|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
23 November 2024 17:41
|
|
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: |
ravi |
| Subject: |
flywheel assembly |
| Question: |
And now I'm moving on to the (http://relmachine.blogspot.com/2009/06/flywheel-assembly.html )assembly
Harry, I'm doing exactly what you're asking...
Glenn, yes its real...
Sandy, any comments?
Luis, are you available on email?
Ravi |
| Date: |
17 June 2009
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 17/06/2009 20:17:17
| | | No! It is 100% not real. What the hell is wrong with you? If anybody want’s proof ask me.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 19/06/2009 10:06:38
| | | Hi ravi,
The assembly looks good and I'm glad to see that you have installed a coupling between motor and flywheel. Good work!
However, the motor seems to me a little bit undersized. Did you calculate the necessary torque of this motor relating to the built-in flywheel?
I'm curious about your next design steps... ;-)
Regards,
Harry
@Glenn.
Why should the flywheel not be real? For me it looks very real.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 19/06/2009 16:33:04
| | | Ravi,
I loved the flywheel design. It is almost identical to my design, also not built. I also love the coupling and motor, but it is nothing like my design. I was prepared to brag on you so much, until you said the cad drawings were real. Ignoring the fib-- congratulations of a clever and better design. MIT, America’s premiere technical and engineering university, built a better self contained motorized wheel about six? years ago (a real one). But your design is very fine. The size of the motor looks good to me, if not too big and heavy. More is not necessary and less night be better, because the only significant resistance to modest acceleration and then continues rotation is the drag in the bearings. You might also consider lessen the size of the coupling and block. In today’s technology tiny high tech motors with rare metals have become powerful little dynamos.
The big problem for me is the tiny, tiny axel coming out of the motor. I suppose I am forced to use a speed reducer to avoid very costly engineering. This reduction in speed increase power, therefore again negates the need for larger, heavier motor than you have. The rim looks a bit too large to suite me and the wheel much too large as it sits high in the chair. As you know there will be much more to the machine than what your have started with. For instance, my design must have wheels setting on top of wheels. There can be no compromise. I think we should build our machines small. I say again, your design is good. The last message I sent I was doped up on pain medication and angry. Excuse me. I’m better now.
Happy Days,
Glenn
Harry,
Perhaps you will find on your keyboard the equivalent of, Ctrl +. Control plus should enlarge the picture about ten times without losing clarity. That will help you, but it isn’t totally necessary. Notice in the first drawing the wheel is leaning out into the floor. Notice the shadowing. You would not light an image like that. Study the picture more carefully. Next click on the motor driven wheel and notice the blue reflection on the dull surface of the plate block. That’s not right. You say, it looks real? Yeah, it’s great, the most advanced of this space age 3d photo modeling is probably better than you and I own, but consider when we see it on the theater screen, or T. V. the still images, though we know they can not be true, look completely real. Study this picture too, or of course as you like. If you wish more information I will revisit the pictures and find more.
I remember noticing your whether will be good today, enjoy.
Glenn,
I have rambling a lot. I had major surgery June 15. I’m fine now, but will be trapped inside with only a computer for a while. I hope I don’t bore you to death, before I’m freed to come and go, (about two weeks)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 21/06/2009 21:08:07
| | | Ravi,
With all my current projects I don’t have much time to look at my email but that’s okay.
Your postings continue to be inspiring, and I enjoy reading them.
The flywheel assembly looks good but I have a question.
Would you mind telling us how much the flywheel weighs, and how much the frame motor and all else weigh?
From the picture the flywheel appears to be about half the weight of the assembly.
Is that right?
Best Regards,
Luis G.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 24/06/2009 13:33:35
| | | Harry, Thanks. When is your prototype going to be ready?
Luis, your estimate is about right. More I wont say. Its irrelevant really since the sizing iss omething a designer would have to determine specifically for their set up.
And besides a little mystery might be more intriguing... ;)
Glenn: Your highness, you have no clothes on. ;)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 27/06/2009 22:43:56
| | | Ravi,
Before anything else I must say that your analogy between electricity and “Spinning-objects” is masterful.
Most interesting (and important to me), your analogy reinforces the need to take into account the rate of change of acceleration (second derivative of velocity), if we are going to pursue “gyro propulsion” on the basis of strong theory.
In my opinion, anyone who ignores the importance and effects of the second derivative, which is referred to as “Jerk” (“J”), is bound to fail or to experience successes only by accident.
By the way, “acceleration” is to “Jerk”, as “force” is to “Yank” (“Y”); i.e. “Yank” (“Y”) is the rate of change of force. These terms were mentioned a year or two ago in this forum as necessary components for a valid theory of “gyro-propulsion”. At that time, the introduction of the concept (J) produced no response from participants, except for Sandy who asked whether I really thought “J” was truly necessary for propulsion.
Having said that and despite your insightful and elegant analogy, there are a couple of important items in your statements that don’t fully agree with my theory (error is easy in this field).
First, my theory is NOT in full agreement that constant (steady) precession is analogous to electric induction. In other words precession of constant-velocity is NOT the product of a rate of change in acceleration (i.e. the second derivative).
My theory tells me that the second derivative exists only during the period of time that precession accelerates from zero velocity until it settles into its steady rate of precession-velocity (i.e. electric induction is not analogous to steady precession, however it is analogous to precession when it is still increasing in velocity).
In a toy gyro, the period where precession accelerates (which in my thinking is analogous to electric induction) exists for only a brief span of time after a toy gyro is set on the tower.
The second derivative exists for only brief periods in all cases where constant acceleration is achieved but is often ignored in classical physics applications because it is so extremely short-lived that the effects can easily be ignored in many cases.
“Gyro propulsion” is one area of physics where (right from the start) designing and operating devices successfully, depends largely on knowing the spans of the cycle where the second derivative (i.e. the rate of change in acceleration) comes to exist, and where it stops existing.
To be fair, precession does in fact represent the rate of change in the “direction” of “only” centripetal and centrifugal forces. However note that centripetal and centrifugal forces are static, as they are normally in balance with each other.
Closer examination of this paragraph (and of toy gyros) should reveal that steady-precession (of constant velocity) does NOT require “J’ or “Y” to keep going from moment to moment.
Here is the final point of non-agreement. I maintain that in the absence of friction (which is not possible) precession does not and cannot consume the energy stored in the spinning wheel. This is a purely academic point because a tilting torque cannot be applied to a spinning object without creating some friction. In absence of a good comparative experiment the cause and the effect can not be determined (it is just as easy to argue that friction consumes the spin, or that the consumed spin causes the inevitable friction).
In my theory, “gyro propulsion” can begin to be harnessed by extending the time span during which the second derivative (“J”) is being applied. I have previously posted this part of my theory in this forum (not without some resistance).
Ravi, I know sometimes I am considered to be longwinded and perhaps overbearing, so please don’t let my shortcoming bother you. I value your intellectual ability and am elated to find that we have independently (and through different means) arrived at some similar conclusions, which I think nobody else had stated before (i.e. use of “J”).
My Best regards,
Luis G.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick - 29/06/2009 04:45:18
| | | ctrl+,for sure not a problem 2 me but ctrl+OOOOOOOOOOH The maturity not to undermine another but the maturity 4 sure will learn eventualy ..AND that i wait 4 is there in u glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick - 29/06/2009 04:57:48
| | | I GUESS i would feel like a shirt front 2,But i would still b intrigued and befreind a person as 2 is better than 1.Especialy if in phycolagy he could determin any writen word in his own unspell checked way....................ctrl+ I FKIN have a pretty much idea so why dont u intrigue urself and try 2 unite to speed the inevitable and bring many heads together
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 29/06/2009 12:49:04
| | | Luis,
Thank you for your kind words.
The J term will indeed have to come back in a big way.
I personally prefer the term 'Surge' in English. The word Teevrala in Telugu is more descriptive in my opinion (the word Teev'r is similar to the German 'Tief' and means 'deep/deeper' or 'severe') , but the whole word doesn't have a precise translation into English -it means something like 'bigger waves formed by a gathering acceleration' in an ocean storm. These are other words for regularly 'big' but normal waves.
Luis said:"In my opinion, anyone who ignores the importance and effects of the second derivative, which is referred to as “Jerk” (“J”), is bound to fail or to experience successes only by accident. "
Well put! This is what we seem to be betting on anyway.
Ah! Yes. It was a good stab from you on that one.
I think as inventors, we 'bet' on the existence (or not) of certain relationships.
We decide what we believe is happening by instinct. With as much empirical information as possible, but in the end it is (with me anyway) an instinctual decision.
Excellent call! :)
See, I think I can persuade you to change your mind about 'constant' precession.
Basically I will argue that 'constant' precession isn't so constant afteral. Its an ElectroMagnetic-style wave emission. The other inconsistency in your argument is that we can't label a certain phenomenon (precessive angular velocity) as being the product of another (the inductive rate of change of angular acceleration) once without doing it all the time. What I mean is if the precession is a result of the Surge, then the precession ceases to exist in the absence of the Surge. So the fact that the gyro doesn't stop precessing as long as there is significant spin suggest that the Surge is continuing in the background. It is 'unmanifested' only because it manifests via the medium of the precessive angular velocity. (In an abstract sense the precession IS the Surge.)
But if you still think your theory is different from mine, then by all means, I'd like to hear more about it - specifically how the gyro sustains the precession.
Luis said: “Gyro propulsion” is one area of physics where (right from the start) designing and operating devices successfully, depends largely on knowing the spans of the cycle where the second derivative (i.e. the rate of change in acceleration) comes to exist, and where it stops existing.
hmm..... well, lets start with my question above and then we can move to this once we know where we stand on that one.
Luis said:
To be fair, precession does in fact represent the rate of change in the “direction” of “only” centripetal and centrifugal forces. However note that centripetal and centrifugal forces are static, as they are normally in balance with each other.
Closer examination of this paragraph (and of toy gyros) should reveal that steady-precession (of constant velocity) does NOT require “J’ or “Y” to keep going from moment to moment.
hmm... again, without clarification on #1, its impossible to know which specific combination of relationships you are postulating here too.
Luis said:
Let me clarify my question above again. Take the gyro on the tower. Its spinning and precessing. Now, it I were to arrest its precession, by placing my finger gently in its path (just enough to bring it to a halt, if it were a regular non-spinning object of the same mass as the gyro moving with an angular velocity equal to the precessive velocity) and then took away my finger. Now, my theory doens't have a probelm with restarting the precession because the Surge is what is responsible and it exists as long at the combination of spin and gravitational angular force produce Surge.
I dont know how your theory handles the 'reinitilization' of precession - But because you have 2 different processes - one for the initialization of the precession and another for the sustaining of it, you have to lay out for me again, what you think is happening.
Luis said:
Here is the final point of non-agreement. I maintain that in the absence of friction (which is not possible) precession does not and cannot consume the energy stored in the spinning wheel. This is a purely academic point because a tilting torque cannot be applied to a spinning object without creating some friction. In absence of a good comparative experiment the cause and the effect can not be determined (it is just as easy to argue that friction consumes the spin, or that the consumed spin causes the inevitable friction).
I dare say that you are correct in that it is possible to construct a situation where the wheel doesn't lose its velocity. But thats only like saying the system doesn't accumulate any energy. Energy in = Energy out. That sort of thing. I think ultimately all force can be traced back to rotation and Surge. so in that sense, friction would also be subsumed by this inductive behavior.
