|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
29 November 2024 00:52
|
|
Welcome to the gyroscope forum. If you have a question about gyroscopes in general,
want to know how they work, or what they can be used for then you can leave your question here for others to answer.
You may also be able to help others by answering some of the questions on the site.
|
Question |
| Asked by: |
Ted Pittman |
| Subject: |
An alternative explanation of Laithwaite's results |
| Question: |
Could Laithwaite have been mistaken?
After duplicating Laithwaite’s ‘Big Wheel experiment’, Benjamin T. Solomon (2001) states: “The phenomenon Laithwaite was demonstrating was not gyroscopic precession, though it appeared to be, because the practical results do not match theoretical results by two orders of magnitude.
Solomon states, “For gyroscopic motion to produce gravity modifications there has to be a parameter value that is opposite to gravity’s. This can be achieved with a gradient of time dilation. The magnitude of the time dilation behaves in the correct manner for increasing or decreasing tangential velocities and therefore, force.”
The Principle of Equivalence (Schutz 2003) states that if gravity were everywhere uniform we could not distinguish it from acceleration. That a point observer within a gravitational field would not be able to distinguish between a gravitational field and acceleration.
Taking this a step further, Solomon has shown that the escape or free-fall-from-infinity velocities are dictated by a time dilation of the gravitational field at that point in space. Thus, one can interpret velocity and acceleration as representation of time dilation or vice versa.
Using the Lorentz transformation (Gibilisco 1983) equations for the motions of planets in our Solar System empirical evidence concurs with the hypothesis that radial velocities are governed by time dilation. This is not in disagreement with Relativity’s Principle of Equivalence.
Solomon hypothesized (2001) that time dilation causes a shift in the center of mass. Solomon’s a mathematical mechanism, based solely on Special Relativity, shows how time dilation causes the center of mass of a particle to shift in the direction of increasing time dilation, thereby providing the effect of gravity.
One can infer that there are two time dilation parameters in a gravitational field, and that time dilation is a vector - radial time dilation and tangential time dilation. The relationship between velocities and time dilation is governed by Lorentz-FitzGerald transformations (Gibilisco 1983).
Solomon goes on to determine the gradient and curvature of the respective time dilations. Then he describes the centripetal force field from the perspective of time dilation. He shows centripetal force fields have two time dilation parameters similar, but not identical, to gravitational fields. He then uses (Kline 1977) equations to determine the gradient and curvature of the tangential time dilation with respect to radial distance.
Radial time dilation, like that which exists for gravity, does not exist for a non-rotating gyroscopic disk because there is no radial velocity and tangential velocity is determined by the radius and angular rotation. However, if one were to rotate (not precess) the spinning gyroscopic disk, one produces a centripetal force overlaid on the tangential time dilation field of the spinning disk. That force has the opposite sign to that of gravity’s.
He has written a book about this stuff and has a website too. |
| Date: |
6 November 2013
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Ted Pittman - 14/02/2014 13:15:26
| | | Wow! Lots of theory and equations. Plus a detailed math explanation of Laithwaite's results.
This guy shouldn't be ignored by serious inertial propulsion researchers.
Book: An Introduction to Gravity Modification, A Guide to Using Laithwaite's and Podkletnov's Experiments and the Physics of Forces for Empirical Results"
Web site: http://www.iseti.us/index.html
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ted Pittman - 14/02/2014 13:15:31
| | | Wow! Lots of theory and equations. Plus a detailed math explanation of Laithwaite's results.
This guy shouldn't be ignored by serious inertial propulsion researchers.
Book: An Introduction to Gravity Modification, A Guide to Using Laithwaite's and Podkletnov's Experiments and the Physics of Forces for Empirical Results"
Web site: http://www.iseti.us/index.html
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ted Pittman - 15/04/2014 19:01:56
| | | Benjamin Solomon describes his new organization:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ggL2HmZkaQ
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/04/2014 11:16:56
| | | Total B.S.
These poor limited people are everywhere destroying the comprehension within the English languish by attempting to appear learned, elegant and genius. What nonsensical ideas.
Hello Blaze. I am hurried for time. I will get back to you.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ted Pittman - 16/04/2014 12:59:12
| | | Right.
