Interesting Comments from Barry Hunt


Subject: Interesting Comments from Barry Hunt
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:25:31 EDT

I am a happy heretic really, at Aberystwyth I survived on stakes and computer chips. These are very interesting remarks from Barry Hunt – especially in regard to Laithwaite’s conjecture that electrodynamics and dynamics have the same structure. Barry Hunt’s work on the Genesis paradigm is also rigorously correct. Isaac Newton’s ideas are only a small part of the whole, and I am profoundly shocked at what happened to Laithwaite, even given his transient lack of care in dynamics. I wonder how many FRS’s in teh audience could instantly solve a problem out of Marion and Thornton and out of their wigs on the lagrangian treatment of a constrained and spinning symmetric top? This is the Laithwaite problem. If one spins a coin on a table for example, the actual trajectory of the point on the table is complicated, it does not stay in the same place. The unconstrained spinning symmetric top does not stay in the same place. Eulerian dynamics, hydrodynamics, lagrangian dynamics, hamiltonian dynamics, fractal dynamics, non-linear mechanics, quantum mechanics, relativistic mechanics were unknown to Newton. Anyway this is a very interesting comment historically as well as scientifically.

Myron and fellow heretics,

I met and talked at length to Eric Laithwaite in 1974. Note that he is credited with the invention of the linear induction motor. His understanding of e/m was profound, but unfortunately he made a fool of himself through his lack of understanding of standard mechanics. He told me ahead of time that he was going to “let the cat out of the bag” at a forthcoming lecture at the Royal Institute of Mechanical Engineers in Birdcage Walk, London. He walked onto the stage with a sack in hand, opened the sack, and the cat, which had fallen asleep inside, promptly fell on its head on the stage. When the laughter had subsided, he explained that normally a cat would spin and land its feet, “thus violating conservation of angular momentum”. He made similar claims for a trampolinist or a diver performing somersaults despite initially having zero angular momentum. The point he was missing, and for which he was deservedly?ridiculed, is that the cat?paddles its legs rapidly in the air, and its body counter-rotates to preserve zero overall angular momentum. A similar effect can be re-created by sitting on a low-friction swivel chair while holding a heavy object connected to a (spinning)?electric drill. The angular location of the sitter changes without the transfer of any mass outside the closed system (chair, sitter, drill). This can be called propellantless rotation.

Laithwaite’s more interesting claims were in regard to changing spatial location without transfer of mass outside the system (propellantless propulsion), and this is what Alex Jones was on about. He told Laithwaite he had had a dream in which a gyroscope on a low-friction (ice) table would translate across the table. Laithwaite tried to repeat this on live television (Tomorrow’s World, with Raymond Baxter, I think) but the gyroscope failed to move. Shortly after this he did the BBC Children’s Christmas Lectures in the TV program you have referred to. His demonstrations were spectacular but?meaningless. They can be explained by standard mechanics.

The reason I was interested in what Laithwaite was saying was that at BAC (as BAE was then called) we were developing a model of a jet-in-crossflow for possible application to vertical-takeoff aircraft. When a jet emerges vertically from a hole in a horizontal surface, with a wind flowing along that surface, the jet bends. What is more interesting is that a pair of contra-rotating vortices appear inside the jet, parallel to its curved axis. This effect can be observed routinely with smoke emerging from a chimney in a crosswind, or simply in smoke from a cigarette in a gentle breeze. Each particle moving along the vortex thus has rotation about two separate axes. We found that when we tried to solve the equations using standard mechanics, in an attempt to predict the jet trajectory, the predicted trajectory was far removed from the one observed experimentally. This suggested to us that for such motions (compound accelerations), extra forces must be present. In thinking about t his problem, I generated the first seeds of the GENESIS paradigm that you recently became familiar with [in which curl(F) — torsion — is inextricably linked with div(F) — compression — for an arbitrary vector field F].

After talking to Laithwaite, a then-BAC?colleague of mine, Brian Darbyshire ( a double-first in mathematics from Cambridge) wrote out Newton’s equations for linear acceleration and separately for angular motion in generalized tensor notation, and found nothing unusual. He then did the same for a combination of these motions, and found that extra terms appeared, outside Newton mechanics. When we communicated these findings to Laithwaite, he failed to respond. Although I am better-versed than most in vector mathematics,?I did not (and still do not) understand generalized tensors. I did not retain a copy of Brian’s equations, and I lost touch with him over 30 years ago.

I do remember Laithwaite saying that in the gyros so far developed, we have had only two degrees of freedom; if a 3rd degree of freedom is introduced (rotation about a 3rd axis, or more generally any acceleration of a standard gyro), the standard equations no longer apply. He made a very strong point that the equations of mechanics should parallel those of electromagnetics, though at that time he was referring to the common-or-garden variety of Maxwell-Heaviside.

I tried to locate Laithwaite in late 1997, only to find from Ron Evans, then heading up “Project Greenglow” at BAE, that he had just died. Oh well.

Regards,

Barry

—–Original Message—–

Sent: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 8:17 am
Subject: [AIAS] Fwd: Artifacts in Counter Gravitation

?

Attached Message

From:

EMyrone] at [aol.com

To:

ted] at [annis.org; fdamador] at [comcast.net; sean] at [somewhere.ws; dave] at [annexa.net; HorstEck] at [aol.com; geesquared] at [gmail.com; kp.phys] at [btinternet.com; karel.jelinek] at [gmail.com; thenarmis] at [yahoo.com; J.Dunning-Davies] at [hull.ac.uk; aje] at [warfplc.com; anthony.fucilla] at [btinternet.com; john.shelburne] at [navy.mil; johnshel] at [knology.net

Subject:

Artifacts in Counter Gravitation

Date:

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:17:23 EDT

I would need more information on this type of experiment, otherwise there is the great danger of applying ECE to artifact. My point is that Laithwaite should not have been treated as he was under any circumstance. Similarly the experiment of Tajmar et al. will need study until?I am satisfied that artifact has been removed.?If one attaches a particle such as a tennis ball to a string, and the string to a weight, then swinging the tennis ball around will lift the weight, even though the latter is much heavier than the tennis ball. This is due to the ordinary outwardly directed centrifugal force omega x (omega x r), it has nothing to do with changing g of course.?The gyroscope is essentially the usual precession?
dL / dt = omega x L. The
kinetic energy in the system is (1/2) omega dot L. This is?the usual theory. ?

?

The new ECE equations give:

?

?????? partial g / partial t = c squared (curl?cap omega – (4 pi G /? c squared) J)????????????? ————- (1)

?

?????? curl g = – partial cap omega / partial t??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ————– (2)

?

?????? del g = 4 pi G rho??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ————– (3)

?

?????? del?cap omega = 0??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? —————– (4)

?

All the usual gyroscope dynamics come from eq. (3) and the laws of conservation. The big problem with the claims of Tajmar, de Matos and Laithwaite is immediately clear, because cap omega is of order c times smaller than g.?Tajmar et al claim a cap omega many orders of magnitude larger than that given in paper 117, and this claim?has not yet been reproduced.?If I fall into the trap of applying ECE to artifact there will be a gleeful mudfest from the standard faction.?We had already rejected the falling gyroscope claim – about two years ago. At present I need to study the Laithwaite claim to see if has been found to be artifact. The Biefeld Brown and Naudin claims were all found to be artifacts, although Naudin still tries to make his claims. Websites in this area of counter gravitation are wholly unreliable.?So the only information available about gravitomagnetism is the LAGEOS claim, Gravity Probe B having been a fiasco if truth be said. ?

?

?

???

Attached Message

From:

horsteck] at [aol.com

To:

EMyrone] at [aol.com

Subject:

Re: Laithwaite Experiment

Date:

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:19:08 -0400

The Laithwaite experiment seems to describe a similar effect as Sean mentioned: falling gyroscopes decrease in weight. Perhaps an additional torque on the rotation axis leads to further effects, the equations should show this.

HOrst

—–Original Message—–

Sent: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:58 am
Subject: Laithwaite Experiment

Thanks to John Shelburne and Charles Kellum for bringing my attention to this very interesting experiment. It was?initially carried out at a Royal Institution evening discourse at the invitation of Sir George Porter, PRS. Prof. Eric Laithwaite was a leading engineer involved in the development of the hovercraft and so on and worked at Imperial. In the evening discourse he?spun a motocycle wheel on a three foot pole with a low friction bearing and an electric motor. This was a heavy gyroscope weighing about half a hundredweight (fifty pounds or so, about 25 kilograms). It was found that the gyroscope?became much lighter. This phenomenon was found to be in accordance with?Newtonian dynamics, and patented later?by Gyron. Laithwaites’ own explanation is that the gyroscope does not produce the full amount of centrifugal force on its pivot.

?

This seems to be a clear and unequivocal demonstration of an important new effect, which has actually been patented. This experiment can be tried at home.?For some inexplicable and outrageous?reason, Laithwaite was ostracised and the evening discourse censored. He was not awarded an FRS, a Gold Medal or Knighthood because?it was thought by the establishment that the device violated Newton’s laws. This is despite brilliant service to engineering. So the establishment can behave in a manner that greatly harms science – the opposite of its purpose. It was found later that the device does not violate the Newtonian laws but is still unexplained. He died in 1997. He was a blunt talking Lancastrian so alienated the stuffed shirts of the Royal Institution. The latter is where my predecessor Faraday worked, and this censorship would have outraged Faraday himself.?My guess is that this important experiment has also been censored from the standard journals but there is actually a patent field on it by Gyron.

?

I will have a fresh look at the dynamics of the gyroscope and see if some light can be shed on the Laithwaite experiment with the new ECE laws of gravitation:

?

?

????????????????????????????????????????? del omega = 0

?????????????????????????? curl g + partial omega / partial t = 0

??????????????????????????????????????????del g = 4 pi G rho

????????????? curl omega – (1 / c squared) partial g / partial t = (4 pi G /? c squared) J

?

Only one of these, number three, was known to Isaac Newton.

?

????????????

Civil List Scientist

Get the MapQuest Toolbar. Directions, Traffic, Gas Prices & More!

Manage your list subscription at http://lists.somewhere.ws/mailman/listinfo/aias


%d bloggers like this: