Aircraft

[Deesse23]

I like that, "Personal lightening bolt". And that's where I got started thinking about that. If electricity can open an air mass: then can I open an EM bubble using electricity? I would need lots of static electricity in the form of capacitance with a glass insulator dielectric. And enough electricity to turn the glass insulator into a capacitor. Like Benjamin Franklin said of Leyton Jars, "The electricity is in the glass".

Holes or leaks in the capacitors would be very bad and reaching the breakdown point of the dielectric would turn me into a falling rock. And yes, the amount of EMF would be outrageously dangerous!

But, if we could pull it off, we would fly invisibly because light would bend around that bubble. We would also weigh half our weight yet, not subjected to any "G-Force". There would no wind, friction or speed limit.

Ok, i swore not to do this to myself, but here you go....

If electricity can open an air mass...

As Paleo already said: wtf are/were you talking about?

I open an EM bubble using electricity

Again, wtf are you trying to say? What is an "EM bubble"? Please explain. This, as much as your previous statement sounds nonsensical.

lots of static electricity in the form of capacitance

This is the third nonsensical statement in a row, at least to me.
Ill elaborate on this one. Capacitance is not exclusively related to static electricity but to DC and AC* as well.

Capacitance is the ability to store charge. Hence the non-sense your statement above makes. It is measured in Coulombs. Two formulae may help you visualize some relations in static/DC electricity:
Q=i x t
I= current
t= time
Current consists of electrons, each with a basic charge of 1,6x10^-19 coulomb. So applying a current over a certain amount of time is like filling a coulomb bucket with lots of "electron coulomb drops". The total amount of water charge is just the sum of all drops electrons you have filled your bucket capacitor with. As long as you keep the current flowing, the voltage across the capacitor rises, by the way.

Which leads us to:
Q= C x U
Q= charge
U= voltage
A charged capacitor holds a charge which is proportional to the voltage across the C and the capacitance it has.
since Q= i x t and Q= C x U --> i x t = C x U

For any capacitor with given capacity you can calc the current, time (to charge), charge or voltage, once the other variables are given. Once you stop charging or discharging you are in the static electriciy realm, as long as current is flowing, you are in Dc, for the record.

Capacitance:
It depends on the dielectric material between the terminals (as well as on geometry). Voltage across capacitors can become substantial when you keep charging them with current over time: i x t = C x U --> U= (i x t)/C Voltage rises slower when C is bigger (bigger buckets fill more slowly, so to speak), but its basically unlimited if you keep charging.

This leads us to a problem/dilemma about materials: Materials with high "epsilon", a constant that directly influences capacitance (geometry aside) and makes for capacitors with big capacitances, tend to be "weak" regarding dielectric strenght. In other words: You can either make a capacitor with high capacitance (for its given physical size) or a capacitor that resits voltage very well, but will be physically big.

Glass or Diamond or any *normal* material sucks, big time, in the "provide big capacitance" department, although their dielctric strength is ok. Materials that provide nice and (physically) small capacitors with huge capacitance suck in the dielectric strength department.

Wehen you try to build a UFO, which is heavy, you have to counter the weight by creating lots of force (to counter gravity), this force is provided by electricity. Either by having a physically big capacitor or by having one that has small dielectric strength. Thats the core of the problem.

This is of course if you believe in "conventional" physics and electricity, and not in electrogravitics, which is the claim of having found a way to generate "anti gravity".

From what i have read, T.T. Brown has used extremely high voltages (250kV range), which indicates to me he chose (at the time, there was no advanced material of today availiable) material with high dielectric strength, making the capacitor physically big however and having rather low cpacitance. His "flying machines" were probably pretty lighweight.  

This is as deep as i am going to dive into the topic without the other side providing me with at least some evidence that they/he does even remotely have a clue what he is talking about. Not because i am rude, but because we would both be wasting our time with talking past each other.


*AC is complicated, really complicated and all you need to know (for now) is that a cpacitor in AC conditions acts like a variable resistor which phase shifts current and voltage across its terminals. The size of this "resistance" is inversly proportional to the capacitance C. Bigger capacitors are making better AC short circuits than small ones, simplified that is. When you apply AC voltage across a capacitor, the (virtual/AC) resistance decreases with frequency and current gets increasingly phase shifted form voltage.

And enough electricity to turn the glass insulator into a capacitor.

Yet another completely nonsensical statement. You create a capacitor by physically having an object, that is insulating (vacuum or air between two electrodes being the most simple one), its as simple as that. You dont make capacitors by applying electricity to an object. An object either is a cpacitor or not, duh.

But, if we could pull it off, we would fly invisibly because light would bend around that bubble

Is this a reference to the Philadelphia Experiment?
You know that it cant get more nonsensical than that, right? Because what, the hell, has (bending) light to do with electricity?

We would also weigh half our weight yet,

Are we talking about manipulating gravity, which, you know, nobody has demonstrated yet.
or
just creating forces, based on electricity, counteracting gravity and lifting ourselves up, like climbing a ladder?...with the problems and implications i mentioned above