|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
23 April 2024 11:47
|
|
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: |
Nitro |
| Subject: |
Cosy sheds |
| Question: |
Hi Sandy
Sorry to start a new thread but your one seems to have been hi-jacked. No doubt this one will be subsumed too.
I know all to well the risk of my new “shed” having too much comfort and a cupboard full of single malts (gifted me on my retirement) but if its too miserable to go to a freezing cold shed then even less gets done – at least I can now contemplate the project in comfort and maybe see the problems from a different angle – even if that angle happens to be from being slumped on the floor! Some of my best ideas have been achieved from that perspective – though they might not have been the fastest to be completed!
I didn’t set out to achieve thrust in discrete packages that do not accumulate velocity like a normal Newtonian machine but that is what I seem to have ended up with – and is the reason that I abandoned further work on the subject, except from some half hearted mods that improved the machine’s efficiency but that didn’t change its basic “inch worm” type progress. Although I was granted a patent on the earliest machine I discontinued with it as I quickly improved on it and – when I realise it would only “inch worm” I could not see a use for it apart from opening people’s minds and you have seen what poor Laithwaite got for his troubles trying to do that!
I have seen too many effects that do not comply with the first and third laws (my “MacPhail’s pendulum” was put in the public domain to show a simple confirmation of this) to still try and defend Newton's laws in their entirety. Though I have no argument with the second and the conservation of energy laws – yet!
That you have “variations in angular momentum” gives some guidance though I still strain to see how I can produce incremental acceleration.
I thank you for the insight and I don’t want you add to your description as I have no wish to accidentally be guilty of plagiarism which I have experience from (I am ashamed to say Scottish)a firm with one of my rare money making inventions. So, I guess I shall have to trudge my way to the comforting alcoholic haze of my cosy new shed (boiler room) and strain my brain some more during the oncoming winter months.
Kind regards
NM |
| Date: |
23 October 2015
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Sandy - 25/10/2015 21:41:43
| | | Hello Nitro,
Can I answer your question in a slightly different manner?.
From what I think I know of the “Inchworm” philosophy, I gather that the problem is in the fact that every cycle must come to a stop when some form on non-automatic resetting must take place.
The problem I can see is that the device can be made to move in discrete steps, each step terminating any possibility of further movement as the device is forced to stop and then be restarted.
Correct me if I am wrong in my assumption but if I am right and that is the real nature of the problem that is by no means the end of the story.
There are a few ways I have either found, or invented of continuing the action by automatically resetting my systems.
I think you prefer horizontally thrusting / moving devices, is that still true?
My choice of building vertically trusting devices made solving the problem a lot easier, as gravity does not interfere with machine balance, as can be witnessed in MD’s device.
I originally was subjected to the same problems about 26 years ago when I was talked into attempting to drive a block of foam across a private swimming pool in the San Gabriel valley.
The horizontal attempt was a disaster, due in total to the alternating loads on the gyros and support arms created by gravity.
I have for a couple years been working on a method of eliminating the problem, which I am sure I can do, and it will be done, but not without a load of extra time and effort.
I have to ask why?
Is this just to prove a device can be made to travel horizontally, and if it did would this make any difference to the prevailing attitude?
All the bits and pieces added to produce a result on a ballistic pendulum would have to be removed and probably scrapped if space travel was subsequently contemplated.
I can probably help you Nitro but I need to know if you wish to stick with the horizontal approach or have you ever considered vertical thrusting.
Regards
Sandy
PS Worms do tend to move along the ground.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 26/10/2015 11:06:07
| | | Hi Sandy
I went for horizontal mainshaft axis as the machines were mostly for my education and not for proving the existence or otherwise of IP (IT seems to have already been taken up by computer geeks!) to the scientific community. I suppose in truth that in the early days I may have harboured a hope of finding a trained scientist with an open mind but that hope soon died.
The inchworm action is not a philosophy but a surprising (at first) way in which IP is produced (at least by my machines). The last model, one on from the last video I put up, was a continuous repeater but, because it only produced a pretty useless inchworm movement, I put it aside and recycled its components into other things and got on with my paying inventions. I didn’t lose all my interest in the subject as you can see but I could not see NASA saying:- “Great, so you’ve got an IP machine but you say it will take how many weeks to move the orbiter two inches?!!”
The machines do not coast between each IP producing stroke and each reposition stroke (which I have at least been able to make an IP producing stroke as well). This (the inch worm effect) is a sod to get ones head around but (I know I bang on about this) it is, I believe, a resultant of “Nitros first law" in that the inertia that would normally cause coasting is precessed effectively out of existence – or, more accurately, it is precessed in a direction that cancels out coasting inertia. There may be a way around this but I have yet to come up with it – and now think it unlikely that I shall.
If I were to overcome the “Inchworm” problem and I were to make something to be practical in space it have to have twinned opposed construction to function successfully in space. Picture the mechanism of John Harrison’s longitude clock and you will get the idea of what’s needed if and only if the inchworm problem can be overcome.
This year has been a write off for shed work - not that I was very good with the work ethic even before I retired – because of building work forcing the shed to be filled to the roof with all our household crap while a large chunk of our house was ripped down and then rebuilt. The inclusion of a small boiler room with some work space in the new build will hopefully encourage me to be a little more active in the practical sphere. However, before I start searching out reusable bits of the old machine I have finally done what I promised myself I would do to help with my understanding and, at the same time, give some payback to Glen Turner for this website. I have just ordered a precision gyro kit to enable me to more accurately duplicate some of my earlier experiments that showed up anomalies in the first and third laws. I intent to video them and put them on my YouTube site later in the hope of opening up a few minds while showing more clearly “Nitro’s first law” in action to help with better understanding of the subject to those new to it.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
