A SUMMARY REVIEW of ENERGY and ANTI-GRAVITY RESEARCH
Compiled by Anthony J. Craddock with assistance from Dr. Paul LaViolette and other researchers
Since the time of the great Nikola Tesla (and before), a small sector of the scientific community has known that so-called “free energy” can be extracted from our surroundings, and that many other exotic forces and effects, such as “anti-gravity”, are also waiting to be liberated at our beck and call.
In his 1899 Colorado Springs experiments, Tesla discovered the electro-gravitational (or scalar) wave, which oscillate the energy density of the vacuum and hence oscillate the curvature of space-time. So, over a century ago, it appears that Tesla had already produced a unified field theory of gravitation and electromagnetics. His discoveries were so fundamental, and his intent to provide free energy for all humankind was so clear, that it was probably responsible for the withdrawal of his financial backing, his deliberate isolation, and the gradual removal of his name from the history books.
The zero-point energy of a vacuum is the lowest energy vacuum state, with fluctuations taken into account. Even at low energies, quantum fluctuations continually arise, and result in an incessant, extremely rapid and violent “jittering” of the energy momentarily present. The minimum energy due to these quantum fluctuations is called the zero-point energy. The amount of this energy is HUGE. Some scientists have hypothesized that one cubic centimeter of pure vacuum contains enough energy to condense into 1080 – 10120 grams of matter! Quantum mechanically, no system of interest (including even space-time itself) can have zero energy. The so-called “free energy” is actually obtained by tapping into the above-described zero-point energy.
The bedrock of much of modern science is Classical Electromagnetic Theory (CEM). James Clark Maxwell developed this 136 years ago in an exotic algebra known as quaternions. In order to render it more assimilable for use by working electrodynamicists, it was deliberately re-written in much simpler language by Oliver Heaviside (and Gibbs) in 1903. This simplification (and truncation) eliminated a whole subset of the equations including the scalar electromagnetics and the gravitational aspects that were contained in the original theory. At last count, there are at least thirty-four known flaws in Clark Maxwell’s hoary old theory, which is what is still taught in today’s classrooms. Some of the world’s leading scientists, such as Wheeler, Feynman, Bunge, Margenau, Barrett, Cornille, Evans, Vigier, and Lehnert have all written about CEM’s deficiencies.
When this missing “Heaviside subset” of Classical Electromagnetic Theory is restored, and the brilliant 1903 and 1904 work of a Cambridge University mathematician, E.T. Whittaker, factored in, all of a sudden one has the supposedly elusive Holy Grail of Science – a true Unified Field Theory that unites General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Mind and Subtle Energy Phenomena and Classical EM Theory.
But in fact, for the advancement of humanity, the real Holy Grail could be argued to actually be contained in this missing subset, not in the more grandiose sounding Unified Field Theory.
For it is this “scalar potential” that stresses local space-time, i.e. the 3 spatial dimensions AND time, which allows the “bleed-through” of additional electromagnetic energy to create overunity electromagnetic systems. Indeed, the restoration of this missing subset also shows that Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity was also only a subset of the real theory that he was trying to write. Even though Einstein has been lionized for his theory of General Relativity (Time Magazine “Man of the Century”), he himself is on record as saying that the so-called foundations of physics need constant review, and that his Relativity Theory was not necessarily cast in concrete.
A further impediment to the theoretical extraction of “free” energy was also imposed on what was left of Maxwell’s already diluted EM Theory by H.A. Lorentz around 1902. He simply arbitrarily threw away the monstrous amount of current outside the circuit that was not intercepted by the circuit, and that he could not theoretically account for. This he termed “of no physical significance!” – even though it is approximately 1013 times greater than the intercepted current in our everyday electrical circuits! He thus perpetually locked EM systems in a theoretical and figurative iron box that would never allow them to go overunity and bleed in and capture additional energy.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and examples abound of where systems (such as heat-pumps or windmills) put out more energy than they take in, simply by transducing other energy sources. This is called overunity, when the outputted energy added to additional transduced energy from another source puts out more energy than is provided by the original primary source. Conventional science “allows” this in every aspect of “conventional science” WITH THE SOLE (ARBITRARY) EXCEPTION OF ELECTROMAGNETISM.
But, by not “allowing” the curvature of space-time locally, which is a way to open the gate to the “free” vacuum energy, one can well see why some entrenched economic interests have discouraged investigation of this physicist into this awesome source of energy. Indeed, we have been told that the US Patent Office has strict instructions not to allow any Patent for a meaningful overunity electromagnetic system or one that would appear to threaten the status quo of our present power suppliers.
Occasionally, however, the veil does inadvertently get lifted on some of the wondrous suppressed overunity systems, only to quickly be dropped again.
Here are a few examples:
Tesla’s Self-Powered Automobile
In 1931, in a very secret program, Tesla built an overunity, self-powered electrical power system, placed it in a Pierce Arrow automobile, and ran the car around successfully. A relative who rode with him in the car confirmed it many years later. Some details are described in Marc Seifer’s biography of Tesla as follows:
“The car [was] a standard Pierce Arrow, with the engine removed and other components installed instead. The standard clutch, gearbox, and drive train remained… Under the hood, there was a brushless electric motor, connected to [or in place of] the engine… Tesla would not divulge who made the motor.”
“Set into the dash was a “power receiver” consisting of a box… containing 12 radio tubes… A vertical antenna, consisting of a 6 ft. rod, was installed and connected to the power receiver [which was] in turn, connected to the motor by two heavy, conspicuous cables… Tesla pushed these in before starting and said: ‘We now have power.”
This Tesla device seems to have been remarkably similar to the radiant energy amplifier of T. Henry Moray described below. Also, Tesla coined the term “radiant energy” with respect to natural media in two of his patents.
Further, we have Barrett’s mathematical demonstration that Tesla’s actual patented circuits, when viewed in a higher topology, did indeed freely shuttle energy in the circuit as desired. In short, it appears that Tesla knew how to make circuits that asymmetrically self-regauged themselves creating overunity systems and therefore self-powering systems.
This is an entirely different operation than just the present entropic transfer of voltage used by electrical engineers today. It is more akin to deliberately regauging desired sections of the circuit, so that excess energy appears there from an external source. In short, it is akin to asymmetrical self-regauging, and also to the type of operation of circuits that Kron (discussed below) discovered so laboriously but never entirely revealed.
No technical details were ever released on how Tesla’s self-powered automobile system worked. The Tesla papers eventually turned over to his native country did not contain the actual “critical” papers present in his room at the time of his death. Those “critical” papers were illegally removed from his room as if Tesla were an illegal alien (he was a naturalized U.S. citizen, so the entire action was blatantly illegal). If those “critical” papers are still in existence, then they are still highly classified and hidden from conventional scientists. Cheney in her biography on Tesla reports finding the location of those papers.
The free energy electrical automotive power system part of Tesla’s work was financed by the same world financier who financed Adolph Hitler’s rise to power as well as much of the early Communist takeover of Russia. It is speculated that because of this financial control, Tesla would not have been allowed to put that car into production by one of the U.S. automotive companies
Some recent references and patents based in part on Tesla’s work are as follows:
Barrett, T.W., “Tesla’s Nonlinear Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Theory,” Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 16(1), 1991, p. 23-41.
Barrett, T.W. and D. M Grimes. [Eds.] Advanced Electromagnetism: Foundations, Theory, & Applications, World Scientific, (Singapore, New Jersey, London, and Hong Kong), Suite 1B, 1060 Main Street, River Edge, New Jersey, 07661, 1995.
“Active Signalling Systems,” U.S. Patent No. 5,486,833, Jan. 23, 1996.
“Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Networks for Conditioning Energy in Higher-Order Symmetry Algebraic Topological Forms and RF Phase Conjugation,” U.S. Patent No. 5,493,691. Feb. 20, 1996.
The Moray Radiant Energy Device
In the early 1900’s, Dr. T. Henry Moray of Salt Lake City produced his first device to tap energy from the metafrequency oscillations of empty space itself. Eventually he produced a free energy device weighing sixty pounds and producing 50,000 watts of electricity for several hours. Ironically, although he demonstrated his device repeatedly to scientists and engineers, he was unable to obtain funding to develop the device into a useable power station that would furnish electrical power on a mass scale.
In the 1920’s and 1930’s Moray steadily improved his devices, particularly his detector tube, the only real secret of the device according to Moray himself. In his book, The Sea of Energy in Which the Earth Floats, Moray presents documented evidence that he invented the first transistor-type valve in 1925, far ahead of the officially recognized discovery of the transistor. In his free energy detector tube Moray apparently used, inside the tube itself, a variation of this transistor idea — a small rounded pellet of a mixture of triboluminescent zinc, a semiconductor material, and a radioactive or fissile material. His patent application (for which a patent has never been granted) was filed on July 13, 1931, long before the advent of the Bell Laboratories’ transistor.
In test after test Moray demonstrated his radiant energy device to electrical engineering professors, congressmen, dignitaries, and a host of other visitors to his laboratory. Once he even took the device several miles out in the country, away from all power lines, to prove that he was not simply tuning in to energy being clandestinely radiated from some other part of his laboratory. Several times he allowed independent investigators to completely disassemble his device and reassemble it, then reactivate it themselves. In all tests, he was successful in demonstrating that the device could produce energy output without any appreciable energy input. According to exhaustive documentation, no one was ever able to prove that the device was fraudulent or that Moray had not accomplished exactly what he claimed.
The records are full of signed statements from skeptical physicists, electrical engineers, and scientists who came to the Moray laboratory and left with the complete conviction that Moray had indeed succeeded in tapping a universal source of energy that could produce free electrical power.
But in the face of all of this, the U.S. Patent Office refused to grant Moray a patent, first, because his device used a cold cathode in the tubes (the patent examiner asserted it was common knowledge that a heated cathode was necessary to obtain electrons) and, second, because he failed to identify the source of the energy. All sorts of irrelevant patents and devices were also presented as being infringed upon or duplicated by Moray’s work. Each of these objections was patiently answered and nullified by Moray; nonetheless, the patent has still not been issued to this day, although the Morays still keep the patent application current.
John Moray, who operates the Research Institute in Salt Lake City, has been trying to continue his father’s work since the basic unit was destroyed by a Russian double agent. Dr. Moray himself died in May 1974.
Gabriel Kron and the Negative Resistor
At the time of his death, Gabriel Kron was considered by some the greatest “non-linear” scientist ever produced by the United States.
A negative resistor is defined as any component or function or process that receives energy in unusable or disordered form and outputs that energy in usable, ordered form, where that is the net function performed. We specifically do not include “differential” negative resistors such as the tunnel diode, thyristor, and magnetron which dissipate and disorder more energy overall than they order in their “negative resistance” regimes.
It appears that the availability of the Heaviside energy component surrounding any portion of the circuit may be the long sought secret to Gabriel Kron’s “open path” that enabled him to produce a true negative resistor in the 1930s, as the chief scientist for General Electric on the U.S. Navy contract for the Network Analyzer at Stanford University. Kron was never permitted to release how he made his negative resistor, but did state that, when placed in the Network Analyzer, the generator could be disconnected because the negative resistor would power the circuit. This negative resistor, one might add, was developed at the expense of the U.S. Taxpayer.
Since a negative resistor converges surrounding energy and diverges it into the circuit, it appears that Kron’s negative resistor gathered energy from the Heaviside component of energy flow as an “open path” flow of energy — connecting together the local vicinities of any two separated circuit components — that had been discarded by previous electrodynamicists following Lorentz. Hence Kron referred to it as the “open path.” Kron describes this as follows: “…the missing concept of “open-paths” (the dual of “closed-paths”) was discovered, in which currents could be made to flow in branches that lie between any set of two nodes. (Previously — following Maxwell — engineers tied all of their open-paths to a single datum point, the ‘ground’). That discovery of open-paths established a second rectangular transformation matrix… which created ‘lamellar’ currents…” “A network with the simultaneous presence of both closed and open paths was the answer to the author’s years-long search.”
A true negative resistor appears to have been developed by Kron. He described his apparent success in 1945 stating: “When only positive and negative real numbers exist, it is customary to replace a positive resistance by an inductance and a negative resistance by a capacitor (since none or only a few negative resistances exist on practical network analyzers).” Apparently Kron was required to insert the words “none or” in that statement. He also wrote that: “Although negative resistances are available for use with a network analyzer,…” suggesting in rather certain terms that negative resistors were available for use on the network analyzer.
University of Moscow Scientists tested Overunity devices in 1930s
In the 1930s Russian scientists (Mandelstam et al.) at the University of Moscow and supporting agencies developed and tested parametric oscillator generators exhibiting COP > 1.0. The theory, results, pictures, etc. are in both the Russian and French literature, with many references cited in this particular translation. Apparently the work was never resurrected after WW II.
Other pertinent Russian references include:
Mandelstam, L.I.; and N.D. Papaleksi, “On the parametric excitation of electric oscillations,” Zhurnal Teknicheskoy Fiziki, 4(1), 1934, p. 5-29
Mandelstam, L. and N. Papalexi, “On resonance phenomena with frequency distribution,” Z.f. Phys., No. 72, 1931, p. 223
“Concerning asynchronous excitation of oscillations,” Zhurnal Tekhnicheskoi Fiziki, 4(1), 1934, p. TBD
“Concerning asynchronous excitation of oscillations,” Zhurnal Tekhnicheskoi Fiziki, 4(1), 1934
“Concerning nonstationary processes occurring in the case of resonance phenomena of the second class,” Zhurnal Tekhnicheskoi Fiziki, 4(1), 1934
Andronov, A. “The limiting cycles of Poincare and the theory of self-maintained oscillations,” Comptes-Rendus, Vol. 189, 1929, p. 559.
and A. Witt, “On the mathematical theory of self-excitations,” Comptes-Rendus, Vol. 190, 1930, p. 256
“On the mathematical theory of self-excitation systems with two degrees of freedom,” Zhurnal Tekhnicheskioi Fiziki, 4(1), 1934
“Discontinuous periodic movements and theory of multivibrators of Abraham and Bloch,” Bull. De l’Acad. Ed Sc. De l”URSS, vol. 189, 1930.
