|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
26 April 2024 07:40
|
|
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: |
Ravi |
| Subject: |
Comments on my Expt 4.60 |
| Question: |
Hey guys, Check out my experiment 4.60 at this link
a series of 3 expts which ride on a theory - that the flywheels know and do the most economical thing possible. A sort of Accam's Razor proposition. It confers a certain self-preservative instinct to the machine.
That is
when the rpm = 0, they take up the highest moment of inertia position (i.e. least movement). I had to turn off this experiment with in 20 seconds, because the whole cage spins up so fast, the model was on the verge of self-destruction.
When the rpm = 3500, spins pointing in the same direction, they go tangential because they cancel their spins and cause least amount of frame lifting - but still enough to not need to turned off - i.e. they are able to expend the incoming energy and preserve their state from becoming out of control -as expt 1 @ 0 rpm did.
When the rpm = 3500 and the spins set up to cancel, we think that the gyros have an option that they actually dont seem to have.
We think the easiest thing for them to do is nothing - i.e. essentially become a repeat of the 1st expt but they show again, a self-preservation instinct to prevent speeding up of the entire cage, but this time with behavior that is different from expt 2. The f/ws now take turns coming in. This process of coming in, aligns their spins and causes a lifting of the frame - thereby expending energy that would otherwise cause a speeding up of the cage. They do this by sharing the duty of coming in and out. And they do this just enough to keep the mechanism from falling apart.
What to make of this behavior?
For one thing, the option that we think it has, it doesn't have. It isn't able to just pretend the spins dont exist. Why?
It might be that what ever other options were available must all involve *more* motion. That is why it chose this option. Because it is the most economical option.
What options involve even more energy expense than frame lifting? um.. frame flying come to mind.
And why are its options what they are? because this is the property of spin. All spin. Which means potentially all movement and force in nature can be explainable, using electron spin as the basis, by lattice style modeling of mechanical structures with the lattice points containing small gyros (electrons). These spinning units would be converting the incoming forces into motion by invoking mechanisms similar to those in this machine for instance.
So now force and motion are described as wave propagation in lattices rather than simple Newtonian laws. This simpler way of describing force and motion will allow the building of machines which can be 'excited' into motion.
Which is what we would seem to be on the threshold of with this prototype.
What do you think? |
| Date: |
7 January 2012
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Ravi - 07/01/2012 15:55:30
| | | Let me correct myself. The lattice points contain small sets of gyros representing the nucleus and the electrons.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 20/01/2012 19:23:15
| | | Dear Eric,
You know that since about 2004 when I read about your experiments and theories, I have been fascinated by the idea of gyroscopes and electrical machines as manifestations of a single underlying process. I have spent innumerable hours building models and gaining firsthand knowledge of the behavior of gyroscopes. I feel however, that I have to send this letter out into the ether as I have some doubts about your theory.
Now, I have studied your paper "Roll Isaac, Roll" and several others in great detail - and given a go at Generalised Machine Theory as laid out by Gabriel Kron- and I believe I have discovered where you might have erred. We all err and I have, I know, erred too often to even blame it on others. Yet the variety of your error might be theoretical and therefore amenable to correction.
I believe your words in your brilliant paper 'Roll Isaac, Roll' were "Now it so happens that a gyro is like an electrical machine. What happens in onepair of axes has no effect on what goes on in the other-Generalised Machine Theory, no less. So at the same time as equation (2) exists, so can equation (3)".
Now I believe you went off-track precisely at this point. You assume the gyro is fully 3-Dimensional like electrical machines, whereas the truth is that it is not. It is only a 2-Dimensional machine. The Hubble Telescope for instance, needs 2 orthogonal gyros in order to determine its 3-Dimensional position and to quote you yourself Eric, "... the magic is not apparant until it is, shall we say, truly 3-dimensional." If the gyro were a truly 3-Dimensional machine, we wouldn't have needed a second gyro to be able to sense its relative orientation.
Therefore, your subsequent derivation in the paper applies not to the case of a single gyro being simultaneously affected about its X and Y axes (as you think), but rather to a set-up that has 2 gyros suspended in gimbals orthogonal to each other in a single rigid frame. The case of a single gyro under simultaneous torque about its X and Y axes is simply a case of 2-Dimensional symmetry, with the gyro responding to the gravitation torque by precessing about the Y axis and also precesing about the X axis. It proves only the invariance of the machine (the skew symmetry of its operational matrix).
Further, two 2-Dimensional planes can still only locate the relative angle of an object to itself during self-rotation. We would need to add yet another, third gyro to add a third 2-Dimensional plane in order to create a truly 3-Dimensional independent reference frame that is capable to executing and sensing true 3-Dimensional movement.
This idea seems to me, to explain why your many brave attempts to create a true transportation machine were confounded. It took me 8 years of experimentation and much blood, sweat and tears to get this far. I am hoping that I got this one right, because frankly I dont have a lot more to give, not without some glimmer of success and by that I mean a viable transporter that succeeds in moving under its own steam.
Theoretically and practically, I feel that the 3-Dimensional model is the most sophisticated the machine can be, without becoming redundant and overcomplicated.
So wherever you are, I would like to thank you for the inspiration and ask for any corrections before its too late for me!
Perhaps I am crazy, but hopefully this is not a dead-end.
Sincerely
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 05/02/2012 04:31:32
| | | Hi Ravi,
I am glad you have discovered some of the errors in the venerable professor’s way of thinking, as he compared gyro phenomena to electrical phenomena. You arrived at your conclusions on the basis of your own experiments and methods, as we all must all derive our knowledge from our own baseline.
We can learn from our own experience but we can also learn from experiences of others, and in some cases we learn from commonsense (though with gyros commonsense is not directly intuitive).
Your devices enable great experiments that produce much data from which to interpret interactions of spin. However the common configuration (2 opposing overhung gyros etc.) cannot yield what you seek. This configuration is a red-herring that has produces a history of consecutive failures for individuals from all walks of life (unfortunately we all have to walk through the fire before we can get beyond it).
The proper device is NOT one that threatens to destroy itself by its mere operation (any well-functioning device does not tend to self-destroy).
You still have the advantage of prototype-manufacturing resources. Use it wisely.
Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 07/02/2012 22:35:01
| | | Luis,
Thank you for your advice. I value it.
I, however, have evolved a coherent explanation for the experiments I have discussed in this thread and whats more my explanation has both a sound theoretical construct and has continued to yield novel and unforeseen results.
Therefore I ask that you not write it off so quickly, but withold judgement until the end of the story. That may not be far, as I am even now assembling the final version of this model and hope to be done in a matter of days, perhaps a few weeks tops.
Peace.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 08/02/2012 01:38:09
| | | Hi Ravi,
I look forward to your results.
I do not seek to discount your efforts but rather to re-channel your resources into a more productive direction.
Best Results
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
