ON THE NATURE OF THE PRIMORDIAL FIELD

To err is to be human

by Bruce DePalma

The description of the Primordial Field is imaginary but that is precisely why it is correct. The best instrument for the exploration of this question is the human mind.

The representation of reality within our conscious persona is constructed out of the myriad chemical reactions to the sensory stimuli of "external reality". On this basis the sensory image is living and we could speculate the external reality was non-living unless we knew the self-evident proposition that all reality was alive.

Nothing could exist unless the organizing force were more powerful than destructive & dissipative effects. Consequentially we can view the organizing force as transcendent and that destruction and dissipation are facets of the constructive energy.

The most profound manifestation of the creative force in material form are the thoughts and ideas. Thoughts and ideas are modifiers in the direction and application of Force. We arrive at the idea that the primordial field is a field of pure Force.

The detection of an isotropic field consists of distorting it and noting the force isotropys.

On the highest level of abstraction Force is Intelligence; consequently the primordial field is intelligent. Within the limits imposed by the capability of my human mind reality exists as it is. Its architecture is beyond the scope of my discovery.

Nevertheless that architecture forms a basis for the positing and asking of questions. A dialogue of questions and answers, the field of a design for Physics. As long as we remain rational, 'it' remains rational.

The primordial field has all known properties. We understand its force nature through experiments with charged capacitors, magnets, and gravity. In every case, a distortion of the primordial field results in an unbalanced force.

Apparently the primordial field has certain mechanical characterizations which allow for the propagation of 'waves'. Mechanical characteristics mandate the possibilities of discrete 'particles'. Both characteristics exist simultaneously. The measuring instrument asks the question, the Universe provides the answer.

Consequently, in the Universe of the primordial field the Nature or origin of the field is unknown being beyond the conception of the minds which are examining it.

The human mind or body is a materialization of an implied tendency in the body of space. Consequently man can never know his source because only in the downstream of time is the material manifestation formed.

Can the material manifestation form more subtle connections than itself? Can you have more subtle thoughts than you can think? The plenum of existence is formed within the limitations of the human mind.

The existence of the primordial field can be proved by the manifestation of unbalanced forces through distortion of its normally isotropic condition, i.e. by electricity, magnetism or gravity.

That the primordial field has certain mechanical characteristics can be shown by the apparent propagation of waves and the existence of discrete particles.

Mathematics is a facet of the Nature of the intelligent primordial field. The mathematics we presently use is derived from the counting of integers. This is OK when counting marbles or money. What is the Nature of the integer? Is an integer exactly the result of a number or are properties of counting being ignored like the higher order precessional modes of rotation, i.e. nutation, ..., ..., etc.

Every experiment which is done qualifies and quantifies the primordial field in some aspect.

If you want chaos you get chaos. For those of us who govern our thoughts with logic we get logic. Actually logic and chaos are the extrema of what we know as thought.

For those of us who consider ourselves sophisticated we amuse ourselves with a pastime called Science. This the application of logic (the self-defining reasoning process in Nature), to Nature. This self-examination in itself has the limitation of the manifest in attempting to describe the un-manifest.

A final thought. The primordial field is responsible for the inertia of material objects. Without rotation the manifested inertial mass is isotropic, as is the primordial field. With rotation anisotropy is established firstly in the existence of directions for the inertia experiment, i.e. axial motion or motion in the plane of rotation. Apparently there is a connection, (through time), between the manifest material object and the primordial field. Consequently, rotation of a material object introduces spatial anisotropy of inertial mass measurements into the spatial region surrounding the rotating object.

It is suggestive that magnetism, a phenomena of spatial anisotropy, could be introduced into a normally non-magnetic material, i.e.

brass, through the influence of a field of spatial inertia anisotropy. Certain recent experiments of Monstein have borne this out.

Although as a field it is no more primary than electricity, magnetism, or gravity, the spatial inertial anisotropy created by a rotating object is called the OD field.

Bruce DePalma

The Experiment of Existenceby Bruce DePalma

6 August 1996

Is God an a priori condition for the existence of reality? What is prior before prior? The cosmic primordial field exists because it exists. I am because I am is the first statement of God. "The T.V. screen is the retina of the mind's eye." God is exploring the inner anatomy of himself. Dive deep into the sea of mind and find the gem of love.

By approaching that which we seek we lose the sense of reason and bewitch our minds. The circle is closing and we are no further ahead. God is power and with power you have no choice. The endless bargain of infinity turns us round again.

For the sake of argument we must assume that consciousness in Nature is the essence of the mind of God. The why of the why, the sine qua non. This reminds me of the Platonic dialogue where, Socrates demonstrates the existence of geometric forms, a priori, i.e. square, circle, triangle in the mind of the student, - without the necessity for the existence of written diagrams. Socrates shows certain geometric forms are innate in the mind, preordaining the written diagrams.

So we must accept the natural elements which are given to us as the building blocks of our world. I would rather serve in Heaven than rule in Hell. I accept the concepts given to me as the elementary constructions of the mind. God is trapped in his own existence as no mere mortal can imagine. Why is this true? I have no answer to this existence.

This presupposes I am God; but I am God. There is no separation from God for God and his existence go together. If God were separate from his existence a new interpretation would be possible and offers interesting possibilities.

Something from nothing is only a creative concept, it tells us nothing about the existence of reality. The best the creative thinkers of this world have been able to come up with, and I include myself in that category, is that the cosmic primordial field cannot be deduced since

the logical elements of deduction, i.e. words, are in themselves inferred natural elementary symbolisms. Since the basis of which we are arguing is in itself a logical interpretation we are on shifting sands and our thoughts become indeterminate, undefined.

Logic is a self-justifying system, circularities and tautologies are it's only result. Consequently nothing can be proved by logic alone. The Universe we exist in exists because it exists.

The same can be said for the cosmic primordial field. The question is not whether we have to posit or deduce because it is not in the province of logic to be able to arrive at the truth.

Truth can only be determined by experiment. The experiment of existence is something even God cannot try. Because God is the subject of his own experiment. The fact that this conversation is going on at all is because God is not the only concept which fills the Universe. There is the imperfection of God which makes man question his own desires.

Bruce DePalma

The Absurdity of Knowledgea collection of papers by

Bruce DePalma17 July 1996

I have always been interested in physics. When I went to school in the 60's I was fed the "standard interpretation" of physical phenomena. I came to believe or accept the ideas presented in the University and the interpretations thereof. My mind was blown out after my initial student induced 'pot' experience. I discovered as a direct perception that the flow of time was not Universal.

From this it was but a short time before I began to doubt the axioms and truisms of science. I sensed that if the Universality of time was an incorrect doctrine, all other scientific reasonings dependent on it were also flawed.

Of course one always searches for a "critical experiment" to prove or disprove a scientific thought. For those of us who interest ourselves in altering Reality there has to be a critical experiment which changes everything. Does the photon divide itself before the double slit experiment -- so that one half goes through one slit and the remainder through the other? If in the performance of an experiment we create a contradiction, does Reality come crashing down? Maybe only in our heads since the map is not the territory and we can dream-up anything we want.

For those of us interested in The Pure System, this is a waste of time since it does not address the problem of survival. If we are trapped within a system of logic there is no way out unless we recognize

certain things cannot be done, i.e. Free Energy, Anti-Gravity, Space Travel, etc., are implicitly excluded. How do you break the spell, the fixation of humanity on conservation, the dividing up of the limited into the more limited. This book is not for everybody since nobody knows what is true. We must break the cycle of kindness and face reality.

Loosely returning to the plot. Does the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Knowledge represent true experience?

It may not be true but it does represent something, a wild idea about the nature of Reality, anything you want to think up and thump. In searching for a new experiment we wonder as we wander out under the stars. I think there are certain simple statements which can be made, i.e. we have discovered 92 natural elements whose ores precipitate in certain naturally occurring crystallographic groups.

We can say we have discovered three naturally occurring forms of motion, linear motion, rotation, and streptation. And that all presently existing physics books attempting to explain all motion simply as a combination of translation and rotation are wrong. And that might lead us into the insight that the newly recognized form of streptoid motion might have an experimental description altogether different from earlier mechanical descriptions of translation and rotation. Fundamental Laws: mass, inertia, action/reaction, and conservation would alter viz the earlier descriptions of motion generated out of the motion of non-streptating objects.

Any alteration in the conception of conservation will result either in a situation where all machines will become less efficient (theoretically) or will exceed the 100% efficiency level and become self-sustaining.

Once we have examined the theories of Reality we find they are all based on an assumption. The assumption is we can talk about something if we can convert it into something which we can understand. This is the Principle of Equivalence which says you can talk about what you don't know just as long as it is 'equivalent' to what you do know. Equivalence means there is no discernable test to distinguish between. The result of Newton's tests on linear motion do not apply to streptoid motion. There are certain machines where there are no internal changes to indicate the flow of power through or from the machine.

The Absurdity of Knowledge relates to the fact that Knowledge is an interpretation of reality. What was known to be true at a certain time can be replaced with "new" knowledge resulting in a different interpretation. Peace can become war, and love can become knowledge. The truth is that we do not understand the nature of the world we live in. We can become what we want to become through the nature of our thought. Of course, that could return us to the Garden of Eden, but if we again become fascinated by the allure of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge we expel ourselves from the peace of God's garden into the excitement of the growth and build-up of various civilisations. Each society is based on an interpretation. And when the limitations of that interpretation express themselves in an eventual devitalisation of the

society so generated, the civilisation fails, and after an interregnum is replaced by another.

The point is that civilisations in themselves are based on certain interpretations of ideas. Eventual burn-out is because the map is not the territory. Perhaps this is an argument for a tribal extended family to replace 'organised civilisation'. The basic question is: Do we want to return to the Garden of Eden? The basic injunction of Star Trek, "May you enjoy your Reality more than our illusions," still applies.

Bruce DePalma graduated from M.I.T. in 1958. He attended graduate school in Electrical Engineering and Physics at M.I.T. and Harvard University. At M.I.T. he was a lecturer in Photographic Science in the Laboratory of Dr. Harold Edgerton and directed 3-D color photographic research for Dr. Edwin Land of Polaroid Corporation. He commenced his work in Free Energy through his studies on the gyroscope and the nature of motion. He invented the N-machine, a free energy electrical generator in 1977-78. He is widely published. His recent scientific papers are available on the Internet. A volume of his current work will appear as: The Absurdity of Knowledge. He resides near Auckland, New Zealand.

FREE ENERGYThe Political, Social, and Economic Implications of The N Machine / Space Power

Generator

by Bruce De Palma

It is said: "The whole Universe and created world is a thought in the mind of God."

- The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna

If that be the case, wouldn't He want it to be the finest show in town?

As a long time worker in the field of Free Energy physics, and the inventor of the N machine which extracts energy from the Free Energy field of Space, sooner or later I would have to face the political nature of progress. It is not simply enough to violate the established laws of physics with a new experiment. (1)

We are facing at the close of the 20th century a situation unique in the history of the world. In the past the inventor had to serve the requirements of a vital and expanding society. The telegraph, the telephone, long distance communication, the railroad and automobile covered the globe and finally satellite communications making a truly global and planetary society. With the coming of the global society the planetary Earth became a floating island in space with only resource wars on the horizon as a foreshadowing of things to come.

Limitation of resources as opposed to development of uncharted territory poses a new challenge to the inventor. In the case of Free Energy, it is not a case of being able to accomplish something which had not been done before but being able to accomplish the same things which had been done before without consumption of gas, coal or oil or the pollution of natural resources by exhaust fumes or combustion by-products.

Take the case of the electric car. An automobile which could exceed the presently accepted performance while not consuming or burning oil or gas - which could be switched on before a journey and off after reaching your destination. The power unit for such a machine would extract its energy directly from space without noise or pollution.

With the growth of society limited by the finite planetary surface area the Space Power Generator offers the only hope for avoidance of resource wars. In fact, planetary renewal can be affected with the availability of unlimited non-consumptive and non-polluting Space Power. It must be recognized that advancement in society always means less manual labor and that finally we must accept the condition of un-employment as the fulfillment of the nature of progress itself. A new source of energy in our society, a new prime mover, can make possible a new kind of independence. A kind of independence for the common man where he can take pride that he has fulfilled his role in free society and now he can make his own life in the certainty of a new source of prime energy which can make him independent of the feeling that he must take orders from someone else in order to feel he has a job.

That total un-employment is the ultimate goal of capitalistic society. When all the natural forces of Nature have been harnessed man is released from the state of slavery. At this point politics becomes a form of state or option from which he can launch his platform to the stars.

If energy and transportation costs were zero, society would center around quality of life, small communities would form in which all basic life support requirements would be met locally. Money would still be required to purchase manufactured high-tech items and money could be earned through sale of community grown or manufactured goods.

A political administration would be elected to provide global planetary coordination for projects outside the scale of simple community organization. This does not imply the necessity of a global one-world government; a loose federation of autonomous states and countries would be sufficient.

In our present 1993 society Mammon has been elevated to the position of a god, i.e. nothing can be accomplished without money. The challenge is to replace promises on paper with real quality of life.

When Isaac Newton formulated his "Principia Mathematica" in the late 1600's he violated his own admonition "Hypotheses non Fingo", "I make no hypotheses" in his third law of motion: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." This statement implies there is an "equal" and "opposite" reaction to every action. The statements "equal" and

"opposite" are in themselves an hypothesis, since every experiment in physics would have to be tested, including experiments not yet to be done, in the future, to substantiate the truth of such a statement. Newton's first two laws, the law of inertia, and the law of mass, are laws of experimental observation which define inertia and mass and do not in themselves include a foreshadowing of the results of those experiments, to wit equal and opposite. Einstein, whose theories are based on the definitions of Newton's 1st and 2nd laws and the conservation laws which grow out of the hypothesis of the third law, are in themselves a conjecture resting on the hypothesis of equality of action and reaction.

Free Energy transduced through the reactionless self-running electric engine will replace all other forms of internal combustion machines. Society will reformulate itself around the new reactionless prime mover. Man and his activities will hitch themselves to the very wheelwork of the Universe, the forces which cause the planets to rotate and move in circular orbits around the Sun.

REFERENCES

(1) Magnetism as a Distortion of a Pre-Existent Primordial Energy Field and the Possibility of Extraction of Electrical Energy Directly from Space, Bruce de Palma; the proceedings of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference (IECEC), August 4-9, 1992, Boston, Massachusetts; sponsored by The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE).

The Secret of the Force Machine

by Bruce DePalma29 April 1995

In the analysis of Free Energy machines it is shown that spatial distortion created to elicit electrical power extraction or anti-gravitational effects, results in the appearance of physical forces in the apparatus. The physical forces which appear represent the tangible counterpoise of the spatial distortion.

Anti-gravitational Effects

When a real mechanical object, a flywheel, is rotated, forces appear, the centripetal forces of rotation within the material of the flywheel. These forces are the counterpoise to the spatial distortion created by the centripetal acceleration applied to the mass elements of the rotating wheel. Although these forces are not available for explicit measurement, their presence is evidenced when the wheel is rotated at a high enough speed such that the forces exceed the tensile strength of the flywheel material and an explosion results. The interesting

phenomenon is that no work is required to maintain these forces at arbitrarily high values.

The gravitational field of the Earth is a spatial distortion occasioned by the presence of mass. The weight of an object is measured by a scale under a condition of constraint, i.e. no motion, and represents the degree of spatial distortion at the point of measurement.

Objects in free fall are not acted on by Newtonian forces, consequently their rate of "fall" is subordinated to rate of influx of the gravitational flow. A hydro-electric power station extracts energy from the gravitational energy flow.

Gravitational energy is a flow not a force which distinguishes it from Newtonian forces arising from the acceleration of masses. Reasoning by analogy with electrical Free Energy machines within which forces are manifested proportionally as a counterpoise to the degree of spatial distortion required to elicit a certain level of output electrical power, we can hypothesize that to paddle upstream in the gravitational flow a mechanical Free Energy machine would also manifest within itself such a force counterpoise.

Thus to generalize we can say that in the class of machines known as Free Energy machines the mode of such apparatus, either in the mechanical or electrical form, is such that the principle of operation is expressible as an equivalence between the explicitly manifested mechanical force counterpoise and the power output of the machine whether it be mechanical, electrical, or other.

The gravitational flow represents mechanical power, because power can only be extracted from a flow of power. If the mechanical power output of a machine exceeds the gravitational power flow in the region of its operation then a force will be developed in the direction opposite to the gravitational flow and an anti-gravitational effect will be demonstrated.

Actually what is connoted as gravitational power flow and mechanical power output derived from Free Energy anti-gravitational apparatus is Time-Energy. This subject is discussed in other of my writings, reference (1).

The archetypal gravitational engine or Free Energy machine is a combination of two counter-rotating gyroscopes with axles parallel and rotors co-planar. The original Force Machine was constructed in 1971, figure (1). The total weight of the apparatus was 276 lbs. The "active" mass at the rim of the flywheels was 10 lbs. The assembly was suspended from a spring scale and the gyroscopes driven counter-rotating at 7600 r.p.m. Under these conditions the support cylinder was driven at 4 r.p.s. to precess the gyros. A consistent set of experiments repeatably showed 4 - 6 lbs. of weight loss. Although thousands of pounds of force were developed, expressed as tension and compression in the walls of the support cylinder, none of this could appear as torque in the precessional axis due to the geometry of the machine. Precession more rapid than 4 r.p.s. caused fracture of the tool steel gyro support axles. It is easy to see how the machine design could be improved by

mounting both gyros on the same axle and supporting the developed precessional forces by one rotor bearing directly on the other. Other mechanical improvements would greatly increase the achievable anti-gravitational effect. Figure (2).

The important observation is that in a Free Energy anti-gravitational Force Machine, essentially no input mechanical power to the precessional axis is required in the manifestation of arbitrarily large forces in the walls of the gyro support cylinder. From the point of view of physics we can say there is an equivalence between the force explicitly developed in the walls of the machine and the mechanical, time-energy, power produced. Thus in this machine we have in operation a Force - Energy equivalence paradigm of great power. In contrast, the consumptive physics now in vogue can only offer a Work - Energy paradigm expressed in machines which are said to "convert" raw materials into energy.

Electrical Force Machines

The N-machine

In the construction of an electrical machine analogous to the mechanical Force Machine use is made of the phenomenon of the Faraday disc. It is known that in electrical machines consisting of a conducting disc rotated proximate and co-axial to the magnetic pole of an axially suspended magnet, figure (3), no reaction torques are transmitted from the driven or driving disc to the magnet supplying the exciting field. Attachment of the conducting disc to the magnet itself and co-rotation of disc and magnet elicit an electrical potential between the center and outer edge of the conducting disc. Electrical power at a high degree of efficiency exceeding the electro-mechanical equivalent of work may be drawn from this apparatus, (N-machine).

When the N-machine was originally disclosed to the public, ref. (2), (3), careful testing revealed output electrical power exceeding equivalent input mechanical power by 5 - 7.7:1. Theoretical considerations derived from experiments with the mechanical Force Machine would lead one to expect that power could be extracted from such a machine almost free, i.e. electrical power could be extracted without any drag being reflected on the source of driving energy. Many other experimenters attempted to "improve" on the original design. In most cases however while overall efficiency was greater than unity it rarely exceeded 2:1. What was forgotten was the withdrawal of electrical energy in itself created a spatial distortion which interfered with the action of the machine by creating drag.

The high efficiency of the "Sunburst" prototype was due to partial compensation of field distortion created by current withdrawal. With reference to figure (4), the magnetic field created in the rotating current collecting disc was partially cancelled by current flow in the opposite direction in a fixed conducting plate, situated as close to the rotating disc as the thickness of the brush assembly would allow. Indicated schematically in the drawing. An improved machine would

position a fixed compensation plate as close to the rotating disc as physically possible. Thus current withdrawal would cause the minimum distortion of the exciting magnetic field. In this case almost totally free power would be obtained.

The double machine of figure (5) shows an almost ideal configuration where compensation for the spatial distortion of current withdrawal as well as doubling of voltage output is accomplished by contra-rotating magnetized rotors supported on a single shaft. There is a striking similarity between this construction of an N machine space power generator and the suggested twin counter-rotating gyroscopes mounted on a single shaft as an anti-gravitational mechanical space power generator. It is suggested that a mechanical space power generator is converted into an electrical space power generator simply by magnetization of the gyroscopic rotators.

In terms of the Force - Energy paradigm the constrained repulsive force generated between the contra-rotating magnets upon the withdrawal of current represents a measure of the electrical power output of the machine. In the anti-gravitational space power machine the torques created in the precession of the counter-rotating gyroscopes, absorbed one upon the other are representative of the anti-gravitational effect.

Force - Energy

On the basis of the geometry of both the electrical and mechanical force machines there should be no drag or resistance to precession of the counter-rotating gyroscopes or contra-rotation of the magnetic rotors. Force - Energy equivalence relates to the relationship of internally generated constrained forces and space power output. What we would call efficiency would relate to the work input to these machines, i.e. torque x angular velocity compared with the space power output.

Space power is developed out of distortion of the normally isotropic space, the amount of distortion being represented by the reflected internally constrained forces explicitly developed in these machines. As yet there is no measure of space power expressed mechanically as an anti-gravitational effect. Electrically developed space power can be measured in watts. Consequently the efficiency of an electrical space power generator can be expressed as electrical watts output divided by the electrical equivalent of mechanical power required to rotate the magnets.

On the basis of present understandings of electrical and mechanical forces, the geometries of both the mechanical and electrical space power machines allow of none of the internally constrained forces developed to appear in the drive axis. Consequently space power should be developed as totally free mechanical or electrical energy.

Measurements on practical machines however do show drag to be present. Because one torque is neutralized by an equal and opposite mechanical torque or a force of electrical repulsion is constrained by an equal and opposite mechanical force does not mean that the space in which the

neutralization occurs is returned to its original state of isotropicity. I have given a great deal of consideration to this situation.

Defect of Forces

In the conservative physics of the work-energy paradigm the thermodynamic law of Equi-partition of energy gives some insight of the energy coupling of orthogonal modes of mechanically interpreted systems. In the physics of energies elicited through spatial distortion of the cosmic primordial field a useful idea is the concept of Defect of Forces which can help us understand the properties of situations whose neutrality is achieved by the balancing of equal and opposing similarly derived forces.

The idea is that when a force is manifested as a counterpoise to an experimentally created spatial distortion, i.e. the forces existing in the body of a rotating flywheel, mutually constrained precessional torques or the balancing of electromagnetic distortions by the superposition of equal and opposite vector fields; the manifested force is not perfect.

A perfect force by definition possesses only magnitude and direction. A real force manifested as a counterpoise to a condition of spatial distortion has a magnitude, a direction, and something else. The something else would be a property of imperfection common to the universal manifestation of what we know as Reality. The philosophical treatment of the innate imperfection of Reality is beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say, in a physical sense, the defect of forces is a real entity and is the property held in common by all manifested forces, and represents a possible mode of coupling between them. For example an explanation for the phenomena of inertia can be developed out of the coupling of atomic and nuclear forces to the balance of the mass in the Universe through the mechanism of defect of forces.

The defect of forces exists, yet is unquantifiable except in terms of itself and has no known properties in terms of things that exist. Its existence is non-existence yet it is held in common with all things that exist. I posit that defect is connected and is responsible for the phenomenon of inertia.

In terms of this paper I posit the drag which appears in the drive axis of orthogonal machines is a coupling of the force counterpoise of the created spatial distortion into the drive axis through the mechanism of connectivity of defect.

Summary

Force - Energy equivalence is a simple expression that in what I call orthogonal machines a force is manifested proportional to the degree of created spatial distortion. The primordial cosmic field is pure energy, consequently distorting it to obtain a polarization from which power is drawn can make available an arbitrarily large quantity of energy. The energy available is limited more by the mechanism of extraction than the cosmic field.

The idea of efficiency applies to the particular configuration of mechanically realizable extraction apparatus. Force - Energy is a way of characterization of the degree of spatial distortion achievable with mechanical apparatus. Defect of forces is a concept to explain why free energy machines are not infinitely efficient. It is also proposed as a mechanism to explain the phenomena of inertia.

The machines we construct are almost infinitely puny in comparison to the energy released from the cosmic field observed in the super-nova. The ideas of spatial distortion, Force - Energy equivalence, and defect of forces may open our eyes somewhat to the latent and omnipresent power and majesty of the universe.

Addendum

It is constructive to consider the interpretation of familiar phenomena from the viewpoint of Free Energy. Distortion of the cosmic energy field by the presence of mass evokes the gravitational flow of time energy. The measure of the created spatial distortion is the force counterpoise known as weight.

Distortion of the primordial field by a rotating flywheel or gyroscope evokes the od field of inertial anisotropy. In this case the force counterpoise is not explicitly available but nonetheless exists centripetally expressed within the body of the rotating object.

In the interpretation of stellar phenomena the gravitational flow into matter could result in the liberation of heat. Denser matter would increase in temperature. The liberation of energy in stars could result simply because of their mass. As stars became more dense because of gravitational accretion of mass more energy would be liberated. Under gravitational pressure matter itself might have various stages of collapse.

The first stage of collapse could precipitate from the cosmic field energy sufficient to cause a Nova. A second state of collapse could precipitate a Super-Nova. A normal stable star would operate in a density range where matter would retain its identity in terms of the series of known elemental configurations. The collapsed matter stages of the nova or super-nova can only be hypothesized and probably would not be available for study under terrestrial conditions.

The important observation is that the explosion of a star is analogous to the explosion of a flywheel when rotated at sufficient speed such

that its internal cohesion is neutralized by a superabundance of time energy precipitated from the cosmic field. In this case the invocation is rotation. For stars the invocation is mass density and the perceived effect is the gravitational flow. What the rotating flywheel and the star have in common is that an explosion can occur when the internal energy exceeds the forces of material cohesion. A long and useful life results when the density of energy invoked from the cosmic field is less than that required for the disruption of the elemental materials from which they are constructed.

References:

1) DePalma, "On the Nature of Electrical Induction", 28 July 1993, Nova Astronautica, vol. 14, number 59, 1994; Magnets, vol. 7, number 8, August 1993; New Energy News, vol. 1, number 6, October 1993.

2) DePalma, N-machine D.C. Generator, 24 March 1978, drawing available from B. E. DePalma, Private Bag 11, Papakura, South Auckland, New Zealand.

3) Kincheloe, Homopolar "Free Energy" Generator Test, presented at 1986 meeting of the Society for Scientific Exploration, San Francisco, CA, U.S.A., 21 June 1986, revised 1 February 1987. Contains references to earlier DePalma papers re N-machine.

Diagrams 1 - 5:

That is ScienceBruce DePalma

18 July 1995

It is well known that geometrical optics is a mathematical technique for the design of lenses. Using this theoretical construct diffraction limited optical systems may be fabricated. The important point is that diffraction limited optical systems are limited by the properties of light. The general inference is that the theoretical construct is correct because what can be designed and fabricated is limited by the natural properties of that which is operated upon by the system. In this case a further refinement in the theoretical construct would not lead to an increase in the resolution of a diffraction limited system.

The question to be asked is: would further refinement in theoretical expressions of electromagnetic forces lead to any improvement in electro-magnetic devices? The other area of concern is in conceptualizations. Is it proper to attribute to the (model of) the electron the results of disparate experiments, i.e. charge, mass, radius, magnetic moment, "spin". Is an electric current the movement of discrete "charges".

The Weltanschauung of the theoretical physicist is that there is some overall unifying concept. The use of models, i.e. the 'electron', is a reflection of this idea. I hesitate to cite the Einsteinian view of 'equivalence', not only because it is totally wrong but philosophically incorrect. Nevertheless the blind and misguided application of this idea by the Relativists goes on even when confuted by experimental facts.

The real reason why philosophical surds like central order, universal formal principles and equivalence persist is because the ambiguities they create offer endless liebensraum for the creation of pseudo-physical theoretical dreams by the epigones. None of this, ipso facto, can offer mankind any help in the rationalization of the physical world.

It is not the fault of electro-magnetism that ten different theories exist for the 'explanation' of electromagnetic forces.

