|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
26 April 2024 22:39
|
|
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: |
Sandy Kidd |
| Subject: |
Applications for Patents |
| Question: |
Evening shed dwellers,
Seems that winter time and the cold weather it brings, makes us all a bit less keen to spend any time, be it of short or extended duration, in the shed.
I must admit I was looking for a reason to forgo some of my time in the shed and put it instead to good use elsewhere, for instance, in the comfort of my house.
For some time I have been attempting to enhance flywheel drive systems of electrical, mechanical and hybrid types mostly involving minor mods to these systems, stuff that is not very critical.
In light of this fact I have turned my attention to another aspect of the task, one I should really have addressed many years ago.
Sometime ago I think I made a comment to Nitro relating to the doubtful merits of possessing a current patent, and that a patent of this type would only be as good as the thickness of one’s wallet, besides at that time I felt that the relative cost of acquiring such a patent was way over the top, and that was not including the fact that the world would know all about one’s thinking 12 month’s later.
An application if granted only provides cover for what is divulged, so it is not really being too clever avoiding claims for items that one does not want attention drawn to.
It must have been about 7 or 8 years ago when I enquired of at that time “my patent attorney” the cost of preparing another application for me.
I said I would supply all the necessary drawings (I was a design draughtsman in another life.) and the drawings were incidentally already completed.
He quoted me with a figure of £3500 to £4500 with my drawings included.
At that time I was considering 2 separate applications as the devices I intended to cover were dissimilar enough to warrant this.
The cost which could easily reach £10000, for the pair of applications with yours truly supplying the drawings was I thought was just too much.
I have since modified and updated the original pair of devices quite considerably, so the drawings will have to be altered to reflect all the changes.
In that light, I am now very happy that I passed up the original chance of having them done by others, however in the time that has elapsed since then, the cost will have no doubt escalated quite considerably, so I have now decided to produce the whole lot for both devices myself.
The excuse is that it is a bit more comfortable inside the house than inside the shed at this time of the year, so I have been getting acquainted with the terminology used by the professionals when preparing patent applications, which is different to say the least.
I have managed to retrieve my old drawing instruments, well those I could still find, pencils, stencils, protractors and squares, etc. and got myself a very nice new A3 drawing board from “eBay” complete with all the good bits and which is easily moved around and stowed away.
The drawings will all be A4 so I did not need anything larger and I can get on with the job.
The drawing is the easy bit, and straight forward enough, but it will still take a few hours to produce the required number of drawings.
It’s the text that worries me though, but I do have a fair bit of it done.
Howsoever, as they say forever upwards, and onwards, or is it onwards and upwards?
Regards
Sandy
|
| Date: |
3 December 2013
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Blaze - 04/12/2013 00:57:39
| | | Hi Sandy. I have always said that a patent is only as good as the money you have to defend it. There have been numerous incidents where the poor inventor patents something and then has to spend hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to defend it against a corporation with deep pockets. (I can immediately think of a case with a major car company where the inventor spent a huge amount of money to defend the patent, took about 15 years to do so and his family left him because it became his life to defend the patent. In the end he won about 30 or so million but the cost to his personal life, health and family was severe.) These corporations know that the inventor will usually give up long before he has spent a hundred thousand to defend the patent and if it is a good invention, it is well worth the corporations time a trouble to ruin the inventor. I know that sounds pretty dismal but that is the way it is.
I have been thinking that it may just be easier (not necessarily better) not to patent. The device you or I are building could probably be put into a non transparent box and displayed functioning that way. This would hide the invention but still prove the concept. If the corporation wants to know what is inside, they have to pay for it. I believe this concept would work as it is pretty hard to argue with a successful working prototype even if you don't know what "makes it go" but it would generate a lower sale price than if they saw the inner workings. However, that lower price is offset by the fact that you wouldn't have to pay tens of thousands per country for patents and you wouldn't have to spend huge amounts of money to defend the patent. That has got to be worth something.
Just something to think about.
cheers,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 04/12/2013 18:15:30
| | | Hi shed dwellers Hibernating in the warm,
Sandy and Blaze, here’s something to read as we warm toes in front of a blazing (no pun intended) fire, me with a glass of malt whiskey. Blaze, if you live in one of the warmer states I hate you lots and lots and you should give a thought to Sandy who the met office say is going to freeze his sporran of in the next couple of days. How the met office knows where Sandy and his sporran are is beyond science!
The patent process is indeed loaded against the shed dweller and in favour of big business. As big business is usually well represented in the governments that set patent law, it is perhaps to be expected the patent law is going to be somewhat biased. Lately in the UK due to the cancer of never-ending EU regulations and the concomitant growth in non elected quango regulating bodies, small businesses are less and less likely to be able to invent, start up and/or survive. So be prepared for more and worse big business and big government bias in the future.
On the bright side, and surprisingly there is a bright side, the cost of filing patents in all the European countries is dropping dramatically as it will require only one filing fee instead of over twenty nine or so (not sure how many European states have been swallowed to date). After the first year though, maintaining a European patent starts to cost serious money so you need to have got (not “gotten”, Blaze - why does America speak the Olde Englesh that the Plymouth Bretheren first landed with and, while we are at, it it is “dived” into not “dove”into and don’t start me on “aloominm”) a few fish on the line ready to buy/licence your idea before that deadline – or be seriously rich.
More brightness comes from the fact that if (as seems to be part of the patent process) you get in dispute with an infringing bastard who will always say that your idea isn’t original, is obvious, doesn’t have enough clear water between it and other inventions in that area of expertise or, most often, a combination of all three, you used to have to go to court where the presiding judge has not the slightest clue what a “left hand threaded thrurble washer” (or whatever) is so will probably flip a coin of the realm to decide the case that will have cost half your house in legal fees. This will leave you with half a very drafty house and a feeling that you could have flipped a coin and gone round and punched the bastard. This would have been a lot cheaper, quicker and more satisfying. Now, instead of taking the infringing B to court you can for, about £800 - £1000, chose to use the mediating services of the patent office. In my recent use of this service the patent office found in favour off the infringing B because, I was told, I should not have called the water chamber of my electric storage boiler a “water jacket” in my claims (despite my presenting ninety documents of this being the industry term that would be use by someone versed in the art). Like I said; Crap system but at least now a cheaper, crap system. Watch this space as I will be launching an update to my boiler (patented of course) that will make his boiler a poor third or fourth in the field.
So the patent system is still biased in favour of business against the single inventor and is still basically crap - but at least it is slightly cheaper crap!
The USA patent and trade mark system seems pretty crap as well. I registered a trade mark months before a US boiler manufacturer applied for the same trade mark for a similar item (not infringing as I couldn’t afford to extend the patents to the USA) and despite my notifying the US patent office of my predating trade mark they allowed the American one. Thus creating a dispute if either of us wants to trade in the other’s country. Like I said – pretty crap all round.
Even if patent things happen to go your way there are so many ways that businesses can twist and turn to avoid you getting rich or even paid. I just got a couple of Gs from the liquidator of a company who chose to wave the magic “I’ve just noticed my company has almost no assets and I will have to wind up the company” wand. 2Gs seems a lot till you know that the claim was for lost licencing income of £2.4 million. At least the cheque came in time for a bottle or two of Glenmorangie for Christmas to drink to the B’s good health.
If the patent process is such a nightmare why, then, did I file patents for the original “one shot” and “slow repeater”? Partly (alright, mostly) because I’m a mug who defies the description of madness as being someone who repeats a failed experiment thinking the result will be different next time (wrongly attributed to the lecher and inventor of the Electrolux cycle refrigerator, Einstein), partly because it may have proved useful enough to get a fish on the line and partly because a patent says in fairly permanent form:- “I was here!” And, “I may have the odd crap invention but I was on the right path way, way back then”. The “one shot” and the “slow repeater” patents are still in the public files but have been allowed to laps because of their limited use – too much structural mass in relation to gyrodynamic mass (you’ve all been there) – and because I have discovered a way around many of the earlier problems – patent pending.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 06/12/2013 01:08:07
| | | Hi Nitro.
I don't live in any state, warm or otherwise. I live in a Province because I live in Canada. No offense intended to USA citizens, but calling a Canadian an American is like calling a Scotsman an Englishman. That being said, most Canadian Provinces are cold in winter. Right now we are looking at a balmy -25 C (and colder overnight) and that is the forecast high for Saturday with a strong wind which makes it feel like about -40 C. I am going to have to throw a couple of extra logs on the fire for that day.
Canadian Provinces are also quite large. Large enough in fact to make the average American State look like some Canadian's back yard by comparison. Well, maybe I am exaggerating a bit. ;-)
From your response, it sounds like you pretty much agree that patenting has a very limited chance of actually helping the small inventor. Good to hear that the costs are coming down but there would still be a myriad of ways of getting around a patent if a corporation has enough money to throw at it.
What did you think of my "black box" approach to selling an invention?
chilly cheers to all,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 06/12/2013 19:36:59
| | | Dear Blaze,
Ouch, Sorry! Now you say “Scotsman/Englishman” I understand your angst. As I am part Scot/English/Welsh and a bit Manx some of me hates some other part of me at some time or another – thank God there is no Irish or Iranian in my mix or I don’t know what I’d do to myself! I am sure, now, that I knew you are Canadian but the discussions of the pronunciation of Aluminium must have confused me. Jeez, everyone can self justify any crime no matter how heinous - all right - I apologise for calling you American.
It seems that I am amongst the lucky ones sunning themselves under a shade with a pinacolada next to me, metaphorically speaking, as the temperature here in Guernsey is a near tropical 10 degrees Celsius, or Centigrade as it used to be known before we were invaded by Europe. How the hell do you cope with –25 C? A Blowlamp down the trousers perhaps?
Don’t talk to me about coping with huge spaces in Canada (pronounced Canaydia – by the way) my island is a vast 6 miles by 7 miles and I sometime have to make an overnight stop at a pub on the way to St Peter Port a massive four miles away.
Your black box idea is fine to start with but no one’s going to open the wallet without seeing what you’ve got (especially as there is so much crap out there on our subject) so although a patent is probably useless there is no alternative. Just be doubly sure of your facts (that the bloody thing works) and get a marketing and publishing plan well thought out before you do anything after you’ve double checked it works.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
RS - 06/12/2013 20:23:58
| | | I am surprised to see you all discussing patent applications, but I am glad you all are.
You all seem to have noble intentions and want this technology to benefit humanity, which it will.
I have always advocated filing for a patent, because at least it offers you some form of legal protection. If not, you are basically a nobody. You will be forgotten to history.
Even if some greedy corporation still ignored your patent and they produced the technology anyway, at least you would have a document to show you were the first to file the concept. History would eventually remember you, even if not in our lifetime.
It also would prevent them from possibly hiding the technology from the public as to keep the current fossil fuel status quo going. If you attempted to continue work on "their" patent, they could sue you and have your operation shut down. However, if you filed for and had already received a patent in the past, you could tell them to get lost, and continue your valuable work, regardless of whether they like it or not.
It is also what you all deserve. People who work hard, think up an idea, create it, and patent it, should receive the ultimate glory of their hard work in the end. This is your right, don't neglect your hard work and sacrifices by letting it all get squandered away into oblivion. At least file the cheapest patent you can to get your name in the history books.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 06/12/2013 22:18:10
| | | Evening Blaze, Nitro, RS and any other interested parties
The thought and desire to be a millionaire has diminished quite considerably as the years have passed, and at 76 my aspirations have consequently changed somewhat.
FYI Blaze
My first device 28 plus years ago always performed successfully for the benefit of teams of academics, in 4 separate universities, on television and was operated repeatedly and successfully in my absence in Boulder, Colorado when I was otherwise engaged in Melbourne. It delivered 1pound of thrust out of a 5.5lb machine.
Later on, and we called this the “Ten Day Syndrome” no one was prepared to admit they ever saw anything, that is except the people who did not matter too much.
