Question |
| Asked by: |
Glenn Hawkins |
| Subject: |
I want my momentum |
| Question: |
One thing I've known forever. Each graduation of the wheel into a new tilt extinguishes all carry-over force. The wheel has been tilted into a new plain. It cannot bring forward and add to it's tilt velocity. The condition of tilting is not like compressing a spring either, where energy is conserved. Once the energy from a graduated distance of drop is used, the show is over unless more energy is added. This is why all speeds and all action remain relatively slow and constant during precession, while dead weight and all mass under normal conditions constantly increase their fall speed into gravity. It is a system of always starting all over.
When the precessed wheel touches down and begins rolling around the pivot on the table, it encounters opposite deflections, which begin stopping the rolling like breaks. Any carry-over from precessed momentum is stopped. This is true in all examples I can think of.
To avoid using powered energy needlessly, precession should be driven from a beginning force to an ending force almost instantly, but not quite as over and done with as a hammer blow, a little slower.
HERE'S THE KICKER AND IT S A KICKER.
The precessed wheel will act like rotation, if just before the end of a graduated precession, while force is still acting, the pivot is kicked in the parallel direction of the plain of the forward wheel rotation. It acts like a sling-shot, like a rotated object on a string when the string breaks. The wheel is free to travel linearly. It is then in motion, readied to deliver it's pay-load of momentum into a driving collision, initiated from a right angle and producing no rearward reaction.
Beautiful isn't, all the unknown things.
Glenn |
| Date: |
21 May 2012
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Blaze - 21/05/2012 17:22:34
|
| | WOW, that is amazingly similar to what I have been theorizing.
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 21/05/2012 22:45:44
|
| | Well if one of us is right, the other might be right too. ' Ever think of that? : ) Way to go, Blaze.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 21/05/2012 23:04:37
|
| | Your Kicker idea is exactly what I have been arguing with a few people (not on this forum) about. They have a different idea of what would happen but I think the key is when the release is done, it has to be before steady state precession speed is achieved.
You are a smart man Glenn. I have been going over some old postings and am still learning things from you.
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/05/2012 03:16:40
|
| | Thank you for the complement, Blaze. It takes on to know one. You might tell your friends this is one of the easiest test to do. They can spin the toy up fast and support the end of the shaft on the tip of their index finger positioned very near the top of a table. As precision begins, with the index finger of their free hand they can flip the supported pivot forward in the direction of the flywheel precession. The wheel will roll away pretty fast, upright and dead straight ahead til morning.
As an example we might imagine a man standing inside his apparatus. The force of his kick into the pivot will empty into a wheel collision in the forward frame, which will be equal to his rearward reaction into the rear of the frame. As to the conditions of inertia, the interior kick of the pivot cost nothing.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 22/05/2012 05:30:59
|
| | That is a pretty cool experiment Glenn. Elegant in its simplicity. My idea is similar but is theory only, I have not built anything to test it yet. My idea is to rapidly start and move the pivot forward in the direction of precession at the precession speed of the flywheel and "capture" the flywheel at the forward end of the pivot stroke. I get the precession velocity for "free" and the act of moving the pivot (the lightest part of the mechanism) has a very much smaller negative momentum effect than the positive gain from the capture of the flywheel. Although there are several mechanical issues to be proved out (I have them figured out but not proved out yet), your experiment would seem to verify that my theory will work.
Very interesting indeed
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 23/05/2012 23:15:04
|
| | Hello Blaze,
That is extraordinary. You are guaranteed to recoup your forward reaction colliding into the frame, equal to the rearward reaction against the frame. There is your stated 'free' cake. Additionally you should logically gain momentum from the collision of the circling wheel into the frame. It seem it would makes no difference even if the pivot were much heaver than the wheel, except a heavier load to carry. Free is free.
You are right. Your deduction has to be proven. In this business, like no other business surely any of us have ever in countered, you can't even take logic for granted.
My finger licking, kicking experiment is not proof of an inertial advantage. It only shows you get 'free cake' as the wheel can be helped to break free from rotation into straight line movement.
Proving this would require only a small set-up, a spring loaded device to insure a constant magnitude of force and action would do. Then it could be released against the pivot and also released against the frame guard of the gyro. You would need next a barrier that could measure the force of impact. Either way, if the collision would be stronger than the release of the spring load device, it would prove the little electric storm in your gray mater is firing pretty good and you have proven an advantage. You have your free cake and you can eat it too. I like this.
