Bruce E. DePALMA
Energy Directly from Space: The N-Machine
Gravity & The
Spinning Ball Experiment
Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment
Bruce E. De Palma
Bruce Eldridge De Palma (1935-1997), son of noted
surgeon Anthony DePalma and elder brother of film director Brian De
was a well known figure in the Free energy suppression community. He
that his N-machine Homopolar generator, a device based on the Faraday
could produce five times the energy required to run it. According to
physics, no such device is physically possible.
De Palma studied electrical engineering at Harvard (1958) and
physics at MIT for 15 years, working under Harold Eugene Edgerton. He
also employed by Edwin H. Land of Polaroid fame.
Bruce De Palma's development of the N-machine concept in
among his other anomalous devices (at least one of which, De Palma
displayed anti-gravity characteristics) and the claims surrounding
set him on a collision course with his more mainstream peers. His
of 'free energy' were vigorously refuted over the course of twenty
by conventional scientists and some members of the alternative energy
His search for financial backing for the construction of a
N-machine saw him relocate from Santa Barbara, California to Australia
c. 1994, and then New Zealand in 1996.
Probably his greatest ally in his conviction that the N-machine
solve the world's energy and environmental crisis was Paramahamsa
a Project Director with the Indian Nuclear Power Corporation, with whom
he corresponded regularly over many years. Tewari's Space Power
claimed to be 200% efficient, is based on the same theoretical
as the N-machine.
De Palma's death in New Zealand in October 1997 put an end to his
ambitious free energy project, and occurred only weeks prior to the
testing of a device constructed over the course of 6 months in an
workshop. The test was attended by, among others, the project's
backer, Bruce Bornholdt, a prominent Wellington barrister, as well as
pioneering developer of the Adams Motor, Robert Adams, who observed the
operation of, and measured electrical output from, the N-machine. This
single test failed to demonstrate the over-unity potential of the
most of the output energy being lost as heat, and the project was
Energy Directly from Space: The N-Machine
Bruce E. DePalma
(9 March 1979)
The extraction of energy
from space has been suggested as a viable process for the solution of
energy problems of society. The accessibility of this energy has been
by the necessity for the formulation of new energy paradigms. In the
energy in space has been suggested by thoughts such as Orgone, Od,
Bio-cosmic, Neutrino energy sea and so on, but the useful extraction of
such energies has always awaited more explicit formulations of these
which could suggest the construction of simple practical energy
Variable Inertial Mass
Experiments performed by this
have suggested a picture of space which is perfused with a "fine
This concept is one which lies between the ineffability of a space-time
construct such as Einstein and the tangibility of gross matter. The
part about this "fine substance" is that it is shown that this
confers inertia on physical objects. The substance of inertia can also
be shown to have the property of polarization.
Normally the inertial mass of
object is anisotropic --- that is to say, an inertial measurement
by applying a force vector to the object and measuring the resulting
the inertial mass obtained in this measurement would be a constant
of the direction of the applied force vector. The important discovery
that the inertial mass of a rotating object becomes polarized and
--- in terms of the real behavior of a rotating object the inertial
is found to increase for measurements performed in the direction of the
axis of rotation, and perforce the inertial mass is found to decrease
measurements made in the direction of the plane of rotation. Complete
polarization of the rotating object takes place when the inertial mass
taken in the direction of the plane of rotation of the test object
to zero with increasing rotational speed.
The "N" Effect
The interesting combination
be to combine the effects of inertial and magnetic polarization for the
extraction of electrical energy directly from space.
With reference to the two
Figure A and Figure B, the "N" effect is demonstrated quite simply. A
bar magnet of alnico or other magnetized electrical conductor as shown
is rotated around an axis passing through the two magnetic poles and
to the polished pole faces as shown. What is found is a cylindrically
electric field is established within the magnet through rotation.
current is simply extracted by placing the probes or sliding contacts
the appropriate ammeters and voltmeters, one on the axis of rotation
the other on the outer surface of the rotating magnetized conductor.
