LENR-to-Market Digest -- April 9, 2014
NRL Seawater to Fuel Program
My Dad & the World’s Most Accurate Atomic Clock
Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced | Interview | Taiwan
Blacklight announces sustained production of enormous power
• This Week in Free Energy™: April 3 | March 28 | March 20
YMNEE Fuel-Free Generator by ABK Capital Ltd.
Mats Lewan book on the E-Cat story: An Impossible Invention
Jeremiah Sturk to demo his magnet motor on Mt. Shasta
Sterling's first H-Cat calorimetric test points to anomalous heat | Protocol

  "Free Energy" 

News XML
- About
- Daily FE News
- Pure Energy Blog
- Features
- PESN Specials
- This Week in FE
- Free Energy Now
- Newsletter
- How you can help
- Submit  
- Subscribe

Energy Topics

Alt Fuels
 - BioDiesel
 - BioElectricity
 - Biomass
Body Electric
Brown's Gas
Cold Fusion
Electromagnetic OU
Fuel Cells
Fuel Efficiency
 - Electric Vehicles
 - Engines
 - Hydroxy
Gravity Motors
Human Powered
Joe Cells
Magnet Motors
Nucl. Remediation
Salt Water Mix
Solid State Gen.
Tesla Turbines
Thermal Electric
Waste to Energy
 - Water as Fuel
Wireless Electricity
Zero Point Energy
MORE . . .

Open Source
Freddy's Cell
Bedini SG
Safe Haven Villages
MORE . . .


Plastic and Energy
MORE . . .

OverUnity Forum
Discuss. Groups

Buyer Beware
- - - - - - - - - -
- Donate
- Contact





You are here: FreeEnergyNews.com > Directory > Newsletters > Future Energy eNews > Feb. 9, 2006

Future Energy eNews

Feb. 9, 2006
Reprinted with Permission


Future Energy eNews        IntegrityResearchInstitute.org        Feb.  9,  2006

1) Antigravity Patent Raises Physicist's Ire - National Geo criticizes Patent Office for doing its job
2) German Report on Alternative Energy Technologies - Selective report from a European view
3) Recipes for Alternative Science Renaissance - Dr. Maynard endorses IRI and has good ideas
4) Reaching the Point of No Return - Dr. Lovelock, father of Gaia, warns of climate change effects
5) Electrogravitics and Electrokinetics - Topic of presentation at Space Tech Forum by Dr. Valone

1) Antigravity Machine Patent Draws Physicists' Ire

A perpetual-motion machine may defy the laws of physics, but an Indiana inventor recently succeeded in having one patented.

On November 1, Boris Volfson of Huntington, Indiana, received U.S. Patent 6,960,975 for his design of an antigravity space vehicle.*


Volfson's craft is theoretically powered by a superconductor shield that changes the space-time continuum in such a way that it defies gravity. The design effectively creates a perpetual-motion machine, which physicists consider an impossible device.


Journalist Philip Ball reported on the newly patented craft in the current issue of the science journal Nature.

Robert Park, a consultant with the American Physical Society in Washington, D.C., warns that such dubious patents aren't limited to the antigravity concept.

"I might hear a complaint about a particular patent, and then I look into it," he explained. "More often than not it's a screwball patent. It's an old problem, but it has gotten worse in the last few years. The workload of the patent office has gone up enormously."

Some people might consider patents on unworkable products to be relatively harmless. Park, a physics professor at the University of Maryland at College Park, disagrees.

"The problem, of course, is that this deceives a lot of investors," he said. "You can't go out and find investors for a new invention until you can come up with a patent to show that if you put all this money into a concept, somebody else can't steal the idea.

"[Approving these kind of patents can] make it easier for scam artists to con people if they can get patents for screwball ideas."

Perpetual Quest

Perpetual-motion machines have long held special appeal for inventors—particularly during the concept's heyday around the turn of the 20th century.

Patent applications on such devices became so numerous that by 1911 the patent office instituted a rule that perpetual-motion machine concepts had to be accompanied by a model that could run in the office for a period of one year.

The model requirement has been discontinued, but the agency has remained skeptical of such applications.

"The patent office used to say that they didn't patent perpetual-motion machines, but it turned out that there really was no such rule," Park said.


A 1990 federal court ruling against inventor Joe Newman, who applied for a patent on a motor that he said could return more energy than it consumed, was interpreted as precluding patents for such devices.

But the verdict has not fully stemmed the tide of applications.

"The effect that [the court ruling] has had is that patent seekers no longer call them perpetual-motion machines," Park said. "Now it's called capturing zero-point energy."

Zero-point energy is a real type of energy produced by the miniscule movements of molecules at rest. Harnessing this energy is theoretically possible, but the task seems, at least for the moment, practically impossible.

Patent Review

When asked about Volfson's machine, a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) spokesperson said the agency does not discuss specific patents. But the spokesperson explained that qualified patent examiners review each application according to rigid criteria.

First the idea must be patentable by law, said Brigid Quinn of the USPTO, based in Alexandria, Virginia. "There is patent law that describes what is patentable subject matter—for example, the laws of nature aren't patentable."

If an idea passes legal muster it must then meet several specific criteria.

"Is it new?" Quinn asked. "Is it useful, which means does it work? Is it nonobvious? And is it described in such detail to enable someone skilled in that technology to make and use it based on the description that must accompany the application?"

Patent office scientists and engineers, skilled in particular technologies, make their determinations based on these criteria and the current state of the science involved.

But despite their best efforts, mistakes are inevitable and patents may be granted to unworkable ideas. Some 5,000 examiners must currently handle a load of 350,000 applications per year.

Meanwhile, no amount of nay-saying will stop inventors from dreaming of a legitimate perpetual-motion breakthrough. Park believes that these hopefuls far outweigh any ill-meaning scammers.

"The most curious aspect of this is that most of these people truly believe that they've made some new discovery that most people haven't thought of," he said. "It doesn't often work out."


