Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

Shaun Barrett · 2002-01-16 02:06:16

There is an interesting article in New Scientist (12 January 2002) which describes the work of Evgeny Podkletnov and Ning Li into a potential new form of propulsion.
It seems that these two researchers worked independently; Podkletnov in Finland building a gravity-modifying machine, and Ning Li at the University of Alabama in Huntsville developing a theory which may explain how that machine works.
It seems that the work was sufficiently plausible to attract the attention of Ron Koczor of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, who has commissioned Superconductive Components of Columbus, Ohio to build an exact copy of the purportedly gravity-shielding machine. NASA paid $600,000 for the privilege and takes delivery of its new toy this month. Mr Koczor has stated that the series of experiments planned for the device should take no longer than six months to run, by which time we will know if it works or not.
I don't pretend to understand how this machine works from a theoretical standpoint, though the diagram of its components appears relatively uncomplicated. But a doctorate in theoretical physics is not required in order to grasp what this invention will mean to the world, should it be found to work as advertised! I won't attempt to list all the things we could do if we could control gravity but the implications for space travel will spring readily to mind if you're a Mars Society member, like me!
The purpose of this Post is really just to make sure that as many people as possible know about this important event; especially motivated and determined people, like us. I don't want this story to sink without trace the way other potentially history-changing developments seem to do. I want this laboratory testing at the Marshall Space Flight Center to be done openly, with appropriate reporting of progress, and with a comprehensive conclusion published at the end. And I want it whether the machine works or not! (If you are an American citizen, footing the bill for this through your taxes, you should be even more adamant than I am.)
So let's mark off the 6 months on our calendars and, if we've heard nothing by then, let's start asking questions. This is very exciting stuff!!

Phobos · 2002-01-19 12:59:01

Would a machine with "gravity shielding" essentially be the same things as an anti-gravity machine? Or does it just somehow negate the effects of gravity so that an object with gravity shielding won't "fall" but not rise either? It would be great if we could just cancel out gravity considering that overcoming gravity is probably the biggest obstacle to space exploration.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-01-20 06:32:22

I think it is important to differentiate between a gravity-shielding substance which passively blocks gravity the way a sheet of lead blocks X-rays, and a gravity-shielding machine which requires power in order to modify or nullify gravity. The former was used by the great H.G.Wells in his book "The First Men in the Moon". Invented by the fictional Mr Cavor and called "cavorite", you could paint it on the bottom of a shipping container and sever the gravitational attraction between that container and the Earth. Unfortunately, of course, it can't work! If it did you could lift containers of, say, water, without effort, and then pour the water downhill through a turbine to generate electricity. You'd be getting energy from nowhere, thus violating the law of energy conservation which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
But as long as your gravity-shielding device doesn't create more energy than it uses, then there is no objection, in principle, to the existence of such a device.
Gravity is essentially an extremely weak force. It takes a huge mass to generate a significant gravitational field and, in fact, when you use a child's horse-shoe magnet to lift a pin off a table, that weak magnetic field is easily out-pulling the entire planet Earth! Of course, the magnetic field only acts over a very short range (and comes in attraction and repulsion modes) whereas gravity acts over vast distances.
The machine described in the New Scientist article has allegedly caused no more than a 2% weight reduction so far. No indication is given as to its potential to improve on this performance. But if the machine can be proven to bring about ANY change in Earth's gravitational field, it will be ground-breaking work of inestimable importance.
Once the fact of gravity modification is established, then the theorists will have to find a way to explain it. When the principle is understood, maybe we could improve the efficiency of the machine and bring about a total gravity shield. Whether that could lead to negative gravity generation, i.e. gravitational repulsion, is an interesting question. My guess is that it may depend on nothing more than improved superconductors and and a little more power input. After all, as I mentioned, gravity is actually extraordinarily weak and has really only had such a profound influence on us for so long because we haven't had the vaguest notion how to "switch it off"!!
With any luck, that situation may be about to change!

Phobos · 2002-01-20 13:33:10

The machine described in the New Scientist article has allegedly caused no more than a 2% weight reduction so far. No indication is given as to its potential to improve on this performance. But if the machine can be proven to bring about ANY change in Earth's gravitational field, it will be ground-breaking work of inestimable importance.

I'm gonna have to check out this article. If this machine actually has the potential to reduce the weight of objects in an economical way it'll probably turn out to have as big of an impact on space exploration as the liquid fueled rocket engine did. A gravity reducing machine might make delivering payloads to space via railguns a good possibility and thus very cheap. It feels a little odd talking about it because it has that pseudo-science feel about it, but it's best to keep an open mind. Who knows, when gravity becomes well understood we'll probably be able to control it as easily as we control electricity.

