Uncut Bahnson Video

Discussions in the vein that would most interest those looking for the "meat and potatoes" of Townsend Brown's scientific work.

Re: Uncut Bahnson Video

Postby ecker2011 » Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:30 pm

I have received a message from Stan Deyo on my YouTube channel following is his message. Jess TTB Consortium August 2015

Stan Deyo
I am having a complete 71-minute, high-resolution (720 by 480) copy of the Lab film made. Also I am making a digital copy of all five lab books from TTB's work at Bahnson Corp. The video is being arranged in date order to correlate with the lab books. -Stan Deyo
User avatar
ecker2011
 
Posts: 2020
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 10:54 pm

Re: Uncut Bahnson Video

Postby Linda Brown » Wed Aug 26, 2015 3:40 pm

That will be interesting Jess.... especially to see if those Bahnson Lab books correspond with the handwritten Bahnson notes that I have in my possession at the moment.

You learn all kinds of things and come home with all kinds of gifts when you are willing to dance on rooftops and in parking lots.Those of you out there who know what I am speaking about will smile.

Thank you very much Jess for relaying that information. You know that I am not quite ready to jump right into the Facebook world... and may in fact never go there.....that's something I will have to decide later.

Of course.... if I am meant to be " ALL IN" there is no way I can avoid using Facebook... and other social media.

I remember those green eyes studying me and then the quiet whisper that the rest of the people couldn't hear..." Are you sure that you don't want to just run away?" When I looked up at him I realized that he was being quite serious. I think my answer at the time was..." Is that an offer?"

Decisions have to be made in my own life......am I " all in" with the track I am on right now? Or do I simply.... walk into a mist?

Stay tuned. ;)

Linda
Townsend Brown Consortium
August 2015
From the Shadow of Giant Rock
User avatar
Linda Brown
 
Posts: 15046
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: Uncut Bahnson Video

Postby fruitbat » Wed Aug 26, 2015 9:04 pm

It would appear around 30:28 that TTB also had problems with the fragility of the lifter.... Image
Never gIve up. Never surrender. - Commander Peter Quincy Taggart NSEA "Protector"
User avatar
fruitbat
 
Posts: 3441
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:59 pm
Location: Central UK.

Re: Uncut Bahnson Video

Postby nate » Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:15 am

Yay! Thank you for linking this (and Stan Deyo for posting it on Youtube). Watched the whole thing. I think it's the first time I've seen film of Townsend. I'm impressed by how neat his blackboard handwriting is! Wish there was sound, but I guess the soundtrack vanished long ago?

I love seeing the kids looking at the equipment, clowning around, being kids. It demonstrates that whatever this technology was, it wasn't especially dangerous or toxic. Not like atomic research.

One thing that strikes me is how beautiful all that equipment is. it's just so perfectly of the period. I could easily imagine cutting some of this into a music video.

My impression of the calendar marking is simply that this was a film being made to document the experimental process, so as a matter of process every new day of filming would start with marking the calendar to show what was being documented (to compare with the lab logbooks later). I'm not sure that there's any message beyond that.

It's odd to me that the testing seems to *start* with what looks like fairly heavy saucers (machined aluminium, I'm thinking? They don't look cheap to have made) jerking around with what seems to be a fair bit of force - the calendar says september 1957 - and then progresses to small but precision-looking test articles and then more and more lightweight tinfoil and balsa fliers, very reminiscient of 2000s era 'lifters', at the end. Isn't that an odd way around? Does it mean that the large saucers were something Townsend brought in initially to start the project off, but not part of the Bahnson side of it? Did the project lose momentum without Townsend's input and not make the advances into actual gravity control? The 1960s scenes feel disappointing to me compared to 1957.

The writing on the blackboard (Townsend's, I assume) of what looks like a classic Adamski Scout Ship design and (what I assume to be) circles indicating recirculating ion flow vortexes underneath... intrigues me. It seems to resemble a lot of other apocryphal 'how UFOs work' sketches I've seen from the 1980s on. I know this film has been around for many years, and I'm guessing this picture was probably copied in the UFO fringe underground? Or maybe it was just Stan Deyo, and people who've copied him?

Most of these devices seem to be air-based. The vacuum tests are the ones that are really interesting to me (they'd prove that it wasn't ion wind), but we don't see a lot of those. But it seems like it was a vacuum test that prompts the champagne, and that would be my feeling too.

The overall sense I get from watching this video though is very reassuring. It doesn't feel weird or spooky; the people seem happy in their work; it feels like a fun place with a sense of possibility.

The writings on the blackboard definitely show that Townsend's line of thinking wasn't conventional (and I wonder just how many other people could have followed those thoughts? Gravitic permeability? Dielectricity? These are still way off the standard physics charts.) But his stance and movements, and his wonderfully neat handwriting, give me the impression of being a careful experimentalist.
But on inspection of the dust
I came upon this thing called 'trust'
It helps
us to adjust
User avatar
nate
 
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 4:03 am

Re: Uncut Bahnson Video

Postby nate » Thu Aug 27, 2015 11:08 am

This one for instance at 9:06.

"barium titanate" -- so Townsend was definitely thinking about barium titanate (as mentioned in Winterhaven a few years earlier?) but more importantly, he was talking about it to Bahnson.

"K mu m" - if I understand correctly, that would be 'k' the dielectric coefficient of a capacitor (now called relative permittivity), 'mu' is electromagnetic permeability (probably of the material, not free space), and 'm' would be its mass. Probably all multiplied together. The effect (assuming it exists) is proportional to all of these.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_ ... erminology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeabil ... gnetism%29

"m i" "m g" - that would be gravitational vs inertial mass, a particularly unique interest of Townsend's which doesn't show up in more recent physics. Einstein famously claimed the two were the same - the 'equivalence principle' underlying General Relativity. (Which makes it doubly interesting, if Townsend believed something that invalidated GR, why Townsend/Bahnson would organise the Chapel Hill conference that helped rehabilitate that theory and bring it back into fashion?)

EDIT: aaaand nope! Interestingly, as of five years ago, gravitational vs inertial mass might be back on the table! http://www.technologyreview.com/view/41 ... tial-mass/

But physicists have so far been unable to use quantum theory as a lever to tease apart the behaviour of inertial and gravitational mass.

All that changes today with the extraordinary work of Endre Kajari at the University of Ulm in Germany and a few buddies. They show how it is possible to create situations in the quantum world in which the effects of inertial and gravitational mass must be different. In fact, they show that these differences can be arbitrarily large.



That leads to an interesting idea: that it is possible to create combinations of gravitational and electromagnetic boxes and oscillators in which inertial and gravitational mass play different roles.

It turns out that physicists already play with exactly this kind of set up: the so-called atom trampoline, in which a matter wave falls under the influence of gravity but is bounced by an electromagnetic force. They calculate that the energy eigenvalues of the atom are proportional to the (gravitational mass)^2/3 but to the (inertial mass)^-1/3.

That’s an amazing result. The kind of energy spectroscopy of atoms or Bose Einstein Condensates that can spot this difference ought to be achievable, if not now, then very soon within the next few years.




Okay, now that is a REALLY intriguing piece of research. It may be that once again Townsend was ahead of the curve. As one of the article commenters puts it: "Oh not a lot. Just the utter destruction of General Relativity, one of the two pillars of 2011 physics. No biggie"
Attachments
bahnson1.jpg
bahnson1.jpg (33.97 KiB) Viewed 450 times
But on inspection of the dust
I came upon this thing called 'trust'
It helps
us to adjust
User avatar
nate
 
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 4:03 am

Re: Uncut Bahnson Video

Postby Linda Brown » Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:28 pm

I can not tell you Nate... how wonderful and appropriate your posts are... to use a Yorkie Ladys phrase.... Kisses all over your face!)

The handwriting on the blackboard is definitely Dads. I would recognize it anywhere.

quoting again the from the Ambassadors................ THE RENEGADES


" go forth and have no fear!!!!!!!"

Which is fast becoming my theme song!!!!!!

Linda
Townsend Brown
August 2015
From the Shadow of Giant Rock
User avatar
Linda Brown
 
Posts: 15046
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: Uncut Bahnson Video

Postby nate » Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:26 pm

Thanks for your kind words Linda!

Further to the right on the same blackboard, two sketches... the one on the bottom left... is that a cross-section of two wires (dots with circles around) separated by a gap? And to the right a wedge shape with a (force?) arrow entering it? Is that an asymmetric capacitor? So the force (or current?) comes from the thick end?

To the top right, a complicated sketch that looks like a circuit diagram of two capacitors (vertical parallel lines) in series.. strung between two electrical connections, positive on left, negative on right, but actually only physically touching the left one. With a ground or termination to the middle of the device, between the capacitors, marked 'P'. Then arrows, some marked as 'g' but one as 'f', emitting from the right capacitor and into the left capacitor, with (a resultant vector?) going from right to left. 'g' arrows on the left, outside the electrical connections of the device, also pointing inward, presumably following the flow we see into the left capacitor. And to the right, a rightward pointing arrow also marked 'g'.

That would seem to make sense. If I'm grasping it, the theory is that the left capacitor (positive) creates an... attractive g-field, a sort of hole in space, while the right one (negative) creates a repulsive field, a wave in space? And therefore the right (negative) will try to move toward the left (positive)? And the system as a whole might move right to left?

I'm pretty sure this isn't a model of ion flow. If it were, I'd expect to see both positive and negative ions making a contribution, and some indication of how they move in a closed circle. That appears in other diagrams, but not this one.
Attachments
bahnson3.jpg
bahnson3.jpg (89.1 KiB) Viewed 434 times
bahnson2.jpg
bahnson2.jpg (69.24 KiB) Viewed 434 times
But on inspection of the dust
I came upon this thing called 'trust'
It helps
us to adjust
User avatar
nate
 
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 4:03 am

Re: Uncut Bahnson Video

Postby Bob » Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:48 pm

Thanks for your great interpretation Nate -

Bob
Most attempts set the bar much too high or far too low to create real change. Just do it.
User avatar
Bob
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2014 6:25 pm
Location: USA currently

Re: Uncut Bahnson Video

Postby nate » Thu Aug 27, 2015 11:29 pm

The classic 'Adamski scout ship' design at 17:20. A long pan across the blackboard, someone clearly wanted to save this.

Can't make out all of the writing here.

Top right of the 'ship', pointing at the 'pole' in the middle might be 'gravitic column'
Bottom of the ship: "Barycentric control" pointing at the 'landing orb' on the scoutship. Barycenter means the common center of mass of two objects acting under gravity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter
'Static [counterbary?]' pointing at the bottom of the pole
'Dynamic counterbary' pointing at the dish

(These terms make sense if you think of the column as 'charging up' and making the ship lighter than air, or at least neutral bouyancy; the dish part would then let you have active control for maneuvering. This is all very much the Winterhaven design. So Bahnson were definitely part of the Winterhaven proposal, or at least the ideas.)

To the right of the ship I'm pretty sure is 'charging curve', with two curves crossing: 'v' and 'z'. V might be voltage; Z might be impedance? Impedance is a quality of capacitors, but is normally only meaningful for alternating current (it measures both the resistance and the time delay response to voltage change). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_impedance 't' at the bottom is time. v begins low and z begins high, then they cross.

To the right of that is, I'm pretty sure, a diagram of the solar system! With the Sun marked as ( S ) and given a positive charge. Then the planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth (highlighted, with Moon orbit around it), Mars and... Jupiter, probably.

(I'm not sure that Townsend's ideas about electrical charge in the solar system have been borne out by later space science. I would have thought the Sun was negatively rather than positively charged; if the solar wind is a lot of electrons, wouldn't it be negative? There's certainly an electrical charge of some kind, but I'm not sure that it's the type he was thinking about, or that, now we can measure it with space probes, it's related to the gravity of each planet.)

Above this is some intriguing text, hard to decipher. I'll give it a go:

"We observe P g by
1. Reduction of g
2. P e n (P earth - P c)
3. Radiation (decay down to)
(a) dielectroluminescence
(b) electroluminescence
(c) electric resistance
(d) gravitic permeability (permittivity)
(e) biological indicators"


P would mean Potential, so 'we observe a gravitational potential by these signs'...

Pe is Electrical potential (voltage)

electroluminescence would be a glow at high voltage

'dielectroluminescence' is an intriguing one. Townsend speculated that there may be such a thing as 'dielectricity', the dual of electricity, which would flow in dielectrics (insulators) rather than conductors. I wonder what kind of glow one might see from an insulator, and under what conditions?

electric resistance - Townsend was always very interested in the idea that certain rocks exhibited anomalous heat (and presumably anomalously light weight) which might be the conversion of gravitational potential into heat. (An idea I believe not unique to him, he got it from an earlier researcher named Brush? if I remember the name correctly.) Electrical resistance would be the means by which this occurred. Probably would also be able to measure any changes in electrical resistance directly, such as in his rock 'sensors'. A coordinated change in resistance across multiple rock samples might indicate a gravitational disturbance, assuming this theory was correct.

'gravitic permeability/permittivity' is interesting. Is this the same as the everyday electromagnetic permeability/permittivity parameters? Or something different?

'biological indicators' maybe means 'anything else a person can feel that's not measurable by an instrument'. Or it might include plants.
Attachments
bahnson6.jpg
bahnson6.jpg (88.98 KiB) Viewed 432 times
bahnson5.jpg
bahnson5.jpg (86.23 KiB) Viewed 432 times
bahnson4.jpg
bahnson4.jpg (104.08 KiB) Viewed 432 times
But on inspection of the dust
I came upon this thing called 'trust'
It helps
us to adjust
User avatar
nate
 
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 4:03 am

Re: Uncut Bahnson Video

Postby nate » Thu Aug 27, 2015 11:47 pm

At 24:39 we see Townsend writing on the blackboard himself - an amazingly steady hand! He would have made a good teacher.

What he's diagramming looks a *little* like a vacuum tube circuit (which I guess he would have been very familiar with, as were all electrical and especially radio engineers in the pre-transistor era). Except instead of a bare cathode, it's a literal light bulb, enclosed in glass, on a 110 v circuit (it says 110v at the very bottom, just slightly cut off in this image but you can see it clearly in the video).

Over the bulb, separated by (air? vacuum?) is a canopy, presumably conductive, because it's got an electrical connection.

Both the bulb and the canopy are marked '-', which I find interesting since this is presumably an alternating current circuit (if it's standard 110v mains power). I suppose if the bulb were emitting electrons - as a cathode does - it would indeed be negatively charged regardless of the direction of electrical current flow. But we don't generally think of an isolated circuit like this as having a charge! Do electrons go through the glass of a light bulb?

The space between is marked as positive charge, also interesting.

This one is particularly fascinating to me since it's such a common household circuit, but he's interpreting it in perhaps an unusual way. Or it might just be an old-fashioned way. I feel like a lot of hands-on electrical knowledge that used to be mainstream was lost when we went from vacuum tubes to semiconductors and logic gates.
Attachments
bahnson7.jpg
bahnson7.jpg (41.58 KiB) Viewed 432 times
But on inspection of the dust
I came upon this thing called 'trust'
It helps
us to adjust
User avatar
nate
 
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 4:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to Resolute

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron