The Englishman Eric Laithwaite and the Russian Gennadi Shipov have something in common : they made, each one, gyroscopes on free axis. Lathwaite, rejected by the Royal Society of London because of its results of non-Newtonian physics, sent into space a gyroscope which has accelerated the movement itself, and Shipov made gyroscopes whose energy increased.
The key is to know what "free axis" means, for physicists.
Well: let me take a shot at the meaning of free axis.
First it does not surprise me at all that the energy of a spinning system would have an energy increase; the cylinder and spheres have huge energy increases. I hope the Royal Society doesn’t think that an energy increase is non-Newtonian: that would be the farthest from the truth.
All gyroscopes have a freely rotating axis so that can not be the meaning of free axis. A gyroscope that is moved from place to place has been done on ships and in space so that is not an anomaly.
My I suggest that free axis may provide for a changing distribution of momentum, from a large mass to a smaller mass. Could it be that portions of the mass have changes in momentum: some parts taking all the motion and other parts coming to rest?
This is very similar to the cylinder and spheres experiments. I see it as a confirmation of this work.
Hello Mr Pequaide
I just know that the set of Laithwaite turned faster and faster, and took off like an aircraft, to go as a meteor into deep space.
It is true that there are gyroscopes which are made up of several parties, and some of these parts can stop and even go back in the opposite sense ..
In france, during the sixties, we bought "mobiles" to decorate our living rooms, with wires and wooden batons, which turned.
I don't understand when you tell us that there is increased energy in a rotary system ( The density of energy changes, but not the tolal amount ); Lathwaite was excluded from the Royal Society for having challenged the second law of Newton.
The second law says that ,anyway, the energy always comes from elsewhere, from a known part of our universe...To tell the physicists that the energy comes from itself, or from the torsion waves, is sacrilegious...
I have changed the terms " conservation of energy " by " conservation of energy density, " what do you think about that ?
Oh yes, Mr Pequaide, I see your last post on free energy from sphÃÆ'Ã,¨res and cylinders...You guess that the Royal Society could not accept you in its ranks...Interesting, however.
http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=Eric+Laithwaite++Gennadi+Shipov&meta=
PESE
Thank you PESE
You are engeneer in electronics ? Oh my god, what a man! I start three years with evening studies, this month, to be able to check things like 'magnetic pressure', 'modulation of perception', 'density of energy', ....
soliris
i find more in the web and ebooks now the last 5 jears in internet
as i studied 45 years ago , but the old knowledge frim tubes and
transistor, i have knowledges that are hard (and not) to find.
Ask me over Messy, if Informations need.
G.Pese
Hello Mr Pese
From Wikipedia : Messy est une commune franÃÆ'Ã,§aise, situÃÆ'Ã,©e dans le dÃÆ'Ã,©partement de Seine-et-Marne et la rÃÆ'Ã,©gion ÃÆ'Ã...½le-de-France.
Are you from Messy, France ? Si vous ÃÆ'Ã,ªtes de cette commune, nous ne sommes pas trÃÆ'Ã,¨s loin l'un de l'autre; je suis de Tournai, prÃÆ'Ã,¨s de Lille
You sudied 45 years ago ? i m 47 years old ! So, at first, it's easy : there is just the need of a electronic signal to collect something other than everyday reality; I was able to determine three criteria of perception modulation, the modulated light signal will be adapted on a helmet to see the free energy, for example (the aether).
The three criteria of perception are """sequential ,""""frequency, """"impaction; each criterion can be clearly electronically defined.
And after that, a discovery of John Logie Baird must be reactivated...
I m sure, Mr Pese, that you know a great part of this John Logie Baird's technology...
Confirmation of data has been obtained
Similar experiments to the cylinder and spheres have been performed by Prof. E.R Laithwaithe at the University of Sussex. I found it under Gyroscopes â€ââ,¬Å" Everything you need to know, after searching â€ËÅ"Laithwaithe free axis’.
Of particular interest is figure 7, Laithewaite states that momentum is conserved but energy is not conserved. I actually performed an experiment very similar to his, but the cylinder and spheres yield more energy. Laithewaite’s data confirms the concepts behind the cylinder and spheres.
In Laithwaite’s diagram 7 he starts at a high energy point and goes to a low energy point and then back to a point of high energy. Laithwaite clearly states that he sees momentum conserved not kinetic energy conservation. At first M1 and M2 have all the motion after they are accelerated by a spring, this is a high energy point. Then the motion is shared with the center sliding mass that contains A1 and A2, this is the low energy point. The lowest energy point is obtained when the velocity of the sliding center mass is closest to the velocity of M1 and M2. The energy is highest again when all the motion returns to M1 and M2.
Lets us start the motion at the low energy point by dropping the sliding (A1 and A2) mass and M1 and M2 from a height of .051 meters. Arrange the masses so that they go in the correct direction of course. Let the sliding mass be equal to the sum of M1 and M2. The original velocity of all masses will be one meter per second. The original energy will be 2 joules.
After the system proceeds from the low energy point to the high energy point; M1 and M2 will have all the motion. They will have to be moving 2 m/sec to conserve momentum and the energy content will be 4 joules. With velocities of 2 m/sec M1 and M2 can rise .2034 meters: 2 kg at .2034 m is twice the energy of 4 kg at .051 meters.
Energy has been made in the laboratory, in the United Kingdom. Maybe the Royal Society needs to reread principia. Momentum does not equal kinetic energy. mv, 1/2mvÂÃ,²
Quote from: pequaide on September 18, 2008, 06:59:09 AM
Confirmation of data has been obtained
Similar experiments to the cylinder and spheres have been performed by Prof. E.R Laithwaithe at the University of Sussex. I found it under Gyroscopes â€ââ,¬Å" Everything you need to know, after searching â€ËÅ"Laithwaithe free axis’.
Of particular interest is figure 7, Laithewaite states that momentum is conserved but energy is not conserved. I actually performed an experiment very similar to his, but the cylinder and spheres yield more energy. Laithewaite’s data confirms the concepts behind the cylinder and spheres.
In Laithwaite’s diagram 7 he starts at a high energy point and goes to a low energy point and then back to a point of high energy. Laithwaite clearly states that he sees momentum conserved not kinetic energy conservation. At first M1 and M2 have all the motion after they are accelerated by a spring, this is a high energy point. Then the motion is shared with the center sliding mass that contains A1 and A2, this is the low energy point. The lowest energy point is obtained when the velocity of the sliding center mass is closest to the velocity of M1 and M2. The energy is highest again when all the motion returns to M1 and M2.
Lets us start the motion at the low energy point by dropping the sliding (A1 and A2) mass and M1 and M2 from a height of .051 meters. Arrange the masses so that they go in the correct direction of course. Let the sliding mass be equal to the sum of M1 and M2. The original velocity of all masses will be one meter per second. The original energy will be 2 joules.
After the system proceeds from the low energy point to the high energy point; M1 and M2 will have all the motion. They will have to be moving 2 m/sec to conserve momentum and the energy content will be 4 joules. With velocities of 2 m/sec M1 and M2 can rise .2034 meters: 2 kg at .2034 m is twice the energy of 4 kg at .051 meters.
Energy has been made in the laboratory, in the United Kingdom. Maybe the Royal Society needs to reread principia. Momentum does not equal kinetic energy. mv, 1/2mvÂÃ,²
Can you link to the information please. And describe the experiment more in depth.
www.gyroscopes.org/masstran.asp - 22k
Quote from: soliris on September 18, 2008, 06:50:46 AM
Hello Mr Pese
From Wikipedia : Messy est une commune franÃÆ'Ã,§aise, situÃÆ'Ã,©e dans le dÃÆ'Ã,©partement de Seine-et-Marne et la rÃÆ'Ã,©gion ÃÆ'Ã...½le-de-France.
Are you from Messy, France ? Si vous ÃÆ'Ã,ªtes de cette commune, nous ne sommes pas trÃÆ'Ã,¨s loin l'un de l'autre; je suis de Tournai, prÃÆ'Ã,¨s de Lille
And after that, a discovery of John Logie Baird must be reactivated...
I m sure, Mr Pese, that you know a great part of this John Logie Baird's technology...
No i, was know only, that he was television-inventor
ici vous truez quelques livres de lui
http://books.google.de/books?q=John+Logie+Baird&btnG=Nach+B%C3%BCchern+suchen
ci vous etes interesse, cherchez au premier des e-book.
I have ut an longer message in your "box"
Gustave PeseÂÃ,´
Okay; click on the above link and go down to mass displacement by circular motion. Figure seven is an overhead view (I assume) of three objects on a frictionless plane.
Lets give the object A1-A2 (the sliding center mass, Laithwaite calls it the centre pivot anchor block) a mass of 2 kg and M1 and M2 a mass of 1 kilogram each.
Lets swing M1 and M2 down from .2039 meters so they both have a velocity of 2 m/sec. d = ÂÃ,½*a*t*t or d = .5 * v * v / a
In figure seven that would give us one kilogram going north at 2 m/sec and one kilogram going south at 2 m/sec. They both transfer some of their motion to the center sled (A1, A2). Let us assume that at some point they are all moving at the same velocity, which would mean that all three objects would be moving one meter per second. This would be the conservation of linear Newtonian momentum; 4 kg * 1 m/sec equals 2 kg *2 m/sec.
Now you may ask: how do you know that linear Newtonian momentum is conserved; because the objects are moving in a circular path?
First: Well what if you arrange a head on collision between M1 (moving 2 m/sec) and the center sled, the three kilograms would move away at .667 m/sec. Then if you (in line) collide M2 at 2 m/sec into the combination you would have four kilograms moving one meter per second. Why would you expect different results from the arrangement in figure seven? Would anyone claim that Newtonian physics does not apply to objects moving in a circular path?
Second: The arrangement in figure seven returns to having only M1 and M2 in motion and the center sled is stopped. Ideally that motion should again be 2 m/sec. How can you have 4 units of momentum at the end of the experiment unless you have 4 units of momentum all the way in between; from start to finish.
Third: Laithwaite said that he observed that momentum was conserved not kinetic energy. If kinetic energy was conserved when the 3 objects are moving at the same velocity then that velocity would have to be 1.4 m/sec. This would mean that 4 units of momentum would give 5.6 units and 5.6 units would yield only 4: a clear violation of Newtonian physics. From mv and 1/2mvÂÃ,²
Here is the importance of this experiment. Ballistic pendulums conserve linear Newtonian momentum. They conserve it when the incoming projectile is a pendulum bob and the final motion of the block projectile combination is linear, on a frictionless plane. They conserve it when the incoming motion is linear and the final motion is a pendulum. They conserve it when both incoming and outgoing motion is a pendulum. Depending on the mass distribution of the projectile to block they can lose 50%, 80%, or 95% etc. of the energy of motion. Always this energy loss is blamed on friction that makes heat. How can heat be blamed on the energy losses in the sliding center experiment when the objects don’t even touch?
If heat is to blame for the loss of energy (when the motion is shared) then how does the heat come back when the energy is restored; when the motion is again only in M1 and M2?
Does the experiment conserve momentum and make energy, or does it conserve energy and make momentum?
Hello Mr Pequaide, it's a short message; I have to study your answers in details.
The first idea coming to me, is that we have not taken in our mind the Time changes around the axis of the gyroscopes..I will try to explain a little bit later.
You follow a 'master-idea', like we say in French; I love that: this is the only way to change this world.
I have repeated Laithwaite’s figure seven experiment and it appears that he is correct in that the center of mass seems to stay in the same place. In a since this is also the center of momentum, in that if the center sled has twice the mass it has half the velocity. This would mean that M1 and M2 always give the center sled half the momentum.
When M1 and the center sled (with a mass twice that of the combined mass of M1 and M2) and M2 are in a straight line the sled must have half the velocity. If M1 and M2 move 1 cm left then the center sled must move .5 cm right. It seems like this would mean that the experiment proceeds at about the same rate (given the same original velocities) no matter what the mass of the center sled. Because if the M1 and M2 pucks always give half their motion to the center they will always have half left for themselves. But the shape of the oval changes with changing center mass, and maybe that would change the rate at which the experiment proceeds. At any rate this is a very interesting experiment.
The center of mass staying put also allows for different quantities of energy to be produced. Because a center mass of 4 kg moving .5 m/sec is not the same energy as 2 kg moving 1 m/sec.
You sould be near me to make me understand this figure seven (!)...I just know that another man seems to do experiments like Laithwaite did..I want to talk about Raoul Leon Hatem.
Following his experiences (you could'nt find them on the net, I ve got a DVD that I can put on Youtube, in french) he reprocuced the motions of the solar system gravity, explaining that gravity is the result of the two magnetic poles (attractive/repulsive) of each planet/natural satellite/star, reacting on the two poles of another planet, satellite, star....Gravity is the attractive result of opposite poles: when the same poles can do nothing, nor pull themselves and nor push, it just remains attractive result.
The states of Europe and America fight against Leon Hatem, cause also of his experiences on free energy http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=945 (Google removals of allegedly unlawful results)
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/ then go to files, then to pictures titled 9-27-08 Laithwaite’s figure 7.
3 photographs of Laithwaite’s Figure 7
From position one (photograph one) a small double lever is used to accelerate the pucks on the end of the string; one is accelerated north and one south (relative directions). The center puck is initially at rest and has a mass of 76g; the end pucks have a mass of about 32 grams each. That means the center of mass is closer to the center puck than to the end pucks.
As soon as the end pucks begin moving north and south the center puck begins moving right. When the center puck reaches the center of mass (which is about the center of the table) the end pucks are in the positions of photograph two, directly above and below the center puck. If the center of mass is to remain in position as Laithwaite stated then the velocity of the end pucks will be moving with half their original velocity, and the center puck will be moving with 64/76 *1/2 the original velocity of the end pucks. These velocities conserve linear Newtonian momentum, and the velocities also conserve the position of the center of mass. This is what the experimenter will observe upon doing the experiment.
All this motion is then returned to the end pucks upon moving from photograph 2 to photograph 3. In photograph three the center puck (now on the right side) is again at rest. The energy change from photograph 2 to photograph 3 is 217%. Start the motion in the center (photograph 2) and you can make energy.
Well Mr Pequaide, thank you for your explanations
I'm ready to believe this experiment like true...
Did Mr Laithwaite have a small theory to give us so accurate details ? Did you realize this experiment again ?
It's sure that we must create our own set to check that...
that's why I begin to start studies in electronics, this year (to make it with small instruments).