Anti-Gravity

  • Wireless Powered Microwave Flight History & Experiments
  • bootstrap slider
  • mqdefault(3)
cssslider by WOWSlider.com v8.6

“ANTI GRAVITY”-The Reality

John R Iwaszko

 

What is ANTI-GRAVITY?

 

The term “Anti-gravity” is just an idea or concept of creating a place or object that is free from the force of gravity. In the English language, the general dictionary definition of the prefix “anti” is “against,” “opposite of,” and can be used freely in combination with elements of any origin, so the actual word, “anti-gravity” would imply “Against gravity”, or the “opposite of gravity” which literally describes anything that is air born!
In scientific usage, the word, “anti” may imply an “antiparticle of,” which indicates the opposite to, or negative polarity of gravity. This would suggest an attractive force to gravity rather than a repelling force, as opposite forces such as opposite magnetic polarities and electrical charges in our real world attract rather than repel.
Therefore, when I use the word anti gravity, I place the term within quotation marks which is intended to suggest that the term can be used in unusual ways by different people, or other expressions that vary from standard usage, for “anti-gravity” is just an idealistic concept and a recurring concept in science fiction, particularly in the context of spacecraft propulsion. An early example is the gravity blocking substance “Cavorite” in H. G. Wells’ The First Men in the Moon. Science fiction has always inspired reality.
I have intentionally used the term “anti-gravity” to suggest true scientifically repeatable methods of levitating objects in unorthodox ways such as without propellers, jets or rocket propulsion as opposed to fake or unrepeatable experiments or presentations, mainly by “armchair” scientists or people that speculate or form opinions about how to create antigravity that dominate the word “antigravity,” and in my opinion do not form a solid basis from where to start serious research and experimentation. The original inspiration of my video “Antigravity” the Reality series was to show interested people “REAL” tested unorthodox experiments that can levitate objects.
In my experience, it appears that different people invent for themselves what the term “anti-gravity” means to them and then argue about its usage.
For example, based on electrical engineering and quantum mechanics the term “anti-gravity” could imply that you take the square root of a negative number. Even though this can be done mathematically by using the letter “i” as an imaginary operator, it cannot exist in the real world, for it implies a negative mass or distance less than zero which cannot exist in event time frames of the real world as is understood by mainstream physics today!
“Anti-gravity” is also quite often used colloquially to refer to devices that appear to reverse gravity even though they operate through other understandable means, such as lifters, which are currently believed by mainstream science to fly by moving air within electric fields. It is also common today to see the word “anti-gravity” used in the descriptive title of many research papers and related projects involving levitation of objects using ion wind propulsion, magnetics, electrostatics and other forms of unorthodox propulsion means.

 

What then is GRAVITY?

 

In Newton’s law of universal gravitation, gravity was an external force transmitted by unknown means, “action at a distance” which is the concept that an object can be moved, changed, or otherwise affected without being physically touched (as in mechanical contact) by another object. That is, it is the non-local interaction of objects that are separated in space. In the 20th century, Newton’s model was replaced by mainstream science to general relativity where gravity is not a force but the result of the geometry of space-time. Under general relativity, anti-gravity is impossible except under contrived circumstances. Quantum physicists have postulated the existence of gravitons, a set of massless elementary particles that transmit the force, and the possibility of creating or destroying these is still unclear.
The final solution for what “gravity” is and conversely what anti-gravity might be, is still an area of research as physics has only been successful in describing gravity’s effect, not what it is, so all we have are human words and some maths,. …”Men substitute words for reality and then argue about the words.”Edwin Howard Armstrong.
In other words, if we don’t know what gravity is how can we even begin to understand a proposed opposite to it -anti gravity?
The good thing to remember is that we don’t have to know anything about the correct “laws of physics” to apply them, the laws were there before any human attempt was ever made to explain them. For example, centrifugal forces can be used to generate “artificial gravity”, without any need to understand the physics behind the effect, for most people have swung a bucket in a circle. And who knows what discoveries and advances will be made in tomorrows physics. For in most cases initially an effect is discovered, and then pages of physics are usually required to explain the effect.

 

“Anti-gravity” the Reality- Background Story

 

Most kids have some interest in aerial-flight, and it may even be inherent in humanities genetic make-up, for from our earliest fossils and records many human cultures have built devices that fly from the earliest projectiles such as stones and spears, the boomerang in Australia, the hot air Kongming lantern, kites as well as images and stories of flight that appear throughout recorded history such as the Ancient Greek legend of Icarus and Daedalus. We as kids were no different; paper plane building is one of my earliest memories. The next major step forward were rubber band powered planes and rockets by the age of seven in 1975.
1st rubber band         Matchstickcomposite
Left. Balsa wood rubber band powered plane from 1975. Right. A simple match head rocket originally made at age 7. A match head makes a good rocket propellant for it contains oxygen and the combustible material sulphur. The oxygen is ‘generated’ from potassium chlorate that is combined with sulphur.
Rocket fascination delights children and adults alike. The thrust of smoke, and the thrill of flight, makes rockets an appealing toy. Add to these the forbidden pleasure of playing with matches, and the satisfaction of learning how something actually works. The rockets we made are perhaps one of the smallest of toys. They travel about 7 meters, which surprisingly is up to a hundred times their length.
These rockets take approximately a minute to manufacture; two matchsticks in line with each other wrapped in aluminium foil, requiring a paper clip to mould a tiny nozzle, which rested on a fork launch pad, when lit would propel the rocket a few meters. Scraping many match heads, crushing and then compressing the “red phosphorus” which contains sulphur, glass powder, and an oxidizing agent, increased their distance considerably. When the aluminium casing containing the match head is heated, the potassium chlorate and sulphur combine to form potassium chloride that liberates sulphur dioxide gas. “Red phosphorus” match fuel was also great for making dangerous and highly explosive bolt bombs.
spx 4000 rubber band plane   cherokee9.9
Right. A far more complex rubber band powered plane from 1977. Right. Control line- Aeroflyte – “Cherokee” with a Max-OS15 methanol glow plug engine and muffler-1978.
Then came methanol powered planes, hot air balloons and hydrogen balloons. My first genuine memorable invention or should I say re-invention was a very simple method to make small hot air balloons in 1979. The inspiration came through observation, after watching a cellophane bag get taken by the wind in the school yard and blown high into the air out of site. That day when I got home, I attached the thinnest wire I could find attached some cotton wool, dripped some methylated spirits, lit it and off it went high in the sky to my great delight. Previous complicated attempts to make hot air balloons using tissue paper in glued configurations always ended up in smoke and fire!

hot air balloon  hotair1  h2 balloon  lighted balloon

Left & Far Left. The minute to make- Hot Air Balloon-1980. Right & Far Right Hydrogen Balloon with integral light source.
Around the same time in the late 1970’s the mystery of U. F.Os and the possibility of unorthodox forms of propulsion deeply intrigued us. Are U.F.O’s real? So we made fake photographs to see if we could duplicate some of the images we saw in books, to see how real they might look, this was also a lot of fun, as we had to wait in eager anticipation the results after the images were developed. Unfortunately U.F.O photos fake or not didn’t prove the existence of U.F.O’s either way.

ufo 1978  ufo 11978  UFO

Fake “U.F.O” photos 1978-1979, for fun and in an effort to investigate the possible reality. left & middle:- suspended aluminium shaped saucer. right chrome contraption thrown in the air taken with a Polaroid Instamatic Camera.
Fuelled by inspiration and previous achievements in astronomy, model making, gliders, model aircraft, chemistry, electronics and ballooning, we set a goal of building a fully operational scale model space shuttle, within earth orbit of course!
This was going to stretch our expertise and skill particularly on a pocket money budget. For the solid rocket propellant we tried to obtain potassium nitrate from various scientific supply stores to no avail, counter clerks usually laughed at our requests. Left to our own devices and after a lot of research, we decided that ‘potash’, was the most readily obtainable chemical source containing potassium.
Out of the ashes of burnt wood we obtained our two major ingredients for our rocket fuel, potassium and carbon, reminding me of the legendary story of the Phoenix. The Phoenix a supernatural creature, living for 1000 years. Once that time is over, it builds its own funeral pyre, and throws itself into the flames. As it dies, it is reborn anew, and rises from the ashes to live another 1000 years and so ad infinitum. Little wonder why the alchemists adorned the phoenix principle and bestowed the world with many beautiful and meaningful works of art!
To get back to the story, we dissolved the potash, heated and dried until pure crystallised salts remained. Now we needed a rich nitrogen source; during the American Revolution gunpowder, was made from potash and nitrogen-rich dung, such as bat guano. Bats were rare during the early nineteen eighties; ironically they are abundant now particularly in the fields where we used to launch our first rockets.
We resorted to Nitric Acid, HNO3, which surprise; surprise would also not be sold to us. We were lucky to find Nitrate of Soda (Sodium Nitrate), sold as fertilizer in our local florist. Mixed with Sulphuric acid (Battery acid 33%), which we had to concentrate for the reaction to work; another major feat for us, we found that trying to boil water off  by evaporating would decompose the dilute acid into sulphurious Acid H2SO3 not sulphuric H2SO4, the ‘bright light’ of our home made carbon arc lamp to the rescue. Distilling concentrated Sulphuric with the Nitrate of Soda gave us the much sought after Nitric.
2NaNO3(s) + H2SO4(l) –>Na2SO4(s) + 2HNO3(g)
Nitric acid vapour was also responsible for embarrassingly yellowing our fingers, making some adults think that we were chain smoking kids. We then displaced the sodium ions with the potassium carbonate and hydroxide via the crystallized potash mixed with the recovered Nitric Acid.
K2CO3 (Potash) + 2HNO3 (Nitric Acid) –> 2KNO3 (Potassium Nitrate) + H2O + CO2 ^
Mixed with the pure black remnant of ash carbon together with Sulphur also from the florist we now had a solid rocket fuel mixture.This mixture was then hammered into cardboard tubes with clay formed nozzles, our rocket engines were now complete. The shuttle glider technology was borrowed from making gliders, rubber band and motor driven aeroplanes and a scale model shuttle glider out of balsa in 1978 and 1979, the mechanical coupling of the shuttle to the booster and detachment took a lot of though, the final design chosen was brilliant for it catapulted the shuttle away at high speed during booster separation.
Flying these model rockets was relatively safe and an inexpensive way for us to learn the basics of applied forces and the response of a vehicle to external forces. A model rocket is subjected to four forces during flight: weight, thrust, lift and drag. The same forces operate on a full-scale rocket as it moves through the atmosphere.
During flight both model rockets and full-scale rockets must provide some system of stability and control. Stability indicates that if the flight path is slightly perturbed, the rocket will return to the previous path and not fly erratically. Control is the ability to manoeuvre the rocket during flight. Both models and full-scale rockets are designed with passive stability within the atmosphere. The “passive” part means that the rocket will return to the flight path without moving any control surfaces. The conditions for stability are that the centre of gravity must be located above the centre of pressure, this was also difficult with the space shuttle shape which is not a standard rocket shape, for it has a number of different profiles but finally achieved with good old trial and error.

Spaceshuttle2 launchprogram space shuttle 2 before launch N40_launch6 Spaceshuttle2 launch

Spaceshuttle2 parachuting3 Spaceshuttle1 parachuting  Spaceshuttle2touchdown Spaceshuttle2touchdown2

Space Shuttle 2- 1981 From launch to glider and booster separation.
Interest in rocketry, (chemistry) led to electronics which was extremely useful in radio-control and electronically launching rockets as well. Radio beacons were later attached to balloons and rockets that would change tone with temperature as they ascended into the air. The signals were received via an ordinary radio.
The development of rocketry also led to trigonometry before it was presented to me in form 3 (year 9) since I was in form 1-2 at the time. Trigonometry was used to find the altitude that rocket and other flying machines attained, armed with a home made theodolite. Later modifications to the theodolite helped us estimate the height of aircraft; this required the identification of the aircraft by mathematical comparison to their actual size. Trigonometry even advanced my computer science understanding as I began to program a newly available programmable calculator to instantly give an answer when actual variables were ‘plugged’ in.

 

cartesian diver    liquid layers4  levitating water1  magis tap

Some early liquid “levitation” influences, from the early to late 1980’s. From left to right. The classical “cartesian diver”, a glass jar with a pipette within, rubber from a balloon held in place with a rubber band, when you pressed the rubber in, the pipette ‘diver’ would move up and down in response to your commands, these days you could use a plastic bottle and just press the container. Liquid layers another “magical” chemistry demonstration that we played with as different materials float on different chemical layers based on their density. From top to bottom: wood floats on corn oil, plastic floats between anti-freeze and shampoo, rubber floats between shampoo, and metal floats between maple syrup and mercury. A strobe illuminating water appears to suspend individual water drops in space, somewhat reminiscent of acoustic levitation that actually can levitate individual droplets in free space. The “magical” tap floating in air with a an endless stream of water that flows from no apparent connection point, not only looks stunning but is extremely convincing even when inspected at close range. You can even feel the water flow!. This was such a cool illusion that appeared in certain shops in the late 1980’s, and at the time took a few moments of thought to work out what was really happening, does the additional equipment below the jug give the trick away?
After making many planes, balloons and rockets by the early 1980’s we started to investigate other unorthodox forms of propulsion and levitation. We were interested in chemistry at the time and the books we read had some interesting fluid “levitation” projects which we enjoyed. In particular the “cartesian diver”, a classic science experiment, named for René Descartes, which demonstrates the principle of buoyancy (Archimedes’ principle) and the ideal gas law. Liquid layers, which demonstrates density- the property of the liquids that is responsible for the layering effect and immiscibility- a state in which two liquids with different compositions coexist in equilibrium with each other as well as phase differences in liquids. Another spectacular effect that “froze” water droplets in space was a strobe. These chemical demonstrations had a levitation illusion or “anti-gravity” appeal that inspired us, for isn’t the air that surrounds us a fluid as well.
In 1980 when I began high school (year 7), I still vividly remember picking up a science book in the school library which contained an image of a bar magnet floating in free space above a super cold lead bowl. This was true magic in my mind, to see that magnet suspended in free space with no cables, thrilled by sensations of complete amazement, I pointed this out to a friend that was close by and soon had a small crowd around us in awe of this true scientific ‘magic’. Unfortunately replication of this experiment was out of our scope, not only was liquid Helium expensive, the magnet and coolant  required in this experiment need to be contained in a double thermally insulated container (dewar) called a cryostat that keeps the liquid helium from boiling away, the cryostat is usually constructed with an outer jacket containing (significantly cheaper) liquid nitrogen or liquid air at 77 Kelvin.
 640px-Floating_Magnet_helium.  heliumsuperconpb
A bar magnet levitating above a lead bowl. This is true Meisnner levitation. As Lead is a type I superconductor below a temperature of 7.2 K; in this picture, it was cooled at 4.2 K with liquid helium. Vortices cannot exist in lead, and only the concave shape of the superconductor (lead) gives the levitation stability and prevents the magnet from toppling to one side.
Magnets and magnetic fields required to achieve levitation were then considered very worthwhile to investigate and experiment with, we then played around with various forms of magnetic mechanical constraint and mono pivot point levitation devices which looked impressive but the need of “invisible” nylon suspension lines, pivot points or various other constraints to stop magnets toppling over, gave the game away.
antigrav can &funnel3  kew lab840  maglevrope
kew lab834  simple mag-lev  simple mag lev1
From far left to right- A few of many “anti-gravity” toys we created when we were young teenagers. John’s original documentation of “anti gravity” toys that roll up hill, two funnels stuck together up a “v-shaped track and various cans that would roll up hill -Circa 1981. An aluminium covered ping pong ball floating via a paint air compressor pump in 1982. Two aluminium covered foam balls with integral magnets, the top one contains a heavy powerful magnet, the sphere below with a light weight magnet, free space in-between, invisible thin nylon lines from above and below held the suspended spheres in free space. John’s “Magnetic levitator” in a jar.   
We even played with many levitation illusions such as a mirror in a box with half a sphere as well as our “holographic projector” (a form of the “Pepper’s ghost” illusion technique) that would project a three dimensional object in free space. These are actually “virtual” images or optical images formed from the apparent divergence of light rays from a point, as opposed to images formed from their actual divergence. These images also looked extremely convincing and you could impress people with, but deep down in our minds in was extremely important to do it for real with ‘no strings attached’ or without any optical illusion.

antigrav illusion floating ballcubeb1

 holographic projecthologram  holographic projector

From left to far right. Simplicity in its finest form, optical illusion “anti-gravity” in a box with mirror. “Holographic” virtual image projectors, one made from two old traffic light parabolic mirrors the other was a box projector that could be tilted to make the virtual image of the object appear to”float” in the air.
The only non suspension “real” levitation we could achieve in the early 1980’s was levitating a ping pong ball with air compression which looked impressive but the noise of the air compressor always gave the game away! We also investigated other forms, such as mechanical toys, two funnels stuck together, that would roll up up a “V” shaped track, giving the impression of defying the universal law of gravitational force, this device was used in one of the physics experiments described in the works by the French abbot Jean Antoine Nollet (1700-1770), the apparatus was often described as a “mechanical paradox.” Another device was a can with an integral weight that would also roll up hill. Gyroscopic effects were also spectacular and seemed to defy gravity but always required a pivot or rest point, so in 1982 when Adam was 16 and I, John, was 14, we combined two known methods, the repelling force of magnets with the stability provided by a gyroscope and began to spin magnets gyroscopically over other magnets. We were able to achieve stable levitation for up to 5 seconds at a time, before the spinning  magnetic top became unstable, unknown to us at the time a similar device now called the “levitron” was patented a year later in 1983 by Roy Harrigan, who no doubt gave the idea far greater persistence and patience for he was able to achieve stable levitation for up to 5 minutes plus at a time, before air friction slowed it down to a fall. In either case defeat of gravity was still only momentary!

magnetic pivot      levitatorc1983

From left to far right. A single pivot point magnetic levitation device made from a pencil and six ring magnets, when you spin the pencil the rotation can last a long time. A home made “levitron” requires two ring magnets, one on a tap washer, some extra washers for weights, now try levitating them, not that easy! Yes a fine art but once mastered it is relatively simple. Persistence and belief in an idea sometimes rewards the determined and patient. 
By 1985 my brother Adam became interested in the distortion of an electron and proton in an electric field and was then later convinced that a mechanical method that duplicated the spin of an electron in a charged field could create an “anti gravity” effect. So here were two new possibilities worth investigating. Adam then built a mechanical inertial gyroscopic anti-gravity device.

Antirav force gyrolev experiment

Left, Comparison between an atom with no electric field applied and then an electrostatic or DC field. Note that the net vector force is in the direction of the positive charge. Is this the contributing factor to ion drive craft now commonly known as lifters as well as the ion wind and explains why the positive charge is always placed on top. A mechanical analogy of this system is also used in “inertial gyroscopic drives” where in a similar way the net vector resultant force is in a singular direction. Middle, Adam’s Inertial Gyroscopic device of the late 1980’s (To be photographed). Right, John’s Inertial Gyroscopic experiment of the early 1990’s.
In Australia in 1986, a colleague of mine brought to my attention that a Scottish inventor by the name of Sandy Kidd, invented a gyroscopic inertial “antigravity platform”. Mr Kidd at the time achieved mainstream media attention in Australia, an article even appeared in the Age newspaper, as well as later demonstrations on a number of TV programs that included “Beyond 2000” a relatively popular show that was dedicated to showcasing developments and inventions in science and technology. There was no disclosure of the actual workings of the device at the time but Mr Kidd did demonstrate lift when a counter balanced weight on a pulley was added to balance the initial weight of the device.

sandykid kiddengine  sandy Kidd

Sandy Kidd’s gyroscopic inertial “antigravity platform”-1986.
This advance together with lower temperature supercon ceramics in 1988 from an article I picked up at the Newsagent in 1988, called “Electronics Handbook” made us believe that many types of “anti-gravity” machines were just around the corner and you would have to forgive us for believing this. It was little wonder then that we were encouraged further and our belief that this field was actually a subject worth pursuing, so we began to look for any information we could find in this field which was somewhat difficult as no internet existed at the time and very little information from overseas filtered through from the science domain into Australia that was and still is dominated by its masses of individuals that  love their sport.

electronic handbook 1988  supercon-head-640x353

In 1988, the Electronics Handbook” magazine by C&E Hobby Handbooks published an article called “Superconductor Speed-Up” this article detailed new advances in higher temperature materials that could support supercon at 110 kelvin, this was a major step forward as opposed to Helium supercon an 4 kelvin, so now the “magical” demonstration of magnets floating over superconducting ceramic or vice versa called the “meissner effect” could be demonstrated for under $50.00 at the time. All you required was liquid nitrogen, a magnet and the superconducting ceramic which was made of barium, copper, oxygen and lanthanum, a rare earth element, with the formula:-La2-xBaxCuOthat could now be purchased from the Edmund Scientific Company.
Interest in Tesla’s work, school / university, many other scientific pursuits, work, modifying cars, friends, girls and marriages also slowed progress till around the very late 1980’s to early 1990’s when Adam discovered the works of Thomas Townsend Brown and John Searl. Adam even attended a lecture that John Searl gave in Australia where he met another “anti-gravity” enthusiast with a laboratory by the name of Mark Donald Chandler. We would get together on occasions and discuss, debate and plan experiments. We concluded that we must repeat all the experiments of the past to do with “anti-gravity” and ‘leave no stone unturned’, to determine if there was anything worthwhile to pursue or if technologies that worked could be combined.
We worked independently on our own projects at our individual home labs. Adam worked on many geometrical saucer shapes based on the work of Thomas Townsend Brown, mercury vortex possibilities and inertial gyroscopic methods, Mark continued experiments in the chemistry domain, his main forte and was also kind enough to lend and offer equipment to me that I made good use of in some of my experiments. It was then that I began video taping all my “anti-gravity” levitation experiments after I purchased my first video camera. Based on my belief in the idea of distorting the electrons orbit in a static field towards the positive polarity, I began filming electrostatic levitation/ ion asymmetrical methods in 1991, Biefeld Brown and other asymmetric shaped saucers in 1992 as well as Tornado Ion Vortex, Electro-Hydro-Dynamic-Thruster that was inspired by the work of Stan Deyo. We also attended a lecture by Mr Deyo in Ballarat Australia in the early 1990’s. By this time I started to have success with many levitation experiments at a time when mainstream science still believed that Townsend’s Brown’s work and other asymmetrical capacitor or ion propulsion/ electrostatic devices were mere ‘fairy tales’.
I continued to experiment with magnetic / gyroscopic levitation making slow progress, still unaware of Roy Harrigan’s patent in 1983, till one day by chance I walked into a National Geographic store in 1995, when on holiday in Sydney Australia. ‘Lo and behold’ there was a ‘Levitron’ on sale for around $60.00 that I immediately purchased. To my surprise my first efforts in trying to achieve stable long lasting levitation with this purchased “levitron”, were pretty much like all my previous attempts that I made prior to the purchase with my own magnetic contraptions, difference being that this time I had far more faith that it should work and eventually it did! This is the device that I used in the video edit:-“Antigravity” Method 9 of 15, Magnetic Gyroscopic, Group IIC”.
Also by the mid 1990’s other “anti-gravity” or exotic forms of propulsion information appeared in local newspapers such as Leik Myrabo’s ground-based lasers that propel objects, lifting them hundreds of feet into the air. His goal was to use ground-based lasers to propel objects into orbit. Eugene Podkletnov claims of designing and demonstrating gravity shielding devices consisting of rotating disks constructed from ceramic superconducting materials. Then there were new magazines that began to appear, such as Nexus, New dawn, as well as Anti-gravity books where I was introduced to a new plethora of “anti-gravity” devices and was made aware of many new characters such as O.T. Carr, Victor Schauberger, Nazi Flying saucers etc. John Hutchison’s, “Hutchison effect” also appeared in an article in the Australian “Nexus’ magazine called the “Poltergeist Machine” where he claimed that a combination of Tesla coils and Van de Graaff generators were used to levitate canon balls etc, it was hard to tell if any of his claims were real from the still photographs in the magazine at the time.
VHS videos on “Anti-gravity” contraptions from some of the above mentioned characters also appeared for sale, at lectures, free energy and U.F.O. conferences as well as in other magazines. At this point, the mid 1990’s, not wanting to leave ‘any stone unturned’, I tried my best within the constraints of a limited budget and very basic equipment to recreate other “anti-gravity” experiments. I also had to exercise great impartiality into the feasibility of some devices, even ones that looked dubious. I had already replicated some experiments successfully; others, well I can only assume were hoaxes, exaggerations or possibly unsuccessful on my part.
Many successful achievements and some unsuccessful experiments were all video taped. It was also at this point, (1995) that I was inspired to compile the successful experiments into one video, that was “Antigravity-The Reality”. An effort to catalogue and group a compendium of all the forms of exotic levitation, flight and propulsion that I was able to successfully achieve, many at the time were unknown to the general public, some of the experiments were firsts and other replicated experiments such as the asymmetrical capacitor lifters were not even recognised by the mainstream scientific community as workable but to my delight did work as stated after been built as specified. First I had seven, then nine and finally to my great surprise fifteen groups of methods that were in my opinion exotic forms of levitation and propulsion that actually worked and felt inspired to share this with anyone that was interested, in an effort to inspire and expand research into this field.

 

“ANTI GRAVITY”-The Reality

 

“ANTIGRAVITY”- The Reality was originally filmed between 1991 to 1996, with 15 methods of levitating an object known to myself with heavier than air devices usually referred to as “anti-gravity” as they achieve flight without propellers, jets or rocket propulsion.
The original inspiration of this series was to show interested people “REAL” experiments that can levitate objects, real is defined as “SCIENTIFIC” experiments that are repeatable by others. As opposed to fake or unrepeatable experiments or presentations mainly by “armchair” scientists / people that speculate or form opinions about how to create anti-gravity that dominate the word “anti-gravity,” and in my opinion do not form a solid basis from where to start serious research and experimentation. So in 1996 I created a video showing my own real experimental work, from previous years of experimentation.
This of course does not mean that other proposals are not possible, as I only present my own successful experiments that are repeatable scientifically; science fiction has always inspired reality.
To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses that must be repeatable by others, anything less is speculation.
I consider the methods presented as elements that you can combine by analogy as compounds that are combined in chemistry. This is the type of experimental stimulation I hope to encourage and is the reason for posting this series, hopefully accelerating our advance in this area. The longer we remain in our cradle we call the earth, the greater we increase our chance toward extinction. Tomorrow’s technology always starts with today’s components, and is the reason for the classification of the methods presented.
So here I now present edited work from the original Video called “Antigravity the Reality,” that contained all of John Iwaszko’s “antigravity” experiments and was filmed between the years 1991-1996, with 15 methods of levitating an object known to the author at the time.
Addendum.
Back in 2006, I desperately tried to convert the original video tape of 3 hours into 30 second segments and piece it together to 3 minute segments, (the maximum time length at the time) for uploading onto YouTube which was only one year old at the time. Unfortunately my 3 GB computer just couldn’t handle the video processing and kept on crashing. In the mean time I saw so many so called “anti-gravity” firsts that began to flood the internet, just because they could afford a more powerful computer than the one I had!
Many of the experiments I saw were performed by me at least a decade or two earlier. Hmm the frustration, just because someone posts it first, were they the first? I guess I was not the only one. By 2008 I finally obtained a ‘hand-me-down’ computer capable of 40 GB and then was faced with breaking down a 3 hour video to 6 minute segments, then 10 minutes by 2009 and so on.
So some of the videos from “anti-gravity method 11” onwards were re-edited with me trying to talk at an extremely fast pace to try and fit everything into a 12 minute time frame. The edits were rather viscous, and were cut down to the maximum time frames allowable at the time. By today’s standards  (2016) the videos are poor quality and very bad, as I had no video processing program or computer for that matter! So please remember that the series was originally filmed from 1991 onwards, originally on super 8 video converted to MPEG back in 2008, then cut down and sped up and edited to try and comply to the maximum allowable time frames at the time. With only the most important experiments shown based on my opinion at the time. Yes we have come a long way in computer technology, the 3 minutes maximum seem laughable by today’s HD quality full length movies that are on the internet today. 
Good Luck with your experiments!

 

John Iwaszko’s “Anti-gravity” classification

 

