Peter wrote:

Thanks for the URL tomcat. Well after reading it I have to regard it as
a "puff piece". A "look there's potential in this please fund us to do
more work" kind of document.

There is a strong confusion in the document between electromagnetism
(particularly electrostatics) and gravity. They don't even mention the 4
fundamental forces (electromagnetism, weak, strong and gravity). No
mention of the unity of these forces and symmetry breaking, though this
may have been before those theories were propounded. Mostly the article
should be called "electromagnetic propulsion", the 'electrogravitics'
has all the hallmarks of a meaningless buzz-word.

The idea of using electrostatics I have both a warm feeling for and a
lot of skepticism. I remember in my younger days while studying to be a
theoretical physicist trying to design my own flying saucer. Yeah
electrostatics has certain merits ... and flaws, most notable the
breakdown voltage of air which would mean that before you got much lift
you be getting huge lightning arcs discharging your charge away. Also it
wouldn't protect you from inertial effects, ie. if you made a right
angle turn the g-forces would kill you.

At the moment NASA is also funding some "fringe" physics regarding
"alternative" propulsion technologies. This includes researching wild
and wonderful claims to anti-gravity. Not holding my breath, but a
breakthrough would be very nice indeed.

By the way the Canadian saucer-like vehicle I mentioned was the Avrocar

	http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/avro.htm

In the 50's and 60's Thomas Townsend Brown did extraordinary work with
'electrogravitics'.  Whether it allowed for right angle turns or not, I
don't know, but it would enable most of the 'saucer' effects associated
with ufo's.

Here is the URL:

http://www.soteria.com/brown/


tomcat