It is probably best restated that when I use the name anti-gravity I actually mean NULL gravity which in generally accepted science fiction concept is very much different. Since there is no device which exists in culture the concept and name association can be used in many ways. To clarify it is a method to establish null or non-existent gravitational acceleration in a channel between two masses that are related to each other or a third object. That is the situation where planets or masses exist in orbital configuration.
It is very stable when applied in empty space, but when applied near an atmosphere it cannot be stable. The reason is that the mass or individual masses of the atmosphere move along the null gravitational potential due to their random kinetic energy and the effect is to strip the atmosphere and destabilize the channel between the two end points. I suppose that if you wanted to move the atmosphere of Earth to Mars it might be a thing that would not be a side effect, but the desired effect. Not a thing that would be very useful in practice as Mars would not hold the atmosphere and the net result would be damage to both origin and destination.
Though a channel could extend into the atmosphere, it would not be advisable to use it in this way, any more than I would create a freeway off ramp through my kitchen. There is no free lunch in the universe and the work function of gravity is no exception. The final energy of the system as measured by the difference in gravitational potential of the parts must be supplied to move an object between two points. If that movement is energy neutral, it proceeds without applied energy.
Though it requires energy to move to different levels in the gravitational field, the advantage is that once an object is within the channel it is stable at any potential and does not accelerate in any direction. It could be considered as an orbit position without relative motion.
The transfer of matter to some point outside the atmosphere is the messy part and though there exist impulse momentum based orbital insertion methods, I feel these are not reasonable as they use more energy to move across a small relative distance than would be consumed in transit to a distant planet. Re-entry into an atmosphere is quite a different issue and this is energy neutral and easily achieved. That case is just the disposal of excess energy and it is very easy to create processes that leak energy. The final velocity and any intermediate velocity can easily be achieved with gravity technology. Atmospheric extraction continues to be a problem to resolve for a complete system of travel.
Without this final piece of technology, the useful application is stalled. I had assumed that some way would come to me while solving the larger issues, but it remains as a sticking point in having a complete and efficient system of travel. There are many ways for it to be done with momentum systems and initial velocity systems, but they all suffer from massive energy loss in motion and in dealing with the differential acceleration losses. There are more efficient ways to do what is presently done, but no solution that is any where near as efficient as the travel through free space with null gravity. I suppose that it might be possible to have a temporary window that leaked some atmosphere during the process, but restored it at the end of extraction. It seems that this would lead to molecular contamination between the end points, but perhaps it could be avoided. It seems it would also create an atmospheric disturbance that might be far worse than a sonic boom. It would however be energy neutral. It seems that any design has trade offs and it depends on how much a person is willing to accept in the final product.
I can guess at what the atmospheric extraction would look like. An area of abot 10 square miles would have a massive pressure drop and every window would be shattered also with some structural damage to houses, a massive sonic boom that would be heard for 100's of miles and likely the death of every flying creature in the direct path as well as everything on the ground. If it were done from an object in the upper atmosphere it would be far less disruptive. I would guess that extraction from a balloon floating in the upper atmosphere might be acceptable in side effects. If it were above the flight path of planes and birds as near as possible to the atmospheric boundary, it might create very little disruption except that it would likely make a temporary "chemical hole" in the upper atmosphere that caused short term increase in ultraviolet. It seems that it could be done if the side effects were considered acceptable for the benefit. My guess based on the past is that even if people do find the rattle of trains passing through town annoying while they are trying to sleep, it is done anyway.
So this may be the temporary solution, even though it is somewhat convolved in practice and subject to interference and coordination. It seems that it would be workable , cost effective and safe to apply in practice. It is at least as safe as balloon travel, which can also have some risks. It would also be weather dependent, but the alternative of extracting from the surface is much simpler, but leaves a mess in its wake.
0 comments:
Post a Comment