Eugene Podkletnov’s Impulse Gravity Generator
By: Tim Ventura
Tags: Futurism, Gravity, Science, Physics, Technology

Eugene, let’s start out with a layperson’s summary of the “impulse gravity generator” that you published a paper on with Dr. Giovanni Modanese. Can you explain this experiment and its goals for us?

Tim, this experiment is a device I’m calling the “impulse gravity generator”, which utilizes a Marx generator discharge through a superconducting emitter in a high-magnetic field to create a wave in time-space with properties very close to gravitational waves. The similarities are apparent enough that we’re almost positive it actually is a form of gravity.

Dr. Eugene Podkletnov, research scientist at Tampere University of Technology

Our experimental apparatus is complicated, but the principle is simple. We have a typical high voltage discharge, typically up to 2 million volts, and sometimes as high as 5 million volts. We have a superconducting emitter, which has a two layers — the first layer is made of superconducting material, the other is a normal conductor.

We discharge the voltage through the emitter in the presence of a high-intensity magnetic field, which leads to a very interesting phenomenon. I can only describe it as a gravitational impulse that propagates at high speeds over large distances without losing energy.

These impulses can be directionally projected in any direction in space, and they exert a large force on any object in the path of propagation. We haven’t uncovered the mechanism yet to explain how this force is generated, but we understand the engineering principles used to generate & control it.

I should point out that the ‘impulse gravity generator’ is very different than the rotating superconductor experiments you conducted in the 1990's. In this new experiment, you’re using a stationary apparatus rather the spinning disc in your previous research, right?

Yes, that’s absolutely correct, but if we compare the rotating disc and the impulse gravity generator, the principle is the same because we’re creating a high density electric field in both materials.

The rotating disc experiment produces a diffuse, low-intensity effect over a long period of time, whereas the impulse gravity generator creates a tightly focused, high-intensity effect of brief for a very short period of time — usually only 60 or 70 nanoseconds.

Despite the short duration of the effect, the beam we’re generating is able to knock down objects in the beam’s path, and under certain conditions it’s even possible to make holes in brick walls and even deform metals. So it’s a very powerful tool.

Impulse Generator: Configuration for 2 experimental variants from Podkletnov’s papers.

Can you describe the force you’re generating in more detail? I’d like to better understand what you’re doing to generate the tremendous amount of force you’re describing.

The force of the impulse depends entirely on the structure of the superconducting emitter and the voltage that we apply to it. Given the materials & voltages we currently have available, we can obtain large impulses capable of punching holes in thick concrete walls, and we’ve also been able to demonstrate deforming metal plates with a thickness of a couple of inches.

The impulse deforms metal in the way that a hydraulic press might do it, but the pulse-duration is very brief, so we’ve been discussing a system utilizing several Marx generators to give a series of impulses that we believe will improve the overall effect.

We’ve experimented with using the impulse generator on a variety of materials, and it’s led us to another important find: the beam can hit a target over very large distances with a minimum of divergence and what appears to be zero loss in energy, even after passing through other objects in the beam path.

During these experiments, we have also been trying to measure the speed of propagation for these impulses. The results were extremely interesting, and in some ways hard to believe, but it’s based on experimental observations, and we’re going to continue refining our experimental measurements.

Marx generator: A example of an industrial high-voltage generator (wikipedia)

So these impulse are all generated by Marx generator discharges — is the high-intensity electrical discharge the key to generating these impulses?

It is the combination of the discharge, the magnetic field, and the use of specially prepared superconducting emitters. These impulses are very short in time, we’re talking about 1 millionth of a second and shorter.

The output force depends on overall voltage as well as the voltage rise-time. The faster the voltage rises, the larger the impulse, which is what gives us the impulse the ability to make holes in concrete over long distances.

Let me ask about the emitter: you used a Type-II YBCO superconducting emitter, if I remember correctly. Does changing its size or the shape change the beam output — maybe making it stronger or refocusing it?

