Tesla's Flying Machine

[TinselKoala]

"Theres always some flaw in these types of machines that keeps them from working."

Yes, that's right. Unfortunately it is usually the same flaw: These devices, if they worked, would violate the principle of Conservation of Momentum, which, as far as I am aware, has never yet been violated.

It's sort of like squeezing an orange and expecting to get high-octane gasoline out of it. You didn't, you got orange juice. So what do you do? Go squeeze a grapefruit. Still no gasoline? Well, let's squeeze some apples, then.

See what I mean? If a thing is clearly impossible from first principles, it does no good to keep trying minor variations of the same thing. But people do, and people have--there are many many designs like this, based on eccentric weights or paddles rotating or swinging or sliding against flexible or rigid stops or cams, in all kinds of different planes and axes, with clockwork or electrical or even rubber-band power. None of them actually work as designed. Sure, some of them move--but always by reaction against a substrate, in full accord with Newton's laws of motion and the Conservation of Momentum.

[Paul-R]

"Theres always some flaw in these types of machines that keeps them from working."

Yes, that's right. Unfortunately it is usually the same flaw: These devices, if they worked, would violate the principle of Conservation of Momentum, which, as far as I am aware, has never yet been violated.

Why, then, did the Royal Society, in 1974, strike from its records the celebrated lecture by Prof
Eric Laithwaite where he showed, amongst other tings, the reduction in weight of a gyroscope
when spun up to speed?
Paul.

[TinselKoala]

Why, then, did the Royal Society, in 1974, strike from its records the celebrated lecture by Prof
Eric Laithwaite where he showed, amongst other tings, the reduction in weight of a gyroscope
when spun up to speed?
Paul.

Because they were embarrassed to have been seen to present and endorse a lecture full of logical flaws and inferential errors?

Gyros do not lose weight when spun up to speed; they precess, which means dear Doctor Laithwaite didn't need to LIFT the bicycle wheel during the lecture, he only had to exert a force at right angles, and the gyro would precess upward. The amount of force is the same, of course, and this has been proven by correctly done experiments, time and time again. (How do you think the Hubble Space Telescope makes those incredibly long exposures? It's held precisely on station by precessing gyroscopes, and the engineers that designed that system don't believe in Laithwaite's theory). The dear old professor just was able to exert the force in a much more convenient direction, since he could push outward from his chair or platform, and the spinning gyro would precess and transform this push into a lift.
Navigational gyros are "erected" by this method all the time, and nobody thinks they lose weight. Inertial navigation systems approach GPS in accuracy over the short term; this is done by carefully measuring the precessional forces on sensitive gyroscopes. Have these gyro engineers noticed gyros losing weight? No. Only DePalma, Laithwaite, and some Japanese investigators think (or thought) so, and careful experimentation has always failed to support their contentions.

[Paul-R]

Because they were embarrassed to have been seen to present and endorse a lecture full of logical flaws and inferential errors?

Gyros do not lose weight when spun up to speed; they precess, which means dear Doctor Laithwaite didn't need to LIFT the bicycle wheel during the lecture, he only had to exert a force at right angles, and the gyro would precess upward. The amount of force is the same, of course, and this has been proven by correctly done experiments, time and time again. (How do you think the Hubble Space Telescope makes those incredibly long exposures? It's held precisely on station by precessing gyroscopes, and the engineers that designed that system don't believe in Laithwaite's theory). The dear old professor just was able to exert the force in a much more convenient direction, since he could push outward from his chair or platform, and the spinning gyro would precess and transform this push into a lift.
Navigational gyros are "erected" by this method all the time, and nobody thinks they lose weight. Inertial navigation systems approach GPS in accuracy over the short term; this is done by carefully measuring the precessional forces on sensitive gyroscopes. Have these gyro engineers noticed gyros losing weight? No. Only DePalma, Laithwaite, and some Japanese investigators think (or thought) so, and careful experimentation has always failed to support their contentions.

Hang on to your beliefs, TinselKoala. Don't let anyone get in the way.

[TinselKoala]

Hang on to your beliefs, TinselKoala. Don't let anyone get in the way.

If you think I'm wrong, that's certainly your prerogative. But you should be able to PROVE ME WRONG, if that's the case.
Sadly, those who have tried, have failed. That doesn't mean I am correct, of course--but it sure increases the likelihood.

My "beliefs" are the result of much study, experience, and experimentation. Have you, yourself, PaulR, tried to reproduce DePalma's work with launching spinning ball bearings, or timed pendulums with dual coupled gyros? I have. Have you, PaulR, done experiments with dropping gyros spinning in various directions, and timed their fall in sensitive apparatus, like the Japanese researchers? I have. Have you tried Laithwaite's experiment with a swivel stool and a bicycle wheel on a handle? I have.
Based on my study, experience, and experimentation, I say that gyros do NOT lose weight when spinning, nor do they fall faster or more slowly.

So, yes, I will continue to hang on to my "beliefs", because, for me, they have the tenacity of fact.