rexresearch.

com

William J. HOOPER
Motional Electric Field

New Horizons In Electric, Magnetic

& Gravitational Field
Theory
by William J. Hooper

(B.A., M.A., Ph. D. (University of California Berkeley);

President & Director of Research,
Electrodynamic Gravity,
Inc.; Professor of Physics Emeritus, Principia College.)

__________________________________________

Table of Contents
Preface

Introduction: New Horizons in Field theory

Chapter 1: Fundamental Fields

Chapter 2: The Electromagnetic Force

Equation

Chapter 3: Experimental Confirmations by

Electrostatic Shielding

Chapter 4: The Motional Magnetic Field

Chapter 5: Gravitation

Chapter 6: Anti-Gravity & Electrical

Power

Chapter 7: Some Confirming Experiments

Appendix

This book is dedicated to Mr. And Mrs. Warren W. Gibson, who

have made it possible
financially to carry on the last two years
of fruitful experimental work. The devotion and
dedication of
Mrs. Gibson (Fran) to this project, serving as secretary and
Research Assistant, has
provided a flame which has kept it aglow
to its present status.

"It appears to me, that the study of electromagnetism in all

its aspects has now become of the
first importance as a means of
promoting the progress of science." (James Clerk Maxwell:
Treatise
on Electricity & Magnetism, Vol. 1, Pref., p. vii.)

 Preface
Nearly everyone believes that gravity is a force emanating from
matter, but just how, just why,
nobody seems to know! In the
science of physics much is known about electricity and
magnetism, but of gravity, nothing really, with the exception of
the inverse square law of Sir
Isaac Newton, which we know
gravity obeys.

This treatise presents newly discovered unique and

startling properties of one of our induced
electric fields. It
gives this field a new status among our field forces. Its
unusual properties are
possessed only by gravity. While it is
too early to claim complete identification of this field and
the
gravitational field, the similarities are amazingly alike.

Electricity and Magnetism were once two separate sciences. In

1820, Hans Christian Oersted
observed that magnetic flux was
always looped about a current-carrying conductor. This
discovery
served to unite the two sciences of Electricity and Magnetism
into one, that of
Electromagnetism.

During World War II the writer, working on an invention for a

"drift and ground speed meter for
aircraft", arrived at a plan
for utilizing the vertical component of the earth's magnetic
field. If the
voltage induced between the ends of two oriented
linear conductors traveling horizontally across
the vertical
component could be measured within an aircraft, a self-contained
meter, independent
of ground instrumentalities, would be
forthcoming. The plan was reviewed by the U.S. Bureau
of
Standards, and its workability confirmed under a certain
restriction. It was stated that the
device would be inoperable
within a conducting cavity such as a metal-clad aircraft. Our
textbbooks have taught us that when a linear conductor moves
with a velocity V across a
magnetic flux of intensity B, an
electric field of vector intensity VxB is induced within the
wire
and gives rise to a voltage at its terminals. This
electromagnetically induced electric field, often
called a
motional electric field, we have been taught, would be
electrostatic in character, that is,
identical and
indistinguishable from an electric field arising from charges of
electricity. We
know that radio tubes, silvered on the inside,
shield the interior from stray electrostatic fields. In
the same
way, it was explained, such a drift and ground speed meter
within a metal-clad aircraft
would be shielded from the electric
field induced in a conductor by motion across the vertical
component of the earth's magnetic field. This explanation was a
jolt to the writer. How could we
know, without experimental
evidence, that such would be the case? This presented a great
challenge! Some of the foremost thinkers in physics were
consulted. It was discovered that there
was no experimental
evidence to support the popular belief held by physicists
that the
motionally induced V x B field was electrostatic in its
fundamental character and therefore
subject to shielding. It
will be shown how, step by step, the writer has been guided over
a period
of 20 years to experimental means which at last reveal
experimentally, beyond all doubt, the
beautiful unique
properties of the motional electric field. It is not
electrostatic! Its immunity to
shielding, magnetic or
electrostatic, is the exciting property which it shares with the
gravitational
field and thereby indicates their kinship. By a
general theorem in electric field theory we know
that a
non-uniform B x V field must also act attractively on matter!
Thus the motional electric
field has acquired a status which
makes it quite unique.

Guided by theory the inventor has built a generator of the B x

V field which projects its field
into the surrounding space. The
writer calls this artificially generated field Electrodynamic
Gravity because it simulates gravity. Although utilizing
principles of magnetic field
superposition and electromagnetic
induction, the product field, B x V, like the gravitational
field
displays no evidence that magnetism plays a part in its
generation. Likewise it is free of
electrostatic
characteristics. Although magnetic flux is moved by the
generator, there are no
mechanically moving parts.

The guiding concept employed by the inventor was first set

forth in 1957 by E. G. Cullwick
(Electromagnetism &
Relativity, p. 245, Longsman Green & Co.). His
research had led him to
the conviction that the magnetic flux
loops discovered by Oersted were actually in motion along
the
linear conductor in the direction of the electron current giving
rise to it, and moved with the
electron drift velocity. Our
motional electric field generator demonstrates the correctness
of the
foregoing prediction. Its operation makes use of this
movement of flux to generate the B x V
field in space about the
generator. This confirmation of Cullwick's prediction is an
experimental
contribution to modern electronic theory and it has
all the earmarks of being the welding link
which ties
gravitation to electricity and magnetism. The oersted flux,
first its discovery, and now
the discovery that it moves with
the electron drift velocity giving rise to it, thus holds a
unique
role in the process of welding the three sciences into
one.

The new generator affords useful instrumentation for directly

measuring electron drift velocities
in metals, as well as
experimentally determining the number of electrons available at
various
temperatures. Thus, it provides a new experimental
method f investigation into the realm dealt
with by the
Fermi-Dirac statistics. Theoretically, this device holds
exciting possibilities of great
utility at very low
temperatures. If sufficiently intense fields can be obtained by
the use of
superconducting wire in our generator at low
temperatures, as we have good reason to believe is
possible, the
phenomenon of attraction and polarization of materials by this
field can be studied.
This would immediately bring into the
realm of possible experimental demonstration such
effects as
weightlessness, artificial gravity, and anti-gravitational
effects. This achievement, the
writer believes, will be no more
difficult of attainment than that which has already been
demonstrated experimentally.

Should success follow the forthcoming planned cryogenic (low

temperature) experiments and
we find that very intense B x V
fields can be generated and identified with the gravitational
field, the promise of utility to humanity would be beyond all
description. Free electric power
from the earth's gravitational
field would be obtainable anywhere, under the sea, on earth or
neighboring space, on the moon or the planets! Gravity-free
laboratories on earth, and artificial
gravity in spacecraft ---
these are some of the possibilities! With such promises on the
horizon it
is difficult for the writer to rest on his oars for
one minute. This treatise therefore goes forth with
"Great
Expectations!"

Sarasota, FL (December 1969)

Introduction

New Horizons In Field Theory

Forty years have passed since Max Mason and Warren Weever wrote
in their celebrated book,
The Electromagnetic Field (1 ~
p. xii, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1929):

"The great scientific task of the next 50 years is the

development of a new electromagnetic
theory. It is impossible to
forecast the form such a theory will take, so greatly are we
prejudiced
by our present views. It will, however, doubtless be
based on a quantitative description of the
individual behavior
of charges"

The new physics under the leadership of such men as Einstein,

Planck, Heisenberg, Schrodinger,
and Bridgman, has produced a
series of kaleidoscopic changes in classical concepts. The
contributions of the first four of these five men have been well
incorporated into our modern
textbooks. It is the work of
Bridgman, his philosophy as embodied in "The Logic of Modern
Physics" (2 ~ MacMillan Co., 1928), and paraphrased as "The
Operational Viewpoint", which
has to a large extent inspired
this treatise, and provided a beacon of illuminated thinking to
guide
contemporary physicists in the development of new ideas.
What Bridgman has done is to show
us how the advent of
relativity theory has made it necessary to take cognizance of
the fat that
new phenomena spring into existence as the result
of introducing into an experiment nothing
more than motion or a
change in motion. We must be aware of assuming that because of
the fact
that similarities exist between old and new phenomena
that they are necessarily equivalent. To
be specific, let us
again turn to Mason and Weaver:
"It cannot be urged that it has been shown experimentally that
moving particles and changing
currents are rigorously equivalent
as regards induced electromagnetic forces. It is very easy to
let the notation carry the burden of the argument and to hold
that the value of curl E s related to
the rate of change of B in
every case in the way stated by the equation (curl E = -?B/?t).
It is
very important to point out, however, that by doing so one
may be overlooking something of
fundamental physical
importance." (3 ~ ibid., p. 257)

It is this "something of fundamental physical importance" which

is overlooked when the so-
called "principle of equivalence" is
applied without rigorous examination and analysis. This is
the
very essence of Bridgman's thesis.

There is no evidence that the subject matter of

electromagnetism, since its earliest inception, has
ever been
given the Bridgman treatment. If we desire to keep our future
growth on solid
scientific ground, we are faced with the
necessity of review and revision of old and new
concepts which
dominate thinking in the direction of its inevitable expansion.
We need much to
learn how "greatly are we prejudiced by our
present views". In order to make way for the next
great
breakthrough in physics we must first come face to face with
facts that reveal how greatly
our present concept of fields is
restricting our thinking and limiting our achievements.

An example of one of the greatest blind spots in current

popular field theory will illustrate this
point. This blind
spot, due to an assumed concept, has been upheld by some of our
most brilliant
mathematical physicists. So dogmatic and
completely certain of the accuracy of his position was
one that
he contributed the following jingle with which to support his
conviction:

"There is but one God Allah, And Mohammed is his prophet! There
is but one electric field E,
and Maxwell is its prophet!" (4 ~
J. Stepian, "Electrostatic or Electromagnetically Induced
Electric Field?"; Scientific Paper 1451, Westinghouse
Research Laboratory, 7-14-49)

That nature has provided us with but one field agency which
accelerates electrons, one electric
field, and that one
electrostatic in its fundamental character, is perhaps the
greatest of all our
current prejudiced and erroneous views. None
of Faraday's famous experiments show or prove
the existence of
but one electric field in nature. It is Maxwell's translation of
these experiments
into the language of mathematics that bear the
tacit assumption of only one such field. But
Faraday
left us a word of warning:

"and considering the constant tendency of the mind to rest on

an assumption, and, when it
answers every present purpose, to
forget that it is an assumption, we ought to remember that, in
such cases, it becomes a prejudice, and inevitably interferes,
more or less, with clearsighted
judgment." (5 ~ Phil.Mag.,
1844)

It will be shown with experimental and theoretical proof that

this assumed and prejudiced view
is incorrect. Indeed, it is as
obsolete as the concept of the atom as being a single
indivisible
particle, and as obsolete as the concept of a single
atom for each element. It is as unrealistic as
were the
arguments of the famous Professor Simon Newcomb, recipient of
honorary degrees
from ten European and seven American
universities, who was demonstrating mathematically
that man
could not fly, while the Wright brothers were assembling their
aircraft at Kitty hawk.
Simply because it can be shown
mathematically that an electrified particle will trace identical
trajectories in each of two types of fields, is no proof that
these fields, these accelerating
agencies, are equivalent and
identical. Penetrating properties of fields, rendering them
immune
to shielding, possessed by some and not by others, have
no mathematical representation in such
so-called proofs, hence
the proof is not rigorous because it does not include all the
field
properties.

A second modern prejudice, an assumed concept, which has gained

considerable popularity, is
one which states "the whole concept
of a magnetic field is a fiction." (6 ~ P. Moon & D.E.
Spencer: "Electromagnetism Without Magnetism: An Historical
Sketch"; Amer. J. Phys., vol. 22,
p. 120, 1954)
By combining two conceptual prejudices, "one electric field"
(or its equivalent, electric charges
only) and "no magnetic
field", Moon and Spencer have produced what they call "A New
Electrodynamics" (7 ~ J. Franklin Inst. vol. 257: p.
369, 1954) which appears on the surface to
have revamped the
whole picture of electromagnetism, in which no reference is made
of fields,
and the formulation is in terms of charges and their
motions only. It would appear upon first
examination that the
success of their endeavors would constitute a basis for
establishing the
verity of the two basic assumptions. But this
is not the case, as will be shown. The Bridgman
treatment of
Maxwell's equations clarifies the paradoxes and ambiguities
previously associated
with them and in so doing it retains the
intrinsic values found in electric and magnetic field
concepts (
8 ~ P. Moon & D.E. Spence: "Some Electromagnetic Paradoxes",
J. Franklin Inst.,
vol, 260, p. 373, 1955). Both the
Maxwell equations and the "New Electrodynamics"
formulation take
on new meanings when analyzed in the light of the Operational
Viewpoint
urged by Bridgman. We will go into this subject in the
next chapter.

Wile Moon and Spencer claim that the complete elimination of

all reference to electric and
magnetic field concepts in their
formulation brings it to "a closer contact with reality", to the
writer, this constitutes rather a fleeing from the reality of
fields by burying one's head in sand,
like an ostrich, wherein
only sand particles can be seen, and one's body remains in a
variety of
teeming dynamic forces.

The idea that magnetism may not have physical reality because
electric currents which give rise
to certain aspects of it may
be replaced in the equations by moving charges has been given
much
consideration. Page and Adams in discussing elementary
charge and the force equation state:

"It is often stated that no magnetic charges exist in nature,

and that therefore the terms in ?H in
this equation
are without physical significance. On the contrary, we shall
show that, if every
elementary charged particle contains
electric and magnetic charges in the same ratio, no
electromagnetic experiment can reveal the value of ? ---
therefore the field equation and the
force equation become
identical in form with the equations obtained on the assumption
that only
electric charge exists in nature. There is no
experimental evidence, therefore, to justify the
common
assumption that only electric charges and no magnetic charges
are present in the world
of experience. If the reverse were
true, or if electric and magnetic charges occurred combined in
any fixed ratio, all electromagnetic phenomena would take place
in exactly the same way. No
electromagnetic experiment would
reveal the proportions in which the two types of charge might
exist." (9 ~ Leigh Page & Norman Adams: Electrodynamics,
pp. 210-211, Van Nostrand & Co,
1940)

The concept of electric and magnetic fields possessing

intensities and directions, susceptible to
direct experimental
measurement and mapping, is one of the most fundamental and
elemental
realities of electromagnetism. True it is that
perplexing and incongruous problems in field
theory, heretofor
seemingly unsolvable, have plagued it, and indeed these problems
are largely
responsible for the current trend to avoid field
theory, especially magnetic, wherever possible. It
is right in
this area that Bridgman's Operational Philosophy comes to our
rescue and affords a
solution which is both satisfying and
illuminating.

Electric and magnetic fields are manifestation of force, and

force is always associated with
energy. Our understanding of the
energy nature of electric and magnetic fields up to the present
time appears clouded and uncertain. A clear adequate description
has not been found by the
writer in any contemporary text. In
place thereof is found confusion worse confounded. In order
to
fully comprehend the significance of this treatise we must have
some acquaintance with the
present status of our knowledge of
fields, both energy-wise and otherwise. A glimpse of this
state
of affairs may be gained from a few quotations from The
Electromagnetic Field (10 ~
Mason & Weaver, op.
cit., pp. 266-269). Speaking of the special density of
electric and magnetic
energy and of the Poynting Vector which
measures the flux of energy at any point, we read: "The
authors
do not pretend to understand these concepts, but discuss them as
adequately as they are
able". They further say that they "are
not able to ascribe any significance whatever to the phrase
'localized energy'". Nothwithstanding these views, they state,
"The hypothesis of a spacially
distributed electrostatic energy
of volume density ha, however, played a large role in the
development of electromagnetic theory" (11 ~ ibid., p. 162). And
again, "in both electrostatics
and magnetostatics, energy
densities in space have, to be sure, been calculated" (12 ~
ibid., p.
269). It is an object of this treatise to completely
clarify this area of electric and magnetic field
energy.

Energy, in the many forms it assumes, appears today to play a

leading role in the great drama of
physical science. Whether it
is kinetic or potential, mechanical, electric, magnetic,
electromagnetic, binding energy of nuclear structure, or any
other of its myriad manifestation, it
is some form of energy,
pure or bottled up in particle form, which we encounter and
cognize at
every turn in this physical world. Everything in the
material universe is some form or
manifestation of energy.

In the light of fundamentals it would seem most natural that a

proper scientific description and
classification of anything
would include terms which reveal its energy nature, or status
with
respect to energy. In a comparison of one thing with
another, one recognizes as a mere self-
evident truism the fact
that for any two things to be identical in nature, they must
necessarily be
identical from an energy standpoint, and this
truism especially applies to force fields, both
electric and
magnetic.

This treatise will especially concern itself with one of the

most important underlying properties
of one of our electric
fields, the "motional electric field B x V" and
its immunity to shielding. It
will present new theoretical and
experimental knowledge which must have consequences of vital
importance to the science and philosophy of modern physics. The
picture presented will be
based entirely upon conceptions of
electromagnetic theory which are found in complete
agreement
with experiment. This picture, it is believed, will reveal not
only the cause of many of
our difficulties, but the way out of
them. It will reveal a vista of new opportunities for research.
It is confidently believed that as a result of the clarified
picture thus attained, new horizons in
field theory are in the
offing. A glimpse of these horizons, together with an
electromagnetic
theory of gravitation leading up to the
derivation of Newton's Inverse Square Law, will be
presented
with experimental proposals for its verification. Finally the
subject of antigravity will
be discussed and, in the light of
this thesis, how a practical approach to this problem is clearly
indicated with its thrilling possibilities.

Chapter 1

Fundamental Fields
Webster defines science as "knowledge classified and made
available in the search for truth". A
correct classification
of knowledge thus becomes the basic foundation of a science. The
word
classification has been underlined by the writer, because
of its great importance. A wrong
classification of anything can
result in greatly impeding the progress of the branch of science
in
which it exists. Thus great treasures in science can be
hidden and obscured for ages until some
prospector comes along
and reveals its true nature. A critical survey of the present
status if
electrodynamics reveals a considerable number of
electric and magnetic fields which are
brought into being by
operations which are unique and seemingly unrelated. So
entrenched is the
present tacit assumption of physicists
that nature has provide nature with one and only one
electric field and one and only one magnetic
field that no pioneer has as yet attempted to
seriously
penetrate this prejudice and venture into the possibilities of
classification which might
bring law and order to some of our
current problems.

The advent of relativity theory was instrumental in forcing

physicists to reexamine and alter
many of their most cherished
and fundamental concepts in physics. Consdier, for instance, the
concept of time. None other than the great Sir Isaac Newton has
defined time, in his Principia,
in the following manner:

"Absolute, True, and Mathematical Time, of itself, and from its

own nature flows equably
without regard to anything external,
and by another name is called Duration."
Bridgman points out with great clarity that f we examine the
definition of absolute time in the
light of experiment, we find
nothing in nature with such properties. By example after example
he points out that many of the stumbling blocks which have
clogged the progress of physics, and
then he does something
about it. He has contributed what is called the Operational
Viewpoint as
a guiding beacon to enable us to avoid making these
kinds of mistakes in the future. In brief, he
tells us what we
should define and classify our concepts in terms of the
operations which are
necessary in order to detect and measure
them, and not in terms which have no counterpart
reality in
nature, no direct experimental evidence to support them. Only as
we do this, he points
out, can we avoid treacherous pitfalls and
embarrassments in the future growth of our science.
He states,
"It is evident that if we adopt this point of view toward
concepts, namely that the
proper definition of a concept is not
in terms of its properties but in terms of actual operations,
we
need run no danger of having to revise our attitude toward
nature. For if experience is always
described in terms of
experience, there must always be correspondence between
experience and
description of it, and we need never be
embarrassed, as we were in attempting to find in nature
the
prototype of Newton's absolute time" (13 ~ Bridgman, op. cit.,
p. 6). While stating that
"operational thinking will at first
prove to be an unsocial virtue", he nevertheless predicts that,
"In this self-conscious search for phenomena which increase he
number of operationally
independent concepts, we expect to find
a powerful systematic method directing the discovery
of new and
essentially important physical facts" (14 ~ ibid., p. 224).

The writer has classified operationally the three most

prominent electric and the three most
prominent magnetic fields
which we find in nature. They are as follows:

Fundamental Electric & Magnetic Fields (m.k.s. units)

(1)    Ec = Qr/4 pi eor3

The electrostatic or Coulomb field arising from the presence of

charges

(2)    Em = v x Bs

The motional electric field which acts on charges traveling

with velocity V across a magnetic
induction Bs. This
field is produced by flux cutting and should not be confused
with Et arising
from flux linking

(3)    Curl Et = ?B/?t

or    Et = ?A/?t

The electric field Et, in this formula arises from

flux linking, or transformer electromagnetic
induction
discovered by Henry and Faraday. In this field B changes
intrinsically with time. A is
the magnetic vector
potential.

(4)    Curl Hs = J

This magnetostatic field H arising from a conduction current

density J within a conducting
medium was first discovered by
Oersted. It is at rest with respect to the current circuit
source
producing it.

(5)    Hm = -v x Dc
The motional magnetic field arising from relative velocity v
with respect to electric charges
producing the electric
induction Dc.

(6)    Curl HR = ?Dc/?t

The magnetic field HR surrounding a changing

electric induction called a displacement current.
This magnetic
field plays a prominent part in the production of
electromagnetic radiation. It was
first theoretically predicted
by Clerk Maxwell.

Particularly illuminating is the analysis of Cullwick with

respect to the salient operational
differences in the sources of
the three types of electric field Ec, Em
and Et (15 ~ E. Geoffrey
Cullwick: The
Fundamentals of Electromagnetism, p. 285; Cambridge Univ.
Press, 1949). In
brief, he pictures them as follows.

All electromagnetic phenomena applied in electrical technology

have, as their fundamental
basis, the mutual forces experienced
by electric charges, and we have seen that these arise in
three
ways:

Ec ~ Two charges experience mutual forces in virtue

of their positions. This is the electrostatic
force of
attraction or repulsion.

Em ~ They experience additional forces in virtue of

their velocities. Thence arise the forces
experienced by a
conductor carrying a steady current in a constant magnetic
field, the forces
between current-carrying conductors, and the
induction of en emf in a conductor moving
relatively to the
source of a magnetic field.

Et ~ They also experience additional forces by

virtue of their accelerations, from which arise the
induction of
an emf by transformer actions, and electromagnetic radiation of
energy.

The thing we are especially interested in, in this thesis, is

that each of these unique operations
with charges brings into
existence a new force field which will act upon charges of
electricity to
accelerate them. The intensity of an electric
field is defined at a point as the force per unit of
charge will
be exerted. The great mistake of the past has been the
assumption that each of the
above accelerating agencies are, in
their intrinsic physical natures, in every way equivalent and
identical since they each produce the same end product, the
acceleration of a charged particle.
Now in my human experience I
may desire to move across a lake in a boat. As accelerating
agencies I may select several which are one unique: (a) a set of
oars, (b) a sail, (c) an outboard
motor, (d) an engine-driven
air propeller.

There is no question with respect to the uniqueness of these

agencies in spite of the fact that
each one produces the same
end result --- namely, a force on the boat. Because we cannot
cognize directly the unique accelerating agencies in
electrodynamics by means of the five
physical senses, they have
been assumed to be all alike in nature, in spite of the known
fact that
operationally they arise from manipulations which are
as uniquely different as in the case of the
three accelerating
agencies applied to the movement of a boat.

Had Bridgman's Operational Theory been published at an earlier

date, it is dubious that the
present popular view of these
electric and magnetic fields would be as they are. Why? Because
the three electric and the three magnetic fields listed above
are each one produced by operational
means which are
experimentally just about as different as they could possibly
be. This fact alone
should be sufficient to challenge
complacency and initiate a searching investigation of the facts.
Contrary to popular belief, each one of these fields is unique
in nature. It is self-evident that each
of these six fields
requires unique operations necessary to produce, detect, and
measure it. Both
theoretical and experimental evidence will be
presented to show that at least some of our
conceptions of these
fields are fundamentally misconceptions, and in these cases the
misconceptions are due to the fact that these fields are unique
in nature, each one possessing
characteristic properties of is
own which entitle it to a distinct identity in nature. This
discovery
must inevitably render a great service in clarifying
the confusion existent in the present state of
our knowledge,
and afford new opportunities for research, new possibilities in
applied physics
and new horizons for a unified field theory. An
analysis of the properties of these fields will next
be
considered so that their unique properties may be apparent.

Table 1 has been prepared to show the outstanding differences

in the properties of each of the
first three operationally
different electric fields. The recognition of the uniqueness of
each field
is aided by a comparative study of these properties.
The properties of the electrostatic field are
well known and
need no elaboration in this treatise. Scientific literature
dealing with this field is
replete with its well-known
characteristics.

Table 1: Field Properties

Field Properties: (1) Spatially distributed energy; (2) ØE

= ds ; (3) Curl E ; (4) ?ab E =
ds

; (5) E
=dV/ds Potential function ; (6) Behavior with respect to
shielding; (7) Div.
E ; (8) Poisson's fundamental law with
respect to the interior of conductors; (9) In conductors
carrying current; (10) Inverse square law; (11) Spatial nature
of field; (12) Relation to charges in
it; (13) Field dependence;
(14) Functional dependence on velocity.

Electrostatic Field: Es ~ (1) KE2/8

pi
ergs/cc;
(2) = 0 always; (3) = 0 always; (4) a constant
always; (5) Yes;
(6) Can be readily shielded with conducting material; (7) = 4 pi
p; (8) Obeyed;
(9) Conductors always have a surface
charge; (10) Yes; (11) Continuous throughout space it
occupies;
(12) Charges within it produce a distortion of the field; (13) A
primary field
independent of all other fields; (14) Intensity of
electrostatic field in any reference frame is
parabolic function
of v/c.

The electric field induced by a changing magnetic vector

potential: Et = -dA/dt ~ (1) KE2/8 pi
ergs/cc ;
(2) / 0 in general; (3) = -dB/dt; (4) Not a
constant. Dependent on the path of integration;
(5) No; (6) Can
be shielded with sufficient thickness of shielding; (7) = 0
always; (8) Not
obeyed; (9) Can drive a current without a
potential drop along the wire; (10) No; (11)
Continuous
throughout space it occupies; (12) Charges within it do not
distort the field; (13)
Dependent upon another field; (14) ---.

The motionally induced electric field: Em = V

x B ~ (1) No spatially distributed energy; (2) /
0 in
general; (3) = v x (v x B) / 0 in
general; (4) In a perfectly uniform B the value of the integral
between 2 points a and b will not be dependent
on the path, will be independent of it, but in
general this will
not be true; (5) May or may not be a potential function; (6)
Immune to
shielding; (7) = 0 always; (8) Not obeyed; (9) Can
drive a current without a potential drop along
the wire; (10) By
special design yes in certain portions of field; (11) Only
present at points
where moving charges exist; (12) Charges
within it do not distort the field at all; (13) Dependent
upon
another field; (14) Intensity of motional electric field in any
reference frame is linear
function of v/c.

In order that the unique character of each of the

electromagnetically induced fields may be
understood,
considerable discussion will be required in view of the fact
that so many texts
emphasize the similarity of these fields in
certain instances and fail to point out the vital,
outstanding
differences in their fundamental properties, which make it
impossible for them to be
identical in nature. Some of these
differences have been revealed in scientific literature (16 ~ G.
I. Cohn: Electrical Engineering 63: 441, 1949; E. G.
Cullwick: The Fundamentals of
Electromagnetism, pp.
84-87, Macmillan Co., 1939; W.V. Houston: American Physics
Teacher
7: 373, 1939; Page & Adams: American
Physics Teacher 3: 57, 1935)) but do not as yet seem to
be
generally incorporated in our textbooks. Cohn, in particular,
has rendered an outstanding
contribution…

[missing text?]

different ways of expressing one and the same fundamental

phenomenon is because it is
basically incorrect. Not only are
the two types of field Em and Et fundamentally different and
each one unique in nature, but an examination of the Faraday
Lay, E.M.F. = -dN/dt, reveals that
this equation itself does not
hold true in general. In other words, it has been shown that the
flux
linking with a closed circuit can be either partially or
completely removed from the circuit
without inducing any
electromotive force whatsoever! 17 ~ G. I. Cohn: Paradoxes
of
Electromagnetic Induction; Thesis, Illinois Inst. of
Technology Library)

This can be accomplished by a cleverly designed switching

circuit, one version of which is
shown in Figure 1. This
illustrates the fact that the flux linking with a closed circuit
may be
changed by three different unique operations: (1) Flux
cutting, (2) Flux linking caused by -dB/dt,
where the source of
B is intrinsically changed with time, and (3) A uniquely
designed switching
circuit. Only the first two sets of
operations produces an emf. The third set of operations
produces
no emf and for this reason the present manner of presenting
Faraday's Law is invalid.
There are two unique operational
methods of inducing an emf, and we should not endeavor to
derive
them from one simple mathematical expression -dN/dt, because
this expression includes
or implies operations which will not
induce and emf. It is therefore obsolete! As Cohn and
others
have shown, there are actually two kinds of electromagnetic
induction and in general case
both types are involved and each
must clearly be understood and differentiated from the other.
That the flux linking law, attributed to Faraday, does not hold
for his own Faraday-disk unipolar
generator, which requires the
flux cutting law for its correct descriptive behavior, is
perhaps one
of the most outstanding examples of how vitally
unique and essential is the role of each law and
each of the
corresponding electric fields produced by these laws.

Figure 1
In the Faraday generator there is no time rate of change in the
magnetic induction B, since it
originates from a permanent
magnet and is constant. The circuit can even be made so as to
link
with no flux whatsoever. In any case, there is no change of
B with time. This very fact that all
contemporary authorities
(18 ~ Slater & Frank: Electromagnetism, p. 86,
McGraw-Hill, 1947)
on this subject have found it necessary to
add the flux cutting law to the famous Maxwell
equations in
order to satisfactorily explain all cases of electromagnetic
induction is itself
indicative of the uniqueness of the electric
field so produced.

Many of my colleagues have said that it was not difficult for

them to distinguish fundamental
differences in the Coulomb field
Ec and the magnetically induced fields Et
and Em, but they
were unable to see any clearly
defined difference between the Et and the Em
field. Let us,
therefore, discuss some of the most outstanding
differences between these two fields.

What is our concept of an electric field? Most physicists will

reply that it is a force which acts
upon an electric charge and
tends to accelerate it in a definite direction termed the
direction of
the field. With this concept in mind, let us
analyze the two electric fields Et and Em.

In Figure 2 below is shown a cross-section of a long straight

solenoid in which a gradually
increasing current is flowing
counterclockwise.

Figure 2
The uniformly distributed magnetic flux density B within this
area is therefore increasing with
time and according to
Faraday's law of Electromagnetic Induction, the emf around any
closed
circuit placed wholly within the area shown in Figure 2
would be given by: emf = dN/dt = ?QEt-
ds where N
equals the total flux linking the circuit.

Our interest centers on Et, the electric field within

the conductor of such a circuit, giving rise to
the emf.
Obviously, Faraday's Law gives us absolutely no information
about this field Et other
than to say that the line integral of
this field around the closed circuit will give us a value of the
emf induced in it. If this closed circuit A lies in the plane of
the area, Figure 2, then at point P in
this circuit, it is
obvious that Et is directed toward the bottom of the
paper. If, however, we select
the circuit B instead of A, then
at this same point P the electric field Et is
directed horizontally to
the right. If we select circuit C
instead of B, we then find Et directed toward the top
of the paper
at P exactly the opposite direction from that in
circuit A. And if we select circuit D then Et at P
is
directed horizontally to the left, in exactly the opposite
direction that it had in circuit B. That
an electric field Et
exists in this area there seems to be no doubt since an emf
arises within each
of these circuits. But this field Et
is very peculiar, since it is impossible to define it at the
point P
unless we first select a particular circuit through P
which will then enable us to determine its
direction at P.

Now let us remove the conducting circuits from within the area
of Figure 2, and place a
stationary free charged particle Q at
the point P. Will it move? If so, in what direction will it
move? If it remains stationary, and is free to move, then does
an electric field exist at this point?
Certainly the magnetic
flux density exists there and is changing with time, but we have
no
assurance whatsoever that it will act upon a stationary
charge, nor is the direction in which it
will act unless it is
first given an initial velocity, or unless it is confined within
the conducting
medium of a closed circuit. No other electric
field has this unique operational prerequisite,
which in this
case appears to require that the charged particle upon which it
acts must either
have an initial velocity within the electric
field, or that it must exist within a conducting circuit
before
it will make itself manifest. A free stationary charged particle
placed within an Em or Ec
field will be
immediately acted upon in both magnitude and definite direction.
About all that we
can say in a descriptive manner of Et
at a point P, such as shown in Figure 2, is that this
transformer type field has curl at that point, as shown by
Maxwell's formula. For a clarifying
conception of just what curl
means one will find it helpful to study Skilling's treatment of
it
where he defines it as the limiting value of circulation per
unit area (19 ~ H. H. Skilling:
Fundamentals of Electric
Waves, 2nd Ed., p. 41; J. Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1948).
This means
simply, as applied to Figure 2, that if a small
conducting disk of ink, say a dot made with India
ink, were
placed at point P, negative electrons would circulate in this
dot in a counterclockwise
direction. The dot of ink would be
everywhere at the same potential, and therefore uncharged.
Curl
is one of the most outstanding characteristics of the Et
field which may or may not be
possessed by the Em
field, but never by Ec. Now place this same dot of
India ink in a uniform
Em field and it will become an
electric dipole. The action of a uniform Et field on this dot is
therefore very much different from that of an Em
uniform field.

With the exception of mason and Weaver's text, little

literature appears to exist which directs
attention to the
ambiguous nature of the concept of the spatial distribution of
energy as concerns
the two electromagnetically induced electric
fields. That the electric field induced by a magnetic
flux
intensity which is changing with time has a spatial distribution
of energy, whereas the
motionally induce electric field does not
have any such identical distribution of electric field in
space
is one of the most crucial of the fundamental differences in
their properties. Since the
establishment of this fact that
these two fields differ radically in their relation to field
energy is
all-important to the objectives of this treatise, let
us now take up a digression at this point.
Insofar as this writer is informed, no one questions the
actuality of the special distribution of
energy in the case of
the electrostatic field or the Et field, due to a
magnetic vector potential
intensity varying with time (20 ~ The
transformer law is usually stated in terms of the negative
time
ration of change of magnetic flux linking with the circuit and
this gives the total induced
emf. The electric field produced by
this type of induction is most conveniently designated by the
time rate of change of the magnetic vector potential.).
Calculations involving field energy in the
electrostatic case
have long been made without difficulty, and the transfer of
energy between the
primary and secondary coils of a transformer
without any movement of its component parts give
direct evidence
that electric energy is distributed in the space occupied by the
Et field. The very
nature of this electric field
requires the concept of the spatial distribution of field
energy.

An analysis of the nature of the motional electric field will

reveal, on the other hand, that this
concept of spatially
distributed electric field energy, is not only required for a
satisfying
understanding of phenomena where this field is
involved, but it actually induces basic
ambiguities and
impossible conceptions.

Let us now examine the origin and basic nature of the motional
electric field with its unusual
property.

