Bruce E. DePALMA
N-Machine
Gravity & The Spinning Ball Experiment
by Bruce E. DePalma
(17 March 1977)
Introduction:
The spinning ball experiment consists of the observation of the interaction of gravitational and inertia forces on a rotating material object.
In the interaction of material force on a rotating physical object, four experiments are possible:
1) Inertial forces acting on
non-rotating material objects in field-free space;
2) Inertial forces acting on
rotating material objects in field-free space;
3) Inertial forces acting on
non-rotating material objects in a gravitational field;
4) Inertial forces acting on
rotating material objects in a gravitational field.
Discussion of the Experiments:
In experiments (1) and (2), we would expect the normal inertial forces summarized by Newton’s Laws of mechanical motion. In experiment (3), there is reason to believe there will be (supported by experimental evidence), a slight enhancement of inertia by the gravitational field. The cases of experiments (2) and (4) have not been adequately treated in the literature.
Behavior of Rotating Material Objects:
Certain theoretical considerations justified the belief by the author that the mechanical properties of objects would be altered by rotation and that this would be the basis of the gravitational interaction. A series of experiments has been carried out supporting this basis of action. The report of some of these experiments has been appended to this theoretical dissertation. The results will be presented here.
1) Experimental evidence
supports the fact that a rapidly rotating material object will
gain in inertia.
2) The form of the
gravitational interaction is that the additional inertia
property, od, of rapidly rotating real material objects,
represents an additional repository for the extraction and
supplying of work from or to a gravitational field. This means
a rotating mass will fall more rapidly (with greater
acceleration) than a corresponding no-rotating object under
the influence of a gravitational field.
Form of the Gravitational Interaction:
The complete description of physical phenomena depends on the result of many experiments. Together with the behavior of the spinning ball experiments, there is another series -- force machine pendulum experiments -- which have been reported elsewhere. Basically the phenomena reported here are summarized by these results:
1) A force machine pendulum, i.e., a pendulum composed of two identical flywheels contra-rotating, for the cancellation of gyroscopic forces, swings with a period slightly increased over that of the non-energized force machine. This indicates a net increase in the inertia of the rotating system.
2) The swinging of the energized pendulum is non-sinusoidal, with a foreshortening (flattening) of the peaks of the swings.
3) Mechanical energy of motion, stored in the created inertial property, od, appears as an inertial field. This inertial field has the property of conferring inertia on surrounding material objects -- and a reduction in the frequency of oscillating electrical circuits placed in the vicinity of the energized machine.
When we examine the behavior of the spinning ball in relation to the above phenomena we can extract the following behavior.
When the spinning ball is thrown upwards it leaves the cup wit some vertical velocity v, In order to attain this velocity the spinning ball had been accelerated vertically prior to the time of leaving the cup. Acceleration of a rotating material object requires greater energy than a corresponding non-rotating one since some energy is supplied to the od field. When the spinning object leaves the cup, the kinetic energy of motion is divided between the 1/2mv2 of the "real" mass of the object, and the energy stored in the created inertial property, od. The sum of these two energies allows to attainment of a greater height reached, in the doing of work against the gravitational field, in comparison to a non-spinning object moving with the same initial vertical velocity.
When we examine the behavior of the falling non-spinning object versus the spinning object, we notice the spinning object falling faster (with greater acceleration).
We infer that the behavior of the falling non-spinning object, falling in accord with Newton’s Laws, is a special case of the motion of objects in general. The more general case, involving rotation, is obscured by the gravitational interaction.
We would expect, if we could increase the inertia of an object (through rotation of by some other means), that the object would fall more slowly in a gravitational field. Let us consider however that while a conferred inertial property, od, would reduce the acceleration of a given body acted on by a given force in outer space, in the presence of a gravitational field, the conferred inertial property would be an additional mechanical "dimension" for the extraction of energy from the gravitational field in falling. Conversely, enough energy could be delivered from this "dimension" to cancel, or overcome, the mechanical energy extracted from an object raised in a gravitational field.
