Talk-Polywell.org

Evaluation of enhanced frame-dragging in the vicinity of a rotating niobium superconductor, liquid helium and a helium superfluid
M Tajmar
2011 Supercond. Sci. Technol. 24 125011 (9pp)
Abstract: http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-2048/24/12/125011
Full text PDF: http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-2048/24/ ... 125011.pdf

To explain a reported Cooper-pair mass anomaly in niobium it has been predicted that rotating superconductors or superfluids might produce large non-classical frame-dragging fields. Anomalous gyroscope signals close to the measurement resolution in the proximity of rotating superconductors or liquid helium have also been reported while trying to investigate this theoretical concept. Based on lessons from various setups, we succeeded in building an experimental facility that allowed us to rotate a niobium superconductor, liquid helium, superfluid helium and low temperature matter with high accelerations at high speed exceeding all previous efforts. A military-grade SRS-1000 gyroscope at close proximity in different locations was used to measure any anomalous frame-dragging-like fields. No such anomalies were found within three times the noise level of our setup (+- 5 x 10 [?] 8 rad s [?] 1). Measurements with an electric motor at speeds up to 5000 rpm enabled us to set low boundaries for any coupling or frame-dragging-like effect outside of a rotating niobium superconductor or liquid helium to 4 x 10 [?] 11 and for superfluids to 3 x 10 [?] 10. Due to the high speeds used, these results are up to two orders of magnitude below any previous result.

Can't get the PDF, but I guess from the abstract that this nails the issue once for all.
Too bad, but a very good example of scientific research.

Giorgio wrote:Can't get the PDF, but I guess from the abstract that this nails the issue once for all.
Too bad, but a very good example of scientific research.

Send me an e-mail and I can attach a copy.

Just Google MSimon - my blog "Power and Control" is at the top. My e-mail is on the sidebar. It is a lovely presentation.

Can't reach Blogspot, is filtered in China, but I found your e-mail anyhow

Also it is tagged Free Article, but apparently it requires registering, which should be free apparently. So that should work too, though, I'm too lazy to do that as long as i can just add my university's proxy url to the end .com and use that and my university account.

physicsworld.com is IOP associated, and since it wasn't part of university's proxy contracts registered account there for the free articles and it worked so I would expect it to be same thing there

I actually have a free account with IOP, but in the area I am now looks like the website is not reachable.
Filtering of content is pretty weird here. You have a main filtering done at ISP level and an additional filtering done at AP level that varies from hot spot to hot spot, so you never know when you move even only 100 meters if you will still see the same website or not.

The AP at the Starbuck I am in now looks particularly nasty against scientific websites. Go figure why

MSimon wrote:Evaluation of enhanced frame-dragging in the vicinity of a rotating niobium superconductor, liquid helium and a helium superfluid
M Tajmar
2011 Supercond. Sci. Technol. 24 125011 (9pp)
Abstract: http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-2048/24/12/125011
Full text PDF: http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-2048/24/ ... 125011.pdf

So dies "Heim Theory". Intriguing for awhile, and learning where ideas go wrong is not a waste of time. On to Pharis Williams' work.

Interesting, thanks for sharing.

MSimon wrote:It is a lovely presentation.

Indeed.
A very well thought experimental set up and procedures.
All what's left to do now is to identify the source of the error in their 2009 experiment, but I think is pretty clear that what they observed was indeed an error.

Anyone wishing to call himself a scientists should get to their quality level.

Giorgio wrote:

MSimon wrote:It is a lovely presentation.

Indeed.
A very well thought experimental set up and procedures.
All what's left to do now is to identify the source of the error in their 2009 experiment, but I think is pretty clear that what they observed was indeed an error.

Anyone wishing to call himself a scientists should get to their quality level.

So he found nothing?

Great science, hard at work, right here, finding nothing.

Great science, hard at work, right here, finding nothing.

Sometimes finding nothing actually means something...

icarus wrote:So he found nothing?

Great science, hard at work, right here, finding nothing.

Science grows more with 1 negative results with evidences than with 1000 claims of positive results without evidences.

Thank you for proving once more to everyone that you do not understand what scientific research is all about.

The Michelson Morley experiment is a great example. Although it was overthrowing something which was more widely accepted.