|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
3 May 2024 09:02
|
|
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: |
Victor Geere |
| Subject: |
Sandy's invention |
| Question: |
SUNDAY EXPRESS, London, England - Oct. 23, 1988
Garden-shed genius heads for the stars
by MICHAEL SHANAHAN
http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/gravity_anti_gravity/gravity5.html.
What was this and what happened to it? |
| Date: |
16 February 2005
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 17/02/2005 11:03:22
| | | Hello Victor,
I suppose I had better try and answer this one myself, with a fair whack of life’s joyful experiences, thrown in. A bit long winded, I hope you don’t mind.
The machine, device, gizmo, whatever is shown in Glenn’s “Propulsion Section”
The machine was genuine enough, and passed any test that could be thrown at it.
Unfortunately, as far as, (but most certainly not all) professional mathematicians, physicists, mechanical engineers etc. were concerned it was all a joke.
When I first took the thing to the university, I was, sort of seconded, to a “gyroscope expert” who immediately made his feelings known. With venom he said “I wanted nothing to do with this disreputable device, and I want it recorded as such” This guy got himself really bent right out of shape about it. Luckily that was the last I saw of him, his behaviour did him no favours.
Oh, it’s great to be wanted. Luckily I am extremely thick skinned.
I spent 4 months in a university having the thing evaluated. The 4 months were not spent, or any part of it, pursuing the reasons why it worked, but rather they were doing their level best to prove it could not work. A real bunch of beauties.
To this end they failed miserably. I am in possession of a computer trace signed by the good doctor stating “ Notice that thrust increases with an increase in precession speed”
The head of department hinted to me, that he had still not seen the device working.
Not once did the professor make himself available on the multitude of occasions, when he was invited to see it in operation.
Only much later did I understand why.
In the final analysis, 4 months wasted time, money, and effort.
The final report suggested that the device might be reacting with its support bearings.
That was that. A snow job. Get rid of it.
Then on the other hand whilst I was still there, I got a visit from the head of a department from a
another university asking if he and some colleagues could see a demonstration in his laboratories.
This was duly done. After several runs which pretty well convinced them all, that it was genuine I was told “Sandy would you please wrap that machine up and get it to hell out of here”
He was terrified of what he had seen. They liked the idea, but not the implications.
I demonstrated the same machine, in my garage, to another head of department from yet another university. His speciality was in vibration, and world renowned at that. His comment was “xxxxxxx University let this go? When asked point blank by my wife if he thought it was genuine he remarked that the level of thrust was much too high to be the result of vibration. The professor did indeed think it was genuine.
I could go on, and on, and on, but I won’t. Thank goodness for that, you are saying.
I did however, a year or two later, take the results of my Australian lab. test for my cam operated machine to one of the more amenable university departments. The professor’s comment was, “Sandy I would really love to help you, but I would also really like to be able to return to work on Monday.” His mathematical colleague on the other hand refused to look at the report and made the comment “Utter garbage “ Now I know what the good professor meant.
So there it is Victor, and there is a great deal more of the same. Joe Public wants to believe it, some academics physically shudder with hate, at the thought of it, and there and then again there are other very highly qualified persons who are prepared to give it a whirl, at least in private.
The good guys are scared of the high priests, the fundamentalists, and are really trapped within the boundaries of accepted beliefs.
So Victor it has all in all, been a great education, but unless one is really lucky “one ain’t goin’ nowhere, no how.”
My last comment is that it has been a long time, from the first of hundreds of machines. The rules are now known, and they have been ascertained without the help of any academic involvement.
This kind of work is their kind of work, and they should have done this job themselves.
They have had 300 and a bit years to get the answers.
Victor, my apologies for ranting like an old man, but there and then again I am.
I will now answer your question.
It died a death. Killed off, is probably nearer the truth.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Victor Geere - 17/02/2005 11:33:34
| | | Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I saw your invention on the propultion page but didn't put 2 and 2 together (with the news article). I also made peace with the fact that the working of it was beyond me.
After having another look at it I see a correlation with a device described in my previous question "what would happen if ...". I had difficulty expressing myself so it is probably not a good read.
I do notice a pattern reading various articles and that is that funding and faith is few and far between. The fact that the accademics doesn't believe you doesn't make it less of a success, but you knew that.
Is there a way of taking this invention of yours further without patents/approval/funding?
...or is it patented?
Have you derived any formulas for thrust relative to the various rpm's / weights / variables etc.? Even in the little gyroscopes.org community something has to come of this... I would rather spend time on something that shows potential rather than reinventing the flywheel.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 18/02/2005 10:06:23
| | | Good morning Victor,
Luckily Victor it is not all doom and gloom.
Lets look at this thing from a different viewpoint.
Between them Newton and Einstein have pretty well stitched up any possibility of the human race attaining real space flight.
I am not talking about the limited excursions around our solar system, freewheeling at zero G, after the flame has gone out, but deep space travel.
Luckily there are many people sympathetic to the belief that this cannot be true, and that mankind will find a way, even if large lumps of Newton’s and Einstein’s theories have to be assigned to the bin.
Over this period, what has really surprised me has been the depth of passion exhibited in retaliation to even the slightest challenge to accepted principles. I have seen tantrums, and displays of totally irrational behaviour verging on insanity.
So we have this unreal situation where the laws are so sacred, that if a person even contemplates thinking outside accepted principles, the prospects for his or her professional future could be in jeopardy. Now that is control.
But then one can understand the position of a person who has been teaching this specious stuff for half a life-time, to be finally told that the facts were not real facts.
Keep away from the universities unless you are sure of your ground.
Luckily on my travels I have discovered that there is a very significant difference in attitude to the rules between the professionals in industry and those in universities, etc.
Boeing and British Aerospace, for instance, would dearly love to have an inertial drive system.
Both companies have openly declared that they are looking at, to put in nicely, “alternative”, types of power unit. Quite frankly I don’t think either of them could give a damn if Newton and/or Einstein has to be pushed aside along the way.
It is inevitable that this is going to happen anyway.
I have met many professionals allied to the aerospace industry and it is amazing how open their minds are, when compared to those in the teaching establishments. They will listen, but then again, they are sharp, and they are not gullible.
Funding is there for the right device, with an explanation of why it works, which is something, which, at that time, I did not have.
I have started to catalogue rotation speeds, torque values, effects etc on numerous occasions but have always given up for a variety of different reasons.
