| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jack Sarfatti" |
| Date: |
06 Apr 2004 02:04:33 PM |
| Object: |
False Leads in Hunt For The Zero Point |
Note #15
Chapter 7 on the apparent anti-gravity of falling gyroscopes has physics
errors in it. The behavior of gyroscopes is counter-intuitive, but there
is no reason to think that Newton's laws of rotating rigid bodies, the
Euler equations based on
Torque = d(Rotational Momentum)/dt
fails. What Eric Laithwaite showed (p. 83) is not a violation of
battle-tested physics.
"In the mid-1970's ... Laithwaite ... demonstrated the apparent weight
loss of a pair of heavy gyroscopes by lifting the whole whirling
contraption with one hand and wheeling it freely around his head. When
the twin rotors were not in motion, attempting this feat was impossible.
The gyroscopes were the size and weight of dumbells. But when the rotors
turned they became as light as a feather. Somewhere along the line, the
machine had lost weight." p. 83
This description is true. I saw the film. What we have here is a kind of
lever with a rotational mechanical advantage showing Galileo's
equivalence principle that gravity is locally an inertial force in which
the mass cancels out. The weight vector is no longer mg but is m(g + a)
where a comes from the torque that Laithwaite applies added to that of
gravity. Laithwaite applies a force F, but the torque is Fxr and he had
a mechanical advantage when distance r to a pivot point increases he
needs less F to counter the fixed torque from the g-field. These are all
3-vector additions of course. Note that "m" the mass never changes in
these counter-intuitive inertial force effects. That is another serious
confusion Nick makes because Hal Puthoff also makes it when he writes
stuff like m = moK^3/2 in his ill-posed "interstellar propulsion"
"metric engineering" papers for NASA BPP and the Mitre Connference - a
false lead into a blind alley barking up the wrong tree shining a strong
light in the wrong part of the black box feeling the wrong part of the
Sufi elephant. :-)
"an apparent contravention of the laws of physics, the negation, at a
stroke, of Newton's Third Law of action-reaction" p. 83
No! Just the opposite. Of course, practical applications of massive
rotating wheels to propulsion are possible because of these
precession-nutation effect. These classical mechanical problems are not
always easy to solve especially where there is friction and chaos plays
a role. The apparent weight loss is a precession effect, which is not
to say it does not have practical value like Archimedes Lever. We have
lots of rotating machinery and Newton's laws work fine. Take helicopters
for example. However, rotating classical machinery, as distinct from
rotating macro-quantum machinery like perhaps something close to
Podkletnov's, will not make a zero g force "acceleration field"
"G-Engine" the way George Trimble envisioned it in 1956. A good book to
consult on gyroscopes is Feynman's Volume I of "Lectures on Physics"
When Laithwaite lifts his gyros he is applying an additional torque to
the one applied by the Earth's gravity field (in Newton's sense) and the
apparent weight loss can be explained by a detailed application of
Newton's laws. Apply it practically? By all means.
Note that
Torque = d(Rotational Momentum)/dt
is to the rotation group O(3)
what
Force = d(Translational Momentum)/dt
is to the space-translation group T(3) in Galilean relativity.
The basic math is Noether's theorem connecting symmetries with
conservation laws.
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
