Main Forum Page
The Gyroscope Forum
22 February 2019 03:07
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.
My apologies to all who have tried to go to “Aren’t Gyros fun #2” on You Tube. The You Tube link in my last post I had to remove as I inadvertently included someone else's intellectual property in a short music tail. This has now been rectified and the video, with slow motion and some explanation at the end, is accessibly again via the link below. Hopefully it will aid understanding (please hum your own music to accompany it).
Glen and others I thank you for any interest but I have stuck my head above the parapet and put this up simply to confirm for the Doubting Tomas’ that there is a path. Although I am pleased if it stirs the little grey cells in others, I do not seek suggestions of further steps as I have travelled too many now. Suffice to say that the multishot was built and put in the public domain, more to to prevent exclusivity and prove I got there first, than in any hope of fame and fortune. After all, if someone held in such high regard by his peers of the scientific community as Eric Laithwaite can be so disgracefully and totally destroyed by that very same scientific community what chance has a nutter in a shed got? I have always thought that the advise for the cobbler to stick to his last was – well, er – *cobblers. However, it is sometimes wiser not to try to mix with those that consider themselves “scientific illuminati” and to move on than fruitlessly bang ones head on the same thick, tightly closed doors/minds.
By the way revered Sandy, what the hell is it with coloured (sorry US of A, English spelling) fish?
*Sorry US of A, Cockney humour.
||17 March 2012
Answers (Ordered by Date)
||Luis Gonzalez - 17/03/2012 16:32:14
| ||Thank you Nitro,|
Your recoded experiments are fascinating and welcome.
Most interesting, your conclusions appear to indicate that the proximity of a net "action/ reaction pair" can be separated by a time span.
Do you or anyone else find that extraordinarily fascinating?
I would have loved to see the overall results of your device Before the deadweight mass was added.
My own experiments with a different design yielded reaction (which may have been caused by the gyro frame's deadweight).
Also your multi-shot demonstration would be of great value (though I respect that you may now want to keep that confidential).
Perhaps Sandy will tell you the type of fish and the color he is referring to.
It is great to have your contributions again.
||Sandy Kidd - 17/03/2012 19:16:14
| ||Hello Nitro,|
That comment was as way of answer to Luis who made submitted the following posting which I have copied in full to save you looking for it
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.
||Nitro - 18/03/2012 18:05:16
| ||Hiya Luis and Sandy,|
Thank you for taking an interest in “the machine”.
Luis, Without the weight virtually no unexpected (i.e. non Newtonion) motions. With the weight I don’t think that the first movement follows Newton at all as the weight is a four pound cast iron one and the rest of the machine complete with gyros weighs slightly less than two pounds. This would normally mean that the frame should go off to the left more than twice as fast as the weight and gyros go off to the right. There are so many action and reactions, but on stop frame the centre of the weight and the gyros part company with the frame at about the same rate, as far as can be seen, which is all wrong. That they end up having all moved to the right is even more all wrong.
There is, as I’ve mentioned before, a sweet spot with this arrangement that is an utter swine to rediscover if lost. I was amazingly lucky to have got close enough to the sweet spot first time out (or I would probably have thought there was nothing there) . Shortly after the tests shown, I got cocky and thought – like you do – “more power will equal more effect”. Wrong! After fitting a larger power source (thicker elastic band – though, at the time, I would have gone for the V8 if I felt it was needed) it was back to almost pure Newtonian. You would not believe how much time I wasted – almost binned the lot – before I had the sense to go back to square one. Scaling it up for repeating, lost me most of my remaining marbles! The ratcheting effect showed a path but seemed eenteresting and shtupid though not much use, except to prove a point that few are interested in. I then followed my wife’s advice and got on with enabling us to eat better – they can smack you one, when you are asleep, if you don’t obey, you know!
Sandy, thank you for explaining coloured fish, or was your explanation just a red herring!? At least my head doesn’t hurt so much now I know!
Ravi, never go for an elastic band (or any other power source) that is stronger than your machine – dramatic though it may be.
Nice to know we are all still going and Mm..... what was that Paul Simon song – “something...... something ..... after all these years”?!
||Ravi - 22/03/2012 13:52:02
| ||Thank you for the advice -Will try to keep it in mind. I do sympathize with your comments about the current state of hard physical science. |
||Luis Gonzalez - 23/03/2012 01:59:41
| ||Hi Nitro,|
First of all I want to thank Glenn for introducing the notion of increasing the torque through stronger elastic force, which I initially scoffed at, as not relevant.
Since then I have come to respect the perspective that Glenn's question provided, as it prompted Nitro to mention the "sweet spot" factor in building and operating such device.
Apparently, increasing the torque (greater elastic-band force) causes a greater proportion of "Newtonian" response when operating the device.
To me this means greater "equal-and-opposite-reaction" in the interaction of masses involved (as a result of increasing the torque).
In my opinion, Nitro's revelation regarding the "sweet spot" is a most telling aspect of his experiment because it is a counterintuitive fact that Nitro has chosen to share with us in this forum.
Thank you again Nitro for sharing valuable results from your hard work in performing inertial propulsion experiments. (Without Faraday's experiments, Maxwell's equations would have been postponed indefinitely, and we may have been just now inventing computers.)
A number of individuals have relentlessly pursued the causes and effects for all counterintuitive gyro interactions.
I can tell you that some of these individuals know why increasing the torque in Nitro's device results in a greater proportion of "Newtonian" outcome (the answer is buried somewhere in the writings contained in this forum).
Hey Ravi - It would be highly interesting to get a "quantum/relativity" perspective on this phenomenon discovered by Nitro.
Such a perspective may prove of value to the next-gen of inertial propulsion technology.
My Best Regards to all,
||Ravi - 31/03/2012 11:56:54
I've got a question for you. When you say there is a sweet spot for the contraption and that a stronger band made it go back to pure Newtonian motion, are you saying that using a stronger band made the frame go left and even as the weight went right?
Why then does it work in this instance? Is it really a matter of the right 'rate of change of force' initiated by a band of a certain elastic constant? Or do you have some other understanding?
What do you think the gyros would do if for instance instead of a rubber band we simply had a mechanism to impose a constant force?
||Nitro - 01/04/2012 12:36:33
| ||Ah! Ravi, where to start? Probably wiser to know where to stop (if only).|
(Dear God! Make yourselves a cup of tea and get comfortable and Brace yourselves! It has been raining, he can’t get on with the garden and his ‘puter seems to be working so this will be long)........
I apologise in advance for teaching Grandma to suck eggs and for the headaches some will suffer this weekend from reaching into long forgotten corners of their minds. I also apologise for the lack of maths, I know many of you find that path easier (and shorter), but, I guess, being the son of a Cambridge maths graduate means the genes skiped a generation. Though the prodded gull (figure out that one, Sandy!) seems as dim as a Toc-H lamp in that area, like me. He is a babe magnet though, so at least some genes will out
If a small force is applied to change the axial angle of a large mass, high speed gyro with good bearings it will precess that applied force near perfectly and the reactions will be the non intuitive gyrodynamic ones we have all come to know and love/hate. When the gyro is not rotating at all the gyro will precess none of the force applied to change its axial angle and the reactions will be pure Newtonian. With small gyro spin speed/mass and or with an overly large applied force only some of the applied force will be precessed causing the gyro to produce a reaction that is part Newtonian and part Gyrodynamic – this, with pivot bearing friction, can induce nutation in greater amounts the less gyrodynamic reaction there is available in relation to the force being applied.
Thus (I think) with my machine (all right “contraption” if you must!). Too little gyro mass/speed/elastic band/Newtonian Mass (dead weight) produces too little one direction displacement to be any use or even noticed. To much elastic band (main shaft torque)/Newtonian mass in relation to the rest causes “over forced precession” making the gyros behave more and more like non spinning Newtonian mass and not be able to precess all of the applied force to shove the deadweight (Newtonian mass) sufficiently to be any good as the Newtonian opposite action on the frame cancels out more and more of the small gain in non Newtonian movement. Oh yes! And! The more complex and therefore heavy the machine, the more any desired effect will be masked and the balder you will become from pulling out tufts of your hair.
An example of (extreme) precessional loading (where the Newtonian mass to be precessed has been increased ad absurdum):- Ages ago, when I could still could use a bike, I turned a stripped down bike frame upside down and clamped it to the floor of the shed (which was concreted to the ground effectively making the mass to be precessed the Earth). A front wheel and tyre and the front forks were left in and the front wheel and the handlebars were free to turn full circle. When the wheel was spun fast to produce a strong gyroscopic effect one might have expected that the gyroscopic effect would resist the handlebars from being freely turned. Wrong! The handlebars can be turned in a circle as freely as if the front wheel was not spun – there may have been a slight but unnoticeable resistance caused by a slight increase in bearing side loading.
The reason for the steering handlebars being free to turn is that if a gyro is constrained in the precessional direction (in this case by the bike frame being bolted to the floor preventing the frame being moved by precession) that constraint has the effect of applying the same force as that being applied to change the axial angle of the gyro in the first place but 90 degrees round. The gyro (bike wheel in this case) precesses that first force and then, as it is constrained by the frame being nailed to the Earth, precesses it again and again and again (I think I have put the right amount of “agains” in there) till quite literally the force has gone “full cycle” back to the original force you applied to the handlebars and moves the handlebars as though there were no gyro involved. I have said before; the process is remarkably like that of a voltage following operational amplifier. There are, of course, the usual gyro dynamic forces at play but when constrained they remain just that; “constrained forces”. But forget them at your peril. Some of the worst air crashes during the advent of the jet fighter era were caused by the massive precessional forces caused upon the fast rotating engine by fast air display manoeuvres tearing engines from under engineered side mountings that hadn’t taken into account the lateral twisting forces caused by gyrodynamics.
Always remember Nitro’s first law (I’m not sure I can exactly recall it now myself) it’s something like:- a gyro will precess all the forces applied to change its axial angle, including all those you haven’t thought of. Perhaps to that should be added:- “don’t forget that Newtonian forces will still be in there somewhere as well”!
So, if you have persevered this far (and congratulations if you have), in answer to your questions:-
......that using a stronger band made the frame go left and even as the weight went right? = Yes, but not as much as it should have under the third law.
.......Is it really a matter of the right 'rate of change of force' initiated by a band of a certain elastic constant? = I don’t think so, anything that can apply the right amount of torque, like an electric motor, will do.
......What do you think the gyros would do if for instance instead of a rubber band we simply had a mechanism to impose a constant force? = Pretty much the same thing, see above and below.
An electric motor would be better as it would be hard enough to convince the scientific community that you had achieved a mechanism that could recover the decaying orbit of a satellite without having to add:- Oh! Did I mention? You will need six million elastic bands!!!
I am obviously not very wise but, nonetheless, I will stop now.
Happy what’s left of the weekend.
||Ravi - 05/04/2012 00:20:15
| ||Dear Nitro,|
Your exposition of the gyro's behavior is fantastic. I can confirm from my own experiments, most of your claims, including the consternation the results caused in me.
Since you and Sandy are the closest I will come to having collaborators, let me speak plainly and put down some thoughts for you to give me feedback on.
1. Eric Laithwaite's experiment with the gyro and the aluminum plate that won't tumble involve the production of 'lift' in the same plane as the applied torque. i.e. gravity applies a downward torque in the vertical plane and the gyro applies an upward torque in the same plane.
Your experiments with your ingenious machine (apologies about the word 'contraption'. I merely wanted to indicate that I thought your set-up ingenious.) has you applying a torque whose forces are in the vertical plane and the realized work was along an axis perpendicular to that plane, in fact in the plane of precession.
Do you think that maybe the plate in Eric 'rotated' to the side (in the plane of the table) and wedged itself so as to create frictional resistance to vertical movement (i.e. tumbling)? Or did Eric realize a real 'life' or counter-torque of some kind?
Now, while your machine did do work, the only way I can think of converting your machine to a working system is by having a track lined with innumerable systems like your gyros and they work in tandem to push a bogey forward (or backward). Is that the limit of what an idealized version of your machine can do or do you believe that a machine can be designed to fly?
2. Not only do I agree with your theory that the introduction of 'significant' resistance in the precession plane (to the precessive motion) causes but I will go on to state the logical conclusion that any successful device must therefore allow for full, free precession. To make it even more conclusive, I might even say "any machine that does not allow for full, free precession cannot fly".
This statement however goes against your machine model because in your model the work in done by the precessive movement in the precessive plane.
How do you feel then about my conclusion above?
3. You might ask, "If the work is done not in the precessive plane, then where?" and to that I answer that work is done in the plane of application of the torque itself, i.e. a working solution for a machine that can defy gravity must have the spinning gyro being twisted in a plane that includes the line of action of gravity, i.e. the vertical.
Add to that the above point#2 and it also means that the solution system must allow free precession in the horizontal plane.
||Ravi - 05/04/2012 00:34:32
| ||A couple of corrections:|
a) In point (1) above, I meant to say "lift", not "life", although come to think think of it, "coming alive" is probably an accurate description - life might be nothing but the ultimate reaction to nature's spin.
b) In point (2), I meant to say "Not only do I agree with your theory that the introduction of 'significant' resistance in the precession plane (to the precessive motion) causes.."... a reduction in useful gyrodynamic work.
Lastly Sandy, please give me feedback on this also. It seems to me that Nitro's description of the gyro's behavior implicitly describes saturation when he talks about overforced precession and the diminishing of the useful gyrodynamic force. So I think you probably agree with it heartily..?!
||Luis Gonzalez - 07/04/2012 04:58:00
| ||Hi Ravi,|
Please take my comments as an attempt to clarify, not to criticize.
With all due respect, I feel certain that Nitro's experiment videos, including the "sweet spot", are conducted with gyros operating well within the saturation zone.
I say this because Nitro's gyros appear to be spinning at a significant spin-rate.
Sandy, please correct me if I have misspoken. As I understand it, once mechanically induced deflection/(precession) occurs, the gyros have entered the saturation zone. Therefore, only very slowly rotating gyros reside outside the saturation zone.
