NASA Technical Memorandum 106963AIAA-95-2601

//c/--7d

.... 9_

Experimental Results of Hooper'sGravity-ElectromagneticCoupling Concept

Marc G. Millis and Gary Scott WilliamsonLewis Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio

03

I _. r_Uh U

0

Prepared for the

31st Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit

cosponsored by AIAA, ASME, SAE, and ASEESan Diego, Califomia, July 10-12, 1995

National Aeronautics andSpace Administration

L3

-J _.t=

Lj u_

LJ_z:

x uJ ,,,.

o w_r_

I O_u_ I

Z U.4_ 0 8_

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19950022472 2020-03-11T21:51:00+00:00Z

AIAA 95-2601EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF HOOPER'S

GRAVITY-ELECTROMAGNETIC COUPLING CONCEPT

Marc G. Millis

Gary Scott WilliamsonNational Aeronautics and Space Administration

Lewis Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio

ABSTRACT

Experiments were conducted to test assertions fromPatent 3,610,971, by W.J. Hooper that self-caucelingelectromagnetic coils can reduce the weight of objectsplaced underneath. No weight changes were observedwithin the detectability of the instrumentation. Morecareful examination of the patent and other reports fromHooper led to the conclusion that Hooper may havemisinterpreted thermal effects as his "Motional Field"effects. There is a possibility that the claimed effectsare below the detection thresholds of theinstrumentation used for these tests.

INTRODUCTION

Spaceflight would be revolutionized if it werepossible to propel a vehicle by manipulating gravityrather than by using rockets. If a means existed toinduce propulsive forces using the coupling betweengravity, electromagnetism and spacetime, rocketpropellant would no longer be required. By eliminatingpropellant, spacecraft could become signiticanflysmaller and travel greater distances, unlimited bypropellant supply.

Studies by the Air Force and others have examinedemerging theories and physical evidence for newapproaches toward propulsion breakthroughs 1-5. Thesestudies identified a variety of unexplored possibilities ofvarying degrees of complexity andtecimical maturity.The work of W. J. Houper is just one of thesepossibilities 4.

A patent was issued to W. J. Houper in 1971 fordevices which are claimed to produce various anomalouseffects 6. One of the claimed effects is that the weightof a "nonferrous" object would decrease when placedunder a self-canceling electromagnetic coil. Formally,the only claims in the patent are about the constructionmethods for the devices and not the anomalous effects.

If this weight reduction effect is genuine, it implies thatthere is a means to controllably affect gravitationalforces using electromagneties. Although the

probability is low that the effect is genuine, such agravity-electromagnetic coupling would haverevolutionary implications for space propulsion.

It is still unknown in science if it is possible touse the coupling between gravity and electromagnetismto manipulate gravity. It is known, however, thatgravity and electromagnetism are indeed coupledphenomena. In the formalism of General Relativitythis coupling is described in terms of how mass warpsthe spacetime against which electromagnetic behavior ismeasure& In simple terms this has the consequencethat gravity appears to bend and red-shift fight. Theseobservations and the General Relativistic formalism that

describes them have been confinneA 7. Although the

effects of gravity on electromagnetics have beenconfirmed, the possibility of the reverse, of using

electromagnetics to affect gravity, is unknown.The reasons that the Hooper approach was chosen

for investigation instead of one of the other poss_ilitiesare as follows: The devices are relatively easy and

inexpensive to construct and test. Hooper's work isdocumented well enough to allow duplication. Thisapproach provides empirical evidence which is closer to

demonstrating a useful device than are theoreticalapproaches. There is also no report of Hooper's claimsor anything similar being rigorously tested.

Since this research was aimed at detecting a

potentially useful effect for space propulsion rather thanconducting basic science, only a relatively large effectwould be of interest. For this reason, low-cost

experiments using standard engineering inslrmnentationwere considered suff'_--ientto determine the viability ofthe effect. Given that Hcoper's claims are based on

experiments conducted in the 1960's, it seemsreasonable to expect that the effects would be deteclable

using the improved standard instrumentation availabletoday. It is possible, however, that the simplicity ofthe experimental equipment used would not detect smalleffects that would still be of general scientific interest.

This research focused only on testing the emphicalclaims of Hooper and not on critiquing his theory. Toaid in the analysis of the data, however, Hooper's theory

wasexaminedtodeterminetheexpectedproportionalityofhisclaimedgravity.electronmgneticcouplingeffect.A brief description of Hooper's theory is provided next

THEORY OF W. J. HOOPER

Hooper conducted experiments with and wasawarded patents for a variety of self-cancelingelectromagnetic coils 6, s. These coils were wound suchthat equal currents flowed in opposing directions so asto cancel their electromagnetic fields. By eliminatingthe magnetic fields it was felt that any more subtleeffect that would have normally been masked by themagnetic fields could be more easily observed.

Houper concentrated his efforts on detecting aneffect he called the "motional electric field." This field

was assumed to cause a slight static charge to build upon the outside of the self-canceling electromagnets.

Most of Hooper's experimental work focused onmeasuring this slight charge build-up. Hooper thoughtthat this motimal electric field might be related to agravity-electromagnetic coupling, but this connection isnot explicitly quantified in his works, nor is it clearwhat experiments he conducted to explore the gravityconnection.

The critical feature claimed of this motional electric

field was that it could not be shielded. Hooper felt that

if he could generate the motional E field and show thatit was immune to shielding, it would indicate that notall electric fields are electrostatic in nature. This led

Hooper to draw similarities between the motional Efield and the gravitational field. He took this one stepfialher and suggested a possible link betweenelectromagnetism and gravity since gravity is the onlyother field he knew of that was also immune to

shielding. Specifically he suggested that thegravitational effects should be directly proportional tohis motional electric field effects.

This "motional electric field" was based on ideas

suggested by E. G. Cullwick that magnetic flux loopsmove along with the electrons that cause them 9. This

led Hooper to the following equation for his "motionalelectric field:

E=B× V d (Eql)

Where E is the "motional electric field", B is the

magnetic induction caused by electrons flowing throughthe wire, and V d is the actual velocity ("drift velocity")

of the electrons through the wire 6, 10. The magnitude

of the magnetic induction, B, at a distance r radiallyfrom the wire is described by the Biot-Savart law for a

long straight wire as follows:

B=_ (Eq2)2xr

Where Po is the permeability of free space surrounding

the wire andI isthecun'ent.The driftvelocitycanbewrittenasfollows11:

Where i is the current in the wire, A is the crosssectional areaof the wire, n is the number of freeelectrons in the wire, which for copper is 8A xl02S

/m3, and e is the charge of one electron which equals1.6 × 10-19 coulombs.

The drift velocity can also be writtenasan inverse

function of temperature which suggests that themotion,] electric field can be enhanced by lowering the

temperature of the coils. Hooper suggests in the patentthat a superconducting self-canceling magnet wouldmake the effect most pronounced since the drift velocitywould be substantially higher in superconductors 6. Inthe drift velocity equation for normal conductors,however, the temperalx_ dependance appears in theform of the temperature-dependant resistivity. Avoltage term also appears in this equation. Thecombination of resistivity and voltage has the net effectof returning the equation to the form shown abovewhere the drift velocity is only a function of current.The behavior in superconductors relative to the predictedHouper effect is uncertain.

Both Hooper's motional electric field and themagnetic field are illustrated in figure 1. Note that thepolarity of the motional electric field is independent ofthe direction of the current, whereas the polarity of the

magnetic field reverses with reversed oaxent. Usingsupetposition of fields, the magnetic fields cancel butthe motional electric fields do not cancel.

To aid in the analysis of the experimentsrepresented by this paper, this motional electric fieldwas used to provide a relative estimate of the anticipatedmagnitude of any weight change, gravity change, orsurface electric field to be observed from conducting the

experiments. For a relative comparison of the motionalelectric field to the variables in the experiment, the

following proportionality relationship can be derived:

i2_A (Eq 4)E Oc

Where E is a relative magnitude of the "motionalelectric field", i is the current through the wire, p is the

2

numberof wiresperunitwidth,andA isthecrosssectionalareasofthewire.Terms for the distance from

the coil and for proportionality constants do not appearsince these values are constant throughout the tests.The equation as shown is sufficient to calculate arelative comparison of the magnitude of predicted effect.Values calculated from this relationship are listed with

the experimental data in Table I.Although the gravity-eleclromagnetic effect is the

prime interest of this paper, Hooper's own experimentsconcentrated instead on measuring the charge build-ups.Furthermore, Hooper's most documented experimentsdid not use the fiat coil associated with the weight

change claim, but used a self-canceling electromagnetmade of a bundle of vertical wires; half of which carrycurrentupward, the other half downward 12. Thespeculated gravity connection is only mentionedoccasionally, such as in reference 6.

Even though it is unlikely that the gravitationaleffect claimed by Hooper exists, there is no history ofthis simple test ever being conducted independently.Because of the large benefit if genuine, the simplicity ofHcoper's devices, the ump'nical nature of the claimedeffect, and because Hooper's claims are documented wellenough to allow designing experiments to verify andcharacterize its potential, the Hooper claim was selectedfor experimental investigation.

EXPERIMENTAL CONFIGURATION

The experiments conducted here duplicate theconfiguration indicated in the patent, which used abalance beam to search for weight changes of a"nonferrous disk" that was suspended underneath a flat,serf-canceling coil 6. Figure 2 and figure 3 illustratethis configuration (adapted from figures 4 and 6 ofreference 6). In addition to searching for the claimedweight change, instrumentation was included to measurethe currents and voltages to the coils, to verify that thecoils had no net magnetic field, to measure the Earth'sgravitational acceleration near the coils, and to measurethe surface charge effect as claimed by Hooper. Figure4 shows the arrangements of the instrumentation aroundthe balance beam. Coils of different gauge wire Wereconstructed to allow testing at different current levelsand wire packing densities.

FIooper Coil Construction:Four flat magnetic self-canceling coils were built.

This flat pancake form most closely duplicates the coilassociated with the claimed weight-change effect. Threeof the coils were made with insulated wire and the

fourth coil was made using a printed circuit board.Table H shows the dimensions, nmnber of turns, wire

length, wire gauge, and measured resistance for each ofthe four coils.

As a base to mount the coils, flat plates of 5 mm

thick polycarbonate sheet were used. A nonferrous andnonmetallic surface was desired to e"inninate any

magnetic interference or effects. A one inch diameterhole and acrylic plastic hub were placed in the center of

the plate to provide an opening for the string thatsuspended the test mass under the coil. The hub alsoserved as a place to begin wrapping the wire. Carpettape (adhesive on both sides) was put on thepolycarbonate plate to help hold down the wire as thewire was wound.

To provide the counter-current windings, the wirehad to be folded back onto itself prior to wrapping. To

prepare for this fold, the wire stock was divided evenlyon two spools so that its midpoint was between the twospools. The midpoint was folded and wire was drawnfrom both spools as the coil was wrapped.

To wrap the coils, the folded midpoint wasanchorednext to the central hub (see figure 3) and the

wire pair was laid flat on the carpet tape, spiralling outuntil an outside diameter of about 30 cm (=12 in) wasobtained. The two leads were terminated with electrical

connectors at this outer edge. To help hold the wire in

place, epoxy was applied to the wire during the courseof construction. When the coil was completely laid

down, another layer of epoxy was applied to ensure thatthe wire stayed in place. For the 4 AWG wire coil,silicone adhesive was used instead of epoxy, plus plasticwire ties were used to hold the wires together.

The circuit board was printed with the same spiral

shape as the wire wound coil_ An insulating layer ofRTV silicone was painted over its surface. Connectors

were placed at the outside edge of the spiral.

Balance Beam Construction:The balance beam and "non-ferrous" disk were

constructed from acrylic plastic sheet, as were all the

support structures for the coils. The stn_mn_ frame forthe balance beam was built from aluminum channel.

The whole apparatus was set atop a grounded stainlesssteel optical bench equipped with vibration iso_tionmounts.

Instrumentation:power Supplies: Two different power supplies

were required to accommodate the range of currents and

voltages for the various coils. For the printed circuitcoil and the 26 AWG coil, a 0-5 Amp / 0-120 Volt DC

powersupply was used and the currents and voltageswere read from both the analog meters on the powersupply and from separate digital panel meters. For theI0 AWG and 4 AWG coils, a 0-120 Amp / 0-5 VoltDC power supply was used and the currents andvoltages were read from both the analog meters on thepower supply and flora separate digital panel meters. Inall cases the power supplies were set to deliver constantcurrent.

Ma_,netic Field Meter: To verify that thecoils were self-canceling, a magnetic field meter with amagnetometer probe was used. The magnetometer candetect fields as small as 0.0001 Gauss.

Accelerometer: To detect any change in thegravitational field near the coil, a servo accelerometerwas placed above the coil with its acceleration axisparallel with the Earth's gravitational field. Thisalignment tests the hypothesis that a coil might alterthe gravitational field of the Earth. The accelerometer,which measures the force on an intenml test mass,

produces 2.5 Volts/g (where g is the Earth'sgravitational acceleration of 9.8 m/s2) and has anadvertized resolution of 0.03 mg. Its output is readfrom a voltmeter having a 0.001 mV resolution. Thiscombination results in a detection threshold of 40 _tg.

Balance Beam and Weight Scale: To copythe apparatus as described in the patent and to separatethe weight scale from the poss_le magnetic effects ofthe coils, a combination of balance beam and weight

scale was employed (figure 4). The "non-feuous" testmass (30.5 cm diam, 6.4 mm thick, 555 gln acrylicdisk) was suspended tmdcracath the lest coil by amonofflament line that ran up through the coil's centerto one end of the balance beam. A platform wassuspended by monofilament lines from the other end ofthe beam and rested atop the weight scale. Just enoughof a preload mass, typically 50 gm, was placed on thescale platform to keep a positive load on the scale. Thereason that the balance beam was constrained in this

manner is because spurious air currents would set theuncomwained beam into oscillations that masked any

attempt to determine net shifts in its equilibriumposition. An electronic balance with a resolution of0.001 gin was used. The detection threshold of thewhole apparatus was empirically determined to be 0.02gm.

Surface Voltage: To test for Hooper'sassociated claim that surface charges build up on theoutside of his coils, a two-sided circuit board blank was

laid flat on top of the coils to serve as a charge detectioncapacitor. This board measured 153 on (6 inches) by30.5 on (12 inches) by 0.16 cm (1/16 inch) thick and

had a measured capacitance of 0.0014 I_'. Voltageacross the panel was read using a Voltmeter with a0.001 mV resolution. To minimize noise, a 1 M.Oresistor was connected across the plates. The input

impedance of the voltmeter was 10 M.O.In Houper's _gg_rts 12 the charge detection capacitor

had its inside face, the side in contact with the coil,grounded. In our tests, two separate detection capacitorswere used, one with the inside ground convention ofHonper, and one with the outside grctmde£

TEST PROCEDURE

To test the hypothesis that weight or gravity isaffected when current runs througha Hooper coil,simple comparative tests were run between the on state(when current flows through the coils) and the off state(no current flowing). The coils were tested both atroom temperature and tested while incased in ice. Forboth the room temperature and frozen conditions, twocurrent settings were tested with each coil; one with thepower supplies set at the highest currents that the coilscould handle and the other at half that setting.

On-off comparison measurements were takenseparately for the magnetometer, the weight scale, theaccelerometer, and the surface voltages. For eachparameter, an off measmement was followedimmediately by an on measurement, and the differencecalculated. This off/on differen_ was repeated 4 times

for each coil and cmrent setting.Although Hooper typically took his data after

letting his devices warm up, the on-off approach wasused in our tests for two reasons: F'h'St,allowing the

apparatusto warm-up wonld introduce direct and indirectthermal effects, and second, it was assumed that any

genuine gravity-eleclromagnefic coupling would appearimmediately in the on state and extinguish immediatelyin the off state.

The coils were tested in ice to see if there was any

direct temperalme dependance ca the claimed effect.This was largely prompted by Hooper's suggestion thatthe drift velocities would increase at lower temperatures.

Although drift velocity is not a function of temperatureat constant current, it was relatively easy to also test thecoils while encased in ice.

To encase a coil in ice, the coil was placed in a

polycarhonate plastic tub made large enough to hold thecoil assembly and it had a central tube to allow passageof the monofilament line that suspended the test mass.Using this ice tub increased the distance between thecoil and the suspended test mass by about 5 ram; thethickness of the bottom of the ice tub. The tub was

filledwithdistilledwatertocompletely cover the coiland frozen. During tests, occasional visual checks weremade to insure that the ice had not melted before the

tests were complete.To explore the option of using supercondnctors, a

cursory estimate was made to determine ff it wasfeas_le to use high-temperature superconductors forthese tests. It is possible to make square printed circuitboards of high-temperature super conducting film up toabout 8 cm (3 inches) a side, and possibly as large as 15cm (6 inches). The cost to make such a board imprinted

with a Hooper coil was estimated to be $10,000. Thiscost and the need to use liquid Nitrogen in the testfacility were beyond the scope of this investigation.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

No weight changes or confirmed alterations of thegravitational field were observed with any of the coils atany of the tested current levels. Freezing the coils madeno difference. Results of the on-off toggling tests aresummarized in Table I (which includes the detectionthresholds of the insmunentation) and are presented infigures 5-11.

Each of the values listed in the last 5 columns of

Table I are the averages of the4 repeated off/oncomparison measurements. The + levels specified withthe data are the larger of either the fluctuation in themeters or twice the standard deviation of the four on-off

differences taken for each entry.Note that the + levels ate larger than most of the

recordeddata.

Note too from the magnetic field readings that thecoils are not entirely self-canceling. This may have leadto erroneous observations with Hooper's ownexperiments and did affect the accelerometers in theexperiments conducted here.

From figure 5 the effect on the accelerometers fromthe coils' magnetic fields is evident. From the plot infigure 5, a zero-crossing slope of-0.8 gg/mG is derived.This slope is used to estimate the amount that each

ac,celerometer reading was compromised by the presenceof the magnetic field. The adjusted accelercaneterreadings, with the magnetic contribution subtracted out,are presented in parentheses with the aecelerometer datain Table I. These adjusted values are used in thesubsequent plots of figures 7 & 11.

This accelerometer-magnetic field correlation is nosurprise given that servo accelerometers use magneticeffects as part of their sensing mechanism. Thiscorrelation was furtherconfirmed by subjecting the

accelerometer to comparable magnetic fields from a

permanent magnet.The compafisous between the weight change,

adjusted gravity change, and surface voltages to the"motional electric field," as predicted by Hooper, areshown in figures 6-9. Relative values for the motionalelectric field were calculated from equation 4. Thesevalues are listed in Table I. It is clear from the scatterin the data that there are no correlations between the

measured parametersand Hooper's motioual electricfield.

For completeness, the weight changes and adjustedgravity changes are also plotted relative to the powerinto the coils (volts x amps). Figures 10 and 11 showthat there is no apparent correlation between coil powerand the measured weight or gravity changes.

Regarding Hooper's claimed effect of charge build-up on the surface of the coils, the voltage readings ofthe sensing capacitors were too erratic to reach definiteconclusions. Readings were either relatively stable orfluctuated significantly for no discemable reason. Thus,the datafor this measurement is highly suspect. Asthis charge build-up effect is not important to thepropulsive implications of Hooper's work, thismeasurement difficulty was not corrected.

Based on the examination of Hooper's writings, it

appears that Hoopcr routinely allowed his coils towarm-up befoxe taking readings. This warm-upapproach invites indirect thermal effects to mask anyreadings. Hooper went to some lengths in his writings,however, to argue away thermal explanations. It is

suspected that any rise of the "nonferrous disk" observedmay have been due to upward convection currents in theair that would be induced from the heat generated by the

coil. It is uncertain if his surface charge measurementswere similarly affected by letting his coils warm up, butthis effect is of no concern with respect to propulsion.

CONCLUSIONS

No weight changes or alterations of thegravitational field of the Earth were observed with anyof the coils tested at any current leveL No effect wasobserved even when the coils were encased in ice.

Further investigation of Hooper's other writings

suggests that Hooper's observations may have been amisinterpretation of thermal effects. Although there isa possibility that the modest detection thresholds of theinstrumentation used for these tests would overlook a

genuine, but minuscule effect, such an effect would betoo small to be of practical value for a propulsionmechanism. Any further research on this possibility isleft to interested readers.

REFERENCES Company, Ventura CA, (1983).

lo Mead,F.B.Jr., et al, Advanced Propulsion

Concepts - Project Outgrowth, AFRPL-TR-72-31,

(JUN 1972).

o Mead,Jr.F.B., "Exotic Concepts for Future

Propulsion and Space Travel", In Advanced

Propulsion Concepts, 1989 JPM Specialist

Session, (JANNAF), CPIA Publication 528, p.93-

99, (May 24, 1989).

o Evans, R.A., (British Aerospace Ltd. Co.,Lancashire PR4 lAX), BAe University Round

Table on Gravitational Research, Report on

Meeting held on March 26-27, 1990, FBS 007,(N91-31729), (DCAF 070093), (Nov 1990).

o Ctavens,DL., Electric Propulsion Study, AL-TR-89-040, Air Force Asa-unaufics Lab (AFSC), (Aug

1990).

o Forward,R.L., 21st Century Space Propulsion

Study, AL-TR-90-030, Air Force Astronautics Lab

(AFSC), (Oct 1990). and Forward, 21st Century

Space Propulsion Study (Addendum), PL-TR-91-

3022, OLAC Phillips Lab, (June 1991).

o Hooper,WJ., "All-Electrical MotionalElectric Field Generator", US Patent

3,610,971 (OCT, 1971).

7. Misnet,C.W_ Thorne,K.S., and Wheeler,J.A.,

Gravitation, W.H.Freeman & Co., NY (1973).

8. Hoopor,WJ., "Apparatus for GeneratingMotional Electric Field", US Patent

3,656,013 (APL, 1972).

9. Culiwick E.G.,Electromagnetism and Relativity,

Longmum Green & Co., p. 245.,(1957).

10. Hooper, WJ., (Univ of California Berkeley), New

Horizons in Electric Magnetic and Gravitational

Theory, draft copy, (1969).

1 1. Halliday, D. and Resnick, R., Physics, Part II,

Third edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, N-Y, p.676-678, 686, (1978).

12. Gibson_F.G., The All.Electric Motional Electric

Field Generator And Its Potential, Tesla Book

Fig_we 1

l_ooper's "Motional Electrie Field", E

B

E=B×Vd

Where E is the "Motional Electric Field" predicted byHooper, B is the magnetic induction caused by current inthe wire, and V dis the drift velocity of the electrons inthe wke. For a collection of such counter-current wires,

the equal and opposite magnetic fields cancel.

]_igure 2]tooper's Weight Change Device

(adapted from figure 4 of ref 6)

self-cancelingflat coil

counter weight

I

I

balance

I

I

I

• !

nonferrous disk

]tooper's Self-Cancelline Flat Coil

If

Net Magnetic Field -vs- Accelerometer Readine

600-

_ 400. Np •

_%% slope of-0.8 _tg/mG2_-i • • ' ' '

' ",,I I200"i " 4oo-

-Boo-[ I I /-600 -300 0 300 600 900

Net Magnetic Field, milli-Gauss

• Ambient O Frozen

aluminumsupport frame

steel knifeedge pivot

stabili_ngmass

counter weightand preload

mass scale

stainless steel

optical bench

Figure 4F,xperimental Configuration

(drawn approximately to 1/10 scale)acrylic balance beam

5 ¢m squareX 61 em long

:line

surface charge detectioncapacitor plate

(plafed ou ceil)

magnetometer probeand a_elemmetef

self-canceling fiat coil- 30madiam

moented on 5 mmpiate

13 mm between e011 and test nl8

acrylic disktest mu_s

acrylic supportstructures

Weight Change -vs- Hooper Effect

20-

15-

10-

0-

"_ -5-

-10-

0

A

0 q <> 0

-15-

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Relative "Motional Electric Field", E

• Ambient O Frozen

Surface Charge -vs- Hooper Effect

( Using Hooper's Interior Ground Convention)

200-

100-

0- ¢

-100.

8 -2oo.

r_

(

A Av _- -- v

¢,

O

-300-

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Relative "Motional Electric Field", E

• Ambient O Frozen

Gravi_ Change -vs- Hooper Effect

250 -

150- c.

i 100- •

o

50-

• oN' 0-

¢

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Relative "Motional Electric Field", E

• Ambient 0 Frozen

Surface Charge -vs- Hooper Effect

( Usin e Exterior Ground)

200-

{ 0.g -200-

_400-

_ -800-

,_ -1000,

r_

0

V

-1200.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Relative "Motional Electric Field", E

• Ambient 0 Frozen

FAgartAfl

Weight Change -vs- Coil Power

20-

15-

10.

i 5- <>

._ 0-

-5-

-10-

• 0

0

Av

0 •

-15-

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Power to Coil, Watts

• Ambient 0 Frozen

Gravity_ Change -vs- Coil Power

250-

"_ 200-

el

150-

100-

50-q_

" O- O,0 0" O0

-50-

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Power to Coil, Watts

• Ambient O Frozen

9

Coil

Detection

Threshold

Current Voltageinto across

Coil Coil

(0Amps Volt

Table L TEST DATA

Calculated Predicted Net

Coil Hooper MagneticResistance Effect Field

Weight

Change

ingrain

20

ingrain

t) E = _(p/A) mGauss

--- 0.1

mGauss

Gravity Field Surface Surface

Change Voltage Voltage

meas, (adjusted Change Change

by -0.8 gg/mG) 0nt Gnd) (Ext Gnd)

gg' s nV nV

40 I 1

gg' s nV nV

Printed

C_cmt

26 AWG

10 AWG

4 AWG

1.5 40

2.0 57

1.5 35

2.0 5O

30 1.9

50 3.1

50 0.67

100 1.28

Ambient

27

29

84

149

Temperature Tests

15 +4

17 +10

23 40 20 +10

25 71 -21 +19

0.06 41 -268 +10

0.06 113 -513 +10

0.013 14 420 +6

0.013 57 895 +10

Frozen Coil

23 84 13 +10

24 149 18 +15

21 40 17 +10

21 71 20 ±10

0.06 41 -275 ±11

0.06 113 -445 +17

0.012 14 370 :i:10

0.012 57 735 +10

0 +82

-12 +71

7 +67

-5 :_33

0 Y.36

0 _50

-5 ±50

2 +90

-20 68) +800 (14) _90

45 ±17

149 ±64

7 (23) +930 -38 +100 -567 +9650

0 (-17) +40 -21 +90 -1067 +95501

0+4

0 +8

-I _:5

1:i:4

453 (239) ±440

427 (17) :1:490 I

-240 (96) +80

-567 (149) :E50

4:_92±8

1:1:5

0+4

Printed

CircuR

26 AWG

10 AWG

4 AWG

' I

1.5 35

2.0 47

1.5 31

2.0 42

30 1.7

50 2.8

50 0.61

100 1.21

Tests

-12 y.50

7 _52

0 +100

17:1:50

3 ±103

7 Y..S0

7 +97

I0 ±30

-7 (3) +40 2 :L5 -25 +45

-20 (-6) :_50 -1 +17 138 Y.364

-20 (-6) :L50 148 ±532 19 +37

-27 (-11) :f..50 -257 :f.598 -205 ±132

227 (7)+80 183 +1840 17 +763

353 (-3)+40 -200 :L5340 -17 +427

-307 (-I1) +50

-613 (-25) ±40

3 +10

li9

10 -I-13

13 +16

Coil Type(by wire gauge)

Printed Circuit

Table H, TEST

Numberof tam

pairs

33

COIL CHARACTERISTICS

Wire Spacing

Density

(p)

5.7 wires/cm

Wire CrossSectional

Area, (A)

0.015 ram2

(0.45 • 0.034)

0.13 mm 2

Inside Radiusof Coil

1.3 cm

Outside Radiusof Coil

12.9 can

15.3 em

r

Measured

Resistance

26.7 fl

23.726 AWG 166 23 wiresJcm 1.0 em

magnet wire

10 AWG stranded 15 2.4 wires/cm 5.3 mm2 1.0 cm 13.5 cm 0.06]19 slrands

4 AWG stranded 8 1.2 wires/cm 21.2 ram2 1.0 on 15.5 em 0.014

19 strands

10

Form ApprovedREPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMBNo.0704-01_

Public reporting burden for this collection of infocm_ion is estimated to average 1 hour per mspor, se_.,InckJding the tlrnp, for mv.i.ewlr_.lnp, tm,.'ltans,..m_,l_hlng existing data sou._es..,gathedng and maJr_'tlning the data. nond_. _ co_ng and mvisw_O _ ._._,is_k_. of info_ _ m_ regar.o/ng ram. ouroan e_maze or any otter _asf_p_p_p_p_p_p__...ozmmcollection of Information, including suggestions lot reoucing this burden, to washington Heaoquoners :services, ulmc_oram rot amorm_lon uperatlons ano Hepons, lz1_ JenersonDavis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Offlos of Management and Budget, Papenvod_ Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVE_=u

Jane 1995 Technical Memorandum

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Experimental Results of Hooper's Gravity-Electromagnetic Coupling Concept

e. AUTHOR(S)Mac G. M_tis and Gary Scott W'dliamson

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS{ES)

National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationLewis Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESSEES)

National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationWashington, D.C. 20546-0001

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

WU-307-51-00

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

E-9719

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

NASA TM- 106963

AIAA-95-2601

11. SUPPLEMENTARYNOTES

Prepared for the 31st Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit cosponsored by AIAA, ASME, SAE, and ASEE, San

Diego, California, July 10-12, 1995. Responsible person, Marc G. Millis, organization code 5320, (216) 977-7535.

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Unclassified- Unlimited

Subject Category 70

This publication is available from the NASA Center for Aerospace h_ocmadon, (301) 621-0390.

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

Experiments were conducted to test assertions from Patent 3,610,971, by WJ. Hooper that self-canceling electromag-

netic coils can reduce the weight of objects placed underneath. No weight changes were observed within the detectabil-

ity of the instrumentation. More earefd examination of the patent and other reports from Hooper led to the conclusion

that Hooper may have misinterpreted thermal effects as his "Motional Field" effects. There is a possibility that theclaimed effects are below the detection thresholds of the instrumentation used for these tests.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

Antigravity; Gravitation; Electromagnetic coupling; Electromagnetism; Magnetic fields;Microgravity; Spacecraft propulsion

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

NSN 7540-01-280-5500

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

1316. PRICE CODE

A0320. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18298-102