h a l f b a k e r yI never imagined it would be edible.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Ok, I will propose this idea as an Anti-gravity Device, because most of you would think of it to be one. In fact, this is a Gravity Generating Device. Ok, if you take two ring-shaped magnets, one is smaller than the other in diameter, and you spin the small one inside the larger one, you can create
an artificial gravity field around them. In order for this to work, you must spin them appropriately. I mean that you should lay them both down on a table and place the small one inside the larger one. Now you have to spin the outer larger one clockwise and spin the smaller inner one, counter-clockwise, or vise-versa. This will create an opposing force at the north pole of the magnet, when it comes across and past the north pole of the other magnet. It will also create an attraction force when North passes South. My theory says that the constant opposition and attraction will cause a flux to occur, and THAT will cause a positive force, called Gravity :)
Like forces repel, so if you created Gravity, it SHOULD repel from other forces of gravity too, like the Earth's gravity...so it just might float.
If you have read this halfbaked idea, and think it would be useful, please email me at ohspit@home.com and at colin_click@hotmail.com.
The Phenomenator
http://www.firebox.com/product.php?id=108
And a toy that does the above already. [StarChaser]
BP 1 310 990
http://www.newscien...weird/bizarre9.html
First story in left hand column. [StarChaser, Jul 09 2000, last modified Oct 21 2004]
BP 1 310 990
http://www.newscien...weird/bizarre9.html
First story in left hand column. [Scott_D, Jul 09 2000, last modified Oct 17 2004]
it's not gravity, it's magnetism
http://www.levitron.com/physics.html
an excellent explanation of how this thing works [mihali, Jul 09 2000, last modified Oct 21 2004]
(?) Balducci levitation
http://www.geocitie.../7308/balducci.html
Spoilers. [jutta, Jul 09 2000]
GRACE
http://www.csr.utex...ations/measurement/
Apropos to nothing [phoenix, Mar 28 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004]
(?) World gravity map
http://www.csr.utex...ions/world_gravity/
Which GRACE is refining. Still apropos to nothing. [phoenix, Mar 28 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004]
(?) jpceuelemans's link as a link.
http://www.natureas...614/psu010614g.html
[StarChaser, Mar 29 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Boeing works on an anti-gravity generator...
http://news.bbc.co....ci/tech/2157975.stm
[hippo, Jul 29 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Build your own anti-gravity device
http://www.antigravityengines.com/
[jivetalkinrobot, Oct 17 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]
[link]
|
| |
You've discovered magnetism. Magnetism is not the same as gravity. |
|
| |
Uuhhmm...yeah...that's why NASA is working with a similar model huh? And it DOES Create a positive Gravitational force by doing this...YES! |
|
| |
Ok, then, how about a link to NASA's site mentioning it? I'm sure that if they were working on anti-gravity, they'd mention it... |
|
| |
Of course spinning magnets generate gravitational forces! If they're heavy enough, that is... |
|
| |
ok, ok, I don't know where to find the place that mentions anything about Anti-gravity on NASA's site cuz i have never been to the site...and really don't care about their theories either. I just care about getting my idea on the market...so, why don't YOU take a look at NASA's site and figure this crap out yourself? It is hard to come up with ideas that work these days as you all know. some people are lucky in that they find something that's in demand. AND, to Hippo, magnets don't have to be large to create a force of gravitiy. it's all about the spinning speed. As I said before, I have a working model in my shop that floats...actually floats...no shit. No, I cannot stand on it, but it seems to me that it is Defiying grtavity. It is NOT free energy, but Conversion at it's best. If you think I am lying, I don't care because I know...have a nice day people:) |
|
| |
Where are you, bifftannon? |
|
| |
If your lab happens to be anywhere near where I am, I'll happily visit you and make a report. I promise not to steal your antigravity secrets, and I'll even sign an NDA to that effect. |
|
| |