Also, I understand that the concept of "saturation" is related to gyro spin/momentum, while the "sweet spot" is about the rate of tilting-torque.
(I believe a spin-to-torque ratio comes into pay but once spin enters saturation it may take an inordinate torque to overcome "saturation".)
That said, Nitro seems to explain the "sweet spot" in terms of "Nitro's First Law", which Nitro defines as a gyroscope's propensity to "deflect" (as in precession) in response to all tilting-forces (and obstacles), including all the ones that we "cannot foresee".
"Nitro's First Law" is applicable to just about every gyro phenomenon, so this law is very useful to gain some understanding about each of these phenomena.
Unfortunately (or fortunately), "Nitro's First Law" (by implication) does not enumerate or provide clear explanations regarding those forces that we "cannot foresee".
So, there exists an open opportunity to seek, find, and explain the source and nature of the offending forces, which reduce the benefits derived from the "sweet spot" when the torque is increased, in Nitro's device.
Please excuse my intrusion; I hope my comments will help to promote other interesting questions, if not a couple of fair answers. Otherwise someone will correct my errors.
Best Regards to all,
||Sandy Kidd - 07/04/2012 22:48:32
| ||Shed Dwellers,|
I am truly glad that Nitro’s device has come under scrutiny.
I had occasion a few years in the past to describe, and post to this forum the action of a device which delivered continuous thrust in a laboratory experiment around 1986 methinks.
Each pulse of the device was in many ways similar to the single action of Nitro’s machine.
To be honest I built this machine utilising a rapid operating cam to actuate the gyroscopes to move out and in once every revolution. This was based on information received from Scott Strachan who at the time lived in my old home town of Edinburgh.
Scott incidentally claimed positive results some time before I did.
I was looking for an action which could deliver the 1lb of thrust on my very first machine, and decided for all the wrong reasons that there was a cyclic action of some type at work, and I decided that the gyros were being moved out and in, in the rather slack and worn out machine.
What this was going to prove I do not know but the thing worked first time in the laboratory. In fairness 2 identical machines were built and one was used to prove out gyro and rotation speeds prior to the lab-test.
Sorry for this extended preamble but I would be happier if you knew where I was coming from.
The machine was suspended by means of a Kevlar cord positioned such that the box was reasonably well balanced.
In action the machine oscillated quite rapidly back and forth on the cord.
When advancing the machine would brake against the fierce lift of the cam (shades of a 649 Nitro) making box oscillation slow to an almost dead stop.
The gyros were elevated as the machine fought its way over the cam, once over, the box moved rapidly in reverse as the machine accelerated in its normal direction.
At this point the lift was visibly generated, although it looked like a delayed action effect.
The gyro speed was constant and a fair bit below saturation.
For your interest the input to the gyros and the device rotation were from the same output shaft of a gearbox, so the only variation was in the rotation speed of the device and more importantly the disposition of the gyros (elevation because of the cams) as the device and its box oscillated past each other.
It took me many years to sort out what exactly was happening.
I can at this point say that as I have previously claimed angular momentum is proportional to gyroscopic rotation speed or in this case where the gyro rotation speed is fixed, system rotation speed.
I still believe going into saturation is a wasted effort a bit like trying to extract power from a gravity accelerated system.
No angular momentum to play with in either event.
I will say that you know my thoughts on operating in the saturation zone, though I will say that we can lift an object in this case a gyroscope in saturation to a higher point say from 10 degrees above the horizontal to say 85 degrees above the horizontal without effort and hold it there. We can then quickly remove a load of gyro speed and or system rotation speed still holding it there until the speeds have changed, then we release the gyro. We will achieve one heavy upward non Newtonian pulse .
This is one of the first experiments I ever did.
The trick is stringing a load of those pulses together
This is a slightly modified version of the “Free Lunch Scenario”
The gyro rotation speed prior to saturation is a bit lower ( in the realm of angular momentum) but consider my first device which rotated at 300 plus rpm the bronze gyros at a calculated 10,500 rpm, close, but not quite in saturation.
In saturation I would have got nothing.
I do agree with you that Nitro’s device may be operating at least part of the way in saturation, but it is hard to tell.
Saturation in this case may be being used to generate the differential, akin to my answer to Ravi.
I would need to try this for myself.
I will throw this in for general perusal.
An interesting thing here is that due to loss of angular momentum outward acceleration is reduced when operating close to saturation.
If a gyro is pulled inwards by means of a cam, whatever and released just below the point of saturation it will return from whence it came at a ridiculously slow speed.
A bit obvious really, but food for thought?
||Sandy Kidd - 08/04/2012 22:54:56
| ||Luis and Ravi,|
Please accept my apologies, with relation to my previous replies to your questions relating to Nitro’s machine.
