No announcement yet.

Bone loss under no gravity circumstances

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bone loss under no gravity circumstances

    Dear Biomch-L readers,

    Various biomechanical groups, a.o., at Penn State University, have been
    involved with biomechanics under no-gravity circumstances. One of the
    problems seems to be the loss of minerals in bones when there is extensive
    exposure to lack of gravity. Perhaps, the material below just received
    from MECH-L could be useful to further investigate these phenomena? The
    method may seem rather phantastic, but the costs of patents (as opposed to
    copyrights and trade secrets, cf. my recent posting on the F-16 and VDU's)
    and the seriousness of mechanical engineers are such that it MUST be a
    viable proposition ...

    Comments will be appreciated -- hjw.


    Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1992 20:00:00 CST
    From: "NAME 'Robert E. McElwaine'"
    Subject: Gravity NEUTRALIZING Invention
    Sender: Mechanical Engineering Discussion List

    Gravity-NEUTRALIZING Spacecraft

    NASA should build an experimental spacecraft based on
    U.S. Patent #3,626,605 [at least $1.00 per complete copy from
    U.S. Patent Office, correct 7-digit patent number required],
    GRAVITATIONAL FORCE FIELD", awarded to inventor Henry W.
    Wallace on Dec. 14, 1971.

    In the patent, Figs. 7A and 7B are basically side views
    of a gravity-NEUTRALIZING FLYING SAUCER, or, if anchored to
    the ground, a ZERO-GRAVITY CHAMBER [which could have MANY
    possible GROUND-level applications for science, medicine,
    manufacturing, etc.]. Each oval diagram shows a motor
    spinning a central disc at a very high speed, about 28,000
    RPM, and also rotating two other discs sandwiched around the
    first disc, via gears, at a much slower speed, perhaps 2,800
    RPM, in the opposite direction. The two outer discs have
    extensions [counter-balanced via off-center axis] that, as
    they rotate, alternately make contact with two wide
    extensions from opposite walls of the spacecraft. The
    central disc should have shallow spiral-shaped grooves on
    both sides for air-bearings, to allow the needed very close
    contact with the two outer discs.

    I should clarify that each of the two outer discs has
    ONLY ONE [counter-balanced] extension, each one pointed
    opposite (180 degrees) the extension of the other disc.

    VERY CLOSE CONTACT must be made as the disc extensions
    slide past the wall extensions in order to conduct the
    "Kinemassic" Energy (term coined by the Inventor) from the
    discs to the walls in an ALTERNATING CIRCULATION.

    The most important factor making it work is that the
    discs, extensions, and outer walls of the spacecraft MUST be
    made of any material(s) in which a very large majority of the
    atoms are of isotopes having "half integral atomic spin",
    such as copper (3/2). All other parts, etc., should have a
    minority of such atoms. [See the appropriate column of the
    table of isotopes in the latest edition of "The Handbook of
    Chemistry and Physics."]

    Experimenters should use one motor to spin the center
    disc, and a 2ND SEPARATE motor to rotate the two outer discs,
    so their relative speeds can be varied to establish the
    needed conditions for PROPULSION of the spacecraft via
    "NEGATIVE WEIGHT" (with the spacecraft's "Kinemassic" field
    PUSHING AGAINST the earth's gravitational field, etc.).

    If we have to put up a space station, establish Moon
    bases, go to Mars, rendezvous with comets, etc., WHY DO IT

    Your favorite university or research company could make
    a big name for itself by making a small model of this work.

    IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.

    Robert E. McElwaine
    B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC