Re: Anti-gravitational effects demonstrated using a Van De Graaf generator
- From: franklinhu@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 30 Jan 2007 21:47:22 -0800
On Jan 30, 9:16 pm, frankli...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
<Response by George H>
Congratulations on your experiment. Hm... sounds like a job for
Mythbusters
and their PG&E dome of electricity. I want to see Adam stuck to the
ceiling!
Seems like there could still be a bunch of things going on. What kind
of
distance are we talking?
Which direction are you referring to? The room I was experimenting in
has 10 foot ceilings. The bubble generator was held about a 6 foot
level and was at least 4 feet away from the generator. The bubbles
that burst on the ceiling travelled at least 4 feet up.
If the distance is substantial - several
feet -
it's unlikely to be repelling such a tiny charge regardless of whether
the
floor or gravity is charged.
I don't understand what you are saying here. A charged bubble will
respond to any electrostatic field.
The weight is too light to say it's
definitely
one thing or another. I'm glad you tried to reverse the field, but
just the
air motion in the room could account for the difference.
This is where the control experiment without the generator is
important. It could have been air motion, but there is was no air
movement in the room I was in. If you just run the bubbles, they drop
to the ground showing that the bubbles needed to be charged in order
to head to the ceiling.
Go try it
outdoors
and you'll see some bubbles go up and some go down. If the distance
is very
small, then it can probably be explained not by gravity but by the
simple
fact that the generator is truly generating a charge separation
between the
ground and your bubble - gravity isn't involved.
In thinking about what actually happened during the experiment, you
see that when the bubbles are positively charged, they spread out very
quickly due to the bubbles repelling each other. It still might be
that the bubbles might still have been repelled by the charge on my
body, but the bubbles did seem to rise quite high and away from me. I
will have to do more testing to exclude this possibility.
However, a key part of the experiment was the field reversal. In this
case, the bubbles do not fly away from each other and they drop to the
floor in a very similar manner as the uncharged case. In this case,
there is very little to explain why the bubbles would be attracted to
the floor since the negative terminal of my Van De Graff generator is
connected to the bottom of the unit and would have charged the floor
negatively. If anything, the bubbles should have been repelled. So the
only explaination for their faster drop is that the negatively charged
bubbles were attracted to the floor because of the Earth's positive
field coming from the floor.
I also agree that I don't think anyone could have overlooked this
effect
before, so there must be an alternative explanation. Ben used to work
for
Boeing testing the effects of electricity on planes and you should
check
with him. They should have seen a similar effect for small loose
objects
which had been subjected to a huge electric field. They would have
seen
hammers flying around the room if this is true.
The problem with generating large electric charges on objects it that
the air dissipates any charge fairly quickly. So I don't think we have
seen any effects due to the fact that we currently cannot concentrate
enough charge on an object. We would need to engineer some kind of
bottle that can retain extremely high charge displacements to see a
substantial effect.
It could be that this effect has limited potential since it may not be
practical to contain large charges, however, even a small fractional
reduction in weight could have tremendous implications. For example,
if you could make an airliner 1% lighter on takeoff, this could save
huge amounts of fuel. Similarly, if you could reduce the weight of a
rocket ship 1% on takeoff, that would also be a substantial savings.
Think about that
little
platform lifter on Mythbusters -- looks like antigravity but they
determined
it was a current of air.
To be antigravity, it has to work in opposition to the direction of
force of gravity by neutralizing or reversing the effects of gravity.
If the electrostatic model of gravity is correct, then gravity is not
an all attractive force, it can be a repelling force if you present
the field with a positively charged object.
To get beyond these small explanations you need to demonstrate
something
substantial. These tiny effects could be caused by something like
heat,
breath, your furnace, etc. If you could actually lift something
substantial
- even a few ounces - then you could have a real discussion. I assume
you
already sent this to everyone in the known scientific universe. I
would
have recommended you get to the stage of something heavier before
going to
real experts. Don't be another Fleischmann and Pons w/cold fusion.
I am already planning on more experiments to see if I can lift
something more substantial or at least show a significant reduction in
weight. The trick will be to charge up without dissipating the charge
to the air.
So far, this has only been posted to the sci.physics group.
Considering I just announced that I reversed gravity, I would have
thought that it would have generated some reponse. Instead it
generated no response at all - stunned silence. Everyone out there
must agree with me :)
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: The Speed of Cracking
- Next by Date: Re: BYU Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples, Building Collapses an Inside Job
- Previous by thread: Re: Anti-gravitational effects demonstrated using a Van De Graaf generator
- Next by thread: Re: Anti-gravitational effects demonstrated using a Van De Graaf generator
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
