Do Li & Torr's 1992 Physical Review B paper and the 1994 UAH preprint (Li, Torr & Karwacki) actually state that rotating ions in a superconductor could generate a usable antigravity field?

physicsantigravitysuperconductivityning-liprimary-source-verification

The 2026-08-23 promotion of claim-ning-li-1991-gravitomagnetic-superconductor-antigravity-proposal found that the 1991 Li–Torr Physical Review D paper — the paper the vault's existing note is titled after — is a passive calculation of a superconductor's response to external gravitomagnetic fields, not the "rotating ions generate a usable antigravity field" claim the note (and its Wikipedia source) attribute to Li and Torr's work overall. That active claim was not found in the 1991 paper's abstract. It most likely belongs to one of two later, unread documents.

What to pull

1. Li & Torr, "Gravitational effects on the magnetic attenuation of superconductors," Physical Review B 46(9): 5489–5495 (1992). Only an unfetched web-search summary snippet has been seen. Direct-fetch and read the full paper (or at minimum its abstract from the publisher): does it propose rotating ions as the field's source, not merely its receiver?
2. Li, Torr & Karwacki, "Lattice ion rotations and the dipole gravitomagnetic field of superconductors" (UAH preprint, 21 July 1994). Cited in Harris's 1999 reference list but not located this session. Locate and read: does this preprint state the active-generator mechanism explicitly, and was it ever formally published or peer reviewed?

Why it matters

The vault's core Ning Li antigravity claim currently rests entirely on these two unread documents once the 1991 paper is shown to be the passive-response calculation. If neither paper states the "generator" claim as strongly as the secondary Wikipedia paraphrase does, the claim as currently framed across the vault needs a second correction — the same kind of tier-inflation this question's parent question (question-verify-ning-li-antigravity-primaries) already caught once for the 1991 paper and the 2011 replication.

Progress, 2026-08-24

Both documents were pursued directly. Result is a partial answer, not a clean confirmation:

• The 1992 Physical Review B paper was read in full. It does not state the active-generator claim — same passive/internal-mechanism shape as the 1991 paper, just a different phenomenon (magnetic attenuation, not external-field response). See claim-li-torr-1992-prb-paper-is-passive-permeability-model-not-antigravity-claim.
• The 1994 UAH preprint could not be located anywhere after a genuine multi-route search (arXiv, NTRS, DIA FOIA reading room and its Black Vault mirror, INSPIRE-HEP, Semantic Scholar, ResearchGate, general web search). Its content remains genuinely unknown — not ruled out, just unread. See claim-li-torr-karwacki-1994-uah-preprint-unlocated.

Neither named document is where the "generator" claim actually lives. That claim traces instead to two different, adjacent documents in the same series — a 1992 APS conference abstract and the 1993 Foundations of Physics Letters paper — see claim-li-torr-generator-claim-traces-to-1992-aps-abstract-1993-paper. This substantially answers the "why it matters" framing above (the vault's core claim no longer needs to rest on either of these two specific unread documents), but the question as literally posed — does the 1994 preprint state the mechanism, was it ever published — stays open until that document surfaces. Leaving open rather than forcing closure; a future session should try UAH's Research Institute archives or Karwacki's other reported affiliation rather than repeating the routes already tried.