Antigravity Method 13 of 15 Gyroscopic Mechanical / Electromechanical/ Inertial Impulse, Centrifugal- Group IV Filmed 1991-1996, 13 of 15 methods of levitating an object known to the author John Iwaszko, edited from the video Anti-gravity the reality made in 1996. The anti-gravity method shown in this edit, was introduced and was referred to as Asymmetric Gyroscopic which has now been reclassified by the author as, GYROSCOPIC MECHANICAL /ELECTROMECHANICAL/ Inertial impulse centrifugal (Method 13) The classification of the anti-gravity methods I have developed was an attempt to classify according to certain functional, structural properties and methodology of the systems. Whereas the structural properties are largely intrinsic, functional properties and the derived classifications depend to a certain degree on the type of interaction relative to the external environment. Some of the systems mix the various methods, resulting in hierarchies based on structural qualities. The method I will next describe has been the cause of tremendous controversy amongst learned people and is the only method that can, so far, produce tangible and a measurable artificial gravity. Befitting and Ironic then that this method described coincidentally fell in a numerical order of number 13. Perhaps the symbolism that relates to number 13 also relates to this method. So whats is creating the defying gravity antiques within the box, here it is balancing 130 grams with no counterweight on the opposing lever. It is none other than a gyroscope. Here we have an elementary experiment, a balanced system, I place an object on a platform, give it a little spin, and behold the object does not topple or fall as I have just created artificial gravity. This simple method has been utilised in theme parks and unquestionably in future space vehicles and space stations and has been experienced in some form by most people. Centrifugal force represents the effects of inertia that arise in connection with rotation and which are experienced as an outward force away from the centre of rotation and pushes the object towards the platform keeping the little object firmly stable at a constant velocity of rotation. At a certain rate of rotation we can beat gravity. Everyone who has swung any heavy object around themselves has felt the centrifugal force. This 'force' can simulate gravity particularly where there is no solid surface to enable us to feel the forces of gravity. The centrifugal force is in a direction perpendicular to the rotation axis and radically outward. Its magnitude is equal to the square of the angular speed times the distance from the rotation axis. As a result the astronauts in a space station would be able to walk around inside the space station as if the artificial gravity is pulling them outward away from the centre of a toroidal or cylindrical station. For a space station 15 metres in radius (50 feet) the station must make one revolution about every 8 seconds in order that the astronauts feel 1 g of gravitational acceleration where a persons weight would be the same as that on Earth. WARNING:- Some of these experiments operate directly from 240 VAC mains supply or far higher voltages at high currents are potentially lethal. Do not build unless you know exactly what you are doing. Do not touch any part of the equipment while it is plugged into a mains outlet. And remember that the methods described do not conform to any electrical safety standard and many of the experiments performed are downright dangerous. Powerful magnets such as neodymium magnets or powerful magnetic fields generated by coils can be dangerous and not to be played with. Powerful magnets or magnetic fields can crush fingers. The power of magnetism can also cause chunks of metal to take flight and cause injury to body parts and or blindness. Rotating machinery can pose a danger from rotating or reciprocating parts. Particularly when machine parts move toward each other, or one part moves past another, which can crush limbs. Extremely intense sounds can burst ear drums or can be physically painful to human ears. High-intensity ultrasound waves are extremely dangerous to experiment with as they can heat human eyes or other tissue by absorbing ultrasound energy which becomes heat by vibration and corresponding energy loss. Exposure to radio frequency energy or ionizing radiation that can be generated by coils can not only burn as they get hot but also cause radiation burns, damage to the skin or other biological tissue. Direct skin contact with liquid nitrogen will cause severe frostbite (cryogenic or cold burns). This may happen almost instantly on contact, there is always a potential hazard when handling liquid nitrogen. Be careful!
