|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
20 April 2024 12:56
|
|
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: |
Blaze |
| Subject: |
What is YOUR definition of "inertial propulsion"? |
| Question: |
There are a lot of people on this site using the term "inertial propulsion". Could 1/2 dozen or so of the people posting to this site please provide your definition of inertial propulsion in your own words. I don't want repeats of definitions on the internet because I have seen those already. I want your own definition of inertial propulsion.
regards,
Blaze |
| Date: |
27 March 2014
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
MD - 27/03/2014 16:15:50
| | | I'm only a newcomer to this forum, but to me "inertial propulsion" is one of many word combinations used to describe mass transfer without a reaction. That is, a device able to move the center of gravity of a device in ways not yet understood or accepted.
Some examples of the same thing:
Reactionless drive
Reactionless thruster
Reactionless propulsin
Gyroscopic thruster
Gyroscopic propulsion
Gyroscopic inertial thruster
Inertial thruster
Inertial drive
Inertial propulsion
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 27/03/2014 20:02:21
| | | Hello Blaze,
Interesting question, I'm curious too about the upcoming own definitions!
Here is my definition:
Inertial propulsion means for me a directed acceleration of the centre of a body's mass. This acceleration may not be reactionless because I do not believe that a reactionless acceleration could be possible, but the sum of all involved force vectors (resultant force vector) must be unequal zero to achieve a directed acceleration and thus inertial populsion.
By the way the precession movement of an overhung gyro is not accelerated, although this movement is caused by acceleration due to gravitation force. This alleged antilogy and the mix-up of linear force and torque are in my opinion responsible for often misleading assumptions regading the general function and behavior of a gyroscope or a gyroscope system.
Regards,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 27/03/2014 20:50:59
| | | Hi Harry.
"the precession movement of an overhung gyro is not accelerated, although this movement is caused by acceleration due to gravitation force"
I assume you mean during steady state precession. For the brief period of time that the gyro is coming up to steady state precession, for a given input force, it is indeed accelerating, or it wouldn't come up to any speed at all. When the gyro achieves steady state precession, then all precession acceleration to bring it up to speed would cease.
cheers,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 27/03/2014 21:05:05
| | | Hello again Blaze,
You are right of course. Thank you for clarification!
Regards
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
momentus - 30/03/2014 21:19:13
| | | Precession is instantaneous.A text book answer which really does apply to the real world.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 30/03/2014 22:44:39
| | | Hello,
It is movement caused by an internal force, without outside influence of any kind.
Regards to everyone,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 30/03/2014 23:19:07
| | | Hi momentus. I believe you mean precession torque is instantaneous. In the real world the precession speed cannot be instantaneous as it takes some small amount of time to build up to steady state precession speed. That time may be very small indeed, but it is not instantaneous.
By the way, what it your definition of "inertial propulsion" or do you not use that term?
regards,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 31/03/2014 12:57:27
| | | Hi Blaze,
My initial response was a bit short. The Saints lost at home to our arch rivals, soured the whole weekend. So I took it out on the garden on Sunday. Had a hot bath in the evening and some wine. Not really good to explain things feeling the nice warm glow.
You said "I believe you mean precession torque is instantaneous"
Yes I do but (why must there always be a but. Must be my writing style, next time I will phrase it in a different way.) Its also about acceleration. And what to call "inertial Propulsion"
Here we go.
It is not possible to separate gyro precession and gyro couple, they only co-exist. if there is less than the smallest possible couple present then there is precessional movement. The couple does not produce the precession, nor visa versa.
Which brings me to Instantaneous. Instantaneous is to time as infinity is to distance. An extremely difficult concept for our brains. Reach infinity and take one more step, as it were. Just as infinity is not a very-very long way away, instantaneous is not a very-very short time.
I Trained as a professional engineer, me and Noah, did our evening classes and day release for 5 years. He went on to build an Ark, I went to Darkest Africa as a project engineer. Happy days.
I really empathise with your point that it needs "a brief period of time to come up to speed". But (Shit said I was not doing that any more) The relationship between time, force and acceleration is such that the shorter time, the larger the force required to accelerate mass. Further more that force must be applied directly along the line of displacement, which would be a large horizontal force, at a tangent to the gyro's orbit. Which would require an equally violent opposite reaction, which is just not there.
Happily "Two Forces" a phrase from previous postings offers a possible solution to the sheer impossibility of displacement without acceleration.
Two forces gives two accelerations. The one with which all are familiar "0 to 60 in 10 sec" and the less popular, but equally important centripetal acceleration. The force to accelerate 0 to 60 does work, centripetal force does not. Centripetal acceleration is also instantaneous, as is precession, not surprising as both result from deflection.
I have explained in a previous post how a bearing travelling around inside a crystal sphere can be deflected at North and South poles, giving a rotation of the spin centre of the bearing about the N S axis. The spin axis of a gyro subjected to a couple precesses about a N S axis in that way. It stops instantly, and starts instantly. Easier to visualise the stop.
Hello Harry K.
Your post 27/03/2014 20:02:21. "This alleged antilogy and the mix-up of linear force and torque..............." Very true.
Having just argued with Blaze about there being no acceleration from rest I am now going to be pedantic about "..the precession movement of an overhung gyro is not accelerated ...."
Precession is constant angular acceleration, in reaction to the gravity couple. Precession starts instantaneously and stops instantaneously, with the gyro couple. I have the feeling that you meant that in your post, the retraction was in response to Blaze who addressed a different acceleration.
Hi Glen.
I posted to your thread just now disagreeing with Baseball and Cricket analogies. I take even stronger issue with your "internal force" only. It is in reaction to the downward force of gravity. You may argue that the force of gravity is shaped internally, but not that it has no part in precession.
Blaze
I use "Thruster" outside the forum. Inside 'The Shed' I would go with Inertial thruster.
Never ever under any circumstances use the word gyroscope, not in any combination. I feel that A sign which said FREE BEER and gyroscope would lead only to a punch up.
The sun is out, spring is here, the mess of weed I tore up in yesterdays temper tantrum needs composting.
Momentus.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 31/03/2014 14:47:09
| | | Baze,
According to William of Ockham (c. 1287 – 1347) my explanation is so far the only correct one. This is because his Axum is so powerful for physicist and mathematicians that it even caused Einstein to redo his General Theory of Relativity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Courteously Guin, on a tong-tied day,
Hi Momentus,
It is difficult. Consider two gyroscopes in space positioned in a grid of equilibrium between gravitational forces in order to completely eliminate all possible consideration of gravity. Considering the two gyroscopes as a combined object sharing a center of mass, if they were mechanically oppose on one shaft end and mechanical drawn together at the other end, would the result of actions not be in agreement with my definition?
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 31/03/2014 14:58:06
| | | Excuse this addition. Mass would be moved in my example 'precession' and if in that way full equal and opposite reaction was not complete, then from that I.P. would have its only possibility of being designed for use, I think.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 31/03/2014 15:33:53
| | | Hello Momentus,
I’m normally be in agreement with you regarding the instantaneous start of precessing movement.
However, because of the existing mass inertia, which does also exists in precession plane, it takes some bit of time to accelerate the mass from zero to precession speed. And it takes also a bit of time (the same time!) to decelerate the mass in precession plane from precession speed to zero, when the tilting torque was removed. This acceleration/decelerating time depends on the size of moment of inertia (“J”) and the size of precession speed. For instance the moment of inertia of a flat flywheel is half the size in precession plane as it is in the spinning plane.
During acceleration to precession speed the axis of the flywheel will tilt a bit in direction of the acting couple and will tilt in counter direction back to its origin position after the removal of the couple. However, assumed that there is not any friction present!
Regarding my comment that precession movement is not accelerated, you are correct with your statement. We have learnt that every rotation is accelerated. Please forgive me! ;-)
Regards,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 31/03/2014 18:20:04
| | | Glen,
I was quite pleased with my mangonel, did it do the trick for you too?
Your opposed gyro set up, yes it would work . The 'left hand' gyro would provide a force that is external with respect to the 'right hand' gyro and vice versa. Can't just join them by a link and call them one object. I posted on a space paddle way back.
Hello again Harry K,
With the usual proviso that we are setting any cages or other non rotating mass to one side. (inert mass)
It is my belief that the spinning mass moves instantaneously, just as it precesses instantaneously, based on the following evidence.
You refer to the 'gyro drop'. It never seemed to me that this movement was large enough to power the forward acceleration of the gyro mass. I did some experiments at that time, so very long ago, by adding additional inert mass and observing the increase in the distance dropped. I also remember doing something quite clever involving adding masses to both sides of the arm, keeping the gravity torque constant. The results I do remember, were sufficient to convince me that the 'gyro drop' was only enough to account for the inert mass.
Another thing was the absence of any reaction force, to oppose the force which would be needed for linear acceleration of the gyro over such a very short time, bearing in mind that very short times require very large forces. Again the experiments were done a long time ago, so I would have to go to the archives to find the raw data. (they are up in the loft).
Those experiments also confirmed that there was no reaction to centripetal forces either, something which I believe you are sure exist.
These were the main facts which have informed my search for answers. All backed up by experiment and eventually confirmed by the analysis of the reaction of a single particle to the resultant of two forces.
The final result I have called 'Dark Motion' it is there in plain sight in a precessing gyro, but you cannot see it!
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 31/03/2014 19:19:33
| | | Momentus,
Yes to your mangonel. That is a very fine example. I also looked at baseball pictures in slow motion. Incredibly, to me at least, I found that we shot-put rocks and balls we throw, rather than sling them trough a curve. It is an incredible human sequence of action that the mind is not aware of, but it doubtlessly kept our species alive through the stone ages. Check below.
I have you on the dual apposing gyroscopes. All the parts inside a space ship equal one confined entity. It would not matter what internal manipulations were performed by the internal parts, (inside the box) i.e. engine, transmission and so on. Such a ship would be a closed system. I am curious if I am the only one here who would freely admit a mistake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZKvJY6gDfg
Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-vOceb1Cho
Additionally click on and off frames to capture the frames in a series of stills and not the lines of the fence in relation to the ball. Isn’t that great?
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 31/03/2014 21:33:33
| | | Good evening Momentus,
Your last ^message led me to a general reviewing of my previous gyro related way of thinking. You made very interesting and good observations! Thank you for that!
