Main Forum Page
The Gyroscope Forum
23 September 2018 10:10
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.
||inertial propulsion with gyroscope
||Since some time i am trying to better understand the gyros.
So i replicated some of M. Fiala's work, and some of Eric Laithwaite.
Please see my youtube channel on the topic. There are 15 videos
Part 1 /part 8 / part 14 / and part 15 are particularely interesting.
And my question is why all these systems works.
||23 April 2018
Answers (Ordered by Date)
||Glenn Hawkins - 24/04/2018 02:47:52
| ||Hi Woody,|
The ones I saw are all the same. Notice that the speed of the revolving gyroscope keeps changing through every revolution. That is, it changes rotation speed each time at the same degrees,and place. It changes from fast to slow. That is what we call slip stick. The ball bearings are jerked faster in one direction. This, causes stronger inertial resistance in one direction and less in the other, because of the greater to lesser acceleration mass receives. I wish I could have made it clearer.
||woopy - 24/04/2018 10:21:30
| ||Hi Glenn|
Thank's for your answer.
On other forum this so called " slip stick" effect was already mentionned
So i made an experiment to test this eventual issue. See part 8 of my video serie.
As you can see, the device translate forwards but not the black plate (substrate)
If there is some slip stick, the substrate should move backwards and the device should move back and forth without translating forwards.
in video 14
the device is placed on a suspended wheel, without slip stick possible. The wheel hang on a monotoron unidirectional thread (no twist unwinding possibility)
Please take the time to look at other videos, because in comments a lot of other issue are already answered.
What i am looking for in this forum is to perhaps dicuss and find why as m. Fiala sayd in his patent, a good gyro when spinning and precessing seems to exhibit some lost of inertia. (angular momentum)
||Nitro - 24/04/2018 19:06:25
| ||Dear Woopy|
Your device, shown in part 9 of your videos, contains the necessary elements I have laid down as requirements for the inertial propulsion – I have referred to the basic requirements as a “gyrodynamic stroke” followed by a “Newtonian stroke”, repeated. My machine uses the principle of preventing precession on the return stroke to act as the “Newtonian stroke. This reduces the weight and complication of my earlier machines which changed the axial angle of the gyros, to effectively switch off the precession, for the Newtonian stroke. Although my earlier machines produced inertial propulsion they carried too much unproductive weight which reduced the distance moved with each stroke.
I am please to notice that you (unwittingly perhaps) use “Nitro’s first law to effectively push the gyros against their curved guide rails to guide the gyros, preventing them from precessing for the Newtonian stroke while the gyros move away from the guide rails to become free to precess (again thanks to Nitro’s first law) for the precessional stroke.
That you used a pendulum system instead of the rotating system I chose limits your part 9 machine’s potential inertial thrust output as only gravity is available for the driving force. No matter, you have so very nearly caught me up you must be congratulated. I do not understand why, however, in the other video you refer to (video 14), you have returned to the oscillating nightmare of a single gyro arrangement instead of your (very clever) twinned gyro arrangement that is the one that most clearly demonstrates inertial movement with no (or very little to be exact) external reaction. I love the flexible drive arrangement and wish I had your mechanical hacking skills and persistence.
The problem for you is that although you now know that inertial propulsion is indeed possible you need to try and figure out a commercial application for it as the propulsion is (as far as I can discover) only produced in small discrete movement packages and not the hoped for continuous acceleration. “It will push your falling craft back into orbit Mr Nasa but it will unfortunately take a very long time and shake all the astronaut's fillings out while it does it”! Yes, I do understand that multiples can smooth out the impulses but the non acceleration is a problem.
The part 15 video is a conundrum that I think can be explained by Nitro’s first law (a gyro will precess every force applied to change its axial angle not just the force you first though of) though trying to visualise how that can cause the gyro to lift instead of falling while the arm is caused to lift is counter-intuitive and has still got me beat.
||woopy - 24/04/2018 21:54:17
| ||Hi Nitro|
wow! i think that we are on the same track.
I agree with your denomination of "gyrodynamic stroke (GS) versus Newtonian stroke (NS).
It is exactly what happen on my experiment.
Yes the part 9 and 10 shows the twin pendulum system which work very well on the ground (ball bearings) and also on the suspended wheel.
You can see on the part 13
a test with forced horizontal precession which also seems to work well .
I have tested a lot of other configurations with more or less success, but i am stacked at the WHY during the GS the gyro mass does not exhibit the same inertia as during the NS.
As i am new on this forum, i don't know your "Nitro's first law", can you give me some link to thread where i can study it please.
And of course why in part 15 the gyro goes up should be studied as well. Because once we have get it,(if we can) we will progress very fast i am sure.
Anyway thank's very much for your very helpfull post
||Brian Morris - 26/04/2018 08:35:46
| ||Hi Woopy|
Great series of videos. There is now overwhelming empirical evidence that mass can be displaced by internal action. You have given clear and indisputable evidence in your work.
I found your video 15 of particular interest. Professor (not Mr) Laithwaite threw out a whole slew of questions. Like you he was trying to get answers!
I have not looked at this one for many years. The gyro anomaly, does as you say appear to be a loss of inertia when the gyro is spinning. This is caused by the internal forces developed by the gyro. This is what I call Dark Motion which I can describe by Newtonian Dynamics.
One of the effects of this apparent loss of inertia is the absence of centripetal acceleration. I have written at length on this in previous posts as “Ants on a Hex”. When you observe a gyro on a string, (my specialist subject) the string does not move away from the vertical to provide a force to pull the gyro back into orbit. It moves in the opposite direction, pushed by the gyro.
The gyro produces a centripetal force by internal action.
This force could well result in the observed movement in video 15. As the gyro droops the radial force is pointing at an upward angle, disturbing the equilibrium of the system and rotating it about the pivot, lifting the gyro up. No weight loss.
A simple test, if you can try it, would be to start the gyro at an upward angle of say 45 degrees so that the radial thrust is acting to pivot the arm downwards.
Keep up the good work
||Glenn Hawkins - 26/04/2018 14:04:47
| ||Good Morning all you wonderful guys,|
If you are enjoying yourselves, I suppose nothing else maters. In fact, I am sure of it. The gyroscope is so complicated that the top university experts do not even know! that they do not know-- the how and why of it. So, your projects can last forever because of the complications. Not everyone gets to have the fun and intensity as you have, my friends.
Live Long and Prosper,
Spock, alias Glenn
I actually do like you.
||Nitro - 26/04/2018 17:05:09
| ||Dear Laurent,|
With your interesting accent and flat mains plugs in the background of your video, I am trying to figure out where you live. Though as your English is good it is hard to tell from your accent – Nosey sod aint I?
Just worried that I may find my door handles smeared with Novichoc if I don’t reveal the secrets of my inertia drive. You have to be joking, Nitro! If the Ruskies or, preferably, the British want it it is there for the asking. An acknowledgement of my primacy would be nice though.
Laurent, there is no need to be stacked over why during Gyrodynamic Strokes the gyro mass does not appear to exhibit the same inertia as Newtonian Strokes. This, like so many anomalies with gyros, is simply down to Nitro’s first law (A gyro will precess every force acting to change its axial angle, not just the force you happened to think of) which I use as it helps explain numerous counter-intuitive effects. This is why I have banged on about Nitro’s first law in the past on this site as it is key to better understanding of what goes on. It also helps predict what will happen with any proposed mechanical arrangement. It is often the inculcation with Newtonian physics that causes poor prediction, so deep is the almost religious indoctrination that we often cannot see the wood for the trees.
THE GS PART
One of the most difficult applications of Nitro’s first law to get your head round is that when an offset gyro is suspended from a fine thread or on a frictionless vertical axis on a frictionless (off course “frictionless” is a nonsense so that should read “nearly frictionless”) base. When released carefully into precession the gyro rotates around its support – all very normal and commonly observed by every child with a gyro on an Eifel tower. But! Hang on a minute. If the gyro’s large mass is moving in a rotary sense around its support where is the equal and opposite mass movement insisted on by Newton's third law? The answer is, of course :- There isn’t any opposite mass movement. The accepted scientific view is that the gyro must rotate round its centre of mass. This is not so and I put up this crude demonstration video to show this:-
This is the reason the GS part shows no (well little, as there is no such thing as a perfect gyro, or machine) mass inertia and is the first clue that some people have finally “got it”. Namely that the “impossibility of mass displacement or impulse drive or anti gravity or any other name you wish to give it - without pushing on something or throwing away something – is actually possible”, as, if there is no opposite mass rotation in this example then there exists a path (tortuous, but a path none the less) to usable reactionless mass displacement.
THE NS PART
The reason that a constrained gyro acts like a Newtonian (ie non spinning) reactive mass is explained by the application of “Nitro’s first law” (did you guess that?). Taking your twin pendulum device as an example:- when the pendulum swings on the NS stroke gravity applies a force to change the gyros axial angle which results in this force being precessed through 90degrees to push the gyro against the guide rail. So far so easy. Now, Nitro’s law kicks in and things get a little more interesting. The effect of the force caused by the rail pushing against the gyro (for as surely as the gyro is pushing against the rail the rail is pushing against the gyro) is also precessed through 90degrees in the direction that the pendulum was falling under gravity. Thus each force (gravity and the rail’s pushback) has been precessed through 90degrees (180 in total) the gravitational force being precessed twice comes out in the same direction as the original force making the gyro act as though it was a non spinning mass being accelerated as per Newtonian law. Et Voila; you have the key to the required 2 stokes, one gyrodynamic and one Newtonian to achieve reactionless propulsion. Its motion is somewhat jerky but by twin mirroring my machine it will work in weightless conditions.
