Question |
| Asked by: |
Sandy |
| Subject: |
What is right and what is wrong? |
| Question: |
Something to think about..
Evening all.
I was clearing out some of the junk (a lot of junk) from the pile I have acquired over the years.
In this quest to produce inertial thrust, I have all sorts of weird bits and pieces made for different attempts at the problem.
Whilst I was sorting out the good, the bad and the useless, I thought to myself that the clever people seem to have a lot of trouble believing any of what I have done, so I thought I had better show them the error of their ways and give them a clue or two.
With the stuff I managed to salvage I built a simple device to prove my point.
I did carry out a similar demonstration about 30 years ago in Dundee University but I did not realise the guys I was demonstrating to were blind.
They did not appear to see anything unusual in my demonstration, but there and then again they say none are so .
Anyhow Glenn you can see gyroscopes or flywheels if you prefer losing weight in front of your eyes, (Sorry about that)
Nitro and Momentus will however be pleased as it proves what you already know.
I could have and should have done this 30 years ago but cest la vie.
I intend to make one or two more, silly little things like this to help the clever people along.
Nearly forgot YouTube of course
“Antigravity Machine (Part 3)”
Regards
Sandy. |
| Date: |
19 July 2017
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Sandy - 19/07/2017 22:06:55
|
| | Evening once more,
In that demonstration whilst the system was being rapidly rotated the gyroscopes or flywheels were not rotating at the start of the demonstration.
Try it the other was around.
Consider a spinning gyroscope or flywheel on a shaft, which is not being rotated.
When accelerated horizontally and depending on the rate of acceleration the gyroscope or flywheel will shed a certain amount of weight.
Laithwaite could have spun twice the weight if he could have got the thing going.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Sandy.
PS See YouTube “Anti Gravity Wheel”
Obviously the same rules apply.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 21/07/2017 00:53:52
|
| | Somebody answer Sandy. He, of all people deserves some replies.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dave - 23/07/2017 04:10:12
|
| | Sandy;
Nice to see someone besides Nitro and "mthruster" and "Lapace" putting their machines up there for the rest of us to puzzle over. The "springs" are a great improvement on your first machine. Have you done any vertical counterbalance tests with it yet?
I have worked out the logic for "gimcrack" and it will not achieve acceleration, but will achieve mass displacement in discrete steps. Those steps are limited to the precession rate of the gyro and will only increase the velocity of the device by a fixed amount and only when the gyro is precessing. When the gyro ceases precession, the device reverts back to it's initial velocity.
Most of the devices, such as Shipov's rely on the function of an unbalanced physical oscillator which is fixed on the first half of it's "low end" cycle and released on the "high end" cycle; which gives the appearance of pulsing forward motion, but in reality is just the machine being "pushed off" by a hand or a wall or some other mass. Start these machines up with no restraints and they just oscillate with no real displacement. They also benefit from "stickslip" where the wheels or bearings etc. resist change due to resistance more on the low end than the high end.
"Gimcrack" ,on the other hand, makes discrete steps in a rectified sinusoidal pattern, and so, can move forward above it's initial velocity but without any real acceleration. Unlike most of the inertial drives ( Dean, Shipov, Thornson ) it will function in space. I can't figure a use for it except to show the inadequacies of Newton's laws. I could patent it, but I doubt if it could be used for anything useful like maintaining satellite orbits or shortening planetary flights
If there's any interest here, i could put up a cad animation of it on ebay with a full explanation of how it functions and why all those other unbalaned oscillator devices don't work in space
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dave - 23/07/2017 04:30:10
|
| | Oh; Sandy
I'm doing the final design for my other device I told you about and will have the prototype soon. I applied for my passport yesterday.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy - 23/07/2017 20:27:06
|
| | Hello Dave and any other interested party,
Thanks for your interest and your reply.
This device was never ever meant to produce inertial thrust, however it is very close in design to my very first attempt to generate centrifugal force at elevated angles.
