Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

nirgal · 2002-11-11 17:00:18

BTW: Is there anything new on Boeing's GRASP project?

nirgal · 2002-11-11 17:09:32

I just did a search and found this article: Did Newton Get It Wrong?. It's dated october 2002.

""We've seen his work, and we'd like to see it developed further," says Boeing spokesman Dave Phillips."

They have seen his work? What does that mean? Did they travel to Russia and paid Podkletnov a visit in his lab? Anyway, the people at Boeing apparently actually believe that this is for real.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-12 18:18:07

I'm hoping as hard as I can!!

All fingers and all toes are crossed for this one!

Alexander Sheppard · 2002-11-12 19:13:27

http://arxiv.org/html/cond-mat/9812070

Especially note possible applications. The physics establishment has said this is probably not going to work, but oh well.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-11-12 19:31:00

Very interesting, Alexander!
There seems to be an upsurge in interest in this field (Oops .. sorry, no pun intended! ) which I find very encouraging. I can't think of anything which would make more difference to humanity's future advancement and well-being than control of gravity.

Star Trek here we come ... I hope!! ???

tim_perdue · 2002-11-24 21:59:18

"cracks in the facade" seems to be a pretty accurate statement. It really caught my attention 2 months ago when Boeing was finally quoted as being interested in this technology, and further, Boeing was quoted as saying there may already be classified work in this area. (Conspiracists will tell you the military has had this stuff for decades.)

I've also read various stories where the reporter "felt a buzz in the air" when talking with the people at NASA about this. NASA researchers wouldn't be "buzzing" if they thought Podkletnov's device was a sham.

Here's a little story I wrote on the ramifications of gravity-control technology. It's a bit of an understament, because the effects are so sweeping and stunning.

http://scileap.com/stories/2002/antigra … id=1&cat=4

el scorcho · 2002-11-27 23:24:10

I've really got my fingers crossed on this one....

dicktice · 2002-12-01 15:35:19

Shaun: I just got interested enough to read your original offering...but your "six months" were up long ago. Shouldn't you delete the damn thing, and get back to serious proposals?

Shaun Barrett · 2002-12-01 19:18:24

Dicktice, on the surface of it, what you suggest is probably the hard-nosed, realistic, in-yer-face kind of response we should be making.

However, I've been assured that these things often take longer than you might think and that we shouldn't necessarily expect a report until maybe early 2003.

Gravity control has been a dream of humanity's for so long now that your cynical dismissal of it is very understandable. And the odds at this stage are heavily in your favour that the whole thing is sheer fantasy.
But NASA decided it was worth $600,000 to investigate the alleged effect and the final report isn't in yet. And, given its potential to change our future so profoundly if it works, I for one am prepared to give them as much leeway as they need!!

Of course, that doesn't stop me being as impatient as a kid waiting for Santa to come!

Phobos · 2002-12-01 22:06:18

Shaun: I just got interested enough to read your original offering...but your "six months" were up long ago. Shouldn't you delete the damn thing, and get back to serious proposals?

Shaun shouldn't delete his messages. The last thing we need around here are people telling other people not to delete or not post their ideas. Personally I enjoy this speculation on wild technologies whether they ultimately pan out or not.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-12-02 03:07:53

I've always thought a little speculation never did any harm! Within reason, of course.

Byron · 2002-12-02 06:38:33

I agree...how many times has pure "speculation" actually become reality? A lot more than many people care to admit...

B

Palomar · 2002-12-03 10:58:31

Shaun: I just got interested enough to read your original offering...but your "six months" were up long ago. Shouldn't you delete the damn thing, and get back to serious proposals?
Shaun shouldn't delete his messages. The last thing we need around here are people telling other people not to delete or not post their ideas. Personally I enjoy this speculation on wild technologies whether they ultimately pan out or not.

*I agree with Phobos.

If you don't like another person's posts, opinions, speculations, whatever, you're always free and entitled to stop reading/skip that person's posts.

