|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
16 April 2024 19:22
|
|
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: |
Confirmation of Sandy's Observations |
| Question: |
Question: Sandy Kidd had posted at one time that he observed that under certain conditions, the wheels moved inward toward the center.
His observation has been confirmed by me today.
I only very narrowly avoided damage to my machine due to the manifestation.
Credit where credit is due. Sandy was the first to observe this effect.
I propose to call it the KIdd Effect.
I believe this effect is important and will be studied by students of Physics soon enough.
Ravi
|
| Date: |
24 September 2009
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 25/09/2009 01:07:54
| | | Hello Ravi,
You have just restored my faith in human nature.
I got the impression that no one was ever going to dabble in that zone or ever find the truth.
Thank goodness someone has gone out of their way for whatever reason to confirm a trip into “saturation” territory with gyroscopes or probably more correctly flywheels.
I was hoping for this about 5 years ago, but I should be very grateful that someone has confirmed it, but not only that, admitted it.
Glad you did not damage your machine but the torque can be of a large enough order to bend or shear a few bits as I found out during my early testing.
As I just stated this is the saturation mode your machine went into and as you will have noticed it is hard to stop when started.
You obviously have a device set up to have found this out, so it should be relatively easy for you to confirm the rest of my claims and be a party to the truth of the situation with reference to mechanically accelerated systems.
Accepted physics principles are a long way from the truth as you will no doubt imminently find out.
If you start at the saturation point and work backwards, all will be revealed, as useful work can only be generated below this point.
A whole new world awaits you here which will eventually take you to the transference of angular momentum to linear momentum in spite of the specious belief of its impossibility. Sorry Sir Isaac.
Well, he was correct until we started dabbling with rotating wheels within wheels.
You can now set about creating inertial drive for the correct reasons and ignore all the hot air and waffle which has permeated the postings to the “Forum” for so long now.
It is very frustrating being accused of not getting involved in discussion or debate with respect to mathematical formulae when it can be proved that the formulae themselves are worthless.
However every one is entitled to their opinion, so what is the point in me telling them that I believe that it is all nonsense, when they think the same of me.
Oh to be young again.
I really hope you have more success at getting the “experts” to listen to you than I did.
Remember Ravi it is not the 10G spacecraft they are worried about it is their precious bleeding physics.
Thank you for your confirmation Ravi, let’s see if we agree on the reasons for this effect, because this just could not happen if there was not a complete loss of angular momentum. There is no allowance for this in physics so you have just resurrected my Catch 22.
If the angular momentum was present we would have a space-drive within accepted principles. Someone got it severely wrong methinks.
Good hunting and be careful.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 25/09/2009 10:13:32
| | | Hello Ravi,
Could you explain more detailed under which "certain" conditions the wheels moved inwards? How do the wheels move inwards to the center (of hub?)? - Along their rotation axis or do they pivote around the center of hub?
In your videos it seems that both wheels in their cage are fixed, so that they cannot pivote in vertical plane. Is this correct?
Thank you for sharing your observations!
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 26/09/2009 19:25:22
| | | Hi Ravi,
1) Is the “inward” (toward the center) motion that you observed (and nearly damaged your device) the same motion as explained by our host Glenn Turner in his “My propulsion page” at: http://www.gyroscopes.org/mywork.asp, PROTOTYPE 6, where he explains that the gyros were bending the structure and hinges?
(Please review our host’s prototype 6 (second from last) in his page and let us know if what you are confirming is the same or perhaps something new and different.)
2) Also Ravi, can you tell us if your theory predicts the “inward” (upward?) motion that you are reporting?
A) If yes, please explain how your theory predicts this motion.
B) If not, how would you explain this “inward” motion on the basis of any theory (i.e. is there a theory that you know of, which explains this “inward” motion)?
It’s OK if you cannot explain your observation.
However, I for one would be very thankful if you provided your kind answers to both questions above.
Best Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 26/09/2009 21:05:26
| | | Sandy,
Hats off to you Sir, for your work.
I will respond in more detail soon.
Harry, Luis, thank you guys for your interest. Unfortunately, I'm rather pressed for time right now.
I invite you all to see for yourself,
It is quite inexplicable to the Newtonians I imagine.
-Ravi
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 30/09/2009 22:11:59
| | | Hello Ravi,
Thanks again for your latest video! In which way is the wheel axial fixed on its center axis? - By a threaded pin? And which selection of fits did you choose for the shaft and bore? What is the material of the wheel and shaft?
I've noticed that both wheels are assembled under a positive angle above horizontal plane and this circumstance could be the reason for the inward movement of the wheel, if the axial fixing was removed by any technical reasons.
I would be very happy if you would find some time to provide some more technical data and parameters of your test setup.
@Sandy Kidd
Is this inward movement in the video from Ravi the same kind which you have observed and described here in the forum?
Thanks and regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 01/10/2009 18:30:39
| | | Harry,
I appreciate your call for a careful questioning of the event.
It is the correct thing to do.
Yet, having pondered the same questions after the experiments, I had concluded that what I had observed was genuine.
-Ravi
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 01/10/2009 20:20:38
| | | Hello Ravi,
Thanks for the interesting picture, however, it's still not clear to me how you have fixed the wheel in axial direction on the shaft? I can only see a key for connecting shaft and wheel but no axial fixation?
Unfortunately you did not answer my questions about materials and tolerances of shaft and wheel bore diameters.
I've noticed that the material removal happened at the back of the key groove on the wheel bore and this can only happen if the tolerances of shaft and bore diameters are to wide. According ISO standard, there must be clearance between parallel key and parallel key groove and I'm sure you did choose a key groove according ISO standard, didn't you? So if the clearance is present, the material removal can only happen because of inclination of wheel and shaft as a result of too wide tolerance of bore and shaft diameters. And by the way, the inward movement happened only at one wheel and this is a sign for a mechanmical malfunction as well.
Other reasons for inward movement on the shaft could be the material combination of wheel, shaft, cage, etc. Aluminum isn't very rigid contrary to steel and thus deformations due to the relative high acting torques and forces respectively could occur. The cage is made of aluminum and maybe the wheel also?
Also different coefficients of thermal expansion of the individual materials could be the reason of loosening of mechanical parts.
Did you consider all these possible raesons?
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 01/10/2009 23:24:31
| | | Harry,
1. Both the shaft and the wheel are less than 1/2 thousandths tolerance better than the ISO standard by more than a factor of two.
The shaft was ground to the same level of tolerance.
2.There was no measurable temperature gradient in the shaft or the wheel.
3. Both wheels were moved inward. The other wheel was sheared toward the center too.
Ravi
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 01/10/2009 23:24:32
| | | Harry,
1. Both the shaft and the wheel are less than 1/2 thousandths tolerance better than the ISO standard by more than a factor of two.
The shaft was ground to the same level of tolerance.
2.There was no measurable temperature gradient in the shaft or the wheel.
3. Both wheels were moved inward. The other wheel was sheared toward the center too.
Ravi
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 02/10/2009 14:04:59
| | | Ok, I believe you, Ravi. The Kidd effect does really exist. Maybe this effect is caused in the future and was carried to the presence via your gyro time machine. :-)
You are not willing to provide needful information such as how the wheels are fixed on the shaft is or material information of the components. I give up, because it's boring and wasted time for me.
Bye Ravi and have good time!
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 03/10/2009 16:36:53
| | | Ravi,
Thank you for sharing your experimental results.
Though I can embrace calling this force, the "Kidd Effect" (as tribute since this force is induced artificially via the torque from a motor), frankly I find it perplexing that the inward (upward) motion of the flywheel is “Unexpected”.
That said, isn't this inward (upward) motion of the flywheels the equivalent of what we would call "precession" in a gravity driven toy gyro?
Both these effects occur at what we would say is 90 degrees to the applied torque, don't they?
Are my statements above in error?
If so, please enlighten me as to where I have gone astray, or what hidden point of perception am I missing in regard to what you seem to present as an unexpected, and yet unexplained inward (upward) motion.
The one NEW thing of potentially great value that I see in this inward force (that damaged the axel-shafts) is whether this force is much greater than the force input by from the hub-motor (only Ravi has sufficient data to determine that at this point).
If the force has been multiplied (intermittently), is this effect of applicable value to any device?
Please excuse my doubts regarding the freshness if this effect, as it appears to be fully expected by classical mechanics analysis (and has been talked about by many in this forum).
Again, I am on board to naming the mechanically driven phenomena after some of the pioneers to this field such as Laithewaite, Kidd, and others.
Best Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 06/10/2009 00:09:03
| | | Hello Luis, Harry, and Ravi,
Sorry for the delay fellows, just returned from abroad.
Luis you said:-
“frankly I find it perplexing that the inward (upward) motion of the flywheel is “Unexpected”.
You then said ” Please excuse my doubts regarding the freshness if this effect, as it appears to be fully expected by classical mechanics analysis (and has been talked about by many in this forum).
You seem to be missing the point Luis, near damage was all Ravi got, but I’ll bet Ravi knew there was no angular momentum being generated.
Yes Luis the movement or action is predicted by classical mechanics (but not the outcome and not necessarily for all the right reasons)
Harry I have seen the result of this sort of thing happening in closed systems where there was no visible evidence of anything happening except for the crushing thrust of the massive torque reaction doing its worst to the mechanicals of the device, shearing pins and bending bits.
What is most certainly not predicted is the total loss of angular momentum whilst the action is taking place.
Here we have a “Catch 22” situation, where we have angular momentum as predicted a “flying saucer” and are in breach of Newton’s Laws, or no angular momentum, no “flying saucer” but the truth.
You cannot have your cake and eat it.
If there had been no loss of angular momentum Ravi’s device would have gone upwards with considerable rapidity, but it did not.
This is because classical mechanics with regards to mechanically accelerated flywheels (gyros if you must) are at best just assumption, and totally misleading.
Simple mechanics suggests that the presence of any quantity of angular momentum would generate upward thrust, but there is no upward thrust
Whether the angle of inclination of the flywheel and its supporting arm (what ever) is at 1 degree or 90 degrees (vertical) or anywhere in between the angular momentum generated by the mechanical rotation of the flywheel will be zero.
Once the flywheel begins its upward and inward climb away from its normal angle of rotation (which will be somewhere below the horizontal) there is no easy way of controlling this action, except with the rapid removal of copious amounts of flywheel rotation speed or system rotation speed or both.
I described the experiment and the result, (several years ago in a posting to this forum) which was the reason I created the term “saturation” but more importantly the fact below the “saturation point”, angular momentum is shed or recovered in proportion to changes in rotation speed of the flywheel.
This was one of my most important discoveries, as anyone with half a brain must surely realise.
Because he has a machine to study it is going to be a very short time before Ravi discovers all of these none predicted gems for himself.
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 06/10/2009 16:51:47
| | | Welcome back Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 08/10/2009 22:11:10
| | | Sandy is exactly right, in that I discovered the effect because I had a set up that allowed this manifestation to be observable, but not damaging.
If I had completely fixed the axial degree of freedom to the fly wheel, the effect would manifest as a downward down of the bolts and frames.
The effect is 'unexpected' because its there is no gravity acting on the wheel. The gravitational force acts on the center of mass of the device, so there is no torque.
Luis, The wheel is not freely suspended as a gyroscope on the Eiffel Tower. So there is no expectation of any 'precession'. Besides, even if a precession were to be generated, it would involve a 'rotation' of the gyro, not an axial movement of the wheel.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 08/10/2009 22:49:06
| | | Harry, Luis, Ravi, and all other interested parties,
I really meant to add that this effect is much easier to study if a fair amount of vertical offset is built into the machine.
For those of you who are relatively new to this forum vertical offset is the vertical displacement of the flywheel (gyroscope) relative to its fulcrum.
The flywheel (gyroscope) is mounted conventionally so that its plane of rotation is at right angles to the plane of machine rotation, but the offset angle is the angle created between the flywheel and its fulcrum, and the horizontal.
This angle can be anything you like, but you are running out of movement at 85 plus degrees. i.e. getting very close to the vertical.
Ravi must have had some built in to his machine, it is not clear how much
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 09/10/2009 13:43:15
| | | Hello Sandy,
Thank you for your confirmation and your explanations!
My way of thinking in this matter is more in a static way and this circumstance may cause trouble in understanding among each other
Here is a new trial:
1. The hub of Ravi's set up is driven by an input torque. This input torque causes the hub with the 2 mounted gyros to rotate around the center of hub with a certain velocity, given by the gyro parameters (number, size, mass, rotation speed,etc) and size of the input torque. However, this will only occur if both gyros have the same direction of rotation
I hope everyone will agree so far.
2. Depending of the direction of rotation of the gyros (CW or CCW), the input torque will deflected by 90 degree in vertical upward or downward direction. This 90 degree deflection occurs at the rotation center of each respective gyro. These both positions in Ravi's set up are the origins of counter acting, caused by the input torque acting at the hub.
The input torque in Ravi's design oscillates and thus the 90 degree deflected torque will oscillate in vertical plane (up- and downwards) as well. Input torque and deflected torque are equal, because the hub rotation behaves like a forced precession acting at both gyros.
3. Thus there is acting a torque at each center of spinning mass and not a single axial force!
Ravi wrote: "If I had completely fixed the axial degree of freedom to the fly wheel, the effect would manifest as a downward down of the bolts and frames."
If I understand Ravi correctly, each gyro can move on its rotation axis because the gyros are not fixed on their axis!?
This would explain why the Gyros move inwards along their axis. The alignment of the each rotation axis is inclined upwards and thus the gyro will move preferred inwards because of gravitation reasons. This is no abnormal behavior at all.
Sandy wrote: "...I really meant to add that this effect is much easier to study if a fair amount of vertical offset is built into the machine."
The higher the vertical offset, the higher the influence of graviation. This is a confirmation of my opinion.
Sandy, I still do not understand what you mean with "loss of momentum"? The input torque (= tilting torque) causes only change of direction of the angular momentum. The absolute value of the gyro's rotation speed will be unchanged.
Plaese excuse my ignorance! ;-)
As I have asked many times before, it would be very helpful if Ravi could provide more detailed technical data of his device, if he wish to discuss his observations.
Best regards,
Harry
.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 09/10/2009 22:40:13
| | | Hello Harry,
No, we are not going to agree on this.
As I have said many times all the mass of the flywheel is transferred before the flywheel can begin its upward and inwards movement, therefore it does not matter what angle the flywheel has risen to the effect is always the same i.e. there is no gravitational influence, no centrifugal force (no apologies here) and obviously no angular momentum.
OK this is hard to swallow but allow me to return to where it all started for me.
I believed that if I could rotate a pair of bricks around myself (one in each hand ) I could induce very large centrifugal forces into the system. No argument surely?
Now if by invoking some “magical” and as yet unknown force to raise the bricks to an angle of 45 degrees with the same radius of gyration it would require an input force equal to the centrifugal force, the vertical component being equal to the horizontal component.
If my bricks were of sufficient weight and I rotated sufficiently fast it was easy to see that a horizontal force of several Gs could be generated.
Unfortunately there was no “magical” force available to lift the weights.
I put the idea to bed as unworkable and insoluble.
One night I watched a very interesting programme where Professor Eric Laithwaite demonstrated the easy rotation of a 50lb spinning disc around his head and this gave me an idea.
I would spin my flywheels at 51 and a bit degrees above the horizontal just to be sure. (Tan of 1.25)
I did not know if this could be done but it could be fun finding out.
I did not know any better at that time so it all seemed be about right.
After much messing about with motors, and drives, and clutches, and all sorts of other bits of kit, the machine was eventually rotated at about 350 rpm with the flywheels rotating at about 13000 plus rpm. At this point the device was moving into what someone else wrongly called precession, in other words the combined rotation speeds were sufficient to support the masses of the wheels, not only that but they were accelerating inwards towards the axis of machine rotation.
(I was totally mystified for a long time afterwards, and it was several years, and many experiments before I understood everything which was happening.)
The trouble was there was nothing there, the wheels moved inwards proving that the centrifugal force had been at least neutralised and if the was no centrifugal force there could be no angular momentum.
Rotation without acceleration, that is unique is it not?
I went to the maths department of Dundee University who agreed with my original thinking and I had prepared a special demonstration for them to prove what was happening, all (about 6 of them) disappeared at high speed when they saw what the device was doing.
None of this is denying Newton, it is just clarifying the situation.
If we are attempting to create inertial drive let us at least know the ground rules.
You must really carry out the experiment Harry as you are never going to believe a word of this unless you do.
Regards
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 10/10/2009 00:26:45
| | | Harry,
Ich habe das Gefuehl, dass wir hier eine kleine Gemeinschaft sind, die Interesse an Gyroskope hat und sie versucht besser zu verstehen. Ich habe meine eigene Theorie und ich habe den Prototypen gebaut, um sie zu pruefen.
Wenn du deine eigene Theorie hast, kann ich das akzeptieren. Du kannst versuchen deine Theorie mit der Information, die ich dir geben kann, zu pruefen. Das ist auch OK. Es freut mich, falls meine Information dir helfen kann.
Wenn du Fehler in meiner Theorie finden kannst, koennen wir die auch diskutieren. Bis jetzt hast du noch keinen Erfolg gehabt, irgendwelche Fehler in meiner Theorie zu beweisen.
Persoenliche Attacken werde ich nicht akzeptieren. Sei bitte vorsichtig! Im Internet ist es schwer zu verstehen, wer du bist - und was ich im Moment sehe laesst mich vorsichtig sein und verwirrt mich ein bisschen.
Danke,
Ravi
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 10/10/2009 01:35:36
| | | Hello Harry & Luis,
It would be good if one of we three constructed a crude device, wherein pull strings would rotate two free wheels connected to a center hub. Then the hub itself rotated with a long pull string. There should be enough clearance between the wheel and a greased axle to allow the wheel to slide inward. I have estimated that a pull string accelerates a toy gyro to about 2,700 RPMs and that should be a sufficient speed for the experiment. Sandy said he could, or did use gauges and springs to show the inward force. Anyone of we three could do it the cheep, idiot constructed way. As for myself I suppose I’m well qualified for the cheap idiot way, but I’m sort of busy and anyway Sandy has insisted for twenty-five years, or so that there is inward force so I believe it . . . He would know, though I like you, haven’t a clue as to why the force would be there. You all have my sympathy and understanding in seeking the proof of this baffling and illogical force, so anyway, try it out fellows. That is the only way your curiosity will be satisfied. You need only gumption, so let me know how it goes, please.
Glenn,
After just now reading the remarks in German, I suppose I should go ahead and mention this. In the picture offered, the marks on the axle encircle the axle, giving indication not of leaner scaring in line with the axle, as one would expect with an inward force, but quit the opposite. The circular scaring indicates exactly what Harry suggested. What is the truth of the experiment? I am not getting into that because of my faith in Sandy, but Harry has not been answered in the slightest. He has read an illogical, unsupported statement and for proof, he has been shown a picture suggesting the absolute opposite truth of the statement. Then to make matters worse his inquiries come back unanswered and now with the suggestion of a threat. No wonder he complains. He has a right. In fact one could say he has a duty to science, and now a duty to assert his of freedom of speech and in the doing of it therefore preserve it, to worldwide disagreement and complaint as he, we wish. Particularly we will join do so in the face of threats.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 10/10/2009 12:53:20
| | | Hello Ravi,
I'm really impressed about your good German language! However, I think it's not fair to the other readers here because I'm sure that most of them cannot understand German. Why do you suddenly write in German? - If you like to tell private issues to me, you should better write an email. My email address should be well known and if not, please let me know.
You wrote: "Wenn du Fehler in meiner Theorie finden kannst, koennen wir die auch diskutieren. Bis jetzt hast du noch keinen Erfolg gehabt, irgendwelche Fehler in meiner Theorie zu beweisen."
Translation:"If you are able to find mistakes in my theory, we can also discuss them. Till now you did not had success to prove any mistakes in my theory."
First of all, it is not up to me but up to you to prove your theory. Till now I only made comments and asked some questions about your posted videos. Unfortunately you have answered none of my questions till now and thus I had no chance to "discuss" your theory.
Anyway, your confirmation of Sandy's observation is not related to your theory, isn't it? So when can we see a proof of your theory in form of a levitation or at least some loss of weight of your device?
You wrote: "Persoenliche Attacken werde ich nicht akzeptieren. Sei bitte vorsichtig! Im Internet ist es schwer zu verstehen, wer du bist - und was ich im Moment sehe laesst mich vorsichtig sein und verwirrt mich ein bisschen."
Translation: "I will not accept personal attacks. Be careful, please! In the internet it's difficult to understand, who you are - und what I currently see, causes me to be careful and confuses me a little bit".
I'm sorry if you feel personally attacked by me, that is and that was not my intention. In my opinion, till now I had only attacked your claims. It's not my intention to attack anybody here in this forum. I only want to discuss technical issues, nothing more.
It's also difficult for me to understand who YOU are and thus you should be careful as well. I will not accept any threat from you or others!
If you want to know more details about my person, we can discuss this via email but not here in a public forum.
Now back to work. If you like to discuss your or others theory, please answer questions and provide more detailled data. Otherwise any further discussions make no sense for me.
Thanks,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 10/10/2009 16:59:54
| | | Hello Sandy,
Thank you for your answer. I will reply later when I have mor time.
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 10/10/2009 17:22:54
| | | Hello Glenn,
Over 20 years ago I built such an "idiot" [ ;-) ] constructed design. I never noticed an axial inward force but I noticed reaction torques (couples). Torques will ever try to rotate something but not to move straightforward something (unfortunately!). If the gyro moves anyway straightforward along its rotation axis, other forces (e.g. gravitation) or design based issues (e.g. given degree of freedom in a device) must be involved.
Thank you for your clear and true statements in your second paragraph of you posting. I see it in the same manner.
Thanks!
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 10/10/2009 22:32:22
| | | Hello Harry,
Seems that we are considering different things here.
OK. Any rotating flywheel will attempt to rotate around its centre of mass if accelerated in a radial manner and if unrestricted it will do so.
The wheel wants to lie flat i.e. the point of least action.
However if the flywheel is supported on a shaft, rod, arm, whatever it can no longer rotate around its centre of mass but if accelerated in the same radial manner, it will attempt to rotate itself and its supporting arm (if suitably attached to a fulcrum at the other end of the supporting arm) until the flywheel is lying flat and the supporting shaft is in a vertical position.
Sorry Harry I am not attempting to insult your intelligence, and I am sure you are agreeing with this simple stuff so far.
So we have a flywheel which if suitably driven can move from its horizontal position, against any centrifugal effects to a position vertically overhead.
What happens to the centrifugal force which would surely hold it down?
What happens to the angular momentum, which if present would for instance at 45 degrees be subjecting the machine to a lifting force equal to the generated centrifugal force.
The simple test is to rotate a flywheel system at a fixed speed say 500 rpm.
Now assuming we have a speed controller external to the machine (operating through slip rings) which makes it possible to control the rotation speed of the flywheel, we can run the machine through a range of flywheel speeds to see what happens.
It will be noticed that the centrifugal force diminishes as the flywheel rotation speed increases until it is all gone.
The saturation point!
At this point the flywheel and its supporting arm will accelerate upwards and inwards.
The greater the offset angle the greater the inward acceleration, which is a bit obvious really.
That is why I made the comment with respect to Ravi’s device.
The first time I saw this and repeated the test to make absolutely sure I coined “Saturation” to describe the event.
You are still going to believe none of this Harry which is most unfortunate
However I felt I had to write this anyway.
Regards
Sandy..
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 11/10/2009 12:26:49
| | | It’s cold this morning. Damn. Winter is here.
Hi Sandy,
That is a heck of a good argument. Suppose for a moment that centrifuge doesn’t vanish, but rather that the rise toward near vertical is because the torque becomes greater than centrifuge. The result should then be that the force of gravity is augmented by the increased torque that should force directed downward on the hub. Again and logically, each time hub rotation is increased more centrifuge is created, which should pull the hub toward the horizontal as you so much as say of course.
We believe however, that up to a point, a point of ratio between two opposing rotations, the increase in torque is necessary to overcome the increase in centrifuge. Although it somehow isn’t so, doesn’t it then seem that the result of increased torque should be increase downward force on the hub?
Why, when rotations speeds in either wheel, or hub, or both are increased, does not the contraception weight more, not less, but more? -- more from increased downward torque? Isn’t this another good arguing point for your cause.
Keep fighting,
Glenn
Hi Harry,
You are very welcome and thinks for recognizing me. It’s good that we could agree on all this. We have a saying. You may have heard it. ‘Keep On Keeping On, Harry.’
And Good Luck,
Glenn
Ravi Hi,
I too have said things in the heat of the moment that didn’t come out exactly right. Then we wish we hadn't. I understand. All is forgiven. Papa said you can come home. We have another saying, Ravi. We all have to ‘eat crow’ sometimes. Yum, yum! Does your crow tastes good this time? Tell Harry hello.
Take care now and please accept my polite wishes for your Good Luck,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 11/10/2009 18:22:02
| | | Hello Sandy,
I need some more time because my answer will be longer than usual...
Only for Ravi I will send my answer in German language as well. ;-)
@Glenn
My compliment to your bright statements in your last posting. You are on the right track!
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 11/10/2009 22:51:55
| | | Hello Sandy,
Your last two postings are very insightful, so that I do understand at last what you understand with “Saturation zone” and “loss of angular momentum”.
We both talking about same things, but we have different views about causes and operations of what we observe.
I have much respect for your person, but that doesn’t prevent me from manifesting my beliefs und thus unfortunately I have to disagree in many points.
You wrote:
“OK. Any rotating flywheel will attempt to rotate around its centre of mass if accelerated in a radial manner and if unrestricted it will do so.
The wheel wants to lie flat i.e. the point of least action.
However if the flywheel is supported on a shaft, rod, arm, whatever it can no longer rotate around its centre of mass but if accelerated in the same radial manner, it will attempt to rotate itself and its supporting arm (if suitably attached to a fulcrum at the other end of the supporting arm) until the flywheel is lying flat and the supporting shaft is in a vertical position.
Sorry Harry I am not attempting to insult your intelligence, and I am sure you are agreeing with this simple stuff so far.”
We both talking about a gyro system, which has the following design:
http://www.misc.keipert.net/gyro/Gyro Forces 1.pdf
(please copy above URL-address and paste it into your browser’s address field)
These sketch should show a front view of an overhung gyroscope, which rotation axis is vertically and horizontally supported by a joint at the center of a hub. I hope you can recognize the assembly in this two dimensional drawing.
If the gyro is spinning and a torque will be induced into the hub, the gyro tries to deflect vertical up- or downwards in dependence of the gyro’s and hub’s rotation direction. If the induced torque remains in its horizontal plane, the gyro indeed continues its deflection until the rotation plane of the spinning mass will be parallel to the rotation plane of the hub. In this case the tilting torque is not acting anymore and thus the gyro will not deflect as well. So far we are in total agreement.
One note. It would be sufficient if the tilting torque would act in a static way at the hub, to cause the gyro to start its deflection movement in vertical plane. This is e.g. the case if an overhung gyro is supported on a “Eifelturm” fulcrum. The gravitation force causes here a vertical tilting torque, which causes the gyro to deflect in horizontal plane. However, a vertical movement in the direction of the tilting torque (gravitation) does not occur. But after a certain time span the gyro axis will decline anyway because of the existence of friction forces, which are acting against the deflection movement in horizontal plane. Because of the fact that gravitation force will always act in downward direction, the gyro will continue to decline until its rotation axis will be aligned to the direction of gravitation, or in easier words, if the rotation plane of the gyro’s spinning mass will be horizontal aligned.
But the important thing is to find and recognize the real causes and effects:
1. The tilting torque, which will be induced in horizontal plane into the hub, is the CAUSE for the vertical deflection movement of the gyro.
2. The deflection movement of the gyro is caused by a torque and the origin of this torque has ALWAYS its CAUSE in the center of the gyro’s spinning mass!
Understanding this issue is very important for all following considerations.
3. If the gyro will be prevented to perform its deflection movement around the center of its spinning mass, the still acting deflection movement will either tries to rotate the complete device, or it tries to rotate around an other defined pivot.
In the outer space, without the influence of gravity, the complete device would rotate around the center of the gyro’s spinning mass, although if there would be defined an other pivot in the device.
For instance, this fact can be recognized in Ravi’s device. His device does not allow the gyros to perform a deflection movement around each center of spinning mass, and thus the complete device tries to rotate. Usually, both deflection movements of the gyros should cancel each other because they acting against each other, but because of the three-legged stand of the device, both counter acting deflection torques can not entirely cancel each other and this leads to an oscillating up- and downward movement of the complete device in Ravi’s video.
You wrote:
„So we have a flywheel which if suitably driven can move from its horizontal position, against any centrifugal effects to a position vertically overhead.
What happens to the centrifugal force which would surely hold it down?
What happens to the angular momentum, which if present would for instance at 45 degrees be subjecting the machine to a lifting force equal to the generated centrifugal force.”
Welcome to my balance theory!
If you have again a look on my sketch, you will notice some variables:
Tp – Deflection torque, caused by the tilting torque, induced into the hub.
This deflection torque generates the torque Fp x lp because of the distance of the pivot to the center of spinning mass. Therefore:
Fp x lp = Tp
Fz – Centrifugal force, caused by rotating death mass of the gyro around the center of hub (pivot).
4. If, as shown on the sketch, the mass of the gyro would spin and the gyro would rotate around the hub at the same time, the gyro would immediately move vertical upwards, because the horizontal alignment of the gyro’s rotation axis and thus the lever arm for centrifugal force is zero.
But the deflection torque Tp is acting and because of the defined position of the pivot in the device, the upward force Fp with its lever arm lp is acting. Hence the gyro will rotate immediately upwards around the defined pivot. You call this pivot movement “inward and upward movement”.
5. Now please have a look at this sketch:
http://www.misc.keipert.net/gyro/Gyro Forces 1.pdf
(please copy above URL-address and paste it into your browser’s address field)
This sketch is a snapshot of the gyro’s deflection movement after a certain time span.
Because of the gyro’s upwards movement the value of the centrifugal force will be in fact smaller because the rotation radius around the hub will become smaller too because of the upward movement of the gyro. However, the acting centrifugal force causes now a counter torque to the deflection torque because of the now existing lever arm lz.
Thus the gyro will pivot upwards until both counter acting torques will be equal:
Fz x lz = Fp x lp = Tp
To find the angle, where both torques are equal and therefore in balance, the resultant force Fr can be calculated from centrifugal force Fz and deflection force Fp. A balance is achieved if the value of lever arm lr is zero, i.e. if the direction of resultant Fr will be equal with the alignment of the rotation axis of the gyro.
You wrote:
„It will be noticed that the centrifugal force diminishes as the flywheel rotation speed increases until it is all gone.
The saturation point!
At this point the flywheel and its supporting arm will accelerate upwards and inwards.
The greater the offset angle the greater the inward acceleration, which is a bit obvious really.
That is why I made the comment with respect to Ravi’s device.
The first time I saw this and repeated the test to make absolutely sure I coined “Saturation” to describe the event.”
6. If the rotation speed of the gyro’s spinning mass would be increased, the rotation speed of the gyro around the hub will be decreased as well, assumed the value of the induced tilting torque will remain equal. That means the value of the centrifugal force will squared decrease, but the value of deflection torque remains equal. – Thus it’s no wonder that the gyro begins to move upwards!
What you call “Saturation” is the balance situation of centrifugal torque and deflection torque of the gyro. I call this situation “balance”. However, the name of this situation is not important, but the obtained conclusions which are responsible for this situation are important.
If the bearing clearance of bore and rotation axis in Ravi’s design is to big, the gyro will be declined und may cause the damages on the axis which are shown on Ravi’s picture. Ravi claims that axis and bore have a bearing clearance of less than “½ thousandths tolerance”. I guess he means ½ thousandths of a millimeter!? To achieve such a small tolerance, the material surfaces of bore and axis must be polished! On the picture the material surface of the axis seems to be pultruded but not machined!
Another note. All my explanations in the text above disregard torques, which are caused by gravitation. These torques caused by gravitation would counter act to the deflection torque of the gyro. Because of clarity reasons I have disregarded these gravitation forces and thus additional acting torques in the gyro system.
Sandy, I already know, that you will not agree with my opinion, however, I’m hundred percent sure that I’m right. This may sound arrogant, but this is the truth!
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 11/10/2009 22:57:30
| | | FOR RAVI:
Hallo Sandy,
Deine beiden letzten Postings sind sehr aufschlussreich, so dass ich endlich verstehe, was Du mit „Saturation Zone“ und „Aufhebung des Drehimpulses“ meinst.
Wir beide reden über die gleiche Sache, aber haben eine unterschiedliche Auffassungen über die Ursachen und Abläufe in dem was wir beobachten.
Ich habe großen Respekt vor Dir, was mich allerdings nicht davon abhält, meine Überzeugungen hier kund zu tun und somit muss ich Dir leider in vielen Punkten widersprechen.
Du hast geschrieben:
“OK. Any rotating flywheel will attempt to rotate around its centre of mass if accelerated in a radial manner and if unrestricted it will do so.
The wheel wants to lie flat i.e. the point of least action.
However if the flywheel is supported on a shaft, rod, arm, whatever it can no longer rotate around its centre of mass but if accelerated in the same radial manner, it will attempt to rotate itself and its supporting arm (if suitably attached to a fulcrum at the other end of the supporting arm) until the flywheel is lying flat and the supporting shaft is in a vertical position.
Sorry Harry I am not attempting to insult your intelligence, and I am sure you are agreeing with this simple stuff so far.”
Wir sprechen beide von einem Kreiselsystem, welches folgenden Aufbau hat:
http://www.misc.keipert.net/gyro/Gyro Forces 1.pdf
(bitte URL-Adresse kopieren und in die Browser Adresszeile einfügen)
Diese Skizze soll eine Vorderansicht eines überhängenden Kreisels darstellen, dessen Drehachse an einem Lager im Zentrum eines Drehtellers horizontal und vertikal gelagert ist. Ich hoffe, man kann den Aufbau in dieser zweidimensionalen Ansicht erkennen.
Wenn der Kreisel sich dreht und ein Drehmoment in den Drehteller eingeleitet wird, so wird der Kreisel in Abhängigkeit der Drehrichtung des Kreisels und des Drehtellers entweder vertikal nach oben oder unten versuchen auszuweichen. Wenn das in den Drehteller eingeleitete Drehmoment in seiner horizontalen Ebene verbleibt, so wird der Kreisel in der Tat so lange ausweichen, bis seine eigene Drehebene parallel zur Dreheben des Drehtellers ausgerichtet ist. In diesem Fall wirkt kein Kippmoment mehr und somit kann der Kreisel auch nicht mehr diesem Kippmoment ausweichen. Bis dahin sind wir in totaler Übereinstimmung.
Anzumerken ist noch, dass es ausreichen würde, ein statisches Kippmoment auf dem Drehteller wirken zu lassen, damit der Kreisel seine Ausweichbewegung in vertikaler Ebene vollzieht. Dies ist z.B. der Fall bei einem überhängenden Kreisel, der auf einem „Eifelturm“ gelagert ist, der Fall. Hier erzeugt die Gewichtskraft ein vertikales Kippmoment, was den Kreisel veranlasst, in horizontaler Ebene auszuweichen. Eine vertikale Bewegung in Richtung des Kippmoments (Gravitation) findet aber nicht statt. Allerdings wird sich nach einer gewissen Zeit die Kreiselachse dennoch senken, weil in existierende Reibungskräfte der horizontalen Ausweichbewegung entgegenwirken. Da die Gewichtskraft stets nach unten wirkt, wird sich der Kreisei so lange absenken, bis seine Drehachse parallel zur Wirklinie der Gravitation ausgerichtet ist, oder einfacher ausgedrückt seine Drehfläche horizontal ausgerichtet ist.
Der WICHTIGE Punkt allerdings ist zu erkennen, wo genau Ursachen und Wirkungen begründet sind:
1. Das in den Drehteller horizontal eingeleitete Kippmoment ist die URSACHE für die vertikale Ausweichbewegung des Kreisels.
2. Die Ausweichbewegung des Kreisels wird verursacht durch ein Drehmoment, dessen Ursprung IMMER im Zentrum der rotierenden Masse des Kreisels ihre URSACHE hat!
Das Verstehen dieser Tatsache ist eminent wichtig für alle weiteren Überlegungen.
3. Wird es dem Kreisel nicht ermöglicht, seine Ausweichbewegung um das Zentrum seiner rotierenden Masse zu vollziehen, so wird das dennoch wirkende Ausweichmoment entweder versuchen die komplette Apparatur zu drehen, oder eine Drehung um einen anderweitig festgelegten Drehpunkt in der Apparatur zu vollziehen. Im Weltraum, ohne Einfluss von Gravitation, würde sich die komplette Apparatur um das Zentrum der rotierenden Kreiselmasse drehen, auch wenn konstruktiv ein anderer Drehpunkt in der Apparatur festgelegt wäre.
Diesen Sachverhalt kann man z.B. sehr gut in Ravi’s Apparatur erkennen. In seiner Apparatur können die beiden Kreisel keine Ausweichbewegungen um ihr jeweiliges Zentrum ihrer rotierenden Masse vollziehen, daher versucht die komplette Apparatur sich zu drehen. Normalerweise sollten sich beide Ausgleichsdrehmomente der Kreisel aufheben, da diese entgegengesetzt wirken, aber wegen des dreibeinigen Stands können sich die beiden Drehmomente nicht gänzlich aufheben, was zu der oszillierenden Auf- und Abwärtsbewegung der kompletten Apparatur im Video führt.
Du hast geschrieben:
„So we have a flywheel which if suitably driven can move from its horizontal position, against any centrifugal effects to a position vertically overhead.
What happens to the centrifugal force which would surely hold it down?
What happens to the angular momentum, which if present would for instance at 45 degrees be subjecting the machine to a lifting force equal to the generated centrifugal force.”
Willkommen zu meiner Balancetheorie!
Wenn Du Dir die Skizze noch mal anschaust, werden Dir einige variablen aufgefallen sein:
Tp – Ausweichdrehmoment, hervorgerufen durch das in den Drehteller eingeleitete Kippmoment.
Dieses Ausweichmoment generiert wegen der Lage des Dreharmlagers das Drehmoment Fp x lp. Es gilt daher:
Fp x lp = Tp
Fz – Zentrifugalkraft, hervorgerufen durch die Kreiselmasse.
4. Würde, wie auf der Skizze dargestellt, die Masse des Kreisels rotieren, und würde gleichzeitig ein Kippmoment in den Drehteller eingeleitet, so würde sich der Kreisel augenblicklich vertikal nach oben bewegen, weil die Zentrifugalkraft an keinem Hebelarm angreift, weil der Hebelarm bzw. Drehachse des Kreisels exakt horizontal ausgerichtet ist.
Allerdings wirkt das Ausweichdrehmoment Tp, und bedingt durch die konstruktive Wahl des Drehpunktes in der Apparatur wirkt die aufwärtsgerichtete Kraft Fp mit dem Hebelarm lp. Daher wird der Kreisel augenblicklich nach oben geschwenkt. Diesen Schwenkvorgang bezeichnest Du als „inward and upward“ Bewegung.
5. Nun betrachte bitte diese Skizze:
http://www.misc.keipert.net/gyro/Gyro Forces 3.pdf
(bitte URL-Adresse kopieren und in die Browser Adresszeile einfügen)
Diese Skizze stell eine Momentaufnahme der Ausweichbewegung des Kreisel nach einer bestimmten Zeit dar.
Wegen der Aufwärtsbewegung des Kreisels wird zwar der Betrag der Zentrifugalkraft kleiner, weil sich der Drehradius auf dem Drehteller durch die Aufwärtsbewegung des Kreisels verringert hat, aber die Zentrifugalkraft kann ein Gegenmoment wegen des nun vorhandenen Kraftarms lz erzeugen.
Der Kreisel wird demzufolge so lange aufwärts schwenken bis beide entgegensetzt wirkende Drehmoment gleich groß sind:
Fz x lz = Fp x lp = Tp
Um den Winkel zu finden, wo beide Moment im Gleichgewicht sind, kann man auch die Resultierende Fr aus Zentrifugalkraft Fz und Ausweichkraft Fp bilden. Das Gleichgewicht ist erreicht, wenn der Kraftarm lr Null ist, d.h. wenn die Richtung der Resultierenden Fr mit der Drehachse des Kreisel übereinstimmt.
Du hast geschrieben:
„It will be noticed that the centrifugal force diminishes as the flywheel rotation speed increases until it is all gone.
The saturation point!
At this point the flywheel and its supporting arm will accelerate upwards and inwards.
The greater the offset angle the greater the inward acceleration, which is a bit obvious really.
That is why I made the comment with respect to Ravi’s device.
The first time I saw this and repeated the test to make absolutely sure I coined “Saturation” to describe the event.”
6. Wenn die Rotationsgeschwindigkeit des Kreisels erhöht wird, so sinkt bei gleichbleibender Größe des Kippmoment in den Drehteller die Rotation des Drehtellers. D.h. der Betrag der Zentrifugalkraft sinkt im Quadrat, aber der Betrag des Ausweichdrehmoments bleibt gleich groß. - Es ist also kein Wunder, dass der Kreisel nach oben auszuweichen beginnt!
Was Du mit „Saturation“ bezeichnest, ist der Gleichgewichtszustand von Zentrifugaldrehmoment und Ausweichdrehmoment des Kreisels. Ich bezeichne diesen Zustand mit „Balance“. Der Name für diesen Zustand ist aber egal, wichtiger sind die gezogenen Rückschlüsse, die für diesen Zustand verantwortlich sind.
Wenn bei Ravi’s Apparatur das Lagerspiel zwischen Bohrung und Drehachse des Kreisels zu groß ist, so wird sich der Kreisel schief stellen und kann die auf dem Foto gezeigten Schäden auf der Achse hervorrufen. Ravi behauptet, Achse und Bohrung hätten ein Spiel von „1/2 thousandths tolerance“. Ich nehme mal an, er meint ein 1/2 Tausendstel eines Millimeters!? Um so eine kleine Toleranz erreichen zu können, müssten die Oberflächen der Bohrung und Achse poliert sein! Auf dem Foto sieht das Meterial der Welle eher gezogen, also unbearbeitet aus!
Noch eine Anmerkung. Alle meine im Text oben gemachten Angaben vernachlässigen Kraftmomente, die aufgrund der Gravitation hervorgerufen werden. Diese durch Gravitation hervorgerufenen Kraftmomente wirken dem Ausweichmoment des Kreisels entgegen. Der Klarheit wegen habe ich diese Gravitationskräfte und damit zusätzliche Kraftmomente vernachlässigt.
Sandy, ich weiß schon jetzt, dass Du weiterhin nicht meiner Meinung sein wirst, aber ich bin mir hundertprozentig sicher, dass ich richtig liege. Das mag vielleicht arrogant klingen, aber es ist eben die Wahrheit!
Liebe Grüße
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 12/10/2009 22:10:51
| | | Hello Harry,
With respect, I am wasting my time discussing this with you as you are trying to hold on to what you have been taught and believe and I cannot blame you for that.
However what balance has got to do with saturation I really do not understand.
One item was obviously deliberately left aside by you Harry and that was the fact that in a mechanically accelerated system a change in flywheel speed will change the amount of angular momentum and centrifugal force generated within the system.
My whole argument is based upon on this fact, but does not figure anywhere in yours
Could this be that you were never ever aware of this fact, because it changes the whole picture?
.
Another thing, if your torque was sufficiently strong to overcome the centrifugal force surely the load on the system would have to increase, as the flywheel and its support arm ascended, and not decrease as happens in reality.
Sorry Harry, not very convincing.
You are still attempting to make it all fit classical mechanics.
Let us agree to disagree.
Regards
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 13/10/2009 05:14:40
| | | Hello Luis, I like that you asserted yourself.
Luis G,
“I find it perplexing that the inward (upward) motion of the flywheel is Unexpected. Both these effects occur at what we would say is 90 degrees to the applied torque, don't they?”
The guys are talking about a rotating wheel attempting to ‘slide inward’ as if on a greased shaft toward the pivot. Not your way, as from a different dimension and perspective you can be envisioned correctly that, because the front of the wheel curves around the pivot, it curves inward, therefore it moves inward as of course it does. Also, from this different, dimensional perspective, as the wheel rose, the horizontal space between it and the pivot would lessen therefore, again it can be correctly assessed as moving inward. But here again, the discussion isn’t about that. It’s about the wheel attempting to ‘slide inward’ over the shaft straight toward the hub. That is the inward force in discussion.
“Is . . . this force . . . greater than the force input by from the hub-motor. . . ?
If the force has been multiplied. . . ?”
The forces are added. If the wheel and its cage were orbiting the pivot with a force of 10 and the wheel in rotation carried a force of 10, the total force would be 20.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 13/10/2009 05:23:34
| | | The thing we want to remember is that we four are involved in a mutual pursuit. We have been intense and emotional and have struggled so hard to establish our thoughts. Sometimes we hurt each others feelings badly and it doesn’t help a damn thing. There are times we shouldn’t challenge each other. We just shouldn’t. We are sensitive. When we do challenge it should be done with courtesy and very much respect. We have a saying. “Everything that goes around comes around.” That means every time we try to kick somebody’s ass, we end up getting our ass kicked. Just give it time.
:-) :--) :---) :------) : ---x---) So I’ve got nose problems. What else is new. Somebody broke my nose. They said shut up and I thought they said stand up. I’m not taking any more chances. That’s why I’m being nice to you guys.
You will have your own importance to help produce propulsion.
This is what is most important to me is this.
1.) After time and relentless testing I can state with certainty that a gyro dose not producing a rearward reaction while accelerating its mass from one place to another.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 13/10/2009 10:40:59
| | | Hello Sandy,
Please waste some more time. :-)
You wrote:
"One item was obviously deliberately left aside by you Harry and that was the fact that in a mechanically accelerated system a change in flywheel speed will change the amount of angular momentum and centrifugal force generated within the system."
I had to read again your presented example in your posting frm 10/10/2009.
If the flywheel system is rotated at fixed speed, a certain amount of torque must be induced into the system (hub) to rotate the system at e.g. 500 rpm. Do you agree so far?
If now the rotation speed of the flywheel would be increased, but the system rotation speed would remain fixed at 500 rpm, much more induced torque into the hub would be necessary to keep the speed.
As a result the deflection torque (which is equal to the induced torque) would be increased similarly. On the other hand the centrifugal force in the system will remain unchanged because of the constant fixed speed of 500 rpm. Thus it's no wonder why the flywheel begins to arise, however, centrifugal force has not vanished but it is now much smaller than the deflection torque!
You wrote:
"Another thing, if your torque was sufficiently strong to overcome the centrifugal force surely the load on the system would have to increase, as the flywheel and its support arm ascended, and not decrease as happens in reality."
At first the load on the system must be increased to relaese the deflection movement of the flywheel. But indeed, the more the flywheel arises, the smaller input load is necessarry because of trigonometric issues (sinus/cosinus function). Thus, depending from all parameters, there will be one poinr where the upward movement will stop and at that point, deflection torque and counter torque, caused by centrifugal are equal (balanced).
Sandy, I could present all maths about this issue, but I feel you would not be happy. It's a pitty that I'm not able to present better explanaitions and thus I'm could not convince you.
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 13/10/2009 20:41:33
| | | Hello Harry.
Please do the experiment.
Best regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 14/10/2009 10:45:19
| | | Hello Sandy,
Why shoiuld I do this experiment?
- I already know the achievement of this experiment.
- Propulsion is not possible with a balanced gyro system.
So why should I spend time and money to do this experiment? Only to convince you?
Have a graet day!
Harry
P.S. Whenever you don't find an answer, you ask me to do the experiment. That's boring... ;-)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 14/10/2009 22:18:43
| | | Hello Harry,
You do not have a clue with reference to the outcome of the experiment.
Assumption and more assumption.
I always have an answer Harry, but you have proved that you are just too arrogant to listen, but I am sorry if you think I was boring you I was only attempting to point you in the right direction.
However I am so glad you already have all the answers.
Up until now I was getting a bit concerned, because you have changed direction so many times I did not get bored, just a bit dizzy.
It was you who invoked this “balance thing” and the angle at which balance would occur with the purpose I think of getting at “Saturation”
You flogged this to death for posting after posting.
There ain’t no such animal anyway, as I suggested when you first got a grip of this, months ago..
It is therefore of little consequence that you say it won’t help produce inertial drive.
Good bye Harry
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 15/10/2009 02:00:48
| | | Hi Sandy,
In the town where I was born,
Lived a man who sailed to sea,
And he told us of his life,
In the land of submarines,
So we sailed on to the sun,
Till we found the sea green,
And we lived beneath the waves,
In our yellow submarine,
We all live in yellow submarine,
yellow submarine, yellow submarine,
We all live in yellow submarine,
yellow submarine, yellow submarine.
And our friends are all aboard,
Many more of them live next door,
And the band begins to play.
(Trumpets play)
We all live in yellow submarine,
yellow submarine, yellow submarine,
We all live in yellow submarine,
yellow submarine, yellow submarine.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 15/10/2009 08:37:33
| | | Hello Sandy,
Im very curious if Ravi can find your saturation zone. I'm sure he will be successful because he already found the Kidd-effect! :-)
Good by Sandy
@Glenn:
...
Let it be, let it be
Let it be, let it be
Whisper words of wisdom
Let it be !
:-)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 16/10/2009 18:49:27
| | | Gentlemen,
Each time we discuss these more-or-less similar points, I think we get a bit closer to a meeting of the minds (even if nobody admits to it yet).
Eventually most everybody will perceive a rational reconciliation between the experimental results presented, and the most well-thought-out theories are presented.