There are gyroscopes and there are gyroscopes, and some specials exhibit totally different characteristics to others.
And no, I am not getting involved in an argument over that statement.
Let me finish by putting it this way, the nearer a standard machine is run towards what I call its “saturation “ point the less accelerated mass you have left to play with. The bottom line is that you really want all the accelerated mass to work for you (assuming you know how to create a differential in the first place). My way of thinking is that I want the highest possible system rotation speed, with the gyroscope/flywheel rotating at the slowest possible speed, conducive to successful operation.
Only a few percent of the accelerated mass need be converted to produce, as NM would say a shed load of controllable, directed, thrust.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 21/02/2005 12:00:46
| | | Not much has changed Sandy. Project Greenglow was set up 5-6 years ago by BAe and had funding for research into alternative propulsion systems (gravitational physics). This was in direct response to the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Programme.
All the Greenglow monies went into 3 Universities, the exact sort of organisation that are so blinkered.
When i approached the Project a couple of years ago, they did say that they had not closed their minds to gyropropulsion systems but as no breakthroughs had been forthcoming, they were now channeling all funding into alternatives. All funding is now going into EMF systems research.
I was told that although no funds were available to help me. If i get something working, they will want to talk with me.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 21/02/2005 12:29:47
| | | Thanks for that Dave S,
I would suggest that in light of the fact that no gyro-propulsion system has been made available for tests, trials, etc. and that the funding has gone elsewhere, is fair comment.
Curious to see what sort of return they get for their money?
It’s up to us.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Victor Geere - 21/02/2005 12:39:29
| | | My money is still on Sandy's invention for a number of reasons and I might have to ask a couple of dumb questions until I have built a replica for my own testing, if you don't mind.
Sandy, have you tried laying it on it's side and placing it on a device with little friction, like a boat, to test the thrust in a horisontal direction?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Victor Geere - 21/02/2005 13:05:56
| | | just for the sake of someone arriving at this thread at a later stage via a search engine:
It is my opinion that when gyroscopic propulsion works in practice, it will work because a force has been applied in the direction of travel via precession and the reactive force (opposite the direction of travel) has been deflected at a 90 degree angle (via presession) towards the sides of the vehicle and expelled in the form of heat from stress or friction.
I think Sandy's invention is an example of a machine that can achieve that.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro Macmad - 21/02/2005 19:14:05
| | | Dear Victor,
As the Americans are prone to say “close, but no cigar”! There is no unusual dissipation of heat needed to cause the drive searched for. There are, of course, the usual losses due to the inefficiencies of the driving motive force/s and the normal frictional losses. The energy out - in the form of the linear drive searched for - is created by the energy in. It - the energy in - just happens to be 90 degrees displaced from the energy out.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Victor Geere - 22/02/2005 07:56:54
| | | Hi Nitro,
I agree with you in many ways, so let me clarify. I don't propose that the linear drive is caused by the disipation of heat, it is Newton's reactive force that is displaced at a 90 degree angle (as you have correctly stated) and radiated sideways-ish. Whatever happens to it afterwards doesn't matter. There is nothing unusual about this conservation of enery.
It is my quess that the frictional losses (as you put it) will turn to heat.
(In space travel it might be a trick to get rid of this heat because there is no environment to absorb it, but that is not our problem).
The trick in a reactionless drive is to displace the reactive force at a 90 degree angle (to keep Newton happy) and have a nett forward motion from the excess energy in. It looks like we agree on this.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 24/02/2005 12:35:29
| | | Hello again, Victor and all other interested parties,
As I have previously stated, a mechanism, which is operating outside accepted principles, is necessary to make these things work, although I will not deny the fact that Sir Isaac is in there at the end.
From what I have seen, any inertial trust that I have managed to generate has been generated indirectly as a by-product of some other mechanical action. I, myself, do not believe inertial thrust can be achieved as the result of a single direct action, however I do not mind being proved wrong in this instance.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Victor Geere - 25/02/2005 08:02:01
| | | Sandy,
Is this "other mechanical action" that you refering to from the movement of the cams (pushing the flywheels up) or from the spinning of the total device? ... or is the movement of the cams caused by spinning the device?
Regards
Victor
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 25/02/2005 10:19:30
| | | Hello again Victor,
The “by other mechanical means” has in one case been by using cams.
Shifting gyroscopes up and down, or in and out, will on their own, do nothing.
However, in this case, the braking force applied to the rotating gyroscopes in lifting or pulling the gyroscopes up, or in, creates a transfer of momentum to the whole machine (when suitably suspended from a wire or suchlike). The whole device will rotate in the direction of the gyroscopes until the gyroscopes have climbed the cams, then the gyroscopes will accelerate rapidly on their way when the drag of the cams is gone. At the same time the whole machine will return immediately at high speed, from whence it came. Thanks Sir Isaac.
So there is a combination of conditions in the acceleration rate and position of the gyros that can give you measurable and consistent positive or negative pulses depending on how you build the device. The thing is a bit more involved than it does at first appear, but it works.
The action is also quite visible, so that you can figure out what is going on.
The pulses can be easily seen, even if they appear to be at the wrong time.
You can have some good fun with this one, and it is a great place to start.
My thanks again, to Scott Strachan for this one.
There are several other actions, which will indirectly create thrust, but this was offered up as an example of what I meant by indirect.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro Macmad - 26/02/2005 17:11:11
| | | Dear Victor
Ultimately, there are no such things as facts only opinions but it is my opinion that every dang effort returns to heat or some mass equivalent. Heat can be dissipated in a variety of ways not just by convection and conduction but also by good old radiation - so no problems with getting rid of heat in space then.
Reactionless drive (Oh! I wish! There are reactions enough in there to confuse an antidisestablishmentarianist. Sorry, always wanted to use that word!) most certainly is some trick. I don’t think that Newton would be happy though, as he is dead and therefore won’t witness the widening of understanding that - apart from his pop star like love of self-advertisement - was his passion.
Sandy,
I wish I had Victor’s ability to visualise from description. You seem to be saying (if I’ve got it right) that a continuous process is needed to produce any thrust and that a single impulse of “reactionless” drive has not been part of your experience. Interesting, if so, as I started from a single shot machine. We must exchange mpeg4’s some time.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 28/02/2005 09:46:39
| | | Dear Nitro,
It has become more than a little obvious to me now that we are attempting this “thing” from opposite ends of the inertial drive spectrum.
