Note: The views expressed herein may or may not represent the position of Joseph Newman and, as informational material, are provided here from
submissions by other individuals interested in the technology

BACKGROUND:

Regarding lectures concerning Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft's experiments with Photophoresis:

There exists microphotographs of a Photophoresis phenomena for which there is no general explanation. The microphotographs were most interesting in their depiction of the activity of submicroscopic particles suspended in liquids and/or gases.

What is most unusual about the activity of these small particles is the following:

During the course of the experiment, the motion of the particles traced out a "spiral" path. However, upon magnification of a given section of a given spiral, one saw a "spiral" path within the path of the larger spiral. When a section of that second order magnitude spiral path was magnified, one saw an even smaller "spiral" path comprising that second order magnitude spiral path..... and when the third order magnitude spiral path was magnified, an even smaller spiral path was detected.

Continuing "spirals with spirals" paths were detected down to the limits of the magnification technology available to Dr. Ehrenhaft.

Are these "spirals within spirals" are related to the hypothetical motion* of the gyroscopic particle throughout the "shells of force" comprising magnetic fields, as pictured on pages 10/11 of the book, The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman? [*spiraling helix and/or 3-dimensional toroid?]

Also curious is the fact that the winding shapes of some of these spirals in the microphotographs reminds one of the shapes described by Nikola Tesla with respect to Plate XLVIII in which Tesla wrote:

"One of the streamers is wonderfully interesting on account of the curiously twisted and curved appearance. It is hard to conceive how a discharge can pass through the air in this way when there exists a strong tendency to make it take the shortest route."

In viewing these microphotographs by Dr. Ehrenhaft, one has the distinct impression that something phenomenal was occurring, but no definitive explanation for the observations is known at this time.

ERS

Not only electric current but also magnetic currents flow through the universe.

I reached this conclusion by consecutive and persistent observation of single submicroscopic particles suspended in gases.(^1) Using this method in my small condenser, I can measure forces of an order of magnitude down to 10^-10 dynes. Therefore, my measurement of forces is more sensitive by the factor of 10^4 than any direct measurements of forces made so far. I was able to find new facts because methods of the highest possible sensitivity were used.

These observations can be summed up in two sentences:

(1) PARTICLES OF MATTER, IRRADIATED BY A CONCENTRATED BEAM OF LIGHT, MOVE IN A HOMOGENEOUS ELECTRIC AS WELL AS MAGNETIC FIELD IN OR AGAINST THE LINES OF FORCE.

(Electro-photophoresis, magneto-photophoresis). I have therefore concluded that these particles are charged under the impact of light. There exist not only electric, but also magnetic charges.

(2) PARTICLES OF THE SAME KIND AND SIZE MOVE SIMULTANEOUSLY TOWARD AND AGAINST THE PROPAGATION OF THE LIGHT.

I called the movement away from the light, lightpositive, and that toward the light, lightnegative longitudinal photophoresis.(^2) I have therefore concluded that the light beam has potential differences along its propagation which cause the particles on which charges are induced to move in or against the direction of propagation. To the well-known oscillating fields in the beam of light have to be added these stationary electric and magnetic fields.

Before such fundamental conclusions can be drawn, one must first see if there is no other explanation possible in accord with existing theories. Working for decades on the experiments and their interpretation, I was forced to believe that only such an electromagnetic interpretation can be in accordance with all observable facts.

Heat or mechanical effects --- so-called radiometer forces (Crookes) --- cannot account for these phenomena for the following reason: There is a photophoretic force in liquids which is of the same order of magnitude as in gases, although no radiometer forces exist in liquids. Silver or copper particles in gases which are reflecting strongly exhibit a tremendous lightnegative movement, though they ought to be most heated on the side toward the light, and one would expect a movement away from the light. It seems impossible to explain the reversibility of the particles with corresponding reversals of the field. The energy of the fields alone is responsible for the orientation of the particles and is a quadratic function of the potentials. One therefore should not expect a change of direction in the motion of uncharged particles if the field is reversed.

Were the movement due to heating effects, one could not explain why the particles move across and along the inner part of the beam instead of going entirely out of it. It would also seem strange that the movement of nickel particles under the influence of the geomagnetic field, as
it was observed in my Institute in Vienna, Austria, could be compensated by a superposed magnetic field of about 0.4 gauss.

Furthermore, the movement of the particles always follows the lines of force, no matter from which direction the light may come. This would be impossible if the movement were due to heating effects. That some particles start to move suddenly from rest, that the photophoretic movement suddenly disappears and sometimes increases or decreases gradually, and many other observations cannot be explained by mechanical or heat effects.

When I came to the conclusion that there are single magnetic poles (magnetic charges), it was therefore not necessary to ask if this agreed with existing theories, but rather whether there are any experimental facts that contradict it. It can be stated here that so far there are no experimental facts which contradict this conclusion of the existence of single magnetic poles. A study of the literature made with Leo Banet showed the following situation:

It has been the predominating opinion up to the present time that a real quantity of positive or negative electricity can be enclosed within an arbitrarily chosen geometric surface. But no matter how the surface is chosen, it will always enclose the same amount of south and north magnetism. In other words, there are true quantities of electricity of either sign, but no true magnetic ones. This statement has been made quite clearly by James Clerk Maxwell in his "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism." Maxwell tried to prove that there was no such thing as
true magnetism. May I remind you here that in principio it is impossible to prove from experiments that something is non-existent. Furthermore, the two experiments which Maxwell quotes are not conclusive:

The first one states that a broken magnet gives two entire magnets with equal poles. If a non-magnetic piece of iron is broken, it can be observed that the fragments become magnetized in various ways on the broken ends. The effect is the same when a non-electrically charged glass or sulfur rod is broken, and shows at the ends various kinds of electric charges. This phenomenon is easily explained, since each breaking creates constriction. Each constriction, however, creates electricity and magnetism. The breaking experiment therefore, does not prove that true magnetism does not exist, as Maxwell stated.

The second experiment, which probably originated with the ancient Chinese and is quoted by P. Peregrinus (anno 1269), indicates that a magnet floating upon water directs itself, but does not move. From this has been concluded that the amount of north and south magnetism is
equal in each magnet. It is easy to perceive that the mobility of such a big floating magnet is much too small to show slight differences of charge. The particles on which my observations were made have a mobility a million times greater than that of the floating magnet of
Peregrinus. Such particles irradiated with light move in a homogeneous magnetic field in the lines of force. Thus my sensitive experiment gives evidence of the existence of true magnetism. In other words, the Peregrini-Maxwell experiment turns out to be positive in my small condenser, when light is used.

My interpretation not only explains all observations in a rather simple manner, but also makes a number of new conclusions possible. One of these is that light magnetizes matter. Leo Banet and I succeeded in magnetizing small pieces of iron by means of irradiation with ultraviolet rays. Lilly Rona has expressed the idea that, concluding from these experiments, it should be possible to extract electricity from the beam of light originating from these stationary components. I believe that she is right, and that it could be done without the use of the photoelectric effect, that means with deteriorating and decomposing matter itself.

Under the influence of the light, matter coagulates more readily because of the induced poles (charges). Sometimes the light separates amorphous and crystalline particles, and sometimes it makes crystals grow toward it (heliotropism of crystals).

Light causes irregularities in Brownian movement and therefore also in diffusion because of photophoresis.

Light causes ponderomotive forces to act upon matter apart from the effects of the light pressure. These ponderomotive forces are produced by the stationary components and induced charges. The latter have attracting or repelling effects.

I determined the magnitude of the charge of the magnetic ion and found it to be of the same order of magnitude as the electric one.

A new phenomenon which I called the trembling effect found a simple explanation, the frequent change of the magnetic charge occurring predominantly in weak magnetic fields in the beam of light.

Leo Banet has drawn important conclusions in regard to the effects on the sun and the earth that will be described in another paper.

Now I shall say a few words about the MAGNETIC CURRENT.

We have shown the existence of unipolar magnetic charges, which flow in a homogeneous magnetic field in or against the direction of the lines of force. This can be observed directly by means of a microscope. Therefore we have to deal with magnetic currents in a physical and technical sense. Around a magnetic current there exists an electric field. Furthermore, a magnetic current produces heat in a medium conducting magnetism.

I have attempted to show that a beam of light causes or induces not only heat and electricity, but magnetism at the same time.

--- Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft, New York, N.Y.

(^1) F. Ehrenhaft, Annalen der Physik, 56: 81, 1918; Philo. Mag.,11: 141,1931; Annales de Physique, (Paris) 13: 151, 1940; Phys. Rev., 57: 562 and 659, 1940; Jour. Franklin Inst., 230, 381, 1940; Nature, 147: 25, January 4, 1941; F. Ehrenhaft and L. Banet, Nature, 147: 297, March 8, 1941; F. Ehrenhaft, Philosophy of Science, 8, No. 3, 1941, "The Microcoulomb Experiment" (charges smaller than the electronic charge), see p. 36; F. Ehrenhaft and Leo Banet, Philosophy of Science, 8, No. 3, 1941. The older references about photophoresis are given in Annales de Physique, 13: 151, 1940.

(2^) I have constructed the apparatus on which the above-mentioned phenomena could be seen at C. Zeiss, Inc., New York. Descriptions of the apparatus and of the experiments are given in Annales de Physique, 13: 151,1940.

The hypothesis of the electric current was founded chiefly upon three facts: The existence of electric ions, the decomposition of water (electrolysis), the circulation of the single magnetic pole around the constant electric current. Now those three facts have been observed in magnetism as well: the existence of magnetic ions, the decomposition of water through the magnet (magnetolysis), the circulation of a single electrostatic charge around the constant magnetic current.

In the microscope one observes that different gas bubbles as well as solid particles move in circles around the axis of the magnet simultaneously in opposite directions. Each of them reverses its direction of motion with the reversal of the magnetic field. The bodies carry positive or negative electrostatic charges. The existing laws of electrodynamics (Biot-Savart, H.A. Lorentz) cannot explain the new facts because the electrostatic charges in question are resting ones, etc. Just as the line integral of the magnetic force defines the intensity of the electric current (Ch. Oersted, A. M. Ampere), the line integral of the electric force defines the intensity of the magnetic current. Electricity and magnetism represent an indivisible union, reaching far above the union established by Faraday, Maxwell, and Hertz.

The electrodynamic equations must be extended to include the term of magnetic current. These theses will be illustrated by microphotographs of the experiments.*

*The experiments could be seen at C. Zeiss, Inc., New York City.

--- Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft, New York, N.Y.

See also:

Physical Review, Vol. 65, Nos. 9 and 10, May 1 and 15, 1944, page 287 for letter entitled, "The Decomposition of Water by the So-Called Permanent Magnet and the Measurement of the Intensity of the Magnetic Current" by Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft.

See also:

"Single Magnetic Northpoles and Southpoles and Their Importance for Science" --- Ten Lectures delivered at the University of Vienna during the summer semester of 1947 by Dr. Felix Ehrenhaft, U.S. Visiting Professor [compiled with the assistance of Professor Ehrenhaft, and Dr. Schedling, by J. Ferber and P.K. Feyerabend].

See also:

Lectures delivered in 1949 at the European Forum Alpbach by Felix Ehrenhaft, Karl Popper, Rosenfeld, M.H.L. Pryce, Max Hartmann, Duncan Sandys, Von Hayek, and Hans Thirring.