Now, we've all seen magnets float; as StarChaser points out, that can happen by ordinary magnetic repulsion. To demonstrate "anti-gravity" I'd want to see a non-magnetic, non-conductive object floating (and reasonable evidence that other normal forces, e.g. electrostatic repulsion or wind, aren't counteracting gravity). |
|
| |
Lets get this straight you have an antigravity machine that can defy the gravitational force of the earth while utilizing the magnetic forces of the earth? Can I see it aswell? |
|
| |
For 10$ in almost any science store in the US you can buy a little top with a magnet on it that floats over the base that contains another magnet. This has been around for years...and it's still not 'antigravity'...Just magnetism. |
|
| |
It's a pity he got quiet. It's always been one of my dreams to see one of the great things actually made by someone who sets off my kook alarm. |
|
| |
I wonder if any of the guys working on FTL goofiness are grammar or punctuation deviant? |
|
| |
I think all this magnet-spinning should be powered by hooking it up to a perpetual motion machine. |
|
| |
The perpetual motion being produced by strapping buttered toast to the back of a cat. |
|
| |
If you need more power, butter a cut loaf of French bread and strap it to a lion. |
|
| |
That's a bit dangerous. Why not just have several kittens running in parallel? |
|
| |
NASA really is working on an Anti-Gravity machine. I saw a program on it. It was on the Discovery Channel's World of Wonder hosted by Michael Dorn (Star Trek's Mr. Worf). They had a very large electromagnet. It had a very narrow hole in the center. They were levitating non-conductive objects, like mice and water in the hole. It was amazing. I have been trying to track down info on it ever since but I haven't been able to dig much up. I did however run across a web site that talked about a NASA scientist working on Anti-Gravity and how she thought she could create an Anti-Gravity Car with ten years. With their limited success so far I think this is a bit of a stretch. I went to Discovery’s Web site but I couldn’t find anything about that show. I would love to get a tape of it. It seems kind of strange that I can’t dig anything up on it. |
|
| |
Here are some links to check out: |
|
| |
http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1998/may/m08-013.shtml |
|
| |
http://popularmechanics.com/popmech/sci/9712STSPM.html |
|
| |
http://se1.com/fm/tbt/antigrav.html |
|
| |
http://www.mysteries-megasite.com/main/bigsearch/anti-gravity.html |
|
| |
Comments? email me at mrstu@pacbell.net. If you can track down any info on that World of Wonder show I would love to hear it. |
|
| |
I once received an abstract from USC (not Southern Cal, South Carolina) entitled "Gravity Generator". It claimed invention of an anti-gravity device. However, it required a NDA in order to find out more--and I could not get anyone in my company to sign a NDA for the device! I still have the abstract somewhere; I'll dig it out and will post the text here next year (2001). |
|
| |
I saw the same show a few weeks ago that MrStu was talking about on the "Discovery Channel's World of Wonder". The only problem with hovering something the size of a frog was it took something like 70kilowatts to generate the electromagnetic field to do it and that's enough power to run a small town.
They had also talked about a scientist who believed that gravity could be counteracted by some sort of gyroscopic mechanism. He took about a 5ft long heavy pole with a heavy wheel on one end and spun it and was able with the help from the spinning wheel to swing the pole around his head with one hand on the very end of the pole which was too heavy to do with both hands without the wheel spinning. Just some thoughts... |
|
| |
I have several functioning anti-gravity devices in my home.
The one I like most keeps me hovering about half a metre
above the floor. While using it I have not once fallen to
the floor even when I lift both my feet completely off the
floor. It's nicely padded too. |
|
| |
If it takes tremendous amounts of energy, it's not worth it. You want a cheap floating sensation, make a seesaw. |
|
| |
I just love that thing in humans which makes them believe what they want to believe despite all other evidence to the contrary. David Copperfield has made a fantastic living out of playing on just that.
To think that just because something floats it must be generating gravity is quite a leap of faith. I suppose the big fan under a hovercraft must generate gravity too? Nothing to do with all that air pressure or anything.
On a lighter note, has anyone ever seen that street magician David Blain? He does this trick where he walks up to someone on a street corner, and then levitates 4 inches above the sidewalk. If anyone can tell me how he does it, I'd love to know... |
|
| |
Both Blain and Copperfield are honest stage/street magicians and don't walk around claiming special powers for real, but it's certainly not for lack of opportunity - there seem to be plenty of nuts out there thinking that either of them, in addition to being an acclaimed showman, is also capable of real magic. Scary. |
|
| |
There seem to be more and more hucksters trying to make a living from anti-science. Or maybe I've just become more aware of them. Too bad there's not a Rush Limbaugh-type showman bent on exposing the foolishness of "remote viewing" and chemtrails and ruined cities on Mars. James Randi is great, but we need someone with Limbaugh's capacity for pointed ridicule to make an impression on the gullible sorts who fall for this stuff. |
|
| |
Yuck. Limbaugh would make me start to take the anti-gravity nitwits seriously. |
|
| |
Here is the article you were referring to from the Discovery channel: |
|
| |
Netherlands scientists
were able to cause a
frog to free-float by
distorting its electrons. |
|
| |
Magnetized Frog
Defies Gravity |
|
| |
by D. Trull
Enigma Editor
dtrull@parascope.com |
|
| |
There's a favorite knee-jerk refrain from crotchety cynics in response to idle musings on the way things might have been: "If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass a-hopping!" But that curmudgeonly catch-phrase may now be obsolete, thanks to Dutch physicists and their amphibian test subject. No, they haven't genetically engineered winged frogs, but they have succeeded at suspending a live frog in mid-air using a powerful magnetic field. |
|
| |
Dr. Andre Geim of the University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands led the experiments, which were carried out using a giant superconducting magnet. The device creates a magnetic field that slightly distorts the orbits of the electrons in the atoms of any object placed in its path. The force generated was strong enough to make a frog float freely until it wriggled its way out of the field. The frog is being hailed as the first living creature ever to experience levitation. |
|
| |
The airborne amphibian reportedly "looked comfortable" while under the influence of the magnetic field, and seems to have emerged from the experiment fully intact. "It went back to its fellow frogs looking perfectly happy," said Peter Main, a member of Geim's research team. They have also indicated success in levitating fish, grasshoppers, and -- in a moment of wacky laboratory humor -- a cheese sandwich. |
|
| |
In technical terms, this floating effect derives from molecular diamagnetism, a very weak magnetic force possessed by all matter. Molecular diamagnetism has only a tiny fraction of the strength of ferro-magnetism, the force that holds magnets to your refrigerator, and it is repulsive rather than attractive. Any object placed into an adequately powerful magnetic field will thus repel away from the source. Scientists have previously demonstrated this by raising objects on heavily magnetized platforms, but the Dutch experiment marks the first time this has been done without a platform. |
|
| |
The floating frog breakthrough also differs markedly from the controversial "anti-gravity machine" of Dr. Eugene Podkletnov, who claimed to have suspended objects over a superconductor and reduced their weight by two percent. Obviously, the frog experienced a much more profound weight loss than that. One possible explanation is that Podkletnov's discovery was actually decreasing the pull of gravity itself, whereas Geim's experiment merely counteracts it with a strong local magnetic field. Since the science behind both of these experiments is far from fully understood, it's difficult to reconcile them at this point. |
|
| |
Geim and his researchers have stressed that the frog's safe passage through the magnetic field indicates that human beings could be levitated in the same way. Given a magnetic source strong enough, humans could float through the breeze like helium balloons, and so could virtually any object, of any weight -- which should make for some very uplifting technological applications in the future. |
|
| |
Sources: New Scientist; Electronic Telegraph.