Chaikin, S., “Continuous and ‘discontinuous’ oscillations,” Zhurnal Prikladnoi Fiziki, Vol. 7, 1930, p. 6.
and A. Witt, , “Drift in a case of small amplitudes,” Zhurnal Teknicheskoi Fiziki, 1(5), 1931, p. 428.
and N. Kaidanowski, “Mechanical relaxation oscillations,” Zhurnal Teknicheskoi Fiziki, Vol. 3, 1933, p. 1.
The Original Point-Contact Transistor
The original point-contact transistor often behaved in true negative resistor fashion, but was never understood. The point-contact transistor was simply bypassed by advancing to other transistor types more easily manufactured and with less manufacturing variances. Point-contact transistors can easily be developed into true negative resistors enabling COP> 1.0 circuits.
Burford and Verner (p.281) state that: “…the theory underlying their function is imperfectly understood even after almost a century… although the very nature of these units limits them to small power capabilities, the concept of small-signal behavior, in the sense of the term when applied to junction devices, is meaningless, since there is no region of operation wherein equilibrium or theoretical performance is observed. Point-contact devices may therefore be described as sharply nonlinear under all operating conditions.”
Overunity device installed in Minuteman Missile – patented by Westinghouse
A frequency converter using 64 transistor stages and similar sophisticated feedforward and feedback mechanisms was placed in the original Minuteman missile, then deliberately modified to stop its demonstrated COP > 1.0 performance. After much investigation, it was found that the units were putting out some 105% as much energy as they received. Some were exhibiting COP = 1.15. Very quietly, Westinghouse engineers then obtained several patents surrounding the technology, but no further mention of it appears in the literature although DeSantis et al. showed that feedback systems with a multipower open loop chain can produce COP > 1.0 performance. Some of these patents are listed below:
Andreatta, J.H. “High Power Switching Amplifier Wherein Energy is Transferred to a Tuned Circuit During Both Half Cycles,” U.S. Patent No. 3,239,771, Mar. 8, 1966
Dennis Jr., T.L. “Highly Efficient Semiconductor Switching Amplifier,” U.S. Patent No. 3,239,772, Mar. 8, 1966
DeSantis R.M. et al., “On the Analysis of Feedback Systems With a Multipower Open Loop Chain,” Oct. 1973, AD 773188, available through the U.S. National Technical Information System.
Morrison, H.J. “Square Wave Driven Power Amplifier,” U.S. Patent No. 3,815,030, June 4, 1974.
The Astronauts’ Magnetic Boots
In the original magnetic boots for astronauts developed by Raduset al. at Westinghouse, the magnetic fields themselves — from permanent magnets — were simply switched! The astronaut could pick up his foot by simply switching off the permanent magnetic fields easily. They switched on again when he placed the foot down. He did not have to carry a huge battery around with him, to furnish enormous current to do that. And the magnets had a memory. (So far as is known, even today no one tells you that in many virgin magnets fresh from the factory, their very first use conditions them with a memory! That fact can be used, for example, to create magnets whose fields appear normal, but which deviate from the normal behavior of ordinary magnets, including produce anomalies in their magnetic fields.
It can easily be seen that, when one can switch a permanent magnet’s fields easily, and the magnet also has a built-in memory as did the Radus magnets, then with a little ingenuity in switching one could use such switchable magnets to produce a self-switching, self-powered permanent magnet motor. The magnet, being a permanent dipole, is already a particular kind of “free energy generator”, since it continuously gates magnetic energy directly from the vacuum due to its asymmetry in the energetic vacuum flux.
The entire subject of making permanent magnets with memories, and how to use such in operational systems, is still a largely unexplored, extremely obscure territory. In fact, most researchers are not even aware that the phenomenon exists. Some references on this topic are listed below:
Astleford, Jr., J. and R. J. Radus, “Distribution Transformer with Zero-Percent Impedance,” Westinghouse Engineering, 23(5), Sept. 1963, p. 148-151
“Zero Impedance Distribution Transformer,” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus & Systems, 83(9), Sept. 1964, p. 918-926
Hangar, A.W. and A. A. Rosener, “The use of permanent magnets in zero-gravity mobility and restraint “footwear” concept,” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. MAG-6, No. 3, Sept. 1970, p. 464-467. These crude “shuffler” boots are a contrast to the elegant Westinghouse/Radus “stepping” boots earlier developed and used by NASA.
“Human fly has magnetic sole,” Electrical Engineering, Apr. 1963, p. 294.
Radus, R.J and W.G. Evans, “Apparatus Responsive to Direct Quantities,” U.S. Patent No. 2,892,155, June 23, 1959.
Radus, R.J., “Permanent Magnet Flux Transfer Principle,” Internal Westinghouse paper, date unknown
Radus, R.J., “Permanent-Magnet Circuit using a ‘Flux-Transfer’ principle,” Engineers’ Digest, date unknown (July 1963?), p. 86.
Hitachi Engineers confirm Overunity Process
Applications by Japanese inventor Teruo Kawai of adroit self-switching of the magnetic path in magnetic motors results in approximately doubling the COP. Modification of an ordinary magnetic engine of COP < 0.5 will not produce COP > 1.0. However, modification of available high efficiency (COP = 0.6 to 0.8) engines to use the Kawai process does result in engines exhibiting COP = 1.2 to 1.6. Two Kawai-modified Hitachi engines were rigorously tested by Hitachi engineers and produced COP = 1.4 and COP = 1.6 respectively. The Kawai process, which can be constructed directly from the Patent with appropriate switching (e.g. photon), and several other Japanese overunity systems appear to have been blocked from further development and marketing.
Bearden, T.E., “Energetics Update and Summary,” Part I, Explore, 7(6), 1997, p. 60-67; Part II, Explore, 7(7), 1997, p. 53-56; Part III, Explore, 8(1), 1997, p. 53-56; Part IV,Explore, 8(3), 1997, p. 56-63
“The Master Principle of EM Overunity and the Japanese Overunity Engines,” Infinite Energy, 1(5&6), Nov. 1995-Feb. 1996, p. 38-55.
“Energy Flow, Collection, and Dissipation in Overunity EM Devices,” Proceedings of the 4th International Energy Conference, Denver, Colorado, May 23-27, 1997, p. 5-51
Kawai, Teruo, ” Motive Power Generating Device,” U.S. Patent No. 5,436,518. Jul. 25, 1995.
The Magnetic Wankel Engine
The Magnetic Wankel engine should also be capable of COP > 1.0and closed-loop self-powering, but apparently it has also been suppressed, as have all Japanese COP > 1.0 EM systems.
Bearden, T.E., “The Master Principle of EM Overunity and the Japanese Overunity Engines,” Infinite Energy, 1(5&6), Nov. 1995-Feb. 1996, p. 38-55
“The Master Principle of Overunity and the Japanese Overunity Engines: A New Pearl Harbor?”