This meeting of the minds will occur when errors in interpretation of observed results and mistakes in presenting assumptions (verbiage, equations, drawings, etc) are sorted.
Once again, I am pleasantly surprised with Harry’s clarity in explaining dynamics that I have been unsuccessful at explaining more than once; well done!! (Perhaps translating thoughts from German to English infuses them with higher clarity and simplicity.)
I am especially referring to the following 2 statements:
+++++
“2. The deflection movement of the gyro is caused by a torque and the origin of this torque has ALWAYS its CAUSE in the center of the gyro’s spinning mass!”
And:
“3. If the gyro will be prevented to perform its deflection movement around the center of its spinning mass, the still acting deflection movement will either tries to rotate the complete device, or it tries to rotate around an other defined pivot.”
+++++
In my opinion, the dynamics presented by these quoted statements are TRUE and of valuable significance because they assert that the CAUSE OF ALL GYRO DEFLECTION-MOTIONS ORIGINATE AT THE CENTER OF THE SPINNING FLYWHEEL (as the torque acts on the disk), including the arc of motion across space that is external to the mass!!
Unfortunately many individuals appear to have difficulty visualizing and understanding these concepts.
I must ask a question to Sandy and Ravi:
I am curious what is your take about these 2 statements above (#2 & #3), and whether either of you thinks these ideas can play a role in Ravi and Sandy’s inward motion results (which appears to be interpreted as purely inward by some).
I am very curious about both your opinions on this mater.
Best Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 17/10/2009 00:19:37
| | | Good show, Luis,
I take mild exception to:
“2. The deflection movement of the gyro is caused by a torque and the origin of this torque has ALWAYS its CAUSE in the center of the gyro’s spinning mass!”
Actually the perimeters of the wheel, extending continuously outward in increments of greater influence from the center is more primarily the influence. There, in the perimeters, is the location of the primary resistance. The center is the recipient of forces built in the outer and transferred to the enter. But I know you know that and I can see the distinction makes little difference.
You say, “. . . Ravi and Sandy’s inward motion results (which appears to be interpreted as purely inward by some).
Actually, the discussion between all, now you too, is interpreted as purely inward.
Keep it up, Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 24/10/2009 20:41:20
| | | Ravi and Sandy,
I am not surprised by the experimental results but I am surprised that individuals with experience, or robust theories are unable to respond with opinions to Harry’s 2 simple statements:
+++++
“The deflection movement of the gyro is caused by a torque and the origin of this torque has ALWAYS its CAUSE in the center of the gyro’s spinning mass!”
And:
“If the gyro will be prevented to perform its deflection movement around the center of its spinning mass, the still acting deflection movement will either tries to rotate the complete device, or it tries to rotate around an other defined pivot.”
+++++
What does an absence of response from Ravi and Sandy to these statements mean?
Have Ravi and Sandy never considered the meaning of such statements, or are they just unable to comprehend what Harry means?
I suspect these gentlemen are just busy with other interesting events.
Ravi,
The nice song in your last posting is interesting; is that you I the video?
Best Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 25/10/2009 19:08:29
| | | Luis,
I'm sorry, I was trying to let you develop your ideas to see what more you have to say. But since you demand a reply, my reply is threefold.
1. I see nothing special about the statement " The deflection movement of the gyro ALWAYS has its CAUSE in the center of the gyro’s spinning mass"
Yes, the whole phenomenon is based around a spinning wheel, so that the spinning wheel might play the central role is a given.
Eric Laithwaite showed in his experiments that increasing the moment arm of the wheel increased precession thereby showing that the distance arm between the wheel center and the machine center is an important variable. So this statement is at best a reiteration of that and other findings. There is nothing novel about the finding per se.
Perhaps I'm missing something subjective and thats why it doesn't make sense to me, why you attach so much importance to this statement. Perhaps you had difficulty finding a specific 'origin' point in your analysis of the motion possible and somehow you focussed on the wheel center as a possible candidate after reading someone else's statements. Sometimes, we can have a 'blindspot' for simple things.
And the second statement I find too ambiguous to mean anything - there is no explanation of which of the either/or movements is favored or why, it doesn't state the relative differential rate of change of the various variables involved.
In short, it is a nebulous statement that can have too many interpretations. It maybe the beginning of something, but what I cannot say.
2. As for what views I hold, please see my latest blog entry - I made a special effort to clarify what exactly I am claiming.
3.I dont have much to add beyond what Sandy has already said. In fact the rest of my comments are directed to Sandy.
Sandy,
Well argued!
I couldn't have done it any better.
You were right on the mark several times. for example
When you said:
"As I have said many times all the mass of the flywheel is transferred before the flywheel ..."
Your experimental finding that under specific conditions, the two spinning wheels "were accelerating inwards towards the axis of machine rotation" is absolutely unique and a beacon of experimental light upon the cobwebs of dogma.
You are also correct when you said:"At this point the flywheel and its supporting arm will accelerate upwards and inwards."
Best Regards
Ravi
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/10/2009 20:16:17
| | | Hi Ravi,
Nice to hear from you. Believe me when I say I don’t mean to be rude, but I do want to be blunt in order to simplify a clarification.
I don’t want’a read any more volumes of well worded double talk for a while. Say what you mean please. Say, ‘I don’t believe a wheel, if rotating freely over a greased shaft, which is rotating around a hub, will slide over the shaft into the hub.’ Say it. Just say it, please.
Kind Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 26/10/2009 19:39:34
| | | Hello Luis,
I'm glad to see that you (and also Glenn H.) are on the right track!
Contrary to some other contributors, you are able to realize the truth behind basic gyro behavior. I've already noticed that in your very first response in this thread from 26/09/2009 with your reference note to Glenn Turner's prototype 6, where he explains that the fixed gyros were bending the structure and hinges. This behavior is a proof of my first statement. If some other contributors would be aware of this fact, they would not be misled by their observations.
And thus I'm also not be surprised that it seems that some other contributors do not understand my second statement. This statement describes the gyro deflection movement in an inertial frame, i.e. in the absence of supporting forces caused by gravitation on Earth. There is no ambiguity!
Luis, Keep your chin up and don't listen to arrogant gibberish...
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
padmag - 05/11/2009 23:44:35
| | | in an upwards, what like a good f****** prostumously u r all ______________so why o realy examine repultion' an yes me daughta ring me on 07766748196 me blud;cha na
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 06/11/2009 11:59:57
| | | Luis, I have and I continue to hold you in high regard!
Luis, whats your opinion about being a part of the business world?
Without revealing anything you dont want to, can you say if you're already a part of the business world? Do you wish you go into business for yourself?
I feel that especially as the lead of a technical project, you would rally the team very well behind you with your vision and fortitude.
Finding good people to lead technology projects is especially challenging since he/she has to be both skilled enough on the technical front to solve real technical problems that might arise and still be fully business oriented on the non-technical work.
I;ve seen it before. A technical team will never rally behind an un-understanding 'business' guy. But too many technical leads operate in a vacuum where the business itself is simply a setting and the technological problem becomes their sole focus.
Todays business model is based on the idea that we give the job to the one specializing in the major aspect of the job - so sales jobs are given to 'salesmen' who never see the inside of the R&D department, for example. I feel this model eventually gives the wrong results everytime even if it performs well in the short term, by virtue of the personality/leadership of a few partners.
In a technical business, its probably much more effective to merge the rights/responsibilities of the technical project work as well as aspects of marketing, finance and sales. This allows for a more well-rounded management cadre which is essential for the balanced growth of the business.
Therefore such a business model would involve recruiting those with
a) technical skills - with a clear plan to develop their business skills
b) non-technical skills - with a clear plan to develop their technical skills
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 14/11/2009 18:06:27
| | | Gentlemen,
The labor to fit all the observed phenomena into classical mechanics has already been done!
The allegedly missing centrifuge has been found, albeit not in the magnitude which was originally expected.
It has been uncovered that the initially erroneous expectations about centrifuge were driven by naive expectations and by seeking trivial solutions to gyro-propulsion.
No matter how we look at the problem-space, we all seem to agree that mechanically accelerated devices seeking to hold the gyros at elevated angles cannot and will NOT yield propulsion or lift. This EXPECTED PROPULSION is indeed the proverbial “dead horse”!
I frankly welcome Ravi’s approach wholeheartedly even when he denounces classical mechanics (against my better judgment) because Ravi is willing to explain his reasons and logic at great length.
The boringness of it all occurs when people are unwilling (or unable) to explain their logic (on both sides of the isle). Unfortunately some are simply not able to explain themselves because they are missing essential information, knowledge, and/or education. Pride then steps in and gets in the way of intelligence…
It is our human failing to hide behind bluster and BS when the discussion gets beyond where we can comprehend with comfort, or are unable to defend logically.
If an experimenter explains his experimental-results CORRECTLY, then it does not make sense to ask others to perform the same experiment again…not if the results have been accurately explained!
The time to ask for repetition of an experiment is when someone else questions the RESULTS…, NOT when they question the experimenter’s INTERPRETATION of the results.
I don’t expect everyone to believe what I have written but some of you know it is correct.
Let’s have a look at a mechanical device that holds the gyros at elevated angles (above zero degrees). This prospect has been discussed at some length in this forum, though not yet exhaustively (see other threads in this forum).
From my perspective, the “balance-point” (as it has been referred to by some) is attainable but will require some unusual parameters (explanation follows).
One way to maintain the alleged “balance-point” is to maintain gyro spin at extraordinarily slow rates of spin (this is the most interesting parameter).
Other methods include adding dead-weight mass (non-spinning mass) near to the spinning gyros
And finally, extending the length of the gyro-axels beyond certain lengths can support a “balance-point”.
Combinations of these three parameters will also work.
Though these “balance points” or zones CANNOT produce propulsion or lift, they do exist under the special conditions mentioned above.
Interestingly, these “balance zones” occur at the same angle of elevation or location, as where Sandy’s “SATURATION zone” STARTS (even if Sandy does not yet understand this). However, once the balance is lost by increasing the spin rate of the gyros, there is no going-back, even if the hub-rotation is increased dramatically (as Sandy has explained).
Harry's explanation in this regard is excellent. Some of the basic math and concepts on these phenomena has been developed in other threads of this forum. Even though there is much personal disagreement in those threads, while the nature of the relevant math and components are discussed, intelligent minds should be able to cut through the BS and benefit from the facts presented.
In short, yes there is a rational relationship between Harry's "balance-point" and the start of Sandy's "saturation zone", which sandy observed in his experiments!
While the "balance-point" is derived through understanding and application of classical mechanics, the "saturation zone" seeks to interpret experimental results by heralding revolutionary (yet unknown) concepts in physics (this is one reason for the disagreement).
Another main point that creates disagreement is the rate of spin at which the "saturation zone" occurs “Ceteris paribus” (all else being equal); in this case of spin-rates Sandy's results are more realistic, as they are derived from experimental results.
Harry's "balance-point" is projected to occur even at spin-rates where the "saturation-zone" has long taken over. This is where the true rational disagreement rests (though the real argument hidden among human bolster).
I suspect that as Harry hones his calculations and theory, and takes into account all properly weighted variables, then his "balance-point" will start to appear more in-line with Sandy’s experimental results.
I hope my candor has not ruffled too many feathers; however, I am not expecting positive responses or compliments. However, what I have stated here is the truth and as near to the facts as I am able to determine at this point.
Hello Ravi,
I am sorry if you felt you had to rush your response.
The complete meaning of the single-point I tried to make, is only explained by both of Harry's statements 1 & 2 as he stated them, and as we quoted them (but both statements are needed together to make sense of what I mean).
++Quote+++
“2. The deflection movement of the gyro is caused by a torque and the origin of this torque has ALWAYS its CAUSE in the center of the gyro’s spinning mass!”
And:
“3. If the gyro will be prevented to perform its deflection movement around the center of its spinning mass, the still acting deflection movement will either tries to rotate the complete device, or it tries to rotate around an other defined pivot.”
++End of Quote+++
It is unfortunate that we are all destined to miss something at one time or another, and yes blind spots are rife!
It is certain that we are all missing parts of the puzzle, even though most of us think we have the whole thing figured out... oh well...
I read your last blog and thank you for your effort to present your views and claims (it is not easy to accomplish that goal clearly in this subject).
I see that you and Sandy appear to agree in principle about the mass of the flywheel being transferred. However, I don't think that Sandy sees his version of the "mass-transfer" as resulting from a post-relativistic SLIDE in TIME, as you do.
I do greatly appreciate that you are willing to explore and explain your points of view, as clearly as is humanly possible; unfortunately Sandy is still hanging-on to the mystery of secrets, and so both of you can't truly claim to be in full agreement.
Many experimenters in this forum (and elsewhere) have known for a long time (from experience and from understanding classical physics) that an upward and inward force of (deflection) is what occurs when a correctly configured hub-type device is operated (the direction of deflection etc is determined by and predictable by classical physics; nothing new here).
This upward-inward motion manifests itself as "purely inward" when the upward aspect of it is restricted by a strong structure (i.e. when NO UPWARD DEGREE of FREDOM is allowed by the configuration).
Still, there does indeed exist slightly more complex phenomena that contribute to the inward-force effect, but this phenomena is also explained and predicted by classical mechanics (I will address it on my theory thread, where I requested no interruptions).
Your explanations in terms of relativity and quantum-mechanics appear even more advanced and maybe more accurate, but I think we will all reserve judgment until your experiments produce effects that are not predictable by classical mechanics and have not been shown previously.
I will attempt to present my theory as to what may cause the inward force, from a classical mechanics perspective in another thread.
Best Regards,
Luis G.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 14/11/2009 18:08:30
| | | Ravi,
Thank you for your confidence in my abilities; I also have confidence that you will overcome the numerous obstacles before the quest (please don’t miss my immediately previous posting in this thread).
A viable business requires a viable product (or service) that yields profits.
Planning for future businesses is well and good but investing in speculative research requires deep pockets. Up to now I have only been willing to spend on discrete experiments that prove or disprove specific aspects of the theoretical speculations.
Spending beyond what is needed to prove each separate concept can prove costly, especially if we try to build the complete solution, as I expect it will require significant investment.
In short, I don’t think the time to invest on the complete solution has arrived yet; there are still a good number of reasonably priced experiments to conduct for proofs of concepts.
I am willing to listen to your business plans including R&D, product development, marketing & sales strategy, etc, as well as financing of all the necessary steps.
Best Regards,
Luis G.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 19/11/2009 23:25:21
| | | Luis,
You prompted this reply but it is aimed at all interested parties.
I have repeatedly explained my findings which because they do not suit you are a product of my misinterpretation.
Firstly I am at least as bright as you think you are.
I have fully explained everything that happens to a flywheel in “any” mechanically accelerated system from zero to saturation.
Instead of thinking about it and talking it to death for instance on this forum I got my finger out and did some (a hell of a lot) of experimenting.
This is maybe the reason I did not get myself involved in your kind of useless debate, which apart from being unhelpful I find totally pointless.
However there is no balance point.
That was purely a figment of Harry’s imagination which because he is using the lack of experimenting as an excuse for believing anything (or nothing) will really just have to take my word for it.
If you choose to ignore my statements that is just too bad, and if you want to go round and round the problem getting nowhere the choice is yours.
How long have you been posting now Luis?
This is like looking for a needle in a haystack but who suggested there was ever a needle in there to start with?
I have been totally frank and open in my statements from day one, so what you think I am hiding I would really like to know.
What you must remember Luis is that I have had to deal with hundreds of locked minds like yours in the 25 plus years I have been dabbling with this.
The only item I have left untouched as yet is the final act of angular momentum transference from an initially balanced system.(not to be confused with balance point.)
However as you believe everything else I have said was misinterpretation there would not be much point in telling any of you how that works would there?
I have divulged everything required to set up a device which will produce inertial thrust relatively easily with a little bit of out of the box thinking.
Trouble is you are so damned biased or maybe just not as bright as you think you are.
I am 73 in a week’s time, but I think I will just hang on to the information for a little bit yet, before I release everything publicly.
Even then I expect that to get the same treatment.
I am amused though that you people are actually on the same quest, and I have absolutely no chance with you lot, so you can surely understand what chance I had in the real world.
Recently I was asked what happened to my original machines and what they could display.
I answered “They were ignored to death”
So be it.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 20/11/2009 16:09:34
| | | “While time, the endless idiot,
runs screaming round the world.”
Carson McCullers
Hi Sandy,
Seventy-three and you still have your chin up, and still talking back! Great! I pray you have a long ways to go before the idiot catches up to you.
I never ignored your findings. It is exceedingly obviously you are extra bright and sometimes when we are not pissing you off, you can be very charming. Your prose, your mind, your personality, you know, it is all there on paper, or rather on screen. I personally like you very much.
Now to your work in this field: I have recently re-posted some of a new kid’s reasoning ‘Maddy Wrote’ and then added my two cents. In that posting I do not think there can be any more certain, absolute and unchallengeable proof put down than that the idea of opposite reaction, however otherwise perfect in so many ways, dose not apply precisely apply to conditions inside the universe, the large, and to the workings inside an atom, the small. That is everything there is.
The three laws of motion are only different ways of reasoning the same thing. You could say there is only one law looked at three different ways. While these laws are perfectly accepted, they are also now perfectly now refuted. The conditions are relative to how we think, not how things are.
You are the first man I know of in modern history to flatly state and ardently maintain that the laws do not apply to gyroscopic behavior. Of course they do not. If anyone would argue otherwise let him tackle Mandy’s examples and post his argument.
There are other things you have done that I believe in. Though I may not be a complete convert in all things reasoned, at least not yet, I am converted to so much you‘ve said. To some you may be, and to others you may become heroic in this field. You are already my pal, so how much better could it get for you than that?
While everyone else is flying a kite you are flying a plane.
With Highest Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 21/11/2009 13:51:58
| | | Hello Sandy,
Instead of constant recapitulation that you have done a lot of experiments, but we (Luis and I) did not, could you be so kind to answer my both statements with a simple "yes" or "no"?
Quoted statements of my posting to you from 11/10/2009 22:51:55 :
“2. The deflection movement of the gyro is caused by a torque and the origin of this torque has ALWAYS its CAUSE in the center of the gyro’s spinning mass!”
And:
“3. If the gyro will be prevented to perform its deflection movement around the center of its spinning mass, the still acting deflection movement will either tries to rotate the complete device, or it tries to rotate around an other defined pivot.”
+++++
Whenever I asked you to comment some of my statements, you advised me that I should better do experiments instead of providing an answer. Thus I must assume that you have no answer to my statements. With honestly, doing a lot of experiments is not the equivalent of being always correct. It's more important to UNDERSTAND the outcome of such experiments instead of doing a LOT of experiments (quality but not quantity!).
Instead of being always offended if someone does not believe in your saturation zone, your helpfulness and experiences in finding the truth in gyro behavior would be very appreciated by contibutors and readers in this forum!
Luis does and did a great job in this matter by continuous extending his knowledge and sharing his results in this forum. Thanks Luis and go ahead!
Best regards,
Harry
P.S. Sandy, in advance I wish you much luck and well-being for the next year of your life! - My father is also 73 years old. :-)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 21/11/2009 16:28:26
| | | At this point, I would like to make my views on Harry's twin commandments known to all forum readers -
1. I find nothing useful or novel about the assertion that the symmetric center of the spinning wheel would be the likely candidate to be the source of effects in the system.
This is the most obvious choice since the spinning wheel is the primary reason for the entire effect to be possible.
2. So what exactly does the word 'cause' in the phrase "...its CAUSE in the center of the gyro's spinning mass!"" even stand for !?!! Does that mean it is at the center of some rotation? If so, why ascribe 'causation' to it? Because causation implies Newtonian cause-effect relation. Which then leads to question of how a simple spinning wheel is the cause of anything!!
Only another secondary rotation will then CAUSE some effects to manifest.
So the CAUSE is the simultaneous combination of parameters and NOT simply 'the center of the spinning wheel'
In this way, I find Harry's first statement to be riddled with ambiguities - it means what you want it to mean.
Lets move to the second commandment:
"If the gyro will be prevented to perform its deflection movement around the center of its spinning mass, the still acting deflection movement will either tries to rotate the complete device, or it tries to rotate around an other defined pivot"
This is basically stating in words what we see in http://www.gyros.biz/lecture/wmv/4.wmv
@ Time Index 4:50 seconds.
objection: I find nothing useful or novel about the assertion that the gyro when prevented from performing its precessive motion will take whatever path it has to to keep moving. Its what consitutes one of the two chief aspects of gyroscopic motion, the other aspect being that the motion happens in a plane orthogonal to the applied force.
Restating it in words and presenting them separately again is a redundancy and advances nothing.
When the two statements are considered together, we may infer no more than what classical physicists already have from studying the various aspects of gyroscopic behavior.
These statements challenge nothing and state nothing unobvious and revelatory.
In fact they only take away from a discussion of whether or not Sandy Kidd's experiments/observations and my experiments which confirm his observations have relevance to the solution of the flight problem, which is what this thread was supposed to be about anyhow.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 21/11/2009 19:15:50
| | | Ravi,
With all respect to you and to the fascinating theory and journeying that you are taking us on, I must clarify that the video at http://www.gyros.biz/lecture/wmv/4.wmv does not anywhere illustrate the intended meaning of the Harry’s statement:
***
"If the gyro will be prevented to perform its deflection movement around the center of its spinning mass, the still acting deflection movement will either tries to rotate the complete device, or it tries to rotate around an other defined pivot"
***
Perhaps if you think about where is the “other defined pivot” portion of the statement you will see the intended meaning of the sentence. The video you refer to has only ONE pivot point, which is through the center of mass; so you can see it does not apply to the statement (or did I miss something in the video?).
We are all learning and anyone who claims to know all of it is prevaricating. So, don’t feel bad as this quest is not suited for explanations with words, and we can only try to see the depth of the arguments presented by others.
Please accept my best regards Ravi and Harry.
Sandy,
I just read your posted response, and I will respond soon.
Thank you all,
Luis G.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 21/11/2009 21:14:06
| | | Luis,
1. I see that you have not answered either my objections 1 or 2 for the first of harry's commandments. They both still stand.
2. Just the fact that Harry's second statement CAN be interpreted the way I interpreted it is proof of the ambiguity laden in it.
3. The video I provided ABSOLUTELY provides exactly one such situation that ought to be covered by Harry's trivial commandment #2 statement.
The gyro is prevented from doing its precession thing. Then at time index 5:18, Laithwaite obstructs the gyro.
So lets see how harry explains whats happening in that video -
a) If Harry can explain that situation with the help of statement, then lets see where he locates the 'second' pivot point. thats for him to explain, not me, since this idea is his. Where is this other pivot?
b) If he can't explain the situation with the help of this statement, the statement becomes not only trivial but also erroneous.
Luis, if you're implying that his statement# 2 doesn't apply to the situation in the Laithwaite video, then you must admit Harry's statement is not properly qualified to state under what circumstances it is valid - ie it is not at all universal.
If on the other hand you admit that pivot #2 happens to coincide with pivot# 1, then Harry's statement is still incomplete in that its not that the gyro picks another pivot point but rather than it picks another plane.
which is it going to be Luis?
Ravi
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
pat - 22/11/2009 05:54:30
| | | my drawings still here. ring 07766748196
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 23/11/2009 00:23:45
| | | Hello Ravi,
Thank you for your enlightening response. I will answer your questions in detail later. But one thing in advance:
I never have claimed that there is something "novel" in both of my statements. Both statements are facts of classical mechanical / physical / logical way of thinking. I've stated this facts already more than 2 years ago when I have started my very first postings here in this forum. But later more about this issue.
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 23/11/2009 09:04:44
| | | Perhaps you can start a new thread to develop your theory? I think its fair to let this thread remain limited to discussing the experiments.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 23/11/2009 12:19:05
| | | Luis,
You say the following:
"Many experimenters in this forum (and elsewhere) have known for a long time (from experience and from understanding classical physics) that an upward and inward force of (deflection) is what occurs when a correctly configured hub-type device is operated (the direction of deflection etc is determined by and predictable by classical physics; nothing new here)."
Can I trouble you for a link to one such assertion on this forum. I'm not questioning it. I'm not saying its not there. I'm just saying I can't find one. You've been on this forum a lot longer and so perhaps you can recollect a specific thread....?
Thank you
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 23/11/2009 18:28:34
| | | Hello Ravi,
There is no necessity for me to start a new thread, because
1. I do not want to “develop” any theory in this context, but I only intend to explain basic physical gyro behavior in conjunction with stated observations here in this thread, and
2. because you asked some questions HERE and thus I will answer HERE as well.
Again back to my both statements:
“2. The deflection movement of the gyro is caused by a torque and the origin of this torque has ALWAYS its CAUSE in the center of the gyro’s spinning mass!”
“Cause” in this context stands for the place of origin of all reactions of a spinning wheel and this place of origin is located always in the center of spinning mass.
I.e. not the Newtonian notion “cause” is meant in this context, but the place of origin of gyro reactions. It seems you are aware of this fact, but then I wonder about your conclusions relating to the observed gyro behavior in your experimental setup?
If a spinning gyro, which is tilted by a torque rectangular to its spinning plane, will be prevented to establish its deflection movement around the center of its spinning mass, because this degree of freedom is not given by design, this circumstance will nothing change at the location of the place of origin (= center of spinning mass) of its reaction to the applied tilting torque, i.e. the gyroscope still tries to perform its precession movement around this place of origin. If the gyroscope will be prevented to do so, the gyro takes the line of the least resistance to perform its deflection movement (precession).
This “line of least resistance” can be a defined pivot beyond the center of its spinning mass, or a suspension with less or absence of friction, e.g. suspension of the support of a gyro on ice or an air bearing, etc. However, with the absence of gravitation a gyroscope would in either case starts its deflection movement (precession) around the center of spinning mass.
Nothing else is meant with my second statement:
“3. If the gyro will be prevented to perform its deflection movement around the center of its spinning mass, the still acting deflection movement will either tries to rotate the complete device, or it tries to rotate around an other defined pivot.”
Your linked video clear shows these facts, I have no idea what you expect what I should say more about the content of this video? Or did I miss something?
Now to the context of these statements with your made observations of a “mystery” inward aligned force, caused by your experimental setup.
Unfortunately you did not answer any question about technical details till now and thus I only can speculate in this regard.
The experimental setup consists of a hub with 2 opposed mounted gyroscopes.
The flywheels of both opposed and vertical arranged gyroscopes are each mounted on an axis. Each axis declines with an angle of about 5-10 degree to the center of the hub. It’s not clear to me, how or if the flywheels are mounted on the axis. Questions in this regard have not been answered. I assume, that the flywheel is mounted radial by a key and in axial direction only by friction between shaft and bore. Unfortunately I cannot recognize any details on the provided video or pictures.
Both gyros on the hub will be spun up and are accelerated in horizontal plane by an induced oscillating torque into the hub. Unfortunately my question about the direction of rotation of the flywheels has not been answered yet and thus I assume that both flywheels have the same direction of rotation (CW or CCW).
The induced torque into the hub forces each flywheel to try by turns its rectangular deflection movement (precession) in vertical plane around the center of each spinning mass. But this deflection movement is not possible in Ravi’s experimental setup design and thus each gyroscope tries to rotate the complete structure around each center of its spinning mass, i.e. the rectangular deflected torque will be induced in addition into the structure of the experimental setup. If there are any weak points in the design of the experimental setup, then something can happen exactly there. For instance the axis of the gyroscope could be bended, or, if the axial fixation of flywheel on the shaft is inadequate fixed, the flywheel could move on the shaft.
Because the gyro axes in Ravi’s design are declined to the center of hub (inwards), the preferred path of axial movement of the flywheels would be also in inward direction to the center of hub.
Thus it’s obvious, that exactly this fact has happened with Ravi’s experimental setup.
Sandy’s design is different to Ravi’s design. Sandy’s design also consists of 2 opposite on a hub mounted gyroscopes. But these gyroscopes are mounted with an offset angle of about 50 degree to horizontal plane and both gyroscopes can move upwards in vertical plane around the center of hub. This is not the case in Ravi’s design. Sandy describes his observation as “Saturation Zone”, where both gyros move “inwards and upwards”. “Inwards and upwards” can only stand for the vertical pivot movement of the gyroscopes around the center of the hub. Also in this experimental setup both gyroscopes are trying to deflect around its center of spinning mass. Because they also cannot perform this movement in this setup, both gyros take the line of least resistance, and in this case the least resistance is located in the point of vertical degree of freedom in the center of hub.
Considering all these facts, which are not new and based on classical physics, I cannot find any useful or novel about the assertion of an inward directed axial force.
Now I will leave this thread as you asked me for. I wish you much success with your ideas, although I have serious doubts about it…Anyway, I will by a lifter if you should have success… ;-)
Tschuess!
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 23/11/2009 19:04:45
| | | Dear Forum Reader,
Please follow my experiments and their results directly on my website http://relmachine.blogspot.com
I will continue to post as my experiments progress. I have reached about 50% of the speed I intend to push the current prototype.
I am convinced that I am on the right track. I have already discovered information that cannot be talked away. The Kidd Effect is real. I will also be publishing more experiments soon that I am currently conducting. They are also showing signs that I am on the right track and that what I need to do now is amplify the signal, which I will endeavor to do in the coming weeks.
Yet, because this is the beginning and the whole effect has not been demonstrated yet by anybody in a useful and convincing manner, any attempt to document this effect publicly can attract the attention of detractors still wed to the ideas of yesterday which haven't been re-framed around new paradigms becomes evident to scientists as our knowledge of physical phenomena expands.
In addition there are those who detract the new idea because they are either on their own quest. Yet others oppose any new idea not because they have a quest or a theory and dont care about any quest. They simply consider themselves self-styled or degreed experts -certifiers of what can and cannot be possible in this Universe - and they've decided that they will guard the honor and integrity of science and sling mud if necessary to do it. Misplaced sense of honor and duty, are the words that describe it.
The Experiment is the only answer that I can ultimately make to such individuals. Hence, I am choosing from today onward to not engage detractors of my theories because I see that they are merely invitations to ego-centered interactions.
I however retain the right to respond to any geniune questions that might be posed from time to time.
The pace of the project is going to pick up soon as I have atleast two friends who have expressed an interest in contributing to it at their own pace.
They dont believe everything I tell them, but they are experts in their chosen fields - very much at the heart of engineering.They have given this some thought and decided that it is a really good idea and one worth testing because its not an idea that can be dismissed by the excercise of mere logic. Metal must meet metal for this idea to be proven false. The theory is robust and can be broken (or proven) more easily through experiment than by logic interpolation.
Read my blog. Learn more about this idea - You can also contribute to it because it opens up a vast new area of study that involves the union of Electro-Magnetism and Gravity. And the gyroscope is the key to all that.
Many new kinds of machines will become possible that weren't possible before, machines that can perform intricate tasks with a great degree of geometric complexity.
Gyro driven drives will be capable of a lot of control of the accelerations (forces) they impose, thereby making then much more precise than regular mechanical devices which are merely reacters to force, not originators of it.
So, in addition to flying machines, gyro-drives will make many new kinds of technologies possible. Dont let the detractors discourage you. Sometimes, it takes detractors to attract attention to the important issues.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 26/11/2009 19:14:24
| | | Sandy,
I wish you a healthy 73 birthday, and many more years ahead.
The brightness of great mechanical inventors is marked by an ability to reconcile their ingenious innovations into proven scientific knowledge (thereby clearly explaining a new concept or a paradigm-shift).
I greatly appreciate the explanations about your experiments, but your scientific interpretations (e.g. mass-transfer & saturation-zone) leave a lot to be desired.
Sorry about the problem with your finger. Getting it out was probably helpful, however I don’t think it was as good an idea to just build devices (do experiments) without also doing some “thinking” and perhaps also “talking”, especially about interpreting experimental results (but that’s just me).
Also, if “debate” is “UNHELPFUL” as you say, then is the absence of debate a better route to clarity? (This could be an innovative approach toward higher human achievement.)
I’ll grant you that sharing ideas is (as you say) “totally pointless” to anyone who cannot figure out their meaning or how to make use of them.
If I had ignored what you say Sandy, I could not have formed the opinions I express about your statements.
Again, the experimental RESULTS you reported are excellent and are NOT at all in question, only your INTERPRETATIONS are in question (if you expect others to accept them).
No one can possibly know whether you are hiding something or just not able to express your ideas well enough for other intelligent people to understand how your device works, or not. The fact remains that even after building devices, which you claim produced propulsion, everyone has failed to see the success you have claimed. Perhaps everyone else’s limited intellects are at fault, as they all fail to comprehend the product of a mind as bright as yours.
It must be extremely frustrating to experience so much difficulty expressing yourself clearly enough to be understood in your own native tongue. It must be even more frustrating to find others attempting to express thoughts more clearly (in a tongue that’s foreign to them) about the subject that you have spent so much time in.
Also, I am dreadfully sorry that postings in this forum are “like looking for a needle in a haystack” …this must all be so very confusing for you (its not unusual). Especially since you have already successfully invented the device we seek and you are just waiting for the rest of the world to comprehend the results, which to you are so simple, trivial and easy to understand.
Regarding your statement about “the final act of angular momentum transference” and how it works, I say “SAVE IT”. I agree that nobody can possibly benefit from your explanation of this “final act”, as you call it (you did say an ACT).
There is nothing to RELEASE publicly. Classical physics easily explains all known gyro phenomena, even though these phenomena have been misinterpreted by choice or through ignorance.
True success cannot be ignored to death. Therefore your gyro propulsion success either did not occur or was poorly explained, so no one paid attention. My humble opinion is that the “success” (if any) was so limited that it failed to prove the concept. There have been other such limited-success attempts that have also failed. Yours was one of the early ones that paved the way and we thank you for having brought wider attention to the quest.
If it’s any consolation, there have also been numerous near-success failures in the path toward most great inventions (too numerous to remember). It’s a good thing that we have chosen to only “dabble” in this quest and not waste excessive effort. Still, the pursuit of a worthwhile quest provides the satisfaction of exchanging and discussing ideas, as well as discovering potential flaws in thinking (which occur so often). Correcting flawed ideas is important, as thy can create great setbacks by contributing to the persistence of erroneous basic beliefs.
Harry’s “balance point” is simply a way to state a set of dynamics, which describes the onset of your “saturation zone” (perhaps better choice in wording could have saved much difficulty on both cases).
Some of the common terms you have chosen to describe aspects and events in your experiments (such as “balance”) remain part of English lexicon and thus can be used by anyone to describe other suitable effects, such as “balances” that arise at different junctures as the dynamics develop in operating a device (i.e. your usage does not exclude these terms from being used in describing other events…sorry).
Let’s face it; we may never know just how bright (or not) each other really is.
Only we and those around us know our capabilities and how much we are valued (the truly bright manage to yield proportionate successes, as the results of what they do…). Still, I want to thank you, along with a big thanks to the late Professor Laithewaite, for the experiments presented to all of us gyro enthusiasts. These experiments along with the many experiments that we have performed on our own will help pave the way for the next set of discoveries and exotic applications for spin-objects.
In conclusion Sandy, so far all claims to successful gyro-propulsion clearly lack in honesty or are product of wishful thinking, as we don’t see their proof anywhere; they are not in use, and no industry is openly seeking investment on it (at this point there is no proof or evidence of “successful” gyro-propulsion devices).
We can all see many wonders of modern science; gyro-propulsion is not yet one of them.
Finally, I really prefer to stick to sharing and discussing ideas relevant to accomplishing the quest. I also think that personal shots (despite not knowing each other) are a waste of valuable time.
My family (as most families) includes members in their 70s, 80s, and 90s (we recently lost one in the 100s). Some of these folks are nicer than others, but we don’t let the nasty ones get away with theirs (it would be a disservice to them, and you are no different) especially when they slide insulting remarks and then hide behind advanced age.
Only the future will prove who in fact will deliver the propulsion that we both seek.
“Mirror, mirror in the wall, who’s the brightest of them all…?” History will decide.
With my Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ontoyou - 26/11/2009 23:13:25
| | | You are a nincompoop!
“It’s a good thing that we have chosen to only “dabble” in this quest and not waste excessive effort.”
Excessive effort! Who are you trying to fool? This coming from a closed mind robot who has drivelled so much mind numbing mental acrobatics on this forum? You must have stocks and shares in the current physics dogma on gyros and what is known about them, Are YOU any closer? Are you? Over the years you have acted like a leech for information from others, when you have offered nothing but rhetoric on what is already known, but lets be honest here, YOU are so brilliant at that.
Ontoyou
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 27/11/2009 13:55:17
| | | Luis, I would like acknowledge that I am in your debt. Your fine analysis and questioning of my theory led me to form responses that now seem like the best expressions of my theory so far.
Even though I have been developing my theory over several years, your questions mark the first time that I received scientific feedback and that triggered a great exchange and furthered thought on this important not only in you and me, but in onlookers too.
This is definitely in the best spirit of scientific inquiry.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 28/11/2009 06:16:14
| | | Hi Ontoyou,
I am very glad you showed up. Yes, Luis has been like that forever. Keep posting whenever you like. I'll be with you.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 28/11/2009 10:16:36
| | | Glenn, what is the meaning of this?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 28/11/2009 13:20:07
| | | Sometimes it is best not to ask, “What is the meaning of this?” You invite yourself to be part of the joke. We have a saying, “It is best to let sleeping dogs lie.”
You wrote:
“Luis, . . . your fine analysis. . .”
What in hell are you talking about, Ravi? Don’t encourage him. Listen to Ontoyou.
“. . . my theory so far.”
Ravi, is that the theory, Harry thought was supposed to a comedy of dunces and had such a fit laughing his wife had to fan him and given him a glass of water? The theory to which my wife had to revive me in the same manner? That theory? The theory of yoyo gyro time travel?
“Even though I have been developing my theory over several years, your questions mark the first time that I received scientific feedback and that triggered a great exchange and furthered thought on this important not only in you and me, but in onlookers too.”
“. . . definitely in the best spirit of scientific inquiry.”
You mean Luis? You’re talking about Luis? You’re referring to Luis? Luis’s scientific inquiry?
You are championing ideas for on-lookers, you say? You mean; me, Harry, Ontoyou, Sandy and Patrick. Did I miss some on-lookers? Did you mean admirer, singular? You mean Luis?
Ravi, Luis idiotically attacked Mr. Kidd, the only one who’s work should raise him above attacked here, and he is seventy three years old and is your proclaimed hero.
Therefore I ask you, what do you mean by, “What is the meaning of this?”
This is what you get for obscuring the truth of, Ontoyou in order to protect a nincompoop, because he gives you complements.
Actually Ravi, I wish you hadn’t challenged me. Why would I otherwise poke fun at you?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 28/11/2009 20:39:33
| | | mm hmm ...
And is that the entirety of your technical argumentation or is there some more? (I hope...!??)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ontoyou - 28/11/2009 22:34:12
| | | To the nincompoop,
The nincompoop spouted:
“so far all claims to successful gyro-propulsion clearly lack in honesty or are product of wishful thinking, as we don't see their proof anywhere;”
I have read Sandy's book, a local library has a copy, and there is clear evidence and PROOF shown in the report results at the end of the book about a genuine force exhibited, now to me this is proof and your comment “lack in honesty” is just plain stupid, misleading and totally dishonest, you just decided to ignore this proven fact or felt it wasn’t relevant to your proper and forthright quest into gyro propulsion research.
The nincompoop spouted:
“Still, the pursuit of a worthwhile quest provides the satisfaction of exchanging and discussing ideas, as well as discovering potential flaws in thinking (which occur so often). Correcting flawed ideas is important, as thy can create great setbacks by contributing to the persistence of erroneous basic beliefs.”
This is similar to your blind faith and belief in the current physics dogma on gyros you like to defend religiously.
The elephant in the room is growing bigger everyday whether you like it or not.
Ontoyou
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 29/11/2009 11:52:29
| | | Gentlemen.
Unfortunately the quality level of contributions drecreases. Is that really necessary?
Ontoyou, why don't you write under your real nickname? - There are possibilities to find out the individual IP-number of your computer and double-check it, if it is the same one of "Ontoyou". You should know that there is no anonymity in the internet!
Glenn, Ontoyou (?), you do Luis wrong. He is collecting knowledge, is willing to learn everything about gyro behavior and expresses this wisdom in conjunction with his own ideas in form of contributions or complete threads here in this forum.
What is bad with this approach?
Ravi,
One question, however I know you will not answer as usual:
- How does the "KIDD-effect" belongs to your theory? I have read your blog but did not find any aswer. Or did I miss something?
And one comment regarding the cause and effect explanations, which you have stated in your blog:
"On Assigning Cause and Effect in Inductively Suspended Objects"
Quote:
"Lets say you have a spinning toy gyro. You've just spun it up. You are positioning one end of the axis on top of the 'Eiffel Tower'. How do you set off the gyroscope without causing nutation? The way to set a gyro precessing without causing any nutation is to give it a gentle nudge even as we let it go and the nudge but be equal in magnitude and direction to the precessive velocity that will be introduced. Then there will be no nutation.
...snip
By giving the gyro a velocity in the exact direction and magnitude as the precession would, we are ensuring that temporally, there is in existence exactly as much momentum and angular velocity -both amplitude and direction - identical to what would exist if there was precession - i.e. precession already exists before there is torque effect - or at least a
simultaneous start)
... snip
The precessional velocity comes FIRST and THEN the torque appears OR they are simultaneous. Its also how the precession formula works too - with the counterintuitive cross product.
Thus the real test that helps assign cause and effect in a way that conforms to Newton’s Laws is what comes first and what comes second. And in this we find that the precession comes first and then the torque OR they come together. But never torque first and precession second. "
End of quote.
This part of your blog stands for the fundament of your theory and shows your lack of understanding what really happens there.
1. There is only 1 movement if a gyro precesses. An applied tilting torque causes an additional, rectangular acting angular momentum vector at each mass point of the spinning mass. Thus, the angular momentum vector of each mass point will be increased and because of the rectangualr alignment of both acting vectors at each mass point, the direction of the resultant angular momentum vector will change.
This always happens on each mass point with its diametric located, in counter direction moving counterpart at the SAME TIME. Thus, this only one movement appears to be 2 individual movements (spinning and precession movement), however, it is only ! movement!
2. In deed, you are right that nutaion could be avoided if you would help to start precession movement by appliying a nudge be equal in magnitude and direction to the precession velocity. But your drawn conclusion that precession movements happens BEFORE the tilting torque appears, is erroneous. The real reason is based on simple physics:
The inertial mass of the gyro must be accelerated in the plane pf precession movement from zero to precession velocity. This circumstance causes additional energy and thus the gyro axis will descend in the direction of the applied tilting torque until the inertial mass has accelerated to precession velocity. This fact is the real reason for this time delay of cause and effect and for your erroneous drawn conclusions.
I have already explained this issue here in this forum one or two years ago. I can search for the thread if you do not believe.
By the way, this energy will be received back if the tilting torque will be removed. The stored energy in the mass inertia in precession plane will be ascended to its inital position, however assumed, that there is no friction involved in the gyro system.
So you see, Ravi, that the fundament of your theory has been lost and thus your theory is faulty at all! I'm sure, you are very bright in electrical issues, but unfortunately not so much in mechanical issues.
Anyway, have a nice Sunday,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 29/11/2009 13:18:54
| | | Dear Forum Reader,
Please visit my blog, read my theory and make up your own mind! :)
Thanks
Ravi
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry - 29/11/2009 14:26:17
| | | Dear Forum Reader,
Reading Ravi's blog would be a waste of time. :-)
You're welcome!
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 29/11/2009 15:32:43
| | | Gentlemen,
Reading deep ideas is never a waste of time.
Thank you for your sharp perceptions and perhaps we should all try to start with a clean slate that addresses only the physics (minus the offenses).
(I should talk… being so sensitive to insult and so prone to respond twice as hard.)
My apologies to all I have offended.
We still reserve the right not to respond (when there is nothing good to say its best to say nothing); I whish I could live up to this wholesome standard.
Best Regards,
Luis G.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 29/11/2009 15:34:17
| | | Ravi,
How did we get into “commandments” (it’s not religion).
Am not sure how Harry meant his statements. I quoted them because I see the statements as alternative wording to something which I have thus far failed to explain clearly on previous postings of this forum (did not have the time to find the thread and posting – It’s not easy to search for specifics in this forum - sorry).
Is there ambiguity in Harry’s statements that I quoted? There is plenty of ambiguity to go around from all of us, and most statements posted in this forum are subject to some degree of interpretation (often based on ideas developed in previous postings).
It can be virtually impossible to place exact context because we refer to different configurations (such as gyroscopes in gimbals, gravity driven gyroscopes, mechanically driven spin-hubs, etc) to illustrate and to explain the ideas we try to convey. Add to this limitations of language, and it becomes almost impossible to convey the exact thoughts that we intended in our minds (some more than others).
I suspect the two quoted phrases in question were written for expediency-over-accuracy, and in that sense they are not fully qualified, as that would have required a much larger posting to include all assumptions etc.
My interpretation of these phrases included some presumed basic understandings, and my mental image that reflected the statements. It’s possible (not likely) that my mental images were wrong and I don’t expect we will clear this up by piling more words on top of the previous ones).
Any intelligent man can have field-day with the two statements in question and how the word “CAUSE” is used (perhaps “FOCUS” may have been a better choice of word).
Explanations about ongoing systems of angular/cyclical motions (about things that are in fact “going-in-circles”), and backtracking causes to the origin can become mucky (though not impossible when the exact lengthy context is presented).
It’s unfortunate that when we feel offended (or backed into a corner), words become used as footballs in a game of trying to win the argument over finding the exact or applicable truth (I confess my guilt in this area).
Despite what all contributors may have said in this thread; note that the video you introduced for discussion has all of its pivot directions through the center of mass. I do NOT see an alternate pivot point; i.e. there isn’t a pivot that does not go through the center of mass in the video!!!
I can’t possibly agree to pin my explanations within the limits that you have circumscribed because we are arguing different points (you are headed in one direction and I in another). Therefore I am going to attempt restating my perception of Harry’s two statements to see if perhaps I can get past this basic point and into how these basic points apply toward the main point of this thread, the “Kidd” effect.
I interpret Harry’s Statement #2 as follows:
Gyro-deflection is caused by a torque. A pivot (or fulcrum point) located at the center of the gyro’s spinning mass is ALWAYS the focal point to transfer the torque into deflection. A prime example is a gyro in gimbals, which can only pivot about the center of the spinning mass. I think we agree on this?
I interpret Harry’s Statement #3 as follows:
When an additional pivot (or fulcrum point) is permitted at a distance AWAY from the center of the gyro’s spinning mass (i.e. another defined point in a different location), and if the gyro is NOT allowed to deflect around the center of the spinning mass, then the deflection (or precession) occurs at the additional pivot located a distance AWAY from the center of the gyro’s spinning mass (e.g. a toy gyro on a tower, a “hub”, etc)!
These two statements (together) are basic facts that we must first agree (or disagree) upon, before I can continue presenting a clear analysis regarding the “Kidd effect” (as you call the upward, and mostly inward force) which is the centerpiece of this thread.
It’s possible we are both leading-up to present different sorts of proofs, which may cause this thread to become incongruous and stagnate as we both try to proceed in proving our own points in different directions. The best we can do is to have patience and seek the truth over winning points.
My intent is to show that the effects your experiment produced can bee fully explained in classical terms.
(A) The upward-inward motion is shown in previous experiments (e.g. in our host’s experiments), and is fully predicted by classic physics.
(B) A more “only-inward” motion may also be predictable through classical analysis, and that is what I wish to attempt developing in this thread, or another thread, depending on your preference.
My argument is about the subject this thread address, but only about the physics involved.
Best Regards,
Luis G.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 29/11/2009 17:41:59
| | | Hello Luis,
Ravi's idea may be deep but it's also faulty. Didn't you read my todays posting from 29/11/2009 11:52:29 ?
Ravi has never answered to factual asked questions from my part. Hence further discussions with him do not make any sense for me. Ravi, I only noticed linguistic talents, unfortunately nothing else. I will give Ravi a couple of weeks or months at the utmost, until he and his theory have disappeared...
So long!
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 29/11/2009 23:41:53
| | | Why do you care who, Ontoyou is? Do you want to sell him a used car? His identity is not the point. You must try to understand how true and reasonable he is. That is the point. Besides, he doesn’t even want your old used car. He told me he has an 850 BMW built by NASA.
Someday I may explain Luis’ animosity to me. You know how I react to him, but you don’t know why, yet you know there is a cause and reason for everything, therefore it is imposable for you to know I am wrong. I might explain.
Merry Christmas, Harry, Merry Christmas all, Yeah you too, Merry Christmas and good cheer, Luis. I hope for peace. I hope that everyone here will be happy and well through the holidays and beyond.
I'm pretty involved in a project. You'll have to find a way to get along without me for a while. : )
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 30/11/2009 19:42:21
| | | The dictionary defines Nincompoop as, “an offensive term used to deliberately insult somebody’s intelligence or competence”.
When anyone’s writing reflects obvious incompetence, why would someone need to make a DELIBERATE effort to direct the offense?
Do they need to prove it?
Is just saying something sufficient proof?
An incompetent is someone lacking the skills, qualities, or abilities to do something properly.
Reading through this forum, it becomes clear that there are individuals who lack in skills and overall ability; nobody seems to have a need to call them the names.
Wishing you Many Happy Returns,
Luis G.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
ontoyou - 03/12/2009 22:15:16
| | | The nincompoop spouted:
"An incompetent is someone lacking the skills, qualities, or abilities to do something properly."
........to do something properly???????????????????????
Yes you are nincompoop as you failed to present the facts truthfully, and in the proper manner!
You just can't help yourself can you, as another of your spoutings state:
"My apologies to all I have offended"
Did you forget you said this earlier, as I felt this was quite noble of you and I would forget your dishonest statement of the FACTS and let the subject rest, poor show from you, 7:-(
Ontoyou
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 05/12/2009 15:52:01
| | | Hi Harry,
I read your posting and I think you know that I am from the same school of thought, as I also have posted similar explanations previously in this forum. In short, we both advocate the classical laws of motion.
I think we can also both appreciate Ravi's educational background and keen intelligence, despite how far from traditional rational he is prepared to take his theories (that kind of thinking has worked very well in quantum mechanics).
I am willing to give Ravi the space he needs to express his thoughts freely; allowing freedom of expression is the only way that others will see where he is going with it.
This does not stop us from asking for clarifications on specifics or correcting items that we think are in errors.
I think we can do all this without personal attacks or using offensive terms.
The offensive tone often used in this forum, was set by foolish individuals who have sought to use force in asserting themselves because they are not able to write coherently or intelligently.
Though we should all be free to attack ideas that do not appear correct, it would be best not to attack the individuals who are attempting to express themselves.
The sooner we see how badly personal attacks reflect on this group, the faster progress will take place in this quest. Open expression and creativity occurs easier in what we consider to be a safe environment.
My Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 05/12/2009 16:06:29
| | | Hi Ravi,
I don’t think that we have to figure out how gravity fits into the unified field theory, before we can figure out whether gyro-propulsion is possible… do you?
(By the way, I have a friend who is working on a classical mechanics explanation for the great disparity between the force of gravity and the electrostatic force, which is about 40 orders of magnitude greater (10**40). I will let you know how he is coming along with it.)
I think we there are a couple of loose questions we have yet to fully answer each other.
It may be easier if we restate the questions that we think are of real importance.
Best Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 11/07/2011 16:52:08
| | | Hey Sandy,
OK, so I have found new things with my experiments with gyros at high speeds (beyond the saturation point) as I detailed in my blog over the last 2 years. (like the fact that with a gyro, the greater the torque applied, the slower it rotates but the higher its supporting frame tilts -i.e., like an inductor, an increasing rate of change of torque increased the induced tilt in direct proportion. )
I've also found that in the newest model, the spinning wheels invariably align themselves to produce a net zero spin for the system everytime, under the influence of a common torque.
This is all good stuff. Yet, I can't forget that the big surprise was the Kidd Effect - the attractive force on spinning wheels being rotated about a remote center. And I had not believed you when I read it on the forum. I did my own thing and somehow, there it was.
Now I also remember that after that you proposed that I become party to the truth by verifying your other claims. I've already lost so much from then to now - but if you like, I'd like to begin right away to verify the rest of your claims.
I remember that you warned me that at high rotation speeds, I wouldn't find the answers I seek. And now as I see the results of the latest experiments I see that you are right.
So let me ask you, how do I identify this saturation point? How do I approach it without exceeding it?
Thanks
Ravi
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 12/07/2011 20:09:40
| | | Hello Ravi,
Thought you would have given all this nonsense up by now?
Only jesting.
This is the way I see it, perhaps unbelievable, but nevertheless true.
Every gyroscopic system of the mechanically accelerated type has within sensible limits a specific saturation point depending on the system rotation speed and the gyroscope rotation speed.
The bitter bit is that you can enter the saturation zone without any prior warning.
However not a lot will happen when your system gets there it is just a pain in the whatsit getting it to back out of saturation.
In most cases I have had to remove copious amounts of system rotation and/or gyroscope rotation to get some centrifugal force back into the system.
This manoeuvre invariably returns a modicum of control to the system.
What I was trying to explain Ravi is what is really happening in the system prior to reaching saturation.
This is the important stuff which can be manipulated to suit your needs.
Consider a typical gyroscope system of the twin opposed gyroscope configuration being rotated at a fixed rotation speed with NO gyroscope rotation.
At this point, the system is delivering the maximum angular momentum it can.
By strategically fitting strain gauges to the system and coupling to an oscilloscope or modern equivalent it will be found that angular momentum (or centrifugal force for anyone who is happier with that) diminishes as the gyroscope rotation speed is increased.
This loss of angular momentum or centrifugal force begins as soon as the gyroscope starts to rotate and at a point farther up the gyroscope rotation speed range, diminishes to zero at a point I called the “Saturation Point”.
No more system rotation speed or gyroscopic rotation speed will affect the system other than increase the gyroscope’s upward and inward acceleration, hence saturation (and broken machines)
The gyroscope will only begin to make its upward/inward acceleration at this point, but you can rotate the system as fast as you like it ain’t coming back down.
Some call this precession which for obvious reasons it is not.
It is also obvious that if there is no angular momentum left in this rotating system there can be no acceleration.
One of my very first postings was called “You cannot accelerate no mass” that was in 2004 methinks and was about finding this very thing for the first time.
We have rotation without acceleration which is surely unique in physics.
The important thing is that in any gyroscope system it will be found that the angular momentum and or centrifugal force (whatever you fancy) is proportional to the rotation speed of the gyroscope.
I posted a bit on this a couple of times to this forum a year or so ago.
I do not think classical physics makes any allowance for any changes in angular momentum due to the rotation of the mass itself.
Is this any help Ravi?
If it is a bit vague let me know.
There is a lot more but that’ll keep you going just now methinks.
Regards,
Sandy.
PS Be careful with your experiments Ravi.
To carry out a practical demonstration of the effects of change in gyroscope speeds I had occasion to demonstrate the consequences of applying slightly different rotation speeds to a pair of opposed gyroscopes in the aforementioned configuration to a doctor in Dundee University.
The machine ended its useful life rather ignominiously in an explosion of bits.
The good doctor exited the lab without comment.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 13/07/2011 10:10:28
| | | Fantastic stuff! Feels like you've been as clear as you always qwere and I'm seeing this for the first time in the right way. Let me see if I understand this right!
Once this saturation point is reached, there is no useful angular momentum available in the system (you cannot accelerate no mass).
So my experiments must be conducted below this saturation point. If I want to maximize lift, I have to use a system which has a very high saturation point. is that true sandy?
This saturation point is a system-determined parameter i.e. is unique to every machine.
Its governing equation would be
(gyro speed X cage speed
I want to approach this point but NOT exceed it. Once you reach this point, there is no useful work left in the system.
Am I correct in my understanding then, Sandy?
And what exactly should I do? spin the cage at a constant velocity? and the gyros at a constant speed. Is that it? Or am I missing something?
You said
>>"Consider a typical gyroscope system of the twin opposed gyroscope >>configuration being rotated at a fixed rotation speed with NO >>gyroscope rotation.
>>At this point, the system is delivering the maximum angular momentum >>it can.
>>By strategically fitting strain gauges to the system and coupling to >>an oscilloscope or modern equivalent it will be found that angular >>momentum (or centrifugal force for anyone who is happier with that) >>diminishes as the gyroscope rotation speed is increased.
>>This loss of angular momentum or centrifugal force begins as soon as >>the gyroscope starts to rotate and at a point farther up the gyroscope >>rotation speed range, diminishes to zero at a point I called the >>"Saturation Point"."
I can see how conventional applications would go beyond the saturation point, as turbines, motors would all operate at high angular momentum, which means at point high above this saturation point.
I confirmed myself with my Kidd Effect experiments that beyond the saturation point, the response of the machine is infact inwards movement of the wheel, whenever possible.
You said
>>Some call this precession which for obvious reasons it is not.
Darn right! Precession it is not because its not in free fall. It is induced rotation. It behaves similarly to precession, it is gravity provides the force that causes the induced rotation in the precessive orbit. Here, the motor rotates the cage.
My Inductive Effect experiments examined this using sinusoidal torque patterns with a continually changing torque finite rate of change of torque and showed that the gyros pushed the frame up on to one side, stood the entire machine on its rim (the wheels react in a plane perpendicular to the applied torque.).
You said
>>I do not think classical physics makes any allowance for any changes in angular momentum due to the rotation of the mass itself.
No! I dont think it does either! But I see exactly what you mean.
Could you clarify a bit further, Sandy on the behavior of the machine in the ideal condition - when its flying ? What would I expect to find? That the machine is below its saturation point, is that right? As far below as possible? or as close as possible to the saturation point, without going over? At some low gyro speed and maximum cage speed? Or is it: the lowest gyro speed possible with the maximum cage speed? (but in that case, wouldn't we expect that those objects not rotating should have infinited lift? since the lift is highest for the lowest gyrospeed and we, on the surface of the earth have a high rotational speed along with the earth? so it must be the highest gyro speed possible, keeping in mind the fact that higher the gyro speed, the more the lift. The system constant limits the cage speed X gyro speed to a maximum value (the saturation point), therefore I must remember that going too high on the gyro speed risks limiting the cage speed I can put on it without hitting saturation point. What exactly happens when I hit the magic combination? Energy is transferred from the cage rotation into upward movement of the machine via the gyros... is that right?...
Am I completely on the wrong track now, Sandy? have I missed it by a mile? Which way back home?
And Sandy, I wish you a nice day!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 13/07/2011 10:13:24
| | | Sorry! The governing equation in words would be
cage speed X gyro speed <= (less than equal to) a system constant unique to every machine, based on its moment of inertia distribution and the local gravitational field constant
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 13/07/2011 20:18:57
| | | Evening Ravi,
You have it all pretty well summed up now.
Can’t fault your interpretation.
Thank goodness there is another one of us in the world.
To the saturation point and where it’s at?
My devices are all (nowadays) designed to run with maximum machine rotation speed generating maximum angular momentum
They are also designed to run with the minimum flywheel rotation speeds required to effect a conversion to linear momentum.
This is surprisingly simple to figure out, but not so easy to do
So I am operating miles down the road from saturation.
Operating close to saturation would be counter productive and as far as I am concerned unnecessary.
It is an interesting and puzzling phenomenon which gets the brain cells working overtime.
It is nice to know what is going on but other than that it does not help us a lot.
I suppose it depends a lot on what you are aiming to do, and how you are aiming to do it.
However you will have to figure the final part out yourself but a sharp fellow like yourself should manage it, besides it seems that you have some expensive bits of kit at you disposal, so testing is no problem.
I think personally the most important part is in believing that it can be done.
Sorry I cannot be more positive in nailing down the saturation point, but that’s part of the fun is it not?
Remember fast machine rotation and slow flywheel rotation.
Let me know how you are doing, I am interested.
I hope I have answered most of your questions Ravi.
Best of luck
Sandy.
PS
How does the impossible inertial thrust appear, and what direction and shape does it take?
Methinks you will find all of this pretty quickly, and the answer to that, answers the series of questions at the end of your posting.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 19/07/2011 15:15:03
| | | Hi Sandy,
Thank you for your clarification.
I do have something to report - Tell me what you think:
I have been conducting experiments with the new prototype and I'm finding that for the same amount of torque ( 4 A @ 8 sec sinusoidal cycle), the cage holding the wheels rotates 4.5 times when the wheels are NOT spinning and at only 3 times when the wheels are spinning(@4900 rpm). The results are posted on my blog (http://relmachine.blogspot.com).
I 'm hypothesizing that this is evidence of the loss of angular momentum that you contend happens when you said
"Consider a typical gyroscope system of the twin opposed gyroscope configuration being rotated at a fixed rotation speed with NO gyroscope rotation.
At this point, the system is delivering the maximum angular momentum it can.
By strategically fitting strain gauges to the system and coupling to an oscilloscope or modern equivalent it will be found that angular momentum (or centrifugal force for anyone who is happier with that) diminishes as the gyroscope rotation speed is increased.
This loss of angular momentum or centrifugal force begins as soon as the gyroscope starts to rotate and at a point farther up the gyroscope rotation speed range, diminishes to zero at a point I called the “Saturation Point”."
If this were truly the case, then I could test this by conducting several experiments at progressively slower wheel speeds.
If such a saturation point exists, then I will find that as I lower the wheel speed with each experiment, the overal number of rotations stay at 3, until at some finite speed (say, ~ 2000 rpm) I would expect the number of rotations of the cage to start dropping. And that speed at which that would start to happen would be the saturation speed of the system.
Do you agree?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 19/07/2011 19:51:24
| | | Seems about right Ravi,
You may have read this, but in case you have not, I experienced this stuff about 28 years ago.
Says it all, same unloading as you witnessed as the device went into saturation.
Excerpt from “You cannot accelerate no mass”
Because I managed to get my first device to produce a sizeable amount of thrust I though I knew enough to make a really good one. I spent a lot of money building a new device, it was beautifully made, with a special gearbox (no belts), custom made gyroscopes etc. This device had it all, and I thought it was going to work really well, maybe even balancing out all its weight. When I ran it, nothing at all happened, except for the fact the gyroscopes had a tremendous affinity for each other. I just could not stop the gyroscopes flashing inwards towards the centre of the device.
As the gyroscopes went through this motion the machine rotation speeded up and the machine apparently unloaded itself. Gyroscopes often appear to have minds of their own, but this was something completely different. It seemed sensible to me to accelerate the gyroscopes in precession to increase the rotation speed. That would drive them out again as the centrifugal force increased.
Seemed reasonable to me at the time.
The next month was spent building a twin cylinder hydraulic pump to fit on to the main drive of the device. This pump was set such that as soon as the pump detected any inward movement of a gyroscope the pump would no longer allow oil to pass and so create a hydraulic lock. The pump was designed and set, to slip under normal circumstances, at 250rpm. When gyroscopic movement was detected, a very precise rotary valve was designed to close rapidly, increasing the rotation speed instantly to 500rpm. Doubling the speed squares the centrifugal force generated.
The expected result was that the gyroscopes would accelerate inwards until the pump stopped the flow. The immediate increase in speed to 500 rpm would drive the gyroscopes out again, and so on. When the machine was run up the system worked very well, apart from the fact that I just did not believe the speed at which these gyroscopes could move. Instead of slowing the gyroscopes down, the opposite had happened. I sat in front of that machine for hours watching that motion in total disbelief.
All the best
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 20/07/2011 05:11:27
| | | Sorry, I made a mistake:
Instead of:
If such a saturation point exists, then I will find that as I lower the wheel speed with each experiment, the overal number of rotations stay at 3, until at some finite speed (say, ~ 2000 rpm) I would expect the number of rotations of the cage to start dropping.
That should have been:
If such a saturation point exists, then I will find that as I lower the wheel speed with each experiment, the overal number of rotations stay at 3, until at some finite speed (say, ~ 2000 rpm) I would expect the number of rotations of the cage to start rising to 4.5 rotations.
I hope you still agree?
:)
Yes, I can do those experiments. Give me a 2-3 weeks.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 28/07/2011 14:24:56
| | | Sandy and fellow shed dwellers,
I'm half way through my experiments and I thought now is a good time to give you an update. I coded the videos and compiled the data into a spreadsheet. I can't post the sheet here but I do have an image of it on my latest blog post here saturation speed entry
Now, it seems from this data that:
1. When the arms are in (i.e., when the wheels are positioned with the motors pointing inwards at the beginning of the experiments and the system therefore having the least moment of inertia in this configuration), the number of rotations received is higher, while when the arms are out, the number of revolutions received for the same torque is lower. This is happening for the same reason that a dancer who is spinning speeds up when she pulls her arms in and slows down when she moves her arms out.
What is not clear however, why it is that sometimes, especially in the CCW (counterclockwise) direction, we are receiving even fewer rotations that the maximum moment of inertia condition would allow - the gyroscopes seem to be soaking up the torque, that would be the only way that would be possible. However it seems to be happening only for that particular direction of rotation too...!!
2. When the wheels are NOT spinning, the cage holding the wheels has a significantly larger number of rotations, sometimes twice as many!
3. By dropping wheel speed from 4900 RPM to 4500 RPM to 4000 RPM to 3500 RPM to 3000 RPM, we are seeing increasing trend toward assymmetry in the clockwise versus counterclockwise rotations of the cage!
Most intriguingly, there seems to be an increase in the 'flightiness' of the machine at lower speeds, especially for on direction of the rotation of the cage and this whatever you want to call it, jumpiness, flightiness - a tendency of the machine to seem to perform a little flightlike manoevor that can look like a mini jump- this is what is responsible for lower rotations for that direction of rotation of the cage! Could it be that it will keep increasing as we keep lowering speed?
4. In addition, even though we dropped the wheel speed drastically from ~5000 RPM to 3000 RPM, we do not see any big change in the number of rotations say, in just the clockwise direction or just the counter clockwise rotations! In comparison, the zero RPM condition causes that 1st cycle @ 4 Amperes to go up 7-8 rotations and it doesn't cross 4.3 for any of the experiments with wheels speeds ranging from 4900 to 3000 RPM nor is there a trend of increasing rotations ...yet.
In summary, it might yet be that there exists some saturation speed for the system and it might yet be that that speed lies somewhere between 0 RPM and 3000 RPM. It would be that point where those cycles would creep up from 4 to reach 7 or 8.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 29/07/2011 02:35:31
| | | In response to a request, here are my views regarding what happens to centrifugal Torque in a hub with overhung opposing gyros, when it approaches the so called saturation point.
This discussion has emerged from experiments showing that spin-deflection consistently trumps the expected hub centrifuge (in some corners this effect has been perceived as incongruent with classical mechanics).
In this posting I show 2 “classical” processes that emerge from spin, and each process demonstrates reasons why the centrifuge melts away. One case is driven by the mere presence of gyroscopic interactions, and the other case is dependent on simple trigonometry. Both cases diminish the centrifuge, for classical reasons, and both contribute to the centrifuge’s demise independently, so each effect diminishes centrifuge independent from the other.
(I) First, the case of Gyroscopic interactions:
We know that the hub-rotation produces centrifugal “Force” proportional to the square of the rotation velocity. However, while the arms remain at the zero degree mark, the hub rotation does NOT produce centrifugal “Torque” at all.
When the arms move away from zero degrees, then centrifugal “Torque” kicks-in.
IF the gyros are NOT SPINNING, then large amounts of centrifugal “Force” can accumulate in momentum (this momentum keeps the arms at zero degrees, and does not allow them to fall).
If we then slowly start spinning the gyros, the force in the spin is initially too feeble to overcome the accumulated momentum of the hub rotation (we can explore the relative magnitudes later if desired).
When the force of the “Gyro-spin” becomes strong enough against the hub-centrifuge, then the arms begin to elevate above zero degrees, and the dynamics change drastically.
Above the zero degree mark, centrifugal “Torque” is re-born!
The newborn centrifugal “Torque” (which emerges from the centrifugal force) interacts with the spinning gyro in the same classical way that tilting torques affect gyros; it causes (or attempts to cause) a fresh deflection at 90 degrees to the centrifugal “Torque” (like precession).
All advanced gyro enthusiast should be able to figure out the direction of that fresh deflection generated by centrifugal “Torque” (we have determined that this hidden deflection moves (attempts to move) in the same direction as the hub’s rotation). In previous occasion I have stated that centrifugal “Torque” produces a deflection in a manner that resembles gravity-driven precession (unfortunately this statement was badly received, but the analogy stills stands).
The bottom line is that the deflection resulting from the centrifugal “Torque” behaves like feedback to the hub rotation, because this deflection rotates in the same direction as the hub’s rotation.
This is where things begin to become interesting because steady “precession” does NOT produce centrifugal force, and neither does mechanically induced “deflection” (for the most part). Though these 2 phenomena are not the same, they are the same breed of animal, and neither produces centrifuge on their steady state (as many enthusiast know). Why is this so interesting?
Let’s just say that if a rotating hub can produce a sort of feedback rotation that does not produce centrifugal force (and this feedback occurs in the same direction as the initial rotation), then the centrifuge will diminish. If we increase the velocity of hub rotation then the centrifugal “Torque” increases commensurately and so does the feedback increase.
Therefore, the opposing overhung gyros in a hub configuration self-regulate and reduce the magnitude of their own effective centrifugal force, but only when the gyros are spinning fast enough to provide sufficient “deflection-feedback”.
On the other hand, the magnitude in the force of the upward/inward deflection remains equal (or proportional) to the force of the applied torque, while the force of centrifuge produces its own demise as soon as the centrifugal “Torque” emerges! Deflection trumps centrifuge indeed.
(II) Now the case of Geometric interactions:
The so called saturation mystery, i.e. disappearing momentum is more closely related to centrifugal “Torque” than to its basic cause, centrifugal “Force”, because the effect begins to occur as the centrifugal “Torque” emerges.
In a nutshell, the accurate calculation of centrifugal “Torque” should include multiplication by a factor of Sin(A) x Cos(A), where “A” is the elevation angle of the gyros.
The factor “Cos(A)” provides adjustment for true radius of hub rotations as the gyros begin to move upward/inward. This Cos(A) multiplier is equal to unity (“1”) at the hub’s zero degrees, and gradually shrinks down until at 90 degrees the value of Cos(A) is equal to “0”. Therefore both the effective hub rotation radius and the value of the centrifuge become zero (“0”) at 90 degrees.
By itself, the effect of the Cos(A) multiplier provides strong reason for the diminishing strength of the hub’s centrifuge as the gyros move upward/inward. However we must be fair and present the mitigating effects of the Sin(A) factor, as well as the combined effect of Cos(a) x Sin(A), which are most interesting.
The “Sin(A)” multiplier denotes an increasing rate of centrifugal “Torque” due to the leverage which the centrifugal “Force” is able to apply on the pivot fulcrum. At zero degrees Sin(A) is equal to “0”, as also is the fulcrum leverage produced by the centrifuge around the pivot where the gyro is attached to the hub (thus at this point centrifugal “Torque” is also equal to zero).
When the elevation angle increases so does the value of Sin(A), as the centrifuge fulcrum effect increases, until at 90 degrees the Sin(A) factor is equal to unity (“1”) meaning that the entire available centrifugal “force” is applicable to the centrifugal “Torque”.
It can be challenging to visualize the net effect, as the value of the Cos(A) multiplier DECREASES from “1” to “0”, and the value of the Sin(A) multiplier INCREASES from “0” to “1”. My personal advice is to draw a graph that traces the change from 0 to 90 degrees for the product of Cos(A) x Sin(A).
At both extremes the value of Cos(A) x Sin(A) is zero and so is the value of the centrifugal “Torque” in question.
Between the extremes of 0 to 90 degrees, the product of Cos(A) x Sin(A) is always less than unity, with a maximum value of half (0.5), and the centrifugal “Torque” never gets the full benefit of the potential centrifugal “Force” that the hub is able to produce.
In conclusion:
Above are presented two independent causes for why centrifugal Torque is so quickly and easily overcome (“saturation”) by the force of deflection, as the force of deflection remains equal to the force of the input applied torque and does not diminish (while the centrifuge dissolves geometrically and gyroscopically).
When we allow unspun gyros to accumulate significant amounts of hub centrifugal force and then slowly spin-up the gyros the following may occur:
When the gyro-spin momentum is much weaker than the hub’s momentum, the momentum in the hub’s direction can temporarily trump the direction of “deflection”.
When the gyros are pre-spun-up before the hub starts rotating, the hub’s centrifuge never even gets a chance to accumulate momentum. Centrifuge does not stand a ghost of a chance when the components are rotated in this order of sequence, or simultaneously!
These classical proofs are not things I have invented, but rather things that I have discovered and learned from classical physics and form interactions in this forum, including the results of experiments conducted by others and some piecemeal experiments that I have conducted.
Both of these important points have been discussed by others and me in previous threads of this forum as we compared notes based on classical physics (often producing heated discussions about trivial aspects due to our human ego, more than due to the factuality of the concepts).
I hope this posting is clear to all who understand high school or college level classical math and physics.
The facts in this analysis will be difficult to accept by individuals who claim that classical mechanics cannot explain the absence of centrifuge (momentum and/or mass). I only ask that we all present logical arguments based on coherent theories (anyone can make unfounded assertions).
The requestor can respond by email or by posting in this forum, as everyone else can also respond.
Before signing-off:
Configurations with gyro cages/frame that are relatively heavy in relationship to the gyro flywheels create proportionally more centrifuge than one with relatively light frames.
My Best Regards to all,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 04/08/2011 16:30:05
| | | Sandy and shed dwellers everywhere:
Please refer to my latest blog post for a graph showing the behavior of the system at different speeds. The plots show that there is some kind of an inflection point in the behavior of the system at around 3000 RPM.
The plots are evidence for the existence of the infamous 'saturation point'
Do you agree?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 04/08/2011 16:32:02
| | | Data plots of the difference in the CCW rotations and the CW rotations of the prototype at different speeds of the wheels for the same 10 cycle applied torque.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 05/08/2011 04:28:18
| | | Luis, Thank you for presenting your argument. Either I don't understand it right, or it states and discusses cases that are not applicable to my prototype.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 06/08/2011 18:12:25
| | | Sandy and shed dwellers everywhere:
Please refer to my latest blog post for a graph showing the same trend also @ 50% higher torque. Yesterday, I reran all the same experiments this time at @ 6 Ampere maximum.
Data plots of the difference in the CCW rotations and the CW rotations of the prototype at different speeds of the wheels for the same 10 cycle applied torque.
The plots again show a 'zone' where the graph goes into the negative region - something that the dead mass 0 RPM experiments never do - and that inflection zone seems to be dependent on both the speed of the flywheels and the maximum torque applied. (Apart from being related also to the moment of inertia and the local gravitational constant in all probability.)
For a given torque, there seems to be a specific flywheel speed that produces the maximum negative rotation (i.e., the CW rotation exceeds the CCW)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 07/08/2011 05:01:58
| | | Ravi,
As I stated at the start, the above post is my response to an email enquiry which expressed great curiosity regarding my views on “saturation point” and loss of angular momentum due to spin.
I think this thread is a good place to respond to that question as this thread is all about “Saturation”.
The cases I explained are somewhat easier to visualize in overhung gyros that are free to pivot up and down, same as was the device used by sandy when he coined the term “saturation point” (though Sandy’s device was perhaps more sophisticated).
The 2 cases I presented are applicable to any device that encounters the loss of angular momentum as a result of applying tilting torque to gyros.
Your prototype presents additional challenges to the basic analysis for two main reasons:
(1) The arms are rigid, thus the only gyro pivots are where the base rest on a surface.
And (2) the housing (etc) for the gyros are as massive as the flywheels (or heavier) thus creating additional non-spinning (deadweight) momentum (centrifuge) around the hub.
These 2 items in your device are additional variables to the cases I presented and so increase the complexity in attempting to analyze your device.
I expect that as the mechanics of your devices become more sophisticated, the effects of peripheral variables will be reduced or eventually eliminated.
Finally, I think Sandy’s saturation probably occurred at gyro spin much lower than 3,000 RPM; perhaps because the arms in his device were free to pivot.
Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 07/08/2011 23:29:28
| | | Luis, Ravi and others,
Glad to see there is a bit of interest being shown in the direction of, for want of something else to call it, saturation.
I think Ravi has a ready built machine which like EDH before him was also operating in the saturation zone.
I think Ravi may be hunting for saturation in a manner liable to create some problems, but as he is no fool and he will know what he is doing.
I do not agree with your explanations Luis, but that is not as important as the fact that interesting and important things happen.
As a matter of interest my first device had a pair of brass gyroscopes about 3.25 inches in diameter and weighing just over 1lb (in mph) or half a kilo to the younger Europeans.
These gyroscopes were rotated at about 12,000 rpm on a 7.25 inch radius at about 320 rpm.
I did not know any better at the time that this device did not go into saturation.
There must have been enough angular momentum left to create lift, incidentally about 1lb of it on a consistent basis for some reason best known to itself at the time
.
The second machine which sent me on the way to finding saturation and its associated problems had 6 inch diameter aluminium gyroscopes rotating on a 3 inch radius at, as reported 250 rpm, then rapidly changed to 500 rpm in a vain attempt to control them.
These gyroscopes probably never reached 2000 rpm before they reached saturation.
This device delivered nothing, but was probably the most valuable device I ever built.
The pair of identical lab test machines built for an Australian company, and were of similar geometry and I had a hard time keeping the gyro speed slow enough to complete the tests. In fact I had to go all the way across Melbourne, 40km to the company’s factory in Dandenong, to attach 0.25 inch thick steel discs to the flywheels to generate some angular momentum then return to the lab, to continue testing.
This modification was enough to keep everyone happy.
Of course if the machine rotation speed was increased this would also help drive it into saturation, so angular momentum was low and so was the machine output, positive and consistent, but low.
Lately I have been experimenting with a device designed to deliver output at nearly maximum generated angular momentum.
It has been rotated at 650rpm although I have set my limit at 400rpm
I have had to reduce the flywheels (aluminium) from 5 inch diameter to 3 inch diameter and rotating on an 8 inch radius as they were moving into saturation almost immediately. I am not sure of the flywheel rotation speed as the motors had just begun to rotate.
In fairness the geometry of this device is different.
Machine rotation was checked by laser tachometer at 272rpm which is relatively low.
Flywheels look small but they will be big enough, of that I am certain.
I have plenty of power available to drive them.
Can let you know the mean rotation speed when I test the 3 inch ones in anger.
I suppose this could be of some interest to somebody
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 13/08/2011 16:12:25
| | | Luis, Thank you for the clarification. Then you are sure that there is nothing more to be had with this design? A different design is the way forward, is that what you are saying?
Shedwellers, here is a link to the newest set of experiments compared side by side to the older 2 sets.
The graphs show all 3 full sets of data (i.e. often multiple experiments @ 0 RPM, 2000 RPM, 2500 RPM, 3000 RPM, 3500 RPM, 4000 RPM, 4500 RPM) for max torques of 4 A, 6 A & 8 A.
All in all, the data on the plots represents around 50 different experiments each involving the now familiar 12 cycle sinusoidal torque pattern. The first cycle is at 1 A, the second cycle is at 2 A, the third cycle is at 4 A. I plotted graphs of the quantity delta omega = (#of CCW Rotations - # of CW Rotations) cycle by cycle for all the experiments and. the trend is unmistakable- @around 3000 RPM the device is offering maximum impedance. It is reducing the CCW rotations and it is increasing the CW rotations, thereby increasing delta omega, the quantity being plotted.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 13/08/2011 16:47:20
| | | Sandy,
What is your opinion then, regarding this occurance @ 3000 RPM?
An important difference between this 3000 RPM inflection point I have found and the conventional 'saturation point' as you define it is that I'm saying at this point, impedance is maximum, and you say that at saturation point, the ability of the machine to do useful work reaches zero, so in effect the impedance is zero.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 15/08/2011 03:53:30
| | | Hi Ravi,
Any well-built and properly monitored design will yield some information of value when operated; you have proven that.
I have stated that the built-in deadweight and rigid arms of your device complicate things. The deadweight of the gyro frames and structure of the device presents greater inertia against the force of deflection, and also causes grater hub- centrifuge and thus appears to allow gyro spins of 3000 before “saturation” kicks in (this is only an opinion).
Sandy disagrees with most things that I present (as a matter of principal) but I believe he will disagree in earnest when I say that sustainable inertial propulsion cannot be created along the main axis of the hub. Yet much knowledge can be derived from operating such hub configuration (keep in mind that the hub configuration can produce designs that appear to produce intermittent propulsion though not sustainable propulsion).
As most other inventors in this quest, you probably will need to satisfy your own curiosity Ravi, before you will find the next direction in which to search.
Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 26/08/2011 20:15:00
| | | Here are clips from the videos of 7 (of 50) experiments that provided the data for the latest graphs.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 29/08/2011 18:01:53
| | | I ran another set of 3 experiments at constant torque and here's what I found:
Experiment 4.60: Comparing the prototype's behavior at constant torque
As I state in the video, the behavior of the prototype changed drastically just because I flipped the direction of rotation of one of the wheels. Why?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 29/08/2011 18:02:46
| | | http://relmachine.blogspot.com/2011/08/experiment460-response-of-prototype-at.html
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 31/08/2011 02:03:57
| | | Hi Ravi,
Let me know when you are ready to build a model that is more predictable (also nobody but you knows how far the degrees of freedom are permitted to turn), a model that is hopefully based on classical mechanics.
I will be out of the loop for about one month, so am signing off for now. I will talk to you when I am back online.
Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 01/09/2011 14:29:05
| | | Shed dwellers,
a) I only ever show one video of each of the phenomena I investigate but I always do so after confirming that the video is representative of the phenomenon presented and that it is repeatable by anyone. I always have several videos (i.e experiments) to back up the one that I do show.
b) WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get)! I don't understand Luis' questions about degrees of freedom and there's nothing hidden in the design. Its out there and you can figure it out if you try. I have made sure that the pertinent information is out in the public record (and is even more complete than the patent that is in progress). In fact I've viewed my blog as an extension to my patent application and endeavored to appeal to everyone of you as I might appeal to a patent examiner, if perhaps in a slightly more dramatic fashion.
The question is not whether the phenomena I have revealed exist. They do. The more pertinent (and interesting) question is whether we can explain them using existing theoretical tools. And in this, my answer is a resounding 'NO!' ! We need to keep our minds open because this model is surfing the edges of atomic/astronomical/electromagnetic physics. Science today hasn't cleared up this corner yet.
But we might!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Albert Druid - 05/09/2011 01:07:45
| | | congratulations on your patent Ravi - what’s your invention - what’s it used for? excuse my ignorance - Al
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
