Two Simple Experiments that Violate Known Physics

reply to post by Exuberant1


Neat toy but the rate of rotation has nothing to do with the height of the gyro. The gyro will stay at the level of magnetic equilibrium (determined by the strength of the magnets) until the spin slows and it loses its gyroscopic stability.
www.4physics.com...


[edit on 2/26/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


"Neat toy but the rate of rotation has nothing to do with the height of the gyro."

Indeed.

Nevertheless, as the rate of rotation nears zero, the gyroscope decreases in height.

As the gyroscope begins to wobble, it's height begins to fluctuate - it decreases in height (relative to the magnetic base), and then rises again to a point lower than it was on the gyroscopes last rotation... This occurs for each rotation as the rate of rotation nears zero.

*Now phage, what will happen to the wobbly gyroscope that is fluctuating in height AFTER we increase it's speed;

Will the Gyroscope continue to decrease in height relative to the magnetic base if it's rate of rotation is increased? Or do you think it will decrease in height as we increase it's rate of rotation?

Exactly....

You can go away now. Class dismissed.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1

I have no idea what you are talking about.

When it slows enough to become unstable it falls (clunk), it does not "decrease in height", it does not fluctuate in height.

The top spins stable in the range from about 20 to 35 revolutions per second (rps). It is completely unstable above 35-40 rps and below 18 rps. After the top is spun and levitated, it slows down because of air resistance. After a few minutes it reaches the lower stability limit (18 rps) and falls.

www.4physics.com...

The height at which the gyro spins is a function of the strength of the magnets, not its rate of rotation.

reply to post by Phage


"The height at which the gyro spins is a function of the strength of the magnets, not its rate of rotation. "

Not according to Bruce De Palma and many other people who are much more intelligent than you or I will ever hope to be....

Did you even read the paper rich23 directed you to in his OP?

Because if you did, then you must have skipped over much of it, especially the observations and conclusatory portions. No matter.


*I take it you believe De Palma to be a fraud of some sorts - Perhaps you feel he has been intellectually dishonest?

Or do you take issue with the way he performed his experiments? If so, which one(s)?

reply to post by Exuberant1

I guess I did miss something. The part that has anything to do with the way a Levitron behaves.

I did skip Hoagland because, well, he's Hoagland. DePalma may have been smart but he didn't design a very well controlled experiment. And, as I wondered before, where is the independent verification of his results? Without that the results are just claims.

[edit on 2/26/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


"I did skip Hoagland because, well, he's Hoagland."

I don't blame you.

"And, as I wondered before, where is the independent verification of his results?"

Extracted from Podkletnov's Paper (pdf linked below):

"A high-temperature bulk ceramic superconductor with composite structure has revealed weak shielding properties against gravitational force in the state of levitation at temperatures below 70 K. A toroidal disk was prepared using conventional ceramic technology in combination with melt-texture growth. Two solenoids were placed around the disk in order to initiate the current inside it and also to provide rotation about its central axis. Samples placed over the rotating disk demonstrated a weight loss of 0.3-0.5%.

When the rotation speed was slowly reduced by changing the current in the solenoids, the shielding eect became considerably higher and reached 1.9-2.1% at maximum."

www.electrogravityphysics.com...

*You might not put any stock into Podkletnov's work either, but NASA does...

[edit on 26-2-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


Didn't we discuss this already? In 1999 NASA (demonstrating how "narrow minded" they are) tried to duplicate Podkletnov's work. It seems the experiment did not succeed since they stopped doing business with Superconductive Components, Inc.

The heady days when NASA paid Superconductive Components to build special disks for an anti-gravity machine are long gone.

www.highbeam.com...

DePalma's Accutron watch experiment had no relationship to Podkletnov's experiment. DePalma claimed that the clock slowed down when near a spinning disk not that it got lighter.

None of these results have been independently verified.

Clarification: NASA may not have completed the experiment

However, in both cases, the funding did not allow for the development of the rotation system needed for the completion of the test. No attempt has been made by NASA to repeat the second impulse experiment.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 2/26/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


"DePalma's Accutron watch experiment had no relationship to Podkletnov's experiment"

Well, then it is a good thing that we have been talking about the ball-bearing experiment too... ;-)

But you omit that?

Perhaps you chose to do this because De Palma's Hypothesis & Results are indeed verified by Podkletnov's toroidal disk experiment - which you have clearly chosen not to read. No matter.

*Maybe De Palma and Podkletnov are in cahoots; to trick the likes of you and me into thinking that certain samples placed over certain rotating disks can demonstrate a weight loss of 0.3-0.5% under certain conditions....

[edit on 26-2-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


Depalma did his Accutron experiment in the early 1970's. In 1977 he came up with his N-machine, a free energy device which didn't work. He moved to Australia in 1994. He died in 1997. Podkletnov published his first paper on gravity modification in 1992, while working in a Finnish university lab. His experiments involved superconductors, DePalma's did not. There is no indication of any collaboration and it seems highly unlikely that there was any.

Nor is there any verification of any of their claims (including the silly ball bearing experiment).

[edit on 2/26/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


"His experiments involved superconductors, DePalma's did not."

Indeed.

However, Both De Palma and Podkletnov both designed experiments that measured the effects of rotation.

Both De Palma and Podkletnov also Hypothesized that rotation would impart minute effects that should be included as a variable in future calculations (wherein a rotating mass is also a factor). Their research proved this to be the case, both men noted similiar observations vis-a-vis the strange actions of the rotating mass relative to a comparative non-rotating mass.

Are you familiar with the work of Ling Ni?