Well, in terms of the size of the superconducting emitter, there are some limitations. We did many tests with various emitters, and overall we found that the diameter of the superconductor shouldn’t be smaller than 4 inches. The size is very important — we didn’t get good results with smaller superconductors.

Now to answer your question about the shape of the emitter, the superconductor can in fact have different shapes, and the projected impulse will maintain the emitter’s cross-sectional shape, so is important.

Have you observed any change in the molecular structure of the target samples you tested, or did you only see the simple mechanical compression & deformation you’ve described so far?

Discharge Chamber: A complete schematic of the experimental chamber.

We didn’t see any change of the molecular structure — just a large scale deformation of the target material from the beam’s force. It seems to act like a punch — it happens very rapidly, so it’s close to an explosive action.

I should ask whether the beam loses energy as it penetrates materials. Does it naturally decrease or diverge with distance?

That’s an interesting question — and to our great surprise the beam does not appear to lose energy when it meets materials. It can pass through brick or concrete walls, very thick metal-plates, and all types of plastics, and it doesn’t seem to lose energy at all. This is the consistent, long-term evidence from test discharges that we’ve performed over the last 4 years.

These results seem a bit strange, but we don’t believe we’re breaking any natural laws. We’re simply not working in a closed system, and therefore the second law of thermodynamics isn’t directly applicable.

In terms of action at a distance — and the dependence of distance on the beam energy — we don’t have much experimental data, but what we do have is a first measurement at a distance of 1.2 kilometers without any loss in energy.

A more recent experiment was conducted over a distance of 5 kilometers, and the beam penetrated through several houses made of concrete. We did not measure any loss of energy, but after closely evaluating the calculations that we’ve made, we should get some decrease in beam-energy at distances greater than 100 kilometers.

Now in this recent 5 kilometer experiment, did you notice any change in the focus of the beam? Did it widen or perhaps get smaller as it travels?

If the magnetic field solenoid that we wind around the chamber is well-constructed, then it will produce a very good discharge and effectively maintains the non-divergent cross-sectional pattern of the emitter it was projected from.

However, at a distance of 5 kilometers, the beam begins to lose focus– it gets a bit wider, indicating minor deviations in the shape of the impulse as it propagates.

Have you been able to do efficiency calculations for the impulses, or is it still too early for that level of analysis?

Well, Dr. Giovanni Modanese made some preliminary measurements that gave us the force in joules, but we did not try to make experimental predictions — we wanted to simply see the results of how different objects reacted to the action of this impulse.

In terms of practical experimentation, it appears that the energy that we put into the discharge is much less than the energy that the impulse seems to generate, but I’m definitely not implying that it is some kind of over-unity device. I would suggest that we’re creating a set of special space-time conditions through interactions of the electromagnetic pulse-discharge with the Cooper pairs forming a Bose-Einstein Condensate in the superconductor.

Deflection & Amplitude: Early measurements from Podkletnov’s initial research paper.

So far you’ve published several scientific papers on this experiment, and I’d like to find out more about what topics you plan on publishing about in the future, and what your schedule for publication might be?

We’ll try to publish on a variety of experiments in a more detailed manner, but at present we’re extremely interested in attempting to measure the interaction of the impulse beam with visible light, and we published some preliminary results about this in the journal of low-temperature physics. The details are all in my paper co-authored with Dr. Modanese, and we’re continuing this research to refine our measurements of the propagation speed of the impulse.

We’re very cautious about what we write, because we don’t want to frighten the scientific community, and also we want to be absolutely sure that the results are checked and rechecked many times — but it seems that based on what we have now, and we’ve already been working for a year and a half, the speed of the impulse is much higher than the speed of light.

With the parameters that we use now — using our current emitter designs and a voltage of 3 to 5 million volts, we are measuring the propagation speed of the impulse at close to 64 times the speed of light. Of course, we would like to thoroughly confirm all our measurements using as many different tools, systems and methods as possible.

At present we use two atomic clocks, and we think that our measurements are precise, but we would welcome the advice of the international community. It would help to have additional input on how to measure the speed of the impulse as accurately as we can. As soon as we get a good confirmation of these results, we will try to publish all of this information.

You’ve published a paper on these experiments titled the “Study of Light Interaction with Gravity Impulses and Measurements of the Speed of Gravity Impulses” which you coauthored with Dr. Modanese, which describes the propagation speed of the force beam. Now, in that paper, you’d done a lot of measurements on the speed and it looks like you use two different types of measurement devices, right?

Right. So our main goal was first of all, to determine the speed of the gravity impulses and to study the interaction of the gravity impulses with the laser beam. There were actually two parallel experiments, and the results were pretty amazing, because first of all, we believe we were the first team to try to determine the speed of the propagation of a gravitational impulse at a distance of more than one kilometer.

Atomic Clocks: An pair of synchronized clocks at NIST (wikipedia)

We used very precise equipment — two synchronized rubidium atomic clocks — and we were able to determine with high precision the propagation speed of the gravitational impulses. We repeated these experiments for nearly half a year, using different voltages, targets, and experimental conditions. Nonetheless, we always had precise, consistent results, giving us a figure of 64 C, which indicates that the gravitational impulse is propagating at a speed 64 times faster than the speed of light.

A propagation speed of 64 times the speed of light seems very different than the accepted speed of gravity. Do you have any thoughts on how to reconcile your experimental data with the accepted model?

Well, modern astronomy feels confident that the speed of gravity is the same as the speed of light — but at the same time that does not explain or negate our measurements.

In any case, I am approaching this from an experimental perspective, whereas Giovanni Modanese approaches this as a theoretical physicist. He’s very accurate in giving appropriate terms everything we observe, and he calls it a gravity-like impulse.

For my part, I simply refer to it as a gravitational impulse, because after years of advances in the generation & measurement of these effects we have the ability to make objects heavier or lighter. I have no better term for it than “artificial gravity”, at least not at the moment.

Does the high propagation speed of the impulse increase the margin for error in your experimental measurements?

No. The error of the measurements is very low. First of all, keep in mind that a rubidium atomic clock is a very precise device to begin with. Also, we repeated the experiments many, many times. We also used very sensitive piezo-electric sensors, and we were able to describe our measurements with great precision in our paper. Obviously there is always a margin for experimental error, but in this case it should be very small.

From reading your paper, if I understand it correctly you’ve used piezo-electric sensors to respond to changes in pressure — so they’re responding to a mechanical change in force. In the other experiment you appeared to be using an interferometer for measurements. Does that sound accurate?

Piezo-Electric Sensors: An example of a modern printed piezo-array.

Yes, that is essentially correct. In the second experiment when we used a laser beam, which of course is situated to intersect the impulse beam path. The laser beam was positioned at a small angle to the propagation line of the impulse beam, and it intersected the projection area of the gravitational impulse about 60 meters away from the emitter.

In the region where the beams intersected, we noticed that the intensity of the laser diminished up to 9% depending on the voltage of the discharge. This effect was admittedly small, but our measurements were quite precise, and we repeated this experiment several times. It’s very interesting phenomenon.

It seems that you’re precisely measuring force on the target — what about reactive force on the emitter? When the impulse is emitted, are you measuring an equal & opposite force on the superconductive emitter?

No, there wasn’t. There was no reaction force at all. It doesn’t act according to Newton’s third law — that every force has an equal an opposite reaction. It appears as though the impulse is warping space-time, so perhaps you might call this a gravitational wave. Again, it propagates through space & interacts with normal matter, but does not lose energy at high distances — it remains collimated as it propagates.

It seems that one of the milestones for this experiment would be independent replication & validation of these experiment — but the 4-inch superconducting emitter may be an obstacle to that. Do you know if those are manufactured and sold anywhere?

Building effective emitters for large impulse effects is frankly a part of my professional know-how, but if you’re only talking about emitters that allow you to generate small effects, then it’s not a problem. I believe that American Superconductor can help to easily make emitters of this kind, and also there is a nice firm called “Superconductive Components” in Columbus, Ohio — they’re more or less familiar with my technology, and I think that they are up to the task of building emitter components.

Keep in mind that diameter of the disc should still not be less than 4-inches, and I’m talking about the physical structure of the ceramic itself. The structure for high-output emitters is very difficult to build, and requires a lot of experience to build correctly, so even if I provided a detailed description, it would be difficult to construct without my help. However, emitters capable of pushing a thick book away from a table are possible to construct, and they aren’t quite so complicated.

I understand that part of the phenomena included the observation of something you called a “flat glow discharge”. Can you describe that in more detail?

Flat Glow Discharge: A visible discharge is seen during tests.

We did notice a flat, glowing discharge that came from the entire surface of the emitter, and seems to emit further radiation towards & beyond the anode in a collimated beam. We may attempt to film this with a high-speed camera, but that we don’t presently have that, so we simply rely on our eyesight.

We have also noticed that the discharge repeats the cross-sectional shape of the emitter, while special equipment would be useful, it is possible to see it with your own eyes — you don’t need a camera for that.

You’ve also described a transient anomalous effect that was happening behind the impulse generator. Have you been able to explore this at all?

There is a certain emission of radiation on the backside of the device, and this radiation has some harmonics which make it difficult to identify its exact and frequency. It’s highly transient and difficult to measure. This radiation penetrates different materials and it can damage equipment & apparatus positioned too closely. This is not a pleasant thing, but we noticed that the intensity of this field decreases rapidly with distance, so we avoid standing directly behind the device during operation, and it does not appear to be dangerous at all.

Frankly speaking it is not very easy to measure these additional effects. You know, when you’re dealing with millions of volts, it’s better to keep a bit of safe distance. We also use a Faraday cage and special rubber-metal coatings to shield the radiation, because otherwise the high magnetic field strength from the discharge will erase computer hard drives and damage nearby test-equipment.

Given the remarkable nature of these claims and the anomalous effects you’re describing, it would be very helpful to see photographic or video documentation for these effects. Is that something you plan to publish?

It is something we are looking into. Back when we we began our experiments, in Tampere in the early ‘90s, it just wasn’t common practice to make videos or photos of the equipment or the experiment. I know that it’s typical in the United States, but here in Europe it’s different.

Our most recent experiments are being conducted at the Moscow Chemical Research Center, which has a no-camera policy because the whole center is a very secure facility and some of the research laboratories are closed to the general public. We have signs on the walls of the laboratory prohibiting photography, as part of the established policy for this research center.

This may change: I’ve discussed the possibility of photo & video documentation with the administration and they think it might be possible, but at present I don’t have any photos or video to share with you.

Eugene, thank you again for your time and for sharing all of this information. Let me close by asking you what’s next — where do you see this research going?

You could call what we’re doing experimental gravity research, and it has tremendous future potential, but it’s also very complicated — in some ways perhaps even more complex than nuclear physics, and certainly not as well understood.

But when you think back to the beginning of the nuclear era, there was a period in the United States when the public, industry and military were interested, and progress was made rapidly.

We also have some of the same issues today that nuclear research did back then. It really isn’t possible to make a small nuclear explosion in the lab, and in the same way there are thresholds for generating our effects that make it difficult to design small, inexpensive experiments.

So in that context, experimental gravity research offers big opportunities but also requires a collaborative, organized approach to study it, by combining the knowledge different physicists, chemists, materials scientists & theoretical physicists.

I believe it is only by working together with other experts that we will make real breakthroughs in this field, and I’m eager to do that because it’s very, very serious research and opens the door to many new possibilities.