NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Manokan Republic]

To change topics somewhat, a flying disk aircraft has always been interesting to me. Like a frisbee, you could have the outside of an aircraft spinning which would produce lift and stability to help it stay in flight. The main idea is that you've have an inside cargo area shaped like a disk, and then the outside would spin separately from it. So the whole aircraft wouldn't spin, only the outside surface area which interacts with the air. My guess is a jet engine from the outside would spin it or a large electric motor, in both cases spinning from the outside would generate more force. Like how spinning a merry go round from the outside results in a faster speed than spinning it from the inside, spinning a helicopter blade from the outside is more efficient than spinning it from the inside. You can go faster and use less energy by spinning it from the outside. Tipjet helicopters exist and do just this, but have always been harder to land and somewhat finicky. However, this would in theory be inherently stable, like a spinning top, bullet, or frisbee.

The main advantage would be a fast turning radius, greater lift for the comparative overall length and width of the aircraft, and the ability to hover, but potentially more efficiently than a normal aircraft or even helicopter. Disk shaped aircraft were made that were capable of taking off quickly, so they generated a lot of lift, but were slow and unstable once in flight. With it spinning I think both of these issues can be compensated for somewhat, which means it would work better. You could also have some sort of engine push it forwards on top of the air frame spinning to help it achieve flight. Compared to a helicopter blade the higher surface area would generate more lift and act like a wing as it moved in flight, so it should in theory travel faster and more efficiently than a helicopter. Such a design is more complex of course but, with modern computerized electronics among other things, it should be easier to create.

[Arkandros]

Falling requires no extra energy at all because it is the conversion of gravitational potential energy into motion.

But a glider and a frisbee are still making thrust aka lift with their wings.

It's not actually technically called thrust, it's called lift. The important distinction is relevant when talking about gliders, frisbees etc., but is also important when discussing how much force is required to actually lift something off of the ground. For the sake of the argument I'd be willing to use the terms interchangeably normally, but it's important for a very specific distinction.

These NASA sources are really simple and don't explain everything perfectly but it's more or less good enough. [1] "The powered aircraft has an engine that generates thrust, while the glider has no thrust."
[2]"Note that the job of the engine is just to overcome the drag of the airplane, not to lift the airplane. A 1 million pound airliner has 4 engines that produce a grand total of 200,000 of thrust. The wings are doing the lifting, not the engines. In fact, there are some aircraft, called gliders that have no engines at all, but fly just fine. Some external source of power has to be applied to initiate the motion necessary for the wings to produce lift. But during flight, the weight is opposed by both lift and drag. Paper airplanes are the most obvious example, but there are many kinds of gliders. Some gliders are piloted and are towed aloft by a powered aircraft, then cut free to glide for long distances before landing. During reentry and landing, the Space Shuttle is a glider; the rocket engines are used only to loft the Shuttle into space."


If we want to for the sake of the argument and semantics, you can argue that wings produce extra thrust. They don't technically, and this is important as the total thrust from the engine of the F-35 is not accounting for the extra lift from the wing of the aircraft, and in particular the wings from the lift fan. The lift fan produces enough lift to lift up the 60,000 pound aircraft, so even though it only has 40,000 pounds of thrust, it can still fly upwards by pushing off of the air. An aircraft rolling forwards slowly can build up speed and get enough speed to generate lift, by getting the air to move past the wings. In a vertical lift off aircraft like the F-35, the rotary wing moves independently from the main body of the aircraft, like in a helicopter, and thus it can produce lift by artificially speeding up the wings of the lift fan, instead of needing the aircraft to move forwards like on a long runway. Hence it is capable of vertical or near-vertical short take off. The importance of all of this is that Triple Bacon has insisted that with only 40,000 pounds of thrust, it can only lift 40,000 pounds straight up. This would be true with a rocket perhaps, depending on the type of rocket, as many have no extra lift, but it's not true with something that has spinning wings like a helicopter, which produces more lift than it's thrust might suggest. Henceforth, it as well as the F-35 can fly upwards, without needing an equal thrust-to-weight ratio, as it actually has a higher lift figure due to the wings of the fan. This may seem like a minor distinction, but it's important for this conversation. The F-35 is a first of it's kind, to be a full sized aircraft with vertical take off, so usually the distinction isn't important, but due to complex nature of the operation, it is now. The very particular method of operation means what is a relatively unimportant physics distinction is actually relevant for this *specific* purpose. The semantics are important as if you want to say that the lift fan produces "thrust" instead of lift, the pounds force of the engine is not actually calculated with the lift force of the fan. So the thrust of the engine and the lift from the lift fan are not calculated as the same figure, and that's why you don't need more than 40,000 pounds thrust engine to lift more than 40,000 pounds of weight.

You are still grossly confused on how a lift fan works. A lift fan is simply a type of engine where the exhaust points directly down, so the entirety of its thrust (ie, the force of its exhaust) pushes down, providing lift. It’s blade geometry and radius will affect its thrust, but in no way do they provide more lift than thrust because of their blade geometry. Indeed, almost all aircraft engines operate on the same principles of blade geometry and wing physics to move air, and saying that the lift fan is somehow special is patently false. Your statements regarding lift and thrust would imply you somehow produced more energy out than you put in, which violates basically all of known physics. Additionally, at no point has a fully loaded F35B been a VTOL aircraft. It has, and will continue to be (despite your insistence otherwise) a STOVL aircraft, which is an abbreviation for “Short TakeOff Vertical Landing”. It is not capable, nor intended to be capable, of achieving a vertical takeoff.
To make this simple: all engines produce thrust. Based on their design, they produce more or less thrust. If pointed directly up, the engines entire thrust is equivalent to the lift it provides. If at an angle from vertical, it provides both a lateral force and a lifting force, which are both below the engine’s thrust (and could be calculated with vector mathematics).
To make this literally as simple as humanly possible: you are wrong. The lift fan does not produce more lift than thrust, the F35B cannot take off vertically from a standstill, and you clearly have not taken others’ advice to read through, at a bare minimum, the Wikipedia page on flight to understand what you are talking about with regards to VTOL aircraft. Please, before you bring this topic up again, do some more research to (at the very least) back up your outlandish claims that the F35s lift fan somehow violates entropy.

[Manokan Republic]

It's not actually technically called thrust, it's called lift. The important distinction is relevant when talking about gliders, frisbees etc., but is also important when discussing how much force is required to actually lift something off of the ground. For the sake of the argument I'd be willing to use the terms interchangeably normally, but it's important for a very specific distinction.

These NASA sources are really simple and don't explain everything perfectly but it's more or less good enough. [1] "The powered aircraft has an engine that generates thrust, while the glider has no thrust."
[2]"Note that the job of the engine is just to overcome the drag of the airplane, not to lift the airplane. A 1 million pound airliner has 4 engines that produce a grand total of 200,000 of thrust. The wings are doing the lifting, not the engines. In fact, there are some aircraft, called gliders that have no engines at all, but fly just fine. Some external source of power has to be applied to initiate the motion necessary for the wings to produce lift. But during flight, the weight is opposed by both lift and drag. Paper airplanes are the most obvious example, but there are many kinds of gliders. Some gliders are piloted and are towed aloft by a powered aircraft, then cut free to glide for long distances before landing. During reentry and landing, the Space Shuttle is a glider; the rocket engines are used only to loft the Shuttle into space."


If we want to for the sake of the argument and semantics, you can argue that wings produce extra thrust. They don't technically, and this is important as the total thrust from the engine of the F-35 is not accounting for the extra lift from the wing of the aircraft, and in particular the wings from the lift fan. The lift fan produces enough lift to lift up the 60,000 pound aircraft, so even though it only has 40,000 pounds of thrust, it can still fly upwards by pushing off of the air. An aircraft rolling forwards slowly can build up speed and get enough speed to generate lift, by getting the air to move past the wings. In a vertical lift off aircraft like the F-35, the rotary wing moves independently from the main body of the aircraft, like in a helicopter, and thus it can produce lift by artificially speeding up the wings of the lift fan, instead of needing the aircraft to move forwards like on a long runway. Hence it is capable of vertical or near-vertical short take off. The importance of all of this is that Triple Bacon has insisted that with only 40,000 pounds of thrust, it can only lift 40,000 pounds straight up. This would be true with a rocket perhaps, depending on the type of rocket, as many have no extra lift, but it's not true with something that has spinning wings like a helicopter, which produces more lift than it's thrust might suggest. Henceforth, it as well as the F-35 can fly upwards, without needing an equal thrust-to-weight ratio, as it actually has a higher lift figure due to the wings of the fan. This may seem like a minor distinction, but it's important for this conversation. The F-35 is a first of it's kind, to be a full sized aircraft with vertical take off, so usually the distinction isn't important, but due to complex nature of the operation, it is now. The very particular method of operation means what is a relatively unimportant physics distinction is actually relevant for this *specific* purpose. The semantics are important as if you want to say that the lift fan produces "thrust" instead of lift, the pounds force of the engine is not actually calculated with the lift force of the fan. So the thrust of the engine and the lift from the lift fan are not calculated as the same figure, and that's why you don't need more than 40,000 pounds thrust engine to lift more than 40,000 pounds of weight.

You are still grossly confused on how a lift fan works. A lift fan is simply a type of engine where the exhaust points directly down, so the entirety of its thrust (ie, the force of its exhaust) pushes down, providing lift. It’s blade geometry and radius will affect its thrust, but in no way do they provide more lift than thrust because of their blade geometry. Indeed, almost all aircraft engines operate on the same principles of blade geometry and wing physics to move air, and saying that the lift fan is somehow special is patently false. Your statements regarding lift and thrust would imply you somehow produced more energy out than you put in, which violates basically all of known physics. Additionally, at no point has a fully loaded F35B been a VTOL aircraft. It has, and will continue to be (despite your insistence otherwise) a STOVL aircraft, which is an abbreviation for “Short TakeOff Vertical Landing”. It is not capable, nor intended to be capable, of achieving a vertical takeoff.
To make this simple: all engines produce thrust. Based on their design, they produce more or less thrust. If pointed directly up, the engines entire thrust is equivalent to the lift it provides. If at an angle from vertical, it provides both a lateral force and a lifting force, which are both below the engine’s thrust (and could be calculated with vector mathematics).
To make this literally as simple as humanly possible: you are wrong. The lift fan does not produce more lift than thrust, the F35B cannot take off vertically from a standstill, and you clearly have not taken others’ advice to read through, at a bare minimum, the Wikipedia page on flight to understand what you are talking about with regards to VTOL aircraft. Please, before you bring this topic up again, do some more research to (at the very least) back up your outlandish claims that the F35s lift fan somehow violates entropy.

Video of F-35 taking off vertically
https://youtu.be/zW28Mb1YvwY?t=26

"The lift fan does not produce more lift than thrust, the F35B cannot take off vertically from a standstill, and you clearly have not taken others’ advice to read through, at a bare minimum, the Wikipedia page on flight to understand what you are talking about with regards to VTOL aircraft."- Your first claim is patently false, but that's okay as it's not the core element of the argument. In realistic terms you want to take off with a short take off as it consumes far less fuel, and in a long take off you can carry a higher payload (short take off is 60,000 pounds vs. 70,000 For the F-35A or C), but it is capable of vertical take off. It's jut not particularly good at it. This is irrelevant as the conversation I was talking about was about short take off, but nonetheless. The reason why no other version of the F-35 despite producing the same engine thrust is capable of vertical take off or short take off, is due to the lift fan. The reason is not that it creates energy from nothing, but that it produces more lift.

Again, no thrust is needed to generate lift. A glider has no thrust, a frisbee, a boomerang etc. but it still has LIFT. Lift is not the same as thrust. I've explained this 10 different times and with links to NASA, but for some reason this isn't sticking, so I'll try to explain it. Lift is flying. All lift is, is flying. This is why a parachute with a fan on it, can fly. It's why a glider can fly. Flight, or flying, is not directly dependent on thrust. A racecar might generate more thrust than a plane but it doesn't fly due to it's aerodynamic profile, where as a much slower moving plane might fly, largely due to the wings. The wings generate lift, where as a racecar with the same or even greater engine power, doesn't necessarily fly. The way in which energy is transferred determines if something can fly or not, not total energy or thrust. Racecars with a greater than 1 to 1 thrust ratio don't take off flying because they don't have wings and are designed to operate off of the ground, where as various flying vehicles with a less than 1 to 1 thrust ratio can still fly due to their wings. LIFT, specifically lift, that is flight, is independent of total thrust. Thrust can make flight easier, but it isn't actually even needed. The lift fan converts much of it's thrust to lift, thus allowing it to fly, where as in a racecar it doesn't convert the thrust to lift. There are energy losses in aircraft actually due to the fact it converts the thrust to lift, which is why helicopters and such are generally actually slower. Generating raw thrust means more speed, but it means no flight. To generate some lift, you need to convert some of the energy in to pushing off of the air. This loss of energy is lift, and results in flight. It's a really common sense idea. Flying occurs independent of total thrust. Therefore the engine's 40,000 pounds of thrust doesn't mean the weight of the aircraft is automatically limited to 40,000 pounds. It can take off by the wings producing lift. On the moon this lift fan would have practically no real purpose, as it wouldn't have any air to push off of, but on earth it's enough to allow it to fly. Lift is not thrust, and thrust can be used to generate lift ,but thrust is not even needed to generate lift, like say, with a glider. You can actually lift off and fly without thrust at all. So, no, it's not creating magic energy it's just flying, that's all lift is. A parachute slows down the descent of something falling, and wings also slow something down from falling. The rotary fan on an F-35 do this, and make it fall slower. The slower falling means you have an easier time staying up and can use less force to do it. An example of this is helicopter wings autorotate when something falls, slowing it's descent, although that is a more literal interpretation. Wings also slow something's descent, which is why a Boeing 747 that lost engine power was able to fly 90 miles and land safely once it was in altitude. The descent in this case is slowed by the wings in a way where there is still upwards thrust, and that produces more lift. It may seem like a strange comparison, but that is effectively what is happening by having it push off of the air.

[New Vihenia]

all these lift related conversation got me thinking that... there could be a "liftitron/levitron" or "lift particle" .. we might have graviton.. so the opposite could exist right ?.

[Triplebaconation]

I just received an email from Dr Bevilaqua. I'll post a screenshot when I get home from dinner. Manokan may find it interesting.

[Puzikas]

erect.

[Spirit of Hope]

The physics of flight is fairly strait forward, to take off of the ground you must generate an upward force greater than the force of gravity, to maintain level flight you must generate an upward force equal to gravity, and to not crash and die you need to generate an upward force of 80-90% of gravity.

You can create an upward force in multiple ways, for the purpose of this discussion their is wings, jets and rockets.

Wings generate force by forcing air to move over the wing, and then downward as the air leaves the wings surface. This creates a downward force, however it requires that the air be moving relative to the wing, which in turn generally requires that the wing itself be moving.

You get moving wings in two manners, fixed wings and rotary wings.

For a fixed wing aircraft the wing is fixed to the side of the aircraft, and the entire aircraft must then move through the air to generate an upward force. The advantage to this is that it is efficient, once you are at the needed velocity you can maintain the upward force by maintaining your velocity. The disadvantage is that you need to maintain that minimum velocity to fly. This in turn requires a runway, space for the aircraft to accelerate to the needed velocity for the wings to generate enough upward force to achieve flight. You can shorten the runway if you can accelerate the fixed wing aircraft faster, which is why catapults exist on aircraft carriers.

Rotary wing aircraft move the wings in relation to the aircraft, spinning the wings while keeping the aircraft body in place. The advantage of this is that it requires no take off space, once the rotary wings are at the needed velocity to generate the required upward force you are flying. The downside is that it is inefficient, you must constantly keep spinning the blades to maintain flight, blades stop spinning you start falling. (It is possible to generate some upward force without engines, this involves falling and using the wings moving through the air as they fall to generate some force, however this is only possible while loosing altitude.)

Jet engines generate force by sucking in air and then spitting it out at higher speeds. If you point it downward you will get an upward force. The advantages and disadvantages of this are similar to a rotary wing aircraft, you can take off without any needed velocity over wings but it is inefficient.

Notably wings and jets require air to operate.

Rockets generate force by burning a fuel, converting it into a gas that is directed out of the rocket. If you point the exhaust gasses of a rocket downward you will get an upward force. Rockets notably do not need air, the force to take off is generated entirely within the rocket itself. This gives it the great advantage of working without air, but the great disadvantage of needing to contain much more fuel.

The F-35B can do vertical take offs by combining rotary wings (the lift fan) and jet (the main engine pointed downwards). As noted previously these are two generally inefficient methods of generating upward forces, and the weight of the F-35B for a vertical takeoff is restricted to the downward force it can generate with the rotary wings and jets. The F-35B can do short take offs by combining rotary wings (the lift fan), fixed wings (the wings on the side of the plane), and jet (the main engine pointed partially downwards), this allows it to generate more upward force in a shorter time than if it just used the fixed wings on the side of the aircraft, however it does lose some efficiency while doing this.

Now gliders generate an upward force by using fixed wings, air flows over the wings and generates an upward force. Because gliders have no engine they can only fly when an outside source gives the gliders velocity, normally a tugging aircraft. Once released the glider has a preset amount of time it can fly, it will slowly loose velocity to air resistance and thus also loose some of the upward force it's wings generate. Frisbees and boomerangs generate their upwards forces in a similar way, they are given velocity by the arm of the thrower, and maintain flight so long as they have the required velocity. Once they are out of the required velocity they will begin to fall to ground.

What I hope people take away from this is that upward force is independent of engine force, meaning you can fly without an engine (see gliders). However you can not take off without a total force (upwards and horizontal) that is greater than the force of gravity, fixed wing aircraft simply cheat and use runways to build up velocity so their fixed wings have enough airflow to produce a positive upward force. If you want to do a vertical take off that means you have to produce an upward force that is greater than the force of gravity, and you have no space in which to build up velocity for fixed wings to use.

[Triplebaconation]

So the thrust of the engine and the lift from the lift fan are not calculated as the same figure, and that's why you don't need more than 40,000 pounds thrust engine to lift more than 40,000 pounds of weight.

So anyway, I emailed Dr Bevilaqua, who was Chief Aeronautical Scientist at Lockheed and later Chief Engineer at the Skunk Works, and whose name is on the F-35 lift fan patent. Just wanted to be specific in case Manokan says describing him as the inventor of the lift fan system is "misleading" again.

He was gracious enough to respond.



If Manokan wants to argue with him I can PM the email address.

[Puzikas]

>contacting the man who designed the subject of an argument to settle the argument

This is it
This is the peak of asparagus
There's no point in ever doing anything again

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

>contacting the man who designed the subject of an argument to settle the argument

This is it
This is the peak of asparagus
There's no point in ever doing anything again

[Gallia-]

>contacting the man who designed the subject of an argument to settle the argument

This is it
This is the peak of asparagus
There's no point in ever doing anything again

the seventh trumpet has sounded

it's all over

[The Corparation]

>contacting the man who designed the subject of an argument to settle the argument

This is it
This is the peak of asparagus
There's no point in ever doing anything again

We haven't hit the peak just yet. The peak will be once Manokan enters into an argument directly with a person who directly works on the thing that is the subject of the argument.

Not sure we'll ever reach that peak anytime soon though. Partly because peak asparagus is far to esoteric for Manokan to even think about (much less get into a debate over) and partly because the people here who work at asparagus farms have better things to do with their life than tip toe around NDAs and ITAR. (Dr Bevilaqua is lucky in that he can cite wikipedia to settle our internet debates, not all asparagus is so easily obtainable and shared)

[Gallia-]

corp's work place be like

corp is on the right

based boomer kings on the left

[Puzikas]

We haven't hit the peak just yet. The peak will be once Manokan enters into an argument directly with a person who directly works on the thing that is the subject of the argument.

Muscle Physiology

[Gallia-]

exoskeleton supertroopers given direct creatine injections and needle point EMGs so their suits can better match their movements with their beefcake bods

away all boats but george nader wears a skintight diving suit and flexes in front of the camera for 5 minutes

[Triplebaconation]

(Dr Bevilaqua is lucky in that he can cite wikipedia to settle our internet debates, not all asparagus is so easily obtainable and shared)

Oh, I this is because I literally just asked him "The Wikipedia article states that the hovering thrust is 40,500 pounds, while the takeoff weight is 60,000 lbs. Can the F-35B take off vertically at 60,000 pounds?"

[Austrasien]

What a time to be alive.

[Austrasien]

all these lift related conversation got me thinking that... there could be a "liftitron/levitron" or "lift particle" .. we might have graviton.. so the opposite could exist right ?.

Negative gravity would require negative energy. And negative mass-energy looks suspiciously like positive mass-energy when time is reversed. So there is a lot to unpack there. More practically gravity and anti-gravity fields would react by cancelling which would introduce the possibility of highly (un)desirable side effects like the planet disappearing because you cancelled the gravitational field holding it together or the gravity-antigrav fields perfectly cancelling each other and causing everything involved to explode into masslessness or something.

