Bruce E. DePalma: N-Machine (3 articles)

Wikipedia ---

Bruce E. De Palma

Bruce Eldridge De Palma (1935-1997), son of noted orthopaedic surgeon Anthony DePalma and elder brother of film director Brian De Palma, was a well known figure in the Free energy suppression community. He claimed that his N-machine Homopolar generator, a device based on the Faraday disc, could produce five times the energy required to run it. According to mainstream physics, no such device is physically possible.

De Palma studied electrical engineering at Harvard (1958) and taught physics at MIT for 15 years, working under Harold Eugene Edgerton. He was also employed by Edwin H. Land of Polaroid fame.

Bruce De Palma's development of the N-machine concept in 1977, among his other anomalous devices (at least one of which, De Palma claimed, displayed anti-gravity characteristics) and the claims surrounding them, set him on a collision course with his more mainstream peers. His claims of 'free energy' were vigorously refuted over the course of twenty years, by conventional scientists and some members of the alternative energy community alike.

His search for financial backing for the construction of a marketable 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 could solve the world's energy and environmental crisis was Paramahamsa Tewari, a Project Director with the Indian Nuclear Power Corporation, with whom he corresponded regularly over many years. Tewari's Space Power Generator, claimed to be 200% efficient, is based on the same theoretical foundations as the N-machine.

De Palma's death in New Zealand in October 1997 put an end to his most ambitious free energy project, and occurred only weeks prior to the official testing of a device constructed over the course of 6 months in an Auckland workshop. The test was attended by, among others, the project's financial backer, Bruce Bornholdt, a prominent Wellington barrister, as well as the 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 N-machine, most of the output energy being lost as heat, and the project was immediately dissolved.

The extraction of energy directly from space has been suggested as a viable process for the solution of the energy problems of society. The accessibility of this energy has been limited by the necessity for the formulation of new energy paradigms. In the past, energy in space has been suggested by thoughts such as Orgone, Od, Prana, Bio-cosmic, Neutrino energy sea and so on, but the useful extraction of such energies has always awaited more explicit formulations of these ideas which could suggest the construction of simple practical energy extraction machinery.

Experiments performed by this author have suggested a picture of space which is perfused with a "fine substance". This concept is one which lies between the ineffability of a space-time construct such as Einstein and the tangibility of gross matter. The important part about this "fine substance" is that it is shown that this substance confers inertia on physical objects. The substance of inertia can also be shown to have the property of polarization.

Normally the inertial mass of an object is anisotropic --- that is to say, an inertial measurement performed by applying a force vector to the object and measuring the resulting acceleration; the inertial mass obtained in this measurement would be a constant independent of the direction of the applied force vector. The important discovery is that the inertial mass of a rotating object becomes polarized and anisotropic --- in terms of the real behavior of a rotating object the inertial mass is found to increase for measurements performed in the direction of the axis of rotation, and perforce the inertial mass is found to decrease for measurements made in the direction of the plane of rotation. Complete inertial polarization of the rotating object takes place when the inertial mass taken in the direction of the plane of rotation of the test object decreases to zero with increasing rotational speed.

The interesting combination would be to combine the effects of inertial and magnetic polarization for the extraction of electrical energy directly from space.

With reference to the two diagrams, Figure A and Figure B, the "N" effect is demonstrated quite simply. A cylindrical bar magnet of alnico or other magnetized electrical conductor as shown is rotated around an axis passing through the two magnetic poles and perpendicular to the polished pole faces as shown. What is found is a cylindrically symmetrical electric field is established within the magnet through rotation. Electrical current is simply extracted by placing the probes or sliding contacts of the appropriate ammeters and voltmeters, one on the axis of rotation and the other on the outer surface of the rotating magnetized conductor.

In order to make full use of the current capabilities of an N generator and to accommodate the use of non-conducting "ferrite" permanent magnets or electromagnets, an N-machine is constructed as in Figure B. The N-machine utilizes a copper or bronze conducting shaft and disc and ferrite ring magnets cemented together as shown. A typical machine constructed with ordinary loudspeaker ring magnets of dimensions o.d. 2-7/8", i.d. 1-1/3" and ½" thickness, two of each epoxy-cemented 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 1000 gauss. The current obtainable from the machine is limited only by the resistance of the leads and sliding contacts. Since the aforementioned 30 mv can be 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 of centrifugal extraction of the electrical positive and negative poles from the free energy field of space is supplied in useful and controllable form from N generators which are scaled in order to supply requirements. Experiments show the voltage polarity depends on the sense of rotation. Output voltage goes directly as speed and magnetic field strength. Geometrically the output voltage increases as the square of the machine radius, r².

It was in the 1830s that Michael Faraday working in the basement of what is now the Royal technical College in London, discovered that a conducting disc held between the poles of a magnet with the lines of force perpendicular to the surface, would generate current if rotated and the current extracted between the center and the edge of the rotating conducting disc.

Conversely, if a voltage were applied between the center and the edge of such a disc it would rotate as a motor. These effects are presently known as the Faraday unipolar dynamo and Faraday motor respectively.

If Faraday had rotated the whole combination, magnets and disc together, he would have discovered as this author did in 1977 that the voltage output remained constant regardless of whether the disc was rotating independently of the magnets or not. Of 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 magnets, a development that didn’t take place until the 1930s.

What is important about the N machine is that unlike a conventional generator which exhibits a rotational drag when current is drawn, an N generator exhibits no such drag.

All of the currently used electrical 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 appropriate voltages and currents. With the foregoing in mind, we interpret the situation as follows.

In the conventional electrical power generation system we have an electrical generator coupled to an engine of some kind which supplies mechanical power which is interpreted in accord with present understanding to be converted from mechanical to electrical energy with a conversion efficiency not to exceed 100%. If we were to suppose however that that the energy obtained was extracted from some heretofore unsuspected property of magnetism; then it is simply apparent that the slowing down of the drive engine is due to the “generator” having the aspect of a motor also, and that is the slowing of the drive engine with electrical load is simply the effect of the motor aspect of the generator energized 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 engine-generator combination slows down when an electrical load is thrown on the generator.

An N generator is only a generator and does not possess the dual aspects of presently used machines. Electrical loading of an N generator produces an internal torque between the conducting electrical disc and the attached ring magnets. However, since they are firmly cemented together, this torque cannot escape from the machine and 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 motor action could result since the generated torque is constrained within the body of the machine.

The discovery of a new physical phenomenon, the N effect, which relates phenomena of magnetism, inertia, and rotation together in a new machine for the liberation of electrical energy directly 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 information, 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 generators of various kinds.

1. Control of Very High Currents at Low Voltage: Simple calculations will show the N generator to be characterized as a very high current, low voltage electrical generation machine. For the sizes and rotational speeds normally associated with conventional automotive or electrical traction purposes it is easy to show that voltages 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 detail methods whereby high currents have been conducted through liquid conducting metal electrodes. In this fashion, currents of 50,000 amperes have been conducted from Faraday unipolar generators for the excitation of ultra-high field strength magnets for physical experiments (Francis Bitter Magnet Laboratory Publication, MIT, Cambridge, MA).

The important fact about the N generator is that once the appropriate brush technology has been adopted for the ultra-high currents, the control of the voltage becomes very simple. The N generator is constructed as an N machine with the permanent magnets replaced by a pair of electromagnets on either side of the conducting disc. Excitation 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 controlled in voltage and polarity by a few amperes or less of excitation current necessary to saturate the electromagnets in the chosen direction of magnetization.

It is easy to see that ac operation 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 Generation Systems: Since the N generator can generate many times the power needed to overcome bearing friction, windage losses and frictional losses in sliding contacts, the N generator can be combined with an electrical drive motor forming a self-sustaining combination. Reflection will show the appropriate 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 excited with a fraction of the generator output regulated through an appropriate series resistor (to prevent machine speed runaway) forms a power generation system. The basic power generation system then consists of a self-sustaining combination of N generator and Faraday motor which provides a mechanical and an electrical output.

An interesting line of development begins here since once the basic power generation system is constructed the mechanical output can be used to drive conventional generators -- which may be to some advantage since these machines are presently articles of commerce and can deliver higher output voltages than the basic dc generator. The point of all this is that once the free energy is liberated from space and converted into rotational form by a combination N generator-Faraday motor, the resultant energy is directly applicable economically, and with known conventional technology and machines.

3. Inertial Guidance: The N generator concept of the direct centrifugal extraction of the electrical poles from the spatial energy field has direct application to the field of inertial guidance. It is not necessary to have sliding contacts if the 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 between the two diametrical ends connected together and at the center. The polarity of this voltage will reflect the sense of rotation and its magnitude will be proportional to do/dt. Appropriate integrators on the output of a 3-axis 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 resulting from the interaction of rotation, inertia, and magnetism, for the liberation of unlimited controlled energy directly from the energy medium of space, the N effect, opens the door to the continued social development of a society freed from the limitation of the present energy conservation paradigm.

Freedom from the limitations imposed by the present formulations, the so-called Laws of Physics, is important since it allows the upward spiraling of free thought which eventually expresses itself in new forms of machinery. In terms of 1979 science, it is an unexpected 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 the so-called conservation of energy relationships are 150 years old. Of course, the discovery of the inertial anisotropy of rotating objects taken together with new information this author has elicited regarding the elastic collisions of rotating objects impacting on identical non-rotating controls -- free energy is liberated in the collision of a rotating object with a non-rotating one [sic]. New information such as this imposes new degrees of freedom in the thermodynamic interactions of colliding atoms and will help explain much of the anomalous new information which is being accumulated in the present search for more "efficient" ways of liberating or extracting energy from Nature.

A thorough intelligent analysis of the N generator will show that to produce any voltage whatsoever, such a combination of magnets and a conducting disc in rotation as shown, invalidates the physical interpretations of Newton and Einstein, special relativity and general relativity. The loss of these ideas I do not regard as a terribly great tragedy since in their overcoming we shall eventually perfect the anti-gravity spacedrive and will send humans to the stars. In this short paper I can only suggest some of these ideas.

Closer to what is at hand, I would like to suggest that the presently conceived ideas regarding the operation of the magnetron radio frequency transmitting tube can be re-examined in the light of the N effect. In such a tube a rotating disc electronic cloud excites a series of resonant chambers around its periphery at microwave frequencies. The very high power microwave impulses obtained in this way form the basis of radar transmitters in current use.

Interpreting the magnetron operation as a higher order property of the Faraday unipolar dynamo, we can suspect that we might be able to obtain ac excitation of a series resonant LC circuit connected between any two separate points on the periphery of a rotating N generator conducting disc. For most of us who have spent our lives in the conventional applications of electricity and electrical rotating machinery, 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 ideas in invalid, i.e., the Einstein geometrical interpretation of space. The important thing is what we have to offer in terms of new machinery, i.e., free energy or anti-gravity to substantiate new ideas.

Experiments performed by this author have obtained 2-3 millivolts ac (p-p) generated in this way employing a 1 microfarad capacitor in series with the appropriate inductance to obtain a resonance between 100 and 600 cps. In consideration of the utilization 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 generator. 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 microwave power radiation from an N machine in a UHF cavity suggests itself.

Without becoming prolix it is interesting to consider all the ramifications of the electricity which originally was known in the Galvanic wet cell or the lightning arrestor. Now pictures are sent through the "air" (television), and sound is recorded (magnetism). Many other things are done. We live in an age where the conceptualization of such a development has taken place in many fields. Thus there is some basis for understanding of the possiblilities which can result from the evolution of a new basis of understanding. With this in main, I have tried to indicate what some of the thoughts I have had have led me to in consideration of the newly discovered inertial anisotropy of rotating objects and the interaction of magnetism and rotation, the N effect.

The spinning ball experiment consists of the observation of the interaction of gravitational and inertia forces on a rotating material object.

In the interaction of material force on a rotating physical object, four experiments are possible:

3) Inertial forces acting on non-rotating material objects in a gravitational field;

4) Inertial forces acting on rotating material objects in a gravitational field.

In experiments (1) and (2), we would expect the normal inertial forces summarized by Newton’s Laws of mechanical motion. In experiment (3), there is reason to believe there will be (supported by experimental evidence), a slight enhancement of inertia by the gravitational field. The cases of experiments (2) and (4) have not been adequately treated in the literature.

Certain theoretical considerations justified the belief by the author that the mechanical properties of objects would be altered by rotation and that this would be the basis of the gravitational interaction. A series of experiments has been carried out supporting this basis of action. The report of some of these experiments has been appended to this theoretical dissertation. The results will be presented here.

1) Experimental evidence supports the fact that a rapidly rotating material object will gain in inertia.

2) The form of the gravitational interaction is that the additional inertia property, od, of rapidly rotating real material objects, represents an additional repository for the extraction and supplying of work from or to a gravitational field. This means a rotating mass will fall more rapidly (with greater acceleration) than a corresponding no-rotating object under the influence of a gravitational field.

The complete description of physical phenomena depends on the result of many experiments. Together with the behavior of the spinning ball experiments, there is another series -- force machine pendulum experiments -- which have been reported elsewhere. Basically the phenomena reported here are summarized by these results:

1) A force machine pendulum, i.e., a pendulum composed of two identical flywheels contra-rotating, for the cancellation of gyroscopic forces, swings with a period slightly increased over that of the non-energized force machine. This indicates a net increase in the inertia of the rotating system.

2) The swinging of the energized pendulum is non-sinusoidal, with a foreshortening (flattening) of the peaks of the swings.

3) Mechanical energy of motion, stored in the created inertial property, od, appears as an inertial field. This inertial field has the property of conferring inertia on surrounding material objects -- and a reduction in the frequency of oscillating electrical circuits placed in the vicinity of the energized machine.

When we examine the behavior of the spinning ball in relation to the above phenomena we can extract the following behavior.
When the spinning ball is thrown upwards it leaves the cup wit some vertical velocity v, In order to attain this velocity the spinning ball had been accelerated vertically prior to the time of leaving the cup. Acceleration of a rotating material object requires greater energy than a corresponding non-rotating one since some 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 inertial property, od. The sum of these two energies allows to attainment of a greater height reached, in the doing of work against the gravitational field, in comparison to a non-spinning object moving with the same initial vertical velocity.

When we examine the behavior of the falling non-spinning object versus the spinning object, we notice the spinning object falling faster (with greater acceleration).

We infer that the behavior of the 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 case, involving rotation, is obscured by the gravitational interaction.

We would expect, if we could increase the inertia of an object (through rotation of by some other means), that the object would fall more slowly in a gravitational field. Let us consider 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 property would be an additional mechanical "dimension" for the extraction of energy from the gravitational field in falling. Conversely, enough energy could be delivered from this "dimension" to cancel, or overcome, the mechanical energy extracted from an object raised in a gravitational field.

In a strict sense, the precise application 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 machine, od energy can be supplied:

Here is the possibility of the conversion of rotational energy to work done against the gravitational field. What is not determined at this point is the necessary increment of energy required to neutralize the weight of a given object, viz., it might take 1.1 foot pounds of work to lift a one pound object one foot. The incremental field necessary to establish neutral weight, or the hovering condition, represents the inefficiency or lack of perfection of a real force machine. The important fact is the establishment of the od field as the mechanism for a mechanical interaction with the gravitational field, in addition to the mechanical interaction expressed as Newton’s Laws of the falling non-spinning mechanical body.

The fact that Newton’s Laws do not distinguish between the spinning and the non-rotating object represents the state of mechanical knowledge at the time. But because Newton did not distinguish between rotation and non-rotation, Einstein did not distinguish between the so-called inert and "gravitational mass". The fact that rotation affects the mechanical properties of objects paces Newton’s Laws as a special case and invalidates a geometrical interpretation of space.

Many questions have been asked about the nature of the gravitational-rotational interaction and its theoretical 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 gravitational 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 degree of accuracy where we can reach uncertainty, i.e., 1.000000000??? It is not clear at that point whether the uncertainties in the measurement are due to properties of the experiment, or that which is being experimented upon. The level of causes and effects, uncertainty.

If a real material object is rotated, it is found that within the body of the object are manifested the centripetal forces of rotation. If we consider a measurement of these forces we could find the same defect, that is, the measurement could be made precise enough to reach the noise level, i.e., causes and effects, and it would not be discernable whether the fluctuations were being caused by the experimenter or that which is being experimented upon. This level is the level of defect of forces and represents the connection between rotation and gravitation. 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 interaction than can a normal one, and as well, the storage of energy in a force machine 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 field 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 properties of the level of causes and effects. What this represents physically as a form of inertia and a connection between rotation and gravitation. The "connectivity" of defect and the other real properties of inertia fields 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 dropping of certain restrictions on the mind of the experimenter.

In the further refinement of the art of physical conceptions, there are certain points reached, wherein it is in the proper ordering of things to drop certain concepts when they have reached the end of the usefulness. In the search for the gravitational interaction, we have long been hampered by the erroneous equation of inert and gravitational masses. We could better say: force is an element in the performance of two separate experiments -- the force of gravitational attraction of a test mass, and, the force necessary to cause a test mass to accelerate at the same rate at which it falls.

Now that we have distinguished between the inert and gravitational mass by means of rotation, there are two principles involved:

2) The resolution or distinction of experiments, one from another, on the basis of differing procedures. There is no basis to believe that two experiments involving a common element (ingredient) have any basis to be comparable in their results, viz., the 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 being performed. Since many of the ideas we have about "matter" are conditioned 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 author, to regard physics as a collection of experiments, some of which may involve one or more common elements. No one experiment ever gives the results of another separate and distinct experiment. Thusly stated:

We can see that to take the common element of two distinct experiments, that is to take force, and then take the results of the experiments and then equate -- having found them "equivalent" -- 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 the spinning ball experiments, and which now replaces the invariance of physical laws as the unifying concept of all experiments.

The beginning of this author’s work with rotating objects began with moment of inertia measurements of constrained gyroscopes undergoing forced precession. The increased moments of inertia discovered for precessional motion were translated into a series of measurements on pendulums with rotating bobs. Although the discovery of the inertial effects associated with precession and pendulum oscillations were highly suggestive, this author greatly resisted attempts to force him to drop a rotating object for two reasons.

Firstly, he had no reason to be able to predict the motion of a freely falling object on the basis of the inertial alterations he had measured which had concerned themselves with constrained situations of rotating objects. Second, there was no reason to expect inertial alteration to affect the rate of fall of a released object, and there was 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 assistants are experts ion the application of stroboscopic lighting techniques to the study of high speed motions, the first experimental cut at the situation 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 anomalous as to have taken me 5 years to understand.

The original results of our experiments were circulated as a report in 1974 (Ref. 1). Two years later, the experiment was published in an appendix to a book of Christian exegesis (Ref. 2). In 1977, one of my former students performed a high precision verification 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 than misrepresent results of experiments, I only attempted to analyze the portion of the experiment I thought I understood. Basically, the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control, presents a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non-rotating object, et al.) and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general. We should remember the pioneers in this field: Wolfe, Cox, Dean, Laithwaite, Rendle, Searl, Kummel, DePalma and Delvers, to name but a few.

In the beginning, I developed the concept of variable inertia to explain the behavior of rotating material objects, but variable inertia in itself contravenes the laws of physics in the sense of contravention of the laws of conservation of mass and energy. Of course, the destruction of one thing is interesting, but of course this is in itself not a creative act and does not take us any closer to the truth.

Because man is so interested in the universe, and the motions of the universe depend so much on gravity, the 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 does it fall faster? And most mind-boggling of all, why does it go higher than the identical non-rotating control released to go upward at the same initial 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 the properties of mechanical objects, i.e., change their inertia, we have contravened the conservation of energy because we have associated the properties of an object with the space which contains the object. The space which contains the object also contains energy and we can go at the project in two ways: we can attempt to extract the energy without worrying where it came from, or we can attempt to understand physics, ourselves, and the universe by a new formulation of reality.

Par of the difficulty of accepting free energy is the feeling that we’re getting something for free, and that automatically makes it suspect. On the other hand, however, we can accept what we know as "energy" as something which is a natural part of our environment and can be reached if we have the key.

Most of the difficulties in the location of this energy lie in the comprehension of where it’s coming from. If this can be comprehended, then the understanding of the free energy experiment can be believed.

When reality came into existence, the time energy of the Universe was concentrated into a single form, the exactitude with which a single atom gave off a beat of frequency when excited as a spectral line. We have come to regard this as the only way of measuring time. The true way of measuring time is in the inertia of objects. Thus, a tuning fork watch or oscillator is a more natural way of measuring which can only exist and not be measured. In the case of Time, we can know the existence of it, but for whatever measurement we take to be indicating it, we make our own determinations as to whether this measurement is more suitable or "accurate" for our purposes (we might prefer a crystal clock to a tuning fork, but for what purposes or measuring is this "time" being used?). If, for instance, we were interested in inertial processes, i.e., the motion and the orbits of the planets, and we knew these were sensitive to inertial influences, we might consider a "time" which was also sensitive to these inertial influences to be more "accurate" than a time derived from another experiment which might have no relationship to the phenomena of importance.

Time is a manifestation of a much deeper and basic force that we have a concern for here. The point of connection I want to make is: the inertia of objects relates to the time energy flowing through them.

The rotational quanta drawn to a rotating body induce in that body a feeling of inertial anisotropy as well as increased inertial mass. Could this "mass" be thus somehow translated into energy for mass consumption? The first indications of that came when we dropped our spinning ball experiment, but we were unwilling to interpret the increase in energy of a spinning to a non-spinning object dropped to fall over a controlled distance to some kind of energy principle we did not understand.

We also had a second series of experiments, elastic collisions of rotating and non-rotating identical controls which 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 inertial 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 Universe becomes invalid then because a possible interpretation is that the Universe existed forever because inertial mass exists at all. Measurements of the age of the Universe are also invalid. All the time in the world is summed up in the inertial mass of an object.

How this relates to the spinning ball experiment is that the spinning of an object draws to it the quanta of inertial motion of rotation which are accumulated in the body of the flywheel and account for the altered inertial properties of the rotating object. These inertial quanta, Ro, draw the time energy to themselves in proportion to the number of them present in the flywheel at a given time. If a rotating object is collided with an identical non-rotating one, the non-rotating object is rebounded a greater distance than it would have traveled if it had been struck with the same identical object non-rotating. A rotating object struck by an identical non-rotating object rebounds less than it would had it not been rotating (Ref. 5).

This explains why the spinning ball went higher than the identical non-rotating control (moving at the same initial velocity), and also explains why the spinning object falls faster than the non-rotating control. The momentous fact is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is explained simply by the addition of free energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making. The spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control.

I like the understanding of inertia growing out of the statement of Rendle: "The immaterial medium of space itself is in motion" If we dispose of any special connection between rotation and gravity, the constancy of "G" then becomes the inertia of objects. The fact that all objects fall at the same rate (earth normal acceleration) 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 factor to which all other conditions are compared. Thus rotating an object does not change its inertia (under the new standard) since the mechanical alterations in behavior of rotating object do not affect their inertia but are the result of the additional (free) time energy flowing through the rotating object by virtue of its accumulation of rotational quanta, Ro.

The question to be answered: is there any gravitational effect from rotation, or is gravitation a special interaction 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 say that artificial gravitation fields cannot be created, but they would always be distinguishable from the real thing through some physical test. An artificial gravitational field would be non-isotropic and anisotropic.

In terms of the dropping of the spinning ball, the understanding of the experiment involves the results of many other experiments as well as the resolution of a mind picture of the Universe which is our best approximation to understanding at the present time. What makes it difficult for other experimenters to understand the experiment is that it is not simply the results which are important. Without a theoretical foundation of understanding to make the experiment comprehensible -- to fit the results into a context of rational understanding and harmony with the facts of other experiments -- the data become trivial and worthless and, worst of all, subject to misinterpretation.

The availability of free energy from as simple an experiment as colliding in a rotating object with a no-rotating one opens up the development of other machines for energy extraction and propulsion which may be more convenient to handle than the extraction of energy from the collision of a rotating object with a non-rotating one.