Craft without Any propulsion Or engine- Possible?

[SomethingToPonder]

Hi all, Now im no expert in this field, However i came across this after seeing a program on the television and it showed this "craft" or device working. And it really is remarkable. It's basically a device that floats upwards with only bare materials. I think the man's name was tim ventura. Now if you search for "tim ventura's Invention" You will get some pretty interesting results.

here is a link to the main thing.

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue45/thelifterphen.html

And also could this be related but of course a good few hundred years or some fairly extensive research down the line maybe?

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/plasmaufo.htm (please dont start complaining about the fact that it's a ufo site. the link is merely to a page telling you about a patent that a proffesor has made)

Npow is this a antigravity device? How is this possible beside the obvious "electrogravitics" described in the many articles when you google it.

I thought i would ask on here as it's much more likely to get a decent response.

Cheers all in advance.

Edited May 12, 2013 by SomethingToPonder

[imatfaal]

Wiki has a page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifter_%28ionic_propulsion_device%29 which make me think it is legit but boring. It works on the basis that the ions from a corona discharge (which you get with a high voltage but lower than that needed to create an arc discharge) are accelerated downwards and by equal and opposite reaction you get a bit of upwards force on the "lifter"

[elfmotat]

Mythbusters did an episode on "antigravity" devices, and (unsurprisingly) none of them produced any real antigravitational effects. If I remember correctly, they put the little tin-foil craft in a vacuum and it didn't work. Meaning that it uses air as its propulsion.

[krash661]

Mythbusters did an episode on "antigravity" devices, and (unsurprisingly) none of them produced any real antigravitational effects. If I remember correctly, they put the little tin-foil craft in a vacuum and it didn't work. Meaning that it uses air as its propulsion.

what's your opinion about myth busters ?

 

obviously you consider it to be true and accurate, correct ?

IMO it's like calling an apple an orange.

in the beginning i thought it maybe useful, but i assumed the money guys took over after a couple of seasons and it became crap.

 

but that is just my meanningless irrelevent opinion.

[swansont]

I agree with the above, having seen these claims before: it's an ionic action/reaction effect, and definitely not antigravity. It needs an atmosphere to work, so it's not useful for propulsion in space. It's also pretty weak — all of the examples I've seen have the power supply planted firmly on the ground, so the lifter only has to lift itself and some cables.

[SomethingToPonder]

Fair enough thanks for the input. However do you think it's possible it may or could be a step in the right direction? A starting point maybe in the right field even if we are years and years off making something even worthwhile?

Even if it's not antigravity, Which would be quite spectacular, I do find ionic reactions very fascinating.

see just while we are on this sort of topic, What's your opinions on Pulse detonation wave engines and/or gravity wave engines?
Thanks for contributing everyone.

Edited May 13, 2013 by SomethingToPonder

[imatfaal]

I have a battery powered helicopter that does the job much more efficiently - it's about accelerating stuff downwards so that the craft feels an upward force; the little helicopter can carry a small payload (few grams), it's own power source, and enough electronics to receive and interpret 3 channel radio control. BTW it cost a tenner and works without the danger of massive voltages.

 

The WW2 V1 used a form of pulse engine - not sure if it is the same the thing; but for anything other than missiles it is acceptable to sacrifice efficiency (burning fuel or deflagration rather than detonation) for reliability and environmental considerations. Good research stuff - a long shot.

 

Gravity wave engines? Well we are yet to even directly detect a gravity wave - so the idea of using them for propulsion is a little too far fetched for me.

[SomethingToPonder]

Yes in the 50's they had engines capable of making mach1-3 , Around now i reckon they are upto mach6, But it does not seem very plausible that we went from practically nothing when the wright brothers made their first flight, to the 50's when we were hitting mach3 and then in the last 60 years since then we've made very slow progress, It was developing at such an extraordinary rate if you think about it, and then it has suddenly slowed down. I reckon it's all politics and that whatever government has developed such tech is probably keeping it to themselves to avoid other powers "stealing" their ideas.

[EdEarl]

A ball can float in the stream of air coming from the blowing end of a vacuum cleaner. The ball as no engine, it floats due to the energy contained in the stream of air.

 

These engineless craft float because 30,000 volts of electricity provides enough energy to lift the craft, aparently on a stream of air propelled by ionization from 30KV instead of a vacuum cleaner.

[Moontanman]

How to fly on nothing...

 

[michel123456]

That's about buoyancy, out of the atmosphere it does not work.

I was thinking more at an early concept (1865).

To make a projectile.

And to incorporate inside the projectile a device that can play with momentum: deploy it for velocity or sustain it for stopping.

Edited May 13, 2013 by michel123456