|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
23 November 2024 18:19
|
|
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: |
Glenn Hawkins |
| Subject: |
WHAT'S UP DOC? |
| Question: |
I don’t know if the truth will actually set you free. Maybe it’s just a tired old saying.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Inertial drive will be real when you clearly see any of the things below happening and they can be tested and verified.
a) You see lift off.
b) You see the scales on which a device sets shows a study and significant decrees in measured weight (at least a few ounces).
c) A devise connected to a pendulum swings out and holds.
d) A device continually accelerates.
When any of these things can be seen and checked out and retested the world will accept inertial propulsion. Already 60% of the population of the earth believe in flying saucers, so it won’t be hard to get a few billion believing in I.P. At some point in time we need to stop blaming mean old educated people who stop the progress of scientific research and deny us truth.
Flying saucers have been faked and filmed.
But I. P. has not even been faked and filmed let alone un-faked and filmed.
My friend Kenneth Goins said, “Don’t tell me. Show me.”
You say you can prove it? Prove it. Put it on youtube.
I’m sorry that this is unpleasant, but there is just no proof. |
| Date: |
8 May 2009
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
ravi - 08/05/2009 23:02:04
| | | Glenn, I know this post of mine is long but please read it. All the way. Please.
At this point, suppose I posit that I have built a version of this device and I can demonstrate some proof of the validity of the above formulation – then the question naturally becomes what consitutes proof of such a theory. If it were true that there exists a machine that can convert internal (Potential) energy into external (Kinetic) energy, then we want to observe the operation of such a machine from an inertial frame in which the entire machine is initially at rest.
When the machine is operated, energy of a minimum amount of N joules = m*g*h (where h is given by h = (1/2) g*T2, T being given by the time period of a wave with the resonance frequency for the given system) is ‘converted’ or ‘pumped’ from the spinning wheels to the machine frame per cycle . Now, how do I explain this ‘conversion’ ?
Although a more fundamental explanation that involves Special Relativity with CT-X graphs etc has been cited on my blog, there is another, bird’s eye view explanataion – one that relies on analogy. Lets start by saying, the potential energy in this machine is converted to KE in the same way that an LC Circuit converts the internal (Potential) energy of an AC wave flowing through the LC circuit into an externally realized (Kinetic) energy of Electro-Magnetic waves.
Hypothesis: Resonance in electronics and mechanics is really only a manifestation caused by the invocation of the same fundamental interaction of matter with space-time (a la Relativity) – rotation.
What the device accomplishes is the conversion of internal energy (i.e. a potential energy) into external energy (kinetic energy). The potential energy is the stored energy within the rotating wheels, the rotating carriage. The machine is a way to convert it into KE of the moving assembly so that the framework transports through space. Now, that is a direct violation of Newton’s first and third laws, and indirectly even the second. [An observer who is located in an inertial frame in which the machine initially rested would record the acquisition of velocity by the machine, in defiance of the local gravitational field, but would be unable to assign the action that caused the reactive movement to any external object. Under further experimentation, it becomes clear that the energy gained by the frame came from the internal interaction of the variable torque on the spinning wheels.]
In LC circuits too, the internal (& therefore a potential tank of ) energy of the AC current is converted into a radiative KE in the form of the leakage of ElectroMagnetic waves from such an assembly at resonance.
Yet it is not the case for LC circuits that when radiation is given out by a resonant circuit that it is seen as being a violation of any EM laws. The only reason that the operation of an LC circuit doesn’t seem to be a violation of some basic EM law or another is because Maxwell’s laws which govern EM are also already consistent with Special Relativity. However, since Newton’s Laws are not ‘relativised’, the contention here is that this machine might APPEAR to violate them, but only because it is Newton’s laws that are in violation of SR/General Relativity (as we know, Newton’s laws are approximations that are infact inadequate to analyze relativistic phenomena. Newton’s Laws are inadequate to deal with what we might even think of as Accelo-Gravitic radiation). Thus in the analysis of ‘compound objects’ containing more than one worldline, Newton’s Laws will yield the wrong results, even if the energy conservation laws can be satisfied. Unlike EM waves which themselves travel and emanate from the generating circuit, AG waves are literally ‘ridden’ or ’sailedon’ by the generating machineframe.
[Here we might wonder why if this is the case, an LC circuit doesn't up and fly. An argument can be made that it is figuratively what's happenning. In the case of the LC circuit, the energy entering the circuit is being molded to a specific frequency. The overflow of this energy from the circuit in geometrically determined directions results in the flow of energy to remote areas. Yet, for the actual circuit to move, it is protons that must be moved. Yet, since its the electrons that are responsible for EM effects and they have a much, much smaller mass, they cannot reach the threshold levels of energy required to move the LC circuit. - Now, the electric motor which used (electron) current does accomplish motion. But it cannot change the frame associated with the energy, i.e. convert internal energy into external energy - all conversions acheived by an electric motor are locally tied to the reference frame to which the motor is attached.]
Essentially it is being claimed that this is a relativistic machine which is why Newtonian laws will appear to be violated. In analyzing this experimental set up as a relativistic machine, we may utilize a shortcut in the form of Electro-Magnetism. Since EM is already consistent with SR/GR, if we form the proper analogies from mechanics to EM, we can analyze Mechanical problems as if they are electromagnetic problems, in a way that is consistent with SR/GR. This is the reason why the LC circuit analogy to the gyroscope is critical to understanding how this machine can be operated successfully.
Evidence uncovered here implies that gravitational force specifically and gravitation generally is related to inertial force and acceleration generally much as Magnetism and Electricity are related each other. The two sets of fields should be unified through the consideration of the complimentary nature of the two sets of forces.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 09/05/2009 00:10:56
| | | Dear ravi,
Something about me
Some of the things you go on about I have studied in the past, a few I have not. That seems like decades ago. Right now I am tired. I find people far more interesting than inertial propulsion. I had been rewriting something off and on for years and was almost finished then I came up against writer’s block. So… I started posting here again, waiting for the lamp to explode. It worked. I have gone back to my writing. I solved the major problem and still have a little light work to do. Script writing must be great, period, and it is more difficult than brain surgery. If I live long enough I will build my last I. P. design. I find that at least in my mind, it is the most promising that’s been shown. I don’t know if I’ll live long enough to finish my current commitments and then to do my I. P. and I don’t know if it will work. I am tired of posting right now. I am able to go back to work on my projects.
Now to your post. I read it. I don’t know son. I don’t know how others will approach I. P. I can only reassert the point of this post and suggest it should be read again. It is clear. It names the only ways I can think of to prove inertial propulsion. When it lifts off you won’t need any words, EXCEPT eureka! And the world is yours.
ravi, you have my very best blessing. May you find success,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
ravi - 09/05/2009 18:59:34
| | | hi glenn, and you have my wishes of luck too.
Its not of value to me that someone did or did not discover inertial propulsion.
I do however value that Eric Laithwaite, Sandy Kidd, Glenn Turner, youself, Harry, Luis - all doing all that life demands, still saw the magic of the phenomena and pursued it.
I too feel the presence of more than what the conventionalists are saying exists within the physics of the gyroscope.
I did my own sort of digging, with the tools I could muster.
Isn't it curious that here is a problem which can make inertial propulsion look possible from many angles. You couldn't do that to something else... like a diode or a semiconductor chip for example.
the proof, yes. you demand no less of me than i would. i'm going headlong into one last prototyping cycle and then well, i'll put what i have out there for you to make fun of.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 10/05/2009 01:11:09
| | | I won't ever make fun of what you try to do. No one will.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 10/05/2009 15:02:37
| | | My friend you ask, ‘. . . suppose I . . . built a version of this device . . . then what constitutes proof of such a theory?’