2) Report on "Unconventional Approaches in Energy Generation" Published by German Government


Marco Bischof, January, 2006, www.binnotec.org


In the summer of 2001, the German science writer and consultant Marco Bischof was commissioned by the German Federal Ministry of Economic Collaboration and Development (BMZ) to write a study on unconventional approaches in energy generation. In addition, a number of technologies were to be included that are not concerned with energy generation , but with the „activation of biological processes“ for the elimination of environmental contaminations, for water cleaning and the regeneration of soils. Finally, in a selection process six technologies were chosen to be included in the study. The technologies that are described in the report and evaluated for their possible application in Third World countries are Brown’s Gas, Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge (PAGD), the Charge Cluster technology, Randell Mills’ Blacklight Process, the Plocher Energy System (Penac), and Graviton Bioenergy Technologies. A special chapter was devoted to the application in the decontamination of radioactive waste.


When the report was delivered a year later, the study was first submitted by the government to a number of external institutes and experts for appraisal. Some of the responses were so critical that the ministry decided to check the report for scientific and technical accuracy before publication. This task was entrusted to the physicist Thorsten Ludwig and to the engineer Andreas Manthey, both of the Berlin Institute for Innovative Energy Technologies (Binnotec).


In the late summer of 2005, this review has been finalized to the contention of the ministry. However, it partly became rather a thorough revision of the report. In mid-September, the study now has been released, four years after the beginning of the work, by the German government for publication: Its precise name and bibliographical data (in German) are as follows:


Marco Bischof, Thorsten Ludwig und Andreas Manthey: „Zukunftstechnologien für nachhaltige Entwicklung: Unkonventionelle Ansätze zur Energiegewinnung und Aktivierung biologischer Prozesse. Eine Darstellung und Erläuterung von sechs Erfolg versprechenden Verfahren“. Forschungsberichte des Bundesministeriums für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung, Bericht E 5001-15. Berlin 2005.


The report has not been published in the book series of the ministry, as was first planned, but by the ministry itself, and therefore is not available through the book trade, but may be ordered directly by writing to the ministry at:


BMZ, z.Hd. Dr.Jochen Böhmer, Adenauerallee 139-141, D-53113 Bonn, Germany.

Mention the title and the report number as given above.


 3) Recipe for an Alternative-Science Renaissance


Elliott and Sharon Maynard, January 26, 2006, Arcos Cielos Research Center, www.arcoscielos.com/news.php


Over the years I have been in contact with many many alternative scientists. Virtually all have stuggled, overcoming great resistance, having their ideas stolen by unscrupulous people, and even had to endure threats from the government, etc. This is why most of them are on the defensive, and paranoid...this on top of the fact that such brilliant individuals are always very sensitive to having their cherished visions and ideas shattered. A few basic suggestions.

1) What is desperately needed is some "no-strings"  (or "minimal-strings" funding, perhaps some from the aerospace industry, NGO's, .com entrepreneurs, academia, and the genera! l public. To eliminate the tedious proposal-approval-rewrite-review...waste of preious time, manpower, and funds, a basic pool of money (perhaps $100-300 million) should be raised, and put into a basic interest-generating accounting. This way a basic "Creative Sandbox" Research Center could be created with general purpose labs. Focus on "Search" instead of "Re-Search." (i.e. spending months or years on safe-bet research where you already know the outcome.). We must all work to this endless waste of time and money.
1) Alternative New Technologies would be screened and prioritized, individuals contacted, and offered a couple of years of research support...including a stipend and possible living quarters where they could interact.
2) Proposals, Evaluations and Re-Funding would eliminate all the "Peer-Review, Grant Review, creativity crushing process, and  review/evaluation/re-funding sessions would instead be based on a sort of team-discussion approach of: "Well how do you feel at this point about your progress. How can we support your research in terms of equipment, and/or partnering of research? Let's take the possible future paths for developing this research, prioritize them, and move ahead., etc.
3) Support of Alternative Technology - Scientists would be available for lectures, have a publicity team to help them create presentations, and put out stories when appropriate, which would attract additional funding and interest from prospective corporate entities. [It is shameful that these mostly brilliant (sometimes kooky, but usually harmless) inividuals have been treated by our society. We should be supporting the. When I sent a few hundred bucks to Tom Bearden a couple of years ago  when he was in poor health, he was so grateful he sent me a thanks that nearly brought me to tears.].
4) What Can We Do? -  A) It would take few funds to put together an Executive Summary Proposal for an Advanced Technology R & D Center, which could take the form of a White Paper, PPT Presentation. [The Seed needs to first be created...then placed in the Incubation Capsule]. B) We could set up a process to first create a Master List of A-Typical New Technologies, their inventor, a brief technology summary, and the present state of development. C) These Technologies could then be arranged on a "Priority Hot List," depending on factors of: Critical Need for the Technology, State of the Technological Development, Feasibility for Realization of this Technology, etc., D). Overall objective is to create a Solid Working Prototype, then to examine the possible ramifications for expanding this new technology.
I feel we could possibly start with #4, by creating a "Hot List" of Alternative Technologies (Already has been well done by Dr. Tom Valone of the Integrity Research Institute a non-profit in DC), We would just need to take the available data, make up a list with exec summaries, then this could provide us with a working matrix for discussions and future development. The other major question is to locate a group of "Science Entrepreneurs," who would be interested in funding these new technologies, especially those which would have Space Tech applications. ...some more food for thought. Elliott, ACRC
P.S. In an effort to stop wasting everyone's time and energy, if you're interested, maybe just read the above, jot down a few points, then generate your own "Seed Concept" using this as a few seeds for sowing.

4) Environment in crisis: 'We are past the point of no return'
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor, Published: 16 January 2006
The Independent Online, http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article338878.ece

 Thirty years ago, the scientist James Lovelock worked out that the Earth possessed a planetary-scale control system which kept the environment fit for life. He called it Gaia, and the theory has become widely accepted. Now, he believes mankind's abuse of the environment is making that mechanism work against us. His astonishing conclusion - that climate change is already insoluble, and life on Earth will never be the same again.