When it comes to gyroscopes many a Newtonian treatise has been written about their motion. They are used with great precision in gyroscopes in ships, submarines, air-planes and rockets, so there must be some understanding of their motion. But Laithwaite contended that the familiar precessing top that can be bought in the toy-shop, being of a different design (not supported through its centre of gravity), is not properly described by Newton’s laws of motion. He drew the curtain covering the blackboard to reveal a modification of Newton’s second law (in an inertial frame) that bears the same relation to the usual equation as does the equation for the voltage on a resistance, capacitance and inductance to Ohm’s law. In practical terms, he had four main contentions about gyroscopic precession. First, he believed that the angular momentum of precession (about a vertical axis) is created out of nothing, so that angular momentum is not conserved about that axis in direct contradiction of Newton’s mechanics; second, he believes the precession is not accompanied by any centrifugal force (the force you feel if you swing a bucket around in the garden); third, he contended that it requires no force to stop the precession; and fourth that if the precession is sped up, the tops (which certainly rise) do so without there being any consequent downward reaction. It is my opinion that none of these contentions was adequately proved by the experiments Laithwaite performed at the Royal Institution during his discourse, Perhaps someone will be able to do more precise experiments which will bear him out, but until this is done, his case remains at least unproven. To take just one example and the most spectacular his anti-gravity machine weighed to within half a pound of the upper limit of the scales (where there was a mechanical stop). So even if the reaction on the scales was reduced during one part of the machine’s cycle (and it indeed went down 5 pounds out of its total 20), the reaction would not have shown on the scales if it had gone above 20 pounds on the least of the cycle. The needle in fact swung violently between its upper limit and 15 pounds. Refer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eQp4grGdqY&t=893s You have probably got the impression by now that I am sceptical of Eric Laithwaite’s views on the gyro. You would be right. I believe he has got it wrong by changing fields too quickly and jumping to conclusions or else we are all being taken for a marvellous ride! Yet he said in his discourse that his "life had led up to this moment", and he appeared to be extremely serious about his views. Newton's Point of View Newton, though long dead, can still give us his views through his equations of motion. The first point he might make about Laithwaite’s experiments is that they involved "fast" tops. These are tops that have far more kinetic energy in the gravitational field (weight times distance the centre of gravity of the top can move). Such tops have a deceptively simple motion that can confuse generalisation to slow tops. One example of this is the question of the "creation" of angular momentum about a vertical axis when the top begins to precess. In fact, the top, when released from a stationary horizontal position, falls vertically until has a component of its own high internal angular momentum along the vertical, just enough to compensate for the angular momentum of precession. This fall (which in detail is a damped-out nutation) is hardly noticeable in a fast top but is obvious in a slow one. Hence the creation of the angular momentum of precession. A similar remark applies to the centrifugal force of precession; if a top is fast the centrifugal force is only a small fraction of the weight of the top, so it is hardly noticeable. For a slow top the force becomes more important as the precession speeds up, and this is one of the contributions to the falling over of a toy top on its support as it slows down. Next, according to our old friend Newton, a force is certainly needed to stop a precessing top, albeit a small one. The exact motion of the top after it has been stopped depends on the details of its previous motion. So, in both the case of the centrifugal force and stopping the precession there is a simple test by which Newton’s and Laithwaite’s contentions can be distinguished. Finally, there is the question of the reaction-less rise of an assisted, precessing top. Laithwaite agrees that the exact amount of energy needed to lift the top must be introduced by twisting its vertical support, so there is no gaining something for nothing on that score. Newton would argue that no vertical reaction was necessary anyway once the top started upwards (just as no extra reaction is necessary on a crane when it is steadily lifting its load). And to test the contention that the machine gets lighter, Newton would ask Laithwaite to measure the impulse (force times time of action), not the force itself. Such sophistication is beyond a set of kitchen scales.
639 views2 years ago
"Antigravity" Method 14 of 15 Sonic Ultrasonic Acoustic Group V
83K views10 years ago
"Antigravity" Method 12 of 15, Electromagnetic Fields DC Pulse, AC LF, & HF Group IIIBii
705K views10 years ago
"Antigravity" method 10b of 15 Electromagnetic suspension with feedback Group IIIA
22K views10 years ago
"Antigravity" Method 9 of 15, Magnetic Gyroscopic, Group IIC
33K views10 years ago
"Antigravity" Method 7 of 15, Dia-magnetic Superconducting (Meissner), Group IIB(i)
18K views10 years ago
"Antigravity" method 2b of 15 Ion Asymmetric Electrostatic, Group IB(i)
16K views10 years ago
"Antigravity" method 2a of 15, Ion Asymmetric Electrostatic, Group IB(i)
32K views10 years ago
"Antigravity" method 1b of 15, Geometric Electrostatic- H2O dipole, Group IA
17K views10 years ago
"Antigravity" method 1a of 15, Geometric Electrostatic, Group IA
41K views10 years ago
