Question |
| Asked by: |
webmaster@gyroscopes.org |
| Subject: |
Announcement |
| Question: |
For over two years I've been trying to carry out just one experiment. In that time I've finished University, setup my own company and watched it grow. Its also meant I'll have little time for anything else.
In the early hours of Monday morning (7th Feb 2005) I finally managed to run the test I've wanted to do for a long time. It’s not a machine that provides propulsion. It is an experiment consists of two tests on the same apparatus. A change is made between the two tests and the results are compared. Any differences however insignificant will provide very interesting to the physics community. The apparatus has a fine degree of control and a digital onboard sensor. I’ve been very careful throughout to insure consistency throughout the experiment.
I’m happy to say that there was a difference in the results, which shows that there are significant gaps in our understanding. Precession, nutation and classical mechanics do not predict the outcome of this experiment. In many ways it creates more questions than it has answered. Although I had predicted the outcome, I do find it illogical in one sense.
I will release full details in due course, including photos and videos, but I would like to add one to two extra sensors so all the information can be logged.
I should also say that the apparatus was designed to be expandable and I already have another two tests ready to go. One to find an optimum positioning, and another to turn the device into a very primitive propulsion system.
Hopefully it won’t be too long before I have more information.
Glenn Turner
|
| Date: |
8 February 2005
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 08/02/2005 14:39:34
|
| | This had better be good Glenn.
You have us all on tenterhooks
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 08/02/2005 17:51:15
|
| | Dear Glenn,
Nice one! Well done! Bet you have to wait for the gyros between each test! look forward to seeing how you are doing.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 11/02/2005 10:54:06
|
| | Looking forward to this one too Glenn. Do hope it shows Zero force!!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 27/02/2005 22:58:16
|
| | Well I hope you have had better luck than me. I just got my tops from emachine shop. They look great and they work great. However so far they don’t demonstrate any “mass transfer” effect. I should point out I’m not spinning them on a frictionless surface yet. It is still possible that the point in contact with surface is causing it to walk. However the point does make a large circle and the center of mass seems to be staying in roughly the same place as you would expect from Newton. In any case I intend to try them on a frictionless surface and take better measurements before I give up on this line of experimentation.
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
webmaster@gyroscopes.org - 28/02/2005 16:43:32
|
| | Out of interest what size and weight are your gyros?
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 28/02/2005 18:58:04
|
| | I didn't weight them yet but according to the specs from the design program they are just under four pounds. It seems about right. My tops are designed with a long shaft so they can tip at well over 45 degrees and precess, which in fact they do nicely. Almost all of the mass is in the flywheel which is brass. The shaft is made of steel and comes to a rounded end about .1 inches in diameter. These aren't really classic gyroscopes because they don't have a frame. All off the mass is spinning. I didn't want a frame because it might throw off the tests.
As for my first test, the fact that I spun it on plywood could well cause the end of the shaft to circle since the spinning shaft will be pulling it in that direction like a wheel and plywood has a lot of friction. When I get home tonight I will try spinning it on top of an ice cube placed on a piece of glass or tile. This still isn't a great experiment however it will get rid of any tendency for my top to walk since the point won't be directly contacting the supporting surface. If I get more encouraging results from this I will go ahead and build the air table. If not, right now I can't think of any other reason that would cause the point of the top to move in a circle other than the dreaded third law. However I should try to take better measurements. The effect if it exists is certainly not a one or zero affair. I need to actually find the center mass and observe it from above as the top precesses. Roughly I can see the center of mass within about 3/8 inch just by looking at my top. The flywheel is only 3/4 inch wide and top easily rests on the end of the edge of flywheel when placed at rest on it's side. These means the center mass has to be in the lower half of the flywheel or the top would fall over. I'm sure I can find the CM more precisely but it isn't worth the trouble until I can test it on a low friction surface.
In any case, even if my experiment eventually shows the mass transfer is incorrect, I should still post the results somewhere just so other people have better information when deciding where to pursue this line of thinking.
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 01/03/2005 00:34:21
|
| | I went home for lunch and tried it on an ice cube. The point still moves in a circle but I'm not so sure anymore if it's moving around the center of mass. It seems to be some point in between. I think I'll just have to build the air table and do real measurements in order to say anything definitive. I was mistaken before about the mass of the top. I actually put it on my scale and it came out to 1259.4 grams which comes out to about 2.777 pounds. Also I forgot to give you the dimensions before. The flywheel is exactly 5 inches in diameter. And from tip to center of the flywheel is about 5 3/8 inches.