The world has already passed the point of no return for climate change, and civilisation as we know it is now unlikely to survive, according to James Lovelock, the scientist and green guru who conceived the idea of Gaia - the Earth which keeps itself fit for life.

In a profoundly pessimistic new assessment, published in today's Independent, Professor Lovelock suggests that efforts to counter global warming cannot succeed, and that, in effect, it is already too late.

The world and human society face disaster to a worse extent, and on a faster timescale, than almost anybody realises, he believes. He writes: " Before this century is over, billions of us will die, and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable."

In making such a statement, far gloomier than any yet made by a scientist of comparable international standing, Professor Lovelock accepts he is going out on a limb. But as the man who conceived the first wholly ! new way of looking at life on Earth since Charles Darwin, he feels his own analysis of what is happening leaves him no choice. He believes that it is the self-regulating mechanism of Gaia itself - increasingly accepted by other scientists worldwide, although they prefer to term it the Earth System - which, perversely, will ensure that the warming cannot be mastered.

This is because the system contains myriad feedback mechanisms which in the past have acted in concert to keep the Earth much cooler than it otherwise would be. Now, however, they will come together to amplify the warming being caused by human activities such as transport and industry through huge emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2 ).

It means that the harmful consequences of human beings damaging the living planet's ancient regulatory system will be non-linear - in other words, likely to accelerate uncontrollably.

He terms this phenomenon "The Revenge of Gaia" and examines it i! n detail in a new book with that title, to be published next month.

The uniqueness of the Lovelock viewpoint is that it is holistic, rather than reductionist. Although he is a committed supporter of current research into climate change, especially at Britain's Hadley Centre, he is not looking at individual facets of how the climate behaves, as other scientists inevitably are. Rather, he is looking at how the whole control system of the Earth behaves when put under stress.

Professor Lovelock, who conceived the idea of Gaia in the 1970s while examining the possibility of life on Mars for NASA in the US, has been warning of the dangers of climate change since major concerns about it first began nearly 20 years ago.

He was one of a select group of scientists who gave an initial briefing on global warming to Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet at 10 Downing Street in April 1989.

His concerns have increased steadily since then, as evidence of a warming climate has mounted. For example, he shared the alarm of many scientists at the news last September that the ice covering the Arctic Ocean is now melting so fast that in 2005 it reached a historic low point.

Two years ago he sparked a major controversy with an article in The Independent calling on environmentalists to drop their long-standing opposition to nuclear power, which does not produce the greenhouses gases of conventional power stations.

Global warming was proceeding so fast that only a major expansion of nuclear power could bring it under control, he said. Most of the Green movement roundly rejected his call, and does so still.

Now his concerns have reached a peak - and have a new emphasis. Rather than calling for further ways of countering climate change, he is calling on governments in Britain and elsewhere to begin large-scale preparations for surviving what he now sees as inevitable - in his own phrase today, "a hell of a climate", likely to be in Europe up to 8C hotter than it is today.

In his book's concluding chapter, he writes: "What should a sensible European government be doing now? I think we have little option but to prepare for the worst, and assume that we have passed the threshold."

And in today's Independent he writes: "We will do our best to survive, but sadly I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of China and India cutting back in time, and they are the main source of [CO2] emissions. The worst will happen ..."

He goes on: "We have to keep in mind the awesome pace of change and realise how little time is left to act, and then each community and nation must find the best use of the resources they have to sustain civilisation for as long as they can." He believes that the world's governments should plan to secure energy and food supplies in the global hothouse, and defences against the expected rise in sea levels. The scientist's vision of what human society may ultimately be redu! ced to through climate change is " a broken rabble led by brutal warlords."

Professor Lovelock draws attention to one aspect of the warming threat in particular, which is that the expected temperature rise is currently being held back artificially by a global aerosol - a layer of dust in the atmosphere right around the planet's northern hemisphere - which is the product of the world's industry.

This shields us from some of the sun's radiation in a phenomenon which is known as "global dimming" and is thought to be holding the global temperature down by several degrees. But with a severe industrial downturn, the aerosol could fall out of the atmosphere in a very short time, and the global temperature could take a sudden enormous leap upwards.

One of the most striking ideas in his book is that of "a guidebook for global warming survivors" aimed at the humans who would still be struggling to exist after a total societal collapse.

Written, not in electronic form, but "on durable paper with long-lasting print", it would contain the basic accumulated scientific knowledge of humanity, much of it utterly taken for granted by us now, but originally won only after a hard struggle - such as our place in the solar system, or the fact that bacteria and viruses cause infectious diseases.

Rough guide to a planet in jeopardy

Global warming, caused principally by the large-scale emissions of industrial gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), is almost certainly the greatest threat that mankind has ever faced, because it puts a question mark over the very habitability of the Earth.

Over the coming decades soaring temperatures will mean agriculture may become unviable over huge areas of the world where people are already poor and hungry; water supplies for millions or even billions may fail. Rising sea levels will destroy substantial coastal areas in low-lying countries such as Bangladesh, at the very moment when their populations are mushrooming. Numberless environmental refugees will overwhelm the capacity of any agency, or indeed any country, to cope, while modern urban infrastructure will face devastation from powerful extreme weather events, such as Hurricane Katrina which hit New Orleans last summer.

The international community accepts the reality of global warming, supported by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In its last report, in 2001, the IPCC said global average temperatures were likely to rise by up to 5.8C by 2100. In high latitudes, such as Britain, the rise is likely to be much higher, perhaps 8C. The warming seems to be proceeding faster than anticipated and in the IPCC's next report, 2007, the timescale may be shortened. Yet there still remains an assumption that climate change is controllable, if CO2 emissions can be curbed. Lovelock is warning: think again.

The world has already passed the point of no return for climate change, and civilisation as we know it is now unlikely to survive, according to James Lovelock, the scientist and green guru who conceived the idea of Gaia - the Earth which keeps itself fit for life.

In a profoundly pessimistic new assessment, published in today's Independent, Professor Lovelock suggests that efforts to counter global warming cannot succeed, and that, in effect, it is already too late.

The world and human society face disaster to a worse extent, and on a faster timescale, than almost anybody realises, he believes. He writes: " Before this century is over, billions of us will die, and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable."