"...poor limited people are everywhere destroying the comprehension within the English languish by attempting to appear learned...
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nate - 05/09/2015 18:22:29
| | | LAITHWAITE
This paper presents sufficient experimental evidence to confirm that the Laithwaite gyroscopic weight loss is genuine, but NOT due to gyroscopic forces. It then presents a possible theoretical approach to explaining the weight loss.
www.iseti.us/WhitePapers/MARS2005/MarsSociety-2005-(DoesTheLaithwaiteGyroscopicWeightLossHavePropulsionPotential-2005-09-11).pdf
"Conclusion: We were able to reproduce Laithwaite's results, under stricter conditions. The mathematical and experimental analyses lead us to conclue that weight loss is real, and that it is not caused by gyroscopic precession. There are boundary conditions and threshold values, before weight loss is observed."
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/09/2015 18:53:36
| | | Laithwaite was full of bologna. He did more to divert the beginning of understanding than any man I know. I could explain, but why bother?
This whole site is fuller of misinformation than any site on the internet. Otherwise engineers and scholars know precisely how to determine the correct numbers and what to do to cause the gyro to act this way or that; how it will react. They too however do not understand the mechanics of how and why gyroscope works, but they are not mistaken in what they do know. Here? Here on this site, it is a circus of confusion and killer trapeze assertions opposite to the truth.
Nevertheless inertia propulsion seems almost certainly to be possible, but it will not come from here.
I guess you guys are angry, being the way you are, but you have just been told the truth.
Some you you are nice. Bless you for trying. I did not understand either for a great many years
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 12/09/2015 16:27:29
| | | I'm inclined to agree. Laithwaite did a lot of things, but none of them was in the field of gyroscopes. If anything, he cast a shadow of ridicule and doubt on the topic. Many times I've been referred to Laithwaite when talking about gyroscopic propulsion as a sort of "universal counter-argument". That sucks.
If you ask me, Alex Jones was the only one who did anything right. I'm convinced his original machine, seen in the Heretics show, was the real deal, and that's what we and the scientific community should try to pursue, not Laithwaite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5kkoiW3iaY&hd=1 Still unexplained if you ask me.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 13/09/2015 19:28:21
| | | Dear MD
Put your computer lessons to one side for a while because this is important and becomes a bit heavy going.
I have to disagree with your view of Laithwaite, although he was a bloody fool to allow himself to think that his large gyro on a pole lost weight when he force precessed it round his head – he could have seen this was nonsense if he had allowed time to make a machine to force precess a pair of gyros round a vertical axis. However, he did make some unique observations of what happens when a spinning gyro is rotated and, almost uniquely for a scientist, was prepared to put his head above the parapet..
Alex Jones lived on my neighbouring (neighboring to you USAists) island of Alderney. I believe he somehow picked up on the gyro work I was doing as I often used to fly to Alderney on business back then. I was perhaps too open in discussing my gyro discoveries in Alderney’s pubs, where business – and almost everything else - is conducted. The island of Alderney has been cruelly described as two thousand alcoholics clinging to a rock. Ridunians (Alderney people) are just very sociable. I remember once being welcomed with a tumbler full of Famous Grouse when I arrived there at 8 am for a meeting. I must have made it two thousand and one alcoholics, back then because I remember (just) having to cling on tight (very) to stop myself falling off the world after that meeting!
It was not Laithwaite that brought the shadow of ridicule and doubt to this topic but, after Laithwaite gave in to the urge to be first and foolishly went public too soon, the Royal Society and the scientific community. They closed their collective minds tightly and closed their ranks still tighter rather than re-examine the subject that Laithwaite had shone the first fresh light on for over three hundred years. Laithwaite made the same simple, small, mistake that many present here have made – me included – namely that he excitedly rushed to tell everyone what he had discovered before he had fully completed his understanding.
What he and you and I and others here discovered (though often are unable to successfully describe) was the ability of a gyro to make some of its EFFECTS of inertia seem to vanish (because those effects are precessed and the effect of that precession is precessed etc., etc., ad. inf. as prescribed by Nitro’s first law) and realised that that ability to vanish the effects of inertia made the first, second and third Newtonian laws WRONG and, by simple extrapolation, and confirming experimentation, showed that inertial drive is possible.
