česky english

Research motivation and history

1995: An unknown phenomenon is observed.

This phenomenon showed that there was a direct relationship between gravity and electromagnetism. In terms of current theory, this is considered impossible. This invoked occasional inquiries and search for theoretical possibilities of explaining this phenomenon.

1999-2000: An essential idea comes out.

A new idea explaining gravitational phenomena and emergence of matter. This concept was named the Deficit Theory of Space. In terms of current categorizations, it is a unitary theory (not closed in mathematical terms, which a large freedom of possible solutions) based on a conservative approach, building on a simple fundamental principle. The acceptable number of spatial dimensions is limited to four; this is the only verifiable option. The theory is based on Einstein's geometrical view of space.

2007: Initiation of applied research project.

Theoretical concepts had developed to an extent allowing their verification by an actual high-capacity model, so-called ERB condenser.

October 21, 2008: SUPRATECH is founded

The newly established company takes over the project, initiating research activities on a semi-professional basis. .

2012: Initiation of basic research

The research addressed the verification of Maxwell's equations. We focused on the following essential - from our point of view, physically ungrounded conclusions and predictions:
1. Rectilinear motion of an electrically neutral wire in so-called homogeneous magnetic field should induce voltage in the ends of the wire. As the main proof, so-called Faraday's generator is considered for current electrodynamics.
2. The interaction of so-called homogeneous magnetic field with electrons in an electrically neutral wire moving through this field is, in terms of electrodynamics, equivalent to the interaction with separately moving electrons. As the main proof, so-called Faraday's motor is considered for current electrodynamics.
3. The actually mathematical law is, in Maxwell's equations, considered as a general physical law, claiming that the sectional (geometrical) change in the induction flux in so-called homogeneous magnetic field is the physical cause of induction of electromotive force (Faraday's law), representing a generalization, which combines a wide variety of phenomena into a single principle.

These conclusions and predictions are very difficult to verify by experiments without the use of Faraday's motor generator. It is the functionality of this homopolar generator or (inversely) motor, which is taken as a simple proof of validity at present. In practical electrodynamics, the experimental values cannot be reliably predicted unless dozens coefficients are used. The doubts mentioned in the previous paragraphs lead us to the design of the brushless Faraday's motor generator (or, as well call it, Pure Direct Motor Generator), which was to verify the theoretical assumptions in an equivalent manner. We failed, facing the question “what now”?

Our research was namely motivated by the presumption that mathematical logics, when applied to physical reality, can result in unrealistic fundamental errors and the at least one of Maxwell's equations (which were discovered around 1865 and have been taught as part of fundamental courses of physics study programmes) may represent a simplified and inexact interpretation of the reality.



What is the practical meaning of our discovery of the physical mistake in Maxwell's equations? Currently we can demonstrate it on the failed launch of satellites for the Galileo navigation system:
If the satellites were equipped with drive units utilizing the newly discovered direct conversion of electrical power to a kinetic impulse (our linear single-impulse experimental prototypes of drive units achieve an efficiency of approx. 0.02% with an input power of approx. 30W), there would be an elegant way of saving the mission. We know that satellites dispose of a limited amount of fuel, which is not sufficient for correction of the path from elliptical to stationary circular shape. A drive unit utilizing this new physical phenomena would cope with this problem within several weeks or months as it converts electrical power into a kinetic impulse. There is no problem on the orbit that would prevent us from generating any amount of electrical power by conversion from solar energy.

We will try continuously, as far as possible, to attract the attention of the academic community in physics to the problem of the provable physical mistake in Maxwell's equations. We made an offer to a Czech academic physical institution during 2013, inviting them to a demonstration of a new physical phenomena; however, our offer was rejected at first encounter with a boundless faith in the theoretical status quo.

Maxwell's theoretical mission is obsolete as it is not, in certain boundary situations encountered in technological solutions, in line with reality. (Nevertheless, in our opinion, its update does not consist in relativistic corrections but rather in the elimination of a significant physical mistake.) Our next paper to be published will demonstrate the erroneous part of the theoretical platform (in the form of an experimental guide). We are going to publish several references to patent applications for inventions, which were granted the protection status and which should be in theoretical accordance with the invention purpose but are actually not functional. These patents, after being found to be non-functional, can only be used for industrial and commercial marketing. If the owner does not manufacture a real model, they may not even know that their patent has no industrial application. For example, we know a medium-sized subject, which was granted the status of national level patent (and awaits the pending European patent - maybe it has already been granted) for their implementation of an electrical machine but, in practice (probably after it was found to be industrially unusable), started to apply this principle to their solution of a drive unit, which is an element of a functional patent of another owner.
This makes the patent office sort of a protector of current scientific doctrines and its work is “de jure” only rather than “de facto” and “de jure” at the same time.