Electrogravity Physics

Question:  Have you built and tested any devices like the Hooper coil or similar,  and seen for yourself definite signs of a subtle gravity-like force?

Answer:   Yes, I have.  I have built many variations of coils and electrogravity producing devices, including pulsing high discharge currents through special high drift-velocity materials.   The measured results are still small, in the nano to micro-Volts regions.  Some may say the results are too small to be sure there is a real effect.  As you know, there is much stray electrical noise  (mechanical, thermocouple, circuit noise, RF, etc.) down in the nanoVolt area.

I started my career as an electronics engineer.  I have always had a bent to “see” the physics of a problem, rather than talk about it – with math and probabilities on a blackboard. 

My mind does not understand multidimensional spaces or gravitational string theories, it just somehow refuses to cooperate.  I guess this can be a blessing or a curse, depending on whether I am looking for a simple solution or not (smile).

I see not-so-subtle signs of gravity every day.  When I wake up and I step out of bed, my legs fall to the floor.    If something makes any sense at all about gravity, it has to be that gravity is just a pseudo-force.  People have been looking for an explanation for too long but to no avail. 

I believe you will understand gravity when you think of it as a unique non-shieldable dielectric effect, produced by the byproduct of ordinary electromagnetics.  Perhaps the effect should be called: “cold electricity”?

By that I mean, electrical forces that do not require other electrons to push through a metal wire on electrons.  “Cold electricity” (a secondary and unique type of electrical voltage potential) can cause motion on electroncs directly, without friction that electrons normally exerperience when they flow in a metal wire.

Much work and research still remain to be done.  Your suggestions and input are welcome.

Question:  I’m new to this field of electrogravity and your site has been a big help.  Just obtained the Hooper patents and am planning to make the pancake coil he described.  I have an old analytical balance which I plan to use to detect and small change in weight of an object suspended below the coil.  Is this likely to work?

Any idea how much current to put through the coil?  I may water cool it.  Right now my expectations are modest, just want to see for myself if this is for real.  If there is any positive result, then maybe I’ll get serious about some further development, possibly with superconductors.

Hooper indicated that the pancake coil, which is obviously not divergent, can reduce the weight of the object underneath.

Answer:  There is usually some amount of divergence in any electrogravity field unless you are talking about a laser-like field generation.  However, I would think the pancake coil field is divergent only in the far-field, some distance away.  Maybe the near-field is not divergent?  I have not tested or tried it, but now that you mention it, I may do a mathematical model of the distribution around the pancake coil.  It may have relevance to the experiment in Tampere.  Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

The problem with all of Hooper’s coil designs is that they produce very minute electrogravity effects.  Their results are still small whether you put in 10 amps or 50 amps – producing results down in the micro Volt area. 

I do not think you will see any weight change on your balance scale with the Hooper coils.  The effects must be billions of times smaller than the electrogravity field generated by mother Earth. Such a small weight change is much smaller than most gravity/scale instrumentation can measure.

In fact, NASA did an experiment (I am not sure why they even tried) with one of the Hooper coil designs (parallel conductors) and found there was no measurable weight change, measured to some millionth of a part of the Earth gravity.  This fits well with what we know about the small fields from the Hooper coils.  We need to build a stronger field.

Question:  Here in S.E. Asia there is a lot of money floating around for R & D, etc. so it might be possible to get some funding,  but I must be able to demonstrate that it works!

Answer:   Money has a way of getting in the way of truly worthwhile activities.  I think antigravity research and technology should not be patented or owned by any individual or company for the exploitation of the masses.  We have seen too much of this behavior already.  Man must grow up.  Money is not everything. 

I hope the oil companies wake up, get straight and start supporting the pollution-free hydrogen engine.  We already have the technology, today – although there is some talk about how electric cars are better than hydrogen cars.

Knowledge about nature (as in physics) should be free for all of man, and I hope we wake up and stop raping our beautiful planet of all its resources.

Question:  How did you measure your success in terms of a gravity-like force?  Weight? Pendulums? Other?  What was your highest measurement?

Answer:  Originally just to satisfy my own curiosity, I built several devices.  I was not planning to publish any of my findings.  See my report on this above.  Now that there is some interest, I may go ahead and build the next generation of EG generators – something that would produce a much greater field, something that can actually be felt and “seen”.  Perhaps we might be able to bounce Ping-Pong balls off of it (smile).

The success of producing high-intensity EG fields lies in increasing the drift-velocity of the current that produces the EG field. The drift-velocity in copper (for normal current ranges) has an electron-drift velocity on the order of inches per minute.  It is really slow.   However, semiconductors and gases, not to mention particles moving in a vacuum have much higher drift velocities.  This is where the improvements must be done.

Regarding superconductor research, it is worth noting that Francis Gibson (Hooper’s research assistant) reported that Hooper was very surprised when he found that after putting his coil on dry-ice, the readings decreased for the same amount of current through the coil.  In fact, Hooper found that the higher the temperature of his coil (and a higher resistance) the better the readings, for the same current.  This is right in line with the model for the drift-velocity through metals, which requires a higher electron drift velocity to produce the same current when the wire has more resistance. In fact, Hooper found that adding a resistance ANYWHERE in the circuit will increase the generated effect (for the same current.)  This can easily be understood in terms of a higher drift-velocity when adding the resistance and keeping the current constant.  See more details and potential problems with the Hooper experiments.

However, this is the opposite of what most researchers are thinking with superconductivity, etc, but the formulas from Hooper and in my own paper, indicate that the drift velocity is an important element in the production of the effect, and which may be easier to manipulate than increasing currents.  Remember, when you start dealing with the current of 200 amperes plus, you are quickly reaching your practical limits with low-cost electronics components.

Question:  From what I’ve seen of some of the Biefeld-Brown designs, they seem to rely on ion movement – not meaning the force arising itself from the airflow created but from something else arising from the charge movement.  The Tampere device allegedly had some slight ability to deflect masses when Meissner levitated (conducting supercurrents) but not spinning, but then showed the greatest effects while spinning, and especially when decelerating (logically a probably more rapid change in velocity than during spin-up acceleration – my assumption).

All this seems to indicate that the interesting effects can arise out of just physically moving or spinning a charged or current-carrying coil, plate, etc.  Spinning charged objects are of course constantly exposing their charges to acceleration, which might have a larger effect for some reason than simple constant speed motion – do you think?

Answer:  The basic principle is outlined in electrogravity law # 1.  Moving charges equals the electrogravity field.  It can be spinning, rotating, accelerating, or whatever.  Naturally when charges are accelerating you also produce other types of normal electromagnetic fields, in addition to the electrogravity field.  This may be unnecessary for the production of just the electrogravity field, which only requires a steady-state velocity.

I was never able to find all the mechanical details of the Tampere experiment, but I understand it produced a small weight loss on the test object when the superconductor disk was charged with rotating currents.  If the drift velocity is on the order of inches per second or slower in the superconductor (I am making a wild guess here, based upon copper in room temperature…) then rotating the disk in the same direction as the current would further amplify the effect through a higher electron velocity and a stronger electrogravity field.

The Biefeld-Brown effect, I believe, gets its effect from unpolarizing some of the atoms in the capacitor and rendering the gravity (electrogravity) field ineffective in the dielectric.  Remember, the electrogravity field relies on the slight charge separation in the atoms caused by the electrogravity field.  See electrogravity law #4 for more information.

Question:   There is allegedly a Japanese patent now (maybe just applied for) on a spinning high-voltage charged disc that’s supposed to produce some sort of AG effect.   A “poor man’s Tampere experiment”, someone said.   Any comments?

Answer:  This is another interesting device. 

My guess is that anything that rotates fixed charges will produce an electrogravity field.  However, the effect was small, something on the order of 10 grams versus 1.5 kg for the total weight of the disk.  I hope it is not just airflow currents that are producing these results.  I’ll post more when I find out myself.

Question: With respect to these kinds of [EG] devices, the important thing seems to be isolated or separated charge in motion.  It seems to me that the degree of exposure or separation – isolation – is important.  In a conducting metal, a large quantity of charge may be involved across a given length of conductor folded or coiled about into a compact space, but I’m not sure about that degree of “exposure” or isolation at any given instant in any given segment of the conductor.  That’s a very confusing thing for me. 