On this basis we may write:
For the spinning ball: mgh = ½ mov2 + Kodv
For the spinning ball falling: ½ mov2 = ½ mov2 + Kodv
In a strict sense, the precise application of Newton’s Laws would have to be restricted to non-rotating mechanical objects in field-free space. In a gravitational field, the possibility of extraction of greater energy by a new mechanical dimension opens the possibility of an anti-gravitational interaction. In a rotating force machine, od energy can be supplied:
Driven force machine: mgh = ½ mov2 + Kodw2
Where, w is the angular velocity of the force machine drive axis.
Here is the possibility of the conversion of rotational energy to work done against the gravitational field. What is not determined at this point is the necessary increment of energy required to neutralize the weight of a given object, viz., it might take 1.1 foot pounds of work to lift a one pound object one foot. The incremental field necessary to establish neutral weight, or the hovering condition, represents the inefficiency or lack of perfection of a real force machine. The important fact is the establishment of the od field as the mechanism for a mechanical interaction with the gravitational field, in addition to the mechanical interaction expressed as Newton’s Laws of the falling non-spinning mechanical body.
Interpretation of Physical Laws:
The fact that Newton’s Laws do not distinguish between the spinning and the non-rotating object represents the state of mechanical knowledge at the time. But because Newton did not distinguish between rotation and non-rotation, Einstein did not distinguish between the so-called inert and "gravitational mass". The fact that rotation affects the mechanical properties of objects paces Newton’s Laws as a special case and invalidates a geometrical interpretation of space.
Many questions have been asked about the nature of the gravitational-rotational interaction and its theoretical prediction. Basically the theory can be looked at in the following way. If we consider a force, such as that engendered by the action of the gravitational field on a non-rotating real object, we find we can make a measurement of that force on what we know as a scale. If we examine the reading on that scale, say one pound, we can conduct our examinations to that degree of accuracy where we can reach uncertainty, i.e., 1.000000000??? It is not clear at that point whether the uncertainties in the measurement are due to properties of the experiment, or that which is being experimented upon. The level of causes and effects, uncertainty.
If we consider the results of any experiment we find this phenomenon.
If a real material object is rotated, it is found that within the body of the object are manifested the centripetal forces of rotation. If we consider a measurement of these forces we could find the same defect, that is, the measurement could be made precise enough to reach the noise level, i.e., causes and effects, and it would not be discernable whether the fluctuations were being caused by the experimenter or that which is being experimented upon. This level is the level of defect of forces and represents the connection between rotation and gravitation. Once there is established a connection, the transfer of energy follows a controllable orientation, viz: the spinning balls falls more rapidly because such an object can extract more energy from a gravitational interaction than can a normal one, and as well, the storage of energy in a force machine as an od field results in direct application of this energy to do work against the gravitational field and provide lifting force.
The concept of defect (of a field or force) was originally elicited epistemologically, forming the basis of the author’s theory of Simularity, a theory of Reality based on the properties of measurement.
What is considered is the real properties of the level of causes and effects. What this represents physically as a form of inertia and a connection between rotation and gravitation. The "connectivity" of defect and the other real properties of inertia fields is better left to discussions to begin with the data presented herein. The theory s more properly left to the serious students of these ideas. As apprehension of the theory of Simularity necessarily entails the dropping of certain restrictions on the mind of the experimenter.
What can be said is this:
In the further refinement of the art of physical conceptions, there are certain points reached, wherein it is in the proper ordering of things to drop certain concepts when they have reached the end of the usefulness. In the search for the gravitational interaction, we have long been hampered by the erroneous equation of inert and gravitational masses. We could better say: force is an element in the performance of two separate experiments -- the force of gravitational attraction of a test mass, and, the force necessary to cause a test mass to accelerate at the same rate at which it falls.
Now that we have distinguished between the inert and gravitational mass by means of rotation, there are two principles involved:
1) The connection between
all experiments through the mechanism of defect.
2) The resolution or
distinction of experiments, one from another, on the basis of
differing procedures. There is no basis to believe that two
experiments involving a common element (ingredient) have any
basis to be comparable in their results, viz., the particle
and wave hypothesis of light. It is also reasonable to suggest
that we not apply mundane concepts of "size", "weight",
"mass", "spin", "sign", etc., without precise explicit
reference to the experiment being performed. Since many of the
ideas we have about "matter" are conditioned by the models we
construct, we may have reached a point of development where
the "model" as a concept may have to be discarded.
