|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
25 April 2024 08:24
|
|
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: |
Shed dwellers and others |
| Question: |
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. |
| Date: |
20 January 2010
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 22/01/2010 20:14:30
| | |
Hi Ravi,
Please confirm.
Are you saying that the parallel configuration (->, ->), is more likely to yield linear propulsion, than either of the “non-parallel” configurations (<-, ->) or (->, <-)?
Am I interpreting you correctly?
At this point I am most interested in your answers to the above questions.
Best Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 24/01/2010 14:28:45
| | | Hello Ravi,
When watching your videos I rally cannot find any unexpected beahvior of your experimental setup. I will not start to repeat myself in trying to explain basic gyro behavior but allow me some comments.
Quote:
"However, my analogy with inductos also tells me that the output force is tied to the input momentum."
Correct but no unexpected issue: the higher the input torque, the higher the deflection velocity = frequency.
Quote;
"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. "
Gravity is not cancelled out but the TORQUE caused by gravity is cancelled out ny the (equal) deflection torque of the precession movement of the Eiffel Tower. Thus gravity is still present at the point of support of the Eifel Tower's lever arm (center of precession movement). Therefore it HAS a force to resist obstacles it encounters in its path, e.g. forces caused by bearing friction, and the result is the drop of the Eiffel Tower gyro in direction of gravity.
Quote:
"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. "
Yes, the torque becomes manifest as a NEARLY straight force upwards, BUT with a value NEARLY ZERO, because if the torque remains constant and the lever arm would be increased, the force accordingly decreases!
Whenever your gyro system in your videos tilts upwards at one side, it presses downwards on the floor at the counter side. If you have doubts regarding this fact, then place under the 3 support stands of your gyro system 3 weighing machines and watch the scales.
Sorry but I currently cannot see any proof that you are on the right track, however, I wish you all the best with further experiments!
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 26/01/2010 16:03:36
| | | Harry,
That is one of the most intelligent assessments ever done here. Again, I complement you. In certain areas it is so hard to explain intelligently what one finds in physics. You have learned how to do. Consider that Newton’s explanations were constantly refined by generations of people who preceded him, until his findings and statements are clearly and more simply stated. I have not succeeded in doing that for myself, but you have and your fine article is the clearly proofs it.
Ravi,
I once said your machine was cad-drawn and not real. How stupid of me. Pardon me. You have built a fine machine and I wouldn‘t say that if it weren‘t true, but I agree with Harry. Ravi, I admire that you stuck to your ideas and succeeded in building, but if you will accept the truth of your findings, your machine proves there is no lift possible in the configuration you chose to built to apply force and reaction. Particularly, there is no such thing as a Kidd effect. You misinterpreted the cause of a few vertical markings on the shaft. This can be proven to yourself with simple and easy test set-ups. (ask if you want examples) Now you have come to the time to put away the machine and try to reason how to actually use those forces and build an entirely different kind of machine. You are finished with that one. Good luck and good fortune.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 26/01/2010 16:09:46
| | | Harry,
That is one of the most intelligent assessments ever done here. Again, I complement you. In certain areas it is so hard to explain intelligently what one finds in physics. You have learned how to do that. Consider that Newton’s explanations were constantly refined by generations of people who preceded him, until his statements are clearly and more simply stated. I have not succeeded in doing that for myself, but you have and your fine article proofs it.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 29/01/2010 17:35:36
| | | Ravi,
Sorry for the slow response.
From a classical mechanics perspective the parallel configuration (->, ->), (which is the same as (<-, <-) depending on how the hub is rotated), is most suited for producing angular deflection upon the hub.
When the hub is rotated, one gyro will go into upward precession and the opposite gyro will go into downward precession.
The result is that a hub with rigid-attached arms (i.e. no freedom to pivot) will tilt in one direction, and when the direction of hub rotation is reversed, this type of hub will tilt in the opposite direction.
This is what we have been observing in Ravi’s experiment 2.5, as stated by Harry.
On the surface these comments appears to provide a conclusive explanation with nothing else to pursue.
However, I also believe that Ravi understands these workings well and that his focus is more on (1) the rate of torque-increase (i.e. rate of change in torque), which opens a not-fully-well-understood relationship between torque and force (at least in this context); and (2) in the harmonics of gyro spins and hob rotation, which introduce many variations to explore.
That said, in your analogy to electromagnetism, deflection/(precession) are analogous to induction.
We note that “precession” induced by gravity (in a toy gyro on a tower) does NOT make use or benefit from the third derivative. I hope we are in agreement, as gravity’s acceleration (on earth’s surface) does not increase, even during any slight time span, during a trial run. Only the velocity of precession increases, but only for slight time span and at a steady rate of acceleration, for a gyro on a tower driven by gravity.
As you are fully aware of this last explanation, we also know that the hub in your mechanical system DOES induce an escalating rate of torque in each direction, which translates into an increasing rate of ACCELERATION.
I hope the above statement puts into the right perspective what I am about to say…
*******************************
The important element missing in your design is that it does not allow normal “deflection” to occur because the hub’s arm are rigid, not allowing any degree of up and down motion. So “induction” in the electromagnetic sense never occurs and there is no induction that the device can divert into a liner-directed force.
*******************************
I believe that by preventing deflection-motion in the normal upward direction, you hoped the force in the torque would leek converting into a linear force (as occurs in electromagnetism). I also know that there are many more untried variations of harmonics tapping into the third derivative of hub-torque (and perhaps varying gyro velocities), so your explorations in this aspect are bound to continue.
My opinion is that in the physics of mechanics a motion that has not come into existence cannot “leek” or be diverted in direction (except for destructive effects). The induction must first come to exist in its normal state and perhaps then it can become diverted!
I am convinced that further experiments with your current “fixed” configuration will in fact yield interesting results with copious amounts of extremely valuable data that will one day be used in analysis of machines that many of us have not yet begun to imagine.
At the risk of repeating my self, I will say that if your time permits, it may be fruitful to attempt building devices with vertical degrees of freedom (pivots) that allow a measure of normal deflection to occur.
You see… the VELOCITY of “deflection (precession’s included) also has a RATE OF CHANGE at the very start and end (and in some cases there are higher-order rates of change etc).
Its my consummate opinion (as expressed in various postings) that the rate of change in “deflection/(precession)” is where the Genie of spin is hidden… that is where some of the previous experimenters’ accidental and limited successes have occurred!
Unfortunately their crude devices made it impossible to ascertain where the intermittent lift came from or if it was just shaking and vibrations.
You don’t have to start by building a new device. But you may ask yourself how would you factor into your theory the rate of change in the actual velocity of deflection/(precession).
Imagine all the necessary factors of the equations. We know that increasing the rate of torque influences the velocity of deflection. Why not allow “deflection” to gain some velocity before engaging it to produce propulsion?
How would that affect your relativistic electromagnetic equations? What do the equations say now?
Personally I think there isn’t a straight or direct correlation between electromagnetic rules and objects engaged in first order of “deflection” magnitude.
The simplification of symbols in quantum equations involves Planck constants but most important measure all velocities as relative to the speed of light.
If you apply the Lawrence transformation formulas to the spin and rotation-velocities of the objects we use, the quantum equations and the electromagnetic results fail to occur.
However, if we focus on the brief areas of motion where higher orders derivatives occur then these equations are no-longer linear and begin to look like “Chaos Equations”, similar to the “Strange Attractor” equation and others.
Entering the arena of “chaos” has until recently kept most scientists away (at the fringes).
I believe that now there are sufficiently applicable math to handle the realm of chaos (to some degree). I think relativity and quantum equations become more suitable in this realm!!
The complete successful solution to the problem we are addressing is much more complex than any of us suspected at most junctures where we have thought we could resolve the hidden secrets of this new technology.
On the other hand, the basics are much simpler than many had hoped for. Many have expected discovering completely new forces that emerge from objects spinning in complex configurations.
People have told me that my approach to producing gyro-propulsion, as a result of an equal-and-opposite-reaction (the conventional way), is “embarrassing”, when I attempted to explain it in this forum.
Not producing magic in this realm simply disappoints people. But the real source of propulsion is to be found in expanding current knowledge and looking into the small crevices of well known motion, and then applying slightly expanded versions of what science has known all along.
Best Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
