|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
3 May 2024 08:26
|
|
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: |
"Not rocket science" |
| Question: |
Dave English, John Bourne and Shed Dwellers
More of a statement than a question.
Had occasion to venture into the BBC “Not rocket science” site once again.
Curious to see what they are arguing about now.
Most of them cannot get to grips with the fact that the centre of mass of a gyroscopic system in passive precession mode is at the axis of system rotation.
No centrifugal force, no angular momentum and all that this implies.
This is as far as they have got, and are still arguing about it.
Underneath it all is the desire by most of them, to prove that we inertial drive freaks/enthusiasts are at the very least misguided.
However the reason I have compiled this, is because I do take exception to the fact that one contributor stated, with contempt, that we are idiots.
I’ll take a bet, this one has seen nothing, done nothing, and struggles with a “Lego Set “
I have tried to make it quite clear that there are no gains to be made dabbling with passive systems to create any measure of non-Newtonian thrust.
I did mention the fact that only a gyroscopic system subjected to radial acceleration, (the erroneously called forced precession) can deliver measurable thrust, if the system is suitably manipulated to do so.
What the crowd on the BBC site are trying to prove with this age old argument, beats the hell out of me.
We all know there is nothing in there as far as inertial drive is concerned, and I am the first one to admit that.
However they must move with the times.
Gyroscopic systems subjected to radial acceleration is where “it’s at” now.
If they saw the same thing happen in a gyroscopic system at 400 or 500 rpm, would that be enough to stimulate the limited grey matter they apparently have?
Still no centrifugal force, and therefore still no angular momentum!
Newton’s 1st and 3rd laws are invalid in this area.
Inertial drive is inevitable.
I proved this by experiment 20 years ago, and have done it many times since.
I also mentioned this fact to Eric Laithwaite at that time, when he was still operating passive systems.
See my contributions “So much for conservation” and “You cannot accelerate no mass” on this site.
I am sure the collective resources of Newton’s acolytes on the “Not rocket science” thingy, could surely put together a similar experiment.
Sandy Kidd
27/10/04
|
| Date: |
27 October 2004
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Kirk Harper - 10/11/2004 19:20:52
| | | Sandy, i'm afraid that some people simply have 'too much education' to be able to think so far out of the box. I myself have tried to approach "Virgin Galactic" with a design for a gyro driven vehicle that would be able to fulfil all of Sir Richard Bransons dreams, all to no avail. it seems to me that i shall have to build one for myself and charge people like him millions just to take a look at it! (just a working model of course) I was fortunate enough to be able to watch a T.V. programme about your endeavours to create 'lift' from this type of vehicle and was able to immediately see where you were going wrong, this is in no way meant to diminish the work you have done, no, it merely serves to fill me and others like me who can see the potential of this energy source with hope that someday we will be able to say, "remember that gyroscopic flying saucer thing i was ridiculed about"
Kirk Harper
10/11/2004
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 11/11/2004 08:28:06
| | | Thanks for your reply Kirk,
First of all can I say that the device you saw, was first run almost exactly 20 years ago
You say that you could see immediately, what I was doing wrong.
Did not think I was doing anything wrong. Please enlighten me.
The thing worked for whatever reason.
Many professionals, mathematicians, physicists, and engineers all have had the time and opportunity to test, view, scrutinise, whatever, the device at close range.
Nobody got even close to discovering the reasons why it worked.
Took me about 12 years and a hell of a lot of experimentation to find out why.
I can only say that I was extremely lucky (although after 20 years of it, that is debatable) to obtain the results I did from a device that I can only describe as a freak.
I think at the end of the day Kirk, you will find out, that any notion you have/had in relation to gyroscopic thrust, is wrong, and to achieve success with it, is a lot more involved, than you could have possibly imagined.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Kirk Harper - 11/11/2004 19:23:48
| | | Sorry Sandy, i didn't mean to belittle your work, indeed it has been inspirational for me and probably many others too. In answer to your question where you asked me to 'enlighten' you the answer goes all the way back to the christmas lectures ('74-'75). review the differences between what they did on stage and what you did in a lab, your enlightenment is hiding out in the open!
please excuse my evasiveness but if you would like to contact me directly, ask the webmaster for my e-mail address.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Richard McLean - 29/12/2004 04:30:31
| | | Dear Sandy Kidd,
I have been trying to contact you...I did a search to email you but this is all I came up with.
I hope you recieve the message. Sorry to interrupt on everyones online conversation.
I saw you program on 'beyond 2000' when I was about 15. I am now 31 and have not only replicated a machine such as yours, yet made some adjustments...including a power source that relies on magnets. I have made a motor that runs perpetually, and I am now using this idea in conjunction with the gyroscope.
I have made each model, but am just about to join the ideas, so in effect, you could have the whole thing running in a glass bubble...and use it accordingly.
I am so excited by this prospect. Who does one approach with such ideas!? I am hoping for your swift response to discuss what level we are both up to.
PS In terms of the quote, 'if no one else came up with it, how could I have!?' I dont know the answer either! But hell, for the sake of it, lets change the world eh?
Im hoping you will go to my website, which is www.richiemclean.com , or email me at richie@richiemclean.com to futher talk about possibilities.
I think thats it for now- best wishes for the silly season mate.
Richard McLean (0422240626 if you want to contact direct...)
ps Were you near Dandenong from memory? I grew up in keysborough.
Hope to hear from you soon.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 11/01/2005 08:26:55
| | | Richard,
Yes Richard, Endeavour Hills, Dandenong, was the place I stayed when I was over in Australia.
A very likeable place and not too far outside Melbourne.
In answer to your posting I feel I must say that I do not believe in perpetual motion prime movers. This may sound a bit rich coming from someone who believes in the possibility of inertial drive, but this is unfortunately the way it is.
I believe inertial drive machines are possible.
I do not believe perpetual motion machines are possible.
If however you are convinced your device is genuine, I am sure you could demonstrate the device without giving too much away.
I am sure the VIPAC Laboratories in Port Melbourne would carry out a discrete evaluation for you, and if proved genuine will provide their official endorsement of that fact. You do not get any better than VIPAC.
Time is money, therefore I do not think an evaluation of this sort would cost too much. You can but ask for an estimate.
If you have a genuine perpetual motion prime mover, why bother with inertial drive?
Fame and fortune will be yours already, that is of course, if that’s what you want.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 12/03/2005 19:21:02
| | | Sandy Kidd,
I know why your device worked and why it was intermittent. The fact that all the devices that demonstrate thrust are intermittent, and that is the key to understanding what makes them work. By the way, all of Sir Isaac’s laws of motion still holds true and are essential to demonstrating mathematically how and why your device works, though intermittently.
It is my pleasure to address this note to you.
Sincerely, Luis Gonzalez
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
arthur dent - 05/04/2005 23:53:11
| | | Quick question Sandy: I imagine that your resources are relatively limited, but whatever happened to that Australian scientologist who muscled in on your patent? I hear that he has millions to play with, so why is he not doing any development work - or paying you to do it?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dennis Belford - 10/08/2007 17:39:51
| | | Is the quest for zero point not a forbidden area? the problem being that once you can achieve some kind of linear acceleration you can get close to the point where the gravitational acceleration is neutralised and there is the possibility of significant energy release.
Making neukes and H bombs obsolete.
My uncle (Now deceased) was fascinated by the concept of tacking against gravity
with a resultant tangential acceleration. I think he made a working model. But around
1980 I think he voluntarily stopped his research.
His models did not employ any conventional thrust from jet engines or propellors/thrusters fans etc. in the sense of providing linear thrust to drive the vehicle vetically or horizontally. A motor of some sort had to be used to drive the Gyro.
He never refine d them to the point of managing low speed flight or ground handling.
But I think he definitely solved the mathematical problem.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Arthur Dent - 28/08/2007 17:01:03
| | | I am doubtless 'making a rod for my own back', but may I draw your attention to a Kidd-Laithwaite-Hayasaka-Takeuchi-supporting paper in the current issue of the academic engineering journal, Meccanica (2007, 42[4], 359). To put the icing on the cake, the author has connections with Imperial College. He also hints at constructing a Greed-type opposed-gyroscope device to assist rocket take-off (even though you will be the first to declare that you have tried that, and that it does not work). Nevertheless, you will still all see the paper as 'validating your beliefs'. I see it as being further proof of the collapsing academic standards in the scientific literature.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Hart Dunter - 29/08/2007 13:53:33
| | | Arthur Dent, what is your purpose in the this thread or a bigger question your posts, you seem to be quite happy nipping at others on their journey of knowledge, I'm sorry but even you must be aware that you don't know it all or do you? Anyway, you must have much more important things to do than corrupting your 'beliefs' on this forum. If you think academic or scientific standards are collapsing, then please use your superior intellect and fix it, it's quite simple as you are probably aware.
Hart Dunter
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
sandy Kidd - 30/08/2007 07:14:54
| | | Dear Arthur,
Laitwaite never ever produced inertial thrust.
Hayasaka and /or Takeuchi I know nothing about.
I have no idea what Greed claimed unless he is the person who claimed that twin horizontal gyroscopes rotated on a wooden beam by means of a wound up piece of string rotated at different speeds depending on their direction of rotation. I apologise if I have the wrong person, but I think the same person had the audacity to accuse me of plagiarism.
That was some 25 years ago, but then again my 70 year old memory bank is not what it was.
Howsoever Arthur I have still to see some worthwhile and constructive input coming from your direction. Character assassination is easy especially when you feel you must hide behind an assumed name.
Arthur, consider that the person, who taught the person, who taught the person, (and so on) who taught you, swallowed the scripture after Saint Isaac hook line and sinker, and then proceeded to preach to the multitude and eventually yourself.
Admittedly at first glance it is not so easy to prove otherwise, but Newton was only a human being and so was your great hero Euler, and there are weaknesses in their case which are now coming to light
There is one chink in Newton’s armour, is that is separate conservation of angular and linear momentums, which to be fair and honest Arthur, and because conversion either way has never been witnessed in nature, does nor necessarily make it any less possible.
In fact it would be up until this time, mathematically impossible to prove either way.
It still makes separate conservation only an assumption, but it was required to protect the 1st & 3rd Laws.
Linear momentum conversion to angular momentum may be impossible, time will tell, but angular momentum conversion to linear momentum is certainly possible, and has been achieved on countless occasions.
What price the 1st & 3rd Laws.
And no, Arthur, I do not expect you to take my word for this, nor am I going to tell you how it can be done.
However, I can relate to, and can understand where you are coming from, because once upon a time I felt exactly the same way, and that was that Newton’s Laws were cast in stone, and anyone attempting to produce one way thrust was just plain stupid or totally ignorant, but it never ever closed my mind, besides Mother Nature did not require any input from Newton.
Probably for all the wrong reasons, and an extremely unlikely, but extremely lucky, freakish combination of mechanical interactions, accidentally built into a device I built to comply with the rules, I found myself involved in this “thing” now many years ago.
For whatever the reason this anomaly manifested itself, I felt it was my duty as an engineer to hunt the cause down, although I often wish I had never bothered.
The reasons are not in any text book because the workings of gyroscopes (irrespective of what high profile name or obscure report you are prepared to quote) are simply not known nor understood by any of them.
The bottom line Arthur (whatever) is that no matter what you say, state, quote etc. etc. you are flogging the proverbial dead horse, maybe one that died from dehydration (silly joke) and note that there are many contributors to this site who are at least as intelligent as you think you are, but some of us do not have closed minds.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Arthur Dent - 31/08/2007 01:30:37
| | | Well, those replies were VERY revealing! I came back here, expecting everyone to be excited about the apparent mainstream-science endorsement of your beliefs, and I instead find myself accused of being repressive as usual. Surely, a repressive person would not even have told you about the paper. And on top of that, Sandy Kidd claims not to know of Hayasaka & Takeuchi; another (albeit debunked) mainstream endorsement of 'levitating gyroscopes'. I begin to wonder what YOUR motives are; forever accusing each other of 'not quite having found the magic ingredient' and 'forgetting the plank in your own eye' (just to mix metaphors). Isn't the former what Laithwaite said about you, Mr Kidd, in his New Scientist review of Beyond 2001? Ironically, it was the Googling of your book's title which led me to the Meccanica paper.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 31/08/2007 08:28:30
| | | Arthur,
This is all getting very childish and very tedious.
Get a life, please.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Arthur Dent - 31/08/2007 18:58:59
| | | Well I never; the ubiquitous 'get a life' slur coming from a self-confessed 'shed-dweller'! But I AM curious about your comments concerning the separate conservation of angular and linear momenta (sic) - and possible exceptions. Did you ever work out what was wrong with Laithwaite's thought-experiment in Space magazine? You know, the one with the plank in outer space hit by a non-spinning bullet which embeds itself in one end. It was, in fact, based upon a 'schoolboy howler' (resulting from not paying proper attention to what the textbooks really say). Until you CAN work out what is wrong with Laithwaite's reasoning, perhaps you should not comment upon such weighty matters.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 31/08/2007 22:12:02
| | | Dear David
You are obviously exercised that someone from your treasured “scientific” community should suggest that something you consider irrational may not be. Remarkably, you seem further exercised that (in my case at least) the odd (I did say in my case) nutter in a shed should be able to ignore the outpouring of someone (not you, in this instance) from the “scientific” community as being - er - crap.
You must learn that sometimes the struggling “shed dweller” can not only see things that bookish bespectacled government squanderers, sorry, “treasured educators” overlook, but they can also smell a snake oil seller a mile off. Not (I am sure you will be sad to hear) because we are trying to flog snake oil ourselves (and therefore, being one, can spot one) but because we have achieved a level of understanding that enables us to recognise anomalies that deserve our attention and utter crap that doesn’t.
You are obviously (whilst being scared to admit that you are) on the same path as us, but only on the first steps. Please don’t demean yourself further whilst trying to catch us up.
Your input shows that you are unable to use your university computers when the students want them. So please use them wisely and nicely during this quiet time – there’s a good boy!
Kind regards
NM
PS My nick-name of “Nitro MacMad” came from my Drag racing days. Where did your nick-name of Arthur Dent come from?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Arthur Dent - 01/09/2007 06:13:52
| | | I am 'exercised' simply because it will be the Hayasaka-Takeuchi story all over again. Other people are going to have to waste time on tracking down the error that Dr Wayte, or the referees, should have spotted in the first place. If the 'work' had appeared in Fortean Times, where it belonged, then it could have safely been ignored.
You really are quite naive about the amount of academic experimental work which has been done on gyroscopes. Because they were critically important components, every possible mechanical anomaly was explored and explained. One has to use the past tense these days because they are gradually being phased out in favour of optical or vibrational devices.
I notice that nobody seems to be eager to explain the Laithwaite 'thick short plank' paradox.
I am using someone else's account, not someone else's name.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 02/09/2007 01:15:26
| | | "Did you ever work out what was wrong with Laithwaite's thought-experiment in Space magazine? You know, the one with the plank in outer space hit by a non-spinning bullet which embeds itself in one end."
Flame war aside I think I know the answer to this. The linear momentum (m*v) of the two objects (the bullet and the plank) is conserved in the new combined object. However this is considered an "inelastic collision" which means some of the kinetic energy is lost. A part of this kinetic energy is converted to angular momentum of our new object.
I think the thing to remember here is momentum is not the same as kinetic energy. Momentum has a direction. For instance two 1kg balls heading straight towards each other at equal velocities has a combined momentum of zero. However they most definitely have kinetic energy. This is because momentum has a direction associated with it, while kinetic energy does not. Since the balls are traveling in the opposite directions the v part of m*v cancels out giving zero.
Once the balls collide different things can happen. In a perfectly elastic collision the balls will bounce back and be heading in the opposite directions at the same velocity. Notice momentum is still zero. Alternatively the balls could stick together (this is perfectly inelastic) and stop at the point of contact. The velocity is again zero so momentum is zero. Or there could be some in-between result where the balls bounce in the opposite direction yet at slower but equal speeds. Again we maintain zero momentum. So in all cases the moment remains zero no matter what.
Now let’s look at the inelastic collision more closely. Let’s say that the velocity of each ball was 100km per second. Kinetic energy is defined as K = (1/2) * m * v^2. Since at the end of the collision v is zero we have lost a lot of K. Where did it go? In the case of That K is used to deform the balls, is converted to heat etc…. I’m sure you have all heard of the dooms day scenarios of asteroids hitting the earth. It’s the K that kills us.
Finally let’s go back to the bullet and plank. In that case some of that K gets converted to angular momentum. So linear momentum really does not get converted to angular momentum, it’s the kinetic energy that does.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 02/09/2007 03:04:21
| | | Actually I think I screwed some of my explanation up. I think it's basically right but I used the wrong terminology in places. I'll go look a few things up and fix it.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 02/09/2007 04:04:02
| | | So I think here’s the deal. The angular momentum of the whole system is also conserved. If you think of the board as a separate system then yes some of the bullets kinetic energy could be said to be converted to the board’s angular momentum. But what I should have said is some of the systems linear kinetic energy is converted to rotational kinetic energy. I think the key point here is that the linear motion of the board+bullet will be the same no matter where the board it hit as long as the collision is completely non-elastic (i.e. the bullet ends up being captured by the board).
To be more explicit if the board were hit in the middle and therefore the board+bullet ends up with no rotation, they would be moving on the same trajectory as if the board was hit on one end and the board+bullet were rotating afterwards. The difference is if it was hit in the middle there the board will be deformed more because no kinetic energy is converted to rotational kinetic energy. I hope I have it right now :-P
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 02/09/2007 15:44:04
| | | An outstanding argument: “The linear momentum (m*v) of the two objects (the bullet and the plank) is conserved in the new combined object. A part of this kinetic energy is converted to angular momentum of our new object.”
Your explanation is that some linear momentum is converted to angular momentum. Yet you say, because of the idea of kinetic energy this is not true. What …?
Yes, the kinetic energy in motion can be converted back and forth from linear to rotational. So does this mean than that linear and angular momentum are separately conserved, except that you can convert them back and forth with the idea of kinetic energy therefore they are not separately conserved? What’s the deal here? Is this a philological paradox where two ideas are true, except neither is true depending on one’s frame of mind?
I can take a little vinegar with my greens, but I have to have my mechanics separate from my philosophy to mean, either a thing is, or it isn’t.
I see the example as an angular collision with the deflection contained as one resulting in two forms of motion. Listen! You began with linear motion and you ended up with both, linear and rotational motion. Then the two are not always separately conserved.
I’ll tell you what. This extraordinary ability of some fine minds, yours in this instant to argue a thing every-which-away once caused me no end of troubles when I first approached a gyroscope. Now days I must have it one way, or the other. I now have it you can physically convert one motion to the other, period.
Dear Sandy, which do you prefer, the Claiborne, or the rapier? Hi Author. Can you possibly find anyone here willing to be your second? Oh never mind I will befriend you. I will see to it that each gets a fair chance to kill the other. I require the rights to film and sell to the media this continuing disaster here beginning on paper on into the bloody end. Har...har...har! On guard you two fiendish land locked sea dogs! Let's get at it! Whack, whack, whack! Which among you would be my Earl Finn of physics?
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 03/09/2007 06:56:49
| | | "Your explanation is that some linear momentum is converted to angular momentum. Yet you say, because of the idea of kinetic energy this is not true. What …?"
Here’s the deal. In classic physics linear momentum is always conserved in any kind of collision. That’s because momentum has a direction, so even if two equal masses are moving towards each other at an equal speed their combined momentum is zero because they are going in opposite directions. The same is true for angular momentum except it harder to see. Some people think of angular momentum is something spinning but it really isn’t it. It’s a way of calculating momentum around a point. In the case of the bullet and the board we consider that point as the center of the board. It turns out the angular momentum was there all along because the bullet is not traveling directly towards the center of the board. So the bullet had angular momentum to begin with. Yeah it know it’s a bit confusing.
In any case the important thing is what I said last. It doesn’t matter where the bullet hit’s the board as long as it embeds itself in the board. If it hits in the middle the board will gain some linear momentum. If it hits in on the edge the board will gain the same amount of linear momentum, however now it will be spinning. The linear momentum always adds up. And so does the angular momentum. The reason why it isn’t spinning when it hits the center of the board is because it was heading straight at our reference point so the bullet had no angular momentum to begin with.
"Listen! You began with linear motion and you ended up with both, linear and rotational motion. Then the two are not always separately conserved."
What's conserved separately is angular momentum which has a specific definition. It does not have to involve rotation. The bullet had angular momentum in relation to the center of the board before the collision took place.
"Now days I must have it one way, or the other. I now have it you can physically convert one motion to the other, period."
The problem is "motion" is not have a specific definition. Angular momentum has a specific definition. So yes you can say you can convert a straight line motion to a rotating motion without breaking Newton. However that sill doesn’t imply you can build a drive with a gyroscope. Actually I’m not even sure the whole question has any relevance to the feasibility of gyroscopic propulsion. I mean we are talking about a collision here.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 03/09/2007 17:39:14
| | | Ram,
you said ‘Angular momentum is not rotation.’ The perfect answer to Arthur Dent. Well done.
Arthur,
May I take advantage of your encyclopedic knowledge of the gyroscope to inquire whether - if it is not restrained - the offset gyroscope orbits its support or vice versa?
Accepting that the Profs ‘tower on ice’ was not conclusive, has any scientific institute published a rigorous scientific experiment, or are you aware of any recognised experimentation at all.
It cannot be too difficult to resolve this point, surely someone in the scientific community has had a go?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 03/09/2007 20:01:59
| | | "Accepting that the Profs ‘tower on ice’ was not conclusive, has any scientific institute published a rigorous scientific experiment, or are you aware of any recognised experimentation at all."
Strangely enough I've never seen the conclusive experiment for this. Probably someone has done it. I should just get off my ass and do it myself. I need to get an air table though and set up a camera. The best try I have ever seen is Laithwaite’s experiment at 22:42 of Heretic video on this web site. The problem is you can't really tell exactly how his experiment is set up in the video. The important point is whether his support system is really frictionless or not.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 04/09/2007 00:17:56
| | | Guess what. For many years now I used collisions, very much and all kinds and in all they entail and all of these relating to time frames past, present and future and to particularly direction. Sorry. No explanation is given. I tried to do that before. It fell on deaf ears. That’s better than saying it fell on deaf minds. I see it’s time to remind myself again to be nice. My conceptions are like a chain reaction of moving pressure acting as in collision, deformity and deflection. Excuse me for not explaining. That would bore me and bore you more as I already said.
I accept what you say. It is very good. I also accept what I say and so we are back to the philosophers’ paradox where I began and of which I spoke. If you like, the energy and direction and lack of it in two separate systems concerning motion can interchange. If you don’t like, OK, but then you are never going to have any possibility of creating inertial propulsion. My contention again is they are interchangeable. If you disagree what are you left with…nothing, no probability, and no possibility. Concerning distance, time and space, we would have to remain basically at our current limit, about ninety thousand miles an hour.
Kirk: “Full impulse speed ahead, Mr. Spock.”
Spock: “Captain that’s only ninety thousand miles per hour. The Clingon’s will cream our ass!”
Kirk: “Mr. Scott this is the captain, explain to Mr. Spark that, Firestone back in the twentieth century eventually reversed himself to allow for a Hotstone gyroscopic impulse power accelerating up to 82% of light speed.”
Scotty: “Eye, eye captain. Mr. Spock what the hell’s wrong this time you greed blooded #%@$?*!”
Mr. Spock: “Engaging full impulse power now, Captain. Scotty this is mighty illogical, Firestone’s convergence of two separate systems, angular to lienaerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.” Zoommmmmmmm! “It workkkkkkkkkkeeeeeedddd Jimmmmmmmmmmm. Scottyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy kisssssssss myyyyyyyyy greennnnnnn bloodeddddddd aaaaaaaaaaaassssss.”
Past time, two separate, self-contained systems exist, one still, one in motion. There is no certainity principle that they will collide. Anything can happen in the approaching present time to distort the path, force, direction and positioning and avert the event of a collision. They are not the same things these past systems. They were not connected by direction into an off center collision. They were once separate entities regardless of lineament toward an uncertain future. We must say that at least once in past time they were separate and were obeying separate Laws with a future unknown. Direction? After the collision the plank is rotating as it travels forward. A Piece on each end of the plank breaks off. That broken tip that was rotating rearward now rests in a stilled position, neither traveling forward, or rearward, but rotating around its center point. Why is not linear momentum changed to angular momentum without a condition of friction prevailing? I tell you this could go on forever, back and forth in argument without end, but is it so hard to see that there are other ways to reason? All ways are invented. Thinking? There isn’t a one way only.
However: Very good, Hotstone. Ouch! In fact, it is most excellent work as I see it. It is so easy to understand you and is such a reflection of your expository skills. As to my philosophical contentions I refer you to my several previous posts including the one above. I’m saying your, the clasical is not the only way to think.
Dear Momentus, ‘ Perfect question to the perfect person here to ask. At a boy! What are you sixty? Excuse me. Way to go man! I was referring to you body not your mind. Is that right? No? Maybe there is no right here. What is the sound of, Suckoooooooo! Suckoooooooo! It is a brain sucker attached to my head coming up empty, brains already drained by life’s horrors somehow you see. What’s this world coming to? Suckoooooooooo! Suckooooooooo! I hear you.
Yes dear Author, can you please find a detailed answer to Momentus’ question. It is a huge question we each have researched for a long time. You’d be the hero of the day. Well… a hero to me then and the sheathing envy of all others.
If the universe had a mind and were compelled to explain itself I doubt it would use the methods of classical mathematics, but instead use mechanics only, very much like I use. Mechanics are real. Mathematics aren’t real, though they clearly are the most magnificent human, planetary, generational, evolved achievement that could ever be possible for a terminal species… they are not real. However our mechanics since the first classical conception are ‘designed’ to follow mathematical patterns. Don’t you consider this is so true and that there must be other ways to view the condition of things and ways that are more real and to study them and attempt to find answers even to that to which none have ever known, that which is ‘where’ energy and matter came form and ‘why’ they act the way they do? Don’t you see our best methods are human invention, but that there must be many other ways to reason this wondrous, magical, unfathomable universe and its workings put in place doubtlessly by a Great Creator, other than the way you’ve been trained to do it? I refer you to my previous posts, all of them. Happy days! Oh happy days. Happy days again. When He was…. Oh when He was, happ…happ…happy days again.
I wasted half a morning diligently explaining several of my special mechanics in proper ways ways without any none-sense. Then I scraped it all. I do this oftin. Boo on that. Booo, booo, booo! Sometimes it’s no fun to do and no fun to read I’m sure. “Captain he’s in the engine room and he’s at it again. He’s changed the fuel equation three times in five minutes.” “Send Mr. Kidd up, Scotty, as my most honored guest at the hem and keep his fuel equations for future.” “Captain what’ll I do with this Author fellow.” “Scotty, give him anything he wants and don’t argue. He brought aboard a switch blade.” “Eye, eye captain. He’s asking for Mr. Kidd. That’s what he wants. He said he’s been following Mr. Kidd through Purgatory and around the seven moons of Predision and will get him good yet.” “Mr. Scott.” “Eye my captain.” “Shut up. Get off the computer. Find something useful to do.” “ Eye, eye, captain.”
All My Best Respectfully,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 04/09/2007 11:19:15
| | | By accident found one I didn't delete yesterday.
Imagine a simple gyroscope to which you are going to add parts. All around the outside rim you glue small, see-through Plexiglas square boxes. You have inserted a pea in each box. Each pea is elastic so that when pressure is applied they flatten like pancakes between a pressure that will push them outward during rotation, which is centrifuge and that pressure of the Plexiglas sides of the boxes anchored to the wheel that furnish resistance to pressure. The rubber peas are as if stepped on and flattened if you will. The flattening shows us a direction of force.
Rotate the gyro with the above outside boxes attached and over-hang the gyro from a fulcrum. Give a moment’s thought to what you know so well. That is, that matter rotating in a plain resist being changed to another plain and that the heavier, faster, greater the diameter, the greater the resistance to changing plains of spin, and that the faster the change (tilting) is forced (mechanically) the still greater is the resistance.
So, as our funny looking imaginary gyroscope is rotating we physically force it to tilt downward very fast. The vertical decent during horizontal precession we will determine at about 45 degrease. Now it is time to imagine this new condition of force upon the peas. The peas we know are already under the force of angular momentum that multiplies the force of inertia resistance to sideways tilting off a spin plain many times over. Much force is required to cause our funny gyro to tilt. The peas react against this new force of tilt. They are already flattening outward toward centrifuge, now they are also flattened into the sides of the Plexiglas boxes, force by their own resistance to tilting. This new flattening shows us a new and an additional direction of force. Now it is time to draw little arrows emitting from the peas. (Hi Author.) The arrows are force vectors, the directions dictated by the flatting of the elastic peas. Here it is important to note and remember that the horizontal force directions will never change. Once sideways force is enacted upon the peas the direction of that force reaction will remain constant though the peas are in rotation and also are in precession and the gyro is constantly changing place and position, still always directional force initiated on the peas remain unchanged and obey the equal and opposite Law no matter what other forces may begin to add to them. The arrows, the result of forces, imagined in increments of rotation, each degree of rotation if you will and degree of tilting… never change directions. Consider thirty-six peas in rotation at different times and places. (Hi Author, I’m in trouble now, right? Seventy two arrows and more coming?)
Now rest and imagine just any old gyro precessing around and around a pedestal then... .. Around this precessing circle we are going to imagine placing outside, three high-speed cameras. Looking down at the path from overhead place the cameras at 1 o’clock, 2 o’clock and 3 o’clock. Note again that the cameras will flash into a sideways view in sequence as the funny gyro precesses by sideways. Now you can collective the negatives, stack them on top of one another and see what is indicated and reason what will be your nest step. Note each pea has two arrows. What is the direction when these two victors are added? Can you see the past positions of force related to the new positions of the gyro? From hear you most of everything you ever wanted to know if you try. Maybe you can see how I treat these dual revolving pressures from past to present as collisions and deflections. You can perhaps contunue until you know everything you ever wanted to know from these negitives along with with a contunuing effort apply them-- if you try. The idea of collisions I use in many other ways even more revealing. You would be surprised.
So go from here if you like. Play mental calisthenics, until you can imagine the above backward and forwards. Practice makes what? Perfect. Later I may continue and finish this up if you haven’t. I don’t know if anybody wants it. It’s not fun is it? Then what’s fun? Mr. Spock said to Captain Kirk: “Matty told Hatty about a thing she saw.
Had two big horns and a wooly jaw.
Wooly bully, wooly bully.
Wooly bully, wooly bully, wooly bully.
Hatty told Matty, "Let's don't take no chance.
Let's not be L-seven, come and learn to dance."
Wooly bully, wooly bully
Wooly bully, wooly bully, wooly bully.
Matty told Hatty, "That's the thing to do.
Get you someone really to pull the wool with you."
Wooly bully, wooly bully.
Wooly bully, wooly bully, wooly bully.”
You see! I can be sensible finding sensibility in all things through out the universe, wooly bully, wooly bully. 'It don’t make no sense to you? Well… keep trying my friend.
The fun of collisions? Here is a little ditty to play with if it pleases you. An astronaut throws two balls inside his capsule. Each hits the oboist side. One bounces back and is captured by the astronaut and the other hits and stick to the wall of the opposite side. Some of the energy is used in the deformity of the bouncing ball, heat loss. In the ball that sticks some of the energy is splattered at a right angles, heat loss. In both cases you study collision, deformity, molecular remembrance and deflection. Question: How do the mechanics work in both instances to conserve the Third Law, also the law of thermodynamics, both of which hold true here… how dose balls, astronaut and spacecraft each react to preserve the Laws in all situations? If you like.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 04/09/2007 14:32:22
| | | "Question: How do the mechanics work in both instances to conserve the Third Law, also the law of thermodynamics, both of which hold true here… how dose balls, astronaut and spacecraft each react to preserve the Laws in all situations? If you like."
