Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro
Customer Discussions > Science Fiction forum

Anti-gravity Out of Magnetics?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-225 of 867 posts in this discussion
Posted on Sep 9, 2009 12:34:29 PM PDT
To anyone still following this thread, I found a new website: epm.ethz.ch/research This is a Zurich clearinghouse for PDF or other articles related to "Earth and Planetary Magnetism". I used the Search Box to check out articles related to "gravity reversal", "time reversal", and "magnetic reversal".

Most of these articles were beyond my comprehension. But to the scientific-minds reading this who are interested in magnetics, you may want to check out the site.

Cheers!

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 9, 2009 1:15:24 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
"To anyone still following this thread, I found a new website: epm.ethz.ch/research This is a Zurich clearinghouse for PDF or other articles related to "Earth and Planetary Magnetism". I used the Search Box to check out articles related to "gravity reversal", "time reversal", and "magnetic reversal"."

"gravity reversal",

Your search - "gravity reversal" site:www.epm.ethz.ch - did not match any documents.

"time reversal",

Your search - "time reversal" site:www.epm.ethz.ch - did not match any documents.

"magnetic reversal".

Your search - "magnetic reversal" site:www.epm.ethz.ch - did not match any documents.

The important lesson here is to place the search query in quotes, otherwise every document where the words appear separately will be given as a result, meaning that your query will give false results, and you need to read the articles to realise that they have nothing to do with what you were really searching for...

Thus using magnetic & reversal without quotes, gives Results 1 - 5 of 5 for magnetic reversal site:www.epm.ethz.ch. (0.22 seconds) . All of these look to be either the home page or scientific articles on long term changes in the magnetic field of the Earth or biomagnetism, (nothing to do with antigravity, time machines or 2012...)

Posted on Sep 13, 2009 11:51:57 AM PDT
To anyone still following this thread, and harkening back to my original post/question, the Los Angeles Times today ran an article titled: "JPL Scientists Succeed In Levitating Mice".

"Jet Propulsion Laboratory physicist Yuanming Liu said in an interview Thursday that mice were levitated using a device called a no-gravity simulator, which is powered by a superconducting gradient magnet." (This is a study to eventually help astronauts minimize bone loss by spending extending periods in low gravity environments away from Earth.)

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 13, 2009 12:36:32 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 13, 2009 12:37:55 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
"JPL Scientists Succeed In Levitating Mice".

This is not anti-gravity: The superconducting magnet generates a magnetic field strong enough to levitate the water inside every cell in the mouse's body. In the presence of a strong magnetic field the electrons in the water rearrange orbit slightly, creating tiny currents in opposition to the external magnetic field so that the diamagnetic repulsion of the water in the mouse's tissue is sufficient to counter the pull of gravity.

There is a 2.6 inches wide opening between the super-conducting magnets in the 'no-gravity' device in which the three-week old mouse is suspended in a plastic cage within the powerful magnetic field; food and water can be inserted at the top, and holes at the bottom for waste removal.

In the past, rats have survived up to ten weeks in the presence of a similarly strong magnetic field with no signs of any damage, and the mice will be dissected before that. Trying to 'levitate' a human being in this way is not recommended.

Also, despite the name given to the device, it does not generate the same effects as microgravity because Earth's gravity is still pulling the mouse down, whilst the magnetic field is pushing it up, but is does minimise mechanical stress on its bones.

Posted on Sep 13, 2009 8:04:07 PM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
Again, if that's anti-gravity, then so is a hot air balloon.

The idea just hasn't gotten through, has it? Zero progress ... amazing.

Posted on Sep 13, 2009 10:17:13 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 13, 2009 10:26:18 PM PDT
B. A. Dilger says:
In Sol's influence exist many 'heavenly bodies'. We know of the planets whatever the number, but also must count asteroids, comets, dust, and debris. Outside and surrounding our solar system are named two belts--the Kuiper and the Oort Belts. These are extensive bodies of icy rock and 'ice' respectively. Something makes them stick to Sol's influence. Is this the mysterious 'gravity'? Is it something else? Could we use this 'force' to our own advantage in intra-solar travel?.....Why not anti-gravitons?

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 13, 2009 11:02:30 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
"Is this the mysterious 'gravity'? Is it something else?"

That would be gravity.

"Could we use this 'force' to our own advantage in intra-solar travel?....."

We already use it for interplanetary travel: as 'gravity assist' - otherwise known as a gravitational slingshot to use the relative movement and gravity of a planet to alter the path and speed of a spacecraft to reduce fuel usage and to decelerate or accelerate a spacecraft. Typically used to reach the outer planets.

"Why not anti-gravitons?"

Because they are a hypothetical elementary particle and may not exist.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 14, 2009 4:29:50 AM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
Duuuude, that was ... poetic! :D

Posted on Sep 14, 2009 8:36:42 AM PDT
oldmaol says:
I remember the idea of "rail guns", a form of magnetic/electric propulsion proposed for assisting launch to orbit. Most of these were abandoned due to the large cost both to build, operate, and maintain them. The most extensive one I remember was to set up the gun on a mountain, and over several kilometers distance give a vehicle a large percentage of the velocity necessary to get to orbit.

Even with a cost effective system, you still have the problem of the vehicle now having a very high velocity while still in dense air, so you have large aerodynamic loads on the vehicle, high heat, etc, the opposition of which requires additional weight in the vehicle, further reducing the efficiency of the method.

All mag lev/propulsion ideas use very high mag fields (the Earth's is puny) none of which is practical without superconducting for a launched vehicle.

There has been to date no physical demonstration of antigravity, or of any physical particle related to gravity. There are theories of gravity that employ particles ("gravitons") and these usually have "anti" particles. All these theories have yet to be grounded in reality through repeatably observed means. The Higgs Boson that would give the effect of gravity to all massive particles is one of the objectives of the LHC. Finding it would highly constrain the many theories of quantum gravity. I do not remember that particle's anti-particle resulting in anti-gravity.

Also the idea of negative mass is a non physical idea. Anti matter is not negative matter and has the same gravitation as any other mass. Even dark matter for which there is pretty good physical evidence through astronomical observation, has "normal gravity". So antigravity and faster than light travel, while really great for sci-fi, are not likely to show up in our future until we can generate magnetics comparable to a magnetar (these have the power requirements, but tend to mess up local spacetime in the process) magnetic propulsion space is not a viable idea. And limited even then.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 14, 2009 11:13:46 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
Hi oldmaol,

Earlier pages have touched on some of your comments, including discussion of the graviton and the possibility that if it were to exist, it might, like some other particles not have an anti- counterpart.

Unfortunately, the difference between magnetic levitation and antigravity is not clear to some people.... 8-(

"Even with a cost effective system, you still have the problem of the vehicle now having a very high velocity while still in dense air, so you have large aerodynamic loads on the vehicle, high heat, etc, the opposition of which requires additional weight in the vehicle, further reducing the efficiency of the method."

Here's some of the earlier material:

Mag-lev assist has been discussed at least since one of the SSTO studies (one of ROMBUS, Ithacus, Pegasus, Hyperion - I forget which one) in the Seventies as a variant on the old rocket-sledge as seen in 'When Worlds Collide'. One of the Chinese Project 921-3 space shuttle variants includes mag-lev but the available information is... suspect.

Some NASA studies have looked into using one of the three current mag-lev methods to provide a track along which a spaceplane can be accelerated to 'give launch vehicles a "running start" as they lift off to orbit.'

A model aircraft has been 'launched' in this way, and there are other military studies considering this as a method to accelerate aircraft from aircraft carriers.

One article in full:

******************

Overcoming the grip of Earth's gravity is a supreme challenge for engineers who design rockets that leave the planet. One of the cutting-edge technologies being developed at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., would give launch vehicles a "running start" as they lift off to orbit.

Marshall engineers are testing magnetic levitation-or maglev-technologies that could levitate and accelerate a launch vehicle along a track at high speeds before it leaves the ground. Using electricity and magnetic fields, a maglev launch-assist system would drive a spacecraft along a horizontal track until it reaches desired speeds, and then the vehicle would shift to onboard engines for launch to orbit. A full-scale, operational track would be about 1.5 miles long and capable of accelerating a vehicle to 600 mph in 9.5 seconds.

Maglev technologies could dramatically reduce the cost of getting to space. Much of the expense of conventional rocket launches is traced to the weight of propellant. Since maglev-assisted vehicles use electricity-an off-board energy source, the spacecraft's weight at liftoff could be about 20 percent less than a typical rocket, resulting in significant cost savings. Each launch using a full-scale maglev track would consume only about $75 worth of electricity in today's market. Electricity is both inexpensive and environmentally safe.

The Marshall Center and industry partner PRT Advanced Maglev Systems Inc. of Park Forest, Ill., installed a 50-foot maglev track at Marshall in September and plan to extend it to 400 feet. Tests conducted with the experimental track help NASA learn more about aerodynamics, magnetic fields and energy storage devices associated with maglev. Experiments to validate the concept have been conducted successfully on a 20-foot electromagnetic track at the University of Sussex in Brighton, England.

The Marshall track is an advanced linear induction motor. Induction motors are common in fans, power drills and sewing machines, but instead of spinning in a circular motion to turn a shaft or gears, a linear induction motor produces thrust in a straight line. It's basically a rotary motor split in half and rolled out flat.

When the coils of the linear induction motor are energized by alternating current, a magnetic field is created, providing thrust that pushes an aluminum carrier along the maglev track. A horseshoe-shaped carrier containing a 5-foot, 30-pound spacecraft model is levitated about one-half inch above the track as it accelerates from zero to 60 mph in less than one-half second.

The track-50 feet long, about 2 feet wide and about 1.5 feet high-is mounted on concrete pedestals. It consists of 10 identical, 5-foot-long segments that weigh about 500 pounds each. Most of the weight is iron used in the motor. The track is shrouded with nonmagnetic stainless steel.

Magnetic levitation of the carrier and its vehicle on the experimental track requires about 200 kilowatts of electricity-the equivalent of turning on 2,000 100-watt light bulbs at one time.

In addition to industry partner PRT, NASA is joining with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory of Livermore, Calif., to develop maglev technologies. The Livermore team is building a track that uses permanent magnets and a linear motor that runs without superconductors or complex feedback circuits.

Maglev is one of many technologies being developed by the Marshall Center's Advanced Space Transportation Program to reduce the cost of getting to space from today's $10,000 per pound to only hundreds of dollars per pound.

Posted on Sep 14, 2009 11:43:50 AM PDT
B. A. Dilger says:
If we had true anti-gravity Terra's atmosphere wouldn't effect flight.
Spaceships would just float in and out like soap bubbles.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 14, 2009 12:19:28 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 14, 2009 12:21:41 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
B.A. Dilger,

"If we had true anti-gravity Terra's atmosphere wouldn't effect flight.
Spaceships would just float in and out like soap bubbles."

Only if the craft were at a very low velocity, relative to Earth's atmosphere.

At higher velocities the Earth's atmosphere would cause the craft to heat up, both due to 'aerodynamic friction', and because a fast moving object in the atmosphere creates a 'bow wave' where air becomes trapped, compressed and heats up (Boyle's Law).

For instance, at Mach 2.2 Concorde expanded in length by roughly nine inches - the skin temperature of the aircraft ranged up to a peak nose temperature of 153°C (307°F) -- when the air it was flying in was at -57°C (-70°F). A hypersonic glider like the space shuttle gets really hot on re-entry, and like any rocket, parts of it get quite hot on launch as well.

These same effects will occur in any craft flying in Earth's atmosphere, whether they use antigravity or not.

If the imaginary antigravity system lifting the craft uses very little energy, then a very slow ascent or descent won't encounter significant heating (though it will get cold very quickly as it rises in altitude). If the imaginary antigravity system takes more energy to power, then you would want to takeoff or land as quickly as possible to minimise costs, and the craft will experience heating effects.

Posted on Sep 15, 2009 5:46:15 AM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
Maybe he was thinking about the friction deflection shields surrounding the anti-grav ships, given that "soap bubble" reference.

Dear, dear, dear, we reap the fruits of America's superior science education systems. :(

Posted on Sep 15, 2009 7:06:57 AM PDT
B. A. Dilger says:
We live at the bottom of a sea of inert gases, away from the vacuum of space. There will be friction. But not if the rate of
ascent/descent is "slow" enough. Gravitics would not require exposure to Terran physics. (Would be outside of it's influence.)

Posted on Sep 15, 2009 7:36:38 AM PDT
There will probably never be any such thing as "anti gravity." Gravity is caused by mass, so anti-gravity would require anti-mass? The most you can do is construct the absence of mass, but not "less" than that.

Just as time only travels in one direction, gravity will probably turn out to have a single scale. From zero and up.

Work performed to "overcome" gravity really can't be considered anti-gravity. You haven't removed any of the gravity, just countered it with another force. The gravity still exists.

Having said that, "grav panels" are featured in my own works. Some fictional tools are too handy to pass up.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 15, 2009 10:05:18 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
B.A .Dilger,

"We live at the bottom of a sea of inert gases, away from the vacuum of space."

Oxygen isn't exactly inert. Helium and neon are inert, but there's isn't a high percentage of these gases in Earth's atmosphere.

"There will be friction. But not if the rate of ascent/descent is "slow" enough."

Depends on the power requirements for this imaginary antigravity system.

"Gravitics would not require exposure to Terran physics. (Would be outside of it's influence.)"

That statement is... completely bonkers. 9-)

I suppose as imaginary physics, 'gravitics' indeed do not interact with real physical laws!

Even if you have a means of giving an object neutral or negative gravity, it is still a physical object and subject to the usual laws as physics because you have only negated the effect of gravity, not thermodynamics or anything else.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 15, 2009 12:37:05 PM PDT
B. A. Dilger says:
Should have been more specific. Last reading I have puts 76% Nitrogen in the atmosphere....If there were gravitics involved in Terran access to orbit, the gravitational field will not be restraining anti-g, nor should there be electromagnetic interference, since they work on different principles. That mass seems to be an important factor in g strength does not negate future research in repelling g by the use of energy fields. One thing I complain about all the time is Why haven't they solved fusion power yet? (Whoever 'they' is.)

Posted on Sep 15, 2009 12:58:26 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
B.A. Dilger,

"Last reading I have puts 76% Nitrogen in the atmosphere...."

78.08% of the Earth's atmosphere is nitrogen, which is mostly inert, but flying through it will still result in aerodynamic friction and compression effects regardless of the means of propulsion, unless the vehicle is moving slowly.

"If there were gravitics involved in Terran access to orbit, the gravitational field will not be restraining anti-g, nor should there be electromagnetic interference, since they work on different principles."

Not clear what principles your 'gravitics' are using, but as the mechanism is imaginary this means there is no limit on what you can claim.

"That mass seems to be an important factor in g strength does not negate future research in repelling g by the use of energy fields."

What are these energy fields? You suggest that they aren't electromagnetic, so...?

"One thing I complain about all the time is Why haven't they solved fusion power yet?"

Because it is fraught with numerous technical difficulties and very expensive. In 2006 representatives from China, the European Union, India, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the US signed up to spend around $5 billion to build ITER (originally the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) to run in conjunction with IFMIF (the International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility). There are also other programs around the world (DEMO, Wendelstein 7-X, NIF, HiPER, IFMIF, and JET). But unless there's a breakthrough, viable fusion power may be a century away. Real science and engineering takes time, effort and lots of expense.

Posted on Sep 17, 2009 10:00:34 AM PDT
To anyone still following this thread, nextbigfuture.com recently offered an article titled "Berkeley Lab: Putting a Strain on Nanowires Could Yield Colossal Magnetoresistance".

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 17, 2009 10:27:07 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
"To anyone still following this thread, nextbigfuture.com recently offered an article titled "Berkeley Lab: Putting a Strain on Nanowires Could Yield Colossal Magnetoresistance"."

Interesting, but nothing to do with a 'space drive' - this is demonstrating a change in the electrical resistance of the nanowire in the presence of a magnetic field. It is mainly of interest for computer memory, semiconductors and transistors.

Posted on Sep 18, 2009 11:23:59 AM PDT
To anyone still following this thread, today's nextbigfuture.com (9/18/09) has an article titled "A More Affordable High G Force Magnetic Space Launcher Proposal (by Bolonkin)"

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 18, 2009 11:39:12 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
"A More Affordable High G Force Magnetic Space Launcher Proposal (by Bolonkin)"

The costs are way too low, considering the issues with the development of military large-scale rail-guns, and the full article makes it clear that this is intended for high g-force payloads (not people). A manned version would require an incredibly long track (the article says 1100km for 3g acceleration instead of the 412m track for unmanned payloads).

This isn't a very new concept, though there are some new ideas in there. Maglev still looks a more viable approach for assisting the launch of manned (or unmanned) craft.

Posted on Oct 8, 2009 8:07:04 AM PDT
My first post of this information, got rejected for Objectionable Content(???) Let's try again.

An older article (02/06) in indiadaily.com, is titled "Anti-Gravity Driven Reverse Engineered UFOs Become a Reality in America, Russia, China and India." (... in separate, classified projects, reverse engineered next generation military vehicles driven by anti-gravity ... Boeing pioneering in America ... Russia well ahead of others ...)

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 8, 2009 12:02:46 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
"My first post of this information, got rejected for Objectionable Content(???) Let's try again."

Hmm...

"An older article (02/06) in indiadaily.com, is titled "Anti-Gravity Driven Reverse Engineered UFOs Become a Reality in America, Russia, China and India." (... in separate, classified projects, reverse engineered next generation military vehicles driven by anti-gravity ... Boeing pioneering in America ... Russia well ahead of others ...) "

India Daily is a tabloid web paper, famous for the inaccuracy of its reporting and the low quantity of its 'journalism'. Not a reliable source.

Posted on Oct 10, 2009 6:56:04 AM PDT
John Hanna says:
the new SF Hard Jack by Hanna uses an antigravity booster to boost the hero into space. The technique, available now, is discussed in detail.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science Fiction forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science Fiction forum
Participants:  62
Total posts:  867
Initial post:  Jul 17, 2009
Latest post:  Jul 17, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 14 customers

Search Customer Discussions