In making such a statement, far gloomier than any yet made by a scientist of comparable international standing, Professor Lovelock accepts he is going out on a limb. But as the man who conceived! the first wholly new way of looking at life on Earth since Charles Darwin, he feels his own analysis of what is happening leaves him no choice. He believes that it is the self-regulating mechanism of Gaia itself - increasingly accepted by other scientists worldwide, although they prefer to term it the Earth System - which, perversely, will ensure that the warming cannot be mastered.

This is because the system contains myriad feedback mechanisms which in the past have acted in concert to keep the Earth much cooler than it otherwise would be. Now, however, they will come together to amplify the warming being caused by human activities such as transport and industry through huge emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2 ).

It means that the harmful consequences of human beings damaging the living planet's ancient regulatory system will be non-linear - in other words, likely to accelerate uncontrollably.

He terms this phenomenon "The Revenge of Gaia" and examines it in detail in a new book with that title, to be published next month.

The uniqueness of the Lovelock viewpoint is that it is holistic, rather than reductionist. Although he is a committed supporter of current research into climate change, especially at Britain's Hadley Centre, he is not looking at individual facets of how the climate behaves, as other scientists inevitably are. Rather, he is looking at how the whole control system of the Earth behaves when put under stress.

'The Revenge of Gaia' by James Lovelock is published by Penguin on 2 February, price £16.99


Presentation (excerpt below) by Thomas F. Valone, Integrity Research Institute, Washington DC 20005

202-452-7674, iri@erols.com at STAIF (Space Technologies Applications International Forum), Feb. 12- 16, 2006, Albuquerque, NM       http://www.unm.edu/~isnps/staif/2006/index.html 


(NOTE: Complete paper (pdf) with all illustrations and equations is online at http://users.erols.com/iri/ElectrograviticsElectrokineticsValone.pdf which is also Chapter 1 of the new book, Electrogravitics II, by the same author.)


Abstract. An analysis of the 87-year old science of electrogravitics (or electrogravity) necessarily includes an analysis  of electrokinetics. Electrogravitics is most commonly associated with the 1928 British patent #300,311 of T. Townsend Brown, the 1952 Special Inquiry File #24-185 of the Office of Naval Research into the “Electro-Gravity Device of Townsend Brown” and two widely circulated 1956 Aviation Studies Ltd. Reports on “Electrogravitics Systems” and “The Gravitics Situation.” By definition, electrogravitics historically has had a purported relationship to gravity or the object’s mass, as well as the applied voltage. It also was tested recently by the Honda Corporation which published experimental results and proposed theory of a correlation between electricity and gravity. Electrokinetics, on the other hand, is more commonly associated with many patents of  T. Townsend Brown as well as Agnew Bahnson, starting with the 1960 US patent #2,949,550 entitled, “Electrokinetic Apparatus.” Electrokinetics, which often involves a capacitor and dielectric, has virtually no relationship that can be connected with mass or gravity. The Army Research Lab has recently issued a report on electrokinetics, analyzing the force on an asymmetric capacitor, while NASA has received three patents on the same design topic.  To successfully describe and predict the reported motion toward the positive terminal of the capacitor, it is desirable to use the classical electrokinetic field and force equations for the specific geometry involved. This initial review also suggests directions for further confirming measurements.


Keywords: electrogravitics, electrogravity, electrokinetics, gravity, high voltage electricity, asymmetric capacitor, gravitator, dielectrics


PACS: 89.40.Dd; 41.20.-q; 03.50.De





Eleven years ago, my first volume on the subject, Electrogravitics Systems: A New Propulsion Methodology “Volume I”, introduced the subject by reprinting the Aviation Studies reports from 1956 as well as an in-depth analysis of the B-2 bomber by Paul LaViolette. The second volume, Electrogravitics II both predates and postdates the first volume, thus giving a wider historical perspective. Volume II also contains further information on the Army Research Lab and Honda Corporation experiments, as well as the electrokinetic equation discovery presented in this paper. A short review of the history of electrogravitics has recently been published by Theodore Loder.[1]


When asked, “What is electrogravitics?” a qualified answer is “electricity used to create a force that depends upon an object’s mass, even as gravity does.” This is the answer that perhaps should still be used to identify true electrogravitics, which also involves the object’s mass in the force, often with a dielectric. This is also what the “Biefeld-Brown effect” of Brown’s first patent #300,311 describes. However, we have seen T. Townsend Brown and his patents evolve over time which Tom Bahder emphasizes. Later on, Brown refers to “electrokinetics” (which partly overlaps the field of electrogravitics), that requires asymmetric capacitors to amplify the force. Therefore, Bahder’s article discusses the lightweight effects of “lifters” and the ion mobility theory found to explain them. Note: electrogravitics (EG) and electrokinetics (EK) are related but different.


To put things in perspective, the article “How I Control Gravitation,” published in 1929 by Brown,[2] presents an electrogravitics-validating discovery about very heavy metal objects (44 lbs. each) separated by an insulator, charged up to high voltages. T.T. Brown also expresses an experimental formula in words which tell us what he found was directly contributing to the unidirectional force (UDF) which he discovered, moving the system of masses toward the positive charge. He seems to imply that the equation for his electrogravitic force might be F ≈ Vm1m2/r2. But electrokinetics and electrogravitics also seem to be governed by another equation (Eq.1) when higher order pulsed voltages are utilized.


Zinsser Effect versus the Biefeld-Brown Effect


To gain a perspective, there is an invention which has comparable experiments that also involve electrogravity, called “gravitational anisotropy” by Rudolf G. Zinsser from Germany. Zinsser presented his experimental results at the Gravity Field Conference in Hanover in 1980, and also at the First International Symposium of Non-Conventional Energy Technology in Toronto in 1981.[3] For years afterwards, all of the scientists who knew of Zinsser’s work, including myself, regarded his invention as a unique phenomenon, not able to be classified with any other discovery. However, upon comparing Zinsser to Brown’s 1929 article on gravitation referred to above, there are striking similarities.


Zinsser’s discovery is detailed in The Zinsser Effect book by this author.[4] To summarize his life’s work, Zinsser discovered that if he connected his patented pulse generator to two conductive metal plates immersed in water, he could induce a sustained force that lasted even after the pulse generator was turned off. The pulses lasted for only a few nanoseconds each.[5] Zinsser called this input “a kinetobaric driving impulse.” Furthermore, he points out in the Specifications and Enumerations section, that the high dielectric constant of water (about 80) is desirable and that a solid dielectric is possible. Dr. Peschka calculated that Zinsser’s invention produced 6 Ns/Ws or 6 N/W.[6] This figure is twenty times the force per energy input of the Inertial Impulse Engine of Roy Thornson (report available from IRI), which has been estimated to produce 0.32 N/W.[7] By comparison, it is important to realize that any production of force today is less efficient, as seen by the fact that a DC-9 jet engine produces about 20 times less: only 0.016 N/W or 3 lb/hp (fossil-fuel-powered land and air vehicles are even worse.)


Let’s now compare the Zinsser Effect with the Biefeld-Brown Effect, looking at the details. Brown reports in his 1929 article that there are effects on plants and animals, as well as effects from the sun, moon and even slightly from some of the planetary positions. Zinsser also reports beneficial effects on plants and humans, including what he called “bacteriostasis and cytostasis.”[8] Brown also refers to the “endogravitic” and “exogravitic” times that were representative of the charging and discharging times. Once the gravitator was charged, depending upon “its gravitic capacity” any further electrical input had no effect. This is the same phenomenon that Zinsser witnessed and both agree that the pulsed voltage generation was the main part of the electrogravitic effect.[9] Both Zinsser and Brown worked with dielectrics and capacitor plate transducers to produce the electrogravitic force. Both refer to a high dielectric constant material in between their capacitor plates as the preferred type to best insulate the charge. However, Zinsser never experimented with different dielectrics nor higher voltage to increase his force production. This was always a source of frustration for him but he wanted to keep working with water as his dielectric.


Electrically Charged Torque Pendulum of Erwin Saxl


Brown particularly worked with a torque (torsion) pendulum arrangement to measure the force production. He also refers the planetary effects being most pronounced when aligned with the gravitator instead of perpendicular to it. He compares these results to Saxl and Allen, who worked with an electrically charged torque pendulum.[10] Dr. Erwin Saxl used high voltage in the range of +/- 5000 volts on his very massive torque pendulum.[11] The changes in period of oscillation measurements with solar or lunar eclipses, showed great sensitivity to the shielding effects of gravity during an alignment of astronomical bodies, helping to corroborate Brown’s observation in his 1929 article. The pendulum Saxl used was over 100 kilograms in mass.[12] Most interesting were the “unexpected phenomena” which Saxl reported in his 1964 Nature article (see reference 10). The positively charged pendulum had the longest period of oscillation compared to the negatively charged or grounded pendulum. Dirunal and seasonal variations were found in the effect of voltage on the pendulum, with the most pronounced occurring during a solar or lunar eclipse. In my opinion, this demonstrates the basic principles of electrogravitics: high voltage and mass together will cause unbalanced forces to occur. In this case, the electrogravitic interaction was measurable by oscillating the mass of a charged torque pendulum (producing current) whose period is normally proportional to its mass.


Electrogravitic Woodward-Nordtvedt Effect[13]


 Referring to mass, it is sometimes not clear whether gravitational mass or inertial mass is being affected. The possibility of altering the equivalence principle (which equates the two), has been pursued diligently by Dr. James Woodward (patent cover sheets in Volume II). His prediction, based on Sciama’s formulation of Mach’s Principle in the framework of general relativity, is that “in the presence of energy flow, the inertial mass of an object may undergo sizable variations, changing as the 2nd time derivative of the energy.”[14] Woodward, however, indicates that it is the “active gravitational mass” which is being affected but the equivalence principle causes both “passive” inertial and gravitational masses to fluctuate.[15] With barium titanate dielectric between disk capacitors. a 3 kV signal was applied in the experiments of Woodward and Cramer resulting in symmetrical mass fluctuations on the order of centigrams.[16] Cramer actually uses the phrase “Woodward effect” in his AIAA paper, though it is well-known that Nordtvedt was the first to predict noticeable mass shifts in accelerated objects.[17]


   The interesting observation which can be made, in light of previous sections, is that Woodward’s experimental apparatus resembles a combination of Saxl’s torsion pendulum and Brown’s electrogravitic dielectric capacitors. The differences arise in the precise timing of the pulsed power generation and with input voltage. Recently, 0.01 μF capacitors (Model KD 1653) are being used, in the 50 kHz range (lower than Zinsser’s 100 kHz) with the voltage still below 3 kV. Significantly, the thrust or unidirectional force (UDF) is exponential, depending on the square of the applied voltage.[18] However, the micronewton level of force that is produced is actually the same order of magnitude which Zinsser produced, who reported his results in dynes (1 dyne = 10-5 Newtons).[19] Zinsser had activators with masses between 200 g and 500 g and force production of “100 dynes to over one pound."[20] Recently, Woodward has been referring to his transducers as “flux capacitors” (like the movie, Back to the Future).[21]


Jefimenko’s Electrokinetics Explains Electrogravitics


Known for his extensive work with atmospheric electricity, electrostatic motors and electrets, Dr. Oleg Jefimenko deserves significant credit for presenting a valuable theory of the electrokinetic field, as he calls it.[22] A W.V. University professor and physics purist at heart, he describes this field as the dragging force that electrons exert on neighboring electric charges, which is what he says Faraday noted in 1831, when experimenting with parallel wires: a momentary current in the same direction when the current is turned on and then a reverse current in the adjacent wire when the current is turned off.


