Question |
| Asked by: |
Dravdin Miles |
| Subject: |
Introduction of concept |
| Question: |
I have designed a gyroscopic based propulsion device that has passed all the propulsion tests I can think of. I have a great desire to assure that I am not tricking myself with these test and would like input on various test techniques would help to determine this device is truly performing reactionless propulsion.
While en effect this device creates a stable unbalance centrifical force due to gyroscopic procession and while obviously breaking the 3rd law of motion, conservation of energy is maintained. I have achieved unidirectional force several times that of the weight of the device. even this rought model produces a smooth constant linear force. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated, my results don't seem possible.
Thanks. |
| Date: |
17 June 2010
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 18/06/2010 00:42:20
|
| | ". . . device that has passed all the propulsion tests I can think of."
What did you think of?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dravdin Miles - 18/06/2010 05:23:58
|
| | I placed the device on a scale to measure the loss in weight and it lifted it's self off the scale, I then tethered it to the table and shroud it with a plastic bag to assure no air thrust was being generated and it didn't effect the results. I've heard the pendulum test is a good test but have no idea how to set that up. I must be clear, I'm a tinkerer not a scientist.
thanks.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 18/06/2010 08:57:30
|
| | Hi Dravdin,
Always before these scale tests resulted in showing up and down oscillations like vibrations, or a pendulum test with inconclusive results, or a cling and jerk movement on a friction surface, but which would not work on a pendulum, or in space.
You however have said, “ . . . it lifted it's self off the scale. . .,” . . .and tethered to the table. . .,” and “. . . produces a smooth constant linear force. . .,” and while, “shrouded with a plastic bag. . .”
There are other tests I can direct you to, but if what you say is true they are unnecessary.
If it did all that without reverse magnetic polarity, forced air lift, or a magician’s tricks then you would have inertial propulsion. . .period. For a start I would put the device in a balsa frame covered with a small black plastic garbage bag and add more tests. Then I would film them all and put the film on youtube. If I see what appears to be successful tests on youtube I will offer advice on selling the device. Do not patten it! Below are some added tests.
Pendulum test: Tie a string to each end of the device. Tie the two strings to a high rafter about the same distance apart as the device below. Put a cardboard backdrop with lines on it behind the device. It the device moves in the arc and holds still at a higher elevation against gravity you have a successful test.
Low coefficient test: Put four leg wires on the device and at the ends don’t add wheels, but tiny cups of crushed ice. Put a carpenter’s level on a table top and level the table. Run the device in one direction on the table and then the reverse direction. With just the tips of crushed ice touching a hard surface there could be so little cling jerk possibility that the idea can be almost disagreed. If the device moves a distance greater than the length of the device it seems you would have a useful test.
Your are smart to be unsure, the odds against you are astronomical. Good luck.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dravdin Miles - 18/06/2010 15:10:56
|
| | Thanks for the input, I will work on these tests over the next week. I've burned out one of the two gyroscope motors and will need to replace it before moving on but I have a couple to spare. I am still working on trying to resolve a torturing issue with the device. as the device enters precession it tends to torque in the direction of the precession rotation similar to the way a helicopter torques in the direction of main rotor spin without a tail rotor. I believe I have a solution to that but will require more tinkering and testing.
I have a lawyer friend that has already warned me about the hazards of the patent office hence the lack of detail in my descriptions.
Thanks again for your input.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 18/06/2010 16:10:54
|
| | Static and dynamic control require a torque in the opposite direction to counter the rotor spin, as of course in your good helicopter example. You may have already reasoned you need an equal number of flywheels traveling in opposite directions, but otherwise connected to form a unite.
For myself, I have found it necessary to apply units of four gyros apposing one another in a circle at 45 degrees separation. The four driving forces then come forward, otherwise held in check at right angles of one another.
The test I suggested were designed to dispel against cling and jerk movement arguments. Since you say the thing move smoothly and constantly (none jerky) any old tests will do; the ones you’ve done, those I suggested, setting it on a flotation in water, with wheels, even lift-off if you can make it powerful enough.
All that effort would be useless, until and unless you gain static and dynamic control and when you do I think you will find that heart breaking flaw that proves it doesn’t work. Maybe not, let’s hope not. My own work shows propulsion and there is no way to explain it away. But, it is complicated and I’m still trying to build it. In my design the flywheels are self propelled with the motor being in the center of the wheels. This is not easy as it might seem, but it has been done in ways however, that are too limited for for my need. MIT and Cambridge both build such flywheels, except they were off balance and slowed; using a side motor, bevel gearing and speed reducers. That’s not good for me. How do you rotate your flywheels? This is not a secret to guard as there are only so many ways we can reason do this and they‘ve already been reasoned and done.
You are very welcome. I‘m glad if I helped you even if it was only to have someone to talk to about your tests. After a while, it gets kind of lonesome working on something that nobody believes in.
Good luck again and so long,
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick - 21/06/2010 05:19:41
|
| | 359 367, Breakdown 360 degrees into 359 parts then have an inner circle 360 degrees broken down to 367 parts. 359 divided by 8 due to all myan math or that of old being factor 8.
Then 359 divided by 8 is 44 and 7 eights
So then how many rotations of 360 does it take to have a whole number without fractions?
And how after these rotations does it allighn with the inner of segmented parts of 367 and upon division of 360 how many rotations untill a non fractional num reached.
And in these rotations how many were pre allighnment and how many were after to get to the one allighnment every ?
decimal 8
ofset primes
within a 360 degree module
how many rotations to allign
Distance between inner and outer
Speed of rotation 2 cause fluidicity
Magnetic repultion design to cause electron streem at centre
All these ?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick - 30/06/2010 04:19:09
|
| | DEAR glenn
05112007161143 nice, Let me tell you one thing..................................
YOU WILL never find it on ure own, due to all the possibilities and all the numbers.
EX. 234.3971428659003
128.1159062933422
307.4453900844181
472.6634951632775
? What are there comparables in a lunar cycle.
? Compared to 1077 full moons since 2010 solstice j21
? TO 1101 times 3 divided by 22 divided by 7
So say dear glenn how could you work just this one,, an yet there is 642933197087948 combinations or infracs every year.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dr D.Fisher - 30/06/2010 22:08:36
|
| | You are lying, or deluded.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick - 05/07/2010 00:06:26
|
| | DELUDED no
plecluded yes
How dare you enture into me deluded
When nature eludes infront of you
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 13/07/2010 01:49:16
|
| | Dear Patrick,
This guy, D. Fisher is a strange one. I'm not convinced he is actually a doctor, but he's been around a long, long time. I could tell you more about him, but it does not matter. He is always the way he is, mean no matter who he's writing to . . . It's not just you and Sandy. So pay him no mind.
I think you are a swell fellow. You must keep posting however you like, when ever you like.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dravdin Miles - 21/07/2010 06:21:59
|
| | In addition to Moving to a new place with my girlfriend I have discovered that the amount of torque on the motors driving my 2 gyroscopes is very high and the strain on the bearings is also much greater then I anticipated. The most recent tests have left the device in shambles. I have burned out the remained of my drive motors and a bearing failure released one of the gyro's and the resulting havoc destroyed my carefully designed frame. A rebuild is in underway along with a brand new batch of high torque motors. More to come.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick hill - 24/07/2010 11:44:09
|
| | NO ONE has come anywhere near. Sounds like a whole load of jibberish not jaberwok, bless must be hard totake in thou!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick - 13/08/2010 09:09:56
|
| | just imagine for one minute a cotton reel shaped internal core prob 50 meters across, then surround that with the ufo shaped craft. I hope i lost a lot of readers then because the min u say ufo .. the masses flee
faces of magnets push and pull, they allways have it is their nature. but if u were to suround the core cotton reel and the inside of the surrounding face within the ufo with magnets,.. opposing polarity faces.
And if the inner magnets added up to a prime number like 367
And the outer to and say prime 359
Then any two points inner and outer would nevr surely meet..
This then posses a question one revolution of the outer travels more distance than one from the inner. BUT have they both traveled the same amount of markers or degrees?
Whichever way two primes will never meet and there is simply more pushers and pullers than of the opposing rotating feild..SO what is left ????
MYAN and EGYPTIAN math state of rebirth the symbols of 22 boxes arond 7 boxes produces pye
Repeling magnetic feild will cause rotation but only in the mechanics of numbers and of wher the very next repultion lands to its opposing enviromennt in a circlar engine.
A car engine would only kick back if its timing was out, appart from that it has the fuel to drive every rotation on.
Mankind strives for perpetual motion yet all in nature in life continues on and on!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dravdin Miles - 25/05/2011 21:31:23
|
| | I received the new motors a couple of weeks ago and sense they were bigger and more powerful than the previous ones I had to modify my frame to use them. It took me a couple weekends of work to get them integrated into the device but I was able to complete the modifications last weekend. I will tell you the new motors performed wonderfully to such a degree they proved too much for the Gyros I had fabricated. One of them spun apart completely and left me with yet another couple weeks or rebuilding work. Although I only managed to get a few seconds of full power operation before the gyro failed I can say I was very encouraged by the performance while it lasted. I am headed out this evening to purchase the parts to build a much more robust version of my Gyros. More to come soon.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
