Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NASA Developing Antigravity Device
Cosmiverse ^ | March 26, 2002 08:20 CST

Posted on 03/26/2002 11:03:59 AM PST by Texaggie79


NASA Developing Antigravity Device
March 26, 2002 08:20 CST

NASA has revealed plans to test a machine to determine if defying the bonds of gravity is a dream or if it is real science. After an almost two-year wait, NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, is poised to take delivery of a machine that its supporters hope will defy the laws of gravity.

According to the LA Times, the heart of the device is an effect so radical that it could change the way we interact with one of nature's most fundamental forces. Gravity!

This new step is being dubbed a revolution of sorts. Spaceships would be just one spin-off of this particular revolution. While, on Earth, the internal combustion engine could become an endangered species, only to be replaced by gravity-powered cars, planes and elevators.

The dream of defying gravity has a long history. Since the days of Icarus, history is littered with failed attempts free ourselves from gravity. The team behind the NASA project told the LA Times that they are basing their efforts on real science.

NASA has paid almost $600,000 to have the machine custom-built by Ohio-based Superconductive Components, Inc. (SCI), a company that specializes in high-tech ceramics and superconducting materials. SCI Vice President James R. Gaines Jr. told the LA Times, "If it works, what a hoot!"

Revolutions are often quite bloody this one is no exception. According to the LA Times, physicists believe the whole project is a waste of time based on unsubstantiated research of dubious origin. Gravity, they contend, is in no danger of diminution; the only thing they see at stake is NASA's credibility.

The story begins in the pages of the respected science journal Physica C. In 1992, Russian physicist Evgeny Podkletnov (right) published the results of an experiment in which he claimed to have discovered a "gravity-shielding" effect.

According to the article, Podkletnov had managed to reduce the force of gravity on a small object by up to 2%, in effect; he had reduced its weight. Now 2% may not sound like much, but to the physics community, it was like a bomb blast. The law of gravity is one of science's most sacrosanct principles; any breaching of its walls would represent a major threat to the current theoretical framework.

If verified, such a finding would bag its discoverer a Nobel Prize. But Podkletnov's paper was hazy on the details. He was worried that others would take his ideas, that he would not be given proper credit, so therefore he refused to allow anyone into his lab to see his apparatus.

The incomplete disclosure, coupled with the outlandish nature of the claim itself, left most physicists scoffing at claims. As a result, Podkletnov was thrown out of his job at the Tampere University of Technology in Finland. Since his paper appeared a decade ago, Podkletnov told the LA Times that many people have successfully replicated his results. But they all have yet to report them in a peer-reviewed journal.

All those who have published have failed to detect any clear results. One of them is Marshall Space Flight Center researcher Ron Koczor, who spent two years investigating various aspects of Podkletnov's experiments, and eventually gave up. Podkletnov insists the gravity-shielding effect only occurs when all the experimental conditions are precisely right. Koczor decided it was a job for the professionals, and in 1999 he persuaded NASA to commission SCI to build a facsimile of Podkletnov's original apparatus.

The Times says that while the details may have been sketchy, the basic idea behind the device is fairly simple. It begins with a disc, about six inches in diameter and a quarter of an inch thick, made out of a superconducting material whose recipe Podkletnov has carefully kept secret. The disc is cooled to below -233 degrees centigrade and levitated using a magnetic field. Then an electric field is applied to make the disc spin.

So far, all we have is a variation on an electric motor, but Podkletnov claims that when the disc rotates at more than 5,000 revolutions per minute, an object placed above it begins to lose weight. Somehow, he says, the force of gravity is being counteracted, the trick is, you have to get the setup exactly right, the LA Times reports.

"I wish it was as simple as baking a cake," SCI's Gaines told the LA Times. Even with the company's expertise it has not been easy. The project is a year behind schedule. Gaines added that his team is almost there, and they should be handing over the device to NASA soon.

