• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

Contra Grav

Uncle Bob

SOC-14 1K
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Shoveller:
You can't just eliminate one physical property and have all the other remain the same. It's absolutely impossible. When one property changes, all properties change propotionately.
This is not proven. In fact, if contra grav works at all it cannot be true.
By the way, gravity is pretty much been acknowledged to be just another form of electromagnetic energy by the theoretical physics community. An anti-grav field would block gravity waves, not just from one object, but from ALL objects.

Acknowledged? By Who? No serious physicist takes electrogravity at face value. Woodward has offered an explanation of the electrogravity experiments does which not require the electrogravity theory, and that is getting NASA money.

And your anti-gravity field is your own invention, and has nothing to do with Traveller.
Bob: "your anti-gravity field is your own invention"

Not hardly. I'm not that smart or that inventive. These guys are though...

"Article in Sunday Telegraph (UK), September 1 1996, page 3.

SCIENTISTS in Finland are about to reveal details of the world's first anti-gravity device. Measuring about 12in across, the device is said to reduce significantly the weight of anything suspended over it.

The claim -- which has been rigorously examined by scientists, and is due to appear in a physics journal next month -- could spark a technological revolution. By combatting gravity, the most ubiquitous force in the universe, everything from transport to power generation could be transformed.

The Sunday Telegraph has learned that Nasa, the American space agency, is taking the claims seriously, and is funding research into how the anti-gravity effect could be turned into a means of flight.

The researchers at the Tampere University of Technology in Finland, who discovered the effect, say it could form the heart of a new power source, in which it is used to drive fluids past electricity-generating turbines.

Other uses seem limited only by the imagination: Lifts in buildings could be replaced by devices built into the ground. People wanting to go up would simply activate the anti-gravity device -- making themselves weightless -- and with a gentle push ascend to the floor they want.

Space-travel would bitcome routine, as all the expense and danger of rocket technology is geared towards combatting the Earth's gravitation pull. By using the devices to raise fluids against gravity, and then conventional gravity to pull them back to earth against electricity-generating turbines, the devices could also revolutionise power generation.

According to Dr Eugene Podkletnov, who led the research, the discovery was accidental. It emerged during routine work on so-called "superconductivity", the ability of some materials to lose their electrical resistance at very low temperatures. The team was carrying out tests on a rapidly spinning disc of superconducting ceramic suspended in the magnetic field of three electric coils, all enclosed in a low-temperature vessel called a cryostat.

"One of my friends came in and he was smoking his pipe," Dr Podkletnov said. "He put some smoke over the cryostat and we saw that the smoke was going to the ceiling all the time. It was amazing -- we couldn't explain it." Tests showed a small drop in the weight of objects placed over the device, as if it were shielding the object from the effects of gravity - an effect deemed impossible by most scientists. "We thought it might be a mistake," Dr Podkletnov said, "but we have taken every precaution." Yet the bizarre effects persisted. The team found that even the air pressure vertically above the device dropped slightly, with the effect detectable directly above the device on every floor of the laboratory. In recent years, many so-called "anti-gravity" devices have been put forward by both amateur and professional scientists, and all have been scorned by the establishment. What makes this latest claim different is that it has survived intense scrutiny by sceptical, independent experts, and has been accepted for publication by the Journal of Physics-D: Applied Physics, published by Britain's Institute of Physics.

Even so, most scientists will not feel comfortable with the idea of anti-gravity until other teams repeat the experiments. Some scientists suspect the anti-gravity effect is a long-sought side-effect of Einstein's general theory of relativity, by which spinning objects can distort gravity. Until now it was thought the effect would be far too small to measure in the laboratory. However, Dr Ning Li, a senior research scientist at the University of Alabama, said that the atoms inside superconductors may magnify the effect enormously. Her research is funded by Nasa's Marshall Space Flight centre at Huntsville, Alabama, and Whitt Brantley, the chief of Advanced Concepts Office there, said: "We're taking a look at it, because if we don't, we'll never know." The Finnish team is already expanding its programme, to see if it can amplify the anti-gravity effect. In its latest experiments, the team has measured a two per cent drop in the weight of objects suspended over the device -and double that if one device is suspended over another. If the team can increase the effect substantially, the commercial implications are enormous."
Here a link to 19 pages of references and research paper abstracts regarding electrogravitics. A few of them are goofy but the vast majority are serious science.

Here's one of those pages to show this is serious scientific research...

The Hooper effect can be readily demonstrated in the "Two Moving
Magnets Experiment". In this experiment, magnetic flux is provided by equal
strength opposite pole magnets, moving uniformly in opposite directions. The
induced motional electric field that is generated in a conductor, is found to
be twice that which would result from a single magnet, while remarkably, the
sum of the magnetic B field is zero. This experiment is easy to setup and
verify in any electronics laboratory with a pair of magnets, a wire, and a
voltmeter. In fact, you may wrap the conductor, in electrostatic or magnetic
shielding, and find the same result.
-- Nils Rognerud

Oleg Jefimenko, "Causality, Electromagnetic Induction, and Gravitation",
Electret Scientific, Star City, (1992)

Oleg Jefimenko, "Force Exerted on a Stationary Charge by a Moving Electric
Current or a Moving Magnet", American Journal of Physics, Vol 61, pages 218-
222 (1993)

Apparently, there are some VERY interesting clues to the nature of the
universe that are related to the phenomenon of SPIN. It might get very
interesting if someone were to make a project of assembling in one place all
the information that has been observed, alleged, suspected, or speculated
about concerning unexpected effects related to spin, along with all the
traditional Newtonian results, stir, add some seasoning, and see what comes
For example, in quantum mechanics, if you want to measure the spin axis of an
electron, you do an experiment in which you ASSUME an axis, make a measurement
of the correlation (the dot product) of that axis with the actual axis of spin
for that electron, and theory says you can determine at least how close your
guess was. It was a major surprise for the first expermienters with this to
find that the guess was always right: whatever spin axis you assume turns out
to be correct, exactly dead accurate. You must be a VERY good guesser. Out of
this experimental result came the concept of "isospin". Which in itself is
kind of weird in that objects with zero radius can still exhibit spinx. But I
find the idea that the spin is wherever you guess it might be to be even
weirder and to need a better model that predicts this result. -- John Sangster

Paper: gr-qc/9311036
From: jaegukim@cc.kangwon.ac.kr
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 93 13:47:52 +0900
Gravitational Field of a Moving Spinning Point Particle, by Jaegu Kim, 7
The gravitational and electromagnetic fields of a moving charged spinning
point particle are obtained in the Lorentz covariant form by transforming the
Kerr--Newman solution in Boyer--Lindquist coordinates to the one in the
coordinate system which resembles the isotropic coordinates and then
covariantizing it. It is shown that the general relativistic proper time at
the location of the particle is the same as the special relativistic one and
the gravitational and electromagnetic self forces vanish.

Jaegu Kim, "Gravitational Field of a Moving Point Particle", Journal of the
Korean Physical Society, Vol 27 No 5, Oct 94, Pages 484-492

Jaegu Kim, "Gravitational Field of a Moving Spinning Point Particle", Journal
of the Korean Physical Society, Vol 27 No 5, Oct 94, Pages 479-483

In the above papers, Dr. Kim derives solutions for the Einstein-Maxwell
equations for: a charged massless point particle, a point particle having mass
but no charge, a point particle having mass and charge, a massless point
particle with charge and spin, and finally -- a point particle having charge,
mass, and spin. He determines that there is a region of space around a charged
spinning mass in which the gravitational force is negative.

The ability to generate a negative gravity effect may come as no surprise to
experimenters who have worked with Bose-Einstein condensates, superfluids, or
superconductor material in which the angular momentum of quantum level
particles can become aligned along a "macroscopic" spin axis. And it is
probably also not a surprise to those who have looked at devices such as the
inventions of Henry Wallace, in which a macroscopic body is mechanically spun
at high speed in order to cause a "kinemassic" gravito-magnetic field due to
spin alignment of the nucleus of elemental materials having an odd number of
nucleons (un-paired spin).

Paper: GR-QC/9504023
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 10:43:50 +0900
Title: Pure spin-connection formulation of gravity and classification
of energy-momentum tensors
Author: Mathias PILLIN Report-no: YITP/U-95-
It is shown how the different irreducibility classes of the energy-momentum
tensor allow for a pure spin-connection formulation. Ambiguities in this
formulation especially concerning the need for constraints are clarified.

From: R.Bursill@sheffield.ac.uk (R Bursill) Subject: Hi Tc SC and
gravitational shielding Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 03:14:41 GMT

Is anyone familiar with the experiments in Tampere Finland, by Podkletnov et
al on weak gravitational shielding from a Meissner levitating, rotating disk
of high-Tc superconducting material? The paper is: E. Podkletnov and R.
Nieminen, Physica C 203 (1992) 441. E. Podkletnov and A. D. Levit have another
paper now, a Tampere University of Technology report, January 1995 (Finland),
the experiment having being repeated (I assume no one believed it the first
In the 1st experiment a 5 g sample of silicon dioxide was found to loose
around 0.05 % of its weight when placed at a distance of 15 mm from the SC
disk. The SC disk had diameter 145 mm and thickness 6 mm. Under rotation of
the disk the effect increased up to 0.3 %. In the 2nd experiment samples of
different composition and weight (10-50 g) were placed at distances of 25 mm
to 1.5 m from the disk. The mass loss went as high as around 2 %. I found out
about this through a theoretical preprint by Giovanni Modanese, a Von Humboldt
Fellow from the Max Plank institute. The preprint no. is MPI-PhT/95-44, May
1995. A colleage got it from hep-th@babbage.sissa.it, paper 9505094. Modanese
thinks that it is something to do with the bose condensate from the SC
interacting with the gravitational field. He uses some non-perturbative
quantum theory on the Regge lattice to attempt to understand the effect. Must
be a little bit like explaining cold fusion with the standard tools - couldn't
be done. We all know what happened to cold fusion but at the time a professor
from my department said in a public lecture that the product of the
believability and the potential importance if true was of order 1.
- Robert Bursill

E. Podkletnov and R. Nieminen, "A Possibility of Gravitational Force Shielding
by Bulk YBa2Cu3O7-x Superconductor", Physica C 203 (1992) pp 441-444.

E. Podkletnov and A.D. Levi, "Gravitational Shielding Properties of Composite
Bulk YBa2Cu3O7-x Superconductor Below 70 C Under Electro-Magnetic Field",
Tampere University of Technology report MSU-95 chem, January 1995.

Theoretical analysis of a reported weak gravitational shielding effect Author:
G. Modanese (Max-Planck-Institut, Munich) Report-no: MPI-PhT/95-44 May 1995
Under special conditions (Meissner-effect levitation and rapid rotation) a
disk of high-Tc superconducting material has recently been found to produce a
weak shielding of the gravitational field. We show that this phenomenon has no
explanation in the standard gravity theories, except possibly in the non-
perturbative quantum theory on the Regge lattice. More data, and independent
repetitions of the experiment are however necessary.

From: Modanese Giovanni Date: Wed, 17 Jan
1996 21:54:45 +0100 (MET) Updating the analysis of Tampere's weak
gravitational shielding experiment Author: Giovanni Modanese
Report-no: UTF-367/96
The most recent data about the weak gravitational shielding produced in
Tampere by Podkletnov and coworkers through a levitating and rotating HTC
superconducting disk show a very weak dependence of the shielding value ($\sim
1 \%$) on the height above the disk. We show that whilst this behaviour is
incompatible with an intuitive vectorial picture of the shielding, it is
consistently explained by our theoretical model. The expulsive force observed
at the border of the shielded zone is due to energy conservation.

NASA is conducting experiments similar to the anti-gravity shielding
experiments done in Tampere Finland. A scientist named Ning Li at the
University of Alabama Huntsville, is reported to be consulting with NASA. She
has written some interesting articles about the relationship between
superconductors and gravtiation. Here are references to some of her published
articles, and a few related items:

AUTHOR(s): Li, Ning and Torr, D.G.
TITLE(s) Effects of a Gravitomagnetic Field on pure superconductors
In: Phys. Rev. D,
JAN 15 1993 v 43 n 2 Page 457

AUTHOR(s): Torr, Douglas G. Li, Ning
TITLE(s): Gravitoelectric-Electric Coupling via Superconductivity.
In: Foundations of physics letters.
AUG 01 1993 v 6 n 4 Page 371

AUTHOR(s): Li, Ning and Torr, D.G.
TITLE(s): Gravitational effects on the magnetic attenuation of
In: Physical review. b, condensed matter.
SEP 01 1992 v 46 n 9 Page 5489

AUTHOR(s): Peng, Huei
TITLE(s): A New Approach to Studying Local Gravitomagnetic Effects on
a Superconductor.
In: General relativity and gravitation.
JUN 01 1990 v 22 n 6 Page 609

AUTHOR(s): Mashhoon, Bahram Paik, Jung Ho Will, Clifford M.
TITLE(s): Detection of the gravitomagnetic field using an orbiting
superconducting gravity gradiometer. Theoretical principles. In: Physical
review. D, Particles and fields.
MAY 15 1989 v 39 n 10 Page 2825

I haven't had the opportunity to read the articles by Drs. Li and Torr, but I
am told that in one of her articles, Dr Li provides the following interesting
comment --

" a detectable gravitomagnetic field, and in the presence of a
time-dependent applied magnetic vector potential field, a detectable
gravitoelectric field could be produced"

There is also some information about Dr Ning Li at: http://isl-

Dr Li is with the Applied Materials Lab at the University of Alabama at
Huntsville. She works closely with Dr Douglas Torr. One of their primary
interests is development and production of exotic materials in a microgravity
environment -- a peculiar coincidence, or maybe not, with the writing of
physical theories about how to produce anti-gravity in the laboratory.

Here's an unusual article from the website.
Can gravity be 'made' in the laboratory?

A theory that might lead to the creation of measurable manmade gravitational
fields has been developed by physicists at UAH.

If the theoretical work is borne out in the laboratory, it will prove that
physicist Albert Einstein was correct in predicting that moving matter
generates two kinds of gravitational fields: gravito-magnetic and gravito-
electric. The 'artificial' gravitational field would be generated inside a
container made of a superconducting material, said Dr. Douglas Torr, a
research professor of physics and director of UAH's Optical Aeronomy
Laboratory. "I think we can at the very least generate a microscopic field
..." If Einstein was right, the amount of gravito-magnetic energy produced by
an object is proportional to its mass and its movement, explained Dr. Ning Li,
a research scientist in UAH's Center for Space Plasma and Aeronomic Research.
To create the artificial gravitational fields, Torr and Li propose placing a
superconducting container in a magnetic field to align ions that are spinning
or rotating in tiny circles inside the superconducting material. Their theory
predicts the existence of ionic spin or rotation in a superconductor in a
magnetic field.

There are persistent rumors among UFO-buffs that NASA already has an operating
microgravity chamber, located in Houston TX and/or Huntsville AL. One person,
Robert Oechsler, reports that he has personally been inside NASA's antigrav
chamber. But, that's another story. For more info, see the books "Alien
Contact" and "Alien Update" by Timothy Good.

Paper: hep-th/9412243
From: Vu.Ho@sci.monash.edu.au
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 17:06:38 +1100
Title: Gravity as a coupling of two electromagnetic fields Author: Vu B Ho
A discussion on a possibility to represent gravity as a coupling of two equal
and opposite electrogmanetic fields. Classically the existence of equal and
opposite electromagnetic fields can be ignored altogether. However, the
problem can be viewed differently if we want to take into account possible
quantum effects. We know that in quantum mechanics the potentials themselves
may be significant and they may determine the dynamics of a particle in a
region where the fields vanish. (Aharonov and Bohm 1959, Peshkin and Tonomura

Michael J. Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia 1994 8 PAGES,
Australian Journal of Physics (ISSN 0004-9506) vol. 47, no. 3 1994 p. 245-252
The gravitational Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect is examined in the weak-field
approximation to general relativity. In analogy with the electromagnetic AB
effect, we find that a gravitoelectromagnetic 4-vector potential gives rise to
interference effects. A matter wave interferometry experiment, based on a
modification of the gravity-induced quantum interference experiment of
Colella, Overhauser and Werner (COW), is proposed to explicitly test the
gravitoelectric version of the AB effect in a uniform gravitational field.
CASI Accession Number: A95-87327

I recommend you get a copy of Aharonov and Bohm's classic paper "Significance
of Electromagnetic Potentials in the Quantum Theory" published in The Physical
Review in 1959. One of the important things that Aharonov and Bohm did was to
demonstrate that the electromagnetic potentials are richer in properties than
the Maxwell fields. The field is an artifical mathematical construct from
which emerges the whole idea of a continuum. When you can wean yourself of
this intellectual crutch you will be ready to do real physics. Both GR and QM
are addicted to the same falsehood.
-- Charles Cagle

In the Aharonov-Bohm effect it has been determined theortically and
experimentally that there is a measurable effect on a charged particle due to
the electromagnetic vector potential. Which of course would be no surprise,
except that the effect occurs even in areas of space where the value of the
classical electromagnetic fields vanish. A quantum phase shift, detectable via
particle interferometry, is found to occur due to the magnetic vector
potential A. The effect on a charged particle occurs in regions which are
completely shielded from classical electromagnetic fields.

A dual of the Aharonov-Bohm effect is the Aharonov-Casher effect, where it is
shown that measurable effects of spin-precession of a particle's magnetic
moment can occur due to the electric potential, even in areas of space where
the classical electrical field is completely absent.

Prior to the revolutionary paper by Aharonov and Bohm in 1959, the importance
of the electomagnetic potential and related interferometry effects, was
suggested in articles by Edmund Whittaker in 1903 and 1904. And, what is now
known as the Aharonov-Bohm effect, was explicitly identified in an earlier
paper on electron optics by Ehrenberg and Siday in 1949.

E.T. Whittaker, "On the partial differential equations of mathematical
physics," Mathematische Annalen, Vol 57, 1903, pages 333-355.
In this paper Whittaker demonstrates that all scalar EM potentials have an
internal, organized, bidirectional EM plane-wave structure. Thus there exists
an electromagnetics that is totally internal to the scalar EM potential. Since
vacuum/spacetime is scalar potential, then this internal EM is in fact
"internal" to the local potentialized vacuum/ spacetime.
-- Tom Bearden

E.T. Whittaker, "On an expression of the electromagnetic field due to
electrons by means of two scalar potential functions," Proceedings of the
London Mathematical Society, Series 2, Vol 1, 1904, pages 367-372.
In this paper Whittaker shows that all of classical electromagnetics can be
replaced by scalar potential interferometry. This ignored paper anticipated
the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect by 55 years, and drastically extended it as
well. Indeed, it prescribes a macroscopic AB effect that is distance-
independent, providing a direct and engineerable mechanism for action-at-a-
distance. It also provides a testable hidden-variable theory that predicts
drastically new and novel effects. -- Tom Bearden

W. Ehrenberg and R. W. Siday, Proc. Phys. Soc. London, B62, 8 (1949)
Ten years earlier than Aharonov and Bohm, Ehrenberg and Siday formulated the
science of electron optics by defining the electron refractive-index as a
function of electromagnetic potential. Near the end of their paper, they
discuss "a curious effect", which is exactly the AB effect. On the two sides
of a magnetic flux, the vector potential has different values. This means a
different refractive index for two geometrically equivalent paths. This
difference in refractive index would cause an observable phase shift.
-- Jun Liu

Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, "Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in the
Quantum Theory," Physical Review, Second Series, Vol 115 no 3, pages 485-491
Effects of potentials on charged particles exist even in the region where all
the fields (and therefore the forces on the particles) vanish, contrary to
classical electrodynamics. The quantum effects are due to the phenomenon of
interference. These effects occur in spite of Faraday shielding. The Lorentz
force does not appear anywhere in the fundamental quantum theory, but appears
only as an approximation that holds in the classical limit. In QM, the
fundamental physical entities are the potentials, while the fields are derived
from them by differentiation.

Herman Erlichson, "Aharonov-Bohm Effect and Quantum Effects on Charged
Particles in Field-Free Regions," American Journal of Physics, Vol 38 No 2,
Pages 162-173 (1970).

M. Danos, "Bohm-Aharonov effect. The quantum mechanics of the electrical
transformer," American Journal of Physics, Vol 50 No 1, pgs 64-66 (1982).

Bertram Schwarzschild, "Currents in normal-metal rings exhibit Aharonov-Bohm
Effect," Physics Today, Vol 39 No 1, pages 17-20 (Jan 1986)

S. Olariu and I. Iovitzu Popescu, "The quantum effects of electromagnetic
fluxes," Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol 57 No2, April 1985.

Yoseph Imry and Richard Webb, "Quantum Interference and the Aharonov- Bohm
Effect", Scientific American, April 1989, pages 56-62

E. Merzbacher, "Single Valuedness of Wave Functions", American Journal of
Physics, Vol 30 No 4, pages 237-247 (April 1962)

Yoseph Imry, "The Physics of Mesoscopic Systems", Directions in Condensed
Matter Physics, World Scientific Publishing (1986)

Richard Webb and Sean Washburn, "Quantum Interference Fluctuations in
Disordered Metals", Physics Today, Vol 41 No 12 pages 46-53, Dec 1989

"STAR WARS NOW! The Bohm-Aharonov Effect, Scalar Interferometry, and Soviet
Weaponization" By T. E. Bearden, Tesla Book Company

Peshkin M. and Lipkin H.J. "Topology, Locality, and Aharonov-Bohm Effect with
Neutrons" Physical review letters APR 10 1995 v 74 n 15

Yakir Aharonov and Ady Stern, "Origin of the geometric forces accompanying
Berry's geometric potentials", Physical Review letters. DEC 21 1992 v 69 n 25
Page 3593

Yakir Aharonov, Jeeva Anandan, and Sandu Popescu, "Superpositions of time
evolutions of a quantum system and a quantum time-translation machine."
Physical review letters. JUN 18 1990 v 64 n 25 Page 2965

Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 03:25:05 -0400
Potential Effect: Aharonov-Bohm Effect of Simply Connected Region Author: Jun
Comments: Prediction of a new effect. Numerical estimate given for
experimental verification. The referees disagree with each other on the
existence of this effect.
We study a generalization of Aharonov-Bohm effect, the potential effect. The
discussion is focused on field-free effects in simply connected region, which
obviously can not have any local field-flux. Among the published discussions
about this kind of effects, it is generally agreed that this kind of effect
does not exist due to gauge invariance. However, there are also opinions that
this effect is a trivial variation of Aharonov-Bohm effect and therefore there
is no need to check its existence. To my knowledge, it has neverbeen tested.
My first goal here is to supply enough theoretical reason to motivate the
experimental test of this effect. I start with an intuitive derivation, then I
introduce a wave-front theory as a theoretical consideration. Logically, the
existence of potential effect implies the existence of the AB effect, but not
vice versa. The purpose of this paper is to provide a physical connection in
the opposite direction.
Bob, I don't like guys on the net who fill threads with huge supposed resumes and then proceed to use that as an excuse to tell everyone how much smarter they are than everyone else.

I don't claim to be a genius. I just read the paper. It really must be embarrassing for you to get shown up in one of your fields of expertise by an average Joe like me, huh Bob?
I didn't see anywhere in there that suggested, much less agreed with, your assumption that contra-gravity would affect inertia in any way.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kzin:

I didn't see anywhere in there that suggested, much less agreed with, your assumption that contra-gravity would affect inertia in any way.

