Category Archives: Applications

Proposed applications for gravity-like fields across products, architecture, processes and services.

Design implications from Chapter 7 of the upcoming Nova Book

In the upcoming book, New Frontiers in Space Propulsion, chapter 7, Elementary Primer of Field Propulsion Physics, was authored by Walter Dröscher and Jochem Hauser.  They make several interesting points about generating extreme gravitomagnetic fields that have not previously been addressed in their writings but which add new depth to their writings on the topic.  This will likely be expanded upon in their upcoming book, Introduction to the Physics and Astrophysics of Gravity- Like Fields.

Although much of the text in that chapter summarizes past points of discussion, these new points either reinforce directions in their research or suggest new potentials with design implications.  The following text either paraphrases or takes verbatim the statements of those authors.  I follow that content with some suggestions of design implications.

1. The example of a laboratory experiment is calculated to produce a relatively large acceleration of gG = 0.32g, where g denotes the acceleration of the Earth.  It will be described in section Setup of the Heim Experiment in their upcoming book Introduction to the Physics and Astrophysics of Gravity- Like Fields.

Design Implications – If an axial acceleration force of approximately a third of Earth’s gravitational field can be generated in a laboratory experiment, it would be an extraordinary event requiring extraordinary evidence and likely requiring multiple replications to be validated.  One interesting methodology to accelerate the replication would be to “open-source” the experiment through online and live streaming of data such as can be found at the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project.

2. We do not know the exact spatial extension and shape of the gravity-like field as well as its acceleration effect on the total mass of the space vehicle. The gravitomagnetic field as generated by Tajmar et al. has at least an extension of several centimeters, the Nb ring has a diameter of 15 cm.

Design Implications – If an axially generated extreme gravitomagnetic field is short in range, similar to the several centimeter field generated by the circumferential gravity-like field generated by Tajmar et al., then it suggests a more proximal rather than distal effect on objects.  Though some authors have suggested the possibility that long range gravitational pulses could be generated (Podkletnov, for example), a short range effect would mean that the field could still encompass a generating device, but projecting fields at distances for shields, tractor effects, etc. on distant objects would be less likely.  The shape of the field is also unknown, but if intersecting fields might influence the overall shape of a field (similar to intersecting magnetic fields) then some distortion or reshaping might be possible.

3. The strength of the extreme gravitomagnetic field might be due to the existence of anyons.  Anyons are particles introduced by F. Wilczek (Anyons, Scientific American, May 1991) that are suggested to be generated through symmetry breaking , triggered by cryogenic temperatures or material composition.  For instance, there are crystal structures that possess surface layers of only few atoms thickness such as copper oxide high-temperature superconductors that are composed of planes of atoms stacked on top of one another.

Design Implications – This suggests that thin flat films, coatings or layers might generate a field stronger than a bulk material.  Not only might this reduce the costs by allowing a thinly coated disk, ring or sphere to take the place of thicker (hence more expensive) materials, but also that modulation of the thin film might be used to direct or concentrate the field.

4.  A gravity-like field generator operating at ambient temperature would be the ultimate field propulsion device.  In the same sense as a high-temperature superconductor is the ultimate goal in superconductivity research, a  gravity-like field generator operating at ambient temperature would be the ultimate field propulsion device.  In Introduction to the Physics and Astrophysics of Gravity- Like Fields  the authors are said to discuss a combination of 20 materials and their arrangement that, according to their “Gedanken experiment”, might have the desired properties to generate extreme gravity-like fields at ambient temperatures. An ambient-temperature gravity-like field generator would encounter obstacles, just as are the experimental difficulties of producing a technically feasible high-temperature superconductor.

Design Implications – If generating an extreme gravitomagnetic field is as difficult a process as discovering materials for generating practical ambient-temperature superconductors then this is a great challenge.  However, it should be noted that isolated detection of superconductors at temperature higher than that of some solder alloys have been reported, though preparation and other requirements of these materials keep them from being easily manufactured or maintained.

5. The existence of three gravitational constants gives rise to three different propagation speeds.  That is,

Screen Shot 2015-06-15 at 11.11.10 PM

It is therefore conceivable that spaces exist that may allow for propagation speeds cgpor cq. It is not known how a material body could enter and leave such a hypothetical hyperspace, nor would we know how to navigate in such a space.

