D. Edward Mitchell 16:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC) Hello World!    groupKOS Developer Share —usually UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Nuclear Gravity?

From groupKOS Developer Share
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Henry Wallace Patents
Generating a secondary gravitational force field  °   Generating a dynamic force field   °   Heat pump


The Wallace Patents and Politics of Science  °  Anti-gravity Not So Crazy After All  °  Nuclear Gravity?


This document was originally posted on a ISP personal web page at http://home.att.net/~kfbrown/ng.html, now long gone.

This document was retrieved from the Internet Archive Wayback Machinehttp://web.archive.org/web/19991115111702/http://home.att.net/~kfbrown/ng.html   Don (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

NUCLEAR GRAVITY?

A Scientific Examination of The Wallace Patents

Kedrick F. Brown, January 24, 1998
Updated November 14, 1998


What This Page Is About: In 1971 Henry Wallace patented a device (U.S. Pat. 3,626,605) [1] that he claimed produced a changing gravitational field in the space surrounding it. Surprisingly, there seem to be no scientific papers to date either supporting or denouncing his 26 year old claims in either this patent or its two supporting patents (3,626,606 and 3,823,570) [2,3]. Thus, there has been much debate on the web about his patents (whether or not they work, why they haven't received more exposure, etc.) I believe that much of this debate continues without resolution because his patents are extremely complicated and expensive to build, and no one wants to spend thousands of dollars on a device that may or may not work, and would most certainly be regarded with distaste in the mainstream scientific community because of its "antigravity" connotations.

This page is thus an attempt to scientifically examine the fundamental premises of Wallace's patents to determine whether or not they would actually work (ignoring the fact that they were already granted patents, of course). In so doing, I present a slightly simpler method of testing for the existence of the "kinemassic field" he claimed to have discovered that should be consistent with the theory he puts forward in his patents. It is my hope that individuals interested in the subject of gravitational modification will find this page useful.

Note: This page begins assuming the reader has a basic knowledge of the Wallace patents and how they work. For a more detailed explanation of how the patents work please see the appendix at the end.

FOR A SUMMARY OF THIS PAGE CLICK HERE (UPDATED!) Table of Contents: -An Apparent Angular Momentum Related Contradiction

-The Kinemassic Field Must be a Strong Force Related Gravitational Effect to Explain Wallace's Results

-Is There Evidence For A Strong Force To Gravity Coupling Today?

-A Simpler Way To Test For The Existence Of The Kinemassic Field

-Possible Connections of Wallace's Experiment With Podkletnov's "Gravity Shielding" Superconductor

-Appendix: How Wallace's Patents Work

-Sources Used

-Related Links


An Apparent Angular Momentum Related Contradiction

Wallace's patents are fundamentally based on the existence of a field that he claimed to be "not heretofore observed" and named the "kinemassic" field. According to him, the kinemassic field is a nonelectromagnetic field "by theoretical prediction related to the gravitational coupling of relatively moving bodies," in other words a gravitomagnetic field. More specifically, Wallace claimed that when materials containing half-integral spin nuclei are place in relative rotation to one another at close proximity, a gravitomagnetic field is produced between them. If this gravitomagnetic field is made to vary with time, a phase-related gravitoelectric field is produced in the surrounding space through induction.

General relativity predicts the existence of the gravitomagnetic field, which is analogous in many ways to the magnetic field of electromagnetism, and arises from the relative motions of massive bodies as well as their angular momentum. In fact, experimental evidence for the existence of this field already exists (i.e. the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer satellite) [4].

In his patent, Wallace claims to provide a method of inducing a kinemassic field in a relatively closed ringlike circuit of special material (i.e. material having half integral nuclear spin). Because the kinemassic field must be a form of the gravitomagnetic field, he found that time varying this field in a sinusoidal manner throughout the circuit induced a phase-related changing gravitoelectric field in the surrounding space (analogous to induction of an electric field by a changing magnetic field). His method of doing this was to induce a changing nuclear polarization (by rotation) in this ringlike circuit. For details on the method of nuclear polarization he used, which has to do with rotating a wheel containing half integral spin nuclei at high angular velocity, please see the appendix.

Without a doubt, the kinemassic field that Wallace observed is most certainly NOT the gravitomagnetic field that would be expected by standard general relativity (i.e. a field due to the angular momentum of either the wheel or the polarized nuclei within it), and there are several reasons for this:

1) The kinemassic field cannot be due to the angular momentum of anything in Wallace's experiment because the minuteness of the gravitomagnetic coupling constant mu (~ 10^-26 m/kg) basically means that nothing on the laboratory scale will be able to produce enough angular momentum to generate a noninfinitesmal gravitomagnetic field. In fact, almost nothing except neutron stars and black holes are capable of producing noninfinitesmal gravitomagnetic fields. This means that the brass wheel in Wallace's device does not have nearly enough angular momentum to produce a detectable gravitomagnetic field, much less one capable of polarizing other nuclei across a 10 to 60 micron gap. However, the results obtained in U. S. Pat. 3,626,606 indicate that this nuclear polarization is in fact transmitted across this gap (please see appendix for more details).

2) If the gravitomagnetic field produced by angular momentum were responsible for the effect Wallace observed, it would be unneccessary to use exclusively those materials having half integral nuclear spin. The combined nuclear angular momentum of all the nuclei in Wallace's wheel is on the order of 10^-10 Js, while the macroscopic angular momentum of the wheel is on the order of 10 Js. Thus, the combined angular momentum of the nuclei in the wheel would make an entirely negligible contribution to any gravitomagnetic field produced by the wheel's macroscopic angular momentum (which I have already shown would be negligible anyway).

3) If the contribution of nuclear angular momentum to the total angular momentum of the wheel was in fact not negligible, then materials like iron (whose main isotope has 0 nuclear spin and is ferromagnetic) could be substituted for brass (Wallace used a form of brass containing 89% copper), because the free electron has approximately the same spin as a nucleus, so the polarized electron spin could be subsituted for the polarized nuclear spin in a wheel. Wallace makes it quite clear that iron is a kinemassic field "reluctant" material, however. This is because the kinemassic field he talks about is the gravitomagnetic field arising from the "summed [gravitomagnetic] dipole moments" of the polarized-by-rotation NUCLEI in his device and thus very short range (i.e. it cannot extend very far into space that does not contain polarizable nuclei, because these nuclei in relatively rotating frames are responsible for creating the field in the first place).

4) We can also discount the possibility that the nuclei in his device somehow acquire a large amount of angular momentum through the rotational polarization process. They would have to acquire a total angular momentum numerous orders of magnitude greater than that of the rotor itself in order produce a noninfinitesmal gravitomagnetic field. If the nuclei in the rotor did in fact acquire a total angular momentum of this magnitude, the gyroscopic counter-torque created by rotating the rotor about an axis perpendicular to its axis of rotation (as Wallace did) would most likely have destroyed his experiment.

We have seen that the kinemassic field that Wallace observed must be a gravitomagnetic field in order to explain his results. However, we have also seen that the kinemassic field that he observed CANNOT BE the infinitesmal gravitomagnetic field produced by the angular momentum of anything in his device (i.e. not the wheel and especially not the nuclei). Yet he claims that the kinemassic field arises from the summed gravitomagnetic dipole moments of the polarized nuclei in his device. Of course this seems so far like an apparent contradiction, unless each nucleus IN A ROTATING SYSTEM emits a gravitomagnetic field numerous orders of magnitude stronger than that commonly believed. Therefore, let us examine what ELSE Wallace has to say about this field.

The Kinemassic Field Must be a Strong Force Related Gravitational Effect to Explain Wallace's Results 1) Wallace claims that the kinemassic (i.e. gravitomagnetic) field is MAXIMIZED in the nucleus due to the extreme density and proximity of the nucleons in relative motion (thus, the more nucleons a nucleus has, the stronger the kinemassic field it will produce).

2) Wallace claims that each nucleus emits a kinemassic field ALIGNED with its net angular momentum vector that extends beyond the ambient electromagnetic field of the electron cloud surrounding it.

3) Wallace suggests that kinemassic (i.e. gravitomagnetic) fields may account for a significant portion of the strong nuclear binding force. By Newton's third law the reverse of this would also have to be true, i.e. an aspect of the strong nuclear force may be responsible for gravitomagnetic fields in the region of the nucleus (that may be much stronger than commonly believed).

4) Wallace claims that the kinemassic field is "essentially unrelated to or affected by electromagnetic force phenomena." (which is an obvious requirement since it is a gravitomagnetic field)

5) Wallace stresses that it is necessary to use materials containing a majority of nuclei having half-integral nuclear spin to generate and transmit kinemassic fields (i.e. as nuclei emit the maximized strength form of this field that Wallace referred to, detectable non-astronomical kinemassic fields are mostly confined to matter, and thus very short range).

We have already seen that the kinemassic field created in Wallace's experiment cannot be due to either the angular momentum of the brass wheel or that of the polarized nuclei within it. From these statements of Wallace's about the kinemassic field, it is clear that he believes it to be a basically nuclear gravitational effect, likely related to the strong force. Simply put, in order to explain his experimental results without contradiction, each nucleus IN A ROTATING SYSTEM must emit a much stronger gravitomagnetic field than that commonly believed today (i.e. in addition to the infinitesmal gravitomagnetic field produced by nuclear angular momentum). More specifically, the gravitomagnetic field produced by the polarized nuclei in Wallace's wheel must be numerous orders of magnitude larger than the negligible field produced by the macroscopic angular momentum of the wheel itself.

The kinemassic field IS therefore a short range gravitomagnetic field (likely related to the strong force) emitted by each nucleus IN A ROTATING SYSTEM having half-integral net angular momentum. Although its dipole moment is aligned with the nucleus's net angular momentum vector, its field strength is numerous orders of magnitude larger than the infinitesmal gravitomagnetic field produced by the nucleus's net angular momentum. Thus, nuclear polarization of a substance by rotation is the same as kinemassic polarization of that substance. Due to the fact that the version of this field utilized in Wallace's experiment emanates from nuclei alone, the kinemassic field is obviously mostly confined to matter. Therefore, the optimum method of demonstrating gravitoelectric effects arising from the kinemassic field is to use a closed circuit of kinemassic flux (i.e. a ring of nuclear polarized matter) and to vary the nuclear polarization sinusoidally in the circuit.

As stated before, Wallace suggests that the strong nuclear force may have something to do with the existence of nuclear kinemassic fields. There is in fact no other possibility that can explain his results. Wallace even states that his device be constructed "preferably of Bismuth." Bismuth is 100% naturally abundant and has the highest number of nucleons of any stable element (209), and thus the highest level of strong force saturation. This of course corroborates the fact that Wallace's results must be due to a nuclear (i.e. strong force related) effect. If Wallace's results were due to a macroscopic angular momentum effect, he would want to choose the densest possible material for the wheel short of neutron star fluid (i.e. Osmium), which he does not. If they were due to a quantum angular momentum effect, in addition to Bismuth he would probably have mentioned Niobium and the two isotopes of Indium as optimum materials for his effect, as they all have 9/2 h-bar nuclear spin.

On this note, a stable superheavy element (element Z=114) with 298 total nucleons is predicted by the shell model [5]. If when finally discovered it turns out to have a stable isotope having half integral nuclear spin (e.g. with 299 nucleons), this would then of course be the optimum material for generating the kinemassic field due to its even more extreme level of strong force saturation. Is There Evidence For A Strong Force to Gravity Coupling Today? After all the facts presented about Wallace's experiment, we must ask whether there is any evidence in scientific literature for a strong force to gravity coupling. To start with, the strong force is similar to gravity in that it is charge independent. However, the carriers of the strong force between nucleons (the Yukawa pions) are massive while the carriers of the gravitational field (virtual gravitons) are generally massless. As the strong force is not completely understood and gravity is rather vaguely understood, it is not surprising that only vague theoretical evidence for such a coupling exists.

For example, Lano [6,7] has shown that strong force symettry breaking may be capable of inducing a gravitational Meissner effect in neutron stars in which the gravitomagnetic field of the star is expelled beyond its surface. More importantly, Ho [8,9,10] has shown that a "line element" of the Yukawa potential (which describes the strong force between nucleons) provides an exact solution to the field equations of general relativity (somewhat analogous to how a line element of the Newtonian gravitational field also provides a solution to these equations). If this were the case, it would mean that the strong force might be produced by a special type of matter/energy unique to nucleons (i.e. strong charge) having negative energy density (which would have to be incredibly high). If there is even a vague possibility that this matter/energy exists in the nucleus, it is also possible that nucleons in relative motion might be capable of generating detectable nuclear gravitomagnetic fields such as that which Wallace talked about.

A Simpler Way to Test For The Existence Of The Kinemassic Field Unless Wallace's results were spurious (i.e. he was mistaken or a fraud), I have shown that the only explanation for them is a strong force to gravity coupling. Thus, the critical part of his experiment is the induction of changing nuclear polarization (using rotational polarization) in a ring of material containing half integral spin nuclei. This is because the gravitomagnetic field of the nuclei polarized BY ROTATION is responsible for his effect (which I have shown must be much larger than commonly expected for his effect to work).

It is clear that electromagnetic methods of nuclear polarization cannot produce Wallace's results. If this were in fact the case then the induction of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) in a ring shaped sample would be a much simpler and cheaper way of reproducing his experiment, because it would maximize both the extent of the nuclear polarization in the ring and the frequency of the change in it. For basic information on NMR principles and data see [11,12]. NMR frequencies of polarization change are on the order of 1 million Hz, while Wallace [1] used a frequency of only about 1/6 Hz. However, NO GRAVITATIONAL ANOMALIES HAVE BEEN OBSERVED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANY NMR EXPERIMENTS. Thus, nuclear polarization by rotation is the only known way to reproduce Wallace's results.

