|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
2 May 2024 18:32
|
|
Welcome to the gyroscope forum. If you have a question about gyroscopes in general,
want to know how they work, or what they can be used for then you can leave your question here for others to answer.
You may also be able to help others by answering some of the questions on the site.
|
Question |
| Asked by: |
Harry K. |
| Subject: |
General notes about balance point theory / saturation zone |
| Question: |
Hello everybody!
I have started this new thread to continue the discussion regarding saturation zone and balance point theory, which began in this thread:
http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=1065
I will copy the corresponding postings to this thread to pull together all stated information.
Factual comments from everybody are appreciated!
Thanks,
Harry
|
| Date: |
7 May 2009
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 07/05/2009 10:45:33
| | | COPY from: http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=1065
Harry K. - 04/05/2009 11:28:29
Hello ravi,
Although I already have left this forum I read sometimes here and now I have to post some comments.
A "saturation zone" does not exist in conjunction with a pair of opposite mounted spinning gyros, which are rotated together around a hub (please excuse me Sandy).
I have described this issue detailed in my balance point theory here in this forum:
http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=922
This theory was derived by the stated claims of contributor EDH (many thanks to him!).
I have prepared an Excel calculation sheet with all necessary mathematics to prove that this balance point theory is a fact. However, a balance point in a gyro hub system may not achieved if one or more parameters are out of a certain range. These parameters are interacting as well and thus you may draw wrong conclusions from your observations because you may not know the correct physics and mathematics behind this behavior.
Unfortunately this Excel calculation sheet proves also, that there is no propulsion vector left if the gryos are running in balance with centrifugal force. The reason therefor is, that a spinning gyro solely responses to acting forces or torques with TORQUES. And a torque in turn is equal to 2 opposite forces with a parallel distance to each other.
However, to achieve PROPULSION you need unfortunately a SINGLE aligned force. So if somebody find a possibility to transform a torque into a single aligned force, then propulsion will be possible.
Maybe you have found this possibility by using of electric or magnetic utilities? I do not believe but you never know and I would be happy to be convinced by contrary!
I will not attend to your blog because of some reasons but I will keep an eye on it. If you have any questions or comments you may contact me by email as well.
Good luck for your project!
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 07/05/2009 10:47:09
| | | COPY from: http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=1065
Sandy Kidd - 04/05/2009 21:41:38
Harry,
You should really stop playing around with mathematics and spreadsheets and do the experiment, then you will not have to state your case for a fictitious balance point, then try to back it up with dubious mathematics
I do realise you needed a balance point to back up EDH claims but that was just not going to happen.
I have already stated and with my reasons why there is no generation of angular momentum at the rotation speeds EDH was using, and if I remember correctly you only reckoned there was a balance point because I said there was no such thing.
You then “got a bee in your bonnet” about this saturation zone and balance points.
It was obvious that it did not suit you for me to be correct.
I have done the experiment thousands of times, you have obviously not attempted it once.
Why do you assume there is centrifugal force and therefore angular momentum present at this balance point., when in effect there is nothing but rotation?
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 07/05/2009 10:49:45
| | | COPY from: http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=1065
Harry K. - 05/05/2009 11:48:22
Hello Sandy!
I've already noticed that you do not like mathematics, that's okay. I'm sure you are a genius in building every kind of mechanical setups. But I'm a more theoretic based guy and I hate it to spend time and money for senseless mechanical experiments if I already know the outcome of such experiments.
EDH has send to me at that time a simulation based on mechanical calculations. The simulation shows 2 opposite on lever mounted spheres, which were rotating together on a hub. During hub rotation both spheres moved from horizontal plane to a certain angle upwards and back again to horizontal plane. EDH called this behavior "flutter" and he claimed that there was net upward force between upward and downward movement of the spheres.
This simulation and my private conversation with EDH led me to my balance point theory. Your claims of an existence of a "saturation zone", where mass and thus angular momentum disappears (!), has really nothing to do with the origin of my balance point theory.
This is the main content of my balance point theory:
1. Centrifugal torque caused by hub rotation works against precession torque of the spheres until both torques are balanced.
2. The sequence of initial start up of the gyro system is essential:
- The hub rotation must start BEFORE the gyros starting to spin up!
If the gyros would spin before hub rotation, centrifugal force caused by hub rotation could not be established!
3. Depending on all involved parameters of this gyro hub system the following scenarios are possible:
- The spheres remain at a certain angle about horizontal plane but still moving around the hub.
- The spheres move upwards to the maximum position at ~90 degrees, i.e. a balance point cannot be established.
I hoped that if the gyros remain at a static balance point, a force vector in direction of the angle above horizontal plane would cause net upward force in conjunction with the opposite mounted gyro.
Unfortunately "dubious mathematics" of my Excel spreadsheet did not confirm this. All torques are compensated by each other.
By the way, I made this spreadsheet for optimizing reasons, because I wanted to build a test setup. But now there is no reason to build this setup. Or should I do it to convince you and 3 or 4 others here in the forum?
Sandy, you wrote, "I have done the experiment thousands of times". Really? Did you really start spinning up the gyros AFTER hub rotation? If so then please provide detailed information about how you did that.
Do you really assume if hub rotation dominates gyro spin, gyro precession would be stronger than centrifugal?
Best wishes!
Harry
@ravi
I'm sorry for polluting your thread. I'm now quiet again.
.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 07/05/2009 10:51:17
| | | COPY from: http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=1065
Glenn Hawkins - 05/05/2009 17:53:13
Dear Harry,
I know your still mad at me. That‘s ok. Still I admire you. I want to address some of your reasoning.
You said, “I hate it to spend time and money for senseless mechanical experiments if I already know the outcome of such experiments.”
Well you should have it your way! However, someone has done the actual experiment and told you from actual observation that the outcome is different than your estimate. Observation always takes president over estimation no matter how expertly the estimation was done. Sandy may be wrong and you right, but he offers a challenge to build a working model such as he has done. You have a lot of confidence. That’s good in a man and you have wonderful credentials, but in this argument, estimations and calculations can’t win over trial and observation. In order to clearly win, you’d have to build no matter how smart you are. And yeah, we all know you are smart and have knowledge-- we don’t question that. In an ultimate trial of machines either of you may win, but you don’t have a machine. The man brought a knife to a gun fight, but you forgot to bring your knife. Sorry.
You said, “. . .a simulation based on mechanical calculations. The simulation shows. . .”
The key word is simulation. We had to dig! that word out of EDH. He resisted a little bit contending that simulation was the same as reality, but yes he was special and I too liked him. We also conversed privately a short time and then stopped. Please forgive me for belaboring the point, but my contention is that the observation of a trial wins over a simulation. This does not mean that you are anything less than perfectly correct, regardless that I too do not believe in a balance point. What it means is that you don’t clame to be proven by trial.
In your balance point theory: “The hub rotation must start BEFORE the gyros starting to spin up!” This is interesting, Harry.
You said, “I made this spreadsheet for optimizing reasons, because I wanted to build a test setup. But now there is no reason to build this setup.”
Engineer, if you want to prove to the world you do have to build a setup. It’s been done that way through out modern history. Allow me to present some examples.
Albert Einstein created the greatest theories (mathematical simulations) in the world so far as I know. They were partially rejected for twenty years. We all now know they are hold-heartedly believed to represent the truth, but still they are stated today as theories and people are still doing experimental work to try to prove them.
Isaac Newton did not stop at theory. He proved them by testing. His observation became Laws.
Now Harry you maybe correct as I‘ve said. As for myself I will have to see and measure a balance point in action to believe it. So what are we to do. --- I’m going be civil. I hope life has been kind to you and your family since I last wrote you.
Best wishes!
Glenn
(Do you use Google Earth plug in?)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 07/05/2009 10:52:28
| | | COPY from: http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=1065
Glenn Hawkins - 05/05/2009 17:54:17
Dear Harry,
I know your still mad at me. That‘s ok. Still I admire you. I want to address some of your reasoning.
You said, “I hate it to spend time and money for senseless mechanical experiments if I already know the outcome of such experiments.”
Well you should have it your way! However, someone has done the actual experiment and told you from actual observation that the outcome is different than your estimate. Observation always takes president over estimation no matter how expertly the estimation was done. Sandy may be wrong and you right, but he offers a challenge to build a working model such as he has done. You have a lot of confidence. That’s good in a man and you have wonderful credentials, but in this argument, estimations and calculations can’t win over trial and observation. In order to clearly win, you’d have to build no matter how smart you are. And yeah, we all know you are smart and have knowledge-- we don’t question that. In an ultimate trial of machines either of you may win, but you don’t have a machine. The man brought a knife to a gun fight, but you forgot to bring your knife. Sorry.
You said, “. . .a simulation based on mechanical calculations. The simulation shows. . .”
The key word is simulation. We had to dig! that word out of EDH. He resisted a little bit contending that simulation was the same as reality, but yes he was special and I too liked him. We also conversed privately a short time and then stopped. Please forgive me for belaboring the point, but my contention is that the observation of a trial wins over a simulation. This does not mean that you are anything less than perfectly correct, regardless that I too do not believe in a balance point. What it means is that you don’t clame to be proven by trial.
In your balance point theory: “The hub rotation must start BEFORE the gyros starting to spin up!” This is interesting, Harry.
You said, “I made this spreadsheet for optimizing reasons, because I wanted to build a test setup. But now there is no reason to build this setup.”
Engineer, if you want to prove to the world you do have to build a setup. It’s been done that way through out modern history. Allow me to present some examples.
Albert Einstein created the greatest theories (mathematical simulations) in the world so far as I know. They were partially rejected for twenty years. We all now know they are hold-heartedly believed to represent the truth, but still they are stated today as theories and people are still doing experimental work to try to prove them.
Isaac Newton did not stop at theory. He proved them by testing. His observation became Laws.
Now Harry you maybe correct as I‘ve said. As for myself I will have to see and measure a balance point in action to believe it. So what are we to do. --- I’m going be civil. I hope life has been kind to you and your family since I last wrote you.
Best wishes!
Glenn
(Do you use Google Earth plug in?)
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 05/05/2009 18:10:30
@ravi
“I'm sorry for polluting your thread. I'm now quiet again.”
You mean, no-good, awful person. We will have to hunt you down and beat you!!!!!
You are pushy, sure of yourself and would take leadership rolls. Sound like I used to be. Now you show humility. Good, we can be friends now. What can we do for you? We don’t agree to anything, but you have our ear. We await the Manna. Hand it down .
Best wishes,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 07/05/2009 10:54:04
| | | COPY from: http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=1065
Sandy Kidd - 05/05/2009 22:22:01
Ravi
My apologies for breaking in again sir.
Dear Harry,
I did the opposite of what you did.
Physics told me I was correct in the manner I built my machine but unfortunately discovered the “Catch 22” (previously mentioned in a posting a few years ago) relating to angular momentum produced in mechanically accelerated systems
Then I knew the rest was at best assumption, and it is this assumption you are basing your claims upon.
I don’t mind maths Harry but I do know that any mathematics relating to mechanically accelerated systems utilising accepted physics is in error and that does not excite me at all.
Anyway on many occasions to reduce the starting load on some of my machines it was sometimes easier to start the mechanical driven machine rotation than vice versa although in the final analysis the outcome was always the same.
