Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

tim_perdue · 2002-12-05 22:13:53

The power requirement will be too great to ever be practical onboard a launch vehicle

I doubt that you have enough information to make that determination at this point. It stands to reason that it will improve over time. Simply proving that the effect is real would stimulate massive worldwide investment in it.

Also, it stands to reason that the nullification is reduced the further away from the device that you are. ie. you might have a 2% reduction right over the plate, but 1000 ft above it, you might only have 1%. The reason is, you still have all the mass around you pulling down on that column of air. Only a small portion directly beneath the device is shielded.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-12-06 01:18:45

Tim writes:-

Simply proving that the effect is real would stimulate massive worldwide investment in it.

In my view, this is absolutely true. I've always maintained that proof of any modification of a gravitational field using electromagnetic means would be regarded as monumentally important.
The potential benefits of nullifying gravity are just so overwhelming that every country would be racing to refine and develop the technology.

As for the drawbacks Robert hints at, which might limit the utility of a gravito-magnetic effect, I haven't the mathematical wherewithal to debate with him on a theoretical level. But my instinct tells me the whole field (sorry! ) is too new for us to be drawing any conclusions at this stage.
What if higher temperature superconductors are produced, not requiring liquid nitrogen? What if some means is devised to shape the region of gravity modification? What if other design efficiencies are introduced which reduce the necessary power input?

This may be a simplistic analogy, but when Karl Benz designed his one cylinder internal combustion engine, he could hardly have imagined what a century of design improvement would achieve. What would he have said if confronted with a Formula One racing car screaming around a track at 300 kph, if you told him the engine used precisely the same principle as his first 'horseless carriage'?!!

Once proof of principle is established, I feel confident the world's scientists and engineers will do the rest!

Palomar · 2002-12-06 10:11:50

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.

*Quick! Someone send Professor Fukuyama a copy of _Candide_...right away!

Professor, meet Pangloss...

--Cindy

nirgal · 2002-12-06 16:01:03

I know what you mean...

Auqakah · 2002-12-08 12:54:27

The secret to anti-gravity is in the field of magnetism, and thats all I'm saying. Of course, I could just be totally off my rocker, and spouting any old nonesense.... but you never know. On the other hand, I might believe I'm right, and if I'm not, I might well eat my hat. But I could just be crazy. :0

nirgal · 2002-12-13 18:19:33

From www.gravity-society.org:

Information we received by Marc G. Millis states that ?the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project has been cut [...] Although efforts are underway to restore funding, it is too soon to know if these efforts will succeed. Closely related to this, the NASA tests of Podkletnov's 'gravity shielding' claims, managed by the Marshall Space Flight Center, have run out of funds short of the completion of the hardware necessary to test the claims"

What the hell is going on here...

soph · 2002-12-13 18:24:35

the problem with the nasa budget over the past 5 years was that we actually expected the ISS to be an international project.

we were even so unreasonable as to expect other countries, *cough Russia cough* to fulfill their portion of the production. unfortunately, that didnt happen, and we took over, much, to say the least, of their comittments. thats the biggest reason for the overruns.

el scorcho · 2002-12-13 19:45:07

Typical. Throw all resources to something as pointless as the ISS in favor of something that would totally revolutionize humanity. It will be a while before gravity modification can be refined to the point of making a huge difference anyway. I guess its things like X-prize and Highlift Systems that hold the promise for widespread access to space.

I don't see the need for the ISS anyway. At least not in its current form. Where's the artificial gravity? Where's the superb radiation shielding? And what of all those hazardous spacewalks and the enormously expensive costs of every launch? The ISS is endangering astronauts for no good reason and it frustrates the hell out of me to see resources poured into research that has been done time and time again on Mir and Skylab. Those resources could be spent on a Lunar base or a Mars mission.

The easiest way to build a good station would have been to use the massive shuttle boosters (which would go to waste anyway) as building blocks for the station. Once all the fuel was spent, three or four of those joined together in orbit would have created enormous amounts of area in which the astronauts could live and work. They could be easily spun for artificial gravity and easily insulated from radiation by Lunar soil. It would have probably been much cheaper.

In fact, why not incorporate this idea for the first Mars mission? Modified shuttle boosters could be used to create the ships in which the first crews will travel to the Red Planet. What do you guys think?

soph · 2002-12-13 20:08:50

now, saying the ISS is pointless is a big stretch. as for the defense industry, it did give a lot of work to an otherwise dead sector of the economy, which is never a bad thing. and are you going to tell me NASA designed this hunk of metal so astronauts could have coffee and play games on it all day?

el scorcho · 2002-12-21 23:38:29

Allow me to clarify: i didnt mean that the ISS is totally pointless. I simply meant that, in its current state, it is more than a bit wasteful to spend resources on an updated model of something vastly similar to Mir. It should be much further from the Earth; perhaps halfway between here and the Moon.

I do believe that, whatever form the station takes, it will probably help further the development of low-cost launch vehicles and probably more benefits that i can't think of right now. All I am saying is that, if the boys at NASA are just dying for a space station, it could be better managed.

tim_perdue · 2002-12-26 17:32:17

What the hell is going on here...

Depends on how much of a conspiracist you are. Chances are good that the military is way ahead of everyone on this stuff, and if some other country makes some announcments, you would probably see the air force unveil a craft that uses it, or some sort of impressive demo at least.

Auqakah · 2002-12-26 17:56:18

I'd just like to point out that I predicted yttrium would be used in a gravity-resisting machine back in '94, but that site is now sadly defunct. Ah well. There goes my claim to fame, if things turn out well for anti-grav/gravity-resistant technology.

Echus_Chasma · 2002-12-27 19:59:37

Depends on how much of a conspiracist you are. Chances are good that the military is way ahead of everyone on this stuff, and if some other country makes some announcments, you would probably see the air force unveil a craft that uses it, or some sort of impressive demo at least.

I would agree with you there,
I was watching a documentary on Discovery about the 'latest' American military. All the latest un-classified stuff like smart bullets that follow a laser to the target, 6 inch helicopters that are totally invisible to radar that can fly into buildings and then exploded. Also all this stuff like Electro-magnetic pulse weapons and guns that are connected to fibre-obtic cameras so you can hide round a corner, poke the gun out and line up your target on the LCD screen.

I reckon it's propaganda to try and scare Iraqies or something.

soph · 2002-12-27 20:02:49

i think the american military is around 7 years ahead of the "latest" american military technology. what you see is the declassified stuff...thats stuff theyve had for a long while.

Echus_Chasma · 2002-12-27 21:10:36

Yeah, I thought that, the programme said something about the use of EMP in the first Gulf War in '91.

SpaceNut · 2024-03-17 11:42:58

Newly Discovered Unconventional Superconductor Exists Naturally

This natural mineral, known as miassite, has been confirmed to behave as an unconventional superconductor at low temperatures—without resorting to the standard quantum physics typically necessary to create such a state. The search for new materials with potential for advancing quantum science led to the identification of miassite (Rh17S15). Combining elements like rhodium and sulfur, which are characterized by high melting points and volatility respectively, has unveiled three new superconductors within the Rh-S system, as reported by physicist Paul Canfield.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2002-12-05 22:13:53

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#52 2002-12-06 01:18:45

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#53 2002-12-06 10:11:50

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#54 2002-12-06 16:01:03

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#55 2002-12-08 12:54:27

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#56 2002-12-13 18:19:33

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#57 2002-12-13 18:24:35

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#58 2002-12-13 19:45:07

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#59 2002-12-13 20:08:50

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#60 2002-12-21 23:38:29

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#61 2002-12-26 17:32:17

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#62 2002-12-26 17:56:18

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#63 2002-12-27 19:59:37

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#64 2002-12-27 20:02:49

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#65 2002-12-27 21:10:36

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

#66 2024-03-17 11:42:58

Re: Gravito-magnetic effect - "Breakthrough propulsion"

Board footer