Jump to content

Home

Scientists discover way to levitate tiny objects


Yar-El

Recommended Posts

Article - Scientists discover way to levitate tiny objects

Force of repulsion could create friction-free parts for nanomachines

 

U.S. scientists have found a way to levitate the very smallest objects using the strange forces of quantum mechanics, and said on Wednesday they might use it to help make tiny nanotechnology machines.

 

They said they had detected and measured a force that comes into play at the molecular level using certain combinations of molecules that repel one another.

 

The repulsion can be used to hold molecules aloft, in essence levitating them, creating virtually friction-free parts for tiny devices, the researchers said.

Levitate objects? Sweet! :D Soon I will have my flying car. I hope this leads to some space exploration vehicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look forward to seeing what comes out of this. If they can make small objects levitate, I am sure that eventually scientists will find a way to levitate larger objects.

 

I can't wait to see what technology there will be in 20 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember the Tesla experiment? We now have lasers on jeeps. Who knows where this levitation experiment could lead? Rev7, you are right. 20 years from now we may have a very different approach to old transportation methods. I hope this works. Goodbye oil? Maybe. Sky is the limit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW!

 

I've heard of all kinds of strange stuff throughout the years.

 

Magnetics. Which have turned into levitating disco ball, picture cubes, etc. I even did a science project in 6th grade on the effects of magnetic attraction/repulsion and its potential effects and benefits.

 

I've seen the whole fan blast or water blast repulsion. xp

 

Lately I've seen history and discovery channel talking about sonics, infra and ultra. Some kind of research. I wan't paying all that much attention. It had some strange results and caused objects to move. Something about resonance.

Not unlike Tesla experiments. However it was rather sloppy in its control over the objects.

 

The force indeed is our ally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with levitation is that if you take something as complicated as the Human body, it has so many molecules and cells that the technology to levitate something like that is lightyears ahead of what we have. So naturally people are going to want to levitate something very complicated that they don't want to lift themselves

 

True levitating small objects is nice. But if we want to think of it on as grade a scope as space travel or flying cars it is still science fiction. But who knows in the 1940s space exploration was science fiction as well.

 

But you also have to look at this from an ethical point of view. Nobel created Dynamite but by doing so he created a new way to engineer weapons. Who is to say people wont try to create weapons or generally dangerous inventions from what we have created?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you also have to look at this from an ethical point of view. Nobel created Dynamite but by doing so he created a new way to engineer weapons. Who is to say people wont try to create weapons or generally dangerous inventions from what we have created?

 

True, true, not only will it increase on the peaceful side of the world, but others may wish to use this to their own destructive uses. It would propel us into a much higher class of weaponology, could be good, but most of the time, it's pretty bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't read the article but I remember reading Kurzweil's wikipedia entry a while ago. Do you think his predictions have merit?
It's difficult to say. His record is good but some of his predictions strikes me as hard to swallow (especially with regards to consciousness).

 

I don't think that has any bearing on his work with relation to the law of accelerating returns though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's all that great. It had been confirmed long ago that you can levitate anything (or really attract) if you have a strong enough magnetic field. Maglev trains use magnetic fields to eliminate all friction that slows down a standard train except for wind resistance. Because it never comes in contact with the tracks, this form of transportation is THE most cost effective. The most significant limitation in economics is the enormous capital costs.

 

Any advanced-era use of technology such as this will often have an enormous price tag that people wouldn't want to pay, even if it doesn't cost anything to operate. When you start seeing the US use maglev trains, then you could look to the next futuristic form of transportation. Until then...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's all that great. It had been confirmed long ago that you can levitate anything (or really attract) if you have a strong enough magnetic field. Maglev trains use magnetic fields to eliminate all friction that slows down a standard train except for wind resistance. Because it never comes in contact with the tracks, this form of transportation is THE most cost effective. The most significant limitation in economics is the enormous capital costs.

 

I think I heard of something on this or saw a program on it. The euro "silver bullet" train. Boasting its "frictionless" riding. Would you pull up an article. Pretty please? I'd love to see it if you wouldn't mind.

 

 

Any advanced-era use of technology such as this will often have an enormous price tag that people wouldn't want to pay, even if it doesn't cost anything to operate. When you start seeing the US use maglev trains, then you could look to the next futuristic form of transportation. Until then...
We're basically stuck with what we have. For now I can just hoof it. :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's one...

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2115114/

 

I don't know where my best source of info came from, but if you google "Maglev train" and "operating costs, capital costs" you could find many sources... few though go into great detail.

 

I've seen an economic journal article that compared and contrasted highway, highspeed rail, and maglev operating costs and maglev achieves about 70-90% energy efficiency; making it the cheapest means of transportation. The biggest drawbacks of this transportation is a huge capital investment, limited ability to expand, (due to the track acting as the engine) the track is extremely expensive, and few are willing to implement so much on this kind of long-term investment.

 

The maglev functions almost like a motor that is stretched all along the track. (standard motors are magnets wrapped around a spindle) The cars are held inches above the track by magnetism and this magnetic force also is what drives the train forward.

 

Despite being cheap to operate, high capital costs demand high interest payments, which is why they would cost so much to ride. The Chinese Maglev is not expected to get much more than breaking even on their investment. Breeder nuclear reactors are able to produce dozens of times more power from a unit of Uranium compared to conventional nuclear reactors, but because they are twice as expensive, the plant is actually less economic compared to the standard reactor design. This is due to enormous capital investment demanding enormous interest payments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, Thanx.;) One giant electromagnet of a rail...Yeah, that's what I imagined in 6th grade...or pretty close to it. And not surprisingly, the refutative arguments were something similar to the drawbacks we see now that it has been implemented. Though I am rather glad to see it is so energy efficient which I hadn't anticipated. With nill on the mechanical wear it would seem an ideal solution. Still, I know what you mean about not everyone interested in chipping in--my own family balked at the initiatives last NOV to put more train railing down in our state because we live so far removed from any potential developments, that we would not benefit for any tax $$$ we paid out. So I can especially understand that problem on a larger scale. With less expandability that makes it even more troubling.

 

I suppose it all depends what we're using applied EM/RF excitation for in order for it to be efficient. If powering it meant sucking the economic life out of you...well, that really sucks. (no pun)

I.E. CO2 lasers with an RF power supply not having as good of electrical input to optical output efficiency as their direct contact excitation counterparts with electrodes.

 

In short, I'm glad it's a more efficient method for mass transit than other methods.

 

@thread: So far as levitations I guess electromagnetic and sonic make the list of those that apply. But lasers??? How so with lasers???

Remember the Tesla experiment? We now have lasers on jeeps. Who knows where this levitation experiment could lead? Rev7, you are right. 20 years from now we may have a very different approach to old transportation methods. I hope this works. Goodbye oil? Maybe. Sky is the limit.
Unfortunately, so's our wallet book.

 

While I agree W.R.T. progressions for technology and science over time-and it only gets faster...I see one of two meltdowns occurring if we don't slow down. Economically or Self-Destruction on large scale.

 

Still hopeful, I'm glad to see we have made such headway in such a short historical period of time nonetheless. Problems are inevitable along the way. Mind you I love lasers and I admire Tesla greatly. HOWEVER for Nikola Tesla's wireless experiment to evolve there are a few things I'd want clarified first:

1) If em radiation is/can be harmful as things are currently, what would make having such radiant energy present on a much larger scale (much larger being several orders of magnitude) ANY safer?

2) Given his obsessive and immense genius I have little doubt Nikola truly achieved what the many accounts claim; thus the experiment of Wardenclyffe scares me to death that such a thing might cause the ionosphere and atmosphere to energetically become one at the blink of an eye (translation: earth's surface on up would be ignited like the sun).

 

I want to see levitation on a practical scale in our everyday lives as much as any of you. I really do--because that would be *badass*. I'm just not sure how we'll make it there around all the problems in the way.

 

I believe innovations that may come of all this would be:

A) Safety buffering technology to lessen the severity of automobile impacts if not prevent some of them outright.

B) Retention moorings which provide a pulling tether effect; may be useful for, say, workers on scaffolding or preventing vehicular theft.

C) Maybe suppression fields like in the Taris dueling arena?

 

Can't really say I see anything like a back to the future hoverboard--at least not quite exactly as portrayed. I'm not all that well recited to the laws of physics, but I scratch my head at anyone who claims to have pulled it off.

 

I'm curious, how much does anyone know about Zero-Point? I don't know much and would love to hear about it. Also slightly off topic but related: I am interested, though, in Tesla's development of inductive technologies on small scale which have been very much put on the back shelf for damn near a century. Searches of interest are...

Inductive charging

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=inductive+charging&btnG=Search

Inductive proximity charging

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=inductive+proximity+charging&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

Non-contact charging

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=non-contact+charging&btnG=Search

Drop that in your energy drink and chug it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...