However this was not to be, as the physics I was taught did not seem to agree with the results I was getting.
My design demanded that I produce copious amounts of centrifugal force
at 45 degrees or thereabouts.
I had set the gyroscopes (flywheels) to start at 45 degrees at which they were set in the hope that I could produce enough gyroscopic torque to move the gyroscopes from their rest position to “free fly” as I hoped that inertial thrust would be developed if I managed that.
I eventually got the gyroscopes to rotate fast enough to do the job but instead of getting inertial thrust I got nothing.
The mechanics I was taught suggested to me that with a pair of gyroscopes weighing a smidgen over 1 pound each being rotated at 350 rpm each on a 7.25 inch radius should deliver a substantial amount of centrifugal force.
Mounted at 45 degrees to the horizontal several pounds of centrifugal force should be developed in turn producing quite a large vertical component.
There was no vertical thrust apparently being produced which suggested to me that no angular momentum was being developed in the system.
To cut a long story short and by considerable amount of test and experiment it can be proved that under these conditions no angular momentum, and no centrifugal force are produced which suggested and was ultimately proved that even at 350 rpm there was no acceleration of the gyroscopes.
Several very interesting facts were discovered.
By means of increased rotation of the gyroscope centrifugal force can be reduced in a system of mechanical acceleration to the point that there is none left in the system.
At that point whilst the device is rapidly rotating it is not subject to acceleration.
Rapid rotation without acceleration is surely a physics first.
When that condition is reached any farther increase in gyroscope and /or system rotation will only affect the upwards and inwards acceleration rate of the gyroscope.
I have stated this many times before so I shall desist in going any further.
The whole point of the demonstration was to show that accepted principles are in error and differential usable in the production of inertial thrust is easily created.
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nate - 24/07/2017 13:45:02
|
| | Evening Sandy,
Glad to see your new Youtube video.
Beautiful, clean, clear demonstration from the master!
(Others should follow your example in their presentations.)
Namaste,
Ted
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Brian Morris - 30/07/2017 19:24:53
|
| | Hi Sandy,
Some time since I checked the site, nice to see some action.
Do not have time to comment on your video right now, but be sure I will!
momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Brian Morris - 31/07/2017 09:31:53
|
| | Hi Sandy,
The demo shows either:
When the gyros rotate, a precession/torque overcomes the centripetal force, lifting the gyros
or
When the gyros rotate, the centripetal force vanishes and the spring lifts the gyros.
Now I know, and you know that it is vanishing centripetal force that is demonstrated.However, does the demo eliminate the "conventional" explaination?
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Brian Morris - 31/07/2017 09:45:22
|
| | Hi Dave
Gimcrack, like your explanation of the mass displacement device. Mine is a simple walker and produces a linear analogue of angular precession. Speed is proportional to force and is instantaneous.
Way back I configured it as a space paddle for astronauts to manoeuvre without reaction thrust. But as you say, a limited market.
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Brian Morris - 31/07/2017 10:29:54
|
| | Sandy et al
Whilst on you tube, looked at the original antigravity video, the TV documentary by Grampian.
Such a long time ago. Back then I was patenting my variable speed “gearbox”. It does not conserve Angular Momentum so cannot work!!!
Now with Dark Motion I have an explanation, using Newton’s own axioms how Momentum is balanced not Conserved.
I endure clinical depression, drugs have proved ineffective, therapy has helped, but writing remains painful and difficult.
With a free pendulum, the period of oscillation determined by the length, as with any pendulum since Galileo, Pisa cathedral 1564. If you know why, the science behind the motion of a pendulum, then you know that shortening the length of a swinging pendulum will also reduce its period of oscillation.
When you suspend an offset gyro from a cord, it does not obey the current paradigm, shorten the length of the pendulum and see for yourself. The period of oscillation does not change.
This is an unequivocal demonstration of the lack of centripetal Acceleration.
It is an unequivocal demonstration of NOT conserving momentum.
When you look on the internet, googling - professor explains gyroscope-, you will see very clever people using the phrase “in order to conserve momentum, the gyroscope does not fall over” ignoring the elephant in the room, or should that be the gorilla on the basketball court?
Thats all I can manage at the moment.
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy - 31/07/2017 22:01:37
|
| | Good evening Brian,
A very good point you raised with respect to gyroscopic precession or plain loss of centrifugal (sorry centripetal force)
That was to be the theme of my next demonstration.
I always thought maybe wrongly that even if the gyroscopic torque was sufficient to overcome the centripetal force and elevate the gyroscope and supporting arm the angular momentum developed should be constant except maybe for the loss due to reduction in the radius of rotation as the gyroscope climbs.
My first device was designed to operate on this reasoning but failed miserably,
and my education began.
This is obviously not the case the angular momentum is being reduced as the vertical acceleration rate of the gyroscope is being increased simply due to the increase in gyroscope rotation speed.
As gyroscopes react (as they do) at right angles to the applied force the gyroscope is attempting to rotate vertically on the same radius as it is being horizontally rotated.
Seems that horizontally accelerated “weight” is proportionally reduced by the vertical acceleration rate of the gyroscope, leaving progressively less to be accelerated and so to ad infinitum.
A point of interest.
I am always surprised by how little change in gyroscope rotation speed is required to do the needful.
It does not have to fight very much at all.
I am going to modify that particular machine in such a way that when the vertical acceleration is equal to the horizontal or radial acceleration it will enter the zone of “dark motion” you once called it.
In this zone, I called the “saturation zone” any farther increase as you well know, in gyroscope rotation speed or for that matter hub or machine rotation speed will have no effect on the inwards and upwards acceleration rate of the gyroscope, as it will be seen to accelerate radially inwards depending on the rotation speed of the gyroscope to its point of least action which if mechanically possible will be on the rotation axis of the machine.
Here the gyroscope rotation axis will be the same as the machine rotation axis,
During this maneuver which effectively begins at plus a fraction of a degree above the horizontal the device at any rotation speed will rotate without acceleration all the way up through 90 degrees until its gyroscope axis of rotation is parallel to or on the axis of rotation of the machine.
The machine is incapable of developing any angular momentum all through this maneuver.
Once the movement has begun there is no easy way to stop it apart from rapid shutdown.
As a result of this there is no intermediate stopping or point of balance.
I may have to get into telemetry to prove all of this to the doubters.
Regards,
Sandy.
PS I am pretty sure the same rules apply to gravity accelerated gyroscopes which although they are systems normally in decay are already operating in this “dark motion” zone.
I.e. No angular momentum, no centripetal force, what have you?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dave - 04/08/2017 04:29:57
|
| |
Momentus
after reading your reference to "simple walker", I suddenly realized that "gimcrack" could have an important function for interplanetary travel. Although it wouldn't shorten any voyage appreciatively, it could dispense with rocket or ion thrusters for course corrections and the weight of fuel for such thrusters. Being a purely mechanical device it could be powered by solar panels; I'm sure that would be a big saving in weight for long voyages.
Gimcrack uses gyros in a slightly different manner than sandy has done , but will not produce a real acceleration to make any real change in velocity but merely transfers the actual center_of_mass of the gyros from one point in space to another.
On a long voyage a "simple walker" applied at right angle to the vector of the craft could add up to an appreciable offset at end of voyage. Your "simple walker" might be worth a lot more than you fingered. I was going to put up a video and "explan" for gimcrack, but I think I'll wait a while, while I develop my other device. I've already informed Sandy about it and I'll probably send him a video clip when I have my other device tested by my Engineer friend.
If your "simple walker" is similair to "gimcrack", then I have no interest in "beating you to the Patent Office"; you should patent it and see where it goes.
Sorry to hear about that depression thing; I can sympathize. I've had serious medical problems for a number of years and was misdiagnosed by a trail of doctors and medicated with drugs that made my condition worse. I ran across a doctor who finally diagnosed my condition and scheduled an operation to fix it. At the operation they found out it was too late and had to abort half way through when they discovered that it was inoperable because the artery was totally clogged and couldn't be repaired. They also discovered that my arteries were not homo sapien and properly belonged to Neanderthal or another even more distant species. I suspect that my pancreas also belonged to Neanderthal and was never meant to process all the sugar and phosphates that saturates our diets. it was all the sugar and phosphates that messed up my arteries. Since then, I try to reduce the sugar and phosphates in my diet and have been improving. The artery is still clogged, but my body has been building bypasses around it. Just lately scientists have been finding that some of us are part Neanderthal.
Have you detailed your device to Sandy? Perhaps he could help you prepare a patent.
dave!!!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Brian Morris - 05/08/2017 17:24:21
|
| | Dave.
Patenting the space paddle would not do a lot. It appears to violate Newton’s first as it is moved by internal force.
The gearbox I built and patented does not Conserve Momentum. Any interested party with money for investment will not invest without the advice from an expert. No expert will advise spending money on a device that disregards the established laws of physics.
I have moved on from the space paddle and its limitations. My current model is an asymmetric pendulum, it swings more to the right than to the left. It gives constant force if restrained and acceleration if free to move. If NASA, ESA, or UK space agency wished then they could use this device to replace rockets, ion or otherwise.
However an Asymmetric pendulum does not etc. etc.
With my first working model I have a mathematical model to predict the performance of the device for a rotor of given weight, diameter and RPM. I did not know how or why it did not conserve momentum. It just worked.
Now Much older and a little wiser I have found the fallacy in the current interpretation of Newton’s axioms. When the 3 laws are applied correctly, force and momentum are balanced, not conserved.
I have shared details of the pendulum with Sandy.
Momentus.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Brian Morris - 05/08/2017 18:06:34
|
| | Sandy,
Some further thoughts on the saturation zone.
A gyro has a precession axis, a torque axis and a spin axis aligned orthogonally, (all at right angles to each other).
Your device swaps these around, the spin axis can be vertical or horizontal, or both, with a corresponding change in the other two axes.
The simplified model of two hollow spheres mounted in tandem in a rigid frame can be used to explore the angular motion. (I have posted this previously.)
When the balls are contra-rotated they build up equal and opposite angular momentum, all is balanced. Now when the frame is rotated on the long axis, that axis becomes the precession axis and the torque is reacted by the frame. There is no resistance to this rotation, it is after all precession.
In your device that is equivalent to spinning the gyros, then rotating them around the vertical axis.
With the hollow spheres, the precession speed about the long axis can be increased to match the gyro spin speed.
At this point the spin axis and the precession axis become interchangeable. A slight reduction in the gyro spin speed and the balls are now precessing about what was originally the spin axis.
It is at this tipping point that momentum ceases to be conserved. If by some chance you have followed all that, is it perhaps another view of your saturation zone?
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dave - 05/08/2017 21:52:31
|
| | momentus;
Where can I find your patent for that transmission? I have constructed a test device for proof of concept for inertial propulsion and the results are rather spectacular. The results seem to violate all three of Newton's laws. I think there are all manner of devices possible that violate his laws and are just sitting in plain site, but are not visible to scientists because of a hysterical blindness induced by the brainwashing they experience in their education.
I have emailed Sandy and informed him of my results and plans. I might be able to explain why your transmission device works in spite of Newton.
dave!!!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 06/08/2017 10:17:09
|
| | @Momentus
Very good thoughts!
@Dave
Your assumption that your test device may violate all three Newton's laws is a reliable indication for malfunction of this device. ;-)
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy - 07/08/2017 22:45:55
|
| | Good evening Brian,
I often find it hard to get into another person’s mind but I shall try.
Please bear with me as we are moving house at the moment.
Moving my shed and machinery has so far been a nightmare.
Will come back to you soon.
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dave - 11/08/2017 23:25:58
|
| | Momentus;
your and sandy's description of "loss of momentum" and "loss of centrifugal force" and/or "loss of centripetal force" are very close to the proper description of what takes place with gyros, but there is something else which needs to be impregnated into that embryonlc mass to properly explain what takes place. Unfortunately NP has no proper dialect or physics labels to inject the necessary criteria to generate a full description.
As to harold?'s analysis of my device
@Dave
Your assumption that your test device may violate all three Newton's laws is a reliable indication for malfunction of this device. ;-)
Sandy! you told me that harold? had no sense of humour!; that is the funniest thing I have heard from him yet! That was you that said that, wasn't it?
dave!!!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy - 13/08/2017 21:37:14
|
| | Evening Dave,
Someone may have suggested that Harald had no sense of humour, but I am pretty sure it was not me.
Regards
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dave - 14/08/2017 00:45:16
|
| | Oh; I remember now, it was me that said that.
Sandy, Momentus; I was considering Newtons laws and I can't, for the life of me, figure out how to violate just one of his laws without violating all three of them, because basically, all three of them involve acceleration in one form or another in order to cause any form of displacement. Even gimcrack and "simple walker" has to achieve some sort of acceleration to move from one point to another, and with newtons laws that can't be achieved without an outside force. Obviously my gimcrack and Brian's "simple walker" ( I'm assuming "simple walker" actually functions as Momentum claims; anybody knows different , speak up or forever hold your peace) seem to achieve that displacement without acceleration and Sandy's demonstrations of his device show that acceleration seems to become disjointed with momentum under certain circumstances.
All three of Newtons Laws need to be rewritten and maybe the "ether" needs to be brought back.
Momentus; what was that transmission or gearbox device you mentioned?
dave!!!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 14/08/2017 03:23:29
|
| | Dear all
As far as I am concerned only the opposite part needs be dropped from the third law to make it read :- To every action there is an equal reaction.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dave - 18/08/2017 20:01:15
|
| | Nitro;
in Newton's universe you would sometimes be right and sometimes be wrong; in a multiverse of six dimensions or more you would be right more often than wrong. In a properly formulated multiverse you would be statistically right. Equal and opposite is just a "SPECIAL CASE" in a proper multiverse.
dave!!!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Brian Morris - 27/08/2017 16:12:00
|
| | Hi All.
Dave, regarding the power transmission.
The two gyro axes orthogonal to the spin axis can be labelled Input and output. The spin speed, and polar moment of inertia etc. for a given gyroscope can be expressed as a constant K
If torque is applied to the input:-
T in = K x omega precession out: therefore K = T in/ omega out
If torque is applied to the output:-
T out = K x omega precession in: therefore K = T out/ omega in
If a torque is applied to the input axis, and resisted by the output axis, then for a short period (until the geometry is skewed):
T in/ omega out = K = T out/ omega in: therefore, T in x omega in = T out x omega out.
A high speed low torque input can be transformed to low speed high torque over any speed ratio with the efficiency of a gyroscope. Or vice versa. When stalled the input torque is zero and output torque is determined by input speed and gyro constant K
The power that can be transmitted by any given size, speed, mass of gyro (K) may be calculated using standard text book gyro formula. The inventive part is maintaining the geometry so that output is continuous. My working model shows how this can be achieved.
The patent covering the device was drawn up over a twelve month period by a prestigious London firm of patent agents, it was withdrawn without ever being published. I am assured by the Patent office that it may be resubmitted again at any time.
A patent only offers the opportunity to defend an idea in court. In practice this means that filing a patent gives 12 months to find serious money, or lose the idea. The better the idea, the more likely it is that it will be copied. This is a perfect automotive transmission. It would be smaller, lighter and an order of magnitude cheaper, than modern multi speed geared automatic transmissions. It will run stalled without losses to friction, so no clutch is needed
It lends itself to incorporation into an electric motor. As the speed range is from zero upwards, it overcomes the major drawback of starting an industrial electric motor against a big load.
