The geometry is defined in Figure(1), and in general the gyroscope’s point is allowed to move with respect to the centre of the earth. So the point can move up or down. The analytical problem reduces to the simultaneous solution of four differential equations, (17) to (19) and (32). The first three are the same as in UFT368, for the pure rotational motion of the gyro. They are supplemneted by Eq. (32) for the motion of R, where R is he distance between the point of hte gyro and the centre of the Earth. Eq. (32) is the necessary link between rotational and translation motions of the gyro. In the replicated Laithwaite experiment the point of the gyro (the common origins of (1, 2, 3) and (X, Y, Z)) is held at the height of Laithwaite’s arm.

a369thpapernotes1.pdf

On 24/1/17 the equivalent of 62,193 printed pages was downloaded from 1835 downloaded memory files (hits) and 491 distinct visits. On 25/1/17 the equivalent of 61,884 printed pages was downloaded from 1693 downloaded memory files (hits) and 403 distinct visits each averaging 2.9 memor ypages and 5 minutes, printed pages to hits ratios respectively of 33.89 and 36.55, main spiders Google, MSN and Yahoo. Top ten referring domains 2,203,652 on 25/1/17, w 1447. Collected ECE2 980, Top ten 940, Evans Morris 825(est), Collected scientometrics 535, Barddoniaeth 388, Principles of ECE 237, F3(Sp) 171, Eckardt / Lindstrom 129, Autobiography volumes one and two 124, PECE 122, Collected proofs 104, Evans Equations 101(est), UFT88 87, ECE2 73, Engineering Model 51, CEFE 42, Self charging inverter 32, Llais 28, UFT321 27, UFT311 25, UFT313 24, UFT314 20, UFT315 14, UFT316 14, UFT317 20, UFT318 14, UFT319 26, UFT320 17, UFT322 22, UFT323 21, UFT324 18, UFT325 19, UFT326 19, UFT327 15, UFT328 20, UFT329 19, UFT330 14, UFT331 16, UFT332 18, UFT333 17, UFT334 14, UFT335 17, UFT336 16, UFT337 10, UFT338 16, UFT339 9, UFT340 13, UFT341 14, UFT342 11, UFT343 21, UFT344 19, UFT345 15, UFT346 14, UFT347 16, UFT348 16, UFT349 19, UFT351 16, UFT352 25, UFT353 11, UFT354 31, UFT355 30, UFT356 24, UFT357 12, UFT358 17, UFT359 14, UFT360 9, UFT361 10, UFT362 13, UFT363 19, UFT364 23, UFT365 21, UFT366 73, UFT367 25 to date in January 2017. City of Winnipeg UFT section, Royal Canadian Mint Levitron; University of Waterloo UFT177; EPH Electronics Switzerland Space Energy; Univeristy of Havana Cuba UFT167(Sp); Department of Optics Palacky University Czechia general; Deusu search engine general; National Space Science and Technology Center University of Huntsville Alabama UFT142; Helsinki Institute of Physics UFT142; University of Lorraine France UFT142; University of REnnes 1 EEC Article; United States Army Research Laboratory Fundmanetal Errors in the Einstein Theory; Mexican National Library for Science and Technology, National Institute of Physics Circuit Resonance Parameters (Sp); Rzeszow Polytechnic Poland general; Physics Chalmers University Sweden My Page; St Edmund’s College Cambridge UFT2. Intense interest all sectors, updated usage file attached for January 2017.

Unauthorized

This server could not verify that you are authorized to access the document requested. Either you supplied the wrong credentials (e.g., bad password), or your browser doesn’t understand how to supply the credentials required.

Additionally, a 401 Unauthorized error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

This is UFT368 Sections 1 and 2 on the analytical mechanics of the gyroscope. The Laithwaite condition is defined in equation (41).

a368thpaper.pdf

a368thpapernotes1.pdf

a368thpapernotes2.pdf

a368thpapernotes3.pdf

a368thpapernotes4.pdf

a368thpapernotes5.pdf

a368thpapernotes6.pdf

a368thpapernotes7.pdf

a368thpapernotes8.pdf

Many thanks to the UPITEC President, Dr. Horst Eckardt. I will study this part of Maxwell in detail. I think that the problem has already been solved however in UFT311, 321 and 364. The energy from spacetime circuits are repeatable and reproducible and ready for mass production. The circuit is described exactly in UFT311 by a suitable spin connection. In UFT364 it is shown to be repeatable, and is also reproducible.

cc Dr. Lorenzo Santini

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 25/01/2017 14:47:10 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: ECE and Maxwell

This hint where Maxwell proposes coupling terms between electrical and mechanical kinetic energy is quite interesting. Perhaps any AIAS member can look into the original text, I do not have the time currently. The effect of spin connections for extracting energy from the vacuum is a bit tricky because these show up only in cases where discontinuities in fields are present (see Lindstrom-Eckardt papers). Perhaps Maxwell should have investigated such a case experimentally.

