When I was a kid during the late 1950s, my curiosity was endless and I was fascinated with the so-called Flying Saucers. I never really believed in most of the silly speculations that people promoted, but I was intrigued by the fact that many hundreds of Police Officers and Pilots and other respected people seemed to think they had seen such things in night skies. I had learned some things about "Gs", that is accelerations, and that recently invented jet airplanes subjected pilots to accelerations of 3 Gs or 5 Gs, and they would sometimes become unconscious and crash and die. It was being learned that jet pilots had to be very careful to avoid high G factors for safety. So the intelligent and respected people who claimed to have seen UFOs intrigued me for the observed amazing G accelerations of such things. Some UFO reports indicated that such flying objects seemed to fly as fast or faster than jet airplanes and then be able to very suddenly TURN at such speeds. I knew that no human pilot would have been able to survive the really huge G forces of such maneuvers.
I continued to be intrigued by such subjects, and I tried to figure out how there might be any LOGICAL explanation for them! I thought I saw a basis in science that might apply. By the time I was in High School, I calculated some things about a possible small UFO. I imagined a UFO-like object 4 feet in diameter that weighed maybe 30 pounds. I knew that atmospheric air pressure was 14.7 pounds per square inch, which is 2116 pounds per square foot. I knew that the AREA of the lower surface of such an object is around 12 square feet. That means that the total atmospheric FORCE pushing UP on the bottom of such a device is around 25,000 pounds!
I knew that the TOP of the device also has around the exact same 25,000 pounds of force pushing DOWN on it. The same balance of atmospheric pressure applies to everything else, including us humans!
I did not yet know the Physics of how aircraft or zeppelins or blimps or helium balloons worked. I was pretty disappointed when I later learned how sad the technology is regarding ALL flying devices is! Nearly all airplanes, then and now, manage to reduce the pressure on the TOP of wings from 2116 down to about 2106 pounds per square foot by a Techmology called Bernoulli Lift! The 2116 PSF pressure on the BOTTOM of airfoil wings still applied, and so there is a NET difference of about 10 PSF LIFT which occurs. A small airplane with maybe 200 square feet of its wings would therefore produce a NET LIFT of about 2000 pounds, which is what enables the 1800 pound airplane to fly!
I was amazed that the entire field of aircraft design, in more than a hundred years of effort, has never accomplished better than around a 16 PSF differential pressure between the top and bottom of even the best airfoils! Wow!
In the middle 1960s, I learned about Newton's Laws and specifically about those Laws as understood by a guy named Bernoulli regarding fluid motions. I felt sure that there MUST be some way to design a flying device such that BETTER differential pressure should be possible!
I maintained a fascination regarding this subject throughout my life but many other concerns occupied me for many years, such as the unique JUCA advanced woodstove I invented in 1973 and which I had to learn how to create a business and a factory to manufacture and sell about 27,000 JUCA woodstoves.
I eventually found the time to return to thinking about my ideas regarding a possible advanced flying device. I had concluded that it might be possible to create such a device which would ENTIRELY work on ONE of the two methods of Aerodynamic Lift, which is called Bernoulli Lift.
I invented THIS flying device in the late 1990s and I fully experimentally tested a small prototype very early one May morning in 1999, in a desolate location. It worked even better than my calculations of Physics and Engineering had suggested it would. Rather interestingly, I only spent around $110 to build the prototype, and about half of that was for a conventional Briggs & Stratton 3.5 horsepower lawnmower engine.
I find it interesting that I first got interested in this subject in the 1950s due to wondering if there might have been people who had ALREADY created devices such as my peculiar 1999 flying device. I still do not see any possible explanation for the many hundreds of Police Officers and Pilots who witnessed UFOs that seemed to exhibit amazing flying performance. But IF someone had previously invented what I had found in 1999, I cannot imagine why they had not pursued getting rich for having sold it to some army or some criminals! Maybe they had better understanding than me as to WHY NOT let the world know about such things???
I had previously discovered that the Aeronautical Engineers at both Boeing and Lockheed-Martin are astoundingly arrogant, where several of my phone calls to such people ended as they 'ordered' me to 'stay out of Aeronautics and just do Physics things', just before they often hung up on me.
It is hard for me to want to offer a 'better technology' to such people, especially since my invention and my approach is SO much better than anything they know!
My 'flying machine' in 1999 did not actually even have any wings or any propellers! It used a FAR BETTER technology that creates 15 to 20 times as much lift as any Bernoulli device they can design, and even nearly that much improvement in the lift created by their best effort at Reaction Lift devices! Not even close!