Proper experimental science consists of the design and execution of simple experiments in which the result is the unambiguous revelation of a simple truth. The prismatic dispersion of white light into a spectrum of colors, the attraction or repulsion of parallel current carrying wires. The generator action of a rotating magnetized conductor, the numerology of the periodic table of elements and the rationalization of organic chemistry by the benzene ring or double-helix are such simple truths.

Some physicists call themselves experimentalists because they take data from experiments. Others call themselves theoretical scientists because they dream the dreams of the paranoid and schizophrenic.

What is useful for mankind is the simple observation of an experimental result which in itself creates a new world from the old.

The world is round, not flat. The planets revolve around the Sun, not around the Earth. The benzene ring rationalizes organic chemistry. Gravity is a flow not a force. Space consists of pure energy, the distortion of which engenders the created world.

All of these observations are the result of the examination of many experiments, the collation of enormous data. If it is said that to read the results of one year's accumulation of experimental data takes 12 years, then the reader has not learned to reject the absurd, to cull out the ineptly taken experimental data, to exercise discrimination between the real and the unreal.

The complete scientist is a balanced person. He has the discernment and discrimination to perceive the underlying truths of nature, hidden beneath the multiplicity of experimental appearances. He has enough sense not to extend his theoretical expectations beyond the resolution of his experiments. Nor to delude himself into thinking the manipulations of mathematics can offer him more insight than the conceptualizations on which they are based.

What is required in Science is not the training of more clones or epigones. What is required is the balancing of the individual, the harmonization of thinking. The development of insight, and observational instincts to discriminate between the real and the unreal. That is Science.

Bruce DePalma

14 March 1995

The Problem of Free EnergyBruce DePalma

Some inventions are good inventions, others are bad inventions. We all know what the good inventions are, the bad ones are guns, atomic bombs, poison gases, germ warfare, etc.

A good invention is intrinsically good, waxed paper, buttons, phonograph records, tape cassettes, and so on. A free energy machine falls into this category, it produces energy without consuming it, creates no pollution, and liberates Mankind from centralised control of his freedom. It could eventually liberate him from money. Because I am the inventor of the N-machine/Space Power Generator my greatest experience lies with this, a machine powerful enough to light cities, propel automobiles, and project Mankind into the exploration of space. There are other free energy machines, but these are only lesser manifestations of the same principle, the extraction of electrical energy directly from space. Although the technical details of these

inventions are very interesting, they are covered elsewhere in the literature. The point of this essay is why haven't these devices and inventions come into the public domain.

The reason for this has more to do with the contemporary culture rather than with the inventors or the inventions themselves. To illustrate this I offer historical evidence, from the beginning with the concept, to its eventual realisation in a practical machine.

The first person one has to convince of the availability of energy in a free unalloyed form directly from Nature, is yourself. Having received training from the best of schools, M.I.T. and Harvard, I started out fully indoctrinated with the ideas of conservation of energy, the laws of Newton, and the equations of Maxwell. In this there is no free energy. I had to become convinced, by direct experimental evidence, of an energetic principle in Nature, a principle that could be tapped if understood, and utilisable in some form of machine whose total output was mechanical or electrical energy, without consumption or burning of fuel of any sort. Needless to say, this goal can be achieved by distortion of space itself, but this is another story. In order to obtain milk from the cow, you do have to squeeze and pull on the udder.

I have a very strong background in successful high-tech R&D. Once I had demonstrated the reality of direct extraction of electrical energy in a small model N-machine, I thought commercial development would be obvious and easy. That was 17 years ago.

__________________________________

We live in a technological world. We tend to think all problems in the world can be solved through science and technology. If this were the case, we would have free energy now, and the world would be at peace.

The details of my experiences with the N-machines I have built and demonstrated have been published elsewhere. Through it all I have had to learn by direct experience certain realities of the world we live in and the consequences of introducing a possibly world changing invention to Mankind.

Einstein showed us power was in the existence of all things, and nowhere is that more true than in the works and activities of the elite groups who attempt to control society. The nature of these groups and their power has come to light in the studies of the Tri-lateral Commission, the CFR, the World Bank, and Dope Inc. Power and energy, the generation and control thereof, is the number one business in the world, more powerful than guns and drugs, food and property. One of my first discoveries, after having graduated from University, was that science and scientists in general were controlled in their activities by managers and political influences originating from individuals with no intrinsic knowledge of science. The feeling was that if there was a job to be done, a specification could be generated, money could be offered and technical people would step forward. If there were first rate scientists who felt the job was immoral or impossible, then there

were legions of second and third raters who would step forward and take the money. This ensured the control of science and scientists could be maintained by money. In this world nothing was impossible and all things could be done. As soon as a scientist would step forward and challenge the rationality, viability, or morality of a given program, he could be stopped through excommunication.

In the old days, prior to the second world war, scientists would have to raise money for their researches from wealthy private individuals, Trusts or Foundations. Thus we have the Hale reflecting telescope, the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, and the Fels Planetarium. With the discovery of the splitting of the atom and the possibility of military power based on the atomic bomb, the tenor of science changed. Funding came from the government and projects were developed along lines consistent with the concept of a New World Order. Not only the character of research but the sequence of introduction of new technology was controlled in the interests of the maximisation of profit and the maintenance of a strong, credible military deterrent.

Into this best of all possible worlds three factors entered to disturb the implementation of the Plan. First there was a limitation of material resources obtained from fossil planetary deposits. Second, the means of enforcement of a New World Order based on atomic power became flawed because people realised that the carrying out of the threat of its use would destroy the planet. Thirdly, in a world of total centralised control of resources, the population eventually became jaded and unfulfilled. Man does not live by bread alone, and a world without a dream has no spiritual dimension. Consequently there was total control, but nothing to believe in. Thus the desire to work and fulfill the orders of the masters withered away. To say we live in a safer, cleaner, more satisfying world now than we did fifty years ago, before the dawn of the atomic era, is a manifestation of the Orwellian nightmare.

In all of this we have not yet spoken of free energy. That is because free energy is not part of this world. Free energy comes from a place where limitation is not the paradigm of Mankind, and ownership and control are ideas which have been forgotten long ago. In the sense that free energy is available now, the contemporary establishment is confronted with something it does not want to understand, because in its understanding all other realities are shattered.

I have often thought that this situation is mythological in the following way. In history we find kings and rulers allied with wizards and sorcerers, in the happy and successful kingdoms of the past. The wizard [a.k.a. scientist] Merlin, educated the young King Arthur. Aristotle was the teacher of Alexander who conquered the world. It was never so that the king would attempt to control or usurp the power of the sorcerer any more than the sorcerer was interested in ruling the kingdom. In modern times, with the power of money, bankers and businessmen rule the roost with their handmaidens of wealthy property owners and families. Nowhere in this is the power of the sorcerer recognised. In such a world the power of non-doing is unappreciated.

In this world of contemporary times, all the agencies, CIA, FBI, KGB, NSA, Electric Power Research Institute, DARPA, Brookings Institution, Henry Kissinger, Edward Teller, et al., all are aware of DePalma and his ideas. Because these individuals and institutions are employed by the ruling elite to forecast the future and satisfy present needs and demands, it is clear that free energy is a threat to the world order constructed by business and the mindset of those who want to own the world. Free energy represents Man's aspirations and dreams of freedom and equality, uniform division of resources and the ability to choose one's own future. The fact that free energy is suppressed speaks to the greed and self-interest of a ruling elite which, even in the face of an emergency of global starvation, resource depletion and environmental pollution, will not give one inch if it means loss of control. This is an attitude of paranoid delusion and fantasy which can only arise from the alienation of a class of elitists who, through their money, are completely insulated from the reality of the day to day fight for existence of the common man.

Many things have been said to me in the long years I have spent in the development of the science and technology of free energy. One of them has been, "After the crash." Another has been, "If there was one chance in a hundred of this working, then we should go for it because there is no alternative." I would hate to think that society would have to destroy itself before this new form of energy were introduced. In terms of the world of the bankers, property holders, money men, elitists and others of their ilk, their world is over, with or without free energy. I have always felt that we live in a compassionate world of Nature, in which the choice of life or death is always available, both to individuals and societies. As long as we the people allow our collective future to be controlled and manipulated, we have no choice. Given the possibility of a new source of energy, the world can be turned and we can re-create Nature once again on this planet. I am not advocating my machine or any other machine in particular to be "the solution". What is needed is a change of attitude. We have to go beyond the understandings and strategies of our feudal and warlike past. Our theories of Nature must take into account the transcendence of all things that exist, and the possibility of an energetic principle latent in Nature. With this we may survive.

I have given a great deal of thought to the presentation of experimental results of my machines, new reports, new theoretical interpretations, more hardware, nuts and bolts appreciations. It does no good to write reports about things people cannot understand or do not want to understand. What is needed is to unload the accumulated baggage of our unenlightened past, and open our minds to new ideas. If such is the case, I am more than happy to discuss my machines and theories with anyone and everyone.

Bruce DePalma

1 February 1995

Notes on the Faraday DiscA collection of essays

by Bruce DePalma

The Secret of the Faraday Disc

"Primary causes are unknown to us; but are subject to simple and constant laws, which may be discovered by observation, the study of them being the object of natural philosophy." - Fourier

___________________________________________________

The Faraday disc is a magnetised wheel. A wheel is an intrinsically self-defining object. It becomes itself only when rotating. The properties of the wheel are determined by the experiments which involve it. The statement: "wheels within wheels" is the philosophical interpretation. Through the Faraday Disc we can connect the forces of magnetism and electricity to the inertial properties of space and time.

An interesting problem is the inertial frame sense of the Earth moving through space. The Laws of Inertia govern the material objects resting on the surface of the earth. But what of the space surrounding the Earth. Would it be the electric, magnetic, or gravitational field which stabilised the inertial frame or can we posit an inertial field of matter. It is clear that the properties of phenomena occurring within matter are conveyed to the space surrounding without matter.

Because of the confusion and ambiguity created by Einstein's "Principle of Equivalence", inertia and gravitational forces have been linked. The search for a purely inertial field has been proscribed.

If a field exists around matter which conveys the inertial condition of that matter to the surrounding space then the general principle would be: a transport mechanism exists which serves to communicate the internal condition of matter to the surrounding space. Let us call the inertial condition conveyed to surrounding space by matter the od field.

The od field of matter can be manipulated through rotation, creating the anisotropic inertial effects observed in rotating gyroscopes. Forced precession of the rotating gyroscope creates such a strong interaction with the local inertial, od, field that the precessing gyro can be said to "lock in space" with respect to the local inertial frame. The motion of a mass point in the rotor of a precessing gyroscope is unique and is known as streptoid, (Gk. twisting), and is not a combination of rotation and translation which are supposed to describe all mechanical motions.

Trinics, the calculus of three dimensional motion is in its infancy. The inventor of this calculus is John Sohn Wolfe, now deceased, and his book is: Neo-Principia Mathematica, as yet unpublished.

It is now recognised there are three classes of motion, i.e. translation, rotation, and streptation. Streptation includes precession, nutation, and higher orders of three dimensional motion. In order to extend the science of mechanics the following experiments are suggested:

1) F = MA is not obeyed by an object in streptation. What are the laws of force for such an object?

2) Momentum is not conserved in an elastic collision of an object undergoing streptation with a non-moving control. What are the laws of elastic collisions of streptating objects?

3) What are the laws of inertia for a streptating object. Would the idea of variable inertia including positive and negative values be appropriate?

4) The idea of an od field that could alter the mechanical and inertial properties of material objects is not part of the knowledge of contemporary mechanics. Should it be, or should the ideas of mechanics end at the surface of all mechanical objects?

The limits of scientific conception which emerged in the 19th century can be expressed in the "action at a distance" and wave propagation hypotheses requiring some sort of spatial medium or aether. Twentieth century particle physics and the hypothesis of the neutrino opened the way to a conceptualisation of space filled with a sea of particles. A space filled with a sea of particles interpenetrating matter and possessing a relaxation time such that the internal condition of matter was impressed on them and was thus conveyed to the surrounding space could be the mechanism for a transport process wherein the internal condition of matter; electric, magnetic, gravitational, heat, charge, radioactivity, inertial et al. was conveyed to the surrounding space.

I call the particle whose condition is an impression or memory of its passage through matter, a psion. Thus the basic condition of empty space is a psion field. Radiation laws of emissivity vs temperature and intensity drop off with distance, i.e. 1/r, 1/r2, and 1/r3 dependencies are related to the relaxation time of the impression created on the particles by their passage through matter. One could assume these particles, psions, travel at the speed of light. The term psion is meant to imply an atom of consciousness which retains an impression of the internal condition of matter through which it has passed.

The Faraday Disc

The Faraday Disc [reference 1] is generally thought to be a two piece machine consisting of a conducting disc rotating proximate to the north or south pole of an axially suspended fixed magnet. It can be said that this invention was in part suggested by the earlier work of Arago and Barlow. The truly unique invention made December 26, 1831 consisted of the discovery that the magnet and disc could be cemented together,

rotated jointly, and the same voltage could be obtained by sliding contacts touching the centre and edge of the conducting disc as was obtained when the magnet was fixed and the disc rotated alone.

Ideas of flux line cutting and induced voltages were brought forward to explain the mechanism of voltage generation in the rotating disc but when these were applied to the two situations of disc rotating independently or together with the magnet, they lead to contradictory interpretations.

The true discovery of Faraday was that relative motion was not necessary for the generation of electricity. If rare earth or superconducting magnets had been available in the days of Faraday and Maxwell the one-piece homopolar machine might have become an article of commerce. Comparisons of the energy efficiency of this construction with two-piece Faraday or induction machines would have been made. The future we now live in would have been energised by the one-piece machine and the mechanical equivalent of heat would no longer square with the electrical equivalent of heat. What this would mean in terms of contemporary theories can only be guessed at.

Because the Faraday discovery, now known as the N-machine Space Power Generator is not perfect, it will never be possible to reduce the drag of such a machine to zero in the production of an arbitrarily large quantity of electrical power. The reason drag is intrinsic is because the same space whose polarisation elicits electrical power also contains the inertial frame reference for the machine.

Experiments [ref. 2] performed by the author have directly demonstrated the dragging of a purely mechanical rotating reference frame against a fixed one.

The force relationship existing between magnetised objects directly illustrates the interaction of separate inertial frames linked magnetically. It is possible to infer N-machine drag will be reduced in outer space remote from the inertial influence of the sun and planets.

In the Faraday disc experiment the instrumentality of evocation of the magnetic field partakes in the inertial frame-sense. Yet the magnet does not partake in any reaction torque. The output torque of the disc is referenced to the local inertial frame. Thus the magnet only connects the generated torque to the local inertial frame.

This suggests that if the magnet were to rotate with the disc the torque output of the machine would be with respect to the rotating inertial frame of the magnet, although there would still be no nett torque reaction of the disc against the attached rotating magnet.

In the Faraday disc, the torque is relative to the reference frame of the instrumentality which is the evocateur of the magnetic field.

Unlike the repulsion of the hysteresis or eddy current drag machines, the generator drag of a Faraday disc must be an intrinsic drag manifestation of the precipitation of electricity. Consequently

allowing the magnet to rotate with the disc will increase the electrical power output by not letting the drag appear twice. Once with respect of the electrical power generation drag - akin to the locking in space of the precessing inertial gyroscope and twice by the coupling of such drag to the inertial plane of the Earth via the instrumentality of the magnet. If the magnet rotates then the inertial reference is no longer to the Earth but to the rotating reference frame of the magnet.

In the Faraday disc, part of the drag arises from the intrinsic drag of electron collection relative to the local frame, what I call non-reactive drag. The balance of the drag derives from direct, action-reaction, drag of the rotating polarised member against the Earth reference frame coupled through the instrumentality of the magnet.

In the two piece machines, (either induction or Homopolar), the reactive drag coupling is accentuated by the proximity of the mass of the stator. This cannot be changed in the induction machines but the one-piece Homopolar geometry avoids excessive stator drag by eliminating the stator. What remains is the reactive rotor coupling to local space without the presence of ferrous matter, to which the rotor magnetic field could couple, and the intrinsic electron collection drag referenced to the local space reference frame.

The principle of equivalence exhorts the equivalency of gravitational and inertial forces, but gravitation is not a relative force, i.e. it exists independently of relative motion. Although the voltages derived from homo-polar and induction machines may be equal, the drags resulting from the processes are unequal.

___________________________________________________

Copper is an insulator for the recombination of male-female energies. i.e. internal resistance = zero, with perfect insulation. I had always been taught that although the voltage in a magnetically linked circuit was Blv the current which could be drawn was limited by the series resistance of the circuit. Since the voltage developed across the terminals of moving wire arises from space why should the current being drawn be limited by the internal resistance of the wire connecting the terminals?

The situation resolves itself when we regard what is developed across the terminals of the moving magnetically linked wire as a male-female polarisation and that recombination of the developed potentials is resisted by the insulating action of the copper or silver "conductor".

The reason copper and silver are good conductors is because they resist the recombination of the male-female polarisations and can conduct these polarisations to the point where they are merged to recombine in some socially useful manner.

The electrical metals are useful because they can be used to convey the electrical potentialities from point to point while at the same time

they insulate them from recombination, the state of neutralisation ultimately resulting in heat.

___________________________________________________

The simplest machine for the mechanical extraction of electrical potentials is a rotating, magnetised, electrically conducting spiral.

For simplicity the voltage pickoff points are indicated as brushes. In practice both contacts are liquid metal in a symmetrical circumferential arrangement where the current flow is wholly radial into and out of the machine. Since it has not been noted that electrical solenoids or coils commence to rotate when energised, it is clear that application of voltage to the sliding contacts will not cause the machine to commence rotation.

On the other hand if the conducting spiral is caused to rotate at high speed and an electrical load is connected between the terminals of the rotating spiral a voltage is quickly developed. This effect can be initiated by a small "inducer" coil or permanent magnet brought in proximity to the rotating spiral. The flux from this magnet initiates the current buildup in the rotating spiral. For short term experiments currents of 25-50 Kilo-amperes can be developed in a load of sufficiently low resistance.

What is important about this experiment is its non-reciprocity, i.e. the rotating spiral can produce voltage and power when energised but a spiral conductor is not known to rotate when a current is caused to flow in it.

What force or influence governs the local reference frame? When the precessing gyroscope locks in space because of its streptoid (twisting) motion does it lock into the space through which the Earth is moving at 5 miles/second, or does it lock into the local (Earth) frame, but why?

The magnetic field produced by current flow through the spiral is a distortion of the local space. Thus we can say the magnetic field links the rotating frame of the spiral with local space.

The characteristic of a rotating inertial frame (generated by a rotating real mechanical object) is an inertial anisotropy such that for axial measurements the inertia increases but for radial motions the inertial mass decreases. This distortion of inertial isotropy existing in the space around a rotating object is called an od field. Although the magnetic field links the local inertial frame the space of the local frame is distorted and modified by the inertially anisotropic od field created by the rotation of a real mechanical object. The result of this is to reduce the dragging action of an electrically polarised rotating spiral for motions in the plane of rotation. Since the plane of the spiral is the rotational plane it can be expected that there would be a reduction in drag of such a machine in comparison with an induction machine producing the same amount of power. A fact borne out by experiment.

It is clear from this that the space of the local inertial frame can be distorted magnetically and odically. The inertial anisotropy of the od field reduces the reaction forces generated by the extraction of electrical current from the rotating conducting spiral. If inertial dragging can be eliminated in this way, then the remaining drag must be due to the creation of the condition of precipitation of the male-female polarities and their resistance to depolarising effects, i.e. electrical loading.

In such machines it is easy to compensate magnetic field distortion through current withdrawal by a proximate fixed compensation disc wherein the output current is caused to flow in the opposite direction. Thus polarisation created in the rotating spiral can be made independent of the flow of current since no magnetic field disturbance is noted in the compensated machine with the withdrawal of current. Under these conditions can it be said that polarisation (male-female) alone can invoke the flow of electrical current and that the magnetic field itself results from male-female recombination within conductors?

What is precipitated is quantised electrical charge with the evolution of heat - substances give off heat when they crystalise, and the recombination of the polarities with the evolution of heat.

Whether it be the generation of the polarities or the merging of the polarities, heat is evolved in both processes. In the cosmic cycle of generation, preservation and destruction, heat is evolved in generation and destruction and equilibrium is saved in preservation.

The heat of evolution of electrons is reflected in the spatial drag of the primitive rotating spiral N machine. The balance of the drag is contributed from the linkage of inertial frames through magnetism, i.e. a polarised conducting disc is linked to the local space frame through the spatial distortion of magnetism which can be accentuated by the near presence of ferrous (paramagnetic) objects, magnetically permeable structures - stators -, for magnetic flux path closing.

Mass is coupled to the local inertial frame through the mechanism of inertia. Magnetic linkages to ferromagnetic stators contribute additional drag.

The contributions from the different sources can be itemised thus:

1) heat of electronic creation of polarities.(heat of evolution of electrons)

2) intrinsic spatial drag of a magnetised rotatingpolarised conducting disc.

3) increase of intrinsic spatial drag through magneticinteraction with a proximate ferromagnetic object,

i.e. a stator*.

* The stator presents a modification of the space in which the rotor must operate. Under this condition the intrinsic drag would be greater in comparison with free space.

___________________________________________________

In general, the primitive machine is the rotating magnetised spiral. This is an antenna which reduces the spatial magnetised energy to a form utilisable by mankind, i.e. the positive and negative polarities of electricity. As with all antennas, field distortions introduced by the close proximity of ferro-magnetised objects, stators, upset the symmetry of energy withdrawal and interfere with the operation of the antenna.

Higher orders of symmetry are employed in the cylinder machines. The rotating magnetised spiral is in relation to the cosmical time energy as the dipole antenna is to electromagnetism. Rotation and magnetism are combined in a material object constructed from an element wherein the recombination of the permitted polarities is minimal. That is the N machine. We are definable by our thoughts and our thoughts have reached the limit of resolution.

The heats of electronic precipitation and recombination cannot be said to be equal since the difference between the two rates must account for the presence of electrons in the Universe, while at the same time the Universe is neither getting hotter or colder. Thus in most cases one could safely say the heats of generation and recombination are equal. Ohm's Law can be said to apply, but one cannot rule out the possibility of a special condition, i.e. superconductivity, where different Laws apply. For an N machine with a superconducting rotor is the heat of electronic generation 0 or is a superconductor a special state of matter with a zero heat of electronic generation and recombination. If there is a connection between heat of electronic liberation and N machine drag then a superconducting rotor should be tested in comparison with a similar machine constructed of "normal", i.e. non-superconducting materials.

___________________________________________________

The Secret of the Faraday Disc

All science consists of the elaboration of principles whose manipulation attempts to describe the continuous palate of Nature. So when I speak of the Faraday Disc I can look upon it as a powerful magical spell or I think I can understand it in terms of the causality of logic. Does understanding something remove the mystery?

The gyroscope is a totally mysterious object. Attempts to understand it mathematically have failed to explain anomalous inertial and gravitational behaviour. Do we understand electricity? On deep examination electrical laws can be shown to be inconsistent with Newton's Laws. We have a working relationship with magnets and wires in electrical machines, is more necessary?

It seems to me that thinking in the abstract, and the formation of theories is helpful because the existence of these theories can posit new experiments. In Reality anything can be done, but of all the things which can be done, which are the significant experiments? And why are they significant? The implicit circularity of logic closes it and brings us back to significance in terms of the principles on which our theories are based. So do we know anything except the defined concepts of relationships between elementary experiments?

We accept a self-organising principle in Nature which defines itself. In terms of written memorabilia logic defines itself as a self-organising principle in Nature. If we leave the world of the printed page we enter the realm of music and subtler vibrations not susceptible to logic. Is that where our science ends? The tree becomes once more the tree and the forest the forest. We do not get the world we think we want, we get the world that is going to happen.

Bruce DePalma

References:

1) Faraday, Michael, Experimental Researches in Electricity. 3 vols. London: Richard and John Edward Taylor, 1839-1855.

2) DePalma, Bruce, Pendulum Experiment Data (The Force Machine), 1975; available from DePalma Institute.

28 July 1993

On the Nature of Electrical Induction

by Bruce DePalma

"It is the conceptualizations which are important." -A. S. Eddington, Fundamental Theory, 1944

The phenomena of electrical induction which are fundamental to electrical science have long since passed into everyday experience. Recently the nature of this fundamental principle has been re-examined in the light of experiments with electrical machines, which, in their operation violate the conservation laws of charge and energy.

__________

In my early schooling (M.I.T. class of 1958) I was struck by the attention paid to magnetism, magnetic circuits, electrical machinery and magnetic properties of materials. No attention was given to magnetism as a source of understanding of the machines and apparatus which employed it. This attitude was forced on a student because the consensus was: all that needed to be known about magnetism was known because electrical machines obeyed the conservation laws. I.e. one way of generating electricity was as good as another since all machine efficiencies could be "improved" or designed up to the point of a maximum efficiency of 100%.

To point out that electrical efficiency measurements are based on the "mechanical equivalent of heat", 746 watts/horsepower, measured with a calorimeter and paddles by James Watt (inventor of the steam engine) in the late 18th century; a number suspect both in its relevance and accuracy, and sensitivity to experimental vagaries, was heresy.

The concern of this paper is not with all the experiments which have demonstrated anomalous "over unity" energy production, but with the operation of machines which clearly demonstrate violation of energy and charge conservation laws through continuous production of electrical power in excess of the electrical power used to drive and/or energize the machine.

The experimental performance of over-unity machines, the N-machine and Space Power Generators are substantially covered in the literature and are not repeated here. References ( 1 - 7 )

The basic question is: do electrons flow in a conducting circuit impelled by magnetic forces, or, are the electrons created in situ by the magnetic forces, collected by the conducting wire, and then impelled to flow in the appropriate direction by the well known force interaction of electrons and magnetism?

Einstein treated electromagnetic induction as simply a relationship between two members, i.e. the magnet and the wire. He would ask, "what is the point?"

The point is if we stop at Relativity as being the finest appreciation of the experimental situation we would never inquire into the nature of magnetism.

If we consider the original flux cutting experiment of Faraday where a conducting wire is passed through the field existing at the pole of a magnet we observe an electrical potential across the ends of the wire as long as the wire is moving. Reversal of the direction of motion of the wire reverses the polarity of the created electrical potential. If the potential created is applied to an electrical circuit and current flows then a resistance to the applied motion ensues. (Lenz's Law). Here the question is: is Lenz's Law a concomitant or a consequence of the production of electrical energy?

It is not useful to discuss something as fundamental as magnetism at the level of inquiry we wish to pursue without a model of the Universe. Tewari is one of the few researchers who has recognized this. Reference ( 8 ).

Magnetism is similar to the gyroscope in that both effects are used in navigational apparatus which depend on an element which retains its orientation either to an external reference, (Earth magnetization), or to itself. What can we say of effects which have directional properties yet seem to orient themselves only to each other or to themselves.

Obviously the magnet and the gyroscope are oriented to a force which does not have a geometric extension into our 3 space. The clear implication is that the magnet and the gyroscope orient themselves to the flow of time energy.

A model of the Universe can be represented by a vortex ring; in which space and time are perpendicular to each other. Figures ( 1 & 2 ). The flow of time energy energizes our Universe. It is this to which the magnet orientates. Figure ( 3 ). The magnet has the property of collimating and concentrating the time energy flow.

Why is all this necessary? It is a consequence of a Universe created from nothing - the void.

In a Universe created from nothing, time extension is necessary so the Universe shall not re-collapse in any instant called the NOW. Time extension exists over multiple instants, the sum of which equals the lifetime of particles found in our 3 space. The quantum of time is the Instant.

Magnetism has nothing to do with iron and electrical solenoids per se. It is the property of these instruments to orient to and concentrate the time energy flow.

In our practical society it is customary to extract energy from the natural flows, i.e. water and wind. If there was an invisible flow through a magnet or solenoid how could we extract the energy? Suppose we were to construe a copper disc placed in front of a magnetic pole a la Faraday as a form of propeller the pitch of whose blades could be changed by the application of an electrical potential between the center and outer edge. The flow of time energy through the magnet would cause the propeller to rotate like a fan blade in a current of air. The fan can be placed at either end of the magnet, and, providing the pitch of the blades is maintained unchanged in magnitude or direction, it will rotate in the same direction.

If mechanical power is extracted from the shaft or propeller disc then we would find it more difficult to maintain the electrical polarization, i.e. more current would be required. If the rotating Faraday disc apparatus is viewed as a transducer between the electrical power input required to polarize the disc and the resultant mechanical shaft horsepower, then the conservation laws would say the mechanical power out could never exceed the electrical power in. Of course these two quantities are related through the mechanical equivalent of heat experiment with the paddles agitating water in a calorimeter. Acting with the insight of Einstein we would say that experiments which

produce identical results, i.e. agitating water with paddles to produce warming versus mechanical input to a machine which produces electricity which is converted to heat by a resistor immersed in water in a calorimeter; are equivalent, thus the figure 746 watts = 1 mechanical horsepower derived from these measurements is a true and reliable number for all the world to see.

We know a priori that no transducer or electrical machine can operate at greater than 100% efficiency so then if we are slightly uncertain about the 746 watts/horsepower figure we can adjust the units to get the exact number right.

"Scientists" feel no guilt with introduction of certain "constants" because they are protected by the conservation laws which are based on common sense which everyone knows is true.

If we return to the analogy of the fan and the magnet we might suppose that rotational drag effects might exist adjacent to the rotor. The action of these drag effects would be to drag the magnet, i.e. cause it to rotate in the same direction as the disc. Clearly then a reduction in mechanical drag on the rotor could be effectuated by attaching the magnet to the disc and allowing them to rotate together.

Of course if we adhere to the Law of action and equal and opposite reaction then we would never try such an experiment because we would expect the magnet to be acted on by a torque equal and opposite to the shaft horsepower exiting the rotating disc.

It has been known for 100 years that the exciting magnet of a homopolar or Faraday disc motor or generator exhibits no reaction torque to the mechanical forces generated by the polarized disc. Reference ( 9 & 10 ).

Contemporary experiments have also shown the Faraday disc to be a superior motor or generator when the fixed exciting magnet is attached to and rotates with it, thereby removing a constant drag which is superimposed on the mechanical input, or output of the machine. * ( Ibid. Reference 4 ).

What has all this to do with electrical induction or flux cutting? Simply nothing.

A mistake was made in science 150 years ago through what Einstein identified as the Principle of Equivalence and energy conservation laws based on physical conceptions of the 18th century. It was the attempt of science to square the behavior of the one-piece Faraday disc machine with the performance of two piece induction machines where magnetic flux lines were perpendicular to the axis of rotation.

It simply turns out that the efficiency of a two-piece Faraday disc machine is close enough to that of an equivalent two piece induction machine, about 1%, so that generic differences between the two families of machines are concealed in the indeterminacy of the exact number for the mechanical equivalency of heat. Reference ( 11 ). If the magnet is loosed and free to rotate with the disc, i.e. the one-piece Faraday

homopolar generator, then the true distinction in families of machines is revealed. The one-piece Faraday machine is superior to the two piece induction machines both as generator or motor.

Without trying to tangle the reader in the circularities and tautologies of modern scientific reasoning, acceptance of a family of motors and generators without stators to receive reaction torques contradicts Newton's third Law. We can avoid consideration of this problem by not using these sorts of machines.

Men are more persistent in their pursuit of inquiry. If a superior machine is found men will endeavor to explain it. If a machine produces in excess of 746 watts per input horsepower what is our interpretation of this "excess" energy production.

The Universe is alive and this is beyond our powers of conception. We can say, based on our experience, a certain intellectual model can be constructed. This is like saying the world is round or that the planets rotate in circles around the sun. Neither statement is exactly true, but they rationalize information in our minds and lead to new knowledge.

We are familiar with the process of transmission and reception of electrical energy by means of resonant structures known as antennas.

An antenna for the reception of Universal Energy would be a model of the Universe itself. The suggested structure is the one-piece Faraday disc, homopolar generator. Figure ( 4 ).

The magnetic flux lines become the time lines of the space energy flow and the rotating disc is the 3 space Universe existing in the instant of the present.

As for the family of two piece induction machines, these are seen by this author to operate on the principle of transformer induction, including d.c. machines which are nothing but transformers with rotating secondaries and mechanical commutators for rectification.

A superior motor would produce more output power, torque x speed of rotation, per increment of input electrical excitation. The output power would exceed 1 horsepower for 746 watts of electrical input.

A superior generator would produce more than 746 watts electrical output per horsepower input.

A two-piece induction machine operating essentially as a rotating transformer would never be able to exceed 100% electrical efficiency because electrical transformers in themselves are not known to be able to create energy. (There may be special circumstances where this is not true, but these peculiar effects characterized by a negative are not normally encountered in conventional electrical machines)

The mirror image symmetry characteristic of the input and output ports of a transformer is carried over to the equivalence of two-piece induction machines operated as motors or generators. This motor-generator symmetry is not characteristic of the one-piece Faraday homopolar machine.

As a generator the one-piece homopolar machine evinces reduced drag in comparison with the two-piece induction machine for the production of equal amounts of electrical power. This is because the perceived mechanism of operation is to precipitate electrical charge from the time-energy flow by a centrifugally engendered force field. Reference ( 12 ).

As a motor the one-piece homopolar machine produces the same amount of torque as an equivalent two-piece induction machine for measurements made with a blocked rotor. Reference ( 13 ). The reduction of magnetically induced drag by attachment of the magnet to the rotor is not evinced by static measurements.

The torque attainable from a motor acts in relation to the Earth reference frame. For a two-piece induction machine, the stator, the receptor of the reaction torque from the rotor, is physically attached to the Earth reference frame. In contrast the one-piece homopolar machine has no fixed Earth reference. With the rotor blocked there is a physical connection to the fixed Earth reference frame and the relationship between motor torque vs. current input follows conventional expectations.

With the magnet of the one-piece machine loosed to rotate with attached Faraday disc the mechanical connection to a fixed Earth reference frame is broken. With this connection broken the ability of this motor to do

useful work is compromised by the necessity of transferring torque from a rotating reference frame to a fixed one. As the one-piece machine rotates at increasingly higher speeds the torque connection between the rotating frame and the fixed Earth frame becomes more tenuous until the torque output of the machine is balanced by mechanical losses. Further increases in motor current result in increasingly disproportional torque to the point where no further current increase can produce an increase in motor speed.

It is for this reason the one-piece homopolar Faraday machine is a far better generator than it can be as a motor. Better is in comparison with the two-piece induction machines.

What we have uncovered is a second family of electrical machines. If a genealogy of electrical machines is projected we would see the two-piece induction machines, with symmetrical motor-generator properties and limited by the properties of transformers to the 100% efficiency level in contrast to the one-piece Faraday homopolar machines. The one-piece machines transduce multiples of the 100% efficiency factor of the transformer machines in the generator mode but are not completely useful as motors because of self limitations of torque and speed output. The reduced drag obtained by physical connection of the magnet to rotate with the disc in the motor mode is not unambiguously useful since the torque output of the machine is only with respect to the rotating reference frame of the machine. The rotating reference frame is only tenuously coupled to the fixed Earth frame thus torque output can only arise through the dragging action of these two frames against each other.

Returning to the consideration of electrical induction we conclude that the Faraday conceptualization of flux line cutting is spurious and not worthy of further consideration.

Faraday's ideas about transformer induction are correct and form the basis of two-piece induction machines presently in commercial usage.

The conceptualizations of spatial energy and spatial time distortion * ( Appendix 1 ) were not available in the time of Faraday, consequently the idea of flux line cutting was invented. The persistent dispute over whether flux lines rotate with the axially rotated magnet or not is a consequence of this incorrect hypothesis. The idea that electric charge latent in space can be precipitated into a moving conductor opens a door to accessing the Universal Energy flow which is implicit in a model of a Universe with time extension which is created from nothing.

The only general principle this author is aware of is God. Symmetry, equivalence, relativity and conservation are not sufficiently general enough on which to base physical conceptions. The paradoxes, contradictions, and general incompleteness of contemporary physical theory speaks to this.

Bruce DePalma

References:

1) Kincheloe, 1986, "Homopolar `Free Energy' Generator Test"; paper presented at the 1986 meeting of The Society for Scientific Exploration, San Francisco, California, June 21, 1986; revised February 1, 1987. Address: Dr. W. Robert Kincheloe, 401 Durand/ITV, Stanford, California 94305

2) DePalma, 1988, "Initial Testing Report of DePalma N-1 Electrical Generator"; Magnets in Your Future, vol. 3, no. 8, August 1988, pp. 4-7, 27; P. O. Box 250, Ash Flat, Arkansas 72513, U. S. A.

3) Tewari, P. , "Generation of Electrical Power from Absolute Vacuum by High Speed Rotation of Conducting Magnetic Cylinder"; Magnets in Your Future, vol. 1, no. 8, August 1986.

4) Tewari, P. , "Space Power Generation"; Magnets in Your Future, vol. 6, no. 8, August 1992.

5) Tewari, P. , "Generation of Cosmic Energy and Matter from Absolute Space (Vacuum)"; proceedings of the International Symposium on New Energy, Denver, Colorado, U. S. A., April 16-18, 1993.

6) Inomata, S., and Yoshiyuki, M., "Small Neodymium Magnet Twin N-Machine"; proceedings of the 28th I.E.C.E.C., Atlanta, Georgia, U. S. A., August 8-13, 1993. Address: Dr. Shiuji Inomata, Japan Electrotechnical Laboratory, MITI, 1-1-4 Umezono, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki, 305, Japan.

7) Laureti, E. , "Alcune Osservazioni sull'Induzione Unipolare"; Nova Astronautica, vol. 12, no. 54, pp. 27-33, 1992.

8) Tewari, P. , Beyond Matter; Printwell Publications, Aligarh, India, 1984.

9) Kimball, A. L., Jr., "Torque on a Revolving Cylindrical Magnet"; Physical Review, vol. 28, December 1928, pp. 1302-1308.

10) Das Gupta, A. K. , 1963, "Unipolar Machines, Association of the Magnetic Field with the Field Producing Magnet"; Am. J. Phys., vol. 31, pp. 428-430, 1963.

11) Private conversation reported by Adam Trombly with physicist developing superconducting homopolar motors and generators for the U. S. Navy ship propulsion project, 1980. "I suppose only a physicist would worry about this but the efficiency of the homopolar generator, (superconducting two-piece), is 1% higher than calculated, 97% vs. 96%."

N.B- A. D. Trombly, Director of Research and Development, Zero Point Technologies Inc., P. O. Box 1031, Evergreen, Colorado, 80439, U. S. A.

12) DePalma, B. , "Magnetism as a Distortion of a Pre-Existent Primordial Energy Field and the Possibility of Extraction of Electrical Energy Directly from Space"; proceedings of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, I.E.C.E.C., sponsored by the I.E.E.E. ( U. S. A. ), August 4-9, 1991. Boston, Massachusetts.

13) Crooks, Litvin, and Matthews, 1978, "One Piece Faraday Generator: A Paradoxical Experiment from 1851"; Am. J. Phys., vol. 46, no. 7, July 1978, pp. 729-731.

Appendix 1 18 June 1975

Simple Experimental Test for the Inertial Field of a Rotating Real Mechanical Object

Introduction: For the last five years, this investigator and others1, have studied the mechanical properties of rotating objects for the purpose of application of certain heretofore undiscovered properties of rotation to new forms of propulsion machinery and machines with anti-gravitational effect. The course of this investigator has not been to try to perfect new propulsion machinery, per se, but however to thoroughly investigate the phenomena of rotation.

The result of a great deal of experimentation (see appendix), has resulted in a picture which relates the performance of certain non-conventional machinery: Dean, Laithwaite, Wolfe, DePalma, to a variable inertia property which can be engendered through motion of a rotating object.

In terms of the acceptance of a new body of information relating to the properties of rotating objects and variable inertia, a simple experiment has to be devised which clearly demonstrates the new phenomena. In the performance of experiments with large rotating flywheels, there are great experimental difficulties which result from experimenting on the large rotating flywheels themselves. Through a series of corroborating experiments it has been established the anisotropic inertial properties of a rotating object are conferred on the space around the object. That is to say the space around a rotating object will have conferred upon it an inertial anisotropy. Let us ascribe this to the setting up of an od (odd) field through rotation of a real physical object. The purpose of the experiment to be described is the determination of one of the properties of an od field. The anisotropic inertia property.

The Experiment: A good way to detect a field whose effect is a spatial inertial anisotropy is to use a time measurement based on an inertial property of space and compare it to a remote reference. With reference to figure ( 1 ) we have a situation where the timekeeping rate of an Accutron tuning fork regulated wrist watch is compared to that of an ordinary electric clock with a synchronous sweep second hand.

The Accutron timepiece is specified to be accurate to one minute a month. Examination of the relative time drift of the Accutron - electric clock combination shows a cumulative drift of .25 second Accutron ahead for 4 hours of steady state operation. This is within the specification of the watch.

With the flywheel spinning at 7600 r.p.m. and run steadily for 1000 seconds (17 minutes), the Accutron loses .9 second relative to the electric clock.

Much experimentation has shown that the effect is greatest with the position of the tuning fork as shown. Magnetic effects from leakage fields from the gyro drive motors are almost entirely absent; any remaining leakage is removed by co-netic magnetic shielding. The Accutron is also in a "non-magnetic" envelope.

The purpose of the experiment is a simple demonstration of one of the effects of the od field of a rotating object. The demonstration may easily be repeated using any one of a variety of rotating objects, motor flywheels, old gyrocompasses, etc. The rotating mass of the flywheels used in these experiments is 29 1/2 pounds. The rotational speed of 7600 r.p.m. is easily accessible. The effect is roughly proportional to the radius and mass of the rotating object and to the square of the rotational speed.

Finer measurements can be made using an external electrically powered tuning fork oscillator and an electronic frequency counter. In this case the inertial anisotropy of the od field of a rotating object can be much more quickly and precisely measured. Field strength lines can be plotted along contours of constant frequency shift for the two orientation conditions of fork vibration direction parallel to, and perpendicular to, the axis of rotation of the test object.

Conclusions and Observations: The proper conclusions and evaluations of the above experiment will affect present conceptions of Cosmology. Before this can happen, simple tests must be performed to show the existence of a new phenomenon. It is hoped the apparatus for the performance of these tests is widely enough available to lead to quick verification.

Bruce DePalma

1) Eric Laithwaite, John S. Wolfe, Edward Delvers, Bruce dePalma

Appendix: Axial moment of inertia measurements of constrained gyroscopes, pendulum experiments demonstrating anisotropic inertia of a rotating body. (available from Bruce dePalma)

* Tewari has investigated the co-rotating Faraday homopolar motor. He calls it the Space Power Motor or SPM. The increased torque available when rotating is mitigated by a "slippage" which increases with rotational speed. Over a certain speed range the product of the two effects can result in a superior machine.

* Appendix 1 - "Simple Experimental Test for the Inertial Field of a Rotating Real Mechanical Object"

Published as: "The Tuning Fork Experiment" in: "Is God Supernatural"

R. L. Dione, Bantam Book Pbl. Co., 197616 July 1993

Where Electrical Science Went Wrong

by Bruce DePalma

"It is characteristic of fundamental discoveries, of great achievements of the intellect, that they retain an undiminished power upon the imagination of the thinker. The memorable experiment of Faraday with a disc rotating between two poles of a magnet, which has borne such magnificent fruit, has long passed into every-day experience; yet there are certain features about this embryo of the present dynamos and motors which even today appear to us striking, and are worthy of the most careful study."

- Nicola Tesla, 1891, New York City, New York

____________________________________________________

Law of Equipartition of Energy: In a given thermodynamic system, the total energy will subdivide itself equally amongst the characteristic modes of the system.

____________________________________________________

After Michael Faraday performed the initial experiments resulting in the discovery of the one-piece homopolar generator of December 26, 1831, figure (1), he devoted considerable effort to reconcile the appearance of generated electrical potential in the apparatus with his conceptualization of the cutting of flux linkages by a moving conductor.

Although Faraday never adduced an experiment to prove the cutting of flux linkages in the axially rotating magnet experiment, he was troubled to his last days about his interpretation of his experiment. It took until 1978 when DePalma, reference (1), did the critical experiment to determine if the form of electrical induction was the same as the flux cutting originally proposed by Faraday. The problem has been re-stated by other workers who would attempt to determine whether flux lines rotate with, or are spatially independent of the axially rotating magnet. To date, no experiment has been found either to confirm or disprove the axially rotating flux line hypothesis, reference (2).

The laudable efforts of Clerk-Maxwell to express in mathematical form the results of the electrical experimentation of Faraday reflect the uncertainty which he had over the interpretation of the 1831

experiment. The result was that Maxwell did not consider the problem at all, or felt he had nothing more to offer.

For those scientists who consider mathematical expressions of physical laws as the only possible descriptions of physical reality, having no mathematical description is tantamount to no physical reality.

Electrical science, which is considered to be completely known, has been ultimately reduced to a completely self-consistent set of equations which are suitably stored in computer memories and are used to design motors, generators, transformers and other sorts of familiar electrical hardware.

The first place electrical science went wrong is when electrical phenomena which were not subject to unambiguous mathematical interpretation were simply omitted from electrical curricula.

The second place electrical science went wrong is concisely illustrated in a sequence of evolution of electrical machinery abstracted from "Exciting Electrical Machines", by E. R. Laithwaite, D.Sc., Ph.D., C.Eng., F.I.E.E., F.I.E.E.E. Professor of Heavy Electrical Engineering, Imperial Technical College, London, England. Reference (3).

"The various steps shown in figure [3 (a)-(d)] do not represent an historical sequence. They represent an attempt to break down the topological difference between Faraday's disc and an early type of commercial machine into simple basic steps. Figure [ 2 ] shows a cross section through the disc machine. In theory the two brushes marked (+) would be part of a continuous annular brush at the centre; likewise the (-) brush extends all around the periphery. This arrangement is represented diagrammatically in figure 3(a). The first step consists of elongating the disc axially so that it forms a cylinder. The magnetic circuit is then re-arranged so that the flux enters the rotor through one end of the cylinder and emerges through the periphery, as shown in figure 3(b). If the rotor were of solid copper, the magnetic circuit through it would be poor. The rotor is therefore modified to consist of a hollow cylinder filled with iron, as shown in cross-section in figure 3(c). For ease of mounting the rotor, i.e. with a bearing at each end, the iron core is made integral with the conducting cylinder and the two rotate as one unit.

"The dimensions of the rotor are next changed to take advantage of the fact that the useful e.m.f. is generated along AB (figure 3(c)) rather than BC, i.e. between the brushes. The diameter is reduced and the length increased. The axial direction, however, now represents a bottleneck in the magnetic circuit, even though the machine can be flux fed from both ends, as shown in figure 3(d). The solution to this situation is to send the flux right through the rotor, as shown in figure 3(e)."

In a manner so casual so as to escape attention Laithwaite alters the magnetic field direction from flux lines parallel to the axis of rotation to flux lines perpendicular to the rotational axis. This fundamental change and the unstated ambiguity: do flux lines rotated in the manner shown, figure 3(e) ipso facto demand a two-piece machine, figure 3(f)? If the two piece, i.e. rotor-stator construction is implicit for electrical machines where the flux lines through the rotor are perpendicular to the axis of rotation, then what has this to do with the archetypal one-piece Faraday homopolar machine which does not

require a stator. Is the evolution suggested by Laithwaite an evolution or the description of two fundamentally different families of electrical machines?

We continue with Laithwaite: "Notice that this means that two sets of brushes are now needed, since the polarity of the e.m.f. around one arc of 180 degrees is opposite that around the other. The plane of the magnetic circuit can now, with advantage, be turned through a right angle so that a cross-section of the machine is as shown in figure 3(f). This is the point where the rotor conductor is split into individual wires which can be connected in series. To do this it appears to be necessary to use a hollow iron core and to connect each wire at end X (figure 3(g)) to the next, at end Y, by means of a wire passing up the centre of the core."

In his dissertation Dr. Laithwaite has made a number of assumptions, which, in the light of contemporary knowledge, can be questioned. I am not singling out Dr. Laithwaite as being defective in his reasoning, but his position of authority is representative of the presently accepted level of knowledge of electrical science.

The first assumption:

That there is a relationship between the Faraday disc and the two piece induction machine of commerce.

The second assumption:

That there is no difference in behavior of electrical machines if the source of flux moves with the rotor or not.

The third assumption:

That there is no difference in the behavior of electrical machines if the flux lines are either parallel or perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the machine.

The fourth assumption:

Flux cutting is the only mechanism for the generation of electricity from magnetism.

It is left to the reader to intellectually explore the implications of the first three assumptions on the evolution suggested in figures 3(a)-(g).

That the fourth assumption is suspect is ably illustrated by a second extract from Laithwaite.

"Figure [4(a)] shows that surface conductors demand a gap in the magnetic circuit which must increase with increase in thickness of conductors, which in turn is demanded by an increased current loading, whereas a conductor system in slots as in figure 4(b) can combine thick conductors and small airgap in one arrangement. Quite apart from magnetic considerations, conductors on the surface are liable to become displaced around the periphery, aided by the speed of rotation which tends to stretch and loosen the conductors. If the conductors are constrained in a slot, and held in by a non-metallic slot wedge as shown in figure [5], the speed of the machine, and therefore its output, can be increased without suffering these effects of rotation.

"The big question, however, is whether the machine will still function at all. After all, the magnetic flux will now take the line of least reluctance and cross the gap only opposite the rotor 'teeth'. The flux now cutting the conductors is now perhaps only 10% of that which cuts the conductors of a surface-wound motor. Will the output voltage therefore be only 10% also, as apparently dictated by the flux cutting rule? For a long time no one would try the slotted rotor, because they did not believe in the 'magic' of electromagnetism. They believed they knew all the answers. Worst of all, they did not realise that only circuits mattered and that so long as a machine broke and re-made linkages between magnetic and electric circuits the answer would be the same whether the conductors were buried or not."

It is not all of us who conceal our ignorance by appeal to the belief in the "magic" of electromagnetism. The fact that the modern two piece wound rotor machine works at all speaks to the operation of electrical laws outside the computer controlled algorithms now representative of electrical science.

The fifth assumption:

The fifth assumption is that all the laws of electrical science must be consistent with the energy conservation laws. Is this why the "magic" of electromagnetism is necessary?

To quote Laithwaite once more: "It is to be hoped that we are all not suffering from similar inhibitions when we design our modern machines."

Bruce DePalma

Reference (1): Magnetism as a Distortion of a Pre-Existent Primordial Energy Field and the Possibility of Extraction of Electrical Energy Directly from Space, Bruce DePalma; proceedings of the 26th annual Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference (IECEC), Boston, Massachusetts, August 4-9, 1991.

Reference (2): "Spinning Magnetic Fields", Djuric; Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 46, no. 2, February 1975, pp. 679-688.

Reference (3): Exciting Electrical Machines, E. R. Laithwaite, pp. 13-17; Pergamon Press Ltd., Oxford, England, 1974.

4 January 1994

On the Nature of Electricityby Bruce DePalma

"Blessed be those who believe, yet have not seen." - Jesus

It may be helpful to conceive electricity from a different viewpoint. The present theory of electricity is founded on archaic ideas carried over into modern expression. Association of the conceptualizations of electricity such as, positive and negative, electrical currents, with the work ethic; defective arguments based on analogies between electrical and mechanical phenomena and the smug "rationalization" of electrical laws with so called conservation laws, have undermined the vitality of electrical science. The hold of the conservation laws is so strong that further inquiries into fundamental electrical science are almost a dead issue.

____________

A new viewpoint on electricity does not necessarily add to our knowledge, but it does form the basis for the rationalization of old information. The fact that the planets do not move in exactly circular

orbits around the Sun, or the fact that the Earth is not exactly round does not prevent these ideas from being useful.

If we may be allowed to forgo the interesting speculations which may be developed out of the notions of positive and negative electricity and electrical currents and turn our ideas to the stars we may see that our conceptions of electricity would be more firmly founded if we could see electricity as an aspect of fundamental properties of the Universe as a whole.

The knowledge of science is gathered through observations of Nature. The fundamental polarity is male and female. It has been observed in energetic phenomena that maximum energy has been derived from the merging of the male and female energies.

It is not the purpose of this paper to justify or substantiate the foregoing. The truth is available to those who have eyes to see the truth and for those who have ears to hear the truth.

In the history of the development of the discovery of electricity it is interesting that the concepts of positive and negative were never associated with the idea of the fundamental male-female polarization observed in Nature.

Heat, which had always been seen as a phenomena of consumption, is not easily reconciled as being a concomitant of generation (of energy).

Patently preposterous statements about "energy" and the finiteness of its supply and its "convertibility" from one "form" to another are seen to be relevant to the coal fired era of the steam engine and to no other.

The idea of energy can be developed out of a conception of space which contains both male and female properties. The distortion of the homogeneous space represents energy and the self-same distortion elicits in tangible form the male and female spatial polarities.

The male and female polarities of electricity may be developed out of the properties of a magnetized rotating conducting disc. With the disc rotated by an axle the apparatus becomes a rotating magnetized gyroscope, (fig. 1).

Mechanical rotation of a disc as shown elicits the fundamental mechanical polarities of motion and no motion, with respect of the edge and the center of the rotating disc to each other. The mechanical polarity of motion is designated male and the mechanical polarity of no-motion is designated female.

When the rotating disc is magnetized, one face north and the other south, an electrical potential is found between the center and the edge of the disc. One interpretation of the phenomena would be to say the male-female polarization of the disc superposed on the direction of the

flux lines through the disc invokes the positive and negative poles of electricity from the universal spatial energy or primordial field.

The usefulness of an idea is the number of creative ideas it will invoke. The idea of the male-female polarization developed out of spatial distortion of an isotropic primordial field can reinterpret electrical phenomena.

Consider the following situations:

a) An electrical generator connected to a resistor.

The contemporary interpretation is that a generator of V volts connected as shown to a resistor of R ohms will allow a current of V/R = I amperes to flow and cause a heating effect in the resistor of V2/R = watts to occur.

Applying the male-female paradigm we could also interpret the same situation, to wit:

b)

The idea of electrical current was probably suggested by the physical evidence of a spark when an electrical circuit is interrupted, and also by the thought of conservation. Obviously one had to do work to turn a generator which was propelling a current of quantized electrical charges, electrons, through a load. The heavier the load, i.e. the lower the electrical resistance the more current would be drawn.

The idea that an electrical current was flowing was reinforced by the actions of electricity on electrolytic solutions where the anions and the cations of the electrolyte were observed to flow in opposite directions. Thoughts about fluids of positive and negative electricity

were abandoned because no fluid could be conceived which had exactly equal and opposite properties to another fluid.

The principle use for electricity has been in powering electric motors. What could be more practical than putting one in series with electrical power lines and calling the stalled armature torque exerted against a spring balance, the current. This together with the agreed upon polarities and units, would always flow toward the load in one arm (of the circuit) and flow away from the load in the other.

The idea of "efficiency" was developed to evaluate electrical systems in terms of their fulfillment of the conservation paradigm in electrical form.

I would suggest we unload the heavy baggage from the steam engine days when efficiency was judged on how many miles you could get from a ton of coal.

We simply distort space to elicit the basic male-female energetic polarization. Through magnetism we obtain the electrical polarities (+) and (-). The polarizations are conveyed to the "load" by "conductors", materials wherein the recombination of polarities is minimized. The male-female polarizations thus conveyed to the load recombine within the load to produce heat.

In conclusion, the general idea is to suppose the application of the male-female polarization to a particular situation, we would obtain from:

1) a resistor - heat

2) a motor - torque

3) a capacitor - an electric field

4) an inductor - a magnetic field

5) an L-C circuit - an electrical oscillation

6) an electrolyte - ionic separation

7) a lead-acid cell - storage battery

8) an L.E.D. - coherent light

9) hydrogenated Pd electrodes in a D2O solution - cold fusion

10) Milliken Oil Drop Experiment - the electron*

* The implication here is that the (electrical) polarization applied to the Milliken apparatus creates the electron. The electrons thus created cannot be assumed without proof, to be the mechanism for the transferrence of electrical "charge" through a conducting wire.