Design Implications – Droscher and Hauser’s original award winning AIAA paper, “Guidelines for a space propulsion device based upon Heim’s Quantum Theory” in 2004 discussed the possibility of transitioning to this hypothetical hyperspace (while at ambient temperature).  Certainly, entering hyperspace to reach a theoretical speed more than a billion times the speed of light would have far-reaching implications for interstellar travel without need for wormholes or “warp” drives.

Speculative Post: Connections between LENR and gravity modification.

Some time ago the thought occurred to me that the apparent violation of conservation of energy reported by Steorn might also be found in experiments to produce gravity-like fields, though at first glance the two would appear to be completely unrelated.

In April of 2007 while under an NDA to Steorn, I posted some very speculative threads within their private forum.  The postings posited a connection between experiments in gravity modification (as reported by inventor Marcus Hollingshead) and results of anomalous heat generation in the Orbo device developed by Steorn.  This posting explores those connections, but readers should realize that these are very speculative discussions and lack a set of experiments to make the connections clear.

At the time of my posts Steorn was claiming the generation of “joule heating” (known as the “Orbo effect”) with its device.  To the detriment of Steorn’s reputation, their first public demonstration in 2007 was cancelled and another in 2009 drew criticism when it became clear that a battery to “prime” the excess heat into the system was used and frequently recharged and thus energy input could not be reliably measured without criticisms of tampering.  In 2002 inventor Marcus Hollingshead had claimed generation of a gravity-like field in his “Marcus device” using a series of counter-rotating rings studded with electromagnets positioned around a charged iron core.  His demo was similarly cancelled and he never came to market with his device.

Though this site is devoted to developing the discipline of gravity design, it has on occasion noted the similarities between the findings represented by Steorn’s Orbo and Rossi’s LENR-based E-Cat.  In the book Gravity 2.0 those two inventions were the only technologies suggested as potential sources of energy for gravity-like generators. As with claims by Steorn, the E-Cat similarly exhibits (albeit with more solid verification) anomalous heat generation and injection of initial power to “prime” the generation of excess power.  In addition there has also been the suggestion by Dr. Bruce Ahern that asymmetric magnetic pulses provide the key mechanism underlying LENR.  Asymmetric magnetism is claimed by Steorn to be the mechanism of joule heating for its device.

What about the E-Cat?  The E-Cat also makes use of pulsed magnetic fields to induce its effect.  As stated in the Lugano (third party) report, “the resistor coils are fed with some specific electromagnetic pulses.  Similarlly, Professor Mitchell Swartz of MIT showed how applying powerful magnetic fields to NANORs (his LENR device) improves their operating properties permanently. He calls NANORs treated with magnetic fields, “M-NANOR”.  Application of magnetic fields appears to either underly or enhance LENR.

Recent findings by third party researchers in the “Lugano report” appear to validate Rossi’s claims of excess energy production for the “hot cat” version of the E-Cat and confirm it as a nuclear process shifting neutrons in the Nickel fuel to the Lithium fuel.  The specific mechanism is yet to be clearly identified, though a recent suggestion of bound neutron tunneling is an interesting hypothesis suggesting the basis for the shift.  It also suggests the possibility that the iron (Fe) additives to the E-Cat’s fuel may lose nucleons resulting in the decay of Fe to Mn.

Pulsed magnetic fields may make possible nuclear processes in LENR.  Might they also initiate nuclear processes for generating gravity-like fields?  Hollingshead suggested a nuclear mechanism for his gravity-like field generator.  He stated that a Cambridge University based physicist reported the gravitational effect was due to “pushing protons into becoming neutrons” by pulsing the iron core at the center of the device with strong magnetic fields.  This suggestion of magnetically induced nucleon interactions would mean that eventually the iron would be depleted and the effect diminished.  Hollingshead reported that after about 200 hours the iron purity of the core was contaminated with sufficient byproducts so that it would stop working until the iron core was replaced.  I suggested in a December 2005 article that the decay of Fe to Mn in the iron core might be the “contaminants” mentioned by Hollingshead in his communications.

What are the similarities between the Marcus device and Orbo?  In June 2007 I made the following proposal on Steorn’s private forum:

The Steorn Effect is the magnetic (Sv) analog of a gravitomagnetic (Gv) effect first reported by Marcus Hollingshead.

