|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
26 April 2024 16:29
|
|
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: |
Glenn Hawkins |
| Subject: |
WARP-DRIVE IS ONE OF THE MOST REMARKABLE DISCOVERY EVER |
| Question: |
INERTIAL PROPULSION IS POSSIBLE,
Because the third law proves it is.
An very important thread was posted on this site by, Ram Firestone. The date was, 2 December 2004. http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=306
We were all wrong about physics. Ram wanted to know if an overhung gyroscope attempts to twist around its center of mass, or if it elects to orbit a supporting pedestal. I wanted to know the same thing, dose the gyroscope move around the pedestal, without the pedestal receiving a countering force to cause it to try to rotate around the gyroscope. Was the reason the pedestal did not counter rotate, because of the friction on the table even when I was using specks of ice in place of wheels, I wondered? I worried too about having to constantly accelerate the inert pedestal around a circle. That featherweight resistance however, was so very light, did it even count?
Ram believed as I did, that if the gyroscope preferred to rotate freely around the pedestal and the pedestal preferred not to move, then inertial propulsion was surely possible, otherwise, it was not.
All of my observations and testing indicated that there was no counter reaction showing up at the pedestal/string. This was confusing, because at the time we mistakenly believed that physics determined that in all cases a gyro would attempt to rotate around its center of mass. If that was not enough to set one aback, there was the third law that said there had to be an equal and opposite reaction, which we took in our study to mean, two opposite forces rotating around the center of gyro mass, but again in this too we misunderstood physics as it relates to overhung precession.
Several contributors joined in. There was Ram, Glen Turner, Sandy, Nitro, Ray, Momentus, DaveS, Glenn H. and MicroMach. Almost seven years later nobody had provided sufficient testing to answer the question, until now. Each of us was gifted with clever mind. That is obvious in the thread, still we were all wrong about physics.
In an overhung gyroscope demonstration, physics dose not imply that the gyroscope must rotate around the center of its mass, as we believed it did implied. Instead, physics would agree that the overhung gyroscope is driven by a directional dynamic force around a static force, static being the area of the pedestal or string. More on this later. For now here is all that has been tried in attempts that might answer the questions.
Youtube has two offerings:
1) A gyro shaft is sat on an ice puck-- but this is unacceptable, because the puck has much mass and is therefore subject to all the inert conditions that resist acceleration.
2) A gyro shaft is sat on a balsa wood platform, which in turn hovers over a cushion of air, but this test is unacceptable too, because the puck also has mass and is subject to the inert conditions that resist acceleration and this could act like friction.
Someone placed a platform over tiny bearings and sat the shaft of a gyroscope on the platform, but this is an unacceptable test. Each bearing would counter-rotate in contact with its neighbor bearing and also the table, plus bearing and platform have mass and inertia, therefore they resist acceleration.
A Youtube clip shows a person orbiting the earth in freefall, who had the perfect opportunity do simple and important tests, instead he performed juvenile demonstrations to prove what children, many of them, already knew.
Ram’s question is seven years old and only now is answered.
************************************************************************
The mechanical answer
A gyroscope precessing in gimble rings, such as a lecturer gyroscope always receives two opposite dynamic forces. They are equal and opposite forces in motion, however we generally recognize only one dynamic force, that which comes from the human finger that exerts force upon the lecturer gyroscope.
When the finger pushes down, the gimble bearings, located in line with the center of the gyro’s mass, resist and only pivot in reaction, that is resist statically, not dynamically. This is easy to observe, as the finger moves a section of the gyroscope downward, the gyro pivots at its bearing rings, which remain horizontally still, neither yielding up or down. This static resistance causes the opposite end of the shaft to rise, which is a countering dynamic motion upwards. It is like a See-saw for children, one goes up, the other down representing the motion and directions of equal and opposite dynamics.
We may rightly say,
A GYROSCOPE SET IN GIMBLE RINGS ROTATES AROUND IT’S CENTER OF MASS, BECAUSE IT RECEIVES EQUAL AND OPPOSITE FORCE AROUND IT’S CENTER OF MASS. AFTER THE GYROSCOPE DEFLECTS THESE MOTIONS INTO A RIGHT ANGLE PRECESSION, THE PRECESSION REACTS WITH THE SAME EQUAL AND OPPOSITE FORCES TRAVELING AROUND THAT SAME CENTER OF MASS AS THE FORCES THAT BEGAN PRECESSION.
An over hung gyroscope is very different.
As the gyro is pulled down by gravity, the un-tethered end of the axel moves downward showing the gyro’s dynamic force. However, the opposite end of the axel, the un-tethered end cannot react with countering dynamic force. That end of the axel is static. It is not allowed to react in equal and opposite dynamic motion up or down, because a pedestal or string holds it.
We may rightly say,
IN AN OVERHUNG CONFIGURATION GRAVITY PULLS THE GYROSCOPE DOWNWARD FORCING ITS NON-TETHERED AXEL END DOWNWARD, WHICH SHOWS THE DYNAMIC FORCE OF MOTION. THE DYNAMIC END IS FORCED TO CURVE AROUND THE AREA OF STATIC RESISTANCE, WHICH IS THE PEDESTAL OR STRING. AS A RESULT, THE OVERHUNG GYROSCOPE CANNOT ROTATE AROUND IT’S CENTER OF MASS, NEITHER DOES IT SEEK TO DO SO. THE DYNAMIC SIDE ROTATES AROUND THE STATIC SIDE.
The third law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. We see this in the ginbles rings gyro. One dynamic force moves around the center of the gyroscope’s mass, while an equal dynamic force moves oppositely around the other side of the gyroscope‘s center of mass. The reaction is precession and the precession reaction in response works the same way, one dynamic force pushes the front of the gyro inward and around the center of mass, while an opposite dynamic force pushes the rear of the gyroscope outward and around the center of mass. It is a system where all actions are equal and opposite. The third law of motion is preserved.
In the overhung configuration only one dynamic force exist and this the cause of all the confusion. The dynamic force moves around an area of static resistance, that is the pedestal or string that resist, not the center of mass. The overhung gyro operates with one static force and one dynamic force, which are nevertheless equal and opposite responses. The reaction that is precession operates the same for the same reasons. One dynamic force circles one static force. In precession the static area does not resist force, nor does it act with force. It was never given an active force at it’s beginning, before it became a static part of a right angle reaction into precession. Static force cannot reproduce dynamic force. All this is in in keeping with the laws of motion and could not be any other way.
In conclusion, there is no rearward reaction to precession. An overhung gyro is not allowed to rotate around its center of mass either in action, therefore neither is it in precession reaction. Consequently, we have the unmistakable condition of mass movement. This mass movement is in fact inertial propulsion in a circle. The correct use of this condition will create a constantly accelerating linear thrust . . . Period.
I have some very dated proof of what I claim and a recently completed design of the worlds first Warp Engine for space travel. I wouldn’t mind having a financial and active partner.
|
| Date: |
5 July 2010
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| |
No answers yet |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
