SUBQUANTUM KINETICS: EXPLORING THE CRACK IN THE FIRST LAW
20/05/2014 21:52
Proceedings of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Boston, 1991
SUBQUANTUM KINETICS: EXPLORING THE CRACK IN THE FIRST LAW
Paul A. LaViolette, Ph.D.
The Starburst Foundation
1176 Hedgewood Lane
Schenectady, NY 12309
ABSTRACT
Astrophysical observations of the cosmological
redshift and stellar mass-luminosity relation
suggest that small violations in energy
conservation take place on a regular basis. This
evidence supports the "open system" physics of
subquantum kinetics which suggests that photons
progressively lose energy in intergalactic space
and progressively gain energy in the vicinity of
galaxies. NonDoppler photon blueshifting, occurring
at a rate 108 fold below rates measurable in the
laboratory, is able to account for all the energy
output from red dwarf stars and from Jupiter,
Saturn, and Uranus. It also accounts for about twothirds
of the Sun's output. Consequently
geothermal, solar, and fossil fuel energy sources,
to a large extent, could be sources of "free energy"
generated in violation of the First Law. These
considerations suggest the necessity of taking a
more lenient interpretation of the First Law and
acknowledging the possibility that free energy
devices could operate at efficiencies exceeding
100%. Several ways of generating free energy are
evaluated in the context of subquantum kinetics
genic energy (photon blueshifting), zero-point
energy fluctuations, Ampere law forces, and
electrogravitic gravity field manipulation.
INTRODUCTION
Twentieth century physics presumes that energy,
as a rule, is strictly conserved.
Thermodynamicists have enshrined this principle as
their First Law of Thermodynamics which states:
Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only
converted from one form into another. The First
Law has long been used by patent office examiners
to judge the reasonableness of new ideas proposed
in patent applications. Any application that
proposes a device capable of generating energy
without consuming an equivalent amount of fuel or
converting an equivalent amount of energy from
some known source is quickly labeled as a
"perpetual motion machine" hoax and placed in the
rejection box.
Nevertheless, an increasing number of innovators
claim to have built and successfully operated such
"free energy"* machines or "over-unity" devices,
as they are sometimes called. Some working
models have been shown to operate at fantastic
efficiencies, with output-to-input power ratios
exceeding a thousand percent. Even U.S. federal
agencies have begun closet programs actively
researching such nonconventional power systems,
although their work has not been publicized.
If the First Law is incorrect in maintaining that
energy is always perfectly conserved, then our
government, educational and business institutions
are performing a great disservice to the public by
insisting that funds for research into new energy
and transportation systems must be allocated only
to projects that obey this dictum. Such a practice,
then, would unnecessarily restrict research to the
well-tried conventional paths of the past at a time
when, more than ever, we must strive to develop
ways of tapping unlimited supplies of ecologically
safe, "cool" energy that does not increase the
Earth's burden of greenhouse gases.
Is there evidence that nature does not always obey
the First Law? If so, is there a physics which can
accomodate such "violations" of this principle and
which can provide a theoretical basis for
understanding the operation of some of these free
energy devices? Let us consider the first question.
DOES NATURE VIOLATE THE FIRST LAW?
The First Law, in its strict form of proclaiming
perfect energy conservation, is actually an
untested hypothesis. From an observational point
of view, one can reasonably claim only that energy
* Here the word "free" is used in a different sense
than it is conventionally used in thermodynamics.
Proceedings of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Boston, 1991
2
is conserved to within certain experimentally
verifiable limits. Even Maxwell allowed for the
possibility that radiant energy might exhibit
nonconservative behavior. His original
electromagnetic wave equation contained the
energy damping term, σ ομ ο•∂ϕ /∂t, where σ o
represented the electric conductivity of background
space [1].
