A New Approach To The System-G
Test by Fran De Aquino Generalizes
All Electrogravitational Force Tests
Jerry E. Bayles
Electrogravitational Research Project
November 09, 2001


Recently I have analyzed the torus test done by Fran De Aquino that showed a significant weight loss according to his published results. My recent analysis of his test involves the  quantum aspect of uncertainty rather than the extreme low frequency electromagnetic absorption of energy by iron atoms as proposed in his paper, "Gravitation and Electromagnetism; Correlation and Grand Unification," gr-qc/9910036.
(Newest available version in Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format.)

It is an established  fact that macroscopic systems cannot be expected to exhibit quantum effects since the uncertainty associated with a large mass is very small as is shown by the following equation:

   m = ---------------    (Assume the mass to be several kilograms.)
          2*pi *dv*dr

h = Planks constant, dv is the uncertainty in the velocity and dr is the uncertainty in radius all in S. I. units.

Therefore, it is very unlikely that your car will 'leak' out of the garage due to a quantum action unexpectedly! However, on the quantum scale of a single atom, uncertainty really does rule since absorption and emission occur via quantum 'bits' of energy. Albert Einstein established this fact (circa 1905) when he described this action to explain the photoelectric effect: it was not the amount of radiation that caused electron emission from a metal but the frequency. The higher the frequency, the more energy the electron absorbed and the faster it was ejected from the metal. Thus was established the famous equation E = hf where E is the energy related to the absorption or emission while (f) is the related frequency and (h) is Plank's constant.

My Analysis:

I propose that what is occurring in Fran's torus test is a large increase in the spin  and magnetic moment uncertainty of the iron atoms. Thus, a phase change occurs related directly to the spin uncertainty of the electrons in the iron atoms. This phase change works to reduce the electrogravitational action force. My electrogravitational equation involving the vector magnetic potential (A-vector) is shown below for reference. (Explanation of terms.)

                    System 1                                                                          System 2
                         (A)                                       Fqk                                                   (A)
                     variable           |-------- constant newton --------|         variable
                weber/meter            (amp)                      (amp)             weber/meter


Since current is charge per unit time and if  time in System 1 above, (related directly to phase),  becomes more uncertain, then useful current in System 1 reduces the net force FEG  in the above equation. Note that the above equation represents two interlocking systems consisting of a pair of current rings in each system where one of the current rings is part of the other system. Thus the spin-2 attributed to the graviton is met by having four spin-1/2 actions summed as a total spin-2 action.

Then, in general, the reduction in mass may be increased by causing the uncertainty of  atomic particle spin vectors to increase. This would even be applicable to nonferrous materials. It would explain all of the results published so far of the J. L. Naudin lifter tests, the Biefield Brown tests, and even the Searl motor lift results. Further, the actual absorption or emission of energy or power is not required in this scenario, only that the spin of the Iron atoms electrons be perturbed enough to reduce the useful quantum current electrogravitational connection.

I will attempt to be brief in my explanation of how I propose this is achieved in Fran De Aquino's  torus test.

The currents in the antenna elements are in the same direction around the center of the torus at any given instant of time. This assures that the momentum arrows associated with the corresponding vector magnetic potential arrows all are in the same direction. However, the elements physically rotate in opposite directions which cause the MVP arrows to increase the uncertainty in the spin alignments of the iron atoms in the iron powder surrounding medium since the angular momentum is directly affected by the information in the VMP. All of this uncertainty is summed vectrorially in the high permeability annealed iron covering which accordingly maximizes the weight loss due to the quantum uncertainty effect as explained above.

Again, the uncertainty concept effectively eliminates the concept that the iron atoms 'absorb' electromagnetic energy at low frequencies. The abandonment of the concept of ELF absorption is a requirement since absorption of energy at the atomic level requires discrete bundles of energy which in the case of atomic absorption would be ionizing radiation. This is the principle of the laser. A laser would not work with extra low frequency energy and neither will iron absorb elf energy in the atomic sense. The jumping of atomic energy bands is not required.

It is possible to cause an increase in vibration of the iron atoms due to ambient thermal rise of temperature caused by the passage of an electromagnetic wave but this is not atomic absorption of energy. Further, Fran De Aquino assured me in an email letter that there was no heating of the torus during his test and also that the energy in the test was reactive, not real. (Real energy = real power = heat rise.)

Atoms exist at the atomic scale, thus we call them atoms. At the atomic scale, quantum physics rules  require energy to be emitted and absorbed from atoms in quantum bits which are not continuous but are discrete bundles of energy through mechanics that are best described by Schrodinger's wave equation, not macroscopic electromagnetic antenna equations.

