Question |
| Asked by: |
arthur dent |
| Subject: |
A Different Laithwaite Demonstration |
| Question: |
I am not a great fan of Laithwaite, as y'know, but I wonder if anyone knows the following story (I have mislaid the source and would be pleased to be reminded of where the story appeared). I read (where?) in 1979, an article by a colleague (who?) of Laithwaite. He described how Laithwaite was performing his levitating sphere demonstration on a stage somewhere. The heavy sphere began to spin more quickly than usual, and they soon had the makings of a disaster on their hands. That is, they could not turn the power off because the sphere would spin into the audience. On the other hand, the sphere was getting hotter and hotter and would eventually melt; spraying everybody with liquid aluminium. I cannot remember how this farce ended, but I think that they started evacuating the hall, while fire-hoses were played on the sphere. It would be interesting to know whether this all occurred before, or after, the celebrated occasion when he irresponsibly had a heavy and rapidly spinning rotor given to a child. That is, did he ever learn from any of his mistakes? |
| Date: |
8 April 2005
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 14/04/2005 18:21:49
|
| | Dear David,
For one who is no great fan of Laithwaite y'seem to have a hell of a fixation about him.
Jealousy because he actually tried things, instead of merely passing on rote learned math (To probably only be used, if at all, to explain others inventive efforts.)?
Regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
arthur dent - 15/04/2005 15:22:00
|
| | There appear to be many strange obsessions on show in this forum. A lot of people do not like Lee Bowyer, and seek out derogatory anecdotes about him. It does not mean that they are all obsessed, or are all the same person. It is simply that he is such a rotten role model; unless one happens to be like-minded.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 19/04/2005 12:47:00
|
| | I would be surprised if any inventors on here who would use Laithwaite as a "role model". For starters, Laithwaite was not the inventor.
What you have to respect about Laithwaite though, is that he at least tried to bring something novel to the scientific community.
His explanations and claims are what let him down. What would have made more sense would have been to challenge the scientific community to come up with explanations.
Yet again it comes down to this fixation with "Laws of Physics". It is too easy to immerse oneself in theories when observed phenomenum are to be exploited. The "Laws of Physics" will sort themselves out after the device is built.
At the end of the day. There are those that are theorisers and those that are inventors. The inventors are the ones that are and will one day build a working machine. Several of us are close.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
arthur dent - 19/04/2005 14:37:41
|
| | The all-pervading 'experiment versus book-learning' argument in this forum is based upon a complete misconception of how things get into textbooks in the first place. The writers do not just sit down and decide what is true. They condense all of the thousands of experimental observations (and good or bad explanations for them) into a few general principles. When these principles have been checked and tested so many times that further investigation is pointless (unless very very impressive new evidence comes to light), they get to be called 'laws of physics'. For every gyroscopic propulsion inventor, there are several 'centrifugal propulsion' inventors and several 'closed-circuit rocket propulsion' inventors. Presumably, you think that these other methods are impossible; otherwise you would be exploring them yourself (as they are simpler, in principle, than gyroscope propulsion). But, if you think that they are impossible, what physical criterion (law) are you using to rule them out? And if this law rules the other methods out, why does it not rule your machine out? It is easy to deceive oneself. I know of an American professor (of physics) who regular performs a demonstration in which he propels 2 blocks of wood upwards using identical lauch devices. The only difference is that one block is made to spin as it rises. The spinning block reaches a greater height. This would have some people rushing to the patent office. Unfortunately, it is yet another subtlety of classical physics (and it does not involve aerodynamics BTW)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 19/04/2005 19:05:36
|
| | Dear Arthur,
.....furthur investigation is usless (unless very very impressive new evidence comes to light)...
Unless someone (nutter in shed etc.) is prepared to carry out further "useless" investigation very very impressive new evidence - perhaps that the earth does not have the sun and planets rotating about it (Surely not!) - won't be found.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
arthur dent - 19/04/2005 21:00:20
|
| | But you know what always happens: inventor sees something 'anomalous', goes straight to the newspapers (if no crackpot academic is available), somebody with more money than sense backs him for a while, the anomaly cannot be reproduced, and everybody (except other inventors) forgets about it. I agree that one will never find, if one does not look, but the looking should be focussed on areas that are not completely barren. (BTW, what a strange terminator on your e-mail address. Looks like one that only functions within a website. Why is that?)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 20/04/2005 17:33:28
|
| | Dear Arthur,
You are (or perhaps just believe youself to be) far cleverer than anyone I've ever met as you can tell without even looking beyond you own learning (and you have already shown how unreliable our teachers can be) which areas are going to turn out barren.
Well done!
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Eric James ----- - 30/04/2005 09:46:53
|
| | Arthur,
I have no clue as to the veracity of your anecdote.
However, I would like to comment on the disadvantages of "book smarts" versus "common sense smarts."
Leanardo DeVinci, the Wright Brothers, Thomas A. Edison, Tesla. 'Nuff said?
History is full of folks (crackpots) that through common sense, ingenuity and gumption contributed in large part to the development of our technological society, in spite of the prevailing educational trends of their time.
Of course our favorites (Galileo and Newton) had to contend with the Holy Roman Empire. As I recall, Galileo was forced to recant much of his work.
The only difference between these men and crackpots is that these men suceeded where propellantless propulsion adherents have (thus far) failed.
Perhaps that will change...
Eric
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
