Community > Forum > Technology & Science > Revolutionary Technologies

Revolutionary Technologies

Posted by: Solomon - Wed Jul 30, 2003 12:54 am
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 15 posts ] 
Revolutionary Technologies 
Author Message
Launch Director
Launch Director
avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 12:45 am
Posts: 10
Location: Denver, CO
Post Revolutionary Technologies   Posted on: Wed Jul 30, 2003 12:54 am
I must congratulate the X-Prize teams for their efforts, but in the long term rocket technologies will not deliver the propulsion systems of the future.

I got the news that this board was up and running and could not resist posting my press release:




FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Mr. Ben Solomon
QuantumRisk

eFax: 801-365-8995
solomon@QuantumRisk.com
http://www.QuantumRisk.com


Proof Of Concept Questions Validity of Modern Theories on Gravity

Denver, CO, 07/24/2003 --- Mr. Solomon’s Post-Newtonian Propulsion Technology (PNPT) device, an electrical circuit without moving parts, can both, alter its own weight and the weight of a third object. Experiments were conducted in a sealed glass jar.

Mr. Solomon’s devices change weight by up to +/- 3 grams over a 3-hour period. The devices weigh between 2 and 300 grams. A weight loss of 41.5 grams has been observed for 3 seconds, but is not yet repeatable. During the experiment, he has noted the current weight, picked up the device, and placed the device back on the scale (Mettler P1200). The weight observed was the current weight, and not some other value. These devices operate at about 2 to 3 Watts. Estimated energy required is between 60 and 120 kJ per gram weight change.

Mr. Solomon is at proof-of-concept. The electromagnetic structure of matter, and not mass, is the source of gravity. This electromagnetic structure creates non-linear time dilation. This non-linearity of time dilation causes the effect of gravity. Modern physics states it the other way around, that gravity causes time dilation. His success, stemming from this significant paradigm shift on gravitational effects, seriously questions the validity of modern theories on gravity.

His new approach to gravity led to the proposal that momentum exchange is a process and not an event. It is possible to intercede in the momentum exchange process, to create virtual momentum exchange – changing direction without an external force.

He is currently working towards completion of proof of concept, with regard to force field circuits. It is possible to project a force field that is either attractive or repulsive on a third object. Over a period of 3 hours, he has observed 0.1 gram weight loss on 37.6 gram polystyrene brick.


Future Technology

Mr. Solomon is seeking funding to take his technology from proof of concept to prototype engine. The prototype engine will be enclosed within the body of a prototype craft that is capable of moving in any direction without the use of propellants.

Modern theories on gravity will not deliver the space propulsion technologies of the future. Mr. Solomon’s Post-Newtonian Propulsion Technology will.

Mr. Solomon is a management consultant and technology pioneer, who has for the last 30 years, been working on a rational and robust approach to reusable launch propulsion systems, that manipulate the effects of gravity. His hypotheses and results are published in the Journal of Theoretics, and the National Space Society’s International Space Development Conferences; Publications can accessed via his website, http://www.QuantumRisk.com/.


For information: http://www.QuantumRisk.com/
Contact: Solomon@QuantumRisk.com


Other Info:
1. Journal of Theoretics – http://www.JournalOfTheoretics.com/
2. National Space Society – http://www.NSS.org/
3. The Mettler P1200 is a mechanical scale that measures weight by using counter-balancing masses, and is capable of detecting weight changes down to 0.005 grams.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 10:13 pm
Posts: 7
Location: Hobe Sound, Florida
Post    Posted on: Wed Jul 30, 2003 10:45 am
Years ago, there was an article in an electronics magazine about a "fan" that moved air with no moving parts. If I remember right, it was just a coil of wire with a voltage applied. My feeling at the time was that it had no value for using for thrust as the current needed was impractical. I have searched the internet for this with no luck. Anyone have any comments?


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 77
Location: Estonia
Post    Posted on: Wed Jul 30, 2003 12:03 pm
Brad Morris wrote:
Years ago, there was an article in an electronics magazine about a "fan" that moved air with no moving parts. If I remember right, it was just a coil of wire with a voltage applied.


I think you are speaking about Jean-Louis Naudin's Lifters.
http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm

He is planning to construct an autonomous craft of modular lifter cells sometiime in the future. The problem is power density ( KWH/kg) of power storage systems. He claims that energy efficiency would be better than on helicopters, so if he can achieve lifting a diesel generator, it could theorethically fly.


