B-2 Electrogravitics & Other stuff

[Orionblamblam]

Dismissal is so easy.

Yup, especailly after decades of research failure.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Dismissal is so easy. Far less time involved than actual research. Electrogravitics does work. No, it's not antigravity. Does the B-2 use it? No. It may use some type of drag reduction technology but that's it.

Ed

O RLY???

Care to share some details? Last I read it appeared to be a crackpot theory.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

Dismissal is so easy. Far less time involved than actual research. Electrogravitics does work. No, it's not antigravity. Does the B-2 use it? No. It may use some type of drag reduction technology but that's it.

cough... we don't even know what exactly causes gravity other than stumbling at the hypothetical graviton and relativity postulate...

 

[Orionblamblam]

Last I read it appeared to be a crackpot theory.

The closest I've read to electrogravitics being non-crackpottery is in the realm of *exceedingly* high-end physics, attempting to figure out the first 10−43 of a second or so after the Big Bang (the Planck Epoch, when all four fundamental forces were equal in strength and unified). At those massively high energy densities and pressures, electromagnetism and gravitation are suspected to merge together. But if your plane needs to replicate the Big Bang in order to fly... you're doing it wrong.

 

[Orionblamblam]

cough... we don't even know what exactly causes gravity...

Sure we do.

Mass causes gravity.

And we can use gravity to detect mass.

See? Simple.

 

[GTX]

But if your plane needs to replicate the Big Bang in order to fly... you're doing it wrong.

;D

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism#Fringe_physics

cough... we don't even know what exactly causes gravity...

Sure we do.

Mass causes gravity.

And we can use gravity to detect mass.

See? Simple.

I am aware of that though I said it with quantum theory in mind

 

[edwest4]

Dismissal is so easy. Far less time involved than actual research. Electrogravitics does work. No, it's not antigravity. Does the B-2 use it? No. It may use some type of drag reduction technology but that's it.

Ed

O RLY???

Care to share some details? Last I read it appeared to be a crackpot theory.

Here you go:


http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm


Ed

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

I'll believe it the day that I see planes over my head flying without turbine, propeller, or any other form of propulsion that requires combustion. I'm waiting... B)

 

[sferrin]

MAGNETS!!!!! I saw them make a frog float with magnets. Truly, this is the next new technology!

 

[Kokoro]

I once had an idea. What if you could find or create some heavy element, so dence that it has its own gravity and simply floats in space....

 

[Orionblamblam]

Here you go:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm
Ed

That has nothing to do with "electrogravitics." It is a system that uses a weak electromagnetic field to move air, similar in concept to the magnetohydrodynamics of "Red October" fame. It is also a seriously limited system that does not scale up worth a damn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifter_(ionic_propulsion_device)

The link you provided even pointed out that this is a result of the Biefeld–Brown effect, which is a well-understood electrohydrodynamics effect.

Claiming this is electrogravitics is like claiming the Saturn V propulsion system is an example of chemogravitics.

So, please, by all means... try again.

 

[Orionblamblam]

PS: from the Wiki page for the Biefeld–Brown effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld%E2%80%93Brown_effect

An article by Martin Tajmar (see below, or a summary) describes an experiment designed to test the possibility that this effect may need some other effect than ion winds for its explanation. No such effect was found, to the limit of experimental accuracy. In particular, no thrust could be observed in a vacuum. A similar device was tested in a vacuum in an episode of the Mythbusters with the same result.

If it suddenly doesn't work in a vacuum... it's nothing to do with gravity, and everything to do with the electicial effect on the surrounding air (or lack thereof).

 

[bobbymike]

I'm waiting for the infinite improbability drive.

 

[TomS]

I once had an idea. What if you could find or create some heavy element, so dence that it has its own gravity and simply floats in space....

I get the feeling you haven't studied much physics.

For starters, all elements have "their own gravity" -- any object with mass exerts gravity on every other object in the universe, and vice versa. The gravitational force between two objects increases as their mass increases (F=GMm/r2), so dense objects would most certainly not "just float." In fact, just as common sense suggests, dense objects tend to fall down with great force.

Also, there really aren't undiscovered elements waiting around to be found, aside from the superheavy ones created in unspeakably small amounts by experiments involving particle accelerators. So far, these tend to have half-lives measured in minutes, though some speculate about exceptionally heavy elements on an "island of stability" but there's on way to create them with existing technology or precursor materials.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Also, there really aren't undiscovered elements waiting around to be found, aside from the superheavy ones created in unspeakably small amounts by experiments involving particle accelerators.

There is another pseudo-element that may exist today and may exist in an extremely tenuous, very depressing form in the distant future: positronium. An electron and a positron orbit each other for a little while, finally spiralling in and annihilating. Positronium was predicted in the 1930's and detected ion the 1950's. Lifetime is measured in picoseconds to nanoseconds.