It’s easy to prove that a physical thing works, or doesn’t work. I mentioned a pretty good set of test just above yours, (you can’t use water as a testing medium) but that’s not what you ask. The answer is, a theory must be consistent with accepted physics in order to be accepted as a reasonable theory by unlighted people. Yes I know of some crackpots who were so named and rejected only to be later vindicated and accepted as correct, but that‘s got nothing to do with what is accepted as a good theory. The most misunderstood thing on this site is the difference between statement and theory and fact. A statement, states and idea to be true, without an explanation, so it cannot always be judged with logical reasoning and known truths very well. (It is like saying, it is so, because I say it is so. This happens here all the time) A theory explains why and how something is believed to work, but so long as it remains a theory it cannot be a fact, and once it becomes an accepted fact it is no longer a theory. When you prove something you do away with theory.
Did you read the first post here in, ‘What’s Up Doc’? It should help.
Its realy simple. Well, I’ll see about the rest of your post latter.
Regards,
Glenn
Check out the king of the crackpots. http://www.timecube.com/
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
ravi - 11/05/2009 05:39:40
| | | alright. alright. i got the point already.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 12/05/2009 23:32:12
| | | YOU HAVE TRIED THIS?
It was over twenty years ago and I was determining to learn whether my idea would work, but everything I tried gave confusing results. In the end it did not work, but l learned from it.
I taped about a 3 0z. fishing lead weight to the outside end of an axel on a toy gyroscope, speed-up the rotation and set it down wheel vertical on my desk. I expected the gyro to roll around the weight, which it did. Next I tried leaning the gyroscope in the opposite direction of the weight, away from the weight. The gyro rolled-twisted in the opposite direction from the first try. I leaned the gyro over, the weight down toward the table. The gyro circled the weight as before. Confusing?
I tried the gyroscope on short, tight looped commercial carpet so the wheel frame could get more traction. I pushed one axel end toward the gyroscope. The gyroscope rolled in a circle around my pushing finger. I tried pulling the gyro by the axel end. The gyros again rolled in a circle around my fingers, but --- in the opposite direction from before. I starched my head. I repeated these things on a glass desk with the same, though less clear-cut results. I was inexperienced. In my mind I kept asking, ‘How does a stupid assed gyroscope know whether it’s being pushed, or pulled?” There were other things and ways I tried and got confusing results. A gyro does not always repeat the same way, even if you believe you manipulated it the same way. For my kind of mind this was aggravating.
It was like a girl that sometimes would and sometimes wouldn‘t and when you ask if is she had her skirt up in the back seat with Joe, you didn‘t believe her no matter what she said, whether she did, or she didn‘t. I like concreted thing, certainties and hate lies of any kind. The gyro was lying to me half the time I felt. It doesn’t have a brain, it can’t know how to react differently if you push it from one side, or pull it from the opposite side.
The truth of it is a bit lengthily to convey, and unnecessary. When you do the fishing lead weight experiment on a desk, the mass of the fishing lead and the mass of the flywheel actually rotate about evenly in a binary way around one another. It's just difficult to nail-it-down in you view and mind. Why did I ever expect differently? But it was the devil for a while to prove the truth satisfactorily. I even used the suction cup of a commode plunger, with it’s long heavy handle, to hold to the plastic side of a large, encased and powerful gyroscope I have and saw that they rotated around one another. From all that I tried, this and more and after the confusion and everything, the gyros conformed to the laws of physics.
What useful thing did I learn that revisited my mind years later and I was able to incorporated in my final design? I need a bunch more installment here to do that. :-)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
ravi - 14/05/2009 00:22:42
| | | glenn, why dont you drag your lazy ass to my blog? leave practical advice for possible new experimenters?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/05/2009 01:58:53
| | | Dear raiv,
Please forgive me. I have fumbled my lazy ass around, till I don’t know how to find you blog. Is it yours? You’re the owner, or are you one uses it with others?
Was ist Ihre Adresse, bitte. Oh hell, now I will have Harry K. on my dumb ass for finking up the beautiful languish of Beethoven.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/05/2009 03:03:42
| | | ravi, I posed on your site. It didn't take. I don't won't an account and I don't won't to fool with it. If it won't pose easy heck with it.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/05/2009 03:05:17
| | | This is what I posted.
Very good. My approach was little easier. I go to an industrial supply house, tell a guy I know ’expert’ what I need and how it will be used and ask for help. You see, many of the really good parts you need can’t be bought, except through a dealer and with a dealer you can get a person to person follow up help as you need it. So you don’t lose much money and perhaps none. If you get the right guy, he will explain the type of structural steel you need and why and order it for you, along with bearings, motors, gears and so on. My man even showed me why the bevel gear design would not carry the high RPMs I needed. He put me straight. It’s amassing in twenty, or thirty years how much information these industrial Reps. get as to what and which motion control devices and which companies are best to deal with and why. They’ll do the math for you in a flash. You have enough to do in design work and building without having to become a metallurgist too. These are only my opinions, but based on a lot of unnecessary leg work in the past. But, do as you like. Happy, happy. Bon apatite. Gooden Gooden. J
Your humble servant,
Glenn
How’d I do, ravi?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 14/05/2009 09:33:50
| | | Hello ravi,
As already mentioned, I'm not a Google fan and I do not like Yahoo! as well. AIM is nameless for me and thus I will give some comments here.
1. I agree with you that a flywheel is stressed by
- Tensile stress - caused by centrifugal forces and forces caused by unbalanced mass
- Bending stress - caused by tilting torques rectangular to spinning plane
2. I do not agree with your presented formula, because they do not take the material into account. You should present the basic formula for tension and bending. By the way, what is your background regarding this stuff?
3. I do not agree with your recommended safety factor, because this factor should take different materials into account as well as all operating conditions.
In my opinion, you should describe / explain the principle of your gyro design first and afterwards discuss the general design layout. That is the standard procedure of mechanical engineering.
Just my 2 cents.
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/05/2009 12:55:13
| | | Harry & raiv,
I can see that is excellent Harry, simple, clean, professional and to the point.
raiv, I continue to recommend finding a representative of an industrial supply house who deals with and sells to engineers hour by hour, day by day. He has a heck of a lot of general and practical knowledge and he can get your ball rolling really quickly. Get the proto type working! first ravi, test it, then it’s time to seek out experts and professionals as Harry sort of indicated to then build the best you can.
raiv, my own designs have the flywheels encased in medal jackets. I believe Sandy Kidd’s real flywheels do too and so did the Jones device. I used to write that a ball bearing was rotated to 50,000 RPMs in a laboratory when upon it was said to explode. (But actually it had to be ripped apart from the outside in, in layers, rather than explode from a center point outwardly. As the layers would be torn out, each next enter layer, like an onion, would be out of balance, out of round and therefore subject to more continual destruction, all happening in series of fractional milliseconds. It would be worse as the medal is tilted. You muse use a composite that will bend, not shear and break, but then you get medal fatigue supper fast. You don’t need to worry about all this at first, which I did too at one time. You don’t need those crazy high RPMs. Just design something, enough to test. Then see. That’s all.)
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 14/05/2009 17:38:23
| | | Glenn, Harry,
I have posted my replies to your comments
here.
Myself, I have already designed and tested a dozen flywheels from 2000-10,000 rpm from various materials such as plastics of different kinds, Aluminum and Steel. I have degrees in engineering and operations research.
Harry, thank you very much for your feedback. I have posted it on my site with a link to your comments here. We agree on one point, disagree on the another and agree to disagree on the third.
Glenn, I posted your entire comment up there, agreeing with you that the best thing to do is go to a professional machine shop.
However, that said, I believe that the way to be a real inventor is to do as much of the design work yourself as is feasible within your set of constraints. You have to know your design inside out. You have to feel its stresses and strains and you have to know its weak points and its strengths. So a necessary hard slog awaits the real inventor. Its not possible to subcontract everything and never get your hands dirty.
If you are not generating knowledge as the inventor on a higher level, regarding the machine you are prototyping, you are not growing as an inventor and likely you are going to be displaced by the guy that does add value beyond the initial idea.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 14/05/2009 17:44:37
| | | Glenn you did great!
You are right of course. We should always choose the best we can find.
So I agree that not everyone can do all aspects of prototyping and invention.
Also, is it ok if I make some spelling corrections to your comments before I put them up on my blog? I know I know. I'm not perfect with my spellings but you do murder my name even. :)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/05/2009 19:04:09
| | |
You Write, “ Glenn, I posted your entire comments up there, agreeing with you that the best thing to do is go to a professional machine shop.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No! You have not posted replies to my post.
I never said a word about machine shops.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You write, “However, that said, I believe that the way to be a real inventor is to do as much of the design work yourself as is feasible within your set of constraints.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No. You suggest I indicated otherwise? No. I did no such thing..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You write as if in response to me, “Its not possible to subcontract everything and never get your hands dirty.’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No! In 5 years on this site I have not once indicated otherwise than that. Nobody could be stupid enough to believe otherwise.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You say, “If you are not generating knowledge as the inventor on a higher level, regarding the machine you are prototyping, you are not growing as an inventor and likely you are going to be displaced by the guy that does add value beyond the initial idea.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What in the world are you talking about son? You must READ! and comprehend a post before replying to it. Make notes if you have to, but get it right. You mustn‘t misquote people. You missed every single thing and an important thing about a post that I know it was clearly written.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You give no technical information about the metals you speak about. I would have. I’ve got note’s somewhere. Harry is a degreed engineer, Sandy is a engineer and master tool maker, Author is an engineer, Glenn Tuner must have a degree, or credits in engineering. I am not an engineer of any kind and my friend I’m sorry, but I think neither are you. People do not understand. In a few sentences a man can relay a lot about himself and never realize that he has.
You began by saying you had built a machine a lot like sandy’s. You said you had proof that your machine worked. Now you say you have engineered a flywheel. There are no details. I see only that you understand extremely fast rotation can explode a flywheel. Everyone with a remedial education knows that.
Maybe your are angry with me, or perhaps your feelings are hurt, but the truth is I don’t believe you are and engineer, or that you have built anything, or even designed anything.
You didn't even know a question was ask of you. I'm sorry. You didn't. Please don’t quote me unless you quote me. To do that you have to first read what you are quoting from.
Sincerely,
Glenn
I now quit pasting. If I ever start to build again I will come back to ask
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 15/05/2009 03:09:20
| | | Ravi hi,
You so far as I can tell much of your post was removed. This makes my parting replied to it of truth, incoherent. I’ve seen this happen only twice before here. Maybe you didn’t do it, but I tip my hat to you, or whomever. I’m glade for you. Good luck now.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 15/05/2009 03:11:13
| | | Ravi hi,
So far as I can tell much of your post was removed. This makes my parting replied to it of truth, incoherent. I’ve seen this happen only twice before here. Maybe you didn’t do it, but I tip my hat to you, or whomever. I’m glad for you. Good luck now.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick - 18/05/2009 01:09:06
| | | Of coarse ther is no proof but... magnetic repultion in primes speaks for itself over 360 degrees 359 opposed to367 within
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
ravi - 24/05/2009 11:19:22
| | | hey glenn,
sorry about that. :)
I copied the right one this time though.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/05/2009 16:43:40
| | | The density of titanium is half that of steel. It’s stiffness is also about half that of steel. This means that titanium is as strong as steel, but lighter. The dimensions of a flywheel could be twice that of steel, therefore twice as strong for the same weight.
Elongation numbers explain how much bending a medal will take before breaking. Titanium wins out overwhelmingly being far less brittle and breakable.
Medal fatigue is the result of repetitive bending tendencies. Unlike other medals titanium has a threshold below which it will never fail, no matter how many times force is applied. Yes, this means that titanium will never fatigue and never fail as long as the load it bears in bending is below a certain level.
Titanium is expensive and difficult to work with, but you’d never have a problem with it no matter how many times you tilted the gyro back and forth, because you would never want, never need to build RPMs that high beyond it's elongation numbers. Trust me on this. Titanium really is the only all around safe material.
Ideally the rim of the flywheel should be made of thick and heavy steel, thick enough that tilting would not stress it measurably. The enter wheel, spokes if you prefer them, should be titanium. The dimensions and speed of rotation should be whatever you want them to be. Contrary to everything you believed, if it is done ‘right!’ including dimensionally there is no danger.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick - 01/06/2009 04:44:08
| | | There is no worry,OPPOSITION CAUSES STRENGTH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