I was in too much of a hurry and was not thinking too well.
Old age and all that.
There is no doubt the device is operating well into saturation.
As there can be no angular momentum from the gyroscopes and motors affecting the issue it is the torque (call it precession if you must) which is driving the mass, with the consequence of no reaction.in the system as long as the machine is being rotated
More boring stuff.
Once upon a time in the early eighties when I was beginning my apprenticeship in spinning things and knew a bit less than I know now I fitted 0.25” dia./ 6mm dia.steel pins into the legs of one of my test machines in a futile attempt to effect a brake on the machine’s upward and inward action. The arms were set at around 60 degrees vertical offset.
Device rotation was 250rpm, gyroscopes were 6inch diameter dural, rotating at about 2500 rpm on a 6inch diameter circle.
I detected no angular momentum during the run but one of the pins was sheared off and the other was seriously bent. The device proceeded as if nothing had happened.
This demonstrated to me the immense torque generated when the device is in saturation.
You commented earlier on Laithwaite’s aluminium plate experiment.
I hope I am getting it right this time.
The plate was set up to balance on the edge of the table with the gyroscope lying (not rotating of course) at its full extent and the position marked on the plate.
The balance point of the plate was then marked when the gyroscope was 180 degrees away on the inside so to speak.
The plate was then set up with the mid position of the 2 marks on the edge of the table..
The gyroscope was run up into precession and placed on its fulcrum point.
As you saw the aluminium plate table did not fall off the table.
A gyroscope in precession generates no angular momentum and its mass is transferred to operate down vertically through the fulcrum.
It is no trick just more of the weird facts, surrounding gyroscopes.
||Glenn Hawkins - 08/04/2012 23:25:54
| ||Dear Sandy.|
Hello my friend. Many times you have written, “A gyroscope in precession generates no angular momentum. . .”
How do you know this? Can you prove this, or tell me how I may prove it, please.
You finished writing “. . . and its mass is transferred to operate down vertically through the fulcrum."
Yes, agreed. I am sure a great deal of force, in addition to the mass can also be transferred to the fulcrum. Respectfully not to put words in your mouth, but I am certain you have long found this to be true.
||Ravi - 08/04/2012 23:46:49
I agree that there are enormous torques generated in saturation. I have myself bent hinges and screws or large caliber in the course of my experiments, often at angles that suggest inexplicably large torques, in relation to the applied torque. There might be amplification at work in ways we haven't fathomed yet.
Here's my problem: You say that there is no angular momentum left to play with in saturation territory - so there should be no possibility of doing work in saturation territory. Yet Nitro's device is doing just that. How do you explain that?
There is also the fact that in Nitro's machine the work is done not in the plane of the applied torque but rather along an axis that lies on the precessive plane.
How about the (completely separate) fact that Laithwaite's aluminum plate experiment does work (or prevents the doing of work i.e. toppling) in the plane of the applied torque?
(In Laithwaite's experiment, gravity's torque is in the vertical plane and the non-toppling of the Al plate is the performance of torque in the vertical plane also).
I'm just trying to figure out which plane I should be targeting for work-output. Is it the plane of the applied torque or the plane of precession? Nitro's device extracted it in the plane of precession while Eric's seems to have done it (or something analogous) in the plane of the applied torque... so which is it?
Your machine seems to have done it in the plane of precession as well? (the plane of applied torque seems horizontal and since your machine experienced weight loss, that would mean vectors in the vertical plane which is the plane of precession, right?)
My numerous experiments are saying that net work cannot be extracted in the precessive plane. Of course that might be because I have been operating outside the 'sweet spot'... well into saturation, as you have pointed out to me numerous times. I suspect you might turn out to be right (I have learnt to ignore your predictions at my own peril in the past), but lets for a moment venture beyond.
I am thinking now that I might be able to extract work in the same plane as the applied torque. Sort of like it happens in an Op-Amp for instance, as Nitro pointed out, where the received output is a large multiple of the difference of two input signals.
So too, I'm trying to think that maybe the device can take the two input signals (say gravity's torque and the applied torque) and amplify the difference between them and produce that as an output torque. I believe the op-amp analogy is really what that kind of a behavior would imply. But thats neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion.
My thinking, simplified, is that for me to harness the feedback, I might need to situate the applied torque in the same plane as the gravity vector, and further, that I would receive a resultant vector presumably in the same plane and that it would be a multiple of the difference between the two input signals.
I guess I dont really have examples where that was tried, because both your and Nitro's machine tried to extract work in the plane of precession, not in the plane of the applied torque.
