The Secret of Antigravity
By Tim Ventura, March 19, 2004
This editorial is an opinion piece on a variety of Antigravity
research ideas and includes general notes and thought experiments
related to the latest 2004 research by American Antigravity's
Tim Ventura.
Community of Mind
A lot of what I do on a day to day basis consists of talking
to experts in the field of gravity research – not only
am I interested in learning more about the formal work that
they’ve done, but I also like to hear about their thoughts
and opinions as to “what makes gravity tick” –
ie: the gut feelings that they have about what works and
doesn’t in the realm of antigravity research.
I’ve talked to a very diverse group of people working
on many aspects of this technology – from Tom Bearden
on the electronics and engineering side of things to Bob
Lazar with relation to his supposed work on UFO systems
for the government in the late 80’s. I’ve talked
to a diverse mixture of ‘formal scientists’, inventors,
and other people with input on the subject and expertise
to give them valuable input. What I’ve learned doesn’t
come from any one single source, but is instead a composite
from a group of different people working towards a singular
goal – they compose a “community of mind”
that lends its expertise to moving the goal of antigravity
research forward.
The Limits of Science
In the interest of fairness, I should state the Antigravity
research really falls outside of conventional science. A
lot of new people to AG research (including the ‘general
interest’ segment of the public) have the impression
that we’re opposed to conventional scientific establishment
or government research efforts, but this isn’t true
– the research that’s being done in the open-source
community is really outside of the scope of ‘big-science’
and government-sponsored efforts, which is why it limits
our ability to work with them on these projects.
There are two main theories that would seem to be the path
for ‘big science’ in the formal community to tie
in with Antigravity research – Quantum Theory and Relativity
Theory. As I’ve stated in the past, the problem is
that neither of these really provides the type of coverage
that we need to move forward with a theory that promotes
Antigravity as an extension of conventional science.
One of the main problems here is simply observational –
thus far, devices that have produced an observable Antigravity
effect have been few and far between, which makes it difficult
for the conventional scientific community to really engage
itself in learning about Antigravity and tying that knowledge
back into conventional theory in terms of measurable theoretical
models.
Quantum Theory
I saw a lecture on the internet by Dr. Richard Feynman last
week in which he describes gravity as really falling outside
of the confines of Quantum Theory due to the fact that its
so much weaker than the other forces that it isn’t
measurable on Quantum levels (ie: in single particle interactions).
This limitation of the science has limited the ability of
quantum-theory researchers to really include gravity research
into their model of science, although some newer theorists
are making great strides in this area.
One of the big proponents of an extension of quantum mechanics
that would include a model for gravity (allowing gravity
shielding) is Dr. Ning Li, formerly of the University of
Huntsville. Her team, formerly part of the University but
now working as an independent research group in a startup-company
has been working with a method of creating what she calls
“AC-Gravity” that is related to the rotating superconductor
experiments conducted by Eugene Podkletnov at Tampere, Finland
in 1992.
Podkletnov noticed that smoke from a senior-researcher’s
pipe traveled in a column up towards the ceiling when his
rotating superconductor apparatus was operated under certain
conditions, and after careful work confirming this effect
he attempted to publish a document suggesting that a “gravitational-shielding”
effect was happening. Despite protest by the scientific
community, Dr. Ning Li stepped forward nearly a year later
to claim that she’d published a paper that had predicted
his results nearly 2 years before he’s obtained them.
Ning Li is now working in a secret-environment on her own
experiments involving rotating superconductors, and from
my research I’ve learned that she’s getting results
– in fact, in a carefully-written communiqué
that I received from her in early 2003 she claimed that
her team was able to produce over 11 kilowatts of “AC-Gravity”
effect. This is the last that I’ve heard from her on
the subject, and I suspect that her startup-company’s
financiers have restrained her from wanton publishing of
her day-to-day research results.
Relativity Theory
Two particles traveling parallel to each other will not
have an interaction between their magnetic fields, despite
a conventional field-interaction between these particles
if they aren’t traveling on parallel paths. This was
a section of a textbook on “relativity theory applied
to magnetism” in a physics text that I own that helped
me to realize that Relativity theory offers more leverage
into gravity research than I’d originally thought.
What it means is that magnetism, which is generally considered
to be a fundamental force, is really nothing more than the
interaction of the electrical fields of moving particles.
