RE: Electrogravity, jerk and jounce
A couple of correctiuons - the Tajmar result was a slight increase in gravitational force, not a decrease, and Podkletnov observed the greatest effect during braking (i.e. deceleration) of the disc, not during constant speed rotation. Rob -Original Message- 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. TM 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 TM occurs *only* during acceleration. This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person.
Re: Electrogravity, jerk and jounce
OK. We seem to have the critical details of these contrasting experiments now in order. Unless there is some fundamental difference in the effects of deceleration vs. acceleration, then the original question remains: where do we (the gravity experimentalists and/or kibitzers of the world) go from here (expediently) ? This important question is still begging for some guidance. My contention (from the first post) is that the higher orders of acceleration - jerk or preferably jounce should magnify the small effect exponentially. There may be other ways to accomplish this higher order of acceleration, but the suggestion of multi-axis spin is one way, perhaps the easiest way. Admittedly there is no experimental evidence for or against this supposition/suggestion, so the next question is ... are there valid theoretical or hypothetical reasons why this course of action (or something similar) would not be the expedient way to proceed towards the goal of finding a useful level of antigravity (enhanced gravity) ?? Jones BTW - for the production of so-called free-energy, enhancing gravity might make more sense then reducing it - as the infrastructure is already in place to benefit immediately. Imagine gravity-enhancing devices placed in critical locations in a hydroelectric dam - for instance. - Original Message - From: Chambers, Robert (UK) A couple of corrections - the Tajmar result was a slight increase in gravitational force, not a decrease, and Podkletnov observed the greatest effect during braking (i.e. deceleration) of the disc, not during constant speed rotation. Rob -Original Message- 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. TM 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 TM occurs *only* during acceleration. This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person.
Re: Electrogravity, jerk and jounce
Keith BTW, I'm delighted that someone on this forum seems to have read Martins paper. Have you read any of the others I listed? No. In fact I had forgotten about them. Everyone here seems to have a narrow field of specific interest and mine is not anti-gravity per-se, EXCEPT to the extent that it portends overunity or new sources of energy. And in truth, you will always have some degree of overunity if you have antigravity, but not the other way around. Consequently, if your goal is more oriented towards earthbound free energy (despite the misnomer), there may be easier ways to get to that without resorting to overcoming gravity - which is such a comparatively weak force, as those things go. Excuses...excuses... Anyway... Keith, you seem pretty confident that acceleration is not required for this particular effect, despite the implications of TM. Care to expound on your reasoning? ( I presume it comes from the unread papers) Jones
Re: Electrogravity, jerk and jounce
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene
TM 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 TM occurs *only* during acceleration.
That's not the way I remember it. Podkletnov did both:
A high-temperature $YBa_2Cu_3O_{7-x}$ bulk ceramic superconductor with
composite structure has revealed weak shielding properties against
gravitational force in the state of levitation at temperatures below 70
$K$. A toroidal disk was prepared using conventional ceramic technology
in combination with melt-texture growth. Two solenoids were placed
around the disk in order to initiate the current inside it and also to
provide rotation about its central axis. Samples placed over the
rotating disk demonstrated a weight loss of 0.3-0.5\%. When the
rotation speed was slowly reduced by changing the current in the
solenoids, the shielding effect became considerably higher and reached
1.9-2.1\% at maximum.
http://amasci.com/freenrg/pod1.txt
___
Try the New Netscape Mail Today!
Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List
http://mail.netscape.com
RE: Electrogravity, jerk and jounce
Hi Jones, you write: Everyone here seems to have a narrow field of specific interest and mine is not anti-gravity per-se, EXCEPT to the extent that it portends overunity or new sources of energy. A plethora of mouths, and no ears. A hallmark of our age, don't you think? Anyway... Keith, you seem pretty confident that acceleration is not required for this particular effect, despite the implications of TM. Oh, it's exactly what Martin is showing, and I'm sure he would agree with me. As I wrote, all he has to work with is accelerometers so _of course_ he needs to be focused on the rate of change of the gravitomagnetic field. If he had gravitomagnetic sensors then he could measure the gravitomagnetic London moment directly. The best thing I can suggest is to read the papers I listed from most recent back, three or four of them ought to be sufficient. But better would be to familiarize yourself with other material on the subject, that Jefimenko book Horace and I were writing about would be a good place to start. After the slashdot crowd calms down, I'll email Martin with some thoughts about his experiments. First rate work, IMHO. But I do want to finish reading all his papers before I comment. K.
Re: Electrogravity, jerk and jounce
-Original Message- From: Jones Beene ... and BTW is there any indication that NASA has taken that project black ? More like grey: http://tinyurl.com/oj2fo ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Electrogravity, jerk and jounce
Since it is not totally obvious, here is the poor-bloke's way to convert antigravity into free energy - should your antigravity experiment show a consistent 1% weight loss in the vector from earth's center out into space rght. Get hold of a good heavy flywheel g The easiest way is to buy and canabalize old flywheel stamping press. These can be had from GM now at fire-sale prices, and for carry-off if you wait for bankruptcy. Place you AG device under either side of the flywheel axis (depending on whether you want CW or CCW rotation). A 10,000 pound flywheel on good bearings is what you need. You can attach permanent magnets and coils directly to the platens of the press for taking-off power. A 1% weight loss on one side of the flywheel at a conservative 60 rpm is 100 pounds at ~1 meter per second (diameter of flywheel) and is equal to about a .4 kilowatt-second or 24 kWh. You may need to feed half of this power back into you AG device and most of that to keep it cryogenic. This device may be rather loud at night, but if the neighbors complain, just wire them up too ... as you have plenty to spare... and sooner or later it will be the sound of money anyway ... Ha! kinda like that Reno slot machine spilling out its guts every time you pull the lever. I heard that Terry was driving over to Doraville to get his stamping press soon...
Re: Electrogravity, jerk and jounce
In reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s message of Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:46:47 -0500: Hi, [snip] More like grey: http://tinyurl.com/oj2fo [snip] A quote from http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/8/prweb147720.htm The beam, which Podkletnov claims is produced by a high-voltage discharge onto a 4-inch diameter superconductor, is said to have a range in excess of 5 kilometers, and capable of penetrating materials without a loss in energy. It is said to be powerful enough to shatter brick, punch holes through concrete, and deforms metal targets like hitting it with a sledgehammer This sort of thing really makes me wonder sometimes. How can a beam that is capable of penetrating materials without a loss in energy shatter target material? How does it decide whether to go through or destroy? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: Electrogravity, jerk and jounce
At 08:16 am 31/03/2006 +1000, you wrote: In reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s message of Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:46:47 -0500: Hi, [snip] More like grey: http://tinyurl.com/oj2fo [snip] A quote from http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/8/prweb147720.htm The beam, which Podkletnov claims is produced by a high-voltage discharge onto a 4-inch diameter superconductor, is said to have a range in excess of 5 kilometers, and capable of penetrating materials without a loss in energy. It is said to be powerful enough to shatter brick, punch holes through concrete, and deforms metal targets like hitting it with a sledgehammer This sort of thing really makes me wonder sometimes. How can a beam that is capable of penetrating materials without a loss in energy shatter target material? How does it decide whether to go through or destroy? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk I must confess that puzzled me too, Robin. Maybe Podkletnov was like my mother. During the London Blitz she would hear a story whilst out shopping that a bomb in my local borough of Wembley had killed 2 people - by the time she got home the number had risen to 20. Frank Grimer On the other hand I suppose the beam could have a very long focal length and only destroy at the focal point. It would certainly be a useful weapon for bumping off people you didn't like without any collateral damage.8-)