Converting my realisation of the possible into a practical machine is something that has exercised me since I was a child at Summerhill School when, as we didn’t have to go to lessons, I started to find out about gyroscopic effects while stripping old bicycles with Tim Israel (a bike mad friend). First I discovered, as so very many kids (and indeed adults) have, that wonderfully weird effect of the spinning wheel feeling like it is alive as it turns ninety degrees from any way you tried to turn it.
later I discovered, after the front wheel and forks had been fitted to the bike’s frame and the frame clamped in a vice, that the steering handlebars could, with the wheel spun up, be rotated round and round by one finger quiet freely with none of the gyroscopic apparent resistance at all. I had discovered, though I didn’t know it at the time, that a gyro that was constrained and unable to precess, acted like a plain non spinning mass. This is a product of, as described above - Nitro’s first law – what a surprise.
So having made this extraordinary discovery I immediately rushed to the patent office – Nah! Not really. I just continued being a normal but very curious kid (my wife, who also went to Summerhill school would probably say “A very, very, curious kid!”). Much later my brother who worked at de Havilland's made me the gift of an old helicopter workshop manual which started the curiosity again and I began making a few test models. Soon, thanks to “Nitro’s first law” I cracked what was needed and sat back for years and did nothing as, like so many inventors (I had started inventing other things by then that made money which was much needed) I assumed that with so many genius scientists in the world what I had found out must already have been known.
When the sainted Eric Laithwaite went public with a vertical scissoring device very like mine and claimed that it lost weight I actually cried with anger at myself for not having got my finger out and progressed my invention. Soon, however, I realised that poor Professor Laithwaite had made a terrible error in part of his understanding which we all now know would allow the howling jackals of the Royal Society and most scientists to revile him for not sticking to the established teachings. This has guaranteed that even if you have a working machine which, Laurent, though they be basic, you and I know we have, we would still get laughed out of the laboratory of any scientific establishment you approach for help.
Where one goes further with this I still don’t know. It should be taken further even though I don’t see it producing the hoped for smooth acceleration, but surely it will lead to better understanding of the subject and then who knows where it will go.
I may give Dr. Hugh Hunt at Cambridge University, if he is still around, another try but like most scientists I think he has an off switch behind his ear and a sign in his forehead that lights up with “WARNING! NUTTER IN SHED” when ever inertial drive is mentioned no matter what proof he be proffered.
||Sandy - 26/04/2018 22:52:38
| ||Good evening everyone,|
It is refreshing when the “Forum” springs to life to debate certain gyroscopic anomalies which are invariably scorned by the establishment.
When I inserted “Antigravity Machine - Part 3” onto YouTube it was for the sole purpose of directing interested minds towards a method which makes the acquisition of inertial thrust possible.
The device in question was designed to demonstrate that centrifugal force or angular momentum if you prefer it that way, can be manipulated by the altered rotation speed of the gyroscopes.
This is also true for changes in what you tend to call hub rotation speeds.
Needless to say, a bit of one and a bit of the other, can also have an effect on the magnitude of those changes.
I was surprised at the number of lame brains who made stupid remarks at the device not demonstrating thrust.
It was never meant to.
I would guess many of them would struggle reading joined up writing but I thought my printed word was clear enough.
They obviously know nothing about gyroscopes and the accepted laws of physics.
It is also lucky that their adverse comments do not matter.
These things aside consider a balanced seesaw with a bucket mounted at either end.
If a material for instance water is poured into the bucket on the left, the bucket on the right will be forced to elevate.
Now if water is poured into the bucket on the right, at the same time the water in the left bucket is allowed to drain out, the bucket on the left will be forced to elevate.
It can be seen that by filling and emptying the buckets in a sequence a typical seesawing oscillation will take place.
Obviously the larger the amount of water in the descending bucket the greater the rate of downward acceleration.
What is interesting is the fact that the lighter bucket is always elevated and the heavier bucket is always descending.
The source of the water is at this stage irrelevant.
Now consider my demonstration device and what it is showing.
For a seesaw consider a rapidly rotating twin gyroscope system.
For water transpose angular momentum.
Do not expect me to show you how that is done, I am leaving something for you to do.
The net output is directly proportional to the cyclic changeover speed which at this stage in the game would hardly be called rapid.
That problem is therefore yours
I first did this about 33 years ago.
My apologies Glenn but this is the closest I can get to having part of the action leave the system and then regenerate itself.
||woopy - 27/04/2018 18:20:07
| ||To Nitro|
Very good video (nice bart and main plug HiHi)
When i saw the critics on the video's comment, i could not prevent me to make another video on the very same problematic.
Your video is very good and i will study your theory thank's
It is a pleasure that you come on this topic
Your great experience will be very appreciated
I will read all what i can find on your experiment
I have some problem for posting long reply, it seems that when i spend too much time answering, the forum does not accept the answer ?
To all thank's
||Nitro - 27/04/2018 22:04:20
Good video confirming my description of what actually happens but please in future give me credit for my input or it will stop.
||woopy - 27/04/2018 22:39:31
| ||Hi |
of course done
I have added on the comments of my video your video link.and you got 2 more visitors in five minutes. "pas belle la vie !!"
We are on the same boat Nick
and on the same track
||Nitro - 28/04/2018 04:01:24
| ||Hi Laurent, |
Thanks for that.
Did you understand my (overly long) explanation of GS and NS?
PS Where in France?
||Sandy - 28/04/2018 21:41:35
| ||Good evening Laurent and all,|
I would firstly like to say that the series of presentations made by yourself on YouTube is commendable and produces many problems for the establishment to satisfactorily address.
I did converse with Harvey Fialla for some time a few years ago and I did believe in his approach to one-way drive.
He did however admit that his devices would not be able to operate in space, but at that time I did believe that he could make them move horizontally as you have so obviously proved.
In Item 14 you demonstrated the ability of a rotating gyroscope suitably manipulated to enable a vertically suspended large ring to be rotated.
Away back in 1987 I built a pair of identical machines at the request of an Australian sponsor, one for workshop use and one containing the findings of the workshop machine for purely laboratory testing.
The gyroscopic mechanism you demonstrated was in fact half of the same mechanism I used for my successful lab test.
By half I mean that my device was designed to have two cams and two gyro arms, and like yours the gyroscopes braked on the cams and then accelerated away in exactly the same manner. This was early on in my gyroscopic apprenticeship, when I was just finding out how changes in gyroscope rotation speed or in system (or hub) rotation speed affected the amount of angular momentum generated.
As I was attempting to produce vertical thrust my gyroscopes were mounted at an angle of about 60 degrees to the horizontal, otherwise there were many similarities, even in the motion of the device.
It was a long time ago now but if you are interested the American Patent Application number was 5, 024, 112.
This device produced what I believe to be the only existing (since 1988) laboratory proof of the production of vertical inertial thrust by successfully completing 20 out of 20 separate tests.
The VIPAC Laboratory Test and Report is available if required.
I may say that the device was crude, hard to manipulate, not radio controlled but it did deliver consistent results in spite of me.
I must add that the initial design was conceived after a lengthy telephone call to one Scott Strachan of Edinburgh who produced a working inertial drive device several years before I did.
The cam mechanism was inspired as a result of the phone call from Scott, and while somewhat misguided at that time, did the trick.
||Glenn Hawkins - 29/04/2018 05:31:18
| ||Hello Woopy,|
You are given only so much time on this site to type. Write your answer on your word program/ processor, MS Word, or Apple, cut and past to this site.
||woopy - 29/04/2018 16:48:15
| ||Hi all|
This post to thank you all for your contribution, very helpfull.
I am preparing a long post with word as per Glenn recommandations, to explain you where i am with my gyro research.
But it takes some time , and i am redoing some forgotten experiments after reading your proposals.
I will also try to post a picture .
This is a picture of an evolution of my succesfull ( part 13 ) forced precession first test. But very unattended this one (twin gyro) mounted on oppositin and alternating the GS and NS does not work at all. I think i know why. I will try to explain in my next longer post.
||woopy - 29/04/2018 16:51:22
The picture is not there
Is that a way to post picture or shematic on this forum ?
||Nitro - 29/04/2018 18:45:17
| ||Laurent I don't think that you can place pictures on this blog. Can only suggest you put it on a public picture site or a video on YouTube with a link here.|
||Miklos Somos - 06/05/2018 18:51:10
| ||Dear Laurent,|
Your devices are very nice. I liked the minimalistic realisation of them.
If You would not mind, then I would propose an experiment based on video Nr. 12.
It seems to me, that You spin up the gyro in the same direction by every try.
What would happen, if the gyro would spin in the other direction?
||woopy - 10/05/2018 18:00:37
| ||I all|
Ihave read a lot on this forum and noticed that a lot of what i have experienced has already been discuseed , or disputed or explained or unexplained in the past.