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 01/03/2005 04:25:34
|
| | Dear Ram,
Well done for your efforts. I think that you will find old Newton disappearing proportionally to the reduction in base friction. You may find that several thin sheets of polythene (like they pick up and wrap cold meat in a butcher shop) laid on carefully levelled float glass under a flat sheet of ally, or similar under the top, is cheaper, easier and only a little stickier than an air table. Bloody sight easier with a pendulum, as I said before, but hey! whatever gets you there is a good path. Keep us posted on your progress.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 01/03/2005 10:17:34
|
| | "the center mass has to be in the lower half of the flywheel or the top would fall over"
Why? This is one of the things that makes spinning tops interesting. They don't fall over when spinning unless an external force is applied.
This whole thread worries me. What is the point of these experiments? What do you expect to observe? There are so many anomolous factors being introduced into these experiments that I would be amazed if the results of these experiments would stand up under serious scrutiny. Ply wood, ice cubes etc.. Too many external factors to interfere with any results.
Friction, air movement, temperature, humidity, mass, volume, speed, energy consumption, gravity are just some of the factors that may have an effect on experiments. How many of these factors are :-
1. controlled
2. Actually measured.
3. Actually measured correctly.
4. Factored into account for an overall picture.
ARE YOU EVEN CORRECTLY INTERPRETING WHAT IS HAPPENING?
I appreciate that most of us do not have laboratory conditions to do these experiments but that does not alter the fact that most of what i am reading here would be useless if presented to any scientific body and that is before they take the piss regarding us chasing a gyroscopic drive.
The only positives to take from all this are, while some peeps are wasting their time, i and some of the others on here are still moving forward building our machines.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 01/03/2005 15:34:26
|
| | > Why? This is one of the things that makes spinning tops interesting.
As I said when the top is at rest on it’s side.
> What is the point of these experiments? What do you expect to observe?
I expect to observe, or at least attempt to observe the truth, whatever that may be.
> Too many external factors to interfere with any results.
So you seem to have ignored most of my post. As I said myself these aren’t good experiments. If something obvious was happening it might mean something. For instance if the ice cube stayed exactly in the same place and the top circled around it, this would be significant. However this isn't what happened so real experiments need to be done.
> what i am reading here would be useless if presented to any scientific body and that is before they take the piss regarding us chasing a gyroscopic drive.
Did I say I was going to present this to any scientific body? Once I have air table experiments I might do so. Right now I'm just describing what I have done.
> The only positives to take from all this are, while some peeps are wasting their time, i and some of the others on here are still moving forward building our machines.
I see. Well I hope your machines work. However I've been hearing about machines that are almost ready for a long time and so far I haven't seen anything. On one hand you are saying my experiments are not good. You are right, they aren’t, at least not yet. But then you imply I should jump into building a machine without any experimentation at all. This seems a bit backwards to me.
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 01/03/2005 17:13:02
|
| | There is a big difference between doing experiments with the hope of finding something novel and doing experiments to prove/disprove a previously observed phenomenum.
These experiments you talk about have mostly been done before. Why repeat them?
There is one factor that seems to get discarded when doing these experiments. GRAVITY. Hence your wibble on the ice cube. The precurser to slip/stick experiments.
You have been around this forum a while now Ram, before committing yourself to further experiments, it is probably worth asking us if there is evidence of it being already carried out before and the results.
As for building a machine, you appear to not be in a position to do so as you are still looking for that elusive "Thingy" that makes gyroscopes so endearing. All of us that are making machines believe we understand what is happening. I am sure that some of us will be wrong but without a perceived understanding of the forces, how can you attempt to harness them.
As for the machines you keep hearing about but never seeing. I can understand how it sounds like bullsh*t. The reality is quite simple. For mine i have commissioned an engineering company. The machine is almost complete and is only awaiting the fitting of the gyroscope drive motors and minor adjustments. Unfortunately it has taken them over a year but this is due to them having their own wage earning comittments that take priority. March is their quietest month and they plan to do more work on it now.
As for the fellow inventors on here, engineering projects take time, especially if inexperienced at machining. Ask how they are getting on, i'm sure that they will be happy to share their build time status
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 01/03/2005 18:40:13
|
| | > There is a big difference between doing experiments with the hope of finding something
> novel and doing experiments to prove/disprove a previously observed phenomenum.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with repeating an experiment. It is done thousands of times a day in physics classrooms around the world. In this case we are talking about experiments that are claimed to dispute the third law and the results are not accepted by the scientific community. Why should I accept them without any kind of proof when physicists don't. Please point me to the scientific journal where mass transfer is well documented. I am at least giving the theory a chance. To me it is crazy to take something like this on faith.
