|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
6 May 2024 22:37
|
|
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: |
Seeking the Illusive Third Derivative “J” |
| Question: |
Propulsion presupposes Force, and Force requires Acceleration A=2S/[t][t]. If we found a way to generate “accelerated-precession” (A=2S/[t][t]), derived from a force (and its opposite reaction) that have been applied at 90 degrees (from the direction of the resulting ‘accelerated-precession’), we would have a strong basis for internal propulsion, without an “opposite” reaction. Within a closed system, the applied force and the resulting acceleration need to occur at an angle other than the usual 180 degrees (90 degrees is optimal) to circumvent the opposite reaction of the force.
(S=distance, t=time, and [t][t] is t-squared)
Regular precession has no acceleration because precession moves with only a constant velocity (V=S/t); this is precession’s handicap in the effort to produce propulsion. Our co-contributor Momentus has observed that “Up-like-a-gyro and Down-like-a-rock (X)” moves the centre of mass but does not accelerate the system as a whole. The net effect is that each cycle concludes with a complete stop caused by the encounter of the gyro and the rest of the device with equal and opposite momentum [M1xV1/t] = [M2xV2/t]. So, “X” is effective at moving the device forward, but is extremely inefficient. “Up-like-a-gyro and Down-like-a-rock (X)” is unable to exceed the speed produced by its fastest cycle (which lasts for a very short period), and the effects of “X” always come to a full stop at the end of each cycle. An “X” type devise can move forward in jumps (that do not exceed its length), but can NOT generate or maintain a continuous velocity. Precession’s limitation prevents it from ever yielding a continuous linear velocity making it IMPOSSIBLE to gradually increase velocity over time (by applying intermittent pulses of acceleration); this is very important.
Despite the shortcomings, gyro devices using regular precession are able to produced forward motion INTERNALLY (even though such devices come to a full stop after each and every step). That means we are currently able to build devices that move forward through purely internal mechanisms. The challenge remaining before us is to produce internal propulsion that yields sustained, continuous velocity.
If a device were to provide pulses of acceleration A=2S/[t][t] without a reaction at 180 degrees, than it can yield SUSTAINED linear velocity (V=S/t). Acceleration without a 180 degree reaction can internally generate sustained velocity. Therefore if we find a way to produce “Accelerated-precession” (A=2S/[t][t] without 180 degree reaction), we will be half way to our illusive goal of sustained internal propulsion. The answer is we can derive “Accelerated-precession” as follows:
If applying simple torque or acceleration (A=2S/[t][t]) to the axis of a gyro, yields simple-precession with a “constant rate” of velocity (V=S/t) at 90 degrees. Then, applying an increasing rate of acceleration (J=6S/[t][t][t]) to the axis of a gyro will yield “Accelerated-precession” that moves with an “increasing rate” of velocity (A=2S/[t][t]), at 90 degrees (i.e. applying the second derivative (A) yields fist derivative (V) precession, but applying the third derivative (J) yields second derivative (A) accelerated-precession)!!! This key concept of “Accelerated-precession” which moves with an increasing velocity (A=2S/[t][t]) is one that I have not seen in physics books even though it is easy to derive. Accelerated-precession (not just precession with momentum) also occurs at 90 degrees from the force applied; here it is again: Applying torque A=2S/[t][t] yields precession with V=S/t; therefore applying J=6S/[t][t][t] yields A=2S/[t][t]. (Apply “A” get “V.” Apply “J” get “A.”)
