Return to the AGN Main Page


Overview Of Antigravity Technology: Consensus, Conclusions, And Concerns

By: Patrick G. Bailey

Written: June 25, 1999.


OVERVIEW OF ANTIGRAVITY TECHNOLOGY:
CONSENSUS, CONCLUSIONS, AND CONCERNS

By:

Dr. Patrick G. Bailey
President, Institute for New Energy
P.O. Box 201
Los Altos, CA 94023-0201
pgb@padrak.com
http://www.padrak.com/ine/

Presented at:

The 1st International Conference On Antigravity Research
June 27-28, 1999
Reno, Nevada, USA

Sponsored by:

Antigravity News and Space Drive Technology
and
New Energy News
(The bi-monthly publication of the Institute for New Energy)

Copyright 1997-1999 by Patrick Bailey and James Cox
All Rights Reserved

ABSTRACT

An overview of "Anti-Gravity" Technology is presented. Emphasis is placed on the review consensus of this intriguing science, its current technical status, the conclusions that have been reached, and the concerns that this technology faces. It is found that several physicists have mathematical theories that support the generation of an antigravitational field, several experimentalists have successfully and repeatedly demonstrated antigravitational effects, and that the sightings of man-made or Earth-built antigravity craft have been seen throughout history, up to and including the present day.

INTRODUCTION

"Antigravity" can be defined as the science or the physics that can allow the overcoming or cancellation of the Earth's gravitational field. Of course this sounds impossible - ridiculous - far fetched - science fiction - etc. So did any new technological advance whose components were demonstrated until one day, the technology really was demonstrated. Examples of this advancement of physics abound: the discoveries that the Sun is the center of the solar system; that meteorites fall from the sky; that continents drift; that falling water can generate electricity; that a voice can travel over a wire; that heavier than air machines can fly; that nuclear fission is possible; that there is water on the moon - ... - the list could go on and on. The point is that science/technology is a continuing unfolding subject whose content is always expanding, more rapidly every day.

To think that because this book says this, and these papers say that - that you know all there is to know about a given topic - is absolutely childish - and very irresponsible.

So; what evidence is there that any "antigravity" effects exist? Is there any data? Is there any proof? Are there any witnesses? Are there any recorded events? Are there any patents in this area?

The answers to all of these questions are: Yes; Yes; Yes; Yes; Yes; and Yes.

All of the proof will not be presented in this paper. However; this paper will refer you to the many references and readily available books, papers, newsletter, patents, and internet websites where this information can be easily obtained. These data are easily available to any serious researcher.

WARNING NOTE

I intend this paper to raise several serious questions for everyone: antigravity researchers and skeptics alike. It is not my intention to offend anyone - however, this paper may bring out ideas or strategies that may be a concern to each and every reader.

As to not overtly offend anyone, I will limit my introductory remarks to only politics, religion, and sex.

POLITICS

"Never give a sucker an even break!"

It is currently "politically incorrect" to discuss antigravity research. Period. Good - now we know. And, we do not know exactly why that is so. And, we can formulate some good ideas as to why that is so.

A simplistic summary might say that any successful antigravity research within the USA would very quickly come under the control and direction of the US military, and would then become classified. Historically, there were several papers and magazine articles written about a possible link between antigravity and electromagnitism up until around 1956. Then, all publications stopped. Period. The end. Nada. Zilch! Why? Well, maybe it all became classified at that time. That would make sense given the political and paranoid climate of the US government at that time. The report by GRG [Gravity Research Group, Feb. 1956] is the last official report regarding that research during that time that has been found. So, what about now? What has changed? Nothing, it appears. However, there is some government funding that has only recently become available for some antigravity research using near superconducting rotating disks. AND there is no organized effort by the US government to research all the other areas of antigravity research that we will summarize in this paper.

Also, we note that each Congressman and Senator spends a very large amount of money to obtain office for only a few years. What do you think they will do with any of the information that they gain while they are in office? What happens to all those military personnel who work in those highly classified areas, usually for only a few years, after they retire? Could there be additional research and breakthroughs in these scientific areas inside the "black budget programs" that are not controlled by the OMB within Congress? How about within the "secret" government? How about within other countries? If so, for what would the results be used?

RELIGION

"If the facts do not fit the theory, then they must be discarded!"

One prominent religion holds that if a certain subject is not in their "bible", then it cannot be discussed within their religious culture. No, this is not Muslim, Jewish, or Christian - it is your local high school, college, and university.

There is heavy religious and scholarly prejudice in keeping all knowledge of these "new and fringe subjects and technologies" out of the professional literature and popular magazines. Only a few organizations have made a significant impact using the internet to begin to turn this tide around: the Institute for New Energy [www.padrak.com/ine/], and Antigravity News [www.padrak.com/agn/ are two prime examples and major forces in this effort.

It's all about control. And being "In Control". The same is true for each of the world's religions, and for the various scientific communities - the struggle to get power, and then to keep it - and never be "out of control". What ever happened to being able to say: "Gee, I don't know about that. Let's try it!"

If a new technology could generate a new commercial market, and create a new large source of money flow, and create new companies - then I would think that any school and university would be very interested in learning about that technology as fast as possible. So, what are the commercial applications of antigravity technology? Are they feasible? Are they profitable? Will they be allowed?

SEX

"It takes two to tango!"