> These experiments you talk about have mostly been done before. Why repeat them?
Really? Point me to the results then. Journals, web sites, etc.
> There is one factor that seems to get discarded when doing these experiments. GRAVITY.
Gravity is certainly not being discarded. In fact it provides the force that causes precession.
> You have been around this forum a while now Ram, before committing yourself to
> further experiments, it is probably worth asking us if there is evidence of it being
> already carried out before and the results.
Again I don't trust non-documented, non-accepted results. I am taking the steps to prove or disprove these theories to myself and others who are interested. I don't see why anyone should have a problem with this.
> As for building a machine, you appear to not be in a position to do so as you are still
> looking for that elusive "Thingy" that makes gyroscopes so endearing. All of us that
> are making machines believe we understand what is happening. I am sure that some
> of us will be wrong but without a perceived understanding of the forces, how can
> you attempt to harness them.
Well that's great for you. I myself have no problem in saying "I don't understand, but I am trying to find out". At this point if I made any claims of understanding unexplained gyroscopic phenomenon it would completely foolish.
> As for the machines you keep hearing about but never seeing. I can understand how
> it sounds like bullsh*t. The reality is quite simple. For mine …
I don't claim to know about your particular situation. All I know is for several decades now people have been making claims and patenting inertial propulsion devices but in the end nothing has ever come of any of them. Given the advantage of such a device you can bet that if any could be proven viable they would be in wide use. I therefore see no reason to jump into building anything that may not have much chance of working. My design requires "mass transfer" in order to work. If the theory is false, I will waste a lot of time and effort for nothing. It therefore makes sense to do cheaper and less time consuming experiments first. Do you have an objection to this?
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 02/03/2005 08:20:58
|
| | RAM
As Dave S rightly suggests this particular experiment has been carried out a thousand times previously, and between you and me, it really does not matter what you think you prove, it will not, and can not, be accepted. Have you thought of the implications?
I am pretty sure Momentus will back me up on this one, and I have witnessed some of the flack he has taken over this issue, on the BBC’s “Not Rocket Science” site. It is a no win situation. Forget it.
But there and then again I really think Momentus likes to wind the faithful up a bit.
They will not accept the truth of this simple but fundamental issue, so what chance do you have if you claim you can produce inertial thrust.
Even if you can, you can’t, and this may help to answer one of your questions.
Where do you honestly think you are going to see positive documented results published? In your own publication would be the only place, and who the hell is going to pay attention to that? Nobody! Seen it, done it, etc.
This is a totally different world you have entered, and you must realise this.
What you are aiming to prove, has already been conclusively proved, at least to myself, and that was well over 20 years ago, by much more positive experiment, but there and then again, that is all that matters, because I really do not care if the faithful chose not to listen.
I have however noticed one important fact, and that is that no one has ever come back to me to deny my claims as a result of experiment. Says it all.
If you eventually achieve the result you should, I am a trifle mystified as to how you intend to use this passive, decaying, phenomenon to provide inertial thrust?
Finally RAM, as you have obviously convinced yourself that inertial thrust has never been produced by anyone yet, how much non-Newtonian thrust do you consider has to be produced to prove that inertial thrust has been achieved.
Can you give us this/your minimal acceptable amount of inertial thrust as a percentage of something?
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 02/03/2005 15:32:29
|
| | > As Dave S rightly suggests this particular experiment has been carried out a thousand
> times previously, and between you and me, it really does not matter what you think
> you prove, it will not, and can not, be accepted. Have you thought of the implications?
I’m not disputing that it’s been carried out, but I don’t see it published. Even if it isn’t published in scientific journals, it could be at least published on the web. Again it would be great if I could prove mass transfer works, however if it doesn’t work that would also be a useful proof.
> I am pretty sure Momentus will back me up on this one, and I have witnessed some of
> the flack he has taken over this issue, on the BBC’s “Not Rocket Science” site. It is a no
> win situation. Forget it.
You may consider it a waste of time but it is a small waste of time compared to all the effort of building a gyroscopic propulsion device.
> Where do you honestly think you are going to see positive documented results published?
> In your own publication would be the only place, and who the hell is going to pay
> attention to that? Nobody! Seen it, done it, etc.
