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.
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.
********************************************************************
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.
********************************************************************