Upper limits on the validity of the First Law may be
determined in the laboratory by checking the
energy constancy of a photon beam by means of
laser interferometery. Given that the frequency of
a beam emitted from an iodine-stabilized He-Ne
laser is stable to about one part in 3 X 1013 over a
105 second sample integration time, a null result
from interferometric measurements made on such a
beam travelling a distance of 100 meters would
establish only that its photon energy was constant
to one part in 107 per second.
Such an assurance level, while sufficient for
adhering to the energy conservation assumption
when considering physical phenomena observed in a
laboratory, is insufficient where astronomical
phenomena are concerned. The cosmological
redshift offers one example. In the past, this
effect has been widely interpreted as being
evidence of galactic recession. However several
cosmological studies [2- 5] suggest, to the
contrary, that extragalactic redshifts are more
likely due to a "tired-light effect" in which photons
progressively lose energy in the course of their
long journey through a nonexpanding universe [4,6-
11]. That is, if photons from a distant galaxy were
to lose just 3.4 X 10-18 of their total energy each
second, a 10.7% energy loss for every billion light
years travelled, their wavelength would lengthen
by an amount sufficient to explain the cosmological
redshift effect. Thermodynamicists would be
entirely unaware of the presence of this energy
loss rate since it is some 10 orders of magnitude
smaller than loss rates potentially observable in
the laboratory.
Conservation law violations of comparable
magnitude but of opposite sign could provide a
substantial portion of the energy radiated from
stars. Consider the Sun for example. Given the
low flux of neutrinos observed to come from the
Sun, which has averaged about 25±12 percent of
the expected amount in 37Cl detectors [12] and
46±3 of the expected amount in the Kamiokande-II
neutrino detector [13], we may conclude that
fusion energy supplies only about one third of the
Sun's total energy output. Thermodynamicists
would have no grounds to deny that the remaining
two-thirds is supplied by an ongoing photon energy
amplification process, since the required rate of
photon nonDoppler blueshifting is eight orders of
magnitude smaller than the smallest energy change
detectable with laboratory instrumentation. Taking
the Sun's total thermal energy content to be H =
C•M•T = 4.5 x 1048 ergs, (given an average heat
capacity C = 2.09 x 108 ergs/g/K, a solar mass
M= 2 x 1033 g, and average internal temperature
T = 9.5 x 108 K), the Sun's entire luminosity of 3.9
x 1033 ergs sec-1 could be explained if solar
photons were increasing their individual energies at
a rate of just 10-15 sec-1.
In considering possible First Law violations in
astrophysical processes, we must not overlook one
of the most significant of phenomena—the origin of
the universe. Conventional physics fails to provide
a reasonable explanation, for it does not permit
new energy (or matter) to be created out of the
presumed vacuum of space. This is especially
embarrassing because physicists embrace the big
bang theory as their preferred cosmology. So not
only must this matter/energy be created, it must
be created all at once in what appears to be the
biggest First Law violation of all time. But, there
is no antecedent state from which the primordial
quantum could have emerged, space/time and
existence itself all being supposed to have emerged
for the first time with the occurrence of this
primordial event. Armchair acrobatics aimed at
explaining away the Creation by attributing it to a
fluke of nature seem to be desperate attempts made
by physicsists and cosmologists to free themselves
from their tight corner.
This egg-without-a-chicken problem would be
avoided by a physics that presumes the
preexistence of a subquantum medium, from which
matter and energy later emerge. The ideal physics
would prescribe a creation process that would
unfold over an extended period of time, so that it
would not involve a substantial deviation from the
dictates of the First Law. Let us now investigate a
physics methodology that proceeds along these
lines.
SUBQUANTUM KINETICS
For a long time now, there has been a split between
physics and the life sciences. Physics, which
historically developed within a mechanistic
framework, chooses to view its basic systems—
Proceedings of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Boston, 1991
3
particles and fields—as closed systems requiring no
ongoing sustenance for their continued existence.
Biological systems, on the other hand, are
thermodynamically open. They require a continuous
flux of their constituent subsystem components in
order to maintain their ordered states. The same is
true of a wide variety of other living systems,
such as social, economic, and psychological
systems. All are describable by the same general
laws and mathematics.
Unlike quantum structures, living systems are
easily accessible to direct investigation. So could
it be that, because they necessarily operate in an
obscure realm, physicists have failed to realize the
true nature of microphysical systems and are
wrong in believing that they are fundamentally
different from other natural systems?
The subquantum kinetics physics methodology [8–
10,14,15] was developed with the conviction that
nature operates in fundamentally the same way at
all levels of its system hierarchy. It conceives
quantum structures to be concentration patterns
that emerge from a primordial reaction-diffusion
medium in much the same way that concentration
patterns emerge in the Brusselator [16] or in the
Belousov-Zhabotinskii chemical reaction [17],
namely as epiphenomena of open reaction-diffusion
processes. It is baseed on the general theory of
open systems, whose development in recent years
has been aided by developments in the fields of
general system theory, nonequilibrium
thermodynamics, nonlinear chemical kinetics, and
chaos theory. Thus subquantum kinetics brings us a
step closer to realizing the vision of a unified
science.
Subquantum kinetics adopts a theoretical approach
very different from conventional physics.
Physicists have traditionally begun with sets of
observational data describing various kinds of
physical phenomena and have attempted to
construct explanatory theories for each. Because
these various theories were usually developed in
isolation from one another, it is not surprising to
find that they sometimes turn out to be mutually
contradictory, as is the case for quantum field
theory and general relativity. This leaves
physicists struggling to sew together their
theoretical patchwork quilt in hopes of achieving
the long sought goal of a unified field theory.
Subquantum kinetics, on the other hand, takes a
modelling approach. It begins with theory and ends
with observation, rather than vice versa. It
postulates an appropriate set of inherently
unobservable subquantum reaction-diffusion
processes and then checks to see if the
spatiotemporal patterns, which these processes
produce, reproduce observed microphysical
phenomena. Thus subquantum kinetics attempts to
extend the well-tested concepts of the general
theory of open systems to the realm of physics.
Subquantum kinetics has several advantages over
standard physics. It provides a commonsense
model of subatomic matter that avoids the pitfalls
of the infinite field-energy absurdity, wave-packet
spreading problem, cosmological constant
conundrum, wave-particle dualism, and fieldsource
dualism, all of which plague conventional
theory. Moreover it is a unified field theory. The
energy fields that make up the core of a subatomic
particle, as well as those composing the electric
(magnetic), gravitational, and nuclear binding fields
that extend about the particle, all emerge in a
unitary fashion from a single set of nonlinear
equations describing the ether reaction processes.
In addition, subquantum kinetics provides a fertile
theoretical grounding for interpreting
nonconventional technologies such as Tesla's "sound
wave" model of radiant energy [18] and the
electrogravitic (antigravity) effects first reported
by Townsend Brown [19].
Conventional physics restricts itself to the
positivist doctrine of recognizing only the
measurable as having a real existence. Subquantum
kinetics, on the other hand, also recognizes the
existence of an unobservable subquantum realm. In
fact, it proposes that processes occurring at this
unobservable level hold the key to explaining the
existence of our observable world. As in mystical
traditions, the observable world emerges as an
epiphenonmenon of this unseen realm. Thus not only
does subquantum kinetics eliminate the gap between
the physical and life sciences, it also heals the age
old division between modern science and religion.
Subquantum kinetics avoids many of the problems
modern cosmology has created for itself. It
predicts a cosmologically static universe, rather
than an expanding one. Matter arises in "fertile"
pockets scattered throughout the universe through
a gradual process of continuous creation, rather
than all at once in a single Big Bang. This static
universe cosmology makes a better fit to
cosmological test data than does the big bang theory
[ 4 ] .
Probably most significant from the standpoint of
Proceedings of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Boston, 1991
4
Figure 1. Photons become blueshifted in
regions near galaxies and redshifted in
intergalactic space.
energy conversion engineering is the theory's
prediction that electromagnetic energy is not
strictly conserved. Electromagnetic energy
potentials are able to gradually decrease over time
or increase over time, depending upon whether the
subquantum reactions are s u b c r i t i c a l or
supercritical, the criticality of the reactions being
determined by the value of the gravitational
potential, ϕg. Thus subquantum kinetics predicts
that EM waves will gradually lose energy (become
redshifted) in intergalactic space where ϕ g is
relatively high and will gradually gain energy
(become blueshifted) in the vicinity of galaxies,
where ϕg becomes most negative; see Figure 1.
Perfect conservation of wave energy occurs only
at the interface of these regions where the
subquantum reactions operate at their critical
threshold.
The energy spontaneously generated by the
blueshifting of photons is termed genic energy.
Genic energy may be considered to be a kind of
"free" energy since it arises spontaneously and not
from another prior form of physical energy. There
is no mystery as to where genic energy comes
from. its source may be traced to the subtle
nonphysical motive forces that drive the underlying
subquantum reactions.
But, accounting for the ultimate source of genic
energy is a small matter. The real question
physicists should be asking, in the context of
subquantum kinetics, is what energy source
sustains the entire physical universe. Subatomic
particles and energy waves are ordered forms,
dissipative structures that have formed out of a
subquantum continuum filling all space. If the
subquantum reactions were to cease, the universe
would turn into a closed system; and as we know
from the Second Law of Thermodynamics (whose
validity we do not question), in a closed system
ordered states inevitably decay. Quantum
structures would begin to homogenize and would
eventually vanish from the observable world. So in
this dissipative, open system model of the physical
universe, the status quo is maintained by the
throughput of a tremendous subquantum flux.
The rate of genic energy production is estimated at
[ 1 0 ] :
dE/dt = α ϕg E , (1)
where E is the photon's initial energy, ϕg is the
value of the ambient gravity potential, and α = 5.23
X 10-32 sec cm-2 .* Photons would gradually
blueshift in an earth-based laboratory, but the
process would occur so slowly as to lie well below
the threshold of detection. Nevertheless it would
make a significant contribution to the energetics of
planets and stars. The heat stored in a celestial
body would spontaneously evolve "genic" energy at
the rate:
Lg = dE/dt = α ϕg C M T, ( 2 )
where C, M, and T are the specific heat, mass, and
temperature.
Relation (2) leads to a stellar mass-luminosity
relation of the form Lg ∝ Mx, where x ~ 2.7 ± 0.9
[20]. This is quite reasonable, considering that the
mass-luminosity relation for lower main sequence
red dwarf stars M < 0.45 M has a slope of x =
2.76 ± 0.15 ; see Figure 2 [20]. So all red dwarfs
could be powered entirely by genic energy.
Genic energy would also explain why the massluminosity
coordinates for the jovian planets,
Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune fall close to
this line. Formerly the excess heat radiated from
these planets was thought to come from a
primordial heat reservoir in their interiors.
However, the conformance of both planets and low
mass stars to a common relation rules out both
primordial heat and nuclear energy as a possible
cause, nuclear fusion being unable to occur in jovian
planets and primordial heat being insufficient to
sustain the energy output of low mass stars. Genic
energy, on the other hand, is able to adequately
explain the output from objects at both ends of this
mass range.
* The value suggested for α is sufficiently small
that photons travelling through the Galaxy would
accrue blueshifts of less than 3 X 10-6 (1 km/sec)
over a distance of 105 light years. Hence the
effect would be undetectable in the spectra of stars
within our Galaxy.
Proceedings of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Boston, 1991
5
Figure 2. The lower main sequence stellar
mass-luminosity relation compared to the
mass-luminosity coordinates of several
planets.
M: one solar mass, L: one solar luminosity.
In addition, if we project this "planetary-stellar
mass-luminosity relation" upward to one solar
mass, we find that genic energy accounts for about
60% of the Sun's output. This explains why fusion
energy makes up only about one third of the Sun's
total energy flux, as judged from the Sun's
subnormal neutrino output. For stars more massive
than the Sun, fusion would make a progressively
greater contribution. However, since the majority
of stars in the universe are less massive than the
Sun, subquantum kinetics predicts that, for the
most part, the universe is powered by genic
energy.
