Flux Capacitance Time Travel (Bajak Circuit)

The "Flux Capacitance Time Travel Circuit" is a small electronic circuit attributed to John Bajak and dated 1990. Bajak asserts that the circuit produces a "temporal flux" that can accelerate, decelerate or oscillate a target object between past and future. The claim is presented in the source as Bajak's own assertion, supported only by a first-person two-watch comparison and informal, contradictory forum reports.

Circuit description

The parts list is given verbatim in the source:

B1      27 volt source
C1      1200 uF 50V electrolytic
P1      piezoelectric transducer (value uncritical)
S1      charging switch (SPST)
G1      25-ohm rheostat (future control)
G2,G3   switch (SPST) and 1M-ohm potentiometer for past control

A later reproduction on Paranormalis adds a part number for the transducer ("P1 Piezoelectric transducer (273-073) (value uncritical)") and reorganizes G2/G3 as a 1 M-ohm potentiometer and a separate SPST switch.

The transcriber of the original ASCII file flags an unresolved ambiguity: "I don't know whether G1 and G2 are really supposed to be a rheostat and a potentiometer, or both rheostats, or both pots. He refers to two rheostats elsewhere, and I was just going to call them pots until I remembered that rheostats would have some inductance." The source never resolves this.

Claimed mechanism

Bajak's stated mechanism is that quartz "has the property of negative inductance (in which mass moves in response to charge and vice-versa)," and that when charge is pulsed into a "time resonant capacitor," the crystal "surfs" the time landscape "like a surfer in the sea, carrying mass in its wave along with it." Ordinary time, lacking this negative inductance, "continues in appearance of a continuum, like the general theory of relativity."

The claimed threshold is a "critical energy" of about 1215 µF, by analogy with the critical mass of a nuclear weapon. The figure is inconsistent in the source: 1215.9 µF in the 1994 letter, 1214.9 µF in the theory section, and a 1200 µF part in the parts list.

Operating instructions

The manual gives the following procedure verbatim:

With batteries installed, Depress switch for 3 to 4 seconds, Release for 3 to 4 seconds; Repeat as necessary.

It adds that the transducer output should be pointed "toward the person or thing you want changed," that the target "will begin oscillating between past and future," and that the generator "is more powerful during Nighttime." It warns against pointing the device at oneself "for any appreciable amount of cycles," claiming that "DAMAGE to your time detection circuits may occur, Damaging your overall sanity."

Claimed evidence

The only experimental claim is a two-watch comparison: a quartz piezoelectric crystal in parallel with a "capacitance of time resonance (1214.9 uF)," given DC pulses at 9 V and 1/2 second pulse frequency for ten seconds, is said to have pushed a home clock forward one second relative to a control clock five feet away, "duplicated three times at different voltages and distances." No protocol, instruments, raw data or independent observers are described.

Reported replication attempts

The source collects informal reports that conflict with one another. Blake Bowyer (1998) claims a target watch ran 2 minutes 17 seconds fast after seven minutes using a smoke-alarm beeper as the oscillating input. Other 1998–1999 posters report three failed builds, watches overheating, warping, shattering or "dissolving," headaches, and a burned-out rheostat. A 2007 poster describes an in-car "experience" with no measurement. A 1998 poster identifies a schematic error in the battery polarity marking.

Distinction from the Gibbs-attributed variant

The source explicitly distinguishes Bajak's design from a later document, "The Bajak Report File," attributed to Steven Gibbs, which uses capacitor values in millifarads and an electronic switch in place of the manual on-off switch. The two designs should not be conflated.

Assessment

The claimed effect rests on first-person assertion and anonymous forum posts. The source contains an internal schematic error and an unresolved component ambiguity, and the "critical energy" figure does not match the specified component. The wiki records the claim and its reception; it does not treat the effect as established. See Bajak Claims vs. Evidence: The Two-Watch Experiment, Replication Reports and the Schematic Error.