However I might be wrong as you might have tried that sort of a thing already, and I would love to hear about any such situations you have tried and what results your received too.
||Sandy Kidd - 09/04/2012 22:11:13
| ||Ravi and Glenn,|
When I consider the saturation as being unusable the reason is basically because there is no angular momentum available to use.
In saturation it is all or nothing at all.
I would think that to generate a continuously altering differential in saturation is impossible, and this is a prerequisite for the generation of inertial thrust.
Here I am talking in the context of a continuously operating machine, and not a single shot device.
You yourself said that the torque generated in your device was powerful enough to damage your machine, so it is not very hard to consider the level of thrust which can be put to use in a set up like Nitro’s.
Unfortunately we must remove all the device rotation speed to reset the system.
The whole thing is academic if you do not believe in the total loss of angular momentum in saturation.
This may take a very large leap of faith.
In fact you may have to prove for yourself that there is no angular momentum being generated at the gyros in saturation or you will never be at ease with it.
If there is any reaction it cannot come from the gyros if the device completes its cycle in saturation.
I think it is easy to prove that there is no acceleration being generated in saturation consequently there can be no angular momentum.
A few strategically placed strain gauges and an oscilloscope will tell all.
I do not know if the old double beam scopes or equivalent are still available.
What is classed as standard equipment nowadays?
Believe it or not I was asked to submit an experiment to an employee (name withheld but can be had on request) of Sussex University in the 80’s which would prove my claim.
I am still waiting on an acknowledgement or a reply.
I did think at the time that this stuff was too advanced for them down there, so maybe it hit the bin, but I have since been informed that for reasons best known to himself, he was a “spoiler” or academic Luddite.
That now makes 2 of them I have had dealings with now.
Nice to know though that there is an FBI warning out on the latter.
Ravi you should know that if there was any angular momentum at all being generated in saturation flying saucers would have been all the rage some time ago.
This is the massive physics “Catch 22”, and Newton loses out both ways.
Dundee University maths department initially agreed with me when I queried the philosophy of my first device, 10 minutes later they silently left.
I have said before this does not make the quest any easier but it is a big help to start with the facts..
There are several other unique and extremely useful attributes associated with the loss of angular momentum, but we can get round to them later.
I will see if I can recover the experiment submitted to Sussex University.
It may help. It may not.
My machines operate in both planes, but operate well below the point of saturation.
I am utilising the greater angular momentum produced at lower flywheel speeds.
||Sandy Kidd - 09/04/2012 23:12:26
| ||Hello Glenn, Ravi and any other interested parties.|
I submitted this some time ago, but seeing as we are discussing this at present here it is again.
I do not think that you will be under any illusions, as to the view, of what I am about to relate, is taken by the high priests/custodians of all knowledge, however if put to the test I can back up my statements/claims which is a hell of a lot more than they can.
I recently made a comment relating to the fact that a gyroscope in precession would as well not be there. It affects nothing, and is only a visual spectacle of a rotating disc, itself rotating around a fixed point.
A gyroscope under mechanical acceleration, or as some still wish to call it forced precession, can present a very similar visual state of affairs, but in this case, there can be large changes of angular momentum and centrifugal force, going on without flagging up their presence
One must not be fooled by the visual impression a gyroscope presents in gravity accelerated mode or mechanical accelerated mode.
This is why I have suggested that the workings of these things, eventually becomes a state of mind.
Gyroscopic logic is hard to teach, it is much easier to learn.
In an accelerated system there could be almost total angular momentum present or virtually none without any obvious way of knowing.
It is therefore not necessary for a gyroscope “to move” to create large changes in useable centrifugal force or angular momentum, it is only important to know that it can, and can be manipulated.
This phenomenon is all part of the mass transfer process (if you like) which goes on within a mechanically accelerated system, but what is most important is the ability of the system to gain or shed angular momentum without a change to the system rotation speed.
The pure and righteous will love this one.
||Glenn Hawkins - 10/04/2012 01:45:07
| ||I understand this week. Next week I will need to understand it again.|
||Luis Gonzalez - 11/04/2012 02:40:18
| ||Thank you Sandy for corroborating my statements about "Saturation" in regard to Nitro's device (that the device is operating well into saturation). |
Ravi, I have mainly thought that Sandy's device is intended to produce a NET upward propulsion (i.e. along the rotor/hub's main axis).
This NET Overall propulsion is derived from forces that radiate from the deflection/(precession) that is mechanically induced, as the gyros are operated at a somewhat elevated offset angle, and well outside of the saturation zone.
As is see it, Sandy's device uses forces emanating from "defection/(precession)", as well as from the applied torque's action/reaction interaction. (Please correct me if I am wrong Sandy.)
We have no videos of Sandy's devices, so my interpretations are based solely on statements from Sandy in this forum, which I may have misinterpreted.
