THE

“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

1




THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”



by




Anonymous, Ph.d’s. *



"Can we learn to think in 4-dimensions? This, and negative time, involve dreaming of the
wildest sort, with no support whatsoever as yet from anything we see or record on our delicate
instruments.”
Vannevar Bush,
March 2, 1967



"Gentlemen,.... we are facing a crises such as the world has never seen before [WWI], and until
the Situation clears, the best thing we can do is to devise some scheme for overcoming the
submarines, and that is what I am doing now. (Applause)"
______________
* Ph. d’s who wish to remain anonymous
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS



ABSTRACT _________________________________________________________________ 4
RADAR AND ROTATING FIELDS ______________________________________________ 6
INTRODUCTION _______________________________________________________________________ 6
Why Tesla? _____________________________________________________________________________ 7
Polyphase Currents and Rotating Fields _____________________________________________________ 7
Tesla’s Reflections on Radar and Ships Wrapped in Coils of Wire________________________________ 9
Radar _________________________________________________________________________________ 11
Sommerfeld on Electromagnetic Stealth During WW-II _______________________________________ 12
Ferromagnetic Radar Absorbing Material __________________________________________________ 13
Magnetically-Biased Radar Camouflage ____________________________________________________ 15
TABLE I – Electrical Specifications ___________________________________________________ 16
Small Scale Laboratory Experimental Verification _______________________________________ 23
CONCLUSION _________________________________________________________________________ 24
THE EXPERIMENTAL PLATFORM ___________________________________________ 26
Practical Information About Destroyer Escorts ______________________________________________ 26
Shipboard Degaussing Installations ________________________________________________________ 27
CORRELATION WITH THE MOORE-BERLITZ BOOK ___________________________ 28
“The Philadelphia Experiment” ___________________________________________________________ 28
Carl M. Allan ___________________________________________________________________________ 28
Commander X __________________________________________________________________________ 28
Resonant Magnification __________________________________________________________________ 28
Dr. R. F. Rinehart _______________________________________________________________________ 29
Dr. Valentine ___________________________________________________________________________ 29
OBSERVABLE RAMIFICATIONS _____________________________________________ 30
Phenomenological Effects ________________________________________________________________ 30
Low Frequency Magnetohydrodynamics in Salt Water: ___________________________________ 30
Biological (Physiological) Effects___________________________________________________________ 32
Let us zero in on perceptual effects, which we would expect under such circumstances: _________ 32
Summary Remarks - Leading To Another Question __________________________________________ 34
TORSION TENSOR CONJECTURE ____________________________________________ 35
Spin, Torsion, and a Crinkled Space-Time __________________________________________________ 35
Relation of Gyromagnetic Phenomena to the Production of Torsion _____________________________ 35
Torsion and the Anholonomic Object _______________________________________________________ 36
Spin and Torsion ________________________________________________________________________ 41
Spin ______________________________________________________________________________ 41
Quantum mechanical spin ____________________________________________________________ 41
A Short History of Successful Unified Field Theory Applications ________________________________ 43
Spin and Magnetism _____________________________________________________________________ 46
Torsion and the Electromagnetic Field ______________________________________________________ 47
A Sagnac Effect Experiment ______________________________________________________________ 48
Aharonov-Bohm Effect __________________________________________________________________ 49
An Aharonov-Bohm Torsion Experiment ___________________________________________________ 52
Speculations on Torsion and Time Discontinuities ____________________________________________ 52
CONCLUDING REMARKS ______________________________________________________________ 53
FINAL CONCLUSIONS ______________________________________________________ 54
APPENDIX I _______________________________________________________________ 55
Surface Impedance for a Ferromagnetic Planar Slab __________________________________________ 55
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

3
The Ferromagnetic Anisotropic Permeability Tensor__________________________________________ 55
Electromagnetic Waves in an Anisotropic Ferromagnetic Medium ______________________________ 58
The Anisotropic Surface Impedance Tensor _________________________________________________ 61
APPENDIX II ______________________________________________________________ 63
An Electrical Model for the DE 173 ________________________________________________________ 63
A Series Resonant Coil Driver _____________________________________________________________ 64
The Anti-Resonant Current Magnifier*** ___________________________________________________ 64
Resonant Current-Magnification __________________________________________________________ 66
CONCLUSIONS ________________________________________________________________________ 67
APPENDIX III ______________________________________________________________ 69
Peripheral Items of Interest _______________________________________________________________ 69
Additional References ___________________________________________________________________ 69
APPENDIX IV * ____________________________________________________________ 80
The Philadelphia Experiment: Some Loose Ends _____________________________________________ 80
Electrostatically-Biased Radar Camouflage _____________________________________________ 80
On the Role of T. Townsend Brown ____________________________________________________ 80
Hoax Allegations ____________________________________________________________________ 81
Witness Edward Dudgeon ________________________________________________________ 81
Vallee's Tactic __________________________________________________________________ 83
A Tragic Error _________________________________________________________________ 83
Which Version of Einstein’s Unified Field Theory should be used? ______________________________ 84
The Source of the Idea _______________________________________________________________ 84
Some Background Information ________________________________________________________ 85
Unified Field Theories by Einstein _________________________________________________________ 85
Einstein's Search for UFT Experiments in the 1920's __________________________________________ 89
Why are these Unified Field Theories of Interest Today? ______________________________________ 90
SUMMARY ____________________________________________________________________________ 91
CONCLUSION _________________________________________________________________________ 91
REFERENCES _____________________________________________________________ 92

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

4

ABSTRACT


In this paper we follow the thread leading from Tesla’s spinning "Egg of Columbus"
demonstration, through his proposal of a large rectangular helix disposed about the hull of a ship
for U-boat detection, to Arnold Sommerfeld’s discussion of magnetically biased ferrite’s
creating electromagnetic stealth for WW-II submarines. By calculation, the required magnetic
field to reduce a ship's radar reflection to less dm 1%, at L-Band (1.5) GHz, is in excess of
15,000 A/m. Fields of this order of magnitude would appear to fulfill the requirements of a
"Philadelphia Experiment". Such intense fields would create a green mist and cavities in salt
water, and magnetophosphenes and Purkinje patterns in humans, particularly if driven at
frequencies in the range of 10 - 125 Hz, as was available from the synchronous generators on
WW-II electric drive ships. It can be concluded that with the knowledge available, the DSRB
(under Vannevar Bush) would have been derelict not to have conducted such an experiment.

Finally, we present speculation on temporal bifurcation’s. Assuming Hehl's hypothesis
that localized Cartan Torsion tensors are generated by ferromagnetic spin, we propose two
physical experiments, which distinguish temporal anisotropy arising from anholonomity (the
Sagnac effect) from that arising in the torsion of the 1929 version of the unified field
(Eddington’s "crinkled manifold").





Disclaimer
This paper stands unique among our publications both on Tesla and on the conventional aspects of
electromagnetism and relativity. In this regard it is partly speculative. (And, only partially at that, since we report
on some of our experimental findings that can be verified by independent laboratory examination). Before wading
too deep into a controversial subject like that before us, it is common for respectable folk to acknowledge their
limitations. We need to make some kind of professional "disclaimer". Let us express it this way: we offer this little
study in the spirit of an engineer and some physicists having some fun [in the sense of Arthur Eddington,
(1) (2)

Joseph Slepian,
(3)
Jearl Walker,
(4)**
Edwin Abbot,
(5)
George Gamow,
(6)
or even Arthur C. Clark], looking at
published statements, attempting to stay within the bounds of engineering technical propriety, and saying, "What if
... ?" Since the theoretical analyses make specific physical predictions, it follows that our assertions can be
experimentally examined by disinterested (but technically qualified) third parties, and that we haven’t strayed too
far from the scientific method in our amusing pastime. Taken in that spirit, our passing entertainment should also
provide recreational diversion for skeptics, grad students, the lunatic fringe, engineers, and men of honor.
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

5















































_______________
* Slepian wrote a delightful series of "Electrical Essays" for engineers. Start with the one cited and read either forward or backward several
years.
** Walker wrote about physics problems, "I am not so interested in how many you can answer as I am in getting you to worry over them."
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

6

RADAR AND ROTATING FIELDS


INTRODUCTION
During the 1992 International Tesla Symposium, the authors took the opportunity to once again visit the
site of Tesla’s Colorado Springs laboratory and nearby Prospect Lake, where many of Tesla’s experiments were
conducted in 1899. While walking around the Monument in War Memorial Park our conversation turned to the
book by William Moore and Charles Berlitz on the Philadelphia Experiment. A colleague at Battelle had introduced
us to the story in fall of 1989. One of the presentations at the last ITS Symposium concerning the topic, and as we
walked we began to ponder out loud how we might rationally and explain such an experiment.

The following is the result of our reveries:

The world of magnetics, today is extremely complex. During the 1940's and 50's high field magnetics
became "big physics", and it would be impossible for the authors in this small space to even attempt a modem
analysis of this topic. Instead, we believe that there is some merit to employing the sort of physical arguments, both
classical and relativistic, that would have been available by scientists of the decade preceding the Philadelphia
Experiment. This is not a discussion of anything even remotely like the Navy’s new "Sea Shadow”.
(7)


It has been asserted that the initial Philadelphia Experiment took place "sometime between July 20
th
and
August 20, 1943."
(8)
Simply put: in the experiment(s) a big coil of wire was wrapped around a large ship, the
ship became invisible in a foggy green mist, and a lot of people on board were hurt. (Some thought they went
through a rip in the fabric of the space-time continuum, were teleported from the Philadelphia shipyards to
Norfolk Virginia, and saw alien humanoids). The respected names identified with the experiment include:

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
* Rudolph Ladenburg (1882-1952)
John Von Neumann (1903-1957)
David Hilbert (1862-1943), (John Von Neumann’s Gottingen dissertation advisor)
Nikola Tesla (1856-January 7, 1943),
Oswald Veblin (1880-1960),
Burtrand Russell (1872-1970),
Gabriel Kron (1901-1968),
Vannevar Bush (1890-1974)

As well as, a host of other recognized men of renown, whose common interest seems to include, among other
things, a historical association with things of interest to the Navy, and submarine detection in particular. The
Department of the Navy has officially identified the experiment as mythical, having its genesis in a 1955 book on
UFO’s,
(9)
not Naval science.
(10)
Perhaps the story really was mythological. However, if that's the case, then our
hats are off to the brilliant scientists that spun this gossamer web of fantasy for no ordinary laymen could have done
it.


_______________
* Einstein served as a consultant for the R&D Division of the US Navy Bureau of Ordnance from May 31, 1943 ~ June 30,1946.
Interestingly, according to the FBI, Einstein file [QC 16 ESU55; OCLC #13720407; Title #3892869], Einstein was in Philadelphia during
the time of the alleged Philadelphia Experiment. (On the evening of August 10, 1943 he spoke before the Philadelphia section of the
"Friends of Soviet Russia".)
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

7

Why Tesla?
It is now common knowledge that Tesla had attempted to market his radio controlled craft (the
"telautomaton"; Patent* 613,809) to the US Navy.**
(11)

(12)
Tesla was the first to advocate the electric drive for
naval vessels.
(13)
He was the first to suggest that electric drive war ships could be used in peacetime to supply
shore power during emergencies.
(14)
(They were, of course; See the comments below). And, as is evident from
Tesla’s quote at the top of this article, he was again dealing with the Navy during World War I. It was during this
time that he met in Washington with Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Roosevelt's mentor, Josephus Daniels, was Secretary of the Navy.*** (It was also during this time that
adversity professor and future Director of OSRD (Office of Scientific Research and Development), Vannevar Bush,
was just starting research on submarine detection for the Navy.) From Tesla’s files, we know that a few years later,
during 1929, the Navy in Philadelphia (specifically John B. Flowers, Electrical Engineer), was examining Tesla’s
work. Anderson has noted that, "Tesla was engaged... at the E.G. Budd Mfg. Co. in Philadelphia from 1925 ~
1926."
(15)
And, we also know that when Tesla died in 1943, Naval Intelligence officers accompanied NIT EE
Professor John G. Trump (a Bush colleague also in the employ of OSRD), as he secretly examined Tesla’s papers.

We think that not only can the Philadelphia Experiment be tracked to statements, which Tesla published during
World War I, and were grasped by men like Bush, but that the physics of the experiment can actually be traced back
to Tesla’s invention of the rotating magnetic field. Furthermore, to us there appears be a legitimate link between
Tesla’s rotating fields and the Torsion tensor, which appears in Einstein’s 1927-29 Unified Field Theory
publications. This connection was first identified and published by Gabriel Kron at GE (Schenectady) during the
1930's.

Return with us now to 1887 and Tesla’s first rotating field patent (#381,968; Applied for October 12, 1887; Issued
May 1, 1888).


Polyphase Currents and Rotating Fields
The creation of the rotating magnetic field was "purely the work of scientific imagination". It has been
identified as the greatest creation of the human mind since the invention of the wheel. Tesla’s discovery of
polyphase currents and “an invisible wheel made of nothing but a magnetic field" (the phrase is due to Reginald
Kapp)
(16)
this was the turning point from the past, into the 20
th
century. Tesla stands at the focal point of the
important electrical discoveries of the 20
th
century. At the conferral of the AIEE’s highest award of honor, B.A.
Behrend remarked;

"Were we to seize and to eliminate from our industrial world the results of Mr. Tesla’s work, the wheels
of industry would cease to turn, our electric cars and turns would stop, our towns would be dark, our
mills would be dead and idle."
(17)





_____________
* For which Tesla has been identified as the Father of robotics.
** In 1916 Tesla said, "I vainly attempted to persuade them to accept. I perfected the machine in 1898, and tried everything in my power,
to have it adopted... After the patent expired a few months ago Congress appropriated [$750,000] and I have now the pleasure of
simply looking on while others are using my inventions, which I could not persuade people to adopt. This is usually so." [Anderson,
1992, pg. 19.] "I tried to persuade the Navy... it was absolutely impossible to find listeners..." [Anderson, 1992, pg. 158.1
*** Both Daniels and FDR advocated absolute legal control of the electromagnetic spectrum by the Navy.
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

8
When Tesla died in 1943, Yale University EE professor Charles F. Scott observed;

"The evolution of electric power from the discovery of Faraday in 1831 to the initial great installation of
the Tesla’s polyphase system in 1896 is 'undoubtedly the most tremendous event in all engineering
history."
(18)

And, the connection to the relativity of rotation (an issue still not put to rest today) was not overlooked: Yale
physicist Leigh Page once said;

"The rotating armatures of every generator and every motor in this age of electricity are steadily
proclaiming the truth of the relativity theory to all who have ears to hear.”
(19)


Let us follow this central thread that runs through Tesla’s professional career back to its origin.

While Tesla had constructed the first rotating field apparatus in the summer of 1883 (one year before both
he, and the Statue of Liberty, arrived from France), it was not until 1887 that a company was formed to exploit the
phenomenon. However, Tesla was unable to raise capital to commercially introduce his invention. (The enterprise
was 'undercapitalized.) He finally found a skeptical Wall Street lawyer that was somewhat interested, and this is the
conversation as Tesla retells it.

Tesla: "Do you know the story of the Egg of Columbus? ... Well, what if I could make
an egg stand on the pointed end without cracking the shell?"* "If you could do this we would admit that
you had gone Columbus one better." "And would you be willing to go out of your way as much as
Isabella?" "We have no crown jewels to pawn," said the lawyer, who was a wit, "but there are a few
ducats in our buckskins and we might help you to an extent."
(20)


Tesla arranged for a demonstration the next day. He placed a copper-plated egg on a wooden plate above his
rotating magnetic field (there is a photograph of the apparatus in the Secor article). As soon as the windings were
energized the egg began to spin. [Tesla’s spinning egg is, in fact, a macroscopic analog of the Einstein-de Haas
effect investigated almost thirty years later. The materials in Einstein’s WWI experiments spin because of
molecular 'amperian currents' (although later Einstein did suggest using a high frequency ‘rotating magnetic fields’
to Barnett). In Tesla’s experiments they spin because of induced eddy currents. [See part V below]

“... to their astonishment, it stood on end, but when they found that it was rapidly spinning their
stupefaction was complete*... No sooner had they regained their composure than Tesla was delighted with
their question 'Do you want any money?'... That started the ball rolling. Tens of millions of horsepower of
Tesla induction motors are now in use all over the world and their production is rising like a flood...
Rotating fields of 15,000 horsepower are now being turned out... and ship propulsion by Tesla’s electric
drive which, according to Secretary of the Navy Daniels' statement, has proved a great success."
(21)


The electrical circuit, which Tesla employed for the egg of Columbus used two phase AC energizing the coils in
quadrature and the source frequency was varied from 25 to 300 cycles, "the best results being obtained with
currents from 35 to 40 cycles."** The story was also mentioned in Fleming’s eulogy of Tesla.
(22)





_____________
* As Columbus had done when getting Queen Isabella to pawn her jewels for three ships to sail in





THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

9
In 1893, 6 years after demonstrating the egg of Columbus to the attorneys and business investors in New York, a
large egg demonstration was constructed for Tesla by Albert Schmid and Charles R Scott, at the time both of
Westinghouse. (Scott, subsequently an EE professor at Yale, served as President of both the AIEE and, later, the
IRE.) The egg occupied part of the Westinghouse exhibit in the Electricity Building at the great Chicago Worlds
Fair. The 1893 Fair celebrated the 500
th
anniversary of Columbus' discovery of the New World and, ostensibly, it
was intended to launch society into the 20
th
century. There is a photograph of Tesla’s exhibit in the Martin book.
(23)

This was only a few months before Lord Kelvin was to choose the Tesla polyphase system for Niagara Falls, and 3
years before the first Niagara Falls plant was turned on.

While Tesla had been active in RF generation in the early 1890's, the close of the decade saw him making
great strides in the realm of high voltage RF power processing. These experiments culminated in a cluster of patent
applications and the construction of the Wardenclyffe laboratory. Mention should also be made of his turbine
development and intense engineering consulting practice just prior to WW-I. From the comments above it is clear
that he was actively promoting his patented ideas.


Tesla’s Reflections on Radar and Ships Wrapped in Coils of Wire
Just after receiving the AIEE’s Edison medal (May 18, 1917), Nikola Tesla granted an interview to H. W.
Secor of the Electrical Experimenter magazine. (Secor’s article was published in August of 1917.) The topic of
discussion turned to the detection of German U-boats (U-boat = Unterseeboot = submarine), which had caused so
much distress to the allies. The United States had entered the war in April of 1917. Tesla’s concerns centered
around the detection of submarines, in particular the possibility of non-ferrous hull detection. Listen as, filtered by
the pen of a journalist, Tesla narrates the electrical preparation of the ship:

"Now, suppose that we erect on a vessel, a large rectangular helix or an inductance coil of insulated wire.
Actual experiments in my laboratory at Houston Street (New York City), have proven that the presence of a
local iron mass, such as the ship's hull, would not interfere with the actions of this device. To this coil of
wire, measuring perhaps 400 feet in length by 70 feet in width (the length and breadth of the ship*) we
connect a source of extremely high frequency and very powerful oscillating current.”
(24)


We think that Vannevar Bush was aware of this suggestion, and it is our thesis that these words are the seed that
later blossomed as the "Philadelphia Experiment". The article then goes on to describe an RF technique, which
subsequently became quite popular (though not on such a grand scale) for metal detectors and for tuning the
reactance of RF coils in transmitters and receivers. Upon further prodding by Secor, Tesla discussed a high peak
power microwave radar for operation at wavelengths” ... of but a few millimeters". (X-Band radar at 10 GHz has a
wavelength of 30 mm.)

Tesla desired that the ship be able to provide sufficient electrical power, and he states this in the interview;
"The average ship has available from say 10,000 to 15,000 HP.... The electric energy would be taken from the
ship's plant for a fraction of a minute only, being absorbed at a tremendous rate by suitable condensers and other
apparatus, from which it could be liberated at any rate desired."







________________
* The language used to describe the staking effect his 1892 lecture-demonstration had on the Royal Institution in Londor4 was, "The
scientists simply did not know where they were when they saw it." (Anderson, 1992, pg. 95)
** Note that Tesla has recognized that he can characterize different spinning eggs with certain gyromagnetic resonance frequencies!!
This was in 1887.

Clearly, Tesla was contemplating the use of pulsed currents* in the coils around the ship. Remarkably,
vessels wrapped in coils were observed during WW-II (per-haps for mine sweeping or even degaussing studies).
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

10
[According to Moore, Francis Bitter, of MIT, recalled witnessing "a relatively large ship carrying ... a bar magnet
going from the bow, to way aft. This bar magnet had coils wound around it, which passed current produced by big
motor generators."
(25)
] By the way, the Eldridge's generator was rated at 4,600 kVA and could deliver 6,000 HP.
Two generators, as described in the book, could deliver more than 12,000 HP (almost 9 Mw).

It is not clear that Mr. Secor even fathomed what Dr. Tesla was speaking about. How much of what was
published in the article were Tesla’s ideas and what was added (or deleted) by Secor is not transparent. (We have
the same problem with O'Neill's colorful biography.) After Tesla’s brief discussion of sonar, Secor mixes together
the RF magnetic detection process and the "electric ray" radar technique. While Secor’s version of Tesla’s
disclosures might sound, today, like oversimplified impractical popularization’s, Secor was quick to conclude his
1917 article with the disclaimer, …..several important electrical war schemes will shortly be laid before the War and
Navy Departments by Dr. Tesla, the details of which, we naturally cannot now publish"
(26)
Margaret Cheney has
observed that, at the time, Thomas Edison;

"... had been named to direct the new Naval Consulting Board in Washington, with the primary job of
finding a way of spotting U-boats. Tesla’s idea, if even brought to Edison’s attention, would almost
certainly have been discounted."
(27)


It should also be noted that Vannevar Bush was involved in the same endeavor;

“During 1917-18 [Bush] was engaged in research on submarine detection in connection with the United
States Navy special board on submarine devices. “
(28)


In 1917, Bush fresh out of graduate school,* was a newly appointed assistant professor of electrical
engineering at Tufts College in Medford, Massachusetts and consulting for the American Radio and Research
Corporation. [AMRAD was a J. P. Morgan venture, built on the Tufts campus, which manufactured "thousands of
transmitters and receivers" during WW-I.
(29)
] Bush was one of the guiding lights for a spin-off company which, in
1925, was renamed Raytheon.** (In 1941, Raytheon became the prime source for the new Navy Search Radar.
(30)

)








_____________
* According to Jane's Fighting Ships (1967-68, pg. 408), the Eldridge (DE-173) was 306 feet long by 37 feet at the beam, and had a
draft of 14 feet. Its main engines were GM diesels, electric drive, 2 shafts, 4.5 Mw.
* "I will tell you the secret of all these wonderful displays. ... Consider a large gun, which hurls a projectile of a ton a distance of 18 or
20 miles. If you figure the horsepower at which the gun delivers energy, you will find that it amounts to from 6 to 12 or 15 million
horsepower. ... With the methods, which I have devised, with my transformer, it is not at all difficult to get rates of energy many times
that. ... in the plant on Long Island, if I wanted to operate, I could have just reached a rate of 1 billion horsepower. ... That wonderful
thing can be accomplished through a condenser. The condenser is the most wonderful electrical instrument ... You store less energy
in the condenser than in the gun, but whereas a gun will discharge ... in 1/50 of a second, a condenser can discharge the energy in 1
millionth of this time. ... all these effects which elicited great wonderment of the profession, were always produced by damped waves,
because with the undamped waves it would not have been possible to attain any such activities." [Tesla on His Work With Alternating
Currents, by L. .I. Anderson, 1992, pp. 112-113.1
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

11


Bush joined the MIT EE Department faculty (his specialty, initially, was electrical power and subsequently
operational calculus and analog computers (the famous network analyzer)) and became Dean, and then Vice-
President of MIT in 1931. *** He accepted the position of President of the Carnegie Institution of Washington in
1938 (and held the position until 1955). He was Science Advisor to the President and was appointed by Roosevelt
as chairman of the National Defense Research Committee (July, 1940), *** as director of OSRD - the Office of
Scientific Research and Development (1941), and as Chairman of the Joint Committee on New Weapons and
Equipment of the Joint United States Chiefs of Staff (1942).
(31)

Vannevar Bush guided much of the Nation’s weapons research during WW-II. According to Frank B.
Jewettt* (President of the National Academy of Sciences), as head of OSRD Bush;

“... directed the mobilization of the entire civilian scientific and technical power of the nation and welded
it together into the military establishment in the greatest industrial research and development man has
ever known."
(32)


Recall that Vannevar Bush, while Vice President of MIT, had sent Tesla birthday greetings in 1931;

"Dear Dr. Tesla ... I wish to join to my own tribute of admiration for your unique career the
congratulations of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where the contribution which your original
genius has made for the benefit of mankind is fully appreciated."
(33)

In 1943, Bush like Tesla in 1917, received the AIEE’s highest honor (at that time the Edison Award).
Bush held about 50 US patents for various inventions. Let us move ahead from Tesla’s suggestion to place coils of
wire on a ship, to radar and radar counter-measures (stealth).

Radar
It seems to be broadly recognized that, although Heinrich Hertz bad observed RF standing waves resulting
from metallic reflections, it was Nikola Tesla, in 1900, who was the first to propose the concept of radar.
(34)

According to NRL radar pioneer R. M. Page, it was Tesla who first "... suggested the use of electromagnetic waves
to determine the relative position, speed, and course of a moving object."
(35)
The earliest patent issuing for radar
appears to have been the British patent granted to German engineer Christian Hulsmeyer.
(36)
Certainly, Tesla’s
interview with H. W. Secor appears as an added note in the radar lore.
(37)
The acronym radar was an official code
word adopted by the US Navy in November of 1940, the same month that the MIT Radiation Laboratory was
organized for the exploitation of the microwave region for radar.



_______________
* Bush received a BS and an MS from Tufts College (1913), Doctor of Engineering jointly from MIT and Harvard (1916), and
eventually 10 honorary doctorates from various colleges and universities. During his remarkable career, he was science advisor to
several Presidents. He was Vice-President and Dean of Engineering at MIT in 1931, the year that he wrote to Tesla.
** Raytheon, in fact, (with 25% of the EE department involved) came to be known by the grad students at MIT in the late 1920's as "an
extension of the Electrical Engineering Department." (See Reference 29.)
*** Ever the entrepreneur, when Bush heard A. F. Joffe, of the Polytechnic Institute of Leningrad, present his ideas on a new super-
dielectric for HV insulation, he rallied his investor friends and went to Leningrad and Moscow (As described in his autobiography,
Pieces of the Action (Morrow, 1970), the enterprise resulted in failure.)
**** Recall that John G. Trump, accompanied by three Naval personnel, examined Tesla’s personal papers when he died in January of
1943. Trump was Secretary of the Microwave Committee of the National Defense,.Research Committee from 1942 until 1944 when,
as a member of General C.A. Spaatz's Advisory Special Group on Radar, he went to Europe as the Director of the British Branch of
the (MIT) Radiation Laboratory. (See Electrical Engineering, Vol. 80, No. 5, May, 1961, pp. 364-365.) [General Spaatz, by the way,
was Air Force Chief of Staff and headed the "very secret" committee on UFO’s. According to Irving Langmuir, (Physics Today,
October, 1989, pg. 48) Spaatz had confided, "You know it’s very serious. It really looks as though there is something there." (Also
see Physics Today, March 1990, pg. 13 and April, 1990, pg. 13.]

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

12
Sommerfeld on Electromagnetic Stealth During WW-II
In his authoritative two volume radar cross section handbooks George Ruck has pointed out the desirable
features of radar absorbers.

"The search for suitable Radar Absorbing Materials (RAM) was initiated in the early 1940's both in the
United States and Germany. Ideally, the optimum RAM would be a paint-like material effective at all
polarizations over a broad range of frequencies and angles of incidence.

Unfortunately, such a material does not exist and the probability of its being developed is rather remote."
(38)


Arnold Sommerfeld (1868-1951) presents a surprising discussion of German war research on stealth and
radar absorbing materials in the optics volume of his famous lectures on Theoretical Phvsics.
(39)
He relates that the
case where the magnetic permeabilities between two media (air and target) are unequal (µ
1
= )
µ
2
is "of some
historical interest".

During the war the problem arose to find, as a counter measure against allied radar, a largely nonreflecting
("black") surface layer of small thickness. This layer was to be particularly non-reflecting for perpendicular or
almost perpendicular incidence of the radar wave. In this case the angle of incidence and the angle of transmission
are both almost equal to zero. The problem is solved by making the ratio of the two wave impedances equal to
unity:

m12
=
2 2
1 1
/
/
H E
H E
= 1 (1)

The criterion is, thus, not the index of refraction but the ratio of wave impedances." Sommerfelds suggestion is
similar to the idea of making the radar target surface a "conjugate match" to eliminate radar reflections. If one could
make the impedance of the second medium be the same as free-space, the target would become radar invisible. He
continues;

"In order to “camouflage” an object against radar waves, one must cover it with a layer for
which this ratio of wave resistances has the value 1 in the region of centimeter waves. According
to [the law of refraction and the boundary conditions] this means that if we call the constants of
the desired material c and µ and those of air
c0
and
µ
0
, then


0 c
c
=
0 µ
µ
(2)

Hence, the problem concerns not only the dielectric constant but also the relationship between the
dielectric constant and the permeability. A substance must be formed whose relative permeability
µ
r
= 0 µ µ , is of the same magnitude as its relative dielectric constant 0 c c .”




_______________
* Edison Medalist in 1928. (Eleven years after Tesla.)


THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

13
This case is discussed by Ridenour in Volume 1 of the famous MIT Rad Lab series,
(40)
and in a well known
analytical reference by Weston.
(41)
Sommerfeld continues;

“But the problem is not yet solved. For at its black surface the layer borders on the object (metal), which
is to be camouflaged, and this second surface still reflects strongly. Hence, the further condition must be
imposed that the layer should absorb sufficiently strongly. This requires a complex rather than a real
dielectric constant and because of the requirement (Eq. 2) a corresponding complex permeability. The
material must, therefore, be ferromagnetic and must possess a strong hysteresis or a structural relaxation
that acts correspondingly. Thus, a difficult technological problem was posed, which though not
unsolvable, required extensive preparatory work.

Because of the urgent war situation, the solution which had to be used resulted from the following
considerations ..."

Somrnerfeld then changes the course of his ideas. He proceeds to describe the reduction in radar reflection by a
rather conventional means that does not build upon the requirement of Equation (2). Instead, what he discusses
next is covering the surface with layers of lossy dielectric material, each strata being less than
4
1
wavelength
thick, neglecting entirely any effects attributable to µ . ("In this manner the reflected intensity could be reduced to
1% of the value given by Fresnel's formula ... “
(42)
) After the war, a number of papers were published by
Sommerfeld’s colleagues at Gottingen and Munich, in Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Physik, on the topic of radar
absorption. (Just scan the magazine's annual index for 1956-1959.) Presumably, after the war the German workers
were less constrained in publishing their research on the topic of RAM than Allied scientists.* Even at this late
date most significant western RAM publications are classified, particularly those related to the stealth bomber
technology.

In his 1947 MIT Rad Lab Volume, Ridenour comments that;

"Absorbent materials have been produced in Germany for the radar camouflage of U-boats. The
type of absorber that was actually put into service was of the interface kind. The dielectric
constant and permeability were produced by a high concentration of spheroidal metal particles
(carbonyl iron). The concentration of metal was 80% by weight, and values of dielectric constant
and permeability were c = 7, and µ = 3.5 .

An absorber of the second kind was also developed in Germany. It consisted of a series of layers
whose conductivity regularly increased with depth. The layers were separated by foam-type
plastic whose dielectric constant was close to 1. The absorption was excellent from 4 to 13 cm
[2.3 ~ 7.5 GHz]. However, the complete absorber was a rigid structure 2.5 inches thick, and it
was never actually used."
(43)


Is there any connection between the remarks of Sommerfeld and the supposed German version of the
"Philadelphia Experiment", which has been rumored to have occurred at the Kiel Shipyards 'in Germany during
World war II? Surprisingly, after hinting at ferromagnetic materials, Sommerfeld did not tell us how to produce
magnetic radar camouflage. We will try our hand at supplying the missing details below. But first, we review
conventional linear RAM.


Ferromagnetic Radar Absorbing Material
The more-or-less conventional approach to radar stealth is to either employ "shaping" of the target (use
GTD to greatly reduce the RCS), or to utilize the microwave absorption properties of the complex dielectric
constant and complex permeability constant. In lossy dielectric and ferromagnetic* matter


( ) e c = ( ) e c' - ( ) e c ' ' j (3)

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

14
( ) e µ = ( ) e µ' - ( ) e µ ' ' j (4)

and from Poyntings Theorem, the time average power dissipated is given by
(44)


Pd
= ( | o
}}}
2
1
+ ) c e ' '
E
2
+ |
H
2
µ e ' ' dV (5)


The imaginary components of c and µ arise from hysteretic losses and appear in a standing similar to
frictional dissipation** The one-way propagation attenuation in lossy simple media can be found from which
would occur

o = Re { } ¸ = Re
)
`
¹
¹
´
¦
e ÷ µ eµo
e
2
j (6)

in the use of an imperfect conductor that is thick enough to sufficiently attenuate any reflections from its back
surface at the frequencies in question. Making use of the conductivity term gives the dissipation mechanism for
"space cloth" (which has a wave impedance of 377 ohms/square) and carbon/graphite composite materials. The
real part of c, and µ lead to reactive fields, and to capacitive bypass and inductive choking, respectively.
Ferromagnetic loading dissipation occurs in the imaginary component of the magnetic terms. Modeling targets as
distributed transmission lines and resonators demonstrates that material impedance loading of RF "hot spots"
detunes the target structure and decreases RF reflections significantly.

Ferromagnetic materials with very low conductivity are called ferrodielectrics, or ferrites. Kraus notes
that;

"A lossy mixture of highs (ferrite) material and a high- c, (barium titanate) material can be used effectively
for wave absorption with both µ and c, being complex and with ratio µ / c, equal to that for free space
( ) 1 / =
c
µ
r
r
. Although the mixture constitutes a physical discontinuity, an incident wave enters it
without reflection. The velocity of the wave is reduced, and large attenuation can occur in a short
distance."
(45)


As an example, Kraus considers a solid ferrite-titanium slab, for which ) ( 1 2 60 j
r
r
÷ = =
c
µ
at 100
Mhz, and finds that the wave mipedance ) (
Z
Z
0
/ = = c µ , which is the characteristic impedance of free space,
and the attenuation constant is . / 1092 / 126 m dB m Np = = o A 10 mm thick slab of this material, backed by a
perfectly conducting sheet, attenuates the propagating signal 11dB each way and reduces the radar backscatter by 22
dB. ("'The reflected power is less than 1/100 of the incident power.”)






_____________________
* The American scientist of German origin, quoted by Dr. Rinehart in the Moore-Berlitz book (pp. 202-203) was clearly mistaken in his
assessment of German military spirit.



THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

15
Let us now turn to the situation where a magnetic bias is applied to a ferromagnetic material in order to
"tune" the reflectivity of the medium to be a minimum for centimeter wavelength radar signals.


Magnetically-Biased Radar Camouflage
"You want camouflage, gentlemen! Give me a ship and I'll show you perfect camouflage. " (p. 125*).

Returning to Equation (1), we ask if there exists any phenomenon by which power line currents in a
large coil around a steel (or ferromagnetic) body could somehow bring about a reduction in the reflection of
microwave energy from the steel body. Is there a phenomenological principle that may have appealed to those
that conceived and designed the “Philadelphia Experiment”? (Where were the JASON’s in those days?) It turns
out that there is an interesting candidate which may, indeed, explain the motivation for the experiment.

In Appendix I, we determine the surface impedance of a ferromagnetic slab that is immersed in a constant
magnetic field oriented parallel its the surface. This would simulate the situation of a destroyer escort, with coils
wrapped around it, illuminated broadside by microwave radar pulses. The normally incident, monochromatic,
horizontally polarized,** plane wave reflection from the target's surface can then be calculated by using the surface
impedance

) ( ( ) ( ) e e
e
o
µ µ
X R Z S S
e
zz
j j + = + =
3
0
2
1 (7)


(see Appendix I) in the expression for the field complex reflection coefficient at the interface where the
characteristic impedance of free space is taken as Z
0
= 377O . What is of interest is that the reflection

( )
( )
( )
Z Z
Z Z
E
E
zz
zz
incident
reflected
0
0
+
÷
= = I
e
e
e (8)

coefficient can be timed to make the radar reflected power drop below 1/100 of the incident power by varying the
current in the wires around the ship. Finally, we determine the magnetic biasing required to make the radar
reflection, discussed by Sommerfeld, vanish at centimeter (radar) wavelengths.

In Figures 1 through 7 below, we calculate and plot the set of parameters derived in Appendix I, and the
target reflection coefficient I(e) for various physical constants. A wide range of assumed physical constants are
listed in Table I for the variety of examples, which we ran analytically. The electrical conductivity of steel is
typically on the order of 10
6
mhos/m at DC, and in Examples 1 and 2 we have assumed an RF value somewhat
less. The applied field strengths are those necessary to raise the ferromagnetic resonances to the L and X Bands.
With the substantial values of H
0
involved for microwave resonances, we suppose that significant physical
nonlinearities come into play. As a result, we must say that the assumed values of X
0
are open to question.
[However, there seems to be some latitude here. We found that the theory predicted similar resonances if, in the
model, we employed conductivities as low as 70 mhos/m, but in that case X
0
‘s of 1620 (L-Band) and 11 (X-
Band) would be required for radar reflection elimination.]
__________________

* Ferromagnetic substances are those, which when immersed in an external magnetic field, become strongly magnetized in the
direction of the immersed field, and which exhibit retentivity and hysteresis. Iron, nickel, cobalt and gadolinium are the only
ferromagnetic elements at room temperature.
** In ferromagnetic materials µ is a nonlinear function of the applied magnetic field strength, H

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

16
Figure 8 is a plot of the radar reflection coefficient of Example 6 verses frequency as the bias magnetic field
strength is "tuned".


TABLE I – Electrical Specifications

PARAMETER÷ ( )
f
0
3 o

H0

er

X0

(mhos/m) (AmpTurns/m) rad/s rad/s

+ EXAMPLE 1. LBand 0.5x10
6
15,000 3x10
9
1.15x10
7

2. X-Band 0.5x10
6
271,000 5x10
9
7.91 x10
4

3. L-Band 70 15,000 3x10
9
1620
4. X-Band 70 271,000 5x10
9
11
5. L-Band 45 50,000 3x10
9
1000
6. X-Band 6400 271,000 5x10
9
1000
7. UHF 103 15,000 2.7x10
9
2200
























Figure 1
Example 1 of Table 1: L-Band. Plot of Equation (8) in dB vs. f in GHz.





________________

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

17
* The PhiladeIphia Experiment, by William L. Moore and Charles Berlitz, Ballantine Books, 1979.
** Horizontally polarized for an 'L-coil' helix about the ship. and vertically polarized for an 'M-coil' helix about the ship. See the
comments on degaussing below.












Figure 2
Example 2 of Table 1: X-Band. Plot of Equation (8) in dB vs. f in GHz.


























THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

18
Figure 3
Example 3 of Table 1: X-Band. Plot of Equation (8) in dB vs. f in GHz.
























Figure 4
Example 4 of Table I: X-Band. Plot of Equation (8) in dB vs. f in GHz.












THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

19
Figure 5.1
Real and imaginary parts of the permeability vs. f in GHz for Example 5.
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

20









Figure 5.2
Surface resistance R
S
and reactance X
S
vs. f in GHz for Example 5.





























Figure 5.3
Plot of Equation (8) in dB vs. f in GHz for Example 5: L-Band.



THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

21




















Figure 6.1
Real and imaginary parts of the complex permeability vs. frequency in GHz for Example 6 of Table I: X-Band.

















Figure 6.2
Surface resistance R
S
and reactance X
S
vs. frequency in GHz for Example 6 of Table I: X-Band.








THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

22





















Figure 6.3
Plot of equation (8) in dB vs. frequency in GHz for Example 6 of Table I: X-Band.
























Figure 7
Plot of Equation (8) in dB vs. frequency in GHz for Example 7 of Table 1: UHF.


THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

23
"A man went to the Navy and said, 'You want camouflage, gentlemen! Give me a ship and I'll give you
camouflages' (Moore and Berlitz, pg. 125.)






















Figure 8
Plot of I(f) in dB for Example 6 as H
0
is varied from 255 to 290 kA/m.


The bottom line on all this is dial the surface impedance has a parallel resonance character, with the
effective permeability and the surface impedance both peaking at resonance frequencies determined by the
selected values of the current in the helical coil surrounding the ship. The magnitude of I(e) and the
gyromagnetic resonant frequency can be "tuned" by varying the DC bias field H
0
!! In particular, at least for the
fanciful values which we assumed for the ship's hull, one can bring the surface impedance to equal the
characteristic impedance of free space, and thus significantly reduce radar reflection over a useful band of
frequencies. One can notch out a depression in the radar return in excess of 20 dB, 500 MHz (or more) wide at
either L-Band (UHF-2 GHz) or X-Band (8~12.5 GHz). More than probable, a 1943 “Philadelphia Experiment”
would have been carried out at L-Band.

Equation (2) above can be satisfied at L-Band if H
0
is "tuned" to 15,000 A/m. That is to say, if there is
1 turn/m around the ship carrying a current of 15,000 amperes, the ship's radar reflection will drop to a fraction of
its zero current value at 1.5 GHz. This would seem to fulfill the requirements for a "Philadelphia Experiment”.
(Surprisingly, there also seems to be another modest resonance in the upper infrared, although this may possibly
be a glitch in our computer code.) To be sure, we do not claim that any material is capable of such deep nulls in
the radar reflection, or is tunable over such broad bandwidths. However, the evidence meager though it is,
appears to indicate that the radar reflection can be minimized and the use of electronic camouflage would probably
have been studied experimentally. Surely these things were taken under consideration at that time.


Small Scale Laboratory Experimental Verification
Armed with this theoretical knowledge, we thought it might be circumspect to attempt a small scale
laboratory experiment to verify the effect of H on I(e) at X-Band for ordinary steel. (From the book it appears
that the Navy also conducted scale model experiments.*) In fact, we performed two experiments with our "egg
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

24
of Columbus" apparatus,** which we think have bearing upon our “Philadelphia Experiment” discussion. In the
final Part of this paper, we will propose two more experiments.

1) RCS Modification. In order to attain very large currents from a modest supply we took our
‘egg of Columbus’ toroidal steel core (as a radar target simulating the ship's hull) and used an 8
kV, 10 µF capacitor discharge pulse through the windings, which were arranged in series. [The
surge current would appear to have been on the order of

35
5 . 72 2
000 , 8
0
0
=
- - H
= =
L
V
I
T
e
Amps (9)

which would imply a peak magnetic field strength on the order of < H
|
> ~ (120
Turns/quadrant), (4 quadrants), (35, amps/Turn) / (2 H - 6"/39.37) = 17.5 kA-T/m] The
transformer steel was illuminated broadside to the doughnut with a small pyramidal horn-
mounted Raytheon CK-109 X-Band klystron (100-250 mW at 9.98~11.98 GHz), and the radar
backscatter was observed with an HP X-Band crystal detector, as shown in Figure 9. It would
not be unreasonable to suppose that this is the sort of experiment that Tesla could easily have
performed during, or even well before, the 1930's. (He probably would have used UHF or L-
Band, with a somewhat lower power level.) In fact, it would be surprising if he had not
examined this configuration.

A distinct difference between the magnetic bias-on and bias-off target backscatter was observed,
clearly Tesla would have observed this phenomenon!

2) Brine Displacement. We immersed the 'egg of Columbus coil' in the bottom of a plastic tub of
water and rocksalt. When the coil was energized the water 'flew out of the tub' (literally)! At
lower power and the apparatus placed outside and under the tub, the salt water in the tub swirls
around. (One of the authors saw a version of this, with a 'pickle jar' about 1/3 full of mercury,
demonstrated at the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts' 1993 Tesla Symposium last
September at Novi Saad.

Clearly, with up to 4.5 MW available, eddy currents in salt water would not only burrow out a
hull-shaped hole in the water, but would probably levitate the ship somewhat. As a homework
assignment, the reader is invited to perform the calculation for his amusement.













__________________
* [Dr. R-F. Rinehart], "I recall some computations about this in relation to a model experiment, which was in view at the time.,, (P.
187)
** Our core was made of spiral wound steel strap, giving a core 10" ID, 14 " OD, and 2 " thick. There were four coils, each 120 turns
of # 12 enameled copper wire.

CONCLUSION
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

25
The analysis would appear to lend credence to the hypothesis that something more than mythology is
involved, and it renders plausible the conclusion that sufficient motivation existed to actually conduct a
"Philadelphia Experiment" to examine radar stealth on ships with electric drives. Independent of whether our
assumed values are practical or not, the analysis, which uses no phenomenology that wasn’t known subsequent to
1938, would probably have brought WW-II Naval investigators to the point of radar stealth experimentation. In
fact, it would have been derelict behavior for the Defense Science Research Board not to have conducted such
experiments if it were aware of this phenomenology (as it must have been) in 1943. Such an approach to stealth,
however, is impractical and certainly would be of little interest, as such, to the military today.






























Figure 9
Experimental setup for radar backscatter from an 'egg of Columbus' apparatus.

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

26

THE EXPERIMENTAL PLATFORM

There probably exists a technical discussion of the "Bostwick" Class of Destroyer Escorts some place in
the engineering literature. From Janes Fighting Ships we know that the Bostwick class, of which the DE-173 (the
Eldridge) was a member, had the following properties:
(46)



Practical Information About Destroyer Escorts

Displacement, tons 1240 standard; 1900* full load
Length, feet (meters) 306 (93.3)
Beam, feet (meters) 37 (11.3)
Draft, feet (meters) 14 (4.3)
Guns, dual purpose 3-3 in (76 mm) 50 cal.
Guns, AA 2-40 mm
A/S Fixed hedgehog; DCT
Main Engines GM diesels, electric drive
6000 bhp; 2 shafts (4.5 MW)
Speed, knots 19
Radius, miles 1,500 at 11 knots
Oil fuel (tons) 300
Compliment 150 (accommodation 220)

And, it was transferred to Greece in 1951. Several photographs of other Destroyer Escorts of the same class are
also provided. Interestingly, there does exist a descriptive level discussion of the use of destroyer escorts for
providing shore power from their propulsion generators.

In a remarkable 1948 paper for engineers, Anderson and Fifer describe how electric propulsion ships
were pressed into service to supply electric power to areas where the retreating enemy had destroyed existing
shore plants. "During World war II, there were constructed a large number of AC turbine electric propelled
vessels which had possibilities for supplying shore power."
(47)
(The DE’s delivered substantial power and,
according to F.M Starr of GE Schenectady, "were best suited to small diversified loads”
(48)
because they could be
operated in parallel at a number of nominal output voltages at 50/60 Hz.) This is consistent with Tesla’s 1917
suggestion for peacetime uses, as referred to above.

Anderson and Fifer even show photographs of two Destroyer escorts, tied up side by side at a dock,
delivering power to Portland, Maine (instead of two, a third ship between them, as occurred in one "Philadelphia
Experiment" reported by More and Berlitz*) during harvest-time after a severe drought had left the city without
hydroelectric power in fall of 1947.

Their photographs show details of the method used to connect power between the vessels and land, the
cable gantries required because of the high tides at Portland, and even the propulsion controls and the power
controls, which were located in the forward engine room and the after engine room. (This is better than the
movie!) There is a close-up view of the side of a Destroyer Escort showing the cable reels and unit substation.
_______________
* According to Moore and Berlitz, "The Eldridge was laid down on February 22,1943, at Federal Ship building and Dry Docks,
Newark, NJ, and had a displacement of 1,240 tons standard and 1,520 tons full load." (pg. 158)

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

27
It would seem reasonable to assume that the “Philadelphia Experiment” would have used huge power cables much
like those shown in these pictures. Anderson and Fifer tell us that the destroyer escort propulsion generators
operated at 1,500 volts, 25-135 Hz, and, "The power output from the two vessels was about 9,000 kW."
(49)
This
would seem to imply RMS generator currents on the order of 3,000 Amps - slightly below the 10
4
~ 10
5
order of
magnitude required for the experiment. (See "Resonance" comments below.)

Shipboard Degaussing Installations
During the time of the “Philadelphia Experiment”, in late summer of 1943, the Naval Ordinance
Laboratory had only two civilian scientists retained on contact John Kraus and Albert Einstein. Kraus was
heavily engaged in ship degaussing. ("To reduce the ship's magnetic field we wrapped several tons of very heavy
insulated copper wires around the ship."
(50)
)

The same issue of the AIEE Transactions discussing supplying shore power also has an introduction to
WW-II ship degaussing technology.
(51)
What is of special interest are the coil configurations on the ship. There
were basically five different types of coil systems used on a ship. One of them, the "L-coil" was a helical solenoid
with its axis parallel to the axis of the ship. "It was composed of a series loops in vertical planes perpendicular to
the centerline of the ship. The loops each ran inside the hull from the keel to the underside of the wectherdeck...
The installations, with few exceptions were placed inside of the vessels. "
(52)
(Early on, it was not fully
appreciated that the coils placed inside the hulls could give effective protection, and so the first installations were
actually made with the wires clamped outside and encircling the ship. Later, the coils were placed inside the steel
hulls, the effect being reduced by about 30%, but the savings in maintenance justified the move.) Another coil
configuration the 'M-coil' "encircled the ship just inside the hull in a horizontal plane approximately at the water
line."
(53)
(Again, early on these were placed outside e ship.)

Kraus says, "The wires in each coil might make a bundle as big as a man’s wrist. Tons of copper were
used on every ship, and degaussing coils became number one in our country's use of copper."
(54)
(About 12,000
American naval and merchant ships were fitted with a shipboard degaussing installation in early WW-II, no
wonder we went to a "silver penny" one year.) Michel reports that it was not uncommon to use a multi-conductor
wire bundle composed of 19 conductors of 40,000 circular mill area.* Some cables were "up to five inches in
diameter and racked three and four cables together."
(55)

Within this context of coil construction, one wonders. "How much current could such coils carry if
pressed to the limit?" Not counting the presence of a heat sink (the hull of the ship and the sea), the maximum
current carrying capacity of a wire is limited by the so called "fuzing current", which is the DC current, at which a
wire will melt. For copper wire,
(56)


244 , 10 =
I F

dinches
2
3
(10)

(A 1 " diameter copper wire melts at 10 kA, and a 5 " diameter wire at 1 14.5 kA.) So, it appears that the
standard bundles could probably handle quite some current if pressed to the limit.

Michel reports that degaussing installations operated off the ships 240 volt DC supply bus through
rheostats (the M-coil operated directly off a motor-generator pair) and the coils typically "produced 1,500 ampere
turns". "Since the degaussing coils must produce fields extending rather long distances, the strength of the coil
fields in the immediate vicinity of the cables is sufficiently high under some conditions to adversely affect the
operation of other equipment."
(57)
Apparently even electric arc welders could be affected by the degaussing
coils. ("Noticeable irregularities in the welding operation will occur."
(58)
)
_________________

* “…..it concerned three ships. When they rolled the film it showed two other ships feeding some sort of energy to the central ship... After a
time the central ship, a destroyer, disappeared slowly into a transparent fog..." Moore and Berlitz, P. 240.

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

28
CORRELATION WITH THE MOORE-BERLITZ BOOK

“The Philadelphia Experiment”
[All of Benjamin Franklin’s electrical experiments were known abroad as "Philadelphia Experiments". However,
he himself referred to the famous 1752 demonstration of the equivalence of lightning and frictional electricity as
"the" Philadelphia Experiment.
(59)
]

The book by Moore and Berlitz
(60)
is a source of surprising descriptive information. Recently, one critic
(61)
examined the book and concluded, "Not only does the information presented by Moore and Berlitz in The
Philadelphia Experiment fail the most fundamental test of verification, but the massive amount of evidence
available has demonstrated the thesis patently invalid.”
(62)
We think the contrary to be true. Not only is the
phenomenology supplier but the independent statements of various witnesses corroborate the basic technical
issues.

Moore declares that he is not a trained scientist, and it is understandable that technical testimony is often
garbled. Take, for example, the interview with Dr. Rinehart (pp. 178 ~ 205). Reading between the lines, Moore
(although frantically trying to record what he was being told) clearly didn’t understand what Reinhart was saying.
Further, given the unorthodox manner of C. M. Allen’s disclosures, it is a wonder that any meaning can be
distilled. This much makes sense:

Carl M. Allan
- "Electronic camouflage... Some sort of electronic camouflage produced by pulsating energy fields." (p.
19)
- "The Navy did not know that there would be men die from odd effects of hyperfield within or upon
field." (p. 46)

We think the first statement is consistent with our presentation above. The second is consistent with the idea of
incident RF interactions with the low frequency magnetically biased medium [fields (RF) on fields (DC)], just as
given in Appendix I.

Commander X
(A scientist in the WW-II Navy radar program)
- "I heard they did some testing both along the [Delaware] river and off the coast, especially with regard to
the effects of a strong magnetic force field on radar detection apparatus." (P. 169)

Though hearsay evidence, this is also consistent with the idea of a magnetically biased radar absorber. We have
much more to quote, but will present it with discussion, below.


Resonant Magnification
One of the issues raised above was how could they step up the current from the generator by an order of
magnitude. The large H
0
required for magnetic biasing will result from a large current in the coils. Obviously,
they could use a power transformer to step the current up (and voltage down). They could, in fact run high
current with a low duty cycle and pulse the coils at very low frequencies.
___________________
* This would be about 3.8 inches in diameter. ( )
A d CM in
001 . 0 =

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

29
(Not so good for power transformers.) Or, they might employ the resonant rise in circulating currents, which
occurs in a “Parallel Resonant Tank Circuit”. Although DC magnetic biasing was assumed for the H
0
field in
Appendix I, this was not necessary, and low frequency pulsations may even be employed. It is only required that
the frequency of the magnetic bias field (H
0
) be mucl-4 much less than the radar carrier frequency (adiabatic
invariance), but low enough for saturation to occur.

Dr. R. F. Rinehart
"I think that the conversation had turned at this point to the principles of resonance and how the intense
fields which would be required, for such an experiment, might be achieved using this principle." (p. 191)

"I feel confident that the idea of producing the necessary electromagnetic field for experimental purposes
by means of the principles of resonance was also initially suggested by Kent* - possibly as a result of
these discussions with Professor Allen**." (p. 187)

Dr. Valentine
"The experiment [Dr. Jessup] said had been accomplished by using naval-type magnetic generators,
known as degaussers, which were “pulsed” at resonant frequencies so as to create a tremendous magnetic
field on and around a docked vessel." (p. 130)

In Appendix II of the book on Vacuum Tube Tesla Coils
(63)
and in Appendix II below, it is shown that if
they had placed a capacitor in parallel with the ship's coils (as Tesla suggested in the 1917 interview above) and
brought the system to parallel resonance at the ship’s generator frequency, then the circulating current in the coils
would be stepped up by the Q of the parallel resonant system. This means that, the AC current circulating in the
tank circuit coil is larger than the input current by the amount where I
T
is the terminal point input current (the


Q
I I
T
T coil
2
1+ = (11)

generator current in this case), R L
Q
T
e0
= , ( )
R R coupled coil
R + = , and
Rcoupled
is the effective load
resistance coupled in (due to eddy current loss in the ship and sea water). In the older literature this is called a
"current amplifier" or "current magnifier".
(64)
The circulating reactive kVA in the tank circuit is Q times the
real component of the generator power into the tank. (Power is conserved of course, there is no magic going on.)
By the way, “pulsing” a tank circuit is the fundamental idea behind the original class C oscillator. At full power,
a tank circuit could provide a resonant rise of the current to levels sufficient to support the L-Band experiment
discussed above. (A higher Q or pulse power processing might support the X-Band experiment.)

The use of low frequency AC pulsations for biasing is similar to the use of raw AC for class C oscillator
driven Tesla coils. In the optical case it would, more than likely, lead to the "shimmering" situation discussed by
Dr. Rinehart (pp. 198-199).




______________
* Robert Harrington Kent.
** Professor Charles Metcalf Allen of Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

30
OBSERVABLE RAMIFICATIONS

Next, we would like to examine the collateral effects that one would not be surprised to observe accompanying
such an intense magnetic experiment. There would be phenomenological effects and physiological consequences.

Phenomenological Effects

Low Frequency Magnetohydrodynamics in Salt Water:

1. Green fog and mist;

"After a time the central ship, a destroyer, disappeared slowly into a transparent fog until all that could
be seen was an imprint of that ship in the water. Then, when the field, or whatever it was, was turned
off, the ship reappeared slowly old of thin fog." (p. 240).

"I saw, after a few minutes, a foggy green mist arise like a thin cloud. " (p. 110).

"suddenly, the green fog returned... " (p. 249).


2. A cavity in the water;

"The men on the ship were apparently able to see one another vaguely, but all that could be seen by
anyone outside of the field was 'the clearly defined shape of the ship’s hull in the water " (p. 88).

"I watched as the DE 173 became rapidly invisible to human eyes. And yet, the precise shape of the keel
and underhull of the ship remained impressed into the ocean water as it and my own ship sped along
somewhat side by side and close to inboards. " (p. 110-111).

" The field was effective in an oblate spheroidal shape, extending one hundred yards out from each
beam* of the ship… Any person outside that could see nothing save the clearly defined shape of the
ship's hull in the water." (p. 41).


Sea water (o ~ 5 O /m at ELF ) is no superconductor. However, a time varying magnetic field, via
Faraday’s law, generates eddy currents in salt water, which in turn react back on the magnetic source opposing
any changes in the source field. Consider the following description due to Feynman.

"If we have a sheet of a perfect conductor and put an electromagnet next to it, when we turn on
the current in the magnet, currents called 'eddy currents' appear in the sheet, so that no magnetic flux
enters. The same thing happens if we bring a bar magnet near a perfect conductor. This makes it
possible to suspend a bar magnet in air above a sheet of perfect conductor... If the conductor is not quite
perfect there will be some resistance to flow of the eddy currents. The currents will tend to die out and
the magnet will slowly settle down. The eddy currents in an imperfect conductor need an EMF to keep
them going, and to have an EMF the flux must keep changing.



__________________

* A ship's "beam' is its width at the widest point.

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

31
The flux of the magnetic field gradually penetrates the conductor... In a normal conductor, there
are not only repulsive forces from eddy currents, but there can also be sideways [drag] forces [which
prevent lateral motion]."
(65)


The circulating AC eddy currents would agitate the sea water, at acoustical frequencies, (pumping the salt water,
making steam, mist, and fog) and, in all probability, hollow out a cavity under the magnet. (Consider what
happens with a high current AC electromagnet in a plastic tub of salt water.) [It's even more exciting with
polyphase AC and a rotating magnetic field!]

"If, instead of dragging a conductor past a magnet we try to rotate it in a magnetic field, there
will be a resistive torque from the same effects. Alternatively, if we rotate a magnet near a conducting
plate or ring [or conducting egg], the ring [or egg] will be dragged around; currents in the latter will
create a torque that tends to rotate it around... A field like that of a rotating magnet can be made with an
arrangement of coils [on an iron torus]... we have a ‘rotating’ magnetic field.... The [rotary drag] torque
produced on a conductor by such a rotating field is easily shown by standing a metal ring on an insulating
table just above the torus. [Feynman here shows a ring hanging by a string over a table above a three
phase toroidal transformer.] The rotating field causes the ring to spin about a vertical axis."
(66)


Feynman has just described the Egg of Columbus to his Cal Tech students, - without ever mentioning its inventor.
It's too bad - for the students, that is. (They’re the actual loosers.) Tesla didn’t even have to use a string to hold
up the egg, like Feynman (80 years later) does!]

Well, how much green fog and mist could you make with a nine megawatt AC generator? How big a
cavity could you funnel out of the sea? It would be fascinating to calculate this out as another appendix.

3. Unsettled Conditions:

“….a boiling of the water, ionization of the surrounding air, and even a ‘Zeemanizing’ of the atoms...
The ioniz6tion created by the field tended to cause an uneven refraction of the light… The result would
not be a steady mirage effect, but rather a moving back and forth displacement caused by certain
inherent tendencies of the A C field... We felt that with proper effort some of these problems could be
overcome and that a resonant frequency could probably be found that would possibly control the visual
apparent internal oscillation so that the shimmering would be at a much slower rate…..” (pp 198-199).

One might expect power dissipation in the water, due to circulating eddy currents in the sea, to heat the water,
perhaps to the level of steam. Also, the sea would be a heat sink for any heating of the hull; “Zeemanizing” is
discussed elsewhere. There would be a good deal of turbulence near the ship (as demonstrated by the second of
our experiments described above).

Ionization in the air could result as follows. Large magnetic fields rapidly changing in time can cause an
ionizing breakdown of air.
(67)
The idea stems from Joseph Slepian’s pioneering patent
( 68)
, which resulted in D.
W. Kerst's creation of the Betatron accelerator in 1941.
(69)


If a nonsinusoidal waveform were used to drive the ship's bias coils, say a low duty-cycle, pulse train (as
in a class C oscillator), or a capacitive discharge directly into the coil, then large spikes in E
|
would result from
the rapid c c /
HZ
(make/break). In the language of jumped circuits, dt di L
Vcoil
= has spikes. For a
cylindrical solenoid, Faraday’s Law gives:
( )
c
c
=
t
z H
E
r
r
2
0
µ
¢
(12)
If E should rise to near 200 kV/m (well below air breakdown at 3 MV/m) incipient atmospheric Trichel
pulses would be emitted from every sharp object on the ship and extensive corona would ensue. Clearly, a fast
rising pulse would not be a good choice of waveform.
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

32

4. Acoustic whine and hum:

"I felt the push of that force field against the solidness of my arm and had outstretched into its humming,
pushing, propelling flow." (p. 110)

"In trying to describe the sounds that the force field made as it circled around the DE 173…. it began as
a humming whispering sound, and then increased to a strongly sizzling buzz, like a rushing torrent." (p.
111)

"A special series of electrical power cables had been laid from a nearby power house to the ship. When
the order was given and the switches thrown 'the resulting whine was almost unbearable. (p. 248)

It would seem reasonable to assume that the media immersed in the bias coil's low frequency magnetic
fields (the ship and the sea water) would respond with mechanical vibrations, much like the acoustical hum of
conventional power transformers for example. (The ship and sea water have become the output of an acoustical
transducer, driven by the bias coils.) More than likely, the power content of harmonic spectra would be
substantial well into the ultrasonic region, (think of all the electrical, mechanical, and physiological nonlinearities
present), accounting for the perception of 'unbearable whine.


Biological (Physiological) Effects
While on earth our physical bodies move about in relatively weak background magnetostatic (1/4 gauss),
fair weather electrostatic (100 V/m), acoustical pressure (1/2 dyne/cm
2
), RF, and gravitational fields. This
experiment would have meant total immersion in an unusual set of electromagnetic and acoustical fields. While
people have been subjected to fairly large DC magnetic fields,
(70)
the “Philadelphia Experiment” probably used
intense low frequency pulsating fields, which could lead to a novel set of recognized perceptual phenomena.

One might expect peculiar responses from the nervous system, visual system, auditory system, and
respiratory system, as well as, general mental and perceptual confusion.

" We couldn't stand the effects of the energy field they were using... It affected us in different ways.
Some only saw double, others began to 1augh and stagger like they were drunk, and a few passed out.
Some even claimed that they had passed into another world and had seen ad talked to alien beings." (p.
19).

"Any person within that sphere became vague in form but he too observed those persons aboard the ship
as though they were of the same state, yet were walking upon nothing.” (p. 41).

"As he stood there trying to comprehend what had happened, and looking for his ship, he watched
indistinct figures in motion, whom he could not identify as sailors and some other shapes 'that did not
seem to belong on the dock, if that is where I was”. (p. 248).

Let us zero in on perceptual effects, which we would expect under such circumstances:
Magnetophosphenes and Purkinji figures. A phosphene is a sensation of light produced by physical
stimuli other than light. A magnetophosphene is one stimulated by time-varying magnetic fields. What about
Purkinji patterns?

Johannes Purkinji, the renowned Czech physiologist of the 19th century once said, "Deceptions of the
senses are the truths of perception." By this he meant that, "Illusions call our attention to the workings of the
visual system, whereas normal perception falls to do so."
(71)
Perkinji was famous for studying a number of
variously shaped, subjective optical patterns that can be excited by electrical stimulation. In 1819, he put a circuit
interrupter (a chain) in series with a battery and electrodes across the face, and saw different shaped geometrical
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

33
patterns when he wiggled the chain (The phenomenon goes back (again) to Benjamin Franklin and to Allesandro
Volta.)

Following on the clue that a low frequency electromagnetic pulse spectrum was involved, Knoll and
Kugler, in Germany (at Munich), investigated the excitation of “Purkinji patterns”.
(72)


(Apparently, similar patterns have been observed during brain surgery by direct electrical stimulation of the visual
cortex at 60 Hz.)
(73)


"It has been found that (besides flicker), a whole “spectrum” of subjective abstract light patterns can
be excited in the brain by using temporal electrodes and pulses of a few volts within the
encephalographic frequency range. While shapeless flicker covers a large frequency range, patterns
are excitable mostly within the range of 5-35 pulses/second. The number of subjective patterns
excitable in each individual was longer for mental patients than for technical students... Most
patients with beta-encephalographic activity showed pattern excitation frequencies greater than 50
pulses/second. "
(74)


They observed many light patterns such as stars, wheels, asterisks, bright dot patterns, moons, “smiley faces” and
other geometrical shapes.

Fascinating surveys have been published by Becker, who specifically reports on “magnetophosphenes”
(magnetically stimulated phosphenes),
(75)
and by Oster.
(76)
Becker relates that;

"'The intensity is greatest between 20 and 30 Hz. Above 90 Hz the phenomenon becomes less evident...
As the field strength is increased, the luminosity appears to involve more and more of the visual field...
No subjective sensations of any ape were noted during steady field applications, but phosphenes were
experienced during 'make' and 'break' of the coil current.”
(77)


(Apparently the original data were obtained by placing the subject's head in a large solenoidal coil.) The results
would seem to illustrate the importance of an intense low frequency time varying magnetic field.

Oster suggests that Phosphenes "may well constitute the fact behind reports of phantoms and ghosts.”
(78)
He points out that alcohol and hallucinogenic drug can induce phosphenes. However, "Pulses in the same
frequency range as brain waves (from 5 to 40 Hz) were most effective in producing phosphenes."
(79)

Oster did something else that was particularly interesting. He looked for beats.

"Using two electrically independent generators and four electrodes, we have applied pulses of two
different frequencies at the same time. Each is just above the critical point [upper cutoff frequency] and
would therefore produce no phosphenes by itself. Together they generate beats, which are seen as
undulating phosphenes, that move slowly across the field of view. It would appear that some neural
mechanism mixes the two signals, which interact periodically to produce a beat."
(80)


(A phosphene superheterodyne, no less: use one generator as a signal, link couple the other into the head as an
injected Local Oscillator, and let the brain do the IF filtering, processing and detection! They could probably
have searched for third order intermodulation distortion products, gotten the image frequency rejection ratio, and a
host of other radio characterizations.)

The medical industry, at one time, thought that electrically stimulated phosphenes might bring about
artificial vision for the blind.
(81) (82)
Jearl Walker
(83)
discusses phosphenes and states that not only are they
poorly understood ("There has been almost no work published on modeling the phenomenon."), but also the
physical source has not even been identified.

We think that visual distortion magneto-phosphenes and Purkinji patterns (whether they were the alien
humanoids reported as being seen by some sailors, or not) would certainly have accompanied the experiment.
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

34
Such cerebral cortex stimulation (time varying magnetic flux producing induced electrical voltage stimuli along
the visual and nervous systems) would probably also play a role in the "blanking out" experienced by some
participants, even after the fields had been turned off. The "blanking out" and "frozen" episodes may have
followed as a result of simple nonlinear responses of the nervous system. Furthermore, because the permitivity
for brain tissue is complex ) ( c c c ' ' ÷ ' = j with an effective conductivity ( ) c e
o
' ' =
e
, one would expect AC
(diathermy or “diatheretic”) dielectric heating of the tissue, with ensuing mental and neurological complications.



Summary Remarks - Leading To Another Question
All this leads to a relatively unpretentious question. If the physics of the experiment is so easy to
explain, and the physiological symptoms so easy to rationalize, then why would there be such a shroud of mystery
in the Navy, and such unwillingness to acknowledge it? (Surely, with the National debt the size it is, they must
have figured this all out years ago.) The military have conducted many experiments that went awry and where
people were seriously injured. Why cover up this one?

The reluctance implies deeper issues. It would seem to suggest that something of an unusual nature
occurred during the experiment. What was it?

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

35
TORSION TENSOR CONJECTURE

"The views of space and time, which I wish to lay before you.... are radical. Henceforth space by itself,
and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will
preserve an independent reality."
Hermann Minkowski, Cologne, 1908*
(84)


At this point, not only are the authors going to go out on a limb but, metaphorically speaking, we also
will saw the tree off. Listen to the bizarre testimony presented by those involved in the experiment.

"The experimental ship also somehow mysteriously disappeared from its Philadelphia dock and showed
up only minutes later in the Norfolk area. It then subsequently vanished again only to reappear at its
Philadelphia dock. Total elapsed time - a mater of minutes. " (p. 89).

"Suddenly, the deep fog “flashed off”, leaving Silverman in a very confused state and wondering, “what
in the world I was doing in Norfolk.” He said he had recognized the place as Norfolk “because I had
been there before to the ship’s other dock there.” Then just as suddenly, the green fog returned; it lifted
again and Silverman found himself back at dockside in the Philadelphia Navy Yard " (p. 249).

"One day, looking at the harbor from the dock, [five British merchant seamen in Norfolk, VA] were
understandahly amazed to see a sea-level cloud suddenly form in the harbor, and almost immediately
dissipate,, leaving a destroyer escort in full view, which stayed but a few moments before it was covered
by a cloud and vanished again. " (p. 250).

These quotes sound like the unmitigated blubbering’s of some science fiction writer. Look, you can’t do
a macroscopic job like this with quantum mechanics, or even general relativity. Nine megawatts is one bodacious
rate of energy delivery, but (worm holes, black holes* and “zitterbewegung” notwithstanding) it's not enough to
distort Schwarzschild’s metric, or Kerr's metric, or anybody else's solution to the extent that something like this
could happen, even in a small locality. The obvious rational explanation would be that some people that saw it,
were confused or intoxicated. Certainly one might expect the former to be the case for those sailors immersed in
the intense fields of the experiment. But still, one wonders...

Now we ask, "What about time-travel and teleportation?" How could these topics become part of the
associated lore? [To this point, we've been having fun at the Joseph Slepian - Jearl Walker level. Now we'll
have to join Edwin Abbott, Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington,
(85)
and George Gamow, or Philip (teleportation)
(86)
and
King Hezekiah (time travel).
(87)
] Let us have some history, and attempt speculative conjecture on these topics
while striving to maintain mathematical sensibility.


Spin, Torsion, and a Crinkled Space-Time
"I do not think it is too extravagant to claim that the method of the tensor calculus is the only possible means of
studying the conditions of the world which are at the basis of physical phenomenon."

Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington**


__________________

* An English translation, accompanied by Arnold Sommerfeld’s notes and commentary, is referenced.
** To make a black-hole with a null surface (absolute event horizon) the size of the ship's beam [R
S
= (2GM/c
2
= 5.5 meters] would
require an energy of 3.34 x 10
44
Joules.
*** The Mathematical Theory of Relativitv, Cambridge U. Pr., 1923, pg. 49.

Relation of Gyromagnetic Phenomena to the Production of Torsion
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

36
During the course of our investigation of the “Philadelphia Experiment” we examined the hypothesis that
quantum mechanical spin such as found in ferromagnetic materials, may affect the structure of space-time. We
were intrigued by a remark that Friedreich Hehl and his colleagues published;

"One finds that distant observers, who measure only the metric field, cannot distinguish between a
(ferromagnetically) polarized source of spinning matter (which causes torsion locally) and a rotating
distribution of matter with the same total angular momentum (which nowhere causes torsion)."
(88)


What was meant by ferromagnetic generation of localized torsion? This, and the fact that torsion permits
temporal displacements of magnitude

| |
dx dx S dx
b a
ab ab
cdt
O
÷ = =
4 4 4
2 (13)

drove us to pursue even wilder musings than presented above. Could it be possible that, as a result of
magnetically biasing the ship to radar stealth, torsion deformations were excited in the fabric of space-time itself?
(We told you that we were going out on a limb, in this section.) Were that possible, then there might be
teleportation and time-travel without the crushing effects of gravitational curvature, or squeezing through the
Schwarzschild radius down the throat of a black-hole, or thoughts of bubbling out through a white-hole at some
unknown place in the universe, or 10
44
joules required to make the machine run. The torsion technique might
even be within reach of pre-WW-II electrical engineering. If the spin were right, one might leap ahead along his
world line (or perhaps even backwards) without travelling all the distance in between. What an enchanting idea!

In the pursuit of this hypothesis, we came across a very extensive literature on the relationship between
quantum mechanical spin and space-time torsion. (This seems to be the present employment of Einstein’s 1929
UFT (Unified Field Theory) space with torsion.) Based on this research, we provide below an heuristic and
speculative account of the affect of quantum mechanical spin on the structure of space-time and also propose a
new theory of the Aharonov-Bohm effect with an outline for an experiment to verify our theory. We also
propose a classical experiment utilizing the conventional Sagnac Effect and photon gyros to distinguish between
temporal jumps due to “Anholonomity” and jumps due to “Torsion”. Since the concepts of anholonomity and
torsion are central to our discussion, we will begin by illustrating what these terms mean.


Torsion and the Anholonomic Object
In a considerable volume of the literature, the concepts of torsion and anholonomity are mingled and
confused. They are distinctly different, anholonomity being frame dependent and torsion being a true tensor field
quantity. Imagine a reference system of coordinates that you carry around with you to make measurements.
This reference system consists of a field of orthogonal basis vectors that span three (3) space dimensions e
l
, e
2
,
e
3
, and time e
4
. (We use boldface for vectors.) These are Einstein’s “n-Bein”, or “tetrad” fields. Now,
using this reference field of frames, you can make measurements, which can be transmitted to a second observer,
who can transform your measurements into his reference field of frames using his own set of orthogonal basis
vectors (e
1
’, e
2
', e
3
', e
4
’). (We could say this much more elegantly, but for the present audience and the
limitations of space, please permit us to be vigorous instead of rigorous. Those that understand the formalism can
supply their own rigor.)

In flat space-time (where the Riemann curvature tensor is zero), each observer can relate his reference
frames (determined by his set of orthogonal basis vectors) to another observer's reference frames via a simple
Lorentz transformation, provided that no forces are acting on the observers (observers are moving inertially).

In the case when observers are not moving inertially, relating the reference frames of the observers can
be greatly facilitated by employing the mathematical machinery of torsion and the anholonomic object as we show
in the following.

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

37
Now imagine two separated observers (observer 1 and observer 2) who wish to compare measurements
(we do not assume the observers are moving inertially). In order to do this they must determine how their
reference frames differ. The only way to compare reference frames is to transport observer one's set of basis
vectors to the same location as observer 2 and see how they differ when compared with each other at the sane
location. ( See Figure 10 below)

Let e
i
, be one of observer one's basis vectors at P
0
, and let e
i
' be one of observer two's basis vectors at
P
1
(we will use Latin indices throughout this paper with values 1, 2, 3, for the spatial dimensions and 4 for time).
( )
P P ei 1 0
÷ is the value of observer one's e
i
basis vector after it has been parallely transported to P
1
(to
parallel transport a vector means to move it without changing its length or angle). De
i
is the difference between
observer one's parallely transported basis vector and observer two's basis vector. This gap defect De
i
between the
two basis vectors is due either to a change in the coordinate basis between observer 1 and observer 2, in which
case it can be mathematically transformed away, or it was due to deformations in the path it took between P
0
and
P
1
, in which case the gap defect cannot be transformed away, or a combination of both.
























Figure 10
Parallel transport of a vector from P
0
to P
1

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

38
To see this more clearly, let us move observer one's set of basis vectors over two different paths.
Parallel displacing an incremental vector
e dx b
b
from the point P
0
along the basis vector e
a
over an
infinitesimal distance dx
a
to the point P
1
, = P
0
+ dx
a
gives the vector


( ) ( )
e dx dx P e dx P P e dx c
b a
ba
c
b
b
b
b   
I
+ = ÷
0 1 0
(14)


Similarly, parallel displacing the incremental vector
e dx a
a
from the point P o along the basis vector e

b
over an infinitesimal distance dx
b
to the point P
2
= P
0
+ dx
b
gives the vector


( ) ( )
e dx dx P e dx P P e dx c
a b
ab
c
a
a
a
a   
I
+ = ÷
0 2 0
(15)


The gap defect between the parallely transported vector at P
1
and the actual value of the vector
e dx b
b
at P
1
is


( )
e dx dx dx
x
e
dx P e D dx c
b a
ba
c a
a
b
b
b
b 


I
c
c
÷
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
1
(16)


Likewise, the gap defect between the parallely transported vector at P
2
and the actual value of the vector
e dx a
a
at P
2
is

( )
e dx dx dx
x
e
dx P e D dx c
a b
ab
c b
b
a
a
a
a 


I
c
c
÷
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
2
(17)


The total gap defect between the two vectors is


( ) ( ) | | | |
e dx dx dx dx e e P e D dx P e D dx c
b a
ba
c
ab
c b a
b a a
a
b
b     
I I
÷ + = ÷ ,
2 1
(18)


where the commutation and anholonomic object are given by
(89) (90)


| |
e
x
e
x
e
e e c ab
c
b
a
a
b
b a

 
 
O
c
c
c
c
÷ =
|
|
.
|

\
|
÷ = 2 , (19)


As Eddington and Schouten recognized in the 1920’s, parallelograms (composed of parallel transported
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

39
vectors) don’t necessarily close (either because of anholonomity or because of torsion).
(91) (92) (93) (94)


"Einstein’s world geometry may be briefly described as a geometry in which there are parallels but not
parallelograms. Thus he admits the existence, even at great distances, of a line CD equal and parallel to
AB; but the line through B parallel to AC fails to cut CD. (We are dealing with at least three dimensions,
so that lines are not necessarily coplanar.) The geometrical idea of an abortive parallelogram which
fails to close up at its fourth comer, does not carry us very far, and it is necessary to proceed
analytically."
(95)


This is not an effect attributable to curvature. Furthermore, while the anholonomic object can be transformed
away by a coordinate transformation, this is not the case for torsion.

One interpretation of a coordinate transformation is that it simply means to relabel the coordinate basis of
one frame into that of another. For example, the point P is located in one coordinate system by the points x, y.
In another coordinate system, which we will call the prime coordinate system, the same point is located by the
points x, y. If the coordinate transformation (the relabeling process) between the two is holonomic then


dx
x
x
x d |
.
|

\
|
c
' c
= ' and dy
y
y
y d
|
|
.
|

\
|
c
' c
= ' (20)


and the coordinate differentials are integrable into coordinate curves. If the coordinate transformation is non-
holonomic then the above relations do not hold (this is known as Pfaff ’s problem) and the prime system uses
basis vectors, which are not tangent to the coordinate curves of any coordinate system. The anholonomic object,
as we have seen, measures the discrepancy between the basis vectors of two different coordinate systems that have
been caused solely by the mathematical machinery (the coordinate transformation) that relates the two coordinate
systems; remember the commutation operation [e
a
, e
b
] from above. Consequently, what has been created
mathematically can be dissolved mathematically and the anholonomic object can be transformed away by an
appropriate change in the choice of coordinates.

We do not wish to imply that the anholonomic object is a mathematical artifact with no physical
consequences. Failure to take into account anholonomity inherent in the twisting of the tetrads in some reference
systems can have dramatic consequences.
(96) (97) (98) (99)
(Thomas precession, the Sagnac effect, the
Oppenheimer-Schiff paradox, the Feynman Paradox, etc., are all classic examples of the effects of anholonomity.)
In relativistic rotation one desires to describe what's happening in the rotating (anholonomic) frame, not in the
holonomic (non-rotating) frame!

The components of the torsion tensor
ab
c
S
are obtained from
(100) (101) (102) (103) (104)



| |
| | ab
c
ba
c
ab
c
ab
c
S I I I
A ÷ =
2
1
(21)


Torsion, unlike anholonomity, is due to changes in the properties of the underlying manifold and cannot
be transformed away by a change in the coordinate basis. Torsion is a measure of how much the manifold is
crinkled or folded, and such geometry’s can be made anholonomic Riemannian by tearing, as discussed in great
detail in the publications of Gabriel Kron. It should also be noted that the principle of equivalence does not hold
in spaces with torsion.
(105)



THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

40























Figure 11
The non-closure of the outside quadrilateral depends upon Anholonomity. The non-closure of the inner pentagon
depends on the Torsion of the manifold.


A simple picture might help to illustrate torsion: imagine a folded towel. Start at a point underneath the
fold and trace a circle so that you cross over the fold. The point where you return after tracing the circle is on the
fold above the point where you started. If there were no torsion, i.e., no fold, you would have returned to the
same point where you started. (Do not confuse this with curvature. What we are discussing is distinctly
different from Riemannian curvature!) The torsion component


| |
e dx dx e dx dx S c
b a
ba
c
ab
c
c
b a
ab
c
T
 

I I
÷ = = 2 (22)


measures the gap across the fold from where you started to where you finished. The distinction between gap
defects arising from anholonomity and from torsion is shown in Figure 11 below, which is self explanatory.
(Look, for c = 4 we're talking about a “time machine”.)

Perhaps one more sketch will help clarify all this analytical machinery. Consider the 'crinkled manifold
represented in Figure 12 below. The affine connection is asymmetric:
ba
c
ab
c
I I
= . Consequently, parallel
transporting the two vectors at P
0
(t=O) leads to the discrepancy, or gap defect vector shown. In spaces with
torsion, an observer in space can be transported forward in time by the amount

e
df
S e dx
ab
ab
cdt
 
4
4
4
4
2
(
¸
(

¸

= = (23)

Similarly, as shown on the left, an observer may jump through the space gap d| (with dt =0), the gap
being given by
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

41
e
df
S e dx
ab
ab
d
 
¢
¢
(
¸
(

¸

= =
3
3
3
2 (24)

In spaces with anholonomity (but no torsion), the gaps are actually measured as the Sagnac effect and Thomas
precession respectively. The former is of considerable interest to GPS receivers and photon rate gyros.

As we have seen, anholonomity is a mathematical creation caused by a choice in coordinates or resulting
from noninertial motion. It’s a twisting of the coordinate surfaces used an observer. Torsion, however is caused
by a folding of the space-time manifold itself. What could cause a folding or crinkling of the space-time
manifold and so create torsion? Is there a way that we could actually build such a 'time machine' out of magnets
and coils and capacitors and stuff? We look at one answer to this question “in the next section”.





















Figure 12
A “crinkled space modeled as a pleated fabric”. The jumps are due to Torsion if 0 =
ab
c
S
and due to
Anholonomity if 0 =
Oab
c
.
Spin and Torsion

Spin
Is defined as the angular rotation of an object about one of its axis is a concept for which we are all familiar.

Quantum mechanical spin
Is defined as the internal angular momentum of a quantum mechanical particle is a more elusive concept. Recent
work
(106)
, however, has brought to light an old suggestion
(107)
that quantum mechanical spin may be regarded as
an angular momentum generated by a circulating flow of energy in the wave field of the quantum mechanical
particle. With this concept of quantum mechanical spin in mind, we will proceed to discuss how quantum
mechanical spin may create torsion in the space-time manifold.

In the previous section, where we heuristically demonstrated the concepts of torsion and the anholonomic
object using parallely transported basis vectors, we found that when we compared the parallely transported basis
vector to their actual values at a point some infinitesimal distance away, there was a gap defect due to the
misalignment of the respective basis vectors. This misalignment can be corrected by simply rotating the parallely
transported vector until it aligns with the actual value of the vector at the destination point. The rotation that
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

42
caused the misalignment of the basis vectors consists of two parts: one part proportional to the anholonomic
object, which can rotate the transported basis vector on a Riemannian (torsion-free) manifold; and the other part
due to torsion, which provides another independent rotational degree of freedom. Now let us see how the extra
degree of rotational freedom associated with torsion can be related to quantum mechanical spin.

Assume that a material system can be described in terms of a Lagrangian density L. Then the energy-
momentum tensor
T
ij
of the material system can be described by

|
|
|
.
|

\
|
÷
=
g
T
ij
ij L
g o
o 2
(25)

where
g
ij
is the metric of the underlying manifold and g is its determinant.

Metric specifies the scaler product between two basis vectors, which lie in the tangent space above the
manifold and is used to determine distance and angle on the manifold. Because metric is used to define distance,
a variation in the metric
g
ij
o determines a variation in the distance on the manifold.

Analogous to the definition of the energy momentum tensor stated above, it has been shown that a
dynamical definition of spin can be related to variations in the contortions of space-time

|
|
.
|

\
|
÷
=
k
ij
ji
k
K
L
g
o
t
o 1
(26)

where
ji
k t
is the spin angular momentum and
k
ij K
is the contortion tensor
(108)
.




The contortion tensor is related to the torsion tensor by
(109)



ij
k
i
k
j
k
ij
k
ij S S S K
÷ + ÷ = (27)

Consequently, a variation in the contortion tensor implies a variation in the torsion and in the affine connection.
We can see this more clearly by defining an affine connection for spaces with torsion in anholonomic coordinates
as
(110)


K
g
ijk kij jki ijk ij
ki
ijk
÷ ÷ + ÷ = =
O O O I I
1
(28)


and in holonomic coordinates as
(111)


{ }
k
ij
j
k
i
ij
k
K
÷ =
I
(29)
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

43

where { } j
k
i
is Christoffel's symbol of the second kind. As mentioned above, this idea can actually be traced
back to Schouten and Cartan in the 1920’s.

Thus, we see that a variation in the contortion tensor
k
ij K
, varies the torsion space-time connection and
leads to a twisting of the parallely transferred orthogonal basis vectors.

We have passed through some rather subtle mathematics here, and lest the reader think that this is, to quote
some anonymous wag, the product of the leisure of the theory class, let us state in the strongest terms possible that
what we have just said lies at the bedrock foundation of electrical engineering! Perhaps some history would be in
order before proceeding.



A Short History of Successful Unified Field Theory Applications
Historically, the idea of an unsymmetric affine connection was first discussed in a 1921 footnote by Arthur
Eddington.
(112)
He conceived that such a manifold would be “infinitely crinkled”.

This can be visualized as a geometrical manifold constructed as a folded or pleated sheet of cloth as mentioned
above. Any attempt to extrapolate out away from the contact point of reference P
0
will lead to unanticipated
results. Infinitesimal parallelograms are discontinuous as one approaches a pleat from above the fold or from
under the fold. If the discontinuity is due to actual folds in the manifold, the resulting pentagon is due to torsion
and the discontinuity, is of magnitude
e dx dx S c
b a
ab
c
. If, however the jump discontinuity is due to folds
in the choice of coordinate surfaces, the resulting pentagon is due to anholonomity and the coordinated time
correction required is of magnitude
e dx dx c
b a
ab
c
O
2 . This is the case for the Sagnac effect and it is
clearly observed with the GPS (Global Positioning Satellite) system, and especially with global time
dissemination.

The torsion tensor was introduced almost simultaneously in 1922 by Eli Cartan
(113)
(1859~1951) and in
1923 by Jan Schouten
(114)
(1883~1971). Subsequently, from 1925 to 1931 Einstein employed affine connection
asymmetry in speculative generalizations of relativity theory.
(115) (116) (117) (118) (119) (120)
He had hoped to link the
four vector potential (A
a
) to a contracted torsion tensor field (S
b

ba
). He seems to have had difficulty
recognizing the distinction between anholonomity, which depends on the commutation of the basis vectors, and
torsion, which depends solely on the asymmetry of the affine connection.

Norbert Wiener was the first to recognize that Einstein’s distant parallelism gave the possibility of
comparing “spins” at different points.

“The notion of a parallelism valid for the whole of space and of Einstein’s n-uples enables us to carry
over the Dirac theory into general relativity almost without alteration... the quadruples need not be
integrable so as to furnish us with a co-ordinate system throughout space... This seems to us the most
important aspect of Einstein’s recent work ... “
(121)


Wiener saw the tetrad approach of Einstein’s as providing a bridge between the macroscopic world of mechanical
bodies and the microscopic world of quantum mechanics, and a way to compare the distant interaction of spins.
Perhaps the curious issues which Dr. Eric Laithwaite* has raised concerning "spin radiation" from gyros may be
resolved in this manner.

“….it should be possible to cause one force-precessed wheel to transmit a torque through space to
another spinning wheel. If that be true, it is extremely likely that this kind of [non-electromagnetic]
radiation is bombarding the earth from outer space and should be capable of collection."
(122)

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

44

Modem work on unified field theories is concerned more with the identification of torsion with spin, which was
not Einstein’s stated purpose in the 1920's versions of the Unified Field Theory.*

Einstein’s labors with unsymmetric connections were again taken up after 1945.
(123) (124) (125)
In the latter
reference he points out, in fact, that

“... at first the Riemannian metric was considered the fundamental concept on which the general theory
of relativity, and thus the avoidance of the inertial system, was based. Later, however, Levi-Civita
rightly pointed out that the element of the theory that makes it possible to avoid the inertial system is
rather the infinitesimal displacement field c
a
b I
. The metric, or the symmetric tensor field
g
ik
which
defines it, is only indirectly connected with the avoidance of the inertial system in so far as it determines
a displacement field."
(126)


(The "at first" that Einstein uses refers to the 1916 classical general relativity, now so familiar. The "later.... Levi-
Civita" comment refers to a famous 1930 paper.
(127)
Apparently during the late 1920's Einstein was somewhat
touchy about Cartan’s priority with the torsion tensor, as can be seen in his 21 letters to Cartan on the topic of
"Fernparallelismus".
(128)
It should be clear that Einstein had independently created a Riemannian geometry with
torsion.
(129)


Perhaps the most unexpected application of Anholonomity and the Torsion tensor is in the area of electrical
machinery and electrical circuit theory (dating, in fact, back to Tesla’s “egg of Columbus” and his creation of the
rotating magnetic field). With the appearance of Einstein’s unified field work of the late 1920's, Gabriel Kron
discovered a remarkable unifying role for these concepts in the generalized theory of electrical machines.
(130)
During his lengthy career at General Electric, Kron published a long series of contributions formally employing
geometrical concepts from Einstein’s so called "Unsymmetric Unified Field Theory" to successfully explain
complex mutual interconnections of electrical networks and machinery in terms of tensors.
(131) (132) (133) (134) (135)
(136)

______________
* 1984 IEEE Tesla Medalist, and Professor at Imperial College, London.
** As a side note, it was also during this time in the 1920's that Einstein and Dr. Leo Szilard (1898~1964) filed 16 joint patent applications
(ostensibly for an electrodynamic pump).


Einstein patented a gyrocompass and with Rudolph Goldschmidt (1876~1950), Einstein received a joint
“hearing aid” patent. Goldschmidt is famous in radio history as the inventor of the high frequency RF generator
utilizing groups of rotating coils for harmonic generation, and resonance for CW production. Goldschmidt's
apparatus was used in the first wireless link between Germany and the US in 1914.

Nominated for his pioneering contributions by Paul Langevin (who first recognized the importance of de
Broglie's work), Kron received the Montifiore Prize in 1936. MIT mathematics professors Struik
(137)
and Wiener
(138)
were both interested in Kron’s application of Einstein’s Unified Field Theory to electrical machinery. The
application to electrical systems should not be surprising since the unified field theories were framed to describe
situations which involve physical coordinates (space and time), gravitation, and electrodynamics. Kron’s
approach however, was to employ the same mathematics to describe interconnected systems with physical
coordinates, mechanical energy, and electrical energy. (This application has enjoyed remarkable success in
industry and presently, it is extensively employed by electrical utilities and heavy electrical equipment
manufacturers around the world, in the analysis of interconnected power systems.) Kron's approach is a tensor
theory and consequently invariant. [The popular state variable approach is not, and therefore it is doomed to
failure, in the general case. It cannot be a fundamental electrical theory. (Try it on a curved manifold, or even
one with torsion!) It is a matter of invariance; sooner or later, the geometers will even win the political battle
being waged by the algebraic topologists in the fight over electrical circuit pedagogy!]

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

45
The mathematical analogy to Einstein’s work is only formal, of course, since, as Kron points out,
mechanical energy is not the same as gravitational energy.
(139)
However, the practical utility, success (the actual
words used by Banesh Hoffmann* were "experimental confirmation"
(140)
), and the wide-spread use of the 1929
Einstein unsymmetnc unified field theory in electrical power systems usually comes as quite a surprise to most
physicists, and even to some electrical engineers with narrow training. It should not be surprising that Tesla’s
polyphase system of rotating electromagnetic fields would have lead to this path. Kron once said,

“The equations of rotating electric machinery are formally analogous to those used by Einstein... In fact,
the equations of a rotating machine plus a transmission line are far more complicated [geometrically]
than those I have yet seen used by those long-haired physicists or still longer-haired mathematicians...
You may laugh on hearing that a really scientific analysis of a synchronous machine implies the
introduction of such unearthly concepts as nonholonomic reference frames, or multidimensional non-
Riemannian spaces, or the Riemann-Christoffel curvature tensor... [but] that's where the electrical power
engineer must look for new ideas and new inspiration... What's more, he has no other choice!"
(141)


Because of the complex phase or nature of electrical quantities (voltages and currents), and with special
interest in polyphase systems, Kron’s research labors led him to complex (in the sense of R + jX) manifolds with
many degrees of freedom. From the work of Veblen and John von Neumann
(142)
he observed,

"In establishing the equivalent networks for electrical machines, there are at least three types of
transformations used.
1. Coordinate transformations
2. Spin Transformations
3. Gauge Transformations

Coordinate transformations are used in passing from stationary to rotating axes. Spin transformations are
used in introducing the hypothetical symmetrical component frames.

Gauge transformations enter in eliminating phase shifters..."
(143)


The method of symmetrical components, as every sophomore electrical engineer student knows, is based upon
Fortescue's theorem.
(144)
Any unbalanced polyphase system of vectors can be resolved into three balanced
systems: A positive-sequence system (the three-phase vectors have the same phase sequence as the original
unbalanced system), a negative sequence system (the three-phase vectors have the opposite phase sequence to the
original unbalanced system) , and a zero-sequence system (three equal magnitude in-phase vectors).
(145)


Is it any wonder that Kron would have seized upon John von Neumann’s work on complex domains.
Further-more, his original investigation of zero-phase sequence waves in synchronous machines led him to
conclude that, "The most general representative machine must have an infinite number of coordinate axes
representing a space with an infinite number of dimensions.”
(146)
The geometrical treatment of harmonic waves
in unbalanced polyphase







_________________
* The cryptic remark was written by Hoffmann in 1943. Hoffmann was an assistant to Professor Oswald Veblen at Princeton University,
where he received his Ph.D. Subsequently, he was a member of the Institute for Advanced Study, working with Einstein, Infeld, and
Veblen.


THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

46
windings requires, as Kron pointed out, the introduction of Hilbert Spaces. In the analysis of time-varying
systems, Kron makes use of "tearing" and of John von Neumann’s work on an asymmetrical form of the wave
equation.
(147)
(It should not be thought that the method of diakoptics was merely a computational technique for
handling large matrices - this would be to have missed the entire purpose of diakoptics and the geometrical
foundation of electrical theory!)

With regard to experimental verification, Kron wrote in 1936,

"While the equations of the Unified Field Theory are not amenable to experimental verification (hence
the large variety of theories and equations) all tensor equations developed in this serial can easily be
checked by other well known methods of analysis or by tests on actual machines."
(148)


In spite of the remarkable applications to electrical machinery,
(149)
crystals,
(150)
plasticity,
(151)
and even
nuclear reactors,
(152)
recent activity concerning spaces with non-zero torsion has centered in the particle physics
community. A lengthy review has been prepared by Hehl, et. al.
(153)
From an engineering perspective, however,
most of the modem work m geometries with torsion appear to be more-or-less academic, with no practical
applications for technology.

This is not the case with anholonomity. Indeed, Berry’s discovery of a path dependent geometric phase,
or anholonomic shift in the overall phase of an energy eigenfunction, has now appeared in a broad variety of
applications, both quantum and classical: Aharonov-Bohm effect, Hall effect, Thomas precession Sagnac effect,
polarization rotation in optical fibers, rotation rate gyros, and a host of others. Some of the recent literature on
Berry’s phase, however, does not distinguish between effects which are due to curvature (a property of the
manifold) and those which arise from anholonomic constraints. Having said this, let us return to our
“Philadelphia Experiment” thesis.


Spin and Magnetism
Magnetism in ferromagnetic materials is due to an imbalance in the electron spins in the partially filled atomic
shells of the ferromagnetic material. A group action among many of the atomic magnetic dipoles causes the
moments to align and produce macroscopic ferromagnetic domains. The large permanent magnetic field
characteristic of ferromagnetic materials is due to the collective orientation of the dipole moments in the material's
many domains, which we can describe by;
m N M


= (30)

where M is the magnetization in amperes/meter, m is the average magnetic dipole per atom and N is the number
of atomic magnetic dipoles all aligned in the same direction in a volume element dV.

The vector potential A for a magnetized material can be calculated from

( ) dV
R
dS
R
r A
V
v
S
s J J
} }
+ =
 


t t
µ µ
4 4
0 0
(31)
where

n M
J S

 
× = (32)
is the equivalent surface current density and

M
Jv
 
× V = (33)

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

47
is the equivalent volume current density. We can describe the collective action of the atomic spins in terms of a
surface current density J
S
and a volume current density J
V
. Consequently, we have a circulating flow of
energy and momentum built up from the collective action of the aligned spins, which are themselves individual
circulating flows of charge in the wave field of the electron. Since the momentum circulates it is an angular
momentum.

This effect can be demonstrated by means of the Einstein-de Haas effect: a freely suspended body begins
to rotate upon being magnetized. Macroscopically, Tesla’s “egg of Columbus” exhibits an analogous behavior.
(In the latter, the magnetization is due to induced eddy currents, not molecular “amperian currents”.) Einstein
and de Haas performed these famous experiments in 1915 and 1916 (twenty-eight years after Tesla) to
demonstrate the existence of Ampere's “molecular currents”, and they determined the gyromagnetic ratio in a
ferromagnetic substances such as iron.
(154) (155) (156)
[The Barnett effect is the dual phenomenon: a rotating
ferromagnetic rnedium becomes magnetized by a molecular gyroscopic action. Apparently Einstein later
suggested to Barnett that he should examine the effects of an impressed polyphone rotating magnetic field. Again
we see the footprints of Dr. Tesla, his rotating magnetic field, and the “egg of Columbus”. Even Professor Bloch
took interest in this experiment. Frequencies as high as 30 kHz were used.
(157) (158)
]

The electromagnetic vector potential A describes the circulating field momentum built up by the atomic
spins. The fact that the vector potential A is a field momentum can be clearly seen when one writes the
Hamiltonian H for a charged particle in a magnetic field;

( ) u + ÷
|
.
|

\
|
= q A q p
m
H
2
2
1


(34)

where m is the mass of the charged particle, q is the charge, and u is the electrostatic potential. The total
momentum is

A q v m P
P P f k


  
+ = + = (35)

where P
k
= mv is the kinetic momentum and P
f
= qA is the field momentum. The expression

( )
mv
A q P
m
2
2
2
1
2
1
= ÷ |
.
|

\
|
 
(36)

gives the kinetic energy of the charged particle and shows that the magnetic field does no work on the charged
particle.


Torsion and the Electromagnetic Field
The electromagnetic field tensor
Fij
in spaces with torsion and using holonomic coordinates is given
by
(159)


A A F j i i j ij V V
÷ = (37)
where
A
x
A
A k ij
k
j
i
i j I
c
c
V
÷ = (38)
and
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

48

{ }
ij
k
j
k
i
ij
k
K
÷ =
I
(39)

Thus
A A F j i i j ij V V
÷ =


{ } { }
ij
k
k
i
k
j
k i
j
j
k
i
k j
i
S A A
x
A
A
x
A
÷
|
|
.
|

\
|
÷ ÷
|
|
.
|

\
|
÷ =
c
c
c
c
(40)

ij
k
k i
j
j
i
S A
x
A
x
A
÷
|
|
.
|

\
|
÷ =
c
c
c
c

Covariantly differentiating with respect to only the Christoffel symbols of the second kind { } j
k
i
and not the affine
connection
ij
k
I
would mean that photons would be decoupled from torsion.
(160)


It has been shown that gauge invariance and minimal coupling (the replacement of partial differentiation
by covariant differentiation using
ij
k
I
) can be satisfied in spaces with torsion
(161)
. Two experiments now come
to mind: one involves the Sagnac Effect and the other involves the Aharonov/Bohm effect. A third (Thomas
precession) could also be examined, obviously, but space does not permit a discussion in this paper.


A Sagnac Effect Experiment
In extensive publications over the last 20 years, the authors have shown that the Sagnac effect arises from
the anholonomic nature of the relativity of rotation. The interested reader is referred to these papers
. (162) (163) (164)
(165) (166)
A photon gyro may be constructed by splitting a coherent light beam and sending it in a clockwise and
in a counterclockwise direction around a closed path on a circular platform. When the platform is at rest the
beams produce no beat frequency when combined. However, when the platform rotates, the co-rotating beam
shifts upward in frequency and the counter propagating beam shifts downward in frequency, with the result that
when the beams are combined they heterodyne and produce low frequency beats directly proportional to the rate
of rotation of the platform. (Rotation with respect to what? This is a trick question, with profound implications.)
The formula for time difference with respect to an observer fixed on the platform (one half of the reciprocal of the
beat frequency) is given by
c
df
dx
A
c c
dt
ab
ab 2
4
4
2 2 e
± ~ ÷ = =
O
(41)
where e is the angular velocity of the platform, the + is taken for beam propagation with (+) or counter (-) to
the platform rotation, and
df
ab
is the differential area (A) enclosed by the optical path.

However, the general case, when torsion is present as well as rotation, is described by


| |
df
S dx
ab
ab ab
cdt
O
÷ = =
4 4 4
2 (42)

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

49
The question we ask is, "If the platform had gyromagnetic spin and produced a torsion tensor in accord with
Hehl's assertion above, could one fool the photon gyro?" Could you turn
ij S
4
on, and make the gyro on a non-
rotating platform think that
ij O
4
had arisen? (One normally turns
ij O
4
on, merely by spinning the table.)
Alternatively, could you turn on
ij S
4
and cancel out the
ij O
4
term and make the gyro on a truly rotating
platform think that it was at rest. (There is probably a military servo-system application here.) And so, you see,
we have proposed a simple experiment, with two parts, that can be performed in a thousand laboratories before
tomorrow evening. We have a second experiment to propose.


Aharonov-Bohm Effect
The Aharonov-Bohm effect is one of the outstanding puzzling effects of quantum theory. In classical
physics one can write an equation describing the force F acting on a charged particle in an electromagnetic field
as

( ) B v E q F


 
× + = (43)

This is the Lorentz force law, where q is the charge on the particle, v is the particle's velocity, E is the
electric field strength and B is the magnetic induction. Let us consider the case where we only have a static
magnetic field present: A B × V = and in regions where B = 0 there is no magnetic force on the particle. This
situation occurs outside an infinite solenoid of radius a:

( )
¦
¦
¦
¦
¹
¦
¦
¦
¦
´
¦
=
r
K
Kr
r
a
A
2
2
2
¢

a r
a r
>
<
(44)



( )
) (
=
c
c
=
r
r
r
r
A
BZ
¢
1

¹
´
¦
0
K

a r
a r
>
<
(45)

[For an infinite solenoid wound with n turns/meter, K = µ n I.] In spite of the fact that A = 0 outside the
solenoid there appears to be no classical force on the particle that can be attributable to A. Consequently, A was
not considered to be a physical field in classical electrodynamics. In quantum mechanics, however, it was
observed that in regions where there was no magnetic field present B = 0, the interference pattern caused by the
wave fractions of electrons shifted due to the presence of A. This is the Aharonov-Bohm effect. We will
borrow from Feynman
(167)
the following illustration of the Aharonov-Bolun effect using Figure 13.

We call
O1
the phase of an electron wave function moving along path 1,
O2
is the phase of an
electron wave function moving along path 2. We call
O1
(B = 0) the phase of the electron wave function
along path 1, when the magnetic field inside the solenoid is zero (likewise for path 2). Note that both paths are
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

50
located in regions where B = 0. When the magnetic field inside the solenoid is turned on, B = 0 inside the
solenoid but still B = 0 outside the solenoid along paths 1 and 2. However, the vector potential A is nonzero
outside the solenoid when the solenoidal field is on. Consequently, along path 1 the total phase shift will be

( )
} O O
- + = =
s
d A
q
B


1 1 1
0 (46)

Similarly, the phase of an electron moving along path 2 will be

( )
s
d A
q
B


2 2 2
0
} O O
- + = = (47)

Consequently, the interference pattern at the detector is shifted by an amount proportional to O o .


















Figure 13
Aharonov-Bohm experiment configuration. (Feynman’s Fig. 15-7)

( ) ( ) ( )
} } O O O O
- ÷ - + = ÷ = = ÷ = O
s s
d A d A
q
B B
 

2 1 2 1 2 1
0 0 o (48)

This means the electrons were influenced by the vector potential to depart from the path they would have taken if
the solenoidal field had not been turned on. This influence is the quantum mechanical analogue to the Lorentz
force we discussed earlier; so, how can the vector potential influence the electrons?

If we recall that the vector potential for a magnetized material is a circulating field momentum created by
the collective motion of atomic spins, which are themselves made up of individual circulating flows of charge,
then we may formulate the following hypothesis;

The atomic spins create a torsion field, which is coupled to the vector potential A. Particles such as the
electron with intrinsic spin couple to the torsion field and are deflected providing us with the interference
shift.

Let us examine the last equation we wrote and see how torsion may play a role in the Aharonov-Bohm effect.
The integrals
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

51
( )
} }
- ÷ -
s d s d
A A
q  

2 1
(49)

can be expressed as one integral around a closed path


dx A
i
i
q
}

(50)


Using Stoke's theorem this integral can be rewritten as

( )
df
A A dx A
ik
i k k r
i
i
q q
V }} V }
÷
|
.
|

\
|
=
  2
(51)

where we have transformed an integral over a four dimensional closed curve, into an integral over a surface area
spanning the curve. Remembering that

A
x
A
A j
j
ik i
k
k i I
c
c
V
÷ = (52)
is the covariant derivative, the integral

( ) ( )
df
A
df
x
A
x
A
df
A A
ik
j
j
ki
j
ki
ik
k
i
i
k
ik
i k k r
q q q
}} I I
c
c
}}
c
c
V }} V
÷
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
|
.
|
÷

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
= ÷
|
.
|

\
|
   2 2 2
(53)

where, 'in the last term, use may be made of the fact that

( ) ( )
S
j
ki
j
ki
j
ik
j
ki
÷ = ÷
O I I
2 (54)
where
O
j
ki
is the anholonomic object and
S
j
ki
are the components of the torsion tensor. Note that


within the solenoid

¦
¹
¦
´
¦
=
|
|
.
|

\
|
÷
c
c
c
c
0
B
x
A
x
A
z
k
i
i
k
(55)
outside the solenoid

The term
df
x
A
x
A
ik
k
i
i
k
q
}}
c
c
c
c
|
|
.
|

\
|
÷
|
.
|

\
|
 2
(56)

represents the magnetic flux enclosed by paths 1 and 2. In fact the integrand vanishes for r greater than the
radius of the solenoid (or whisker) in the Aharonov-Bohm experiment. Exterior to the solenoid, the integral term
simply gives a number equal to the enclosed flux density, times the cross sectional area of the solenoid (i.e., the
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

52
enclosed flux). A conventional quantum interpretation of the Ahwonov-Bohm effect attributes phase shift, not to
the interaction of the charge with the magnetic field at the field point (it's zero where the charge is), but to the non-
local field B, which is enclosed by the two paths.
(168)
The electron wave function is not exposed to the B field
since it travels in regions where B is zero. Therefore the conventional explanation employs action at distance to
account for the interference effect.

The torsion theory leads directly to a local ”torsion field” interaction, which depends upon the expression

( )
df
A
ik
j
j
ik
j
ki
q
}} I I
÷ |
.
|

\
|
 2
(57)

at the field point through which the charge passes. That is, the interaction is due to the direct exposure of the
electron wave function to the local torsion field created by the vector potential A. [By the way, the j = 4 terms
describe the “electric” Aharonov-Bohm effect
(169) (170)
with equal alacrity!]


An Aharonov-Bohm Torsion Experiment
As the second proposed experiment, we suggest that a demonstration be performed to determine if
torsion plays a role in the Aharonov-Bohm effect. Basically the experiment would involve using a solenoid or a
magnet to generate an external vector potential. The paths of the particles having intrinsic spin would again be in
a magnetic field free region just as in the conventional experiment. We would then ask that the paths around the
magnet (or solenoid) be rotated. (Perform the experiment on a rotating table.) The idea is that the rotating frame
generates an anholonomic term that would tend to cancel the torsion term in the equation resulting in a

( ) ( )
S
j
ki
j
ki
j
ik
j
ki
÷ = ÷
O I I
2 (58)

change in (or even cancellation of) the Aharonov-Bohm interference pattern. Such an apparatus could, in fact, be
used as a sensitive "Torsion-field strength meter" in the exploration of space-time. (Why wasn’t one of these put
on our Mariner spacecraft and launched beyond sidereal space?)




Speculations on Torsion and Time Discontinuities

We will close with the observation that torsion allows the space-time manifold to be folded in a manner
such that the fold has a discontinuity along the time axis. That is, if we suddenly “turn on” the torsion the
manifold will abruptly fold up along the time axis. See Figure 12.

Similarly, folding could also occur in the spatial hyperplane. It is interesting to speculate on what sort of
spin densities would accomplish such a feat on a macroscopic scale. Some work on torsion has focused on
conditions in collapsing stars where very high spin densities may exist that could cause large macroscopic effects.
(171) (172)


Nevertheless, it seems to us that laboratory magnets and solenoids may provide the necessary field
strengths to manifest torsion’s effects at the quantum mechanical level as suggested in our proposed Aharonov-
Bohm experiment. At the macroscopic level, it would be of great interest to see if the Sagnac effect can be
“turned on and off” by ferromagnetic torsion, and how much magnetic field is actually needed to be able to
observe this on the lab bench.

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

53
Finally, purely as an academic exercise, how much magnetic resonance driving current is required to
create a torsion tensor necessary to transport a DE- 173 forward along its world line by, say, A
t
= 10 million
seconds (4 months)? Are these the sort of thoughts that resulted in Dr. Valentine comment,

"[Dr. Jessup said] This use of magnetic resonance is tantamount to temporary obliteration in our
dimension but it tends to get out of control. Actually it is equivalent to transference of matter into
another level or dimension and could represent a dimensional breakthrough if it were possible to control
it." (pg. 130).

While it may be that what we have proposed, turns out to be totally impractical for teleportation or time
travel, except for the Aharonov-Bohm effect, everything discussed above was known or available in the pre-WW-
II literature. Certainly these were the kinds of thoughts and considerations that should have been going through
the minds of the Einsteins, Veblens, Von Neumanns, Ladenburgs, and power engineers (like Vennevar Bush) of
that era. They certainly were among the thoughts of the Gabriel Krons and Norbert Wieners. So, we're back to
Tesla’s egg of Columbus again.


CONCLUDING REMARKS
We started Part V with the question, "What about time-travel and teleportation?” No numbers have been
plugged into these last equations. Our question has really been left as unanswered mathematical speculation.
Perhaps a black-hole would have been a “more practical” machine, but we don’t think so. (All the reasonably
prudent folk may have gotten off the train at Part IV, anyway.) However, a physical experiment to test the
hypothesis has been suggested.

This leaves the question of T. Towensend Brown’s reason for being in the story. (The relevance of his
“force fields” to the physical phenomenon seems spurious and unnecessary to us. Yet, it was Dr. Rinehart that
inserts him into the narrative. Were his comments about Brown’s radar background relevant?) Perhaps these
were calculated to make the book appeal to a wider audience, or to enhance the value of the movie rights, or
increase the page count by 10%. At any rate, we confess our inadequacy to appreciate the peripheral significance
of these items. (Ockham’s razor would seem to relegate them to the domain of excess baggage.)

As to why the government has not been forthright on the “Philadelphia Experiment”, we can only
speculate. To us it would (perhaps naively) seem that the reason for the apparent stonewalling was simply that
certain military and civilian decision makers (travailing under “peasant knowledge”*) got in over their heads into
physical wonders that they just didn’t have the breadth or capacity to pull together. (Where were the engineering
'renaissance men’?)
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

54
FINAL CONCLUSIONS


The mathematical possibilities of time travel and teleportation notwithstanding, Vannevar Bush’s quote at
the top of this article is still a perceptive and sober observation. Perhaps an experiment, such as the simple one
proposed above, will someday make it possible to "record on our delicate instruments" such wonders.

Subsequent to the original book, Moore wrote an article, in which he states the following;

"... Navy scientists undertook to see whether anything could be done to either disguise a ship's radar
image or to otherwise confuse the offending German radar and thus render such a weapon useless ... The
scientists then energized the ship’s hull with tremendous pulses of low frequency electromagnetic
energy.”
(173)


We think that this assertion, at least, can be supported on technical grounds. To invert the skeptical
remarks made by another critic, not only does a substantial amount of the information presented by Moore and
Berlitz satisfy the most fundamental tests of experimental verification, but the massive amount of collateral
technological evidence available demonstrates that the thesis is patently plausible. If the account, in fact, is
authentic then what is disappointing and disgusting is the shabby professionalism of the pathetic leaders,
administrators and scientists that took part in manipulating its wretched cover-up.

We wish to say that we enjoyed the book and would like to extend our appreciation to William Moore
and Charles Berlitz for spinning a fascinating yarn. To a scientific audience wishing to scrutinize its technical
merits, we hope that our little "brown study" will be no less enchanting than were the cited essays of Joseph
Slepian or Arthir Eddington. This has not been a definitive study on the topic. We have, in fact, been rather
sloppy on each particular point. But, except for a lack of conciseness, we think that Joseph Slepian would have
been pleased.

This has been an engrossing little study for us, but this is a Tesla Symposium. We must stay focused on
his remarkable career. Tesla’s creative discovery of the rotating magnetic field was more far-reaching than the
mere invention of the induction motor or the polyphase power distribution system, (which has so impacted the
upward progress of civilization in the twentieth century). It is, in fact, interwoven with the very fabric of space-
time and our material existence in the physical universe. We hope that our amusing little War Memorial reveries
will not detract from the serious issues associated with Tesla's authentic work. And so, as with old Prospero,

"Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits and
Are melted into air, into thin air…”




_________________

* Peasants knew their field well, from stonewall to stonewall, but had no knowledge of what lay beyond. Hence the term 'peasant
knowledge’, as suggested by Dr. Matthew Sandor.

** Irving Langmuir has related that General Carl A. 'Tooey’ Spaatz, AF Chief of Staff 1947-1948, once confided to him about UFO’s,
"You know, its very serious. It really looks as though there is something there." ["Pathological Science," Physics Today, October,
1989, pp. 36-48; March, 1990, pp. 13-14, 108, 110, 112.] Recall that John G. Trump was a member of General Spaatz’s Advisory
Specialist Group on Radar. [Electrical Engineering, Vol. 80, No. 5, May, 1961, pp. 364-365.]
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

55
APPENDIX I


Surface Impedance for a Ferromagnetic Planar Slab

In this Appendix we present the technical features involved in obtaining the surface impedance for a
magnetically biased anisotropic medium. What we get for our troubles is the functional relation between the
anisotropic surface impedance and the applied magnetic field. The results are used in Equation (8) above and
plotted in Figures (1) through (8) in the text.


The Ferromagnetic Anisotropic Permeability Tensor
Physically, a ferromagnetic medium is considered to consist of an ensemble of spinning electrons with
magnetic moments. The interaction of the spinning electrons, each with a magnetic moment proportional to its
angular momentum (m = ¸J, where the constant of proportionality ¸ is called the gyromagnetic ratio), with an
applied magnetic field produces a torque (T = H m×
µ
0
where H is the total magnetic field at the point),
which try’s to bring it in line with the applied field. This results in a temporal precession of the axes of the
spinning electrons about the direction of the applied field. When the medium is saturated,* the magnetic moments
all line up in a manner similar Tesla’s "egg of Columbus". Batygin and Toptygin have written
(174)


"Ferromagnetic resonance is established under the following conditions: a constant magnetic field
acting upon the magnetic moment of an atom or a single electron gives rise to the Larmor precession of
the moment about the direction of the field. This motion is eventually damped out due to the conversion
of the Larmor precession energy into thermal energy. If the external field is sufficiently large, then all
the elementary magnetic moments become parallel to the external field. The ferromagnetic material is
then referred to as saturated and, correspondingly, the magnetic moment per unit volume is called the
saturation magnetization. If in addition to the constant field, there is also an alternating [RF] magnetic
field, which is perpendicular to the constant field, then the alternating field will tend to maintain the
processional motion and, when its frequency becomes equal to the processional frequency, ferromagnetic
resonance will set in."
(175)


The processional motion of the magnetization vector M (the magnetic moment per unit volume) about the applied
magnetic field vector H is described by the Landau-Lifshitz
(176) (177) (178) (179) (180)
equation:

( ) ( ) M H H M
dt
M d
r
   

÷ ÷ × =
_
e
¸
0
(59)
where
M
0
= Saturation Magnetization

H
M
0
0
0
=
_

10 10
5
0
11
0
210 . 2 759 . 1 × = × × = =
÷
µ
µ
¸
m
e
(60)
__________________
* 'Zeemanized! (TPE, p. 198): The Zeeman energy, H m- ÷ , is a maximum.

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

56
_
¸
e
0
2
0
2
M
p
r
=

In the above, M is the magnetization vector, H is the magnetic field strength, p is a loss parameter, and
er
is
the natural (damped) resonant frequency.

Now consider a semi-infinite ferromagnetic medium with a uniform magnetic field z
H
ˆ
0
[the hull of a
ship wound with a helical coil, and all the electron spins precessing around the z-axis]. When a time-harmonic
radar RF field
he
t je
(with h<<H
0
) is applied to the electron system, it causes the amplitude of the precessions
to build up. The forced oscillations of the magnetization vector M may be found as follows. The total magnetic
field intensity has components

| | | | | |z y x H
e h H e h e h
t j
z
t j
y
t j
x
ˆ ˆ ˆ
0
e e e
+ + + =

(61)

so the solution of the Landau-Lifshitz equation will be sought in the form

| | | | | |z y x M
e m M e m e m
t j
z
t j
y
t j
x
ˆ ˆ ˆ
0
e e e
+ + + =

(62)

As Batygin and Toptygin point out,

"The form of the solution corresponds to the assumption that the transient Larmor precession has been
damped out and the oscillations are maintained by the high frequency forcing field. Hence, the
quantities m
x
, m
y
, m
z
, should be regarded as small (of the order of h or lower)."
(181)


Direct substitution of the assumed form of M into the Landau-Lifshitz equation, and neglecting higher order
terms, gives the components of m as;


h h m y
r
x
r
r
x
j
j
j
j
e e
e
_
e e
e
_
e
e
e
e
2 2
2 2
0
0
2 2
2
0
+ ÷
÷
+ ÷
+
=
O O
O


h
j
j
h
j
m y
r
r
x
r
r
y
j
ee
e
ee
_
ee
e
ee
_
2 2
2 2
2
0
2 2
0
+ ÷
+
+
+ ÷
=
O
O
O
(63)

h m z
r
r
z
je
e
e
_
+
=
0


where
e e
2 2
0 r
+ = O (64)
H0
0
0
µ
e
¸ =
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

57
The quantity e
0
(called the ferromagnetic resonance frequency) is the Larmor Precessional frequency
of the electron in the total internal dc field H
0
. The older literature gives H
0
in cgs units (Oersteds). [The
conversion being
( ) Oersteds H
meter
Turns Ampere
H
 
10
3
4
1
÷
-
= |
.
|

\
| ÷
t
(65)
It is common to note that ¸ = 2.8 MHz/oersted. An internal field of 1000 oersteds gives a gyromagnetic
resonance (in the lossless case) at 2800 MHz.] From Equation (6) it is clear that when ferromagnetic resonance’s
occur actual physical losses prevent infinite response as with the presence of resistance in RLC tuned circuits. It
is also to be noted that the precession of the spinning electrons reinforces the original applied fields and cross-
couples that field into the transverse components.

Next, the permeability tensor for the anisotropic medium may be found for RF. Recall that, in MKS
units, the magnetic flux density
( ) M H B
  
+ =
µ
0
(66)
where the magnetic field strength H is due to free currents and the magnetization M is due to the
superposition of all the magnetic moments (the magnetic dipole moment, per unit volume arising from “bound
currents”). The magnetization is related to the magnetic field strength as,
( )H M
r
 
1 ÷ =
µ
(67)
which is sometimes expressed as
H M
m
 
_
= (68)
where
_
m
is the magnetic susceptability. The permeability is
( )
_ µ
µ
m
+ = 1
0
(69)


Consequently, using (8) and collecting terms from above, gives the relative permeability tensor as

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
[
±
±
÷
µ
µ µ
µ µ
µ
00
0
0
j
j
a
a
ij
(70)
where we let
ª
÷
'
=
ª
÷
'
=
± ± ±
µ µ µ
µ µ µ
j
j
a a a
(71)
with
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

58
( )
( )
e e e
e e e
_ µ
2 2
2
2 2
2 2 2 2 2
0
4
2
1
r
r
+ ÷
+ ÷
+ =
O
O O
±'


( )
( )
e e e
e ee
_ µ
2 2
2
2 2
2 2
0
4
r
r
+ ÷
+
=
O
O
±' '

(72)
( )
( )
e e e
e ee
_ µ
2 2
2
2 2
2 2
0
0
4
r
a
+ ÷
÷
=
O
O
'

( )
e e e
e e e
_ µ
2 2
2
2 2
0
2
0
4
2
r
r
a
+ ÷
=
O
' '

e
e
e
_ µ
j
r
r
+
+ =
0
1


and the  subscript indicates the axis along which the static field is applied. The dependence of the real and
imaginary parts of
µ
±
and
µ
a
verses frequency shows that the imaginary parts
µ
±' '
and
µ
a ' '
are
maximum when ¸
e
/
0
= H , and the real parts
'
±
µ
and
'
µ
a
reach extremal values when
( ) ¸
e e
/
0 r
H ± = . [Microwave engineers usually fix the RF frequency, e, and tune H. The plot of
( ) H µ then displays the resonance character of the permeability. See Figure I-1.]


Electromagnetic Waves in an Anisotropic Ferromagnetic Medium
Consider a planar ferromagnetic slab (the side of the ship) with the y-axis normal to and directed into
the medium and with the z-axis directed along the applied magnetic field. The incident RF wave will
be, as Sommerfeld suggested, normal to the slab. (This is called the "transverse dc magnetization”'
case.
(182)
) Further, the incident fields are assumed to be uniform in z along the ship ( ) 0 / = c c z .
Using the permeability tensor of Equation (11), Maxwell's equations give

H j E



- ÷ = × V µ e (73)













Figure I – 1 (a)

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

59













Figure I - 1(b)
Complex permeability for f = 9.375 GHz, M
0
= 160 Gauss,
10
9
3× =
er
. The
resonance occurs at H
0
= 271 kA/m (3405 Oersteds).


| |
H
j
H
j
E
y
a
x
z
y
µ µ eµ
+ =
c
±
c
0
(74)
| |
H
j
H
j j
E
y x
a
z
x
µ eµ eµ
±
+ =
c
÷
÷
c
0
(75)

H
j
E
E
z
x
y
y x
µ eµ
 0
÷ =
c
÷
c
c
c
(76)

and
| |E j H
 
e + = × V e o (77)
| |
E
H
x
z
j
y
e + =
c
c
e o (78)
| |
E
H
y
z
j
x
e + =
c
÷
c
e o (79)
| |
E
H
H
z
x
y
j
y x
e + =
c
÷
c
c
c
e o (80)

A wave equation for horizontal ( ) z e
Ez
ˆ = Polarization may be found as follows. Multiplying 15 by
µ j
a
and 16 by
µ
±
, and adding gives,
H
j
E E
j
y
a
z z
a
x y
(
¸
(

¸

÷ =
c
± ÷
c
±
c c
µ µ eµ µ
µ
2 2
0
(81)

Repeating in reverse order gives
H
j
E E
j
x
a
z z
a
y x
(
¸
(

¸

÷ =
c
± +
c
±
÷
c c
µ µ eµ µ
µ
2 2
0
(82)
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

60
First, Equation (22) is differentiated with respect to x and second, Equation (23) with respect to y. Subtracting
the second from the first and using the z-component of Ampere's law gives a wave equation for E
Z
, as;


( ) 0
2 2
0 0
2
2
2
2
2
=
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
÷
÷ e + +
±
±
c
c
c
c
E
j
y
E
x
E
z
a z z
µ
µ µ
eµ µ
e
o (83)
which implies that the medium has an effective relative permeability (consider, for example, the situation when
the conductivity is zero) of
µ
µ µ
µ
±
±
÷
=
2 2
a
e
(84)

This is the effective permeability, which the ferromagnetic medium presents to an RF field with magnetic field
components perpendicular to the direction of the applied magnetic bias.

Similarly, for vertical polarization ( e = E
X
xˆ ), differentiating (19) by y and (20) by x , and using the
z-component of Faraday’s law gives a wave equation for H
Z
, as

( ) 0
0 0
2
2
2
2
2
= ÷ + +
e
c
c
c
c
H
j
x
H
x
H
z
z z
µ eµ µ
e

(85)

This is the case where the incident RF field has magnetic components along the applied magnetic bias. The
situation for which there are different propagation constants for waves polarized with the RF electric field along
the direction of H
0
(E
Z
) or perpendicular to H
0
( H
X
) is called birefringence.

By the way, an anisotropically conducting surface can be handled in a manner similar to that above.
Following the same line of development, the anisotropic electrical conductivity tensor with components given by

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
÷
o
o
o
o
o
o
3
1
2
2
1
00
0
0
j
j
ij
(86)

leads to an effective conductivity
o
o o
o
1
2
2
2
1
÷
=
e
(87)

which can be used in the expressions for impedance.

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

61
The detailed determination of the fields is rather tedious. [ Assume the y variation of the xz-uniform
fields is
e
y ¸ ÷
(not to be confused with the gyromagnetic ratio used above), use the z component of Ampere's law
to get the relation of E
Z
to H
X
, and the x component of Faradays law to met the relation of E
Z
to H
X
] It
leads, in the case of a ferromagnetic medium with anisotropic conductivity, to the result that
H
j
E x
a
z
2
1
3
2 2
0
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
¸
(

¸

|
|
|
.
|

\
|
÷
=
±
±
o
µ
µ µ

(88)
H
j
E z
e
x
2
1
0
(
(
¸
(

¸

=
o
µ eµ

(89)

At this point, one can determine the surface impedance of the medium


The Anisotropic Surface Impedance Tensor
We desire the surface in@ce. Again following Batygin and Toptygin, (") we consider the case of the
surface impedance of a flat fertomagnetic conductor immersed in a constant magnetic field that is oriented parallel
to the surface. The usual expression of the impedance boundary condition for the interface between simple media
is, as introduced by Leontovich,
(194)


( )
H
Z
E t
S
t
n
 

× = (90)
where the unit vector is directed into the medium and the subscript ‘t’ indicates the tangential components of the
field vectors. However, in the anisotropic case, a surface impedance tensor must be determined.
(195)
By
extension, consider an expression of the form


( )
j t
ij s
i t
H n
Z
E
,
,
,



× = (91)
where i,j = 1,2 .

As above, let the y-axis be oriented perpendicular into the surface of the metal and the z-axis be oriented
along the applied bias magnetic field from the coils on the ship. Also assume that the incident RF wave is normal
to the side of the ship. The surface impedance tensor can then be calculated as

|
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
Z
Z
Z
zz
xx
ij
0
0
(92)
where
o
µ eµ
e z
x
xx
j
H
E
Z
 0
= =
÷

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

62

(93)
o
µ eµ
3
0 e
z
z
zz
j
H
E
Z
= =


Recalling that
2
1
2
j
j
e
j +
= =
t
(94)
the complex components lead to the surface impedance tensor expression




(95)



where
µ

and the effective permeability µ
e
are as given above.

While we have only considered gyro-resonance resulting from electron spin, similar arguments lead to the
idea that, as a result of domain wall motion, entire domains behave as Tesla’s “egg of Columbus” and possess
gyromagnetic resonance’s in the VHF region. These would also contribute to the surface impedance. In this
regard, the experiments of Dr. Rado** are particularly notible.
(186) (187) (188)
We leave this for the interested
reader to follow up on.

What is fascinating in all of this is that the ( ) e
Zzz
component, which depends upon both the RF
frequency e and the magnetic bias z
H
ˆ
0
, has a resonance character similar to a parallel tank circuit, and its
magnitude and resonant frequency can be "tuned" by varying
H0
!! We can calculate and plot this for the
ship's hull. Again, there will be a resonance peak near some frequency
e0
when
H0
is tuned to equal
¸
e
/
0
. This leads to the notion that shipboard tuned resonance’s, for incident RF fields, might satisfy
Somrnerfeld’s criteria for radar stealth.







___________________

** This was not Tesla’s close friend, NYU Professor Dr. Paul Rado, who notified King Peter when Tesla died.
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

63
APPENDIX II


An Electrical Model for the DE 173
For simplicity, we model the ship and bias coil as a wire wound cylindrical solenoid of circular cross
section, as shown.
















N = 100 Turns
 = 300 ft = 3600 inches
a = 18 ft = 216 inches (ship effective radius)
D
w
= 3 inches (effective diameter of conducting wire)
µ = 10.37 CM-ohms/ft (resistivity of copper)

Figure II-1
Parameters for the calculation of coil inductance


1. Coil Inductance (Wheeler’s Formula):
mH
a
N a
L
in
in
H
3 . 12
10 9
2
2 2
=
+
=

µ


2. Total length of wire:
ft R N
W
610 , 11 2 = + = 

t

3. Wire cross section:
( ) ( ) CM
D D A in mils CM 10
6 2 2
9 1000 × = = =

4. Total wire resistance:
O = = 0134 . 0
ACM
w
R

µ


To remain on the conservative side let's increase this resistance estimate by 50 % to, say, R = 0.020O
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

64



A Series Resonant Coil Driver

We are told that the diesel generators were rated at 1,500 VAC RMS and could deliver 4.5 Mw
( A
I gen
000 , 3 = ). In the text, we needed a bias field requiring a coil current of 15,000 amperes. At 60 Hz, the
inductive reactance of the above coil | | O = × = 64 . 4 0123 . 0 377
XL
would limit the magnitude of the current
to only 323.3 amps - almost 50 times too small for the experiment.

If we added a series capacitor bank of 4.64 ohms reactance ( ) | | F C
Xc
µ e 572 / 1 = = , then the current
through the coil (and the generator) would be


amps
R
P
I
in
coil
000 , 15
020 . 0
5 . 4
10
6
=
×
= =

Although the generator voltage need only be

volts R V
Pin
300 = =

which may be gotten from the 1,500 volt output by a step-down transformer, this places an unreasonable
requirement on the delivery system since it would require the 15,000 amps to flow either through the generator
windings or through the windings of the step-down transformer’s secondary. With transients, things could get
pretty evil in the core. Is there another way to reasonably leverage the current up? We think that the classical
"current-magnifier" circuit would be a likely candidate.


The Anti-Resonant Current Magnifier***

In Figure A.II.2 we give a summary for a single phase parallel resonant (or anti-resonant) current driver for
the ship's coils.
(189) (190) (191)
Suppose that we assume that the ship's generators supply a rather "modest" 4,500
kVA step-up tramfonner rated at 70 kV output at only 65 amps.

In calculating the driver coil inductance, we assumed that, to first order at 60 Hz, the ship is more-or-less
hollow. Using the parameters obtained above, the "Tank Circuit" terminal point Q is

232
020 . 0
0123 . 0 377
0
=
×
= =
R
L
Q
T
e


The tank circuit input impedance at resonance will be

____________________

*** The authors wish to thank Basil F. Pinzone for collaboration on this section.
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

65



O = |
.
|

\
|
+ = 5 . 076 , 1 1
2
Q
R
T
T
R


The capacitor bank required for matching will be

( )( )
F
R
L
C
RT
µ 572
020 . 0 5 . 076 , 1
0123 . 0
= = =

Although somewhat large (rated at 100 kV peak), this is not unreasonable for the present application. The tank
circuit's terminal point input current (required from the power transformer) is only

amps
V
R
I
T
T
65
5 . 076 , 1
000 , 70
= = =

The RMS circulating current in the tank circuit is

( )( ) amperes
I
Q Q
I I T
T T
T L
085 , 15 65 232 1
2
= = = + =

which is the desired current in the bias coils required for the Philadelphia Experiment. (Perfectly wonderful!!)

While we are at it, we might as well calculate the reactive power circulating in the tank. The circulating
reactive kVA’s are

( )( ) GVARs
P
Q
I V P in
T
L T Tank
04 . 1 5 . 4 232
10
6
= × = = =

which is indeed substantial, as was desired. The load power is found as

kw R R
R I I
Q
I P T T T
T
L R
500 , 4 1
2 2
2
2
= = |
.
|

\
|
+ = =

which is, as expected, equal to the power supplied from the generator. Antenna engineers will recognize that we
have used a classical L-Network for current magnification through the driver coils and as a matching circuit
between the loss resistance and the generator at 60 Hz. Power engineers will appreciate the capacitor bank as
giving unity power factor correction for the driver coil as a generator load.



THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

66

Resonant Current-Magnification














Figure II-2
Summary of the anti-resonant tank circuit. Note the terminal point impedance step-up feature and the stepped-up
current pumped through the coil.



Resonant Frequency:
Q
f
L
R
f
T
R
LC
2
0
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
÷ = ÷ =
t


Tank Circuit Q (measured at the terminals):
R
Q
T
T
C
R
L
e
e
0
0
= =

Input Impedance at
f
0
:
RC
L
R
Q
R
T
T
= |
.
|

\
|
+ = 1
2


Capacitance Required for Matching:
R
L
C
RT
=

RMS Circulating Current:
I
Q Q
I I T
T T
T L
~ + = 1
2


Circulating Reactive kVA:
P
Q
I V P in
T
L T Tank
~ =

Load Power:
P R I I
Q
I P in T T T
T
L R
R R = = |
.
|

\
|
+ = =
2 2
2
2
1

Input Admittance: ( )
(
(
¸
(

¸

|
|
.
|

\
|
÷ + =
f
f
j
L
C
f
f
f Q
Y
T
T
0
0
1



THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

67



















Figure II.3
Geometrical disposition of the “L - Coil” and “M - Coil” for shipboard degaussing























Figure II-4
Calculated input impedance (R
T
+ jX
T
) for the DE-173 driver coils as a function of generator frequency.
Extra loading would tend reduce R
T
.


CONCLUSIONS
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

68
Our conclusion is quite simple. While many other methods might have been employed to drive the
required current through the magnetic bias coils in the Philadelphia Experiment, even a relatively modest power
system could have done the job.

A whole variety of alternative options come to mind. A polyphase system could be used to drive
multiple or segmented bias coils. Saddle coils could be used for biasing the hull, for stealth, under a variety of
incident RF polarizations. The coils might, for example, be driven at some other pulsating low frequency.
With a more sophisticated driver, employing low duty-cycle pulse power processing, one might even be able to
raise the coil current to the fuzing level of

( ) amps inches
I F
230 , 53 3 244 , 10 2
3
= =

If greater currents were desired, a larger wire bundle, or even shaped conductors, would have to be used (unless
the effect of the seawater could hold back the overheating of the copper wire).

The limiting factor is the impracticality of this approach to stealth (you might not see the ship,
but you could sure hear it coming), not the physical explanation of a "Philadelphia Experiment".


THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

69
APPENDIX III


Peripheral Items of Interest
Robert Harrington Kent's obituary appears in Physics Today, July, 1961, p. 68.

Mr. F. Reno appears to have been an actual person, and not a pseudonym, for he is acknowledged for his
"valuable suggestions" in a technical paper by Robert R. Kent. Dr. Kent solves the telegrapher's equation for
terminated lines.
(192)


Princeton Physics Professor Rudolph W. Ladenburg’s obituary appears in Physics Today, May, 1952, p. 37.

The Code Name Dictionary, edited by F. G. Rufffner and R. C. Thomas, Gale Research Co., Detroit, Mi.,
(Library of Congress # PE 1693.R8) lists Rainbow as "(1) The code name for the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo axis..... (7)
The code name for a military exercise."

One very distinguished Dr. Robert Fross Rinehart (b. 1907; MS '32, Ph.D. '34 from Ohio State), though presented
as an pseudonym by Moore and Berlitz, actually existed. From 1942 to 1945 he was a member of the Operations
Research Group of the Navy, involved with subsurface weapons and submarine warfare. From 1948 to 1950 he
was on the Research and Development Board of DoD (serving as Chairman upon MIT President K. T.
Kompton’s resignation). Later while a Math Professor at Case Institute of Technology, he published several
engineering research papers on Lunenberg Lens antennas.
(193)


Joseph Pothier points out in his review that, "'The vessel [DE 173] was named after Lt. Commander John
Eldridge, Jr., a 1927 Naval Academy graduate who was killed in action in the Solomon Islands 2 November,
1942."
(194)


Additional References
1. Eddington, A. S., The Mathematical Theory of Relativity, Cambridge University Press, 1963, pg. 25.

2. Eddington, A. S., Space, Time, And Gravitation, Harper and Row, 1959, pg. 57.

3. Slepian, J., "Electrical Essay: Electromagnetic Space-Ship,", Electrical Engineering, February, 1944, pp. 145-
146; March, 1949, pg. 245.

4. Walker, Jearl, The Flying Circus of Physics, Wiley, 1977.

5. Abbott, E.A., Flatland, Dover, 1952. (Originally published, 1884).

6. Garnow, G., Mr. Thompkins in Wonderland, Cambridge University Press, 1965.

7. Dane, A., "America’s Invisible Warship," Popular Mechanics, July, 1993, pp. 28-32.

8. Moore, W. L., and C. Berlitz, The Philadelphia Experiment: Project Invisibility Ballantine Books, 1979, pg.
170.

9. Jessup, M. K., The Case for the UFO, Citadel Press, Secaucus, N.J., 1955.

10. Moore and Berlitz, loc cit, pp. 134-136.

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

70
11. Anderson, L. I., Nikola Tesla On His Work With Alternating Currents, Sun Publishers, Denver, Colorado,
1992, ISBN 0-9632652-0-2, pg. 19.

12. Hammond, J. H, Jr., "A History of Some Foundations of Modem Radio-Electronic Technology", Proceedings
of the IRE, Vol. 45, September, 1957, pp. 1191-1208. (See the lengthy "Discussion", Proc. IRE, July, 1959,
pp. 1253-1268. These letters contain a remarkable amount of information about Fritz Lowenstein.)

13. Tesla, Nikola, "The Problem of Increasing Human Energy", The Century Illustrated Magazine, June, 1900,
pp. 175-21 1.

14. Tesla, Nikola, "Electric Drive for Battle Ships", New York Herald, February 25, 1917, pp. 1,2.

15. Anderson, L. I., "Nikola Tesla’s Residences, Laboratories, and Offices", Boyle-Anderson Publishers, Denver,
CO, 1990, pg. 8.

16. Kapp, R., "Tesla’s Lecture at the Royal Institution of Great Britain, 1892," Centenary of the Birth of Nikola
Tesla, published by the Nikola Tesla Museum, Beograd, 1959, pp. 190-196. Reprinted in Tribute to Nikola
Tesla, V. Popovic, editor, Nikola Tesla Museum, Beograd, 1961, pp. A-300 to A-305.

17. Behrend, B. A., Edison Medal remarks, "Minutes of the AIEE Annual Meeting," May 18, 1917, published in
Tesla Said, by J. T. Ratzlaff, Tesla Book Company, 1984, pp. 167-189.

18. Scott, C. F., "Tesla's Contribution to Electric Power," Electrical Engineering, August, 1943, pg. 351.

19. Page, L., Lecture at the December 17, 1941 meeting, of the AIEE in New York.

20. "Tesla’s Egg of Columbus: How Tesla performed the Feat of Columbus Without Cracking the Egg", Hugo
Gernsback, editor, Electrical Experimenter, March, 1919, pp. 774-775, 808.

21. ibid.

22. Fleming, A.P.M., "The Life and Work of Nikola Tesla", Journal of the Institution of Electrical Engineers,
Vol. 91, Part 1, February, 1944, pp. 58-59. Reprinted in Tribute to Nikola Tesla, Beograd, 1961, pp. A-215
to A-230.

23. "Mr. Tesla's personal Exhibit at the Worlds Fair", Chapter XLII in Inventions, Researches, and Writings of
Nikola Tesla, by T.C. Martin, (1
st
edition published in 1894), Barnes and Noble, 1992, pp. 477-485. See
Figure 297.

24. Secor, H. W., "Tesla's Views on Electricity and the War," 'The Electrical Experimenter, Vol. V, No. 52,
August, 1917, pp. 229-230, 370.

25. Moore & Berlitz, loc cit, pg. 235.

26. Secor, loc cit.

27. Cheney, Margaret, Tesla: Man Out of Time, Prentice-Hall, 1981, pg. 209.

28. "Personal", a short biographical sketch of Vannevar Bush, Electrical Engineering, Vol. 60, September, 1941,
pg.

29. Krim, N. B., "Vannevar Bush and the Early Days of Raytheon", (a talk delivered to the MIT Vannevar Bush
Centennial Symposium, May 31, 1991), IEEE AES Systems Magazine, October, 1993, pp. 3-6.

30. ibid.
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

71

31. "Personal", another short biographical sketch of Vannevar Bush, Electrical Engineering, Vol. 63, January,
1944, pg. 31.

32. Jewett, F. B., “Introduction” to the book Endless Horizons, by Vannevar Bush, Public Affairs Press, 1946, pg.
iii.

33. Bush, Vannevar, Letter to Nikola Tesla, dated July 1, 1931.

34. Tesla, Nikola, "The Problem of Increasing Human Energy, The Century Illustrated Magazine, pp. 175-211.
(See pg. 209.)

35. Page, R. M., "The Early History of Radar", Proceedings of the IRE, Vol. 50, No. 5, May, 1962, (special 50
th

Anniversary Issue), pp. 1232-1236.

36. Hulsmeyer, C., "Hertzian-Wave Projecting and Receiving Apparatus Adapted to Indicate or Give Warning of
the Presence of a Metallic Body, Such as a Ship or a Train in the Line of Projection of Such Waves," British
Patent #13,170, September 22, 1904.

37. Secor, 1917, ibid.

38. Ruck, G. T., Radar Cross Section Handbook, Plenum, 1970, Vol. 2, pp. 611-612.

39. Sommerfeld, Arnold, Optics, Volume IV in the series Lectures on Theoretical Physics, Academic Press, 1964
(originally published in 1949), pp. 18-19.

40. Ridenour, L. N., Radar System Engineering, McGraw-Hill, 1947, (MIT Rad Lab Vol. 1), pp. 69-73.

41. Weston, V. R., "Theory of Absorbers in Scattering" IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation,
Vol. AP-10, September, 1962, pp. 578-584.

42. Sommerfeld, loc. cit.

43. Ridenour, loc. cit.

44. Harrington, R. F., Time Harmonic Fields, McGraw-Hill, 1961, pp. 21-26. (Harrington uses RMS field
strengths.)

45. Kraus, J. D., Electromagnetics, McGraw-Hill, 3rd edition, 1984, pp. 459-464. (Also see problems 10.4-6 to
10.4-14.)

46. Janes Fighting Ships, 1967-68, Pg. 408.

47. Anderson, F. E., and W. H. Fifer, "Use of Propulsion Generators on Naval Vessels to Supply Shore Power,"
AIEE Transactions, Vol. 67, 1948, pp. 1282-1287, accompanied by "Discussion", pp. 1287-1288.

48. ibid.

49. ibid.

50. Kraus, J. D., Big Ear, Cygnus Quasar Books, 1976, pp. 66-79.

51. Michel, N. B., "Shipboard Degaussing Installations for Protection Against Magnetic Mines," Transactions of
the AIEE, Vol. 67, 1948, pp. 1270-1275. (Also see the "Discussion", pp. 1275-1277.)

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

72
52. ibid.

53. Michel, loc. cit.

54. Kraus, loc. cit. pg. 69.

55. Michel, loc. cit.

56. Reference Data for Radio Engineers, 5th edition, 1968, Chapter 4, pp. 54-55, 58.

57. Michel, loc. cit.

58. ibid.

59. Schonland, B. F. J., "The Work of Benjamin Franklin on Thunderstorms and the Development of the
Lightning Rod," Journal of the Franklin Institute, Vol. 253, No. 5, May, 1952, pp. 375-392.

60. Moore, W. L. and C. Berlitz, The Philadelphia Experiment: Project Invisibility, Ballantine Books, 1979.

61. Pothier, J., "The Philadelphia Experiment Revisited - Part I", Electric Spacecraft Journal, Issue 7, July-
September, 1992, pp. 15-25.

62. Pothier, J., "The Philadelphia Experiment Revisited - Part II", Electric Spacecraft Journal, Issue 8, October-
December, 1992, pp. 14-21.

63. Corum, K. L., and J. F. Corum, Vacuum Tube Tesla Coils, Corum and Associates, 1987. (See Appendix II.)

64. Ryder, J. D., Networks, Lines and Fields, Prentice-Hall, 1949, pp. 49-55.

65. Feynman, R. P., R. B. Leighton, and M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, 1964,
Vol. II, pg. 16-6.

66. Feynman, ibid.

67. Ramo, S., J. R. Whinnery, and T. Van Duzer, Fields and Waves in Communications Electronics, Wiley,
second edition, 1984, pp. 115-116, (Example 3.2, "Air Breakdown from Induced emf.")

68. Slepian, J., US Patent #1,645,304, issued in 1922.

69. Kerst, D. W., "The Acceleration of Electrons by Magnetic Induction", Physical Review, Vol. 60, 1941, pp.
47-53.

70. Reines, F., and R. Ballard, "Participatory Lecture Demonstration with an 83-Ton Bar Electromagnet",
American Journal of Physics, Vol. 41, 1973, April, pp. 566-569. Also see “Comments” by A. A. Marino,
AJP, Vol. 42, 1974, pp. 259-270.

71. Held, R-, Image, Qbject and Illusion, Scientific American Press, 1974, pg. 3.

72. Knoll, M., and J. Kugler, "Subjective Light Pattern Spectroscopy in the Encephalographic Frequency Range,"
Nature, No. 4701, December 15, 1959, pp. 1823-1824.

73. Penfeld, W., and T. Rasmussen, The Cerebral Cortex of Man, New York, 1955, p. 140.

74. Knoll and Kugler, loc cit.

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

73
75. Becker, R. O., "The Biological Effects of Magnetic Fields - A Survey," Med. Electron. Biol. Engng, Vol. 1,
pp. 293-303.

76. Oster, G., "Phosphenes", Scientific American, Vol. 222, February, 1970, pp. 83-87.

77. Becker, loc. cit.

78. Oster, loc. cit.

79. ibid.

80. ibid.

81. Dobelle, W., M. Mladejovsky, and J. Girvin, "Artificial Vision for the Blind: Electrical Stimulation of Visual
Cortex Offers Hope for a Functional Prosthesis," Science, February, 1974, pp. 440-444.

82. "Seeing by Phosphene", Scientific American, Vol. 230, March, 1974, pp. 45-46.

83. Walker, Jearl, The Flying Circus of Physics, Wiley, 1977, pp, 144-145, 282.

84. Minkowski, H., "Space and Time", an Address presented on September 21, 1908. Published in The Principle
of Relativity, with notes by Arnold Sommerfeld, translated by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery, Dover, 1951, pp,
75-96.

85. Eddington, A. S., Space, Time, And Gravitation, Harper and Row, 1959, pg. 57.

86. Acts 8:39-40.

87. H Kings 20: 1 0-1 1; Isaiah 3 8:8.

88. Hehl, F. W., P. von der Heyde, and G. D. Kerlich, "General Relativity with Spin and Torsion: Foundations
and Prospects," Reviews of Modem Physics, Vol. 48, No. 3, July, 1976, pp. 393-416.

89. Schouten, J. A., Ricci Calculus, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1954, pp. 99-110, 117-21, 169-73.

90. Schouten, J. A., Tensors for Physicists, Oxford University Press, 1951, (reprinted by Dover Publications, Inc.,
1989), pp. 81-82, 102-103, 109, 120-123, 194-197.

91. Eddington, A. S., "Einstein’s Field Theory," Nature, Vol. 123, Feb. 23, 1929, pp. 280-281.

92. Schouten, J. A., Ricci Calculus, Springer-Verlag, 1954, pp. 103, 127-129.

93. Schouten, J. A., Tensor Analysis For Physicists, Oxford University Press, 1951, pg. 87.

94. Schouten, J. A., and D. J. Struik, Einfuhrung In Die Neueren Methoden Der Differential geometrie,
Noordhoff, Groningin, 1935, Vol. 1, pp. 79-80.

95. Eddington, 1929, loc cit.

96. Corum, J. F., "Relativistic Rotation and the Anholonomic Object", Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 18,
No.4, April, 1977, pp. 770-776.

97. Corum, J. F., "Comments on Relativistic Rotation and the GPS", Proceedings of the IEEE., Vol. 81, No.2,
February, 1993.

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

74
98. Corum, J. F., Relativistic Covariance and Rotational Electrodynamics", Journal of Mathematical Physics, Vol.
21, No. 9, September, 1980, pp. 2360-2364.

99. Kron, G., "Nonholonomic Reference Frames", Part XVII of the series "The Application of Tensors to the
Analysis of Rotating Electrical Machinery", General Electric Review, Vol. 41, No. 5, May, 1938, pp. 244-
240.

100. Schouten, J. A., Ricci Calculus, Springer-Verlag, 1954, pp. 103, 105.

101. Schouten, J. A., Tensor Analysis for Physicists, Oxford University Press, 2nd Edition, 1954, pg. 121.

102. Struik, D. J., Theory of Linear Connections, Springer Verlag, 1934, pp. 22 -23.

103. Veblen, O., Invariants of Quadratic Differential Forms, Cambridge University Press, 1927, pg. 36.

104. Veblen, O., and J. C. H. Whitehead, The Foundations of Differential Geometry, Cambridge University
Press, 1932, pg. 71.

105. Landau, L. D. and Lifshitz, E. M., The Classical Theory of Fields, Pergamon Press, 4th revised English
edition 1975, pg. 241.

106. Ohanian, H. C., "What is Spin?", American Journal of Physics, Vol. 54, No. 6, June, 1986, pp. 500-505.

107. Belinfante, F. J., "On the Spin Angular Momentum of Mesons", Physica, Vol. 6, No. 9, Oct. 1939, pp.
887-897.

108. Hehl, F. W., von der Heyde, P., and Kerlick, G. D., "General Relativity with Spin and Torsion: Foundations
and Prospects", Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 48, No. 3, July, 1976, pp. 393-416.

109. Ibid.

110. Ibid.

111. Ibid.

112. Eddington A. S., "A Generalization of Weyl's Theory of the Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields",
Proc. Roy. Soc. , London, Vol. A99, 1921, pp. 104-122.

113. Cartan, E., "Sur une generalisation de la notion de courbure de Riemann et les espaces a torsion", Conptes
Rendus Acad Sci, t. 174, 1922, pp. 593-595.

114. Schouten, J. A., "On a Non-Symmetrical Affine Field Theory", Proc. Kon Akad Amsterdam, Vol. 26, 1923,
pp. 850-857.

115. Einstein, A., "Einheitliche Feldtheorie von Gravitation und Elekffizitat," Preuissische Akademie der
Wissenschaften Phys.-math. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, July, 1925, pp. 414-419.

116. Einstein, A., "Riemann-Geometrie mit Aufrechterhaltung des Begriffes des Fernparallelismus", Premsische
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phys.-math. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 1928, pp. 217-221.

117. Einstein, A., "Zur Einheitliche Feldtheorie", Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phys.math. Klasse,
Sitzungsberichte, 1929, pp. 2-7.

118. Eddington, A. S., "Einstein’s Field Theory," Nature, Vol. 123, Feb. 23, 1929, pp. 280-281.

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

75
119. Einstein, A., "Theorie unitaire du champ physique". Institute H. Poincare, Annales, Vol. I, 1930, pp. 1-24.

120. Infeld, L., "Uber eine Interpretation der neuen Einsteinschen Weltgeometrie auf dem Boden der klassichen
Mechanik", Physik Zeitschr., Vol. 32, 1931, pp. 11 0- 112.

121. Wiener, Norbert, "Unified Field Theory of Electricity and Gravitation,", Nature, March 2, 1929, pg. 317.

122. Laithwaite, E. R., "The Inventions of Nikola Tesla," Proceedings of the Energy and Development
Symposium, Zagreb, Yugoslavia, 1986. Reprinted in The Tesla Journal, No. 7, 1990, pp. 88-95.

123. Pais, A., Subtle Is The Lord, Oxford, 1982, pg. 348.

124. Schrodinger, E., Space-Time Stmcture, Cambridge University Press, 1950.

125. Einstein, A., "Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field", published as Appendix II in The Meaning of
Relativity, by A. Einstein, Princeton University Press., 1956, pp. 133-166.

126. Einstein, A., ibid. pg. 141.

127. Levi-Civita, T., "Vereinfachte Herstellung der Einsteinschen einheitlichen Feldgleichungen", Berliner
Berichte, Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse, March 14, 1929, pp. 137-153.

128. Einstein, A., and E. Cartan, Letters on AbsoliAe Parallelism, R. Debever editor, Princeton University Press,
1979.

129. Pais, ibid, pg. 345.

130. Hoffmann, B., "Kron’s Non-Riemannian Electrodynamics", Reviews of Modem Physics, Vol. 21, 1949,
(special issue in honor of Einstein’s 70
th
birthday), pp. 535-540.

131. Kron, G., "Quasi-Holonomic Dynamical Systems", Physics, Vol. 7, 1936, pp. 143-152.

132. Kron, G., "Invariant Form of Maxwell-Lorentz Field Equations for Accelerated Systems", Journal of
Applied Physics, Vol. 9, 1938, pp. 196-208.

133. Kron, G., "Equivalent Circuit of the Field equations of Maxwell," Proceedings of the IRE, Vol. 32, 1944, pp.
289-299.

134. Kron, G., "Equivalent Circuit Models of the Schrodinger Equation" Physical Review, Vol. 67, 1945, pp. 39-
43.

135. Gibbs, W. J., Tensors in Electrical Machine Theory, Chapman and Hall, Ltd., London, 1952, pp. 164-166,
175-180, 202.