N-machines, Space Power Generators, are suitable instruments for separating the spatial polarities because they address the separation of the polarities directly through mechanical distortion of the primordial field.

The possibility of an alternative explanation for electrical phenomena may open the door for further experimental studies, motivated by the suggestion of new phenomena, uncovered, in the exploration of the male-female polarizations as applied to the study of natural phenomena.

Bruce DePalma

DePalma Institute Report 20 September 1994

Power Output of A.C. Induction Machines

The Method of DePalma

The alternating current induction motor was invented by Nicola Tesla in 1888. From its inception its ease of manufacture and its power dominated the field of electromechanical energy conversion. Considering its universal use and application the power available from a given motor frame construction was increased from 7.5 Hp in 1900 to 100 + Hp by 1965. With contemporary manufacturing and application the performance characteristics of a given machine can be specified to an accuracy of 1% or better.

IEEE standard test procedure for polyphase develops six main parameters which characterise the performance of a given induction motor. They are:

1) efficiency

2) power factor

3) torque

4) r.p.m.

5) watts

6) amperes

These parameters are plotted vs motor output in horsepower and are available from the motor manufacturer. There are additional parameters for the characterisation of polyphase motor performance but these are subsidiary and not germane to the substance of this report.

Slip of a.c. motors: The parameter of importance in this discussion is the a.c. motor slip frequency which is the difference between the unloaded motor speed, governed by the frequency in c.p.s. of the mains supply, and the speed at which the motor rotates under load. The torque of a polyphase motor varies almost directly as the magnitude of the rotor slip r.p.m.

Over the range of power in which a motor of a given capacity may be used efficiently, i.e. an efficiency greater than 88%, manufacturer's data is available completely specifying the relationship of rotor slip to mechanical power output. Thus the power output of a motor may be specified completely on the basis of the slip frequency providing the motor is operating at the standard excitation of 50 c.p.s., 30, 415 v.a.c. and the excitation waveform is sinusoidal.

Mechanical power output of a large a.c. motor may be accurately measured with a tachometer used in conjunction with a set of curves of slip vs power output supplied by the motor manufacturer. This method obviates the standard method of motor power measurement requiring an in-line torque sensor interposed between motor and load. In a sense the motor itself becomes the in-line torque sensor with slip speed as the indicator.

This method of motor power indication becomes more interesting when the mode of motor excitation is the synthetic sinusoidal waveforms characteristic of the present generation of variable speed drives and motor controllers.

Non-sinusoidal motor excitation may be characterised by an alteration in the power balance within an a.c. machine. The presence of harmonics of the fundamental 50 c.p.s. mains supply as well as artefacts of the internal switching strategies of the motor speed controller result in a redirection of power flow through the machine such that rotor and stator heating increase at the expense of motor torque and power output.

In practical terms this means that for the same loading, rotor slip in a polyphase a.c. motor can be greatly increased in comparison to the same motor operated at the same voltages and frequency from a sinusoidal supply. The loss in efficiency of electromechanical conversion in the motor under these conditions is reflected in a redirection of energy flow such that power normally converted to torque x r.p.m. is diverted to the heating of the rotor and stator.

Consequently the power conversion efficiency of an electric motor is reduced when operated on non-sinusoidal excitation.

A correction factor may be derived from the relationship between the slip vs load for a specific non-sinusoidal excitation waveform by measurement of the motor slip at constant load for sinusoidal and non-sinusoidal excitation.

Since the torque output of an a.c. induction machine depends on the magnitude of the slip frequency if we were to find twice as much slip from the same power input with non-sinusoidal excitation in comparison to the sine wave, we could surmise the torque producing properties of

this waveform had been compromised to the extent of 50% with the balance of the real power input to the machine being dissipated in a non-torque producing manner, i.e. heat in the rotor and stator.

We might expect from the manufacturer's specifications an electromechanical energy conversion efficiency of 90+% on sine waves, however, the measurements of this author on motor speed controllers under 10 Hp using direct torque measurements of motor output power show overall efficiencies of 40-60%, even though individually the controller may be .97 and the motor efficiency .96.

It is easy for a motor controller manufacturer to specify .97 efficiency into a resistive load. A motor manufacturer specifies using sinusoidal waveforms.

Because of the way motors under 10 Hp are generally employed it would be hard for the user to uncover the nature and magnitude of interactive system losses, and for the small amounts of power being consumed and dissipated the motivation for these studies would be very low. A different rationale might apply to electromechanical systems where energy management and efficiency were significant parameters.

The Method of DePalma for characterisation of polyphase a.c. electromechanical energy converters consists of the measurement of rotor slip frequencies with sinusoidal and non-sinusoidal motor excitation and at constant motor loading.

The ratio of these frequencies taken under the conditions of:

1) constant motor power input

2) standardised voltage and frequency of excitation, e.g. 50 c.p.s., 415 v.a.c., 30

3) constant motor loading

gives the correction factor to the motor mechanical power output for operation with quasi-sinusoidal waveforms. The necessity for such a correction factor arises because of an alteration of the power flows within the motor excited with non-sinusoidal waveforms.

In motor sizes under 10 Hp, increased rotor slip and heating, and additional heating of the stator may not be noticed because no comparisons are made and the benefits of variable speed control outweigh the (possible) considerable reduction of efficiency.

Bruce DePalma

MAGNETISM AS A DISTORTION OF A PRE-EXISTENT PRIMORDIAL ENERGY FIELD

AND THE POSSIBILITY OF EXTRACTION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY DIRECTLY FROM SPACE

Bruce DePalma

ABSTRACT

The key to understanding and explaining the baffling situation of anomalous excess electrical energy generation in free energy machines, lies in a re-interpretation of magnetism as not being a property of the magnet, but of space itself. The spatial distortion induced into the homogeneous Primordial Energy Field by the anisotropy of the magnet is what we call magnetism. It is the thesis of this paper that the distortion of the PEF occasioned by the magnet is the operative principle in the class of machinery known as induction machines. The PEF is also distorted as a consequence of the spatial reaction to the centripetal force field existing within the rotating magnetized conductor.

Based upon an effect first discovered by Michael Faraday in 1831, the N machine/Space Power Generator (figure 1) is an electrical machine which has the possibility of producing electrical energy with significantly less mechanical power input than the presently employed induction machines.

In the autumn of 1831 when Michael Faraday performed the initial experiments which resulted in the discovery of the first dynamo, he also described a phenomenon which has yet to be understood in terms of conventional electrical theory. In paragraphs 255, 256, and 257 of his diary [fig. 2, ref. 1], dated December

26, 1831, is described the experiment of cementing a copper disc on top of a cylinder magnet, paper intervening, and supporting the magnet by means of a string so as to rotate axially, with the wires of a

galvanometer connected to the edge and axis of the copper plate. When this combination was caused to rotate an electrical potential was found to be created. The polarity and the magnitude of the potential was

found to be the same as would occur if the copper plate had moved and the magnet remained still. Faraday spent his latter years pondering the relationship between the situation of magnet and disc rotating together

vis-a-vis the situation of fixed magnet and disc rotating independently. He explained the situation by positing the assumption that the magnetic field of a magnet remained stationary in space whilst the metal of the magnet revolved axially. Thus a relative motion would exist between the moving metal of the magnet

and the posited stationary flux lines giving rise to the expected potential which results from the motion of a wire through a magnetic field.

Through the years many attempts have been made to observe whether magnetic field lines rotate with the motion of a magnet which is rotated about an axis connecting its poles. To date, no conclusive proof has been found that the lines of force rotate with the magnet or not. [2, 3] One experimenter Djuric [4] goes so far as to say: 'That no experiment with the generalized homopolar generator or its classical form can resolve the puzzle, which one of the two logically possible hypotheses is correct, the moving force line hypothesis or the nonmoving force line hypothesis."

In 1978, after having studied the anomalous inertial and gravitational phenomena of the precessing gyroscope through numerous experiments carried out in the prior seven years, it occurred to me that anomalous electrical phenomena might occur if the gyroscope was magnetized, the magnetic lines of force being parallel to the axis of rotation. Following in the footsteps of Faraday I reasoned the metal of the magnetized gyroscope moving through its own magnetic field, when rotated would produce an electrical potential between the axle and the outer edge of the rotating magnetized flywheel. The voltage thus created would be described by the well known laws of electrical induction relating to the relative motion of a conducting wire and a magnetic field.

As is well known, Lenz's Law applies to the forces which are generated between a current carrymg wire moving in the vicinity of a magnetic pole wherein the current through the wire is the resultant of the electrical potential generated by the motion of said wire being applied to an external load. In the case of the rotating cylindrical magnetized conductor, however, it is not clear how Leuz's Law could be applied. In static measurements current can be passed through a cylindrical magnet between the outer circumference and the central axle passing through its poles. The torque developed will be the sarne as one would get by suspending a copper disc over one of the magnetic poles and holding the magnet fixed [5, 6]. The question is: since the rotating gyroscope possesses anomalous inertial and gravitational properties, would the back torque of the rotating magnetized gyroscope be the same with a given amount of current passing through it as would be if the rotation were blocked and a fixed torque measurement made.

Despite the simplicity of the one piece rotating magnetized conductor, N machine/SPG, compared to the two piece rotating induction machine or Faraday disc, in the time since its discovery in 1831, no one had performed a test to see if the same generator principles were at work as one found in a conventional

induction machine. In 1978 in Santa Barbara, California, a large electromagnetically excited N machine/SPG was constructed, the "Sunburst" machine. This machine was independently tested by Dr. Robert Kincheloe, Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering at Stanford University [7]. The abstract of this report quotes:

"Known for over 150 years, the Faraday homopolar generator has been claimed to provide a basis for so-called "free energy" generation, in that under certain conditions the extraction of electrical output energy is not reflected as a corresponding mechanical load to the driving source. During 1985 I was invited to test such a machine. Whfle it did not perform as claimed, repeatable data showed anomalous results that did not seem to conform to traditional theory. In particular, under certain assumptions about internally generated output voltage, the increase in input power when power was extracted from the generator over that measured due to frictional losses with the generator unexcited seemed to be either about 13% or 20% of the maximum computed generated power, depending on interpretation."

After a thoroughgoing critique and examination of his data Kincheloe concludes:

"DePalma may have been right in that there is indeed a situation here whereby energy is being obtained from a previously unknown and unexplained source.

This is a conclusion that most scientists and engineers would reject out of hand as being a violation of accepted laws of physics, and if true has incredible implications."

The "Sunburst" machine was an experiment to determine if the rotating magnet N-machine/SPG operating as an electrical generator would produce less back torque than a conventional induction machine generating the same current. A practical SPG would employ permanent or super-conducting magnets eliminating the burden of excitation of an open flux path electromagnet. Replacement of sliding carbon-graphite or copper-graphite brushes with liquid metal contacts reduces mechanical friction losses by 80%. Brush voltage drop is negligible in liquid metal sliding contacts. Both of these techniques are employed in the machines currently produced [8, 9]. Applied to the "Sunburst" design the techniques of liquid metal current collectors and permanent magnets for the field excitation could result in a machine with an output[mput power ratio of 5:1.

A parallel program of SPG r&d has been taking place in India since 1978. P. Tewari of the Indian Atomic Power Board had developed a generalized theory of matter and energy which showed that energy could be developed from the vacuum by positing a structure for the electron. Having received the experimental results of the "Sunburst" machine he instituted an r&d program to develop practical versions of the SPG for general use. Tewari has constructed N machine"SPG apparatus which produces excess output power over that required to rotate the generator when all losses have been subtracted from the output generated power [10,11, 12, 13].

The phenomenon of direct extraction of electrical energy from space has a simple explanation based on a re interpretation of magnetism. Heretofore it has been believed that the magnetic field comes from the magnet. The phenomenon of the magnetic field can also be explained by positing a Primordial Energy Field, which, in the first order is uniform and homogeneous. The highly anisotropic condition of the material of the magnet, if it be the permanent variety, or the condition created by the passage of electric current through a solenoid, causes a distortion of the isotropic spatial field which we know as magnetism. Passing a conducting wire through the spatial distortion adjacent to the pole of a magnet elicits the electric potential across the ends of the wire. Field magnets in electric generators do not run down nor does more electrical excitation need be applied no matter how much energy is being drawn from the machine. This is because the generated electrical energy is being drawn from the spatial distortion created by the field magnets.

The N machine represents a configuration where two forms of spatial distortion are used to elicit electrical energy from the homogeneous and isotropic spatial field. In the first instance there is the spatial distortion

created by the anisotropy of the magnet, and superposed on this is the spatial reaction to the centripetal force field produced by axial rotation of the magnet. It is a fortuitous circumstance that energy can be drawn from the superposition of the two distortions without the drag associated with invocation of Lenz's Law necessary in the two piece induction machines.

Many fundamental questions in electromagnetism are re opened by the implications of the experiment with the rotating magnetized conductor. For those interested in delving more deeply into these questions I would recommend the reading of the following references [14, 15, 16, 17, 18].

CONCLUSION

The drag and energy penalty of the conventional two piece induction electrical generator arises from the incomplete understanding of magnetism and the nature of the magnetic field. If we accept the notion that all electricity generation arises from distortions of a Primordial Energy Field then we could look to methods of creating the appropriate distortion and concomitant energy generation without invoking Lenz's Law. Based on this interpretation the rotating magnetized conductor N machine/SPG is a method of eliciting the spatial energy without the drag associated with the two piece machines. The further conclusion is that mechanical energy is not "converted" to electrical energy in an electrical generator. The idea of "conversion" is simply an unproven assumption. Different electrical machines produce energy with different efficiencies. In these days of depletion of natural resources there would be no reason to employ the induction generator of 150 years ago when electricity could be generated much more efficiently by the simpler one-piece N machinelSPG.

REFERENCES

[1] Martin, 1932, Thomas Martin ( ed. ), Faraday's Diary, Bell, 1932, in five volumes.

[2] Cramp and Norgrove, 1936, "Some Investigations on the Axial Spin of a Magnet and on the Laws of Electromagnetic Induction", Journal of The Institution of Electrical Engineers, vol.78, 1936, pp.481491.

[3] Crooks, Litvin, and Matthews, 1978, "One Piece Faraday Generator: A Paradoxical Experiment from 1851", Am. J. Phys., vol 46(7), July 1978, pp.729-731.

[4] Djuric, 1975, "Spinning Magnetic Fields", J. AppI. Phys., vol 46, (2), February 1975, pp.679-688.

[5] Kimball, 1926, A. L. Kimball, Jr., 'Torque on a Revolving Cylindrical Magnet", Phys. Rev., vol 28, December 1928, pp.1302-1308.

[6] Zeleny, 1924, Zeleny and Page, "Torque on a Cylindrical Magnet through which a Current is Passing", Phys. Rev., vol 24, ~4 July 1924, pp.544-559.

[7] Kincheloe, 1986, "Homopolar "Free Energy" Generator Test", paper presented at the 1986 meeting of The Society for Scientific Exploration, San Francisco, California, June 21, 1986, revised February 1, 1987. Address: Dr. W. Robert Kinchebe, 401 Durand/ITV, Stanford, California 94305.

[8] DePalma, 1988, "Initial Testing Report of DePalma N-1 Electrical Generator", Magnets in Your Future, vol.3(8), August 1988, PP. 4-7, 27, P.O. Box 580, Temecula, Califomia 92390.

[9] United States Department of Commerce, Business Daily, Tuesday January 2, 1990, issue no. PSA-9999. "David Taylor Research Center, code 3311, Annapolis, Maryland 21402- 5067: A Research and Development Source Sought. Broad Agency Announcement for Homopolar Machinery and Current Collector Technology." BAA details requirements for homopolar machinery for ship propulsion. Power range 25,000 to 50,000 horsepower at anticipated current levels of 50,000 to 100,000 amperes. Superconducting magnets and liquid metal current collectors are called for. "Field magnets can be normal or superconductive and located internal to the rotor or external to the stator." Describes combination of N machine/SPG connected to Faraday disc motor for "integrated electric drive" ship propulsion.

[10] Paramahamsa Tewari, "Beyond Matter", Printwell Publications, Aligarh, India, 1984.

[11] Paramahamsa Tewari, "Generation of Electrical Power from Absolute Vacuum by High Speed Rotation of Conducting Magnetic Cylinder", Magnets in Your Future, vol. 1 (8), August 1986, P.O. Box 580, Temecula, California 92390.

[12] Paramahamsa Tewari, "Violation of Conservation of Charge in Space Power Generation Phenomenon", Paramahamsa Tewari, Chief Project Engineer, KAIGA Project, Nuclear Power Corporation, Kodibag - 581303, Karwar, Kamataka, India.

[13] Paramahamsa Tewari, "Detection of Stationary and Dynamic Space Substratum", paper presented at 1990 Borderland Sciences Congress, Santa Barbara, California, June 14-17, 1990. Borderland Sciences, P.O. Box 429, Garberville, California 95440-049, U.S.A.

[14] Kennard, E. H., 1917, "On Unipolar Induction: Another Experiment and its Significance as Evidence for the Existence of the Aether", Philosophical Magazine, Vol.33, XW, pp. 179-190, 1917

[15] Hooper, W.J., 1963, Unipolar Electromagnetic Induction, an unabridged account of a paper entitled: "Rotation of flux about a Magnetic Axis", presented at the Am. Physical Soc. meeting, St. Louis, March 25-28, 1963

[16] MuIler, Francisco J., 1990, "Unipolar Induction Experiments and Relativistic Electrodynamics", Galilean Electrodynamics, Vol. 1, No.3 May-June 1990, pp.27-31, Francisco J. Muller, 8470 5. W. 33rd Terrace, Miami, Florida 33155.

[17] Das Gupta, A. K., 1963, "Unipolar Machines, Association of the Magnetic Field with the Field Producing Magnet", Am. J' Phys., Vol.31, 1963, pp.428-30.

[18] Tesla, N., 1891, "Notes on a Unipolar Dynamo", The Electrical Engineer, N.Y., Sept. 2, 1891.

Simularity Institute 22 April 1974

The Generation of a Unidirectional Force

by Bruce E. DePalma _______________________________________________________________________

_ Summary: The theoretical prediction and experimental elucidation of the variable ratio of inertial to gravitational mass of a constrained gyroscope under forced precession opens up a new field of Inertial Mechanics. The controllability of inertial mass makes possible the

generation of thrust by mechanical motion alone. A new device, the Linear Force Machine, is described which operates on a heretofore

unrecognised interaction between rotation, magnetism, and inertia, to generate a unidirectional force as a solid state interaction. The application of a controlled and directed mass field flow to the containment of a controlled thermonuclear power reaction is

discussed._______________________________________________________________________

_

The Generation of a Unidirectional Force

Introduction: The mechanical generation of a unidirectional force, is shown to be a consequence of the variable inertia property of matter.

The Linear Force Machine: A series of experiments1, has elucidated a variability in the ratio of inertial to gravitational mass of real objects. The key to the unsuspected variability of inertia of real material object lies in heretofore unrecognised properties of rotation. The possibility of inertial control makes practical the generation of a unidirectional force through purely mechanical interactions.

There are many ways to control inertia of objects, but all of them are based on the primary interaction of rotation and inertia. The simplest

manifestation of the phenomena is the rotation of a spherical material object. Depending on the speed of rotation, the inertial mass of the object will vary as the square of its rotational velocity. The ratio of inertial to gravitational mass may be found by pendulum experiments. This ratio is defined as the OD number, this quantity having found to be dependent on the angular velocity of rotation of the test object, its composition and geometry, and the value of linear acceleration which is applied to the rotating object to test for inertial mass. All things considered then:

inertial mass Nod = gravitational mass

For the simple spherical metallic object, the spinning ball, the od number may reach factors of five or so as the rotational speed is increased to the point where the object will explode, i.e. 50,000 rpm for a 1 inch steel ball bearing. For practical controllability of inertia, larger inertial variations must be created and be subject to control other than the rotational acceleration of a test object to 50,000 rpm and then back to zero again as part of a cycle.

A much more powerful interaction takes place through the precession of a constrained spinning gyroscope. The ratio, inertial/gravitational mass, of a constrained spinning gyroscope can easily reach a factor of several hundred, depending on the velocity of precession and the rotational speed. Nod is, (at least) a function of the square of the precessional velocity. That is:

Nod (precession) = Kϖ 2Ω 2 + 1 Where ϖ = gyro angular velocity ___________________________ and Ω = angular velocity of gyro precession

K is a geometrical and physical constant.

A suitable mechanism for the demonstration of the unidirectional force is a mechanical arrangement based on the force machine. A force machine, c.f. figure (1), is a combination of two mechanically identical gyroscopes, rotating coplanar and with parallel axes, in opposite directions at equal angular velocities. Such a device allows us to study the properties of rotation without interference from gyroscopic torques.

Figure (1a)

Since inertia is isotropic, it is clear that inertial changes engendered from procession are reflected in linear inertial changes as well. A sequence of operation is indicated. Consider the energized (gyros turning) force machine. The machine is pushed away from the experimenter in the low inertia (no precession) condition. When the machine is pulled back, however, the gyros are precessed at some angular velocity Ω . The condition of precession multiplies the inertia of the rotating gyroscopes by a factor of several hundred times. This is reflected linearly and presents a strong resistance to the force exerted by the experimenter attempting to return the machine to its original, (near) position.

A combination of linear and torsional oscillations, (the latter at 1/2 the angular frequency of the former), will produce a unidirectional reaction force in the direction of linear oscillation of the energized force machine

A phase diagram showing the relationship of the linear velocity to torsional oscillation and the direction of net momentum flow, appears in figure (2). A combination of mechanical linkages to accomplish this effect in a rapid cyclic manner is shown in figure (3). The resultant momentum flow is a product of Nod (precessional) f(t) and v(t) (linear motion), and represents the unidirectional reaction force.

The machine of figure (3) has been constructed in our laboratory and delivers unidirectional reaction force in the pulsating manner expected. The device is called a Linear Force Machine.

Inertial Mechanics: The field of inertial mechanics refers to that class of mechanical experiments wherein inertia becomes a variable. Although the mechanical force machine demonstrates the usefulness of the variable inertia concept in the generation of a unidirectional force; there are several reasons why such a machine stands in relation

to its ultimate form in the same wise as the early rotating mechanical radio frequency generators stand in relation to the modern high power vacuum tube or transistor radio frequency power oscillators. In the first place the delivery of force or momentum impulses is in a pulsating manner. It would be highly desirable to have the delivery of force or momentum in a steady manner. Secondly, the necessity of maintaining the condition of energization of the force machine requires a steady high speed rotation of constrained gyroscopes. As well as the necessity for the supplying of the rotational excitation via electric motors or mechanical gearing, the necessity for sturdy bearings to support the gyros under intermittent reciprocating precessional torque reactions. The fact that these are problems of a conventional sort, which can be easily solved through accessible bearing technology, does not mitigate against the search for a more desirable rotational-inertial interaction.

In the linear force machine thus far described, the form of the motion imparted to the force machine, is called "three dimensional". The form of motion where driven precession is coupled with linear oscillation is called "streptation", a derivative of the Greek word for twisting.

What is desired is a mode whereby streptoid motion can be achieved without mechanical linkages and reciprocation. Such a machine would achieve the generation of unidirectional force without pulsation.

Inertial Drive: The ideal inertial drive would achieve a smooth flow of momentum in a desired direction with the resultant reaction force of steady and constant magnitude. The method of accomplishing this result is through a heretofore unrecognized magnetic interaction. With reference to figure (4) we observe a rod of medium hard magnetic material suspended within the gap of a permanent magnet. The length to diameter ratio of the magnetic core determines the dimensions of the magnetic gap. From the front to rear of the machine the magnetic gap is twisted 180 degrees. The magnetic core is suspended on bearings designed to withstand whatever thrusts are generated by the machine.

Within the gap of the permanent magnet the magnetic induction is maintained such that the magnetic core is saturated under all conditions of operation of the machine. Under such conditions the external magnetic field maintains alignment of the magnetic dipoles within the material such that no projections of internally generated torque vectors, produced by rotation of the magnetic core within the gap, can appear in the drive axis. This is the familiar disappearance of hysteresis torques under saturation conditions, and represents the condition of constraint of a rotating gyroscope.

Motion of a magnetic material in a magnetic field sufficient to cause saturation elicits the identical inertial properties that have been found in rotating real mechanical objects. What is necessary is to obtain the streptoid three dimensional motion in order to elicit the unidirectional force. This is simply accomplished by twisting the magnetic gap so that in rotation the magnetic dipoles within the core material are both twisted and translated. The combination of twisting and unidirectional translation is simply accomplished by rotating the magnetic core.

In like manner to the precession torques of rotating gyroscopes, the hardness of the magnetic core material will determine the strength of the interaction. The ultimate force handling capacity of the machine will be limited by the demagnetization of the rotating core through inability of the external field to maintain constraint over the magnetic dipole interaction.

The machine of figure (4) becomes a fundamental drive unit, capable of generating a thrust against "space" itself, and thus may replace all earlier methods of generating unidirectional motion, i.e. gears wheels transmission units for road travel, and propellers and jets for airborne vehicles.

The Mass Field Effect: The ability to enhance the inertia of a rotating object controllably makes for the possibility of controlling the flow of inertia. The mass field or OD field represents the possibility of storing energy in the inertial property of space. That this has been shown as a field which exists is the result of our prior experiments. Now the possibility of a directional flow of that inertia, the mass field, exists as a concomitant of the operation of the linear force machine. A directed mass field flow can have useful mechanical applications.

The Hydrogen Fusion Reaction: Although it is cloaked in many mysterious terms relating to the properties of nuclear plasmas, the fusion of hydrogen to helium is nothing more than another form of burning or combustion which can only take place under conditions found in the interior of stars. Creation of such a condition here on Earth entails the creation of a region of space, a "bottle", wherein the proper temperature and conditions for such a reaction are maintained. At a temperature of l09 degrees K, the necessary conditions can be

maintained only through a field of force.

Prior attempts to contain the reaction through electric and magnetic interactions with the charged plasma have failed through the inability to generate sufficient forces for containment. Although at present, it is just an experimental possibility, it is suggestive to consider a containment region maintained through the mass field flow of a suitable number of linear force machines arranged geometrically with their force vectors convergent to delimit the reaction region.

Mass Field Flow: When an OD or mass field is created, its first order effect is to enhance the inertia of material objects immersed within the active region. Momentum can also be transmitted through a mass field, and this is responsible for the conundrum of a "mass field flow".

In general we associate a flow with the movement of material. The flow of momentum associated with the mass field of a linear force machine, is, a directed flow of inertia which acts to produce a linear force on mass particles immersed within the field. The resulting flow which takes place, is described by the motion of test mass particles. Thus, although the mass field does not itself flow, test particles immersed within it are acted or by forces which cause motions similar to those of the fluid flow in liquid and gasses.

On the basis of this analogy we can see how a region of containment can be created by the geometrically symmetrical and radially inward convergence of directed mass field flow. In many respects the magnetic core of a linear force machine resembles an antenna whose directivity is a function of the length to diameter ratio of the rotating member. If this relationship holds true, it is suggestive to consider the degree of focusability of these beams and the attractive and repulsive forces which may be set up in a properly directed array. The potentialities of these arrangements need to be explored in every possible detail in view of the possible vital payoff in terms of the controlled fusion reaction. Other possibilities of controlled and directed mass field flow are left to the imagination of the observer.

Conclusion: The linear force machine, as a mechanical prime mover, replaces gear trains, propellers and jets, as a device for the generation of thrust with one moving part, and the polarity of thrust determined by the sense of input shaft rotation, this machine becomes a fundamental tool of our civilization. In degree of sophistication, this machine represents the level of scientific inquiry of our society. The forces which use and make ready this device for the benefit of society, will have at their disposal a tool of unprecedented force and power. The use of this machine to enable the controlled thermonuclear fusion reaction will inaugurate a new dawn of civilized society on this planet, and will inaugurate the entrance of Man into interplanetary space and ultimately the stars.