Genic energy also effectively accounts for X-ray
emitting white dwarfs, X-ray stars, stellar
pulsation, novae, supernovae, and galactic core
explosions [10]. Conventional astrophysical theory
runs into problems in explaining many of these. For
example, it fails to explain why β Cephei stars
pulsate, why supernovae occur in hot blue giant
stars, what energy source powers supernovae and
galactic core explosions (some of the more
powerful active galaxies being unexplained even by
blackhole models).
Genic energy, by itself, cannot account for the
large power outputs observed from free energy
devices. But, if minor violations of the First Law
are the rule, rather than the exception in nature,
perhaps physics should reevaluate its assumption
that such violations are an impossibility. The
uncertain status of the First Law gives us
reassurance that theoretically it may be possible to
build devices that produce energy conservation law
violations substantially larger than the fractional
amounts we have been discussing.
VARIETIES OF FREE ENERGY
It appears that free energy can arise in many ways.
We will discuss some of these ways, examine them
in the context of subquantum kinetics, and assess
their applicability to commercial power generation.
Genic energy. As was said earlier, subquantum
kinetics proposes that nonDoppler photon
blueshifting occurs naturally in and near all
galaxies. It predicts that approximately three–
fourths of the Earth's geothermal heat flux arises
from genic energy, the remaining quarter being
attributed to crustal radioactivity. If so, this
suggests that geothermal power plants may be
tapping free energy, at least in part. Also since at
least two thirds of the Sun's energy may be of
genic origin, power plants running on solar energy
or fossil fuels (stored solar energy) would be
running mostly on free energy. However,
laboratory-sized heat reservoirs evolve genic
energy at far too small a rate to be applicable to
commercial power generation.
Zero-point energy fluctuations. The zero-point
energy concept developed as an outgrowth of
quantum field theory which proposes that material
particles exert forces on each other by emitting
and absorbing "virtual" subatomic particles.
However, the virtual particle concept suffers from
the problem that it requires subatomic particles to
have infinite masses [21]. Nevertheless, this
concept has been taken in another direction with the
suggestion that throughout space particleProceedings
of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Boston, 1991
6
antiparticle pairs continuously materialize from the
vacuum and soon after disappear by mutual
annihilation. This sea of potential energy
fluctuations is theorized to persist even at absolute
zero. Some suggest that by inducing these
fluctuations to arise in a coherent manner, it might
be possible to extract energy from this "Dirac sea"
[22].
Subquantum kinetics takes a different view of the
zero-point energy concept. It proposes that random
concentration fluctuations continuously arise in its
various ether substrates as a result of the
statistical nature of the subquantum ether reaction
and diffusion processes. These appear as random
pulses of gravitational or electric potential energy.
However, these fluctuations are millions of times
smaller than virtual particle fluctuations, each
pulse comprising a very small fraction of a quantum
of action. Moreover these fluctuations do not arise
as plus/minus pairs; being concentration
deviations, they are always positive valued.
Despite their small size, these fluctuations play a
key role in the subquantum kinetics matter creation
process. Under supercritical conditions, a
sufficiently large fluctuation can grow in size and
eventually turn into a subatomic particle.
However, as in photon blueshifting, this growth
process occurs very slowly. So, according to
subquantum kinetics, it is unlikely that this
phenomenon could provide a commercially
exploitable source of energy.
Ampere law forces. Several experiments have
shown that magnetic forces are best described by
the Ampere law, rather than the Biot-Savart law
[23-28]. The Biot-Savart law errs in that it fails
to predict forces between parts of a circuit having
different charge mobilities, such as longitudinal
forces exerted in the vicinity of a spark gap. In
particular, as Pappas has shown [29], the Ampere
law predicts that like charges moving in the same
direction will exert attractive magnetic forces on
one another. The net interplay of Coulomb repulsion
and Ampere law attraction turns out to be noncon–
servative. Above a certain speed Ampere
attraction is strong enough to overcome Coulomb
repulsion, thereby propelling the particles into a
run away collision which, upon impact, allows
Coulomb repulsion to dominate once again. He
suggests that such a mechanism may be responsible
for producing both fusion and excess free energy in
cold fusion experiments.
Ampere electrodynamics may also account for the
excess energy produced by free energy machines
such as the N machine and other magnetic devices.
Although these devices might operate in a variety
of different ways, in general, their ability to
produce free energy suggests that fields do not
always behave in an energy conserving fashion.
The open system field theory presented in
subquantum kinetics has the advantage that it is not
unnecessarily restricted by the First Law.
Gravity field manipulation. In the mid 1920's
Townsend Brown discovered that by applying highvoltage
charge to a capacitor, he could generate a
gravitational field which induced the capacitor to
move toward its positive pole [19,30]. His
research led him to produce an electrogravitic
device capable of self-levitation [31]. This soon
led to a major effort by the defense department and
major aircraft corporations to develop antigravity
aircraft for military use [32- 35]. In one of his
other ex–periments, Brown arranged capacitors on
the periphery of a rotor to form an electrogravitic
motor capable of running at high speeds even in a
vacuum. This demonstrated that it is possible to
generate an artificial gravitational vortex and to
extract free energy from that vortex via a central
rotor turning in perpetual free fall.
Coupling between electrostatic and gravitational
fields is predicted neither by general relativity,
nor by conven–tional field theory. However, it is
predicted by subquan–tum kinetics. According to
subquantum kinetics, protons generate gravitational
potential sinks and electrons generate slightly
lesser gravitational potential sources. In neutral
matter these two opposing effects add up to
produce a net gravitational sink—an attractive
gravi–tational field. However, when the charges
are sepa–rated, as in a charged capacitor, they
establish a gravity potential gradient that proceeds
from the negatively charged side down to the
positively charged side.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
We are entering an era in which physics theories of
the past are increasingly fallling behind in their
ability to explain adequately the emerging energy
technologies. There is now a pressing need to
investigate new theoretical approaches in which
spontaneous energy creation is the rule, rather
than the exception. Subquantum kinetics may be
one such approach worthy of consideration.
Proceedings of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Boston, 1991
7
REFERENCES
[ 1 ] J. C. Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and
Magnetism. Vol. II. Reprint of 1891 edition. (Dover,
New York, 1954), p.431.
[2] E. Hubble, "Effects of red shifts on the distribution
of nebulae." Ap.J. 84 (1936):517.
[3] T. Jaakkola, M. Moles, and J.-P. Vigier, Astron. Nachr.
300 (1979):229.
[4] P. A. LaViolette, "Is the universe really expanding?"
Ap.J. 301 (1986):544-553; "New study questions
expanding universe." Astronomy, Aug. 1986, p. 64.
[5] F. L. Walker, "A contradiction in the theory of
universal expansion." Apeiron 5 (1989):1-6.
[6] W. von Nernst, The Structure of the Universe in
Light of our Research (Jules Springer, Germany,
1921), p. 40;
[7] --------. Zeitschrift fur Physik 106 (1938):633.
[8] P. A. LaViolette, "An introduction to subquantum
kinetics: I. An overview of the methodology."
Special Issue on Systems Thinking in Physics, Intl. J.
Gen. Sys. 11 (1985):281-293.
[9] --------. "An introduction to subquantum kinetics: II.
An open systems description of particles and fields."
Intl. J. Gen. Sys. 11 (1985):295-328.
[ 1 0 ] --------. "An introduction to subquantum kinetics:
III. The cosmology of subquantum kinetics." Intl. J.
Gen. Sys. 11 (1985):329-345.
[ 1 1 ] R. Monti, in Problems in Quantum Physics; Gdansk
'87 (World Scientific, Teaneck, New Jersey, 1988).