Near the end of his life, Laithwaite was sadly driven to making his successful working model (I have only seen one) out of Meccano after the great (Ha!) Scientific community had succeeded in ruining him and he lost access to finance and laboratory workshops. However some good engineers have since reconstructed this machine properly. This really is the real deal - as was Alex Jones “ one stroke machine” event though it was an even crappier engineered copy of a very early version of one of mine. Bitter hater of plagiarists? Me? No. Hell! I’ve outlived him. I think the alcohol preserved me better than him! God help any relative that tries to get me cremated! Boom!
As I have said before, the well engineered copy of Laithwaite’s meccano machine can, wonderfully, be seen on YouTube. I urge you to try and get your head around it – it can be seen here:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nstIIZZadAM&app=desktop
If anyone knows who the constructors are or what has happened to the machine shown I would love to know.
MD, you also are displaying the very same urge to be first that caused Laithwaite to go public too soon, and you say you have filed for a patent. This is a path that can lead to penury even if, like me, you are able to write your own specification and claims. Good luck with it but I fear that your present machine, while occasionally wobbling in the wanted direction, does not show sufficient continuity of direction, large enough strokes or new teaching to warrant a patent (not that that will stop the US patent office from granting you one) or, more importantly attract a manufacturer to invest or make a university want to get involved and risk the kind of nightmares Laithwaite suffered from from his peers. I am sorry if I appear harsh.
Incidentally, I also apologise to anyone who leaves a message on my YouTube Jogglevision site for my not replying but I have been unable to fathom out how to reply to comments on YouTube – dinosaur or what?.
Kind regards
NM
PS The Jones machine is fairly simple to explain. It uses gravity to initiate the swing displacement of the gyro pendulum’s mass, while the trolley's movement is resisted in the direction of release by the skate wheels which only permit the trolley to move back and forth at right angles to the direction of release. The subsequent precessed sideways movement of the pendulum, that is not resisted by the skate wheels, shifts the mass of the pendulum in a direction that the wheels do not resist. The pendulum moves the largest amount on this first swing and its deceleration at the end of this first swing drags the trolley at right angles to its originating direction of release. The subsequent swings are much smaller than the first swing which means that this device, like one of my early self teaching experiments, is (I believe the first to be uniquely and impossibly according to the third law) able to end up “outside its starting dimension”.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ted Pittman - 14/09/2015 18:24:43
| | | Responding to Nitro's comment about Laithwaite: "... he was a bloody fool to allow himself to think that his large gyro on a pole lost weight when he force precessed it round his head - he could have seen this was nonsense if he had allowed time to make a machine to force precess a pair of gyros round a vertical axis."
Solomon shows such a machine that he built. In chapter 5.7 of his book, he describes his own experiments regarding Laithwaite's Big Wheel. Responding to the criticism that Laithwaite had somehow pushed the wheel into flight and therefore, the resulting apparent weight loss was due to inertia. Solomon's set-up was designed to allow only horizontal rotation motion, thereby ensuring that vertical motion was not possible. To satisfy the needs of those critics of Laithwaite who complain that the total system weight was not measured, Solomon included a weight scale arrangement in his set-up.
The experimental procedure involved spinning a steel flywheel (1.3cm thick, 61cm dia.) up to 3,000 rpm and then rotating the spin vector (i.e. the spinning flywheel). The rotation of the spinning disk was varied between 0 and 10 rpm. He states: "Weight loss was as high as 54 lbs. This weight change does not conform to either gyroscopic precession or conical pendulum behavior."
Solomon says his analytics conclusively prove that a spinning disc whose spin vector is rotated will change its weight. He goes on to present his theory (in chap.14) with a math model, called The Non-Inertial Field Effect, that explains the gyroscope's behavior.
I find it most interesting that he supports his theories with drawings, math and enough details that others can duplicate his experiments and/or investigate his conclusions.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 14/09/2015 19:12:01
| | | Hi Ted
I find it impossible to believe that by simply rotating a 1.3mm thick by 61cm dia at 3000 rpm and rotated at a mere 10rpm it is possible to produce any upthrust let alone 54lbs of upthrust (weight loss).
