The following simple experiment constitutes:
The empirical discovery of hitherto unknown physical interaction between angular momentum of a spinning gyroscope and Earth’s magnetic and electric fields.
All we need to perform this Nobel Prize winning experiment is a gyroscope with a vertical support, magnetic shielding cage, and a Faraday cage.
According to my hypothesis, there will be a measurable time difference between a freely spinning gyroscope inside, and outside the cages.
A gyroscope freely spinning inside the cages will come to rest in less time than when spinning outside them —
Inside the Faraday cage — 51.87 seconds:
Outside the cage — 55.54 seconds:
The reason for this effect is that the gyroscope inside the cages will be spinning in reduced strength of Earth’s magnetic and electric fields, which in turn reduces the strength of the Biefeld-Brown effect acting upon it.
The gyroscope outside the cages, spinning in the undiminished strength of Earth’s magnetic and electric fields is subject to the full influence of the Biefeld-Brown effect that causes the gyroscope to resist Earth’s gravity pull, which happens to be none other than pure natural antigravity effect.
All conductors, like the brass gyro, exhibit effective diamagnetism when they experience a changing magnetic field. The Lorentz force on electrons causes them to circulate around forming eddy currents. The eddy currents then produce an induced magnetic field that opposes the applied field and resist the conductor’s motion.
— That is true for both, the gyro spinning inside and outside the Faraday cage in Earth’s magnetic field. It does not make any difference.
But gyro’s induced magnetic field will generate eddy currents in the Faraday cage and the resultant magnetic field will slow down gyro’s spin (magnetic breaking), and hence the whole effect. It is like dropping a magnet down a copper pipe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dFFL8TDt2Q
— Analogy in the video applies, but only in principle. Spinning brass gyro is not a strong neodymium magnet, and if, in principle, it generates any magnetic field, it is so weak that it will not even affect a needle of a compass. As opposed to the copper pipe in the video, the enamel-coated copper mesh Faraday cage has much larger diameter (the inverse-square law), so it is enough to drop a strong neodymium magnet down the Faraday cage to see how much it would slow down, if at all. As you can see in the above video, even few empty slits in the copper pipe greatly weaken the eddy currents, this being the reason for using enamel-coated copper mesh. Diamagnetic materials, like brass, or copper, have a relative magnetic permeability that is less than or equal to 1, and therefore a magnetic susceptibility less than or equal to 0, since susceptibility is defined as χv=μv−1. This means that diamagnetic materials, in principle, are repelled by magnetic fields. However, since diamagnetism is such a weak property, its effects are not observable in everyday life. Moreover, there is a big difference between Faraday cage made of solid copper, and one made of enamel-coated copper mesh. The magnetic field induced in the gyro is weak, because Earth’s magnetic field is weak, so whatever little eddy currents could be induced by the gyro in solid copper Faraday cage will become irrelevant in the enamel-coated copper mesh Faraday cage, as you can see in the following two videos.
Even though it is true that the experiment, in principle, is open to influences from various phenomena, including the Carnegie curve, the overall result is clearly well beyond being attributed exclusively to these other phenomena.
To completely eliminate above objections, magnetic shielding needs to be applied in addition to the Faraday cage, and the gyro should be custom-made from a material which does not allow for eddy currents to flow in it.
However, while experimenting with alternative gyro materials, it is worth remembering that: ” dielectric and paramagnetic materials are attracted while diamagnetic materials are repelled in the direction to high field regions. When the wave packet is entering the medium it pulls the material unless diamagnetism prevails. For the same reason when the wave leaves, it drags the block forward. We complete our picture of this process by computing the evolution of the spin density (magnetization).”
The following similar Faraday cage experiment was reported in 2004, and its result is in complete agreement with direct testable predictions of the Quantum Antigravity hypothesis.
Exploratory Research on the Phenomenon of the Movement of High Voltage Capacitors
Section 5.5 — Faraday Cage Experiment
One further experiment, which was performed, involved placing the entire apparatus (ionic grid and capacitors) inside a Faraday cage thus shielding it from Earth’s electric field. The Faraday cage was made of solid galvanized sheet steel. The cage was constructed of a magnetic permeable material, therefore Earth’s magnetic field could interact with the apparatus. Ion theory states that ion momentum transfer would work in a shielded condition because it only requires a volume of gas to be accelerated between the grids to produce the force. However, Coulomb theory states that the capacitor force will only occur when an external electric field is present. Thus the capacitor motion is dependent upon the electric field of the Earth and the charge on the capacitor. The results from these additional experiments were indeed conclusive. The ion model continued to exhibit the force characteristics observed earlier, while the capacitors did not seem to exhibit detectable motion of any kind. This strongly indicates that ion momentum was not the prime cause of the observed effects for the capacitors. The capacitor enveloped in a layer of wax also indicated this conclusion. If the capacitors were accelerating ions for a propelling force, there would be motion inside the Faraday cage, which indeed there wasn’t. This also implies that the force is not directly caused by the capacitor, but rather by an external field, such as the electrostatic field of the Earth. Therefore, an interaction of the fields of the Earth and of the capacitor seems to be occurring to produce the force. It is primarily an electric interaction due to the results in the Faraday cage experiment. However, the force could not be explained in terms of Coulomb’s Law. According to Coulomb’s Law, outside of the Faraday cage a downward force should exist on a net positive capacitor, and an upward force should exist on a net negative capacitor. The observed results do not follow these predictions.
If you are going to perform similar kinds of experiments to these in the following video in order to demonstrate the nonexistence of any antigravity effect, then it clearly indicates that you do not understand the principles of the Quantum Antigravity hypothesis:
THE SECOND EXPERIMENT
TWO MOTIONLESS GYROS IN BALANCE :
TO ELIMINATE ANY POSSIBILITY OF AERODYNAMIC EFFECTS, BOTH GYROS MAY BE ENCLOSED IN NON-METALLIC CONTAINERS, WHICH SHOULD NOT DIMINISH THE ANTIGRAVITY EFFECT.
THE SPINNING GYRO (WITH THE HORIZONTAL SPIN AXIS) WILL ANTIGRAVITATE :
The two gyros hang in balance, motionless. By hand, let’s raise one motionless gyro, and let it come down freely. It will oscillate before it comes back to motionless balance again in due time.
Now, let’s repeat it, this time raising a spinning gyro. It will freely come down, but slower. It will take more time due to a little bit of antigravity effect it will generate. This will decrease the frequency of its oscillations before it comes back to the motionless balance again. Perhaps the mean of the amplitude might be slightly shifted upward from the motionless balance level?
It would be interesting to check if the direction of spin has influence on the results. It should not have any.
The reason why the spinning gyro (with the horizontal spin axis) might not take off and antigravitate in a spectacular fashion, as it was suggested by the above illustrations, is that its angular velocity (and angular momentum) will start to instantly decelerate upon releasing it at the motionless balance level.
Then again, it may as well raise, depending on how strong its angular momentum is when it is released at the level of the motionless balance.
If instead of a gyro we would use a rotor with a constant angular velocity (and angular momentum), the spinning rotor would slowly raise (antigravitate) at a constant rate. For the rotor to accelerate its antigravitating movement, we would need to accelerate its angular velocity (and angular momentum).
The spinning gyro (with the horizontal spin axis), should be suspended on the balance-scale in the way that will prevent it from precessing (or rotating), and the gyro should be allowed a degree of freedom to naturally hang horizontally at all times, even when it goes up, or down. The balance-scale should be allowed to move only up, or down. These conditions could be pretty much self-evident from looking at the very primitive graphics that were used above to illustrate the experiment.
What if we repeat this experiment with both gyros having their axis of spin oriented vertically, instead of horizontally? What if one gyro is spinning horizontally, and the other one is spinning vertically? For the above two options we can try each direction of spin, too.
Experimenting with rotors is a bit more difficult, especially for the reason that should they happen to be electrically powered, this could potentially introduce electromagnetic field which in turn could interfere with Earth’s magnetic and electric fields in an unpredictable manner.
In this experiment, the natural antigravity effect is the result of a horizontally oriented angular momentum interacting with Earth’s perpendicular magnetic and electric fields.
For the antigravity effect to be pronounced enough, we need a heavier gyro spinning at few thousand rpm. I would speculate that a 1000g (about 2 pounds) gyro spinning upwards of 4000rpm could produce quite impressive results. Because in this simple experiment we do not intend to alter the intensity of Earth’s magnetic and electric fields, therefore the only option we have for increasing the strength of the antigravity effect is to increase the value of the angular momentum by increasing the weight, the angular velocity, or the angular acceleration of the gyro.
If the spinning gyro on the balance scale goes up as opposed to the motionless gyro, then what would happen when the two gyros are dropped, and free-fall from the same height? Should we expect that the horizontally spinning gyro will take more time (due to reduced gravitational acceleration) to reach the ground than the motionless one?
Yes. This is exactly what happens. The following are results of exactly such an experiment performed by Prof. Alexander L. Dmitriev —
In our experiment we measured the free fall accelerations of the closed container inside which a mechanical rotor (gyroscope) with a horizontal axis of rotation was installed. The free falling acceleration of a container with a mechanical gyroscope rotor inside it, measured in period of time less than 0.05 s, considerably differs from normal acceleration of gravity and in the range of frequencies of rotor rotation equal to 20-380 Hz the difference of such accelerations achieves several units of cm/s. The frequency dependence of change of free falling acceleration of the container (rotor) has stochastic, and at some frequencies of rotor rotation, for example, near 320 Hz, a resonant character. Both at vertical and horizontal orientations of rotor rotation axis, a reduction of free falling acceleration of the container with a rotating rotor prevails. A change, including reduction (levitation) of free falling acceleration of a closed container with a rotating rotor, seems to contradict the principle of equality of inertial and gravitation masses of a body.
THE THIRD EXPERIMENT
Spin a gyroscope freely in either of magnetic pole regions, and compare it to how the gyroscope freely spins anywhere between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer.
A gyroscope freely spinning in a magnetic pole region will come to rest in less time than when spinning freely anywhere between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer.
The above time difference stems from the fact that the minimum value of the Abraham force (and the Biefeld-Brown effect) is reached when lines of magnetic and electric fields are parallel (at a magnetic pole), and the maximum value of the Abraham force (and the Biefeld-Brown effect) is reached when lines of magnetic and electric fields are orthogonal (along the equator).