Gravitomagnetism Observed (Tajmar, Matos, ESA)

A pair of scientists funded by ESA are claiming to have observed some
sort of gravitational anomaly by rotating a superconductive ring:

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html

Although miniscule in size, this gravitomagnetism effect seems to be
similar to the frame-dragging effect observed in much larger rotating
heavenly bodies.

What are the implications of this for our technology? Could this
phenomenon be harnessed for useful purposes?

We talk about nano-mechanical actuators and switches able to displace
or rotate at extraordinarily rapid speeds. Could this behavior be
exploited in the service of harnessing gravitomagnetic effects? A
material composed of lots of tiny superconductive nano-gyroscopes,
perhaps reducing its apparent mass in a gravitational field? Possible?

I was trying to work out what it would be good for if you could
increase its strength by 10000x somehow.

You would get gravity control- you'd be able to put parts of the ISS
under 1g, or cancel it out over short distances on the Earth, zero-g
rooms that kind of thing.

Or you could put it in the base of a reentry capsule and do a pure
ballistic reentry at 9g, but only feel 1g (since the field would
accelerate every part of you evenly).

Many cool things would seem to be possible.

Trouble is, the field is presumably a dipole, so range would be
limited- I don't think you could levitate stuff all the way into space
for example. I don't think you could push a vehicle off the Earth with
it.

Anyway, that's if the effect is real. I'm still betting it's
experimental error; it's historically a very difficult area to research
in.

Here is the link to their publication:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0603033

They're claiming 10^-4g (ie. a ten-thousandth of a g)

Alright, standard disclaimers (ie. extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof, must be reproducible, must be thoroughly
de-bunked/analyzed/investigated, etc)

Just for the sake of engineering conjecture, let's say the science
rationale behind this phenomenon is valid. So from an engineering
perspective, how would one go about making something useful out of it?

In sci-fi TV shows, we've all seen depictions of "field-based
propulsion," whereby a vehicle is propelled through space without
having to expel some limited onboard supply of propellant to achieve
motion.

If this gravitomagnetic phenomenon scales up with rpm, and if the
10^-4g was produced with a mere 6500rpm, then how fast and how massive
does your superconductive flywheel have to be, in order for your flying
car to get off the ground?

What rpm would you need to achieve reasonable round-trip time to Mars?

Well, as physicists like to say -- everything's local. To me, this
means that if this phenomenon could achieve levitation, then it would
be acting upon local space, and not by "pushing off" another mass like
earth's.

Besides, consider that gravity has a notoriously much longer range than
electromagnetism does. Pluto and other Kuiper objects are orbiting the
Sun because its huge gravitational field extends out that range, even
though its electromagnetic fields aren't felt much out there. Heck,
cosmologists talk about galaxies attracting each other from huge
distances away.

But it's interesting to muse whether this artificial gravity phenomenon
-- if it is indeed valid -- would allow for some kind of new
"field-based propulsion" which doesn't rely upon Newtonian
action-reaction and expenditure of a limited onboard propellant supply.

As for whether or not it's real or experimental error, I'm hoping that
other labs will quickly rush to investigate, and either prove or
disprove this thing. At least if it's disproven, we can all move on and
look for something else.

Oh well, here's a videoclip of an interview with Dr Tajmar (Warning:
Tajmar comes across as reasonable and low-key, but the interviewer
sounds like the stereotypical lamer who hangs out at sci-fi
conventions):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...45907997981867

Anyway, hopefully Tajmar's announcement is noteworthy enough to at
least attract the efforts of de-bunkers, so that the question will be
resolved one way or the other.

on 26 Mar 2006 00:04:02 -0800, manofsanATyahoo.com sez:
` Here is the link to their publication:

` http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0603033

` They're claiming 10^-4g (ie. a ten-thousandth of a g)

Ah, 10^-4. I wondered; the original article I saw was ambiguous - it said
"100 millionths" which could be read as 10^-4 or 10^-8.

Well, they may have worked for two years to suppress errors, but
I don't know, when you have a high magnetic field in the area
of your equipment spinning at 6000rpm, any kind of equipment
can suffer weird effects, let alone stuff that's trying to
detect gravitational changes. That's a particularly hard type
of measurement to do. I guess we'll hear about it soon enough
if it's real. Well, let's have a look... looking at the article,
if I'm understanding correctly, it is only the mass of the electrons
(Cooper pairs) that is being affected? ie, you're down to one part
in 1500 of any mass before you start.

` Alright, standard disclaimers (ie. extraordinary claims require
` extraordinary proof, must be reproducible, must be thoroughly
` de-bunked/analyzed/investigated, etc)

` Just for the sake of engineering conjecture, let's say the science
` rationale behind this phenomenon is valid. So from an engineering
` perspective, how would one go about making something useful out of it?

` In sci-fi TV shows, we've all seen depictions of "field-based
` propulsion," whereby a vehicle is propelled through space without
` having to expel some limited onboard supply of propellant to achieve
` motion.

` If this gravitomagnetic phenomenon scales up with rpm, and if the
` 10^-4g was produced with a mere 6500rpm, then how fast and how massive
` does your superconductive flywheel have to be, in order for your flying
` car to get off the ground?

` What rpm would you need to achieve reasonable round-trip time to Mars?


--
================================================== ========================
Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.

The force is really to low for anything large. But it will be great
news for ppl trying to understand SR. The experiments can be done in
the lab. Its progress.

Greg

pete wrote:

Ah, 10^-4. I wondered; the original article I saw was ambiguous - it said
"100 millionths" which could be read as 10^-4 or 10^-8.

When could one hundred millionths be read as 10^-8? That would one
hundred millionth.

--
Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
But tell me, who _are_ they, these wanderers ... ?
-- Rainer Maria Rilke

Well, when you put it that way, then is it possible that the discovery
is related to this other announcement?

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/3/19/1

Since here the magnetic field is affecting the disposition of photons,
and since in the ESA experiments the Cooper-pairs are effectively
bosons, then is there a correlation between the two measured phenomena?

What I'm wondering is whether this effect would scale up with
increasing RPM. If you could radically increase your RPM to millions of
Hertz, then could this perhaps amount to a sizeable fraction of a G.
Even if this field only affects the Cooper pairs themselves, if they
are affected strongly enough by the accelerative field, perhaps the
Cooper pairs themselves would be able to levitate/accelerate the entire
gyroscopic mass. And of course, if the gyroscope(s) are themselves
attached to some larger object (spacecraft?) then this itself could be
levitated/accelerated.

Conductors/superconductors are defined by their ability to
permit/promote the flow of electrons. I'm curious -- if an electrolyte
is defined by its ability to permit the flow of the comparably more
massive ions, then is there any such concept of "superelectrolyte" -
analogous to a superconductor, but for ions? If such an analogy were
possible, would it require superfluidity? I was just trying to think of
how this gravity effect -- if real -- could be magnified by using more
massive bosons than Cooper-Pairs. Or is the diminutive Cooper-Pair mass
actually beneficial in this case, due to greater ease of centripetal
acceleration relative to the resultant vacuum polarization yielded?

Could someone kindly explain why the superconductive gyroscope with its
Cooper Pairs is able to achieve this effect when a regular
non-superconductive gyroscope can't?


Well, at the very least we now know why Flying Saucers are round -
which is so that they can house their high-speed internal
superconducting gyroscopes ;P

Oh, I just wanted to post another news link:

http://arstechnica.com/journals/scie...2006/3/27/3334

I liked this article because it paraphrased the whole concept in a
unique and better way than the other articles which simply regurgitated
the same info verbatim. Some of the follow-up comments were cute too.