|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
27 April 2024 20:31
|
|
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: |
RichardUrwin |
| Subject: |
YouTube Videos of interest |
| Question: |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nstIIZZadAM&feature=channel_video_title
I discovered this tonight searching gyros and thought it would be of interest to the forum as seems to be a working reproduction of the Eric Laithwaite Patented Device.
I hope there are more Video reproductions of the Di Bella, Laithwaite, Jones, Stratton and Kidd Devices posted online helping generate interest in the subject. |
| Date: |
14 May 2011
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 15/05/2011 00:39:29
| | |
Hi Richard,
How interesting. The device is not yet complete, but it is almost complete. If the inventor were to place two devices together, such as seen in a mirror and its image, it would be closer to being complete. More complicated mechanical actions would still be necessary to engineer. Then I would believe in it, until and unless it failed testing. As it stands, it is a clever, carefully engineered device, which is 33%, completed. So it doesn’t yet work.
Being that it is incomplete; the following is some interesting observations. If it were in space, it would tumble forward and rearward, twisting back and forth all the while.
1 a.) Force is being applied from the clear plastic platform that would result in the device tumbling forward then tumbling rearward, if not for the surface of the table and gravity to hold it down.
1 b,) The weight of the device is great enough to nullify the tendency to tumble by acting as levered force downward, so that neither the front nor rear of the plastic platform is allowed to RISE. If one end cannot rise, the other end cannot tilt down because of the table.
1 c.) You can see the effort to tumble when at certain times the golf balls do not respond to solid contact. The device is ever so slightly lifted on that end. If you wish to observe, the time on the reader count is I believe, 1:12 and 2:16, or there about. Look to the front, and, or the rear of the balls’ in reaction.
The device’s action perfectly obeys the laws of motion. The apparent conclusion is false, because this illusion is hidden in the complications and multiple motions reasoned, view and not understood.
2 a.) The gyro is not precessing from force downward or force upward. In order for the gyro to reverse its curving right, to curving left in one half rotations, one side would have to be tilt downward, the whole wheel then raised, then tilted upward on the opposite side.
2 b.) The force applied is instead horizontal. Instead of forward-rearward precession back and forth, the wheel is attempting to precess upwards and downwards in an angular curving direction. The table and gravity as explained do not allow for this.
2 c.) If the wheel were not spinning at all, the law of equal and opposite motions would still apply. The platform would osculate forward and backward equal distances to the wheel if they contain the same amount of mass. This can be seen happening by running the video back and forth at time counter, 1:35 and 2:16, or there abouts.
2 d.) The reason the device progress’ is not so much ‘cling and jerk’ That is, as the heavy flywheel is jerked quickly backward, the quickness meets a greater frictional resistance than slower outward curving forward motion. There is and additional reason. This is a clever machine that uses the table and gravity to deny tumbling in multiple directions, more primarily in forward- rearward and side to side twisting. In space there is, you know, no table and gravity. I hope the inventor, clever man that he is, will read this and then study the 15th post below called, ‘FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO BUILD GYRO THRUST’.
All the other devices you mentioned just don’t get it done. They don’t work, period.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 15/05/2011 00:54:50
| | | I forgot to mention, if this devise were completed as I explained, it would still never accelerate beyond .o5 miles per hour. Useless!
My device on the other hand, if it works, is reasoned to accelerate to unheard of speeds, just below light speed. It probably will not work, but I cling to seriously believing it might.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Daniel LaLiberte - 15/05/2011 17:14:11
| | | Richard, thanks very much for posting this link to the video. I'd been searching YouTube for a couple weeks looking for good examples of inertial propulsion experiments, but I think YouTube must filter out foreign languages.
My response here will be first to defend Laithwaite's invention for what it was designed to do, but then, I will attack it as being fundamentally flawed on different grounds.
Glenn, your objections to this device, which is a variation on Laithwaite's first "embodiment" from his patent, are at least partially valid, but Laithwaite himself pointed out the same issues, and addressed them. The point of this first model was mostly to provide a simple example mechanism that works and demonstrates the principles involved. Further engineering can take care of the finer details, but also, further redesigns could result in a better working devices, if the basic principles that are depended on do, in fact, hold.
Laithwaite addressed the undesirable torques that would result when trying to propel the vehicle forward, either by yawing to from side to side, or pitching (tumbling) forward and rearward. To address the yaw and pitch, Laithwaite suggested, as you did also, Glenn, building mirror image models, one on the side, and one above, and yet another to mirror both of those. So there would be four models instead of just one. There is another direction of torque that is undesired in a 3D world, which is the rotational roll around the axis of the propulsion, and it seems possible that the four mirror image models might together resist the roll forces as well.
The fundamental mechanism, which is taking advantage of precession to move mass through space without a contrary reaction force, would need to be freed from the requirement and constraints of gravity as well, which Laithwaite addressed. The precession is induced by applying a torque force to the supporting frame of the gyro, so indeed the gyro must respond by tilting a little, and this tilting results in the precession at right angles to the tilting. This is contrary to your objection 2a, Glenn. But I don't want to go into further details about why this is so, mostly because my objection, below, will make this irrelevant.
And contrary to your point 2b, the force required to cause a precession is a torque, not necessarily a vector force in any particular direction. So a horizontal force on a part of the mechanism that would result in the correct torque is fine, as long as that torque is itself balanced by an opposite torque created by one of the mirror image devices.
So Laithwaite's design addresses these applied torques, both the torque that results in the precession and the torque that creates the linear "jerk" forward, and depends on cancelling them out by use of mirror image models. I don't think this is implausible at all, and is well within the bounds of the laws of physics and good mechanical engineering.
You also raise the objection, Glenn, in your second response, that the resulting motion would be too slow, if it worked at all. But of course, the net force in the desired direction would be proportional to the linear force applied to "jerk" the gyro mass forward. And so it should be clear that merely scaling up that part of the mechanism should result in whatever magnitude desired.
Perhaps implicit in this objection is that the "jerk" phase is short relative to the precession phase. In this model, it appears that the precession phase takes about 4 times as long as the "jerk" phase. Laithwaite also addressed this by suggesting that there would be more copies of the whole device to fill in the gap in motion while the precession is occurring in the first devices. So multiply the 4 mirror image devices by 5 (4 times plus the original 1) and we would require 20 devices to fill in the gaps.
But we wouldn't necessarily require as many as this if we merely applied a stronger torque in order to create a faster precession. Let's say we could reduce the precession time to equal the jerk time. Then we would only require one copy of the devices to fill in the gap, for a total of 8 devices.
Another objection, which I haven't seen raised by others, could be based on the non-uniformity of this "jerk" motion, since it must start from 0, rise to some maximum velocity, and then fall back to zero at the end. So the resulting motion of the vehicle would still be jerky, even though we filled in the gap during the precession with another copy of the devices. The astude reader will have noticed the pattern by now, and anticipate that this could be addressed by using yet another copy of all 8 devices, but timed to be half-a-cycle out of phase with the first. Thus the maximum force of the one half of the set will be paired with the minimum force of the other half. We could arrange that the rise and fall forces matched pretty well, thus smoothing out the entire net force.
---
Now, despite my defense of Laithwaite's invention, defending it against inappropriate attacks, I believe it is flawed for the simple reason that the precession does not do what he claims and depends on, and in fact, the precession torque is balanced by a contrary torque on the opposite side of the center of mass of the gyro. That is, the precession will tend to rotate around its own center of mass, offset by the center of mass of the entire device. And the reason this device appears to work is just that the precession occurs slow enough that the static friction of the supporting structure (the balls under the device in this case), as low as it might be, is large enough to resist and absorb the force.
This claim that Laithwaite's claim is wrong has been discussed in other threads. I won't elaborate more now in this long reply except to argue that the best proof of this I have seen is shown most clearly in Laithwaite's lecture, ironically enough. Watch this one part of Laithwaite's lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCLLGqvpp7o Skip to about 4:00, which is where he shows (unintentionally, I am sure) that the precession rotates around the center of mass. The reason it works that way here is that the precession cycle time is sufficiently short compared to the cycle time of the pedulum formed by the long rope it is hanging from.
But, back up the video to about 1:00, and explain what is happening as the gyro swings wider and wider (starting around 1:30), also contrary to Laithwaite's claim that it should precess around the center point of support. Note that the precession cycle time is about the same as the pedulum cycle time. I think this is, indeed, interesting. The combined mechanism of the gyro and the pendulum is demonstrating rotational inertial propulsion. What it is good for, I am not yet sure.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/05/2011 00:44:06
| | | Daniel, your post is impressive, detailed and explanatorily very clear. You statements indicate to me that Professor Laithwaite before me had come to much the same conclusions as I in many areas, but I have never read his dissertation on yaw, pitch and roll and mirrored images. Where is that in verbatim? You would find such same or similar explanations by reading the archives here that I posted years ago. Your current findings and professor Laithwaite’s much earlier findings apparently support my own. At least three researchers now substantiate these facts. Very good. Thank you.
Attempting to address the subject of none linear mechanics in ways understandable has proven for me through the years to be as difficult as anything has.
I wish to correct an error the paragraph below.
2 a.) The gyro is not precessing from force downward or force upward. In order for the gyro to reverse its curving right, to curving left in one half rotations, one side would have to be tilt downward, the whole wheel then raised, then tilted on the opposite side.
The last sentence should have read “. . . the wheel tilted, then raised vertically, then tilted downwards on the opposite side.”
I wrote: 2 a.) ‘The gyro is not precessing from force downward or force upward. In order for the gyro to reverse its curving right, to curving left in one half rotations, one side would have to be tilt downward, the whole wheel then raised, then tilted (corrected to downward) on the opposite side.’
You wrote in response to 2 a.) : “. . . The precession is induced by applying a torque force to the supporting frame of the gyro, so indeed the gyro must respond by tilting a little and this tilting results in the precession at right angles to the tilting.. . You were contrary in objection to 2a, ”
I am sorry that my explanation is unclear, but the premise is correct. The first series of forces is exerted in osculating one-half rotations applied horizontally by the cam gear with teeth. The precession tendencies then are in the vertical plain. However, this tendency is not allowed to become motion as the device is anchored and secured from rising or lowering. (This is complicated I think), as rising and lowering is deigned in the vertical procession, the torque is then is transferred through secondary spin deflections to act in the horizontal as a secondary precession that is free to act horizontally, which it does. This is not your standard precession we are so aware of, but a secondary reaction precession. I stand by the correctness of, 2 a.)
I wrote” “2 b.) The force applied is instead horizontal. Instead of forward-rearward precession back and forth, the wheel is attempting to precess upwards and downwards in an angular curving direction. The table and gravity as explained do not allow for this.”
You wrote:“ And contrary to your point 2b, the force required to cause a precession is a torque, not necessarily a vector force in any particular direction. So a horizontal force on a part of the mechanism that would result in the correct torque is fine, as long as that torque is itself balanced by an opposite torque created by one of the mirror image devices.”
Since we all here already understand torque, I refer this objection to the explanation just given above for a 2.)
Daniel, you wrote “You also raise the objection, Glenn, in your second response, that the resulting motion would be too slow. . .’
In deed, it would. This jerking motion I have written about several times here and long ago. I called the motions “The inch worm” and explained that in space such a machine would wobble like a drunken duck. This wobbling you clearly understand, and understand the solution to achieve static and dynamic control with the combination of quadruple gyros.
To establish the slowness that I stated, I offer this. Note simply that the device on video always comes to a complete stop after each thrust. It Accelerates, stops and then must be accelerated again only to stop again. It can never coast forward and thrust again gaining speed as it is engineered. It can never build jerking accelerations into increased velocity. Watch the machine, .Daniel.
Incidentally, I believe I have a design that overcomes this problem and allows accelerations to create extreme velocities. So I think great speed is perhaps possible. I haven tested. No one on record has expressed even a clue of how to increase jerk-stops into velocity. In fact, Luis Gonzalez here, is the only other person I know of who even recognizes the problem exist. We can be 100% certain that Professor Laithwaite recognized this problem, but he never mentioned it as far as you and I know. He did not mention it because he had no solution for it. I loved that old man. He was a great inventor and a great lecturer, but I can prove that he cheated here and there to sell his ideas. Why would he not, owing to the fact that he was intelligent and a driven man.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Daniel LaLiberte - 16/05/2011 04:14:03
| | | Glenn,
Thanks for your response. My desire is always to clarify understanding of what is really happening, so I am pleased if I am able to at least communicate my thoughts.
My judgement of the workings of this Laithwaite device is based on the patent which describes how it works as he designed it. You can read his patent at http://www.gyroscopes.org/patents/5860317LaithwaiteDawson.pdf How close the model in the vidoe is to his design is debatable, though it appears to work in a very similar way, so I would assume it follows the same design.
As to whether your interpretation of what we can see in the video is correct, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, since it is difficult to tell exactly what is happening, and even more difficult to communicate what we think we are seeing into words. I'll say only that my understanding of Laithwaite's device as he described it, including his suggested enhancements by adding mirror image copies, would address the concerns you raised.
Of course I agree that this device, as designed and built as a single unit, would be slow if that is all that we did. But that's why I suggested it would be straightforward to increase the speed first by increasing the force in the "jerk" phase, but also by filling in the gap while the device is in the precession mode with other copies that execute their "jerk" phase while the first was in precession. And finally, we can smooth out the repeated "jerk" which starts at zero, gradually increases to some maximum force and gradually declines again, until it returns to zero; we can smooth that end-to-end "jerk" cycle by adding another copy of all the copies so far, but this time shifting their starting times by half a cycle. This would be a total of 16 devices working together in a coordinated fashion.
It should be clear that I am aware of this problem of the uneven jerky motion, as was Laithwaite, and one solution, given this two-phase design constraint, is to combine multiple devices.
I'm not sure that Laithwaite envisioned a set of 16 devices, since he doesn't state it explicitly as I have, though he seems to have alluded to the possibility of such a combination in his patent. I think that, instead, he moved on to the other embodiments believing them to be even more effective than the first.
There is no reason I know of that each device in the entire set of 16 devices could not contribute its part to the total motion additively. That is, while a single device is in the precession mode, it is not essential that it remain at rest, but it may be moving along with the rest being pushed by whatever set of devices is currently in it "jerk" phase. If combined as I described above, and in the preceding message in more detail, the motion should be continuous and constant. And under those conditions, the precession of the gyros in their precession mode would work just as before, oblivious to the motion under way.
But nevertheless, the workings of each individual device, by switching modes quickly, would probably cause a lot of wear and tear on the mechanism, and it would be better to find something that works in a more continuous mode. Laithwaite's second embodiment is such a device, though I am not convinced it would work any better than the first, even assuming the first device would work at all.
And, as I stated previously, the overriding problem with the whole concept is that it assumes that precession rotates around the axis of support without any contrary force. And the only way that can appear to work is when friction forces are hidden by slow precession. If it really were as friction free as empty space, then we would see that the precession rotates around the center of mass, and thus there will be no mass movement.
I am very curious to learn about the design of a device you have in mind which will allow arbitrarily high speeds while avoiding jerky modal motions.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/05/2011 04:45:05
| | | Dan, I use 8 and 16 gyros, but so what? So what? If you used a billion the thing would not accelerate. It STOPS, STOPS, STOPS, COMES TO A DEAD STAND STILL AFTER EACH TRUST NEVER COAST FROM EACH JERK TO THE NEXT. WHAT THE VIDEO SHOWS YOU IS TRUE NO MATTER HOW MANY GYROS YOU USE. I HAVE EXPERIMENTAL PROOF, but to know the truth you must understand what is happening. Then you will understand. I don't know what else to tell you.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Daniel LaLiberte - 16/05/2011 05:34:08
| | | Well now you are yelling WITH ALL CAPS. Doing that doesn't help address what I said, and I won't be bothered to respond in kind.
Here is what I said, in contrast to your loud claim: "It STOPS, STOPS, STOPS, COMES TO A DEAD STAND STILL AFTER EACH TRUST"
"There is no reason I know of that each device in the entire set of 16 devices could not contribute its part to the total motion additively. That is, while a single device is in the precession mode, it is not essential that it remain at rest, but it may be moving along with the rest being pushed by whatever set of devices is currently in it "jerk" phase."
Consider a normal internal combustion engine in a car. Each cylinder of a set of 8 is contributing is share of the entire drive force one at a time, and each adds to the force of the others.
I suspect that what you are saying, again loudly, but not more clearly is "[it will] ... NEVER COAST FROM EACH JERK TO THE NEXT". If you are assuming that Laithwaite and I (and others) expected that it should coast, then that assumption is wrong. No one should expect that it would continue to coast between jerks. Laithwaite did not, and I do not.
I agree it would NOT coast just from the motion of one device. Rather it would move as much as it does from one set of devices, and then the next set of devices would move it some more, while the first was resetting by way of the supposed mass movement of the precession.
Such an engine does not transfer momentum to the vehicle, such that it could coast on its own. Rather, the engine is the momentum. If you wanted the vehicle to be moving at 60mph, the jerk phase of the devices in the engine would have to be moving at a proportional rate.
I hope that clarifies my position, and that of Laithwaite's. I can't speak for anyone else, and probably shouldn't try to speak for Laithwaite, but I studied that patent pretty closely so I can at least defend what it says on its own ground.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/05/2011 16:48:19
| | | Daniel,
Please accept my apology for becoming irritated. Yes inertial propulsion might be passable. Such devices as these however, will not build velocity. They simply jerk forward and then completely stop. Breaks are applied. Precession is caused by deflections created in the flywheel from being tilted. When the tilting stops, precession stops and there is a kick-back. This reversed deflection is the -kick back that is the breaking act. This can seem like magic, but this is what happens in experiments. A lot of people who used to write here knew that.
This machine on the video will not work in space and I will try to tell you why in a moment. Moreover, it does not act as the professor proposed. He chose a plain of which to apply his concentration. He could have chosen any plain from 360 degrees. He chose vertical as I did. The inventor of the video device chose to begin the applied force horizontally with the cam with teeth. There is a big difference, which is why the video device will not move its center of mass in space.
Let’s look first at vertical beginnings. I will give you a fun experiment to do.
I chose a shoe-box led and cut (I believe a 2”) slot down the length. I placed a spinning Taco gyro in the slot with the flywheel aliened with the slot. Next I tilted the box to one side and watched the gyro pivoting on one end of its axel ends, while it precessed forward until the opposite axel end touched down on the other side of the slot.
Next while holding the touch-down side at the same altitude and place in space, I tilted the opposite side of the box downward. The gyro then precessed forward in an opposite curving path and touched down.
I continued this and the gyro walked to the far end of the box. Notice at each tilting the box is being lowered to the floor. To keep the center of mass of the box at the same high from the floor it was necessary to lift the box after each tilt, while importantly maintaining the same angle of its tilted condition.
I tilted, lifted and tilted oppositely and continued. I could elevate the far end of the box and even put plastic strip tape on the inside tracts of the box and also add ten weight oil, all to lessen friction, still the gyro would clime up hill and not slide backwards if the grade was not too great.
Note the gyro always stops. It never slides forward from retained momentum. If you watch gyroscopes precess from pedestals or strings, even heavy ones, until the touch down on a table, notice they always stop. The exception is when one carries a lot of extra mass that is not in a spin condition. Others before me called this dead weight. This mass can be in the form of the cage, axel or other non-spinning attachments. In such a case the momentum of none spinning things does carry forward and cause the gyro to roll forward. This dose not happen if the wheel carries the much grater ratio of mass. So again by observation breaks are applied and the thing stops.
About the professor, his force beginning was vertical as is mine. It can be by applied gravity or the use of mechanical force. It is force down and then comes right angle precession. The professor chose to begin with--up and down and right angle torque reaction. Check again and see if this is not true.
What I am trying to explain is that the momentum built by precession dose cot carry forward, but is beaked so that there is velocity build up and that the number of these breaking units dose not change the condition that they all break.
I’ll address the video. It dose some thought out things that put it far ahead of others, but detrimentally its initial force is horizontal, the cam gear, and the direction of the apparatus is also horizontal. There is no right angle reaction, but a swing (none precessional) forward followed by a jerk forward-- all on the same horizontal plain and there is no right angle condition of force and movement. This is cling and jerk, that is slow with little frictional resistance, then jerk with more resistance. It moves by friction to balls to table. A mirrored reflection engineering would not enhance anything. The to things would attempt to roll into one another and it would still be cling an jerk and even if you multiplied the number of acting things all would still act the same as one or two. All would break.
I guess that dose it. I only have so much time for this and I’ve used up a month’s worth. This is why I reacted ungentlemanly. Again I apologize and I hope I have been of some use to you, Dan.
Goodbye,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Daniel LaLiberte - 20/05/2011 03:03:48
| | | Apology accepted. No problem.
But I will be (relatively) short and simple in my reply because there is not much more to be said. More experimentation would help clarify things.
I maintain that the undesired torques in Laithwaite's device that you complain about would not be there once the device was balanced by other mirror image devices, so it is not fair to criticize the one device on those grounds, and you have to move on to what else might be wrong with it.
To understand how a single device (or a single set of balanced mirror image devices) might operate in conjunction with others, it might help to imagine what it would do when it is mounted on a small cart. First let it operate as it does now, moving on the surface of the cart in its stop-and-go fashion. Then ask whether it matters if the cart is in motion itself, independent of the device. Would that affect how the device behaves? If the cart is moving constantly in one direction, would that affect the device at all? It should be clear that it will not.
Then stop the cart and ask what the device will do if it is attached rigidly to the cart? It seems clear that it would attempt to push it in exactly the same way as the device would by itself, but only by much less because there would be a much larger mass to move. Then push the cart into a constant motion and start the device. What would happen to the motion of the cart? Would it not move constantly as if the device were not running, until the device did its little push forward, and then the cart would jerk a little bit faster, until the end of the jerk, at which time the cart would resume its constant motion?
Then imagine attaching several other devices to the cart in the same way. Why would they each not move the cart just like the first did regardless of whether other devices are moving the cart? And if they were timed to do their jerk phase not at the same time, but end-to-end, why would they not then move the cart in a more continuous motion, though still bumpy?
However, whereas I think it is important to understand how Laithwaite's device was intended to work, and how it would work, all this doesn't matter in the end, it turns out, because it depends on something that doesn't exist. I am now convinced, as I stated before, that there is no linear inertial propulsion, and this is because precession rotates around the center of mass, so no mass can be moved through space without a contrary motion in the opposite direction. It only appears to rotate around the point of suspension when there is enough friction in the suspension to resist the contrary force.
Laithwaitet's device won't work in space not because of the undesired torques, after being balanced by mirror image devices, but because there is no precession phase that is without contrary rotational motion.
But not only is there no linear inertial propulsion, there is no *rotational* inertial propulsion either. I was making arguments that the combination of the pendulum and gyroscope appeared to exhibit rotational inertial propulsion, where the gyro causes the pendulum to swing wider and higher. But this is wrong too. The problem is that there is an external force being used to create the motion, and that is the force of gravity. This wouldn't work if moved to the zero gravity of space, though it would work in a simulation of gravity if you are in a vehicle that is constantly accelerating.
If we try to replace the force of gravity with another force, such as by pulling with a string on the other end of the gyro opposite the side attached to the pendulum, then this pulling force would have to be in opposition to the pull of the pendulum, and it is apparent that there is no precession of the gyro without this external force. So the system as a whole, including the supporting structure for the strings pulling in opposite directions would have no net rotational momentum, and thus there is no rotational inertial propulsion.
Oh well. I learned a lot in this exploration. And I learned that I could work through complex non-intuitive interactions in gyros and pendulums and come to an understanding that is not different from "normal" physics. That's not to say that there is nothing else to investigate, and there are probably several interesting gyro and pendulum inventions yet to be invented.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 20/05/2011 23:44:49
| | | There is resistance in the pendulum leverage of the string and friction resistance in the pedestal base. These do not sufficiently explain the phenomena. Mr. Madcalf,’ a long ago contribution here, named a condition ‘drop-speed‘, which he claimed was instantaneous. That is when a gyro is first released, it drops and the drop causes precession. It cannot be instantaneous, but it is fast. It can happen and be over with in some instances in a microsecond. The discovery of this knowledge was the professor’s jewel. He found the that and then was able to reasoned out ‘mass movement’. Later I found it and did the same, but more advanced. I learned things from him.
‘Knowledge‘, Newton said he gained by standing on the shoulders of giants.
During the drop acceleration, there is equal and opposite forces at play and the gyro attempts to rotate around its center of mass. The pivotal end of the shaft will attempt to twist, yet attempt only to gain an immeasurable distance. After the near instantaneous drop acceleration, the gyro precesses freely, as if it were coasting and there is no equal and opposite reactions in play any longer and no attempt to rotate around the gyro’s center of mass.
When a gyro is in a state as if it were coasting, it can curve (precess) from point (a.) to distance point (b.) and fall of the pedestal. A linear measurement can then be taken from (a.) to (b.). That is the distance mass has moved without an opposite reaction. That is mass movement. It is the beginning of knowledge and only a small percentage of what there is to be understood.
I have explained things to you that only a few people in the world know. I do not think I can teach you anything.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 21/05/2011 14:30:23
| | | This statement is incorrect:
“After the near instantaneous drop acceleration, the gyro precesses freely, as if it were coasting and there is no equal and opposite reactions in play any longer and no attempt to rotate around the gyro’s center of mass.”
Corrected
No. The gyro dose ATTEMPT to rotate around its center of mass. However it can not.
This is deigned by the countering force as explained earlier. Although precession must be constantly powered by the drop, after the initial drop acceleration (this is so miscue) there is no equal and opposite reaction allowed to act. It does not and cannot rotate around its center of mass. Though constantly powered, in a sense it is continuing as if it were coasting.
It will be away a long while.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 22/05/2011 15:51:14
| | | Thank you Richard,
This YouTube video proves the one basic physics phenomena necessary for producing inertial (gyro) propulsion.
It demonstrates that the “opposite-reaction” of gyroscopic-deflection (e.g. precession) is of lesser magnitude then the “opposite-reaction” of an equivalent classical motion (this had not been publicly demonstrated previously).
This interesting phenomenon is what enables the device, and other devices, to progressively move in one single direction (even though each cycle always comes to a full stop)!
A number of this forum’s participants have intuitively (or mathematically) known the reduced-reaction phenomenon with different degrees of understanding. Laithwaite’s design is based on this concept, which unfortunately cannot exceed the max speed obtained in one cycle because each cycle comes to a stop. We call this effect up-like-a-gyro and down-like-a-rock, or the inchworm, etc.
This configuration is now demonstrated publicly, and it opens the public’s mind to wonder how to overcome the inherent stopping effect.
I think others, besides me (such as Mike Marsden and perhaps Sandy Kid), may also know the answer to this question.
Many know that gravity driven gyros cannot resolve the issue, and few know that the configuration of the device in the video cannot be improved so that it overcomes its limitations, even if the deflection torque is motorized.
The solution to this limitation has not been explained in this forum and I have not found the answer anywhere else as of today.
Regards, Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 24/05/2011 22:06:45
| | | Dear Luis,
I tend to read what is going on here now and again and try really hard not to get involved.
However I felt obliged to comment on some of your statements, not so much in criticism, but more in an effort to clarify what I believe, which is a long way from your latest series of predictions.
I will not dispute your comments relating to the severe limitations of inchworm type devices, or the fast (and slow repeater devices) once favored by Nitro Macmad and Dave S.(circa 2004)
They could all be variations on the same theme as nobody was brave enough or stupid enough to release any information relating to their design.
I am personally glad that I never got sucked into that particular operating mode.
Similarly I will agree with your comments relating to “Up like a gyroscope down like a brick systems” however with the following reservation.
If a gyroscope is designed to operate in conjunction, but indirectly with another element of the device then that can change everything.
In cases like this the active gyroscope acts a bit like a catalyst but does not directly create the thrust.
I have previously described this as a “default action”.
That said, the comment I felt I should make was this.
After many years of experiment with all manner of machines, containing all manner of gyroscope manipulations, it is my considered opinion that there is no requirement for any device to come to a stop or even slow down during operation.
The device depends on the generation of angular momentum and the subsequent conversion of a percentage of this to produce inertial thrust.
If only a small percentage of the angular momentum generated in a pretty simple device is converted into inertial thrust the output will be several times the weight of the device.
The faster the device rotates the greater the chance of producing respectable amounts of vertical thrust, not along a diameter of the device, a la T B Pawlicki, and incidentally the output direction now favored by yourself, but through the axis of device rotation.
It must be understood that the statements you have been recently making are your own and likewise the same can be said for mine, but it should be noted that our philosophies are miles apart.
Regards
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 30/05/2011 22:53:22
| | | Hi Sandy,
It’s always a pleasant surprise when you resurface in this site.
First of all intermittent devices that come to a full stop (including the one in the video) cannot ever get off the ground, but they do illustrate that “mass displacement” is made possible by the fact that gyroscopic deflection (e.g. precession) is a motion with ”reduced” opposite-reaction (per Laithewaite).
The term “repeater” is too broad to pass judgment on, without considering the specific configuration and context.
Thank you for re-clarifying your vision on inertial propulsion, which you state requires simply generating angular momentum and then converting some portion of the momentum into inertial thrust, in-line with the device’s main axis. (I cannot be sure in which direction the various Pawlicki devices are expected to produce thrust – though I think he expects they will move in whichever direction he desires). My vision is completely different from yours and from Pawlicki’s.
I also appreciate that our philosophies are as different as day and night, as mine builds and expands on known mathematics and physics; and we know that you have chosen a path of building devices to observe interactions and derive interpretations. This dual approach has proven valuable to the evolution of modern science, and perhaps it will again.
Victory will go to whoever builds a device that can get off the ground in a controlled manner; let’s hope it is someone who truly deserves it.
Regards, Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Richard Urwin - 02/06/2011 15:13:49
| | | Hi Sandy,
So your devices make thrust from a combination of spinning up the Gyroscopes to your termed "saturation point"; then in-turn spinning the gyros around a a at high speed using a large centripetal force to produce thrust?
The balancing act is find the correct saturation point for the gyros and centripetal force in combination? I could see how the lift force could be very large.
Your current devices must look very much like the device that was populised through the media, however the described principle is somewhat different to your original patent.
Best regards
Richard
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 03/06/2011 21:25:18
| | | Hello Richard,
The gyroscopes must never reach “saturation” or there will be nothing left to work with.
At what I call the saturation point, there is no angular momentum left to manipulate.
There is only one saturation point for any gyro at any specific machine/system rotation speed, but there is no balancing point as such.
There can be no balance point in any gyroscope system anywhere, any time.
Change the machine rotation speed and the saturation point will be at a different gyroscope rotation speed.
The maximum angular momentum generated in such a system is with minimum gyroscope rotation speed, whilst the minimum angular momentum is generated in any gyroscopic system at the saturation point.
Therefore in order to generate the maximum inertial thrust we must first design the device to operate utilizing maximum device rotation speeds in order to deliver maximum angular momentum combined with gyroscopic rotation speeds just sufficient to create the conversion to linear momentum/inertial thrust.
When my first machine was built no one had a clue why it could do what it did.
The reason given at the time was a “best guess” and in the end was not even close to the real reason.
Incidentally it took me about 12 years to get all the answers, via a multitude of practical experiments and burning of much midnight oil
However it was many years prior to this that I discovered that the physics relating to the operation of mechanically accelerated gyroscope/flywheel systems were in error.
Remember I had the advantage of owning the machine which was consistently and reliably delivering inertial thrust.
Does this help?
Regards
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
RichardUrwin - 02/07/2011 14:14:35
| | | Thank you Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
