Eric Laithwaite - gyroscopic gravity modification.mov

[videos4mydad]

If he had attached the scale to the spinning wheel, it would have still read 40lbs.

[shadowbillyphone]

"And there's the question how to stop the wheel!"

[sorova]

He later said he was wrong. (which he was) There is no reaction without action.

[geoidesic]

@sorova Says who? Please include a citation if you're going to make remarks like that. Eric Laithwaite was actively involved in anti-gravity research until his death. The last patent I know of by him was for such a device in 1994 – three years before his death. I've added the relevant citation link to the video info.

[sorova]

@geoidesic Have a look at Wikipedia. Gyroscopes follow Newtons laws and that's it I am afraid. Laithwaite was wrong, plain and simple. yes he was a clever man there is no doubt but we can't get everything right always all of the time. He will be remembered more for his Maglev work.

[geoidesic]

@sorova By you maybe :0) Don't be afraid. It's ok.

[aeverett51]

@sorova Yeah lets look at Wikipedia for complicated physics. Laithwaite was on to something i believe, and it she be studied further.

[sorova]

@aeverett51 Not just wiki. He also made a fool of himself at a royal Institution lecture or something. Many people have chased this old idea but newton has always been proven right. Look for Sandy Kidd from Dundee Scotland for example - another one and loads more.

[MegaDetroitboy]

a gyroscope is only part of making anti-gravity you still need to spin the spinning gyro to make more force and then there's more but you have to figure that out for your self

[1234ToddgMr]

@MegaDetroitboy What else needs to be done?

[escoville1]

I have always been mystified by this man. He was a professor of engineering and made some major advances. He must have known about the mathematics of this experiment. If all he wanted to say was that gyroscopes could be an efficient way of energy conversion (which perhaps they are) why did he not just say so, instead of clouding everything in this mystique. A toy gyroscope on top of a mini-Eiffel Tower *seems* to defy gravity. The explanation is no mystery.

[Kin9ofkin9s1983]

It's beautiful! There within us is a gift imagination.

[teslaandlyne]

Sperry gyro effect needed Tesla ether effects motor to work its wonders.

[valevarkasys]

The depression fact that we still cannot use this for "anti-gravity" or for significantly reducing weight is because you still need energy to lift the shaft, or in the case of a vessel, the vessel itself.

[pashaahsj]

O_O

VIDEO-PLAYER-CEPTION O___O

[elcabezon2222]

awesome!

[justinpickard42]

ENHANCE!



[VirtRampage]

video player inside a video player... we must go deeper

[1BustedMyth]

What a wonderfull demonstration, really made my day

[steornhugh]

I've finally stumbled on the element he missed. If my system lifts off it will be in large part due to this magnificent man and his (nearly) flying machine. He may not have understood the theory, but by drawing attention to the weirdness of angular momentum he opened many eyes.

[TheNeokorben]

GREAT,FANTASTIC

[magatronism]

A fact about a spinning wheel, that so far everyone has missed...

We suck.

[3BricksHigher]

I find this type thing very interesting

[flowerbower]

@3BricksHigher It is interesting, but it is not that interesting.

[brantc]

Pg 33. analysis of moment about the wrist for the Laithwaite configuration of gyroscope.

.iseti.us/WhitePapers/MARS2005­/MarsSociety-2005-%28DoestheLa­ithwaiteGyroscopicWeightLossha­vePropulsionPotential-2005-09-­11%29.pdf

Using "analysis of eric laithwaite gyroscope" in google search I could find no "mainstream" papers. Again, if you have one, put it up.

Otherwise I will just have to say you dont know what you are talking about.

[flowerbower]

@brantc Why did you post this as a new comment, rather than as a reply? Were you afraid that I would see it? Of course no physicist would waste time writing papers about it; neither would they waste time on proving the impossibility of turning silk purses into sow's ears (the traditional converse is probably no longer impossible).

Your disbelief in elementary physical fact only goes to prove what immense damage Laithwaite did to the 'public understanding of science'. Don't be a such a sucker.

[brantc]

@flowerbower Show me. I am stupid.

Show me the standard physics explanation. I have been asking you this and you have not done it. You told me there was a analysis done by a mainstream scientist.

Show me the 1st grade text book explanation.

I have looked at physics text books. I have looked at Wikipedia. They do not have the exact same system as Laithwaite when they give an explanation of gyroscopes.

All you have done is asserted your point with no proof. Show me pictures, anything....

[flowerbower]

@brantc Well, that is something which we can agree upon.

Gyroscopic phenomena have been analysed by every physicist and mathematician since Euler. I shall give you a reading-list when I get back to my office.

The reason why you are experiencing some research confusion may be because - strictly speaking - Laithwaite is not playing with a gyroscope, but a spinning-top. The latter has existed for thousands of years, the former dates only from the beginning of the 19th century. Think gimbals.

[flowerbower]

@brantc OK, here are some reputable (non-internet) sources; "A Treatise on Gyrostatics and Rotational Motion" (Gray), This 'bible' is especially notable because Gray takes time out to make fun of gyrostatic antigravity.

"Mechanics of the Gyroscope" (Deimel), "Spinning Tops" (Perry), "Report on Gyroscopic Theory" (Greenhill). The last 3 books discuss the Kelvin Effect, which is what Laithwaite is exploiting above. And, of course, "Classical Mechanics" (Goldstein). Get up to speed.

[flowerbower]

@brantc PS: Also check out "Vibrational Mechanics" by Illya Blechman. This is not about gyroscopes per se, but (unusual for a scientist) he makes a point of laughing at antigravity inventors. He divides people into 3 groups: physicists (who really know what is happening), engineers (who invent convenient but essentially incorrect theories of mechanical behaviour) and outright loonies who do not even begin to understand what is going on. Pick your team.

[you2tooyou2too]

@flowerbower I enjoyed your re-observation of silk and sows. This particular video seems to validly demonstrate an intriguing phenomenon, without explanation. I expect this kind of demo, would attract children (of all ages) to the science of mechanical physics. It makes me smile with the remembered excitement of discovery.

[flowerbower]

@you2tooyou2too I find it rather depressing: old-time professors like Kelvin would present even more startling phenomena (some of them completely forgotten nowadays) and carefully explain them. But Laithwaite was a disgrace: not only did he not explain what was happening but I know (from personal communications with himself and his friends) that in fact he did not know (or did not accept) what was happening and instead attributed it to 'new physics'. He should have been fired for incompetence.

[fatjohn1408]

@flowerbower No he did not know indeed. Do you? Please explain. I would found it more interesting if he put the same weights stationary on a weight scale and the others gyroscoping...

[flowerbower]

@fatjohn1408 I have explained what is happening again and again in the comments below. He is simply exploiting the layman's tendency to confuse weights and moments (Derren Brown exploits a similar confusion in his 'light & heavy' stage act; as have generations of illusionists before him).

Putting a spinning gyroscope on a balance is full of possibilities for further confusion (e.g. the Hayasaka-Takeuchi farce): firstly, the reading will not be steady because of nutation. I have seen it ...

[flowerbower]

@fatjohn1408 [cont] argued (in a British Aerospace house magazine (of all places!) that the 'ups' were statistically bigger than the 'downs' and 'therefore' levitation had occurred.

It is also very easy for a moving load to interact with the mechanism of the weighing machine and produce a steady offset (from the stationary weight) which is simply an artefact. Indeed, it is scientific incompetence of the highest degree to use the 'wrong' sort of measuring device in that way. I used to ...

[flowerbower]

@fatjohn1408 [cont] correspond with an engineer who could make his bathroom scales read light simply by waving his arms around in a suitable pattern.

I have a copy of a very obscure Russian paper in which it was shown that an electric bell on a spring balance appeared to get lighter when it was switched on.

Isn't it great that real science is so much more satisfying than the crap put out by the crackpots and conmen?

[flowerbower]

@brantc Solomon is a crackpot, and the Secretary of the Mars Society once admitted to me that they don't have the necessary expertise to evaluate the many loony ideas that are sent to them.

That paper has been in my files for ages, together with NASA 'Breakthrough Propulsion' papers which considered the Dean Drive. The embarrassed NASA engineers had to mention it, apparently because their bean-counter bosses still believed in it. Wise up: a few crazy swallows do not an antigravity Spring make!

[brantc]

@flowerbower How can they have an opinion about something if they dont have the expertise????

What are you saying? Anti gravity doesnt exist?? You know gravity is a messed up theory.

What do you believe in, gravitons or relativity??

[flowerbower]

@brantc Because, like you, if they see more than one crazy saying the same thing they believe it and ignore the contrary protestations of the vast majority.

There is no accepted experimental evidence for antigravity. Apart from certain astronomical anomalies (which offer no comfort to the crackpot BTW), general relativity is accepted as being an adequate explanation for gravitational phenomena. GR predicts a form of antigravity.

Gravitons are a logical prediction, but have not been detected.

[brantc]

@flowerbower I will ask again. Point me to the paper or article that directly explains how the weight gets transferred from one end of the gyro to the other....

Thats what your claim is, isnt it??

[flowerbower]

@brantc No, that is not my claim: that would be ridiculous. The weight acts on his hand whatever else is happening. Why not go read any elementary physics textbook, or weigh a spinning gyroscope?

PS: And don't come back quoting the Hayasaka-Takeuchi experiment: that was a very rare example of blatant pseudoscience somehow slipping past a dozing editor and it has already been comprehensively debunked.

[flowerbower]

This vid must explain why the skies are full of levitating gyrocars, and why rockets are a thing of the past.

Or was Laithwaite just that academic nightmare come true: the crackpot who gets a professorial post because the 'bean-counters' above him are ignorant of science but admire his 'media-friendly ways'.

[z1zaz]

@flowerbower

" why rockets are a thing of the past "

You just proved your lack of comprehension !



[flowerbower]

@z1zaz You have just proved your inability to recognise sarcasm.

[brantc]

So every effect in this video is explained by standard physics..??

video.google.com/videoplay?doc­id=-6429646133340471888#

[flowerbower]

@brantc Yes, but that did not stop Laithwaite from starting a company to 'develop' the non-existent effect. Laithwaite and one of the other directors were, at that time, being paid by NASA to build a 'new' launching device for spacecraft. In fact, it was a very old idea. Laithwaite was always passing-off old ideas as being his own: the linear induction motor, for example.

That clip was part of a disgraceful series in which 6 crackpots were showcased by the 'moronic media'

[brantc]

@flowerbower My only question is "Did he do 40lbs worth of work to get that gyro over his head??"

40lbs is 40lbs. A spinning piece of metal shouldnt make it so that he has to do less work.

[flowerbower]

@brantc He did slightly more work because he also had to 'hurry on the precession'. The real point is that, if the wheel were not spinning, he would be unable to support the axle horizontally: he would be able only to lift it with the axle vertical. It is not the weight that is relevant, but the moment that it produces.

[brantc]

@flowerbower He could barely lift it up to his neck without the spinning wheel. With the wheel spinning he could lift it over his head with what looks like less effort and one hand.

This moment allows him to easily lift it over his head how??

Weight is weight. I dont care what angle it is at or what moment it has...

Not only that at the end of a stick it requires more leverage to support it.

[flowerbower]

@brantc Never heard of showmanship?

Jeez, what is so difficult to understand? The strongest man in the world would be unable to hold that axle horizontal if the wheel were not spinning: because of the MOMENT, not the weight. When the wheel is spinning and precessing, there is effectively no moment about the support point. Counter-intuitive, I know, but entirely predictable/explicable using Newton's laws.

[brantc]

@flowerbower It doesnt matter if he is holding it by then end or the middle, he doesnt look to be working as hard.

Let the silliness end. Go get a 40 pound piece of metal.

Do the same movements he is doing....

I am 6-1 and 220lbs. 40 lbs over your head is not easy.

He is 65 and not as strong as I am.

There is no way he could hold up 40lbs and do that wrist movement with his arm at an angle.. Notice his arm extended behind his head. That hurts!!

I just tried it.

Math is not reality.

[flowerbower]

@brantc Yes indeed, let the silliness end. We physicists have failed to be amazed by this simple phenomenon for hundreds of years. What makes you think that you know better? I am about the same age as Laithwaite was then, and I can lift 3 times that weight above my head! ONE MORE TIME: the angles don't matter if the wheel is spinning: the dead weight of the wheel+axle is all that acts on his hand, and that hand never strays far from the centreline of his body. Some people think that I am ...

[brantc]

@flowerbower Wow. You must be strong to be able to lift 120lb over your head with one hand in a nice smooth sweeping motion......

"What is the recommended weight a human being can lift?

Depending on your weight, if you weight 150lb I would go with 80lb.For 90 - 110 lb I would say maximum 55lb.The more your weight is the more you will likely lift without getting hurt."

Read more: wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the­_average_weight_a_human_being_­can_lift#ixzz1KGUYyoPE

Try again.....

[flowerbower]

@brantc I thought that you were referring to weight-lifting in general terms: lifting a dumb-bell of 120lb two-handed is easy. As to one-handed lifts, I have just demonstrated to a friend of mine - in a supermarket - that I could easily lift over 40lb in that way by using weights from the sporting-goods section.

As for the body-weight/weight-lifting relationship, I think that you may have confused it with the 'handicapping' scheme which is used so that lifters of widely different builds ...

[flowerbower]

@brantc [cont] can compete on equal terms. You are unaware no doubt that there are several academic journals which are devoted to the study of the strength-limits of human beings, especially with regard to industrial applications. Years ago, I scoured them while researching the topic of how easiily onlookers can be mislead as to the true forces involved in performing various 'feats'.

Elsewhere on YouTube, I have pointed out that 'Shaolin monks' routinely exploit 'physics tricks'.

[brantc]

@flowerbower Ok... So the basic claim is that when the wheels on the end of the shaft are rotating at 2500 rpm, the torque(moment)(or weight) of the lever gets transferred to the other end of the shaft from the wheel end. This makes it appear as though the weight on the end of the lever is centralized in his hand, somehow...

And that precession also somehow helps this happen.

And this enables a person to easily lift 40lbs above his head with one hand, behind his head, on the end of a lever.

[z1zaz]

@brantc

No - the moment is transfered about a 3rd axis at the rod end wrt spin and rotation,

and flowerbower just likes to see his own words in print !

Easy to self demonstrate/ experience using a front bicycle wheel.

Two flywheels opposite each other can be rotated with dynamic balance to create lift on the rotating axis.

Place flywheel pairs at each corner of a square platform, with counter rotation and spin on one diagonal

to make the entire platform lift without need for ground ref.

[flowerbower]

@z1zaz Oooh, someone has been reading Wikipedia ... and still managed to come away with zero understanding.

Your statements are true up to 'wheel'.

The remainder are nonsense. Try to understand that all of the forces involved in gyroscopic phenomena are couples.

Is the internet turning the entire population into morons who insist upon broadcasting their misconceptions? Is that what democracy must lead to?

[z1zaz]

@flowerbower

Does Wikipedia mention this ? Not read it, and not interested - can't be trusted !

Might be couples, but when precessive tilt is prevented, and mass rotational velocities about two axes are mechanically powered, you trying to tell me that generated forces do nothing along the third axis ?

Wise up !

[flowerbower]

@z1zaz At what point does this distrust kick in? Newton's laws, Noether's Theorem, ... ? Well, if you have any better understanding why don't you submit a paper about it to a reputable scientific journal? Oh, don't tell me; all real scientists are deluded and closed-minded and only free-thinking nutters have 'the truth'. It sounds as if you might be happier starting a new religion or fruitlessly trying to make gyroscopes levitate. Good luck with that.

[flowerbower]

@brantc It is not 'a claim'; it is Physics-101 (the brighter students test this for themselves by experimentation and do not cloud their minds by watching crackpot YouTube vids). The moment always acts around his hand, whether or not the wheel is spinning. However, when the wheel is spinning, the moment leads to precession instead of a simple fall to the ground. If the precession is blocked, the axle will tip straight towards the floor. If there were 2 wheels, spinning in opposite directions,

[flowerbower]

@brantc [cont] they would again head straight for the ground.

There are many slightly higher-grade cretins(including some textbook-writers) who believe that gyroscopes react at right-angles to an applied force. That is also nonsense: it appears so only because the movement known as nutation is damped-out in most cases.

Now you are getting it: if one can lift the deadweight AT ALL, it will not matter how the (spinning) device is held.

[flowerbower]

@brantc PS: you are not alone (and neither was Laithwaite) in suffering from the 'spinning gyroscopes are lighter' delusion. [Even Einstein surmised (for a while) that a spinning gyro should fall slower than a static one!]

There are many 'levitation and/or propulsion patents' which are based upon this silly fallacy. (There are many more such patents which are based upon other common delusions, such as the one that centrifugal force is real). Just imagine all of that wasted time and effort!

[brantc]

@flowerbower There are definitely anomalies with spinning objects, the most famous being Eugene Podkletnov, Brian DePalma and Aspden.

So explain how the weight gets transferred from one end of the Laithwaite's rig to the other just assuming it doesnt get lighter.....

[flowerbower]

@brantc Ooh, you really know your crackpots, don't you? They are not famous; they are infamous. Let's see, NASA took Podkletnov seriously and wasted $10M on trying to reproduce an 'effect' which physicists correctly recognised as being an artefact from the outset. I often wonder whether those were the same 'brilliant' NASA engineers who killed 7 people because they were ignorant of the properties of rubber, or the ones who lost a space probe due to forgetting which length units they were using.

[flowerbower]

@brantc In the 19th century, the Secretary of the Royal Society was shown a gyroscope which could climb a vertical rod. He was not impressed. Neither am I by Laithwaite's gadget. All of the 'working models' of purported antigravity machines depend upon 'stick-slip' friction phenomena. I guess that Meccano greatly encourages it. As 'friction' tends to be the most superficially (pun intended) treated topic in school physics textbooks, it is not surprising that many onlookers are fooled.

[flowerbower]

@brantc [cont] too hard on Laithwaite, but when I see the 'legacy' that he left in the form of deluded laymen who think that gyroscopes have 'magical' properties, I don't think that any criticism is too strong. I was not slow to tell him that when he was alive, and a physicist-friend of mine volunteered to analyse the last gyroscope experiments that he performed (and the FIRST ones where he actually measured anything scientifically). My friend was amazed at Laithwaite's incompetence. Seize ...

[flowerbower]

@brantc [cont] the enormity of the above fiasco: the one-time head of the Royal Institution (where it was performed) used the public lectures (inaugurated by Faraday) first to misinform vulnerable schoolchildren, and then the general public when this nonsense was broadcast on TV. I think that he should have been dismissed from his post for these antics!

Of course, he was only an electrical engineer and they are always in the front line of academic loony-tunes.

[gcahn2]

@brantc The motor of the drill did a lot of work spinning it up to speed. That must have to be taken into account.

[sovietspyguy]

Man, wouldn't hold my face in front of that wheel. Don't exactly trust those weights to not fly apart and take my head off.

[flowerbower]

BTW, mystery-mongers always feign amazement at stunts such as Laithwaite's gyroscope-lifting or the well-known 'party-levitation' finger-lift. They conveniently forget that English longbow-men were required to be able to pull a bowstring fully using just two fingers. The force involved was between 100 and 180lb! Are we not fitter and better fed than the peasants of centuries ago?

[perrybnewman]

@flowerbower

Actually we aren't fitter and better fed than our ancestors. The vast majority of us in first-world countries eat cheap processed food and use machines to carry our lazy asses around. The ancients walked EVERYWHERE and ate all natural produce and meat. The gyro laithwaite held was 40lbs but it was on a 3 ft shaft held perpendicularly over his head. This would have produced FAR more than 40lbs of pressure on his wrist. Probably more than 100lbs. LEVERAGE. Your comparison is lame.

[flowerbower]

@perrybnewman You are talking about population averages; I was referring specifically to those tasked with defending their nation. Are you suggesting that marines, say, are not fitter than their ancient equivalents?

The term that you are struggling to find is 'moment'; not 'pressure' or 'leverage'. You are simply proving my point: your ignorance of physics has made you fall for the con-trick. Watch the position of his hand: it stays very close to the centerline of his body. Lifting 40lb is ...

[flowerbower]

@perrybnewman [cont] no feat. Of course, if the gyro were not spinning, there would be an unsupportable moment acting about his wrist and it would indeed be amazing if he succeeded in holding it out of the vertical. But it IS spinning and, more pertinently, precessing. Laithwaite is not swivelling around like a shot-putter does; he is swivelling in order to follow the precession. Now (this is the important bit), because it is precessing, there is no moment acting about his wrist. If someone ...

[flowerbower]

@perrybnewman [cont] were to stop the precession of the gyroscope, the latter would head straight for the floor!

Now, let's suppose for the sake of argument, that there really was a huge moment acting about his wrist but he was - in fact - able to support it. Can you not see that another problem (for you) arises? The center of gravity of the Laithwaite-gyro system would very probably lie outside of its 'footprint' and it would topple over!

It is your understanding which is lame.

[flowerbower]

@perrybnewman Oh jeez, can I put it more succinctly? Fit these words into a well-known saying: eggs, grandmother, suck.

In other words, why do you think that Laithwaite attracted such censure and ridicule among physicists if he were really 'onto something'? All that he showed was that he was apparently ignorant of phenomena which had been known and understood for 200 years. The real question is whether he was just stupid, or desperately looking for cheap fame.

[brantc]

@flowerbower So what phenomena was that??

[flowerbower]

@brantc @brantc It was 'hurrying-on the precession', also sometimes known as 'the Kelvin Effect': when a gyroscope is forced to process at a rate greater than its natural rate, the free end rises.

Because of this, and because precession also removes any moment about his wrist, his 'feat' is no feat at all. The only effort which he expends is that involved in lifting the static weight close to his body. Easy.

[flowerbower]

This whole thing is a confidence trick which is based upon the layman's poor understanding of physics. When the gyroscope is stationary, it is difficult to hold because of the dead weight PLUS the huge moment acting around the wrist and arm. When the gyroscope is spinning, he has to contend only with the dead weight because the moment effectively disappears.

He can also exploit the Kelvin-Effect (aka 'hurrying-on the precession'); the gyro does indeed then rise without substantial effort.

[geoidesic]

1 assload??

Is that an Imperial unit of measurement?

That's a new one on me... how much is that in Jules? :p

[sovietspyguy]

@geoidesic Jules Verne? When did he get a unit?!

[532bluepeter]

@geoidesic

the

 man is tip top.

sorry

[BarbnGrill]

@geoidesic lololool i love assloads!

[RecordingStarCity]

Wow... you used an assload of energy to lift 40 lbs.

[z1zaz]

Everyone has missed - except the Abominable 'Know-men' Eric wrote about, who all but sacked him for demonstrating this gryoscopic *LIFT* at the Royal Institution !

I saw that lecture on TV, but as far as I know the tape of it was destroyed by the 'no-men' who controlled science (and still do) !

Thanks for finding and uploading this.

[flowerbower]

@z1zaz If Cowell voted for a singer who was obviously singing every note off-key, you would be incensed. But that is because you can spot off-key singing. You don't have that 'skill' as far as physics is concerned, so why don't you accept the fact that those who DO are entirely justified in rejecting claims that are - to them - clearly nonsense? Scientists are open-minded, but not to the point that their brains fall out!

[z1zaz]

@flowerbower

From what I see here in your very many replies, it is you who is singing off-key !

Your reply has nothing to do with my comment - I was not writing about scientists - but the Physics "Know (NO) men" Laithwaite awoke from their patronising slumbers !

YOU "physicists" are still corrupting the minds of our young students with your archaic, but FALSE, theory education, and not teaching open-mindedness at all.

If students do not repeat what you say in exams - then you FAIL them !

[flowerbower]

@z1zaz It seems that my comments are very much on target since the 'no-men' existed only in Laithwaite's imagination. Laithwaite was disastrously and undeniably wrong, and all that his shameful RI lectures achieved was to mislead laymen. Having an empty head is not the same thing as having an open mind, and pleading 'open-mindedness' is usually just a way of covering up an inability to master difficult concepts.

Is that your excuse?

[kalimeraHellas]

He need "rather large and heavy wheel" because if it is lighter he is able to pull in the air with only one hand and without spinning.

[mujaku]

With a higher velocity the spinning wheels should be heavier—not lighter. OMG, Eric Laithwaite violated a law of science. Arrest him! Oops, he died a few years ago.

[kalimeraHellas]

@mujaku You are a troll or a paid intelligence agent and idiot. Look at watch?v=-ySUr7iD-uU you can clearly see that the table with the mechanism rises when it spinning.