Superconductivity

[mfkdso]

help me answer my showerthoughts!

Though my knowledge in physics is limited, i can't see why this would not work.

Imagine a container in the shape of a donut, this container is vacuumed and inside of it we find an object levitating due to superconductivity.

This Superconducting object contains a propellant powered by either wireless electricity or solar power.

This gives us a tiny racecart inside of a vacuum. There is no force that would counteract the forward momentum and thus the acceleration should be constant.

If the acceleration is constant the speed should increase until it is alot.

The issue i find is that:

* the object may be shot of it's levitating track due the massive G-force it will experience at higher speeds. (Make the vessel supertiny to decrease the inertia?)

* The thrust will be acting in the tangent of the vessels path, it would not be 100% effective. Increasing the radius would decrease the angle of the tangent, thus increasing the efficiency.

My questions are:

If anyone knows anything about physics please explain to me, why does this not work?

Would this, if created on a bigger scale that could fit a human, give us a time machine due to time dilation?

[ZetaX]

I am not entirely sure how that construct looks like. I guess you are talking about accelerating something in vacuum around a (circular) track while levitating it via superconductivity.

If so: the force keeping it up is not infinite and it will simply touch the border at some speed. The strength of field a superconductor can withstand is also not infinite. Additionally, you will have other losses due to induction (and at absurdely high speeds by gravity).

Oh, and there is no time travel from time dilation. It is always just a positive factor. Traveling at half the speed through time is as much a time machine as cryostasis is.

[LordFerret]

Intermagnetics General, a subdivision of General Electric, made the superconductive magnets for the first NMRI machines (13 kilo-gauss magnets). At that time, they also made a device which in essence was a perpetual motion machine, used to generate electric current and magnetic field. Unlike a typical electric motor, with the armateur spinning, this unit had the armateur fixed with the magnetic coils spinning about it in a bath of liquid nitrogen. A 24-volt battery was used to cause the snap-back to get the thing spinning, and as long as there was liquid nitrogen in the bath - it would run... generating current to power itself, and then some. The energy generated by just one of these units was enough to power NYC... 4 of them were sold to the Soviet Union (1980's). The unit, 12 feet long, when placed on a carriage sitting atop an aluminum rail (or rather, an aluminum alloy), enclosed in an aluminum tube evacuated of air, produced a magnetic field enabling the whole assembly to 'float' ... a maglev device. Two small linear generators/motors on either side of the rail, placed directionally, could propel the device to near light-speed. Technology you don't hear about.

No, I do not know what application the Soviet Union applied these devices to... nor do I the USA - likely very classified, otherwise it would have been in the news.

[Robotengineer]

Clarification, you are saying you would put some sort of container in a vacuum inside a torus and then use electricity to accelerate it to ludicrous speeds? The more energy you put into the object, by accelerating it, the more energy you would require to maintain it in the track, right?

[GoSlash27]

Sounds to me like you've just described a particle accelerator.

http://www.hephy.at/en/physics/techniques/particle-accelerators/

Best,

-Slashy

[sal_vager]

Only four posts in and already off topic and onto accusations...

@Zetax deleted post.

Edited February 3, 2015 by sal_vager

[-Velocity-]

...

They've already invented this, it's essentially a flywheel with magnetic bearings. You don't even need superconductors.

Yes, flywheels do work, they can store a lot of energy in a rapidly spinning wheel. This energy can be extracted easily electromagnetically, and fairly rapidly. Flywheels can be a competitor to, or superior to, capacitors for storing up large amounts of energy for rapid release, depending on the application. I haven't studied them in detail, I just know general facts, but I do know that I remember the Navy was thinking about using a flywheel to provide the high power pulse needed to fire a rail gun. I donno where that effort ended up going.

There are, however, limits. With a high enough speed, the centrifugal forces will tear the flywheel apart. So there is a maximum speed set by the maximum materials strength of whatever the flywheel is made out of, and that means you can't even get remotely close to an energy density high enough to notice any relativistic effects. Solid matter is held together only by the small, un-neutralized, near-field leftovers of the electric force holding electrons around atomic nuclei. It can't be indefinitely strong.

Edited February 3, 2015 by |Velocity|

[LordFerret]

Clarification, you are saying you would put some sort of container in a vacuum inside a torus and then use electricity to accelerate it to ludicrous speeds? The more energy you put into the object, by accelerating it, the more energy you would require to maintain it in the track, right?

Was your question directed to me? If it was...

In a torus, indeed at some point you'd face an issue of the device making contact with the walls (centrifugal force). The model I was privy to was (pretty much) a straight-line rail system. The entire shell became magnetic from the field generated, the carriage essentially held in place in the middle of the donut (opposite pole). The linear motors were, more specifically, ion engines, which in the vacuum worked just as they would in space. This was an actual working model.

- - - Updated - - -

So pointing out that the following post is just a conspiracy theory, all while demanding evidence and debunking it based on arguing what ridiculous levels of energy that would be, is a serious offence:

I still want to point the conpsiracy theory out as exactly that. If you really want to ban me for saying that, go on, because I don't see any point in being on a "science" forum where critising conspiracy stuff is an offence.

There is nothing conspiracy about this. I have a family member who worked IMG/GE, worked on this project, and happens to be one of the co-designers and developers of those 13 kilo-gauss magnets.

[ZetaX]

There is nothing conspiracy about this. I have a family member who worked IMG/GE, worked on this project, and happens to be one of the co-designers and developers of those 13 kilo-gauss magnets.

So you claim a family member of yours worked at an infinite energy source that could propel stuff at almost the speed of light¿ While also levitating itself¿

Sorry, but you will have to give better evidence than that.

Edited February 3, 2015 by technicalfool
Oops mods dun did bad. Fixed.

[LordFerret]

...and I know for fact that 4 of the units went to the Soviet Union, as my family member accompanied them during shipment and installation.

[Kryten]

There is nothing conspiracy about this. I have a family member who worked IMG/GE, worked on this project, and happens to be one of the co-designers and developers of those 13 kilo-gauss magnets.

Yes, and I saw a red mercury rocket with 3000s specific impulse in Korolyov in '92, I pinky-swear. Superconductors don't break conservation of energy, anybody with even a basic knowledge of the physics involved could tell you that.

[LordFerret]

So you claim a family member of yours worked at an infinite energy source that could propel stuff at almost the speed of light¿ While also levitating itself¿

Sorry, but you will have to give better evidence than that.

Did I say "infinite"? I suggest you go back and re-read what I wrote.

[ZetaX]

Did I say "infinite"? I suggest you go back and re-read what I wrote.

You pretty surely implied it here:

A 24-volt battery was used to cause the snap-back to get the thing spinning, and as long as there was liquid nitrogen in the bath - it would run... generating current to power itself, and then some. The energy generated by just one of these units was enough to power NYC...

Two small linear generators/motors on either side of the rail, placed directionally, could propel the device to near light-speed.

As I explained in my now-deleted post, the amount of energy in that would be absurd. Not "power NYC" but "power the world" levels. Not speaking about the explosion surpassing thermonuclear bombs when you would actually accelerate something to such speed.

[LordFerret]

I'm not about to sit here and argue with you. I've been out in the field, I've seen the stuff. Where have you been? Do a little research on Intermagnetics General and see where they're at today ... that should help remove some of your doubts - not my job.

- - - Updated - - -

Here, I'll give you head start...

http://www.superpower-inc.com/

[Kryten]

I'm not about to sit here and argue with you. I've been out in the field, I've seen the stuff. Where have you been? Do a little research on Intermagnetics General and see where they're at today ... that should help remove some of your doubts - not my job.

Do some research on basic physics. Start with conservation of energy. Seriously, think; where is this machine of yours supposed to be getting it's supposed over-unity energy output from?

[ZetaX]

I'm not about to sit here and argue with you. I've been out in the field, I've seen the stuff. Where have you been? Do a little research on Intermagnetics General and see where they're at today ... that should help remove some of your doubts - not my job.

- - - Updated - - -

Here, I'll give you head start...

http://www.superpower-inc.com/

How is a supplier of superconductors helping¿ Neither is Intermagnetics General a helpful source on anything you claim.

I am not doubting superconductivity, it's a pretty well researched effect. I am doubting your completely unfounded claims on infinite energy. Just stop making them, because they are just ridiculous (read my last post again on why it's even physically impossible to have been a thing even if we assume it to work somehow magically).

[peadar1987]

Yeah, I'm calling shenanigans on this one as well. There's no plausible physical mechanism for this device to generate more energy than you put in.

[SuperFastJellyfish]

Did I say "infinite"? I suggest you go back and re-read what I wrote.

At that time, they also made a device which in essence was a perpetual motion machine, used to generate electric current and magnetic field.

I don't know what you meant by 'in essence', but if you mean that it emulates a perpetual motion machine so closely that it's indistinguishable from one then you really should provide a source, or expect to get criticized.

[rtxoff]

Well, anyone want to try to explain why this works?

Edit: A magnetic field inducing current in a superconductor which creates it's own magnetic field which locks onto the moebius strip.

So any smart people here tell me where the energy is coming from for that.

Edited February 3, 2015 by gpisic

[ZetaX]

Gpisic: I see no energy produced in the video. Levitation is not violating any law of nature. The carriage is obviously not accelerating, but given impulse by the people in the video.

[mfkdso]

I wasn't even talking about energy production, I wasn't even trying to get anywhere. After thinking about it some more, and researching the links all of you provided, (thank you) I've

found a new problem. Even if it was completely vacuum sealed there would still be particles of dust, and other matter. I'll use Star Trek for an example. They have to use a navigational deflector to keep bits of matter, like dust, from hitting the ship while at warp speed. In one episode, they said that if a molecule of dust were to hit the hull at warp speed, it would punch a hole into the hull the size of a fist. The same sort of problem would exist in a vacuum chamber. The whole reason you would seal the chamber, is so that air doesn't create drag. If the particle of dust hits the object, it slows it down a small amount. If it goes in a circular tube, it'll hit it again, and again, and again.

I am not entirely sure how that construct looks like.

I meant the donut would be hollow, essentially a hollow tube bent into a circle.

[N_las]

Edit: A magnetic field inducing current in a superconductor which creates it's own magnetic field which locks onto the moebius strip.

So any smart people here tell me where the energy is coming from for that.

You don't need energy to levitate something in place. My table "levitates" a book (that sits on top of it) over the ground. Where is the energy for that coming from?

Edited February 3, 2015 by N_las

[rtxoff]

Gpisic: I see no energy produced in the video. Levitation is not violating any law of nature. The carriage is obviously not accelerating, but given impulse by the people in the video.

Well the problem is it is not only levitating, there are times at this experiment where the carriage is also holded by the track when it goes upside down. In both cases a force is holding it in place countering the gravitational pull. And you want to tell me now that there is no energy needed for that and also that this experiment is not violating any rules od nature? *Pahh*

You will need to do better than that if you want to explain it.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't need energy to levitate something in place. My table "levitates" a book (that sits on top of it) over the ground. Where is the energy for that coming from?

A book laying on the table is levitating. I see....

[Ralathon]

help me answer my showerthoughts!

Though my knowledge in physics is limited, i can't see why this would not work.

Imagine a container in the shape of a donut, this container is vacuumed and inside of it we find an object levitating due to superconductivity.

This Superconducting object contains a propellant powered by either wireless electricity or solar power.

This gives us a tiny racecart inside of a vacuum. There is no force that would counteract the forward momentum and thus the acceleration should be constant.

If the acceleration is constant the speed should increase until it is alot.

Yep, it would. Although using propellant for acceleration won't get you very far. It would function as a rocket and thus have limited delta-V. Best way to accelerate it is via external fields.

The issue i find is that:

* the object may be shot of it's levitating track due the massive G-force it will experience at higher speeds. (Make the vessel supertiny to decrease the inertia?)

Long before that happens the meissner effect (levitation of superconducting materials) would break. It can only hold up so much mass, so if you push against it hard enough it won't be able to counteract it. So before you can go too fast your racecar will fly off the tracks or impact the tracks.

* The thrust will be acting in the tangent of the vessels path, it would not be 100% effective. Increasing the radius would decrease the angle of the tangent, thus increasing the efficiency.

Why wouldn't you be firing your thrust along your tangent if the radius is smaller? What matter is the center of mass for the racecar, not the total size. So the radius of the track won't have any effect.

My questions are:

If anyone knows anything about physics please explain to me, why does this not work?

It works just fine, just not too fast due to the limits of the meissner effect.

Would this, if created on a bigger scale that could fit a human, give us a time machine due to time dilation?

Nah, even if you got the machine to work for higher speeds the human would die from the G forces pretty quickly. Say for example that you made a racetrack that encircles the entire earth. You want to be moving at 0.85c so time is about twice as slow for you. That means you'd experience a centripetal force of about 1e9 G's. Humans tend to die at just 13G's, so our poor human will be dead long before you reach relativistic speeds. If you wanted a human to survive this device you'd need a track around the sun at nearly 100 times the distance of Pluto.

[ZetaX]

Well the problem is it is not only levitating, there are times at this experiment where the carriage is also holded by the track when it goes upside down. In both cases a force is holding it in place countering the gravitational pull. And you want to tell me now that there is no energy needed for that and also that this experiment is not violating any rules od nature? *Pahh*

You will need to do better than that if you want to explain it.

Energy and force are very different things. Energy is only involved if something is moved along the direction of a force. But the thing only moves orthogonal to the force holding it. This is the very same way a space station orbits a planet; which, as you probably are aware of, is not needing energy to stay there (atmospheric drag ignored).