Angular acceleration, not rotation rate

Why the library suggests it

Two controls that have never been turned independently — the angular acceleration of the ramp, and the steady rate at its end — with each published replication placed beside them and the condition it actually reached.

Spin-up, not spin

Thirty years of rotating-superconductor experiments varied one thing: how fast the disc finally turned. Nobody varied how fast it got there. Set the two independently — the angular acceleration of the ramp, and the steady rate at the end of it — and the ledger below says which published runs would have seen an effect that depends on the rate, and which would have been blind to one that depends on the ramp.

Spin-up, not spin

Angular acceleration of the spin-up

12.0

Steady rate at the end of the ramp

550

Back to a gentle ramp

• The range reported in 1992
• The bound published in 2003

If it depends on the rate:

0.055 %

If it depends on the spin-up:

0.011 %

Time to reach that rate:

4.8 s

At this setting: A balance read only at the plateau is read at zero angular acceleration. Against a law of that kind such a run is not a null; it is blind, and its bound is a bound against the rate and nothing else. That is the whole argument: a bound constrains only the parameter that was varied.

What each published run would have seen

The runs, each on its own sheet	If the effect depends on the rate	If it depends on the spin-up
Podkletnov and Nieminen, 1992 — a 5.48-gram sample over a 14.5-centimetre YBCO disc, losing between 0.05 and about 0.3 per cent of its weight, varying with how fast the disc turned, with the original calling for several thousand revolutions per minute	published no numerical bound, so it constrains neither	blind to it — the balance was read at the plateau, where the angular acceleration is zero
Woods, Helme, Cooke and Caldwell, 2001 — a careful null that states its own scope: the internal structure of the disc and the levitating and rotating system both fell short of the specified conditions, so what is published is a bound rather than a verdict	published no numerical bound, so it constrains neither	blind to it — the balance was read at the plateau, where the angular acceleration is zero
Hathaway, Cleveland and Bao, 2003 — the most careful rebuild, with a disc the original author judged fit, seeing no weight change at the 0.001 per cent level; the disc never turned faster than 550 revolutions per minute	would have seen it	blind to it — the balance was read at the plateau, where the angular acceleration is zero
Tajmar and colleagues, 2007 — a niobium ring in liquid helium read by a mirrored curl configuration of accelerometers plus laser gyroscopes, which corrected its own earlier figure downward and asked other laboratories to try; its accelerometers read acceleration while its gyroscopes read rotation rate	published no numerical bound, so it constrains neither	published no numerical bound, so it constrains neither

The original claim is peer-reviewed, the published replications are nulls that name the conditions they did not reach, and the acceleration-rate hypothesis is a stated, testable refinement with no data either way. The settling measurement is the fractional weight change of the test mass plotted against angular acceleration at fixed final angular velocity, with the ramp reversed and with a non-superconducting disc of matched mass and moment of inertia as the control. If nothing appears, the bound is published against a parameter nobody had bounded, which is itself a real contribution.

The original report is a short peer-reviewed paper: a 14.5-centimetre YBCO disc floating by Meissner repulsion, driven by high-frequency fields and set spinning, with a 5.48-gram sample above it losing between 0.05 and about 0.3 per cent of its weight, varying with how fast the disc turned (A possibility of gravitational force shielding by bulk YBCO superconductor, 1992). The most careful rebuild made its own bi-layer YBCO discs, had one judged fit by the original author, levitated it over solenoidal coils with toroidal coils through the central hole, drove them in two-phase radio-frequency mode, and saw no weight change at the 0.001 per cent level — but the disc never turned faster than 550 revolutions per minute, and the original called for several thousand (Gravity modification experiment using a rotating superconducting disk and radio frequency fields, 2003). A second null states its own scope just as honestly: the internal structure of the disc and the levitating and rotating system both fell short of the specified conditions, so what is published is a bound rather than a verdict (Gravity modification by high-temperature superconductors, 2001). And the most carefully instrumented related measurement — a niobium ring spun in liquid helium, read by a mirrored curl configuration of accelerometers plus laser gyroscopes — corrected its own earlier figure downward and asked other laboratories to try (Measurement of Gravitomagnetic and Acceleration Fields around Rotating Superconductors, 2007).

The experiment or build

Rebuild the rig with one thing changed: a drive capable of large angular acceleration, and instrumentation that records the acceleration rather than only the speed. Sweep the spin-up rate over as wide a range as the bearings allow, at fixed final speed, and record the balance continuously through the ramp rather than only at plateau. The settling measurement is the fractional weight change of the test mass plotted against angular acceleration at fixed final angular velocity, with the ramp reversed and with a non-superconducting disc of matched mass and moment of inertia as the control. If nothing appears, the bound is published against a parameter nobody had bounded, which is a real contribution to the replication ledger.