<P><TT>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; l</TT>
<BR><TT>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; l</TT>
<BR><TT>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; l</TT>
<BR><TT>&nbsp;I&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; l</TT>
<BR><TT>&nbsp;I&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; l</TT>
<BR><TT>&nbsp;I&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; l</TT>
<BR><TT>------------&nbsp; -the gyro is orbiting the string in an</TT>
<BR><TT>&nbsp;I&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
anti-clockwise direction as seen from above</TT>
<BR><TT>&nbsp;I</TT>
<BR><TT>&nbsp;I -the bottom half of the gyro is travelling out of the screen</TT>
<BR><TT></TT>&nbsp;
<P>John Berry
<P>Dr Jones wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>At 01:00 28/01/98 -0800, you wrote:
<BR>>
<BR>>You wrote;
<BR>>>&nbsp; Where did the weight of the spinning mass go as it was lifted
with
<BR>>>&nbsp; ease?
<BR>>
<BR>Upon an interview with DePalma, he concluded by showing me a typical
<BR>gyroscope. The central wheel was spun, and the frame suspended from
a string
<BR>at one end as so:
<P>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
l
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
l
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
I&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; l
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
I&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; l
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -------------
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
I
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
I
<P>where the I's are the central wheel when spinning and the l's are the
string
<BR>on which it is suspended. As can be seen, the device is not balanced
like
<BR>the normal distance x mass = ditance x mass. When the wheel slows and
<BR>eventually stops, the gyroscope falls to the ground.
<P>They said they were going to send me a URL where these were obtainable
on
<BR>the Web; I think they forgot.
<P>I asked my cousin about this, he said that they'd done it at school
and its
<BR>called rotational inertia (or something like that). I didn't get a
*why* it
<BR>happens, just a *it happens*.
<P>Dr Jones</BLOCKQUOTE>
&nbsp;</HTML>
</x-html>.
Received: from ???@??? Wed Jan 28 04:08:52 1998
X-Persona: <IADFW Account>
Return-Path: <KeelyNet-L-return-397-danyork=iadfw.net@lists.kz>
Received: from lists.kz from [207.180.91.8] by mail.airmail.net
(/\##/\ Smail3.1.30.16 #30.233) with smtp for <danyork@iadfw.net>
id <m0xxULk-00072UB@mail.airmail.net> Wed, 28 Jan 98 04:04:04 -0600 (CST)
Received: (qmail 27166 invoked by alias); 28 Jan 1998 10:14:16 -0000
Mailing-List: contact KeelyNet-L-help@lists.kz; run by ezmlm
Reply-To: KeelyNet-L@lists.kz
Delivered-To: mailing list KeelyNet-L@lists.kz
Received: (qmail 27157 invoked from network); 28 Jan 1998 10:14:14 -0000
Received: from chong.ihug.co.nz (root@203.29.160.10)
by mail.starfire.douglas.ma.us with SMTP; 28 Jan 1998 10:14:14 -0000
Received: from ihug.co.nz (p50-max17.auck.ihug.co.nz [202.49.240.113]) by chong.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA09020 for <KeelyNet-L@lists.kz> Wed, 28 Jan 1998 23:04:05 +1300
Message-ID: <34CF02A0.6B525446@ihug.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 23:04:18 +1300
From: John Berry <antigrav@ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: KeelyNet-L@lists.kz
Subject: Re: How a gyro works/Weight Loss
References: <199801280822.VAA23512@cheech.ihug.co.nz> <34CEF928.7FB4579C@ihug.co.nz> <34CF1732.7842@keelynet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Well I don't think that the weight went anywhere in Laithwaites case, Were
there any scales?
As for party levitation I have always been fascinated by it and only wonder
how this could be turned into an antigravity device, there is no obvious
means.
John Berry
Jerry W. Decker wrote:
> Hi John!
>
> Sounds good, but in Laithwaites case, that still doesn't answer where did
> the weight GO? The party levitation also gave a weight loss of <50
> pounds. That had no spin, though there is the possibility the scale,
> being able to measure 800 pounds might be bumped a bit.
>
> Definitely room to test the party levitation test again also, under more
> controlled conditions and better collection of data. Such as the weight
> of each participant, singly and when combined on the scale, before,
> during and after.
>
> To my mind, 52 pounds is quite a weight loss...I wish they had stated the
> weight of the person being lifted. I just can't see it being anything
> remotely like res or expiration.
>
> I'll dig out my gyroscope and try some experiments....seems like its
> always easier to type in explanations than do experiments...and I'm
> guilty of that myself (just ask Dan, he's on me all the time about doing
> something REAL..<g>..)....however, this one is easy to test empirically.
>
> Surely the experiment HAS been done before, we ain't that bright or that
> original, maybe a bit more open (gullible in some views) to at least
> trying it.
> --
> Jerry W. Decker / jdecker@keelynet.com
> http://keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science"
> Voice : (214) 324-8741 / FAX : (214) 324-8741
> KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187