Artificial gravity through air flow

[torainfor]

Oh, yeah, absolutely. Or else you'd just be pressurizing the compartment. We'd still feel a force, but it would be all over instead of straight down.

Here's another thought: have you ever carried an eleven-foot surfboard down a beach on a windy day? As long as you keep the board aligned with the direction of the wind, you're OK. As soon as the wind catches a side, though, you're toast. I can see the same happening here. If the air pressure is great enough to keep someone standing straight up planted on the floor, as soon as they bend over to tie their shoes or pick something up, they're going to be flat on their faces.

Say the measurement around your hips (which is the greatest cross section for most women) is forty. Simplifying it (greatly), the area would be pi*r2 or 127 in2. Say they lean over and their entire back is exposed to that airflow. The diameter of their hips (if they looked like a roll of paper towels) would be 12.7". Say from their seat to the middle of their head is 2.5 feet. That's 382 in2--three times the pull of "gravity".

Why are you people making me do math? I thought I was done with all that!

[lexkx]

Forgive me, because there is undoubtedly something important I'm overlooking, but is there a reason that the concept of magnetized lines in the floor cannot be used? The airflow idea is fun and - as a couple people have pointed out - easily overblown, and I agree that artificial gravity does wear thin, but what if the magnets were in the floor instead of the boots? Say, one or two lines in each hallway, depending on the width, about 0.5m from the wall, with handrails for balance, "indoor" space shoes with metal or magnets in the soles? Not as cool as Star Trek technology, and certainly not as easy for Hollywood to film <g>, but it would get the job done. Maybe?

[Vaporwolf]

Along those lines, if one is worries about muscle atrophy, it would seem to be easy enough to construct a suit that would apply varying ammounts of resistance that the space-farers could wear.

[torainfor]

I know that magnetism affects some aircraft navigation equipment (we couldn't but anything but titanium screws in the wingtips for fear of messing up the gyros, I think), but I don't know what kind of navigation equipment a space ship would use. I wonder what other kind of things it would attract--some kind of solar radiation? Paperclips?

If you're developing artificial gravity for the primary purpose of preventing atrophy, I think the suit idea is outstanding. Kind of like a reverse servo-powered combat suit, yeah? It wouldn't even have to be mechanical, just made of a stiff material. Of course, people would get lazy and learn to move as little as possible.

[scintor]

lexkx
I agree that this discussion could very easily get overblown.

The problem with magnets alone is that it only solves orientation of the individual and stops working completely as soon as you lose contact with the floor. It also is usless for keeping you on your chair, your paper on the desk or your food on the table.

vaporwolf
Muscle atrophy is only a problem if you spend weeks on zero-g. They have shown that you can keep it from happening if you exercize every day in a gravity like environment. A resistance suit like you describe would work well for muscle atrophy, but it wouldn't do much for bone loss.

torainfor
The cross section problem is a real drawback to this idea. It's the main reason that I never suggested using the level of wind that would produce a full-g effect (that and the noise.)

A new idea I had was to use automatically controlled jet nozels along with sensors in the people's suits to make the g-effects better. Maybe a backpack that is always targeted and inflates to push you down wouldn't look too silly.

Scincerely,

[e-mail]

[myrthman]

Scintor,

Have you read Oxygen and/or The Fifth Man (I can't remember the authors at the moment but they're on the WTME booklist.)? Granted, the ship they're in doesn't go into battle but you might be able to glean some realistic ideas.

Question: would things be different in a battle scenario? "Red Alert! Battle stations! Ten seconds to GraviSuc shut-down. Strap in people! This isn't a drill!" Captain Bigwig grabbed his seat belt and anchored himself to his command couch, bracing for zero-g.

[scintor]

Myrthman

I haven'tread either of those, but I'll try to look into them.

You wouldn't have to brace for zero-g, but you would need to secure all lose items and strap yourself down. A pen that had been sitting by your keyboard could easily become a deadly missile in a combat situation.

Scincerely,

[e-mail]

PS how is the little myrthling doing?

[myrthman]

Numero Uno is 18 months old today and he's an amazing explorer (sometimes to his mother's and my grief). Number Two is growing. Mama is still dealing with First-Trimester Blues but everything should be fine. We haven't seen a doctor yet because of insurance difficulties but nothing to be concerned with at this time. Thanks for asking!

A pen := deadly missile--hmm. Wonder if enemies could use it to their advantage? Bribe a saboteur to leave several pens unsecured?

