how to make a “ufo” how the development of second generation ‘high’ temperature...

7/29/2019 How to Make a UFO How the Development of Second Generation High Temperature Superconductors Makes P

1/22

How to Make a UFO

How the Development of Second Generation High Temperature Superconductors

Makes Possible the Neutralization of Gravity

Chalmers Wayne Macleod ([email protected]) June 2013

General Relativity tells us that gravity is the effect of spacetime curvature. Toneutralize gravity we therefore have to make spacetime flat around a considered object.The object would then experience the spacetime of empty space although immersed inthe spacetime of Earth. How can such an artificial spacetime be created?

We know from Special Relativity how relative space and time can be differentbetween observers. We also learn how space and time are inseparable and to change onechanges the other, the mathematical treatment being the same. Therefore to changespacetime we need only think about changing relative time. We cannot change relativetime without changing relative space. Just as relative time and space are calculated withrespect to the speed of light, which is a universal constant, we also must consider a uni-

versal constant to neutralize gravity. In this case the constant is electron angular mo-mentum, or spin, determined to be h/(4p) where h is Plancks constant. From the ex-pression we see that electron spin is a universal constant.

Of course, electron spin is not an actual rotation, as the name implies, the elec-tron being a quantum particle with its spin having no physical analogy to our macroworld. Nevertheless, atomic particles do possess dipole magnetism. They dobehave asspinning particles with magnetism the same as would an electrically charged, rotatingsteel ball. The ball would have a magnetic north and south pole, and so do electrons dueto their spin. Atomic particles also display the property ofprecession, like a spinningtop. It is this property of atomic protons that makes MRI scans possible. The theory pre-sented here is therefore based on observed behavior. Although quantum spin cannot be

an actual physical rotation, if the macro property of rotation can analogously explain themagnetism and precession of a quantum particle there is reason to suspect the analogycan explain a macro property as ifquantum spin were a physical rotation. That macroresult is time dilation, and the means for developing it is a rotating magnetic field al-though magnetism itself is nota universal constant.

Let us consider a magnetized plate. Its magnetization means that an abundance ofunpaired electrons have their spins all in the same direction. With rotation of the platewe would ordinarily expect an observer rotating with the plate to see a different spin onthe electrons than seen by a stationary ground observer, as would happen with an ordi-nary object like a rotating steel ball attached to the plate. In that case we would expectthe plate observer to see the rotation of the ball being faster or slower than seen by the

ground observer, depending on whether the plates rotation was with or against the ballsrotation. But in the case of electrons their spin is a universal constant, like the speed oflight. Both observers see the same electron spin regardless of plate rotation. Somethingmust be different between the observers and it would be time, but this is not quite thesame as in Special Relativity where, considering the speed of light, relative time onlyruns slower. Considering electron spin capable of being oriented in two directions,relative time can runfaster as well as slower. Scientists will think this is unusual but sois negative energy. If both electron and plate rotations are in the same direction the sta-


2/22

2

tionary ground observer sees time running faster relative to the plate observer, and if bothspins are in opposite directions the ground observer sees time running slower relative tothe plate observer (see Appendix A) and we have the natural time difference betweenEarth and empty space. For a levitating device we therefore want the spins of electronsand plate in opposite directions. If the passage of time of the rotating plate observer is

faster as seen by the stationary ground observer, the rotating plate observer would be inthe spacetime of empty space although still immersed in the Earths gravity field. Thatobserver would be free of Earths gravity when in the same energy regime of the plateelectrons. This is the hypothesis that must be tested.

We would think that if neutralizing gravity were so simple as rotating a magneticfield that experimenters would have discovered the connection between gravity and mag-netism long ago. That they never have regardless of earnest attempts is due to the enor-mous energy required for that magnetic field:Ee = mc

2 (see Appendix B). Obviouslythis is technologically unlikely without prior knowledge of the requirement. No conven-tional experiment is likely to generate such a large amount of energy. Appendix C, how-ever, reveals that there is a connection between gravity and magnetism. Of interest is to

know whether this relative time difference could be provoked. A levitating device mustlose its energy of weight but because gravitational energy is negative,Ee (DE) =Ee+DE=Eo (whereEe:energy seen in the rotating frame of reference,Eo: energy seen in astationary frame of reference), a levitation device seen from the ground is a generator.Because gravitational energy is negative its subtraction from the time regime of emptyspace means its addition as seen from the gravitational field in which the device is im-mersed. By losing its energy of weight: DE= GMm/R (where G: gravitational constant,M: mass of Earth, m: mass of object to be levitated,R: radius of Earth) the device is leftwith the gravitational energy it would have in empty space, which is zero, although stillin a gravity field. An object with no energy of weight has no weight.

