jmdrake jmdrake_98 at yahoo.com
Mon Jan 27 10:16:48 EST 2003

gdpusch at NO.xnet.SPAM.com (Gordon D. Pusch) wrote in message news:<gir8b3rgb8.fsf at pusch.xnet.com>...
> jmdrake_98 at yahoo.com (jmdrake) writes:
> > Unfortunately you are confusing ion wind devices with Biefeld-Brown 
> > effect devices.  These are not the same thing.  No one has yet come
> > up with an explanation as to why the Biefeld-Brown effect works, but
> > only that it does.  
> Correction: The so-called "Biefeld-Brown effect" is an urban legend
> propagated by _SAGA UFO Monthly_ and other UFO / "free energy" crank
> publication. Its "explanation" may be found in crank psychology, via
> the bizarre willingness of overly credulous people to prefer to believe 
> in stupid, illogical claims in contradiction to all evidence and reason,
> and to promote bizarrely complicated irrational "conspiracy" theories
> as to why their pet belief is being  "suppressed" by the "establishment."

You apparently don't know the meaning of the words "urban legend".
And again you are throwing out a pathetic straw man.  There is a Biefeld
Brown effect.  That doesn't mean that there is "free energy".  All it
means is that someone by the name of Brown observed something that he
didn't read in the literature and gave it a name.  It's not his fault
if someone else who believes in UFOs takes it and runs with it.  Bernd
at least gave a plausible, testable scientific explanation of what might
be happening.  If you wish call it the "Bernd Paysan effect."  But it's
not ion wind.
> > And it has been tested in a vacuum.  
> Also an urban legend. The alleged "vacuums" it has been "tested" in are
> of the crappy quality that can be produced by a common mechanical pump,
> as evidenced by the visible glow discharges shown in the photographs.
> Such "vacuums" contain residual gas in excess of 1e14 atoms per cubic
> centimeter, which provides plenty of reaction-mass for an "ion wind."

Again you don't know the meaning of the words urban legend.  And again
you should be more scientific.  The observed reactions have been more
than what would be found in ion wind.  Besides the devices worked BETTER
in a vacuum!  So even if you went with your assertion about the imperfect
vacuum one would expect degraded (as opposed to improved) performance
when going to vacuum.  Again Bernd's explanation is at least plausible.
Yours is not.

John M. Drake

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list