I’m not so sure a well documented taped experiment will get no attention. If nothing else I will put it on a web site. In any case most of the reason I want to do this experiment is to prove or disprove the theory to myself. This is useful enough for me.
> This is a totally different world you have entered, and you must realise this.
> What you are aiming to prove, has already been conclusively proved, at least to myself,
One of the basic scientific tenents is that an experiment should be reputable and verifiable. Real scientists do this. So far we don’t.
> If you eventually achieve the result you should, I am a trifle mystified as to how you intend > to use this passive, decaying, phenomenon to provide inertial thrust?
All I have to do is prove I can move mass from one place to another without reaction. Everyone already accepts I can move it back with reaction. A precessing gyroscope on an frictionless surface that does not precess around it’s center of mass is proof. I can put a camera on it and watch it from above. Of course there is always the question of air resistance so you are right, it may not convince everyone. However many physics labs do collision experiments on air tables and the results seem to be fairly accurate and accepted so who knows. In any case as I said before I am mainly doing this to convince myself.
> Finally RAM, as you have obviously convinced yourself that inertial thrust has never
> been produced by anyone yet, how much non-Newtonian thrust do you consider has
> to be produced to prove that inertial thrust has been achieved.
> Can you give us this/your minimal acceptable amount of inertial thrust as a
> percentage of something?
I am not saying it has never been done. What I am saying that it has never been done convincingly enough to sway the scientific community. For that matter it is never been done convincingly enough to convince me. I have found exactly zero publications or web sites with a reasonable documentation. I would be happy if you would show me I’m wrong. I don’t have minimal acceptable trust what I would like to see is a documented pendulum test, a working drive that powers a car, something, ANYTHING! I know may tests can be fooled but lets face it, no one has produced remotely solid evidence. It just isn’t there period. We can sit here and argue about it all day, but when someone wants to see something more that jiggling needles on scales, wobbling wooden carts that move two feet and stop or machines that lurch forward like broken washing machines, we have nothing to show them. How can we expect a scientist to believe any of this?
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 02/03/2005 19:26:00
|
| | > One of the basic scientific tenents is that an experiment should be reputable
> and verifiable. Real scientists do this. So far we don’t.
I meant to say repeatable and verifiable.
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 03/03/2005 08:43:42
|
| | Hello again RAM,
OK I sympathise wholeheartedly with your point of view and the fact that there is no point in getting oneself involved in something like this without a damned good reason. No argument.
What I am trying to say is that any information you can glean from experiment can only be useful to yourself.
I still do not understand the need to have it published
This could be harder than achieving inertial drive.
To that end does it matter if it is ever published?
I have 56 sheets of 20 independent controlled runs carried out in the most prestigious laboratory in the Southern Hemisphere proving conclusively that inertial drive has been achieved. That was nearly 20 years ago. Who wants to know? Nobody!
The lab test is not worth the paper it is printed on.
You have obviously still got some faith in an unbiased scientific community and the right to be heard. You may be heard but no one will be listening.
Best of luck to you RAM, but due to personal experience, and a multitude of very good reasons, all of mine went down the drain many years ago.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 03/03/2005 18:29:48
|
| | Sandy,
I think you are probably correct about getting these type of experiments published in an actual scientific journal. However anyone can publish something on the web. That's more what I had in mind. If nothing else this will give other interested parties something to look at.
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 08/03/2005 11:11:58
|
| | Hi RAM
It is so easy to be negative about what others are doing especially when you don’t understand what they are up to, let alone why.
This Gyroscope community is really trying to help, although it may not seem so to you.
Where I am having difficulty is what you are trying to show. It is a given that the ‘top’ will behave as the original Prof Laithwaite top did in the early 70s If your top does not do what I saw the Prof’s do, then it is a matter of technique, not fundamental physics.
It would be useful to me if you would highlight the difference YOU perceive between the Laithwaite top and classical physics.
As presented to me, it was a demonstration of the absence of centripetal acceleration. How do you relate this to ‘mass transfer’?
In my other post, I give some detail of the effect of ‘less than theoretically perfect’ gyroscopes. I predict that you will not be able to make the centre of rotation coincident with the point of contact with a ‘top’ gyroscope. The point will describe a small circle, the centre of which will be on the wheel side of the shaft. Would this view be upheld?
The centre of mass of any irregular object can be determined by string theory. Hang it from a piece of string and the vertical line will pass thro the centre of gravity.
