# The Podkletnov Effect

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by xaxaro, Jul 11, 2002.

1. ### xaxaroRegistered Member

Messages:
13
My question is about The Podkletnov Effect It is kind of old news, but it is news to me because I only now have come across it.

http://www.inetarena.com/~noetic/pls/gravity.html
http://www.parascope.com/articles/0197/gravity3.htm
http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/antigrav.html

It basically is an experiment which had rotating discs that made objects hanging above it lose some weight.. it was repeated succesfully by the plank institute in germany as well adding to it's credibility at the time.. but now it is not in the news anymore because they beleive it is experimental error.

do you think it is possible to defy earth's gravity?

gravity still remains the least known about force.

3. ### ProsoothusRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,973
Xaxaro,

Welcome to sciforums!!!

I do believe that it would be possible to make an antigravity device. A few years ago I theoretically completed an antigravity device, but I never built a prototype. I shared my ideas about it on these forums, but my ideas weren't accepted by the "conservative" people on these forums. This is how it would work:

Basically, every field has a sister field. The sister field of the electric field is the magnetic field. Whenever a field moves, its sister field appears at right angles to both the original field AND the motion of the field. In other words, if an electron is moving in the y axis, all of the electron's electric field in the x axis will be converted to a mgnetic field in the z axis. This process is also reversable: a moving magnetic field converts back into an electric field. So for example you can take electrons, which are unipolar, and send them through a wire to create a magnetic field. You can then convert the magnetic field back into an electric field. The only difference is is that the resulting electric field will be bipolar, not unipolar like the original electrons.

The gravitational field also has a sister field. I call it the Z-field since it hasn't been named yet. Using the same technique I described above, a unipolar gravitational field can be converted to Z-field, which can, in turn, be converted into a bipolar gravitational field. If a device was made that would create the antigravity pole of the bipolar gravitational field pointing towards the Earth, the device would levitate, because opposite gravitational fields repel each other. Here is a simple expanation of how this device would be constructed:

You would place several small fast rotating discs at the parameter of a larger rotating disc. The small discs, when rotated, would convert their gravitational fields into Z-fields that would be pointing away from the center of the larger disc. When the larger disc would begin to spin, it would convert these Z-fields back into a bipolar gravitational field. This resulting bipolar gravitational field would be used for propulsion.

I know that my Z-force theory is correct because it would explain the precessions of gyroscopes. In the case of gyroscopes, if you try to push one over, a force will appear at right angles to the force you are applying. This is actually proof that the gravitational field has a sister field, as well.

Tom

5. ### (Q)Encephaloid MartiniValued Senior Member

Messages:
20,834
I do believe that it would be possible to make an antigravity device. A few years ago I theoretically completed an antigravity device, but I never built a prototype. I shared my ideas about it on these forums, but my ideas weren't accepted by the "conservative" people on these forums.

The ideas weren't accepted because it was shown the ideas would not work. Your belief that it will work does not change that fact.

I know that my Z-force theory is correct because it would explain the precessions of gyroscopes. In the case of gyroscopes, if you try to push one over, a force will appear at right angles to the force you are applying. This is actually proof that the gravitational field has a sister field, as well.

The properties for precessions of gyroscopes are simply natural movements for rotating bodies and have nothing to do with gravitational fields. You are implying a gyroscope can create a gravitational field.

How do you explain a gimbaled gyroscope which can eliminate precession ?

7. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
37,189
xaxaro,

Nobody has been able to reproduce Podkletnov's results. Many have tried. It seems that the "effect" is not real.

8. ### xaxaroRegistered Member

Messages:
13
yeh, maybe

Proosthus

Thank you + sciforums ppl.
:bugeye:

Well I want to start manufacturing such disks.. what do you need to make such ceramic disks? hydraulic machines or ovens? Mixing bowls....

In the past always scientist's have made new experimental discoveries, but these days no scientist's want to experiment.. This leaves Potzers to do all the experimenting.. Pod's was one of the few who had the cahones to print something like this the first time around.. i am sure all the other scientists are busting his chops because of it..

9. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
37,189
<i>In the past always scientist's have made new experimental discoveries, but these days no scientist's want to experiment..</i>

This is very far from the truth. Physics is still very much an experimental science. Take a look at any physics journal these days. Every month hundreds of new experiments are published.

<i>Pod's was one of the few who had the cahones to print something like this the first time around.. i am sure all the other scientists are busting his chops because of it..</i>

Why would they? Antigravity would be fantastic if it worked. People have tried to reproduce these particular results without success. The man himself has not produced any advance on his initial claims. There are no antigravity prototype aircraft to be seen coming from his lab. What does that suggest to you?

10. ### ProsoothusRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,973
James and Q,

Maybe the two of you should look into experiments that NASA is now performing using superconductors and a spinning disc. NASA claims that anti-gravity is within reach.

Tom

11. ### ProsoothusRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,973
xaxaro,

If you want to make these discs, I would recommend that you make them from the heaviest materials possible. That way you wouldn't have to spin them extremely fast to get the antigravitational force you desire. (The heavier they are, and the faster they spin, the more force they produce).

If I were making them, I would make them out of lead. Lead is heavy and it melts easily. I would make a mold for the discs, pour the lead in, and let it cool.