A lot of usefull reading, thank's to all of you.
I am going on some experiment trying to isolate some particularity of gyro, trying to go deeper in the understanding but not easy at all.
Some one on another forum asked me afor a pendulum test. I don't like the pendulum test because they have a tendancy to kill the propulsive effect during the NS (newtonian stroque as per Nitro). But i made a video.
As you perfectly say, i try to stay very simple on my test. I hope you will replicate this very easy test so you can spin the gyro any direction you will and report.
My machine is no more working at the present.
||Nitro - 11/05/2018 14:38:05
| ||Nice one Laurent. |
You certainly are fast with your experiments. I've had my latest improvement ready to go just sitting on the bench for over three years - I've got the inventors equivalent of writers block. After so many years, I suppose I'm fed up with the subject a bit.
I think you chose the wrong machine to test as it has to much rotary and not enough linear reactions. This makes the pendulum motions impossible to analyse, but good work anyway.
Use your twin pendulum machine and you will find that it will pass the NASA test.
You can buy me a pint when we meet. I live in Guernsey, Channel Islands (Les Isles du Manche if you must) are you far from there?
||woopy - 12/05/2018 11:26:32
| ||Hi Nick|
yes the double rower could be better for this prendulum test, but it was destroyed during a test, and i never redone it, because i will try something different with the parts.
And as i have already said those pendulum test with our system are much too wobling for reall total result. To me it is as testing the rate of acceleration of a car on snow. It works but not optimally for sure.
I got a disturbing night, and i tried this
When i let the gyro go in precession you see that there is quasi no fall and the precession is direct, which seems to suit your Nitro's first law.
But how can we explain the mechanism of the mass transfer, if my explanation in the video is correct.
I will ow you a fondue if you come in center Europa, or if once i got too much money and will need Guernesey facilities to install my trust. HiHi, but it is not for tomorrow, but who knows
||Nitro - 12/05/2018 12:45:17
| ||Nice elegant explanation Laurent, your experiment and clear drawings have more than justified your sleepless night. It again demonstrates mass transfer quite clearly and shows the gradual change from a gyrodynamic mass to a Newtonian mass as the gyro looses speed – this is where nutation comes from.|
Ha, Ha. A fondue it is then – Switzerland would explain the wonderful view from your balcony terrace. If you do get too much money my wife works in a trust company here – sadly I cannot get her to bring home any samples.
||Sandy - 13/05/2018 10:58:43
| ||Good evening Laurent,|
Your demonstration devices are very interesting, and good to watch.
After watching your excellent little machine, I would like to comment.
Assume a gyroscope is mounted on a shaft, and that shaft is rotated at a fixed speed.
Now assume that the gyroscope rotation speed is increased.
A loss of angular momentum can be measured, or if you like it that way a loss of centrifugal force can be measured.
Now consider the same shaft and gyroscope, with the gyroscope rotating at a fixed speed.
Now assume that the shaft with its rotating gyroscope is made to rotate.(call this the system)
A loss of angular momentum can be measured.
I am making the point that if I reduce the rotation speed of the gyroscope increasing the angular momentum, but if I increase the speed of the system this will initially tend to balance the loss of angular momentum.
This is basically what your device is demonstrating.
This gyroscopic action I was going to demonstrate next on “YouTube” after my not so well received “Antigravity Machine Part 3”.
However, the high ratio of idiots who cannot read printed words, but only watch the pictures has made me decide to leave them ignorant.
Great stuff Laurent.
Your little devices make a person ask a few questions.
Keep them coming.
||Sandy - 13/05/2018 11:15:42
I meant to mention that its now rather obvious why Laithwate’s big wheel could be elevated so easily, but at that time Eric Laithwaite did not know either.
No magic, no tricks.
Simple physics of spinning wheels
||woopy - 14/05/2018 17:24:26
| ||Hi Sandy|
Thank's for encouraging
I think i have well understood your device in your last video.
The problem is how to communicate all your great experience on a very complex system to people with a very formated thinking.
That's why i tried to isolate each part of the system with small experiments. And so i learn myself a lot of things and can progress.
Now i know that i will not twist the gyros but the gyros are already twisting my mind.
Yes i think i am on track to find why Eric Laithwaite (and you and also me ) was able to lift the big wheel, and i thought he knew what he did, my perhaps not.
And please do your next video, there will be for sure me to study it and discuss.
Will make soon a next video on the lack of inertia, really intersting
||Miklos Somos - 15/05/2018 22:05:37
| ||Dear Laurent,|
I really enjoy Your experiments and enthusiasm about gyroscopes.
Gyrodynamics is a very unique and exotic topic in science too. Unique and exotic, because gyros are rarely used for practical, everyday purposes. You can find them only in special navigational instruments and positioning systems (in torpedos, in airplanes and aircrafts, in ships and in satelites). Their importance is diminishing with the upcoming of their electronic substitutes.
Therefore You will hardly find any scientist or professional, who really knows, whats going on in a gyroscopic system. But it does not mean, that gyroscopic motion is not explainable by science.
Gyrodynamics is not an easy thing to understand, on hand because gyros are not the part of our everyday life. On the other hand, gyrodynamics is a hard topic, if You would like to use mathematics (or mythematics as people here call it) for their investigation.
I'm currently working on the explanation of Your experiments based on classical mechanics (Newtonian if You like). My point of view is, that every effect You showed in Your beautiful experiments can be explained by the good old equations of motion. It is not an easy task, but it works. I hope, that I can give You a detailed document about the whys and hows soon.
I'm examining such experiments as Yours on the side of the official science for 10 years now. I would give You some hints, which could be useful in Your journey in the jungle of gyrodynamics.
The explanation of the marble test You have given in this thread before is false.
You wrote: "As you can see, the device translate forwards but not the black plate (substrate). If there is some slip stick, the substrate should move backwards and the device should move back and forth without translating forwards."
Sorry, but it is not the case. Friction is one of the trickiest forces besides inertial or pseudo forces (which drive the gyros according to classical mechanics). If You have slip stick, then the substrate will move with the device to some extent (as it can be observed in Your videos), not backwards. The static friction will behave as a weak glue between the substrate and the device.
If You are interested about how much effect friction has on the motion of Your devices, then You have basically two choices.
You should use load cells or any similar equipment (strain gauges) to measure the forces exerted by Your system. Sorrily such an equipment is very expensive, but it has the advantage, that it makes just microscopic deformations in order to measure the forces, and therefore it eliminates the effects of friction.
The second method is far more simple. I have found it on Youtube. Chad Rodriguez a guy, who formerly experimented with such devices, has offered it. If You have a device which rolls on steel bearings, then try the same device with ceramic bearings. The explanation behind that is if the device moves with the aid of friction, then if You could decrease friction in the system, then the movement of Your device will be mitigated. If Your device moves under the action of unknown gyroscopic forces, then with decreased friction the movements of Your device will be increased.
It is enough of me for today.
||woopy - 16/05/2018 13:35:42
| ||Hi Miklos|
Whaoo you are a very good observer.
Effectively on my test part 8, the black substrate move with the device slightly and forwards.
But i am not so sure that my explanation is as you say… false . Let me try again.
So let’s assume that there is inertial propulsion (what i think it is), the Newtonian Stroke (NS) portion ( which is not the Gyrodynamic Stroke (GS)portion ) of rotation (180 degrees ) motorises the device forwards. Or other said during the NS, the gyro mass propells the device forwards by action and reaction.
So as there is some friction on the 4 ball bearings (they are not frictionless and ceramic bearing are perhaps better but they are not frictionless too) , it is quite normal that the substrtate is also slighttly pulled together with the device.
So as you can see the inertial propulsion is not only able to propell the device forwards, but also the substrate which is of the same weight as the device itself…..powefull is’nt it?
Contrary to your definition, to me the « stick slip effect « comes from the asymetric movement and schacking of a device which induces a motorising effect into the ball bearings.
So if there is some stick slip effect, the translation is due to this motorising effect of the ball bearings and not to the inertial propulsion… right ?
So if it would be any stick slip on my test part 8, the substrate should be propelled backwards (due to the stick slip motorising action of the ball bearings against the substrate), and it should never goes forwards…..what it does as you cleverly observed ??
This test part 8 was proposed by other physicists on an other forum, because they suspected the stick slip action on the ball bearing as being the motorisation cause of my device. And they proposed to me to execute this test (part 8) as it would be the ultimate to check this effect . Since this test has been done, i have received no more negative comments from those people, i suppose they are happy with it ??
Look at this video at 0.35, the guy put a toy truck on a substrate on an air table, and it is very clear that the substrate is propelled backwards due tot he action of the motorising wheels on the substrate. And the truck almost not move forwards. Action and reaction there.
Finally i will insist on the test, after discussion with other physicists, it is clear that the air table or the air track are not suited for this kind of device because of the asymetry between NS and GS portion which can incline slightly the substrate and the air can exhaust sidely creating some jet pulses hence falsify the results. Same with floating boat on water (side movement). And finally the suspended pendulum which decreases strongly the propulsive effect on the motorising NS portion due to the wobling.
So Miklos, who is wrong and who is right has no importance to me. And you are welcome if you will explain all this gyrodynamics with Normal laws, i would be very happy, and it would be much simpler, but so far i have looked for on internet and other places, the general explanations with a lot of vector and formulas, are never satisfactory and none of them clearly explain why Prof Laithwaite could lift the big wheel so easily.
To begin slowly, i would be interested to see your explanation for my video part 16
As the most interesting part is at the beginning oft he experiment, when the chariot does not move at all, i suppose we can avoid any stick slip explanation. So perhaps we can do better.
Newton is there for sure, but not sure where and how .
And this is the big and very interesting deal in this research.
Thank’s for input
||Miklos Somos - 16/05/2018 20:19:12
| ||Dear Laurent,|
Now I understand Your statement better. But before I would make my remarks about it, I think it would be useful for the future to clarify some points.
First, I would let You know, that if I express my critics about anybody's statements, then I criticise the truth or validity of the statement, not the person itself.
So please do not take my critics personally. What we do here is not an obvious and easy thing, the errors and misconceptions are inevitable.
Based on that, I agree with You, it is not important WHO is right or WHO is wrong. But what really matters is WHAT is true and WHAT is not, WHAT works and WHAT not, HOW things work and HOW not.
Let's back to friction.
For me it is very important to use the words according to their definition. Stick-slip covers the following phenomena:
Stick-slip is caused by friction.
Friction has a two-fold nature. One is static friction, this force sticks two bodies tangentially together.
The other is kinetic or dynamic friction which arises between two bodies slipping on each other.
There has to be a force which pushes the two bodies together. Let there be a force system (denote it with F) which tries to move the two bodies tangentially relative to each other.
There is a critical magnitude of F, let say Fcr, under which static friction applies. Until F does not goes over Fcr, the two bodies do not move relative to each other.
If F exceeds Fcr then kinetic friction takes place. The two body starts to move tangentially relative to each other, they begin to slip on each other.
And interestingly, if the bodies are already slipping on each other, it needs less force than Fcr to maintain the slipping motion.
You can find a better explanation here:
Friction is a force that tries to hold things back. Therefore I do not agree with any physicist who tells, that stick-slip can cause any motorising effects in bearings.
I would gladly have a negotiation about that with those physicists. :)
But first it should be clearly defined, what those physicists mean under motorising effect.
According to my point of view, the asymmetrical shaking or jerk generated by the device and the friction in the bearings leads to the stick-slip phenomena arising in the bearings.
When the device exerts big forces then the bearing will slip, when the device generate only moderate forces, then the bearing will stick.
If the device produces this asymmetric force periodically, so that the magnitude of the forces depends only on the angular position of the gyro around the vertical axis, then the bearing will hinder the motion of the device in the direction of small forces, and will let the device move in the direction of great forces. Stick-slip will rectify the effect of the forces acting on the system.
This could be called a motorising effect, because it seems that something drives the device forward. But this effect will not move the substrate backwards.
So I would propose to separate the two things:
So for me motorising means driven wheels by any means, for example by an electric motor or anything else, which applies a torque on the wheels.
And stick-slip is defined as on wikipedia.
If I would like to check Your device, I would also ask You to do the marble test, but only to see whether the weels are somehow driven. In other words, to see if You cheat or not. :)
If the substrate moves backwards, then the wheels are driven or motorised as it can be seen on the video You have linked, where the good old russian inventor Mr. Tolchin shows the effects of a driven wheel on a substrate.
But motorisation or driven wheels in this sense cannot be caused by stick-slip.
So my conclusions about the marble test (so far):
1.) You have shown, that the wheels or bearings of Your device are not driven. It is confirmed by the motion of the substrate. It does not move backwards.
2.) It can be seen, that the system experiences stick-slip. The motion of the substrate clearly shows that. It moves slightly forwards.
I would propose the following test for You, to see if You are on the right track.
1.) Box in the device. Get some plexiglas and build a box around the moving parts. The air flow is even trickier as gyroscopes.
2.) Test the boxed device with steel bearings without substrate on a smooth levelled surface (on the glass in the marble test).
3.) Test the boxed device with ceramic bearings without substrate on a smooth levelled surface (on the glass in the marble test).
If the device moves faster, stronger, higher with steel bearings, then forget it.
Why has to be both of the bearings tested and compared? Because friction can not be totally eliminated. But it can be controlled. The comparison will show You the real cause of the motion.
I will try my best, to explain to You the motion of the system on video 16.
||Nitro - 17/05/2018 06:53:01
Dear Miklos Somos
The science of rotary motion has moved on little since Newton. However, to the curious (my wife would add the word “very” to that) the observable facts have changed things. The math to explain the observable facts, however, needs a little re-writing.
The anomalies I and others far smarter have noticed with gyrodynamics is easier to understand than much science because all that is needed to understand is the simple unbiased ability of a child's innocence to observe. Sadly most scientists are adults who have lost that childhood innocent ability through education that has for most people included Newtonian indoctrination.
Miklos, your “good old equations of motion” may well explain the wonderful motions of some of Laurent’s, Laithwaite’s and my (if you’ve bothered to look at mine) machines. I believe that these machines could possibly turn out to follow most of the classic motion laws and equations - barring the need to drop the word “opposite” from Newton's third law. If, as is entirely possible, you are right about the machines’ following the known laws of motion, it would, remarkably, (but not, to me, surprisingly) show that it is possible to circumvent Newton's Laws (well the third, at least) by actually using - er - Newton’s laws.
Weird physics it is what it is!
Miklos, until you can observe mechanical devices after you have cleared you mind of the current Newtonian induced religion, you will be unlikely to be able to understand the teachings of the new, greater god. I shall put up the simplest video examples to attempt to achieve this change in your understanding at the end of this.
While it is great that you have examined for ten years, the experiments of those who have looked outside Newton’s box, you have shown by your comments that you have so far been unable to countenance what has been put up, be me and others, to help those, like you, understand that there is a true new church in the physics of rotation.
There are a few, like me, who have successfully passed beyond the jungle of “slip/stick”, misinterpretation of random oscillation, the downright lies of others in the hope of fame and riches (Ha Ha) and the poor understanding by many of basic physics, to reach the holy grail of “unopposed mass movement, inertial drive, anti gravity”, or whatever the current nonsense name it is given. I have achieved reactionless impulse propulsion years ago and have shown the early crude machines. Naturally I have held back on divulging full details of the best machines but the keys including the patents (UK ones not worthless USA ones – they will patent any non functioning crap there) are there for those prepared to exert themselves.
Miklos you, like the ways of most of the old “it-aint-possible-and-the maths-proves-it, church”, have picked out just one example put up by Woopy (Laurent) that may possibly suffer from stick/slip (I haven’t studied all his videos) but why did you ignore all the ones that worked and did not show the possibility of “stick-slip”?
The Royal Institution shamefully did the same thing as you with the fantastic demonstrations of the new path by Professor Eric Laithwaite. While most of his observations were spot on, those supposedly learned people at the Royal Institution picked on the odd ones that were flawed by his enthusiasm and would better support their out of date and incorrect views. His only sin was that he missed out on a small step (which I, amazingly, found way before him but didn’t know how to get the scientific community to seriously discuss it – same old same old, today) and had his career and life ruined by his very peers who should have supported him on the new path.
While Laurent is fairly new to this subject he has shown with his machines that he is learning blisteringly fast.
If, Miklos, you really want to try to start learning – perhaps not as blisteringly fast a Laurent - then please look at this video I put up in a bid to get the understanding of convinced Newtonianists improved. I hold out little hope that a member of the old church has the balls to follow the links with an open mind or ask if they don’t understand what I show – please prove me wrong.
The following video shows the expected movement of a standard Newtonian reaction on a machine preceded by the, perhaps less expected, movement of a standard gyrodynamic reaction on the same machine. The input forces and mass are the same but the movements are not the same You need to ask yourself why :-
Miklos, the difference between the two (“G stroke” movement and “N stroke” movement, though small, is not faked and can be repeated ad inf.) shows in the simplest way I can figure out to show you and others that there is a way around/defect in/need to re-examine Newton's laws.
As you say:-
It is enough of me for today.
||woopy - 17/05/2018 08:34:33
| ||Hi Miklos|
Thank’s for your info.
Here a video of what seems to me to be a perfect demo of a Stick Slip inertial (non gyroscopic) translation. Which works only on the full friction table for sure.
But for my education as i am here more to learn than to teach.
My question to you is :
if this guy put his device on a substrate of the exact same friction as the table top and of the exact same weight as the device itself (as it is the case in my part 8) and he put the substrate with the device on steel balls and on a perfect smooth and levelled plate of glass.
What will the substrate do,
1- Does not move at all ?
2- Goes backwards ?
3- Goes forwards ?
||Miklos Somos - 17/05/2018 21:59:38
| ||Dear Nitro,|
Your kind and warm words have almost turned me into a humble servant of the new God of Rotation.
As the pope of this new religion, You should choose a better method to get more followers. Naturally only if You would really like to have more.
I admit, I'm an adult. I think as an adult most of the time... Ok ok, lets say 10%. But every child needs at least one adult to be raised properly. They should be told to not to mess with the hot oven, or jump out of the window etc.
If You will, I can play that role. But I hope You won't.
