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: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 

Dammit, now you went and made me think about it.
Since there is, in effect, no trailing edge which would provide a net downward movement of air, I wouldn't think that there would be any aerodynamic lift provided by spin alone.




posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by Bedlam
 

Dammit, now you went and made me think about it.
Since there is, in effect, no trailing edge which would provide a net downward movement of air, I wouldn't think that there would be any aerodynamic lift provided by spin alone.


It's got more surface area on the top, which I'm not sure counts or not at this alcohol level. And I'd suppose the jet exhaust would supply a sort of net movement of air, the drawing showed it being a spiral more than a nice lateral flow, which would make sense.

Maybe the jet exhaust supplies all the lift. But they had it having to spin, so apparently that's an issue.

edit: here is an intoxicated MS Paint sketch with a touch pad of what I'm talking about...



eta: Wow, is it tough to draw with a touch pad. not that I'm any sort of an artist at any time.
edit on 10-4-2014 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 



jonnywhite
The fact he isn't willing to go through a peer-review process shows he at least has no respect for science


My second post literally says, "his peer-reviewed article."



You all are really hung-up on Podkletnov's 1996 experiment. I guess It's my fault for not transcribing more of the audio.

It is reasonable to be skeptical of his claims without evidence, but what exactly would he be gaining by such claims? Why was his colleague allegedly hired to research propulsion systems? Why has he not given up after 20 years? Why does he have a job? Why have numerous other researchers made similar claims using Gravitoelectromagnetism?

I strongly recommend listening to the whole audio file as it might shed light on a few of those questions.


Also, just for fun: (Please don't use this ridiculous rambling to discredit any of my future posts.
)


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


huntforzp
We know that gravity is linked to time


If we step onto the fringe for a bit, and take theories for what they are, maybe there is an alternate explanation. When dealing with Gravitoelectromagnetism, you don't have to discredit Einstein; however, If you explain it through Dynamic Gravity, you certainly should.

So let's say gravity is NOT linked to time. We no longer have to worry about curvature in space-time, nor time itself. Also, according to this theory (which I will be berated for mentioning), the effects of the aether (from which gravity can be assumed to propagate) can be felt through inertia, making them one in the same force. The same can be said for the electromagnetic fields generated and the Earth's magnetic field, obviously.

I think it's pretty fun to consider.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   
So the other researchers that have claimed gravoelectronic effects are actually misquoted or taken out of context.

Many of them say "our instruments suggest that we see a one in a million (or like 10,000) reduction in gravitational field" but this effect could be because our instruments are not sensitive enough, we dont understand our systematics or we don't understand our experiment fully yet.

But then because they have reported an effect (that is not proven to be real) people jump on it like it is hard proof and irrefutable evidence.

Its not how science works...

Remember how many possible Higgs announcements where made? About 4 that i remember. What happened to those? Well they came forward and said "Hey so we see this signal here, it is a 2 sigma effect, we will be keeping an eye on it" then they look at bigger and bigger data-sets and do see that no those are statistical fluctuations and not a real effect that can be attributed to a higgs.

Obviously for things that people WANT to believe, its fine right? Once is enough evidence, even if that one time the evidence isn't actually given.



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


I have took the term anti-gravity as a catch-all that in general means movement without a propellent.

When I looked at Podkletnov's disc experiment I saw it as creating a weak gravitational field up above the disc at some undetermined height. This would make the smoke above the disc rise relative to the surrounding environment.

What do you make of the reports of the disc taking off when speeds are increased to 25,000-50,000 rpms?

Have you heard of the alien reproduction vehicle from Mark McCandlish fame? There was also a large flywheel in it according to some reports but it only covered the crew compartment and couldn't have been used to propel the whole craft. Aluminum doesn't have the tensile strength to survive spinning at the required speeds to produce the effect.

What do you make of the capacitor plates on the bottom of the craft reportedly charged to around a million volts? Are they also anti-inertia? Or are they anti-gravity in your opinion?



posted on Apr, 14 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 




"our instruments suggest that we see a one in a million (or like 10,000) reduction in gravitational field"



Who are you quoting? Why has Google never heard that quote before?



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   
On the face of it in his 2013 interview, he does sound honest, but again without any convincing proof



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: lemmin

I was quoting a recent discussion on this subject here on ATS. If you search you will likely find the thread. Basically if you read the actual paper from the researchers, there was only a very very tiny reduction, and it was a reduction that was hard to 100% correlate with the device, and not other components in the lab.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Wow, it's 2014, it's almost 20 years from 1996 where this topic was hot on conspiracy theory forums, and mr Podtlenov hasn't come up with the goods yet?

It's so funny and tragic at the same time for humanity.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 06:09 AM
link   
a reply to: lemmin

Fantastic thread OP, thanks for posting.

I read about Podkletnov back in the 90's when this information was first released (leaked), and since then it pretty much went quiet.

I remember Boeing or Lockheed had sought to employ Podkletnov, who was to be working with a Chinese Professor if i remember correctly, who were both working on the spinning disk technology and were going to pool their resources.

Now...everything Podkletnov said back in the 90's and again now in 2013/14 is more or less describing this technology employed by what we know as UFOs...that 'impossible' physics and technology, that allows those 'impossible' vistors travelling vast distances.

Also the 'impossible' overunity energy and so on.

Hopefully, Podkletnov won't disappear for another 20 years again, and we actually see some rapid turnaround of this technology and see it brought out from excusive black projects use.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

That was 20 years ago though wasn't it?

A lot can happen in 20 years.

This spinning disk technology isn't referring to a Coanda effect afaik, it is artificial gravity.

Note where he is speaking about making an electrical turbine operate on it's own, using very little input energy?

He says we can make one side or half of the turbine blades artificially heavy and the other side artifically light..causing an imbalance and thus turning the rotor...nothing about blowing air around a curved surface.

He also mentions 'FTL' speeds...air over a curved surface won't do that, even in Sci-Fi.


edit on 28-5-2014 by MysterX because: added info



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 06:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: rangerdanger
I can imagine all the cool things I would do with a lightsaber



originally posted by: rangerdanger
cutting edge tech


I see what you did there.



edit on b2020614 by Biigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: ErosA433

That was 20 years ago though wasn't it?

A lot can happen in 20 years.


You'd think, which is why the lack of evidence outside his personal claims is a big red flag.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Possibly, but with the paradigm shifting potential of what he is claiming for this technology, the implications being what they would be if such technology is brought out...i'd say keeping Mum would be a very prudent approach, especially if the Governments of the world have agreed to keep this technology in the shadows, until preparations can be made to accomodate it and the changes it would bring.

It would be literally world changing technology, there are undoubtably many that would not like to see this change happen for more reasons than just financial ones.

But..who knows.

It's a wait and see thing i suppose.



posted on May, 28 2014 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

Thing is, he's still active, he's still publishing, he's still making claims, his work has been cited numerous times in academic papers but no one's been able to reproduce his results. I don't think you can argue that's an example of "keeping mum". Bringing Occam's Razor into the situation, it's far more plausible that he's simply wrong.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: ErosA433

That was 20 years ago though wasn't it?

A lot can happen in 20 years.

This spinning disk technology isn't referring to a Coanda effect afaik, it is artificial gravity.

Note where he is speaking about making an electrical turbine operate on it's own, using very little input energy?

He says we can make one side or half of the turbine blades artificially heavy and the other side artifically light..causing an imbalance and thus turning the rotor...nothing about blowing air around a curved surface.

He also mentions 'FTL' speeds...air over a curved surface won't do that, even in Sci-Fi.



It was actually not an experiment performed 20 years ago, but rather a recent one in Germany I think... within the last year or two.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: lemmin

Eugene Podkletnov
During the last two years we made considerable advances in this research and, using all the information that we had before, we have now the technology which allows us to make objects heavier or lighter.



If you aren't familiar with Podkletnov, it may be because his initial claims were disregarded on the basis of circumstance and, possibly, simple disbelief. In 1996, he withdrew his peer-reviewed article from publication in the Journal of Physics after the speculation arose, fueled by its leaking to the main-stream media. The withdrawal was assumed to be his admission to false claims, or possibly inaccurate results. Since then, numerous labs have been alleged to have attempted to further his research.

Read More in this Wired article



But that isn't what I've come here to share today. The quote above is from an interview with Podkletnov from July 2013 with some exciting, yet incredulous, statements.

Again, for the unfamiliar, Podkletnov's known work includes a "rotating disk" experiment that allegedly reduces the affects of gravity, and an "Impulse Gravity Generator" which allegedly creates gravity waves.

The rotating disk required a superconducting material, cooled to extreme temperature using liquid nitrogen. In the interview, Podkletnov claims to have advanced this technology:




When asked if he has published any of his new research:



He goes on to further explain what possible "engineering and application" could imply:



This interview is exciting because it is the first time he has expressed confidence in actual real-world application of his research. I believe this would suggest some break-through level work being accomplished and can only hope to see it in my life time.

Or maybe it's a hoax. You be the judge!


Here is a link to the full interview.

And a link to the MP3 for those whose computers won't play it (like mine).

An ATS thread about his previous interview.


It's no hoax. It's real, but it's NOT his invention. Proof is in the pudding. www.thelivingmoon.com...



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Are you kidding? Podkletnov had already done in 1992, what ning li allegedly did in 1999
a reply to: GeekOfTheWeek



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   
look i want my back to the future hover board as much as the next nerd but there are terrifying implications for any gravity altering tech. any would be terrorist or assorted psychopath could have access to a weapon more powerful than all atomic bombs ever made on the earth. there is no way to safeguard the technology. any governor could be removed or the legal devices reverse engineered into a weapon that could literally pulverise the earth, turn it to gravel and dust and fling that debris out of the solar system. you couldn't even think it safe as a government protected secret. the manhattan project scientists were giving thier data to the soviets even before the bombs were tested at trinity. a pfc or a second rate contractor can download hundreds of thousands of secrets in minutes. the chinese steal every one of our govt secrets and commercial trade secrets. you could not leave the secrets in academia either. anyone with a jounal subscription could have anything we discover. open source material is as valuable to spies as top secret stuff.

an accident, a drugged or drunk person, a psychotic, an extroverted suicial person or a 7th century freakazoid troglodyte cave man would just take one of these and then destroy a city a continent or the world itself. there are billions of humans and thus millions of crap heads outthere and we cannot afford to let even one of them have access to something like this.

any gravity control system would most likely enable travel velocities approaching that of light. and speed kills.

from the wikipedia article on relativistic kill vehicles


A 1 kg mass traveling at 99% of the speed of light would have a kinetic energy of 5.47×1017 joules. In explosive terms, it would be equal to 132 megatons of TNT or approximately 32 megatons more than the theoretical max yield of Tsar Bomba, the most powerful nuclear weapon ever detonated. 1 kg of mass-energy is 8.99×1016 joules or about 21.5 megatons of TNT.


EDIT: actually you don't have to go that fast to really ruin someone's day. that meteor over russia a year ago was not going at even orbital speeds and yet it shockwaves devastated the surface of the earth bellow it. 30 miles below it in fact. it had the power of a few nagasaki bombs.

also my statement about pulverising the earth into rubble assumes a mass on the order of a super cargo ship instead of a few kilograms.
edit on 2-6-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Lol. you brought up some interesting , though scary points. but how exactly, would a good sized cargo space ship, that you get it to levitate under anti gravity, endanger the earth / and or a part of our galaxy?
a reply to: stormbringer1701




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join