Anti-gravity device

[Mathew Orman]

I saw on the BBC regional news yesterday that there's this old chap in
Hastings who's invented an anti-gravity device which he's now
developing. He's tried various banks and venture capital outfits to
secure funding to enable him to do this, but they've all told him to
f**k off. Does anyone here fancy a piece of the action? He comes
across as a regular kind of guy and doesn't deserve to be ridiculed.

That depends what he means by antigravity.
If he is using gravity force to produce opposite acting force than that is
fine.
But if he is attempting to shield gravity than that is bologna!

Best would be to evaluate the idea at sci.physics .

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

 

[Watson A.Name - 'Watt Sun']

I saw on the BBC regional news yesterday that there's this old chap in
Hastings who's invented an anti-gravity device which he's now
developing. He's tried various banks and venture capital outfits to
secure funding to enable him to do this, but they've all told him to
f**k off. Does anyone here fancy a piece of the action? He comes
across as a regular kind of guy and doesn't deserve to be ridiculed.
--

One has to look past the physics to the legal ramifications of this
experimenting. There could be lawsuits for infringement of other
patents. But the big one I think is that if the guy tried to sell or
otherwise make money off the thing, he could be taken to court for
attempting to defraud investors.


--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

 

[Chuck Simmons]

That depends what he means by antigravity.
If he is using gravity force to produce opposite acting force than that is
fine.
But if he is attempting to shield gravity than that is bologna!

Best would be to evaluate the idea at sci.physics .

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

Ican hardly wait.

 

[Paul Burridge]

If spinning it that fast makes it counteract gravity, wouldn't the
slightest downward pressure propel it effortlessly into the ground?

Well, that's another problem he'll doubtless need funding to overcome.
Now that we've established there's a definite *need* for funding,
who's up for a donation? I'm prepared to pass all monies recieved on
to the old timer. Let's face it, if he appealed directly to you with a
scheme lijke this, you'd suspect he was some sort of con artist. But
since the appeal is coming from *me*, someone you know, trust, respect
and revere, you can be sure your dough's going to a good cause.
Now start coughing-up!

 

[Paul Burridge]

Paul, it's a *stupid* idea!

Why should anyone think that rotation cancels gravity? It doesn't!
Does he not think that we would have noticed such a thing by now?

Good question, John. The old dude concerned maintains that the reasonf
or this is that the effect he's discovered is scarcely even
perceptible at Newtonian speeds. The rotational speed has to be
super-accelerated to within a few percent of the speed of light for
the effect to become measurable, and you can't do that with an old
gramaphone turntable which is all the poor bastard's got to work with
at the moment. So we keep returning to the need for funding. How much
shall I put you down for?

 

[Paul Burridge]

One has to look past the physics to the legal ramifications of this
experimenting. There could be lawsuits for infringement of other
patents. But the big one I think is that if the guy tried to sell or
otherwise make money off the thing, he could be taken to court for
attempting to defraud investors.

He's already patented the device and showed the relevant papers to the
BBC. And he's only approached institutional investors for funding, not
private people.

 

[Sir Charles W. Shults III]

in message


I disagree that spin creates lift. The spin makes the frisbee stable,
preventing much change in direction of the rotational axis. It is the same
principal that keeps tops, gyroscopes, and bicycles from falling over.

Look at the cross section of a Frisbee and you see that it IS a wing, but
circular, and spinning does two things at once- the spin not only stabilizes it
but also provides the lift. That is how the "wing" is moving through the air.
If you play with one, you can spin it in place and watch as it slowly drops to
the ground.
This clearly demonstrates that lift is present.
Now, if you disagree, try making a disc with an irregular geometry do the
same things a Frisbee does. Slim chance of it happening. Also, you can try an
experiment that I and an associate did for a science demonstration- attach a
Frisbee to a small motor, place the whole device on a small scale, and supply
power to it through a slim wire. The entire setup "loses weight"- but this is
due to the generated lift, not some sort of anti-gravity.
Try it and then reconsider your statement.

Cheers!

Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip

 

[Ian Stirling]

Look at the cross section of a Frisbee and you see that it IS a wing, but
circular, and spinning does two things at once- the spin not only stabilizes it
but also provides the lift. That is how the "wing" is moving through the air.
If you play with one, you can spin it in place and watch as it slowly drops to
the ground.

You are, unfortunately almost totally wrong.
The reason it slowly drops is due to the same reason a parachute drops slowly.

Try a similar experiment with a little weight tied to the middle by four
strings so that it's kept stable without spinning.

Alternatively, try it in a strong wind, with the frisbee held at the
edges, and you'll feel the lift.

The lift from a spinning frisbee is almost exactly the same as a
stationary one.
There is a small sideways component (search on the magnus effect) due
to the spin, and the gyroscopic moment interacts with the aerodynamic
torques to cause the flight.

This clearly demonstrates that lift is present.
Now, if you disagree, try making a disc with an irregular geometry do the
same things a Frisbee does. Slim chance of it happening. Also, you can try an

A boomerang is pretty much a section of a frisbee.

experiment that I and an associate did for a science demonstration- attach a
Frisbee to a small motor, place the whole device on a small scale, and supply
power to it through a slim wire. The entire setup "loses weight"- but this is
due to the generated lift, not some sort of anti-gravity.
Try it and then reconsider your statement.

I suspect that if the effect you are seeing was real, and not an
artefact of the scale (some perform poorly in the presence of vibration, which
has led to many 'proofs' of anti-gravity) then it was likely due to
the spinning disk taking in stationary air, and pumping out air that
has a slight downwards component, due to the tendancy of the flow to
follow the surface.

 

[Ian Stirling]

He's already patented the device and showed the relevant papers to the
BBC. And he's only approached institutional investors for funding, not
private people.

You can patent practically anything, there is no need (as there was at
some time in the past) to provide a working model.

All the patent office cares about is if they can find a previous patent
that would infringe on this one in a quick flip through the archives,
and see if it's already in the argos catalog, otherwise they issue it.

 

[Don Pearce]

You can patent practically anything, there is no need (as there was at
some time in the past) to provide a working model.

All the patent office cares about is if they can find a previous patent
that would infringe on this one in a quick flip through the archives,
and see if it's already in the argos catalog, otherwise they issue it.

The patent office will not accept applications for inventions claiming
either anti-gravity or perpetual motion (they amount to the same
thing, in fact). They have long since decreed that their time is too
valuable to bother with any of this stuff.

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

 

[Mike]

Well, that's another problem he'll doubtless need funding to overcome.
Now that we've established there's a definite *need* for funding,
who's up for a donation? I'm prepared to pass all monies recieved on
to the old timer. Let's face it, if he appealed directly to you with a
scheme lijke this, you'd suspect he was some sort of con artist. But
since the appeal is coming from *me*, someone you know, trust, respect
and revere, you can be sure your dough's going to a good cause.
Now start coughing-up!

The Hon. Paul Burridge
Principal Engineer and Finance Representative
Rotational Flotational Anti-Gravitational Devices, LLC

Dear Mr. Burridge,

I see your point, and would like to invest all my worldly savings, plus my
cat (who will no doubt be useful for Shroedinger-type experiments).

Sadly, my bank has informed me that they will not honor checks for my true
net worth, so I must resort to cash. Most of it is in small bills and
change, and I'm afraid the bills are somewhat wrinkled after traveling for
so long in my shoe. However, the coins are in fine shape, although I
suspect that shipping them will be rather costly. Fortunately, they are
contained in a large glass jar, which is also rather heavy, but will keep
them from spilling out of the envelope during shipping. The jar weighs
quite a bit, and I suspect that shipping will be rather expensive, but I'll
send it postage due so that the shipping costs don't subtract from my
investment.

I don't have your address, so I'll send the whole lot to general delivery
at the Featheringstonehaugh post office. I have no idea where that is, but
I just love the thought of a name that long that's pronounced "Fanshaw,"
and have always wanted to send something there. Be sure not to wait too
long before retrieving it, as I'm only including two weeks of food for the
cat.

Looking forward to a long and profitable relationship,

Your humble investor,

-- Mike --

 

[Chuck Simmons]

I saw on the BBC regional news yesterday that there's this old chap in
Hastings who's invented an anti-gravity device which he's now
developing. He's tried various banks and venture capital outfits to
secure funding to enable him to do this, but they've all told him to
f**k off. Does anyone here fancy a piece of the action? He comes
across as a regular kind of guy and doesn't deserve to be ridiculed.

He is getting such a bad reception because anti-gravity has been around
a long time. It's not any wildcat scheme (only domestic cats are used).
It is everyday science.

As we all know, a dropped cat always lands on its feet (Herman Bondi's
book on Relativity explains why). Moreover, a buttered piece of bread
always lands butter side down. Thus if you attach a piece of buttered
bread, butter side up, to the back of a cat, the entire affair will not
fall.

Do a google search on cat levitation to discover many fascinating
applications.

Chuck

 

[Mathew Orman]

I saw on the BBC regional news yesterday that there's this old chap in
Hastings who's invented an anti-gravity device which he's now
developing. He's tried various banks and venture capital outfits to
secure funding to enable him to do this, but they've all told him to
f**k off. Does anyone here fancy a piece of the action? He comes
across as a regular kind of guy and doesn't deserve to be ridiculed.

The simples antigravity device that works 100%
is a Helium Balloon.

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com

 

[Siol]

That depends what he means by antigravity.
If he is using gravity force to produce opposite acting force than that is
fine.
But if he is attempting to shield gravity than that is bologna!

Best would be to evaluate the idea at sci.physics .

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman

I think you two should colaborate on faster than light anti gravity device.



Siol

 

[onestone]

I thought the whoopee cushion was the worlds first patented anti-gravity
device. Or perhaps the lift, the only contraption invented juts to fart
in. (elevator to our colonial brethren in the Americas).

Al

 

[Ian Stirling]

You are, unfortunately almost totally wrong.
The reason it slowly drops is due to the same reason a parachute drops slowly.

Try a similar experiment with a little weight tied to the middle by four
strings so that it's kept stable without spinning.

Oops, forgot the most important point.
If spin caused lift, then spinning it in place would cause it to rise.

 

[Ian Stirling]

I'm not convinced, Chip. I recall as a kid throwing Kraft cheese
slices lids around and they behaved *exactly* like frisbees in the
air. And as we all know, they are most certainly *not* wing-section.

The wing-shaped bit is important, but only as far as getting range is
important.
A flat plate held by the gyroscopic forces tilted a bit from the relative
wind will experience large forces upwards.

 

[Ken Smith]

A spinning device still has the same mass and will still drop at the same

No, actually a spinning object will have more mass. E=MC^2 and the energy
stored make for more mass.

 

[John Devereux]

No, actually a spinning object will have more mass. E=MC^2 and the energy
stored make for more mass.

So it would actually do the reverse of what is claimed! The weight be
be *least* when stationary, and increase slightly when spinning
"relativistically".

 

[Sir Charles W. Shults III]

I am going to have to duplicate this old experiment and get new data. It
has been a number of years since we did it, but the machine did show a slight
lift. It may have been due to the common "gyroscope" type error where forces
are at an angle to the scale, but it definitely was not due to vibration.

Cheers!

Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip