GCT’s Antigravity Breakthrough

Straight Talk with Victor Rozsnyay

By Tim Ventura & Victor Rozsnyay, March 7, 2005

AAG: We spoke last week about a story I’ve been doing on Antigravity-Effects in Mercury Vapor
Plasmas, and much to my surprise you revealed that you’ve also been working with mercury. What’s
led your research in this direction?

GCT: The mercury related experiments emerged from our chemistry work. For those of you who
are not familiar with GCT let me give a little background. We started by attempting to manufacture
specially made “monatomic” (let’s use this phrase for now) compounds from a number of metals
(gold, platinum, iridium, copper) through a process of repeated cluster disaggregation – reduction of
many atom metal-metal clusters to smaller and smaller cluster size. By “monatomic” we mean a
substance that is basically composed of single atoms,
each atom having an altered electron shell configu-
ration, which gives it unique characteristics. And even
though we start with metals, the end result is a non-
metallic compound. The word metal could be best
compared to the word army. You cannot have a one
man army – that is only a soldier. One copper atom is
only an atom and not a metal - it can have the
characteristics of the metal, but is still only an atom. To
get copper metal we need a certain number of copper
atoms in a crystalline lattice. So even though we start
with metals we end up with a non metallic compound
composed of “monatoms”. By changed electron shell Cutaway: GCT’s first undertaking will be an
we mean an atom that has more in common with noble unmanned prototype, shown in detail here.
gases than anything else. It appears that is has a closed
electron shell, which prohibits sharing of electrons. It also appears that these “monatoms” exist in
what’s being called a “high-spin, superdeformed” state. There are literally thousands of scientific
papers publish on high-spin and superdeformation, so I will not go into this, but both states have
been confirmed to exist in the metals we work with.

We are interested in these ”monatoms” because the closed electron shells give them unique properties
– they will behave like Bose-Einstein Condensates (BEC) and exhibit superconductor like properties
(form Cooper pairs) at a wide range of temperatures, even that of room temperature. Since these
atoms are not capable of electron sharing (forming crystalline bonds) electrons (charge) introduced
into the system will pass right through without resistance. So a many atom “monatomic” system will
superconduct as a side effect of their closed electron shells.

The difficulty we faced with these materials was how long it took to
synthesize them and how difficult the chemistry process was. Because of
the changed electron shells these materials are not detectible with
traditional analytical techniques. These techniques rely on changing and
measuring electron states. Because these “monatomic” materials are in
essence composed of Cooper pairs (BEC), there are no free electrons
analytical instruments can interact with. We only found two processes
suitable for analysis – IR spectroscopy and Thermogravimetric analysis.
1G prototype: Details of Both use expensive hardware we did not have sufficient funding to
the upper payload bay. purchase so we ended up subcontracting IR Spectroscopy work, which

American Antigravity.Com Page 1 of 12

had its own problems. Samples had to be taken to a different location where they usually set for a few
days before analysis was completed. In that time cluster size changes were evident. This work was
underway in 1999-2001. In the course of these IR measurements we had great success in developing a
technique which allowed us to accurately judge cluster sizes with great certainty. This process will
prove very useful in the future when we have our own IR equipment for immediate, on-site analysis.
Cluster size readings are important to determine how long the chemical process needs to continue.

The reason we want to manufacture these “monatomic” compounds is to construct a device very
similar to the original Podkletnov / Ning Li. Over the years a number of people have attempted to
replicate Podkletnov’s setup, including NASA’s Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program, with
varying results. Some experiments suggested there was something there while others showed no effect
at all. There was no apparent consistency, so the effect observed was mostly proclaimed to be false,
and labs moved on to other research areas.

We are of a different opinion.

In our view the effect can be credited to the copper in the ceramic
superconductor disk. More precisely, it can be credited to the amount of
“monatomic” copper that is present in the copper-oxide used to
manufacture the disk. The process used to create copper-oxide will
inadvertently also create “monatomic” copper. “Monatomic” copper will
have all the characteristics of a many atom copper-oxide cluster, and
will recover in the chemistry process with the copper-oxide, just like it
was regular copper (in a “monatomic” system we still have copper Prototype: Exterior
atoms with the right number of protons and neutrons, which means cutaway of the prototype
these atoms will recover as copper). But the “monatoms” will not share
electrons with regular metallic copper-oxide clusters but instead will
aggregate with similar “monatoms” in the powder to form localized macro regions of BECs.

A great deal of study has been done to explain the phenomena called “pseudo gaps”, a process in
which macro regions of superconductivity persists at much higher temperatures than the transition
temperature of the composite, even that of room temperature. We believe these macro regions to be
composed of the “monatomic” BEC materials we seek to synthesize. Because standard analytical
techniques are not capable of detecting these elements their explanation has remained difficult.

We believe successful replication of Podkletnov’s experiment requires the utilization of disks

composed almost entirely of “monatomic” materials. If such discs much larger effects can de observed
than what was originally reported. In follow-up Podkletnov experiments varying results were achieved
because the copper-oxide used had different cluster sizes. Those experiments that showed something
had more “monatomic” material in the disk.

And this leads us back to your original question Tim - our interest in mercury.

One of the metals that can be used in the chemistry process is mercury. Unfortunately mercury is
extremely toxic. Our chemistry lab was not properly equipped to attempt cluster size reduction on
mercury. We did not have the means to deal with toxic gases and such.

We knew that mercury was unique, and not just because it is the only liquid metal. Since the 1930s
mercury has been used in a product made by GE called an Ignitron – in essence a high current
rectifier capable of switching thousands of amp. In fact we learned the only limiting factor of how
large a current an Ignitron can switch is the cabling leading to and from the device. Mercury is also
unique, because at about 360 degree centigrade in will become a gas. We believe that in this state
mercury is mainly composed of “monatoms”. The same state we are seeking to achieve via chemistry

American Antigravity.Com Page 2 of 12

with one major difference - while the chemical process produces stable “monatoms” once heated
mercury cools down it will revert to its liquid state.

By table “monatoms” we mean that once the chemical process is finished we end up with a BEC
condensate of atoms that will stay in the “monatomic” state. Atoms, by their very nature, will always
seek the lowest energy state possible. In traditional processes this state is achieved by forming a
crystalline matrix and sharing electrons. Single atom systems are thought to be unstable. “Monatoms”
are different. Because of their closed electron shell, and because they are in a high-spin state, they are
stable.

The immediate difference between the chemically produced “monatomic” mercury and the one
produced through heating is not immediately clear (save that one will remain as a stable “monatom”
and the other not.) When you heat mercury you introduce access energy into the system. The
chemical process removes access energy and creates atoms that achieve their own equilibrium state.
We suspect this may be de difference, and their different electron shells (one is closed while the other
is not), but more work is needed to clear this.

For our purposes heated mercury enters into a semi BEC like superconducting state. And if our theory
is correct, while in that state, is should interact with gravity producing weight reduction as the result.
It will also enter into a gaseous (plasma) state when subjected to electrical current. And for this
purpose the Ignitron was perfect. We had a ready made and tightly sealed mercury device to work
with. All we had to do was provide proper electronics for control. We did this work back in 1999-2001.

AAG: You’ve got some breaking news for us: you’re claiming to be getting up to 15 grams of weight
reduction in a 50 to 100 gram test-sample of mercury. That’s a 15-30% reduction in weight! Can you
tell us a bit more about the experiments that showed this result?

GCT: Since we did not have the appropriate resource to achieve 100% sample conversion in the
chemical process we started looking at mercury as an alternative, with the full intention of continuing
the chemistry work once proper instrumentation was available. Mercury gave us the option of
quickly and relatively cheaply building a device capable of supporting or disproving the theoretical
framework we established. Our immediate goal at that time was to produce some data which showed
there was something to the theory, or that we erred.

The device we built was in fact based on a modified

Ignitron. A self contained (no outside power lines or
connectors of any kind), remote controlled (radio
frequency controller was used to turn on and off the
device without touching it) unit ran off of four 7.2Ah
SLA batteries (we have some pictured of this device on
the website). We carried out weight reduction studies
using a torsion type balance. If our theory was correct
we had to see weight reduction once the unit was
activated – theory dictating that “monatomic” elements
would interact with gravitational fields. The initial lab
bench prototype was capable of flowing up to 11 amps
of current. 8 amps were needed to keep the Ignitron lit.
GCT 1G prototype: A close-up of the
When we hanged the assembly it showed about 5
imaging camera unit, used for high-res
grams of weight reduction, which was interesting and photographic work
appeared to confirm theory. But interesting doesn1
quiet cut it. There could have been any number of experimental setup errors we made.