My rather flimsy device weighed around 25 pounds. I had removed the Governor which normally keeps a lawn mower engine running at 3600 rpm, so my engine apparently created somewhat more than 3.5 horsepower, although I did not monitor the engine speed during my experiment that day. I first held it in my hands but for convenience reasons I placed it back on the modified hand truck I had used to get it out into a meadow in the woods, about a mile away from my house. I had already filled a tiny fuel tank with enough gasoline to run the Briggs & Stratton 3.5 hp lawnmower engine for 20 seconds, 10 seconds of idling and then 10 seconds of full power. I did not install ANY controls on the device, and in very calm winds, I expected it to lift straight upward. That was not quite true as I apparently slightly tilted it as I pulled the starter cord of the engine, so it headed up about two degrees off of straight vertical. The engine idled for ten seconds, and I opened the throttle of the engine to allow it to lift for nearly exactly another ten seconds.
The device started out one foot above the ground, and in its ten seconds of powered flight, it rose to (from measurements of the video of the flight) 525 feet high. At first, I assumed that it had accelerated evenly during the entire ten seconds so I initially calculated that it accelerated at 5.2 ft/s/s.
Later analysis of the videotape showed that it had accelerated far quicker than that for the first few seconds, where it got up to a maximum vertical velocity of about 65 feet per second (or about a vertical velocity of 40 mph, apparently limited by the 3.5 horsepower of the lawnmower engine). Simple Calculus showed that it had accelerated upward at about 17 ft/s/s (or 0.5G) for about 4 seconds, after which it had gotten up to about 135 feet high, and after which it continued to rise at approximately a constant upward velocity of about 65 ft/sec, to get up to the 525 feet height after the ten second flight. There was another mathematical factor which slightly affected these calculations but which I cannot divulge here. In any case, calculations show that a good portion of the power that the 3.5(+) horsepower that the over-revved motor was producing was being used directly for lift. Once it got up to its maximum vertical velocity of around 65 f/s, it was raising the 25 pounds of its weight meaning that it was creating about 1600 ft-lb/second in Potential Energy. This was the equivalent of just under 3 horsepower of power being converted to Potential Energy. I was later convinced that the device probably could have continued to rise at 40 mph or 65 f/s for as long as a gasoline supply would have remained. At that rate, it might have gotten up to 10,000 feet in a little over two and a half minutes.
From a standing start, and only using a standard lawnmower engine for power, it nearly immediately (4 seconds) provided a Rate of Climb of about 3,000 feet per minute, which struck me as pretty amazing.
I saw no reason to repeat that experiment with a higher flight, and I was concerned that my device might have gotten hit by a nearby airplane if I sent it up with significant gasoline in it. I also did not want to have to answer questions if Military or Civil Aviation Radar might have detected it. To have risen to 525 feet in 10 seconds is a Rate of Climb of just over 3,000 feet per minute. No propeller-driven, engine-powered aircraft has ever come close to that Rate of Climb! (my device did not have any propeller!)
Self-Sufficiency - Many Suggestions|
Public Services Home Page
There is also virtually a universal enjoyment of the status quo, that no one has the slightest interest in changing ANYTHING! They all are guaranteed of their jobs as long as nothing changes!
There HAVE BEEN a very small number of people who clearly have a lust for billions of dollars of profits, but even they have never shown any interest in my actual technology. They just see the possibility where if they can get Boing to need to make 5,000 new airliners, that THEY would certainly receive billions of dollars if they could cause that to happen!
Prior to my May 1999 test flight, I had scientifically hoped to improve on the 0.5% lift efficiency of Bernoulli Lift of conventional airfoil wings on airliners. My hope was to improve that by maybe 6 to 10 times, up to 3% or 5% overall lift.
(Conventional airfoil wings have around 2116 pounds of natural air pressure force pushing up on every square foot of lower wing surface. Due to the SHAPE of an airfoil's wing, the air passing over the top of the wing has to travel about 3% faster than that air going under the wing, and due to the Bernoulli Effect, the top surface of the wing surface then only has about 2106 pounds of air pressure force pushing down on it. The result is that there is a NET LIFT of around 10 pounds (2116 pounds minus 2106 pounds) for each square foot of wing surface. General Aviation Aircraft often have around 200 square feet of wing surface, which is therefore able to lift around 2000 pounds of Gross Vehicle Weight (200 * 10). A heavier Boeing 747 has around 5500 square feet of wing and the NACA shape of the airliner wings is thicker where they produce a little more than the 0.5% lift efficiency mentioned above.)
In any case, in May 1999, I had HOPED to achieve an overall lift efficiency of around 3% to 5%. When I later studied the video of its flight and the data, the calculations showed that it turned out that my crude, basement-built device had achieved slightly over a 21% overall Bernoulli lift efficiency! (That is more than 40 times better than airfoil wings are generally able to accomplish!)
Other than my single experiment on that day, NO ONE has ever even achieved much more than ONE PERCENT overall Bernoulli lift efficiency, in any powered flight! And I saw a 21% overall efficiency!
There is another logical reason why I have tolerated delaying releasing the information for my very different technology of flying. The Oil Industry has long published annual Reports which show that ALL the oil that might be available for digging up, is all expected to have been completely removed by about the year 2043. Whether or not anyone would change over to my more efficient technology, it seems certain that it would take at least 20 years to build all those very different aircraft. That suggests that the FIRST commercial aircraft based on my technology might only come into existence around the year 2035 or so. That would mean that only limited used could be made, due to a world wide lack of availability of petroleum and Jet Fuel!
Finally, after having spent a couple months thinking about the results of my experiment, I felt there was cause to be fearful of the technology. I had only used the most crude of small engines, from a lawn mower, and yet my device had achieved a vertical acceleration of around 0.5 G. I realized that someone using a more powerful engine, or in a smaller and lighter device, someone could likely achieve a vertical acceleration of 5 Gs or even 10 Gs. I started speculating that someone might easily create a two-pound version of my device, powered by some engine not much more powerful than some standard engines used on large Radio Control aircraft, to fairly easily achieve something like that 10 G performance. Ten Gs acceleration would mean going from stationary to around 200 mph in one second. I imagined that someone made such a computer-radio-controlled device and mounted a small handgun on it. Maybe my imagination was getting away with me, but I imagined some evil person launching such a device from about three blocks away from your house, taking one second for it to get up to 200 mph, another six seconds for it to fly at that speed toward your house, go in a window and decelerate to stationary, hovering in the room with you, firing some shots at you from the gun, and taking another eight seconds to exit the scene back to his hand three blocks away. Other than a bystander happening to hear something whiz by, no one might even realize that a murder had just been committed as the perpetrator calmly drove away. Is this scenario actually realistic? I don't know, and I might have then exaggerated the capability of the technology that I had witnessed on that May 1999 morning, so I realize that these might have been silly concerns! But I was terrified at even the possibility where I did not want to be responsible for loosing such a possibility on the Earth. I remember contemplating that it might have been possible that no one on Earth might then have been safe from that sort of assassination. Even angering a neighbor might inspire horrific retribution!
So, within a couple weeks after my experimental flight, I dismantled my peculiar flying device, and I also had a little bonfire where I destroyed all notes and papers about its theory and design, and I destroyed several floppy diskettes that also had contained some notes about it. And the brief and crude videotape of the adventure was first erased and then destroyed. I had decided that there was not enough UPSIDE to the technology to divulge the information on it, and the possibility of gruesome downside was something that I did not want to be responsible for. I had decided that I would ONLY divulge my technology if SOMEONE ELSE had already discovered it as was using it for malicious purposes, which I hoped would never occur.
A darkly humorous incident later occurred regarding this subject. A person who I thought was a friend got me to go to a McDonalds restaurant to meet 'a friend of his' (in 2006). I am always an honest and open person, but in a free-ranging conversation about several of my energy-related inventions, I was mystified that this man repeatedly asked questions about my 1999 experiment, since I could not understand how he could even have been aware that I had done such an experiment! I answered his superficial questions but would not comment on his more specific questions regarding how it worked. He became very insistent that I answer him, and he eventually announced that he was a Colonel in the US Air Force. He even threatened to have me put into Prison (and it seems to me that he even mentioned Guantanamo) until I divulge my technology to him and to the Air Force! Pretty strange to go to a McDonalds for a burger and be threatened with Prison! In any case, I never caved in to his threats, and I was soon able to leave the McDonalds that day! (I have NEVER gone back to that McDonalds restaurant!) I guess I wonder if anyone might still be following me around, but since I was very thorough in destroying all papers and records in 1999, I am tempted to think that they might have decided that I was wasted effort by now! I guess my greatest hope related to the McDonalds incident is that the 'powers that be' might have concluded that I am a loony and that no such exotic invention or prototype had ever existed back in 1999. But THIS presentation is the first (and only) discussion of the specifics of that interesting morning in May 1999.) I would never divulge the construction or theory details to anyone, unless some adversarial group demonstrates that they have discovered the same technology, at which time I would inform the Air Force and DARPA on how it worked.
This page - -
- - is at
This subject presentation was last updated on - -