Horst

Am 25.01.2017 um 14:54 schrieb EMyrone:

Dear Dr. Santini,

Thank you for your kind and very interesting comments comments. I considered a lagrangian approach in UFT6. As you know it is possible to derive the Maxwell Heaviside field equations from a lagrangian, and also to derive the Proca equation for finite photon mass. The Poynting Theorem is also changed in ECE theory, and I will carefully consider your reference to Maxwell. It depends on how the interaction of fields with the circuit is developed by Maxwell. In general we look for effects that are not present in the standard model. In UFT311 and UFT364 the ECE theory is used to describe a circuit that takes energy from spacetime. The circuit is reproducible and repeatable. As you know, Maxwell used Hamilton’s quaternions and produced an intricate set of equations which were made practicable by Heaviside, whose contribution was as important as that of Maxwell. I will ask the AIAS / UPITEC team to look at your reference to Maxwell in order to see whether we can translate Maxwell’s language to spin connections. In my opinion circuits such as these are the only means of trying to safeguard energy production for humankind.

Cordially Yours,

Myron Evans

To: EMyrone
Sent: 25/01/2017 09:40:30 GMT Standard Time
Subj: ECE and Maxwell

Dear Professor Evans,

let me first congratulate with the outcomes of your ECE theory. You succeeded in unifying thru the beauty and elegance of geometry what the Orthodox scientific establishment, lost in dogmatic XVII century-like positions, was unable to do for a hundred years.

You wrote at the beginning of your ECE theory book: “Everything is cool and in the light of reason, everything is geometry”.

Now I would add: “…everything is geometry and energy”. As far as I have understood Einstein general relativity theory needs energy in any case to create the geometrically curved space-time.

In similar manner the twisted Cartan space-time of electromagnetism is created by the energy of the “vacuum”.

Being an engineer I’m mostly attracted by the practical applications of your revolutionary theory and especially by the possibility to extract energy from the vacuum.

The existence of devices capable of performing this kind of energy conversion has already been solidly demonstrated and only the blind scientific establishment (and the industries, but for other reasons) is still denying its very existence. But this is not so much important, the time will judge where is the truth.

You magisterially showed that MH equations need an improvement and some missing terms need to be introduced once the spin connection is taken into account. In particular the electric field strength need the addition of two more terms connected with the vector and scalar field connections, while the magnetic flux density needs the addition of one more them function of the vector spin connection. The introduction of such terms allow solution of the equations with resonances with the space-time, thus justifying the possibility to extract power from the vacuum.

After reading your above achievements, I decided to go back to Maxwell’s 1873 treatise and especially to that genial part where he sorts out his equations from Lagrange’s equations.

I’m sure that you must know better than me the path followed by Maxwell, but I would like to direct your attention on a detail: Maxwell, while is deriving a general expression for the total energy associated to the EMG interaction between circuits, in chapter 6 of part 4 of the Treatise asks himself if there exist a mixed term of the kinetic energy containing the product of the velocities of two coordinates of which one is x (associated to mechanical movement of circuits) and the other is y (associated with currents).

He later on sets up two experiments that demonstrate that such a mixed term of the kinetic energy seems not existing and so they will not be part of the final equations.

Now I’ve not yet been able to demonstrate it, but I’m convinced that such term neglected by Maxwell is exactly related to the spin connection (vector and scalar) that brings to your ECE upgraded Maxwell equations on electric field strength and magnetic flux density. I just think that Maxwell experimental apparatus was not perfect enough in order to detect such “second order” effects that maybe will save the world in the incoming years.

Please give me your opinion on this point, I think it could be worth one day in the future to show this neglected aspect of Maxwell theory.

At the end Maxwell equations come from an application of Lagrange’s equations, i.e. an approach based on energy and geometry that neglects any hidden and intimate mechanism of the nature of the ether/vacuum. I think, at least in this aspect, ECE and Maxwell theories are very similar.

All the best for the future success of your marvelous baby.

Regards

Lorenzo Santini

Project Manager

Mochovce Nuclear Power Plant

Enel Ingegneria e Ricerca Spa – Nucleare / Seconded to Slovenské elektrarne, a.s.

3. a 4. blok Eléktrarne Mochovce, zavod

935 39 Mochovce, Slovak Republic

T +421 366 378 654

M +421 911 442 421

lorenzo.santini

OK many thanks, the method allows for any lab frame torque, not only the gravitational torque, so the kind of torque used by Laithwaite can be simulated. The net effect of his torque was to lift the gyro to the height of his outstretched arm, so its net effect can be simulated with a simple force in the plus Z direction in addition to the force generated by the gyro itself.. Also a force due to the convective derivative can also be added. So I will now write up Sections 1 and 2. The Euler angle analysis of the gyro is exceedingly complicated, there may never have been a complete Euler angle solution prior to this work. The coding of molecular dynamics computer simulation algorithms such as TETRA (complete FORTRAN code on www.aias.us) may have used an equivalent method using a different way to relate frame (1, 2, 3) to frame (X, Y, Z). I computed cross correlations between rotation and translation in both frames (Omnia Opera circa 1976 to circa 1993). The Evans / Pelkie animation on youtube shows that the code worked perfectly and shows what is in effect the motion of 108 gyro’s interacting with pairwise additive Lennard- Jones atom atom potentials.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 25/01/2017 14:50:27 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Writing Up UFT368

The numerical solution of the Lagrange equations seems to be valid. I will still check the latest notes in more detail and describe the solution with some graphics in section 3. We will have to discern cases with

L_psi>L_phi, L_psi<L_phi etc.

as is described in M&T.

Horst

Am 25.01.2017 um 14:33 schrieb EMyrone:

I will proceed to writing up UFT368 Sections 1 and 2 – the first complete solution of the gyroscope problem. The motion is exceedingly rich and intricate, and in general the general solution allows any kind of additional lab frame torque to be considered. In addition to these dynamics, a vacuum induced torque can also be considered by considering the convective derivative of angular momentum.

Many thanks, in the medium term all nuclear power plants could also start producing energy from spacetime circuits, which would gradually take over from them. Similarly for goal and gas plants, and of course, wind turbines.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 25/01/2017 15:21:40 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: ECE and Maxwell

This is very encouraging. Santini is project manager at the Mochovce Nuclear Power Plant. It is the largest private investment in the history of Slovakia and is the longest running nuclear construction project anywhere in Europe I believe. This is a very important acknowledgement from Santini of the significance of your work Myron so congratulations. Slowly but surely…….

Sent from my Samsung device

Dear Dr. Santini,

Thank you for your kind and very interesting comments comments. I considered a lagrangian approach in UFT6. As you know it is possible to derive the Maxwell Heaviside field equations from a lagrangian, and also to derive the Proca equation for finite photon mass. The Poynting Theorem is also changed in ECE theory, and I will carefully consider your reference to Maxwell. It depends on how the interaction of fields with the circuit is developed by Maxwell. In general we look for effects that are not present in the standard model. In UFT311 and UFT364 the ECE theory is used to describe a circuit that takes energy from spacetime. The circuit is reproducible and repeatable. As you know, Maxwell used Hamilton’s quaternions and produced an intricate set of equations which were made practicable by Heaviside, whose contribution was as important as that of Maxwell. I will ask the AIAS / UPITEC team to look at your reference to Maxwell in order to see whether we can translate Maxwell’s language to spin connections. In my opinion circuits such as these are the only means of trying to safeguard energy production for humankind.

Cordially Yours,

Myron Evans

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 25/01/2017 09:40:30 GMT Standard Time
Subj: ECE and Maxwell

Dear Professor Evans,

let me first congratulate with the outcomes of your ECE theory. You succeeded in unifying thru the beauty and elegance of geometry what the Orthodox scientific establishment, lost in dogmatic XVII century-like positions, was unable to do for a hundred years.

You wrote at the beginning of your ECE theory book: “Everything is cool and in the light of reason, everything is geometry”.

Now I would add: “…everything is geometry and energy”. As far as I have understood Einstein general relativity theory needs energy in any case to create the geometrically curved space-time.

In similar manner the twisted Cartan space-time of electromagnetism is created by the energy of the “vacuum”.

Being an engineer I’m mostly attracted by the practical applications of your revolutionary theory and especially by the possibility to extract energy from the vacuum.