But let me be clear about this: THe root of what we need to discuss is in why you think you need two processes: one for initiatlizing the precession and another for sustaining it when just one is sufficient? (Accams Razor and all that)
Luis said:
In my theory, “gyro propulsion” can begin to be harnessed by extending the time span during which the second derivative (“J”) is being applied. I have previously posted this part of my theory in this forum (not without some resistance).
I'm saying that you dont need to extend this transient J Its already there if you can see it.
Luis, I see that you are very conscientiousness. Its something I think that is very vital especially in starting a new business because the foundations we lay now will be tested in tough times later. And while we may or may not be around then, I'm sure our work will be tested. Only conscientious work will withstand that test.
On the other hand, I will also remind you to cease looking at this problem from a purely Newtonian, Action-Reaction based sequence of events. The problem is deeper than that. Further since the Third Law is violated (atleast according to me) you actually have to look for a violation - something you can do only experimentally or by guessing where the THird Law is being violated if you want to stick to such a sequence.
Use the analogy to guide you.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 02/07/2009 01:59:16
| | | Hi Ravi,
I am fascinated by your analogy and will continue studying it as you develop it properly.
To be fair to your theory we must have a full view of it.
Perhaps you can explain why you said that “constant precession is not so constant”, and how the “surge” (which is the rate of change in acceleration) is “continuing in the background” (per your statement)?
Best Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick - 04/07/2009 03:03:07
| | | tief and talugue,wave but normal,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Wasting time here is my reaction.
friction is caused by yhe mass,yet repultion of mass causes friction that can be opposed used and cooled to its opposite............
fluidicity upon mass dispertion yeids aforce itself in cut back primes of messured circumference in module of slow reducing circumference....and slow increase in a repelent nature of revolving primes
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 07/07/2009 18:51:15
| | | Here is a link to an extension of the analogy between ElectroMagnetism and spinning wheels.
Luis, when an oscillating electrical circuit emits waves, they may have constant energy but that doesn't mean the waves are themselves constant. Rather you know that EM waves are oscillatory waves which vary in amplitude.
With the above extension, I'm firmly casting gyroscopic behavior as an analogue of EM. I will go further into the exact nature of the behavior soon, but I think its important that the entire case is made for the analogy first.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 07/07/2009 18:53:21
| | | Here is the correct link. My apologies!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 09/07/2009 17:31:48
| | | Ravi,
Precession is not “J” (i.e. precession is not the “surge”).
Precession needs “J” temporarily, in a similar manner that velocity needs temporary acceleration. Velocity remains after acceleration stops, and precession remains after “J” stops as well (I hope this comparison of relationships is easy to see).
In the fist case "acceleration", and in the second case "J", are only needed for a limited period (“once”), and not all the time.
I hope this starts to answer your question Ravi.
Please also look at my response in your new posting.
Best regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 26/07/2009 16:30:37
| | | Ravi,
I was hoping you might respond to my last posting in this thread.
Perhaps we can achieve a true in-depth meeting of the minds when we fully understand each other’s ideas.
Best Regards,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 08/08/2009 17:06:31
| | | Ravi,
I very much enjoy your theorizing and the in-depth speculation and excursions that you take us through.
I am sorry to state some degree of disagreement because the design of your new/current device is mechanically too simple.
The least impressive thing about the device is that it only has one hub, which presents large problems, resulting from the single hub's COUNTER-rotation.
The counter-rotation will cause any singe-hub device to rotate upon its stand when the hub is operated. At a minimum this will cause your power input cables to become twisted very quickly, and this will be the least of your problems.
To prevent the many ill effects of counter-rotation in a single-hub, you need to either (a) bolt the hub down to a fixed surface (which will prevent lift-off), or (b) you’ll need to add a second, opposing-hub whose counter rotation will provide a stabilizing force (counter-torque). This solution will also increase the efficiency with which your device converts the input torque to produce precession, as well as the potential output of propulsion.
As expressed before I am skeptical that a device which uses, only harmonization of gyro spin with hub rotation (without up/down degrees of freedom), can produce lift; however I am fascinated by the prospect.
For whatever its worth, you may want to spin your gyros at a rate that is exactly nine (9) times faster than the rate of hub-rotation. This ratio is the one claimed by EDH, who also claimed to have produced a “Hovering” device through “gyro-propulsion” or such (though his device used an up/down flutter). We have not heard from or about EDH (success?) for about one year now. My opinion has been that EDH’s device is extremely unstable (or worse).
My own intuitive feeling is that a ratio of around seven (7) may provide better results depending on the hub’s stability.
I look forward to positive results.
My Best Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 22/08/2009 17:35:39
| | | Hi Ravi.
Would you consider making high quality gyro flywheels for export?
I am looking forward to the video demos.
Best Regards,
Luis G.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 24/08/2009 15:06:37
| | | Hi Luis,
Yes. I am happy to do so. Lets talk.
I'm off on vacation today. Bags being packed as I write this. So sorry. I will be back in 2 weeks. I will post the demos as soon as I arrive back.
Best Regards
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 30/08/2009 15:17:20
| | | Bon Voyage Ravi,
I look forward to your return, more postings, and some demos.
Best Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 30/08/2009 22:15:15
| | | Luis, he left six days ago.
Gonzalez - 30/08/2009 15:17:20 “Bon Voyage Ravi,”
Ravi - 24/08/2009 15:06:37 “Bags being packed as I write this.”
Luis, you keep posting when you don’t have anything to say. Stop it.
You are purposely getting in the way and order of sensible messages left.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 04/09/2009 15:42:50
| | | Hi Ravi,
I like this forum because it's Not a job that I have to perform on a schedule; I can visit whenever I feel like it, weekly or monthly sometimes less and sometimes more.
I like that this forum is open to share ideas and most participants respect each other’s wishes, and permit expressing ideas completely, no matter how lengthy (most of the time).
I also like that I'm not compelled to answer anyone's questions or comments; I can chose what interests me and who I respond to, and I can engage in those discussions (whether they are pleasant or not). It is my choice.
I can say that I have never tried to run anyone out of this forum, have not tried to control what or how anyone expresses themselves, and have never pretended to own this forum or other contributors’ threads (I sometimes do ask others to allow me finishing a set of postings without interruption on a specific thread.)
I am guilty of lengthy explanations that can span many postings, and of writing my views about gyros, which are sometimes not liked by some. That is the nature of opinions. Too bad. I have tried to keep personal (non-gyro) matters out of my writing whenever possible.
Well Ravi, I hope when you get back we can continue sharing our interesting theories about spinning objects, and their effects.
The sign of a good theory is that it introduces the capability of predicting specific results. When experiments can demonstrate what a theory predicts, the theory gains credibility.
I am looking forward to some of that kind of stuff in the near future, and to more "theory", which I enjoy very much.
I hope your vacation has been relaxing and enjoyable.
Best Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 04/09/2009 17:11:42
| | | Luis, he left six days ago.
Gonzalez - 30/08/2009 15:17:20 “Bon Voyage Ravi,”
Ravi - 24/08/2009 15:06:37 “Bags being packed as I write this.”
Luis, you keep posting when you don’t have anything to say. Stop it.
You are purposely getting in the way and order of sensible messages left.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
greg turek - 21/11/2009 23:24:03
| | | Hi all you experimenters, all I want to see is a working prototype, not pages of calculations. Has someone tried to build a refined version of eric laithwaites last design,ie a gyro (rotating disc on a shaft )set on platform which itself rotates thus inducing upward component of force in gyro which produces lift in entire structure ?
To my understanding critical factors to a working prototype are diam of gyro, weight of rim of gyro, speed of rotation of gyro base structure and overall weight of structure.
Love all you guys endeavours.
regards, greg t
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick - 22/11/2009 08:34:37
| | | inall inall
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
