Impulse Gravity Generator Based on Charged YBa_2Cu_3O_{7-y} Superconductor

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of an Impulse Gravity Generator based on charged YBa2Cu3O7-y superconductors. Participants explore the experimental findings related to anomalous forces observed in high-Tc superconductors under non-equilibrium conditions, the implications of these findings, and the potential for new technology.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note the detection of anomalous forces near high-Tc superconductors and the construction of an apparatus that operates under extreme conditions, suggesting a new physical interaction.
  • There are claims that the impulse generated is proportional to the mass of objects and independent of their composition, which some argue implies a gravity-related phenomenon, albeit in a non-traditional sense.
  • Others express skepticism about the comparison to gravity, suggesting that the observed effect resembles a "push" rather than a gravitational pull.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the experimental setup, with some participants describing it as resembling a high potential/low potential situation rather than a ray, questioning its potential for practical applications like spaceship propulsion.
  • Historical context is provided by participants who reference previous claims made by the same researcher, noting failures to reproduce results and raising questions about the peer review process associated with funding and publication.
  • Some participants express doubt about the validity of the findings, suggesting that electric forces cannot solely account for mass-dependent effects and that the research may lack rigorous peer review.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity of the claims regarding the Impulse Gravity Generator. There are multiple competing views, with some expressing interest in the technology while others remain skeptical about the experimental results and the researcher's credibility.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the experimental setup, potential biases in funding and reporting, and the unresolved nature of the claims made about the anomalous forces. There is an acknowledgment of the need for further investigation and peer review.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
2,664
Assuming that this must be controversial at best, I am posting FYI.

Impulse Gravity Generator Based on Charged YBa_2Cu_3O_{7-y} Superconductor with Composite Crystal Structure

The detection of apparent anomalous forces in the vicinity of high-Tc superconductors under non equilibrium conditions has stimulated an experimental research in which the operating parameters of the experiment have been pushed to values higher than those employed in previous attempts. The results confirm the existence of an unexpected physical interaction. An apparatus has been constructed and tested in which the superconductor is subjected to peak currents in excess of 10^4 A, surface potentials in excess of 1 MV, trapped magnetic field up to 1 T, and temperature down to 40 K. In order to produce the required currents a high voltage discharge technique has been employed. Discharges originating from a superconducting ceramic electrode are accompanied by the emission of radiation which propagates in a focused beam without noticeable attenuation through different materials and exerts a short repulsive force on small movable objects along the propagation axis. Within the measurement error (5 to 7 %) the impulse is proportional to the mass of the objects and independent on their composition. It therefore resembles a gravitational impulse. The observed phenomenon appears to be absolutely new and unprecedented in the literature. It cannot be understood in the framework of general relativity. A theory is proposed which combines a quantum gravity approach with anomalous vacuum fluctuations.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0108005
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ivan,
Were you conducting tests with one
of these? Is that why the site
was down all evening?This is mighty peculiar. How is
it they're comparing it to grav-
ity? It seems to be a "push" ray.

In any event, if it's for real
it could lead to some extrordina-
ry technology.
 
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Ivan,
Were you conducting tests with one
of these? Is that why the site
was down all evening?[/B]



This is mighty peculiar. How is
it they're comparing it to grav-
ity? It seems to be a "push" ray.

In any event, if it's for real
it could lead to some extrordina-
ry technology.

Pretty interesting indeed. I would have expected to hear something about this by now; of course it is only a couple of years old. I have never searched for additional information about this as yet.
 
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
How is it they're comparing it to gravity? It seems to be a "push" ray.

The key statement is:
the impulse is proportional to the mass of the objects and independent on their composition

This implies a gravity related phenomenon; but as you said, in the wrong direction.
 
Ivan,

I went to the site and looked at
the diagrams of the apparatus and
it doesn't seem as exiting as it
did at first. It's looking like
there are two sort of Van de Graff
thingies between which this effect
takes place. In other words, not
a ray at all, but simply a high
potential/low potential situation.

No spaceship propulsion that I
can see. Take a look, maybe you
can make more sense out of it.

zoob
 
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Ivan,

I went to the site and looked at
the diagrams of the apparatus and
it doesn't seem as exiting as it
did at first. It's looking like
there are two sort of Van de Graff
thingies between which this effect
takes place. In other words, not
a ray at all, but simply a high
potential/low potential situation.

No spaceship propulsion that I
can see. Take a look, maybe you
can make more sense out of it.

zoob

The claim is the repeatable measurement of "mass dependent anomalous forces". These people know how to account for additional forces; not to say however that they might not be in error. However, electric forces will not act purely as a function of mass. Also, that this is a follow up [yielding improved results] should indicate that some degree of peer review has already taken place.
 
Last edited:
THis guy published the same type of thing a decade ago. A company in the US gave him a ton of money and he couldn't reproduce the results.

jmd
 
Originally posted by nbo10
THis guy published the same type of thing a decade ago. A company in the US gave him a ton of money and he couldn't reproduce the results.

jmd

Well I am sure that if we just gave him enough money it would work eventually.

Too bad. It sounded interesting. I was wondering why nothing else had shown up in the lit about this.

What happened to the process of peer review? Wouldn't other professors review his work before he was given another grant?

Also, are you sure that these are not the results sought by the original funding? He does mention some previous, less significant results.
 
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Well I am sure that if we just gave him enough money it would work eventually. This is true. Or you could give
me the grant money and I could
push an object or two around on
a table top for a few minutes
every day.
 
  • #10
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

What happened to the process of peer review? Wouldn't other professors review his work before he was given another grant?

Unfortunately this isn't always the case especially for government/military/nasa research. This could just as easily happen in research funded by a private corperation.

Without the proper peer review process it can be very tempting to report a negative result as inconclusive and requiring further invesitgation. Especially because otherwise is basically telling who's paying you to fire you.
 
  • #11
Gravity generator or not what amazes me is that anything should repel at all.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K