--- Terry Blanton <hohlr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone know what become of Robert L Cook? His web
> site has been
> closed circa Dec 2007 but is available on
> archive.org (see
> forceborne.com)?
Don't know much about Cook, myself.
> Also, I noticed in the Laithwaite
> patents (approved
> posthumously) there is a claim of IP.
Laithwaite's trolley? Precess a mass one way, drag it
back nonprecessing the other way, slinky your way
through space. The only problem seems to be, from
reading the patent (Laithwaite & Dawson) and from a
little thought experimenting, that the device does not
accelerate; merely ratchets its way through space.
Precess mass to right, no force generated (what
Laithwaite etc. claim)
Stop the precession, no counterforce.
Drag mass back inertially, reaction force on device.
Stop the mass, reaction force cancels first
acceleration, halting device's motion. You've moved a
bit to the right.
Repeat.
Velocity is limited by the mass ratio of the
precessing gyro mass to the ratio of the drive
mechanism, by the speed at which it is inertially
moved back, and probably a few other minor factors.
Assuming it even works.
It will be damn near useless for space travel, in this
case, and perhaps dangerous; that much ratcheting
acceleration/deceleration would probably not be
healthy for crew or spaceframe.
> Anyone know
> of someone pursuing
> Eric's ideas?
I am. There *seems* to be something possibly going on,
but what, I am not certain. The lazy man's way of
looking at this gyro business is to accept the theory
without questioning it. Which, once you really start
digging into it, is so stupid it is almost unreal that
the conventional explanation is acceptable.
Laithwaite's ideas about reactive mass (analogous to
reactive power in an electrical circuit) are something
to think about. His Ohm's law analogy makes a
scignostic (scientific agnostic...meaning, one who
does not hold to a particular part of the religion of
science being absolutely immutable and true) start to
wonder.
Coil of wire, resistance 4 ohms. Put AC in it, looks
like the resistance is say, 16 ohms. Why? Is Ohm's law
wrong? No, we didn't factor in inductance.
Is Newton's 3rd wrong? No. We just might not have
factored in something else.
If you'd like me to go further with this, just say the
word. I've done a number of experiments, and don't
mind talking about them.
--Kyle
--Kyle