Depending on how the particles are moving, this magnetic
force may not even exist …
Decades after his death, the genius of Einstein’s
theory of Relativity continues to provide direction into
gravity and Antigravity research. In another recently published
article, the author mentions that the gravitational field
of the sun is slightly larger due to the heat (kinetic energy)
of its constituent atoms. This is a consequence of Relativity
theory, in this case related to the relative mass of a traveling
particle and how it is related to the gravitational field
that it creates around itself (more mass = larger displacement
of the time-space continuum).
Biefeld-Brown Notes
I’d known about the Biefeld-Brown effect for about
ten years before I became involved with building Lifters.
This prior knowledge came from a 4 year period of researching
levitation and antigravity technologies with Hovertech’s
Bill Butler, who was interested in Biefeld-Brown because
of its potential to manipulate ions.
In short, the Biefeld-Brown effect uses the concept of
‘asymmetrical capacitance’ to create thrust, but
its always been a difficult idea to sell because of a widespread
opinion in the scientific community that it is nothing more
than ion-wind. The Biefeld-Brown effect has defied categorization
for the most part because it is so difficult to isolate
from the associated ion-wind present in BB-Effect devices.
In other words, these devices all use high-voltages, which
inherently lead to the creation of ion-wind. While vacuum-chamber
tests might serve to finally close the case on the BB-Effect,
the chambers require a pressure of 10 E –7 torr to
perform an adequate test – this pressure is exceedingly
difficult to obtain without expensive lab equipment and
a large-scale laboratory vacuum-chamber to test in.
Bill Butler had postulated that the Biefeld-Brown effect
could be enhanced from the early charged-disk designs that
Brown himself had used by containing the ions with a magnetic
containment field. Although Brown’s reported output
didn’t meet our needs for propulsion, an enhancement
to increase the efficiency could be used fill a magnetic-plenum
with charged particles, which should have theoretically
created an air cushion below the devices containment field.
In reality, our experimentation didn’t provide the
results that we’d hoped it would, although it did open
some new doors for research that we’d previously neglected.
Consequently, I’d written of Lifter technology as not
being highly useful due to the same reasons that NASA tends
to belittle it – not enough power or efficiency for
useful propulsion.
Years went by, and I eventually became involved with Lifters
in 2002 – these are small devices that utilize the
Biefeld-Brown effect to actually lift off a surface and
fly using only high-voltage electrical current. My first
test flight was an interesting experience – because
of my inexperience building Lifters and some older design
requirements it barely stayed aloft, although the effect
was spectacular enough to both keep me interested in the
technology as well as attract the interest of the media
and general public.
Lifters are Linear
Since the inception of the American Antigravity website
in March 2002, I’ve had the opportunity to build and
test nearly 200 Lifters, and found that the qualities of
these devices that initially made them easy to experiment
with also greatly limit the potential efficiencies of these
devices for large-scale commercial applications.
In other words, Lifter technology is highly engineerable,
which is positive in the sense that it makes designing and
building these devices much less difficult than many other
proposed Antigravity technologies. Although most of the
calculations that I use are closer to estimates than precise
working values, the result is that I generally have a good
feel for when a Lifter will work or not – which is
great when you take into consideration the demands of filming
these devices to generate publicity for Antigravity research.
Unfortunately, the dark side of Lifter technology is that
despite dramatic increases in efficiency, these devices
generally speaking do not produce large amounts of thrust.
The advances that have occurred since Brown’s day are
mostly incremental advances related to construction and
precision – no major materials advances or giant leaps
in technology have presented themselves.
Therefore, while increasing the size and power of a Lifter
increases its overall thrust, the limitation on efficiency
is still roughly comparable to that of a traditional helicopter.
Efficiencies on that scale would be great for a company
like Boeing or Lockheed to engineer, but aren’t quite
as useful for small, independent inventors who require much
higher output-thrust ratios to create new prototypes.
High-Efficiency Antigravity Systems
At the same time that testing is repeatably producing grams
(and sometimes pounds) of thrust from Lifter technology,
there is another branch of research into Antigravity technology
that seems to be producing much higher efficiencies from
lower energy input.
Most members of the online Antigravity community on the
Internet are familiar with the claims of inventors like
Searl, Hamel, and more recently inventors like Marcus Hollingshead.
