Anti-gravity machine in your garage

[pelastration]

I do not deny the possibility of such things, merely their existence. Overunity energy production and anti-gravity technology would require physics unlike any we currently know. I doubt such knowledge will be found in a garage or a web page.

Sure anti-gravity technology is possible in your garage. Bet for $1,000? and will send you the design. Anyone else interested. Russ? $1,000?


Edit by Ivan: Split from
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=50321&page=3&pp=15

 

[enigma]

Sure, I'll take that bet.

But it actually has to turn off or change gravity.

If the gravity is still there, but some other force is providing flight or levitation, it isn't an anti-gravity device, and I win the bet. If there were an anti-gravity device, the object subjected to it would go soaring off into space at speeds in the kilometers per second at least.

Oh, and you need to provide a mathematical model which explains what's going on.

Still want to take the bet, pelastration?

 

[pelastration]

Sure, I'll take that bet.

But it actually has to turn off or change gravity.

If the gravity is still there, but some other force is providing flight or levitation, it isn't an anti-gravity device, and I win the bet. If there were an anti-gravity device, the object subjected to it would go soaring off into space at speeds in the kilometers per second at least.

Oh, and you need to provide a mathematical model which explains what's going on.

Still want to take the bet, pelastration?

You didn't accepted the bet enigma. You put your own conditions.
For the others: The proof/experiment will be at room (garage) temperature.

 

[enigma]

Yep. That's what I thought.

Paraphrased:
I can prove that anti-gravity exists, but I don't have to prove it...

Wanna bet?!?

I'll counteroffer you, pelastration.

If you can prove it to my conditions, I'll pay you $10,000. Randi will pay you $1,000,000 as well. Get cracking!

 

[russ_watters]

Sure anti-gravity technology is possible in your garage. Bet for $1,000? and will send you the design. Anyone else interested. Russ? $1,000?

Absolutely. Heck, I'd even accept some independent testing since surely, with my obvious bias, I can't be trusted (ok, well that, and I'm lazy)...

But I'm with enigma (though I'll be slighty more generous) - first you need to define precisely what you mean by "anti-gravity." Tell me precisely what this device will do. Some people define "anti-gravity" so loosely, throwing a baseball qualifies.

 

[pelastration]

Yep. That's what I thought.

Paraphrased:
I can prove that anti-gravity exists, but I don't have to prove it...

Wanna bet?!?

I'll counteroffer you, pelastration.

If you can prove it to my conditions, I'll pay you $10,000. Randi will pay you $1,000,000 as well. Get cracking!

Enigma, your cheap.
Is gravity a force? Yes. And you want me to cut that force without a force. With the universal scissors? Like I said ... your' cheap.

 

[pelastration]

Absolutely. Heck, I'd even accept some independent testing since surely, with my obvious bias, I can't be trusted (ok, well that, and I'm lazy)...

But I'm with enigma (though I'll be slighty more generous) - first you need to define precisely what you mean by "anti-gravity." Tell me precisely what this device will do. Some people define "anti-gravity" so loosely, throwing a baseball qualifies.

Nice Russ.
You can start: What is anti-gravity?

 

[pelastration]

Tell me precisely what this device will do.

Take any tool in your garage - say 3 kilo's - and the anti-gravity device that you will build yourself will lift the tool up to one meter. Is that height enough for you?
The anti-gravity device with not have moving parts.
Fair?

 

[enigma]

Don't you see that if it isn't turning off the gravity, it isn't "anti-gravity"?

It's electrostatic repulsion... or ionic propulsion... or something else entirely?

 

[pelastration]

Don't you see that if it isn't turning off the gravity, it isn't "anti-gravity"?

It's electrostatic repulsion... or ionic propulsion... or something else entirely?

Are you a dreamer?
Do you really think you can cut off gravity from an object?
If your really think that you can cut of the most fundamental force you are creating enigma's for yourself. Maybe in math you can do that but not in physical reality.

The word "anti" means "counter".

My bet is still open. Randi can come and check.

What about keeping that 3 kilo's for 3 hours on 1 meter height above the garage floor?

 

[russ_watters]

Take any tool in your garage - say 3 kilo's - and the anti-gravity device that you will build yourself will lift the tool up to one meter. Is that height enough for you?
The anti-gravity device with not have moving parts.
Fair?

A model rocket engine has no moving parts and can lift 10 pounds.

You can start: What is anti-gravity?

enigma already gave a definition that looks good to me - but you are the one making the claim, so you explain what you are claiming.

This is so typical of this subject: there is no theory, no evidence, no experiment, no demonstrations, just word games.

What about keeping that 3 kilo's for 3 hours on 1 meter height above the garage floor?

A magnet can do it forever. So what?

 

[enigma]

pph. I can build a hovercraft in my garage. Big whoop. Or a model airplane. Even bigger whoop. or maybe I'll hang one magnet from another. Biggest whoop.

It's intellectually dishonest in the extreme to call any of them "anti-gravity" devices.

How did this thread get turned from ZPE into anti-gravity?

 

[Chronos]

conditions: anti-gravity device must move a 3 Kg mass a distance of no less than 10 meters vertical [wrt Earth's center of gravity and starting position] using no more than 50% of the input energy predicted by the formula W = f x d.

 

[juju]

http://americanantigravity.com/secrets-article.shtml

 

[Chronos]

So the Americanantigravity source admits there is no science behind the fantasy of anti-gravity propulsion [which can be translated into the equivalent of free energy - moving a mass possessing body without paying the inertial dues]. What a shocking revelation. I take it there are no takers to my conditions.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I see the term "antigravity" used to describe nearly any lifting force.

One strange note: A few years ago I saw that a small grant was issued - I think a few hundred thousand dollars - to explore some kind of "gravity shield" that would reduce the weight of the shuttle by a percent or two during the first few seconds of a launch. I know the grant was issued but I have no idea what that was all about. It seems that even some technical sources are using this language incorrectly.

 

[brewnog]

I've got a fantastic anti gravity device in my workshop.

It's called a table. That counts, right? Can I have my money now?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

From I can see, that counts.

 

[russ_watters]

I see the term "antigravity" used to describe nearly any lifting force.

One strange note: A few years ago I saw that a small grant was issued - I think a few hundred thousand dollars - to explore some kind of "gravity shield" that would reduce the weight of the shuttle by a percent or two during the first few seconds of a launch. I know the grant was issued but I have no idea what that was all about. It seems that even some technical sources are using this language incorrectly.

I heard about that as well, but I don't see how that is misusing the term: a gravity "shield" would certainly qualify as acting against gravity itself.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was assuming that no such "shield" exists, or even could in principle AFAWK, and it was just another misuse of the terminology.

 

[TheAntiRelative]

I've also heard much about gravity shielding and was wondering if it was unmitigated crankery or somewhat truthful.

Where I first heard about a variation in gravity was in studying how and why global positioning satellites must not only keep time a little differently (Gravitational relativity calculations and no other relativistic effects) But also have to be updated regularly anyway.

I read that not only are the clocks somewhat capable of drift but actual fluctuations in the Earth's gravity play a small part in making the clocks go off slightly. I've read it in a few places as I was looking at other topics but is it just repeated falsehood?

Additionally, the Allais Effect points to a possible gravitation shielding effect during eclipses.
[PLAIN ]http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast12oct99_1.htm [/URL]

Some of the credible resources point to a change in air pressure but there are some that disprove that theory as well. Apparently there was still enough question as of 1999 that NASA scientists and scientists from around the world decided that it needed to be studied further.

 

[selfAdjoint]

You are right that the Earth's gravity, through general relativity effects, retards the time deep in its field (like on the surface) relative to higher up (like in orbit). This is one of the relativity effects on the GPS clocks and it makes the clocks run fast relative to those on the surface. The other effect is from special relativity; the clocks in the satellites are moving fast relative to the ground, and so those clocks would have a tendency to run slow compared to ground clocks. You see that the two effects are in opposite directions and it's a careful calculation to figure out the net effect between them. It has been calculated though - the grav efffect is bigger - and the clocks have been adjusted accordingly. It all works too; if it didn't the GPS locating system wouldn't be as accurate as it is.

 

[russ_watters]

I was assuming that no such "shield" exists, or even could in principle AFAWK, and it was just another misuse of the terminology.

No, from what I understand, NASA really was researching a gravity shield. As we know, the government does sometimes invest money in crackpottery.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Do you have any idea what motivated the interest?

 

[Chronos]

No, from what I understand, NASA really was researching a gravity shield. As we know, the government does sometimes invest money in crackpottery.

Well, I try to resist conspiracy theories, but it is hard to resist the notion that certain countries [e.g., USA] may exaggerate how much money they spend on crackpot science to lure others [e.g., Russians] into wasting resources on bad science.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hey, conspiracies make the world go round and your example is a good one. As you probably know, we have done this before with those very folks.