Increasing the machine rotation speed has the same effect as increasing the gyro speed i.e. it produces a loss of angular momentum and a loss of centrifugal force, whereas accepted physics suggests that increase of machine rotation speed should increase angular momentum and centrifugal force (holding the gyros down perhaps?)
I have news for you. It does not.
Check my very first posting in June 2004. “So much for conservation” and my second also in June 2004 “You cannot accelerate no mass”
Nothing has changed since then, likewise attitudes.
Unfortunately this is all part of the assumption and like the rest of accepted physics relating to mechanically accelerated gyroscope or flywheel systems is worthless.
Is it really so hard Harry to get a simple test unit built to see all of this good stuff, or are you just so sure of your maths and logic that it is not worth the effort?
Sandy.
PS
Harry it means absolutely nothing to me whether you build the experiment or not, but it would be a shame after all your efforts, that you did not know the truth.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 07/05/2009 10:55:06
| | | COPY from: http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=1065
Glenn Hawkins - 05/05/2009 22:47:05
HOLD ON!
Harry K. you are so right. I just dumbed it up. I give no excuse, but I can give an explanation.
You solved it for me mechanically.
I have one minor exception to get out of the way.
It doesn’t make any difference if the spheres are rotate before the combination of two spheres aligned oppositely are rotated around the hub, or whether hub rotation comes first. The magnitude of force in ratio of spheres to hub rotation makes the difference.
You solved it this way. You said something like, have you tried it by rotating the hub first. Erika! That forces a person to understand. It all becomes simple and I must now say-- a certainty.
We all know what will happen if you rotate a pair of separate ‘non spinning’ objects fast enough. They will rise, until they are nearly parallel with the elevation of their connection to the hub.
Now. . . If the spears, or wheels are begun to rotate during hub rotation, a kind of precession begins to take place and the spheres rise. We all know this.
The question of the argument arises: What will stop the spheres from rising and the answer is, electronically slow the rotation speed of the spheres, until they cease to rise. If the speed of the spheres, or for that matter, speed of the hub is constantly speeded and slowed the disk will rise and fall, assume for example from 90o up to 45o. Up and down. Up and down. Up and down. There is your flutter, undeniably so. The strange thing is that no one was able to explain it so. We, you too (for a while) were uncertain and EDH brilliant that he was, was unable to explain well enough.
The balance point seems to be a region where flutter takes place, rather than a precise point, but maybe perfect engineering could maintain a precise place and point. I guess it could.
I’m still sure it won’t fly. I don’t think your saying it would. I see the idea of continually forcing the spheres down then allowing them to rise.
That would be, CONSTANT MASS DISPLACEMENT RECOVERY, which is the great solution I believe, but diffidently NOT that way. My system uses that principle, but in very different and complicated ways and incorporating critically necessary additional actions. (Excuse me. I like me don’t I)
None of this conflicts with what Sandy Kidd has been saying as I can see. I believe him, all except we at first didn’t believe in flutter and point.
I wish EDH would visit and tell us how it’s going.
CONGRATULATIONS HARRY K. That is an real accomplishment. Maybe you can learn to work faster. I couldn’t resist the dig.
Sincerely,
Glenn Hawkins
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 07/05/2009 10:55:55
| | | COPY from: http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=1065
Glenn Hawkins - 05/05/2009 22:48:44
Dear Sandy,
I understand why you are correct. I have not explained my discoveries. Maybe I will muster up enough energy to present them. You of all people deserve a good second opinion. Until then let me say, all the things you say do not present themselves --- do not present themselves. How could you possibly be more correct in the final analyzes? The things are there. They did not disappear. They are overridden. Other forces over whelm them and assert themselves more powerfully, so the ’normal’ can’t be realized and for all practicable reason as work continues, work as if they don’t exist. That’s right-- under the circumstances they have no effect.
Sincerely,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 07/05/2009 10:57:08
| | | COPY from: http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=1065
Harry K. - 06/05/2009 14:12:42
...Sorry again @ravi...
Good day Sandy!
Let's forget about maths but rely on logical thinking. My balance theory is not based on math equations but on logical thinking of physical laws. The maths behind the physical laws is only necessary for design reasons to define sizes, geometric shapes, power, etc. for this hub gyro system. Please also note that I'm not a "math genius" at all but only a normal mechanical engineer.
I believe I read nearly all of your postings and thus also your very first postings in the thread “So much for conservation”. I have no doubts about the outcome of your experiments, but I do not agree with your conclusions about the reasons of the observed outcome.
Please imagine the following situations:
+++ 2 opposed gyros are each fixed with its axis on a lever with a certain length.
+++ Both levers are fixed on a hinge at the center of a hub. Both gyros can be turned around the center of the hub in vertical plane from horizontal 0 degree position to maximum vertical 90 degree position.
These are the initial start conditions:
1. Both gyros are aligned exactly in horizontal 0 degree position.
2. Both gyros are NOT spinning.
3. The hub is NOT rotating.
*** Now the hub will start to rotate with a defined rotation speed.
Outcome:
1.Both gyros will behave like death masses and therefore centrifugal forces will act on both gyros in outward, opposed and horizontal direction.
2. Each centrifugal force cannot create a moment of torque, because each centrifugal force is exactly aligned with each lever and thus there is no vertical lever arm to the center of hub.
3. Both gyros are in balance and behave like a normal flywheel, which consist of two opposed point masses. Therefore angular momentum is stored in the flywheel as well.
*** Now each gyro begin to spin up to a defined and exact equal rotation speed.
Outcome:
1. As soon as each gyro starts to spin up, the gyros will IMMEDIATEL begin to rise, independent from size of hub rotation speed and therefore independent from size of centrifugal force! This insight seems to be not logical on the first view but it is correct.
The reason is, as soon as the gyros begin to spin, the gyros begin immediately to precess because of the present hub rotation. Because of the degree of freedom, the gyros can only move upwards in vertical plane during their rotation around the hub center.
2. Thus starting precession movement of the gyros create a moment of torque, caused by tilting force and its lever arm with the distance of center gyro to center of hub!
3. Now the gyros begin to rise and leave the horizontal plane in upward direction, i.e. they turn in vertical plane around the center of hub from 0 degree to 90 degree position.
4. When the gyros rise they also move inwards to the center of hub and thus the acting centrifugal forces will be reduced because of the decreasing rotation radius around the hub.
5. The upward/inward movement of the gyros cause on the one hand a reduction of centrifugal force, but on the other hand an increase of the vertical lever arm (which was formerly zero!) and thus a moment of torque will be created which acts against the rising precession moment of torque.
6. This centrifugal moment of torque increases on the one hand if the gyros rise higher and higher because the force lever arm increases as well, but the centrifugal moment of torque decreases on the other hand because centrifugal force decreases because the rotation radius becomes smaller.
7. If all involved design parameters are in a certain range, the moment of torque caused by centrifugal force will be equal to the moment of torque caused by precession force at a certain angle above horizontal plane. In this case the gyros will remain at a certain angle above horizontal, which can be calculated. The rotating system is now balanced and the gyros will remain at their actual position as long as all parameters will not be changed!
8. If one or more design parameters are out of a certain range, a balance point cannot be achieved because precession moment of torque "eats" centrifugal moment of torque too fast!
Sandy, I believe you have observed exactly this situation (#8) and called it "saturation zone". In this situation there is no chance to balance the gyro system because centrifugal force cannot be achieved fast enough to cause a counter torque against precession torque.
However, if you know the reason for this behavior you are able to change the parameters to achieve a balanced system.
Yes, it is indeed hard for me to get a simple test because the test is NOT simple:
- The speed of both gyros must be exactly equal and adjustable, otherwise unbalanced forces and vibrations may destroy the complete system. You already made such experiences...
- The drive of the hub must be very powerful and exactly adjustable as well.
- A lot of electronics for control and measure purposes is necessary.
Unfortunately I do not have the possibilities to build such an exactly manufactured and complex test setup at home in my garage. To do this anyway, I have to spend money for a manufacturer to build the device. However, I know that the device cannot produce thrust, so why should I spend money and time? Only to convince you, Glenn or Luis?
Believe my theory or let it be, I don't care.
Best wishes!
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 07/05/2009 10:58:00
| | | COPY from: http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=1065
Harry K. - 06/05/2009 14:54:35
Hello Glenn,
It took long but it seems you finally understood the basics of my theory.
CONGRATULATIONS, you are the FIRST one! :-)
This is an evidence of incapacity for my part that I was not able to explain good enough in my numerous postings. However, gyro stuff is very complex and it's difficult to explain own way of thinking, especially in a different language.
Yes you are right, I believed EDH's "flutter" is a vertical movement around a balance point, caused either by non-accurate parameters or intended manipulated parameters.
And yes, I'm now also sure that it won't fly.
As already stated, to achieve thrust, it would be necessary to transform torque into linear force. I thought, the interaction of centrifugal and precession force could achieve this but I'm wrong.
EDH stated that Coriolis forces might be responsible for his claimed thrust. Maybe, goodness knows...
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 07/05/2009 10:59:06
| | | COPY from: http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=1065
Sandy Kidd - 06/05/2009 23:57:14
Hello again Harry, and any other interested party.
You are so nearly there but for one small but important point.
I went through your posting and was beginning to think that we were on exactly the same track but you will probably cringe at this reply to your posting.
1 The gyroscope will not rise vertically until it is rotating fast enough to have transferred all of its mass to overcome the centrifugal loading in the system.(and all that implies)
What happens to the system when the gyroscope is not rotating fast enough to rise?
The gyroscope cannot just jump from total angular momentum at zero rotation speed to “X” revs in saturation.
What does the system produce at 50% of “X” revs?
As the gyroscope gains rotation speed (and assuming the system rotation speed is constant) the gyroscope sheds both angular momentum and centrifugal force until there is none left.
The gyroscope does not have to fight centrifugal force, the gyroscope removes the centrifugal force by transferring its own mass, bit by bit, as the gyroscopic torque is increased, to act vertically down through the rotation axis of the machine. No you will not find that in any book.
Is that not awfully clever?
The gyroscope only begins to climb after saturation has been reached.
In effect the gyroscope is shedding angular momentum and centrifugal force as soon as it starts rotating, but this is not necessarily noticed until it enters the saturation zone and begins its climb.
Of course if you wish to insert a few strain gauges into the system the changes will be seen immediately.
2 Unfortunately Harry it is not the reduction in effective radius of rotation which creates the continual rise of the gyroscope, it is the gyroscopic torque applying leverage, in the vertical plane to a disc which has no longer got any mass.
Once the gyroscope starts to rise it cannot be stopped (saturation or whatever else you wish to call it sees to that.)
“You cannot accelerate no mass” I entitled one of my original postings.
What I meant by that was that you would normally expect an increase in system rotation to increase the centrifugal loading and bring the gyroscopes back down as I intended to do.
I doubled the system rotation speed, immediately vertical movement of the gyroscope was detected
I reported the result. The inclination rate increased dramatically.
My life changed at that point.
3 The most important point is that any manipulation of gyroscopes for the purposes of generating inertial thrust must be carried out as I have repeatedly said outside the saturation zone.
OK Harry this is going to be extremely hard to swallow but if you test my claims you will discover why it is so hard to be believed.
None of my claims are surely too hard to test?
However if you think it is a waste of time so be it.
I apologise if I have repeated myself in this posting.
Sandy.