The Virtual Times, website http://www.hsv.com, January 1996.
Howard Johnson has built many novel linear and rotary motors and at least one self-powering magnetic rotary device that was later stolen in a mysterious break-in at his laboratory. Johnson uses a bidirectional “two particle” theory of magnetic flux lines that can be justified by Whittaker’s earlier work showing the internal bidirectional energy flows in all potentials and fields. He also utilizes controlled spin-waves and self-initiated precise exchange forces, which are known to momentarily produce bursts of very strong forcefields.
His approach is to use highly nonlinear assemblies of magnets that initiate the foregoing phenomena at very precise points in the rotation cycle. In short, he seeks to produce precisely located and directed sudden magnetic forces, using self-initiated nonlinear magnetic phenomena. This is analogous to what the Wankel engine did using the Lenz law effect by sharply interrupting a weak current in an external coil. The Lenz law effect and other very abrupt field changes momentarily produce not only an amplified Poynting energy flow component, but also an amplified Heaviside energy flow component as well. Some relevant references include:
Cullity, B.D, Introduction to Magnetic Materials, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1972
Gurevich, A.G. and G.A. Melkov, Magnetization Oscillations and Waves, CRC Press, 1996
L’vov, V.S., Wave Turbulence Under Parametric Excitation: Applications to Magnets, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994
L’vov, V.S. and L.A. Prozorova, “Spin Waves Above the Threshold of Parametric Excitation,” in A.S. Borovik-Romanov and S.K. Sinha, (Eds.), Spin Waves and Magnetic Excitations, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1988.
Floyd Sweet’s Vacuum Triode Amplifier
Sweet’s solid state vacuum triode used specially conditioned barium ferrite magnetics whose H-field was in self-oscillation. The device produced a COP = 1.2 x 106 (that’s 1.2 million!), outputting some 500 watts for an input of only 33 milliwatts. Sweet never revealed his complete ELF self-oscillation conditioning procedure for the magnets. However, in ferromagnets, self-oscillations of (1) magnetization, (2) spin-waves above spin-wave instability threshold, and (3) magnons are known at frequencies from about 1 kHz to 1 MHz. Under controlled conditions, the apparatus also exhibited anti-gravity properties, producing a weight reduction of 90% in one experiment.
It may be of interest that Kron was a mentor of Sweet, who was his protégé. Sweet, who is now deceased, worked for the same company, but not on the Network Analyzer project. However, he almost certainly knew the secret of Kron’s “open path” discovery and his negative resistor. For an entry into this technical area with detailed reference citations, see:
Gurevich, A.G. and G.A. Melkov, Magnetization Oscillations and Waves, CRC Press, 1996, p. 279.
L’vov, V.S., “Wave Turbulence Under Parametric Excitation: Applications to Magnets,” Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994, p. 214-218, 226-234, 281-289.
Sweet, F. and T. E. Bearden, “Utilizing Scalar Electromagnetics to Tap Vacuum Energy,” Proceedings of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference (IECEC ‘91), Boston, Massachusetts, 1991, p. 370-375.
Dr. Deborah Chung’s Negative Resistor
Dr. Deborah D. L. Chung, professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at University at Buffalo (UB), is the leading “smart materials” scientist in this country, and a scientist of international reputation. She holds the Niagara Mohawk Chair in Materials Research at UB and is internationally recognized for her work in smart materials and carbon composites. On July 9, 1998 in a keynote address at the Fifth International Conference on Composites Engineering in Las Vegas, she reported having observed apparent negative resistance in interfaces between layers of carbon fibers in a composite material. The negative resistance was observed in a direction perpendicular to the fiber layers.
Her team tested the negative resistance effect thoroughly, for a year in the laboratory. There is no question at all about it being a true negative resistor. Dr. Chung submitted a paper describing the research to a peer-reviewed journal, and the University filed a patent application. Several negative articles appeared quickly in the popular scientific press. Conventional scientists were quickly quoted as proclaiming that negative resistance was against the laws of physics and thermodynamics. Others thought perhaps the UB researchers had made a little battery and were unaware of it.
On the web site for the University of Buffalo, it was announced that the invention would be offered for commercial licensing. A Technical Data Package was available for major companies interested in licensing and signing the proper non-disclosure agreements. Shortly thereafter this was no longer true, the data package was no longer available, and there was an indefinite hold on licensing and commercialization. It is still on hold as of this writing.
Dr. Randell Mills and Blacklight Power
In early 1989, Dr. Randell Mills discovered that the hydrogen atomcould be collapsed below its ground state and give up significant amounts of energy. At first, it was thought that he had discovered a new form of cold fusion. However, he showed that his discovery was indeed a new form of energy from the collapse of the hydrogen atom (which he calls hydrinos). An early report showed as much as 1,000 times as much energy out as input energy. This excellent amount of thermal energy was attributed to the catalytic reactions that provide a receptor for the energy emitted when the hydrogen collapses. The newsletter Fusion Facts named Dr. Mills as Scientist of the year for his work.
U.S. Patent 6,024,935 was granted in 2000 to Dr. Randell Mills and his company, BlackLight Power, Inc. The patent was unusually large with 60 pages and 499 claims. The patent is for Lower-Energy Hydrogen Methods and Structure. Information about this new field is on the Web site http://www.blacklightpower.com/index.html
The phenomenon of cold fusion was first reported by Utah researchers Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman, and has been successfully replicated in several hundred experiments in laboratories around the world in spite of a huge disinformation campaign. The situation with cold fusion is akin to the early days of aspirin. It works, but “conventional science” does not know how or why – ergo it is a threat to not only entrenched economic interests such as the centralized power industry, but also to the orthodox scientific community.
Nuclear engineer Dr. Thomas Bearden has proposed several novel reactions, including the formation of time-reversal zones, which do explain cold fusion’s mechanism. This is the because these novel experimental anomalies are in fact caused by using time as an energy source by transducing time-energy into spatial energy. Transducing one microsecond per second of time into spatial EM energy yields nearly 1011 watts of power. It can thus be seen that time itself is potentially a huge source of power, and could well be the energy source of choice for the latter part of this century.
An apparent variation on cold fusion, the Patterson Power Cell uses a thin film to achieve the same spectral results, a finding apparently confirmed by Professor George Miley at the University of Illinois. According to Dr. Eugene Mallove, a noted scientist and cold fusion analyst, during a test conducted by Motorola, the giant US electronics manufacturer, on the Patterson Power Cell. “One cell produced 20 watts continuously with zero input power. It is under non-disclosure, but I have that raw data and there is no doubt that in numerous such tests have seen these effects where a thermal difference of lets say 15 degrees centigrade persisted for eleven hours in a cell no bigger than my thumb. You had the functional equivalent of a twenty Watt light bulb heating water.”
COP’s of over 1200 have been reported from the Patterson Power Cell. Patents to James A. Patterson and articles include the following:
. Patterson, J.A “System for Electrolysis of Liquid Electrolyte,” U.S. Patent No. 5,372,688, Dec. 13, 1994; “Method for Electrolysis of Water to Form Metal Hydride,” U.S. Patent No. 5,318,675, June 7, 1994; “Metal Plated Microsphere Catalyst,” U.S. Patent No. 5,036,031, July 30, 1991; “Improved Process for Producing Uniformly Plated Microspheres,” U.S. Patent No. 4,943,355, July 24, 1990
Cravens, D. “System for Electrolysis,” U.S. Patent No. 5,607,563, March 4, 1997.
The foregoing examples are but a few of the known legitimate overunity systems. Lack of space precludes discussion of other proven systems by pioneers such as Bedini, Watson, Fogal, Nelson, Weigand, Lawandy, McKie etc.
The following is a general bibliography on this subject:
Heaviside, O., “On the Forces, Stresses, and Fluxes of Energy in the Electromagnetic Field,” Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond., 183A, 1893, p. 423-480
Heaviside, O., a series of papers in The Electrical Experimenter.
Whittaker, E.T., “On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics,”Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355
“On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by Means of Two Scalar Potential Functions,” Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., Series 2, Vol. 1, 1904, p. 367-372. The latter paper was published in 1904 and orally delivered in 1903.
See particularly the paper by Evans et al. which for the first time deals very deeply with Whittaker’s two cited papers. M. W. Evans, L. B. Crowell et al., “On the Representation of the Electromagnetic Field in Terms of Two Whittaker Scalar Potentials,” 1999 (in preparation). This is a group paper by 19 members and fellows of the AIAS (Alpha Foundation Institute for Advanced Study).
Alger, P.L., (Ed.), The Life and Times of Gabriel Kron, or Walking Around the World, and Tensors, Mohawk Development Services, Inc., Schenectady, NY, 1969.
Hoffman, B., “Kron’s Non-Riemannian Electrodynamics,” Reviews of Modern Physics, 21(3), 1949, p. 535-540.
Stigant, S.A. “Gabriel Kron on Tensor Analysis, A bibliographical record,” BEAMA Journal, Aug. 1948, (this includes a bibliography of Kron’s publications.)
More recent papers include the following:
Bearden, T.E., “Use of Regauging and Multivalued Potentials to Achieve Overunity EM Engines: Concepts and Specific Engine Examples,” Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference “New Ideas in Natural Sciences,” St. Petersburg, Russia, June 17-22, 1996; Part I: Problems of Modern Physics, 1996, p. 277-297
“Use of Asymmetrical Regauging and Multivalued Potentials to Achieve Overunity Electromagnetic Engines,” Journal of New Energy, 1(2), Summer 1996, p. 60-78
“The Master Principle of EM Overunity and the Japanese Overunity Engines,” Infinite Energy, 1(5&6), Nov. 1995-Feb. 1996, p. 38-55.
“On Extracting Electromagnetic Energy from the Vacuum”, July 2000
“Bedini’s Method for Forming Negative Resistors in Batteries”, 2000
Burke, H.E. ,Handbook of Magnetic Phenomena, Van Nostrand, New York, 1985.
Cole, D.C. and H.E. Puthoff, “Extracting Energy and Heat from the Vacuum,” Physical Review E, 48(2), Aug. 1993, p. 1562-1565.
Kaganov, M.I. and V.M. Tsukernik, The Nature of Magnetism, 1985, Mir Publishers, 1985.
Plotkin, H., “The War Against Cold Fusion: What’s Really Behind It?” San Francisco Gate, May 17, 1999. Webster at: www.sfgate.com
Puthoff, H.E. “Source of Vacuum Electromagnetic Zero-Point Energy,” Physical Review A, 40(9), Nov. 1, 1989, p. 4857-4862.
Though it will never power anything of substance, on December 31, 1996 U.S. Patent Number 5,590,031 was awarded to Franklin B. Mead Jr. and Jack Nachamkin for a system for converting electromagnetic radiation energy to electrical energy. This is actually a proof of principle (using the Casimir effect) in that it definitely proves that there are ways to extract usable EM energy from the vacuum. It only takes one white crow to prove that not all crows are black! And that is definitely a fine little white crow.
But the most ubiquitous gate of all for “free energy” is the simple little source dipole. The dipole becomes a universal kind of negative resistor extracting EM energy from the vacuum. Specifically it absorbs energy from the time-domain (complex plane) and emits the energy in real 3-space. Unfortunately, lack of space precludes further discussion of this.
There are two magic rules in the scalar electrogravitational business:
(1) When ordinary EM force fields are interfered or summed so that they produce vector zero, they produce stress of vacuum (5-potential). One component of this 5-potential is the 4-space G-potential. Since bleed-off as a gradient of this 4-space G-potential is all that is allowed, then the EM destructive interference/zero summation bleeds-off to produce gravitational force field.
In short, destructive interference of EM waves or force fields produces gravitational force field on detecting/coupled particles.
(2) When electrogravitational fields are interfered/summed to produce vector zero, this destructive interference/zero summation bleeds-off to produce ordinary electromagnetic force field.
In short, destructive interference of scalar EM waves or fields (electrogravitational waves or fields) produces electromagnetic force fields on detecting/coupled particles.
Thus the age-old scientific dream of direct engineering of gravitational field – and of space-time itself – has now become reality. To start, one simply makes an EM vector zero and varies its stress intensity and internal pattern of summed components. One also varies the reference potential at which the patterned EM stress zero is created, and the frequency of internal component variation.
Here is the secret of antigravity:
The “electrical charge” of a charged particle – such as one of the orbital electrons of an atom or one of the protons of its nucleus – represents a difference in flux intensity (potential) between the local particle and its ambient vacuum.
It’s the continual bleed-off of gravitational charge as electrical charge.
If that bleed-off is reversed or stopped, a drastic effect on the gravitational potential and charge ensues. The 5-potential and 5-charge have become 4-G-potential and 4-d-charge respectively.
Thus “charging” an object with its scalar EM pattern charges it gravitationally.
Now the only “bleed-off channel” is through the 4-G force field.
Further, in a nucleus, the nucleons continually change back and forth between proton and neutron, so the electrical charge is “spread” throughout the nucleus and shared by all the nucleons.
Further, each element (actually each isotope) has its own unique “ensemble pattern” of Fourier expansion scalar frequencies, amplitudes, etc. This pattern, of course, can be reproduced artificially and transmitted by modified EM transmitters (i.e., by scalar EM transmitters). There is, however, a sort of “master key” scalar EM (EG) pattern for nucleons (protons and neutrons which are changing back and forth into each other by exchange of virtual charge currents).
If one “reverses the charge” by inverting this pattern, and then “charges up a mass with the inverted charge,” to the external observer the charging mass just gets lighter and lighter, and its inertia gets less and less. Eventually it seems (to him) to acquire negative mass and negative inertia, and just accelerate away from the Earth. The object “falls upward” instead of “falling downwards.”
There are also some weird time effects; that object can be moving slower through time than the laboratory observer, or even be moving backwards through time with respect to the laboratory observer. (Don’t believe everything they taught you in relativity; few of those involved had ever engineered a single general relativistic situation. Nothing they teach in GR is based on direct experiment. Most of what they teach is alreadyexperimentally proven to be in error.).
Inside the pattern itself, it’s just a quite normal pattern. No change in or on the object seems to have occurred, to it, if the charge is evenly accomplished throughout the object. Indeed, to an internal observer it’s the external environment that seems to have suddenly gotten very strange!
For example it appears that this is what occasionally happens to a hapless aircraft or ship that experiences anomalous spatiotemporal difficulty in an occasionally scalar-active area such as the infamous Bermuda triangle. Under the right conditions, the vehicle’s gravitational charge is affected by anomalous changes in the scalar radiation from the Earth in that area. To the passengers and crew, it is the external environment that suddenly seems weird. In addition, on-board EM and inertial instruments may be affected, and other electrogravitational effects may also occur, due to differing rates of charge in different parts of the vehicle.).
“Reversing or lowering the EG-charge” is controlled by means of biasing the ground potential on the ensemble pattern transmitters. These transmitters can even be on-board the vehicle itself because, in scalar EM, to transmit is also to receive. A vehicle can change its own bias potential (with respect to local vacuum G-potential) by properly transmitting, which translates to “receiving potential charge.” The charge current can either be negative or positive (its potential can be lowered or increased vis-a-vis that of the vacuum.)
By fiddling with this, you can float metal. Or a human body. Or a battleship. Or a high-speed vehicle containing a crew.
You can even “dematerialize it” or “teleport it.”
In the “Philadelphia Experiment” in the 1940s, the test ship, the minesweeper IX97 (originally the yacht “Martha’s Vineyard”) and its personnel were “blasted” into this strange realm, instead of making a gentle, controlled entry. Nicola Tesla, virtually on his deathbed, had instructed the scientific team involved how to do this. (See Bob Beckwith’s book “Hypotheses” – Beckwith was a GE scientist on the team). The results of this experiment, which produced inadvertent time travel from the experimental ship’s location to another location and back and produced horrendous results (crew members were fused through the deck etc.), are slated for de-classification in 2002, according to private sources.
Suppose one materially lowers or reverses (adjusts) the gravitational charge (gravitation 5-potential with zero-summed EM to throttle EM bleed-off). At zero gravitational charge, to the external observer, the vehicle seems to have no mass and no inertia. It is capable of extreme accelerations, right angle turns at full speed, etc. It is also right on the point of dematerialization, and appears to be a vehicle of light.
If the pilot wishes to “land,” of course he must adjust the charge on the vehicle.
If the pilot wishes to “dematerialize” or “teleport,” again he must adjust the charge on the vehicle.
If he wishes to go “hyperspatial,” again he must adjust the charge on the vehicle and allow the proper bleed-off to produce a hyperspatial force. That is done with nested zero summations and nested patterns of scalar EM transmission.
That is, he can charge and bias the vehicle in multiple, nested zero-summations simultaneously.
That is necessary for hyperspatial control and travel.
Note that in lower hyperspace the vehicle can do some very strange things. Such as “penetrate” solid matter (actually, it goes “around” the 3-space matter in a 4th Kaluza-Klein space).
One would expect to see such vehicles glowing. Their various surface features and mechanisms might also appear to be glowing or revolving lights, etc.
They could exhibit incredible “aerodynamic performance,” seemingly in the atmosphere.
Actually they would not be moving “through” the atmosphere at all, but through a higher space outside each particle of atmosphere.
They could seem to materialize and dematerialize.
They could seem to plunge into the ocean or rise out of it.
They could even seem to operate under the ocean or inside the Earth itself.
Such anomalous vehicle performances have been seen all over the world, particularly since a few years after WWII.
The U.S. government, the Soviet Union (and probably other nations of Earth) are operating such vehicles now in great secrecy (as are our ET visitors).
This however isn’t our true “government/government.” Instead, it’s the “control group/government.” It’s government at the operational level, but at higher level it belongs to certain control groups who have penetrated our government’s vitals and taken over all such projects.
Electrogravitation seems to have been started time and time again in the U.S. government. Each time, it seems to have either been violently squelched or subvertedto mysterious control by sources inside the government that are not actually government.
In any such “subverted” project, the individuals involved in the operations are trulygovernment employees who fully believe their highly classified project is controlled by the U.S. government. They think the higher government officials with need-to-know are fully cognizant of the project.
Actually that assumption will be false. At the top of the project, the project does not report to the U.S. government. It reports to control group representatives. Utmost secrecy classification is used as a cloak to disguise the project even from higher U.S. government officials who are in the direct chain and possess the appropriate certified clearances and need-to-know.
Thus one has to be careful when he asks, “Doesn’t our own government have such things?” The answer is both yes and no.
Our legitimate government/government is not allowed to have these vehicles, or know of them.
Our illegitimate control group/government has had them for some decades.
Townsend Brown’s Technology of Electrogravitics
[see http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com.au/2009/02/brown-bahnson-adamski-electric-ufo.html ]
In the mid 1920’s Townsend Brown discovered that electric charge and gravitational mass are coupled. He found that when he charged a capacitor to a high voltage, it had a tendency to move toward its positive pole. This became known as the Biefeld-Brown effect. His important findings were opposed by conventional minded physicists of his time.
The Pearl Harbor Demonstration. Around 1953, Brown conducted a demonstration for top brass from the military. He flew a pair of 3-foot diameter discs around a 50-foot course tethered to a central pole. Energized with 150,000 volts and emitting ions from their leading edge, they attained speeds of several hundred miles per hour. The subject was thereafter classified.
Project Winterhaven. Brown submitted a proposal to the Pentagon for the development of a Mach 3 disc shaped electrogravitic fighter craft. Drawings of its basic design are shown in one of his patents. They are essentially large-scale versions of his tethered test discs.
Aviation Studies International. They are a think tank that produces intelligence studies for the military. In 1956 they issued a report entitled “Electrogravitics Systems” which called for major government funding to develop Townsend Brown’s electrogravitics technology and make Project Winterhaven a reality. The report stated that most of the aerospace was actively researching this antigravity technology. It named companies such as: Glenn-Martin, Convair, Sperry-Rand, Bell, Sikorsky, Douglas, and Hiller. Other companies who entered the field included Lockheed and Hughes Aircraft, the latter being regarded by some as the world leader in the field. This report was initially classified. Dr. Paul LaViolette accidentally discovered it in 1985 when he found it listed in the Library of Congress card catalog, but the document was missing from their collection. Their staff made a computer search and found that the only other known copy was located at Wright Patterson Air Force Base. LaViolette later obtained it from Wright Patterson through interlibrary loan. It is now published in the bookElectrogravitics Systems, T. Valone (editor).”
Northrop’s Wind Tunnel Tests. In 1968, engineers at the Northrop Corp. performed wind tunnel tests in which they charged the leading edge of a wing to a high voltage. They were investigating how this technique could be used beneficially to soften the sonic boom of aircraft. Hence they were performing large-scale tests on Brown’s electrogravitic concept. Brown’s R&D company had previously made known that sonic boom softening would be a beneficial side effect of this electrogravitic propulsion technique. Interestingly, Northrop later became the prime contractor for the B-2 bomber.