But in an object with a static charge, although the actual quantity of separated charge is typically very small even for fairly large capacitors and such, the isolation of like charge isn’t ambiguous like it is in conducting materials.  In superconductors, the current/cm^2 begins to loom fairly large again, and so may contribute more because of that.  Does any of this really make any sense? 

Would static charge on a moving/spinning object count as well as a current?  Do you think acceleration makes any difference as opposed to constant speed?  Have you done any experiments that illuminate any of these issues? 

I would think some of these effects should be measurable around some ordinary equipment if they exist.  A large-current electric motor, and certainly a decent-sized homopolar generator would seem to contain the necessary components.

Answer:  All good questions – some of them have been answered above.  All that is required is to isolate a charge on an object and move it or move charges inside of an object that is stationary.  See electrogravity law #1 You can use negative or positive charges, but the positive charges will generate a reverse polarity electrogravity field – required if you are trying to push matter away from yourself  (smile).

Please note that if you rotate objects that have an equal amount of positive and negative charges, such as an atom or a charged capacitor, you will produce an equal amount of positive and reverse polarity electrogravity fields i.e. a zero net effect.

Question:  In the paper, “FREE FALL OF ELEMENTARY, etc. 1994″, you mentioned that the motional electric field is immune to electrostatic or magnetic shielding.  But in the next sentence, you said that the only way to shield a motional electric field is to use a magnetic shield around the source of the magnetic flux – containing it at the source.  I don’t understand. These two statements appear to be paradoxical.  I thought Hooper had electrically AND magnetically shielded his MEF generator (at the source).

Answer:  This is a difficult question to answer without an illustration.  However, it can best be thought of as when putting a closed magnetic box AROUND the moving electron, then no effect will be felt on another test electron.  You have effectively shielded the source of the electrogravity field. 

However, if you put a shield (a closed magnetic box) around the test electron, you are not shielding the source and the effect is still felt on the test electron, a property similar only to the gravitational attraction between atoms.

To put it in more practical terms:  say you tried to measure a shielded conductor as it travels through the earth’s gravitational field.  You will measure an electrogravity field in the form of an electric field inside the conductor.  You did not shield the source.  However, if you were able to shield the entire earth in a magnetic box (shielding the magnetic field at the source), you would not be able to get an induced current in your test conductor moving through space.

These are difficult concepts to explain or grasp.  It is worth noting that Hooper did not magnetically seal his coil on all axis.  He put a steel cylinder around the coil and electrically (not magnetically) sealed the entire coil (all axes) with some conductive paint.  The whole apparatus (coil, capacitors, and electrometer head) was put inside a stainless steel cabinet.  Hooper did not shield the coil at the source – magnetically.  Read more about the fine details and problems of the Hooper coil experiment.

Question:   Your approach to increasing the velocity instead of the current is exemplary. Several of us had noticed this in the Hooper formula but had not yet done the actual experiments to utilize that advantage. You are to be congratulated.

Taking this to the extreme then, would you predict that the highest strength Antigravity fields may be achieved with a vortex of very high radial velocity Positive ions, using, perhaps some form of a lightweight cyclotron to keep them continuously circulating.?

A suggestion:   If you haven’t already “been there, done that”, one improved technique of experimental “coil winding” could be a ribbon of semiconductive (or to a lesser effect, metalized) plastic, ‘wound’ zigzag fashion to cancel the EM, and folded flat. With a very slight parabolic bend, the resulting Motional Electric Field could be focussed ‘some’ distance away, well away from the (residual EM) shielding, for a better Signal to Noise ratio on the electrometer and the other instruments. Hopefully, the Motional Electric Field will be of sufficient strength so that there can be no misinterpretation as to its nature.

Regarding your test results:  Some questions:

1. Did you use an electrometer? What were your results?
2. On any gravitational measurements, what % weight loss did you achieve?
3. Could you expand on your coil design configurations?
4. What was the actual ‘high electron-drift velocity’ material that you used? Do you know of any tables with different electron-drift velocities within the various types of conductor/semi-conductors?
5. Are you aware of any tables with the different electron-drift velocities for various types of conductors and semiconductors?
6. Can you supply us with your completed test results, or are you intending on publishing first?

Answer:  There are many ways to improve upon the Hooper coil which only produces nanoVolts or micro Volts effects.  See comments above.  To answer your questions:

Q1)  I used an electrometer of my own making.   I designed a first stage circuit using a high impedance MOS-FET transistor and a low-noise high gain op-amp as a second stage, for high gain amplification.  The results were all still in the microvolt area, not unlike Hooper’s results.  I did not log the results and it was more just to satisfy my own curiosity that it could be done.

Q2)  I never tried using a gravitational measurement.  I knew the Earth fields would be billions of times stronger than the small micro Volt effect that I was playing with.   I figured I would be wasting my time trying to measure any gravitational effect with the Hooper coil design.  The fields are way too small. 

Q3)  I tried multi-parallel conductors (just like Hooper) and also tried variations with fewer conductors and even a single hair-thin copper conductor with a short (micro sec) pulse of 500 Amp current.  I also tried a gas-discharge from a camera flashlight and fooled around much without trying to satisfy any publication goal.  This was also before the Internet become popular.  I am sorry for not making notes or saving the results to show you more.

Q4)  I used some old semiconductor diodes from my electronics scrap box.  Not very scientific,  I know, but perhaps someone can pick up the flame and carry on some of the research.  I did not compile any list of high electron drift-velocity materials.  I would be grateful if anyone out there would have some more information on this.

Q5)  I do not have any tables with drift-velocity of various materials.  You can sort of figure that there is a linear relationship between resistance and drift-velocity.  The higher the resistance, the higher the drift-velocity for the same current.  Interestingly, it does not seem to matter if the high resistance component is in series with the electrogravity coil, or if the electrogravity coil is made by the high resistance material itself.  This may have some application by using high voltage discharge currents through ionized gases and simply inserting the electrogravity coil in series with the resulting current.  This may explain why devices like E. Grey over-unity electric motor may work by extracting energy from the Earth’s electrogravity field with high drift velocity currents through high voltage discharge.

Q6)  There is no hidden information line with me.  Everyone will have access to the same information.  When I find something new, I will post it to the net, either in web page form or by email.  I have no commercial interest that limits me in publishing or spreading the results of my findings.

You are “right on the money” with a vortex of very high radial velocity positive ions.  Michel Desmarquet (author of an interesting UFO book) and Prof. Tom Chalko of Australia suggested using alpha-rays in a magnetic self-canceling configuration.  It remains to be designed and tested with many details, but it sounds interesting.

Question:  One of the best devices might be to use a neon light tube, driven by an HV transformer for AC or an HV power supply for DC.  Typical electron energy would be about 40 eV or a velocity of about .012 times the speed of light.  So we are talking about 10^9 faster than electrons in copper.  I would think that bending a section of the neon light tube into a Hooper-coil might give some significant results.

Answer:  Yes, I agree, and I hope someone will do the experiment.  Ionized helium might work as well.   In fact, we should calculate how much current is needed for a given speed to produce decent and measurable results, before building the experiment.  I am sure the electrons will move fast, but we need to make sure we can get enough current.  It may be worth trying to model mathematically.

Question:  I have some feedback about the theory that gravity is just the effect of electrons rotating around the nucleus.  The theory doesn’t depend on the mass of the nucleus, just the charge, so the gravitational attraction between two hydrogen atoms is the same as between two deuterons.  This is wrong as the gravitational attraction between the deuterons would be about twice as large.  Then the L = 0 states would have no gravitational attraction as there is no electron rotation.  This is also wrong. 

Answer:   I know the electrogravity theory tries to spit in the face of most scientists, but here is my question regarding the weight of deuterons:  Where you have read or heard anyone measuring the weight of deuterons?  To my knowledge, the only experiment to measure the weight (not mass) of elementary particles was an electron experiment at Stanford (see the introduction in my “Free Fall of Elementary Particles” paper). And, interestingly, they did not find any weight force on the electrons.  The results were so disappointing that it was swept away as experimental error and forgotten.

I know you will reply that mass and weight are linked together.  My reply is: yes, this may be true for atoms and molecules, but no experiment has shown this to be true for elementary particles – although most people make this assumption, I agree. We will not know who is right until an experiment is done.

Question:  The theory [electrogravity] calls for a motional electric field produced by moving magnetic fields which is derived by a Lorentz transformation but which is different from the normal electric field.  This is incorrect.  The Lorentz transformation gives only normal electric fields and gives no fields or forces that are outside of normal E&M theory.  The thing to look for is some force that is not predicted by normal E&M theory.

Answer:  I agree that there are no new fields outside of normal EM theory.  However  – and here is the important point – there is a way to produce a motional electric field which may look like an ordinary E-field, but an experiment, it is not.  It has additional properties more like gravity than that of electrostatic fields. I refer you to Hopper, but if you do not believe in his work, I refer you to Feynman (see ref. in “Free Fall” paper) who says there are some experiments that can not be explained unless we use the more fundamental vector potential (in cases where the magnetic fields are zero).  Read my paper, and we’ll talk more about it.

Question:  The important thing to do is to perform the experiments that can demonstrate this anomalous force and then publish the results.  Once this force is proven and the properties are known the theory may then be formulated.

Answer:  I agree that theory should be formulated upon results and experiments, not the other way around.  Most big discoveries are made by accident.  For example, Hopper was puzzled in his early career, when he was about to build an electromagnetic device to measure the speed of an airplane, through the magnetic earth field, inside a metallic container (like an airplane). His co-workers said it could not be done.  After this incident, Hooper started a whole new direction in his physics research, which lead the discovery of the unique properties of the motional electric field.

The recent Tampere experiment accidentally showed the smoke from a pipe to form special turbulence patterns over the rotating cryogenic device.

T. Brown noticed has capacitors weighed less when they were charged with high voltage (30,000-50,000 volts.)

In all, there are several serious experiments from independent scientists who HAVE ALREADY DONE the experiments on electrogravity.  I am not inventing anything new.  We are standing on the shoulders of great work before us.  What we need now is to understand and spread the word about the electrogravity theory and get it applied.

Question: There is a large body of evidence showing that the gravitational force on elementary particles is equal to the gravitational acceleration times the inertial mass.  It comes from the physics of planetary ionospheres.  I will mention a few examples:

1) The gravitational polarization field:  In a hydrogen plasma the protons are much more massive than the electrons and an electric field is given by

  qE = mg

develops to balance the gravitational force.  This field has been measured and it agrees with the theory.

2) The gravitational drift:  The drift of a charged particle in a magnetic field is given by:

  v = c(F/q) cross B / B^2

the component from the gravitational force comes from setting F/q = mg/q   and this drift is observed.

3) Ion density drops off with altitude:  The gravitational force causes an exponential ion density drop with altitude off like the effect in the neutral atmosphere.  If there were no gravity the neutral atmosphere would escape out into space.  The same thing would happen with the ions except that they would be constrained to move along the magnetic field lines. This does not happen and the ion density decreases with altitude due to gravity.

4) Of course the most simple test is to weigh a hydrogen gas.  At room temperature, the vast majority of the electron states will be L=0 states with no electron rotation and hence the weight should be zero.  Hydrogen gas has been weighed and the weight is as expected and not zero.

Answer:  Great examples!  All the questions (1 through 3) make sense if you remember that gravity is an electrical field with special properties and not a separate force, by itself.  See the electrogravity law #2.  Regarding question #4, hydrogen has weight – of course.  The dielectric constant is always something greater than null – even when the electron state is L=0.  This will cause the atom to experience a force in the divergent electrogravity field (see electrogravity law #4).

Question:  How can you apply EG theory to the deflection of photons near a massive body?  Theoretically, photons have no charge (not just a neutral combination of positive and negative charges), so from my understanding of EG theory so far, photons should not experience the more interesting effects on can predict when you have a large concentration of matter/energy in a local volume (i.e. black holes.)?

Answer:  It has always been my understanding that all elementary particles are either charged or have an internal combination of charges that may appear outward neutral, but still would experience a force in an EG field because of the internal charge separation.  The internal composition or structure of the photon is unknown.  I hope we find the answer to the photon, one day.  Much work still remains to be done to complete the EG theory, your help and comments are appreciated.

Let me know if there are any other questions and I will try to add them to this web page.

-Nils Rognerud