h a l f b a k e r y
Point of hors d'oevre
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
My last idea was proven not merely to have holes in it, but was infact a hole - and one that Indiana Jones wouldn't feel odd swinging over!
Here's another idea, and now it's anti-gravity!
My first big mistake will be to admit this does nothing to
gravity itself (whatever it is and whatever
it's wearing), it is
merely the "kick up the matress" technique.
There is some history to it: screeons ago, when I was little,
my brother had the top bunk - and he would SNORE! So I'd
kick up the matress, wake him up and tell him I'd done no
such thing (just as he claimed he hadn't been SNORING!!!).
I figured that if I kicked violently and quickly enough, then
like the way hundreds of "beep" noises played really quickly
meld into a single tone, so would my kicking become a smooth
lifting action that wouldn't stop my brother snoring.
As, however, this is what I wanted to do anytime I needed to
kick up the matress in the first place, the theory remained
Idea: my idea for anti-grav (or hover) technology would
involve some way of fireing thousands of particles from one
surface up to an impact surface above it (maybe made of
Kevlar). The particle impacts would merge into a single lifting
force and lift and the object under which it was placed.
Now, my idea calls for both these surfaces to be connected
so they lift together, and I somehow have some impression
that the "fireing" face would have to be lighter than the
"impact" face and the particles would have to hit hard.
Other than that (and a vague idea I've left the taps on
downstairs) I have no actual idea of the technology involved.
But let's suggest the test model was some kind of medical
streacher holding a patient. When we turn this thing on, does
the streacher levitate? Or have I just killed the poor soul?
||The problem with this is that when you launch the particles upward, Newton's law dictates that the craft be pushed downward with equal force. Therefore, this would work while the vehicle was completely on the ground (I think), but as soon as it left the ground (if it did) the firing would push it back down again. Now, in all honesty, the projectiles would indeed be kicking the thing up, but since the air was slowing them down, they would kick it up with less energy than they pushed it down with. 'Well, then, make the whole thing a vacuum.' Fine. Then all is equal. The particles push the vehicle up with exactly the same amount of force as they push it down with, and the craft goes nowhere.
||"Idea: my idea for anti-grav (or hover) technology would involve some way of fireing thousands of particles from one surface up to an impact surface above it (maybe made of Kevlar). The particle impacts would merge into a single lifting force and lift and the object under which it was placed."
||Why not flip that over? Put the particles being fired on the surface to be lifted and, instead of having them fire up, have them fire down. The 'impact surface' can now be the atmosphere itself - no need for Kevlar. And it still acts as a single lifting force.
||Now we congratulate ourselves. We just invented the rocket.
||Whilst the idea works, its not new. The actual idea is related very closely to gas laws - except particles in gases move in 3 dimensions, where as this would be in just 1. The problem is - why? Its not possible really, as the power required is much more than having a trolley, and it still requires a base with wheels/tracks. Back to the drawing board. And next time, its never a good idea to have a go at the people who boned your last idea - the autoboner can smell resentment.
||See what you mea....merely a bad choice of words and it wasn't meant at all the way it sounds. I'll change it now.
||Anti-Gratiy uses Gravitomagnetic forces and so far has only produced a force (mostly?) perpendicular to the earth's gravity.
||This thing sounds kind of like a tiny version of an orion drive, minus the H-bombs.