GRAVITY CONTROL with Present Technology

The author has done the best he could, i believe, in conveying his Fathers work. I liked reading this, and have done a few experiments around the concepts, as they seem sound. Still trying to reconcile TT Browns and others to this theory, very thought provoking. Still inconclusive, from my observation. It would be great to have a community of builders to share the costs of proper equipment. Its a real shame, scientists and researchers in this field (gravity disruption) really seem to get at best, completely ignored (even with demonstrable experiments) by mainstream science, and anyone with the resources to put a few bucks into it.

This book is written from a sons eyes of his late fathers work. The admiration of his father and the ridicule from the establishment is in plain view, he desperately tries to encourage the reader to prove his fathers work for themselves, that his fathers legacy would not be in vain. The book is in a "I say" "he said" style with the son giving a everyday mans understanding of the principles involved while the fathers words are aimed at the physicists out there. To the skilled amateur inventors, there's probably sufficient info in the book to enable you to build something.

I bought this book after talking to the author - actually I challenged him as to why if he knew the secrets he hadn't run the experiments and made a fortune. I'd thought that this was just another UFO explanation, and would be based on unconfirmed reports of sightings, adbuctions, and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. In fact it's really all about a whole new unified theory that combines quantum mechanics and Relativity by taking the known uncertainty in position and adding to it an uncertainty in the emission time of a photon, and thus building on Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity in a way that brings in all of the standard theory as special cases when some factors are set as zero or approximated. Fred Alzofon spent his life working on the theory side, but only managed to get one go at experimental proof. That experiment was somewhat hopeful, but didn't reach Fred's high standards for publication so he didn't publish it. In the book, David publishes the data Fred got, and you can see it's not an emphatic result but hints that further experiments might be positive. In order to understand it, you'll need copies of all of Fred's papers on the subject, and quite a while reading them and getting an understanding of what he was getting at. The maths isn't easy....The first part of the book tells you what David dreams would happen if it all works as his dad's theory speculates. Maybe not so useful. The second part is however Fred's explanations, calculations, and the experimental results. Also a bit of Fred's history, and you find he's somewhat of a genius but maybe not that sociable. His other achievements are touched on, and again you'll need to go hunting for more details on the net to get an appreciation that this was a person who managed to do things that were thought impossible.As I see it, Fred's theory meshes in with standard quantum theory very well, and also seems to match the cosmological observations of anomalies in orbital speeds of widely-spaced stars in galaxies. When you add in Mike McCulloch's QI theory, where information horizons play a large part in both gravity and inertia, the combined picture seems to be a possible description of how things really work. Can we produce such an information horizon at will? That's really the central question, and Fred may have thought of a way to do that.The experimental verification really needs to be re-done in order to confirm or deny the theory. If the theory is confirmed, then we'd have both a space drive and a way to travel on Earth cheaply just as David speculates. However, there's also an implication of being able to travel faster than light (hey, Star Trek for real!) and also to generate energy from *nothing*. Of course, Fred could have been wrong. Many other people have tried and failed to bring QM and SR into the same unified field theory. Still, there's that tantalising hint that the measured weight of the sample did increase before decreasing, so possibly a better experiment might see inertia reducing and thus show that the theory is a good-enough description of reality to be useful.As regards experimental cost, David over-estimates that by around 100 times since he based the costs on what was needed in 1991 and what things cost then as supplied to universities. These days with digital frequency generators available for low cost you can do the experiment much more cheaply. There are even desktop ESR analysers off-the-shelf for use in industry, whereas at the time that was cutting-edge research.In my opinion, the majority of the UFO stories are hoaxes (why I challenged David in the first place). There remain some where something was definitely seen, but possibly built by some human government and black ops. There may be a few where neither explanation is the right one, and could be real alien visitations. Those few unexplainable ones interested Fred and that was likely the reason his Unified Field Theory wasn't looked at. If you base your new theory in physics on Little Green Men and their strange flying saucers then people are likely to dismiss it, much the same as I did. However, I think the theory stands on its own. Yes, it could give us cheap space-travel if it works, and a lot of other benefits too. That doesn't necessarily mean that the alien stories are also true, since it could be just a strange coincidence that the theory leads to a similar result. Things like the Space Elevator started as a science-fiction story, but may end up as science fact, even down to using spun Diamond (Carbon Fibre) as the tether.If you read this book and find the explanations make sense, then go on to the theory, and then try the experiment, then this could be a very important book. A few people are going that far, and we'll see if it really works.

I freely confess a life long interest in theoretical research, especially the kind of research that has the capability to take us to the stars and this is probably the most important book I have ever read in this regard simply because even though this is all theoretical, it is the first of it's kind that I have ever read (and my library is pretty extensive in this regard) that not only makes sense but - to quote various people who have looked into Dr Alzofon's UFT concept "the only one that stands a chance of yielding an engineering solution" - that is to say it is theoretically sound and results in practical ideas for actual hardware.Other bonuses are that unlike SUSY (Super Symmetry) or String Theory, both of which are in my mind simply reifications (in the same way that DEATH with his scythe is a reification of an abstract concept) of abstract mathematical theory that cannot possibly be scientific because they are impossible to test, the Alzofon UFT is testable and the means (or one, anyway) are actually described in these pages in such detail that a small team of reasonably well funded engineers - at present day costs no more than $1,000,000 from scratch and substantially less for a well equipped pre existing laboratory - could verify the concept. Not only that, there are no sci-fi type concepts here either - absolutely everything in the theoretical foundation is well understood and was possible to put into practise back in the 1980's.I cannot recommend this book highly enough as even a layman like myself is capable of understanding the gist of the UFT and it's engineering applications - which are almost endless. We could be free of fossil fuels and exploring the cosmos within a decade, given an intensive research effort and when I think about how much money has been squandered on absurdities like the LHC then I wonder where the brains of the people who fund research are.The 1994 experiment detailed in these pages should be attempted immediately - and it will take very little money.

I landed on a YouTube interview with David Alzofon while researching for my DIY Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR) project. In the interview, David Alzofon discussed his father’s work on “gravity control” through Dynamic Nuclear Orientation, which could allegedly 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 was a well-recognized physicist, 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 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 EPR electromagnet 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.”The book provides a “plausible explanation” for this unexpected result, hypothesizing that the electromagnet remained magnetized after the current was switched off. However, the 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.Given that experiment AF2004 is labeled as “Control,” I believe that the proper way to use it would be to subtract AF2004 from AF2003. Doing so, 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.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.” This doesn't mean that Dr. Alzofon's theory is wrong. However, in my view, the experimental data provided in the book show absolutely no effect of satisfying the EPR condition on the gravitational pull experienced by the sample. I still believe that Dr. Alzofon's theory is elegant, and hence believe that the jury is still out on whether it could be experimentally verified by using a better, more sensitive experimental system that is immune to artifacts caused by the operation of the RF field.