Follow up - Graviton Gun and Spacecraft propulsion

Atko,

This issue has been brought up earlier here, but basically found no attention.
I would love to have every possible discussion on the matter here. That preprint is an easy reading, and a lot of speculation/discussion might be drawn of it.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>This issue has been brought up earlier here, but basically found no attention. I would love to have every possible discussion on the matter here. That preprint is an easy reading, and a lot of speculation/discussion might be drawn of it.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The problem is the source. The lead author was guilty on a previous occasion of falsely claiming that an experiment had been done when it had not, of listing a co-author without that person's permission, and of listing an institution with which he was no longer affiliated. The additional fact that no one has succeeded in replicating his earlier claim of a new phenomenon in physics has done nothing to soften the implications of these harsh facts. In science, you don't get a second chance after committing fraud. Science depends too much on the honesty of its researchers. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The lead author was guilty on a previous occasion of falsely claiming that an experiment had been done when it had not, of listing a co-author without that person's permission, and of listing an institution with which he was no longer affiliated.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>Tom,

This time the authors are Giovanni Modanese and Chris Y. Taylor, Podkletnov doesn't show among authors at all. Furthermore, the episode you mention is far from any clarity, if you have any links to decisive info/facts on the issue, please post those here.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[AB]: This time the authors are Giovanni Modanese and Chris Y. Taylor, Podkletnov doesn't show among authors at all.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

?? When I click the link you provided, the first author is listed as Podkletnov.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Furthermore, the episode you mention is far from any clarity, if you have any links to decisive info/facts on the issue, please post those here.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The story was major just before and after the paper describing a "second, verifying experiment" was withdrawn. I kept no citations, but suspect it might have appeared in Nature or New Scientist. I see that Podlketnov now claims that there was no second experiment and he was just describing again the first experiment, contrary to the impression given in the paper. (The advance news coverage for the paper claimed an independent replication of the first experiment, and Podkletnov did nothing to counter that impression at the time.)

He also now claims that the second author was "somebody else with the same name", and that the university affiliation was listed because that is where the original experiment had been done. But after-the-fact rationalizations for inappropriate actions are not convincing.

The most important point is that no one has replicated the original effect. That leaves Podkletnov without a single leg for his credibility to stand on. I'm sure efforts will continue, and maybe someday we will hear of a reproducible phenomenon. But until then, I see no basis for paying further attention to the claimed "Potkletnov effect". -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>?? When I click the link you provided, the first author is listed as Podkletnov.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
When I click on the link - arxiv.org/abs/physics/0209023 , I get the following:

<b><i>Physics, abstract
physics/0209023
From: Giovanni Modanese <giovanni.modanese@unibz.it>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 16:15:36 GMT (531kb)

Evaluation of an Impulse Gravity Generator Based Beamed Propulsion Concept
Authors: Giovanni Modanese, Chris Y. Taylor
Comments: PDF, 21 pages. 10 figures included in PDF file; for better quality figures can be downloaded separately in JPG format at www.gravity-society.org . Presented by C.T. at the 38th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, Indianapolis, Indiana, 7-10 Jul 2002
Subj-class: General Physics
....................</i></b>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The most important point is that no one has replicated the original effect.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>It seems that NASA attempts to replicate it were badly flawed - instead of rotating the magnetic field they rotated the superconductor disk. The non-equivalence of those is well known ever since the Faraday era.

Atko's post at the top of this thread has two links. The first is to the new paper, the second is to Podkletnov's original paper.

Regards,
LB