If we accept that Fran De Aquino built his torus device based on the reasoning that he proposes, then I suggest that the resulting weight loss of the torus is indeed a fortunate accident: All the right results in spite of the more than questionable reason.

Therefore, if we apply the uncertainty principle as outlined above, not only the Fran De Aquino test is explained, but several others whose links are presented below. Just applying an electric field across a dielectric, for example, will distort the orbitals in the atoms and cause uncertainty related to spin to increase, albeit in a small and sometimes measurable way. Photo luminescence disturbs the quantum wave function of an atom which changes the uncertainty. Anything that changes the quantum status quo should increase the uncertainty since the uncertainty seeks the lowest level,  just like water will seek the lowest level of a valley.

The uncertainty field reaction must be anchored by an atomic system in a lattice so that the weight loss can be transferred to the system as a macroscopic effect. I suspect is why my balance beam test failed. (See below.) I used no dielectric or iron lattice medium and was expecting the mass-field derived from a reactive current to produce results without a medium or atomic lattice to anchor the reaction result onto. The electrons in pure copper are free to move about and thus did not transfer their uncertainty effect to the copper itself. Thus a 'failed' test when compared to 'successful' tests can yield useful information.

More to come -- J. E. Bayles.

Relevant Test Sites:

Fran De Aquino's Test:

Steve Burns' Test:

Stavros Dimitriou's Test:

Jean Louis Naudin's Test

Chrish Hardeman's Test:

Jerry E. Bayles' Test:

Finally, one that is not electrical but still may demonstrate the uncertainty principle on a macroscopic level, thus providing some useful thought stimulus.

Flywheels defy Newtonian Physics:


The following letters from my electrogravitational list are added for the record that are relevant to the above paper.

From: jebayles2001@yahoo.com
Date: Tue Nov 13, 2001 8:01 am
Subject: De Aquino Torus Resonance

Dear Associates in Electrogravitation:

A new mechanics of how the high current is established in the Fran De
Aquino torus test occured to me recently.

High current may be established if we make the inductance of the main
power transformer resonate with the capacitance of the 'antenna
elements' of the torus structure. A quick calculation of the mutual
inductance of the transformer yeilds about 1/2 henry. If we allow for
a very thin film of Krylon plastic insulation on the elements, the
capacitance is nearly sufficient to resonate the entire transformer-
antenna element as a parallel tank circuit.

Another interesting feature is that high currents will generate high
radial E fields through the changing axial B fields near the antenna
elements. The closer to the element, the stronger the fields and the
effective capacitance may rise due to the amplified E field effect. A
variable capacitance effect may occur.

This new way of looking at what could be happening explains why Fran
uses a large inductance transformer along with large surface area
conductors that have a very thin coating of dielectric insulation.
Then as he has said, "the length is not important as long as it is
physically less than an electrical wavelength."

In this scenario, the elements are not antennas nor are they
transmission lines but they are like egg beaters for the magnetic
vector potential. This action then raises the uncertainty of the iron
atom magnetic moments and related electron spin uncertainty, which
then reduces the net gravitational attraction as I have explained in
previous posts.

I direct this letter especially to Jean Louis Naudin, Chrish Hardeman
and Steve Burns who are working on similar devices in the hope they
may benefit from my input.

Jerry E. Bayles

From: jebayles2001@yahoo.com
Date: Wed Nov 14, 2001 12:37 am
Subject: Salient Data on Fran De Aquino Torus Build

Dear Associates in Electrogravitation:
In reviewing email from Fran De Aquino I found some build details regarding questions I had asked him about his test build. I pass them along here in the hope they may provide relevant detail on replicating his reportedly successful test.

1. Iron powder diameter = 0.2 mm

(About 130 sieve size where 130 is the number of grains in a linear inch.)

2. Inductance (measured) of the elements of the torus approximately =
1 microhenry.

(I did not ask him what the capacitance between the elements was. That may be a good question in the future to ask Fran. I suspect the capacitance is in the range of a few microfarads, static field type test.)

3. No heat rise in the torus during the test and the power is mainly reactive. Also little or no measurable field outside the shell of the energized torus.

Further comment:
It may be of import that the known magnetic domain size of ferrous material is about
5 x 10 ^ -5 meters (=0.05 mm) and this multiplied by 4 is close to the size of the iron powder used, which is 0.2 mm. Also, the annealed iron shell that absorbs and mixes the net field from the elements and the Iron powder is 0.6 mm which is 3 times the iron powder size. Then the whole number increases in size over the base magnetic domain suggests that standing wave action in the region between classical and quantum may be occurring.