This gladdens my heart for a variety of different reasons, the main one however is the fact that we are not competing with like processes.
I have already admitted I know little or nothing about single shot machines and repeater mechanisms though I think I know where you are coming from.
I used gyros from the outset as a tool, and freely admit that I did not know if I could make the gyroscopes completely overcome their own accelerated mass at elevated speeds, or not. Well, as I found out, they can.
Someone must have attempted this before me, but I have so far, seen no record of it. Accepted principles, also suggests that it has not been done too often, or accepted principles wouldn’t be.
To move for a second to the Laithwaite /Jones demonstration, I saw this device many years after I was well into my own hunt for inertial drive.
The point was that when told of this device, by Eric Laithwaite, he did not make it clear to me at the time that it was only a half-cycle, or non repeating mechanism.
Thought it was all over bar the shouting.
Do not get me wrong Nitro, I am not suggesting it can not be made to repeat, but to do it, is going to be no walk in the park.
Once I had discovered that accepted beliefs were wrong, and that my design was worthless, (believe me this took a fair bit of effort to get all the facts), I did not, like any sensible person would, give up. Like the fool that I am, I decided to carry on, and attack the problem from a different angle.
My personal approach since then, has been to oscillate certain parts of the mechanism and rectify the output. In the final analysis, to achieve any reasonable measure of rectification, the device must change its configuration, every half cycle.
I have to admit I have attempted simpler things in my life, but then again, it would be no achievement if it was too easy.
So at the end of the day Nitro, whilst our goals are the same, I am pretty sure that our attempts to solve the problem are taking somewhat different courses.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 14/03/2005 20:37:44
| | | The concept will work within the confines of Newton's laws. It already works in accordance with these laws. What is missing is to get a model to get off the ground for a prolonged period of time (not just a jump).
To obtain that effect, discrete cycles must occur each at 1/7 of a second (or less) for a displacement, by the gyro, of 1 foot (in each direction) assuming that the total mass of the contraption is a bit under 10 times that of one of the gyros involved. This requirements are based on Newton's laws, and when we accomplish this (or better) with the correct configuration, we will get off the ground.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 15/03/2005 07:48:18
| | | Hello again Luis,
It is all very well to make statements like the ones you have just made, but where does the thrust come from?
If I could produce thrust per pulse, of the magnitude you envisage, the cyclic frequency would only be a minor consideration.
How can you, within Newton’s Laws, develop a differential, any magnitude of differential, which can be utilised to present a one way, thrust?
Newton’s Laws exclude the possibility of this occurring, and I must agree with this.
Luis, if you can convince me that you can create thrust using a gyroscope within the bounds of accepted principles, I promise you that I will assign all my 20 plus years of machinery and data to the garbage bin.
Contrary to popular belief, I do believe in Sir Isaac’s Laws, a truly incredible achievement.
It was a misconception, an assumption, a misunderstanding, which made me create my first machine, within the common interpretation of the Laws of Motion.
Howsoever when I tried to marry what I had been taught, with the gyroscope, things turned out to be not quite as expected.
There and then again the gyroscope is an anomaly, which due to its unique ability to react at right angles to an applied force, does everything which really matters, in reverse.
I would like to say that due to its unique characteristics a gyroscope does not break the laws, but something more like, operates in parallel or outside the laws. “The exception to the rule”
Sandy Kidd..
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 25/03/2005 18:11:52
| | | Sandy Kidd,
We know that intermittent thrust can be created with gyro configurations otherwise we would never have come to this website. We have different explanations regarding where the (thus far intermittent) thrust comes from. I have given my explanation based on the laws of motion, what is your explanation?
The real question is how to produce thrust of sufficient magnitude (and duration) without producing excessive oscillation and vibration. My approach is to smooth out the cycle with the appropriate design and also by speeding it up which will produce a larger aggregate thrust. The magnitude of thrust per pulse is also important (it is inversely proportional to the duration of the pulse and directly proportional to the mass of the gyro and to the speed of the pulse).
The “differential” you refer to has been explained many times. The challenge is to time the motions so that the complex interactions of mass-motions work in unison and not against each other. To figure what the various motions of the masses are doing we need to view it using Newton’s laws. The laws are stated taking into consideration only the simple single events.
The gyroscope moves in accordance to Newton’s laws of motion as long as we take into account the vector of the gyro’s moment of inertia which is dynamic (precession). We have to take the laws stated for single interactions and extend them to multiple interactions. This is rarely easy and can lead us to think that new or foreign forces are being introduced. That is an error in the analysis
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 30/03/2005 06:46:01
| | | Luis,
Dreadfully sorry Luis, but so far you given no explanation for the production of inertial thrust, nothing that will work anyway.
Early on in this game, I realised that the answer had to be outside the accepted Laws of Motion.
I have made on numerous occasions, my claims as to where the accepted understanding of the workings of gyroscopes is wrong, especially in accelerated systems.
I have divulged on this website, in many places, all the ingredients required for the production of inertial thrust.
I would however be awfully stupid to inform you as to how the pieces are strung together.
Sandy Kidd.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 03/04/2005 05:01:19
| | | Sandy,
My apology, I have given you the wrong impression by inquiring about your theory of gyro-propulsion. Rest assured I am not after your next design. I do have an interest in understanding those items that you have already explained as we appear to have different nomenclature for similar observations.
May I ask what are the specific events or results that convinced you that classical physics is not sufficient to explain?
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Victor Geere - 04/04/2005 08:10:09
| | | Hi Sandy
In response to your statement: "I would however be awfully stupid to inform you as to how the pieces are strung together"; have you considered putting this invention in escrow for future generations? How much of the workings of this invention is explained in the original patent application?
Victor.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 04/04/2005 13:09:29
| | | Good day Luis & Victor
My original intention was to build a machine, which I thought complied with the accepted interpretation of the laws.
Incidentally I have asked many highly qualified persons who all agreed and still agree with my assumptions.
I believed that if I could force a balanced (oppositely mounted) pair of gyroscopes to overcome their accelerated mass, whilst being rotated at around 350 rpm to an angle of 45 degrees or greater, a high level of inertial thrust could be achieved.
The mechanics of the situation should require no clarification. Simple mechanics.
I discovered that the gyroscopes could be rotated fast enough to overcome this accelerated mass at the elevated angles required, but there was no thrust produced at all.
After many months of dabbling with the device, and a bit of typical female logic from my wife, the device did eventually produce, on a very consistent basis 16 ounces of thrust. The machine weighed about 6.5 lbs.
This thrust was achieved by sheer luck, and for a variety of reasons that took me years to figure out.
Unfortunately I had to go through the whole procedure, over many years, to find out why.
The most important factor was that there is no angular momentum present in an accelerated system where the gyros are in, and here, I will deliberately use the wrong term to describe the motion i.e. precession. For a variety of reasons I prefer to call this saturation. Precession it is not.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I am aware the fact that if the mass itself is rotated (gyroscope) in an accelerated system, changes to angular momentum are not taken into consideration. In other words, it does not happen.
As the gyro’s rotation speed is changed (or the system radial acceleration rate) so does everything else, not just the gyroscopic torque, although most of time, the changes will take place totally unnoticed.
How does any of this fit your picture of accepted principles Luis?
There is a bit more to gyroscopes than was previously thought, and whatever you attempt to do with gyroscopes you are going to have to come to terms with these issues.
Victor, I have no current patent and have written no explanation, although in light of my age I have considered writing something up. Was also hoping to write a book with a different slant from the last one, not just what the publisher wanted. I’ve got a fair bit of it put together, and might finish it yet.
A good reason I thought for getting involved in the “Forum” exchanges was the fact, that whether I am immediately believed or not, I may eventually help the quest along by providing some, I think, important basics.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 05/04/2005 11:47:38
| | | Greetings Victor, et Al.
Number of points cropped up in this discussion, so here’s my two pennyworth.
Victor >> displace the reactive force at a 90 degree angle << very true.
This is what a gyroscope does and it works fine for angular motion. It is the classic ‘precession is at a right angle to the couple’. Motion at 90 degrees to force.
This is said to be contrary to Newton’s Third axiom.
To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.
Andrew Mottes 1729 translation
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/axioms.htm
This is interpreted to mean that the displacement is along the line of action of the force. This is logical for cannon balls and planetary motions, but does not apply to the gyroscope, where the displacement of the mass is at 90 degrees to the force.
Nitro
>> Reactionless drive (Oh! I wish! There are reactions enough in there… <<
Mass can be displaced along a linear path by repeated alternate arcs, the walking gyroscope I have referred to elsewhere.
Which is fantastic and wondrous and blows accepted Phundimental Fysics apart but does not nor will not give true acceleration, or lift against the acceleration of gravity. Strange but true, momentum is conserved.
All the Torque based models face this limitation (I include my own). Yes they break the laws, yes they reduced weight, (a static force)
Sandy >> oscillate certain parts of the mechanism and rectify the output. In the final analysis, to achieve any reasonable measure of rectification, the device must change its configuration, every half cycle.<< Yes and yes.
This is how my power transmission works. Stalled full torque output, no internal losses, no external reaction, all supported by impeccable math and with a working model. The rectification of a sinusoidal couple, that was back in 1988.
However, to get lift, to create momentum, symmetry must be broken. No matter how ingenious the mechanism, with torque manipulation this cannot be done. The conservation of momentum is a property of symmetry.
There is a linear analogue of the rotary couple/precession motion of the gyroscope, I have the theory sorted, but the model is very crude. The shed dwellers lament, ‘if I could run it faster’
It will give a constant thrust, but at the current rate of progress!!
I too find ‘A good reason’. Getting involved with the forum challenges my own preconceptions. If I cannot explain it here then I will have no chance elsewhere.
Not that I anticipate that I will get agreement, only the very stubborn, obstinate, bldy minded and self opinionated, can ignore perceived wisdom, seek this hallowed site and aspire to join the ranks of the shed dwellers. So why break the habits of a lifetime and agree with any one else??
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 05/04/2005 19:03:14
| | | Dear Momentus,
I have found that, as a rule, large inventive jumps always precede the mathematical model and not the other way round. Inventive extrapolation from the maths of existing invention is a different matter and in this mathematics can play a useful role.
That gyros can loose/hide/transpose effective momentum can be seen in the videos on this site.
The postulate of symmetry is false; it can be spun round (pun intended).
As, for some reason, my family expect to be fed (While you are at it another house would be nice, dad. Oh! And how about a pool?) I have been forced to concentrate on boring, money making patents so the gyro side of the shed is feeling a bit left out for now. Soon, though…
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
arthur dent - 06/04/2005 16:00:28
| | | A gyroscope does not move at right-angles to the imposed force; that is an idea put about by 'science journalists' and science books for children. It appears to do so only when crude equipment is used. Also, all of the forces involved are couples. So, as well as considering Newton's third law, you have to ask where the other force of each couple is acting. I suspect that many of the 'anomalies', which inventors think they have seen, are thought odd only because the inventor has a completely wrong mental picture of what is going on.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 07/04/2005 09:22:32
| | | Echo.
This is something i have been trying to drive home for some time. All this talk of breaking accepted physics laws is nonsense. The explanation for any anomolies observed using gyros will fit into accepted physics laws. Because someone can't explain what is happening probably means that the individuals perceived understanding of what is happening is flawed.
If individuals would stop trying to insist that Newtons laws are being broken, then the community out there may take the whole subject a little more seriously.
I know my device does not deviate from accepted physics even though it is hard to get your head around the mechanics of what is happening.
DaveS
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 07/04/2005 13:51:49
| | | Hi Nitro,
>> large inventive jumps always precede the mathematical model and not the other way round.<< Too true.
The Basic Model and the Walker referred to in my previous post “a working model” are the inventions preceding my theory. My transmission device creates angular momentum. The postulate of symmetry is that part of classical physics which supports C of M. and yes it is false.
So I think we are in some sort of accord, albeit tenuous.
Does my description of the continuous motion of my walker make it a “multi shot repeater”? Reading other posts, it seems to fall into that class.
Arthur Dent.
>> A gyroscope does not move at right-angles to the imposed force <<
You expect to post rubbish like this and not be challenged?? You do not understand classical mechanics. The concept of a gyroscope results from the orthogonal nature of its behaviour. Look up orthogonal and try again.
>> Also, all of the forces involved are couples <<
Gyroscope precession/couple may be reacted by a torque.
>> Newton's third law, you have to ask where the other force of each couple is acting <<
More rubbish, statement with no meaning other than to demonstrate further your limited grasp of the subject.
The anomalies I demonstrate in the Basic Model require at least enough understanding of classical physics to make a comparison, a mental picture of what should be going on. If what you see is in accordance with perceived wisdom, it is only because you have no grasp of what that wisdom is.
DaveS
>> Echo << Did you read what wrote? An idea put about by science journalists??
Does getting your head around my Basic Model include a classical explanation of the mechanics? My walker will travel any distance by internal action and Newton has that covered?
I can explain what is happening, and the precise point at which Newton’s axioms need to be correctly interpreted. But reinterpretation is required.
Yes the laws exist, and pedantically you are correct they are not broken, they do not cease to work, they just do not cover the forces and motions that MY devices produce.
You have a device which does what?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 07/04/2005 15:09:05
| | | Touched a nerve?
I have also been around for a very long time where gyroscopic propulsion is concerned. Only over the last couple of years have i bothered to actually build my device though.
I hear the same arguments over and over again relating to physics laws, i admit that i may be wrong but i would take a substantial wager that i am not and that it is your understanding of all the reacting forces that is flawed. I suppose that the only way we will find out is when your working, ground breaking, walker machine is picked apart by the scientific community.
Mine could reasonably be described as a repeater too. Especially in the terms used to describe devices on here. As a repeater it is far easeir to see the mechanics and the theorum involved. If i was doing the same sort of thing as Sandy or Glen then i think it would a tad more difficult. Even so, i am sure their device explanations will fall into the known laws of physics.
I have seen several different types of walker/slip stick machine and they all work using the same principle, which can be explained using classical physics. Where the clever bit comes into play, is making this type of device directional. i.e. controllable.
DaveS
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 07/04/2005 15:55:12
| | | I think i should make very clear that i am only agreeing with the statement relating to the laws of physics not being broken. I am in no way endorsing Arthur Dents general patter or attitude.
I have just read some of this posters other replies and agree with Sandy. He is completely out of his depth. Reactionless drive in space due to aerodynamics, i think not. :)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 07/04/2005 16:09:41
| | | >> Touched a nerve? <<
Yes. Those who do not understand classic science, then use their flawed interpretation to trash any anomalies.
If you are agreeing with the WUM >> A gyroscope does not move at right-angles to the imposed force <<
Then it is not surprising that
>> i am sure their device explanations will fall into the known laws of physics. <<
I repeat my query, what does your device do, not how or why, just what?
>> Where the clever bit comes into play, is making this type of device directional. i.e. controllable <<
You may have experience of other slip/stick devices, but clearly you have not understood the way that my device, which neither slips nor sticks, walks. If you had then direction and control are obvious, not clever.
If your interpretation of classical physics is that a mass can be moved without the equal and opposite displacement of an equivalent mass, then >> but i would take a substantial wager that i am not and that it is your understanding of all the reacting forces that is flawed.<< you would win your bet.
The object of sharing the detail of my walker was to promote discussion. Or as you phrase it, showing no bias!! >> picked apart by the scientific community. <<
I look forward to discussing any specific point you wish to make.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 07/04/2005 16:52:22
| | | Do you believe that i have no understanding of classical physics?
Whats a WUM?
Did you not read the ammendment to my post ?
You have shared the details of your walker? OK
I have just re-read it. I agree with Victor Geere. You have not taken into account horizontal forces. You also need gravity in your equations.
How are you moving the point of rotation to alternating ends of the gyro shaft, once you have your "perceived" balanced system?
My machine is designed as a pulse engine. The aim is to achieve a "smooth" acceleration in a linear direction initially. Stage two is a multidirectional controllable device.
I maintain the same stance in relation to my initial statements regarding physics laws not being broken. I have met others working in this field and have seen many differing machines. None have convinced me that unexplained things are happening. Unusual, yes. Unexplainable, No.
DaveS
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 07/04/2005 18:00:16
| | | Hi DaveS
If I misunderstood your >> Echo <<, I apologise. I wrote my reply off line and posted before I read your addendum. You appeared to agree with the “Wind Up Merchant” in his statement >> A gyroscope does not move at right-angles to the imposed force <<
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 07/04/2005 18:21:56
| | | To continue in a more civilised fashion.
Regarding the walker. There are no horizontal forces. If there were then it would be a boring example of classic physics.
Yes gravity is present; yes it is gravity that provides the torque which is reacted by the gyroscope couple/precession. The force is vertical the displacement is horizontal.
Gyroscope in middle of shaft, each end of the shaft is supported on a rail. Lift left hand rail, gyroscope and shaft remain horizontal, right hand end clear of rail, moves forward in an arc. Lower left rail, raise right rail, continue until end of rail is reached.
For a little variety, and to demonstrate the lack of horizontal reaction, Lift the ends of both rails to form a slope steep enough to overcome the friction between the shaft and the rails then walk the gyroscope up the slope. Stop the rocking motion, gyroscope slides back down the slope. Repeat until gyroscope runs down.
The gyroscope is moved by internal action. There is no horizontal external reaction.
This is an example of a mass moved without the displacement of an equal and opposite mass.
I do not think that this can be explained in classical physics.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
arthur dent - 08/04/2005 01:13:36
| | | What can I say? Gyroscopes do not move at right angles to the imposed force (couple). Un point, c'est tout, as the French say. Another popular myth is that the angular momentum vector lies along the axis of the gyroscope wheel. It does not, in general. It is obvious that poor teachers and sloppy textbook publishers have done enormous harm to the people of this once great engineering country. I wonder what Brunel, Trevithick, Parsons, etc. would make of the ideas expressed in this forum? As for the 'walking gyroscope' effect, I was under the impression that this is mentioned, and explained (using Newton's laws), in all of the classic books on gyrodynamics. So, it is a bit rich to insist that it is not explained by classical physics. The most extreme form of the walking gyroscope effect is the 'Tournay Hinde device'. This is a gyroscope which climbs a vertical rod! Rather more impressive than mere walking! Hinde sent a letter about it to the Royal Society. Unfortunately, they sent the letter back. However, those who saw it reported that Hinde seemed to think that he had invented some sort of gravity-defying device. Plus ca change!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Victor Geere - 08/04/2005 09:22:58
| | | Hi Momentus
Thanks for the explanation again of the gyroscope on rails. I think you've explained it before but I had trouble picturing it then. If you keep the rails parallel to each other and parallel to the floor but lift them both at the same time, does the gyroscope move in a horisontal direction and if you lower them do they move in the oposite horisontal direction?
