Anti-gravity Machine concept
This is a concept I came up with for an idea of an anti-gravity machine. Let me just state for the record... I do not think this will actually work. However, while I am quite certain this idea should not work... based upon my limited knowledge of science... it would seem like it could work. Unfortunately I know I am never going to spend the thousands if not millions of dollars to build this concept to find out.
The basic premise of the idea is the use of angular momentum to overcome the force of gravity. Imagine if you will, a gyroscope spinning at such a high velocity that its outward force overcomes the downward force of gravity. Naturally, one of the big obstacles is generating the speeds necessary to create the velocity such that angular momentum is greater than downward force.
What I essentially propose is a spinning ring that is propelled in the same way as a maglev train. Using Electromagnetic propulsion or EMP to accelerate a ring in a vacuum by the utilization of a flowing electrical current and magnetic fields may in theory generate the speeds necessary for the force to overcome gravity. Unfortunately, the power to run such a vehicle and the weight to power ratio are significant obstacles.
Two of these rings above one another I theorize can create tremendous propulsion if the angles of the rings were changed. Using hydrolics to change the angle of alignment of these two rings may create incredible forward momentum. Once more, such a vehicle would not be limited to operation within Earth's atmosphere unlike jet or other propulsion mechanisms. In fact, it should operate at peak efficiency in a zero gravitational environment.
This is all theory... and I'd love to know if it is indeed as crazy as it sounds.
The basic premise of the idea is the use of angular momentum to overcome the force of gravity. Imagine if you will, a gyroscope spinning at such a high velocity that its outward force overcomes the downward force of gravity. Naturally, one of the big obstacles is generating the speeds necessary to create the velocity such that angular momentum is greater than downward force.
What I essentially propose is a spinning ring that is propelled in the same way as a maglev train. Using Electromagnetic propulsion or EMP to accelerate a ring in a vacuum by the utilization of a flowing electrical current and magnetic fields may in theory generate the speeds necessary for the force to overcome gravity. Unfortunately, the power to run such a vehicle and the weight to power ratio are significant obstacles.
Two of these rings above one another I theorize can create tremendous propulsion if the angles of the rings were changed. Using hydrolics to change the angle of alignment of these two rings may create incredible forward momentum. Once more, such a vehicle would not be limited to operation within Earth's atmosphere unlike jet or other propulsion mechanisms. In fact, it should operate at peak efficiency in a zero gravitational environment.
This is all theory... and I'd love to know if it is indeed as crazy as it sounds.
Lomography Konstructor - World's First 35mm DIY SLR
Office Warfare Book on Sale Now
List of Upcoming Contests (updated 6/6)
Spanish translations of Instructables / Instructables traducidos al Espanol
JULY 2013 Build Night with SUGRU
High-current, electronic sword-fighting, fancy drink pouring, and more @ Makers Local 256 Build Night!
New Instructables Books for 2013
Souped Up: Projects to Make Everything Better [Book]
Backyard Rockets Book on Sale Now
Visit Our Store »
Go Pro Today »
When constructing relativity problems, don't think that "the speed of light" is special. In particular, don't construct a problem where some massive object is supposed to move "at the speed of light." That introduces some mathematical problems, and distracts from the real issue. Relativistic effects occur at any velocity -- they are just easier to see for velocities close to c.
You're asking whether a fast rotating object would move differently in general relativity (GR) than a non-rotating object. The answer is no. The fact that it's rotating is irrelevant to it's trajectory. The center of mass of the object will follow the appropriate geodesic, and fall or orbit at the same velocity as if it were not rotating.
However, the gyroscope will precess (its axis of rotation will move around) differently in GR than you would expect in Newtonian gravity.
So, while this theorhetical object is spinning at the speed of light, that motion isn't oriented in a direction that affects it's decent. ie: it probably falls like anything else.
That said, we don't know. Gravity is a force which we really haven't defined. hence why anti-gravity doesn't properly exist. We don't know enough about it to come up with an inverse for it.
something that might be more interesting, look into Mercury Vortex technology.
For an entity with a negative equation of state (in particular, "dark energy") gravity is repulsive.
“There is no use trying; one can't believe impossible things." (Alice)
"I dare say you haven't had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” -Queen
Everyone please try to be respective in your comments. It is fine to disagree, particularly when giving evidence that a theorem is incorrect, but please do not insult other posters.
Myself, I suggest some reading, drawing a plan of the device, failing, more reading, back to the drawing board,... Hey, if its science, it has to be trial and error, no?
But let's not fool ourselves. Sometimes, reading just points out that our theories are wrong. We should be able to see this, for the benefit of new theories. Old and failed ones should be left in the drawer.
Respectfully,
-.
You can't even draw a sketch plan of them - the ideas are so bad, they "aren't even wrong". Even the very worst science fiction avoids these ideas for fear of ridicule.
If he's the genius he claims, let him prove me wrong.
As for my tone, I'm not a teacher "24/7", I have a life and opinions of my own. Nevertheless, that is pretty much word for word way I would say to a student of mine, and you know what? They respect my honesty and the fact that I don't humour them with false praise. If the author made even one of those suggestions in a real R&D meeting, they would still be laughing as they threw him bodily out of the door.
What is with the slightly-cryptic username?
L
Conservation of angular momentum (or rather, "moment of inertia") means that a spinning object resists any change in the direction of it's spin. That resistance is much greater than simply the deadweight mass of the object, and depends on the radius of the spinning mass and the angular velocity.
If you set up a gyroscope so that it is spinning with a horizontal axis (like a bicycle tire in its normal orientation, and press down, the spin axis will not tilt downward, but will instead "walk" to the side (left or right depends on which way the tire is spinning).
Since gravity always exerts a downward force, you can see this effect with a gyroscope on the edge of a desk, or at the tip of a stick (with just the end of the axis supported). set the gyroscope there so it's spinning like a tire. Gravity pulls down on the mass. The moment of inertia resists the tilting, and the torque (spin cross force) make the who thing walk around in a circle about the support point.
The thing you have to realize is that if you want any kind of "forward motion", then you have to have an external force. That can either be something outside pushing on you, or you can be pushing against something outside, or you can be throwing mass away from you (rocket exhaust). In those cases, the external force will result in a change in momentum (i.e., motion). If all the forces are pushing and pulling internally, the object might change shape, it might even appear to wobble around a central point, but it won't actually go anywhere.
This is just the law of conservation of momentum (also known as Newton's Third).
I can't miss all my shows; I don't have a TiVo!!
Gyroscopes don't "push against" anything -- they don't have "an outward force to overcome gravity." What happens with a spinning gyroscope (and which is counterintuitive), is that when you apply a force (e.g., push on the side), the responding motion is perpendicular to your push, rather than parallel to it (technically, the response is the cross product of the applied force vector and the spin axis).
So a gyroscope can remain "hanging" (but resting on a support!) with its spin axis horizontal because the downward force of gravity, instead of tipping the axis down, instead induces a horizontal precession.
With your electromagnetic system, the two halves will be pushing or pulling against each other, but you've tied them together with a gimbal at the center. That means the whole closed system will just sit there and wobble, not take off into space. Changing the angle of alignment won't produce any "forward momentum" because the forces involved are internal to the system.
Now, theoretically you "could" design a system that did work against the Earth's magnetic field (about 1 gauss), but you'll find that the forces involved are so small that you couldn't move any sensible payload.