# The Podkletnov Effect

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

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

Messages:
7,415
I can't find any shuttle info on it. Maybe it was only ground experiments after all. But NASA has spent ten years on it. I would hardly call that "cheap".

to hide all adverts.
3. ### overdozehumanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
310
The BPP program is fairly new (it is certainly not 10 years old.)

Also, cheap is of course relatively speaking. They might be spending say, 1 million a year -- maybe even less. That's nothing as these things go (a typical space mission runs into multiple 100M.)

P.S. you might like this website: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/warp.htm

The BPP website (linked from there):
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/

P.P.S. Jesus f*cking Christ, nothing's holy anymore! The Bush has spoken once again. They're about to cut the BPP out of existence! *breathes heavily* just 2 more years ... just 2 more years...

Last edited: Jul 14, 2002

to hide all adverts.
5. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
37,093
From the NASA paper linked above:

"Podkletnov’s gravity modification experiments were conducted in the early 1990’s. Nevertheless, skepticism persists, especially since the experiments have not been adequately documented and repeated."

"To summarize, we note that these exploratory experiments have been carried out in an attempt to quantify the effects of EM energy on a superconductor. The general conclusion is that the results of these tests gave a null result. That is, no conclusion at this time can be made to the EM effects on the superconductor."

to hide all adverts.
7. ### Adam§Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥Registered Senior Member

Messages:
7,415
Top right of page 2. Experiments by other researchers were not teh same experiments, but were simplified. Further down that column the author says further and more meticulous experiments are required.

And from the Conclusion: "That is, no conclusion at this time can be made to the EM effects on the superconductor." This from "simplified" experiements. Note that they did not achieve a negative result, they achieved a null result from less-than-accurate reproduction. Thus they continue to spend money and research the possible phenomenon.

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

Messages:
7,415
Simply untrue, Q. The ideas were not shown to not work.

Again, "the effect is not real" is a premature, unfounded statement, as demonstrated by the continuing funding and experiments, and by the aforementioned null result.

9. ### ProsoothusRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,973
Overdoze,

You're mixing apples and oranges. There are two forces that may be present in this device:

1) The momentum of the virtual particles of the electric field. (This is what you're referring to) This momentum(if it exists) is very small. As far as I know, electromagnetic photons have this momentum, but virtual particles that make up electric and magnetic fields do not. If these virtual particles had momentum, and if my device only used this momentum as a propulsion force, then, as you indicated, it wouldn't work. However, my device is not concerned with the momentums of photons or virtual particles, it is concerned with electromagnetic interactions(see 2).

2) The other type of force present in this device is the electrostatic attractive/repulsive force. This force is far greater than the momentums of the photons and virtual particles that create this force. I use this force to make the propulsion possible in my device.

Tom

Last edited: Jul 14, 2002
10. ### (Q)Encephaloid MartiniValued Senior Member

Messages:
20,834
Q commented on Prosoothus antigravity theories:

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

Simply untrue, Q. The ideas were not shown to not work.

Adam, I get the distinct feeling we're not talking about the same thing. My comment above was directed at Prosoothus's theories, not the Podkletnov’s experiment.

However, I am quite surprised you would support the Podkletnov experiment considering no one has ever successfully repeated the experiment.

The BPP project is an interageny project which is somewhat supported by the Glenn Research Center. It is not an official NASA project as are other projects linked to the GRC. The GRC has been set up as a peer review agency, therefore theories can be submitted and reviewed and in some cases funding can be provided.

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

Messages:
20,834
Prosoothus

It would appear Overdose has come to the same conclusion and has outlined the same problem, no net effect, vibrating plates at best.

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

Messages:
7,415
Oops, sorry, my bad.

I support the possibility and the further research until it is conclusively proven to be bollocks. So far that hasn't happened. I support research into all areas which might give us amazing new technologies.

13. ### xaxaroRegistered Member

Messages:
13
um

q- Podkletnov's experiment was duplicated by the Plank Institute if that counts as a credible source. Maybe NASA has not been able to duplicate the experiments because .. well who knows? But it was done correctly twice ( once by Pod. once by Plank I)

Prosthoos- If you get your experiment to work then I will listen, but in the mean time there are way too many people claiming antigravity devices.. Podkletnov is a material scientist who is quite good at what he does...

My Manufacturing of disks - No I am not going to use lead. If I manufactured the disk I would use the same ceramic compound that Podkletnov used.

I doubt that I will do this though - Why? - Time, money, risk of failure, lack of education-- etc. But maybe I will try it..

Let's say if someone really wanted to do this...

He would need:
The ceramic compounds 

Tom

18. ### ProsoothusRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,973
xaxaro, James, Adam, and Q,

By the way, if my theory is correct, the reason Podkletnov device doesn't work is because his sample(floating above the disc) is not spinning. If he were to spin the sample, the two z-forces (of the rotating disc, and the rotating sample) would attract or repel each other, giving the appearance that antigravity was created.

I assume that when Podkletnov first tested his device, the sample may have been slowly spinning. He may have forgot to include this "spin" in his later experiments.

Tom

19. ### ProsoothusRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,973
xaxaro,

The link that you provided for the Podkletnov experiment also describes the James F. Woodward propulsion device.

After reviewing Woodward's patent, I found that his device is a primitive version of my Electrostatic Pulse Engine.

Tom

20. ### xaxaroRegistered Member

Messages:
13
hmmm

Prosoothus, I don't really know what to say anymore. IT could be right or wrong, but I don't know that much so even if I say I agree it would not be very credible.

James, I was wrong. It was just a report, but not an actual experiment. This kind of dampens my belief in this as well, because if only it was repeated once... well... you know.

this is really a question of hitting the books and finding some loophole in relativity or electromagnetism. Anyone? You will be famous forever.

21. ### XevRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,943
this is really a question of hitting the books and finding some loophole in relativity or electromagnetism. Anyone? You will be famous forever.

Welcome to Sciforums, xaxaro.

Unfortunatly, or fortunatly, or both, simply hitting the books has not shown any loopholes in relativity. It seems quite well confirmed, experimentally.

I support the possibility and the further research until it is conclusively proven to be bollocks. So far that hasn't happened. I support research into all areas which might give us amazing new technologies.

Unfortunatly, it ain't that simple. Money is, of course, a factor.

I have an anti-gravity in my basement. I have a video of it in operation. Give me money.

This is a pretty poor example, but discretion on the amount of money spent is necessary.

Or you end up spending millions of taxpayer dollars on psychics.

22. ### xaxaroRegistered Member

Messages:
13
Xev,,

I was entertained by the link about the quack scientist's. I think that Podklednov is credible, because he did not do his experiment looking for antigravity- antigravity was supposedly accidentally found. Anyway, who is to say that the experiment is true or is not true? I am not, and neither is Pod- he is objective.

Einstein built upon Maxwell's ideas which was electromagnetism. I have only thought of what Einstein did insofar as being able to calculate different reference frames of space ships travelling different velocities, how time is different, etc.. But what I do not understand is how Einstein's RElativity explains electromagnetism and gravity?..... which has to do with Pod's experiment being true or not. Alrighty then.

23. ### nanokRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
30
edit: nevermind, was gonna say something but figured it out myself