As I explained on my website page at:


if quantum uncertainty is increased in the time (uncertainty of the Heisenberg uncertainty expression) it lowers the useful current in the electrogravitational coupling action.

In conclusion, the mechanical difficulty of bending 1/2 inch solid copper is outside the norm for most who are hobbyist electrical/electronic experimenters. However, it can most likely be accomplished at a local motor rewind shop. It may be even more difficult to obtain the solid 1/2 inch diameter copper rod in 6 meter lengths. However, this may also be done through commercial electrical suppliers or rewind shops. The cost is going to be of some concern to most and may be the major stumbling block.

It may be possible to design an alternative way of testing that circumvents the cost and difficulty of fabrication. At least I hope so.

Jerry E. Bayles

EnerTime.doc 11-11-2001
Dear Glenn R and Associates in Electrogravitation:
In my ebook, "Electrogravitation As A Unified Field Theory" available for download at my website at http://www.electrogravity.com, I solved for the geometry of the electron in chapter one based on its energy density and it was indeed the volume of the torus. Further, the radiation associated with lamda squared is the area of a torus.

The torus is evidently a fundamental quantum shape and shapes that are engineered to emulate this shape and the dynamics of the field associated with the quantum electron may enable us to construct craft that can jump through space via tunneling as does the electron and other quantum sized particles. It is not the power that does the job of negating the effects of gravity but the increase of entropy assocoated with the time uncertainty in Heisenberg's famous equation dE x dT = h. As dT increases, dE decreases and by one of my quadset of electrogravitational equations in chapter one of my book, the force of gravity being = (hf/r)*uo*(hf/r).

Thus, since frequency goes down as time goes up, the energy available related to E=hf goes down and so does the output force from the electrogravitational equation. (Time and phase are intimately related.) As I mentioned in a previous post, just pertubating the phase of the iron atom magnetic moments and thus the spin phase will get the job of negating the gravitational force done. (In this case we DO need the Iron atoms. They are an essential part of the mechanics since they fix the action to the torus system.)

I have provided not just an explanation of why Fran De Aquino's torus test works but a reason based on my own work that shows why the electrogravitational force occurs at all. An explanation of gravitational action mechanics is not in Fran's work because his work is based on the classical macroscopic field even though he uses terms that can be related to the quantum realm. Respectfully, Jerry E. Bayles

EnerTemp.doc: 11-10-2001
Dear Associates and all:
If we calculate the temperature in degrees celsius related to the energy absorbed in the iron atoms as given by the data related to the Fran De Aquino torus weight loss test, the energy of around 1 x 10^- 18 joule per atom of Iron works out to be about 48,919 degrees centigrade. I think this is a bit high to be valid (an understatement) since Fran stated to me that, "the power was mainly reactive and further that there was not a temperature rise during the experiment."

The energy relates to a frequency in the ultraviolet spectrum. Now,  if we say that the energy is mainly reactive and just as much is radiated by the atom as is absorbed, we may expect that no heating will occur. However, if no net energy rise occurs, then no weight loss can be expected since weight gain and weight loss will null out and no weight change can be expected. (Cooler = weight gain while > hotter = weight loss.)

Therefore, the mechanics of the weight loss as explained by Fran cannot be valid.  Salient information is contained in my previous paper,"Frequency Is Neither A Pole Or A Zero In Fran De Aquino's mg Equation."


Therein I stated the case for standing waves to be non-heating due to their pure reactive nature. Also the case for frequency independance in the Aquino equations.

Below Updated:11-10-2001 by J. E.Bayles: One other related point is that in order to effect a 100% weight loss in Fran's equation 1.04 of his main paper: http://www.electrogravity.com/GE.pdf the Iron atom must absorb an energy about equal to 1.5*10^-18 joule. This is not a realistic possibility and still have no heating or massive explosion due to the extreme energy input and resulting superheating temperature rise. The resulting temperature is about 72,500 degreees Kelvin which corresponds to 2.26*10^16 Hz. (By E=hf and and the standard temperature equation E=3/2kT where T is the degrees Kelvin, k is boltzman's constant, h is planks constant, and E is energy, all in S. I. units.)The temperature equation above also applies directly to the atomic case as well as the molecular. ---End of Update.

Finally, again I must emphasize that in all liklyhood, the action that leads to the reported weight loss in his experiment is most  likely brought about due to a quantum mechanism as I have explained  before in my paper at:  http://www.electrogravity.com/Uncertainty.htm

Comments and questions welcome.
Jerry E. Bayles