Blaze, my third device was enclosed in a box as it proceeded to demonstrate inertial thrust in a laboratory 28 years ago, but even when displayed openly to the physicists in attendance that device failed to go any farther because the physicists could not make it comply with Newton.
Richard Feynman stated “No matter how beautiful your theories are if they do not agree with the experiment they are wrong”
We have the cart before the horse here unfortunately it is a massive cart.
I would doubt that you have met this kind of obstruction yet Blaze, but over the years it has become pretty standard reaction from the professionals. They all admit the device(s) can do as claimed but the devices must do it in a way that suits them, however that could be, and which of course is not going to happen.
There is not a lot of courage and conviction going around; especially when one’s professional future is at stake.
So even at very close range the struggle can get exasperating, the task impossible.
No Blaze and Nitro, at my age my reasons for creating the aforementioned patents would only be there to prove that I had something to do with inertial drive when the human race decides they have a need for it.
I have been branded an idiot by all and sundry for many years and would really like to think they would all have to admit they were wrong, sometime probably well into the future.
Trouble is a lot of those individuals have already snuffed it so there will not be a lot of satisfaction to be gained from them.
I found over the years that there are several critical elements which must be combined to produce continuous inertial thrust in useful quantities.
I am therefore more concerned that someone when applying for a patent for a flywheel inspired inertial drive device claims one or two of those key operating prerequisites, even if by sheer chance.
However over the years it will be noticed that I have described in much detail what can transpire when dabbling with flywheels in mechanically accelerated systems.
I think all the salient features have been clearly described with a couple of obscure but nevertheless important items only mentioned but not enlarged upon
I may be an idiot but I’m not that much of an idiot.
Leaving aside rotation speeds and dimensions, there are about seven associated key factors and which must be suitably designed into a device to produce continuous thrust.
A couple less are needed in one of the devices.
A patent application is supposed to be clear and precise but it is not an operating manual and there is no requirement to submit speeds, dimensions, materials etc.
It could therefore even with a good patent description and drawings, be hard to reproduce quickly.
However and that said, I think it will only be someone with hands on knowledge of flywheel inspired devices, and little belief in the infallibility of Newton, who will have some semblance of an idea of what the requirements may be.
Regards,
Sandy
PS Blaze I was in Goose Bay, Labrador for a short time, while with the Royal Air Force in 1964, in winter and that was quite a forbidding place.
However the air was dry, so dry in fact, that in the morning you had to carefully discharge the static built up in your body during the night. Your very own lightning show in fact.
Although very cold as you say the dryness made the air feel more bearable than the rotten damp air here, but that did not stop your ears from falling off.
PS RS Noticed you had posted just prior to me posting this one, and would like to say I tend to agree with much of what you are saying.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/12/2013 05:28:18
| | | Hello Everyone,
My lodge brother had over one hundred patens including the coin and dollar changer in your coke and candy machines. He said patens were easy to do yourself and was going to teach me, but he died. I did look into it. At least in The US the drawings must be done in the very old ways, which among other things is in 2D only. You can find examples and wording and paragraphs.
However, for reasons you all seem to know quite well, patenting should be avoided. The black box is best. I will add to it.
Years ago I found that there were seventeen billionaires especially interested in space travel, some of them since boyhood. Yeah, I know, but I have lost their names and address, but you should be able to find them with some do diligence and a search engine.
My method was going to be this:
1) The black box with videos.
2) Their lawyers and my lawyer connect.
3) The agreement is that they put up earnest money in my lawyer’s account.
4) Unless the device does exactly what is showed and what I claim, they recover the earnest money.
5) A mutually acceptable third party would be per-agreed to, to arbitrate all if any disputes.
Happy Holidays All,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
graeme - 08/12/2013 15:21:56
| | | Hi people,
One simple way around the (fleecing) patent system, you could always publish your work in a book, you have the copyright protection whereby you are recognised as being the author of the work, which is easier to renew and less costly over the patent route and as its "out in the public domain" therefore a patent for an idea cannot be granted, okay I admit you won't get the vast fortunes that a patented idea could command but at least you'll get some royalties on the book sales and the big corporations can't jump in with their deep pockets and squash whoever gets in their way.
Any idea submitted for a patent will be checked with a fine toothed comb, anything contained within the patent that could undermine a country's economic wellbeing or situation (that also means undermining the corporations too) will have a security order slapped on it, and no further development by the originator will be allowed, but the government of that country can do what they like with it and can also sub it out to the private contractors, after all the hard work has been done, unfortunately we are stitched up before we start.
Only one problem, they might end up banning the book! :-(
Graeme
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 10/12/2013 22:42:05
| | | Hello again all,
I am pretty sure that my beliefs were not very different from any of you there but let me relate one actual example.
Having witnessed the successful operation of my first inertial drive in Scotland some business gentlemen from the Southern Hemisphere promised me that I would receive one million pounds if I could build another machine (any other machine) which could deliver inertial thrust.
In other words the action had to be proved to be repeatable and not just a glitch.
Also I would build the device in Australia.
The inertial thrust from the alternative machine was duly recorded on an official laboratory report probably the only one of its type ever produced, that was in the 80’s
The report testified to the positive production of inertial thrust on 20 consecutive and successful runs under strict laboratory conditions whilst suspended inside a light wooden box.
I have the laboratory report but I am still waiting for my million pounds.
The problem was that their technical experts could not remove Newton from their thinking, and they could not figure out why it could work.
Eventually they lost interest in the laboratory test, it was as if it had never happened.
What were they expecting?
This all baffled me somewhat, but in the end it transpired that the technically unqualified bosses seemed more capable of showing good judgment than their qualified technical experts, who in the end failed to complete their assigned task.
I cannot remember the number of times I have attempted to explain why my devices do what they do and I have been immediately halted for one reason or another.
Inertial thrust cannot be produced unless the accepted laws of motion are ignored and for all intents and purposes it would have been much easier for all, if the laws of motion had never existed.
So if any of you manage to produce a device which develops inertial thrust, lie in your teeth and pretend it complies with Newton if only to get an introduction.
After that, the best of luck to you.
Curiosity, and human nature being what it is, if I had money and was prepared to invest in inertial drive, I would demand to see inside the box, before I parted company with my money, although that still does not suggest that I would be any the wiser for seeing what was contained within.
Regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 03/01/2014 16:45:46
| | | I was talking to a nephew that works in the patent office over the holidays. He said my "black box" idea wouldn't work because corporations wouldn't buy an idea without seeing it. This is because it may be infringing existing patents. They wouldn't be worried about the small inventors patent but rather if it were infringing a patent registered with another corporation with deep pockets (my words, not his).
He also agreed with what I said about "a patent is only as good as the money you have to defend it". Since the patent system is the only thing there is available to any inventors, that is what we are stuck with.
regards,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ted Pittman - 05/05/2014 20:06:27
| | | Guys,
Ultimately, aren't we doing our research "for all Mankind."
Yes, getting a patent puts your name on record as having formalized an idea first.
But, more importantly, it helps other inventors move the technology forward.
Seeing alternative ways of doing something helps generate newer, improved, ideas.
Remember:
Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity after working in the patent office!
Letting your ideas die with you accomplishes nothing.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 06/05/2014 21:11:53
| | | Hello Sandy and all,
My thoughts were always: to he^%# with patents and you see the reasons why.
I was to show a balsa wood box with an unseen device in it and put it on youtube doing several different impressive demonstrations. Then explain; there is no other device on earth that does this and never has been and if someone wanted it for $$ amount of money; then I would give my lawyer’s name and address and tell the interested party to have THEIR lawyer contact MY lawyer. They would have to put earnest money in escrow. Then the device would be unveiled to them only and given to them and it worked without tricks and lies, my lawyer keeps their money. If however it would be a fraud and a lie, they keep their money and they could have me sued for fraud if they liked.
I once found the seventeen richest men who are actively interested in private space travel and I had heir names and address. It was in a publication. I would have contacted them first and gave them private internet access to see the box in demonstrations. If the demos were impressive enough, you bet your butt your lawyer would get quick inquiries from billionaire's lawyers, representing some men of whom have been reportedly fascinated since childhood. Depending on the quality of the demos, anybody would foresee the potentials.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 07/05/2014 15:30:21
| | | The problem with concealing the machine is that inertial propulsion is still so controversial that even if you show it and have a couple of scientists test it, it's not going to be enough.
You need the entire scientific community to acknowledge your achievement in order for investors and companies to become interested. Because, even if you can convince a couple of scientists, there will be literally millions of others who will say it's impossible.
That's why I'm releasing everything I have thus far on Youtube, free for anyone to copy and try to prove themselves. I believe it's the only way.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 07/05/2014 20:13:28
| | | Hello Glenn,
It is not nearly as easy as you suggest.
I have contained a list of the test equipment used in the testing of the machine I built in Australia.
I do not think there is much in the test that you could describe as visual.
There were no counterbalance devices or ballistic pendulum tests to witness.
The plywood box was suspended on a Kevlar cord and throughout the experiment oscillated gently back and forward as it did its thing.
I do have an old format tape of it in operation but you would be as well watching paint drying.
Not exactly “YouTube” material and not a lot to show your lawyer or anyone else for that matter.
The test was designed by the “Vipac” technicians and was attended by one of the directors during all runs.
For your interest I was informed at the time that the test was copyright.
I never knew there was such a thing.
The important thing is that I have a genuine report that gyroscopically inspired thrust can be created.
I took the lab report to a physicist in Edinburgh University who without opening one page of the report, threw it on to a nearby desk, stating that it was rubbish, and as these people do disappeared rapidly out of that office.
This was an unnecessary childish display of total arrogance, and ignorance, from the supposed to be educated.
That display is only one of many I have had to put up with over the years.
4.0 INSTRUMENTATION
The following instrumentation was used to conduct the measurements.
Load Cell : Custom Aluminium cantilever beam fitted with 4 arm strain bridge (2 gauges on upper surface and 2
Gauges on lower surface)
Strain Amplifier: Applied Measurement , 10 channel
Signal Analyser: 1) Hewlett Packard, 2 channel, Model 5423A
2) Ono Sokki, 2 channel, Model CF350
Hard Copy: Digital Plotter, Hewlett Packard, Model 7470A
Data Recorder: 4 Channel FM Data Recorder, TEAC, Model R61.
Accelerometer; Bruel and Kjaer, Model 4369
Charge Amplifier: Bruel and Kjaer, Model 2635
Accelerometer
Calibrator : Bruel and Kjaer, Model 4291
Extracted from test report No 35244 prepared by Vipac Pty, Ltd (Dated March 1988)
Victorian Technology Centre
275 Normanby Road,
PORT MELBOURNE, VIC, 3207
“MEASUREMENT OF FORCE GENERATION OF A PROTOTYPE GYROSCOPE INVENTION.”
The report consists of 25 pages of information which was contained in total in my book “Beyond 2001” my stipulation for its inclusion was that I would not allow publication of the book unless the lab test showed positive results of the production of gyroscopically generated thrust.
Many thousands of copies of this book were sold (I forget how many) but not once have I had any feed-back relating to of the lab test.
Seems that nobody cares
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 07/05/2014 21:05:24
| | | MD, you are wrong. There has never been a legitimate and sufficient thrust shown; so how could anyone know how it would be received? Surly you don't count that Jones BS, nor pretend to be a spokesman for all potential fronts.
I have explained the solution to anyone who cares to know.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 07/05/2014 21:57:19
| | | Hi Sandy,
You said your test couldn’t be described as visual. But I say it must be visual, or it doesn’t comply with my explanation and expectations.
You said your plywood box oscillated gently back and forward. But backward is not allow in my acceptable testing. If such a test is to be successful and recorded, the box must maintain at least a stationary 45o forward thrust and not osculate backwards at all. Hopefully there should be other stringent testing such as the box weighed and then hovering and traveling across a parking lot strewn with chicken feathers that are not scattered below in a path of possible downward air thrust trickery and there should be observers there being filmed and so on and so on.
You said you had a genuine report that gyroscopically inspired thrust can be created.
But I say it must not be simply stated as possible, but must be shown with full evidence of its existence and of it’s happening.
Yes there are fools with degrees in high place in all specialties. I know some, but they are not all fools.
If one sticks to the standards of presentation I suggested, it should be easy to get a motivated response. No one has ever offered proof and grantees and offered themselves as sacrifices should their tests turn out to be lies. The potential buyer can not lose, no matter what. Somebody will take one up on the offer I proposed. Just show the powerful proof. If someone thinks I am wrong, prove it. Show the tests if you can first build such a device. What could you lose my way?
Regards Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/05/2014 04:05:27
| | | Lastly my friends and then I will let this go.
According to my computer search engine results, anywhere from 33% to 48% of Americans believe in UFOs. There could be world wide three-billion humans who believe that. Some spend their whole life tracking and registering sightings. They believe in internal thrust, for a rocket stream ejection can only push a graft as fast and gas explodes. In planetary travel that speed is extremely slow. In galaxy travel it is impossibly slow. How many of these UFO enthusiast would be interested in a UFO engine, which as I see it, could only be the one that pushes our box from inside without emitting anything to outside contact. That way acceleration is endless unless the limit of light speed is true in all cases. Wouldn’t that number of world wide highly interested people be a huge number indeed?
My point is; if you give good enough proof you will get attention from the right people, because there are so many of them into space travel. Even NASA used to be interested in Gyro propulsion, but they couldn’t find anyone who could give them proof. Finally they canned the projects and gave up searching people with gyros. Still they are funding several alternative methods. You only have to give the skeptics real proof to check out. Even the skeptics might want to attempt to debunk any serious evidence and if they couldn't. . . .? You get checked out.
Good evening all, I’m feeling really good to night; I’m happy. Happiness to all of you. No I am not drinking; not tonight :- )
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 08/05/2014 23:05:26
| | | Hello Glenn,
The test I put my device through was designed by professionals.
I had no say in the set up.
The wooden box (plywood) was suspended by a Kevlar cord, the oscillation of the device was in the horizontal plane at right angles to the Kevlar cord and was a product of its cam action in operation.
Space is upwards and that is where the thrust was designed to be.
Twin opposed offset (or otherwise) gyroscope or more accurately flywheels, do not take kindly to operating horizontally, because of the imbalance caused by gravity, in fact the only positive results I have seen in this direction were from MD’s machine, as it used the differential to good effect..
So do not expect such a device to pass the ballistic pendulum test any time soon.
It would have been a great deal easier and cheaper for me to make a twin opposed gyro or flywheel operate specifically in horizontal mode which should give very good results, but how does it get into space?
It would be fine if it got there by being lifted into space by some other means of transport then it could do its stuff, but that is not what I set out to do.
I hoped for a device which could rise into space, at a rate which was not too important, manoeuvre in any direction in the atmosphere, and in space. Include the ocean too if required both on the surface and below the surface.
“The Right Stuff” and “Riding the Stack”?
You could take your granny with you on one of those.
If a 1G acceleration is maintained in space you could pass Mars in 32 hours, in effect falling all the way there.
The really important part is that all medical problems which appear as a result of loss of G force during accepted means of space travel cease to exist.
By the way Glenn, I have never seen a UFO and do not know anyone who has.
I watch “Quest” on and off and have heard and seen a few programs related by witnesses.
I never said that they were credible.
That does not mean I don’t believe in the possibility of them, but they would have to have a very good reason to come from anywhere not on this planet, so until I see one well?
Regards,
Sandy
PS Glenn if you travel at 1G for 1 year you will reach the presently accepted speed of light.
Interesting?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 09/05/2014 01:47:08
| | | Hi Sandy,
Yes interesting! I don't believe we are visited by UFOs either. I am happy for you that you are not deterred by my points of view. I know you are a traveling man. Eventually I want you and your misses to stay with me and my honey for a while on Emerald Bay in Dustin, Fl. As usual the best cost nothing. I will talk to my women about it, but knowing her as I do I already believe she will love your visit. It will be a while. I have to buy a new boat. We will tall more on your site when the time comes.
Sincerely,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DF - 10/05/2014 05:23:30
| | | You have to realise that no physicist is going to take this sort of thing seriously because they know that they could do better themselves. It would be easy to construct a black box which, when placed on an electronic balance, could be made to lose a small fraction of its weight. It would be almost silent. The method has been known since the 18th century, and is completely in accord with Newton's laws. Indeed, it has been used to prove the second law. A form of the trick has been used by 'in-the-know' sportsmen to cheat weigh-in procedures. It obviously does not involve gyroscopes. I may write a short paper about it someday
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DF - 10/05/2014 05:24:16
| | | You have to realise that no physicist is going to take this sort of thing seriously because they know that they could do better themselves. It would be easy to construct a black box which, when placed on an electronic balance, could be made to lose a small fraction of its weight. It would be almost silent. The method has been known since the 18th century, and is completely in accord with Newton's laws. Indeed, it has been used to prove the second law. A form of the trick has been used by 'in-the-know' sportsmen to cheat weigh-in procedures. It obviously does not involve gyroscopes. I may write a short paper about it someday
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DF - 10/05/2014 05:24:52
| | | You have to realise that no physicist is going to take this sort of thing seriously because they know that they could do better themselves. It would be easy to construct a black box which, when placed on an electronic balance, could be made to lose a small fraction of its weight. It would be almost silent. The method has been known since the 18th century, and is completely in accord with Newton's laws. Indeed, it has been used to prove the second law. A form of the trick has been used by 'in-the-know' sportsmen to cheat weigh-in procedures. It obviously does not involve gyroscopes. I may write a short paper about it someday
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DF - 10/05/2014 05:25:39
| | | You have to realise that no physicist is going to take this sort of thing seriously because they know that they could do better themselves. It would be easy to construct a black box which, when placed on an electronic balance, could be made to lose a small fraction of its weight. It would be almost silent. The method has been known since the 18th century, and is completely in accord with Newton's laws. Indeed, it has been used to prove the second law. A form of the trick has been used by 'in-the-know' sportsmen to cheat weigh-in procedures. It obviously does not involve gyroscopes. I may write a short paper about it someday
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DF - 10/05/2014 05:26:23
| | | You have to realise that no physicist is going to take this sort of thing seriously because they know that they could do better themselves. It would be easy to construct a black box which, when placed on an electronic balance, could be made to lose a small fraction of its weight. It would be almost silent. The method has been known since the 18th century, and is completely in accord with Newton's laws. Indeed, it has been used to prove the second law. A form of the trick has been used by 'in-the-know' sportsmen to cheat weigh-in procedures. It obviously does not involve gyroscopes. I may write a short paper about it someday
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DF - 10/05/2014 05:27:47
| | | You have to realise that no physicist is going to take this sort of thing seriously because they know that they could do better themselves. It would be easy to construct a black box which, when placed on an electronic balance, could be made to lose a small fraction of its weight. It would be almost silent. The method has been known since the 18th century, and is completely in accord with Newton's laws. Indeed, it has been used to prove the second law. A form of the trick has been used by 'in-the-know' sportsmen to cheat weigh-in procedures. It obviously does not involve gyroscopes. I may write a short paper about it someday
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DF - 10/05/2014 05:28:56
| | | You have to realise that no physicist is going to take this sort of thing seriously because they know that they could do better themselves. It would be easy to construct a black box which, when placed on an electronic balance, could be made to lose a small fraction of its weight. It would be almost silent. The method has been known since the 18th century, and is completely in accord with Newton's laws. Indeed, it has been used to prove the second law. A form of the trick has been used by 'in-the-know' sportsmen to cheat weigh-in procedures. It obviously does not involve gyroscopes. I may write a short paper about it someday
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DF - 10/05/2014 05:29:48
| | | You have to realise that no physicist is going to take this sort of thing seriously because they know that they could do better themselves. It would be easy to construct a black box which, when placed on an electronic balance, could be made to lose a small fraction of its weight. It would be almost silent. The method has been known since the 18th century, and is completely in accord with Newton's laws. Indeed, it has been used to prove the second law. A form of the trick has been used by 'in-the-know' sportsmen to cheat weigh-in procedures. It obviously does not involve gyroscopes. I may write a short paper about it someday
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DF - 10/05/2014 11:15:17
| | | You have to realise that no physicist is going to take this sort of thing seriously because they know that they could do better themselves. It would be easy to construct a black box which, when placed on an electronic balance, could be made to lose a small fraction of its weight. It would be almost silent. The method has been known since the 18th century, and is completely in accord with Newton's laws. Indeed, it has been used to prove the second law. A form of the trick has been used by 'in-the-know' sportsmen to cheat weigh-in procedures. It obviously does not involve gyroscopes. I may write a short paper about it someday
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Anthony Vee - 10/05/2014 11:18:01
| | | You have to realise that no physicist is going to take this sort of thing seriously because they know that they could do better themselves. It would be easy to construct a black box which, when placed on an electronic balance, could be made to lose a small fraction of its weight. It would be almost silent. The method has been known since the 18th century, and is completely in accord with Newton's laws. Indeed, it has been used to prove the second law. A form of the trick has been used by 'in-the-know' sportsmen to cheat weigh-in procedures. It obviously does not involve gyroscopes. I may write a short paper about it someday
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Anthony Vee - 10/05/2014 11:19:07
| | | You have to realise that no physicist is going to take this sort of thing seriously because they know that they could do better themselves. It would be easy to construct a black box which, when placed on an electronic balance, could be made to lose a small fraction of its weight. It would be almost silent. The method has been known since the 18th century, and is completely in accord with Newton's laws. Indeed, it has been used to prove the second law. A form of the trick has been used by 'in-the-know' sportsmen to cheat weigh-in procedures. It obviously does not involve gyroscopes. I may write a short paper about it someday
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 10/05/2014 11:50:07
| | | First learn the correct use of a forum!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DF - 11/05/2014 03:03:32
| | | You have to realise that no physicist is going to take this sort of thing seriously because they know that they could do better themselves. It would be easy to construct a black box which, when placed on an electronic balance, could be made to lose a small fraction of its weight. It would be almost silent. The method has been known since the 18th century, and is completely in accord with Newton's laws. Indeed, it has been used to prove the second law. A form of the trick has been used by 'in-the-know' sportsmen to cheat weigh-in procedures. It obviously does not involve gyroscopes. I may write a short paper about it someday
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Arnold Vee - 11/05/2014 03:04:50
| | | You have to realise that no physicist is going to take this sort of thing seriously because they know that they could do better themselves. It would be easy to construct a black box which, when placed on an electronic balance, could be made to lose a small fraction of its weight. It would be almost silent. The method has been known since the 18th century, and is completely in accord with Newton's laws. Indeed, it has been used to prove the second law. A form of the trick has been used by 'in-the-know' sportsmen to cheat weigh-in procedures. It obviously does not involve gyroscopes. I may write a short paper about it someday
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Arnold Vee - 12/05/2014 10:53:02
| | | You have to realise that no physicist is going to take this sort of thing seriously because they know that they could do better themselves. It would be easy to construct a black box which, when placed on an electronic balance, could be made to lose a small fraction of its weight. It would be almost silent. The method has been known since the 18th century, and is completely in accord with Newton's laws. Indeed, it has been used to prove the second law. A form of the trick has been used by 'in-the-know' sportsmen to cheat weigh-in procedures. It obviously does not involve gyroscopes. I may write a short paper about it someday
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ted Pittman - 24/05/2014 12:48:18
| | | To all shed dwellers,
Filing a patent application is NOT all that hard or expensive if you write it yourself and do the drawings yourself - then have an attorney "legalize" it. Everything in life has a cost, so why all the whining about spending money for a patent? Why do you want it to be cheap?
Glen talks about what SHOULD happen when someone proves Inertial Propulsion. But, the world has never been the way it 'should' be or 'could' be. It is the way it is. While I was taught that everyone has a right to their own opinion, I don't believe it should be true when their opinion is opposite the facts. Sandy tells what REALLY happens and he gets all sorts of logical arguments against it. There's a book about his work that includes scientific testing of Inertial Propulsion and it seems many of you, that argue with Sandy, haven't read the book.
"Some big corporation might steal the idea."
So what? You fight them.
"But, they have lots of money and lawyers."
So what? You fight them. And if you can't fight them, then realize that is simply your position in life. Publicize what you have invented on the web. Write books about it. Give talks about it. Encourage others to duplicate it... just like Sandy!
There's always excuses for NOT doing something. Find one good reason for doing it.
( It took me 55 years.) See "The Anti-Gravity Handbook" page 138.
Read "The Monkeybars of Life" and, whether you believe it or not, fiction has become reality.
Good night.
Ted
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/05/2014 18:38:12
| | | Ted,
I gave an option with reasons. It is not my business the option and logic is not embraced, but for the life of me I don't understand why you don't understand what you read.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ted Pittman - 25/05/2014 00:58:55
| | | Glen,
My complaint was not personal; I apologize for referencing your name.
I was merely stating how I feel about some of the nonproductive posts that I've read.
Ted
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/05/2014 02:09:09
| | | You did it again, but I forgive you.
Productive posts????? Productive????
There has been a productive post on here????
A productive post that was accepted????
There has been no one to accept what I say so whatever do you mean by that?
Take it easy, Ted. I like Sandy Kidd very much and respect him. I am pretty sure he is a little put off with me right now, but I will keep sweet talking him. He is one on my favorite people on earth and he is the number one authority on investigation and reporting in the world. He can handle himself pretty well. He doesn't need any help.
I'm smiling big for you, Ted. Keep your timber limber and you'll be hard to beat.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 25/05/2014 03:07:29
| | | Hey Glenn, you might want to read Ted's last posting again. I think you might have missed the "non" in the word nonproductive.
cheers,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/05/2014 03:43:50
| | | Hay Blaze!
How are you? I understood. You might rethink my reply. ;-)
Cheers, Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 25/05/2014 10:04:32
| | | At the end every inventor is a very lonely guy. He cannot trust anyone (may be only his wife/husband) because fearing to reveal his ideas. He or she visits forums like this one to find out if someone is working on the same ideas.
What a pity that it is not possible to work together and share the own ideas to speed up progress in this matter. But this is not possible because each inventor will become famous and rich! :-)
Regards,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ted Pittman - 25/05/2014 13:07:22
| | | The topic was Patent Applications.
Be serious and help each other.
Remember: "NONE OF US IS AS SMART AS ALL OF US."
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/05/2014 15:36:57
| | | Hello Ted. I hope you are having a fine day. As for myself; I sort of do what I want to do; not what is suggested that I do. Also you may wish to know I do not tell others what to do. What's the point of staying on topic around here? Are we kidding? I give ideas away with explanations, Ted. You take good care of yourself now. There are no hard feelings; my-goodness! for what? Bless you.
Harry good points. I learn things about you all the time. Actually I have tried to give away all that I know several times, but obviously I am not smart enough to convey what I learn. We are a stubborn bunch. We will have it our way, or no way. "Damn the torpedoes and straight ahead."
Blaze, so far as I can see, since a long time now you have the only novel approach going. I feel there are similarities, but also differences between our work. The greatest difference is you are moving ahead, while I am still starring into space, so to speak, playing with my necked toes. I take this opportunity to again wish you success. (I am trying)
Sandy has recently done some of the most beautiful, powerful and brand new concept machines anywhere on the planet. I am sure of this. He allow me to see a few. I was astonished.
Nitro; bottoms-up. I know you understand. Good luck on your way home.
Nitro: watch out for dark closets. Thar Be whales in thar.
Be Happy!
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nate - 26/11/2016 18:24:30
| | | F.Y.I.
My experiences with the USPTO
NOTE: From 2013 to 2016 there were many correspondences, miscommunications, errors and corrections, between myself, my patent attorney and the USPTO. Once everything was in order, final rejections came in three rounds:
1. “Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility. The device is inoperable since it claims a propulsive force without an equal and opposite force. The movement of the weights will not result in a unidirectional force since momentum will be conserved.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well-established utility.
Claims 1-22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well-established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.”
2. “The amendment filed 07/06/2016 is objected to under U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure.”
“Applicant’s arguments filed 07/06/16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant generally argues both the 101 lack of utility rejection based on lack of operability and the corresponding 112 rejection. Applicant presents both written arguments, pictures of the apparatus, and a DVD video purported showing operation of the apparatus.
In response, each of these arguments taken together, and in combination are wholly unpersuasive. The disclosed device is incapable of operating as described since the device does not comply with known laws of physics i.e. conservation of momentum, Newton’s laws of motion, etc. For example, the disclosed device is wholly incapable of propelling asteroids, or spacecraft in space since every action requires an instantaneous equal and opposite reaction. Since in space there is no atmosphere, there can be no reaction. Momentum must be conserved therefore the device is incapable of operating. The video DVD’s show a device which is neither in space, nor capable of propulsion.”
3. “Applicant requested guidance as to a path forward regarding prosecution of the application. Applicant proposed removing subject matter of the original disclosure drawn to subject which purports the apparatus is capable of propulsion in space. The examiner indicated that the removal of such subject matter from the original specification would be considered NEW MATER and would be rejected as such. The examiner further indicated that the instant application has been finally rejected and prosecution has been closed. Applicant purported that the device is in fact operable although it was originally improperly disclosed, and requested guidance as to how to overcome such rejections. The examiner indicated that the device itself is NOT operable under 35 U.S.C. 101 and that such rejections cannot be overcome without substantially changing the invention by improperly entering NEW MATTER. Applicant indicated that there are references in the case which show similar devices have been patented. Applicant was informed that examiners cannot comment on the validity of other issued US patents.”
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 30/12/2016 12:01:03
| | | Dear Nate
A patent to be successful to grant, requires that the described device/process works and is novel. The US patent office used to allow almost anything to go to grant provided it was novel - see earlier granted US patents in our field that were obviously crap. They seem to have tightened up their required proof of function.
Having been granted a UK patent on an earlier device of mine I must have either been lucky to creep under the radar or must actually be a genius.
Before spending my time - I write my own specs to save colossal patent attorney's fees - submitting a patent application for my latest device I wrote to the UK patent office to ask what the current standing was on whether something that SEEMED to go against Newton's laws would be rejected even if it could be demonstrated to function as claimed. The patent office brains must have exploded as although they initially indicated yes they then suggested no and now have gone very quiet.
Save your money until you have a machine that can clearly show - to others satisfaction, not yours - that it works.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nate - 05/01/2017 03:24:00
| | | F.Y.I.
Careful examination of most of the uccessful patent applications, for the type of devices we are developing, show that the titles, abstracts, and descriptions avoid the words "inertial propulsion" or "antigravity".
After arguing about more than 50 tests, which were measured, recorded and video taped, I've realized it's not the device that the PTO rejected, it's the description of its utility.
If Newton's laws are true, then the device must OBVIOUSLY not violate them.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nate - 19/10/2019 00:33:35
| | | Hello again,
Patent application has been approved!
Reference: youtube.com/watch?v=mdjBC5qkeZY
More details to follow...
Namaste,
Ted
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nate - 19/11/2019 15:22:37
| | | Greetings all,
The Gamma Drive has received U.S. Patent No. 10,482,790.
All details are there.
Your comments are welcome.
Ted Pittman
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 20/11/2019 08:12:42
| | | Congratulations, Nate!
I have to admit that I do not really understand in detail how your machine works and how much thrust it could produce in the best case. I have to read your patent as soon as I have more time.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nate - 20/11/2019 14:34:49
| | | Thank you Harry.
The patent describes the parts and their movements only. It does NOT mention the testing on a loadcell scale because i had to avoid anything that might appear to contradict Newton!
The Pivot Encoder has improved overall performance and helped distinguish between stick-slip and inertial thrust. There had also been a question about why the device does not drift back down during Counter-weight tests. I now have videos that explain that. Posting soon.
I appreciate your interest.
Regards,
Ted
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nate - 10/01/2020 12:40:14
| | | Hello Harry and others,
I got the patent by removing refrences to propulsion, but all the hardware is included. Experiments relating to propulsion are here: (unedited video) https://youtu.be/l5vyOKL-8hc
My other published videos can be found by searching Youtube for "Nate Lachae".
By the way Harry, did you ever work at BTI?
Namaste,
Ted
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 11/01/2020 10:18:58
| | | Good day Ted,
Regarding your question: no I did not work at BTI, I don‘t know anything about this company. I worked as a designer and later as a technical projectmanager for a company, which manufacture machines and complete machinery for the plastic production industry.
I watched your videos on YT with interest. You spent much efforts for measurements and explanations, hats off!
One question: did you make your measurements with this test stand? I have to say that I have problems with the general function of such a test stand because it may falsify measurement values.
Best regards,
Hsrald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nate - 16/01/2020 00:12:13
| | | Hello Harold,
You're right about the possible problems with taking measurements with a counter-weight system. Friction is one and determining just how much c-weight is appropriate too. I explained, in the patent, that i used the amount of c-weight where the motors were running and no lift was generated unless Resonant Speeds were used.
Better measurements were taken using the loadcel scale that's at the base of the Teststand
(not included in patent). (unedited video) https://youtu.be/l5vyOKL-8hc
Some of the measurements were wrong, due to an unregulated power supply.
However, reduced weight is evident in the plots.
More to come.
Nate
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 16/01/2020 20:55:05
| | | Hello Ted,
First of all it‘s not my itention to disregard the outcome of your device, I only want to point to possible error sources in your measurements.
Friction in your teststand is one minor thing, also an incorrect alignment of the support guides and the idler pullex for the counter weight. The results of these issues can be clearly seen in one of your videos where you try to position the platform of the teststand to its initial start position.
Beside these mentioned problems I see a bigger problem with the function of the testend itself.
About 30 years ago I designed a relative big sound insulation cover for a big classifier. The principle function way identical to the function of your teststand. I used a pivoted lever arm instead of idler pulleys but the function was the same. I used a steel block of about 130 kg weight for thr counter weight. The steel block was mounted pivotable at the lever arm to endure the same proportional distance of both center of masses of the counter weight and the insulation cover.
This design worked perfect. You could open the cover with your small finger and the cover stopped at ANY POSITION BETWEEN MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM HEIGHT, because both sides of the lever arm are ALWAYS BALANCED.
That was good for my design but is bad for your measurements with your teststand.
There is no baseline present in your teststand system. As soon as the device moves up- or downwards, the baseline moves together with the device in the same direction and this is the problem to achieve true results in measurements.
For your purposes you need the functionality of s beam scale where only 1 baseline could be present ( when the beam scale is balanced).
The use of a load cell scale is another possibility but only then if the counter weight is removed.
Best regards,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nate - 18/01/2020 14:48:40
| | | Harry,
SYNCHRONISITY :)
Namaste,
Ted
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 19/01/2020 09:42:27
| | | Ted,
STARGATE :-)
Kotau,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nate - 29/02/2020 00:15:21
| | | Hello Harry, Sandy, Nitro and all,
Here's my project February update: https://youtu.be/I3XMVvioyKg
Comments welcome here (Not on Youtube).
Namaste,
Ted
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 02/03/2020 08:46:35
| | | „Wer misst misst Mist.“
Translation: „ The one who measures measures crap.“
:-)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nate - 23/03/2020 18:05:52
| | | Dear Harry,
Accuracy is usually dependent on how you calibrate a system. Accuracy can be determined by using known references. Some of my pre-and-post calibration methods are in the patent.
Of course, all measurements are subject to uncertainty and a measurement result is complete only when it is accompanied by a statement of the associated uncertainty, such as the standard deviation. (I'll leave that to students.)
My interest has been to answer: "Does it give a net upward force or not?"
Namaste,
Ted
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