I decided to not to make this anti-gravity device because I've found a way to make another type of propulsion device that wouldn't require any moving parts. Here is the link to it if your interested:

Tom, aka Joeblow93132

12. ### (Q)Encephaloid MartiniValued Senior Member

Messages:
20,834
Podkletnov now claims that his results have been verified by researchers at two universities - but he won't name these people for fear that they'll be ridiculed and ruined by the gravity establishment. The team at NASA make no secret of their work - but they have no definite results, yet. And so, at this time, the only credentialed scientist claiming to have witnessed gravity modification is Podkletnov himself.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.03/antigravity_pr.html

Is this what you're referring:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/

...which just so happens to be here:

http://www.crank.net/propulsion.html

13. ### ProsoothusRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,973
Q,

I'll believe NASA over a ultra-conservative website (www.crank.net), anytime. I don't know how you can even compare the two.

Tom

14. ### odinRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,098

Don't spin lead discs very fast or they will fly apart & hurt you!

15. ### overdozehumanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
310
Tom,

I'd be very careful making fast-spinning disks extremely heavy, and out of lead of all things.

If the material a fast-spinning disk is made of does not possess adequate tensile strength, your disk will fly apart with potentially catastrophic and deadly consequences. Lead is probably just about the worst material you could pick (seeing how malleable it is.) Not to mention that lead and lead vapors are extremely and chronically toxic for the human nervous system.

Note: this is not a commentary on your theory, just on your experimental suggestion.

As for your electromagnetic "propulsion" scheme, I've looked at it and it won't fly. Electromagnetic waves have a habit of passing through each other, so if you emit a pulse from plate 1 that pushes on plate 2 as plate 2 emits its own pulse, then that pulse from plate 2 will push on plate 1 completely negating all impulse. All you get in the end is vibrating plates.

[edit: ha, looks like Odin beat me to it while I was typing this post up.

]

16. ### odinRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,098
overdoze

[edit: ha, looks like Odin beat me to it while I was typing this post up.

No matter! we both gave him good advice!

17. ### ProsoothusRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,973
odin and overdoze,

What if you electroplate the lead discs with a stronger metal? Would that work??

overdoze,

Remember, the electric fields do not travel instantaneously, they travel at the speed of light. All you have to do is make sure that plate 1 is off before the pulse from plate 2 reaches it. That's why I have both plates pulsing, not only one. If you time the pulses correctly, they won't negate each other.

Tom

18. ### overdozehumanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
310
Tom,

Electroplating?? All that does is deposit an thin uniform veneer on the surface. Hardly effective.

What you might do is create a hollow "donut" out of some much tougher material -- e.g. tool steel, titanium, woven carbon fiber or even nanotubes -- and fill the innards with lead. Though I'm not sure that would gain you anything.

Ultimately, your theoretical effect is due to 2 things:

<ol>
<li>radial velocity of the disk's material</li>
<li>mass of the disk</li>
</ol>

Increasing (1) limits (2) and vice versa. So you might as well make the whole disk out of a light but very strong material and spin it real fast (common engineering approach to flywheels) -- or make the disk out of a heavy material and spin it slowly. Unless there is some finesse to the interactions and velocity is somehow more important than mass or vice versa.

As for your electric propulsion, let me refine my criticism. It turns out that whether plate 2 is charged or not is irrelevant. As you charge and discharge plate 1, you're essentially emitting light. It's the same principle as used in radio antennae -- in fact plate 1 is just a radio antenna in your case. So plate 1 will emit both electric and magnetic waves, oscillating orthogonally to each other -- aka photons. The photons are absorbed by plate 2 and give it a push, but plate 1 recoiled while emitting them so there's no net effect.

Your whole propulsion scheme would be a lot more efficient if you just shot light out of a laser. That way you get maximum impulse for the amount of light you emit. But this is just a "light rocket", and while you could approach lightspeed it would take you an inordinate amount of time to both accelerate and decelerate using such an engine.

19. ### Adam§Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥Registered Senior Member

Messages:
7,415
Skepticism is fine, but you must back it up with facts or you are the same as the Creationsists.

NASA has been working with Podkletnov's ideas for about ten years, and is ready to test devices in orbit.

A NASA report

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/WhitePaper.htm

Really, there's heaps of material out there. You may note that NASA also listens to Hal Puthoff, a chap mockde for years by the general scientific community for his work on psychic phenomena and zero-point energy.

Just do a search at the main NASA site on "Podkletnov".

20. ### overdozehumanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
310

NASA's BPP effort is commendable and exciting, but hardly a confirmation of Podkletnov's effect. And, the report you cited actually found a null result (meaning it failed to substantate the effect) -- granted it was a preliminary study.

So far, what James R said holds: nobody has been able to reproduce Podkletnov's results.

As for testing "devices" in "orbit": that's news to me. Where did you get that from?

Messages:
7,415
22. ### overdozehumanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
310
???

There's no talk there at all of testing devices in space. The BPP program conducts ground-based (and mostly table-top) experiments (keyword is: cheap.)

23. ### Adam§Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥Registered Senior Member

Messages:
7,415
It was a headline for NASA in I think. Still searching for the mission profile.