I’ve always wondered why inventors touting the discovery of antigravity also often mention that their devices create free energy. Perhaps these effects are rough analogs where free energy is about magnetic lag and antigravity is about gravitational lag.

About the time that Mssrs. McCarthy and Daly [Steorn] were pondering the energy excesses of their wind generator, an inventor named Hollingshead was posting on the BBC boards about an AG device that he had refined through 161 iterations (though he preferred the term “modified gravity” to AG). Like Steorn he also stumbled upon his effect, first thinking it purely magnetic until a professor at Cambridge with whom he consulted essentially said, “What you have here is modified gravity lensing”.

In that thread I noted similarities of the two systems:

  1. Both involved the pulsing of magnetic fields (through rotation) of a strong ferromagnetic material with a weak ferromagnetic material. Orbo with strong (neodynium) rotors interacting with weak (ferrite) stators; Marcus device with strong (EM) rotors interacting with a weak (alpha iron) stator.
  2. Rotational speeds to achieve the effects were also similar, Orbo with a rotational speed of 14.5 m/s at the beginning of its “green zone” and the Marcus device at 19.8 m/s at the beginning of its gravitational effect.
  3. Both systems also exhibited parity, with Orbo rotation leading to excess energy, counter-rotation leading to absorbed energy; and the Marcus device rotation exhibiting “negative” gravity effects and counter rotation exhibiting “positive” gravity effects.
  4. One version of Orbo shown to those under an NDA was a radially magnetic version configured for continuous rotational motion where the stator presenting a strong circumferential North pole to the weak ferrites.  Similarly, the Marcus device imposed a simultaneously pulsed North pole at opposite points across the diameter of the soft iron core in the x, y, and z axes by employing 6 electromagnets.

Despite both inventions lacking sufficient replication from third parties (the Marcus device particularly so) there are intriguing similarities.  However, to date Steorn has not suggested a nuclear mechanism for Orbo and has not claimed that it is LENR.  The E-Cat does have a nuclear mechanism and employs “magnetic pulsing” similar to reports for the Marcus device.


Bob ssOrbo x-section2


But is there unaccounted energy produced in generating gravity-like fields?  In their first published paper describing a set of experiments to produce gravity-like fields, Martin Tajmar and his co-author Clovis deMatos (at the time an Advanced Concepts and Studies Officer at ESA) described a lack of conservation of energy produced that might be tied to dark energy.  In an April 2007 article New Scientist entitled “Superconductors inspire quantum test for dark energy”, DeMatos stated that “We did the sums and found out that energy wasn’t conserved, but perhaps that was just because we were missing dark energy.”  Extended Heim Theory also posits that the gravity-like fields generated by symmetry breaking could explain dark energy.  However, the nature of the lack of energy conservation does not appear to be related to the energy released through LENR.

At this juncture the following appears to be the status of the various devices:

  1. The excess energy output of Rossi’s E-Cat has been validated by two independent reports, but replication by other independent parties is needed to fully validate those results.
  2. Steorn’s Orbo has yet to be validated except by third party consultants hired by Steorn.  Further, Dr. Bruce Ahern’s suggestion that LENR is dependent upon asymmetric magnetism has yet to be tested as the basis of Steorn’s claims of asymmetric magnetism made over 7 years ago.
  3. Hollingshead’s “Marcus device” has yet to be publicly demoed, and no independent study has been publicly released.One common thread binding all of the above is that all of the inventors are still consider by many to be charlatans.

EHT has suggested mechanisms for producing gravitomagnetic “symmetry breaking” through either fermionic coupling (due to polarization of the vacuum induced by very strong magnetic fields), or bosonic coupling (induced by rotating superconductors producing Cooper pairs).  In an early paper on EHT, “SPACETIME PHYSICS AND ADVANCED PROPULSION CONCEPTS”, the authors suggested that though the exact formation of Cooper pairs is not known the coupling of the electron pairs seems to be via phonons, generated by electron movement through the proton charge of the ions in the crystal lattice of the superconductor.  LENR has also been called Lattice Energy Nuclear Reactions due to the suggested site of the nuclear transformation within the lattice of nickel particles through the excitation of phonons.