Gaines' technicians are not gravity experts; their field is materials science. They have simply built the machine to agreed specifications. But, of course, they would be thrilled if it did work; success would ensure an enormous boost to superconducting research. Testing of the device will be NASA's responsibility, and he awaits their results with great expectation, Gaines continued.

Personally, I am thrilled to hear my tax dollars are hard at work subverting the laws of nature, or attempting to, at any rate. Who knows what conceptual mountains we might demolish if our imaginations aim high enough?

Johannes Kepler, the founding father of modern astrophysics, told the LA Times. Kepler saw science as a form of play, empirical data set an irrevocable boundary to this play, but within its arena the imagination must be free to roam.

According to the LA Times, this is not NASA's first attempt to look for the Podkletnov effect. Last year, Marshall Space Flight Center funded a different experiment in which a very sensitive Cavendish balance was used to try and detect a change of weight in a superconducting apparatus. Results of that study were "inconclusive."

Randall Peters, a physicist at Mercer University in Macon, Ga., was a consultant to that project. He helped to customize the balance for this unorthodox use. "My own position," Peters told the LA Times, "is that I'd be greatly surprised if the effect being sought was actually found." Like most physicists, he feels confident that gravity will withstand the Podkletnov test. Nonetheless, he added "physics is full of surprises," and he believes that scientists need to maintain an open mind.

Gaines agreed, defending NASA's willingness to go out on such a speculative limb: "The upside potential is so huge, they really couldn't afford to miss out if it is true." NASA's interest in circumventing gravity is not theoretical. The agency is literally reaching for the stars. Even in the zero gravity environment of outer space, one will still need to accelerate a ship to extremely high speeds to get to the stars in any viable framework, something that cannot be done with conventional rocket technology.

The Podkletnov effect suggests it may be possible to effectively reduce the mass of the ship, thereby reducing the overall energy needed for acceleration, the Times reports. The authors of the July paper introduced their experimental analysis discussion on the limitations of rocket propulsion.

"Using current rocket technology," the LA Times cite the paper as reading, "a trip to the next star would easily consume the mass-energy equivalent of a planet in order to arrive within a reasonable lifetime." Technologies like nuclear fission and fusion offer some hope, "but still will not support the 'Star Trek' vision of space exploration."

The report explains that if we are serious about space travel, we need a large leap forward in propulsive power. Investigating potential options is the task of NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project, which funded last year's Cavendish balance experiment. Then headed by aerospace engineer Marc G. Millis, the BPP group has license to boldly go where no man has gone before, to the outermost limits of current scientific understanding.

Speaking by phone from his office at the John H. Glenn Research Center in Ohio, Millis told the LA Times "we're not asking anyone to develop a warp drive." NASA understands, he added, that this is going to take time, he stressed that they are "interested in developments of short increments."

Giant spikes of speculation are to be sheathed in favor of careful step-by-step progress. Specifically, the BPP is seeking projects that can be feasibly achieved in two to three years. Already, the office has funded five projects that investigate anomalous physical effects. Most do not deal with gravity per se; as Millis noted, "modifying gravity" is just one possible direction from which to approach the propulsion problem.

Additionally, the group has also funded work on reducing the effect of inertial mass, on quantum tunneling and on the relationship between electromagnetism and space-time. Well aware of the threat to NASA's reputation, Millis is determined to encourage only the most clean-cut suitors, people with university affiliations and the like.

When the BPP's next casting call goes out in the fall, Millis added the agency would keep an open mind. The message of history, he continued, is that new insights can come from the most seemingly unlikely directions. By definition, no one can predict from whence the next revolution will arise. Gentleman, start your engines.

