They '"decelerate it" by increasing the magnetic field of the solenoids don't they, Jones? Any device in rotation at a constant angular speed has a dv/dt = v^2/r acceleration because of the constant change of direction of the tangential velocity vector.
Fred > [Original Message] > From: Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Date: 3/31/2006 7:52:55 AM > Subject: 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. > > > > 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. > > ******************************************************************** > > > > >
