Podkletnov's anti gravity

[force_redo]

I just remembered seeing this program on TV some years ago where a russian scientist showed how he defies gravity. (At least to a small percentage)
I googled it up this morning and I mostly find whacky sites (those with strangely cloloured backgrounds, suggesting tin foil hats...) about it which don't have any credibility to me at all.

I found two serious websites, though, which just said that there are experiments still ongoing. I think NASA conducted one that went wrong.
Unfortunately I'm not allowed to post the links here, but you can easily google them up with words like Podkletnov, gravity, etc

Since I don't read any science journals, I was wondering whether anybody knows what became of those experiments not conducted by Podkletnov himself. Are there any results published?

Thanks,
FR

 

[Mojo]

I found two serious websites, though, which just said that there are experiments still ongoing. I think NASA conducted one that went wrong.

By "went wrong" do you just mean that no effect was observed, or did it go really disastrously wrong and, say, end up with the entire investigating team stuck to the ceiling?

 

[force_redo]

By "went wrong" do you just mean that no effect was observed, or did it go really disastrously wrong and, say, end up with the entire investigating team stuck to the ceiling?

Yes, they all flew around, suddenly developing paranormal skills and were abducted by aliens the same night... ;-)
Funny thought. No, I would have considered that a succsess!
Apparently they weren't able to reproduce it. Podkletnov (of course) said they had done it wrong in some way. I don't really understand enough of the subject matter, but it involves a spinning disc and a superconductor. (A shame that I can't post these Links, I have to get to 15 forum posts somehow...) And he claims they made this disc wrong in some way.
And, according to one of those websites the production of this (ceramic) disc is the crucial part of this experiment.

However, as one of the "more believeable" websites states which is reporting about these tests:
"Another possibility comes from a never-before-witnessed byproduct of Einstein’s theory of relativity by which rapidly spinning objects distort gravitational fields."
Can anyone verify this as one of Einstein's theories?

FR

 

[69dodge]

I don't really understand enough of the subject matter, but it involves a spinning disc and a superconductor. (A shame that I can't post these Links, I have to get to 15 forum posts somehow...) And he claims they made this disc wrong in some way.
And, according to one of those websites the production of this (ceramic) disc is the crucial part of this experiment.

However, as one of the "more believeable" websites states which is reporting about these tests:
"Another possibility comes from a never-before-witnessed byproduct of Einstein’s theory of relativity by which rapidly spinning objects distort gravitational fields."
Can anyone verify this as one of Einstein's theories?

Relativity says something like that. Google for "gravity probe b", which is a recently-finished experiment that looks for the effect. (The raw data from the experiment hasn't been analysed yet, though.)

I do not know whether this relativistic effect could explain the anti-gravity. But I don't think so, because in general relativity two objects with the same shape and the same mass act the same as far as gravity is concerned---what the objects are made of is irrelevant. So I don't see how the production of the disc could be the crucial part of the experiment; any spinning disc ought to work just as well.

 

[force_redo]

what the objects are made of is irrelevant. So I don't see how the production of the disc could be the crucial part of the experiment; any spinning disc ought to work just as well.

Maybe that's a different thing, then. Because Podkletnov's disc seems to be a superconductor and fabricating this seems to be a problem.

to quote one of these rather whacky websites:

---

NASA’s Anti-Gravity Projects

David Noever works for NASA as a theoretical physicist and is the key figure trying to replicate Podkletnov's work. Noever explained that the team is trying several different approaches to achieve such an effect. His team uses an assortment of 1-inch superconductor discs, made from every conceivable mix of ingredients. His project hardware is a beige-painted metal unit the size of a car battery and an insulated tank about a foot in diameter, with a large coil wrapped around the base capable of taking 800 amps. This tank contains a 6-inch disc rotating in liquid helium, with a gravimeter suspended above.

Noever’s team is struggling to fabricate 12-inch discs. Current disks tend to fracture into pieces during pressing and a subsequent baking process during the 800 amp exercise. "This is what Podkletnov says is the heart of the matter," said Noever, "learning to make the discs. He said it could take us one or two years. He did reveal the composition." Noever implies that gravity may have properties of natural frequencies higher than those commonly used in X-rays or microwave machines. Such high frequencies penetrate all known materials. “A superconductor disc could resonate and downshift the frequency to a lower level where it could be blocked by normal matter....But this is all very speculative." Noever explained that this is but one of three theories that could explain gravity shielding.