136. Kron, G., Tensors for Circuits, Dover Publications, Inc., 1959, pp. 238, 243.

137. Struik, D. J., "The Application of Tensor Analysis to Problems of Electrical Engineering," address delivered
before the American Mathematical Society, October 30, 1937.

138. Wiener, N., "Notes on the Kron Theory of Tensors in Electrical Machinery," Journal of Electrical
Engineering, China, 1936, No. 3 and No. 4.

139. Kron, G., Equivalent Circuits of Electric Machinery Dover Publications, Inc., 1967, pp. 4-7, 255-260.

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

76
140. Hoffmann, Banesh, "Kron’s Method of Subspaces", Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, Vol. 2, (1944), pp.
218-231.

141. Alger, P., "Gabriel Kron", published as Chapter II of Section II in the book, The Life and Times of Gabriel
Kron, P. L. Alger, editor, published by Mohawk Development Services, Inc., Schenectady, NY, 1969, pg.
284. We thank Dr. H. M. Rustebakke for calling this reference to our attention.

142. Veblen, O., and J. von Neumann, Geometry of Complex Domains, Princeton University Press, 1936.

143. Kron, G., "Equivalent Circuits for Oscillating Systems and the Riemann-Christoffel Curvature Tensor,"
General Electric Review, January, 1943, pp. 25-31.

144. Fortescue, "Method of Symmetrical Coordinates Applied to the Solution of Polyphase Networks,"
Transactions of the A.I.E.E., Vol. 37, 1918.

145. Kerchner, R., and G. F. Corcoran, Alternating Current Circuits, Wiley, third edition, 1951, Chapters 8 and 9.

146. Kron, G., "Non-Riemannian Dynamics of Rotating Electrical Machinery," Journal of Mathematics and
Physics, Vol. 13, 1934, pp. 103-194. See pp. 172-173. [It is the authors' view that this paper had to have
been reviewed for publication by Vannevar Bush (Professor of Power Engineering at MIT) and by Norbert
Wiener and D. J. Struik (MIT Professors of Mathematics). Wiener, in fact, published an analysis of Kron’s
work at this time.]

147. Kron, G., Diakoptics, MacDonald, London, 1963, Chapter 19, "'The Piecewise Solution of Time-Varying
Problems," pp. 143-144.

148. Kron, G., "The Application of Tensors to the Analysis of Rotating Electrical Machinery: Part IX-Machines
Under Acceleration," General Electric Review, May, 1936, pp. 249-257.

149. Kondo, K and Ishizuka, Y., "Recapitulation of the Geometrical Aspects of Gabriel Kron’s NonRiemannian
Electrodynamics", Research Association Of Applied Geometry, Memoirs of the Unifying Study of Basic
Problems in Engineering and Physical Sciences by Means of Geometry, Gakujutsu Bunken Fukyu-Kai,
Tokyo, Vol. 1, 1955, pp. 185-239. (See footnote 1, pg. 222.)

150. Kondo, K, "Non-Riemannian Geometry of imperfect Crystals from a Macroscopic Viewpoint", Research
Association Of Applied Geometry, Memoirs of the Unifying Study of Basic Problems in Engineering and
Physical Sciences by Means of Geometry, Gakujutsu Bunken Fukyu-Kai, Tokyo, Vol. 1, 1955, pp. 458-469.

151. Kondo, K, "Non-Holonomic Foundations of the Theory of Plasticity and Yielding", Research Association Of
Applied Geometry, Memoirs of the Unifying Study of Basic Problems in Engineering and Physical Sciences
by Means of Geometry, Gakujutsu Bunken Fukyu-Kai, Tokyo, Vol. 1, 1955, pp. 522-562. (See pg. 532.)

152. Kron, G., "Electric Circuit Models of the Nuclear Reactor," AIEE Transactions, Vol. 73, Pt. 2, 1954, pp.
259-265.

153. Hehl, F. W., von der Heyde, P., and Kerlick, G. D.. "General Relativity with Spin and Torsion: Foundations
and Prospects", Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 48, 1976, pp. 393-416.

154. Einstein, A., and W. J. de Haas, Verhand. Deut. Physik. Ges., Vol. 17, 1915, pp. 152-.

155. Barnett, S. J., "Magnetization and Rotation", American Journal of Physics, Vol. 16, 1948, pp. 140-147.

156. Frenkel, V.Ya., "On the History of the Einstein-de Haas Effect", Soviet Physics Uspekhi, Vol. 22, No.
7, July, 1979, pp. 580-587.

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

77
157. Barnett, S. J., "A New Gyromagnetic Effect," Physical Review, Vol. 76, 1949, pg. 1542.

158. Barnett, S. J., "A New Gyromagnetic Effect in Permalloy Iron" Physical Review, Vol. 88, No. 1, October 1,
1952, pp. 28-37.

159. Hojman, S., Rosenbaum, NL, Ryan, M. P., and Shepley, L. C., "Gauge Invariance, Minimal Coupling, and
Torsion," Physical Review D, Vol. 17, No. 12, June 15, 1978, pp. 3141-3146.

160. Ibid.

161. Ibid.

162. Corum, J. F., "An Examination of the Anholonomic Lorentz Transformation with Applications to
Electrodynamics," Ph.D. Dissertation Department of Electrical Engineering, The Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio, 1974, 157 pages. (Available through University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan)

163. Corum, J. F., "Relativistic Rotation and the Anholonomic Object", Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 18,
No.4, April, 1977, pp. 770-776.

164. Corum, J. F., Relativistic Covariance and Rotational Electrodynamics", Journal of Mathematical Physics,
Vol. 21, No. 9, September, 1980, pp. 2360-2364.

165. Corum, J. F., "Laser Gyros - Correspondence," IEEE Spectrum November, 1980, pg. 12.

166. Corum, J. F., "Comments on Relativistic Rotation and the GPS", Proceedings of the I. E. E. E., Vol. 81,
No.2, February, 1993.

167. Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., and Sands, M., The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. II, Addison-
Wesley, 1964, pp. 15-8 to 15-12.

168. Ibid.

169. Holstein, B., "Variations on the Aharonov-Bohm Effect", American Journal of Physics, Vol. 59, No. 12,
December, 1991, pp. 1080-1085.

170. Allman, B. E., et. al., "Scaler Aharonov-Bohm Experiment with Neutrons", Physical Review Letters, Vol.
68, 1992, pp. 2409.

171. Inomata, A. "Effect of the Self-Induced Torsion of the Dirac Sources on Gravitational Singularities",
Physical Review D, Vol. 18, No. 10, Nov. 15, 1978, pp. 3552-3556.

172. Prasanna, A. R., "Static Fluid Spheres in Einstein-Cartan Theory", Physical Review D, Vol. 11, No. 9, April
15, 1975, pp. 2076-2082.

173. Moore, W. L., “When the Supernatural Touches Reality: Perspectives on the Philadelphia Experiment",
Focus, 1991, pp. 16-18.

174. Batygin, V. V., and I. N. Toptygin Problems in Electrodynamics, Moscow, 1962, translated by S. Chomet,
edited by P. J. Dean, Academic Press, 1964. See problems 329, 330, 331, 332, 449, and especially 460 and
461.

175. Batygin, V. V., and I. N. Toptygin Problems in Electrodynamics, Moscow, 1962, translated by S. Chomet,
edited by P. J. Dean, Academic Press, 1964, pg. 77.

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

78
176. Landau, L., and E. M. Lifshitz, "On the Theory of Dispersion of Magnetic Permeability in
Ferroniagnetic Bodies," Phys. Klasiche Zeitschrift Sowjetunion Vol. 8, 1935, pg. 153.

177. Griffiths, J. H. E., "Anomalous High-Frequency Resistance of Ferromagnetic Metals," Nature, Vol. 158,
1946, pp, 670.

178. Kittel, C., "On the Theory of Ferromagnetic Resonance Absorption," Physical Review, Vol. 73, 1948, pp.
155.

179. Polder, D., "On the Theory of Electromagnetic Resonance," Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 40, 1949, pp. 95-
115.

180. Blomberg, N., "On the Ferromagnetic Resonance in Nickel and Supermalloy," Physical Review, Vol. 78,
1950, pp. 572.

181. Batygin and Toptygin, loc cit. pg. 281.

182. Suhl, H. and Walker, L. R., "Topics in Guided Wave Propagation Through Gyromagnetic Media, Part II-
Transverse Magnetization and Non-Reciprocal Helix," Bell System Technical Journal, Vol. 33, July, 1954,
pp. 939-968.

183. Batygin and Toptygin, loc. Cit. problems #449 and #460, pp. 110, 112, 349 and 356-357.

184. Leontovich, M. A., "Approximate Boundary Conditions for the Electromagnetic Field on the Surface of a
Good Conductor," Bull. Acad. Sci. USSR, Phy. Ser., 9, 1944, p. 16.

185. Senior, T. B. A., "Approximate Boundary Conditions: A Mini-Review,", IEEE Transactions on Antennas
and Propagation, Vol. AP-29, No. 5, September, 1981, pp. 826-829.

186. Rado, G. T., R. W. Write, and W. H. Emmerson Physical Review, Vol. 80, 1950, pp. 273-.

187. Rado, G. T., "On the Electromagnetic Characterization of Ferromagnetic Media: Permeability Tensors and
Spin Wave Equations," Transactions of the IRE, Vol. AP-4, No. 3, 1956, pp. 512-525.

188. Rado, G. T., V. J. Folen and W. H. Emerson "Effect of Magnetocrystalline Anisotropy on the Magnetic
Spectra of Mg-Fe Ferrites," Proceedings of the I.E.E. (British), Vol. 104 B, Supplement No. 5, 1957, pp.
198-205.

189. Ryder, J. D., Networks, Lines and Fields, Prentice-Hall, 1949, pp. 49-55, 72-73.

190. Schelkunoff, S., and H. Friis, Antennas: Theory and Practice, Wiley, 1952, pp. 284-288.

191. Kraus, R. L., C. W. Bostian and F. H. Raab, Solid State Radio Engineering, Wiley, 1980, p. 76.

192. Kent, R. H., "The Propagation of Electric Currents in Terminated Lines", Physical Review, Vol. 55, 1939,
pp. 762-768.

193. Rinehart, R. F., "A Family of Designs for Rapid Scanning Radar Antennas," Proceedings of the IRE,
June, 1952, pp. 686-688. (See the biographical sketch on pg. 728.)

194. Pothier, J., 1992, Part I, loc. cit.



THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

79

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

80
APPENDIX IV *


The Philadelphia Experiment: Some Loose Ends
Since presenting the above paper on the Philadelphia Experiment,
(1)
at the 1994 International Tesla
Symposium at Colorado Springs, we have had further thoughts concerning the following four items:

1. high voltage stealth,
2. the involvement of Thomas Townsend Brown,
3. recently published allegations that the incident was a hoax, and
4. the 1925 version of the Unified Field Theory ** and its possible relation to
propulsion.

We wish to append this little addendum in the same playful spirit of speculative entertainment in which our
original paper was written.


Electrostatically-Biased Radar Camouflage
Many years ago it was pointed out to us that Northrop, at the Norair Division in Hawthorne, California,
(2)
had, at one time, employed leading edge charging on wing-tip.
(3)
Ostensibly, the process was for the purpose
of reducing drag and eliminating sonic boom; the upstream flow of ions sprayed from the wing tips charges the air
molecules in front of a supersonic aircraft and lowers the Reynolds number for the medium. (The phenomenon
was of interest to us as a component of Tesla's particle beam weapon. Without drag reduction the beam's
particles burn up, like meteors, in a distance of a few kilometers. With a charged macron beam, however, the air's
effective viscosity is significantly reduced and the particles can travel farther by orders of magnitude.)
(4)
But
now, however, the idea of RCS (radar cross-section) reduction by using the dual process to that discussed in our
“Philadelphia Experiment” paper becomes intriguing. A similar phenomena occurs as radar blackout during
atmospheric reentry from space. Why not simultaneously drive the degaussing coils and employ high voltage
corona for selective stealth reduction of radar backscatter?


On the Role of T. Townsend Brown
In the paper we expressed puzzlement at the introduction of Thomas Townsend Brown (1905-1985) into
the narrative. But, we noted that it was Dr. Rinehart that injected Brown, and so we take it that there must have
been a reason. Since then Brown's involvement has become more plausible to us. There have been many books
and review articles published about T. T. Brown (primarily related to electrostatic propulsion research). Charles
Yost has printed a detailed chronological chart for Dr. Brown's life and professional activities, which indicates
that Brown attended Denison University, and that he and Professor Paul Alfred Biefeld collaborated over the years
between 1924 and 1930. Brown's graduate work appears to have been directed toward stress in dielectrics and
electrostatic propulsion.

Dr. Brown left Swazey Observatory (where Professor Biefeld was Director) in 1930 and accepted a
position at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC. As a civilian member of the Navy Department,
he was a staff physicist in the International Gravity Expedition to the West Indies during 1932. The following
year (1933), he left NRL (as a result of budget cuts) and joined the Naval Reserve. By 1939 he was a lieutenant in
the Navy Reserve, and was working as a material engineer for Martin (later Martin Aerospace) at Baltimore, MD.
___________________
* This section added March 28, 1997.
** For complete translations of these papers, see the new book Selected Papers On 'De Early Unified Field Theories by Einstein and
Others :. A Collection of Rei3rints and Translations (1921 to 1933), edited by J.F. Corum, 1997, manuscript in review.

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

81
According to Dr. Rinehart, that same year the Navy placed him in charge of magnetic and acoustic mine sweeping
research at the Bureau of Ships. "This is where he got involved in [the Philadelphia Experiment] project.”
(6)
In
1942, as a Naval Lt. Commander, he taught radar and served as Commanding Officer of the U.S. Navy's Atlantic
Fleet Radar School at Norfolk, VA. "It was while serving in this assignment that he put forth some suggestions
on how electromagnetic fields might be utilized to achieve partial radar invisibility.”
(7)
According to most
accounts, Dr. Brown suffered a physical collapse from exhaustion in December, 1943 and retired from the Navy.
He recuperated for six months. During 1944 he took a radar consulting position for Lockheed, Vega Aircraft
Corporation in CA. He went to Hawaii in 1945, where he continued his research in electrostatic propulsion.
Subsequently, he spent a substantial portion of his life continuing his research on high voltage charged disk-
shaped airfoils. (HV Trichel pulses: impulses yield momentum as opposed to electric wind?)

We think it startling that Brown, with such strong professional training and experience in classical
electromagnetism, would have "attempted to explain his results in terms of Unified Field physics. Brown firmly
believed in the existence of an observable coupling between gravitation and electricity, and that this coupling is
being demonstrated by his devices."
(8)
In contrast to what we had previously thought about T. Townsend Brown,
we now appreciate why he might have actually played quite a substantial role in the development of the
Experiment. He was experienced in high field research, degaussing techniques, radar, and he had spent a
considerable period of his career contemplating the classical unified field theories.

Hoax Allegations
While we were aware of the objections by Pothier,
(9)
which were readily dismissed, the publication by
Vallee
(10)
was not called to our attention until only recently.* Pothier, who is not a scientist, actually performed
substantial naval document examination, and his papers should be read as supplemental nontechnical material by
everyone interested in the topic. As we stated above, however, the critical issues and recitations of Pothier are
readily dismissed on the basis of simple physics, and actually lead to a conclusion directly opposite to that which
he states. Not only does the book by Moore and Berlitz supply the phenomenology, but the independent
statements of the various witnesses, in fact, corroborate the basic technical issues, which we find astonishing since
neither, Moore nor Berlitz have a scientific background. Jacques Vallee's effort to repudiate the incident,
however, requires further discussion.

Witness Edward Dudgeon
Remarkably, Vallee actually produces a "witness" to the incident: a sixty-seven year old retired executive
named Edward Dudgeon. Dudgeon was seventeen at the time of the experiment in 1943 and was stationed on the
DE-50 (the U.S.S. Engstrom), which was in Philadelphia Harbor at the same time as the Eldridge. The witness
does provide corroborating evidence for the incident. Mr. Dundgeon said;

"I believe that Einstein worked with the radar development group, but he wasn't involved in running
actual tests."
(11)


This statement would seem to support the legend and, based on his subsequent declarations, we have no reason to
doubt that Mr. Dudgeon was really there.

His testimony concerning the "tavern incident", (which he places in early August of 1943) and his
explanation of the Eldridge's teleportation (disappearance at Philadelphia, appearance at Norfolk, and
reappearance back at Philadelphia), are believable. To us these were not really not critical issues, and we certainly
find his comments reassuring. It's far easier to believe Edward Dudgeon than Carlos Allende on these two points.

_________________
* We thank Albert Budden for sending us a copy of the Vallee paper in May, 1996.

Mr. Dudgeon noted that when the Eldridge and three other ships (including the Engstrom) were returning
from Bermuda in July of 1943, they were

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

82
". . . caught in a storm that created a display of green fire accompanied by a smell of ozone.
The glow abated when it started raining."
(12)


We don't doubt the occurrence of this natural display, either. It was obviously "St. Elmo's hot fire",
which is present around sharp objects whenever there exist substantial potential gradients, as in the case of some
electrical storms.

His remark that the Navy personnel saying, "Their going to make us invisible", meant that they would be
"undetectable by torpedoes" is certainly acceptable and consistent with our hypothesis that fields produced by the
degaussing coils account for the observed physiological phenomena (Purkinji patterns, magneto-phosphenes, etc.)
as reported by witnesses in the Moore-Berlitz book.

When asked about the procedure for degaussing a ship, Dudgeon responded, "7hey sent the crew ashore
and they wrapped the vessel in big cables, then they sent high voltages (sic) through these cables to scramble the
ship's magnetic signature."* Except for the remark about high voltages (degaussing requires very high currents
at relatively low voltages), this is again what we would have expected in the account provided by a witness of the
“Philadelphia Experiment”, so far, so good.

However, we do have a problem with the witness credibility when it comes to the assessment of technical
issues:

- Mr. Dudgeon asserts that the “Philadelphia Experiments” were "not about trying to make the ship invisible to
radar: the Germans hadn't deployed radar at the time."
(13)
We have documented in our paper that this
assertion is, by no means, accurate. Indeed, as pointed out in our paper, segments of the German physics
community were (according to Arnold Sommerfeld)
(14)
intently searching for radar stealth countermeasures
(as were the Allies).

- Clearly, the witness boyhood memories are also suspect. Witness Dudgeon asserted, "When they were
degaussing, you could smell the ozone that was created. You could smell it very strongly."
(15)
Oh? You
could smell it? We don't think so. The degaussing process involves the passage of high currents through low
impedance coils surrounding the ship, not the employment of high voltages (as expressed above). And,
certainly not voltages so high that air is ionized! (Unless there was an incredible t B c c / , such as is alleged
to have been present during the “Philadelphia Experiment”.)

According to Mr. Dudgeon, he, at seventeen years of age, was actually an electrician's mate third class and it
was his assignment at sea to speed up, slow down, or reverse the diesel generators on his ship in response to
commands from the bridge. Perhaps he was referring to ozone generated by brushes and circuit breakers
during switching, but certainly these had nothing to do with the degaussing physics. If the strong smell of
ozone was prevalent during the operation in the Philadelphia Navy yard, then something more than simple
ship degaussing was transpiring.

- Vallee asserts that, "In conversations with the author, he [Dudgeon] cautioned that none of the electronic
systems on the destroyers at that time were high-tech devices: the Navy was trying anything that could
provide an advantage over German submarines."
(16)
If there is any merit whatsoever to the conventional
analysis provided in the early parts of our paper, then we concur that no sophisticated electronic systems were
present (or required) on the ship for the “Philadelphia Experiment”. The statement is in complete harmony
with our analysis above.

_____________________
* What happens if the crew is not sent ashore?

While it is difficult to actually find a scientific witness to the “Philadelphia Experiment”, we conclude
that the youthful Mr. Dudgeon (“I was just a kid then.”)
(17)
was not adequately trained to make technical
assertions about physical phenomenology or to provide us with anything more than inexplicit and general
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

83
descriptive information. Taken in context, we think that Mr. Dudgeon's testimony actually corroborates the
legend of the “Philadelphia Experiment”, at least in the form as was described above.*


Vallee's Tactic
In his paper, Vallee proceeds in another direction. He attempts to list the characteristic features
associated with grand hoaxes * and identify these features with the alleged Philadelphia Experiment. His
technique is that, since the features of the Philadelphia Experiment are similar to hoaxes in general, the incident
must, therefore, also be a hoax. The logic fails, of course. (Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.** )

Vallee tabulates six rational countermeasures to being deceived by a hoax:

1. Disregard self described experts,
2. Disregard the media,
3. Look for logical flaws,
4. Identify and remove irrelevant drama,
5. Discover and test independent sources of information, and
6. Disregard any claims of secrecy

He identifies a bona fide feature of most hoaxes; “7he problem with hoaxes is that they are charming,
tantalizing, entertaining, and often correspond to what we would like to be true...
(18)
[Nothing new here, the
same can be said of most of 20
th
century physics!]

Vallee's article, which really contains surprisingly little about the Philadelphia Experiment, actually
spends its energy attacking paranormal phenomena. In that arena, we have no experience, and no interest. We
see no connection - it takes a leap of faith to identify the Philadelphia Experiment with UFOs or the paranormal.
(Vallee is not alone in trying to make this connection but, unlike Vallee, most of his other bedfellows artificially
invoke the paranormal as an explanation.) After adopting the link as part of the Philadelphia Experiment, Vallee
dismisses the incident on the basis of guilt by association. "We have seen that the Philadelphia Experiment had
all of these characteristics. This hoax ... should have died a long time ago ..."
(19)
In a remarkable exhibition of
psychological gymnastics (rivaling even the ring antics of TV's professional wrestlers), Vallee grapples with an
artificial straw man and body-slams it to the mat.

A Tragic Error
Vallee's paper exhibits a shocking lack of preparatory investigation - particularly for the strategy, which
he is attempting to employ. For example, Moore and Berlitz inform us that T. Townsend Brown studied under Dr.
Paul Alfred Biefeld, Professor of physics and astronomy at Denison University in Granville, Ohio. Moore and
Berlitz relate that this Dr. Biefeld was a former classmate of Albert Einstein's in Switzerland (one of only eight).
(20)



______________________
* The Philadelphia Experiment: a big coil of wire was wrapped around a large ship and pulsed at resonant frequencies, the ship became
invisible in a foggy green mist, and a lot of people on board were hurt.
** Vallee lists the following attributes of all great hoaxes: astonishing claims, interesting witnesses, peripheral evidence, dramatic sequels,
a scientific aura, a link to reputable scientists, classified projects and government cover-ups, interest for common laymen, validation by
paranormal researchers, media promotion, relevance to "believers", the presence of underdogs, and secret contacts.
*** After this, therefore on account of this.'

In an attempt to illustrate that hoaxes inject highly-visible scientists as a hoaxing mechanism, Vallee
makes much of the fact that, "The Berlitz-Moore book drags in Dr. T. Townsend Brown, said to be an academic
protege of a “Dr. Biefield” (sic) who is said to have conducted experiments in antigravity with him ... however,
only two Biefields (sic) are cited in the American Who's Who in Science. One received a degree in chemistry from
Denison in 1930, the other in physical chemistry in 1948, also at Denison. Dr. Brown attended Denison in ]924-
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

84
25 and could not have been a protégé of either man." The conclusion is correct, but irrelevant! Another straw
man is slammed to the mat!! (Vallee should be in theWW-I.) Vallee uses this data as evidence to bolster his
argument that the “Philadelphia Experiment” was a hoax: No Biefeld, no Philadelphia Experiment!

The only problem is that Dr. Paul Biefeld really did exist, really taught at Denison, and really was an
undergraduate classmate of Einstein's at Zurich in 1889. This isn't hard to check. Paul Biefeld's name tops the
official list of the eight students in Einstein's second-year class at the Zurich Polytechnic Institute for 1889. (A
photograph of the roster lists eight classmates including (in addition to Paul Biefeld) Einstein's first wife Mileva
Maric and Einstein's subsequent collaborator Marcel Grossmann.
(21)
] Dr. Biefeld obtained his Ph.D. at Zurich in
1900. In addition to his university post at Denison University, he was also Director of Swazey Observatory in
Ohio. The Denison University Biefeld’s from the 1930's and 40's were probably Dr. Biefeld's children.

As an aside, One wonders if Professor Biefeld ever discussed his old classmates with his student, T.T.
Brown. It was during the time that T. Townsend Brown was with Professor Biefeld (1924-1930) that Einstein
was publishing his initial papers on the Unified Field Theory. Did Professor Biefeld discuss these publications, by
his old classmate, with Brown? Did Brown subsequently speak with Einstein about his former classmate
(Professor Biefeld), or of student life at Zurich, of Einstein's first love, Mileva Maric (the gossip about their
illegitimate child), etc.
(23)
Surely, such topics (and their common professional interest in radar) would have
created a bond between Einstein and Dr. Brown, if later they actually worked together on the “Philadelphia
Experiment”. Rather than a hoax gimmick, the Biefeld connection may have actually been a critical component
to the subsequent execution of the “Philadelphia Experiment”, and completely bungled by Vallee.

A hoaxing mechanism? Come, come now, somebody didn't do their homework! It would appear that
not only does Jacques Vallee owe William Moore and Charles Berlitz an apology, but he should find some way to
correct for his public ridicule of these authors in the pages of The Journal of Scientific Exploration. How does
Vallee ever repent and a rehabilitate all the poor miserable readers around the world that have been misled and
deceived by his demonstrated lack of scholarship?


Which Version of Einstein’s Unified Field Theory should be used?
There were several versions of Unified Field Theories generated by Einstein over the years. The
question naturally arises, "Which version of his Unified Field Theory was motivating the Navy in the Philadelphia
Experiment?" Einstein was employed by the Navy (at the Research and Development Division of the Navy's
Bureau of Ordnance, in the subsection on High Explosives and Propellants of the section on Ammunition and
Explosives)' as a civilian consultant from May 31, 1943 to June 30, 1946, ostensibly for applied electromagnetics,
(which might be related to radar, or might be related to ship degaussing, or torpedo deflection, or something else
funneled through the Bureau of Ordnance). But, how does the Unified Field Theory enter the story of the
Philadelphia Experiment?

The Source of the Idea
The book by William Moore and Charles Berlitz oives three separate people that inject the idea that the
incident had something to do with Einstein's Unified Field Theory. First, in both of the letters to Dr. Morris K.
Jessup, Carlos Allende focuses on the 1925 version of the Unified Field Theory, which was rejected by Einstein in
1927 ("primarily for humanitarian reasons, not for mathematics errors").
(26)
He further alleges that the concepts
of this version were tested by the Navy in 1943. Secondly, Dr. J. Manson Valentine asserts that, shortly before his
death, Jessup believed that the explanation for the “Philadelphia Experiment”... was to be found in Einstein's Field
Theory.
(27)
Thirdly, Dr. Rinehart begins his interview by William Moore with the words, "The Unified Field
Theory….”,
(28)
and he, too, gives it a significant role in the incident. * Dr. Rinehart also introduces T. Townsend
Brown into the story.
(29)
According to Moore, Brown had a keen interest in Unified Field physics and believed
in an observable coupling between gravitation and electricity.
(30)

While the other two people just say "Unified Field Theory", it is Allende who specifically states that it is
the 1925 version upon which part of the Philadelphia Experiment was based.* What curious feature of the 1925
version makes it so attractive for a Philadelphia Experiment? If it was rejected by Einstein, and subsequent
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

85
versions (which were also unsatisfactory) were developed, why not use latest and best theory? Why the 1925
version? What, exactly was this 1925-27 version of the Unified Field Theory, and why was this version so
prominent? What is the magic that makes it possible to subdue universal gravitation?


Some Background Information
Perhaps a little history is in order. The opinion that gravitation and magnetism are, somehow, related
phenomena is as old as our knowledge of magnetism. In more recent times, Faraday (1791-1861) discusses the
possibility in his research notes, and even Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) formulated a unified field theory. [Some
of Heaviside's papers on the topic were found at his Paignton, England home in 1957. Heaviside lived at
Paignton from 1889 to 1897. (He superposed a gravitational flux vector onto the Poynting-Heaviside vector in
flat space: G H E S + × = .)
(31)
Interestingly, Heaviside's unpublished manuscript for a Volume FV of his
Electromagnetic Theorv, including material on the unification of gravitation and electromagnetism, was loaned to
NM during the 1930's for display. After WW-II it was requested that these papers be returned to England but, for
some unknown reason, a "thorough search" of the Institute by the N41T President's office failed to produce the
now-lost Heaviside Unified Field Theory manuscript.]

German physicist Gustav Mie (1868-1957) attempted a field theory of matter just prior to the creation of
classical General Relativity.
(32) (33)
Gunnar N|rdstrom appears to have been the first to employ the term "unified
field" in a modem context.
(34)
He also initiated the 5-dimensional pursuit. The first effort at a unified field
theory based on general relativity was that due to David Hilbert (1862-1943) in 1915.
(35) (36)
While the odor
Kaluza (1885-1954) introduced an enticing five-dimensional geometry for unifying gravitation and electricity," it
was Hermann Weyl
(38) (39)
(1885-1955) and then Arthur Stanley Eddington
(40) (41)
(1882-1944) that set the stage
for Einstein's labors toward a geometrical Unified Field Theory of gravitation and electromagnetism. Weyl noted
that while general relativistic gravitational phenomena depend upon the sixteen components of a four-by-four
metric tensor, electromagnetic phenomena are governed by a four-vector (the four-potential) and that "so far these
two classes of phenomena stand side by side, one separate from the other."
(42)
He traced the root of the difficulty
to the geometrical conveyance of vectors along arbitrary paths, and he probed the basis of world geometry,

.... a geometry comes into being, which when applied to the world, explains in a surprising manner not
only the phenomena of gravitation, but also those of the electromagneticfield.
(43)


Weyl assumed that the affine connection was symmetric, and his efforts at unification soon ended in failure.



__________________

* There is a mutual interaction here, the common acquaintance being Carlos Allende. It might be argued that Allende had acquired the
idea from the lectures of Dr. Jessup. We need more information in order to isolate the witnesses.

** One might also raise the question as to how Allende, who was by no means a scientist (does he even read German, never mind
understand non-Riemannian geometry?), could be aware of this feature of the incident. Was he merely garbelling together his narration
of the Philadelphia Experiment and parroting back Dr. Jessup's remarks concerning the need for government funded research on
Einstein's Unified Field Theory? (Allende was, of course, a common connection between the three people that have injected Unified
Field Theories into the story.) Did his testimony infect the comments of the others? If this were so, and if only Allende, Jessup, and
Rinehart express the explicit use of Unified Field Theories, then this whole aspect of the tale becomes suspect. To its it seems that his
point requires clarification.
Unified Field Theories by Einstein
Einstein's famous General Theory of Relativity unified geometry and gravitation.
(44)
His passage from
classical general relativity toward a geometrical theory in which gravitation and electromagnetism are supposed to
emerge from a single principle may be traced chronologically as follows.


(1) In 1923, Einstein (1879-1955) trifled with the idea of a unification of geometry and
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

86
electrodynamics.
(45)
In this primitive theory, based primarily on Eddington's 1921 notions, he obtained the result
that the symmetric affine connection of space-time can be related to the metric tensor
g
v µ
and the
electric four-current ( µ
µ
; , ,
3 2 1 i i i i
= ) as

i i i
g
x
g
x
g
x
g
g
v v
v
v v
v
v µ
o o
µ
o
µ
|
µ
µ
| µ|
o|
o
µ o o
6
1
6
1
2
1
2
1
+ + ÷
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
c
c
÷
c
c
+
c
c
=
I
(1)

(The affine connection
I
o
µv
, prescribes how events at one point in space-time are related to events at adjacent
points.) This led to the obstacle that it was impossible to derive the source-free Maxwell equations; in
contradiction to experience, no electric field is possible at places where the current is zero! The same year, Dutch
electrical engineer and noted mathematician J.A. Schouten (1883-1971) found a way around this difficulty, and he
provided the first asymmetric affine connection Unified Field Theory.
(46)


Schouten introduced the four-vector potential

( )
I I
÷ = =
v
v
v
v
v
v S S µ µ µ µ
2
1
(2)

which is the contracted torsion tensor. In contrast to Einstein's work, he obtained the result that


S i i
g
x
g
x
g
x
g
g
v
v
v v
v
v o o
o
µ µ
o
µ
o
µ
|
µ
µ
| µ|
o|
o
µ
÷ + ÷
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
c
c
c
c
+
c
c
=
I
6
1
2
1
2
1
(3)


Because of the presence of

electromagnetic fields are now possible even in places where the electric four-
current

is zero. The question is why should the four-potential depend upon the torsion of the manifold (and
vice-versa)?


(2) Einstein first employed the term "Unified Field Theory" in 1925, publishing the famous paper "Einheitliche
Feldtheorie von Gravitation und Elektrizitat".*
(47)
Starting from a variational principle Einstein obtained an
enchanting metric tensor that could be decomposed into a symmetric part
g
v µ
(which could be identified with
gravitation and classical general relativity) and an unsymmetrical part
u v µ
(which he attempted to identify with
the electromagnetic field tensor:
u u u 31 23 12
, , corresponding to the electric field-strength, and
u u u 34 24 14
, , corresponding to the magnetic field strength). The problem was that the
u v µ
was not
exactly the curl of a four-vector, as it should be for electromagnetism, so the new "electromagnetic-like field" is
going to generally have the wrong properties. However, the "electromagnetic-like field" equations which emerge
in the weak field limit are, in Einstein's words, almost completely equivalent to the Maxwell equations for free
space ... essentially equivalent to Maxwell's equations for free space", - but not quite. The equations fail for the
existence of sources. Nothing arose to be interpreted as the electric current density standing on the right side of a
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

87
Maxwell's source equation:
i
v
v
µ µ
=
u V
. The remarkable outcome of this theory was that the symmetric
part of the metric gave classical general relativity (including red shifts, perihelia precession, light bending, etc.)
plus the unsymmetric part of the metric gave a slightly flawed version of Maxwell's equations. The implication
was, if you could generate the appropriate electromagnetic fields then you would modify the metric tensor for the
geometry of space-time. In this 1925 version, however, gravitation and electromagnetism are ". . . independent
from one another in the first approximation."
(48)
(Interestingly, Einstein's post war attempt at a Unified Field
Theory, in the final decade of his life, starts with the same variational principle as his 1925 version and delivers
both an unsymmetric metric and torsion.
(49)
)

(3) In 1927, when commenting on the 1925 Unified Field Theory and his attempts to make it work,
Einstein said,

". . . all our endeavors to attain a theory which combine the gravitational field and the electromagnetic
field into a formal unification were directed along the paths embraced by Weyl and Eddington, or a
similar route; through numerous failures I have now, myself, struggled through to the conviction that one
does not come closer to the truth along this way.”
(50)
[Emphasis in the original.]

We take it that this was the 1927 "rejection" referred to by Allende in the quotes above.





















Figure IV.1
Space-Time Manifold crinkled by Torsion


___________________

* Unified Field Theory of Gravitation and Electricity.

Einstein then returned to Kaluza's five-dimensional strategy, but within the year he had rejected this approach
also. Although publically rejecting the 1925 theory, clearly Einstein was not giving up on a Unified Field Theory.

(4) In papers published in 1928
(51)
and 1929
(52)
Einstein admits that the Riemannian geometry of
general relativity, although it leads to a physical description of gravitational fields, furnishes no concepts to which
electromagnetic fields might belong. Instead of starting from a variational principle, he now sidesteps into
differential geometry and introduces the mathematical concept of distant parallelism (fernparallelismus), also
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

88
called teleparallelism or absolute parallelism. Distant parallelism is a mathematical prescription for the parallel
displacement of a vector, between two points in a manifold, that is independent of any particular choice of path
between the two points. (A Euclidean manifold is an example of a space with distant parallelism.) In the curved
Riemannian geometry of classical general relativity, however, the results of parallel transport are path-dependent.
Accordingly, in spite of the fact that the newly found metric tensor and affine connection can even be
nonsymmetric, the Riemann-Christoffel curvature tensor now vanishes identically (there is no Schwarzschild
solution), and as Wolfgang Pauli noted, the classical tests of general relativity that depend upon curvature go out
the window! But, at least in the first approximation, the new approach did give Maxwell's equations in free space.

The idea behind distant parallelism is to erect a field of orthonormal tetrad frames over the entire
space-time manifold

( )
x
h
x
e e a
a
a
P
µ
µ
µ
µ
c
c
=
c
c
=
) (

(4)

where the latin subscript a numbers the base vector and the greek index p specifies the component on the local
tangent basis vector a/olx" at the given point. The corresponding arms of the tetrads at different points are
mutually parallel since the iE,, satisfy Vbe,, = 0. Vectors at different points are accounted parallel if they have the
same components on the tetrad field at the different points.

An unsymmetric affine connection can be determined from the null covariant derivative of the tetrads as

x
h h
x
h
h
x
e
e
c
v
v
b a b
c
a b
c
a
b
c
a µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
µ
c
c
÷ =
c
c
÷ =
c
÷ =
c
I
) (
) (
(5)

which further leads to the conclusion that the Riemann-Christoffel curvature tensor vanishes and the torsion is
nonzero:

| |
a
c
b b
c
a b
c
a S I I
÷ =
2
1
(6)

The geometrical significance of this is shown in the attached Figure IV.1 and was explained in Figures 11 and 12
of our paper.
(53)
A metric tensor may introduced through the inner product

q
µ
µ
µ
ab
v
b
a
v
v e e
g
e e
) (
) (
= = -
 
(7)

where
q
ab
is the Lorentzian metric with signature (1, 1, 1; - l). The result is a metrical geometry with torsion.

Building upon the, above, Einstein then identifies the contracted torsion tensor
b
b
a S
with the
electromagnetic four-vector potential:

b
b
a a S
=
u
(8)


In his review of this approach to a Unified Field Theory, Eddington declares,

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

89
"The general idea is that the nature of the field can be completely described by specifying the values of
the 16 quantities
ha
µ
at every point. Such a description is more comprehensive than if the 10 quantities
g
v µ
required to define the gravitational field are specified, so that it is able to embrace the
electromagnetic field in addition."
(54)


As stated earlier, the theory leads in first approximation to Maxwell's equations, but, since 0 =
R
a
bcd
(which
makes the distant parallelism possible), the classical general relativistic effects evaporate.


(5) By 1930, Einstein realized that his first 1929 paper "needed improvement" and his second 1929
paper
(55)
(which attempted to obtain the new Unified Field Theory from Hamilton's principle) “contained a fatal
error”.
(56)


(6) In 1931, he states that the previous "distant parallelism" approach is the wrong direction. In
October of 1931 he wrote,

"Until now, the general theory of relativity primarily has been a rational theory of gravitation and the
metrical properties of space. However, concerning the treatment of electromagnetic phenomena, it had
to content itself with a bare superficial incorporation of Maxwell's theory into the relativistic scheme. In
addition to the quadratic metrical form of the gravitational field, one had to introduce a logically
independent linear form whose coefficients are interpreted as the potential of the electromagnetic field;
the covariantly written Maxwell tensor of the electromagnetic field stood beside the curvature tensor in
the tensor equations of the gravitational field -- superficial, and logically joined only arbitrarily by a
plus sign. This must be perceived all the more painfully since Maxwell's theory is supported as a field
theory only to first approximation, albeit through very rich empirical experimental data; the suspicion
could not be escaped that the linearity of Maxwell's equations does not correspond with actual reality,
but on the contrary, the true equations of electromagnetism deviate from those of Maxwell's for strong
fields.

For that reason theoreticians are interested, since the formulation of the general theory of relativity
strives to formulate a logical unified theory of the overall field. One cannot maintain, however, that the
great efforts previously devoted to the problem have led to a satisfactory result.”
(58)


From 1931 to 1938 Einstein returned to five-dimensional Kaluza-Klein theories, and then discarded these forever.

(7) Finally, between 1945-1955 Einstein publicly returns to the unsymmetric Unified Field Theory
of 1925 with renewed vigor and considerably more rigor. He now recognizes that it is the infinitesimal
displacement
v
I
o
µ
, and not the metric tensor
v
g
µ
, that makes it possible to avoid inertial systems. He asserts,

". . . there is no compelling reason to restrict I by the condition of symmetry with regard to the lower
indices... If one does not subject I to a restrictive symmetry condition, one arrives at that
generalization of the law of gravitation that appears to me as the natural one."
(59)


He employs the variational principle from 1925 and arrives at a final set of field equations, which still fail to yield
an exact set of Maxwell's equations but does give conservation of charge.


Einstein's Search for UFT Experiments in the 1920's
It appears that attempted experimental investigations of the Unified Field Theories actually predate the
Philadelphia Experiment. Starting with the 1923 version, it has been stated by Gerlach (of Stern and Gerlach
THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

90
fame) that Einstein was actively searching for experimentally observable effects of a Unified Field theory.
(60)
In
a letter to Max Born, Einstein stated that he was searching for an experimental examination of the 1923 Affine
Field Theory which involved the earth's magnetic field.
(61)
The efforts recall to mind the 1915-1917 Einstein-de
Haas Effect experiments.

Vizgin asserts that, "Einstein did not abandon searches for experimental confirmation of his affine filed
theory."
(62)
In another incident, Vizgin states, "Einstein (together with Ehrenfest) considered making a delicate
electrostatic experiment that would make it possible to confirm consequences of the affine theory that went
beyond Maxwell's electrodynamics.”
(63)
In a letter to Ioffee, Ehrenfest wrote, "Einstein and I immerse ourselves
for many hours everyday in an experimental study to establish whether there exists a completely crazy
electrostatic effect assumed by him."
(64)
The experiment was subsequently abandoned.

Vizgin goes on to write, "During the 1930’s and 1940’s, the question of the magnetism of rotating masses
was raised several times in connection with unified geometrized field theories. In 1923-1924 Einstein very
insistently sought possibilities to relate his affine field theory to physical effects, above all to macroscopic
electromagnetic phenomena. He attempted to interest the experimentalists Gerlach, Franck, Piccard, and others,
and also his friend Ehernfest, in these ideas. None of these attempts gave results, but nevertheless they did not
undermine Einstein's belief in the promise of the affine direction, which continues to develop during the whole of
1925.”
(65)
We think that the torsion negation of the anholonomic Sagnac effect, which we described in some
detail in our “Philadelphia Experiment” paper, now becomes even more significant as an experimental verification
of these unsymmetric affine field theories. Clearly, the experiment needs to be funded and carried out!


Why are these Unified Field Theories of Interest Today?
At this point, every informed particle physicist reading this is probably wondering why in the world we
are pursuing these arcane theories. Everyone today knows that a grand unified field theory , a ToE (Theory of
Everything), embracing the strong and weak interactions of nuclear physics, is not to be found in Ricci calculus,
and certainly not in the continuum unified field theories of the early twentieth century. However, what most
modem physicists are not aware of is the central importance of these early unified field theories to electrical
engineering and the experimentally successful application (the term is actually Bannesh Hoffmann’s)
(66)
of these
concepts to heavy electrical machinery.
(67)
Indeed, the form of Maxwell's equations written by early unified
field theory workers
(68)
is the only correct version of Maxwell's equations in spaces with anholonomity
(69) (70) (71)

or torsion! *

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

91

SUMMARY
What does all this mean? It seems to suggest that, since charges, currents, and even ferromagnetic
domain spin produce the four-potential

(and its dual), and Equation (8) implies that this is related to the
torsion of the manifold, various current distributions could be engineered to affect the affine connection of
Equation (5) and, therefore, the metric tensor of Equation (7). Since gravitation is a metrical phenomenon, the
implication is that, under appropriate conditions (whatever those might be), one could use current distributions to
modify gravitation (propulsion?). A side effect might be the "crinkling of the manifold" (to use Eddington's


( )
A S
x
A
x
A
F j
j
ik
j
ik k
i
i
k
ik O
÷ ÷
|
|
.
|

\
|
c
c
÷
c
c
= 2


words)
72
due to the excitation of torsion (a nonclosing of parallelograms due to the asymmetry of the affine
connection), and this may lead to teleportation and time-travel. These incredibly bizarre notions appear to be
resident in the classical non-Riemannian UFT equations.


CONCLUSION
In Vallee's paper, as with Pothier's papers, we look at the same evidence (meager though it may be) and
conclude that the argument for the occurrence of the Philadelphia Experiment is strengthened all the more. Vallee
complains, "What can the individual scientist do when trying to introduce rational research into afield where
stories like the Philadelphia Experiment clutter the literature . . .?"
(24)
We counter by rephrasing the remark and
echoing back, "What can rational scientists do when trying to introduce analytical thought into a field where
shoddy scholarship, irrelevant obfuscations, and vanquished straw men clutter the literature?"

It seems to us that the paper was driven by cerebral predisposition, not scientific inquiry. (It's too bad that
Vallee pursued his hoax hypothesis instead of listening more closely to the remarkable witness that he had
available. In spite of the fact that his technical training was limited, Mr. Dudgeon could probably have supplied
quite a few missing pieces of the puzzle if he were suitably questioned.) Surely, the two most obvious and
important ingredients were omitted from Vallee's list of countermeasures for deception by a hoax. Let us suggest
these two: (7) Do your own homework, and (8) Check the physics.




__________________
* Reference 67 exhibits the first explicit generalized expression of Maxwell's equations in spaces with Torsion: Eq. 25.
Kron added the anholonomic term, as required in engineering applications (Jour. Appl. Phys., Vol. 7, 1936, pp. 143-152: Eq. 46;
Vol. 9, 1938, pp. 196-208: Eq. 5.4). This term was the key ingredient employed in the anholonomic Corum papers just referenced.


THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

92
REFERENCES

1. Corum, K. L., J. F. Corum, and J. F. X. Daum, Tesla's Egg of Columbus, Radar Stealth, The Torsion Tensor
and The Philadelphia Experiment, Published by the International Tesla Society, Colorado Springs, CO, 1994,
[92 page text, $24.95; 1 hour video lecture $29.95; both $49.95.]

2. Ford, R. A., Homemade Lightning, Tab Books, 1991, pp. 151-152.

3. Anonymous, "Experiments Indicate Electric Charge Could Quiet Sonic Boom," Product
Engineering, Vol. 39, March 11, 1968, pp. 35-36.

4. Corum, K. L., J. F. Corum, and J. F. X. Daum, "Some Thoughts on Tesla's Death Beam", Proceedings of the
1992 International Tesla Symposium, Colorado Springs, Colorado, pp. 183-198.

5. "Date-Event Chart for T. T. Brown," Electric Spacecraft Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, 199 1, p. 12.

6. Moore and Berlitz, loc. cit. p. 213.

7. Moore and Berlitz, loc. cit. p. 215.

8. Moore and Berlitz, loc. cit. p. 218.

9. Pothier, J., "The Philadelphia Experiment Revisited - Part I," Electric Spacecraft Journal, Issue 7,
July-September, 1992, pp. 15-25; "The Philadelphia Experiment Revisited - Part II," Electric
Spacecraft Journal, Issue 8, October-December, 1992, pp. 14-21.

10. Vallee, J. F., "Anatomy of a Hoax: The Philadelphia Experiment Fifty Years Later," Journal of Scientific
Exploration, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1994, pp. 47 -71.

11. Vallee, loc. cit. p. 65.

12. Vallee, loc. cit. p. 67.

13. Vallee, loc. cit. p. 64.

14. Sommerfeld, Arnold, Optics, Volume IV in the series Lectures on Theoretical Physics, Academic Press, 1964
(originally published in 1949), pp. 18-19.

15. Vallee, loc. cit. p. 66.

16. Vallee, loc. cit. p. 70.

17. Vallee, loc. cit. p. 64.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. Moore, W. and C. Berlitz, loc. cit. p. 211.

21. Hoffmann, B., and H. Dukas, Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel, The Viking Press, 1972, p. 31
(photographic reproduction).

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

93
22. The principal Unified Field Theory papers by Einstein in this 1925-1930 time frame were:


1925
"Einheitliche Feldtheorie von Gravitation und Elektrizitat," by A. Einstein, Preussische Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, vom 9 Juli 1925, pp. 414-419.


1927
"Formale Beziehung des Riemannschen Krummungstensors zu den Feldgleichungen der Gravitation," by
A. Einstein, Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 97, 1927, pp. 99-103.

“Zu Kaluzas Theorie des Zusammenhanges von Gravitation und Elektrizitat - Erste Mitteilung," by A.
Einstein, Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse,
Sitzungsberichte, vom 17 Februar, 1927, pp. 23-25.

“Zu Kaluzas Theorie des Zusammenhanges von Gravitation und Elektrizitat - Zweite Mitteilung," by A.
Einstein, Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse,
Sitzungsberichte, vom 17 Februar 1927, pp. 26-30.


1928

"Riemanngeometrie mit Aufrechterhaltung des Begriffes des Fern-Parallelismus," von A. Einstein,
Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, vom
7 Juni 1928, pp. 217-221.

"Neue Moglichkeit fur eine einheitliche Feldtheorie von Gravitation und Elektrizitat," by A. Einstein,
Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, vom
14 Juni 1928, pp. 224-227.

1929

Quotation from an interview with Einstein in advance of publication (of his "Zur einheitlichen
Feldtheorie") by the London Daily Chronicle of January 26, 1929; published in Nature, Vol. 123,
February 2, 1929, pp. 174-175.

“Zur einheitlichen Feldtheorie," by A. Einstein, Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch
Mathematischen Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, Jan. 10, 1929, p. 2-7.

"The New Field Theory," by Professor Albert Einstein, The London Times, February 4, 1929. Reprinted
in two parts in The Observatory, Vol. 52, 1929. Part-I "Matter and Space," March, 1929, pp. 82-87; Part-
II "The Structure of Space-Time," April, 1929, pp. 114-118. [Translated by L. L. Whyte in 1929.]

"Einheitliche Feldtheori und Hamiltonsches Prinzip," by A. Einstein, Preussische Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, vom 21 Marz, 1929, pp. 156-
159.


1930

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

94
"Die Kompatibilitat der Feldgleichungen in der einheitlichen Feldtheorie," by A. Einstein, Preussische
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, vom 9 Januar,
1930, pp. 18-23.

"Theorie unitare du champ physique," par A. Einstein, Annales De L'Institut Henri Poincare, Vol. 1, No.
1, (1930), pp. 1-24.

"Zwei strenge statische Losungen der Feldgleichungen der einheitlichen Feldtheorie." by A. Einstein and

W. Mayer, Sitzungsberichte der Preussische Akadernie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-
Mathematischen Klasse, vom 20 Februar 1930, pp. 110- 120.

"Zur Theorie der Raume mit Riemann-Metrik und Fernparallelismus," by A. Einstein, Preussische
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, vom 17 Juli,
1930, pp. 401-402.

"Auf die Riemann-Metric und den Fern-Paralielismus gegrundete einheittiche Feldtheorie," by A.
Einstein, Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 102, (1930), pp. 685-697.

"Raum, Ather und Feld in der Physik," von A. Einstein, World Power Conference, 2nd, Berlin, 1930,
Transactions, Vol. 19, pp. 1-5. Also Dinglers Polytechnisches Journal, Vol. 345, pp. 122-123.

"Uber den gegenwartigen stand der allgemeinen Relativitatstheorie," by A. Einstein, Yale University
Library Gazette, Vol. 6, (1929), pp. 3-6. ("On the Present Status of the General Theorie of Relativity,"
translation by Leigh Page, pp. 7-10.)

"Professor Einstein's Address at the University of Nottingham," Science, Vol. 7 1, June 13, 1930, 608-
610.

23. Holton, G., "Of Love, Physics and Other Passions: The Letters of Albert and Mileva (Part 1)," Physics Today,
August, 1994, pp. 23-29; Part 2, September, 1994, pp. 37-43.

