>> When there's time, I'll write one. No serious research is going on here,
>> because it's not worth the time, nor can you get glory from debunking
>> crazy ideas. You just get to argue with crackpots, which is depressing.
>> In other words you pulled it out your arse. And somehow you think this
> is more scientific then simply describing it as an electronic phenomenom
> that you don't yet understand?
Electrostatic. And I fully understand electrostatic, it's not difficult at
all. I just didn't do the calculations.
>> Just do the simple math: You have two plates with different
>> distance/force curves, one (plate A) flat (nearly no dependency nearby),
>> one (plate B) as cable (1/r dependency nearby). The forces between them
>> are equal (actio est reactio), they are attracting each other. Now put a
>> third, ground-level plate. The forces between ground and A have a
>> different distance/force curve than the ones between ground and B. Do you
>> fail to see how this can give a lifting effect? Have you ever seen a
>> charged high-voltage capacitor bouncing a ping-pong ball in between?
>> Electrostatic charges are powerful.
>> You haven't defined what "nearby" is yet. One foot? Two feet? Ten feet?
> By not giving any definition you can continue to espouse your theory
> without any means of testing to disprove it.
Oh man, you are hooked up here. "nearby" is "in the same order of magnitude
as the size of the lifter", and does have nothing to do with foot, yards,
inches and such. The lifter itself can be made small or large, for sure. If
the size of the lifter is one foot, "nearby" is in the order of a few
feets. The electrostatic effect depends on distance, so it will be smaller
with larger distance (ultimately, all curves approximate to 1/r², just
nearby they can differ).
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"