I could go on extolling the virtues, however there is one major feature which whilst being useful for a hand drill or torque wrench, ensures that it will not reach the market. There is no reaction torque.
I feel that until it is accepted that Momentum is not Conserved, this working device will not be exploited. If you know anything to the contrary, or anyone who would like to exploit this opportunity, speak now.
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Brian Morris - 27/08/2017 16:29:23
|
| | Hi All.
Harry, Nitro,
Both so right.
Newtons axioms do apply to the gyro anomaly.
Newtonian Dynamics can be used to show that momentum is not conserved. They show how to calculate the behaviour of my asymmetrical pendulum, which is the basic motion incorporated in all the working devices that have been spoken of on the forum.
There are no changes required to Newton’s axioms. No need to invoke ether, multiverses, dark matter or dark energy to explain the various anomalies.
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dave - 27/08/2017 18:11:00
|
| | momentus;
a transmission that achieves torque without reverse torque generated, was demonstrated by NASA in orbit about 30 or so years ago. It was a handheld electric drill-like apparatus similiar in appearance to today's torque wrenches. There were videos of astronauts tightening and loosing nuts and bolts with it in zero g in space.
The explanation for the device was that it stored the reverse torque on a flywheel. The actual workings of the device were never exposed in the media. That strange device seems to be invisible to Newtons current cronies. Whether that device was ever patented I don't know, but it's something you should investigate before doing any further patent applications.
That device somewhat supports your assertions for Newton's laws, but only in a closed system .
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 28/08/2017 02:10:57
|
| | Hi Momentus,
If a patent application is withdrawn before publication it can, indeed, be resubmitted at some later date. However (there is always a “However”), if someone else comes up with the same idea in the intervening time and files a patent application, then his application will predate your later reapplication and effectively block you as his application would then be regarded as “prior art”.
In your last sentence you refer to “this working device”. I have yet to see one that produces an overall continuous linear unidirectional force from within a machine and acting on a machine – can yours really do that? If it can do that then the short, one year, period for you to decide whether or not to file a full patent and to decide if it justifies the expense to spread its area of cover world wide should not be a problem as it should be easy to raise funds.
It may not be all that easy, of course, as one of three things will happen
1. You will have “D” notices and the official secrets act thrust at you by the very government department who’s protection (patent) you sought. Sir Christopher Cockerell had the nightmare of seeing his Hovercraft patent protection bleed away as he was silenced by the official secrets act while the government did nothing to overcome the initial problem of insufficient clearance from the water/ground of the original design. He easily overcame this problem by the simple addition of a skirt after the government had effectively given up and handed it back but not before they caused years of delay in development as they considered it a useless invention. Effing typical! Like many other British inventions the Americans ended up utilising it the most – free Harrier jump jet anyone? Unusable new aircraft carrier (with no planes) anyone?
2. You will approach a university to help further your research. They, if they don’t laugh you out of the room first (see Sandy Kidd etc.), will get the government to slap the official secrets act on you (see 1. above) before doing nothing as they are inculcated not to believe in such nonsense.
3. You will approach a manufacturer who will sod you about for years doing what they call “due diligence” which means “trying to find a way round you patent protection”. This presupposes the British patent office which (unlike the US office which, it seems, will grant a patent to any fantasist) will entertain your application for grant as it goes against “natural science” which means “what science the examiner understands”.
BTW is your agent Foresters. I was asked if I had any objection to them acting for an unnamed party on a gyro device as they were concerned I could complain of a conflict of their interests due to them having worked on a gyro device for me. I said I had no objection as I had concluded that the impulses that mine could produce (surprisingly the EPO accepted it for process to grant – the EPO must be getting like the American patent office) would have too limited a commercial application except as a scientific curio – I would be pleased to be proved wrong, in that continuous thrust is possible – I would indeed be deliriously happy to find it has already been achieved.
I agree that there is no need to invoke anything, but the dropping of the word “opposite” from the third law is require.