24. Vallee, loc. cit. p. 68.

25. Pais, A., Subtle Is The Lord, Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 529.

26. Moore and Berlitz, loc. cit. p. 39.

27. Ibid, p. 131.

28. Ibid, p. 181.

29. Moore and Berlitz, loc. cot. p. 213.

30. Moore and Berlitz, loc. cot. p. 219-220.

31. Josephs, H. J., "The Heaviside Papers Found at Paignton in 1957," Proceedings of the IEE (London), Vol.
106, 1959, pp. 70-76; Republished in Electromagnetic Theory, by 0. Heaviside, Chelsea Publishing Co.,
1971, Vol. 111, pp. 643-666. (See pp. 650-653.)

32. Jammer, M., Concepts of Mass, Harper and Row, 1961, pg. 197.

33. Pais, A., Subtle Is The Lord, Oxford University Press, 1982, pp. 257-258.

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

95
34. Nordstrom, G., "Ober die MO-lichkeit, das elektromacnetische Feld und das Gravitationsfeld zu
35. vereinigen," Physik. Zeitschr., Vol. 15, 1914, pp. 504-506.

36. Hilbert, D., "Die Grundlagen der Physik: Erste Mitteilung," Gottingen Nachrichten, Phys-Math. Klasse, 20
November 1915, pp. 395-407; "Die Grundlagen der Physik: Zweite Mitteilung," Gottingen Nachrichten,
Phys-Math. Klasse, 1917, pp. 53-76.

37. Vizgin, V., "Einstein, Hilbert, and Weyl: The Genesis of the Geometrical Unified Field Theory Program,"
published in Einstein and the History of General Relativity, edited by D. Howard and J. Stachel, Birkhauser
Verlag, 1989, pp. 300-314.

38. Kaluza, Theodor F. E., "Zum Unititsproblem der Physik," Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, vom 22 Dezember 1921, pp. 966-972.

39. Weyl, H., "Gravitation und Elektrizitat," Sitzungsberichte der Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse, 1918, pp. 465-480. (Reprinted in The Principle of Relativity, W. Perrett
and G. B. Jeffery, translators, Dover Publications, 1952, pp. 201-216.) [Seminal work on unifying
gravitational and electromagnetic fields: explicitly presumes the commutability of parallel displacements.]

40. Weyl, H., "Gravitation and Electricity," Nature, Vol. 106, 1921, pp. 800-802.

41. Eddington, A. S., "A Generalization of Weyl's Theory of the Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields,"
Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, vol. A99, 1921, pp. 104-122. (Concept of asymmetric affine
connection mentioned in passing. (See footnote on pg. 107 of Eddington's paper. Also see Schouten, 1922,
below.)]

42. Eddington, A. S., The Mathematical Theory of Relativity, first edition, Cambridge University Press, 1923.
[First proposal that the gravitational and electromagnetic fields can be identified as the symmetrical
(gravitational potentials) and anti-symmetrical (electromagnetic forces) of a more general tensor field.]

43. Weyl, H., "Gravitation und Elektrizitat," Sitzungsberichte der Preussichen Akad. der Wissenschaften, May
30, 1918, p. 465.

44. Ibid.

45. Einstein, A., "Die Grundlagen der allgemeinen Relativitatstheorie," Annalen der Physik, Vol. 49, 1916, pp.
769-822. [Reprinted in The Principle of Relativity ., Dover, 1952, 109-164.]

46. Einstein, A., "Zur affinen Feldtheorie," Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch
Mathematischen Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, vom 31 Mai 1923, pp. 137-140.

47. Schouten, J. A., "On A Non-Symmetrical Affine Field Theory," Proc. Kon. Akad. Amsterdam, vol. 26,
1923, pp. 850-857. (Also see the somewhat similar paper in Physica, Vol. 3, 1923, pp. 365-369.)

48. Einstein, A., "Einheitliche Feldtheorie von Gravitation und Elektrizitat," Sitzungsberichtung der Preussischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse, vom 9 Juli 1925, pp. 414-419.

49. Ibid.

50. Einstein, A., The Meaning of Relativity, Princeton University Press, 5
th
Edition, 1956. See Appendix II, pp.
133-166.

51. Einstein, A., "On the Formal Relation of the Riemann Curvature Tensor to the Field Equations of
Gravitation," Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 97, (1927), pp. 99-103.

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

96
52. Einstein, 1928, loc. cit.

53. Einstein, A., "Zur einheitlichen Feldtheorie," (On the Unified Field Theory), Preussische Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, Januar 10, 1929, pp. 2-7.

54. Corum, K. L., J. F. Corum, and J. F. X. Daum, Tesla's Egg of Columbus, Radar Stealth, The Torsion Tensor,
and The Philadelphia Experiment, International Tesla Symposium, Colorado Springs, CO, 1994.

55. Eddington, A. S., "Einstein's Field-Theory," Nature, Vol. 123, February 23, 1929, pp. 280-281.

56. Einstein, A., "Einheitliche Feldtheorie und Hamiltonsches Prinzip," by A. Einstein, Preussische Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, March 21, 1929, pp. 156-159.

57. Einstein, A., "Die Kompatibilitat der Feldgleichungen in der einheitlichen Feldtheorie," Preussische
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, January 9, 1930, pp.
18-23.

58. Einstein, A., "Gravitational and Electromagnetic Fields," by A. Einstein, Science, Vol. 74, 1931, 438-439.

59. Einstein, A., "Unified Theory of Gravitation and Electricity," Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, October 22, 193 1, pp. 541-557.

60. Einstein, A., The Meaning of Relativity, Princeton University Press, 5
th
edition, 1956, p. 145.

61. Vizgin, V., Unified Field Theories in the First Third of the 20
th
Century, Birkhauser, 1994, p. 194.

62. Ibid.

63. Ibid.

64. Ibid.

65. Ibid.

66. Ibid.

67. Hoffmann, B., "Kron's Method of Subspaces," Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, Vol. 2, (1944), pp. 218-
231,

68. Wiener, N., "Notes on the Kron Theory of Tensors in Electrical Machinery," Journal of Electrical
Engineering, China, #3 and #4, 1936. Reprinted in The Collected Works of Norbert Wiener, P. Masoni,
editor, MIT Press, 1981, pp. 740-750.

69. Novobatzky, K., "Universal Field Theory," Zeitschrift fur Physik, Vol. 89, 1934, pp. 373-387.

70. Corum, J. F., "Relativistic Rotation and the Anholonomic Object," Journal of Mathematical Physics, Vol. 18,
No. 4, April, 1977, pp. 770-776.

71. Corum, J. F., "Relativistic Covariance and Rotational Electrodynamics," Journal of Mathematical Physics,
Vol. 21, No. 9, Sept. 1980, pp. 2360-2364.

72. Corum, J. F., "Comments on GPS Synchronization and Relativity," Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 81, No. 2,
February, 1993, pp. 305-308.

THE
“PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

97
73. Eddington, A. S., "A Generalization of Weyl's Theory of the Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields,"
Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, vol. A99, 1921, pp. 104-122. See footnote on pg. 107.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT _________________________________________________________________ 4 RADAR AND ROTATING FIELDS ______________________________________________ 6
INTRODUCTION _______________________________________________________________________6 Why Tesla? _____________________________________________________________________________7 Polyphase Currents and Rotating Fields _____________________________________________________7 Tesla’s Reflections on Radar and Ships Wrapped in Coils of Wire________________________________9 Radar _________________________________________________________________________________11 Sommerfeld on Electromagnetic Stealth During WW-II _______________________________________12 Ferromagnetic Radar Absorbing Material __________________________________________________13 Magnetically-Biased Radar Camouflage ____________________________________________________15 TABLE I – Electrical Specifications ___________________________________________________16 Small Scale Laboratory Experimental Verification _______________________________________23 CONCLUSION _________________________________________________________________________24

THE EXPERIMENTAL PLATFORM ___________________________________________ 26
Practical Information About Destroyer Escorts ______________________________________________26 Shipboard Degaussing Installations ________________________________________________________27

CORRELATION WITH THE MOORE-BERLITZ BOOK ___________________________ 28
“The Philadelphia Experiment” ___________________________________________________________28 Carl M. Allan ___________________________________________________________________________28 Commander X __________________________________________________________________________28 Resonant Magnification __________________________________________________________________28 Dr. R. F. Rinehart _______________________________________________________________________29 Dr. Valentine ___________________________________________________________________________29

OBSERVABLE RAMIFICATIONS _____________________________________________ 30
Phenomenological Effects ________________________________________________________________30 Low Frequency Magnetohydrodynamics in Salt Water: ___________________________________30 Biological (Physiological) Effects___________________________________________________________32 Let us zero in on perceptual effects, which we would expect under such circumstances: _________32 Summary Remarks - Leading To Another Question __________________________________________34

TORSION TENSOR CONJECTURE ____________________________________________ 35
Spin, Torsion, and a Crinkled Space-Time __________________________________________________35 Relation of Gyromagnetic Phenomena to the Production of Torsion _____________________________35 Torsion and the Anholonomic Object _______________________________________________________36 Spin and Torsion________________________________________________________________________41 Spin ______________________________________________________________________________41 Quantum mechanical spin ____________________________________________________________41 A Short History of Successful Unified Field Theory Applications ________________________________43 Spin and Magnetism _____________________________________________________________________46 Torsion and the Electromagnetic Field______________________________________________________47 A Sagnac Effect Experiment ______________________________________________________________48 Aharonov-Bohm Effect __________________________________________________________________49 An Aharonov-Bohm Torsion Experiment ___________________________________________________52 Speculations on Torsion and Time Discontinuities ____________________________________________52 CONCLUDING REMARKS ______________________________________________________________53

FINAL CONCLUSIONS ______________________________________________________ 54 APPENDIX I _______________________________________________________________ 55
Surface Impedance for a Ferromagnetic Planar Slab __________________________________________55
THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

2

The Ferromagnetic Anisotropic Permeability Tensor__________________________________________55 Electromagnetic Waves in an Anisotropic Ferromagnetic Medium ______________________________58 The Anisotropic Surface Impedance Tensor _________________________________________________61

APPENDIX II ______________________________________________________________ 63
An Electrical Model for the DE 173 ________________________________________________________63 A Series Resonant Coil Driver _____________________________________________________________64 The Anti-Resonant Current Magnifier***___________________________________________________64 Resonant Current-Magnification __________________________________________________________66 CONCLUSIONS ________________________________________________________________________67

APPENDIX III ______________________________________________________________ 69
Peripheral Items of Interest _______________________________________________________________69 Additional References ___________________________________________________________________69

APPENDIX IV * ____________________________________________________________ 80
The Philadelphia Experiment: Some Loose Ends _____________________________________________80 Electrostatically-Biased Radar Camouflage _____________________________________________80 On the Role of T. Townsend Brown ____________________________________________________80 Hoax Allegations ____________________________________________________________________81 Witness Edward Dudgeon ________________________________________________________81 Vallee's Tactic __________________________________________________________________83 A Tragic Error _________________________________________________________________83 Which Version of Einstein’s Unified Field Theory should be used? ______________________________84 The Source of the Idea _______________________________________________________________84 Some Background Information ________________________________________________________85 Unified Field Theories by Einstein _________________________________________________________85 Einstein's Search for UFT Experiments in the 1920's __________________________________________89 Why are these Unified Field Theories of Interest Today? ______________________________________90 SUMMARY ____________________________________________________________________________91 CONCLUSION _________________________________________________________________________91

REFERENCES _____________________________________________________________ 92

THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

3

it is common for respectable folk to acknowledge their limitations. Clark]. Disclaimer This paper stands unique among our publications both on Tesla and on the conventional aspects of electromagnetism and relativity. and saying. and that we haven’t strayed too far from the scientific method in our amusing pastime. (1) (2) Joseph Slepian. Before wading too deep into a controversial subject like that before us.ABSTRACT In this paper we follow the thread leading from Tesla’s spinning "Egg of Columbus" demonstration. (5) George Gamow. Let us express it this way: we offer this little study in the spirit of an engineer and some physicists having some fun [in the sense of Arthur Eddington. only partially at that. (And. the DSRB (under Vannevar Bush) would have been derelict not to have conducted such an experiment. "What if . By calculation. through his proposal of a large rectangular helix disposed about the hull of a ship for U-boat detection. attempting to stay within the bounds of engineering technical propriety. It can be concluded that with the knowledge available. to Arnold Sommerfeld’s discussion of magnetically biased ferrite’s creating electromagnetic stealth for WW-II submarines. the lunatic fringe. our passing entertainment should also provide recreational diversion for skeptics. which distinguish temporal anisotropy arising from anholonomity (the Sagnac effect) from that arising in the torsion of the 1929 version of the unified field (Eddington’s "crinkled manifold"). Such intense fields would create a green mist and cavities in salt water. it follows that our assertions can be experimentally examined by disinterested (but technically qualified) third parties. (3) Jearl Walker. Finally. We need to make some kind of professional "disclaimer". and men of honor. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 4 . the required magnetic field to reduce a ship's radar reflection to less dm 1%.. Taken in that spirit. grad students. Fields of this order of magnitude would appear to fulfill the requirements of a "Philadelphia Experiment". (6) or even Arthur C. (4)** Edwin Abbot. since we report on some of our experimental findings that can be verified by independent laboratory examination).000 A/m. at L-Band (1. Assuming Hehl's hypothesis that localized Cartan Torsion tensors are generated by ferromagnetic spin. and magnetophosphenes and Purkinje patterns in humans. as was available from the synchronous generators on WW-II electric drive ships. ?" Since the theoretical analyses make specific physical predictions.5) GHz. In this regard it is partly speculative.125 Hz. we present speculation on temporal bifurcation’s. looking at published statements. engineers. we propose two physical experiments.. particularly if driven at frequencies in the range of 10 . is in excess of 15.

_______________ * Slepian wrote a delightful series of "Electrical Essays" for engineers. "I am not so interested in how many you can answer as I am in getting you to worry over them. ** Start with the one cited and read either forward or backward several Walker wrote about physics problems. years." THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 5 .

A colleague at Battelle had introduced us to the story in fall of 1989. (Some thought they went through a rip in the fabric of the space-time continuum. While walking around the Monument in War Memorial Park our conversation turned to the book by William Moore and Charles Berlitz on the Philadelphia Experiment.1946. having its genesis in a 1955 book on UFO’s. During the 1940's and 50's high field magnetics became "big physics". This is not a discussion of anything even remotely like the Navy’s new "Sea Shadow”. Einstein file [QC 16 ESU55. according to the FBI. The respected names identified with the experiment include: Albert Einstein (1879-1955) * Rudolph Ladenburg (1882-1952) John Von Neumann (1903-1957) David Hilbert (1862-1943). Burtrand Russell (1872-1970).) THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 6 . 1943. the ship became invisible in a foggy green mist. a historical association with things of interest to the Navy. Gabriel Kron (1901-1968). Oswald Veblin (1880-1960). The Department of the Navy has officially identified the experiment as mythical. * Interestingly. 1943 he spoke before the Philadelphia section of the "Friends of Soviet Russia". 1943). both classical and relativistic. (9) not Naval science." (8) Simply put: in the experiment(s) a big coil of wire was wrapped around a large ship. that would have been available by scientists of the decade preceding the Philadelphia Experiment. were teleported from the Philadelphia shipyards to Norfolk Virginia. today is extremely complex. and as we walked we began to ponder out loud how we might rationally and explain such an experiment.RADAR AND ROTATING FIELDS INTRODUCTION During the 1992 International Tesla Symposium. (On the evening of August 10. then our hats are off to the brilliant scientists that spun this gossamer web of fantasy for no ordinary laymen could have done it. _______________ Einstein served as a consultant for the R&D Division of the US Navy Bureau of Ordnance from May 31. (John Von Neumann’s Gottingen dissertation advisor) Nikola Tesla (1856-January 7. and saw alien humanoids). if that's the case. and it would be impossible for the authors in this small space to even attempt a modem analysis of this topic. One of the presentations at the last ITS Symposium concerning the topic. a host of other recognized men of renown. and submarine detection in particular. Instead. The following is the result of our reveries: The world of magnetics. However. the authors took the opportunity to once again visit the site of Tesla’s Colorado Springs laboratory and nearby Prospect Lake. Vannevar Bush (1890-1974) As well as. we believe that there is some merit to employing the sort of physical arguments. Einstein was in Philadelphia during the time of the alleged Philadelphia Experiment. and a lot of people on board were hurt. OCLC #13720407. Title #3892869]. 1943 ~ June 30. whose common interest seems to include. where many of Tesla’s experiments were conducted in 1899. (10) Perhaps the story really was mythological. (7) It has been asserted that the initial Philadelphia Experiment took place "sometime between July 20th and August 20. among other things.

Tesla’s discovery of polyphase currents and “an invisible wheel made of nothing but a magnetic field" (the phrase is due to Reginald Kapp) (16) this was the turning point from the past. was Secretary of the Navy. Naval Intelligence officers accompanied NIT EE Professor John G. the Navy in Philadelphia (specifically John B. This is usually so.000] and I have now the pleasure of simply looking on while others are using my inventions. At the conferral of the AIEE’s highest award of honor. 1888). This connection was first identified and published by Gabriel Kron at GE (Schenectady) during the 1930's. It has been identified as the greatest creation of the human mind since the invention of the wheel. at the E.. Tesla’s work. our mills would be dead and idle. 1992. "Were we to seize and to eliminate from our industrial world the results of Mr. was examining Tesla’s work. he was again dealing with the Navy during World War I. in Philadelphia from 1925 ~ 1926. We think that not only can the Philadelphia Experiment be tracked to statements. our towns would be dark. of course.1 *** Both Daniels and FDR advocated absolute legal control of the electromagnetic spectrum by the Navy. Return with us now to 1887 and Tesla’s first rotating field patent (#381. "I vainly attempted to persuade them to accept. Patent* 613. our electric cars and turns would stop.. It was during this time that he met in Washington with Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin Delano Roosevelt." [Anderson. 1887. during 1929. Trump (a Bush colleague also in the employ of OSRD).A.] "I tried to persuade the Navy. we also know that when Tesla died in 1943. 158... into the 20th century. 19. was just starting research on submarine detection for the Navy.. we know that a few years later.968. Flowers. I perfected the machine in 1898. Furthermore. Josephus Daniels.*** (It was also during this time that adversity professor and future Director of OSRD (Office of Scientific Research and Development).. which Tesla published during World War I."(15) And.Why Tesla? It is now common knowledge that Tesla had attempted to market his radio controlled craft (the "telautomaton"." [Anderson. which I could not persuade people to adopt. Roosevelt's mentor. Applied for October 12. pg. which appears in Einstein’s 1927-29 Unified Field Theory publications. (14) (They were." (17) _____________ * ** For which Tesla has been identified as the Father of robotics. Vannevar Bush. the wheels of industry would cease to turn. Polyphase Currents and Rotating Fields The creation of the rotating magnetic field was "purely the work of scientific imagination". "Tesla was engaged. as he secretly examined Tesla’s papers. and tried everything in my power.. After the patent expired a few months ago Congress appropriated [$750. And. Budd Mfg. Behrend remarked. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 7 . as is evident from Tesla’s quote at the top of this article.) From Tesla’s files. In 1916 Tesla said. 1992. (13) He was the first to suggest that electric drive war ships could be used in peacetime to supply shore power during emergencies. pg. Electrical Engineer). and were grasped by men like Bush. Issued May 1. to have it adopted. See the comments below).** (11) (12) Tesla was the first to advocate the electric drive for naval vessels.G.809) to the US Navy.. to us there appears be a legitimate link between Tesla’s rotating fields and the Torsion tensor. but that the physics of the experiment can actually be traced back to Tesla’s invention of the rotating magnetic field. B. Anderson has noted that. Tesla stands at the focal point of the important electrical discoveries of the 20th century. Co. it was absolutely impossible to find listeners.

what if I could make an egg stand on the pointed end without cracking the shell?"* "If you could do this we would admit that you had gone Columbus one better. a macroscopic analog of the Einstein-de Haas effect investigated almost thirty years later. Rotating fields of 15.." (18) And. However. While Tesla had constructed the first rotating field apparatus in the summer of 1883 (one year before both he. As soon as the windings were energized the egg began to spin. according to Secretary of the Navy Daniels' statement.) He finally found a skeptical Wall Street lawyer that was somewhat interested.. has proved a great success. "The evolution of electric power from the discovery of Faraday in 1831 to the initial great installation of the Tesla’s polyphase system in 1896 is 'undoubtedly the most tremendous event in all engineering history...." (20) Tesla arranged for a demonstration the next day.. Well... He placed a copper-plated egg on a wooden plate above his rotating magnetic field (there is a photograph of the apparatus in the Secor article). (22) _____________ * As Columbus had done when getting Queen Isabella to pawn her jewels for three ships to sail in THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 8 . No sooner had they regained their composure than Tesla was delighted with their question 'Do you want any money?'.. [See part V below] “. the connection to the relativity of rotation (an issue still not put to rest today) was not overlooked: Yale physicist Leigh Page once said.” (19) Let us follow this central thread that runs through Tesla’s professional career back to its origin. "but there are a few ducats in our buckskins and we might help you to an extent. "the best results being obtained with currents from 35 to 40 cycles. and ship propulsion by Tesla’s electric drive which. to their astonishment. it stood on end. Tesla: "Do you know the story of the Egg of Columbus? .When Tesla died in 1943. and this is the conversation as Tesla retells it. Yale University EE professor Charles F. in fact."** The story was also mentioned in Fleming’s eulogy of Tesla.. who was a wit. arrived from France). Tesla was unable to raise capital to commercially introduce his invention. which Tesla employed for the egg of Columbus used two phase AC energizing the coils in quadrature and the source frequency was varied from 25 to 300 cycles." (21) The electrical circuit. it was not until 1887 that a company was formed to exploit the phenomenon.. (The enterprise was 'undercapitalized.." "And would you be willing to go out of your way as much as Isabella?" "We have no crown jewels to pawn. The materials in Einstein’s WWI experiments spin because of molecular 'amperian currents' (although later Einstein did suggest using a high frequency ‘rotating magnetic fields’ to Barnett). but when they found that it was rapidly spinning their stupefaction was complete*.000 horsepower are now being turned out. "The rotating armatures of every generator and every motor in this age of electricity are steadily proclaiming the truth of the relativity theory to all who have ears to hear. Tens of millions of horsepower of Tesla induction motors are now in use all over the world and their production is rising like a flood. and the Statue of Liberty." said the lawyer. [Tesla’s spinning egg is. In Tesla’s experiments they spin because of induced eddy currents. Scott observed. That started the ball rolling.

(Secor’s article was published in August of 1917... which had caused so much distress to the allies. (Scott. from which it could be liberated at any rate desired. which subsequently became quite popular (though not on such a grand scale) for metal detectors and for tuning the reactance of RF coils in transmitters and receivers. "The scientists simply did not know where they were when they saw it. "The average ship has available from say 10. at the time both of Westinghouse. subsequently an EE professor at Yale. it was intended to launch society into the 20th century. Mention should also be made of his turbine development and intense engineering consulting practice just prior to WW-I. W. filtered by the pen of a journalist. There is a photograph of Tesla’s exhibit in the Martin book. being absorbed at a tremendous rate by suitable condensers and other apparatus." ________________ * ** The language used to describe the staking effect his 1892 lecture-demonstration had on the Royal Institution in Londor4 was. The article then goes on to describe an RF technique. later. Listen as. a large egg demonstration was constructed for Tesla by Albert Schmid and Charles R Scott. would not interfere with the actions of this device.) The topic of discussion turned to the detection of German U-boats (U-boat = Unterseeboot = submarine). Tesla’s concerns centered around the detection of submarines. Clearly. 6 years after demonstrating the egg of Columbus to the attorneys and business investors in New York. Upon further prodding by Secor.. Actual experiments in my laboratory at Houston Street (New York City). and he states this in the interview. measuring perhaps 400 feet in length by 70 feet in width (the length and breadth of the ship*) we connect a source of extremely high frequency and very powerful oscillating current. 95) Note that Tesla has recognized that he can characterize different spinning eggs with certain gyromagnetic resonance frequencies!! This was in 1887. Tesla discussed a high peak power microwave radar for operation at wavelengths” . 1917). Tesla was contemplating the use of pulsed currents* in the coils around the ship. the IRE. have proven that the presence of a local iron mass. such as the ship's hull." (Anderson. pg.000 to 15. The electric energy would be taken from the ship's plant for a fraction of a minute only.000 HP. and 3 years before the first Niagara Falls plant was turned on. suppose that we erect on a vessel. The 1893 Fair celebrated the 500th anniversary of Columbus' discovery of the New World and. of but a few millimeters". Remarkably. (X-Band radar at 10 GHz has a wavelength of 30 mm. From the comments above it is clear that he was actively promoting his patented ideas. 1992. the close of the decade saw him making great strides in the realm of high voltage RF power processing. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 9 . ostensibly..In 1893. These experiments culminated in a cluster of patent applications and the construction of the Wardenclyffe laboratory. Nikola Tesla granted an interview to H. a large rectangular helix or an inductance coil of insulated wire. To this coil of wire. Tesla narrates the electrical preparation of the ship: "Now. Secor of the Electrical Experimenter magazine. served as President of both the AIEE and. and it is our thesis that these words are the seed that later blossomed as the "Philadelphia Experiment". While Tesla had been active in RF generation in the early 1890's.) Tesla desired that the ship be able to provide sufficient electrical power. in particular the possibility of non-ferrous hull detection.) The egg occupied part of the Westinghouse exhibit in the Electricity Building at the great Chicago Worlds Fair. (23) This was only a few months before Lord Kelvin was to choose the Tesla polyphase system for Niagara Falls. vessels wrapped in coils were observed during WW-II (per-haps for mine sweeping or even degaussing studies). Tesla’s Reflections on Radar and Ships Wrapped in Coils of Wire Just after receiving the AIEE’s Edison medal (May 18..” (24) We think that Vannevar Bush was aware of this suggestion. The United States had entered the war in April of 1917.

Tesla.600 kVA and could deliver 6. Massachusetts and consulting for the American Radio and Research Corporation.. with the primary job of finding a way of spotting U-boats. P..1 THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 10 . of MIT. you will find that it amounts to from 6 to 12 or 15 million horsepower. .. Raytheon became the prime source for the new Navy Search Radar. 408). . Tesla was speaking about. in the plant on Long Island. Thomas Edison.. 112-113.000 HP (almost 9 Mw).** (In 1941. (30) ) _____________ * * According to Jane's Fighting Ships (1967-68.. pp. a condenser can discharge the energy in 1 millionth of this time. electric drive." [Tesla on His Work With Alternating Currents. because with the undamped waves it would not have been possible to attain any such activities. .. "... pg.. Secor was quick to conclude his 1917 article with the disclaimer. recalled witnessing "a relatively large ship carrying . which I have devised.. at the time.. Francis Bitter. You store less energy in the condenser than in the gun. which hurls a projectile of a ton a distance of 18 or 20 miles." (27) It should also be noted that Vannevar Bush was involved in the same endeavor. "I will tell you the secret of all these wonderful displays.. built on the Tufts campus.5 Mw.several important electrical war schemes will shortly be laid before the War and Navy Departments by Dr.000 HP. in 1925.. which passed current produced by big motor generators... Its main engines were GM diesels. a bar magnet going from the bow. How much of what was published in the article were Tesla’s ideas and what was added (or deleted) by Secor is not transparent. could deliver more than 12. 2 shafts. with my transformer. had been named to direct the new Naval Consulting Board in Washington. if I wanted to operate. were always produced by damped waves. . . I could have just reached a rate of 1 billion horsepower. 4. The condenser is the most wonderful electrical instrument . as described in the book. like oversimplified impractical popularization’s. the Eldridge's generator was rated at 4. Tesla’s idea. This bar magnet had coils wound around it. 1992. It is not clear that Mr. the Eldridge (DE-173) was 306 feet long by 37 feet at the beam. Bush fresh out of graduate school. today. Secor even fathomed what Dr.[According to Moore. by L.) After Tesla’s brief discussion of sonar. . Consider a large gun. Anderson. With the methods.. (We have the same problem with O'Neill's colorful biography. we naturally cannot now publish" (26) Margaret Cheney has observed that. If you figure the horsepower at which the gun delivers energy. Morgan venture. That wonderful thing can be accomplished through a condenser. (29) ] Bush was one of the guiding lights for a spin-off company which. which manufactured "thousands of transmitters and receivers" during WW-I." (25) ] By the way. but whereas a gun will discharge . would almost certainly have been discounted. in 1/50 of a second. was renamed Raytheon.I.. all these effects which elicited great wonderment of the profession. to way aft. the details of which. and had a draft of 14 feet. While Secor’s version of Tesla’s disclosures might sound.. it is not at all difficult to get rates of energy many times that. ….. “ (28) In 1917. [AMRAD was a J. Two generators. “During 1917-18 [Bush] was engaged in research on submarine detection in connection with the United States Navy special board on submarine devices.* was a newly appointed assistant professor of electrical engineering at Tufts College in Medford. if even brought to Edison’s attention. Secor mixes together the RF magnetic detection process and the "electric ray" radar technique.

F. to radar and radar counter-measures (stealth).) Recall that John G. According to Frank B. It really looks as though there is something there. W. Secor appears as an added note in the radar lore." (See Reference 29.Research Committee from 1942 until 1944 when. when Bush heard A. directed the mobilization of the entire civilian scientific and technical power of the nation and welded it together into the military establishment in the greatest industrial research and development man has ever known. who was the first to propose the concept of radar. Let us move ahead from Tesla’s suggestion to place coils of wire on a ship. 1961. speed. 1990. "Dear Dr. Spaatz's Advisory Special Group on Radar. pg. (Physics Today. initially. M. present his ideas on a new superdielectric for HV insulation. 80.. Trump.. October. He was Vice-President and Dean of Engineering at MIT in 1931. May. (with 25% of the EE department involved) came to be known by the grad students at MIT in the late 1920's as "an extension of the Electrical Engineering Department. the same month that the MIT Radiation Laboratory was organized for the exploitation of the microwave region for radar. pg.. in 1900. and course of a moving object. (See Electrical Engineering. _______________ * Bush received a BS and an MS from Tufts College (1913). although Heinrich Hertz bad observed RF standing waves resulting from metallic reflections. he went to Europe as the Director of the British Branch of the (MIT) Radiation Laboratory. (37) The acronym radar was an official code word adopted by the US Navy in November of 1940. and eventually 10 honorary doctorates from various colleges and universities. 48) Spaatz had confided. 364-365. Tesla .Bush joined the MIT EE Department faculty (his specialty.A. Jewettt* (President of the National Academy of Sciences). ** *** Raytheon." (33) In 1943. was Air Force Chief of Staff and headed the "very secret" committee on UFO’s. the enterprise resulted in failure. Radar It seems to be broadly recognized that. "You know it’s very serious." (Also see Physics Today.) Ever the entrepreneur. 13 and April. examined Tesla’s personal papers when he died in January of 1943. Trump was Secretary of the Microwave Committee of the National Defense.. pp. it was Tesla who first ". and as Chairman of the Joint Committee on New Weapons and Equipment of the Joint United States Chiefs of Staff (1942). *** as director of OSRD . in fact. and then VicePresident of MIT in 1931. where the contribution which your original genius has made for the benefit of mankind is fully appreciated. I wish to join to my own tribute of admiration for your unique career the congratulations of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. was electrical power and subsequently operational calculus and analog computers (the famous network analyzer)) and became Dean. suggested the use of electromagnetic waves to determine the relative position." (32) Recall that Vannevar Bush. 1940). received the AIEE’s highest honor (at that time the Edison Award). Tesla’s interview with H. by the way. March 1990. as a member of General C.. Bush held about 50 US patents for various inventions. accompanied by three Naval personnel.the Office of Scientific Research and Development (1941). the year that he wrote to Tesla. “. while Vice President of MIT. No.) [General Spaatz. (31) Vannevar Bush guided much of the Nation’s weapons research during WW-II. (34) According to NRL radar pioneer R. Page. pg. of the Polytechnic Institute of Leningrad. it was Nikola Tesla. Vol.. During his remarkable career. 13." (35) The earliest patent issuing for radar appears to have been the British patent granted to German engineer Christian Hulsmeyer. he was science advisor to several Presidents. According to Irving Langmuir. Joffe.. had sent Tesla birthday greetings in 1931. 1989.] THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 11 . **** Pieces of the Action (Morrow. 5. 1970). Doctor of Engineering jointly from MIT and Harvard (1916). *** He accepted the position of President of the Carnegie Institution of Washington in 1938 (and held the position until 1955). as head of OSRD Bush. Bush like Tesla in 1917. (36) Certainly. He was Science Advisor to the President and was appointed by Roosevelt as chairman of the National Defense Research Committee (July. he rallied his investor friends and went to Leningrad and Moscow (As described in his autobiography.

He continues. According to [the law of refraction and the boundary conditions] this means that if we call the constants of the desired material  and  and those of air  0 and  0 . This layer was to be particularly non-reflecting for perpendicular or almost perpendicular incidence of the radar wave.) THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 12 . the target would become radar invisible. In this case the angle of incidence and the angle of transmission are both almost equal to zero.” _______________ * Edison Medalist in 1928. The problem is solved by making the ratio of the two wave impedances equal to unity: m 12 = E1 / H 1 = 1 E2 / H 2 (1) The criterion is. Unfortunately. such a material does not exist and the probability of its being developed is rather remote. is of the same magnitude as its relative dielectric constant   0 . A substance must be formed whose relative permeability  r =   0 . (Eleven years after Tesla. Ideally. then   = 0   (2) 0 Hence. as a counter measure against allied radar. If one could make the impedance of the second medium be the same as free-space. thus. a largely nonreflecting ("black") surface layer of small thickness. "The search for suitable Radar Absorbing Materials (RAM) was initiated in the early 1940's both in the United States and Germany." (38) Arnold Sommerfeld (1868-1951) presents a surprising discussion of German war research on stealth and radar absorbing materials in the optics volume of his famous lectures on Theoretical Phvsics." Sommerfelds suggestion is similar to the idea of making the radar target surface a "conjugate match" to eliminate radar reflections. "In order to “camouflage” an object against radar waves. the optimum RAM would be a paint-like material effective at all polarizations over a broad range of frequencies and angles of incidence.  1    is "of some 2 During the war the problem arose to find. (39) He relates that the case where the magnetic permeabilities between two media (air and target) are unequal historical interest".Sommerfeld on Electromagnetic Stealth During WW-II In his authoritative two volume radar cross section handbooks George Ruck has pointed out the desirable features of radar absorbers. one must cover it with a layer for which this ratio of wave resistances has the value 1 in the region of centimeter waves. not the index of refraction but the ratio of wave impedances. the problem concerns not only the dielectric constant but also the relationship between the dielectric constant and the permeability.

the solution which had to be used resulted from the following considerations . The type of absorber that was actually put into service was of the interface kind. Thus. For at its black surface the layer borders on the object (metal). Instead. However.. after the war the German workers were less constrained in publishing their research on the topic of RAM than Allied scientists. what he discusses next is covering the surface with layers of lossy dielectric material.. which though not unsolvable." Somrnerfeld then changes the course of his ideas. ("In this manner the reflected intensity could be reduced to 1% of the value given by Fresnel's formula .. be ferromagnetic and must possess a strong hysteresis or a structural relaxation that acts correspondingly. It consisted of a series of layers whose conductivity regularly increased with depth. “ (42) ) After the war.This case is discussed by Ridenour in Volume 1 of the famous MIT Rad Lab series. The material must. Because of the urgent war situation. which is to be camouflaged. Hence. 2) a corresponding complex permeability. “But the problem is not yet solved. This requires a complex rather than a real dielectric constant and because of the requirement (Eq. The layers were separated by foam-type plastic whose dielectric constant was close to 1. and  = 3. in Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Physik.) Presumably.5 . therefore. which has been rumored to have occurred at the Kiel Shipyards 'in Germany during World war II? Surprisingly. we review conventional linear RAM. or to utilize the microwave absorption properties of the complex dielectric constant and complex permeability constant. The concentration of metal was 80% by weight. required extensive preparatory work.. (Just scan the magazine's annual index for 1956-1959. Sommerfeld did not tell us how to produce magnetic radar camouflage.* Even at this late date most significant western RAM publications are classified. But first. and values of dielectric constant and permeability were  = 7. the further condition must be imposed that the layer should absorb sufficiently strongly. and this second surface still reflects strongly. We will try our hand at supplying the missing details below. each strata being less than 1 4 wavelength thick. (40) and in a well known analytical reference by Weston. after hinting at ferromagnetic materials." (43) Is there any connection between the remarks of Sommerfeld and the supposed German version of the "Philadelphia Experiment". In his 1947 MIT Rad Lab Volume. particularly those related to the stealth bomber technology. on the topic of radar absorption. and it was never actually used. a difficult technological problem was posed. An absorber of the second kind was also developed in Germany.5 inches thick. Ferromagnetic Radar Absorbing Material The more-or-less conventional approach to radar stealth is to either employ "shaping" of the target (use GTD to greatly reduce the RCS). Ridenour comments that. (41) Sommerfeld continues. "Absorbent materials have been produced in Germany for the radar camouflage of U-boats. a number of papers were published by Sommerfeld’s colleagues at Gottingen and Munich.3 ~ 7.5 GHz]. neglecting entirely any effects attributable to  . the complete absorber was a rigid structure 2. In lossy dielectric and ferromagnetic* matter    =    - j   (3) THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 13 . The dielectric constant and permeability were produced by a high concentration of spheroidal metal particles (carbonyl iron). He proceeds to describe the reduction in radar reflection by a rather conventional means that does not build upon the requirement of Equation (2). The absorption was excellent from 4 to 13 cm [2.

backed by a perfectly conducting sheet. The velocity of the wave is reduced.   r r  602  j1 at 100 _____________________ * The American scientist of German origin. and large attenuation can occur in a short distance. equal to that for free space  /  r r  1 . Kraus notes that. attenuates the propagating signal 11dB each way and reduces the radar backscatter by 22 dB. respectively. Although the mixture constitutes a physical discontinuity.. Rinehart in the Moore-Berlitz book (pp.   =    - j   (4) and from Poyntings Theorem. being complex and with ratio  / . The real part of . for which Mhz. Modeling targets as distributed transmission lines and resonators demonstrates that material impedance loading of RF "hot spots" detunes the target structure and decreases RF reflections significantly. Making use of the conductivity term gives the dissipation mechanism for "space cloth" (which has a wave impedance of 377 ohms/square) and carbon/graphite composite materials.”)  /   Z 0 . Ferromagnetic materials with very low conductivity are called ferrodielectrics. the time average power dissipated is given by (44) P d = 1 2   +   E 2 +   H 2  dV (5) The imaginary components of  and  arise from hysteretic losses and appear in a standing similar to frictional dissipation** The one-way propagation attenuation in lossy simple media can be found from which would occur  = Re   = Re   2 j        (6) in the use of an imperfect conductor that is thick enough to sufficiently attenuate any reflections from its back surface at the frequencies in question. "A lossy mixture of highs (ferrite) material and a high. A 10 mm thick slab of this material. and to capacitive bypass and inductive choking. Kraus considers a solid ferrite-titanium slab. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 14 . (barium titanate) material can be used effectively for wave absorption with both  and . and  lead to reactive fields. or ferrites." (45) As an example. 202-203) was clearly mistaken in his assessment of German military spirit. ("'The reflected power is less than 1/100 of the incident power. an incident wave enters it without reflection. and finds that the wave mipedance Z  and the attenuation constant is   126 Np / m  1092dB / m. Ferromagnetic loading dissipation occurs in the imaginary component of the magnetic terms. quoted by Dr. which is the characteristic impedance of free space.

A wide range of assumed physical constants are listed in Table I for the variety of examples. With the substantial values of H 0 involved for microwave resonances. The electrical conductivity of steel is typically on the order of 10 6 mhos/m at DC. we employed conductivities as low as 70 mhos/m. we determine the surface impedance of a ferromagnetic slab that is immersed in a constant magnetic field oriented parallel its the surface. discussed by Sommerfeld. Iron. H ** THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 15 . monochromatic. What is of interest is that the reflection    E E reflected incident  Z    Z Z    Z zz zz 0 0 (8) coefficient can be timed to make the radar reflected power drop below 1/100 of the incident power by varying the current in the wires around the ship. which we ran analytically. explain the motivation for the experiment. there seems to be some latitude here. Returning to Equation (1).Let us now turn to the situation where a magnetic bias is applied to a ferromagnetic material in order to "tune" the reflectivity of the medium to be a minimum for centimeter wavelength radar signals. nickel. As a result. We found that the theory predicted similar resonances if. and the target reflection coefficient () for various physical constants. In ferromagnetic materials  is a nonlinear function of the applied magnetic field strength. we must say that the assumed values of X 0 are open to question. This would simulate the situation of a destroyer escort. which when immersed in an external magnetic field. The normally incident. with coils wrapped around it.] __________________ * Ferromagnetic substances are those. vanish at centimeter (radar) wavelengths. gentlemen! Give me a ship and I'll show you perfect camouflage. The applied field strengths are those necessary to raise the ferromagnetic resonances to the L and X Bands. horizontally polarized. we suppose that significant physical nonlinearities come into play. we determine the magnetic biasing required to make the radar reflection. " (p. but in that case X 0 ‘s of 1620 (L-Band) and 11 (XBand) would be required for radar reflection elimination. cobalt and gadolinium are the only ferromagnetic elements at room temperature. we ask if there exists any phenomenon by which power line currents in a large coil around a steel (or ferromagnetic) body could somehow bring about a reduction in the reflection of microwave energy from the steel body. and which exhibit retentivity and hysteresis. and in Examples 1 and 2 we have assumed an RF value somewhat less. [However. in the model. become strongly magnetized in the direction of the immersed field. 125*). Is there a phenomenological principle that may have appealed to those that conceived and designed the “Philadelphia Experiment”? (Where were the JASON’s in those days?) It turns out that there is an interesting candidate which may. illuminated broadside by microwave radar pulses. In Appendix I. Magnetically-Biased Radar Camouflage "You want camouflage. Finally. indeed. we calculate and plot the set of parameters derived in Appendix I. In Figures 1 through 7 below.** plane wave reflection from the target's surface can then be calculated by using the surface impedance Z zz  1  j   2 3 0  e  R S    j X S   (7) (see Appendix I) in the expression for the field complex reflection coefficient at the interface where the characteristic impedance of free space is taken as Z 0 = 377 .

X-Band 7.000 271. LBand 2. L-Band 4.000 15. X-Band 5. f in GHz.000 271.91 x10 4 1620 11 1000 1000 2200 Figure 1 Example 1 of Table 1: L-Band. X-Band 3. L-Band 6.000 15. Plot of Equation (8) in dB vs.000 0  r X rad/s 0 (mhos/m) (AmpTurns/m) rad/s  EXAMPLE 1.000 50. ________________ THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 16 . UHF 0.Figure 8 is a plot of the radar reflection coefficient of Example 6 verses frequency as the bias magnetic field strength is "tuned". TABLE I – Electrical Specifications PARAMETER   f 3 0  H 15.000 271.15x10 7 7.5x10 6 70 70 45 6400 103 3x10 9 5x10 9 3x10 9 5x10 9 3x10 9 5x10 9 2.7x10 9 1.5x10 6 0.

Horizontally polarized for an 'L-coil' helix about the ship. by William L. Plot of Equation (8) in dB vs. Moore and Charles Berlitz.* ** The PhiladeIphia Experiment. Figure 2 Example 2 of Table 1: X-Band. See the comments on degaussing below. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 17 . and vertically polarized for an 'M-coil' helix about the ship. f in GHz. Ballantine Books. 1979.

Plot of Equation (8) in dB vs. f in GHz. Plot of Equation (8) in dB vs.Figure 3 Example 3 of Table 1: X-Band. Figure 4 Example 4 of Table I: X-Band. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 18 . f in GHz.

Figure 5.1 Real and imaginary parts of the permeability vs. f in GHz for Example 5. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 19 .

2 Surface resistance R S and reactance X S vs. Figure 5.Figure 5. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 20 . f in GHz for Example 5: L-Band.3 Plot of Equation (8) in dB vs. f in GHz for Example 5.

frequency in GHz for Example 6 of Table I: X-Band.2 Surface resistance R S and reactance X S vs. Figure 6.1 Real and imaginary parts of the complex permeability vs. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 21 .Figure 6. frequency in GHz for Example 6 of Table I: X-Band.

frequency in GHz for Example 7 of Table 1: UHF. frequency in GHz for Example 6 of Table I: X-Band.3 Plot of equation (8) in dB vs.Figure 6. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 22 . Figure 7 Plot of Equation (8) in dB vs.

we performed two experiments with our "egg THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 23 . Surely these things were taken under consideration at that time. That is to say. appears to indicate that the radar reflection can be minimized and the use of electronic camouflage would probably have been studied experimentally. with the effective permeability and the surface impedance both peaking at resonance frequencies determined by the selected values of the current in the helical coil surrounding the ship.5 GHz). The magnitude of () and the gyromagnetic resonant frequency can be "tuned" by varying the DC bias field H 0 !! In particular. Equation (2) above can be satisfied at L-Band if H 0 is "tuned" to 15. 'You want camouflage. the ship's radar reflection will drop to a fraction of its zero current value at 1. pg.) Figure 8 Plot of (f) in dB for Example 6 as H 0 is varied from 255 to 290 kA/m.*) In fact. 500 MHz (or more) wide at either L-Band (UHF-2 GHz) or X-Band (8~12.000 amperes. (Surprisingly. Small Scale Laboratory Experimental Verification Armed with this theoretical knowledge. there also seems to be another modest resonance in the upper infrared.) To be sure. The bottom line on all this is dial the surface impedance has a parallel resonance character. 125. gentlemen! Give me a ship and I'll give you camouflages' (Moore and Berlitz. one can bring the surface impedance to equal the characteristic impedance of free space. However.000 A/m. or is tunable over such broad bandwidths. at least for the fanciful values which we assumed for the ship's hull.5 GHz. the evidence meager though it is. One can notch out a depression in the radar return in excess of 20 dB. although this may possibly be a glitch in our computer code. More than probable. if there is 1 turn/m around the ship carrying a current of 15. (From the book it appears that the Navy also conducted scale model experiments."A man went to the Navy and said. we do not claim that any material is capable of such deep nulls in the radar reflection. This would seem to fulfill the requirements for a "Philadelphia Experiment”. we thought it might be circumspect to attempt a small scale laboratory experiment to verify the effect of H on () at X-Band for ordinary steel. a 1943 “Philadelphia Experiment” would have been carried out at L-Band. and thus significantly reduce radar reflection over a useful band of frequencies.

It would not be unreasonable to suppose that this is the sort of experiment that Tesla could easily have performed during. There were four coils. and the radar backscatter was observed with an HP X-Band crystal detector. demonstrated at the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts' 1993 Tesla Symposium last September at Novi Saad..37) = 17. as shown in Figure 9. which were arranged in series. As a homework assignment.98~11.000  35 Amps 2  72  . Clearly. with up to 4. A distinct difference between the magnetic bias-on and bias-off target backscatter was observed. with a somewhat lower power level. or even well before. 14 " OD. (One of the authors saw a version of this. the 1930's. the salt water in the tub swirls around. but would probably levitate the ship somewhat. each 120 turns of # 12 enameled copper wire. 187) Our core was made of spiral wound steel strap. eddy currents in salt water would not only burrow out a hull-shaped hole in the water. we will propose two more experiments.of Columbus" apparatus.5 kA-T/m] The transformer steel was illuminated broadside to the doughnut with a small pyramidal hornmounted Raytheon CK-109 X-Band klystron (100-250 mW at 9. with a 'pickle jar' about 1/3 full of mercury. giving a core 10" ID. (He probably would have used UHF or LBand. [The surge current would appear to have been on the order of I 0  V L 0  T 8.) In fact. When the coil was energized the water 'flew out of the tub' (literally)! At lower power and the apparatus placed outside and under the tub. and 2 " thick. In order to attain very large currents from a modest supply we took our ‘egg of Columbus’ toroidal steel core (as a radar target simulating the ship's hull) and used an 8 kV. __________________ * ** [Dr. amps/Turn) / (2   6"/39. it would be surprising if he had not examined this configuration. In the final Part of this paper. (35. (4 quadrants). which was in view at the time. (P. R-F.5 MW available.5 (9) which would imply a peak magnetic field strength on the order of < H  >  (120 Turns/quadrant). clearly Tesla would have observed this phenomenon! 2) Brine Displacement. "I recall some computations about this in relation to a model experiment. 1) RCS Modification. CONCLUSION THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 24 . We immersed the 'egg of Columbus coil' in the bottom of a plastic tub of water and rocksalt.. 10 F capacitor discharge pulse through the windings.98 GHz).** which we think have bearing upon our “Philadelphia Experiment” discussion. Rinehart]. the reader is invited to perform the calculation for his amusement.

Such an approach to stealth. would probably have brought WW-II Naval investigators to the point of radar stealth experimentation. as such. and it renders plausible the conclusion that sufficient motivation existed to actually conduct a "Philadelphia Experiment" to examine radar stealth on ships with electric drives. In fact. Independent of whether our assumed values are practical or not. the analysis. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 25 . Figure 9 Experimental setup for radar backscatter from an 'egg of Columbus' apparatus. however.The analysis would appear to lend credence to the hypothesis that something more than mythology is involved. to the military today. which uses no phenomenology that wasn’t known subsequent to 1938. is impractical and certainly would be of little interest. it would have been derelict behavior for the Defense Science Research Board not to have conducted such experiments if it were aware of this phenomenology (as it must have been) in 1943.

500 at 11 knots 300 150 (accommodation 220) And.) This is consistent with Tesla’s 1917 suggestion for peacetime uses. (This is better than the movie!) There is a close-up view of the side of a Destroyer Escort showing the cable reels and unit substation. 2 shafts (4. "The Eldridge was laid down on February 22. it was transferred to Greece in 1951. and had a displacement of 1.3) 37 (11.5 MW) 19 1. feet (meters) Beam.3) 14 (4. delivering power to Portland. knots Radius. Interestingly. 1900* full load 306 (93. "During World war II. miles Oil fuel (tons) Compliment 1240 standard. the cable gantries required because of the high tides at Portland. AA A/S Main Engines Speed. had the following properties: (46) Practical Information About Destroyer Escorts Displacement. dual purpose Guns. according to F. DCT GM diesels. which were located in the forward engine room and the after engine room. Their photographs show details of the method used to connect power between the vessels and land. Anderson and Fifer describe how electric propulsion ships were pressed into service to supply electric power to areas where the retreating enemy had destroyed existing shore plants. tied up side by side at a dock. and even the propulsion controls and the power controls. at Federal Ship building and Dry Docks. 158) THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 26 . Several photographs of other Destroyer Escorts of the same class are also provided.240 tons standard and 1. _______________ * According to Moore and Berlitz.3) 3-3 in (76 mm) 50 cal.1943. as referred to above.520 tons full load. NJ. feet (meters) Guns. there were constructed a large number of AC turbine electric propelled vessels which had possibilities for supplying shore power.M Starr of GE Schenectady. Anderson and Fifer even show photographs of two Destroyer escorts. Newark. 2-40 mm Fixed hedgehog. as occurred in one "Philadelphia Experiment" reported by More and Berlitz*) during harvest-time after a severe drought had left the city without hydroelectric power in fall of 1947. Maine (instead of two." (pg. electric drive 6000 bhp. tons Length." (47) (The DE’s delivered substantial power and. there does exist a descriptive level discussion of the use of destroyer escorts for providing shore power from their propulsion generators. of which the DE-173 (the Eldridge) was a member. feet (meters) Draft. a third ship between them. From Janes Fighting Ships we know that the Bostwick class. "were best suited to small diversified loads” (48) because they could be operated in parallel at a number of nominal output voltages at 50/60 Hz. In a remarkable 1948 paper for engineers.THE EXPERIMENTAL PLATFORM There probably exists a technical discussion of the "Bostwick" Class of Destroyer Escorts some place in the engineering literature.

" Moore and Berlitz.) Shipboard Degaussing Installations During the time of the “Philadelphia Experiment”.it concerned three ships. The installations. the maximum current carrying capacity of a wire is limited by the so called "fuzing current". in late summer of 1943." (58) ) _________________ * “…. with few exceptions were placed inside of the vessels. The loops each ran inside the hull from the keel to the underside of the wectherdeck.000 kW. For copper wire. ("Noticeable irregularities in the welding operation will occur.* Some cables were "up to five inches in diameter and racked three and four cables together." (55) Within this context of coil construction.) Michel reports that it was not uncommon to use a multi-conductor wire bundle composed of 19 conductors of 40. " (52) (Early on. 25-135 Hz. 240." (54) (About 12. After a time the central ship. Michel reports that degaussing installations operated off the ships 240 volt DC supply bus through rheostats (the M-coil operated directly off a motor-generator pair) and the coils typically "produced 1. (51) What is of special interest are the coil configurations on the ship." (57) Apparently even electric arc welders could be affected by the degaussing coils. which is the DC current. "How much current could such coils carry if pressed to the limit?" Not counting the presence of a heat sink (the hull of the ship and the sea). and." (50) ) The same issue of the AIEE Transactions discussing supplying shore power also has an introduction to WW-II ship degaussing technology. no wonder we went to a "silver penny" one year. ("To reduce the ship's magnetic field we wrapped several tons of very heavy insulated copper wires around the ship.. the Naval Ordinance Laboratory had only two civilian scientists retained on contact John Kraus and Albert Einstein. "The power output from the two vessels was about 9. and a 5 " diameter wire at 1 14. Later. but the savings in maintenance justified the move.500 volts. "Since the degaussing coils must produce fields extending rather long distances. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 27 . and degaussing coils became number one in our country's use of copper. P. one wonders. Tons of copper were used on every ship. the effect being reduced by about 30%.000 Amps . Kraus was heavily engaged in ship degaussing..) Another coil configuration the 'M-coil' "encircled the ship just inside the hull in a horizontal plane approximately at the water line. a destroyer. the "L-coil" was a helical solenoid with its axis parallel to the axis of the ship. it was not fully appreciated that the coils placed inside the hulls could give effective protection. (See "Resonance" comments below. Anderson and Fifer tell us that the destroyer escort propulsion generators operated at 1.000 American naval and merchant ships were fitted with a shipboard degaussing installation in early WW-II. and so the first installations were actually made with the wires clamped outside and encircling the ship. One of them. (56) I F  10.) So. When they rolled the film it showed two other ships feeding some sort of energy to the central ship.slightly below the 10 4 ~ 10 5 order of magnitude required for the experiment. the coils were placed inside the steel hulls." (53) (Again." (49) This would seem to imply RMS generator currents on the order of 3.5 kA.. "The wires in each coil might make a bundle as big as a man’s wrist. There were basically five different types of coil systems used on a ship. "It was composed of a series loops in vertical planes perpendicular to the centerline of the ship.) Kraus says. the strength of the coil fields in the immediate vicinity of the cables is sufficiently high under some conditions to adversely affect the operation of other equipment. early on these were placed outside e ship.244 d 3 2 inches (10) (A 1 " diameter copper wire melts at 10 kA. at which a wire will melt.. disappeared slowly into a transparent fog. it appears that the standard bundles could probably handle quite some current if pressed to the limit...500 ampere turns".000 circular mill area..It would seem reasonable to assume that the “Philadelphia Experiment” would have used huge power cables much like those shown in these pictures.

" (P." (p. Further. the interview with Dr. given the unorthodox manner of C. 169) Though hearsay evidence. one critic examined the book and concluded. ___________________ * This would be about 3. 19)  "The Navy did not know that there would be men die from odd effects of hyperfield within or upon field. especially with regard to the effects of a strong magnetic force field on radar detection apparatus. this is also consistent with the idea of a magnetically biased radar absorber. (61) Moore declares that he is not a trained scientist.001 A CM  THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 28 . (59) ] The book by Moore and Berlitz (60) is a source of surprising descriptive information. The large H 0 required for magnetic biasing will result from a large current in the coils.8 inches in diameter. 178 ~ 205). We have much more to quote. d in  0. Commander X (A scientist in the WW-II Navy radar program)  "I heard they did some testing both along the [Delaware] river and off the coast. Take. for example. Allen’s disclosures.. Obviously. They could." (p. it is a wonder that any meaning can be distilled. they could use a power transformer to step the current up (and voltage down). M. and it is understandable that technical testimony is often garbled.. 46) We think the first statement is consistent with our presentation above. "Not only does the information presented by Moore and Berlitz in The Philadelphia Experiment fail the most fundamental test of verification. Resonant Magnification One of the issues raised above was how could they step up the current from the generator by an order of magnitude. below. Moore (although frantically trying to record what he was being told) clearly didn’t understand what Reinhart was saying. but the massive amount of evidence available has demonstrated the thesis patently invalid. Recently. However. Allan  "Electronic camouflage. The second is consistent with the idea of incident RF interactions with the low frequency magnetically biased medium [fields (RF) on fields (DC)]. in fact run high current with a low duty cycle and pulse the coils at very low frequencies. Rinehart (pp. just as given in Appendix I.” (62) We think the contrary to be true. but will present it with discussion. This much makes sense: Carl M. Reading between the lines. he himself referred to the famous 1752 demonstration of the equivalence of lightning and frictional electricity as "the" Philadelphia Experiment. Not only is the phenomenology supplier but the independent statements of various witnesses corroborate the basic technical issues. Some sort of electronic camouflage produced by pulsating energy fields.CORRELATION WITH THE MOORE-BERLITZ BOOK “The Philadelphia Experiment” [All of Benjamin Franklin’s electrical experiments were known abroad as "Philadelphia Experiments".

the AC current circulating in the tank circuit coil is larger than the input current by the amount where I T is the terminal point input current (the I generator current in this case). more than likely. might be achieved using this principle. This means that. ______________ * ** Robert Harrington Kent. 187) Dr. 191) "I feel confident that the idea of producing the necessary electromagnetic field for experimental purposes by means of the principles of resonance was also initially suggested by Kent* . F.(Not so good for power transformers. At full power. but low enough for saturation to occur. a tank circuit could provide a resonant rise of the current to levels sufficient to support the L-Band experiment discussed above. and low frequency pulsations may even be employed. it is shown that if they had placed a capacitor in parallel with the ship's coils (as Tesla suggested in the 1917 interview above) and brought the system to parallel resonance at the ship’s generator frequency. 198-199). known as degaussers. “pulsing” a tank circuit is the fundamental idea behind the original class C oscillator." (p. (Power is conserved of course. Dr. they might employ the resonant rise in circulating currents. In the optical case it would. which were “pulsed” at resonant frequencies so as to create a tremendous magnetic field on and around a docked vessel. Rinehart "I think that the conversation had turned at this point to the principles of resonance and how the intense fields which would be required.possibly as a result of these discussions with Professor Allen**. (A higher Q or pulse power processing might support the X-Band experiment. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 29 . Jessup] said had been accomplished by using naval-type magnetic generators. (64) The circulating reactive kVA in the tank circuit is Q times the real component of the generator power into the tank. there is no magic going on. this was not necessary. It is only required that the frequency of the magnetic bias field (H 0) be mucl-4 much less than the radar carrier frequency (adiabatic invariance). lead to the "shimmering" situation discussed by Dr. R  Rcoil  Rcoupled . for such an experiment. coil  I T 1 Q 2 T (11) Q  T 0 L R . Rinehart (pp.) By the way." (p. then the circulating current in the coils would be stepped up by the Q of the parallel resonant system. Although DC magnetic biasing was assumed for the H 0 field in Appendix I." (p. In the older literature this is called a "current amplifier" or "current magnifier".) The use of low frequency AC pulsations for biasing is similar to the use of raw AC for class C oscillator driven Tesla coils.) Or. R. Professor Charles Metcalf Allen of Worcester Polytechnic Institute. which occurs in a “Parallel Resonant Tank Circuit”. 130) In Appendix II of the book on Vacuum Tube Tesla Coils (63) and in Appendix II below. and  R coupled is the effective load resistance coupled in (due to eddy current loss in the ship and sea water). Valentine "The experiment [Dr.

which in turn react back on the magnetic source opposing any changes in the source field. Sea water (  5  /m at ELF ) is no superconductor. There would be phenomenological effects and physiological consequences." (p. 249). And yet. when we turn on the current in the magnet. so that no magnetic flux enters. " (p. " (p. Then. extending one hundred yards out from each beam* of the ship… Any person outside that could see nothing save the clearly defined shape of the ship's hull in the water. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 30 . the green fog returned. This makes it possible to suspend a bar magnet in air above a sheet of perfect conductor. 110-111). a time varying magnetic field. the ship reappeared slowly old of thin fog. "If we have a sheet of a perfect conductor and put an electromagnet next to it. "The men on the ship were apparently able to see one another vaguely. 240). currents called 'eddy currents' appear in the sheet. disappeared slowly into a transparent fog until all that could be seen was an imprint of that ship in the water.. " The field was effective in an oblate spheroidal shape. a foggy green mist arise like a thin cloud. generates eddy currents in salt water. the precise shape of the keel and underhull of the ship remained impressed into the ocean water as it and my own ship sped along somewhat side by side and close to inboards. we would like to examine the collateral effects that one would not be surprised to observe accompanying such an intense magnetic experiment. after a few minutes. However. "I saw. 110).. a destroyer. or whatever it was. The currents will tend to die out and the magnet will slowly settle down. Consider the following description due to Feynman. via Faraday’s law.OBSERVABLE RAMIFICATIONS Next. but all that could be seen by anyone outside of the field was 'the clearly defined shape of the ship’s hull in the water " (p. "After a time the central ship." (p. and to have an EMF the flux must keep changing. The eddy currents in an imperfect conductor need an EMF to keep them going. when the field.. 2. If the conductor is not quite perfect there will be some resistance to flow of the eddy currents. A cavity in the water. "suddenly. The same thing happens if we bring a bar magnet near a perfect conductor. was turned off. "I watched as the DE 173 became rapidly invisible to human eyes. Green fog and mist. Phenomenological Effects Low Frequency Magnetohydrodynamics in Salt Water: 1. __________________ * A ship's "beam' is its width at the widest point. 41). 88).. " (p.

3. We felt that with proper effort some of these problems could be overcome and that a resonant frequency could probably be found that would possibly control the visual apparent internal oscillation so that the shimmering would be at a much slower rate…. mist. then large spikes in E  would result from the rapid  H Z /  (make/break).. In the language of jumped circuits... the ring [or egg] will be dragged around. or a capacitive discharge directly into the coil.) Tesla didn’t even have to use a string to hold up the egg. Clearly. due to circulating eddy currents in the sea. (pumping the salt water.without ever mentioning its inventor. W. [Feynman here shows a ring hanging by a string over a table above a three phase toroidal transformer. which resulted in D. how much green fog and mist could you make with a nine megawatt AC generator? How big a cavity could you funnel out of the sea? It would be fascinating to calculate this out as another appendix. but there can also be sideways [drag] forces [which prevent lateral motion]. Also. at acoustical frequencies. Large magnetic fields rapidly changing in time can cause an ionizing breakdown of air. and even a ‘Zeemanizing’ of the atoms. Kerst's creation of the Betatron accelerator in 1941. For a cylindrical solenoid.. One might expect power dissipation in the water. There would be a good deal of turbulence near the ship (as demonstrated by the second of our experiments described above).. Faraday’s Law gives: E r    0 r H z 2  (12) t If E should rise to near 200 kV/m (well below air breakdown at 3 MV/m) incipient atmospheric Trichel pulses would be emitted from every sharp object on the ship and extensive corona would ensue. like Feynman (80 years later) does!] Well. the sea would be a heat sink for any heating of the hull. The ioniz6tion created by the field tended to cause an uneven refraction of the light… The result would not be a steady mirage effect. (Consider what happens with a high current AC electromagnet in a plastic tub of salt water.." (65) The circulating AC eddy currents would agitate the sea water. (69) If a nonsinusoidal waveform were used to drive the ship's bias coils.. making steam.." (66) Feynman has just described the Egg of Columbus to his Cal Tech students. instead of dragging a conductor past a magnet we try to rotate it in a magnetic field. Unsettled Conditions: “….. we have a ‘rotating’ magnetic field.for the students. that is..a boiling of the water. to heat the water. a fast rising pulse would not be a good choice of waveform. and fog) and.) [It's even more exciting with polyphase AC and a rotating magnetic field!] "If.. in all probability. if we rotate a magnet near a conducting plate or ring [or conducting egg]. ionization of the surrounding air. In a normal conductor. Alternatively.. A field like that of a rotating magnet can be made with an arrangement of coils [on an iron torus]. say a low duty-cycle. Ionization in the air could result as follows. The [rotary drag] torque produced on a conductor by such a rotating field is easily shown by standing a metal ring on an insulating table just above the torus. there will be a resistive torque from the same effects. perhaps to the level of steam. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 31 . currents in the latter will create a torque that tends to rotate it around. “Zeemanizing” is discussed elsewhere.] The rotating field causes the ring to spin about a vertical axis. (They’re the actual loosers. there are not only repulsive forces from eddy currents.The flux of the magnetic field gradually penetrates the conductor. but rather a moving back and forth displacement caused by certain inherent tendencies of the A C field.” (pp 198-199).. (67) The idea stems from Joseph Slepian’s pioneering patent ( 68) .. V coil  L di dt has spikes. pulse train (as in a class C oscillator). hollow out a cavity under the magnet. It's too bad . .

41). This experiment would have meant total immersion in an unusual set of electromagnetic and acoustical fields. yet were walking upon nothing. general mental and perceptual confusion. While people have been subjected to fairly large DC magnetic fields. and physiological nonlinearities present). mechanical. acoustical pressure (1/2 dyne/cm 2 ). A magnetophosphene is one stimulated by time-varying magnetic fields. and respiratory system. the renowned Czech physiologist of the 19th century once said." By this he meant that.” (p." (p." (p. When the order was given and the switches thrown 'the resulting whine was almost unbearable. "As he stood there trying to comprehend what had happened. One might expect peculiar responses from the nervous system. Some only saw double. Acoustic whine and hum: "I felt the push of that force field against the solidness of my arm and had outstretched into its humming. and gravitational fields. (think of all the electrical. and a few passed out. he watched indistinct figures in motion. if that is where I was”. as well as. like a rushing torrent. (p. A phosphene is a sensation of light produced by physical stimuli other than light. auditory system. and looking for his ship. and saw different shaped geometrical THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 32 . others began to 1augh and stagger like they were drunk. he put a circuit interrupter (a chain) in series with a battery and electrodes across the face. 110) "In trying to describe the sounds that the force field made as it circled around the DE 173…. which could lead to a novel set of recognized perceptual phenomena. 248) It would seem reasonable to assume that the media immersed in the bias coil's low frequency magnetic fields (the ship and the sea water) would respond with mechanical vibrations.) More than likely. Biological (Physiological) Effects While on earth our physical bodies move about in relatively weak background magnetostatic (1/4 gauss). much like the acoustical hum of conventional power transformers for example. pushing. driven by the bias coils. Some even claimed that they had passed into another world and had seen ad talked to alien beings. fair weather electrostatic (100 V/m). subjective optical patterns that can be excited by electrical stimulation. (p.. 248). (70) the “Philadelphia Experiment” probably used intense low frequency pulsating fields. "Any person within that sphere became vague in form but he too observed those persons aboard the ship as though they were of the same state. RF. 111) "A special series of electrical power cables had been laid from a nearby power house to the ship. the power content of harmonic spectra would be substantial well into the ultrasonic region. In 1819. " We couldn't stand the effects of the energy field they were using. propelling flow. (The ship and sea water have become the output of an acoustical transducer. visual system. 19). whom he could not identify as sailors and some other shapes 'that did not seem to belong on the dock. "Deceptions of the senses are the truths of perception. It affected us in different ways." (71) Perkinji was famous for studying a number of variously shaped.4. whereas normal perception falls to do so. What about Purkinji patterns? Johannes Purkinji. "Illusions call our attention to the workings of the visual system. which we would expect under such circumstances: Magnetophosphenes and Purkinji figures. Let us zero in on perceptual effects." (p.. it began as a humming whispering sound. and then increased to a strongly sizzling buzz. accounting for the perception of 'unbearable whine.

in Germany (at Munich). and let the brain do the IF filtering. that move slowly across the field of view. we have applied pulses of two different frequencies at the same time... at one time. but phosphenes were experienced during 'make' and 'break' of the coil current. The number of subjective patterns excitable in each individual was longer for mental patients than for technical students. Most patients with beta-encephalographic activity showed pattern excitation frequencies greater than 50 pulses/second. or not) would certainly have accompanied the experiment. “smiley faces” and other geometrical shapes. However. thought that electrically stimulated phosphenes might bring about artificial vision for the blind. Knoll and Kugler. Each is just above the critical point [upper cutoff frequency] and would therefore produce no phosphenes by itself.” He points out that alcohol and hallucinogenic drug can induce phosphenes. gotten the image frequency rejection ratio. processing and detection! They could probably have searched for third order intermodulation distortion products. "Using two electrically independent generators and four electrodes. "Pulses in the same frequency range as brain waves (from 5 to 40 Hz) were most effective in producing phosphenes." (80) (A phosphene superheterodyne. asterisks. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 33 ." (79) (78) Oster did something else that was particularly interesting. moons. He looked for beats. (75) and by Oster. Oster suggests that Phosphenes "may well constitute the fact behind reports of phantoms and ghosts. and a host of other radio characterizations. While shapeless flicker covers a large frequency range.) The results would seem to illustrate the importance of an intense low frequency time varying magnetic field.. (76) Becker relates that... link couple the other into the head as an injected Local Oscillator.” (77) (Apparently the original data were obtained by placing the subject's head in a large solenoidal coil. " (74) They observed many light patterns such as stars.patterns when he wiggled the chain (The phenomenon goes back (again) to Benjamin Franklin and to Allesandro Volta. which are seen as undulating phosphenes. a whole “spectrum” of subjective abstract light patterns can be excited in the brain by using temporal electrodes and pulses of a few volts within the encephalographic frequency range. No subjective sensations of any ape were noted during steady field applications.) Following on the clue that a low frequency electromagnetic pulse spectrum was involved. Fascinating surveys have been published by Becker.. no less: use one generator as a signal. (72) (Apparently. wheels. the luminosity appears to involve more and more of the visual field.) (73) "It has been found that (besides flicker)."). but also the physical source has not even been identified. It would appear that some neural mechanism mixes the two signals. similar patterns have been observed during brain surgery by direct electrical stimulation of the visual cortex at 60 Hz. "'The intensity is greatest between 20 and 30 Hz. patterns are excitable mostly within the range of 5-35 pulses/second. investigated the excitation of “Purkinji patterns”. We think that visual distortion magneto-phosphenes and Purkinji patterns (whether they were the alien humanoids reported as being seen by some sailors. Above 90 Hz the phenomenon becomes less evident. who specifically reports on “magnetophosphenes” (magnetically stimulated phosphenes). bright dot patterns. Together they generate beats.) The medical industry. As the field strength is increased. (81) (82) Jearl Walker (83) discusses phosphenes and states that not only are they poorly understood ("There has been almost no work published on modeling the phenomenon. which interact periodically to produce a beat.

) The military have conducted many experiments that went awry and where people were seriously injured. even after the fields had been turned off. with the National debt the size it is. The "blanking out" and "frozen" episodes may have followed as a result of simple nonlinear responses of the nervous system. It would seem to suggest that something of an unusual nature occurred during the experiment. and the physiological symptoms so easy to rationalize. one would expect AC (diathermy or “diatheretic”) dielectric heating of the tissue. then why would there be such a shroud of mystery in the Navy. and such unwillingness to acknowledge it? (Surely. If the physics of the experiment is so easy to explain. with ensuing mental and neurological complications. Furthermore.Leading To Another Question All this leads to a relatively unpretentious question. they must have figured this all out years ago. because the permitivity for brain tissue is complex      j  with an effective conductivity  e     . Summary Remarks . What was it? THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 34 . Why cover up this one? The reluctance implies deeper issues.Such cerebral cortex stimulation (time varying magnetic flux producing induced electrical voltage stimuli along the visual and nervous systems) would probably also play a role in the "blanking out" experienced by some participants.

Cologne. we've been having fun at the Joseph Slepian .. [five British merchant seamen in Norfolk. which stayed but a few moments before it was covered by a cloud and vanished again.” Then just as suddenly. 1908* (84) At this point.. or Kerr's metric. Cambridge U.. To make a black-hole with a null surface (absolute event horizon) the size of the ship's beam [R S = (2GM/c2 = 5. is referenced. " (p. not only are the authors going to go out on a limb but. "Suddenly. looking at the harbor from the dock. one wonders. it lifted again and Silverman found himself back at dockside in the Philadelphia Navy Yard " (p. and time by itself. Total elapsed time . or even general relativity. which I wish to lay before you. Look. were confused or intoxicated. or Philip (teleportation) (86) and King Hezekiah (time travel). Listen to the bizarre testimony presented by those involved in the experiment. or anybody else's solution to the extent that something like this could happen. even in a small locality.” He said he had recognized the place as Norfolk “because I had been there before to the ship’s other dock there. But still. Now we'll have to join Edwin Abbott. The obvious rational explanation would be that some people that saw it. leaving a destroyer escort in full view. “what in the world I was doing in Norfolk.. Henceforth space by itself. Relation of Gyromagnetic Phenomena to the Production of Torsion THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 35 .34 x 10 44 Joules. (85) and George Gamow.Jearl Walker level. " (p. "The experimental ship also somehow mysteriously disappeared from its Philadelphia dock and showed up only minutes later in the Norfolk area.5 meters] would require an energy of 3. 249). Nine megawatts is one bodacious rate of energy delivery. metaphorically speaking. and almost immediately dissipate. accompanied by Arnold Sommerfeld’s notes and commentary." Hermann Minkowski. 1923. Pr. "One day. Torsion. *** The Mathematical Theory of Relativitv. pg. Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington." Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington** __________________ * ** An English translation.. These quotes sound like the unmitigated blubbering’s of some science fiction writer. you can’t do a macroscopic job like this with quantum mechanics.. Certainly one might expect the former to be the case for those sailors immersed in the intense fields of the experiment. Now we ask. "What about time-travel and teleportation?" How could these topics become part of the associated lore? [To this point. Spin. (87)] Let us have some history. are radical. and attempt speculative conjecture on these topics while striving to maintain mathematical sensibility. the deep fog “flashed off”. 250)..a mater of minutes. leaving Silverman in a very confused state and wondering. we also will saw the tree off. 89). but (worm holes. VA] were understandahly amazed to see a sea-level cloud suddenly form in the harbor. and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality. are doomed to fade away into mere shadows.TORSION TENSOR CONJECTURE "The views of space and time. and a Crinkled Space-Time "I do not think it is too extravagant to claim that the method of the tensor calculus is the only possible means of studying the conditions of the world which are at the basis of physical phenomenon. 49. It then subsequently vanished again only to reappear at its Philadelphia dock. the green fog returned. black holes* and “zitterbewegung” notwithstanding) it's not enough to distort Schwarzschild’s metric.

and time e 4 . e 3 '. provided that no forces are acting on the observers (observers are moving inertially). Since the concepts of anholonomity and torsion are central to our discussion. or “tetrad” fields. They are distinctly different. In the case when observers are not moving inertially.During the course of our investigation of the “Philadelphia Experiment” we examined the hypothesis that quantum mechanical spin such as found in ferromagnetic materials. We also propose a classical experiment utilizing the conventional Sagnac Effect and photon gyros to distinguish between temporal jumps due to “Anholonomity” and jumps due to “Torsion”. who can transform your measurements into his reference field of frames using his own set of orthogonal basis vectors (e 1’. and the fact that torsion permits temporal displacements of magnitude cdt  dx  2 S 4  4 ab  4 ab dx dx a b (13) drove us to pursue even wilder musings than presented above. Imagine a reference system of coordinates that you carry around with you to make measurements. or thoughts of bubbling out through a white-hole at some 44 unknown place in the universe.) These are Einstein’s “n-Bein”. cannot distinguish between a (ferromagnetically) polarized source of spinning matter (which causes torsion locally) and a rotating distribution of matter with the same total angular momentum (which nowhere causes torsion). using this reference field of frames. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 36 . then there might be teleportation and time-travel without the crushing effects of gravitational curvature. Now. This reference system consists of a field of orthogonal basis vectors that span three (3) space dimensions e l. torsion deformations were excited in the fabric of space-time itself? (We told you that we were going out on a limb. the concepts of torsion and anholonomity are mingled and confused." (88) What was meant by ferromagnetic generation of localized torsion? This.) In flat space-time (where the Riemann curvature tensor is zero). as a result of magnetically biasing the ship to radar stealth. We were intrigued by a remark that Friedreich Hehl and his colleagues published. anholonomity being frame dependent and torsion being a true tensor field quantity. (We could say this much more elegantly. "One finds that distant observers. e 3. please permit us to be vigorous instead of rigorous. in this section. e 4’). we came across a very extensive literature on the relationship between quantum mechanical spin and space-time torsion. The torsion technique might even be within reach of pre-WW-II electrical engineering. may affect the structure of space-time. but for the present audience and the limitations of space.) Based on this research. Torsion and the Anholonomic Object In a considerable volume of the literature. we will begin by illustrating what these terms mean. each observer can relate his reference frames (determined by his set of orthogonal basis vectors) to another observer's reference frames via a simple Lorentz transformation. (This seems to be the present employment of Einstein’s 1929 UFT (Unified Field Theory) space with torsion. one might leap ahead along his world line (or perhaps even backwards) without travelling all the distance in between. (We use boldface for vectors. What an enchanting idea! In the pursuit of this hypothesis. e 2 '. or 10 joules required to make the machine run. e 2. you can make measurements. If the spin were right. or squeezing through the Schwarzschild radius down the throat of a black-hole. relating the reference frames of the observers can be greatly facilitated by employing the mathematical machinery of torsion and the anholonomic object as we show in the following. Those that understand the formalism can supply their own rigor. we provide below an heuristic and speculative account of the affect of quantum mechanical spin on the structure of space-time and also propose a new theory of the Aharonov-Bohm effect with an outline for an experiment to verify our theory. who measure only the metric field. Could it be possible that. which can be transmitted to a second observer.) Were that possible.

( See Figure 10 below) Let e i . in which case it can be mathematically transformed away. The only way to compare reference frames is to transport observer one's set of basis vectors to the same location as observer 2 and see how they differ when compared with each other at the sane location. or it was due to deformations in the path it took between P 0 and P 1. Figure 10 Parallel transport of a vector from P 0 to P 1 THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 37 . 2. In order to do this they must determine how their reference frames differ. in which case the gap defect cannot be transformed away. or a combination of both. This gap defect Dei between the two basis vectors is due either to a change in the coordinate basis between observer 1 and observer 2. for the spatial dimensions and 4 for time). ei P0  P1 is the value of observer one's e i basis vector after it has been parallely transported to P 1 (to parallel transport a vector means to move it without changing its length or angle). and let e i ' be one of observer two's basis vectors at P 1 (we will use Latin indices throughout this paper with values 1. Dei is the difference between observer one's parallely transported basis vector and observer two's basis vector.Now imagine two separated observers (observer 1 and observer 2) who wish to compare measurements (we do not assume the observers are moving inertially). be one of observer one's basis vectors at P 0. 3.

To see this more clearly. = P 0 + dx gives the vector  dx e P b b 0  P1  dx b   e P    dx dx e c a b b 0 ba c (14) Similarly. let us move observer one's set of basis vectors over two different paths.     e  e  e e   x x a b b a a b    2 c   ab e c   (19) As Eddington and Schouten recognized in the 1920’s. parallelograms (composed of parallel transported THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 38 . parallel displacing the incremental vector b b dx e b a a from the point P o along the basis vector e over an infinitesimal distance dx to the point P 2 = P 0 + dx gives the vector  dx e P a a 0  P2   dx a   e P    dx dx e c b a a 0 ab c (15) The gap defect between the parallely transported vector at P 1 and the actual value of the vector dx e b b at P 1 is       e     dx De P dx   dx  dx dx e   x  b b b 1 b a a c a b ba c (16) Likewise. Parallel displacing an incremental vector a dx e b b from the point P 0 along the basis vector e a over an a infinitesimal distance dx to the point P 1. the gap defect between the parallely transported vector at P 2 and the actual value of the vector dx e a a at P 2 is       e    dx De P dx   dx  dx dx e    x  a a a 2 a b b c b a ab c (17) The total gap defect between the two vectors is     dx De P   dx De P   e . e dx dx   b a a b b 1 c a 2 a b  ab c ba  dx dx e a b c (18) where the commutation and anholonomic object are given by (89) (90)    .

vectors) don’t necessarily close (either because of anholonomity or because of torsion). (91) (92) (93) (94) "Einstein’s world geometry may be briefly described as a geometry in which there are parallels but not parallelograms. Thus he admits the existence, even at great distances, of a line CD equal and parallel to AB; but the line through B parallel to AC fails to cut CD. (We are dealing with at least three dimensions, so that lines are not necessarily coplanar.) The geometrical idea of an abortive parallelogram which fails to close up at its fourth comer, does not carry us very far, and it is necessary to proceed analytically." (95) This is not an effect attributable to curvature. Furthermore, while the anholonomic object can be transformed away by a coordinate transformation, this is not the case for torsion. One interpretation of a coordinate transformation is that it simply means to relabel the coordinate basis of one frame into that of another. For example, the point P is located in one coordinate system by the points x, y. In another coordinate system, which we will call the prime coordinate system, the same point is located by the points x, y. If the coordinate transformation (the relabeling process) between the two is holonomic then

 x  dx   dx  x 

and

 y  dy    y dy   

(20)

and the coordinate differentials are integrable into coordinate curves. If the coordinate transformation is nonholonomic then the above relations do not hold (this is known as Pfaff ’s problem) and the prime system uses basis vectors, which are not tangent to the coordinate curves of any coordinate system. The anholonomic object, as we have seen, measures the discrepancy between the basis vectors of two different coordinate systems that have been caused solely by the mathematical machinery (the coordinate transformation) that relates the two coordinate systems; remember the commutation operation [e a , e b] from above. Consequently, what has been created mathematically can be dissolved mathematically and the anholonomic object can be transformed away by an appropriate change in the choice of coordinates. We do not wish to imply that the anholonomic object is a mathematical artifact with no physical consequences. Failure to take into account anholonomity inherent in the twisting of the tetrads in some reference systems can have dramatic consequences. (96) (97) (98) (99) (Thomas precession, the Sagnac effect, the Oppenheimer-Schiff paradox, the Feynman Paradox, etc., are all classic examples of the effects of anholonomity.) In relativistic rotation one desires to describe what's happening in the rotating (anholonomic) frame, not in the holonomic (non-rotating) frame! The components of the torsion tensor

S
c

c ab

are obtained from (100) (101) (102) (103) (104)

S

ab

1 2



c ab



c ba

  
c

ab 

(21)

Torsion, unlike anholonomity, is due to changes in the properties of the underlying manifold and cannot be transformed away by a change in the coordinate basis. Torsion is a measure of how much the manifold is crinkled or folded, and such geometry’s can be made anholonomic Riemannian by tearing, as discussed in great detail in the publications of Gabriel Kron. It should also be noted that the principle of equivalence does not hold in spaces with torsion. (105)

THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

39

Figure 11 The non-closure of the outside quadrilateral depends upon Anholonomity. The non-closure of the inner pentagon depends on the Torsion of the manifold.

A simple picture might help to illustrate torsion: imagine a folded towel. Start at a point underneath the fold and trace a circle so that you cross over the fold. The point where you return after tracing the circle is on the fold above the point where you started. If there were no torsion, i.e., no fold, you would have returned to the same point where you started. (Do not confuse this with curvature. What we are discussing is distinctly different from Riemannian curvature!) The torsion component

 c a b T  2 S ab dx dx e c 



c ab



c ba

 dx dx e
a b

c

(22)

measures the gap across the fold from where you started to where you finished. The distinction between gap defects arising from anholonomity and from torsion is shown in Figure 11 below, which is self explanatory. (Look, for c = 4 we're talking about a “time machine”.) Perhaps one more sketch will help clarify all this analytical machinery. Consider the 'crinkled manifold represented in Figure 12 below. The affine connection is asymmetric:

c ab



c ba

. Consequently, parallel

transporting the two vectors at P 0 (t=O) leads to the discrepancy, or gap defect vector shown. In spaces with torsion, an observer in space can be transported forward in time by the amount

cdt  dx

4

 e

4

 2S  

4

ab

 df  e  
ab

4

(23)

Similarly, as shown on the left, an observer may jump through the space gap d (with dt =0), the gap being given by
THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

40

d  dx

3

 e

3

 2S  

3

ab

 df  e   
ab

(24)

In spaces with anholonomity (but no torsion), the gaps are actually measured as the Sagnac effect and Thomas precession respectively. The former is of considerable interest to GPS receivers and photon rate gyros. As we have seen, anholonomity is a mathematical creation caused by a choice in coordinates or resulting from noninertial motion. It’s a twisting of the coordinate surfaces used an observer. Torsion, however is caused by a folding of the space-time manifold itself. What could cause a folding or crinkling of the space-time manifold and so create torsion? Is there a way that we could actually build such a 'time machine' out of magnets and coils and capacitors and stuff? We look at one answer to this question “in the next section”.

Figure 12 A “crinkled space modeled as a pleated fabric”. The jumps are due to Torsion if Anholonomity if

S

c ab

 0 and due to

c ab

0.

Spin and Torsion
Spin
Is defined as the angular rotation of an object about one of its axis is a concept for which we are all familiar.

Quantum mechanical spin
Is defined as the internal angular momentum of a quantum mechanical particle is a more elusive concept. Recent work (106) , however, has brought to light an old suggestion (107) that quantum mechanical spin may be regarded as an angular momentum generated by a circulating flow of energy in the wave field of the quantum mechanical particle. With this concept of quantum mechanical spin in mind, we will proceed to discuss how quantum mechanical spin may create torsion in the space-time manifold. In the previous section, where we heuristically demonstrated the concepts of torsion and the anholonomic object using parallely transported basis vectors, we found that when we compared the parallely transported basis vector to their actual values at a point some infinitesimal distance away, there was a gap defect due to the misalignment of the respective basis vectors. This misalignment can be corrected by simply rotating the parallely transported vector until it aligns with the actual value of the vector at the destination point. The rotation that
THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

41

Assume that a material system can be described in terms of a Lagrangian density L. a variation in the contortion tensor implies a variation in the torsion and in the affine connection. a variation in the metric  g ij determines a variation in the distance on the manifold. Now let us see how the extra degree of rotational freedom associated with torsion can be related to quantum mechanical spin. Because metric is used to define distance. which lie in the tangent space above the manifold and is used to determine distance and angle on the manifold. which provides another independent rotational degree of freedom. Then the energymomentum tensor T ij of the material system can be described by T where ij   2  L    g  g    ij   (25) g ij is the metric of the underlying manifold and g is its determinant. which can rotate the transported basis vector on a Riemannian (torsion-free) manifold.caused the misalignment of the basis vectors consists of two parts: one part proportional to the anholonomic object. The contortion tensor is related to the torsion tensor by (109) K k ij   S ij  S j i  S k k k ij (27) Consequently. it has been shown that a dynamical definition of spin can be related to variations in the contortions of space-time  where ji k  1  L  k  g  K ij  k ij     (26)  ji k is the spin angular momentum and K is the contortion tensor (108) . Metric specifies the scaler product between two basis vectors. We can see this more clearly by defining an affine connection for spaces with torsion in anholonomic coordinates as (110)  and in holonomic coordinates as (111) ijk g ki  1 ij   ijk   jki  kij  K ijk (28)  k ij    K k i j k ij (29) 42 THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” . and the other part due to torsion. Analogous to the definition of the energy momentum tensor stated above.

varies the torsion space-time connection and leads to a twisting of the parallely transferred orthogonal basis vectors. Subsequently. and a way to compare the distant interaction of spins. “ (121) Wiener saw the tetrad approach of Einstein’s as providing a bridge between the macroscopic world of mechanical bodies and the microscopic world of quantum mechanics. the resulting pentagon is due to torsion and the discontinuity. If. This seems to us the most important aspect of Einstein’s recent work . “The notion of a parallelism valid for the whole of space and of Einstein’s n-uples enables us to carry over the Dirac theory into general relativity almost without alteration. The torsion tensor was introduced almost simultaneously in 1922 by Eli Cartan (113) (1859~1951) and in 1923 by Jan Schouten (114) (1883~1971).. to quote some anonymous wag. (112) He conceived that such a manifold would be “infinitely crinkled”.. this idea can actually be traced back to Schouten and Cartan in the 1920’s. He seems to have had difficulty recognizing the distinction between anholonomity. however the jump discontinuity is due to folds .. If that be true. we see that a variation in the contortion tensor K k ij . it is extremely likely that this kind of [non-electromagnetic] radiation is bombarding the earth from outer space and should be capable of collection. Norbert Wiener was the first to recognize that Einstein’s distant parallelism gave the possibility of comparing “spins” at different points. from 1925 to 1931 Einstein employed affine connection asymmetry in speculative generalizations of relativity theory. which depends solely on the asymmetry of the affine connection. Any attempt to extrapolate out away from the contact point of reference P 0 will lead to unanticipated results. (115) (116) (117) (118) (119) (120) He had hoped to link the b four vector potential (A a) to a contracted torsion tensor field (S ba).it should be possible to cause one force-precessed wheel to transmit a torque through space to another spinning wheel. and lest the reader think that this is. is of magnitude correction required is of magnitude 2 S dx dx e ab c a b ab c a b c . and especially with global time dissemination. the resulting pentagon is due to anholonomity and the coordinated time  dx dx e c clearly observed with the GPS (Global Positioning Satellite) system. let us state in the strongest terms possible that what we have just said lies at the bedrock foundation of electrical engineering! Perhaps some history would be in order before proceeding. Eric Laithwaite* has raised concerning "spin radiation" from gyros may be resolved in this manner. Thus.." (122) THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 43 . A Short History of Successful Unified Field Theory Applications Historically. This is the case for the Sagnac effect and it is in the choice of coordinate surfaces. We have passed through some rather subtle mathematics here. If the discontinuity is due to actual folds in the manifold. Perhaps the curious issues which Dr.where   is Christoffel's symbol of the second kind. k i j As mentioned above. which depends on the commutation of the basis vectors.. Infinitesimal parallelograms are discontinuous as one approaches a pleat from above the fold or from under the fold. This can be visualized as a geometrical manifold constructed as a folded or pleated sheet of cloth as mentioned above. “…. and torsion. the quadruples need not be integrable so as to furnish us with a co-ordinate system throughout space.. the idea of an unsymmetric affine connection was first discussed in a 1921 footnote by Arthur Eddington. the product of the leisure of the theory class.

Goldschmidt is famous in radio history as the inventor of the high frequency RF generator utilizing groups of rotating coils for harmonic generation. or the symmetric tensor field g ik which defines it. (123) (124) (125) In the latter reference he points out. now so familiar. Nominated for his pioneering contributions by Paul Langevin (who first recognized the importance of de Broglie's work). is only indirectly connected with the avoidance of the inertial system in so far as it determines a displacement field.. in fact. Gabriel Kron discovered a remarkable unifying role for these concepts in the generalized theory of electrical machines. back to Tesla’s “egg of Columbus” and his creation of the rotating magnetic field). Einstein received a joint “hearing aid” patent. Kron’s approach however.. (Try it on a curved manifold. it was also during this time in the 1920's that Einstein and Dr.) Kron's approach is a tensor theory and consequently invariant. and therefore it is doomed to failure. Later. gravitation. (131) (132) (133) (134) (135) (136) ______________ * 1984 IEEE Tesla Medalist. ** As a side note. or even one with torsion!) It is a matter of invariance. in fact. at first the Riemannian metric was considered the fundamental concept on which the general theory of relativity. (127) Apparently during the late 1920's Einstein was somewhat touchy about Cartan’s priority with the torsion tensor. (This application has enjoyed remarkable success in industry and presently. LeviCivita" comment refers to a famous 1930 paper.. and electrical energy. which was not Einstein’s stated purpose in the 1920's versions of the Unified Field Theory. sooner or later.Modem work on unified field theories is concerned more with the identification of torsion with spin.* Einstein’s labors with unsymmetric connections were again taken up after 1945. was to employ the same mathematics to describe interconnected systems with physical coordinates. With the appearance of Einstein’s unified field work of the late 1920's. (130) During his lengthy career at General Electric. mechanical energy. in the analysis of interconnected power systems. MIT mathematics professors Struik (137) and Wiener (138) were both interested in Kron’s application of Einstein’s Unified Field Theory to electrical machinery. (128) It should be clear that Einstein had independently created a Riemannian geometry with torsion. and electrodynamics. however.. It cannot be a fundamental electrical theory. The metric. the geometers will even win the political battle being waged by the algebraic topologists in the fight over electrical circuit pedagogy!] THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 44 . Kron published a long series of contributions formally employing geometrical concepts from Einstein’s so called "Unsymmetric Unified Field Theory" to successfully explain complex mutual interconnections of electrical networks and machinery in terms of tensors. and thus the avoidance of the inertial system.. London. Goldschmidt's apparatus was used in the first wireless link between Germany and the US in 1914. and Professor at Imperial College. (129) Perhaps the most unexpected application of Anholonomity and the Torsion tensor is in the area of electrical machinery and electrical circuit theory (dating. as can be seen in his 21 letters to Cartan on the topic of "Fernparallelismus"." (126) (The "at first" that Einstein uses refers to the 1916 classical general relativity. that “. Leo Szilard (1898~1964) filed 16 joint patent applications (ostensibly for an electrodynamic pump). Kron received the Montifiore Prize in 1936. The application to electrical systems should not be surprising since the unified field theories were framed to describe situations which involve physical coordinates (space and time). [The popular state variable approach is not. Levi-Civita rightly pointed out that the element of the theory that makes it possible to avoid the inertial system is rather the infinitesimal displacement field  a c b . in the general case. and resonance for CW production. was based. Einstein patented a gyrocompass and with Rudolph Goldschmidt (1876~1950). it is extensively employed by electrical utilities and heavy electrical equipment manufacturers around the world. The "later.

Spin Transformations 3.. success (the actual words used by Banesh Hoffmann* were "experimental confirmation" (140) ). Further-more. as Kron points out. 1. and the wide-spread use of the 1929 Einstein unsymmetnc unified field theory in electrical power systems usually comes as quite a surprise to most physicists. and a zero-sequence system (three equal magnitude in-phase vectors). or multidimensional nonRiemannian spaces. or the Riemann-Christoffel curvature tensor. In fact. a negative sequence system (the three-phase vectors have the opposite phase sequence to the original unbalanced system) . the practical utility.. since.” (146) The geometrical treatment of harmonic waves in unbalanced polyphase _________________ * The cryptic remark was written by Hoffmann in 1943. (139) However.. working with Einstein. It should not be surprising that Tesla’s polyphase system of rotating electromagnetic fields would have lead to this path. Coordinate transformations 2. Kron’s research labors led him to complex (in the sense of R + jX) manifolds with many degrees of freedom. is based upon Fortescue's theorem. he was a member of the Institute for Advanced Study. From the work of Veblen and John von Neumann (142) he observed. he has no other choice!" (141) Because of the complex phase or nature of electrical quantities (voltages and currents). Spin transformations are used in introducing the hypothetical symmetrical component frames. You may laugh on hearing that a really scientific analysis of a synchronous machine implies the introduction of such unearthly concepts as nonholonomic reference frames. What's more.. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 45 .D.. there are at least three types of transformations used. (144) Any unbalanced polyphase system of vectors can be resolved into three balanced systems: A positive-sequence system (the three-phase vectors have the same phase sequence as the original unbalanced system). [but] that's where the electrical power engineer must look for new ideas and new inspiration. of course. “The equations of rotating electric machinery are formally analogous to those used by Einstein. and with special interest in polyphase systems.. as every sophomore electrical engineer student knows... Gauge Transformations Coordinate transformations are used in passing from stationary to rotating axes. and even to some electrical engineers with narrow training. his original investigation of zero-phase sequence waves in synchronous machines led him to conclude that. Gauge transformations enter in eliminating phase shifters...The mathematical analogy to Einstein’s work is only formal. Infeld. "In establishing the equivalent networks for electrical machines. Kron once said. where he received his Ph. (145) Is it any wonder that Kron would have seized upon John von Neumann’s work on complex domains. Hoffmann was an assistant to Professor Oswald Veblen at Princeton University." (143) The method of symmetrical components. "The most general representative machine must have an infinite number of coordinate axes representing a space with an infinite number of dimensions. and Veblen. mechanical energy is not the same as gravitational energy. the equations of a rotating machine plus a transmission line are far more complicated [geometrically] than those I have yet seen used by those long-haired physicists or still longer-haired mathematicians. Subsequently.

A group action among many of the atomic magnetic dipoles causes the moments to align and produce macroscopic ferromagnetic domains. (147) (It should not be thought that the method of diakoptics was merely a computational technique for handling large matrices . as Kron pointed out. (150) plasticity." (148) In spite of the remarkable applications to electrical machinery.this would be to have missed the entire purpose of diakoptics and the geometrical foundation of electrical theory!) With regard to experimental verification. polarization rotation in optical fibers. with no practical applications for technology. however. (153) From an engineering perspective. does not distinguish between effects which are due to curvature (a property of the manifold) and those which arise from anholonomic constraints. "While the equations of the Unified Field Theory are not amenable to experimental verification (hence the large variety of theories and equations) all tensor equations developed in this serial can easily be checked by other well known methods of analysis or by tests on actual machines. and a host of others. (151) and even nuclear reactors. let us return to our “Philadelphia Experiment” thesis.   M  Nm (30) where M is the magnetization in amperes/meter. which we can describe by. In the analysis of time-varying systems. Kron wrote in 1936. A lengthy review has been prepared by Hehl. Thomas precession Sagnac effect. (152) recent activity concerning spaces with non-zero torsion has centered in the particle physics community. Spin and Magnetism Magnetism in ferromagnetic materials is due to an imbalance in the electron spins in the partially filled atomic shells of the ferromagnetic material. Indeed. Some of the recent literature on Berry’s phase. Kron makes use of "tearing" and of John von Neumann’s work on an asymmetrical form of the wave equation. however. Hall effect. or anholonomic shift in the overall phase of an energy eigenfunction. most of the modem work m geometries with torsion appear to be more-or-less academic. the introduction of Hilbert Spaces. rotation rate gyros. (149) crystals. Having said this. This is not the case with anholonomity. al. m is the average magnetic dipole per atom and N is the number of atomic magnetic dipoles all aligned in the same direction in a volume element dV.windings requires. Berry’s discovery of a path dependent geometric phase. The vector potential A for a magnetized material can be calculated from   Ar   where  J 4 0  S  s R  J dS  4 0 V   v R dV (31)  J  J S    M n   M (32) is the equivalent surface current density and (33) v THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 46 . The large permanent magnetic field characteristic of ferromagnetic materials is due to the collective orientation of the dipole moments in the material's many domains. et. has now appeared in a broad variety of applications. both quantum and classical: Aharonov-Bohm effect.

which are themselves individual circulating flows of charge in the wave field of the electron. the magnetization is due to induced eddy currents. Consequently. his rotating magnetic field. Even Professor Bloch took interest in this experiment. This effect can be demonstrated by means of the Einstein-de Haas effect: a freely suspended body begins to rotate upon being magnetized. (157) (158) ] The electromagnetic vector potential A describes the circulating field momentum built up by the atomic spins. (In the latter. Frequencies as high as 30 kHz were used. Tesla. Tesla’s “egg of Columbus” exhibits an analogous behavior. 2  1   H   p  qA  q  2m  where m is the mass of the charged particle. and momentum is   (34)  is the electrostatic potential. Torsion and the Electromagnetic Field The electromagnetic field tensor by (159) F ij in spaces with torsion and using holonomic coordinates is given F   A  A ij j i i j (37) where  A j i A   A x i j k ij k (38) and THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 47 . (154) (155) (156) [The Barnett effect is the dual phenomenon: a rotating ferromagnetic rnedium becomes magnetized by a molecular gyroscopic action. The expression (35) 2 1 2  1     P  qA  mv 2  2m    (36) gives the kinetic energy of the charged particle and shows that the magnetic field does no work on the charged particle.is the equivalent volume current density. we have a circulating flow of energy and momentum built up from the collective action of the aligned spins. Again we see the footprints of Dr. Macroscopically.) Einstein and de Haas performed these famous experiments in 1915 and 1916 (twenty-eight years after Tesla) to demonstrate the existence of Ampere's “molecular currents”. and the “egg of Columbus”. not molecular “amperian currents”. The total      P  P k  P f  mv  qA where P k = mv is the kinetic momentum and P f = qA is the field momentum. Apparently Einstein later suggested to Barnett that he should examine the effects of an impressed polyphone rotating magnetic field. We can describe the collective action of the atomic spins in terms of a surface current density J S and a volume current density J V. and they determined the gyromagnetic ratio in a ferromagnetic substances such as iron. Since the momentum circulates it is an angular momentum. q is the charge. The fact that the vector potential A is a field momentum can be clearly seen when one writes the Hamiltonian H for a charged particle in a magnetic field.

However. The interested reader is referred to these papers. when torsion is present as well as rotation. and c 2 (41) df ab is the differential area (A) enclosed by the optical path. with profound implications. when the platform rotates. Two experiments now come to mind: one involves the Sagnac Effect and the other involves the Aharonov/Bohm effect. the general case. (162) (163) (164) (165) (166) A photon gyro may be constructed by splitting a coherent light beam and sending it in a clockwise and in a counterclockwise direction around a closed path on a circular platform. A third (Thomas precession) could also be examined. When the platform is at rest the beams produce no beat frequency when combined. is described by cdt  dx  2 S 4  4  ab 4 ab df ab (42) THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 48 . A Sagnac Effect Experiment In extensive publications over the last 20 years. the co-rotating beam shifts upward in frequency and the counter propagating beam shifts downward in frequency. (160) It has been shown that gauge invariance and minimal coupling (the replacement of partial differentiation by covariant differentiation using  k ij ) can be satisfied in spaces with torsion (161). the authors have shown that the Sagnac effect arises from the anholonomic nature of the relativity of rotation. Thus k ij    K k i j j i k ij (39) F   A  A ij i j    Aji  Ak   x     A  A    A S    k i j     x j i k k j i   k ij k (40)  k A j      Aji  i  Ak S ij  x   x Covariantly differentiating with respect to only the Christoffel symbols of the second kind connection   and not the affine k i j  k ij would mean that photons would be decoupled from torsion. (Rotation with respect to what? This is a trick question. obviously. with the result that when the beams are combined they heterodyne and produce low frequency beats directly proportional to the rate of rotation of the platform. but space does not permit a discussion in this paper. the + is taken for beam propagation with (+) or counter (-) to the platform rotation. However.) The formula for time difference with respect to an observer fixed on the platform (one half of the reciprocal of the beat frequency) is given by dt  dx c 4  2 4 df c  ab ab  2A where  is the angular velocity of the platform.