PS I do realise how hard it is to acquire a balanced twin gyroscopic device unless you can make it yourself, have a friend who is a toolmaker, or have a fat wallet,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 07/05/2009 15:12:15
| | | Hi Harry,
Good luck with this new thread. As far myself and needs I have beaten this dead horse to death. For me the subject in a generality has with your help become simple and complete. I’m finished. Congratulations again on your staying power in establishing a flutter zone and the possibility of a ‘point’. I guess that depends on extreme! engineering.
I will try to do a little work on ‘Man Men’, because whether anyone will see the light, still there is where all the light is.
Regards,
Glenn
P.S. A Coriolis effect cannot work, unless that which is effected can move away from that which affects it. Think of a bowling ball free to move on a rotating platform. In a gyro, rotating, tilted partials do constantly change place in space, but always they are enter connected and seem not allowed to move independently from the main body as is required to produce the normal process creating a Coriolis effect. But like you said, EDH ‘my goodness‘. He would have to explain that one. At the moment I can’t buy it. Auf Wiedersehen.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 07/05/2009 16:26:37
| | | Hello Glenn,
Thank you for your kind words and I hope you will furthermore share your wisdom and experiences with us! :-)
I have started this thread because I think it is important to discuss this special gyro design and to discover how it really works. I know however, that this design will and can not perform propulsion, but this design is very good demonstration of general gyro behavior und I believe we all may learn something new. I hope Sandy will tell us more about his numerous experiments and experiences.
Thanks and regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 07/05/2009 18:48:59
| | | Hello Sandy,
I also think we are mainly speaking from the same gyro behavior, but you have the advantage of your numerous practical experiments, where you made your observations and following interpretations.
Anyway, I'm still sure your drawn conclusions from the reasons about this strange gyro behavior are not correct.
Re 1:
So you think, if the hub is already rotating and the gyroscope begins to spin up, the gyroscope waits in its actual position until the dead weight mass was transferred? Transferred whereto? - To the saturation zone? And the transferring procedure is outside of this saturation zone? Or is with saturation zone meant the precession movement of the gyroscope?
Sorry for asking this questions but I'm still not sure what you exactly understand with "saturation zone".
Anyway, I cannot see different running modes in this gyro system, neither a single "angular momentum mode" nor a single "precession mode" (which you call "saturation zone"). I only can see both overlaid modes!
As stated in my prior posting, the gyroscope will immediately start to precess as soon as its figure axis will be tilted and this occurs due to hub rotation!
Whether precession moment of force dominates centrifugal moment of force or vice versa depends only from these factors:
a) Initial start up condition, i.e. hub rotation must start BEFORE gyroscope rotation! - Otherwise precession will always "win" because centrifugal is not present!
b) Parameters like hub rotation speed, gyro rotation speed, lever length, mass of gyro, geometric shape of gyro, material of gyro, and so on.
You wrote:
"What does the system produce at 50% of “X” revs?
As the gyroscope gains rotation speed (and assuming the system rotation speed is constant) the gyroscope sheds both angular momentum and centrifugal force until there is none left."
I agree! Centrifugal force descends because the gyroscope rises. The horizontal distance from center gyroscope to center of hub descends during upward movement of the gyroscope and hence centrifugal and respectively angular momentum descends.
If the gyro would rise up to vertically 90 degree position, angular momentum and centrifugal force would nearly be zero (assumed that the gyro mass itself would not be considered).
You wrote:
"The gyroscope does not have to fight centrifugal force, the gyroscope removes the centrifugal force by transferring its own mass, bit by bit, as the gyroscopic torque is increased, to act vertically down through the rotation axis of the machine. No you will not find that in any book."
Yes, the gyroscope removes centrifugal force during its vertically upward movement. I have agreed and explained this in may statements before.
The gyroscopic torque (precession torque) decreases during upward rotation as well as centrifugal force decreases. At vertically 90 degree position, precession torque and hub rotation torque are zero!
During upward movement of the gyroscope, the precession torque creates a downward force during the hub rotation axis. However, the opposite part of that couple acts upwards at the gyro, which causes the gyro to move (better turn) upwards. The sum of both counter acting single force vectors is again zero.
You see this gyro behavior is caused by interactions between centrifugal forces, dead weight masses, not yet considered gravitation forces and precession forces. There is no clear edge between 2 different behaviors!
Re 2:
You wrote:
"Once the gyroscope starts to rise it cannot be stopped (saturation or whatever else you wish to call it sees to that.)"
As explained before, this depends from all parameters. If hub rotation would be much faster than gyro spin rotation and hub rotation would start BEFORE gyro rotation, than centrifugal force will win and stop precession movement of the gyro.
However, if hub rotation speed would be increased during the gyro starts to rise, it would be too late to stop the gyro's upward movement.
Thus it is very clear to me why you had no success when you doubled the system rotation speed. You better should have start with the doubled rotation speed first and afterwards spun up the gyros. But maybe doubled hub rotation speed might not be enough to stop the gyros upward movement? This depends from all parameters as already mentioned.
Re 3:
You wrote:
"The most important point is that any manipulation of gyroscopes for the purposes of generating inertial thrust must be carried out as I have repeatedly said outside the saturation zone."
Because I'm still convinced that there is no single zone existent, inertial thrust cannot be achieved with such a system. All created moment of torques unfortunately cancel each other.
I apologise my inability in providing better explanations. Should I post some drawings for better understanding?
Regards,
Harry
P.S. The nonexistent "fat wallet" is my biggest problem! :-))
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 07/05/2009 19:24:38
| | | Hi Harry,
Getting the ducks in a row.
