Mike Smith Cosmos

Possibility for Mass Transport System could take us up a gear.

Recommended Posts

An opportunity exists for a major infrastructure project on a par with

THE CANAL REVOLUTION ;

THE SHIPPING REVOLUTION, ;

THE RAILWAY REVOLUTION :

THE FLIGHT REVOLUTION.

 

A new opportunity awaits for various TRANSIT orbitals ranging from 100 meters to 10,000 meters .

 

Two opposing CYLINDERS of ACCESS offer the opportunity for a NEW TRANSIT REVOLUTION.

 

See Following Diagram : -

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

 

post-33514-0-04025700-1372717397_thumb.jpg

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

Such a system if developed could prove :

 

Energy efficient

Economic Boost

Employment Boost

Economical use of Resources .

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two opposing CYLINDERS of ACCESS offer the opportunity for a NEW TRANSIT REVOLUTION.

 

See Following Diagram : -

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

 

post-33514-0-35993400-1372747979_thumb.jpg Peek Velocity 22,000MPH RMS 17,700mph

 

RMS ROOT MEAN SQUARED

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~


Theory

 

The initiation energy would set up an instantaneous inertia following a sinusoidal ranging from zero through a positive peak of 22,000 mph, through zero to minus 22,000 mph. This would give an RMS value of approx 17,700 mph. .

 

The elastic coupling would ensure Mass Transport system would go no further than the scope of the CYLINDERS of ACCESS.

 

However the Mass Transport System, at this stage would be in a condition of Stationary Orbit .

This could exist at 100 meters in height, 10,000 meters or what ever orbit is specified by the INITIATION ENERGY..

 

Once in orbit the Mass Transport Device can move sideways in the spherical orbit as required.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

It will be noticed that there is a Similarity to the moving of Mass Transport by Canal and Ocean Going Freight Liners. The Orbit in their case is at SEA LEVEL or 0 meters..

 

By taking Things UP A GEAR to 100 meters. or 10,000 meters requires a different System ( as described above ) .This requires new thinking and newish technology. ( however we are already doing half of this by putting satellites in orbit. )

 

This system requires TWO opposing Satellites in elastic coupling, Where the Payload is a small value in proportion of the Entire Oscillating Mass.

 

However the Physics and Maths is the same no matter what level of orbit [ 0 meters , 100 meters, 10,000m ]

 

M v squared /r = M g M's cancel g is g Root Mean Squared value of v= approx 17,700 mph .

 

 

CONCEPT

 

PHYSICS

 

MATHS

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OPERATION of MASS TRANSPORT SYSTEM

 

Once the energy impact is introduced, there exists a Circumferential tube,of opportunity for the mass to travel through, whereby the inertia of the mass is restrained by the centripetal gravitational force bending the trajectory into the tube of opportunity. { This Tube is a circumferential orbit of the Earth 100 meters/10,000 meters or as selected by the initial or replaced impact energy} Similarly the conditions are right for the other mass travelling in the opposite direction. While attached elastically the system is sustainable. For movement of the couplet of both masses additional angular inertia/momentum would need to be added. ( as like a supertanker on the surface of the ocean, except the drag would be much less due to the difference of water and atmosphere)

 

post-33514-0-23169700-1372777648_thumb.jpg ONE CYLINDER OF ACCESS

 

post-33514-0-24145900-1372778439_thumb.jpg OPPOSITE CYLINDER OF ACCESS


GLOBAL SYSTEM

 

 

post-33514-0-33608400-1372779455_thumb.jpg

TRANS -ATLANTIC

MASS TRANSPORT LINK


 

TRANS -ATLANTIC MASS TRANSPORT LINK

 

 

THIS could be a Research/Manufacture Economy Boost

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

. THE LOADING HAS BEGUN .

 

. post-33514-0-44170600-1372834953_thumb.jpg

 

 

. INITIAL ENERGY INJECTION . .

 

. post-33514-0-58487800-1372836239_thumb.jpg.

 

. LIFT OFF TO INITIAL 100 Meter ORBITAL .

 

. post-33514-0-21776900-1372837179_thumb.jpg.

 

.

The Journey's just begun.

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two opposing CYLINDERS of ACCESS offer the opportunity for a NEW TRANSIT REVOLUTION.

