Tesla was right, classic electromagnetic theory is wrong.

[Psi]

You'll never get any traction that a fringe science idea is true without a solid repeatable experiment that proves the current understanding is wrong.
And it has to be on extremely solid foundations because it's claiming something extraordinary.

I wouldn't worry to much about these sort of things, time will figure out if it's true or not.

[Chet]

You'll never get any traction that a fringe science idea is true without a solid repeatable experiment that proves the current understanding is wrong.
And it has to be on extremely solid foundations because it's claiming something extraordinary.

I wouldn't worry to much about these sort of things, time will figure out if it's true or not.

Experiments have already revealed many of these mysteries. Dr. Paul Wilhelm cites them. Although some experiments have yet to be performed, the real bulk of experimentation is not in their singularity, but in their incessant repetition until collective consciousness recognizes their validity.

[paul cotter]

That guy sounds like a crank to me- lots of academics fall down rabbit holes and I will give you an example here: professor Timothy Vaughn was taken in by the scammer Dr Robert Holcomb and he proclaimed that the system "generates energy from the electron spin in iron atoms"- he subsequently had to eat crow. If one uses overly complicated math, ie quaternions, to describe basically simple phenomena the chances of introducing artifacts is high. I will give an example: suppose one wants to do an integration followed by a differentiation, the integration will produce a constant to which we can attach any value we want as it will disappear in the subsequent differentiation- this does not mean the constant has any real significance. Heaviside's vector equations cover all known EM phenomena and nothing has ever been demonstrated that is not so explained. It is quite impossible to demonstrate these so called longitudinal waves as the necessary radiator is not feasible. Konstantin Meyl is another crank that supports these crazy ideas. I apologise to all  over the lack of paragraphs- this computer/OS/browser will not allow paragraphs.   

[Eddie.B]

Chet - one point. Theories are just that, theories. We have string theory, 6 or so decades and not a single measurable outcome to prove if it is right or wrong. Theory is only as good as it can measured or validated. Instead of spending your energy (and I’ll be honest admirable amount of energy and child like curiosity despite everyone’s pushback is truly amazing) spend time looking at anomalies in measured experiments. If we find something, it won’t be because of a theory it will be because someone stumbles at it experimentally.

I love Tesla, but people forget he was experimentalist. He built shit. Go build. We need more builders vs arm chair specialist.

[Electrodynamic]

You'll never get any traction that a fringe science idea is true without a solid repeatable experiment that proves the current understanding is wrong.
And it has to be on extremely solid foundations because it's claiming something extraordinary.

I wouldn't worry to much about these sort of things, time will figure out if it's true or not.

I would agree with reservations. The most likely scenario is that the science is right but the understanding of how it is applied is wrong imo.

For example, I tested one neat device which turns almost any material into powder with very little energy. Suppose we wanted to turn a cell phone into powder. Normally we would bash it with a hammer or melt it generating much heat which requires much input energy. However if we use a high speed air vortex to spin the object around on it's own axis or center of mass the centrifugal forces will tear it apart. We do not tear it apart the object tears itself apart. Here the objects own weight and density become a liability. The larger and heavier the object is the faster it will destroy itself. This is very counter intuitive to what most people think.

So I would agree our science is sound but peoples interpretation or opinion of how it applies is debatable.

[Chet]

That guy sounds like a crank to me- lots of academics fall down rabbit holes and I will give you an example here: professor Timothy Vaughn was taken in by the scammer Dr Robert Holcomb and he proclaimed that the system "generates energy from the electron spin in iron atoms"- he subsequently had to eat crow. If one uses overly complicated math, ie quaternions, to describe basically simple phenomena the chances of introducing artifacts is high. I will give an example: suppose one wants to do an integration followed by a differentiation, the integration will produce a constant to which we can attach any value we want as it will disappear in the subsequent differentiation- this does not mean the constant has any real significance. Heaviside's vector equations cover all known EM phenomena and nothing has ever been demonstrated that is not so explained. It is quite impossible to demonstrate these so called longitudinal waves as the necessary radiator is not feasible. Konstantin Meyl is another crank that supports these crazy ideas. I apologise to all  over the lack of paragraphs- this computer/OS/browser will not allow paragraphs.   

