|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
25 April 2024 18:14
|
|
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: |
Vote: Is this lift or not? |
| Question: |
Experiment 2.5
I request those who watch the video to make one anonymous vote here to say yea or nay to the following question: Do you agree that the relativistic machine is showing lift? |
| Date: |
13 January 2010
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 13/01/2010 21:24:27
| | | NAY, I see deflection response but unfortunately no lift.
Sorry
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 13/01/2010 23:10:40
| | | No probs.
Thx for voting.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/01/2010 01:32:58
| | | Hi Ravi,
I too vote, nay.
What I see is very interesting. I had a big smile on my face as I watched it. I had wondered if you ever reversed the spin of the motors and wheels from one another, but I see that you did not. The wheels are rotating oppositely. You should get a balanced effect, if you caused one motor to spin backward as fast as the other spins forward. Anyway. Good show. I enjoyed it.
The left side wheel is rotating from top-forward, away from rear view, while the bottom is rotating back toward rear view. When the left wheel is forced to curve forward in partial rotation around the hub (forced precession) it attempts to flip the whole apparatus over in a clockwise motion even as it precesses. Gravity and leverage keep the apparatus from flipping completely over.
While this is happening the opposite wheel is spinning oppositely. Therefore that wheel is torque downward and again the apparatus would flip downward, but for the floor and gravity.
When the apparatus is half-rotated (forced precession) in the opposite direction around the hub, the opposite flip flop, (that is counter clockwise) tries to occur and the right side lifts while the left toques down.
I think there are a lot of additional experiments you can do with this apparatus. Good luck and carry on.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/01/2010 15:21:04
| | | Hi Ravi,
I wrote the spin directions backwards, funny how one dose that when he knows perfectly well better. Left is spinning from rear view top toward you and bottom from you. Reverse the spin of the other wheel and we have it right.
Thank you for the offer. We may have something to think about. I will be busy this week and next, but I will catch up and have lots of free time.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 17/01/2010 18:08:48
| | | Ravi,
Based on what I see I am not sure about the reason for the drastic change in the deflection response demonstrated in the Experiment 2.5 video (http://relmachine.blogspot.com/2010/01/experiment-25-reducing-frequency-of.html), as compared to the much smaller deflection effects from the video presented in a previous thread (http://relmachine.blogspot.com/2010/01/experiment-of-jan-7-2010.html).
The significant trials (with spin) in both videos state equal spin rates of 3880 RPM.
Experiment 2.5 is labeled with an orientation that looks like this (->, ->), and I assume this represents the gyros are spinning in “PARALLEL” orientation (i.e. not in antiparallel configuration).
However the older experiment, which is more passive, is not labeled with its orientation. I am assuming this older experiment is either (->, <-) or (<-, ->), i.e. in one of the antiparallel configurations.
Am I correct, or is Experiment 2.5 labeled incorrectly?
Based on classical conjectures and on my own experiments, I am inclined to think that the deflecting motions are of angular nature and would therefore not fit into the strict category of linear lift.
Your refreshing experiments are adding valuable data to this noble quest Ravi.
I will be better able to vote about your experimental results with a little more information (e.g. the exact orientations of the gyros in each experiment).
Voting at this point would be only a guess.
I look forward to your next set of experiments and to the additional information.
As always I send you my Best Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 17/01/2010 19:15:40
| | | Hello Luis,
Hello Ravi,
In the previous video from 07.01.2010 Ravi wrote the text:
"...Also, the wheel spins are orientated in a non-lift configuration and therefore no lifting effects are seen in the video. ..."
Thus I think that the orientation of both gyros were in opposite direction ("antiparallel" how you call it) and therefore the deflection responses of both gyros have been cancelled.
Ravi, you should come to similar results if only one gyro would spin and the other not. Your video shows only movements caused by the deflection response of the forced precessed gyros. However, this movement is only a torque but not a vertical directed force. You can see this pretty well in your video.
I'm very curious about your next videos.
Good luck and kind regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 17/01/2010 23:34:54
| | | ))))))))))))))))))))))))))((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))))))(((((((((((((((()))))))))
There is some good thinking in a couple of post above by Luis and Harry. Although I myself am ostracized, I still want to also add a clarification to my earlier post and for all of us.
The device is complex, but the experiments would be simple, but for something of a trick added at the end that I enjoyed.
To begin: It is important to establish a consistent way of perceiving gyroscopic behavior. Since everyone here is already familiar with all the actions it should be easy. Think of a gyroscope as having arrows around the wheel.
‘The direction of right angle deflection will always be the same direction as the arrows marked on the most forward potion of the spinning wheel as it is moved, that is as the arrows point at the front of the wheel as that is the first potion to move into new space.’ This is always true.’
Another way to know this is:
If an overhung spinning wheel without a guard were dropped on the table it would roll away in one direction. If however, it is not dropped it will precess in the opposition direction from that which it would roll away on the table.
Mechanically applied force may be horizontal such as in Rave’s machines, instead of vertical as with gravity. Still, in all cases the same effects hold true.
Again: ‘The direction of right angle deflection will always be the same direction as the arrows marked on the most forward potion of the spinning wheel as it is moved, that is as the arrows point at the front of the wheel as that is the first potion to move into new space.’ This is always true.’
))))))))))))))))))))))))))((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))))))(((((((((((((((()))))))))
There are three parts to the, Experiment 2.5 and each part begins with the wheels positioned left and right.
Part One, the left wheel as sighted from rear view:
The potion of the wheel furthers from your view is spinning upwards. The hub half-rotation is forward; therefore the lift is upwards as rotating arrows in the front of the wheel indicate upwards.
In the right side wheel, the front, that is the wheel potion coming toward you, is rotating downward (oppositely from the other wheel). As the wheel is moved toward your view, the deflection is downward in the direction of the rotating arrows, as that is the direction the arrows are moved toward. The right side twists upwards. The left side twists downward. As the wheels are rotated around the hub these torques remain as they were in the beginning and left and right lose their distinction.
When the direction of hub rotation is reversed the torques are reversed. Again: ‘The direction of right angle deflection will always be the same direction as the arrows marked on the most forward potion of the spinning wheel as it is moved, that is as the arrows point at the front of the wheel as that is the first potion to move into new space.’ This is always true.’
))))))))))))))))))))))))))((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))))))(((((((((((((((()))))))))))
Part Two, the wheels as sighted from rear view:
The wheels are not rotating as Ravi shows with red marks. The wobbling is because the configuration is out of round. If you could balance it, like balancing a tire the motion would be smooth.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))))))(((((((((((((((()))))))))))
Part Three, the left wheel as sighted from rear view:
The neat little trick is that at the beginning the wheels have been reversed, probably not on purpose. Left is now right according to spin and right is now left. Therefore the torque would seem to be reversed, but that is not so. The wheels do exactly the same as before.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))))))(((((((((((((((()))))))))
For everyone a standard: All precession, sideways forward and reverse, also up and down are all the same things in different directions.
‘The direction of right angle deflection will always be the same direction as the arrows marked on the most forward potion of the spinning wheel as it is moved, that is as the arrows point at the front of the wheel as that is the first potion to move into new space.’ This is always true.’
))))))))))))))))))))))))))((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))))))(((((((((((((((()))))))))
Congratulations Ravi. You have done for more in an effort to build than I ever did.
Regards,
Glenn
By the way my wife and I last night watched, ‘City of Joy’ filmed in Calcutta. It was such a new and fascinating glimpse of things and condition I did not know about and it was both heartbreaking and happy. I liked it so much, because of the human bonding and kindness’ of a near destitute neighborhood under the threat of terror, and that the theme was that the human spirit can not be so easily squelched.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 18/01/2010 03:14:39
| | | Hello Ravi,
I have a proposition I have been considering for sometime. Tell me what you think of it.
I will do either one of three things:
One) I will buy a lath and milling machine and build my own parts.
