|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
23 November 2024 20:28
|
|
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: |
Kirk Harper |
| Subject: |
Short-sighted nay-sayers |
| Question: |
Where do people like some of the postees to this site get off by actively seeking to undermine free thought by displaying a shocking amount of ignorance in good manners. these people know who they are, i shan't pick on any one person in particular, suffice to say that professor laithwaite was an inspiration to not a few of us, and the mathematics that prove a gyro cannot work are total and utter,....... rubbish!!! (i didn't think the webmaster would have allowed me to truly vent my feelings just there). A large amount of the people visiting and posting on this site are convinced that propulsion derived from gyro's is not only possible, but indeed essential, to further our understanding of matters far too numerous to go into by typing. suffice to say that it would make the solar system a much smaller place. If we, as free thinking, envelope pushing, rule bending explorers, allow these sort of people to undermine what we each hold dear to our heart, that is, our own beliefs that commercially viable forms of transport can be powered by gyroscopic motors. then the world is indeed in a sad and sorry state. to these people and others of their ilk i say, "STOP URINATING ON OUR BONFIRE" We are not hurting anybody, quite the contrary, we wish to forward the progress of mankind! (yeah, yeah, we may just get nobel prizes, huge bank accounts, recognised on the streets that are named after us and statues) is there anything wrong in what we are attempting to achieve, or is there a conspiracy of mis-information, whose sole purpose is to dissuade even the most stalwart supporter of the theories being bandied about on this site. |
| Date: |
11 November 2004
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 12/11/2004 19:37:22
| | | Free thought is only served when everyone can state their opinion. I would say a certain amount of civility should be maintained, however dissenting opinions are definitely part of the processes. The fact remains that there is still no credible evidence to support gyroscopic or any other kind of inertial propulsion. I have done a few experiments and many thought experiments but nothing I have done has ever proven successful. That's not to say that gyroscopic propulsion is absolutely impossible. Possibly I simply don't have the right ideas. However given that it contradicts established laws of physics, it is up to proponents of the idea to prove it works. So far no one has even come close. It is therefore not suppressing that the scientific community thinks it is a waste of time. To me having faith in an idea is worse than being a skeptic. Before we can say gyroscopic propulsion actually works it must be proven with hard unambiguous testing.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Kirk Harper - 13/11/2004 12:48:25
| | | Ram, people like you do NOT fall into the category that my churlish outburst was directed towards, indeed not. you say it probably won't work but still attemp to make it work. Whereas, others say it's impossible, and strive to undermine any confidence or faith that some may have in their own beliefs. These people are dangerous, not only to themselves for their total ignorance of potential, but to others who could quite easily be coaxed down to their level. To these people i say, Let the human mind soar!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
SANDY KIDD - 16/11/2004 12:42:09
| | | RAM,
You appear to be in a bit of a quandary as to the possibility of obtaining inertial thrust using gyroscopes.
Please do not take offence, at what I am about to ask, in fact I will aim this at all parties, except maybe NM, because I think I know what he is trying to do.
Let me say firstly, a working inertial drive must operate contrary to, or outside the bounds of accepted principles.
If you accept that, how do you aim to find a breach in physics to exploit?
You realise that you could be looking for a needle in a haystack, with no guarantee there’s a needle in the haystack anyway?
And why use gyroscopes anyway?
1 Is this intuition on your part?
2 The apparent mystical properties of gyroscopes?
3 The result of published claims by others?
Very interested to know
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 16/11/2004 16:58:51
| | | No point letting it upset you.
There has been no significant breakthrough yet in trying to develope gyroscopic drives. This is all power to those who say it is not possible bu it does not mean that they are right.
My only concern is the time scales involved in producing working prototypes. My own is so close yet still awaiting some essential parts before testing. Has already been a year since first commissioned. What's happening with your prototypes NM, Sandy, Glen etc..
DaveS
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 16/11/2004 17:08:13
| | | Sorry Nitro, know what's holding you up now.
What's "Son of a gun" ?
Kirk, we have endured ridicule, insults, arguments, logical disagreements for a very long time. Some has been justified, some is just i gnorance. I just hope that one of us cracks it so that we can thumb our noses at them. (being very adult about it all)
DaveS
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 16/11/2004 20:28:07
| | | Dear Kirk,
I was going to write to say that it is a waste of effort trying to change others points of view with anger - though I am sure your anger is understood by others who have sought help on this path. However, your later reply to Ram shows that your anger has abated after your bit of spleen venting.
There are so many cranks out there and probably in here, that some forbearance of the sceptical view has to be shown as well. (Though the sceptic view seems to me an engineer’s one, in that they both believe that the crank should be piston….. That probably works better on the wireless)
It will not be until the weight of evidence becomes sufficient to tilt the scale of sceptical opinion that the subject will be judged, measured, and finally accepted by all. Those gifted (cursed) with foresight will already have picked up sufficient information about the gyro-dynamic displacement of mass to be convinced that the production of an overall unidirectional force created by a mechanism and acting upon that mechanism is a foregone conclusion.
Those lacking that gift (curse) will have to learn to wait patiently until either they too absorb sufficient information about the disparities within existing “laws” to convince them, or until one of us gifted (cursed) ones cares enough about others opinions to get the finger out to make the machinery that will show the others what we are banging on about.
Congratulations if you have read this far - you are clearly very bright (or oldish and therefore waffleproof). Not much more to go now…………..
Turning to Ram’s reply:- I don’t think that it is a matter of your not having the right ideas Ram, I believe it to be a matter of being able to observe in a particular way - perhaps you (and any other reader) would like to watch the Heretic video on this site - specifically the gyro pendulum about seven minutes in - and tell me what you see. I would value the insight of your views.
You perhaps believe Ram, that there exists “hard unambiguous testing” of the (what I see as sometimes nutty) theories that come from such places as CERN. To me such a belief would seem suspiciously like the faith you frown upon.
All who push the envelope of our knowledge have to start with faith in an idea. That starting faith has indeed eventually to be tested before it can justify others faith. Such testing must be expected to take some time and the further removed from mainstream science the idea, the greater will be the time required for testing and acceptance because the mainstream experts will be more reluctant to put their expertise on the line to help so the poor inventor has to progress his idea way (Oh! way - waaay) past the normal point of proof. (‘Sall right the sentence has ended - you can all breath again!)
For this reason some of our most important and fundamental understandings in science took absolutely ages to be accepted by “the establishment” who have many (Oh! Sooo many.) times proved themselves more likely to hold back than to lead.
Oh, Dear! I seem to have inadvertently lied about there not being much more of this. So, anyone who got this far is quite obviously of genius quality (Or very old indeed.).
Kind regards
NM
PS As I seemed to have been risking taking over the forum of late I held back from sending the above. However:
Dear Sandy,
Thank you for (perhaps foolishly) implying that I might know what I’m doing. I have always liked to think so but the higher authority (the wife) persists in questioning this, in most things. She seems to think, though, that I’ve got it right with impulse drive - why does that worry me?
Dear DaveS,
You are so lucky to have someone else’s rear to kick for your delays (though, as good engineers are rare I would recommend restraint). As I am making (throwing together) “the machine” myself I can only kick myself (have you any idea how difficult that is?).
I hope to “fire up” a device within the next month or two, though as my engineering is “carp” don’t hold your breath. With luck it will give me more insight, with a miracle it might be the fast repeater.
Glad to see that you are still able to be adult about it all and can still laugh. I can laugh too, though sometimes it sounds unnervingly close to an insane cackle.
Dear All,
You may like to witness the continuing wild swings of accuracy of our own sweet Aunty Beeb. A short while ago their web site seemed to express the opinion that our own dear Eric Laithwaite was justifiably slapped down by the establishment for trying to suggest that impulse drive was possible. Now if you look up Eric Laithwaite on their site under “Historic Figures” The first paragraph says …..“His work on gyroscopes produced the world’s first thrustless propulsion system.”
I would have thought that a thrustless propulsion system was an oxymoron. The Beeb Beeb Ceeb fails to say who is the oxymoron who wrote the latest tosh.
Enough waffle already, my human mind is sore.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kiidd - 17/11/2004 09:57:53
| | | RAM
I have in my possession, an official laboratory report, carried out by professionals, in the most prestigious laboratory in the Southern Hemisphere.
20 runs out of 20, non-zero results, suggests, certainly to me, that inertial drive, has already been achieved.
As Jerry Pournelle stated in “A Step Farther Out” the production of only one gram of non-Newtonian thrust and physics is in real trouble.
Good book for inertial drive freaks by the way. Out of print, but I recently managed to get an excellent condition, hard-backed copy from the States.
Someone is still holding on to my original copy.
A very well known professor commented that if the lab results were for anything else, he would have accepted them.
The implications frightened the hell out of him.
He also said he would really like to support me, but would really like to be able return to work on Monday. I did admire his honesty.
Eric Laithwaite must have been a brave man.
The prof’s colleague however, was not so amenable, said it was absolute garbage, and refused to read it. The professor had good reason to be afraid.
Sheer and utter, academic ignorance, and arrogance. Had a lot of that, but have recorded all the names and comments for future use.
I really do believe some of them think they are the custodians of all knowledge.
Sandy will now answer his own question.
I myself thought I needed gyroscopes for a specific purpose
Spanners in space. Levers without a heel. That’s what they were to me.
They were introduced basically to enhance an idea I had put together many years previously, but that’s another long story.
The idea itself was seriously flawed. Things turned out not to be as commonly believed. If my old memory serves me correctly I think the correct word to describe accepted theory would be specious.
I have tried my best, to help by telling you, most of what I have discovered.
I have explained where, and why the laws break down.
I have described the experiment in detail.
I think that I have given enough information, for anyone with even a little bit of spatial aptitude, and who believes my findings, (why should they?) to see the big picture.
Sandy is trying to save you years of graft with no return, apart from the totally selfish motives of proving me right.
Howsoever as they say you can take a horse to water.
Otherwise RAM, if you are lucky, and continue to run, or just walk with it, allow yourself a target to completion, of about 20 years.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 23/11/2004 21:17:11
| | | Sandy,
As I'm sure you know, lab results must be verifiable. This means that other scientists must be able to perform the same tests and achieve the same results. In the presence of gravity non-zero results are hard to measure accurately. There is always the possibility of false positives. That's not to say your tests were not successful but until they can be repeated by several labs it's very to say conclusively that gyroscopic propulsion works. Personally I still like the pendulum tests because I think it's harder to fool, however I agree that it may have some deficiencies.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 24/11/2004 12:52:51
| | | Ram.
I will accept, and agree, with everything you say as far as verification is concerned.
Trouble is who wants to verify inertial drive in the first place.
Everybody wants it, but nobody will accept that it can be done.
That particular series of runs were carried out well over 15 years ago.
I have not exactly had to fight off agencies, interested in verifying the results.
Only one agency has been genuinely interested. To that agency I am eternally grateful, and I do think they are well aware of the conclusion.
No one, but no one else, has offered to test, or shown any interest at all in an independent analysis of the device’s capabilities.
But I can always remember the time when I was requested to allow someone to examine my first machine. Thought some interested party was attempting to repeat my experiment.
Like an idiot I allowed it.
It was removed from its frame and sent out for examination.
Next thing I knew, it was shown on BBC’s “Tomorrow’s World” in my absence with the soul purpose of, and succeeding in, making a damn fool of me.
The same old junk with a bicycle wheel, on a seat, which could rotate when the gyro was accelerated.
Then they weighed a gyro on a set of scales running and stopped, and making stupid statements about me claiming weight loss.
I was systematically ridiculed in front of several million viewers, by a couple of persons bearing “household names”, who had probably become experts in gyroscopes in all of about 10 minutes, before the program was recorded.
They say you grow more cynical as you get older.
My cynicism has been helped along quite considerably by this apparently normal reaction to inertial drive.
Howsoever, Ram, I can imagine myself, back around the age of 30.
Long time ago now but even then with several years of engineering experience behind me, much of this in R & D departments.
If asked for my opinion at the time, I have to admit, I would have had no hesitation in saying the thing was impossible, and anyone, participating in this kind of venture, would be needing their head read.
So all in all Ram, I can’t really say I am surprised by this kind of reaction.
At least you can behave in a civilised manner about the whole thing, and you don’t even have to believe a single word of any of it.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 26/11/2004 09:08:30
| | | Shed Dwellers
Further to my recent reply to RAM, I would like to add, that we should never lose sight of the fact, that with or without verification, total inertial drive might already have been achieved.
By total in this context, I mean the complete or nearly complete conversion of all the system accelerated mass to thrust, instead of the slightly better than marginal effects, that only up until quite recently, have been obtained.
I personally believe that total inertial drive, could very well have been already achieved.
If a device has been developed as part of a research project, or has been subject to a patent application, I think it would be fair to suggest that it would now be subject to government control, in the interests of national security.
Any associated reference or proposed publication would of course be restricted and covered at least by “D Notice” or similar.
In effect it would appear that such a device had never existed.
