|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
27 November 2024 13:58
|
|
Welcome to the gyroscope forum. If you have a question about gyroscopes in general,
want to know how they work, or what they can be used for then you can leave your question here for others to answer.
You may also be able to help others by answering some of the questions on the site.
|
Question |
| Asked by: |
Ram Firestone |
| Subject: |
Some more thoughts about the heretic video |
| Question: |
After watching the heretic video and looking at Laithewaite's patent, I have come to the conclusion that there is one very simple key experiment that needs to be done to see if Laithewaite's theories are correct. Actually this experiment has already been done and in fact is number five of the Christmas lecture videos. This experiment consists of having a gyroscope precess on a near frictionless surface. I will be trying to determine if a gyroscope naturally precesses around it's center of mass (as physicists will tell you) or if the center of mass actually moves (as Laithewaite claims). My problem with the experiment in the video is that it is not nearly controlled enough. Gyroscopic precesseion is typically relatively slow so small amounts of friction between the surface and the gyroscope could be enough to keep it from moving significantly and make it appear that Laithewait's "mass transfer" is taking place. I would like to repeat this experiment on an air table or using a dry ice puck.
Yesterday I actually fired a question off about gyroscopic precession on a frictionless surface to the "Ask a Physicist" web page at the University of Texas at Dallas web site. The answer came back in less than five minutes and as expected was "the center of mass will remain constant". If this answer is correct then Laithewaite's claim is not. However if it can be proven that there is substantial center of mass movement then I would say Laithewaite is correct. In addition I could think of a number of ways to build a working propulsion device based on this principal.
Ram
|
| Date: |
2 December 2004
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
webmaster@gyroscopes.org - 02/12/2004 17:38:40
| | | Ram,
Totally correct. Laithewaite and Dawson claimed the centre of mass changes. The text book answer is it can't and Physicist would very quickly come to the conculsion that it could not be done - without even wanting to see the experiment. This is the problem that
Laithwaite faced with his colleagues.
I spent 8/9 years building my own devices to try produce thrust or trying to reproduce what others had done. Included Sandys devices. The bad news I didn't really find anything that worked. But on the good side I now know a lot more about gyroscopes, I built this website, my engineering skills are much better and I now build and sell gyroscopes (partly because I couldn't find any good ones).
I also reliased that multi-gyro systems are very complex because of the interactions of the forces. I've also made the assumption that if there is a new phemonon I should be able to detect it will one gyro. Hence I've been slowly building a simple experiment with a
single gyro very much like the ice experiment in the Christmas lecture. Its taken a time purely because I'm running my own business and been very busy. This will change next week.
My experiment is basicly finished and could be run now. I'm just setting up some better measuring equipment. Its a all stainless steel construction with a low friction linear bearing.
Don't worry. will be posting pictures, videos and measurements when I've finished.
Can't see why it wouldn't be all done this month.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 02/12/2004 18:39:17
| | | Ok sounds like we are thinking along the same lines. I am very interested in seeing what you come up with. I am leaning towards using an air table because a puck could then be very light which would better demonstrate the "mass transfer" effect if it indeed occurs. Also I would guess that using a top might actually be better than using a gyroscope because there is no non-rotating frame which would again magnify the effect (i.e. stationary puck). By the way you probably don't remember but I bought one of your gyroscopes when they first came out off of ebay :-)
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
webmaster@gyroscopes.org - 02/12/2004 19:50:54
| | |
Forgot to say. A relative of friend did the same test about 20 years ago (I guess after Eric's lecture). At the time he must have been in his teens and was a budding young scientist. He managed to bend the arm of one of the local aircraft firms (see http://www.smiths-aerospace.com/ for details of the firm) to give him a hand.
I beleave he used a gyroscope that smiths made and created a frictions surface using
a bed of small marbles. The 'tower' rotated around the gyroscope, rather than the gyroscope rotating around the gyroscope as normall. This suggests its the 'text book' answer that is correct and lathewaite was wrong. But can you see the flaw in the that particular experiment?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro Macmad - 02/12/2004 22:56:47
| | | Dear Ram,
A simple and clear test to confirm that a gyro does not rotate around its centre of mass can be done with a toy gyro and a piece of string. Tie the string around one end and, having spun up the gyro release it to precess with its axis horizontal. The gyro and string do not swing across to one side so that the gyro’s mass centres with the top fixed point of the string but instead stay straight. Indeed, if left for a while the string and gyro will describe a cone. This “coning”, I believe you will find, is caused by the centrifugal force on the rotating cage of the gyro because a precessing gyro, as shown in that wonderful demonstration by Eric Laithwaite, displays no centrifugal force itself.
Have you seen Alex Jones device in “Heretic” yet?
Incidentally, do you know why a gyro goes swiftly (if not actually instantly) to a set speed when released to rotate around its Eiffel tower although (under Newton) one might reasonably expect it to keep accelerating under the constant force of gravity? Something to ask your physicist perhaps (no math - please!)
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 03/12/2004 01:27:48
| | | Glenn, I am not sure exactly how the "bed of marbles" was set up however I imagine they might retain inertia which would be translated back to the gyroscope tower. Maybe this is not the best test. When testing a gyroscope as opposed to a top, the tower will always move some just because of the mass of the frame. You don't want to retain this inertia and feed it back into the system.
Nitro, I'm not sure a string test is the best either. Gravity is always working to center the string so unless the precession is very fast the string might remain steady; even if Laithewaite were completely wrong. Also it's hard to take measurements with this setup. With a leveled low friction surface you can weigh the gyroscope-rotor, it's frame and the tower-puck, and then easily calculate how much it should move (assuming textbook physics) and compare that to how much it actually moves.
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 03/12/2004 08:39:16
| | | Saw your postings relating to the placement of the centre of mass in a passive gyroscopic system. You are in very real danger of reducing this “Forum” to the level of BBC’s “Not rocket science” This argument has been going on for years, and talking about it is not going to resolve it.
Supposing you can prove the centre of mass is at the axis of precession rotation, What is this going to do for you anyway?
You will find that this is not easy to prove, and impossible to have accepted.
The truth flies in the face of everything that is believed about gyroscopes.
If you really want to find out what happens it is very easy to prove in a system subjected to radial acceleration, but there and then again no one will believe it.
I carefully picked the article “You cannot accelerate no mass” when I started posting to the “Forum”
This is so fundamental to our understanding of gyroscopes and the eventual success of inertial drive I honestly thought it would help.
It explains in detail what happens. Repeat the experiment. The hydraulic device is not required. A duplex set of slip rings and strain gauges is all that is required.
While Eric Laithwaite was under fire for his comments relating to mass transfer in passive systems, I had occasion to inform him that this was also true for any gyroscopic system either passive or active.
I have tried in vain to explain to you that at what you all call precession (gyro torque saturation), at any system speed, there is no angular momentum, and no centrifugal force as a result of mass transfer.
The torque reaction of the gyro eliminates the lot as it starts its inward acceleration.
The experiment I described explains that at the very point of gyroscopic torque initiated inward acceleration there is NOTHING left but system and gyroscopic rotation.
How, I ask any of you, can there possibly be angular momentum, without centrifugal force.
The torque transfers the mass to act as Eric Laithwaite suggests in passive systems, and as I have claimed in accelerated or active systems, at the axis of system rotation,
And as I have said before “You cannot have your conservation cake and eat it”
To prove my point, I have also tried to explain that with one gyroscope running slightly faster than another in a twin balanced system, the difference in centrifugal force (angular momentum) will create such mass imbalance that the machine will be destroyed. Another simple proof. Again not accepted.
As soon as a gyroscope is run up in a system of what is called forced precession angular momentum will be progressively neutralised up to the point of saturation, i.e. the system cannot take any more.
THERE IS NO MASS LEFT TO ACCELERATE.
THERE IS NO ANGULAR MOMENTUM
THERE IS NO CENTRIFUGAL FORCE
THE REST MASS OF THE GYROSCOPE(S) APPEARS AT THE AXIS OF SYSTEM ROTATION.
AN INERTIAL ZERO POINT.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 03/12/2004 11:56:14
| | | > Supposing you can prove the centre of mass is at the axis of precession rotation,
> What is this going to do for you anyway?
I believe you meant to say “center of mass is NOT at the axis of precession rotation” so I will answer this. If I can prove this it will do a lot. The first and most important thing this will do is convince myself that gyroscopic propulsion is really possible. I will then be willing to spend more time, effort and money to build a machine based on this principal. If such a machine actually worked definitively, people will have to accept it.
> I have tried in vain to explain to you that at what you all call precession (gyro
> torque saturation), at any system speed, there is no angular momentum, and
> no centrifugal force as a result of mass transfer.
I don’t have the same background as you guys so it may take me a bit longer to catch on. In any case I think the right experiment will prove this one way or the other.
> I have also tried to explain that with one gyroscope running slightly faster than
> another in a twin balanced system, the difference in centrifugal force (angular
> momentum) will create such mass imbalance that the machine will be destroyed.
> Another simple proof. Again not accepted.
I accepted your results although I may have interpreted them differently from you.
We all bring something to the table. In fact if this experiment works, In my opinion we should put our minds together and come up with the best design to utilize this phenomenon. Part of the problem is everyone is so paranoid about patents that we don’t share and discuss designs with others. At this point I really don’t care about patents so much, I would just like to see a working machine if it is at all possible.
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 03/12/2004 13:36:57
| | | Dear Ram,
Have you seen Alex Jones device yet? Do you understand its importance?
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 03/12/2004 15:23:13
| | |
NM, if this is the device in the heretic video then yes I have seen it. Without getting a better look at it, I have a hard time taking it seriously because there are so many factors that can cause a gyroscope move a cart. For instance if the wheels are turned slightly you can simply mount a gyroscope so it hangs off the side of the cart facing the inside of the turn and the cart will go around in a circle. There is also slip stick. I'm sure you are familiar with both of these phenomenons. As you know neither will work when removed from a surface.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 03/12/2004 17:09:38
| | | Dear Ram,
You need to get on and make something yourself then, as clearly nothing else will sufffice.
Kind regards
nm
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 03/12/2004 17:58:43
| | | Yes NM, eventually this may be true. However I would prefer to build something when I think it has a reasonable chance of working. For now I would rather do simple experiments to verify the principals I'm trying to use. Otherwise you end up spending a lot of time and money for nothing. Well, I shouldn't say for nothing. I think understanding your failure gives you a better understanding of your medium. This assumes of course you are willing to accept failure for what it is and move on to new ideas. Otherwise you end up in the situation of Robert Cook (http://www.forceborne.com/FBW/index2.htm) He has spent years working on his CIP engine with no results. From his pictures I would say he must have spent tens of thousands of dollars. Yet the best he can show us is a fuzzy video of his machine creeping along on a pole at a snails pace. I'm sure he has the best of intentions, but that and a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee. I may be wrong but at this point I would say he is just deluding himself. I actually feel sorry for the guy. If his machine turns out to actually work I'll be happy to eat crow.
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 04/12/2004 19:59:10
| | | I just realized something else about this test. The use of a top (no frame) instead of a gyroscope may be a lot more critical than I first thought. Let’s say the frame of the gyroscope weights 30X the puck and the total weight of the gyroscope (i.e. with it’s rotor) is 300X the puck. Now let’s assume Laithewaite was correct. In this case we can possibly consider the weight of the gyroscope rotor to be zero for the purpose of measuring the wobble in the puck. Now the puck will wobble around a point between the gyroscope’s COM (Center Of Mass) of the pucks COM. This point should be 1/30th of the distance between the two COMs away from the COM of the gyroscope. The problem is 1/30th delta COMs will be small and for a typical experiment and the puck will still appear to be moving around the gyroscope. Of course it’s probably still measurable but we have to keep in mind that in the case Laithewaite was incorrect the distance will be 1/300th delta COMs . So now we have to detect the difference between these two values. This would be pretty hard. However if there is no frame to consider, the puck’s COM should be close to stationary if Laithwaite was correct whereas the gyroscope’s COM would be almost stationary if Laithwaite was incorrect. This whole scenario assumes the rotor mass can be considered zero. If the rotor actually goes to something greater than zero but less than it’s true mass (for purposes of calculating puck displacement) the elimination of the frame becomes even more critical to get accurate results.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 06/12/2004 13:08:14
| | | Dear RAM,
I apologise if you think my latest utterances were specifically designed for your benefit. They were not.
The examples I presented have been promoted by myself for many years now, and have been treated with complete contempt by all, since day one.
I am trying to warn you not to expect too much, in fact expect nothing at all
I do take the point that a gyroscopic system rotating at several hundred revs per minute, and being capable of eliminating all the system angular momentum at that speed does seem a bit far-fetched, but it is nevertheless true.
Fortunately I started with systems subjected to radial acceleration.
What games I could play with a large human centrifuge. No “G” forces.
I do however think that the like minded “Forum” contributors will have at least considered the implications of my claims, even if at the least very questionable.
At this time any information you glean, discover, whatever, can only be of use to yourself or others sympathetic to the common cause.
And yes if this is the way you choose to go, I would agree that absolute proof of the fact that in passive precession mode, the centre of mass of the gyro is at the axis of precession rotation is a fundamental first step on the way to inertial drive.
Referring to the gyro experiment you mentioned, remember the precision ground and honed point making contact with the tile.
The shaft was fixed to the gyro and rotated with the gyro.
I have held that particular gyro in my hands. It was no light weight.
Any centrifugal displacement would be made apparent very quickly.
So there you go RAM, as NM suggests try it for yourself, or take our word for it.
Methinks you will not be convinced until you try it for yourself.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ray Payette - 07/01/2005 12:38:00
| | | There is a propulsion system that is NOT based on precession and that works. Check it out:
http://www.spacecrab.com
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 07/01/2005 15:01:24
| | | Ray,
It's very hard to determine if a device like this actually works, in the presence of friction and air. Possibly if you could test this in a vacuum chamber using magnetic lift it would be more conclusive. I realize it’s hard to get the equipment for this, but it will be difficult to generate interest in a device like this without very conclusive tests. I don’t want to be discouraging but in your video the device appears to be moving by what we have been calling “slip stick”. This means when there is an impulse force large enough to overcome the friction on the table your device moves. This of course would not work in space. However I may be wrong and this is why you need better testing.
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
webmaster@gyroscopes.org - 07/01/2005 16:39:33
| | | I was about to say the same thing. Old washing machines often do a similar thing. A unbalanced mass and an uneven surface or flexable base can make the washing machine 'walk' across the floor. It very quickly as one side touching and then the other (or more weight on one side and then the other). It then suffles along the ground.
This sort of device started of from the dean drive.
Again, I can only reiterate what RAM said, better testing will show what is extactly going on.
Glenn Turner
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
momentus - 12/01/2005 21:35:30
| | | Hi ram, you say this is the key experiment
<>
This is the demonstration I tried to describe on the BBC ‘not Rocket science’Forum last year.
This is an experiment that anyone can do.
Gyroscope at one end of shaft, weight equivalent to the spokes, bearings cage, what have you, at the other end of the shaft, point of suspension in the middle of the shaft. Release the gyroscope without imparting any sideways force; it will precess about a point near the point of suspension. By adjusting the compensating mass, the centre of rotation can be made to coincide with the suspension point.
The C of G is displaced; a vertical string transmits no external horizontal force. Newton’s ‘displacement along the line of action of the force’ is a rule for billiard balls and for planets, not a law.
BTW Newton did not claim conservation of momentum, it has been inferred as his intention by later scholars. C of M is also a rule not a law.
There is much, much more along these lines, including a walking gyroscope, demonstrating propulsion without external reaction.
But before I go into too much detail, comments/replication of this demonstration are invited. My experience with the troll on the BBC site has made me wary
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 13/01/2005 03:56:23
| | | Momentus,
I'm having a hard time picturing the exact experiment you are describing. Perhaps if you gave me more detail I could make some relevant comments.
> The C of G is displaced; a vertical string transmits no external horizontal force.
Yes but the instant the string becomes non-vertical it does transmit an external horizontal force or rather the string plus gravity does. Therefore I still don't think a string is conclusive. In any case I have been making use of emachineshop.com and hopefully I will have a large top and an air-table and puck in a few weeks. To me this is a better test because even after the puck has moved there is still no horizontal force on it. Again, I also think a top instead of a gyroscope is needed because the frame of the gyroscope will almost certainly make the puck move even if the rotor itself does not.
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 13/01/2005 20:23:20
| | | <>
That is the point of my experiment. The string does not become ‘non vertical’
If a deviation from the vertical can be detected, it can be corrected.
When I demonstrated this, to friends and family, the response was, “It doesn’t do anything”. Visually it is a boring demo, the gyro rotates about the vertical cord, smoothly with no drama.
The demo shows a common theme on this board, motion at right angles to the applied force. It also shows no equal and opposite external reaction.
If you are having difficulty with visualising the apparatus, could be that it is so simple?
The spinning flywheel is at one end of a light shaft, which is about 3 diameters long. There is a small compensating weight at the other end of the shaft. A cord is tied around the mid point of the shaft. The flywheel is a lot heavier than the compensating weight so that when released, a torque is applied about the point of suspension, gyroscope couple/precession react this torque, the centre of Mass moves, in orbit about the vertical string.
I have spent some time evolving ‘perfect’ gyro forms, where all the weight is at the rim. Cages and frames were abandoned very early on.
To understand a gyroscope’s behaviour, one of the first things to do is to clearly differentiate in ones head the difference between the gyroscope and its dead mass. Those bits which are not contributing to the gyroscope effect.
In your experiment, with a perfect gyroscope, the puck will not move, any movement you observe will be that required to react the ‘dead’ mass of your gyroscope. If you compensate for this dead mass by placing a compensating mass on the ‘other side’ of the puck, you will eliminate any tendency of the puck to move.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 13/01/2005 21:53:44
| | | > The spinning flywheel is at one end of a light shaft, which is about 3 diameters long.
> There is a small compensating weight at the other end of the shaft. A cord is tied
> around the mid point of the shaft. The flywheel is a lot heavier than the compensating
> weight so that when released, a torque is applied about the point of suspension,
> gyroscope couple/precession react this torque, the centre of Mass moves, in orbit
> about the vertical string.
I would like to point out that I can place a normal gyroscope on a string without any compensating weight and the string will still hang vertically. If you were correct the string should move simply because of the mass of the frame, even if the rotor were acting as zero mass. Your sting is constantly centering the experiment therefore I do not find it to be conclusive. A leveled air table has no inherent centering force, therefore I find this to be a better test. I do admit that intuitively I would think your string should move some according to Newton. However intuition has limited value in Science. I want a test that I can show to a physicist and make him either explain the phenomenon or at least make him scratch his head.
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 27/01/2005 07:57:37
| | | Welcome Momentus
You were treated a bit roughly on the other site, were you not?
A more civilised bunch on this site. Old age may have a bit to do with it.
Was not impressed with that lot at all.
Never mind it’s nice to know when you’re correct.
Glenn T, Momentus, Ram etc
Let us assume that you have carried out the experiment to your satisfaction and you have now proved conclusively, that the centre of mass of this passive gyroscopic system is exactly through the axis of the system rotation, which incidentally makes Momentus extremely happy.
There is no displacement therefore there is no centrifugal force / angular momentum as Eric Laithwaite and myself have always claimed.
I think we all accept at this point that there is no loss of mass, only transfer of mass.
However, I have asked this question before and now I feel I must ask it again.
What is the proof either way, going to do for you?
What use do you have for this information?
For the record, and much food for thought.
In well over 30 years and armed with all of this information, Laithwaite himself, never ever managed to produce a device that exhibited any positive inertial drive characteristics.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 27/01/2005 10:40:33
| | | Something to remember here.
Laithwaite was pushing forward others ideas and principals.
I have the greatest respect for the way Laithwaite championed these causes but he made claims that instantly put him at odds with the established scientific community. I strongly believe that he had not actually grasped the principles involved and that his understanding was flawed. Gyroscopic propulsion however it becomes a reality will actually conform to accepted physics models. The problem exists in the inability to explain what is actually happening and hence the claims that they do not follow perceived rules.
The centre of mass does stay constant, but the mass moves and hence the centre of mass moves but relative to the mass it is still constant. DUH. TILT
Looks like my engineer is planning to put finishing touches to my device over next couple of weeks unless he gets a more pressing job in.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 27/01/2005 11:52:38
| | | Dave S
Yes Dave I had the greatest respect for Eric Laithwaite, but on occasions he did make a few statements to me, which raised my eyebrows somewhat.
These I shall not enlarge upon at this time.
And yes again Dave gyroscopes under normal operating conditions pose no problems at all for anybody. Under certain circumstances however a large amount of assumption has crept into the picture.
As far as I am concerned it’s this assumption that is under fire.
Nobody is blaming Newton for this.
A mass is accelerated in a circle.
It does not seem to matter to accepted principles if the mass is itself spinning or not.
The argument comes down to one thing only, is there, or can there, or should there be angular momentum present in a precessing gyroscopic system.
By this I mean at any rotation speed either passive or accelerated.
Accepted principles says yes. I would really like to see how they calculate this.
So if you accept recognised principles inertial drive is easy to acquire.
There and then again, try it.
A total misconception, that cost me thousands of hours of wasted effort.
Now that I recognise the problem I can do something about it, and can use this “anomaly” very much to my own advantage.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 27/01/2005 15:34:15
| | | For once I find myself in complete agreement with you guys :-) When I went over Laithwaite’s patent I found it started out well. But then it seems he gets lost somewhere. For instance, his initial claim was that a gyroscope under precession causes “mass transfer”; all well and good. But then later in his patent he goes further. His later designs imply you only need to move a gyroscope in a circular arc to achieve the same effect. He even shows counter rotating gyroscopes moving in an arc on the same side of a spinning disk. With this arraignment neither can be in precession and in fact if this disk were spun the whole thing would probably just explode. As for your first question Sandy “What is the proof either way, going to do for you?”. I think it will do a lot. I see two large problems in other designs. The first is that you need large movement to cause precession. This is of course not true. A gyroscope barely drops at all under gravity. All you need is to apply a force. The difference being something like a rubber band applied to the gyroscope as opposed to a lever that actually moves it. The second problem was addressed by Laithwaite in his patent indirectly but he didn’t really stress it. That is, even if you can move a mass for free and then move it back under Newton, the speed of a vehicle driven by such a would be miniscule. It would not really accelerate to any great extent. It would just make tiny little hops. This would be next to useless in space or any place else. I believe Laithwaite’s first machine in his patent is of this type. It might have worked but it would be hard to prove and not really useful. Later he briefly goes on the talk about using the free centrifugal force effect. This may actually be worth something if it’s true. It remains to be tested. Eventually I will put this all together in some tests and hopefully at some point build a drive if everything falls into place. I already have a design for it but it assumes my initial experiments will demonstrate “mass transfer". Right now I just want to do conclusive mass transfer tests. Then I can worry about the rest of it.
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 27/01/2005 19:50:37
| | | Dear Ram (et al),
You said in you letter of the 3/12/04 that “…gravity always works to centre the string…” Under Newtonian understanding this should read …gravity always works to centre the mass…! Which, observably, it does not in this example. An air bed and further testing would seem redundant but good on you, for your efforts in confirmation of your understanding.
Earlier in this string, my letter of 2/12/04 (sorry, US of A - 12/02/04) predates Momentus but I am pleased to have some company in this observation. (Nice way of negating the non-gyroscopic precessing mass, by the way, Momentus.)
Kind Regards
NM
P.S. Sorry for a short letter (What do you mean “hoorah”? Bloody cheek!). I have lost the impulse effect and thus some of my momentum (no pun intended - well, maybe a bit) in the latest machine: #23491? (Why do our British computers have these - # - noughts and crosses thingys on them, when only the Yanks use them?).
Obviously something has been missed by me along the prototype line and, because of this, I will suffer the ignominy and expense of withdrawing some patents that are embarrassingly in the public domain while saying sorry to all those on this site for misleading them about how close I am. The (slightly) good news, for me at least, is that - having gone back to the machine before the latest incarnation - the impulse returns. More bloody work then!
By the way Ram, you are right in your assumption that the device (or at least, my earlier device) produces a succession of small (though not tiny) impulses and not the kind of continuous reaction motion on a frictionless base that would result from, for example, throwing a brick from the back of a sledge on ice. However, I believe, its efficiency of energy conversion (though it’s not mechanically simple) and the lack of alternatives would still make it usable. I also believe, that the correction of our understanding alone is worth the effort.
What was that about a short letter?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 28/01/2005 07:52:53
| | | Ram
G. Harry Stein of “Detesters, Phasers & Dean Drives”, pendulum tests, etc made a very valid statement. This was that a successful “space drive” would need to be two machines in one. One part of a cycle the device would have to be of completely different, probably geometric, configuration from the other part of the cycle.
Returning to your statement Ram relating to what Eric Laithwaite called his “free lunch” situation.
If in an accelerated gyroscopic system at the point that is erroneously called precession, there is no angular momentum present in the system.
(If the gyro is spinning at a fair speed accelerating the gyro through an arc will produce this effect, it is the rest of the motion that bothers me.)
Therefore if the gyroscope is moved, virtually no effort is required to do so.
This is great but the trick is extracting power from the system. This can be, (has been done by yours truly) by completely altering the system geometry a la Harry Stein. Took a lot of thought and effort to carry it out, was very complicated but it works.
By the way angular momentum diminishes as the gyroscopic torque increases, so you really do not have to go all the way into this “saturation point” to get this thing to work.
So Laithwaite was correct for at least half of his statement, but in the final analysis there are alternative methods.
The trouble is the better the method the higher the cost.
By the way NM I do not file patents anymore, as I personally believe that they are, at our level, not worth the paper they are written on.
Sandy Kidd.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 28/01/2005 11:50:10
| | | RAM
You suggest in one of your postings that you are contemplating testing a gyroscopic system for mass transfer effects.
Would be interested to know how you intend to do this.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 28/01/2005 16:38:09
| | | Sandy,
It's and extremely simple test. Just spin a top at an angle on a frictionless surface. I intend to use an air table and puck. Either the top + puck will precess around their combined center of mass (i.e. the puck moves around in a circle) or the puck will be relatively steady and the center of mass will move. The later case is supped to be impossible, however this is what was demonstrated in the heretic video. Professor Laithwaite did not use an air table, but still it's hard to imaging there being enough friction to hold the point of the top in exactly the same place. In any case I want to try it to for myself. I designed and ordered a couple of large tops from emachineshop. These will have a small polished nickel plated tip to reduce friction. I'll first try the experiment on a piece of glass maybe with a small film of oil until I get the air table set up. I added a hex nut at the top of the top so I can spin them with an electric drill. I'm supposed to receive the tops sometime in February. If it all works I'll start drawing the parts for the drive after that. I figure the whole project should cost me about 5K if I have emachineshop do the parts. However if my initial experiment works I will have a high enough confidence level to risk the money.
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 28/01/2005 17:20:32
| | | Oh dear,
Yet another one wants to join the ranks of the mad inventor.
That's Glen, Nitro, Sandy, me and now Ram. Sorry if i've missed anyone.
Welcome to hell.
All this talk of precession and angular momentum.
I don't think my device uses precession in its working principle. At least i don't think it does. It definately involves mass transfer and movement of centres of mass though. Maybe they are all the same in working principle but i have my doubts.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 28/01/2005 19:46:26
| | | Well ...... five minds are better than one. Maybe one of us will actually get something to work.
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 28/01/2005 21:39:59
| | | Dear:
Ram,
I’ve got one that works (i.e. moves its centre of mass - mass transfer if you prefer) - but only in single shot or slow-multi-shot form. This does not produce a fast enough repetition of impulses to keep a pendulum arrangement shoved to one side constantly as gravity won’t wait while the slow-multi reloads. I have found (as all of us in hell have), that it’s not enough to show the nail holes, you have to expect someone to want to poke their fingers into them as well. First attempt at a fast repeater seemed to have got there but lost it somewhere, it seems.
Sandy,
Don’t know who G Harry Stein is but he is entitled to a cigar. The patents have, in the past sometimes earned me income but the gyro ones are probably more to do with vanity and the ability to say “I got to a particular place first” along the outlandish path we have chosen (Bloody stupid and expensive though that is - the patent and the path!).
Dave,
So the gang’s still here! Maybe we could get a bulk discount in a rest home for “gyroholics”. Perhaps though a place in a shed or, more likely, a nut house would be better for me!
All,
If anyone gets there first would they please arrange a get-together (piss-up in UK speak) with the Glen and the others in this string? I’ll happily pay my shout.
Kind Regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 31/01/2005 06:54:32
| | | RAM,
I really do not think you know what you are letting yourself in for.
It is now the end of life, as you knew it.
Things will never be the same again.
Probably the worst thing that can happen is that you initially achieve the result you want.
Then as a certain individual who shall remain nameless, called Dave S said,
Welcome to hell.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 31/01/2005 07:55:56
| | | NITRO,
I apologise for mis-spelling Harry’s name it is Stine not Stein.
G.Harry Stine was one of the “team” of scientists who were invited to witness the operation of the original space drive i.e. the Dean Drive, away back in the 50s. Harry was convinced he felt the thing push hard against his hand, others present were a bit more doubtful.
Anyhow the long and short of it was that Dean claimed that he had produced a device where the reaction was 90degrees out of phase with the action.(new type of gyroscope?)
After a lot of prototype building and testing at the company workshops and laboratory, Harry and his team managed to achieve a 3degree, phase shift. Not quite of the order Dean claim but nevertheless a phase shift that just should not happen.
Harry produced a paper, I think it was an article for the Analog Science magazine, called “Detesters, Phasers and Dean Drives. Worth a read,
Harry very kindly sent me a copy of this document way back in the mid eighties. Do not know who would have an electronic copy of this. I will see what I can rustle up.
Harry also did some interesting stuff with one William O Davis relating to accelerations and rate of onset. Good stuff. I think also that Bob Forward was one of the team. Maybe Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven were there as well, though I am not so sure about the latter pair.
Those people came together to became a sort of “space drive” think tank.
Sad to say Harry Stine and Bob Forward are no longer with us.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 31/01/2005 15:23:10
| | | Sandy,
You are very possibly correct. However let’s suppose my idea works, I never pursue it and someone else succeeds with it later. I would be kicking myself for the rest of my life. I am actually quite surprised no one has tried what I want to try, especially given how far professor Laithwaite got. I would have thought it was the direct approach and the obvious solution. Maybe I’m missing something.
Personally I would rather work with a team of like minded people. However it seems they are few and far between and those that do exist prefer to work alone.
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMac - 31/01/2005 20:22:03
| | | Dear Ram,
Yes! Of course, you have to try it. The trick is to sit down and doodle what way is best to test the theory. Then go off and forget about your best idea for the test for a bit, because there always is a far simpler way to test it than you first thought.
Momentus, earlier in this string gave away a simple way of testing what I believe you are trying to test. You do not need an air bed (or an air track) or a N.A.S.A. orbiter (though that would be nice to play with) just a pendulum with a nice long piece of string that will clearly show the answer (as it has a narrow vector angle and therefore the centring force of gravity is nice and small) with your gyro down, for example, a stairwell. I have tried this test as, I am sure, have others and the answer comes up that: - the centre of rotation is not the centre of mass.
Wherefore art thou now Newton, that is the question - I always was lousy at Shakespeare.
You don’t have to dive deep into this forum, let alone the rest of the web, to find the reason that those twisting their ankles (and cerebral cortexes) on this twisting path are found walking alone. The establishment treat us (perhaps, some reason) like suitable cases for treatment, while those others on the same path don’t want their ideas stolen in case they really are on the right track.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 31/01/2005 21:27:51
| | | Dear NM,
Let me try to explain again why I don't like the string experiment. Let's assume that professor Laithwaite is correct in regards to his mass transfer theory. Now we create a top (not a gyroscope, a top without a frame) that be hung at the end of a string by it’s point. We then spin it up to speed and let it precess. As expected the string hangs straight down. Ok we think we have proof that the professor is correct. Now let's replace that top with a gyroscope. Same thing happens. The problem is now the string should move because the frame of the gyroscope is dead mass (i.e. not spinning). However as we all know it typically does not move. Maybe if the string were long enough it would or maybe not.
The point is we have introduced another factor into the experiment, this being the centering force of the string due to gravity. We can try to calculate the lateral acceleration on the string due to the dead mass of the gyroscope frame .vs. the centering force of the sting and possibly we can do some sort of mathematical proof. However it's so much cleaner and more impressive to use a frictionless surface. Now there is no doubt. If you show your sting experiment to a physicist he's just going to blow you off. On the other hand if you show him the air table experiment it's not so easy. As I mentioned previously, when I asked a physicist what would be the result of this experiment he instantly gave me the Newtonian answer. Suppose I can show him his answer is wrong? What would he say?
The bottom line is we can argue all day about the string experiment, but the air table experiment is close to absolute proof one way or the other. I would rather do this relatively simple experiment before spending a few thousand bucks building a device which may have no chance of working.
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 01/02/2005 07:37:58
| | | Shed dwellers (including RAM now)
You are correct RAM in removing this Eiffel Tower type nonsense from the experiment. The tower would have to be very well made to produce honest results.
OK you guys are fond of passive systems, I am fond of active systems.
Prove what you need to prove with your experiment but take note anyway.
APART FROM ROTATION SPEED, THE FINAL RESULT WILL BE THE SAME.
I have rotated twin gyroscope systems at upwards of 500rpm.
Gyros weighing in at 1.25 lbs each.
Gyro rotation speed ? Many thousands (whatever is needed)
Fulcrum point to the centre of mass of each gyroscope approx. 0.75 ft.
If required, I can always reach the point (given enough power to rotate the gyros at the speed required) to see the gyroscopes accelerate inwards against, and I am not apologising for this, centrifugal force.
If the inward acceleration of the gyroscopes (due to their torque) can neutralise the centrifugal forces in the system there can be no accelerated mass.
In other words even if the system is rotating at elevated speeds, it must not be assumed that there is any mass being accelerated.
You must de-brainwash yourself from a lifetime’s experience of rotating systems.
Put your gyroscope head on, things are completely different here.
As the gyro is supporting itself on its fulcrum, the mass of the gyroscope has been transferred to the fulcrum, basically because it cannot be anywhere else.
We do assume of course, that each gyroscope’s fulcrum, has been made to operate, precisely on the axis of system rotation.
Besides if all of this, was not the case, I would have thrown in the towel about 20 years ago.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 01/02/2005 11:55:17
| | | A number of questions, starting with RAM ‘cos its his ball!
What is the difference between a Top and a frameless gyroscope?
For me a top is a vertical device, centre of spin vertical. It is still a gyroscope.
I have no difficulty in understanding your Eiffel tower on an airbed, conceptually it is identical to my string experiment, and it will give the same results.
I am more interested in your comment on the simplicity of the Newtonian calculation of ‘classical behaviour’. That is contrary to my experience, as I was not able to work it out, indeed there is a whole posting series by Harvey Fiala, addressing this point.
I assumed for a long time that it was too complicated for me to figure out, but that is not the case. The classical application of Newton’s laws does not apply.
Do you have a physicist who can calculate the value for the centripetal acceleration of an offset gyroscope, or the acceleration from rest to precession?
Such a fantastic creature is the philosophers’ stone we all seek.
Hi Sandy,
This should appear on your screen with a slight green tinge, of jealousy. The man who did it. Can’t see that any model is going to do more than your first one in terms of irrefutable proof. My power transmission, back in 1988 (patent withdrawn) met a similar fate.
In your post “the gyroscopes accelerate inwards”. Do the gyroscopes swing inwards on an arc? Or do they move linearly along the shaft?
“Mass transfer” this phrase seems to be used in two ways. You say, “The mass of the gyroscope has been transferred to the fulcrum,” Do you mean that literally, or that the apparatus behaves as if the mass has been transferred?
Not at all happy with the idea of movement of mass to the fulcrum as surely that would remove the gravitational torque from a slow speed gyroscope?
As you so rightly say, speed does not change any of the basics “APART FROM ROTATION SPEED, THE FINAL RESULT WILL BE THE SAME.”
