3 ms·
Gravity and electromagnetic forces are somewhat similar, they both have infinite range, decay as 1/r, one key difference is that the electromagnetic force is 10
by inasio 6y ago
Gravity and electromagnetic forces are somewhat similar, they both have infinite range, decay as 1/r, one key difference is that the electromagnetic force is 10^36 stronger than gravity [0]. Just for that reason I'm always immediately skeptical of projects of this type.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction
- flal_ 6y agoYet, gravity is strong enough to initiate nuclear fusion at the core of stars, or create black holes... That 10^36 argument is non sensical to me.
- tryonenow 6y agoIt's about energy density. Generally you can fit many orders of magnitude more energy in the same physical space when storing energy electromagnetically. The comparison implies some assumptions but the point stands. It's space inefficient.
- andijcr 6y agoit is strong enough at the scale of a star, on earth my foot electromagnetic repulsion against the floor is enough to counteract all of the planet pull
- imtringued 6y agoAre you suggesting we should build a bigger planet?
- f6v 6y agoWe should have been smaller people with fewer needs.
- sscarduzio 6y agoWould you say a magnetostatic (rather than gravitational) potential energy storage offer better performance?
- labawi 6y agoOn Earth, gravity has a bonus of a free massive side plate. As a battery, it might work better on Jupiter and unusable in free space, but it still stores orders of magnitude more energy than we use, in abundant cheap materials. I liked the trains-on-hills project - seems easy enough to build in large quantities and stores reasonable amounts of energy. With electromagnetic, we are barely capable of scraping a bit of energy from the surface without the device self-destructing. Even in superconductors, only a fraction of electrons whizzes around and even high-energy plasma is a mixture of both charges.