NOTE: A detailed critique with high-resolution figures is available in pdf format at: Prutchi Critique of Alzofon Gravity Control Experiments
Lately, most of my ham radio activity has been in the microwave bands, and I was thinking about developing a demonstration Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR) apparatus to combine my amateur radio and experimental physics hobbies. The inspiration was a 1990s paper on building a Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectroscope using an amateur radio HF rig which was published in one of the ham radio magazines [Holcomb, 1996]. My idea was to come up with a modern version of the concept by performing Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR) at the amateur microwave bands by taking advantage that low-cost SDR transmitter/receivers up to 6GHz, powerful large neodymium magnets, and affordable transistor-based amplifiers are now widely available.
EPR, also known as ESR (Electron Spin Resonance) is an analytical spectroscopy method for studying materials with unpaired electrons. EPR is conceptually similar to NMR, but it is electron spins that are excited instead of the spins of atomic nuclei.
I have the math in the pdf white paper, but putting it simply, the sample is placed under an external magnetic field with a strength measured in Tesla [T]. The resonant precession frequency for free electrons happens at approximately 28 GHz/T.
In EPR systems commonly used in chemistry analytical labs, using a magnet with a field strength of 0.335 T (3,350 Gauss), the EPR frequency for free electrons is thus around 9.4 GHz. ONLY at around one right frequency will electrons precess for a given magnetic field strength.
So, it was researching for the DIY EPR project that I landed on a YouTube interview with David Alzofon. In it he discussed his father’s work on “gravity control” through Dynamic Nuclear Orientation, which could be achieved by applying pulsed EPR on a high-purity aluminum sample. I would usually not bite onto antigravity claims, but it intrigued me because of Dr. Fredrick Alzofon’s reported understanding of physics, and mainly by the claim that he had experimentally demonstrated his theory using a standard laboratory EPR system.
The interview was very interesting, so I purchased David Alzofon’s book “Gravity Control with Present Technology” and read it carefully. Dr. Alzofon’s gravity theory is very elegant. However, I’ve seen many beautiful, but wrong explanations of gravity before, so I looked forward to the claimed experimental proof. His claim of positive results from an experiment conducted in May of 1994 using a Chemistry Department’s EPR system looked promising, so as I was reading the book, I was already planning to design my EPR device to work within the 10 GHz amateur band (for which I have the necessary equipment with power capabilities of up to 10.5W) and to add a precision scale to try to replicate Dr. Alzofon’s results.
The experiment consisted of monitoring the weight of the sample using a precision scale connected to a computer while the microwave field was pulsed on for 6 ms, followed by a 6 ms off period, and on again for 6 ms. Recording and averaging by the computer was started 1 ms prior to the first microwave pulse, but in the first set of experiments the recording seems to have started 5-6 ms prior to the first pulse [Page 138].
The figure below shows my analysis of results from the best run of Alzofon’s first experiment. It’s easy to see that the measured weight loss correlates with the presumed delivery of microwaves into the EPR instrument’s cavity.
All was going well, until I saw the results of Experiment 3, Test 4, labeled “Control” [Page 157] which shows that the exact same “weight loss” results were obtained with the magnet off!
Based on Dr. Alzofon’s model, weight loss should not have occurred with the magnetic field OFF, since dynamic nuclear orientation couldn’t happen if the EPR resonance condition was not satisfied during the microwave ON periods!
To this effect, in the third paragraph of page 133 Alzofon writes:
“Could the weight alteration be caused by anything other than the configuration of the fields? … Microwaves alone would have no effect on weight, either.”
According to the book, Experiment 3 was conducted as a demonstration for a potential investor, and I can just imagine Dr. Alzofon and his colleagues playing their version of “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” trying to distract their guests when the AF2004 graph appeared on the screen.
The book provides the following explanation to accompany the AF2004 (Control) graph:
“The current supplying the electromagnet to produce a constant magnetic field was switched off for Test No. 4 in order to test the role of the constant magnetic field in the correlations noted above. There remained a weak residual magnetic field whose magnitude was not measured. The correlation between the microwave field intensity and weight increments is still present.
It is felt that a plausible explanation for this persistence is that the fractional alteration in resonant microwave frequency is equal to the fractional variation in the constant magnetic field. Since the resonant frequency is so large (about 9.5 GHz), the bandwidth must also be very large, corresponding to alterations in the magnetic field. Plot AF2004 illustrates the correlation observed.”
The “plausible explanation” doesn’t make any sense to me, since any residual remaining field would be significantly lower than the field strength necessary to satisfy the conditions for EPR at 9.5 GHz. This would be especially true for the type of EPR spectroscope used in Dr. Alzofon’s experiments, since these use a very narrow frequency band to be able to look at the fine differences in a sample’s electron g-factor.
Given that experiment AF2004 is labeled as “Control,” I believe that the proper way to use it would be to subtract AF2004 from AF2003. In the following I present an overlay of the AF2003 (magnetic field ON) and AF2004 (magnetic field OFF). I fail to see any difference between the two outside the noise limit of the system, so I have to conclude that there is absolutely no variation that could be legitimately attributed to a reduction in weight of the test sample.
Next during Experiment 3, both the constant magnetic field and the microwave field were switched off. The graph labeled AF2005 showed no significant variation in weight, just a low-level noise baseline. This confirms to me that something in the switching of the microwave source produced an artifact in the weight measurement system which was incorrectly attributed by Dr. Alzofon as a valid signal.
In conclusion, I believe that the graph of AF2004 (Control, with magnetic field turned OFF) completely invalidates the claim that Dr. Alzofon’s model has been “experimentally proven.”
In his book and interviews David Alzofon invokes the usual suppression conspiracies to explain the lack of interest by Academia, Industry, the Military, and even Hollywood in pursuing his father’s model. However, I believe that the actual reason is much more mundane – any physicist or engineer who saw AF2004 would have immediately realized that the experimental data shows absolutely no effect on the gravitational pull experienced by the sample.
I laud David Alzofon for his honesty in including the AF2004 graph, because it not only invalidates the alleged experimental demonstration of the effect, but actually provides negative evidence against it.
I tried contacting David Alzofon via email at firstname.lastname@example.org seeking comments regarding this matter, but received no response.
Alzofon F, and Alzofon D, Gravity Control with Present Technology, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2018.
Holcomb W., “Try NMR with your old CW rig”, Communications Quarterly, Winter 1996, 23-28, 1996.
Murakami A, Live Call with David Alzofon on Gravity Control, 2019-04-21, https://youtu.be/C5I0yOxUEeQ
A detailed critique with high-resolution figures is available in pdf format at: Prutchi Critique of Alzofon Gravity Control Experiments