RS Electrogravitic References: Part 14 of 19.

And some comments about rotating EM fields by Dr Dennis Cravens in a report
titled "Electric Propulsion Study", done for the Astronautics Laboratory at
Edwards AFB. August 1990. Dennis Cravens was formerly with SAIC Corp, and is
now working with CETI in development of cold fusion. Anyway, here's some
things he says in the electric propulsion report about the "peculiarities" of
a rotating magnet:

ROTATION OF MAGNETS - There is a continuing debate in physics as to the
reality of the magnetic field. The prime question is whether the axial
magnetic field of a bar magnet rotates with the magnet or is stationary. The
Faraday homopolar generator dates back to the 1830s. DePalma, Tewari, and
others have attempted to utilize the Faraday generator to produce more power
than needed to run it. Most objective reviews of the work have, however,
failed to see such effects.

It is doubtful that these claims will be independently validated and even more
doubtful that they will lead directly to a propulsive system. However, the
work on homopolar generators as high current devices is reasonable and may be
useful for ground uses. The angular momentum complications seem to rule the
system out for any practical space applications.

SEARL EFFECT - The Searl Effect is a separate issue from homopolar generator
above. Searl has claimed to produce disk levitation by rapidly rotating
magnets. There have been claims of anti-gravity, high electric fields,
perpetual motion, inertial loss, and gas ionization. All these claims come
from Searl or those supportive of his work and no outside witnesses are
available. Searl has not supplied any technical data or specifics of the
operation in any easily referenced source. It is not recommended that his work
be experimentally followed by the USAF. It is worth noting however, that a
rotating magnet does have some definite theorectical peculiarities.

Through the years there have been many interesting developments concerning the
Faraday Homopolar generator. DePalma has claimed to get more energy out than
is supplied to the the generator. None of the claims seem to withstand careful
examination and no machine has ever been made self driving. The underlying
reason that such claims continue to surface is that rotating magnetic fields
are extremely difficult to handle within existing theories. This is because
for a rotating frame there is a distance (removed from the axis) which is
travelling at velocities greater than c. Although the distance is not withing
any real physical object, it's existence within the mathematical development
greatly complicates any calculations.

DePalma B.E., "Electro-Mechanical Device for the Amplification of Electrical
Power", The New Age Science Magazine, No 7, 1980

Tewari P., "Generation of Electrical Power from Absolute Vacuum by High Speed
Rotation of Conducting Magnetic Cylinder", Tech. Rep. Dept. of Atomic Energy,
Bombay India, 1985

Searl, J.R.R., British provisional patent specification #57578, 1970 ---------
------------------------------------------------------------

These articles are indicative of studies of EM waves and rotating bodies. It
appears that when EM waves pass through rotating dielectrics some unusual
effects are predicted. This may lead to some interesting future technology.
-- Dr Dennis Cravens

"Some Remarks on Scattering by a Rotating Dielectric Cylinder",
D. Schreiber, Journal of EM Waves and Applications, Vol 2 No2 1988

"Rotating Bodies and Electrodynamics in a Rotating Reference Frame",
I.B. Zeldovich and L.V. Rozhavskii, Radiofizka Vol 29 No 9, 1986 -------------
----------------------------------------------------------- Here's an
interesting news brief from Infinite Energy magazine, July/Aug 1995, Dr Eugene
Mallove - editor. (603)-228-4516

A bombshell paper has just been published in the American Journal of Physics,
Vol 63 No 8, August 1995, pages 694-705, "Maxwell's Equations in a Rotating
Medium: Is There a Problem?" by Gerald N. Pellegrini and Arthur R. Swift (the
latter of the Dept of Physics and Astronomy, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst MA)"

The paper is a direct challenge to Special Relativity. It proves one of two
things about a classic 1913 experiment of Wilson and Wilson that was used to
verify the prediction of relativity that "a moving magnetic dipole develops an
electric dipole moment.' The conclusion of the paper is that Special
Relativity does NOT agree with this experiment -- and no one has ever
challenged the quality of the experiment.