These individuals are merely a few of the many who have
stepped forward over the course of the 20th century to discuss
experimental results that they claim far exceed those attainable
with Lifter technology. In fact, the results that they’ve
claimed are great enough the majority that it strains believability
to listen to them describe these experiments, which also
predictably never seem to work when a camera is rolling.
I conducted a correlation-study in early 2003 to analyze
the claims of inventors like Searl in the hopes of learning
more about what specific techniques or materials they might
be using to produce thrust measurable in tons, rather than
in grams.
The study, which was not as in-depth as I’d hoped
it would be, showed a few common features. Firstly, these
high-output experiments are much less repeatable and/or
predictable than technologies like the Lifters are. While
inventors like Searl claim to be able to build prototypes
with highly consistent performance, there are a substantial
number of inventors on the net attempting to either replicate
or enhance designs like the Searl device who claim to have
had no results at all. The reason for many of these prototype
failures is lack of construction expertise, poor materials,
bad tolerances, and generally low-grade construction, but
it would appear that several well-constructed prototypes
have also failed.
Overall, there seems to be far more failure than success
in this category of device, but this could also be due to
the generally more precise requirements involved with building
the advanced devices in comparison to the comparatively
simple Biefeld-Brown technology. The Searl Effect generator,
which Searl claims to have built and tested in the 1960’s,
actually requires at least several hundred thousand of today’s
dollars, and requires specialized fabrication due to the
requirements of a complex magnetization process for its
components.
Warping Time and Space
Unlike the very linear output of the Lifter technology,
devices like the SEG or devices built by Hamel, Marcus,
and others seem to produce an effect that is not directly
related to their input energy. In other words, the effect
almost seems to be an over-unity process, except that instead
of generating electrical energy these devices produce a
gravitational energy.
While producing twice the thrust in a Lifter requires approximately
twice the input energy, the Marcus device uses only a few
hundred watts of energy and is claimed by Marcus to create
tons of propulsive force. Similarly, the SEG is reported
to require only a spin on the central armature to spin the
device up to speed, after which the device is supposed to
not only maintain its speed with no input energy but also
produce an Antigravity effect measurable in tons.
These results can also be extended to both Podkletnov and
Ning Li’s research, in that these researchers claim
to have created a ‘column’ of Antigravity/AC-Gravity
that changes the properties of all objects in its path.
Thus, the amount of force actually exerted by these devices
can very rapidly surpass the input energy.
Without having to resort to explanations involving ‘over-unity’
processes, which are nearly akin to magic with relation
to modern science, the most likely explanation for the incredible
output of the SEG and related devices is that they’re
actually somehow modifying the properties of time and space
to create the operative propulsive force.
Dimensions & Bubbles
The geometry of time and space is just a tiny bit different
on the Earth’s surface than it is in nearby space.
The only real difference that we can obviously feel is that
on Earth we experience gravity, whereas in space the same
gravitational field will be much less. This is because as
gravity’s pull tapers off with the square of the distance,
the curvature of space-time tends to flatten out.
Picture time-space as being a flat sheet of rubber, and
the Earth as being a heavy marble placed onto this flat
rubber sheet. Naturally, the rubber would bend to accommodate
the marble’s weight, and as a result anything else
on the sheet that was near the bend would also experience
a tendency to roll towards that marble.
Gravity works a lot like this rubber-sheet, and in the
same way the geometry of the rubber is warped by the weight
of the marble, the geometry of time-space is warped by the
Earth’s mass. Hence, we live in a gravity well, where
the Einsteinian curvature of the fabric of space provides
the familiar pull that we experience as gravitational force.
Any point on the rubber-sheet surroin the vicinity of our
marble has a certain curvature – an angle at which
the rubber is curved. Similarly, any object sitting in the
curved space surrounding the Earth will also be in a localized
region of curved space. This curvature wouldn’t be
noticeable to the object itself, but to an observer than
can see both the flat part of the rubber sheet and the curved
part the difference would resemble a ring around the marble
(or a series of concentric rings of different angles, which
seamlessly blend into each other as the rubber-sheet bends).
The idea that had occurred to me is that the Searl Effect
Generator and other devices of this type might actually
be curving space around themselves, creating a region where
the curvature of space is just a tiny-bit different than
in the local environment. If the curvature is positive,
the SEG would experience a greater attraction to the Earth
than normal, but if the SEG was able to “uncurve”
space to a certain degree then it may experience a generally
reduced gravitational attraction to the Earth.
In other words, if you push your finger up from the bottom
of the rubber sheet, the curvature will disappear in that
region, and any objects rolling over that region will not
experience the force that would otherwise pull them towards
the marble.
Curved Space and Thrust
Assuming that these devices are able to uncurve Einsteinian
space, or perhaps block the gravitons that are described
in Quantum Mechanics, the expectation would then be that
the SEG should sit motionless unless an upward force is
applied. This isn’t what the reports about this device
describe, however – the SEG can reportedly lift tons
of weight, which would seem to either indicate that in addition
to negating the device’s weight the SEG can also produce
thrust, or alternatively that something else is causing
an acceleration. The first explanation isn’t unreasonable,
but the idea of an outside influence causing the acceleration
and thrust would seem to be more in-line with conventional
physics.
When you inflate a helium-balloon, it will tend to rise
until it reaches a point in the atmosphere where the air
is thin enough that the displacement weight of the balloon
is the same as the external weight of the surrounding air
(after which the balloon will cease to rise). What’s
intensely interesting about this phenomenon is that the
balloon itself isn’t doing any of the work – the
outside environment performs the work of lifting the balloon.
In fact, the energy put into lifting the balloon comes specifically
from the Earth’s gravitational field, as it is that
gravity that pushes the atmosphere down onto the planet
and creates the 15-psi pressure that we normally live in.
Similarly, I believe that the energy that creates lift
in the SEG, Marcus and Hamel devices comes not from the
devices themselves but instead from the surrounding environment.
In short, these devices create a curvature of time &
space that’s different than the curvature of the surrounding
environment, and as a result the energy in the surrounding
environment moves this ‘bubble of curved space’
until the curvature inside the bubble match that of the
surrounding environment.
Thus, the function of the SEG-style of Antigravity device
is simply to curve space, and in doing so, a very powerful
propulsive effect emerges as a shadow force. This is an
elegant solution in that not only does it seem to mesh with
Relativity Theory, it also doesn’t directly contradict
known physics.
By removing the burden from the actual Antigravity device
itself and placing it on the environment, it becomes much
easier to visualize the tons of payload that these devices
are reportedly capable of lifting. The gravitational field
of the Earth is enormous, and a great deal of energy is
bound up in this field – the energy can be harnessed
to perform work simply by creating a local region of time-space
that the Earth’s environment naturally rejects.
Side-Effects
Not only does the explanation of the SEG as a device to
curve space fit well with the reported payload capabilities
that have been described, it also fits well with the reported
‘side-effects’ of operating these devices.
While the Lifter technology has some interesting side-effects
while in operation, the high-output devices like the SEG,
Marcus device, and others have an interesting array of effects
that are described with remarkable similarity despite being
observed by a variety of individuals who are usually not
familiar with each other’s research.
The side-effects from these devices appear to include things
like inertial dampening inside the perimeter of the device’s
field while in operation, as well as changes in the air
described as a “dark blurring” or “black
cloud” that surrounds the device while in operation.
Several other effects are also reported, but these two are
some of the more notable effects.
Marcus experimented with placing a glass of water partially
within the field of the device while it operates, which
resulted in the water showing the field perimeter by having
different water levels inside and outside the field’s
perimeter. Searl had reported that the inside of the SEG
exhibited a constant ½ G force in all directions
that provides inertial dampening during operation.
The description of these devices as creating a localized
curvature of time & space would support the notion of
inertial dampening effects – after all, the properties
of space-time are different than they are outside of the
device’s field-radius. The black-cloud would result
from the bending of light (and/or Doppler shifting) that
would be expected to occur as light passes through a heavily
distorted region of time-space.
Creating the Effect
The correlation study seemed to show a common feature among
nearly all of the devices reported to create large-scale
AG propulsion – namely, the utilization in these devices
of Rotating Magnetic Fields.
It’s been said that Einstein based his study of Gravity
on an examination of magnetism, and with only a few exceptions
these forces definitely are similar in many respects. To
begin with, both of these forces are ‘field-only effects’
– ie: magnetism only exists in the presence of moving
electric fields, but doesn’t exist if the fields are
static (indicating that it is an aspect of electricity and
time/space, and not a discrete force tied to the particle.
Similarly, gravity is considered a consequence of the curvature
of time/space and in the past has been called a “shadow
force” on different occasions because it is very weak
and difficult to interact with directly.
The physics textbook example that I cited in the first
part of this treatise would seem to indicate that magnetism
really doesn’t exist without relative motion between
particles – even if both of the particles are moving
through space but yet remain motionless relative to each
other. This suggests that magnetism is a bit like the wake
in the ocean that a boat kicks up when it passes –
the effect that the wake has on other boats is largely dependent
on their orientation to it.
It is because of this similarity between magnetism and
gravity that I believe that the SEG is able to create a
“bubble” of localized space-time. The device possibly
uses magnetic energy to create a ‘vortex’ in the
background of the time-space continuum, and this vortex
is then rejected from the local gravitational field by the
surrounding environment.
Kinetic Motion
Another element that the Marcus device, SEG, and others
have in common is kinetic-motion – more specifically
in the form of rotation (the SEG uses rings and rollers,
and the Marcus device utilizes circular rotating armatures,
Hamel has off-center rotating magnets, etc…).
Since electrons move through a wire when current flows,
it took me a while to figure out what it was about the actual
motion of the device itself that creates the AG effect.
In other words, if electrons are moving through a wire while
the device operates, why do they also require being physically
moved through space by rotating part of the device itself?
Interestingly, Tom Bearden provided the solution for me
offhand one day when he mentioned that electrons typically
only travel 8 to 10 inches per hour through copper wire
when a normal current is flowing.
If magnetism is really a form of ‘wake’ in the
fabric of space-time from moving electric fields, then it
stands to reason that this magnetic-effect will be more
pronounced if the electrons are moving more rapidly. After
realizing how slowly electrons travel through wire in normal
conduction, it stands to reason that whatever effect they
produce would be very pronounced if they are moving much
more rapidly.
Rotational Motion
The idea of rotation in these devices has been pointed out
in the past, and one of the popular explanations for why
these devices incorporate rotating components is that the
rotation of the device creates a ‘symmetrical vortex’
in the fabric of time-space that concentrates whatever effect
would otherwise happen into a smaller geometric area. An
associated idea is that if the AG effect involves disturbing
the fabric of time-space then without a continuous disruption
in a small physical area the fabric of time-space will lapse
back to normal.
The explanation above sounds more complicated than it really
is – in practice, this would be the difference between
something traveling rapidly through the ocean versus something
traveling in a circular manner – in the first example
the result would be a wake, and in the second a whirlpool
would result.
There may be something more to this view than conventional
physics would like to believe. Conventional explanations
of centrifugal force are usually explained by being broken
down into an object attempting to travel in a straight line
and encountering a resistance, usually illustrated somewhat
like a tether-ball traveling around a pole and being forced
into a circular pattern by the tension of the rope.
However, there have been indications that more is going
on with rotational force than meets the eye. Firstly, there
was Erik Laithwaite’s stunning presentation for the
Royal Academy of Sciences. After lugging a heavy 50-pound
electric gyroscope into the auditorium, he then powered
it up to normal rotational speed and easily hefted it above
his head using only one hand.
A Relativity Thought Experiment
Imagine yourself in a space station, where the station is
rotating enough to provide a steady 1-G acceleration against
the interior walls of the station (much like the crew compartment
of the spacecraft in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey). While
the traditional tether-ball explanation of centrifugal force
would seem to explain the artificial-gravity with in Newtonian
physics, it doesn’t entirely work in Relativity Theory.
Let’s take our theoretical space-station and move
it into deep-space – perhaps a region of space so far
removed from normal space that the stars aren’t even
visible. Looking outside the space-station, all that you
would see is inky-blackness, and you couldn’t see any
part of the outside world with which to orient yourself.
Despite being in your space station in space so remote
that you couldn’t tell if it was rotating or in fact
standing still with regard to the rest of the Universe,
you would still feel the artificial gravity pushing you
down onto the floor, presumably to the same degree of force
that you’d experience at any other point in space.
Again, in Newtonian physics this isn’t a problem,
but in Relativity theory this is a real issue. One of the
major tenets of relativity assumes that everything in the
Universe is relative – that’s why time moves more
slowly in a traveling aircraft than on the Earth’s
surface, and why objects that fall into a black-hole can
never reach its center (because at some point time stops
for them due to the super-intense gravity).
In relativity theory, the only way that you can experience
the centrifugal-force inside your space-station is if that
space-station is rotating in relation to something else.
This also applies here on Earth – if you hold your
arms out and spin around in a circle, it not only appears
that the world is spinning, but in a world based on pure
relativity theory the world IS spinning. However, if you
try this experiment you’ll astutely notice that while
your arms experience a centrifugal force pushing them outward,
the rest of the room you are inside does not. What does
this mean?
The Third Observer – Mach’s Principle
My interpretation of the experience of centrifugal force
is that there must be a third-party that is the absolute
standard that motion is compared against. Otherwise, how
would it be possible that the person on the space station
(or you in your room spinning around) experiences centrifugal
force while the rest of the Universe does not?
What I am describing here is quite simple – it’s
a variant on Mach’s principle, which states something
like that kinetic energy is related to the sum total of
all the gravitational energy in the Universe. Mach was obviously
close to the point, and yet all of the Mach’s principle
devices that we’ve seen tested tend to fail miserably,
so what gives?
Maybe Mach’s principle has nothing to do with gravitational
sum-totals and everything to do with the fabric of space-time.
This fabric of space-time is the 3rd Observer that I mentioned
above, as well as being the means of transfer for the actual
‘energy’ contained in kinetic energy.
Relativity theory has basically been proven through experimentation,
and yet my elaboration on it would seem to undermine the
theory. The only way around this is if the fabric of space-time
is a 3rd Observer, but also is able to be manipulated under
certain circumstances. In other words, you can bend, stretch,
twist, or mangle the fabric of time and space, but be forewarned
that in cases where something is actually moving through
the fabric of space-time it functions as a 3rd Observer.
This explanation of time-space is a lot closer to a neo-ether
theory than I would like it to be, but Einstein himself
alluded to these with Relativity theory. In any case, this
isn’t meant to be the foundation of a new physics –
merely a new perspective on time-space that fits with the
strange effects of these Rotating Magnetic Field AG devices.
Heavy-Duty AG Design Specs
What I’ve been describing so far is basically a few
different approaches to AG that involve Rotating Magnetic
Fields. Once again, these typically consist of the mechanical
rotation of electrical charges/currents through space. Depending
on the level of detail that you want to drill down to, you
can really summarize the majority of larger-scale ideas
as belonging to this family of AG devices.
Paul Brown envisioned the SEG as working by a few different
methods, and he wasn’t sure which of these was correct
(or the ‘most correct’ of his choices). One that
caught my eye was his description of the SEG has being a
Hompolar generator, in which the SEG itself was the stator
and the Earth or the Earth’s magnetic field was the
amature.
This caught my eye after a conversation with Richard Hoagland,
in which he suggested that rotation is the key to Antigravity
but that conventional materials aren’t able to spin
fast enough to normally make the effect happen on a consistent
basis. Hoagland is very familiar with the research of the
late Bruce DePalma, who had reported some effects that resembled
Antigravity effects when working with conventional rotating
devices and especially in his research with Homopolar generators.
While I can’t say for sure that Homopolar generator
technology is a potential means for reducing the complexity
of Rotating Magnetic Field AG-devices, it piques my curiousity
because it involves both rotation and magnetic fields.
While this explanation may not apply to devices like the
Hamel design or the Marcus device, it certainly does help
to see where amateurs could have bad-luck creating AG if
the SEG is really working as a new type of Homopolar generator.
Feedback Loops
This is moving out of the territory of the known and into
the realm of things that are really just guesswork, but
suppose for a moment that the key to the SEG is that it
is a Homopolar Generator and also a magnetic energy storage
device. In other words, a Homopolar generator works by rotating
a disk in a magnetic field, which in turn moves the electrons
in the disk to create a current. One of the key factors
to operation is the size of the magnetic field, which would
increase with rotational speed in the SEG because the rollers
themselves are Neodynium magnets.
In this view, the faster the SEG spins, the larger the
magnetic field is, which means that more current is produced.
Since the current being produced has a magnetic field of
its own, it is entirely possible that the SEG can amplify
the amount of power that it produces through a feedback
loop.
