🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3lvd2a$qlk@wizard.uark.edu>, stadams@comp.uark.edu 
(Shawn Adams) writes:
>aside from all the ridicule being directed at this article, here's a little
>scientific review of the data presented.
>
>in regard to the testing mentioned as having taken place in the 1950's:
>
>could the observed behaviour (or alleged behaviour) of these disks be the
>reaction of a mettalic object to the extremely strong magnetic fields which
>would result from the high voltages purportedly used, rather than the emergence
>of a hypothetical "anti-gravity" or "electrogravitic field"?  even if the disks
>themselves would not respond to magnetic fields, would the attraction of the 
>wires along the edges of the disks be enough to move them in the manner
>specified?
>

There's an article about Townsend Brown and his flying disks in the 
November 1958 edition of FATE magazine. (Yes folks, this really is old
stuff which either demonstrates the amazing persistence of bad
pseudo-scientific ideas or the amazing closed mindedness of the scientific
establishment, depending on your POV ;) It's available online on
the Spirit WWW server 

 http://zeta.cs.adfa.oz.au/Spirit/light-technology.html

The explanation given in this article is that the motive power is
"electric wind". Pardon my rusty physics, but I think this means that
positive ions are formed on the leading edge of the disks, they are 
accelerated across the electric field between the leading and trailing
edge and the motion of the plates would be due to the good old Newtonian
reaction force. It sounds very plausible. Relatively tame compared
with the `electrogravitics/sub-quantum kinetics' explanation, but still ..

Brown claims that this explanation has been falsified by flying
his disks in a vacuum. But wouldn't this explanation still work with
negative ions - electrons - moving the other way? The disks would
fly the other way of course, which should be easy to spot!

Martyn