Peregrinni told Infinite Energy that he thinks that all of relativity as well
as Maxwell's equations as descriptors of EM radiation are now called into
question. --------------------------------------------------------------------
-

The origin of the Montauk Project dates back to 1943 when radar invisibility
was being researched aboard the USS Eldridge. As the Eldridge was stationed at
the Philadelphia Navy Yard, the events concerning the ship have commonly been
referred to as the "Philadelphia Experiment." The objective of this experiment
was to make the ship undetectable to radar and while that was achieved, there
was a totally unexpected and drastic side effect. The ship became invisible to
the naked eye and was removed from time and space as we know it. It went into
10-dimensional hyper-space. For further info into this, read the book called
"Hyperspace" by Dr. Michio Kaku. A movie called "The Philadelphia Experiment"
was made, but delayed for two years as the Pentagon was able to halt its
release. After the war, research continued under the tutelage of Dr. John Von
Neumann who had directed the technical aspects of the Phily Experiment. A
massive human factor study was also begun at Brookhaven National Labs on Long
Island, New York -- known as the Phoenix Project. The Montauk Project
culminated on August 12, 1983. A full blown time portal was fully functioning,
but things were out of control and the project was crashed. An unauthorized
video has been widely distributed regarding this story and several lectures
has been given on the Montauk Project. One science reported for the New York
times started the project but tacked off when he discovered to his own
surprise that the Montauk Project was indeed real.
Three books have been released by Preston Nichols, who was involved in the
Project, and Peter Moon. They are
1) The Montauk Project: Experiments in Time - 1992 2) Montauk Revisited:
Adventures in Synchronicity - 1994 3) Pyramids of Montauk Explorations in
Consciousness-1995 This coming year, 1996, the next book will be out and the
title will be "Montauk Reconciled"
-- Richard Frager
------------------------------------------------------------------------

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS - PHENOMENOLOGY, ABSTRACT HEP-PH/9412234 From: Michael
Martin Nieto 505-667-6127  Date: Mon, 5 Dec 94 09:52:27
-0700
THEORETICAL MOTIVATION FOR GRAVITATION EXPERIMENTS ON ULTRA-LOW ENERGY
ANTIPROTONS AND ANTIHYDROGEN
Authors: Michael Martin Nieto , T. Goldman , John D. Anderson , Eunice L. Lau,
Comments: Written version of invited contribution to LEAP'94: Third Biennial
Conference on Low-Energy Antiproton Physics.
We know that the generally accepted theories of gravity and quantum mechanics
are fundamentally incompatible. Thus, when we try to combine these theories,
we must beware of physical pitfalls. Modern theories of quantum gravity are
trying to overcome these problems. Any ideas must confront the present
agreement with general relativity, but yet be free to wonder about not
understood phenomena, such as the dark matter problem and the anomalous
spacecraft data which we announce here. This all has led some intrepid"
theorists to consider a new gravitational regime, that of antimatter. Even
more daring" experimentalists are attempting, or considering attempting, the
measurement of the gravitational force on antimatter, including low-energy
antiprotons and, perhaps most enticing, antihydrogen.

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS - EXPERIMENT, ABSTRACT HEP-EX/9412018 From:
PHILLIPS@hep.phy.duke.edu
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 16:03:31 -0500 (EST) A Technique for Directly Measuring
the Gravitational Acceleration of Antihydrogen, By: Thomas J. Phillips, Duke
University Durham Comments: Written version of invited contribution to
LEAP'94: Third Biennial Conference on Low-Energy Antiproton Physics.
The gravitational force on antimatter has never been directly measured. A
method is suggested for measuring the acceleration of antimatter $(\overline g)$ by measuring the deflection of a beam of neutral antihydrogen atoms in the
Earth's gravitational field. While a simple position measurement of the beam
could be used, a more efficient measurement can be made using a transmission
interferometer. A 1\% measurement of $\overline g$ should be possible from a
beam of about 100,000 atoms, with the ultimate accuracy being determined
largely by the number of antihydrogen atoms that can be produced. A method is
suggested for producing an antihydrogen beam appropriate for this experiment.

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS - PHENOMENOLOGY, ABSTRACT HEP-PH/9509336 From: Michael
Martin Nieto 505-667-6127  Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 14:08:11
-0600
Antimatter Gravity and Antihydrogen Production Authors: Michael H.
Holzscheiter , T. Goldman , Michael Martin Nieto
Certain modern theories of gravity predict that antimatter will fall
differently than matter in the Earth's gravitational field. However, no
experimental tests of gravity on antimatter exist and all conclusions drawn
from experiments on matter depend, at some level, on a specific model. We have
proposed a direct measurement that would compare the gravitational
acceleration of antiprotons to that of negatively charged hydrogen ions.
Substantial progress towards the development of this experiment has been
achieved. Based on our work a number of alternative proposals for measuring
$g$" on both charged and neutral antimatter have been made. We summarize the
present status of our experiment and also discuss the steps that would be
necessary to produce antihydrogen in an environment suitable for gravity
measurements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Robert, I have one reference for you. The book is called "Suppressed
Inventions and other Discoveries". It's an anthology edited by Jonathon Eisen.
Authors include: Dr. Brian O'Leary, Christopher Bird, Jeanne Manning, Barry
Lynes, and others. As well as Townsend Brown, the inventers/doctors (as well
as inventions the book also covers various cancer treatments which have had
research suppressed) who are discussed include Naessons, RifeHoxsey, Gerson,
Tesla, Brown, Reich and others.

The book covers free energy, various "unfree" though different motive
technologies, cancer cures which have worked but not seen approval by the AMA,
Roswell, the Mars face, and as a delight to conspiracy buffs, there are also
chapters on how various Government bodies have suppressed these technologies,
as well as how the AMA came to be all powerful in the field of suppressing
alternate treatments.

Auckland Institute of Technology Press
Private Bag 92006
Auckland, New Zealand

ISBN No. 0-9583334-7-5
______________________________________________________________________

For further research, consult the following sources:

Fer-de-Lance by T.E. Beardon
Tesla Book Company
P.O. Box 121873
Chula Vista, CA 91912 USA

P.O. Box 7530 Ste 58
Yelm, Washington 98597 USA

Nexus Magazine
P.O. Box 66
8400 AB Gorredijk
The Netherlands
Tel/Fax: 31-(0)5133-5567
_____________________________________________________________________

The information on the electrogravitics reference list which is of particular
interest to me are the Laithwaite and Wallace references. I think my work
(Electrical-Dipole Theory of Gravitation) explains what they were observing
and why. Here are some additional references. -- Ralph Sansbury

Fischbach, Sudarsky, Szafer, Talmadge, and Aronson in "Reanalysis of the
Eotvos Experiment" (Phys Rev Let vol 56 p3 6/1/86)

J.H. Pratt and G.B. Airy 1855 Phil Trans v145

Fredrich Zollner, Explanation of Universal Gravitation through the Static
Action of Electricity and the General Importance of Weber's Laws, 1882

Immanuel Velikovsky, Cosmos without Gravitation, 1964

V. A. Bailey In the May 14 , 1960 issue of Nature

P.M.S. Blackett In the May 17, 1947 issue of Nature

T. Gold in a later issue (April 2, 1949) of Nature

Henry Wallace US patent number 3 626 605

P.S. Wesson Phys Rev D v23 p1730 (1981)

Sansbury R.N. Electrical Engineering Times (12/28/87)

Sansbury R.N. US patent number 4,355,195

Sansbury R.N. Rev. Sci. Instr. (3/85)

Bartlett D.F. Rev.Sci. Instr. (10/90)

Peter Graneau, Nature v295 1982 p311

Weiskopf M.C., Carrico, Gould, Lipworth and Stein, Physical Review Letters
1968, vol21 p1645

Coles and Good, Physical Review 1946 p979

Kaufmann W. p502 in World of the Atom by H. Bourse and L. Motz

W.J. Duffin, Electricity and Magnetism Wiley 1973

R.A. Tricker, Early Electrodynamics Pergamon Oxford 1965 ---------------------
----------------------------------------------

Paper: gr-qc/9410019
From: Peter Marzlin  Date: Mon, 17 Oct 94
12:50:28 +0100
THE DIPOLE COUPLING OF ATOMS AND LIGHT IN GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS, Karl-Peter
Marzlin, 10 pages, LaTeX
The dipole coupling term between a system of N particles with total charge
zero and the electromagnetic field is derived in the presence of a weak
gravitational field. It is shown that the form of the coupling remains the
same as in flat space-time if it is written with respect to the proper time of
the observer and to the measurable field components. Some remarks concerning
the connection between the minimal and the dipole coupling are given.

The level of difficulty in the above paper is well beyond my grasp. But what
is clear is that it presents an analysis which strongly suggests that the
textbook wavefunctions for electrons within atomic matter can be best
described by the dipole coupling rather than the coulomb gauge. The paper also
relates the dipole coupling to a weak gravitational field. The last paragraph
of the paper provides substance to the idea that gravity is at least in part,
an electric dipole phenomena. Here is the last paragraph:

"It is interesting to make a comparison of the present results with
the well known formal equivalence between the Maxwell field in curved space
and in a dielectric medium (23). In this approach one defines a formal
dielectric displacement vector to describe the influence of gravity on the
Maxwell field. In the absence of particles, i.e. for vanishing polarisation P,
the formal electric displacement agrees with the vector delta defined above.
Also the coupling of the Poynting vector to the rotation occurs in the energy
of the formal Maxwell field."

The paper referenced (23) is:

A.M. Volkov, A.A. Izmest'ev, and G.V. Skrotskii, Soviet Physics JETP 32, page
686, (1971)

Note: There are a variety of other theories and experiments which attempt to
show that a static gravitational field is identical to that which results from
electric dipole moments -- a polarisation of the vacuum. And conversely, it is
well know that if you accelerate a dielectric material, or in "equivalence"
subject a dielectric material to a gravitational field or other mechanical
force -- an electric field due to dipole moment (polarisation P) will be
generated within the material. This effect is especially prevalent in
structured crystal dielectrics (piezoelectric materials), which are used as
transducers in accelerometer sensors. You can also find piezoelectric
material, and conversion of mechanical force to a high voltage electric field,
in push-button spark igniters used on gas grills and cigarette lighters.

Here's a thought. To enlighten those folks who continue to stubbornly try to
debunk the evident relationship between gravitation and electromagnetics --
insert one of these spark igniters in a neuro-sensitive body cavity, and click
it as many times as necessary.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

One issue with the electrostatic dipole hypothesis is that once the magnetic
effects of spin etc have been considered there is no evidence of such dipoles
inside atomic nuclei and electrons. However if magnetic properties of nuclei
and electrons can be represented in terms of electrostatic dipoles as recent
experiments and theoretical discussion seem to indicate then this objection is
avoided. The dipole can be produced by a negatively oriented particle orbiting
a positive central particle so that the combination has a net positve charge
(see Rev Sci Instr Mar 1985 and Geomagnetism: Gravity Measured by Magnetic
Materials, ICP Press, Box 492 NY NY 10185 \$25US 1994 by R Sansbury) An added
benefit: the observed quadrapole in nuclei and electrons makes more sense in a
physically real Taylor expansion by the inclusion of an observed dipole term
as well; that is the dipole term is not observed because its effects are
wrongly attributed to another cause, magnetism; thus magnetism is properly
regarded as a derived apparently separate force like the Coriolis sideways
force on bodies moved radially on a rotating platform.
-- Ralph Sansbury
---------------------------------------------------------------------

About electric dipole precession. The article "Electricity" in Britannica
includes a resonance equation for dipole precession in dielectrics. It was
identical in form to the one used in magnetic resonance, except for the
obvious differences in units. Dielectric precession (resonance) frequencies
were in the optical range.
Brown didn't use resonance; but he did use a steady frequency. His frequency,
too, would damp out if it were discontinued. Greater results than Brown's
could probably be achieved with lasers. But I doubt you'll find a better
description of dielectric dipole resonance. The Britannica article gives the
mathematics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

van der Waals force (J.D. van der Waals) --
Forces responsible for the non-ideal behavior of gases, and for the lattice
energy of molecular crystals. There are three causes: dipole-dipole
interaction; dipole-induced dipole moments; and dispersion forces arising
because of small instantaneous dipoles in atoms.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

"The Electric Dipole Moment of the Electron", Bernreuther & Suzuki,
Reviews of Modern Physics, April 1991 vol 63 no 2
-- An electron or any other elementary particle can possess an
electric moment (EDM) only by virtue of an interaction that violates parity
and time-reversal invariance. The question of whether an electron EDM exists
is thus related directly to the unsolved problem of CP violation. According to
the standard model, in which CP violation is accounted for in terms of the
Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix, the electron EDM is predicted to be far too small to
be observed experimentally. However, a number of alternative teoretical models
of CP violation predict larger values of the electron EDM. These models are of
special interest now, when experimental limits on the electron EDM are
improving substantially.

"The Electron Electric Dipole Moment for a CP-violating Neutral
Higgs Sector", J.F. Gunion, Physics Letters: Part 8, Nov 8 1990

"New Experimental Limit on the Electron Electric Dipole Moment",
Abdullah & Commins, Physical Review Letters, Nov 5 1990

"The Standard Model Prediction for the Electric Dipole Moment of
the Electron", F. Hoogeveen, Nuclear Physics B, Sep 10 1990

"Electric Dipole Moment of the Electron and the Neutron", S.M Barr,
Physical Review Letters, July 2 1990, Vol 65 No 1

"Effective Hamiltonian for the Electric Dipole Moment of the Neutron",
Boyd, Gupta & Trivedi, Physics Letters: Part 8, May 24 1990

"A search for the Electric Dipole Moment of the Neutron", K.F. Smith,
Physics Letters: Part 8, Jan 4 1990, Vol 234 No 1/2

"Interpretation of the Neutron Electric Dipole Moment: Possible
Relationship to Epsilon", Booth, Briere & Sachs, Physical Review D Jan 1 1990,
Vol 41 No 1

"Inclusion of the Toroidal-Moment Contribution in the Probability
of the Electric Dipole Transition", R.G. Nazmitidinov, Soviet Journal of
Nuclear Physics, Sep 1 1990, Vol 53 No 2 -------------------------------------
------------------------------------

But what is the thing in atomic nuclei that collectively produces the
gravitational field of the Earth etc. and which causes individual nuclei to
react in the prescribed manner? The hypothesis proposed is that atomic nuclei
contain small electrostatic dipoles (10^-37C.-m.) with radial and longitudinal
components transverse to the west to east spinning direction of the Earth etc.
Such dipoles explain the nuclear magnetic moment and electrostatic quadrapole
moment inferred from the hyperfine spectra emitted by some excited atoms and
the deflection of molecules such as orthohydrogen in a magnetic field (but not
parahydrogen because the magnetic moments are anti parallel in pairs and
cancel)

The Cavendish measurement of the horizontal gravitational force between two
lead spheres instead of being attributed to the small masses of each can be
attributed to the small horizontal component of the radial force, directed to
the center of the Earth, due to the mass of the Earth on each of the small
masses. That is gravity is not a property of mass per se but only of spinning
mass.

The atomic nuclei of all elements, except iron, cobalt, and nickel primarily,
tend to line up in the direction of the surrounding atomic nuclei when the
bulk object of which they are a part is moved but in the case of the magnetic
elements the bulk material must also move to complete the required alignment,
hence the north south and downward movement of a magnetized steel compass
needle. Hence the Wilson-Blackett proportionality between the angular momentum
of planets, stars etc and their magnetic moment where the constant of
proportionality is the square root of the gravitational constant divided by
the speed of light. For more information see Science News Aug 6 '94 p82. -
Ralph Sansbury
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Go to the Next RS EG Refs. Page