Sorry Charlie!

Nowhere have I suggested contra-gravity affects inertia. You can't find that claim in a single one of my posts.

So now do you have to resort to outright lying to attempt to prove a point? I said in post after post after post that a vehicle in an anti-grav field would lose no actual mass. I specifically said that I wasn't claiming ANY form of scenario in which inertia was removed. Here's one example of the exact language I used: "the machinations of the field would cause the vehicle to behave as if it had little mass." Is your ego so fragile that you are forced to play these desperate little word games in order to avoid some kind of loss of self-esteem from being proven wrong on a silly internet message board?

I'm also not sure I can believe physics lessons from someone who is too stupid to figure out how to post without cluttering the message boards with duplicate posts. Nobody that was capable of really understanding physics at this level could be this clueless about putting up posts. The first couple of times it was funny. The next couple it was forgivable. Now it's just downright annoying.

[This message has been edited by The Shoveller (edited 16 May 2001).]
Well, aren't we so intelligent that we descend into insults when we can't make our point.

The fact is, you did indirectly comment on inertia, but clearly you don't know enough about physics to realize it.

The principle that causes a tank to not get knocked around the battle field by a bullet is inertia. By asserting that a grav-tank would get knocked around a battle field like a baloon, you have asserted that a contra-grav device would nullify the tank's inertia.

Come back when you're mature and informed enough to put together an argument without resorting to insults.
Shoveller, thanks for posting the references. It is much better than posting thought experiments that prove you don't understand it either. It was my understanding that Podkletnov's work was not reproducable. like cold fusion. I'll see what Li has to say.

And I never claimed to be an expert on gravitic theory, just a rusty Bachelors in Physics. Some of this stuff looks like no more than four or five people would really understand it, and I am neither Forward nor Cramer. Ah, well, let us see if the little gray cells will work.
First, I discounted the newspaper article. Sorry.

OK, Gravito-magnetic and Gravito-electric are what I was taught to call "protational" and "gravitic." Pretty conventional stuff, Einstein described it nearly a century ago and Robert Forward described how to (theoretically) make this kind of gravity drives in Analog twenty years ago. I thought the energy levels were unreasonably high and the geometry unstable. Some of this work, combined with the EST geometry . . .

Oh, the names have nothing to do with electricity or magnetism, except by analogy.

Gravito-Electric field is the same as a regular gravity field. It is called gravito-electric because the force acts along the axis between the fields, just like an electric field. We used go just call this gravity.

Just as a moving electric field creates a magnetic field, a moving gravito-electric field creates a gravito-magnetic field, what I used to call a "protational" field. A partcle with gravity subjected to a gravito-magnetic field wil behave following the same equations as a charged particle near a magnet (right hand rule, and all that), but with weaker constants.

[This message has been edited by Uncle Bob (edited 16 May 2001).]
K: "By asserting that a grav-tank would get knocked around a battle field like a baloon, you have asserted that a contra-grav device would nullify the tank's inertia."

I have asserted nothing of the sort. Were there no anti-grav field surrounding this hypothetical vehicle, inertia would prevent it from being knocked around. Once you create an artificial environment around the vehicle to counter gravity with a field, you have suspended and changed the normal laws of physics between that artificial environment and objects outside that artificial environment. What happens regarding the interactions of objects outside that field and the vehicle inside the field is subject to the new laws of physics regarding that particular phenomena. Within that field, the vehicle would still have it's natural mass and inertia. But the interactions between objects outside the field and objects inside the field will change. Proof? The vehicle floats. The vehicle does not react to objects as it's mass and inertial suggest it should. It's mass suggests it should sink. It doesn't sink. It therefore no longer reacts as if it has large mass. If it reacts this way in one set of circumstances, it will react this way in the others, too. The field doesn't change any physical properties of the vehicle. It changes the way objects outside the field interact with the vehicle. The bullet will knock around the vehicle, not because the field eliminates any mass or inertia, but because field causes the bullet's force to react against the vehicle AS IF the vehicle had little mass.

Again, if the field causes the vehicle to act as if it had little mass to counter gravity, it will act as if it had little mass in response to the other object in the surrounding environment.
Okay can everyone please calm down. Since Contragrav does not exist we have no way of knowing exactly how it will work, its up to each individual Traveller umpire to decide how it functions in their individual Traveller universe.

That being said, some basic physics. Inertia is the tendancy of an object to resist changing state. Thus an object in motion will remain in motion and an object at rest will remain at rest, both cases have the proviso of "unless acted upon by an external force". As such inertia is a property of an object not a result of interaction with its environment.

The size of the force that must be exerted on an object to overcome its inertia is proportional to the objects mass. Like inertia, mass in an inherent property of an object (along with energy). Mass can not be negated without totally removing it from the universe or converting it to energy. It can however be overcome by the application of a sufficently large force.

To work, contragrav must do one of two things. It must exert sufficent force to overcome the action of gravity on an object (CG as thrust) OR it must remove the influence of gravity on the object (CG as negation). Neither of these will have any effect on the object inertia, mass or energy.

Now, if Traveller CG works by negation (though canon tends to support the thrust approach) it MIGHT as a SIDEAFFECT also negate inertia. But canon is generally silent on this and what there is tends to support that it does not (CG still requires gravitic compensators to cope with effects of acceleration)
The articles and abstracts above show a negation effect from the use of the spinning superconducter disks. I personally believe you have to use the model of a technology you are certain is beginning to show promise as opposed to a completely speculative model.

As far as the game goes, I really feel that CG platforms with instability problems makes for more interesting and challenging play. Rather than having one utterly dominant weapon system [stable CG AFVs], you are forced to choose between 4 different weapons platforms [disruptable CG AFVs, stable tracked AFVs which need roads, slower all-terrain mechs, and powered armor troops with somewhat less firepower than the above units]. Tactical skill and proper force selection becomes much more important in determining the outcome of a battle.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Shoveller:
The articles and abstracts above show a negation effect from the use of the spinning superconducter disks. I personally believe you have to use the model of a technology you are certain is beginning to show promise as opposed to a completely speculative model.

As far as the game goes, I really feel that CG platforms with instability problems makes for more interesting and challenging play. Rather than having one utterly dominant weapon system [stable CG AFVs], you are forced to choose between 4 different weapons platforms [disruptable CG AFVs, stable tracked AFVs which need roads, slower all-terrain mechs, and powered armor troops with somewhat less firepower than the above units]. Tactical skill and proper force selection becomes much more important in determining the outcome of a battle.

The contrra-grav effects are still questionable as to whether it's a magnetic interaction, or a gravitic one. And the measureable effects are not without significantly close ranges of the error ranges. But, yes, I agree, TL8 CG is unstable...

Your argument in the later paragraph is flawed: tracked afv's do not need roads; in fact, SP155 tacklaying howitzers do just fine in the muck known as tundra quite well; MBT's slog through it okay in the summer. In the winter, it's just another snowfield. Likewise, tanks and APC's and AIFV's work quite well in the local forests, especially in winter. Stable AG is CT/MT Traveller canon. Stable CG is TNE canon. Real world not withstanding. Stable grav tanks are part of the imperium from TL 11 on. Making a key bit of the tech unreliable for spurious assumptions about known extant tech is, well, [self-censored].

If you want CG to be unviable, simple make CG non-thrust IYTU. Then you have the gravitic craft using thrust based systems for movement (and if you use the TNE assumptions, lift as well); it negates the viability of the Silent Death Machines of CT canon. They become loud, often high-IR sig, jet-sleds. (Not that the TNE Intrepid isn't intimidating, but that HEPlaR is gonna roast anybody nearby...).

And, just for giggles, i've often made aerodynamic designs for striker which used grav thrust combined with jet thrust... for maximum VTOL performance without rotary wing sections...

And Mechs? well, I cranked out a non-optimied TL 10 walker pod: 216 KPH on road, 130.14 off road, 53.5 hours fuel for the 4MW TL 10 fusion. Armor 40E. (Same as TL10 ciivilian spacecraft). Turreted 6cm HV CPR Gun, 100 rounds HE Pen 9 Dmg 10. 5km AEMS-10, 50 KM PEMS-10, 5 KM EMSJ-10. Model 0, 12 dynamic linked panels, full environmental for the whole thing. 321L H2 fuel, 1.1 L cargo (glove box
) 2 leg walker, crew one in a cramped seat, 8.75 cubic meters displacement, 22.1184 Tons Metric mass Loaded. Config 3USL. Cr614409. Fuel cost 12Cr per load. Ammo cost KCr2.5 per 100 round HE Basic Load.

Cut the ammo load in half, double the endurance.
It's not gonna hurt itself badly in a mirror match. And it could easily be brought up to 60 points of armor. BTW, Cr400000 is the (Minimum TL10 size) 2m^3 4 MW Fusion PP. But, almost any penetration will result in something dying on it. It's not that hot, but it is a decent light scout vehicle for solomani, who canonically lag a TL or 2 behind the curve gravitically. (CT AM Solomani, pageref unavailable at the moment).

Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!
Ah, I see where your coming from, Shoveller. You envision a field, a 3D zone protected from gravity like the inside of HG Well's moonship. But I do not understand Podkletnov nor Li nor anyone else to have proposed a field, more a "shadow" above the blocking plate, implying it only bocks gravity perpendicular to the plate.

Inertia has sometimes been considered a function of gravity, linking a mass with the background mass of the universe. Unfortunately, gravity seems to propagate at the speed of light and inertia does not, so cutting off the effect of gravity might not isolate inertia (as a double window cuts off the sound but still lets the light in.)

However, even if a "grav plate" does affect both, I am unaware of a contra-grav design that isolates a vehicle from all directions. To isolate it completely from the background mass of the universe the vehicle would have to be seemlessly surrounded, by grav pates, and air rafts are not enclosed vehicles, neither are grav tanks because they have open gun muzzles. These designs appear to neutralize or counter gravity in one direction only, the vertical.

[This message has been edited by Uncle Bob (edited 16 May 2001).]
Ahem. Gentlebeings.

You can argue all you want about what will be technically feasible.

It does not matter. This is a game.

And Traveller has never been about anime. Mecha are anime.

Once mecha are wandering around T^20, it will yet be another reason for me *not* to buy the game.

Wally, you have predicted doom for the T20. I doubt you could be counted on to generate enthusiasm for the product in your local game store. Why should the designers take your wishes into consideration? All you "diehard Traveller vets" have done almost nothing to increase sales in the last 20 years. Why should anyone care what you think? T20 should be marketed toward those who are enthusiastic about purchasing the product like me, not toward those like you who are doing nothing but whine and threaten not to make the purchase.

Why do you have a problem with allowing players the choice of having mechs? Nobosy is forcing you to have them in your game. Why do you wish to force me not to have them in mine?
Shovel wrote:

"I doubt you could be counted on to generate enthusiasm for the product in your local game store"

Hmmm. Probably not, as many of the game stores in my area have been going bust due to lack of demand for most pen-and-paper RPG's... D&D 3e notwithstanding.

I don't hate D20- I play in a 3e campaign. It's just not a good fit for Traveller. And mecha are just out of place with the "feel" of Traveller.

Why should FFE care? I'm a customer.

I want to take this opportunity to (without rekindling flames) say that while I'm opposed to Mechs in the Traveller setting,

I _VERY_ much encourage the system designers to support Mechs in the system and in the vehicle design system.

I definitely think it's a viable genre, and encourage flexability over rigidity in the system rules.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Shoveller:
All you "diehard Traveller vets" have done almost nothing to increase sales in the last 20 years. Why should anyone care what you think? T20 should be marketed toward those who are enthusiastic about purchasing the product like me, not toward those like you who are doing nothing but whine and threaten not to make the purchase.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, I suppose buying almost everything released with the Traveller logo on it, including product that I (later) realized was absolute garbage (like Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium and T4 First Survey), didn't contribute much to their sales? True, I have told people not to buy T4 products, and have been ambivalent at best over some TNE and GT, but I think I've more than made up for that with a decade plus of enthusiastic advocacy for CT, MT, and (more recently) the CT reprints. Perhaps I haven't personally been responsible for much market-Growth in Traveller, but I've certainly done my fair share to counter market-Shrinkage -- more than the quality of the product actually merited, I daresay.

And the idea that people designing a game to be labeled and marketed as 'Traveller' wouldn't at least consider and pay heed to the substantial 20+ year fan-base is absurd. We already saw how well that attitude went over in TNE (hint: GDW is no longer in business). True, you can't please everybody and it's pointless to try, but decisions should at least be informed; you'd better make sure you've got a real good reason before turning your back on an established fan-base to gamble on the fickle affections of the D&D crowd (many of whose probable interest is going to lie solely in the number of Cool Guns To Shoot and Cool Monsters To Kill and the relative ease of converting them back to their established munchkin-campaigns -- D&D3 may be 'better' than previous editions, and more 'real' rp'ers might be happy with it, but the lifeblood of *D&D (just like Rifts and Warhammer) has always been munchkins and cretins, and I'd guarantee they're still responsible for the vast majority of product sold).

As for the nominal topic under discussion, whether or not to include rules for designing mecha in the Traveller Technical Architecture, I've got nothing against it theoretically or philosophically, but don't see much value or point. Given the speculated physics and technology of Traveller-as-milieu (specifically the omnipresence of contragrav at TL11+) there's really not much place for them; we might as well include rules for designing hi-tech zeppelins, paddle-boats, and punch-card computer systems. If someone wants to alter the scientific spectra of their TU to give mecha a more legitimate and widespread applicability that's fine by me, but that person is then no longer really following Traveller-as-milieu, which was supposed to be the whole point of a d20 Traveller (introducing the Traveller milieu to a different game system) in the first place. Why not just encourage some other company (like DP9, R. Talsorian, or whoever inherited the FASA IP) to create a d20 version of one of their mecha games? With the common d20 game engine you could freely convert favorite aspects between SW, T^20, your mecha game, and whatever else suits your fancy, and in the meantime the rest of us haven't had to waste time, effort, and page-count creating a design system which, while perhaps very interesting to You, is nigh-worthless for anyone playing in anything even close to the 'canon' setting.