It pains me to think of all the work I / we have put into these projects, being totally wasted because of the possibility of it all having been done before.
Gyroscopes with their almost mystical properties have been around a long time.
In light of this I myself am somewhat surprised that success with gyroscopically initiated inertial drive has not been previously reported.
We are certainly not attempting to do anything with gyroscopes now, which could not have been done, decades ago.
Sandy Kidd.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 27/11/2004 15:09:57
| | | Dear Sandy (and Ram and Dave and all),
Sorry to repeat a theme; our education systems as well as starting by opening doors to our understanding then precedes to close many doors to paths that our educators, mostly correctly, believe lead to time wasting dead ends. Therefore, all of us when younger (not just you Sandy) would have had no hesitation in advising someone who suggested unidirectional force were possible to “get a life”.
Trouble is that one or two (well several actually) things in my long experience cropped up to cause me to wander - tentatively at first - down paths that seemed they might lead somewhere. To my amazement, some of them actually did lead somewhere.
Sandy, I believe that you, (I must get hold of your book!) and several others, found an all confirming (to someone able to look farther down the path) “one shot” machine. What I’ve seen of your patent (sorry to be so nosey) would indicate this. Succeeding with the next stage, the repeat cycle machine - nearly killed my interest (and my finances) and the fast repeater (though I believe it is nearly there) remains an absolute cow.
The problem for people like Ram (interested but sceptical?) is that the one shot machine (although able to produce whacking great single impulses of unidirectional force) can, to the untrained eye look just a bit too like a “stick slip machine”. Hell! These are difficult, even for someone who has trod the first steps, to understand. Therefore it’s damn nigh impossible for someone who has not trod those first steps to distinguish the “one shot” from the misleading time wasting quackery that I hate. However Ram, I promise that eventually you will find your curiosity here will bear fruit. (By the way Ram, have you seen seven mins. into the Heresy vid. on this site yet? Let me know your thoughts on it.)
As I am (mostly) unknown, I can receive no benefit from pushing quackery. I (and I am sure, Sandy and others) want nothing but the advancement of understanding. Acknowledgment, perhaps with a little fame and wealth thrown in later would be nice too, of course. Although, as stated above I want advancement of understanding I admit to holding back on details. I have recently found a further way of producing “the effect” and I don’t feel I should give others a lead in case the amount of acknowledgement, perhaps with a little fame and wealth thrown in is affected. I don’t trust the patent system to protect my lead.
Reading how you, Sandy were shafted by our own Beeb Beeb Ceeb (shades of poor Eric Laithwaite) sadly shows the kind of battering suffered by honourable people striving, mostly on their own, to advance the understanding of others. I get sad when I see the feeding frenzy of the “establishment” which anyone with something truly new seems to have to suffer from if they try to just get acknowledgement (or even a fair examination). History just keeps on repeating itself.
You are right Sandy, that “total inertial drive” has already been achieved but don’t for one moment think that a government will look twice at a patent application disclosing how it is to be done. I don’t know what government department now exists to promote innovation in the UK, but it used to be the NRDC (National research and development corporation - I think) long ago when I was alive. Any poor shed dwelling inventor approaching them would have swiftly discovered that almost the only innovation that they promoted was that from other government departments, government run Universities and the like.
If you gave one of the then government’s scientists a total inertial drive machine to hold and it dragged him screaming across the floor he would tell you (with regret - of course) that “they” would not be taking an interest in it. The real reason for this would be
1. He wants a nice simple life until his highly pensioned retirement. And/or……
2. He doesn’t want to risk being eaten alive be his peer group, as Eric Laithewaite was.
3. He may want to try and make one himself. (not likey due to lack of fire).
There are several patents for inertial drive out there that would really produce at least one unopposed impulse (There are also shed-loads off “utter clock” patents as well, especially in America because the US patent office will, unlike the UK, process patents for “impossible machines”) (Guess why mine is still accepted for process here?) which would have justified the efforts of a research department to develop into “the fast repeater”. You won’t however, find some secret government bunker with government scientist beavering away on it while slinging “D” notices in every direction. They will instead, be far too busy competing with each other to think up the most stupid name for the next sub atomic particle or dripping ricin on some poor sod “cold research” volunteer’s arm to find out how much is needed to kill him.
Cynical, Moi?
Kind regards
NM
PS Got to return to the “shed”. Apparently, I have to put up, as I quite obviously won’t shut up.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 29/11/2004 07:31:13
| | | Dear NM
I do assume by “one-shot” machines, you mean mechanisms that will only produce a half cycle pulse.
One way this effect can be obtained from a device is to shut the gyros rapidly when the gyro is floating / in precession (how I hate this term) / saturation.
One heavy pulse is what you get, and the cycle is non-repeatable, a bit like the Laithwaite / Evans carriage.
I think to turn the Laithwaite / Evans device, into a successful inertial drive, is a task Sandy would not like to take on in a hurry.
I can see this challenge being fraught with all kinds of hassles.
No NM Sandy’s machines all repeat, which as you suggest is fundamental to success.
The trick was finding out how to repeat.
This is why I belaboured “differential” for a while. The mechanism for repeating.
There is plenty in there for the taking.
At this point Newton’s Laws have to be set aside.
“A mass cannot be moved and returned without expending the same amount of energy each way ”. So we are told.
This “fact” would appear to knock inertial drive right on the head.
BUT DOES IT?
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 29/11/2004 19:14:02
| | |
I'm not sure what is meant by "one-shot". I assume this is a machine that for some reason cannot be reset. But why can't it be reset? If you put this machine in space with no velocity and then trigger it are you saying that at the end of it's shot, that the machine will then have some velocity and continue to coast until it is stopped by some other force? Or will the machine just move some distance and stop? I would like to point out that the latter can be achieved just by moving a heavy internal mass around. The whole machine appears to move however the center of mass actually stays in the same place.
Now if we are talking about the former then it's a true drive. However if this worked then there should be no reason why it could not be reset, at least according to Newton. In fact in this phase Newton's laws actually help you. According to Newton you would be able to move any internal masses without actually effecting the velocity of the whole machine. So in essence we want to ignore Newton during a thrust phase and respect Newton during the reset phase.
I guess the bottom line is if you can show a Newtonian a "one-shot" machine, they can show you a repeater. Therefore all you need to do is demonstrate a "one-shot" machine. They main problem is how do you test it in the presence of gravity?
NM, as for the "heresy" video, I have not seen it. I looked for it but I didn't find it on this site. Probably I just don't know where to look. I'll watch it if you post a link.
As for conservation of energy, this is tricky business and I don't think it's fruitful. Energy goes into all sorts of places; heat, sound etc. To try and prove IP on this basis is difficult. What needs to be demonstrated is a flaw in conservation of momentum. I have never seen this done. The closest I've seen is James Woodward's experiment on mass fluctuation. Strictly speaking this doesn't even break conservation of momentum since he is claming you can change the mass of an object. I'm not sure if anyone else has verified Woodward's experiment so we will have to wait and see if it pans out.
Even relativity includes conservation of momentum. Einstein included it because he thought it was elegant. The relativistic mass you hear about is not true mass. If it was, it would be obvious how to build an IP drive. This would mean a spinning disk would be slightly harder to accelerate than a non spinning one. Relativistic mass is therefore a directional (vector) quantity. For instance a particle traveling near the speed of light in one direction can be accelerated perpendicular to it's path relatively easily. However to accelerate in it's current direction requires an exponentially increasing amount of energy, so much so it can never reach the speed of light.
I'm not sure I even fully understand this concept myself. I mean you can imagine trying to accelerate a spinning disk traveling near the speed of light perpendicular to it's axis. Now the mass on one side of the disk is traveling faster than the mass on the other. It would seem the non-spinning disk would still accelerate more easily. I'm probably missing something.
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
SANDY KIDD - 30/11/2004 07:40:07
| | | NM, RAM and other Shed Dwellers.
I apologise for my misunderstanding of your problems relating to “repeating”
Thought this was / and maybe it is some kind of mechanism you guys had thought up and were exploiting. It was only from your last posting NM that I twigged what your problem was.
To what you fellow inventors are calling repeatability I have been calling differential. Repeatability and differential, if I have got my head round this at last, are facets of the same thing.
They require a breach in our “normal” understanding of physics to operate.
To “repeat” requires a breach of the 3rd Law.
The device must create a repeatable bias to operate, delivering unequal half cycles to create unidirectional thrust.
Just because it is getting near Christmas Sandy will give you all a gift here.
With the aid of a suitably designed cam (15 old technology here, not totally nuts yet) differential / repeatability is relatively easily achieved.
Nasty but consistent. I have been hunting for better ways to do this thing for 15 years. Not so easy but there are much better ways. Said enough.
NM. I assume this was the American patent to which you were referring.
The cam should be designed to lift the gyro and its support arm rapidly, like one of your 731 or 648 “S” camshafts. Flat face, high lift.
This applies such a rotational brake on the gyroscope and its support arm that its angular momentum is transferred to the machine itself.
If the complete device is suspended by a wire, the machine will accelerate until the gyro and its support arm are clear of the cam, then the machine will return rapidly to where it started,
In the meantime, the gyro and its support arm which were considerably slowed climbing the cam, will shoot off rapidly in, delivering a pulse of repeatable, non Newtonian thrust. Note. Gyro speed is constant.
Remember what Sandy said about angular momentum loss and rotation speeds.
You can all figure out for yourselves what is going on.
“They” won’t like this but here is the proof.
My thanks to Scott Strachan, who implanted the use of cams in my head.
You now also know why I know Scott’s machine was genuine.
If RAM wants a place to start, here is a free gift for you. Save you about 10 years. This device was the subject of the lab test previously mentioned.
You can now do your own verification. Thanking you RAM.
Forget the pendulum test with this one. Take my point?
To NM The patent you saw mentioned nothing about this differential.
A twin gyro system based on this philosophy will deliver continuous pulsative thrust for as long as is necessary.
I am not suggesting this repeating mechanism is any good for your purposes NM, but it has got to be food for thought.
This device could be developed much farther, but I am greedy and want it all.
Depending on relative speeds and gyro weights the device will also deliver positive or negative thrust as required.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 30/11/2004 12:45:52
| | | Ok I’ve watched the video (thanks Kirk for sending me the link). I must say it was more interesting than I expected. Most of what I saw didn’t surprise me. For instance it seemed clear why he could lift the large gyroscope when it was spinning. He was simply using stronger muscles. They gyroscope basically just centered the weight for him so he could do a one handed overhead press; something he could not do when it wasn’t spinning.
What was more interesting to me was he pointed out that a top does not precess around it’s center of mass. Of course you see this every day in a child’s toy top but until someone points it out to you, you don’t think much of it. This effect is more understandable when a top/gyroscope is sitting on a stand or hanging from a string. But why would it act like this on a smooth table? Granted there would be some friction from the table, but you would least expect it to at least try to keep it’s center of mass constant.
After thinking about this for a while it actually makes some sense. You again have to go back to considering what the points on the rim of the gyroscope are doing. In any case it indeed does appear that “mass transfer” is taking place under precession, at least in two dimensions and under gravity. Laithewaite’s machine doesn’t seem so crazy to me any more. I think I understand what he was getting at. In fact it almost seems you could power a car or something else with it. Hmmmmm?
If that worked the next question seems to be would it work in space with no gravity? I’m not sure. You would need to induce precession somehow because there is no gravity. You could do this by spinning the whole machine along it’s drive axis. You would of course need two of them counter rotating to take care of the torque. I think the device would look something like a cross between Laithewaite’s original machine and Sandy’s machine.
Now I’m going to have to think about this for a while to see if there is some flaw in my understanding. Usually I find one and Newton takes over again :-(
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 30/11/2004 13:01:05
| | | Dear Sandy,
I meant by one shot machine one that, if stopped (if this is/were possible) after its impulse producing stroke, would leave a measurable, unopposed motion on itself if mounted on a movable, counterbalanced assembly (assuming it’s aimed upwards or downwards) or a measurable unopposed motion if mounted on a trolley (if it’s aimed horizontally) and that this motion should be capable of being duplicated by others. This one shot process (“close encounter of the first kind” perhaps) is very hard for those not experienced in the craft (physicists and the like) to accept. They require, perhaps reasonably, the devices to be mounted on airbeds, pendulum and the like to remove risk of (the physicists) being fooled by stick/slip and the like as they have proved easy to fool in the past. This scepticism has to be addressed when - and only when - we can face/want acknowledgment by “the establishment”.
I have never seen, except in my own “shed” (although I could, of course, have missed someone else’s work), any sign of a machine that will produce this and a further impulse - in the same direction - on its second (return) stroke (“close encounters of the second kind” perhaps) and, again except in my own “shed” a motion that is repeatable on every further stroke (“close encounters of the third kind”?).
I think that although your machines repeat the “impulse stroke” they also destroy each impulse from this first stroke on their second, return, stroke.
The mass does indeed expend (and ingest) the same amount of energy in each direction and I have found nothing (yet) that is at odds with conservation of energy, but because Nitro’s first law applies to energy as much as it does to force the “impossible” is, as you rightly believe, possible.
Inertial drive exists (in a rather violently dismantled form at the moment) in my shed so the answer to your last question is NO, IT IS NOT KNOCKED ON THE HEAD!
I hold you (and all who have struggled on this path) in some regard Sandy, so I am in no way trying to denigrate you or the work you have done but have you got as far as me and realised a “continuous repeater” (that will move along vertically or horizontally) either working or nearly so? Thank you for your later offer of “a Christmas present” to help point the way but I found the way myself about forty years ago. The only Christmas present I wish for is some good engineering. A nice cam for the Cooper “S” would be nice too though the “S”, like most of the things I posses - it seems, is in pieces at the moment.
Dear Ram,
Just seen your latest. I made the one shot about 40 years ago. It moves its internal mass up to one end of the machine AND moves the machine (on as frictionless a base as you can get) in the SAME direction - it can of course, be reset but from my experience nobody with a scientific background will accept anything short of a “fast repeater” so I will not launch till that one is ready. Got the slow repeater (two shot) shortly after the one shot and the knowledge of the way to the fast repeater shortly after that. Life then got in the way until recently and “carp” mechanical skills haven’t helped but the machine will be here soonish.
The video is accessed near the top on the front page of this site. Hold your arrow cursor thingy over the word “here” where Glen has written, “New 25/10/2004 Heretic programme etc. etc. …click here to down load”
Kind regards,
NM
PS As mentioned before I have recently found a second way to impulse drive (so many original ideas lead to further versions, no matter how impossible the original idea seemed at the time). For this reason, I am suffering slightly more from inventor’s paranoia than normal at the moment despite having filed for a patent on the second way to follow the one on the first. I won’t therefore, go into much detail yet. Last weekend I also watched, as some weeks of work dismantled in picoseconds (no fatalities). So, no demo soon I’m sorry to say. Wish I could do bombproof prototypes like yours Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 30/11/2004 15:28:06
| | | Akkk! I feel so stupid. I started clinking around on the tabs without reading the front page. I figured it would be in the propulsion section.
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
arthur dent - 06/04/2005 00:21:43
| | | I imagine that some people get very peeved because it is really quite insulting to the generations of scientists, most of whom this forum has never heard of, who studied every facet of gyrodynamics over the past 200 years and found nothing contrary to Newton's laws. Inventors who prattle about breakthroughs, when they have clearly failed to understand the physics textbooks, are like lottery players who expect to win without buying a ticket. Since the demise of Dr Fisher, there seems to be only one sceptical voice (Ram) in this entire forum; and even he seems to lack the confidence to voice his true feelings. Mankind has been playing with top-like objects since the stone age, and with gyroscopes proper since about 1800. What arrogance of mere inventors to think that they have found something that others have missed. You would have more luck in squaring circles or trisecting angles.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
kirk harper - 06/04/2005 02:19:26
| | | mere inventors!, physics textbooks!, you truly desreve more than i can give you without physical contact. mere inventors brought us the clockwork radio, the bagless vacuum, the photocopying machine, the personal computer, the fast food outlet, not all i must confess truly worthy of eternal life but nonetheless........................
as for the physics textbooks, they are educating learners of all ages about facts that are so far out of date..........................!!!!!!! you narrow minded egg-head! (yes i am aware of the dictionary definition of that term)
Now, if you can arch your back enough, you should be able to get your head back where it belongs.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 06/04/2005 07:33:40
| | | To Arthur Dent,
Why not call yourself “Wowbanger”, in your case it would be much more appropriate.
The Hitchhikers Guide was written as a comedy you know. it’s not real like Coronation Street.
How many of the postings on this site have you read? Not a lot, methinks.
Anyway Arthur it’s all very simple
As all the really clever people (unfortunately our quota of them has long expired) obviously assumed that there was nothing of value in that particular direction, the physics of gyroscopes was all stuck together, and not very well at that, to fit into the accepted laws of motion. .
They (the really clever people) never went far enough out of their way to find out,
At this late stage in the game what brave physicist is going to ask for funding to prove Newton never got it all quite right. Get real, it is not going to happen.
Dear Arthur we know we are seen as a contemptuous bunch, especially by the likes of yourself, but what you have not done is repeat my experiments, to prove to the world that I am mistaken. Words are a lot cheaper, I suppose, but I think that you have neither the intelligence, nor the capability to carry this out anyway.
Are we so beneath contempt that it is not worth the effort to find out, and that we are wrong because, you are arrogant enough to know you are right.
I also know that you are a very long way out of your depth.
Get back to the shallow end, and stick with the fiction, it will be safer for you.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 06/04/2005 12:36:03
| | | Sorry folks
I meant "contemptible", got it wrong in haste.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
arthur dent - 06/04/2005 14:10:58
| | | That is another thing: inventors (lottery players) are really interested only in the money. They produce gimmicks. The clockwork radio, intended for Africa, why? There are plenty of robust efficient solar cells and power storage devices around. And don't get me started on the Dyson; I gave mine away because it was so useless and badly designed. Even its own adverts showed that it starts off with less suction than a conventional cleaner. And Dyson never explains that the vortex is relatively inefficient does he? Just how much extra power is required to equal the suction of a fan? And it may not have a bag, but one still has to pay for expensive micropore filters. Dyson is also sending production abroad, to keep even more money for himself. He is now combining it with a ball. The ball wheelbarrow was another 'successful' invention of his. Successful? I have never seen one actually being used. Back to gyroscopes. It does not matter if the physics textbooks are up to date, because nothing has changed in that field for 100 years. In fact, the older books (like those by Routh, Greenhill, Gray, etc.) are better, because the gyrodynamics sections are not 'squeezed' by more modern topics, as they are in newer textbooks. You deride academics, but you appear to know nothing of their real attitudes: it is largely one of self-questioning. A concept that is entirely alien to mere inventors it seems. And I have read the forum in detail, even if I have not contributed before. As for the name, I am fed up with the jokes. Perhaps I should have hidden behind a nom-de-guerre, like many others.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
arthur dent - 06/04/2005 14:32:24
| | | Ah Sandy. This allows me to continue the train of thought in my previous posting. Money. I seem to recall from your book that you asked for an enormous salary when you were working at Dundee. Unfortunately, I burned your book. So, please remind me: was it £25000pa or £50000pa that you wanted? According to New Scientist's jobs section for that period, Dundee U. was then trying to engage PhDs to carry out research for as little as £8000pa. It does not seem fair, does it? You really think that you are worth 3 or 6 PhDs? Now, that's arrogance! You only got in, in the first place, due to the aggressive behavior of Laithwaite. What a disaster for the public understanding of science that man was. Everything that he touched turned to crud. All of his ideas were stolen (er, developed without acknowledging their source) or idiotic. It is difficult to decide which of his fields of interest was most wrongheaded: gyroscopes, clustering of moths, the 196 problem, future of ospreys, etc., etc.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
mcknow itall - 25/06/2005 02:47:26
| | | you see my friends as the world moves the space around it movces you see there laws first of all none of the laws can interfer ith another law so dont think ne thing that would make the laws interfer with each other the first law of physics is that a robot can never harm a human being oh.... wait sorry thats i robot teehee! actually im a teenager playing with a gyroscope i bought from a bookfair and relly wanted to know what the purpose of the thing is! well anyway all you people are stupid harvard know it alls and should make it to where the answers actually make sense!!! im a friggin teen i dont understand the laws of physics and some caculus crap!!!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
phase - 04/07/2005 20:12:14
| | | Ah, Arthur--how easy is it to have "sour grapes"?
Some of the people on this forum have actually done some important things. And one of them may come up with a very important discovery.
Now,
How much easier is it for you to break a piece of glass than to actually make one?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Latecomer. - 13/08/2006 18:23:42
| | | Not so much an answer, just an observation. Just found your forum. Liked it.
Thought it might take the heat out of the foregoing, if it was remembered that when the "breakthrough" in development of transistors, occured, it was somehow forgotten that when the first radio transmissions were being broadcast, it was quite common to receive signals with a "cats' whisker"and headphones. So the experts ruled that we should ignore that and produce vast quantities of energy dependent glass valves. Would that qualify as a good example of missing the bus because of selective vision?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nate - 15/09/2020 21:54:44
| | |
US 10482790 B1
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 02/10/2020 09:33:06
| | | Good morning World,
The junk this post started with has changed for the better and I like it. like the bottom of this thread, so my two cents are added. In my day the idea of good engineering was; simply, simplify & continuously simplify.
Today the ideas are added options, add options, add options, which is to complicate, complicate & complicate. I hate it. It’s not better. You just can’t fix any damn thing anymore.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
