Prev: Free Energy
Next: jar question
From: realist on 9 Apr 2006 01:16


""It turns out that the rotor 'remembers' the earlier rotations and so
the more it is turned, the longer it will spin later. This effect is
more noticeable when the turn is in a different direction, that is the
turbine is turned first to the left, then to the right" - explains
Jerzy
Mazur, a physicist, one of the authors of the article."

From: top9 on 9 Apr 2006 08:23
http://www.oswirus.krakow.pl/cat_14/gyroscope/
in Open Appeal to American Physical Society:
about 1. Author's rights (attachment 1):
e-mail from Jerome Malenfant(editir Physical Review Letters) to Jacek
K. of Cambridge:

" I am writing concerning the status of the two manuscripts, LN8579
by
>Mazur & Spalinska-Mazur, and LW8007 by Mazur, Spalinska-Mazur &
>K".", and the various communications that have been sent recently
>to PRL concerning these two article by their respective authors.
>
> The authors of LN8579 have asked if they could either correct it or
>combine it with LW8007 and have the revised manuscript be given
>additional consideration by PRL. This manuscript has already been
>revised and resubmitted several times by its authors, with little
>noticeable improvement in its quality. As I have previously written,
>these revisions have not addressed any of the criticisms that have
>been raised concerning this manuscript. There is also the
>complication of the duplication of much of its material in the second
>manuscript, LW8007, (despite the authors' claims that the two are
>complementary). I can see no reason why any further time or effort
>should be given to this manuscript.
>
> The other manuscript LW8007 is, unlike LN8579, written in the form
>of a scientific publication. Although it probably should have been
>treated as a revised version of LN8579, it did attempt to address the
>concerns I had raised about LN8579. Because of this, I decided to
>treat it instead as a new submission and to get it reviewed. I
>thought that its chances of being accepted were small but I wanted to
>get the opinion of people who know more about this subject than I.
>
> There is still a lack of quantitative description in the manuscript
>which I find troubling. In the first paragraph, you write: "..the
>centres of gravity of the disk and the spindle exactly coincided, and
>placed exactly vertically in an aluminum frame....The entire apparatus
>was placed on a precisely horizontal..slab,.." Since nothing in
>experimental physics is 'exact' or precise', you should give here the
>uncertainty for these measurements and for any others where it is
>appropriate. You write later that the results cannot be explained in
>terms of Coriolis forces or Foucault currents; that may be, but it
>would helpful if you could estimate the magnitude of the Coriolis
>forces or eddy currents on your apparatus.
>
> You also write that you have carried out hundreds of experiments
>using a variety of disks of different material and arrive at 'similar'
>results, but these results are not shown. If your claim is that this
>effect is more-or-less a 'universal' one, and not some peculiarity of
>a particular machine or material, then these results should be shown
>so that the reader can judge for himself how similar they are.
>
> The major concern I have with your claimed result is that it may be
>just some odd, but perfectly reasonable, effect of friction. The
>manuscript claims to have ruled that out, but if there were some odd
>microscopic irregularities in the surfaces involved, e.g., 'bumps' on
>the surface that were steeper on one end than the other, then the
>frictional force could be different when sliding in one direction than
>in another. It may be necessary to do a microscopic examination of
>the surfaces to eliminate this possibility.
>
> The bottom line is, it is very hard to believe that there could be
>any fundamentally new physical effect in such a well-studied device,
>and any manuscript which claims to have found one must meet a high
>standard of demonstration that the authors have considered and
>eliminated all possible conventional explanations if it wants to be
>taken seriously.
>
> However, if you believe you can meet this standard with a revised
>version of LW8007, I would be willing to get one final review of the
>manuscript.
>
>
>Yours sincerely,
>
>Jerome Malenfant
>Senior Assistant Editor
>Physical Review Letters
>Email: prl(a)aps.org"

From: Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com on 9 Apr 2006 09:39

top9(a)gazeta.pl wrote:
> http://www.oswirus.krakow.pl/cat_14/gyroscope/
>
> A symmetric harnessed gyroscope accelerated to a given spinning
> frequency takes different time periods to stop, depending on the
> direction of previous spins. For repeated alternating, anticlockwise
> and clockwise spinning, the rotation period in both directions
> significantly increases, which is not the case when the gyroscope is
> repeatedly rotated in the same direction.

Have you considered Coriolis type forces?
So for example moving the axis orientation from vertical to north or
east might modify the results that you get. It would seem to me that
the minimal wear and therefor the least effect would be in a northward
orientation with a vertical inclination of your latitude.

Perhaps a nice excuse to visit the North Pole with your experiment ! !

-Tim

From: realist on 9 Apr 2006 16:06
Jacek K. - a very interesting Professor of Cambridge!!!
Jerome Malenfant - a very professional Editor!!!
Physical Review Letters - a very ethical journal!!!

From: realist on 10 Apr 2006 06:03
Professor Jacek K. of Cambridge = Professor Jacek Klinowski of
Cambridge?

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Prev: Free Energy
Next: jar question