Let us consider the case where we only have a static magnetic field present: B    A and in regions where B = 0 there is no magnetic force on the particle. v is the particle's velocity. and make the gyro on a non on. We call  1 the phase of an electron wave function moving along path 1. Aharonov-Bohm Effect The Aharonov-Bohm effect is one of the outstanding puzzling effects of quantum theory.) And so. In quantum mechanics. electron wave function moving along path 2. Note that both paths are THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 49 .] In spite of the fact that A  0 outside the solenoid there appears to be no classical force on the particle that can be attributable to A. In classical physics one can write an equation describing the force F acting on a charged particle in an electromagnetic field as     F  q EvB   (43) This is the Lorentz force law. Consequently. we have proposed a simple experiment. that can be performed in a thousand laboratories before tomorrow evening. (There is probably a military servo-system application here. however. This is the Aharonov-Bohm effect. E is the electric field strength and B is the magnetic induction. when the magnetic field inside the solenoid is zero (likewise for path 2).The question we ask is. where q is the charge on the particle. with two parts. K =  n I. you see. We have a second experiment to propose. A was not considered to be a physical field in classical electrodynamics. could you turn on S ij and cancel out the  4 ij term and make the gyro on a truly rotating platform think that it was at rest. This situation occurs outside an infinite solenoid of radius a:     r    Kr A  2   2K a  2r  ra ra (44) 1 B r   r Z  r A r   K r  a  0 r  a (45) [For an infinite solenoid wound with n turns/meter. merely by spinning the table. the interference pattern caused by the wave fractions of electrons shifted due to the presence of A. We call   is the phase of an 2 1 (B = 0) the phase of the electron wave function along path 1. We will borrow from Feynman (167) the following illustration of the Aharonov-Bolun effect using Figure 13.) ij 4 4 ij Alternatively. "If the platform had gyromagnetic spin and produced a torsion tensor in accord with Hehl's assertion above. it was observed that in regions where there was no magnetic field present B = 0. could one fool the photon gyro?" Could you turn rotating platform think that  4 ij had arisen? (One normally turns 4 S on.

then we may formulate the following hypothesis. 15-7)   1  2  1 B  0  2 B  0  q     A  d s   A  d s  1 2 (48) This means the electrons were influenced by the vector potential to depart from the path they would have taken if the solenoidal field had not been turned on. Particles such as the electron with intrinsic spin couple to the torsion field and are deflected providing us with the interference shift. This influence is the quantum mechanical analogue to the Lorentz force we discussed earlier. When the magnetic field inside the solenoid is turned on. the vector potential A is nonzero outside the solenoid when the solenoidal field is on. which is coupled to the vector potential A. The integrals THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 50 . the interference pattern at the detector is shifted by an amount proportional to  . along path 1 the total phase shift will be  q    B  0     A  d s 1 1 1 (46) Similarly. Consequently. However. The atomic spins create a torsion field. Let us examine the last equation we wrote and see how torsion may play a role in the Aharonov-Bohm effect. how can the vector potential influence the electrons? If we recall that the vector potential for a magnetized material is a circulating field momentum created by the collective motion of atomic spins. so. which are themselves made up of individual circulating flows of charge. B  0 inside the solenoid but still B = 0 outside the solenoid along paths 1 and 2. Figure 13 Aharonov-Bohm experiment configuration. (Feynman’s Fig.located in regions where B = 0. the phase of an electron moving along path 2 will be  q    B  0    A d s 2 2 2 (47) Consequently.

'in the last term. the THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 51 . use may be made of the fact that where   j j ki  ik  2 ki  S ki j j j    (54) ki is the anholonomic object and S j ki are the components of the torsion tensor. Note that within the solenoid   A A   B z k i    i k    x x  0  outside the solenoid The term (55)  q   Ak Ai   df      2   xi xk     ik (56) represents the magnetic flux enclosed by paths 1 and 2. Exterior to the solenoid. Remembering that A i k  Aik  ik j x A j (52) is the covariant derivative. times the cross sectional area of the solenoid (i.e. the integral  q     r Ak  k Ai df  2  ik  ik  q   q        Aik  Ai  df     k   2   2   x x     ki  ki j j  A df j ik (53) where.q     A  ds   A  ds  1 2 (49) can be expressed as one integral around a closed path q i  Ai dx  Using Stoke's theorem this integral can be rewritten as (50) q i  q   Ai dx   2  r Ak  k    A df i ik (51) where we have transformed an integral over a four dimensional closed curve. the integral term simply gives a number equal to the enclosed flux density. In fact the integrand vanishes for r greater than the radius of the solenoid (or whisker) in the Aharonov-Bohm experiment.. into an integral over a surface area spanning the curve.

which depends upon the expression  q      2   j ki  ik j  A df j ik (57) at the field point through which the charge passes. we suggest that a demonstration be performed to determine if torsion plays a role in the Aharonov-Bohm effect. A conventional quantum interpretation of the Ahwonov-Bohm effect attributes phase shift. (Perform the experiment on a rotating table. not to the interaction of the charge with the magnetic field at the field point (it's zero where the charge is). At the macroscopic level. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 52 . it seems to us that laboratory magnets and solenoids may provide the necessary field strengths to manifest torsion’s effects at the quantum mechanical level as suggested in our proposed AharonovBohm experiment. if we suddenly “turn on” the torsion the manifold will abruptly fold up along the time axis. (168) The electron wave function is not exposed to the B field since it travels in regions where B is zero. folding could also occur in the spatial hyperplane. (171) (172) Nevertheless. See Figure 12. It is interesting to speculate on what sort of spin densities would accomplish such a feat on a macroscopic scale. which is enclosed by the two paths. but to the nonlocal field B. the j = 4 terms describe the “electric” Aharonov-Bohm effect (169) (170) with equal alacrity!] An Aharonov-Bohm Torsion Experiment As the second proposed experiment. and how much magnetic field is actually needed to be able to observe this on the lab bench. [By the way. (Why wasn’t one of these put on our Mariner spacecraft and launched beyond sidereal space?) Speculations on Torsion and Time Discontinuities We will close with the observation that torsion allows the space-time manifold to be folded in a manner such that the fold has a discontinuity along the time axis. Some work on torsion has focused on conditions in collapsing stars where very high spin densities may exist that could cause large macroscopic effects. We would then ask that the paths around the magnet (or solenoid) be rotated. Similarly. be used as a sensitive "Torsion-field strength meter" in the exploration of space-time. Therefore the conventional explanation employs action at distance to account for the interference effect. That is. it would be of great interest to see if the Sagnac effect can be “turned on and off” by ferromagnetic torsion. The torsion theory leads directly to a local ”torsion field” interaction. in fact. The paths of the particles having intrinsic spin would again be in a magnetic field free region just as in the conventional experiment. the interaction is due to the direct exposure of the electron wave function to the local torsion field created by the vector potential A. That is.enclosed flux). Such an apparatus could. Basically the experiment would involve using a solenoid or a magnet to generate an external vector potential.) The idea is that the rotating frame generates an anholonomic term that would tend to cancel the torsion term in the equation resulting in a  j ki  ik  2 ki  S ki j j j    (58) change in (or even cancellation of) the Aharonov-Bohm interference pattern.

At any rate. So. purely as an academic exercise. While it may be that what we have proposed. Rinehart that inserts him into the narrative. anyway.173 forward along its world line by. or to enhance the value of the movie rights.) As to why the government has not been forthright on the “Philadelphia Experiment”. Actually it is equivalent to transference of matter into another level or dimension and could represent a dimensional breakthrough if it were possible to control it. Von Neumanns. it was Dr. "[Dr. we can only speculate. we're back to Tesla’s egg of Columbus again. how much magnetic resonance driving current is required to create a torsion tensor necessary to transport a DE. Yet. Were his comments about Brown’s radar background relevant?) Perhaps these were calculated to make the book appeal to a wider audience. They certainly were among the thoughts of the Gabriel Krons and Norbert Wieners. Valentine comment." (pg. turns out to be totally impractical for teleportation or time travel. 130). Perhaps a black-hole would have been a “more practical” machine. say. everything discussed above was known or available in the pre-WWII literature.) However. Towensend Brown’s reason for being in the story. "What about time-travel and teleportation?” No numbers have been plugged into these last equations. t = 10 million seconds (4 months)? Are these the sort of thoughts that resulted in Dr. Jessup said] This use of magnetic resonance is tantamount to temporary obliteration in our dimension but it tends to get out of control. we confess our inadequacy to appreciate the peripheral significance of these items. or increase the page count by 10%. Our question has really been left as unanswered mathematical speculation. except for the Aharonov-Bohm effect. To us it would (perhaps naively) seem that the reason for the apparent stonewalling was simply that certain military and civilian decision makers (travailing under “peasant knowledge”*) got in over their heads into physical wonders that they just didn’t have the breadth or capacity to pull together. Certainly these were the kinds of thoughts and considerations that should have been going through the minds of the Einsteins. (Ockham’s razor would seem to relegate them to the domain of excess baggage. but we don’t think so.Finally. This leaves the question of T. a physical experiment to test the hypothesis has been suggested. Veblens. (All the reasonably prudent folk may have gotten off the train at Part IV. (The relevance of his “force fields” to the physical phenomenon seems spurious and unnecessary to us. (Where were the engineering 'renaissance men’?) THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 53 . CONCLUDING REMARKS We started Part V with the question. Ladenburgs. and power engineers (like Vennevar Bush) of that era.

1990.” (173) We think that this assertion. Matthew Sandor. "Our revels now are ended. To invert the skeptical remarks made by another critic. 80." ["Pathological Science." Physics Today. It really looks as though there is something there. And so. in fact. We hope that our amusing little War Memorial reveries will not detract from the serious issues associated with Tesla's authentic work. in fact. AF Chief of Staff 1947-1948. administrators and scientists that took part in manipulating its wretched cover-up. "You know. into thin air…” _________________ * Peasants knew their field well. will someday make it possible to "record on our delicate instruments" such wonders. These our actors. We must stay focused on his remarkable career. 5. but this is a Tesla Symposium. once confided to him about UFO’s. We wish to say that we enjoyed the book and would like to extend our appreciation to William Moore and Charles Berlitz for spinning a fascinating yarn.] ** THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 54 . 112. Navy scientists undertook to see whether anything could be done to either disguise a ship's radar image or to otherwise confuse the offending German radar and thus render such a weapon useless . been rather sloppy on each particular point.] Recall that John G. its very serious. 110. 108. Vannevar Bush’s quote at the top of this article is still a perceptive and sober observation. To a scientific audience wishing to scrutinize its technical merits. May... As I foretold you. 1961. We have. 36-48. [Electrical Engineering. from stonewall to stonewall. 13-14. is authentic then what is disappointing and disgusting is the shabby professionalism of the pathetic leaders. Tesla’s creative discovery of the rotating magnetic field was more far-reaching than the mere invention of the induction motor or the polyphase power distribution system. Moore wrote an article. Trump was a member of General Spaatz’s Advisory Specialist Group on Radar. Subsequent to the original book. This has been an engrossing little study for us. ". were all spirits and Are melted into air.FINAL CONCLUSIONS The mathematical possibilities of time travel and teleportation notwithstanding. but the massive amount of collateral technological evidence available demonstrates that the thesis is patently plausible. we hope that our little "brown study" will be no less enchanting than were the cited essays of Joseph Slepian or Arthir Eddington. as suggested by Dr. can be supported on technical grounds. pp. If the account. not only does a substantial amount of the information presented by Moore and Berlitz satisfy the most fundamental tests of experimental verification. Perhaps an experiment. but had no knowledge of what lay beyond. 1989.. pp. It is. in fact. No. 364-365. in which he states the following. interwoven with the very fabric of spacetime and our material existence in the physical universe. Irving Langmuir has related that General Carl A. March. Vol. pp. we think that Joseph Slepian would have been pleased. as with old Prospero. But. such as the simple one proposed above. at least. October.. The scientists then energized the ship’s hull with tremendous pulses of low frequency electromagnetic energy. 'Tooey’ Spaatz. (which has so impacted the upward progress of civilization in the twentieth century). except for a lack of conciseness. Hence the term 'peasant knowledge’. This has not been a definitive study on the topic.

where the constant of proportionality  is called the gyromagnetic ratio). then all the elementary magnetic moments become parallel to the external field. The Ferromagnetic Anisotropic Permeability Tensor Physically. If in addition to the constant field. The ferromagnetic material is then referred to as saturated and. mH . When the medium is saturated. If the external field is sufficiently large. with an applied magnetic field produces a torque (T =  0 m  H where H is the total magnetic field at the point). The interaction of the spinning electrons. This results in a temporal precession of the axes of the spinning electrons about the direction of the applied field. ferromagnetic resonance will set in.759 10    2. correspondingly. there is also an alternating [RF] magnetic field.210 10 11 0 5 (60) 'Zeemanized! (TPE. Batygin and Toptygin have written (174) "Ferromagnetic resonance is established under the following conditions: a constant magnetic field acting upon the magnetic moment of an atom or a single electron gives rise to the Larmor precession of the moment about the direction of the field. This motion is eventually damped out due to the conversion of the Larmor precession energy into thermal energy. The results are used in Equation (8) above and plotted in Figures (1) through (8) in the text. which try’s to bring it in line with the applied field. each with a magnetic moment proportional to its angular momentum (m = J. a ferromagnetic medium is considered to consist of an ensemble of spinning electrons with magnetic moments. 198): The Zeeman energy. is a maximum. when its frequency becomes equal to the processional frequency.* the magnetic moments all line up in a manner similar Tesla’s "egg of Columbus". p.APPENDIX I Surface Impedance for a Ferromagnetic Planar Slab In this Appendix we present the technical features involved in obtaining the surface impedance for a magnetically biased anisotropic medium. the magnetic moment per unit volume is called the saturation magnetization." (175) The processional motion of the magnetization vector M (the magnetic moment per unit volume) about the applied magnetic field vector H is described by the Landau-Lifshitz (176) (177) (178) (179) (180) equation:    dM   M  H  r dt    0   H M  (59) where M 0 = Saturation Magnetization  M 0 0 0  __________________ *  H 0 e m  1. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 55 . What we get for our troubles is the functional relation between the anisotropic surface impedance and the applied magnetic field. then the alternating field will tend to maintain the processional motion and. which is perpendicular to the constant field.

The total magnetic field intensity has components  H h e xˆ  h e yˆ  H j t j t x y j t j t x y 0  hz e j t zˆ zˆ (61) so the solution of the Landau-Lifshitz equation will be sought in the form  M m e xˆ  m e yˆ  M 0  mz e j t (62) As Batygin and Toptygin point out. When a time-harmonic he jt (with h<<H 0) is applied to the electron system. m  x 0   2 0 2  2  j  r 2  2 j  r r h x  j 0   2 0 2 0 2  2 j  r r h y   j   j  m h h     2 j     2 j 2 y 2 x 2 r r y (63) m  z 0   r  j h z r where      H  0 2 0 0 2 r 0 (64) THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 56 . Hence. r  p M 2 2 0  0 In the above. M is the magnetization vector. should be regarded as small (of the order of h or lower). gives the components of m as. p is a loss parameter. the quantities m x. "The form of the solution corresponds to the assumption that the transient Larmor precession has been damped out and the oscillations are maintained by the high frequency forcing field. The forced oscillations of the magnetization vector M may be found as follows. m z. and neglecting higher order terms. it causes the amplitude of the precessions to build up." (181) Direct substitution of the assumed form of M into the Landau-Lifshitz equation. Now consider a semi-infinite ferromagnetic medium with a uniform magnetic field radar RF field  r is H 0 ˆ z [the hull of a ship wound with a helical coil. and the natural (damped) resonant frequency. m y. and all the electron spins precessing around the z-axis]. H is the magnetic field strength.

] From Equation (6) it is clear that when ferromagnetic resonance’s occur actual physical losses prevent infinite response as with the presence of resistance in RLC tuned circuits.8 MHz/oersted. in MKS (66)   Ampere  Turns   1 H H Oersteds   3 meter   4 10 (65)    B H M 0   where the magnetic field strength H is due to free currents and the magnetization M is due to the superposition of all the magnetic moments (the magnetic dipole moment. units. gives the relative permeability tensor as   j 0     a       j  0   ij    a       00     where we let (70)       j j   (71)   a  a   a with THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 57 . The permeability is    1  0  m  (69) Consequently.The quantity  0 (called the ferromagnetic resonance frequency) is the Larmor Precessional frequency of the electron in the total internal dc field H 0. [The conversion being It is common to note that  = 2.  M which is sometimes expressed as    1H r (67) where    M  H m (68) m is the magnetic susceptability. An internal field of 1000 oersteds gives a gyromagnetic resonance (in the lossless case) at 2800 MHz. Next. The older literature gives H 0 in cgs units (Oersteds). It is also to be noted that the precession of the spinning electrons reinforces the original applied fields and crosscouples that field into the transverse components. using (8) and collecting terms from above. the permeability tensor for the anisotropic medium may be found for RF. The magnetization is related to the magnetic field strength as. the magnetic flux density Recall that. per unit volume arising from “bound currents”).

normal to the slab. The plot of See Figure I-1. Using the permeability tensor of Equation (11). H   0   r  /  . (This is called the "transverse dc magnetization”' case. and the real parts    and   a  and  a  are reach extremal values when Electromagnetic Waves in an Anisotropic Ferromagnetic Medium Consider a planar ferromagnetic slab (the side of the ship) with the y-axis normal to and directed into the medium and with the z-axis directed along the applied magnetic field.]  0 /  . the incident fields are assumed to be uniform in z along the ship  / z  0  . The incident RF wave will be. as Sommerfeld suggested. imaginary parts of   and  The dependence of the real and a verses frequency shows that the imaginary parts  maximum when H   H  then displays the resonance character of the permeability. Maxwell's equations give      E   j   H (73) Figure I – 1 (a) THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 58 . [Microwave engineers usually fix the RF frequency. . (182) ) Further. and tune H.   2   1           4               4  2 2 2 2  0 2 2 2 2 2 r 2 2 r  0 2 2 2 2 2 r 2 r         4  2         4    1    j   a (72)  2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 r 0 r a  0 2 2 2 2 2 r r  0 r and the  subscript indicates the axis along which the static field is applied.

375 GHz. and adding gives.Figure I . E j y a z j    0 2  2  H y a  (81) Repeating in reverse order gives E j x a z    E z   y j    0 2  2  Hx a  (82) THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 59 . The 9 resonance occurs at H 0 = 271 kA/m (3405 Oersteds). E y z  j  H 0  x  j H a a x y   y (74)  E z  x y j  j H  j H E  E   j  H x y 0  (75) x 0  z (76) and     H    j E (77) (78) H y z    j  E x  H z    j  E y x (79) H z  H x    j  E z x y y (80) A wave equation for horizontal j a and 16 by  ˆ e  E z  Polarization may be found as follows. M 0 = 160 Gauss.  r  3 10 . Multiplying 15 by    E z  x  .1(b) Complex permeability for f = 9.

Equation (23) with respect to y. Subtracting the second from the first and using the z-component of Ampere's law gives a wave equation for E Z . 2 2      a  0  j   0 0     Ez    E   E     x y 2 2 z z 2 2 2  (83) which implies that the medium has an effective relative permeability (consider. for example.First. The situation for which there are different propagation constants for waves polarized with the RF electric field along the direction of H 0 (E Z ) or perpendicular to H 0 ( H X ) is called birefringence. which the ferromagnetic medium presents to an RF field with magnetic field components perpendicular to the direction of the applied magnetic bias. the anisotropic electrical conductivity tensor with components given by  j 0   1  2        j  1 0   ij  2       00 3    leads to an effective conductivity (86)      2 1 e 2 2 (87) 1 which can be used in the expressions for impedance. differentiating (19) by y and (20) by x . the situation when the conductivity is zero) of  e   2     2 a (84) This is the effective permeability. ˆ Similarly. Following the same line of development. Equation (22) is differentiated with respect to x and second. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 60 . an anisotropically conducting surface can be handled in a manner similar to that above. as H x 2 2 z  H x 2 2 z   2  0  j  H 0  z 0 (85) This is the case where the incident RF field has magnetic components along the applied magnetic bias. as. By the way. and using the z-component of Faraday’s law gives a wave equation for H Z . for vertical polarization ( e = E X x ).

in the case of a ferromagnetic medium with anisotropic conductivity. to the result that     Ez        2  2 2    j 0   a         3     1 H x (88)  Ex     j 0    2  e   1 H z (89) At this point. in the anisotropic case. (") we consider the case of the surface impedance of a flat fertomagnetic conductor immersed in a constant magnetic field that is oriented parallel to the surface. as introduced by Leontovich. (194)  E Z t S   n  H  t (90) where the unit vector is directed into the medium and the subscript ‘t’ indicates the tangential components of the field vectors. consider an expression of the form  E where i. Also assume that the incident RF wave is normal to the side of the ship. However. The usual expression of the impedance boundary condition for the interface between simple media is.ij n  H t .The detailed determination of the fields is rather tedious. and the x component of Faradays law to met the relation of E Z to H X ] It leads. a surface impedance tensor must be determined.i   t. [ Assume the y variation of the xz-uniform fields is e  y (not to be confused with the gyromagnetic ratio used above). Again following Batygin and Toptygin. one can determine the surface impedance of the medium The Anisotropic Surface Impedance Tensor We desire the surface in@ce. use the z component of Ampere's law to get the relation of E Z to H X . The surface impedance tensor can then be calculated as  Z xx 0      Z ij   0   Z zz  where (92) Z xx  E H x  j  z  0  e THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 61 . j (91) As above.2 . let the y-axis be oriented perpendicular into the surface of the metal and the z-axis be oriented along the applied bias magnetic field from the coils on the ship. (195) By extension.    Z s .j = 1.

the experiments of Dr. What is fascinating in all of this is that the frequency  and the magnetic bias Z   component. who notified King Peter when Tesla died. entire domains behave as Tesla’s “egg of Columbus” and possess gyromagnetic resonance’s in the VHF region. has a resonance character similar to a parallel tank circuit. Paul Rado. While we have only considered gyro-resonance resulting from electron spin. (186) (187) (188) We leave this for the interested reader to follow up on. These would also contribute to the surface impedance.Z Recalling that zz  E H z z  j  (93) e  0 3 j e j  2  1 j 2 (94) the complex components lead to the surface impedance tensor expression (95) where   and the effective permeability  e are as given above. for incident RF fields. H 0 !! We can calculate and plot this for the Again. there will be a resonance peak near some frequency  0 /  . THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 62 . This leads to the notion that shipboard tuned resonance’s. and its magnitude and resonant frequency can be "tuned" by varying ship's hull. ___________________ ** This was not Tesla’s close friend. NYU Professor Dr. as a result of domain wall motion. Rado** are particularly notible. similar arguments lead to the idea that. might satisfy  0 when H 0 is tuned to equal Somrnerfeld’s criteria for radar stealth. which depends upon both the RF zz ˆ H 0 z . In this regard.

Coil Inductance (Wheeler’s Formula): a N L  9  10  12. N a Dw   = = = = = 100 Turns 300 ft = 3600 inches 18 ft = 216 inches (ship effective radius) 3 inches (effective diameter of conducting wire) 10. Total wire resistance: CM  Dmils   1000 Din   9 10 CM 2 2 6 R  A w  0.020 THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 63 . we model the ship and bias coil as a wire wound cylindrical solenoid of circular cross section. R = 0. say.3mH a H in 2 in 2 2 2. Wire cross section: W  N 2R    11.0134 CM To remain on the conservative side let's increase this resistance estimate by 50 % to.37 CM-ohms/ft (resistivity of copper) Figure II-1 Parameters for the calculation of coil inductance 1.610 ft A 4. Total length of wire:  3.APPENDIX II An Electrical Model for the DE 173 For simplicity. as shown.

With transients. the inductive reactance of the above coil X L  377  0. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 64 .000amps R 0.2 we give a summary for a single phase parallel resonant (or anti-resonant) current driver for the ship's coils.500 kVA step-up tramfonner rated at 70 kV output at only 65 amps. At 60 Hz.64 ohms reactance through the coil (and the generator) would be C  1 /  X   572F .0123 Q  R  0. this places an unreasonable requirement on the delivery system since it would require the 15.almost 50 times too small for the experiment. The Anti-Resonant Current Magnifier*** In Figure A.020 6 in Although the generator voltage need only be V P in R  300volts which may be gotten from the 1. we assumed that.5 10   15. Using the parameters obtained above. things could get pretty evil in the core. In the text.5 Mw ( I gen  3.000 amperes.64 would limit the magnitude of the current  to only 323. If we added a series capacitor bank of 4.500 VAC RMS and could deliver 4.020  232 0 T The tank circuit input impedance at resonance will be ____________________ *** The authors wish to thank Basil F.500 volt output by a step-down transformer. Is there another way to reasonably leverage the current up? We think that the classical "current-magnifier" circuit would be a likely candidate. (189) (190) (191) Suppose that we assume that the ship's generators supply a rather "modest" 4. Pinzone for collaboration on this section.000 amps to flow either through the generator windings or through the windings of the step-down transformer’s secondary.000 A ). we needed a bias field requiring a coil current of 15. to first order at 60 Hz.II.3 amps .A Series Resonant Coil Driver We are told that the diesel generators were rated at 1. then the current c I coil  P 4.0123  4. the "Tank Circuit" terminal point Q is L 377  0. the ship is more-or-less hollow. In calculating the driver coil inductance.

(Perfectly wonderful!!) While we are at it.020 Although somewhat large (rated at 100 kV peak). this is not unreasonable for the present application.50. equal to the power supplied from the generator.04GVARs 6 in which is indeed substantial.0123  572 F 1. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 65 .076. as was desired. The load power is found as 2 2 2 2  I L R  1  Q  R I T  I T RT  4. Antenna engineers will recognize that we have used a classical L-Network for current magnification through the driver coils and as a matching circuit between the loss resistance and the generator at 60 Hz. as expected.076.076. The circulating reactive kVA’s are P Tank V T I L  Q T P  2324.5 The RMS circulating current in the tank circuit is I L  IT Q 2 T 1  Q T I T  232 65  15.5 10   1. The tank circuit's terminal point input current (required from the power transformer) is only I T  V R  T 70.500kw   PR T  which is.085amperes which is the desired current in the bias coils required for the Philadelphia Experiment. we might as well calculate the reactive power circulating in the tank.5  T    The capacitor bank required for matching will be C L R T R  0.R T 2  R Q  1  1. Power engineers will appreciate the capacitor bank as giving unity power factor correction for the driver coil as a generator load.000  65amps 1.

Note the terminal point impedance step-up feature and the stepped-up current pumped through the coil. Resonant Frequency: f 1  R 2 1  R2  LC L 2 f 0 0 1 1 Q 0 2 T Tank Circuit Q (measured at the terminals): L Q  R   C R T T Input Impedance at f 0 : R T 2 L  R Q  1   T    RC Capacitance Required for Matching: C L R T R RMS Circulating Current: I L  IT Q 2 T 1  Q T I in T Circulating Reactive kVA: P Tank V T I L  Q 2 L T P Load Power: P I R 2 2 2 R  1  Q  R I T  I T RT  Pin   T  Input Admittance: YT f    f f  C 1  j  0   f L Q f    0  T THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 66 .Resonant Current-Magnification Figure II-2 Summary of the anti-resonant tank circuit.

Extra loading would tend reduce R T . CONCLUSIONS THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 67 .3 Geometrical disposition of the “L .Coil” for shipboard degaussing Calculated input impedance (R T Figure II-4 + jX T) for the DE-173 driver coils as a function of generator frequency.Figure II.Coil” and “M .

or even shaped conductors. With a more sophisticated driver. A polyphase system could be used to drive multiple or segmented bias coils. be driven at some other pulsating low frequency. a larger wire bundle. for example. The coils might. even a relatively modest power system could have done the job. A whole variety of alternative options come to mind. While many other methods might have been employed to drive the required current through the magnetic bias coils in the Philadelphia Experiment. The limiting factor is the impracticality of this approach to stealth (you might not see the ship.230amps 3 If greater currents were desired. but you could sure hear it coming).2443inches 2  53. for stealth. one might even be able to raise the coil current to the fuzing level of I F  10. Saddle coils could be used for biasing the hull. under a variety of incident RF polarizations. employing low duty-cycle pulse power processing. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 68 .Our conclusion is quite simple. would have to be used (unless the effect of the seawater could hold back the overheating of the copper wire). not the physical explanation of a "Philadelphia Experiment".

And Gravitation. 170. Mi. Cambridge University Press. "'The vessel [DE 173] was named after Lt. T. Thompkins in Wonderland." One very distinguished Dr. a 1927 Naval Academy graduate who was killed in action in the Solomon Islands 2 November. C. "America’s Invisible Warship.. M. 1963.J. The Flying Circus of Physics. 1979. though presented as an pseudonym by Moore and Berlitz. The Mathematical Theory of Relativity.. pg. S. 1959. Citadel Press. 8. Dover. Detroit. Jearl. From 1948 to 1950 he was on the Research and Development Board of DoD (serving as Chairman upon MIT President K. pg... Cambridge University Press. 1977. 1955. The Code Name Dictionary. edited by F. Flatland. March. 10.. February. 68. 145146.R8) lists Rainbow as "(1) The code name for the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo axis. 1942.. Eddington. 1884). Gale Research Co. Abbott. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 69 .. Jr. pp.. 1907. '34 from Ohio State). Kent solves the telegrapher's equation for terminated lines. E. 5.. Commander John Eldridge. Space. A. Dr. 1965. 3. May. 6.D. Reno appears to have been an actual person." Popular Mechanics. Harper and Row. 57. Kompton’s resignation). Dane. A. Moore and Berlitz. 1944. actually existed. 28-32. 134-136. Moore. 7. and not a pseudonym. Berlitz. Ph. Robert Fross Rinehart (b. p.. Thomas. 1961.. July. Later while a Math Professor at Case Institute of Technology. Wiley.. The Philadelphia Experiment: Project Invisibility Ballantine Books. involved with subsurface weapons and submarine warfare. Eddington. Mr.. pp. W. July. Walker. 37. L. 245. The Case for the UFO. Slepian.. "Electrical Essay: Electromagnetic Space-Ship. MS '32. 2. (192) Princeton Physics Professor Rudolph W. pg." (194) Additional References 1. Kent. 9. K.". 1952. S.. G. 4. N. pg. 25.. Garnow. (Library of Congress # PE 1693. J. 1949. (193) Joseph Pothier points out in his review that. Time. for he is acknowledged for his "valuable suggestions" in a technical paper by Robert R. G. Rufffner and R.A. Mr. From 1942 to 1945 he was a member of the Operations Research Group of the Navy.APPENDIX III Peripheral Items of Interest Robert Harrington Kent's obituary appears in Physics Today. Ladenburg’s obituary appears in Physics Today. (Originally published. (7) The code name for a military exercise. Secaucus. p. A. 1952. F. he published several engineering research papers on Lunenberg Lens antennas. loc cit. 1993. Electrical Engineering. pp. and C. Jessup.

1959. 24. Hugo Gernsback. 1992. T. "A History of Some Foundations of Modem Radio-Electronic Technology". June. August. Lecture at the December 17. "Tesla's Views on Electricity and the War. "Tesla’s Lecture at the Royal Institution of Great Britain. "Personal".. 1892. Scott. pp. 1917.C. 23. 19. Behrend. 1990. 351. pg. IRE. 1944. pp. pp. Tesla Book Company. V. Tesla's personal Exhibit at the Worlds Fair". 15. pp. Beograd. 167-189. by T. pg. 1993. 1943. Denver. February. Page. 60. ISBN 0-9632652-0-2. Vol. 774-775. 8. 1.. pp. 25. "Vannevar Bush and the Early Days of Raytheon"." May 18. No. Anderson. Part 1. Hammond. 14. Electrical Engineering. 22. Martin. Laboratories. 1900. 1917. "Minutes of the AIEE Annual Meeting. 52.. These letters contain a remarkable amount of information about Fritz Lowenstein. 1961. 1941 meeting. 3-6. (1st edition published in 1894). and Writings of Nikola Tesla. A. 91. 190-196. 20. July. "Tesla’s Egg of Columbus: How Tesla performed the Feat of Columbus Without Cracking the Egg". 12. by J. Nikola Tesla On His Work With Alternating Currents.. 175-21 1. Electrical Experimenter.. R. 16. pg. February 25. May 31. V. C. 17.. Proc. Journal of the Institution of Electrical Engineers. 1941. Colorado. 1991). 27. Kapp. 1917. A-300 to A-305. Proceedings of the IRE. 1981. pp. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 70 . CO. "Tesla's Contribution to Electric Power. 1919. ibid. loc cit. Tesla. pp. H. 26.. 30. "Mr. Secor. 19. W.) 13.P. Barnes and Noble. published by the Nikola Tesla Museum. B. 1984. Nikola Tesla Museum.11. "The Problem of Increasing Human Energy". Cheney. pp. Boyle-Anderson Publishers. Beograd. L.2." Centenary of the Birth of Nikola Tesla. Researches. 45. Anderson. August. 21. October. Fleming. 370. Ratzlaff. Edison Medal remarks. L. F. Denver. L. H. Jr. pp. 1961. 1992. 29. pp. March. Vol. (a talk delivered to the MIT Vannevar Bush Centennial Symposium. pg.. September. Krim. pp. loc cit.M. 18. 235. "The Life and Work of Nikola Tesla". Vol.. 58-59. a short biographical sketch of Vannevar Bush. I. Moore & Berlitz. ibid. N. Beograd. pg. 1957. September. Chapter XLII in Inventions." 'The Electrical Experimenter. Tesla: Man Out of Time. editor." Electrical Engineering. pg.. A-215 to A-230. published in Tesla Said. IEEE AES Systems Magazine. 1253-1268. Prentice-Hall. 229-230. pp. Nikola. See Figure 297. and Offices". Sun Publishers. The Century Illustrated Magazine. J. 477-485. 28. Vol. Secor. pp. I. editor. 1191-1208. Reprinted in Tribute to Nikola Tesla. Reprinted in Tribute to Nikola Tesla. of the AIEE in New York. New York Herald. 808. "Nikola Tesla’s Residences. B. "Electric Drive for Battle Ships". A. 1959. 209. Nikola. Popovic. Margaret. Tesla. (See the lengthy "Discussion".

Ridenour." British Patent #13. 31. Cygnus Quasar Books. September. N. Harrington. 1948. Volume IV in the series Lectures on Theoretical Physics.31. H. V. 1964 (originally published in 1949). 50. McGraw-Hill. 1970.. R.) 35. "Shipboard Degaussing Installations for Protection Against Magnetic Mines. pp. 34. AP-10. 41. (See pg. cit. No. (MIT Rad Lab Vol. 63.) 46." AIEE Transactions. and W. Vol. “Introduction” to the book Endless Horizons. Time Harmonic Fields. pp. 1948. 1962. R. loc. loc. 459-464. 1287-1288. (Also see problems 10. 1962. pp.. J.. Vol. 51. N...4-6 to 10. The Century Illustrated Magazine. 48. 1270-1275. D. 1961. 43. pp. 67.170. ibid. "Use of Propulsion Generators on Naval Vessels to Supply Shore Power. Ruck. Secor. 44. M. Public Affairs Press. Proceedings of the IRE. 39. 209. (special 50th Anniversary Issue). "Personal". 1967-68. 32." Transactions of the AIEE.) 45. Optics. Kraus. D. 1976. 175-211.. Michel. 1904. Sommerfeld. Pg. B. Weston. Letter to Nikola Tesla. Tesla. Electrical Engineering. 38. pp. pp. Vol.. Sommerfeld. 1917. R. 36. Electromagnetics. McGraw-Hill. 1282-1287. G. L. Such as a Ship or a Train in the Line of Projection of Such Waves. pg. 40. pp. 1984. pg. McGraw-Hill. 33. "Hertzian-Wave Projecting and Receiving Apparatus Adapted to Indicate or Give Warning of the Presence of a Metallic Body. Page. iii.. cit. another short biographical sketch of Vannevar Bush. 408. 2. Radar Cross Section Handbook. Vol. 69-73. Vannevar. 5. 1931. "Theory of Absorbers in Scattering" IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation. Bush. 3rd edition. ibid. accompanied by "Discussion". Ridenour. January. 1947. 42. dated July 1.. 1232-1236. 1).. Fifer. J. pp. T. pp. 66-79. Anderson. Big Ear. 1275-1277. 50. F. pp. 47. 18-19. ibid. "The Early History of Radar". Jewett. C. 611-612. 67. Hulsmeyer. 1946. 578-584. F. by Vannevar Bush. Vol. Academic Press. pp. Nikola.4-14. May. September 22. 37. F. 21-26. (Also see the "Discussion".) THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 71 . "The Problem of Increasing Human Energy. 1944. B. (Harrington uses RMS field strengths. pp. pp. Arnold. 49.. Vol. Janes Fighting Ships. Kraus. Plenum. E. Radar System Engineering.

1952. S. pp.Part I".. and J. 54-55. 16-6. D. Moore. 1984. second edition. R. Wiley. 566-569.. 53. Pothier. cit. J. 66. 1955. Reines. JulySeptember. 49-55. 72. 4701. and T. Kugler.2. Qbject and Illusion. Prentice-Hall. Vol. 69. 140. Addison-Wesley. 63. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 72 . 41. W. B. J. Schonland. AJP. Chapter 4. 1941. Whinnery. pp. A.. J. loc cit. Knoll.) 64. 1979. 61. Scientific American Press. 1987. Ballard. Pothier.. Kerst.. 74. R. and J. "The Work of Benjamin Franklin on Thunderstorms and the Development of the Lightning Rod. "Subjective Light Pattern Spectroscopy in the Encephalographic Frequency Range. pg. Ramo. issued in 1922. April. Electric Spacecraft Journal. 56. 375-392. The Feynman Lectures on Physics. (Example 3. Marino. 1968. 1974... F. Issue 7.645. Vol. ibid. Physical Review. Corum. R-. 69." Journal of the Franklin Institute. 60. Van Duzer. "The Philadelphia Experiment Revisited . 71. pg. 1823-1824. 5. Electric Spacecraft Journal. Michel. Image. Reference Data for Radio Engineers. cit. Feynman. pp. 70. pg. ibid. W. 58. pp. 253. 62. New York. 1964. F. P. May. 57. OctoberDecember. Rasmussen. Michel. Ballantine Books. The Philadelphia Experiment: Project Invisibility. loc... 1992. "Participatory Lecture Demonstration with an 83-Ton Bar Electromagnet". Held. Fields and Waves in Communications Electronics. 259-270. 5th edition. L. "The Acceleration of Electrons by Magnetic Induction"." Nature. Knoll and Kugler. 15-25. D. and T. Corum and Associates. Ryder. 42. Feynman. pp. 1974. 54.. W. loc. Sands..304. and R. Vol. 3. 67. 1959. 14-21. ibid. and M. F. Leighton. B. Issue 8. 58. 115-116. Networks. Lines and Fields. 1949. R. pp. Berlitz. Penfeld. 1992. Michel. pp. pp. Vol. No.") 68. US Patent #1. J. Also see “Comments” by A. II. 59. "The Philadelphia Experiment Revisited . Vol. Slepian.52. Kraus. 73. No. 60. (See Appendix II. pp. L.Part II". Corum. 65. loc. p. K. M. "Air Breakdown from Induced emf. cit. J. J. 55. pp.. The Cerebral Cortex of Man. and C. loc. American Journal of Physics. cit. 47-53. 1973. December 15. Vacuum Tube Tesla Coils.

1993. 87. W. 144-145... 1974. loc. Isaiah 3 8:8. pp. 1. 93. 1935. Girvin.. Engng. Proceedings of the IEEE. loc. 1951. S. Acts 8:39-40. Ricci Calculus. A." Nature. Scientific American. 102-103. cit. 1951. 92. 1974. 79-80.. J. 1959. February... pp. A. Springer-Verlag. Vol. 1908. 770-776. 80. pp. "Phosphenes". Jearl.. "General Relativity with Spin and Torsion: Foundations and Prospects. J. Eddington. pp. 127-129. Dobelle. 1977. pp. Biol. Time. translated by W. 75-96. H. 83. Mladejovsky.. F. pg. Space. The Flying Circus of Physics. 293-303. Vol. Groningin. "Relativistic Rotation and the Anholonomic Object". pp. "Artificial Vision for the Blind: Electrical Stimulation of Visual Cortex Offers Hope for a Functional Prosthesis. Schouten. pp. 18. 1951. O. 81. 230." Med. cit. Struik. Hehl. Vol.. 90. 1. 123. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 73 . 81-82. 1976.. M. Published in The Principle of Relativity.. 95. 1954. No. pg. A. 1929. and G. 222. Harper and Row. Schouten. H Kings 20: 1 0-1 1. Eddington. 84. 280-281." Reviews of Modem Physics. Vol. "Einstein’s Field Theory. Dover. 57. 1977. April. A. Walker. J. "Comments on Relativistic Rotation and the GPS". "Space and Time". 94. 440-444. No. and J. Vol. Corum. 393-416. Feb. Einfuhrung In Die Neueren Methoden Der Differential geometrie. Springer-Verlag. 97. Electron.4. 120-123. S.75. ibid. W. Eddington. with notes by Arnold Sommerfeld. 83-87. Noordhoff. Jeffery. 1989). von der Heyde. 78. Oster. ibid. July. Minkowski. 45-46. 89. G. Scientific American. Schouten. pp. "Seeing by Phosphene". 91. Ricci Calculus. "The Biological Effects of Magnetic Fields . pp. D.2. 1954. pp. 1929. Schouten. Kerlich. pp. 109. F. A. 99-110. Tensors for Physicists. Oxford University Press. Vol. pp. 76. J.. Inc. J. A." Science. Tensor Analysis For Physicists.. Schouten. 117-21.A Survey. A. J. 48. Oxford University Press. P.. Becker. And Gravitation. Oster. Berlin. B. (reprinted by Dover Publications. J. J. Journal of Mathematical Physics. 85. 23. 1970. March. 79. Corum. No. pp. 96. Becker. 81. February. February. 103. vol. 77. F. 88. Perrett and G. R.. and D. Wiley. 282. 169-73. 3. 86. Vol. 194-197. loc cit.. 87. 82. an Address presented on September 21.

Sitzungsberichte. Klasse. American Journal of Physics. and Lifshitz. 114. Vol. Phys. Reviews of Modern Physics. pp. July. 4th revised English edition 1975.-math. J. Springer Verlag. A. "On a Non-Symmetrical Affine Field Theory". Einstein. 109. H. Corum. Struik. Veblen. Einstein. "A Generalization of Weyl's Theory of the Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields". 118. Relativistic Covariance and Rotational Electrodynamics".. Feb. Roy. pp. 106. 26. 850-857. 280-281.. 101. 1928. "Nonholonomic Reference Frames". Belinfante. 110. pp. Theory of Linear Connections. "General Relativity with Spin and Torsion: Foundations and Prospects". Sitzungsberichte. and Kerlick. 1929. J. S. .. 1986. Vol. Schouten. Vol. 41. pp. L. 1922. Ohanian. 111. P. 1954. No.-math. and J. pp. G. Soc. 99. "On the Spin Angular Momentum of Mesons". A.... Cambridge University Press. Landau. 1939. pg. No. 414-419. 1921. Vol." Preuissische Akademie der Wissenschaften Phys.. Vol. O. September. Schouten. 54. 3. A. Proc.. 71. 21. 102. C. Klasse. 113. 1923. 6. Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften. May. 244240. Ibid. J. G. Sitzungsberichte.math. 9... Springer-Verlag. Journal of Mathematical Physics. 9. 6. J.98. F. 36. 217-221. Kron. 103. S. 887-897. July." Nature. Eddington A. Einstein. Eddington. No. 2-7. pp. 1934. Cambridge University Press. Premsische Akademie der Wissenschaften. 115. "Einheitliche Feldtheorie von Gravitation und Elekffizitat. pp. H. von der Heyde. A. 107. No. Pergamon Press. J. pp. Hehl.. A. 100. A99. W. 393-416. Klasse. Ricci Calculus. pp. Phys. D. Whitehead. 103. Proc. Tensor Analysis for Physicists. 104. F. 1980. F. Vol. pg.. No. D. 116. E.. 105. 22 -23. Invariants of Quadratic Differential Forms. pp. Kon Akad Amsterdam. "Einstein’s Field Theory. Schouten. 5. London. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 74 . 1932. 104-122.. pp. 105. 2360-2364. 2nd Edition. A. 123. "What is Spin?". M.. pp. June. Oct. C. 593-595. Part XVII of the series "The Application of Tensors to the Analysis of Rotating Electrical Machinery". J. 108. The Foundations of Differential Geometry. "Zur Einheitliche Feldtheorie". 1929. Conptes Rendus Acad Sci. General Electric Review. Vol. 500-505.. Cartan. O. 1954. 1976.. "Riemann-Geometrie mit Aufrechterhaltung des Begriffes des Fernparallelismus". A.. 112. t. The Classical Theory of Fields. pg. Physica. Ibid. 1925. 48. pp. 241. 23. 1927. 117. 121. Vol. "Sur une generalisation de la notion de courbure de Riemann et les espaces a torsion". D. Ibid.. 174.. pp. Veblen. pg. E. 1938. Oxford University Press.

pp. 1949. pp. ibid. Kron. 1950. Einstein. Vol. 535-540. 32. 135.. Inc. Kron. March 2.. J. G. R.. 1937. Vol. Laithwaite. pp. Vol. London. 348. 139. "Notes on the Kron Theory of Tensors in Electrical Machinery. 1929. Gibbs.. Schrodinger.. 1929. Wiener. 1959. "Invariant Form of Maxwell-Lorentz Field Equations for Accelerated Systems". E. 1967. Vol.. 1938. by A. 88-95. 4. 1-24. 1945. pg." address delivered before the American Mathematical Society. ibid. Cartan. "Kron’s Non-Riemannian Electrodynamics". pp.. 289-299. pp. 130. Tensors in Electrical Machine Theory. Struik.. Space-Time Stmcture. Princeton University Press. D. Reprinted in The Tesla Journal. 4-7. A. Princeton University Press. No. 137-153. 133. March 14. 7. 1956. Kron. 196-208. Kron. B. Norbert. Einstein. pp. 175-180... 3 and No. 1931. L.. Wiener. J. 1936. Vol. 132. Journal of Applied Physics. Tensors for Circuits. Vol. pg. "Equivalent Circuit Models of the Schrodinger Equation" Physical Review. 1944.112. Physik Zeitschr. T. 9. "The Inventions of Nikola Tesla. A.. G. Zagreb. 1952.". (special issue in honor of Einstein’s 70th birthday). 138. "Theorie unitaire du champ physique". Vol. pg. 238.. Pais. Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse. Chapman and Hall. 125. 129. 126.. 243. pg. "The Application of Tensor Analysis to Problems of Electrical Engineering. 11 0. A. Ltd. Einstein. I. N. Einstein. 137. "Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field". pp. R. 32.. Nature. 202.. 123. 255-260. pp. E. A. 121. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 75 . Yugoslavia. 1990. G. Inc. 124.. No. 317. Cambridge University Press. 21. 1979. Physics. October 30. 1982. Letters on AbsoliAe Parallelism. Annales.. China. G. pp. Reviews of Modem Physics. pp. 141." Proceedings of the Energy and Development Symposium. Dover Publications.. Equivalent Circuits of Electric Machinery Dover Publications. Kron. 1986. A. 128. 127. W. Institute H. "Vereinfachte Herstellung der Einsteinschen einheitlichen Feldgleichungen". 120. G. 134." Proceedings of the IRE. 164-166. 1930. pp. "Unified Field Theory of Electricity and Gravitation.. Levi-Civita. and E. Einstein. 143-152. Hoffmann. 133-166. 3943. "Uber eine Interpretation der neuen Einsteinschen Weltgeometrie auf dem Boden der klassichen Mechanik". Berliner Berichte." Journal of Electrical Engineering. G.. 1936. 7. 345. Poincare. Oxford.119. Subtle Is The Lord. pp. "Equivalent Circuit of the Field equations of Maxwell. 136. Infeld. Debever editor. "Quasi-Holonomic Dynamical Systems". 67. published as Appendix II in The Meaning of Relativity. Kron. 131.. 122.. Pais. pp..

J. L.Ya.. 153. Chapter 19. O. 143-144. 2. and W. J. London. Princeton University Press. 522-562. 1955. July. Gakujutsu Bunken Fukyu-Kai. 151. 145. Research Association Of Applied Geometry. Kondo." General Electric Review.. Frenkel. Memoirs of the Unifying Study of Basic Problems in Engineering and Physical Sciences by Means of Geometry. American Journal of Physics. pp. The Life and Times of Gabriel Kron. "Electric Circuit Models of the Nuclear Reactor. Struik (MIT Professors of Mathematics)." AIEE Transactions. 141. 155.. "Gabriel Kron". Corcoran. Y. W. "The Application of Tensors to the Analysis of Rotating Electrical Machinery: Part IX-Machines Under Acceleration. NY. V.) 152. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics. 22. "Magnetization and Rotation". pp. Kron. pp. H. Alger. pp. Wiley.. D.. Kondo. pp. Gakujutsu Bunken Fukyu-Kai. "Non-Riemannian Dynamics of Rotating Electrical Machinery. 259-265. Chapters 8 and 9. 73. "Recapitulation of the Geometrical Aspects of Gabriel Kron’s NonRiemannian Electrodynamics". 143. Tokyo. 148. Diakoptics. Soviet Physics Uspekhi. 1936. (See pg. Vol. 580-587. "Method of Symmetrical Coordinates Applied to the Solution of Polyphase Networks." Transactions of the A. "Non-Holonomic Foundations of the Theory of Plasticity and Yielding". 458-469. 222. M. K. "On the History of the Einstein-de Haas Effect". 13. P. Memoirs of the Unifying Study of Basic Problems in Engineering and Physical Sciences by Means of Geometry. 37. third edition.] 147. Hoffmann. 1. "Non-Riemannian Geometry of imperfect Crystals from a Macroscopic Viewpoint".. published as Chapter II of Section II in the book. 1955.E. and Kerlick.. P. G. Ges... We thank Dr. January. von der Heyde. and G. G. 144. editor. 1936. Fortescue. 532. 1955. 103-194. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 76 . 1963. Barnett.. G. 1969. Reviews of Modern Physics. Kron. Inc. 2. 249-257. Verhand. Vol. Tokyo. pg. 185-239. 1. Physik. Kron.) 150.E. Banesh. 393-416. "'The Piecewise Solution of Time-Varying Problems. 1943. Vol." pp. Vol. Memoirs of the Unifying Study of Basic Problems in Engineering and Physical Sciences by Means of Geometry. 146. pp. Kron. "Kron’s Method of Subspaces". Alger.. (See footnote 1. A. Vol. 1951. Tokyo. S. 17. 1918. "Equivalent Circuits for Oscillating Systems and the Riemann-Christoffel Curvature Tensor. 7. Pt. [It is the authors' view that this paper had to have been reviewed for publication by Vannevar Bush (Professor of Power Engineering at MIT) and by Norbert Wiener and D. de Haas. Veblen. Geometry of Complex Domains. R. Vol. Gakujutsu Bunken Fukyu-Kai. 140-147.. 218-231. No. von Neumann. Einstein. (1944).. G. Hehl. Vol.. Vol. K and Ishizuka. and J. Vol. Alternating Current Circuits. G.. in fact. 25-31. 16." Journal of Mathematics and Physics. published by Mohawk Development Services. Research Association Of Applied Geometry. 154. Wiener. pg. Schenectady. pp. published an analysis of Kron’s work at this time. K. 1979. G. pp. 1948.140. MacDonald. Vol. Kron. pp. 1976. Kondo. Deut. 48. 284. 149. Research Association Of Applied Geometry. 156. pp. 1934.I. 1954. May. pp. P. 1915. 172-173. "General Relativity with Spin and Torsion: Foundations and Prospects"." General Electric Review. J. Rustebakke for calling this reference to our attention. 1. Vol. 142. Kerchner... pp. See pp. 152-. F. F..

1964.. Vol. F. 16-18. 1978. 3552-3556. 12. 1962. Proceedings of the I. pp. pp. Moscow. pp. N. 1975. F. 68. Minimal Coupling. 167. R. Vol. 160. 159. J. N. Dean.. 449.Correspondence. 157 pages. December. pg. "Gauge Invariance. S. Corum.. E. B. Moscow. and Shepley. Corum. edited by P.. M. 1964. 81.. See problems 329. Physical Review Letters. Moore. 169. A. pp. al. 9. W. The Ohio State University. Allman. and I. 11. Ryan. 161. American Journal of Physics. translated by S. J.. April 15. Chomet. Ibid. Vol. Relativistic Covariance and Rotational Electrodynamics". Ohio. Hojman.2. The Feynman Lectures on Physics. pg. Corum. Barnett. Journal of Mathematical Physics. Leighton. "Relativistic Rotation and the Anholonomic Object". II. R. 1993. Ibid. 158. "A New Gyromagnetic Effect in Permalloy Iron" Physical Review... and Torsion. 18. F. No.. September. V. 9. 21. S... Barnett. No. L. 1980. pp. 1977. 332. 168. B. No. 77. 59. M. 1974... 1080-1085. J. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 77 . 1991. P. 175. E. Holstein. 1991. Vol. V.. 2409. Vol.. No. R. Corum. 1952. Journal of Mathematical Physics. Michigan) 163. "Laser Gyros . 1992. A. V. L. 18. P. 88. Prasanna. Toptygin Problems in Electrodynamics. February. 331. 1978. S. "An Examination of the Anholonomic Lorentz Transformation with Applications to Electrodynamics. pp.. 171. Vol.4. Dissertation Department of Electrical Engineering. No. 2076-2082. 172. F. B. Academic Press. Rosenbaum. Focus. 162. and Sands. 3141-3146.. “When the Supernatural Touches Reality: Perspectives on the Philadelphia Experiment". C." Physical Review. J. J. Batygin. Dean. "Effect of the Self-Induced Torsion of the Dirac Sources on Gravitational Singularities". Chomet. Batygin. 76. 1980. Ann Arbor. Physical Review D. vol. 2360-2364. Physical Review D. J. 770-776.. Corum. Academic Press. 1964." Ph. pp. 12. 10. Toptygin Problems in Electrodynamics. 1962. 28-37. "A New Gyromagnetic Effect. 173. 170. Feynman." Physical Review D. No. "Comments on Relativistic Rotation and the GPS". 12. pp. (Available through University Microfilms.. Nov. 1542. "Static Fluid Spheres in Einstein-Cartan Theory"." IEEE Spectrum November. "Variations on the Aharonov-Bohm Effect". F. E.. pp. Columbus. et. Inomata. 17. 330. 1949. J. Vol.. J. 15. AddisonWesley. and especially 460 and 461. 174. 15-8 to 15-12.157. translated by S. V. Ibid. NL. pp. April. No. "Scaler Aharonov-Bohm Experiment with Neutrons". October 1. 166. 1. E. June 15. and I. No. Vol. J. Vol. Vol.D. edited by P. 165. 164. pg.

p. pp." Bell System Technical Journal. pp. pp. Wiley. 198-205." Transactions of the IRE. 273-. Rado. 281.. C. Vol. H. 16. "Topics in Guided Wave Propagation Through Gyromagnetic Media. Ryder. T." Physical Review. G. 78. cit. (See the biographical sketch on pg. G. Griffiths.) Pothier. September. pp. Rinehart. W. Write. and E. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 78 . 76.. B. M. Vol. 55. June. Leontovich. Ser. Antennas: Theory and Practice. and Walker. Folen and W. H. 95115. AP-29. 192. Vol. 110. Kittel. R.. pp. "On the Ferromagnetic Resonance in Nickel and Supermalloy. 572. 1952. 112. 190.. 194. Klasiche Zeitschrift Sowjetunion Vol. 1939. 1956." Proceedings of the IRE. pg. pp. L. Rado. 49-55.. 670. H. 180. Supplement No. T. 1957. Vol. T. 1992. Friis. E. 1944. No. 186. Vol. "Approximate Boundary Conditions: A Mini-Review. J. 5. 349 and 356-357. 187. pp. pg. 177. 284-288. 178. J. 5. Vol. "On the Theory of Ferromagnetic Resonance Absorption. pp. Vol. 1946. Blomberg. 73. Sci. Emmerson Physical Review. H. R. Wiley. Vol. 40. D. L. Kent. Emerson "Effect of Magnetocrystalline Anisotropy on the Magnetic Spectra of Mg-Fe Ferrites. Polder. pp. 826-829. 33. Phy. 158. "The Propagation of Electric Currents in Terminated Lines". 1954.E. 1952. Prentice-Hall.. "Approximate Boundary Conditions for the Electromagnetic Field on the Surface of a Good Conductor. Lines and Fields. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation. 193.. 189. 1935.. Suhl.. 191.. 8. W. Part IITransverse Magnetization and Non-Reciprocal Helix. 728.." Bull. 188. Raab. Vol. 512-525.. loc cit. R. 1950. "On the Electromagnetic Characterization of Ferromagnetic Media: Permeability Tensors and Spin Wave Equations. pp. July. R. 1950... Rado. 3. "Anomalous High-Frequency Resistance of Ferromagnetic Metals. G. 184. J. 1949. 686-688. 181.. Lifshitz. Batygin and Toptygin. loc. H. No. problems #449 and #460. 80. AP-4." Phys. 153. C. 762-768. "On the Theory of Electromagnetic Resonance. Landau.". 183.176. and W.. pp. "On the Theory of Dispersion of Magnetic Permeability in Ferroniagnetic Bodies. Solid State Radio Engineering.E. p." Nature. V." Physical Review. 104 B. A. N. L. H. T. 1948. 155. 1980. pp. "A Family of Designs for Rapid Scanning Radar Antennas. Senior. USSR. S.. pp. Schelkunoff. A. Cit. Acad. D. 72-73. 182. M. pp. 1981. Physical Review. loc.." Philosophical Magazine. (British). 1949. Part I. 179. 939-968. Bostian and F. 9. Batygin and Toptygin. F. Networks. J. and H. R." Proceedings of the I. 185. Kraus. Vol.

THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 79 .

Why not simultaneously drive the degaussing coils and employ high voltage corona for selective stealth reduction of radar backscatter? (2) On the Role of T. and was working as a material engineer for Martin (later Martin Aerospace) at Baltimore. By 1939 he was a lieutenant in the Navy Reserve. Brown (primarily related to electrostatic propulsion research). Charles Yost has printed a detailed chronological chart for Dr. But. like meteors.(1) at the 1994 International Tesla Symposium at Colorado Springs. As a civilian member of the Navy Department. recently published allegations that the incident was a hoax. the 1925 version of the Unified Field Theory ** and its possible relation to propulsion. edited by J. however. high voltage stealth. manuscript in review. we noted that it was Dr. California. and so we take it that there must have been a reason. (3) Ostensibly. Electrostatically-Biased Radar Camouflage Many years ago it was pointed out to us that Northrop. Townsend Brown In the paper we expressed puzzlement at the introduction of Thomas Townsend Brown (1905-1985) into the narrative.APPENDIX IV * The Philadelphia Experiment: Some Loose Ends Since presenting the above paper on the Philadelphia Experiment. With a charged macron beam.F. Brown's life and professional activities. had. MD. he was a staff physicist in the International Gravity Expedition to the West Indies during 1932. Without drag reduction the beam's particles burn up. DC. employed leading edge charging on wing-tip. Brown left Swazey Observatory (where Professor Biefeld was Director) in 1930 and accepted a position at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington. he left NRL (as a result of budget cuts) and joined the Naval Reserve. the involvement of Thomas Townsend Brown. The following year (1933). the idea of RCS (radar cross-section) reduction by using the dual process to that discussed in our “Philadelphia Experiment” paper becomes intriguing. at one time. which indicates that Brown attended Denison University. Rinehart that injected Brown. in a distance of a few kilometers. the upstream flow of ions sprayed from the wing tips charges the air molecules in front of a supersonic aircraft and lowers the Reynolds number for the medium. the air's effective viscosity is significantly reduced and the particles can travel farther by orders of magnitude. We wish to append this little addendum in the same playful spirit of speculative entertainment in which our original paper was written. T. 1997. A similar phenomena occurs as radar blackout during atmospheric reentry from space. and that he and Professor Paul Alfred Biefeld collaborated over the years between 1924 and 1930. however. Dr. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 80 . at the Norair Division in Hawthorne. see the new book Selected Papers On 'De Early Unified Field Theories by Einstein and Others :. 3. the process was for the purpose of reducing drag and eliminating sonic boom. There have been many books and review articles published about T. 2. ___________________ * ** This section added March 28. A Collection of Rei3rints and Translations (1921 to 1933). and 4. 1997. Brown's graduate work appears to have been directed toward stress in dielectrics and electrostatic propulsion.) (4) But now. we have had further thoughts concerning the following four items: 1. Corum. For complete translations of these papers. (The phenomenon was of interest to us as a component of Tesla's particle beam weapon. Since then Brown's involvement has become more plausible to us.

degaussing techniques. Dudgeon was really there. Dudgeon noted that when the Eldridge and three other ships (including the Engstrom) were returning from Bermuda in July of 1943. who is not a scientist. are believable. "It was while serving in this assignment that he put forth some suggestions on how electromagnetic fields might be utilized to achieve partial radar invisibility. Vega Aircraft Corporation in CA. the publication by Vallee was not called to our attention until only recently. Dr. He went to Hawaii in 1945. however. and that this coupling is being demonstrated by his devices. He recuperated for six months. Mr. It's far easier to believe Edward Dudgeon than Carlos Allende on these two points. (9) which were readily dismissed. that same year the Navy placed him in charge of magnetic and acoustic mine sweeping research at the Bureau of Ships. Brown firmly believed in the existence of an observable coupling between gravitation and electricity. would have "attempted to explain his results in terms of Unified Field physics. As we stated above. the critical issues and recitations of Pothier are readily dismissed on the basis of simple physics. (HV Trichel pulses: impulses yield momentum as opposed to electric wind?) We think it startling that Brown. To us these were not really not critical issues.S. Vallee actually produces a "witness" to the incident: a sixty-seven year old retired executive named Edward Dudgeon. but the independent statements of the various witnesses. Engstrom). VA.* Pothier. Moore nor Berlitz have a scientific background. we now appreciate why he might have actually played quite a substantial role in the development of the Experiment. Mr. they were THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 81 . His testimony concerning the "tavern incident". and his papers should be read as supplemental nontechnical material by everyone interested in the topic. in fact. Rinehart. The witness does provide corroborating evidence for the incident. Not only does the book by Moore and Berlitz supply the phenomenology.” (6) In 1942. which was in Philadelphia Harbor at the same time as the Eldridge. we have no reason to doubt that Mr. Jacques Vallee's effort to repudiate the incident. and actually lead to a conclusion directly opposite to that which he states. as a Naval Lt. Dundgeon said. based on his subsequent declarations. but he wasn't involved in running actual tests. however. and we certainly find his comments reassuring. corroborate the basic technical issues. Subsequently. 1996. Commander. appearance at Norfolk. During 1944 he took a radar consulting position for Lockheed. (10) Witness Edward Dudgeon Remarkably. actually performed substantial naval document examination.S. where he continued his research in electrostatic propulsion. requires further discussion. "This is where he got involved in [the Philadelphia Experiment] project." (8) In contrast to what we had previously thought about T. Townsend Brown. Brown suffered a physical collapse from exhaustion in December." (11) This statement would seem to support the legend and. "I believe that Einstein worked with the radar development group. and reappearance back at Philadelphia).According to Dr.” (7) According to most accounts. Hoax Allegations While we were aware of the objections by Pothier. Navy's Atlantic Fleet Radar School at Norfolk. which we find astonishing since neither. 1943 and retired from the Navy. with such strong professional training and experience in classical electromagnetism. radar. (which he places in early August of 1943) and his explanation of the Eldridge's teleportation (disappearance at Philadelphia. _________________ * We thank Albert Budden for sending us a copy of the Vallee paper in May. he taught radar and served as Commanding Officer of the U. he spent a substantial portion of his life continuing his research on high voltage charged diskshaped airfoils. and he had spent a considerable period of his career contemplating the classical unified field theories. Dudgeon was seventeen at the time of the experiment in 1943 and was stationed on the DE-50 (the U. He was experienced in high field research.S.

When asked about the procedure for degaussing a ship. The degaussing process involves the passage of high currents through low impedance coils surrounding the ship. "In conversations with the author." (12) We don't doubt the occurrence of this natural display. he [Dudgeon] cautioned that none of the electronic systems on the destroyers at that time were high-tech devices: the Navy was trying anything that could provide an advantage over German submarines. then something more than simple ship degaussing was transpiring. "When they were degaussing. which is present around sharp objects whenever there exist substantial potential gradients. then we concur that no sophisticated electronic systems were present (or required) on the ship for the “Philadelphia Experiment”.  Vallee asserts that. as pointed out in our paper. this is again what we would have expected in the account provided by a witness of the “Philadelphia Experiment”. Clearly. Dudgeon responded. caught in a storm that created a display of green fire accompanied by a smell of ozone. The glow abated when it started raining. Indeed. His remark that the Navy personnel saying. If the strong smell of ozone was prevalent during the operation in the Philadelphia Navy yard. you could smell the ozone that was created.”) (17) was not adequately trained to make technical assertions about physical phenomenology or to provide us with anything more than inexplicit and general THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 82 . "7hey sent the crew ashore and they wrapped the vessel in big cables. we conclude that the youthful Mr. so far. at seventeen years of age. accurate. so good. then they sent high voltages (sic) through these cables to scramble the ship's magnetic signature.  _____________________ * What happens if the crew is not sent ashore? While it is difficult to actually find a scientific witness to the “Philadelphia Experiment”. or reverse the diesel generators on his ship in response to commands from the bridge. . Dudgeon (“I was just a kid then. magneto-phosphenes. Perhaps he was referring to ozone generated by brushes and circuit breakers during switching. Elmo's hot fire"."* Except for the remark about high voltages (degaussing requires very high currents at relatively low voltages). It was obviously "St.". was actually an electrician's mate third class and it was his assignment at sea to speed up. segments of the German physics community were (according to Arnold Sommerfeld) (14) intently searching for radar stealth countermeasures (as were the Allies). You could smell it very strongly. not the employment of high voltages (as expressed above)." (15) Oh? You could smell it? We don't think so. slow down. Witness Dudgeon asserted." (16) If there is any merit whatsoever to the conventional analysis provided in the early parts of our paper.) According to Mr. However. he. the witness boyhood memories are also suspect. The statement is in complete harmony with our analysis above. meant that they would be "undetectable by torpedoes" is certainly acceptable and consistent with our hypothesis that fields produced by the degaussing coils account for the observed physiological phenomena (Purkinji patterns. ." (13) We have documented in our paper that this assertion is. Dudgeon. we do have a problem with the witness credibility when it comes to the assessment of technical issues:  Mr. but certainly these had nothing to do with the degaussing physics. either. certainly not voltages so high that air is ionized! (Unless there was an incredible B / t .) as reported by witnesses in the Moore-Berlitz book. such as is alleged to have been present during the “Philadelphia Experiment”. etc. as in the case of some electrical storms. And. Dudgeon asserts that the “Philadelphia Experiments” were "not about trying to make the ship invisible to radar: the Germans hadn't deployed radar at the time. by no means. "Their going to make us invisible".

a scientific aura..it takes a leap of faith to identify the Philadelphia Experiment with UFOs or the paranormal. (18) [Nothing new here. classified projects and government cover-ups.. Disregard the media. entertaining. This hoax . the same can be said of most of 20th century physics!] Vallee's article. Disregard any claims of secrecy He identifies a bona fide feature of most hoaxes. and secret contacts. Discover and test independent sources of information. of course.* Vallee's Tactic In his paper. tantalizing. “7he problem with hoaxes is that they are charming.' In an attempt to illustrate that hoaxes inject highly-visible scientists as a hoaxing mechanism. (20) ______________________ * The Philadelphia Experiment: a big coil of wire was wrapped around a large ship and pulsed at resonant frequencies. most of his other bedfellows artificially invoke the paranormal as an explanation. we think that Mr. T. The logic fails. Moore and Berlitz relate that this Dr. For example. Disregard self described experts. Vallee proceeds in another direction...descriptive information. only two Biefields (sic) are cited in the American Who's Who in Science. One received a degree in chemistry from Denison in 1930. "The Berlitz-Moore book drags in Dr. Biefield” (sic) who is said to have conducted experiments in antigravity with him . media promotion. and a lot of people on board were hurt. Taken in context. validation by paranormal researchers. Townsend Brown studied under Dr..) After adopting the link as part of the Philadelphia Experiment. "We have seen that the Philadelphia Experiment had all of these characteristics. relevance to "believers". the ship became invisible in a foggy green mist. Moore and Berlitz inform us that T. which he is attempting to employ. Identify and remove irrelevant drama.** ) Vallee tabulates six rational countermeasures to being deceived by a hoax: 1.particularly for the strategy. actually spends its energy attacking paranormal phenomena. and no interest. (Vallee is not alone in trying to make this connection but. 2. Vallee makes much of the fact that. Vallee dismisses the incident on the basis of guilt by association. ergo propter hoc. (Post hoc. and 6. peripheral evidence. the incident must. 5. therefore. Professor of physics and astronomy at Denison University in Granville. Brown attended Denison in ]924THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 83 . In that arena.. ** Vallee lists the following attributes of all great hoaxes: astonishing claims. therefore on account of this. the other in physical chemistry in 1948. Dr. also at Denison. should have died a long time ago . since the features of the Philadelphia Experiment are similar to hoaxes in general. Biefeld was a former classmate of Albert Einstein's in Switzerland (one of only eight). also be a hoax. unlike Vallee. the presence of underdogs. Dudgeon's testimony actually corroborates the legend of the “Philadelphia Experiment”. His technique is that. and often correspond to what we would like to be true.. He attempts to list the characteristic features associated with grand hoaxes * and identify these features with the alleged Philadelphia Experiment. said to be an academic protege of a “Dr. which really contains surprisingly little about the Philadelphia Experiment. we have no experience. at least in the form as was described above. however. A Tragic Error Vallee's paper exhibits a shocking lack of preparatory investigation . Townsend Brown. Look for logical flaws. dramatic sequels. interesting witnesses. Ohio. interest for common laymen." (19) In a remarkable exhibition of psychological gymnastics (rivaling even the ring antics of TV's professional wrestlers). Vallee grapples with an artificial straw man and body-slams it to the mat. a link to reputable scientists. 4. *** After this. Paul Alfred Biefeld. 3. We see no connection ..

Jessup.D. of Einstein's first love. it is Allende who specifically states that it is the 1925 version upon which part of the Philadelphia Experiment was based. Brown. Rather than a hoax gimmick. Paul Biefeld's name tops the official list of the eight students in Einstein's second-year class at the Zurich Polytechnic Institute for 1889. and really was an undergraduate classmate of Einstein's at Zurich in 1889. with Brown? Did Brown subsequently speak with Einstein about his former classmate (Professor Biefeld). Brown had a keen interest in Unified Field physics and believed in an observable coupling between gravitation and electricity. Manson Valentine asserts that. etc. "Which version of his Unified Field Theory was motivating the Navy in the Philadelphia Experiment?" Einstein was employed by the Navy (at the Research and Development Division of the Navy's Bureau of Ordnance. (23) Surely. too.T. but he should find some way to correct for his public ridicule of these authors in the pages of The Journal of Scientific Exploration. ostensibly for applied electromagnetics. or of student life at Zurich.* What curious feature of the 1925 version makes it so attractive for a Philadelphia Experiment? If it was rejected by Einstein." The conclusion is correct. Brown. Did Professor Biefeld discuss these publications. and subsequent THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 84 . Paul Biefeld really did exist. (30) While the other two people just say "Unified Field Theory". or might be related to ship degaussing. Dr. Mileva Maric (the gossip about their illegitimate child). As an aside. and completely bungled by Vallee. One wonders if Professor Biefeld ever discussed his old classmates with his student. It was during the time that T. shortly before his death. in both of the letters to Dr. or something else funneled through the Bureau of Ordnance). really taught at Denison. in the subsection on High Explosives and Propellants of the section on Ammunition and Explosives)' as a civilian consultant from May 31. First. no Philadelphia Experiment! The only problem is that Dr.25 and could not have been a protégé of either man. This isn't hard to check. Dr. 1946. gives it a significant role in the incident. Secondly. J. T. he was also Director of Swazey Observatory in Ohio. But. Biefeld's children. Townsend Brown into the story. such topics (and their common professional interest in radar) would have created a bond between Einstein and Dr. Rinehart also introduces T. (27) Thirdly. How does Vallee ever repent and a rehabilitate all the poor miserable readers around the world that have been misled and deceived by his demonstrated lack of scholarship? Which Version of Einstein’s Unified Field Theory should be used? There were several versions of Unified Field Theories generated by Einstein over the years. how does the Unified Field Theory enter the story of the Philadelphia Experiment? The Source of the Idea The book by William Moore and Charles Berlitz oives three separate people that inject the idea that the incident had something to do with Einstein's Unified Field Theory.) Vallee uses this data as evidence to bolster his argument that the “Philadelphia Experiment” was a hoax: No Biefeld. which was rejected by Einstein in 1927 ("primarily for humanitarian reasons.. the Biefeld connection may have actually been a critical component to the subsequent execution of the “Philadelphia Experiment”. The question naturally arises. somebody didn't do their homework! It would appear that not only does Jacques Vallee owe William Moore and Charles Berlitz an apology. "The Unified Field Theory…. (A photograph of the roster lists eight classmates including (in addition to Paul Biefeld) Einstein's first wife Mileva Maric and Einstein's subsequent collaborator Marcel Grossmann. Morris K. or torpedo deflection. Carlos Allende focuses on the 1925 version of the Unified Field Theory. by his old classmate. In addition to his university post at Denison University. (29) According to Moore. The Denison University Biefeld’s from the 1930's and 40's were probably Dr. if later they actually worked together on the “Philadelphia Experiment”. Biefeld obtained his Ph.. was to be found in Einstein's Field Theory. but irrelevant! Another straw man is slammed to the mat!! (Vallee should be in theWW-I. come now. * Dr. Jessup believed that the explanation for the “Philadelphia Experiment”. (28) and he. (26) He further alleges that the concepts of this version were tested by the Navy in 1943. (which might be related to radar. (21) ] Dr. Townsend Brown was with Professor Biefeld (1924-1930) that Einstein was publishing his initial papers on the Unified Field Theory. 1943 to June 30. Rinehart begins his interview by William Moore with the words. A hoaxing mechanism? Come. at Zurich in 1900.”. not for mathematics errors").

Einstein (1879-1955) trifled with the idea of a unification of geometry and THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 85 . the common acquaintance being Carlos Allende. Weyl noted that while general relativistic gravitational phenomena depend upon the sixteen components of a four-by-four metric tensor. The opinion that gravitation and magnetism are. One might also raise the question as to how Allende. (35) (36) While the odor Kaluza (1885-1954) introduced an enticing five-dimensional geometry for unifying gravitation and electricity. including material on the unification of gravitation and electromagnetism. (32) (33) Gunnar Nrdstrom appears to have been the first to employ the term "unified field" in a modem context. but also those of the electromagneticfield.) (31) Interestingly.versions (which were also unsatisfactory) were developed.) Did his testimony infect the comments of the others? If this were so. and even Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) formulated a unified field theory. a geometry comes into being. could be aware of this feature of the incident. In more recent times. Heaviside's unpublished manuscript for a Volume FV of his Electromagnetic Theorv. We need more information in order to isolate the witnesses. and if only Allende. (44) His passage from classical general relativity toward a geometrical theory in which gravitation and electromagnetism are supposed to emerge from a single principle may be traced chronologically as follows. and his efforts at unification soon ended in failure. and why was this version so prominent? What is the magic that makes it possible to subdue universal gravitation? Some Background Information Perhaps a little history is in order. related phenomena is as old as our knowledge of magnetism. (He superposed a gravitational flux vector onto the Poynting-Heaviside vector in flat space: S  E  H  G . To its it seems that his point requires clarification. why not use latest and best theory? Why the 1925 version? What. (1) In 1923." it was Hermann Weyl (38) (39) (1885-1955) and then Arthur Stanley Eddington (40) (41) (1882-1944) that set the stage for Einstein's labors toward a geometrical Unified Field Theory of gravitation and electromagnetism. exactly was this 1925-27 version of the Unified Field Theory. Faraday (1791-1861) discusses the possibility in his research notes. [Some of Heaviside's papers on the topic were found at his Paignton. of course. .. somehow. The first effort at a unified field theory based on general relativity was that due to David Hilbert (1862-1943) in 1915. After WW-II it was requested that these papers be returned to England but. Was he merely garbelling together his narration of the Philadelphia Experiment and parroting back Dr. which when applied to the world. a "thorough search" of the Institute by the N41T President's office failed to produce the now-lost Heaviside Unified Field Theory manuscript. England home in 1957. a common connection between the three people that have injected Unified Field Theories into the story. ** Unified Field Theories by Einstein Einstein's famous General Theory of Relativity unified geometry and gravitation. for some unknown reason.] German physicist Gustav Mie (1868-1957) attempted a field theory of matter just prior to the creation of classical General Relativity.. electromagnetic phenomena are governed by a four-vector (the four-potential) and that "so far these two classes of phenomena stand side by side. explains in a surprising manner not only the phenomena of gravitation. and he probed the basis of world geometry. who was by no means a scientist (does he even read German. Jessup's remarks concerning the need for government funded research on Einstein's Unified Field Theory? (Allende was.. It might be argued that Allende had acquired the idea from the lectures of Dr. (34) He also initiated the 5-dimensional pursuit." (42) He traced the root of the difficulty to the geometrical conveyance of vectors along arbitrary paths. (43) Weyl assumed that the affine connection was symmetric. Jessup. never mind understand non-Riemannian geometry?). __________________ * There is a mutual interaction here. was loaned to NM during the 1930's for display. and Rinehart express the explicit use of Unified Field Theories. then this whole aspect of the tale becomes suspect. Jessup. Heaviside lived at Paignton from 1889 to 1897. one separate from the other.

Dutch electrical engineer and noted mathematician J. he obtained the result that the symmetric affine connection of space-time can be related to the metric tensor electric four-current ( g v and the i  i .) This led to the obstacle that it was impossible to derive the source-free Maxwell equations. i .  ) as 1 2 3   1    g   g v  g v  1 1  1   v  2 g         2 g v i  6   iv  6  v i  xv x x      (1) (The affine connection  . i . almost completely equivalent to the Maxwell equations for free space . and he provided the first asymmetric affine connection Unified Field Theory. as it should be for electromagnetism. Schouten (1883-1971) found a way around this difficulty.but not quite.A. However. (45) In this primitive theory.* (47) Starting from a variational principle Einstein obtained an enchanting metric tensor that could be decomposed into a symmetric part gravitation and classical general relativity) and an unsymmetrical part the electromagnetic field tensor:  . The problem was that the  v was not exactly the curl of a four-vector.. The question is why should the four-potential depend upon the torsion of the manifold (and vice-versa)? (2) Einstein first employed the term "Unified Field Theory" in 1925. the "electromagnetic-like field" equations which emerge in the weak field limit are. . Nothing arose to be interpreted as the electric current density standing on the right side of a THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 86 .electrodynamics. 14 24  . based primarily on Eddington's 1921 notions. so the new "electromagnetic-like field" is going to generally have the wrong properties. The equations fail for the existence of sources.. . prescribes how events at one point in space-time are related to events at adjacent v points. no electric field is possible at places where the current is zero! The same year. . and 34 corresponding to the magnetic field strength). essentially equivalent to Maxwell's equations for free space". 12 23  g v v (which could be identified with (which he attempted to identify with 31 corresponding to the electric field-strength. In contrast to Einstein's work. he obtained the result that   1    g   g v  g v  1 1      v  2 g        2 g v i  6   i     S v  xv x x      (3) Because of the presence of current S  electromagnetic fields are now possible even in places where the electric four- i  is zero. publishing the famous paper "Einheitliche Feldtheorie von Gravitation und Elektrizitat". (46) Schouten introduced the four-vector potential S  S v v 1 2  v v  v v  (2) which is the contracted torsion tensor. in contradiction to experience. in Einstein's words.

(4) In papers published in 1928 (51) and 1929 (52) Einstein admits that the Riemannian geometry of general relativity. Although publically rejecting the 1925 theory.” (50) [Emphasis in the original.] We take it that this was the 1927 "rejection" referred to by Allende in the quotes above.) plus the unsymmetric part of the metric gave a slightly flawed version of Maxwell's equations. Figure IV. also THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 87 . etc. Instead of starting from a variational principle. ". Einstein then returned to Kaluza's five-dimensional strategy. . all our endeavors to attain a theory which combine the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field into a formal unification were directed along the paths embraced by Weyl and Eddington.Maxwell's source equation:  v v i  . . if you could generate the appropriate electromagnetic fields then you would modify the metric tensor for the geometry of space-time. gravitation and electromagnetism are ". myself. clearly Einstein was not giving up on a Unified Field Theory. light bending. perihelia precession. in the final decade of his life. but within the year he had rejected this approach also.1 Space-Time Manifold crinkled by Torsion ___________________ * Unified Field Theory of Gravitation and Electricity. he now sidesteps into differential geometry and introduces the mathematical concept of distant parallelism (fernparallelismus). through numerous failures I have now. (49) ) (3) Einstein said. however. The remarkable outcome of this theory was that the symmetric part of the metric gave classical general relativity (including red shifts. furnishes no concepts to which electromagnetic fields might belong. ." (48) (Interestingly. . when commenting on the 1925 Unified Field Theory and his attempts to make it work. In this 1925 version. Einstein's post war attempt at a Unified Field Theory. In 1927. although it leads to a physical description of gravitational fields. struggled through to the conviction that one does not come closer to the truth along this way. independent from one another in the first approximation. The implication was. starts with the same variational principle as his 1925 version and delivers both an unsymmetric metric and torsion. or a similar route.

Einstein then identifies the contracted torsion tensor electromagnetic four-vector potential: S with the  S a b ab (8) In his review of this approach to a Unified Field Theory. Accordingly. at least in the first approximation.) In the curved Riemannian geometry of classical general relativity. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 88 . satisfy Vbe. the classical tests of general relativity that depend upon curvature go out the window! But. The result is a metrical geometry with torsion. (53) A metric tensor may introduced through the inner product   e e  g v v (a) e e  v ab (7) where  ab is the Lorentzian metric with signature (1. the new approach did give Maxwell's equations in free space. The idea behind distant parallelism is to erect a field of orthonormal tetrad frames over the entire space-time manifold      e P   e    h   x x a (a) a (4) where the latin subscript a numbers the base vector and the greek index p specifies the component on the local tangent basis vector a/olx" at the given point.. The corresponding arms of the tetrads at different points are mutually parallel since the iE. the Riemann-Christoffel curvature tensor now vanishes identically (there is no Schwarzschild solution). . Vectors at different points are accounted parallel if they have the same components on the tetrad field at the different points. Distant parallelism is a mathematical prescription for the parallel displacement of a vector. Eddington declares.1 and was explained in Figures 11 and 12 of our paper. (A Euclidean manifold is an example of a space with distant parallelism. 1. 1. however. in spite of the fact that the newly found metric tensor and affine connection can even be nonsymmetric. = 0. that is independent of any particular choice of path between the two points. the results of parallel transport are path-dependent. An unsymmetric affine connection can be determined from the null covariant derivative of the tetrads as  c ab  (a)  e     h      hh  h  e  x x x (c) c  v c v b a b a b (5) which further leads to the conclusion that the Riemann-Christoffel curvature tensor vanishes and the torsion is nonzero: S c ab 1 2  c ab  b a c  (b ) (6) The geometrical significance of this is shown in the attached Figure IV. between two points in a manifold. and as Wolfgang Pauli noted.called teleparallelism or absolute parallelism..l). b ab Building upon the. above.

Einstein's Search for UFT Experiments in the 1920's It appears that attempted experimental investigations of the Unified Field Theories actually predate the Philadelphia Experiment. and then discarded these forever. it had to content itself with a bare superficial incorporation of Maxwell's theory into the relativistic scheme.. one had to introduce a logically independent linear form whose coefficients are interpreted as the potential of the electromagnetic field. there is no compelling reason to restrict  by the condition of symmetry with regard to the lower indices. One cannot maintain. so that it is able to embrace the electromagnetic field in addition. the true equations of electromagnetism deviate from those of Maxwell's for strong fields. However. that makes it possible to avoid inertial systems. (56) (6) In 1931. albeit through very rich empirical experimental data."The general idea is that the nature of the field can be completely described by specifying the values of the 16 quantities v h  a at every point. the classical general relativistic effects evaporate. and not the metric tensor g . In October of 1931 he wrote. v He asserts. . Starting with the 1923 version. the suspicion could not be escaped that the linearity of Maxwell's equations does not correspond with actual reality. R a bcd  0 (which (5) By 1930. since makes the distant parallelism possible). it has been stated by Gerlach (of Stern and Gerlach THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 89 . but. he states that the previous "distant parallelism" approach is the wrong direction. . and logically joined only arbitrarily by a plus sign. Such a description is more comprehensive than if the 10 quantities g required to define the gravitational field are specified. the theory leads in first approximation to Maxwell's equations. For that reason theoreticians are interested. since the formulation of the general theory of relativity strives to formulate a logical unified theory of the overall field.superficial. He now recognizes that it is the infinitesimal displacement   v .” (58) From 1931 to 1938 Einstein returned to five-dimensional Kaluza-Klein theories. between 1945-1955 Einstein publicly returns to the unsymmetric Unified Field Theory of 1925 with renewed vigor and considerably more rigor. but on the contrary. If one does not subject  to a restrictive symmetry condition. Einstein realized that his first 1929 paper "needed improvement" and his second 1929 paper (55) (which attempted to obtain the new Unified Field Theory from Hamilton's principle) “contained a fatal error”. (7) Finally. In addition to the quadratic metrical form of the gravitational field. the covariantly written Maxwell tensor of the electromagnetic field stood beside the curvature tensor in the tensor equations of the gravitational field -. ". that the great efforts previously devoted to the problem have led to a satisfactory result. which still fail to yield an exact set of Maxwell's equations but does give conservation of charge." (54) As stated earlier. This must be perceived all the more painfully since Maxwell's theory is supported as a field theory only to first approximation." (59) He employs the variational principle from 1925 and arrives at a final set of field equations. concerning the treatment of electromagnetic phenomena. "Until now. one arrives at that generalization of the law of gravitation that appears to me as the natural one.. the general theory of relativity primarily has been a rational theory of gravitation and the metrical properties of space. however.

in these ideas. None of these attempts gave results." (62) In another incident. and also his friend Ehernfest. Ehrenfest wrote. Everyone today knows that a grand unified field theory . and certainly not in the continuum unified field theories of the early twentieth century. but nevertheless they did not undermine Einstein's belief in the promise of the affine direction. Vizgin asserts that. the question of the magnetism of rotating masses was raised several times in connection with unified geometrized field theories.” (65) We think that the torsion negation of the anholonomic Sagnac effect. In 1923-1924 Einstein very insistently sought possibilities to relate his affine field theory to physical effects." (64) The experiment was subsequently abandoned. the form of Maxwell's equations written by early unified field theory workers (68) is the only correct version of Maxwell's equations in spaces with anholonomity (69) (70) (71) or torsion! * THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 90 . embracing the strong and weak interactions of nuclear physics. (67) Indeed. He attempted to interest the experimentalists Gerlach. However. "Einstein did not abandon searches for experimental confirmation of his affine filed theory. the experiment needs to be funded and carried out! Why are these Unified Field Theories of Interest Today? At this point. which we described in some detail in our “Philadelphia Experiment” paper. now becomes even more significant as an experimental verification of these unsymmetric affine field theories. every informed particle physicist reading this is probably wondering why in the world we are pursuing these arcane theories. Einstein stated that he was searching for an experimental examination of the 1923 Affine Field Theory which involved the earth's magnetic field. what most modem physicists are not aware of is the central importance of these early unified field theories to electrical engineering and the experimentally successful application (the term is actually Bannesh Hoffmann’s) (66) of these concepts to heavy electrical machinery. "Einstein and I immerse ourselves for many hours everyday in an experimental study to establish whether there exists a completely crazy electrostatic effect assumed by him. "During the 1930’s and 1940’s. "Einstein (together with Ehrenfest) considered making a delicate electrostatic experiment that would make it possible to confirm consequences of the affine theory that went beyond Maxwell's electrodynamics. a ToE (Theory of Everything).” (63) In a letter to Ioffee. is not to be found in Ricci calculus. (60) In a letter to Max Born.fame) that Einstein was actively searching for experimentally observable effects of a Unified Field theory. Vizgin goes on to write. which continues to develop during the whole of 1925. (61) The efforts recall to mind the 1915-1917 Einstein-de Haas Effect experiments. above all to macroscopic electromagnetic phenomena. and others. Clearly. Franck. Vizgin states. Piccard.

__________________ * Reference 67 exhibits the first explicit generalized expression of Maxwell's equations in spaces with Torsion: Eq. the two most obvious and important ingredients were omitted from Vallee's list of countermeasures for deception by a hoax. and (8) Check the physics. Dudgeon could probably have supplied quite a few missing pieces of the puzzle if he were suitably questioned.4). currents. the implication is that. Mr.) Surely. not scientific inquiry. 9. irrelevant obfuscations.?" (24) We counter by rephrasing the remark and echoing back. we look at the same evidence (meager though it may be) and conclude that the argument for the occurrence of the Philadelphia Experiment is strengthened all the more. one could use current distributions to modify gravitation (propulsion?). This term was the key ingredient employed in the anholonomic Corum papers just referenced. the metric tensor of Equation (7). various current distributions could be engineered to affect the affine connection of Equation (5) and. Kron added the anholonomic term. since charges. Vol. therefore. A side effect might be the "crinkling of the manifold" (to use Eddington's    j j   Aik  Ai   2 S ik  ik k  F ik    x x   A j words) 72 due to the excitation of torsion (a nonclosing of parallelograms due to the asymmetry of the affine connection). (It's too bad that Vallee pursued his hoax hypothesis instead of listening more closely to the remarkable witness that he had available. . Vol. and even ferromagnetic domain spin produce the four-potential (and its dual). Appl. under appropriate conditions (whatever those might be). and vanquished straw men clutter the literature?" It seems to us that the paper was driven by cerebral predisposition. and this may lead to teleportation and time-travel. "What can the individual scientist do when trying to introduce rational research into afield where stories like the Philadelphia Experiment clutter the literature . as with Pothier's papers.SUMMARY What does all this mean? It seems to suggest that. CONCLUSION In Vallee's paper. 196-208: Eq. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 91 . . 46. and Equation (8) implies that this is related to the   torsion of the manifold. 5. 1938. 143-152: Eq. "What can rational scientists do when trying to introduce analytical thought into a field where shoddy scholarship. pp. 1936. In spite of the fact that his technical training was limited. as required in engineering applications (Jour. Since gravitation is a metrical phenomenon. Let us suggest these two: (7) Do your own homework. 25. pp.. 7. Phys. Vallee complains. These incredibly bizarre notions appear to be resident in the classical non-Riemannian UFT equations.

X. Vol. and J. Issue 7. 1. "Date-Event Chart for T. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 92 . F. pp. F. 1. loc. 19. 47 -71. Vol. 65. Colorado. pp. Corum. F. Moore and Berlitz. 218. K. No. Anonymous. 1972. Optics. Ibid. 211. p.." Electric Spacecraft Journal. cit. L. K. cit. cit. No. pp. Berlitz. Corum. 9." Journal of Scientific Exploration. p. 213. cit.95. Vallee. B. W. X. "Anatomy of a Hoax: The Philadelphia Experiment Fifty Years Later. Corum. 1992. T. Colorado Springs. loc. "The Philadelphia Experiment Revisited . 183-198. J. 1 hour video lecture $29. July-September. Brown. Hoffmann. 7. p. 1991. p. Published by the International Tesla Society. pp. Academic Press. Vallee. 20. 6. p. Issue 8. October-December. and C. F. Daum. Vallee. 15-25. 1992. Tab Books. F. Dukas. 67. March 11. loc. 12. 35-36. R. Volume IV in the series Lectures on Theoretical Physics. 64. 70. and J. 5. Moore and Berlitz. Vallee." Electric Spacecraft Journal. Sommerfeld. L. p. The Viking Press. 14-21. Colorado Springs. loc. 199 1. 16. J. [92 page text. 39.95.] Ford. p. The Torsion Tensor and The Philadelphia Experiment. J. pp. "Experiments Indicate Electric Charge Could Quiet Sonic Boom. 8. loc. Moore. p. p. 64.. pp. A. 1968. pp. p. J. CO.. 1994. $24. "The Philadelphia Experiment Revisited . 4. loc. 1. cit. cit. 31 (photographic reproduction). p. Corum. 215. 11..Part I. loc. 66." Electric Spacecraft Journal. 18-19. cit. 13. 18. and H. Vol. 14. Moore and Berlitz.. cit. Homemade Lightning. 15. 10. Vallee.. 2. Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel. Vallee. Proceedings of the 1992 International Tesla Symposium. Arnold. 21. Tesla's Egg of Columbus. Vallee. "Some Thoughts on Tesla's Death Beam". cit. 8.REFERENCES 1. 17. 12. p. loc. 1964 (originally published in 1949).95. 151-152." Product Engineering. loc. 1994.Part II. Daum. cit. loc. both $49. Pothier. Ibid. Radar Stealth. 3.

217-221. Physikalisch Mathematischen Klasse. Sitzungsberichte. Mathematische Annalen. 1929." by Professor Albert Einstein. Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Einstein. Sitzungsberichte. 1928 "Riemanngeometrie mit Aufrechterhaltung des Begriffes des Fern-Parallelismus. 82-87. 114-118. 1927 "Formale Beziehung des Riemannschen Krummungstensors zu den Feldgleichungen der Gravitation. Reprinted in two parts in The Observatory. February 2. pp. PartII "The Structure of Space-Time. Sitzungsberichte. Sitzungsberichte. 99-103. pp. “Zu Kaluzas Theorie des Zusammenhanges von Gravitation und Elektrizitat . 1929. Vol. Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Einstein. Einstein. pp. Sitzungsberichte. "Neue Moglichkeit fur eine einheitliche Feldtheorie von Gravitation und Elektrizitat. The London Times.22. pp." April. pp. Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse." by A. Vol. Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse. 1929. Einstein. vom 17 Februar. Einstein. p.Zweite Mitteilung. 1929. Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse. published in Nature. 1929. L. Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse. Einstein. 1929. The principal Unified Field Theory papers by Einstein in this 1925-1930 time frame were: 1925 "Einheitliche Feldtheorie von Gravitation und Elektrizitat. Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften." by A. vom 7 Juni 1928. Jan. 1929. 2-7. “Zur einheitlichen Feldtheorie." by A. 414-419. pp. vom 14 Juni 1928. 1927. [Translated by L.Erste Mitteilung. 1927. 123. February 4. 23-25. Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften. vom 9 Juli 1925. vom 21 Marz. Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse. Sitzungsberichte. pp. 224-227.] "Einheitliche Feldtheori und Hamiltonsches Prinzip. Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Whyte in 1929. Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse. pp. Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Vol. Einstein. Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Einstein. 174-175. vom 17 Februar 1927. “Zu Kaluzas Theorie des Zusammenhanges von Gravitation und Elektrizitat ." by A. pp. Sitzungsberichte. 1930 THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 93 . 1929 Quotation from an interview with Einstein in advance of publication (of his "Zur einheitlichen Feldtheorie") by the London Daily Chronicle of January 26. 26-30." March. 1929. 97. "The New Field Theory." by A." by A. 156159. Part-I "Matter and Space." von A. pp. 52." by A. 10.

"Die Kompatibilitat der Feldgleichungen in der einheitlichen Feldtheorie," by A. Einstein, Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, vom 9 Januar, 1930, pp. 18-23. "Theorie unitare du champ physique," par A. Einstein, Annales De L'Institut Henri Poincare, Vol. 1, No. 1, (1930), pp. 1-24. "Zwei strenge statische Losungen der Feldgleichungen der einheitlichen Feldtheorie." by A. Einstein and W. Mayer, Sitzungsberichte der Preussische Akadernie der Wissenschaften, PhysikalischMathematischen Klasse, vom 20 Februar 1930, pp. 110- 120. "Zur Theorie der Raume mit Riemann-Metrik und Fernparallelismus," by A. Einstein, Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, vom 17 Juli, 1930, pp. 401-402. "Auf die Riemann-Metric und den Fern-Paralielismus gegrundete einheittiche Feldtheorie," by A. Einstein, Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 102, (1930), pp. 685-697. "Raum, Ather und Feld in der Physik," von A. Einstein, World Power Conference, 2nd, Berlin, 1930, Transactions, Vol. 19, pp. 1-5. Also Dinglers Polytechnisches Journal, Vol. 345, pp. 122-123. "Uber den gegenwartigen stand der allgemeinen Relativitatstheorie," by A. Einstein, Yale University Library Gazette, Vol. 6, (1929), pp. 3-6. ("On the Present Status of the General Theorie of Relativity," translation by Leigh Page, pp. 7-10.) "Professor Einstein's Address at the University of Nottingham," Science, Vol. 7 1, June 13, 1930, 608610. 23. Holton, G., "Of Love, Physics and Other Passions: The Letters of Albert and Mileva (Part 1)," Physics Today, August, 1994, pp. 23-29; Part 2, September, 1994, pp. 37-43. 24. Vallee, loc. cit. p. 68. 25. Pais, A., Subtle Is The Lord, Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 529. 26. Moore and Berlitz, loc. cit. p. 39. 27. Ibid, p. 131. 28. Ibid, p. 181. 29. Moore and Berlitz, loc. cot. p. 213.
30.

Moore and Berlitz, loc. cot. p. 219-220.

31. Josephs, H. J., "The Heaviside Papers Found at Paignton in 1957," Proceedings of the IEE (London), Vol. 106, 1959, pp. 70-76; Republished in Electromagnetic Theory, by 0. Heaviside, Chelsea Publishing Co., 1971, Vol. 111, pp. 643-666. (See pp. 650-653.) 32. Jammer, M., Concepts of Mass, Harper and Row, 1961, pg. 197. 33. Pais, A., Subtle Is The Lord, Oxford University Press, 1982, pp. 257-258.

THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

94

34. Nordstrom, G., "Ober die MO-lichkeit, das elektromacnetische Feld und das Gravitationsfeld zu 35. vereinigen," Physik. Zeitschr., Vol. 15, 1914, pp. 504-506. 36. Hilbert, D., "Die Grundlagen der Physik: Erste Mitteilung," Gottingen Nachrichten, Phys-Math. Klasse, 20 November 1915, pp. 395-407; "Die Grundlagen der Physik: Zweite Mitteilung," Gottingen Nachrichten, Phys-Math. Klasse, 1917, pp. 53-76. 37. Vizgin, V., "Einstein, Hilbert, and Weyl: The Genesis of the Geometrical Unified Field Theory Program," published in Einstein and the History of General Relativity, edited by D. Howard and J. Stachel, Birkhauser Verlag, 1989, pp. 300-314. 38. Kaluza, Theodor F. E., "Zum Unititsproblem der Physik," Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, vom 22 Dezember 1921, pp. 966-972. 39. Weyl, H., "Gravitation und Elektrizitat," Sitzungsberichte der Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse, 1918, pp. 465-480. (Reprinted in The Principle of Relativity, W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery, translators, Dover Publications, 1952, pp. 201-216.) [Seminal work on unifying gravitational and electromagnetic fields: explicitly presumes the commutability of parallel displacements.] 40. Weyl, H., "Gravitation and Electricity," Nature, Vol. 106, 1921, pp. 800-802. 41. Eddington, A. S., "A Generalization of Weyl's Theory of the Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields," Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, vol. A99, 1921, pp. 104-122. (Concept of asymmetric affine connection mentioned in passing. (See footnote on pg. 107 of Eddington's paper. Also see Schouten, 1922, below.)] 42. Eddington, A. S., The Mathematical Theory of Relativity, first edition, Cambridge University Press, 1923. [First proposal that the gravitational and electromagnetic fields can be identified as the symmetrical (gravitational potentials) and anti-symmetrical (electromagnetic forces) of a more general tensor field.] 43. Weyl, H., "Gravitation und Elektrizitat," Sitzungsberichte der Preussichen Akad. der Wissenschaften, May 30, 1918, p. 465. 44. Ibid. 45. Einstein, A., "Die Grundlagen der allgemeinen Relativitatstheorie," Annalen der Physik, Vol. 49, 1916, pp. 769-822. [Reprinted in The Principle of Relativity ., Dover, 1952, 109-164.] 46. Einstein, A., "Zur affinen Feldtheorie," Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch Mathematischen Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, vom 31 Mai 1923, pp. 137-140. 47. Schouten, J. A., "On A Non-Symmetrical Affine Field Theory," Proc. Kon. Akad. Amsterdam, vol. 26, 1923, pp. 850-857. (Also see the somewhat similar paper in Physica, Vol. 3, 1923, pp. 365-369.) 48. Einstein, A., "Einheitliche Feldtheorie von Gravitation und Elektrizitat," Sitzungsberichtung der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse, vom 9 Juli 1925, pp. 414-419. 49. Ibid. 50. Einstein, A., The Meaning of Relativity, Princeton University Press, 5th Edition, 1956. See Appendix II, pp. 133-166. 51. Einstein, A., "On the Formal Relation of the Riemann Curvature Tensor to the Field Equations of Gravitation," Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 97, (1927), pp. 99-103.
THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

95

52. Einstein, 1928, loc. cit. 53. Einstein, A., "Zur einheitlichen Feldtheorie," (On the Unified Field Theory), Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, Januar 10, 1929, pp. 2-7.
54.

Corum, K. L., J. F. Corum, and J. F. X. Daum, Tesla's Egg of Columbus, Radar Stealth, The Torsion Tensor, and The Philadelphia Experiment, International Tesla Symposium, Colorado Springs, CO, 1994.

55. Eddington, A. S., "Einstein's Field-Theory," Nature, Vol. 123, February 23, 1929, pp. 280-281. 56. Einstein, A., "Einheitliche Feldtheorie und Hamiltonsches Prinzip," by A. Einstein, Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, March 21, 1929, pp. 156-159. 57. Einstein, A., "Die Kompatibilitat der Feldgleichungen in der einheitlichen Feldtheorie," Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, January 9, 1930, pp. 18-23. 58. Einstein, A., "Gravitational and Electromagnetic Fields," by A. Einstein, Science, Vol. 74, 1931, 438-439. 59. Einstein, A., "Unified Theory of Gravitation and Electricity," Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-Mathematischen Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, October 22, 193 1, pp. 541-557. 60. Einstein, A., The Meaning of Relativity, Princeton University Press, 5th edition, 1956, p. 145. 61. Vizgin, V., Unified Field Theories in the First Third of the 20th Century, Birkhauser, 1994, p. 194. 62. Ibid. 63. Ibid. 64. Ibid. 65. Ibid. 66. Ibid.
67.

Hoffmann, B., "Kron's Method of Subspaces," Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, Vol. 2, (1944), pp. 218231,

68. Wiener, N., "Notes on the Kron Theory of Tensors in Electrical Machinery," Journal of Electrical Engineering, China, #3 and #4, 1936. Reprinted in The Collected Works of Norbert Wiener, P. Masoni, editor, MIT Press, 1981, pp. 740-750. 69. Novobatzky, K., "Universal Field Theory," Zeitschrift fur Physik, Vol. 89, 1934, pp. 373-387. 70. Corum, J. F., "Relativistic Rotation and the Anholonomic Object," Journal of Mathematical Physics, Vol. 18, No. 4, April, 1977, pp. 770-776. 71. Corum, J. F., "Relativistic Covariance and Rotational Electrodynamics," Journal of Mathematical Physics, Vol. 21, No. 9, Sept. 1980, pp. 2360-2364. 72. Corum, J. F., "Comments on GPS Synchronization and Relativity," Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 81, No. 2, February, 1993, pp. 305-308.

THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT”

96

vol. 1921. THE “PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT” 97 . See footnote on pg. "A Generalization of Weyl's Theory of the Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields. A99. 107. 104-122." Proceedings of the Royal Society. A. pp. London.. S.73. Eddington.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful