« December 2008 | Main | February 2009 »

January 23, 2009

Tenuous Connections: Part 1

Hollingshead - Wallace - Dröscher/Hauser


The following discussion attempts to articulate some similarities between mechanisms behind Dröscher and Hauser's (D&H) Extende Heim Theory (EHT) and Hollingshead's Marcus Device. Connections between the nascent EHT and Hollingshead’s unproven technology are extremely speculative yet intriguing.

The inventor Marcus Hollingshead (referred to in earlier entries here and here) stated several years ago that according to analysts at a Cambridge physics lab a proton is "pushed to become a neutron" in the nuclei of his device's central iron "Rp". The result according to Hollingshead is the production of local gravity lensing, cooling effects, force fields and also "by-products" (ionizing radiation) which presumably are due to a nuclear mechanism.

Hollingshead hypothesized no specific nuclear mechanism, but I have often wondered if other gMOD claimants may have posited a nuclear mechanism for devices exhibiting similar side effects. There is one: Henry Wm Wallace.

Is Wallace's proposed nuclear mechanism a good fit for Hollingshead's claims? I'll save the look at claimed force field similarities for a later date. Today the focus is upon potential mechanism and reported similarities in cooling effects.


Comparisons to Wallace

The mechanism for the heat pump lowering the temperature (down to 100K) of Hollingshead's Marcus Device may have been elucidated within Wallace's US Patents No. 3626606 and 3823570. Wallace, a scientist at GE Aerospace, was issued patents in the early 1970s for the generation of a time-variant "kinemassic" (gravitomagnetic) field. He posited that a refrigeration effect concomitant with a gMOD effect was due to "polarization of the spin nuclei of the lattice structure due to the polarization effects of the applied kinemassic force field.  The polarization results in a change in the specific heat property of the crystal material". As a result the lattice vibrations (phonons) within a target crystalline structure established an appreciable temperature reduction.

Wallace posited that by aligning the nuclear spin of materials having an odd number of protons and neutrons (any material with an odd number of protons and neutrons is a fermion) greater order is created in the material thus resulting in a change in specific heat. Heat flows away from the material and thus it acts as a heat pump.

The resultant precession of nuclear angular momentum was suggested to be similar to a rapidly spinning ferrous material. Wallace said that there was an analogy between un-paired angular momentum in these materials and the un-paired magnetic moments of electrons in ferromagnetic materials.

Wallace is unclear about his exact meaning of "polarization of the spin nuclei" and the magnitude of the effect. However, there is a well-studied phenomenon, dynamic nuclear polarization (DNP), which is a phenomenon that make possible highly accurate MRI medical imaging. DNP has been intensively investigated since the 1950s, primarily at low magnetic fields. DNP is considered one of several techniques for hyperpolarization, the nuclear spin polarization of a material far beyond thermal equilibrium conditions (down to cryogenic levels).

Thus a well-established phenomenon, DNP, which is achieved at low magnetic field strength could be a basis for Hollingsheads' reported cooling effects if Hollingshead’s device can be tied to DNP.

Assuming Wallace's nuclear mechanism underlies the cooling of the Marcus Device, does Wallace’s “ kinemassic force " further connect to Dröscher and Hauser’s gravitophoton mechanism?


Comparisions to D&H

Dröscher and Hauser (D&H) and their Extended Heim Theory provide a theoretical basis for the experimental results found by Martin Tajmar. Tajmar's results (as suggested by D&H) suggest a coupling to massive Cooper pair (electron pair) bosons produced by superconducting niobium.

In Tajmar’s experiments the superconductivity provides for spontaneous symmetry breaking, forming Cooper pairs occurs at very low temperatures responsible for the Meissner effect. This means that the magnetic field lines cannot penetrate into the medium and remains in a thin layer on the surface. D&H state, “Hence, there is a finite range electromagnetic field, which corresponds to a massive photon. The penetration depth of the field is associated with the wavelength of the photon and is mass is determined by its Compton wave length ".

According to D&H such coupling has much lower requirements in terms of magnetic field strength, current densities, etc. to produce an equivalent effect with fermionic coupling. Perhaps Wallace’s gMOD effect is due to bosonic coupling to the phonons in the crystalline lattice of his material, but fermionic coupling through the proton seems less likely to provide a measurable effect.

Where does this leave Hollingshead? His device employed low level magnetic fields suitable for DNP, but the lack of crystalline lattice materials (except perhaps for the existence of ferrite cubic lattice structures in his pure iron Rp) leaves us wanting a suitable boson candidate for coupling.

But if the materials of the Rp are lacking in suitability, perhaps its structure revives its candidacy. The Rp had an iron core surrounded by several layers of Kapton dielectric and thin (1.5 mm) iron shells. The electromagnet coils pulsed the Rp at closest approach but the dielectric would have isolated the depth of the magnetic field to the thickness of the shell, much like a ferrite ring isolates the field of an attached magnet. This depth of the shell is very much greater than a comparable penetration depth due to the Meissner effect, but perhaps it too generates a photon sufficiently massive.

Since the Marcus Device is a highly charged device (4.2 Kva in its iron core coils and capacitive Rp) perhaps this energetic state capable of producing ionizing radiation contributes to a massive photon... or does so enhanced by coupling to phonons in the crystalline structure of pure iron.


So some key questions for further inquiry are:

  • Do D&H's proposed absorption of gravitophotons by protons also result in polarization of the spin nuclei? And if so, does this realignment lead to Hollingshead’s cooling effect?

  • Can gravitophotons (either attractive or repulsive) couple with phonons in crystalline lattice materials? 

  • Does Hollingshead’s device produce finite range electromagnetic fields suitable for producing massive photons?

©2009 Gregory Daigle