I recommend you read some of her papers. You will find them to be full of things that you say are impossible and unverifiable. She also includes detailed measurements and observations that you can dismiss as "claims"... ;-)

[edit on 27-2-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by rich23


Greetings Rich,

If you would like to do more research on anti-gravity and gravity shielding, I would direct you the site - The Living Moon - specifically this particular page in which several relevant links and files have been provided:

www.thelivingmoon.com...

*This site is run and maintained by fellow ATS members, and contains an abundance of interesting information.

Edit:

Here is one person's clever solution for creating a persistent anti-gravitic effect:

(Image Courtesy of Scott Hong)



[edit on 27-2-2009 by Exuberant1]

I have to ask: How do these experiments violate known physics?

As far as the first experiment goes, if anything falling 'down' towards Earth is exposed to any 'upward' force, the thing will slow down. If this additional force is present during launch, the thing will go higher.

Physics does not prevent unknown forces to act upon objects.
It also does not violate any Newton Laws so long as there is a reaction force - note if we are not able to observe this reaction force it doesn't mean it's non existent.

Also, why do ATS users have to call anything they don't understand 'anti-gravity'? If we didn't understand the basic principles of lift, but someone observed that rotating blades caused it, then on ATS standards a helicopter would be an anti-gravity device - Woot, seems like we have had those devices for quite some time then!!



[edit on 27-2-2009 by daniel_g]

Originally posted by daniel_g
I have to ask: How do these experiments violate known physics?

I'll reiterate for you since you did not read De Palma's or any other Paper that we have linked to and cited thus far: No one has claimed to have created a functional/workable/commercially viable anti-gravity device.

What has happened is that several Phsysicists have noted similiar anomalies that are present when a mass is rotating at high speeds.
For example: certain samples placed over certain rotating disks can demonstrate a weight loss of 0.3-0.5% under certain conditions. Accutron readings are also consistently effected when the measurement device itself is placed within the plane of rotation....

Most of the experiments we have linked to, -aswell as the livingmoon page in my last post - contain dozens of experiments that have been performed in a vacuum and under controlled conditions.

Originally posted by daniel_g
..note if we are not able to observe this reaction force it doesn't mean it's non existent.

I am glad you agree.

I don't think the first experiment defies any laws of physics. I think it would be more questionable if the experiment were repeated in a vacuum for the reasons I will point out.

The ball is spinning which causes air to flow around it faster making it more aerodynamic. This in turn will allow the ball to travel farther both in height and distance. This effect is the reason bullets are spun in its barrel before it is expelled from the gun. It allows the air to flow around the bullet thus increasing range and accuracy.

The launch points must be matched up on the trajectory lines you have drawn.

Depalma already explained the spinning ball experiment here in his own words:

Depalma Spinning Ball Results

How this relates to the spinning ball experiment is that the spinning of an object draws to it the quanta of inertial motion of rotation which are accumulated in the body of the flywheel and account for the altered inertial properties of the rotating object.

(ship) This explains why the spinning ball went higher than the identical non-rotating control (moving at the same initial velocity), and also explains why the spinning object falls faster than the non- rotating control. The momentous fact is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity.

If you read the rest of his explanation and you have a deep understanding of physics, everything will become clear.

As for the second experiment with the clock, the magnetic shield used is a plate, why didn't he use a Faraday cage to shield the clock?

www.wisegeek.com...
(Edited to fix broken link)

[edit on 29-6-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Phage


Oh, NASA completed the experiments. Completed them well enough that Dr. Robert Baker came around on behalf of ARL to gather up the research and researcher (Ning Li) to complete the work.

Now, i understand your disdain for Hoagland, but he makes some interesting claims about von Braun during the ExplorerI launch that, until I find out more, intrigue me. Why?

Because of the Allais effect. And i believe that this entire argument hinges on it, to be honest.

We are discussing a force (be it quantum or causative) that seems to be tied to angular momentum that is capable of negating the effects of gravity.

If you want info on Ning Li, let me know. I have a thread on it, but don't want to pimp my thread here. Just suffice it to say that NASA was successful enough to get a 500k grant for Ning Li to continue her work....before she completely vanished and Dr. Baker, strangely, went to China to pursue HFGW research with Buzz Aldrin.

Originally posted by skeptic_al
I'm not a Physist unlike Richard Hoagland,

Hoaxland is not a physist, in fact he has no degrees at all. His website is a joke - remember that"face on Mars" hoax he was pushing?

Originally posted by rich23


And why the laminar flow around the rotating ball-bearing should translate into lift is quite beyond me. A ball bearing is not a frisbee. Both experiments are based on the same principle - what Hoagland calls a "hyperdimensional" interaction derived from angular momentum. A spinning object interacts with the local torsion field to produce results which anyone can replicate.

If you read ALL the material I've posted you'll have a better chance of understanding what's going on here.

The spinning ball produces a slight counter gravitation that allows slight counter to the greater field?

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by Phage

 

"Neat toy but the rate of rotation has nothing to do with the height of the gyro."

Indeed.

Nevertheless, as the rate of rotation nears zero, the gyroscope decreases in height.

As the gyroscope begins to wobble, it's height begins to fluctuate - it decreases in height (relative to the magnetic base), and then rises again to a point lower than it was on the gyroscopes last rotation... This occurs for each rotation as the rate of rotation nears zero.

*Now phage, what will happen to the wobbly gyroscope that is fluctuating in height AFTER we increase it's speed;

Will the Gyroscope continue to decrease in height relative to the magnetic base if it's rate of rotation is increased? Or do you think it will decrease in height as we increase it's rate of rotation?

Exactly....

You can go away now. Class dismissed.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by Exuberant1]

The slight distance differintal of the spinning ball represents all the difference that can be had at that spinning speed. If you could keep the rotation at speed it should catch up to the falling sationary ball and hit the deck at the same time?