Each definition has its opposite: man/woman, male/female, good/evil, up/down, tall/deep, North/South, clockwise/counterclockwise, etc.

How many schools teach that the magnetic lines of force around any magnet not only run from one pole to another, but they also spiral as they do so - just like electromagnetic waves - and in opposite directions? And, when these twisting waves are of the same twisting pattern, they repel, and when they are in opposite twisting pattern, they attract.

Magnetic levitation is easily demonstrated with two disk magnets held in place by a non-magnetic vertical rod positioned through holes set in the center of the magnets: they do not touch. Well, the Earth is a very large magnet with a very large magnetic field...

It appears that it is possible to construct some form of electromagnetic field that would "oppose" the field of the Earth at some location, and thus appear to want to "lift" from the ground at that location. The control of that device would be very tricky, and horizontal stabilization would be a problem. If vertical counterbary (antigravity) could be controlled, then stabilization could be perhaps be attained by gyroscopic inertia - or rotation - about a vertical axis. That is one idea - of course, there are others.

If such a device was constructed, who would want to get together with it? What kind of people would it attract? Who would want to come to the party? What kind of games, toys, and applications could be thought of for such a device?

These questions will be addressed in this paper.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

We need exact definitions to address such a new and complex topic. We will therefore use the following definitions from the issues of Antigravity News (AGN V1N1, p13-14) [as also can be seen on the internet at http://www.padrak.com/agn/index.shtml#AGN_1_1_2]:

BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATION:

Phenomenon wherein the bosons, a particle whose spin is zero or an integral number, making up a substance - a boson gas-merge into the lowest energy level, into a shared quantum state. More generally it refers to tendency of bosoms to occupy the same state. The crucial distinguishing feature of the concensates is that the many parts that go to make up an ordered system not only behave as a whole, but they become whole and the particles lose their individuality.

EOTVOS EXPERIMENTS:

Experiments which showed that inertia mass and gravitational mass are identical to 1 part in 1.E+05 for all substances tested .

GRAVITY GENERATION:

The generation of gravitational fields by means other than a static mass. Einstein's general relativity predicts that moving masses generate gravitational-like forces which are distinct from the forces due to the usual static Newtonian gravitational field (Forward calls it a "protational field".)

GRAVITATIONAL SHIELDING:

A material which would intercept gravitational fields, creating a field-free region. AC gravitational fields can be shielded against by a mass with an infinitely strong acoustic resonance at the field frequency. To shield against DC gravity fields would require mass dipoles or NEGATIVE MASS.

MEISSNER EFFECT:

The complete expulsion of a magnetic field from a superconductor, that is, a perfect state of diamagnetism, resulting in the repulsion of the two bodies, with respect to each other.

NEGATIVE MATTER:

A material with a negative gravitational mass which could be used to repel ordinary matter. There is strong evidence that antimatter does not have negative mass. A dipole pair consisting one end of negative mass and the other end positive mass, would act as a space drive and accelerate through space.

NULLIFICATION:

The ability to control the gravitational mass of a body or the gravitational constant so that the gravity field of the earth could just be "turned off".

SPACE DRIVE:

A mechanism, or principle, by which a vehicle can be propelled in free space; that is, a device, not a rocket, but something acting on the level of force fields, that does not have to carry reaction mass to throw away via Newton's law of reaction to create thrust.

TYPES OF ANTIGRAVITY:

Now we need to define antigravity. Here are 6 kinds of antigravity, as described in Antigravity News (AGN V1N1, p23) [http://www.padrak.com/agn/index.shtml#AGN_1_1_4]:

Dr. Forward defines six different kinds of antigravity in his "Indistinguishable from Magic" book: Aside from the obvious "weightloss" in freefall as an astronaut in orbit; the first is to place a very heavy mass overhead to cancel the earth's gravity field. Secondly, we may use ultra-dense materials spaced very closely to the object we desire to be weightless. The last Newtonian idea, is to use various "guard" masses to reduce tidal forces on a test mass already in orbit on the space shuttle. From Einstein's theory, comes a fourth idea; that moving ultra-dense matter in a toroidal coil at high speed will generate a dipolar G-field. Fifth, the idea of dragging of inertial frames, which will pull objects along with them. Lastly, the sixth idea, is the possibility of negative matter (-m), just like negative charge, will reverse the direction of force; it moves towards you when you push on it! Negative, matter along with positive matter, will take off into space forming a space drive! Could the superconductor of Dr. Podkletnov be a form of negative matter?

CLASSIFICATION SCHEME FOR ANTIGRAVITY DEVICES

In order to make sense of the various antigravity devices that are being discussed, the following classification scheme has been suggested (AGN V2N1, p4) [http://www.padrak.com/agn/index.shtml#AGN_2_1_2]:

It is proposed that the various types of antigravity devices be categorized into the following seven groups:

I. MECHANICAL ANTIGRAVITY DEVICES:

These are purely mechanical devices generally involving high speed rotation and forced precessional features using different materials in some cases. Example members are from Laithwaite, Wallace, Kidd, McCabe, Stratchen, Delroy, Foster, Dean, Forward, dePalma, Hayasaka and Cowlishaw.

II. ACCOUSTICAL ANTIGRAVITY DEVICES:

These devices have no moving parts but employ vibration to alter nuclear interactions with gravity such as the work of Keely, Tibetan's stone levitation, Leedskelstein, and some inventors of acoustical levitation devices.

