Question |
| Asked by: |
Sandy Kidd |
| Subject: |
Question of Sanity? |
| Question: |
Hello all.
Got this on my email when I returned from holiday
“Disambiguation
FROM: david frazier debunker@btinternet.com
TO: kiddsandy@rocketmail.com
Thursday, 1 September 2011, 22:33
Are you the idiot who believes that gyroscopes do not obey Newton's third law?
His email address would suggest he is some kind of debunker, but I will bet that he is not technically advanced enough to assemble Lego.
Take note of the old saying Debunker David:
“Blessed is he who has nothing to say and cannot be persuaded to say it”
I thought he might want to argue his case on this forum, so that we can all share in his wisdom and for that reason I have answered him here.
Regards to all,
Sandy
|
| Date: |
20 September 2011
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 24/09/2011 16:42:06
|
| | Hi Sandy,
I also just returned from a 12 day holiday cruse through the Mediterranean starting in Rome through southern Italy, Greece, Turkey, Croatia, and ending in Venice. I highly recommend the Cunard cruise line.
Though I agree with David that all motions (including that of gyros) obey the third law, I disagree with the arrogance reflected by the type of language he uses in the email you posted.
To allow David sufficient space for his response, I will post my own explanations in another existing thread of this forum.
Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/09/2011 22:33:33
|
| | Hi Sandy,
I hope you are well and it’s good to see you have a sense of humor about all this, ‘slings and arrows’ you know.
Dear David Frazier,
Shakespeare's Macbeth,
"Yet doe I feare thy Nature, It is too full o' th' Milke of humane kindnesse.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/09/2011 22:35:01
|
| | Hi Sandy,
I hope you are well and it’s good to see you have a sense of humor about all this, ‘slings and arrows’ you know.
Dear David Frazier,
Shakespeare's Macbeth,
"Yet doe I feare thy Nature, It is too full o' th' Milke of humane kindnesse.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
SandyKidd - 26/09/2011 22:30:10
|
| | Welcome back Luis,
Nice to see you enjoyed your cruise, which would appear to have been quite a comprehensive trip around that part of the Med.
I was in Turkey for a couple of weeks myself.
Wall to wall blue skies, and reaching 41 degrees most of the time.
Bit of a change from the crap weather we have suffered here for most of the last 2 summers?
May I refresh my position.
We agree to differ on Newton’s Laws, and I am fully aware of the gravity of my statements.
Howsoever correct me if I am wrong but I do not think I have ever claimed that gyros as such defy Newton’s Laws, my claim is that spinning discs, flywheels if you like can be made to defy the laws under certain circumstances which I think is slightly different, splitting hairs maybe but our Debunking David will not know the difference anyway.
The real problem is that If the physics relating to spinning discs or in the outcome of their application is wrong, physics cannot be wrong in isolation, and the Laws of Motion are all in error.
Enter the domino scenario.
However this kind of attack is not new to me, but I find it cowardly and offensive and I have no way of answering him.
Maybe his teacher made the comment and he was only relating it.
A sort of hit and run but I have found out over the piece that this type of individual tends to know very little about anything.
I will therefore not hold my breath awaiting an answer.
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
G. Hawkins - 03/10/2011 02:07:34
|
| | “One may know true genius by the confederacy of dunces aligned against him”
Jonathon Swift
This does not apply anyone on this thread, though clear scientific opposition is surely aligned in opposition.
Sorry boys. There is no evidence that any amount of propulsion whatsoever has ever been achieved by the use of gyroscope phenomena. We have wasted years boy and there is no useful up-side to this waste. Waste is waste I am afraid. Very sorry boys.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
G. Hawkins - 03/10/2011 02:08:17
|
| | “One may know true genius by the confederacy of dunces aligned against him”
Jonathon Swift
This does not apply anyone on this thread, though clear scientific opposition is surely aligned in opposition.
Sorry boys. There is no evidence that any amount of propulsion whatsoever has ever been achieved by the use of gyroscope phenomena. We have wasted years boy and there is no useful up-side to this waste. Waste is waste I am afraid. Very sorry boys.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
G. Hawkins - 03/10/2011 02:08:39
|
| | “One may know true genius by the confederacy of dunces aligned against him”
Jonathon Swift
This does not apply anyone on this thread, though clear scientific opposition is surely aligned in opposition.
Sorry boys. There is no evidence that any amount of propulsion whatsoever has ever been achieved by the use of gyroscope phenomena. We have wasted years boy and there is no useful up-side to this waste. Waste is waste I am afraid. Very sorry boys.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 04/10/2011 02:34:01
|
| | Hi Sandy,
Thank you for the warm welcome.
I agree about the cowardliness of and shortage of eloquence in the email; don’t think he will be responding anytime soon either.
Fortunately, your response sparked interesting thinking and writing regarding the obvious paradox.
I will be posting, but not soon, as I am still exploring some areas of my rather wordy response (yet to come).
I am convinced more than ever that inertial propulsion will be proven within my lifetime. During the last few months I have examined and re-examined what I see as the conclusion to my long search.
For now I will just say that propulsion will not be achieved via the opposing gyros in a hub.
Thanks for the many inspirations.
Best Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 07/10/2011 13:29:51
|
| | Hi Sandy,
I too wish I could get some answers. You are not an idiot, at least not because of your work on gyros. As to the sanity of those of us who scream in frustration at the smug apathetic Establishment, well you don't have to be mad to do it but it helps.
Any more from Martin Rose?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 07/10/2011 13:30:07
|
| | Hi Sandy,
I too wish I could get some answers. You are not an idiot, at least not because of your work on gyros. As to the sanity of those of us who scream in frustration at the smug apathetic Establishment, well you don't have to be mad to do it but it helps.
Any more from Martin Rose?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 07/10/2011 13:31:01
|
| | Hi Sandy,
I too wish I could get some answers. You are not an idiot, at least not because of your work on gyros. As to the sanity of those of us who scream in frustration at the smug apathetic Establishment, well you don't have to be mad to do it but it helps.
Any more from Martin Rose?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 07/10/2011 21:03:23
|
| | Evening Momentus,
Thank you for your vote of confidence, of course that makes you an idiot too, does it not.
I know you and I disagree with the establishment for many of the same reasons.
This will take time to resolve but how much?
By the way Brian how is the gearbox progressing? Are you getting anywhere with it?
I am still in touch with Martyn,
Best regards
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 10/10/2011 04:40:13
|
| | Hi Sandy,
Please see the opening to my response at the last posting in http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=967 in this forum.
Best Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 10/10/2011 14:08:11
|
| | Sandy,
Please disregard the item I posted. It reflects error of a sudden idea that was not fully analyzed before posting.
Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 16/10/2011 20:16:33
|
| | Dear Glenn,
Hello again Glenn, you seem to be a trifle depressed of late and I hope to answer a few of your postings especially the one on 03/10/2011 with this one of mine
Our common pursuit is not worth dying for, however I have also spent most of my life chasing the same moonbeams and have even been lucky enough to catch some of them.
In the final analysis the technical problems, which can be overcome even in parallel rotating flywheel systems, are far from the toughest problem I have encountered, which is the total disinterest, and disbelief in the acquisition of any success, that being in the direction of inertial drive and by the academic community in general.
For rather obvious reasons there is general lack of understanding as to the shape, form, and direction taken by inertial thrust when it is generated, in fact its existence is deemed to be impossible.
Inertial thrust is not allowed to exist for any other reason than to protect Newton’s laws, but which in reality is created from very normal reactions and is not so mysterious when actually generated.
I have proof in laboratory tests, I have demonstrated devices to a multitude of qualified persons on many different occasions on 3 continents, now my considered opinion is, that I, like yourself have wasted a large part of my life which would have been better served playing golf.
No, not golf, it would have to be something else.
However it was my own choice, self-inflicted injury as it were, so there is no point in getting all sorry for myself.
I am now too old to bother too much, in fact I had officially retired from contributing to this forum, some considerable time ago, but something keeps me interested in what is going on.
Someday a bit into the future, and a long time after we have left the scene, if Dr Immanuel Velikovsky’s predictions actually transpire, blind panic may get someone interested in a hurry, but until there is a desperate need, who is going to care?