TThis is simply elastic vs. inelastic collisions. The first detail is when the astronaut throws the ball he is using energy and imparting momentum and kinetic energy to both the ball and his ship. If the ball sticks all kinetic energy will be lost and the momentum of the ship will be canceled out by the momentum of the ball, but the center of mass of the whole system will not have moved even though the ship itself has moved slightly. If the ball bounces the separate momentums of the ball and ship will be reversed and reduced by some amount related the loss of kinetic energy during the bounce (note: the total combined momentum has never changed. It is zero throughout the whole process if the ship stated out at rest). However whatever the loss is, the momentum of the ball will still be equal and opposite to the momentum of the ship so if the astronaut catches the ball we would be right back to where we stated. There is no way to propel a spaceship by this method; at least none that I know of.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 04/09/2007 18:59:52
| | | Of course there is no way to propel a ship this way. I’m not a foolish man. I never subjected there was. In fact any such propulsion of a kind different than is in use or, powered not by gyroscopic actions is most impossible— absolutely most imposable. I am not the fool. By the way, “Who is the greater fool? The fool, or the fool who follows the fool?” Shakespeare. Did you think you were following my way of thinking for a little ways? Just kidding. Don’t take me seriously. Everyone knows better—right?
The ditty astronaut puzzle was put there only in case anybody might enjoy solving it. I was pretty sure that ‘anybody’ would be you. I hope you found some pleasure in attacking the poor little thing so quickly, so easily, so deadly and so correctly. Still there's much more to it to be explained than you've first thought and wrote.
Now here is the point I’ve reiterated several times in the above last two threads. It is this: There are different ways to pursue the same thing, yet come up with the same conclusion. More surprisingly I claim it is possible to pursue certain truths, tunefully in different ways and arrive at different answers. I think my solution, different from yours, is correct. Do you remember how this started?
You said, “…So yes you can say you can convert a straight line motion to a rotating motion without breaking Newton. However that sill doesn’t imply you can build a drive with a gyroscope. Actually I’m not even sure the whole question has any relevance to the feasibility of gyroscopic propulsion. I mean we are talking about a collision here.”
I have been countering, that angular momentum can be converted to linear momentum without the use of friction and that this is the way to inertial propulsion, and yes the hold world, except for some here, is against me and against them. I should have better sense, huh? but there is much supporting physical evidence for me-- for them too I think.
In thoughts, I collide a lot of things in stop action mental frames to visualize the how and why of gyroscopic actions. Did I explain this before?
The astronaut puzzle: Unrelated at first, but in retrospect the little puzzle may have suddenly become a way of showing different methods of correct thinking, which was my point remember, and that yet reveal the same truths and sometimes tunefully different truths. I’ll give it a try. See what you think.
No! I will not. I’ve done this before on an engineering site. I dread doing it again. It worked me pretty hard the first time, but I remember the solutions and it wouldn’t be so hard to do it again, but I don’t want to. You know I can do it. I must apply myself elsewhere for a time. You aren’t really interested anyway, are you?
So Long for a while. Happy trails to you, till we meat again. Gety-up Trigger,
Roy Rodgers
“SPOCK… SPOCK, DOES THIS GUY EVEN KNOW WHO THE HELL HE IS?”
“HE’S NOT SERIOUS CAPTAIN. HE GETS BORED.”
“WILL HE BE OK WHEN HE COMES BACK?”
“AFFIRMATIVE CAPTAIN. ITS JUST HIS TIME FOR THE FIRST ROUND OF CHEMO.”
Wish me luck everyone.
Geoff, are you there, buddy?
Otherwise this has all become none-sense anyway. It’s my fault. I hope to get back to altering my machine design. It’s not complicated to me any more, but I wonder why I have such troubles with it? Have I grown so tired of it all in absence of any physical success during these long years? I wonder. I wonder if I can eventually proceed again, since the time I believe and believed I knew all that I needed to know. I have been so completely… Stopped… yes, and I don’t understand why.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/09/2007 14:02:14
| | | Ram,
I must tell you it seems you are likely right and I wrong. I’ve taken time I see how your angled twisting hub in the pedestal socket could use friction to right an overhung gyro. It’s odd and not simple. At normal horizontal precession the cage hardly rotates. At 45 degrease to vertical the cage rotates very fast as you clearly pointed out. A forward nutation is what causes the gyro to rise. Though the hub of the axel is rotating in its pedestal cup it is not precisely the forty-five degrees that causes the gyro rise. It is that, half of this 45 degrees which can be thought of as 22.5 degrees effect to vertical, which 'attempts only' to makes the gyro register a minuscule extra force downward on the table, but it is the 22.5 degrees effect to horizontal that causes a forward nutation which causes the lift.
Remember that when a gyro is precessing you took your finger, or a pen (I’m sure you have.) and made the gyro move faster horizontally. When you did it rose upward. Nitro nailed it when he made a law to explain a gyro will precess any way, from any 90 degrees angel you apply force, not just the first way you thought of it. When the horizontal part of the hub spin makes the gyro move faster in precession from force from the inside spin, its just same as your finger, or pin forced the gyro to move faster from the outside. Both, or either causes the gyro rises. For this to happen it must begin from 45 to vertical and it does depend on friction.
I’m different. I always try hard for the truth like everyone, but I haven’t a care admitting I’m wrong. It is the ‘end’ that is important. I demand the truth in the ‘end’ for myself if I can get it. I’ve struggle a lot. I accept all the help I can get.
Anyway Ram, I complement you for being correct, I’m pretty sure you are. Well done.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 09/09/2007 15:58:10
| | | "Anyway Ram, I complement you for being correct, I’m pretty sure you are. Well done.
Glenn,"
Well thanks, but it really not a huge deal. It's just something I figured out doing the simple experiments that have done. Tops generally stand up and gyroscopes generally drop down.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 10/09/2007 02:11:25
| | | You noticed this difference in tops and gyros. You noticed the near vertical gyro spun its cage and axel hub in a way that horizontal precession didn’t, and that a top did the same in spinning the point of its cone. You put two and two together.
I eventually realized the mechanics that support you well enough if my explanations are understood.
The gyro has been around for 100 years. There are five billion humans on the planet. The little gyro has been examined and researched by the best. In all my searching I never found that anyone had reached this conclusion of yours. I find no other explanations than ours and I know we’re right. Several times I checked. I set up the gyro to 45 degrees beginnings, but did not allow the cage and hub to rotate. The gyro never climbed.
Simple is not simple, until it is understood, then its simple. It was under everyone’s noses, apparently none saw. You did pretty well. Don’t Aw-shucks me, or yourself.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Herman Holushko - 14/03/2010 03:48:45
| | | I have an interest in the subject of gyroscopic thrust. Recently I repeated one of Laithwaite's experiment and found that the gyroscopic thrust exists.
Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWl3FqpobYI
After the analysis of the results I got to the conclusion that the vector of the thrust (in this experiment) is directed along the axis of the gyroscope disk rotation.
The trust exists only on the condition of precession.
I wrote an article about it, but so far it is in Russian
http://bourabai.kz/ei/gyrothrust.pdf
English version is on the way.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 15/03/2010 21:44:34
| | |
Привет Герман Holushko,
Фонарик был умным устройством слежения. Да, это вариант того, что профессор Laithwaite
продемонстрировали. Некоторые из его наиболее впечатляющих экспериментах не имеется. Они включали в себя повесить на гироскоп и рядом игрушечный поезд, который затем была обусловлена гироскоп через слегка изогнутые дорожки. Что ты сделал он назвал массовое движение. Я использую очень разные версии, что себя в дизайне пытается завершить.
Что мы видим в вашей видео в некоторых отношениях отличается от общей идее массового движения. Да, это что движется прецессии гироскопа вокруг центральной точки, но это центрифуга, что движется ваш внешний гироскоп против угловой тянуть струны. В начале там меньше центрифуг, но дальнейшее центрифуги тянет гироскоп наружу больше становится центрифуги. Вот почему путь изложенные фонарик непрерывный внешний спирали. Если я не ошибаюсь, профессор не думаю, что было намного центрифуги и, возможно, нет. Очевидно, что весьма очевидно, как ваш эксперимент показывает, профессор был неправ.
Я с Google Планета Земля перевести эту связь. Я надеюсь, что доза не выходить как бред.
Привет,
Glenn
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
A copy in English
Hi Herman Holushko,
The flashlight was a clever tracking device. Yes, it is a version of what Professor Laithwaite demonstrated. Some of his most impressive experiments are not available. They involved hanging a gyroscope onto and beside a toy train, which then was propelled by the gyro through a very slightly curved track. What you have done he called mass movement. I use a very different version of that myself in a design trying to complete.
What we see in your video is in some ways different from the general idea of mass movement. Yes, it is precession that moves the gyro around a center point, but it is centrifuge that moves your gyro outward against the angular pull of the string. At the beginning there is less centrifuge, but the further centrifuge pulls the gyro outward the greater becomes the centrifuge. That is why the path outlined by the flashlight is a continuous outward spiral. If I am not mistaken, the professor did not think there was much centrifuge and perhaps none. Obviously, very obviously as your experiment shows, the professor was wrong.
I am having Google Earth translate this communication. I hope it dose not come out as gibberish.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 29/03/2010 06:05:13
| | | Yes, Glenn. We know. But, why does the gyro on a string move from outward toward the spot beneath the string?
Glenn, “Centrifuge!”
No Glenn. Centrifuge would pull the gyro outward from the overhanging string.
Glenn, “ Reverse centrifuge!!”
No Glenn, There is no such thing as that. Why does the gyro move back inside?
Glenn, “Temporary Un-centrifuge!!!”
No Glenn.
Glenn, “None-trifuge!!!!”
No Glenn. What is pulling the gyro inward?
Glenn, “Fictitious newbontic centrifugeus deflections!!!!!”
No Glenn. The answer is centipede. What causes it?
Glenn, “ I don’t know. Ask Sandy Kidd. He’s the one that thinks a hanging gyro sometimes moves back into the center.”
But it does, Glenn. It does.
Glenn, “Well, whenever it does it, it’s got something to do with black holes and worm holes, werewolves and dual universes !!”
No stupid. Inward movement may have something to with the gyro tilting toward the string, or away from it.
Glenn, “ I stand by my statement!!!!!!!!!”
What was your statement?
Glenn, “Well, I don’t quite rightly remember just now.”
You said a gyroscope never produces force inward.
Glenn, “I might have. I might have.”
Do you retract your statement? . . . Where did he go. . . . He’s gone. . . I’ve never seen anybody vanish that fast.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Herman Holushko - 27/03/2011 17:36:23
| | | Hi guys!
These are core questions:
>No Glenn. What is pulling the gyro inward?
>Glenn, “Fictitious newbontic centrifugeus deflections!!!!!”
>No Glenn. The answer is centipede. What causes it?
>Glenn, “ I don’t know. Ask Sandy Kidd. He’s the one that thinks a hanging gyro sometimes moves back into the center.”
>But it does, Glenn. It does.
Yes, it definitely moves back into center sometimes.
Finally, I translated my article into English. Probably there you will find answers there.
Here it is: http://bourabai.kz/articles/Gyrothrust_eng.pdf
Regards, Herman
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 30/03/2011 23:00:36
| | | I did not write those nutty things. If I, did I must have been temporarily in very poor health indeed or at least drunk as hell.
About the time that thread was written, someone here was posting using another person’s identity, pretending to be that person. All the old timers know it happened. I suppose he did it to me to. I didn’t know he did, until now.
You shouldn’t attribute that four-year old foolishness to me.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
