||A new video
At last Glenny has decided that propulsion is not possible so he will obviously now stop putting his opinions up until he also puts up a video that can be examined for its verisimilitude.
I will keep putting up my latest video to prevent it being subsumed by Glenny's posts in the hope that someone with experience or at least an open mind sees it.
Here is a link to a You Tube video that reiterates Nitro's first law, followed by a demo of how a suspended gyro does not rotate round its centre of mass, as wrongly taught (IMHO) by Dr Hugh Hunt at Cambridge, and how the effect of inertia all but disappears.
||15 March 2016
Answers (Ordered by Date)
||Glenn Hawkins - 16/03/2016 04:05:00
| ||First of all punk, my name is not Glenny and you know it, |
The center of gravity tilted from its plane of angular momentum, reacts by torquing the force of gravity from the gyro down upon the pivot. The pivot receiving this displaced force acts as if it were the center of the mass of the gyroscope. All the effects of gravity is transferred to the pivot.
The series of torques responsible for this pronominal transfer is as follows:
1.)The vertical drop-down force is torqued into precession.
2.) Precession is slow because it is used up and resisted, as most of its force is again torqued into twisting down on the pivot.
3.) Torque down on the pivot is resisted by the opposite, upward supported force of the pedestal.
The actual mechanics of these reactions are extremely complicated, but also intuitive if one first understand the unsuspected, “how and why”. All the reactions, many more than the three above, are invisible and that is why no one has ever understood.
Consider the mechanics of a four-stroke gasoline engine that we know as we saw in school through a clear plastic see-thru engine block.
There are many more than four actual strokes in gyroscopic precession, but each stroke is invisible and so cannot be seen acting through a see-thru plastic block following the sequence of cause and effect.
1.) Rotating compression of particles
2.) Tilting angular momentum
3.) Deflection of particles from their plane of rotation.
4.) The nature of rotating particles that cause them to multiply the conditions and force of inertia resistance.
5.) How the. . . Oh God! so much, much more; too much to even begin treating here.
It would take dozens of pages and drawings to explain the mechanics of precession. These things happening are all invisible and that is why they have eluded understanding. Someday I hope I success in explaining, but not here in this little nutshell post.
Surely you must know that something causes something to happen. Do you? Why have you never tried to understand? Why? Why? How? How? What causes each sequence to proceed? Why is it after all this time-- you do not have a clue, not a clue? How is it that while not knowing why and how, you keep bumbling along making statements? Why have you never tried to understand?
I end by repeating:
A gyroscope rotates around its pivot because this is natural due to the laws of motion interacting and does not alter the fact that nothing fully understood detours from the apparent God-like perfect laws of motion. Otherwise, the universe would be unworkable. You would not exist.
To the dim and insulting, I will stop speaking when free speech is disallowed. In the same vain, you may carry on bumbling with a lack of understanding as you wish. I will not object, but only sometimes I might correct you in a public forum.
||dave!!! - 18/03/2016 04:08:57
All that glenny will bring to these forums is his mental illness; he has nothing else. His dismal failures will in no way deter him from spewing in these forums. Blaze was pretty accurate in his description of at least one of the posters here.
Nice Video! good quality. You're not faceless any more.
It brings up questions about forced precession.
||Glenn Hawkins - 18/03/2016 20:36:47
Gravity is a week vertical force causing precession in a horizontal plane.
The electric motor is a strong horizontal force causing precession in a vertical plane.
Both are the same in different directions. Neither can fly.
||Sandy - 18/03/2016 21:21:59
| ||Good evening all,|
I really do not know if it is nice to be back or not, I shall have to reserve judgement for a bit on that.
The laws which are referred to here if there are such things, are doing what they have done since the beginning of time.
This makes me a little bit uneasy when attributing any of it to any person in particular, as though that person invented it, especially when it is all based on earthbound assumptions where nobody even knows what gravity is, if that exists at all.
That said, on to spinning discs, where i shall add a bit more about missing inertia.
I too believe in laws providing there is an element of truth in them and not just the copious amounts of specious junk peddled as laws.
As far as I know there are only two occasions in the business of spinning discs where a disc can be seen to elevate itself above the horizontal and rotate quite happily at that elevated angle whatever it may be.
