It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
Our latest experiment was conducted over a distance of 5 kilometers, and the beam penetrated through several houses made of concrete.
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.
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)
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.
Podkletnov's talk of energy generation by unbalancing a turbine makes him smell of snake oil to me.
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.
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...
Do you have a different explanation?
reply to post by Bedlam
No. Bernoulli was discredited long ago.