You use 90o and 180o vertically like 12 o’clock and 6 o’clock. You’re probably correct. I’ve been using, and perhaps others, twelve o’clock as either 0o, or 360o. If we built a unicycle together with these ducks the damn thing would fly upside down. Communication problems? What communication problems. From the film Sierra Madre (1948), “We don’t need no stinkin’ communication problems.” I have it straight now, 90o, 180o will do.
I still think Sandy is right, without you being wrong. Honestly. He is misunderstood. I’ll work on it.
:-)
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 07/05/2009 22:31:53
| | | Hello again Harry,
You believe what you believe and I will beg to differ.
If you have followed my previous postings you will recall that my claims do not on the face of it make inertial drive any more possible, but they are the items which should have been introduced many years ago to keep physics correct.
If we are intending creating inertial drive let us utilise the facts and not assumptions.
However inertial drive is possible if you utilise my version of the rules.
The thrust does not manifest itself in any you would think it should.
As I have said on several occasions I got lucky
I had that machine for around 12 years before I got to the truth, so I have served my apprenticeship with mechanically accelerated gyroscopes.
There are 3 ways inertial drive can be generated, 2 of them being facets of the same philosophy, which if combined, could produce quite dramatic levels of thrust.
What was that I said about a “fat wallet”?
The other method will never be a large power producer but was consistent enough to earn me a laboratory endorsement by producing 20 successful runs out of 20 and probably the first, maybe the only, laboratory test, proving inertial drive is possible.
That endorsement was not worth the paper it was written on (although the lab test cost 9300 Australian dollars over 20 years ago)
When taken to Edinburgh University it was shown to a physicist there who took a look at the title of the report and threw it onto a desk claiming it was junk. When he left, the professor, (head of department) said “I would like to help you Sandy but I would also like to return to work on Monday”
Says it all.
After 20 years of stupidity and ignorance and one hell of lot of arrogance, enough is enough.
Regards
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
ravi - 08/05/2009 02:15:52
| | | Enough's enough is right. Let fly it. Lets watch their jaws drop. :) Less than 2 months, I'm sure.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 08/05/2009 09:51:59
| | | Hello Sandy,
So I think you can only be convinced by a demonstration? Hm, either I'm working on that “fat wallet” or try to build a very simple and cheap test setup.
I believe you when you state you have achieved inertial thrust with your device, I'm only convinced that inertial thrust cannot be achieved by a balanced system (balance point theory) so far it could exist at all. I could imagine, that thrust may occur during the very short time of inertial acceleration into precession during the gyroscope spins up.
Would you tell me more about that device you have tested in Australia 12 years ago? Or is this stuff still secret?
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/05/2009 13:19:03
| | | Hi Harry,
Do you also imagine deceleration from precession if a gyroscope were quickly forced to spins down? If so, from what you’ve said above do you believe in continuous oscillating inertial thrust. An offshoot from time spent with Mr. and Mrs. Flutter perhaps. J
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/05/2009 13:22:35
| | |
I forgot! ;-)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 08/05/2009 22:42:03
| | | Hello again Harry,
Seems like we are not so far apart at all in our thinking.
I would agree inertial drive cannot be produced in a balanced system whether you agree with the presence of a balance point or not.
Many times in the past I made comments relating to the fact that in any gyroscopic system, no matter what you do to the gyroscope i.e. braking (rapidly or slowly or accelerating (rapidly or slowly) same thing really, in gyroscope rotation, or oscillating backwards or forwards during system rotation, or oscillating up and down during system rotation, or any permutation thereof will never produce any level of inertial thrust.
Any gyroscopic system on its own cannot produce inertial thrust.
The gyroscope must be utilised as a catalyst, and whose action creates a reaction with another part of the device which does produce the thrust.
Sorry to be so vague but I would surely spoil it for you if I went any farther, but if you follow that statement it will save you about 10 years of graft.
There is no secret in the Australian machine which produced the endorsement. It was part of an American patent application US patent 5024112 which was not pursued.
My thanks to Glenn, our webmaster, for including the patent number in the “Propulsion” section of this site.
I am sure I covered the description of this device to Nitro and/or Luis a few years ago on this forum. Bear with me Harry and I shall see if I can recover it. Maybe you have already seen it.
It will not take you to Mars but it proves that it can be done and that is what really matters.
It was a twin horizontal system with common drive to both gyroscopes from one input and had about 60 degrees of offset.
Machine rotation and gyroscope rotation were from a common drive unit to save weight. This was an incredible gamble but I got away with it.
Given time it could have produced a lot more but everyone was in an awful hurry, Lab time is money.
If I remember I have photographs of all the parts
I will see if I can find them, and scan them and you can make a couple of machines for the mantelshelf.
Regards
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 09/05/2009 09:13:33
| | | Hello Glenn,
Yes, I could imagine quickly deceleration from precession in a special gyro system design could cause inertial thrust. I don't know whether continuous oscillating could be the key to achieve inertial thrust, but if you find a way to elliminate or better transform one force vector of a couple, then you have attained the goal!
Regards,
Harry
;-)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 09/05/2009 09:55:37
| | | Hello Sandy,
I'm happy that we found some conformity at last. "Saturation zone" is your name for a situation, where precession absolutely dominates all other involved forces and torques acting in a gyro system. Thus we are talking from the same behavior but we have different explanations. Never mind, we both agree that during this phase (saturation/precession) inertial thrust cannot be achieved.
And I also agree with you, that a gyroscope system can never produce inertial thrust on its own. The interaction of all involved forces and torques must cause an unbalance within this device to achieve inertial thrust.
Thanks for the patent number. That was a silly thing not to look before in the propulsion section of this forum. Shame on me!
I remember you gave some explanations to me about this device. I will read the patent for better understanding. I would also be happy if you could send me some pictures because pictures are more than words can say.
You wrote that hub and gyro rotation were combined driven by common drive by a gearbox if I remember correctly. Thus both movements -gyroscope and hub rotation- simultaneously spun. In my opinion that is not the optimal procedure but better than spun up first the gyros afterwards the hub rotation.
Thanks again Sandy for your efforts! Do you still have my Email address? Otherwise I will send it to you.
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 09/05/2009 11:27:03
| | | Hi Harry,
Well, here it is then, tip of the ice burg, going from what you‘ve written. This is an example for understanding, not for a working model as you will quickly see. Rather than slow the spin of the wheel. . . After your wheel has risen, hydraulics attached to the wheel and to the main body jerk wheel and body together. Both mass’ move in space in relation to one another. In a gravity free environment such repetitions might move the total apparatus up, up, up a few inches at a time. In order to make this principle work the design must be complicated involving several wheels and both utilizing and forcing several directions of movement, beyond precession and rise and jerk.
And further more, balata, blaaaa, blaaa, blaaa.
We've come a long way, dragging one another by tooth and nail you might say. I believe flutter is possible and in the probability of a balance point and you believe inertial propulsion might not be impossible. Good! Good for the booth of us. We are now either crazier than hell, or a little smarter. Ha. ;-) Glad to see you’re seeing Sandy is correct in so many ways.
You don’t use Google Earth. What a pity. It is knowledge. It is man’s technology become extraterrestrial. It is beautiful.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
ravi - 11/05/2009 05:44:28
| | | Sandy and Harry...
so if you both now see eye to eye on the problem, the next question becomes do you see eye-to-eye on how to solve it?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 11/05/2009 22:32:19
| | | Hello Ravi,
You have me at a disadvantage, and I cannot answer for Harry.
Solve what?
Hello Harry,
Sorry Harry your address must have been part of my PAB at my old email address, and no longer have it.
Would be obliged if you could furbish me with your present email address.
When my wife remembers where she put my folder full of photographs I shall do the needful and send you what you need.
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 12/05/2009 13:11:09
| | | Hello ravi,
yes, please tell us more about what should be solved.
Hello Sandy,
I will send you my email address to your email address stated in your replies.
I trust in your wife's excellent memory!
Thanks!
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 12/05/2009 13:22:58
| | | Hello Glenn,
I cannot see any mass displacement when the wheel and main body are jerked together, because the center of mass of the complete assembly remains at its position in space.
I try to use products from "Big Brother Google" as less as possible!
What should I know in conjunction with Google?
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 12/05/2009 14:11:56
| | | Hi Harry,
‘. . . because the center of mass of the complete assembly remains at its position in space.’
Exactly. You have it right, of course you would. I don’t think I will say more.
George Orwell would be disappointed in you. I am not.
‘What should I know in conjunction with Google?’ Ask Google.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
ravi - 14/05/2009 00:08:25
| | | sandy, can you please visit my blog @
http://relmachine.blogspot.com/2009/05/flywheel-design-basics.html
and leave some comments, please?
this specific post actually lists the principle in designing a flywheel and as a real prototype maker, I'm sure your words might one day prove useful for future experimenters in this field.
harry, as a mechanical engineer I invite you also to leave advice or comments.
umm.. as far as what problem you are trying to solve, I might have erred, but I thought it was to make a flying machine using spinning wheels to produce propulsion. no?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/05/2009 13:07:04
| | | Dear Harry,
In America we could not use the internet without Google and yoo-hoo. With their search engines we can find at the tips of our fingers a verity of immediate, expert information on endless subjects. (Yeah I don’t like the pop ups either, but you can X them out.) ‘What’ you ask should you know about Google? No, no. The question should be, What should you know about Google EARTH. Simply, goodle earth dose not spy on you. The defense complexes of nations spy on other nations from space. In the heart of large cities, hidden cameras record 24 hours a day. The information is stored. If a crime is committed there, the police back up the recording and watch. In Russia during the cold war citizens spied on other citizens when they had time between standing in bread lines. All those things relate to George Orwell’s idea of ‘Big brother in his novel entitled ‘1984’
Now back to Google earth. It is free to all peoples. Those who were spied on get to spy back if that were the case. Except that they just see and photos, nothing in real-time and all the faces of the people are blurred so that they can’t be recognized. Google is just not into spying at least as Google Earth is presented.
You can see any constellation in the heaves just as the Hubble Space Telescope saw them and you can zoom in on all objects. You can rotate mars and zoom in close and the surface and see that it is mapped out for you in 3D. You can go below the surface of the world’s oceans and see the typography, also still pictures and also Joc Custo’s and other’s and so forth’s film clips. You can zoom down on little atolls at the equator thousands of miles from any main land. You can see the beach and waves, houses and grass huts and boats and cars if there are any in. Also there will be picture to click on and see and get information and connections to wikipedia and other subjects relating to your current search. You can go to the artic, or a rain forest any anywhere in the world, or right down into the center of Time’s Square in New York, or down into any other city. You can type in an address anywhere and Google will take you there for a look. In America, Australia and some major European countries, not Germany, there are icons of cameras and you can click on one and go down and see as if you were driving a car and have 360o views and up and down and click on more cameras and it is like your are driving through a countryside on any road that exist, except the drive is in stop frame action. Google Earth is the composite of billion’s of hours of scientific work by millions of people to open up information for free to every earthling. They do not spy. American Military complexes can read a match box from space in real-time. Google can’t. Whether a person chooses to use Google earth, or not he may know that a half-billion other people do, so why not him if he finds he likes it? Now here‘s the deal with me -- when I am working and tire, I sometime click on Google earth and take a little five minute vacation to some beautiful, or interesting place, sometimes it is an adventure for I may be surprised at what I find, and when I come back to work I’ve rested my mind and I have learned something new.