Back to top
Profile
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 10:13 pm
Posts: 7
Location: Hobe Sound, Florida
Post    Posted on: Wed Jul 30, 2003 7:56 pm
Thanks for the URL -

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm

I checked the above out and it is a newer version of the one I had read years ago. Verrrrry interesting, Thanks!
[/quote]


Back to top
Profile
Launch Director
Launch Director
avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 12:45 am
Posts: 10
Location: Denver, CO
Post    Posted on: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:28 am
I looked up the web site. Very impressive. I think Townsend Brown's Electrokinetic model is probably the correct explanation.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Launch Director
Launch Director
avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:08 pm
Posts: 16
Location: Edmond, OK
Post    Posted on: Thu Jul 31, 2003 11:06 pm
If the power wire was long enough, how high will these go?

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/liftout.htm


Back to top
Profile
Launch Director
Launch Director
avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 12:45 am
Posts: 10
Location: Denver, CO
Post More thoughts on the Townsend Brown patent.   Posted on: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:07 am
More thoughts on the Townsend Brown patent.

Energy transferred by the electric field, to both the electron and the ionized atom should be the same, but movements are in opposite directions.

Legend,
m(-) = electron mass
m(+) = ion mass
v(-) = electron velocity
v(+) = ion velocity


Electron Kinetic Energy = 0.5 m(-) v(-).v(-)

Ion Kinetic Energy = 0.5 m(+) v(+).v(+)

Electron Kinetic Energy = Ion Kinetic Energy because they are both in the same electric field.

Therefore,

0.5 m(-) v(-).v(-) = 0.5 m(+) v(+).v(+)

or

v(-) = v(+) . [m(+) / m(-)]^0.5

Electron Momentum parted to device = m(-).v(-)

Ion Momentum parted to device = m(+).v(+)

Rearranging,

Electron momentum parted to device = m(-).v(+) . [m(+) / m(-)]^0.5

= v(+).[m(+).m(-)]^0.5

= m(+).v(+).[m(-)/m(+)]^0.5

Since electron mass and ion mass is fixed,

Electron Momentum parted to device = m(+).v(+).k

where k = [m(-)/m(+)]^0.5 < 1

Net Momentum Transferred = m(+).v(+) – m(-).v(-)

= m(+).v(+) { 1 - k }

Note, for all pratical purposes k approximately zero or net momentum transferred is that of the Ion.

That is Ion Momentum > Electron Momentum

Therefore, it works!

There is a net greater momentum transferred by the Ion then by the Electron.

The only way to increase the effect is to increase the electric field voltage, increase the number of momentum transfer points or use a heavier gas.

Note, however, there is a limit to how much voltage that can be applied. Stripping more then one electron causes the efficiency of the effect to be reduced, because the effect is caused by mass differences, and not ionization.

For example, if ‘n’ electrons are stripped from an atom then

Electron Kinetic Energy = n . 0.5 m(-) v(-).v(-)
for the same Ion Kinetic Energy

Net Momentum Transferred = m(+).v(+) – n.m(-).v(-)

= m(+).v(+) { 1 – n.k }

i.e. loss of effeciency. But then again, since k is approximately zero, this loss of efficiency may not be noticeable.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 77
Location: Estonia
Post    Posted on: Mon Aug 04, 2003 2:46 pm
Ryan wrote:
If the power wire was long enough, how high will these go?

AFAIK, to the edge of the atmosphere. Its creator also claims, that a slight unexplained propulsion force has been measured in near vacuum. Go figure. But you are free to try it yourself, the blueprints and help is available on the website.

As for other revolutionary, or might i say unearthly sight:
http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archiv ... #Feb.15.01
LightCraft technologies, riding a laser beam to new heights.
Video of flight testing here: http://www.lightcrafttechnologies.com/LTI.asx

Unfortunately, it doesnt seem like this tech has really taken off, last news update is from two years back.


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Enthusiast
Spaceflight Enthusiast
avatar
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 5:30 am
Posts: 2
Location: The land of Oz
Post    Posted on: Tue Aug 12, 2003 5:45 am
Well, Solomon, you know what they say - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I hope your right, but i have my doubts.

That said, i wish you luck with getting sponsors :) I'll be very happy for you to prove me wrong :D


Back to top
Profile
Launch Director
Launch Director
avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 12:45 am
Posts: 10
Location: Denver, CO
Post    Posted on: Fri Aug 15, 2003 11:45 pm
Well, I have some good news and bad news.

Good news is that someone built a lifter that can lift a pound :D . The bad news is that it does not work in vacuum :( (i.e. my formulation as to why it works is correct).

You can read more about this on wired.com at

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.0 ... avity.html


Back to top
Profile WWW
avatar
Post    Posted on: Tue Sep 02, 2003 9:28 pm
i do....
that "fan"? did it use fuel? besides electricity :? :? :? [/code]


Back to top
Launch Director
Launch Director
avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 12:45 am
Posts: 10
Location: Denver, CO
Post iSETI Report   Posted on: Fri Oct 17, 2003 4:25 pm
Just to let you guys know that I've made the 100 page iSETI report (Reaching the Stars: The Interstellar Space Exploration Technology Initiative) available for free from my website http://www.QuantumRisk.com.


Back to top
Profile WWW
avatar
Post    Posted on: Sun Nov 02, 2003 11:31 pm
There have been people making wild claims about gravity control on obscure sites for as long as I have been using the internet (8 or 9 years). In fact, people were making these claims in the 60's (John Searl) and even earlier(There's all sorts of mysterious stories about Tesla).

I'm not a skeptic in most regards, and I would dearly love for someone to make this breakthrough that is supposed to be around the corner, but no one ever comes up with any substantial proof.

It's obvious that we don't understand the nature of gravity and inertia, and the fact that it is the weakest of the fundamental forces of the universe gives me hope that we may be able to exercise some control over it.

Our best chance of understanding gravity is probably from the planned experiments in the Large Hadron Collider where they intend to search for the Higgs boson. But that's not due for a few years yet, they have to build the thing first :)

I do wish teams like GCT, and Mr Solomon here all the best in their research, but I think they have a nasty habit of getting people's hopes up and then dashing them terribly. There is a reason why there is a system of evidence, peer review, and yes, cynicism in scientific circles.


Back to top
avatar
Post    Posted on: Mon Nov 03, 2003 4:13 pm
"I do wish teams like GCT, and Mr Solomon here all the best in their research, but I think they have a nasty habit of getting people's hopes up and then dashing them terribly. There is a reason why there is a system of evidence, peer review, and yes, cynicism in scientific circles."

The system of peer review at the present time starts with the premise, that gravity modification is not possible.

The patent process does not allow patents for "perpectual machines". Gravity modification devices fall into this category. Individuals who have developed these devices cannot get the intellectual property protection to ease publication.

Without publications, funding is impossible.

Without funding, further development is obstructed.

The scientific community needs caution, yes, but not cynicism.

Ben Solomon


Back to top
avatar
Post    Posted on: Mon Nov 03, 2003 10:44 pm
Quote:
The scientific community needs caution, yes, but not cynicism.


- Perhaps cynicism was a poor choice of words :). Scientific study shouldn't be approached with a bias, I agree. The scientific community are inherently wary of claims about gravity control though, because no real evidence has been produced that anyone is capable of it. At least, no real evidence that is reproducable :)

Quote:
The system of peer review at the present time starts with the premise, that gravity modification is not possible.


- There is in fact a serious, concerted, international effort at present to understand the nature of gravity, and perhaps one day have some control over it. This is of course the experiments at CERN, and other places to find the Higgs boson.

I dearly hope something positive comes out of your research, and that it is reproducable. I would love as much as you for some sort of gravitational and inertial control system to become available, but we need evidence. If you can produce evidence of your claims, then I think research money will be apportioned accordingly. As it stands it is too far outside of our current scientific model to be throwing large amounts of money at.

As it happens, private and public research institutes have spent money on anti-gravity research in the past, and the results were inconclusive. Namely the case of Mr Yevgeny Podkletnov. Boeing, and several universities attempted to reproduce Mr Podkletnov's experiment, and nobody was successful. I believe that people have also tried to reproduce the work of John Searl, to no avail.

These people tend to be rather mysterious, and all have very convenient excuses for not being able to provide evidence of their work(Marcus Hollingshead, Fran De Aquino, John Searl, etc.)

Forgive me for sounding cynical :) I really do wish you all the best in your research. I also believe that there is probably a sound scientific basis for some of the theories about anti gravity, and gravity shielding. But I think we need to take a very careful, open approach to researching the matter, to avoid this situation where people make unsubstanciated claims about anti gravity that ultimately hurt that field of research in general because of the negative publicity they generate.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to respond to my thoughts :)


Back to top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: kunchou and 12 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use