h a l f b a k e r yI didn't say you were on to something, I said you were on something.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
new kind of electomagnetic levitation
have an object above the ground, then have two velocities of electrons emitted from it, like 99/100 the speed of light and 1/10 the speed of light. the 99ths electrons meet the floor first, causing an electromagnetic field, that is the opposite of the one-tenth electrons, so from a combined velocity beam an opposing magnetic pair is produced, casuing the object to levitate | |
have an object above the ground, then have two velocities of electrons emitted from it, like some that are 99/100 the speed of light and others at 1/10 the speed of light. The 99ths C electrons meet the floor first, causing an electromagnetic field, that is the opposite of the one-tenth C electrons,
so from one combined velocity beam an opposing magnetic pair is produced, causing the object to levitate.
this levitation beam could work on a variety of floor types. i do not know if metal or a dielectric works better.
hmmmm. hoverboard?
atmospheric pressure cold plasma treatment
http://www.plasmatreat.com/
[beanangel, Oct 01 2016]
[link]
|
| |
Seems like electrons usually like to have someplace to go
instead of just being sprayed out like a water cannon. |
|
| |
Except for the c, t, r, o, and s, you can spell electrons using some of the letters in [beanangel]. This could be part of the foundation of a whole cabal of ideas. |
|
| |
Out of curiosity, [beany], why do you always just
paste the first paragraph of your ideas into the
summary box? |
|
| |
Could you be persuaded to speculate on what the intervening atmospheric gases might be doing while all these ß-particles are allegedly zipping through it at .9 C ? |
|
| |
well. I have seen a nifty image of a desktop particle accelerator, and of course a CRT used to be part of television, so varied velocitites of electrons are known technology. |
|
| |
In vacuum, yes. At 1 Bar pressure, things are a trifle more complex. |
|
| |
Is this an electronic Zeno paradox? |
|
| |
Look round and see if there's a tortoise anywhere. |
|
| |
This reminds me a bit of a railgun. I wonder if an upwards pointing railgun can make the projectile hover instead of shoot out, and also if the rails could be replaced with either particle beams or ionised air. |
|
| |
// I wonder if an upwards pointing railgun can make the projectile hover instead of shoot out, // |
|
| |
Yes. It's called "MagLev" and it's Baked. |
|
| |
// the rails could be replaced with either particle beams or ionised air. // |
|
| |
Not in a planetary atmosphere, no. |
|
| |
Forget all this tombollockry about relativistic
electrons - it's irrelevant. |
|
| |
The idea (in English) boils down to this: |
|
| |
(1) Shoot some electrons from the Object to the
ground, to put a negative charge on the ground. |
|
| |
(2) Shoot out twice as many electrons from the
Object to somewhere else, to put a negative
charge on the Object. |
|
| |
(3) Ground and Object now have same charge, and
so repel. |
|
| |
(a) The ground will have to be not grounded - i.e.
it has to be insulated from true ground so it can
accumulate a local charge |
|
| |
(b) The net charge on the Object will have to
increase if the Object moves, since it will have to
constantly give out electrons to charge the new
area of ground; and even more electrons to
maintain its own negative charge. |
|
| |
Problem (b) could be ameliorated by first using
electrons, then switching over and firing protons
(to create a positive-to-positive repulsion), then
back to electrons, etc. |
|
| |
Static forces are woeful at distance... I prefer the
Adams* approach; sort of distract the object so that
it forgets to fall: "Hey! Is that an Aardvark over
there?" |
|
| |
*Well, it's close. The real Adams approach was to
simply aim at the ground and miss. |
|
| |
You *could* do this with enough static charges. The
trick would be to support the Object to be levitated
on a column made up of equal numbers of protons
and electrons, with a few neutrons thrown in. Such
columns can be prepared from wood, and I am using
4 of them to levitate even as we speak. |
|
| |
[8th]'s comment could be construed as saying this could work with spacecraft docking or on the moon, so between planets this could be a novel kind of levitation. |
|
| |
also, it might work on earth. Cold plasma nozzles [link] are used to resurface metal, so a multi velocity cold plasma stream might produce a levitation effect. The image at the link looks like it would support levitation |
|
| |
Hang on...assuming an atmosphere, and a very skinny non-conductive tube, then wouldn't the 99/100 electron just put the zap on the nearest bit of air in the tube, which would then get zapped by the 1/10 electron? |
|
| |
Like an electric jet engine? Sort of. |
|
| |
Don't ask me about what happens when you get out of the atmosphere. |
|
| |
I'm not sure if this is supposed to be electric repulsion or magnetic or what. I get that two different speed electron beams could produce a magnetic field, at least from the right frame of reference, but there would also need to be something inside the object generating another magnetic field to repel it which hasn't been mentioned. |
|
| |
[MaxwellBuchanan] // Shoot out twice as many electrons from the Object to somewhere else, to put a negative charge on the Object // |
|
| |
This is backwards, you can shoot out electrons from the object to put a positive charge on the object and the negative charge on somewhere else, or shoot out protons to put a negative charge on the object, or shoot the electrons from somewhere else to the object to put a negative charge on the object. |
|
| |
// Like an electric jet engine? Sort of. // |
|
| |