It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

latest Hoverboard Attempt: The Arca Board

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: MystikMushroom

That's just magnet under concrete.

and this?




posted on Dec, 24 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

I remember reading an article many many years ago about working hoverboards becoming a reality. Universal, or whoever had the rights back then, were planning to build a Back to the Future themed attraction where you could actually use hoverboards. It was going to be like a roller skating rink, but with hoverboards.

Apparently, they had a way to make it work, but they cancelled the project because it was too dangerous. They could make the boards hover and even support weight, but there was no practical way to stop the forward motion. There were also many other problems that made the idea unrealistic. Like keeping metal objects out of the area and of course, unavoidable liabilities like people falling. I'm sure the list was very long and the project was probably more like something they were testing, rather than something they were planning.

It would've been great to see them succeed, but sadly I think hoverboards will always be unrealistic.



posted on Dec, 24 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Powerful magnets and a superconductor.

I don't get your point as DeafAlien is correct...


edit on 24/12/15 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

Yea I know, but the fun is in the science. Earth can serve as the purpose of the magnet under proper conditions. That's just the effect of taking away the energy from something, imagine when we can produce sustained fusion energy and CREATE limitless power.



posted on Dec, 24 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

I think finding a room temperature superconductor is much more exciting, and more realistic for the near future myself..



posted on Dec, 24 2015 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

Physics won't allow that. Since absolute-zero requires more energy to achieve than we can produce, super-cooling as a method of earthly levitation is outta the question. Instead we need to create a super-hot device that doesn't go completely thermonuclear on the entire planet instantly, but also doesn't need outside energy to function.

That's where it gets, um tricky.



posted on Dec, 24 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

It's already happened..

www.sciencealert.com...

Even if it was for a few millionths of a millisecond...




edit on 24/12/15 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Deaf Alien

The ones from back to the future are actually the realistic way a hoverboard will come around. Unfortunately we haven't figured out how exactly to polarize magnetic material to react to Earth's natural gravity in a uniform, reactive manner....publicly

The Earth's magnetic field is not strong enough to support much of anything.

What do you mean by "polarize?"

What do you mean by magnetism reacting to gravity?
edit on 12/24/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2015 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




The Earth's magnetic field is not strong enough to support much of anything.

At absolute zero it is.



What do you mean by "polarize?"

Polar opposites?




What do you mean by magnetism reacting to gravity?

I would like to know that myself. The 2 are intertwined, no I don't believe in the electric universe theory, but to say gravity and magnetism aren't directly related, well can you show me otherwise?



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

At absolute zero it is.
Why do you say that? Do you think that low temperatures increase magnetic strength? That is not the way magnetic (or "quantum") levitation works.


Polar opposites?
Huh?


but to say gravity and magnetism aren't directly related, well can you show me otherwise?
Can you show me that unicorns aren't real?



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Vector99

It's already happened..

www.sciencealert.com...

Even if it was for a few millionths of a millisecond...




if it didn't keep going it's not really sustained fusion now is it?



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99



if it didn't keep going it's not really sustained fusion now is it?

It wasn't fusion at all.
It was superconductivity.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage




Why do you say that? Do you think that low temperatures increase magnetic strength? That is not the way magnetic (or "quantum") levitation works.

No, it's the opposite, it reduces the energy the mass contains. Absolute zero in theory equals zero mass, only a slight bit of energy. And that is the theoretical absolute zero. We don't know what true absolute zero would do, it doesn't exist.



Can you show me that unicorns aren't real?


UN-fortunately I can't



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99



if it didn't keep going it's not really sustained fusion now is it?

It wasn't fusion at all.
It was superconductivity.

Whoops, me not reading.

Where did this energy transpire? If something at room-temperature super-conducted, per the law of physics it would shoot off energy of some sort. Why isn't this mentioned?



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99




Absolute zero in theory equals zero mass,

In which theory would that be?


And that is the theoretical absolute zero.
No. "Theoretical" absolute zero is the temperature at atoms will not emit energy. That does not mean that they lose their mass. Their mass/energy is simply at its lowest state.
edit on 12/25/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99



If something at room-temperature super-conducted, per the law of physics it would shoot off energy of some sort.

Why?



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I dunno, the law of conservation?



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Conservation of energy? Why would that indicate that a superconducting material would emit energy?


edit on 12/25/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

where did the energy go?

For a "pico-second" the thing super-conducted. What was the temp of this object at that pico-second? What was the state of it? Did it levitate by just jumping up? Did it be set and levitate for a made-up amount of time because it is ceramic?

Details friend, details.

And just for clarification, the law of conservation doesn't mean conservation of energy, you know that, It means energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So again, where is the energy in this thing?
edit on 25-12-2015 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

where did the energy go?
What energy? What do you think the term superconductive means?


What was the temp of this object at that pico-second?
Room temperature, apparently.


Did it levitate by just jumping up?
What makes you think it levitated?



So again, where is the energy in this thing?
Where is the energy in that pencil on my desk?

edit on 12/25/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join