Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hpfcso!hpfcdj!myers
From: myers@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Bob Myers)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Anti-Gravity Devices
Message-ID: <17660083@hpfcdj.HP.COM>
Date: 27 Jul 90 17:53:12 GMT
References: <1990Jul7.094106.1004@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
Organization: Hewlett Packard -- Fort Collins, CO
Lines: 25

>  The second item was a great deal more interesting, but completely
>theoretical (and likely impossible).  It was based on centrifugal force
>and required that the spinning object by harnessed when it spun AWAY from 
>the pull of gravity.  I think they tried to base it on the gyroscope
>principle.  Anyway, by harnessing the force of the object when it opposed 
>gravity, you were able to generate "anti-gravity".  It was a while ago,
>so I don't remember if they explained how to do this (you mech techs
>know that it don't work :) but they continued and theorized that if
>electrons could be harnessed in this way, you'd have a perfect anti-gravity 
>generator.  (You would...except that you can't harness the centrifugal 
>force of something spinning at the speed of light :)

Wouldn't make any difference, because the entire concept is flawed in the
first place.  There's no such thing as "centrifugal force"; what normally
goes by that name is really just inertia.  You feel "centrifugal force"
when whirling a mass on a line around simply because you have to accelerate
the mass *inward* to get it to follow a circular course - by itself, the
mass at all times "wants" to keep moving in a direction tangential to the
circle.  The distinction is usually only for the pedantic, until we start
talking about such things as "harnessing the centrifugal force."


Bob Myers  KC0EW   HP Graphics Tech. Div.|  Opinions expressed here are not
                   Ft. Collins, Colorado |  those of my employer or any other
myers%hpfcla@hplabs.hp.com               |  sentient life-form on this planet.