22 April 1974

Bruce E. DePalma

(1) references to the force machine experiments:

a) Antigravity 9 January 1973

b) The Force Machine Experiment 9 January 1973

c) The OD Effect - A New Physical Phenomena 9 June 1973

d) The OD Effect - Radio Frequency Shift Expt. 17 June 1973

e) The Effect of Gravity on Rotating Objects 18 March 1974

Acknowledgement is given to Mr. John S. Wolf, (formerly of) 741 Torrington Place, Dayton, Ohio 45406, for the independent

development of the theory of the relationship of inertial to gravitational mass of a precessing gyroscope, and to whom the terms "mass field effect" and "streptation", are credited. Mr. Wolf is one of the pioneer investigators in this new field of inertial mechanics.

Special Praise to the website http://depalma.pair.com/ (from which this document Created) and the Nobel folks who set it up and freely giving to all humanity!

Physicist Bruce DePalma has a 100 kilowatt generator, which he invented, sitting in his garage. Educated at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, he claims that his electrical generator can provide a cheap, inexhaustible, self sustaining and non- polluting source of energy, using principles that flout conventional physics and are still not fully understood. His N machine, as it is called, is said to release the "free energy" latent in the space all around us. DePalma views his device as an innovation that could help to end the world's dangerous dependence on supplies of oil, gas, and other polluting fuels. See http://BruceDePalma.com

The DePalma generator is essentially a simple magnetized flywheel. His astonishing claim is that the present version of the N machine can generate up to five times more power than it consumes. This, of course, defies the basic law of the conservation of energy, which says that the output of energy cannot be more than the input. Most physicists simply refuse to look at DePalma's findings and dismiss his theories out of hand.

Yet "proof of principle" for his invention was apparently provided when a large N machine, dubbed the Sunburst, was built in 1978 in Santa Barbara California. The Sunburst machine was independently tested by Dr. Robert Kincheloe, professor emeritus of electrical engineering at Stanford University. In his 1986 report (presented to the Society for Scientific Exploration, San Francisco, 6/21/86), Kincheloe noted that the drag of the rotating magnetized gyroscope is only 13 to 20 percent of a conventional generator operating at an ideal 100 percent efficiency. The DePalma N machine therefore could produce electricity at around 500 percent efficiency.

In Kincheloe's cautious summary: "DePalma may have been right in that there is indeed a situation here whereby energy is being obtained from a previously unknown and unexplained source. This is a conclusion that most scientists and engineers would reject out of hand as being a violation of accepted laws of physics and if true has incredible implications."

"The jury is still out on the DePalma N machine," says physicist Harold Puthoff, a senior fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Austin, Texas. "It isn't clear where the reported excess energy is coming from - whether out of the electromagnetic field or as the result of some anomaly associated with rotating bodies in terms of inertia. The DePalma machine needs to be replicated on a broad scale to see if it actually works. Though I'm rather skeptical, I certainly would encourage independent laboratory experimentation. While such a phenomenon would have seemed to absolutely go against the law of energy conservation a number of years ago, we now recognize that the potential for extracting energy out of so called empty space is in fact a reality."

Dr. Puthoff believes that a new, non polluting energy source may be achieved by tapping the force of random fluctuations of jostling atomic particles within a vacuum. "We now know that empty space is filled with what are called vacuum fluctuations: huge amounts of energy that suddenly burst forth from the nothingness of space. Zero Point Energy is the general term applied to the theories that attempt to explain the concept of tapping into the abundant power available directly from the vacuum of space itself.

DePalma described his N machine and outlined a theory to explain its workings in a paper, "On the Possibility of Extraction of Electrical Energy Directly From Space," published in the British science journal, Speculations in Science and Technology (Sept 1990, Vol 13 No 4). So far, the scientific establishment either has ignored DePalma's controversial claims or remains unaware of them.

DePalma is quick to point out that the N machine is not a perpetual motion machine, that mythical contraption long sought by many frustrated inventors. "The perpetual motion machine is only supposed to run itself. It could never put out five times more power than is put into it. Perpetual motion schemes used conventional energy sources, whereas the N machine is a new way of extracting energy from space."

Meanwhile, other countries, notably India and Japan, are vigorously pursuing what might prove to be a technological breakthrough. (is this yet one more example of the Invented in USA/Made in Japan syndrome, the outcome of American shortsightedness and vested interests?) In India, eminent engineer Paramahamsa Tewari is currently testing his invention, called the Space Power Generator (SPG), which essentially replicates DePalma's N machine. With 5 kilowatts total power input, the SPG is reportedly yielding 30 kilowatts of electrical power output. (correspondence to B. DePalma 8/13/90).

Tewari, a senior engineer with India's Department of Atomic Energy-Nuclear Power Corporation, also directs the Kaiga Project, India's largest atomic power facility, in Karnataka. He freely acknowledges his debt to DePalma, who has shared his experimental results with Tewari for many years. According to Tewari, "The electrical power generated by the Space Power Generator is indeed commercially viable and should be brought to the notice of the general public." He has urged India's Atomic Energy Commission to create an independent research group to advance free energy technology. Tewari also credits John Wheeler, the prominent American physicist and discoverer of the black hole, for his steady encouragement. Wheeler, who had been searching for a mathematical theory that would predict free energy, applauded Tewari for his efforts to develop such a theory, and the two scientists corresponded for a number of years.

The Japan Science Foundation, under Japanese government auspices, awarded grants to two universities and one company to produce models of the N machine and to investigate how it works. Kazama Giken Corporation is commercially supplying small N machines for research and educational purposes. Another Japanese company, Panasonic/National, is also pursuing this technology. Shiuji Inomata, Ph D president of the Japan Psychotronics Institute and senior scientist at the Electrotechnical Laboratory in Ibaraki, has been instrumental in sparking the interest of Japan's scientific community in the N machine.

"One day man will connect his apparatus to the very wheelwork of the universe... and the very forces that motivate the planets in their orbits and cause them to rotate will rotate his own machinery," predicted Nikola Tesla, the Croatian born American electrical genius whose discoveries and inventions rival those of Edison. Proponents of the N machine believe that it taps directly into a primordial energy source, meshing with the wheelwork of the cosmos.

"Electrical engineering took a wrong turn 160 years ago," according to Tewari, referring to English scientist Michael Faraday's pioneering work of the world's first dynamo. In 1831, Faraday performed a series of experiments which led to the modern electric induction generator, having two moving parts--a rotor and a stator. Faraday moved a wire near the pole of a magnet, producing an electrical potential across the ends of the wire. This induction principle is used in all the electrical generators we use today. And that's precisely what Tewari means by a "wrong turn." In that same year, 1831, Faraday also performed a simple yet ingenious experiment with a rotating magnetized conductor. The resulting phenomenon (free energy?) has yet to be explained in terms of conventional scientific theory.

By cementing a copper disc on top of a cylinder magnet, and rotating the magnet and disc together, Faraday created an electrical potential. After pondering this phenomenon for many years, he concluded that when a magnet is rotated, its magnetic field remains stationary.

Thus, he reasoned, the metal of the magnet moves through its own field, and the relative motion is translated into electrical potential.

Faraday's experiments led him to the revolutionary conclusion that a magnetic field is a property of space itself, not something attached to the magnet, which merely serves to induce or evoke the field.

Known for over 150 years, the Faraday homopolar generator, as his contraption is called, has been viewed by a handful of visionary inventors as a basis for evoking the free energy latent in space. They see is as the prototype for a generator capable of providing its own motive power with additional energy to spare. When the world embraced Faraday's two piece induction generator, whose drawbacks include mechanical friction and electrical losses, the enormous potential of the Faraday homopolar generator was abandoned, in the opinion of free-energy proponents.

Following in Faraday's footsteps, DePalma in 1978 speculated that free energy could be tapped from the matrix of space simply by magnetizing a gyroscope. "I reasoned that the metal of the magnetized gyroscope moving through its own magnetic field, when rotated would produce an electrical potential between the axle and the outer edge of the rotating magnetized flywheel."

This insight led to his N machine, essentially a one piece rotating magnetized flywheel, Instead of having a rotor and a stator, as do conventional generators, the n machine only has a rotor. Half of the flywheel is the north pole, the other half is the south pole. One electrical contact is put on the axle, another contact is placed on the outer edge of the gyroscope, and presto, electricity is taken directly out of the magnet itself.

For 150 years after Faraday's controversial experiment, no one bothered to see whether or not a rotating magnet generator would have to do the same amount of work as a conventional induction generator in order to produce an identical power output. Then, in 1978, the Sunburst homopolar generator was built. Testing determined that its output power exceeded the input needed to run the machine, that it was significantly more efficient that an induction generator.

Opinions differ as to the exact mechanisms by which the N machine generates energy. In 1977 Tewari created a minor sensation when he put forth the theory that space is filled with a dynamic medium whose swirling motion is the source of all matter and energy. In his Space Vortex Theory, more fully developed in his 1984 book, Beyond Matter, the Indian engineer inventor postulated that a void lies at the heart of the electron-- a void whose high speed rotation within a vacuum could produce energy from space. Tewari's theory is based on the assumption that the electron has a definite structure, and is not just a homogeneous "droplet of charge."

According to Tewari, the movement of "voids" in the spinning magnetized cylinder of his Space Power Generator liberates free energy out of the space between the machine's axis and the magnet. He readily admits that this sounds incredible, by the yardstick of known laws of physics. Tewari says he never would have developed his theory had he been trained as a physicist rather than as an engineer, since his ideas differ so radically from conventional physics.

"Tewari's explanation is perfectly possible," comments DePalma. "He is attempting to conceptualize what's happening between the atoms and where the energy is liberated."

"My own approach," continues DePalma, "is that space is all around us like the sea of water the fish swim in. The only way you know it's there is to distort it in some way, and the simplest way to distort space is with a magnet." DePalma maintains that his own conception of magnetism as a distortion of a pre-existent homogeneous field is, "the first new thought on the fundamental nature of magnetism since Oersted." For example, modern science says that energy is a constant substance in the universe, and that the conversion of energy from one form to another will lead to the heat-death of the universe eons from now. In contrast, DePalma says, "My cosmos is an open-ended universe, one in which energy can be evoked from space itself. All energy comes from space," he maintains, "and there are various processes which can release this energy, the simplest of which is lighting a match or rubbing two sticks together."

Suppose you light a candle. The heat in the flame derives from the release of latent heat stored in the wax, according to the textbooks. Nonsense says DePalma. The law of energy conservation is pure assumption, he insists. In his theory, the heat of a lit candle comes from space, and this substrate is slowly consumed by the energy of space flowing through it.

When you drive a car, the heat latent in the gasoline is extracted through burning, which propels the pistons. Right? Wrong says DePalma. His understanding of the process is that the gasoline-air mixture, catalyzed by an electric spark, acts as a "molecular antenna" to release energy from space. Heat energy thus releases or cooks or burns the substance with its evoking it in the first place, producing exhaust as a result.

Likewise, when a magnet is rotated, DePalma theorizes, the electrical current comes from the space through which the magnet is drawing its energy, not from the magnets mechanical rotation.

The turning point in DePalma’s scientific career came while he was a lecturer at M.I.T., in the late 1960's when he began pondering the inadequacies of physical explanations regarding the gyroscope. Were there deeper principles operating in the behavior of rotating objects?

One of the first experiments he did was designed to detect if there was any difference in gravitational effect on a rotating object verses non-rotating object. The idea was actually initiated by a student of DePalma’s and after an extensive search in the literature, no evidence could be found that the experiment had been performed before. It became an educational exercise to see if this variation on Galileo’s big rock verses little rock falling experiment would show any variation in the rate of fall.

At this time DePalma was a senior scientist specializing in photographic sciences with the Polaroid Land Corporation and lecturing part time at M.I.T. His expertise ranged from highspeed stroboscopic photography, his mentor was the highly regarded Dr. Harold Edgerton, to Physics and Electrical Engineering. With this background he designed an experiment using two 1 inch diameter ball bearings, one not rotating and one rotating 18,000 rpm produced by a hand router. The assembly then was given a precisely measured thrust and photographed in the dark with a 60 cycle strobe light. Repeating this numerous times, and analyzing the parallel trajectories of the ball bearings as documented photographically, did indeed reveal a variation in the gravitational behavior of the rotating ball bearing verses the non-rotating ball bearing. The rotating ball given the same thrust, went to a higher point in its trajectory, fell faster, and hit the bottom of its trajectory before the non-rotating ball bearing. A second test repeatedly demonstrated a small but significant and clearly perceptible effect with a stationary mechanism designed to drop the ball bearings from a height of only six feet.

After years of reflection on these results he wrote an evaluation on May 3, 1977 called, "Understanding the Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment."

http://depalma.pair.com/SpinningBall(Understanding).html

The conclusions are organized :

1. Rotating objects falling in a gravitational field are accelerated at a rate greater that G,

the commonly accepted rate for non-rotating objects falling in a vacuum.

2. Pendula utilizing bob weights which are rotating, swing non-sinusoidally with time

periods increased over pendula with non-rotating bobs.

3. A precessing gyroscope has a measurable anomalous inertial mass, greater than its stationary mass.

4. An anomalous field phenomenon has been discovered, the OD field, which confers inertia on objects

immersed within it. This field is generated by the constrained forced precession of a rotating

gyroscope.

One of the early devices DePalma used to observe these effects consisted of an apparatus that he called the, "Force Machine," which consisted of two counter-rotating gyroscopes described in "The Generation of a Unidirectional Force." April 22, 1974. Http://depalma.pair.com/GenerationofUnidirectionalForce.html

The archetypical gravitational engine or Force machine is a combination of two counter-rotating gyroscopes with axles parallel and rotors co-planer. Constructed in 1971, the machine weighed 276 pounds. The assembly was suspended from a spring scale and the gyroscopes driven counter rotating to each other at 7600 rpm. Under these circumstances, the support cylinder was then rotated itself at 4 rpm to precess the two gyros. Precisely accurate measurements, consistently demonstrated 4-6 pounds of weight loss.

A variation of this device also described in this paper as the"Linear Force Machine," provided enough propulsion or "force against space itself" or "space drive" effect to propel someone across the room on a small cart.

In another experiment showing the properties of an "inertial field" created by the proximity of a rotating object, the frequency of a tuning fork in an Accutron watch is changed by this field effect as demonstrated by the variation in the time shown on the watch. http://depalma.pair.com/Absurdity/Absurdity09/NatureOf electricalInduction.html

The results of the Spinning Ball Experiment were published in the British Scientific Research Association Journal in 1976. This experiment was also outlined personally by DePalma to Dr. Edward Purcell, one of the most eminent experimental physicists from Harvard at that time. According to DePalma, Purcell, after contemplating the experiment for several minutes, remarked "This will change everything."

Also, Adam Trombly was at this same time being denied the ability to Patent his electromagnetic version of a homopolar generator by the United States Patent office. Their statements were to the effect that this particular configuration of a generator was, "implausible to the extreme." Others in the field were being threatened with a document referred to as Title 35, which is a cease and desist order related to national security and secrecy. This is a real document and it is very intimidating to be threatened by it - prison and fines.

Paramahamsa Tewari, which much faith had been placed as a third party confirmation, was getting press but people were prejudice about the confirmations coming from India. This even though he was a senior governmental scientist, and the Director of a Nuclear Power plant at the time.

While the "N" effect was being validated elsewhere around the world, in United States the lack of support had led DePalma to consider offers of support from outside the country. The basic ability to feed and house himself became the constant primary concern, and something had to change for the sake of the research and physical well being of the inventor.

After meeting with everyone from the head of the Institute of Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, to the principles of Northern Pacific Railroad, no one would risk investment in DePalma. It revolved around two positions. One was the problem that no other physicists would agree that it was possible to extract electricity directly from a magnet, and two, every investor actually capable of producing the technology was hopelessly invested in industry which would be hugely negatively impacted by the development of an alternative energy source.

George Bush the First then invaded Kuwait, and DePalma could see the Future. Perpetual war for Peace and OIL. The Country to which he had been born, now looked to him like someplace unfamiliar. His principle financial supporter had been Court ordered, on instructions from the supporter’s family, not to give him any more money.

DePalma left for Australia the night of the largest racial riot in Los Angeles’s history.

Over the next four years he would produce several next generation N-machine demonstration models, culminating in a Quadrapole version which was documented using electrical input verses calorimetrically measured heat output - confirming efficiency greater than 100%. !

Bruce E. DePalma applied for and received citizenship in New Zealand in 1994. He graduated in 1997 and is buried on the edge of a beautiful beach in Karekare near Auckland.

The following articles provide background which could be of interest.

DePalma’s last letter to the United States.

Comments: Authenticated sender is <antigrav@mail.ak.iconz.co.nz>

From: "DePalma Institute" <depalma@depalma.org.nz>

To: <josephnewman@earthlink.net>

Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 21:00:21 +1200

Subject: Energy

Priority: normal

Dear Evan:

Thank you for your interest in my work. I seem to recall we had

spoken in the past when I was in America.

There are two aspects to the treatment of inventors.

1) Inventors who come up with inventions are highly protective of

their work being that they have spent substantial time and money

achieving their goal. They know the mendacious amorality of the world

of money and business. In order to succeed in this world takes a

combination of luck, skill, finance, and a good idea. Only some succeed.

2) Energy, applied through science, motivates the civilized world. It

is more basic than money, which is only a paper promise. The

inventor is the wild card in the world of finance. A new source of

energy could bring down the empire.

Yes, I along with Joe Newman and Robert Adams truly know the

magnitude of the beast. I make all my ideas public as I see myself more

as a basic physical scientist and teacher than an inventor.

My solution was to leave the United States to find a place where I

was not altogether encouraged but not discouraged. I am much happier

here in New Zealand.

Thank you for the Email of the two faxes you received. I am not

surprised to see the big boys are at work. The handwriting is on the

wall. I had read some of Ehrenhaft's work in the past. It shows we don't

know all there is to know about light, magnetism and electricity.

My theory is that there is no theory. All we know is what we know

from experience. My advice to Joe is to go where he might be

appreciated. Where he is going and where America is heading are two

separate directions.

If you need anything from me don't hesitate to ask.

Best wishes,

Bruce DePalma

N.B. God is in charge of this world. The truth is only for those

who's ears hear the truth and who's eyes see the truth.

*************

An "Open Letter" from Bruce DePalma

to Space Energy Association Newsletter:

EDITORIAL

7 September 1992

From:

Bruce DePalma

c/o Unlimited Vision

P.0. Box 248 Mullumbimby, N.S.W.

2482 Australia

FAX # 61 (66) 858-274

To:

Space Energy Association - SEA/US

Alternate Energy Systems

c/o Don Kelly

P.0. Box 11422 Clearwater, FL U.S.A. 34616

FAX # 1 (813) 442-3923

Dear Don,

This an open letter which you may publish in your Space Energy Journal. I very much appreciate all the coverage you have given the N machine in recent issues, and having been out of the United States now for five months and I can look back at America with somewhat clearer vision than I could see things from being in the midst of them while I was there.

I received two letters from you which came from William Hyde and Paul Brown, William Hyde being associated with his electrostatic machine; Paul Brown has done a lot of work in flux transformers and nuclear batteries, but I am not totally acquainted with his present work. At any rate they both have finally wakened to the fact that Free Energy technology is oppressed in the United States. And since I am here in Australia, and can see things more clearly than when I was in the U.S, I thought I had a few things I might add to their observations.

Yes, I have been threatened for my life. The first threat came from Edgar Mitchell, the astronaut who told me that the Government had said there "never was any doubt that the N machine was the Free Energy machine they were looking for, and if I tried anything on my own in California I would have my head blown off. And the CIA warned me via Mitchell that I should not leave the country because I would be kidnaped. This was back in 1980, when these efforts frightened me out of going to Hanover, Germany for Dr. Nieper's first Gravity Field Energy Conference, which is where P. Tewari brought his N machine from India and got the prize for the most clearly observable Free Energy phenomena to date.

In later years I have had my inventions confiscated by various groups, the first being the Sunburst Community, which helped me build the N machine you wrote about in your last issue, when their leader got dollar signs in his eyes and decided to see what he could do with it without DePalma. Later on other groups tried to manipulate me and control me in the sense that they would get everything out of me technically without any assurances that I would be paid for any more than one year's work. In fact, Mitchell's contract with me was a deal he was trying to set up where he was going to have to raise 150 - 300 million dollars and start a company which would be the size of General Motors in three to five years, and from then on, who knows? Out of this I would get a one year employment contract and $30,000 and the possibility of maybe owning one or two percent of the operation; something I turned down because of my lawyers advice. And Mitchell, of course, blew up.

So then after that I had a deal with a company in Southern California called Micro CoGen, to buy N machines for a congeneration system, which was a pretty highly advanced system of its type. Anyway, Southern California Edison put them out of business because it got a list of their customers through some Law, and renegotiated the power rates lower so that the customers did not need to buy the machines anymore. More recently I have appeared on KPFK in Los Angeles, an independent, non-commercial, subscription supported station, very powerful 120 thousand watts or so FM. The most powerful FM station west of the Mississippi. And as soon as my name is mentioned one night on one of my shows, which was not even known that it was going to be on, the power went off for three hours. Now this may all be coincidental, and I may be paranoid. In the case of the power going off at the transmitter there was supposed to be some transformer maintenance, but it was scheduled for the following days. This was a Tuesday show, and it was suppose to happen Thursday. And without notice, as soon as Bruce DePalma was announced as the most controversial guest the talk show host Roy Tucuman has had on, then the juice went off and didn't reappear for three hours. We also did a show that night, but nevertheless things like this happen. And of course any kind of deal that I have tried to put together over the years, no matter how carefully researched and no matter how carefully documented and how well thought out and put together by lawyers and technical people, everything has fizzled out at the high end somewhere. So you go through this year in and year out and you wonder what's going on.

And you get no response from the responsible agencies in the government who you think should do something about this. For instances, NASA was finally instructed by a couple of congressmen, after I was on a U.S. wide daily talk show - The Chuck Harder 'For The People' show out of Florida - they requested NASA to do an investigation and they fiddled and piddled and made dates and changed dates, and then it all just went away. Air Force people came to see me and they said they cannot do this except on their free time, and it can't be known that they are associated with this. You have to see that after a while the message comes through to you that you are operating in a very strange kind of environment where most of the people around you believe that the laws of right and wrong and reason, the belief in the Constitution and lawyers and all of this is a kind of philosophy we hold on to, but the real activity

going on is a collection of corrupt lawyers in cahoots with corrupt businessmen and politicians who will do anything to maintain their control over fixed resources and then guarantee themselves some sort of income because they are sitting on all of it and we have to have it, and we have to pay for it piece by piece, every gallon, every kilowatt hour of electricity has to be paid for. And the thought that someone might have an independent source of energy in their own home which could disconnect from this, of course is not to be thought at all. It is too unthinkable And if there is any cognizance paid to this sort of technology it is immediately classified and applied to military instruments; the most modern of which use enormous quantities of electricity. That is: Laser Death Rays, and Ship Propulsion Systems, Space Battle Station Power Systems, Mars Station Power Systems, and on and on...

So from the perspective of seeing things from Australia, I see America as a place where a lid was put on Science, and it started in the late '50's when "Secrecy" started happening and "Classified" conditions exist. And then there were layers and layers of classification and "need to know" and probably only certain "eyes only" committees, and so on... And it all adds up to the fact that Science, which thrives on the free interchange of ideas, is completely stopped in its tracks when no communication is allowed to exist. If this is not bad enough, we are living on a planet which has a collision in process between the number of people it can feed and sustain and the number of people that live here, and something has to be resolved about that. So any technological answers would be very welcome in a world which is going to starve to death, and maybe fight about it in the same way.

By putting a lid on technology and sequestering all the new information to themselves the only focus of it could be on military instruments and the idea of a people powered society non-taxable, uncontrollable, perfectly free group of people who are trying to learn how to live and get along by themselves - this is not a good thing for those planners and economic doctors, lawyers, politician and businessmen, all of whom have it all figured out down to the last stroke, providing the assets are fixed. So the reason I left America is because I think that America has passed the point of no return, as far as its ability to recover itself. Here in Australia the Australians more or less agree that they are thirty yeas behind the American, but what that means is that they still have a chance to recover themselves if they pursue an independent, non-aligned Energy Policy of their own. So basically what I am suggesting is this: It has gone on for too long now. We have global Energy Networks; Information Hot-lines which have copies of all the Free Energy papers circulating around the globe. This global awareness bypasses the Universities and all the fixed monoliths that stand on the way to progress. And if your readership is really interested in understanding the papers and the experiments and so forth, they shouldn't depend on the local professors to give them any help whatsoever because that whole educational dinosaur of a fixed University is obsolete by the global satellite computer interface University where all information is available instantaneously from somewhere, all you need is a computer and a modem. So people can tune into the Free Energy Network, and I do not have the figures at my fingertips right now, so you certainly could tell your readers about that. People in Australia are establishing a Free Energy Network computer access system where all the papers of all the people can be accessed.

This brings me around to the final point that I wanted to make in this letter, and that is my interest in bringing Free Energy into the world at a time when the world needs it, there's no doubt, there is no question that Free Energy does exist and there is also no doubt and there is also no question that the world is in big trouble. Energy being the source of all of our activities, if we can improve our take on the production of Energy, we would be helping this alot! And I am not just pushing for the N machine - The Rotating Magnet Space Power Generator, because this is only one of a number of different devices and machines which can elicit Free Energy. So what I am basically pushing for over here is a political awareness the Free Energy does exist and that is worthy of a place in the panoply of sciences like everything else, and that a laboratory should be established and open to those interested in this and this exclusively. The object of all this would be to produce power plants for non-polluting, self sustaining future for our planet. So the N machine may not be the "be all and the end all", but it is one of a number of apparatus which has been shown to produce excess electrical output over mechanical input. I think

the N machine being as powerful as it is, is more suitable to drive cities, airplanes, ships and locomotives than it is automobiles and homes.

There may be smaller versions of different principles which may be more applicable and makeable in large quantities for that application; but in the meantime I have a suggestion, and that is the Earth could adopt a Hydrogen economy. A Hydrogen economy based on gas developed out of the electrolysis of water generated out of N machines could produce Hydrogen at a third to a fifth of the cost at which Hydrogen is generally sold and distributed right now. This makes it a practical fuel for the automobile. Anyone could have a Hydrogen generator in their basement. They could have a tank of hydride through which the Hydrogen generated could bubble and charge this thing up, it could also service the stove and the air-conditioner, the heating and refrigeration uses of the home. Many people have thought about the Hydrogen economy and how we could slowly merge the fossil fuel economy into it, and then we could go into the all electric economy after that. But as a intermediate thought, an N machine which does not have to be powerful enough to be self-sustaining is very, very effective in electrolysis of water at low voltages and very high currents. And so such machines could be made cheaply, in fact they could be built by hand and electrolyzers attached to the output voltages and they could be driven by electric motors from the power grid or by gasoline engines or water power, wind power...

And these Hydrogen generators could charge Hydride in the fashion of the system developed by a man who was also harassed by the Government, Gerald Schafflander. Dr. Schafflander, as far as I understand, operated back in the seventies, built a Hydrogen car with the idea of producing the Hydrogen from electricity developed by solar cells in a desert environment with no clouds; and Hydrogen thus produced from the solar cells and the water, was then bubbled through a tank of Hydride which was then put in the trunk of the car and a small heating element liberated the Hydrogen which was then put into tubing to a carburetor adjusted for the burning of Hydrogen and the automobile or truck operated perfectly normal. Now this scheme is very applicable to our present society and of course produces no pollution at all, and the amount of Hydrogen which can be developed out of fossil fuels is much greater than you would get from the heat you would get from just burning the fossil fuels themselves. So the gain happens to consist in the electrolyzer N machine combination which seem to fit each other.

With that thought, your readers might consider constructing Hydrogen generator systems based on N machines and electrolytic cells and then digging out Schafflander's patent, or even to see if Schafflander is still in jail - put there by the SEC for the same kind of frivolous reasons they have been hassling Paul Brown and William Hyde. Maybe we could get Schafflander to come out. This system is very practical and will completely stop the burning of fossil fuel, petroleum and stop the production of smog and acid rain. So let's think about that. Thank you for your continuing support of my work.

Bruce E. DePalma

Space Energy Newsletter (Quarterly) Vol. III, No. III

October -November 1992

Space Energy Association

P.O. Box 11422

Clearwater, FL 34616

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/new-energy-solutions

From: P Tewari <ptewari1@sancharnet.in>To: David Crockett Williams <gear2000@lightspeed.net> Subject: India updateDate: Sunday, September 28, 2003 8:12 AM

Dear David,This refers to your message, India update, 9/25/2003.I would love to participate in teleconference on October 1, 2003,but for the fact that my telephones are invariably disturbed.

I have already sent my comments.

Thanks for your kind considerations to propose my participation in theconference.

Best wishes,Paramahamsa

************

From: P Tewari <ptewari1@sancharnet.in>To: David Crockett Williams <gear2000@lightspeed.net>Subject: On the space power generatorDate: Saturday, September 27, 2003 7:40 AM

Dear Mr. Williams,

This is further to my earlier report.

While engaged in construction of large nuclear projects, I had the rareprivilege to formulate a new theory of space, matter and energy, namely, Space Vortex Theory (SVT), since mid-seventies of the last century, as a spare time research (hobby). The late Bruce Depalma, having been informedabout this theory and my books, sent me some details and test results of his own research on rotating magnets: the "N - effect," as he named it. He sent me one of the test results of Adam Trombly's machine as well. My confirmation of the N - Effect came later through my own experiments.These test results showed extra power generation that was in violation of the law of energy conservation [LCE].

I had been looking for a positive experiment to prove the principles and the findings of the SVT and in this pursuit, I took up for experiments several systems of rotating electromagnets with different configurations / layouts of conductors and magnetic field starting since 1985. The results showed clear violations of the Lenz's law -- considered to be the equivalent to LCE in electrodynamics. The late Dr. Stefan Marinov [reported to have committed suicide due to Nature magazine's persistent refusal to publish his valuable papers / comments on relativity etc.] too had reached similar conclusions on the violation of the Lenz's law through his own experiments.

Another conclusion of SVT pertains to the flow of current in a conductor:Between two co-linear elements of electric current, an attractive force should exist as per SVT. A similar conclusion, unlike Ampere's own measurements, was also reached by Dr. Marinov through his analysis. This effect, unacceptable to contemporary theories, plays a crucial role in the functioning of space power generator [SPG] at over-unity efficiency.

The applicability of LCE was initially found in the processes of mechanics and thermodynamics. That it should be applicable to electrodynamics too,and in fact to all the universal phenomena requires support from a basic theory of space and matter, one that should first explain [and also quantitatively derive] the genesis of mass, inertia, charge, gravity, etc.; i.e., should explain the basic nature of energy; should derive the earth's gravity field; and should explain the structure of the electron and its observed behavior of annihilation, etc.

The contemporary physics has to enlarge its scope to include explanations of the above and many more phenomena of astrophysics, but it can not be done, or rather, it is impossible to progress any further

having replaced the Cartesan space with the Newtonian space of emptiness.

[The analysis in SVT explains all the above basic phenomena and pinpoints theshortcomings / limitations of the modern physics.]

Thus, those critical of "overunity" machines, not having an appropriatetheory to defend their stand, insist that only a self-running system will prove the authenticity of the new energy technologies. But to bring an over-unity machine to the self-running stage requires finances that ndividual inventors cannot afford.

The solution lies in organizing a conference in which it is made mandatory for the orthodox adherents of modern physics [quantum physics, relativity, astrophysics] in high government offices, and the editorial staff of so-called famous science journals to attend the conference and discuss their objections face to face with those inventors of new energy technologies who have appropriate theories and practical experiments to explain their inventions.

My experiments convincingly reveal that the space power generator works on a principle of reduction of the generator's reaction on its prime mover that is in violation of the Lenz's law. Though there is no creation of additional energy, yet the reduced reaction of the SPG on the prime mover produces more electrical power with a lesser work done by the prime mover. With this result, LCE requires a fresh definition. With further development of this system, I can predict that with resources made available, SPG units in megawatt range and more than 300% "efficiency" can be made soon a reality.

Best wishesParamahamsa Tewari

********

From: P Tewari <ptewari1@sancharnet.in>To: <gear2000@lightspeed.net>Subject: ThanksDate: Friday, September 26, 2003 8:37 PM

Dear Mr. Williams,Many thanks for doing an excellent comprehensive report on my research.I will send by tomorrow some additional points explaining the scientific reasons as to why the adherents of the contemporary physics are so much opposed to the theories and the experimental results of the new energy technologies.

A group of companies in Turkey has volunteered to build a 90 kW, space power generator. The machine is expected to produce 30 Volts, 3000 Amps, Direct Current, at about 300% "efficiency" in the immediatefuture.

The rest will follow tomorrow.

Best wishes,Paramahamsa

See more on P. Tewari's work, experiments, Space Vortex Theory, and his articles on the reasoning for the need for spiritual and ethical values to be integrated into modern "amoral," ie, "objective," science, at http://www.tewari.org I n addition to being an inventor, fundamental new physics theoretician, and a leading electrical engineer of India, Mr.Tewari is also a world class author of articles (some also at above url), regarding the Vedic knowledge of Hinduism, which maintains the unity of all religions as, "facets of the Gem of The One Truth."

More on the work of Adam Trombly and Project Earth whose environmental modeling predicted in 1988 the complete destruction of all oceanic phytoplankton by 2008 due to ozone layer depletion, unless serious countermeasures were widely implemented by 1998 including moving away from fossil fuel combustion of oxygen to these so-called "new energy technologies http://www.projectearth.com

*********

India Today"An engineer's invention excites interest"by M. Rahman (December 1987)[2 photos, not shown here, captioned:]Paramahamsa Tewari (top) and the generator: Futuristic Fantasy

In a tiny room in a Bombay suburb, an electrical engineer works on a machine that seems to have been conceived in a Sci-Fi book -- a generator which can ostensibly produce electricity from nothing. But the machine's creator, Paramahamsa Tewari, 51, is not an eccentric inventor from one of Sukumar Ray's fantastic tales. He is a senior engineer with the Department of Atomic Energy's Nuclear Power Corporation (NPC).

Tewari created a minor sensation 10 years ago when he propounded the theory that space is filled with a dynamic medium whose swirling motion is the source of all matter and energy. He called it the Space Vortex Theory (SVT) which postulated that at the heart of the electron was a void whose high speed rotation within a vacuum could produce energy from space.

Interestingly, it was the Theosophical Society which had first published Tewari's theory by arranging a special lecture in 1977 at Adyar in Madras. The theosophists were excited by Newari's ideas since they were remarkably close to observations about the electron put forward by Annie Basined's associate, the clairvoyant Charles W. Leadbeateri, in the book Occult Chemistry.

However, the first indication that Newari's ideas about the structure of space were more than just a mystic vision came earlier this year at a conference in Hanover organized by the German Association of Gravity Field Energy. The Space Power Generator (SPG) invented by Tewari won the first prize of RS 25,000 from among 25 similar machines presented at the conference by scientists from all over the world.

Tewari's generator is actually a simple machine, consisting basically of a magnetized cylinder rotating at high speed with the help of a motor. Power from this device is extracted by connecting a wire between the surface of the cylinder and its axis. According to the engineer-inventor, the SPG produces two-and-a-half to three-and-a-half times more power than it consumes, defying the basic physical law of conservation of energy which says that the output of energy cannot be more than the input.

Tewari says the excess power comes from the inter-atomic space of the rotating cylinder -- it is the movement of the "voids" in the spinning cylinder which creates additional energy out of the space between the machine's axis and the magnet.

Tewari readily admits that his theory sounds incredible taking into account the existing laws and that he would never have developed it had he been trained as a physicist and not an engineer, since it is so divergent from conventional physics. But, he says, it would have been difficult for him to go on with work on the SVT and the generator were it not for encouragement from two U.S. physicists, Dr. John A. Wheeler of the University of Texas, Austin, and Bruce DePalma, formerly a lecturer in physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

"But for DePalma, I wouldn't have been able to tie up my theory," says Tewari. "He was working on similar ideas and kept sending his results to me."

Though Tewari, who is slated for transfer to the NPC's Kaiga Project in Karnataka as chief project engineer, has pursued his interest in physics in his spare time, he has received infra structural support

from the NPC for putting together his extraordinary new machine. The SPG was built under Tewari's supervision at the Tarapur Atomic Plant.

"Tewari's prototype SPC can be considered a major breakthrough says S.L. Kati, managing director of NPC.. Before leaving for Hanover, Tewari addressed a meeting of scientists and engineers at the Bhaba Atomic Research Centre on his theory. But most physicists remained skeptical about his findings. Undaunted, he is experimenting with a new model of the SPG since his return, which he feels will be an improvement. He eventually hopes to create a prototype for a generator which could deliver 50 kw to 100 kw of electricity.

"The encouragement I received abroad has been a great help, and hopefully within a year, I will be able to build an experimental model which could ultimately prove commercially viable," he says.

Tewari, of course, is not the only engineer hoping to build the ultimate power generation machine -- one which will run perpetually since it will extract energy from space -- as the Hanover conference demonstrated. In fact, DePalma, the first inventor to create such a machine,is presently conducting experiments in California in anticipation of a breakthrough which could lead to commercial production. Their work promises to ultimately create a machine which appears to come straight out of a futuristic fantasy.----------------------------- end

"On your question on the mass energy equation (E=mC^2), the same has been derived by the Space Vortex Theory from the vortex structure of the electron" -- Paramahamsa Tewari

Dr. Jack Sarfatti has consistently denied over last few years that there could possibly have been a collaboration between John Archibald Wheeler and Paramahamsa Tewari who quotes Wheeler in his book about Space Power Generation. The effects predicted by Tewari's Space Vortex Theory. Also Sarfatti has called a "lie" my mention of Wheeler's witnessing DePalma's stationary drop experiment, circa 1970 at MIT in his own office, showing from a height of six feet that a spinning, 18k rpm 1" ball bearing falls faster than a non-spinning control ball bearing.

A small but reproducible and easily visually perceptible difference, empirical proof of the inadequacy or invalidity of (all?) special and general relativity theory interpretations currently ignoring this key DePalma experiment. This experiment, along with his many other later ones in the 70's leading up to the N-Machine prediction in March 1978 and verification of incremental "over-unity" performance in July 1978, demonstrates anomalous gravitational, inertial, and electromagnetic behaviors of physical objects at a "macro" scale. Behaviors still ignored by "mainstream science," which is apparently kept by prejudice or the potential ridicule of theoreticians like Drs. Sarfatti and Park who, "know it is impossible because it violates the physics theories they believe."

And so these simple experiments of DePalma, simple for anyone with lab budgets, have never apparently been properly duplicated by enough qualified physical experimentalists (people who believe what they see is true more than what they think is true) in order to get these results properly published in "mainstream" science journals so that the "community" of science knows that the results are real and "theories" may be adjusted accordingly.

This situation exactly fits Sharon Begley's definition of "pathological science" as per her article authenticating the cold fusion phenomena. A breakdown in the normally open channels of scientific communications." But this one predates the cold fusion pathological ignorance syndrome by approximately 20years when in 1979, theoretician Wheeler dismissed the spinning vs non-spinning ball experiment with the spurious comment of my eyes may not be sharp enough to tell the difference." Finally after regaining his color, having become ashen from witnessing this result that would invalidate all the theories in which he was invested, Dr. Wheeler’s response was, "This is going to change everything, isn't it?" To which DePalma (according to his oft told story to me and others of personal acquaintance from 1979 onwards) replied, "I think so too Doctor. What do you think it means ?

How can it be explained ?"

Why has not Dr. Wheeler told Dr. Sarfatti or apparently others about this in over 30 years in spite of his independent co-collaboration with Tewari along with DePalma on theoretical and experimental aspects of Tewari's over-unity space Power Generator featured at international conferences since the mid-late 1980's?

***********

The following is Tewari's response to clarification on the nature of his "collaborations" with Dr. Wheeler with his brief opening remark substantiating my claim of Wheeler's observing this key gravity change experiment, followed by his commentary reaction to my recent post about the uncertainty principle paradox in quantum physics, ie, the inability by definition to be certain about uncertainty.

http://www.depalma.pair.com http://www.tewari.org http://www.stardrive.org

For Wheeler's background see government "black science" websites with clearance, keywords "advanced electromagnetic weapons of mass destruction," and various public praise-ological fluff pieces and "cleared" physics by common search engines. Don't expect to find DePalma and Tewari mentioned together on any sites along with Wheeler's name in the United Statesin his control or control of "mainstream American pathological science."

It is interesting to note that although Tewari's space Vortex Theory," coming from perspective of an electrical engineer, and Joseph Newman's "Massergy" theory coming from perspective of a mechanical theory of matter and energy by a self-taught inventor, both theories correctly predicted the "over-unity" electrical energy production from their later built and tested respective different configurations of rotating electromagnetic systems. Both theories postulate in different words and math, yet still similarly describe a fundamental property of matter at subatomic levels as spinning vortices and "rotating massergies" as in electron dynamics.Newman's work is at http://www.josephnewman.com

DePalma was familiar with Newman's work also and said he understood how The Newman Energy Machine operated, but as his website says, DePalma's theory is, "that there is no theory,"ie, "what you see is what you get," or "seeing is believing."

***********

From: P Tewari <ptewari1@sancharnet.in>To: David Crockett Williams <gear2000@lightspeed.net>Subject: Space vortex theoryDate: Friday, October 03, 2003 11:14 PM

Dear David,

I do remember Bruce DePalma telling me that Dr.Wheeler once witnessed his experiment but did not appreciate it, as you rightly mention in your note.

But DePalma was astonished to read Wheeler's letters to me [1975, 1977,1985; available at http://www.tewari.org These letters were in response to my earlier manuscripts/books that I sent to him in the initial stages of development of my hypothesis on the structure of space and matter . He also sent me in 1981 one of his own papers: "Delayed-Choice Experiments andthe Bohr-Einstein Dialog," with a remark on the cover of the booklet: "Many thanks for the copy of your book and every good wish for your continuing research!”

In all my letters to Dr.Wheeler untill 1985, I was only informing him about the new space vortex hypothesis that I had formulated and there was no mention of the space power generation, because, I was still to fully confirm through my own practical experiments that the output from a rotating system

of magnets can exceed the input, as reported by Bruce DePalma.

These results started coming through my own tests only after 1985-1986.

After 1985, I have not been in contact with Dr. Wheeler except for a letter expressing my grateful thanks to him that was sent last year along with my latest book in which the only acknowledgment for him is recorded in the preface of "Universal Principles of Space and Matter -- A Call for Conceptual Re-orientation.”

On the history of my theoretical work, the space vortex theory (SVT) and my interaction with Dr. Wheeler, the following is a brief report.

An article "The physical Universe," with basic postulates: Space is a non material superfluid (non viscous, continuous, massless, incompressible) with a limiting flow at speed of light; discontinuity of energy at electron center, was sent to Foundations of Physics in 1974.

Being a brief article, only qualitative in nature at that time, it was not published though some appreciation of the concepts did come from the referee / editor. An Indian physicist, to whom I wrote for help, plagiarized the very basic concepts of this article and published the same postulates (changing the words) along with two other physicists in an important journal. [It was reported in the press by me]. Thereafter, I was cautious and was advised by a senior physicist who appreciated my work to contact Dr.Wheeler for guidance on these very new concepts of electron and its structural relationship with space. [ Prof. Abdus Salam, a Nobel laureate, too advised me later (1981) to keep in touch with Dr. Wheeler.Please see Dr.Wheeler's letters and Prof. Abdus Salam 's letter at http://www.tewari.org].

In his first letter [1975] he points towards the quantum principles. In his second letter [1977], while agreeing that he once conceived the polyelectron approach but no more considered it profitable, yet he forwarded to Prof. Shild to do an article including the work of Prof. Sternglass and also my own.

Unfortunately, Prof. Shild expired soon after, and the article was never written. In his 1985 letter, Dr. Wheeler credits me with my approach in using a simple geometric theory in a dynamic fluid space and finds similarity with Einstein's general relativity (1917). That is the most encouraging comment on my work from the eminent scientist / philosopher that Dr. Wheeler is. Last year, Toby Grotz sent my latest book "Universal Principles of Space and Matter -- A Call for Conceptual re-orientation" to Dr. Wheeler and talked to him on the phone. He commented that the book will be very useful for science and history.

My work was never published in main stream journals. One reason was that publication of such a radical theory requires lot of skill and labour which I could not provide mainly due to my preoccupation at nuclear projects in senior positions [Chief project Engineer, Project Director/ Executive Director].In addition to circulation of my earlier books to the interested physicists/ engineers/ scientists, mostly abroad and some in India, the hypothesis [though not fully complete as a theory] was first published in an International Conference Proceedings, Italy, 1982 [Editors: Dr.Stefan Marinov, Prof. J. P. Wesley]. Further, the hypothesis was recorded in international conferences in Germany, USA, Italy, Japan; also in certain science journals in USA, Italy, Japan, etc..Thus, the main stream physicists will not find details on my work in the journals of the physics establishment. Some aspects of the SVT now in a fully developed form are given in the enclosures.

The Cartesian space and matter of ether vortices continued for a century even after Newton's Principia. Despite its replacement by the Newtonian empty space, electron structure as an ether vortex was very much being debated by the close of the 19th century. In fact Larmor even conjecturedemptiness at the center of electron's ether vortex structure as provided in SVT. [This I learnt only lately] But a problem on the stability of ether vortices had arisen. However, special relativity (1905) discarded ether.

The modern physicists, if at all they have ever read my papers or books, will see in my work an attempt to re establish the Cartesian philosophy with which, after relativity theory, they are totally averse. They

do not recognize that the SVT supports the Einstein's postulate on the constancy of light speed and also its being the limiting speed. Only time dilation is not supported. Einstein is also supported for his mass energy equation [by deriving this equation from the electron structure] and his strong belief in deterministic approach in contrast with the quantum physics' indeterminacy and the uncertainty principle.

I doubt if the main-stream physicists have ever read my works. Their criticism is on hearsay. Some researchers of physical theories have had prolonged discussions with me on the founding principles of the SVT and appreciated its uniqueness [electron's space vortex structure with a central field-less void, new equations and definitions on mass and charge, derivation of earth's surface gravity, deriving all the universal constants with a single universal constant -- the speed of light, continuous creation of cosmic matter at the center of the sun and the galactic center, etc.]

Theory apart, we are interested in knowing with certainty whether over unity efficiency is ever possible. In this regard, as I wrote to you, by this year end a SPG in tens of kilowatts range should be ready and tested.

The companies who have undertaken this work wish to remain anonymous for the present. If successful commercial operation is achieved, then the modern theories will automatically undergo major revision. But, for the present, when the law of conservation of energy is applied even in quantum processes (neutron decay) and the Lenz's law is considered to be an extension of the energy conservation law as per the conventional physics, space power generation is no better than a hoax for them. For quite some time the opposition from the mainstream physicists will continue; and even if a self running system is made possible, they will call it "an anomaly" rather than retract and be back to the Cartesian space which, as said before, was discredited at the very start of the 20th century [special relativity] and the beginning of the quantum physics based on a misconception of the real nature of the Planck's constant and faulty explanation of the photoelectric effect as concluded in SVT .

There is another adverse impact of modern physical theories on religious and spiritual philosophies that started [18th century] with the transition of the Cartesian philosophy to the Newtonian. Though Descartes and Newton were theists and invoked God for the first motion of the universal space and cosmic matter, in Newtonian empty space how could any reality exist? The very concept of the omnipresent and omnipotent God was killed in Newtonian mechanics based on materialism that posits matter as the final basic reality. [What entity created matter is not known; that "fields" or "energy" created matter is merely giving names, a poor explanation without basic definition to energy. As per SVT, qualitatively speaking: a volume of space (nonmaterial fluid) under acceleration is the most basic form of energy.

Prof. S.J. Prokhovnik, the author of "The Logic of Special Relativity," decades ago, admired me for giving this definition, first time, to energy. Similarly, Electron mass is proportional to the volume of the central void (nothingness) in its space vortex structure, the constant of proportionalityis the speed of light relative to the fluid space. And also, electron charge is proportional to the surface of the spherical space enclosing the electron's central void, the constant of proportionality is the speed of light relative to the fluid space. But these definitions make no sense in the contemporary physics because how can there be any fluid reality in an empty (void) space?

And therefore, someone, in the message that you sent the other day, branded my work as a pseudoscience. The present theories cannot explain "mass" and "charge" and why an electron exists eternally (despite interactions with matter) possessing the properties of mass and charge of definite values. What is the genesis of inertia and gravity in the electron structure? The current physics is living with all these obscurities and will continue to live so until spatial reality and spatial interactions are recognized.

To conclude I will say that It is an urgent need to look critically into the modern physical theories and pin point their limitations/ misconceptions to save man from groping in dark with regard to the physical

science theories separate from the 20th century's concrete experimental results and notable experimental work in atomic structure , radio activity, electron positron annihilation etc.) starting with the quantum physics in the 20th century and leading to a weird concept of a dying universe of empty space and solid matter and fields, rather than examining the opposite concept hypothesized in my first work "The Substantial Space and Void-nature of Elementary material particles."

Best wishes,

Paramahamsa

PS. A senior Biochemist and Theosophy Scientist from USA, having read my first work (1977, 1978?), sent me a copy of "Occult Chemistry," by Annie Besant and Charles W. Leadbeateri. In the Appendix of this booklet the following is given: "Let us for the moment name this substance Koilon, since it fills what we are in the habit of calling empty space...Matter is not Koilon, but the absence of Koilon, and at first sight matter and space appear to have changed places, and emptiness has become solidity, solidity has become emptiness..."

Talking of fundamental particle of matter, Leadbeateri continues, "Just as bubbles (bubbles rising in water) are not water, but precisely the spots from which water is absent, so these units are not Koilon, but the absence of Koilon...specks of nothingness floating in it so to speak, for the interior of these space bubbles is an absolute void to the highest power of vision that we can turn upon them.

That is the startling., well-nigh incredible fact. Matter is nothingness...The worlds are built out of these voids, these emptinesses..."

The above was the first concrete idea of existence of a spherical void at the electron center coming from the Theosophy science while I reached the same conclusion searching for the mass, inertia and charge properties of electron. Is it ever possible for particle accelerators to detect voidness at electron center?

********

From: P Tewari <ptewari1@sancharnet.in>To: David Crockett Williams <gear2000@lightspeed.net> Subject: Uncertainity PrincipleDate: Monday, October 06, 2003 5:36 PM

Dear David,

This subject is good for debate and its opportune that you have raised it. I am sending copy of this note to some of those senior scientists who have seen either my latest book or are partly aware of my earlier work.

As to how the uncertainty principle came about is a long story which, now analyzing with the principles and the results of the space vortex theory (SVT), seems to be full of unintentional errors [by some great minds of the time] multiplying into blunders during the development of the quantum physics. It has been analyzed in "Conceptual Error on the Fundamental nature of Light Phenomenon in Classical Electrodynamics led to complexities in Quantum Physics," Journal of New Energy, Vol. 5, No.1, Summer 2000 [also available at www.tewari.org and in "Universal principles of Space and Matter - A call for Conceptual Reorientation." A brief comment is as below.

Photo electric effect: At the time Einstein explained the photo electric effect [1905], he could be aware only with the Thomson's theory of atomic structure - sphere of uniform positive electrification in which the electrons were supposed to be embedded, because the Rutherford's theory, as per which the electrons orbit the nucleus came later [1913]. Therefore, in his photoelectric theory, Einstein did not take into account any kinetic energy that a photoelectron could have had prior to its release from the atom.

Interestingly, calculations with the vortex structure model [svt] of a metallic sodium atom show [in the above cited works] that an outer-orbit electron possesses kinetic energy nearly the same as those of the photo electrons released and measured experimentally.

And coincidently, this kinetic energy is very close to "hf' in Planck's energy equation: E = hf -- for the frequency that released photo electrons. As is well known, "hf" is the energy accumulated in unit time [calling for a storing mechanism] and yet transferred to a photoelectron instantly as per Einstein !!

So, the error is this: The kinetic energy of the photo electrons measured experimentally was already possessed by these particles while rotating in their orbits with the atoms. Interaction of light does not transfer any energy to the photo electrons. Light only triggers release of the orbiting electrons [explained in SVT].

Therefore, the photon concept itself is an error. Einstein's argument that light is not only released in a quanta of hf (Planck) but also transmitted in a bundle is erroneous.

It is surprising to note that Compton, too, in 1923 did not take note of the kinetic energy that an electron in an atom might possess when, by that time, the orbiting velocity of the electrons must have been well known. By neglecting in his experiment the initial kinetic energy of the electron before encounter with light pulse (X-ray), his own conclusion of particle-like photon is in error. [After all how does one know that the interaction of the X-ray in Compton's experiment is with a free-electron or with the one tied in its atomic orbit]. Further, a deeper insight on the nature of mass [SVT] reveals that light can not possess the property of mass. Hence, assigning mass and momentum to photon which itself does not have a real existence, is a further error.

Now, if photon is a non existent entity, how can there be wave particle duality? How can there be DeBroglie's wave particle equations? And so also wave mechanics based on DeBroglie's findings become questionable.

Planck’s Constant, derived in SVT, is intrinsic angular momentum of electron:(4/5 electron mass) x (velocity of light) x (electron radius), where the electron radius is the radius of the central void in electron 's vortex structure. Using Planck’s constant in the uncertainty principle is not relevant.

I am aware that the highly complex principles of the quantum physics can not be critically examined in a short note like this. But if the above referred works are seen, the errors at the very foundation of the quantum theory become more than evident. In any case the uncertainty principle is not the principle to last, like the mass-energy equation, light-speed as the universal constant, and the light-speed as the limiting speed in the universe.

Introduction of empty space in place of ether also introduced voidness around the nucleus, thereby removing the vortex concept of the atom [late 19th century.] This led to very many complexities in the development of the atom structure.

Best wishes,

Paramahamsa

PS For brevity, I have not mentioned here Bohr's atom and the space vortex structure of atoms; production of light by oscillating atoms . These are dealt with in detail in the above referred works with the conclusion that the contribution of the orbital electrons in the production of light is insignificant. And also, the orbital electrons do not lose energy to fall closer to the nucleus because the electron 's space vortex and the space vortex enclosing the nucleus constantly interact to keep them a fixed distance apart. On your question on the mass energy equation, the same has been derived in SVT from the vortex structure of electron.http://www.tewari.org

From: P Tewari <ptewari1@sancharnet.in>To: Mark Gubrud <mgubrud@squid.umd.edu>

Subject: Fw: Your comments on 'Patholigical science"Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 11:57 PM----- Original Message -----

From: P TewariTo: Mark GubrudSent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 10:41 AMSubject: Your comments on 'Patholigical science"

Dear Dr. Gubrud,

In your reply to David Crockett William (16th November), on the explanations of researchers to various free energy experiments, you observe "delusional notions based on half-misunderstood science." True, there could be some in this category, but , let me assure you, there are many exceptions.

Before I proceed further, please permit me to introduce myself. I retired (1997) from the post of Executive Director ( nuclear projects ) in India, having constructed and commissioned large nuclear projects almost throughout my professional career. Side by side with my engineering profession, I framed a hypothesis ( as a spare-time research hobby) on the structure of electron (1974) to explain the genesis of "mass", "charge", "inertia", and energy fields ( electrostatic, magnetic, electromagnetic, gravitational) arising from the electron structure. This hypothesis, having provided several proofs, is now referred as Space Vortex Theory (SVT). The latest work is : "Universal Principles of Space and Matter--A Call for Conceptual Re-orientation"

As per SVT , an electron has a discontinuity of energy -distribution at its center and, in fact ,its mass is directly proportional to the field-less, energy-less, spherical volume of "nothingness" (void) at its center (of the order of 4 x 10^ -11 cm in radius). With the maximum speed of circulation of fluid space ©) in the vortex , the vortex structure is dynamically stable.["space" is postulated as a nonmaterial ( massless, density-less, incompressible, zeroviscosity) fluid].

