Secondary Gravitational Force Field

[MBA_UIU]

While doing some research for a customer I stumbled across this. <br /><br />My questions are: Could it work? If it could work why are they not using it on the ISS or Shuttle? <br /><br />http://patimg1.uspto.gov/.piw?docid=US003626605&PageNum=7&IDKey=B28BABFC8C53&HomeUrl=http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1%2526Sect2=HITOFF%2526d=PALL%2526p=1%2526u=/netahtml/&%$#@!hnum.htm%2526r=1%2526f=G%2526l=50%2526s1=3,626,605.WKU.%2526OS=PN/3,626,605%2526RS=PN/3,626,605<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#0000ff"><br /><br /> <br /><img id="268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/8/268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /><br /></font></strong></p> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

That link doesn't show up verry clearly on my browser, so I didn't read it. Best way is to look up the patent number. I will point out however, that that Patent office is pleased to issue patents on bogus technologies beyond the competence of the examiner. A patent is no gaurantee for the validity of a technology or method.

 

[nexium]

rogers_buck rarely makes a bad call and I rarely read links that people supply. Can you give us a summary of what you think secondary gravitational force field might mean or do? Neil

 

[le3119]

It must not be so important or maybe there's a coverup.

 

[MBA_UIU]

I do a number of patent searches each week so I am very familiar with how the system works. The patent number is 3626605. After some research I found that the person who the patent was issued to, H.W. Wallace, spent 35 years has a physics engineer at G.E. He not only patented this machine but two others of similar design and function. In 1999 a person by the name of Harvey Morgan built his own version of the machine based on these patent drawings and claims to have confirmed Wallace’s findings. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/3354/kedrickbrown.html<br /><br />Wallace’s patents <br />H. W. Wallace, U. S. Patent 3,626,605 (1971)<br />H. W. Wallace, U. S. Patent 3,626,606 (1971)<br />H. W. Wallace, U. S. Patent 3,823,570 (1974)<br />Do me a favor don’t assume that because a person post a question that they are completely naïve. If you had read my profile you would have known better. Now my question, to someone with a physics background, could this work? <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#0000ff"><br /><br /> <br /><img id="268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/8/268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /><br /></font></strong></p> </div>

 

[MBA_UIU]

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 nucleotides -- i.e. a nucleus having a multiple half-integral value of h-bar, the quantum of angular momentum. Wallace found that if you spin a material which has an odd number of nucleotides, i.e. having an "un-paired" value of angular momentum, resulting in a nucleus with a multiple integer of a one-half value of quantum momentum. The spin in the nucleus will begin to line up with the macroscopic spin axis, and will create an unusual force field related to gravity -- which he call a "kinemassic" field.<br /><br />Maybe I've missed it, but I've looked seriously, and there seems to be no <br />information in undergraduate or graduate level physics reference books which <br />mentions the relationship between macroscopic and microscopic angular momentum <br />-- much less provides any analysis or explanation linking quantum angular <br />momentum to macroscopic angular momentum. Why not? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#0000ff"><br /><br /> <br /><img id="268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/8/268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /><br /></font></strong></p> </div>

 

[nexium]

I looked at your geocities link. The motor may have only gone a few thousand rpm with a two pound lead flywheel as a mechanical load. A possible explanation is the wind produced by the fast flywheel caused the other flywheel to turn. This could be confirmed by operating the experiment in a vacuum. A large bell jar might make the vacuum and observation practical. There is no wind in a high vacuum, and the motor should turn faster.<br /> Another approach would be one or both fly wheels made from an element with even nucleotides. This should reduce the tuning of the second flywheel, if the theory is valid.<br />Another variation would be a generator (all or most dc motors can function as a generator) attached to the second flywheel to determine if several percent of the input power can be transfered across the 1/16 inch gap. Several percent would suggest that there may be practical applications. I'm sure others can think of other applications, if the force field really exists. Neil

 

[MBA_UIU]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The motor may have only gone a few thousand rpm with a two pound lead flywheel as a mechanical load.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />In Wallace's experiment the flywheel was turning 26,500 rpms. In Morgan's it was turning over 28,000 rpms.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> A possible explanation is the wind produced by the fast flywheel caused the other flywheel to turn.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />In both experiments the second wheel turned the opposite direction of the first flywheel. This would not happen if there was a connection, either by gas or fluid, to the second flywheel.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> Another approach would be one or both fly wheels made from an element with even nucleotides.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The whole effect requires the use of elements with an odd number of nucleotides. The theory, or at least my understanding of it, is that the high rpms forces the nucleotides into a linier relationship. This forces the second flywheel to turn in the opposite direction with the energy being released as some kind of gravitational force. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#0000ff"><br /><br /> <br /><img id="268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/8/268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /><br /></font></strong></p> </div>

 

[enkil]

hey i just had a look at the site you posted though its not my usual area of interests i find myself wondering how that could work. i mean the procedure seems technically sound but i can't find much to back it up if you catch my meaning perhaps it has something to do with nuclear spin perhaps not it. i will take this problem to my lecturer and perform the experiment and see what effects certain conditions have over the system. i agree both discs need to be different in nuclear mass which is why i believe nuclear spin might help answer the question as to the relation not too sure, then again it might not i'll keep you posted. you should have a deeper look into force field tech maybe a few clues there. meanwhile a vacum situation or not won't make a difference as the air has nothing to do with the rotation and as to its applications well lets say it's always better to find out and understand the source of a power before using it.

 

[qso1]

MBA_UIU:<br />Could it work? If it could work why are they not using it on the ISS or Shuttle?<br /><br />Me:<br />The only way to know if it works is to see the demonstrations that were claimed to have been done in one of the links posted. If it is workable, it probably would only recently have become so which would explain why its not in use on ISS/STS. The demonstrator model, if there is one is probably not sufficiently large enough to be practical for use on large spacecraft.<br /><br />If such a device becomes practical, it would go a long way towards solving the problem of low cost access to space via a spacecraft suited for the design. That is, if it does what I think it does. I'm not a physicist, just interested in any potential revolutionary techology. There are a lot of scams out there so only time will tell for sure on whether this is the real deal.<br /><br />That is, maybe in two years we may see this guy and his demonstration applied in a very public way in which case, we will know it works. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[billslugg]

There are several problems here. <br /><br />Two pounds of lead spinning at 26,500 rpm. Lead is heavy and weak. I have trouble conceiving of a geometry that would not fly apart. <br /><br />Balance is important. One rotor spinning out of balance can excite another (similarly unbalanced rotor) to spin in whatever way.<br /><br />Such an experiment sould be conducted in the highest of vacuums. Doing it at STP implies a lack of understanding/dismissal of the minuteness of the expected effect and/or the forces involved with air moving at that speed.<br /><br />Some of the points of credibility involve multiple exclamation points. I suspect these to be unreliable. I am currently reserving judgement.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

>"The patent number is 3626605. After some research I found that the person who the patent was issued to, H.W. Wallace, spent 35 years has a physics engineer at G.E."<br /><br />I did a google search for "H.W. Wallace" and "Nobel Prize". The only result that turned up was a PDF on "Hitler's Flying Saucers". I reserve judgement as well.

 

[annodomini2]

There's also no mention of the diameter/shape of the wheels involved which may have some impact on the results. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>