|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
20 May 2024 17:12
|
|
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: |
graeme |
| Subject: |
freedom to think |
| Question: |
I have noticed in this forum, there is general (though not exclusive) opinion that for
gyroscopic propulsion to be viable or for the scientific world to even begin to
entertain any device, it MUST operate within Newton’s laws of motion. Why is this? Can
we progress our understanding of the universe and it's apparent laws by a blinkered
view of what might be possible within this set of rules? Rules are there to be broken,
adjusted, compromised or even scrapped and renewed if need be. Is it bigger crime? to
deny any thought whatsoever to the apparently impossible, than to cling to norm, the
accepted, or " it's always been that way" attitude that seems to pervade these days. I
recently done the "ask a physicist" question about the speed of light, the question was
as follows " if photons have no mass, why is there a limit to the speed of light?" The
answer received was somewhat lacking, a typical " I don't even want to think about the
implications of that" reply or in other words the physicist did'nt know and would'nt
consider questioning what he's been taught, as his and the establishments concept of
the universe would need to be re-written, too scary a thought for most people. I have
my own views about the answer to the question but i would'nt want to upset anyone.
But nevertheless, it is still a valid question which remains unanswered to date. |
| Date: |
20 May 2005
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/05/2005 14:36:40
| | | Dear graeme,
Your question is good. But as to your question, you just skipped over the very first effort to identify certain exceptions to these conditions of which you speak. You have been invited to participate, to state your own beliefs and explain why, to ask questions and to learn how to proceed. This is the only way you can receive a full answer to your question.
The post is ‘Archulation’. First you learn what it is. Nest you are promised that you can learn how to use it. Thirdly you are given a beginning, which is an argument involving the very foundation of the concepts and contrivances that lead to the confusion and that you wonder about. First we cannot accept the age-old idea that a passive resistance is the same thing as an active push, because this idea not only eventually confounds or research as we would see as we go along, but it just isn’t mechanically true. If you eventually come to understand and believe there is a difference, then you will have taken the first step toward a new way of understanding.
Some of these exceptions that we can reason out correctly is that mass can be moved without a rearward reaction, and that it is centrifugal that is a real force and that centripetal is the fictitious force, and that even our best researcher, professor Liftwate made several extraordinary misconceptions that have mislead us and how and why he did that, and how to understand, know and believe the truth of it all.
I look forward to your participation and I answer you primary question this way. “You must work for your answer.”
Best regards,
Glenn Hawkins
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 23/05/2005 12:30:09
| | | Good day Graeme,
You mentioned individual’s opinion relating to gyroscopic propulsion, in relation to Sir Isaac’s Laws
To contemplate a breach in Newton’s Laws is blasphemous.
This is what makes the whole issue so damned hard to promote.
Any claim that flies in the face of Newton’s Laws automatically excludes it from reality, and the person making the claim is automatically branded a crackpot.
However, the proof that Newton has not got it all his own way, has been around for many years.
Unfortunately so has the ostrich syndrome.
One can pretend that gyroscopic drive is impossible, but that pretence cannot last forever.
“Flying Saucers” could have been all the rage by now but for the total ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity of the so-called learned individuals who control all knowledge.
Everything required to create a really successful space drive has been known for some considerable time.
Even the final and toughest problem of them all, namely the turbine like, smooth, efficient conversion of angular momentum to vertical thrust has been mastered.
If anyone honestly believes that any of this can be achieved within the boundaries of Newton’s Laws, then I am afraid that person just does not understand Newton’s Laws.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 23/05/2005 16:58:10
| | |
Yeah Sandy, you hit my raw nerve. So many have said their work doesn’t defy Newton. How ridicules. How very ridicules and frighten. You can’t attempt to do IP, unless you believe there may be exceptions to the unquestionable great genius that was Sir Newton. Damned exceptions occur, or they don’t. You can’t have it both ways and keep working.
Glenn H.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
graeme - 30/05/2005 13:36:06
| | | Glen and Sandy,
Thanks for your reply, i'm sorry about delay in my response to your comments. The point of the original post was to show that we don't know everything even the bastions of so called science have bypassed fundamental issues for years, these issues are so upsetting that General/Special Relativity are under threat, they are not set in stone. Another example of the original question asked, we are told in the text books "not even light can escape from the gravitational pull of a black hole" But wait a minute, if light ie photons have no mass why should they be troubled with gravity holding them back. I suspect a few things like, photons have mass and that the speed of light is not constant. Anyway I have an interest in all things unorthodox, but mainly in ancient science showing that the practitioners new a thing or two about moving impossibly large objects. As far as gyroscopes are concerned, i have an idea about how to find out what movements give the greatest forces when a gyroscope is moved about in 3D space using current accepted technology which should give the seekers of funding for their devices a chance to approach the financiers using tried and trusted technology. I have no plans or the time to enter down this route myself or a device in the pipeline, i would rather leave that to experts who know know much than myself, but it would be a shame if the science world snubbed the people with a desire to expand the boundary's of knowledge a chance, just because thier careers depend on it.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 15/06/2005 13:04:42
| | | "If anyone honestly believes that any of this can be achieved within the boundaries of Newton’s Laws, then I am afraid that person just does not understand Newton’s Laws."