For fictional physics consider the Mechanical Explanations of Gravity which are extremely steampunk like airships.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_explanations_of_gravitation

Pulsation
Lord Kelvin (1871) and Carl Anton Bjerknes (1871) assumed that all bodies pulsate in the aether. This was in analogy to the fact that, if the pulsation of two spheres in a fluid is in phase, they will attract each other; and if the pulsation of two spheres is not in phase, they will repel each other. This mechanism was also used for explaining the nature of electric charges. Among others, this hypothesis has also been examined by George Gabriel Stokes and Woldemar Voigt.[21]

Criticism: To explain universal gravitation, one is forced to assume that all pulsations in the universe are in phase—which appears very implausible. In addition, the aether should be incompressible to ensure that attraction also arises at greater distances.[21] And Maxwell argued that this process must be accompanied by a permanent new production and destruction of aether.[17]

Aether pulse gravity introduces both a way to levitate, change the aether-pulsation phase, and the possibility of another dimension(s) where aether enters from and and returns to. Which is great for getting characters lost in.

[Triplebaconation]

all these lift related conversation got me thinking that... there could be a "liftitron/levitron" or "lift particle" .. we might have graviton.. so the opposite could exist right ?.

If gravitons exist so do antigravitons.

Gravitons are their own antiparticle just like photons.

[Manokan Republic]

A rolling vertical take off or landing is different from straight up hovering. [1][2] This isn't straight up, but it's vertical in the sense it doesn't need to roll forwards very much on it's wheels to take off. This means a very short runway or take off surface area, so it can take off and land on something very small as the landing surface doesn't have to be as big. Like I said before, I don't mean it will hover exactly straight up, I mean it will take off the ground without a long runway. This is calling a "rolling vertical" landing or take-off.

Also lift and thrust are still obviously two separate things.

[Triplebaconation]

Also lift and thrust are still obviously two separate things.

Do these two sentences seem unreasonable to you?

A wing generates lift by exerting a downwards force on the air as it flows past. According to Newton's third law, the air must exert an equal and opposite force on the wing, which is lift.

A fan generates thrust by exerting a force on the air as it flows through. According to Newton's third law, the air must exert an equal and opposite force on the fan, which is thrust.

They are very similar, but obviously separate things. The big fan on the F-35B moves more air, just like a big wing. But because the air is moved by an engine, we call the force created thrust.

When the F-35 lift fan is operating, the aircraft effectively has a bigger engine. What you've spent thousands and thousands of words arguing is "more lift than thrust" is actually more thrust from a bigger engine - around 20,000 pounds more than the unaugmented jet exhaust alone. As Dr Bevilaqua confirmed, even this greater thrust isn't enough to allow a fully-loaded F-35B to take off completely vertically.

A rolling takeoff and landing will help some, but obviously the heavier the F-35 is the longer the takeoff and landing runs will be.

----

If you're actually talking about STOVL, why have you been going on and on about the lift fan producing this extra lift? This would only matter for pure VTOL.

For short takeoffs, the wings of the aircraft generate the extra lift. Just like everybody said 6 or 7 pages ago.

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

The spinning might cause uncontrollable wind patterns, one sided vortexes...



Also, how far away are we from nearly 100% automated warfare.

Basically empty exoskeletons, and massive waterborne firing platforms.



EDIT;

the again, why not just have a center disk, and 2 protruding propellers from the circular sides. Spinning inopposite directions. Disk stays still and has advanced gyro stuff. Tilt disk in a direction like helicopter to move in a direction. Have a glide capable surface. Perhaps some mini “soft” afterburners on a side and on the other a needle like way over and under the protrusions for a natural direction easing. Perhaps case the entire propellor apparatus ....


Think “the incredibles”

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

all these lift related conversation got me thinking that... there could be a "liftitron/levitron" or "lift particle" .. we might have graviton.. so the opposite could exist right ?.

If gravitons exist so do antigravitons.

Gravitons are their own antiparticle just like photons.

“Hawking radiation”

[Bears Armed]

Back when the existence of anti-matter was still only theoretical because it hadn't actually been observed, some physicists thought that it would be affected by an anti-gravitational force rather than by gravity. SF author Jack Williamson write a series of stories based on this (with magnetic forces used to keep the 'terrene' and 'contra-terrene' sections of the spacecraft close enough for the latter to lift the former but stop them getting into physical contact).

[Puzikas]

Is this where we talk about tachyons since we're talking about hawking radiation