laithwaite gyroscopic weight loss: a first review

May 07 2006May 07 2006 International Space Developement CoInternational Space Developement Conference 2006nference 2006

11

Laithwaite Gyroscopic Weight Loss: Laithwaite Gyroscopic Weight Loss: A First ReviewA First Review

Benjamin T SolomonBenjamin T SolomoniSETI LLCiSETI LLC

PO Box 831PO Box 831Evergreen, CO 80437, USAEvergreen, CO 80437, USA

http://www.iSETI.us/http://www.iSETI.us/

May 07 2006May 07 2006 Ben SolomonBen Solomon

International Space Developement Conference 2006International Space Developement Conference 2006 Laithwaite Gyroscopic Weight: A First Review Laithwaite Gyroscopic Weight: A First Review

Page 2 of 61 of 61 iSETI LLC, PO Box 831, Evergreen, CO 80437 iSETI LLC, PO Box 831, Evergreen, CO 80437

Objective of the PresentationObjective of the Presentation

Objective:

To seriously investigate Laithwaite’s claims of “mass transfer”:

1. As this potentially has a bearing on the work of researchers, such as Podkletnov & Nieminen (1992), Hayasaka & Takeuchi (1989), Luo, Nie, Zhang, & Zhou (2002).

2. To present a potential avenue for gravity modification research, based on the relativistic effects.




AgendaAgenda

1.1. Some Theoretical ConsiderationsSome Theoretical Considerations

2.2. Deconstructing the Laithwaite & NASA ExperimentsDeconstructing the Laithwaite & NASA Experiments

3.3. What did Laithwaite Demonstrate?What did Laithwaite Demonstrate?

4.4. The Solomon-Laithwaite ExperimentsThe Solomon-Laithwaite Experiments




Some Theoretical ConsiderationsSome Theoretical Considerations

Section Objective:

To present a case for time dilation as the primary cause of motion, and therefore, of the gravitational field.




Time DilationTime Dilation

Time Dilation as a Function of Velocity

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

- 50,000,000 100,000,000 150,000,000 200,000,000 250,000,000 300,000,000 350,000,000

Velocity of Object (m/s)

Tim

e D

ilat

ion

(s)

Time slows down as the velocity of an object increases. That is the “distance” between clock ticks increases. Note that the effect is non-linear, and not noticeable at “normal” velocities.





Radial Gravitational Time Dilation

3.00E-10

3.50E-10

4.00E-10

4.50E-10

5.00E-10

5.50E-10

6.00E-10

6.50E-10

7.00E-10

7.50E-10

6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000 9,000,000 10,000,000 11,000,000 12,000,000 13,000,000 14,000,000

Radial Distance from Surface of Earth (m)

Tim

e D

ilat

ion

- 1

(s)

Radial Time Dilation

Time slows down as one approaches the center of a gravitational source. Or the “space” between clock ticks increases as one approaches the source of a gravitational field.





The time dilation behavior of a gravitational field is such that the escape velocity is strictly governed by the Lorentz-FitzGerald transformation equation for time dilation.

Ve = c . √ ( 1 – (1 / te )2 )

Ve = escape velocity at a given altitude

te = time dilation at the same altitude.

c = velocity of light, 299,792,458 m/s





Source: Ben Solomon, “A New Approach to Gravity & Space Propulsion Systems”, International Space Development Conference 2005, May 25, San Jose, California. (http://www.iseti.us/)

The hypothesis of “An Epiphany on Gravity”1, was that time dilation causes gravity, not the other way around, as with modern physics.

1Ben Solomon, “An Epiphany on Gravity”, Journal of Theorectics, December 3, 2001, Vol. 3-6. (http://www.iseti.us/)

Object Mass Radius Gravity Gravitational Time dilation Equivalent Escape - Equivalent

at surface Escape Velocity Lorentz/Time Velocity Error

Dilation Velocity

M R g ve tv vf ve - vf

kg m m/s2 m/s s m/s

Sun 2.00E+30 6.90E+08 274.98 621,946 1.00000215195969 621,946 0.0000000%

Mercury 3.59E+23 2.44E+06 3.70 4,431 1.00000000010922 4,431 0.0000153%

Venus 4.90E+24 6.07E+06 8.87 10,383 1.00000000059976 10,383 0.0000018%

Earth 5.98E+24 6.38E+06 9.80 11,187 1.00000000069626 11,187 -0.0000080%

Mars 6.58E+23 3.39E+06 3.71 5,087 1.00000000014395 5,087 0.0000245%

Jupiter 1.90E+27 7.14E+07 23.12 59,618 1.00000001977343 59,618 0.0000002%

Saturn 5.68E+26 5.99E+07 8.96 35,566 1.00000000703708 35,566 -0.0000002%

Uranus 8.67E+25 2.57E+07 7.77 21,201 1.00000000250060 21,201 -0.0000005%

Neptune 1.03E+26 2.47E+07 11.00 23,552 1.00000000308580 23,552 -0.0000019%

Pluto 1.20E+22 1.15E+06 0.72 1,178 1.00000000000772 1,178 0.0001586%




Hunt for the Window: Gravity versus Centripetal Force FieldHunt for the Window: Gravity versus Centripetal Force Field

You have to find the window where physics behaves “differently”.

Bob Schlitters




Principle of EquivalencePrinciple of Equivalence

The Principle of Equivalence (Schutz 2003) states that if gravity were everywhere uniform we could not distinguish it from acceleration.

That is a point observer within a gravitational field would not be able to distinguish between a gravitational field and acceleration.

Taking this to the limit, we will assume that any relationship with respect to the Lorentz-FitzGerald transformation and gravitational fields are interchangeable.




Key to AnalysisKey to Analysis

Further, we will use the nomenclature ‘tangential’, and ‘radial’ to represent the orthogonal relationships of orbital and freefall motion respectively.

We will compare gravitational with centripetal, tangential, and radial motions respectively.

Tangential

Radial

The key to the theoretical analysis is to compare the gravitational field and the centripetal force field in their entirety, and not as a point observer in the field.




Time Dilation FormulaeTime Dilation Formulae

Tangential time dilation, tt, at a distance, R, from the center of a gravitational field

is given by

tt = 1 / √( 1 -GM/(R.c2) )

Tangential time dilation , tt, at a distance, r, from the center of a plate spinning at

ω revolutions per second, is given by

tt = √( 1 – ω2.r2 / c2 )




Tangential Rotational Time Dilation

0.00E+00

5.00E-15

1.00E-14

1.50E-14

2.00E-14

2.50E-14

3.00E-14

3.50E-14

4.00E-14

4.50E-14

- 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20

Radius (m)

Ta

ng

en

tia

l Tim

e D

ilati

on

- 1

(s

)

2,000 RPM5,000 RPM

Tangential Time Dilation as f(Radial Distance)Tangential Time Dilation as f(Radial Distance)

Centripetal Force Field Gravitational Field

Gradient is POSITIVE Gradient is NEGATIVE

If gyroscopic spin is to produce gravity modifications, of the type that results in some amount of weightlessness, the gyroscopic spin has to result in a parameter value that is opposite to gravity’s. Gradient is a good candidate.

Computational Fault Line

Gravitational Time Dilation

0.00E+00

1.00E-10

2.00E-10

3.00E-10

4.00E-10

5.00E-10

6.00E-10

7.00E-10

8.00E-10

6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000 9,000,000 10,000,000 11,000,000 12,000,000 13,000,000 14,000,000

Radius (m)

Tim

e D

ilatio

n -

1 (s

)

Radial Time DilationTangential Time Dialtion




11stst Part of the Window Part of the Window

1st Part of the Window:

The magnitude and direction of the time dilation vector created by gravitational or centripetal fields are indicators of the type of force field.

Increasing Time Dilation ≡ Increasing Force




Gradient & Curvature Formulae: GravityGradient & Curvature Formulae: Gravity

Tangential gradient, dtt/dR , and curvature, Ct, at a distance, R, from the center of

a gravitational field is given by

dtt/dR = - (GM/2c2)/R2

Ct = [(Kt/R3).((1- Kt/R)-3/2) + (3Kt2/4R4).((1- Kt/R)-5/2)]/[1 + (Kt

2/4R4)/(1- Kt/R)3]3/2

≈ d2tt/dR2

≈ (GM/c2)/ R3

where Kt = GM/c2




Gradient & Curvature Formulae: Centripetal ForceGradient & Curvature Formulae: Centripetal Force

Gradient, dtt/dR , and curvature, Ct, at a distance, r, from the center of a plate

spinning at ω revolutions per second, is given by

dtt/dr = (kr r).(1 - kr r2)-3/2

Ct = [kt.(1- ktr2)-3/2 + (3.kt2.r2).(1- ktr2)-5/2] / [1 + {(krr).(1 – kr.r2)-3/2)}2]3/2

≈ d2tt/dr2

≈ kt. + 3.kt2 . r2

where kt = ω2 / c2




Tangential Gradient & Curvature as f(Radial Distance)Tangential Gradient & Curvature as f(Radial Distance)

Centripetal Force Field Gravitational Field

1. Curvature is POSITIVE

2. Change in Curvature ≠ constant

3. Gradient is POSITIVE

4. Change in Gradient = constant

If correct, gravitational effects are due to gradient, and not curvature.

1. Curvature is POSITIVE

2. Change in Curvature ≠ constant

3. Gradient is NEGATIVE

4. Change in Gradient ≠ constant

Tangential Rotational Gradient & Curvature

4.45E-11

4.45E-11

4.45E-11

4.45E-11

4.45E-11

4.45E-11

4.45E-11

4.45E-11

4.45E-11

4.45E-11

4.45E-11

4.45E-11

- 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20

Radius (m)

Cu

rva

ture

0.00E+00

5.00E-12

1.00E-11

1.50E-11

2.00E-11

2.50E-11

3.00E-11

3.50E-11

4.00E-11

4.50E-11

5.00E-11

Gra

die

nt

Tangential CurvatureTangential Gradient Tangential Gravitational Properties

0.00E+00

2.00E-24

4.00E-24

6.00E-24

8.00E-24

1.00E-23

1.20E-23

1.40E-23

1.60E-23

1.80E-23

6.E+06 7.E+06 8.E+06 9.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+07 1.E+07 1.E+07 1.E+07

Radius (m)

Cu

rva

ture

-6.00E-17

-5.00E-17

-4.00E-17

-3.00E-17

-2.00E-17

-1.00E-17

0.00E+00

Gra

die

nt

Tangential CurvatureTangential Gradient




22ndnd Part of the Window Part of the Window

2nd Part of the Window:

The force created by gravitational or centripetal fields are a function of the gradient of the time dilation vector.

Positive gradient = repulsion

Negative gradient = attraction




Gravitation versus Centripetal Force FieldGravitation versus Centripetal Force Field

Gravitational Time Dilation

-1.50E+07

-1.00E+07

-5.00E+06

0.00E+00

5.00E+06

1.00E+07

1.50E+07

0 1E-10 2E-10 3E-10 4E-10 5E-10 6E-10 7E-10 8E-10

Time Dilation - 1 (s)

Rad

ius

of th

e E

arth

(m)

Radial Time DilationTangential Time Dialtion Radial Time Dilation in the Presence of Rotation

(0.40)

(0.30)

(0.20)

(0.10)

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.00E+00 5.00E-14 1.00E-13 1.50E-13 2.00E-13 2.50E-13 3.00E-13

(Time Dilation - 1)*10000 (s)

Whe

el R

adiu

s (m

)

1. Gravity’s time dilation field is funnel shaped.

1. Centripetal force’s time dilation field is conic.

2. There isn’t any radial time dilation.




Gravitational FieldGravitational Field

Tangential Time Dilation


For a Gravitational Field the relationship between tangential and radial time dilation is given by,

1/tt2 – 1/2tr

2 = 1/2




Rotation & Spin FieldRotation & Spin Field

For a Gyroscopic Centripetal Field the relationship between tangential and radial time dilation is,(1/tt

2).(1/ω2) - (1/tr2).(1/2ωl

2) = (1/ω2) - (1/2ωl2)


No Rotation With Rotation



When Rotation exceeds a threshold value, the “flat”, tangential only, time dilation field pops and centripetal forces facilitate a radial time dilation field.

The figures depict field strength values, not physical shape.




Deconstructing the Laithwaite & NASA ExperimentsDeconstructing the Laithwaite & NASA Experiments

Section Objective:

To deconstruct both Laithwaite’s and NASA’s experiments in a manner as to,

1. Ask the most possible questions.

2. Present theoretical validation or rebuttal of the observed effects.




Prof Eric Laithwaite – A Short BiographyProf Eric Laithwaite – A Short Biography

-Prof. Eric Laithwaite (1921 - 1997)

-The inventor of the linear motor

-The inventor of the maglev technology used in Japanese and German high speed trains.

-Emeritus Professor of Heavy Electrical Engineering at Imperial College, London, UK

-Presented some anomalous gyroscopic behavior for the Faraday lectures at the Royal Institution, in 1973.

-Included in this lecture-demonstration was a big motorcycle wheel weighing 50lb.

-He spun and raised effortlessly above his head with one hand, claiming it had lost weight and so contravened Newton's third law.




Excerpts for BBC Video ‘Heretic’Excerpts for BBC Video ‘Heretic’

Video courtesy of Gyroscopes.org, http://www.gyroscopes.org/




Laithwaite – Inferred Big Wheel WeightLaithwaite – Inferred Big Wheel Weight

Laithwaite Demonstration:

Prof. Eric Laithwaite’s carries a 50 lb wheel with both hands.

My Duplication:

1. I was comfortable with a 40 lb weight.

2. I could just barely carry a 60 lb weight.

My Conclusion:

The total weight of the wheel was some where between 40 and 60 lbs.




Laithwaite – Inferred Gyroscopic Big Wheel WeightLaithwaite – Inferred Gyroscopic Big Wheel Weight


Note that, Prof. Eric Laithwaite’s wrist is apparently carrying the full 50 lb wheel, on a horizontal rod. At this point the rod is moving horizontally.

My Duplication:

Using a 3 foot pole weighing 2.5 lb:

1. I could just barely carry a 3 lb weight at its end.

2. I could not lift a 7 lb weight with my wrist alone.

My Conclusion:

1. The total effective weight of the wheel and rod could not have been much greater than 5.5 lb.

2. A rotation of about 6-7 rpm is insufficient to keep the wheel lifted by centripetal force (requires at least 80 rpm).




If Weight Exists, Suggests (1)If Weight Exists, Suggests (1)

Weight is 50 lb (23 kg)

Is the wrist capable of a moment of ?

50 lb x 32 ft/s2 x 3 ft = 3,072 lbft2/s2

23 kg x 9.8 m/s2 x 1 m = 225 Nm

Conclusion:

Gyroscopic forces do not allow a substantial amount of the weight to be felt at the wrist (?)




If Total System Weight is Conserved, Suggests (2)If Total System Weight is Conserved, Suggests (2)

Conclusion:

How does total system weight include gyroscope weight if it is not felt at the wrist?

Also, consider that Laithwaite is doing a “back hand” with 50 lbs.

Is Total System Weight is 50 lb (23 kg) + Laithwaite’s weight ?

Is the wrist capable of ?

50 lb (23 kg) weight

Weight is 50 lb (23 kg)

back hand motion




Laithwaite – Big Wheel PropertiesLaithwaite – Big Wheel Properties


Note that, the wheel design, is not solid but it has a substantial mass in the non-rim rotating plane.

Also, note that the transparency (bottom picture) suggest a rotation greater than 3,000 rpm.

My Conclusion:

I estimate that the non-rim rotating plane mass is about 20% to 30% of the mass of the whole wheel or about 10 to 17 lbs.




NASANASA Experiment* Experiment*

NASA Experiment:

1. Used a bicycle wheel 6 – 10 inches in diameter.

2. Rotation was achieved by hand.

Inferred NASA Experiment Parameters:

1. Wheel diameter about 8 inches (20cm).

2. Rotation about 60 rpm.

3. Wheel properties:

1. Hollow plane of rotation.

2. Mass essentially at rim.

3. Estimated non-rim rotating plane mass is less than 2%, of the wheel.

* Conservation with Marc Millis of NASA Glen on 06/22/2005

Picture courtesy of How Stuff Works, http://science.howstuffworks.com/gyroscope1.htm




Demonstration of GyroscopesDemonstration of Gyroscopes

http://science.howstuffworks.com/gyroscope1.htm

Comments:

This video is an example of the experiment NASA conducted. Note that the period of precession is about 14s or equivalent to 4.3 rpm.




Analysis of How-Stuff-Works VideoAnalysis of How-Stuff-Works Video

Estimated Parameters How Stuff Works Video Deconstruction

Lever Arm Length, l 0.020 m

Wheel Radius, r 0.660 m 26 inches

Wheel Spin, w 5.000 Hz 300 rpm

Gravitational Acceleration, g 9.810 m/s2

Mass of Wheel, m 2.273 kg 5 lb

Moment of Inertia of Wheel, I 0.991

Angular Momentum, L 4.956

Theoretical Results

Precession Frequency, wp 0.090 Hz 5.40 rpm

Observed Results

Duration of 1/2 cycle 7 s

Precession Frequency, wp 0.071 Hz 4.29 rpm

My Conclusion:

Theoretical results match observed results quite well. The mathematical relationships for precession, are correct.




Comparisons Between Laithwaite & NASA ExperimentsComparisons Between Laithwaite & NASA Experiments

Inferences:

1. There are substantial differences between Prof. Laithwaite’s demonstration and NASA’s experiment.

2. The theoretical results differ significantly from observed values.

Experimental Parameters Laithwaite NASA

Wheel Mass 23 kg (≈ 50 lbs) 1 kg (≈ 2 lbs)

Wheel Radius 30 cm ( ≈ 1 foot) 10 cm (≈ 4 inches)

Non-Rim Rotating Plane Mass 20% - 30% < 2%

Spin 5,000 rpm 60 to 200 rpm?

Lever Arm Length 2 m (≈ 6 ft) 2 cm (≈ 1 in) ??

Precession/Rotation Rate - Theoretical (centrifugal) - Theoretical (precession) - Actual Observed

450-637 rpm 157-314 rpm 7 rpm

- ? - ?

Estimated New Weight - Theoretical (centrifugal) - Theoretical (precession)

2.0 - 6.0 g (≈ 0.1 – 0.2 oz) 0.5 - 1.0 kg (≈ 1.1 – 2.2 lbs)

1 kg (≈ 2 lbs)

Estimated new g’ - Theoretical (centrifugal) - Theoretical (precession) - Actual Observed

0.002 - 0.001 m/s2 0.220 – 0.440 m/s2 9.81 m/s2

9.81 m/s2

9.81 m/s2




Estimation Error Sensitivity Not SignificantEstimation Error Sensitivity Not Significant

1 10 19 28 37 46 55 64 73 82 91 100

109

118

127

136

145

154

163

172

181

190

199

208

217

226

235

244

S1

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

0.0

Ratio of Spin Disc Radius to

Rotating Lever Arm

Rotating Precession Frequency (Hz)

0.0

1.6

0.8

0.4

1.2

5500

500RPM

2.78 Hz ≤ ωprecession ≤ 9.68 Hz

Theoretical Sensitivity Ranges:

1. 1.5m ≤ Lever Arm Length ≤ 2.5m

2. 0.26m ≤ Gyro Radius ≤ 0.34m

3. 4,500 rpm ≤ Gyro Spin ≤ 5,500 rpm

167 rpm ≤ ωprecession ≤ 580 rpm

Big Wheel ωprecession ≈ 7 rpm




Estimation Error InferenceEstimation Error Inference

One concludes that:

the phenomenon Laithwaite was demonstrating was not gyroscopic precession,

because

the practical results do not match theoretical results by two orders of magnitude.




The Key Questions: What is the Total System Weight? When?The Key Questions: What is the Total System Weight? When?

Spin

Torque = Gravity

Precession

Can we, in a scientifically robust manner, answer two questions:

What is the Net Weight of the Gyroscope?

And When?




What did Laithwaite demonstrate?What did Laithwaite demonstrate?

Section Objective:

To review what Laithwaite had presented.




Different PhenomenaDifferent Phenomena

1. Big Wheel Demonstration: The Laithwaite Effect

Under one set of conditions a spinning disc will lose weight, independently of its orientation with the Earth’s gravitational field.

2. Small Wheel Demonstration: The Jones Effect1

Under another set of conditions spinning discs will provide directional motion that is dependent upon the gyroscopic orientation of the device.

Hypothesis: Laithwaite demonstrated 2 different phenomena, weight loss and directional motion.

1. Alex Jones was the first to demonstrate this effect. Source: BBC’s ‘Heretic”.




Precession versus RotationPrecession versus Rotation

Is this big wheel

PRECESSING

or

ROTATING?




Not PrecessionNot Precession

Spin

Torque = Gravity

Precession

Spin

Torque = Gravity

Precession

1. The analysis of the Big Wheel demonstration, shows that precession due to gravity is perpendicular to the gravitational field. Weight loss requires the equivalent of a vertical upward force.




Precession versus RotationPrecession versus Rotation

1. I believe that there is a key difference in the demonstrated behavior. The natural frequency of the precessing Big Wheel should be 157 rpm, clockwise. However, Laithwaite is rotating the Big Wheel at about 7 rpm.

The Big Wheel is rotating, not precessing.

Spin

Torque = Gravity

Precession is clockwise (from above)

≈ Precession occurs when lever arm length is < wheel radius (?)

Pivot

Spin

Torque = Gravity

Rotation is also clockwise (from above)

≈ Rotation occurs when lever arm length is > wheel radius (?)

Pivot




Gyroscopic Precession ForcesGyroscopic Precession Forces

1. Precession causes the net forces acting on the wheel to be bidirectional with respect to the pivot. They change direction from towards the pivot to away from the pivot.

Precessing net forces acting on the wheel change sign/direction.

Pivot Point

Precession

TOP VIEW

Net Force

Net Force

Spin

Torque = Gravity

Precession

≈ Precession occurs when net forces change direction across plane of rotation

SIDE VIEW

Net Force

Net Force

Pivot Point




Centripetal ForcesCentripetal Forces

1. Rotation causes the net forces acting on the disc to be centripetal towards the pivot.

Rotating net forces acting on the wheel are centripetal.

Pivot Point

Rotation

TOP VIEW

Net Force

Net Force

Spin

Torque = Gravity

Rotation

≈ Rotation occurs when net forces are centripetal across plane of rotation

SIDE VIEW

Net Force

Net Force

Pivot Point




The Four Laithwaite Rules: Rule 1The Four Laithwaite Rules: Rule 1

Rule 1: A rotating gyroscope does not exhibit lateral forces in the plane of rotation





Rule 2: A rotating gyroscope does not exhibit centrifugal forces in the plane of rotation





Rule 3: A rotating gyroscope will not exhibit angular momentum in the plane of rotation





Rule 4: A rotating gyroscope will lose weight




Solomon-Laithwaite ExperimentsSolomon-Laithwaite Experiments

Section Objective:

To present the experiments and results obtained to date.




Experimental Set-UpExperimental Set-Up

Spin

Torque = Gravity

Rotation

Massive Steel Table

Steel Bars to Secure Lower Stand to Table

Lower Stand (Steel Tube) Supports Upper Stand

Upper Stand Houses Bearings to Enable Free Rotational Movement

Ball Bearing Tube of Upper Stand

Weight Scale (up to 400 lbs) Measures

Total System Weight

Flywheel (55lbs)




Some Things to NoteSome Things to Note

1.1. The rotation is in the The rotation is in the opposite senseopposite sense of what precession allows. of what precession allows.

2.2. Rotation is at most 10 rpm (revs) << than precession.Rotation is at most 10 rpm (revs) << than precession.

3.3. Weight measurement is of Weight measurement is of Total System WeightTotal System Weight..

4.4. Weight of spinning flywheel is the same as stationary wheel when not Weight of spinning flywheel is the same as stationary wheel when not rotating.rotating.

5.5. No nutation (wobble within a wobble) is allowed.No nutation (wobble within a wobble) is allowed.

6.6. Weight loss not due to inertia.Weight loss not due to inertia.

7.7. Weight “crashes” back and exceeds when rotation slows down to zero.Weight “crashes” back and exceeds when rotation slows down to zero.




11stst Flywheel Test Flywheel Test




11stst Demonstration of Weight Loss Demonstration of Weight Loss




22ndnd Demonstration of Weight Loss Demonstration of Weight Loss




Static MeasurementStatic Measurement

Static WeightsLower Stand 36 lbWheel Upper & Lower Stands 111 lbWheel + Upper Stand 75 lbWheel 55 lb




Dynamic MeasurementsDynamic Measurements

Dynamic Weight Lowest HighestNot Spinning 109 lb 111 lbFirst Experiment (Spinning) 65 lb 120.5 lb

-45 lb 10.5 lbSecond Experiment (Spinning) 56 lb 135 lb

-54 lb 25 lb




Apparent Behavior: Total System Weight versus RotationApparent Behavior: Total System Weight versus Rotation

Rotation

Weight

>7 revs

Weight Loss Behavior

Increasing Field Strength110 lb

135 lbCollapsing Field ≡ Falling

56 lb

Weight G

ain Behavior

Spin > 1000 rpm

< 7 revs

10 revs

<7 revs




ConclusionConclusion

1.1. Able to reproduce Laithwaite’s results.Able to reproduce Laithwaite’s results.

2.2. Gyroscopic precession not the cause of weight loss.Gyroscopic precession not the cause of weight loss.

3.3. There are boundary conditions / threshold values, before weight loss is There are boundary conditions / threshold values, before weight loss is observed.observed.




Next StepsNext Steps

1.1. Determine the boundary conditions / threshold values.Determine the boundary conditions / threshold values.

2.2. The theoretical formulation and relationships within the spin-rotate The theoretical formulation and relationships within the spin-rotate centripetal force field.centripetal force field.

3.3. Determine whether the weight loss effect is a buoyancy or a propulsion Determine whether the weight loss effect is a buoyancy or a propulsion effect.effect.

4.4. Was the work of other researchers dependent upon gyroscopic field Was the work of other researchers dependent upon gyroscopic field effects?effects?

1.1. How much of Podkletnov & Nieminen (1992) results (5,000 rpm) are due to How much of Podkletnov & Nieminen (1992) results (5,000 rpm) are due to gyroscopic spin?gyroscopic spin?

2.2. Was Hayasaka & Takeuchi (1989, up to 13,000 rpm) work on one side of Was Hayasaka & Takeuchi (1989, up to 13,000 rpm) work on one side of boundary conditions while Luo, Nie, Zhang, & Zhou (2002) on the other side of boundary conditions while Luo, Nie, Zhang, & Zhou (2002) on the other side of these conditions, thus producing conflicting results?these conditions, thus producing conflicting results?




BibliographyBibliography

P.F. Browne (1977), Relativity of Rotation, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., Vol. 10, N0. 5, 1977

Gibilisco, Stan (1983), Understanding Einstein’s Theories of Relativity, Dover Publications, ISBN 0-486-26659-1.

H. Hayasaka and S. Takeuchi (1989), Anomalous Weight Reduction on a Gyroscope’s Right Rotations around the Vertical Axis on the Earth, Physical Review Letters, December 1989, Vol. 63, No 25, pages 2701-2704.

Kline, Morris (1977), Calculus, An Intuitive and Physical Approach, Dover Publications, ISBN 0-486-40453-6.

J. Luo, Y. X. Nie, Y. Z. Zhang, and Z. B. Zhou1 (2002), Null result for violation of the equivalence principle with free-fall rotating gyroscopes, Phys. Rev. D 65, 042005 (2002).

E. Podkletnov and R. Nieminen (1992), A Possibility of Gravitational Force Shielding by Bulk YBa2Cu3O7-V Superconductor, Physica C 203 (1992) pages 441-444.

Schutz, Bernard (2003), Gravity from the ground up, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-45506-5.

Solomon, Ben (2001), An Epiphany on Gravity, Journal of Theoretics, December 3, 2001, Vol. 3-6. (http://www.iseti.us/).

Nicholas Thomas (2002), Common Errors, NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project, August 9, 2002, http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/ComnErr.html#GYROSCOPIC%20ANTIGRAVITY




AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

National Space Society – forum/platform

Rocky Mountain Mars Society Chapter – forum/platform and invaluable critique.

Mike Darschewski, formerly of GMACCH Capital Corp – mathematics.

Bob Schlitter, Timberline Iron Works, fabrication.

Ray & Seth, A&E Cycle; Cliff, Legend Motorcycles; Mark, B&B Sportcycles; Risk, Steele’s Motorcycle; Doug, Doug’s Balancing – power transmission.

Pat & Chad, Colorado Scale Center - weight scales.

Mark, Joy Controls – measurement instruments.

David Solomon - videographer




ContactContact

Ben Solomon

iSETI LLC

P.O. Box 831

Evergreen, CO 80437

Email: [email protected]

Tel: 303-949-7930

laithwaite gyroscopic weight loss: a first review

Documents

laithwaite nasa experiments3

r square1r6

theoretical considerations2

time dilationtime

normal velocities

multiple r1r

gravity modification

hayasaka takeuchi