He identifies the electrokinetic field by the vector E 


 (See Eq. 1  in Electrogravitics II (Volume II))


It is one of three terms for the electric field in terms of current and charge density. Equations like F = qE also apply for calculating force. The significance of Ek, as seen in Eq. 1, is that the electrokinetic field simply the third term of a classical solution for the electric field in Maxwell’s equations (see eq. 2 in Volume II):

This three-term equation is a causal equation, according to Jefimenko, because it links the electric field E back the electric charge and its motion (current) which induces it. (He also proves that E cannot be a causal consequence of a time-variable magnetic field ∂B/∂t but instead occurs simultaneously.) This is the essence of electromagnetic induction, as Maxwell intended, which is measured by, not caused by, a changing magnetic field. The third electric field term, designated as the electrokinetic field, is directed along the current direction or parallel to it. It also exists only as long as the current is changing in time. Lenz’ Law is also built into the minus sign. Parallel conductors will produce the strongest induced current.


The significance of Eq. 3 is that the magnetic vector potential is seen to be created by the time integral which amounts to an electrokinetic impulse “produced by this current at that point when the current is switched on” according to Jefimenko.[23] Of course, a time-varying sinusoidal current will also qualify for production of an electrokinetic field and the vector potential. An important consequence of Eq. 1 is that the faster the rates of change of current, the larger will be the electrokinetic force. Therefore, high voltage pulsed inputs are favored. 


However, its significance is much more general. “This field can exist anywhere in space and can manifest itself as a pure force by its action on free electric charges.” All that is required for a measurable force from a single conductor is that the change in current density (time derivative) happens very fast (the c2 in the denominator is also equal to 1/μoεo unless the medium has non-vacuum permeability or permittivity).


The electrogravitics experiments of Brown and Zinsser involve a dielectric medium for greater efficacy and charge density. The electrokinetic force on the electric charges (electrons) of the dielectric, according to  Eq. 1, is in the opposite direction of the increasing positive current (taking into account the minus sign). For parallel plate capacitors, Jefimenko explains that the strongest induced field is produced between the plates and so another equation evolves.


Electrokinetic Force Predicts Electrogravitic Direction


Can Jefimenko’s electrokinetic force predict the correct direction of the electrogravitic force seen in the Zinsser, Brown, Woodward as well as the yet-to-be-discussed Campbell, Serrano, and Norton AFB craft demonstrations?


  1) Starting with Zinsser’s probe diagram (Fig. 2) from Prof. Peschka’s article, it is purposely put on its end for reasons that will become obvious. Compare it with an equivalent parallel plate capacitor (the plates are x distance apart) from Jefimenko’s book:[24]



We note that the current is presumed to be the same in each plate but in opposite directions because it is alternating. Using E = - ∂A/∂t, Jefimenko calculates the electrokinetic field, for the AC parallel plate capacitor with current going in opposite directions  (see Eq. 3 in Volume II), where j is the unit vector for the y-axis direction seen in Fig. 3. It is clearly seen that the y-axis points upward in Fig. 3 and so with the minus sign of Eq. 3, the electrokinetic force for the AC parallel plate capacitor will point downward. Since Zinsser had his torsion balance on display in Toronto in 1981, I was privileged to verify the direction of the force that is created with his quarter-wave plates oriented as they are in Fig. 2. The torsion balance is built so that the capacitor probe can only be deflected downward from the horizontal. The electrokinetic force is in the same direction.


  2) Looking at Brown’s electrogravitic force direction from the Fig. 1 in his 1929 article “How I Control Gravitation,” we see that the positive lead is on the right side of the picture. Also, the arrow below points to the right with the caption, “Direction of movement of entire system toward positive.”  Examining the electrokinetic force of Eq. 1 in this article, we note that the increasing positive current comes in by convention in the positive lead and points to the left. Therefore, considering the minus sign, the direction of the electrokinetic force will be to the right. Checking with Fig. 4 of the 1929 Brown article, the same confirmation of induced electrokinetic force direction.[25] Thus, with Zinsser’s and Brown’s gravitators, the electrokinetic theory provides a useful explanation and it is accurate for prediction of the resulting force direction.





 It is also worthwhile noting that T.T. Brown also indicates in that article,


   “when the direct current with high voltage (75 – 300 kilovolts) is applied, the gravitator swings up the arc … but it does not remain there. The pendulum then gradually returns to the vertical or starting position, even while the potential is maintained…Less than five seconds is required for the test pendulum to reach the maximum amplitude of the swing, but from thirty to eighty seconds are required for it to return to zero.”


This phenomena is remarkably the same type of response that Zinsser recorded with his experimental probes. Jefimenko’s theory helps explain the rapid response, since the change of current happens in the beginning. However, the slow discharge in both experiments (which Zinsser called a “storage effect”) needs more consideration. Considering the electrokinetic force of Eq. 3 and the +/- derivative, we know that the slow draining of a charged capacitor, most clearly seen in Fig. 1 of Brown’s 1929 article, will produce a decreasing current out of the + terminal (to the right) and in Eq. 3, this means the derivative is negative. Therefore, the slow draining of current will produce a weakening electrokinetic force but in the same direction as before! The force will thus sustain itself to the right during discharge.


   3) It is reasonable at this stage to also suggest that the electrokinetic theory will also predict the direction of Woodward’s UDF but instantaneous analysis needs to be made to compare current direction into the commercial disk capacitors and the electrokinetic force on the dielectric charges. In every electrogravitics or electrokinetics case, it can be argued, the “neighboring charges” to a capacitor plate will necessarily be those in the dielectric material, which are polarized. The bound electron-lattice interaction will drag the lattice material with them, under the influence of the electrokinetic force. If the combination of physical electron acceleration (which also can be regarded as current flow) and the AC signal current flow can be resolved, it may be concluded that an instantaneous electrokinetic force, depending on dI/dt, contributes to the Woodward-Nordtvedt effect.


   4) The Campbell and Serrano capacitor modules seen in their patented drawings in Figs. 5 and 6, as well 



as the Electrogravitic Craft Demonstration unit (Norton AFB, 1988),[26] can also be explained with the electrokinetic force, in the same way that the Brown gravitator force was explained in paragraph (2) above. The current flows in one direction through the capacitor-dielectric and the force is produced in the opposite direction. The Norton AFB electrogravitic craft just has bigger plates with radial sections but the current flow still occurs at the center, across the plates. The Serrano patent diagram is also very similar in construction and operation. Campbell’s NASA patents include #6,317,310, #6,411,493, and #6,775,123.



