Why some antigravity experiments fail

  • 37 Replies
  • 13004 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
Why some antigravity experiments fail
« on: 02/03/2014 17:09:30 »
Why so many anti-gravity experiments fail. Letís look at eugeny podkltnovís experiment. He took a liquid nitrogen cooled superconductor, put it above a magnetic field, and spun it. This should have blocked planetary gravitation, and allow the test weight to be partially suspended. He claims the experiment worked, NASA tryied the experiment and said it failed. For an experiment to work for one and not the other there must be some difference, if eugeny performed the experiment in a darkened room it would probably have worked. NASA probably performed the experiment in a well lit room, and this is probably the difference why it worked for one and not the other.
   The photon is the force carrier for the graviton, by having this experiment well lit you add photons to the material and gravitons at the same time, this defeats the purpose of the experiment. For the experiment to succeed, the best bet would be to have a darkened room, with a suspended test weight. It would be best if it was electrically heated, to red-hot so it could radiate photons away from it. When itís hot and radiating photons the electricity would need to be stopped so that it would prevent electrical photons of gravitons from coming in This should create a reduced gravity affect.
« Last Edit: 13/03/2014 21:08:24 by alan hess »

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8175
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #1 on: 02/03/2014 19:19:29 »
Quote from: wikipedia.org/Eugene_Podkletnov
Podkletnov's gravity shielding experiments

According to the account Podkletnov gave to reporter Charles Platt in a 1996 phone interview, during a 1992 experiment with a rotating superconducting disk,

    Someone in the laboratory was smoking a pipe, and the pipe smoke rose in a column above the superconducting disc. So we placed a ball-shaped magnet above the disc, attached to a balance. The balance behaved strangely. We substituted a nonmagnetic material, silicon, and still the balance was very strange. We found that any object above the disc lost some of its weight, and we found that if we rotated the disc, the effect was increased.

Podkletnov published a paper in 1992 reporting that the weight of an object directly above the disk was decreased. He concluded that the superconducting disk was shielding the Earth's gravitational force above it. This is sometimes called the Podkletnov effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov#Podkletnov.27s_gravity_shielding_experiments

Hang on a mo, superconductors are super-cold, -200o C ,  air/nitrogen at that temperature would be denser and have more buoyancy than room temperature air. Objects in such cold dense gas would weigh less than in room temperature air.

[The temperature difference will also cause air currents which could explain the pipe-smoke effect].

Repeat the experiment in a vacuum.
« Last Edit: 02/03/2014 19:46:49 by RD »

*

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #2 on: 02/03/2014 19:46:15 »
As far as I know he used a 20 pound weight which is not affected by air currents. The point also is that NASA tried to reconstruct the experiment and it failed. My point is photons carry the graviton with them when they travel when these photons hit an object gravitons and photons are absorbed or reflected. I feel that the experiment should work the photons are eliminated from the equation.

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8175
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #3 on: 02/03/2014 19:52:24 »
As far as I know he used a 20 pound weight which is not affected by air currents.

It will appear to weigh less when in a denser fluid because of increased buoyancy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy
« Last Edit: 02/03/2014 19:55:24 by RD »

*

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #4 on: 02/03/2014 22:10:03 »
You have no argument from me that an object in a liquid will lay less than object and air. This experiment was conducted in air, for a breeze to affect a 20 pound object would require a lot of air movement. Although I do agree with you if the experiment should've been the conducted in a vacuum so there is no chance of outside influence. My point still is that photons need to be eliminated from the experiment also.

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8175
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #5 on: 03/03/2014 07:34:35 »
You have no argument from me that an object in a liquid will lay less than object and air.

Air , like liquid, is a fluid. The more dense the fluid, (be it liquid or gas), the greater the buoyancy effect.

 The colder the gas the denser it becomes ,
( nitrogen gas boiling off from liquid-nitrogen used to cool the super-conductor will be close to -200oC , which is extremely cold ).
« Last Edit: 03/03/2014 07:43:04 by RD »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #6 on: 03/03/2014 08:02:03 »
Rotating superconductor => magnetic field. All materials have some magnetic properties.
Rotating disc => vortex, so tobacco smoke (hot) will rise and concentrate in the vortex.
So far, no evidence of antigravitation. And surely if rotating the disc clockwise  produces an upwards force, rotating it anticlockwise should produce a downwards force. Does it?
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #7 on: 03/03/2014 09:08:38 »
A rotating disc has a minimal fan effect in order to have a fan you need to have blades. I agree there is some difference caused by the air being at different temperatures. The experiment claims a 15% drop in the weight of the sample material. It would take a lot of air movement to create this much affect on a 20 pound weight. While this difference in temperature may easily affect cigar smoke I don't see how it can affect the sample.

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8175
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #8 on: 03/03/2014 10:56:32 »
A rotating disc has a minimal fan effect in order to have a fan you need to have blades.

A rotating cylinder can create lift (no blades required).

The extreme temperature gradient alone, without any rotation, could create a toroidal vortex when the air-current passed over a disc-shaped obstruction ,  which then caused the pipe-smoke to be confined into a column ...




I agree there is some difference caused by the air being at different temperatures.

Homework : find out the how the density of air at say -100oC compares with the density of air at room temperature, say 25oC , then apply Archimedes principle.


The experiment claims a 15% drop in the weight of the sample material.

The unverified experiment, ( has not been independently repeated ).
« Last Edit: 03/03/2014 11:16:10 by RD »

*

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #9 on: 03/03/2014 16:14:31 »
I understand what you're saying, I also agree with you there are times when different densities can be accomplished by different densities in different fluids and/or different temperatures. That is not the situation in this case the 20 pound weight should not be affected by the small differences of the liquid nitrogen plus as far as I know his experiment was contained. So the liquid nitrogen was under a  lid and   the the disk was also. I may be wrong on this but I think this is how he had his experiment set up so the liquid nitrogen will not leak out. Also if you've ever been around liquid nitrogen when it spilled on the floor you will notice things do not jump off the floor from the difference in the temperature you not feel a breeze blowing from the difference in the temperature all you will feel is cold. This was not the point of my discussion point I tried to make with this discussion it is on the photon and gravitons. The graviton travels with the photon. Gravitons are absorbed and released in the same manner that a photon is. I found it interesting that a Russian scientists performs this experiment and it works. NASA performs the same experiment and it doesn't work I looked for differences in the experimenting techniques. The concept of his experiment is such you take a dense material supercold spin it, and it should block gravity. Gravitons from the earth when an item is taken to absolute 0 there is no molecular motion and it should be a block. Most scientists will not report an experiment with deception because they are faced with other scientists call him on it, odds are this experiment worked for him. When others try it something is different I feel the difference is the photons.

*

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 367
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #10 on: 04/03/2014 02:09:09 »
What I don't understand is "why" spining a large superconductor would effect gravity at all. that doesn't make sense. If you could, explain what is supposed to cause gravity to decrease from spinning a superconductor?

let's say that this experiment is done in a vacuum and air doesn't effect the experimental results. What would cause gravity to decrease?

Is it possible that nasa lied about the experiment? The government would probably lie about something like this, you know that whole ufo conspiracy, I bet the government want's to develop this technology in secret so they can make anti-gravity military aircraft/spacecraft. If America develops this technology way before everyone else even knew it existed then that would give the American military a huge advantage.  A perfect reason to keep this sort of thing secret and gives them a motive to lie.
« Last Edit: 04/03/2014 02:18:07 by ScientificSorcerer »

*

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #11 on: 04/03/2014 04:43:02 »
Sure the graviton is supposed to exist in the center of the atom. When the temperature drops to absolute 0 all motion in the atoms ceases basically it's frozen. When you take a dense material like lead that is frozen and spin it a barrier will be created. Now all the frozen atoms will stop gravitons from penetrating to your sample material and lower the gravitational coefficient of your sample. This was the idea behind his test you didn't achieve absolute 0 with liquid nitrogen, but he's lowered the temperature enough that it should have worked. He claims that it did. NASA reran the experiment claims it didn't. They may have falsified the data but I don't think so. I believe the difference is in the lighting, eugeny was smoking a cigar so I assume they were in a laid-back atmosphere probably had the lights down drinking some beers. When NASA reran the experiment they probably had it in a full-fledged laboratory which was well lit possibly with sunlight coming in through the window. In my studies I've noticed a strong correlation between the graviton in the photon just for example the sun it has lost 7% of its mass since it was born converting mass to energy if this mass was still at the sun you would have a higher gravitational coefficient instead of the standard figure. This is not the case the sun has a standard figure gravitational so therefore how did the gravity leave, the only thing that leaves with any consistency is photons. Photons have a spin of one, Gravitons have a spin of 2, so they can travel together, both travel at the speed of light and the graviton will adopt whatever frequency the photon is traveling at. The graviton is emitted at the same time the photon is and will be absorbed or reflected by whatever they hit just like the photon is. This keeps the gravitational balance of the solar system. Sorry I went on and on, but I believe light must be excluded from antigravity experiments or they will fail.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #12 on: 04/03/2014 07:14:18 »
So are you proposing the generation of antigravitons by spinning a superconductor, or that a spinning supercon sucks gravitons out of a distant block of lead but they return to it when the disc stops spinning?

And why does the supercon have to rotate? Since the plane of rotation is orthogonal to the line of action of the antigravity or whatever, rotating the source won't change the effect.

