The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Why some antigravity experiments fail  (Read 12646 times)

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #25 on: 10/03/2014 00:43:15 »
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you, I've just had a chance read on Tom Thompson Brown very interesting. I see why the effect will create antigravity. I understand where you're coming from, this would definitely be an interesting experiment. I had actually forgotten about the electron being able to interfere with the graviton. Thanks for reminding me. I guess sometimes you get so deep in your research, you lose sight of day.
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #26 on: 11/03/2014 04:40:57 »
Indeed I know how you feel about research, I've been there  ;D

So essentially the research done by Tom T. brown and Eugene podkletnov appear to be related in what they are trying to do. (archive anti-gravity) and both of these scientists appear to be manipulating electrons. To me the electron is perfectly capable of levitating an object via electric and magnetic fields.

here's an example of electric levitation, (Tom browns research)


here's an example of magnetic levitation, (Eugene's research)


You see Both forms of levitation is do to "electrons" and the way they flow. I had a design In my head for a long time concerning a "disc shaped electro-magnetic flying machine" I want to hear what you have to say about it.

Here I go.

It starts out with a coil in the center of the craft which is made of superconductors. This coil serves many functions which I will get into later. This superconductor coil is locked in persistent mode and charged to it's maximum current density in-order to make one big super powerful magnetic field which can be over 12 Teslas in magnetic strength, over 12 times more powerful then neodymium.

So the ship is just one big super magnet now that's it. That magnetic field is important for a number of reasons. One is the most obvious, "artificial gravity in space" replacing gravity with magnetism. The way that works is you wear an aluminum suit with small ferromagnetic impurities.



Now doesn't that seem familiar? maybe that's why aliens wear shiny jump suits  :D



the suit would be like 97% aluminum and 3% iron, nickle, steel or any ferromagnetic material. all you would have to do is wear the suit and you would be attracted to the super magnet core just enough that you would be able to walk around, you don't want to wear pure steel when the magnet is activated because you would be pinned to the ground. inorder to do space walks you would have to turn off the magnet core.

The second reason why the magnetic field is important is for "shields" you see the magnetic field will be strong enough to surround most of the ship's vital areas (were people are) this magnetic field will serve to protect the occupants of the shuttle from solar radiation and protect the ship's circuitry from solar winds. It's like the magnetosphere that protects earth from radiation, just on a smaller scale.



The third reason why the magnetic field is important, is for landing and taking off, have you ever dropped a powerful magnet on a big chunk of copper? well the moving magnetic field induces a current inside the copper and the copper produces another magnetic field opposite to the powerful magnet which is being dropped. the result is the magnet slowly falls onto the copper, as if falling like a feather. all you would need for a landing pad is a copper plate.  If you had a superconductor landing pad then you could levitate the ship a few feet in the air to prepare it for take off and to do maintenance.

Another good effect of the super powerful magnet is that you can drain it for extra power if you need it. the superconductor core can serve as a very powerful battery, containing upward of 30,000 watts.

ALL OF THESE EFFECTS ARE PURELY DO TO A REALLY BIG MAGNETIC FIELD nothing more, nothing less.

So on recap. the ship so far is just a big magnet and that magnetic field can do many things for the ship like
-make a protective force field
-make artificial gravity in space
-levitate the ship for take off
-carefully land the ship
-power source

Now here is were things get a little more complex. Bare in mind what we have been talking about. The core super magnet is to be levitated over a superconductor disk so that it can rotate freely. An electro-magnet coil is introduced at this point, this coil will be what is called a "rodin coil" and it looks like this.


The hole in the middle of the coil is were the super magnet core will be. This coil will rotate the super magnet at high speed in-order to attempt to archive gravitational shielding and loose upward of 7% (hopefully more like 50%) of the ship's total weight. (which is really light to begin with).

So now we have a ship which is pretty much like that drawing I made earlier. except you put a disk shaped shell around it. That's were it get's it's anti-gravity effects from.