 

See Following Diagram : -

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

 

 

post-33514-0-02387100-1372880631_thumb.jpg Peek Velocity 22,000MPH RMS 17,700mph

RMS ROOT MEAN SQUARED

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

Theory

 

The initiation energy would set up an instantaneous inertia following a sinusoidal ranging from zero through a positive peak of 22,000 mph, through zero to minus 22,000 mph. This would give an RMS value of approx 17,700 mph. .

 

The elastic coupling would ensure Mass Transport system would go no further than the scope of the CYLINDERS of ACCESS.

 

However the Mass Transport System, at this stage would be in a condition of Stationary Orbit .

This could exist at 100 meters in height, 10,000 meters or what ever orbit is specified by the INITIATION ENERGY..

 

Once in orbit the Mass Transport Device can move sideways in the spherical orbit as required.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

It will be noticed that there is a Similarity to the moving of Mass Transport by Canal and Ocean Going Freight Liners. The Orbit in their case is at SEA LEVEL or 0 meters..

 

By taking Things UP A GEAR to 100 meters. or 10,000 meters requires a different System ( as described above ) .This requires new thinking and newish technology. ( however we are already doing half of this by putting satellites in orbit. )

 

This system requires TWO opposing Satellites in elastic coupling, Where the Payload is a small value in proportion of the Entire Oscillating Mass.

 

However the Physics and Maths is the same no matter what level of orbit [ 0 meters , 100 meters, 10,000m ]

 

M v squared /r = M g M's cancel g is g Root Mean Squared value of v= approx 17,700 mph .

 

 

CONCEPT

 

PHYSICS

 

MATHS

 

 

Whoever has awarded me a (-1) for this post, would you declare yourself , and explain your objection by reasoning .

Until such time ,as I have had opportunity to defend using scientific reasoning I would appreciate being credited so as to negate this vote . Please have the courage to make your disagreement public. And let us discuss the fores and against the proposal for such an ambitious Mass Transit System scheme , with its potential gains ( EEEE ).

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

INTERNAL ENERGY BOOST FOR HIGHER ORBIT.

 

. post-33514-0-91250600-1372888722_thumb.jpg

.

 

. LATERAL MOVEMENT IN ORBIT

. BY INTERNAL ENERGY SOURCE .

 

. post-33514-0-54014200-1372889772_thumb.jpg .

 

. New Mass Transfer Shuttle arriving for next power up and takeoff

 

Lateral speed can be carefully controlled from VERY LOW SPEED to HIGH SPEED .

(Does not relate to Lift ) . Different system for lateral movement.

. MASS TRANSIT VEHICLE EQUIPPED WITH AERODYNAMIC CONES .

 

.post-33514-0-12349800-1372891429_thumb.jpg.

 

.

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

MAIN PRINCIPLE OF OPERATION .

 

.post-33514-0-66386800-1372945180_thumb.jpg

 

 

CONVERSION OF STRAIGHT LINE INERTIA

TO ORBITAL FOR COMPONENTS OF SYSTEM.

 

. post-33514-0-20193100-1372952967_thumb.jpg.

 

. EQUIVALENT COMPONENTS OF SYSTEM.

 

. post-33514-0-86661900-1372953956_thumb.jpg.

 

 

 

 

.

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, I'm not the one who gave you the downvote, but please, stop.

 

Stop with the silly cartoons. Start using math. This isn't even nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, I'm not the one who gave you the downvote, but please, stop.

 

Stop with the silly cartoons. Start using math. This isn't even nonsense.

 

You stagger me. I thought my posts were reasonably popular. I have just made a quick count through my threads or threads that I played a major part in progressing.

 

Some 30,000 viewings .The current thread 164 views in 4 days. Centriugal 1216,maths2451, lingual theory 5598, spec popular 943, earth 1228, heisenberg 3127, came down to earth 933 probability 885 tuning fork 419,macro/micro 652 now 541, plank telescope 989, geology sw 533, spin 14,323 expert 943, pre-cambrian 834, geology future 1134 laws of physics 1171, attraction repulsion 849 intake of calcium pre-cambrian 368, probability / time 568, rotating universe 854 ,photon absorb/reflect dry/wet 620

 

approx 30,000 views. Are you sure you want me to Stop .

 

I thought the idea was to bring an audience to science in this forum. not just argue.

 

I am a visual person, I think in pictures, I have a pencil and notebook and piece of paper in my top shirt pocket. I,go to bed with a notebook beside the bed. I taught in pictures, I draw and paint pictures, If any body asks me a question , I reach for my notebook and doodle the solution.

 

If you really want me to stop . I will .

 

But you can't change me. I have been like this since I was 7 years , I am now 70 years.

 

Ask me to stop contributing ,and I will stop. But you can't change me. ( " I am Mike the Model by Me-pictures " )

You cant teach old dogs new tricks. This old dog is one massive heap of images and pictures.

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Start using math.

 

m x (V squared) / r = m x g

 

where m is he mass of any potentially orbiting object. V is the velocity , r is the radius from the center of the earth, g is the acceleration due to gravitational field.

 

as m is on both sides of equation they cancel to 1

 

Solution V = 17,700 miles per hour (approx)

 

Result/Conclusion

 

Any (massive object m ) moving about the proximity of the Earth ( 100 meters above ground or 10,000 meters ) at 17,700 mph will be in a "floatation style" orbit. As inertia tries to make it escape in a straight line tangentially and the force of gravity tries to pull it towards the center of the Earth [centipetal].

 

The result is a partial arc for as long as the conditions are met. irrelevant of direction. Forwards , backwards , sideways .

 

Hence if the movement is contained somehow by oscillation or rotation , as long as it meets the 17,700 mph and the maths holds up , then :-

- IF the maths is right and holds up SO should the Satellite. stay up

 

 

Maths above Ps . As illustrated in previous posts . [ humbug ]

 

. Should you require the MATHS for ROTATIONAL version they can be requested .

Result was approx Diameter 20 meters at 1,000,000 RPM

 

 

{Not even I , I dare not draw that one, I promise , stop it No No ... }

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make a model.

Use a spring from a ballpoint and two pieces of small diameter copper pipe, which you can get from a hardware store.

Stretch the spring and let go, it will fall, make sure nothing breakable is below your device.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought my posts were reasonably popular.

 

approx 30,000 views.

 

Logical fallacy. Besides, it is usually the case, (and this is not directly aimed at you), that the worst threads get the most traffic. For example, members who simply won't take advice and keep arguing their case, despite being hopelessly wrong. Other members watching the thread, see this is as a form of entertainment, the thread gets lots of hits...it's harsh, but that's the internet.

 

 

I am a visual person, I think in pictures, I have a pencil and notebook and piece of paper in my top shirt pocket. I,go to bed with a notebook beside the bed. I taught in pictures, I draw and paint pictures, If any body asks me a question , I reach for my notebook and doodle the solution.

 

Unfortunately, this is the problem. You shouldn't treat the speculation forum as your personal note book. Collate your notes in private, then produce a coherent, well structured report to present to the community. Bearing in mind, that it should adopt the same rigour you would expect from a scientific paper, albeit a stripped down version. Diagrams are essential for mathematical models, but art is probably more at home in general discussion, or an art forum.

 

Looking back on this thread, would you, in all seriousness, present that to the department of transport ? I don't mean to sound over critical, but I've seen better work boshed together at the last minute for a GCSE project.

 

You cant teach old dogs new tricks.

 

 

That maybe true to an extent, but I've worked with people your age, who have just started studying physics. Their views and appreciation of science and nature has changed, so I really don't see that as an excuse. You used to teach physics, so I find your methodology a bit baffling.

 

I hope this is sound advice, because surely you want to avoid the kind of responses DH has posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i haven't read a lot of this, just mikes last post,

so i maybe not knowing what i'm talking about here,

but i notice in this last post of his,

no escape velocity is involved,

 

" r is the radius from the center of the earth, g is the acceleration due to gravitational field.

 

as m is on both sides of equation they cancel to 1 "

 

but like i said,

i probably do not know what i'm talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make a model.

Use a spring from a ballpoint and two pieces of small diameter copper pipe, which you can get from a hardware store.

Stretch the spring and let go, it will fall, make sure nothing breakable is below your device.

 

Alternatively , Take an atom which has a few electron energy levels . By the application of appropriate Oscillating radiation to an electron in the lower energy band. The electron will absorb the energy, by some means of oscillation and of rotation. The electron will move to a higher energy level or higher orbital. depending on conditions the electron will either remain in the higher energy band or orbital. Should there be a vacancy in a lower orbit, the electron will 'fall' or transfer to,the lower vacant orbit. In so doing giving up the energy difference in the form of radiation (photons).

