Superconductivity overcomes Inertia?

Wow, I just had the weirdest thought in my head. And I know there are folks here that will understand it.

So I've been watching videos about superconductors. Pretty neat stuff, if you like that. So the one guy set up a mobius strip track with magnets on one side and a superconductor on the other (floating in the air). It hovers about a half inch away from the track, no matter if it's even upside down.

It shouldn't.

Not only is it counteracting Gravity, it's counteracting Inertia.

Even if it's hovering, it should still go straight from a straightaway. Its forward momentum, or Inertia, is counteracted with every curve. It's not just counteracting Gravity.

Are we really looking at Anti-Gravity in this video?

„What is magnetism?“

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
„What is magnetism?“

This should explain the Basics.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: CryHavoc

Are we really looking at Anti-Gravity in this video?

No. We are looking at a very low coefficient of friction combined with diamagnetism.

Not antigravity. Gravity is.

It should still go flying off of that track, especially if it's a repellant force.

a reply to: CryHavoc

especially if it's a repellant force

It isn't.
It depends on the circumstances.

originally posted by: Phage
It isn't.
It depends on the circumstances.

Except it says exactly that in the first line of the link you posted.

Diamagnetic materials are repelled by a magnetic field

a reply to: CryHavoc
The superconductor is in motion. Because it is moving within a magnetic field it produces its own field which the magnet does act upon. Gravity makes it work. It wouldn't work in freefall.

originally posted by: CryHavoc
Not only is it counteracting Gravity, it's counteracting Inertia

Electromagnetic forces are strong. A tiny refrigerator magnet has the entire mass of the entire earth pulling on it, but the tiny magnetic force coming from the magnet is stronger, according to one estimate, electromagnetism is about a trillion, trillion, trillion times stringer than gravity. So it sticks to the refrigerator instead of falling. Gravity is still there, the magnetic force is just stronger, same in your video.

A train has inertia too, and will have a tendency to go in a straight line, unless the track curves which causes the train to follow the track around the curve. The video isn't that much different in because the object is following a track just like a train does, the main difference is the interaction with the track is electromagnetic in this case.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CryHavoc
Gravity makes it work. It wouldn't work in freefall.

I heard his explanation about how it's locked into position and resists the push or pull of gravity, but I didn't hear him say anything that would lead me to believe it wouldn't work in freefall. The problem in freefall might be air resistance if dropping it through the atmosphere, but if you eliminated that problem by dropping it in a vacuum, with the superconductor in motion, I don't see why it wouldn't stay in motion while the whole thing is in freefall. If you do, please explain better than the man in the video did.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I heard his explanation about how it's locked into position and resists the push or pull of gravity, but I didn't hear him say anything that would lead me to believe it wouldn't work in freefall.

The superconductor has to be in motion. Without an impetus there would be no motion. In free fall there would be no impetus other than than the initial thrust?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I heard his explanation about how it's locked into position and resists the push or pull of gravity, but I didn't hear him say anything that would lead me to believe it wouldn't work in freefall.

The superconductor has to be in motion. Without an impetus there would be no motion. In free fall there would be no impetus other than than the initial thrust?

Well he's giving it an initial thrust in a gravitational field and it works.
I'm saying give it an initial thrust, then let the entire apparatus drop in freefall in a vacuum chamber, and it would work just fine, maybe a little better with less air resistance. So I don't see how gravity has much to do with it other than the limited way he explained in the video, which primarily applies when it's not moving around the track.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yeah. It's sort of a mobiacal (as opposed to circular) argument, actually. In freefall, gravity becomes irrelevant even though it's still there.

What I was getting that is this. If you place the superconductor under the magnets, on Earth's surface, it would immediately begin to move (because gravity), it would therefore immediately then begin to produce its own magnetic field which would interact with the magnets.

Wrong?

originally posted by: Phage
Wrong?

That's right, it's exactly how it was explained in the video, when was static, and not moving around the track.

But I think he explained it that way because he was in a gravitational field.

If in freefall, and he placed the superconductor under the track at the same distance, what would happen? Well, gravity wouldn't pull down on it causing a force to be created locking it in place. But if not gravity, maybe any other tiny motions might have a similar effect. The superconductor apparently "wants" to be at a certain distance from the track, (apparently determined by the way he positioned the superconductor over the magnets when he was cooling it), and anything causing deviation from that distance seems to be counteracted, whether it be gravity or some other small motions from other sources, like if he imparted a slight motion to the superconductor when he let go of it.

So, if it wasn't moving around the track, and he just did the "here's the effect of gravity" demonstration, but did it in freefall, gravity would have no effect, but what would happen? Essentially I wouldn't expect to see much difference if the camera dropped along with the apparatus, if it started to deviate from its preferred distance from the track, whatever the cause, even if not gravity, a counteracting force would tend to move it back to its preferred distance, would it not?

What else could happen? I wouldn't expect to see it crash into the track, or move further away from the track as long as it was still superconducting.

I'm working on hypergravity.
Distilled spirits seem to be a catalyst.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

What else could happen?

We are standing still

From Revolution Number Nine, but you have to listen to the whole thing.

Firesign Theater got it right too, "how can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all?"

Will you agree that the supermagnet thing is no more antigravity than an airfoil is?

a reply to: Homefree

If the ocean were whiskey and I was a duck, I'd dive to the bottom and never come up.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
A train has inertia too, and will have a tendency to go in a straight line, unless the track curves which causes the train to follow the track around the curve.

A train stays on track because of the shape of its wheels. And every year some trains jump their tracks.

originally posted by: Homefree
I'm working on hypergravity.
Distilled spirits seem to be a catalyst.

The Hops drive would work on Beer.

What is happening is basically the superconductor is, for lack of a better term, "knotting" the flux lines of magnetism. Geometrically it isn't actually knotting them, but orients the lines differently so that north and south pole lines become nearly omnidirectional at the conductor. Because the magnets produce, draw, and repel the lines the conductor becomes locked in place over it, not strictly hovering. People think it's magnetic levitation but it's more like magnetic binding.

originally posted by: CryHavoc

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
A train has inertia too, and will have a tendency to go in a straight line, unless the track curves which causes the train to follow the track around the curve.

A train stays on track because of the shape of its wheels. And every year some trains jump their tracks.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The point I was trying to make is that following the track is not defying inertia, whether the forces altering the direction result from wheels or magnetic fields. I would imagine the superconductor can jump the track too, if it moved too fast, or if it got too warm and stopped superconducting.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CryHavoc

Are we really looking at Anti-Gravity in this video?

No. We are looking at a very low coefficient of friction combined with diamagnetism.

Not antigravity. Gravity is.

Wouldn't it be zero coefficient? Unless you are counting the air i guess.