|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
23 November 2024 21:05
|
|
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: |
Luis Gonzalez |
| Subject: |
Refine concepts to improve design via observation of previous results |
| Question: |
I am honored to address Sandy Kidd in this informal forum. I have investigated Gyroscopes for 40 years and have been working on a propulsion design for over twenty years. As with many others, time is a limiting factor and I am short on practical mechanical skills.
I have thought through the concepts with the help of rare publications and resources. The internet has made information much more available but it is (un)balanced by misinformation (both intentional and unintentional).
Seeking an earnest solution to internal propulsion through use of precession requires thinking out of the box a few times over during the exploration of the subject. (I pause to thank Sandy Kidd for the first stages in this exciting journey.)
Reading appropriate segments in this website I note that the main effort has been to try to obtain propulsion from affecting the gyroscopes with a semi-fluid continuous motion. Contrary to these efforts, all successful experiments I have seen always show that the positive results are intermittent. (Sandy Kidd has also made statements such as “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,” … “The pulses can be easily seen, even if they appear to be at the wrong time.” “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.”)
My findings are that we can adhere to Newton’s principles 100% by moving away from continuous application of a motive force upon the spinning Gyro, and instead applying different intermittent forces in alternating direction at 90 degrees. Doing so will paradoxically enable the designs to eventually produce a smother thrust in a single direction. The configurations, rates, and magnitude of the forces applied can all be derived by geometry and mathematics, each step and the overall function adhering to Sir Isaac.
I am not sure whether my statement has made sense or found the mark as it is very concise but I believe it provides food for thought in the right direction. Again, my admiration and good thoughts go to all that have carried this effort forward. I can be reached privately at delcar1@adelphia.net.
Thank you,
LuisG
|
| Date: |
12 March 2005
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 14/03/2005 13:17:15
| | | Hello Luis Gonzalez,
Thank you for your posting Luis. We are obviously travelling on similar paths.
I do assume that by intermittent you mean cyclic, and if that is so, then I agree with your statements.
40 years of studying gyroscopes, with 20 years at gyroscopic drive? I know exactly how you feel.
You must be a coffin dodger a bit like myself.
I do agree with your statement relating to oscillation of parts, but I am a bit mystified as to how you can shape or alter these oscillations to gain a rectified output within Newtonian frames of reference.
I think I know what you are driving at Luis, you may be correct. Who knows?
Unfortunately I have now seen a few things on my inertial drive quest which made me choose a rather different path.
In the final analysis we are attempting to breach the First and Third Laws. How can we do this, and still assume to be in agreement with accepted principles? That for me is asking just a little bit too much.
Moreover it is relatively easy to prove that an anomaly exists within the Laws, and where and what that anomaly is.
My personal opinion, for what it’s worth, is that, if there had been no anomaly, there could never be inertial drive.
It is this flaw, if you wish, that I have been attempting to exploit for many years now.
I have achieved some very good results, and a barrow load of mediocre results, but piece by piece the inertial drive jigsaw puzzle has been coming together.
Sandy Kidd.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 19/03/2005 18:03:15
| | | The device can adhere to Newton’s principles 100% by applying 2 separate forces with 1 momentary pause between the first and the second one. Here is the basic design concept. The first force accelerates the gyros laterally causing upward precession. Then there is a very short pause. Then the second force engages to energetically thrust the gyros downward. Finally there is a transition from forcing the gyros downward, to starting again the first part of the next identical cycle, over and over. Each full cycle is composed of 3 discrete and separate parts and there should be 7 to 12 full cycles per second. This rate is necessary to produce lift in our gravity for a craft with a total mass weight of 10 to 280 times the weight of a single one of the gyros used (F = M x A).
I think this is where our differences become visible. By “intermittent” I mean blinking on-and-off, separate, and alternating. Each of the alternating forces is applied at 90 degrees to the other, because one force is applied sideways and the other one is applied downward. There is no need to shape or alter “oscillations” because they do not result from the gyros. The 2 forces are intentionally applied to the gyros; it is the design of the machine. Because there is no rectification there is no need to step out of Newton’s framework.
