|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
25 April 2024 15:42
|
|
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: |
FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO BUILD GYRO THRUST |
| Question: |
Before the design: First comes the concept:
1) Lay a mirror face-up on a table.
2) Place a pedestal on the mirror.
3) Place a spinning gyro on the pedestal so that it overhangs.
4) Release the gyro so that it precess’ around the pedestal.
5) Note that as the gyro precess, it also falls toward the mirror.
6) Note the reflection of the gyro in the mirror rises to meet the actual falling gyro.
7) Eventually the gyro and its mirrored image will come together and meet on the face of the mirror.
8) The view was as if a magnet or invisible hydraulics had pulled two gyros together to meet at a common platform, one gyro down, and one gyro up.
9) Note that the gyro at the pedestal and its image at its image-pedestal are supported, while the outer ends tilt together, one up, the other down until they touch.
10) If you use two real gyroscopes in that configuration, but rotate them in opposite directions, they will act the same as described above with the gyro above and its image.
11) With the platform, not a mirror, an overhung pair of gyros can be tilted together with magnets or hydraulics and they can be forced to precess together, until they torched together.
12) In space, the gyros must have something to push and pull against, in this case each other.
13) Place another set of paired up and down gyros beside these.
14) Rotate one side pair, exactly opposite to its twin side pair.
15) The twins precess oppositely, the outsides go forward, circle and meet together and keep precessing.
16) The twin pairs consist of a total of four gyroscopes. Build another pair on the same platform behind the first pair, but these you must rotate all and each exactly oppositely to the front twin pairs.
17) Now you have eight gyros spinning in controlled directions, while each set of twins are pull together to tilt up and down in unison.
18) Theoretically you have gained dynamic and static control of all actions and reactions in space in all three dimensions.
There is no thrust produced at this point, only control. More thinking is required to understand how to thrust the eight gyros in one united direction.
You may inquire about anything you don’t understand and I will try to answer.
The next article will be about the first part of the concept of Building Thrust: |
| Date: |
11 November 2010
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Albert Druid - 13/11/2010 00:13:30
| | | good start Glenn - lookin forward to it - Al
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 20/11/2010 19:40:37
| | | LINEAR THRUST CAN BE GAINED FROM CIRCLING MASS MOVEMENT
Mass movement is a term invented by English Professor Eric Laithwate. It means mass moved by precession is continuously changing directions without an opposite reaction. This is universally accepted in the closed condition of rotation. Gyroscopic precession in and overhung configuration also travels in a circular path, but that it is not rotation.
Rotation can not exist, unless there is counter mass connected to counter mass to offset the centrifuge of one another. Precession is a singular mass pivoting around a main hub. There is no counter balancing mass, nor is there any centripetal pulling the single mass back into the hub as the gyro circles. A number of conditions in the flywheel itself forces it to circle around the main hub.
As gravity pulls the rotating and suspended gyroscope downward, the plain of rotation is tilted. The tilting causes resistance in the rotating particles of the flywheel, as they want to stay in their exact plain of rotation, but are forced into a lowering plain by the tilting. The resistance causes a torque. The torque is created in the near vertical and is twisted to act in the near horizontal. The action and reaction occurs almost entirely as a right angle configuration of torque.
This is against the Third Law of Motion and common human understanding, but it happens, period. The action and reaction are at right angles and not oppositely aligned.
Professor Laithwate hung a small gyroscope from a toy train and the gyroscope pulled the train around a large diameter track. He claimed that the diameter that could be transverse in this way was limitless. This in a sense was mass movement, considering the fact that every object in the universe from the large to the small is destined to travel in a curvature inside two or more points within a sphere, such as in a molecule, star cluster or universe. All motions curve. However, the demonstration was not linear acceleration. It was not purely a demonstration of useful thrust such as in rocketry.
Linear directional thrust cannot be gotten from rotation. If two balls are tied together and caused to rotate in a binary way and the string breaks, the balls will separated in opposite directions. That condition is governed by the third Law of Motion of equal and opposite reactions. It is understood that rotation cannot be converted into a single, linear directional motion without an opposite reaction occurring. That is why rotation is called a closed system.
Precession is not rotation. It can be created and converted to one direction linear thrust without a rearward reaction.
1.) Precession begins without an inline force directing it by push or pull.
2.) Precession change directions in its circular plain without creating an equal and opposite reaction.
3.) In precession no centripetal exist to draw the flywheel back in toward the centered hub.
4.) The force to cause mass movement is generated from a toque vertically twisting up in a right angle to the horizontal plain.
