From robert@wwa.com Sun Jul 6 21:16:05 1997 Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 17:45:00 -0600 (CST) From: Robert Stirniman Reply-To: freenrg-list@mail.eskimo.com To: freenrg-list@eskimo.com Subject: fnrg: Wallace Information The Wallace Patents and Politics of Science Henry Wallace was an engineer at General Electric about 25 years ago, and developed some incredible inventions relating to the underlying physics of the gravitational field. Few people have heard of him or his work. US Patent #3626605 -- "Method and Apparatus for Generating a Secondary Gravitational Force Field" Awarded to Henry Wm Wallace of Ardmore PA Dec 14, 1971 US Patent #3626606 -- "Method and Apparatus for Generating a Dynamic Force Field" Awarded to Henry Wm Wallace of Ardmore PA Dec 14, 1971 US Patent #3823570 -- "Heat Pump" (based on technology similar to the above two inventions) Awarded to Henry Wm Wallace of Freeport NY July 16, 1973 Wallace discovered that a force field, similar or related to the gravitational field, results from the interaction of relatively moving masses. He built machines which demonstrated that this field could be generated by spinning masses of elemental material having an odd number of nucleons -- i.e. a nucleus having a multiple half-integral value of h-bar, the quantum of angular momentum. Wallace used bismuth or copper material for his rotating bodies and "kinnemassic" field concentrators. Aside from the immense benefits to humanity which could result from a better understanding of the physical nature of gravity, and other fundamental forces, Wallace's inventions could have enormous practical value in countering gravity or converting gravitational force fields into energy for doing useful work. So, why has no one heard of him? One might think that the discoverer of important knowledge such as this would be heralded as a great scientist and nominated for dynamite prizes. Could it be that his invention does not work? Anyone can get the patents. Study them -- Wallace -- General Electric -- detailed descriptions of operations -- measurements of effects -- drawings and models -- it is authentic. If you're handy you can even build it yourself. It does work. So what is going on? One explanation I've heard is that Wallace ran up against the politics of science, as dictated in the late 1960's by the power-block at Princeton, who were primarily interested in promoting the ideas of their main man, Einstein, and the gravitation-is-geometry paradigm. Maybe there is some truth to this story. Nowadays, there seems to be a piss-pot full of theoretical physicists working on abstract geometrical theories and other absurdly difficult mental masturbations, while no one seems to have made any effort to provide a theoretical explanation of the physics of a nuts-and-bolts invention which could have enormous practical value. Maybe we can blame it on the Princeton folks, but I'm more inclined to believe that our defense industry black project community has confiscated and suppressed knowledge of Wallace's discoveries. All done of course under the most honorable and sacred banner of national security. Well, it's been 25 years. We ought to be real secure by now. Isn't it way past time for some trickle down benefits to real people? Wallace's inventions offer the potential of improving the quality of life for everyone. Throughout history, political suppression and hoarding of scientific knowledge has inevitably resulted in a retardation of human advancement. It continues today. When will we ever learn? Regards, Robert Stirniman (robert@wwa.com) More About the Wallace Patents -- Anti-Gravity Technology An article about the Wallace patents appeared in the British magazine "New Scientist" in February 1980. This was written nearly ten years after Wallace was awarded his patents. Here's a paragraph from the article. "Although the Wallace patents were initially ignored as cranky, observers believe that his invention is now under serious but secret investigation by the military authorities in the US. The military may now regret that the patents have already been granted and so are available for anyone to read." I know -- it's a tease. And the rest of the article is the same way. It provides barely enough information to jab your psyche a little, and not nearly enough to get you off your comfortable ass. And who knows who the anonymous party of "observers" are, who believe that a secret investigation is underway by the military -- or whether these observers even exist at all. None the less, the New Scientist has a fairly well established track record for accurate identification of new science trends and issues. And, while the editors of this British journal may be prone to enjoyment of gossip and innuendo, it generally turns out be grounded in truth. One thing they got right for sure: The patents are available for anyone to read. Get them. Study them. No doubt, Wallace got many things wrong about the physical theory of his invention. But, he did discover something very important. It does work. Stay tuned. Regards, Robert Stirniman (robert@wwa.com) Michael Edelman (mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu) writes about the Wallace patents on antigravity technology: : Oh yes indeed. I built one, turned it on, and the damn thing floated : away....haven't been able to get the next one to work... That's remarkable Michael. But this is no joke. Although Wallace wasn't able to do anything immediately dramatic, he did build a device that demonstrated a fundamentally new physical effect -- and he measured it and demonstrated it conclusively in multiple ways. It has long been postulated that a "kinetic" gravitational force exists, in conjunction with the well know static gravitational force. For many years scientists and experimenters have theorized that a "kinetic" gravitational force might exist between relatively moving masses -- analogous to the magnetic force that exists between relatively moving charges. A force between relatively moving masses, is predicted by some solutions of GR, and has also been predicted by theorists through numerous analogies between the electromagnetic and gravitational fields. (both have r-squared law, force required to accelerate mass and force required to accelerate charge, kinetic energy proportional to MV^2 and magnetic energy proportional to QV^2, etc). People have tried to measure this force for years, without success. The "kinemassic" force is very small and difficult to find. What Wallace did was invent a way to demonstrate it, measure it, and most importantly put it to use. Wallace discovered how to concentrate the flux of the "kinenmassic" field, by using material having unpaired angular momentum in the nucleus -- analogous to how magnetic flux is more easily generated and concentrated by ferromagnetic material, which has unpaired electron (charge) spin. Wallace built a machine which causes the axis of spin of the unpaired angular momemtum in the nucleus to align itself with the macroscopic spin of the material -- resulting in a much stronger, and measurable kinemassic field. He also clearly documented the existence of the field with multiple methods of measurement. It's quite a piece of work. You can get the patents. But you won't find much else anywhere about it, because the military has it tucked away. One of the things you can do with it is use a time varying "kinemassic" field to control/generate a gravitational field, and to shield a static gravitational field -- analogous to a use of a time varying magnetic field to generate or control an electric field. One of the emobidments of Wallace's invention uses this effect to create a zero gravity chamber -- possibly similar to the zero gravity chamber that NASA is "rumored" to operate in the Houston area. Regards, Robert Stirniman (robert@wwa.com) Intrinsic and Extrinsic Angular Momentum There is an important relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic angular momemtum, microscopic and macroscopic angular momentum, and quantum and classical level angular momentum. A body which is spinning within a larger macroscopic body which is also spinning will tend to align the axis of its angular momentum with the spin axis of the larger body. For example, a gyroscope located on the earth, unless it is in a frictionless gimbal, with always try to precess due to the rotation of the earth into alignment with the earth's polar axis, at which point it will no longer precess due to earth rotation. Another example. A cylinder of magnetic material spinning around its longitudinal axis will develop a magnetic field proportional to is angular velocity (Barnett Effect), because the angular momemtum of the electrons in the material will attempt to precess and come into alignment with the macroscopic axis of the spinning cylinder, which also brings into alignment the magnetic moment of the electrons, some of which have unpaired spins (ferromagnetic), resulting in generation of a macroscopic magnetic field. Similarly, it is know that a static magnetic field itself contains angular momentum -- and spinning the source of the static field, whether a magnet or DC current loop, will result in a corresponding increase or decrease in the field strength. Another example is the inventions of Henry Wallace, which were discovered and patented about 25 years ago, when he worked at General Electric. Wallace found that an unusual thing happens when you spin elemental material which has a nucleus containing an odd number of nucleons, i.e. having an "un-paired" value of angular momentum, resulting in a nucleus with a multiple integer of a one- half value of the quantum h-bar. The spin of the nucleus will begin to line up with the macroscopic spin axis, and will create a force field related to gravity -- which Wallace called the "kinemassic" field. If you haven't heard of Wallace or his unusual discovery, it might be because information about it has been classified by the military. Maybe I've missed it, but I've looked seriously, and there seems to be no information in undergraduate or graduate level physics reference books which mentions the relationship between macroscopic and microscopic angular momentum -- much less provides any analysis or explanation linking quantum angular momentum to macroscopic angular momentum. Why not? How does quantum angular momentum become organized from a microscopic to a macroscopic level? Has anyone ever published any work about this? I can't find any. Robert Stirniman ============================================================= Here's an interesting reply I received to the above questions. Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 From: James Youlton To: Robert Stirniman Re: Angular Momentum and the Barnett Effect On Wed, 1 Nov 1995, Robert Stirniman wrote: > Maybe I've missed it, but I've looked seriously, and there seems > to be no information in undergraduate or graduate level physics > reference books which mentions the relationship between > macroscopic and microscopic angular momentum -- much less > provides any analysis or explanation linking quantum angular > momentum to macroscopic angular momentum. You're catching on. The subject of compound angular momentum, or internal and external angular momentum, or intrinsic and extrinsic angular momentum has been a repressed subject for about 2 and half decades. Add to that list, spherical pendulums, Coriolis effect, except as applied to balistics and meteorology as used by the US military, and Shafer's pendulum, that neat little device used as the artifical horizon of aircraft. > How does quantum angular momentum become organized from a > microscopic to a macroscopic level? Has anyone ever published > any work about this? I can't find any. There isn't any that I know of, though back in the late fifties, there was a fellow named Edward Condon at the University of Colorado who was fairly proficient on the subject. So much so that he wrote the rotational dynamics section, called noninertial dynamics at the time, of the reference "The Handbook of Physics" which he also co-edited (Chapter 5). I don't recall offhand who the publisher was (Harcourt/Brace?), though it was endorsed by the American Institute of Physics. Later, when Mr Condon was the head of the USAF project 'Blue Book', he labored to suppress his own work when the directive was handed down from the Navy's Turtle Island project. James Youlton ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Edward Condon was not involved with project Blue Book, but was involved in a different study of UFOs for the USAF which resulted in termination of the Blue Book project. Condon's first known involvement with study of UFOs was in 1943, when he was engaged by the military to assess the FooFighter phenomena. After the nationwide wave of UFO sightings in 1966, Condon was appointed head of a new committee to study the problem, The Committee for Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects. Condon proceeded immediately to ridicule and debunk the idea of UFOs, even before the committee had it's first meeting to begin it's "scientific" investigation. There are many files of information now circulating which document Edward Condon's sad turn from the scientific pursuit of truth to the dark side of politics. But, that's another story. Here's an excerpt about the Condon committee which comes from the research report about UFOs prepared by Major Brummet and Captain Zuick in May 1974 for the USAF Air Command and Staff College. By September 1947, the United States Air Force (USAF) had become sufficiently interested in the growing number of UFO reports by reputable, respected citizens to estab- lish "Project Sign", later named "Project Grudge", and finally renamed "Project Blue Book", the Air Force program for investigation of UFOs. Project Blue Book remained in effect for over twenty-two years and investigated re- ports of 12,618 sightings. Unexplained sightings ranged between the official Project Blue Book report of 6 per cent to UFOlogist estimates of 54 per cent. Despite the wide variance in unexplained sightings, Secretary of the Air Force, Dr. Robert Seamans, announced the termination of Project Blue Book on December 17, 1969. The decision to discontinue UFO investigations was based on an eval- uation of a report prepared by the University of Colorado entitled, "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Ob- jects," more commonly referred to as the "Condon Report"; a review of the Condon Report by the National Academy of Sciences; past UFO studies; and two decades of Air Force experience investigating UFO reports. (6:141)" .... Project Blue Book was terminated on December 17, 1969, by Secretary of the Air Force, Robert C. Seamans, Jr. The decision to discontinue UFO investigations was based on a report prepared by the University of Colorado (Condon Report), a review of that report by the National Academy of Sciences, past UFO studies, and Air Force experience in investigating UFO reports.(21:297) Sec- retary Robert Seamans Jr., stated that the program "no longer can be justified either on the ground of national security or in the interest of science.(15:76) Many experts disagree with the conclusion of the 1500 page, $539,000 independent Condon Study that took over two years to complete. The Condon Study concluded that : Nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that sci- ence will be advanced thereby.(1:2) One of the major critics of the Condon Study was an amateur UFO organization, The National Investigators Committee for Aerial Phenomena (NICAP). As indicated by the Condon Report , NICAP in the past has spent much effort in attacking Air Force UFO policies and attempting to influence Congress. NICAP warned members of the Colorado Project to beware less the Condon Project turn out to have been "hired to whitewash the Air Force." (End of excerpt from USAF research report) ================================================================= Well there you have it. Has the military really been engaged in suppression of fundamental new science knowledge for almost 50 years now, or is it just another one of those wild and crazy conspiracy rumors? Regards, Robert Stirniman (robert@wwa.com) Andrew Parle (parlea@stanilite.com.au) writes