LECTURE NO. 25

THE MARINOV MOTOR

Copyright © Harold Aspden, 1998

INTRODUCTION

Stefan Marinov was a man who set his sights on becoming a legendary figure in the future chronicles which will report on the history of the 'free energy' revolution. That revolution began in recent years and is gaining momentum as we approach the dawn of a new millennium.

This Lecture is my way of recording, as much for my own benefit as for others who see this, my personal impression of some aspects of Marinov's efforts that have come to my attention. I am doing this partly because of a letter I have just received (dated October 19, 1998) from Dr. Eugene Mallove, Editor of the magazine Infinite Energy (Web site: http://www.infinite-energy.com, which was accompanied by a video recording showing, in Dr. Mallove's words:

"Some Marinov motor demos done by Jeff Kooistra - April through June 1998. Superb work! I would appreciate your comments on what you can see. There appears to be a violation of Newton's third law - quite remarkable, if true. Many strange things visible."

I will, in this Lecture, tell you what that tape illustrated and my reaction to what I saw, but first I will indulge in a little reminiscence about Stefan Marinov, who, sadly, committed suicide in a way which declared his desperation at having failed to convince the scientific community that what he had to say demanded their attention.

My first encounter with Stefan Marinov was some time in the 1970s. I had, in 1969, published a book entitled Physics without Einstein. It bore the caption:

"A confrontation with the anomalies of electromagnetism which reveals a unified explanation for the physical phenomena of the universe."

That book disclosed a new law of electrodynamics, wholly supported by empirical evidence, a law that was consistent with the Lorentz force law as applied to electron current flow in closed circuits but one that allowed unification with the theory of gravity. It was explained that the law gave scope for generating forces in breach of Newton's Third Law. That could only mean that the aether could assert or absorb force and the book delved into the structure of that aether to show how it put action into quantum mechanics and provided a quantum theory of gravitation by incorporating gravitons having a mass-energy of 2.587 GeV, thereby allowing G, the constant of gravitation to be derived by pure theory. Empirical evidence was referenced to show that such gravitons do exist. The case presented was aimed at showing that Einstein's Theory of Relativity had been overtaken by something better, something that meant revival of the aether theme, but in a modernized form.

I had, in my wife's maiden surname, Sabberton, founded 'Sabberton Publications', expressly to be of record as publisher of my book, so as to be sure I had control of its disposition.

Marinov entered into the picture one day by writing to 'Sabberton Publications'. He declared that he was in search of a publisher for his work, which also stood in defiance of Einstein's Theory, and that his recent experimental investigations were sure to earn him the Nobel Prize in physics within a year or so, once his experiment became known. His claim was that the measurement of the speed of light in a special way proved there was a preferred frame of reference through which the Earth is moving, so contradicting Einstein's Theory. His suggestion was to travel to U.K. immediately for discussions as he was impressed by the quality of my book, could see that the publisher was willing to promote work which challenged the Einstein doctrine and so he felt sure that his work would prove acceptable and could be completed and put in order for publication during such a visit.

Naturally, being fully occupied with my management role in IBM, and regarding my publishing venture merely as a hobby, one devoted to my own efforts in my spare time, I certainly did not want to become embroiled in such a proposal. I duly explained my position to Marinov and declined to entertain such a visit, but wished him well in his pursuit. It was evident he was serious in thinking his finding did merit a Nobel Prize and, amused though I was at the suggestion, I avoided expressing my feelings about his audacity.

That said, it was a while later, early in 1977 I believe, when I saw a large notice published, if I remember correctly, in the journal Nature, announcing an 'International Conference on Space-Time Absoluteness' to be held in Bulgaria. The main attraction of that conference was to be the announcement of details of Marinov's experiment revealing the detection of the Earth's motion through space by optical tests conducted in an enclosed laboratory. It seemed, again if I recall correctly, that Dr. Sakharov, a distinguished Russian scientist, would be a patron of this conference, the implication being that this conference had official blessing by the Bulgarian authorities and would be well attended.

I declared my intention to attend and offer a paper, conscious that I would need to avoid my IBM affiliation being recorded, except as necessary in the procurement of a visa. My position with IBM was that of Director of IBM's European Patent Operations. It would have been inappropriate to imply that what I had to say about the 'aether' had any endorsement from the scientific fraternity in IBM. Indeed, my 'hobby' interest in that subject was only known to my IBM colleagues in the patent function and higher management to whom I reported. I had, in that IBM position travelled to iron curtain countries such as Poland, Hungary, Romania etc. by co-ordination with IBM's facilities in Vienna, but this was to be one trip that was for my own private interest and, the conference being for 5 days or so, I knew it would have to eat up a week of my regular vacation. So, you see, I was genuinely interested in the subject and I was curious about Marinov's claim, especially as he presumably had acquired official endorsement in his country.

In the event, and at the time travel arrangements had to be put in place, I made a point on one of my business trips to London of calling in at the Bulgarian Tourist Office to ask about flight arrangements and visa procedures pertaining to the holding of that conference. The conference was to be held at a Black Sea resort location Varna, which made me think that the Tourist Office enquiry was warranted. I also reasoned that the conference would have to be of record in their diary of forthcoming events. When I made my enquiry by showing the copy I had of the conference announcement, I sensed some alarm in that they had no knowledge of that planned event and, indeed, I then got the measure of the situation very sharply. I decided on the spot that I would not be going to Bulgaria and so I went about my IBM business.

It was not long thereafter that a young London University student of Greek nationality, doing a Ph.D. on Einstein's Theory of Relativity, visited me to talk about my theoretical work and my book Physics without Einstein. Incidental to that our exchange of information came around to the Bulgarian conference. Professor Pappas, to use his later title, had in fact attended the Varna venue only to find himself greeted by Marinov and told that the conference had been cancelled. Pappas said that he went with Marinov to Sofia, where he there saw the laboratory equipment that Marinov had used in his speed-of-light experiment by which he claimed to have sensed the Earth's motion through space. He was one of a handful of people who had somehow not received information that the conference had been cancelled, obviously because it lacked approval from the Bulgarian authorities.

An interesting insight into the circumstances is afforded by Marinov's own commentary in his book: The Thorny Way of Truth: Part IV: Documents on the Violation of the Laws of Conservation. On page 248 of that work, published in 1989, some 11 years after the intended Bulgarian event, but just one year after a different conference on a similar subject but held at the Imperial College in London, one reads:

"The organizer (i.e. of that London conference) is Dr. Duffy who intended to visit the International Conference on Space-Time Absoluteness which had to meet in 1977 in Bulgaria but was prohibited by the Bulgarian government and 20 days before its beginning I was imprisoned in a psychiatric clinic where, after a bargain with representatives of the Bulgarian Academy of Science and the Bulgarian KGB, I 'bought' my freedom by consenting to cancel the conference because of 'fear for an earthquake'."

The above is quoted from a section of Marinov's book entitled: 'MARINOV TO THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE AETHER CONFERENCE', and, only now (October 25, 1998), as I come to write this text concerning the Marinov Motor have I, such a 'participant', come to read this part of Marinov's book. It is introduced by a few words preceding what has just been quoted above:

"The Conference 'Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory' sponsored by the British Society for the Philosophy of Science will meet on 16-19 September 1988 at the Imperial College, London. All members of the organizing committee are people supporting the aether concepts and there is no single orthodox relativist who categorically denies its existence."

You will understand that here Marinov was giving vent to his feelings and endeavoring, by rebellious tactics, to force his scientific views upon a more orthodox but questioning group of scientists interested in clarifying doubts concerning relativity and aether philosophy. He goes on to explain that, in seeking to participate in that London conference, his letters to Dr. Duffy and Professor Kilmister, of the organizing committee, were not answered, but that a telephone call to Dr. Duffy elucidated the response that there was no time for Marinov on the programme.

I said: "You, Dr. Duffy, know very well that I am the world's patriarch in space-time absoluteness. It is an absurdity that now when a conference will meet, where the word 'aether' will no more be pronounced with the same hatred as the word 'trotzkist' in the Soviet Union, I am deprived of the opportunity to speak as this was always the case at conferences of the orthodox relativists"

These latter remarks are quoted from p. 248 of Marinov's book.
I personally was unaware of all this when I attended that 1988 London conference. I was not involved with its organization, but I happened to be close to the reception desk in the lobby of the conference not far from Dr. Duffy when in came Stefan Marinov. I had known him from a meeting earlier that year (May, 1988) in Bologna. It was a disturbing situation. Dr. Duffy refused Marinov's entry to the conference. I withdrew in silence, remembering a scene at the Bologna conference where Marinov had rather rudely interrupted a keynote speaker Professor H Bondi to tell him he was wrong in what he was saying about our inability to detect the existence of a background frame of reference by measuring our motion relative to that frame.