GROUP I                                
ELECTROSTATIC 
Group IA
Geometric Electrostatic Field Levitation-(Method 1)
Group IB
i) Ion Asymmetric Electrostatic-(Method 2)
ii) Vacuum Polarization (Biefeld Brown Effect)-(Method 3)
Group IC
Tornado Ion Vortex, Electro-Hydro-Dynamic- Thruster (EHD)-(Method 4)
GROUP II
MAGNETIC (PERMANENT & ELECTROMAGNETIC-DC)
GROUP IIA
i) Magnetic Mechanical Constraint-Repulsion or Attraction of like poles-(Method 5)
Magnetic Mono Pivot or Zippe type centrifuge-(Method 6)
Group IIB
i) Dia-magnetic Superconducting (Meissner)-(Method 7)
ii) Dia-magnetic pyrolytic graphite, bismuth etc-(Method 8)
GroupII
Magnetic Gyroscopic-(Method 9)
GROUP III
ELECTROMAGNETIC AC
GROUP IIIA
Electromagnetic suspension (EMS) repulsion or attraction with feedback loop control-(Method 10)
Group IIIB Electrodynamic Suspension (EDS)-Induced currents/Eddy currents
i) Relative Motion between conductors and magnets (Lenz law)-(Method 11)
ii) Oscillating electromagnetic Fields-DC Pulse, AC (LF & HF)-(Method 12)
GROUP IV
GYROSCOPIC MECHANICAL /ELECTROMECHANICAL/ INERTIAL IMPULSE CENTRIFUGAL-(Method 13)
GROUP V
SONIC ULTRASONIC-ACOUSTIC-(Method 14)
GROUP VIA
PHOTONIC OR SOLAR DERIVED MECHANICAL PRESSURE-(Method 15A)
GROUP VIB
a) Direct Mechanical Conversion-(Method 15B) b) Electromagnetic wave conversion Propulsion-(Method 15B) c) Mechanical Pressure Electric Conversion-(Method 15C)
GROUP VII
AERODYNAMIC
(Heavier than air aircraft including aeroplanes, gliders, air levitation of objects & Helicopters)-(Method 16)
GROUP VIII
REACTIONARY (Jets and Rockets)-(Method 17)
GROUP IX
LIGHTER THAN AIR CRAFT (Balloons, Airships)-(Method 18)

 

                  John Iwaszko’s “Anti-gravity” Periodic Table

 

ANTIGRAVITY PERIODIC
GROUP I
ELECTROSTATIC
Group IA
Geometric Electrostatic Field Levitation, Symbol ЄЅ (Method 1a) (Method 1b)
Group IB
i) Ion Asymmetric Electrostatic, Symbol ІαЄ(Method 2a) (Method 2b)
ii) Vacuum Polarization (Biefeld–Brown effect), Symbol ВВe(Method 3a) (Method 3b)
Group IC
Tornado Ion Vortex, Electro-Hydro-Dynamic-Thruster, Symbol EHD (Method 4)
GROUP II
MAGNETIC (PERMANENT & ELECTROMAGNETIC-DC
Group IIA
i) Magnetic Mechanical Constraint-Repulsion or Attraction of like poles, Symbol Ммс(Method 5)
ii) Magnetic Mono Pivot or Zippe type centrifuge, Symbol Мρ(Method 6)
Group IIB
i) Dia-magnetic Superconducting (Meissner), Symbol δЅМ –(Method 7)
Type I Superconductors- Extreme Low Temp. Tc<8.7K, elements such as Pb, Hg, Sn & Nb exhibit Full (true) Meissner effect, below critical temp.
Type II Superconductors- High Temp. Tc>20-90K, metal alloys such as NbTi & Nb3Sn or complex oxide ceramics such as YBCO have two critical fields allowing partial magnetic penetration.
ii) Dia-magnetic pyrolytic graphite, bismuth etc, Symbol δm(Method 8)
Group IIC
Magnetic gyroscopic, Symbol МГ(Method 9)
GROUP III
ELECTROMAGNETIC-AC
Group IIIA
Electromagnetic suspension– repulsion or attraction with feedback loop control, Symbol EMS(Method 10a) (Method 10b)
Group IIIB
Electrodynamic Suspension -Induced currents/Eddy currents
i) Relative Motion between conductors and magnets (Lenz’s law), Symbol EDS(Method 11)
ii) Oscillating electromagnetic Fields-DC Pulse, AC (LF, & ‘HF’), Symbol ~еМ(Method 12)
GROUP IV 
GYROSCOPIC MECHANICAL /ELECTROMECHANICAL/ INERTIAL IMPULSE CENTRIFUGAL – Symbol Г (Method 13)-(mnemonic – Greek Letter “gamma” in High case-points to a specific direction.)
GROUP V
ULTRASONIC ACOUSTIC SONIC LEVITATION –  Symbol Ѕι(Method 14)
GROUP VI
PHOTONIC, SOLAR DERIVED MECHANICAL PRESSURE, OPTICAL PROPULSION  OR ELECTRICAL CONVERSION
Group VIA
Photonic or Solar Derived Mechanical Pressure Optical Propulsion/ Levitation, Symbol – Φѕ – (Method 15a)
Group VIB
(a) Direct Electromagnetic Mechanical Conversion Φр(Method 15b)
(b) Electromagnetic Wave Transmission & Conversion Propulsion, Symbol Φр(Method 15b)
(c) Mechanical Pressure Electric Conversion, Symbol Φр(Method 15c)
GROUP VII
AERODYNAMIC – (Heavier-than-air aircraft include aeroplanes, gliders, air levitation of objects and helicopters) – Symbol Λ(Method 16) -(mnemonic – Greek Letter “Lambda” in High case, resembles “A” for Aircraft, and symbolically is an arrow pointing up!)
GROUP VIII
REACTIONARY -(Jets and Rockets) – Symbol Ρ (Method 17) (mnemonic – Greek Letter “Rho” for Reactionary and Rocket.)
GROUP IX   
LIGHTER THAN AIR CRAFT – (Balloons, Airships) – Symbol (Method 18) (mnemonic – second abbreviation is the Greek Letter “Lambda” in high case, resembles LA acronym for Light Aircraft, and also “Λ” looks like an arrow pointing up!)

 

  • This Periodic Table of “Antigravity” groups together important technical facts known about “antigravity” devices that I, John Iwaszko have so far investigated. Classification is based on the following parameters, classification number versus approx. operating temperature, power supply type, material construction and type of lift. The main division is a distinction between what I have termed “Balance of Forces” lift and Air/Gas/Reactionary Generated lift that is free floating and does not require a balance from another medium such as an opposing charged or magnetic field of sorts within the vicinity.
  • The Table also defines a new term I have coined, called “force quality” or flavour if you will for example; a coil winding of a conductor carrying direct current (DC) produces a magnetic field akin to a permanent magnet. Therefore any experiments performed with a permanent magnet can be performed with a coil carrying a DC current; there is no observable difference between the “force qualities” produced by them! The current carried by this conductor is unidirectional and steady i.e. it does not change direction or vary in magnitude with respect to time. Hence, the effect is that of a permanent magnet which simply attract ferrous objects near the coil or attracts or repels other magnets and coils, carrying DC currents, based on the geometry or magnet placement relative to the two magnets). This “force quality” is conveniently defined as “Attraction or Repulsion” on the table shaded ‘pink’.
  • The case is different with alternating current (AC) which change direction i.e. becomes negative for the second half of the frequency cycle. Also, the magnitude varies sinusoidally (curve having a sine wave form) thereby becoming zero at the end of a cycle. Alternating current produces an alternating magnetic field which induces an alternating current in good conductors such as copper or aluminium when placed near it.
  • This induced current or voltage always opposes the magnetic field inducing it, and hence the object is always repelled, which I have defined as “Always Repulsive.” Please note that it is possible to create “magnetic wells” with two or more AC coils, (refer Method 10 video) or two or more rotating conductors, (refer Method 11 Video). The main “force quality” will still be repulsion, but can also suspend based on the geometrical configuration, properties similar to “Attraction/Repulsion –Suspension”, as exhibited by Group IIB and even Group IIIA, shown on the table shaded green. These “force qualities” hint at the true nature of the effects we observe, which I will explain in another chapter.
  • Arrows are also present on the table which indicate hybrids or methods that contain a main mode of operation based on the combination of specific properties of two classified methods; this is where I believe the real magic lies mainly by combining the methods shown!
  • For example Method 9 classified as Group IIC, is a combination of Methods 6 (Group IIA(ii)) and 13 (Group IV). By further extending this technology refer “antigravity” method 10a (Group IIIA), the earth’s magnetic field could be used as a repelling magnet. This is why I consider the methods as elements that you can combine like we combine atoms in chemistry. This is the type of experimental stimulation I hope to encourage and is the reason for posting the series to hopefully start a race that combines the methods, accelerating our advance in this area. The longer we remain in our cradle we call the earth, the greater we increase our chance towards extinction.
  • The table shown represents just one of many possible groupings that in the author’s opinion begin to predict new possibilities. For example the completed table had many missing gaps, that upon observation could easily be filled with known craft such as the Frisbee and a Hover Disc (a helium filled Frisbee) as well as a clearly visible spot for a hot air Frisbee that can be made if inclined. These are shown in black type with diagonal striped shading. Great I thought, then other possibilities began to emerge that would without a doubt work for example cryogenically cooled Geometrical electrostatic levitation, sounds interesting, I must try it! Most interestingly, blank unfilled spaces appeared in the table, where legendary and speculated devices seem to fit; these are shown in Red type with diagonal shading! I don’t know if any of these devices were absolutely real as I don’t have any scientific evidence that they exist or even worked, although there is evidence that Schauberger experimented with his “Repulsine” but without a doubt the table shows that they are plausible.  I don’t want to take all the fun away completely so have left many of the spaces blank for your own self discovery, you can decide where other hypothetical devices may fit! If you want to contact me and tell me your thoughts or have ideas about how to devise a better classification, you may? I will post any that I believe are interesting or unique, attributing them to your name or selected name.
  • The devised table in my opinion begins to “speak out,” and show that the majority of “free floating” effects such as AIR/GAS/ LIQUID FLOW REACTIONARY GENERATED LIFT and some “balance of forces lift” generally include some spin, shown on the table, shaded diagonally, including the spin from a propeller blade in a circular motion. The other interesting fact is that so far the majority are made to operate in ambient temperatures, suggesting more experimentation is required in the cryogenic regions.
  • Thanks for your Interest.
Webpage Design By John Iwaszko- AurumSolis- Copyright © 2016