Magnetic Levitation Earthquake Dampener

[Diffusr 0]

In high earthquake-risk areas of the world, this idea would increase safety during an earthquake. The idea is to float a building or structure on a magnetic field.The energy required to do this would be collosal, so each building would have to be its own power plant. This can be achieved by drilling into the core of the earth and using underground heat to generate electricity. The strength of the field would be variable and determined by computer controlled sensors. When they sense shaking, the building floats. The rest of the time it is resting on shock absorbant material. During an earthquake, the building would not necessarily have to leave the ground, depending on the magnitude of richter scale.Enough magnetism could be applied to offset gravitational pressure between shaking ground and the building itself. It would be possible to have a perfectly still structure while the ground around it is violently shaking. The excess power generated during times of no earthquake can be fed into the grid to relieve existing energy demands.Just an idea anyway.

[webishqiptar 0]

Whose idea is this?? Yours? I would say that earthquakes are the most terrific and horrible nature events on earth, but though it is not so easy to predict.Nice idea but seems quite impossible.

[k_nitin_r 8]

Hi!Just a thought, but why would you not just use a permanent magnet (to avoid the power consumption) and keep the building afloat all the time instead of just during an earthquake? I suppose this idea would be limited to small structures (think straw huts) only, unless they can figure out how to create a really powerful magnetic field.BTW, the magnetic field would disrupt most electronics, which means you would need shielding within the rooms, but with such powerful magnets, the shielding required to prevent interference would be too heavy for the magnetic field to lift.Regards

[rogerthecamel 1]

While magnets are always the coolest solutions to all sorts of problems they are not always the most practical.First off, have you ever tried using a magnet to levitate another magnet? The need to be held in place or the whole thing flips over and sticks to the other end, which would be very bad in the case of a building.Secondly, k_nitin_r made some good points about interference and and really messing with anything around... planes would get all kinds of navigational interference from all these highly magnetic buildings too.Lastly, say the power goes out for whatever reason, or something malfunctions in the magnetic adjustments, if the system fails for whatever reason the structure needs to be stable by itself, in this case the building is not tethered to the ground and so could plausibly be even blown over.But what is an interesting and useful idea is the adjustable magnets on the side which keep it stable during an earthquake. Replace the magnets with arms or levers or pneumatic pistons and you have something that could be very beneficial. By adjusting these arms to keep the building level throughout an earthquake would prevent any damage within the building. And this would work reasonably well as due to preservation of momentum the building would have a natural tendency to not move also. The arms would have to be strong, quick and agile, and would have to hold there position even in a loss of power. But without the magnets this has potential.

[HDuffRules 0]

Flying buildings is really not the solution here. The problem is that you can't make a building float just by putting magnetic materials in it. There needs to be corresponding magnetic or electric field on the ground, which is how maglev trains work. Unfortunately, when there is an earthquake, and the ground moves, this will disrupt the ground portion of the mechanism, and no amount of tweaking by any automated system would be failproof in protecting the building, hence precluding the need for all the magnets in the first place. Also, this is only slightly relevant, but "drilling into the core of the earth" is not a viable source of energy, partially because during an earthquake, the shaft that leads down into the earth would be a structural weakness and would most likely collapse. The other reason its not so great for energy is because there isn't a whole lot you can do with raw heat. Sure, its theoretically possible to use it to boil water, which is then used to power a steam turbine, but the process of pumping water down there and bringing it back up for cooling would take a lot of energy in itself, not to mention the depths that would have to be reached in order for the temperature to get high enough are almost completely unworkable.

[jaychant 0]

I don't think it to be practical to drill deep into the Earth to build big fancy electromagnets. Besides, like HDuffRules said, it isn't really possible to extract that heat. So what you propose would burn the entire world's oil and coal supply in a few years, not to mention speed up the process of Global Climate Change; not really practical.

[The Simpleton 2]

We've already meddled with the Earth too much till now...it would be better if we dont do anything else, isn't? it? :(Scientists do get some revolutionary ideas and it is indeed very good but it would be nice if they took all other factors into consideration like what this would do to affect the future...

[jaychant 0]

We've already meddled with the Earth too much till now...it would be better if we dont do anything else, isn't? it?
Scientists do get some revolutionary ideas and it is indeed very good but it would be nice if they took all other factors into consideration like what this would do to affect the future...

Um, you do realize that this topic was just a thought from a random person, and that he probably isn't a scientist, right?

Scientists don't create resolutions to problems. They research and report their findings. Scientists are not at all responsible for "revolutionary ideas"; rather, they are responsible for learning stuff that caused other people to have these revolutionary ideas. Scientists are merely curious people who wish to learn more about the universe.

[HDuffRules 0]

Scientists don't create resolutions to problems. They research and report their findings. Scientists are not at all responsible for "revolutionary ideas"; rather, they are responsible for learning stuff that caused other people to have these revolutionary ideas. Scientists are merely curious people who wish to learn more about the universe.

This only applies to some scientists. Other scientists make zombies. I want to be that kind of scientist XD.

[mm22 0]

Well this is one of the most original ideas i have ever heard, and it makes sense to a certain extent. As someone points out it might be hard to handle the huge magnetic field created but if that is only applied when needed... But the idea of extracting heat from deep within the Earth has implications far beyond its use to "lift buildings". It would be an almost inexhaustible energy source, whose potential is now being used in a tiny fraction by geothermal power plants that use the heat from inside the Earth in those region where the heat is available very near to the surface, for example in Iceland.Being able to use more of the internal heat of the Earth could be compared to being able to use more of the enormous amount of energy that the Sun radiates to us everyday. Between the two I would say using the Sun is still a better idea, I see less technological issues and well the Sun comes anyway as opposed to extracting heat from inside the Earth which we are not really supposed to mess up with. I think the effect of extracting heat on a large scale could be hard to predict and could potentially destabilize the Earth crust thus causing more earthquakes and the like.

[HDuffRules 0]

The main problems with using heat from down in the Earth is that in a lot of places, it is difficult to reach, it is not extremely reliable, and it is potentially dangerous. With that being said, extracting heat from the core is also a bad idea. The magnetic field that surrounds the earth is generated by the movement of our molten core. It has already been demonstrated that the core of the planet is cooling down. Do we really want to accelerate that by drawing energy from it? The molten core powers our magnetic field. This field protects us from cosmic rays and other radiation that comes from outer space. Mars has no magnetic field because its core cooled down and is now solid. Oh and nothing lives there. Maintaining a molten core is rather important, and given that at the current rate of cooling, our core will die before the sun leaves its current nice yellow stage, its a possibility that messing around with the core is a bad idea. Although, looking at it a different way, when the core solidifies completely, the mantle will no longer be molten and we won't have earthquakes anymore, since everything will just be stuck in place and the tectonic plates will no longer be floating.

[Baniboy 3]

You would need a STRONG magnetic field for that, and that strong field is kinda impossible with today's wires. They overheat, destroying the magnetic field.And also, a magnetic field that strong would make the building itself collapse, except of course if it's only made from wood and concrete. Even those materials are diamagnetic.I would just say it would be cheaper to buy/build a new house than to use that thing you described.

[mm22 0]

The main problems with using heat from down in the Earth is that in a lot of places, it is difficult to reach, it is not extremely reliable, and it is potentially dangerous. With that being said, extracting heat from the core is also a bad idea. The magnetic field that surrounds the earth is generated by the movement of our molten core. It has already been demonstrated that the core of the planet is cooling down. Do we really want to accelerate that by drawing energy from it?
The molten core powers our magnetic field. This field protects us from cosmic rays and other radiation that comes from outer space. Mars has no magnetic field because its core cooled down and is now solid. Oh and nothing lives there.

Maintaining a molten core is rather important, and given that at the current rate of cooling, our core will die before the sun leaves its current nice yellow stage, its a possibility that messing around with the core is a bad idea. Although, looking at it a different way, when the core solidifies completely, the mantle will no longer be molten and we won't have earthquakes anymore, since everything will just be stuck in place and the tectonic plates will no longer be floating.

That is a very informative post. Well I guess there is a reason if nobody has ever thought of building this kind of power plant, one that can extract and use the heat from inside the Earth. It seems far less complicated to try to use a fraction of the heat that come from above, that is to say the Sun.

[kleong 0]

Pls... dont do it. Human are depleting Earth's natural resource at a scary rate. Leave the core alone. Given human insatisfiable "appetite" in using and depleting resources, in no time, the core will be a history. And the core is too important for it to happen