I hope explaining how it is for me helps answer your question. Whatever you choose for yourself I approve in advance. Freedom of choice is a big deal. Obviously you cherish the idea fully when you say as much as “$^#%$#& Google!”
Poor old Google. : - ) :-)
Regards.
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 14/05/2009 19:33:30
| | | Good evening Harry,
I have just sent some of the photographs you require and some information you do not require but I included it for the sake of interest.
Once you have had a look I will endeavour to explain the contents to you.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 14/05/2009 23:00:25
| | | Ravi,
Please do not be offended by my answer.
There maybe many ways to crack this nut, I personally have found 2.ways which are repeatable.
One as I suggested to Harry is reliable and consistent, but will be limited in its ability to deliver real power.
Inertial thrust however can be developed by utilising several variations (not necessarily that much different) in producing the differential required to be converted from angular momentum to linear momentum.
I said previously that these different facets could easily be combined to produce real thrust.
So Ravi I am not necessarily looking for a solution, I have one, but I said there could be many ways, and maybe better ways to crack this nut.
I keep looking at what I know, and I get an awful feeling that I am missing something very simple and very important.
I had a look at the gyroscope design article and was more than a little interested.
However if you are utilising flywheels to develop UPS power the last thing you want is any kind of gyroscopic action getting involved in the proceedings.
The bursting strength of the flywheel is enough to worry about without introducing highly destructive gyroscopic torques
We are doing exactly the opposite with our flywheels. By mounting our flywheels at right angles to the plane of system rotation, we are forcing our flywheels to develop the maximum reaction to rotation, and the flywheel rotation speed is but a secondary consideration.
Regards
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 15/05/2009 09:42:02
| | | Hello Sandy,
Thank you very much for the pictures! They look very interesting. I will have a closer look later. Thanks in advance for explaining the contents.
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
ravi - 24/05/2009 11:55:56
| | | Sandy and Harry,
Your terminology is different from mine. I see now that it has been the source of some miscommunication.
Let me just clarify somethings.
1. I dont exactly understand the operating conditions under which either of you envisage thrust.
By operating conditions I mean the precise combination of motions that is necessary, whats important and relevant to the maintainance of thrust. .
Sandy, your idea I understand involves a simultaneous change carefully coordinated between the rotating hub and the rotating wheel.
Harry's idea is less clear to me. If I understand correctly, it involves a critical condition which is that the wheel spin must not precede the hub spin. Is that right Harry or did I screw up again?
Sandy, your answer above does not offend me in the least. Sir, you are a perfect gentleman.
I believe I will be able to visually demonstrate the possibility of flight very soon. I have myself observed repeated 5 cm thrusts (i.e. a prototype of 8 kg lifted consistently 5 cm into the air. (twice per second) I am now attempting to amplify the effect 3-4 times. If my calculations are correct, I will be able to do exactly that with the new flywheels and other simple modifications I am making. This round of prototyping will demonstrate to me whether I have fully understood the laws. At this point, I am just full of suspense myself regarding the end result.
Now, you say there maybe several ways to crack this nut.
Until that result, I am happy to accept that there maybe other ways. But if that works, then I'm sorry, but I might have to disagree. From what I can see, that would mean that there is basically only one conceptual way to produce thrust. How it is physically realized might vary but that is only a design/manufacturing related issue. I believe there maybe other approaches which yield some 'kinky' behavior ( seemingly inexplicable violations of Newton's laws) but will always be, in your own words " limited in its ability to deliver real power."
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick - 05/06/2009 08:27:45
| | | google, or not,up and down,2 rotating. not a clue realy.
EVERY rotational mass gives fluidicity,A dissalighnment of 2 not till infinity but till calcs of passes of outer 2 inner allighn eventualy.UP AND DOWN??? WTF ,If u could explain then fine........MASS INERTIA fluidicity in primes.The oppositional laws,
Get out of yaw owns be all oneselfs asses and yell the truth
if not JUS fkn ask or evn bttr com n chat
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 11/06/2009 14:19:44
| | | Hello ravi,
Sorry for my late reply. I had very less time in the last weeks and so I could not reply earlier.
The idea behind my balance theory is the claim, that one ore more spinning gyros, which are rotating around a hub, will remain in vertical plane at a certain angle, assumed that all parameters of this gyro system are within a certain range and assumed that hub rotation starts BEFORE the gyro(s) spinning up.
I'm sure that this balance point does exist and I'm able to calculate this balance angle for such a gyro system, which consists of one ore more installed gyroscopes.
My calculations consider also forces and torques, caused by gravitation.
My hope was to achieve thrust at this balance point, because the balanced force vector(s) are aligned in an upward direction, but unfortunately my calculations destroyed my hope. All force vectors will be cancelled.
You wrote have observed repeated 5 cm thrusts of your prototype. What does this mean?
- That the prototype remains 5 cm above ground in space?
- Or that the prototype moves upward 5 cm above ground and back again to ground?
In the first case it doesn't matter how much cm thrust your prototype moves upward, because you have achieved to eliminate the gravitation of your prototype!
In the second case the periodical up and down movement may not mean that you have achieved any thrust, because the following downward movement may cancel the upward movement.
On your blog you explain many interesting things like e.g. making and balancing a flywheel or basics about rotating inertial frames, but you do not state anything about your theory and thus it’s difficult for me to imagine if you might be on the right way.
What a pity!
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 13/06/2009 03:52:20
| | | Harry, you say: “I'm sure that this balance point does exist and I'm able to calculate this balance angle for such a gyro system, . . All force vectors will be cancelled.”
Yes, I too am sure you can do this and also sure no lift is possible by balancing the gyro in that way.
I am sending this note to tell you I am sorry. You worked so very, very hard. Such dedication deserves a reward, but you did get something for your effort. Before you came along I don’t believe anybody believed in a balance point. So congratulations. Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