 

The system works . With all atoms the system works.

 

Similarly , surely If you transfer sufficient energy of an oscillatory or rotational form to mass, where else can the surplus energy go ,other than a higher energy state, higher orbit.

 

If you feed a radio antenna with sufficient energy of an oscillatory nature, of sufficient frequency, and continue to supply the necessary energy, the antenna will set up an oscillating electro/magnetic field such that the surplus energy , heads off at the speed of light into the far distance never to return.

 

Surely there is sufficient testable models here to warrant research and investigation.

 

If Electrons can do it at the micro level , maybe we can use this at the macro level to our advantage.

 

The numbers are sufficiently higher than Biro pen experiments. This is like expecting to attempt to make an electron to jump orbit by rattling a stick..

 

Using electrons in atom orbitals is a far more reliable model .. More Oscillations and/or rotation

 

.

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Electron orbitals are not anything like orbits, Mike. You are ignoring momentum. Sorry to be blunt, but this is so wrong that I can't even find a good starting place to start a criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stretch the spring and let go, it will fall, make sure nothing breakable is below your device.

and

but i notice in this last post of his,

no escape velocity is involved,

The speeds given (22,000 mph among others) are close to the escape velocity at sea level. I assume that a stable orbit is used as a levitation mechanism (though I don't see how it's feasible).

 

Electron orbitals are not anything like orbits, Mike. You are ignoring momentum. Sorry to be blunt, but this is so wrong that I can't even find a good starting place to start a criticism.

With two masses connected in a stable orbit via a spring, couldn't you use potential energy in the spring to accelerate an object from rest on the ground, and then somehow capture its kinetic energy as it slows at its destination? The increased mass and decreased speed after picking up cargo could simply change its orbit maybe ?

 

I think a good place to start criticism---unless I just plain don't get this---is that there not enough clear explanation of what's actually involved (do the masses travel through the atmosphere? or through vacuated tubes?) enough to actually do calculations to see if anything's feasible or what it would involve.

 

However, I think that if some of the design details were ignored and some of the basic principles developed a bit more, there may be some ideas here that are at least worth contemplating. The basic idea seems to be a system of capturing the energy from "reentry" of cargo and using it to propel cargo into orbit. The energy required to change orbits of cargo could be transferred using some system of springs, could it not? I don't know how physical principles would make such a thing impossible.

Edited by md65536

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.., there may be some ideas here that are at least worth contemplating. ... I don't know how physical principles would make such a thing impossible.

 

Appreciate your consideration . Perhaps this rotating version may clarify what is potentially going on . As this version does not require the oscillation mechanism . The inertia or momentum is saved a radical direction change.

 

In both systems there is no immediate requirement for a vacuum. In the case of the rotating version , each integral slice of mass is following the one in front.( no drag. ) At this stage its not going any where , just hanging there.

 

In the Oscillating version Yes there is the end vibration which could be quite large. ( my sums originally were 4 inches at 40 Khz).. This end area may need to be evacuated ( certainly by people [joke] if not Air ).

 

see diagram below for rotating version. ..

 

.post-33514-0-63185500-1373095418_thumb.jpg.

 

.

Electron orbitals are not anything like orbits, Mike. You are ignoring momentum. Sorry to be blunt, but this is so wrong that I can't even find a good starting place to start a criticism.

 

Before you abandon me completely DH. I would appreciate your criticism, provided its constructive.

 

Let me just say:

Professor Laithewaite of Imperial College London in the 1980,s got this same criticism and was discredited for a while. He later went on to prove his case with another University in the north of England and patented the idea. Sandy Kidd wrote a Book Quoted below. A Russian made some progress with superconductors. A Japanese researcher was on the case , as are many world wide. I came into the picture with Prof Laithwaite but he died before I came out of my career sufficient to give it attention. Now I am in retirement I can give it attention.

 

.post-33514-0-64983600-1373096400_thumb.jpg.

 

.post-33514-0-61200900-1373096448_thumb.jpg.

 

Have a look at the scientific diagram I posted before this post. Tell me what is wrong with an integral slice of mass travelling at approx 17,700 -22,000 mph, whether IT IS/ IS NOT at escape velocity.

 

And if it is . Then why is it not true ( in all possible directions in the horizantal ) for the summation of all integral slices around the complete ring.

 

And if it is true for the complete ring , why is the ring not in orbit where it stands.

 

Also as you correctly say " electrons are not in satellite style orbits" but they are in some form of Energy band / orbitals somewhere around the atom somewhere surely or localized chemistry and bonding,would not work ? No?

 

Now , that should give you a starting point.

 

Ps I can, If I dig them out of my loft , to show my original communications with Prof Laithewait back in 1970-1980's

 

Logical fallacy.

 

What is the problem with what I am saying. Yes it might sound a bit different.

 

But is it wrong ? Tell me what is wrong with the reasoning With diagram below/above of an integral slice.

 

Perhaps I am missing something. Well put me out of my misery ! Then I can go away and grow tomatoes or something.

 

Mike

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before you abandon me completely DH. I would appreciate your criticism, provided its constructive.

 

Let me just say:

Professor Laithewaite of Imperial College London in the 1980,s got this same criticism and was discredited for a while. He later went on to prove his case with another University in the north of England and patented the idea. Sandy Kidd wrote a Book Quoted below. A Russian made some progress with superconductors. A Japanese researcher was on the case , as are many world wide. I came into the picture with Prof Laithwaite but he died before I came out of my career sufficient to give it attention. Now I am in retirement I can give it attention.

 

!

Moderator Note

This is not an adequate rebuttal to D H's comment.

 

The implication here is that Laithewaite showed that electrons are in orbits. If you're going to do this, you need to do more than drop a name — provide a link so that we can check up on his claims and debunk the crackpottery, or find out that you're misinterpreting him, or whatever other possibilities there are.

 

Speculations is not a forum to spout off on anything you wish. The rules demand you provide evidence to support your thesis, and in this case it means responding to legitimate criticism in a substantive manner.

 

 

 

 

(You're going to quote Velikovsky as a defense? Seriously? This reminds of the "bumblebees can't fly" canard.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The implication here is that Laithewaite showed that electrons are in orbits. If you're going to do this, you need to do more than drop a name — provide a link so that we can check up on his claims and debunk the crackpottery,

 

 

 

 

Here is First link To Prefessor Laithwaite Claims Link http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=centifugal%20force%20and%20professor%20laithwaite&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DJRPC7a_AcQo&ei=U1nYUd-0G5Ka0AXO44HQDA&usg=AFQjCNEWuR_c3FmbkkzzWmBw6b1_SKjYmw

Electron orbitals are not anything like orbits, Mike. You are ignoring momentum. Sorry to be blunt, but this is so wrong that I can't even find a good starting place to start a criticism.

 

Concerning the mechanical processes involved in the rotating ring see link http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=centifugal%20force%20and%20professor%20laithwaite&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DJRPC7a_AcQo&ei=U1nYUd-0G5Ka0AXO44HQDA&usg=AFQjCNEWuR_c3FmbkkzzWmBw6b1_SKjYmw

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prefessor Laithwaite demonstrates gyroscopic action, If he dropped the end he was holding, the axle and spinning weights would fall to the ground. I've done that experiment with a toy gyroscope I got for Christmas when I was about 10 years old, like this one:

http://www.duluthtrading.com/store/product/toy-gyroscopes-57079.aspx?src=T13WFSHP2&gclid=CNblgLK9m7gCFe3m7AodHGYA8A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mike,

my advise,

maybe research,

 

future spacecraft

future spacecraft propulsion

future spacecraft nasa

Edited by krash661

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prefessor Laithwaite demonstrates gyroscopic action, If he dropped the end he was holding, the axle and spinning weights would fall to the ground. I've done that experiment with a toy gyroscope I got for Christmas when I was about 10 years old, like this one:

http://www.duluthtrading.com/store/product/toy-gyroscopes-57079.aspx?src=T13WFSHP2&gclid=CNblgLK9m7gCFe3m7AodHGYA8A.

 

Yes ,well this is where the maths comes in , you have all been pestering me to do.

 

Springing biro pens

 

Spinning toy gyroscopes for xmas

 

Even Prof Laithwaits museum Gyroscope

 

ALL THESE ARE VERY VERY VERY LOW NUMBERS

 

You need to go BIG (as Mc Donalds say ) I mean Big ! Like my illustrations .

