Posted on 10/10/2001 12:45:11 PM PDT by RightWhale
NASA's Controversial Gravity Shield Experiment Fails to Produce
By Jack Lucentini
Special to SPACE.com posted: 11:50 am ET
10 October 2001
After a second round of tests, NASA researchers have failed to detect signs that a machine can weaken gravity’s pull.
But they plan to continue the research – shocking some mainstream physicists, who call it junk science.
The researchers say a device that loosens the clutch of gravity, sometimes called a gravity shield, may be the only way to enable human spacecraft to blast off to other star systems.
But the research lies on the fringe of accepted science. Some of its own proponents admit it flies against virtually every established law of physics.
Other scientists go further.
"Good heavens. This is incredible," said Robert L. Park, director of the Washington, D.C. office of the American Physical Society, upon learning that the NASA researchers haven’t given up. "I mean, every physicist I know – and they must have some on the staff there – has told me how absurd this research was."
The space agency has spent about five years and at least $600,000 on the project.
In a paper presented at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics’ Joint Propulsion Research Conference in Salt Lake City in July, the researchers called their latest tests "inconclusive."
The experiments utilized a device made from a superconductor, a ceramic in which, at certain temperatures, electric current can flow utterly freely.
The study was inspired by the work in the early 1990s of a Russian scientist, Eugene Podkletnov. He claimed to have measured a weakening of Earth’s gravity by 2 percent near a specialized superconductor spinning in a magnetic field.
"Our objective was to design, construct and implement a discriminating experiment which would put these observations on a more firm footing," said the NASA paper. "No conclusion at this time can be made."
The researchers said several factors had hampered the experiment. One was that the balance, for measuring mass, didn’t work at very low temperatures.
It’s worth trying again with an improved setup, said the NASA paper, whose lead author was Glen A. Robertson, research scientist at the agency’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. It was at least the second time the agency has tried but failed to replicate Podkletnov’s results.
The researchers didn’t return phone calls early this week. But Randall Peters, a consultant to the project and a physics professor with Mercer University, Macon, Ga., said in an interview that the effort is "worthwhile," despite the difficulties.
David Drachlis, a spokesman for the NASA center, added that the project continues.
What has dogged the research, experts say, is that Podkletnov failed to adequately document his findings. Podkletnov declined to comment for this article.
"Antigravity" research has provoked debate for years.
The idea violates a bedrock principle of physics – conservation of energy – that says you can’t create energy from nothing. It defies this edict because it implies you could lift something without spending the necessary "price" in energy normally required. Then, by dropping it, you could give it an energy boost equaling the full "regular" price.
Yet several considerations make the concept intriguing to some.
First is a rather striking apparent coincidence: Podkletnov’s findings appeared to match phenomena earlier predicted independently by a University of Alabama at Huntsville scientist, Ning Li.
Second, many renowned physicists believe nature has an underlying unity, by which all its forces are fundamentally connected.
This means electromagnetism and gravity are somehow linked. The "gravity shield" could conceivably operate at the bridge between the two forces, interacting with both.
The NASA group suggested the link is a recently discovered, exotic form of energy, "zero-point fluctuations." This consists of minute particles that flicker in and out of existence in what we normally think of as empty space.
Cold fusion makes considerable heat output; up to >1000watts/cm3.
That power density has increased continuously since 1989.
You might peddle your inaccurate facts to Taliban Bob Park.
You've gotta provide a source for that claim, I'm afraid.
That was supposed to remain a secret, well don't be surprized if your neighbors cat gets vaporized!
Paging Ambassador Kosh. Please come to the white courtesy vidphone.
you might either read the literature or go back under your rock.
Bob Lazar knows how it works.
Expand NASA. Give them a lot more money because they are one of the few government agencies who do something useful.
ALL we need is "Mo Money..."
And furthermore, earth is not a friendly place with these wannabe predators [terrorists] preying on the sheep [us]. It's a temporary misconception people have from time to time when they prey on other people, that some are predators and others prey, but these prey are not in sheep mode any longer. They are wolves, but we are wolves, too, wolves in sheeps' clothing. After this infestation is taken care of, we will get back to worrying about extending our civilization to the interstellar realms.
We don't actually need faster than light travel or antigravity to extend our borders out to, say, the nearest 50 stars, a few light years. Plus, there is progress in that instantaneous communicator device, apparently a real phenomenon --quantum entanglement-- real science.
ROTFLMAO!!!! D-man, I think you'd better read the man's resume, and then apologize.
That is the other side of the argument. They could be given a serious mission, such as building a moon base or a manned station orbiting Mars. If they had that, I say double, even triple their funding level. But the odds are against this happening anytime soon.
P.S. I'm kidding.
P.S. I'm kidding.
No burocrat will take the risk that some whacko living in the Mojave Desert might build himself a working flying suacer while they are playing with big rockets. Very bad for the career.
Now if you're talking about controlled fusion using lasers etc., that's another topic and in line with accepted knowledge of nuclear reactions. I'm talking about "Cold Fusion in a Jar" as first proposed by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons.
If you want to read more about this, try the following link:
And let's keep the personal stuff like crawling under rocks out of it, OK? This is just a scientific discussion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.