Realistically, if the key to the SEG is a feedback loop,
I don’t think that this process is loss-less enough
to be over-unity – however, it is possible that the
overall field could be amplified to many times that of other
devices based on a similar design. The key in this case
would be in connecting the electrical output from the rim
of the device to an input in the center of the device, as
well as positioning the wiring-conduits to create a magnetic
field that is additive with the one produced by default
from the magnetic rollers.
The feedback-enhanced SEG would function as a battery for
magnetism – storing an enormous magnetic field in a
dynamic manner in the same way that a flywheel dynamically
stores kinetic energy.
Micro-Rotation
Hoagland suggested another approach to the idea of Rotating
Magnetic Field antigravity – in his view, DePalma was
moving towards larger machines when the best substance to
use might be a chunk of material in which the atoms could
be spun synchronously. This could be achieved using a Nuclear
Magnetic Resonance technique and might provide a solution
for creating Antigravity on a mostly-electronic basis rather
than the formerly-attempted kinetic-electric systems like
the SEG.
Interestingly, if rotation has some intrinsic connection
to the fabric of time-space that makes it especially useful
in generating Antigravity effects, then Hoagland’s
idea might have more merit than larger-scale approaches
to AG have in the past. The reason is that if both rotation
and linear motion include the concept of directional motion,
however, in rotation the directional motion also as a rotational
radius (for instance, the radius of each ring in an AG,
or the radius of the armatures in the Marcus device). As
this radius of rotation tightens, it’s not unreasonable
to expect that whatever interesting effects that rotation
might have would be increased as a result (after all, if
the rotational radius is zero then the object is simply
traveling in a straight line).
Imagine instead of an armature spinning with electrons
being moved in a circle with a rotational diameter measurable
in feet, condense the picture down to the scale of an individual
atom, rotating with a radius so small that its not visibly
measureable – this would have to disturb a larger portion
of space in the local vicinity due to the increase rotational
speed, although admittedly in a much smaller area.
Science rarely works with individual atoms, though, and
in the case of an NMR technique for Antigravity its much
easier to work with them in bulk. These atoms naturally
have a spin associated with them, but normally the spins
are not aligned – by using NMR to align the spins for
specific elements, it would be interesting to see if there
is an associated weight reduction involved.
Hoagland actually provided another facet to his idea of
atomic-scale Antigravity, which was the concept of precession.
He cited the Laithwaite experiments with gyroscopes as an
example of precession being used for uni-directional force
generation. This would be nearly as effective as gravitational-shielding
(by comparison, Lifters are also generally considered to
be uni-directional force generators).
Ordinarily, for every force, an equal an opposite force
is created – this is why rockets use fuel, and aircraft
need propellers to move the air. The force that is generated
on the propellant or surrounding air creates an opposite
force that propels the rocket/aircraft forward as a result.
The rumor is that Laithwaite himself became interested
in precession after watching a mechanic replace a gyroscope
on an aircraft. The mechanic was pressed for time, and was
carrying the still-spinning gyroscope down the steps of
the aircraft from the cockpit to the runway below when he
hit a step too hard and the gyroscope went into precession.
Precession occurs in rotating systems when an applied force
manifests itself 90 degrees later in the direction of rotation
from the position where the force was applied. In other
words, this mechanic hits the step too hard and it sends
a mechanical shock through the gyroscope, which in turn
slams the technician’s body & the gyroscope into
the pavement below at high-speed.
Hoagland suggested that it might be possible to align atomic
or possibly even molecular spin in a material and then find
a way to send the entire block of substance into precession
– which would then move in a direction with tremendous
speed (the speed would probably depend on what percentage
of the substance’s atoms/molecules went into precession).
Conclusion
The information above is neither complete nor perfect –
it’s a best-guess approach to one particular method
of Antigravity based on reported information available both
in texts and on the web. There are a lot of factors that
could invalidate this information, including misleading
or falsified reports by inventors about what they’ve
seen, and/or simple inaccuracies or unknowns in the underlying
science.
Please note that while most of the time I take great pains
to delineate speculation from known and validated science,
in this article I tend to blur the line a fair amount. Also,
don’t leave with the impression that the ideas that
I’ve cited in this document are the only paths of Antigravity
research that are being pursued – these are in fact
only a few of many approaches to AG -- I haven’t covered
the other approaches due simply to time constraints.
|
![Help American Antigravity by Donating -- we're a 501c[3] non-profit. Click here to learn more!](graphics/arrows/sidebar_donate_140x45.gif){kind=small}
