Except that Maurice Allais (1911-2010 - six years younger than Townsend Brown) went on to win a Nobel Prize in Economics in 1988. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Allais
A Maurice Allais Foundation exists, created by his daughter Christine. It has an English section which gives a lot of useful information, particularly on his controversial physics research.
http://www.fondationmauriceallais.org/t ... h/?lang=en
I wonder how this letter might have played into the US scientific and military establishment's attitude toward Townsend Brown's work in 1959? Well, one result appears to be this:Presentations and analyses of Maurice Allais’s research
By Jean-Bernard DELOLY
▪ From 1957 to 1960 Maurice Allais’s research struck a certain chord and was discussed in numerous publications and in-depth debates, none of which enabled his findings to be invalidated notwithstanding the hostility they had aroused in certain quarters of the scientific community: it is reasonable to suppose that if they had been vitiated by gross errors this would certainly have been pointed out.
Witness, for instance, the following extract from a letter written by General Bergeron to Wernher von Braun in May 1959:
“Before writing to you I judged it necessary to visit both of Professor Allais’s laboratories (one of which is located 60 m underground) in the company of eminent specialists – including two professors from the École Polytechnique. In the course of a discussion which lasted several hours, it was not possible to locate any significant source of error or any attempted explanation which resisted analysis.
“I think I ought also to inform you that in the course of these last two years, more than ten members of the Académie des Sciences and more than thirty eminent personalities, gravitation specialists of various kinds, have come to visit either his Saint-Germain laboratory or his underground laboratory at Bougival.
“Detailed discussion took place, not only on these occasions, but also several times in various scientific milieux, notably at the Académie des Sciences and at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. None of them enabled any explanation whatsoever to be brought forward in the context of currently recognized theories.”
http://www.fondationmauriceallais.org/t ... m/?lang=en
And then... throughout the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s.... silence.a paper recapitulating this research up to 1957 which was published in early 1958 in “Perspective X”, the review of the École Polytechnique, under the title “Doit-on reconsidérer les lois de la gravitation ?” [Should the laws of gravitation be reconsidered ?] (pp. 90-104). The text of this paper was reprised in an article in the review “Fusion” in 1998 (Fusion, November-December 1998, pp. 40-53).
An English translation of this paper was subsequently published as two successive articles in the American review “Aero-Space Engineering”, at the recommendation of NASA director Wernher von Braun, under the title “Should the laws of Gravitation be Reconsidered ?” (Aero/Space Engineering, September 1959, n° 9, pp. 46-52, October 1959, n° 10, pp. 51-55, November 1959, n° 11, p. 55). It was to play a decisive role in making known Maurice Allais’s research.
In 1997, Allais summarised his 1950s work in "L’Anisotropie de l’espace" [The Anisotropy of Space], published by Clément Juglar. In 1999, this book was further summarised and translated into English for David Noever of NASA:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190806172 ... report.pdf
The general thrust of Allais' research is that a particular type of "Focault Pendulum" appears to show cycles of not-quite-24-hours that match an influence by either the moon, stars, or planets. This seems very similar in style, if not in actual data, to the "sidereal radiation" observed by Townsend Brown with his Differential Electrometer. There seem to be observable rhythms that should not, according to current mainstream textbook understandings of Relativity, be detectable by any instruments whatsoever.The present memoir has been prepared at the occasion of the vast enquiry initiated by NASA under the direction of David Noever about the “Allais Effect” during the eclipse of 11 August 1999.
And yet it moves.
A 2016 paper by Jean-Bernard Deloly, who writes on the Foundation website, sums up the then-known state of Allais replications:
http://www.fondationmauriceallais.org/w ... rad_2-.pdf
Deloly continues to publish (as recently as this year, 2023) research on replication studies of Allais' pendulum.In view of the analysis made by Maurice Allais3 all these conditions can be considered satisfied at least as regards:
- a lunar diurnal periodic component of 24h50mn;
- a diurnal periodic component of 24h (or more precisely, of about 24h4)
-a lunar monthly periodic component (estimated sidereal Lunar: period 27, 32 days);
- a semi-annual periodic component, the maximum of which is near the spring equinox5;
- a slow variation which appears as a long periodic component of 5, 9 years (and which can be considered as resulting of a global action of the solar system).'
As regards the direction variable over time towards which the plan of oscillation was called back (the so-called "direction of anisotropy of space"), Maurice Allais experimentally eliminate any role of the anisotropy of the support and of the suspension of the pendulum6. We can thus think that this variable direction results only from causes external to the pendulum, and, more than fifty years later, it remains apparently inexplicable by conventional causes.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinfo ... rid=125360
Regards, Nate