Would someone finally consider this as a viable option?

[le3119]

You posted this a while back. It looks great, but how does it fly and how does it generate artificial gravity?

 

[Leovinus]

Show me: I'm from Missouri. Well, actually, I'm from Colorado but it's close. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[aaron38]

To be perfectly honest, that website reads like a video game manual. I get about the same descriptions when deciding which ship to buy when playing Wing Commander. I pay extra for field replaceable power generators. Need to change them out after a tough battle!<br /><br />I'm an electrical engineer and the description of the power generator made absolutely no sense, unfortunately. How exactly do you turn a gaseous atomic resonance into 5000 amps?<br /><br />But if they only need 1.5 Million why don't they apply to the NSF for a grant? The NSF would give 1.5 Million to study the reproductive mating habits of the Lower Amazonian Blue Tailed Flatworm, so I don't see why they wouldn't pony up to change the face of all human technology.<br /><br />All Mr. Rozsnyay has to do is apply to the NSF and pass a peer review right?<br /><br />P.S. Why WOULD the propulsion coil need to be field replaceable on an engineering prototype? Just a thought.

 

[chriscdc]

The physics here are very complicated. There is another name for linking gravity with EM and its called the theory of everything. Once you are capable of proving such a theory as superior to all others (using the scientific method) then the discoverer would be hailed as the next Einstein.<br /><br />I would guess that a bose einstein condensate would be an intersting route to take advantage of any ToE.<br /><br />The essence is not very simple. For example the shape of the nucleus. The shape is a governed by a probabilty field. The standared model says that the probabilty of certain nuclei will allow some to be that shape for an infinitesimal time and so the nucleus would fall apart.<br />A condensate will get all of the nuclei to all exhibit the same probability.<br /><br />The fact that they spent so much time coming up with the model makes me suspisious. What in their calculations saysthat a toroid is the correct shape for the condesate for example?

 

[forspace2005]

How could they apply for an NSF grant? These people are in a foreign country. But what happened to venture capital? I would bet that there are a number of people on this board who could afford to help them. Space.com is the premier website for space related topics and people interested in space exploration. Yet I see no mention of GCT, only when they got turned down from the X Prize.<br /><br />Why is it so bad to cover what they are trying to do? They may fail, and in all likelihood in fact they will, but what if they are right. We can all think up a million excuses as to why they are a scam - like they have a video game manual website. But my question is 'What if they are right?'<br /><br />I've been following their 'work', or lack of same for years now. It just saddens me that in a time when a half dozen billionaires are setting up companies to build rockets no one is interested in something that could revolutionize what we all care about on this board. No one. And all they need is really a louse 1.5 million.<br /><br />

 

[john_316]

If there was interest in this area of technology demostration by certain people or government entities they would have already aproached these men and financed them.<br /><br />They could goto Bill Gates as he gives out money to certain organizations each year. You never know. they could solicit other organizations or groups. <br /><br />What does the Planetary Society say about these kinds of ideas?<br /><br />I still think its science just like coldwater fusion? Its all pie in your eye science. If I am wrong then so be it but I dont see this science going anywhere even with a million or two dollars of support.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[forspace2005]

Why not? Why couldn't this work. I've studied it for a year, searched the internet and read a whole bunch of stuff on the various aspects of what they are proposing. I believe it has more than a decent chance of working. <br /><br />With all the different organizations and rich individuals pursuing rockets, why doesn't somebody have enough guts to purse this? Again my only question is this - What if it works people? Think about it. <br /><br />What if this works?<br /><br />Can we afford to ignore the possibility?<br /><br />That's all I want to know. That is the only reason I opened this topic.<br />

 

[j05h]