It is not inconceivable to this author, to regard physics as a collection of experiments, some of which may involve one or more common elements. No one experiment ever gives the results of another separate and distinct experiment. Thusly stated:
A different experiment gives a different result.
We can see that to take the common element of two distinct experiments, that is to take force, and then take the results of theexperimetns and then equate -- having found them "equivalent" -- such a dilemma can only resolve itself in a curvature of geometrical representation of space. In final analysis, the invariance of physical laws is replaced as a concept by defect, a real property elicited by the spinning ball experiments, and which now replaces the invariance of physical laws as the unifying concept of all experiments.
Bruce E. DePalma
[Editor’s Note by R. Nelson: Consider also N.A. Kozyrev’s experiments with time = od = defect]
Understanding the Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment
by
Bruce E. DePalma
(3 May 1977)
The beginning of this author’s work with rotating objects began with moment of inertia measurements of constrained gyroscopes undergoing forced precession. The increased moments of inertia discovered for precessional motion were translated into a series of measurements on pendulums with rotating bobs. Although the discovery of the inertial effects associated with precession and pendulum oscillations were highly suggestive, this author greatly resisted attempts to force him to drop a rotating object for two reasons.
Firstly, he had no reason to be able to predict the motion of a freely falling object on the basis of the inertial alterations he had measured which had concerned themselves with constrained situations of rotating objects. Second, there was no reason to expect inertial alteration to affect the rate of fall of a released object, and there was no available theory which could in any way be applied to the situation of a falling object in a gravitational field. This is a situation known in religious terms as a "leap into the dark".
Since the author and his assistants are experts ion the application of stroboscopic lighting techniques to the study of high speed motions, the first experimental cut at the situation was to photograph the trajectories of a steel ball bearing rotating at high speed together with an identical control object moving at similar initial velocity. The result of the experiment was so startling and anomalous as to have taken me 5 years to understand.
The original results of our experiments were circulated as a report in 1974 (Ref. 1). Two years later, the experiment was published in an appendix to a book of Christian exegesis (Ref. 2). In 1977, one of my former students performed a high precision verification of the dropping of a rotating object: "The Gyro Drop Experiment" (Ref. 3). Actually, the experiment has two parts, the spinning ball going up, and the spinning ball falling. Since I would rather be thought a fool than misrepresent results of experiments, I only attempted to analyze the portion of the experiment I thought I understood. Basically, the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control, presents a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non-rotating object, et al.) and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general. We should remember the pioneers in this field: Wolfe, Cox, Dean, Laithwaite, Rendle, Searl, Kummel, DePalma and Delvers, to name but a few.
In the beginning, I developed the concept of variable inertia to explain the behavior of rotating material objects, but variable inertia in itself contravenes the laws of physics in the sense of contravention of the laws of conservation of mass and energy. Of course, the destruction of one thing is interesting, but of course this is in itself not a creative act and does not take us any closer to the truth.
Because man is so interested in the universe, and the motions of the universe depend so much on gravity, the study of gravity takes us to the deepest foundations of human thought. I think it is a mind-bending experience to see every stone fall at the exact same rate as any other stone. And when you spin an object, why does it fall faster? And most mind-boggling of all, why does it go higher than the identical non-rotating control released to go upward at the same initial velocity? Of course, the experiment could be wrong, but also perhaps we could develop a hypothesis which would fit all experiments.
We know that when we can alter the properties of mechanical objects, i.e., change their inertia, we have contravened the conservation of energy because we have associated the properties of an object with the space which contains the object. The space which contains the object also contains energy and we can go at the project in two ways: we can attempt to extract the energy without worrying where it came from, or we can attempt to understand physics, ourselves, and the universe by a new formulation of reality.
Par of the difficulty of accepting free energy is the feeling that we’re getting something for free, and that automatically makes it suspect. On the other hand, however, we can accept what we know as "energy" as something which is a natural part of our environment and can be reached if we have the key.
Most of the difficulties in the location of this energy lie in the comprehension of where it’s coming from. If this can be comprehended, then the understanding of the free energy experiment can be believed.
When reality came into existence, the time energy of the Universe was concentrated into a single form, the exactitude with which a single atom gave off a beat of frequency when excited as a spectral line. We have come to regard this as the only way of measuring time. The true way of measuring time is in the inertia of objects. Thus, a tuning fork watch or oscillator is a more natural way of measuring which can only exist and not be measured. In the case of Time, we can know the existence of it, but for whatever measurement we take to be indicating it, we make our own determinations as to whether this measurement is more suitable or "accurate" for our purposes (we might prefer a crystal clock to a tuning fork, but for what purposes or measuring is this "time" being used?). If, for instance, we were interested in inertial processes, i.e., the motion and the orbits of the planets, and we knew these were sensitive to inertial influences, we might consider a "time" which was also sensitive to these inertial influences to be more "accurate" than a time derived from another experiment which might have no relationship to the phenomena of importance.
Time is a manifestation of a much deeper and basic force that we have a concern for here. The point of connection I want to make is: the inertia of objects relates to the time energy flowing through them.
The rotational quanta drawn to a rotating body induce in that body a feeling of inertial anisotropy as well as increased inertial mass. Could this "mass" be thus somehow translated into energy for mass consumption? The first indications of that came when we dropped our spinning ball experiment, but we were unwilling to interpret the increase in energy of a spinning to a non-spinning object dropped to fall over a controlled distance to some kind of energy principle we did not understand.
We also had a second series of experiments, elastic collisions of rotating and non-rotating identical controls which we could not interpret. It took a paper, "The Cause of Gravitation", by Bernard Rendle (Ref. 4) to jar my mind into comprehension of the facts as I saw them. We can only conceive of the inertia of objects, or inertial mass to be exact, to be representative of the time energy created when the Universe was created. Naturally the question of how old is the Universe becomes invalid then because a possible interpretation is that the Universe existed forever because inertial mass exists at all. Measurements of the age of the Universe are also invalid. All the time in the world is summed up in the inertial mass of an object.
How this relates to the spinning ball experiment is that the spinning of an object draws to it the quanta of inertial motion of rotation which are accumulated in the body of the flywheel and account for the altered inertial properties of the rotating object. These inertial quanta, Ro, draw the time energy to themselves in proportion to the number of them present in the flywheel at a given time. If a rotating object is collided with an identical non-rotating one, the non-rotating object is rebounded a greater distance than it would have traveled if it had been struck with the same identical object non-rotating. A rotating object struck by an identical non-rotating object rebounds less than it would had it not been rotating (Ref. 5).
This explains why the spinning ball went higher than the identical non-rotating control (moving at the same initial velocity), and also explains why the spinning object falls faster than the non-rotating control. The momentous fact is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is explained simply by the addition of free energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making. The spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control.
I like the understanding of inertia growing out of the statement of Rendle: "The immaterial medium of space itself is in motion". If we dispose of any special connection between rotation and gravity, the constancy of "G" then becomes the inertia of objects. The fact that all objects fall at the same rate (earth normal acceleration) means that the substrate space is moving all objects along at the same rate. This we can define as Earth normal standard inertia, a unity factor to which all other conditions are compared. Thus rotating an object does not change its inertia (under the new standard) since the mechanical alterations in behavior of rotating object do not affect their inertia but are the result of the additional (free) time energy flowing through the rotating object by virtue of its accumulation of rotational quanta, Ro.
The question to be answered: is there any gravitational effect from rotation, or is gravitation a special interaction of mass with its environment? I would tend to believe gravitation is a special interaction of real mass with its environment. This is not to say that artificial gravitation fields cannot be created, but they would always be distinguishable from the real thing through some physical test. An artificial gravitational field would be non-isotropic and anisotropic.
In terms of the dropping of the spinning ball, the understanding of the experiment involves the results of many other experiments as well as the resolution of a mind picture of the Universe which is our best approximation to understanding at the present time. What makes it difficult for other experimenters to understand the experiment is that it is not simply the results which are important. Without a theoretical foundation of understanding to make the experiment comprehensible -- to fit the results into a context of rational understanding and harmony with the facts of other experiments -- the data become trivial and worthless and, worst of all, subject to misinterpretation.
The availability of free energy from as simple an experiment as colliding in a rotating object with a no-rotating one opens up the development of other machines for energy extraction and propulsion which may be more convenient to handle than the extraction of energy from the collision of a rotating object with a non-rotating one.
Bruce E. DePalma