Arthur, I have considered buying a high precision gyroscope over the internet, are you suggesting that I rather buy a crude one for these experiments? And for those who already have high precision gyroscopes, how far do they have to bend it to get the desired result, and would it still be called a gyroscope? Can this deviation from precision be quantified so that the desired result can be recreated consistently? Is there a patent for such a crude gyroscope? I do have time on my side but I don't want to spend 40 years on something that someone else has already figured out.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 08/04/2005 09:55:24
| | | Momentus
I have seen a walker such as you are describing. The version i saw moved by an action that lifed and lowered the gyro shaft causing the bar to slide/roll along one of the rails and then giving a slide on the opposite rail. Was described as a wobbler when i saw one but it is a slip/stick device of sorts. If my understanding of your device is accurate, yours works by the same principle but the rail gets lifted and lowered rather than the gyro shaft. You are correct in what you say "direction will be obvious". It moves along a rail.
In relation to Victors' question, again if my understanding is correct, i would not expect any movement of the gyro at all if the rails were lifted an equal distance in unison and they remain horizontal.
My machine is independant of rails so to get directional control is the tricky bit. Presuming i get the propulsion i am expecting.
DaveS
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Victor Geere - 08/04/2005 10:58:32
| | | Dave >> Have you posted a description of your model here before? Will you post the web address or the forum id so that I can read it?
I have been tempted into entering into a conversation about a pulsating engine, but Alex Jones' model did it for me but it didn't involve gyroscopes. So I have created a post at http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=373 regarding this.
To simplify the mental picture I like to divide any of the models into two parts. (1) The action part and (2) the reaction part.
The action part can consist of anything e.g. a slip in SLIP-stick or a precessing gyroscope or a waterjet contained in a capsule.
The reaction part is where I think a gyroscope would be exclusively usefull in bending the reactive force at a 90 degree angle sideways. More likely two gyroscopes bending the reactive force left and right. Relying more on one gyroscope than the other might provide directional control. In post 373 I suggest a flywheel that creates inertia that is used as friction in space or flight.
I would like to hear your thoughts on this?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 08/04/2005 12:47:43
| | | Sorry Victor, i have not discussed my machine on this forum, or any other for that matter.
Research seems to show that my approach has not been mirrored before and there are no patents (that i am aware of ) that are close to my device. There are some very close friends and trusted colleagues that have seen the principle of my machine and to date, none have seen any flaws in the logic once explained. I have allowed this select group of individuals to see the workings as i am paranoid regarding large corporations stealing ideas. These trusted people are my safeguard. In addition, i have formed a partnership with an engineering company who are expecting a share of any commercial applications subject to the device working as planned. They would be highly unimpressed if i was to share in detail the working of my device, especially as they have invested their time and materials in constructing the first prototype.. The commercial repercussions of a working device are huge.
DaveS
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Victor Geere - 08/04/2005 13:26:22
| | | Back to Sandy's invention:
>>After many months of dabbling with the device, and a bit of typical female logic from my wife, the device did eventually produce, on a very consistent basis 16 ounces of thrust. The machine weighed about 6.5 lbs.
Sandy, if I can ask you to guess, do you think building the machine out of a lighter material like kevlar and only the outer rims of the flywheels from a heavy metal. So as to make the machine lighter than the thrust it produces. Do you think it will be able to produce lift?
Or on a more practical note, like I asked before: If you lay the macine on it's side and let it float on a light boat (to overcome horisontal friction) will it create horisontal movement?
The underlying question is whether the reactive force has been appropriately dealt with internally.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 09/04/2005 01:41:13
| | | Sandy,
Is the device that weighed 6.5 lbs and produced 16 ounces of thrust one that is part of public knowledge that can be discussed, or is it something that you do not want to discus the workings of? I am hoping that it is one for which a patent was filed, that way I can refer to the drawings and point out how Newton’s laws apply to that success.
Please let me know.
Thank you,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 13/04/2005 13:14:03
| | | Victor & Luis,
As I have said a few times before, that the machine in question did what it did in spite of me.
It was designed originally to produce thrust in line with accepted principles.
That is another bone of contention, which I have mentioned before, but will leave alone for now.
Before I go any farther let me say this, that had this machine not accidentally produced thrust, I would be doing something else with my time, but being an engineer, I now found it impossible to walk away from.
My dilemma was that I was in possession of an inertial drive unit, but had not a clue as to why or how it worked.
Anyway it took a hell of a lot of research to find out why, and about 12 years of my time all told.
In the meantime, because I now knew it could be done, I built several other machines, some of which also produced measurable non-Newtonian thrust.
Victor.
Twin horizontally opposed gyroscopic systems do not like to run on their sides (horizontally) which is understandable if you think about it, and no I am not going to get excited if they do not pass a horizontal test. Other tests they will pass with flying colours.
However, there is a completely different way of carrying out what is required, which I think will pass the pendulum test with ease, but that is another story.
The device was originally fitted with brass gyroscopes, which I removed and replaced with aluminium ones. This nearly halved the dead weight of the gyroscopes so I figured out that if the device was rotated 40% faster that would recover the lost accelerated mass. It appeared to do just that.
Eric Laithwaite was not happy at my use of aluminium gyroscopes but later he agreed with my reasoning. He did admit it was traditional to use brass.
Back to the machine. The faster this machine rotated the greater the thrust, but that machine only operated within a 2 to 3 thousand rpm gyroscope rotation speed band. As it hit this band it lifted very rapidly, increased its lift through this narrow rev band then stopped producing lift altogether.
As the rotation speed of the device was altered so did the position of the rev band relative to that speed, but the machine remained as consistent as sin.
The first night it worked, after 18 months of nothing, my son in law Rod and myself did about 30 consecutive good runs.
If I built another but better, lighter, machine on the same lines I think the output could be made considerably greater.
Howsoever the machine was a freak, and it transpires that whilst a long way from impossible, to make the device operate smoothly over the total rev band of the gyroscopes, will require a fair bit of involved engineering.
It has a very peculiar action, in as much as the whole sequence, is initiated by a single, almost unbelievably simple movement, which creates a cascade of motions resulting in thrust.
Not a good place for you guys to start.
However it still all boils down to the following facts.
In a system of fixed rotation speed, increase of gyro speed decreases angular momentum
In a system of increasing rotation speed, with no further increase of gyro speed decreases angular momentum
In a system of increasing rotation speed with further increases of gyro speed further decreases angular momentum
This is not what you thought, I’ll bet.
The presence of a rotating gyroscope in the system reverses all normal predictions made by mechanics.
If you juggle system rotation speed and gyro rotation speed, either singly or combined (depending on how smart you are) a good one way differential can be obtained. This is the trick, but remember direct actions are not very successful.
You can see this in action if you ever decide to build the device I recommended
Luis. You are determined to invoke Newton into this thing. Be my guest, but you’re wasting your time!
All I can say folks, is thank goodness the Japanese make model car accessories that can be misused very easily for our purposes. I did not have access to this luxury when I started in this pursuit. All the couplings, ball joints, etc, etc, I had to make myself. So if you are considering building a machine, any machine, got to the model car shop first. The stuff they have is unbelievable.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Victor Geere - 13/04/2005 14:51:14
| | | Sandy, a couple of questions :
You use the word "accidental" when refering to how it got to work the first time. Have you been able to figure out what makes it work since?
When you say "lift was achieved" does that mean the device lifted off the ground, or a decrease in weight?
There seem to be other properties that a gyroscope aquire under certain conditions that are not observed under other conditions. (Apart from the 90 degrees between force and action) Which might be causing the argument about Newton. If this was not the case, there would be a chance that pulses (like Alex Jones demonstrated) create the thrust and that the gyroscopes are just dead weights that would have caused the same effect if they were pushed from a different angle (90 degree).
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 14/04/2005 12:48:03
| | | Victor,
The result was totally accidental, and a long way from what I thought should happen, and if the bold Arthur is reading this, was in total agreement with several mathematicians at Dundee University. I hasten to add that they all disappeared with great rapidity when it was discovered that things turned out to be at odds with common belief.
As I said I had to build many experimental devices to enlighten me as to the truth of the situation. This took me several years before I could put all the pieces together, to acquire an explanation. Yes now I know how and why it worked.
Victor it decreased its weight by a consistent 1lb, or to put it another way developed 1lb of thrust. Even thrust of this level could be more than a little useful in space.
Accelerated mass to me is the driving force of the device and not dead weight.
I only want to convert about 2 to 3% of it into linear thrust. This is now well within reach.
Introduce a little of the spatial thing into your thinking Victor, because I have been repeatedly hinting at the solution.
Assume a twin opposed gyroscopic system operating about halfway to the saturation point. There will still be a large amount of accelerated mass to play with.
Somehow, (Victor’s problem) if you increase the acceleration rate of the system or the rotation speed of the gyroscope or both you will reduce the amount of accelerated mass by an amount proportional to the rate of change of system rotation and /or gyroscope rotation. OK
Now if you reverse the action so that the acceleration rate of the system and / or gyroscope rotation speed is less than the nominal system rotation speed(s) there will be an increase in accelerated mass. Between both actions a substantial differential has been created. OK
Remember the presence of the gyroscope reverses everything in the system.
Now figure out how to make this a smooth cyclic action and you are nearly, but not quite, half way there.
You do of course realise that this action or series of actions on their own are not enough to give you, what in the final analysis you want.
There will still be no net positive or negative linear output.
There are several ways to attempt to solve this outstanding problem, but I feel I should leave you something to think about.
This is as far as I go.
Remember this little lot took me years to research.
Any Newtonian related comments from you Luis?
You cannot possibly be comfortable with any of this.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 24/04/2005 03:06:35
| | | Sandy,
I thought that the total weight of the device was about 6 lb. One pound of propulsion in this device would be about 16.7% and 3% of 6 lb is only about 0.18 lb of thrust. I must be wrong about the total weight of the device, what was the weight?
On the Newtonian arena, I admit that there are many rotation relationships that have not been researched and I believe you point at the one where the “centrifugal” momentum becomes overpowered by the “precession” created by the main rotor’s own angular acceleration (correct me if I am wrong). I have yet to find the math or physics that describes this interactions, but my Newtonian common sense tells me that the variables involved in the real life interaction must include a) the various attributes and dimensions of the gyro, b) the ratio of dead weight (gyro casing etc) to the total mass of the gyro, and c) the rate of acceleration/deceleration of the main rotor in relation to the rate of acceleration/deceleration of the gyroscope. The apparent phenomena occurs because the sum of the moments of inertia derived from the main rotor and plus that from the gyroscopes’ rotation should not add up to more than has been put into both parts of the system (gyros and main rotor). Note that the rate (angular velocity) of “precession” is directly proportional to the torque (M x A) of the main rotor, and inversely proportional to the angular momentum of the gyro. The application of accelerations/decelerations to the gyro will certainly affect at least the rate of “precession,” and depending on the severity may affect the direction of the precession but I am not certain. On the other hand even subtle variation to the acceleration/deceleration of the main rotor (including changes in the “direction”) will certainly cause wide changes in the direction of the “precession” ref “Nitro’s Law”). Ultimately we must realize that once the gyros, and the main rotor’s direction of spin (as well as acceleration etc) lineup to occur in the same direction, very little will happen regarding “precession.” If my descriptions don’t sit well with non-Newtonian common sense, think how I must feel.
This academic exercise is fascinating but does not address the issues of gyro-propulsion. It is more or less a challenging and pleasant diversion.
Thank you, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Victor Geere - 26/04/2005 10:43:53
| | | Sandy,
The weight of the precessing gyros does not get directed down through the vertical support. Laithwaite demonstrated this with the child holding the (used-to-be) heavy spinning flywheel. Have you ruled out that the 1lb. decrease in weight of the total is not due to the 2x1/2 lb flywheels that float in precession mode?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Victor Geere - 26/04/2005 11:04:54
| | | >>Ultimately we must realize that once the gyros, and the main rotor’s direction of spin (as well as acceleration etc) lineup to occur in the same direction, very little will happen regarding “precession.”
This is a very important point.
From the moment the gyro spin even begins to line up with the external force that changes the angle of the gyro's axis, the two begin to work together and increasingly so as the two forces align. This leads me to believe that the total movement will at some point total 180 degrees for as long as the external force is applied.
This is particularly noticeable when the angle of the gyrscope's axis is turned, and consequently precesses, around the centre of mass of the gyroscope. The axis only has to turn 90 degrees for the gyroscope spin to align with the external force. If the axis spin with the gyroscope, the axis will turn through much more than 90 degrees in total, as does the gyroscope.
I will see if I can publish an animation of this somewhere on the internet.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 26/04/2005 12:56:33
| | | Luis,
Thanks for a very interesting reply to my posting.
Howsoever Luis, remember that particular machine is over 20 years old.
The gyros were being rotated at around 8000 rpm so a lot of the accelerated mass had already been neutralised, when the device started to deliver thrust.
My intention since then has been to run a machine much faster to increase the accelerated mass.
It was with this in mind that I made the comment relating to the 2 to 3% conversion of the total accelerated mass to linear thrust. This is the range of my lower acceptable limit.
More is obviously better. The faster the machine rotates the more we have to play with and the conversion rate becomes less critical.
The 2 to 3 % is based on an average weight of device being rotated at 900 to 1000 rpm.
I have in the past, but at considerable expense, managed conversion rates of better than 50 %. of the total accelerated mass
Trouble was at the time I did not know how to hook it all up, to get it out of the machine.
One appears to go around in circles at times, or in other words, if I’d knowed then what I knows now?
I will return to this shortly when everything else is sorted out, or if I win the lottery.
Besides this was achieved by incorporating a completely different approach to gyroscopes, their design, and utilisation.
Coincidentally, I was discussing manufacture of the parts for such a system with the owner of a local engineering company, at the weekend.
His hourly rates are about half of what I was charged for the original ones about 18 years ago. That surprised me, and made me very happy.
So Luis in the final analysis the 2 to 3% conversion, is about the minimum range I have estimated is required to achieve vertical lift from a current simply designed machine.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 26/04/2005 13:14:02
| | | Victor
1 Where does it go then Victor?
2 The gyros were originally just over 1lb each.
The mass of the device cannot be changed, no matter what you do.
The mass of the machine will remain constant even if you manage to sling the mass about.
The only way mass can appear to be lessened is if thrust is generated to offset the mass, or unless for some reason you decide to lift the thing.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Victor Geere - 26/04/2005 14:09:04
| | | The mass of an object remains constant even in space. It describes the physical qualities of an object on it's own and can be calculated using a periodic table and the physical dimensions of the object. It is measured in kilogram or pound. Weight is the force that an object excercise under gravity and is measured in Newton.
The weight that a gyroscope excercise during precession is deflected in this case in a horisontal direction and it is this force that cause the gyroscope to move in that horisontal direction. If a gyroscope is not effective enough or not spinning fast enough, some of this weight will still act in the direction of gravity. In the case of the 2x 1lb gyroscopes only some of it's weight might have been deflected in a horisontal direction. You can test this a number of ways.
The easiest way is to weigh a gyroscope and an eifel tower model and then placing the eifel tower on a scale while the gyroscope is precessing around it. Different weight, same mass.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 27/04/2005 00:04:28
| | | Sandy,
Thank you,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 27/04/2005 06:35:19
| | | Dear Victor,
I am afraid we shall have to agree to disagree on this one.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
dear Mr Kidd - 24/01/2006 11:29:17
| | | sir I have tried to read all there is avilable on the subject of physics and ass. subjects but alas it all seems to be bla bla bla.
As I understand it you device works because ... it works, Your efforts have uncovered an area of physics to which has layed dormant for too long... (keeping in mind the three stages of truth). I hope to build at least part of a device based on your (re)discovered principals. I only have a drawing from the net and a rough idrea but this is about all you started with so I am quietly opptomistic as to the outcome. So before I begin to sound like a gushing groupie..... cheers. Anthony Weston.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn H. - 16/02/2006 14:34:24
| | | Sandy, I am sorry for all the sh…. they put you through. It’s awful. I was genuinely moved by your story and believe it.
As I read here, we are all a family of outcast, related by work, time and knowledge gained in WHAT WE KNOW IS TRUE. This truth that binds us as unique is beyond our miscue disagreements as to how and why it is true.
I add my voice in the hope it will bolster us a little more. I know of two conditions of inertia acceleration that can be repeated in test anytime. I know of another that I only believe in, but am not certain of, because I was never able to repeat it in test. I know yet another that can be tested anytime, but it only moves like an inchworm. After each acceleration it completely stops before repeating forward and so velocity is never gained, only repeated movements forward. The one I’m attempting to build is one of the two different continuous, oscillation thrust ones that adds to velosity. It is unique from every published method and is a nightmare project for me and I may not get it done. I hope my humble adherence to this good thread helps. That, and that I care that one of us was so wronged is why I’m posting. As I said, I was moved.
Some of you men may be working on the same thing as I. In any case I’m happy to be a part of you in that… WE FEW KNOW IT TO BE TRUE. I am thinking that not just a couple of us, but obviously most of us have personal experiences as reasons we cannot doubt it.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 17/02/2006 07:27:58
| | | Glenn H
Thanks for your concern, but in the final analysis I asked for it.
I knowingly set myself up as a chopping block. Someone had to.
Having seen what I have seen, and what I have previously been forced to go through, (unrelated to gyroscopes) this has been small change.
I may not be 100% correct in everything I have claimed but I know I am pretty close.
Consider Glenn that there are a multitude of academics who read the postings on this site, for a good laugh if nothing else, but how many have come back with any constructive disproof
Eric Laithwaite warned me what would happen, and the man was not far wrong.
What has surprised me though is the sheer childishness of many of the academics, invariably the ones who have not had to compete in the real world.
It is never constructive criticism that is returned, it is invariably an attack on your pedigree.
I get the impression from their behaviour that they never ever left primary school.
Strangely I am just putting together a piece for my new book (that is if I live long enough to finish it).
This is a piece about Eric Laithwaite and the way I saw the man.
I spent many hours in his company, on many occasions, and the man was not nearly as misguided as others would suggest.
There and then again he knew what he was doing.
At the moment I am writing about his so called party trick which was the swinging of the large gyroscope, the comments he made, and the misinterpretation, deliberate or otherwise, of these comments.
I feel I have to put the record straight.
However it was within the power of the high priests to destroy him professionally and they duly did, with a fair amount of character assassination thrown in for good measure.
“Thou shalt not doubt Newton’s Third Law”
A very brave man, but all in all he did himself no favours.
Unlike Eric Laithwaite “they” cannot get at me, they can hold the thing back, they can ignore it, but they will never stop it, in fact the more abuse I get the more I like it.
This really means that I am not being ignored, as there is nothing worse than silence.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
