A Dissident View of Relativity Theory
William H. Cantrell, Ph.D.
IE Editorial, Issue 59
Welcome dear colleagues to another special issue of
IE Magazine. This year marks the 100th anniversary of Albert
Einsteins famous paper1 on special relativity;
consequently, we dedicate this issue to an inspection of his work.
There is a cornucopia of written material celebrating Einsteins
genius, his achievements, his thoughts, and his politics. There
is also a wealth of controversial material to draw upon, so much
in fact that this is the third issue on this theme (after IE
#38 and 39). Although the majority of the literature makes the case
for Einsteins theory of relativity, youthe astute readerwill
soon discover that this is not one of them.
There is a considerable amount of folklore and confusion
concerning Einstein and the importance of his theory of relativity.
For example, when he wrote his famous paper in 1905, contrary to
popular belief, he was not attempting to address the 1887 Michelson-Morley
null-result. He claimed2 to be unaware of it at the time!
It is almost inconceivable that a young physicist in 1905 would
not know about the Michelson-Morley experimentthis would be
analogous to an electrician not knowing about Ohms Law.
No doubt the average citizen assumes that relativity
theory is vital to our modern society. In truth it has almost no
role to play, except in a few narrow branches of science. For example,
the Apollo program to land a man on the moon was a complete success
as a result of the physics of Sir Isaac Newtonrelativity theory
did not play a role. Einsteins work on Brownian motion and
the photoelectric effect was far more important than relativity.
This may come as a shock, but Einsteins theory
of relativity is not part of the design of nuclear weapons! As proof,
here is an excerpt from The Los Alamos Primer: The First Lectures
on How To Build an Atomic Bomb, "Section 2. Energy of Fission
Process," page 7:
Somehow the popular notion took hold long ago
that Einsteins theory of relativity, in particular his
famous equation E = mc2, plays some essential role
in the theory of fission. Albert Einstein had a part in alerting
the United States government to the possibility of building
an atomic bomb, but his theory of relativity is not required
in discussing fission. The theory of fission is what physicists
call a nonrelativistic theory, meaning that relativistic effects
are too small to affect the dynamics of the fission process
This primer3 is a collection of lecture
notes taught by Berkeley theoretician Dr. Robert Serber to the young
physicists arriving at Los Alamos beginning in 1943. The purpose
of Serbers lectures was to bring the new arrivals up to speed
quickly, so that the Manhattan Project could produce a "practical
military weapon" in the shortest possible time. It contains a considerable
amount of information on weapon design and the differential equations
to be solved to calculate neutron flux. Serber explains that the
energy released from the nucleus during fission is simply that of
electrostatic repulsion between protons. A considerable amount of
potential energy is stored by cramming the positively charged protons
together in a nucleus and this is what gets released when it splits.
Einsteins famous equation is not involved.
By the time the Manhattan Project started, Einstein
was in his sixties. His contribution consisted of signing a letter
composed by physicist Leo Szilard and addressed to FDR. His role
as scientific icon was needed to ensure that the scientists could
capture the attention of the President and the War Department. Needless
to say, it worked.
Einsteins role as scientific icon was also called
upon to spur the U.S. Navy into action. The Naval Ordinance Department
had designed a faulty torpedo contact detonator, and then failed
to test it adequately. In utter exasperation over the Ordinance
Departments refusal to take corrective action, the submariners
sought out Einstein to decree the detonator mechanism faultysomething
that any bicycle mechanic could have seen first hand. But it took
Einsteins clout to finally shake the bureaucracy into action.
On the magazine cover we see Einstein enjoying one
of his hobbies, something that biographer Albrecht Fölsing
noted rather dryly in 1993:
Even devoted admirers of Einstein would not dispute
that the progress of physics would not have suffered if the indisputably
greatest scientist among them had spent the final three decades
of his liferoughly from 1926 onsailing.
Ironically, after causing a revolution in physics,
Einstein rejected the next revolution that was quantum physics.
This worked against him later in life, as all of his attempts failed
to discover a unified field theory, not that anyone else has had
any success either!
In this issue we highlight some
of the experimental facts that do not fit with relativity theory.
We discuss some of its logical inconsistencies and offer alternatives
for your consideration. We also look at the controversies associated
with some of Einsteins ideas and how they first originated.
As always, our goal is to bring you viable, plausible alternatives
to the cherished and protected dogma of mainstream physicsareas
where theory does not agree with experimental facts.
It is undoubtedly a fact that relativity theory had
a profound impact on physics during the twentieth century. Einsteins
theory is celebrated the world over for having produced a series
of brilliant successes. Nevertheless, there is a sizeable community
of dissident scientists who reject it outright, and a far larger
group, unaware of an alternative, who harbor a pronounced distaste
for it. This dislike stems from the fact that Einstein borrows from
the mathematics of Lorentz and Poincaré, and this allows
him to modify length and time measurement to force the speed
of light to be constant for all observers. Given a clear alternative
to tampering with the fundamentals, most rational thinkers would
jump at the chance for a substitute. But why challenge such a supposedly
successful theory? Well, for two very good reasonsfirst, to
truly understand and describe how nature works, and second, to achieve
new breakthroughs, once an unintentional roadblock to progress has
As an undergraduate student nearly 30 years ago, I
recall vividly the day we got to the subject of relativity theory.
A stranger casually strolled into class during the middle of the
lecture and took a seat in the back. I guessed that he might be
a graduate student, but he looked like he was right out of the Sixties,
complete with sandals, beads, and wild frizzy hair. As the professor
continued with his lecture, the hippie decided to protest by eating
from a brown paper bag. I recall the sounds of the bag being opened,
a sandwich being unwrapped, and the hippie munching away. All the
while, he peered at the professor scribbling on the chalk board,
as if at a drive-in. Toward the end of class, Mr. Hippie stood up
and began to pepper Dr. Establishment with several questions and
challenges, all in rapid-fire succession. A heated technical discussion
ensued concerning topics such as Lorentz "Boosts," violations of
Newtons Third Law, and refusals to teach alternative theories.
As I sat there in stunned silence, it seemed as if Mr. Hippie got
the upper hand before storming out. After reading this issue, I
think you might agree with his sentiments.
A Properly Defined
Before we explore alternatives
to relativity theory, lets agree on exactly what is a proper
scientific theory. Surprisingly, the answer to this question is
not as settled as it once was. We believe that a theory should describe
nature as it really works. It should be testable and make accurate
predictions of experimental outcomes not yet put to the test. A
proper theory must not be continually patched and modified with
ad hoc "band aids" to explain new observations. It must be
refutable, that is, it must not be protected from refutation
by way of its own construction.
This is by no means a universally held view. Caltech
Professor David L. Goodstein makes a jaw-dropping statement4 in
his otherwise magnificent video lecture series:
. . .As a matter of fact theres a point of
view that says, that the only way that science can make progress
is by showing that theories are wrong. The argument goes like
this: Its impossible to prove that a theory is right, no
matter how many experiments agree with it. But if one single experiment
disagrees with it, then the theory must be wrong.
Correct. So far so good, but then he goes on to say:
Well, that itself is a theory of knowledge, which
is wrong, because there are theories in science, which are
so well verified by experience that they become promoted to the
status of fact. One example is the Special Theory of Relativity.
Its still called a theory for historical reasons, but it
is in reality a simple, engineering fact, routinely used
in the design of giant machines like nuclear particle accelerators,
which always work perfectly. . .
So here we have a fundamental metaphysical disagreement
concerning the rules of the gamean enormous philosophical
disconnect. The mainstream elevates some theories to a higher plane,
to the status of unquestionable religion.
To illustrate the importance of being able to refute
a theory, consider the following hypothetical: The Earth has a twin
moon made of a special green cheese that is perfectly transparent
to illumination. Obviously this is nonsense, but by its own design,
the statement cannot be refuted by experiment. We find ourselves
in a similar predicament when it comes to Einsteins relativity.
Numerous dissidents have made the argument that the theory is logically
inconsistent because it assumes a constant speed of light, and then
sets out to prove what it assumes. Relativity theory cannot be proven
false on strictly theoretical grounds because it is inadvertently
protected from refutation by its own circular logic.
Special relativity theory (SRT)
contains two postulates. The first postulate is a restatement of
Galileos relativity principle which says that the laws of
physics apply equally well for all inertial frames, whether at rest
or in uniform rectilinear motion (no acceleration). The second postulate
says that the velocity of light is independent of the speed of its
source. This postulate by itself is not strange or unexpected. When
a train whistle blows, the speed of sound is independent of the
speed of the train, but not of the velocity of the wind carrying
the sound to the observer. Here, the air molecules are the medium
and they play the equivalent role of an aether-wind for electromagnetism.
But with relativity theory, we have no aether.
Over time the second postulate has been reinterpreted
to mean that all observers, regardless of their own velocity, see
light propagating always at the same speed (in vacuum). Lengths
shorten and time slows so that the computed velocity (i.e.,
length divided by time) is always constant. The paradoxes and problems
created by this clever little trick are endless. Take the case of
relativistic interstellar travel. If lengths really contract as
viewed by the observer, then when you blast off from Earth, the
closer you approach the speed of light, the closer the receding
Earth gets to you.
The origins of length contraction started with G.F.
FitzGerald. He was the first to suggest that Lorentzs deformation
model5 for a moving electron also applied to the "macro-world" in
order to explain the Michelson-Morley null-result. It was this purely
ad hoc idea that started the whole problem. During the first
half of the twentieth century, physicists were eager to put length
contraction to the test and see if the phenomenon really existed.
