Story Link: <http://www.americanantigravity.com/articles/498/1/
ESA Announces Gravity-Modification Breakthrough
Gravitomagnetic London Effect Found in Rotating Superconductors
This week the <http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
Space Agency announced the results of an experimental test in which a
superconductor rotating at 6,500 rpm is shown to gain weight as the result
of what is believed to be a gravity-modification effect. As reported by the
ESA, "The experiment demonstrated that a superconductive gyroscope is
capable of generating a powerful gravitomagnetic field, and is therefore the
gravitational counterpart of the magnetic coil. Although just 100 millionths
of the acceleration due to the Earths gravitational field, the measured
field is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than
Einsteins General Relativity predicts."
The results were presented March 21st at the ESA's European Space and
Technology Research Centre (ESTEC), in a paper entitled "
> Experimental Detection of the
Gravitomagnetic London Moment". The paper predicts the presence of a large
gravitomagnetic field within a rotating superconductor, and describes the
experimental detection of this phenomenon as an extra-gravitational
acceleration on the superconductor on the order of 100 µg.
The experiment was performed by Dr's <http://ilfb.tuwien.ac.at/~tajmar/
Martin Tajmar & Clovis De Matos at ARC Seibersdorf, Austria's largest
independent research laboratory. Tajmar, the Head of Field Space Propulsion
Business for ARC, was quoted as stating that these results, while
preliminary, were nonetheless rigorously reviewed before publication, "We
ran more than 250 experiments, improved the facility over 3 years and
discussed the validity of the results for 8 months before making this
announcement. Now we are confident about the measurement." Dr. Tajmar
previously commented on this continuing research study during a
> video-interview with
American Antigravity at STAIF 2006.
While the announcement of these initial test-results is highly promising,
Tajmar suggested that more experimentation is required before the results
can be considered fully conclusive. In a statement Saturday, Tajmar
remarked, "Of course, this effect needs further confirmation with other
sensors, setups, etc. As an experimentalist, it is always very hard to
release such data knowing that the claims are extraordinary, so I really
want to be very cautious."
Tajmar's experimental results follow in a long thread of anecdotal claims &
theoretical predictions from scientists such as Dr's Ning Li, Evgeny
Podkletnov, Douglas Torr, Robert Baker, Raymond Chiao, and David Maker.
While Li & Podletnov have described seeing remarkable large-scale
experimental results, other experiments have produced no results whatsoever,
creating a general uncertainty in the scientific community as to whether
gravitomagnetic effects do in fact exist in superconductors.
Dr. Clive Woods of Iowa State University addressed the issue of
gravitational-coupling in superconductors in a recent publication entitled "
Gravitational Wave Optics". His research revisits earlier calculations by Li
& Torr showing that gravitational waves inside a Type-II superconductor
propogate with a phase-velocity 300 times slower than in free-space, and
leading to the hypothesis that a superconductor may require focusing in
order to correctly absorb & re-radiate gravitational waves. This notion may
explain in part at least some of the difficulty found in obtaining
consistent experimental results, as illustrated by the experimental failure
of Dr. Raymond Chiao's "
experiment in 2003.
While Woods publication certainly seems to provide new insight into
manipulating gravitational force using superconductors, Tajmar believes that
Woods research is not applicable to this latest experiment, "As you have
probably seen in the experimental paper, we found the effect in Nb and Pb
(Type-II and Type-I) - so it's not specifically related to Type-I or II
superconductors. Moreover, Clive based his focusing requirements on the
speed of gravity equation from an old Li & Torr paper - after calculating
through her paper, I believe that this specific equation is not correct."
Another startling aspect of Tajmar's reported experimental results is the
scale, which demonstrates a coupling many orders of magnitude higher than
both Relativity Theory and earlier research into High-Frequency
Gravity-Waves (HFGW's) would predict. HFGW researcher & STAIF
Session-Chairperson Gary Stephenson commented on this by noting that the
difference in scale of the reported effects may be the result of Tajmar's
experimental implimentation, which he described as a "DC static
gravitomagnetic field, potentially bound by different coupling efficiencies
than those predicted by the wavelike AC-nature of traditional High-Frequency
If the gravitomagnetic coupling coefficient is in fact higher for
rotating-superconductors than for HFGW experiments, it could mean new life
for the experimental research of
> Dr. Evgeny Podkletnov,
best-known for a <http://www.wired.com/wired/6.03/antigravity.html
highly-publicized 1996 claim to have created a
> 2% decrease in the weight of a YBCO
Type-II superconductor rotating at 5,000 rpm. Podkletnov has since then also
described creating a powerful " <http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0108005
force-beam" apparatus by passing a high-energy electrical discharge from a
Marx-Generator through a superconducting spark-gap during experimentation at
the Moscow Chemical Research Institute in Russia.
Gary Stephenson commented in the similarity between the 1996 experiments and
Tajmar's results, stating, "Tajmar's experiment seems highly analogous to
Podkletnov's experiment, but based on a firmer theoretical foundation. In
essence, they are <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2157975.stm
spinning a superconductor, which is exactly what Podkletnov claimed produced
an identical -- albeit larger-- result."
STAIF Conference Section-F Chairman Paul Murad made a more direct
comparison, stating, "Is this truly the first time that we've seen this
effect, or has it perhaps already been documented under different
manifestations? Is this the same as Podkletnov's gravity-shielding effect? I
can't help but wonder if these results have been seen in the past in other
experiments, and perhaps were either not reported or instead attributed to
other causal factors..."
With Tajmar's recent publication raising more questions than answers, there
seems to be only one point of clear consensus -- the need for additional
research. Paul Murad summarized the views of many with the statement, "For
the moment, I'm taking a wait and see attitude to see how this research
further develops. We also have to see the experimental setup, possible
environmental & terrestrial sources of error, and a variety of successful
experimental replications before making a determination. We need to see this
reproduced by others before making a final decision."
> ESA: Towards a
New Test of General Relativity?, <http://ilfb.tuwien.ac.at/~tajmar/
Tajmar Homepage, <http://www.wired.com/wired/6.03/antigravity.html
Breaking The Law of Gravity,
Tajmar Video Interview (STAIF 2006),
> Eugene Podkletnov Audio
Interview #1, <http://www.americanantigravity.com/articles/41/1/
Podkletnov Audio Interview #2
> Experimental Detection
of the Gravitomagnetic London Moment, <http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0603032
Local Photon and Graviton Mass and its Consequences
High-Frequency Gravitational-Wave Optics,
> Weak gravitational shielding
properties of superconductors, <http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0209051
Investigation of HV discharges through large ceramic superconducting
> Superconductor Impulse
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]