[Supervolant (OP)]

Hey guys, I discovered this deep inside the internet....

http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-to-build-flying-saucer.html

Please have a read and tell me what you think.

Are particle accelerators the key to anti gravitation? Newton says for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Where does the proposed flying craft have it's opposite reaction in this case (other than radioactive heat)?

Have fun reading and I am looking very much forward to you answer.

- Robert

[Bored chemist]

Are particle accelerators the key to anti gravitation?

No.

[Kryptid]

I actually recognize that article you linked. I have a book called "The Anti-Gravity Handbook" and that exact article and craft design appears in it. I got it back during my high school years when I was big into free energy and anti-gravity. I've pretty much given up on free energy, although I think anti-gravity, in some form or another, might still be possible.

Unfortunately, you can't use centrifugal force to generate linear motion as described. Any force acting in one direction by the accelerated rotating spokes will generate an equal force in the opposite direction on the rest of the machine. This will keep the device as a whole from achieving any net motion.

[Supervolant (OP)]

Hey Kryptid, okay the more mechanical solution with the bike flywheel and it's spokes might not work out... but what about the particle accelerator one? I am pretty sure that the accelerated protons have more inertia then the magnets and electric fields pushing them around aren't they? So in this case there must be any motion. Or what happens when you don't bolt an particle accelerator to the ground. Would it move around in an wobbly like fashion? I would love to know that.

Modify: Oh and I think free energy is possible. I just feel it and am on my way doing so. It's the same with anti gravitation you just have to make the definition right. Do permanent magnets and / or the gravitation less vacuum of space count for the solution of free energy?

[Bored chemist]

I am pretty sure that the accelerated protons have more inertia then the magnets and electric fields pushing them around aren't they?

Why are you sure of that?
Have you done maths?

[Supervolant (OP)]

No but I understand the workings of an particle accelerator. They do boost these protons on every turn faster, until they are just below the limiting factor, which is light speed. The strength / push the superconducting electromagnets apply on the particles forward stays the same, it's just the rate going up because of the accelerated protons.

Modify: If you paddle in a boat and paddle with the same strength you still would accelerate, right? Of course there are drag factors included like the surrounding water, air and gravitation. But a vacuum tube and superconducting magnets don't offer the highest amount of drag!  Inside this metaphor the magnets are the paddle and the protons are the boat.

So my conclusion is the protons have more inertia (not from the start but at some point) then the electromagnets. Or do they not?.... Please enlighten me @Bored chemist . Where are the flaws in my thinking?

Can someone please finally tell me if there is a real physical impact on something if one of these accelerated particles smash into something? I mean would they leave a hole the size of an atom if I put my hand into an particle accelerator or is my whole hand completely missing afterwards? I just can't get the information I need out of the internet... yet!

[Kryptid]

Hey Kryptid, okay the more mechanical solution with the bike flywheel and it's spokes might not work out... but what about the particle accelerator one? I am pretty sure that the accelerated protons have more inertia then the magnets and electric fields pushing them around aren't they? So in this case there must be any motion. Or what happens when you don't bolt an particle accelerator to the ground. Would it move around in an wobbly like fashion? I would love to know that.

That wouldn't work either. Any kind of centrifugal acceleration, whether it is in the form of a solid flywheel or a ring of moving electrons, will not generate linear acceleration. At the very most, the electron accelerator would wobble around its center of mass.

Modify: Oh and I think free energy is possible. I just feel it and am on my way doing so. It's the same with anti gravitation you just have to make the definition right. Do permanent magnets and / or the gravitation less vacuum of space count for the solution of free energy?

I once thought that I had developed a free energy device using permanent magnets when I was in high school. Only many years later did I realize that momentum and the forces involved would always "conspire" to prevent it from working, no matter how it was designed.

No but I understand the workings of an particle accelerator. They do boost these protons on every turn faster, until they are just below the limiting factor, which is light speed. The strength / push the superconducting electromagnets apply on the particles forward stays the same, it's just the rate going up because of the accelerated protons.

Yes, but the force acting on the magnets is in an outward, radial direction. That does not create any linear movement that can give the accelerator net motion.

Modify: If you paddle in a boat and paddle with the same strength you still would accelerate, right? Of course there are drag factors included like the surrounding water, air and gravitation. But a vacuum tube and superconducting magnets don't offer the highest amount of drag!  Inside this metaphor the magnets are the paddle and the protons are the boat.

Consider yourself to be paddling in a circle and you'd have a better analogy to what's happening in circular particle accelerator. All you do is go in a circle.

So my conclusion is the protons have more inertia (not from the start but at some point) then the electromagnets. Or do they not?.... Please enlighten me @Bored chemist . Where are the flaws in my thinking?

Inertia is the measure of resistance to acceleration, which in turn is determined by mass. The total mass of the protons in the accelerator is no doubt much, much less than that of the magnets being used to accelerate them.

Can someone please finally tell me if there is a real physical impact on something if one of these accelerated particles smash into something? I mean would they leave a hole the size of an atom if I put my hand into an particle accelerator or is my whole hand completely missing afterwards? I just can't get the information I need out of the internet... yet!

There was a man who discovered firsthand what happens when you put your head in the way of a proton beam from a particle accelerator:

[Supervolant (OP)]

Hey thanks for the thorough answer! I enjoyed reading it and making up new thought paths to follow!

I would love to talk about free energy design's but this isn't the topic for now...

I have the Idea in which particles accelerate only on certain sides of the circular path so it might work out. The whole system being "gimbaled" across 2 axis which is now offering 3 degrees of freedom in motion.

O <- This is our circular particle accelerator seen from the side. For now we only accelerate particles counterclockwise. By accelerating from 4 to 2 o'clock the centrifugal forces focus on the top side (12 o'clock) side of the accelerator. When these centrifugal forces exceed the weight of the whole system, lift off is possible. When in space even the smallest amount of positive net "thrust" of this closed system can make an craft move into the desired direction. For control of motion in this case if, for example we now want to move to the left the accelerator just uses the path on the 11 to 1 o'clock position.

On the other hand you could just use a linear accelerator and smash the particles against a pretty solid wall. The impact produces thrust and ... ah never mind! I found the error on this one. Would be like having a fan blowing into it's own Sail. Not possible in this case.

But the first circular one?

I believe this system being highly scalable into micro and marco sizes, making true flying cars happen in which the rim of the wheel becomes one of these particle accelerator drives. Or spaceships approaching near the speed of light (after accelerating for a long time).

Well, at least that would be cool. The PARTICLE PULSE DRIVE utilizing protons and centrifugal forces making near light speed finally possible!!!" Yeah, that would be some awesome news.

[Bored chemist]

The strength / push the superconducting electromagnets apply on the particles forward stays the same

No
Initially the force on the bending magnets is small, but as the speed of the particles increases, the forces exerted by (and, by Newton's 3rd law) on the magnets gets very big indeed.
The magnets are heavy, but they need to be fixed down.

[Kryptid]

O <- This is our circular particle accelerator seen from the side. For now we only accelerate particles counterclockwise. By accelerating from 4 to 2 o'clock the centrifugal forces focus on the top side (12 o'clock) side of the accelerator. When these centrifugal forces exceed the weight of the whole system, lift off is possible. When in space even the smallest amount of positive net "thrust" of this closed system can make an craft move into the desired direction. For control of motion in this case if, for example we now want to move to the left the accelerator just uses the path on the 11 to 1 o'clock position.

That may create greater force in one direction on the particle beam but it will create an equally large force in the opposite direction on the magnets. So you get no net movement.