Eugene Podkletnov on his Gravity Beam Experiment

Transcript

I'm Tim Ventura from americanravity.com. And this is a follow-up interview with Dr. Eugene Pogmanoff, world famous Russian physicist and chemist known for his work into gravitational waves and gravity beam generation. During our previous interview, Dr. Pogloff told us that he'd been able to generate hundreds of pounds of force in beams of pure gravitational energy.

And we're conducting a follow-up interview to learn a little bit more about the details of his experiment. Uh, Dr. Pognov, can you hear me? Okay, I read you perfectly. One of the responses that we had online was uh with nearly a decade of experience, why haven't we been able to see video or photos of your experiments up until now? Uh well, first of all, when I began uh those experiments in Finland in Tamper, uh it's not a habit here in Finland to make any videos or photos of the equipment or of the experiment. It's typical for the United States, but here in Europe, it's a bit uh different.

And the same thing goes for Russia, uh especially with the last experiment uh in the um Moscow Chemical Research Center because um the whole center is um a very complicated structure and some of the works are closed for white public. They're not secret, but they're simply dangerous because we use high voltage, several million volts. So, they're closed. And uh uh well, we have special signs on the walls of the laboratory which do not allow to make any photos. It's the policy which is accepted at this uh scientific center.

So, I didn't want to change the rules. Oh, absolutely. Well, in light of the publicity that you've had recently, have you given thought to doing any photos or video in the near future? Uh, I think uh I will try to make uh something uh I discussed this possibility uh with the administration. They think it might be possible, but uh at present we have uh no videos and u no photos at all. Oh, okay.

Well, I look forward uh to hopefully receiving some in the future. um you know if it turns out that it is possible. Well to move along um have you been able to obtain uh funding from government or private interests? Has there been a fair amount of interest that's come forward and uh tried to provide some funding for your experiments? Uh there is a certain interest uh from uh several circuits but it's uh private sector mainly because uh governmental policy towards uh all the research in the field of gravity and experimental gravity um is uh it's not a popular trend. So uh we don't get much money from the government. Uh, of course we use the uh ready installations at the technological center but um there is uh some interest in general all over the world and in the United States in Great Britain but uh uh we didn't get any funding from the government.

uh we get uh rather small funding from uh private sector as I mentioned but uh our plans are really amazing and uh we need um considerable funding. So this uh topic uh gravity is um first of all it is a bit unusual and uh we need some exotic material. We need uh special installations. We need cryogenic systems. Uh also we need the help of people who are uh top qualified in their own areas and uh this all costs a lot.

Yeah definitely. Well, you know, with uh with the actual testing, one of the questions that had occurred to me when I was, you know, when I sat down and took a little bit of time was um you know, as these are presumed to be gravity beams, have you noticed any time effects? Um uh it's uh difficult to say because uh it's not practically a gravity beam. It's a gravity impulse. So it's very short in time and because of these limitations as it is short in time we didn't notice any time effects and didn't even try to measure maybe they are present they are definitely present when we are working with the rotating discs definitely and uh we had some uh some experience with this but with gravity impulse generator we simply didn't organize any measurements absolutely that that makes perfect sense well you know I I was wondering on a personal note um you'd mentioned that this was uh over hundreds of pounds of force for a very short period of time and I'd wondered um has this uh has this been able to punch holes through lightweight substances or is it more of just kind of a motion on them? Uh it all depends on the u voltage that we apply and also on the structure of the superconducting emitter. So at the maximum possibility of our materials at present uh we can obtain um rather big impulses.

So they are able uh to deform uh metal plates uh with a thickness of couple of inches and uh they are able to make holes in concrete walls. So um we are not speaking about some lightweight substances but concrete wall is something very solid and uh they deform metal uh in the way that a hydraulic press might do it. Uh but the impulse is very short in time. So uh of course we can uh build a system and use several uh max uh generators. So we can uh give a series of impulses that will um definitely improve the situation.

But uh at present we can um treat different materials uh with um our um gravity impulse generator and also what is important that uh we can um hit different objects at big distances. Absolutely. Well, you know, in in terms of uh putting holes through concrete, it makes sense that the holes would remain. But with metals, after the metal is deformed, do they snap back after the beam is gone or do they remain deformed? No, they just remain deformed. It's just uh like um very uh very like a punch uh very short in time.

So, it's an uh close to an explosion action, something like this. Oh, okay. Okay. I you know, I'm I'm planning on buying um a small superconductor and testing some myself hopefully. Um I I don't have a 5 million volt system.

I think 5,000 with a very high amperage. So, hopefully I I doubt that it would do metals, but I've thought maybe paper might be something to experiment with and see if I can Well, I I think it's possible. Oh, okay. Well, I'll I'll definitely have to move forward with that. Um, well, one of the things I was wondering about was whether you've been able to do efficiency calculations for the force beam.

Uh, well, Javanni Madza calculated uh some preliminary made some preliminary measurements and uh gave the forces uh in jewels. But um we practically uh did not try to calculate u we wanted to simply to see the results and how the different objects um uh react to the um action of this impulse. So we didn't u make any precise calculations. Oh okay. Um you'd mentioned in the past that this tends to defy conventional relativity theory.

I was wondering if you might have any specific examples of things that caught your eye as maybe being not right or outside of what the theory predicts. Well, first of all, I didn't say that uh our experiments defy conventional relativity theory. No, um they don't. But um if we uh speak about um uh the experiment with the rotating discs, I simply mentioned that uh uh we uh rotating uh metal um or superconducting objects at very high speed. And uh as this uh rotation um around uh its own axis is um not uh [Music] uh it's an um absolute u rotation.

So it's uh absolute movement. It's not relative. That's why the u relativity theory is not applicable uh to our rotating discs because it's entirely different thing. Oh, okay. So, it just doesn't apply, but it it doesn't invalidate it at all.

That and I I should apologize for getting that one incorrect. Um, oh, does the uh does the inertia change in proportion to changes in mass? That the reason that I kind of wrote that down was really in relation to um Fran Dainino's research. And he believes that these aren't equal, that they just tend to appear equal to to us in our frame of reference. But I I was Oh, I'm sorry. Well, according to our understanding and our experience, u we did not make any difference between uh gravitational and inertial bars.

So, we think that they are equal. Also, in case uh with the uh impulses, the impulses are too short in time uh to make uh to notice any difference. And we didn't make any special experiments just uh to distinguish u gravitational and inertial mass. Oh okay. Um oh in in terms of uh the actual emitter the superconductor.

Um you know I read the experimental write up. I believe it was 47 mm if I remember correctly. But I I was wondering if changing the size or shape affects the beam output. maybe makes it stronger or uh refocuses it perhaps. Uh well, if we speak about the size of the superconductor, uh there are some limitations.

U the diameter of the superconductor shouldn't be uh smaller than 4 in um because of the uh Schwartz uh Schwartz child's radius and uh if we speak about the shape well uh uh the superconductor can in fact have different shapes and uh the impulse will repeat um the projection of uh a certain shape. So, it is important. Oh, okay. Well, that may rule out my experiment. I The largest I've seen online, I think, is a 1-in superconductor in the United States at least.

So, I'm not sure if they sell 4in ones, although if they did, it would be worth the money. Um, well, it's it's very important. um we um didn't get any uh good results with uh smaller superconductors and also it's um much more difficult to get a flat discharge with um the superconductors that are small in diameter. Oh okay. Well um have you noticed any changes in uh the molecular structure or uh maybe compression for the targets that you've sent the beam through? um like you'd mentioned um metals deforming and holes through concrete um on a Yeah, we did not uh see any um compression effects or any change of the molecular structure.

It remains the same as it was. Oh, okay. So, it's just a large scale deformation from force but not anything internal then. No, nothing internal. Oh.

Um, oh, I I should ask if the beam loses energy as it penetrates materials. Um, does it does it naturally decrease with distance? But but um uh well that's an interesting question and uh to our great surprise and we made a lot of discharges. So the installation was working for about 4 years now. uh the beam practically does not uh lose energy uh when it meets um the materials. It can pass through the brick wall or concrete uh or metal plates very thick ones and um plastic materials also.

It seems that uh it doesn't lose energy at all which seems a bit strange but um we don't want to break any laws and uh simply the system where we are working it's not a closed one. Therefore the second law of thermodynamics is again uh not applicable here. And if we speak about uh the action uh with the distance the dependence of the energy on the distance uh we don't have uh much experimental data but uh what we have now is first measurement at um the distance of 1.2 2 km and uh there is uh no uh loss of energy and the latest experiments uh the distance was 5 kilometers and uh the beam penetrated uh through several houses which made which were made of um concrete. So we did not uh measure any uh loss of energy but um uh according to some calculations and um the evaluations that we made uh with a distance of more than uh 100 kilometers we should get some decrease um of the energy. So it's this work awaits us in the future.

Oh okay. you know, as well, you'd mentioned 5 km. Did you notice any change in the focus of the beam? Uh did it did it widen or perhaps get smaller um as it as it travels? Uh if uh uh the main solenoid which is u wound um around the chamber is made in a good way then we have a very good discharge and uh practically u it u it uh contains the same uh form as it was uh but uh with a distance of 5 kilometers. We notice that there is um uh the beam is not so focused. It's uh it goes a bit uh a bit wider uh than it it was.

So there are some deviations uh in the in the shape of the impulse. It becomes a bit wider. Oh okay. Um, you know, one of the I collected a few questions online and uh um one person had written me um is it possible to generate more work along the path of the beam than energy put into the beam? I I think they were asking about potential overunity applications, but uh well uh it's it's surprising uh that uh um uh the energy that we put uh inside the discharge uh it's uh much less uh than the energy uh which uh the impulse produces. and uh the work that it can um make uh is uh bigger than the energy that we put inside the beam.

But that doesn't mean uh it's an overunited device. simply uh we um create the conditions when the interactions of uh magnetic uh field and electric field and uh special um behavior of the bosinstein condensate. Uh so with all these parameters we provide the interaction of um the fields and of the material with the subatomic particles. uh we may call it um 0 point energy or whatever it is or ether. Uh but um anyway uh when uh normal matter uh interacts with uh subatomic particles uh special energy is uh obtained and uh we can use this energy.

So our installation is like a key which opens the energy of the subatomic particles. This is at least our explanation. Sure. Sure. Well, and it sounds like it is kind of opening up perhaps in some ways more energy than is immediately available.

Um yeah, that's right. Also, uh we are not speaking about any closed system. This system is an open one and uh we don't break any laws from our point of view. Oh, okay. Well, you had mentioned that you're actually working on some publications, and I I guess in some ways that kind of ruins my next question that I've collected online.

Um, they'd asked if you're going to publish more in the near future. Uh, well, uh, of course, the interest uh to this uh problem is um growing in all the countries. uh we got a very um interesting offer from uh China from they have a special uh project at the University of Beijing and uh there is a certain interest from um the private sector in the United States. So as soon as we uh get the funding we will try to organize all these um experiments in a more detailed way. Uh but um uh at present uh what is extremely interesting that we measured or we tried to measure the interaction of uh this beam uh with a light and uh some preliminary results were published uh last year in the journal of low temperature physics.

uh it was in August it's my article with Jovani Mineza and uh we continue this work now and also we tried uh to measure uh the speed uh the propagation speed of the impulse and we are very cautious about it because we don't want uh to frighten uh the scientific community and also we want to be absolutely sure that the results um were checked and rejected um several tens of times but it seems that um based on what we have now and we already were working for a year and a half uh on this uh the speed of the impulse uh is much higher than the speed of light and uh uh with the parameters that we use now with the present meters and uh the voltage of uh three and 5 million volts uh the speed uh is about uh 63 64 C which means that um the propagation speed of the impulse is uh close to it is practically uh 64 times faster than the speed of light. But um we would like uh of course uh to measure all these parameters using different uh measurement uh systems, different approaches. At present we used two atomic clock and um we think that our experiments were precise enough but we would welcome of course um the advice of the international community and u the advice on how to measure the speed of the impulse in a very precise way. As soon as we get u good confirmation of the results uh we will try to publish all this information. Oh okay.

So there's definitely more coming along. You know, one thing that I found helps with the lifter experiments and others that I've conducted. And again, if you, you know, once you reach the point of taking film, um, I found that film analysis helps a lot, at least for my experiments. And one of my favorites has been working with smoke and cloud chambers. And, uh, you know, by by stopping the tape and rewinding, I found that I can find a lot of little things going on that I never noticed at the, you know, at the time I filmed it.

So, you know, perhaps that may be something that'll be valuable if if you're able to bring a camera in and get some photos. Yes, that's a very good approach. We'll take it into consideration, of course. Well, um, you know, I I was wondering, uh, you'd mentioned that there's interest from the private sector in the United States and from China, but do you know if there are any duplication efforts or replications underway by other groups for your your research? Uh I know that uh there there was a big interest uh in Boeing but um I don't know their secrets and I know that uh um the department of defense in the United States is also interested in this program and that's why they invited uh Dr. Ningli uh to lead their scientific uh laboratory.

uh but uh at present I don't know any uh official replication of uh microvity experiments mainly because they are uh hard to organize they are rather costly and the official attitude uh of the let's say it's politically correct science to this problem is negative so it creates a lot of um difficulties but I don't hide anything and uh if people uh contact me direct directly or by email. I usually try to give uh all the advice uh that I have and to share all the experience because the problem is too complicated for one country or for one lab um to succeed and uh the gravity should be studied uh all over the world using the best forces and the brains of different scientists. That's the key to success. Absolutely. Well, and I've always had great success in terms of contacting you and you've always been incredibly helpful with my questions and and so I'm sure others will have a a similar experience, but um you know, one of the obstacles to independent replications, it sounds like, is the 4-in superconductor.

Do you know if those are manufactured and sold anywhere, or is it a process that everyone has to go through to build their own? Uh well uh frankly speaking it's uh a part of my knowhow but uh if we speak about u extremely uh effective emitters but uh normal emitters which allow simply uh to measure uh small effects it's not a problem and u I think that um American superconductor can help uh easily to make the emitters of this kind or also there is um a nice firm called uh superconductor active components in Ohio, Columbus in the United States and they are more or less familiar with my technology and they can uh I think make their good contribution to this. Oh okay. So essentially by using a smaller superconductor you have a smaller effect but that can be tested using more sensitive equipment. Um well uh still uh the diameter of the disc should be not less than 4 in. Uh no I speak about the structure the structure for very efficient uh emitters um is a bit uh difficult and uh it takes a lot of experience to achieve this structure.

So uh even if I give the detailed description uh it's a bit difficult to make it without my help but uh with normal emitters uh which allow you to push uh a thick book um away from the table it's possible to make it. It's not so complicated. Oh okay. Okay. Well, um, you know, I had one other question about, um, this person was also asking about video, but they were also asking about a moving flat glow discharge.

And this was something I thought might be in your notes perhaps that I had missed when I read through them. Uh, well, in order to make uh the video for for the uh, flagglow discharge, uh, we should use a high-speed uh, video camera, which we don't have at present. So we just want to rely on our uh key inside but uh it's a bit difficult. Uh we're planning uh to make it but uh even with uh normal eye uh when we have u normal discharge I mean a spark uh as in vandagramraph generator or a flat glow discharge which repeats the configuration of a meter. It's possible to see it with your own eyes.

We don't need any camera for this. Oh, okay. Well, just to wrap things up because we're almost out of time. Again, it sounds like you're getting amazing results. You're able to actually, you know, put holes through concrete and bend metals with this at 5 million volts.

Um, you know, these are remarkable results. Is there anything you'd like to say in close? Uh, I don't think that, uh, these results are remarkable. uh in general this subject called um experimental gravity research it has a very big potential and uh if we compare uh the complicated pro this problem is to the problem of let's say nuclear explosion uh I think that uh gravity research is much more complicated but uh even uh if we speak about uh nuclear power uh there was a period in the United States when Uh everybody was interested and uh military people wanted to make uh uh some researchers and the government was interested and then people came and said could you please make a small explosion and then we will make we will give you money for a big one and um it's impossible to make a small nuclear explosion somewhere under ventilation. The same thing refers to gravity. It's an enormous problem and uh we can't u get much if we uh don't have an organized approach as it was in the nuclear program for example in the United States.

So only combining the knowledge of uh different fields of different physicists and chemists and material scientists, theoretical physicist uh only uh making them work together we can uh make a breakthrough in this field because it's a very very serious research. Absolutely. Well, thanks again for your time and we definitely look forward to following up with you uh more in the future. Thank you. You're welcome.