Jones Beene on 3-30-06 wrote: In the recent paper alluded to in a number of threads, Tajmar and de Matos reported a gravitational (mass loss) effect when spinning a superconducting ring "up to" 6500 rpm. Fourteen years earlier, Podkletnov claimed a larger gravitational effect when spinning a superconducting disk at a constant 5000 rpm.
Podkletnov wasn't reproduced at first, and he gets fired from his university job, and is largely ignored even today. Sound familiar? T&M do mention Podkletnov in their paper. They admit that their effect is smaller than previously claimed by him, but the main distinction (generally ignored by many pundits) is that Podkletnov used an "unaccelerated" (constant velocity) superconducting disk, whereas the effect produced by T&M occurs *only* during acceleration. To me the obvious turning-point for proceeding further towards usable anti-gravity is to answer the question - what happens when the small effect of T&M is 'squared' or taken to even higher power ? i.e. when there is (acceleration of acceleration)^2 ? On Vortex, we have been accustomed to calling this first higher order acceleration "jerk." But then again, we share the respect in physics that the Jamaican Bobsled Team gets in sports. How [is acceleration of acceleration accomplished?] In practice, one does not want to be forced to keep accelerating and decelerating the disk over-and-over - so two axis spin is the solution to provide (virtual) acceleration to a constant spin - but this is not enough. 3-axes of spin is probably sufficient to give a significant but still-too-small effect (surely 3-axes of spin could maximize the Aspden effect, at least). If the Aspden effect is indeed a polarization of space on one axis, then even two axes will polarize the enclosed 3-space - what more is to be gained by a third axis of spin ? ... is it anti-gravity ... ? No. I think the point about 'jerk' being an exponential increase could be moving towards the key that pushes such a device incorporating 3-axes spin into a realm where - if everything else is extremely efficient (in terms of converting energy into angular momentum), then a usable mass anomaly is feasible. But why stop with jerk, if you want to fly-high, mon ? dL/dT ......VELOCITY d2L/dT2 ....ACCELERATION d3L/dt3 ....JERK d4L/dT4 ....JOUNCE This requires in effect four axes of spin --------------------- Hi All, Here's some info from the past: Jack Smith --------------------- Hamdi Ucar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on 17 Oct 1998 wrote: Some notes may help to explore spinning-magnetic disks anomalies: If you recall the Podklednov's experiment, the effect is maximized when the disk wobbled at certain frequency while it slowed slowly. Because the unstable state, this rotation frequency could not be sustained. Also the wobble is assumed to the unbalance on the disk. I had pointed on this, the possibility that the wobble was not caused by the unbalance and even was caused by mechanical reasons, may have important role on the so-called gravity shielding effect. >From my experimentation experience, I feel the second harmonic on oscillations have great importance, maybe help to break the symmetry between interactions, and allow weird things happens. Rick Monteverde wrote: Wouldn't that just be typical? - Where the effect is caused not by the highly unusual nature of the special fancy components in the experiment, but by the unwanted and rather mundane 'error' in the setup? So everyone else (like NASA) does an excellent job of balancing, and they get nothing. Ron Kita (Antigravitics_R_US) wrote: There was a patent issued to Roy McAllister in the 1970 s ...actually a space drive that used air to unbalance a very high speed rotor. The motor was a high speed vacuum cleaner motor. Will try to find patent number. Note: The device can use captive RECYCLED air... the effect is NOT aerodynamic! Alexander wrote: Probably, E.E. Podkletnov had an antigravitation because of bad quality of manufacturing of the superconducting disk. And the American scientists have made the disk too high qualities.? Fred wrote: The same thing might also be true in many cold fusion experiments.. Jack Smith wrote: I am interested in factors that affect G, the universal constant of gravitation. Kozyrev's work seems to bear on this question, and I would appreciate discussion of this. NTC COM-Center wrote: In the 50's, in order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with gyroscopes. He found that the weight of a spinning gyroscope depends upon its angular velocity and direction of rotation. ... Note that N.A.Kozyrev emphasized that spinning gyroscope should be subjected to the special vibrations in order to observe its weight variations. In the absence of vibrations the weight of a spinning gyroscope would not change. Thus to achieve the weight variation the rotation should be nonstationary.