The final thought on this speculative thread is this… is there a third way to induce symmetry breaking (either fermionic or bosonic) that follows the pathway of LENR, gives credence to Hollingshead’s claims, and still supports the theory of EHT?

Swarming and DigiGrav

Nearly a decade ago when I was teaching Second Life to my students, I would occasionally come to a new “sandbox” where, upon landing, I was immediately hit with a barrage of swarming objects. They visually blocked my vision in every direction and made navigation around that territory impossible.

That swarming behavior was a relatively new feature of Second Life meant to emulate the flocking of birds or fish, but was often used by “griefers” to harrass visitors. My experience was not a good one, but at least this was a virtual world. I couldn’t imagine the same being possible in the real world.

At the time I had no notion that academics elsewhere were working on flying robotic navigation using a sensor net that would portend swarming behavior of robots. The SWARMS project brings together experts in artificial intelligence, control theory, robotics, systems engineering and biology with the goal of understanding swarming behaviors in nature and applications of biologically-inspired models of swarm behaviors to large networked groups of autonomous vehicles. We have now seen flocks of robots fly autonomously to achieve patterns autonomously and semi-autonomously (ie. follow the leader). We have also seen flying quadcoptor robots that build scaled-down complex structures out of blocks so precisely and effortlessly that it defies belief.

As a story in RawStory notes, scaling up to real-world sizes of building materials would mean “construction times could be drastically reduced. Ultimately, a hyper-streamlined system could result in thousands of construction jobs being eliminated and a surge in urban sprawl. Such an invention, properly scaled upward, would be simply revolutionary — and that radical vision, scarcely imagined even in science fiction.”

The digital control of gravity-like field generating platforms (shortened here to DigiGrav) is one of the big ideas of gravity design. Anything that you could image with currently networked flocks or swarms of flying quadcopters may be able to be achieved at a larger scale when flying platforms employing gravity-like fields are employed instead of quadcopters.

Accelerating construction, as mentioned in the book Gravity 2.0, is only one aspect of autonomous or semi-autonomous tasking. Rather than floating entire structures to shield/concentrate sunlight or rain, use of flocking behavior would allow structures composed of autonomous platforms to be both transient and reconfigurable.

These temporary structures might divert rain from already soaked fields to adjacent culverts… or divert rain that would otherwise land on adjacent roadways and parking lots to fields in need of additional rain. The next day such swarms might protect crops from hail damage or reflect additional sunlight towards greenhouses… all while reconfigurable and on-demand.

Already, the notion of reassigning flying billboards to move with the inflow and outflow of commuter traffic has been suggested in Gravity 2.0. Perhaps now the size of the billboard might also be adjusted according to just-in-time statistics on who is watching and their viewing preferences as conveyed through cellular networks.

Of course, there is always the possibility of “griefing” in the real world, to harrass users by blocking views and inundating with undesired messages. No doubt legislation will arise to block such griefing in the real world, just as users of Second Life eventually were given the opportunity to report griefers in that virtual world.

Design factors for gravityships and gravitecture+

Until it becomes a discipline in its own right with its own set of best practices, gravity design will likely begin as an intersection of other design disciplines.  Other design disciplines may include:

Industrial/Product Design
Interface Design
Transportation Design
Urban Design
Experience Design
…and other non-design disciplines:
Social demography
Cultural studies
Sports kinesiology
…and likely several others.

The ebook Gravity 2.0 was primarily a resource for conveying the discovery of a potential route to gravity modification and a scoping document for areas of impact.

The following are design factors for gravityships and floating architecture (gravitecture+) to be considered by practitioners of gravity design.  The intersection with other design and non-design disciplines to address those factors will determine the range of considerations and skills to be developed by gravity designers.

For gravityships:

Control and display interfaces
• While under conditions of acceleration, deceleration
• While under conditions of weightlessness
• While body orientation to acceleration/deceleration is in the coronal, sagittal or transverse (axial) planes.

Regulatory parameters for flight
• FAA and ICAO craft types include hovercraft, fixed wing aircraft, rotorcraft, glider, lighter-than-air, powered parachute and weight-shift control but not gravityships.