The simplest method of demonstrating the existence of the kinemassic field, then, seems to be as follows. Rotate a wheel containing a majority of half-integral spin nuclei at high angular velocity (preferably on the order of 30,000+ RPM). Place a set of semiconductor probes (of similar material to the wheel) in close proximity (on the order of 10 microns or less) to the wheel (as Wallace does in [2]) and measure their state of nuclear polarization over time.

Note that Wallace found that the kinemassic field is so short range that a 1cm break in his brass field circuit caused a disappearance of the gravitoelectric effects around it (because of the discontinuity of kinemassic flux in the circuit).

The fact that rotational methods of polarization seem necessary to reproduce his effects make it slightly impractical to use consistently (an electromagnetic method of producing gravitational effects would be highly preferable). However, it is worthwhile to discover whether or not this field actually exists. Connections of Wallace's Experiment With Podkletnov's "Gravity Shielding" Superconductor Over the past few years, there has been much talk in the scientific community about an effect discovered in Finland by Podkletnov and others (e.g. [13,14]) whereby a ring shaped superconductor appeared to shield the earth's gravitational field. There are conflicting theories as to how this occurred (if it wasn't a spurious effect).

Li and Torr had previously predicted [15] that using electromagnetic fields to create a changing nuclear polarization in e.g. a superconducting ring might be capable of creating detectable gravitoelectric fields around the ring due to a change in the gravitomagnetic coupling constant within the superconductor.

We see that Wallace [1] claimed to have observed a similar effect in a classical ringlike circuit, with his effect being due to the existence of a strong force to gravity coupling (exhibited during rotations of nuclear systems) rather than a change in the gravitomagnetic coupling constant. Thus, spinning the superconductor should polarize its nuclei by rotation -- the so-called Barnett effect [16-23] (please see appendix) which is the same method Wallace used in his experiments.

However, many questions remain, such as why there is no gravitational field change below the superconductor, why the shielded region above the superconductor has a cylindrical shape and extends far upward, etc. The first question seems to weigh in favor of a gravitational shielding interpretation, which Modanese supports [24,25] (although there are objections to this interpretation as well). The second question seems to support the possibility that the superconductor emits gravitational radiation from its upward face, which is a possibility if its nuclei are polarized by rotation and then this polarization is changed by alternating electromagnetic fields.

As Modanese has suggested, the only way to test whether or not the superconductor actually emits gravitational radiation is to tilt it and look at the position of the gravitational shielding cylinder. In view of Wallace's results, one might be inclined to think that it would tilt with the superconductor.

Li and Torr are currently running a detailed experiment (see e.g. [26]) to test Podkletnov's effect around a superconductor. If Wallace's effect is responsible for Podkletnov's results, we see that rotation of the superconductor may be necessary. Appendix: How Wallace's Patent Works Wallace's patent is essentially a massive ring shaped brass apparatus in which he induces a changing nuclear polarization. He claims that polarizing the nuclei of a substance BY ROTATION causes the substance to emit a short range (on the order of 10 microns or so) gravitomagnetic field in the direction of polarization which he calls the "kinemassic" field. By time varying the direction of this gravitomagnetic field in a closed ring (similar to time varying the direction of the magnetic field in a magnetic circuit), he claimed to find that a phase related gravitoelectric field was produced in the space surrounding the ring by a process analogous to magnetic induction of an electric field.

The method that Wallace used to polarize the nuclei in his ringlike apparatus was purely mechanical, perhaps because he wanted to demonstrate that his results were completely independent of electromagnetism. He used a well documented scientific effect known as Barnett's effect.

Barnett's effect is a consequence of the fact that a classical body with angular momentum s when placed in a reference frame rotating at angular velocity O will experience a torque T = s x O that tends to align its spin with the angular velocity vector of the frame. Barnett conducted his experiments on the freely spinning electrons in ferromagnetic cylinders, which also possess magnetic moment as a consequence of their spin. He found that they were magnetized (as a consequence of being spin polarized) PROPORTIONALLY to the angular velocity O of the cylinder.

Wallace knew that freely spinning nuclei could not be an exception to Barnett's effect, because it is an inertial effect. This is the method he uses to polarize the nuclei in his ringlike apparatus. He spun a brass wheel at the extremely high angular velocity of 28,000 RPM and found that the nuclei in it gradually became polarized over time (a period of about 2 hours) to a point that seemed to indicate a degree of saturation. However, using conservation of energy, we see that the torque experienced by a free nucleus in a frame rotating at 28,000 RPM SHOULD BE approximately identical to the torque experienced by a free nucleus in a magnetic field of about 40 microTesla or so (i.e. on the order of the earth's magnetic field). If we substituted such a magnetic field instead of rotating the body this magnetic field really should not be able to produce nuclear polarization to a degree of saturation, as Wallace claimed to have observed.

This is a critical point of his experiment, because he claims that the self-interaction of the individual gravitomagnetic fields of the polarized nuclei gradually lead to an ever increasing polarization over time. In other words, he observed over time a nuclear polarization that INCREASED although the angular velocity of the wheel remained constant. This is a nonlinear deviation from Barnett's effect for nuclei and would be in itself a very major discovery if proven to be accurate.

In fact, the only explanation for such an observation would have to be a self-interaction of the gravitomagnetic fields of the individual nuclei, as Wallace claimed. By cleverly inserting this spinning wheel into a close fitting space in this ringlike circuit, he found that the gravitomagnetic field emitted by these polarized nuclei was so strong that it was able to extend across a gap of 10 microns and polarize the nuclei in the stationary portions of the ringlike circuit, an incredible result. Sources Used [1] H. W. Wallace, U. S. Patent 3,626,605 (1971) [2] H. W. Wallace, U. S. Patent 3,626,606 (1971) [3] H. W. Wallace, U. S. Patent 3,823,570 (1974) [4] http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast06nov97_1.htm [5] W. Loveland and G. Seaborg, New Scientist, August 31, 1991 [6] R. P. Lano, LANL Preprint hep-th/9603077 (1996), submitted to Phys. Rev. D [7] R. P. Lano, LANL Preprint gr-qc/9611023 (1996) [8] V. B. Ho, LANL Preprint hep-th/9506154 v3 (1995) [9] V. B. Ho, LANL Preprint hep-th/9412243 v2 (1995) [10] V. B. Ho, LANL Preprint hep-th/9504072 (1995) [11] http://www.t2star.com/basic.mr/Basic.html [12] Nuclear Spins, Moments and Other Data Related to NMR Spectroscopy, in D. R. Lide, ed., CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 77th ed., CRC Press, 1996 [13] E. Podkletnov and R. Nieminen, Physica C 203, 441 (1992) [14] E. E. Podkletnov, LANL Preprint cond-mat/9701074 v2 (1997) [15] D. G. Torr and N. Li, Found. Phys. Lett. 6 (4), 371 (1993) [16] S. J. Barnett, from Theories of Magnetism - Report of the Committee on Theories of Magnetism of the National Research Council (Vol. 3, Part 3, Number 18 - August, 1922), p.235 [17] S. Vitale et al., Phys. Rev. B 39, 11993 (1989) [18] L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Electrodynamics of Continous Media (Pergamon, Oxford, 1960), p. 144 [19] S. J. Barnett, Phys. Rev. 6 (2), 171 (1915) [20] S. J. Barnett, Phys. Rev. 6 (4), 239 (1915) [21] S. J. Barnett, Phys. Rev. 10, 7 (1917) [22] S. J. Barnett and L. J. H. Barnett, Phys. Rev. 17, 404 (1921) [23] S. J. Barnett, Nature 107, 8 (1921) [24] G. Modanese, Europhys. Lett. 35 (6), 413 (1996) [25] G. Modanese, LANL Preprint supr-con/9601001 (1996) [26] http://ro.com/~preavis/Delta-G/Delta-G.htm

Related Links

Robert Stirniman's Electrogravitics List Many thanks Robert - This list was very helpful in providing some extremely useful sources NASA Frame Dragging Effect Page Tells about how evidence of the gravitomagnetic field's existence (also known as the frame dragging effect) was discovered Pete Skegg's Superconductors and Gravity Shielding Page Tells just about all you'd need to know about the progress of the tests on the gravity shielding capabilities of superconductors - plus numerous related links The Gravity Society Society formed by Schnurer (with Podkletnov and Modanese as charter members) to provide a forum for discussion of gravity modification issues (mostly related to superconductors at this point) The Los Alamos Nat'l Labs (LANL) Preprint Archive Contains preprints of articles by university physicists on various physics subjects. The subjects most directly related to gravitational modification are gr-qc (general relativity and quantum cosmology) and hep-th (high energy physics - theory). A Simple Explanation of NMR A very easy to understand explanation of NMR that includes animations. Copyright January 1998, Kedrick F. Brown Comments? Questions? Email:

kfbrown@worldnet.att.net