You say that I do the same thing to Laurent what the Royal Institution did to Laithwaite. Do You really think that, or You just enjoy shouting childish nonsense about somebody You don't even know.
The Royal Institute did something, that I would never do. They just hid the fact that Laithwaite had ever been there. They supressed him. They ridiculed him.
I like what Laurent does, and how he does it. He seeks the truth, and he tries to assimilate and consider all available information. I respect him beacuse of that. His enthusiasm revives this forum too. I have shown his videos to some of my friends, and they were impressed too.
I'm here to help. I'm sorry that I do it contrary to Your taste. But I do not want to forget, what I have learned so far. What mankind have learned through the ages. Yes, I agree, there are some parts of our present knowledge, which should be reexamined. As prof. Salter has said: "I beleive that every law of physics ought to be given a very good kick at the back side every so often." Actually Newton has been already corrected by Einstein. And it can be, that he has to be corrected once again. But there are things which are there no matter whether You care or not. Gravity is there, friction is there and yes, stick-slip is there.
Actually it is there in Your device too.
It seems that You do not remember, that I have watched Your "Reaction question...
please leave your answers (polite please) below" video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Muckb1xigRA).
Interesting, that You ask Your audience for politeness...
Anyway I have even given a forecast, based on those bloody Newton's laws. And Your device had behaved accordingly.
I watch every video about gyros. Carefully. I have watched Laurent's videos also. But I can not react to every video at once. I'm just an ordinary human, not a pope.
An anecdote crossed my mind...
A mother buys two shirts for his son for christmas. The son puts on one of them on the next day. He goes down to have a breakfast. His mother stares at him: so you don't like the other one?
I have chosen the videos which show the stated propulsion effect, because I could give Laurent some simple advices based on these videos. I have found Nr. 15 (the old Laithwaite experiment) and Nr. 18. also very interesting, and I work on the equations of those, to see if Newton applies.
I would be glad, if there would be some effects unknown to classical mechanics. But to find them, the known effects should be identified and closed out. This is my method, I'm sorry if it is undigestible to You, and it lets You puking gratuitous assumptions on me.
I have not stated that "it-aint-possible-and-the maths-proves-it". I have only said, that if an experimenter, lets say Laurent, wants to check whether his device moves by the help of friction or stick-slip, then he should do the steel-ceramic-bearing test. That's all.
||Nitro - 18/05/2018 00:22:41
| ||Dear Miklos|
My humble apologies. In my anger at the universal church of physics for their mistreatment of one of their own in Laithwaite and the delays in updating their understanding, I have allowed myself to become as blind as them in my anger at their inability to see past his obvious errors to see his perhaps less obvious truths. I should go back to the Conclave and, realising, as I do when less agitated, that the new church desperately needs those learned in the ways of the old church to bring about a change in belief, ask them to reappraise their votes for the new Pope to you - only if you end up agreeing with me - of course..
As an atheist I should never have got started on this religious analogy. Please keep helping with your input for a better understanding of this infuriating, addictive, subject.
||Glenn Hawkins - 19/05/2018 00:54:54
| ||Very good, Miklos Somos. You get an A + in my mind.|
Still, consider that a very thin sheet of Styrofoam for the platform, about 1/16 inch thick is best. It is so light a baby’s breath will puff it away. Also if you can obtain them, hollow, lightweight plastic balls can be used. I have used these two items among others. These visibly reduce the effect of slip/stick. Nevertheless, in all my time and effort, so far as I have conceived, friction cannot be totally and completely avoided by any means. Evidence of the tiniest mount of friction will still exist – but greatly deduced from that shown on the listed website in the above posts.
||Brian Morris - 22/05/2018 12:33:06
| ||Hi Folks|
This whole friction discussion is a distraction, a straw man.
Woopy has shown an ingenious variation of the “up as a gyro, down as a weight”. It moves a mass outside of its own dimensions, it displaces mass by internal action. It shows that Newton’s Corollary 4 is incorrect.
Like Woopy I sought to reduce the complexity of my devices, the better to understand. Hence my obsession with the gyro on a string, it demonstrates the principle of displacement by internal action, moving a mass without external force.
The motion of a gyro swinging around on a string is not the same as an inert mass swinging around on a string. There is a fundamental difference in the forces which result in these apparently identical movements.
Put a mass in a black box, set it swinging around. Is it a gyro or is it an inert mass? The only external forces acting on the hidden mass are gravity, and the tension in the string.
Here is one for you Miklos. And Harry if he is looking in and Dr? David Fisher if he is still around and Dr I know everything about gyroscopes Hunt of Cambridge and Prof Steve Watts, Head of school Manchester who is now at 6 years responding soon.
Miklos, you say that “I'm currently working on the explanation of Your experiments based on classical mechanics (Newtonian if You like). My point of view is, that every effect You showed in Your beautiful experiments can be explained by the good old equations of motion. It is not an easy task, but it works.”
Given the length of the string supporting the black box, calculate the period of rotation. If as you say it can be explained by classical mechanics, then the answer you calculate can be verified by direct observation. That came out far more confrontationally than I intended. It sounds aggressive where I was trying for positive. What I am shrieking out at the top of my voice is just look and then explain how this does not violate classical physics. It is so simple (and no friction was harmed in the making of this experiment). I cannot see anything in classical theory which gives any possibility of the free pendulum acting in any other way. Or that will predict the actual motion of the black box in reaction to the external forces involved. Heisenberg was correct and there is no upper limit!!!
A precessing gyro generates internal forces which displace the mass of the gyro. This can be described as “it seems to have no inertia”. So devices like Woopy’s ingenious device make one stroke where the mass is displaced by these internal forces. This moves the joint centre of mass within the device. The next stroke moves both the inert mass of the machine and the inert mass of the gyro equally and oppositely, ready for the next stroke.
I have called the forces which make the gyro appear to shed all inertia “Dark Motion”. Less of a mouthful than “Forces acting internally to cause Gyroscopic anomalies” and although Dark Motion describes the forces acting within a gyro, it is not limited to the gyroscope.
Woopy, Your videos are great. I posted some thoughts on Video 15 and the same remarks apply to video 18. I sincerely hope that you are not looking at weight transfer as a reality. It is an analogy, useful in predicting some gyro behaviour. If the weight actually did move then there would be no gravity couple!
Enough for now
||Miklos Somos - 22/05/2018 18:10:25
| ||Dear Momentus,|
I'm very interested about Your Dark Motion theory. You have referrenced it before, but i have not found it on this site.
Actually I have a similar theory. According to my view, the forces which are acting on every atom in the gyro, add up and they acting globally as the gyroscopic moments. They cause precession and nutation, and all of the funny and unusual behaviour of gyros.
I have found, that these elementary forces can be explained by Newtonian theories. It is not the easy way to explain things, but it gives an insight into the deep workings of gyrodynamics.
My findings have shown, that these forces always act in pairs, so they can rotate the gyro, but linear propulsion is not achievable this way. Therefore something else is needed.
I think that the solution lies somewhere in the phenomenon of inertia. If it is the result of some interaction, then it could be modified. There are some, but naturally not mainstream scientific investigations in this direction.
I agree, that mass transfer is not a valid theory. It would give a totally different precessional behaviour regarding the rate of precession.
Newton's corollary 4 says:
The center of gravity of a system of bodies is not changed by the mutual
interactions of those bodies; therefore it will always remain at rest or moving uniformly in a
straight line (unless the entire system is acted upon by some force originating outside the
As Laurent's experiments take place on tables and electric cooktops in the gravitational field of the Earth, his system experiences friction as an external force. Therefore with the help of these forces the system could move beyond its own dimensions.
To this question, take a look at his video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf1Nt3KLm-U
Between 0:26 and 0:30 the thing goes outside its dimensions and the gyro does not spin at all.
If one seriously wants to find the means of inertial propulsion, then friction has to be cancelled or closed out, or it has to be taken into account and has to be controlled.
I do not mind confrontation, until the theories expressed by us are under attack, and not our personalities which are unknown for everyone here.
So if You would further elucidate Your proposed experiment to me, then I would gladly take the invitation for a test: classical mechanics vs. reality. I hope that my answer will not take 6 years...
||Miklos Somos - 22/05/2018 20:06:18
| ||Dear Laurent,|
I'm here to learn too. I know some theories, but it does not mean, that I'm smarter than You. I do not have the intention to teach anybody here.
I would like to test these theories (Newton's or anybody's), and the only tests are experiments. I do not have time at this moment to conduct tests, but I would be glad if we could work together in this funny way.
I have promissed You some explanation to Your video 16.
And I ove You the forecast for the motion of that funny worm device.
Last weekend I was not home, so in this reply I would give You just some outlines of my detailed answers.
According to my plans, on this weekend I can prepare a detailed answer to at least on of Your questions.
The forces acting in and on the system:
- gyroscopic forces and moments
- centrifugal (or centripetal) forces
What happens according to classical mechanics:
- You spin up the gyro, and release it (at approx. 5:23).
- Gravity will drive the gyro downwards (nutation), that motion is not clearly visible on the film.
- The atoms of the gyro will experience inertial forces, they sum up into gyroscopic moments, which will drive the gyro slightly upwards and horizontally (precession) from approx. 5:24.
Refer to this paper for more information:
- The gyro is found now in steady precession, which means that it rotates about the vertical axis with an approximately constant angular speed. The horizontal rotation exerts centrifugal forces. According to classical mechanics there are no dead and live masses, so the centrifugal force will account for all of the horizontally rotating masses. The centrifugal force is not yet big enough to overcome the friction in the bearings, and between the bearing and the cooktop, so the cart does not move.
- It has to be taken into account, that the magnitude of the centrifugal force is directly proportional to the square of the rate of precession. This means, that a slight change in th rate of precession could lead to a greater change in the magnitude of centrifugal forces. Therefore it could be hard to estimate the amount of centrifugal without any measurment.
- Meanwhile the friction in the bearing of the gyro decreases the speed of it's spin. As the gyro slows down, the rate of precession will rise. This is caused by the internal forces acting in the gyro, but a simple explanation could be the conservation of momentum which is actually can be derived from the internal forces. You find some further explanations again in https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1007/1007.5288.pdf
- As the rate of precession rises so do the centrifugal forces exerted by the precession.
- At approx. 5:30 the centrifugal force overcomes the static friction, and the cart starts to move slightly.
- As the cart starts to move, the static friction force breaks down into kinetic friction. The magnitude of kinetic friction depends on the relative speed of the bodies in contact. As higher the realtive speed is as lower the force of friction. This and the increasing centrifugal forces lead to the increasing dynamics of the cart.
- The oscillating movement of the cart probably effects the dynamics of the gyro. This feedback and the uncertain, chaotic nature of friction causes the uneven movement of the cart.
This is my short explanation. I plan to make some simulations on the weekend, lets see what comes out.
Just one another thought on centrifugal forces. Laithwaite had sometimes said, that high quality gyros (more mass on the rim) exert less centrifugal force. This is known in classical mechanics. Take a look at the wikipedia article:
In the section "Torque induced" the second formulae gives a simplified explanation. It is derived from the general equations of motion for a steady precession. In the numerator You see the gravity induced torque (m*g*r). In the denominator the first member (Is) is the moment of inertia of the gyro. The greater it is the better the gyro. The second term is the angular speed of the gyro (spin).
According to this formulae if the spin of the gyro is the same, then the greater the moment of inertia (or the quality) of the gyro is, the slower the precession will be, and therefore the smaller the centrifugal.
Sorrily until this moment, I have not find any evidence, that Laithwaite had exactly measured the centrifugal. I know that he had done some experiments. I have some old footage about them provided by his colleague Mr. Dawson. There are some ingenious solutions and tries, but no hard evidence.
||Sandy - 22/05/2018 22:01:55
| ||All interested parties,|
I agree with Miklos with his regard to the series of demonstrations presented by Laurent.
His particular series of experiments which demonstrate some of the peculiar antics displayed by gyroscopes must force interested persons to ask why they behave the way they do?
I do realise that all of the demonstrations, presented by Laurent, well at least all of the ones I have so far seen, are designed to operate in a horizontal manner.
So, I thought I should complicate the issue somewhat by offering this.
Thanks Laurent for jogging my old memory.
I would like to bring your attention to the fact that in several of those demonstrations, vertical one-way pulses are being developed without them being recognised as such, or that they are at all present.
In Part 6 the gyroscope is repeatedly forced to negotiate an incline on a circular but cam shaped track.
It will be noticed that the gyroscope and its support is effectively braked but not quite stopped when it attempts to climb the cam but this severely slows down the progress of the gyroscope.
In this case the gyroscope rotation speed does not alter, but the system rotation speed does, and consequently alters the mass of the gyroscope.
It can be seen that the gyroscope as it is forced to climb the cam momentarily imparts part of its rotational energy into the machine forcing the machine to accelerate whilst the gyroscope itself is forced to slow down
The gyroscope in its slowed down condition is accelerated upwards as it negotiates the cam face acquiring an almost static state at the apex of the cam, accelerates over the top face of the cam then recovers its normal rotation speed whilst proceeding downwards from whence it came
The device itself accelerates back to its pre-braking position as soon as the gyroscope starts its acceleration.
Newton was correct with that bit.
I apologise for my over simplification of the angular momentum exchange in raising the gyroscope, it is a little more complicated than that, however any omission by me at this time will have no effect on the operation of the mechanism.
Suitably designed a twin (necessary for balance) gyroscope system with matching cam shapes can be made to produce repeatable and recordable positive vertical pulses from a relatively simple device.
The fierceness of the cam face, the overall weight of the device and consequent braking imparted to the system appreciably affects the magnitude of the produced pulses.
This relatively simple method of producing consecutive pulses is exactly the same method I used to produce my successful VIPAC Laboratory Test and Report from 1988.
It is necessary that the device has the ability to oscillate back and forth whilst suspended by a cord or wire or suchlike.
My device came to an almost dead stop when negotiating the cams.
If the frame of the device is anchored to a bench for instance, the device will not work.
Hope this helps,
P.S. I would be interested to know if Laurent, or anyone else for that matter detects vertical pulses, which will be continuous and should be observed in a half decent counterweighted system.
||woopy - 23/05/2018 15:38:22
| ||Hi Miklos|
So for you , any positiv results (unidirectional translation ) by inertial propulsion with gyroscope can only happen on this earth and in gravity because friction. So be it.
Sorry to insist but to me the part 8
is in total contradiction with your friction explanation.
If the ball bearings exhibit any kind of friction causing the forwards translation of the device ON THE SUBSTRATE, it must be action and reaction as per Isaac. So if the device move forwards on the substrate, the reaction should push the substrate backwards on the steel balls.
If the device goes forwards on the substrate, but the substrate goes backwards on the steel balls , it should be no translation of the device in the reference frame (which in this case are the tiles on the ground under the flat plate of glass). So no inertial propulsion.
But this is not the case in the reality, and the substrate stays more or less at the same location (on the reference frame) and the device translate clearly forwards on the substrate and hence also on the reference frame.
At no moment you can observe a backwards motion of the substrate by reaction. Even at 2.50 the device goes first slightly backwards on the substrate before going forwards , and the substrate stays almost steady. Which shows that the ball bearings are of very good glide quality. (they are not greased and i have compared with ceramic bearing and the wind down is almost better on my steel bearings)
So this reality seems clearly to show inertial propulsion without reaction.
But who knows, perhaps i am totally wrong.
||woopy - 23/05/2018 15:44:44
| ||Hi Sandy|
Yes you are right, there is very probably some vertical impulse on my Fiala's replication.(part 6)
I think when the traction wheel climb up the cam violently, it pull down also violently the precessing gyro and perhaps there is a counter vertical reaction possible. But on the Fialas device, that vertical movement is very tiny, so i am not sure we can detect it easily. But many thank's for that , i will study your proposal for some seesaw device with counter weight .
||woopy - 23/05/2018 15:49:48
| ||Hi all|
Just for fun, some new discoveries (for me anyway) i have pleasure to share here.
Don't know if it is new for you experienced people, but who knows
||Nitro - 23/05/2018 20:42:59
| ||Dear all|
I should like to start by apologising.
As senility progresses I seem to have gained the ability to be obnoxious to people without even trying or being aware of it. It will probably not be until I re-read this when someone points out I have offended them that I discover that. While being an absolute genius (Yeah, right!) - I will never suffer from haemorrhoids (ie. a perfect A type hole). So, sorry already, everyone.
I should also say sorry for the lengths of these posts, but our subject aint simple (no kidding!) and it requires the ability to be persistent, don’t it just Sandy?
The most vitally important Laurent videos (though they're seemingly thought comparatively unimportant by him) that I expected would be the ones that cognoscenti on this site would want to talk about are, it has turned out, the only ones that no one has talked about. ‘Strordinary!
These vitally important videos are; Laurent’s part 16 and part 10. and, though huge work must have been involved in the others, the rest can largely by ignored (Wow! How do I do it? That is another who’s Stirling work I have potentially insulted).
Please view both again now and view them carefully. They are so clear in what they show - to me at least - that all that is needed are the eyes of a child with the abilities of an adult (Woops, there I go again with a potential insult – sorry Miklos.) to understand the flaws in the current understanding of Newtonian physics and a path round Newtonian physics using – er – well – er - Newtonian physics.
Part 16 shows a fundamental key to inertial drive and a fundamental flaw in Newton's third law (and its flawed extrapolations) that have been incorrectly taught for nearly three hundred years and counting. (See Dr Hugh Hunt’s page at Cambridge University and Emma Wilson's totally wrong thesis - she, incredibly, got a degree for this total rubbish!) at:-
Not that Hugh has been alone in disseminating this disinformation for the last three hundred or so years – Hell, even he cannot, surely, be that old.
Now look at Laurent’s part 16 :-
It clearly shows that the idea, currently promulgated, not just by Hugh but by some on this site (Miklos?) that the rotation is around the barycentre.
This is wrong.
The centre of rotation (if you have a good gyro) is around the pivot. I did put up a video explaining this by using a gyro suspended on a fine thread but Laurent’s video is clearer.
Part 10 shows what I consider to be the best ever mechanical gyro hack I have ever seen (are those curved gyro guides really made from slices of plastic, underground, bog pipe?) and using springs as super simple, light, flexible, universal joints– sheer genius, Laurent.)
Part 10 is the only other, working, mass displacement machine I have ever found in years of searching on the web. Here is the other one (it follows the later patent by Laithwait et al – Laithwaite had got round Newton, as he claimed, but nobody in science acknowledged his successful work, only his errors – bleeding typical, you scientists will never suffer from piles either!) :-
Unlike my machines neither Laurent’s nor Laithwaite’s machines will work in space but they both are capable of moving outside their originating dimension by internal action and only need a small step in understanding to be able to work in space.
PS Sandy, I have only ever made machines with a horizontal axis so have not observed vertical movement impulses, but I sure as hell would if the thing was mounted vertically and counter balanced. My lovely long suffering wife would probably take exception to holes in the ceiling (Winking smile).
||Miklos Somos - 23/05/2018 21:00:31
| ||Dear Laurent,|
:) Sorry, I know that my english is far from perfect, therefore I try to explain again my point of view about inertial propulsion.
I would characterize my attitude as open minded but critical and somewhat sceptical.
I hope that inertial propulsion is possible. I see some movements in official science too.
But I'm an engineer, and I know what should be done, or at least shown to overcome the barriers, that has been already experienced by some shed dwellers here. Nitro and Sandy, and I assume, that Momentus has had already some fight with experts and engineers.
Ask Sandy about it. He had had a successful measurment campaign in Australia at VIPAC. His device had been investigated by specialists in an almost frictionless setup with a positive outcome. Some lifting effect had been observed by then modern insstruments.
But what happened? The laws behind the workings of his machine were unknown to the engineers with whom he had worked. If the laws are unknown, forecasts can not be made. If it is so, then the device can only be tuned and developped by chance. And You won't find any investors, who give You money to play lottery.
Will You really achieve inertial propulsion? Then learn from the stories of the people here. They have all worked hardly to achieve this dream. But there is a world outside, which has it's own standards. It has to be proven that Your device moves by unknown forces.
In the mind of an engineer the following equation appears, if a device like Yours is shown to him:
gravity + friction + inertial forces + external forces + forces of unknown kind = forces moving the device
The second thought that pops up:
How big are these forces related to each other, and how much contribution they have to the motion.
If Your goal is a machine that could be sold, or at least brings You to outer space, then You have to consider it, that sooner or later You will meet one of those guys with the equation in his head, and he will ask You about those forces and magnitudes.
I have this equation in my mind too. And as You see, there is a possible unknown force in my equation.
So, no, I do not think, that "any positiv results (unidirectional translation ) by inertial propulsion with gyroscope can only happen on this earth and in gravity because friction".
But video 8 and 16 does not prove anything. Take a look at this video of Steven Hampton:
He is a chap, who deals with so called Dean-drives. They show the same behaviour as Yours, without any gyro. He makes asymmetric impulses by other means, and seemingly he could also generate unidirectional translation.
Read his comment under that video (the second comment). It is telling. He has the same problems as our fellow gyrists here.
Back to the practical topics.
I have gladly seen in Your newest video, that You have ceramic bearings too. :)
It would be interesting to see, whether the device on video 16 behaves differently with ceramic bearings.
It is good to know, that the steel bearings have no grease in them. They have less friction without grease.
Here I would refer to the proposals of Mr. Glenn Hawkins about the lightweight platform and hollow tubes for reducing the effects of friction, and the damping effects of additional masses. They sound good.
To the topic of substrate motion, I will make some sketches, a good drawing is worth a thousand words. :)
Friction is one of the trickiest forces on Earth, the other ones are inertial forces. In Your device they meet each other, and that drives engineers crazy. Let's see if I can produce some drawings or animations about friction.
You have done a nice video again. I have not yet seen this kind of behaviour, that the gyro returns to the horizontal position. Again a test for classical mechanics, I add it to the queue. :)
||Nitro - 23/05/2018 23:59:12
| ||Woopy, |
Without doubt you are the master of the genius test rig. You should be on the Royal Institute's Christmas lectures.
It has been known by me that a good gyro (you already know that this means one with a high spin and high edge mass (or at least higher than Hugh Hunt and Emma Wilson used at Cambridge University) can precess more than its own mass and vanish its mass effects by precessing those effects into thin air – well, to its support to be precise.
All these effects follow 'Nitro's first law' that you are clearly starting to understand.
That the demonstration shows no expected mass effects when accelerating into or decelerating into or out of precession again shows none of the expected (by Newtonian followers) mass effects of rotational oscillation of its gyro mass on its supporting base and is also down to Nitro’s first law and has been shouted about by geniuses - well, me at least - on this gyro site for years.
Your lovely, well thought out demonstrations, (especially part 16 and part 10) will eventually lead conventional scientists to the inevitable conclusion that Newton's third, its extrapolations and some of the conservation laws need re-examination if not actually re-writing.
PS Miklos, the video you linked to, by Steven Hampton, is, as are all his videos I have seen, loony slip stick devices that will shake your fillings loose but nothing else. Laurent’s will shake your fillings out while moving you on Earth. Mine will shake your fillings out while moving you in space. Loonies like Stephen Hampton can fool themselves and others by a lack of understanding of the ability of moving a mechanism’s internals slowly in one direction causes friction to hold the mechanism better than when the mechanisms internals are moved fast in the opposite direction. – thus giving an impression to the unwary of inertial impulse creation. However, such crap machines should not blind you to the fact that there are other machines (see my last post for links) that really work, even though they have not been run in weightless conditions or on an air table. Newton is dead – get used to it.
||Brian Morris - 24/05/2018 16:43:10
| ||Hi Woopy|
Video 19 is very good. I it is great when you challenge my understanding with your videos.
When the shaft is horizontal, the gravity couple is at its maximum, reducing with both the rise and fall of the gyro (simple geometry.) Given that spin speed is constant, the gyro will seek horizontal as equilibrium.
It also demonstrates the lack of inertial acceleration, which is the key concept.
I cannot see how friction can cause these effects. Oh and by the way it is not friction which holds the platform in place. The platform is mounted on ball bearings, which offer rolling resistance, not friction. I googled Friction vs rolling resistance and got this:-
You are confusing "rolling resistance" and friction. These are two different unrelated phenomena. When the ball bearing rolls with constant velocity without sliding, there is no static or kinetic friction with the surface. The ball is not accelerating so there is no net force on it due to friction.
I do not suppose that you will ever convince the sceptics that you have not invented some form of bi-lateral frictional effects, even by using ball bearings!
The phenomenon is real.
A small point “Gravity will drive the gyro downwards” No it is torque at the vertical axis which is accompanied by precession about the horizontal axis, which causes the gyro to move. It does not fall down it precesses down.
I quote you:-
“ If the laws are unknown, forecasts can not be made. If it is so, then the device can only be tuned and developped by chance. And You won't find any investors, who give You money to play lottery.”
So very true and even when you do know the laws and can predict results, these by their very nature contradict the expert hired to advise. This is the impass I find myself at.
I look forward to your solution of the period of rotation of the gyro pendulum, a thought experiment.
||Nitro - 24/05/2018 17:53:01
| ||Hi Woopy|
Re your latest video:-
If you view a gyro as passing from a non spinning Newtonian mass to progressively become a precessing gyrodynamic mass. It transits from not being able to precess even its own mass to being able to precess its own mass and more. The amount it can precess depends on its mass (mostly, as you know, its rim mass) its diameter and its spin speed. If the force applied to change its axial angle exceeds the force its mass/diameter/spin can precess it will progressively act more like a Newtonian mass and nutation will begin to appear as if it cannot decide whether it is a gyro or a non spinning Newtonian mass so it wavers between the two. Et Voila:- Nutation.
So it is shown in your latest video that when fully spun it behaves like a perfect gyro and by Nitros first law transfers all the effect of its weight straight down its vertical support. As the spin speed is reduced it starts to behave more and more like a non spinning Newtonian mass progressively showing the kind of oscillations on its support and carriage expected when an offset non spinning mass is rotated.
I have shown in one of my videos that a gyro to all intents and purpuses passes instantaniously into and out of precession with the application or removal of the force acting to change its axial angle. I have written on this site to explain exactly why this happens by the simple application of Nitro’s first law.
The video can be seen here:-
and (sorry it’s long) the explanation, here:-
The mathematically gifted can give you an equations, if given the mass/diameter/spin, to tell you exactly when this transition, from mass to gyro, will occur but it takes a nutcase (genius) in a shed to show the mathematically gifted how to move a mass with no opposite reaction. Though let’s be clear, there is exactly the expected amount of reaction it’s just it is not all opposite.
||Miklos Somos - 24/05/2018 21:14:47
| ||Dear Momentus,|
You are right, rolling resistance and friction are completely different.
As far as I know rolling resistance comes from the deformation of the ground and of the wheel.
But sometimes friction is included in the definition of rolling resistance.
I think rolling resistance can be neglected here, steel bearings on steel plates, lightweight structure, I assume, that they have almost no deformation.
I would stick to the first version of the definition of rolling resistance, namely rolling resistance means the resistance comming exclusively from the deformations.
But friction is there in the bearings. Google "friction in ball bearings".
If there would be no friction in bearings, then gyros would rotate forever with one spin up.
This is an interesting solution for decreasing friction in ball bearings:
And friction is there between the rings and the table. The outer ring would not rotate, if there were no friction.
You are right, that when the outer ring rotates with a constant speed, then there is no more friction between the outer ring and the table. But here it is not the case. The cart accelerates periodicaly back and forth, the outer rings of the bearings are rotating back and forth. Friction is constantly in action.
I think sceptics could be persuated, but therefore numbers need to be produced.
I referred to the videos of Steven Hampton, as his device seemingly does the same as these gyro driven ones. He uses alternating masses no gyros.
Nitro says, that Steven's machines work by stick-slip. Laurent's devices not. Denying the fact, that there are similarities, and if Steven's has stick-slip, then Laurent's has too. It has to be shown to a sceptic, that beyond the effects of stick-slip there is something, that can not be explained by everyday mechanics.
||Miklos Somos - 24/05/2018 21:20:39
| ||Dear Laurent,|
Could You please give me some input data for my calculations?
I would need the following informations:
- the exact type and dimension of the bearing You have used
- the overall mass of the device
- the mass of the gyro
- the type and dimensions of the bearings
Thank You very much!
||woopy - 24/05/2018 23:08:22
| ||Hi Miklos|
As you consider that my video part 8 "prove nothing"
I am thinking that your are not in the capacity to OBSERVE well and hence to calculate anything to help me here.
||Miklos Somos - 25/05/2018 08:15:13
| ||Dear Laurent,|
It seems to me, that the word "prove" means something different for us.
Please take it into consideration, that I have been through a brainwashing process,
that lasted for nearly 25 years.
There I have been told, that to prove something is to show by experiments, measurments and calculations, that something unknown has been found besides or beyond the known effects.
To accomplish this, one has to tackle down not only the unknown, but the known phenomena too.
Your experiments show unusual behaviour, but You have to conduct further experiments,
and do some math to prove Your statements about inertial propulsion.
Actually I have to prove my statements about stick-slip too.
That's why I have asked You about those informations.
I have realised, that You may see things better than me.
You have the chance and time to make those beautiful experiments.
You have some physicists behind You, who can do some math for You.
You do not need a dilettant, wannabe scientist as me,
who tells You to take into consideration non-existent effects.
I must admit, that it could be annoying and boring.
I interfere and disturb Your joy about Your findings continously.
So, sorry Laurent, that I have hurt Your feelings. It has happened contrary to my intentions.
The hunt for intertial propulsion goes on for more than 100 years now.
Be careful on Your journey, it is full of traps and labyrinths.
The chance of get caught in a vicious circle is high.
As I have formerly said, it was enough of me.
Miklos, an almost member of the Royal Institution
||Sandy - 25/05/2018 11:42:12
| ||Good evening Brian and Miklos,|
Miklos you said,
“If the laws are unknown, forecasts cannot be made If it is so, then the device can only be tuned and developed by chance. And you won't find any investors, who give you money to play lottery.”
Brian you replied.
So very true and even when you do know the laws and can predict results, these by their very nature contradict the expert hired to advise. This is the impasse I find myself at.
To Miklos I would say that in light of the fact that the VIPAC Laboratory Test and Report was done in 1988, and with no one itching to help, I was forced to carry out the rest of the job myself, and a great deal of work has been carried out since then to find out what was going on.
There are a couple of ways of utilising gyroscopes to do the job one by the same crude method as the design I used to complete the lab. test, and a more mechanically involved method which was able to produce much better results.
See YouTube “Anti-Gravity Machine Part 1” which incidentally came first.
Being unhappy at the relatively low output of my previous devices I started to look elsewhere.
I just could not see anyone going to Mars using gyroscopes.
As gyroscopes fall short in their ability to produce high pulse production speeds I was looking for alternatives as far back as 1988.
I did design what I thought would be a possible alternative the same year, and at some considerable expense proved the worth of my thinking.
I hasten to add that whilst the device utilised certain specifically gyroscopic actions it could hardly be called gyroscopic.
That said may I quote you Brian.
Like yourself some of us can explain it all away but to whom.
In 30 plus years I have had only a few academics willing to hear me through, or even watch a demonstration, which unfortunately happened many years before I had acquired enough of the answers I needed.
That aside who is going to risk their livelihood to support you.
||Nitro - 06/06/2018 18:44:42
| ||Hi Laurent|
The last video (part 19) is mind blowing and will take a bit of assimilating. Am I right in assuming that the yellow assembly at its base has no motive input?
That Newton’s third and much of the conservation laws need reappraising is without doubt. My work and your wonderfully simple replication of Cambridge University’s nonsense gyro on an air table that turns Emma Wilsons and Hugh Hunt’s conclusion on their head serves to confirm this.
It is interesting to find that you have worked towards over-unity, as have I. Having got inertial propulsion (albeit crude) under my belt I am tempted to get my over unity work back out of the loft to work on. Having looked at your earlier work on this subject I am sure that your will also understand that the key to achieving it has nothing to do with mechanical devices. If you are interested to discuss this we will need to go to e-mail.
||woopy - 16/09/2018 21:56:28
| ||Hi all|
my next step in this inertial propulsion with gyros
Good night at all
||woopy - 18/09/2018 23:05:03
| ||and another one|
for the interested
||Sandy - 19/09/2018 18:45:12
| ||Laurent ,|
You are doing a remarkable job.
I am getting a good education in this method of utilising gyroscopes.
All very interesting stuff and I am in praise of your excellent demonstrations.
I have never ever considered doing this kind of thing before now.
My experiments have invariably been focused in a completely different direction
Methinks Harvey will be very pleased at this stuff.
I await your next one
||woopy - 21/09/2018 10:47:24
| ||Hi Sandy|
Thank's for interest.
Yes it seems that i can get good results also with forced precession rowing movement.
I will try further testing as soon as i receive some new material, because i have decided to no more dismantle a working proto to make another one perhaps not working.
These gyroscope are really amazing and i learn each day.
I hope i will understand the real SOUL of this fantastic machine in order to go further.
But you know too well how it is difficult to explain or get explanation, because the gyro are only considered as a stabilisation system and nothing more.
Another time many thank's for your great contribution
To be continued
||Nitro - 21/09/2018 15:03:50
| ||Dear all|
I recently sent Laurent an update on Nitro’s laws. They are extrapolations of Nitro’s
first law and may be of help to those having difficulty believing that Newton's second
and third laws needs must change. The fifth law explains why a gyro accelerates,
as Laithwaite observed, way way faster than the second law predicts.
For some new to this it will be found useful to have a passing grasp of some of
the recent updates to Nitro’s laws (rough guidance may be a better description)
that have come to be known as ‘Nitro’s Gyroscopic Laws’.
These laws have helped those, who struggle to understand or have for themselves
attempted to discover the implications of the apparent shortcomings of Newton’s
second and third laws, to better comprehend how the new understanding may be
usefully applied to mechanical devices.
Nitro’s First Gyroscopic Law states that: - A gyroscopic element will precess every
force acting to try to change its axial angle, not just the first force you just happened
to have thought of.
Nitro’s Second Gyroscopic Law states that: - Because of Nitro’s first law, forces
such as centrifugal, centripetal, acceleration and deceleration inertia and other
forces and their expected reactions may be precessed away in directions you have
not thought of.
Nitro’s Third Gyroscopic Law states that:- A gyroscopic element that is
constrained from precessing in its normal precessional direction will, due to the
effects of Nitro’s first law, act like a non-rotating mass and react according to
Newton’s third law in its actions/opposite reactions.
Nitro’s Fourth Gyroscopic Law states that:- Due to Nitro’s first law the word
“opposite” should, except in the case of the third law, above, be disregarded from
Newton’s third law as being redundant andwrong when applied to the effects of
the attempted rotation of the axis of a spinning body. Without the word opposite
the way is open for a machine to move its mass without an opposite movement of
mass but move itself purely from its internal mechanism.
Nitro’s Fifth Gyroscopic Law states that:- Due to Nitro’s first law the inertia of an overhung
gyroscopic element , released into gravity precession, has its inertia precessed into a
force acting in the same direction as gravity causing greater precessional
acceleration causing greater inertia causing greater precessional acceleration
causing - etc. etc. … ad inf. It is for this reason that a gyroscopic element can defy
Newton’s second law and accelerate from standstill into precession at a rate that, to
all extents and purposes, is infinite and way beyond the acceleration by gravity of a
non-spinning object of the same mass under Newton’s second law.
Kind regards to all
||Nitro - 22/09/2018 12:13:38
| ||Just a brief (wow! That’s unusual I hear you all cry) addendum to my last missive where I outlined how Nitro’s laws explained how Newton’s second and third laws had failed when a gyroscopic element is involved. |
I should also have reminded you all that I put up two YouTube videos as long ago as 2013 on my “Jogglevision” site showing that Newton’s first law was completely sodded up by my gyro pendulum. For reasons of age I inexplicable describe Newton’s first law as his second and forgot how to pronounce Foucault on the first video.
The first gyro on a string pendulum is here:-
The second gyro pendulum on a rigid arm (to eliminate the risk of “Parametric resonance” as had been suggested by the famous Dr David Fisher as a cause of its displacement) is here:-
Kind regards to all
|Add an Answer >>|