On the other hand, Nitro's device also uses the force of mechanically induced "deflection/(precession)" but it does NOT induce motion in the torque's plane because the configuration is radically different from Sandy's device (as we can see on the video).
Ravi, I initially believed that propulsion could only be extracted from the action/reaction interaction involved in applying and removing the torque, and hence that it should occur along the main hub axis.
After an exhaustive investigation of this "Torque & Reaction" paradigm, a little under one year ago I became convinced that propulsion can only occur in one of the directions along the "deflection/(precession)" plane (mechanically induced of-course). My investigation involved analysis of personally conducted experiments as well as experiments conducted by others.
Therefore I am very pleased that Nitro recently decided to present us with videos of his vintage experiment. Nitro's is the only video in the world wide web that produces legitimate inertial propulsion, albeit intermittent. My design is very different from Nitro's; it is intended to produce quick cycles, each producing acceleration that can be aggregated.
Best Regards to all,
||Sandy Kidd - 11/04/2012 21:04:04
| ||Evening Luis,|
With respect to your last posting I would like to say, that most of your statements I agree with.
I am not disagreeing with your inclusion of vertical offset in your comments, just the fact that it did not seem to rate any importance, and yes I tend to operate as far away as I can from saturation.
There is a video of my first machine in operation from the ITV 30 minute documentary, but I think that is copyright. Just before the birth of this website our bold webmaster Glenn told me he was going to apply for permission from Grampian TV in an attempt to acquire a copy.
I do not know if he pursued this, or not, probably not.
Somewhere in my souvenirs I have video shots of my lab test machine performing.
However as the thing was enclosed in a wooden box there is not a lot to see.
Luis I do not expect to see anything revealing on “YouTube” for obvious reasons.
I do expect to see a lot of novel stuff, doubtful stuff, very doubtful stuff, even more doubtful stuff, obsolete stuff and other bits of kit released in order to prevent plagiarism by others, prior disclosure and all that.
I did this myself with my split sphere gyroscopes (nasty swine, mais c’est la vie)
I would never expect to see a complete device going through the motions of producing impossible outputs or there would be “D” notices flying about like confetti.
and the only reason things could get this far is because, like the patent application for gyroscopically induced inertial drive you apply for, you only get one because nobody believes you, and they get paid anyway.
I did some time ago consider putting together a few Laithwaite style of experiment or demonstration models to show what really happens to spinning discs when played about with, but in mechanically accelerated systems this time round.
I have a few bits of kit in good nick which I could put together and prove some of the stuff I have been ramming down everybody’s throats for years.
They could go down well on YouTube I tend to think, and it would not cost a lot.
This could become a very emotive issue, but I really do believe this could be very useful
||Luis Gonzalez - 12/04/2012 02:16:28
Thank you for your positive response, and for the splendid ideas you have brought forth.
I am certain everyone in this forum will look forward to your videos.
||Ravi - 16/04/2012 10:23:56
| ||Dear Nitro,|
You haven't replied yet to my reply of your reply. (right.. clear as mud) I would like to hear your opinion on the specific extrapolation I am making of your example of extreme precessional loading, with the upside down bicycle.
By clamping the bicycle to the floor, you were "effectively making the mass to be precessed the Earth".
Upon applying a turning a force to the fast spinning wheel, you observed that "The handlebars can be turned in a circle as freely as if the front wheel was not spun ".
Having also made such observations myself with my prototypes, I have started to think that "the logical conclusion (is) that any successful device must therefore allow for full, free precession. To make it even more conclusive, I might even say 'Any machine that does not allow for full, free precession cannot fly'."
I would be interested in your reply to this kind of a conclusion.
Thank you for the copious amounts of information you have given us about your amazing experiments. Thank you for the clarification about Laithwaite's experiment. Its great to have someone so extremely knowledgeable in experimental gyrodynamics to turn to, in case of doubt. Thank you also for very skilfully laying bare the tactics of saturation. I have also found that the visual aspect of saturation dynamics to be frustratingly information-poor. Much is happening without any obvious signs and then its 'too late'.
Let me disagree with you though, on one small, tiny detail. You replied that your machine operates in both the planes, the horizontal and the vertical.
My own experience suggest that the part of the machine's spin that is in the horizontal plane (thus putting its angular momentum vector vertical), when subjected to a torque whose forces are also in the horizontal plane, will not produce any precession. Presumably this is because the torque isn't twisting the plane of the wheels, but only applying forces that are in the same plane as the wheel is in.
So it seems to me that you might not have actually had a true model where the "the applied torque (is) in the same plane as the gravity vector" and one where the applied torque actually produced a precession due to a twisting of the spinning wheels axis.
Please correct me if I am not understanding this right.
||Glenn Hawkins - 16/04/2012 16:47:46
| ||Hi Raiv,|
||Ravi - 17/04/2012 23:54:30
| ||Hey guys,|
Also check out my latest videos at my blog.