An objection to any gravity neutralizing theory has always been that such a theory

would unavoidably introduce perpetual motion, which is impossible. But this theory pre-sents the intrinsic needfor energy loss, with no force implied just as no force is impliedin General Relativity. Energy loss is integral to this gravity neutralizing theory and there-fore it cannot be said to contradict laws of established physics for that reason. This needfor energy loss can be understood by analogy with a weight rolling down an incline thattakes longer to reach the bottom than if it slid. The explanation is that part of its gravita-tional energy goes into rotation, leaving less for falling, whereas in sliding the total use ofthat energy is for falling. In the case of a levitating device all its gravitational energymust be lost by means other than falling, by radiating off its generated energy from thesame magnetic field causing the relative time dilation. Although a magnetic field is notuniversally invariant, while in a rotating system its time regime must follow the time re-

gime of its electrons and the energy generated is of the time regime of those electrons.This is the energy that must be lost.Of interest, then, would be an experiment to see if the enormous energy loss re-

quirement for gravity neutralization is possible using new developments in materialstechnology. For commercial reasons the source of magnetism in such an experimentwould not be a single magnetized plate but several magnets. These are visualized in acircular arrangement (see Appendix E) free to rotate on each side of a flat, horizontal ar-mature with their collective magnetic fields cutting the wires of the armature. Important


3/22

3

is that the magnets do the rotating, not the armature. With magnetic field B and magneticfield area AB, in the time tby Faradays Law the voltage V generated by one wire is:

V = -DBA

B

D t1

The negative sign is from Lenzs Law and plays no part in this theory. Since all calcula-tions begin from t= 0, the D can be ignored. Evaluation remains the same for n voltagesources in parallel. From Physics, current i is:

i =V

g2

wheregis conductor resistance. In the case of superconductors resistance is technically

zero although at the present time multi-component commercial tapes are not perfect inthis regard. Superconductor conductivity is taken here to be 100 times the conductivity

of gold: 100 (4.10 x 107) = 4.10 x 109 amp/(volt m). Therefore, for superconductors:

i = (4.10 x 109) n V i 3

where n is the number of superconductor strips and i is their length (m).

From Physics the power P generated is:

P =V i 4

Substituting equation 1 for V: P =

B AB

tM

i 5

where tM = time per revolution of magnet plate rotation. Since power = energy/time, theenergy generated is:

E= P tM

=BA

B

tM

i

tM

= B ABi

Equating with the energy of weight, mentioned above:

-G M m

R= B A

Bi


4/22

4

\ m = -R

GM

BAB i

Substituting known values from Physics:

m= - 1.60 x 10-8( ) B A B i

= - 1.60 x 10-8( ) P tM 6

Let us see how much weight loss is possible using conventional means. A powerfulmagnet [K & J Magnetics, Ltd. (www.kjmagnetics.com/products.asp?cat=168) stock #BZXOYOYO-N52, price: US$518.33 each] has dimensions: 4 x 2 x 2, surface field:5884 gauss which at an estimated distance of 1/8 produces 1525 gauss [by Internet cal-culation (www.arnoldmagnetics.com/Gauss_Output_of_a_Rectangular_Magnet.aspx)] or0.1525 tesla. Since there are two magnets on each side of the armature, B 2 x 0.1525 =0.305 tesla. 16 of these 4 x 2 magnets can be easily fitted within a 24 schedule 10pipe housing, giving a total magnetic field area: AB = 16 (4 x 2) = 0.083 m

2. Let us as-

sume 1,000 RPM, therefore the time for one magnet plate rotation is tM = 0.06 second.Using equation 1 the voltage generated is:

V =(0.305)(0.083)

.06= 0.42 volts

Resistivity of copper at the temperature of liquid nitrogen is 2.717 x 10 -9 ohm-m. Let usassume using a #5 gage copper plate for an armature with 240 slots cut in this plate, each0.120 m long, giving the electrical resistance in the strip between each slot g1 = (1.54 x

10-5) ohm. The total resistance for all strips in parallel: g= (1.54 x 10-5)/240 = 6.42 x 10-8

ohm. From equation 2 the current is:

i =0.42

6.42 x 10-8

= 6.54 x 106 ampsFrom equation 4 the power is:

P = (0.42) (6.54 x 106) = 2.75 x 106 watt

From equation 6 the gravitational mass loss is:

m = (1.60 x 10-8) (2.75 x 106) (0.06)

= 0.003 kg

By the radiation frequency graph (page 17) of Appendix D to have meaning m must be atleast 0.707 kg. Using conventional materials, for a 0.71 kg loss 237 magnet tiers wouldhave to be used! No wonder the connection between magnetism and gravity has neverbeen experimentally proved! Obviously other means must be found than using conven-tional technology.


5/22

5

In recent years that technology has become available with the discovery of hightemperature superconductivity. Firms can now produce wire and tape commercially withthe ability to conduct electricity with much reduced resistance at the temperature of liquidnitrogen. Therefore, let us apply the same parameters to the above test using supercon-ductors. Again B = 0.305 tesla, AB = 0.083 m

2, tM = 0.06 second. For the number of su-

perconductor strips assume n = 90, and their length i = 0.12 m to span the length of amagnet. These are placed radially around the shaft (see quarter plan, page 20). As previ-ously, V = 0.42 volts by equation 1. From equation 3 the current generated is:

i = [4.10 x 109 amp/(volt m)] (90 strips) (0.42 volts) (0.12 m)= 1.86 x 1010 amp

The generated power by equation 4 is:

P = (0.42) (1.86 x 1010)= 7.81 x 109 watt

The gravitational mass (weight) loss by equation 6 is:

m =(1.60 x 10-8) (7.81 x 109)(0.06)=7.5 kg

The general outline for a gravity-neutralizing device is pictured in the followingschematic. Important is that the lower face of each top magnet above the armature be N,the upper face of each bottom magnet below the armature be S, and the magnet bearingplates rotate in a clockwise direction seen from the top. This is a requirement due to theimportant relationship of rotation to electron spin. Electron spin is therefore opposite

plate rotation as required. Current (shown here to be electron flow, not conventionalpositive current) in the armature, considering magnetmovement (not armature move-ment), will be generated from its inner rim to its outer rim. This direction is desirablebecause of the smaller circumference of the inner rim that would build charge to impedecurrent if flow were opposite. DC current is changed to AC by an inverter, and con-ducted to plates that serve as electromagnetic radiators. This loss of gravitational energyis made possible by the source of energy being in the alternate time of the rotating elec-trons. The radiation plates are arranged in a pair so that positive and negative pulsesfrom the electric circuit flow in opposite directions, the same as in a dipole antenna.These radiation plates are the interface between the two time regions of the rotatingmagnetic fields and gravity field. They should therefore be placed at the lowest position

of the device to gravitationally isolate anything immediately above them. In reaction tothe rotation of the magnets these and the entire housing will rotate in the opposite direc-tion from conservation of angular momentum. The resulting device therefore presents arotating circular housing with a large radiation plate attached to its base emitting light,thus fitting the popular imagination of an alien UFO and the reason for the facetious titleof this essay.