III. CHARGED STATIC/ROTATING DISC/CONES ANTIGRAVITY:

These are electrostatic/magnetic devices using stationary electrodes at high voltage such as T .T. Brown/Bielfeld and Bahnson, Naudin, Hartman, Nipher, Pages, Kelly, Rieken as well as rotating components such as Searl, Hammel, Davidson, Saxl, Halik, Shauberger, Carr, Hooper, Huaro, Smith and Vril/Shumann.

IV. AC/RF OR MICROWAVE ELECTROMAGNETIC ANTIGRAVITY DEVICES:

In this group are devices with no moving parts having high frequency electromagnetic fields such as Alzofon, Tesla, Littlejohn, Sweet, Nielson, Seike, Hutchingson, Farrow, Bielik, Zinser, Peshka, Schlecker, and Smith, etc.

V. SOLID STATE ANTIGRAVITY DEVICES:

These devices have their seat of antigravitic/shielding action within the atomic/lattice structure in both steady-state and transient modes such as the BaICuO superconductors used in the Podleketnov and Schnurer devices, (and those who have replicated their effects) as well as excitons in doped crystals.

VI. NUCLEAR ANTIGRAVITATION:

This entails the alteration of the interactions with the nucleus or its modification, to yield a change in weight or generation of gravity beams, or breakdown of Newton's third law such as in the work of Bearden, Wallace, Dan Fry, Gilbert Jordan, extraterrestrial spacecraft (Lazar's element 115), Celtan, white powder (monoatomic elements), Dr. Charles Brush, and possibly cold fusion with ZPE interaction.

VII. BIOLOGICAL ANTIGRAVITY DEVICES:

These involve the human or animal element to obtain levitation, or weightless, psychokinetic action or inertia modification as in the Dr. William Crookes work on Home, Clark's party levitation, yogi masters, religious saints, Russian mirror chamber research, bumblebee flight as well as the Rhino Beetle.

CHRONOLOGY OF US ANTIGRAVITY RESEARCH

It is also interesting to look at the time-history of antigravity research (AGN V2N1, p8) [http://www.padrak.com/agn/index.shtml#AGN_2_1_3]:

1850 - Dr. William Crookes investigates human levitation claims, such as Homes reported in Psychical Research literature.

1896 - John Keely demonstrates a sympathetic vibratory flying machine to the US Army which flew 500 MPH.

1915 - Einstein publishes his General Theory of Relativity.

1917 - Prof. Nipher publishes data on electric (Faraday shielded) Cavendish experiment that exhibits repulsion.

1928 - T. T. Brown published data on his charged lead lethargy electrogravitic experiments in Sci. and Invention.

1934 - Dr. Schuman flight tests electromagnetic Vril I craft in Germany.

1943 - Philadelphia Experiment confirms Einstein's modified Unified Field Theory.

1947 - Roswell crash in New Mexico yields bonanza of extraterrestrial antigravity propulsion technology.

1952 - Truman establishes Majestic 12 committee to investigate UFO's.

1950's - In general, there are a flurry of news accounts of amateur inventor's who claim success in building work flying saucer models.

1960's - Many American companies exhibit a euphoria of belief that control of gravity is eminent - Glenn Martin, etc.

1964 - Dr. Erwin Saxl publishes in NATURE anomalous weightless data on his charged and shielded torsion pendulum experiments.

1971 - First successful US Antigravity flight test at S-4 Dreamland by SAIC corporation.

1972 - Official Air Force "Project Outgrowth" advanced propulsion study identifies "field effect propulsion" as having the most future promise.

1973 - Princeton/Cal Tech publishes their seminal book on "Gravition" by Thorne, Misner, and Wheeler which offers the mainstream word on the subject.

1975 to 1985 - There is a stretch of time here where little public information on antigravity is available - probably a period of suppression or quiet research.

1983 - Henry Wallace presents a paper/patent on a more practical way - yet theoretically plausible - for gravity control and has some success.

1989 - Bob Lazar is one of the first Black Project insiders to come forward and reveal about backengineering of UFO technology.

1992 - Dr. Podkletnov publishes paper announcing a 2% gravity shield in a spinning superconductor.

1996 - Russian's reveal extensive experimental gravitonics program aimed at a 100 MW magnetostriction g-beam device.

1996 - Lt. Col. Corso reveals secret Pentagon files on Roswell crash material/documentation he was in charge of.

1997 - Travis Taylor at Redstone Arsenal reveals tests on UFO crash material that exhibits anomalous motion in electric and RF magnetic fields.

SIX GENERIC ANTIGRAVITY TYPES SELECTED, PLUS A BASELINE APPROACH

Six generic classes of antigravity were then selected to do a trade study between various schemes and approaches (AGN V2N1, p3) [http://www.padrak.com/agn/index.shtml#AGN_2_1_1]:

AGN has reviewed 66 types of various antigravity devices or experiments and ranked each one according to a criteria described in -the previous issue of AGN. The results are summarized in the foldout table in the center section of this issue [pages 32A-33B]. Š We find that James Woodward's invention satisfies Clark's Law, namely, that when a highly respected scientist says that something is possible, he is invariably correct, but when he says something is impossible, he, is invariably wrong. Dr. John Cramer - a colleague of Dr. Robert Forward is inclined to think the Woodward device to have potential as an antigravity device at the higher frequencies. Moreover, it received a high score. So we picked it as the baseline concept with which all other selected systems will be compared. The six other devices selected are shown in Table II, shown as generic forms for each of the seven classifications described on page 4 of this issue, with the biologicals excluded at this time as being non-engineerable. Thus we have picked the best devices in the most diverse range of technical approaches - so that the planned trade studies will compare the virtues of each type of AG classification, as well as specifically cited inventions/experiments in Table I at the center if this issue.

TABLE II - SIX GENERIC CLASSES OF ANTIGRAVITY SELECTED FOR TRADE STUDIES

(Baseline approach: Dr. James Woodward)

AG CLASS                     INVESTIGATORS WITH HIGH SCORES
------------------------     ---------------------------------------

MECHANICAL ANTIGRAVITY       Laithwaite, Kellogg, Delroy, Kidd,
                             and Cowlishaw

ACCOUSTICAL ANTIGRAVITY      Keely, Davidson, Poliakov and Forward

SPINNING CHARGED DISCS       Bahnson, Brown, Huaro, Nipher, and Saxl

AC OR RF COIL/MAGNETIC A     Bielek, Casimer, Hooper, Sweet,
                             Hutchingson, Littlejohn/Torr,
                             and Woodward (Baseline)

SOLID STATE ANTIGRAVITY      Ning Li, Podkletnov, Schnurer

NUCLEAR ANTIGRAVITATION      Alzofon, Brush, Lazar (and others),
                             and Wallace

We also note, that:

From the book "Gravitation" by Thorne, Wheeler and Mismer:

"One fundamental building block common to Einstein's theory of gravity and to almost all other modern theories is me principle of "Uniqueness of Free Fall" (also known as the weak equivalence principle). By this it is meant the worldline of a freely falling test body is independent of its composition or structure. By "test body' is meant an electrically neutral body. Thus, a charged spinning object would be expected to behave differently than ordinary neutral masses."

SUMMARY OF ANOMALOUS WEIGHTLOSS EXPERIMENTS:

An introduction to this topic and a summary of experiments performed by researchers with their last name beginning from A through L was given in AGN V1N2, p2-4 [http://www.padrak.com/agn/index.shtml#AGN_1_2_1]:

In this paper I want to summarize the work of some 50 inventor/researchers that claim to have discovered anomalous weight loss results, and in a few cases, propulsion of a craft, or otherwise made an important contribution towards achieving control of gravity in a more practical way. There is no pretense that this is a complete list, but serves as representative only. Please note: this list does not include inertia engine inventors--only gravity (presumed) related devices/experiments/theories are dealt with here. Many of these name have been around for a long time and are part of the folklore of anti gravity and space drive investigations that I have been involved in since 1960. The quality, completeness, accuracy, credibility of the information varies widely from one case to another. As part of this effort, I did an IBM patent server search under "antigravity" and found only a few listed inventions, some of little relevance. Also, I searched the Library of Congress and found 8 books with antigravity in tittle since 1898, and over 500 books on gravitation. I have attempted to come up with a rating system; a weighting factor and level of importance scoring system that allows one to rank these claims. Hence, a person, such as an investor or scientific investigator can look at my table and decide where to put his limited resources to bare, to yield a useful result in a practical application that has commercial value. Table 1. lists the names of the inventor/researcher and the brief descriptive tittle of the invention or device. The table is arranged alphabetically by the person's last name, and a detailed description follows with a diagram of the device where available. Emphasis at each description is on data derived from an experiment (not so much theory), that had witnesses or was confirmed by others, published or a patent obtained with reports/photos /graphs/film or videos, from the files of said patent or other sources. Some government sources (unclassified) have been obtained; but much of this kind of material is probably classified and not therefore included. In addition, the educational background and experience of the person is assessed. Finally, a list of publications, books about or by this person are given. An important additional source of information is the extensive bibliography on antigravity by Richard Stirniman. This compendium of AG inventors and their devices, however varied in quality, constitutes the empirical basis of the belief that, not withstanding the dismal projections of the General Theory of Relativity, that some form of gravity control is possible or already complete.

The data regarding the rest of the researchers (names M-Z) were given in the next issue (AGN V1N3, p2) [http://www.padrak.com/agn/index.shtml#AGN_1_3_1]:

In part 1, antigravity inventors A thru L were presented; here I will attempt to complete the list and then evaluate their work according to the following criteria: (1) Experimental evidence for a working "lab bench" model/demo of effect and practicality, (2) Consistency with prevailing theory/data, (3) Witnesses/endorsements as to functionality (for secretive inventors), (4) Publication of device in peer-reviewed journal or other, (5) other information from a patent, video or self-publication and lastly (6) success in getting funding for commercial development. The weighting factors are (1)--30%, (2)--20 %, (3)--15%, (4)--15%, (5)--10% and finally (6) is 10%. Within each criteria, the degree of meeting it (quality) is on a scale of 1 for poor, 2 for average and 3 for excellent. The total score for each inventor is obtained by multiplying the quality number times the weighting factor in (%) for each criteria and adding up the resulting six numbers to get the total score. All the scores are compared and the top six inventors are selected for engineering conceptual design and prototype development and recommendation for funding from investors. Trade studies will be further conducted to compare the six AG inventions as to efficiency, performance, reliability, manufacturabilty, market demand and cost. In the next issue we will spotlight the six winners and move forward in systems engineering the final product for sale to the public. Readers of AGN: please provide be any additional data or opinions as to which six devices should be recommended for further development! AGN exists to walk (run!) the inventor thru the well-established engineering/business cycle to get his life's work available to a customer who will be satisfied as to its utility in a competitive marketplace. Onward and upward into the next millennium!

32 ANTIGRAVITY THEORIES

32 antigravity theories were selected for review in AGN V2N1, p7 [http://www.padrak.com/agn/index.shtml#AGN_2_1_4]. To save space in this paper, only the names of the researchers will be listed:

I have selected a bunch of theories of gravity that have the common feature of generally yielding the possibility of gravity control, as well as being somewhat diverse in their characteristics.

Aspden, Harold
Alzofon, Dr. Fredrick
Aubierre
Bearden, Tom
Blackett, P.M.S.
Brush, Dr.Charles
Cassenti
Clark, Dr Richard
Collins, Robert
Dicke, Dr. Robert
Dishington
Einstein, Dr. Albert
Forward, Dr. Robert
Halvosky
Hawasaka
Heaverside, Oliver
Heim, Dr. Berthart
Hooper. Dr. William
Jefimenko
Le Sage
Li, Dr.Ning
Maxwell, Clerk
Mill, Randall
Modanese
Nipfer, Dr. Francis
Puthoff
Seike, Shinicki
Teller, Dr. Edward
Wilson, Harold
Witten, Dr. ŠEd.
Woodward,James

"HE WHO CONTROLS GRAVITY, CONTROLS THE UNIVERSE"

This quote followed the above list, and should be remembered for the conclusions section.

A HISTORY OF ANTIGRAVITY RESEARCHERS

"66 ANTIGRAVITY INVENTORS, DEVICES, AND EXPERIMENTS" were reviewed in AGN V2N1, p32-33 [http://www.padrak.com/agn/index.shtml#AGN_2_1_5]:
This was the big fold-out table in that AGN issue:

Table 1: 66 AntiGravity Inventors, Devices, and Experiments (A 4 Page Fold-Out)

This table 1 included:

Name of Inventor

[The Complete Table as printed also includes:
Brief Description / % Lift / Demo Lab Model /
Theory Consistent? / Witnesses? / Peer Published? /
Other Document? / Commercial Funding? / and the Total Score.]

Only the names of the inventors will be included here (see the AGN Table 1 for all of the detailed data). The names underlined [in bold here] had a total score of "HIGH":

Alzofon, Dr. Fredrick
Bahnion, Andrew
Benzel, "The"
Bielek, Al
Biefeld
Brown, Thomas
Brush, Charles F.
Casimer
Carr, Otis T.
Clarke, Dr. Richard
Clendonon, W. D.
Cook, Leroy
Cowlishaw, David
Crookes, Dr. Willaim
Davidson, Dan
Dean, Norman
Delroy, Montimen
dePalma, Bruce
Forward, Dr. Robert
Foster, Richard
Frost
Halik, Erich
Hartman, James
Hammel, david
Hoyassaka
Home, Daniel D.
Hooper, David
Huaro, Yamashita
Hutchingson, John
Jones, Alex
Keely, John
Kidd, Sandy
Kelly, Don
Kummel, Peter
Laithwaite, Eric
Lazar, Robert
Li, Nuig
Leedskelstein, Ed
Littejohn, William
McCabe, Fran
Moebuis (Faile)
Naudin
Nipher, Francis
Nieper, Hans
Pages, Marcel
Party Levitation
Peschaka, W.
Podkletnov, Eugene
Poliakov
Rhodes, William
Rieken, Bud
Saxl, Dr. Erwin
Searl, John R. R.
Schnurrer, John
Schauberger, Vicktor
Seike, Shinicki
Smith, Wilbur
Sorenzen, Neil
Strachan, Scpott
Sweet, Floyd
Tesla, Nikola
Tibet Lhama's
Torr, Douglas
Wallace, Henry
Woodward, James
Williams, Pharis

PATENTS DESCRIBED IN AGN

The full text of almost any US Patent can be found using only the patent number digits on this website:

http://164.195.100.11/netahtml/srchnum.htm

The following patents, U.S. and World patents, are discussed within all of the issues of Antigravity News. These have been sorted by their patent date, and are included for your reading pleasure:

2,958,790
Bahnson, A.H.
Electrical Thrust Producing Device
Nov. 1, 1960
(AGN V1N2, p6)

3,287,981
Wolfe, J. S.
Generation of Rotations About a Fixed Point with Symmetric and Near
Symmetric Distribution of Tangential Velocity Components and Rotary Components
Nov. 29, 1966
(AGN V2N3, p46)

3,357,253
Saxl, E. J.
Device and Method for Measuring Gravitatiojnal and Other Forces
Dec. 12, 1967
(AGN V1,N3, p17)

3,522,726
Jones, Harry S.
Electromagnetic Device
Aug. 4, 1970
(AGN V2N5-6, p81)

3,555,915
Young, Jr., H. W.
Directional Force Generator
Jan. 19, 1971
(AGN V2N3, p41)

3,653,269
Foster, Richard E.
Converting Rotary Motion Into Unidirectional Motion
Apr. 4, 1972
(AGN V2N3, p34)

4,874,346
Wachspress, How
Free Flying Levitator
Oct. 17, 1989
(AGN V2N5-6, p51)
4,891,600
Cox, James
Dipole Accelerating Means and Method
Jan. 2, 1990
(AGN V2N5-6, p42)

1273085
Katirai, Bahram
Ether Propulsion System
Aug. 21, 1990
(AGN V2N1, p53)

5,024,112
Kidd, Alexander D.
Gyroscopic Apparatus
Jun. 18, 1991
(AGN V2N3, p21)

5,052,638
Minovitch, Michael A.
Electromagnetic Ramjet
Oct. 1, 1991
(AGN V2N5-6, p84)

5,090,260
Delroy, M. S.
Gyrostat Propulsion System
Feb. 25, 1992
(AGN V2N3, p26)

0 486 243 A2
Haruo, Yamashita
Machine that provided acceleration in a gravational field
May 20, 1992
(AGN V1N1, p25)

5,142,861
Schlicher, et. al.
Nonlinear Electromagnetic Propulsion System and Method
Sept. 1, 1992
(AGN V2N5-6, p79)

5,197,279
Taylor, James B.
Electromagnetic Energy Propulsion Engine
Mar. 30, 1993
(AGN V1N2, p43)

5,211,006
Schnly, Michael J,
May 18, 1993
(AGN V2N5-6, p50)

5,280,864
Woodward, James F.
Method for Transiently Altering the Mass of Objects to Facilitate Their
Transport or Change Their Stationary Apparent Weights
Jan. 25, 1994
(AGN V1,N3, p62)

5,500,493
Guigne, et. al.
Acoustic Beam Levitation
Mar. 19, 1996
(AGN V2N1, p49)

WO9822341A1
Smith, Boyd E.
Thrust Levitation
Filed Nov. 18, 1997
(AGN V3N1, p29)

WO9823976A2
Schnurer, John H.
Improved Apparatus and Method for Gravitational Modification
June 4, 1998
(AGN V3N1, p21)

5,831,354
Stopplecamp, Timothy J.
Boot Strap Propulsion System
Nov. 3, 1998
(AGN V2N5-6, p86)

5,860,317
Laithwaite, et. al.
Propulsion System
Jan. 19, 1999
(AGN V3N1, p60)

3,626,605
Wallace, Henry
??
??
(AGN V3N1, p11)

I want to note what was circled in this last patent in column 5 in the patent: "A further desirable characteristic of this main circuit is that it have a capability for mass flow with respect to the undulating (??) field structure. Mercury has the desired combination of properties and while other materials may be used, mercury is the most effective thus far known." Remember that.

A HISTORY OF OBSERVED ANTIGRAVITY DEVICES

In my research, the first mention of "antigravity craft" or devices comes from the Old testament of the Bible. There are several references to "things in the sky" throughout the Bible.

The next reference is found in the book "Vimana Aircraft Of Ancient India", where descriptions of man-made antigravity flying craft were written in Sanskrit!

In religious and famous painting of the 18th and 19th centuries, many of the paintings have some type of antigravity craft in the sky in the backgrounds of the paintings.

Also, I particularly like the recent article that I read on the "flying steamship" that was reported to have been seen by large numbers of people from the East coast to the central states in the early 1900's.

We also have several reports and even first-hand and second-hand accounts of people who say they "worked on" antigravity craft in Europe before and during World War II. Could "Operation Paperclip" at the end of WWII have included (or exist for the sole reason of getting) antigravity theories, data, and working devices?

ABOUT UFOS

Oh no! He's going to include something about UFOs! - Well, I have to, as UFOs are discussed in the issues of Antigravity News in the following issues and pages:

V1N1p3, V1N2p2, V1,N2p8, V1N2p13, V1N3p2, V1N3p32-32, V2N1p9, V2N1p20, V2N1p22, V2N1p32, V2N3p35-37, V2N1p40-43, V2N4p57-60, V2N5-6p72-73, V2N5-6p88, V2N5-6p106, V2N5-6p109-113, V2N5-6p122-123, V3N1p1-62.

The bottom line is: If "ANY" of the reported "UFO" cases are actually real, and the object has been built and is controlled, then that object demonstrates that an "antigravity effect" does really exist and that it has been utilized.

Col. Wendelle Stevens (Ret.) in Arizona has probably the best collection of UFO pictures in the world - thousands of UFO pictures from all over the world - from the early 1900's to the present day. To stipulate that UFOs do not exist is irresponsible. To stipulate that all of the cases can be explained away is immature. To stipulate that all UFOs are built and flown by ETs (beings not of the planet Earth) is very simplistic - and may very well be deliberately programmed and media-fed disinformation.

There are several UFO cases where there have been several reliable witnesses, photos, videos, radar tracks, pilot sightings, and even a Mexico Airlines collision alarm case. They exist. Videotapes summarizing the best cases are readily available; see: http://www.padrak.com/ufo/.

The simple idea that some UFOs could be antigravity craft and that they are Earth-built and human-flown is a very intriguing and eye-opening thought!

In support of that idea (Earth-built and human-flown UFOs) the book by David Childress "Vimana Aircraft Of Ancient India", that has recently been translated from ancient Sanskrit, describes in detail how the army of India was successful in repelling the army of Alexander the Great, by using "antigravity "Vienna Craft" to stampede the invading armies elephants back into their own army. It also states in detail how the craft were built and powered - by heated mercury (a ha!) rotating within special iron containers. This is an interesting notion, when compared to the research that has been reported to have been conducted within Europe in WWII.

The idea that if physical UFOs exist - then antigravity control does indeed exists - is obvious, and it is not necessary. So we do not have to "believe in UFOs in order to pursue successful antigravity research.

ABOUT ADVANCED ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

Several advanced theories in physics and in engineering have been proposed for the generation of an antigravity effect. The problem is to be able to see a working demonstration on the kitchen table!

The Institute for New Energy (the INE) was formed in May 1993 to officially accept, study, review, and classify any and all devices that demonstrate any new or advanced form of energy conversion technology. Many devices have been offered and studied within the past several years, and these are all listed and classified on the INE website at http://www.padrak.com/ine/. Included in these devices are a few that the researchers have claimed did or do demonstrate antigravity effects. All of these devices are still being reviewed and studied, and the testing results of each are reported on the INE website as the data is reported to us. The major problem is funding and experimentation time.

Unfortunately, many of the devices that have been reported to the INE have not been shown by other researchers to give the same results as were originally reported. This is not to say that any of these devices do not work - it just says that the device has not been successfully been replicated by others. The same holds true for any of these antigravity devices.
The only successful new energy devices that have successfully been tested include several "cold fusion" experiments (which may in reality be "cold fission"), and other low-energy nuclear reaction and transmutation reactions.

The results of these efforts have been reported in many conferences, and most recently in the Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference (the IECEC) in 1997 and 1998. Details and some revised papers can be found on the INE website. I have personally been actively presenting summaries of such research for professional review within the IECEC since 1991. Unfortunately, as most of these devices have not shown promise, and since almost all of the Steering Committee members of that conference are college professors or aerospace engineers, any future papers submitted on these devices will no longer be accepted for publication, unless real and repeatable results can be shown.

The problems, politics, and publication difficulties found within the advanced energy conversion areas will most assuredly also be found in the publication of any proposed antigravity research, whether it be theories, plans, comparisons, data, or results..

ABOUT THE US PATENT OFFICE

I now remind each reader that all of the patents submitted to the US Patent Office go through a formal review process, and each patent is reviewed by a board of military representatives from the various branches of the US Military. If any patent becomes of interest to ANY of these representatives, then that patent is pulled from the patent approval process, the patent is taken over by the US Government, the inventors are notified that - that information has become classified in the interests of US national security, and that all of the information regarding this patent is to be boxed up and sent in to the appropriate government office. Also, there are federal rules, financial penalties, and also stiff jail sentences for anyone that refuses to cooperate or discloses any of this "classified information" after receipt of the letter.

You do not believe me? It's called: U.S. Secrecy Order (Title 35, United States Code (1952), Sections 181-188). I know people that have had the "pleasure" of getting such a letter ("...under the penalties of 35 U.S.C. (1952) 182, 186."). They can tell you about it!

This U.S. Secrecy Order is on the internet for your reading pleasure at: http://www.padrak.com/ine/INE13.html (URLs are case sensitive).

CONSENSUS

It is obvious to me that if anyone has seriously looked into this issue, then they have found out that the condition of antigravity exists.

The first step is in accepting the fact that an antigravity effect can be created.

The second step is to construct a device to demonstrate the effect.

The final step is to control the effect.

And not just the control of the antigravity device, but also the control of who is going to get it and what you or they may do with it.

CONCLUSIONS

Therefore, here are my conclusions:

The good news:

An open technical society is desperately needed to address the phenomena of gravity and to counteract its effects.

The society should be concerned with only gravity and propulsion systems.

The Antigravity News and Space Drive Technology society exactly and 100 % fits the bill - and has been doing an outstanding job in that regard! It should continue to do so!

Researchers that have an open mind and that become familiar with antigravity technology will be among the very few that really understand this technology. There may also be a specialized market in the private sector for such people in the near future.

The bad news:

Antigravity will not be talked about or published in professional scientific circles. Maybe some theory here or there - but, no working devices that produce a significant effect. Such research is professionally isolated.

Antigravity research will not be openly funded by the US Government.

The existing NASA superconducting disk antigravity research may continue for a few years. If it is successful, the research will be stopped.

If any antigravity research has been, is now, or will be conducted by the US Government, then it will be classified into secret black programs, and may be even not known to the Congress, Senate, OMB, or even to the President.

Military and political careers last only a short time. Networking within a secret military industrial complex could provide an opportunity to make interesting acquaintances.

Any successful antigravity research will be taken away from the government and put into the private corporate sector.

The corporate sector will become (has become) the repository for all successful antigravity research.
The private corporate sector may extend beyond the national boundaries and government of the USA.

CONCERNS

I will close with the discussion of a question that I pose at discussions on UFOs and Antigravity Research:

Ready? - What would you do with a Flying Saucer?

Really! - What would you do with one?

That is a very serious and a very loaded question.

In my research, reading, asking, and internal searching for the answer to this question, I have come up with what I feel is most basic answer - the answer that such a device would be used for first - perhaps not always, just first. What else could we do?

If we were to build antigravity devices, we could lift heavy weights! Good. We could build structures like the large stone pyramids in Egypt and China. Good. We could build antigravity cars and travel nearby without clogging the freeways. Good, and maybe dangerous. We could travel and see different sights. But what about customs? We could lease them to the military for their use. But what about the US Patent Office and Executive Orders that deal with issues of national security? - Like the EO's published against Navy personnel just after the crash of TWA Flight 800?

So, what would someone REALLY do with a Flying Saucer?

From a corporate point of view, you may have to keep it private and secret, in which case you would have to provide your own funding source to pay for its upkeep, maintenance, parts, fuel, storage, pilots, flights, etc. Besides, they don't exist, right? - So your flights could be "kept" secret: plausible deniability.

The future of commercialized antigravity research will be in the areas of small lifting devices or short-distance traveling cars. These will probably be individual units licensed by a major private corporation for public and private use.

Long range vehicles will not be allowed, as they will conflict with the US Customs Office, US Import and Export Laws, and other US Governmental Offices, BATF laws, and official trade directives.

I will not pass any moral judgment on the use of any such device for performing any purpose. Just as a plane can be used for any transport purpose, so can any lifting vehicle.

Therefore my conclusion is: any researcher that desires to commercialize a lifting vehicle will face two powerful and competing agencies, if and when they find out about those plans: the US Military, and the international drug cartels.

REFERENCES

All of the published issues of Antigravity News to date, as summarized on the internet at:
http://www.padrak.com/agn/.

Bailey, P., Grotz, T., and Hurtak, J., "Survey And Critical Review Of Recent Innovative Energy Conversion Technologies," October 1997. [http://www.padrak.com/ine/BGH97_1.html]

Bailey, P., Grotz, T., and Hurtak, J., "Review And Status of Reported Innovative Energy Conversion Technologies, Contrasted Using A Consistent R&D Ranking Scale," October
1997. [http://www.padrak.com/ine/BGH97_2.html]

Childress, David H., "Vimana Aircraft Of Ancient India And Atlantis," 1992.

Coler, H., "The Invention of Hans Coler, Relating to an Alleged New Source of Power," British Intelligence Objectives Sub-Committee report No. 1043 Item 31, 32 pp., Now
Declassified, Summer 1946. (Available from P. Bailey for $5.00)

GRG, Gravity Research Group, "Electrogravitics Systems: An Examination of Electrostatic Motion, Dynamic Counterbary, and Barycentric Control," Feb. 1956: Gravity Research Group report GRG-013/56, Wright Patterson AFB Technical Library, Catalog No. TL 565 A9, WPAFB, Ohio 45433. [On the internet at http://www.padrak.com/ine/INE24.html]

RECOMMENDED BOOKS

These books are recommended in Antigravity News (V1N1, p19) [http://www.padrak.com/agn/index.shtml#AGN_1_1_3]:

Ackerman, John, TO CATCH A FLYING STAR, Univelt Publishing, San Diego, Ca. 1989.

Cramp, Leonard, UFO'S AND ANTI-GRAVITY: PIECE FOR A JIGSAW, Adventures Unlimited Press, Ill. 1966.

Childress, D. H., ANTIGRAVITY HANDBOOK, Adventures Unlimited Press, Ill. 1993.

Childress and Vesco, MAN-MADE UFOS: 1944-1994, 50 years of suppression, Adventures Unlimited Press, Ill. 1994.

Cox, J., SPACE DRIVE HANDBOOK (1972) P. O. Box 655, Marietta, Ga. 30061-655. (to be updated and reissued).

Forward, R., INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM MAGIC, Baen Books Riverdale, N.Y. 1995.

Hill, Paul R., UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS: SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS, Hampton Roads Publishing Charlottesville, VA, 1995.

Kumnel, Peter, ANTIGRAVITY FROM SPINNING MASSES, Stuttgart-Echterdinger 1973.

Deyo, Stan, THE COSMIC CONSPIRACY published by, Adventures Unlimited Press Kempton Ill., 1994.

Mallove, Eugene and Gregory Matloff, THE STAR FLIGHT HANDBOOK: PIONEER'S GUIDE TO INTERSTELLAR TRAVEL, John Wiley and sons, Inc. N.Y. 1989.

Pages, Marcel J., TECHNIQUES OF ANTIGRAVITATION (1974) Paris, Chiron, 1974.

Poliakov, S. M., EXPERIMENTAL GRAVATONICS, Moscow Area, 141120 Friazino, 60-let str, 1-167.

Lt. Plantier, UFO'S AND FIELD PROPULSION[I have a copy of the manuscript but I don't know if it got published].

Kaku, Michio, HYPERSPACE-A SCIENTIFIC ODDESSY, Oxford University Press N.Y. 1994.

Pawlicki, T. B., HOW TO BUILD A FLYING SAUCER, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1981.

Thorne, Kip, BLACK HOLES AND TIME WARPS, W. W. Norton and Co. , 1994.

Sigma, Rho, ETHER TECHNOLOGY: A RATIONAL APPROACH TO GRAVITY CONTROL, Tesla Book Co. Milbrae Ca. 1977.

Valone, Tom, ELECTROGRAVITATION SYSTEMS, Integrity Research Institute, Washington D. C., 1995.

Wheeler, GRAVITATION AND INERTIA, Princeton University Press, 1995.

King, Moray B., TAPPING THE ZERO POINT ENERGY, Parraclete Publishing, Prove, UT, 1989.


Return to the AGN Main Page


www.padrak.com/agn/AGPAPER99.html
Jan. 7, 2000.