I oriented my prototype so that the applied torque is in the same plane as the gravity vector.
The curious thing I observed is that the prototype only resisted in the beginning. After the first few seconds (i.e. when the applied torque was flat in magnitude presumably after ramping up from 0 Amps to 4 Amps), the whole thing just speeded up just as if the wheels were not spinning at all. The whole thing assume the maximum moment of inertial configuration just as it would if the wheels were not spinning at all.
Further, my video 7.2 there is really exciting as I was just fooling around and I found that the wheels have a preferred orientation depending on the direction of applied torque.
The resistance is only if the wheels were not pointed in that preferred direction already. So for instance, if we are turning the assembly clockwise but the wheels are pointing their motors down, then the applied torque (in the horizontal plane to the outer frame) is resisted and the energy transduced into (the vertical plane in the inner cage) turning the wheels so that the motors point up. Similary, if counterclockwise torque is applied but the wheels are pointing up, then the applied torque (in the horizontal plane on the outer frame) is resisted and the energy transduced into (in the vertical plane in the inner cage) turning the wheels so that the motors point down.
||Luis Gonzalez - 21/04/2012 03:21:01
| ||Dear Ravi and Shed Dwellers,|
The road to worthwhile success is fraught with many a failure.
Your posting, video, and comments indicate you are at a transition point. The conclusion and results from your designed experiments have brought you a deeper understanding about what shed dwellers have been up against.
As a man of means, you have been able to command resources and discover things that other shed dwellers paid a different type of price to obtain.
You advanced quicker than most. However, please permit me to say that the road ahead remains long, with many more potential failures.
The wise inventor heeds the experimental results of others.
Those yet wiser strive to acquire true in-depth understanding of all the experimental results presented.
Ravi, I venture to say that the best inertial propulsion designs would come from individuals who understand Sandy's "Saturation Zone", as well as understanding why Nitro's experiments successfully displace-mass while operating within the "Saturation Zone".
But most important (to achieving a good design) is understanding the reason for the "Sweet Spot" in Nitro's videoed experiments.
Do you agree or disagree with any of my above comments Ravi?
||Luis Gonzalez - 22/04/2012 19:34:48
| ||What do you think Ravi? |
Have you given up on gyro propulsion?
Or just on responding to me?
||Ravi - 23/04/2012 12:28:27
| ||Neither, Luis.|
||Luis Gonzalez - 23/04/2012 17:15:20
| ||Thanks for the response to my short question Ravi,|
Do you have a response to the question I addressed to you in the postings above?
||Sandy Kidd - 24/04/2012 10:03:01
| ||Evening Ravi,|
I apologise for the delay in getting back to you.
This was sent a few days ago, but for some reason did not go.
Ravi you said
“Let me disagree with you though, on one small, tiny detail. You replied that your machine operates in both the planes, the horizontal and the vertical”.
I suppose it would appear that I am contradicting myself as far as the production of “precession” or saturation is concerned. I have already said that I operate my devices as far from saturation as possible.
You correctly suggest I cannot be operating in a vertical plane as there is no precession or saturation involved.
This is not strictly true Ravi as my machines produce vertical movement without recourse to precession or a saturation effect.
I take it that this is what you mean, please correct me if I am wrong.
You are a clever lad so I am sure you will figure this bit out.
Not easy, but what is?
||Ravi - 29/04/2012 22:53:19
| ||The cumulative results of my experiments indicate that my next step involves a change in my prototype set up that will make it superficially similar to Nitro's experiment. |
However it will not be pushing any deadweight. That in itself makes it uninteresting I'm sure to Nitro atleast, as he has confirmed that without the deadweight, the behavior of the machine is completely Newtonian. My intention is simply to be experimentally rigorous.
||Luis Gonzalez - 03/05/2012 02:50:54
| ||Hi Ravi,|
It's good to see you are moving on to the next generation of devices, and I look forward to the new experiments.
I hope you take my comments in the spirit that I deliver them, and please don't take offense.
There is one major factor that will compromise the quality of your experimental results (unless you make drastic changes).
Your current test equipment has a high ratio of deadweight-mass to spinning-mass because of the massive gyro-frame plus peripherals.
My guess is that your current videoed devices have a deadweight-mass that is 2 to 4 times greater than the flywheel.
This ratio levels skews the interactions dramatically making them unique to the specific device, and not very useful for colleting basic data. (It is difficult to factor out the effects of massive deadweight).
I am sure you know the basics ways to correct this issue (e.g. heavier flywheel material, lighter gyro-frames made from stronger more resilient alloys, smaller overall device, etc).
I have innovative frame designs that I expect should provide the lightest possible gyro frames.
|Add an Answer >>|