There has to be some similarities in what we are thinking up to a point. Someday if I ever explain how I am seeking constant, repetitious thrusts, and don't mind explaining, it is going to blow the hair back of some members. I would have to do a video with a lot of very good three 3-dimensional drawings. For the time being, nothing we might be working on will work, unless these simple things we are searching for right now will truly work.
Of late (don't anybody shoot at me) I did some simple designed experiments and found conclusively partial rotation around the center of mass. Not all the mass does this. It depends on how the tests are set-up. I cannot go further after a half lifetime of thinking and testing, without some superior testing machinery. And the dog-gone testing machinery might as well be the actually machine itself. It is all very aggravating. I have to give a big part of my life to build an elaborate machine, to test the blooming, bloody, blasted thing in the dark of shaky logic to know if it will work. I trust nothing about this business any more. I am actually mad about it. None of we have accelerated a device fast across a basketball court. Everyone ought to be peed-off sometimes.
Catch you next time my friend,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 23/05/2012 23:49:38
|
| | Thanks Glenn. You said "You are guaranteed to recoup your forward reaction colliding into the frame, equal to the rearward reaction against the frame." I agree but would describe it this way. The ship would do an inchworm movement backwards (opposite to the desired direction) when moving the pivot forward but if the pivot assembly were light compared to the mass of the ship the inchworm movement would be very small. The reason it is inchworm is because when the pivot crashes into the front of the ship it stops any movement of the ship backwards that was created by pushing the pivot off of the back of the ship. I believe we both agree on this, we just describe it differently.
The flywheel crashing into the front of the ship is where you get the forward ship momentum from. The gyro could be started at a place such that any inchworm movement (jerk movement) from starting it would be in the forward direction. This would help to mitigate the inchworm backwards from moving the pivot.
Now you have to get the flywheel back to the back of the ship again, and I believe that I have a way to do that without transferring momentum to the ship.
Blazing new trails,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/05/2012 01:32:13
|
| | That is it precicely it. "Now you have to get the flywheel back to the back of the ship again, and I believe that I have a way to do that without transferring momentum to the ship." You are going to amase me if you have this!
Genn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 24/05/2012 01:51:35
|
| | Well, be prepared to be amazed (if it works, that is). I believe that is the easy part.
Actually most of my postings have been leading up to something so if you want to know how I plan on getting the flywheel to the back of the ship again without affecting the momentum of the ship, the essence of my idea is in some of my previous postings. According to responses from those postings, my idea should work. The only thing that bothers me is that it is soooo easy that it seems TOO easy so I am concerned I might have missed something and it may not work.
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/05/2012 03:43:20
|
| | My friend, unless you come up with something I have diligently searched for with the best of my abilities for twenty years,--- then it is not easy. Others all over the world searched for years too and seemed to have failed. They don't think it is easy. Actually it is hell to do. I have my fingers crossed for you. My wises for your best luck and happiness continue.
show us up. I'm on your team.
Glenn.
I'm listing to Hay Jude. Da da da dada.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 24/05/2012 04:45:02
|
| | So what we really need here 3 things. First thing is a way to get velocity without a negative reaction, precession with a "kick" may give us that. Second we need a way of transferring momentum without simply crashing it into the front wall of the ship. There are several ways to do that and precession can again be used as one of the ways. Thirdly we need a way to reset the mass. I am not so sure I am ready to reveal that just yet, however your "four stroke" reference is right on the mark as the reset would take 3 steps.
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/05/2012 05:16:07
|
| | I've exaggerated again. I found it preceding the inch worm in the same year, but I haven't preceded to build in twenty years. Look into the Geneva gear.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 24/05/2012 06:05:24
|
| | Well the geneva gear is interesting. I have never seen that before, but it is nothing like what I am thinking of. I will give you another hint. 42 answers
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 25/05/2012 02:50:05
|
| | Ok Glenn. It works. I just built and tested my mass reset idea tonight and it seems to work as predicted (at least it does on Earth anyway). The only drawback I can see right now is that there would be three sideways inchworm movements to the ship on every mass reset but that shouldn't be anything that can't be handled by having a "mirror image" system. I have always thought this would have to be done in pairs to negate the unwanted movements and forces.
So, the next question is can one really get "free velocity" by using the combination of your idea and my idea? That is accelerating the wheel from zero to precession speed (or slightly less) and then kick the pivot to the front of the ship at precession speed and have a net momentum gain when capturing the wheel (and the pivot) and still have coasting between thrusts? I haven't tested this yet as it would take quite a bit more building and time to get it right.
If the "free velocity with a kick" works, the only major thing left would be the capture of the wheel at the front of the ship, and I think I have a really good way of doing that too (still would have to be tested of course).
the grey matter is getting hot,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/05/2012 15:56:26
|
| | Wonderful Blaze,
A fellow fell from a fifty story building and on the way down he shouted into each window, “So far, so good.”. We shall see. We shall see, said the blind man.
1) To gain static and dynamic stability in space, both of which are necessary, we need a minimum of four ( I have eight) wheels, each setting in a corner of a square and applying reaction force both, parallel and horizontal against each of it' two twins.
2) Capturing the wheel: I have never had success attempting to extract force as in Nitro's way, which is to extract force from a constant contact of pressure while precession continues. I always got an instant of rearward reaction followed by the whole tumbling into chaos. As extraordinary as his test was, there was an awful lot of power acting, but he got only a high fraction from it. I only sort of understand why. ( I sort of think it was the 'last bump' from a single graduated deflection) It is obvious you know the following of what I am talking about. I am sure a collision 'from' precessed motion, not 'precessing' motion, is necessary. So are you. Many forms of shock absorbers, after the kick might work. We could try marshmallows.
3) I am not going to say any more than this about the extreme difficulty for an individual man to build this crazy acting apparatus, with it's four cycles allowed to act freely in free space, part of the time, the parts being constantly unattached and recaptured as they move, yet kept to move in exactitude in time and place inside a box. I am not talking about the wheel in the wheel being kick freed.
Keep it up,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 25/05/2012 21:15:47
|
| | Hi Glenn. I too originally thought of diconnecting the wheel from the pivot arm and recapturing it at the far end of the ship but abandoned that idea due to the complexity even though it would be more efficient. Instead I reworked that idea to moving the pivot to the front of the ship with the wheel attached because of the simplicity (even though it isn’t that easy, it certainly is easier than disconnecting and reconnecting the wheel to the pivot arms). Of course as soon as the pivot is moved forward the wheel drops, preferably onto a cart that it rides to the front of the ship.
Transferring the momentum at the front of the ship would then be “easy” (yeah, right) as all you would have to do is bring the pivot to a stop at the front of the ship over some arbitrary short distance and doing so would raise the wheel off of the cart it was travelling on to the front of the ship. As soon as the wheel starts to rise, you would then apply the appropriate down force and the wheel would precess. Since the pivot is now firmly attached to the ship, the LINEAR momentum of the wheel will be transferred to the ship (via the pivot) as the pivot arm rotates to the front of the ship. The wheel is still held up by precession.
This assumes (very dangerous word) that the momentum of the wheel (precession speed times mass) is maintained when the wheel is travelling linearly to the front of the ship.
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 27/05/2012 12:23:11
|
| | Hi Blaze,
'Unattached and recaptured', is an old term for a problem I solved years ago. I have no excuse for the misstatement. It was still embedded in my mind I guess. This is all old stuff. For me it was a devil of a time solving the problem. Now I control all parts and never leave anything to chance, but keep a grip on everything. I would need to show schematics of the thing in order to explain it.
You know that your method relies on the rise to be completed is less than 90o after forward pivot contact. Also the third stroke requires the wheel to be reset hormonally between 135o to 180o. The tendency of the wheel then will be to precess downward a distance twice the gain in rise. This can be overcome and the process accomplished at a cost of energy efficiency. You'll be on top of it. I have the problem solved. It is doable but complicated, but so was an automobile engine to conceive and advance. It is only simple now because we understand it.
Good luck with everything,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 27/05/2012 19:54:29
|
| | Glenn, you would be surprised at how many people don't know how a internal combustion engine works and even if they do understand the concept of the mechanics behind it, they don't know the reasons why it works the way it does or why it is so inefficient (sounds like gyros, doesn't it?)
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