---

(only a few more posts and I can paste the link. ;-) What's this "no link before the 15th post" regulation about, anyways?)

FR

 

[Mojo]

Apparently they weren't able to reproduce it.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the experiment went wrong. There may just not be an effect to observe.

Podkletnov (of course) said they had done it wrong in some way.

I'll resist the temptation to quote Mandy Rice-Davis here...

 

[DrMatt]

Suppose a machine makes a chamber within which gravity is negated....even partially.

Put a really heavy flywheel PARTLY in the chamber.

Voila, a flywheel which rotates forever, and even picks up speed due to the torque of differential weight. Let's apply that torque do do work instead of to speed up the wheel... say, by using it to generate electricity to run the anti-gravity machine. Any electricity left over, we get as free energy.

We all know this scenario.

It's called a perpetual motion machine, or a free energy machine.

 

[force_redo]

by using it to generate electricity to run the anti-gravity machine. Any electricity left over, we get as free energy.

We all know this scenario.

It's called a perpetual motion machine, or a free energy machine.

True, but what if it generates way less than it needs? I mean, I'm really no expert in this field by no means, but liquid cooled superconductors surely need sone energy...

FR

 

[force_redo]

That doesn't necessarily mean that the experiment went wrong. There may just not be an effect to observe. I'll resist the temptation to quote Mandy Rice-Davis here...

I presume the entire thing doesn't work, otherwise Mr. Podkletnov would be at least standing in the market square of Helsinki showing his machine to the broad public... ;-)

I was just curious wether there were any findings published about these follow up experiments.

And who is Mandy Rice-Davis?

FR

 

[Dave_46]

I'll resist the temptation to quote Mandy Rice-Davis here...

Your memory goes back a long way - like mine.

Dave

 

[DrMatt]

True, but what if it generates way less than it needs? I mean, I'm really no expert in this field by no means, but liquid cooled superconductors surely need sone energy...

FR

Use a more massive and dense flywheel.

 

[Unnamed]

Suppose a machine makes a chamber within which gravity is negated....even partially.

Put a really heavy flywheel PARTLY in the chamber.

Voila, a flywheel which rotates forever, and even picks up speed due to the torque of differential weight. Let's apply that torque do do work instead of to speed up the wheel... say, by using it to generate electricity to run the anti-gravity machine. Any electricity left over, we get as free energy.

We all know this scenario.

It's called a perpetual motion machine, or a free energy machine.

That sounds intuitive, but...

A material point outside the chamber at a height has a potential energy mgh. The same point inside has a potential energy mg*h (with g* < g). So, in order to move the point from outside to inside, we need to dissipate an energy m(g-g*)h. Physically, this means that there is an attractive force towards the chamber, located at the interface (the intensity of which is m(g-g*)h/Dx, where Dx is the thickness of the transition layer).

If you put a flywheel there, this attractive force will be stronger at the top part (due to the "h" term). This force creates a net counterclockwise torque (assuming the wheel is at the left). But the outside part of the wheel is heavier, generating a clockwise torque.

The result is a static wheel, as expected.

My point is that an anti-gravity chamber is not impossible for this reason. There may be others

 

[Dave_46]

And who is Mandy Rice-Davis?

FR

A "lady" involved in a sex scandal with a UK government minister (John Profumo) in the sixties I think.

She famously said something like "Well he would say that wouldn't he"

Dave

 

[force_redo]

Use a more massive and dense flywheel.

Well, but still:
Let's say you use the material with the highest density known. (Whatever that is. Gold? Well, I guess there's something denser I don't know about.)

Now let's say the acceleration you gain is equal or less to the acceleration you would gain by simply investing the same energy you use for your anti-gravity apperatus into an engine of some sort to spin the wheel.

In other words: I don't think that the impossibility of a perpetuum mobile prooves the impossibility of a "gravity shield". But, again, I'm no expert, it just doesn't sound convincing to me.

Sounds to me like prooving that photovoltaic (spelling?) doesn't work because you could power a lamp that shines on a solar panel with the energy gained.

But maybe I'm missing something there.

FR

 

[force_redo]

A material point outside the chamber at a height has a potential energy mgh. The same point inside has a potential energy mg*h (with g* < g). So, in order to move the point from outside to inside, we need to dissipate an energy m(g-g*)h. Physically, this means that there is an attractive force towards the chamber, located at the interface (the intensity of which is m(g-g*)h/Dx, where Dx is the thickness of the transition layer).

