Talk:Hypergravity

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biology Low‑importance

	Biology portal Hypergravity is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is a mess[edit]

Where to begin? This page reads like somebody chopped up two or three completely different articles and mashed them together:

1. The very first paragraph ends with the sentence "Manufacturing of titanium aluminide turbine blades in 20 g is being explored by researchers at the European Space Agency (ESA)." which is a mess of a sentence. Is the manufacturing done at 20G? (unlikely) Are the turbine blades to operate in a 20G system? (unlikely) Or do the tips of the turbine experience 20G? (which would be very little and not worth noting).

2. "All of this is of extreme importance because human physiology and materials are used to build planes, spaceships and structures, which are all accustomed to Earth’s normal gravity." - poor syntax. Physiology isn't used to built anything. "All of this" refers to... what?

3. "Recent research carried out on extremophiles in Japan" - Bad phrasing, using words like 'recent'.

4. "subject to conditions of extreme gravity" - it's NOT gravity if it's a centrifuge simulating gravity. This should be cleared up consistently. Either consistently refer to it as "simulated gravity" or "acceleration", but this is just careless regarding terminology.

5. The entire paragraph about microbes could benefit from mentioning the scaling relation of "acceleration-induced stress vs size". A microbe can withstand higher G environments than any macroscopic animals because it has negligible stresses due to weight, and its entire biochemistry takes place inside of a fluid.

6. "A concern of this practice is rapid spinning. If someone moves their head too quickly while they're inside a fast-moving centrifuge, they might feel uncomfortably like they're tumbling head over heels. " - This sentence comes right after a piece about microbes. A concern of this practice? What practice? This suddenly refers to centrifuge tests on humans. Wording is also not good for an encyclopedia.

7. It seems to me that 'Hypergravity' should either refer to "gravity higher than 9.8 m/s^2" OR "acceleration higher than 9.8 m/s^2" (whether due to gravity or not). Centrifugal acceleration having practically the same effect, I think the latter is best, but either way completely unrelated subjects like:

"Researchers calculated from a weight loss experiment that using 5 lb. ankle weights and 2.5 lb. wrist weights would have a 14% improved NEAT calorie burn while doing household chores. Track and basketball primarily plyometric) metrics improved by 8–25% mostly depending upon if the subjects used weighted vests all day or only when training, but the effect disappeared after a month of not using hypergravity training."

ought to be removed. They completely conflate 'added mass' with an actual increase in gravity. In essence, it has nothing to do with hypergravity whatsoever. It implies it does, using the term "hypergravity training" but such a notion is ridiculous, as the actual effects of an increase in acceleration has vastly different physiological than adding external weights to a body, if only for the differences in effect on blood circulation, organs, et cetera. In fact, it'd probably be better to have a paragraph describing the (theoretical) differences between an actual increase in gravity/acceleration vs added mass.

I propose a complete rewrite of the introduction, with a clear definition of Hypergravity and a more structured lay-out.LuxArdens (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

I added information that I have found but I believe it has been taken down or switched with other information. Can you please explain why you changed the following information? Luwychocki13 (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC) I added a website and a little bite of info that connects with this topic. Brdrummond (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Should i add any pictures onto the page? Brdrummond (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Im not really finding that many good websites for this topic. Any suggestions? Brdrummond (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC) The information that on the page already seems to be the only things I can find about hypergravity. Brdrummond (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC) You might try searching for information using different terms other than Hyper gravity. I found some information about an experiment done using an elevated amount of gravity, but I'm not sure if it is completely relevant.Jaheinz (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC) I've added some stuff on gravity im not sure if it connects with the hypergravity but I searched it becasue its a hyperlink on the hypergravity page. Brdrummond (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC) I added some things on hypergravity, but i wasn't really able to find anything that wasn't already there. I hope the things I added were a little useful. Keerickson (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

further info[edit]

Following might be helpful

Aragone, C., and S. Deser. "Consistency problems of hypergravity." Physics Letters B 86.2 (1979): 161-163.