Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Real information: Re: "Electric rocket" from 1930 re-patented again in 2000!

Expand Messages
  • Vencislav
    ... Dear Bill, It depends WHICH version of original you are describing. 1) Lets see Tom Kennedy s version first: ========================================= A)
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 13, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In jlnlabs@yahoogroups.com, "bjbeaty" <BILLB@...> wrote:
      > --- In jlnlabs@yahoogroups.com, Vencislav <vencib@...> wrote:
      > > Hello to all,
      > >
      > > I was surprised to see that "Electric rocket" patent
      > > from 1930, is re-patented again, this time under
      > > patent number WO/0058623 and AU3722400.
      > Not that this version answers the "symmetry" question: it has a
      > 2-layer dielectric between the metal plates. The original just
      > used +-+-+-+ polarity,

      Dear Bill,

      It depends WHICH version of 'original' you are describing.

      1) Lets see Tom Kennedy's version first:

      A) Proof that original version had antisymmetry
      due to the different K of materials between plates:

      Tom Kennedy's (is he live yet?) wrote on 12th of august 1991
      to Chris P. Sianis, and send him a sample of Electric Rocket:
      (from http://www.vacuum-energy.com/images/gravcap2.gif )
      "Sample has three layers of waxed paper between plate layers
      (including the paper they are mounted on).
      Plates and interconnecting strips are secured with super glue.
      (You can use liquid of gel type.)
      I stapled the sample to keep it intact in the mail.
      DO NOT USE STAPLES IN AN ACTUAL ARRAY. For obvious reasons,
      only glue should be used to secure plates, as well as for
      tacking together layers during assembly of stack."

      So, he had three layers of waxed paper and layer of glue
      between metalic plates(electrodes).
      This already gives us antisymmetry in K of dielectrics
      since it is unlikely that glue and waxed paper have
      the same K value of dielectricity.


      B) Proof that original version had antisymmetry
      due to different shape of electrodes:

      Quote from Tom Kennedy's letter to Chris Sianis
      on 27th of august, 1991:
      (from http://www.vacuum-energy.com/images/gravcap9.gif )
      "The circumference of the rings should also be
      'staggered', that is, one large, one small, then large,
      then small, etc., so that you get the cascase effect."
      (from http://www.vacuum-energy.com/images/gravcap11.gif )
      "Inner and outer circumference of plate rings are
      alternated from layer to layer, as ilustrated."

      So, he also had antisymmetry in form of big-small electrodes,
      where one plate is with larger diameter, then next
      is with smaller diameter, and so on...


      Lets go to the next statement you are making:

      > giving no reason for it to thrust in
      > either direction. Also this version drives it with AC not DC.

      C) Wrong. The original version, both Tom Kennedy's
      and T.T. Brown's were using pulsing current

      let me quote Tom again:
      (from http://www.vacuum-energy.com/images/gravcap1.gif
      and http://www.vacuum-energy.com/images/gravcap2.gif )
      "The input plate must be connected to a high-tension lead,
      and high voltage, low amperage energy pulsed into it. Brown
      used an ignition coil and battery from a Model T Ford.
      The output plate must be well grounded, to ensure that
      the energy cascades throught the array.
      Each pulse of energy causes a gravitational ripple to
      pulse through the grid, and continues through the output side.
      An individual pulse, by itself, will have little, if any
      noticeable effect. But when pulsed in rapid succession,
      the individual ripples, or waves, become a wave form, with
      pronounced electro-kinetic effect."

      I have nothing to add to this, it is very clear that
      only AC or pulsed DC has been used by Tom and Brown.


      your next statement:

      > The original one just used wax paper and batteries!

      As shown above, your statement is wrong.

      The information that you have on YOUR page about Electric Rocket
      is not only insufficient, but also all the essential information:

      a) different type of layers between electrodes
      (with non-equal/'antisymmetrical' K dielectric constant).
      b) different (antisymmetrical) shape of electrodes.
      c) usage of pulsing current (AC or pusling DC).

      is totaly, completly missing from YOUR page about Electric Rocket!
      I'm talking about this page:

      Therefore, in future I'm not going to recomend link to
      that page on your web site, but instead will direct readers
      to my web page, which has essential information,
      and I encourage everybody to download it to their computer
      in order to prevent this information being lost:



      > Unless a NON-ANONYMOUS person builds this and verifies
      > the thrust, there's the chance that this one is a "vanity
      > patent," and the author didn't actually obtain thrust.

      Do You Yahoo!?
      Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.