regarding the Wallace inventions: >However, if that is not the case, then perhaps you should consider >the possibility that it does not work. This would then be sufficient >explanation for no-one ever hearing of Wallace or his inventions. Yes, what you say would seem to be a most rational explanation, maybe even the most rational explanation. That is -- the reason no one has ever heard of Wallace, is simply because his inventions don't work. And surely an invention like this discovered by a scientist at a renowned company such as General Electric, which was awarded two patents, and has enormous possible practical value and unestimable consequences in physical theory and experiment (we are talking about gravity control) -- would have been tested and evaluated by at least one or more independent research organizations. Guess what -- either it was never tested, or it was tested and the results were classified. There is NO published information about evaluation of the performance or non- performance of Wallace's invention. So what looks more rational -- was it never even tested, or did we just never get to see the results. And why have we never seen the results? What is more likely -- because it didn't work, or because it did? >So unless you can produce a working model, I guess the obvious >answer is: just another inventor who thought he had made a >discovery but in fact had made a mistake. Wallace has already produced a working device, and you refuse to even look at. Why would I expect that you would bother to look at one that I might produce? If we were able to look at any kind of test results for Wallace's device. That would be helpful. But the thing is -- there aren't any tests to look at, at least not in the public domain. Most peculiar. Anyhow, if you prefer to entirely discard the idea that the invention might actually work, with no serious consideration whatsoever to the possibility that it's been suppressed. OK by me. It's refreshing to see someone these days with so much faith in our defense and national security agencies. And hey, don't worry about them UFOs either. You know, that's all a bunch of nonsense too, right? For anyone interested in new-physics and gravity control, I suggest you start by studying the patents. Wallace's invention does work. Stay tuned. More forthcoming. Regards, Robert Stirniman (robert@wwa.com) Where to Get Copies of Wallace Patents Patents awarded to Henry Wm Wallace for "anti-gravity" technology: US Patent #3626605 -- "Method and Apparauts for Generating a Secondary Gravitational Force Field" Awarded to Henry Wm Wallace of Ardmore PA Dec 14, 1971 US Patent #3626606 -- "Method and Apparatus for Generating a Dynamic Force Field" Awarded to Henry Wm Wallace of Ardmore PA Dec 14, 1971 US Patent #3823570 -- "Heat Pump" (based on technology similar to the above two inventions) Awarded to Henry Wm Wallace of Freeport NY July 16, 1973 The original full text description and all drawings from every US patent ever issued, is available on microfiche at patent depository libraries throughout the country. It cost about 10 cents per page to make paper copies. You have to go there. If you don't take the kids, you might enjoy it. Regards, Robert Stirniman (robert@wwa.com) ================================================================= PATENT AND TRADEMARK DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES ______________________________________________________________ Patent and Trademark Depository Library Program United States Patent and Trademark Office Crystal Plaza 3, Room 2C04 Washington, D.C. 20231 Phone: 703-308-3924. _________________________________________________________________ Reference Collection of U.S. Patents Available for Public Use in Patent Depository Libraries The following libraries, designated as Patent and Trademark Depository Libraries (PTDLs) receive current issues of U.S. Patents and maintain collections of earlier-issued patents as well as trademarks published for opposition. The scope of these collections varies from library to library, ranging from patents of only recent years to all or most of the patents issued since 1790 and trademarks published since 1872. These patent and trademark collections, which are organized in number sequence, are available for use by the public free of charge. Each of the PTDLs, in addition, offers supplemental reference publications of the U.S. Patent Classification System, including the Manual of Classification, Index to the U.S. Patent Classification and Classification Definitions, and provides technical staff assistance in using such publications in gaining effective access to information contained in patents and trademarks. CASSIS (Classification and Search Support Information System) and other CD-ROM products for searching patent and trademark information are available at all PTDLs. Facilities for making paper copies of patents and trademarks from either microfilm or paper collections are generally provided for a fee. Since there are variations in the scope of patent collections among the PTDLs and in their hours of service to the public, anyone contemplating use of the patents at a particular library is urged to contact that library, in advance, about its collection and hours in order to avert possible inconvenience. State Name of Library Telephone Alabama Auburn: Auburn University Libraries (205) 844-1747 Birmingham: Birmingham Public Library (205) 226-3680 Alaska Anchorage: Z.J. Loussac Public Library (907) 562-7323 Arizona Tempe: Noble Library, Arizona State University (602) 965-7010 Arkansas Little Rock: Arkansas State Library (501) 682-2053 California Los Angeles: Los Angeles Public Library (213) 612-3273 Sacramento: California State Library (916) 654-0069 San Diego: San Diego Public Library (619) 236-5813 Sunnyvale: Patent Information Clearinghouse (408) 730-7290 San Francisco San Francisco Public Library (415) 557-4488 Colorado Denver: Denver Public Library (303) 640-8847 Connecticut New Haven: Science Park Library (203) 786-5447 Delaware Newark: University of Delaware Library (302) 831-2965 District of Washington: Howard University Columbia Libraries (202) 806-7252 Florida Fort Lauderdale: Broward County Main Library (305) 357-7444 Miami-Dade: Miami-Dade Public Library (305) 375-2665 Orlando: University of Central Florida Libraries (407) 823-2562 Tampa: Tampa Campus Library, University of South Florida (813) 974-2726 Georgia Atlanta: Price Gilbert Memorial Library, Georgia Institute of Technology (404) 894-4508 Hawaii Honolulu: Hawaii State Public Library System (808) 586-3477 Idaho Moscow:University of Idaho Library (208) 885-6235 Illinois Chicago: Harold Washington Library (312) 747-4450 Springfield: Illinois State Library (217) 782-5659 Indiana Indianapolis: Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library (317) 269-1741 West Lafayette: Purdue University Libraries (317) 494-2873 Iowa Des Moines: State Library of Iowa(515) 281-4118 Kansas Wichita: Ablah Library, Wichita State University (316) 689-3155 Kentucky Louisville: Louisville Free Public Library (502) 561-8617 Louisiana Baton Rouge: Troy H. Middleton Library, Louisiana State University (504) 388-2570 Maine Orono Orono: Raymond H. Fogler Library, University of Maine (207) 581-1678 Maryland College Park: Engineering and Physical Sciences Library, (301) 405-9147 University of Maryland Massachusetts Amherst: Physical Sciences Library, University of (413) 545-1370 Massachusetts Boston: Boston Public Library (617) 536-5400 X 265 Michigan Ann Arbor: Engineering Transpor- tation Library, University of Michigan (313) 764-7494 Big Rapids: Abigail S. Timme Library, Ferris State Library (616) 592-3602 Detroit: Detroit Public Library (313) 833-1450 Minnesota Minneapolis: Minneapolis Public Library and Information Center(612) 372-6570 Mississippi Jackson: Mississippi Library Commission Not Yet Operational Missouri Kansas City: Linda Hall Library (816) 363-4600 St. Louis: St. Louis Public Library (314) 241-2288 X 390 Montana Butte: Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology Library (406) 496-4281 Nebraska Lincoln: Engineering Library, University of Nebraska-Lincoln (402) 472-3411 Nevada Reno: University of Nevada-Reno Library (702) 784-6579 New Hampshire Durham: University of New Hampshire Library (603) 862-1777 New Jersey Newark: Newark Public Library (201) 733-7782 Piscataway: Library of Science and Medicine, Rutgers University (201) 932-2895 New Mexico Albuquerque: University of New Mexico General Library (505) 277-4412 New York Albany: New York State Library (518) 473-4636 Buffalo: Buffalo and Erie County Public Library (716) 858-7101 New York: New York Public Library (The Research Libraries) (212) 714-8529 North Carolina Raleigh: D. H. Hill Library, North Carolina State University (919) 515-3280 North Dakota Grand Forks: Chester Fritz Library, University of North Dakota (701) 777-4888 Ohio Cincinnati: Cincinnati and Hamilton County, Public Library of (513) 369-6936 Cleveland: Cleveland Public Library (216) 623-2870 Columbus: Ohio State University Libraries (614) 292-6175 Toledo: Toledo/Lucas County Public Library (419) 259-5212 Oklahoma Stillwater: Oklahoma State University Library (405) 744-7086 Oregon Salem: Oregon State Library (503) 378-4239 Pennsylvania Philadelphia: The Free Library of (215) 686-5331 Pittsburgh: Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh (412) 622-3138 University Park: Pattee Library, Pennsylvania State University (814) 865-4861 Puerto Rico Puerto Rico Mayaguez: General Library University of Puerto Rico Not Yet Operational Rhode Island Providence: Providence Public Library (401) 455-8027 South Carolina Clemson: Clemson University Libraries Not yet operational South Dakota Rapid City : Devereaux Library, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology (605) 394-6822 Tennessee Memphis: Memphis and Shelby County Public Library and Information Center (901) 725-8877 Nashville: Stevenson Science Library, Vanderbilt University (615) 322-2775 Texas Austin: McKinney Engineering Library, University of Texas at Austin (512) 495-4500 College Station: Sterling C. Evans Library, Texas A&M University (409) 845-2551 Dallas: Dallas Public Library (214) 670-1468 Houston: The Fondren Library, Rice University (713) 527-8101 X 2587 Utah Salt Lake City: Marriott Library, University of Utah (801) 581-8394 Virginia Richmond: James Branch Cabell Library, Virginia Commonwealth University Library (804) 367-1104 Washington Seattle: Engineering Library, University of Washington (206) 543-0740 West Virginia Morgantown: Evansdale Library, West Virginia University (304) 293-4510 Wisconsin Madison: Kurt F. Wendt Engineering Library, University of Wisconsin-Madison (608) 262-6845 Milwaukee: Milwaukee Public Library (414) 278-3247 Wyoming Wyoming Casper: Natrona County Public Library (307) 237-4935