Keep your chin up Glenn,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 19/10/2011 03:42:42
|
| | Dear Sandy,
I always perk up when I see you have posted something. I enjoy it. It would be good for we few here and the site itself, if you would post more often. Please write. I have been depressed, yes. It used to be because nobody believed me, you and all of us. Then I began to disbelieve and that was worse.
You might have thought at the bad times, that time would have been better served playing golf. I however am not Scottish and therefore do not take to beating the little balls, but that does not preclude me from kicking tin cans and cussing stray cats as a way to fill in the days more productively. I know you were tenacious and clever and did all that a man possibly could do to prove and promote your pursuits. I so admire that in a man.
No matter that you proved your theory and machines sufficiently or not, I know now as well as you that you were not given a chance even before you began. No chance to prove to be accepted. Yes, that is right.
I have been thinking I might again take up my old pursuit to build the design to see what it might do. It might be fun and not too expensive to do even though it is both complicated and complex.
I think there is already a desperate need for a way to travel in deep space. We don’t have anything now and what we might have if you design it is taboo. But gush, of all people! you don’t need to be told that.
You have my blessings and please post once in a while.
As always my highest regards and deepest respect,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 21/10/2011 21:37:12
|
| | "Sorry boys. There is no evidence that any amount of propulsion whatsoever has ever been achieved by the use of gyroscope phenomena. We have wasted years boy and there is no useful up-side to this waste. Waste is waste I am afraid. Very sorry boys."
Hi Glen,
Have you seen my youtube video of my Split Gyro?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASaa2vrJtNs
This clearly shows an inertial reaction to a gyroscopic phenomenon.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 21/10/2011 21:39:00
|
| | "Sorry boys. There is no evidence that any amount of propulsion whatsoever has ever been achieved by the use of gyroscope phenomena. We have wasted years boy and there is no useful up-side to this waste. Waste is waste I am afraid. Very sorry boys."
Hi Glen,
Have you seen my youtube video of my Split Gyro?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASaa2vrJtNs
This clearly shows an inertial reaction to a gyroscopic phenomenon.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/10/2011 17:05:37
|
| | Hi Jerry,
Well no, I had not seen your machine. Thank you for building it. I was happy to see your name. You were moving from Arizona to California in 2005 or there about as I remember. You and I posted a lot on the engineering propulsion site before then, ran by the Canadian, until 'RingTones' destroyed it.
I see you are still unshakably committed and so if I may, allow me to suggest happiness and to ' keep on keeping on'. They are probably the same things for you and I. Stay cool. Keep in touch.
My best regards,
Glenn H.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
pat - 29/10/2011 10:54:25
|
| | m
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 30/10/2011 20:31:39
|
| | Thanks, Glen.
There was some sloppy edidting in my video, due to a software glitch, so I redid it. Here's the new url:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzaJuyPpBcs
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 30/10/2011 20:36:51
|
| | "I thought he might want to argue his case on this forum, so that we can all share in his wisdom and for that reason I have answered him here.
Regards to all,
Sandy"
Hi Sandy, good to see you posting again.
The difficulty skeptics are having with the Laws of Motion appear to be because they miss the fact that Newton specifies THREE forces: action, reaction, and result. Acceleration is surely proportional to the applied force but it's in the direction of the resultant force.
Second Law:
"The rate of change of momentum of a body is proportional to the resultant force acting on the body and is in the same direction."
In addition to this, the First Law does not require that the action force originate outside the accelerating system, only that it's external to the responding mass. Newton proves that your hand is external to the rock you're whirling on the end of a string. Otherwise, you couldn't pull it away from its straight-line inertial trajectory. And the reaction force is felt by your hand, not by the rock.
A gyroscope's responce is not required to be in-line with the action force's reaction, nor is it. It's completely compliant to configure multiple action forces so that their opposing reactions all cancel out, leaving what then becomes "reactionless" acceleration in a tangential direction, as long as the responding mass redirects the applied force. Just like a couple of gyroscopes.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 11/11/2011 19:03:58
|
| | Hi Sandy,
Spinning objects do not need to defy the laws of motion to produce mass displacement.
A) The 3rd law of motion does not mention if the “Acton & Opposite Reaction” (E&OR) can be of mixed symmetry, i.e. where one is Angular vs. the other Linear.
B) From a weaker standpoint, the 3rd law also does NOT require that the E&OR (forces) need to occur at exactly simultaneous times (though it is commonly expected).
Thus, nothing in the 3rd law restricts complex Angular motions from producing TEMPORARY Linear motions (E&OR).
Indeed the curious mind has always sought for suitable angular rules to extend the 3 basic laws of motion, as these 3 laws do not exclude interactions between angular and linear motions.
This is my most basic explanation as to why the 3rd law of motion is NOT compromised by successes in producing mass displacement using spinning objects.
A more interesting question is how “cumulative acceleration” may be produced without defying any of the 3 laws.
My Best Regards,
Luis G.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Fred Brown - 06/12/2011 06:06:27
|
| | Hey Sandy,
It's good to make you acquaintance. I've talked with a few other patent holders for inertial propulsion system, namely James Mundo and Brandson Thornson, and had occasion to talk the subject over with Tom Valone.
I've recently written a flawed paper on the subject of gyroscopic propulsion. Due to a small err in the initial parameters and a large misunderstanding of numerical analysis errs, I had myself convinced that I had mathematically proven gyroscopic propulsion.
In addition to my errs, now that I have correct my math errs is that my approach was too simplistic. I am now studying the article written my Robert Beal. that should help things. I want to be able to calculate the preccesional forces generated in a gyroscopic system.
In addition to using SciDAVis to plot out the data and do a quick analysis, I have created a c program and an Octave program to do more detailed and accurate analysis.
I offer a copy of my flawed paper to anyone who would like to have a look at it. Hopefully I will be able to salvage some of it by being able to calculate the precessional forces. In any case all comments are welcome.
http://www.zshare.net/download/9702736499457b92/
Best regards,
Frederick Brown
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Fred Brown - 06/12/2011 06:06:49
|
| | Hey Sandy,
It's good to make you acquaintance. I've talked with a few other patent holders for inertial propulsion system, namely James Mundo and Brandson Thornson, and had occasion to talk the subject over with Tom Valone.
I've recently written a flawed paper on the subject of gyroscopic propulsion. Due to a small err in the initial parameters and a large misunderstanding of numerical analysis errs, I had myself convinced that I had mathematically proven gyroscopic propulsion.
In addition to my errs, now that I have correct my math errs is that my approach was too simplistic. I am now studying the article written my Robert Beal. that should help things. I want to be able to calculate the preccesional forces generated in a gyroscopic system.
In addition to using SciDAVis to plot out the data and do a quick analysis, I have created a c program and an Octave program to do more detailed and accurate analysis.
I offer a copy of my flawed paper to anyone who would like to have a look at it. Hopefully I will be able to salvage some of it by being able to calculate the precessional forces. In any case all comments are welcome.
http://www.zshare.net/download/9702736499457b92/
Best regards,
Frederick Brown
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Fred Brown - 06/12/2011 06:07:37
|
| | Hey Sandy,
It's good to make you acquaintance. I've talked with a few other patent holders for inertial propulsion system, namely James Mundo and Brandson Thornson, and had occasion to talk the subject over with Tom Valone.
I've recently written a flawed paper on the subject of gyroscopic propulsion. Due to a small err in the initial parameters and a large misunderstanding of numerical analysis errs, I had myself convinced that I had mathematically proven gyroscopic propulsion.
In addition to my errs, now that I have correct my math errs is that my approach was too simplistic. I am now studying the article written my Robert Beal. that should help things. I want to be able to calculate the preccesional forces generated in a gyroscopic system.
In addition to using SciDAVis to plot out the data and do a quick analysis, I have created a c program and an Octave program to do more detailed and accurate analysis.
I offer a copy of my flawed paper to anyone who would like to have a look at it. Hopefully I will be able to salvage some of it by being able to calculate the precessional forces. In any case all comments are welcome.
http://www.zshare.net/download/9702736499457b92/
Best regards,
Frederick Brown
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Fred Brown - 06/12/2011 18:35:16
|
| | Whoops, please pardon the triple reply. The gyroscops.com server gave me an err report every time I tried to post. Maybe it's my browser. Anyway I thought my reply was failing to get through.
Beet regards,
Frederick Brown
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