Several experiments were performed,6-8 but no variation
in length was observed. A modern space-based test has been proposed
by Renshaw,9 but to date, no direct experimental
verification of relativistic length contraction has ever been measured.
There is absolutely no argument that time-keeping
mechanisms do slow down when moving at high speed, and that
in most instances, they obey the time dilation formula of Lorentz
and Poincaré. (There are violations, as Jefimenko10
has pointed out.) The dissident argument here is really more of
a metaphysical one. A distinction should be made between Universal
absolute invariant time and gravitational effects acting on time-keeping
mechanisms such as water clocks, grandfather clocks, digital watches,
radioactive decay rates, and cesium clocks (cesium atoms), to name
just a few.
All sources of oscillation in nature are influenced
by a change in gravitational potential. To build a clock, we have
no choice but to exploit oscillator sources. Unfortunately we cannot
construct an ideal clock even if we use cesium atoms by definition.
This was aptly demonstrated by the famous Häfele-Keating experiment11,12
in which cesium clocks were flown around the world. The atomic clock
transported eastward lost 59 ns, while the atomic clock transported
westward gained 273 ns, compared to the stationary laboratory standard.
All physical devices used for
time keeping are subject to error when accelerated, decelerated,
or constrained to move linearly through a variation in gravitational
potential. The Häfele-Keating experiment is not a failure for
relativity theory, but the question should be asked: Is time
itself dilated, or are internal processes merely altered by
moving through a gravitational field? Metaphysically speaking, we
do not consider this to be a distinction without a difference.
Another problem with relativity theory concerns the
timeline of events and simultaneity. Given two equidistant lightning
flashes A and B as viewed by a stationary observer, an unintended
consequence of Einsteins theory demands that flash A must
occur before flash B for some moving observers and flash B prior
to flash A for other moving observers. But both scenarios
simply can not be true. This is not just a visual perception issue
because time itself is alleged to change differently for different
observers. According to a Minkowski diagram, this is a true timeline
of events! This is a logical inconsistency.
There are other unintended consequences lurking inside
Einsteins theory. It is accepted that Newtons Third
Law is violated, although this has never been proven in the laboratory.
According to modern physics, for every action, there is no longer
an equal and opposite reaction! This has the somewhat embarrassing
consequence that, under certain situations, normally aligned forces
that are equal and opposite become offset slightly from one another.
When the forces are no longer joined along a common line of action,
a torque is created. In relativity theory inertial frames can mysteriously
begin to rotate. This effect has been given a name, Thomas Rotation,
to impart a degree of respectability. Staunch relativists take note:
An experiment was performed to determine whether Thomas Rotation
really exists on macro-sized objects. It produced a null result.13,14
There is also a theoretical basis for refutation of Thomas Rotation.15
(The question of Newtons Third Law is vital to the realm of
electrodynamics, so much so that we are dedicating a future issue
of IE to longitudinal Ampère forces and Webers
electrodynamics.) The mainstream is quick to say that "Newtons
Third Law does not extend into the relativistic regime. So what
if relativity theory is messy? The truth behind Nature may not be
pretty. It may not even be comprehensible." Possibly. . .
But what about alternative theories? Are they better?
And what of aether-based theories? High school science students
are conditioned to ridicule the concept of a nineteenth-century
luminiferous aether with eye-rolling and giggling. But is this really
a contemptible idea when compared with the "new and improved" terminology
of gravitational masses "warping" the fabric of "space-time"? Sounds
a little like an über-aether in another guise. Given
that the nothingness of a perfect absolute vacuum is bestowed with
the physical properties of a permittivity, eo8.854
pF/m, a permeability, mo4p
x 10-7 H/m, and a characteristic impedance of 377 ohms,
is the concept of an aether really that outlandish?
We will banish the term "aether" in due course, but
lets take a closer look at this much maligned substance, given
its historical importance to the whole question of the speed of
light. To be certain, the 1887 Michelson-Morley (M-M) null-result
disproved the concept of an unentrained aether. An unentrained
aether would be totally unaffected by a gravitational field. The
Earth would glide effortlessly through it without dragging any of
it along, by virtue of the Earths gravitational pull. From
a scientists perspective, an unentrained aether would come
blowing through the laboratory like a hurricane with a velocity
of the Earths speed of revolution around the Sun (30 km/sec).
And like the passing eye of a hurricane, the aether-wind would reverse
direction twice each day as the Earth rotated on its axis. At 0.01%
of c the M-M experiment was certainly sensitive enough to detect
such an aether-wind, and a small non-null result was found,
but not to the level expected for an unentrained aether.
You wont find them mentioned in a mainstream
physics text, but there are aether theories that are perfectly
compatible with the M-M (almost) null-result. Suppose for a moment
that the aether is partially entrained. Such a substance
would be attracted by the Earths gravitational pull, and therefore
would be denser at the Earths surface than at higher altitudes.
This aether would have a density distribution with altitude that
is not unlike that of the Earths atmospheric density. Under
these circumstances, the partially entrained aether would be traveling
almost as fast, almost keeping pace with the Earths tangential
speed of revolution around the Sun. So from the perspective of the
Earth-bound laboratory, the relative velocity between the
Earth and the aether would be arbitrarily small, certainly well
below 30 km/sec. And if the speed of light is constant with respect
to a medium such as the aether, then in this instance a null-result
would be expected, given the limited sensitivity of the M-M experiment.
This partially entrained aether would be dragged along
with the Earth like an invisible atmospheric coating, but it would
not rotate along with the Earth about its axis (the Earths
rotational velocity being ~0.35 km/sec at mid-latitudes). Put another
way, the Earth would revolve within this aether shell. But why would
there be no rotation of the aether along with the Earth? It is true
that the Earth revolves within its own gravitational and magnetic
fields, but these fields do not rotate with the Earth. They are
generated and released to propagate outward as a symmetrical Earth
rotates away from underneath. If the fields did rotate, imagine
the spiraling entanglement that would be encountered at some distance
out. (Likewise, the magnetic field of a cylindrical bar magnet does
not rotate when the bar magnet is rotated about its (long) z-axis.
This is the source of much consternation and amusement to students
when demonstrating a Faraday unipolar generator.) The M-M experiment
was not sensitive enough to prove or disprove the concept of a partially
entrained aether, although it did detect a small fraction of a fringe
shift contrary to the history books.
To reveal the Earths rotation at work, a more
sensitive version of the experiment was needed. This quest resulted
in the Michelson-Gale (and Pearson) experiment of 1925, a massive
interferometer experiment spread over fifty acres outside of Chicago.16
The experiment detected a fringe shift of 0.236 of one fringe due
to the Earths rotation, in agreement with aether theory and
within the limits of observational error. This was a successful
outcome for an aether-based theory, but it was not considered a
failure of Einsteins relativity, because the rotating Earth
is not considered to be an inertial frame of reference. Special
relativity doesnt apply here. General relativity must come
to the rescue, and the analysis is not without controversy. Relativists
consider this a Sagnac-type of experiment17 in a rotating (non-inertial)
frame of reference. (Also see IE #39, p. 24.)
So far, we have at least two competing theories: a
partially entrained aether and Einsteins relativity. Both
can explain the results of the Michelson-Morley and Michelson-Gale
experiments, the Sagnac effect, (and the Häfele-Keating experiment).
But we need a tie-breaking experiment for it is not good enough
to merely come up with an alternative theory. We need a decisive
In addition to the Earths revolution about the
Sun, our entire solar system has a galactic velocity component.
A very sensitive and precise aether drift experiment might be able
to detect this component if conducted at higher altitudes to lessen
the slowing effects to a partially entrained aether. Although it
is not reported in the textbooks, such an experiment was performed
by Dayton Miller18 during the mid-1920s on a mountain top near the
Mt. Wilson observatory. The experiment was an utter marvel of science,
performed with exquisite care and precision over a period of several
years. (See the excellent article by James DeMeo in IE #38
describing the Miller interferometry experiment.)
Miller concluded that the Earth was drifting towards
an apex in the Southern Celestial Hemisphere, towards Dorado, the
swordfish, right ascension 4 hrs. 54 min., declination of 70°
33, in the middle of the Great Magellanic Cloud and 7°
from the southern pole of the ecliptic. He measured an aether-drift
of about 10 km/sec at the location of his interferometer. From this
he assumed the Earth was moving through a partially entrained aether
which reduced its velocity from 200 km/sec in space, to about 10
km/sec nearer to the surface. This experimental result agrees with
the concept of a partially entrained aether. More importantly, this
is the tie-breaking experiment that relativity theory cannot explain.
It is believed that Millers careful work over
a period of some twenty years cast a shadow of doubt over Einsteins
relativity theory and prevented Einstein from receiving a Nobel
Prize for his work on relativity. (Einstein did receive a Nobel
Prize, but it was for his work on the photoelectric effect.)
But is the Miller experiment correct? Have his results
been duplicated in recent times? The answer is both yes and no.
Experiments were performed by Silvertooth19-21 starting
in 1985. He pointed out that interferometer experiments average
the round-trip speed of lightthey do not measure the one-way
speed of light. If there is a change in the forward and backward
velocities of light such that it is exactly (c + v) in one
direction and (c v) in the other, then the values
will simply average out to c. This will occur regardless
of interferometer orientation, and after all, it is the one-way
speed of light that we really want to know. (Also see IE
#40, p. 64.)
Silvertooth measured the standing waves formed by
light beamed in opposite directions using two lasers. One of the
lasers was phase modulated with respect to the other, creating certain
phase effects that could be measured with a special photomultiplier
tube. Silvertooth found a consistently privileged direction pointing
to the constellation Leo, traveling at a velocity of 378 km/sec
regardless of the time of day or year. Manning22 independently
analyzed Silvertooths approach and pronounced it sound, though
not without possible minor flaws. Manning recommended accepting
"something that is very difficult to explain." Later, Silvertooth
and Whitney23 confirmed the results with another experiment
This is not a confirmation of the Miller experiment
because Silvertooths velocity vector points in a different
direction than did Millers. Silvertooth also calculated a
velocity of 378 km/sec, versus Millers estimate of 200 km/sec.
If there is an error hidden in Silvertooths work (or in Millers),
it would be very peculiar that he would always find his apparatus
divining the same direction in the sky, independent of the time
of day and season of the year. This is a remarkable and interesting
experiment, whatever the cause.
It should be noted that Silvertooth published his
results prior to the launch of NASAs COBE satellite, whose
purpose was to accurately measure the cosmic microwave background.
Due to the motion of our solar system, a Doppler shift was discovered
which imparts a slight anisotropy to the spectrum of the cosmic
microwave background. Precise measurement of this anisotropy indicates
that the heliocentric (Sun centered) frame moves toward the constellation
Leo with a velocity of 390 km/sec, in excellent agreement with Silvertooths
findings. (We hope to have a Silvertooth article in an upcoming
In 1991 another experiment appeared to confirm a galactic
velocity component of the aether. Roland DeWitte carried out an
experiment in Belgium involving two cesium clocks separated by 1.5
kilometers along a common meridian. A 5 MHz RF signal was generated
from each cesium time-base. This produced two independent, but identical
signals to within the limits of cesium clock drift. A long length
of buried coaxial cable was used to send one of the RF signals down
to the other end for comparison using a phase detector. DeWitte
ran the experiment over a considerable time span of 178 days.
The results indicated that an anomalous phase shift
was present in the data, correlated to sidereal, not civil,
time. With a period of 23 hours 56 minutes ± 25seconds (one sidereal
day), this proved that the effect responsible for the phase shift
was of galactic, not man-made, origin. It would be very interesting
to repeat this experiment and also include a round-trip measurement
to see if a null-result would be obtained due to round-trip averaging.
Less precise measurements were made using a 500 meter
cable and rubidium clocks by Torr and Kolen at NIST.24
They observed an unexplained one-way phase shift which disappeared
from the complete round-trip measurement. These one-way results
are not predicted by Einsteins theory, and it is hard to think
of another mechanism or artifact correlated to sidereal time that
would cause the results seen by DeWittecertainly not thermal
heating or human activity, which would be correlated to a mean solar
day (24 hours).
A Gravity-based Theory
Do the aether theories sound artificial and contrived?
Yes, as a matter of fact they do, almost as much as FitzGeralds
length contraction, which was incorporated directly into Einsteins
relativity. There is, however, another theory that does not rely
on the concept of an aether, but is very closely aligned with the
aether theories discussed thus far. The late Emeritus Professor
of Electrical Engineering Petr Beckmann proposed25 that
the outdated term "aether" could be replaced with the more modern
term "gravity." Clearly, a gravitational field would have
characteristics very similar to a partially entrained aether. Both
would cause the bending of light rays. Gravity would be strongest
near the surface of the planet where the partially entrained aether
was most dense. Light would still behave in the same manner, if
the speed of light is constant with respect to the source
of the dominant gravitational field. This would square with all
of the known experimental data because in nearly every case, the
observer has always been tied to the Earth-bound frame of referenceso
we substitute the word "gravity" for the word "aether." Obviously
gravity exists and we know that, although gravity is "emitted" by
the Earth, it does not rotate with it. So this is a very plausible
replacement for a partially entrained aether. It also stands to
reason if we speculate that light is actually a disturbance in the
To be fair, we must play devils advocate with
Beckmanns theory. The double-star evidence is often used to
discount alternative theories such as this one. Consider a binary
star system revolving around its common center of mass, located
a considerable distance from Earth. According to Beckmanns
theory, each star emits light at a velocity of c with respect
to the source of its own gravitational field. Given the proper orientation
in the ecliptic with respect to the center of mass, the velocity
of light initially emitted is c + v from one star and c
v from the other (assuming a tangential velocity of revolution,
v, for both stars). As each star revolves about the other,
their roles will reverse as will the sinusoidal ± v light
speed component from each. Although small at first, if any
difference in velocity were to remain in effect over the years or
centuries it would take for the two sources of starlight to reach
the Earth, the slower light from one star (at a given point in their
revolution) would never catch up with faster light from the other
star, even if given a slight head start due to fortuitous positioning.
This would cause peculiar visual effects on Earth that astronomers
simply do not observeunusual Doppler shifts and other anomalies.
But there is more to Beckmanns theory. The gravitational
fields of the two stars will, of course, merge into one combined
field at a suitable distance from their common center of mass, and
the light from the two stars will transition to a common value of
c. This, however, is not the end of the story. As the starlight
traverses the heavens, it will speed up and slow down so as to always
propagate at the speed of light with respect to whatever source
of gravitational field it encounters. Upon entering our solar system,
the starlight will transition to a heliocentric frame of reference,
and upon encountering the Earths gravitational field, it will
adjust once again to speed c with respect to our own reference
frame. This is definitely heresythe two sources of starlight
will indeed travel with two different speeds initially, before stabilizing
at a common velocity. And this velocity will change as the starlight
enters our own solar system, and change yet again as it enters the
gravitational pull of the Earth. The speed of transition will, of
course, be gradual as one gravitational field yields to another
more dominant field in its local neighborhood. This is an intriguing
"make-sense" theory, not only because it replaces the partially
entrained aether theory described earlier, but because it also squares
with the Pioneer 10 and 11 deep-space radio data (and probably with
the Venus radar data from the 1960s). (Also see IE #52, pp.
Speed of Light in Deep
Evidence has surfaced that the speed of light is not
c in deep space, based on satellite data from Pioneer 10 and 11.
Launched in 1972 and 1973 respectively, radio signals received from
these satellites contain an "anomalous" Doppler shift. Renshaw26
showed that this can be explained by assuming classical Newtonian
mechanics for the Doppler-shifted radio signal in a heliocentric
frame of reference. Staunch relativists take note: Here is a clear
case, for both satellites, where classical theory gives the
correct answer, but relativistic corrections lead to the wrong results.
Einsteins relativity cannot explain this result, and indeed,
it is the cause of the problem in the first place! After some
head-scratching by mainstream scientists, the mystery was attributed
to a possible "anomalous" acceleration (new physics!) of 8.0 x 10-8
cm/sec2, directed toward the Sunfor both spacecraft.
That the speed of light is not constant in interplanetary
space was first suspected by the late Bryan G. Wallace. Throughout
the 1960s and into the 1970s, MIT Lincoln Laboratory operated a
series of high-power radio transmitters spread across the United
States. Technically, these sites held a SECRET classification during
the height of the Cold War and the Space-Race, even though the researchers
were doing pure science. (Perhaps they also played a role in the
study of ionospheric disruption effects caused by thermonuclear
test shots in the Pacific, and the magnetic-conjugate excitation
studies using high-altitude nuclear detonations in the Southern
Atlantic.) At one site near El Campo, Texas, the transmitter was
extremely high power, 500 kilowatts, operating in the low VHF range
(38.25 MHz). Enormous water-cooled vacuum tubes were used to generate
the RF energy. An 8 by 128 array of 1,024 dipole antennas boosted
the gain so that the effective radiated power, focused into the
main lobe, was in excess of 1,300 megawatts (yes, 1.3 gigawatts).
Personnel at the site activated warning sirens and
red flashing lights prior to "keying" the transmitter. This was
done to make certain that no one was caught by surprise out in the
antenna array, which covered over nine acres. Sometimes the "cooked"
remains of rabbits and possums were found by maintenance personnel
after a data gathering session, and this served as a somber demonstration
of what could happen. It was possible to place a fluorescent bulb
anywhere in the transmitter building where illumination was neededit
would glow by itself while the transmitter was "on." Site personnel
quickly learned not to prop their feet up on the control console,
as this would cause their shoes to heat-up. These powerful beacons
made it possible to conduct radar studies of Venus, Mars, and also
the Suns corona.
During this time Wallace discovered that radar data
for the planet Venus did not confirm the constancy of the speed
of light. Alarmed and intrigued by these results, he noticed systematic
variations in the data with diurnal and lunar-synodic components.
He attempted to publish the results in Physical Review Letters,
but he encountered considerable resistance. His analysis indicated
a heretical "c + v" Galilean fit to the data, so as a result,
he had no alternative but to publish elsewhere.27
To say that Wallace was less than tactful would be
something of an understatement. He made heated claims28
that NASA had noticed the very same results and was using non-relativistic
correction factors to calculate signal transit times. He also claimed
that, despite his repeated requests, MIT Lincoln Lab refused to
share the raw data from the Venus radar studies with himthat
they were part of a government conspiracy to keep the Soviets in
the dark about the true nature of the speed of light! He said that,
what little data he did get, had been deliberately chosen
to make it impossible for him to do the necessary computations.
He also published a book describing his experiences, available on
the web29 at no charge. Wallace was a colorful figure
and a champion of a noble cause. It is well worth the time invested
to read about his incredible story.
Acausal Absorber Theory
As a young physicist, Dr. Tom Phipps exchanged correspondence
with Albert Einstein related to ways of improving quantum mechanics.
In his article for this issue (p. 14, IE #59), he describes
a hypothetical conversation between a critic of Relativity theory
and Einstein himself, looking back on his legacy.
Phipps acausal absorber theory holds promise
for bridging the gap between the quantum world and light speed behavior.
In his theory, the speed of light is constant with respect to the
absorber (the detector). In his outstanding text30 Phipps
starts with some of the original ideas of Heinrich Hertz and proposes
a modification to Maxwells Equations to make them invariant
to the Galilean transformation. Starting with Maxwells Equations
in free-space (and MKSA units) we have:
A simple modification is made involving a straightforward
change from partial derivatives, ,
to total-time derivatives, d/dt, to account for a moving
frame of reference. This is then expanded using the chain-rule in
Faradays and Ampères Laws, and also for the charge
conservation equation. This has the excellent effect of adding a
velocity parameter, v, into the equations for use with moving
Phipps has also proposed a tie-breaking experiment
which can decide between SRT and his theory. This sheds some light
on why experiment has not yet determined a winner among the various
theories mentioned. Using the more traditional technologies, experiments
at first-order are often difficult to do, and experiments at second-order
are impossible. However, recent advances in interferometry, specifically
Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI), permit angular resolutions
of better than 10-9 radian. This could make it possible
to either verify or refute Einsteins prediction of
a second-order departure from the classical Bradley aberration of
starlight. Unfortunately, astronomers seem unaware of this possibility
and physicists take the result for granted. Phipps theory
predicts only a third-order (as yet unobservable) departure from
Bradley aberration, and therefore allows for the possibility of
refutation by a tie-breaking experiment.
Modified Lorentz Ether
The mainstream authorities are fond of saying that
GPS would not work if it werent for Einsteins relativity.
Clifford Will of Washington University has been quoted31
SR has been confirmed by experiment so many times
that it borders on crackpot to say there is something wrong with
it. Experiments have been done to test SR explicitly. The worlds
particle accelerators would not work if SR wasnt in effect.
The global positioning system would not work if special relativity
didnt work the way we thought it did.
Oh really? What does one of the worlds
foremost experts on GPS have to say about relativity theory and
the Global Positioning System? Ronald R. Hatch is the Director of
Navigation Systems at NavCom Technology and a former president of
the Institute of Navigation. As he describes in his article for
this issue (p. 25, IE #59), GPS simply contradicts Einsteins
theory of relativity. His Modified Lorentz Ether Gauge Theory (MLET)
has been proposed32 as an alternative to Einsteins
relativity. It agrees at first order with relativity but corrects
for certain astronomical anomalies not explained by relativity theory.
(Also see IE #39, p. 14.)
No Relativity Principle?
Although Newton was not comfortable
with the term "absolute space," his First Law (inertial reaction)
is relative to absolute space or another reference frame moving
at a constant velocity with respect to absolute space. Ernst Mach
proposed that absolute space was in reality the "distant fixed-stars."
In a similar vein to some of the ideas proposed by Mach, Lévy
postulates33 that the relativity principle is
wrongthat there may be some ultimate preferred frame of reference
in the Universe for which the speed of light is constant. If true,
then all inertial frames are not created equal. Lévy
proposes the idea of a preferred universal inertial frame of reference
in which the aether is truly at rest. This is, in effect, the antithesis
of Einsteins first postulate. Lévys textbook
is reviewed on p. 42 in this issue.
For good reason, no mention has been made of the ballistic
theory by Walter Ritz, in which the speed of light is constant with
respect to the speed of the emitting source, as in (vs
+ c). In a poll, this would most likely be the theory of choice
by the "man in the street," where the speed of light is expected
to behave like a baseball hit off a swinging bat or projectiles
fired from a moving tank. It is also the antithesis of Einsteins
Although the ballistic theory is compatible with the
M-M null result and the double-star evidence, it was disproved
by additional experimentation, e.g., References 34 and 35.
These carefully planned experiments were performed in vacuum with
surface reflecting mirrors only, and no lenses of any sort. This
was done to prevent photon absorption and regeneration from "resetting"
any additional imparted speed to that of the last mediums
A few overzealous proponents of Einsteins theory
have gone so far as to suggest the possibility of time-travel by
exceeding the speed of light. If only this were true. . .
Id go back in time and pin a medal on Mr. Hippies
1. Einstein, A. 1905. "Zur Elektrodynamik
bewegter Körper," Ann. d. Phys., 17, 891.
2. Goodstein, D.L. 1986. "The
Michelson-Morley Experiment," The Mechanical Universe and Beyond
Video Series, Annenberg/CPB Project.
3. Serber, R. 1943. The Los
Alamos Primer, reprinted 1992, Univ of Calif. Press, London.
4. Goodstein, D.L. 1986. "Atoms
to Quarks," The Mechanical Universe and Beyond Video Series, Annenberg/CPB
5. Lorentz, H.A. 1915. The
Theory of Electrons, 2nd ed., Dover Publ., NY, reprinted 1952.
6. Brace, D.B. 1904. "On Double
Refraction in Matter Moving Through the Aether," Phil. Mag.,
6, 7, 317-329.
7. Trouton, F.T. and Rankine,
A.O. 1908. Proc. Royal Soc., 80, 420.
8. Wood, A.B., Tomlinson, G.A.,
and Essen, L. 1937. "The Effect of the Fitzgerald-Lorentz Contraction
on the Frequency of Longitudinal Vibration of a Rod," Proc. Royal
Soc., 158, 606-633.
9. Renshaw, C. 1999. "Space Interferometry
Mission as a Test of Lorentz Length Contraction," Proc. IEEE
Aerospace Conf., 4, 15-24.
10. Jefimenko, O.D. 1997. Electromagnetic
Retardation and Theory of Relativity, Electret Scientific Co.,
Star City, W. Virginia, Chapter 10.
11. Häfele, J.C. and Keating,
R.E. 1972. "Around-the-world Atomic Clock: Predicted Relativistic
Time Gains," Science, 177, 166-167.
12. Häfele, J.C. and Keating,
R.E. 1972. "Around-the-world Atomic Clock: Measured Relativistic
Time Gains," Science, 177, 168-170.
13. Phipps, T.E. Jr. 1973. "Experiment
on Relativistic Rigidity of a Rotating Disk," NOLTR, April
14. Phipps, T.E. Jr. 1974. Lettere
al Nuovo Cimento, 9, 467.
15. Mocanu, C.I. 1991. "The Paradox
of Thomas Rotation," Galilean Electrodynamics, 2, 4, 67-74.
16. Michelson, A.A., Gale, H.,
and Pearson, F. 1925. "The Effect of the Earths Rotation on
the Velocity of Light, (Parts I and II)," Astrophysical Journal,
61, 137-145, April.
17. Sagnac, M.G. 1913 "LEther
lumineux Demonstre par leffet du vent relatif daether
dan interferometre en rotation uniforme," Comptes Rendus,
18. Miller, D.C. 1933. "The Ether-Drift
Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth,"
Reviews of Modern Physics, 5, 2, 203-242.
19. Silvertooth, E.W. 1986. "Special
Relativity," Nature, 322, 590, August.
20. Silvertooth, E.W. 1987. "Experimental
Detection of the Ether," Speculations in Sci. and Techn.,
21. Silvertooth, E.W. 1989. "Motion
Through the Ether," Electronics & Wireless World, May,
22. Manning, B.A. 1988. "A Preliminary
Analysis of the Silvertooth Experiment," Physics Essays,
1, 4, 272-274.
23. Silvertooth, E.W. and Whitney,
C.K. 1992. "A New Michelson-Morley Experiment," Physics Essays,
5, 1, 82-88.
24. Torr, D.G. and Kolen, P.
1984. "Spec. Publ. 617," Natl. Inst. of Stds. & Tech.,
25. Beckmann, P. 1987. Einstein
Plus Two, Golem Press, Boulder, CO.
26. Renshaw, C. 1999. "Explanation
of the Anomalous Doppler Observations in Pioneer 10 and 11," Proc.
IEEE Aerospace Conf., 2, 59-63.
27. Wallace, B.G. 1969. "Radar
Testing of the Relative Velocity of Light in Space," Spectroscopic
Letters, 2, 361.
28. Wallace, B.G. 1983. Letter
to the Editor, Physics Today, 36, 1.
29. Wallace, B.G. 1994. The Farce
of Physics, online at http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_toc.html.
30. Phipps, T.E. Jr. 1986. Heretical
Verities: Mathematical Themes in Physical Description, Classic
Non-fiction Library, Urbana, IL.
31. Goodman, B. 1995. "A Varied
Group," The Scientist, 9, 10, 3.
32. Hatch, R.R. 1992. Escape
from Einstein, Kneat Kompany, Wilmington, CA.
33. Lévy, J. 2003. From
Galileo to Lorentz. . .and Beyond, Apeiron Publ., Montreal.
34. Michelson, A.A. 1913. "Effect
of Reflection from a Moving Mirror on the Velocity of Light," Astrophys.
J., 37, 190-193.
35. Beckmann, P. and Mandics,
P. 1965. "Test of the Constancy of Electromagnetic Radiation in
High Vacuum," Radio Science, 69-D, 623-628.


This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Shortcut 2: Try factors closest to one another first. For example, when considering factors of 12, try 3 and 4 before trying 6 and 2 and try 6 and 2 before trying 1 and 12. Shortcut 3: Avoid creating binomials that will have a GCF within them. This shortcut eliminates possibilities 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 (look at the underlined binomials; their terms each have some common factor), leaving only four possibilities to consider. Of the four remaining possibilities, 11 and 12 would be considered first using shortcut 2....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 11/10/2011 for the course MATH 1310 taught by Professor Staff during the Fall '07 term at Texas State.
- Fall '07


Since the Risk Report last looked at Syria’s missiles in 2000, Syria has continued to expand its arsenal, which now consists of many hundred liquid-fueled Scud-type missiles, as well as solid-fueled SS-21 and FROG missiles. Syria’s most notable recent achievements have been to start producing Scud-type missiles at home, and to begin equipping them with chemical warheads. Nevertheless, Syria still depends on outside help to make both solid-propellant and liquid-propellant rocket motors.
Making missiles at home
In December 2001, the U.S. National Intelligence Council reported that “with considerable foreign assistance, Syria progressed to Scud production using primarily locally manufactured parts.” It also reported that “Syria has developed CW warheads for its Scuds and has an offensive BW program.” In July 2003, an Israeli official claimed that Syria had equipped its missiles with VX nerve agent. In September of the same year, then-U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, John Bolton, testified that Syria had a “stockpile of the nerve agent sarin that can be delivered by aircraft or ballistic missiles, and has engaged in the research and development of more toxic and persistent nerve agents such as VX.” In the future, Syria will undoubtedly press for longer-range, more accurate missiles, many of which will be equipped with increasingly potent chemical warheads. Its immediate goals are to improve missile accuracy, master warhead separation, and acquire radar-absorbing materials.
To advance its missile program, Syria has built up a network of agencies, headed by its Ministry of National Defense and coordinated through its Scientific Studies and Research Center (SSRC). Another important node of Syrian missile development is the Higher Institute for Applied Sciences and Technology (HIAST). In addition to its work on missiles, HIAST has been linked by both the Japanese and British governments to Syrian chemical and biological weapon programs. Notwithstanding its ties to weaponry, the institute claims that it owes much of its success to French universities, and that it participates in scientific cooperation and exchanges with the European Community, United Nations organizations, the Japan International Cooperation Agency, the Russian Academy of Sciences, as well as British, Canadian, and German universities.
Syria has not kept its missile progress secret. In May 2005, Israeli officials reported that Syria had test-fired one Scud-B and two Scud-D missiles, the latter having a range estimated at 435 miles. In a mishap, one of the missiles disintegrated over Turkish territory, resulting in questions to Syria from the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs-and then a Syrian apology. Israeli officials who spoke about the test contended that the missiles used North Korean technology and were designed to deliver air-burst chemical weapons. The officials also pointed out that the event marked the first time Syria had tested a missile over a neighboring country, in particular a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
To supplement what it gets through civilian channels, Syria has tried to open military pathways. In January 2005, the media reported that Syria was negotiating the purchase of Russia’s formidable Iskander-E missile, which would have a 280 km-range and a 480 kg-payload. The proposed sale of the Iskander-E with its reported electro-optical terminal guidance system, boost and terminal phase maneuvering, and low radar signature would have offered Syria some of the accuracy, maneuverability, and missile defense countermeasures that its present missiles lack. The Iskander-E negotiation eventually foundered. Nonetheless, the negotiations reflect the possible future direction of Syria’s missile arsenal and the acquisition route it may take.
Imports and exports
Despite its progress at home, Syria still depends on foreign help. North Korea continues to provide essential assistance in liquid-fueled rocketry, while Chinese, Russian and Iranian entities are aiding in solid-fueled rocketry. In January 2005, press reports indicated that Russia agreed to forgive more than 70 percent of Syria’s $13 billion debt to the Soviet Union, cited by the CIA as a major factor impeding Syria’s military purchases from Russia. In the future, Syria is expected to shop in particular for machine tools, flow-forming equipment, components for producing solid rocket propellant, measurement and control systems, and autoclaves. The main procurement destination for missile-related imports is the Scientific Studies and Research Center. The Army Supply Bureau and the Higher Institute for Applied Sciences and Technology have also played a role.
Syria is also emerging as a retransfer point. According to the Iraq Survey Group, which studied Iraq’s mass destruction weapon effort for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, Mr. Firas Tlas, director of the Syrian company MAS Economic Group and son of Syria’s former defense minister, offered in 2001 to sell or provide assistance to Iraq in producing the Iskander-E. The Syrian offer was made, according to the former minister of Iraq’s Military Industrialization Commission, because Russia was unwilling to sell Iraq weaponry without an end-user certificate. To avoid this problem, Syria was to become the transit point. The Survey group also reported that in order to assist Iraq’s illicit procurements from North Korea, the Syrian company SES International Corporation served as an intermediary. These events show that in the future, Syria must also be viewed as a missile supplier.
The U.S. reaction
In May 2004, the Bush administration issued an Executive Order announcing that it would punish Syria under the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003. The Executive Order declared that Syria possessed “one of the most advanced Arab state chemical weapons capabilities,” which included “a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin,” and was “believed to have chemical warheads available for a portion of its Scud missile force.” The Executive Order forbade the U.S. export to Syria of any item appearing on the U.S. munitions list, the export of any other product from the United States other than food and medicine, and the landing or take-off from the United States of any aircraft owned by the Syrian government. In June 2005, the United States also targeted Syrian entities by freezing the assets of the Scientific Studies and Research Center (SSRC) and, at the same time, by adding SSRC, SES International Corporation, and Asif and Zuhayr Shalish to the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons list. These actions send a strong message of condemnation, but only have effect in U.S.-held institutions and territories.


Checking Account There are two types of bank accounts offered by Canadian banks: a checking account, also called a chequing account, and a savings account. The first type of account, checking account, allows holders to write checks against funds they have on deposit. What is a Checking Account? A checking account is a financial service offered by banks to allow businesses or individuals make payments on a daily basis. This type of bank account offers lower transaction and monthly fees compared to the savings account, but it also pays less interest. Access to a checking account is secured through a debit card or an ABM card. Uses Checking accounts can be used to pay debts, personal purchases, payroll, and payment for services. Since this type of bank account offers smaller transaction fees, it is the best option to use when paying for a variety of services. Savings accounts are meant to be used for deposits intended to earn interest. However, checking accounts do not earn interest or little at all because they are designed for use, with cash withdrawn on a regular basis. An account holder can make use of the account to pay for debts, purchases or services by writing a cheque or using a debit card. When using this type of account for payroll, it is recommended that the owner regularly checks if there is enough balance to cover all the paychecks. Once the account is zeroed, the cheques will bounce. A bouncing check will hurt the owner's financial situation since banks usually charge high fees in such instances. Opening a Checking Account The banking system in Canada is highly rated all over the world so opening an account is a good investment, especially when working in the area. Opening an account in a bank is easy for anyone with proper identification. Before opening an account, there are some things to consider. First of all, there are 5 major banks in Canada. These are the TD Bank, the Bank of Nova Scotia, CIBC, the Bank of Montreal, and Royal Bank of Canada. Information on these banks can be accessed online or via the phone. Before opening a bank account, check out the websites of each bank and compare the checking account deals. There are some accounts that require higher minimum balance. For convenience, choose banks that are close to your residence. In order to have an account approved, banks usually require 2 identification forms, e.g. SIN Number, driver's license, etc. Proof of address will also be required – utility bills can be used for this purpose. Typically, an initial deposit will be required to make the account active. The amount of initial deposit will vary from bank to bank so make sure to request this information from the bank. How to Check the Balance Checking the balance on an account can be done in many ways. Some banks offer printed monthly statements mailed to the owner. The account balance can also be checked through an ATM using a debit card. In addition, banks also offer real time checking via the phone or over the Internet.


Material Spatial Disorganization is a term coined by Dr. Mel Levine from All Kinds Of Minds. It refers to a challenge in organizing our physical world. Young or old, some of us have an uncanny ability to know where things are at a moment's notice. Others of us struggle with locating an object which leaves us frustrated and stressed. If this lost object is a homework assignment or a signed permission slip, then the consequences can be great.
We all know that a student's desk can be a black hole, accepting many objects but with no assurance that they will come out again. Our principal offered this solution. Use a folder bin to keep folders "at the ready". It makes filing loose papers more efficient...no digging through your desk to find the desired folder.
When in doubt, keep it out!


Summer Term 1
For the first half of the Summer Term, Year 6 will focus their learning on 'Evolution and Inheritance'
Our text focus is Skellig by David Almond to reinforce our 'Evolution' topic and help us find out more about the Theory of Evolution, fossils and features we have inherited from our relatives.
For our Science topic, we have been learning about Charles Darwin's study of Galapagos Finches. We talked about how weather conditions on the islands caused the birds beaks and feet to evolve in order for them to survive in the different conditions.
Using different instruments as 'beaks', we carried out a science investigation to work out which instrument would make the best beak and how many seeds it can collect in one minute.
As part of our Maths unit, we had a really practical session to help develop our understanding of area and perimeter in the real world. We were set a challenge to find out the area and perimeter of our new build at school.
First, we drew plans in groups of the layout of the new build.
Then, we went into the new building and used our metre sticks to find out the length and width of each part of the build.
Next, we went back into class and added our measurements onto our drawings of the new build, before working in our groups to find the area and perimeter of each room and the total area covered.
Well done Year 6 for your collaborative efforts!
You all worked fantastically in your groups and discussed great problem solving skills to work out the area / perimeter of the electrical cupboard we couldn't get in to measure.
Our RE unit for this half term is 'People of God': we have been learning the story of Moses and how he fulfilled God's wishes to help rescue His people.
After working through the different stages of the story, we looked at the 10 Plagues of Egypt and thought about whether or not Moses should help.
Here are some pictures of our Conscience Alley drama task to try and convince Moses what he should do.
Well done Year 6! I was really impressed with the thoughtful responses you gave to help persuade Moses. Both Liam and Scarlett acted in role as Moses very well too.
To start the Summer Term, we have had a whole school focus on
Starbird by Sharon King-Chai.
Starbird's songs weave the richest dreams and delight all who hear him, but when the Moon King traps him in a cage as gift for his daughter, the colour and life in his voice begin to drip away. While the Moon King is blinded by greed and selfishness, his young daughter can clearly see the injustice and cruelty of his actions.
Here are some of our Starbird summaries. We are using them as an introduction to our Moon King discussions texts:
Here are some examples of our Starbird discussion texts to find out whether the Moon King made a wise choice releasing Starbird.
All the children have worked fantastically hard on their discussion texts and should be very proud of their writing.
In a Design Technology lesson, we used planning grids to organise ideas for a Starbird shoe box scene. After we had completed our DT box scenes, we also evaluated our group work and considered how we could improve our work.
Here are some pictures of our collaborative work to create our Starbird scenes.
We thought about the choice the Moon King made to release Starbird and whether he was wise in his decision. We completed a conscience alley drama activity to allow the Moon King to look at the positives and negatives of his choice, hot seated the Moon King and are building up to writing a discussion text.
Here are some examples of our drama activities and the English work we have completed around Starbird:
We also looked at the wonderful illustrations in Starbird and had a go at drawing our own Starbirds. First, we sketched them on the playground with chalks:
Then, we used pastels to draw Starbird in our sketch books while thinking carefully about proportion:
And, we also compare Van Gogh's Starry Night to the city scape in the text. We then created our own versions of the Starbird city scape inspired by Van Gogh:


How a Passive Direct Input Box Works December 15, 2019 00:00
If you’ve spent even a little bit of time in a recording studio or doing live sound, you’ve undoubtedly worked with a DI box. But what, exactly, do these little boxes do and why do we need them? In other words, why can’t you plug a guitar right into a mixing board or audio interface?
A direct input box is used when we want to connect an unbalanced, instrument output to a balanced, microphone preamp input. The most common scenarios for this are plugging bass and keyboards into the mixing board for live sound, or recording bass and guitar through mic preamps in the studio. DIs almost always have these features:
- Unbalanced, ¼” input
- Balanced, XLR output
There are two types of DI boxes: active and passive. Active DIs run on DC power, usually from the +48v phantom power from the preamp connected to the output, because they feature active components like transistors and integrated circuits. Passive DIs, the kind we’re talking about here, require no power and feature only a couple passive components.
DI boxes were created to solve a particular set of problems that arise when connecting instruments to pro-audio equipment.
One of the first things you learn (very often the hard way) is you can’t just plug anything anywhere. The most obvious and dangerous example of this is shown below.
But why not? Incompatibilities come down to three main things:
In the case above the answer is obvious: voltage. If you plug your guitar directly into the wall, the guitar will be hit with 120v mains power and something will explode or melt. In most cases the differences aren’t so obvious, but they’re just as real.
What makes passive DI boxes so elegant and simple is that they utilize a single component to solve all these problems: a transformer. A transformer is a large, primitive analog component that ought to be obsolete except for the fact that it can do several things at once all while sounding great.
A transformer’s construction is very simple: it’s a single magnet with two wires wrapped around a metal core. The wires themselves do not touch each other, yet signal transfers between them through the principle of electro-magnetism. That is, an alternating current (which in this case carries audio signal) in the first wire generates a magnetic field in the core, which in turn generates a corresponding current in the second wire. These wires are called the primary and secondary windings. In the following sections we’ll see how this simple component can do so many things by showing how it solves the three problems we identified above.
Instrument output levels span a very wide range from the millivolts up to ~10 volts. Preamp input stages, on the other hand, are optimized for the very low output levels of microphones, which rarely exceed the millivolt range. So the transformer must solve the problem of too much voltage.
The coils in a transformer have specified number of “turns” around the core, and the ratio between the turns of each coil is the most important feature of any transformer. This is because a transformer reduces or increases the voltage of a signal in direct proportion to the turns ratio. That is, if the primary coil has 200 turns and the secondary has 100, the turns ratio is 2:1, and the voltage induced in the secondary will be half of that in the primary. The standard turns ratio for a DI transformer is 12:1, so the output is always 12 times lower (-21.5dB) than the input. Now the mic preamp is happy and won’t be overdriven by the instrument’s output voltage.
Every device has its own inherent input and output impedance. Without going too deep into the wormhole of explaining the concept of impedance, it’s important to know one general rule of thumb: when connecting two audio devices, the input impedance should be at least 10x the output impedance. When this rule isn’t followed, things start to sound muddy, noisy, and distorted.
So for example, the output z of a dynamic microphone is around 250 Ohms. This is why the input impedance of mic preamps is usually at least 2.5k Ohms. Similarly, guitars usually have an output z of between 10k-100k Ohms, so guitar amp input z is usually 1M Ohms. Now look what happens if we connect a guitar directly to a mic preamp: the output z is significantly higher the input z.
In the same way that our transformer induces a different voltage across the secondary than the primary coil, it also transforms impedances. But whereas voltage is transformed in direct proportion to the turns ratio, impedance changes by the square of the turns ratio. Thus, the impedance ratio for our 12:1 transformer is 144:1.
Say we are hooking up a guitar with a 20k Ohm output impedance to a mixing board with a 2.5k Ohm input impedance for the mic preamps. The transformer divides the 20k output z by 144, giving us an effective output z of 138 Ohms. Now we are nicely in the range of our rule of thumb; the input z of 2.5k is at least 10x higher than the output z of 138. (You can also run the math the other way: the transformer multiplies the 2.5k input z by 144, giving us an effective input z of 360k, which is more than 10x greater than 20k.) Now we can be confident that the full signal will pass from the guitar to the console without distortion or other artifacts.
There’s a great saying that “all electrons want is to go to the ground and die.” This is a way of expressing that current always flows from high voltage to lower, and the ground is our 0 volts reference point. This is why the safety pin of the outlets in your house are wired to a pipe in the ground (check your basement!)—it gives electrons a quicker path to the ground than through your body. However not all “grounds” are a perfect 0 vots, and ground problems arise when two connected pieces of equipment have different ground voltages or when noise doesn’t have a quick path to ground without infecting the audio circuitry. These are the main causes of hum and buzz in the studio and live sound.
Pro-audio equipment addresses ground problems by using 3-pin, balanced connections where the ground and audio paths are separated. In a standard XLR cable, for example, pin 1 is ground (also known as “chass) and pins 2 and 3 are signal + and -, respectively. A well-wired studio with only balanced connections can be practically free of ground noise.
Instruments, however, use 2-pin, unbalanced connections which do not allow for isolating the ground and signal. In a standard ¼” guitar cable, for example, the tip carries the signal, while the sleeve carries the ground.
So what happens if we plug an unbalanced guitar directly into a balanced input? As you can see in the illustration below, the sleeve of the unbalanced guitar cable will connect to both the chassis and signal - parts of the balanced input. This provides a path for current to flow between the ground of the unbalanced system and the signal - of the balanced system, in other words noise, hum, and buzz.
Modified and reused under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license.Original rendering by Søren Peo Pedersen
Transformers solve this problem by providing what's called galvanic isolation between the input and output stages. Recall that transformers transfer voltage from one winding to the next through electromagnetic induction, without providing a path for current to flow. Thus, they allow the balanced output stage to communicate the signal to the unbalanced input stage without allowing ground currents to form. That's it. An elegant solution to a complex problem.


Fought on March 23, the Battle of Kernstown I was the first engagement of the Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1862. The battle was also Stonewall Jackson's only defeat as commander of a large force during the Civil War.
On February 27, 1862, Major General Nathaniel Banks, Union commander of the Department of the Shenandoah, led much of the V Corps of the Army of the Potomac (over twenty thousand soldiers) across the Potomac River near Harper's Ferry and into Virginia. Banks's aim was to move south, up the Shenandoah Valley, toward Richmond, to support Major General George B. McClellan's much-anticipated offensive against the Confederate capital.
The sole obstacle in Banks's path was a small Confederate force commanded by General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. Comprising the left wing of General Joseph Johnston's Confederate Army of the Potomac (soon to become the famed Army of Northern Virginia), Jackson reported the size of his command the day after Banks's invasion as 4,297 infantry, 369 artillery, and 601 cavalry. Jackson was headquartered at Winchester, roughly thirty miles south of Harpers Ferry. Jackson's instructions were to keep Banks from reinforcing McClellan, but facing such overwhelming odds, the Confederate general had no choice but to withdraw in the face of Banks's approaching army. Jackson abandoned Winchester on March 11, and Union forces occupied the town unopposed on the following day.
Following Jackson's withdrawal, Union strategists ordered Banks to divide his command and to send two of his three divisions east to replace troops preparing to support McClellan's offensive. Brigadier-General James Shields, commanding Banks's 2nd Division, remained in the Shenandoah Valley to deal with Jackson.
On March 21, Jackson received erroneous information that Shields's division, which was encamped near Winchester, consisted of just three thousand men. Believing the odds now to be more even, Jackson ordered two grueling forced marches back toward Winchester, mindful of General Johnston's orders to get as "near as prudence will permit" to keep Banks's army in the Valley.
On March 22, Jackson's cavalry, led by Colonel Turner Ashby, engaged Union pickets in the area of Winchester. When General Shields rode out to assess the situation, a Confederate shell exploded nearby, wounding his chest and shoulder. Shields traveled to a hospital near Winchester and field command of the division passed to Colonel Nathan Kimball.
Kimball quickly identified the force to his front as Jackson's cavalry and correctly surmised that Jackson was moving north toward Winchester. He countered by establishing a line across the Valley Turnpike near the village of Kernstown, three miles south of Winchester. Kimball located his field headquarters and artillery batteries on Pritichard's Hill, a small elevation just to the right of the road. From that vantage point, Kimball had an excellent view of troop movements near the turnpike.
On March 23, Ashby probed the Confederate line throughout the morning. Jackson arrived on the scene at approximately 1 p.m. and deployed his artillery on Sandy Ridge, an elevation west of the Union headquarters. When Jackson visited the site later in the afternoon, his view disclosed that he was facing a federal division of approximately 8,500 men, rather than the three thousand Yankees whom he expected. Purportedly, Jackson remarked, "We are in for it." Events later in the day proved him to be correct.
Upon learning that Northerners outmanned his command, Jackson called off his planned assault. Instead, he deployed his troops in a defensive position along Sandy Ridge and began shelling the Union headquarters on Pritchard Hill. The Rebel bombardment prompted Kimball to order an assault on Sandy Ridge. The Confederates held the better ground, being deployed behind a stone wall. The Federals, however, had more men. The Rebels held their position until nearly 6 p.m. when they began to run out of ammunition. Faced with the possibility of being overrun, Brigadier General Richard B. Garnett ordered his men to abandon the ridge. As Garnett's men fell back, other Confederates joined the withdrawal, and the retreat became a rout. The fighting ended when night fell.
Upon learning of the Union victory, General Banks rushed to the scene and took charge the next day. Banks ordered a token pursuit of the fleeing Confederates, but he failed to press the issue, enabling Jackson to escape. Jackson retreated up the valley (southward) as far as Mount Jackson near New Market. Jackson arrested Garnett for ordering the retreat at Sandy Ridge without Jackson's authorization. The charges eventually went before a court martial, but the court never rendered a decision. Robert E. Lee restored Garnett to duty prior to the Battle of Antietam (September 17, 1862). Despite his arrest, Garnett harbored no ill-will toward Jackson. After Jackson was killed at the Battle of Chancellorsville (April 30-May 6, 1863), Garnett served as a pallbearer at Jackson's funeral. Garnett was killed less than two months later at the Battle of Gettysburg (July 1–3, 1863).
The Confederate loss at the Battle of Kernstown was Stonewall Jackson's only defeat as commander of a large force during the Civil War. Rebel losses were 718 (eighty killed, 375 wounded, and 263 missing or captured, compared with Union casualties totaling 590 (118 killed, 450 wounded, and twenty-two missing or captured. After the battle, officials promoted Kimball to the rank of brigadier-general. Nonetheless, his victory turned out to be a strategic success for the Confederacy. Overly concerned about the possibility of Jackson launching an assault upon the nation's capital, President Lincoln ordered Union troops back into the Shenandoah Valley. Thus, Jackson achieved his goal of keeping Banks's army from supporting the Union offensive against Richmond.
Ohio units that participated in the Battle of Kernstown I included:
4th Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry
5th Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry
7th Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry
8th Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry
29th Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry
62nd Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry
67th Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry
1st Regiment Ohio Volunteer Cavalry (Companies A and C)
Battery H, 1st Regiment Ohio Light Artillery
Battery L, 1st Regiment Ohio Light Artillery
Cite this Entry
"Battle of Kernstown I," Ohio Civil War Central, 2018, Ohio Civil War Central. 19 Oct 2018 <http://www.ohiocivilwarcentral.com/entry.php?rec=954>
"Battle of Kernstown I." (2018) In Ohio Civil War Central, Retrieved October 19, 2018, from Ohio Civil War Central: http://www.ohiocivilwarcentral.com/entry.php?rec=954


Generation / supply price: What you pay. Unlike other states, Pennsylvania keeps cost per kWh easy to understand. Other states muddy the waters by including fees and discounts applied according to usage amounts in the quoted rate. PA companies show you you one steady rate. If you’re looking at a variable plan, this cost will reflect your first month only. If it is a special introductory rate, they’ll tell you how long it lasts.
The business model behind the electric utility has changed over the years playing a vital role in shaping the electricity industry into what it is today; from generation, transmission, distribution, to the final local retailing. This has occurred prominently since the reform of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales in 1990. In some countries, wholesale electricity markets operate, with generators and retailers trading electricity in a similar manner to shares and currency. As deregulation continues further, utilities are driven to sell their assets as the energy market follows in line with the gas market in use of the futures and spot markets and other financial arrangements. Even globalization with foreign purchases are taking place. One such purchase was when the UK’s National Grid, the largest private electric utility in the world, bought New England’s electric system for $3.2 billion. Between 1995 and 1997, seven of the 12 Regional Electric Companies (RECs) in England and Wales were bought by U.S. energy companies. Domestically, local electric and gas firms have merged operations as they saw the advantages of joint affiliation, especially with the reduced cost of joint-metering. Technological advances will take place in the competitive wholesale electric markets, such examples already being utilized include fuel cells used in space flight; aeroderivative gas turbines used in jet aircraft; solar engineering and photovoltaic systems; off-shore wind farms; and the communication advances spawned by the digital world, particularly with microprocessing which aids in monitoring and dispatching.
As of April 2014, 16 U.S. states and the District of Columbia have deregulated electricity markets. Along with aforementioned Maryland and Texas, electricity deregulation is current in Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. Seven additional U.S. states began the process of electricity deregulation but have suspended efforts: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia, and Wyoming.
Know that Green Mountain’s cheapest advertised plans are all variable rate plans. “Pollution Free,” “Pollution Free Try 3,” or “SolarSPARC 10 Try 3” all advertise a great initial rate — a full cent below Pennsylvania’s 8.49 cent “price to compare” — but its variable rates means the company can raise them at any time. The two “Try 3” plans just lock in the low introductory rate for three months instead of one. The flipside of fixed rate: Should prices fall, you’ll be locked into a contract with a constant, elevated rate for two more months.
*Only new customer successful enrollments with Constellation. Cards are issued by Virtual Rewards Center. Valid email address required for receipt of Gift card. Gift cards will not have cash access. For any questions about your Gift card, call our customer care team at 1-877-997-9995. The listed merchants are in no way affiliated with Constellation nor are the listed merchants to be considered sponsors or co-sponsors of this program. Use of merchant names and/or logos is by the permission of each respective merchant and all trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Terms and conditions are applied to gift cards/certificates. Please see the merchant gift card/gift certificate for additional terms and conditions, which are subject to change at merchant's sole discretion. Constellation will share your name and email address with Virtual Reward Center for reward fulfillment only. Reward link expires in 3 months.
Although electricity had been known to be produced as a result of the chemical reactions that take place in an electrolytic cell since Alessandro Volta developed the voltaic pile in 1800, its production by this means was, and still is, expensive. In 1831, Michael Faraday devised a machine that generated electricity from rotary motion, but it took almost 50 years for the technology to reach a commercially viable stage. In 1878, in the United States, Thomas Edison developed and sold a commercially viable replacement for gas lighting and heating using locally generated and distributed direct current electricity.


Bulimia nervosa (commonly known as bulimia) is an eating disorder and serious mental health problem. It is characterized by episodes of eating a large amount of food in very short periods of time, with a feeling that there is no control of this behavior. It is an irresistible compulsion. Following binges, there is the impulse to compensate for the behavior by purging – and this might include vomiting, induced by one’s finger or taking some medication, or going on a long run.
They experience fluctuating weight loss, but unlike anorexia nervosa, people with bulimia nervosa are still able to maintain the average weight with respect to their height, so they appear relatively normal. Bulimia nervosa is more of a mental aspect than a physical one such as private eating activities. Compared to the rest of the population or those with regular eating habits, people with bulimia nervosa are still considered to be the thinner individuals. They also wear loose-fitting clothes in order to hide their bodies. Anyone can develop bulimia, but it’s most common in young people aged 13 to 17.
From a psychological perspective, bulimia feels like an addiction. It feels like something the person cannot control, and often results in very low self-esteem, poor self-image, and is not a pleasant experience. The intense shame often obstructs seeking help.
What are the signs of bulimia?
- Some common red flags include:
- Eating large amounts of food in isolation
- Being unable to control how much you eat
- Vomiting after meals
- Using laxatives, diuretics, enemas, or other pills after eating when they’re not needed
- Exercising or dieting excessively
- Experiencing frequent weight changes
- Suffering from fainting or dizziness spells
- Being intensely concerned with bodyweight
What causes bulimia?
Experts don’t know exactly what causes bulimia. Society and cultural ideals that value certain body weights and shapes play a role. There is also a genetic link as eating disorders tend to run in families.
How is bulimia diagnosed?
Your healthcare provider may want to perform a physical exam, blood or urine test, and a psychological evaluation. A good first step is to consult your primary care physician. He or she can then refer you to a more specialized doctor.
Is there any treatment available?
Research has shown that, if caught in early stages enough and treated in the right way, 80% of people with bulimia nervosa can fully recover. The most important treatments include monitoring of medical and nutritional status, including possible medical complications and psychiatric care.
From the mental health standpoint, effective treatments include psychotherapy, most importantly, cognitive behavior therapy. Additional psychotherapy methods for many patients include mindful meditation, techniques to regulate emotions, and family therapy. Medications, and in particular the antidepressant medications are extremely valuable in diminishing binging and purging episodes. They also treat associated depression, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorders if present, and diminish impulsivity.
Goals of treatment are for the person to:
- Resume normal eating habits
- Stop the binge/compensatory behavior cycle
- Reach normal body weight
Treatment for eating disorders is most effective before the condition becomes chronic. It’s always important to seek help as soon as you notice any warning signs or symptoms.


As of July 1, 2016, the state of Vermont requires all foods made with genetically modified ingredients to be labeled as such. While transparency in the food supply chain is typically a good thing, in the case of GMOs it does not make sense from a nutritional standpoint.
The Dirt-to-Dinner team understands the importance of food labeling. It helps consumers understand the nutritional content, identify ingredients, and to avoid an allergic reaction!
Nutrition labels help us identify the daily percentage or specific key nutrients and unhealthy additives, like sugar. (Sugar is Sugar discusses how sugar can cause long term health issues.) But, in the case of GMO vs. non-GMO products, this is not applicable. All genetically modified produce has the same nutritional content as non-GMO food. For instance, your corn tortilla has the exact same nutritional profile regardless if it was made with GM corn or not.
Labeling GMO produce gives implies that there must be something wrong with GMOs. It is labeling initiatives like this that fuel consumers distrust of GMOs. And a lack of understanding often leads to fear, which urges consumers to select ‘made without GMOs’ foods when given a choice. But, in reality, when polled, over 60% of people are not sure what the acronym “GMO” even means!
Vermont is the first state to require labeling — will others follow?
The state of Vermont is home to the most certified organic farms per capita. Thus, it is not surprising that Vermont is the first state to require such labeling. But this arduous labeling process is not solely focused on food transparency. More than helping the consumer “know what is in their food”, Vermont’s legislation condemns GMOs. The Vermont Labeling Rule implies that the FDA has not done a thorough review of GMOs; that there is no scientific consensus on the validity of GMO research; and that they are protecting public health and food safety. But, if we simply refer to the FDA’s website, you will find the agency’s exhaustive research on genetic engineering, from plant toxicity levels to the nutritional value against its traditionally-bred counterpart.
The FDA has a very real responsibility to protect its American citizens and would not lazily let some “new food technology” slip through the cracks. But GMOs are the most highly tested food ever created without one documented negative health event. Our food is safer than ever before. Why can’t we trust the FDA, USDA, WHO, EFSA, and even the EPA, all internationally recognized organizations indicating that GMOs pose no human health or environmental risk?
Proponents of GMOs have shown crops can be grown with a higher yield per acre while still reducing pesticide, herbicide, and water use. The opposition doesn’t like the use of the pesticide, glyphosate, which is a less toxic pesticide than most. They think it poses health risks as well as reducing crop biodiversity.
For those still opposed to genetically modified foods, there are still many options. Legally, certified Organic foods cannot contain GMOs. Whole Foods has even dedicated a portion of its website on ‘How to Shop if Avoiding GMOs’. There are cost-effective ways to be a smart shopper without wasting state government resources and money to further increase GMO labeling.
Scientific Studies on GMOs
USA National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture (2000) | Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States (2010)
USA Institute of Medicine (IOM) & National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies.
Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects (2004)
USA National Academies (IOM, NRC, NAS, NAE)
A Science-Based Look at Genetically Engineered Crops (The study will be ready in 2016)
USA American Medical Association (AMA)
Council on Science and Public Health Report (2012)
USA American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods (2012)
USA American Council of Science and Health (ACSH)
Biotechnology and Food (Second Edition) (2000)
USA Society of Toxicology (SOT)
The Safety of Genetically Modified Foods Produced through Biotechnology (2003)
USA American Dietetic Association
Position of the American Dietetic Association: Agricultural and food biotechnology (2006)
USA Genetics Society of America
Assessing Benefits and Risks of Genetically Modified Organisms (2001)
USA American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB)
ASCB Statement in Support of Research on Genetically Modified Organisms (2009)
USA American Society of Plant Biology (ASPB)
Statement on Plant Genetic Engineering
USA American Society for Microbiology (ASM)
Statement of the American Society for Microbiology on Genetically Modified Organisms (2000)
USA American Phytopathological Society (APS)
APS Statement on Biotechnology and its Application to Plant Pathology (2001)
USA Society for In Vitro Biology (SIVB)
Position Statement on Crop Engineering
USA Crop Science Society of America
CSSA Perspective on Biotechnology (2001)
USA Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST)
Crop Biotechnology and the Future of Food: A Scientific Assessment (2005)
USA Federation of Animal Sciences Societies (FASS) – representing the American Dairy Science Association (ADSA), American Society of Animal Science (ASAS) and the Poultry Science Association (PSA).
FASS Facts On Biotech Crops – Impact on Meat, Milk and Eggs (2001)
USA Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Questions & Answers on Food from Genetically Engineered Plants
The Bottom Line:
In the United States, food safety should remain where it belongs: with the governmental organizations we have in place to keep our food clean, safe and environmentally responsible.


Florida Sandhill Cranes
Photo credit: SFWMD
Crane Sounds: USGS/NorthWord Press
Endangered Birds of Florida
The Sandhill Crane
Grus canadensis pratensis
To begin: what is a Bird?
A Bird is a warm blooded,
bipedal (two legs)
vertebrate (has a backbone)
bills and wings and most can
It lays eggs to reproduce and
many theories have
it classified as a direct
descendant of Dinosaurs,
dating back to the Jurassic
The Florida Sandhill Crane
is one of 2 Crane species in Florida,
the other being the
spectacular Whooping Crane.
These 2 Cranes are the
only ones in North America
and are most likely the oldest birds on Earth,
dating back possibly to over 6 million
There are 2 kinds of Sandhill Cranes in
resident and migratory.
The Sandhills Cranes are about 47
have a wingspan of 79 inches and
weigh about 11 pounds.
Crane lifespan averages 20-24 years.
Sandhills Cranes normally
have 2 chicks/babies,
but rarely do they both survive.
As with other great birds, they
care for their young together.
Both Crane species mate for life, however
mate dies or is killed, they will
When Cranes fly, it is
normally in a breath
formation, commanding full attention.
As these magnificent birds
fly over homes
here in the Ocala Forest, they
often squawk in a
sound announcing their presence quite loudly.
their sounds can actually
be heard for several miles away.
Young ones alone in a field will
often call repeatedly
until a parent shows up to calm its
This primordial call is an eerie
auditory reminder of
what the era of the dinosaur must
have been like.
Go here to hear the
Our Cranes can frequently be found in
an open pasture with
local cattle, consuming an easy meal
of corn and grains.
Many days, they land in the
field across the street from us and
carry on for a bit making
sure everyone has noticed them.
Whenever someone lets their dog run
loose in the field,
they squawk loudly and fly off
disgruntled for a moment,
but they return to continue
eating after the invader has left.
They do not share~
Sandhill Cranes with chicks
The Cranes are often
spotted in fields along County Road 42,
just outside Paisley and
are usually in pairs or with a single chick.
The exception was an occasion
recently, when 3 of them
were observed near the
Paisley Post Office parking lot in
what appeared to be a
battle between 2 males for a female.
Sandhills in the Ocala Forest
beautiful, graceful birds will always be here
in the Ocala National
Forest in Central Florida for us to enjoy.
A final note:
There is a wonderful documentary on
if you are lucky enough to get to
It details the travels of the
and has some unforgettable moments~
Places to learn more:
Boreal Songbird Initiative
All about Birds: The Sandhill Crane
Dr. Gary Krapu
Cranes and the Platte River
A Tale of Sandhill Cranes
Crane Cam - live
during Migration - late February to April
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Spring Migration - Sandhill Cranes
Northern Prairie Wildlife
Southwest Florida Water Management
Walking with the Alligators
Write to Gator Woman
gatorwoman3 at centurylink.net
Keep Florida Wildlife Wild and Alive~
Web Design by:
Educating Visitors About Florida's Wildlife Since June 6, 2008
Last edited September 28, 2019
Links, questions and feedback are always appreciated.
Walking With The Alligators.com does not share or sell any visitor information.
2008 - 2019 Walking With The Alligators.com All Rights Reserved.


OLD CURRENCY BUYERS
Call or Text 864-430-4020 or send an email for our best offer admin@OldCurrencyValues.com
1928 is the only year for which you can find a small size one dollar bill that has a red seal. The red seal denotes that the dollar bill is a legal tender note, also called a United States Note. 1928 one dollar red seal notes are very popular.
The story of the 1928 is a strange one, in that it doesn’t make any chronological sense. All 1928 red seal dollar bills say series of 1928 on them. However, they were actually not printed until 1933. To make things even odder, 1928 one dollar red seals didn’t get released for circulation until late 1948. When they were finally released into circulation, Puerto Rico was chosen as the location of distribution. Despite that less than direct path, many low serial number, choice uncirculated, red seal one dollar bills exist today.
A collector can buy a heavily circulated 1928 red seal one for around $50. Uncirculated notes start at around $200 and go up slowly from there based on centering. As mentioned above, there is a staggering number of high grade 1928 one dollar legal tender notes known to exist. This is thanks in part to many of the first 4,000 notes issued being saved, along with a few packs of 100 consecutive notes. In fact, consecutive packs of 100 are occasionally still available fully intact.
The collectability of the 1928 one dollar red seal does relate to the fact that it is a one year design and the note is very distinctive. Thanks to research, we know that 1,872,012 notes were printed. All of these notes were printed in Washington DC and they are all signed by WO Woods as the treasurer of the united states and WH Woodin as secretary of the treasury. The back of all 1928 one dollar red seals feature the funnyback design.
In addition to George Washington and a red seal, each 1928 one dollar legal tender note also says:
“This note is a legal tender at its face value for all debts public and private except duties on imports and interest on the public debt”
“United States Note – The United States of America – Washington – Will Pay To The Bearer On Demand One Dollar”
Star notes were also printed for the 1928 one dollar legal tender series and they are quite rare. Learn more about 1928 $1 red seal star notes here.
We are aggressive buyers of all 1928 one dollar legal tender notes. We are especially looking for high grade examples, consecutive runs, sheets, and star notes. Contact us now and tell us what you have. firstname.lastname@example.org