The other way that phrase “mass transfer” is used is that the entire apparatus is moved. The mass is transferred a linear distance, from A to B without an external force, as in the prof’s experiment and the Alex Jones model.
That kind of mass transfer I too can demonstrate, over limitless distance, up a slight gradient.
Where to go next is my current dilemma.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 01/02/2005 19:12:14
| | | > What is the difference between a Top and a frameless gyroscope?
Nothing , just terminology
> am more interested in your comment on the simplicity of the Newtonian calculation of ‘classical behaviour’.
With the string test it's probably not so simple. That's my point. With the air table test it's simple math. You just calculate the center of mass of the top and the puck. With the puck it's simply it's center point because it's round and we don't care about the third dimension. For the top it will be somewhere along the shaft, but since it will be precessing at some angle we need to know where. I can get this data from the design program I'm using. We can then easily calculate the combined center of mass given a specific angle of the top. This should be the point around which the whole system rotates (looking down). Any thing else is breaking conservation of momentum, which is exactly what we are trying to do. In any case if professor Laithwaite is correct It should be instantly obvious because the gyroscope weights eight times as much as the puck so according to Newton the puck should move in a large circle.
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 01/02/2005 23:09:01
| | |
Just for your amusement. Check out this web page from Georgia State University (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/top.html). Look at the drawing of the top. Notice it is demonstrating mass transfer and not Newtonian physics :-) Even the caption says "Spin a top on a flat surface, and you will see it's top end slowly revolve about the vertical direction, a process called precession.". Now let's just hope this is really true, even on a frictionless surface.
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy KIdd - 02/02/2005 12:43:15
| | | MOMENTUS
In answer to your questions.
1 The gyros move inwards/upwards on a fixed arc.
2 The apparatus behaves, as if the mass has effectively been transferred.
3 Damn good question on the slow precessing gyroscope.
Thought you were on my side?
Howsoever, in a passive system with a low precession rotation speed, this to me, denotes a high energy system with a high frequency, low intensity, almost imperceptible nutation ripple, but irrespective of all that, the gyroscopic mass is still only supported at a single point.
A purely vertical load on the rotation axis
I would personally be more concerned with the results of a decaying passive system with an increasing precession speed.
I did originally intend to do a few experiments in this direction when I was completely finished with my inertial drive devices. That was supposed to be about 20 years ago. All of my efforts over the years have been in systems subjected to radial acceleration, and due to the results I have been getting through this now extended period, albeit mixed, I am positive that’s where it’s at.
So there is now not a lot of chance, of doing them now I’m afraid.
I’ll leave all this to our younger members
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ron. - 23/05/2007 07:00:41
| | | Hellow to one and all.
I believe there is something new here.
Has this experiment been done in a vacuum?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/07/2007 22:48:19
| | | I’ve read this string of posts carefully. It is one of the most excellent strings on here and demonstrates the best collection of knowledge arrived at from individual studies and allows for the communication and understanding of a unique set of circumstances that is so far beyond general understanding. Most people would not have a clue as to what is being talked about, not really. I was so impressed. I will take up the question again to see if any of the previous contributors, or new ones can come any closer to solving these primary questions now than before.
In Dec. 2004, Ram Firestone begins “a gyroscope naturally precess around its center of mass (as physicists will tell you) or if the center of mass actually moves (as Laithwaite claims).”
I recall a month ago I ordered and received four new tacos to replace my old warn-out ones. The base of the new pedestals is different. I’m going to tell you absolutely and exactly what happens to these new pedestals while a gyro precess around one. If you do not believe me I will give the address from which you may purchase one of these and you can see for yourself.
Imagine drawing a large circle and a small circle on a glass tabletop with a magic marker. Draw the smaller circle inside the larger. During precession this new pedestal will rotate around the path of the smaller circle, while the gyro rotates around the path of the larger circle. They rotate at the same RPMs. Seeing this before you in subsequent test after test should prove that mass transfer takes place, more especially because not even the point of precession, that is the pivot of the shaft, remains in the same place. It too moves in a circle. If Laithwaite is right then the physicist is wrong. (WATCHING THIS ACTION IS TO BELIEVE THIS ACTION. MASS TRANSFER CERTAINLY TAKES PLACE.)
This begins to answer Ram’s question. There is more to come later.
Glenn H.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 15/07/2007 15:06:17
| | | 2 Dec. 2004 Webmaster’s reply to Ram:
“Ram, Totally correct. Laithewaite and Dawson claimed the centre of mass changes. The text book answer is it can't and Physicist would very quickly come to the conculsion that it could not be done - without even wanting to see the experiment. This is the problem that Laithwaite faced with his colleagues.
Glenn H., New addition in 2007:
The major problem is spelled out above. So why are we so overwhelmed with what a physicist might say? It is because we understand that a person must have special innate qualities in order that he might become a physicist in the first place and too he must apply himself for many years and with excellent instruction and because he, not us, is the over-all specialist in physics. We are prone to believe whatever he says even in the face of physical, viewable, measurable reverse proof. I have seen this happen in other similar situations in science. Too bad. We’ve been hammering at this question since the eighties when the Royal Academy of Science tried to silence the question without ever being able to give a mechanical explanation of what was viewed. So far as I know no physicist, mathematician, or scientist of any kind has offered proof to oppose what has been viewed. There are no drawings, photographs, videos, no mechanical explanations of what happened, nothing, nada from them in the entire world during all this time. Enough of this S#&@*#. If they can’t offer any explanation they don’t deserve to be heard let alone be considered on this topic. If they could have offered something, anything I would consider it, but after worrying with the emptiness of what they’ve said concerning this topic for so long, I no longer care what they say about the center of gravity remaining constant during precession. THEY ARE WRONG AND IT IS PROVED WHEN DEMONSTRATIONS ARE VIEWED. OTHERWISE LET ONE PROVE HIMSELF. LET HIM PROVE THE CONTRARY. LET HIM ATTEMPT SOMETHING, ANYTHING, ANY MECHANICAL EXPLANATION AT ALL! ANYTHING! I dare one to try. I double dare him.
In overhung precession mass movement takes place, period.
Glenn H.,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/07/2007 23:14:19
| | | Let us clarify. Ram Firestone wants to know if during overhung precession the center of mass, that is the center of weight, that is the center of the gyro should not remain in the same spot, pivoting only and never revolving around the pedestal. The question then is: Is the pedestal disallowed to revolve around the gyro, perhaps because of the pedestal to table contact friction and for this reason the gyro is forced to revolve around the pedestal just as we view it? If there were no friction would the pedestal revolve around gyro preserving the textbook explanation that the center of mass of the gyro never moves, unless forced?
Ram Firestone - 02/12/2004
“I am leaning towards using an air table because a puck could then be very light which would better demonstrate the "mass transfer" effect if it indeed occurs.”
Glenn H.: In this set-up the puck should be a lightweight plate made of Balsas wood and sat upon an air table and the pedestal then sat center upon the plate. The idea is that the very light plate would be suspended by air pressure and therefore would eliminate friction such as that caused by pedestal base to table top friction. Would the suspended plate and pedestal then rotate around the gyro proving that the center of the mass, that is the gyro, should not move but only pivot? That would prove that mass transfer does not naturally take place and that it is friction that causes the gyro to rotate around the pedestal?
This air table and puck is a good idea and ought to give some answers, but in some ways it will give only confusing suggestions. I want to delay this explanation.
Conclusion, Ram has reasoned that a friction free pedestal is necessary to begin to answer the question.
Glenn H.,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 17/07/2007 13:32:25
| | | Does the mass of the flywheel move to the support?
No it does not. The gyroscope couple transfers the reaction to the gravity torque of the gyroscope to the support.
Does the offset gyroscope rotate about its centre of mass?
No it does not. It moves as if it had no inertia in the horizontal plane, so that very small forces at the support point can constrain the motion about the support.
I have been thinking of posting again on this very subject and ‘dropped in’ to this site to find that this old thread had been reactivated.
It has always struck me as very strange that this, perhaps the most important question that could be asked in physics, is ignored by mainstream science, when the answer can be resolved by simple experiment.
So my latest thoughts are of an apparatus which will remove all possibility of ambiguity as to whether the unconstrained offset gyroscope rotates about the baryonic centre.
So here goes.
On a light shaft, at one end mount a light wheel with a low friction bearing. On the same shaft, close to the wheel mount a heavy flywheel with its own low friction bearing.
Mount a wheel and Flywheel at the other end of the shaft in a mirror image.
The diameter of the light wheel is larger than the flywheel, so the apparatus is free to roll on the light wheels whilst the flywheels are also free to spin.
It looks like a set of weightlifters barbells, with a weight and a wheel at each end.
The C of G - the baryonic point - the mass centre - where the weight is - call it what you will, is by symmetry at the centre of the shaft, the centre of the model.
The centre of the shaft is the point which should not move, cannot be displaced except by an external force.
Place the apparatus on a smooth, hard flat surface. You will know if the surface is flat if the model does not roll!
To operate the apparatus, spin up just one of the flywheels, raise up and release one end of the shaft.
A gravity torque will be produced equal to the weight of the apparatus multiplied by the distance from the C of G to the rim of the light wheel that is still in contact with the hard surface. This will be reacted by a gyroscopic couple and the apparatus will precess.
The point about which this rotation occurs is determined by Newton’s laws of motion.
Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/axioms.htm
In the case of the apparatus, any force to be impressed thereon must be passed from the hard surface to the light wheel. If no external force is transmitted then the C of G is not displaced.
At this point shed dwellers and the rest of the world part company.
Those who are well versed in classical physics contend that the friction between the parts exists and claim that it must be sufficient to transmit the necessary force.
Those who do the experiment do not see that is possible and argue that ‘long string, - melting ice - air bearings do not transmit the force.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 17/07/2007 13:36:22
| | | More to follow, but please feel free to comment !!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 17/07/2007 17:37:50
| | | Wow this thread is still alive. I’ve been out of this stuff for a while. In any case I still haven’t convinced myself one way or the other if the center of mass moves or not. I think it would have to be precisely measured. Even with the air table experiment the pivot point of the gyroscope (air puck, or whatever you are using) is still going to move somewhat if for no other reason than the frame of the gyroscope has non-rotating mass. However even if this mass was zero we still need to make measurement to be sure the whole system is precessing around the center of mass and not some other point. Any real difference (by real I mean not due to friction) between these two points would make gyroscopic propulsion easily possible.
At this point I have serious doubts that this is actually the case. There is no question this would be rewriting some of the laws of physics. However if someone can prove it I would keep an open mind.
Assuming for a second this delta exists. The machine to take advantage of it would be easy to build. In fact one of Laithewaite’s designs came very close to something I though would work. He had a gyroscope mounted offset on a wheel such that the gyroscopic axis was parallel to the plane of the wheels. This simulated a gyroscope processing around a tower. The gyroscope itself could also rotate on a second axis independent of the wheel (think of a locomotive drive wheel with a gyroscope mounted in place of the connecting rod). Now the wheel is spun by a motor and for half it rotation the gyroscope is locked such that its axis is pointed to the center of the wheel (so its motion was like it is precessing). For the other half it was allowed to move freely. In theory he is using his “mass transfer” for half the rotation of the wheel and normal movement for the other half.
The problem (other than whether the theory itself is correct or not) is Laithewaite seems to have broken his own theory. He stated that there is “mass transfer” UNDER precession, not if the gyroscope is forced to move AS IF it is under precession which is what he ended up doing. His machine would also put a huge stress on the whole system when they gyroscope is in the locked phase. To fix these problems we can remove the motor and instead of using a wheel, mount the gyroscope on a counterbalanced seesaw like device that rotates. In order to cause the seesaw to rotate we can now apply an electro magnet that pulls the seesaw either up or down on the gyroscope’s locked phase. This ACTAULLY puts the gyroscope under precession and causes the whole system to rotate. On the unlock phase, the whole thing simply coasts or can be driven by a second unit that is 180 degrees out of phase. Note, there are now no huge stresses caused by trying to force rotate a spinning gyroscope. It simply precesses at its own rate. However there is the stress of the electromagnets on the seesaw, however this is far more controllable. Locking they gyroscope can also be achieved by a second electro magnet system to simplify the mechanics and eliminate friction.
Some advantages of this would be that the device can be instantly turned off by allowing the gyroscope to rotate independently for the whole 360 degrees of the seesaw’s rotation. At this point we can let the device coast or we can use a secondary motor to keep it rotating so power can be applied at any time. However we are getting ahead of ourselves. In order for any of this to work Laithewaite’s mass transfer must first be proven to take place.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 18/07/2007 09:08:12
| | | Dear Momentus,
Glad to see you have rejoined the party.
Howsoever as far as I am concerned, for whatever reason, the gyroscope effectively transfers its mass in total, to act vertically down through its fulcrum.
Also, in a well engineered system there will be no sideways forces on the fulcrum at all.
In effect, if it was at all possible to measure the angular momentum and mass of a gyroscope in precession, it would be discovered that the gyroscope would to all intents and purposes be as well absent from the proceedings.
All we have is a visible spectacle of a rotating disk on a shaft or rod, rotating about a fixed point.
No change to system mass.
Just rotation without acceleration, which is unique in our world of physics.
Otherwise, I have no argument.
For your interest about 20 years ago I made some kind of statement relating to the loss of angular momentum, and gyroscopic mass whilst a gyroscope was in precession.
The brains on “Tomorrows World” ran a gyroscope up on a set of scales to prove there was no loss, and that I was in error.
Now that is intellect.
From that moment about 20 million plus viewers, knew that I was an idiot.
Best wishes,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 18/07/2007 12:53:16
| | | Ram,
Do the string experiment. Described 12/01/05.
If your result differs from mine (or Nitro’s), then you need to do it again.
The centre of mass moves. It is not a matter of debate, it is a matter of fact.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 18/07/2007 12:54:46
| | | Sandy
I see we are both keeping an eye on the forum!
I agree that using “mass transfer” as an analogy is useful – “the gyroscope would to all intents and purposes be as well absent from the proceedings.” and with your other comments. With the exception of the Idiot bit. My wish is that we are still around when the rest of the world catches up!!
Best wishes
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 18/07/2007 12:56:35
| | | All who are out there …….
We have a gyroscope - balanced on a wheel instead of a tower - precessing with a gravity torque.
There are a number of combinations of support wheel and spinning flywheel, all of which will produce the same precession.
If one end of the shaft is A, the other B, then :-
1) resting on wheel A with flywheel B spinning
2) resting on wheel A with flywheel A spinning
3) resting on wheel B with flywheel B spinning
4) resting on wheel B with flywheel A spinning
Since the model is symmetrical in all aspects, all 4 tests will show the same result. The model will endeavour to rotate about the C of G. Any variation from this will be due to the external force, the resistance offered by whichever wheel (and bearing) is supporting it at the time.
Thus any bias due to a stiff wheel bearing etc, will appear regardless of which flywheel is spinning and which one is stopped.
It would not be possible, for instance for wheel A not to move when Flywheel B was spinning, and then for wheel A to roll in a circle centred on B when flywheel A was spinning.
Or to rephrase that, for the spinning flywheel always to rotate about the stationary one, regardless of which wheel was supported.
Comments?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 18/07/2007 15:20:08
| | | In my view 12/01/05 is not a good proof. The instant the string becomes non vertical it starts applying a lateral forces. Gyroscopic precession due to gravity is typically quite slow so this centering force might be enough to keep it from moving. Here is an air table experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwSCM-Ipy2Y
Notice the contact point is moving. Here is a gyroscope on ice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgZFtCvwTZQ&NR=1
Again the contact point moves. These are also imperfect experiments because they don’t actually keep track of the center of mass. Also there is the gyroscope frame and air table puck or ice cube to take into account. However in the same way the string experiment might lead one to think the center of mass moves, there experiments clearly point the other way. The only way to be sure is to do better experiments. This could mean marking the center of gravity and watching it with a camera.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 18/07/2007 16:33:01
| | | I only see one solution that could be beyond argument to this question that has obviously haunted all of us. Image: Lay a mirror down flat on a table. Sat a pedestal down on the mirror. Cause a gyro to precess about the pedestal. Now we have the image of a real gyro and an image of its reflected upside self. Note that the gyros are spinning in opposite directions, while precessing in the same direction.
When gyros are spinning in oboist direction in the configuration described, bringing them together by any force causes them to precess in exactly the same direction.
Now we want to build a real life configuration of the images using two real pedestals, their bases glued together and two real gyros. Connect the two outside hub axes that are suspended in air one up, one down with a stretched rubber band.
This is only a description for easy understanding. A real model to function as suggested must be more complicated in order to disallow obvious problems and challenges. It should be easy to do.
Next you need to put this apparatus in free fall then loosen the rubber band that will bring the two together. NASA did otherwise pointless demonstrations with gyros during orbit for school kids. Maybe you could talk them into doing a useful one such as this.
During free fall either the two gyros will rotate around the pedestals, or the pedestals will rotate around the gyros taking into account the binary center of mass that Momentus talks about. After the outcome has been presented I can foresee no possible future argument. Whichever happens can be stated as true.
Actually I was working on such an experiment, but I got sick.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 18/07/2007 22:16:07
| | | Yes this experiment would work very well. It would probably be a lot easier in space because free fall limits viewing time. Also it would probably never rotate exactly around the base if the gyroscopes had frames. All that you actually need to prove is that it doesn’t rotate around its center of mass. If it rotates around ANY other point it can be used to build a drive.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 19/07/2007 04:04:40
| | | There is one more minor detail though I’m sure you have thought of. Both gyros have to be spinning at the same speed or one the slow one will try to precess faster and since it can’t it will tilt in quickly towards the other gyro while the faster one will try to move away.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 19/07/2007 10:11:29
| | | Yes on both counts, Ram. The experiment should be done inside NASA’s orbiting shuttle, which stays in free fall for a long and steady time. Yes, both gyros must be symmetrically the same and have the same density dispersion and rotate at the same speed. More than that I think the more complicated design I mentioned should have two secondary gyros sat at right angles to the primary gyros to stabilize and keep them from tumbling over one another. The stabilizers should be connected and centered at the pedestals. Now of course we have added more weight to be measured in respect to Momentus’ baryonic point, which is we remember the binary center between two uneven mass’ rotating around one another. Can do. No problem. We have simplified. We have eliminated two factors for potentially argument. We have eliminated both gravity and friction leaving only inertia qualities to study and measure. You knew, or quickly understood everything that makes up the experiment including how opposite spinning gyros can relate to precess in the same direction. Good. I was glad.
Best Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 19/07/2007 10:54:01
| | | Ram Firestone - 18/07/2007 15:20:08
In my view 12/01/05 is not a good proof. The instant the string becomes non vertical it starts applying a lateral forces.
Ram Firestone - 13/01/2005 03:56:23
.... Yes but the instant the string becomes non-vertical it does transmit an external horizontal force"....
Momentus - 13/01/2005 20:23:20
<>
That is the point of my experiment. The string does not become ‘non vertical’
If a deviation from the vertical can be detected, it can be corrected.
So where did I fail to make it clear that the string remained vertical? That there are no lateral forces present?
Perhaps you do not understand. I will try again.
You need to do the experiment yourself, or to read what is reported when the experiment is conducted by someone else.
When you do so you will find that the motion of the string can be adjusted. If you can detect movement away from the vertical, it can be corrected. If the string becomes non vertical, it can be corrected. When the experiment is set up there is no lateral force passed from the gyroscope externally.
The string remains vertical. It does not form an angle with the vertical. There is no horizontal force vector.
I do hope that I have made it clear. Vertical string, straight up and down, the point of the experiment, to show no, repeat no lateral force is present.
Furthermore to concentrate upon the motion of the string, even with an uncompensated gyroscope is to totally miss the point, to fail to observe what is actually happening.
The C of G of the gyroscope is displaced at the same instant that the string moves. The C of G is not moved by the forces arising as string forms an angle away from the vertical, miniscule as these forces are.
It does not wait until the string displaces, until the force builds up and then slowly accelerates the mass of the gyroscope. There is no Newtonian acceleration, no force applied to produce the displacement.
Newton’s law states that a mass does not move until a force is applied. That is the anomaly the string experiment reveals, even when the string does make a small displacement, the motion of the string and gyroscope are simultaneous. The gyroscope moves before the horizontal force vector from the displaced string appears.
All that the compensated gyroscope experiment of 12/01/05 does is to make the obvious fact unavoidable.
1) The string does not move.
2)The mass of the gyroscope does move.
There is no external lateral force to move the gyroscope. That is the anomaly.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 19/07/2007 12:53:31
| | | Hi again Ram,
No, no. I didn’t mean to say the stabilizers should be mounted at right angles, but rather generally that they should be in the same plane as the two primary ones. They should also be hinged so the vertical movement of the primary gyros do not themselves tilt the stabilizers.
If they had been left at right angles as I said, then they would have attempted to precess vertically if it should be that they begin to circle horizontally around the primary gyros.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 19/07/2007 14:29:13
| | | Yessss! Momentus I’m glad you are so adamant that mass moves! I have proof sufficient to me you are correct. However the string does not stay vertical, but in an exacting way you still may be correct. I have been hearing for years that during precession there is no centrifuge and it is repeatedly suggested that any action that might produce centrifugal is due to dead weight. I don’t know one way, or the other. Where is proof? I only know that centrifuge is definitely present. There is so much evidence and in our gravity set up centrifuge is a lateral force.
I site these evidences: The Christmas Lecture, 9. 15-16lb gyroscope hanging from a long piece of string. Also if you stuff one of your pedestals with crushed ice, sat it on a smooth surface and precess a gyro you can see the same force ‘centrifuge’ acting as in the string experiment. The professor was wrong. He might as well have driven the sharp edged supports of his tower down into the soft ice with a hammer. Anyone here can experiment for himself with string and crushed ice, yet this argument won’t go away.
Ironically, the fact that the pedestal and string does not remain in an exact point in space, but rotates in their own circle in perfect synchronization with the outer circling of the gyro proves even more concretely that mass is rotating powered by right angle forces. With a string one can see that mass does not stay in one place and pivot around itself. How could we ever have questioned the professor’s finding about mass movement? We’re not blind?
As to the two sites furnished by, Ram they’re great, but they are confusing to me. I think the actions are all very complicated, more than meets the eye. Perhaps someone will study them and explain.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 19/07/2007 15:24:40
| | | "That is the point of my experiment. The string does not become ‘non vertical’"
A few of points on this. First the string may be moving small amounts that are too tiny to be easily detected. Secondly your interpretation of the string experiment directly contradicts the air table and ice cube experiments that I posted; so which one is correct? Can you explain why these experiments demonstrate something different from the string experiment?
I have personally done the ice cube experiment with a large top (no frame) I had built for me. The ice cube still makes a large circle on the floor. I can’t absolutely say that the system was rotating around its center of mass but it seemed pretty close. Any friction in this experiment would only cause the situation to be worse (for our purposes). It is enough to say that a gyroscope does not "generally" precess around its contact point. That much is clear.
It seems the only hope left is that it’s still does not precess around its center of mass (i.e. its some point in-between). However since this contradicts accepted Newtonian physics (even Einsteininan physics) we have to give deference to these UTIL proven otherwise. Again I’m just trying to be realistic. If anyone can prove current physics needs modification I will be overjoyed. However it needs to be proven.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 19/07/2007 15:34:12
| | | Glenn,
Do you really think the stabilizers are necessary? My gut feeling is that it would self stabilize. However I'm not sure, you could be right.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 19/07/2007 16:45:10
| | | Ram,
I don’t know. You could be right. However if you can hitch one experiment on a ride in a shuttlecraft why not build both models and call them a package experiment. Then you’ll have films of two to study. So… what happens when you have these gut feelings, a lot of growling and swelling followed by a gastric burst of inspired logic from witch you wish to build an inertial transmission for space? Yes? Kidding of course. Keep it up. You are working well. I'm following you.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 19/07/2007 17:45:48
| | | Excuse me. I have a couple of two cents.
Ram: “I can’t absolutely say that the system was rotating around its center of mass but it seemed pretty close.”
NONE OF THESE EXAMPLES ARE TRUE BINARY, or (BIONIC CENTERED) MODELS! This is an all-important distinction in our search for an answer.
Let us consider our simplest understanding of binary rotation, which everyone here understands completely. Two stars are near enough to one another that gravity holds them together, while the nature of linear motion attempts to separate them. The result is a balance and they orbit one another.
WHEN WE SPEAK OF GYROSCOPE AND ICE/STRINGS/INC. DURING PRECESSION, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT BOTH OPPOSITE MASSES BEING IN UNIFORM ROTATION, TRAVELING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS, COUNTER BALANCING ONE ANOTHER IN ROTATION AND ORBITING THE SAME EXACT CENTER POINT. NO! NO! We are seeing something entirely different during precession.
While watching gyros we are not witnessing a potential binary orbit of two masses about one another as in two balls tied by a string rotating around one another. Do we not understand that that the gyro/ice/string does not warp and wobble about one another with both going in the opposite direction from one another? Do we not see that the gyro/ice/string travel in the same direction, in uniform RPMs and both extending outward from both visible and invisible axes? Obviously the two separated masses are not behaving in equal and opposite rotational behavior—such as in a binary star system, or any other system of rotation where the bionic center, the axes clearly exist. Therefore…
In the simplest examples we have seen a thousand times, when a gyro held by a string is precessing mass is in motion beyond the confines of itself? To simple to believe?
The textbook is wrong here. The professor is right.
I will give it a rest for a while. You all keep it up. If there is such a thing as a most important string, and certainly there is, then this is it!
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 19/07/2007 17:49:31
| | | "So… what happens when you have these gut feelings, a lot of growling and swelling followed by a gastric burst of inspired logic from witch you wish to build an inertial transmission for space? Yes?"
Yeah something like that :-) What I was thinking is that a gyroscope not under precession is clearly self stabilizing in a zero gravity environment. So now if you put it into precession, I don’t see any other forces that would cause it to act erratically. However when we have two gyroscopes things probably become more complex. I think the key is to keep that going at the same speed. Again, I’m not completely sure.
As a second though however, do we really need two gyroscopes? What about a single gyroscope hinged to an L shaped bracket. If we are worried about vertical balance we can add a second bracket just as a counterweight; something like this:
%--------------- < counter balance bracket
|
| --------
| / ## \
| / ## \
Hinge --> @-%-----##-----%
| \ ## /!
| \ ## / !
| -------- ! <--- Rubber band
| !
%---------------
This would eliminate the need to match gyro speeds. BTW If this drawing looks like garbage convert it to New Courier font and it should be fine. In fact it would be cool if this forum used new courier just so we could do easy ascii drawings.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 19/07/2007 23:00:34
| | | "WHEN WE SPEAK OF GYROSCOPE AND ICE/STRINGS/INC. DURING PRECESSION, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT BOTH OPPOSITE MASSES BEING IN UNIFORM ROTATION, TRAVELING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS, COUNTER BALANCING ONE ANOTHER IN ROTATION AND ORBITING THE SAME EXACT CENTER POINT."
In some sense it doesn't make a difference why precession works the way it does. The only thing that matters is whether the center of gravity moves or not without outside influence when a gyroscope is under precession. That’s really the only thing we need to know to determine if the professor Laithwaite was correct or not, and hence if we can use his theory to build a propulsion system or not. So far I have not personally seen solid proof that it moves.
“The textbook is wrong here. The professor is right.”
I’m not sure how you can say that with such confidence. Perhaps you have seen more evidence than I have. It would certainly be a breakthrough if it were true, but from my point of view it still needs to be proven.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 20/07/2007 00:16:41
| | | I will try. Select a saucer with a slight concave depression into its center point. Flip a nickel so that it rotates on its edge and see that after the flip it lands in the center of the saucer. The nickel stays in the depressed center and rotates. What you get as the nickel rotates is 100 % of rotation about the center of its mass.
Next tie a long string to an overhead point directly above the center of the saucer. Drive a nail through the nickel to make a gyro of it and tie one end of the nail to the string and cause the nickel to spin up. The nickel will precess above the rim of the saucer. It does not stay in the center of the saucer and rotate as if on its edge about the center of its own mass. ?? Yes? A gyroscope precess' traveling in a circle, and doesn’t rotate around its own self. If it doesn’t rotate about its axes, if it doesn’t rotate about the center point of its diameter then it doesn’t rotate about the center of its own mass. Is this too simple to accept? Well… it was for me for a long time. If you lighten up on the many complications at least in this one respect and accept that what you see is what you get you might become more in agreement with me.
If you still need more to consider you might try the post, A NEW SEARCH FOR INERTIA PROPULSION on page two and then consider more closely TEST 4. Ask about anything I haven’t made clear.
Best Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
webmaster - 20/07/2007 02:46:21
| | | I was hoping to release all the information I have in one go. But after watching the comments here I thought I better provide this. I'm sure it will be of interest to you.
It is a draft section in my book. I had the idea a few years before I actually did the test.
http://www.gyroscopes.org/experiment.pdf
Glenn Turner
BTW: can anyone guess what the second servo and rail on the arm (top) is for?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 20/07/2007 09:40:22
| | | Respectfully suggest that stuff as good as this deserves its own thread?
Congrats on a great site
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 20/07/2007 14:18:44
| | | "http://www.gyroscopes.org/experiment.pdf"
Wow! It looks professional. I'm still not convinced anything but air or magnetic bearings are going to give good results. Even with those you have air friction but hopefully not too much. My guess is the friction in your current system is causing the change in results when the precession rate is higher. I would also guess that the faster precession is giving more accurate results. However in the case of experiment one (using the precession as apposed to just spinning the apparatus) we are testing for something that we are hopping does not conform to classical physics. If we are going to say it may not be rotating around the center of gravity, it seems silly to them assume this rotation point will remain in the same spot under all circumstances. It may turn out that way but it is probably not a good assumption.
In any case they do make air tracks. They are probably expensive unless you build your own, but if you used it I would think you would get better results.
The one thing I am confused about is where is the vertical center of gravity? Under classic physics if it is along the support it will never move. However if it was somewhere in the gyroscope the support would move a lot.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
webmaster - 20/07/2007 15:03:05
| | | As suggested I'm going to spin off another thread about this.
I will reply to any questions on that thread.
Glenn Turner
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 20/07/2007 22:18:46
| | | This thread is getting kind of surreal!!
RAM says
First the string may be moving small amounts that are too tiny to be easily detected…….If anyone can prove current physics needs modification I will be overjoyed. However it needs to be proven.
An oxymoron if ever there was one
On a more positive note
Glenn Hawkins - 19/07/2007 14:29:13
………….However the string does not stay vertical………..
The experiment, as given is to establish the force required for the initial acceleration of the mass of an offset gyroscope from rest.
It takes less than a thirtieth of a second, the best resolution I could get from the videocam I used at the time.
The spinning gyroscope, suspended from two strings and “Damped” until there was no detectable swinging motion. At this point the outer string was burnt to give clean release.
The instantaneous centre of rotation was noted. With no compensating weight, this point was between the gyroscope and the point of string attachment and by definition immediately below the point of suspension. With an efficient gyroscope this would be closer to the string than the wheel.
Adding a small (relative to the weight of the flywheel) weight to the opposite end of the shaft, moved the instantaneous centre towards the string.
Artillerymen, when ranging a gun will deliberately straddle the target. If the first shot fell short, then they would over compensate to ensure that the next shot would overshoot. The logic is that, between these two points there exists a null point, where the shot is exactly on target.
Adding a sufficiently large weight moves the instantaneous centre beyond the point of string attachment. Ergo a null point exists. There is a value for the compensating weight which equates to rotation about an instantaneous centre in exact alignment below the point of external suspension. The string does not move when this condition is achieved.
It was a lengthy process, adjust, damp the swing, burn the string, note the centre adjust the weight, repeat. But it establishes without any shadow of doubt that the conditions under which a gyroscope moves from rest to a precession velocity without external action can be determined.
Glen said …..”I only know that centrifuge is definitely present”……….
This experiment was not intended nor designed to address centripetal acceleration. It is over when the mass of the flywheel reaches a constant speed.
To consider centripetal acceleration you need to refer to Sandy’s work with forced, not gravity systems, where the forces are much larger and easier to measure. I am in total agreement with his views. Rather than there being an outward tendency which tensions the shaft, there is an inward tendency which compresses the shaft. Totally opposite to the Newtonian view.
That is a different subject to the one which I have addressed.
Glen ………….. “I site these evidences: The Christmas Lecture, 9.”
You have pushed my rant button with that reference. It has been quoted by “physicists with degrees” to argue contrary points.
It is an axiom of Newtonian science that angular and linear momentum are separately conserved. The significant motion of the Laithwaite pendulum is linear momentum - the C of G is displaced – and has no relationship to the change in angular momentum – the gyroscope.
From the instant it is released, the motion is Non Newtonian. I have labelled the concept “dark motion”
A pendulum will always and without exception return to its point of origin, where it is released, with the same velocity that it leaves that point.
Stand in a gymnasium with a punch bag on a climbing rope. Swing the punch bag from any position, in any combination of force and angle that you can possibly contrive.
Then stand still and wait. You know what is coming your way don’t you? I thought so.
The Prof’s demo shows that Newton’s laws do not apply. Including centripetal acceleration. Think about it.
Rant over.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 21/07/2007 01:05:51
| | | "This thread is getting kind of surreal!!"
Yeah well that tends to happen when you are trying to come up with new laws of physics :-) In any case I hope no one is taking any of this personally. I certainly don't. I'm just making my points like everyone else. I’d just like to see something useful come out of this or alternately (but not preferably) I would like to see it put to rest. I mainly wanted to encourage definitive experiments. To me that means results with as little interpretation wiggle room as possible. Therefore I feel experiments that have less interaction with out outside forces and bodies are preferable. Anything that can reduce fiction is good: air tables, magnetic bearings or even the ultimate: a vacuum with zero gravity. Formal science is typically held to a high standard and the scientific community will not take gyroscopic propulsion seriously until it is demonstrated with experiments that are held to the same high standard.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 21/07/2007 19:22:39
| | | Well… bless you all. Bless you very much.
I do not work any of these systems whereby gyros are force to revolve around an attached post. Whatever you have found to study there I do not find. I do agree in gravity forced precession, if angular momentum is lessened, or if weight is added centrifuge pulls the gyro outward in a widening circle. In Sandy Kidd’s forced ‘precession?’ the gyro forces its way inward toward the axes. However. My studies could not possibly be more different than any here so I guess I should bow out at this point, while acknowledging my admiration for your collective works. Today... especially yours, Glenn Turner.
Well I’ll hedge a bit. I have dated reason to believe Momentus has reasoning of his own in the area of some, but not all of my methods. None of this though is mentioned in this string so I wont mention it.
Hi Ram, I like the dual gyro test rather than the hinge. The rubber band, or a hydraulic system could be used, applies equal force in the proper directions of gyro to gyro. The resistance of each gyro is in opposition to the resistance of the other. The hinge/pivot area reacts equally from one gyro to the other gyro. The inertial qualities and configuration of each is the same. There are no other conditions I see that might allow for argument, or uncertainty that one might struggle to find somehow. The reason I prefer the dual system is that there has seemed to be no end to questions, uncertainties and hypotheses that can be reasoned to do with gyroscopes if one has the imagination for it—therefore I want to use gyro against gyro only and hope that avoids any possibility of arguments I might see and some I mightn't see. You can drive yourself nuts with these things. Don’t give an inch for a knew possible thought to wedged in and disrupt a potential statement of certainty. With gyro to gyro you can’t lose. I don’t know. That’s how I think.
So long everybody,
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/07/2007 10:24:06
| | | I thank you will never learn more by watching and measuring as a gyroscope under gravity constantly precess around a tower. I think you will never learn more by forcing gyros with an electric motor to revolve around a post. I think that all that could be learned has been learned if you will open your mind. What is it! that you don’t know? Perhaps I, or someone else can answer and suggest some simple tests for you to do to confirm the answers if you need this help.
Meanwhile there are exciting unanswered questions begging to be answered. These are complicated and complex about a gyro’s ability under certain exact manipulations to move. I say move……! Moveveveveveveeee apparently and tot tally without a rearward reaction from one place in space to another and continue moving in the same direction. Why are you fooling around with constant precession around and around a post?
The manipulated movement I speak of is an inch along stop and go movement, but there are many things available to think about in how you might cause this motion to become a constant acceleration. Let me tell you want be easy, but there are so many sensible, yet untried ways to go about it. You could speed a long time thinking and inventing tests, but at least you’d have something to search for.
Do I believe in Mass Movement? You bet I do. It’s real. That’s what this tread was all about wasn’t it? I can do it before your eyes. You can do it yourself and as much as you like if I tell you how. Once you know how, with all the insights laid out, I’d like to hear you try to argue it away.
Mass movement is certain. Constant acceleration is not certain. However I have reason to believe constant acceleration certainly can be done. Mass movement is just the beginning.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 26/07/2007 09:18:26
| | | Dear Glenn,
I have gathered from some of your recent postings that you have become somewhat undecided in your belief in the “Quest”. Perhaps it is just frustration?
Unless a gyroscope is tethered at one end, namely the fulcrum it is no longer a gyroscope, but just a spinning disc. So whatever you have in mind about gyroscopes rotating around posts, I think you are stuck with.
The thing we are all attempting to achieve is the conversion of angular momentum to linear momentum, which whilst only an assumption, is deemed to be impossible, and besides separate conservation is required to protect the 1st and 3rd laws.
There is no proof that they are separately conserved so it is up to us to prove them wrong, and some of us have gone into this thing far enough to know that the assumption is wrong. This fact inevitably leaves the 1st and 3rd Laws vulnerable which for obvious reasons is not popular with the high priests.
Whether you attempt this task from a “stepping” or “stop and go” arrangement or from steady rotation and momentum conversion, the tool you have to use is the gyro’s peculiar and unique ability to change its state under radial acceleration.
If you are attempting to produce thrust by the “stop and go” principle of which I am not really up to speed with, or by steady rotation speed to generate thrust, it would appear that the output from either is in going to be in pulses either slow or fast, and preferably in the shape of nice smooth sine waves.
This is not so hard to achieve in a mechanically accelerated system where the final output could be quite smooth if properly done, producing smooth continuous acceleration.
The same could be said for a “stop and go” principle, if done at a high enough frequency, it may be possible to make it smooth, although I would think it would be a much tougher task.
However you attempt it, the output will be produced at right angles to the axis of system rotation, the geometry of the system will determine which way the thrust is directed, i.e. axially or radially, the radial thrust direction will be controlled by your pulse generating cam, eccentric whatever
That said, there is no way you will achieve any kind of movement, drive or thrust without breaking the rules, whatever principle you wish to promote.
One pulse or a million pulses is breaking the rules.
If you believe in “mass movement” the way I interpret it, I see very little difference from that and continuous acceleration, as they must both use the same basic albeit unacceptable (this week anyway) gyroscopic principles, and fly in the face of the momentum conservation “laws”?
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 26/07/2007 09:20:57
| | | Hello again Glenn, and any other interested parties.
If I may can I bore you some more.
I do not think that you will be under any illusions, as to the view, of what I am about to relate, is taken by the high priests/custodians of all knowledge, however if put to the test I can back up my statements/claims which is a hell of a lot more than they can.
I recently made a comment relating to the fact that a gyroscope in precession would as well not be there. It affects nothing, and is only a visual spectacle of a rotating disc, itself rotating around a fixed point.
A gyroscope under mechanical acceleration, or as some still wish to call it forced precession, can present a very similar visual state of affairs, but in this case, there can be large changes of angular momentum and centrifugal force, going on without flagging up their presence
One must not be fooled by the visual impression a gyroscope presents in gravity accelerated mode or mechanical accelerated mode.
This is why I have suggested that the workings of these things, eventually becomes a state of mind.
Gyroscopic logic is hard to teach, it is much easier to learn.
In an accelerated system there could be almost total angular momentum present or virtually none without any obvious way of knowing.
It is therefore not necessary for a gyroscope “to move” to create large changes in useable centrifugal force or angular momentum, it is only important to know that it can, and can be manipulated.
This phenomenon is all part of the mass transfer process (if you like) which goes on within a mechanically accelerated system, but what is most important is the ability of the system to gain or shed angular momentum without a change to the system rotation speed.
The pure and righteous will love that one.
The change can be as prolonged and smooth as you like it to be, or abrupt if you wish.
Howsoever in the final analysis, and as I have said before (I found out after countless, fruitless experiments, over thousands of years, well it felt like that) that a gyroscopic system on its own will never ever deliver inertial thrust.
The gyroscope must be made to react indirectly with some other part of the device.
Let me put it a different way, the action or reaction is a default action, initiated by changes created within the gyroscopic system.
However Glenn, you are right in as much as something has to move, but not necessarily the gyroscope which initiates the move. Like everything else to do with gyroscopes, things tend to be somewhat different, from what would normally be assumed.
Many of you will know I have been pushing this stuff for some time, but I am also aware that many horses have died of dehydration after being taken to the well.
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/08/2007 23:17:39
| | | Hello Sandy Kidd,
I enjoyed reading your posts veru much and thank you for engaging me. I believe I agreed with everything you said as I remember and so I don’t have much to add. Maybe later I can do better justice to your good response. Sorry for my late reply.
Best wishes,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 06/08/2007 19:25:35
| | | Dear Sandy,
You said: “Unless a gyroscope is tethered at one end, namely the fulcrum it is no longer a gyroscope, but just a spinning disc. So whatever you have in mind about gyroscopes rotating around posts, I think you are stuck with.”
I understand Kidd your gyros rise vertically as they are forced to revolve horizontally around a post. Then obviously you have moved mass! You are one of the first to both do and realize this.
You said: “There is no proof that they are separately conserved so it is up to us to prove them wrong, and some of us have gone into this thing far enough to know that the assumption is wrong.”
Yes. Look to the latest thread in the post heading ‘Are my ideas crazy. There you may see more inexplicable evidence that angular momentum is not conserved, but is transferred to a 90 degrees direction and…used. Wow, huh? It is used outside of its plain.
You said: “If you are attempting to produce thrust by the “stop and go” principle of which I am not really up to speed with, or by steady rotation speed to generate thrust, it would appear that the output from either is in going to be in pulses either slow or fast, and preferably in the shape of nice smooth sine waves.”
I’m 100 percent sure you’re correct in this. All motion, even to the highest speeds such as in cosmic radiation and light travels in waves, which is forward slow, fast, slow, fast.
I told you I was in agrement with these posts.
Best Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 07/08/2007 12:34:07
| | | Dear Glenn,
Thanks for your reply.
Yes, the gyroscopes lose all their angular momentum just prior to the “rise”, which is of course because there is no longer any mass left to be accelerated, and consequently no centrifugal force.
At that point, the mechanically accelerated gyroscope is for all intents and purposes displaying the same attributes as a gravity accelerated gyroscope in precession.
It is being rotated at high speed without any acceleration being produced in the system.(except in the gyroscope of course)
As there is no mass left at this point to accelerate, and any subsequent increase in system rotation only increases the inward/upward velocity of the gyroscope.
“You cannot accelerate no mass”.
That is the point where the system is for want of a better word, saturated.
The point I was attempting to make was that any manipulation to the angular momentum to create any kind of differential must be carried out below the point of saturation, which means that changes to the level of angular momentum and of course centrifugal force are not going to be visible.
There are many better and more scientific ways of proving this but if you are impatient it is easy to prove by running a twin opposed gyroscope device with the gyroscopes rotating at different speeds. Watch you head for goodness sake.
Depending on the gyroscope rotation speed differential, things can get out of hand quite dramatically, and quickly.
You have been warned.
When I made this claim many years ago, I was naturally told my claim was rubbish so I offered to prove my point, whilst my device was being tested inside a strong wire mesh cage.
This demonstration took place a certain university many years (circa 1986) ago.
1. The device was rotated at full speed without gyroscope rotation.
The device ran smoothly and well balanced.
2. The device was rotated at full speed with nominal gyroscope rotation speed.
Again the device ran smoothly and well balanced.
3. The device was run up with a sizeable differential in gyroscope rotation speeds.
The device destroyed itself as I predicted, at probably 15% of its normal gyroscope rotation speed.
The good Doctor turned his back, made no comment and just walked away.
A totally futile exercise, and besides, I had to rebuild the machine.
Further mention of that demonstration was never ever made.
We have not progressed very far, in 20 plus years have we?
Funnily this is also just about where I came in 3 years ago when I first posted to this site.
Is it at all possible that allegedly intelligent people for whatever reason believe that the level of angular momentum in a mechanically accelerated system will be the same as it would be if the rotated mass was non-rotating?
I am curious to know.
Maybe Arthur Dent or whatever his real name is, would be good enough to give us an insight into the mind of the academic intellectual, by enlightening us as why this all happens
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Arthur Dent - 13/08/2007 12:30:58
| | | I am not entirely sure that I have understood the situation correctly but, if you were rotating 2 opposed gyroscopes - having differing speeds about their own axes - on a vertical shaft, then the 'hurrying-on the precession' effect would act on both of them. But, because of their differing proper rotation speeds, the hurrying-on effect would be different for each of them and would therefore throw the central shaft seriously off-balance. Whence the damage. BTW, I read recently - in an old journal - that the word, 'gyrostat', was introduced only after the gyroscope was enclosed in its own casing. And the reason for the casing being introduced? An errant gyro flew through Lord Rayleigh's silk hat!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 16/08/2007 06:50:22
| | | Arthur,
Thank you for your reply, although I must admit I do not understand what you mean by “hurrying–on the precession”.
Is this accepted terminology or is this yours?
Could you be good enough to explain what is meant/you mean by this?
As gravity takes only a minor part in this type of action where does the precession involvement come from?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dale Crouse - 09/06/2008 21:39:23
| | | I just watched the heretic video and read rapidly the discussion thread between Ram Firestone, Glenn Hawkins, and Sandy Kidd. We have been doing some experiments to understand precession after Howard W. Kober filed U.S. patent 6,276,985 for a gyroscopic device. A rocket engine is envisioned powered by precession of oppositely spinning gyroscopes.
We had found the current physics dogma was incomplete and in error along the lines Professor Laitherwaite illustrated. We had learned that the repulsion force between mass is not the exact opposite of the attraction force between mass. The attraction force between the surface of magnets with opposite poles is linear. As the surface of two magnets with like poles approach each othe, however, the masses are repelled by rotating the poles in opposite directions. Several other experiments with gyros indicate the inertial mass in on the surface (like charge in classical physics) whereas the gravitational mass is at the center of mass. We have been debating the issue whether gravitational mass shifts to the surface of the gyro when it starts precessing. The heretic video will help us in our quest to understand correctly how mass works.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
James Caird - 08/05/2009 09:20:42
| | | It seems Laithwaite's real problem was he didn't ditch Newton altogether. Time all the non-productive branches were burnt on the fire. Read the site below, it makes far more sense of it all. All this talk of mass transference etc from Ram, Sandy etc sounds just like the state of play before the little boy said the emperor has no clothes. :)
http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/01/06/crackpot-or-genius-has-a-shell-boffin-stumbled-on-a-scientific-breakthrough/
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 12/05/2009 03:05:20
| | | Hello James,
Hay, Ram and Sandy are booth pretty sharp and they’re good writers too. Ouch!
I guess you tried to say that while every one knew was no mass transfer, everyone never the less pretended there was? You’re emperor meaning is not entirely certain, but that is what the sentence infers.
My friend I have news for you, Mass transfer is so real and common it is a little boring to explain it. Sit a spinning gyro down directly on a glass table. Tilt it up half-way to vertical and turn it lose. After it has precessed one-half orbit, pick it up. Note that no equal and opposite reaction, or movement occurred at the pivot point resting on the glass table. This is mass transfer. Give us a counter argument to that one.
The Shell site? Thanks. The guy can’t write a lick, not one lick, simple as that. It takes him forever to say nothing. I would have a fit from boredom if I had to follow him. I speed-glanced, not even speed-read, enough to assume he is only a minor crack pot.
Thank you for giving me a diversion so late at night. Thanks, Glenn
Allow me the pleasure in turn to furnish you with the site of the KING of the crackpots.
I’ll put my crackpot up against yours, or anybodies anytime. Harr, harr, har, row you beasties. http://www.timecube.com/
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 12/05/2009 03:09:37
| | | Hawkins can’t write a lick, not one lick, simple as that. Look at that mess idiot just made above. Aw, it's late and I'm tired and lonely. Can't sleep. Goodnight fellows.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MicroMach - 07/06/2010 09:28:36
| | | RPM = Important
Mass transfer has to do with the Rotation speed (RPM) it can lift itself by a push, but the machines mass is always the same: some place for pictures would work got a .avi
a 12 inch wheel going 9800 RPM rises slower than it going 4200 RPM
The best speed is ( tweak the RPM) as the rim size thickness may be a factor.
I found 1337 feet per minute (OD rim) best for the SW model it gave the highest raise when forced ... 1.22 meaning it lifted 1.22 times higher than the same weight pushing it, But it is moving on a arc and for test purpose only was better than the 9800 rpm @0.910 lift
The lift is steady, straight line on Y graph, even on a arc. Even changing it 200 rpm has noticeable changes, which no-one really thinks important.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
micromach - 09/06/2010 07:48:34
| | | |
pivot |
|========================| gyro CCW
| |
| |
|
|
^^^^^ rotating base FORCED CCW
Frictionless surface:
Its not the surface at all with the gyros path but the horizontal shaft.(Motion Analysis with zero surface friction)
ITS the other items being forced to move by precession (outside forces)
Testing with lighter shafts and lighter vertical support results in smaller gyro circle path.
If it was possible to make a vertical pivot tower and horizontal shaft weigh zero. it most certain rotate about the center of gyros mass. As only the gyro has mass.
String: different thing as it must be in perfect precession and exact center as started which is hard to do, if done the gyro should rotate at the center of mass of gyro. This is hard to do as the small angle the string makes throwing it out to a arc path when started.
But if the gyro running ccw, the horizontal shaft is pushed turned CCW then the gyro will lift up and where did mass go, down the shaft to the rotating center axis. if not it bends the shaft. So it will "move" the mass if acted upon from outside force becoming lighter or heavier. (CWW or CW)
the gyro is " twisting Force" at the center of mass at right angle to the push action, the other end has no shaft.
The gyro seems it shifting some of its mass to the pivot point, but on a set of balance scales a dead system weighs same as active system that is in steady precession.
Every body know a piece of metal will not magic become lighter..so it twists to hold itself up. On the balance scale if the active system is lifting a gyro it will not balance.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 09/06/2010 18:33:13
| | | So far as I am able to understand you, every notion you have is wrong. You should explain in depth! how you arrived at these notions, ie observation, sequences and experiments.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 09/06/2010 21:26:38
| | | Weight is used as force: the series is, the greater the mass, the greater the gravitational force, the faster the precession, the greater the centrifugal force, the further the gyro is pulled away from the center point of its orbit. Conversely, weight removed from ANY PART, PLACE OR AREA of the gyro; TO INCLUDE wheel, shaft or rim guard, results in a smaller orbit for the same reasons. Of course, the attitude is further controlled by distance and horizontal load, as when using a pry bar.
http://www.ehow.com/how_5633424_move-small-force-pry-bar.html
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
micromach - 13/06/2010 10:08:04
| | | sorry Glenn: i do have some problems with words
I did a test with modeling software with a 12" wheel running at 4200 rpm (13194.7) SFM
What i wanted to do is simply test how to lift that wheel (gyro) up and how much energy it would
need to do the lift. Basic it needed 1 to 1. How ever this varyed with the highest rpm not being the best. I did not try altering the shaft length connecting the gyro to the vertical shaft. yet
I need a better setup as the arc as it rises could give varyed results
The modeling software will not allow a string or cable, so i used rack and pinion and bevel gears, which is why it is in weight ....I moved X amount of weight X inches.
The Rack is Vertical so i used it as the input power, it turns the bevel gears moving the vertical shaft connected to the horizon gyro shaft. This works fine the rack moves down and gyro goes up about 90 degrees in a arc.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 15/06/2010 02:01:08
| | | Hi micromach,
I’m glad someone is searching for answers. If you can find answers to certain questions and present the means to verify them, that would be very fine. What is the name of your modeling software? Do you do cad drawings? Dose your software respond in mechanical physics and mathematics and give answers?
You wrote, “I did a test with modeling software with a 12" wheel running at 4200 rpm (13194.7) SFM”
The shape and balance of weight mean everything. Ideally there should be as little dead weight as possible. A wheel with the center bore, bell and spokes made of high strength aluminum, and a thick rim of heavy metal attached with bolts to the spokes would be excellent. The further (12”) from the axes with great mass means the heavy particles travel much fasted creating more gyroscopic phenomena and less damping interference from dead weight. So again, shape, balance, weight and speed are all important considerations.
You wrote, “What I wanted to do is simply test how to lift that wheel (gyro) up and how much energy it would need to do the lift. Basic it needed 1 to 1.”
Yes, very good. I think that’s right, less a minute amount of contact friction and air resistance. Yes I think your ratio, 1:1 is almost totally correct.
You wrote, “How ever this varied with the highest rpm not being the best.”
Maybe? I’m not sure. Can you explain what you did and the results and guess as to what, why and how this is so?
You wrote, “I did not try altering the shaft length connecting the gyro to the vertical shaft yet.”
You are using mechanical horizontal applied force to make the gyro rise, correct? This is pretty hairy stuff. There are so many factors, but if the RPMs are the same for the short shaft as the long shaft, then the gyro on a long shaft is traveling in a circle much faster, which compensates for the wider arch. I think I will abandon this, but good luck.
Actually, micromach, don’t you have your answer in the ratio 1:1. If you don’t mind my asking, why are you searching for variations? What are you up to?
Nice talking to you. By the way, what part of the world do you live in? Well, as we say down on the farm here in Tennessee USA, ‘Keep on keeping on!’
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
micromach - 16/06/2010 07:08:32
| | |
SolidWorks and SW Motion it has everything
a person needs http://www.solidworks.com/
that's what it telling me, its takes longer to lift it using higher revs. see: http://mike-012010.blogspot.com/2010/06/new.html
Alberta
Yes I found a little problem with the settings so now its giving me a 1 to 1 input/work ratio, but the rpms still have a big factor, did you think it should be so?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
micromach - 20/06/2010 09:18:53
| | | Tennessee USA I heard that's a nice place
I'm near Edmonton AB
The idea with using aluminum for the hub is for one easier to make also as under cutting the ends is a bigger waste and except for milling it out faster. But the thermal expansion is the problem with 0.0126 at 10 inch dia. and 0- 200 deg.F. So how hard the make it floating?
Anyhow I was surprised about the results if they are correct, I'm no pro at this at all. I guess I was off a bit with the 4200 http://mike-012010.blogspot.com/2010/06/new.html
This shows lower RPM as easier, for that setup. All I was trying to do was lift it, not having it do anything, so maybe its just vise-versa
But back to the thread question I think if the axle and whatever else the gyro is resting on
then center of rotation (on table) should be the center of the gyros mass, only if the gyro held all of the mass (everything else has zero mass). That the easy way to think of it.
Well I hope for a north winds for you people. Good Luck
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/06/2010 01:22:14
| | | Hi Near Edmonton,
I think we should team up. I’ll explain eventually. For now I'll just try to comment of your experiments.
You write:
“But the thermal expansion is the problem with 0.0126 at 10 inch dia. and 0- 200 deg.F.”
The thermal expansion is from centrifugal force. . . stretching the metal outward from the center of the wheel?
You write:
“So how hard the make it floating?”
Set your device on a little floating plank raft in a lake. That kind of floating. Will it move like a powered boat? If the movement is non-jerky and it accelerates you have a winner.
You write:
But back to the thread question I think if the axle and whatever else the gyro is resting on
then center of rotation (on table) should be the center of the gyros mass. . .”
That's exactly correct, but there’s more. A gyroscope dose not act any differently whether the force to cause precession comes vertically from gravity, the fall, or comes horizontally from mechanical force, the push. Ether way the particles in the flywheel are deflected to cause right angle torque, which causes the right angle movement. This is precession as you know and as we see it in an overhung, gravity powered demonstration. The precession movement itself causes a secondary right angle torque. That is, one twist causes yet another twist. This secondary torque caused by precession twists down of the pivotal area and holds the gyro aloft. If there is enough angular momentum in the wheel it will hold itsself up, plus the axle and frame of the gyro as it slowly, slowly falls. The lift force can never be greater than the combined gravitational force that pressed down on all the parts and sets everything in motion. This is why gravity twisting back upon itself, can never cause a rise, but only a sustained slow, sometimes incredibly slow decent.
When the gyro is forced horizontally around the pedestal/hub it lifts. That is the first precession movement. As it moves upwards it exerts a rearward force against the force that pushes it. That is the secondary precession again. If you learn this you will know more than is commonly known, if it is known at all.
To your statement:
“http://mike-012010.blogspot.com/2010/06/new.html
This shows lower RPM as easier, for that setup.”
When increasing the RPMs, the deflection resistance becomes stronger and therefore more force is required to overcome it. Still, however much force is put into the system will be fully returned in the series of two precessions, primary and secondary. There can never be more than two precessions, because the second exerts against the initial force that began precession.
In the end, the 1:1 ratio should hold true. Importantly, there will be a none veritable equation to express all power to reaction precessions if you can find it. We wouldn't need to measure then, but your measuring can in other ways become very important to me at least. We'll talk when it's time.
Check this out from your countryman. We’ve talked about an unexplained force that he has spend a great deal of care and insight into investigating. Pierre, is a reporter in Quebec City. These are his presentations.
http://www.youtube.com/APedro00
I like your Canadian Club much better than my Tennessee Jack Daniel. I switched fifteen years ago due to headaches, but it may not mater much. Aren’t they both now owned by Seagram's? Actually I’ve began liking vodka a lot lately. In fact its evening now. I'm about to have a few shots. Too bad you can't join me.
It will be a while before I can get back to this.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Mike - 07/09/2010 02:08:54
| | | @Glenn
Floating is when 2 metals with different Thermal Expansion are used. maybe they could
be connected with flat faced spokes as the distance is very much less.
The design would be a web with the points being squared
Then a really heavy rim such as uranium used, with the 2024 aluminum. hope this helps.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 29/10/2010 15:36:03
| | | Hi, Mike,
Thank you. That is a fine idea to build a better gyroscope. You and we all have believed your design would be best. I don’t see a problem with metal expansion due to heat, which you point out causes different expansions in different metals and could cause separation and cracking where they are welded. I think the only concern here is that different metals stretch differently under, perhaps centrifugal force. So long as each type of meddle is welded in tight seams there shouldn’t be a problem. The center, the spokes and the rim may stretch as they please, unto themselves as a single unit, without affecting the others. But then again I am no expert here, no metallurgist live here.
I have stopped posting for a number of reasons. One is that I am of the older set, people here who wanted to understand mostly what they might need to know in order to build an actual working thrust from gyroscopic forces through manipulation of them. Folks here now are more interested in understanding the mathematical. The difference is night and day, in purposes and pursuit between the understanding of mechanical ‘how‘and ‘why’ things happen the way they do and how to manipulate these forces. The new difference is learning the measurement of forces and things.
Harry, whom I came to like very, very, very much after long and insane arguments between us finally ceased completely. Harry is an engineer who gets promotions while working in a German firm. What dose that tell us about his ability? Luis has a right to be pissed off at me, but I like him very anyway. Louis also gets promotions in, I believe, some kind of design work I think. So there you have it again, capable people. Now comes the new guys. Hello guys.
I miss Sandy a lot, and I miss all the old ingenious guys. There was once extremely superior mechanical thinking and discussions going on at this site. It is replaced now with the human intelligent-need to mathematical-lize everything.
You new guys are sharp and to be appreciated. Bravo. However, we old guys, the builders and would-be builders were the only ones who ever had a chance, however little, of developing powerful inertial thrust.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