The genesis of electron- mass and charge are quantitatively derived, explaining for all the time as to why matter possesses mass, charge and inertia.

So also, the origin of energy fields including gravity field is quantitatively derived ; all universalconstants are derived with a single universal constant. The basic form of energy is defined as, "massless space in acceleration."

The surface gravity of the earth is derived from space circulation around it. [This sounds weird,but Dr. Wheeler's comments on my initial work was, "Isn't this another way of stating the content of Einstein's 1917 and still standard geometric theory of gravity, according to which the geometry of space is a dynamic entity, changing from instant to instant according to an utterly simple and beautiful law"...]

With the principles of SVT , the concepts of the contemporary physics (CP), go topsy-turvy. For instance, photon can not possess mass or momentum, nor any angular momentum.

In fact light, basically, consists of spherical wave pulses, least like photons. So also there is no reality to "electromagnetic mass". It’s the misconception on the very nature of mass that has led to assigning mass to mass less entities.

Electron is a particle, least like a wave. Photon is a wave- pulse, least like a particle. Einstein did not account for the kinetic energy of photo electrons that they already possessed before their release in photoelectric effect. This led to an erroneous concept of photon that founded quantum physics.

If you are interested , I can send you my latest work. Then you can see for your self the errors that exist at the very foundation of CP. The errors are so grave, that the mystery of mass, inertia, charge, and light can never be solved by CP.

Violation of the Lenz's law is shown theoretically possible in SVT. And, I have built electromagnetic machines that exceed 100% efficiency . But, under the existing physics, it is not possible to see as to how in a machine the output can exceed the input. It can not in thermodynamics; but can violate the Lenz's law in an electromagnet machine by reducing reaction on the prime mover. The fault lies in equating the energy conservation law with the Lenz's law --a mistake done in the 19th century.

In SVT two basic equations on electron- mass and electron-charge are derived showing the interrelationship between matter with space. If there is no matter, yet all the energy of the universe stays in dynamic space. But , if there is no reality of space, matter can not be created. Such a conclusion can be drawn only by a theory that reveals the very process of creation of electron (with all its properties of mass, charge, inertia, fields) and matter at large. I am not aware if any such theory exists. I wish some one takes note of these ideas rather than ignoring facts.

Best wishes,

Paramahamsa

-------------

From: P Tewari <ptewari1@sancharnet.in>To: David Crockett Williams <gear2000@lightspeed.net>Subject: Tetron TheoryDate: Saturday, October 25, 2003 3:58 PM

Dear David,

In your Tetron Theory [TNUFT] you conclude, "how everything is related according to the very nature of light". Your conclusion is perfectly correct, though I reach it under a somewhat different system of logic through space vortex theory (SVT).

The true nature of light , which you also inquire into as the very basic concept in INFUT, has not yet been grasped by the modern theories wave-quanta nature) .The pre-relativity concept of light as a "wave motion in fluid ether" is nearer to the truth. In the Newtonian empty space (without a fluid ether), corpuscular nature of light was the only possibility, because how can there be a wave without a real fluid medium!

But, since in the relativity theory (1905), the medium of space is a void extension, here again like Newton's corpuscles of light, Einstein too had no other go but to imagine particle -like photon. The errors in the explanation of the photo electric effect were brought out in my previous note. Thus, the very concept of photon possessing mass, momentum, spin, kinetic energy etc., is erroneous, making all those theories that rest on these concepts far from truth.

Now on the wave nature of light , the question arises: "wave of what". It is now simpler to answer this question taking the example of the light- pulse produced in the process of annihilation of electron/positron [discovered in 1935?]. [ There is an article "Conceptual Errors on the Nature of Light.........," at www.tewari.org, that discusses at length the modern misconception on the nature of light]. It is concluded in SVT that consequent to the annihilationof an electron and a positron, a spherical shell of light, in which the radial width of the shell, equal to the electron's radius (radius of the central void in electron's space vortex), is the wave length, is produced and transmitted at speed c relative to the fluid medium of space.

As the shell of light is transmitted out , the gravitational and electric potentials in the fields of the annihilated particles collapse to zero within the shell. Light is produced at a point in space due to time varying potentials at that point caused due to motion/vibration/ acceleration of electrons/atoms.

Light is not energy emitted from the centers of the annihilated electron and positron.; it is an effect produced due to dying potentials of the annihilated particles. This is the true nature of light as per SVT. When this nature of light is taken for analysis, then an observer moving towards a light source ( that sends successive pulses of annihilation light continuously) finds that its frequency (nos. of pulses received by him in unit time) is increased while the wavelength is proportionately decreased ; and if he recedes from the source, the very opposite happens.

Thus, the product : frequency x wavelength, remains the same, that is, the same speed c, as postulated in Einstein's special relativity theory. But when the photon nature of light is taken into account, it becomes incomprehensible to conceive as to how different observers in relative motion can measure the same value of c unless one resorts to time dilation/ length contraction.

So, it’s the misconception on the true nature of light that has caused the confusion. Light is not a phenomenon as fundamental as matter. With creation of electron [when the speed of rotation of the fluid space reaches c and its flow breaks down] gravity and electrostatic fields are first created. With motion, vibration, acceleration, annihilation of electron, the gravity and electrostatic fields change into electromagnet field--that is, light. Had there been no creation of matter and its motion/oscillation, there would have been no light.

The speed of light c, that is, 3/10^ 10 cm /s, is associated with the most basic property in the universe of space and matter. In fact, the only absolute property that the superfund space has is its limiting angular rotation, which is : c / electron radius, beyond which, its flow breaks down into matter.

As stated above, when the speed of rotation in a space vortex reaches c, the flow of the superfund space breaks down into electrons and positrons, thus creating mass, charge, gravity and electrostatic fields. Therefore, more basic than the transmission of potential effects, that the phenomenon of light is, is the maximum flow of space, which too is at the speed of light.

Thus, "c" has two functions: (1) transmission of potential -effects relative to space at velocity c, and (2) limiting flow of space at velocity c.

It has been possible in SVT to derive all the known fields and predict new field (nuclear field) from a single constant c and the radius of the central void in electron 's space vortex. All the universal constants too have been derived with the above basic constants. And this supports your theory that, "everything is related according to the very nature of light."

You mention c^2. In fact as per SVT, c^2 is the maximum possible electric field in the universe and it is a vector quantity. c is also the maximum possible magnetic field in the universe and this too is a vector quantity; © / electron's radius).s ^2 is the universal time; ( c^2 / electron radius).s^2, is the universal radius.

Also, c^2 / electron radius, is the maximum possible acceleration field (inward vector)in the vortex structure of electron. In all the above expressions, c appears as the limiting (maximum) flow of space, which, as pointed earlier, is the speed of light relative to space as well.

I think when it comes to truly basic concepts, like mass, charge, transmission of light, mathematical conventions of scalar and vector can be appropriately taken care of if so required. For instance, in SVT , mass is a product of volume and velocity of light, which should be a vector quantity. But, this problem stands resolved when mass is defined as the volume integral of velocity and becomes a scalar. Similarly, the product of electron surface and velocity of light is electric charge and should be a vector; but defining it as surface integral of velocity makes it scalar.

I think such mathematical conventions such as scalar and vector, though meaningful for computation, should not override analysis for truly basic physical concepts.

The question of velocity of light relative to observers arose because of relativity theory's empty space (Empty space does not explain creation of fields and matter; neither it can explain the very existence

of light). In substantial space, "c" is the limit of flow of space as well as transmission of potentials. And the very nature of light is such that observers in relative motion will measure the same value c. Hence, c is "non-additive" (as you mention in TNUFT).

Prior to creation of matter, the universal space is a conscious entity, which as I said in my earlier letter, is CHID-AAKAASH of the Vedas, FORMLESS ALLAH of Islam and SPIRIT of Christianity. An individual soul possibly, an independent spinning vortex (at speed less than c) in the universal ocean of space] is not yet created. Consequent to the creation of the universal matter, individual souls with material enclosures are born as the living beings. Man is their higher evolution. Since he is in complete continuity with the universal conscious ness, it is possible that through mass prayers to the Overself, natural happenings can be controlled.

The individual consciousness is derived from the universal consciousness, and part of the universal consciousness transforms into cosmic energy and matter. Man, a combination of the universal consciousness and universal matter is thus of Divine origin. Through his individual consciousness, which spreads out throughout the universe due to continuity of space, he is in a position to influence the consciousness of other living beings (at least higher forms of life like birds, animals, man) to some extent. His intense desire to make an event to take place, may materialize it through the help of other conscious beings.

But most of these processes take place with spiritual forces, as demonstrated by some saints, sages, the Prophets and Incarnations. [Shri Sathya Sai Baba is demonstrating such phenomena, that transcend physical sciences, for all to witness right since his birth(1926)]. But, for an individual to directly influence the experimental results from inert experimental set ups is something that can not be fathomed through physical sciences but, perhaps, feasible through spiritual forces.

Your prediction on fuel-less technology, partly if not wholly, and neutralization of radioactive waste will certainly come true.

Since your theory inquires into the true nature of light, which is the only absolute property that the universe possesses in the vast primordial volume of the substantial space, basically, it has truth in it.

Best wishes,

Paramahamsa

********

From: Adam Trombly [mailto:iasa@rof.net]Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 12:32 AMTo: 'David Crockett Williams'Subject: RE: New Age Energy Technologies to replace nuclear and fossil fuel power, Santa Barbara Weekly on Bruce DePalma and The N-Machine.

David,

Really, Tewari is such a disingenuous man. The truth is that if Tewari had not copied (in the crudest sense of the word) our first machine he would have never been known at all. Tewari gives Depalma credit (Depalma should be given credit as a popularizer) but would just love to pretend that his first three papers regarding this technology were not about facsimiles of Joe and my machine. Frankly, I tire of his antics and I feel it is time to say something. I was thrilled when I first heard of Tewari's experimental confirmation of our claims in 1986. But as soon as he tried to publish his second paper with Les Adams' publication "Magnets" he failed to cite our work until I demanded it.

I still have his letter of acquiescence to Les.

I went on to co-invent six further generations of devices that demonstrated the actual principles. In 1989 a former colleague and I physically demonstrated a solid state ZP device in both New York and

Washington D.C. Our presentation at Dag Hammarskjöld Auditorium received a 20 minute standing ovation but the press about the demonstration and speech that followed was totally suppressed.

We physically demonstrated over 50 times greater output than input but you will not find any acknowledgment of that on any of the so called Free Energy websites which presume authority.

In 2000 we demonstrated a subset of the same device in San Francisco. Hal Puthoff initially said, "Where do you think the extra electrical energy comes from? I'm a ZP man myself! Wow what is so cool about this Adam is there are more and Amps and more Volts coming out of this thing! That is really significant!" The other witnesses agreed. Then Hal left the room and returned with a Rube Goldberg box which was made in his lab in Texas but for which he had no information. He could not even tell us what actual measurement it did or the relevant algorithm. He just hooked it up and reversed himself saying, "Well you are not quite there yet." The other measurements that had confirmed the actual performance had been done on a beautiful Sony/Tektronix Scope which had been newly calibrated and was certified as such.

Yet this man who had promised that his backers would provide one billion dollars in initial funding for a demonstrable technology in front of several witnesses at the State of the World Forum in New York a few weeks before threw out one very real chance for the future of humanity based on a measurement done by an unknown machine with an unknown algorithm, which he could not explain at all!

We have to get hip to which individuals are the real obstructors of these technologies !

Puthoff later wrote me an email in which he asked me not to "think of me as the enemy." I don't. I still remember the youthful and excited look he had on his face when he saw the device work and confirmed the measurements on the real scope. I saw something good in Hal at that moment. I do not know what the powers that obstruct have on this man that could cause him to betray his own soul but it must be a humdinger ! I will just remember the beautiful look on his face and pray that one day he rediscovers his integrity. In the mean time we have no time for all of this garbage. We have shown for over two decades now that ZP works! There were some who came before us like Ed Gray who warned me before he died not to let his Navy handler (and mine) ruin my life's work the way his had been ruined. He was a really good man who ended up designing weapons you still have not seen in Janes, but which I saw in 1983.

There are so many stories. I loved Bruce for defending Joe and my work against the likes of Tom Vallone. Who is this guy? That is the question I asked Hans Neiper in 1980 at the First International Tachyon Field Energy Conference in Germany. He could not really tell me. But Vallone was quick to criticize me for spending too much money instead of doing really mediocre work!

By 1989 the ZP field had been so infiltrated by people from corporations like Lockheed, Ford Aerospace, spooks, bad copiers and mediocre pretenders that seized control of the conferences and undermined the field. What have any of them ever really done?

I could tell many, many stories but some how we all need to pray that someone or some group is finally successful in acquiring the kind of support that is really need to commercialize ZP and help pull this species out of its current nose dive into the abyss.

Adam Douglass Trombly

*********

Santa Barbara, CaliforniaProponents of DePalma's machine, believe the US government, to protect the energy industry, has suppressed widespread application of "N" type technologies.

"The same ethic of materialism that stopped Tesla's 'free energy' technologies in the early years of the 20th century, is today visibly responsible for wars, hunger, poverty, homelessness, pollution, and the prostitution of the American scientific community resulting in the completely insane endangerment of

our planet threatened with the potential of complete destruction of all life by nuclear Holocaust."

"...it would have been difficult for [Tewari] to go on with work on the SVT and the generator were it not for encouragement from two U.S. physicists, Dr. John A. Wheeler of the University of Texas, Austin, and Bruce DePalma, formerly a lecturer in physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "But for DePalma, I wouldn't have been able to tie up my theory," says Tewari. "He was working on similar ideas and kept sending his results to me."

By reviewing the following articles you can see that support for this project is thwarted by so-called experts in physics who are quoted stupidly in public news articles discrediting something they have not studied and are afraid of because it seems to violate their "known laws of physics." To those versed a bit in physics or electromagnetism it is clear that Dr. Hone's scientific response below is totally bogus because he is talking about the "induction effect" that he calls below the "Faraday effect" whereby a wire moving through a magnetic field has an electrical current induced in it by that motion, or so the "theory" behind that particular "law of physics" says.

This is this principle, electromagnetic induction, responsible for all the electricity generation by generators commonly used for a hundred years around the world and the same principle responsible for the operation, in reverse, of all commonly used electric motors, a coil of wire on an armature rotating inside an array of magnets producing a current in the wire to generate electricity and conversely by putting electricity into the coil it spins within those magnets as a motor. That Dr. Hone below acknowledges this and still says that this principle is not valid or scalable up to larger machines for more power is simply factually wrong. That he equates this principle of induction to the operation of the n-Machine which is based on a deeper understanding of a different effect found by Michael Faraday in 1831 that he called the homopolar or unipolar effect, and its corresponding unipolar or homopolar generator and motor effects, is also factually incorrect, since this latter effect has no wire/conductor moving relative to a magnet to "induce" current in the wire, but rather is a spinning disc magnet with attached metal conductor rotating together with no relative motion between the magnet and that conducting disc from which electricity is extracted flowing from the center to the edge of that rotating magnet/disc assembly.

Faraday also discovered that if the disc is rotated with the magnet stopped, there is a current flowing in the disc, this seemingly like induction. But if the magnet is rotated and the disc is stopped there is no current flowing in the disc, which violates the principle of induction and led Faraday to conclude that the magnetic lines of force of a magnet are not a property of the magnet but induced in the space the magnet occupies by its magnetic field, ie, because this non-reciprocal effect indicate the magnetic lines of force do not move with the magnet rotating.

This accounts for some of the confusion about this particular electromagnetic effect, whichFaraday called the homopolar effect and DePalma re-discovered and proved independently 147 years later calling it the n-Effect, but with the additional insight of "tapping the free energy field of space itself."

This rotating magnetic assembly duplicated by Tewari of India, Shiuji Inomata of Japan, and by Adam Trombly, of Colorado's Aspen Institute for Advanced Studies (founded by Trombly and Buckminster Fuller, in the 1980's)

This "homopolar" effect was not known in the scientific community or taught in any of the schools before 1980 and the 1979 DePalma n-Machine tests quantitatively proved not only that this works but also, unique to DePalma and not conceived by Faraday, that rotation produces more current than it takes to operate a motor to spin the assembly. DePalma's earlier experiments on gravitation and rotation and inertia anomalies indicated to him that this "homopolar" effect he had only learned about in 1981 was due to the rotating assembly "extracting electricity from the energy field that exists in space itself, the space in which matter resides."

This idea that there is an enormous energy field in "space" or what now physicists since the 80's and 90's have been calling the "quantum vacuum flux" or "zero point energy" with variousattempts to theoretically understand and mathematically describe these ideas, are what DePalma's experiments, including the last one, the n-Machine, prove exists as what he called the "free energy of space" and what Tewari says his Space Vortex Theory explains. This proven by the performance of his overall overunity Space Power Generator version of DePalma's n-Machine.

Those first tests in Summer of 1979 of that n-Machine made by the Sunburst Community, which they called the S-Machine, did not show "overall overunity" performance (more total output power than the power to drive the generator with a motor) like Tewari's later models in India have shown, but the 1979 tests, reproduced in 1986 by Dr. Kincheloe of Stanford independently, showed an equally unexplainable by conventional "laws of physics" incremental overunity effect where at a given generator speed an increase of drive motor current produced from five to twenty times that amount in output current increase, but due to engineering that machine has not shown, yet, at its rotation speed design limits, to produce "overall overunity" performance. This is the context to know in reading the below to understand how significant a blow to this movement was this mistaken and negative report in the newspaper by a "physics expert."

After this article came out I went and personally spoke with Dr. Hone, also there was another article written about this time frame from the UCSB newspaper, and he just said he was misquoted, but he did not make any effort to correct his slander that DePalma’s work was a hoax. In normal circles DePalma would have won a big lawsuit against Hone and UCSB for libel, but in this arena of forefront science this has been the way it has gone because the public in general is not at all confident or competent in its understanding of fundamentals of science such as this and feel compelled to rely on the view of "the experts" who as below are often just plan wrong by intent or ignorance. They claim they are misquoted, but take no responsibility for getting the real truth out there once they figure out they made a mistake, if it was a mistake and not by intent to discredit some of the most important work in science in the 20th Century.

The Sunburst Community founder Norman Paulsen still has that 1979 test machine in Santa Barbara area under auspices of Solar Logos Foundation, Sunburst Church of Self-Realization.http://www.solarlogosfoundation.org.

See also the work of Thomas Bearden on the solid state MEG oscillating electromagnetic system, Magnetic Energy Generator: http://www.cheniere.org

Bruce DePalma's earlier experiments, showing anomalous inertial and gravitational effects of rotating and rotating-and-precessing systems convinced him '72-'78 of not only the existence of, but the properties of what he termed an "energy field that exists in space itself, the space in which matter resides." The results with which analysis and contemplation led to his literal "Eureka moment" jumping out of the bathtub to write a drawing in March 1977 which he circulated predicting if the flywheel were magnetized, energy could be extracted from this energy field as electricity flowing from center to edge of the rotating magnetized flywheel. At that time the knowledge of Faraday's homopolar/unipolar motor/generator effect observations as per his diary entries Christmas time 1831 was not known by DePalma or taught at all in schools.

In 1978 someone in Santa Barbara familiar with DePalma's previous work in electronic engineering audio circuit designs published in hi-fi electronics magazines, prompted a sound man for the Grateful Dead music band to read that paper predicting the n-Machine as an "overunity homopolar generator" (term not used or known then circulated about 1980 by DePalma, about two years after his prediction).

A community in Santa Barbara brought DePalma and Ed Delvers there to test this work of theirs and Bruce's prediction, which they did first with a device glued together and spun in a hand-drill. Qualitative proof was demonstrated on a VTVM meter with needle probes at the axle and the edge of steel disc cemented to a ring magnet from a loudspeaker. In Summer 1979 they tested a large rotating

electromagnetic system and got between 5:1 and 20:1 incremental over-unity effects over range of parameter variations (speed of rotation and strength of rotating electromagnet) as per witness by DOE team et al. http://www.depalma.pair.com

There was a memorial remembrance gathering in Tehachapi for Ed Delvers a few weeks after his sudden passing from apparent acute asthma attack, so I would sure like to share this as a testimony to Ed's little known contributions as Bruce's protege and one of his most brilliant students at MIT, asking original and penetrating questions about physics principles. DePalma was greatly influenced and aided on his path by working with Ed to test the spinning vs non-spinning ball bearing drop, after they could not find in the literature if it had ever been done before. Were it not for "Ed's mind" in its student-teacher dynamic with DePalma, this whole line of enquiry may never have started. Neither may have these keystone, Galileo-like, fundamental, principle discovery experiments have been pursued either.

The spinning vs non-spinning ball bearing drop experiment as ultimately witnessed by Dr. John A Wheeler in his own office, after a photo of the experiment was published in the Sunday newspaper with an article bemoaning his refusal to go see the experiment, seems to be some kind of "secret" history as evidenced by years of refutation by Dr.Sarfatti and others of these documented experiments. Dr.Wheeler certainly seems to be in support of P.Tewari and in complete denial of the contributions made by Bruce E. DePalma.

Compiled from the personal archives of Bruce E. DePalma with permission.

Appendix

1. Adam Trombly’s 1988 Climate change and Alternative Physics lecture transcribed.

2. Correspondence between Bruce Depalma and Dr. Schriefer University of California

Santa Barbara, Institute of Theoretical Physics.

3. 1988 N- 1 Report.

4. Paramahamsa Tewari "Beyond Matter."

5. Sparky Sweet "Nothing is Something."

6. Dr. Fred Wood "Maxwell-Heavyside equations revisited."

1988 Adam Trombly, Colorado Springs projectearth.com

As this is the last speech of the conference here, I’m going to give an overview of the development of zero point theory and I’m going to try and take into account all of you have been very patient...

The basic principle which we are obviously here to address, was originally elaborated by Nikola Tesla. The sense that Nikola Tesla conveyed of existence was, if not unique, then certainly it was profoundly inspired, not so much by initial analysis but by initial vision.

We have become a rather left brain biased society, an analytically biased society – and as a result of this analytical bias we tend to refute or deny the validity of intuitive jumps or intuitive leaps and insight.

Tesla was an extraordinarily prolific inventor obviously, but in addition to being a prolific inventor, he explored very thoroughly, for his time, the dimension of the psyche. And I think that perhaps too often we tend to forget that he himself claimed that the source of his inspiration was not conventional.

He saw what he built, and then he described it to a draftsman, and built it. The draftsman was his interface with substance. To consider that when he was riding in his carriage or his Pierce Arrow here in Colorado Springs, not to far from where we are right now, he would often see devices in their totality, spontaneously.... is quite remarkable.

When you see something in its totality, it tends to have a different meaning than if you tried to put the pieces of the universe back together to arrive at a conclusion. Tesla insisted that he rested in the conclusion in his own psyche. I think this is very important. Tesla was not an analytical apologist, he was not somebody who made gestures to the scientific community to make himself necessarily acceptable in his time. What was acceptable was that he produced. The means by which he produced were often unacceptable, especially in the last couple of decades.

Therefore, we heard a lot about Thomas Edison, and we heard a lot in our education about just about everybody else except Nikola Tesla. The reason I’m sure this Society exists is this left a vacuum, a huge vacuum that is not merely filled by the acknowledgment of Nikola Tesla, but by theacknowledgment of the function of a human being, the function of a being not being polarized to the left hemisphere, but balanced to the two hemispheres of the brain, in other words vision coupled with analysis.

In the development of our generator, which we originally called the “Acyclic Closed Magnetic Generator,” vision was implicitly necessary to arrive at our conclusions. Basically we had to work from very little information. There were very few explorers in the field and we had to begin to consider that perhaps the way we considered reality actually fundamentally incorrect, that fundamental cornerstones such as the law of induction, for example, that particular cornerstone was not necessarily as we believed it to be.

What stimulated me, and I’ve said this before, since 1980, was the recognition that certain astrophysical phenomena express energies in excess of what the apparent input is. This is a very common thing in astrophysics, whether you’re talking about quasi-stellar objects, or whether you’re talking about the planet Jupiter.When we first found out that the planet Jupiter was developing a looped current between itself and the moon Io, Jupiter was called, in a paper published by a Goddard scientist at NASA, a “Homopolar generator.” They tried to rationalize that the relative motion between the moon Io and Jupiter was actually responsible for the current that we could measure by virtue of its magnetic flux tube as tested by satellite probe. But when you went through some very simple calculations, you found that was not true.

So we decided that we would look into the matter of “Homopolar” generation itself- the history, who came up with it, as Bruce DePalma and others have pointed out. Even though Michael Faraday did an experiment on December 26th, 1831, in which he co-rotated a magnet with a cooper disk and measured a current output. Even though he had done that experiment, his own law of induction tended to ignore that fact.

A professor with the Royal Society in London, a professor of science history, told me that the original Faraday cage was designed to keep electromagnetic noise out, but to keep Michael in. You see he played with a substance we call mercury, and in those days there was very little appreciation for the toxicity of mercury. And so Faraday apparently suffered from a form of dementia, which we’ve heard very little about because it’s one of the cornerstones of the building we have been living in, in science.

We found out after we found Faraday’s diary, after we found the citations of the experiments that he had done, that there was a gentleman by the name of Bruce DePalma in Santa Barbara, California, who had suggested that on the basis of the co-rotation of a magnet and a conductor, which we were at that time contemplating ourselves, it might be possible to generate more energy out from the generator than the input in.

I must say that my initial response to that was probably not as skeptical as some people might be when they heard such a thing, because in the field of astronomy an astrophysics it is not uncommon, not uncommon at all to find an object that is obviously exceeding what we “know” to be its thermonuclear, or any other form, it’s exceeding the output that it could possibly have by thermonuclear means, by fusion, by fission, by anything we normally consider.

And so, because we had seen that already in space there was this planet Jupiter clearly being a demonstration of what we initially considered to be an anomaly. Clearly putting out three times as much energy as it could be possibly be receiving from the Sun. We decided to reduce to practice a form of generator with the intention of practical commercial use, and through various good fortunes we arrived at funding.

We actually, for this field in those days, got substantial funding. And as a result of that work, we applied for a patent in 1980 which was, as many of you know, denied by the U.S. Patent Office as being implausible to the extreme. The statement was to the effect that, “This device could not even generate electricity.” It wasn’t that it couldn’t generate electricity in excess of input, it was that the machine couldn’t generate electricity at all. The patent officer himself was, as many of us, as all of us basically were unfamiliar, he being totally unfamiliar, with the fact that you could co-rotate a magnet with a copper disc, even though we had provided him with a copy of a page from Faraday’s diary. He actually suggested that the diary notes might have been something created expo factos.

My initial naiveté in entering this field was rapidly destroyed.We felt that if we could produce a practical, commercial, viable unit, then the world would be very excited indeed. And what we discovered instead was we were dealing with a profound level of inertia; inertia in a frame of reference we didn’t normally consider.

Economic inertia, intellectual stasis and dogma. Certainly the explorers in this field, over time, whether it’s myself, or Bruce DePalma, or Tewari or going back to Moray, Tesla, Hubble. These people all discovered this inertia. It is an astonishing thing when you first encounter it. It is irrational. It says that no, indeed the Earth is the center and everything revolves around it. And the moons around Jupiter couldn’t possibly be doing that what you say.

Galileo wasn’t vindicated by the Catholic Church until 1984. If we took that many centuries to

acknowledge zero point vacuum fluctuation-based technologies, we will all be dead. And that’s the sobering realization that I have come to over the last five years.

Buckminster Fuller was a huge influence in my life. I met him when I was sixteen years old and largely because of his influence I wasn’t permanently lost in space – lost in the theoretical level of things. And therefore, when I began to encounter this resistance he said something that was very important to me. He said that every new idea, every new technology, every major breakthrough, has an inevitable period of gestation. He said you must learn to be patient. He had experienced profound resistance, as you may know, to various ideas that he had in the thirties.