6/22

6

ROTATING PLATES

WITH MAGNETS

MOTOR

RADIATION

PLATES

MULTIPLE

STATIONARY

ARMATURES

INVERTER

N

N

N

N

S S

S S

SCHEMATIC I


7/22

7

Personal Reflections:

Given the importance of neutralizing gravity during our space age we have towonder why we hear so little about research into it, although billions are spent on rocketsthat can never make space access possible on a significant scale. Rather, such research is

discouraged by academic fear generated over the loss of professional reputations if thesubject of antigravity is even mentioned. The subject seems taboo, although the asso-ciation of gravity with atomic particle spin was discovered over forty years ago by ex-perimenter Henry Wallace, described in his U.S. Patent #3626605 Method and Appa-ratus for Generating a Secondary Gravitational Force Field awarded on Dec 14, 1971.In his experiments Wallace produced and measured a gravity field in materials with anodd number of nucleons when given high rotation. The effect is similar to the BarnettEffect in which a body of any substance given high rotation becomes magnetized. Theeffect is explainable from this gravity neutralizing theory as it would be due to precessionof the nucleons to givepositive alignment with rotation of the material. What he found isthe relationship ofall atomic particle spin to gravity, since the atomic spin of all particles,

whether protons, neutrons or electrons, is universally invariant and therefore capable ofproducing a gravitational time difference. In more recent years experimenters have dis-covered unexplained gravitational effects associated with rotating magnetic fields, dis-closed in reports such as Experimental Research of the Magnetic-Gravity Effects,by V.V. Roschin and S. M. Godin, Institute for High Temperatures, Russian Academy of Sci-ence. Other experimenters also have suspected a connection between rotating magneticfields and gravity, with no theory to explain their findings because all theoretical efforthas concentrated on the magnetic fields, which have only an indirect relationship togravitation. The direct connection is in the time dilatation property of electron spin. Thata civilization like ours, that can contemplate quantum computers, does not have the tech-nology to neutralize gravity seems anomalous, although we have had a theory of gravity

since 1916 in Einsteins General Theory of Relativity and Heike Onnes discovered super-conductivity in 1911.No doubt that anomaly can be partly explained by the cost of innovation and the

natural conservatism of people reluctant to go beyond the next mountain. The WrightBrothers had the airplane invented in 1903 yet it did not become accepted until 1908,with unbelief and derision, including of the most scientifically educated of their time,filling those five years. It was not until World War I that the potential of the airplane wasfully recognized. Frank Whittle is regarded as the father of the jet engine, receiving hisfirst patent in January 1930, England, but could not get official support for its study andwork due to the obstructionism of British scientists, but that soon changed during WWIIwhen it was found that Germany had invented the same. Marconi was told by the scien-

tists of his day that radio waves could not be heard across the Atlantic at sea level. Ifanything, scientists have been an impedimentto technological progress. A sad fact ofhuman history is that war has given major impetus to invention, and the same could betrue of a gravity-neutralizing device. The ability to neutralize gravity would provide theultimate military high ground. Governments also have resources for research. Wewould think that space companies would have the most reasonable incentive for devel-oping gravity neutralization, so let us hope that for once this advancement will not followthe usual historical pattern.


8/22

8

Appendix A: DIRECTION OF MAGNET ROTATION

Let us imagine a wheel spinning on an arm, like a childs propeller toy, but withthe arm also rotating. The planes of both rotations are parallel, that is, their mathematicalnormals are parallel but in opposite directions since the arm rotates in a direction opposite

to the spin of the wheel. We consider the rate of spinning of the wheel from the point-of-view of two observers, one observer is stationary on the ground, the other observer is ro-tating with the arm. Obviously the two observers will not see the same rate of rotation onthe wheel. Because the arm is rotating opposite the rotation of the wheel, its rotationmust be subtracted from the wheel rotation as seen by the stationary ground observer.This is not true of the observer rotating with the arm, who will see the rotation of thewheel as if there were no arm rotation.

That would be the normal expectation. But suppose both observers see the samerate of rotation on the wheel. Something would have to be different between the two ob-servers and that would be time. Using designations:

tG: time seen by the ground observertA: time seen by the arm observerwA : arm rotational velocity

wW: wheel rotational velocity

qA: angular distance traveled by arm

qW : angular distance traveled by wheel

The time ratio between the ground and arm observers is as follows. Since q= wt:

tG=qW-q

A

wW

=w

WtA-w

AtA

wW

= tA-

wA

wW

tA

= tA1-

wA

wW

\tG

tA

=1-w

A

wW

7

To be noted in equation 7 is that time for the ground observer is less than time for the armobserver when wheel rotation is opposite arm rotation. This is the natural time relationbetween a gravity field and empty space. If both rotations were in the same direction itwould be more.


9/22

9

Appendix B: Ee = MC2

Due to 1/c2 0 the Schwarzchild spacetime interval can be abbreviated to:

(Dt

)

2

= 1-

2G M

r c 2

(Dt)

2

where G: gravitational constant,M: mass of a large object like Earth, c: speed of light, r:distance from the gravitational center of Earth, t: time near Earth and t: time at a distance

in space with little mass-energy. Although General Relativity describes gravity as aspacetime phenomenon the usefulness of time flow difference as its major component isapparent. This equation expressed:

D t

D t= 1-

2G M

r c2

with its square root binomially expanded becomes:

1-2 G M

r c2

1/ 2

=1-G M

r c2

-1

2

G M

r c2

2

+ ...

\Dt

D t1-

G M

r c2

That is, for Earth:

Dt(Earth)

Dt (empty space)

1-GM

Rc2 8

To be noted from equation 8 is that time runs slower on Earth than in empty space.Let us now consider Appendix A and make an analogy of the wheel and arm to

electrons and plate. The electrons take the place of the wheel and the rotating plate con-taining the electrons takes the place of the rotating arm. In addition there is a magneticfield applied to the plate in such manner that it orients the spin of its electrons in theopposite direction to plate rotation. Using designations:

t0: time seen by a stationary observer (sec)te: time seen by an observer in a rotating frame of reference (sec)

wr: rotational velocity of the rotating frame of reference (rad/sec)we: electron property corresponding to rotational velocity (rad/sec)

m: mass, the weight of which is to be neutralized (kg)Eo: energy seen by a stationary observer (joule)Ee: energy seen by an observer in the rotating frame of reference (joule)

To be noted is that t0 is analogous to tG in the wheel example and te is analogous to tA :


10/22

10

to

te

tG

tA

For an object to achieve weightlessness, the ratio of time seen by a ground observer totime seen by an observer in the rotating frame must be the same as the ratio of time seen

on Earth to that seen in empty space. That is, using equation 8:

to

te

=1-GM

Rc2

To be noted also is that wr is analogous to wA in the wheel example and we is analogous to

wW :

wr

we

wA

wW

Therefore, analogous to equation 7:

to

te

=1-w

r

we

9

\ 1-w

r

we

=1-GM

Rc2

w

r

we

=GM

Rc2

10

Time and energy are reciprocal, as in KE = 1/2Lw = 1/2L(q/t). Therefore, equating theratios of time and energy using equation 9:

to

te

=E

e

Eo

=1-w

r

we

\E

o

Ee

=1

1-w

r

we

1+w

r

we

Eo = 1+w

r

we

Ee

\ DE= EO

- Ee= 1+

wr

we

Ee - Ee =

wr

we

Ee 11


11/22

11

For weightlessness an object in a gravity field must shed its energy of weight GMm/R,and since this is the relative energy difference:

DE =w

r

we

Ee = -

GMm

R

Substituting equation 10:

GM

Rc2

Ee = -

GMm

R

\Ee = mc2 12

The meaning is that achieving the time difference required to cancel the weight of an ob-ject with mass m, simply by rotating a magnetic field in a counter rotating system, re-quires that the energy of the field have absolute value mc2. Obviously this value is verydifficult to achieve and is the reason for no connection between magnetism and gravity

ever having been experimentally confirmed.


12/22

12

Appendix C: ENERGY OF MAGNETIC FIELD ENERGY OF GRAVITY

Of interest is to know whether the energyEe generated by a rotating magnetic field is thesame as the energy of gravity. Since electric current i = V/g, where V: volts and g: resis-

tance (ohm), from equations 2 and 4:

P = V2

g

Substituting equation 1:

P =

B AB

t

2

g=

(B AB

)2

t2

g

Since power = energy/time, the energy generated is:

E =

(B AB

)2

t g

In the reference frame of a ground observer this is:

Eo=

(B AB

)2

to

g13

Remembering that toDt(Earth) and teDt(empty space),from equation 8:

te=

to

1-GM

Rc2

The energy seen from the rotating magnets considering equation 13 and symmetryis:

Ee=

(B AB

)2

te

g

Substituting for te:

Ee=

(B AB

)2

to

1-GM

Rc2

g


13/22

13

=

(B AB

)2

1-GM

Rc2

to

g

=(B AB)2 - B AB( )

2 GM

Rc2

to

g

=(B A

B)

2

to

g-

B AB( )

2

to

g

GM

Rc2

or, using equations 13 and 10: Ee= E

o- E

o

wr

we

We want to know the relative energy difference DE=Eo Ee , that is:

DE = Eo- E

o- E

o

wr

we

= Eo

wr

we

or in the reference frame of the rotating magnets, considering symmetry once again, it is:

DE = Ee

wr

we

which is the same evaluation as equation 11. Since equation 11 was derived purely fromthe time ratio of equation 8 and the basic premise of this theory, the conclusion is that theenergy generated by a rotating magnetic field is the same as the energy of gravity. Thisenergy must be lost. Because the energy of the two fields is intrinsically the same, to loseweight that energy lost must be electromagnetic.


14/22

14

Appendix D: RADIATION FREQUENCY1

To achieve levitation the gravitational mass energy must be radiated off, requiringa large radiating surface. To calculate the frequency we begin with the average Poyntingexpression S = Fe

2/(2 cmo), where Fe is the electric field (volts/m); mo is the permeability

constant (tesla-m/amp) and c is the speed of light (m/sec). S quantifies the average rateof energy flow per unit area radiated upon a surface. Let us imagine a surface of thesame area very close and parallel to the radiator upon which its energy radiates. Theamount received by that surface will be the same as the amount radiated and we can usethe Poynting expression to estimate that amount.

The gravitational energy that must be lost is:

Eo- E

e= -

GMm

R= -

(6.67 x10-11

)(5.98 x 1024

) m

6.38 x 106

=(6.25 x 107) m joules

The gravitational constant G (nt m2/kg2) is calculated with nt (kg m/sec2), so the time unitto calibrate power is the second. When lost in one second the power dissipated is (6.25 x107)(- m) joules/sec or watts. Over one meter of area using the average Poynting expres-sion this is:

Eo-E

e

AP

=F

e

2

2 c mo

or:

(6.25 x107

)(- m)

AP=

Fe

2

2 c mo

Where AP is the radiation surface area. From Physics:

Fe=s

y

where s: surface charge density (coul/m2) and permittivity constant y= 8.85 x 10-12

(farad/meter).

\

(6.25 x107

)(- m)

AP =

s

y

2

2 c mo=

s2

2 c moy2

From Physics: s = q/AP where q is electrical charge (coulomb). Therefore:

1The accuracy of this development should not reflect on the neutralizing gravity theory. Although loss ofgravitational energy is an integral part of this theory, formulation on how that loss is to be achieved is not.


15/22

15

(6.25 x107

)(- m)

AP

=

q

AP

2

2 c moy

2=

q2

2 c moy

2A

P

2

(1.25 x108 )(- m) = q2

c moy

2AP

From Physics: q = iP tC where iP (amp/sec) is the current within the radiation plate and tCis the time of one cycle in seconds. Therefore:

(1.25 x108

)(- m) =(iP tC)

2

c moy

2AP

Substituting values c = 3.00 x 108 m/sec, mo = 4p x 10-7 tesla m/amp and y = 8.85 x 10-12

farad/m:

(1.25 x108

)(- m) =i

P

2t

C

2

(3.00 x 108

)(4 p x 10-7

)(8.85 x 10-12

)2

AP=

iP

2tC

2

(2.95 x10-20

) AP

\ (3.69 x10-12

)(- m) =iP

2tC

2

AP

Effective AC =70.7% DC, so weigh loss is proportionately less than given by DC:

(3.69 x10-12)(- m) = 0.707i

( )

2t

C

2

AP

=0.5 i

P

2tC

2

AP

(7.38 x 10-12

)(- m) =iP

2tC

2

AP

From Physics tC2 = 1/f2. Also, the time is only the time required for electrical waves to

travel half a plate, so that the area in question is half: AP/2. However, radiation is alsofrom both sides of the plate, doubling the area considered:

(7.38 x 10-12 )(- m) =

iP

2 1

f

2

2A

P

2


16/22

16

=iP

2

AP

f2

\ f2= (1.36 x 10

11)

i2

AP

(-m)

This expression agrees with dimensional analysis and with expectation: asm| increasesm decreases, and with the inverse proportionalityfalso increases. Squaring both sides:

f4 = (1.84 x1022 )

i4

Ap2 (-m)2

To account for direct proportionality the functionf4 1/m2 must be inverted aroundf=f4 = m = m2 = 1/m2 = 1 (see graph) to give:

f4 = (1.84 x 1022 )i4

Ap2

2 -1

m2

Therefore the modified functionfP for m is:

\ fP = (3.68 x105 )

i

Ap2 -

1

m2

1/ 4

14

To be noted is that equation 14 is valid only for m > 0.707. Less m gives an irrational

result that is undefined.For an example we can continue with the example on page 5. Assuming two

semi-circular radiation plates of radius rP = 2 m, their combined area AP = p rP2 = p (2)2 =

12.6 m2. Using equation 14, the radiation frequency that must be delivered to these platesis:

fP = (3.68 x 10

5)

1.86 x 1010

12.62 -

1

7.52

1/ 4

= (1.93 x 1015) (1.19)= 2.29 x 1015 cycles/ sec

This is in the visible light range of the electromagnetic spectrum.


17/22

17

1.00.90.80.70.6 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8

0.1

0.0

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

0. 1 0 .2 0.3 0 .4 0 .5

f

m

fP 1/m2

fP

2 - 1/m2

RADIATION PLATE FREQUENCY CHART


18/22

18

Appendix E: EXPERIMENT

The following describes an experiment to demonstrate the workability of a devicefor neutralizing gravity, depending on the availability of second-generation high tem-perature superconducting tapes or wires that can operate within a considerable magnetic

field. Due to the high resistivity of copper and even of silver relative to the needs of thisdevice, materials of much lower resistivity are needed, especially for commercial appli-cation. In this experiment superconducting tapes are immersed within a bath of liquidnitrogen to serve as a stationary armature sandwiched between two rotating steel platescontaining magnets. Important is that the magnets do the rotating, not the armature. DCcurrent generated is produced in the time regime of the rotating magnetic fields, the en-ergy of which must be lost. This loss is accomplished by using DC lamps connected inparallel (see schematic II below). One armature with 32 magnets on two rotating steelplates is sufficient to validate this theory.

ROTATING PLATE

WITH MAGNETS

MOTOR

STATIONARY

ARMATURE

N N

S S

ROTATING PLATE

WITH MAGNETS

DC LAMPS

SCHEMATIC II


19/22

19

The below quarter plan shows the arrangement of magnets housed within a 24schedule 10 steel pipe, inside of which is a rolled copper cylindrical plate, and betweenthe pipe and rolled plate is a separation filled with liquid nitrogen. The steel pipe is to bewrapped in thermal insulation. The copper cylinder serves as the electrical supply to theDC lamps from the superconductor strips.

16 magnetes

24 sch 10 steel pipe

liquid nitrogen

rolled copper plate

MAGNET-BEARING ROTATING STEEL PLATE QUARTER PLAN(No Scale)

Due to the increased conductivity of superconducting tapes over copper wire themagnets and rotation of the magnet plates can be reduced from the page 5 example. Themagnets used [K & J Magnetics, Ltd. stock # BZXOYOXO-N52, price: US$262.76 each(see page 4)] have dimensions 4 x 2 x 1, surface field: 4174 gauss which at the dis-tance 1/8 gives 1081 gauss by Internet calculation (see page 4) or 0.108 tesla. Sincethere are two magnets per location on each side of the armature, B 2 x 0.108 = 0.216tesla. 32 magnets are used in total, 16 on each side of the armature giving a total mag-netic field area AB = 0.083 m

2 as previously. The rate of magnet plate rotation can be re-duced from 1,000 to 250 RPM, giving tM = 0.24 sec/rev. The voltage from equation 1 is:

