Posted on 8 Comments

EM Space Drive Apparently Violates Newton’s 3rd Law

Isaac Newton
Isaac Newton

Conventional physics is in alignment with Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion where every action is supposed to have an equal and opposite reaction. However, that is a misunderstanding of natural phenomena because the reality is that the combined forces are divided between two reference points and that is a huge difference in the interpretation of nature. However that may be, this still does not permit a propulsion system with no reaction at all.

An important distinction is that there actually are mechanical systems, which take a reaction but turn it around to help push the machine/device/system in the forward direction. That means that the reaction is not opposing anything and is actually used to become additive to the original forward motion that created it to begin with. That means more forward work is accomplished compared to the work that was input and this violates no laws of physics contrary to conventional belief. Take note that there still is a reaction, but it does not buck the forward intended motion.

Veljko 2-Stage Mechanical Oscillator
Veljko 2-Stage Mechanical Oscillator

Examples of these include Veljko’s 2 Stage Mechanical Oscillator, Fernando Sixto Ramos Solano’s Force Multiplier System, William F. Skinner’s 1939 Gravity Power Machine and others. These systems have many things in common, which include the fact that there is a reaction in the system that is cleverly manipulated into doing forward work for the system. No laws of physics are violated and it has nothing to do with perpetual motion.

Now, lets get to systems that have no apparent reaction whatsoever. We’re not talking about using reactive power to do forward work, we’re taking about a system that appears to have no reaction at all.

Recently in the news, a new space propulsion drive is being admitted by NASA to have no reaction and it is ruffling some feather. An astrophysicist told, “The reason it’s controversial is, it violates Newton’s Third Law.”


The concept was invented by Roger Shawyer who calls it an EmDrive. Microwaves are bounced around inside a conical shaped container and without any propellant, a small amount of thrust is created. This has been verified by researchers at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston.

The thrust produced is extremely small but nevertheless, it works and of course needs to be researched and developed further. It is always a good sign when we see conventionally trained academics and engineers admitting that something is doing the “impossible” and is apparently violating the coveted laws of physics.

You can read more about this here:

The paper by NASA on this project is here: – a link to the PDF is on this page.

It seems that the conical shape is causing a simple potential difference between the narrow and wide end giving it somewhat of an asymmetrical dipole effect that appears to be related to a century old discovery.

A reaction-less space drive has was invented and proven out in the 1920s – almost 100 years ago!

Thomas Townsend Brown developed an interesting propulsion system using capacitors charged to a high voltage. When charged up, the capacitor moves through space in the direction of the positive terminal. Here is a short excerpt from his British Patent #300,311, A Method of & an Apparatus or Machine for Producing Force or Motion:

The invention also relates to machines or apparatus requiring electrical energy that control or influence the gravitational field or the energy of gravitation; also to machines or apparatus requiring electrical energy that exhibit a linear force or motion which is believed to be independent of all frames of reference save that which is at rest relative to the universe taken as a whole, and said linear force or motion is furthermore believed to have no equal and opposite reaction that can be observed by any method commonly known and accepted by the physical science to date.

This reaction-less propulsion system from he 1920s is not just theoretical, it demonstrates what is known as the Biefeld-Brown Effect, which is the basis for a field known as “Electrogravitics.”

Ten years ago when I first wrote The Quantum Key, my layman’s Aetheric Unified Model predicted the proper direction of movement in this manner without having ever heard of the Bifeld-Brown Effect. Basically, the positive charge of the aetheric source potential is repelled by the high voltage positive at the leading edge of the “craft” and this causes it to be deflected over the shell towards the negative end. Simultaneously, the implied anti or negative charge of the aether pulls on the positive end of the craft and causes it to move along at a negative resistance and this seems to be the obvious reason for no reaction – there simply is no positive resistance it is moving in to. Since the positive aetheric source charge is what causes inertia by imparting an electrostatic repulsion against the protons that make up the mass, inertia is reduced since that which causes it is no longer moving through the atomic matrix of the mass that makes up the craft – it is deflected over it. This appears to be the main principle at play in any asymmetrical thruster that has no reaction.

Anyway, the mainstream sources of information are really mainstream sources of disinformation because it is constantly claimed that the effect is nothing more than ion wind and that the movement is ion propulsion, but it is not. There is a small bit of ion wind, but not even close to being enough to account for the amount of lift or thrust given to an apparatus utilizing the Biefeld-Brown Effect.

The most common is known as a “Lifter” and you can see a very basic one in operation here:

Here is a PDF of a report from the U.S. Army Laboratory stating, “The calculations indicate that ionic wind is at least three orders of magnitude too small to explain the magnitude of the observed force on the capacitor.Force on an Asymmetric Capacitor

8 thoughts on “EM Space Drive Apparently Violates Newton’s 3rd Law

  1. Considering that Brown’s device was tested in vacuum with the same amount of thrust resulting, the ionic wind suggestion is hardly relevant. The “lifters” we have seen so much of on internet do NOT operate on the same laws as Brown’s device. Lifters only work in air and perhaps other fluids, but not vacuum.
    I am disappointed that there is not more work being done Brown’s device.

    1. Which Brown device are you saying lifters are different from? Lifters is the Biefeld-Brown effect and the conventional explanation is that it is only ion wind but as the Army report shows, the ion thrust is 3 orders of magnitude too small to account for the lift. In Brown’s asymmetrical capacitor thrust experiments, that is also described as the Biefeld-Brown effect. Lifters based on this effect have been successfully tested in vacuum and they still operate. I would also like to see more work done on this principle.

    2. Thank you for your response, Aaron.
      J.L.Naudin was/is prolific on the internet with his lifters and his appear to be similar to a box kite in construction. I am not aware of any vacuum testing done on them. They do not look like they “stress the dielectric” as Browns does. Browns is shaped like a classical flying saucer covered with (segmented and electrically insulated from each other) a metal covering top and bottom. The hull and contents then become the dielectric. If all the top segments are connected to the positive of the high voltage DC power supply and the bottom to the negative, everything in between gets stressed as in a capacitor; the electrons get pulled toward the positive plate and the protons get pulled toward the negative plate causing every atom in the dielectric to be distorted, resulting in a force in the direction of the positive plate, as I understand it. Brown then went on about effects of planets, etc. and I got a bit lost in the theory there.
      I’m sure you have read as much or more of what is out there on the subject, but the principals involved look totally different to me between lifters and the Biefeld-Brown effect.
      In the near future I am planning to use a 60,000vdc power supply on two 48″ diameter fiberboard discs (separated by spools from thread) with tinfoil on each side suspended from a fish scale.

    3. Did you do this experiment yet?

    4. Lifters have NOT functioned in a TRUE vacuum. Many of the tests “proving” lifters operating in a “vacuum” turned out to be in chambers that allowed a very, very low amount of air pressure, which was still enough for the lifters to “push” against. When placed in chambers capable of TRUE vacuum, the lifters didn’t lift at all.

    5. I did an experiment back in 2013 with a digital scale, a gravitator like device using Titanium Dioxode powder within parrafin dielectric,embedded aluminum plates, powered with a whimshurst machine (about 150kv). I noticed the weight fluctuate or spike in grams brief moments after I cranked the generator. In other words, it appeared to get heavier or lighter depending on the polarity of the electrodes, for fractions of a second after I cranked the generator. I intend to redo this and post on youtube.

  2. Let’s face it, the Biefield-Brown “thrust” is feeble and has nothing to do with Tesla’s UFO propulsion technology. It does not even consider the effects of the ether, and certainly does not produce the kind of thrust demonstrated by a UFO. I believe that the work of Brown is being used as misinformation, especially since the videos which are public domain were all made with the financial support of Bahnson of the CIA.

    I have already released my latest findings which correlate the gravity theory of Ivan Ossipovich Yarkovsky published in 1884, with Tesla’s Dynamic Theory of Gravity and his “sound waves in the ether” theory. Since according to Yarkovsky the ether creates gravity by traveling downward into the earth (and other celestial bodies) where it creates chemical elements, and since Tesla’s “sound waves in the ether” travel at the speed of light, Tesla made the statement that ‘when the ether approaches the speed of light it becomes ponderable matter’, Tesla was able to create gravity by pumping the ether in front of a craft—drawing it through the craft and affecting all the molecules and atoms of the craft and its contents—so that a sort of “super-gravity” is created in front of the craft to draw it forward at tremendous speed and force. These traveling ether waves are created by “rapidly-varying electrostatic potentials” created by a Tesla coil tuned to one-quarter wavelength. The potentials are negative-sign mechanical pressure waves (not transverse electromagnetic waves) which are diametrically opposite to what the Brown theory says, which is one of the main things that makes it such good misinformation for the CIA.

    What makes the so-called “electromagnetic waves” theory so untenable is the fact that transverse waves can only be transmitted in a solid, and the ether is not a solid but a gas. So the only kind of waves which will do this are longitudinal waves. The Brown experiments, if they produce any thrust at all, are the result of some unknown, inadequately described and impertinent reaction which has no use in “real” UFO propulsion. So what I have done is finally describe the basic technology of Tesla’s UFO propulsion technology. There is the necessity of the use of a strong dielectric layer to be placed behind the emitter plate producing the waves, so that the waves are produced in only one direction. Otherwise, there would be no net reaction.

    1. Hi Mr. Lyne,
      Do you believe these pressure waves are produced by acceleration of charges? So the direction of propagation is collinear with the acceleration vector? I see this making sense if Tesla was causing electrons to vibrate in the coil windings at very high frequncey. The high frequency corresponding to very high tangential and centripetal acceleration vectors acting toward the centre of the coil and tangentially away from it? So something like a gravitic effect would be produced by the coil acting toward it’s centre, and propagating outwards from the coil windings tangentially. Does this make sense to anyone else? If anyone is familiar with Eugene Podkletnov’s experiment with high energy discharges across a glorified spark gap (sudden accelerations) he noticed a gravitic like effect in line with the direction of discharge. More powerful (Megavolt discharges) could reportedly punch a hole in concrete.

      Futhermore, regarding the biefield brown affect, I see the E field distorting the electron clouds in the dielectric causing a radius differential in the obits on each side of the nucleus. This would have the effect of causing a centripetal acceleration differential about each atom so that the longitudinal, gravitic, pressure waves or-what-have-you are asymmetric. The net effect being a gravitic differential across the whole device. Also there is a change of radius of gyration of the electron orbits, and maybe a change in the net centrifugal forces within the atoms ( as electrons are known to have mass ). Again, the concept of acceleration of electrons > gravity !!!??

Leave a Reply