Electrokinetic Theory Observations


 For parallel plate capacitor impulse probes, like Zinsser, Serrano, Campbell, the Norton AFB craft and both of Brown’s models, the electrokinetic field of Eq. 3 provides a working model that seems to predict the nature and direction of the force during charging and discharging phases. More detailed information is needed for each example in order to actually calculate the theoretical electrokinetic force and compare it with experiment. We note that Eq. 3 also does not suffer the handicap of Eq. 1 since no c2 term occurs in the denominator. Therefore, it can be concluded that AC fields operating on parallel plate capacitors should create significantly larger electrogravitic forces than other geometries with the same dI/dt. However, the current I is usually designated as Iosin(ωt) and its derivative is a sinusoid as well. Therefore, a detailed analysis is needed for each specific circuit and signal to determine the outcome.


   Eq. 3 also seems to suggest a possible enhancement of the force if a permeable dielectric (magnetizable) is used. Then, the value for μ of the material would normally be substituted for μo.[27]   


A further observation of both Eq. 1 and Eq. 3 is that very fast changes in current, such as a current surge or spark discharge has to produce the most dynamic electrokinetic force, since dI/dt will be very large.[28] The declining current surge, or the negatively sloped dI/dt however, should create an opposing force until the current reverses direction. Creative waveshaping seems to be the answer to this obvious dilemma. Fortunately, a few similar inventions use pulse power electric current generators to create propulsion. The Taylor patent #5,197,279 “Electromagnetic Energy Propulsion Engine” uses huge currents to produce magnetic field repulsion. The Schlicher patent #5,142,861 “Nonlinear Electromagnetic Propulsion System and Method” predicts hundreds of pounds of thrust with tens of kiloamperes input. The Schlicher antenna current input is a rectified current surge produced with an SCR-triggered DC power source (see Fig. 7). The resulting waveform has a very steep leading edge but a slowly declining trailing edge, which should also be desirable for the electrokinetic force effect.[29] Furthermore, if this waveform is continued into the negative current direction below the horizontal axis, all of that region reinforces the electrokinetic force, with no opposite forces. Therefore, a complete sinusoidal wave, with Schlicher-style steep rise-times is recommended for a signal that contributes to a unidirectional force during 75% of its cycle.


 Another observation that should be mentioned is that this electrokinetic force theory does not include the mass contribution to the electrogravitic force which Saxl, Woodward, and Brown’s 1929 gravitator emphasize. A contributor to Electrogravitics II, Takaaki Musha offers a derived equation for electrogravitics that does include a mass term but not a derivative term. His model is based on the charge displacement or “deformation” of the atom under the influence of a capacitor’s 18 kV high voltage field and his experimental results are encouraging. He also includes a reference to Ning Li and her gravitoelectric theory.[30]


A final concern, which may arise from the very nature of the electrokinetic force description, is the difficulty of conceptualizing or simply accepting the possibility of an unbalanced force creation pushing against space. This author has wrestled with this problem in other arenas for years. Three examples include (1) the homopolar generator which creates back torque that ironically, pushes against space to implement the Lorentz force to slow down the current-generating spinning disk.[31] Secondly (2), there is the intriguing spatial angular momentum discovery by Graham and Lahoz.[32] They have shown, reminiscent of Feynman’s “disk paradox,” that the vacuum is the seat of Newton’s third law. A torsion balance is their chosen apparatus as well to demonstrate the pure reaction force with induction fields. Their reference to Einstein and Laub’s papers cites the time derivative of the Poynting vector S = E × H integrated over all space to preserve Newton’s third law. Graham and Lahoz predict that magnetic flywheels with electrets will circulate energy to push against space. Lastly, for (3), the Taylor and Schlicher inventions push against space with an unbalanced force that is electromagnetic in origin.

Eye Witness Testimony of Advanced Electrogravitics


   Sincere gratitude is given to Mark McCandlish, who has suffered personal trauma for publicizing this work, offers us one of the most conclusive rendition of a covert, flat-bottomed saucer hovercraft seen by dozens of invited eye-witnesses, including a Congressman, at Norton Air Force Base in 1988. When I spoke to Dr. Hal Puthoff about Mark’s story, shortly after the famous Disclosure Event[33] at the National Press Club in 2001, he explained to me that he had already performed due diligence on it and checked on each individual to verify the details of the story. Hal explains,


         “All I was able to determine by my due diligence was: (1) to independently interview the source of the story and verify that, indeed he did tell the story to the individual who had passed it on to me, and (2) to independently interview yet another individual who had heard a similar story from a separate source. BUT, I was never able to verify that the story itself was true, only that there were two individuals who said it was true.  I then corrected you with my statement (exact quote): ‘... the story remains in my 'gray basket' only as 'possibly' true.’”


Since Dr. Puthoff used to work for the CIA for ten years as a director of Project Stargate, this was quite an endorsement, even if only cautiously optimistic.  In analyzing the Electrogravitic Craft Demonstration unit (Norton AFB 1988) diagrammed in Fig. 8, it can be compared to Campbell’s and Serrano’s patented design. A lot can be learned from studying the intricacies of this advanced design, including the use of a distributor cap style of pulse discharge and multiple symmetric, radial plates with dielectrics in between. (See footnote 26 for Mark’s details.) It also remains in my ‘gray basket’ as possibly true.