American Antigravity.Com Page 3 of 12

The entire device weighted about 10 kilograms with batteries. The mercury, which actually did the
work, was between 50 to 100 grams. There was no way to tell correctly since it was sealed inside the
Ignitron.

So we had some initial, promising data. The next step was to see if the effect was scaleable. We built a
second device that contained two DC-DC converters. The manufacturer of the converter assured us
that it was capable of operating in parallel. Their function was the generation of up to 21 amps of
current, based on four 7.2Ah batteries. We needed 8 amps to keep the Ignitron lit. We figured that if
we increased current from 8 amps to 21 amps we should see some scalability. More current, more
mercury in the “monatomic” state, and thus a larger effect.

It took 4 months to build the unit. We tested it on the same torsion type balance used in the previous
experiment; the only difference being is we switched to a floor mounted configuration (some pictures
of the balance on the website). Measuring on the floor was much easier than installing a hanging
counter balanced unit. The balance was insulated and ground.

Once the device was activated we were able to increase current from 8 amps to about 20 amps.

And what we observed was scalability in terms of weight reduction. As more current flowed through
the device the larger the weight reduction appeared. As current was throttled back, some weight
returned. It was rather interesting to watch the process, up until the unit when the device burned out.

To make a long story short it turned out that the DC-DC converted failed because of a control
feedback loop that developed between the two linked devices. We spent the next year trying to resolve
this issue with the manufacturer. Burnt out over a dozen converters and on the end we got nowhere.
Since we invested heavily in develop the technology around those DC-DC converters we did not have
the option of switching to a different model (we also did not find any other converters that had the
energy density and small footprint needed to fit in the space we had available. Using a larger
converter would’ve meant redesigning the entire electronics unit).

And in all this time our chemistry work was on hold with our resources running dangerously thin. It
was quiet frustrating to say the least. Not soon after we had to completely discontinue operations as
funds run out.

AAG: You’ve got another surprise for us as well – you’re planning a larger follow-up experiment
to capitalize on your success, which you’ve said will actually lift off the blocks and fly! Can you tell us
a bit about this upcoming experiment?

GCT: After we run out of money we were left with a whole bunch of unanswered questions. The
chemistry work, as basic as it was, provided great leads and some compelling results. IR spectroscopy
showed that there was something very strange was happening to the atoms as the chemistry process
unfolded. It appeared that given proper instrumentation and facilities, the process was doable and
“monatomic” elements produced. The mercury experiment, at least in our view, was also pointing in
the right direction. It yielded some anomalous effects that seamed to confirm our theory. We were
aware that about a thousand follow up experiment would have to be done to eliminate all possible
error source – or one large experiment, designed from the ground up, capable of either showing there
was something there or not. This is what we wanted to do. In our mind we had a clear picture of what
needed to be built, how and why. What design differences had to be implemented compared to the
crude Ignitron model. Yet, with no money in the bank and rent payments past due we had to find a
quick solution.

American Antigravity.Com Page 4 of 12

It quickly became painfully obvious that no one will finance research work aiming to control gravity. I
spoke with a number of investors, even venture capitalists (I even spoke with one VC who’s
engineering background had him flirt with the idea of gravity control in his youth. He said that every
year or so something happens which brings initiatives into his field of view dealing with attempt to
control gravity. Yet he never invested in any of them) , but none of them was interested. Who would
want to finance a bottomless (in terms of financial requirements) crazy idea like gravity control?

With no money to continue we were slowly forced to sell off equipment piece by piece to meet rent
obligations – at this point we where still hoping that someone would see our ideas and results to date
and funding would come through. So we were buying time by selling equipment.

But we quickly had to realize there would be no funding. We where

fortunate that during the mercury plasma experiments the need arose to
quickly recharge the batteries powering the device. We could only get
five or six measurements runs done before the batteries died and had to
be recharged overnight. To resolve this issue we looked for a fast
charging procedure which could revitalize the batteries in about 10
minutes. There was nothing like that on the market so in good
Hungarian tradition we built one (in Hungary, research people usually Propulsion: Cutaway of
end up with building necessary equipment for a given task because it is the main propulsion
cheaper than buying it - money is hard to come by). The charger assembly.
worked great. Recharged our SLA batteries in about 11 minutes while extending their lifetime by
reducing sulfation. It was a great tool to move our plasma research forward, and we though nothing
more of it. We were after gravity control and not battery charging. When we completely ran out of
money things changed. This is the beginning of 2001.

At that point we formed a new business around the charger (even flew out to California and showed it
to Joe in hopes he can get some funding for it from his VC contacts) and found one investor who
provided a loan in exchange of equity; we patented the charge algorithm and started first steps
towards commercialization. I was one of three principles of the new company – our gravity research
was officially on hold indefinitely, all remaining equipment put to use in the charger project. Since
initial reaction to 10 minute batter charging was positive, it gave me hope that if we can make it a
commercial success I could end up with sufficient funds to self finance GCT research completion. I
remembered all those technology companies listed on NASDAQ, their IPO’s bringing them fame and
fortune. I figured a 10 minute charger was “cool” enough to achieve some level of success.

I spent the ensuing three years (from 2001 to 2004) working to commercialize the charger. Our
location in Hungary guaranteed it was not an easy process. But on the end it worked out. As of 2
months ago(since December of 2004) I am no longer involved in the commercialization effort - after
securing funding from a US investor group I made a successful exit from the company.

Gravity control being my life long dream I returned to GCT with new found idealism and drive. I am
determined to self finance the next phase of GCT research, the goal being to finish the chemistry work
and build a larger, custom mercury device capable of levitation.

The initial experiment provided a number of ideas we want to implement. A number of issues can now
be quickly solved. It should be relatively easy to build much larger units. If we can implement all
design changes, and if our theory is correct, than it should be self supporting or at least show rather
large and scaleable weight reduction. I hope this unit can be built within the next 2 to 3 years. If it
works we’ll see what happens after that, but my plan is to build the unmanned prototype as illustrated
on our website.

American Antigravity.Com Page 5 of 12

AAG: Let’s talk evidence: we’ve been hearing claims about Antigravity Effects from inventors like
John Searl for years, and we’re even starting to find evidence, but it’s usually tough to come by. Any
photos or video of your weight-reduction experiments?

GCT: We do not have any photos or videos. The initial lab bench experiment did not levitate so
there was nothing to video tape. We have some data that shows great correlation between what we’ve
seen and what theory predicted. Not very exciting but for first baby steps it is good enough. We are
also not trying to convince anyone of what we have. We have seen something which point in the
direction of what we have envisioned. I know that most people will not believe it. Even though I’ve
been doing this for over 15 years I don’t fully understand the process myself. I just know there is
something there and if it can work we must purse diligently.

The only data worth sharing (and basically the only data we have left after selling off most of our
equipment) is a measurement graph showing the initial weight reduction experiment as illustrated
here. As the device powers up, and more and more
mercury convert, weight reduction increases until we
reach the max of 10 amps the initial device was capable
of. At the turn off point there is some jitter, but this is
mostly do to the unit jerking as the arc is terminated.
Our balance was capable of resolving 0.25 grams of
weight fluctuation. After it settles down readings return
to the original baseline.

As research is taken up again, and we advance further,

we will post results on our site. But I suspect a few more
years will pass before this happens. First I have to
arrange funding, lost of it, to equip proper facilities. Measurements: A graph showing the
Equipment needs are quiet high. In the mean time a weight-reduction from GCT’s experiments.
very talented computer artist has created some
incredible images of what the unmanned prototype will look like. Those images incorporate our
current understanding of what it takes to make mercury powered craft work, down to the smallest
details.

AAG: Up until now, I’ve been using the term “Antigravity-Effect”, but that may be a bit
misleading. What you’ve been talking about is actually more of a “gravity-shielding effect”, isn’t it?
How does that compare to the “Antigravity” that we typically see in sci-fi shows on TV?

GCT: In my opinion what we can talk about here is a possible means of

controlling/creating/interacting with gravitational fields. I personally never liked the term
“antigravity”. This is not like matter and antimatter. You bring the two together and you get energy.
It’s not like you can bring a gravitational field and the opposite of that (antigravity) together and you
get no gravity. My feeling is that it should be possible to create/interact with gravitational fields if we
understand what gravity is to begin with. And no, I am not taking about forgetting Newton. I am
talking about maybe expanding on it and looking at the cause of gravity, and not just explaining its
effects. We are looking at a new source of gravity as compared to mass (in our case the ZPF). But his
does not alter Newton’ theory in any way. So I for one would much better use the term gravity control
than “antigravity”.

American Antigravity.Com Page 6 of 12

AAG: Your website (gctspace.com) suggests that your work is theoretically grounded in the
Polarized Vacuum research of Nobel-prize winner Dr. Andrei Sakharov, and more recently the work of
Dr.’s Puthoff, Haisch and Rueda in this area. What attracted you to the PV-theory as an explanation
for what you’re seeing?

It was actually the other way around. I first learned of Sakharov’s work way back in collage. I don’t
know why but my first impression was that “Hey, this is it, this guy is correct.” What inspired me was
the possibility that gravity could be the results of atomic and subatomic particles interacting with the
so called Zero Point Field (ZPF) – particles entering and exiting the ZPF create what could be best
characterized as a type of friction, or maybe some kind of a frequency, we perceive to be gravity. The
more atoms in one place the larger the field – hence immense gravitation fields for planets and stars,
which can also be interpreted as gravity is the result of mass. So Sakharov’s theory gave us a new may
of looking at the source of gravity. But if he was correct, than atoms entered and exited the ZPF on
their own, according to some as yet undiscovered principle, and we had no control over it.

Would it be possible to somehow create an artificial means of getting atomic and subatomic particles
to enter and exit the ZPF? Nudging them into the quantum vacuum and bringing them back at will,
and not according to their own “internal program”, whatever that may be. Would this controlled
interaction create an “artificial” gravitational field? These were exciting thoughts and if could be
proven….

As the years passed we assumed that large energy densities would be

required to create appropriate fields. To some this means “Scotty, I need
more power” kind of physics. More energy, larger devices, larger particle
accelerators. For me the best candidate for this was particles that
existed in the same quantum state, like those found in Bose-Einstein
Condensates. If need be, for all intents and purposes, an unlimited
number of electron pairs (Cooper pairs) can exist in the same quantum
state in a BEC. Now we where talking about superconductivity, although
Propulsion: Cutaway of the BEC state of the process was more interesting than the fact we can
the propulsion system. transmit energy from one point to the other without resistance. But
composite superconductors of that time had very low transition
temperatures for any practical use. Huge cryogenic components would need to be built to test the
theory. We wanted to make this work at room temperature. So there was a problem. And even though
superconductor research was advancing, the wholly grail of fining room temperature superconductors
was still ways off.

A few years later, while living in New Mexico. last piece of the puzzle fell into place when I first
learned of certain “monatomic” powders discovered by an Arizona farmer. He claimed his materials to
be BEC state superconductors in a unique electronic and shell configuration. He studied them for
over 10 years, investing millions to unravel their secret. I found his results to be compelling to say the
least. And if the materials were in fact in a BEC state at room temperature, than we could possible
have the means of interacting with the ZPF and testing the theory.

So Sakharov’s theory was the inspiration to find means we could possible use to create “controlled”
interaction between atoms and the ZPF, and not the other way around. In recent years Dr’s Puthoff,
Haisch and Rueda have done a great job on expanding Sakharov’s theory, in my opinion rather
successfully proving it. For you critics out there I know there is still a LOT of work that needs to be
done. But initial results point in a direction worth pursuing in case this theory pans out – what can
come from it is a possible means of creating craft capable of controlling gravity for flight.

American Antigravity.Com Page 7 of 12

AAG: As we discussed last week, my story on Mercury Plasma Vapor comes from a story that I
recently completed on Einstein’s Unified Field Theory. More recently, a modified version of this
known as “Heim Theory” has also surface, and I am wondering what you think of these as an
alternative explanation for GCT’s results.

GCT: I am not sufficiently familiar with Heim’s theory to comment on this. But it is important to
understand that GCT is not working on producing a theory of everything (Unified Field Theory). We
are simply interested in testing whether a possible means we have discerned to effect/create/control
gravity can be implemented. Undoubtedly on the end, if we are successful, there will need to be a
complete theoretical explanation to account for the effect. This explanation may contain elements of
Einstein’s Unified Field Theory, Sakharov’s theory of gravity or any other theory under development.
But for now we just want to build it and see if it works.

I also must admit a bit of ignorance when it comes to the work of other researchers in the field. Since
we have a “pretty good and looks to be working” theory on our own, I have not been pursuing what
others have done as much as I probably should. Been concentrating on making what we have get off
the ground, and this task unfortunately does not leave a lot of time for reading through the millions
(by now probably millions) of pages that describe work done by others.

AAG: One of the ideas that we’ve been seeing recently is the attempt to influence gravity by
invoking “Macro-Scale Quantum Mechanical Effects”. A lot of the papers about Antigravity effects in
superconductors have been suggesting this direction recently, but this has been part of GCT’s
approach since the beginning. Can you tell us about how this might relate to your work with Bose-
Einstein Condensates, and how the mercury experiment fits in to all of this?

GCT: I think one of the most important aspects of this work has to do with spin. There have been a
number of experiments that suggest anomalous effects of rapidly spinning object such as gyroscopes.
Some experiments even suggest that a spinning object will fall slower when compared to a non
rotating counterpart.

In our view spin is the mediating quantity which allows the “monatomic” materials to interact with
the ZPF in a controlled fashion. When the “monatomic” state is achieved access energy usually
released through crystalline binding is redirected within the nucleus to create what physicists call
“high-spin” nuclei. We believe the “monatoms” we are after exist in this high-spin state. Furthermore,
they are also in what’s being called a superdeformed state – a state in which the long to short axis of
the nuclei can be 2:1 or more (although this is probably the result of the high-spin.)

In essence what these nuclei are doing is achieving the high angular momentum of rapidly spinning
objects, such as gyroscopes, but on an atomic scale. Now imagine what happens when we construct
devices made completely of materials containing high-spin nuclei. One would image an effect orders
of magnitude larger compared to the anomalies observed in spin related experiments.

When you take a BEC compound (a many atom “monatomic” system), which in our case would be an
unlimited number of electron pairs (energy density would be determined by the amount of current
flowing in the system), all rotating at high-spin in the same quantum state, I believe we should start
seeing some extreme manifestations of the “Macro Scale Quantum Mechanical” effects you speak of.

The mercury experiment fits into this equation by the simple fact that we can “mechanically” push
mercury into a queasy BEC like state either by heating it or by applying current. While in that state
mercury atoms will exist in the high-spin, capable of producing controlled ZPF interactions, which
can result in a localized gravitation field (if theory is correct). The amount of current flowing through

American Antigravity.Com Page 8 of 12

the system will determine the energy density of the effect. As we apply more current, more mercury
converts to a gaseous state and larger the observed weight reduction.

By its very nature Ignitron based devices are open ended systems – current entering through the
mercury cathode exits the reaction chamber through the anode, generating substantial heat in the
process, and therefore loss. Eventually the batteries powering the device will be depleted.

If we had a closed superconducting loop, like the one we intend to build in the next prototype, we
could maintain the effect until we choose to remove energy from the loop. In essence, because
superconductors will carry electrical energy without loss, the device can be made self sustaining. As
long as current flows in the closed loop the craft will generate its own field (more current means larger
fields.)

I also believe there will be one more, very important factor needed to complete this equation – the
application of proper “resonance” frequencies to the system. When proper resonance tuning is
achieved I do believe the unit will levitate and will usher in a new era of flight.

AAG: Please explain the following from the ‘communications’ part of your website: “During the
development phase of the propulsion system it was observed that two separate plasma powered
prototypes exhibited identical and simultaneous plasma field discrepancies when operated
simultaneously. These simultaneous resonance couplings persisted regardless of the shielding used
to separate the two devices, including Faraday cages.”

GCT: It simply means that during our testing there where indications that two separate devices
exhibited simultaneous plasma discrepancies, like there was some kind of communication going on
between them. If our theory is correct, than the ZPF can be used as a means of relaying messages
between two extreme points virtually instantaneously. We think of the ZPF as a universally present
field of energy, composed of BECs in the same quantum state. In this state what one quantum of
energy “knows” all others “know” as well.

In theory it should be possible to build plasma based communications devices, employing specific
resonance frequency parameters, which can send messages between themselves, no matter how
distant they are. This is akin to the teleportation of quantum level information between two places.
We believe it is possible to encode information into certain frequencies and than transmit that
through the ZPF. There is much work to be done to confirm this, not to mention engineering a
prototype, but the possibility is certainly there. If one accepts the existence of an omnipresent,
ambiguous BEC sea of energy that is. But this is a long term goal and may never happen. For now it
just remains an interesting curiosity for us.

AAG: What about the money? The GCT Space website says that you’ve already spent 1.2 million
on research, and it sounds like more is in the works. Can you tell us about investors, capital, and
funding for your project?

GCT: Original funding for this work was provided by Joe Firmage, at that time CEO of a web
consultancy firm called USWeb. My goal in going to the US was to raise money for my “wacky” space
propulsion idea. As time passed, and the idea matured considerably, I could not find one investor who
was even remotely interested in providing funding. This was about the same time NASA formed their
Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program.

I was living in Oregon at the time (already nine years in the US), completely fed up and frustrated. I
decided it was time to forget gravity control. I wrote an ad-hock email to the BPPP people, detailing

American Antigravity.Com Page 9 of 12

the puzzle I’ve “come up with” (standing on the shoulders of giant thinkers and experimenters) up to
that point.

I few days later I received an email from a guy who claimed to be the CEO of a major, NASDAQ listed
corporation asking for a meeting. He included a 24/7 number to call immediately. Apparently the
email I sent to BPPP was forwarded to this guy, who turned out to be Joe.

I called him and about a week later we met in his Valley office (he actually bought me a plane ticket
and had a limo waiting for me at the airport – I was surprised to say the least.) The meeting was fast.
We spoke for about an hour, and I went back to Oregon.

I was reluctant initially to go further (after nine years of searching I could not believe that here was a
guy willing to put serious money behind my “wacky” idea.) On the end my curiosity got the better of
me. The opportunity was too big to pass up. I called Joe back and he agreed to provide seed funding to
set up a chemistry lab to see if we can produce the “monatomic” materials. I had two people fly in
from Hungary, who have done similar work in the past, and we set up shop in Joe’s garage in his Los
Gatos house. A typical Silicon Valley story – crazy guys working out of a garage on some world
changing idea.

Work was going well. We even had someone from BPPP visit us (he later did some electron
microscope measurements for us on powders we made, and I’m saying this while hoping he will not
get in trouble.) About 2 months into the process we produced some interesting powders. This was
about the time Joe released his “The Truth” compilation.

I convinced Joe that we should take the process further. My associates retuned to Hungary for
Christmas. They said we could continue the process better in Hungary. Everything was cheaper there.
So we relocated.

In the mean time Joe pursued a number of other initiatives and on the end he lost his money. This
meant our work was suspended when funding ran out, which is when the battery charger project
started as described earlier.

I am just starting GCT activities again, first priority being funding. I have been fortunate enough to
raise a fair bit of money for a number of technology ventures over the years. Because of this, and
because we are in Hungary, I know that no one on this planet will ever invest the kind of money we
need to move forward (or any amount for that matter). Having worked on another project in the last
three years GCT also does not have any solid proof that what we are saying can be done. All we have at
the moment is same interesting past data (in very limited fashion as most of our equipment was sold
off, data that can be interpreted any number of ways, depending on who is doing the interpretation.)
Truthfully the only solid bases we have to move forward is my determination to see this through based
on a theory that seams to fit together with what we observed thus far.

There is no one who will invest based on this. Joe was unique. For him an ad-hock email was enough.
Therefore I am not even trying to raise money for GCT. Because everything about GCT is unorthodox
I figured why shouldn’t funding be. The following should not be taken as investment advice by
anyone.

I have some prior experience with the way US stock markets operate, and a process knows as day
trading. I recently took out a loan on my family house and I’m using that money for day trading. My
intent is to self finance GCT research within a few years. If it doesn’t’ work I lost only my own money.
If it does, we shall see what happens later. As for day trading - so far, so good. It will take a few years
to get enough together to kick start operations again, but it will happen. I have to see this through.

American Antigravity.Com Page 10 of 12

In the mean time an extremely talented CGI artist from England has produced some incredible visuals
of the unmanned prototype we want to build. I am hopeful we can add more artwork in the ensuing
months. Slowly but sure GCT will start again and we will see whether what we’ve envisioned can be
made real.

AAG: Once upon a time, you received funding from Joe Firmage and ISSO. Now, some people
have criticized him for the projects that he chose to support – others have simply suggested that he
spread his resources too thin. However, both your project and John Dering’s team over at SARA got
real, tangible, and completely independent results…doesn’t that mean that critics of Firmage should
really start rethinking their opinions?

GCT: Joe may have spread his resources too thin. Most people would argue that our project was
part of the “too thin”. I’ve known Joe to be an extremely level headed person with a keen interest in
space access. He wants it happen, and he wants it happen in a fashion that would give everyone a
chance to travel in space. That would mean the development of new propulsion technologies, most
likely gravity control.

