Back to Main Links Page

Page 13 of 20
Robert Stirniman's
Antigravity Bibliography - 13

    If you work out the metric for EM waves circulating in a cavity you get 
    some strange results. There is a preliminary discussion of this effect 
    in the article by Houshang Ardavan, 'Gravitational Waves from 
    Electromagnetic Waves' in the book "Classical General Relativity," 
    edited by W.B. Bonner, I.N. Islam and M.A.H. MacCollum (Cambridge Univ. 
    Press, 1984).
    It is something I have seen done. At the point in an annular cavity 
    where the phase velocity goes from less than c to greater than c, a term 
    shows up in the derived metric of the system that looks like a source 
    term.  On the other hand you have assumed that the metric is source free 
    in the EM region of the cavity.  So you get a solution which contradicts 
    the hypothesis that went into building the solution. You get something 
    which is possibly unphysical.  Now Einstein's equation and the associated 
    geometry is pretty tricky and it is easy to get unphysical solutions.  
    The final arbitors of whether a solution is satisfactory or not is 
    physical reasonability and self consistancy (these are almost the same 
    thing). The cavity problem seems very physically reasonable initially, 
    but ends with a self-consistancy problem which appears to be unphysical.  
    Also, Cauchy's theorem does not apply to this case since it becomes a 
    mixed type problem (elliptic and hyperbolic PDEs), so the Hawking 
    singularity theorems don't a priori apply. It is something very 
    interesting, but to publish it with out being scoffed at would take 
    a lot of work and possibly inventing some new math.
    -- Jim McClune, University of Missouri
       Begins with a short introduction to the relevant aspects of general
       relativity. This is followed by a detailed derivation of the
       Wehl-Lewis-Papapetrou form of the stationary axially symmetric metric.
       The Kerr and Tomimatsu-Sato forms of the rotating interior and
       exterior solutions of the Einstein equations are then considered.
    Subject: physics
    1985 6 X 9 122 pp. 4 diagrams
    Hardback 0-521-26082-5 $47.95 (7.99)

    >If an EM field is somehow rotated extremely fast, shouldn't all 
    >matter be repelled from its center?  -kgo.

    How fast do you want it rotated?  It's fairly simple to construct a system 
    to produce rotating EM waves at whatever rotational velocity you wish by 
    feeding a pair of broadside dipole arrays with quatrature phased waves.
    It is quite simple to construct a system that would have a rotational 
    velocity of C within the uniform field area.  It might also be fairly easy 
    to do this with a Hemholtz coil arangement as well, but the broadside array 
    will be much easier to do at easily engineerable frequencies.
    Some really interesting paradoxes come about when the rotational frequency 
    is high enough so that the rotational velocity exceeds C within the uniform 
    field area of the arrays or within the hemholtz coils.
    -- Robert Shannon

    Ehrenfest Paradox (Ehrenfest, 1909) --
      The special relativistic "paradox" involving a rapidly rotating
      disc. Since any radial segment of the disc is perpendicular to
      the direction of motion, there should be no length contraction
      of the radius; however, since the circumference of the disc is
      parallel to the direction of motion, it should contract.

    Question -- by Kung Lo (October 1995):
    Take a rigid disk of radius R and spin it up to angular velocity . As
    seen by an observer S that is at rest in the center of the disk, the
    radius is still R, but the circumference is contracted by the Lorentz
    effect. How is this possible?
    More physically, if a fixed ring is just outside the spinning
    disk and placed with equally spaced markers on the rim of the disk and 
    on the fixed ring, I know by symmetry that, when one marker on the disk
    is aligned with a marker on the ring, all pairs of markers must be
    aligned. This contradicts the fact that, for observer S, the distance
    between successive markers on the disk is reduced by the Lorentz 
    Answer -- provided by David Djajaputra (November 1995):   
    It seems that the rotating disk paradox (it turned out to be Ehrenfest's
    paradox) has been extensively analyzed by many people (including Einstein
    himself, who developed general relativity to answer this problem, as one
    author speculates...). This I found from a nice paper :

      O. Gron, "Relativistic description of a rotating disk"
      Am. J. Phys. V43, 869 (1975), and all the references therein.
    The key sentence in Gron's paper is at the end of Section IV:
     "By definition a Born rigid motion of a body leaves lenghts unchanged,
      when measured in the body's proper frame . (...) A Born rigid motion
      is not a material property of the body, but the result of a specific
      program of forces designed to set the body in motion without
      introducing stresses. (...) A transition of the disk from rest to
      rotational motion, while it satisfies Born's definition of rigidity,
      is a kinematic impossibility"
    With this kinematics the radius is R and the circumference is as
    measured by observer S (lab frame), but an observer riding on the disk
    will measure a distance R to the center and a distance around the
    circumference (he can do this measurement by slowly walking around the
    spinning disk with a meter tape). This is consistent with the usual
    Lorentz contraction . The point is that this is NOT a Born rigid
    motion. There is much more in Gron's paper.
    -- Vittorio Celli   

    Several key pharases keep popping up regarding rotating fields, powerful 
    magnetic pulsed fields, and 90 degree cross-field phase shifts. 
    For example, Preston Nicholes describes a device known as a Delta T 
    antenna in the Montauk series of books. The Delta T antenna is described 
    as a pyramidal structure, but lets just take two square loops, placed at 
    90 degrees to each other, and feed these two loops with an RF signal, 
    also with a 90 degree phase shift, we will produce a rotating magnetic 
    field within the loops (these loops share a common center point, and 
    each loop is in a plane 90 degrees from the other)
    The speed of rotation of this magnetic field is a direct function of the 
    frequancy of the applied RF signal.  At the center of the antenna, the 
    rotational velocity is zero, but as you move out from the center, and 
    rotational velocity increases.  At some distance from center would reach 
    the speed of light, dependant of the frequancy used.
    One could imagine that the rotational velocity of this rotating magnetic 
    field could reach the speed of light within the antenna structure  itself 
    if a way could be found to make the antenna much larger than a normaly 
    resonant antenna would be for that same frequancy.  At several hundred 
    megahertz, a two meter per side square loop would have a rotational 
    velocity well in excess of the speed of light within the antenna structure 
    What effect would there be at the boundry where the rotational velocity 
    reached, and then exceeded the speed of light.  How could the magnetic 
    field even propogate to the center of the antenna structure if it would 
    have to move faster than light to reach that space?  If hemholtz coils 
    were used instead of loops, the magnetic field strength would be uniform 
    inside the structure, how could the field strenght be uniform if there is 
    not sufficient time for the field to propogate through the space inside 
    the structure itself?
    Could such an effect actually generate a wormhole like phenomena, at energy 
    levels far below that of neutron stars and such?  As the causal mechanism, 
    the magnetic field, is in roation, would this describe a traversable worm 
    hole as has been postulated in relationship to rotating black holes?
    -- Robert Shannon

    Aono, Osamu, 1937-
    Rotation of a magnetic field / Osamu Aono and Ryo Sugihara.  Nagoya, Japan :
    Institute of Plasma Physics, Nagoya University, 1986.  6 p. ; 30 cm.
    LC CALL NUMBER: QC717.6 .N35 no. 792 (ALTERNATE CLASS QC754.2.M3)
    SUBJECTS: Magnetic fields. Electrodynamics.
    Research report (Nagoya Daigaku. Purazumu Kenkyujo) ; IPPJ-792.

    Let me clear this up a bit, the two coils are acting as antenne already, 
    producing the rotating field by vector sumnation of the radiated quatrature 
    phased EM waves.  The loops would be operating as the driven elements of 
    a cubical antenne, not as coils as such.
    If you prefer, substitute the two loop antenne with a pair of crossed 
    dipoles at 90 degrees, this will also produce the rotating field, but 
    the center will be occupied by the dipoles rather than be open as with 
    loop antenne of by using sets of broadside arrays. Note that this is not 
    the same as the rotational speed reaching c inside the "uniform field" 
    area, as described earlier. It's simple a tool to understsand the 
    generation of the rotating field and the relationship between applied 
    frequency and the resultant roational speed.
    Rather than loop elements, in practice you might use a phased array of 
    dipole elements that produces a constant phase plane wave, not unlike a 
    pair of hemholtz coils produced a uniform field within the coil sets. Four 
    of these "broadside arrays" would from the four sides of a cube, inside of 
    which you could induce the fast rotating fields from the radiated EM waves.
    In all cases, the driven elements are lauching EM waves a c.  Only the 
    vector sum of the two (of four) quatrature fields is in rotation, which 
    leads us back the the question of what happens as the rotational velocity 
    of the sum of these EM fields reaches c within the field generator, and 
    there is not sufficient time for the fields to propogate accross the Vr=c 
    This is the point where two different physists have tried to lead me dowm 
    the garden path of "red shifted magnetic fields".  I'm not sure I'm ready 
    to buy that concept just yet.
    -- Robert Shannon

    From: Tevian Dray 
    Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 10:57:03 PST
    The Rotating Quantum Vacuum
    Author(s): Paul C. W. Davies , Tevian Dray , Corinne A. Manogue
    Report-no: ADP 95-43/M36 (University of Adelaide)
      We derive conditions for rotating particle detectors to respond in a
      variety of bounded spacetimes and compare the results with the
      folklore that particle detectors do not respond in the vacuum state
      appropriate to their motion. Applications involving possible
      violations of the second law of thermodynamics are briefly

    I'm also saying that a pair of crossed coils will start behaving
    differently when the driving frequency is so high that the field lines
    near them try to exceed the speed of light.  At low frequencies the coils
    create a rotating magnetic field.  At high frequencies they send out radio
    waves having a rotating field vector (circularly polarized waves, in other
    words.) WITHIN the volume of the coils the fields still rotate, at least
    until the frequency is raised so high that the coils are many wavelengths
    across.  At these frequencies the fields in the center of the crossed
    coils would be of complex shape, maybe some kind of contracting spiral.
    (Which is interesting, because at very high frequencies there would be a
    "hot spot" at the exact center of the crossed coils.)
    -- Robert Shannon

    On similar topic: anyone ever heard of the "CFA antenna" flap in the UK? 
    CFA is for "crossed-field antenna."  There were a bunch of articles and
    letters to the editor in EWW, "Electronics and Wireless World," the
    British engineering mag.  The CFA-believers though they had discovered a
    way to make 1-foot antennas which were efficient at 100-meter wavelengths. 
    The key to the CFA was to create the e- and b-fields separately: feed both
    a coil-loop and a pair of capacitor-spheres with separate high-current and
    high-voltage signals respectively, orient them 90deg to produce a
    broadside wave, shift the phases with L/C networks to form the proper EM
    wave (90? zero? ), and then obtain a powerful EM emission from a
    tiny antenna.  There was a great quantity of argument and name-calling
    over this, all done in slow-motion over many months of letters in the
    letters-to-the-editor column.  Then it just died away.  Either the pro-CFA
    side couldn't prove that it worked, or nobody believed the proof they did
    -- William Beaty

    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

    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 

    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

    From: Michael Martin Nieto 505-667-6127 
    Date: Mon, 5 Dec 94 09:52:27 -0700
    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.
    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.

    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
                        ---End of Page 13---
    Back to Main Links Page                    To Stirniman AG Bibliography - Page 14