A banana cannot come from an apple tree. Not unless we first graft a banana plant onto the apple tree.

Cranks cannot come from non-cranks. There has to be another crank in Dr. Paul Wilhelm's lineage of citations. His primary citation for his "crankiness" he respectfully references to be the following paper:

Implications of Gauge-Free Extended Electrodynamics

... so that if you don't read anything else among his citations, at least refer to this one for verification and support of Paul's cranky theories about the missing elements of Maxwellian physics.

[IanB]

Theories are just that, theories. We have string theory

A minor point: "string theory" is not a scientific theory. It is a field of theoretical research in mathematical physics (theoretical as in not experimental; i.e. the work is purely conceptual and hypothetical in nature).

A true scientific theory is a mathematical model that has been confirmed over time by an overwhelming weight of experimental observations.

Classical electromagnetism is a true scientific theory. The evidence includes the fact that smartphones work (have you seen the amount of RF black magic present in all the radio antennas and signal processing that happens inside a phone?) Phones do not get designed by guesswork.

[paul cotter]

Chet I glanced through that link you put up and I don't buy it. Most of that paper is sensible enough except for the longitudinal wave. I can't give an explicit counter argument as my tensor math is not good(not at all!) but even IF this stuff was correct there is no way to demonstrate such an effect. Pointless.

[Chet]

Chet I glanced through that link you put up and I don't buy it. Most of that paper is sensible enough except for the longitudinal wave. I can't give an explicit counter argument as my tensor math is not good(not at all!) but even IF this stuff was correct there is no way to demonstrate such an effect. Pointless.

Thank you, 200+ Subscribers
Incl. EED PLAYBOOK DROP for lab supporters

Thank you.

Since the paper dropped 17 days ago: 1,500+ reactions. RF engineers reporting anomalies their textbooks can’t explain. A professor verifying the derivations independently. Hardware builders designing detection experiments on three continents.

None of that happens without you.

I’ve been working on something for the people who showed up. Not another article. A field guide:

The EED Playbook takes the 50-page paper and distills it into something you can take to the bench. What was deleted. What it predicts. Three binary tests that tell you if a “scalar wave” device is real or marketing. How to build a bench-scale detection experiment. The 13 questions everyone asks, answered once. The 10 papers that matter, annotated.

Revolutionary applications. Real community questions. An experiment you can actually build.

The paper is free and always will be. The Playbook is my way of saying thank you to the paid subscribers who make this research possible. If you’re not subscribed yet — the paper has everything you need. If you want the field guide on top: welcome aboard.

It's amazing; I'm amazed; that I give all of you, (@Xena E & @paul cotter, etc.) what you supposedly want: an opportunity to debunk an idea by building it and you back away with excuses. I'm convinced that you're not sincere about debunking Dr. Paul Wilhelm. A token gesture, on your part, to talk big, followed by talking even bigger, as if that says anything - contributes anything - to alter our collective awareness. Wow. How sad. 

[Xena E]

And there's the sucker punch.

To paraphrase:

"An unnamed un-cited expert has independently verified the research"

Writing a paper then sock puppeting the "Independently verified"  reports or just waiting for other  ignorant cranks to shit post in your favour is easy.

Build your do-dad and send @EEVblog one to review, then you can send me your shorts for a quick snack.

Extraordinary claims need Extraordinary proof, that burden is yours, not that of others.

You're presenting this bollocks on this forum, detail it on this forum and put your proofs on this forum or:


FUCK OFF

 

[paul cotter]

Now, now, Xena, that is very undiplomatic language, you will upset our resident troll. Of course you are quite correct- Chet finds one crank paper that backs up his nonsense and this is supposed to invalidate the hundreds of thousands of quality research papers that say the opposite?? Give me a break. PS: it is a sad fact of life that many academics fall down rabbit holes and become cranks and I here give another example, that of Luc Montagnier, a brilliant researcher who discovered HIV but fell down the homeopathy rabbit hole later in life.

[SteveThackery]

Professor Eric Laithwaite is another example. At Imperial College, London, he was the guy who invented the linear motor. He was a highly respected electrical engineer.

His rabbit hole was gyroscopes. He became convinced that they can defy gravity, and later he decided they could be used to create a reactionless propulsion system. In 1974 the Royal Institution invited Laithwaite to give a lecture, in which he enlarged upon those claims. For the first time in its history the Royal Institution refused to publish the lecture, or any of his subsequent ones on the same subject.

[paul cotter]

Thanks Steve, I had forgotten completely about the gyro debacle. I should really make up a list of cranks, crackpots and those who have fallen ill with "Nobel disease" so as I don't forget any of them- at nearly 74 my memory ain't that great. Bottom line, we are ALL fallible and prone to error.

[Electrodynamic]

Professor Eric Laithwaite is another example. At Imperial College, London, he was the guy who invented the linear motor. He was a highly respected electrical engineer.

His rabbit hole was gyroscopes. He became convinced that they can defy gravity, and later he decided they could be used to create a reactionless propulsion system. In 1974 the Royal Institution invited Laithwaite to give a lecture, in which he enlarged upon those claims. For the first time in its history the Royal Institution refused to publish the lecture, or any of his subsequent ones on the same subject.

It's debatable, I agree Laithwaite read too much into it. However this does not change the fact it inspired countless people to look deeper into the phenomena such as myself.

For example, after researching and replicating the effects Laithwaite demonstrated I determined inertial/reaction forces could easily be used to move or control the orientation of objects similar to the Cubli shown below. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_6p-1J551Y, The Cubli: a cube that can jump up, balance, and 'walk'. To most reaction forces look like magic.

Now were seeing some neat applications come out like this one, https://www.seakeeper.com/, eliminating boat pitch and roll. Most don't get it, we can now stabilize and control the orientation any object within a 3D space without control surfaces. Not just a little but solid as a rock which is a big deal. It's weird how one persons supposed rabbit hole can be another persons multi million dollar tech company.

So Laithwaite was definitely on to something were just not there yet imo. The fact remains that after all these years nobody has a clue what inertia is. That's just weird isn't it?, people pretending to understand something but cannot even answer the most basic question regarding what it is. I find that weird.

[paul cotter]

No, it's not debatable, Laithwaite was 100% wrong to state that gyros lose weight.

[Chet]

No, it's not debatable, Laithwaite was 100% wrong to state that gyros lose weight.

That's assuming that a composition of counter-inertial forces is not always spawning a net result which we unobtrusively call gravity without knowing what gravity is or else we'd have figured out by now how to create it without the use of mass.

[SteveThackery]

For example, after researching and replicating the effects Laithwaite demonstrated I determined inertial/reaction forces could easily be used to move or control the orientation of objects similar to the Cubli shown below. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_6p-1J551Y, The Cubli: a cube that can jump up, balance, and 'walk'. To most reaction forces look like magic.

It is emphatically not debatable. Gyroscopes do not lose weight. Gyroscopes cannot produce a reactionless drive (their behaviour is entirely Newtonian, as Laithwaite later admitted). The Cubli has nothing to do with gyroscopes, so I'm not sure why you introduced it to this debate.

Oh, I know! It's yet another chapter in your desperate need to convince people that you are really smart.

[SteveThackery]

Now were seeing some neat applications come out like this one, https://www.seakeeper.com/, eliminating boat pitch and roll. Most don't get it, we can now stabilize and control the orientation any object within a 3D space without control surfaces. Not just a little but solid as a rock which is a big deal. It's weird how one persons supposed rabbit hole can be another persons multi million dollar tech company.

 

You do realise that gyroscopic stabilisor technology for ships goes back over a hundred years? Since (just) before Laithwaite was even born.

So Laithwaite was definitely on to something were just not there yet imo.

No, he definitely wasn't. He was as wrong as wrong can be about gyroscopes. It really was his rabbit hole.

[paul cotter]

"That's assuming that a composition of counter-inertial forces is not always spawning a net result which we unobtrusively call gravity without knowing what gravity is or else we'd have figured out by now how to create it without the use of mass."
Anyone able to translate this into a meaningful language?
           

[paul cotter]

Gyros are also at the heart of inertial navigation systems and have been so used for a long time.

[Electrodynamic]

For example, after researching and replicating the effects Laithwaite demonstrated I determined inertial/reaction forces could easily be used to move or control the orientation of objects similar to the Cubli shown below. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_6p-1J551Y, The Cubli: a cube that can jump up, balance, and 'walk'. To most reaction forces look like magic.

It is emphatically not debatable. Gyroscopes do not lose weight. Gyroscopes cannot produce a reactionless drive (their behaviour is entirely Newtonian, as Laithwaite later admitted). The Cubli has nothing to do with gyroscopes, so I'm not sure why you introduced it to this debate.

Copilot says, a reaction wheel is directly related to gyroscopes because both rely on the same underlying physics — angular momentum — but they use it in different ways. A reaction wheel creates torque by changing its spin rate, while a gyroscope senses or redirects angular momentum through its stable spinning axis. Both exploit the conservation of angular momentum.

I thought the relationship was obvious, apparently not. So while the reaction wheel is spinning and we tilt the wheel what do you think is going to happen?, it becomes a gyroscope.

[SteveThackery]

Funny how you had to get help from Copilot for that one. Well done!

I thought the relationship was obvious, apparently not. So while the reaction wheel is spinning and we tilt the wheel what do you think is going to happen?, it becomes a gyroscope.

And while the reaction wheel is not spinning it does not become a gyroscope. 

[Electrodynamic]

Funny how you had to get help from Copilot for that one. Well done!

I thought the relationship was obvious, apparently not. So while the reaction wheel is spinning and we tilt the wheel what do you think is going to happen?, it becomes a gyroscope.

And while the reaction wheel is not spinning it does not become a gyroscope. 

I thought the copilot explanation might be easier for you to understand than my own explanation.

On the reaction wheel, the reaction force is based solely on the change in velocity or acceleration not the rpm. The rotor could be spinning at 1000 rpm to produce a gyro force when tilted and accelerate/brake to produce a reaction force. Why would you think the reaction disk needs to start from zero rpm?.

Of course the next objection might be that the gyro force changes with RPM but a microprocessor could easily do the math to modulate the rate of tilt on X and Y axis gimbals while the Z axis reaction disk changes rpm. In this way we have no components off center needing compensation and everything rotates about the center of mass.

Your posts remind me of the quote, "Stay away from negative people. They have a problem for every solution," Albert Einstein.

[SteveThackery]

All I was saying is that we were talking about gyroscopes, and you introduced a gadget which - apparently - does not use gyroscopic effects in its operation. I think you thought it did, and that's why you mentioned it.

Obviously gyroscopic effects might arise while it's doing its thing, but it doesn't appear to make use of them in its operation. It actually seems to work like a Segway or other self-balancing machine, but operating in all three planes.

Anyway, this part of the conversation must be tedious for others to read, so I suggest you have the last word and then we can get back to what we were saying, which was:

You cited gyroscopic stabilisation for ships, and the Cubli, as evidence that Laithwaite was "on to something". The first example goes back to before Laithwaite's time and was comprehensively understood already; the second example seemingly doesn't even make use of gyroscopic forces in its operation.

So I'm afraid that no, you haven't shown that Laithwaite was "on to something".

[SteveThackery]

Sorry, I forgot these bits:

On the reaction wheel, the reaction force is based solely on the change in velocity or acceleration not the rpm.

Well, you don't say! Yes, I do understand how to get a reaction force by accelerating something. Newton's 3rd.

Why would you think the reaction disk needs to start from zero rpm?

Don't you dare misrepresent what I said!  I did not say the disk needs to start from zero rpm. I pointed out the obvious: that if it isn't spinning it won't create any gyroscopic forces. If you watch the video, you will see that sometimes the disks spin and sometimes they don't.

Your posts remind me of the quote, "Stay away from negative people. They have a problem for every solution," Albert Einstein.

I'm not negative, I'm exacting and I'm sceptical. Both are fundamental to the Scientific Method and I wear those badges with pride. On my tee-shirt, as well as the badges, is a slogan:

"Hunter-killer of pseudo-scientific bullshit"