Joe was (I hope he still is) a big believer of gravity control. In my opinion he choose to release
information at the wrong time and at the wrong place. The quality of the information was also
questionable to say the least. However Joe firmly believed in it and he was willing to put his carrier
and reputation on the line to let people know. Many ridiculed him for that. I believe that’s admirable.
I believe Joe is one of the most prominent forces behind a movement aiming to provide alternative
ways to space access - he and Robert Bigelow, who has funded many alternative ideas over the years.

It remains to be seen whether we succeed or not. If we do, that will happen in large part because of
Joe’s generosity and commitment. I do wish that other people would sponsor alternative technologies.
I know half a dozen billionaires who have formed space access companies - all are pursuing rocketry.
Maybe one day, one billionaire will invest in someone’s crazy dream and the world will change to the
same extent as the Wright brothers have changed it not too long ago.

AAG: Most of our readers know that GCT is in Hungary, but virtually nobody knows that you
lived in Silicon Valley for a long time during the tech boom. Why did you relocate, and has it been
beneficial for your techno-centric work in Antigravity research? Also, what’s it like being back after
leaving the hectic California lifestyle?

GCT: I was in the Valley to raise money. Although I love California, and the American way, I was
there to find funding for a dream. When I did, the resources we were given prompted us to seek
cheaper development solutions. Labor, facilities and equipment in Hungary proved to be cheaper. In
addition, Hungarians are extremely smart. We had access to an incredible pool of highly talented and
motivated people. We could get more done than in the States for less. That was the only reason why I
returned to Hungary.

In retrospect I would not do it again. Would definitely stay in the States and bring Hungarian people
there to work. Hungary is a good place, but there are so many drawbacks it isn’t worth it. There is no
access at all to funding sources. People are only concerned with making enough to survive. There are
basically no investors and foreigners don’t invest at all. Hungary is still looked at as a Balkan country
in many ways. So in short, with sufficient funding, the work can be done in the US and many
advantages would be easier reachable.

American Antigravity.Com Page 11 of 12

AAG: Figuratively speaking, I seem to keep ending up on your doorstep about every 6 months to
do a story on new developments with GCT’s research. This story is the biggest one yet, and I’m
wondering if it will be another 6 months before we hear more about your research. What’s next on
your timeline, and do you have any video or photo-evidence for us in the meantime?

GCT: My timeline is to continue day trading to generate funds for the company. At this point in
time I cannot give any more solid dates. If trading goes well we could get some minimal lab work
going again in as little as 6 months. If trading slows it will take a year. In the mean time I will work on
popularizing the idea that gravity control may be possible. That there is a company out there working
on it. We may fail. I am the first one to admit that our theory and limited lab results thus far could be
erroneous. It is entirely possible that we have made a mistake and what we observed to be an effect is
in fact is an easily explainable process. It would be easy to brush this under the rug and say it’s
nonsense.

But because the theory is so complete (almost elegant), and the effect(s) we observed all seam to point
to the validity of the idea, I cannot leave it alone. As long as there is the smallest chance this will work
I must see it through simply because of the sheer implications of the thing.

I always wanted to travel in space, just as a great many other people I know. Virgin Galactic has
18,000 people ready to pay $200K for a suborbital trip. That number in itself tells a story – real space
access needs to come of age.

Gravity control technology gives us the opportunity to introduce real space access. I firmly believe (no
I do more than that, I know) that this technology works. That is the most exhilarating yet at the same
time saddest thing about what I do. To know that it works and in a sense be limited by resources to
make it happen immediately. But this will change in the near future, funds will be provided and we
can finish what was started many years ago.

I believe humanity is predestined to be a space faring species. It’s in our blood. The cosmos beckons
us. I for one must find out if we can get there easily or not by building craft capable on
controlling/creating/interacting with gravity.

As soon as we have new photographic (or video) evidence in support of our vision you will be the
second to know Tim.

Victor Rozsnyay is the Founder and CEO of Gravity Control Technologies, located in Hungary. They are
a privately held aerospace research firm developing technological breakthroughs based on Zero
Point Field physics, specially manufactured Bose-Einstein Condensate superconductors, and
information physics. You can visit them online at http://www.gctspace.com

American Antigravity.Com Page 12 of 12