I think that what we are really seeing is not the resistance or inertia imposed upon this technology, but instead a resistance to a fundamental shift in perception about the Universe itself.

We have tended to describe ourselves in discrete terms, as encapsulated beings, with rather defined boundary layers, both temporally and spatially. We’re born and we die. The boundaries of our body are the boundaries of are being. Inspiration has a difficult time entering into a closed bottle. Where would it come from? Where would it appear?

How could Nikola Tesla say he got ideas from space? He was considered a very eccentric and crazy man as a result of his statements. People point out that he always had all these napkins piled up next to his plate. But by the end of his life, people had forgotten that his vision is what is powering these lights. And if we had continued with his vision, we wouldn’t have a fossil fuel economy today. And J.P. Morgan and Rockefeller and a number of other individuals would not have amassed extraordinary fortunes on the basis of that fossil fuel economy.

I think this is extremely important for us to understand because when Nikola Tesla’s vision was denied a part of our own vision was denied. Just as when Galileo’s vision was denied. The fact of the matter is that as we sit or stand here, a field of energy pervades us. This even relatively conventional physicists like John Archibald Wheeler stated in a 1962 article in the Review of Modern Physics. “Energy has a mass equivalence of ten to the ninety-fourth power grams per centimeter.” You just need to look in the literature. That ninety-fourth power grams per cubic centimeter represents a rather coherent state. It represents something that we could very easily call a continuum.

But because of the taboo against the idea that you might perhaps be able to get water from the well of space, or what people call “perpetual motion,” there has not been a sense of any practical application.Once in a seminar, well over a decade ago, I asked a question I found was extraordinarily taboo, and I said, “Why can’t we tap into this field?” It had been established in the literature in Europe by Philip Sipolan (sp?) since 1951 and 1952, that not only did the fluctuation field exist, a fluctuation field of extraordinary energy equivalence. And that the vacuum field was biasable, that it was polarizable.

The polarizablity of a vacuum, fluctuation background, I believe is the essential issue, and a very simple issue indeed that we need to really consider.

David Deutch in 1982 explored briefly in a book called “General Relativity,” on Einstein’s centenary, which was edited by Hawking, considered very briefly the fact that not only is the vacuum polarizable in terms of density, but that an ideal theoretical situation density polarization could asymmetrically approach infinite density and asymmetrically approach negative energy density. That means that within the vacuum fluctuation itself, stress can be created. That means that the vortical dynamic that Tewari speaks of is really not that difficult to imagine, because you have fluctuation density that wishes to remain isotropic, or uniformly distributed, disrupted, polarized, in a curved manifold, and that vacuum density once polarized wants to relax from that stress back into a more isotropic state.

Anybody who studies vortical physics, fluid dynamics, plasma dynamics knows that there is no greater stress than that by which we invoke a vortical momentum. And therefore it is not hard to imagine, if we simply consider the fact that we are dealing with a medium of this extraordinary density. It is not hard to imagine or even begin to feel that just by simply biasing this field in a rotating cylinder or perhaps in an oscillating circuit, by biasing this field correctly, we can precipitate vortical momentum.

Now we may only precipitate a quasi-electron. In the vacuum fluctuation of space, their production is occurring all the time. In a bias environment however, where an electrical potential exists, that quasi-electron, instead of annihilating with its anti-particle, might indeed be distracted along the potential and find its way into what we refer to very blithely as manifestation.

It doesn’t necessarily take gig electron volts for this to occur. And that’s why Tewari, DePalma, myself and others speak of the generation of power from space.

We need to very simply and seriously consider that it’s already in the literature. It isn’t just in the literature of the fringe; It’s in the literature now even of Physical Review since 1975. Review of Modern Physics, since 1962. And in the European literature since the 1950’s. It’s a remarkable thing that because of the bias against so-called “perpetual motion,” or so-called, “Free energy,” that nobody seems to want to extrapolate what is implicitly obvious.

The atom itself can then be seen as a dynamic modification of field space. Only a dynamic modification of field space, with no quality of stasis whatso-ever.

Harold Putov, in his May 15th, 1987 article in Physical Review, pointed out that in order for the Hydrogen atom in its ground state not to collapse, it had to be absorbing energy from the fluctuation background. In this moment. This is not something that happened at T equals zero - before the Big Bang. This is something happening at this moment, real time present context, now with every atom and molecule that we see configured before us. It is happening right now.It is wonderful to have Dr. Putov describe this energy in terms of the Bohr atom. It is implicit that the electron orbit dissipates energy. If we consider that to be a resonant shell with no locatable density bias, then it still pertains because the atom itself, even in its ground state, resonates in space.

We have a picture, that we got when we were young, that says a thing is solid, even though particle physicists are telling us that nothing is solid, and while that’s all very fascinating on Nova television, we still have a picture that persists. Can an atom, existing in certain states of polarization and stress, perhaps become a conduit drawing upon the energy of space? A transducer in a certain light.

Obviously it must be or else it couldn’t exist. The electron itself must be spontaneously appearing out of the background field. If it was not spontaneously persisting then we have to invoke the somewhat Neanderthal concept that everything had to start at a certain moment. And because we have embraced this new cosmology of the Big Bang in the last couple of decades, we have some real problems.

This is not the best forum to go into this in great detail, but I will say this - the Universe is clumpy. That’s a term that is used frequently in astrophysics to describe the fact that mass is not uniformly or isotropically distributed. It is simply not. On a large-scale basis with models that have assimilated data from observatories from all over the world, especially over the last few years, we have seen that the Universe we observe is indeed clumpy. It is in fact concentrated in a way that cannot be the artifact of a Big Bang.

Now that’s a bold statement. Alfven (Swiss Nobel Laureate), famous for Alfven waves, has come up with an extraordinarily beautiful description of the Plasma dynamics of space. And so far, interesting to note,

although he was considered to be a complete heretic when he came out with his theory, every single observation we have made from space with satellite probes, has confirmed his predictions. I think it very important that everybody here who is interested in the reality in which we adhere, become familiar with either the esoteric or the exoteric level of Alfven’s work. It’s just beginning to appear in the literature. I think Discover magazine had a rather prosaic presentation of it but it was also quite good. (June ‘88; the “Big Bang Never Happened.”)

If there was not a Big Bang, where things conveniently began with a single event, then we need to begin to consider the fact that something that has a gram equivalence of about a gram per cubic centimeter, which is our body, must be a rather insignificant modification of a field that has a potential of ten to the ninety-fourth power/grams per cubic centimeter.

This impacts the way in which we live together; it impacts the way in which we live with the Earth itself.

I had not initially planned today to show some slides from the NASA program, but because this is a cap speech at the end of the day, I feel that it might be very useful to digress for a moment and observe the rather catastrophic impact that the very concept of discrete encapsulation has had upon human existence and the Earth itself.

And I would suggest to you, after considerable study of the subject, which is now becoming accepted in the Literature worldwide, that we cannot sustain the dynamic of human existence any longer unless we begin to transcend the arbitrary, subjective boundaries that we presume to be true. Whether these boundaries are about ourselves, or all phenomena of manifest existence, until we begin to move beyond this anal-retentive state, in which everything must be particularized. Everything being particularized, leaves Humpty Dumpty. We will never be able to re-assemble existence. As Fuller pointed out to me at an early age, “existence is already implicitly whole, we break it into parts only in our minds only.”

It is already unified whether or not we have a unified field theory or not. And as Einstein suggested at his last series of lectures at the Advanced Institute at Princeton, “perhaps we can only appreciate the unified field by entering a conscious relationship with it.”

Again, this is something that would not have been at all contrary to what Nikola Tesla proposed, and yet some people would be embarrassed to say it.

I think we need to very succinctly consider that we cannot continue to burn fossil fuels on this planet, and that we really haven’t found anything to do with our nuclear waste.

And that the appearance of bona-fide third party confirmation of the generation of energy from space is a significant event in history. It’s not significant because it will make a few men popular, or unpopular. It’s not significant because it will somehow create a minor change in our concept of being. It’s significant because it represents a dramatic shift that we desperately need to embrace.

Right now we are sitting at the edge of an unprecedented human catastrophe on this planet. A friend of mine, Sayed Sayed (sp?), at Texas A&M who has for twenty years been a climatologist, in an elegant experiment recently carried out in Antarctica, has shown clearly that if we lose between 6% and 7% more of the remaining stratospheric ozone the phytoplankton in the oceans will die.

The phytoplankton in our oceans contribute 50% of the oxygen that we enjoy on this planet. It is extremely important to point out that prior to the appearance of photosynthesizing biomass; oxygen was a trace gas which basically appeared through the natural transitions of H2O.

We simply cannot afford to lose any more oxygen than we already have. At this moment, literally hundreds of millions of internal combustion engines are running. A six cylinder engine, of normal displacement, consumes eight hundred thousand (800,000) cubic centimeters of oxygen per hour. This transforms the breathable O2 into combustion by-products, an entire spectrum of combustion products.

In the last twenty years, in Africa alone, we have destroyed 64% of the biomass ground cover. In the last twenty years! This is a United Nations Environmental Program figure, confirmed by satellite and manned space flight telemetry.

Also, in the last twenty years we have consumed 29% of the photosynthesizing ground cover in Central and South America. In the last twenty years! You cannot consume oxygen at the same time you consume the factories that metabolize CO2 and return O2 to us, and expect to have a sustainable environment. Because as oxygen tensions decrease even a few percent in the troposphere, ozone tensions decrease disproportionately. This is because there is a column of oxygen and other gases that rises from the biosphere to the troposphere and then to the stratosphere. It is on the basis of the mixture of these gases, that we have ozone in the atmosphere.

I would suggest that we can not afford to wait to demand that serious money is applied to this research, Federal money. We need this to happen desperately and we need this to happen immediately. And for those of us who feel that we can be blasé, and wait and wait and wait until somehow this becomes acceptable, (the implementation of this new kind of technology) let me just say that if we think we can wait; we’re sorely deluded.

You wonder why there is a drought in Ethiopia. You hear in Time magazine that the so-called scientists can’t figure out why there is a drought. Well, Ethiopia at the beginning of the century was covered by 43% forest. Ethiopia today is covered by less than 4% forest. How is the hydraulic cycle supposed to maintain itself?

This at first, this entire consideration at first, seemed to be in rather left field of the consideration of energy generation. But, as I began to explore it further and further and lectured around the world, I began to discover that most of the human race has been entirely uninformed. Some people have suggested this is rather conspiratorial. The slides you are going to see in just a minute have been available, some of them, for several years. We finally got a few of them on CNN December 25th (1987?)

I think when you see them you’re going to realize why they are so significant. And as always I would like to thank Richard Underwood of NASA, now retired, for providing these images. They are in the public domain, but anyone who has tried to get photographic data from the NASA space flight program, especially during the Reagan Administration, will find that it is a very difficult thing to do. As a matter of fact, most of the infrared photography is now stored at AMES, and you can’t get into the building. Even though this material is not classified, the building itself is off limits.

I would like to have the lights dimmed, and I would like to show these slides and then we can go on from there. We can discuss in more detail about this and other things.

This is the way clouds are supposed to look over the rain forest. These are healthy clouds. These clouds are appearing over the Northern Congo area and this photograph was taken in the mid-seventies from Skylab. Cumulonimbus, Stratocumulus, very beautiful cloud formations and an extraordinary density of water vapor as you can see.

Next slide. This is what the ground looks like after you get rid of the forest. This picture isn’t from Africa, it’s from Brazil, but literally millions of hectares worldwide look like this today. You can see that

the watershed to this river, which is the Sao Paulo River, has been almost totally devastated. You can see that evaporation would occur rather rapidly instead of in a moderated sense through the membrane canopy of the forest.

The next slide shows the way clouds look after you do this. By the way, this is the same coordinate almost exactly, taken from the Space Shuttle in 1984, as the slides big billowy beautiful clouds from Skylab ten years earlier. What you see beneath this cloudbank is now desert. So the cloud building is no longer healthy. Instead of that nice kind of veil of water vapor, you see an extraordinary, Los Angeles scale, optical density. That’s dust.

Dust that has been lifted and aerosolized and now remains in chronic suspension over much of the African continent. The clouds are flat. The convective, humid currents that rose from the rain forest no longer carry water vapor in significant quantities. There was a great effort, a joint effort of the United Nations and several other countries to seed what clouds remain to see if the hydraulic cycle could be restored. Unfortunately somebody forgot to plant anything under the seeded clouds, so the desert is now growing. The Sahara desert is now growing six miles per year and is three thousand mile across. This is significant.

Next slide please. This is to give you an idea of the scale. We are not looking at the desert floor here. We are looking at a pall of dust that stretches as far as the eye can see, to the curvature of the Earth. Twenty-five maybe twenty-eight thousand square miles here. This area all used to be called the sub-Sahara and now is moving into the Sahara. Flat clouds, no rain.

The next slide will show you conclusively that when you see breaks in the pattern, you have a deeper understanding of the optical density. This density is equivalent to a critical day in Los Angeles. This again is chronic and has serious ramifications for us on this continent. Serious ramifications.

This has happened because somebody denied vision. This has happened because when in 1906 Nikola Tesla said that fossil fuels would one day create a corruption in the entire atmosphere of the Earth, he was called eccentric. Next slide please.

South of the aridification process, in Zaire we have fires. These fires are burning out of control. They have no planes to drop chemicals on the fires. They have no fire departments. They have no money. This is a small area, only a hundred by a hundred miles. You can see where the forest that was once there has already been striped away, and the hydraulic cycle therefore undermined. The next picture is Angola burning. The CIA did not win the war in Angola, fire did. 13,000,000 acres burned in 1985. When NASA scientists examined this photograph, they thought that this was some sort of strange cloud until they realized it was the combination of the plumes of smoke from the fires. Just consider the area involved, and consider the fact that this is now being visited on our Country.

Alaska, in the last three weeks has lost 750,000 acres to fire. The Secretary of the Interior, Hodel said, “Let Nature take its course.” They saved part of Yellowstone that was close to Old Faithful, but decided that the rest of the wildlife habitat was expendable.

And this while we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars producing neutron bombs and other clean kill weapons, which can never be used and God forbid that they ever should be.

The next slide please. This is Junguoy (sp?) Bay on the coast of Madagascar, and it is not uncharacteristic of bays all over the world now. This is what happens after the deforestation and after the fires. This bay was over six hundred feet deep twenty years ago. Now you can walk across it during the dry season it is so filled with silt. This is happening now, today. It is not theoretical. We have to move now.

Next slide please. This beautiful lake was called Chad. Lake Chad was the size of Lake Erie. Lake Chad supported 1.8 million human beings in peripheral agriculture and fisheries. The next slide is Lake Chad in 1982. It’s the hole that was left when the hydrological cycle was destroyed in Africa. This is not a cyclical drought and it is not a drought that will be only visited on Africa. The water vapor distribution on this planet is being changed dramatically by the destruction of biomass.

The water vapor budget on this planet is being changed dramatically because we have failed to feel beyond our own little subjective event horizons. We tend to exist like psychic black holes. We take a lot and give too little.

A few years ago I pointed out at the fourth International conference on Atmospheric, that the drought of 1986 and 1988 would occur. Now they have occurred. They are not going to cease because we don’t want them to occur. They are not going to cease until we realize that we need to mobilize every democracy on this planet, and hopefully this will someday soon include the Soviet Union, to implement this new class of technologies. We can address these issues by planting forests and by using energy generated by these new Technologies. Whether you call it an “N” machine or something else, I’m sure these technologies will continue to evolve.

By utilizing this energy which we can get directly from the “vacuum” of Space, we can desalinate – re-irrigate. The Israelis if nothing else have shown us that you can resurrect a desert. We are going to need to resurrect a planet. We cannot posture ourselves and say that National Security comes before the security of the Human race. It is the security of the human race in total that is now threatened.

This is the last slide. I’m only going to show eleven slides today. I think they speak for themselves. This veil of dust that stretches out towards the horizon across the Atlantic Ocean, reaching from the Caribbean Sea, in the lower portion, all the way to the African coast. This is not a phenomenon that occurred in one year. This is a phenomenon that occurs every year. Between eight and nine million square kilometers this year. (8-9,000,000 sq. miles) This dust acts as condensation nuclei for water vapor causing precipitation in the south, over water, in Honduras, in Nicaragua, while the Midwest and Southeast are parched.

We are changing the way things work and we haven’t even begun to inspect the ramifications. It isn’t just the “Greenhouse Effect,” it’s a much more complex issue.

Only by stepping over the threshold into a more synergistic view, which is not just a kind of convenient term bandied about for the sake of the “New Age,” but only by entering into a more synergistic view which acknowledges the inherent coherence of phenomena, can we begin to comprehend the fact that when you do something here it affects something over there. In quantum geometrodynamics, actually in a number of other studies, what we call action at a distance, in a coherent field, distance is no presumed.

I hope that this all has said something. Fuller’s suggestion was that Project Earth should either determine whether there was a reason why we had to implement these technologies, or whether it was no big deal.

“Can we last longer? - I need to get my next grant from DuPont.” To produce more chlorofluorocarbons? “Yes, it does seem that it might have that effect, but if I say that in the literature than I am defying my contract.”

Scientific integrity, which used to be something that characterized science, is something that is sadly lacking in too much of the scientific community. Too many have become grant whores and parasitic on society, posturing themselves as authorities, condemned to the inertia of the past and past conceptualizations of reality.

Recently I was lecturing at John Hopkins, which is in itself sort of a miracle, about zero point physics and while we were considering zero point physics somebody said, “Well this is all well and good that mister Tewari did this over in India, and that it’s all well and good that you’ve done this in the United States – DePalma, it’s all well and good to demonstrate it, but what about the United States government?”

“I mean wouldn’t the United States government be doing something?” the child asked. A sixty-two year old child, a very nice man actually. And I said all you need to do is get a hold of the 1986 fiscal year “Request for Proposals” published by the Department of Defense.

Look on page 193 of that document and you will see something very interesting. In AF section, which is Air Force section 86-77 subsection 6, you will see that a government which denies the reality of zero point technologies is requesting .... “further research into esoteric energies heretofore unknown including the zero point dynamic fluctuations of Space.” ... for propulsion. But it doesn’t exist you see...

But we want you to research it if you have a bona fide organization that happens to be a prime contractor with triple security clearance. This for propulsion for the Air Force when the entire human race is threatened. Now there is a certain kind of insanity somewhere implicit in that. It’s in the literature, you can order a copy from Project Earth, or call the Pentagon. This is not a classified document. I won’t get in trouble for saying anything. This is actually a program that is ongoing, right now, today, within the government enclave. Call Los Alamos and ask a question about it and you might get a very long silence on the other end. Call Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, their Aberdeen Testing grounds. The same phenomenon will probably occur.

A significant amount of funding is going to make sure that this irrelevant, mythical phenomena is applied to weapons systems and weapons carrying systems. Something is very wrong about that. I don’t believe that anybody sitting in this room would say that it’s in the best interest of our people, or any people of the world, for this kind of technology to be applied outside the realm of civilian application at such a time.

Six to seven percent further depletion in stratospheric ozone and we are seeing depletion rate trends that indicate that this level of loss will occur very easily within the next two decades. Those of us who have really considered this, and as you consider it more and more I’m sure you’ll realize that two decades pass very quickly, for all of us. It doesn’t give us time, as I said before for subjectivity.

This field has survived, but not on the basis of being acceptable in the literature. Tewari has tried to publish. I know the IEEE (International Electrical and Electronic Engineers) is in involved in this conference, but Tewari tried to publish in IEEE and was summarily rejected. Many of us have tried to publish and have been rejected. The reason Tewari even bothered to try to duplicate this “Acyclic Closed Magnetic Generator,” after years of correspondence with DePalma, was because he was able to convince some mechanical engineers that it had some engineering method. You see they actually did material stress analysis.

We also analyzed. We used Beryllium copper for a reason. It’s just engineering. There are a lot of you in this room who are perfectly capable of doing it. There was nothing magical. We just operated on a different presumption. We said, “Maybe this experiment will work.” And if it doesn’t work, well then it’s like 88% of the rest of them. If it does work, heh, then there is another level of confirmation.

Robert Kinchloe, Professor Emeritus of Stanford University, went to visit the, how can we call it, the encumbered “Sunburst Machine.” This machine was originally developed by DePalma, Richardson and Bernard at Sunburst Farms, Santa Barbara, California. Dr. Kinchloe just out of curiosity of his own mind, decided that he would just see if there was something about it that was unusual. He presented a paper on

it and I understand that it only got to Bruce through somebody else. But that’s not unusual, my own attorney directed my attention to an article I never knew existed. It’s funny about that. It’s funny when representatives from our own Government look me straight in the eye and say, “Yes we know this is real, but we wonder why you would disclose it to foreign nations?”

I said, “I didn’t disclose it to foreign nations. It was in an international publication in 1982 and I didn’t even know it.”

I would suggest to you that it’s time for us to not simply entertain a curiosity. I would suggest to you that it’s time for us to enter a human process of inter-relationship, to try to attempt to reintegrate ourselves with one another and not in a floaty kind of “new age” sense necessarily at all. Just call ten people and ask them to each call ten people and tell them that we have an emergency on our hands. Demand that the people we are hiring represent us, supposedly, not the major corporations. We are hiring these people to represent US! Which one of you has the power to lobby in Washington?

We need to send a very clear message to Washington that states, “Gee, don’t you think its silly to be talking about Star Wars? We’re only talking about Global Genocide.” This without doing anything except for what we are doing right now. We don’t have to drop a bomb or fight a war. Just continue exactly as we are now. All we have to do is remain in this collective state of inertia. And I don’t personally believe we are going to do that. I don’t believe that human beings are not going to rise to this occasion. I don’t believe it for a second.

But, I do believe we need first to understand what we are confronted with. And then we need to understand that we can do something about it. We need to act, and we need to act like somebody who is being chased by a hot poker, or someone who cares.

Whichever your response is, Act!

Ten people calling ten people calling ten people, covers the country in a week. It’s called “Exponential Networking.” I didn’t come up with the idea, Fuller did. Call ten people. Ask them to call ten people and find out what happens. It’s the equivalence of an electron avalanche in human society. It works.

So, I wanted to try to give a wrap-up and I wanted to cite the fact that we wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for somebody’s vision. Yes, their vision was applied. Yes, their vision, his vision, Nikola Tesla’s vision was brought into life. Otherwise he would have been a mere mystic, wouldn’t he?

Yes, we do have to sit down with our Macintoshes, or sit with our Hewlet Packard 41C calculators. We had a lot of money (for this field). A total between the two phases of the experiment of about $200,000. And now I’m finally happy to say it looks like it’s going to be produced, or at least this one is going to be produced. It looks like DePalma is also moving into that modality.

We are certainly hoping that more people will come out of the woodworks and say, “Hey, well I’ve had this thing for the last thirty years but I was told that if I brought it out into the Public when I was working at Los Alamos twenty years ago, they would basically permit character assassination to ensue.”

It’s hard to believe in some ways, and I don’t want to paint a black picture, but I think we have to see the end of times when the New York Times calls a National Center of Atmospheric Research scientist to ask, “How come everyone in the world says that the Reagen report on Acid Rain is a lie?” And the man answers, “You don’t understand the kind of pressure we’re under here. People’s careers are in jeopardy.” This when all our lives are at stake.

So I would like to open the floor to questions....

“.....I raised a question in another seminar about the oxygen depletion, and the speaker told me that even if we were to kill all the forests at once it would take a very long time for the oxygen to dissipate out of the atmosphere....

We are talking about a change in the mixture of gases, okay? There are people who say that even if you combusted all the carbon on the Earth, biomass and post-biomass, the oil reserves, everything, there would still 75% of the oxygen in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, they fail to take certain things into account. For example:

Today we sit, and if you knew what we went through to get this acknowledged in the world press (And it would take me an hour to tell you), but we now have it publicly acknowledged by NASA that we have between a 2.3% and 6.6% depletion in world wide atmospheric ozone depending on latitude and time of year. This not taking into account the rather large depression over Antarctica.

When this level of ozone depletion occurs, the level of Ultra-violet influx increases the probability of Photosynthesis in the lower atmosphere. So, the O2 is preferentially converted into H2O3 for example. This would normally only appear in great quantities after a lighting storm in the past.

We have a lot of H2O3 in the atmosphere. We have a lot of O3 in the Troposphere, which until very recently was being attributed to internal combustion. But O3 was appearing in large quantities in rural areas where there was very little internal combustion, relatively speaking. It became an embarrassment when the Department of Agriculture had to admit that 2.6 Billion worth of corps were being destroyed per year by ozone alone.

So the photosynthetic reaction that is occurring as the result of increased Ultra-violet influx must be taken into account if we are going to begin to understand what is going to be sustainable in terms of oxygen tensions. It is the mixture of gases that rise from the Biosphere through the Troposphere and into the stratosphere, that determines the tension of ozone, O3.

The Nimbus satellite, by the way which NASA has conveniently said is out of calibration even though it was in fine calibration last September, and in almost perfect agreement with the instrumentation on the ground in Antarctica. Which by the way at the center of the Antarctic hole, six miles up, we had 96% depletion levels last year. (1987) The jumpsuits worn by some of my friends from the Center for Atmospheric Research, please understand there are a lot of good people there, people there I respect a lot, their nylon jumpsuits were actually degraded by Ultra-violet exposure in just one flight. Several people had serious eye injuries.

Now anybody who is going to suggest that this type of influx is not going to effect the species of molecules that we have in the atmosphere, and the mixture of those gases, is denying an extremely important fact. So whereas I’m not suggesting we’re all going to die of anoxia, what’s going to happen when the phytoplankton in the oceans die? They are the basis of the entire oceanic food chain. If you are not familiar with them, they are the little critters that actually made all this possible. This conference would not be occurring today without their sponsorship.I think we need to realize that we are sponsored by living things, and we need to support them so they can support us. Does that answer your question?

Yes, Thanks.

It occurs to me that the resurrection of Nikola Tesla’s vision and other people who have had the vision of

the quantum ether, may yet be called on for a second offering. I think it’s a good time to invest in this second offering of free energy. We did not invest the last time and now we are paying for it. I don’t want to see anybody suffer. What will it be like in ten years, when already the American Cancer Society says that even with sunscreen protection ratings of 15 SPF, direct sun exposure should be limited to an hour?

I hope the Tesla Society will prosper, and move into a new age of manufacturing, implementation and further Development. I want what has happened so far top be totally obsolete in ten years. One kilowatt in your pocket, why not?

There is absolutely no reason why not. You’ve got ten to the ninety-fourth power, grams per cubic centimeter energy equivalent field. It’s not in a great big area, but it’s a Lot of energy. If we can just scrape the surface, ever so slightly, we would never have to worry about it again.

That’s what Nikola Tesla was scheduled to tell Franklin Delanor Roosevelt back in 1943. In 1943 he had proposed to FDR that perhaps we should look carefully at the fact that we can get all the energy we need from any space we happen to be in.

He didn’t show up for his meeting with the president. He was found dead in his apartment, “Natural causes.”

There is some suspicion that maybe his visionary paranoia of poisoning was not exactly paranoia, ... but premonition.

I have never mentioned this before, but when I spoke at the 1981 Conference at the University of Toronto, a detective, an older gentleman from New York, with a heavy New York accent, approached me afterwards and said that he was a detective at the time when Tesla had been found dead, and said he was involved with the investigation. He said for National Security reasons, that nobody was to know that the Coroners report had indicated he had been poisoned.

I have never personally read the Coroner’s report, but the man was about the right age. He showed me a badge and I had no reason to doubt this man who had come all the way up to Toronto from New York, just to tell somebody after all those years.

The Coroner’s report did say he had been poisoned. Now it turns out that the only medium to my knowledge that actually cites that Tesla had been poisoned is the Yugoslavian film on Nikola Tesla called, “The Secret of Nikola Tesla.” So everybody can rewatch the introduction, because they say it right at the beginning. And they also say perhaps that he was killed by the Nazi’s.

I did not really want to mention all this, but science cannot exist in an environment where science is not allowed to grow.

Any other questions? Well you have all been a tremendously patient group, Thank you for your attention

Thank you Adam.