Updated by Moderator 2021/09/22

Shaun Barrett · 2002-02-20 00:03:43

Well .... Ron Koczor at NASA has had a month so far to test his machine.
No sign yet of any excited scientists on CNN announcing astounding experimental results and predicting a revolution in transportation!
Still, Dr. Koczor did say 6 months, and we must be patient; difficult though that's going to be under the circumstances!

Zak Tolley · 2002-02-21 11:21:32

Even if they can't improve performance of the system beyond one or two precent, if you put such a system under a launch pad it would still increase payload, or decrese the size of the booster needed.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-02-26 23:08:10

You're absolutely right, Zak. Gravity is such a huge impediment to our access to space that even quite small reductions in its effect would save us a fortune in getting out of Earth's gravity well.
But it seems unlikely to me, in the light of historical precedent, that a 2% reduction in gravity would be the limit of this machine's performance. If we optimistically assume that the machine actually modifies gravity, in however small a way, you can be sure that every facility on the planet will be made available to enhance its performance! When Phobos compares such a development to the advent of the liquid-fuelled rocket, he/she demonstrates a mastery of understatement unparalleled in human history! This would be THE EVENT of human existence, opening up for us a future such as is difficult to describe adequately in words.
I, for one, am still watching the calendar and waiting for word to emerge from NASA. I suppose it's fun to anticipate, even if nothing comes of it. But what if it does .... ?!!

AndyM · 2002-03-01 06:28:43

The original article on this effect is actually from 1996. Allegedly, Podkletnov submitted a paper to the Journal of Physics but later retracted it before it was published. It caused quite a bit of controversy back then and Tampere University, where Podkletnov worked, denied all knowledge of anit-gravity research. So I wouldn't hold my breath for this.

Most physicists are also very sceptical about anti-gravity because its is not a force but rather a result of the geometry or curvature of space. Hence you would have to change the geometry of space in order to nullify gravity. Its also inportant to distinguish between something that actually changes gravity and something that merely reduces its effect. For example, levitating an object in a magnetic field can easily appear to counteract gravity.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-03-01 17:47:20

I won't hold my breath, AndyM! As you rightly point out, life can be full of disappointments.
But surely you can allow me just a little bit of excited anticipation?! I mean NASA has spent $600,000 on this, so somebody must have thought it worth investigating.
Incidentally, that curvature of space-time interpretation of gravity that you mentioned: How does anyone know whether the localised curvature of space-time might not be exactly what this machine is modifying?
:0

Josh Cryer · 2002-03-02 01:03:08

There's a slightly ?cooky? site that discusses this kind of stuff. And it wouldn't surprise me if the stuff (discussed in the anti-grav section of that site) is what Evgeny Podkletnov and Ning Li are trying to implement.

Anyway, enjoy (disclaimer, like I said, it's kind of cooky, but still, a lot of the science there is accurate): http://jnaudin.free.fr/

BTW, I have actually built a lifter, and they are for real. A friend of mine and I wanted to build ono capable of lifting a person (without an external power source), but we speculated that it would take a nuclear reactor to achieve that (assuming the aluminum wouldn't vaporize away from all the current).

Shaun Barrett · 2002-04-15 02:08:37

Hi Josh! I've seen these lifters in operation on my computer and heard the soft hiss they seem to make. Since you have actually built one, can you tell me what the principle behind them is? I assume they simply interact with Earth's magnetic field, right? I mean, if they represented some sort of "new physics", the story would have been all over the 6 o'clock news years ago, wouldn't it?! :0

Shaun Barrett · 2002-05-11 01:05:57

Two months to go ... and still no word from Ron Koczor at the Marshall Space Flight Center!
Why no progress reports?
Is this a good sign or a bad sign?
???

Canth · 2002-05-12 17:13:44

Usually you only get reports at the end of the experiment, that is after the data is fully collected and anylized.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-05-13 01:35:23

If Ron comes up with a positive result, I think I'll be able to find it in my heart to forgive him!!

Shaun Barrett · 2002-06-03 02:01:20

One month to go!
If the machine produces no detectable effect, can the experimenters simply put it in storage and walk away from it? Or, since it cost the taxpayers of America $600,000, are they bound to at least tell us it was a failure?
I've still got my fingers crossed!

Phobos · 2002-06-03 13:50:40

I think NASA already knows it works because all credible evidence leads to the fact that NASA got the technology from the alien drawings they found at the Mars face!!! Did you really think that last lander they sent really failed?? No! I tell you, there's a conspiracy going on at NASA and its time someone got to the bottom of it!!!!

