[NewCandle] New evidence of giant gravitomagnetism

[Nick Reiter]

Lucky today you are, youngling!  A rare cosmic event -
a quiet lunch break -presents itself.

Before I comment on Eugene Podkletnov, NASA
replications, etc, let me make it clear for the record
that:

1.  I do not know Eugene personally and have never
corresponded with him.

2.  The following are my OWN personal interpretations
of what was mentioned to me by third parties who were
connected at some point along the contract and project
path.  These are not intended to reflect on anyone
else's judgements or opinions.

The most general impression I got was that Eugene was
highly mercurial, and difficult to work with.  Even
under terms of the contract - for which he was a
consultant - he supposedly would often not make
available necessary detailed engineering information
to the NASA group or the group making the HTSC disc. 
Other times, he would, but only after repeated
requests.  He was often difficult to reach.  I believe
he was brought to the US toward the end of the
project.  I don't know if he was able to work more
smoothly with the group at that point or not.  It was
said that when pinned down, he would frequently make
contradictory statements or requests.  One person felt
as if he "was making it up as he went".  This was
particularly disconcerting for the group trying to
make the ring.  My own impression was that it smelt of
what I perceive to be one of the common pathologies of
fringe science - the on-going introduction/demand of
greater and greater esoteric "requirements" by the
inventor to the replicator in order to make it work.

In the end, my impression was that the piece that
ended up being the core of the NASA replication
attempt(s) was the best that they could do, with what
they had to work with.

It began to remind me of claims of over-unity
oscillators that involved inductors or magnets that
had to be made of this or that special alloy made by
this or that process at this or that time.  It's all
certainly possible, but it becomes an exercise in
frustration after a while in many cases.

I think the sage advice of Bill B in aeons past about
avoiding vanity improvements remains undeniable.  But
there is also a corollary (in my book at least) that
hyper-specific-bordering-on-esoteric conditions are a
warning flag in themselves.

Take for example my own speciality - cadmium telluride
photovoltaics.  Optimizing of cell performance is a
precarious feat - involving careful adjustment of
dopants like copper or antimony, and matching contact
materials to them.  On the other hand, you can slap
the stuff onto darn near any conductive surface, and
get a bare bones photovoltage of at least some meager
sort.

So you see, to me, when a "new science" inventor
presents a scheme or machine that is nigh esoteric in
its construction or materials requirements, one of two
conditions have to be met to satisfy my skepticism:

1.  A thorough basis for why the esoterica was used by
the inventor in the first place (why this grain
structure / interface / dopant, etc) OR...

2.  If no conceptual basis, then a very thorough
accounting of what materials or fabrication
constraints led to the production or use of the
esoteric / non-standard component to begin with.

Co-operating with the contract holders who are trying
to replicate your revolutionary claim is essential. 
The word I got - be it right or wrong - was that this
was sporadic at best.  

Thus my skepticism about the whole affair was
enhanced, much to my sadness.  I hope against hope
that someone tomorrow or the next day someone
somewhere can prove and replicate E.P. work.  But its
been how many years?

NR


--- Keith Nagel <NewCandleAdmin at ipdiscover.com> wrote:

> Hi Nick,
> 
> Glad you could take a few moments to post your
> first hand account of testing of "arts parts".
> Your analysis definitely makes sense to me,
> occams razor applied with skill. Your comments
> about the psychology behind the mythos of
> these things is also very much to the point.
> It's worth a long post, but some other time.
> 
> What I am curious about, if you can spare a few
> cycles, is why the folks at NASA thought they
> could replicate Eugenes work with a standard
> HTSC disc? The double structure seemed key
> to achieving good results, at least from my
> reading of his papers. Did Eugene claim otherwise?
> 
> K.
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com