The overall upward thrust of the machine is created as a direct result of the equal and opposite reaction to the last part of the full cycle. Throwing the mass of the gyros downward thrusts the overall device in an opposite direction (upward) with an equal force (Newton). It is not the precession that causes lift. Precession is simply used to set the gyros up so that we can forcefully throw them downward. Neither of the cycles breaks Sir Isaac’s rules, and the device behaves in a predictable manner.
The theory is straight forward and within a framework acceptable to current science. The results observed show that an anomaly exists but only in the way we interpret the laws of motion when we look at precession. The third law remains true because the precession is not a reaction as we are often bound to think. The precession is the path that results from the force applied (e.g. gravity or the push we provide to make the gyro re-gain altitude on its supports). This force applied has an equal-and-opposite reaction (sensed by the resistance felt on the finger when we push to make the gyro re-gain altitude on its supports). I am not going to address the first law because no earthbound experiment is free from one form or another of friction.
The second law may appear to be compromised because it states (among other things) that an object is accelerated in the same direction as the force applied, but we observe precession occurring at 90 degrees. There are rare publications that provide a fair explanation of precession. However we must remember that rotating objects, including gyros, possess acceleration by virtue of their spin. When the vector of the force applied and the vector of moment of inertia of the spin are added the result is in the direction observed as precession. So Newton still holds, except for what common sense dictates to our perception.
Remaining consistent with the three laws provide more accurate and better explanations for the timing of what is observed. It also provides a more widely accepted and ultimately simpler theory. However, the devil is in the details, how to design a configuration that injects the right magnitude of force at exactly the right time in the right direction, for the right amount of time? All I can say is that a design consistent with these ideas is complete and ready to be built. I realize that at build time the design will require tweaking that may transform the configuration, but I maintain that the basic theory will remain consistent.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 20/03/2005 14:34:37
| | | Dear Luis Gonzalea,
Welcome to the world of “wizzy-whirly machines” – so called because most people, like “Cat” in “Red Dwarf”, will repeatedly say “What is it??” when a serious attempt is made to describe what we are attempting. When, instead of a serious response to their questions, you reply “It’s a wizzy whirly machine” you will get a more satisfactory “Oh! Yes of course!” “Why didn’t you say so in the first place”?
I believe that your suggested answer to our quest is flawed in similar ways to several paths followed by others in the past.
The first stroke may produce a desired “impulse” - though I think you will need some rethinking to make any impulse usefully measurable without the device misleading you by pushing against its base.
You have also, in the second stroke, forgotten Nitro’s first law (a gyro will precess every damn force applied to change its axial angle, not just the force you first thought of). Thus the downward force is precessed and cancels out any impulse produced by the action and ninety degree displaced reaction (action and reaction are the wrong words, but we are stuck with them for the moment) of the first stroke.
To visualise the action and reaction forces in Newtonian systems it is common to see linearly opposed arrows. For gyrodynamic reactions I find that “L” shaped arrows are useful and if you end with a square with two lines and arrows opposed vertically and two opposed linearly – dump the machine as a non starter.
I believe it would be unwise to put any possible “answer” into the public domain before ensuring you receive acknowledgement either by a patent (my way) or keeping your council till you can get a blitz of publicity giving you acknowledgement as originator (Dave S’s way). First though, you need to do what no one else will do for you – get the bloody thing made.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 20/03/2005 22:27:05
| | | Thank you Nitro,
You are so right, no one will build it; case closed. I am not sure whether to direct you to the study of Physics or to congratulate you.
The first stroke (lateral) does NOT produce impulse. Precession has NO opposite (180 degrees) reaction therefore NO “push against the base” (basics).
The second stroke (downward) does indeed create a precession at 90 degrees (basics) but it does not prevent the gyros from being ejected downward and that has a reaction (inspect closely videos with Laithewaite and Jhones’ experiments). The goal is to design so precession doesn’t get “wrapped around the axle” (essential to breakthrough).
Action and reaction are always at 180 degrees (opposed arrows). It s the response (not reaction) of the gyro, that occurs at 90 degrees (L shape) (most people have trouble differentiating them). Add the vectors of 1) the force applied and 2) the gyro’s moment of inertia and you have the direction of precession.
These concepts are all in the public domain. Those who seek wealth should move on. Others have already been there and have got the T-shirt etc.
Thanks.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 21/03/2005 08:00:42
| | | Dear Luis,
As far as I can see there will be no net gain from a device built to your design.
I have said many times now, on this Forum, that shifting gyroscopes up and down or out and in without incorporating other, non Newtonian factors just does not work.
But on saying that, a device like this, if you extremely lucky, may produce limited results for other reasons.
I think you would also be struggling to make gyroscopes move through 7 to 12 of your full 3 piece cycles in a second. Gyroscopes just do not react at that kind of speed, and it would be hard to call it intermittent.
For your interest I have in my files from years back, a machine built and demonstrated by Eric Laithwaite which was designed pretty much in line with the idea you described.
His machine did not, and never could, operate at the frequencies you say you would require, but there and then again he did not expect it to rise from the ground.
Apart from violent oscillations the device produced no net thrust.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 22/03/2005 12:54:05
| | | Luis & all Shed Dwellers,
On several occasions I have made comment relating to the fact that moving gyroscopes up and down, or in and out, will produce no positive results, as far as inertial drive is concerned.
Many of us have tried this and proved there is nothing to be gained by this action.
The last time I made this statement was with reference to Luis’s thoughts regarding the rather high-speed movement of gyroscopes to effect thrust.
I did say following this, that, for other reasons thrust may be produced.
To follow Luis’s thinking requires that the gyroscope must be physically accelerated and consequently braked in its system rotation path. At much less a frequency of actuation than envisaged by Luis, the action will become violent.
Luis is of the considered opinion that by moving the gyroscopes in the manner described, thrust will be achieved, within the confines of accepted principles.
I must agree with Nitro here, there will be no net gains in trying to operate a device in this mode. All the ups and downs will equal zero.
Variations of this type of set up built over the years have been countless.
Yours truly has tried this, and similar to this, with no positive results at all.
Howsoever one must consider what is being attempted here.
I am assuming that Luis’s idea was that the gyro rotation speed would be constant. If this is the idea, gyroscopic reaction will vary according to his rapid changes in the radial acceleration of the gyroscope. If this action is carried out below what I call the saturation point there will be no change in the inclination of the gyroscope. Everything will appear to be as it was, with no apparent visible change in the system. If this action is carried out above the saturation point the gyroscope will not return without considerable force having to be foist upon it. The same thing applies if the forward acceleration of the gyroscope, (first part of the cycle) carries it passed the saturation point.
In other words the gyroscope must be kept out of the saturation zone.
So there will be no visible ups and downs in the system at all, unless Luis is of the opinion that this effect could be fruitful in a passive system, and I have very severe doubts about that.
Consider a gyroscope being accelerated below the saturation point.
The system is kept below the saturation point as the system is accelerated and decelerated.(a la Luis)
There will appear to be no physical or visible changes in the system, apart from variations in system rotation speed. Variations in gyroscopic torque will be produced as a result of these changes, also without being seen.
In a system like this, and contrary to popular belief gyroscopic torque does not change in isolation.
Whilst not obviously apparent in a set up like this, the whole system is altered.
Several factors change as gyroscopic torque changes, and it is these changes that are fundamental in the creation of inertial drive.
Sandy Kidd.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 25/03/2005 05:46:06
| | | Thank you for your clarification Nitro and Sandy. I am still curious what caused the success of Laithwaite’s last device (I am referring to the one shown in the “Heretic” video between frames 12.27 and 13.01, which also appeared in some publications including The Illustrated Science and Invention Encyclopedia of 1977). The success of the device was limited and intermittent but also certain and unmistakable. I guess these small successes as well as Alex Jones’ and some of our own have kept the pursuit of gyro propulsion alive all these years.
Can you please explain the physics of what caused the success of Laithwaite’s device that I am referring to? I would prefer if we kept the explanation in terms of that device since it is the only one that we can be sure we have all observed.
I am looking forward to your response. Thank you again.
Luis G.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro Macmad - 26/03/2005 07:30:26
| | | Dear Louis Gonzalez,
I think the Laithwaite machine you refer to is the one that has a pair of gyros hinge-mounted onto a vertical main shaft. The gyros precess the rotational torque of the main shaft into a vertical torque and rise upwards. The machine was not the success you think.
The theory is that the vertical acceleration upwards is caused by the non opposite torque on the main shaft and that there is therefore no (or very little) downward thrust to oppose the upward acceleration of the gyros.
The theory continues that as the gyros reach the limit of their upward motion their deceleration produces an unopposed upward impulse on the mainshaft and this impulse is thus passed on to the whole machine.
Et voila! Anti-gravity is yours. Er – no, not quite.
The reason it won’t work and the reason the illustrious Laithwaite got caught out by this machine, like so many others before and since, is that he forgot (all right – had never heard of) Nitro’s 1st law ……..a gyro will precess every dam force applied to change it’s axial angle – not just the force you first thought of.
He probably got fooled into thinking he had got there because the manufactures of spring balance scales tend to have a damper on the scales down stroke but not on the up stroke. This is to speedily stop the scales needle from swinging wildly. Please let me know if more explanation (opinion) is wanted.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 28/03/2005 04:02:02
| | | Dear NM,
Yes Nitro I am referring to Laithwaite’s machine that you described. (It is strikingly similar to Sandy Kidd’s device shown in the propulsion page of this web site). I am sure there must be a device whose performance inspired you to pursue the gyro-propulsion effort. Which machine do you believe has illustrated the plausibility of this invention and what is your theory of why it should work? (I am NOT asking for your design.)
I have for some years dwelled and studied what you refer to as “Nitro’s 1st law.” I am convinced that it is the main cause for failure in the pursuit of gyro propulsion (probably because it is not directly intuitive).
The theory that you mentioned regarding Laithwaite’s device is apparently something that you do not subscribe to and I don’t blame you. Do you believe that a configuration of gyros in a device can produce linear thrust? If so what is your theory of how the thrust is obtained (again I do am not asking for your design). To pursue an invention there must be a theory that can be explained to feed the intellectual curiosity. What’s your theory and how do you support it?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 30/03/2005 11:47:16
| | | NM & Luis
If I can come into the discussion here?
In relation to the twin opposed offset devices, recently under discussion, the only Laitwaite machine I ever saw of this type shown outside the Imperial College had downward curved guide rails to drive the gyroscopes back down again. I do not know what Eric Laithwaite was trying to do, though I think it was maybe an attempt at the “free lunch” scenario.
Of course there may have been others, although the only other one I saw of this type was set up inside the Heavy Electrical Engineering Laboratory, had printed circuit motors/gyroscopes, and was suspended by springs in a frame.
Eric Laithwaite tended not to build accelerated systems.
As far as my machine is concerned, I believed, and as suggested by simple mechanics that the accelerated mass of the gyroscopes at that elevated angle would be sufficient to drive the machine upwards. The gyroscopes on my machine were for the specific purpose of lifting the masses/gyroscopes to the required angle.
Well, that’s what I thought.
Unfortunately, as his gyroscopes made their inward acceleration, Eric Laithwaite only had gyroscopic torque left to play with.
The important thing is, and not to lose sight of the obvious fact, that at the elevated angles in both Laithwaite’s and my own machine, there is no thrust delivered as a result of the “supposed” accelerated mass being raised to that angle. There is no accelerated mass present under these conditions.
The fundamental issue here is, why is there no angular momentum?
In the final analysis it would appear to be perfectly acceptable for a gyroscope to happily float about in this mode, but it seems to be very hard to have accepted, that the reason for it is, that there is no accelerated mass left to resist it.
For myself, I was attempting to convert some accelerated mass into vertical thrust, and quite simply, got lucky.
Howsoever, in reality, the physics of gyroscopes being somewhat different from what I had previously believed, made the idea obsolete.
My philosophy will not change, although the elevated offset gyroscopes, will not now be a prerequisite.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 02/04/2005 05:15:37
| | | S Kidd,
Thank you for your explanation, however we appear to use different nomenclature for similar observations. May I ask the following questions?
Can you please describe what you mean by the term “free lunch” scenario regarding gyro-propulsion efforts?
Does your reference to an “accelerated system” mean that rate of the angular velocity of the flywheels is increased, or does it refer to the rate at which the main rotor turns the flywheels by one end of their main axis, to force them to “precess” upward?
When you say “accelerated mass” are you talking about the rate at which the main rotor turns the flywheels by one end of their main axis, to force them to “precess” upward?
When you say that “gyros made their inward acceleration” do you mean, when they are forced to “precess” toward each other (rather than away from each other)?
Once I am certain about the true meaning of these items, I must also ask what you meant by “the fundamental issue is, why is there no angular momentum?” In which direction were you expecting the momentum?
Luis G.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 03/04/2005 17:59:37
| | | Dear Luis,
I imagine Sandy is somewhat weary of being asked to justify anything to total strangers, especially after Angus Deaton’s program, apparently freeloading on well intentioned peoples guesses of the future and giving his usual sneering opinions at others optimistic hopes, so I will put in a few pennyworth to try and answer some of your questions. He (Deaton) may like to ask my opinion of people who self indulgently shove cocaine up their noses and engage in some very strange Ugandan behaviour in an hotel room.
I am sure that Sandy will correct me if my presumptions/assumptions on the gyro’s are wrong.
The free lunch scenario refers to the Laithwaite machine – you refer to - being (more or less) a constant input device that, as it was supposed to have an output (linear displacement), should slow down dramatically while producing said output – did it?
Accelerated systems usually have an accelerated part to their cycle (and by inference a decelerated part to their cycle).
Most people, I suspect, would expect a rotated eccentric mass to pull on its rotating centre just like the handle of a skipping rope pulls the rope taught when it is whirled around by a child. They would also expect the fast rotating handle to have enough momentum to do considerable damage if were stopped suddenly by bashing into something. A precessing gyro does not exhibit such centrifugal force or momentum.
To see a wonderful example of missing centrifugal force (and, in a later video, a slightly less dramatic example of its concomitant: angular momentum) I can recommend looking at these videos on this site:-
Go to “Gallery”, then “RIGB Christmas lecture 1974-75”, then “7. Air powered gyro…….” You may like to wonder at the fact that it is not just the spinning mass of the gyro that seems to loose the Newonion bits but, amazingly, the heavy gyro shaft, vertical pivot and part of the base too.
Many thanks, Glen for sourcing those videos they are a great help to refresh ones enthusiasm when thing go wrong.
Refering to your earlier questions: -
> Do I believe that a configuration of gyros……etc. Yes!
> By the use of gyros to convert torsional energy input into linear force (Kinetic energy when it moves the mainframe) output.
>That’s rather like asking someone to justify their belief in the after-life before you both die. Before death: unprovable. After: Academic.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 04/04/2005 06:39:12
| | | NM
Pretty good Nitro, pretty good.
No argument from me.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 09/04/2005 01:47:06
| | | Is it possible that we can continue our discussion over the drawings of one of the devices that has demonstrated a degree of success and is now public knowledge? (a patent ?) I think this will make our questions and statements much more clear.
Thank you,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 09/04/2005 15:20:34
| | | Dear Luis,
That makes sense. Pick out one as an example that suits you.
KInd reagards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 10/04/2005 01:12:34
| | | NM and Sandy,
I don’t know of a device that has demonstrated a degree of success. My first choice, a few weeks back, was Laithwaite’s machine from the Heretic video; however you and Sandy have said that it had no measurable success. Under the circumstances, I must defer to those with more experience, and ask you gentlemen to pick a suitable device. Kindly let me know the patent number or a way for me to examine it.
Thank you,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 12/04/2005 12:21:41
| | | Luis
I was going to offer a few options for your perusal, however the only one I would be prepared to offer and can guarantee to give you results, would be my own long expired US Patent No 5024112.
The drawings were not done by myself, and are not as clear and / or obvious as they could or should have been.
Howsoever if you manage to acquire a copy of this patent I can talk you through it to ensure it works for you.
In the Vipac Laboratories in Port Melbourne this device completed 20 runs out of 20 with non-zero results on all runs.
The Vipac Laboratories are the most prestigious laboratories in the Southern Hemisphere.
This is a matter of record, although the academics, who because they know this cannot be done, will not / cannot accept this fact.
It had one input drive for everything, and no radio control fitted.
With separate drives, and radio control, the thing could have delivered a lot more than the few ounces it did, and it would also be much easier to handle.
It was built specifically for a lab-test so a few mechanical compromises were made.
If you are interested, and manage to get the patent drawings I will enlarge upon the construction of the device as required.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 16/04/2005 15:49:17
| | | Sandy & Nitro,
Thank you for the reference patent. My read through US patent 5024112 helped to clarify some of your statements on the functioning parts. It appears that both structures use cams (or eccentrics) to force the flywheels towards each other (inward / upward), which is also (apparently) the direction in the flywheels would “precess” in response to the torque provided by the main (large) rotor. Centrifugal or centripetal action is expected to come into play during the times that the cams (eccentrics) are not exerting force, and (correct me if wrong) you have previously stated that this action has not worked as expected.
The propulsion is said to occur in a pulsating manner and my main question is, during what portions of the cycle has the upward propulsion been observed to occur in the laboratory?
Please select one of the structures in the patent if you wish to use references to make the dialog more focused.
Kind Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 19/04/2005 12:50:05
| | | Sandy, Nitro,
I would advise you not to answer that question.
DaveS
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 23/04/2005 19:28:20
| | | Dave S, you need to get a life big guy. Why would someone who has known that answer for 20 years, and found no help from it, need to be ware of answering it. An Australian company with teams of bright engineers has known the answer for 10 to 15 years and they have also been unable to develop the concept (or have they?). (One patent was filed in 1987, a US patent granted on 1991, and all this was abandoned. ?)
Dave, you flatter me to much. What makes you think that a fellow named Luis Gonzalez will succeed where subject gurus and teams of learned men (with backing) keep failing with much more data than I ask for? Further, Sandy & NM, am I not handicapped by my Newtonian approach (or am I?). I submit to you that the non-Newtonian approach exists out of stubbornness against the facts revealed by the data.
The gyro-propulsion challenge may take time (it already has), and without cooperation from the different points of view it may take much longer than we have left. My question is, “how badly do we want to get it working?”
In the mean time, what questions are you gentlemen willing to answer about this patent of 1991?
Thank you,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 26/04/2005 13:26:42
| | | Luis,
At least you have the sense to doubt the ability of the teams of experts to find the answers.
They could not find the answers, although they had all the proof they required that the devices were genuine.
For your benefit Luis, they could not manipulate Newton to suit, and quite frankly neither will anyone else.
Both the American and Australian R & D departments admitted that there was something going on with the gyroscopes that was beyond their knowledge..
All members of both R & D departments admitted that all devices tested were genuine. I had in effect, fulfilled my part of the bargain.
It was obvious then, that a large program of research was required to put the thing to bed and at that time I knew I was going to have to do it all myself.
Contrary to the assertions of the bold Arthur Dent, the end of their interest came from a totally different direction that was totally unrelated to gyroscopic drive.
Anyway Luis, I thought it was your intention to build a machine.
That is the impression I got when you asked Nitro and myself to point you in the right direction.
Luis there are substantially sized positive pulses generated every machine cycle that appear to be completely out of phase with the action.
I think it would be better for you if you built the device so that you can see this first hand, and then figure it all out for yourself.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 26/04/2005 23:17:18
| | | That’s the shortest discussion I have ever had about any thing, much less a patent.
Thank you,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 29/04/2005 10:22:34
| | | Dear Luis,
My answer to you was most certainly not designed to offend, although it obviously has.
I think I was reasonably clear in my previous answer to you that I would talk you through the thing in order to ensure that it would work for you.
You are obviously very pro Newton, so the way I see it, is this.
No matter what reason I give you for its successful operation you are going to try to make the thing operate within the boundaries of accepted principles.
Yes it does matter when and where the upward pulse appears, but to my mind that does not affect the outcome.
The device along with several others, and for different reasons operate successfully outside what we would classify as accepted physics principles.
To my mind I was trying to be helpful, and not obstructive.
Also I do not intend to go so deep into the operation of these devices in an international open forum, that it would jeopardise my own position.
So far I have stated where the accepted understanding of gyroscopes isn’t. I’ve explained the relationship of gyroscopic torque to centrifugal force (no apologies) in accelerated systems, and the ease with which differential can be produced.
So far I have not (apart from one hint) ventured into the area of the conversion of angular momentum to linear momentum (i.e. without the need for a nut and screw)
Separately conserved? Maybe they used to be.
This is what it is all about, and to answer your question, especially publicly Luis, would be very stupid of me.
My offer still stands. If you wish to construct a device as described in that particular patent, and one that will produce non-Newtonian thrust, I will help you achieve this.
I am not being deliberately selfish here, but a successful conclusion for whatever the reason, cannot do me any harm either way.
I have built at least a dozen devices with characteristics similar to the one in that patent, and they have all produced (albeit varying) quantities of inertial thrust.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 30/04/2005 02:30:42
| | | Sandy,
No offense taken.
Are the drawings and specifications in that patent accurate to use in building the device you describe? Or do you need to mention any corrections to build the successful device that you claim.
Thank you,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 05/05/2005 13:27:51
| | | Luis,
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
However, to return to that particular machine.
For the purposes of the laboratory test, I took a very great risk in assembling the device the way I did.
Basically to avoid any claims of aerodynamic effects being responsible for any non-Newtonian thrust obtained, I decided to enclose the device inside a small plywood box with the power plant mounted inside the base of the box.
As this particular power plant, was a miniature 2 stroke engine, (a “45” of about 7ccs in capacity) and as I had not as yet got into fan cooled, ducted, model helicopter set-ups, it was necessary for the engine to be a water cooled motor.
This engine drove both machine rotation and gyroscope rotation simultaneously.
This was a very risky thing to do, but I got away with it. This I would definitely not recommend, but I did not want to add a separate power unit to the device, which apart from increasing the weight of the machine, would cause a whole lot of extra control and gearing complications, not to mention additional engine cooling.
Remember I had not added the very essential radio control element to my devices at this point in time, and the thought of setting 2 independent power units manually for the tests, frightened me off.
The device was driven from the engine, via a centrifugal clutch, I built from drawings in a book on model helicopter design. The clutch worked perfectly throughout. I think the book was by a (Frank, I think) Draper. An excellent book, if not a bit out of date now. I would recommend the clutch though, better than anything I have used since.
Another complication would have been to the engine cooling system, which due to the nature of the beast being tested, was designed as a no loss system.
I fed the cooling water from a plastic header tank, through the engine to a catch tank of slightly larger volume. This again was designed to eliminate any argument relating to changes in coolant weight.
The only weight change left to consider was the fuel consumption, which was of a relatively low order and taken into consideration by the laboratory people.
O.K Luis that is most of what you do not want to know, out of the road.
I would recommend for you to utilise at least 2 power units, possibly 3.
One unit, for machine rotation drive, and one to drive both gyroscopes.
If you decide on electric motors, you will require a set of slip rings if you go for the 3 motor option. That would allow for independent electric motor drive for each gyroscope, if you want. This would also eliminate the need for a bevel gearbox to drive both gyroscopes from the same source.
The problem here is acquiring little motors of 7.2, 8.4, or 9.6 volts with a drive shaft strong enough to withstand the torque produced by the gyroscopes.
However the are very easy to control via suitable electronic control units, and a radio control system.
The gyroscopes I used on that machine were about 6 inches in diameter, although I think that 4 inch diameter would have been perfectly adequate and more controllable.
From now on it all depends largely on the thickness of your wallet.
If you chose the electric option I would scale the whole thing down as the little 400 series motors for instance, would certainly be drawing far too much current on a gyroscope of more than about 2.5 inches diameter, and will burn out pretty quickly. They are relatively cheap to replace, but it is still a pain in the posterior.
I normally remove the silly little self aligning bearing from the drive end of the motor, fit a bronze bearing to carry a 6mm or 0.25 inch diameter silver steel extension piece “Araldited” over the 0.090 inch or thereabouts diameter existing shaft. The bronze bearing I make about 0.375 inches long to take the gyroscopic torque across it. I have never broken a shaft since I modified them in this manner.
Previous life expectancy of these shafts was in minutes.
You can of course purchase more powerful electric motors if you chose, but the price of course goes up, depending on what you want.
However you may want to consider smoky, smelly, wonderful model aircraft motors.
In the intervening years I have used together, a pair of Chinese made ASP 36 s, about 6cc or thereabouts model helicopter engines, complete with cooling fans, centrifugal clutches and suitable ducting for cooling. Helicopter bits of course.
Absolutely no problems, still as good as new, bags of power (well over 1 BHP each) at around16000 rpm.
No flat batteries, and extended test runs of 30 minutes or more (how big is your tank?) which is very useful.
Think this is enough for a start.
I await your comments Luis.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