Shaun Barrett · 2002-06-03 18:59:34

WOWWW !!!
So ... Even though I'm clinically paranoid, they really are still all out to get me!
Thanks for setting me straight, Phobos. I was beginning to think it was all in my mind.
:0

Josh Cryer · 2002-06-03 21:16:45

No! You got it wrong! The face actually said that the general theory of relativity is wrong! Mass faster than light is actually possible! Time travel? A cinch! Also, there's very strong evidence that 42 really is the answer...

Phobos · 2002-06-04 13:28:54

WOWWW !!!
So ... Even though I'm clinically paranoid, they really are still all out to get me!
Thanks for setting me straight, Phobos. I was beginning to think it was all in my mind.

Those of us who know the truth about NASA must constantly look behind our shoulders lest we should disappear one day without a trace! Yes Shaun they are out to get you!

No! You got it wrong! The face actually said that the general theory of relativity is wrong! Mass faster than light is actually possible! Time travel? A cinch! Also, there's very strong evidence that 42 really is the answer...

Oh my god the conspiracy runs even deeper then I suspected! I should have known NASA would try to pull the wool over our eyes with misinformation to throw us off the trail, but you prove their dastardly little tricks won't work for long! I just had this psychic hunch that they were travelling faster than light and going back in time. So that's why I can never find my keys in the morning, NASA sends its goons back in time to hide my keys so I can't get the truth out!!

C M Edwards · 2002-06-04 13:49:12

LOL! Go 'Long! NASA does that to you, too?

CME

Shaun Barrett · 2002-06-04 18:49:22

Now just a minute all you certifiable whackos out there! You can't just hijack my "Gravito-Magnetic Effect" Topic with all your delusional delinquency!!
This is a serious Topic, I'll have you know.
Just a minute ... got to ... adjust my metal helmet. ... Thought rays from NASA ... seeping in ...! Feel strange .....
:0

Shaun Barrett · 2002-07-01 07:13:08

Putting all frivolity aside for a moment. Ron Koczor's time is almost up.
Later this month we should be getting a report on the Podkletnov gravity-control device ... and I, for one, am good and ready for it!!

Shaun Barrett · 2002-10-16 22:06:28

WELL, RON !!

STILL WAITING ..... !!!!!

???

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-11 07:38:57

Well, nearly another month has passed and we still haven't heard from Ron.
Maybe no news is good news ... I don't know!

Some possibly better good news is that the first cracks in the stony edifice may be starting to appear. What I mean is, the first reports are leaking out that some scientists are beginning to make encouraging noises about gravity modification.

In this article, from the Space Daily website, which essentially pans NASA for various crimes of omission and incompetence, the following throw-away line appears:-

[Some top level physicists now agree that anti-gravity devices like the 512kV rotator can reduce the effects of gravity by spinning electrons, but they can't secure funding for research.]

Written by Carlton Meyer (anybody ever heard of him? ) on the first of this month, this is really quite a statement!
He drops the line in the middle of a diatribe against NASA, as though it's common knowledge and of little importance rather than potentially the most exciting story since Noah was loading the animals onto the ark!!

Has anyone else found any references to physicists making encouraging noises about gravity machines?
Is this Carlton Meyer a credible journalist? Or are we to take his report with a pinch of salt?
:0

nirgal · 2002-11-11 16:58:35

Well, nearly another month has passed and we still haven't heard from Ron.
Maybe no news is good news ... I don't know!

Well, they are reported to have begun testing in September. It may well take them till the end of the year or even longer. Patience...the truth will come out some day.

I read that article by Carlton Meyer, too. Never heard of him either.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-01-16 02:06:16

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#2 2002-01-19 12:59:01

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#3 2002-01-20 06:32:22

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#4 2002-01-20 13:33:10

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#5 2002-02-20 00:03:43

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#6 2002-02-21 11:21:32

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#7 2002-02-26 23:08:10

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#8 2002-03-01 06:28:43

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#9 2002-03-01 17:47:20

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#10 2002-03-02 01:03:08

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#11 2002-04-15 02:08:37

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#12 2002-05-11 01:05:57

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#13 2002-05-12 17:13:44

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#14 2002-05-13 01:35:23

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#15 2002-06-03 02:01:20

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#16 2002-06-03 13:50:40

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#17 2002-06-03 18:59:34

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#18 2002-06-03 21:16:45

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#19 2002-06-04 13:28:54

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#20 2002-06-04 13:49:12

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#21 2002-06-04 18:49:22

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#22 2002-07-01 07:13:08

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#23 2002-10-16 22:06:28

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#24 2002-11-11 07:38:57

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#25 2002-11-11 16:58:35

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

Board footer