On the other hand, something interesting may have come up. This sort of rumor has been circulating for a long time in many forms; mainly from defense related sources.

A side note: Did you ever hear about the printer scam we pulled on Saddam? Some number of years before Gulf I, we sold a bunch of printers to Iraq. When the war came up, since we had known that Saddam would be using these printers for military operations, transponders were installed in each printer before shipping. When the time came we simply activated the transponder installed in each printer and the missiles followed those signals home.

 

[TheAntiRelative]

The other effect is from special relativity; the clocks in the satellites are moving fast relative to the ground, and so those clocks would have a tendency to run slow compared to ground clocks. You see that the two effects are in opposite directions and it's a careful calculation to figure out the net effect between them. It has been calculated though - the grav efffect is bigger - and the clocks have been adjusted accordingly. It all works too; if it didn't the GPS locating system wouldn't be as accurate as it is.

I've read that the method used for calculating the drift caused by [translational?] movement is determined only by the gyroscopes installed in all the satellites. These gyros work as sagnac devices and can therefore measure their travel through space. Apparently, because of how a cesium beam clock works, it is susceptible to the same redshift/blueshift that a sagnac device picks up and uses for determining travel. (The same phase shift that allows a sagnac device to measure the rotation of the earth.)

From what I hear, these same sagnac gyroscopes are used as part of the guidance systems of modern US missiles.

Supposedly, any special relativistic effects caused by the translational motion too small proportionately to need consideration. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I read it. Sound possible?

 

[TheAntiRelative]

Oh, back on the topic... Didn't the Casimir's experiment measure a force and spawn all the actual science related to ZP. If a force was measured, was not some energy harnessed regardless of how small? Yes this small amount of work accomplished was so negligible that it is hard to see how it could ever be used for anything but I don't understand how that makes it impossible.

Basically, what I understand about ZP and how the Casimir effect works is that since there is a force applied in all directions equally and simultaneously it is normally undetectable. However, if you can eliminate one or more of the directions of force, you will have something akin to the effects of buoyancy in fluid dynamics. That is to say, if you cause a depressurized area in fluid, the fluid will equalize and therefore move into that area.

So, to create the casimir effect, what is done is similar to polarization of light. Two plates are placed so close to each other that the ambient energy becomes only two dimensional and therefore unbalanced. The rest of the field surrounding the plates has a greater amount of energy and so the system tries to normalize and applies a force on the plates, pushing them together.

It seems as though it could be possible to one day find some perfect harmonic EM frequency or some entirely different method to cause a "depressurization" area to harness some energy.

Unfortunately, if look at from that perspective, we've never harnessed barometric air pressure to generate power and we don't have generators under the ocean somehow harnessing all that water pressure. The only thing I could ever see it used for might be propulsion, but it seems likely that more energy would be necessary to make the system work than would be gained from using it.

(Propulsion in an ambient energy field could be achieved somewhat similar to a balloon)

 

[russ_watters]

Do you have any idea what motivated the interest?

http://popularmechanics.com/science/research/1997/12/antigravity_machine/ must be where I read about it. My assumption is that like other government agencies (recent Air Force thread, Navy-Cold fusion research), they get discretionary control over small research grants and they sometimes fund highly speculative projects. Basically, its Pascal's wager, and its what keeps the lotteries in business - it costs you relatively little to bet on it, but the potential benefit is vast.

TheAntiRelative, no, what you describe has nothing to do with the way the GPS system operates: GPS satellites are actually pre-programmed to run at relativity-adjusted rates (so when they sit on the ground, they don't keep good time), and the difference is very noticeable. Gyroscopes have nothing to do with it. Gyroscopes in missiles are a completely different animal - those are guidance systems (inertial navigation). Acceleration is measured and used to calculate motion. Since satellites feel no acceleration, inertial navigation would be useless.

Oh, back on the topic... Didn't the Casimir's experiment measure a force and spawn all the actual science related to ZP. If a force was measured, was not some energy harnessed regardless of how small? Yes this small amount of work accomplished was so negligible that it is hard to see how it could ever be used for anything but I don't understand how that makes it impossible.

Yes, ZPE is real, but force and energy are two different things. The force measured does not imply that energy was harnessed - only with motion is energy harnessed. Since there was no motion in the experiment, there was no work/energy used.

The way ZPE works is roughly equal to the way two permanent magnets work: hold them near each other and you will feel a force forever and never get any energy from them.

Unfortunately, if look at from that perspective, we've never harnessed barometric air pressure to generate power and we don't have generators under the ocean somehow harnessing all that water pressure.

Since air pressure and water pressure change, they can be harnessed, and both currently are: windmills harness air pressure change due to surface heating and tidal power plants harness the pressure variation in the ocean as the tides change. Static (constant) pressure cannot be harnessed.

When you get to it, take some thermodynamics: thermodynamics is the science/engineering of harnessing temperature and pressure change.

 

[TheAntiRelative]

TheAntiRelative, no, what you describe has nothing to do with the way the GPS system operates: GPS satellites are actually pre-programmed to run at relativity-adjusted rates (so when they sit on the ground, they don't keep good time), and the difference is very noticeable. Gyroscopes have nothing to do with it. Gyroscopes in missiles are a completely different animal - those are guidance systems (inertial navigation). Acceleration is measured and used to calculate motion. Since satellites feel no acceleration, inertial navigation would be useless. Yes, ZPE is real, but force and energy are two different things. The force measured does not imply that energy was harnessed - only with motion is energy harnessed. Since there was no motion in the experiment, there was no work/energy used.

The way ZPE works is roughly equal to the way two permanent magnets work: hold them near each other and you will feel a force forever and never get any energy from them. Since air pressure and water pressure change, they can be harnessed, and both currently are: windmills harness air pressure change due to surface heating and tidal power plants harness the pressure variation in the ocean as the tides change. Static (constant) pressure cannot be harnessed.

When you get to it, take some thermodynamics: thermodynamics is the science/engineering of harnessing temperature and pressure change.

I think you've started making assumptions based on my nick

Satellites: Nothing I describe?? I know they are adjusted to run differently and would keep time incorrectly at ground level. The only thing I was discussing was exactly how the system was employed. I was saying that I've read that the general relativity (gravity) portion of the calculation was by far the majority of the calculation, not that there was no relativity of any kind in the calculation as you assumed I was saying.
And on the subject of inertial navigation, I agree fully; however, I was talking about a sagnac device. When you get to it, I'd advise you that you look it up. :tongue2:
A sagnac device can measure motion in an inertially stable environment, and IMO is a much superior technology which is why some modern missile guidance is not inertial anymore. (From what I've read)
I'll give you that my use of the word gyroscope is a little misleading since I'm referring to a sagnac gyroscope.

EDIT: After looking around I can see the confusion about the gyros. Most companies still refer to them as inertial systems or instruments. The terminology itself is almost a misnomer. Anyhow, it looks as though all modern gyros are simply Sagnac Interferometers in one way or another. They are not even physically resistant to changes in orientation like their older cousins. Here is a manufacturers site http://www.kvh.com/FiberOpt/index.asp

No motion = No energy: Correct me if I'm wrong here but doesn't that statement only apply at an atomic level? If two objects have pressure put on them and do not move at all as a whole, energy is still expended, however that energy is converted into heat instead of motion of the whole object.

Holding two magnets away from each other doesn't have to produce "no" energy just like the constant force of gravity doesn't have to equal out to no energy. When we get energy from a waterfall we are just siphoning off some energy. I don't know if somewhere someone has postulated that magnets produce no energy, but if they have, I'll have to disagree with them. If you took two gigantic permanent magnets and mounted them away from each other with just barely enough steel supports to keep them apart, over time the pressure would heat the supports.

You're going to have to explain a little better detail on why you think that no energy is actually created by Casimir force because I'm just not following you. (not saying I'm so sure I'm right, just saying I'm reserving judgement for more info)

Right now all I can think is: "What exactly is being measured in the Casimir effect? Intent?" lol

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you.

Thermodynamics
As you should guess since I haven't been talking like a 10 yr old, I'm well aware of these sources of power and I was saying that creating a change in a static field would be the only way to harness power from it. Perhaps I just didn't explain myself very well. I was referring to inside static environments using just the pressure alone. And I was talking about making an artificial change instead of harnessing naturally occurring changes. We do this when we make a hot air ballon. Even though the air in the vicinity is not actively changing, we change the air in the balloon.

ZP
I postulated that an EM wave that could produce a destructive frequency/phase combination against the ZP fluctuations(big assumption) in a single direction could create an area of lower ambient energy. Nobody has yet found this to be possible yet but since it is assumed to be EM related it can also be assumed to be a waveform so I'm not making a humongous leap of faith, just a fairly large sized one.
If something of this kind could be produced, then it could be used similar to instantly making a large pocket of air beside an object instantly disappear and become an area of vacuum. Voila, propulsion.

 

[Chronos]

...If you took two gigantic permanent magnets and mounted them away from each other with just barely enough steel supports to keep them apart, over time the pressure would heat the supports.

No it wouldn't. The steel would have to buckle to produce any heat. That would be due to plastic deformation. It would be a transient effect lasting only as long it took to collapse the support. You would also expend more energy than you created in separating the magnets.

 

[russ_watters]

And on the subject of inertial navigation, I agree fully; however, I was talking about a sagnac device. When you get to it, I'd advise you that you look it up. :tongue2:
A sagnac device can measure motion in an inertially stable environment, and IMO is a much superior technology which is why some modern missile guidance is not inertial anymore. (From what I've read)
I'll give you that my use of the word gyroscope is a little misleading since I'm referring to a sagnac gyroscope.

I've never heard that a GPS satellite employs such a device. If you have a source...?

No motion = No energy: Correct me if I'm wrong here but doesn't that statement only apply at an atomic level? If two objects have pressure put on them and do not move at all as a whole, energy is still expended, however that energy is converted into heat instead of motion of the whole object.

Nope. A book sitting on a table expends no energy but applys a force forever. It seems like you may be confusing the static situation with how you got there: it takes energy to lift a book onto a table, but that has nothing to do with the force between the book and the table.

Think about it this way: if force created energy, you could power a skyscraper by using the support columns to heat water. Ever touch a support column in a building...?

Holding two magnets away from each other doesn't have to produce "no" energy just like the constant force of gravity doesn't have to equal out to no energy. When we get energy from a waterfall we are just siphoning off some energy.

Wrong. A hydroelectric dam utilizes an open cycle whereby the input energy is provided, ultimately, by the sun.

I don't know if somewhere someone has postulated that magnets produce no energy, but if they have, I'll have to disagree with them.

Its the first law of thermodynamics.

If you took two gigantic permanent magnets and mounted them away from each other with just barely enough steel supports to keep them apart, over time the pressure would heat the supports.

No, it wouldn't.

You're going to have to explain a little better detail on why you think that no energy is actually created by Casimir force because I'm just not following you. (not saying I'm so sure I'm right, just saying I'm reserving judgement for more info)

This isn't going to be easy: it appears you haven't learned even the most basic concepts in physics. Learning and understanding Newton's 1st law and the definitions of "force" and "energy" is the place to start.

Right now all I can think is: "What exactly is being measured in the Casimir effect? Intent?" lol

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you.

Force. The part you are misunderstanding is that force and energy are two completely different things.

...I was saying that creating a change in a static field would be the only way to harness power from it. Perhaps I just didn't explain myself very well. I was referring to inside static environments using just the pressure alone. And I was talking about making an artificial change instead of harnessing naturally occurring changes.

Again, Newton's 1st law: the "artificial change" you make will be exactly equal to the energy you get from the system. Ie, you gain nothing by doing such a thing.

I postulated that an EM wave that could produce a destructive frequency/phase combination against the ZP fluctuations(big assumption) in a single direction could create an area of lower ambient energy. Nobody has yet found this to be possible yet but since it is assumed to be EM related it can also be assumed to be a waveform so I'm not making a humongous leap of faith, just a fairly large sized one. If something of this kind could be produced, then it could be used similar to instantly making a large pocket of air beside an object instantly disappear and become an area of vacuum. Voila, propulsion.

And again, this would yield you (not including efficiency losses) precisely the amount of energy you put into it: ie, nothing useful.

 

[russ_watters]

In any case, this highlights my position that the vast majority of perpetual motion claims and beliefs are either hoaxes or misunderstandings of the most basic concepts in physics.

The word games played over the previous couple of pages show that pelastration does understand the physics well enough to know that in a perpetual motion claim (anti-gravity is a perpetual motion claim), coherence must be avoided at all costs. That makes the $1,000 bet an attempted hoax.

People who believe these hoaxes (and even a few of the perpetrators) generally misunderstand some of the most basic concepts in physics: force and energy.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ah, Podkletnov. I have been holding out for the possibility that he's not a crackpot. That would be exciting!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

some links that I have on anti-gravity.
http://www.gravity-society.org/msu.htm
http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/jdw/jdw020729_1_n.shtml
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/anti_grav_010909.html