 

To Get forces like g Force of gravity .

 

I did the maths a few years ago. I;m Sure the Gyro required was 20 meters diameter Revolutions 1,000,000 Revs Per Minute.

 

Then my integral mass [see link below ] has lift off, or escape Velocity.

 

link http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_07_2013/post-33514-0-63185500-1373095418.jpg

 

The Gyroscope was Prof Laithwaits . In late 1970's/early 1980/s I was working on the tuning fork method. I sought a research Grant from the Research council. They said The Only Person I could contact Re this Project was Prof Laithwaite of Imperial college London. A series of contact was established with Prof Laithwaite at this time. I sought a patent at this time. However I was growing a company making computer interface cables. At the time the home computer and IBM PC was mushrooming, I had to concentrate on my business. Since then Prof Laithwaite has died , I have, taught Physics and have now retired and am giving the project a re-birth. Hopefully .

 

I am amazed that such a potentially beneficial system it greeted with such scorn ! Oh well c'est la vie ,

 

.

mike,

my advise,

maybe research,

 

future spacecraft

future spacecraft propulsion

future spacecraft nasa

 

Yes I agree .

 

Do I take it you have a partial belief ,that there may be something there . If so I applaud you as I seem to be getting a bit of a pasting from the powers that be !

 

Mike

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I see... the mass orbits around itself (its center of mass), not the Earth? I totally misunderstood the point.

 

Yes, this would not work.

 

An object in orbit around the Earth is in free-fall. In a circular orbit it has escape velocity. Its momentum carries it away from the Earth while gravity pulls it down into a new direction, in balance. Your device would also be in free-fall but without being carried away anywhere by its own momentum, it falls just like any other object.

 

A satellite still falls, but it falls in a circle, because the direction of gravity is moving around it in a circle, relatively, as it moves around the Earth. Your integral slices are momentarily moving at escape velocity relative to the Earth, but by moving in a tight circle they are constantly returning to the same locations, essentially keeping the direction of gravity the same. Unlike an orbiting satellite, your device falls in one direction.

Edited by md65536

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are there about 30 space ports around the world that all launch satellites into space using rockets and none use Professor Laithewaite technology? Some like Iran and North Korea would use any better technology to beat the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prefessor Laithwaite demonstrates gyroscopic action, If he dropped the end he was holding, the axle and spinning weights would fall to the ground.

He does say it's "light as a feather". He's not scamming us. The spinning weight has a lot of kinetic energy that can be used... if it hit something the right way it could fly up quite high using its own energy. Any energy used reduces the rate that it spins. Here he's converting some of that spin into upward force by slightly changing the direction that it spins??? The effect might be exploitable in a powered device that maintains the gyro's spin???

Why are there about 30 space ports around the world that all launch satellites into space using rockets and none use Professor Laithewaite technology? Some like Iran and North Korea would use any better technology to beat the USA.

I imagine it's because the energy required to spin up the mass, giving it useful rotational momentum, could instead go into giving it upward momentum and actually propelling it where it's meant to go. Some of the energy stored in a spinning gyro would be lost.

 

However, rockets are used because they're simple and practical, not because they're energy efficient. They have tremendous losses. Another example of using gyros to launch things would be to spin a mass at a tremendous rate and then let go of it, like the sport of hammer throw. If the mass was aerodynamic enough it should be more efficient than rockets.

 

Anyway I'm getting off topic, but whether or not it's practical for a mass transit revolution, couldn't the effect be exploited for levitation, at the very least for a sciencey toy? -- I mean as demonstrated in the video, which is not related to escape velocity.

Edited by md65536

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I imagine it's because the energy required to spin up the mass, giving it useful rotational momentum, could instead go into giving it upward momentum and actually propelling it where it's meant to go. Some of the energy stored in a spinning gyro would be lost.

 

However, rockets are used because they're simple and practical, not because they're energy efficient. They have tremendous losses. Another example of using gyros to launch things would be to spin a mass at a tremendous rate and then let go of it, like the sport of hammer throw. If the mass was aerodynamic enough it should be more efficient than rockets.

Even if some of the energy from a gyroscope as demonstrated by Laithewaite were used to get into orbit, you do not get something for nothing. The gyroscope will slow down. And, the additional mass of the gyroscope must be lifted into orbit, too. Which means the total energy used is more using a gyroscope than without.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.