Main Forum Page
The Gyroscope Forum
26 April 2019 13:36
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.
Could you please consider my paper "Detecting Gyroscopic Thrust"
(http://bourabai.kz/articles/Gyrothrust_eng.pdf) to be submitted into
section [Propulsion]->[Papers] of this site.
||28 March 2011
Answers (Ordered by Date)
||Glenn Hawkins - 29/03/2011 02:19:06
| ||Hello again Herman Holushko,|
My name is Glenn Hawkins. I have written articles here, the same as you propose to do. I have no authority. The owner of the site is Glenn Turner. So far as I know he has never objected to an article. That’s what the site is for. Post your findings.
I skimmed over your work. It is very thoughtful and skillfully put together, well written. You have invested a lot of time and should voice your method, sources and conclusions as are evident in your paper.
Personally, I have never used or followed math, though with time and trouble I can. As I remember, it is not difficult. I use mechanics (show and explain what and why) and you also use them extensively. Very good.
Your conclusions mirror my own, except that the load of the washer and light magnesium act as off-set mass and therefore resist acceleration and deceleration more I think than the flywheel. With a heavy flywheel and a light weight shaft only, (no paper housing even) I think the shaft will point far more directly to the center of the spiral and almost precisely, but not at all times.
If the shaft pointed away from the center of the spiral very much at all, that would indicate a resistance and eliminate my tests, theoretical conclusions and apparatus. I think the video evidence ‘itself’ dose not counter my conclusions that there is no rearward reaction at the point the shaft might pivot. That would mean there is no possible way to create inertial propulsion. That would eliminate the last hope. I would need proof, which I do not see.
I have seen the video before and was less impressed than you were. In any case, there is no continuous linear thrust shown. Such is just not possible by mire continuous precession round and round. The direction of centrifuge pulling outward from the center is always in continuously rotation and never, ever stable to a true straight line.
Yes, for my part, please post your article. I think it is excellent.
||Herman Holushko - 29/03/2011 04:14:51
| ||Hello Glenn Hawkins,|
Thank you very much for your answer.
Unfortunately, I could not find any contact e-mail on this site in order to ask for publishing my paper here. That is why I applied using forum. Could you please inform me about proper way of how to publish my paper on this site?
>With a heavy flywheel and a light weight shaft only, (no paper housing even) I think the shaft will point far more directly to the center of the spiral and >almost precisely, but not at all times.
Maybe you are right, but we still need non-rotating parts in a gyroscope which will be the load.
Frankly speaking I am not in the quest for gyroscopic propulsion engine.
I have rather scientific interest for the phenomenon of Laithwaite effect.
So my intentions were quite modest.
What I'm emphasizing it that this effect shows seeming violation of the law of conservation of linear momentum which cannot be explained by conventional physics. Also, I detected the force which accelerates or deaccelerates the gyroscope and causing gain or loss in momentum. Apparently in this experiment the direction of the force happened to be aligned with the spin axis of a gyroscope.
Because I strongly believe in the law of conservation of linear momentum, I made a conclusion is that the force is external to the gyroscope. (So all my math is just to get to that conclusion.) The only explanation which comes to my mind is that the force (arguably) comes from aether.
In my opinion it is scientifically proven that gyroscopic propulsion exists! I claim this by my measurements and calculations.
The problem of finding engineering solution for effective thruster is a separate problem.
I hope that my work could help or maybe inspire engineers to continue the search for the design of the thruster.
I'm very impressed with your efforts. Please, don't give up. Maybe it is worth to go for non-linear thruster. (Remember, a yacht can go against wind. In order to do so it does not go by straight line). It will be very useful to achieve some curved and short trajectories as far as they are repeatable and to some extent predictable. (As we walk we don't move linearly, our steps short, not preсise and not aligned. However we can walk to any point with great accuracy.)
Glenn, thank you very much for your good words.
I wish you the best of luck in your journey!
||Glenn Hawkins - 29/03/2011 06:05:52
| ||Dear Herman,|
You have already posted when you begin this thread. That is all you do to post your paper. If you wish however, to have your paper permanently added to the ‘Behavior’ section, then post a heading directly to Glenn Turner asking permission. Good luck, but he seldom returns messages.
I disagree with you. I hope you take this in stride and ply your considerable talent in some other area where success is possible.
You wrote, “ . . .but we still need non-rotating parts in a gyroscope which will be the load.”
Not really, a gyroscope should have balanced mass equal on either side of the flywheel and not unbalanced as in the flash light and washer demonstration. That unbalanced condition is the cause of much drag, primarily resistance to acceleration and deceleration. Less necessary, but ideally the non-rotating parts should also be as light as possible-- and balanced.
You wrote, “I detected the force which accelerates or decelerates the gyroscope and causing gain or loss in momentum.“
The cause is well understood here. It is inverted torque. Precisely how this takes place in four simultaneous areas of the rotating wheel causing deflections is interesting, but the gain or loss in momentum is due to the change of spin speed of the flywheel and nothing unreal at a distance.
You wrote, “. . . I made a conclusion is that the force is external to the gyroscope.”
Gravity is the only external force. All non-vertical actions are generated internally. The tilting, spinning wheel causes all the oddities.
You wrote, “The only explanation which comes to my mind is that the force (arguably) comes from aether.”
The concept of aether or ‘ether’ was abandon by scientist even before Albert Einstein dismissed it in his great theories. I too have studied it. It cannot exist, period.
You wrote, “In my opinion it is scientifically proven that gyroscopic propulsion exists! I claim this by my measurements and calculations.”
I am sorry, but not only is there no documented and accepted ‘proof’-- individual opinions and calculations not withstanding; there is clear evidence that all attempts to sustain gyro lift have failed at every effort from all over the globe, throughout modern history. There has not one nearly-acceptable success.
You wrote, “. . . your efforts. . . . don't give up.”
I gave up long ago. I will never finish the apparatus though I once had such beautiful plans and ingenious gearing to scale created by others before me, but I have explained generally ‘how’ to likely cause liner thrust in case anyone wished to know. I leave it.
You wrote, “. . . a yacht can go against wind. . . . not go by straight line. . . . some curved and short trajectories. . . our steps short, not precise and not aligned. However we can walk to any point with great accuracy.”
You seem to understand my ‘Inch Worm’ which wattles forward duck like by gravity, but in full design, with electric motors and the gearing it should accelerate very, very, very fast.
I find you very gifted and wish you well. I’ll probable be gone from here for a time.
||Herman Holushko - 29/03/2011 15:09:05
| ||Hi Glenn, |
Thank you very much for your answer.
>The concept of aether or ‘ether’ was abandon by scientist even
>before Albert Einstein dismissed it in his great theories.
>I too have studied it. It cannot exist, period.
I spent years digging in this matter.
I went through tonnes of literature, articles and experimental evidence.
The idea of aether is not abandoned at all. It is in great development at present time. Modern technologies provides opportunities for amazing experiments and observations.
Einstein's theory of relativity is not great. It is wrong. Aether exists.
Sorry, maybe this is offtopic for this forum.
||Glenn Hawkins - 29/03/2011 17:55:04
| ||Dear Herman,|
Thank you for conversing with me.
Light exist as almost nothing except energy. Nevertheless light packages consist of something-- electrons which have a hint, a fingerprint of mater. This hint obeys the laws of motion. For an idea of what I have dreamed up as happening, consider a soap bubble, the outer spear of which consist of revolving electrons. As the bubble travels 186,000 miles a second it collides into other bubbles traveling at the same speed in all direction.
The electrons in a package traveling from the rear of the bubble to the front of the bubble encounter collisions with other bubbles of electrons. Forward rotating electrons are slowed. Conversely, electrons rotating around the outer spear from the front of the bubble to the rear of the bubble do not encounter collisions and do not slow.
The result is a drag rearward that shapes the bubble like a lop-sided teardrop trailing of at the rear. That dose not take effect on light, until light speed is reached. According to Einstein’s calculations, the resistances to ‘actual mater’ traveling through space dose not begin, until the speed of 82% of light speed in breached.) At full light speed, I theorize that the collisions of energy into energy take effect as a resistance to traveling faster. It would then be impossible for anything even light to go faster. A packet would have to then drag along with it the whole universe.
Having said all that, I recalled a line in a movie about the magic bullet theory that supposedly killed President Kennedy. It was, “Theoretical physics can prove an elephant can hang over a cliff with its tail wrapped around a daisy.”
My idea is theoretical the same as yours. I wonder what is actually true. Still, I at least would not be so quick to give Einstein’s theory the boot.
So long my friend, there but by the grace of God I go to another journey, a journey into hands-on mechanics for away from theoretical physics.
P.S There is only one way that might produce I.P. I explained it. I have enjoyed our time.
||SchellAndre - 19/12/2014 10:13:12
| ||AG RAG ARG http://www.ehelp.com|
||Nitro - 19/12/2014 15:45:38
| ||Dear Herman Holushko,|
You will find that the contributors to this site fall into two groups – those who have observed enough to be convinced that Newton is wrong/incomplete and those who are convinced Newton is not to be questioned and regard the “laws” as a religion. Some like Glen Hawkins started in the first group but, after many years of chasing the shadow that is gyro propulsion, I think is now in the second group.
Thank you for putting up the video link in your paper, which better than any maths for me. It shows quite clearly that when released the gyro rotates around its pivot (supporting thread) and not, as some have insisted, around its barycentre. The increasing spiral path is quite simply being caused by the non gyro component of the assembly (gyro frame and laser) displaying its inertia or what is wrongly but more easily referred to as its centrifugal action.
Me? I’ve known it was possible before Laithwaite got his awakening by Alex Jones who I believe got his awakening from me (we were at times on the same British Channel Island). Not that any of that is important, except for my ego. Over time I have made some crude – Oh! Boy! Have they been crude - machines to confirm that the direction of my understanding was correct. Some of them are on my Jogglevision YouTube site.
One of the videos is to show, in the simplest way possible to aid understanding, the internal production of a reactionless force displacing a pendulum’s path of swing. Of course it is not really reactionless, its is just that the reaction is not opposite the action. This shows up one of the holes in Newton’s first and third laws - the third should probably now inelegantly read “to every action there is an equal and usually opposite reaction”. I have always believed that usable reactionless force production is not only possible but inevitable. It is tricky though.
Welcome to the search
My Fun with Newton video is here:-
||Nitro - 24/12/2014 13:08:08
| ||Dear Nick,|
Thank you very much for your message.
Your experiment on video is truly amazing !!! Very convincing.
Do you have any formal paper describing this experiment?
And what is your last name?
As my e-mail is shared I prefer to respond through the gyroscope site.
Glad you liked the video. I didn’t put it up to convince anyone of anything but to try and cut the complexities of the fully working machine down to a simpler to understand tiny segment of its motions. My video, like yours shows quite clearly that a gyro can be used to displace mass without the concomitant opposite displacement of mass that would be expected under Newton's third law. Mine also messes up the first law, just for good measure.
My crude video is “my paper” and I think it’s as formal as it needs be. My (huge) name is at the end of it.
Kind regards and Happy Christmas
|Add an Answer >>|