----- |
|
| |
http://www.parascope.com/articles/0597/frog.htm
http://www.sci.kun.nl/hfml/frog-ejp.pdf |
|
| |
The 2000 Ig Nobel Prize Winners |
|
| |
PSYCHOLOGY
David Dunning of Cornell University and Justin Kreuger of the University of Illinois, for their modest report, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments." [Published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 77, no. 6, December 1999, pp. 1121-34.] |
|
| |
LITERATURE
Jasmuheen (formerly known as Ellen Greve) of Australia, first lady of Breatharianism, for her book "Living on Light," which explains that although some people do eat food, they don't ever really need to. |
|
| |
BIOLOGY
Richard Wassersug of Dalhousie University, for his first-hand report, "On the Comparative Palatability of Some Dry-Season Tadpoles from Costa Rica." [Published in The American Midland Naturalist, vol. 86, no. 1, July 1971, pp. 101-9.] |
|
| |
PHYSICS
Andre Geim of the University of Nijmegen (the Netherlands) and Sir Michael Berry of Bristol University (UK), for using magnets to levitate a frog |
|
| |
http://www.sci.kun.nl/hfml/froglev.html
http://www.sci.kun.nl/hfml/fingertip.html |
|
| |
I happen to come across this interesting argument while searching for some physics toys to help in the physics I course that I will be TA'ing for next semester. Of course as it seems, the teacher has told me that I will be teaching the course since he has research to do, :). Such is life. Nevertheless there appears to be much confusion here as to the concept of an actual "anti-gravity" device and of one that can defy gravity. Not to go into to much detail, let me try to explain. |
|
| |
First off, we can all defy gravity. Ever jump up in the air? All that has gone on is that you have created a force in the upward direction that is greater then the force pulling you down. This force in the "upward" direction could also be generated by many other devices, including using magnetic forces. However as you will learn there are many many many problems with using magnetics to cause a person to levitate. |
|
| |
What about actual anti-gravity? To understand how to create something like that, you must understand where this concept of gravity comes from. Up until this past century, everyone thought that planets just generate gravity somehow from there centers, and that this force was relativelty mysterious. Albert Einstein however in his paper on relativety, circa 1917 I believe, showed what gravity actually was. Gravity is caused by an object bending the spacetime around it into a curving space. The most popular example of this is the following. Imagine a trampaline (spelling?). Now imagine what would happen if I put a very heavy bowling ball on this trampaline. Obviously you can see how the trampaline would bend. The greater the mass of the bowling ball, the more the trampaline would bend. Lets now say that the trampaline represents space, and lets say the bowling ball represents Earth. You will now probably say, so how does this create gravity. Well, lets take a tennis ball and we will call it the Moon. What happens if I take this tennis ball and I put it on the trampaline, near the bowling ball (earth)? It is going to roll right toward the earth. Now of course the moon does not just crash right into the earth, but orbits around it. If we gave that tennis ball some initial velocity and the proper angle away from the earth, it would orbit our bowling ball. |
|
| |
Now that you have some understanding of what gravity is, you can easily see how difficult, if not impossible, it would be to create some sort of "anti-gravity" device. Since it takes such a huge mass to curve spacetime, how can you uncurve it to prevent this phenomena we call gravity from occuring? |
|
| |
I noticed someone talking about Nasa working on an "anti-gravity" device. heheeh. Uh, no. This person did mention a ship that has a section that is rotating which I think he refered to as anti-gravity. Actually, that has nothing to do with gravity. What nasa is doing is trying to take advantage of centripital and centrufugal acceleration. You see when an object rotates, there will be an acceleration toward the center of that object. We could use a device like this to create "artificial" gravity. The problem is that the device would have to spin rather quickly to create earth gravity which we call 1 G. Most ships, and even 1 space station I saw on TV which is in the works, would at most generate 1/2 G, or half the normal gravity on earth. That is still excellent because you would be able to walk around. Also, as you might know, astronauts have problems with muscle deterioration in space as there is no gravity, so there is no force to help them keep there muscles healthy. Even 1/2 normal gravity would be enough for them to stay healthy, so this is a major benefit. |
|
| |
Stumbled across this article, http://www.rense.com/general15/antig.htm, with links, while searching for some other useless knowledge - any comments? Is this for real? |
