calculating a current instead of leaving it in the air as NASA did… so take that as a hit on me)  So a new question is how much actually is used by the grid… remember, this is supposed to be an electrostatic device… it is most likely in the mA range which changes the final answer by an order of magnitude.  I’ m surprised he didn’t pick up on the incongruent results he got using the figures posted.

However, other questions need to be answered before one attempts to do a quantitative analysis on it, like actual area of the grids (flow rate [mass accelerated] is dependent on the area of the grid spaces. I noticed that no mention is made of the difference in mass between air and xenon  (heavier particles means a heavier thrust for given flow rate of particles.  I am sure that if I decide to sit and seriously calculate F/T analysis I will find more parameters that need to be determined. 

THE REBUTTAL:

 I understand what you mean, Steve, but really, tests of "lifters" have shown that they really don't rely on ion thrust for lift. You can build a "half lifter" with just the grounded skirt assembly and place it in a closed cardboard box, so it can't feel any ion wind of any kind. Next, approach the top of the box with the other half of the lifter, the wire assembly, charged to high voltage. There is no mechanical connection between the two parts at all.

 When you bring the charged wire assembly near the top of the box containing the grounded skirt, the skirt will rise to the top of the box. Any ion wind that may be emanating from the wire will be on no consequence to the skirt, but it responds nevertheless. That's because the ion wind isn't helping to lift, it's the ion CLOUD near the wire.

 There are over 6 X 10^17 ions produced per microamp of current consumed in the lifter, all of which work to draw the skirt toward them. Some ions travel down to the skirt and are neutralized, but that wire is constantly producing new ones. Really, thrust produced by ions accelerated toward the skirt and flying past it are truly incidental to the total lift force.

 MY FINAL RESPONSE:

 A "half lifter" is not the same as a lifter. First, off you do not define which wire is positive and which is negative. But it doesn't matter, you have an attraction between surfaces of opposite polarity. Because they are kept physically separated, it is a field effect. They are going to pull each other together... then it gets interesting.

 In effect, you are describing a capacitor. Now that IS a horse of completely different color. The mechanism at work is the Biefeld-Brown effect... that IS the mysterious anti-gravity force that Phil disparagingly downplays. There are two books you should read... Ether Technology by Rho Sigma (he passed away some time ago, but his real name was Rolf Shafranke... the youngest member of Von Braun's rocket team) and Electrogravitics by Tom Valone. This effect is covered in quite some detail.  It is amazing, but a charged capacitor suspended in air will always move in the positive direction. Try it some time... and it will work in a vacuum too.

 There was a great article in the Jan/Feb/Mar 2003 issue of ExtraOrdinary Technology on replicating the TT Brown's electrokinetic device.. which is an offshoot of the capacitor experiment.

Now do you see the difference?

 Perhaps you ought to consider getting the 1999 videotape of Tom Valone's presentation on electrogravitics, and the tape by Rick Todish on ion drives. Now that they're on sale for practically half price it's almost like getting two tapes for the price of one.  The other reference you should have is the Exotic Research Report V2N4 (Oct/Nov/Dec 1998) with articles on BOTH types of devices.

 I recommend this material if you are truly serious about learning more about these topics.  These materials will give you a good feel for the physics behind the devices. I was truly fortunate to have some of the professors I has in college. Instead of worrying about an exact number for an answer, they were more interest in if you knew the ballpark of the answer. So you could get 75% on the test just by running through the problem and writing down units and the order of magnitude the answer should be in... and then go back and solve it for the actual number. Then if you came up with Amps and know you should have come up with milli-amps... you knew something drastic in your calculations was wrong, and you would tend to skip it finish the rest and come back to it.

 That's kind of what I am doing here... just giving you a feel for what’s going on. I'll be the first to admit I am not an expert on this material as I do not build lifters and electrogravitic devices every day. But I have been editing this type of material for nearly 20 years so I KNOW the experts... What really helps is that I have a degree in electrical engineering, and have worked in the aerospace/microelectronics industry so I can recognize BS when I see it... and have a great group of guys to turn to if it just happens to be over my head, I need clarification, or even verification of facts.

 For now, I am going to have to drop off this topic for awhile as I have got to add some links and do some modifications to our website. I truly hope you join TeslaTech... we have a great group of guys willing to share their information in a friendly atmosphere.