Maybe I’m wrong and we no longer need propellers, gearboxes, transmissions or differentials! Indeed we no longer need wings or aeroplanes as we can fly ourselves around the place with a spinning disc hat!
Come now Ted, this Solomon guy is having a laugh.
kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy - 14/09/2015 19:34:10
| | | Evening Ted,
I see you are still keeping an eye on proceedings here.
How is your experiment doing? Well I hope?
I am pleased you offered this latest spot of information.
It confirms what I, proved by experiment many times many years ago.
I wrote a “Bricks on Strings” bit of philosophy about 34 years ago in which a person rotating a pair of heavy bricks at an elevated angle of 45 degrees (if he could) would produce a vertical thrust of approximately 800lbs.
This idea went on to the back burner until I saw Laithwaite demonstrate his 50lb flywheel or if you prefer gyro in the 1974 Christmas Lectures.
I immediately built a device to accommodate a mechanically accelerated pair of gyroscopes and when it got to 45 degrees there was no vertical thrust , no angular momentum and no centrifugal force.
The system suffered the same effect at plus 1 degree or anywhere in between all the way up to 90 degrees
I eventually got the device to deliver a consistent 16 ounces of thrust as seen on YouTube for all the wrong reasons but I did discover that Newton had not covered all his options.
For the best part of 10 years on this forum and another 20 years prior to that I stated exactly what Solomon has stated.
However it has appeared for a long time that anything I have stated has been treated with contempt and ignored.
He is correct, but maybe not for all the correct reasons.
The weight of the flywheel will be proportional to the speed of flywheel and shaft in mechanical or forced rotation, although an increase in flywheel rotation speed will do the same
I will not call this precession, as precession it is not.
I think we should leave precession to passive or gravity accelerated systems.
If Laithwaite had, or Solomon would, rotate this device faster into the zone I called “saturation” the weight will disappear altogether and be applied in total down through the axis of rotation of the person doing the rotating.
The man the shaft and the flywheel which constitute the system will experience no overall change in weight.
Regards
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ted Pittman - 14/09/2015 20:21:54
| | | Nitro-
I may find it hard to believe Solomon also, but that doesn't matter. His book is 508 pages and I try to take away any info that may be useful to my experiments. Nobody is 100% wrong.
Sandy-
Thank you also for writing your book which includes a scientific report of successful test results from Vipac's Melbourne laboratories. This is helpful stuff.
The point is: some of us may know parts of the true principles of inertial propulsion. Bits and pieces. If so, we should expect similar results - similar parameters - similar surprises -similar quirks at some point. It's like pieces of a puzzle where we all know what the result will be.
Glen-
Yes, we are all getting old and many of us has spent years experimenting and refining our pieces of the puzzle. Many of us, on this website, have been concentrating on the propulsive part of the problem. But, suppose we were to discuss the next step... What should a demonstration vehicle/craft look like? This we could discuss openly and freely share detailed information about. Then, no matter who cracks the mystery of inertial propulsion, he or she would know how to quickly build a craft to fit the engine into - based on all our knowledge.
Or must there only be opinions and squabbles about what can't be done by whom.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ted Pittman - 14/09/2015 20:45:00
| | | For those who are interested, here's one of Solomon's papers:
www.iseti.us/WhitePapers/Mars2005/MarsSociety-2005-(DoestheLaithwaiteGyroscopicWeightLosshavePropulsionPotential-2005-09-11).pdf
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/09/2015 23:06:39
| | | Thank you Ted for a very nice offer and an intelligent one, very thoughtful. I will in humility decline.It would be an unforgivable stock of bad luck if I should die with this knowledge. Let me struggle a while longer first. I am not even sure that my infallible discoveries would be believed, so burned in the mind are some of the fallacies on here about gyroscopes.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ted Pittman - 14/09/2015 23:48:31
| | | Clarification:
What I was suggesting was that some of us might discuss what a craft, that could use an Inertial Drive would look like - without knowing details about the engine. We could use our knowledge of model airplanes, electronics, structural engineering, etc.
If not - we can always Google & Wikipedia it ! (joke)
- frame structure (what's cheap & strong?)
- power source ( light weight batteries?, a long cable?)
- guidance system (what's affordable?)
- telemetry?
- how many propulsion units (no details required)
- etc.
Hey, it might be FUN !
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
