Talk:Eugene Podkletnov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Physics Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Burkhard Heim 2 Gravitomagnetic explanation? 3 Shouldn't this be placed under pseudoscience? 4 Revision 5 Tajmar and Matos eprint 6 Woodward link 7 Students beware 8 Not confirmed but not refuted?

[edit] Burkhard Heim

Even if it is most likely recognized that this experiment does not work. It is still interessting that Burkhard Heim invented a theory that could explain the theory.

(unsigned comment by User:Helohe 16:35, 19 July 2005)

To the contrary, it seems that the handful of professional physicists who tried to read Heim's paper declared it incomprehensible. It seems that Heim wrote down an Ansatz for producing mass spectra, but apparently no-one can guess what theoretical motivation (if any) he may have had in mind. The current version of Heim theory is much too uncritical of a "theory" which is regarded by mainstream physicists as very obscure and of very questionable value-- and as apparently not being a theory of fundamental physics at all, as most would understand this term! I see that uncritical references to Heim theory have been cropping up all over the map in the WP; these should be systematically toned down (and in some cases, removed outright on the grounds of being completely irrelevant to the real subject of a given article). ---CH 01:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If you do dig up on heim theory however, you will find that his theory does predict that a rotating magnetic field would create a gravitational field. I do beleive it is worth a mention especially since a paper based on his theory was awarded a prize last year.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.0.74 (talk • contribs). in North Vancouver (this IP is registered to Shaw Cablesystems of Calgary, Alberta, Canada) 10:56, 11 April 2006

I believe the incident which this anon mentions may be the award by the AIAA of a prize to a paper by Hauser, a proponent of Heim theory. This incident has been discussed in various places, e.g. this article from New Scientist. I'll just point out (again!) that theoretical physics is apparently not the profession of the AIAA panel which awarded the prize. Quoting from the NS article: despite the bafflement of most physicists at the theory that supposedly underpins it, Pavlos Mikellides, an aerospace engineer at the Arizona State University in Tempe who reviewed the winning paper, stands by the committee's choice. So, according to NS, physicists are baffled by this award (I agree), and Mikellides at least is not a physicist. ---CH 17:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gravitomagnetic explanation?

Under general relativity, a forcibly-accelerated mass generates an gravitational field that points in its direction of acceleration - basically, it resists (inertia) and fights back by trying to drag nearby stuff along with it (frame-dragging).

pod-thingy's disc was a superconducting wafer with a hole punched in the middle, spun by an applied EM field from a current passed through coils (above one surface?). Now, perhaps you might expect this to set up eddy currents in the disc, and if those currents circulate inward along one surface and outward along the other, what you have at the inner and outer edges is an horribly-abrupt acceleration in the ballistc electrons that ought to be projectng a gravitaitonal effect that points along the rotaion axis, in one direction and in the other direction around the rim. You might expect these to cancel out at a distance for a non-rotating disc (ignoring non-linearities), but since these discs were spinning, the existence of a radial Coriolis field throws some assumptions off that would suggest cancellation.

So there's possibly a genuine effect expected under standard theory here, there's just a grey area over whether its supposed to be unmeasurably small or something more notable.

The good news is, IF this is the missing explanation for the effect, the gravitomagnetic hypthesis would be easily testable: you'd just reverse the electical polarity of the "spinner" coils to produce opposite eddy currents and change the upper surface from "blowing" to "sucking". Oh, and maybe flip the wafer over, too, in case there are any persistent eddy currents trapped in the wafer after power-down.

I'm not claiming that this is what's really happenning, buy hey, its logical and testable idea. (one might also want to look for an anomalous power drain from the rotator coils when the field is supposedly doing something physical)

(unsigned comment by User:ErkDemon 17:51, 8 September 2005)

Whoever wrote this appears to have very little understanding of general relativity. A forcibly-accelerated mass generates... is a ludicrously inaccurate description of what mainstream physicists usually mean by the term frame-dragging. This term is often confused with gravitomagnetism, but these are not really the same thing. The author of the quoted phrase probably was trying to give a munged description of the mass quadrupole approximation in the generation of gravitational radiation in weak-field gtr, which is something yet again.---CH 01:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shouldn't this be placed under pseudoscience?

I think that'd be premature. Some "anomalous" results turn out to be due to accidents, some turn out to be malice by third parties, others are unfortunate coincidences and "complex" behaviour (e.g. the secretary upstairs can't work when your equipment is running because of the noise, and always choses to switch on the expresso machine at that moment, creating a power surge that always throws off your readings whenever you warm up your accelerator coil), some are fraud, some are self-delusion, and some ... some actually turn out to be genuine. Sometimes experiments just go legitimately wrong, there are piles of reasonably well known physics experiments that really shouldn't have been taken seriously with hindsight, even though they gave the "right" answers.

If people were running about claiming that the Podkletnov result is definitely correct, then that might be pseudoscience (but I haven't personally seen anyone doing that). If they claim its definitely wrong, that might be pseudoscience too (personal bias masquerading as scientific fact). The scientific approach, IMO, is to try to find out, objectvely, if the thing is right or not. Which the appropriate people seem to be trying to do, in measured way, only expending approriate resources, and not saying much in advance. This all seems to me to be appropriate.

As I said, the good news is that because of the topology of the experiment, if it is a "pseudoeffect" then some of the obvious sources of error should be comparatively easy to debunk. For instance, if one visited his lab, and asked him to run the experiment with the coil polarity reversed and the disk flipped over, and his colleague in another part of the building still reported a deflection of the same polarity, then that would rule out the first gravitomagnetic explanation (above), and make the test more "problematic" (but still not necessarily wrong) ... OTOH, if the distant colleague reports a reversed effect, and guesses the polarity correct each time in repeated blind tests, then one's confidence that this might be a real effect would tend to be higher. One can't always guarantee to work out what's really going on in an experiment, but there are things one can try (as a polite neutral observer, with an invite) to narrow down the options.ErkDemon 03:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The ESA exeriment just shed new light on the topic... Gortu 19:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Gortu is apparently referring to the Tajmar/Matos eprint; see my comments in next section. ---CH 17:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought pseudo-science was a dressing-up of non-scientific beliefs with science-y sounding explanations - like intelligent design/creationism or astrology. What Eugene Podkletnov seems to be peddling is junk science. Beerathon 13:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revision

I have revised the article to be less uncritical, as per Dispute flag. ---CH 05:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Found fabulous quotes in Wired article by Platt, completely rewrote. It turns out to be much funnier to let P speak for himself, heh. Enjoy! ---CH 07:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Someday I may get a chance to revise the (currently horrid) articles on gravitational radiation to explain a conventional approach in weak-field gtr to generating thunderbolts and other "dangerous" gravitational waves. This background makes this biography much funnier! ---CH 07:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I was involved with BAE Systems' Project Greenglow (see http://www.greenglow.co.uk) and as such was able to meet EP in 2000 when he visited the UK to lecture in Sheffield and at BAE in Warton, Lancashire and fill in some details. The page proof (just the front page) was apparently obtained through the UK secret services - I don't know any more than that. ---US 19:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Uncle Slacky never followed through or provided verification of his former affiliation or support for his odd "secret service" claim. ---CH 17:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have now - unfortunately I moved house and all my documents went into storage shortly after CH's comments were made. I have now rectified the situation. ---US 18:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tajmar and Matos eprint

Is this article HUGE news relevant to Podkletnov and Heim? http://www.physorg.com/news12054.html I'll let more knowledgeable folks decide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.254.143.241 (talk • contribs). in Tulsa, OK (this IP is apparently registered to McLeod USA, Inc. in Cedar Rapids, IA) 19:59, 23 March 2006

Interesting. Thanks! Peter S. 09:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Caution is advised :-/ FWIW in their preprint the authors are at pains to distinguish their claim from Podkletnov's claims.---CH 22:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone added:

Recent experiments performed by the ESA might finally vindicate Podkletnov and all the rest who have claimed that superconductors in motion can affect gravity.

Reference: Towards a new test of general relativity?"

I put the paper in the reference section. Anyone who understands the difference between 0.3% or even 3% vs a 100millionth and the actually physically relevant findings in the papers vs. the alleged findings of Mr. eugene will agree.Slicky 09:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The effect measured was 0,0001 g, i.e. 1/10000 g, not 1/100.000.000 g Petri Krohn 14:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

A number of anons and other users have now added a reference, external link, or internal link regarding the Tajmar/Matos claim. These additions have been incompetent: put in the wrong place, interrupting the flow of ideas, failing to use proper citation template, and most of all, failing to understand how the Tajmar-Matos claim relates to the Podkletnov claim.

Gravity-shielding fans please note: some things you should become aware of before you add any more misinformation:

• Gravitomagnetism is mainstream gtr and not to be confused with Podkletnov's claims,
• Tajmar and Matos claim to have measured gravitomagnetic effects in an apparatus similar to P's, but they are careful to stress that their claim is not related to cranky gravity-shielding or anti-gravity claims, in fact they imply that they believe their result is incompatible with P's claims,
• The result of Tajmar and Matos has not yet been replicated, has not yet been published (except as an unrefereed eprint; when reading the arXiv, don't confuse endorsement with refereeing), and should be regarded as controversial/preliminary at this stage.

I have added a citation to the eprint properly formatted in the references section.

Bottom line: Podkletnov fan(s?): while I can see you are very enthusiastic about this development, please keep some perspective, and try not to spread misinformation in the Wikipedia. Your cooperation is appreciated.---CH 17:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Tajmar ref. messed up. says 2006, but links to paper from 2002. no time to fix it now. GangofOne 20:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed it; if someone thinks it is relevant, please explain.---CH 10:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Woodward link

Was added by 68.183.26.111 (talk • contribs), aka the dslextreme.com anon from the San Jose, CA area. Is this link really relevant to this article? WP seems to have been subjected recently to quite a few anon edits by persons apparently promoting their own work, so I have to ask: 68.183.26.111, you are not Woodward, are you? ---CH 10:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved the link to Reactionless drive, more relevant there. -- Petri Krohn 12:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Students beware

I extensively rewrote the Feb 2006 version of this article and had been monitoring it for bad edits, but I am leaving the WP and am now abandoning this article to its fate.

Just wanted to provide notice that I am only responsible (in part) for the last version I edited; see User:Hillman/Archive. I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions. This article concerns a controversial topic and given past history, I have reason to believe that at least some future versions are highly likely to present slanted information, misinformation, or disinformation. Be wary also of external links to other websites, which in the past have often included highly cranky websites.

Good luck in your search for information, regardless!---CH 23:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not confirmed but not refuted?

After reading this Wikipedia article, I felt puzzled. While Podkletnov's claims look dubious, nothing in the article has convinced me that his statements have been refuted or that his claimed results have been proven false. So is this science, junk science or pseudoscience? If no laboratory wishes to prove Podkletnov (or his methodology, or his results) wrong, then we can't say it's a hoax, cheating, or even junk science. Remember the cold fusion controversy: initially it looked right, then it was quickly rejected, then the experiments were re-enacted with marginal success, and now we are still facing some unknowns (such as the apparent production of Helium atoms in a palladium-deuterium cell). I think we should be careful not judging too fast about this "open question", even though the whole think smells fishy. Hugo Dufort 00:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fishy fishy fishy! This guy reeks of fish even without any "experiments." And it didn't mention if Physics D rejected him or not. I would guess they did :) X [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 21:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)