[Divides the Waters]

Scintor, I would highly recommend those books. I think you would find them interesting, as (I believe) Ingermanson is a physicist. (And a Christian! Heavens! Don't let the word out; scientists can be Christians too!)

[mongoose]

Ah, yes, But can Christians be scientists too, in the sense that they support and contribute to and are accepted by the largely secular scientific community? (I would hope so.) That is the question.

But more relevantly to this forum, do the authors in question, being physicists first and writers second, produce good stories? Let's take an example from a genera I'm more familiar with, military fiction dealing with special operations. Often, those who are soldiers first and writers later in life and secondarily, produce really poor stories. They are war stories, and so can be fun to read, but their quality just isn't there. A few who were soldiers first also have what it takes to be good writers, however. What about these physicists? Do they also make good science fiction authors? If so, what are the strengths in their books?

[Vaporwolf]

The authors are Randy Ingermanson and John Olsen.

Oxygen won a Christie award (premier award in the CBA market), The Fifth Man was nominated. though I haven't read them

I did just finish reading Fossil Hunter by John Olsen and it was a great read.

What I've read of Ingermanson's Double Vision was also well written and enjoyable.

[Divides the Waters]

Oct 26, 2008 20:00:21 GMT -5 mongoose said:

Ah, yes, But can Christians be scientists too, in the sense that they support and contribute to and are accepted by the largely secular scientific community? (I would hope so.) That is the question.

*Sigh* Mongoose, you REALLY don't want to get me started about the censorship in the "largely secular scientific community." I edit and proofread peer-reviewed articles from scientists all the time whose work is simply not considered valid because they don't accept an evolutionary worldview. I'm sick to death of the notion that because Christians (specifically creationists) are frequently not published in secular journals, their science is invalid. It's a flawed argument. It's like saying because Ann Coulter isn't on the staff of the New York Times, she has no legitimacy as a news commentator.

[dizzyjam]

Divides,

I understand the evolutionary/creationary argument you are putting forth, but bring up Ann Coulter and I've got to say something. I'm all for Christians being in the media but there is something seriously wrong with that lady. She's bitter, vindictive and quite frankly rude. It's not that she even tries to be otherwise. It's not that she's wrong with what she says, but the way she says it is not indicative of how we should be as believers. Hannity says it nicer than she does. Heck O'Reilly says it nicer than she does. If she's a believer then she needs to spend like a month not doing anything media related and seeking the heart of God. I will never like Ann Coulter as long as she keeps coming across the way she does. Legitimate or not.

She's the type of person that gives us a bad name out there as Christians in the media. She's the type of person that makes you feel that if she could go back in time to get footage of the crucifixion she would do that just to air it and "prove it" constantly to the point where even Billy Graham would have to tell her to shut it. This may be a strong reaction, but this reaction is indicative of how she comes across on TV and in print. I totally disagree with Al Franken on the issues, but he has a much better personality than Ann Coulter. She could learn something from him on that if she actually tried.

Again, I agree with you on evolution vs. creation.

Dizzyjam

[Divides the Waters]

My point was not who was "nice" and who wasn't, but simply to say that she would not be welcome in a liberal establishment. Pick your analogy; she was just the first person to come to mind.

[dizzyjam]

I understand if she was the first person to come to mind. I just thought that you could have picked someone else that isn't so confrontational as an example. If by some strange notion she would have come to my mind first, I would have decided to see what the second thing would be. Also, I have very strong feelings on the matter because when I first saw her I liked her because of what she had to say, but over time the way she said it and the attitude she uses just got to me and really didn't seem to express my faith. It's gotten to the point where if the remote is in my hands and her face shows up, even in the previews, I flip the channel. Can't stand her.

I wasn't meaning your point was about niceness, it's just that you were arguing evolution versus creation (an already highly debatable topic that some on here have opposing sides to) and threw her into the statement. I suppose a better analogy could have been made with a different person, but she's such an extremist that it just didn't seem like the right choice to use. I would have said something like "It's like saying that because Donald Trump doesn't work for Ted Turner, he has no legitimacy as a media magnate." Although both Trump and Turner are controversial in their own right, they don't have that extremism that would bring about a reaction from someone (like me in this case) when you're already talking about a volatile issue such as evolution/creation. That was the point I was making about your point.

Not only are you right that she wouldn't be welcome in a liberal establishment, but according to her own words I doubt she'd try to work in one.

And again I agree with you on creation.