Now on to propulsion. The propulsion system is very similar to an existing propulsion system called "magneto-hydrodynamics" in this case it would be more like "magneto-aerodynamics" This propulsion system requires that the top and bottom of the ship become very high voltage electrodes (like a bi-pole Tesla coil), with the top electrode being pointed with a ball on top like an antenna and the bottom electrode to be flat and large.  because of the magnetic field surrounding the ship, the plasma that will arc from the top electrode in the air will be more uniform all the way around, like a plasma bubble, the charged air will be in motion because of this effect, moving air away from the top of the ship and accelerating it then slamming it upward on the bottom of the ship. creating an area of low pressure on top of the ship and an area of high pressure on the bottom of the ship, allowing the ship to bend the air around it instead of cutting through it like conventional aircraft doing this almost completely eliminates drag, in fact it uses drag to your advantage. A ship of this design could work under water, in the air and in space. It has only one moving part as well.

It draws the bulk of the propulsion power from the acceleration of charged air/water because of the magnetic field around the ship, as the charged air is accelerated it produces a more powerful magnetic field which in turn accelerates the air even faster. When the ship is going at high speed, the ship becomes more energy efficient because of how fast the air is moving around the ship. when that fast moving air get's charged, it generates a strong magnetic field which allows the ship's magnet core to accelerate and bend that air with more ease then if the ship were standing still.

So this ship has a many advantages because of it's design which makes it one of the most energy efficient craft ever made.

First the ship uses gravitational shielding to reduce the weight of the ship dramatically

then the ship accelerates charged air ions with a super strong magnetic field and it the process of doing so reduces drag to almost nothing by bending the air around the ship in a "bubble", by doing this, it creates an area of low pressure on the top of the air craft and high pressure on bottom, because it's taking air from the top of the ship and moving it on the bottom then the air bombards the bottom of the ship at high speed pushing the ship upwards.

you can imagine the ship in a wind tunnel the ship is standing still and the air is moving around it because of the way the propulsion system works. If you increase the speed of the air in the wind tunnel then when that air is charged it's already moving fast so it produces a strong magnetic field for the core magnet to bend around the ship and exelerate that air even faster.

I know I probably didn't explain this very clearly, if you have any questions feel free to ask as many as you want.
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #27 on: 11/03/2014 23:36:53 »
Okay wow that would be quite a ship. One more thing, you could add that this magnet in the center, if you have a tube coming up to the magnet in through the hull. Drop a ball bearing in that tube, you'd even have a fairly decent weapon. Please give me a little time to think through on the design and see if I have any complaints, suggestions, or who ra's. So far I say good design.
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #28 on: 12/03/2014 07:23:22 »
I would like to add that this sort of ship could cruise at supersonic speeds without a sonic boom because of the way it bends air instead of cutting it.  This thing could vertically takeoff and land.  This craft would be virtually silent but it would make a low static crackling noise like the noise made by those "ion wind lifters".

This thing could be an airplane one minute and a submarine the next minute!

I also want to clarify that my propulsion system is NOT ion wind propulsion, but it does utilize ionized air, what makes my propulsion system different, is the power of the magnetic field accelerating the ionized particles and slamming them upward around the bottom of the ship, it creates an inverted vortex (upside down tornado) following the magnetic lines of the pole on the bottom of the ship.

earlier in this thread, the comments focused on the lifting force of vortex columns on the bottom of superconducting disks, my propulsion system has many parallels with that.
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #29 on: 13/03/2014 22:49:11 »
Okay, I've had a chance to think on this a little, the problem I see is that for the antigravity effect, you need a large field of electrons moving. This design is using the electrons for motion which requires a controlled field. I don't think you can have both, it's going to be one or the other
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #30 on: 14/03/2014 11:04:59 »
Alan Hess

I dont understand your question/problem. I think what your saying is that the rotating super magnet core will interfere with the moment of electrons/ions. But in reality it wil just twist the moving air allowing the air to gain even more momentum. I bet using pictures will help me describe what I'm trying to say.

take a look at this picture of the magnetic field


and this one of the current flow


these are simple pictures of the magnetic field around the ship north on top and south on bottom (notice the arrows) and the current flow, but the magnetic field is turning very quickly, it's sort of like how a turning planet twists the fabric of space, this magnetic field will twist the ionized air as it goes down to the bottom of the ship. You see the air is guided by the magnetic field to go around in a ring an example of how this works is this "cathode ray" with a magnet behind it, notice how the beam is guided by the magnetic field to hit the bottom of the magnet but in this picture the magnet is not spinning so the ions flow in a straight line, if the magnet were spinning then the beam would be turned into a bubble/toroid structure.



That's what's happening to the air, it's being bent all the way around the ship and being twisted to form some sort of plasma force field around the ship, because ionized air is somewhat more conductive then normal air, the moving magnetic field will induce more current into the already ionized air allowing the magnet to move the air even faster. the end result is an air resistance plasma shield with a spinning toroid of air going around it, and at the bottom of the ship a fast moving upside down air plasma tornado slams air upward to archive lift much like how the cathode ray slams upward on the magnet in the picture above.

for some reason I don't think I worded this right, if this doesn't make sense or it doesn't answer your problem then feel free to ask more questions.

This thing "WILL FLY" at-least over it's landing pad that much is a solid fact, it could just be a superconducting magnet levitating over superconductors, all the other stuff wouldn't even be necessary for it to levitate and you could even walk upside down on it's surface with a metal suit if I saw that on the news I would be convinced that this thing was real.
« Last Edit: 14/03/2014 12:01:54 by ScientificSorcerer »
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #31 on: 16/03/2014 19:05:35 »
Missed that. Sorry you are talking 2 different forces, magnetic and electron  thought you were talking one and the same. The only way electrons can interfere with gravity is a high-speed moving field of electrons.
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #32 on: 17/03/2014 05:07:26 »
Exactly, so both the spinning magnetic field and the ionized fast moving air are electo-gravitic forces. The problem is that I don't know how much power it will need to consume in-order to take flight. The bi-pole tesla coil which provides the ionized air probably wouldn't take up more then 20 kilowatts which is nothing compared to jets or even cars. But a 20 kilowatt Tesla coil will be able to make some monster arcs.

then you would have to spin the core magnet which wouldn't be too hard because it's levitating and the only drag force it experiences is the inductive force of the ionized air (plasma) circulating around the exterior of the ship. which simply adds on to the Tesla coil's power wile spinning the air bubble at the same time. So I estimate the power requirement of the core superconductor motor to spin to be less then 1 or 2 kilowatts. that's all the power you would need, around 22 kilowatts an hour. In retrospect the space shuttle requires a force of thousands of kilowatts on take off. if you converted joules to watts.

this craft only requires 2 means of propulsion, spinning a levitating superconductor magnet and powering a big ole bi-pole Tesla coil.

-Spinning the magnet would likely require less then 3 kilowatts

-powering the Tesla coil would require less then 30 kilowatts

even if the ship required 300 kilowatts then it would still be far better then most cars and small aircraft on energy.

the main reason why this ship would require such a low level of power is because it's so lite, the whole thing would probably weigh less then half a tone, plus around 10-50% gravity shielding would cut that weight potentially in half. It's so much more efficient then any other form of propulsion because in things like jets, rockets, propellers and ion thruster a great amount of kinetic energy is wasted as a lot of energy simply moves away from the ship and is dissipated. my ship utilizes all the kinetic energy available in it's radically different method of propulsion.

and you get a lot of bonuses too, like a force field and artificial gravity,  it under water and you could even do incredible acrobatics without pulling very many Gs because of the gravity shielding. vertical takeoff and the ability to hover, just all sorts of things which you can't get with any other type of vessel. This thing is much simpler then a rocket too, no explosive fuel, so it's safer and who knows what else. This thing could be what UFOs actually are.

Imagine the controversy this thing would raise, the media would go nuts! But even talking about this sort of thing might be dangerous if any aspect of the UFO conspiracy is true.
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #33 on: 18/03/2014 22:51:23 »
Don't forget if you want to test the antigravity part of this, you need to do it at night to prevent photon transfer of the graviton from daylight.You got a wonder if there is a conspiracy with all the work that has been done in antigravity, and nobody has gotten anywhere Seems strange.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2014 22:54:23 by alan hess »
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #34 on: 19/03/2014 02:42:45 »
alan hess

I need you to help me with something, I recently heard of a strange effect related to the anti-gravity portion of the ship, it's called
"the Gertsenshtein effect" It's the propagation of gravity waves in large magnetic fields (as far as I know). Apparently the effect is enhanced in type 2 superconductors. Take a look at this link.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921453406003297
or this link
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AIPC..746.1264S

they just tell you a basic abstract of the subject. but you and I have to find out more about it elsewhere.

I need you to research this effect online with me, so that we can better understand this, I have a feeling that this is what causes gravity shielding in the superconductors, I think this "Gertsenshtine effect" may hold the key. And if I'm right then charging the superconductor with cooper pairs is the right way to go, but it also has something to do with light interacting with superconductors. which coresponds to what you were saying about light interfering with the gravity effects.

I don't know much about it at the moment, but I am reading everything I can find on the subject and I will post any significant findings. If you have time, could you do the same? Just read up on it and post your findings if you see a relationship between podklenov experiment and the Gertsenshtine effect.

call it a gut feeling, but something about this new effect seems like it fits. I think it's the key to anti-gravity.

(maybe ufo's appear mostly at night because of light interference) you could be right on target with that one.

I was also thinking about putting some ionizing radiation on this thing, to get an extra boost. Alpha partials would allow the ship to have continuous non powered propulsion in space, because it will be effected just like ionized air, it would be bent in a toroid bubble and push the ship with fast moving helium. just thought I would add that part into the ship's proportion system, just for an extra bonus of propulsion power. It's not necessary but it's still a plus.
« Last Edit: 19/03/2014 05:07:19 by ScientificSorcerer »
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #35 on: 20/03/2014 00:00:29 »
It is so funny but this is another proof of what I've been saying about the electromagnetic spectrum, photons, light, one and the same. The graviton travels with the photon and the photon is affected by electromagnetism, now the graviton is released to its own accord. And yes, this may be a key to proving itCall me Tim Allen, but I like extra power.
« Last Edit: 20/03/2014 09:55:31 by alan hess »
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #36 on: 20/03/2014 09:41:13 »
Ouch man sorry to hear that, I hope your foot heals up quickly and you feel better soon :)

There is just one thing I don't understand about the Gertsenshtein effect and the whole Idea of gravitons traveling with photons, I thought that photons arnt supposed to have any gravity right? I was raised up with the idea that photons don't have mass or gravity.  But that idea seems like a contradiction, when you read that a blackhole's gravity has the ability to bend light, It makes me second guess my whole out look of the properties light. 

But I can't seem to really grasp this new Idea, I don't really get it, I understand what the articles are saying but beyond that I don't understand it. With Ideas like this I need a basic understanding first before I get into the bulk of these types of theories.  These "high science" theories sometimes go right over my head, that seems to be the case with this one.

could you dumb down this Idea of gravitons and light for me, it will really help me get this idea down.

I also came up with this brilliant "Hover shield" design which is based on the same principles as my anti-gravity ship. I posted it here on "new theories" but it got moved to the "that cant be true" section of the forum.

take a look at it, through this link
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=50736.0

If I ever one day get serious about building this ship, I realize that I can't just run around saying that know how to build this ship (I will most likely come off as a nut case), I have got to prove that I know what I'm talking about and this hover pack/board will blow peoples minds into believing that I do indeed know my way around quantum levitation by pulling a David Blane (except not fake).  I also have various Ideas on how to market table top quantum levitators which would look a bit like this device. For funding.



The difference between the device depicted above, and my Idea is that my levitator will be able to lift up to about 5 pounds and levitate at least twice as high as this globe thing. It would be cold too so you could levitate your drink and keep it nice and cold at the same time. I already have a patent pending on the table top levitator too. It would be kinda expensive aswell because my design requires a synthetic sapphire to be placed above the superconductor for maximum stability. I want to sell these little guys for about $200 when they get into production, I'll give you one for free if that day comes  ;D
« Last Edit: 20/03/2014 09:53:09 by ScientificSorcerer »
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #37 on: 20/03/2014 10:03:20 »
Go to my post" general relativity is wrong"read that and make a comment, it will be easier to discuss gravitons. After reading that passage.and it keeps these threads together.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #37 on: 20/03/2014 10:03:20 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums