It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Eugene Podkletnov Plans Commercial Applications for Anti-Gravity Generator

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Here is another link to Tesla type generator:
Hope Girl




posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 




I'm trying to stay open minded that he may have found a small effect, but I think it's just as likely to be experimental error, maybe even more likely.


That makes perfect sense for any given experiment, but would you really expect 23+ years of continued research on a measuring mistake?


The whole point of me starting this thread was to express what appears to be advancement in the experiments that everyone was already dubious about. I believe the technology that he is pursuing is more related to the impulse generator than the spinning disk version of gravity modification.

Here is a link to his (and Modanese's) peer-reviewed article describing the effects of their device in 2003:

Journal of Low Temperature Physics


The impulse generator is blasting holes in concrete and warping metal; That effect is hard to mistake.


I should also point out that this is not a traditional force being produced. It has been measured at a distance of 5K through concrete structures:


Our latest experiment was conducted over a distance of 5 kilometers, and the beam penetrated through several houses made of concrete.

edit on 8-4-2014 by lemmin because: I should also point out



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Ill tell you another interesting tidbit: David Noevers, who worked with Li.....he did the same thing with this similarly controversial research.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Phage
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Now, if you believe that she would just vanish, and never report to work....then you might be the most gullible human alive.
Yeah.
Or I might think "She never reported to work? Or did her work lead to nothing so her grant died so she had nothing publish or report to?"

edit on 4/7/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Or, as I think, she accepted a higher bid.
edit on 9-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Podkletnov's talk of energy generation by unbalancing a turbine makes him smell of snake oil to me.

This was published by New Scientist in 2002:


However, several high-profile organisations have taken an active interest in his work. NASA has paid Superconductive Components of Columbus, Ohio, $600,000 to reproduce the apparatus Podkeltnov used in his experiment. There have been delays, but NASA's Ron Koczor told New Scientist: "We expect to be ready to test the device in late September 2002."

British defence contractor, BAe Systems, is also interested in the work and set up Project Greenglow to explore the subject. Other groups in Japan, France and Canada are also rumoured to be working on the subject though they have so far kept their identities secret.



Li's theory predicts that if a time-varying magnetic field were applied to a superconductor, charged and deformed lattice ions within the superconductor could absorb enormous amounts of energy. This would cause the lattice ions to spin rapidly about their equilibrium positions and create a minuscule gravitational field.


Whatever Podkletnov has been up to this area of research has been quiet. Too quiet...

New Scientist



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a 200k startup/sign up grant is not actually a whole lot. Two researchers I work with got about 300 K each for less exciting work. Seriously for a science project 200K is not a whole lot. A lecturer level researcher depending on country of work is expected to get about 100K/year salary. Research grants for startup go from anywhere around 50k up to 500k, that is for research however.

There is far too much anecdotal evidence, too many tall tales and things that are too good to be true.

Weapons research scientists also make a CRAP load more than regular scientists, they also don't have lives and cannot talk or bring anything about their work away from their workplace or home.

In this case the truth is likely far less exciting than has been presented about the Dr.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by lemmin
 


He should stop talking and produce the goods. Otherwise, shut up.

The fact he isn't willing to go through a peer-review process shows he at least has no respect for science, and without producing the goods and allowing actual scientists to examine the goods with full access to them, he's no better than a con artist. My point of view is he's a liar or crazy, probably both.
edit on 10-4-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   

EasyPleaseMe
Podkletnov's talk of energy generation by unbalancing a turbine makes him smell of snake oil to me.


It should. Podkletnov will eventually discover (like Dr Li probably has...) that it's not anti-gravity, it's anti-inertia.

The field gains energy with mass entering, and loses it with mass leaving, which might seem backwards at first but makes sense later. In the field, inertia is reduced. If a solid mass is partially in the field, it undergoes internal mechanical stress at the boundaries due to temporal rate gradients that can be quite severe if the field is sharply delineated. But it won't spin. In fact, the more torque you apply to it, the worse the stress becomes.

If you could spin a wheel by putting it in an anti-gravity field, that would violate thermodynamics. He should know better.
edit on 10-4-2014 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 12:42 AM
link   

ErosA433
Weapons research scientists also make a CRAP load more than regular scientists, they also don't have lives and cannot talk or bring anything about their work away from their workplace or home.


Not entirely true, I used to have a life. I just don't have one now. That will end eventually, once I pay off Chez Bedlam. I'm looking forward to an early retirement.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


In The Hunt for Zero Point by Nick Cook on page 236 Podkletnov states

"If the superconductors are rotated considerably faster than the 5,000 rpm speeds I've been mainly using until now, perhaps five to ten times as fast, the disc experiences so much weight loss that it actually takes off."



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by huntforzp
 

Except...they didn't rotate them that fast.
Right?
edit on 4/10/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 



If a solid mass is partially in the field, it undergoes internal mechanical stress at the boundaries due to temporal rate gradients that can be quite severe if the field is sharply delineated. But it won't spin.


Your words imply that this is about gravity and not inertia. We know that gravity is linked to time, the stronger gravity is, the slower time flows and the weaker gravity is the faster time flows. So if there is a gravity effect with the rotating disc then there would be a temporal gradient between the edge of the disc and the surrounding environment.

Do you have a different explanation?



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


In the original experiment no but he implies that he did try those faster speeds with later research.

Also on page 236 right after the previous quote I gave.

"Have you experimented?" I asked.
"Yes," he said meaningfully,
"with interesting results."

private.garryck-osborne.com...
edit on 10-4-2014 by huntforzp because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by huntforzp
 

He said it meaningfully. That's impressive...and meaningful.

But he didn't say it took off, did he? Maybe because if he did he would be asked to replicate it.



edit on 4/10/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I'm just quoting from the book, if I have been unclear I suggest reading it from the link I gave and judging it for yourself.

To me it sounded like he had rotated the disc 5x-10x as fast and found that it took off.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by huntforzp
 

To me it sounds like he didn't. To me he sounds evasive.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 02:05 AM
link   

huntforzp
Your words imply that this is about gravity and not inertia...
Do you have a different explanation?


Yes.

If you lower relative permittivity and permeability in a bounded region, you increase c, reduce inertia and time passes at a faster rate inside the boundary.

Podkletnov observed smoke "suddenly rising" over his disc, and that's why he thought it was anti-gravity.

Really? If you reduced gravity in a volume, why do you feel things in that volume "rise"? It's a sci-fi meme, not reality. That's not what would happen at all. Things would fall with less acceleration.

On the other hand, if you blow warmer air into a region with less inertia, you WOULD see something "rise", as it would be not only fractionally less dense than the surrounding air, but more prone to accelerate upward due to buoyant force acting on a region with less inertia. You'd just get more for your money from the density gradient, so to speak.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 02:07 AM
link   
If Podkletnov's disk is convex on the top, would it have lift due to rotation?



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 

No. Bernoulli was discredited long ago.

/sarcasm



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by Bedlam
 

No. Bernoulli was discredited long ago.

/sarcasm


I saw a drawing of a disk shaped craft that supposedly got lift due to rapid rotation of a sort of wing-shaped disk flat on the bottom and wingy-convex on the top. They also were venting jet exhaust over the top surface in a laminar flow. But I never knew if it was serious or not. I'm not sure if it does or doesn't develop lift - never saw it in practice.







 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join