This can be seen both in a gravity accelerated system in precession and in a mechanically accelerated system in “precession” which incidentally in the case of mechanically accelerated systems is badly named and has got nothing to do with precession.
I admit that it could be difficult to measure the alleged amount of centrifugal force generated in a gravity accelerated system, if it is indeed there to be measured.
A few of us maintain that there is no centrifugal force present in such systems which could be proved one way or the other by measurement of the vertical component which must be generated if there is indeed centrifugal force present..
This as I have previously suggested is difficult as the vertical component in such systems would be of a very small order, but should still be able to be detected if present.
Note. Its presence must still be in hiding as we have not yet been informed of it.
That said if I rotated a pair of rotating discs weighing 1kilo each on the radius of 300mm at 500rpm the centrifugal force should be around 85 kilos or 180 lbs per disc give or take a bit.
At 45 degrees of vertical displacement the vertical component (or vertical thrust) should be 170 kilos or 360 lbs give or take a bit..
That is a fair load of thrust.
But where does it go.?
In reality there is no measurable amount of vertical component there.
All we have is a system with a pair of offset discs being rotated at 500rpm and without acceleration.
So in reality there is no angular momentum or centrifugal force developed at the disc(s) when carrying out such an experiment.
I have personally carried this experiment out on many similar systems the weights dimensions and rotation speeds being varied considerably from system to system. but the net result will always the same,
||Sandy - 18/03/2016 22:26:02
| ||Evening again all,|
Sorry about the false request for help Glenn, many others on my email address list got it, but like yourself guessed it was fraudulent.
A contributor to this forum one Danny Browning kindly traced the culprit for me and challenged him with his IP addresses and global position
I think this should plug that source anyway
However I wished to add that my previous posting relating to loss of centrifugal force etc..or anything which should have been able to be accelerated, well as far as we were all wrongly taught,. has interest only in its strangeness or uniqueness.
I have yet to figure out a use for this zone
It is pretty apparent that if there is no acceleration no farther increase in system centrifugal force can be achieved, hence I called this the saturation zone as precession is meaningless here.
What is interesting is that a lot of things happen prior to this event, or before this massless point is met.
Consider a non rotating disc on a shaft mechanically rotated in the horizontal plane at a fixed hub rotation speed.
There is a simple formula for calculating the generated centrifugal force at that fixed speed.
However no one went out of their way to inform Sir Isaac that this is only true if the disc is not rotated.
In reality it transpires that centrifugal force is shed if the disc is rotated and the faster the disc is rotated the more centrifugal force is shed.
There comes a point where all the centrifugal force has been shed and there is none left in the system.
At this point the disc will break away as there is no centrifugal force left to hold it down and it will proceed to rise (for no further input of energy) all the way to a vertical position if it can mechanically do so.
At this point the hub rotation axis and disc rotation axis will become one and the same.
There is simple reason for all of this,which can be discussed later on.
However the main point here is that a differential of angular momentum or if you wish centrifugal force can easily be created in the zone outside of (my apologies saturation).and thus inertial drive becomes much more of a possibility.
Seems that not many opposed flywheel systems were around in Sir Isaac’s time
Never try to prove me wrong using one disc you might not be able to reply to the forum.
||Glenn Hawkins - 18/03/2016 23:12:04
| ||It is good to read you again Sandy. So many of us have varying opinions and yours have never failed to be interesting, insightful and informative.You are a very pleasant man and that is so important to me. It is a gift.|
I think I will not advance my understanding on here any more, and not out of displeasure at all. My knowledge simply is not met with belief, so there is no point in rehashing it.
If I ever find time I will publish my work and it will be accepted, or it will not. I have exhausted my interest in the subject and have come to the end. There is nothing more for me to research and whatever else I may do toward publishing will be out of a sense of duty to people. Oh, I will check in to read once in a while.
You are a most talented, talented builder, masterful, a million times better than me.
Enjoy the warm season,
||dave!!! - 18/03/2016 23:15:35
| ||Just tried again as dave.parsons. Same result; it insists on a password and when I don't supply it, the login program then emails a link to my first addie to change password and then the change password link at gyroscopes.com says that "email address not found". I am using the second addie from my website. I can be emailed as dave.parsons or david.parsons. |
I signed up as my second addie and after some silliness, was able to post here.
Either Turner has sabotaged me or someone has sabotaged his system.
A little off-topic, but is something you might think about.
||Harry K. - 19/03/2016 08:16:48
| ||Hello Nitro,|
I don't know what you intend to prove with your uploaded video? The reaction (precessing) of the gyro in your video is according to the way of least resistance given by its degree of freedom of motion. If the pivot would be placed by design above its center of mass it would certainly precess around this point.
Thanks to Glenn Turner for the improvements in this forum!
||Harry K. - 19/03/2016 12:23:14
| ||Hi Sandy,|
I believe most of us (myself included) made the mistake that a spinning flywheel should react to fictitious forces in the same manner than non spinning flywheels, i.e. only the center of spinning mass has to be taken into consideration. But this is not true at all. ^
All single masspoints have to be taken into consideration! Each masspoint has a different location on the flywheel and thus a different velocity vector which in return cause a different fictitious centrifugal force. All of these different forces have to be vectorial add up to determine the resultant centrifugal force.
It is not possible to calculate this resultant force by single well known equations but only by vectorial differential motion equations for each mass point. You can do such calculations with the help of a simulation software (I use for example a Russian software which is pretty good in my opinion).
Thus it is quite possible that the overall centrifugal force may disappear in the system, dependent on all involved parameters, but this does not necessarily imply that Newton was wrong.
||Sandy - 19/03/2016 22:06:36
| ||Good evening Harald,|
I see where you are coming from but I think the problem is far from simple in effect the loss of centrifugal force would vary considerably from disc to disc depending on dimensions, rotation speeds (hub and disc), disc design and material used in disc construction.
This would be fine for one particular example and would certainly let us see or at least give us a clue as to the loss of centrifugal force per rev for that particular disc, at a variety of hub rotation speeds
This information could be very useful for future disc and machine design.
Depending on how good your memory is I stated some considerable time in the past, onwards from 2004 in this forum that the claims I made relating to the loss of centrifugal force in mechanically accelerated systems were only what should have been there in the first place and had Newton been aware of the facts would probably have modified his laws accordingly.
Newton never got himself into a position to be wrong in the first place.
It seems to me that Euler was not too clued up on spinning discs as the loss of centrifugal force should never have been missed by a person of that calibre.(or was it as i suspect deliberately omitted.
That said Newton taking this case in isolation would have come up with the same conclusions as I did, which unless you are specifically attempting to build an inertial drive machine really would not matter too much to the world at large.
I previously stated that as far as I was concerned the momentum conservation laws were only an assumption based on the fact that conversion from one to another particularly in the of case angular momentum conversion into linear momentum had never ever been recorded in nature and for that reason alone was deemed to be impossible.
However and not in isolation these findings cannot be invoked without throwing a large question at the integrity of the momentum conservation laws, which to me are blown.
I do in the final analysis believe that this should make Inertial drive a bit easier to achieve, certainly not simple, but as I have said before it is nice to start with the truth.
||Glenn Turner - 20/03/2016 01:53:18
| ||Attention:David Parsons|
With regard to you problems logging in, I ran some tests and can't find a problem.
People are clearly able to use the website. If the problem persists drop me a private email (contact page on the gyroscope.com website for example). It maybe a problem with a particular browser or computer system.
BTW: I'm now getting more time to do this again. I got a long todo list but will be making more amendments to the website.
||dave!!! - 20/03/2016 02:52:21
| ||This is nuts|
I did the answer question link and it did the silliness again and when I used my back-button to get back to the beginnin, it suddenly popped up the answer question box here.
Here's what I was tryin ta post befo.
This forum system seems to be screwing up as usual(Turner's fault? Or someone messing with his system.). Tried to post again in Nitro's last thread and after the usual login nonsense, it booted me to the newthread page. So be it.
What was "I don't know what you intend to prove with your uploaded video?". Was it a question? Or was it a statement?
I think Nitro was quite specific about what he was proving.
Your further statement;
"The reaction (precessing) of the gyro in your video is according to the way of least resistance given by its degree of freedom of motion. If the pivot would be placed by design above its center of mass it would certainly precess around this point."
I have a question that makes just as much sense as that statement..
If the pivot was placed by design up your bum, would the gyro precess about your center of gravity?
Sandy and others;
I seem to recall some of Laithwaite's videos that demonstrated the precession of gyros on strings. It seems there are situations where gyros exhibit centrifugal effects. These effects are entirely dependant on the angular momentum and the decaying angle.
If you graph this effect, it becomes apparent that the precession, in gravity, decreases as the angular momentum rises and approaches zero as the angular momentum(AM) rises above a certain threshold. Granted that the structural strength of the gyro imposes it's own limit on that ultimate AM, it can be established that the precession and the concordant centrifugal force are acting in relation to the AM.
The centrifugal force does not disappear; it is simply diverted by it's relationship with the precession and the applied force.
A proper experiment to establish that relationship would be to attach a telescoping rod to a gyro spinning at right angle to the vertical and then hang the rod and gyro assembly from a string and measure the barycentre formed by the cone angle of the string as the gyro precesses and log the data for progressing angular momentum of the gyro. Concordantly log the data for incements in the length of the telescoping rod . It goes without saying; keep the weight of the rod as low as possible.
It would be interesting to establish just how far a gyro will extend it's influence in a barycentre experiment.
The real question is "where does the centrifugal force go?". You need six or more dimensions to answer that question.
||Harry K. - 20/03/2016 09:59:32
| ||Hi Sandy,|
I'm not sure if it is necessary to consider a spinning disk as a special unit or to consider only the motion path of each masspoint and do the motion calculations like Euler did with his differential equations.
It is not simple at all to make forecasts about angular momentum and acting fictious forces because the trajectory of each masspoint occurs in three dimensions if you allow the flywheel to pivot in vertical plane as well beside moving in spinning plane and horzontal hub plane. There is a permanent energy exchange within the three spatial planes and thus there is much room for misinterpretation of the resulting effects. Based on all parameters angular momentum as well as fictious forces may be transferred between the three planes or may be cancelled out if the actual motion vector of a masspoint in spinning plane is equal and counter directed to the hub motion vector So you see there is another factor which has to be considered, namely the frame of reference.
I made many tests with real gyroscopes and with the mentioned simulation software which brought mir much insights. I think the only way to achieve inertial thrust (= transformation of angular momentum into translational momentum) is to apply additional accelerations/decelerations to the gyro system, i.e. the thrust will be intermittent but not continously.
||Sandy - 20/03/2016 21:42:08
| ||Hello once again all,|
Dave I think it has been stated previously that a decaying gravity accelerated system will demonstrate the presence of centrifugal force, and for myself I see no argument there.
However Dave the centrifugal force lost or being lost in a mechanically accelerated system is not there at all as you suggest to the contrary.
If the mass (disc) does not make itself available to be accelerated the centrifugal force cannot lurk around looking for a place to happen.
The where-with-all to create it has been removed from the system.
This is gyroscopes Dave, and strange beasts they can be.
I think I shall stay with the suck it and see approach to the problem relating to the generation, or loss of centrifugal force in a mechanically accelerated system.
There is also a bone of contention here relating to the correct understanding of gyroscopic action.
“So you pays your money and takes your chances.”
At my age this gets way too complicated for me.
As long as I can produce consistent results at the moment I will try to live with that, although if we had a standard disc which we have not yet formulated (if ever?) there are answers to a couple of questions I could do with.
One of my flywheels and the services of a lab technician would help
(Nice to dream?)
There is an area yet to be breached on the forum relating to centrifugal force control which I may get into later on.
As you mentioned inertial thrust may be produced by pulsing either the hub rotation or disc rotation or a bit of both.
If done correctly, whilst the output is pulsative, it is self resetting and continuous
Neither is easy to do well and in the end the differential must still be converted to inertial thrust in such a way that the thrust can get out.
I have in the past and by suck it and see results built many devices which could generate inertial thrust, in varying amounts but in most cases and for about 20 years, strange as it may seem, I could never nail the all the factors down.
The hunt for that took me a fair bit of my life to nail down, but it can be done.
||dave!!! - 30/03/2016 01:09:07
||dave!!! - 30/03/2016 01:09:31
|Add an Answer >>|