If you put a flywheel there, this attractive force will be stronger at the top part (due to the "h" term). This force creates a net counterclockwise torque (assuming the wheel is at the left). But the outside part of the wheel is heavier, generating a clockwise torque.

Sorry, may I ask you to explain that once more? I'm sure you're right, I just don't get it. All I know about physics is from school and that's a while ago...

Can you apply this to this example:

Let's say we have a rotating stick with a weight on either side. (I don't like wheels, they confuse me. ;-) I know they're practically the same)
Now I would say we have two different states.
a.) one of the weights is inside the "box"
b.) None of the weights is inside the "box"

During a.) I would think the one in the box raises and the other one falls.
(That's at least how Podkletnov showed his device. With a scale with two identical weights either side) To whomever he showed it...
Hence the stick is spinning.

During b.) gravity affects both weights the same hence cancelling itself out. But the momentum keeps stick spinning.

So intuitively (and there's my mistake, I guess) I would say DrMatt is right.

What do I overlook? Where does the force come from that acts in the other direction?

Really sorry to bother you, but I'm here to learn! Maybe it helps me to understand if we assume that the gravity in the "box" is zero?

FR

 

[Unnamed]

Sorry, may I ask you to explain that once more? I'm sure you're right, I just don't get it. All I know about physics is from school and that's a while ago...

No problem, clarity is not my strongest point.

Let's say we have a rotating stick with a weight on either side. (I don't like wheels, they confuse me. ;-) I know they're practically the same)
Now I would say we have two different states.
a.) one of the weights is inside the "box"
b.) None of the weights is inside the "box"

During a.) I would think the one in the box raises and the other one falls.
(That's at least how Podkletnov showed his device. With a scale with two identical weights either side) To whomever he showed it...
Hence the stick is spinning.

During b.) gravity affects both weights the same hence cancelling itself out. But the momentum keeps stick spinning.

That is correct so far.

So intuitively (and there's my mistake, I guess) I would say DrMatt is right.

What do I overlook? Where does the force come from that acts in the other direction?

The mistake is to assume that there is a smooth transition from being "inside" to "outside" the box.

When the weight is inside, but just coming outside the box due to the rotation, it's potential energy will have to increase by a certain amount. And any change in potential energy due to a change in position creates a corresponding force.

An intuitive equivalent would be to imagine a very steep ramp that the weight has to climb before being "able" to leave the box.

If there is not enough momentum, then the weight is unable to leave the box and bounces back as if hitting a wall.

On the other hand, if there is enough momentum, it will just slow down (converting kinetic energy to potential energy).

In any way, energy is conserved and you can't extract useful work.

 

[Unnamed]

When the weight is inside, but just coming outside the box due to the rotation, it's potential energy will have to increase by a certain amount. And any change in potential energy due to a change in position creates a corresponding force.

The illustration represents this situation:

The weight outside is still under a stronger gravitational force, but there is also a horizontal force that needs to be overcome before the weight inside can leave.

It may seem artificial to use energy conservation to ensure energy conservation, but that's how it works. If you replace the gravitational field by an electric field and the weights by charges, you can get a feasible setup that is (roughly) equivalent to this, and still there is no free energy.

ETA: The forces don't balance, there should be a reaction at the central support.

 

[force_redo]

The illustration represents this situation:

The weight outside is still under a stronger gravitational force, but there is also a horizontal force that needs to be overcome before the weight inside can leave.

It may seem artificial to use energy conservation to ensure energy conservation, but that's how it works. If you replace the gravitational field by an electric field and the weights by charges, you can get a feasible setup that is (roughly) equivalent to this, and still there is no free energy.

ETA: The forces don't balance, there should be a reaction at the central support.

Great! Thank you very much indeed. That helped a lot. I think I can imagine quite vivdly what the problem is now.
Funny thing is: If I would have thought of an electric (or even magnetic) field from the beginning, I would have instantly agreed that it doesn't work. I don't know why I thought of gravity being somehow "different".

Thanks again for the explaination!

FR

 

[Mojo]

And who is Mandy Rice-Davis?

 

[BillyJoe]

So, is there a proof that anti-gravity is impossible to achieve?