[1] Loder, Theodore, “Outside the Box Space and Terrestrial Transportation and Energy Technologies for the 21st Century” AIAA-2002-1131

[3] Zinsser, R.G. “Mechanical Energy from Anisotropic Gravitational Fields” First Int’l Symp. on Non-Conventional Energy Tech. (FISONCET), Toronto, 1981. Proceedings available from PACE, 100 Bronson Ave #1001, Ottawa, Ontario K1R 6G8

[4] Valone, Thomas The Zinsser Effect: Cumulative Electrogravity Invention of Rudolf G. Zinsser, Integrity Research Institute, 2005, 130 pages, IRI #701

[5] Cravens, D.L. “Electric Propulsion/Antigravity” Electric Spacecraft Journal, Issue 13, 1994, p. 30

[6] Peschka, W., “Kinetobaric Effect as Possible Basis for a New Propulsion Principle,” Raumfahrt-Forschung, Feb, 1974. Translated version appears in Infinite Energy, Issue 22, 1998, p. 52 and The Zinsser Effect.

[7] Valone, Thomas, “Inertial Propulsion: Concept and Experiment, Part 1” Proc. of Inter. Energy Conver. Eng. Conf., 1993, See IRI Report #608.

[8] See “Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Health Effects” IRI Report #418 and Bioelectromagnetic Healing book #414 by this author, which explain the beneficial therapy which PEMFs produce on biological cells.

[9] Mark McCandlish’s Testimony (p. 131 of Volume II) shows that the Air Force took note in that the electrogravitic demonstration craft shown at Norton AFB in 1988 had a rotating distributor for electrically pulsing sections of multiply-layered dielectric and metal plate pie-shaped sections with high voltage discharges.

[10] See Saxl patent #3,357,253 “Device and Method for Measuring Gravitational and Other Forces” which uses +/- 5000 volts.

[11] Saxl, E.J., “An Electrically Charged Torque Pendulum” Nature, July 11, 1964, p. 136

[12] Saxl & Allen, “Observations with a Massive Electrified Torsion Pendulum: Gravity Measurements During Eclipse,” IRI Report #702.(Note: 2.2 lb = 1 kg)

[13] Graph of Fig. 1 from Woodward and Mahood, “Mach’s Principle, Mass Fluctuations, and Rapid Spacetime Transport,” California State University Fullerton, Fullerton CA 92634

[14] Cramer et al., “Tests of Mach’s Principle with a Mechanical Oscillator” AIAA-2001-3908 email: cramer@phys.washington.edu

[15] Woodward, James F. “A New Experimental Approach to Mach’s Principle and Relativistic Gravitation, Found. of Phys. Letters, V. 3, No. 5, 1990, p. 497

[16] Compare Fig. 1 graph to Brown’s ONR graph on P.117 of Volume I

[17] Nordtvedt, K. Inter. Journal of Theoretical Physics, V. 27, 1988, p. 1395

[18] Mahood, Thomas “Propellantless Propulsion: Recent Experimental Results Exploiting Transient Mass Modification” Proc. of STAIF, 1999, CP458, p. 1014 (Also see Mahood Master’s Thesis www.serve.com/mahood/thesis.pdf )

[19] For comparison, 1 Newton = 0.225 pounds 

[20] Zinsser, FISONCET, Toronto, 1981, p. 298

[21] Woodward, James “Flux Capacitors and the Origin of Inertia” Foundations of Physics, V. 34, 2004, p. 1475. Also see “Tweaking Flux Capacitors” Proc. of STAIF, 2005

[22] Jefimenko, Oleg  Causality, Electromagnetic Induction and Gravitation, Electret Scientific Co., POB 4132, Star City, WV 26504, p. 29

[23] Jefimenko, p. 31

[24] Jefimenko, p. 47

[25] Brown’s second patent #2,949,550 (see Patent Section: two electrokinetic saucers on a maypole) has movement toward the positive charge, so the same electrokinetic theory explained above works for both.

[26] McCandlish, Mark, “Testimony of Mr. Mark McCandlish, December 2000,” Electrogravitics II, Integrity Research Institute, 2005, p. 131

[27] Einstein and Laub, Annalen der Physik, V. 26, 1908, p.533 and p. 541 – two articles on the subject of a moving capacitor with a “dielectric body of considerable permeability.” Specific equations are derived predicting the resulting EM fields. Translated articles are reprinted in The Homopolar Handbook by this author (p. 122-136). Also see Clark’s dielectric homopolar generator patent #6,051,905.

[28] Commentary to Eq. 2 states an electrokinetic impulse is produced when the “current is switched on,” which implies a very steep leading edge of the current slope.

[29] See the Taylor and Schlicher patents in the Patent Section. – Ed note

[30] Ning Li was the Chair of the 2003 Gravitational Wave Conference. The CD Proceedings of the papers is available from Integrity Research Institute. 

[31] Valone, Thomas, The Homopolar Handbook: A Definitive Guide to Faraday Disk and N-Machine Technologies, Integrity Research Institute, Third Edition, 2001

[32] Graham and Lahoz, “Observation of Static Electromagnetic Angular Momentum in vacuo” Nature, V. 285, May 15, 1980,  p. 129

[33] See the authoritative book by Dr. Steven Greer, Disclosure: Military and Government Witnesses Reveal the Greatest Secretes in Modern History, Crossing Point, 2001. It provides the testimony of each witness who participated in the event, plus many more.

Provided as a public service from the nonprofit, charitable organization, www.IntegrityResearchInstitute.org which depends upon your support (by purchase of documents, CDs, DVDs, videos, books or donations) for its continued work.


Page posted by Sterling D. Allan Feb. 11, 2006
Last updated March 12, 2013



Scan Gauge II

Plugs in dashboard for instant mpg and other performance data.

Making Algae Biodiesel


Cell Phone Shielding
EMF Safety Store

LessEMF.com is the place
to buy Gauss meters, RF
meters, shielding.

ADVISORY: With any technology, you take a high risk to invest significant time or money unless (1) independent testing has thoroughly corroborated the technology, (2) the group involved has intellectual rights to the technology, and (3) the group has the ability to make a success of the endeavor.
All truth passes through three stages:
   First, it is ridiculed;
   Second, it is violently opposed; and
   Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

    "When you're one step ahead
of the crowd you're a genius.
When you're two steps ahead,
you're a crackpot."

-- Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, (Feb. 1998)


PESWiki Departments:
LatestNewsXMLFeedDirectoryCongressTop 5Open SourcingPowerPedia

Copyright © 2002-2013, PES Network Inc.