"Richard D. Saam" wrote:
> On 5/12/10 10:14 AM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>> ================ Moderator's note ==================================
>> The below linked web-sites refer to scientifically very questionable claims
>> by individuals (to say it in a friendly way)...
>> On 12/05/2010 08:20, Uncle Al wrote:
>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>>> She made some spectacular claims regarding superconductivity and
>>>> pseudo-gravitational forces, set up her own company AC gravity LLD, got
>>>> half a million dollars from the US military and has not been heard of
>>>> since (at least by google).
>>>> Anyone know what happened to her?
>>> "Rotating ions create a gravitomagnetic field perpendicular to their
>>> spin axis. If a large number of ions are aligned (Bose-Einstein
>>> condensate) a powerful gravitomagnetic field producing a strong
>>> repulsive force occurs."
>>> One imagines you are not the only person seeking her current
>> Something that might be of interest to you is the ESA experiment.
>> By that I refer to a disputed replication by a group in Canterbury NZ
>> who claimed not to have found the effect.
>> "However, in July 2007, a group in Canterbury, New Zealand, said that
>> they failed to reproduce Tajmar et al.'s effect, concluding that, based
>> on the accuracy of the experiment, any such effect, if it exists, must
>> be 21 times smaller than that predicted by the theory proposed by Tajmar
>> in 2006. Tajmar et al., however, interpreted a trend in the
>> Canterbury data of the order expected, though almost hidden by noise.
>> They also reported on their own improved laser gyro measurements of the
>> effect, but this time found 'parity breaking' in that only for clockwise
>> spin did they note an effect, whilst for the Canterbury group there was
>> only an anti-clockwise effect . In the same paper, the Heim-Theory
>> explanation of the effect is, for the first time, cited as a possible
>> cause of the artificial gravity. Tajmar has recently found additional
>> support from Gravity Probe B results  ."
> Eugene Podkletnov Mar, 2006 correspondence
> indicates ESA work extremely important for verification of his work:
> "as a serious replication of my experiment and a step forward in physics"
> E. Podkletnov and R. Nieminen, "A Possibility of Gravitational Force
> Shielding by Bulk Superconductor" , Physica C 203, (1992), 414-444.
> As far as I can tell,
> none of the ESA work mentions Podkletnov in a positive light.
> I haven't seen any communication from Podkletnov since.
> Does anyone know what happened to him?
> He is the one who started all this.
One page down. sigh
1) Given descriptions of the rig, Podkeltnov's net "output" could
result from the higher density of cold gas or inductive interference
(Lenz' law). A one-pan scale is especially vulnerable.
2) The concept of an "anti-gravity beam" is empirically
unsustainable. He sets it up, he turns it on. The "beam" then
affects the mass above it - air and architecture, mgh. Where does the
gravitational potential energy go for the now "lighter" mass? One can
easily see 100 kg affected. Turn it off. From where does the
gravitational potential energy appear for the now "heavier" mass?
3) It's worse than that. Piezoelectric generators each with a
hanging massive bob, arrayed about the rim of a rotating rigid disk
with a central bearing support. Two Podkletnov beams, one each to the
left and right of the disk, 180 degrees apart. As each bob passes
through the beam its weight decreases then returns, pumping its
generator. The disk stays balanced and horizontal. That is a
perpetual motion machine of the first type.