Two) I will attempt to buy ready made parts.
Three) I will do both, One and Two.
Aside from building my apparatus, it might be possible to build reasonably inexpensive gyroscopes as novelties the likes of which the world has never seen, electric gyros that will do mesmerizing things not seen before. They, along with other different kinds of existent desk-top novelties that one should be able to buy in quantity at distributors prices, could all be sold on the internet. They would go together, because they are all related. I don’t know what the market number are, that is how many potential buyers there are, but I think for a small at home operation with three or four employees it could be a profitable and fun sideline for a couple of owner partners.
If the partners were one, an honest and competent person from the US and one an honest and competent person from India it could work best. Some of the little parts could be manufactured in India and some in the states. Many of the ready-made parts such as bearings and motors would be cheapest shipped from India and of course some of the work too. I would own 51%, but take only 50% of the profit. Since I am old I would leave my ownership part to the other owner if I am happy dealing with him, sooner than I‘d like, I think. I am interested mostly as a hobby, but still I am a businessman who requires total honesty and who will give total honesty to my partner. That is the only way I know how to partner up and if that fails then the sooner the better.
Ravi, the Maxwell wheels are made in India. If you cannot find them represented on the internet I will give you addresses. We would not be interested in the complete device, only the wheel. See if you can find them and can procure them, then tell me the exact price per wheel. What are the dimensions and weight? This is a bit of a test, if you are interested.
ehawkins32@Comcast.net.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 19/01/2010 17:17:12
| | | Shed dwellers and others,
You can see the results of the jan 14-19 experiments here.
The latest experiments and the experiments of jan 12, 2010 are conducted with the spin orientation of the wheels being (->, ->).
As the specific experiment of jan-7-2010 was conducted in the (->,
<-) configuration, no lift was expected and none received. The net
angular momentum of that system was zero (the opposite directions
cancel out). Thats why it manifests strictly 'internal' events. For
instance, the Kidd Effect, where the wheels move inwards with considerable speed and agility.
The Kidd Effect is a powerful indicator that the system is producing
a real force - one that can be harnessed. Its the sign of a
jabberwock in the cage.
In order to make this internal force exert itself on the outside, I
reversed the direction of spin of one of the wheels. This meant the
net angular momentum is adding up.
Given my theory about inductively suspended flywheels being
analogous to electrical inductors, the situation of expt 2.5 where
the wheels are oriented (->, ->) is like having a live inductor
with current flowing through it.
Therefore whatever other people call the movement (deflection,
precession etc), they are all taking about an inductively realized
voltage, as far as the theory is concerned, since a voltage (in our
case an angular velocity) is the result of a variable current (in
out case a variable torque).
This inductively realized voltage is obviously following the input
pattern of sinusoidal amplitude. This is to be expected. Further,
using the frequency as a kind of controlling measure, I am able to
reduce it to determine the characteristics of the upward movement.
For instance, it tells me that
a) Just like output voltage is tied to input rate of change of
current in an inductor, the amplitude of the upwards lift momentum
generated is determined by the rate of change of torque of the
vertical motor.
Notice that for the 9 second experiment, I only applied 4 A max
torque. But for the 4 second experiment, I was at 8 A max torque.
Thus, by reducing the rate of change of torque, I have reduced the
output lift momentum. (thus reducing the amount of torquing going
on).
b) However, my analogy with inductos also tells me that the output
force is tied to the input momentum. Therefore, unless I can get the
spinning flywheels -via their carriages to also build up a
singnificant angular momentum, I will not be able to generate FORCE
in the vertical direction.
I can do this by playing with - the FREQUENCY of the oscillation and
the max torque. You see how when we went from 4 seconds to 9
seconds, we went from making half circles to 2+ circles for certain
torques. (Similar increases occured at all torques applied).
So you see that I can build input momentum -within limits since I
dont want to tip the machine over.
So the idea is to keep amplifying the input momentum until we arrive
at a suitable output that consists no just of momentum, but also
force - since only force can cancel out gravity and impel the device
truly upwards (and not around a center, as a torque would).
Cross-check:
Our theory is confirmed by the behavior of a gyro on an Eiffel
Tower. There, the precessing gyro has neither any oomph (force) in
its precession, nor any momentum downwards (because of gravity).
The idea is that the two quantities are related - i.e.,
In a precessing gyro only as much force is available to apply upon
an obstacle encountered in the precession orbit as there is
availability of rate of change of momentum about the input torque
axis.
Since the gyro on the Eiffel Tower has no momentum towards the earth
(gravity is cancelled out leaving the tower without any movement
downards), therefore it has no force with which to resist obstacles
it encounters in its path.
We are going to give the gyro a backbone by working with the
harmonics to give it angular momentum about the input axis. This
will give the OUTPUT precession velocity of the gyro an additional
characteristic - that of ACCELERATION. i.e., force.
Theoretically, this can be mathematized by treating the acceleration
as being due to the torque arm of the deflecting torque getting longer and longer so that the torque happens about a point
further and further out towards the horizon, so that effectively,
the torque becomes manifest as a straight force upwards. i.e. a rotation is acheived about distant points near the horizon of the inertial frames involved, converting a torque into a pure force.
You can see already, for example that in going from 4 seconds to 9
seconds alone, it seems as if the point about which the rel.machine
is swinging when it tips over, has moved outward.
Watch Expt 2.5 part 1 carefully and note what points on the ground
the machine appears to try to tip over. Its the points that are almost directly under the wheels.
In fact, at 8 seconds ( expt 2.6 part 1), at the higher torques, the
entire rel.machine is swinging about points on a circle that
coincides almost exactly with the aluminum ring I have installed on
the bottom of the machine. Watch that video carefully. That ring is
at a considerably larger distance from the central axis of the
machine than the wheels are.
This is proof that we are on the right track. More to come soon.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 20/01/2010 17:05:33
| | | Hi Glenn,
I think there is definitely a market for smart gyro toys.
My time at present is unfortunately fully spoken for what with the prototype and everything else. However I take the offer as a compliment. For now, I feel I should push the tests as fast as possible through to gain real data.
Your idea is an interesting one and I can see how I'd go about doing it.
First you would need to actually draw the designs and make a few prototypes. For this it will be best to go a machine shop closest to you.
Alternatively I think its a much better (if more intensive) to purchase a couple of good machines. I have seen combination lathe and milling machines for less than $45K because of the recession.
Then you could go past prototyping and on to small batch manufacturing. You could find your own distributors and you are in business. Call your local dump to purchase scrap aluminum and you'll be able to buy only quantities you need.
Then, if you're really selling a lot, we can definitely talk again about doing this together. By then I will have more clarity on my own timeline.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 20/01/2010 17:21:40
| | |
Luis,
if you go to my latest post, I have some clarification which should answer your question about the difference in the behavior of expt 2.5 and expt of jan 7.
"...(->, ->), and I assume this represents the gyros are spinning in “PARALLEL” orientation (i.e. not in antiparallel configuration)..."
Yes, that is correct.
"However the older experiment, which is more passive, is not labeled with its orientation. I am assuming this older experiment is either (->, <-) or (<-, ->), i.e. in one of the antiparallel configurations.
Am I correct?"
yes that is correct.
My best regards to you too Luis! :)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 20/01/2010 18:53:38
| | | Thank you Ravi, but I know what to do business wise. As for the machines I would build, I have plains and no one has a clue as to what fantastic little machines they would be. I have another Indian contact, but I am only putting out feelers. I haven’t decided which way to go, except-- diffidently no commercial machine shop!
You say, “Then, if you're really selling a lot, we can definitely talk again about doing this together. By then I will have more clarity on my own timeline.”
But, why then would I need any help when it‘s up and running? Why would I then shear for nothing; no time, effort or money or past invested by another? I said I was a business man-- all my life. Your ideas in business are odd. It never works that way.
You are very kind. Good luck to you.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