10100 or more years down the line, after all the galaxies have evaporated, the stars have burned out, the protons and other baryons have all decayed and even the galaxy-mass black holes have hawking radiationed themselves into non-existance, the universe will be an immensely cold, extremely vacant dark place. In this depressing void, the occasional electron may do a little dance with a random positron, orbiting around each other over distances measured in many, many lightyears. The universe would be so devoid of clumps of mass that the gravitational and magnetic influence of these two tiny particles would be enough to hold each other in an orbit taking many trillions of years to complete. These tenuous pseudo-atoms of positronium would be the last structures in the universe.

Exciting, yes?

 

[Lauge]

I'm waiting for the infinite improbability drive.

I'm sorry, but that is just so last lightyear.....especially compared to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_in_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Bistromathic_drive

;D

Regards & all (or should that be "So long, and thanks for all the fish"?),

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

 

[shockonlip]

Laugh while you can monkey boy!

There is a lot of research going on in the realm of E-M and aircraft !

And I am NOT kidding!!

This started as a laugh at the expense of someone who suggested B-2 was using E-M technologies.
But wouldn't it be really funny if a successor aircraft was equipped with something
related to this, say for drag reduction or aerodynamic flow enhancement, or control,
or power generation for an attack laser, or ... .

This stuff is not here yet, and it may not even arrive, but anything man can use to further
control nature can't and won't be overlooked.

I think you would be surprised at the amount of interest and research going on in this area.

So I am not going to make fun, because you never know.

 

[BAROBA]

I once had an idea. What if you could find or create some heavy element, so dence that it has its own gravity and simply floats in space....

..... dense objects tend to fall down with great force.......

To be correct: Dense objects fall with the small speed as not-so dense objects (ignoring air-resistence) It is called gravity....

People seem to forget that the shape of the B-2 is a highly efficient aerodynamic shape. A flying wing ( even non-stealthy ones) require much less engine-power then any other shape for a bomber. No need for any 'electro-gravity' BS.

In theoretical physics almost all fundamental forces are linked together in a theory that explains how and when they can be combined to form an 'new' force. The theorists working on understand how this all works, has linked all forces except one. Gravity wont let tie itself to any other force. So if someone claims that it must be 'electro-gravity' that drives something, me eyes roll everytime

Cheers,

Rob

 

[TomS]

I once had an idea. What if you could find or create some heavy element, so dence that it has its own gravity and simply floats in space....

..... dense objects tend to fall down with great force.......

To be correct: Dense objects fall with the small speed as not-so dense objects (ignoring air-resistence) It is called gravity....

I said force, not speed. Remember F=ma? two objects fall at the same speed, certainly, but the heavier one will impart more force. And of course, assuming two objects of the same size, the denser one is heavier (and thus imparts more force.)

 

[Orionblamblam]

two objects fall at the same speed

Ahem. *Acceleration.*

But even so, that'd still not be entirely true. First, there's the effect of aerodynamics; a hollow tungsten ball of one meter diameter and one kilogram mass will not fall at either the same speed or acceleration as a one kilogram tungsten dart.

Second, the acceleration due to gravity is not due entirely to the mass of the Earth, but the mass of all objects in the system. So depending on how you count it up, Mearth + M1 might be a different total mass than Mearth + M2.

Third, *where* you drop the item will have an effect on the acceleration of gravity. At sea level on the equator is less acceleration than sea level at the north pole, for instance.

You crazy kids and your masive oversimplifications...

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

Third, *where* you drop the item will have an effect on the acceleration of gravity. At sea level on the equator is less acceleration than sea level at the north pole, for instance.

yep, acceleration due to gravity is reduced exponentially as you go farther from the "center"

 

[shockonlip]

Third, *where* you drop the item will have an effect on the acceleration of gravity. At sea level on the equator is less acceleration than sea level at the north pole, for instance.

yep, acceleration due to gravity is reduced exponentially as you go farther from the "center"

Not exponentially, but gravity reduces with the square of the distance (r) between the masses centers.

Namely: F=Gm1m2/r**2 NOT F=Gm1m2/exp(r)

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

I said reduced exponentially because of the inverse square relationship as you go farther not reduced exponentially by r

and gravity is constant...

 

[BAROBA]

It is now save to say we have lost the crackpots in this thread
5 or so threads to go

 

[TomS]

two objects fall at the same speed

Ahem. *Acceleration.*

Two objects at the same starting conditions and subjected to the same acceleration move at the same speed.

But seriously, you want to nitpick this and you're giving a pass to the guy who thinks really dense materials would levitate themselves? Really? I give up.

 

[shockonlip]

I said reduced exponentially because of the inverse square relationship as you go farther not reduced exponentially by r

and gravity is constant...

You did not originally say "because of the inverse square relationship". And you're still using the word "exponentially".

Stop using the word "exponentially" ! That means something else than what you intend and it confuses your point.

Exponentially means to a power of 'e' the natural logarithm base or as it is also written, exp(). The gravity force
equation is actually written with "r" (the distance from the centers of the masses), or as you said: "as you go farther
from the center", and r is squared in the gravity force equation. 'r' is not 'e'. So do not use the term "exponentially".

I accept your restatement if what you meant was:
"reduced because of the inverse square relationship as you go farther from the center".

 

[SOC]

Two objects at the same starting conditions and subjected to the same acceleration move at the same speed.

But seriously, you want to nitpick this and you're giving a pass to the guy who thinks really dense materials would levitate themselves? Really? I give up.

Only in a vacuum. Otherwise, looking at it from a vector standpoint, your accelerations could be equal (based on force and mass) but the friction forces or other forces countering the forward acceleration vector coudl be different, resulting in a net difference.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Two objects at the same starting conditions and subjected to the same acceleration move at the same speed.

Unless they are acted upon by different forces, such as the ball-and-dart I mentioned.

you're giving a pass to the guy who thinks really dense materials would levitate themselves?

Someone else already took that apart. I see no need to dogpile.

 

[RP1]

Second, the acceleration due to gravity is not due entirely to the mass of the Earth, but the mass of all objects in the system. So depending on how you count it up, Mearth + M1 might be a different total mass than Mearth + M2.

F = GMm/r^2 but F=ma, so the acceleration is the same for two objects of different mass. It's the force that differs.

RP1

 

[Orionblamblam]

F = GMm/r^2 but F=ma, so the acceleration is the same for two objects of different mass.

Nope. Assume Mearth and Mmars, somehow magically suspended 50,000 miles from each other and then let go with zero velocity. They will begin to accelerate towards each other, with an acceleration based on distance and *total* mass. Now replace Mmars with Mluna and repeat. The acceleration will be lower because the total mass in the system is lower. Now replace Mluna with Mtrabant. The acceleration will be lower still because the total mass is lower still.

In all cases, it's also not a matter of the Mearth holding still while Mwhatever accelerates towards it... they accelerate towards each other. Mtrabant might exert only a tiny pittance of an acceleration on the Mearth, but it's be the same acceleration whether it was Mearth or Mkadaffy's-ego.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

This thread made me laugh. Well done chaps!

 

[Orionblamblam]

This thread made me laugh. Well done chaps!

Since we've sorta wrung the low-hanging "secret projects" fruit dry (to mangle a few mutually exclusive metaphors), it's either dead silence or arguement. And we can either argue physics... or politics. Me, I'm in favor of arguing political physics. Like "which makes a better re-entry heat shield, a lawyer or a politician?" But that's not this thread.

 

[Arjen]

And we can either argue physics... or politics.

What about religion? Listening to some people going on about electrogravitics, I figure there's loads of milage in it.

<edit> I've considered this for a bit. Talking cats is probably safer. Or rats. </edit>

 

[Lauge]

"......which makes a better re-entry heat shield, a lawyer or a politician?" But that's not this thread.

Or rats.

Also somewhat OT, but there's an old joke that several laboratories are considering using lawyers instead of white rats for testing new medicines, cosmetics, food additives, suspected carcinogens etc.

There are three main advantages to this:

1) There are more lawyers than rats
2) There is less risk of the lab staff developing an emotional attachment to the test subjects
3) For the right price, a lawyer will do things that no self-respecting rat would touch with a 10-foot pole.

Regards & all, and enjoy the upcoming weekend,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

 

[Mat Parry]

Also somewhat OT, but there's an old joke that several laboratories are considering using lawyers instead of white rats for testing new medicines, cosmetics, food additives, suspected carcinogens etc.

Within some laboratories that develop medicines, cosmetics, food additives there is a joke that all lawyers are doomed to serve in the lowest levels of hell... except patent lawyers as they don't know enough law to cause any real harm



Appologies to any patent lawyers reading

 

[BAROBA]

Lol
best joke of the year

 

[RanulfC]

DC voltage ionoic lifter...notice the triangular planform hmmmmm.

Leftover tin foil for hat.

try putting it in a vacuum container and see if it still hovers :

:::grin::: Actually American Antigravity did exactly that and yes it still "flew"... which was all well and good until further research pointed to the fact that the effect WAS actually an "ion-wind" effect AND in absence of "free" ions the foil was 'spalling' off ions and tearing up the "lifter" though it was a slow effect

cough... we don't even know what exactly causes gravity...

Sure we do.

Mass causes gravity.

And we can use gravity to detect mass.

See? Simple.

Not really so "simple"

My current 'favorite' leading edge theory-slinging is a simple question of;
"Is gravity an effect of mass, or is gravity a side effect of mass?"

Which sounds simple, (and rather confusing at first but actually rather fundemental. What IF gravity is not CAUSED by mass, but mearly 'focused' by it?

Oh well, onto political lawyers as heat-sheilding materials...

Randy

 

[Gridlock]

"How does gravity work?"

"Very well, thanks".

 

[flateric]

havent heard from Schratt recently?
fun, fun!

It was inevitable...