The existence of devices capable of performing this kind of energy conversion has already been solidly demonstrated and only the blind scientific establishment (and the industries, but for other reasons) is still denying its very existence. But this is not so much important, the time will judge where is the truth.

You magisterially showed that MH equations need an improvement and some missing terms need to be introduced once the spin connection is taken into account. In particular the electric field strength need the addition of two more terms connected with the vector and scalar field connections, while the magnetic flux density needs the addition of one more them function of the vector spin connection. The introduction of such terms allow solution of the equations with resonances with the space-time, thus justifying the possibility to extract power from the vacuum.

After reading your above achievements, I decided to go back to Maxwell’s 1873 treatise and especially to that genial part where he sorts out his equations from Lagrange’s equations.

I’m sure that you must know better than me the path followed by Maxwell, but I would like to direct your attention on a detail: Maxwell, while is deriving a general expression for the total energy associated to the EMG interaction between circuits, in chapter 6 of part 4 of the Treatise asks himself if there exist a mixed term of the kinetic energy containing the product of the velocities of two coordinates of which one is x (associated to mechanical movement of circuits) and the other is y (associated with currents).

He later on sets up two experiments that demonstrate that such a mixed term of the kinetic energy seems not existing and so they will not be part of the final equations.

Now I’ve not yet been able to demonstrate it, but I’m convinced that such term neglected by Maxwell is exactly related to the spin connection (vector and scalar) that brings to your ECE upgraded Maxwell equations on electric field strength and magnetic flux density. I just think that Maxwell experimental apparatus was not perfect enough in order to detect such “second order” effects that maybe will save the world in the incoming years.

Please give me your opinion on this point, I think it could be worth one day in the future to show this neglected aspect of Maxwell theory.

At the end Maxwell equations come from an application of Lagrange’s equations, i.e. an approach based on energy and geometry that neglects any hidden and intimate mechanism of the nature of the ether/vacuum. I think, at least in this aspect, ECE and Maxwell theories are very similar.

All the best for the future success of your marvelous baby.

Regards

Lorenzo Santini

Project Manager

Mochovce Nuclear Power Plant

Enel Ingegneria e Ricerca Spa – Nucleare / Seconded to Slovenské elektrarne, a.s.

3. a 4. blok Eléktrarne Mochovce, zavod

935 39 Mochovce, Slovak Republic

T +421 366 378 654

M +421 911 442 421

lorenzo.santini

I will proceed to writing up UFT368 Sections 1 and 2 – the first complete solution of the gyroscope problem. The motion is exceedingly rich and intricate, and in general the general solution allows any kind of additional lab frame torque to be considered. In addition to these dynamics, a vacuum induced torque can also be considered by considering the convective derivative of angular momentum.

In this note it is shown that a gyroscope can be weightless under condition (40). The three torques in frame (1, 2, 3) of the principal moments of inertia can be worked out from the Euler angles as shown. This is to complicated to be done by hand, but can be done by computer algebra. The torque magnitudes in frames (1, 2, 3) and the lab frame (X, Y, Z) are related by Eq. (28). As is well known, the gyro does not fall over because it generates an upward force which can be defined in terms of the torques of frame (1, 2, 3) as in Eq. (32). Finally, in certain configurations such as that demonstrated by Laithwaite, the gyro appears weightless. This is very useful in mecahnical engineering and probably in aerospace engineering.

a368thpapernotes8.pdf

The torques in the (1, 2, 3) and (X, Y, Z) frames can all be computed from the Euler angle trajectories, so it should be possible to computer simulate the Laithwaite experiment exactly. It is clear that the force due to gravitation is countered by a force due to the gyro, which is a spinning disk on an arm. The arm is horizontal and fixed to a point. Laithwaite holds it at that point. It then appears to be weightless because the internal force it generates is equal and opposite to the force of gravitation on its centre of mass. Before going further however, Eqs. (5) to (7) of Note 368(6) should be checked by computer algebra if this has not already been done.

In a message dated 24/01/2017 20:47:50 GMT Standard Time, writes:

The followin situation is possible, depending on angular momentum constants: In the case m-m1=0 the precession angle phi oscillates around zero, i.e. there is no precession in one direction. However, Laithwait swung the gyro around his body, he could have added an additional torque in this case.

Horst

Am 24.01.2017 um 10:26 schrieb EMyrone:

The nutation and precession of a weightless gyroscope is given by solving Eqs. (10) to (12) simultaneously. So this is the type of motion observed by Laithwaite. A force has been applied in the positive Z axis of the lab frame to counter the force of gravitation.