Vertical Airspace
• Class G (uncontrolled, less than 1200 feet AGL)
• Class E (controlled, ground, <700 feet AGL, <1200 feet AGL)
• Visual Flight Rules vs Instrument Flight Rules with SATS

Flight Paths
• Use of flight corridors, flyways, roadways, waterways

• For pilots, passengers, flight controllers, maintenance

• Refining, processing and disposal of superconducting materials, disposal of reaction mass to be acted upon (e.g. lead), extraneous “gravity-like field” pollution

• Access to parking facilities
• Specialized parking structures

• Storage via Lithium-air or other storage systems

Vehicle to Grid
• Payment to owner when parked and providing excess power to electrical grid
• Payment to owner when parked and providing gravitational lift to structures

Traffic controls
• Navigational beacons at elevations, GPS guidance

• Shaping of windshields/cowlings/airfoils with gravity-like fields

• Vehicle to vehicle communications for navigation and networking
• Vehicle to ground communications using WiFi and cellular networks

Pilotless/smart vehicles
• Extensions of regulations pertaining to drones
• Use of “smart” vehicle technology for autonomous navigation

For gravitecture+ (floating residences):

Control and display interfaces
• While under conditions of acceleration, deceleration, ascent, decent

Taxation for structures not affixed
• Shadow tax (adumbration) as with floating homes
• Roaming fees
• “Slip” fees

Private rights vs real property rights
• Right to moor for extended periods of time
• Right to sunlight (“hikage kisei”) if gravitecture+ blocks sun
• Right to view if gravitecture+ blocks view
• Air rights  (without use of “transfer of development rights”)

• Mooring services
• Storage of water
• Generation/storage of electricity

Waste treatment
• Disposal of waste water and garbage
• Demographics

• Voter registration
• Determination of residency

Regulatory parameters for flight
• Those from FAA and ICAO (mentioned above)
• Right to light (large structures blocking light)
• Right to view (large structures blocking view)

Vertical Airspace
• Class G (uncontrolled, less than 1200 feet AGL)
• Class E (controlled, ground, <700 feet AGL, <1200 feet AGL)
• Visual Flight Rules vs Instrument Flight Rules with SATS

• First Freedom of the Air (freedom to land)
• Second Freedom of the Air (freedom to fly without landing)

Flight Paths
• Use of flight corridors, flyways, roadways, waterways

• For pilots, passengers, flight controllers, maintenance

• Refining, processing and disposal of superconducting materials, disposal of reaction mass to be acted upon (e.g. lead), “gravity-like field” pollution

• Storage via Lithium-air or other storage systems
• Generation via LENR
• Generation via azimuthal rotation (similar to homopolar motor but using Heim-Lorentz force rather than Lorentz force)

Land values
• Diminishing value of non-floating residential properties with the advent of gravitecture+ alternatives

Terrestrial and space applications of gravity-like fields

This is a preprint of an article accepted for publication in a special issue of the Journal of Space Exploration, ©2014 Mehta Press: Terrestrial and space applications of gravity-like fields. Publication date Aug/Sept 2014.

ABSTRACT: Extended Heim Theory (EHT) suggests two additional gravity-like fundamental forces and proposes the possibility of propellant-less propulsion for space flight. If sufficiently safe and cost effective, technology spinoffs may prove to be disruptive for terrestrial applications. Applications based upon advancements in this field could have far- reaching implications for transportation, architecture, urban planning and industry. Coupled with promising distributed energy technologies of sufficiently high specific energy, the impact upon local economies, social systems and even representational democracies may be a challenge to future generations.

Upcoming article on design and gravity-like fields

There will be an upcoming special edition of the Journal of Space Exploration (JSE) entitled “Journal of Space Exploration on Spaceflight Perspectives from Novel Concepts of Spacetime, Gravitation, and Symmetries”. It is being orchestrated by Dr.rer. nat. Jochem Hauser, Professor(em) HPC, Campus Suderburg, Ostfalia University.

There will be seven papers including one I authored entitled, “Terrestrial and space applications of gravity-like fields: a designer’s perspective”. It highlights topics presented in my book Gravity 2.0 and includes additional information on recent advances in LENR for powering gravity-like field generators.

LENR for Aircraft

Though the Swiss effort to power vehicles through applying LENR technology (see blog “First Research for Powering Vehicles with LENR” on July 14) was impressive in it’s aggressive timeline approach, other researchers are intent on studying the long-range application of LENR to aircraft.

There is a May 2012 NASA study (NASA/CR-2012-217556) entitled “Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research, PhaseII: N+4 Advanced Concept Development” which looks to LENR as a potential ultra-green power source for subsonic aircraft. Not gravity vehicles, but a step toward validating LENR as a power source for flying craft.

In the Boeing Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research (SUGAR) Phase I study, Boeing identified and analyzed advanced concepts and technologies for aircraft that would fly in the 2030-2035 timeframe. One of the recommendations from that study was to conduct a follow-on study to consider the synergistic benefits of methane and/or hydrogen fuel.

This Phase II study covers advanced technology potentials in the 2040 – 2050 timeframe and includes consideration of LENR technology. In this study the SUGAR Team has assumed, for the purposes of technology planning and establishing system requirements, that the LENR technology will work. They have not conducted an independent technology feasibility assessment on LENR, but the technology plan contained identifies the steps that would need to take place to develop a propulsion system for aviation that utilizes LENR technology.

The group identified that the LENR concept could have tremendous benefits, though the technical risks are extremely high. All of the conceptual power alternatives were ranked on the basis of energy output, global emissions, LTO emissions, noise, cost and technology maturity risk. The final score of LENR, including technology risk, had the highest payoff, but also an associated high risk.

The study forecast that traditional fuel burn and emissions will be reduced or eliminated by using LENR energy. Also, noise may be reduced by using LENR heat instead of combustion in the engines.

The primary conversion of LENR-produced heat to power is suggested to be turbine fans and alternate heat engines such as those employing Sterling, Diesel, Wankel, Otto, and Brayton cycles. They do not consider the use of direct conversion to electrical energy using thermoelectric converters as has the Swiss automotive team.

Here is a paper on some of the issues surrounding the efficiency of thermoelectric conversion of LENR heat to electricity:

Steorn In €50 Million A Year HephaHeat Bonanza

On July 20 I mentioned in this blog that physicist Brian Ahern had proposed asymmetric magnetism as the basis for LENR. Steorn, an engineering firm in Dublin, had previously claimed that its Orbo power generation technology operated through the application of asymmetric magnetism. The Sunday Times Ireland’s business section recently contained a surprising new article on intellectual property development firm Steorn.

As reported in, “Their HephaHeat hot water boiling technology looks certain to reinvigorate the company’s finances with two multinational companies seeking to incorporate HephaHeat into consumer and commercial products netting Steorn royalties of around €50 Million per annum by 2017.”
 Sunday Times Ireland reported…

“The Dublin technology company that claimed it could produce energy from nothing says that it has signed collaboration agreements with two large multinational manufacturers writes Tim Madigan.”

The agreements cover the design work  required to incorporate Steorn’s HephaHeat technology into products that use steam and hot water.
This development marks the first time consumer product manufacturers have considered using HephaHeat in their designs.
Steorn courted controversy by placing an advert in the Economist in 2006 inviting scientists to inspect its Orbo technology, which it claimed produced “free, clean and constant energy”.
A two-year verification process overseen by a scientific jury concluded that Steorn has “not shown any evidence of energy production”.
The manufacturers, more convinced of the technology’s potential, are keen to enter into a design phase with the company.
HephaHeat is the tradename for Orbo in heating applications.
Steorn has raised 19 million Euros from investors to date according to Sean McCarthy, Steorn’s chief executive.  Recently filed accounts show accumulated losses had reached 17.2m by the end of 2010.
If manufacturers include HephaHeat in their products, a license agreement is envisaged which would provide a royalty fee for each product sold.
HephaHeat technology is designed for electric water-heating products aimed at the domestic and commercial water-heating industry.
McCarthy claims that royalty fees from these agreements could be bringing in up to 50 million a year by 2017 if these deals progress beyond the design stage.”

Steorn will provide E-Cat, Defkalion and other LENR manufacturing firms with competition from their technology which may also employ LENR, but by another name.

How commercial is LENR?

Since I’ve broached the topic of LENR, the question now is “How commercially viable is LENR?” In part, that has been address in Tyler van Houweligne’s slideshow, “Is Commercial Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) the Real Deal?” available here:

It is a well considered compilation of research and opinions, and though the tone may be influenced toward the affirmative by the author, the sources cited appear both legitimate and accurate according to several sources. However, this is not the final word and widely published research confirmations are still required.