--Cindy

nirgal · 2002-12-04 16:14:42

From www.personalflightsystems.com:

Our first product is the PFS-400 aircraft. Its market advantages include:

Silent
2 hour training from zero-to-moderate flight skill capability
Take-off and landing in 8?x12? footprint
Nearly crash-proof
No rapid-movement mechanical systems in primary propulsion array
HITS compliant
Lowest maintenance compared to other solutions
Little or no vibration
Unlimited flight time [!]
Not a balloon
No bio-interface to X-rays
No runway required
No propeller needed to stay aloft

Wow, I want to see one of these in action. Must be some kind of anti-gravity device.

soph · 2002-12-04 16:45:16

sounds like a harrier without propellers.

dicktice · 2002-12-04 18:20:36

Shaun: Anti/nul/shielded gravity schemes are so far fetched (to be generous) that even the most far-out physics don't contemplate the possibility. human-scale. The problem of routine access to LEO is urgently in need of do-able ideas before our ability to support a Mars program has past...makes me impatient with blue-sky dreams proposed as far back as H.G. Wells's "First Men in the Moon."

Nirgal: That machine needs power 100% of the time, or it falls out of the air. Of course, if you and Shaun....

Shame on me!

Shaun Barrett · 2002-12-04 18:30:03

Oh ye of little faith!

nirgal · 2002-12-05 06:59:21

dicktice

Maybe it's one of these rumoured zero-point-energy devices, then it wouldn't have to use batteries or rely on an external power-source.
Your argument "that even the most far-out physics don't contemplate the possibility" [of anti-gravity] doesn't hold any water. Mainstream science has been wrong time and again. Remember Lord Kelvin saying: "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible". He was one of the most recognized scientists of his time. Another one: Newspapers refused to print stories about the first flight of the wright brothers because the so called 'scientists' of the day told them such a feat was 'impossible'. *Nothing* has changed since then: 'Ordinary people' and mainstream journalists are as ignorant as ever and rely on the science establishment to tell them what to make of a new discovery, if it "violates the known laws of physics" or not.
Experimental data, not theory, decides what is possible and what is not.
BTW: There are numerous theories regarding the Podkletnov effect. Two scientists, Ning Li and Douglas Torr, predicted the effect independently and prior to Podkletnov's experiment.

tim_perdue · 2002-12-05 14:51:47

"Anti/nul/shielded gravity schemes are so far fetched (to be generous) that even the most far-out physics don't contemplate the possibility. human-scale."

I think Dick is just being a troll to stir things up.

This is the same old "Vatican Mentality" - the earth is the center of the universe, it's flat, anyone who says otherwise is a nut.

Etc etc etc.

I really pity anyone who thinks that physics is all figured out, no holes, etc. If Dick really believes that, he's got to be out to lunch.

soph · 2002-12-05 15:09:22

theories are called that because they can be proven wrong. theories are often the basis for later theories that prove the original wrong-meaning that progress often shatters old dogma. was it fukuyama who said that science was done right before another fundamental force was found?

nirgal · 2002-12-05 16:24:02

Fukuyama wrote (in his book "The end of history") that history should be over with the end of the cold war. According to him we were now somehow living in the best of all possible worlds. Recently he admitted that he hadn't thought about how new scientific developments might change the world.
Just how dumb does one have to be not to realize that science and technological progress is one of the most important driving forces in history? And this idiot is a prof...[sigh]

Preston · 2002-12-05 16:43:01

I like how the list says "Not a balloon" after "Unlimited flight time" -- they know people are trying to guess what their magic nonexistent contraption is and are having fun with it.

RobertDyck · 2002-12-05 19:19:11

I haven't read this whole thread, so if my reply appears redundant please bear with me.

I have read the paper on the Gravity Shield. It does appear to have some merit. Experiments have demonstrated reduction in measured weight of a sample held in the column above the device. I've been playing around with a grand unified theory and it seems to indicate the gravity shield should work. The problem is that it takes a great deal of energy. Just think; you are nullifying gravity for the entire air column above the device, up to the vacuum of space. How much mass are you supporting? How much force does that take? Another problem is that I don't think you will ever achieve 100% nullification, only a reduction. Experiments measured 0.02% reduction in the strength of gravity for the first experiment, and later experiments increased that to a maximum of 2%. The device includes a disk spinning at 10,000 revolutions per minute in liquid nitrogen, and that liquid will provide substantial drag at that speed. It must be cryogenically cooled because the principle is based on a super conductor spinning at great speed. Actually, the disk was first developed with a smooth transition between superconductor and normal conductor, but I believe separation of quantum entangled pairs of electrons is the key. If my belief is correct, then you will never achieve 100% nullification.

Another energy drain will be the air currents created. The experiment demonstrated a strong up-draft in the gravity reduction column. The sample was isolated from this draft by holding it within a glass cylinder, and a wooden sample was used to eliminate any magnetic or static electricity effects. The up-draft is an obvious result of the nullification column, but it causes a problem. Reduced gravity produces reduced downward weight from the air column, which reduces air pressure at the bottom, so surrounding air rushes in. This provides more air mass that must have its weight reduced by the gravity nullification effect. That reduces the motion of the electrons, reducing the strength of the nullification effect, and increasing the power draw on the device to maintain nullification strength. Bottom line: there is no free lunch, energy is conserved. The strong up-draft draws its power from the electricity powering the device. That reduces the efficiency if you are only trying to levitate a spacecraft.

A potential use of this device is to assist launching rockets. The power requirement will be too great to ever be practical onboard a launch vehicle, but you could place one under the launch pad of the Space Shuttle or other rocket. Its power requirement could be supplied by the local electric utility. Even a 2% reduction of mass would reduce propellant required for launch, at least until it moved out of the nullification column.

I still think a winged, air-breathing launch vehicle will always be more energy efficient than any gravity nullification device.

Phobos · 2002-12-05 19:20:20

Just how dumb does one have to be not to realize that science and technological progress is one of the most important driving forces in history? And this idiot is a prof.

To be honest this doesn't really surprise me. From my personal experience, it seems that a lot of professors view progress soley in terms of how we are from a social and arts standpoint. And I'm sure there are plenty more professors who think high technology is a curse and will only lead to the further ruin of the planet. They don't realize that creating technology is just as much a mode of human expression and a driver of change as is creating works of art or political systems. And some professors are just plain narrow minded and don't think at all outside of their fields. They're good in their specialty but nothing else.

soph · 2002-12-05 19:25:48

sounds like what zubrin was saying about nasa field specialists who wanted their system on everything because they were working on it, regardless of its actual value. this relating to the professors narrow minded comment.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-11-11 17:00:18

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#27 2002-11-11 17:09:32

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#28 2002-11-12 18:18:07

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#29 2002-11-12 19:13:27

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#30 2002-11-12 19:31:00

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#31 2002-11-24 21:59:18

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#32 2002-11-27 23:24:10

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#33 2002-12-01 15:35:19

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#34 2002-12-01 19:18:24

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#35 2002-12-01 22:06:18

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#36 2002-12-02 03:07:53

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#37 2002-12-02 06:38:33

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#38 2002-12-03 10:58:31

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#39 2002-12-04 16:14:42

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#40 2002-12-04 16:45:16

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#41 2002-12-04 18:20:36

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#42 2002-12-04 18:30:03

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#43 2002-12-05 06:59:21

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#44 2002-12-05 14:51:47

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#45 2002-12-05 15:09:22

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#46 2002-12-05 16:24:02

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#47 2002-12-05 16:43:01

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#48 2002-12-05 19:19:11

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#49 2002-12-05 19:20:20

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#50 2002-12-05 19:25:48

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

Board footer