LETTER FROM DON KELLY: GRAVITY DROP TESTS AND DATA
LETTER FROM DON KELLY
This letter is an advisory that the Gravity DropTests of 1990-1994, will be reintroduced by Electric Spacecraft Journal, c/o Charles Yost.
[Note that some of this past data is WRONG! PB.] Apparently Charlie has seen enough merit in this phenomena to rerun these G.D.T's, but centered only on the all-magnetic drop tests which were the most valid of the full series of tests. The major factor that was missed back in the 1990-94 time frame was that it was not nearly sufficient to test just one or two sizes of test plates, but many sizes are needed, particularly in the larger sizes of 5 to 6 square feet, and up.
The G.D.T. work of Richard Hull and the theory of Martin Holwerda of Holland (i.e., his Gravitational vortex) concept are most important to the original G.D.T's since they expanded on the test plate size factor which was originally missed! Richard Hull is one of the very few, excellent researchers today, who will run test/experiments on a concept, if he believes that there may be some merit in testing it.
While his "drop like a rock" experiment tended to disprove the concept, this was not the true case, since it showed the starting point, or minimum "anchor" for the evolution of a results test curve.
Martin Holwerda's "gravitational vortex" theory provides for the projection for successively slower drop rates, as the test plate sizes increases.
Some examples of the comments and peer review responses are available. I now clearly see the blatant hostility that Pons and Fleischmann ran into with their "cold fusion" project work, as per the Infinite Energy, issue, Vol 3, No. 1, 1998, pp 44-45
While these G.D.T's are probably not as important as C/F, due to the various spin-off projects that C/F has inspired, they do point out a key area of anti-gravity R & D at this point. Why should all this work be centered at Area 51, Groom Lake?
These G.D.T's attracted the same type of blatant hostility as C/F since there was no clear cut antecedent basis for them in the present physic field, and in the textbooks! There seems to be some kind of "mental block" among establishment physicists in this area of new concepts, when they can't seem to find some kind of prior art to tie it to!.
A major point that these various peer-reviewers all seem to miss is the extremely high magnetic induction levels of a single neodymium permanent magnet, and when arrayed in a seven-by-seven (49) pattern, the total magnetic induction is huge! If these damn fools don't believe that such a huge magnet does not react with the Earth's natural N-S « Gauss, and the E-W-ELF flow, then we are all in deep doo-doo as we begin to move into the next millennium!
D.A. Kelly for SEA
Return to the INE Main Page
Jun. 19, 1998.