Finally, ‘Float glass’ or mirror glass with a film of light machine oil, in contact with a hardened steel vibrating shaft point, will give you a coefficient of friction too small to be significant. Save your cash for model No2, air beds are a waste of time and effort. How do I know? Experience is one thing that cannot be shared.
Finally do not let anyone put you off. Yours may be the insight that shows the world.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 08/03/2005 17:21:09
|
| |
Hi Momentus
> Where I am having difficulty is what you are trying to show. It is a given that the ‘top’
> will behave as the original Prof Laithwaite top did in the early 70s If your top does not
> do what I saw the Prof’s do, then it is a matter of technique, not fundamental physics.
I'm afraid this is far from true. I would like nothing better than for you to be correct. However any experiment that can not be repeated is not worth anything. It is certainly possible that my experiment is formulated incorrectly. However since it was Professor Laitwaite who was challenging conventional and excepted physics, it was up to him (and now me) to show things must be changed. If my experiment shows that conventional physics is correct are you suggesting I just ignore the results?
> It would be useful to me if you would highlight the difference YOU perceive between
> the Laithwaite top and classical physics.
In conventional physics a gyroscope will precess around it's center of mass in the absences of friction or other forces. Professor Laithwaite claimed it will precess around some other point possibly related to the tilting axis, rotational speed, amount of mass in the rim or other factors. The main point is he claimed it did not precess around the center of mass. If he was correct then gyroscopic propulsion is obviously possible, because you can move mass without a reaction. Despite Laithwaite's later claim that his invention does not break Newton, I would say it clearly does unless someone can explain to me why I'm wrong.
> In my other post, I give some detail of the effect of ‘less than theoretically perfect’
> gyroscopes. I predict that you will not be able to make the centre of rotation coincident
> with the point of contact with a ‘top’ gyroscope. The point will describe a small circle,
> the centre of which will be on the wheel side of the shaft. Would this view be upheld?
It is not required that the point of contact be coincident with the point of rotation. It only matters if the point of precessive rotation is or is not the center of mass. Any difference between the two makes propulsion possible. The greater the distance the more efficient it will be. Will this view be upheld? I don't know. That's what I am doing the experiment for.
> Finally, ‘Float glass’ or mirror glass with a film of light machine oil, in contact with a
> hardened steel vibrating shaft point, will give you a coefficient of friction too small to
> be significant. Save your cash for model No2, air beds are a waste of time and effort.
> How do I know? Experience is one thing that cannot be shared.
Possibly you are correct. However I would rather isolate the shaft from the surface. There is a good reason of for this. A typical top will try to stand itself upright. The reason for this is that the small amount of friction created between the surface and the spinning shaft is enough to cause secondary precession that brings the top upright. There is a special type of top called Maxwell's top that specifically demonstrates this phenomenon. Also notice a gyroscope on a stand does not demonstrate this self righting tendency. Instead it slowly drops. Therefore I still intend to use the air table. For a few hundred dollars I can build one easily. If Laitwaite turns out to be correct the air table will still be useful in determining the relationship between the point of rotation, the center of mass, the tilting moment, percentage of mass in the rim, RPM, etc. Again we want to maximize the delta between the center of mass and the point of processional rotation.
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 08/03/2005 17:29:48
|
| | For a few hundred dollars. You have money to burn too.
Following Laithwaites experiments is not necessarily the way to go. If you look up previous threads relating to Laithwaite, you may revise your opinions.
I understand what you are tryimng to do but you would probably be better off first discussing this with Sandy. I reiterate, the experiments are not new and Sandy has seen many of them first hand.
As mentioned previously, unless the experimental parameters are understood and controlled, it will take very little to give you spurious results.
DaveS
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 09/03/2005 13:49:37
|
| | Dave S & RAM,
Thanks for the endorsement Dave S but most of what I have learned has been done deliberately, and the hard way.
I also sympathise with RAM and his present position.
However to the problem in hand.
I am not decrying the ability of the guys who made your gyros, tops, flywheels etc. RAM, and at this stage I cannot claim anything is wrong howsoever.
How straight is the shaft, and I mean straight?
Was it hardened and ground?
I have no doubts about the gyro itself, as it would be bored at the same setting as facing.
If the shaft has been hardened and ground, extreme care must be taken to ensure the shaft is dead true when finished. In my other life as a toolmaker I have never ever seen a small diameter, long, heat treated shaft come out of the quenching tank straight, It can of course be corrected but it is not the easiest to do correctly.