V =(0.216)(0.083)

0.24= 0.075 volt


20/22

20

The following quarter plan shows the arrangement of the superconductor strips placedradially around the central shaft. The circle of magnets has an innermost diameter of 0.3m, giving a circumference 0.94 m and with superconductor strips 0.01 m wide:0.94/0.01 90 strips as in the first example. These strips must be in a liquid nitrogenbath, and of length: i = 0.12 m to extend across the length of a magnet. As previously,

the conductivity will be taken to be 100 times the conductivity of gold: sS = 4.10 x 109

amp/(volt m). All together they form the stationary armature sandwiched between thetwo plates of rotating magnets. Power generated flows to the rolled copper cylinder sur-rounding the superconductors to the lamps and returns via a rotating copper cylindershrunk onto the rotating shaft. To accommodate the immense current generated, both therolled copper plate cylinder and rotating solid copper cylinder must be augmented with

superconductors. How this can be done is left to experts in superconductivity.

24 sch 10 steel pipe

liquid nitrogen

rolled copper plate

superconductor strips

copper cylinder

steel shaft

STATIONARY ARMATURE WITH SUPERCONDUCTORS QUARTER PLAN

(No Scale)

From equation 3 the current generated is:

i = [4.10 x 109 amp/(volt m)] (90 strips) (0.075 volts) (0.12 m)= 3.32 x 109 amp


21/22

21

The power by equation 4 is:P = (0.075) (3.32 x 109)

= 2.49 x 108 watt

The gravitational mass (weight) loss by equation 6 is:

m =(1.60 x 10-8) (2.49 x 108)(0.24)=0.956 kg

which is sufficient to give unambiguous proof of this theory. Also 0.956 > 0.707 (seepage 16). If we use radiation plates with the same radius rP = 2 m as on page 16, fromequation 14:

fP = (3.68 x 105

)3.32 x 10

9

12.62 -

1

0.9562

1/ 4

= (3.44 x 1014) (0.976)= 3.36 x 1014 cycles/sec

The time for one radiation cycle is therefore: tC = 1/fP = 1/(3.36 x 1014) = 2.98 x 10-15 sec,

and tC/2 is the time for a mechanical rotor contact to change DC to AC. Then the surfacelength s of one contact is approximately s = v tC/2 where v is the rotor tangential velocity.For simplicity of construction the rotor would be on the same shaft as the rotating mag-nets, so 250 RPM = 2p (250)/60 = 26.2 rad/sec = w. For rotor radius rR: v = w rR so s =w rR tC/2 = (26.2) rR (2.98 x 10

-15)/2 = 3.90 x 10-14 rR. To have a rotor electrical contact

length s 0.01m, the rotor radius would be rR = 0.01/(3.90 x 10-14) = 2.56 x 1011 m.!

Due to this difficulty lamps are used. From the above the power that must be dis-sipated is 2.49 x 108 watts. Therefore considering 5,000-watt lamps available on themarket, the number of lamps is:

2.49 x 108

5,000 50,000 lamps

Reducing this exorbitant number remains a challenge using market equipment.These difficulties with experimentation only suggest more plausibly the reason for

the connection between rotating magnetic fields and gravity never having been experi-mentally proved. They should not be used as an argument against practical developmentof the technology, for with improvements in high temperature superconductors to with-stand large magnetic fields and of superconductor magnets giving those immense fields,gravitational mass falls precipitously, shown in the following graph. With magnets of

two tesla or more, much higher RPM than used in this experiment, high emission radia-tion plates and multiple tiers of magnets, the neutralization of gravity will become com-monplace and human confinement to our one small planet will be a limitation of the past.The following graph shows the possibilities using just the parameters of this experimentwith an increase in RPM to 1000:


22/22

22

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 B

m(kg)

-20

-40

-60

-80

-100

-120

-140

-160

-180

-200

-220

-240

GRAVITATIONAL MASS LOSS WITH B

RPM = 1000, n = 90, i= 0.12 m, AB = 0.083 m2

how to make a “ufo” how the development of second generation ‘high’ temperature...

Documents