Em = V x B. This vector field

equation was derived by Lorentz from the empirical force formula
of Biot and Savart. This is the electric field which is present
in the moving wires constituting the
armature coils of an
electric generator. It causes an emf to exist in a conductor by
virtue of
motion across magnetic flux. Such induction is called
a motionally induced emf or flux cutting
emf. As we shall see,
this field has some of the most unusual and interesting
properties
conceivable. Page and Adams have emphasized one of
these unique properties. They point out
in the case of the
generator with a rotating armature coil that this field, "exists
only in the
moving conductor" --- where moving electric charges
are present --- "since no electric field is
present in the
observer's reference frame" (21 ~ Page & Adams, op. cit., p.
16). Let us examine
this aspect of the field more closely, for
neither the electrostatic field nor the Et field
possesses
this property, for these fields can exist in an
observer's reference frame, whether a conducting
circuit, or
conductor, or charge is at hand or not.

Three essential operational ingredients are necessary to bring

this Em field into existence: (1) A
constant magnetic
induction B, (2) an electrically charged particle e
(22 ~ the charged particle
may be an electron in a piece of
matter, or free as in a gas), a relative velocity v
between the
particle and the reference frame of the magnetic
source producing B. A deflecting force will act
upon the
particle wherever it moves across magnetic flux lines. As viewed
from the reference
frame of the particle, this force (v x
B) has many aspects of a real electric field and in fact
it is
termed a motionally induced electric field having an
intensity (v x B) per unit charge. In the
reference frame of the magnetic source giving rise to B only a
magnetic field is present. One
observes that the moving charge
is acted upon by a force which to all appearances is wholly
magnetic in nature. Whether we think of it as a deflecting
magnetic force or an electric field, it is
obvious that it
exists only at the points in space where moving charges, either
free or in matter,
are present, for stationary electric charges
are unaffected. In a vacuum, or in space between
moving electric
charges, no Em field or deflecting magnetic force
exists. Hence it must
necessarily have a spotty, or
discontinuous nature. How can this be possible?

Let us proceed as Mason and Weaver have suggested by

considering "a quantitative description
of the individual
behavior of charges". Let a positively charged particle with
mass m and charge
e be projected into a vacuum
chamber with uniform velocity vo at right
angles to the direction of
uniform magnetic flux B. The
particle has initial kinetic energy T = 1/2 m vo2.
By Ampere's
Law, the moving particle (or current element) is
surrounded by a concentric distribution of
magnetic flux.

Figure 3
It will be acted upon by a mechanical deflecting force F
= e vo x B.

It will also be readily seen that this force on the charged

particle exists only when there is a
magnetic field about the
particle. The force is actually the force of lateral repulsion
between two
magnetic fields. Without the presence of both
magnetic fields, no such force exists, hence the
existence of f
requires the simultaneous presence of all three of its essential
components, e, v
and B. The actual action on the
charged particle is magnetic in character, rather than
electrical.

Let us next observe that the force f always acts at

right angles to both v and B. Since the
displacement of the particle is always in a direction at right
angles to the force, this force can do
no work on the charged
particle upon which it acts, and no energy is extracted from B.
This
force, arising from the magnetic repulsion between two
magnetic fields, one due to the moving
particle, and the other
due to the applied B, acts like a circular deflecting
constraint or baffle,
which only changes the direction but not
the magnitude of the velocity of the particle. The speed
of the
particle and hence its kinetic energy remain unchanged. It is
well known that such force
will cause the particle to travel in
a circular path, the radius of which is readily obtained by
equating the force Bevo to the centrifugal force mvo2/r
and
solving for r, r = mvo/eB. The
particle is
thus trapped by the magnetic field, which will hold it to a
circular path until its
original kinetic energy is dissipated by
collisions with neighboring particles, or by radiation.

It is of particular importance to this discussion and is again

repeated, that since the deflecting
force is always at right
angles to the relative velocity vo of the
particle and also to B, no work is
done on the particle
by the deflecting force.

Whether the particle is confined within the boundaries of a

wire or not, (v x B) will always be at
right
angles to v and B. For clarification let us
suppose the particle is enclosed within a
frictionless tube the
axis of which is at right angles to vo and to
B. Few further impose the
condition the velocity vo
of the tube be kept constant in magnitude and direction. Let us
examine
the behavior of the particle within it. As the tube
moves forward, the particle is prevented from
moving in a
circular path by the walls of the tube, but it can and will
begin to move along the
axis of the tube under the deflecting
action of the magnetic field. To maintain the original
forward
component of its velocity vo constant, the external
agency moving the tube will have to
supply the particle with
additional kinetic force in this direction.

As the particle acquires a velocity component vt

along the axis of the tube, the resultant force v x
B acquires
two components, one along the tube, which will be constant (vo
x B), and one at right
angles to the tube (vt x B),
opposing to the forward motion (Lenz's Law). We thus see the
that
the additional kinetic energy imparted to the charged
particle moving down the tube is
transmitted to the particle
directly by the external force moving the tube. This kinetic
energy is
continuously channeled along the tube by the
deflecting action of the magnetic induction B
interacting with the magnetic field formed around the moving
charged particle and the constraint
of the tube itself.

The modus operandi of v x B is thus seen to be

wholly magnetic in character. The conception of
this force, when
viewed from the standpoint of an observer at rest in the
reference frame which
is traveling with velocity vo,
as being an electric field similar in character to that of an
electrostatic field is therefore an artificial figment of the
imagination which instead of clarifying
the understanding of
motional electromagnetic induction, often befogs it. The concept
of v x B
as an electric field is a convenient
mathematical construct, however, for computing induced
emf's,
but the actual nature of the phenomenon with which one is
dealing must be kept clearly in
mind to avoid mistakes. The
electromotive force induced between the terminals of a short
straight linear conductor of length l moving with
relative velocity across a magnetic induction B
is given by the
formula:

(Eq. 2)    E = v x B • l

whereas that induced in a closed circuit is given by:

(Eq. 3)    E = ? v x B • dl

and is often difficult to evaluate. In these formulae the term

v x B represents the direction and
magnitude of
the fictitious electric field intensity em. The
energy associated with this field is
directly imparted to the
charged particles by a mechanical prime mover which produces the
relative velocity instead of by an actual electric field.

An important point in the foregoing analysis is that it serves

to illustrate the fact that since the
Em field is by
its intrinsic nature only the repulsive force between two
magnetic sources, that of
B and that of the moving
charge, it cannot exist except a those points where electric
charges with
magnetic fields about them exist. The Em
field is only at those points where a magnetic field
exists that
can interact repulsively with the magnetic induction B.

Therefore, it is evident that there can be no continuous

spatial distribution of Em electric field
energy as
there is in the case of the Eo or Et
fields. Since no electric Em field exists in a space
without charges, there is no Em field energy in a
vacuum or in free space such as can exist with
an electrostatic
field. We need to remember this fact when we think of the Em
field phenomenon
from the viewpoint of a moving magnetic flux
acting on a stationary electric charge. A single
phenomenon when
viewed from two different reference frames can appear to be
fundamentally
different, but such relative viewing does not
alter the fundamental basic cause giving rise to it.
Since the
real basic nature of the v x B phenomenon has
not hitherto been exposed in detail and
hence is to a large
extent currently taught and believed to be of an electrostatic
nature by
theoretical physicists, it will be worth our while to
go into some of the subtle aspects it presents
when it is so
conceived.

Let us consider the popular view of this phenomenon as

presented by most interpreters of
relativity theory. The Special
Theory of Relativity as applied to electrodynamics states that
if we
have a uniform electric field of intensity E, due
to charges, and a uniform magnetic induction B,
due to
magnets, both at rest in a reference frame S, then in frame S'
moving with uniform
velocity v with respect to S an
observer will find an electric intensity E', and a
magnetic
induction B' given in vector notation in
absolute gaussian (c.g.s.) units by:

(Eq. 4)    E' = ? {E - (1/c) v

x B}

(Eq. 5)    B' = ? {B - (1/c) v

x E}

where ? = 1/? 1 - (v/c)2

and
c = 3 x 1010 cm/sec.

The current confusion among physicists is that many interpret

relativity theory as showing that ?
v x B/c    is an electric
field, identical in nature to an electrostatic field. The reader

will note that E' is the vector sum of two electric

intensities, ?E 
, which is an electrostatic
field, and V(v x B)/c.
Added in this manner, many physicists have tacitly assumed that
E' and ?v
x B/c  must likewise be interpreted as
electrostatic in nature. Jeans, however, points
out that nothing
in the postulates of the Special Theory require such an
interpretation. He states,
"the equations may be taken merely as
an expressing relations between quantities as measured
by one
observer S and another S' moving at velocity v relative to S"
(23 ~ J. H. Jeans: The
Mathematical theory of Electricity
& Magnetism, p. 606, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1923).
Cullwick states, "R is an attribute of the relativity equations,
that they do not claim to include
any physical interpretation of
the phenomena" (24 ~ Cullwick, op cit., p. 119). Smythe states
that the forces represented by the added terms "differ from
electrostatic forces. One might call
these additional forces
electrokinetic forces, but as we shall see, they are identical
with those we
have already called magnetic forces" (25 ~ William
R. Smythe: Static & Dynamic Electricity, p.
488;
McGraw Hill Book Co., 1939).

Winch in his excellent treatise states, "Notice that (v

x B) is not an electrostatic field intensity
for it is
not due to a distribution of charges. We have shown that the
line integral of electrostatic
field intensity around any closed
path is always zero and there is no exception in this case,
i.e.,
the electrostatic field intensity set up by the displaced
charges integrates to zero around any
closed path. (v x B)
is due to the motion of the conductor in the magnetic field, and
an external
agency is feeding energy into the system, and a net
amount of work is done by a charge in
moving completely around
the circuit. Notice also the (v x B) does not
exist in the absence of
moving charges, because it is the
magnetic force on the charges moving with the wire which sets
up
the electric field intensity" (25 ~ Ralph P. Winch: Electricity
& Magnetism, p. 536; Prentice
& Hall, Inc., 1955).

Notwithstanding such pronouncements, the writer has discussed

the subject with many
exponents of relativity theory who are
quite insistent that all the terms in Equation (4) must be
considered identical to, and indistinguishable from, an
electrostatic field. A personal letter from
a colleague at our
National Bureau of Standards also takes this position, as well a
several Nobel
Laureates with whom he has consulted. And this
stand is taken admittedly by these physicists
without a single
iota of direct experimental evidence with which to support it!

During the early stages of the work on this project, I called

on several Nobel Laureates to
discuss the worthwhileness of this
endeavor, one of whom was the distinguished physicist and
authority in the field of electrodynamics, Enrico Fermi, who had
delivered a lecture at the 1944
Public Affairs Conference at
Principia College. Among the questions asked, two will be of
interest to the reader. (1) "If it were ever discovered that the
motional electric field v x B/c was
unique and not identical to,
and indistinguishable from, an electrostatic field, would this
discovery be of any great value to our scientific knowledge?"
His answer in substance was: It
would indeed be of very great
significance and consequence. (2) "To your knowledge, do you
know of the existence of any direct experimental evidence which
confirms the belief that the
motional electric field and the
electrostatic field are identical in nature?" After considerable
thought, his reply was, "Come to think of it, I can recall of no
such existent evidence."

It will now be shown that the relativity equations themselves

provide a means for obtaining a
fuller understanding of the
physical nature of the terms they contain. It is important to
observe
mathematically that in the general case every term of
both of these equations (4) and (5) is a
function of B where B =
v/c. By a binomial expansion it can be readily shown that:

(Eq. 6)    ? = [l + (l/2) ?2 +

(3/?) ?4 + …]
Substitution in the two right hand terms of Equation (4) yields

(Eq. 7)    Es = ? = [l
+ (l/2) B2] E

(Eq. 8)    E'm = ? [v

x B/c] = [l + (l/2) B2]
(v x B/c) = BBn

where v and B are taken at right angles to each

other and n is a unit vector at right angles to both
v
and B and terms of higher degrees that B2
have been dropped.

Equations (7) and (8) represent respectively the electrostatic,

and the motional electric, field
components of the resultant
electric intensity E' in the reference frame S' moving with
uniform
velocity v with respect to S. If now E
and B in reference frame S are adjusted so that they are
both perpendicular to v and to each other and their intensities
fixed at constant values such that:

E's -E'm = 0

Then these two electric field intensities will be equal in

magnitude and opposite in direction (27
~ Two large, similar,
rectangular, parallel, and vertical plates separated by a
distance d could be
oppositely charged and electrically
isolated in s. Above and below the air space between the
condenser plates two large circular horizontal Helmholtz coils
could next be fastened so that
when connected in series a
constant current through them would produce a uniform vertical
magnetic induction B in the space between the condenser plates.
Let S' be a frame of reference
moving horizontally through this
space with velocity v at right angles to both E
and B.)

A stationary electron in S' will therefore experience no force

acting upon it because the resultant
electric intensity in this
frame is zero. Most relativists claim that under this situation
there will
be complete cancellation of electric fields. It will
be observed that E's and E'm
are parabolic and
linear functions of B respectively. It
will at once be evident that although E's and
E'm can be
made equal to each other in
magnitude and opposite in direction for any one reference frame
S',
moving with an assigned value of v and a fixed
proper adjustment of E and B in frame S, such
that v = cE/B, nevertheless such equality of E's
and E'm would be possible for only two frames
at
the most, for a straight line can cut a parabola in not more
than two points. It is thus self-evident
that in the general
case it would not be possible to make these two oppositely
directed fields
continuously equal in more than two possible
reference frames at the most, by assigning fixed
values to E
and B in S. This is a clear-cut case of the simple
superposition of two distinct types
of fields. If the E'm
term represented an electric field which is identical to and
indistinguishable
from an electrostatic field, then it would
have to behave like one, which would require that it
vary
parabolically with ? instead of linearly. How could there be
complete cancellation of fields
in a particular frame if there
is a real difference in their intensities manifest in the
reference
frames having both greater and lesser velocities than
this particular frame? Surely such a
situation calls for fields
which are distinct and unique, balanced against each other with
a zero
resultant in one (or possibly two) particular frames, but
not in neighboring frames of reference.

The (v x B)/c term most clearly simulates the

characteristics of an electrostatic field when it is
isolated by
itself, without the presence of a resultant magnetic induction!
It is this case which
has been mostly responsible for the
popular belief that the two fields are identical in nature. To
simplify the picture, let us first assume a vertical uniform
magnetic induction B in frame S and
no electrostatic
field present. In the reference frame S', moving with uniform
horizontal velocity
v, with respect to S, an observer
will discover a horizontal electrical field, (v x B)/c
and a
vertical magnetic induction B' = B (assuming
velocities small with respect to c), the path of a
free
electrified particle in frame S' under the action of the two
fields which are at right angles to
each other will be that of a
cycloid traced on a horizontal plane. The path of the particle
as seen
in frame S would be circular, as previously shown. This
motion projected on frame S' moving
with velocity v, is
that of a point on the circumference of a circle rolling in a
horizontal plane
along a line in the direction of -v. If
we now superimpose a uniform magnetic induction B"
equal
in magnitude and opposite in direction to B', in frame
S', then in this frame we will have
only the isolated electric
field v x B/c, with the resultant vertical
magnetic induction of zero
intensity. Now this electric field
very greatly simulates that of an electrostatic field, and it is
readily understandable that many physicists have so interpreted
it. The path of the particle in this
field is now rectilinearly
in the direction of v x B/c in S', and parabolic
as seen from S.
Furthermore, since the curl and divergence of v
x B/c in S' are both zero, as they are in the case
of a
uniform electrostatic field, mathematicians can call upon what
is known as the identity
theorem as a proof that the Em
field is identical to an indistinguishable from an electrostatic
field. This proof amounts to nothing more than saying that the
dynamic behavior of a charged
particle will be the same in both
fields. In the following chapters we will show experimentally
that this is not always true. Also analysis shows that a prime
mover is required for moving the
source of B" and supplies
energy to the particle continuously.

Let us again analyze this case carefully because of its great

importance. Kinetic energy is
imparted to a free charged
particle and gives it a velocity vo with respect to
frame S. At the
commencement of its motion the particle is at
rest in frame S', which is moving with the same
velocity. It
appears to an observer in this frame that the particle starts
from rest and begins to
move in the direction of (vo
x B)/c. If the magnetic induction is S' is only that due
to B, then its
motion v' with respect to S' will
produce a new deflecting intensity v' x B'/c in
frame S' in the
direction of -vo. If, however,
the equal and opposite magnetic induction B" is
introduced in this
frame, the effect would be to produce another
deflecting intensity v' x B'/c which would be
equal
and opposite in direction to the intensity v' x B"/c.
At this point one needs to think carefully. The
deflecting
intensity v x B'/c in S' directed against the
forward motion of the particle arises by
virtue of Lenz's Law.
The force on the particle due to this intensity will act
continuously as long
as the particle moves at right angles to vo.
To enable the particle to maintain constantly it
original
forward velocity vo, the kinetic energy which is
being channeled at right angles to vo
must be
continuously replaced. To do this, work must be done
continuously upon the magnet
giving rise to B" in S', because
the action of B" on the particle is to assist its forward motion
with respect to S in exactly the same amount that v x B'/c
depresses it. Two magnets are
involved in this action. (1) The
magnet giving rise to B' in S' and which is at rest in S. (2)
The
magnet giving rise to B" in S' and which must be
continuously supplied with energy from a
prime mover.

The particle can thus be made to travel rectilinearly in S', in

the direction of (vo x B)/c provided
energy is continuously given to it via the role played by B".
This is the situation which appears
on first inspection to be
exactly like an electrostatic field. A free electron originally
at rest in S'
will be accelerated rectilinearly in S' at right
angles to vo. The electron is seemingly without
contact with any material body, hence the electric field (vo
x B)/c appears to be the only source
of its steadily
accumulating kinetic energy. The energy would appear to have
come from a
spatial distribution also as in the electrostatic
case, since (vo x B)/c is the only
electric field
present in S', and the resultant magnetic
induction is zero. This appearance is exceedingly
deceptive and
is the basis of this current false assumption with respect to
the motional electric
field. No prime mover is required in the
electrostatic case! The energy in this case comes from
the field
itself.

In the first place, we must remember that an electric field of

the type (v x B)/c cannot of itself
impart energy
to the electron because its line of action is always normal to
the velocity of the
electron with respect to S, and to the
direction of B. We will remember in one of our previous
discussions, that this deflecting intensity was shown to channel
the kinetic energy of the particle
down a tube without itself
imparting energy. The function of the tube actuated by a prime
mover
was to continuously supply to the particle the energy to
so channel and prevent the particle from
taking up a circular
path in S or a cycloidal path in S'. We now discover that the
superposition of
a magnetic induction B" in S' accomplishes the
same thing that the tube did. But this
accomplishment can only
be achieved by feeding energy to the particle continuously in
the
forward direction as the tube did and this is done by a
prime mover acting on the magnet giving
rise to B".This magnetic
induction B" interacts with the magnetic field around the
charged
particle so as to continuously push the particle in the
forward direction vo, thus replacing
continuously the
kinetic energy channeled at right angles by (vo
x B)/c and thus keeping the
velocity of the particle in
this forward direction constant, thereby making its path in S'
one that
is wholly at right angles to vo. A
prime mover gives kinetic energy to a magnet, and its magnetic
field pushes on the magnetic field around the particle, and thus
does work continuously, which
in frame S' appears as increasing
kinetic energy of the rectilinear motion of the charged
particle.
No magnetic field energy is used up in this transfer
of energy to the particle. The magnetic field
of the magnet is a
physical part of the magnet which pushes against the magnetic
particle with
exactly the same force that the tube did in our
earlier description. It performs the same function
as that of
the tube. There is no real electric field involved in this
picture except that around the
charged particle, which when
moving (by Ampere's Law) gives rise to the magnetic field around
it. Thus the whole action of an isolated (v x B)/c
field on a charged particle, instead of being
electrostatic has
a description which is essentially the direct transfer of
mechanical kinetic
energy from prime movers to the particle. No
spatially distributed motional electric field energy
enters the
picture of this field. The uniform and relative motion of two
magnets with equal and
oppositely directed fields and the
presence of an electric charge released with kinetic energy
from
its position of rest in the reference frame of one of the
magnets produces a combination of
pushing and deflecting
magnetic forces which causes the particle to behave as though it
were in
an electrostatic field. This should not surprise us.
What should surprise is that physicists should
have assumed,
without direct experimental evidence, that these combined
magnetic forces could
be identical to and indistinguishable from
an electrostatic field. A monkey and a man are two
distinctly
different agencies (we hope)! They can, however, exert identical
forces on one and the
same object, and if oppositely directed
hold the object in equilibrium. But surely no one will use
such
an argument as evidence that a monkey is a man, or that a man is
a monkey! Such,
however, appears to be the nature of some
arguments that (v x B)/c is intrinsically
electrostatic.
Cajori states: "The unscientific physical
speculations of Aristotle held the world bound within
their
grasp for two thousand years; the unfortunate corpuscular theory
of Newton controlled
scientific thought for over a century" (28
~ Florian Cajori: A History of Physics, p. 101,
Macmillan Co., 1922).

It has taken over a century to pierce the fog created by the

assumption of one, and only one,
electric field by Maxwell. This
assumption having served him well in formulating his beautiful
electromagnetic equations, nevertheless became a prejudice, and
interfered, more or less, with
clear-sighted judgment.

Chapter 2

The Electromagnetic Force Equation

Three outstanding electric field intensities when added
together vectorially, constitute what has
been termed the
electromagnetic force equations (in kms unts):

(Eq. 9)    E = Ec + Em + Et
= Cr/4?eor3 + (B x V)
- ?A/?t (29 ~ Cullwick, op. cit., p. 287)
In their A New Electrodynamics, Moon and Spencer derive
a new formulation for this equation
based entirely on the force
between two charged particle Q1 and Q2 (30
~ Moon & Spencer, op.
cit., p. 369). These authors show that
all possible electric intensities can be exerted by charge Q1
and Q2 due to (a) constant Q1, no relative
motion, (b) constant Q1, uniform relative velocity,
and
(c) constant Q1, accelerated motion, when added
become respectively:

(Eq. 10)    E = Ec + Em + Et = F/Q2 =

Q1r/4?eor3 + Dr
Q1/4?eor2 (v/c)2 [1-3/2
cos2?] -aa Q1/4?
eoc2r
dv/dt

Note that the Coulomb intensity Ec is the

same in (9) and (10). The motional intensity Em and
the transformer intensity Et differ in form but
represent in each of the two equations the same
identical
accelerating agencies. The outstanding difference between the
two equations is that
with (10), one can calculate electric
intensities without having to entertain any field concepts,
electric or magnetic! The authors claim considerable advantages
for their formulation (10) over
that of (9), and show five
examples, each of which involves difficulties and incorrect
answers if
the classical Maxwell equations are employed
indiscriminately, but which find correct answers
in every
instance with their formulation (10) (31 ~ P. Moon & D. E.
Spencer: "On
Electromagnetic Induction, J. Franklin Inst.,
vol. 260, p. 213, 1955). What they do not point out
is that when
the terms of (9) are applied in the same discriminating manner
with respect to the
operational aspects of the problems, as was
(10), the ambiguities disappear and correct answers
are
forthcoming.

The Principle of Superposition as applied to fields, states

that when several fields are
superimposed on one another, each
will act as though the others were absent. The simple
addition
of the separate terms in both (9) and (10), tacitly implies that
this principle holds true in
all cases. This tacit assumption in
turn stems from the assumption that there is but one electric
field, and each of the three terms being of this one nature, can
be superimposed and added
vectorially. If there was but one
electric field in nature, then one would have to admit that the
simple addition of these terms is scientifically correct. If,
however, we have several unique
electric fields in nature, each
with its own unique physical properties, then the Principle of
Superposition as applied to these fields is open to question. To
illustrate this point, let us
consider a case where we have only
the two uniform Ec and Em fields present,
superimposed so
as to be equal in intensity, parallel, and
oppositely directed. Equations (9) and (10) then reduce
to:

(Eq. 11)    E = Ec -
Em = 0

It becomes obvious at once that if there is but one electric

field in nature, then the resultant field
is zero. If, however,
each of these fields is unique, and a physical experiment can be
so arranged
as to permit only one to act, while the action of
the other is restricted (due to their unique
properties) then,
in this case, the resultant field will not be zero as required
by equation (11). If
then we can arrange such a unique
experiment which will pit these two agencies Ec and Em
against each other equally, we will have a critical means
whereby experiment alone, not
assumption nor dogma, will give us
a clear cut answer to the question of fields, and the
application of the Principle of Superposition. It becomes
obvious that nature alone can give us
the answer to the
questions we have raised. If in such an experiment the equation
(11) is
unambiguously not zero, i.e., if one field can be made
to act alone, in the presence of the other,
then this experiment
will prove experimentally the spatial existence of unique
electric fields, one
of which is unique by virtue of
electromagnetic properties not possessed by the other.
In the next chapter we will describe in detail experiments
which answer the questions we have
raised.

Chapter 3

Experimental Confirmations by
Electrostatic Shielding
In the first part of this chapter we will deal theoretically
with the subject of shielding in order
that the full
significance of the experimental work to be described in the
latter part may be
transparent to the reader.

Among the properties of electric fields, there is no single one

which more clearly characterizes
the uniqueness of the
electrostatic field, in contrast to the electromagnetically
induced fields,
than the singular behavior of this field with
respect to shielding. In order that this phenomenon
may be
thoroughly understood, let us first review the electrostatic
behavior and then contrast this
with that of the other two
electric fields. This behavior has been termed the fundamental
law of
electrostatics first stated by Poisson:

"The equilibrium distribution of the charges on conductors must

be such that the force on any
particle of electricity in the
interior of a conductor, whether solid or hollow, is zero, since
in a
conductor electricity can move freely and the existence of
a force on the particle will cause a
flow of electricity. Thus,
the equilibrium condition requires that all charge resides on
the outside
surfaces and that no charge or electric field
whatsoever exist in the interior."

Physicists are well acquainted with the fact that the Et

field, present in transformer coils, caused
by a varying
magnetic induction with time, does not obey this law at low
frequencies, and only
at high frequencies and with heavy
shielding can this field even approach being effectively
screened out. Since Poisson's law is a fundamental law, which
applies to all electrostatic fields, it
becomes evident at once
that the Et electric field cannot and does not qualify as being
electrostatic in character. This means that the Et electric
field must be unique in nature.
Although most physicists are
willing to admit that this field, which arises from the growth
or
decay of a magnetic flux with time, is not electrostatic,
nevertheless they cling tenaciously to the
belief that there is
only one electric field in nature (32 ~ Sleplan, op. cit.).
Believing that the
isolated motional electric field v x
B/c has been shown mathematically to be electrostatic in
character because teachers of relativity theory have taught
this, it is not difficult to stretch the
imagination a little
further to include the Et field. We will, however,
proceed to present direct
experimental evidence which confirms
the claim presented in this thesis that the isolated
motional
electric field is note and cannot be electrostatic in character.
As we have seen,
nevertheless, this field had deceptive aspects
which cause it to resemble in many ways the
electrostatic field.

In order that the case may be transparently understood, let us

consider a very simple case of
relative motion. Let us assume
that we have an inertial system S which has only a uniform
downward magnetostatic induction B, and no electrostatic
field is present. In the inertial system
S', which is moving
with uniform horizontal velocity v with respect to S,
the transformation
equations (4) and (5) yield:

(Eq. 12)    E' = ? (v x B)/c

(Eq. 13)    B' = ? B

For convenience, let us think of the system S' as a completely

closed rectangularly shaped coach,
made of aluminum, traveling
due North with velocity v. Let us think of B as the
magnetic
induction due to the earth's magnetic field (presumed
vertical). The transformation equations
(12) and (13) inform us
that an observer riding in his car would find a vertical
magnetostatic
induction B', both inside and outside the
car, which for ordinary speeds would be identical to B.
This induction would be reduced to zero by building around and
attached to the car a large
Helmholtz coil which would produce
within and throughout the car an equal but oppositely
directed
induction B". By doing so we isolate the electric field
E' within the car. An observer
would find outside the car
a uniform electric field E', directed from East to West,
given by (12).
Within the car, however, we know from experience
that an ordinary electric field intensity probe
would register
zero, or no resultant electric field intensity. According to
most interpreters of the
Special Theory of Relativity, this is
exactly what should be expected, since they claim ?(v x B)/c
is
identical to, and indistinguishable from, an electrostatic
field, and it must, therefore, behave
similarly with respect to
shielding. Hence, according to this view, the aluminum coach,
being a
good conductor, has produced within it in accordance
with the fundamental law of electrostatics
a surface
redistribution of charge which brings about the complete
cancellation of all electric
field within the car so that no
charge or electric field whatsoever exists inside the exterior
bounding surface of the car.

An entirely logical and different conclusion may now be arrived

at by reasoning based upon our
known laws of electromagnetism.
The car is moving across a magnetic induction B directed
vertically downward. Therefore every free electron within the
aluminum shield will experience a
force due to the
electromagnetically induced field ?(v x B)/c
urging it toward the right hand side
of the car. Under the
influence of this field a redistribution of charge thus takes
place until an
electrostatic field Es directed
horizontally across the inside of the car from the West wall to
the
East wall, equal in intensity and oppositely directed to the
inducing field is established. When
equilibrium is thus
established, there will be within the car two oppositely
directed coterminous
electric fields, of types Ec and
Em, in balance such as to produce a zero resultant
electric
intensity.

The question before us now is, which picture is correct? Can it

be that Es and Em are actually
identical
in nature and complete cancellation within the car takes place?
Experimental evidence
must answer this question, and it does,
clearly and decisively. Before presenting this answer,
however,
it will be of interest to note some of the comments made by
physicists with respect to
this question and the dense fog which
has surrounded it. A colleague at the National Bureau of
Standards, giving a view in harmony with most interpreters of
relativity theory, has, in a letter,
written with respect to the
inside of the shield:

"If it is assumed that magnetic induction has a certain

property not in conflict with anything
observed experimentally,
it follows that there are two electric fields which at every
point are
equal and opposite in direction. One of these fields
results from electromagnetic induction and
the other from
electric charges.

"If it is assumed that magnetic induction has another property,

not in conflict with anything
observed experimentally, it
follows that at no point is there an electric field and on no
element of
surface is there an electric charge. Therefore, any
prediction not in accord with both of these
assumptions should
be considered as lacking an experimental basis.

Smythe, in commenting upon the problem of measuring ground

speed in an aircraft by
measuring the emf induced in a device by
translation across the vertical component of the earth's
magnetic field, states:

"The question arises as to whether the effect disappears if the

apparatus is electrically shielded in
the airplane. We know that
the magnetic field will penetrate nonmagnetic metallic
conductors,
but we also know that the induced electromotive
forces in the shields will set up electric fields
tending to
counteract the fields induced inside." (33 ~ William R. Smythe,
Static & Dynamic
Electricity, p. 500, McGraw-Hill,
1939)

Thus, S' finds his airplane in a transverse electric field, (v

x B)/c. he cannot therefore use any
metallic shields
about his apparatus.
Here again we have the uncertain popular view among physicists
as to whether Es and Em are in
this case
identically equivalent concepts which completely cancel each
other. We will now show
that this does not occur.

The Ironing Board Experiment  ~ (34 ~ Egbert Jones

& W. J. Hooper: Physics 401 Project,
March 26, 1954,
Principia College Library)

This crucial experiment was so named because the apparatus

resembled somewhat an ironing
board on wheels. The object of the
experiment was to detect and measure the voltage induced in
a
test coil by the motional electric field Em while it
was in a balanced and uncancelled state with
an equal and
oppositely directed electrostatic field Ec:

Figure 4: The Ironing Board Experiment

Three electrical circuits were employed, all lying in

horizontal planes, parallel to a large
laboratory lecture table.
The test circuit consisted of a coil of 100 turns of #27 B&S
gauge
insulated copper wire wound in a groove on the 3/4" edge
of a plywood form in the approximate
shape of an ironing board
1' x 7' 4", as shown in the scale diagram Figure 4. The
terminals of
this coil were connected to a Leeds & Northrup
Microvoltmeter which was mounted on the
plywood form, which in
turn was equipped with rubber-tire wheels so that it could be
pulled at a
uniform North-South velocity along the lecture table
by an electric motor coupled to a reduction
gar. The precise
velocity was calculated with the use of a meter stick and an
electric timer.
Surrounding the forward end of the test coil, a
second circuit was wound on a plywood
extension consisting of a
single strand of #16 B&S copper wire held at a constant
two-inch
distance from the test circuit, and carried a uniform
direct current so adjusted that the magnetic
flux B"
surrounding it would exactly cancel out the vertical component B
of the earth's magnetic
field at the location of the test
circuit. The third circuit was a largely accurately constructed
Helmholtz coil so mounted in the laboratory and adjusted that
the trailing end of the test circuit
moved horizontally in the
central region (between the two coils) in which the vertical
component of the earth's field was completely cancelled. The
entire test circuit including the
microvoltmeter was
electrostatically shielded. A very heavy coat of aquadag was
applied over
the test coil and the top and bottom of the
supporting plywood frame. In addition, aluminum foil
was wrapped
around the forward semicircular part of the test coil, and
finally put over the entire
front portion of the apparatus. When
moved uniformly along the table, the shielded wires of the
test
coil along the two sides of the frame move horizontally in the
earth's magnetic meridian and
therefore cannot cut any flux. The
trailing edge of the test coil in the central region of the
Helmholtz coil likewise can cut no flux. The forward end of the
test coil alone cuts the vertical
component of the earth's
field, and is not at rest with respect to the canceling flux B"
of the
secondary circuit. The shield, with the exception of the
portion within the Helmholtz coil,
likewise cuts the vertical
component of the earth's magnetic field. We now have a perfect
set-up
with which to test experimentally whether or not the
uniform isolated motional electric field is
equivalent and
identical to the electrostatic field. The walls of the shield
have induced in them
an emf which drives electrons to the west
side and leaves a positive charge on the east side of
the
shield. We know that these charges will build up until the
electrostatic field caused by this
separation of charge will be
everywhere within the shield equal and opposite to the intensity
of
the motional electric field giving rise to it. If they are
equivalent and identical in nature, they
will completely cancel
each other out and the leading wires of the test coil will be in
a field-free
space. If a voltage is induced in the test coil, it
will be because these two fields do not cancel
each other,
because they are unique and different in their fundamental
physical natures. Table II
gives the results of 19 different
velocities which were carefully measured:

Table II

Trial ~ Distance (cm) ~ Time (sec) ~ Velocity (cm/sec) ~

MicroV (observed) ~ MicroV
(theory)

1         
28.9                   
46.1               
.626                       
10.5                           
10.3

2         
20.0                   
28.2               
.708                       
11.5                           
11.7

3         
20.0                   
28.6               
.699                       
11.5                           
11.5

4         
20.0                   
31.3               
.639                       
10.2                           
10.5

5         
20.0                   
28.4               
.704                       
11.2                           
11.6

6         
20.0                   
30.1               
.665                       
10.5                           
11.6

7         
20.0                   
29.4               
.680                       
11.0                          
10.9

8         
20.0                   
29.0               
.590                       
11.2                           
11.4

9         
20.0                   
28.8               
.698                       
11.3                           
11.5

10       
20.0                   
31.1               
.644                       
10.5                           
10.6

11       
20.0                   
30.8               
.651                       
10.5                           
10.7

12       
20.0                   
30.7               
.651                       
10.7                           
10.7

13       
20.0                   
31.7               
.632                       
10.7                           
10.4

14       
20.0                   
32.1               
.623                       
10.0                           
10.3

15       
20.0                   
32.5               
.615                       
10.2                           
10.2

16       
20.0                   
32.5               
.616                       
10.0                           
10.3

17       
20.0                   
32.2               
.623                       
10.1                           
10.3

18       
20.0                   
32.0               
.625                       
10.5                           
10.3

19       
20.0                   
32.4               
.618                   
10.0                       
10.2

                                                                                             
202.1                         
204.5

                                                               
Average
Values:      
10.64                         
10.76
v = nvBl (volts; n = 100; B = .55 x 10-4 Webers/m2;
l = .30 meters

The experimental average value of induced voltage is lower than

the calculated theoretical
average value by only 1.11% and is
well within the possible experimental error.

The argument has been advanced that this experiment proves

nothing since by Faraday's law an
emf is induced where there is
a time rate of change in total flux linking the circuit, and
this
experiment involved such a time rate of change and,
therefore, the results should have been
expected, for it is
known that shielding is not effective in transformer cases in
which this law is
applicable. This argument is not valid for the
following reason. We have shown in Chapter 1 that
the flux
linking a closed circuit can be changed in only three possible
ways: (1) flux cutting, (2)
the growth and death of flux as in
transformer phenomena, (3) special switching arrangements.
Items
(2) and (3) were obviously not involved in this experiment.
Therefore there can be no
appeal to transformer phenomena. The
flux density B is constant throughout the experiment and
therefore Maxwell's equation Curl E = ?B/?t, which is his
interpretation of Faraday's Law,
cannot be invoked. The
experiment is so designed that the only possible seat of induced
emf
would have to be in the aluminum shielded leading wires of
the test coil. The motional electric
field alone is involved.

A brief account of two other shielding experiments carried out

in the writer's laboratory to
provide interesting qualitative
demonstration equipment will now be described.

The Trapeze Experiment

The trapeze bar was made of six one-meter length pieces of soft
iron pipe telescoped within the
other. A single strand of
insulated and electrostatically shielded wire was threaded
through the
innermost pipe of the bar and fastened at two places
in the ceiling of the laboratory in such a
manner as to permit
the trapeze to swing horizontally in a North-South direction
while the
supporting wires on each side moved in the magnetic
meridian and therefore could cut no
magnetic flux. The shielded
wire was connected to a sensitive wall galvanometer which was
also
shielded. Here again we have only the isolated motional
electric field involved, for it is well
known that the iron pipe
would completely screen out the earth's magnetic field from the
interior. With this simple apparatus, it ca be readily
demonstrated that any small horizontal
movement of the bar
causes a deflection of the galvanometer directly proportional to
its velocity.
No measurable magnetic flux exists within the
innermost pipe, but the electric field Vx B is
present without diminution, and uncancelled by the equal and
oppositely directed electrostatic
field set up by the separation
of charge in the shield. The wire in the pipe cut the vertical
component of the earth's magnetic field, but was at rest with
respect to the bar. The deflections
of the wall galvanometer for
a given speed were identical with or without the iron pipe and
electrostatic shielding around the wire in the trapeze bar.

The Aluminum Box Experiment

In this experiment the entire apparatus was contained in a

closed aluminum box which was
moved horizontally in a
North-South direction on a laboratory table. The test coil was
rectangular in shape, made up of many turns of fine, flexible,
insulated copper wire. The North
and South sides of the
rectangular coil were rigidized and supported in the same
horizontal plane
within the box. The South side was fastened to
the inside South wall of the aluminum box and
the terminals of
the coil were connected to a sensitive portable galvanometer
also mounted on
this wall so that the pointer could be read
through an opening in the box. The North side of the
coil was
supported in a fixed position by two plastic rods which were
clamped to fixed vertical
support rods on the table, and
extended horizontally through holes in the aluminum box. The
flexible East and West sides of the test coil hung in the
magnetic meridian of the earth's field.
Any movement North or
South of the box thus caused these wires to either sag or become
taut
respectively. The presence of the uncancelled motional
electric field can be demonstrated to be
existent in the test
coil when the box is completely closed and moved with various
speed, North
or South, across the earth's vertical magnetic
field component. The deflections of the
galvanometer with
various speeds of the box are identical with those obtained when
the shielded
box is eliminated from the experiment and just the
south side of the coils and the galvanometer
were moved as
before.

Summary

Let us make a brief summary of what we have thus far presented

with respect to the motional
electric field. Mathematical,
operational, theoretical and experimental evidence convincingly
confirm the concept of the motional electric field as physically
real and distinctly unique. Its
magnitude varies with reference
frames in a manner unlike the electrostatic field. The crux of
the theoretical argument involving this field amounted to the
fact that the direct transfer of
kinetic energy from a prime
mover to a charged particle can be logically traced in detail
and in
accordance with known laws, and fully accounts for all
energy transfer, whereas the conception
of motional electric
field energy existing at all and being distributed spatially, in
addition to
being capable of transfer, is next to impossible.
The crucial evidence of uniqueness is
experimental and it has
been shown that this field does not obey Poisson's Fundamental
Law of
Electrostatics with respect to shielding. If the magnetic
field has no physical reality, then when
the motional electric
field was balanced against an equal and opposite electrostatic
field, the
magnitude of the two terms in Equation (5) of the
"New Electrodynamics" would have been
identically equal and
opposite and their algebraic sum equal to zero. The foregoing
experimental
evidence requires a concept of something real to
account for the real difference experimentally
measured. The
magnetic field and the motional electric field concepts
constitute that "something
of fundamental physical significance"
which was intentionally but ill-advisedly omitted in the
new
formulation in terms of particle electrodynamics.

Upon the foregoing evidence we rest our case that this motional
field is unequivocally a unique
electric field possessing its
own nature, behavior and properties. We have asked nature a
question and the reply is clear and unequivocal. Quantitative
and qualitative experimental
evidence such as has been carefully
obtained in this case always has the last word. It closes the
door on controversy and opens it wide toward the dawn of new
horizons. Nature herself has
given the answer which, in the
words of Enrico Fermi, should "indeed be of great significance
and consequence" to our scientific knowledge. The implications
and consequences of this
discovery will be discussed more fully
later. They do, however, lead us immediately to the
necessity
for making inquiry into the basic nature of the analogous
motional V x E/c magnetic
field. This we will do
in the next chapter.

Chapter 4

The Motional Magnetic Field

The classical belief that nature has provide us with one and
only one magnetic field has so
befuddled reason that physicists
have sought to eliminate the magnetic field concept entirely. To
illustrate the ambiguity, the magnetic field arising from two
operationally different sources will
be described. The
impossibility of these two fields beings identically the same
becomes apparent
upon comparison:

(1) The magnetic flux arising from the steady flow of

electricity in a solenoid can be measured
in intensity and in
spatial energy content at any point in the surrounding space by
an observer,
either at rest or in motion with respect to the
solenoid.

(2) The second source can best be described by a quotation from

Sir Arthur Eddington:

"Consider an electrically charged body at rest on the earth.

Since it is at rest, it gives an electric
field, but no magnetic
field. But for the nebular physicist it is a charged body moving
at 1000
miles a second. A moving charge constitutes an electric
current which in accordance with the
laws of electrodynamics
gives rise to a magnetic field. How can the same body both give
and
not give rise to a magnetic field? On the classical theory
we would have to explain one of these
results as an illusion. On
the relativity theory, both results are accepted, magnetic
fields are
relative." (35 ~ A.S. Eddington: The Nature of
the Physical World, p. 22, Macmillan Co., 1929)

The magnetic field arising from the solenoid is obviously born

by the cooperative relative
motion between unlike electric
charges, such as the flow of negative electrons past the
positively
charged atoms in a copper wire. This type of
magnetostatic field intensity is given the symbol Hs
and is identified in Maxwell's equations by Curl Hs
= J where J is the current density. B =
mu
Hs. Mu  is the permeability (mks
units).

The second type identify by the symbol Hm

and arises wholly from relative motion v with
respect to
electric charges. This intensity Hm = V
x Dc = EV x Ec
(mks units) where E [Epsilon]
is the permitivity, and Dc
= EEc.

That the two magnetic fields Hs and Hm

cannot possibly be identical in nature is proved
mathematically
as in the case of the Ec and the Em
electric fields. The general mathematical
expression for these
two fields are obtained from the Einstein transformation
equation (5) in free
space where B = H in absolute gaussian
(cgs) units as follows:

(Eq. 14) H's = B's = ?Hs

and

(Eq. 15) H'm = B'm = ?V

x Ec

where ? = 1/?l - (v/c)2 and c = 3 x 1010

cm/sec.

Inspection shows that if the two magnetic fields H's

= ?Hs and H'm = ?V x
Ec

were parallel and balanced against each other, for constant
values of Es and Ec,
there
is one and only one possible value of v for which these two
fields would have the same
numerical value. In other words, if
they were balanced against each other in one reference
frame,
they would immediately be out of balance and could not possibly
cancel each other in
any other frame of reference. Hence they
cannot possibly be the same kinds of magnetic field,
because
they behave differently with change in reference frames.

Because Hm = V x Ec
is a magnetic vector directed at right angles both to V
and Ec, the electric
field Ec
can do no work, since any displacement of a magnetic particle
will be a deflection at
right angles to this field. The Hs
magnetic field, however, can impart energy directly to a
magnetic particle from its field energy.

The two types of magnetic fields described above have such

obvious dissimilarities that the only
possibility of a
consistent satisfying picture of them is obtained by the
application of Bridgman's
Operational Viewpoint. When this is
done we see these fields as unique. The first type Hs
is
analogous to the Coulomb electrical field Ec
in that it has physical reality, and has a spatial
distribution
of magnetic energy ?H2/8? ergs/cm3  . The motional
magnetic field
Hm is analogous to the Em
field in that it too disappears when there is no relative
velocity.

The intimate relationship and unity between electricity and

magnetism is seen in these two
fields. The motional electric
field can be described as a magnetic deflection phenomenon
produced on moving charges, and the motional magnetic field can
be viewed as an electric field
deflection which will act on
moving magnetic poles.

One of the thrills of this research project was predicted by

Bridgman when he wrote, "In this
self-conscious search for
phenomena which increase the number of operationally independent
concepts, we may expect to find a powerful systematic method
directing the discovery of new
and essentially important
physical facts." (36 ~ ibid., p.224)

It is worth our while to note that we have six such unique

field concepts shown on page 11
instead of the classical two, or
the modern particle dynamics with none! These new field
concepts
when understood in connection with the equations of modern
electrodynamics
completely eliminate the paradoxes and
ambiguities which have plagued this subject for years
and
explain electromagnetic induction which particle electrodynamics
cannot handle. Most of
all, they open up new horizons for the
unification of the three great fields of electricity,
magnetism
and gravitation

Chapter 5

Gravitation
"In the limited nature of the mathematically existent simple
fields and the simple equations
possible between them, lies the
theorists' hope of grasping the real in all its depths." (37 ~
Albert
Einstein: Essays in Science, p. 110;
Philosophical Library, NY, 1934)

"It may well be that the approach of a new theory cannot begin
until the mathematical nature of
the old ones is clearly
understood." (38 ~ Freeman J. Dyson: Scientific American,
September
1958)

In the previous chapter we have shown how Bridgman's

Operational Viewpoint applied to our
"existent simple fields and
the simple equations possible between them" has enabled us to
gain
an understanding of "the mathematical nature of the old"
classical equations of electrodynamics
which were beset with
limitations, ambiguities, and paradoxes.

In order to obtain correct answers to our problems, it has been

taught us that they must be
analyzed operationally (40 ~ This
becomes self-evident to anyone who will review the
publications
already cited, referring to Cohn, and to Moon and Spencer) to
determine the
particular types of fields that are involved, and
the particular formulae among the six field types
available must
be selected and employed for the solution. The properties of
each field type must
be taken into consideration in working out
problems. This clarified, straightforward procedure,
working
with unique field types, affords present possibilities that were
not available to Einstein,
due to mental doors which were
closed.

It was without question Professor Einstein's life ambition to

find the link between the
gravitational field and the phenomena
of electricity and magnetism. The reason for his failure
appears
now to be transparent in the light of this thesis. Most
interpreters of his special theory,
including Einstein himself,
recognize the existence of but one electric field, in spite of
the fact
that Sir James Jeans has pointed out that such an
interpretation of the terms in the transformation
equation of
his theory is not required by the postulates of the theory
itself. (41 ~ J. H. Jeans: The
Mathematical Theory of
Electricity & Magnetism, p. 606, Cambridge Univ.
Press, 1923)
In the English translation of his volume, Mein Weltbild,
Einstein makes several very pertinent
remarks which bear upon
this thesis:

"It would of course be a great step forward if we succeeded in

combining the gravitational field
and the electromagnetic field
into a single structure. Only so could the era in theoretical
physics
inaugurated by Faraday and Clerk Maxwell be brought to a
satisfactory close." (42 ~ Albert
Einstein: Essays in
Science, p. 19; Philosophical Library, NY, 1934)

In this chapter we deal with one of the "simple fields" which

has been known for years and
universally employed in the
generators of our electrical power plants, the unique nature of
which
has been unrecognized and its usefulness only partly
exploited.

The greatest hurdle to be overcome in attempting to link

gravitational force with any of the other
known field forces of
nature, is that property of gravity which enables it to act
without apparent
diminution in and throughout all kinds and
combinations of matter. Insofar as we are aware there
is no kind
of matter which acts as an effective reflector or absorber of
this force.

Let us now review the results of the experiments described in

Chapter 3, the Ironing Board
Experiment, the Trapeze Experiment,
and the Aluminum Box Experiment. In all of these
experiments the
motional V x B suffered no diminution by virtue
of the kinds of electrostatic
shielding employed (i.e., iron,
aluminum, brass, aquadag). We knew with certainty where the
seat
of action of the induced motional electric field was localized
in these experiments. The
behavior of this field in these
experiments, therefore, has aspects which are exactly similar to
gravity. Even when the resultant B itself is reduced to zero, VxB
exists unaltered! No other force
exists, to our knowledge, with
such an unalterable and penetrating nature except that of
gravity!

With the experimental evidence of the fact that the V x

B field can in no instance be shielded
from a region of
space by a conducting shell and that it does not possess the
properties of an
electrostatic field, as has been tacitly
assumed by theoretical physicists without experimental
evidence
to support it, we are brought face to face with the fact that
this V x B field is really
something entirely
different than it has been hitherto thought to be, in spite of
the fact that it is
the generating field so active in our
electrical power plants. Indeed it will be shown that this
field
should behave in a manner that is identical to gravity.

Let us remember that this VxB field is an electric field, that

is, it will exert a force on, and will
cause the acceleration of
electric charges. In this respect it is similar to an
electrostatic field. But
an electrically neutral conductor
places in a VxB field is acted upon differently than when it is
places in an electrostatic field. In the latter field only an
outside surface redistribution of charge
and field take place
whereas in a VxB field the neutral conductor experiences an
internal
redistribution of charge throughout its entire interior
with two types of electric fields existent
within the interior,
balanced against each other in the equilibrium state. This state
of affairs has
been experimentally verified in the writer's
laboratory and this evidence is the crucial blow
which
overthrows the popular view that the VxB field is electrostatic
in nature. In the
electrostatic case the field is entirely on
the outside of the conductor, whereas in the VxB case,
this
field exists both within and without the conductor.

Within a conducting enclosure which is placed in an

electrostatic field, this field is well known
to be
self-cancelled, whereas when placed in a motional electric
field, this field gives rise to
what has been thought to be a
canceling electrostatic field equal in magnitude and oppositely
directed, but contrary to popular belief this motional electric
field is uncancelled by this induced
electrostatic field and
remains undiminished in intensity and in balance with it. This
immunity to
cancellation by shielding is the property which it
has in common with gravity.

It is the penetrating property of the B x V

field which qualifies it to play the role of a
gravitational
field (43 ~ The term B x V is use when one
refers to a source which causes a
magnetic flux B to
move with a velocity V as would be the case when the
field originates in
atoms of matter. Mathematically, V x
B = -B x V). This field can reach to every
part of atomic
structure and in and throughout the nucleus.
Magnetic shielding cannot prevent it because B x V
exists, regardless of the presence of a resultant B,
which may or may not be zero. It seems
incredible that this
penetrating nature was discovered even in the days of Faraday
and yet so
little attention has been given to it.

In describing the work of Faraday on electromagnetic induction,

Maxwell stated that the
intensity of the induced electric field
"is entirely independent of the nature of the substance of
the
conductor in which it acts" (44 ~ Clerk Maxwell: Electricity
& Magnetism, vol. 11, p. 181).
This was also later
found to be true for dielectric substances as well as
conductors.

Matter, as we know it, consists of electrons, protons and

neutrons. The actual nature of the
neutron is not known with
certainty. This we do know, that a neutron does emit a beta
particle,
an electron. We also know that a proton can by
electron capture turn into a neutron. While the
present tendency
is against the belief that the neutron consists of a proton and
an electron in
close bond, this thesis assumes that it does have
an internal structure composed of opposite
electrical charges.
We so know that it has a magnetic moment. If magnetism is due to
charges in
motion, then we cannot be far wrong in this
assumption. Electrons and protons also have
magnetic moments. In
other words, each of the elementary particles which make up
ordinary
matter has associated with it a magnetic moment,
electric charge, or charges. In the experiments
of Stern and
Gerlach, magnetic moments were measured by causing a beam of
particles to pass
through a wedge-shaped magnetic field which
deflected them.

Let us consider a solid cylindrical bar magnet of circular

cross section rapidly rotated about its
longitudinal axis. While
it is well known that in this case the magnetic field does not
rotate with
the magnet, let us assume for convenience that it
does rotate with the magnet. If the axis of this
magnet is
vertical with the North pole uppermost, then in the equatorial
plane midway between
the poles of the magnet we will have a
magnetic field everywhere directed vertically downward,
and the
motion of this field will be toward the observer on one side and
away from the observer
on the other side of the magnet. In this
equatorial plane there will also be a radial horizontal
BxV
electric field. This field will be convergent or divergent
depending on the direction of
rotation of the magnet.

Let us consider what would happen if an atom of any kind of

matter is placed in a convergent or
divergent BxV
electric field. The planetary electrons will all experience a
force which will shift
their orbits slightly, say away from the
axis, whereas the nucleus would be pulled toward it.
There will
be a very small differential in the magnitude of these two
forces due to the slight shift
in the position of the center of
mass of the electrons with respect to the position of the
nucleus.
In this case, the push on the electrons will be less
than the pull on the nucleus. The net effect of
this will be a
small attractive force which will tend to move the atom toward
the axis of the
magnet. Even a single neutron placed in a
convergent BxV electric field might experience
this
attractive force if its constituents are oppositely charged
attractive particles. Such a field might
be employed to
investigate the composition of the neutron! The crux of this
paper is that it
proposes that gravitational force is none
other than the difference between the pull and the push
of a
convergent or divergent BxV electric field acting on the
electrical constituents of atoms.

The consequences of this proposal would mean that the

phenomenon of mass is independent of
weight. An electron alone
in such a field might be repelled while a proton would be
attracted.
This is a staggering thought, but we know of a
certainty that an electron or a proton by itself
actually has
weight? Might not the negative charge which the earth is known
to possess be due
to a radical convergent BxV
field emanating from the atoms composing the earth? If all
neutral
matter consists of equal numbers of oppositely charged
electrical particles then the total mass of
a body would be
proportional to the total charge of one sign contained within
it. It is here
proposed that the earth's gravitational field
might well be a convergent BxV field. We know that
such a
radial field is uniquely qualified to penetrate all space
occupied by matter and produce a
differential attractive force
toward the earth's center of gravity by separating elementary
charges
of opposite sign only a trifle from their normal mean
positions and thus making the pulling force
on the positive
charges slightly greater than the pushing force on the negative
charges.

Each of the elementary particles of which all matter is

composed is also an elementary magnet.
The atom of today is a
dynamic model. Each of these magnets has motion of some kind ---
orbital, vibrational, precessional. In addition to possessing a
magnetic moment due to spin,
planetary electrons orbiting nuclei
generate magnetic fields. These motions of the elementary
magnets produce BxV fields which extend into
space outside the atom. Nowhere in modern
theory is an account
given of these super-imposed BxV fields emanating
from all matter. On
might think that in ordinary nonmagnetic
matter they would all cancel out since this is what
happens with
the magnetic fields in such matter. The electrons are paired in
the various energy
shells (of most atoms) in such a way as to
effect this cancellation of magnetic fields outside the
atom.
Theory shows that if two such paired planetary electrons revolve
in opposite directions,
one clockwise and the other
counter-clockwise, their magnetic fields due to spin at a point
outside the atom can cancel each other out and that their BxV
fields can constructively reinforce
each other. The capital
theoretical discovery, however, comes from a study of the
magnetic field
generated by the orbital motion of the planetary
electrons. The negative electron, revolving
about a positive
nucleus, clockwise or counter-clockwise, gives rise to a BxV
field which is, in
either case, always directed radially inward
toward the nucleus from points outside of atoms.
The magnetic
fields of two such oppositely revolving electrons will cancel,
but the BxV fields
reinforce each other. That
these fields are directed radially inward makes it possible for
them to
account for the known drift of positive ions in the
atmosphere down toward the earth and the
opposite movement of
negative ions upward. Because of its promising potentialities
let us now
take up an analysis of the magnetic field and
motional electric field arising from orbiting
planetary
electrons.

Let us take for our model the simplest possible example, the
Bohr Hydrogen Atom. Consider the
nuclear proton at rest and the
negative electron as revolving in a circular orbit of radius ro
about
it with angular velocity v. The Ampere-Biot-Savart
expression for the magnetic field B
generated about a charge q
moving with velocity v is in mks units:

(Eq. 16) B = q v x r/r3

where r is the radius vector from q to a point P where

B is measured. If the electronic charge -q
is moving
through free space without association with neighboring charges
then we know that B
appears as a motional magnetic field
due to relative velocity of the electric field of the charge
with respect to the observer at P. In this case, if the observer
moves with the same velocity v as
the charge, then the magnetic
field at P disappears. On the other hand, if -q is moving in a
linear
conductor with relative velocity v, then an observer at
the point P will observe a magnetic
energy field B,
whether or not he is stationary or moving. The actual value of B
will of course be
altered if the observer takes on relativistic
velocities. But B will be observed in any frame of
reference moving through, or stationary at, the point P. We now
inquire with regard to the status
of B at a point P when
the planetary electron is revolving about the proton in a Bohr
atom. Since
we know this field is generated by cooperative
action with the positive nucleus and that
planetary electrons in
magnets contribute components of orbital magnetic moment, we
know
that B must be an energy type magnetic field. The
Ampere-Biot-Savant formula requires that at
any instant the
maximum values of B will be found at points along a rotating
radius vector
drawn from the proton through -q to the point.
This means that the magnetic field energy of B is
moving in a
concentric orbit with the electron, with a tangential velocity V
= (ro + r)w at any
point a distance r from -q. If the
magnetic field which the electron carries about it as it
revolves
in its orbit were of the motional magnetic field type Es
x V generated solely by the relative
motion of a single
electric charge and an observer, then one could hardly impute
motion to it.
However, in this case we know the magnetic energy
is itself a physical reality by virtue of its
known type. This
toroidal-like band of energy obviously holds a fixed relative
position with
respect to the orbiting electron, and hence moves
with it.

This moving magnetic field, we know, will in turn give rise to

a motional electric field B x V.
This is
illustrated in the accompanying Figure 5.

Figure 5
When the electron has a counter-clockwise motion in its orbit,
it will give rise to a B at point P
which will be
directed up out of the page. V will have the same
direction as v, and B x V will be
directed radially inward toward the proton. We will call this a
convergent motional electric field.
Let us now calculate the
value of this field at any point P on the radius vector from the
nucleus
through -q when the electron is the upper part of its
orbit.

Em = B x V = -q(v x r)
x V/r3

And when r >> ro, v = rw and v = row

(Eq. 17)    Em = -qrow2/r

approximately

We note that as the electron swings through the upper half of

its orbit a motional electric pulse
directed toward the nuclear
proton with a maximum intensity varying inversely as the
distance
from the electron should be present at point P. As it
continues to swing through the lower part of
its orbit it is at
this time not clear just what effect will be present at P. Our
knowledge of the
structure of the fundamental particles is so
small that we cannot say whether or not the electric
field about
the proton itself will rotate about it as the electron revolves
in its orbit. The electron
is the particle in motion and there
appears to be good reason to believe that the magnetic flux
generated around it will be confined, on one side mostly between
the electron and the proton,
and on the other side of the
electron out into space with its maximum intensity lying in the
electron's equatorial plane at right angles to its orbital
velocity. This is clearly not the equivalent
of the effect due
to a continuous current flowing in a conducting circular loop.
In this latter case
one would have a magnetic dipole at any
instant in time, whereas in the case of a single electron
we are
dealing at each instant in time with circular loops of flux,
without poles, with the electron
located eccentrically within
the circles.

Let us digress at this point and consider another phenomenon to

which we should give some
attention. An electron has spin, and
is itself a small magnetic flux emanating from it. Out
experimental knowledge regarding the behavior of magnetic fields
with respect to rotation about
axes of magnetic symmetry is such
that we can state with considerable certainty that the
magnetic
field of the spinning electron should undergo a motion of
translation only, as its axis
revolves in the electron orbit.
This means that at the point P in Figure 6, the magnetic flux
due to
the electron will partake simultaneously of two
superimposed linear simple harmonic motions,
one toward and away
from the atomic nucleus and the other at right angles to this
direction. As
the magnetic flux moves across the point with
these two motions, two component motional
electric fields will
be induced there. The motion of flux toward and away from the
proton will
induce an alternating electric field which will
always be at right angles to the line d. The motion
of flux at
right angles to this line will likewise induce an alternating
electric field which will
always be directed along this line but
will have a greater intensity in one direction than the other.
The vector resultant of the motional electric field E at the
point P will be a variable vector,
rotating counter-clockwise
with angular velocity v and it will trace out a pear-shaped
figure with
the major axis directed along the line d. The point
P is near the top of the figure farthest
removed from the atom.

Figure 6

E=BxV
W = dw/dt = angular velocity of B x V field in
volts/m.
E = Electric intensity of B x V field in
volts/m.
B = M/D3 Magnetic flux density due to M (in W/m2)
at P. It is directed down into the paper.
N = Proton nucleus.
M = Electron magnetic moment directed up out of the paper.
V = rw = Tangential velocity in m/sec.

It can be readily shown that the motional electric field

intensity at P will be given by:

(Eq. 18)    E = B x V =
BVm = M/D3 rwm

where m is a unit vector parallel to r but

oppositely directed.

Since D = ? r2 sin2 ? + (d - r cos ?)2

E = vMm / [r2 sin2 ? + (d-r cos ?)2]3/2

Since sin2 ? + cos2 ? = 1

E = Mrwm / [r2 d2 - 2 rd cos ?]3/2

And when ? = 0? E = Mrw/(d-r)3 toward the atom,

When ? = 180? E = Mrw/ (d-r)3

And when ? = 90? or 270?

E = Mrw/(d2 + r2)3/2
Graphed as a function of time, Ey along d would
appear somewhat as shown below:

Figure 7

Whereas Ex would resemble a sine curve with equal positive and

negative amplitudes.

Our analysis thus far has led us to two quite dissimilar

motional electric field which should be
found emanating from all
matter. The first one we found arises from the rotary movement
of the
magnetic flux which forms around the planetary electrons
in their orbital travel. The second
arose by virtue of the
translational motion of the magnetic flux of the spinning
electrons as they
revolve in their orbits. The first effect
generates a radial electric intensity which varies inversely
as
the distance from the planetary electron. The second effect
varies inversely as the cube of the
distance. We shall now show
that the first effect could very well be the agency giving rise
to
gravitational attraction, whereas the second effect would
produce a very short range attractive
field varying inversely as
the fourth power of the distance, which obviously disqualifies
it for
the role of gravity, although it may prove to have some
utility otherwise, as we shall see.

As stated earlier in this text, any material object placed in a

convergent motional electric field
should experience a force
tending to move it into a more intense region of the field. When
placed in the field, the body becomes electrically polarized and
a very small separation of charge
distribution should take place
in every atom of the body. The charge nearest to the more
intense
region of the field will experience a pull which will be
slightly greater than the push on the
charge which is more
remote, hence the resultant attractive force. Let us calculate
this force in
the case of the motional electric field generated
by the electron as it orbits around the nucleus of
an atom.
Returning to Figure 5, let us imagine that another hydrogen
atom is placed at point P. Every time
the electron swings around
in its orbit at a frequency of 6.8 x 1015 rev/sec,
the atom at P finds
itself momentarily enveloped in a convergent
B x V field. The positive nucleus will experience
a
pull toward the attracting atom while the electron will
experience a push away from it. The field
Em at the
point P is given by equation (17). A charge Q placed in an
electric field Em
experiences a force F given
by:

F = QEm

Differentiating this equation with respect to r in order to

obtain the difference between the pull
and the push, we have:

dF/dr = Q (dEm/dr)

Hence, if the difference dF causes a small separation dr of

change in the mean distance between
the proton and electron in
the attracted atom, we have:

dF = Q(dEm/dr)dr

Differentiating (17) with respect to r, to obtain dEm/dr

and
inserting this in (19) and solving for ?
F, which is the
difference between the pull and the push, we have:

(Eq. 20)    ?F = Qqrow2

?F/r2

It is important to understand just what equation (20)

represents. The motional electric field
intensity Em
given by equation (17) represents a radially convergent field.
The intensity of the
field decreases inversely as the distance r.
When an H atom is placed in this field the positive
proton is
attracted toward the source of the field while the electron is
repelled. If a separation of
the center of charges takes place
(polarization), i.e., if the proton moves slightly toward the
source and the center of the deformed, somewhat elliptical,
electron orbit shifts slightly away
from the proton, so that
these two centers are separated by a distance delta r,
equation (20)
expresses how much greater the pull on the proton
will be than the effective push on the electron
in its new
orbit. This we call the gravitational force since it is an
attractive force which pulls the
H atom toward the source if it
is free to move. We assume that it is not completely free to
move
but is restrained by elastic forces, somewhat equivalent to
that of a spring. When the attracted
atomic system is moved a
distance delta r' by delta F, work is done. If we assume
that delta r' is
directly proportional to delta r,
we then have for the work:

(Eq. 21)    ?W = ?F ? ?r' = L-Qqrow2

?r2/r2

Since there are approximately 1015 simultaneous

pulls and pushes delta P each second which as
a function of time
would be approximately sinusoidal it should give rise to a high
frequency
vibratory motion which should be approximately simple
harmonic in character. The polarization
displacement delta r
produced by the field Em should be directly
proportional to its intensity. Let
us assume that upon release
from the pull of a single pulse the H atom would be pulled back
to
its original position with an elastic force negatively
proportional to the displacement delta r'. We
have
therefore laid the foundation for a simple harmonic vibratory
motion of the atom:

(Eq. 22)    - ?r' = l ?r = Fqrow2/r

and
(Eq. 23)    ?r2 = k' q2ro2
w4/r2

where the k values are all constants. Equation (23) in (21)

gives:

(Eq. 24)    delta W = K" Qq3ro3w6/r4

and since Q = q in the H atom:

(Eq. 25)     delta W = K" Q4ro3

w6/ r4

For this type of motion we know that the maximum amplitude

would be proportional to the
square root of the total energy
(25). If the maximum amplitude is proportional to the maximum
value of ?F then we have:

(Eq. 26)    ?Fm = K" Q2roK

v3/r2

Since the phenomenon is sinusoidal, its effective value would

be delta 7o = delta 7o/sq. root 2 
  . If we now let
Q2 = koM1N2, the
product of the two atomic masses, and
G = K"'korow3/
sq. rt. 2, we have upon replacing delta fe by simply
P:

(Eq. 27)    F = G M1N2/r2

which is Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation.

The foregoing derivation is obviously a very elementary and

non-rigorous attempt by the author
to indicate how two hydrogen
atoms could conceivably attract each other by means of their
motional electric fields giving rise to Newton's Universal Law
of Gravity. We teach that two
such atoms do attract each other
according to this law. It seems reasonable therefore to expect
that such a derivation as is here suggested cannot be too far
from representing the
electromagnetic basis behind the
phenomenon.

A motional electric field is an electric field because it acts

with force on electric charges. The
essential ingredients of
this field consist of a magnetic field, a charge of electricity
and relative
motion between them. It is preeminently an
electromagnetic field. We have theoretically seen
just how this
field could very well be the vital agency which produces the
attractive force we
call gravity. We have also presented
experimental evidence that this field possesses in common
with
gravity its chief property of being immune to shielding. Whether
or not this field will
ultimately be identified with gravity
remains to be shown experimentally. We have made a
closely
reasoned approach to what may ultimately prove to be the missing
link in a unified
theory between the three great forces of
nature, electricity and magnetism on the one hand and
gravity on
the other.
We have shown theoretically that two electromagnetic fields
should emanate from all atoms, the
intensity of one varying
inversely with the distance and the other inversely as the cube
of the
distance. While these fields radiate or extend into space
surrounding material atoms, there is no
experimental evidence
extent that these fields transmit energy by means of quanta or
ions. These
fields, therefore, cannot properly be defined as
radiant energy any more than one can think of the
motional
electric field in an alternating current generator as a form of
radiant energy. The modus
operandi of these two fields is one of
electromagnetic induction even as it is in our electric
generators and motors. Persuasive and excellent reasons exist to
predict that these two fields,
emanating from the earth, might
prove to be the source of free electric power, in a measure
exceeding our present comprehension. A properly designed
ultra-high frequency receiving
circuit incorporating a
transistor valve should by electromagnetic energy of induction
not only
detect but transform and convert to usable form the
kinetic energy of planetary electrons in the
atoms comprising
the earth. This would be atomic energy in its most usable and
nonpoisonous
form. Through the medium of the motional electric
field emanating from atoms, both
gravitational dominion and free
electrical power would seem to be within the possible grasp of
our age.

High-sounding and speculative as the previous paragraph may

sound, we have considerable
evidence in support of it. In 1933
at the age of 77, Nikola Tesla predicted essentially what has
just been stated:

"Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by

power obtainable at any point in
the universe. Is this energy
static or kinetic? If static, our hopes are in vain; if kinetic,
and we
know this for certain, then it is a mere question of time
when man will succeed in attaching his
machinery to the very
Wheel-Work of nature."

At this point in our thesis, a recent statement by a

contemporary scientist seems most timely and
fitting:

"When the great innovation appears, it will almost certainly be

in a muddled, incomplete, and
confusing form. To the discoverer
himself, it will be only half-understood; to everybody else, it
will be a mystery. For any speculation which does not at first
glance look crazy, there is no
hope." (45 ~ Freeman Dyson: Scientific
American, September 1958).

For many years the writer has known of the somewhat obscure
research activities of Mr. T.
Henry Moray. His claims, which
appear to have been well documented, of having invented a
device
which would capture cosmic radiant energy continuously, to the
extent of 50 kw, sounded
almost crazy upon first reading. His
research work on this device extends back into the period
around
1926. An account of his work has been written up in several
pamphlets (46 ~ T. H.
Moray: The Sea of Energy in which the
Earth Floats; see also: "A Revolutionary Invention",
published by himself, SLC, UT). The work of Mr. Moray is of
vital interest to this thesis,
especially in view of the
comments made by Dr. Carl Eyring (in 1925, then head of the
Department of Physics of Brigham Young University) who, after
examining and studying the
device in operation, could come to no
other conclusion but that the electrical energy was
obtained (at
least in part) from field energy generated "in the earth itself"
(47 ~ ibid., p. 144-
145). While not then understood,
this conclusion of Dr. Eyring made so many years ago is now
of
capital interest.

Not understanding the nature of the source and form of the

energy his device absorbed, and his
consequent inability to
explain in understandable its operation in patent applications,
and his
fear of losing patent rights and a fortune, have cost
this man much disappointment and
frustration resulting in
virtually isolating him and his device from contact with those
who could
have been of great help. It would appear on the
surface of things that Moray may well have
tapped, without
knowing it, either one or both of the energy sources which have
been described
and mathematically predicted as originating from
the atoms composing the earth.

Chapter 6
 Anti-Gravity & Electrical Power
The thrilling thing about this research project is the
potential possibilities it presents, for
overcoming that which
keeps us down, and for providing us with free electrical power!
These
two possibilities, levitation and electric power appear to
be practical when the experimental and
engineering work of
making an electronic generator of, and a receiver for, the
ultra-high
frequency direct pulsating motional electric fields
such as are emanating from the atoms in the
earth. Every piece
of matter on the earth is of course such a very weak generator
and receiver.
What is needed in this project is something
somewhat analogous to what lasers have provided
for radiant
energy in the form of an intense beam of concentrated coherent
light. Such a
generator of artificially produced gravitational
waves could make anti-gravity possible. Fastened
to, and
directly above a space platform, such a generator with its B
x V field acting in the
opposite direction to the
earth's B x V gravity field on the already
polarized atoms in the
platform would proceed to depolarize them
and release them from the earth's gravitational pull.
A space
vehicle en route to the moon passes through such a depolarized
state as the gravitational
attraction of the moon on it
gradually becomes equal to and oppositely directed to the
earth's
gravity field. If sufficiently intense, the B x
V field form a generator might conceivably
completely
depolarize a space platform and make it weightless. Further
intense action by the
generator might conceivable repolarize it
in a reverse direction. This would cause the earth's
field to
then act antigravitationally upward on the platform, and with
controlled speed, carry it
upward with not only the generator
itself and operators, but with a payload!

The possibilities of obtaining free electrical power from the

earth's B x V fields appear equally
exciting.
Not only from stationary land installed power plant receivers,
but from receivers
installed on aircraft and space vehicles. The
research and experimentation needed to reduce to
practice this
exploitation of the earth's B x V fields appears
to have relatively few hurdles before
it. The development of
ultra-high frequency rectifiers appears to be its first
requirement, and
there are no roadblocks on the horizon to this
accomplishment! What the consummation of this
project could mean
for the economic development of remote, mountainous,
inaccessible regions
of the earth is beyond all imagination at
this time. In the light of this thesis, the new horizons in
field theory herald that the heritage of mankind is dominion
over all the earth!

Chapter 7

Some Confirming Experiments

During the past two years the writer has devoted his full time
to the task of producing
experimental sources of B x V
fields which speak for themselves. Nature has the last word in
any controversy in physics and when she speaks her words are
final!

A generator of a motional electric field, all electric and with

no mechanical motions involved,
has been built and
experimentally demonstrated. This device projects its field into
the space
surrounding the generator. Being immune to shielding,
the B x V field readily passes through the
stainless steel walls of a grounded housing chamber. Surrounding
the generator is mounted a
cylindrical parallel plate capacitor.
The outer plate is connected to a very sensitive vibrating
capacitor electrometer (Keithley 640). The inner plate is
connected to the other terminal of the
electrometer, one
terminal of which is grounded. Voltages are induces in these
wires. The net
result of these induced voltages is that the
potential difference induced in that portion of the wire
between
the capacitor plates, charges these plates, and in doing so is
measured by the
electrometer. The generator, capacitor and
electrometer are completely surrounded by a
grounded
electrostatic field. Housing them in a stainless steel box with
a door has served this
purpose very well.

Two papers describing the construction of the all-electric

generator and the experiments
performed with it have been
presented to meetings of the American Physical Society. The
abstracts and papers will be found in the appendix.
Figure 8

A simple lecture table demonstration of the pure B x V

field is illustrated in Figure 8. Two short
similar bars magnets
are spaced apart as shown. Midway between them a long, straight
insulated
wire (surrounded by a grounded conducting shield),
perpendicular to the paper is fixed with its
terminals connected
to a sensitive galvanometer placed outside the immediate
vicinity of the
magnets, say overhead. The resultant magnetic
flux density B from the two magnets, at the wire,
is zero by the
principle of superposition. If the magnet on the left be given a
slow uniform
velocity V and the one on the right a velocity V'
equal and opposite to V, then one will note a
deflection of the
galvanometer needle due to the pure induced B x V
field acting in the wire.
Note that in this simple experiment we
have two sources of B x V. Both the B and the V
of each
source are identical in magnitude but opposite in
direction; therefore, since B x V = (-B)
x (-V),
the products are both positive and additive. The
movement of one magnet alone will be found to
yield a
galvanometer deflection of half that obtained when both magnets
are moved
simultaneously. Note also that the wire is always in a
region where B = 0, but where B x V is
present
and active.

One of the most fascinating aspects of our discoveries is that

by the use of the phenomenon of
superposition of fields,
electromagnetic induction can seemingly be separated from
magnetic
flux energy. In other words, our all-electric motional
electric field generator operates without the
presence of
detectable magnetic flux energy as such. It is a non-inductive
device. The magnetic
flux intensity has been reduced to zero by
the principle of superposition, and the virtual
undestroyed
field associated with uncancelled flux is still active and
present; hence, the name
"virtual" is used to describe it. It is
this virtual field which produces the pure motional electric
field in the space surrounding the generator. This newly
discovered pure B x V field is the most
unique
phenomenon known to electromagnetism because it is devoid of the
electrostatic and
magnetic field characteristics we have
hitherto known. It is a B x V field with the
resultant B =
0. Its immunity to shielding gives it a stature
and a character of its own, beautifully unique and
isolated from
all hitherto known special fields! Our generator produces
nothing but this pure
previously unknown field!

Perhaps the closest approach to the V phenomenon inherent in

our motional electric field
generator, is the toroidal
transformer. In this device we are dealing with a transformer
type of
induced electric field caused by the growth and death of
flux. It is of great interest, however, to
note that the wires
of the secondary windings where the field is induced may be
entirely existent
in a region devoid of measurable magnetic
flux, since B = 0 there. This phenomenon is always
of interest
to students, because the induction in the wires takes place in a
region of space where,
by superposition of fields the resultant
magnetic flux intensity is reduced to zero without in any
way
impairing the electromagnetic induction of the virtual flux
which is operative. It is of
interest to note that our research
simply extends this phenomenon to include flux cutting as well
as transformer types of induction where B has been reduced to
zero.

It is not surprising that many physical scientists listen to

this thesis with incredulity. This is not
disturbing to the
author. It is but the natural path of all new discovery. Nature
herself bears the
burden of proof and she has spoken out clearly
in behalf of the uniqueness of the motional
electric field. What
the role of this new electric force field will be in the future
development of
electromagnetism is at present an open question.
Our critics point to the very small values of the
induced
voltages we have measured in the field of our generator. The
field intensity close to our
generator is at present, at room
temperature, approximately of the order of ~10-2
volts/meter,
with a current of 30 amperes. At cryogenic
temperatures, i.e., around 4.7° K, we could expect to
increase
the B factor in a B x V superconducting
generator, consisting of 12,000 linear
conductors, approximately
100 times. Our hope in achieving an intense B x V
field rests,
therefore, on how much we can increase the V
factor in the vector product B x V. This we know
could be greatly enhanced in an electronic design of our
generator. We have experimentally
shown that operating our
present model at the temperature of dry ice, i.e., -50° C, at
high current
densities, approximately doubles the value of V,
the electron drift velocity. Our generator is
itself a unique
and novel instrument for directly measuring V with
considerable precision. The
experimental fact that this quantity
does not increase with decreasing temperature encourages us
in
our anticipation that in the superconducting state where all
resistance to electron motion
disappears that V will be
very great. The author endorses the statement of Wehr and
Richards
(48 ~ Introductory Atomic Physics, p. 218,
Addison & Wesley, 1962), "At absolute zero the
atom would
have no significant cross-section and electrons could streak
through a conductor
without encountering any resistance at all".
Should very high values of V be realized in our
cryogenic experiments, it is the writer's belief that a new era
in gravitational dominion will be at
hand.

Appendix: Summary of Experimental Work

Done by Dr. Hooper

Figure 1: Diagram of Circuitry employed for generating &

measuring the motional electric
field.
 
 

Figure 2: Capacitor Potential Differences measured as a

function of DC current to the
generator.
 Figure 3: Capacitor potential differences measured as a
function of AC current to the
generator.

 
 

Similarities of the Motional Electric

& Gravitational Forces
 

W. J. Hooper

(Professor Emeritus, Principia College, President &

Director of Research, Electrodynamic
Gravity, Inc., PO Box 1976,
Sarasota, FL

That the magnetic flux surrounding a current-carrying linear

conductor moves with the electron
drift velocity is demonstrated
in a motional field out into the surrounding space. This field
is not
electrostatic. It is immune to shielding. Magnetic flux
has been eliminated. The presence of this
unique, special
electric field is detectable and its intensity is measurable
with an electrometer.
From such measurements, electron drift
velocities can be directly determined. The unique
properties of
this field strongly suggest its equivalence to the gravitational
field. If equivalence
proves to be a fact, then direct
absorption of gravitational field energy becomes possible for
electric power without pollution. If generation in great
intensity becomes possible, theory
indicates that the concepts
of artificial gravity is space vehicles, weightlessness in
limited
earthly laboratories, and even anti-gravity, or lift
instead of pull from the earth's gravity, have
possibilities of
attainment.

Introduction
How can a force like gravity originate and emanate from atoms
of matter made up primarily of
three elementary particles ---
electrons, protons and neutrons? Einstein wrote, "It would be a
great step forward if we succeeded in combining the
gravitational field and the electromagnetic
field into a single
structure" (1). A very considerable step in this direction may
have been made
by the advent of the recently invented motional
electric field generator and the newly revealed
properties of
this field. (2)

When magnetic flux is moved perpendicularly across a conductor,

we say that an emf is
electromagnetically induced within the
conductor. This phenomenon has been little thought of as
involving the production of a spacially distributed electric
field. It arises from the operation
called flux-cutting; wherein
the electric field is motionally induced within the space
occupied by
the moving magnetic flux, and is present therein,
whether a conductor is present in this space or
not. Correctly
defined, we can say that when magnetic flux of vector intensity
B is moved across
a region of space with vector velocity
V, an electromagnetically induced electric field of
vector
intensity B x V makes its appearance in
this space, at right angles to both B and V. For
short,
this induced field is called a motional electric field. A
study of its properties is exciting.

Clerk Maxwell wrote in his description of the work of Michael

Faraday that the intensity of the
induced electric field "is
entirely independent of the nature of the substance in which it
acts" (3).
The origin of this field, being electromagnetic
induction, and non-electrostatic in nature, gives
this field its
penetrating nature which enables it to be present within either
magnetic or non-
magnetic conductors or insulators, entirely
independent of the nature of the substance. The
writer's
extended experiments (4) involving shielding confirms Maxwell's
description of this
field.

The Motional Electric Field Generator

The motional electric field generator was designed and built to

provide a device which would
project a pure motionally induced
electric field into the space surrounding it, devoid of
electrostatic and magnetic accompaniments. It involves a newly
discovered, non-mechanical
method for moving magnetic flux,
combined with one of the most basic and orthodox laws of
physics, "the principle of superposition of fields". This
principle states that in order to find the
resultant intensity
of the superimposed fields, each field should be treated as
though the other is
absent. The resultant is obtained by the
vector addition of each field considered singly.

In 1820, Hans Christian Oersted discovered that a

current-carrying conductor has magnetic flux
looped about it.
This discovery served to unify the then separate sciences of
electricity and
magnetism. In 1957, B.G. Cullwick (5), in a
careful, thought-provoking analysis of moving
charges, set forth
three documented experimental fats to support the idea that the
Oersted flux
around a moving conduction electron should move
with it. The writer had independently been
led to the same
conclusion. A plan for experimentally investigating this
phenomenon was
evolved. The design of the motional electric
field generator was the result, and its production
required the
skill of an expert maker of generators and motors. This
generator demonstrates and
confirms that the Oersted flux
actually does move with the electron drift velocity of the
current
giving rise to it. This discovery is a basic and
fundamental contribution to electromagnetism. It
also shows how
this motion may possibly serve to explain the origin of
gravitation from atoms
of matter. The design of the generator
itself will aid in seeing this possibility.

Momentarily, consider yourself in the place of a Maxwell demon,

one who can see, from
without, the planetary electrons of an
atom orbiting about the nucleus. On the average, we may
assume
that there are as many going in one direction as in the opposite
direction, in an
approximate orbital plane. If these charges
carry their Oersted magnetic fluxes with them, in the
space
surrounding an atom of matter, these moving fluxes will project
an induced motional
electric field, radially directed toward the
nucleus.

The design of the motional electric field generator was such as

to imitate in an elementary way
the planetary electrons in an
atom. The device involves no mechanically moving parts. It is
wholly electrical.
The generator consists of 4020 insulated parallel linear
conductors, #11, formvar insulated
copper wire, nine inches in
length, all connected in series and packed orderly side-by-side
and
tightly sealed together with epoxy into the shape of a
solid, right circular cylinder. The series
connections were
accomplished by turning the wired through 180 degree angles
without
breaking the insulation. The two terminals connected to
this composite of linear conductors are
brought together at the
axis of the cylinder and connected to a shielded and grounded
two-wire
cable. When energized by a direct current, 2010
conductors are at any instant carrying current
and magnetic flux
vertically downward, and the same number of conductors are doing
the same
thing vertically upward. This composite cylinder is
thus non-inductive with no measurable
magnetic flux surrounding
it. The principle of super-position of fields shows that each of
the two
sets of linear conductors contributes a motional
electric field directed radially inward toward the
axis of the
cylinder. The superimposed magnetic flux from these two sets of
conductors consists
of horizontal circular flux loops, half
directed clockwise and the other half counter-clockwise,
half
moving upward and half moving downward. Thus, we have a unique
condition in the space
surrounding the cylinder: the resultant
magnetic flux, due to superposition of fields, is zero; and
the
resultant motional electric field intensity is E = B1
x V1 + (-B1 x -V2)
= 2B1x V1, or double
the intensity
attributable to one set of conductors alone, where B1
is the magnetic flux intensity
due to 2010 linear conductors and
V1, the electron drift velocity in, say, the
positive upward
direction. Although the magnetic flux energy in
this device is reduced to zero, the
electromagnetic induction
giving rise to what we term the motional electric field has by
no
means been cancelled nor reduced.

The motional electric field is projected into the space

surrounding our generator when the DC
current therein is 30
amperes, equivalent to that which would be associated with the
uncancelled
magnetic flux around a single conductor carrying a
current of over 120,000 amperes (4020 x 30
= 120,600 ampere
turns).

Experimental Measurements

The motional electric field intensity is studied an measured by

the use of a highly insulated,
stainless steel cylindrical
capacitor, placed around the generator, the inner cylinder of
which is
grounded and the outer cylinder is connected to the
input head of a Keithley 640 Vibrating
Capacitor Electrometer. A
diagram of the circuitry employed in operating our generator is
shown in Figure 1. The generator with its cylindrical capacitor
about it is placed within a large
grounded stainless steel
cabinet. The vibrating capacitor electrometer head is also
placed in the
cabinet, close to the cylindrical capacitor, and
connections are made to each plate. All
connecting wires between
the electrometer head and the galvanometer are electrostatically
protected by grounded shielding. The electrometer galvanometer
is outside the cabinet and has a
grounding terminal for the
whole electrometer system. The vibrating capacitor in the
electrometer is energized by a small storage battery built into
the electrometer galvanometer
case. The inner capacitor
cylinder, made of 1/8" stainless steel, is insulated from the
generator
conductors by epoxy, and forms a partial housing. The
epoxy covering the two ends of the
generator is covered with a
heavy coat of sprayed silver and this, with the inner capacitor
cylinder, forms a completely grounded electrostatic shield
around it. The motional electric field,
caused by the up and
down movement of the slowly moving (virtual) magnetic flux
loops,
induces an emf in the surrounding space and in the wire
connected to the electrometer head and
its ground connection.
The capacitor plates are thus charged, the potential difference
of which is
registered by the electrometer galvanometer.

The potential difference is obtained by integrating the line

integral of the electric field intensity
E between the capacitor
plates. It is given in mks units by:

(Eq. 1) P.D. = /r1 r2 E dr =  /r1r2

BxV dr = /r1r2 ?onIV
dr/2 pi r
where B = ?onI/2?r webers/meter2 and r1
and r2 are the
distances respectively from the axis
of the generator to the outer surface of the inner capacitor
plate, and the inner surface of the outside capacitor plate.
Thus, we have a typical example of
how we can obtain the drift
velocity V, when r1 = 0.1 meter, r2 =
0.1035 meter,  muo = 4 pi x 10-
7, n =
4020, I = 10 amps, P.D. = 5 x 10-6 volts. Integrating
(1), we have:

(Eq. 2) P.D. = muo n IV/2 pi =  ?r1r2

dr/r = muo n nIV/2 pi (ln r2 - ln r1)

Solving for the drift velocity V, we have:

(Eq. 3)    V = 2 pi P.D./ muonI (1n r2

- 1n r1) (meters/sec)

V = 1.78 x 10-2 meters/sec = 1.78 cm/sec

The classical derivation of the electron drift velocity is

given by V = j/ne where j is the current
density (j =
10/0.04172 amp/cm2), and n is the number of
conduction electrons per cubic
centimeter, and e is the
charge on the electron (1.6021 x 10-19 coul.). Using
Avogadro's number,
N = 6.02252 x 1023 for
calculating, n = dN/M, where d is the density, 9.96
gm/cm3, and M is the
atomic weight, 63.546 gm/mole,
for copper, we have

V = 239.69/(8.96 x 1022 x 1.6021 x 10-19)

= 1.762 x 10-2 cm/sec. A decrease of 100-fold in n,
as
indicated by Fermi-Dirac statistics would bring the
experimental value of the same order of
magnitude as the
theoretical.

Measurements of electrometer potential differences P.D. versus

direct current values I, when
taken quickly so as to
prevent appreciable change in the temperature of the generator,
due to
electrical heat loss, yields a most interesting curve.
Typical of most of the curves is the one
shown in Figure 2. The
magnitude of the motional electric field intensity will be seen
to be
directly proportional to the virtual value of the flux B
involved, and hence to the current. The
value of the electron
drift velocity will also be directly proportional to the
current. Thus the
potential difference measured versus current
values yield a parabola.

It is interesting to note that when alternating current values

were plotted against electrometer
deflections that a straight
line was obtained instead of a parabola. This is illustrated in
Figure 3.

New Research Instrumentation

When improved and perfected, this motional electric field

generator, together with a capacitor
and an electrometer, appear
to offer unique instrumentation for directly measuring the
electron
drift velocity in metals. Experimental values obtained
with our generator are in good agreement
with accepted values.
Making measurements at various temperatures will afford a method
of
directly determining the quantity n, the number of
free conduction electrons available per nit
volume, thus
affording an experimental check on the Fermi-Dirac statistics
method for obtaining
this quantity.

Crucial Experimental Evidence

It was, of course, necessary to run down every conceivable

possible source of error. The
question has been raised as to
whether or not the potential difference electrometer
measurements
that we have observed as a function of input
current to our device might arise from the
thermoelectric
effects instead of from the assumed BxV field. It
is true that at 30 amperes input,
approximately 3300 watts of
electrical power is being poured into our device, and it heats
up at
this rate, perceptibly to the hand, in a time interval of
four to five minutes. It has been suggested
that the juncture
between the copper wire and the inner cylinder of the capacitor
might be raised
in temperature more rapidly than the juncture on
the outer cylinder and thus give rise to an
observed emf. To
examine such a possibility, we have made a series of
measurements requiring
only a few seconds for each reading.
Starting with a 30 ampere input, we have gone down to 25,
and
then to 20, 15 and 10, then back up the scale in 5 ampere steps
to 30 and again back down to
10 amperes. The observed values of
potential difference at each value of current were
substantially
identical. It does not seem reasonable to think that the
innermost juncture could
jump up and down in temperature values
in a matter of seconds, permitting the electrometer
galvanometer
needle to return to its zero position immediately after each
input value of current.
When the device really warms up, each of
the observed potential differences becomes enhanced
and the
plotted curves retain a nearly parabolic shape. We have,
therefore, ruled out
thermoelectric effects as giving rise to
our observed measurements.

It has been suggested that possible non-cancelled magnetic

fringing from the linear conductors
acting on the innermost
stainless steel cylinder might change the Fermi level of the
metal and
alter the contact differences of potential between the
inner and outer cylinders of the capacitor.
To eliminate this as
a possible cause, a much larger diameter cylindrical capacitor
was placed
around the original one. The two plates of the first
capacitor were grounded and measurements
were made from the
outermost capacitor alone.

The possibility that stray magnetic flux from the composite

linear conductors, linking with the
electrometer circuit, might
give rise to the observed measurements was considered. A
sensitive
gaussmeter probe was employed to test for the
existence of such flux. The maximum value
found for such flux
was of the order of half a gauss, found in one spot. To dispel
all doubt,
however, as to stray magnetic flux, a fairly large
circuit, consisting of five wires was formed so
that one side of
the circuit came in radially from a distance of one foot to the
central equatorial
surface of the device, where it was held by
tape and brought along parallel to the axis for several
feet.
This circuit loop was connected to a very sensitive
microvoltmeter which was observed
while various values of input
current up to 30 amperes was sent into the linear conductors. No
indication of an induced emf could be observed.

It is evident that the charging of the capacitor plates might

possibly be due to charges carried by
the current in the two
wires leading onto the generator. If these wires are each at
different
potential differences with regard to the round, they
carry an electric charge into the interior of
the conducting
housing enclosure of the generator and thus cause a charge of
similar amount to
appear on the outside of it and to produce a
potential difference between the capacitor plates.
This was
experimentally confirmed by the inventor. When the generator
housing was this raised
to a positive potential difference with
respect to ground, the electrometer deflections were to the
right of center. When the housing was raised to a negative
potential with respect to the ground,
the electrometer
deflections were to the left of center. These tests were made in
two ways: (1)
with no current flowing to the generator and 92)
with current flowing, but one lead wire at a
higher, or lower,
potential with respect to ground than the other. Thus, it became
evident that the
two wires leading to the generator, with the
grounded shielding, can be prevented from carrying
a charge into
the interior of the generator of the two wires are each
constantly maintained at
exactly the same value of potential
difference above and below ground potential. A special
power
supply was built to provide this requirement. The voltage of
each wire entering the
generator was tested for various values
of current and the potential differences were found to be
accurately identical, above and below ground. Now, the
deflections of the electrometer for
various values of current
were always to the right of center, indicating a electric field
directed
toward the generator was charging the plates. This
field could not have come from a charge on
the grounded
generator housing with no net charge entering the generator,
since such a
possibility was carefully eliminated. Thus, the
electric field must be due to the predicted B x V
field. It is always directed toward the generator. This is a
distinguishing characteristic of the B x
V when
it is due to the movement of electrons. If the current were due
to the movement of
positrons or protons, then the B x V
field produced would be directed away from these currents
instead of towards them! Alternating current thus produces
electrometer deflections to the right
of zero center the same as
direct current, and this can be explained only in terms of the B
x V.
Had the electrometer deflections been due to
electrostatic charging, the electrometer needle
would have
remained under the alternating impulses, 60 times each second,
when AC current
was used.

The argument has been advanced that the movement of the

magnetic field with the free as well
as the orbital electrons in
a piece of metal would result in a considerably inwardly
directed
motional electric field in the space all around this
metal piece, contrary to experience. Our reply
to this argument
is that the motional electric field, thus undoubtedly built up
in the space around
the metal, is in fact the weak gravitational
field emanating from it. True, it has never been
detected as an
electric field, and we claim that this probably is due to its
very high composite
frequency nature. We know from gravitational
experiments that there exists just such an
inwardly directed
force around the metal. We know that it cannot be electrostatic
nor magnetic.
Yet, it does emanate from an aggregate of
electromagnetic sources. We have good reason to
believe that in
view of the immunity of the motional electric field to shielding
that this field
could provide the field agency for gravitation.

Electromagnetic Induction With Zero B Is Not New

Our generator somewhat resembles a properly wound toroidal coil

in that, in the same space
outside such a coil, carrying
current, we know that B is zero due to the principle of
superposition
of fields. We know that when alternating current
is surging back and forth in its coils that a non-
electrostatic,
electromagnetically induced electric field is present
continuously in this space
around it, where the magnetic field
intensity is continuously zero. The resultant magnetic flux
energy in our generator is reduced to zero while the
electromagnetic induction due to the
movement of virtual Oersted
flux, in each of the two vertical directions, gives rise to what
we
call the motional electric field in the space surrounding the
generator.

A simple experiment can be performed to convince one that

electromagnetic induction takes
place in a space where the
resultant magnetic intensity has been reduced to zero by
superposition
of fields. With soft iron sheet, form a
cylindrical magnetic shield about a meter in length and a
few
centimeters in diameter. A stiff wire should be held centrally
within the cylindrical tube, and
both tube and wire moved
horizontally in a North and South direction across the vertical
component of the earth's magnetic field, while the two ends of
the stiff wire are connected to a
sensitive galvanometer. A
deflection of the galvanometer needle will readily measure the
induced emf produced within the shielded wire, where the
magnetic field intensity has been
reduced to zero. The wire was
not in motion with respect to the shielding magnetic flux
induced
in the shield, but it was in motion across the earth's
vertical magnetic component. Now, hold the
stiff horizontal wire
stationary and move the cylindrical shielding horizontally at
right angles to
its length a permissible distance, approximately
that of its inside diameter. Again a deflection of
the
galvanometer will measure the induced emf within the stiff wire
which was stationary with
respect to the earth's field, but was
cut by the magnetic field within the shield, which reduced the
resultant field therein to zero. If accurately measured, the emf
induced in the shielded wire will
be found identical for the
same movement when no shield at all is employed. In one case, B
= 0;
in the other case, it is a real measurable value.

Mechanical Generation & Confirmation

The special distribution of motional electric field directed
radially about the equatorial region of
the generator was
explored by means of a squirrel cage-like rotor, made up of
parallel
electromagnets all similarly directed so that, in some
respects, it simulated the rotation of a
unipolar magnet about
its magnetic axis of symmetry. This apparatus is by no means
such a
magnet because its design is such to preclude a
symmetrically uniform distribution of magnetic
flux about its
rotational axis. The rotation of this system of electromagnets
affords an interesting
experiment because here we have loops of
magnetic flux of constant intensity completely filling
the space
about the rotor, all similarly directed from one end of the
system to the other, and all in
rotation about the same axis
with the same angular velocity, and having a definite and
constant
flux pattern in space, not symmetrical nor uniform in
the sense of a unipolar magnet though in a
sense simulating one.
That this magnetic field system rotates was readily demonstrated
by
means of a rectangular pickup coil placed close to the rotor
and parallel to the array of
electromagnets. When rotating at a
speed of 10,000 rpm an AC voltage of 15 volts was obtained
due
to the humps of similarly directed magnetic flux which entered
and left the coil. With a very
sensitive zero-centered
voltmeter, one could rotate the rotor by hand and demonstrate
the
rotation of the flux very visibly. A semi-cylindrical
capacitor was next placed over the top of the
rotor, with two
wires centrally and radially directed (from the rotor axis) to
an electrometer. In
this experiment, the wires from the
capacitor plates to the electrometer are cut by the
unidirectionlly rotating magnetic flux which induces the
motionally induced emf in this space,
and is detected and
measured by the DC voltage to which the capacitor plates are
raised. With
this apparatus one can demonstrate that rotation of
the rotor in one direction yields a radial
inwardly directed
motional electric field, while rotation of the rotor in the
opposite direction
reverses the direction of the motional
electric field, thus demonstrating the vector nature of the
field by changing the sign of V in the vector product E
= B x V, and -E = B x (-V).
By keeping a
constant rotation and reversing the direction of
the current to the electromagnets, the direction of
B
can be changed while V is held constant. In this manner
the direction of the motionally
induced electric field can also
be reversed in the surrounding space and can be made either
radially inward or radially outward as evidenced by the
zero-centered galvanometer needle of
the Keithley 640 vibrating
capacitor electrometer which was used to make the DC voltage
measurements. The demonstration that a spacially distributed
motional electric field exists
around either our mechanical or
our all-electric generator appears to us to be amply
demonstrated. To be more certain, however, we obtained the
services of a disinterested expert in
electronics measurements
to come in and check our work with a sensitive Tectronic
electron
oscillograph, which confirmed our observations with the
Keithley Electrometer.

Relation To Relativity

The question arises as to how this new field fits into the
Relativity theories? It definitely
provides an interesting
clarification of a hitherto speculative deduction which many
relativitists
have ventured to make with respect to the V
x B motional electric term which enters into the
transformation equations of the Special Theory as applied to
electrodynamics. It has been
claimed that this V x B
term is electrostatic in its fundamental nature. This conclusion
is now
definitely shown to be incorrect by the advent of the new
motional electric field generator, the
field of which emanates
from a grounded conducting metallic container and passes readily
through any shield. The non-electrostatic nature of the V
x B has also been pointed out by
Winch: "Notice that the
E of (E = V x B) is not an
electrostatic field intensity for it is not due to
a
distribution of charges" (6). Nature has definitely not limited
us to one type of electric field.
The motional electric field is
different in origin and fundamental properties from the
electrostatic field arising from charges.

The writer embraces the position taken by Sir James H. Jeans in

his explanation of the Special
Theory of Relativity and its
bearing upon the two electric fields in the transformation
equations.
He points out that there is nothing in the postulates
of the Special Theory that requires a physical
interpretation of
the two electric field terms E and V x B/c
in the transformation equation E' = [E
- (l/c) V
x B]. He states: "The equations may be taken merely as
expressing relations between
quantities as measured by the
observer S and another S' moving with a velocity V
relative to S"
(7). Thus we see that there is no conflict with
the Special Theory of Relativity. The philosophy
of the
Nobelist, P. W. Bridgman, whose "Operational Viewpoint" as set
forth in his text, The
Logic of Modern Physics (8), has
guided the inventor in his work on this project. As Bridgman
predicted, it has led to new and fundamentally basic knowledge.

That the gravitational field may possibly be identified as a

motional electric field is at least very
strongly suggested by
the experimental work described herein. The claim of the General
Theory
of Relativity that the Gravitational field is equivalent
to that of centrifugal force would appear to
be a concept far
removed form that of presenting it as a motional electric field.
The experimental
fact remains, however, that a pure motional
electric field projected into space does simulate, in
some
respects, the gravitational field.

When the current flowing into this generator is constant, the

motional electric field surrounding
it is also constant and
static, but not electrostatic, because it does not originate or
terminate on
charges. It readily passes through two 1/8" thick
sheets, or 1/4" of stainless steel, constituting the
cylindrical
capacitor plates. The exciting thing about this generator is
that it throws this B x V
electric field out
into the space around it. It is not electrostatic, not magnetic,
and is immune to
shielding. These properties make it a unique
force in nature with possibly great utility to
mankind.

Polarization & Absorption

Objects placed in this field are electrically polarized, and in

making measurements of its
intensity, the electrostatic fields
arising from such polarization have to be reckoned with. From a
well-known general theorem (9) we know that an intense
convergent motional electric field
would be attractive on any
material object placed within it, due to this internal
polarization. The
recent experimental work of L. Brauner on the
electric polarization due to gravity, is most
interesting, as
reported in the January 1969 issue of Endeavor magazine
(10). His experiments
convincingly show that the shoots and
roots of plants when lying in a horizontal plane become
electrically polarized. When turned into a vertical plane, this
polarization soon disappears.
Brauner presents excellent
evidence in support of the conclusion that this phenomenon is
due to
the electrical nature of the earth's gravitational field.

This indicates in a limited way direct absorption of

gravitational field energy. Of course, our
hydro-electric plants
are utilizing this energy in large quantities where advantageous
sites for
such plants can be found. The greatest potential
inherent in the research described herein, the
writer believes,
will ultimately be in the direct absorption and conversion into
useful electric
power the vast reservoir of gravitational field
energy which as yet has hardly been tapped. The
insight into
what we believe to be the mechanism within atoms which gives
rise to the
phenomenon of gravity, encourages us in the
conviction that we can directly absorb and convert
it to the
service of mankind. Our research in this direction has commenced
and is very
encouraging.

Spacewise, this project has some speculative possibility, if

and when this generated field can be
made sufficiently intense.
We have very considerable reason to believe that by the use of
superconducting wire and liquid helium temperatures, this can be
accomplished. To what extent
is speculation at present, but
theory would indicate that if intense fields are ever possible
of
generation, then the phenomenon of changing the weight of
objects, and of even producing
weightlessness and anti-gravity
(that is, lift instead of downward pull on objects) would be
possible.

Domestic and foreign patent applications covering the various

generators and devies employed
in our work have been field and
some have been granted.

References

(1) Albert Einstein: Essays in Science, p. 10,

Philosophical Library, NY,1934.
(2) W. J. Hooper: "Equivalence of the Gravitational Field and a
Motional Electric Field";
Proceedings of the Boulder Conference
on High Energy Physics, Division of the American
Physical Soc.,
Aug. 18-22, 1969, p. 483; "The Motional Electric Field
Generator"; Bull. of the
American Physical Soc.,
February 1970, p. 207.
(3) Clerk Maxwell, Electricity & Magnetism, p. 181,
vol. II.
(4) W. J. Hooper: New Horizons in Electric, Magnetic &
Gravitational Field Theory, Principia
College Library,
Elsah, IL.
(5) E. G. Cullwick: Electromagnetism & Relativity,
p. 245; Longsman, Green & Co., 1957.
(6) Ralph P. Winch: Electricity & Magnetism, 2nd
Edition, p. 399, Prentice Hall, Inc., 1963.
(7) J. H. Evans: Mathematical Theory of Electricity &
Magnetism, p. 606; Cambridge Univ.
press, 4th Edition,
1923.
(8) P.W. Bridgman: The Logic of Modern Physics;
Macmillan Co., 1928.
(9) Jeans, op. cit., p. 125; illustrated by a block of
dielectric material being sucked in between
two charged
capacitor plates.
(10) L. Brauner: "The Effect of Gravity on the Development of
Electric Potential in Plant
Tisues"; Endeavor, Jan.
1969.