Thanks Sandy, that statement surprises me from yourself. I have always stated that no laws of physics are being broken with these gyroscopic prototypes.
Could it not possibly be that you may have mis-understood the laws in relation to your device?
When i first looked at your device many years ago, i believe i saw some fundemental flaws in the way your device was built to order to obtain the result you where after. I also immediately understood why it only produced a smidging of thrust. All within accepted laws of physics.
Too much time is spent chasing "precesion" devices and trying to attribute extraordinary effects to gyroscopes. This may be why there has been no break through yet.
My prototype is based on the fact that they do obey basic laws of physics and observable predictable reactions. Providing the machine does not explode/shake itself to bits, then the design either works or it does not. There is no room for modification to chase the dream.
If only i clould chivvy along my engineer, then we could find out if i was right or completely off base.
The truth will out. Just don't know when.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 11/08/2005 11:11:32
| | | Dear Dave S,
Sorry for the delay in replying to your answer to my statement.
Any device which can produce measurable inertial thrust, is breaking several fundamental rules.
Newton’s First and Third Laws to start with, and that has got to be pretty obvious.
Then there are the Conservation Laws, and maybe a few others.
To achieve any kind of inertial thrust requires the production of an action which will create a force which acts in one direction only.
The Laws state that for every action there is an equal and opposite action.
I will concede the “opposite” part, but an equal reaction there normally is.
Dave I am pretty sure that when the truth be told, the outcome will be made to fit into the rules somehow, but this old coffin dodger cannot see how.
Let me elaborate just a little bit.
Incidentally I do not let complicated physics get in the way. Everything I do is from experiment and observation. I am an engineer (well, a toolmaker) and will remain an engineer.
There are manipulations which can be carried out which can use the attributes of gyroscopes, pure or otherwise, to create the illusive one way thrust.
Now I will agree that individually the components utilised in these manipulations may not be breaking the rules, but combined they are, as the production of one way thrust certainly is.
This should keep a few physicists busy arguing for a while.
Now if this is what you are driving at Dave, OK, I’ll go along with that.
While I am here, my first machine as I have previously stated was designed to work for a totally different set of reasons. How was I to know that there would be no angular momentum available to drive the thing when it was operated?
Every mathematician and physicist I spoke to, also believed as I did.
I did the thing totally accidentally and was extremely lucky, but I did know, that if it can be done just once, then it can be done again. .
One thing Dave, it proved to me that inertial drive was a reality, and worthy of pursuit.
That was over twenty years ago. It has not been easy, but Sandy did not have any clever cats to help out.
By the way Dave, 1 pound of thrust from a 6.5 pound machine I would hardly call marginal.
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 16/08/2005 08:08:57
| | | Dave S
Further to my ramblings above I did mean to add that I am in total agreement with you with respect to magical gyroscopic attributes.
They are extremely easy to understand when a rational explanation is made for their unique behaviour.
However there are folks who take a great delight in playing around with complicated formulae which ain’t gonna help nobody, no how.
I assume these people enjoy playing with the idea, but are never ever going to construct or even attempt to construct an inertial drive machine.
Dave S’s statement relating to magical gyroscopic properties has also prompted me to add this piece, which is meant to help out those who have recently, and maybe not so recently, stupidly got themselves involved in this disreputable pursuit.
A gyroscope, or more correctly a flywheel, is only a tool that can help do the job.
It can basically reverse the system output conditions depending whether it is being rotated or not.
A gyroscope also has the ability to control the rate and magnitude of change of system output depending on its rotation speed.
However there is no magical function, which can on its own, create one way thrust.
Once one learns to put that issue to bed then something may be achieved.
Over the years, I have done thousands of experiments with gyroscopes, pure and otherwise, and have discovered that there are other more obscure factors which must be taken into consideration to get results.
That revelation was my biggest single breakthrough
“No gyroscopic / flywheel action ON ITS OWN, however manipulated, will deliver any level of inertial thrust”
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