The B-2 Bomber. In 1992, black project scientists disclosed to Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine that the B-2 electrostatically charges its exhaust to a high voltage and also charges the leading edge of its wing-like body to the opposite polarity. This information led Dr. LaViolette in 1993 to reverse engineer the B-2’s propulsion system. He proposed that the B-2 is essentially a realization of Townsend Brown’s patented electrogravitic aircraft. The B-2 is capable of taking off under normal jet propulsion. But when airborne, its electrogravitic drive may be switched on for added thrust. This system can only be turned on under dry conditions. If the B-2’s dielectric wing were to become wet, the applied high voltage charge would short out, which explains why the B-2 is unable to fly in the rain. Brown’s electrogravitic experiments and a field theory that LaViolette had developed (1985, 1994a) both suggest that the B-2’s high voltage space charge differential sets up a gravity gradient from fore to aft that assists the craft’s forward movement. LaViolette’s theory suggests that the aftward movement of charges around the B-2 may contribute an even larger gravitational thrust effect, an effect also seen in Brown’s electrokinetic experiments.
With electrogravitic drive, the B-2 is able to drastically cut its fuel consumption, possibly even to zero under high-speed flight conditions. The commercial airline industry could dramatically benefit with this technology, which would not only substantially increase the miles per gallon fuel efficiency of jet airliners, but would also permit high-speed flight that would dramatically cut flight time.
The movement of the charges may contribute an even larger thrust effect. The same would apply to the B-2 bomber.
In 1969, Toronto inventor Sid Hurwich demonstrated his gravitational field manipulation device to the Toronto police. Inspector Bill Dolton, the Chief of the Holdup Squad, contributed his service revolver for the demonstration. The revolver was then frozen onto the table, and he was unable to lift the pistol or pull the trigger. After a half hour or so in the room for the experiment, clocks and watches had not changed their time from the time of entry, showing a strong space-time curvature.
The device was subsequently used in the Israeli’s raid on Entebbe, Uganda on July 3rd, 1976 and later described in the Vancouver Sun Times’ Weekend Magazine December 17th, 1977, p.17. “Israel’s Secret Weapon.”
In several fascinating papers published in the year 2000, Brazilian Physics ProfessorFran De Aquino shows that by manipulation of the gravitational field he was able to: extract energy directly from the gravitational field, and levitate a 77 lb. toroidal object two feet in diameter using extra-low frequency radiation. Professor De Aquino is a Professor in the Physics Department at Maranhao State University, S. Luis/MA, Brazil. Professor De Aquino advises that the papers were peer reviewed by 36 scientists, up to and including a Nobel laureate.
The Searl Electrogravity Disc and Russian Experiments. This device, developed over 40 years ago by the British engineer John Searl, consisted of a segmented rotating disc each of whose segments was supported by a set of cylindrical permanent magnets rolling within a circumferential track. It is alleged to have achieved complete lift off. In the past few years two Russian scientists associated with the Russian National Academy of Sciences, Roschin and Godin, have built a simplified version of the Searl Disc that confirms its anomalous weight loss effects. They spun a 1 m diameter disc at 600 rpm and obtained a 35% reduction in its weight while at the same time generating a 7 kilowatt excess electric power output.
The Podkletnov Gravity Shield and Project Greenglow. A research team in Finland led by Dr. Podkletnov was experimenting with a rotating superconducting disc that was floated on a repelling magnetic field generated by a series of electromagnets. In 1996, they reported that the disc was able to partially screen the Earth’s gravitational field, reducing the weight of objects positioned above the disc by two percent. Greater weight reductions are envisioned by stacking several discs over one another. Besides propulsion, there are obvious applications to tapping the resulting gravity differential for mechanical power generation. In the last few years, BAE Systems a company formed by the merger of British Aerospace with Marconi Electronic Systems, has been researching the Podkletnov gravity shield. They are doing this work under Project Greenglow, a project they have set up to investigate the feasibility of nonconventional technologies.
Gravito Inertial Lift System. Aerospace engineer Jim Cox has recently improved on the Dean Drive, an inertial propulsion engine that was patented in May 1959. He reports tests demonstrating an upward thrust equal to 90% of the engine’s weight. It uses a 1/4 horsepower motor to revolve two counter-rotating rotors, each about 1 cm in diameter, spinning them at about 600 rpm for a power consumption of about 200 watts. The lift is gotten by sinusoidally oscillating the rotors up and down and coupling them to the lift platform on their upward stroke. He obtains about 45 pounds of lift force per horsepower (~55 pounds/kW). He plans by the end of the year to have a freely lifting device that would be spun to 1200 rpm with a 1/2 horsepower motor drawing 400 watts. He estimates that using this technology a 200 horsepower automobile engine would be capable of generating a lift force of about 9000 pounds.
Kineto-baric Field Propulsion. German scientist Rudolph Zinsser discovered that sawtooth electromagnetic waves could be made to push distant objects. He produced a radio tube circuit that transmitted 45 megahertz radio waves having a sharp rise and gradual fall. His experiments demonstrated that these waves could exert impulses of up to 104 to 105 dyne seconds, which is equivalent to the application of about 1 to 3 ounces of force for a period of one second. He found that this force could be generated with an amazingly low input power, the output-force-to-input-power ratio surpassing that of conventional propulsion methods by several powers of ten. His projections imply a thrust of 1350 pounds force per kilowatt.
Field Thrust Experiments on Piezoelectrics. James Woodward, a physics professor at Cal State Fullerton, is conducting research that indicates that electromagnetic waves can induce lifting forces in piezoelectric ceramic media. His ideas are described in a 1994 U.S. patent and in a 1990 physics journal article. Woodward has conducted experiments that confirm this thrust effect in the audio frequency range (~10,000 Hertz), and his calculations suggest that it may be substantially increased at higher frequencies, with optimal performance being obtained in the microwave range (0.1 to 10 gigahertz). His work has received some support from Department of Energy.
Thanks to Dr. Paul LaViolette for permission to cite the summary of antigravity research he had presented to U.S. Senate staff (October 2000), and thanks to the many other anonymous sources.
LaViolette, P.A., “An Introduction to Subquantum Kinetics,” Parts I, II, and III Intl. J. General Systems, vol. 11 (4), 1985, pp. 281-345.
“Subquantum Kinetics”, Starlane Publications, Alexandria, VA, 1994a.
“The U.S. Antigravity Squadron,” in Electrogravitics Systems, edited by T. Valone, Integrity Research Institute, Washington, D.C., 1994b.
Roshchin, V.V. and S. M. Godin, “An Experimental Investigation of the Physical Effects in a Dynamic Magnetic System in a Dynamic Magnetic System,” Technical Physics Letters vol. 26 (12), 2000, pp. 1105-1107.
Valone, T. (ed.), Electrogravitics Systems, Integrity Research Institute, Washington, D.C., 1994.
Woodward, J., “A New Experimental Approach to Mach’s Principle and Relativistic Gravitation,” Foundations of Physics Letters, vol. 3(5), 1990.
Zinsser, R., “Mechanical Energy from Gravitational Anisotropy,” edited by T. Valone. Integrity Research Institute, Washington, D.C., 1989.
Brown, T.T. (http://www.soteria.com/brown/)
The summaries of two recent reports are included here as examples of serious thoughtful studies of the UFO phenomena. The first is the Sturrock/Rockefeller Report done in the United States and published in 1998. The second is the COMETA report done in France and published in 1999.
8.1 Sturrock/Rockefeller Report on Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports
In 1997, a workshop was organized by Dr. Peter Sturrock and the Society of Scientific Exploration and funded by Mr. Laurance S. Rockefeller to review physical evidence purported to be associated with UFO events. This was the first major review of these issues by the scientific community in nearly 3 decades and the results were reported in the national media. The abstract of the workshop proceedings (which was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration) is reprinted below. This is followed by theStanford University News Service Press release about the workshop proceedings. The full report of the proceedings is available from the Journal of Scientific Exploration and was later expanded in a book by Dr. Peter Sturrock in 1999.
Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports: The Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the Pocantico Conference center, Tarrytown, New York, September 29 – October 4, 1997
P. A. Sturrock, et al., Varian 302G, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4060
The purpose of this four-day workshop was to review purported physical evidence associated with UFO reports, with a view to assessing whether the further acquisition and investigation of such evidence is likely to help solve the UFO problem, namely the determination of the cause or causes of these reports.
Seven UFO investigators presented a variety of physical evidence that they claimed was associated with UFO reports: photographic evidence; luminosity estimates; radar evidence; interference with automobile functioning; interference with aircraft equipment; apparent gravitational or inertial effects; ground traces; injuries to vegetation; physiological effects on witnesses; and analysis of debris. There was in addition a presentation of investigations into recurrent phenomena that occur in the Hessdalen Valley in Norway.
A review panel was composed of nine scientists of diverse expertise and interests. The panel offered comments and criticisms concerning the investigations that were presented, and also prepared a summary of their overall response, with the following key elements:
o Concerning the case material presented by the investigators, the panel concluded that a few reported incidents may have involved rare but significant phenomena such as electrical activity, but there was no convincing evidence pointing to unknown physical processes or to the involvement of extraterrestrial intelligence.
o The panel nevertheless concluded that it would be valuable to carefully evaluate UFO reports since, whenever there are unexplained observations, there is the possibility that scientists will learn something new by studying these observations. However, to be credible, such evaluations must take place with a spirit of objectivity and a willingness to evaluate rival hypotheses.
o The best prospect for achieving a meaningful evaluation of relevant hypotheses is likely to come from the examination of physical evidence.
o The chances of a significant advance are considered to be greater now than at the time of the Colorado Project that led to the Condon Report thirty years ago, because of advances in scientific knowledge and technical capabilities, and in view of the example of a modest but effective UFO research project provided by the French space agency CNES.
Stanford University News Service News Release, 6/22/98 – Scientific panel concludes some UFO evidence worthy of study
In the first independent review of UFO phenomena since 1970, a panel of scientists has concluded that some sightings are accompanied by physical evidence that deserves scientific study. But the panel was not convinced that any of this evidence points to a violation of known natural laws or the involvement of an extraterrestrial intelligence.
The review was organized and directed by Peter Sturrock, professor of applied physics at Stanford University, and supported administratively by the Society for Scientific Exploration, which provides a forum for research into unexplained phenomena. The international review panel of nine physical scientists responded to presentations by eight investigators of UFO reports, who were asked to present their strongest data. Von R. Eshleman, professor emeritus of electrical engineering at Stanford, co-chaired the panel.
Although UFO reports date back 50 years, the information gathered does not prove that either unknown physical processes or alien technologies are implicated. But it does include a sufficient number of intriguing and inexplicable observations, the panel concluded. “It may be valuable to carefully evaluate UFO reports to extract information about unusual phenomena currently unknown to science.” To be credible to the scientific community “such evaluations must take place with a spirit of objectivity and a willingness to evaluate rival hypotheses” that has so far been lacking, it added.
This conclusion differs from that reached by Dr. Edward U. Condon, director of the Colorado Project, in his 1968 UFO report. He concluded that “further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.” It is very similar, however, to the conclusion reached by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics’ Kuettner Report issued two years later, which advocated “a continuing, moderate-level [research] effort with emphasis on improved data collection by objective means and on high-quality scientific analysis.”
In the current study, the scientific panel focused on incidents involving some form of physical evidence, including photographic evidence, radar evidence, vehicle interference, interference with aircraft equipment, apparent gravitational or inertial effects, ground traces, injuries to vegetation, physiological effects on witnesses, and debris. Of particular concern are reports that UFO encounters may be hazardous to people’s health. Some witnesses have reportedly suffered radiation-type injuries. These reports led the panel to draw the attention of the medical community to the possible health risks involved.
The scientists found that some of the reported incidents may have been caused by rare natural phenomena, such as electrical activity high above thunderstorms or radar ducting (the trapping and conducting of radar waves by atmospheric channels). However, the panel found that some of the phenomena related to UFOs are not easy to explain in this fashion.
Further analysis of the evidence presented to the panel is unlikely to shed added light on the causes underlying the reports, the scientists said. Most current UFO investigations lack the level of rigor required by the scientific community, despite the initiative and dedication of the investigators involved. But new data, scientifically acquired and analyzed, could yield useful information and advance our understanding of the UFO problem, the panel said.
The reviewers also made the following observations:
o The UFO problem is not a simple one, and it is unlikely that there is any simple, universal answer.
o Whenever there are unexplained observations, there is the possibility that scientists will learn something new by studying them.
o Studies should concentrate on cases that include as much independent physical evidence as possible.
o Continuing contact between the UFO community and physical scientists could be productive.
o Institutional support for research in this area is desirable.
The review panel consisted of Von Eshleman; Thomas Holzer, High Altitude Observatory in Boulder, Colo.; Randy Jokipii, professor of planetary science, University of Arizona, Tucson; Francois Louange, managing director of Fleximage, Paris, France; H. J. Melosh, professor of planetary science, University of Arizona, Tucson; James J. Papike, professor of Earth and planetary sciences, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque; Guenther Reitz, German Aerospace Center, Institute for Aerospace Medicine, Cologne, Germany; Charles Tolbert, professor of astronomy, University of Virginia, Charlottesville; and Bernard Veyret, Bioelectromagnetics Laboratory, University of Bordeaux, France. Eshleman and Holzer served as co-chairs of the panel.
The UFO investigators who presented evidence were Richard Haines, Los Altos, Calif.; Illobrand von Ludwiger, Germany; Mark Rodeghier, Center for UFO Studies, Chicago; John Schuessler, Houston; Erling Strand, Ostfold College, Skjeberg, Norway; Michael Swords, professor of natural science, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo; Jacques Vallee, San Francisco; and Jean-Jacques Velasco, CNES, Toulouse, France.
The study was initiated by Laurance S. Rockefeller and supported financially by the LSR Fund.
By David F. Salisbury , e-mail: [email protected]
(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today)