If the generation of gravity-like fields can be accomplished, should we consider its unencumbered usage as a potential source of pollution?

What is pollution?  A human-centric description of pollution would be the “introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that causes adverse changes to our lifestyle making the environment unsafe or unsuitable”. Polluting elements can be either natural or foreign.  Oil is naturally occurring, but when accidentally released into the open sea it is considered a pollutant.  The same can be said of waste from mining operations.  When in their natural state, asbestos, coal, chromium and other heavy metals are deposits.  When released into the environment either in massive amounts or small amounts close to populated areas, they qualify as pollutants.

In addition to chemicals and minerals, pollutants may also be energy such as noise, light, heat, etc. but usually not of a natural origin. Noise pollution is an excess of sound that impinges upon the activities of others and is undesirable, destructive or dangerous. It is primarily man-made.  In contrast, thunder is noisy and disturbing but it is natural and not considered pollution.  Astronomers and amateur star gazers disdain urban light pollution at night.  The rising sun also obscures the stars, but it is not considered pollution because it is natural.  Light pollution may be excessive or intrusive, but is always artificial.

These examples suggest that though naturally occurring gravity is not considered as pollution, man-made gravity-like fields may be considered so if they alter or interfere with the lifestyle or present a danger.  One more point to make is that when contained at a point source, materials and energies that lead have a limited extent, making them easier to control or contain.  So arsenic in the environment is a pollutant – and when found leaking from a metal drum the point source may be abated.  Noise, when attenuated or enclosed at the source also reduces its impact as a pollutant.  Therefore if a gravity-like field can be effectively nullified or attenuated, it becomes a potentially manageable environmental pollutant.

Another point to explore is how we measure the strength or concentration of a pollutant.  Noise can be measured in decibels.  Light can be measured in lumens.  Radioactivity can be measured in rads or curies.  How would we best measure gravity-like fields, particularly when the fields might be either attractive or repulsive?  An attractive field might be measured in comparison to the known (and natural) gravitational constant “g” where a fraction of g is known as “microgravity” and a strength greater than g is known as “hypergravity”.  Would the same apply to repulsive gravity-like fields?  Would a simple change of sign (-) be sufficient or useful to describe repulsive microgravity or repulsive hypergravity?

The force of naturally occurring gravity between two bodies is inversely proportional to the square of their distance.  Calculating the gravitational effects on bodies a known distance from an asteroid or moon is know by calculating the mass of each celestial body.  Until a gravity-like force can be generated it remains unknown if its force is inversely proportional to the distance, or to the square of the distance, or some other mathematical relationship.  In addition, it is unknown whether the strength of the field (which is independent of mass) increases solely by the rotational velocity of the materials generating the field or if it is also influenced by other variables such as the power applied to (in the case of the EHT bench test designs) the solenoidal coils, the number of turns of the coils, the presence of nearby masses above the axially produced field, etc.

Experiments performed by Martin Tajmar and published in 2006 measured strong gravity-like fields in close proximity to spinning superconductors.  In fact, the force measured for one published paper was equivalent to a similarly dense material on the surface of a white dwarf star.  Despite Tajmar’s subsequent revisions to his apparatus resulting in negligible results, it is possible that with even relatively small samples of matter the gravity-like force generated could be quite high, though possibly very local.

Extended Heim Theory (EHT) posits that gravity-like fields might be generated and sustained by the spinning of superconducting materials at a constant rotational velocity.  It proposed the generation of fields rather than the shielding of naturally occurring gravity.  Other than opposing one repulsive gravity-like field with another repulsive field, the theory does not give a prediction of strength over distance.  This will have to be determined by experiment.  Even if fields can be opposed, or shaped by the presence of other nearby fields, can they be confined?  Is there a way to “cap” them, much as a magnetic field can be confined by “capping” the magnetic poles with a ferrous material.  With magnetic fields, the lines of forces can be constrained within a thin shell of steel that surrounds it.  Could there be an analogy for similarly constraining gravity-like fields?

Once we have a positive result in the generation of gravity-like fields, next will be the terminology we employ to describe and measure them, and the methods used to constrain and control these effects.  That will likely be a role shared by the first gravity engineers and the gravity designers.

A hypothesis is just a hypothesis until it has some observational or experimental confirmation.  So it is with great interest that I recently read that Prof. Martin Tajmar, known for his testing of the EmDrive, has set his laboratory upon the task of performing experiments featuring a different potential energy generation technology that like Steorn and LENR also is an outlier in the realm of “new physics”.

You may recall that Tajmar is the Professor and Chair for Space Systems at the Dresden University of Technology’s Institute of Aerospace Engineering who confirmed some of the initial positive results of the EmDrive device for propellantless propulsion, as described in the International Business Times.  Dr. Tajmar has also published other studies this year attempting to replicate previous research involving propellantless propulsion including experiments by E. Podkletnov and G. Modanese and Henry Wallace in the 1970s.  However, in one replication he found only an anomaly ascribed to vibrational artifacts, and in the other found inconclusive results due to mechanical vibration, acoustic effects and unexpected destruction of the apparatus support structure.

So what does this have to do with energy generation?  Tajmar himself published several articles beginning more than a decade ago that reported generation of a gravitational anomaly (see the listing at the conclusion of this article).  These studies led to Tajmar filing a patent on a gravity generator, which if it ever worked might have been used to generate electricity:  (WO/2007/082324) METHOD FOR GENERATING A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AND GRAVITATIONAL FIELD GENERATOR.

One notable aspect of any gravity field generator employing rotational components and producing an axial gravity-like force would be a second force component in an azimuthal direction (tangential in the plane of rotation) producing torque on the rotor.  In such a configuration energy need not to be supplied to keep the angular velocity constant. In other words, it becomes a generator suitable for electrical power production.  Unfortunately, in his original experiments Tajmar’s configuration was designed to produce a field acting in the circumferential direction of the rotating ring, opposing its origin, not an axial field.  However, there is an axial design soon to be tested by Tajmar that could be a candidate for a power generator.

Enter the work of Jochem Hauser and Walter Droescher’s models expanding general relativity to include two additional gravity-like forces that interact with electromagnetism to  produce gravity-like fields.  Jochem Hauser is a computer simulation consultant to ESA and professor emeritus in Germany.  He and Martin Tajmar, who have been in communication with each other since about 2005, have agreed to collaborate on a “bench test” of Hauser’s designs involving the rotation of selected materials to produce an axial gravity-like field.  A grad student has been assigned to it and will be performing tests in the next few months.

Just weeks ago a new book by Hauser and his collaborator Walter Droescher entitled, “Introduction to Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology of Gravity-Like Fields,” became available and in it those upcoming tests are mentioned.  Their book is the most complete presentation of their work to date.  If Hauser is correct, one outcome of generating an axial gravity-like field would be a tangential force on the rotating components that could generate a self-sustaining rotation.  This secondary force would be the gravitational analog of a homopolar electric motor by translating axial and radial flows of current into an azimuthal rotation of a magnetic rotor. The force in the case of a homopolar motor is called the Lorentz force. In the case of this bench test it has been termed the Heim-Lorentz force, a nod to Burkhard Heim on whose foundation (but not the mathematics) the work of Hauser and Droescher are based.

As Hauser admits, he could be wrong and none of this might work (though I hope that is not the case after having written a book about him and his efforts).  He has proposed two versions of the experiment for producing axial fields.  The first is the older approach described in his and Droescher’s early papers.  That version comprises a superconducting Pb coil with a rotating Nb disk operating at the temperature of liquid He (4-6º K).  The second is a much simpler experimental configuration consisting of an external ring, comprising a mixture of two elements, and an embedded disk of special nonmetallic material.  The rotating ring-disk assembly should have the advantage of working at the temperature of liquid N (75º K).

If positive results are obtained this spring, then both the E-Cat (with results due out early in 2016) and Steorn (independent confirmations also expected in early 2016) may have some competition.

Publications on gravity field generation by Tajmar.  Although his earliest studies indicated significant anomalous results, later studies show lesser effects.

• M. Tajmar and C. J. de Matos. Gravitomagnetic field of a rotating super- conductor and of a rotating superfluid. Physica C, 385:551–554, 2003.

• C. J. de Matos and M. Tajmar. Gravitomagnetic London moment and the graviton mass inside a superconductor. Physica C, 432:167–172, 2005. Doi: 10.1016/j.physc.2005.08.004

• M. Tajmar and C. J. de Matos. Extended analysis of gravitomagnetic fields in rotating superconductors and superfluids. Physica C, 420:56–60, 2005. Doi: 10.1016/j.physc.2005.01.008.

• M. Tajmar, F. Plesescu and K. Marhold. Measurement of gravitomagnetic and acceleration fields around rotating superconductors. AIP Conf. Proc. 880, p. 1071-1082 (2007).