Comments on Gravity Drop Tests
performed by Donald A. Kelly of Clearwater, Florida

Donald A. Kelly, an independent researcher and consultant to the Space Energy Association in Clearwater, Florida, has been performing, from 1991 onward, an impressive series of tests that measure the behavior of dropping weights in a magnetized or electrically energized state as opposed to their behavior in a non-magnetized (inert) state.

Various forms of magnetization and electrical energization have been used: Permanent magnets arranged both horizontally and vertically on test plates, electromagnets, non-inductive "Hooper-type" windings, as well as a combination of permanent magnets with bifilar, non-inductive coils. The electric energization was achieved by direct current (12 Volt DC) as well as alternating current (12 Volt 60 Hertz AC). Kelly described his results in various reports (1).

Work on these experiments is currently continuing with a view to investigating differences of behavior of dropping weights not only between DC current and 60 Hertz AC, but with various other frequencies and various wave forms of AC.

The apparatus used is a rack with a mechanical release mechanism and two microswitches to activate a counter, as more closely described in Kelly�s own reports.

The results have shown a significant lengthening of measured drop times in the magnetic and/or energized state as compared to the inert/non-energized state of the weights (plates).

The following is a summary of results described by Kelly. Note that drop times are measured in digital counter units, not in analog time. The counter units can be converted to seconds using a conversion factor of .00463.
.Energizing mode Drop time inert Drop time energized .Difference Difference (%)
Permanent magnet, flat mount 068 080 12 + 17.6 %
Permanent magnet, vertical mount 084 122 32 + 45.2 %
Electromagnets, DC energized 084 112 28 + 33 %
Noninductive winding, DC energized 118 135 17 + 14.4 %
Perm magnet core and noninductive winding, DC energized 084 139 55 + 65,5 %
Noninductive winding, AC energized 118 159 41 + 34.7 %
Electromagnets, AC energized 084 150 66 + 78.6 %
Permanent magnet core and noninductive winding, AC energized 084 153 69 + 82.1 %

We see from these results that a significant and consistent lengthening of drop time has been recorded in all magnetic and/or energized test plates as compared with the inert/unenergized controls.

No weight difference in stationary plates

A check has been made to ascertain whether between the energized and unenergized modes of the test plates, there would be an observable weight change.

No such change of weight between unenergized and energized modes was observed, measuring the weight of the plates, using an analog scale, noting the weight with and without connection to DC voltage.

Motion or acceleration?

The observed unequivocal lengthening of "travel time" of the test plates suggests that some interaction is occurring between a moving magnetic and/or electrical field and a "gravitational field" or a "space background".

The interaction is null as long as the test plates are stationary.

A question now arises: Is the observed effect a consequence of motion or is it connected with acceleration?

The importance of this question might not be immediately obvious, so I shall try to explain.

If we are dealing with a resistance to acceleration, we are witnessing an increase of inertial mass of the test object, determined by an electric and/or magnetic phenomenon, but without a corresponding increase in gravitational mass. This would be a phenomenon that is present without regard to motion as such; it would not be measurable unless the object is subjected to acceleration, regardless whether the acceleration is induced by earth gravity or by some other means.

If, on the other hand, we are dealing with a resistance to motion, we have to ask ourselves: resistance to motion against what? A resistance to motion would infer resistance against "changing of place" in relation to a (stationary) field or background. This could be a gravitational field or a background of space (ether) thought of as a kind of stationary grid system, stationary with regard to planet earth in this case.

A third possibility would be to hypothesize that the motion of the energized or magnetized test plates in some way decreases the influence of gravity on the plates, actually leading to a change in weight (lightening) of the test plates only while in motion. This seems more unlikely, because a lighter test plate would not show such a large difference in drop time compared to a heavier but equally sized plate, as that shown in the experiments.

Conclusion

Whatever the force involved will eventually turn out to be, Kelly has made a discovery that will stimulate us to re-think some of the basics of physics in order to explain what is the mechanism responsible for the �abnormal� behavior of magnetized and/or otherwise energized plates.

I hope that this pioneering research will help shake contemporary physics out of its complacent lethargic attitude and initiate a wave of fresh thought that will lead to some real progress in magnetic propulsion, anti-gravity and more generally in space power generation applications.

Josef Hasslberger
Rome, Italy
25 April 1994


References:
  1. The gravity drop test connection to space energy conversion by Donald A. Kelly (Paper submitted to the International Symposium on New Energy, Denver, Colorado May 1994)
  2. Gravity drop experiments by Donald A. Kelly (Planetary Association for Clean Energy Newsletter, Vol. 7 No. 1)
  3. Gravity drop experiments by Donald A. Kelly (Magnets in your future, Vol. 7 No. 10, October 1993)