Subject: RE: ### Lifter Efficiency Spreadsheet & Charts ###
From: "Campbell, Jonathan" <[email-masked]>
To: 'Tim Ventura' <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Nabors, Sammy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:49:51 -0600

Tim,
 
Thanks for your emails and interest.  Sorry for the delay in replying.  I
have just returned from a Medical Conference in Califormia so I am a little
behind.  
 
Our work and interest with the NASA assymetrical capacitor (NACAP) has been
primarily focused on "engineering" a design suitable (safety, robustness,
etc.) for Aerospace applications rather than using it as a platform to
advocate radical new science.  Indeed, all of our research to date indicates
that performance is directly correlated with the complex
magneto-hydrodynamic processes occurring in the near vicinity of the
capacitor.  In other words, while somewhat complex, we fully expect the
existing laws of physics to be sufficient to fully describe the NACAP's
performance.  
 
I will try and go through your data in greater detail when I get a little
time and provide further comments.
 
cheers,
 
jwc  

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ventura [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 6:20 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: ### Lifter Efficiency Spreadsheet & Charts ###
Importance: High

Dear Jonathan:
 
I've attached a trend analysis in MS-Excel 2000 format for you on Jean-Louis
Naudin's published Lifter data from the JLN Labs website. I found several
interesting trends when I put this into graph format, and I have excluded
data from his non-standard prototype Lifters.
 
In other words, all of the Lifters in this chart use essentially the same
construction techniques, to rule out changes from design-variation.
Basically, these are the standard triangle-shaped Lifters with the
conventional air-gap and similar corona-wire-gauge. That way we can graph
the data based on "leading-edge" length and applied-power for more accurate
results.
 
The graph shows (dishearteningly) that current is more important than
voltage across the air-gap. Once the voltage reaches the point where
charge-transfer occurs across the air-gap (I've measured this at 17.5kV for
most Lifters) the amount of current seems to add thrust as a linear trend.
In other words, 2x current roughly equals 2x thrust -- 2x voltage equals
1.25x thrust (or something similar to those figures).
 
I use a current-limited power-supply, and I have bypassed the output load
resistors to let the current increase and the voltage decrease to "minimum
values" -- the voltage across the air-gap increases until charge transfer
begins through the air-gap, and after that the voltage levels out and
current tends to increase instead. I've found that while charge-conduction
tends to occur at 17.5 kV, the Lifter's air-gap usually maintains a
potential difference of 22.5 to 30kV -- from what I have seen this is close
to the "perfect" voltage, if any voltage that high and innefficient can be
considered perfect.
 
The reason that I use the word "disheartening" above is quite simply because
I think that this chart shows that ion-wind is the predominant effect at
work in these devices. My personal belief is more that the Biefeld-Brown
effect is a modifier to ion-wind, and that ion-wind must occur for the
Lifters to function. Actually, my pet hypothesis is considerably more
complex than this, but I won't take up your time with it unless you are
interested.
 
Sincerely;
 
Tim Ventura
http://www.americanantigravity.com <http://www.americanantigravity.com> 
Phone: 425-820-5675  <http://www.americanantigravity.com>