Anti-gravity Drive From "New Force" Defies Physics

[NorCal Dave]

Saw an article today in The DeBrief about a former NASA engineer claiming that he has created a "propellent-less propulsion drive" that can "counteract Earth's gravity":

https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veteran...duced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-earths-gravity/

I'm no physicist, but when claims of "defies physics" pop up I get suspicious.

Dr. Charels Buhler says:

"The most important message to convey to the public is that a major discovery occurred," Buhler told The Debrief. "This discovery of a New Force is fundamental in that electric fields alone can generate a sustainable force onto an object and allow center-of-mass translation of said object without expelling mass."

"There are rules that include conservation of energy, but if done correctly, one can generate forces unlike anything humankind has done before," Buhler added. "It will be this force that we will use to propel objects for the next 1,000 years… until the next thing comes."

Dr. Buhler's specialty is electrostatics:

A quick look at Dr. Buhler's background confirms that he is indeed one of NASA's top experts in electrostatics. In addition to overseeing the management of electrostatic discharge (ESD) and ESD safety for the Space Shuttle, the ISS, and Hubble, Dr. Buhler also established NASA's Electrostatics and Surface Physics Laboratory at Kennedy Space Center.

His company has been working on variations of his device for e 20+ years. Not sure if this is another red flag or not, but he does appear to use a vailed phrase for what I would understand as "over unity" (bold by me):

"The aim is to approach and exceed unity," he explained, "which means the article would generate enough thrust to lift itself in Earth's gravity, and that's defined as 1 gravity of thrust."

Now I don't know if he means it "puts out more energy than it takes in" type of "over unity" or just that it produces more than "1 gravity of thrust", but it seems the latter.

By 2023 Dr. Buhler claims his 30-40 gram device was generating the equivalent of 1 full Earth gravity:

Then, in 2022, something astounding happened. According to Buhler, his team began to see significant jumps in the force being generated.

A quick look at a chart he presented to APEC shows that tests performed between early 2022 and November 2023 resulted in a rapid climb, moving from one thousandth, one hundredth, and even one-tenth of gravity all the way up to one full Earth gravity. This means that their current devices, which Buhler told The Debrief "weigh somewhere between 30-40 grams on their own" without the attached test equipment, were producing enough thrust to counteract the full force of one Earth gravity.

Does that mean it can float? It sounds a lot like Tom DeLong's paraphrase of Travis Taylor's claim about one of Art' Parts, "If you hit it with a terahertz, it'll float". The way over my head explanations for this is as follows:

"Essentially, what we've discovered is that systems that contain an asymmetry in either electrostatic pressure or some kind of electrostatic divergent field can give a system of a center of mass a non-zero force component," Buhler explained. "So, what that basically means is that there's some underlying physics that can essentially place force on an object should those two constraints be met."

Until that time, Buhler says he believes his work proves that the force they are seeing is "fundamental" and that understanding it is the next logical step.

"You can't deny this," he told Ventura. "There's not a lot to this. You're just charging up Teflon, copper tape, and foam, and you have this thrust."

So, while his team believes their experiments speak for themselves, the veteran scientist says he also believes it is the job of science to analyze and understand this discovery. If successful, he thinks it may even address some of the harder questions in science, including the nature of dark energy or even space/time itself.

And some more over-unity sounding stuff:

Another unusual result from their tests was that sometimes the tested devices did not require a constant input of electrical charge to maintain their thrust. Given that the device already appears to violate the known laws of physics by creating thrust without propellant, this result even stumped Dr. Buhler and his team.

"We can see some of these things sit on a scale for days, and if they still have charge in them, they are still producing thrust," he told Ventura. "It's very hard to reconcile, from a scientific point of view because it does seem to violate a lot of energy laws that we have."

Should any of you guys understand this and think you're on to something, you can work with Exodus Propulsion Technologies:

"We hope companies will want to license our technology, which is mutually beneficial," he added. "We can help their technology and gain some funding for our time to do so."
If there are companies interested in working with Exodus Propulsion Technologies, Buhler asks that they contact him and his team via their LinkedIn page.

The next thing is to track down his presentation he made at APEC:

To document his team's discovery as well as the process behind their work, which Dr. Buhler cautions is in no way affiliated with NASA or the U.S. Government, the outwardly amiable researcher presented his findings at a recent Alternative Propulsion Energy Conference (APEC). Filled with both highly-credentialed career engineers and propulsion hobbyists, APEC is an organization The Debrief once referred to as the World's Most Exclusive (And Strange) Anti-Gravity Club.

For now I'll let the more experienced math and physics folks weigh in.

 

[ced0412]

Here's the patent:

System and method for generating forces using asymmetrical electrostatic pressure

APEC slides:

Exodus Propulsion Technologies Presentation APEC 12-23-2023v1

Youtube preso timestamped with Buhler:

APEC 12/23: Asymmetrical Capacitance, Warp Drives & Torsion Physics

 

[Ann K]

Youtube preso timestamped with Buhler:

APEC 12/23: Asymmetrical Capacitance, Warp Drives & Torsion Physics

This is WAY above my capacity to poke holes in, but there are points raised in the comments to the YouTube video that might provide a starting point for knowledgeable critique.

 

[john.phil]

From the video presentation of what they have done, they seem to have fallen into the same trap as the EmDrive. They were registering minute forces in the range of [μN] (see figures below), initially using a torsional pendulum, whilst working with very high energy densities to produce such a minuscule effect.

source: Video Presentation (01:12:51)

source: Video Presentation (01:24:27)

With such minute forces, the source of the thrust could be anything in the realm of experimental error, just as it was with the EmDrive. And they also produce their apparent thrust by means of resonance:

source: Video Presentation (01:13:32)

As they were measuring these minute forces, they started the path of optimisation through experimental design change. But optimisation of what? Without a theoretical model for the physical phenomena, it is not possible to optimise a system without incurring into the risk of optimising bias instead. And that's what I suspect is happening here:

• Through trial and error, they have found what type of design, measurement arrangement, experimental procedure and data processing maximise the experimental error, and progressed with the "optimisation" to a point where now they claim to have achieved 1.29g of specific-force.

source: Video Presentation (01:48:36)

source: Video Presentation (04:29:08)

Similar to the EmDrive, they went a step further and looked for a theoretical model that would fit their "data". Found one, disproved it, and then refined it to match the "data" by guessing what the equation should be like, based on curve-fitting their results. However, if the phenomena is down to experimental error and bias, then their theoretical model would also have been built out of bias and cannot represent new physics, as they claim.

source: Video Presentation (01:30:19)

source: Video Presentation (01:32:14)

As with the EmDrive, when they turn off the apparatus, it still produces thrust, which they recognise is a big red flag, but they then proceed to explain it away with new unproven physics shown above.

source: Video Presentation (01:30:25)

source: Video Presentation (01:23:41)

From the chart above, they registered a minute thrust of 153 μN and 190 μN when no voltage was applied. And were able to register another minute thrust of 178 μN when applying 40 kV. From the fit equation chart presented before, they were able to register 5000 μN when charging the device to 3 million Volts. Working with such high energies opens up for unintended motion of the system and undesirable effects in the measurement devices.

As with the EmDrive, they had to eventually test in vacuum. Then, the next step is testing in space, and as a side note, the EmDrive test in space failed due to a malfunction in the satellite, thus another test is going to be carried out. It is unlikely that independent testing will be able to conclusively disprove their designs before they receive funding for testing in space, and contrary to the EmDrive, they built several completely different designs; thus, disproving one design will most likely only make them adopt another.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science#:~:text=Pathological science, as defined by,expectancy effect and cognitive bias).

Some characteristics of pathological science are:

-The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.

-The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.

-There are claims of great accuracy.

-Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.

-Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.

-The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.

The present case, as described by john.phil, hits a lot of those beats.


N-rays are an infamous example of pathological science. I'll insert some bits of text from post #4 into a passage about N-rays. These insertions, in italics, seem apropos to me.

- from the same Wikipedia article as above:

In 1903, Prosper-René Blondlot was working on X-rays (as were many physicists of the era) and noticed a new visible radiation that could penetrate aluminium. He devised experiments in which a barely visible object was illuminated by these N-rays, and thus became "more visible". Blondlot claimed that N-rays were causing a small visual reaction, too small to be seen under normal illumination, but just visible when most normal light sources were removed and the target was just barely visible to begin with. [Through trial and error, they have found what type of design, measurement arrangement, experimental procedure and data processing maximise the experimental error...]

N-rays became the topic of some debate within the science community. After a time, American physicist Robert W. Wood decided to visit Blondlot's lab, which had moved on to the physical characterization of N-rays. An experiment passed the rays from a 2 mm slit through an aluminum prism, from which he was measuring the index of refraction to a precision that required measurements accurate to within 0.01 mm. Wood asked how it was possible that he could measure something to 0.01 mm from a 2 mm source, a physical impossibility in the propagation of any kind of wave. Blondlot replied, "That's one of the fascinating things about the N-rays. They don't follow the ordinary laws of science that you ordinarily think of." [...but they then proceed to explain it away with new unproven physics.] Wood then asked to see the experiments being run as usual, which took place in a room required to be very dark so the target was barely visible. Blondlot repeated his most recent experiments and got the same results—despite the fact that Wood had reached over and covertly sabotaged the N-ray apparatus by removing the prism. [...when they turn off the apparatus, it still produces thrust.]

 

[FatPhil]

For now I'll let the more experienced math and physics folks weigh in.

Or, you could just facepalm at the obvious goof in how they're selling the concept...

What's the glowing stuff below that word, where's it going, and why?

 

[jarlrmai]

Or, you could just facepalm at the obvious goof in how they're selling the concept...

What's the glowing stuff below that word, where's it going, and why?

Perhaps it's a negative example, ie "none of this annoying glowing stuff needed"

 

[DavidB66]

How do they deal with Newton's Third Law?

 

[Mendel]

Saw an article today in The DeBrief about a former NASA engineer claiming that he has created a "propellent-less propulsion drive" that can "counteract Earth's gravity":

"The most important message to convey to the public is that a major discovery occurred," Buhler told The Debrief. "This discovery of a New Force is fundamental in that electric fields alone can generate a sustainable force onto an object and allow center-of-mass translation of said object without expelling mass."

Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aroBnpx6t80

Electrostatic levitation using a single plate and a wood spoon.

 

[FatPhil]

Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aroBnpx6t80

Electrostatic levitation using a single plate and a wood spoon.

Corona discharge probably acts as a propellant there - electrons will be flying down from the pointed tip.
But of course, not of this counts; we know different parts of a system can repel, but in order to be propulsion, the *whole thing* needs to move (apart from that which is jettisoned out of the back and lost).

 

[NorCal Dave]

What's the glowing stuff below that word, where's it going, and why?

To be fair, I'm not sure Exodus Tech created that drawing, it may just be what The Debrief picked for the story header.

Electrostatic levitation using a single plate and a wood spoon.

Yes, but does it have a patent and does it demonstrate a "New Force" in physics?

 

[FatPhil]

Youtube preso timestamped with Buhler:

APEC 12/23: Asymmetrical Capacitance, Warp Drives & Torsion Physics

timestamp 4682s = 1h18m02
"And the volume, just, uh, basically the divergence in the E field, the gradient of the E field."
Divergence is "del dot", and gradient is "del on", these are different things.

Div: https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/0edd1cf558e999e50d7f97b821c87db0ec489def
Grad: https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/4afa95ffc300ed9ef7ab33ccd5f3a2826b39fb84
(embedding the images didn't work, the forum software has bees in its bonnet)
via: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Del

The way he said that seemed like he genuinely conflates the two concepts. That's worrying.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

"The most important message to convey to the public is that a major discovery occurred,"

I'm uncomfortable with a physicist saying this.

 

[Ravi]

Corona discharge probably acts as a propellant there - electrons will be flying down from the pointed tip.
But of course, not of this counts; we know different parts of a system can repel, but in order to be propulsion, the *whole thing* needs to move (apart from that which is jettisoned out of the back and lost).

The system is analogous to the effect (electro)magnetism. Here the object gets equally charged and thus repels from the generator, and after some distance the force will be reduced to 0. So, not much use rather than to demonstrate "floating" objects. You can achieve the same with magnets (in-stable or not).

 

[John J.]

What's the glowing stuff below that word, where's it going, and why?

It's the liquid oxygen/ kerosene mix that the anti-gravity drive burns to provide illumination.
By not needing electric lights, Buhler et al. have removed a possible source of electro-magnetic interference that might confound their experimental results.

 

[FatPhil]

Corona discharge probably acts as a propellant there - electrons will be flying down from the pointed tip.
But of course, not of this counts; we know different parts of a system can repel, but in order to be propulsion, the *whole thing* needs to move (apart from that which is jettisoned out of the back and lost).

Throw us a bone, @Mendel, don't just unhelpfully "disagree"? Which of those two sentences you disagree with? The latter I view as being almost definitionally true, and the former is certainly something that happens:

from:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqkTeKsoOgo
(ts ~300s in)

 

[Mendel]

Throw us a bone, @Mendel, don't just unhelpfully "disagree"?

@Ravi explained it.

 

[Mendel]

Corona discharge probably acts as a propellant there - electrons will be flying down from the pointed tip.
But of course, not of this counts; we know different parts of a system can repel, but in order to be propulsion, the *whole thing* needs to move (apart from that which is jettisoned out of the back and lost).

Counterexample: maglev train

Also acts as example for "propellent-less propulsion drive" that can "counteract Earth's gravity" (Buhler's claim in the OP).

 

[FatPhil]

Counterexample: maglev train
View attachment 67873
Also acts as example for "propellent-less propulsion drive" that can "counteract Earth's gravity" (Buhler's claim in the OP).

If you're connecting the two endpoints with the propulsion system, then a piece of rope and a pulley would have been a simpler example. However, I don't think anyone is considering the example of you already having connected the endpoints as being relevant at all.

 

[FatPhil]

@Ravi explained it.

Yeah, but is there a corona?

 

[Mendel]

Yeah, but is there a corona?

not going to explain your own electron drive concept to you

 

[FatPhil]

not going to explain your own electron drive concept to you

And there I was thinking that I had asked a yes/no question. Why the evasion?

 

[Scaramanga]

Electrostatic force needs something to repel against. Usually the magnetic repulsion of another object. I have never heard of any law of physics whereby it can repel against gravity or against space itself. This is why those examples one sees of superconducting magnets floating are always close to another physical object....because electromagnetic force is a short range force. Which is just as well, as with electromagnetic force being 10^40 times stronger than gravity we'd otherwise have the Earth ripped apart by neutron stars 1000 light years away ! It's also why we should be extremely glad there are no magnetic monopoles in the universe.

 

[Edward Current]

It's funny how similar these big important announcements can be to advertising

 

[John J.]

It's funny how similar these big important announcements can be to advertising

Yes, and the promises of adverts often ring hollow.
I bought a pack of those and they didn't improve my rollerblading, yoga, tennis or make me more popular at cocktail parties.

 

[FatPhil]

Electrostatic force needs something to repel against. Usually the magnetic repulsion of another object. I have never heard of any law of physics whereby it can repel against gravity or against space itself. This is why those examples one sees of superconducting magnets floating are always close to another physical object....because electromagnetic force is a short range force. Which is just as well, as with electromagnetic force being 10^40 times stronger than gravity we'd otherwise have the Earth ripped apart by neutron stars 1000 light years away ! It's also why we should be extremely glad there are no magnetic monopoles in the universe.

Not so, the coulomb force is classic inverse squared, and the radiated field from an accellerated charge is inverse linear. The reason that neutron stars don't have a strong electric field is that they're electrically neutral (they can deviate from neutral, which is why black holes too can have charge).

 

[DavidB66]

Yes, and the promises of adverts often ring hollow.

Ah, but they only promise up to 100% effectiveness, which is quite compatible with no effectiveness at all!

 

[Scaramanga]

The reason that neutron stars don't have a strong electric field is that they're electrically neutral

Nooo. Neutron stars do have magnetic fields...that is how pulsars ( which are effectively neutron stars ) are generated. Neutron stars are not entirely composed of neutrons, despite the name.

 

[Mendel]

Electrostatic force needs something to repel against. Usually the magnetic repulsion of another object. I have never heard of any law of physics whereby it can repel against gravity or against space itself. This is why those examples one sees of superconducting magnets floating are always close to another physical object....because electromagnetic force is a short range force. Which is just as well, as with electromagnetic force being 10^40 times stronger than gravity we'd otherwise have the Earth ripped apart by neutron stars 1000 light years away ! It's also why we should be extremely glad there are no magnetic monopoles in the universe.

More precisely: electromagnetic or electrostatic fields have no "range". Normally, fields like e.g. radiation have a strength proportional to 1/d² (d=distance), but a magnetic field has 1/d³ and thus falls off more strongly with distance.

Electrostatic force from a "dipole" would probably be 1/d³ as well; from a monopole (e.g. a bunch of electrons collapsed together) would be 1/d², and if you're between opposite poles, the force is constant independent of the distance (but the distance between the poles matters).

 

[FatPhil]

Nooo. Neutron stars do have magnetic fields...that is how pulsars ( which are effectively neutron stars ) are generated. Neutron stars are not entirely composed of neutrons, despite the name.

Now please fill in the gaps between that accepted fact and the claim of yours that I was disagreeing with, namely "electromagnetic force is a short range force".

The quickest way to the realisation that you'll never get to that conclusion is to just work us through the proof of this other claim of yours:
"Which is just as well, as with electromagnetic force being 10^40 times stronger than gravity we'd otherwise have the Earth ripped apart by neutron stars 1000 light years away !"

If you do the calculations correctly, you might end up with the conclusion that the electromagnetic forge is a long range force. (Which, given what I said about inverse linear in my prior post should come as no surprise. And, because of its directionality it doesn't even need to decay that "quickly".)

 

[AmberRobot]

Ah, but they only promise up to 100% effectiveness, which is quite compatible with no effectiveness at all!

I think it means that they will not guarantee greater than 100% leak free.

 

[Mendel]

If you do the calculations correctly, you might end up with the conclusion that the electromagnetic forge is a long range force.

I came to that conclusion when I turned on my radio.

 

[FatPhil]

I came to that conclusion when I turned on my radio.

A good example which demonstrates the directability of the field perturbations. They know sending the energy up or down is complete waste, so they put most of the energy into one lobe,

The thing that makes pulsars so scary is that their symmetry forces most of the energy to be dissipated in a very narrow beam.

 

[John J.]

I think it means that they will not guarantee greater than 100% leak free.

Well, I put mine on a table and poured a small tumbler of blue liquid on it like in adverts, and it was fine.
But it didn't improve my confidence at my first rhythmic gymnastics class; if anything, since I've mentioned it to my mates they've been giving me funny looks. Back to the jeans and leather bomber jacket, methinks.

More relevantly,

"The aim is to approach and exceed unity," he explained, "which means the article would generate enough thrust to lift itself in Earth's gravity, and that's defined as 1 gravity of thrust." Content from External Source Now I don't know if he means it "puts out more energy than it takes in" type of "over unity" or just that it produces more than "1 gravity of thrust", but it seems the latter.

("he" being Dr. Buhler, claimed inventor of the propellent-less drive).

NorCal Dave is right I think, Buhler is referring to sufficient thrust to lift an object against Earth's gravity when he uses the phrase "...exceed unity".
Space rockets launched from Earth, in this sense, exceed unity (as do fireworks rockets for a short time). Some combat jets can climb vertically, dependent on thrust alone- that is, not using aerodynamic lift from wings.
If we jump, we briefly lift a few tens of kilos from the ground.
But I don't think a system that demonstrates self-contained lift against 1g is often said to "...exceed unity" in physics or engineering etc.
(Will happily concede if I'm incorrect about that).

"Exceed unity" seems semantically very close to "over unity", the concept that a(n essentially closed) system can generate more energy, indefinitely, than the energy required to run that system, in effect producing "free energy". This concept is contrary to the very well-established, tried and tested laws of thermodynamics, and, as far as I understand it (which isn't much) is unlikely to be possible for our purposes in the quantum realm.
Nevertheless, independent inventors and thinkers have made claims over the years to have designed or even produced over-unity devices. None have ever stood up to objective scrutiny.*

Dr. Buhler's use of the phrase "exceed unity", even if just marketing blurb to describe the everyday phenomenon of lift against 1g, should set alarm bells ringing due to its connotations of "over unity", beloved of eccentrics and some, er, free-thinking internet forums.
Buhler's claim of discovering "...a New Force" is an extraordinary claim, and should be testable (and replicable elsewhere).
This would be Nobel Prize territory; sadly I suspect Buhler's results will be unreproducible, or perhaps his interpretation of those results will be found to be flawed.

Here's a testable prediction: In 2 year's time there will be no evidence of Buhler's "New Force" from appropriately-qualified investigators. And there will be no Buhler drive using this force in 2 year's time, or in 5 year's time, or 20 years from now.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*But some over-unity claims make for, um, instructive reading.
The Reality of Overunity Generators: Evidence for an Open-System Universe, Paul A. LaViolette, December 2013
https://etheric.com/Downloads/overunity.pdf
(browsing find) gives us this hard-to-contradict evidence for its revolutionary physics:

And there's this 16 Feb. 2006 summary of a refusal from the UK Patent Office to grant a patent for application GB 0502841.0, 11 February 2005, by John Frederick Willmott for a fuel-less car, hosted on Wayback Machine, click here.

The Patent Office examiner, P. Thorpe, tells us

Specifically the invention claims to power a car engine using compressed air provided by an on-board compressor. The compressor is driven by an on-board electric motor which in turn receives its power from an on-board battery. According to the invention the battery is charged by an alternator driven by the engine. The single claim states that the system is a "self sustaining unit that will run without the use of fossil based fuel"

and

That the system is not intended to require any external energy inputs was confirmed by Mr Willmott at the hearing.

The Patent Office staff give reasons why this would not work (not least the conservation of energy) to Mr Willmott:

At the hearing Mr Willmott suggested the possibility of including further batteries to make up for any energy lost in the system.

...the additional batteries being charged by the same alternator, the car still having no external energy input.

The patent office spoilsports didn't grant Mr Willmott a patent, on the grounds that it appeared to break the laws of physics, and granting such a patent would break the laws of the UK (which might be different).