What I described in my last post related to the drop caused by acceleration work in precession plane is correct, however, only for the “dead weight part” in precession plane but not for the “spinning part” in spinning plane of the gyroscope. Now it is getting more complicated, because a spinning flywheel consist always of a dead weight mass plus a spinning mass at the same time. Thus we cannot separate one of these two components because both definitions of the mass are acting always together at the same time.
And to make it a bit more complex: at an overhanging gyro three states of masses are involved:
1. The spinning mass of the flywheel
2. The dead weight mass of the flywheel which rotates around the centre of the flywheel in precession plane
3. The dead weight mass of all masses which orbit around the fulcrum of the overhanging gyro in precession plane
If we consider that a tilting torque, regardless if it is acting on an overhanging gyro system or directly rectangular around the centre of a spinning mass, always has its cause around the centre of the spinning mass and also its effect around the centre of the spinning mass but in precession plane, all involved mass points of the spinning mass have to move on a longer path in the SAME TIME than in absence of the tilting torque. Thus it is clear that the angular momentum of each involved mass point increases about a certain amount as long as the tilting torque will be applied.
If you think in planes like I prefer to do, this increased delta of angular momentum is equal to the delta angular momentum of the flywheels dead weight mass orbiting in precession plane. In an overhanging gyro system the additional moment of inertia caused by the orbiting mass with its distance to the fulcum has to be considered as well.
My belief is that a centripetal force in precession plane is only existent for the orbiting “dead weight part” but not for the “spinning part”. All mass points of a spinning flywheel are moving at each time span on one single path, i.e. there are no separate paths in spinning- and precession plane existent, it only appears that there are two different paths. For the “spinning part” the centripetal force is caused directly by each involved spinning mass point under the influence of the applied tilting torque, rectangular to the spinning plane.
This way of understanding or consideration could be an explanation what you mentioned with:
“Those experiments also confirmed that there was no reaction to centripetal forces either, something which I believe you are sure exist.”
and Sandy described with “the absence of angular momentum” and “saturation”.
There is no centripetal foce necessary in precession plane (only for the dead weight part) because the tilted spinning mass causes the precession movement based on the defined degree of freedom in the gyro system. Simplified said, tilting torque and spinning mass deliver the centripetal force.
Shame on me that it took so long for these new insights. However, better late than never!
I have to admit that I do not understand completely what you understand with “dark motion”. I know you gave some explanations in an earlier post but could you explain this more detailed?
Regards,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 01/04/2014 02:20:12
| | | Hi Momentus.
Perhaps I could have stated what I mean more clearly. I was talking about the time it takes to get to FULL steady state precession speed, not the time it takes for precession to start happening after the precession torque is applied. I agree that as soon as there is precession torque, there is precession movement or speed. That precession speed will, of course, be very small at the beginning but it is there. Again, I was talking about the brief period of time that it takes to get up to full precession speed after the precession torque is applied. On my Tedco brand "Precission Gyroscope" when well spun up, this is in the neighborhood of about 1/60 of a second, give or take a bit, when starting in Earth gravity.
To everyone:
Now here is what I believe about gyros and it is NOT what most on this forum believe (so what else is new?). I believe there is no mystery to the gyro, overhanging or otherwise, that cannot be explained with the forces we already know about. No new, strange, or unknown forces are required to explain what happens when a gyro is precessing, or starting or stopping. All centrifugal force, centripetal force, reactions at the pivot when starting the gyro, etc. etc. etc. apply to gyros whether they are overhanging or not, whether they are precessing at full speed, over full speed, or under full speed, and all of these forces act fully and to the same degree on spinning or non spinning masses. There is no weight loss, no angular momentum loss, no dark forces or motion, and nothing that is unknown to science happening when the gyro is precessing at any speed. In other words, once you actually figure out what is REALLY and WHY it is happening, there are no surprises, except maybe that you can explain everything without any new or unknown forces, motions, etc.
I too have performed experiments which seem to prove the above statements.
And after saying all of that, I still believe that I can produce propulsion in a system where gyros are involved but it is brutally complicated and requires a fair bit of precision to get it to work. That is why I am building what I am building, why it is taking so long to build it and why it is costing a fair bit of money to do it. As always, time will tell if I am right or wrong.
By the way, I am also a practicing professional engineer, maybe that is why I like to see how everything works in the math.
cheers,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 01/04/2014 20:24:33
| | | Evening Momentus,
I must say I like your “Dark Motion” description.
I do not think there is such a thing as “Dark Matter” which is a product of the speculative mathematics, which science has been cursed with for many years,
It may take some time yet, however, at long last, and with the advent of the “Electric Universe,” most of the crap will now be assigned to the waste bin.
You said:
The final result I have called 'Dark Motion' it is there in plain sight in a precessing gyro, but you cannot see it!
Very good
It is even more mysterious in a mechanically rotated system the result seeming to be totally impossible and in defiance of more than a couple of laws.
That is very good, but unfortunately very few have had the good fortune to witness the reality of it?
Rotation without acceleration?
To see it is worth the trouble or (not to see it) as you suggest.
I think I said some time ago that for all intents and purposes that gyro(s) in saturation would just as well not be there.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 02/04/2014 17:36:38
| | |
Harry, thank you for your comments.
You mentioned earlier "j" as a parameter to be taken into account when considering the proportion of the total mass that should be considered "dead mass". In a conversation with Prof Laithwaite he tried to convince me that an electrical engineer would have an advantage over a mechanical engineer as the former would understand imaginary number "i". He felt that the effect of the dead mass could be contributed to an "imaginary gyro" situated opposite the real one using imaginary numbers.
You break down the masses into 3 classes, I also have 3 classifications of inert and spinning and further consider the spinning mass to have a coefficient of efficiency, determined by the difference in performance between a perfect gyro, in which all the mass is concentrated in a thin rim, and real world performance. "j" is an important factor, thus a solid sphere is inefficient.
I had not considered the moment in the precession plane which you have pointed out, need to think about that.
I agree that that the mass points move on a longer path when the flywheel is spinning and precessing. I traced a line from top to bottom on the skin of an orange as I turned it, producing a curved path which was obviously greater than the circumference.
I was doing this to look at energy conservation. You cannot add energy to a gyro using torque/precession, because work is force over distance and there is no displacement along the torque plane. Nitro has a phrase which covers this. It does not matter what you think you are doing, the gyro is precessing at right angles to a couple. Something like that and never ever to be ignored.
The answer turned out to be quite simple , spin is a vector quantity, as is angular momentum. The vector sum of the jm(precession) and jm(spin) is equal to the initial jm(spin), before precession. The gyro slows down as precession increases, the momentum and energy states remain constant.
If you draw a simple vector diagram, it will be a quadrant of a circle, with the radius being a virtual centre of rotation of a mass moving about two axes simultaneously. In my visualization I use a hollow sphere, because j is constant as the virtual axis moves.
The vector diag. is also a useful focus when looking at "What happens when" spin speed is equal to precession speed. Another subject for another day perhaps.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 02/04/2014 18:01:05
| | | Greetings Blaze.
I appreciate that it is none of my business to be telling you what you should think. You are probably the same age as my sons, maybe even my grandsons, who listen politely to my words of wisdom and do whatever.
If you are sincere in your statement and it is not just a wind up or misdirection that:-
"All centrifugal force, centripetal force, reactions at the pivot when starting the gyro, etc. etc. etc. apply to gyros whether they are overhanging or not, whether they are precessing at full speed, over full speed, or under full speed, and all of these forces act fully and to the same degree on spinning or non spinning masses."
Then you need to replicate the experiments with a compensated gyro which I have previously posted.
The path we are following is difficult enough, you do not need to make the expensive and time consuming mistakes which I have made.
Regarding the time taken for the spinning mass to accelerate. Do a simple calc of the G force required to accelerate your own gyro in 1/60 secs. That is the force that a length of string, mass very small indeed, needs to react. You are correct in your assumption there are no "new or unknown forces".
To say that you can achieve Inertial thrust with at least something new is a strange claim. If it is not force, there is only motion left.
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 02/04/2014 18:15:21
| | | Evening Sandy,
Love your phrase, can't accelerate no mass. It is sufficiently off beat to be memorable and best of all it describes so many of the things that you see a gyro do.
It has taken me the best part of a long time to understand "saturation". I think, or do I?
Is it the same as the point when spin speed meets precession speed? as I said in the previous post it is really significant.
Gravity or powered the rules are the same. However if you want inertial thrust, it has to be a powered system, I accept that. Just that it is easier to see WTF is going on with the slower gravity stuff and a lot less dangerous.
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 02/04/2014 19:06:04
| | | Dark Motion
Conservation of momentum is a myth of long standing and if it is a myth, then there must be some mechanisms in nature that show that momentum is not conserved. When I saw a parallel between a gyro orbiting with no centripetal force and the mapped motions of the distant stars which orbit with insufficient centripetal force, I was sure that this was just such a mechanism in nature.
This phenomenon is called "Dark Matter" as in a Newtonian world, the only way to make distant galaxies move as they do is for there to be a massive gravity force. All the advances in our knowledge of Dark Matter are largely the result of better telescope mapping. There is no direct evidence that Dark Matter exists.
So here is a real use for Occam's razor. If it is not required, why invent it?
So having solved the "most urgent problem facing science today" it was natural to find out what Dark Energy was. This is a difficult subject, because unlike Dark Matter there does not seem to be a consensus, so no clear explanations out there, just complex and high level math. Above my head. Eventually I read that the matter in the universe is gradually speeding up. It is the motion of the stars that is being mapped and that Dark Energy is the name given to this phenomenon.
This solved a really big problem I was having with my particle model of momentum. It was that momentum can only be created and cannot be destroyed. Which if you do my recommended thing and sit in a dark room with a damp towel on your fevered brow, makes sense. Helped by one of Sandy's remarks. To paraphrase he said "it is a two stage process, you make momentum and then you change it". Well no not those words that that was very much the essence of it.
So I have a model of the universe in which when particles bump together, the momentum of the entire universe is increased and there is a universe out there according the those that know these things where some mysterious energy is appearing from nowhere and speeding everything up. Time to give Occam another call. Dark Motion seems an appropriate name don't you think?
The phenomenon know as Dark Matter/Energy are the inevitable outcome of a universe in which Momentum is not conserved. The fact that my particular theory of how Newton's Laws should be interpreted gives a precise mechanism for Dark Matter/Energy is a bonus.
Supper is ready, I have been summoned and must go now.
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 02/04/2014 23:02:33
| | | Good evening Momentus,
“You cannot accelerate no mass” takes me back to my second posting to this forum in 2004.
I held back from sending the thing for some time thinking about the controversy it would generate, but what the hell I sent it.
If I remember correctly, nothing was said, such was the impact it had.
I built my second machine to deliver 1G vertical thrust and it did nothing.
I thought that it should have been so much better than the first device and it was not.
However that second device taught me nearly all I now know about flywheels.
I will not bore you with any details other than the fact that I discovered that at a certain point in the proceedings the flywheel would appear to break free and begin to climb inwards and upwards.
I was using about 60 degrees of vertical offset at the time.
Later on I discovered that the magnitude of offset angle was irrelevant
No matter how I tried to apply acceleration to return the flywheels I could not.
It was during this experiment I coined the term “Saturation Point” because I could make no difference to the will of the flywheel by increasing the machine rotation speed. It was as if there was nothing there to accelerate.
No centrifugal force was present.
However any increase in flywheel rotation speed whilst in saturation only served to increase the upwards and inwards acceleration of the flywheel(s) I used a pair for balance and safety.
I noticed that the same effect would prevail if I altered the rotation speed of the device somewhat and then applied enough flywheel rotation speed to get the flywheels into this saturation area.
I now believe that this is standard behaviour for any “normal” mechanically accelerated flywheel set up.
Yes Momentus there is a marked similarity between gravity accelerated systems and mechanically accelerated systems.
However I was running this device of mine up between 250rpm and 500rpm and letting good old inertia do the job.
In this case gravity was a tiny little bit of a liability, but there was still no angular momentum and no centrifugal force.
However if I can add that I cannot see any benefits in running flywheels in this saturation zone as there is not a lot there to use.
Although I did see successful use of it in Nitro’s device, for a half cycle anyway where he was shifting “no mass”
All very interesting but very little of it is conducive to our quest.
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 04/04/2014 03:23:38
| | | Hi Momentus & all. Just a few things I want to set straight.
1) Age has nothing to do with being right or wrong. Some people on this site have been working on producing propulsion with the use of gyros for 5, 10, 20, and more years. Most have not been successful. So how does that automatically make them right? I have not seen any propulsion systems in use or even acknowledged in papers, journals, or magazines. Perhaps a fresh approach is required. However it appears that no one on this forum wants to believe or is even willing to entertain the fresh approach presented (ie: all motions of the gyro can be explained with what we already know, no new or strange motions, forces or torques are required). That doesn’t mean nothing new is required to produce propulsion, just that nothing new is required to explain what is happening with gyros.
Regarding age, I am probably close to your age, since I am old enough to have grandchildren well over the age of 10.
2) I don’t do “misdirection”. If I don’t want to share something, I say so or simply don’t share it. I certainly don’t purposely say something that is incorrect to try to throw others off the track.
3) “Do a simple calc of the G force required to accelerate your own gyro in 1/60 secs.” That is obvious, for any gravity powered system on Earth, no matter what size the gyro system is, no matter how massive it is, no matter if the drop time is 1/10, 1/60, 1/200 seconds or anything else, the G force to accelerate it is ALWAYS “g”, which is 9.81 m/s/s (actually it is "effective g", see the explanation below).
The gyro simply exchanges potential energy for kinetic energy. When I do the math for my tedco gyro it works out the way it should. The gyro precession speed is the result of the gyro being accelerated up to that speed by gravity working on it over time to speed it up.
The drop time is the amount of time that a gravity powered gyro drops (exchanges potential energy for kinetic energy) while accelerating to precession speed. The calculation is basically v = a * t but the acceleration has to be divided by 2 so the actual formula is v = (a * t)/2. The acceleration is divided by 2 because (and this is VERY important) it is the “effective acceleration” that is actually acting on the gyro. The effective acceleration starts at the maximum (which is g when releasing the gyro) down to zero when the gyro reaches steady state precession speed. “g” is always acting on the gyro, it is just being countered by an equal and opposite acceleration when the gyro is at steady state precession speed. The combination of the two, g and counter g, is the effective acceleration. This works for mechanically accelerated systems as well. Do you know why counter g exists when the gyro is precessing?
Rearranging the previous formula we get t=2*v/a. This formula is not perfect because the effective acceleration is not linear from max to zero, it is a curve, but this formula will get you fairly close.
Assigning the variables to our gyro we get:
Torb = the time the gyro takes to complete one orbit
Dorb = the diameter of the orbit (in meters)
Tdrop = the time it takes to complete the drop
a = the acceleration which for Earth is g = 9.81 m/s/s
gyro orbit circumference distance divided by time gives gyro orbit velocity
Therefore:
Torb = (2*pi*Dorb)/(a*Tdrop)
Rearranging we get:
a = (2*pi*Dorb)/(Torb*Tdrop) = (2*orbital velocity)/drop time = 2*Vorb/Tdrop
and:
Tdrop = (2*pi*Dorb)/(a*Torb) = 2*Vorb/a
Since we know two of the variables (g, and the measured time for one orbit of the gyro) we can solve for the drop time, Tdrop.
