Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NASA's Controversial Gravity Shield Experiment Fails to Produce
space.com ^ | 10 Oct 01 | Jack Lucentini

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.


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: electrogravitics; podkletnov
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-112 next last
To: RightWhale
Graham Bell, sponsor of Michelson, was interested in testing the new Maxwell equations. The non-result forced a modification. But this case is different in that there is no Maxwell putting forth a new set of equations. This is a stab in the dark.

Michelson's negative result was unexpected, unintuitive, and (at that time) unexplainable. The negative result in the gravity shield experiment is what almost anyone who'd heard of the idea did expect.

61 posted on 10/10/2001 2:22:40 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Dr. Miles is from China Lake (USN, CA), Dr Szpak is from San Diego (USN, CA)
Dr. Storms is from Los Alamos. There have been confirmations of correlated
helium production at other national labs.

Try using Science Citations for more recent publications of which there are many.

More refs here:
References
References
FAQ, more refs

M. Miles, R.A. Hollins, B.F.Bush, J.J. Lagowski, R.E.
Miles, "Correlation of excess power and helium
production during D2O and H2O electrolysis using
palladium cathodes ", J. Electroanal. Chem., 346, 99-117
(1993).

M. H. Miles, B.F.Bush, "Heat and Helium Measurements
in Deuterated Palladium", Transactions of Fusion
Technology, Vol.26, 4T, Part 2, 156-159, (Dec. 1994)
M. Miles, B. F. Bush, D. E. Stillwell, "Calorimetric
Principles and Problems in Measurements of Excess
Power during Pd-D2O Electrolysis," J. Phys. Chem., 98,
1948-1952, (1994).

S.Szpak, P.Mosier-Boss, "Anomalous Behavior of the
Pd/D System",(1995)

Szpak, S., P. A. Mosier-Boss and J. J. Smith, "Reliable
Procedure for the Initiation of the Fleischmann-Pons

Effect," Proc.
of the Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, Como, Italy,
July l991,"The Science of
Cold Fusion," Vol. 33 (T. Bressani,E. Del Giudice and G.
Preparata, eds), p. 87.

E. Storms, "Cold Fusion Heats Up," MIT Technology
Review, 20-29, May-June (1994)

E. Storms, "Review of Experimental Observations About
the Cold Fusion Effect," Fusion Technology, 20, 433-477,
(1991).

E. Storms, C. Talcott, "Electrolytic Tritium Production",
Fusion Technology, 17, 680, (1990).

Storms, E., "Measurements of Excess Heat From a
Pons-Fleischmann Type Electrolytic Cell Using Palladium
Sheet," Fusion Technol. 23 (1993) 230; Storms, E., Proc.
ICCF3, October 21-25, 1992, Nagoya Japan, Frontiers of
Cold Fusion, (H. Ikegami, ed.), p.21.

Storms, E., "Some Characteristics of Heat Production
Using the 'Cold Fusion' Effect," Proc. ICCF4, Lahaina,
Maui, Dec. 6-9, 1993. EPRI TR-104188-V2 (1994), p 4

===========================

An apology is owed to the researchers of this field
whose existence will minimize how much the US must rely on oil.

62 posted on 10/10/2001 2:23:59 PM PDT by Diogenesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I myself tried to defy the law of gravity the other day, using a bananna-peal device. Alas, just as I had slipped the bonds of gravity, I fell on my tush. But this negative result will not discourage me.

What we need is a legislative, not scientific, approach to the problem. An illustrative story, the source of which excapes me, follows:

Once upon a time, in a Kingdom far-far-away (or something like that) there was a King who felt the pain of his people having to carry the burdens of themselves and their possessions about. He asked his science adviser: "Why do the people suffer so?" The adviser replied: "It is due to the Law of Gravity, Your Immenseness."

And so the King was inspired to obtain the consent of the his parliament for a Proclamation to Repeal the Law of Gravity. And having obtained said consent, the King declared a great Holiday throughout his Kingdom, on which he would sign the Proclamation into law, repealing the Law of Gravity, and forever more relieving the burden of his subjects from having to bear the weight of objects or their bodies. And all the loyal subjects gathered around the Royal Castle as the King prepared to sign the proclamation into law. As the Royal Clock chimed high noon, the King affixed his signature to the proclamation, and a shout of joy went up from the throng.....

..... whereupon everyone and everything not attached firmly to the earth was instantly flung off into space, including the King, his subjects, cows, horses, and even the air, for in his zeal to alleviate the burdens of his people, the King had overlooked the necessity of Repealing the Law of Inertia along with the Law of Gravity.

I fully expect NASA's experiments to be just about as successful as a legislative approach would be to the anti-gravity problem.

63 posted on 10/10/2001 2:26:42 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Gordian Blade
I checked your resume. You are smart enough that you

should have checked this out yourself, rather than rely on

those who apparently dont know anything about it.

64 posted on 10/10/2001 2:27:09 PM PDT by Diogenesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: All of you infidel pagan non-educated types (wink)
By definition, if an experiment in performed accurately, the result is not 'positive' or 'negative'. It is The Result.

That's not to say The Result may not match The Expected Result - they may very well be at odds with one-another. But The Result is still just The Result.

Hence, EVERY experiment is worthwhile as long as the outcome is not known q.e.d.

Don't be baggin on our boys at NASA - they've advanced the world more with their failures than virtually all the Democrats have... ;)

65 posted on 10/10/2001 2:28:36 PM PDT by very_right_in_kc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
I thought the Dean Drive solved this problem back in the late 50's. Guess this is the modern electronic version. You're Right more than you're wrong.
66 posted on 10/10/2001 2:29:23 PM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Whoopee! An anti gravity spaceship powered by cold fusion!
67 posted on 10/10/2001 2:37:44 PM PDT by Arkie2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
NASA does and/or helps fund plenty of basic research in many different fields. Some are more pragmatic than others. The point here is to develop the mesuring devices needed for super conductivity/unified field theory work. There is a long way to go here, but if it proves useful in the end, we all profit. Major economic expansions are fueled by cultural wide industrial paradigmn shifts. To find technologies that will broadly affect our culture, much research, some in seemingly silly areas, needs be done. The NASA technology transfer to industry program provides for quick trun around application of new technologies for American business thus creating a test bed for potential new paradigmn technologies.
68 posted on 10/10/2001 2:41:48 PM PDT by winner45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: very_right_in_kc
Don't be baggin on our boys at NASA

We're ragging on the institute not the personnel. It's nearly criminal to keep all that excellent ability and talent chained to a dead-end space station support mission. Exciting things could be happening if they could be let off their leash. Progress there has been; progress is unavoidable with such a level of expertise. But the progress there should have been in the past 30 years is nowhere in evidence. Where is the moon base? Where is the Mars base? Where is the interplanetary shuttle? Should have all that up and running by now.

69 posted on 10/10/2001 2:49:38 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Gordian Blade
I apologize for mentioning a rock, but if I had used the ostrich metaphor
the intellectual half of PETA might have gotten upset.


70 posted on 10/10/2001 2:52:39 PM PDT by Diogenesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

Comment #71 Removed by Moderator

To: winner45
if it proves useful in the end, we all profit

Then triple NASA's budget; build the moon base, go to Mars and build the Mars orbiting base. With that kind of career beacon you will get more young people going for technical degrees; you will get more science taught in school. Economic effects won't be trickledown, they will be a deluge. It will make the medieval terrorists all the more envious, maybe envious enough to give up their quixotic missions and join civilization.

72 posted on 10/10/2001 2:56:04 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

Comment #73 Removed by Moderator

To: Diogenesis
Your newest paper listed is from '96. To date none of the work you've listed has been corroborated. I've never seen anything that indicates cold fusion is a real phenomenon, or a possibility. If it was I'd have seen it. I make devices to measure calorimetric, and electrical energy balance in electrochemical cells.
74 posted on 10/10/2001 3:12:14 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Human spacecraft. As opposed to the Vorlons, I suppose.

B5 fan?

75 posted on 10/10/2001 3:13:05 PM PDT by NativeSon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
After a lifetime of work, my calculations reveal that a fat person suffers from gravity more than a thin person. The conclusion is obvious. Gravity isn't the problem; it's weight! If we all go on a diet, we can conquer gravity! I gladly donate the royalties from my discovery to the Clinton defense fund.
76 posted on 10/10/2001 3:21:23 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Gordian Blade
Unlike the electromagnetic force, which has positive and negative charges so there is a possibility of shielding one sign of charge with the other, gravity is caused by mass-energy density which is always positive, according to Einstein's theory. So by everything we know as it applies to ordinary matter, including superconductors, gravity can't be shielded.

Masterful. I couldn't have said it better myself. Welcome to FreeRepublic!

Bedrosian...that name sounds familiar. Sci.physics, perhaps?

77 posted on 10/10/2001 3:23:51 PM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
It was at least the second time the agency has tried but failed to replicate Podkletnov’s results.

I hate to say I told you so, but...no, scratch that. I have no problem with saying I told you so. I told you so!

78 posted on 10/10/2001 3:26:32 PM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gordian Blade
Sorry to tell you, but Cold Fusion is an illusion.

Yep, fusion in a bottle ain't be happenin'.

Do you remember the claim- I think by a south eatern university- that they achieved "Cold Fusion"? It made the covers of "science" publications before the frenzy to reproduce the results...

79 posted on 10/10/2001 3:28:06 PM PDT by NativeSon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
I noticed the references you gave are fairly old, the last one is from 1995. Have there been any recent studies done that show more energy return?
80 posted on 10/10/2001 3:29:39 PM PDT by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-112 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson