Laithwaite Gyroscopic Weight Loss: A First Review

1
Laithwaite Gyroscopic Weight Loss A First Review
Benjamin T Solomon iSETI LLC PO Box
831 Evergreen, CO 80437, USA http//www.iSETI.us/
2
Objective of the Presentation
Objective To seriously investigate Laithwaites
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.
3
Agenda

• 1. Some Theoretical Considerations
• 2. Deconstructing the Laithwaite NASA
  Experiments
• 3. What did Laithwaite Demonstrate?
• 4. The Solomon-Laithwaite Experiments

4
Some Theoretical Considerations
Section Objective To present a case for time
dilation as the primary cause of motion, and
therefore, of the gravitational field.
5
Time Dilation
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.
6
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.
7
Time Dilation
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 . v ( 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
8
Time Dilation
The hypothesis of An Epiphany on Gravity1, was
that time dilation causes gravity, not the other
way around, as with modern physics.
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/)
1Ben Solomon, An Epiphany on Gravity, Journal
of Theorectics, December 3, 2001, Vol. 3-6.
(http//www.iseti.us/)
9
Hunt for the Window Gravity versus Centripetal
Force Field
You have to find the window where physics behaves
differently. Bob Schlitters
10
Principle 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.
11
Key to Analysis
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.
Tangential
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.
Radial
12
Time Dilation Formulae
Tangential time dilation, tt, at a distance, R,
from the center of a gravitational field is given
by tt 1 / v( 1 -GM/(R.c2) )
Tangential time dilation , tt, at a distance, r,
from the center of a plate spinning at ?
revolutions per second, is given by tt v( 1
?2.r2 / c2 )
13
Tangential Time Dilation as f(Radial Distance)
Centripetal Force Field
Gravitational Field
Computational Fault Line
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 gravitys. Gradient is a good candidate.
14
1st 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
15
Gradient 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 (Kt2/4R4)/(1-
Kt/R)33/2 d2tt/dR2 (GM/c2)/ R3 where
Kt GM/c2
16
Gradient Curvature Formulae Centripetal Force
Gradient, dtt/dR , and curvature, Ct, at a
distance, r, from the center of a plate spinning
at ? 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)23/2 d2tt/dr2
kt. 3.kt2 . r2 where kt ?2 / c2
17
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

1. Curvature is POSITIVE
2. Change in Curvature ? constant
3. Gradient is NEGATIVE
4. Change in Gradient ? constant

If correct, gravitational effects are due to
gradient, and not curvature.
18
2nd 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
19
Gravitation versus Centripetal Force Field

1. Gravitys time dilation field is funnel shaped.

1. Centripetal forces time dilation field is conic.
2. There isnt any radial time dilation.

20
Gravitational Field
For a Gravitational Field the relationship
between tangential and radial time dilation is
given by, 1/tt2 1/2tr2 1/2
Radial Time Dilation
Tangential Time Dilation
21
Rotation Spin Field
For a Gyroscopic Centripetal Field the
relationship between tangential and radial time
dilation is,(1/tt2).(1/?2) - (1/tr2).(1/2?l2)
(1/?2) - (1/2?l2)
Tangential Time Dilation
Tangential Time Dilation
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.
Radial Time Dilation
With Rotation
No Rotation
22
Deconstructing the Laithwaite NASA Experiments
Section Objective To deconstruct both
Laithwaites and NASAs experiments in a manner
as to, 1. Ask the most possible questions. 2.
Present theoretical validation or rebuttal of the
observed effects.
23
Prof 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.

24
Excerpts for BBC Video Heretic
Video courtesy of Gyroscopes.org,
http//www.gyroscopes.org/
25
Laithwaite Inferred Big Wheel Weight
Laithwaite Demonstration Prof. Eric Laithwaites
carries a 50 lb wheel with both hands.

• My Duplication
• I was comfortable with a 40 lb weight.
• 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.
26
Laithwaite Inferred Gyroscopic Big Wheel Weight
Laithwaite Demonstration Note that, Prof. Eric
Laithwaites 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
• I could just barely carry a 3 lb weight at its
  end.
• I could not lift a 7 lb weight with my wrist
  alone.

• My Conclusion
• The total effective weight of the wheel and rod
  could not have been much greater than 5.5 lb.
• A rotation of about 6-7 rpm is insufficient to
  keep the wheel lifted by centripetal force
  (requires at least 80 rpm).

27
If Weight Exists, Suggests (1)
Conclusion Gyroscopic forces do not allow a
substantial amount of the weight to be felt at
the wrist (?)
28
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.
29
Laithwaite Big Wheel Properties
Laithwaite Demonstration 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.
30
NASA Experiment

• NASA Experiment
• Used a bicycle wheel 6 10 inches in diameter.
• Rotation was achieved by hand.

• Inferred NASA Experiment Parameters
• Wheel diameter about 8 inches (20cm).
• Rotation about 60 rpm.
• Wheel properties
• Hollow plane of rotation.
• Mass essentially at rim.
• Estimated non-rim rotating plane mass is less
  than 2, of the wheel.

Picture courtesy of How Stuff Works,
http//science.howstuffworks.com/gyroscope1.htm
Conservation with Marc Millis of NASA Glen on
06/22/2005
31
Demonstration 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.
32
Analysis of How-Stuff-Works Video
Estimated Parameters How Stuff Works Video Deconstruction How Stuff Works Video Deconstruction How Stuff Works Video Deconstruction 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.
33
Comparisons Between Laithwaite NASA Experiments

• Inferences
• There are substantial differences between Prof.
  Laithwaites demonstration and NASAs experiment.
• The theoretical results differ significantly from
  observed values.

34
Estimation Error Sensitivity Not Significant
35
Estimation 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.
36
The Key Questions What is the Total System
Weight? When?
Precession
Spin
Torque Gravity
Can we, in a scientifically robust manner, answer
two questions What is the Net Weight of the
Gyroscope? And When?
37
What did Laithwaite demonstrate?
Section Objective To review what Laithwaite had
presented.
38
Different Phenomena
Hypothesis Laithwaite demonstrated 2 different
phenomena, weight loss and directional motion.

• Big Wheel Demonstration The Laithwaite Effect
• Under one set of conditions a spinning disc will
  lose weight, independently of its orientation
  with the Earths gravitational field.

• 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.

1. Alex Jones was the first to demonstrate this
effect. Source BBCs Heretic.
39
Precession versus Rotation
Is this big wheel PRECESSING or ROTATING?
40
Not 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.

41
Precession 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.

42
Gyroscopic 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.

43
Centripetal 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.

44
The Four Laithwaite Rules Rule 1
Rule 1 A rotating gyroscope does not exhibit
lateral forces in the plane of rotation
45
The Four Laithwaite Rules Rule 2
Rule 2 A rotating gyroscope does not exhibit
centrifugal forces in the plane of rotation
46
The Four Laithwaite Rules Rule 3
Rule 3 A rotating gyroscope will not exhibit
angular momentum in the plane of rotation
47
The Four Laithwaite Rules Rule 4
Rule 4 A rotating gyroscope will lose weight
48
Solomon-Laithwaite Experiments
Section Objective To present the experiments
and results obtained to date.
49
Experimental Set-Up
Upper Stand Houses Bearings to Enable Free
Rotational Movement
Flywheel (55lbs)
Spin
Ball Bearing Tube of Upper Stand
Rotation
Lower Stand (Steel Tube) Supports Upper Stand
Massive Steel Table
Steel Bars to Secure Lower Stand to Table
Torque Gravity
Weight Scale (up to 400 lbs)
Measures Total System Weight
50
Some Things to Note

1. The rotation is in the opposite sense of what
   precession allows.
2. Rotation is at most 10 rpm (revs) ltlt than
   precession.
3. Weight measurement is of Total System Weight.
4. Weight of spinning flywheel is the same as
   stationary wheel when not rotating.
5. No nutation (wobble within a wobble) is allowed.
6. Weight loss not due to inertia.
7. Weight crashes back and exceeds when rotation
   slows down to zero.

51
1st Flywheel Test
52
1st Demonstration of Weight Loss
53
2nd Demonstration of Weight Loss
54
Static Measurement
55
Dynamic Measurements
56
Apparent Behavior Total System Weight versus
Rotation
57
Conclusion

1. Able to reproduce Laithwaites results.
2. Gyroscopic precession not the cause of weight
   loss.
3. There are boundary conditions / threshold values,
   before weight loss is observed.

58
Next Steps

1. Determine the boundary conditions / threshold
   values.
2. The theoretical formulation and relationships
   within the spin-rotate centripetal force field.
3. Determine whether the weight loss effect is a
   buoyancy or a propulsion effect.
4. Was the work of other researchers dependent upon
   gyroscopic field effects?
5. How much of Podkletnov Nieminen (1992) results
   (5,000 rpm) are due to gyroscopic spin?
6. 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 these conditions, thus producing conflicting
   results?

59
Bibliography
P.F. Browne (1977), Relativity of Rotation, J.
Phys. A Math. Gen., Vol. 10, N0. 5,
1977 Gibilisco, Stan (1983), Understanding
Einsteins Theories of Relativity, Dover
Publications, ISBN 0-486-26659-1. H. Hayasaka
and S. Takeuchi (1989), Anomalous Weight
Reduction on a Gyroscopes 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.htmlGYROS
COPIC20ANTIGRAVITY
60
Acknowledgements
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, AE Cycle
Cliff, Legend Motorcycles Mark, BB Sportcycles
Risk, Steeles Motorcycle Doug, Dougs Balancing
power transmission. Pat Chad, Colorado Scale
Center - weight scales. Mark, Joy Controls
measurement instruments. David Solomon -
videographer
61
Contact
Ben Solomon iSETI LLC P.O. Box 831 Evergreen,
CO 80437 Email solomon_at_iseti.us Tel
303-949-7930