4) “To say that you can achieve Inertial thrust with at least something new is a strange claim. If it is not force, there is only motion left.”
I am not sure what you mean by this, perhaps you could explain further.
Lastly, I am not too overly concerned about being told I am wrong about my ideas with gyros as has happened several times on this forum because I have proven the vast majority of those "wrong" ideas through experimentation to actually be the correct ideas.
cheers,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 04/04/2014 22:59:43
| | | Hello Blaze,
You have probably never noticed that I never get involved in discussions pertaining to gravity accelerated gyroscopes probably because several years ago I witnessed the impossibility of winning, this, I will call, argument.
I was not part of the argument but I remember well the treatment handed out to Momentus by young participants in the BBC program “It’s not rocket science” I think it was called.
Momentus did extremely well trying his best to reason with the dolts, but he was never going to win against a bunch of self-opinionated morons who were more than likely put up to it by their lecturers.
The argument covers the very same ground you are disputing right now, and in my opinion the outcome one way or the other just does not matter, whether it is resolved or not.
However you said
“Perhaps a fresh approach is required. However it appears that no one on this forum wants to believe or is even willing to entertain the fresh approach presented (ie: all motions of the gyro can be explained with what we already know, no new or strange motions, forces or torques are required). That doesn’t mean nothing new is required to produce propulsion, just that nothing new is required to explain what is happening with gyros”.
and,
Lastly, I am not too overly concerned about being told I am wrong about my ideas with gyros as has happened several times on this forum because I have proven the vast majority of those "wrong" ideas through experimentation to actually be the correct ideas.
I am going to ask you to describe some of your experiments so that we can understand what you were attempting to prove and what you actually proved.
Regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 05/04/2014 03:24:07
| | | Hi Sandy. A couple of examples from previous postings:
Has anyone seen or know of a really big gyro system?
http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=1450
The point of this posting was to dispel the myth that a precessing gyro has no momentum. Although I didn’t take measurements the results were very clear that there was indeed a large amount of momentum with a large, heavy gyro moving at a good velocity and stopped suddenly, for the gyro in this posting that was estimated to be about 20 to 40 pounds of force. The gyro arm in this case was about 1 pound. The point I was trying to make with this posting was that it takes a heavy gyro moving at a good speed to be able to actually feel any amount of momentum when stopping it suddenly. A small “table top” toy gyro doesn’t have enough momentum (a small fraction of an ounce) to notice any force when stopping it.
Does a gyro wheel retain velocity when released?
http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=1456
The primary point of this posting was that a gyro will continue in a straight line when dropped just like a rock twirling at the end of a string will continue in a straight line when the string breaks. Therefore a precessing gyro has momentum, even the spinning mass portion, which many people seem to think is incorrect. Many other things were discussed but that was not the point of the posting.
Gyroscope motion and precession in space
http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=1558
The primary point of this posting was the gyro forces or torques that are acting when the gyro is moving will cause a predictable movement or motion and that the momentum of the gyro is there and doesn’t disappear when the input force is removed. The gyro motion for this situation doesn't stop.
Loss of mass effect
http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=1584
There was something about proving centrifugal acceleration of precessing gyros which was part of the discussion in a posting by Nitro. The experiment I did had results that could only be from centrifugal acceleration and the results were the same for the gyro flywheel spinning and for it not spinning. I said in that posting that I was not divulging information about the experiment at that time and that has not changed yet.
Perhaps the most interesting thing is “that you can explain everything [that happens with gyros] without any new or unknown forces, motions, etc.” but it does require the correct understanding of what is really happening to do it. That “correct understanding” is exactly what all the fuss is about because everyone thinks their understanding is the correct one, whether it really is or not. And that is precisely the point.
One more thing. I was not trying to upset anyone with my last posting on this thread, just calling it the way I see it. Unfortunately, that can ruffle some feathers sometimes.
Regards,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 06/04/2014 03:49:53
| | | Here is my definition of “inertial propulsion”.
I don’t have one. That is the reason I asked others for their definitions, to try to get an understanding of what it means to people. I personally don’t use the term inertial propulsion or reactionless propulsion because I think there are reactions. Action-Reaction is where the propulsion comes from. To me it seems that all propulsion is inertial. Inertia is the characteristic of matter that is (or causes) a resistance to movement. It takes an applied force to overcome that resistance to movement. That applied force is what creates (for lack of a better word) the propulsion. That is why I don’t use the term inertial propulsion because in my mind all propulsion is inertial. Whether that makes any sense to anyone else I don’t know. I was simply trying to get a feel for what the term means to others. Thank you to those who contributed.
Regards,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 06/04/2014 12:31:40
| | | Good Morning Blaze.
At outset may I say that I tried very hard not to:
a) appear condescending or b) tell anyone what to think.
If there is one defining characteristic of a shed dweller it is sheer bloodymindedness. If you have not been told a thousand times that you are wrong, then you are not serious. You, as do all, have a belief that you can bootstrap a mass. That is not possible within the existing paradigm.
"Do a simple calc of the drop." Sorry, that was me being sarcastic. It is not a simple calculation. To be honest, I have not done the Newtonian Dynamics calc, let alone one which reflects reality.
The gyro is not falling with the acceleration of gravity. The drop, as are all motions of a gyro, precession. If the gyro does not rotate then it cannot fall. The motion you see is precession. Precession is always accompanied by a couple. they are not separate, if you see the one then the other is present and is orthogonal to spin and precession. There is therefore a couple in the precession plane and it is this couple which determines the speed at which the gyro rotates and so drops down. The initial action of gravity is to produce the gyro couple/precession, not a downward acceleration at 9.8 m/s.
Which brings me to a place that I have been to many times before where a full page of mathematical manipulation which is absolutely and utterly correct to the Nth decimal place simultaneously proves A point and misses THE point. So frustrating.
I too have done experiments which show the appearance of centripetal force. They are the easiest ones to do, they fit the current paradigm. Which is why, instead of saying that you were wrong I pointed you to a different experiment - one which does not.
To jump to your item 4) My typo. It should have been "you can(NOT) achieve Inertial thrust with(OUT) at least something new" It was a line which I just could not get right and so ended up editing out all meaning.
Dark Motion is the something new.
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 06/04/2014 13:35:02
| | | Hi Sandy
You posted that you started on the Gyroscopes.org forum in 2004, and that prompted me to have a look at my first post, where you welcomed me to the site.
http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=306
That was the thread where I first tried to explain the experiment to show the absence of force, the subject of my current discussion with Blaze. Which means that I can make one post do the work of two!
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 06/04/2014 15:58:45
| | | Hi Momentus.
"The drop, as are all motions of a gyro, precession."
Agreed, I have said the same thing in some posting somewhere on this forum.
"Precession is always accompanied by a couple."
Also agreed, but that doesn't change the fact that gravity is acting on the gyro during the time it is coming up to steady state precession speed (the gyro is still falling while coming up to steady state precession speed).
I do see your point and think we are more agreed than disagreed, however to explain my point clearly enough to be understood would take a significant amount of explaining and I likely wouldn't be able to get the point across anyway.
Thank you for the clarification of point number 4. I again agree with you that something new would have to be done to achieve propulsion. I believe I am doing something different with my design and if it has never been done before, then it is also new, however it doesn't require any new forces or motions.
cheers,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 06/04/2014 21:17:16
| | | Evening Momentus and other interested parties.
I wrote this and desisted from sending it as I reckoned I was giving away too much information too easily, but after answering Blaze’s latest question, here you are.
Your recent article relating to weird gyroscopic motion got me thinking about other hidden and virtually unknown aspects of flywheel behaviour when you mentioned “Dark Motion” again.
It dawned on me that many attributes of flywheels are not readily seen, and will not be seen, until it they are brought to the attention of the observer.
If we can return to the “saturation point” and consider what goes on below that region we discover that entering saturation is not just a one off jump to nothingness that occurs when a flywheel is rotating fast enough to reach that point.
When the system loses (this term is less provocative than another words I could have used here) its angular momentum, and there is no longer any centrifugal force available to hold the gyroscopes or flywheels down, then the upwards and inwards acceleration of the flywheels begin.
Some call this precession which I do not agree with, well, so.
In effect a flywheel in normal operation and exhibiting angular momentum or centrifugal force will never “normally” be seen climbing above the horizontal.
(I am aware that angular momentum and centrifugal force are different animals but you cannot have one without the other anyway and many individuals have a better understanding of what is meant by centrifugal force)
That said and I am going to be very provocative here, and ask how would you ever know how much angular momentum and centrifugal force was being generated in a device with a fixed speed of rotation, but where the rotation speed of the flywheel is unknown?
According to the books there is no difference, as there is no allowance made to change the angular momentum or centrifugal force just because the mass is being rotated.
In reality there is a world of difference, we know that the angular momentum and centrifugal force of a normal flywheel system disappears at the point that for convenience I called the “saturation point”.
However this gain or loss of angular momentum and centrifugal force I found to be directly proportional to the rotation speed of the flywheel.
Therefore, what price the conservation of angular momentum?
When there is no rotation of the flywheel in a device subjected to mechanical rotation, maximum angular momentum and centrifugal force will be produced.
However if the rotation speed of the flywheel is sufficiently fast then the flywheel will reach the point where there is no angular momentum or centrifugal force being produced.
It will be seen that without prior knowledge of this, there is no way the uninitiated would ever guess what was going on, especially in the “extended” part between these extremes.
In this “extended” area of flywheel behaviour it can be seen that the possibility of creating an inertial drive becomes very real, still far from easy, but definitely attainable.
As a matter of interest the only times a gyroscope or flywheel will be seen to rotate above the horizontal plane of rotation is in gravitationally accelerated precession, usually part of a system in decay or on the way down, or in mechanically rotated saturation at the other end of the spectrum and on the way up.
This folks is a bit of a simplification on what I posted to this forum 10 years ago, fortunately now a few of the participants in the quest for inertial drive and contributors to this forum are at last showing interest, but they will still never believe any of it until they do the experiment themselves.
What does irritate me is this perpetual “everything to know about gyroscopes is known, as they have been studied in length and depth by the best of academics”
The best were just not good enough were they?
Sandy.
PS
There are a few other desirable but little known, or unknown factors, concerning the behaviour of flywheels or gyroscopes but we can get into those a bit later.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 06/04/2014 22:02:11
| | |
You cannot learn anything with math that hasn’t been learned. Millions of mathematically capable and learned people from all over the world for hundreds of years have done what you are doing in gyro math. Graduate students are still presenting it mathematically to receive advanced degrees. Nothing new can come of your rediscoveries here pals.
Mechanics is the only possible way to achieve I.P. if it is possible; and most people are afraid of mechanics because they require work and original thinking, rather than plying techniques they have been taught how to apply, which achieve only gyro redundancy.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 06/04/2014 22:12:51
| | | "What does irritate me is this perpetual “everything to know about gyroscopes is known, as they have been studied in length and depth by the best of academics” "
In my short gyro "career" I've run into this comment more times than I can count. If anything, we can't know how much we don't yet know.
And..... and I still don't know why no one has tried replicating Alex Jones device. Even if it is a "one shot" machine it's still fantastic in the way that it undeniably seems to be "breaking the laws of physics". Sandy, that's also why I want to see any videos you might have, just to see if there's any real proof on the level of that Heretics video out there.
If you want me to paypal you some money to have the transfer done, let me know.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 06/04/2014 22:32:27
| | | Hello M.D.
Just by chance if this that I quote from your post was directed at me, perhaps you should re-read my post.
"What does irritate me is this perpetual “everything to know about gyroscopes is known, as they have been studied in length and depth by the best of academics”
They damn well have been fully explored mathematically------ not mechanical!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I sometimes wonder if anybody knows what I am talking about.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 06/04/2014 22:40:06
| | | Evening MD,
You have me at a disadvantage with your reference to the Heretics program.
The only thing relating to me was that Eric Laithwaite denied that I had succeeded in producing inertial thrust, although he congratulated me in front of millions of TV viewers a few years prior to that.
It is fair to say that he was a shadow of the man I used to visit I think mostly as a result of saying, what we all here are saying.
I have contacted a friend of a friend who lives locally and for the grand sum of 10 quid he will do the job. I think I can manage that.
I have not figured out what to do with it when I get it, yet, we shall see?
Regards,
Sandy
PS I have a very short video “old format” of my device going through its lab test but it is not very exciting as it does not show a lot. I’ll put that aside for now.
It looks like a miniature wooden shed on a wire.
I do have some other old ones again in 8mm but they would give me too much work explaining what they did. We shall see?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 06/04/2014 23:04:59
| | | Evening Glenn,
Nice to know you are still about.
You said:
“They damn well have been fully explored mathematically------ not mechanical!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
I sometimes wonder if anybody knows what I am talking about.
They know what you are talking about alright Glenn.
But I do not think that is correct either.
I think they assumed far too much and also missed a lot.
Best regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 07/04/2014 02:24:31
| | | "I have not figured out what to do with it when I get it, yet, we shall see?"
If you get a few files from it, just upload them to http://mega.co.nz/ and e-mail the link to anyone you want, or just post it on the forum.
My e-mail: mdrivegeneral@gmail.com
I suppose I could e-mail you an interesting video if you want. What's your e-mail again?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 07/04/2014 15:04:47
| | | Everyone here knows what is meant by ‘inertial propulsion’. It is a noun, a statement of a condition, not a descriptive verb. It does not explain anything. If one wishes to rename it, go for it. Oh, I could follow you I suppose. I don’t know why I should. I am not uncomfortable with it, but name away. Have fun.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ted Pittman - 25/04/2014 16:08:10
| | | A more relevant question might be:
"What is your definition of mechanically accelerated propulsion?"
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Patrick Hill - 01/05/2014 03:29:45
| | | Fluidicity is propultion,mass inersia precludes the end factor as a spinning module as a pump up spinning top states itself,it maintains its own spinning gravity ,and that is the start.then place 367 around 359 points both prime can never meet appart from just 1 ,to compress air via ducting to create fluidicical drive in its own field.
360 degrees
359 within
367 ...both primes
Equals rotation with enersia
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Patrick Hill - 01/05/2014 03:29:55
| | | Fluidicity is propultion,mass inersia precludes the end factor as a spinning module as a pump up spinning top states itself,it maintains its own spinning gravity ,and that is the start.then place 367 around 359 points both prime can never meet appart from just 1 ,to compress air via ducting to create fluidicical drive in its own field.
360 degrees
359 within
367 ...both primes
Equals rotation with enersia
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Patrick Hill - 15/06/2014 12:42:59
| | | The very answer is up = movement of a conglomoration of parts to produce greater advancement and movement across a plain
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Patrick Hill - 15/06/2014 12:44:29
| | | The very answer is up = movement of a conglomoration of parts to produce greater advancement and movement across a plain
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sheppie - 13/08/2014 12:22:28
| | | Alright, so we have: inertial propulsion: http://www.halexandria.org/dward133.htm
we have Fluidicity: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20504009
But shouldn't we start with asking what is acceleration? Take this as a basis: http://www.scienceclarified.com/A-Al/Acceleration.html
Physics is like controversy...it raises questions.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
