Return to the INE Home Page

Return to the RS EG Refs. Page

Return to the Previous RS EG Refs. Page

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

Martin Nieto 505-667-6127  Date: Mon, 5 Dec 94 09:52:27 
Authors: Michael Martin Nieto , T. Goldman , John D. Anderson , Eunice L. Lau, 
J. Perez-Mercader
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.

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. 

Martin Nieto 505-667-6127  Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 14:08:11 
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 

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. 

The book is published by:
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

Leading Edge Research Group
(Leading Edge Journal #77 12/94)
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
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 

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 

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 

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

Return to the RS EG Refs. Page

Return to the INE Home Page