Figure A: N- Effect
Figure B: N-Machine
The "N" Machine
In order to make full use of
current capabilities of an N generator and to accommodate the use of
"ferrite" permanent magnets or electromagnets, an N-machine is
as in Figure B. The N-machine utilizes a copper or bronze conducting
and disc and ferrite ring magnets cemented together as shown. A typical
machine constructed with ordinary loudspeaker ring magnets of
o.d. 2-7/8", i.d. 1-1/3" and ½" thickness, two of each
on either side of a conducting disc 1/8" thick, delivers 30 millivolts
at 3450 rpm. The field strength of the magnets as supplied is about
gauss. The current obtainable from the machine is limited only by the
of the leads and sliding contacts. Since the aforementioned 30 mv can
developed across a heavy copper wire shunt of resistance less than .001
ohm, a current in excess of 30 amperes is developed by this simple toy.
Electrical energy developed out
centrifugal extraction of the electrical positive and negative poles
the free energy field of space is supplied in useful and controllable
from N generators which are scaled in order to supply requirements.
show the voltage polarity depends on the sense of rotation. Output
goes directly as speed and magnetic field strength. Geometrically the
voltage increases as the square of the machine radius, r2.
It was in the 1830s that
Faraday working in the basement of what is now the Royal technical
in London, discovered that a conducting disc held between the poles of
a magnet with the lines of force perpendicular to the surface, would
current if rotated and the current extracted between the center and the
edge of the rotating conducting disc.
Conversely, if a voltage were
between the center and the edge of such a disc it would rotate as a
These effects are presently known as the Faraday unipolar dynamo and
If Faraday had rotated the
combination, magnets and disc together, he would have discovered as
author did in 1977 that the voltage output remained constant regardless
of whether the disc was rotating independently of the magnets or not.
course, if Maxwell or Faraday had known of the "N" effect, things would
have been different. But it is probably true that such a discovery had
to wait until the availability of strong, lightweight permanent
a development that didn’t take place until the 1930s.
What is important about the N
is that unlike a conventional generator which exhibits a rotational
when current is drawn, an N generator exhibits no such drag.
All of the currently used
generation rotating machinery has the property of being both motors and
generators simultaneously. That is to say, an electrical machine which
is used as a generator will operate as a motor when excited with the
voltages and currents. With the foregoing in mind, we interpret the
In the conventional electrical
generation system we have an electrical generator coupled to an engine
of some kind which supplies mechanical power which is interpreted in
with present understanding to be converted from mechanical to
energy with a conversion efficiency not to exceed 100%. If we were to
however that that the energy obtained was extracted from some
unsuspected property of magnetism; then it is simply apparent that the
slowing down of the drive engine is due to the “generator” having the
of a motor also, and that is the slowing of the drive engine with
load is simply the effect of the motor aspect of the generator
by the load current. The generator being a motor also elicits a torque
output in opposition to the drive engine torque. This is why an
combination slows down when an electrical load is thrown on the
An N generator is only a
and does not possess the dual aspects of presently used machines.
loading of an N generator produces an internal torque between the
electrical disc and the attached ring magnets. However, since they are
firmly cemented together, this torque cannot escape from the machine
load the drive motor or engine. Thus the N machine is a non-reciprocal
machine, which, if a voltage were applied to it in the fashion of motor
excitation between the center and the edge of the conducting disc, no
action could result since the generated torque is constrained within
body of the machine.
Directions for Future Work
The discovery of a new physical
the N effect, which relates phenomena of magnetism, inertia, and
together in a new machine for the liberation of electrical energy
from space is a pregnant development of a new age in science which will
energize the civilization of the 21st century. Although many ideas may
have suggested themselves in the minds of the readers of this
I would like to suggest a few possibilities which have occurred to this
author in the time that he has been working and experimenting with N
of various kinds.
1. Control of Very
Currents at Low Voltage: Simple calculations will show the N
to be characterized as a very high current, low voltage electrical
machine. For the sizes and rotational speeds normally associated with
automotive or electrical traction purposes it is easy to show that
of up to 100 or so vdc can be generated at currents limited only by the
brush technology and the machine internal resistance. Standard texts
methods whereby high currents have been conducted through liquid
metal electrodes. In this fashion, currents of 50,000 amperes have been
conducted from Faraday unipolar generators for the excitation of
field strength magnets for physical experiments (Francis Bitter Magnet
Laboratory Publication, MIT, Cambridge, MA).
The important fact about the N
is that once the appropriate brush technology has been adopted for the
ultra-high currents, the control of the voltage becomes very simple.
N generator is constructed as an N machine with the permanent magnets
by a pair of electromagnets on either side of the conducting disc.
of the electromagnets can vary the N generator output from zero to full
in either polarity. Thus a current of thousands of amperes can be
in voltage and polarity by a few amperes or less of excitation current
necessary to saturate the electromagnets in the chosen direction of
It is easy to see that ac
is possible if the electromagnets age built o laminations stacked in a
cylindrical build with the direction of easy magnetization parallel to
the axis of rotation of the machine.
2. Self-Contained Power
Systems: Since the N generator can generate many times the power
to overcome bearing friction, windage losses and frictional losses in
contacts, the N generator can be combined with an electrical drive
forming a self-sustaining combination. Reflection will show the
motor for such a purpose is a Faraday motor; a simple copper disc rotor
between the poles of strong field magnets. The ultra-low voltage, high
current characteristics of this machine combine perfectly with the low
voltage, high current output of the N generator. Such a combination, an
N generator on a common shaft with a Faraday motor, with the motor
with a fraction of the generator output regulated through an
series resistor (to prevent machine speed runaway) forms a power
system. The basic power generation system then consists of a
combination of N generator and Faraday motor which provides a
and an electrical output.
Figure C: The N-I Power
An interesting line of
begins here since once the basic power generation system is constructed
the mechanical output can be used to drive conventional generators --
may be to some advantage since these machines are presently articles of
commerce and can deliver higher output voltages than the basic dc
The point of all this is that once the free energy is liberated from
and converted into rotational form by a combination N generator-Faraday
motor, the resultant energy is directly applicable economically, and
known conventional technology and machines.
3. Inertial Guidance:
N generator concept of the direct centrifugal extraction of the
poles from the spatial energy field has direct application to the field
of inertial guidance. It is not necessary to have sliding contacts if
N generator is to be used to sense do/dt. Wires can be soldered to the
ends of a diameter of an N generator disc and a voltage obtained
the two diametrical ends connected together and at the center. The
of this voltage will reflect the sense of rotation and its magnitude
be proportional to do/dt. Appropriate integrators on the output of a
combination will provide all the information necessary for an inertial
guidance system replacing cumbersome mechanical gyroscopes spinning at
fantastic speeds together with excessively sophisticated and expensive
ancillary mechanical and electrical instrumentation.
The powerful physical principle
from the interaction of rotation, inertia, and magnetism, for the
of unlimited controlled energy directly from the energy medium of
the N effect, opens the door to the continued social development of a
freed from the limitation of the present energy conservation paradigm.
Freedom from the limitations
by the present formulations, the so-called Laws of Physics, is
since it allows the upward spiraling of free thought which eventually
itself in new forms of machinery. In terms of 1979 science, it is an
pleasure to be reminded that the present closed system of equations of
electricity, Maxwells’ equations, do not represent all there is to know
about electricity and magnetism.
The Laws of Thermodynamics and
so-called conservation of energy relationships are 150 years old. Of
the discovery of the inertial anisotropy of rotating objects taken
with new information this author has elicited regarding the elastic
of rotating objects impacting on identical non-rotating controls --
energy is liberated in the collision of a rotating object with a
one [sic]. New information such as this imposes new degrees of freedom
in the thermodynamic interactions of colliding atoms and will help
much of the anomalous new information which is being accumulated in the
present search for more "efficient" ways of liberating or extracting
A thorough intelligent analysis
the N generator will show that to produce any voltage whatsoever, such
a combination of magnets and a conducting disc in rotation as shown,
the physical interpretations of Newton and Einstein, special relativity
and general relativity. The loss of these ideas I do not regard as a
great tragedy since in their overcoming we shall eventually perfect the
anti-gravity spacedrive and will send humans to the stars. In this
paper I can only suggest some of these ideas.
Closer to what is at hand, I
like to suggest that the presently conceived ideas regarding the
of the magnetron radio frequency transmitting tube can be re-examined
the light of the N effect. In such a tube a rotating disc electronic
excites a series of resonant chambers around its periphery at microwave
frequencies. The very high power microwave impulses obtained in this
form the basis of radar transmitters in current use.
Interpreting the magnetron
as a higher order property of the Faraday unipolar dynamo, we can
that we might be able to obtain ac excitation of a series resonant LC
connected between any two separate points on the periphery of a
N generator conducting disc. For most of us who have spent our lives in
the conventional applications of electricity and electrical rotating
it may be enlightening to obtain alternating current in this way. What
is important is, anyone can say that a certain formulation or set of
in invalid, i.e., the Einstein geometrical interpretation of space. The
important thing is what we have to offer in terms of new machinery,
free energy or anti-gravity to substantiate new ideas.