Happy bank holiday everyone
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Brian Morris - 04/09/2017 18:31:43
|
| | Hi All.
Dave,
of course it is possible react the torque by conventional means, notice that in the demo nuts were tightened and loosened! I do not see the NASA device supporting anything other that the current paradigm, which states that Momentum is Conserved
The lack of reaction torque is integral to the working of my transmission, it makes it possible for the device to run stalled without heating up.
Nitro,
The “working device” referred to is a transmission system, angular momentum only. No displacement, nothing linear.
I thought at the time, it was back in the 1980s that this application was easier to design and manufacture. As you said “it should be easier to raise funds” as indeed it was initially.
I did approach a university. Sheffield was then the home of Professor Leonard Maunder, author of Applied gyro-dynamics. He spent an afternoon examining the way in which I used HIS formulae to calculate the performance of my transmission and a few days later wrote a glowing endorsement.
Then, ten days after that (Sandy has chronicled this as the optimum time) withdrew the letter and refused all communication. Not just to me but to the Patent agent, my sponsors at the Hull Innovation centre and the respected solicitor of the financier.
We did subsequently approach manufacturers, who would not entertain the idea that torque could be transmitted with a reaction torque. Financier withdrew with acrimony and threats. I had a nervous breakdown.
The patent agent was Martin Molyneaux of Langner Parry who have morphed into Ladas & Parry.
So to my current project. A pendulum which swings more to the left that to the right. Some 30% of the momentum is retained by the device, ie 30% more force to the left than to the right. It is a matter of engineering to ramp up speeds so that the forces become significant. I no longer command the facilities to do this, nor the inclination to bodge something up in the shed.
I should write it all up for publication but as I said before writing is difficult from where I am.
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy - 11/09/2017 20:00:18
|
| | Evening Brian and all,
I am now fairly well installed in my new location so I shall get back into the fray.
I will as I promised respond to your interpretation of “Saturation” very shortly.
However you hit a sensitive point with me when you mentioned what we called “The Ten Day Syndrome”.
In most cases it was invariably from a shoulder with a distinct downward angle and was normally worded something like
“I saw something but cannot remember what it was”.
or.
“I remember seeing something strange but I am not sure what”.
I could put a name to these statements incidentally both by professors but I cannot see that helping in any way, besides it was a long time ago.
Initially my device was helped into Dundee University by a very smart
physicist called Dr Bill Ferrier who was absolutely convinced the device was genuine. Incidentally in spite of claims to the contrary Laithwaite had absolutely nothing to do with this.
Very sadly Bill died of a heart attack whilst on university business down south.
The university however did decide to honour Bill’s efforts which was organised under the wing of the Industrial Liaison Department.
In the very first hour of my first day day, I was then publicly treated to a tirade of verbal abuse by one idiot who was really needing locked up and who demanded that it be recorded that he wanted nothing to do with this, as he venomously called it “disreputable device”. A promising start?
In fairness the rest were a bit more civil even if they did not believe my claims, but in light of the fact they knew it was impossible spent a lot of money and 4 months of my life looking for a suitable reason that it worked.
That would have to be any reason but the real one.
After 4 months of not proving anything they had to invent a reason why they thought it could work.
I heard a rumour that they had decided that the device was reacting to its lower bearing and climbing up this relatively loose fitting bearing.
Immediately I heard the rumour I deliberately mounted this particular bearing in gimbals. Needless to say the device went up and down just as easily as it did previously, but this was never mentioned.
They produced no proof of their findings, but so what.?
I think they could have done better.
Just more contempt.
Their findings were never offered to me for discussion, probably because they did not have any.
In reality the whole thing was just an academic snow job.
If this was science at its best we can be assured we will never go very far from this planet.
Yes Brian I have been there.
The utter disgust I felt towards that team of academics is just as fresh in my mind as it was 30 years ago.
They are so utterly sure that everything they were taught is gospel and they are correct because they know they are.
Regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