>Why not? Why couldn't this work. I've studied it for a year, searched the internet and read a whole bunch of stuff on the various aspects of what they are proposing. I believe it has more than a decent chance of working.<br /><br />It doesn't make sense. GCT shows no evidence, no papers, just pretty eyecandy. Any decent 3D artist and web designer could (did) create that site. If the researcher was on to something, he would have evidence to show: video, a paper, an actual working BEC superconducter. You obviously haven't looked to far into this if you think it works. It's just technobabble, ala Star Trek. You can "believe" whatever you want (many americans believe in angels and ghosts) but if your GCT buddy wants the cash, he needs the evidence. GCT is either trolling or just a cute art-site. Even the people that make Lifters have better evidence, they can make objects that actually lift off the ground, no strings attached. If GCT wants to make some money, he should work on a movie or show using those models.<br /><br />There are rich people that have funded out-there research - Mr. Bigelow funded a UFO research institute for a while. If GCT actually had something that even remotely demonstrated gravity control, they could find funding. They have no evidence, hence no cash. It's not a question of guts, but of physics. <br /><br />Check out Pawlicki's essays "How to build a flying saucer" or his excellent book of same title.<br /><br />josh<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Why are you trying so hard to convince people here?<br /><br />Are you thinking that if someone here does not point out chapter and verse what is wrong with the theory that that is some form of peer review?<br /><br />I would suggest that the energy that went into doing a cool web page would have been better spent in writing a peer reviewed paper. (Yes, there are avenues outside of academia to do such a thing).<br /><br />Instead of doing a song and dance for laymen, work through the system. There are plenty of young, hungry scientists in-field who can be collaborated with to develop analytical and experimental methods of verification and validation, to get a papers reviewed and published, and to get initial funding.<br /><br />Avoiding this process relegates one to the line with thousands of kooks who think they have an insight into the universe, if only the "establishment" wasn't oppressing them.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[forspace2005]

I don't want to convince anyone of anything. I am merely trying to point out that those people have a well rounded theory, at least in my opinion. And in field crowded with billionaires playing around with rocketry it is refreshing to see someone bold enough to say, hey there may be another way.<br /><br />I tried to draw attention the GCT before but always the same answer. Where is proof and show me a flying prototype, than I will believe.<br /><br />At an rate everyone should make up their own minds about GCT.<br />

 

[najab]

><i>I am merely trying to point out that those people have a well rounded theory, at least in my opinion.</i><p>And you are welcome to that opinion. Just don't be upset because others don't share it. With my layman's understanding of advanced physics, I have looked at their website and am not convinced and drwayne, a PhD physiscist has looked at it and doesn't agree.><i>I tried to draw attention the GCT before but always the same answer. Where is proof and show me a flying prototype, than I will believe. </i><p>No, show me a peer-reviewed paper and I'll believe. Give me an accurate description of the physical principles involved and I'll believe. Show me <i>something</i> other than a slick website, and I'll be on the road to belief.</p></p>

 

[nacnud]

The fact that they are asking for belief is suspicions in its self, can't they show?

 

[j05h]

I posted early that you can believe anything you want. For it to be accepted by the world at large, we require proof, replicatable observable proof. The GCT site does not provide a "well rounded theory", they don't even have a stated hypothesis to test! <br /><br />Check out Lifters. Here's a page that shows several. They've even built a Lifter that carried a mouse! This is a technology that might make some kind of flying craft, or space thruster, in the future. Like I said before, whoever does make a working flying saucer is going to be very very rich. <br /><br />http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Ever heard of a lifter lift its power supply, or work without an atmosphere?

 

[drwayne]

Let me give you one last note of perspective. You seem comfortable drawing the conclusion that this as a "well rounded theory", I assume because you have spent some time looking things up on the web, and reading some material. (If you have other qualifications in physics that I am overlooking, please let me know).<br /><br />Now, I spent a number of intensive years in graduate school working in electron spin resonance. Many long hours, and I got quite sharp at it. Then, I left graduate school. I have done nothing in the field in years. <br /><br />If someone approached me to peer review a paper in magnetic resonance today, would I do it? The answer is no. I am circumspect enough to know that I am not as sharp as I need to be to draw technical conclusions on the work. That gives you an idea of how scientists work in peer review. It is a job we take very seriously.<br /><br />(And before you state something like "Then why did you draw a conclusion about this then?", you will note that all I talked about was the process, not the truth or falsity of the idea) <br /><br />There are many people out there that can tell a tight, self consistent story. So a good story does not interest me at all. Show me someone who has the passion *and* the principle to work through the process, to expose his/her work to their peers for insight, validation or corrections, and you start to get my interest.<br /><br /><br />Wayne<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[rozsnyay]

Morning Everyone.<br /><br />It has been brought to my attention that a new discussion thread is started with regard to GCT. I am the founder of the company. I would rather not have any misinformation out so I would be glad to answer or clarify any issues that exist about our perusal for those of you who are interested.<br />

 

[tap_sa]

How does BEC superconductor loop defeat gravity?

 

[rozsnyay]

First, if you allow me, now that I read all the posts here.<br /><br />I am not looking for money. GCT was started out as a for profit company. We are not a University or research body. Therefore we do not publish research results and do not go through peer review. If an when the technology can be shown to work we will file for patents. Now this has been the case up to now. Since I am attempting to self finance GCT this may change and we may become a foundation and forget profits. If this happens we will publish research data when it becomes available.<br /><br />Now for your question. Please keep in mind that I am the first one to admit that our thinking may in fact be flawed and what we perceived to be a solution may in fact turn out to be a dead end street.<br /><br />We are interested in BECs because of the energy density achievable with them. Many atoms, bosons, or in our case Cooper paired electrons (which we also consider to be in a bosonic state) all occupying the same quantum state. One of the basis of our work is Sakharov's theory of gravity. Atomic and subatomic particles interacting with the so called Zero Point Field. This interaction creates some type of friction, or possible a frequency. The more matter you have in one place the larger the effects - the gravitational field. What we hope to do with the BECs is to create controlled interaction between the condensate and the ZPF. We hope that this interaction will result in a gravitational field we can use for flight. The larger the BEC energy density the larger the field.<br /><br />Does that answer your question and/or make any sense?<br />

 

[chriscdc]

Some maths to support the claim would be nice.<br />What i think makes people here skeptical is the effort spent on the website and the aim to make a working craft etc. What we would all like to see, is a small scale experiment to support this claim. Or some experimental evidence that shows electromagnetism causing a gravitational field.<br />How does the electric field interact with the ZP field?<br />How do you intend to use the 1.5million? What equipment will you use and what experiments will you perform?<br /><br />This would be revolutionary, far beyond control of the strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces that give us nukes.

 

[rozsnyay]

The website took a few weeks of late night programming. I did it as a way to relax. The images illustrating our proposed craft were created by an extremely talented and supportive English artist. He helped out because he would like GCT to succeed.<br /><br />Thus far no resources have been spent to produce a working craft. We have conducted chemistry work and some experimental physics work. This was undertaken to find some proof as to the validity of the theoretical framework. None required the development of a mathematical framework. If you would like to see math detailing the interaction of atoms with the ZPF, and the possible origination of gravitation and inertia from the ZPF I would suggest you study the website of the California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics. Bernie Haisch has a number of peer reviewed publications there detailing this interaction.<br /><br />Http://www.calphysics.org.<br /><br />We did carry out one weight reduction experiment about 5 years ago. A mercury plasma powered, self contained prototype demonstrated a maximum of 15 grams of weight reduction. The unit weighed about 15 kilograms. The mercury responsible for the effect was approximately 70 grams.<br /><br />We are not looking to prove that electromagnetism causes gravitational fields. We are seeking to determine whether we can create controlled interaction between Bosonic materials and the ZPF - the assumption being that gravitation is the result of atomic and subatomic particles interacting with the ZPF and that interaction creates some type of friction, or frequency, which we perceive to be gravity. The fact that our Bosonic material is also a superconductor is just a side effect. We are interested in the 'same quantum state' aspect of these materials.<br /><br />Based on my own estimation (I draw up a budget) I believe it will take about $1.5M to finish research. Money will be used to build a much larger, custom designed mercury b

 

[j05h]

nac- no I haven't - they are probably ion-wind craft, not a true "grav" craft. I understand (casually) the issues they have, but at least they can make a limited craft lift off the ground. It's cute. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"We did carry out one weight reduction experiment about 5 years ago. A mercury plasma powered, self contained prototype demonstrated a maximum of 15 grams of weight reduction. The unit weighed about 15 kilograms."</font><br /><br />Did you publish these results for peer review?

 

[aaron38]

Mr. Rozsnyay, <br />Here is what I would like to have explained. How do you interact with the zero point energy field to extract energy and do useful work?<br /><br />Let me create an analogy. Here I am on the flat Illinois landscape. Now I am hundreds of feet above sea level and thousands of miles above the Earth's core. I am sitting in a gravity well, in a sea of potential energy. But to extract work from the gravity field I need to drop material below the surface of the ground. Effectively I would need a bottomless hole in the ground.<br /><br />The ZPF is like flat ground, full of potential energy. But if it is truly the lowest energy state, how can you extract energy? You would be pulling energy UP, to a higher state, a clear violation of the laws of thermodynamics.<br /><br />Thank you.

 

[rozsnyay]

Tap_sa: Like I stated before GCT has thus far been a for profit enterprise. By definition, a for profit company does not publish for peer review. When they do publish it is only after appropriate intellectual protection rights have been undertaken.<br /><br />If I am successful in self financing GCT and we can make it a none profit company we will publish. But this will only happen after follow up experiments can be completed and we have results we are absolutely sure of.<br />

 

[tap_sa]

Well have you applied for a patent? A machine that reliably reduces it's weight by 0,1% should be eligible for one. Far more useless things have been patented.