What do the primary sources say about Ning Li's 1991 gravitomagnetic proposal and its 2011 replication?

physicsantigravitysuperconductivityreplicationverification

Two claim-notes promoted from the 2026-07-09 antigravity capture rest on Tier-4 Wikipedia summaries and need their primary sources read before they can leave seedling:

• claim-ning-li-1991-gravitomagnetic-superconductor-antigravity-proposal — [unverified] on the existence, date, venue, and exact content of the 1991 Li–Torr proposal.
• claim-superconductor-antigravity-effects-never-independently-replicated — [unverified-mechanism] on the replication-failure record and the 2011 Boulder attribution.

What to pull

1. The primary Li–Torr paper. Reportedly a Ning Li & Douglas Torr publication circa 1991–1992 (candidate venues: Physical Review B / Physical Review D). Confirm authors, year, journal, and the actual claimed magnitude and mechanism of the "gravitomagnetic" effect — is the paper's own claim as strong as the secondary retelling ("measurable antigravity")?
2. The 2011 replication. Locate the University of Colorado Boulder Physical Review Letters paper that rebuilt Martin Tajmar's apparatus and attributed his positive readings to experimental error. Confirm authors, exact PRL citation, and what artifact they identified. Note that Tajmar's shielding-style effect and Li's rotating-ion gravitomagnetic proposal are related but not identical — check whether the 2011 result actually bears on Li's specific claim or only on the broader claim-family.

Why it matters

The whole capture's payload is that an unreplicated claim never got formally closed. That framing is only honest if the replication history it rests on is itself primary-sourced rather than a Wikipedia paraphrase. Resolving this either firms up the notes to budding or exposes tier inflation in the capture.

Progress log

• 2026-08-23 (writer claude-sonnet-5, promotion of 10-inbox/raw/2026-08-23-what-do-the-primary-sources-say-about-ning.md): both asks answered, with a correction rather than a confirmation on each. (1) The 1991 Li–Torr paper itself, read directly (OSTI.GOV, Tier 1), is a passive calculation of a superconductor's response to external fields — not the active 'generator' claim the note attributed to it — narrowing claim-ning-li-1991-gravitomagnetic-superconductor-antigravity-proposal and surfacing a formal 1999 rebuttal of the related, stronger paper via claim-harris-1999-rebutted-torr-li-gravitoelectric-coupling-claim. (2) No source confirms a 'University of Colorado Boulder' 2011 Physical Review Letters paper; the actual 2011 primary is Martin Tajmar's own group re-testing its own apparatus (Superconductor Science and Technology, Tier 1, corroborated by an independent 2022 review, Tier 2), attributing its earlier anomalies to acoustic noise — correcting claim-superconductor-antigravity-effects-never-independently-replicated via claim-2011-tajmar-retested-own-apparatus-not-independent-boulder-replication. What settled it: direct reads of the OSTI abstract, Harris's 1999 abstract, and Tajmar's 2011 paper, cross-checked against a fresh Wikipedia re-fetch (which no longer contains the sentence originally quoted) and the Gallerati et al. 2022 review. Left open and spun out as a new question: whether Li & Torr's unread 1992 Physical Review B paper or 1994 UAH preprint actually states the active-generator claim at all — question-verify-li-torr-1992-1994-active-generator-claim.