The story does have all the usual elements of classic scifi: rotation, superconductivity, silicon, vortices....and even the after-dinner cigar - but lacks the essential ingredient of physics: numbers. Do you have any?
« Last Edit: 04/03/2014 07:19:33 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8175
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #13 on: 04/03/2014 08:01:22 »
If the object has a volume of a litre then deceasing the temperature of the gas (air) around it to close to the temperature of liquid nitrogen could reduce it's apparent weight by ~10 grams via increased buoyancy, which is a measurable amount, but only 1 part in a thousand if the object was say 10Kg , i.e. 0.1% reduction in weight, not "15%" reduction.

...  for example the sun it has lost 7% of its mass since it was born converting mass to energy ...

The Sun's loss of mass via radiation isn't that high ...

Quote from: newton.dep.anl.gov
So if the Sun lost mass by radiation at this rate it would lose 1% of its mass in (0.01)(2 x 10^33 grams)/(4 x 10^12 grams/sec) = 5 x 10^18 seconds, or about 160 billion years.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ast99/ast99441.htm

The sun looses more mass via solar wind (e.g. CME) than via radiation.

*

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #14 on: 04/03/2014 13:50:39 »
The center of the sun is a highly balanced nuclear reaction converting mass to energy if this balance is off the reaction will not work. If it is converting mass to energy the gravity coefficient will go up, the only thing to leave the center of the sun is photons and radiation. Yes there is solar wind at the outside of the sun caused by the heat and energy at the center of the sun. While this does decrease the mass of the sun it does not affect the gravity coefficient at the center of the sun. Also please note that radiation is photons of a higher energy than visible light.

*

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 367
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #15 on: 04/03/2014 23:53:03 »
alan hess

Ok I think I get what your talking about, correct me if I'm wrong.

lets take for example you get hydrogen and anti hydrogen. Both atom have gravity, but when you put the two together, they are both converted into energy (light/photons) when that happens both particles are lost, and so is the gravity generated by both atoms, that gravity escapes in the form of light/photons.

What you mean to say is that in the sun, a lot of mass is lost in the form of light do to the light released by the sun during fusion reactions, that makes sense.

you mean to say that atoms are basically huge amounts of balled up light and that gravity is made by this light inside an atom right? implying that photons have tiny amounts of gravity and that's why light is sucked into a black hole via the force of gravity and bent via space curvature.

But to me none of that matters, to me the experiment suggests that it's the electrons in cooper pairs that give rise to this effect "nothing else".

If that's true might I suggest an improvement to the experiment. Instead of levitating a superconductor over a magnet, make superconductor magnet charged near it's critical current density and lock it in persistent mode inorder to make a superconducting magnet around 10 Teslas of magnetic power, levitate that "super magnet" over another superconductor, then spin it at high speed.

By doing this you get the maximum amount of cooper pairs in the superconductor sample, thus improving the experimental results, perhaps even archiving nearly complete loss of gravity in the sample.

even if it dosn't work (it should work) then at least you'll levitate a superconductor about 3 feet off the ground which would be freaking awesome!
« Last Edit: 04/03/2014 23:57:36 by ScientificSorcerer »

*

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #16 on: 05/03/2014 00:52:43 »
You're very close in your understanding, but I need to correct you on a few points. You are talking about combining hydrogen and hydrogen, this reaction is called fusion it forms helium not annihilation. Atoms didn't come around until 380,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe is much too cool at this point for combination or recombination. That happened in the 1st moments after the Big Bang and it was the electrons combining formed photons, photons combined formed electrons, and the quarks combined also. Gravitation was not lost during this time it was already in existence. The atom is not made of light. The atoms creates light by the electrons jumping to a higher orbit and falling back to a lower orbit thus releasing (photons) light. On your experiment I'm not sure what would happen, the spinning disc at the bottom should block gravitons from the planet, in the spinning disc on top should block gravitons from the top so anything between it should levitate. Beyond that I'm not sure.

*

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 367
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #17 on: 05/03/2014 01:30:14 »
I used the term "ANTI"hydrogen as in anti matter, to describe what happens to the 2 atoms when they meet, they are converted into energy, (light) an the gravity from the 2 atoms disappears. I thought you were saying that light carries off the gravity when mass is converted into energy.

And I think you miss understood the experiment I suggested.

the original experiment looked something like this.



He used electromagnets to levitate the superconductor disk then spun it.

My Idea changes up the whole experiment. instead of a superconductor levitating over an electro-magnet.  My experiment calls for a supercharged superconductor magnet to levitate over a superconductor.

It's like a magnet levitating over a superconductor.

In this case the magnet "IS" a superconductor! and it levitates over another superconductor on the ground. Only the "super magnet" is levitating, nothing else. All you need to rotate the super magnet is a copper ring coil electro-magnet around the super magnet.

The reason why this experiment is better is because you have a much greater amount/concentration of cooper pairs. I theorize that the cooper pairs are completely responsible for this anti-gravitic effect. so if you have more cooper pairs then you get more of an effect.

you see the only thing that changes when you freeze a superconductor is the way electrons flow through the material. (forming cooper pairs)
if the experiment didn't work on hot superconductors and it did on cold superconductors then that means that the effect is likely to be do to the cooper pairs/quantum entangled electrons. by charging the superconductor your basically putting more electrons into it (which will flow in cooper pairs) so the more charged your superconductor is the better the effect will work.

I will draw you a picture of this experiment but I probably wont get to it today, it will better illustrate what im talking about.
« Last Edit: 05/03/2014 01:44:54 by ScientificSorcerer »

*

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 367
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #18 on: 05/03/2014 05:05:05 »
Here is the picture I drew it's really not that great, but it provides illustration as to what I'm talking about.

on the bottom is a superconductor disk

then there are 2 coils, the larger one is an electromagnet and the smaller one inside the bigger one is a superconductor "super-magnet"

the superconductor disk levitates the super-magnet and the electro-magnet spins the super-magnet like a  non-contact motor.
« Last Edit: 05/03/2014 05:09:33 by ScientificSorcerer »

*

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #19 on: 05/03/2014 13:16:49 »
Sorry I misunderstood, hydrogen, anti-hydrogen would create energy, as you suggested and photons, I would say that the gravitons would travel with the photons. As for your experiment. Wouldn't hurt my feelings to try it. By the way you drew a very good picture of the original experiment.

*

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 367
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #20 on: 05/03/2014 21:52:10 »
But I wonder, theoretically speaking would this new experiment improve the results?  Is it logical to hypothesize that the quantum electron pairs is purely responsible for such a dramatic effect? I wonder how it would effect the results of the experiment.

when you levitate a superconductor over a neodymium magnet the superconductor acquires 1 Tesla of magnetic power. which means that the superconductor is holding 1/12th of it's maximum current density in cooper pairs.  and if the experimental results showed a 7% loss of weight at 1/12th its maximum cooper pairs then that would mean that if the superconductor was charged to 100% then I would expect 84% loss of weight! now that's pretty close to complete weight loss, at that level of wightlessness the sample would probably become lighter then the air around it and float up like a hydrogen balloon.

*

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #21 on: 06/03/2014 14:57:57 »
I kinda really don't think so, the experiment was set up for the frozen lead to interfere with the gravitons. The only thing that could probably improve the experiment would be to make a superconductor chamber completely surrounding your sample. In theory, that should cause your sample to float. Unfortunately, I don't know what the Cooper pairs do in this situation, but it is an interesting question.

*

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 367
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #22 on: 06/03/2014 21:05:20 »
hmmm... I'm trying to visualize the new experiment you propose. This "super-chamber" you speak of, is it like a hollow superconducting ball with a spinning superconductor inside? that sounds awesome :)

That would bend the magnetic fields of your levitator magnet in a very unusual way, perhaps blocking the magnetic fields from entering the interior of the hollow orb making it impossible to levitate. ontop of that how would you spin the superconductor in the core of this hollow orb?

Could you illustrate this experiment and explain it in a little more detail, I'm a bit confused how this new experiment is supposed to work, I don't know very much about "gravitons"

*

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 123
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #23 on: 07/03/2014 14:46:47 »
I would just spin the whole chamber, this would prove whether it was Cooper pairs, or the frozen superconductor material that was interfering with gravity. Any time you have multiple variables, you need to remove some from the equation. This is the best way I can think of.

*

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 367
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #24 on: 07/03/2014 23:25:18 »
I was also curious what would happen if you could make cooper pairs produce light. your theory states that Gravitons travel with light in this case I can only imagine how cooper paired plasma might look like. That stuff would literally be quantum entangled plasma, What substance could be more exotic! I Bet that stuff might be useful.

Imagine this experiment for example



Imagine a "superconductor Tesla coil" with virtually any current capacity That shot out quantum entangled plasma!!! Now if that isn't scifi science then I don't know what is. Of coarse the cooper pairs would probably break apart after leaving the surface of the superconductor but You could probably find something incredible about it that may relate to anti-gravitation espesually if you introduced the plasma to a magnet ring "spinning the plasma".

If you Have ever heard of "Tom Townsend Brown" A person who said that he could manipulate static fields to create anti-gravity effects.
If you've never heard of him look him up on Google, It might relate to what's happening in the superconductor.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2014 23:38:00 by ScientificSorcerer »

*

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 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
  • ****
  • 367
    • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • ****
  • 367
    • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • ****
  • 367
    • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • ****
  • 367
    • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • ****
  • 367
    • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • ****
  • 367
    • 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
  • ****
  • 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.