|
| |
With a quick look at it, I'd say 'no'. The linked page is apparently a transcript of a radio show, and the person quoted is obviously a raving 'UFOs are run by the government!' nut. The link looks like something real...but it's an ion motor of a type that's been around for at least 50 years. <Popular Mechanics had a bit on one that would lift one person in a capsule the size of a phone booth, using an array of antennas something like 100 feet across. Not actually levitation... |
|
| |
Well yes, the site is clearly fringe, although I got some good links between UFO stories - the halfbaked nature of the site seemed appropriate. I linked to it from another fringe site obsessed with this National I.D. business, biometrics, etc., though such concern is not entirely unfounded. |
|
| |
This just sounded awfully similar to something a guy posted in here once, a long time ago, and it seems like he said he was from France or Isreal or something. Anyway, that and the borderline schizo nature of the site reminded me of the good old halfbakery, and I thought I'd check in to see if anything had changed... |
|
| |
I don't know about 'anti-' gravity, but it's a straightforward proposition to *nullify* any gravitational pull: balance it with an equally strong gravitational field perpendicular to the lines of force you're trying to nullify. |
|
| |
Since gravity is a function of mass and mass is a function of speed, all you need is something going very fast to generate sufficient mass (and therefore gravitational pull) to counteract the field in question. |
|
| |
On Earth, this could be a magnetic ring, kept in a vacuum, being driven around its axis by an external electromagentic field. As the ring gains momentum, it gains mass. Maintain acceleration until the ring's gravitational pull matches that of the Earth and you'll have an area of null gravity between the two. |
|
| |
As to the material engineering involved, I'll leave that up to the astute HalfBaker. |
|
| |
(Addendum: It's not appearent, but I'm thinking of a ring about 3' in diameter, so the effect has limited range. I do wonder what the weather would be like right there.) |
|
| |
[UB] I don't supose you can provide a link... (I am joking... some people don't notice and that becomes anoying) |
|
| |
A few preliminary complications: first, determine how mass (whatever *that* is) is coupled with spacetime; next, unravel that coupling; next, control that unraveling. So far, only string theory seems to address, not to say resolve, the coupling question. Of course, there may be more practically aligned theories not yet expounded. |
|
| |
Phoenix, Larry Niven once gave a lecture on teleportation and how it might work, and had an idea something like that. A teleporter on the ground leading to a teleporter suspended above it. Now dump a bucket of iron filings into the bottom one and enclose the whole thing in as hard a vacuum as you can get, and let it run. The filings hit the bottom, are teleported to the top, fall under gravity and hit the bottom, are... |
|
| |
Shortly, you have an antigravity drive for the entire earth. |
|
| |
So...in the future, am I going to have to pull into a service station to buy a map of the local magnetic field lines? |
|
| |
By my calculations, which I admit are probably wrong, you could cancel out the earth's gravity by having an object weighing 1 tonne rotating 10 metres above your head at 0.999999999999999999986 of the speed of light. |
|
| |
How this is calculated (probably wrongly). The centre of the earth is around 6e6 metres away. Therefore mass for mass the object will exert a force greater by a factor of (6e5) squared or 3.6e11. If m0 is the mass of a body at rest, its mass at speed is given by: |
|
| |
m = m0 / (sqrt(1 - (v*v)/(c*c) ) ), |
|
| |
where c is the speed of light. |
|
| |
Then sqrt(1 - (v*v)/(c*c) ) = 1000 * 3.6e11 / 6e24 = 1.7e-10. Just find something that lets you solve that equation for v/c, and you should get the above result. |
|
| |
...or you could cancel out the Earth's gravity by having a mass the exact size and mass of the Earth rotating very slowly just above your head. It doesn't even need to be magnetic. |
|
| |
You guys are fucking funny.
-BEN |
|
| |
It's good to see that madness still reigns. |
|
| |
This is repulsive magnetic forces combined with the propensity for rapidly spinning objects to avoid sidereal rotation (thus keeping it from toppling over, while spinning of course). This is not anti-gravity.
The same can be said for the elderly man who lifted a heavy gyroscope over his head. This can be attributed to the same affect.
Experiment yourself:
Buy one of those cheap "toy" gyroscopes (which can be quite fun I might add), tie a string to the end of one of the rotational axis' (axis along which it rotates) and fire it up. You will notice that you can tip the gyro sideways, and it will seem to defy gravity on it's own, at the end of your string.
Fun stuff.
Gess.
PS: You're all insane, I have built the only Perpetual Motion Machine in existence. Thanks |
|
| |
Can I be the first to point out that although the author of this item claims he got the idea from Nasa, he still claims that *HE* intends to market/patent the idea. |
|
| |
i think Nasa would have something to say about that... |
|
| |
Hmmm... a magnetic ring spinning inside another magnetic ring... if you make 'em electromagnets, where I come from they call that a motor. |
|
| |
CasaLoco: It's actually 'NASA', it's an acronym. But yeah, among the other dumb ideas he had, that's one of the top ones... |
|
| |
Many scientists are really good at defending established theories and and trashing new controversive ones. Until an experiment comes along that dissmisses their butifull theories as incorrect. Then they are the first to claim that they actually had not exlcuded the new phenomenon all along.
look at this page
<Link moved to link area. -- Star>
if gravity can be considered a bend in spacetime and magnetic field lines can stiffen spacetime then wat more is there to say? |
|
| |
'wat more is there to say?' |
|
| |
How about 'what use is this?' It's a pretty theory, but all they did was describe it. No experiments of any kind are mentioned on the page...Lots of 'this theory suggests this' and 'that scientist suggests that', but nothing that would float so much as a feather. |
|
| |
See link. Boeing is apparantly working on an anti-gravity
generator. The report doesn't say that it works though... |
|
| |
the "like forces repel" thing sounds good, but that doesnt have anything to do with the gravity force. Pluto has gravity, and so does it's moon, Cheron (which is 1/2 pluto's size) but they dont repel each other, they attract each other. if you create gravity with your spinning magnets, then whoopie! maybe if the magnets are big enough you can create your own planet, which will attract its moon if you choose to give it one |
|
| |
//anti gravity is a known system, that does actually exist. It is the vacuum of space, where there are no planets or galaxies creating a gravity feild.//
Sorry, that's just wrong. The absence of any perceivable gravitational forces is not "anti-gravity", it's just "no gravity". It cannot be harnessed to counter gravitational effects elsewhere any more than collecting the darkness in a dark room can counter the light in an illuminated one. |
|
| |
The reason Anti-grav isn't possible is because there is no such thing as gravity. The trampoline example is circular thinking, gravity causes the trampoline to warp so what force causes time/space to warp ? Einstien was wrong. What we call gravity is the result of a long interaction of forces set in motion at the creation of the universe. So what we need is an 'anti-force' machine. Basically we're trying to jump out of a car doing 70 MPH and stop instantly.
BTW ... I'm working on my own magnetic perpetual-motion machine ;-) |
|
| |
Cool, This was my first visit here and I did'nt know how often replies got posted. Glad to see it's often ;-)
As far as our atoms flying apart ... there is some truth there. Our atoms do fly apart. Constantly exchanging electrons with other atoms/molecules. The reason the 'appear' to stay together is that they are replenished by other atoms flying apart ;-) It's a constant state of flux where quiescence is an illusion caused by lack of resolution. We just can't see the details, they're too small.
If you look to natural events you can see similarities in the structures of the universe. Wirl pools in the water look like tornadoes which look like huricanes which look like galaxies. The same forces at work on one cause the other. The difference is scale and time. |
|
| |
The reason mass 'appears' to be responsible for gravity is that greater mass equals greater force. The force required to get the mass of the universe moving is astounding. If a particle had zero mass at creation, it would have no effect on the universe as it can't carry any energy.
Thanks for listening ;-) This is a great place for halfbaked Ideas like mine (grin). |
|
| |
No kidding? Another REAL anti-gravity machine? OK, I'd like to read it. Go ahead. Give your explanation and convince me. |
|
| |
I'd love to do just that. Right now I have to go buy more tin foil for my head. |
|
| |
Hello everyone. I'm new to this forum and am quite pleased to have run across it...
All you have here is a magnetic, spinning mess, I'm afraid. I wish repulsing gravity was that simple, but it's not QUITE that simple, although I truly believe that it is more simple than what those who SHOULD know think...
Let me throw this at you and see what kind of response I get: First of all, the force known as gravity is the sum of the total pieces that make-up a whole object. When they say in the books that gravity is a result of mass, they are right eventhough they don't know how to explain it.
Gravity and Maganetism are REALLY CLOSE to being the same force; are the same force, but with a small difference...
Anti-Gravity does not require the huge amounts of power that are being used in the Bitter Solenoid. The Bitter Solenoid is NOT generating anti-gravity. It is generating an intense magnetic field that has the frog, or other objects caught in a tug of war between Gravity and Magnetism. The objects are caught in this 'vortex' of forces which make them levitate...
The power requirement for lifting, say, the family van into orbit should be anywhere between possibly as low as 100 watts to 1500 watts of power. Yes, you CAN use more, but to create an anti-gravity field of sufficient strength to levitate the van should be in this area: No problem... |
|
| |
If a functional, working prototype exists, why waste effort trying to get the academic community to look at it? Get the thing patented. In the process of getting it patented, you'd need to disclose enough information that any of us could build the thing and get it working. Anyone making money off of it is obligated to license the patent from you. So if this is so simple, easy to build, cheap, etc., what's the delay in getting a patent for it? |
|
| |
If it's money, then you can surely build a few more "prototypes" and sell them... |
|
| |
I estimate that my prototype will cost upwards of $2,000,000 to complete. If you can foot that bill, I'll start on it tomorrow. Since the finished product will also produce proof of time travel I might be able to start on it yesterday. |
|
| |
Here's a link to a few pictures and movies of small creatures and water drop floating within a tube using magnetic levitation...http://www-hfml.sci.kun.nl/froglev.html
Very interesting |
|
| |
Well if gravity is caused by a wrinkle in space-time, all we need is some sort of magical subspace iron and we'll all be floating. |
|
| |
If any one is willing to sign a NDA I
can tell them how to make a
simple anti-gravity machine that
with good enoght supplies can lift
anything. By next week I should
have supplies for a new anti-
gravity generator. |
|
| |
I'll sign your NDA e3mac. |
|
| |
BTW has anyone ever done the Levitation Game. We always did it at house parties and totally freaked out people that witnessed it. They thought we were into witchcraft or something. |
|
| |
The fact that the game works cannot be denied. I have participated in it many times with different people at parties. |
|
| |
I am putting it out there for all you skeptics. I'm sure you have some reason why it doesn't REALLY work. Or that this is not REALLY anti-gravity. It's very close though. |
|
| |
If nothing else, it should be evidence that some sort of reduction of the pull of gravity is possible. |
|
| |
The Levitation Game reduces the pull to the point that a person can be lifted very easily with a few fingers. |
|
| |
So I'm sure that a sophisticated method can be found that can reduce the pull of gravity on an object to a greater extent. |
|
| |
Find out WHY this game works. Find out HOW to increase this effect. You win the Nobel Prize for the discovery of "antiugravity" |
|
| |
e3mac - Let me see what you've got. |
|
| |
If gravity repels gravity, then why are there all these balls in space floating about each other? Shouldn't they be flying away from each other? Did they not get the memo? |
|
| |
...was it something I said?... |
|
| |
...or you could cancel out the Earth's gravity by having a mass the exact size and mass of the Earth rotating very slowly just above your head. It doesn't even need to be magnetic. - hippo, Oct 30 2001 |
|
| |
no, im sorry hippo that wouldnt work. and you wouldnt be around to see it not work because you would be crushed at "0.9999999999999999999986 the speed of light" - pottedstu, Oct 30 2001 |
|
| |
---props to starchaser for the "cats with buttered toast on their backs" perpetual motion machine. |
|
| |
just an obsevation but, whether its magnetics, helium,
or jumping, these are all forms of anti-grav/levitaion. What some of you are wanting to see sounds like magic. Obviously we would need some form of a machine to produce anti gravity effects, which is the actual important issue here, not HOW we can produce A-G, but how we can use it in a practical way. Bearing that in mind, Dr. Eugene Podkletnov is from Tampere University of Technology, Finland. Using a device made up of a rotating super-conducting ceramic disk suspended over a magnetic field produced by three electric coils enclosed in a cryostat, he conducted a superconductivity experiment. He reported that tests showed a small drop in the weight of objects placed over the device. NASA has invested $150 000 in research money attempting to repeat the experiments. A Dr. Ning Li postulates that ‘the lattice-ion structure in a superconductor plays a significant part in super-conduction. Rotation of the lattice ions caused by the EM field generates a gravito-magnetic force that can affect the local gravity field’. NASAs Advanced Space Exploration Program intends to spend more money on this research as part of its ‘Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program’ |
|
| |
Levitrons are cool. The forces must be balanced, repulsive = attractive and then there will be no vertical movement (hover)of course the magnetic field profile has a lot to do with it. In theory if it is driven by en external field it will float forever. (in theory) but someone will come along and mess it up. yeah then they can see how hard it is to get it started again (sorry I digress) ;) |
|
| |
niac7 - the reason that the game works is very well known. The human frame, ligaments and muscles are much stronger than any force we can generate consciously. This is basic scientific fact - try stopping cramp (chemically induced through build up of lactic acid) or pushing as hard as a natal contraction (chemically induced by hormones). The trick is getting them to behave in this way.
There are at least a couple of ways of tricking your muscles into being "stronger than normal" - the mind of matter technique (used in the one where you put your arm on somone's shoulder and try and get them to bend it - also used by your eastern karate types to generate more force with less effort) or the reflex technique (i.e. get your muscles and ligaments to react chemically or "mechanically" to generate force), and what you might call the "transfer of force" technique, whereby you "lock" out your joints and use the strength of your bones and ligaments rather than your muscles, which are not as strong, and/or make use of increased leverage by the way you go about a particular action (the arm on the shoulder trick also makes use of this too).
None of this is "mystic magic" - it's just basic science. The levitation trick makes use of the second of these - the muscle reflex technique. As you know, before you lift the person, you all have to push down on the persons head or shoulders for two minutes with the said finger. This puts your biceps, forearms and the muscles around your shoulder - ii.e. all the muscles you will use to lift the person, into contraction in the opposite direction, and tension in the other. When you release your pressure, the muscle fibres that have been in tension react by contracting slightly - they also become difficult to stretch for a few minutes. Use the muscle in contraction at any time in the next couple of minutes and you can normally generate up to two times the normal force you can "consciously" generate. Therefore, with enough of you round the person (six or more is better, but four can just about do it if they are strong) you can easily lift them with your fingers.
|
|
| |
Do a Google for diamagnetism guys very
interesting stuff, i have 5 pounds of
bismuth and play around with the effects
often.. |
|
| |
The electron is behind electromagnetic energy and there must be some other sub-atomic particle responsible for gravitational force. First isolate that particle and then circulate them through a coil of conduit at near the speed of light. The residual forces of each particle should sum and create a stronger gravitational force. Perhaps quarks, entire neutrons or ions could be used. In any case, gravity is a force possessed by every atom. Ions by the way, are entire atoms that have an extra electron or are missing one. This gives the atom either a negative or a positive charge respectively. For purposes of experimentation, wind a large coil of nylon tubing around a core made of bismuth. Next, connect two tanks filled with water and sodium hydroxide with the coil of tubing in between. Fill the tubing with the solution as well. Add soluble iron to one tank. In each tank place a stainless steel plate. Power up the plates with high voltage DC, one positive and one negative such that the iron ionizes and is carried by the electrical current to the positive plate from the negative plate. use highly sensitive weight measuring instruments to measure the weight of a mass suspended above the coil. Who knows, there might be slight variations in weight that are measurable when the device is turned on and off.
You would certainly get some hydrogen in the negative tank and some oxygen in the positive tank due to the electrolysis of water. You would also get a magnetic field around the coil if it were not for the diamagnetic core (bismuth).
Now you can say- Wow that is half baked! |
|
| |
also IMHO totally wrong and having absolutely nothing indicating its validity other than people who loudly shout "it must be so". |
|
| |
Shout "it must be a particle, everything is a particle!" the more you do this the more true it becomes! |
|
| |
Umm its bollocks --- all the article indicates is that given a sufficiently strong magnetic field any non ferous material can be magnetised... |
|
| |