A New Gravity?
Dr.
Ning Li predicted a "push-pull" conceptual effect
that she calls "AC Gravity" in the mid-1990's.
The idea is that perhaps gravity is a more complex force
than what we observe in nature, and that as a result of
this it may be able to produce interesting new effects as
yet unseen.
The
Jeff Cook Effect could be the beginnings of one of these
designs. The device uses a set of innovative magnetic-coils
wound in a unique manner to create a beam of force that
Cook claims will bend a candle flame or produce a very light
pressure on human skin.
Cook
claims that the JCE Generator is capable of not only exerting
force on a flame, but can also do it through solid objects.
Cook has experimented with putting obstacles in between
the generator and the flame, and claims that the beam of
force is not modified as it passes through objects like
wood and glass.
Interestingly,
this corresponds to Podkletnov's observations with the rotating
superconductor experiments he performed in Finland in the
early 1990's. Podkletnov's reported 2% reduction in the
mass of a test-sample was also not effected by obstacles
in between his superconductor and the sample. This supports
in general that idea that gravity cannot be shielded.
Cook's
claim that the beam is not effected by obstacles is perhaps
the most important part of his observations -- if this is
indeed supported by further testing, then it is possible
that Cook has stumbled across an innovative method for creating
directional beams of some type of force -- perhaps gravitational.
Experimental Results
American
Antigravity conducted an 8-hour evaluation of the Jeff Cook
Effect Generator, using a device constructed by Cook on
loan to AAG for experimental use. Several noticeable effects
were observable during testing: Firstly, the coil does in
fact have a slight but observable effect on flames, which
provides support for Cook's claims regarding the device.
Secondly, the device creates a large & pronounced magnetic
field, which has a disruptive EMP effect on nearby electronics
devices and exerts considerable force on magnets at up to
several feet in distance.
Experimental Notes:
1. The Cook device produces a large magnetic field
while operating, which suggests the possibility that the
effect on the flame is magneto-plasma based. In other words,
12% of normal flames are plasma, and a large pulsed magnetic
field should interact to some degree with this plasma.
2. Disconnecting the Cook-coil while in operation
creates a large, high-voltage pulse of electricity when
the magnetic field collapses. This was interesting, because
even with a 12-volt potential across the leads, the collapse
of the magnetic field can create both large sparks and painful
shocks (especially if you are holding the wires onto the
battery by hand)!
3. I believe that the frequency of my coil at 12-volts
@~30/60 hz was not the best operating frequency (although
resonant for the relay). I say this because the effects
on the flame that I noticed occurred to a larger degree
when applying or disconnecting power, despite the fact that
the relay does this 30 or 60 times per second during operation.
4. The magnetic field of the Cook Device is large
enough to have EMP effects on nearby electronics. In my
experiments, this included interference with camera operation,
and the destruction of the microcontroller in a kitchen-range
while testing on the natural-gas burner.
5. Neodynium Magnets used to trace the magnetic
field of the Cook Device showed the expected two-bubble
field configuration, with field concentrations surrounding
the front and rear electromagnet assemblies. The front assembly
is wound around a ferrous core and sandwiched between carbide-cutting
disks used as coil-retaining endplates. The rear coil is
smaller and wound around a ferrous bolt. As expected, the
magnetic field from the front coil is larger in size, and
had a greater effect on the Nd magnets used to trace the
field outline.
Difficulty was encountered tracing the field using the
Nd magnets at the front of the Cook device. The front consists
of a carbide disk with a retaining bolt in the center to
hold the disk in place. During operation, the front of the
Cook device had a very non-uniform field, partially because
the tracing magnets were simultaneously attracted to the
retaining bolt and repelled by the coil's electromagnetic
field.
6. The Neodynium magnets were suspended in air from
a 3-foot length of thread, and balanced to allow free rotation.
Activation of the Cook device had a profound effect on the
magnets, even up to 2.5 feet in distance from the coil.
At close range, the effects on the Nd magnets were either
an intense attraction to the coil, or else a torsion effect
that created spin in the magnets (depending on what end
of the stack was pointing towards the device while it was
operated).
While this effect on the suspended magnets was within expectations,
the following was not: the magnets were removed after testing
and hung on the string several feet away from the coil.
Operation of the coil for other experiments still created
a strong attractive response in the hanging Nd magnets,
even at several feet in distance.
7. During experiments using a candle flame approximately
3 inches from the front of the coil, sparks were noted to
emanate from the candle and jump towards the coil intermittently
during rapid pulsed activation of the coil. Bear in mind
that the relay itself pulses the coil, so rapid manual pulses
consist of perhaps 15 cycles (1/2 second) of activity in
the coil.
Sparking did not occur in the candle other than during
pulsed coil-activation, and even then occurred perhaps only
30% of the time.
8. Testing was conducted using 9, 12, and 24-volt
batteries. The 9-volt battery as recommended by Jeff Cook
created no noticeable effects on either flames or ferrous
materials. This is presumed to be the result of the high
internal-resistance of 9-volt batteries, which generally
make them unsuitable for high current-draw applications.
The resistance of the Cook coil is approximately 4 ohms,
which allows a maximum current draw of 3 amps current with
a steady 12-volt potential, or 6 amps current with a steady
24-volt potential. Note that actual current draw is considerably
lower than this due to the pulsed nature of the relay. Additionally,
minor inductive reactance from rapid pulsing should further
lower the actual current draw of the device during pulsed
operation.
While the 9-volt battery proved unworkable for powering
the device despite Cook's claims, the effects did manifest
themselves when larger 12 and 24-volt batteries were tested.
Power consumption on the Cook Effect device was below 36-watts
at 12-volts, and below 144 watts at 24-volts. Again, due
to the pulsed nature of the relay the actual power-usage
should be considerably lower than these values.
Conclusions:
I believe that the effects observed by Jeff Cook are the
result of high-amplitude magnetic field pulses during the
operation of the device. The effects of the coil on ferrous
materials are highly-repeatable and appear to be a direct
result of the high-intensity magnetic field of the device.
The effects of the Jeff Cook device on flames are more
difficult to replicate, and the transient nature of their
appearance at the beginning and end of coil activation leads
me to believe that these are the result of both operating
frequency and high-voltage back-EMF as the coil's magnetic
field collapses.
It is known that back-EMF from collapsing magnetic fields
can create high-voltage, high-current pulses of electricity.
I believe that these short-duration, high-intensity pulses
of energy allow the coil to create very high-intensity magnetic
fields which are causing the effects on the candle flame.
This would explain the transient nature of the effect, because
these short-duration pulses would vary in magnitude depending
on where in the device's operating cycle the circuit is
broken when manually pulsed. (In other words, the relay
is normally pulsing the coil rapidly, but manually pulsing
the coil interrupts this cycle at random intervals. Depending
on where the cycle is when it is interrupted, the back-EMF
pulse will differ in magnitude).
One final thought: I did get the distinct impression that
the Jeff Cook Effect device is a rather unique design and
worthy of further examination. American Antigravity's investigation
examined only the claims of Jeff Cook, and did not look
further to find other potentially unique effects created
by this device. I believe that further investigation may
reveal more unique features about this device, especially
with regard to high-intensity pulsed-power applications.
|
![Help American Antigravity by Donating -- we're a 501c[3] non-profit. Click here to learn more!](graphics/arrows/sidebar_donate_140x45.gif){kind=small}