Or It may have been made from what you Americans call drill rod (silver steel here) and would be tough but in this case maybe not hardened.
To cut to the quick RAM, what assurance do you have, that the point of the shaft is exactly where it should be? You will never see any error and a few thousandths out of tolerance, at the point, or in the shaft is enough to destroy the whole experiment.
Is there any way RAM, you can get these people to check that your “top” has been made absolutely dead true.
Would be a pity to make assumptions on a faulted piece of equipment.
This is one of the reasons, and Dave S agrees, you do not want bits of ice or little towers cluttering up and wrecking the experiment.
Plate glass or a ceramic tile would do me just fine.
Sandy Kidd
PS I know what should happen, I have seen the genuine article.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 09/03/2005 23:36:14
|
| | Sandy,
I'm not too worried. My tops seem to precess fine both on the floor and on an ice cube. I see no reason the believe they wont work fine for the air-table experiment. I can easily mark the center of gravity and use a video camera to track it as the top precesses. If it turns out the delta between the center of gravity and the point of precession is so small it is sensitive to slight imperfections then I would have to conclude mass transfer isn't that useful anyway. Furthermore I would have to do the experiment in a vacuum and on some sort of magnetic lift table to get any kind of meaningful results. For example let's suppose for example I find a 3mm delta. This could easily be cause by air disturbance or other factors. And to be fair it's highly unlikely that a faulty experiment would actually cause a perfect alignment of CM and point of precession. If the two points line up there is no other conclusion than mass transfer doesn't work. I mean what else would I do? Imaging if I told a physicist that I did an experiment to prove Newtonian physics has a flaw but my experiment showed it works perfectly. However I don't believe my own experiment because it could be flawed itself. This would just be nutty. I know I've said it a thousand times but I will say it again. It's up to us to *prove* gyroscopic propulsion works not the other way around.
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 10/03/2005 06:30:26
|
| | RAM
This is very true.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 10/03/2005 07:38:25
|
| | Dear RAM,
Up to the present, I was happy to run with your experiments and thoughts relating to mass transfer.
Several times though I have thought you had made a mistake, especially when you “corrected” me several postings ago in some other thread.
In your latest posting you made the comment in relation to a perfect alignment of C of M and the point of precession. “If the two points line up there is no other conclusion than mass transfer does not work”
Do you you mean that if the point of precession is exactly fixed in one spot mass transfer does not work?
Is this what you really mean RAM, you have me somewhat confused.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 10/03/2005 11:51:43
|
| | Sandy,
First, I apologize if I seem arrogant in any of my posts. I am used to usenet news groups where everyone says everything directly.
What I called the point of precession is the point that stays fixed in space when a gyroscope is precesssing. I am assuming no friction, at least in two dimensions. This is not necessarily the same point as the center of the tilting moment (i.e. in the case of a top, the point that rests on a surface). I’m sure my terminology is all messed up, but I hope you get the idea.
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
arthur dent - 06/04/2005 16:21:10
|
| | What university was that? If it was Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education (now the University of Gloucestershire?), I note that it does not have any science departments at all. So where did you acquire your expertise in gyroscopy? Or is the answer in the question?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
webmaster@gyroscopes.org - 06/04/2005 17:27:54
|
| | Correct. It was the University of Gloucestershire. Sadly it has no science departments and no engineering departments either. Its focus is business, IT, art and a few other fields. Not a great University in my opinion. My expertise in gyroscopes has come from practical experience, the design and manfacture of them. Plus of course research.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 06/04/2005 18:15:41
|
| | Dear Aurthur Dent,
Welcome back David. Try and be nice to people this time.
Regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
arthur dent - 06/04/2005 18:43:27
|
| | Mr McMad, I can assure you that I do not believe in hiding behind aliases, so I shall let that non sequitur go. OTOH, I have often suspected that you are an alter ego of someone with a very long association with this forum. Paradoxically, however, if you are who I think you are, you would know for certain that I am not pretending to be someone else.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Victor Geere - 19/04/2005 22:04:40
|
| | Hi Glenn
Your question seems to have gotten hijacked. Any news on this?
Regards
Victor
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
webmaster@gyroscopes.org - 19/04/2005 22:45:33
|
| | Sure.
I'm using a sensor to collect some data. I had a problem with the recording of the data (bits were being skipped). I've got to the problem with this (software issue on a avr chip) and should have it fixed soon.
Hopefully I should videos, pictures with the collected data on the site soon (week or two
unless there are any more hold ups).
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