Experiments performed by this
have obtained 2-3 millivolts ac (p-p) generated in this way employing a
1 microfarad capacitor in series with the appropriate inductance to
a resonance between 100 and 600 cps. In consideration of the
of this effect for the generation of megawatt power levels at powerline
frequencies (60 cps) the size of the components becomes important since
a resonant circuit must be employed in conjunction with the N
The L and C elements would have to be fabricated to reach the megawatt
power levels with suitably low internal impedance. Such limitations do
not appear to assert themselves at the magnetron operating frequencies,
so the possibility of the liberation of megawatt power levels of
power radiation from an N machine in a UHF cavity suggests itself.
Without becoming prolix it is
to consider all the ramifications of the electricity which originally
known in the Galvanic wet cell or the lightning arrestor. Now pictures
are sent through the "air" (television), and sound is recorded
Many other things are done. We live in an age where the
of such a development has taken place in many fields. Thus there is
basis for understanding of the possiblilities which can result from the
evolution of a new basis of understanding. With this in main, I have
to indicate what some of the thoughts I have had have led me to in
of the newly discovered inertial anisotropy of rotating objects and the
interaction of magnetism and rotation, the N effect.
Bruce E. DePalma
The Spinning Ball Experiment
(17 March 1977)
The spinning ball experiment
of the observation of the interaction of gravitational and inertia
on a rotating material object.
In the interaction of material
on a rotating physical object, four experiments are possible:
1) Inertial forces acting on
material objects in field-free space;
2) Inertial forces acting on
material objects in field-free space;
3) Inertial forces acting on
material objects in a gravitational field;
4) Inertial forces acting on
material objects in a gravitational field.
Discussion of the Experiments
In experiments (1) and (2), we
expect the normal inertial forces summarized by Newton’s Laws of
motion. In experiment (3), there is reason to believe there will be
by experimental evidence), a slight enhancement of inertia by the
field. The cases of experiments (2) and (4) have not been adequately
in the literature.
Behavior of Rotating
justified the belief by the author that the mechanical properties of
would be altered by rotation and that this would be the basis of the
interaction. A series of experiments has been carried out supporting
basis of action. The report of some of these experiments has been
to this theoretical dissertation. The results will be presented here.
1) Experimental evidence
the fact that a rapidly rotating material object will gain in inertia.
2) The form of the
interaction is that the additional inertia property, od, of rapidly
real material objects, represents an additional repository for the
and supplying of work from or to a gravitational field. This means a
mass will fall more rapidly (with greater acceleration) than a
no-rotating object under the influence of a gravitational field.
Form of the Gravitational
The complete description of
phenomena depends on the result of many experiments. Together with the
behavior of the spinning ball experiments, there is another
-- force machine pendulum experiments -- which have been reported
Basically the phenomena reported here are summarized by these results:
1) A force machine pendulum,
a pendulum composed of two identical flywheels contra-rotating, for the
cancellation of gyroscopic forces, swings with a period slightly
over that of the non-energized force machine. This indicates a net
in the inertia of the rotating system.
2) The swinging of the
pendulum is non-sinusoidal, with a foreshortening (flattening) of the
of the swings.
3) Mechanical energy of motion,
in the created inertial property, od, appears as an inertial field.
inertial field has the property of conferring inertia on surrounding
objects -- and a reduction in the frequency of oscillating electrical
placed in the vicinity of the energized machine.
When we examine the behavior of
spinning ball in relation to the above phenomena we can extract the
When the spinning ball is thrown
upwards it leaves the cup wit some vertical velocity v, In order to
this velocity the spinning ball had been accelerated vertically prior
the time of leaving the cup. Acceleration of a rotating material object
requires greater energy than a corresponding non-rotating one since
energy is supplied to the od field. When the spinning object leaves the
cup, the kinetic energy of motion is divided between the 1/2mv2 of the
"real" mass of the object, and the energy stored in the created
property, od. The sum of these two energies allows to attainment of a
height reached, in the doing of work against the gravitational field,
comparison to a non-spinning object moving with the same initial
When we examine the behavior of
falling non-spinning object versus the spinning object, we notice the
object falling faster (with greater acceleration).
We infer that the behavior of
falling non-spinning object, falling in accord with Newton’s Laws, is a
special case of the motion of objects in general. The more general
involving rotation, is obscured by the gravitational interaction.
We would expect, if we could
the inertia of an object (through rotation of by some other means),
the object would fall more slowly in a gravitational field. Let us
however that while a conferred inertial property, od, would reduce the
acceleration of a given body acted on by a given force in outer space,
in the presence of a gravitational field, the conferred inertial
would be an additional mechanical "dimension" for the extraction of
from the gravitational field in falling. Conversely, enough energy
be delivered from this "dimension" to cancel, or overcome, the
energy extracted from an object raised in a gravitational field.
On this basis we may write:
For the spinning
mgh = ½ mov2 + Kodv
For the spinning ball
½ mov2 = ½ mov2 + Kodv
In a strict sense, the precise
of Newton’s Laws would have to be restricted to non-rotating mechanical
objects in field-free space. In a gravitational field, the possibility
of extraction of greater energy by a new mechanical dimension opens the
possibility of an anti-gravitational interaction. In a rotating force
od energy can be supplied:
mgh = ½ mov2 + Kodw2
Where, w is the angular
of the force machine drive axis.
Here is the possibility of the
of rotational energy to work done against the gravitational field. What
is not determined at this point is the necessary increment of energy
to neutralize the weight of a given object, viz., it might take 1.1
pounds of work to lift a one pound object one foot. The incremental
necessary to establish neutral weight, or the hovering condition,
the inefficiency or lack of perfection of a real force machine. The
fact is the establishment of the od field as the mechanism for a
interaction with the gravitational field, in addition to the mechanical
interaction expressed as Newton’s Laws of the falling non-spinning
Interpretation of Physical
The fact that Newton’s Laws do
distinguish between the spinning and the non-rotating object represents
the state of mechanical knowledge at the time. But because Newton did
distinguish between rotation and non-rotation, Einstein did not
between the so-called inert and "gravitational mass". The fact that
affects the mechanical properties of objects paces Newton’s Laws as a
case and invalidates a geometrical interpretation of space.
Many questions have been asked
the nature of the gravitational-rotational interaction and its
prediction. Basically the theory can be looked at in the following way.
If we consider a force, such as that engendered by the action of the
field on a non-rotating real object, we find we can make a measurement
of that force on what we know as a scale. If we examine the reading on
that scale, say one pound, we can conduct our examinations to that
of accuracy where we can reach uncertainty, i.e., 1.000000000??? It is
not clear at that point whether the uncertainties in the measurement
due to properties of the experiment, or that which is being
upon. The level of causes and effects, uncertainty.
If we consider the results of
experiment we find this phenomenon.
If a real material object is
it is found that within the body of the object are manifested the
forces of rotation. If we consider a measurement of these forces we
find the same defect, that is, the measurement could be made precise
to reach the noise level, i.e., causes and effects, and it would not be
discernable whether the fluctuations were being caused by the
or that which is being experimented upon. This level is the level of
of forces and represents the connection between rotation and
Once there is established a connection, the transfer of energy follows
a controllable orientation, viz: the spinning balls falls more rapidly
because such an object can extract more energy from a gravitational
than can a normal one, and as well, the storage of energy in a force
as an od field results in direct application of this energy to do work
against the gravitational field and provide lifting force.
The concept of defect (of a
or force) was originally elicited epistemologically, forming the basis
of the author’s theory of Simularity, a theory of Reality based on the
properties of measurement.
What is considered is the real
of the level of causes and effects. What this represents physically as
a form of inertia and a connection between rotation and gravitation.
"connectivity" of defect and the other real properties of inertia
is better left to discussions to begin with the data presented herein.
The theory s more properly left to the serious students of these ideas.
As apprehension of the theory of Simularity necessarily entails the
of certain restrictions on the mind of the experimenter.
What can be said is this:
In the further refinement of
art of physical conceptions, there are certain points reached, wherein
it is in the proper ordering of things to drop certain concepts when
have reached the end of the usefulness. In the search for the
interaction, we have long been hampered by the erroneous equation of
and gravitational masses. We could better say: force is an element in
performance of two separate experiments -- the force of gravitational
of a test mass, and, the force necessary to cause a test mass to
at the same rate at which it falls.
Now that we have distinguished
the inert and gravitational mass by means of rotation, there are two
1) The connection between all
through the mechanism of defect.
2) The resolution or
of experiments, one from another, on the basis of differing procedures.
There is no basis to believe that two experiments involving a common
(ingredient) have any basis to be comparable in their results, viz.,
particle and wave hypothesis of light. It is also reasonable to suggest
that we not apply mundane concepts of "size", "weight", "mass", "spin,
"sign", etc., without precise explicit reference to the experiment
performed. Since many of the ideas we have about "matter" are
by the models we construct, we may have reached a point of development
where the "model" as a concept may have to be discarded.
It is not inconceivable to this
to regard physics as a collection of experiments, some of which may
one or more common elements. No one experiment ever gives the results
another separate and distinct experiment. Thusly stated:
A different experiment gives a
We can see that to take the
element of two distinct experiments, that is to take force, and then
the results of the experiments and then equate -- having found them
-- such a dilemma can only resolve itself in a curvature of geometrical
representation of space. In final analysis, the invariance of physical
laws is replaced as a concept by defect, a real property elicited by
spinning ball experiments, and which now replaces the invariance of
laws as the unifying concept of all experiments.
Bruce E. DePalma
the Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment
(3 May 1977)
The beginning of this author’s
with rotating objects began with moment of inertia measurements of
gyroscopes undergoing forced precession. The increased moments of
discovered for precessional motion were translated into a series of
on pendulums with rotating bobs. Although the discovery of the inertial
effects associated with precession and pendulum oscillations were
suggestive, this author greatly resisted attempts to force him to drop
a rotating object for two reasons.
Firstly, he had no reason to be
to predict the motion of a freely falling object on the basis of the
alterations he had measured which had concerned themselves with
situations of rotating objects. Second, there was no reason to expect
alteration to affect the rate of fall of a released object, and there
no available theory which could in any way be applied to the situation
of a falling object in a gravitational field. This is a situation known
in religious terms as a "leap into the dark".
Since the author and his
are experts ion the application of stroboscopic lighting techniques to
the study of high speed motions, the first experimental cut at the
was to photograph the trajectories of a steel ball bearing rotating at
high speed together with an identical control object moving at similar
initial velocity. The result of the experiment was so startling and
as to have taken me 5 years to understand.
The original results of our
were circulated as a report in 1974 (Ref. 1). Two years later, the
was published in an appendix to a book of Christian exegesis (Ref. 2).
In 1977, one of my former students performed a high precision
of the dropping of a rotating object: "The Gyro Drop Experiment" (Ref.
3). Actually, the experiment has two parts, the spinning ball going up,
and the spinning ball falling. Since I would rather be thought a fool
misrepresent results of experiments, I only attempted to analyze the
of the experiment I thought I understood. Basically, the spinning
going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same
velocity, and then falling faster than the identical non-rotating
presents a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood on the
of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only
heretofore un-understood results of other experiments (the elastic
of a rotating and an identical non-rotating object, et al.) and new
of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence
to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general. We should
the pioneers in this field: Wolfe, Cox, Dean, Laithwaite, Rendle,
Kummel, DePalma and Delvers, to name but a few.
In the beginning, I developed
concept of variable inertia to explain the behavior of rotating
objects, but variable inertia in itself contravenes the laws of physics
in the sense of contravention of the laws of conservation of mass and
Of course, the destruction of one thing is interesting, but of course
is in itself not a creative act and does not take us any closer to the
Because man is so interested in
universe, and the motions of the universe depend so much on gravity,
study of gravity takes us to the deepest foundations of human thought.
I think it is a mind-bending experience to see every stone fall at the
exact same rate as any other stone. And when you spin an object, why
it fall faster? And most mind-boggling of all, why does it go higher
the identical non-rotating control released to go upward at the same
velocity? Of course, the experiment could be wrong, but also perhaps we
could develop a hypothesis which would fit all experiments.
We know that when we can alter
properties of mechanical objects, i.e., change their inertia, we have
the conservation of energy because we have associated the properties of
an object with the space which contains the object. The space which
the object also contains energy and we can go at the project in two
we can attempt to extract the energy without worrying where it came
or we can attempt to understand physics, ourselves, and the universe by
a new formulation of reality.
Par of the difficulty of
free energy is the feeling that we’re getting something for free, and
automatically makes it suspect. On the other hand, however, we can
what we know as "energy" as something which is a natural part of our
and can be reached if we have the key.
Most of the difficulties in the
of this energy lie in the comprehension of where it’s coming from. If
can be comprehended, then the understanding of the free energy
can be believed.
When reality came into
the time energy of the Universe was concentrated into a single form,
exactitude with which a single atom gave off a beat of frequency when
as a spectral line. We have come to regard this as the only way of
time. The true way of measuring time is in the inertia of objects.
a tuning fork watch or oscillator is a more natural way of measuring
can only exist and not be measured. In the case of Time, we can know
existence of it, but for whatever measurement we take to be indicating
it, we make our own determinations as to whether this measurement is
suitable or "accurate" for our purposes (we might prefer a crystal
to a tuning fork, but for what purposes or measuring is this "time"
used?). If, for instance, we were interested in inertial processes,
the motion and the orbits of the planets, and we knew these were
to inertial influences, we might consider a "time" which was also
to these inertial influences to be more "accurate" than a time derived
from another experiment which might have no relationship to the
Time is a manifestation of a
deeper and basic force that we have a concern for here. The point of
I want to make is: the inertia of objects relates to the time energy
The rotational quanta drawn to
rotating body induce in that body a feeling of inertial anisotropy as
as increased inertial mass. Could this "mass" be thus somehow
into energy for mass consumption? The first indications of that came
we dropped our spinning ball experiment, but we were unwilling to
the increase in energy of a spinning to a non-spinning object dropped
fall over a controlled distance to some kind of energy principle we did
We also had a second series of
elastic collisions of rotating and non-rotating identical controls
we could not interpret. It took a paper, "The Cause of Gravitation", by
Bernard Rendle (Ref. 4) to jar my mind into comprehension of the facts
as I saw them. We can only conceive of the inertia of objects, or
mass to be exact, to be representative of the time energy created when
the Universe was created. Naturally the question of how old is the
becomes invalid then because a possible interpretation is that the
existed forever because inertial mass exists at all. Measurements of
age of the Universe are also invalid. All the time in the world is
up in the inertial mass of an object.
How this relates to the
ball experiment is that the spinning of an object draws to it the
of inertial motion of rotation which are accumulated in the body of the
flywheel and account for the altered inertial properties of the
object. These inertial quanta, Ro, draw the time energy to themselves
proportion to the number of them present in the flywheel at a given
If a rotating object is collided with an identical non-rotating one,
non-rotating object is rebounded a greater distance than it would have
traveled if it had been struck with the same identical object
A rotating object struck by an identical non-rotating object rebounds
than it would had it not been rotating (Ref. 5).
This explains why the spinning
went higher than the identical non-rotating control (moving at the same
initial velocity), and also explains why the spinning object falls
than the non-rotating control. The momentous fact is that there is no
interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating
is explained simply by the addition of free energy to whatever motion
rotating object is making. The spinning object goes higher and falls
than the identical non-rotating control.
I like the understanding of
growing out of the statement of Rendle: "The immaterial medium of space
itself is in motion" If we dispose of any special connection between
and gravity, the constancy of "G" then becomes the inertia of objects.
The fact that all objects fall at the same rate (earth normal
means that the substrate space is moving all objects along at the same
rate. This we can define as Earth normal standard inertia, a unity
to which all other conditions are compared. Thus rotating an object
not change its inertia (under the new standard) since the mechanical
in behavior of rotating object do not affect their inertia but are the
result of the additional (free) time energy flowing through the
object by virtue of its accumulation of rotational quanta, Ro.
The question to be answered: is
any gravitational effect from rotation, or is gravitation a special
of mass with its environment? I would tend to believe gravitation is a
special interaction of real mass with its environment. This is not to
that artificial gravitation fields cannot be created, but they would
be distinguishable from the real thing through some physical test. An
gravitational field would be non-isotropic and anisotropic.
In terms of the dropping of the
ball, the understanding of the experiment involves the results of many
other experiments as well as the resolution of a mind picture of the
which is our best approximation to understanding at the present time.
makes it difficult for other experimenters to understand the experiment
is that it is not simply the results which are important. Without a
foundation of understanding to make the experiment comprehensible -- to
fit the results into a context of rational understanding and harmony
the facts of other experiments -- the data become trivial and worthless
and, worst of all, subject to misinterpretation.
The availability of free energy
as simple an experiment as colliding in a rotating object with a
one opens up the development of other machines for energy extraction
propulsion which may be more convenient to handle than the extraction
energy from the collision of a rotating object with a non-rotating one.
Bruce E. DePalma