Patent issued for anti-gravity device

Science Daily.com ^ | November 9, 2005 | UPI

[aculeus]

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 (UPI) -- The U.S. patent office has reportedly granted a patent for an anti-gravity device -- breaking its rule to reject inventions that defy the laws of physics.

The journal Nature said patent 6,960,975 was granted Nov. 1 to Boris Volfson of Huntington, Ind., for a space vehicle propelled by a superconducting shield that alters the curvature of space-time outside the craft in a way that counteracts gravity.

One of the main theoretical arguments against anti-gravity is that it implies the availability of unlimited energy.

"If you design an anti-gravity machine, you've got a perpetual-motion machine," Robert Park of the American Physical Society told Nature.

Park said the action shows patent examiners are being duped by false science.

Copyright 2005 by United Press International. All Rights Reserved.

[Junior]

To negate gravity you have to be able to accelerate the mass at 9.8 m/s². A Newton is the energy required to accelerate one kilogram at one meter/s² so it would take ~10 Newtons to negate the effects of gravity on a kilogram of mass.

[calex59]

Actuall, if you use a large enough electro magnet, and new materials make this possible, and focus in onto a non-magnetic subject you can suspend said subject between the earth and the electromagnet. I would believe this is a form of anti-gravity.

[GraniteStateConservative]

My dog will believe any crazy idea, but he thinks this is just too crazy.

[calex59]

If you could block the effect of gravity, you could use it to lift a large weight with a small amount of energy, after which you could turn off the device, and capture the energy as the weight fell back down. This cycle could be repeated indefinitely, yielding inexhaustible free energy. That energy could in principle be used to power the device, hence perpetual motion.

The problem with this reasoning is this: The amount of energy required to produce the anti-gravity. The power to lift the object is irrelevant, the power to produce the anti-gravity would have to be less than the power produced by the energy of the falling object. Example denied!:)

[BureaucratusMaximus]

It's not just Earth. Everything that has mass sucks.

But everything that has mass doesn't necessarily have the ability to suck.

[expat_panama]

Sounds like a warp drive....

I say it's time to connect the dots:

United States Patent:  6,375,990 Lithium crystal delivery system.  Inventors:  Nemeroff; Charles B. (Atlanta, GA); Kilts; Clinton D. (Atlanta, GA)  Assignee:  Emory University (Atlanta, GA)  . 

Lithium is presently being recovered from brines of Searles Lake, in California, and from those in Nevada. Large deposits of quadramene are found in North Carolina.

Price of Lithium soars to all time high.

Chinese Trade Representatives Purchase Mining Operations in California and Nevada.

[expat_panama]

re my post #106 -- this is obviously a plot by Hillary to sell out to the Chicoms.

[freedomcrusader]

But only if "blocking gravity" doesn't require more energy than you get back, right? Or am I missing something?

[1FreeAmerican]

And don't forget carbonobendium.

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, patent #6,960,975 was granted to Boris Volfson of Huntington, Ind.

It's Paul Craig Roberts' invention. The neo-cons stole it from him. That's why he's been so cranky.

[Rocky]

I didn't think that you could patent a device unless you had a working model of one.

[PatrickHenry]

Anti-Gravity Device, Invest Now, Ping List

[R. Scott]

My personal opinion:

[MeanWestTexan]

No, a ladder merely taunts gravity; it is not actually opposed.

[R. Scott]

It's doing it tonight.

[R. Scott]

Wouldn’t that be closer to a time machine?

[Las Vegas Dave]

*OPI pings.

*=Of Possible Interest

[Sam Cree]

Thanks!

[Busywhiskers]

Isn't an airplane an anti-gravity device.