I remember that occasion well because I had gone to Bologna in Italy to be a speaker at an academic event organized contemporaneously with the one at which Professor Bondi spoke. I went there with E W Silvertooth and Marinov sat next to us in the audience. At that other event Silvertooth spoke about his own experiment by which he had detected motion through space by optical means and I spoke about my interest in the aether. I later referred to the Silvertooth experiment in the paper I gave at that 1988 conference organized in London by Dr. Duffy. See my paper: 'Four Questions Concerning Relativity' [1988g]

I was destined to meet Stefan Marinov again, on visits to USA, the first being as attendees at a conference held in Denver, Colorado, Marinov and I being amongst a group of invited speakers, also participating in a 'think tank' forum, concerned with new methods of energy generation.

Ever enthusiastic, Marinov aroused our interest by demonstrating odd effects concerning setting things in motion, using magnets and electrical currents, but I saw nothing in his proposals that warranted a commercial interest. Over the years, Marinov had taken to heart what I had been advocating in my book Physics without Einstein concerning the fallacies of the conventional form of electrodynamic law, as indeed had Professor Pappas. Indeed, both Marinov and Pappas made their own contributions in challenging The Lorentz force law. This is a subject which relates to the way in which electric motors work and it has implications where setting up forces as between matter and aether are concerned. This is where Newton's Third Law, the balance of action and reaction, enters into the picture, the issue being the question of whether we can set up forces on a machine by which it pushes against the aether to develop drive power. Forces asserted between the aether and a machine can further imply transfer of energy from the aether to the machine, a fascinating prospect and one which comes into perspective once we see scope for challenging, not just the Lorentz force law, but the earlier Ampere form of law.

So it is here that we come to the theme of prime importance. It is a topic I have discussed from my perspective elsewhere in these web pages, but I am here concentrating attention on the Marinov motor theme. Both Pappas and Marinov became absolutely convinced that the Lorentz force law is incorrect, as applied to interactions involving an unclosed electrical circuit, meaning, for example, one where the action arises from current flow around a circuit path is that of current flow through wire in one circuit segment and that of displacement current through the aether in a another segment of that circuit. If action balances reaction as between current in the different parts of that circuit, then action and reaction forces are asserted between matter and aether and that means that one can devise a machine that moves itself by pushing against the aether.

At pages 126-135 of his book The Thorny Way of Truth: Part IV, Marinov introduces us to an 'Extremely Easy Experiment Demonstrating Violation of the Angular Momentum Conservation Law' and his concluding sentences read:

"With Ampere's bridge one can set artificial satellites in orbit about a planet without atmosphere by 'shooting them from a canon'. In the flying Ampere Bridge, however, the driving force can act during the whole flight and the force which is needed has only to overwhelm the Earth's gravitational attraction."

Now here I would interject a word of caution. There is certainly scope for developing interaction forces as between a machine and aether, given an environmental 'capsule' of aether containing that machine, and we may find that the machine can wobble about by pushing against that entrained aether, but that is no warranty that the machine can push itself clear of the capsule and go off into outer space by pushing against aether in its path. It all depends upon what determines the frame of electromagnetic reference applicable in the locality of the machine.

To proceed on this theme, I will now limit my discussion in this Lecture to three experimental topics. Firstly, I shall mention the Pappas-Vaughan experiment by which the Lorentz force law has been disproved. Then I will give my opinion of what I saw demonstrated on that video tape I mentioned at the outset, Kooistra's April-June 1998 experiments on the 'Marinov Motor', and thirdly, I will revert back to the so-called 'Ampere Bridge' experiment which Marinov describes in his book, as referenced above.

THE PAPPAS-VAUGHAN EXPERIMENT

In the Pappas-Vaughan experiment the circuit was that of a dipole antenna powered from its centre. It was not a standard straight dipole configuration but one bent into a kind of Z shape with the angles being right angles. It was termed a 'stigma' antenna owing to that shape, but in essence the experiment amounted to setting up a current oscillation at radio frequency in that antenna laying in a horizontal plane and it suspended from its centre and watching to see whether switching between power on and power of would develop a torsional oscillation in that suspension.

According to the Lorentz force law there should be a turning couple developed when current flows as current in the middle section interacts with that in the end sections. No such couple was in evidence. That meant that the Lorentz law is wrong and so is disproved experimentally. It left open the question of whether the action-reaction balance applies, owing to forces communicated through the centre of mass of the antenna, this being consistent with Ampere's old formula or whether, consistent with my own law of electrodynamics, there is simply no aether reaction that can permit an out-of-balance couple, this not precluding a linear out-of-balance force in the general case, but such a linear force not being in evidence owing to the specific geometry of the antenna. Note that my law has such an action when applied to the problem of gravitation. This is evident from Tutorial No. 4 in these web pages.

The Marinov book (1989) includes at pp. 158-168 a paper on the 'Stigma' antenna experiment, its authors being Professor P. T. Pappas and Tim Vaughan. Much the same paper appears also in Physics Essays, v. 3, pp. 211-216 (1990). A fully illustrated description of the apparatus is presented. This was highly original work, born out of the suspicion that the Lorentz force could be wrong, something very few establishment physicists would ever dream as being a worthwhile venture, yet it has to be seen as a major contribution to the subject of electrodynamics. Keep in mind the fact that Lorentz himself was confounded by the null result of the famous Trouton-Noble electrodynamic experiment reported in 1903. That experiment put the Lorentz force law to the test by switching the charge of a suspended parallel plate capacitor in time with the natural torsional oscillation period, the object being to see if the electrodynamic effects of the charges parallel moving charges carried along with body Earth would allow that motion through the aether to be measured.

The same result was obtained as in the Pappas-Vaughan experiment, that is there was no turning couple. This could be interpreted two ways. Either there was no charge motion relative to the aether or the Lorentz force law was wrong. Lorentz in his famous 1904 paper, which predated Einstein's efforts in 1905, chose the option which kept his law in place. Pappas and Vaughan, however, have performed a similar test with charge assuredly moving relative to the local aether frame and their result proves conclusively that Lorentz chose the wrong option! That will show you why their experiment is so important. Lorentz in 1904 had paved the way for acceptance of Einstein's theory using paving stones that were cracked! They could offer no secure foundation for Einstein's theory.

I will move on now to the issues raised by the Kooistra video.

THE KOOISTRA VIDEO

The Kooistra video recording first demonstrated how one could make a test apparatus comprising a composite assembly of magnets, which form a cuboidal structure suspended on a length of what I understood to be cords of the kind used on fishing reels, 'fish line', the magnet thus supported being centrally located and free to turn inside a copper ring. On diametrically opposite sides of that ring one could position the tips of two probes connected by wires to a d.c. voltage source. The experiment involved, beginning with the magnet in its rest position, and then connecting the probes to the ring so as to allow current to flow into it on one side, divide in its onward flow either way around the ring and merge again to flow out through the other probe. Upon such connection one could see that the composite magnet began to rotate about its vertical suspension.

The mystery question was: "Why should the magnet rotate?"

The video illustrated sustained rotation for a period of several seconds, but did not, so far as that test using that apparatus was concerned, imply that continuous rotation was possible for an indefinite period. Indeed one must assume that the suspension would progressively become more and more twisted, meaning that eventually rotation must cease as the twist torque became strong enough to stop and then put the motion of the magnet into reverse rotation. That sustained rotation was probably illusory anyway, amounting to an impulsive action to set the suspended magnet system rotating and then, given its inertia and little resistance to rotation from the suspension, it could describe several revolutions.

Indeed I understand from a witness to a live demonstration of the Kooistra experiments that Kooistra there also showed how the residual external field of the magnet assembly could interact with the currents in the ring to give a 90^o rotation to a stable position. This is to be expected since the division of the current flow around two semicircular segments of the ring would have the effect of creating a closed magnetic field somewhat similar to that produced by the magnet assembly and the effect of superimposition of the two field systems would be a function of the angle between the two field systems as seen looking vertically downwards from above. That angle would tend to adjust to bring the magnet assembly and the terminal connection points to the copper ring to the optimum energy state in which the system becomes stable.

The assembly of the magnet amounted to taking a plurality of small magnets and fitting them together so that this structure was equivalent to mounting two rectangular block magnets side by side, with the north pole of one magnet being adjacent to the south pole of the other, the magnetic axes of the two magnets being vertical. This would set up magnetic leakage flux in a vertical direction at the encompassing ring position and the strength of the leakage flux would diminish rapidly with distance from the axis of suspension owing to the compensating magnetic effects. The magnet stack was elongated, being at least twice the length in its vertical dimension as each of the two side dimensions, so as to be, overall, in geometrical terms, a rectangular parallepiped, otherwise known as a 'cuboid'.

I suspected at first that the cuboidal configuration meant that the assembly would exhibit, in effect, several axes of magnetization, meaning that an externally-applied magnetic field could hold the magnet stable in several different angular positions, depending upon the direction and presence of that field. However, on further consideration I realize that the system amounts to a kind of composite magnetic compass element with a horizontal N-S field at its upper portion and an opposed S-N field at its lower portion, though producing a fairly strong leakage magnetic field in a vertical direction at the radius where the copper ring is located.

Now, before commenting further on the Kooistra demonstration, I will ask you to consider what you would observe if you took a small button magnet and suspended it from, say, a door frame using a length of cotton thread but provided another separate length of thread separately attached to that button magnet and just left dangling below it. You would see the magnet swing from side to side like a pendulum for some time before it stopped swinging and it would spin about its vertical suspension for quite a while, first one way and then the other, until it finally came to rest. In its rest position it would have an orientation determined by the direction of the Earth's local magnetic field. After all, all you have done is to assemble what amounts to a kind of magnetic compass.

Then, however, once it has stopped moving, take hold of the lower end of that dangling thread and, very carefully and gently, pull it downwards using very little force. You will find that the magnet begins to rotate once again about that vertical suspension.

That downward force you have exerted will pull on that upper section of thread and cause it to stretch by untwisting itself a little, an action which converts your linear pull into a turning couple. This has nothing to do with magnetic fields and currents in wires. It is simple mechanics involving the theory of elasticity and the frictional effect between the strands of that cotton thread which preserve its twisted character. It would work if you replaced the magnet with a small copper ring but the magnet provides the means for exerting an influence on it without pulling on that dangling thread. You can slide a piece of iron under a magnet and find that it is attracted towards it, putting extra force on the thread, in addition to the weight of the magnet. That will promote rotation too. Alternatively you might just suspend a paper clip on the thread and hold your button magnet underneath it, raising your hand up or down to lift and lower the magnet and so alter the tension applied to that thread.

You might not then be surprised if you happened to see the advertisement at page 6 in New Energy News, September 1998 issue, headed 'Mysterious Magnetic Spinner' and referring to a video by John Searl. It has a paper clip supported from one end of a tube with a magnet located at the other end but spaced from the paper clip which it attracts. It says "Here is a device invented by Lee Trippett to demonstrate 'The Mysterious Magnetic Spin'" and that the "key point of this device is that college professors cannot tell us how it works. They will tell you that it is a simple magnetic motor action - a force is produced on a coil that is moved through a magnetic field. Now just try it with a coil of copper. No spin!"

Well, I am not a college professor but I guess it works because the supporting filament is a length of twine, a twisted thread which turns about its axis when stretched, but if it works just as well with a thin single filament of copper wire, albeit with that steel (not copper) paper clip attached, then I bow to the world of mysticism and join the ranks of those who do not understand the phenomenon.

With that in mind I was rather suspicious about the significance of the Kooistra demonstration. However, it did pose some perplexing questions and engendered considerable interest. This brings me now to a further demonstration shown in the Kooistra video, one where the copper ring and the magnet were both suspended on separate cords in very close proximity. The application of current, the flow bifurcating in its passage through the ring, had the effect of causing both to turn a small angular distance as a unit and that added mystery to that presentation, because this seemed to be action without reaction.

In one experiment Kooistra arranged for the copper ring to be able to turn in its horizontal plane with the magnet assembly locked against rotation. He reasoned that the currents in the ring and the magnet were the seat of any interaction and proceeded to demonstrate that if he applied the current to the ring by having both the probes on the outside rim of the ring then the ring itself would rotate one way, but if both probes were making contact with the inside rim of the ring then the ring would rotate in the opposite sense.

Here, seemingly, is a genuine mystery. However, I have my doubts, because when current flows into or from the ring it must have radial component in the horizontal plane in finding its distribution channel through those semicircular segments. That radial component of current will interact with the vertical field of the magnet assembly adjacent to the probe positions. So, if the two probes connect to the outer rim of the ring, the current flow will be radially inwards adjacent one probe but radially outwards adjacent the other problem, where the vertical field is of opposite direction. Keep in mind that split N-S, S-N configuration of the magnet assembly. What that means is that the field will interact with those radial current components to set up Lorentz forces that will apply an impulsive turning couple to the ring in the same sense adjacent both probes. When current flows the ring will begin to rotate in a horizontal plane. However, should the probes be put in contact with the inner part of the ring then the radial currents will be in the opposite direction and the turning impulse will also be in the opposite direction, which is what Kooistra observed.

This action is illustrated in the figure below:

This is a view of the magnet assembly and the ring as seen from above. The ring can turn about its centre. The north (N) and south (S), segments of the magnet assembly, being the upper poles, will produce, by the N pole, a downwardly directed magnetic field on the left hand segment of the ring (depicted by the + symbols to show the tail end of an arrow), whereas the S pole will produce an upward field on the right hand segment of the ring (depicted by the point symbols). When the current i flows through the probes and into the ring then it will divide between upper and lower semi-circular paths, but only one such path is shown. The Lorentz force law tells us that only the radial component of current in the ring can develop forces circumferentially around the ring as needed to set up rotation. Accordingly the action of the magnets on that short radial component of current in the body of the ring will develop the anticlockwise rotation.

There will, of course, be forces as shown exerted on the probes and, if the magnet were free to rotate as well we could expect it to rotate owing to its action-reaction interaction with the probe current. The direction of rotation must depend upon the direction of the current flow through the probe circuit.

Note also that if the probes were extended radially inwards in the above illustration so as to have contact with the inner part of the ring then the radial current components in the two ring segments would be opposite to the directions shown and so the ring would rotate in the opposite direction. This is what Kooistra demonstrated.

Note that if the vertical leakage field from the rare earth magnets as effective at the ring radius is, say, 100 oersted, then a radial current of 10 amps even in just a few millimetres will develop a turning force of 100 dynes at the ring radius, which is ample to promote the rotation of the suspended copper ring in the Kooistra apparatus.

Now suppose that the magnet assembly and the ring are both free to turn and current is applied to the ring. The ring will still tend to turn and I see no problem even if they do both turn together in the same direction, provided that rotation is through a limited angle. The interaction of a magnet and a current in a wire is an interaction between the seat of a magnetic field and that current. The magnetic field acting on the ring is strictly a state of the aether, a field condition of space. However, here I can but begin to wonder about an analogy with the operation of a magnetic reluctance motor, where I can see the Earth's magnetism as providing the stator poles.

The idea that angular momentum is conserved and action balances reaction does suggest that if the magnet rotates one way the ring must rotate the other, but all that is based on energy conservation in systems that are subject to central forces, such we see for the gravitational interaction between Earth and Sun. Once you bring in forces that act differently on different components of a system, particularly magnetic forces, then the standard principles of mechanics are not wholly reliable as a guide to what happens. Furthermore, in the Kooistra experiments, though he did assert that the reaction forces on his current probes would be swamped by the forces promoting rotation of the ring and the magnet, that statement needs clarification. There must be forces developing a turning couple on those two probes and they will have their reaction counterpart in the magnet and ring arrangement.

Reverting to his experiments with the ring fixed in position and the magnet rotating, I still would keep in mind the notion of a magnetic reluctance motor with the geomagnetic field serving as a stator pole system and having its action modified by the current supplied to the ring. The cuboidal magnet assembly would have, owing to its opposed configuration of magnets, a residual relatively weak polarization, perhaps to some small extent resulting in a plurality of effective magnetic poles, perhaps one on each side face of the assembly. Now when a multipole rotor sits inside a stator in a small magnetic reluctance motor, the application of a sudden starting torque, such as a manual flick of an attached flywheel, can, if there is no load on the motor, result in the rotor spinning through several revolutions as it clicks on from one in-register pole position to the next. This is called a 'cogging effect'. A little consideration will show that, if the rotor has an appreciable moment of inertia but is subject to very little 'bearing' resistance and can turn easily but for the magnetic 'cogging' action, then the initial energy input to turn it through one cogging step plus just a little extra impulse can cause it to rotate through many revolutions before coming to rest. Indeed there is no bearing as such, just the very slight frictional resistance involved in twisting that suspension cord.

So consider what we have in the Kooistra demonstration. A relatively weak magnet assembly which can, if at rest, be held stable in one or more orientations with the Earth's magnetic field providing that cogging feature and serving as the stator of the motor. Then we have that bifurcated conductor positioned in a horizontal plane and in which a current of a few amps flows through two parallel connected paths, thereby setting up a weak magnetic field which, depending upon the vertical position of the magnet assembly, can act on that assembly in a horizontal direction. That field can easily outweigh the Earth's field in its strength and so, with current on, it can reorientate the suspended magnet. If that current is applied suddenly it can, given a little prior adjustment to set its magnitude and choosing the probe positions so as to get an optimum effect, cause that magnet to turn and so move through one of its 'cogging' positions. Once turning, however, its inertia, given the energy impulse that initiates its motion, will cause it to rotate through many revolutions as it builds up a reaction torque in the suspension by twisting it and so, in effect, winding it up as the kinetic energy transfers into the potential energy set by the elasticity of the system.

This, I submit, can explain what seems to be a short duration state of rotation of the magnet assembly in the Kooistra demonstration, limited in duration because of the build-up of the twist reaction torque.

In short, if my interpretation is correct, then one must be dubious in regarding the Kooistra experiments as being anomalous. I will qualify this, however, by saying that, to my way of thinking, there is nothing anomalous about a motor developing torque by pushing on a magnetic field, which, because that is a state of the aether, implies a push against the aether itself. I say this because there are experiments in physics where a cylindrical ferromagnetic rod housed within a concentric solenoid can be set in spin by passing current through the solenoid.

If this latter statement is surprising then, guided by the following quoted sentence from a physics book in my possession, look up what is meant by the 'effects' mentioned:

"Thus rotation should accompany magnetization, a phenomenon known on the continent as the Einstein-de Haas Effect and in England as the Richardson Effect."

Here I draw attention to the fact that any effect of a magnetic field on the current path through the solenoid will develop forces that are radial from the axis of rotation and so should cause no rotation attributable to reaction torque. Yet rotation can occur. However, I appreciate that the phenomenon underlying these physical effects is quite weak in comparison with that seen in the Kooistra demonstration, so I just mention this as being relevant and as being something to keep in mind.

In the later section of his video presentation Kooistra goes on to show a 'Marinov Motor'. This did have bearings allowing the rotor to spin about a vertical axis. It had current supplied through a commutator system and did rotate continuously. The purpose of this commutator was to act as a switch by which d.c. current fed to the copper ring could be switched on an off according to the orientation of the magnet assembly rotor. Ostensibly the only stator component was the copper ring and so this motor posed its mystery as to how it operates, given that the Lorentz forces acting on a circular ring carrying current in its arcuate sections can only act at right angles to the current and so radially, and perhaps also parallel, with respect to the motor spin axis. The issue raised is the question of how a reaction force can be set up which causes the rotor to spin.

Well I suggest the answer is quite simple. The motor operates because it uses the Earth's magnetic field as the 'stator' and the rotor spins by pushing against the frame of body Earth. That circular copper ring carries currents of the order of 10 amps in its arcuate segments. Such a current will produce a magnetic field acting on the rotor and having a strength of the same order as that of the geomagnetic field, about 0.5 oersted, given that the magnetized rotor sits about one inch away at the centre of the copper ring. Remember that the Earth's magnetic field is subject to an angle of dip. It has a vertical component and a horizontal component. To put this explanation in perspective ask yourself if you think it possible to take a magnetic compass, put a wire close to it and get the compass needle to turn steadily by switching current on and off in proper timing related to the rotation of that needle. I think I could build such a device, but all I would have is a very weak magnetic reluctance motor if that current merely neutralizes the Earth's magnetic field. If I pulsed the current to higher levels I would have a d.c. motor with a magnetized rotor not particularly sensitive to the Earth's field, but I would not see anything special about that or any anomaly concerning electrodynamic theory.

In summary therefore I am not excited by having seen the Kooistra video. I admit that there is the initial impression that something is anomalous, given that Kooistra takes pains to build into his devices a kind of symmetry which, in theory, should imply cancellation of normal force action. However, he could hardly avoid there being some residual asymmetry and a weak residual magnetism and it needs very little power to set a rotor spinning about an axis when subject to no load. Also, had he used a strong magnet and not provided a compensating feature, the rotation of such a magnet in the close vicinity of a thick copper ring would have implied eddy current damping which would have a drag effect leading to an unimpressive demonstration.

That said, however, I would be pleased to be proved wrong by events. Given that Kooistra can demonstrate a motor action the task ahead is that of measuring its efficiency to see if, in pushing against the aether, assuming that is the seat of a balancing reaction torque, that aether is merely a passive catalyst not contributing to the energy balance or whether there is also an energy anomaly attributable to aether involvement.

Concerning Marinov and his efforts in demonstrating anomalous motor effects, I will now complete this Lecture by commenting now on his Ampere Bridge motor, as described in his The Thorny way of Truth: Part IV.

