experimental
use. Several noticeable effects were observable during testing: Firstly, the coil
does in fact have a slight but observable effect on flames, which provides support
for Cook's claims regarding the device. Secondly, the device creates a large &
pronounced magnetic field, which has a disruptive EMP effect on nearby
electronics devices and exerts considerable force on magnets at up to several
feet in distance.

Experimental Notes

1.
The Cook device produces a large magnetic field while operating, which
suggests the possibility that the effect on the flame is magneto-plasma based. In
other words, 12% of normal flames are plasma, and a large pulsed magnetic field
should interact to some degree with this plasma.

2.
Disconnecting the Cook-coil while in operation creates a large, high-voltage
pulse of electricity when the magnetic field collapses. This was interesting,
because even with a 12-volt potential across the leads, the collapse of the
magnetic field can create both large sparks and painful shocks (especially if you
are holding the wires onto the battery by hand)!

3.
I believe that the frequency of my coil at 12-volts @~30/60 hz was not the best
operating frequency (although resonant for the relay). I say this because the
effects on the flame that I noticed occurred to a larger degree when applying or
disconnecting power, despite the fact that the relay does this 30 or 60 times per
second during operation.

4.
The magnetic field of the Cook Device is large enough to have EMP effects on
nearby electronics. In my experiments, this included interference with camera
operation, and the destruction of the microcontroller in a kitchen-range while
testing on the natural-gas burner.

5.
Neodynium Magnets used to trace the magnetic field of the Cook Device
showed the expected two-bubble field configuration, with field concentrations
surrounding the front and rear electromagnet assemblies. The front assembly is
wound around a ferrous core and sandwiched between carbide-cutting disks
used as coil-retaining endplates. The rear coil is smaller and wound around a ferrous bolt. As expected, the magnetic field from the front coil is larger in size,
and had a greater effect on the Nd magnets used to trace the field outline.

Difficulty was encountered tracing the field using the Nd magnets at the front of
the Cook device. The front consists of a carbide disk with a retaining bolt in the
center to hold the disk in place. During operation, the front of the Cook device
had a very non-uniform field, partially because the tracing magnets were
simultaneously attracted to the retaining bolt and repelled by the coil's
electromagnetic field.

6.
The Neodynium magnets were suspended in air from a 3-foot length of thread,
and balanced to allow free rotation. Activation of the Cook device had a profound
effect on the magnets, even up to 2.5 feet in distance from the coil. At close
range, the effects on the Nd magnets were either an intense attraction to the coil,
or else a torsion effect that created spin in the magnets (depending on what end
of the stack was pointing towards the device while it was operated).

While this effect on the suspended magnets was within expectations, the
following was not: the magnets were removed after testing and hung on the
string several feet away from the coil. Operation of the coil for other experiments
still created a strong attractive response in the hanging Nd magnets, even at
several feet in distance.

7.
During experiments using a candle flame approximately 3 inches from the
front of the coil, sparks were noted to emanate from the candle and jump towards
the coil intermittently during rapid pulsed activation of the coil. Bear in mind that
the relay itself pulses the coil, so rapid manual pulses consist of perhaps 15
cycles (1/2 second) of activity in the coil.

Sparking did not occur in the candle other than during pulsed coil-activation, and
even then occurred perhaps only 30% of the time.

8.
Testing was conducted using 9, 12, and 24-volt batteries. The 9-volt battery as
recommended by Jeff Cook created no noticeable effects on either flames or
ferrous materials. This is presumed to be the result of the high internal-resistance
of 9-volt batteries, which generally make them unsuitable for high current-draw
applications.

The resistance of the Cook coil is approximately 4 ohms, which allows a
maximum current draw of 3 amps current with a steady 12-volt potential, or 6
amps current with a steady 24-volt potential. Note that actual current draw is
considerably lower than this due to the pulsed nature of the relay. Additionally,
minor inductive reactance from rapid pulsing should further lower the actual
current draw of the device during pulsed operation.
While the 9-volt battery proved unworkable for powering the device despite
Cook's claims, the effects did manifest themselves when larger 12 and 24-volt
batteries were tested.

Power consumption on the Cook Effect device was below 36-watts at 12-volts,
and below 144 watts at 24-volts. Again, due to the pulsed nature of the relay the
actual power-usage should be considerably lower than these values.

Conclusions

I believe that the effects observed by Jeff Cook are the result of high-amplitude
magnetic field pulses during the operation of the device. The effects of the coil on
ferrous materials are highly-repeatable and appear to be a direct result of the
high-intensity magnetic field of the device.

The effects of the Jeff Cook device on flames are more difficult to replicate, and
the transient nature of their appearance at the beginning and end of coil
activation leads me to believe that these are the result of both operating
frequency and high-voltage back-EMF as the coil's magnetic field collapses.

It is known that back-EMF from collapsing magnetic fields can create high-
voltage, high-current pulses of electricity. I believe that these short-duration,
high-intensity pulses of energy allow the coil to create very high-intensity
magnetic fields which are causing the effects on the candle flame. This would
explain the transient nature of the effect, because these short-duration pulses
would vary in magnitude depending on where in the device's operating cycle the
circuit is broken when manually pulsed. (In other words, the relay is normally
pulsing the coil rapidly, but manually pulsing the coil interrupts this cycle at
random intervals. Depending on where the cycle is when it is interrupted, the
back-EMF pulse will differ in magnitude).

One final thought: I did get the distinct impression that the Jeff Cook Effect
device is a rather unique design and worthy of further examination. American
Antigravity's investigation examined only the claims of Jeff Cook, and did not look
further to find other potentially unique effects created by this device. I believe that
further investigation may reveal more unique features about this device,
especially with regard to high-intensity pulsed-power applications.