Gary Bergstrom wrote:
>> > > jmdrake wrote:
>> > http://www.americanantigravity.com/> >
> > While on the surface it may seem "cranky" the fact is that their
> > flyer actually works. Now if it works by true "antigravity" or
> > by some other force is a big question. But the plans are pretty
> > simple and the results have been reproduced many times over.
> > However someone might mislabel them "cranks" just because they
> > have the word "antigravity" in their URL.
> > Regards,
> > John M. Drake
>> The first time I saw this was on the cover of a Popular Science (I
> think) in the '60s. Not antigravity, just propulsion by moving air.
> The models are so light, because it's hard to move much air without
> arcing. (That old model on the cover was square rather than
> triangular, but otherwise looked the same!)
>> And yes, I would label (NOT mislabel) them cranks because of the word
Waddya mean, "cranks"? Antigravity devices are all around us. I'm typing
right now on a keyboard a little higher than my lap. You can bet that
gravity would pull it down pretty quick it there weren't something
preventing that. The same goes for what's holding me up. Those things
must expend energy continuously to do what they do. If you think that
there can be no work without motion, just hold a full gallon jug still
with an extended arm and tell me that it's only hard to do if it moves.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.