5.) There is no opposite force in the plain of precession and there never was.
In the next segment, I intend to prove mass movement, before proceeding to thrust. There is a lot of proving I have to do.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Albert Druid - 22/11/2010 01:36:22
| | | great going Glenn - am ejoying your explanations - thanks Al
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/11/2010 18:02:56
| | |
Precession: The reaction is absorbed and moved.
a.) Newton’s, 3rd Law is true. It states that for every action there is an equal and opposite action.
b.) A gyroscope seated in gimbals rings, allows the gyroscope to rotate freely in all directions. Whenever one side of the shaft running through the flywheel is moved, the opposite half shaft in the flywheel moves in exact opposite direction and distance. A gyroscope acting in gimbals rings can be observed on youtube.
Based on (a.) and (b.) above it is very reasonable to mistaken belief that an overhung gyroscopes moves relative to equal and opposite actions. That is not correct, though it is very true that equal and opposite tendencies do exist at the supporting pedestal or string. They are however, absorbed and changed to act differently.
Perhaps this reaction should have been expected since precession is the result of twisting actions that were converted into right angle reactions. It should only follow then in continuation that the reaction in the pedestal and string should also be twisted to act at a right angle, which it does.
Harry K. and my own knowledge had me struggling for a long time. He believed there was reaction at the point of support, but that both the string and the pedestal were anchored so that they could not show reaction. I agreed with him as any sensible person would. The problem that I took upon myself then, was how do I prove there is, or is not reaction at the support.
Eventually I found out how the reactions in the pedestals and strings are moved and changed by the gyroscope itself. Proof comes next.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 12/12/2010 21:03:54
| | | LINEAR THRUST CAN BE GAINED FROM CIRCLING MASS MOVEMENT
In order to have you believe this, it is first necessary to provided you the means to prove to yourself there is no opposite reaction in precession. My statement that there isn’t, should only startle you and perhaps lessen the attention you are willing to give me. Your mind is ingrained with the three laws of motion and your will not be changed, unless you, yourself discover and prove an exception to them. Being an intelligent and learned person you will not give up so easily. What I say is worth doodle squat to you. For my writing to have any value, you must do hands on experimenting as you reason out my explanations and think about them. This could take a long time, because this is more than complicated, you are so opposed-- as I once was.
Tie a three or four foot string to an overhead beam.
Tie the hanging end to a good gyroscope (Taco will do).
Spin it up extra fast by using an extra long pull-string.
Release it and watch.
Note that the entire body of the gyroscope moves outward 8” to 10 from the area where it is tied to the beam. The string can be aligned at a forty five degree angle so that as it circles the spot overhead, it forms the shape and path of a cone.
What is most extraordinary is that the axel/shaft always points inward as it circles toward the precise area directly underneath the place where it is tied from the beam above.
Your question, ‘Why is the gyroscope not attempting to rotate around its center of mass?’ but instead around a 10” empty hole in space.
‘Why is the shaft at all times pointing toward an invisible center underneath the beam tie off?
Again, ‘Why is the gyro not attempting to rotate around its center of mass?’
Do you suspect the string, while attempting to hang vertically with weight on it, is offering resistance to the shaft to keep the gyroscope from rotating around it center of mass? Do you think that somehow this is also the reason the shaft points to the center wherein it circles widely around the tie off above?
No, neither is true. The system definitely possess all the tendencies of equal and opposite reaction, but some reactions are always in the process of being moved to another place and time to act there. I shall return to explain how and why.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 20/12/2010 15:37:33
| | | Here is your proof of the strange phenomenon of mass movement. It is the reason propulsion is possible.
The easy part for you: Several you over the years have reasoned that as a gyro precesses around a pedestal, the center of the gyro’s mass is twisted down upon the pedestal. How could that not be true? Otherwise the gyro would fall. But of course, the gyro supports itself by pushing its weight down upon the pedestal. Who could argue with that?
I keep saying precession is not rotation. As the gyro moves around the pedestal, or string it is changing positions in space. At anytime if the flywheel stopped rotating the gyro would fall and prove it had moved from one place to another. Remember it was not pushed or pulled with horizontal force from one place to another. There was no opposite force to set it to action, only vertical force, better know here as right angle force.
Because the center of mass is resting on top of the pedestal (not the center of the flywheel), the gyro is actually rotating around the misplaced center of gravity, which again is the pedestal. The laws of motion hold true in this way that allows centrifuge to pull a string-tied gyro outward to precess in a large circle. The laws then show up and work. However, only after vertical force has been twisted at a right angle into a horizontal plane. This twisting right angle force should also obey the laws of motion, but that is complicated and not necessary to explain or know.
You have your simple and undeniable proof of mass movement.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
It is not necessary that you read or understand this difficult explanation below, but it might interest some of you.
The shaft could not point in line to the spot under the tie/off, if there was a discernable angle of resistance to the center of mass rotation.
The precession angle is very pronounced to the point of lifting.
Why would the opposite rotation angle be disguised?
If centrifuge pulls precession outward, the twist in equal and opposite to the center of mass would pull the gyro inward. Are they balanced pulling in and out?
No. One is very pronounced, the other being completely unapparent as shown by the pointing shaft.
These functions are changed, because the weight of the gyro rest on the pedestal or string. Wallah! We have a another view of mass movement.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Next. We are finally ready to build thrust.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 21/12/2010 22:39:06
| | | I have done several tests looking for opposite reaction in the overhung gyroscope. If the gyroscope rotated around its center of mass, which is the center of the flywheel that would indicate opposite reaction to precession. This, doses not happen. If the untied end of the shaft was resisting due to friction, or lifting against gravity, that would indicate opposite reaction. However the above writing explains the gyroscope holds itself aloft by torque pushing down on the string and pedestal. The string and pedestal area act exactly as if they were the center of mass, not the flywheel. Otherwise the flywheel would fall. Therefore, as explained above there is no rearward reaction existing that would cause the gyro to rotate around it‘s center. Therefore there can be no reaction at the pivot point at the string and pedestal, because the gyroscope is not producing any at its center. Let us state this one last time and be done with it.
I created a crude form of inertial propulsion twenty years ago and once explained it here as acting like an inchworm and so named it The Inch Worm. It was very limited and Luis is the only one who ever understood it. I will explain it again, because by further manipulating this method in far more complicated ways a powerful acceleration can be theoretically created. Below is the crude Inchworm. You need to understand it, before we can proceed to inertial acceleration.
Aw, where dose the time go. Latter the worm.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 15/01/2011 17:40:29
| | | NON-ACCELERATING INERTIAL PROPULSION
I named an inertial experiment the ‘Inchworm’ twenty years ago. It was so named, because its speed was very limited as it inched forward in a series of waddling movements. The motion stopped and started like an inch worm on a stick. Perhaps I should instead have named it ‘The Drunken Duck’ because its movements are so hesitant and ungainly as it waddles forward. It comes to a complete stop after each forward movement, never coasting, loses all its momentum and speed and then continues waddling again inches at a time.
This is how the experiment was performed. I cut out a two inch slot down the length of a shoebox led and placed a Taco gyroscope wheel inside the slot, leaving one each shaft end to rest on each side of the slot. While holding the sides of the led with both hands, I lower the right side only and never let the left side move. The left shaft end remained resting on the left side of the led. That end shaft being supported like and overhung gyroscope, pivoted and precessed from a rearward angle to a forward angle.
As I continued a series of lowering one side of the box only, then lowing the other side only, back and forth, the gyroscope waddled forward very oddly, but always forward
As the gyro precessed it also lowered, until the precessing side of the shaft touched down on the previously lowered side of the led. I confirmed again and again in various test and bouts of late night reasoning over the years that there was no rearward reaction to this forward action. It was mass movement, which is an action movement having no rearward reaction. It seemed impossible.
Eventually my hands and the box led were lowered, until they touched the floor. At this point the box led must be raised straight up to chest level again and the procedure restarted. If the box led were unlimited miles long and the flywheel spun continuously and the process repeated, the Inchworm could be made to travel unlimited miles without ever a rearward reaction.
Problems that had to be solved:
1.) In space this gyro must have a track to walk on, which is not possible for long distances.
2.) The track would have to work in conjunction with an opposite track so that each could force oppositely against the other to perform up and down movements and side to side lowering.
3.) The Inchworm cannot maintain its speed and build on it. It cannot even coast. It is Inchworm slow.
Some solutions and method were touched on in at the beginning of this post about static and dynamic control. We will go over them.
The next installment will be about how to build the inchworm into an accelerating machine capable perhaps of attaining speeds equal to 83% of the speed of light.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 15/01/2011 17:50:20
| | | I forgot to mention. One on of the experiments I taped Scotch tape to the edges of the slit in the box led and oiled them with ten weight oil and placed a spinning gyro shaft ends on the oiled plastic inside the slot. I tilted the front of the led upwards so as to maintain a very slight upward slope. Still the gyro climbed forward and upwards on the lead without sliding backwards. In many other ways I found there is just no rearward reaction in mass movement.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 20/02/2011 16:57:38
| | | In this thread it was explained how to maintain static and dynamic control using a number of gyroscopes. Also explained was the series of continuous tilting, lifting and opposite tilting again. The track on which this action is supported and takes place, need not be very long. As soon as the contraption has inched forward on the track, mechanically shove it backward on the track. As the contraction is coasting backward, continue the series of actions; tilting, lifting and tilting continuously. The contraction will slow, then stop and then crawl forward again.
The thrust comes from each time the contraption is shoved backward. Equal and opposite reaction, you know. These backward thrusts build velocity continuously. After the first few weeks of thrust, the contraction should become the fastest traveling body in space.
The engineering and design itself is about how to make all the functions work together. It was fascinating to do and I found beautiful old mechanical gearing that others before me did so incredulously and ingeniously. It‘s all too much for me to want to explain. You have principle though in these threads. You have the way to build inertial thrust. Nothing else will work--nothing, nothing else. It would be up to you to study this entire thread and play with it physically in order to understand. I am finished.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/03/2011 14:19:35
| | | I meant to finish by explaining how great speed can be obtained. Electromagnetic force from motors are often thousands of times greater than comparatively weak gravity. When gyros will be forced together by electric motors, they will tilt and precess shortly thousands of times faster than we have seen in toys by gravity. In addition, when the gyros are large with very long shafts they can be made to precess a distance hundreds of times greater than toy gyros. (consider pi . r . sq.) Gyroscopes then can be made to accelerate with G forces. Nuclear power can provide extended thrust time, as it dose for nuclear submarines. They could trust, building speed continuously for months and years. Conversely rockets, though they can pull up to 10 Gs, burn their fuel in about ten minutes. Therefore, gyroscopic supplied inertial thrust, which unlike rockets can use nuclear might be able to attain 83 percent of light speed, which is the speed where imposable resistances begin according to Albert Einstein.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Daniel LaLiberte - 15/05/2011 21:58:13
| | | Glenn,
I note that in your message of 12/12/2010, you described this experiment:
"Tie a three or four foot string to an overhead beam.
Tie the hanging end to a good gyroscope (Taco will do).
Spin it up extra fast by using an extra long pull-string.
Release it and watch.
Note that the entire body of the gyroscope moves outward 8” to 10 from the area where it is tied to the beam. The string can be aligned at a forty five degree angle so that as it circles the spot overhead, it forms the shape and path of a cone.
What is most extraordinary is that the axel/shaft always points inward as it circles toward the precise area directly underneath the place where it is tied from the beam above.
Your question, ‘Why is the gyroscope not attempting to rotate around its center of mass?’ but instead around a 10” empty hole in space. "
---
But that is not my question. In fact, I would claim that, once a sufficient explanation is provided, this will be seen as further proof that the gyroscope is attempting to rotate around its center of mass.
The particulars of your experiment will make a difference. How long the string is and how fast you spin the gyro, and how long the gyro axis is will all affect the outcome.
In your experiment, you say the axle of the gyro was always pointing in toward the empty center. But I suspect that if you spin it a bit slower (thus decreasing the precession cycle), or shorten the string just a bit more (thus increasing the pendulum cycle), then it won't necessarily always be pointing toward the center. Observe (again?) the part of Laithwaite's lecture where he does a similar experiment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCLLGqvpp7o For the parameters of that experiment, it turns out that the gyro tends to point radially outward, not inward. But it changes over time as the spin rate declines due to friction, first pointing outward, then shifting around until it is pointing inward.
When the spin of the gyro is slowed sufficiently that the precession is quite fast, relative to the period of the pendulum, then it is more clear how the precession rotates around the center of mass of the gyro. You can see that in this segment of Laithwaite's lecture starting at around 4:00 minutes.
Briefly, here is how I would explain what is happening. Starting from the vertical position of the string, the gyro precession which rotates around its own center of mass pushes the supporting string away from the vertical. But the weight of the gyro, having been effectively transferred to the pendulum string (due to the torque we would agree causes that transfer), thus also causes the pendulum to begin swinging back toward the center at close to the same rate as the precession. But the precession is a rotation while the pendulum swing would prefer to fall straight back to the center, so the two forces would cancel each other out except that the precession rotation adds a bit of rotation to the pendulum. At each moment, the precession keeps pulling the pendulum out from the center and pushes it a little more around the circle.
Is this explanation making sense, regardless whether you agree with it? I'm feeling the need to draw some more pictures.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/05/2011 00:58:03
| | | Hi Daniel,
Attempt as it may, it dose not rotate around its center of mass and the shaft dose point to the center below the overhang, all things being in correct mode.
Yes, your explanation is correct, at least to me at first glance.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Daniel LaLiberte - 16/05/2011 04:36:01
| | | But my explanation for how the precession pushes the pendulum out and around in a growing circle includes the assumption that the precession rotates around its center of mass. And you have expressed in several places that you believe the precession does not rotate around its center of mass, and in fact that it is not a rotation. I don't quite know what you mean by claiming precession is not a rotation. But in any case, I don't understand how my explanation could make sense without the precession rotating around the center of mass.
After all, if the precession did rotate around the point of suspension instead (as I also believed up until about a week ago) then why would the gyroscope do anything but continue to rotate around that point without moving the string anywhere? And in particular, why would the gyro move far away from the original point of suspension by gradually increasing the distance from the center out to a substantial angle? Precession that is rotation around the center of mass does explain it, but I don't understand any other explanation that is sufficient. I haven't heard any other explanation.
If you watch the video I referenced, you cannot deny that it shows the gyro pointing out for a large part of the time, and not inward toward the center. So that example is in contrast to your experience. How do you explain that difference?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/05/2011 04:57:24
| | | BELIEVE ME OR DON'T BELIEVE ME. I HAVE EXPLAINED WELL ENOUGH.
I have time to work, and maybe time to build and only a little time left for this, sorry.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Daniel LaLiberte - 16/05/2011 05:38:27
| | | I believe you saw what you did. I didn't question that.
I am hoping you will have a little time to watch 5 minutes of that video I referenced, to see something that is different from what you observed. And given that we can observe different things depending on the particulars of how we set up our experiments, then it would be reasonable to try to find explanations that are consistent with all the observations. Would you agree with that?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/05/2011 21:52:18
| | | I’m back to visit Daniel. You are clever and I wish you had been here when I was engaging with others and doing research. I wish that I didn’t come off as a know-it-all, but at my stage I no longer feel there is much left to learn. I admit I could be all wet.
I’ll attempt to address your interest, for as once I was driven in a quest for understanding as you surely are.
You explained:
“In your experiment, you say the axle of the gyro was always pointing in toward the empty center. But I suspect that if you spin it a bit slower . . .then it won't necessarily always be pointing toward the center.”
Yes, I agree completely, Daniel. When you slow the spin speed from great spin inertia toward low spin inertia, you lessen the wonderful illusions of magic. When you lessen angular momentum and deflections become less forceful and the wheel begins losing its odd properties and behavior. Spin it fast when you want more gyroscopic effect, that is what the professor always did. So, you are right again.
You explain:
“Observe (again?) the part of Laithwaite's lecture . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCLLGqvpp7o
For the parameters of that experiment . . . the gyro tends to point radially outward, not inward. But it changes over time as the spin rate declines due to friction, first pointing outward, then shifting around until it is pointing inward.”
Long ago I observed this lectures, particularly this one over and over and over. Generally in high speed rotation the shaft points inward to the center of the overhand, but certainly there are obvious instances of inexactitude. It is not precise at all time. So, your observations are correct again.
You explain:
“When the spin of the gyro is slowed sufficiently that the precession is quite fast. . . then it is more clear how the precession rotates around the center of mass of the gyro. You can see that in this segment of Laithwaite's lecture starting at around 4:00 minutes.”
You are correct again and for an explanation I refer you to my above explanation.
You next explain how and why the gyroscope is attempting to rotate around its center of mass. (I like this how and why way of reasoning.)
Yes, the gyro would rotate around its center of mass if free to do so, but there is a countering force you have found (“. . .so the two forces would cancel each other. . .”) At high-speed flywheel rotation, the gyroscope is not permitted to circle around itself. Countering this tendency is a condition I find very fascinating. It has to do with time future, present and past. Each time the gyro would circle in upon itself, its pivotal shaft side has moved forward following a larger circle. It is never where it was, but always in the future position and advanced almost exactly the right amount to maintain our alignment. Therefore as the gyro dose in fact twist around its center of mass, but the twisting is slowed. After a full revolution the gyro will have twisted completely around, but it as slow doing so as the larger circle in which it travels. The result of future, past and present time and place, or space is caused by the different circumference, therefore different distances, the two shaft ends travel within. Doesn’t it all seem almost magical? The more we learn about the universe, even about little things like precession the more magical it all is to me. Isn’t it all so fascinating. Although your understanding was perhaps incomplete, it was essentially correct.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