MARINOV'S AMPERE BRIDGE MOTOR

When electric current flows around a closed wire circuit we well know that its action balances its reaction as one part of that circuit pushes against another. If you cause that current to flow around a circuit and over one short segment of that circuit the flow is that of displacement current in a dielectric, part of that displacement current is 'aether' charge displacement. In other words, the force balance can be between the aether and that wire. That is, or should be, self-evident and I was well aware of that once I embarked on challenging electrodynamic theory in the latter half of the 1950s.

Obviously one can ask whether one can get a motor to rotate by developing an angular push against the aether or, as I had in mind, ask the question of whether the anomalous rotation of stars and the one-way rotation of solar system meant that that rotation had been set up by pushing against the aether itself. It raised the question of 'aether spin'. My theory developed on those lines.

It was in 1980 that I saw an article in the journal Nature announcing the experimental evidence that the field medium (in fact the 'aether') can provide a reaction force to quasi-static fields. G M Graham and D G Lahoz described their experiment in Nature, v. 285, p 154 (1980). I note here that Stefan Marinov referenced that paper on page 132 of his book, the one mentioned above. It was in his account of his experiment on 'The Violation of the Angular Momentum Conservation Law'.

Meanwhile, however, I myself had already ventured out in this field. It was upon the eve of my opting for early retirement from IBM to indulge myself in my research pursuits as a Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the University of Southampton, close to my home. I got myself into a conference programme held by the U.K. Institute of Physics at Oxford University, the subject of the conference being 'Electrostatics 1983'. My subject was 'The Thunderball - an Electrostatic Phenomenon'. I started out by referring to the Graham and Lahoz paper and went on to discuss 'vacuum spin', the spin of the aether! I explained how the Earth's magnetic field depended upon that spin and how thunderballs could form and exist in a quasi-stable state, simply because they were spheres of aether set spinning and slowly dissipating their energy by ionization of coextensive air. The paper was duly published in the conference proceedings [1983a].

I well knew that an angular force, a turning effect, could be set up to act on the aether, either by developing a radial electric field about a spin axis or by configuring two or more current circuits to assert electrodynamic linear forces acting on the aether but offset from that spin axis so as to develop a couple. A single current loop will not exert a turning effect. Indeed, that was the essential fact that had led me in the late 1950s to derive the law of electrodynamics that was in accord with the law of gravitation.

However, I have to applaud Marinov for his valiant effort in applying this apparent breach of Newton's Third Law to the construction of a demonstrable motor. It was, in a sense, merely a version of the physics involved in that Nature article by Graham and Lahoz, but it was presented more boldly as a theme setting the stage for controversy in the context of new technology which defies orthodox physical law.

His motor used a plurality (four) offset wire loops and provided for circuit closure through a capacitative segment in each of the loops which was radial to the motor spin axis. Out-of-balance for acting on a radial arm means a turning effect and hence rotation. The dielectric used was barium titanate, which has a very high dielectric constant, thereby allowing the current path through the dielectric to be large enough for the field interaction to involve the aether in a significant reaction. Power frequency was used and the circuit was designed to provide resonant tuning at that frequency. However, even then, with that use of barium titanate, to use his own words on p. 131 of his book, Marinov's resulting 'Rotating Ampere Bridge' motor, with 50 Hz a.c. voltage input of 220 V and a current of 9 A, Marinov was only:

"able to set the bridge in slow motion of one revolution in a couple of seconds."

His 'motor' was essentially a means for demonstrating that rotation by asserting a push on the aether is possible, seemingly in defiance of the law that requires action to balance reaction, but so far as I see that law must hold true for electrodynamic actions given that it can only having meaning if applied to a complete system, one which recognizes the aether as part of that system. Physicists err, however, if they ignore the aether and think that fields produced by matter are some kind of extension rigidly attached to matter, rather than being a conditional state impressed on the aether and causing it to react by storing the energy involved.

I would, however, venture to say that a very substantial unbalance of angular momentum, as between aether and matter, can occur if the action developing aether spin is that of a radial electric field such as I see in the induction of thunderballs and the spin induced in astronomical bodies by initial coalescence of protons ahead of the neutralizing electrons. That offers greater promise in 'new energy' technology than what has been described by Marinov. Those radial electric fields can be induced in homopolar machines but there is something eluding those who work in that field and the subject warrants more research.

In conclusion, you may wish to refer now to Research Note 15/97 which I added to these web pages shortly after Marinov's decease and which, albeit by repeating some the above, will enlighten you further on the aspects not relating specifically to the motor topic.

November 16, 1998 Harold Aspden