Source: NASA; L.A. Times



TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: techindex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last
To: Physicist
Say, did you see the article posted on FR about how gravity may really just be a residual of electrical plasma force? About the space probes we sent out being pulled back by a minute force that does not change with distance ?
21 posted on 03/26/2002 5:00:51 PM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; RadioAstronomer; Scully; ThinkPlease; Junior
Anti-Gravity ping.
22 posted on 03/26/2002 5:12:03 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Pup is up.
Brown is down


23 posted on 03/26/2002 5:15:20 PM PST by lds23
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
I've been ruminating about gravity for years. It has always fascinated me. I read recently that changes in any place in the universe regarding gravity are felt instantaneously in all parts of the universe at the same time. Thus, I began to speculate that it is some sort of "field" present everywhere. The force it exerts is like the kinetic force in a watchspring. As it is exerted, it creates potential energy to run the watch gears. Gravity is the kinetic force that exists in the universe. As it exerts itself, we experience time. Gravity is the force behind the motion of the universe - also known as the passage of time.

This is my current working theory.

Also, that manifestations of "ghosts" are actually "echos" of past times, which indicate to me that time may actually behave in a manner much like sound waves as they bounce off of solid items, and reflect back. Time may bounce off something or some phenomonon causing echos. This could explain a lot...psychic abilities, precognition, deja vu, ghosts, hauntings, etc etc.

I would just love for someone with a real knowledge of Physics to explore these theories. (I've got a scientific background, but not much of a concentration in pure math and physics. I had a lot of Chemistry, and biological science courses.)

24 posted on 03/26/2002 5:59:51 PM PST by Goldi-Lox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Im sure there are other scientist( there are a helluva lotta engineers and other tech people) but Physicist is the only one we know by his name.
25 posted on 03/26/2002 6:09:46 PM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
BTW see the other post of it in news activism some funny stuff.
26 posted on 03/26/2002 6:10:55 PM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
does it, in essence, reduce the mass of the object in question,

It wouldn't do that. Mass would be unchanged, momentum or inertia would be the same. The weight would be changed. If the weight were reduced to zero, the object would float off into space, but its mass would still be there. If it were a boulder and you ran your bicycle into it, you would end up the same whether its weight were a ton or zero. Mass is what counts.

27 posted on 03/26/2002 6:13:37 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: weikel
post of what?
28 posted on 03/26/2002 6:19:10 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
News/Activism NASA developing antigravity device.
29 posted on 03/26/2002 6:23:13 PM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: weikel
now I will have to get onto Brett
30 posted on 03/26/2002 6:36:03 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
Do you have a link, title, or keyword?
31 posted on 03/26/2002 6:37:19 PM PST by InfraRed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Gravity is my enemy, but I don't see how this development can be applied to brassiere construction.
32 posted on 03/26/2002 6:40:48 PM PST by ValerieUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Think of the gravity field of Earth as a sort of cone, the further from the center of the mass of Earth you go, the wider the opening of the cone. If the device theorized actually does neutralize some mass of the 'levitated' object, it will be in relation to the 'shallowing of the cone, as if the object is at some greater distance from the Earth's mass center than it actually is. And yes, if it doesn't work, it's a waste of money to continue pursuing that one approach ... but what if it does work? Living frogs have been levitated, don'tcha know!
33 posted on 03/26/2002 6:59:18 PM PST by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
More for your science ping list:
RadioAstronomer; ThinkPlease; PatrickHenry; VadeRetro; edwin hubble; longshadow; blam; jlogajan; A. Pole; e_engineer; Doctor Stochastic
34 posted on 03/27/2002 3:33:47 AM PST by edwin hubble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
There's only one kind of energy, and while it might be configured into matter, antimatter or free energy, it's still the same stuff, and it generates gravity the same way.

Hmmmm. Does an intense beam of light project measurable gravity?

35 posted on 03/27/2002 6:46:41 AM PST by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: lepton
Hmmmm. Does an intense beam of light project measurable gravity?

Let's suppose that the lightest thing with a measurable gravity is a metal bar with a mass of around 1 kg per foot. I don't know what the current experimental limit is, but I guess that's correct to within a couple of orders of magnitude.

Now let's suppose that we have a gigawatt laser. One watt is one joule per second, and light travels at about one foot per nanosecond, so the energy density is one joule per foot.

What's the energy density of the bar? It's equal to the mass times the speed of light squared. The speed of light is 3 x 108 m/s, so the energy density of the bar is about 1017 joules per foot.

So the laser beam is about seventeen orders of magnitude too light, so to speak, to have its gravitational pull measured (give or take a few orders of magnitude).

36 posted on 03/27/2002 7:40:10 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: InfraRed
I have been searching , but haven't found it. I will let you know if I do.
37 posted on 03/27/2002 9:04:27 AM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: InfraRed
It was a post about our space probes being pulled back by an unknown force. I am still trying to find it.
38 posted on 03/27/2002 10:01:14 AM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
So the laser beam is about seventeen orders of magnitude too light, so to speak, to have its gravitational pull measured (give or take a few orders of magnitude).

So, in theory light exerts a gravitational effect, but it's too weak to have actually been measured?

I was thinking of astronomical outputs, so I looked up some data on the sun. The sun has an output of around 386 * 10^24 watts, only some of which is actually released. By your equation, if this total energy were focused, it would exert the equivalent gravity of 386*10^7 kg or 3,860,000 tons, or as a hematite ore body with a specific gravity of 5.2, it would be a rectagular solid of approximately 100m*100m*74m thick. As there are millions of objects of this size wandering around the solar system, plus the effects of the earth and planets, I guess this wouldn't show many symptoms.

Thanks for the explanation.

39 posted on 03/27/2002 1:40:50 PM PST by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
Here it is: http://www.cosmiverse.com/space05160104.html UNknown force [gravitational] pulling space probes back towards earth.

Unknown Force Pulls Distant Probes

May 16, 2001 07:00 CDT

According to a recent report by BBC News, an unknown force is baffling the minds of scientists by pulling distant spacecraft. Researchers have been forced to this conclusion after a thorough analysis of the deep-space probes' trajectories.

An unknown glitch in the spacecraft themselves may possibly be the cause of the pull. However, scientists still caution that we could be getting the first hint that our understanding of the force of gravity must be altered.

"It is almost as if the probes are not behaving according to the known law of gravity," said Dr. John Anderson, of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and lead scientist on the study. "We've been working on this problem for several years, and we have accounted for everything we could think of."

The unexplained force seems to be affecting four deep-space probes scattered around the Solar System. Launched in aim of the outer planets in 1972, Pioneer 10 is now well beyond Jupiter but still in radio contact with Earth.

By studying the Doppler shift (the "stretching") of the radio signals from the probe, scientists have been able to calculate the speed at which the craft is traveling. Scientists have been precisely mapping its trajectory since 1980.

They found that Pioneer 10 is slowing more quickly than it should. The scientists first blamed the force from a tiny gas leak or it may have been pulled off course by the gravity of an unseen Solar System object.

An analysis of the trajectory being followed by its sister spacecraft, Pioneer 11, showed that it too was suffering the same mysterious effect. Pioneer 11 is on the opposite side of the Solar System from Pioneer 10, about 14 billion miles away. The cause therefore, cannot be the gravitational effect of some unseen body.

The same unexplained effect might be acting on the Galileo spacecraft on its journey to Jupiter, and the Ulysses spaceprobe that is circling the Sun.

"Our analysis strongly suggests that it is difficult to understand how any of these mechanisms can explain the magnitude of the observed behavior of the Pioneer anomaly," the team says.

The spacecraft tracking data have suggested the presence of a deviation in the force of gravity that only exists at great distances. The strength of the effect also seems to be related to the speed of light and the speed of the expansion of the Universe.

Critics have called this fanciful, arguing that if the pulling was truly indicating a change in our understanding of gravity, it would be apparent in the orbits of the planets around the Sun.

The effect will most likely remain a mystery, as all four probes will never to return to Earth for analysis.

In a report soon to be published in a major astronomical journal, Dr. Anderson and colleagues were impressive in their study of the Pioneer spacecraft and all the forces to which they could be subjected.

Source: BBC

40 posted on 03/29/2002 6:47:33 AM PST by Goldi-Lox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson