Eric Laithwait and Gyroscopes...

[William Gaatjes]

Hello everybody, I posted this link to a documentary about Eric Laithwait cause he was once seen as a genius and then seen as a cranck. He did not give up and proved his experiment within the laws of physics. It's a documentary from the bbc called heretics of science.

Documentary


Eric_Laithwaite


He showed that with a gyroscope and with the right circular movement (which i am guessing depends on the rotation direction of the gyroscope)you can use the force of the gyroscope to lift a heavy weight.

A thought experiment :
With the law of conservation of energy i am sure that with normal electrical motors to spin the gyroscope at high velocities we would loose too much through friction and electrical losses. But if we would use superconducting materials and magnetic fields for bearings and propulsion for the gyroscope to keep it spinning, i am sure the "weight reducing" effect would be much stronger.

I have a few questions about assumptions :

After watching the video i am sure that 3 things are related when thinking about it.
The higher the speed the gyroscope is spinning, the more stronger the lift effect gets.
The heavier the mass is, the stronger the lift effect gets.
The more the diameter of the gyroscope increases, the stronger the lift effect gets.


If this is the case then if you for example would take 4 gyroscopes in a circular position and confine them in one large enough rotating vessel to contain those gyroscopes. Next step is to spin the gyroscopes up. And then turn the rotational vessel at just the right rpm, perhaps the "weight reducing" effect would be enough for lifts. Or perhaps more gyroscopes are needed. Afcourse you would need a nuclear power station to power this device. For keeping those gyroscopes spinned up at the right rpm and keeping everything cooled. When i am thinking about it, when reducing the rotational speed of 1 gyroscope and increasing the speed of the other 3 you could move into a direction.



EDIT : typing errors and more text :

When we need to lower the rpm of a gyroscope, we could use the same principle of regenerative braking by using electric coils again but this time to sap energy form the gyroscope and in turn lowering it's speed.

 

[Billb2]

The lifting moment on one end of the central axis is exactly opposed by the same force on the other end of that axis. You're trying to invent the perpetual motion machine.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: Billb2
The lifting moment on one end of the central axis is exactly opposed by the same force on the other end of that axis. You're trying to invent the perpetual motion machine.

Then where does the lifting effect comes from Eric experienced when lifting the gyroscope ?
With what you are writing, it would mean that when Eric lifted the gyroscope itself got heavier ? That contradicts with the experiments he did. I was more thinking of turning electrical energy into lift.

Besides i am not trying to invent a perpetual motion machine. Everybody with a bit of a mind, knows that nothing comes from free. Hence the electrical drive for each gyroscope to keep the gyroscope spinning in my thought experiment and the use of as much as efficient materials as possible.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I looked it up, I understand what you mean, precession . Ok, if one side of the spinning mass the axis is experiencing an upward force and the other side of the axis is experiencing a downward force, the idea is to nullify the downward force by using a magnetic field. The trick would be to convert the downward force into dissipation of heat for example or use that energy to store something. We only want the lift upwards.
Not easy, chancing the direction of a force, or turning the downward force into something else like for example electricity again. If you would make an oscillating base for the spinning mass, then the forces are modulated. The basic idea is when you mount on the axis that experiences the downward force a iron core and you let this core move around in a coil. Then part of the downward force would be converted to electrical energy. The effect is not continuous, it is in the timing. Since the upward force and the downward force are coupled.

EDIT: The trick from Eric is to rotate the spinning mass at the right rpm around and precess at the right angle the spinning mass on the rotating axis at the right time. This will cause all combined forces to have a small resulting force push up. But it is just a small increase.

 

[TuxDave]

Sadly I'm so ADD so can you tell me what's the timestamp of the video that has the "lifting" motion that you think is happening?

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
Sadly I'm so ADD so can you tell me what's the timestamp of the video that has the "lifting" motion that you think is happening?

ADD. Very creative and versatile. But everyday a challenge to stay coherent.
Not easy.

Afcourse i can.
The according to myself important moments :
11 minutes and 33 seconds for the first demonstration. Stop : 13:15.
19 minutes and 02 seconds for where mathematicians who are experts in gyroscopes calculations agree with Mr Laitwaithe and acknowledge that everything that is happening is within the laws of physics. Stop : 19:46.

20 minutes and 04 seconds for the research he did himself and the device he designed together with his friend and co-engineer. Stop : 23:57.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

The quality of that video is awful...

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
The quality of that video is awful...

True. I guess it is a digital recording of an at least 20 year old videotape. On the other hand, analog tapes may look awful after 20 years but you can always recover information from them. Most digital systems are i am sad to say not that robust. But that is not because digital systems cannot do that, it is a cost decision. A best example is cd's and dvd's that start to get non recoverable Alzheimer after 5 years of storage.


EDIT : typing errors.

 

[BrownTown]

I don't even have to look to tell you that its BS. The laws of physics can NOT be broken PERIOD.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
I don't even have to look to tell you that its BS. The laws of physics can NOT be broken PERIOD.

I know you have not looked.
Because then you would know that everything happening in that documentary is according to the laws of physics. Mr Laitwaithe is explaining that.


My personal opinion :
WHen it comes to the laws of the universe...
For example the maximum speed of light is based on the maximum speed of the universe it self. If you stop being part of this universe then you don't have to deal with the maximum speed of light. Just as a space time warp and the gravity effects is seen often in a 2d grid. I find it easier to see it as a 3d effect. If you would take a glass of transparent yelly and put coloured particles in it and then start turning a spoon in the center of the glass , you can see as example the same effect gravity exerts in our universe. The spoon is the sun and the particles are all forcelines on all matter around the sun. I find this easier to understand then a 2d sheet that bulges. You can see the frame dragging too. Afcourse this all happens in the realm of virtual particles. The big bang explosion is like a wave traveling on. This wave has a speed which we in our universe call the speed of light.
That wave is soliton like.

Everything we can see is phenomenon frequency - frequency of the universe.
Every result higher then the frequency of the universe is invisible.
The maximum speed of light and this frequency are related.

 

[Pulsar]

Just so we're clear.

We have electricity. We can use that electricity to power an electric motor. That motor has exactly 2 outputs. Heat, and torque. We can then use that torque to lift an object, and we have some heat loss.

OR,

We can spin gyroscopes up using the motor, and still lose the heat. Now we've also got frictional losses in the gyroscope. Or we can use these magical superconductors (that somehow need to be cooled to the immensely low temperature required to superconduct). Then we use this gyroscope to lift something through a complex bit of machinery, but we somehow negate frictional losses there as well. In the end we end with something !?more?! efficient than just the electric motor.

I think you really need to go back and study what it is you're trying to do.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: Pulsar
Just so we're clear.

We have electricity. We can use that electricity to power an electric motor. That motor has exactly 2 outputs. Heat, and torque. We can then use that torque to lift an object, and we have some heat loss.

OR,

We can spin gyroscopes up using the motor, and still lose the heat. Now we've also got frictional losses in the gyroscope. Or we can use these magical superconductors (that somehow need to be cooled to the immensely low temperature required to superconduct). Then we use this gyroscope to lift something through a complex bit of machinery, but we somehow negate frictional losses there as well. In the end we end with something !?more?! efficient than just the electric motor.

I think you really need to go back and study what it is you're trying to do.

Well, it's all a thought experiment but i did mention magnetic bearings but i should have mentioned more clearly as purpose to lower friction. But suppose this could be build then afcourse the gyroscope and the motor would be one and the same. Just like a hubmotor from an electric car, is a wheel and an electrical drive itself. And why use superconductors. Well, because to achieve highest efficiency.

 

[bobsmith1492]

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes

Originally posted by: Pulsar
Just so we're clear.

We have electricity. We can use that electricity to power an electric motor. That motor has exactly 2 outputs. Heat, and torque. We can then use that torque to lift an object, and we have some heat loss.

OR,

We can spin gyroscopes up using the motor, and still lose the heat. Now we've also got frictional losses in the gyroscope. Or we can use these magical superconductors (that somehow need to be cooled to the immensely low temperature required to superconduct). Then we use this gyroscope to lift something through a complex bit of machinery, but we somehow negate frictional losses there as well. In the end we end with something !?more?! efficient than just the electric motor.

I think you really need to go back and study what it is you're trying to do.

Well, it's all a thought experiment but i did mention magnetic bearings but i should have mentioned more clearly as purpose to lower friction. But suppose this could be build then afcourse the gyroscope and the motor would be one and the same. Just like a hubmotor from an electric car, is a wheel and an electrical drive itself. And why use superconductors. Well, because to achieve highest efficiency.

The fun thing about efficiency is there is a physical limit at 100%. You can't tweak things just right to break that limit. Perhaps you could get something so close to 100% efficient that it could be used to store energy long-term but that's all you'll get.

Ed.

Also, gyroscopes aren't much good for a portable energy source either because every time you turn them they expend some of their energy. A friend at my old job did this to his car; he put a massive flywheel in the floor (essentially a gyroscope). It let him get a fair distance after spinning it up with an electric motor, but he could barely turn the car!

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492


The fun thing about efficiency is there is a physical limit at 100%. You can't tweak things just right to break that limit. Perhaps you could get something so close to 100% efficient that it could be used to store energy long-term but that's all you'll get.

Ed.

Very true. But iwas wondering when you precess a multiple gyroscopes at the same time and turn them , they exhibit an upward force.

Also, gyroscopes aren't much good for a portable energy source either because every time you turn them they expend some of their energy. A friend at my old job did this to his car; he put a massive flywheel in the floor (essentially a gyroscope). It let him get a fair distance after spinning it up with an electric motor, but he could barely turn the car!

Well, that's the effect what Mr Laitwaithe wanted to use. That precession force when handled correctly would provide an upward lift. Now in the documentary they where using materials present at the time. We have progressed forward in material knowledge, that is why i am thinking we can now do a lot better, just for experiment sake.

There is one thing that got me thinking, A jet engine is build with such light materials this gyroscope effect hardly exhibit itself. It would be weird if a f-16 would take a sharp turn and the engine breaks out of the fuselage.

I find moment of inertia a amazing feature. It's so common but strange when you think about it. Moment of inertia is different when all the mass is focused on the outside.
A good example is a solid cylinder and a hollow cylinder going down a ramp.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Yahoo, I really think it is time to calculate this but i am still using just intuition for now.

The gyroscope will not precess or deliver angular momentum when there is no counter force. What you need is 2 gyroscope perpendicular to eachother. While 1 has its axis in the y direction, we will call this one the y gyroscope. The other has its axis in the x direction, we will call this the x gyroscope.

The point is you need the x gyroscope under an angle and turning as a whole around a virtual axis, that is the base. In the documentary this is Mr Laitwaithe himself turning the gyroscope around. In stead of Mr Laitwaithe we need something else. If we use a second gyroscope, We use the angular momentum of the y gyroscope to move the x gyroscope around. And the x gyroscope forces the y gyroscope to turn.

We need to trick the gyroscope in feeling a counterforce that is not connected to the ground we stand on.