[ 1 2 ] J. N. Bahcall and R. K. Ulrich, "Solar models,
neutrino experiments, and helioseismology." Rev.
Mod. Phys. 60 (1988):297-372.
[ 1 3 ] K. S. Hirata et al., "Observation of 8 B solar
neutrinos in the Kamiokande-II dectector." Phys.
Rev. Lett. 63 (1989):16-19.
[ 1 4 ] P. A. LaViolette, "An open system approach to
energy wave propagation." Proc. of the 34th
annual meeting of the Intl. Soc. for Systems
Science, Portland, Oregon 1990, pp. 1119 - 1126.
[ 1 5 ] P. A. LaViolette, "A Tesla wave physics for a free
energy universe." Proc. of the 1990 Intl. Tesla
Symposium, Colorado Springs, Colorado.
[ 1 6 ] I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis, and A. Babloyantz,
"Thermodynamics of evolution." Physics Today
25(12) (1972):38.
[ 1 7 ] A. M. Zaikin and A. M. Zhabotinskii, "Concentration
wave propagation in two-dimensional liquid-phase
self-oscillating system." Nature 225 (1970):535-
537.
[ 1 8 ] N. Tesla, New York Herald Tribune, Sept. 11, 1932;
New York Times, April 8, 1934, p. 9.
[ 1 9 ] T. T. Brown, "How I control gravity." Science and
Invention Magazine, August 1929.
[ 2 0 ] P. A. LaViolette, "The planetary-stellar massluminosity
relation: Possible evidence of energy
nonconservation?" 1991 in preparation.
[ 2 1 ] F. Capra, The Tao of Physics. NY: Bantam, 1977.
[ 2 2 ] M. B. King, Tapping the Zero-point Energy. Provo,
Utah: Paraclete Publishing, 1989.
[ 2 3 ] P. Graneau, "Amperian recoil and the efficiency of
railguns." J. Appl. Phys. 62 (1987):3006-3009.
[ 2 4 ] --------. "First indication of Ampere tension in solid
electric conductors." Phys. Lett. 97A (1983): 253-
55.
[ 2 5 ] P. Graneau and P. N. Graneau, "Electrodynamic
explosions in liquids." Appl. Phys. Lett. 4 6
(1985):468-470.
[ 2 6 ] P. T. Pappas, "The original Ampere force and Biot-
Savart and Lorentz forces." Il Nuovo Cimento 76B
(1983): 189-197.
[ 2 7 ] --------. "The non-equivalence of the Ampere and
Lorentz/Grassmann force laws and longitudinal
contact interactions." Phys. Essays 3 (1990):15-
23.
[ 2 8 ] P. T. Pappas and T. Vaughan "Forces on a stigma
antenna." Phys.Essays 3 (1990): 211-216.
[ 2 9 ] P. T. Pappas "Excess free energy and cold nuclear
fusion." Twenty-First Cen. Tech., Jan.-Feb.
(1990):11-12.
[ 3 0 ] G. Burridge, "Another step toward anti-gravity."
The American Mercury 86 (1958):77-82.
[ 3 1 ] T. T. Brown, Letter dated Feb. 9, 1982.
[ 3 2 ] Electrogravitics Systems: An examination of
electrostatic motion, dynamic counterbary and
barycentric control. Report No. 13. Aviation
Studies (International) Ltd., Special Weapons
Study Unit, London, February 1956. (Library of
Congress No. 3,1401,00034,5879; Call No.
TL565.A9; Obtainable from Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base Technical Library in Dayton, Ohio).
[ 3 3 ] "Electrogravitics: Science or daydream? Product
Engineering, Dec. 30, 1957, p. 12.
[ 3 4 ] "How to 'fall' into space." Business Week, Feb. 8,
1958, pp. 51-53.
[ 3 5 ] P. A. LaViolette "Electrogravitics: An energyefficient
means of spacecraft propulsion."
Submission to the 1990 NASA Space Exploration
Outreach Program.