“J” has always been there; its effects pop in and out of gyro experiments during fleeting moments of transition that are easily ignored. “J” contributes to the illusiveness of the gyro-propulsion enigma and is, in part, the solution to gyro-mysteries that will open this technology for many practical uses. Professor Laithewaite figured this out. In his December 1974 paper entitled “The Multiplication of Bananas by Umbrellas” Laithewaite asks “What did Newton or his followers have to say on the subject of RATE OF CHANGE of acceleration?” (The professor did not refer to it as “J” but that is the correct symbol.) His paper ended with that brief, probing question that has gone mostly unnoticed, but speaks volumes. Laithewaite complicated his articles with electronics, personal politics, and by his inability to resist taking pokes at established engineering. His theories faced many challenges. First “J” is extremely short-lived (acceleration maxes-out quickly); a strong acceleration yields precession that can get to its point of balance sometimes in sub-second time. Second, Laithewaite needed to configure the device so that the “Accelerated-precession” always points in only one direction. These challenges, though not insurmountable, are quite formidable. Just one of these challenges can send the mind reeling in many directions, most of which are dead-ends. Further, building each one of the many devices has a hefty cost (just to figure if it will work or not). These challenges, plus being in the wrong side of politics caused Laithwaite to become ostracized by the powers-that-be and by many of his peers. Our hero left his (and our) quest in quite a shambles. No wonder even those who follow and love his work are at times less than kindly to him...
(TO BE CONTINUED…)
Please allow me to complete before responding.
Thank you, Luis
|
| Date: |
1 October 2005
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Luis AE Gonzalez - 22/11/2005 17:25:39
| | | PART II - Good math and science can save design cost & time when managed correctly.
Laithwaite’s last patent suffers from a degree of unintelligibility. I have difficulty understanding some of the content in the patent and can’t decipher how propulsion is expected to result from some of the designs included. I think part of the obscurity of this patent may have resulted from the technology & materials of the time, and from Laithwaite’s need to work within the confines of his approach to simplification. As a rule, the simplification of one aspect of a system requires increased complexity of another aspect of that system. The computer industry illustrates this point well as computers have become easier to use (by most people) through the increased complexity of engineering in hardware and software (this simplification paradox is evident in the evolution of many industries). The early simpler computer was understood only by a few experts but as computers have become more complex they are easier to work with. Similarly I expect that taking the basic concepts of gyro-propulsion, and adding layers of complexity to a number of components (plus using improved materials) will yield much easier to understand and use gyro-propulsion systems. To achieve this goal, the key is to apply the right kind of technology and introduce contained-complexity in the right places based on sound theory. We can only derive sound theory from time proven tools, and acceptable science!!
How do we start to simplify?
In my opinion, good theory may evolve by addressing and inquiring deeper into accelerated-gyro-systems (a concept introduced by Sandy) and for that reason I have introduced “J” the scientific symbol for a changing rate of acceleration. Most gyro-propulsion devices experience temporary segments where either the system and/or the flywheel become accelerated and/or decelerated. This is so because one can not start gyro-propulsion devices at assigned targets of constant angular velocity because the flywheel, the system or both must be brought up to their desired angular velocity. I think that the distinction of an accelerated design (from a non-accelerated one) is that “accelerated systems” focus on prolonging and on using the accelerated segments of the cycle to produce propulsion (as opposed to other designs that focus on using traditional action and reaction). It appears that accelerated systems also require the interaction of other components to achieve propulsion. This other components may take a number of forms; in some cases it may be the interaction with a breaking component, in others it may be a component that encloses the gyros and other subcomponents to provide additional motions within the frame of the device. How this other component(s) works is a feature which Sandy has maintained private as he reserves the right to his own design. I expect we will hear more about this in the future.
I perceive (right or wrong) that some of the accelerated system designs may require continuously rotating systems that speed-up and slow-down in a synchronized manner along with speeding-up and slowing-down of the gyro flywheels (the appropriate synchronization would be key). The exact timing of these dynamics may be expected to yield propulsion not withstanding Nitro’s first law.
Alternate designs may rely upon a multi-cycle model using lateral acceleration to produce upward precession of a gyro, and then forcing the gyro downward. This design requires an imaginative solution to avoid the negative interaction that invariably occurs at the bottom of the cycle when the momentum of the gyro(s) encounters the momentum of the rest of the device (as explained in “up like a gyro down like a rock”), and also without running into Nitro’s first law. Regarding the technical solution for this challenge, it is I who am not willing to reveal design details yet (except that “J” is an integral part of the solution).
What has been observed?
Sandy is one persons who has carried out most extensive, diverse, and complex experiments in the quest for gyro-propulsion. He commands one of the largest levels of experience in this relatively unexplored technology and we are fortunate that he has chosen to share some of his experimental insights in this forum. Many of the interactions observed and described by Sandy, have not been observed by any other investigator of gyro-propulsion.
Much research and experimentation have convinced Sandy that “passive systems” will not work, and that accelerated systems are more likely to yield propulsion. It appears to me that what Sandy calls a “passive systems” is mainly a matter of degree as passive designs do not focus on making use of the accelerated segments to create propulsion (all gyro-propulsion devices go through stages of acceleration even if it is only at starting and stopping time); in other words, the difference is on how the device is intended to yield propulsion. All of Sandy’s devices (which I have seen or have heard described) appear have in common “continuously rotating systems” (there may be other factors in common that are not as apparent to me.) It also appears that Sandy’s early “passive system” experiments also used continuous lateral spin (see segment in “Heretic” video etc). As a rule, most experiments designed by the same individual(s) have common paradigms within a range of contextual parameters.
Accelerated model experiments have provided Sandy a view of what appear to be additional gyro phenomena; these include absence of centrifugal action, loss of accelerated mass, and the saturation zone (please correct me if I am in error). Most interesting, Sandy explains that upon reaching the “saturation zone” the possibility of tapping thrust is hopeless. Sandy explains how when a static gyro flywheel starts to rotate (within a system that is already rotating at a given angular velocity) there is a reduction of “accelerated mass” (which definition I am not 100% sure of yet) and a reduction of centrifugal “force.” I understand Sandy to says that the “saturation zone” is marked by what appears to be a temporary stop in the upward motion of the gyro (please correct me if I am wrong). After the saturation zone the gyro’s motion continues toward the balance point where the axis of the gyro and that of the system are parallel and their rotation is in the same direction. Note that what cause these events to occur is that the gyro flywheel is increased in angular velocity by means of a motor or such. My initial response is to try making sense of this interesting “saturation zone” by speculating on approaches to a mathematical or scientific analysis that may lead to an explanation and deeper understanding of the phenomenon.
One possibility is that a device enters the “saturation zone” when the values of numerator and of the denominator of the precession equation are equal. This would cause the angular velocity of precession to be equal to unity (= 1). I am not sure that a velocity with a value of “1” is meaningful or whether it really means that it is standing still (or is it necessary to have a velocity of zero to assure that precession has no velocity?).
Another possibility is that at the “saturation zone” both the numerator and the denominator of the precession equation have equal exponents of the time [t] variable. If both, numerator and the denominator of the simple equation for precession are of the same order [t] factors cancel out and there is no precession motion (in our time dimension) until either the numerator or the denominator’s time factor changes its order of magnitude (this statement should spark interesting ideas). Consider that common gyro flywheels (without motors) spin at a decelerating rate; therefore the spin of the common string-driven (non-motorized) gyro flywheel (not the whole gyro) has a negative rate of angular acceleration (something to think about).
Sandy appears certain that success may only be achieved using “accelerated systems” and I tend to agree with the basic statement. Sandy has explained in some detail his experiment where a system is spun-up until it is rotating at a constant speed while the gyro flywheel is NOT spinning, and is therefore revolving around the central axis of the system in the manner of a dead weight. The object is to then start the gyro flywheel spinning and observe its behavior as the flywheel spin accelerates (one may surmise that the centripetal acceleration is increasing as well therefore, in my opinion, introducing one aspect of “J”). Sandy’s observations include 1) an initial stage with a lot of “accelerated mass” and centrifugal “force,” 2) a zone where “accelerated mass” and centrifugal action become quickly dissipated, 3) a “saturation zone” where the gyro maintains its position for a while (without continuing to move in a way that may be said to be analogous to precession), and 4) the gyro finally engages in precession to end up in a position of balance where its spin axis is parallel to the systems axis of rotation and both are turning in the same direction.
I want to present a comparison between these 4 stages of Sandy’s experimental results stated above and the behavior of a gyro in precession under gravity. However we must first be careful and understand that these two events occur in a REVERSE time sequence to each other. (Note that Sandy’s experiment starts with a non-spinning gyro and a rotating system, while a gyro in precession starts with a spinning gyro and still system.) Let’s look at this interesting comparison:
1) First Sandy’s experiment has an initial stage where the flywheel is NOT spinning while the system rotates at a constant speed. This is the equivalent of resting one end of a non-spinning gyro (or dead weight) on top of the tower; we all know the result (it falls down). In Sandy’s experiment, this is where the system has maximum “accelerated mass” and centrifugal “force.”
2) The next stage of Sandy’s experiment starts where the flywheel slowly begins to spin. This segment can be compared to a gyro that has been in precession under gravity and is at the stage where it has fallen off the tower and can not be remounted for precession any more. This second stage ends where the flywheel has achieved a certain speed and Sandy describes as quickly loosing its accelerated mass and centrifugal action. This portion of this stage may be compared to a gyro that is still spinning too slow to support precession under gravity but at the verge of precession (how would one mathematically/scientifically define this threshold stage?).
3) The third stage is the one that Sandy refers to as the “saturation zone.” This I think is comparable to a stage in gravity precession where gyro falls off the tower and may or may not be successfully re-mounted on the tower (depending on a number of peripheral factors).
4) The fourth stage is one where in Sandy’s experiment the gyro moves up to its point of balance rotating congruent to the system as a whole. This stage can be compared to a gyro that is smoothly in precession under gravity.
How do Euler’s precession equations take into account the four observed zones? Do these equations account for the overpowering force of the system’s centripetal force of rotation (or created by gravity) over the gyro’s inertial resistance to having its spin axis changed at a low spin rate? Do they account for the gradual change of inertial resistance until it reaches “saturation”? Do they account for the “saturation zone” where the gyro’s inertial resistance to have its axis moved is exactly equal to the systems centripetal force (for a discrete time period)?
More speculative analysis:
An opinion on why the more “static” gyro behaviors (that appear to have more “accelerated mass” and centrifugal “force”) are separated by a “saturation zone” from the behaviors that are more like a gyro under precession is as follows.
Before “saturation,” the rate of spin of the flywheel is so slow that it is completely overpowered by the much higher rate of rotation of the system (this is similar to a gyro on a tower that is spinning too slow in relationship to the torque generated by gravity, and falls down). To derive a mathematical relationship or rule that can explains at what point a gyro (whose precession increases as the flywheel slows down) will fall off the tower, one may need to derive a “factor” that takes into account the nature of the motions involved and that provides a way to predict the transition point mathematically in the relationship from the flywheel spin to the system’s rate of rotation.
This “factor” is intended to modify the simple precession equation, and it should stop affecting the original equation after the spin of the flywheel is at or above the “saturation zone” (so that the equation can be used to predict the behaviors that are predictable with today’s simple precession equation). Most important, this “factor” should be such that it provides a mathematical explanation for the duration of the saturation zone.
This “factor” should also provide a predictive insight into other potential effects and other phenomena of gyroscope before, during, and after the “saturation zone,” and also help to explain whether “accelerated mass” may yield propulsion.
Potential contenders for the needed “factor” may be ratios of velocities, of momentums, of accelerations, of forces, of “J” etc. These ratios should be very small (or large) when the flywheel is just starting to spin because at that point precession is equal to zero. The “factor” should change in magnitude as the flywheel speeds up (provided that the system maintains the same rate of rotation). At some point the “factor” should becomes a value that in some manner stops affecting the rest of the traditional equation.
As the effect of the flywheel’s faster spin upon the “factor” becomes of greater magnitude than the system’s contribution to the “factor,” this change in the balance should in some way affect the rest of the equation so that the rate of precession will continue to decrease in velocity (as gyros do when the flywheel spins faster). In short, the new “factor” must have a dynamic nature that accommodates all the phenomena when combined with the traditional precession equations.
This ratio to the “factor” needs to dissipate or max-out as the velocity increases therefore accelerations or “J” may be appropriate. However it is important to consider whether to use an acceleration that represents the changing angular velocity of the flywheel, or the centripetal acceleration of the flywheel. Similarly one needs to consider if to use “J” in regards to the rate of change in acceleration of the flywheel’s spin, or the rate of change in centripetal acceleration. The speculation and questions presented are intended to stimulate thinking on how to scientifically explain what appears to have been observed in experiments mentioned in this forum.
Bringing scientific rigor to observed phenomena contributes to soundly evolving theory upon which to prescribe coherent design plans. I hope that a more rigorous method will provide a different approach to the manner in which gyro-propulsion experiments are conducted. The natural progression is to start utilizing the theory as it evolves to prove or disprove it at each new step. This requires ingenuity in building means to test concepts and to evolve the resulting devices. I also believe that the task at hand is quite large for the single individual effort (though not impossible). My inclination is to propose collaborative team efforts.
TEAMS
The gyro propulsion effort has thus far proven to be beyond the capability of individuals; it may be wise to team-up in collaborating groups. The groups/teams can engage in congruent efforts and contribute complementing components toward the completion of a lager goal in the design. The leading team can coordinate all the team efforts to produce families of completed prototypes (not just one prototype).
Some of the teams will build components that may be interchangeable among multiple designs. The coordination team will endeavor to request components that may be used by as many of the designs as is possible and practical.
All the teams contributing to a successful design can share in the fruits that it may bear. Each independent team can determine its membership and the proportional worth of what each individual contributes. Teams that contribute only to non-successful designs can get consolation benefits such as some credit and potentially jobs in the new industry.
I propose that interested parties should post their interest, skills, the type of project that wish to contribute in, the type effort they want to make, and the type of contribution they want to make. WE CAN START POSTINGS AS RESPONSES TO THIS THREAD.
USING COMPONENTS
I also want to propose the use of interchangeable components and modules in pursuing devices that can produce gyro propulsion to allow more flexibility of design within a given set of parameters. The degree of flexibility introduced by interchangeable components can permit teams to build and experiment with multiple designs at a lower cost and effort than if each of the designs were to be built independently.
An initial list of components and modules may include:
Gyro-flywheel units with a frame that can be mounted on an interface frame and that can be motor driven.
Thruster components on which to mount the gyro-flywheel component, motor, power source, and control in a lightweight frame that can be used to allow (or not) various degrees of freedom in movement via hinges or bearings on the opposed end from where the flywheel is housed.
A thruster-housing component on which to mount the thruster components providing the necessary degrees of freedom and permitting for application of radial acceleration through a larger motor, and permitting installation of other peripheral components. The thruster-housing can provide a way to down-thrust the thruster component on a forceful downward direction when a specific design calls for such action.
Main device frame component on which to mount and integrate the thruster-housing, main driving motor and peripheral components.
Additional components can, and have evolved; some are currently confidential until it is necessary to share in collaboration.
This is what I propose, any other suggestions? Or maybe we should all work on our own hoping to save enough money to buy services with skills that may complement ours. Thoughts are welcome.
Thank you, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 23/11/2005 14:12:28
| | | Dear Luis,
You have restored my faith in human nature.
I was beginning to think all my work and postings had been in vain.
I have pursued this quest for about 40 years and hoped that some of my findings would rub off, or at least save some others years of fruitless toil.
It only takes one experiment to prove my findings right or wrong. The experiment will not disappoint you.
1 I have found different methods of producing inertial thrust.
This now leads me to believe there could be many ways of utilising gyroscopes to produce inertial thrust. I have discovered a couple of different methods and both were by accident. Both were from surprising sources, but in the end quite logical.
I have no doubt much better ways of skinning the cat will be found and developed.
If you satisfy yourself that my findings relating to accelerated systems are correct then you are 90% of the way there.
2 Your observations were correct Luis in as much that I have been able to study accelerated systems from zero gyroscope rotation all the way to saturation, and at any machine rotation speed. This one cannot do with a passive system.
To achieve this I used independent inputs, one for gyroscope rotation and one for system / machine rotation.
Gyroscope rotation speed from zero rpm to around 10,000 rpm
System / machine rotation speed from zero rpm to around 500 rpm
The gyroscope diameter was chosen to suit the test parameters.
For the sake of interest may I add, that in order to avoid time-limited runs which tend to be foist upon us, I used in my best set up, 2 off ASP 36H, 2 stroke model helicopter engines, with clutches, cooling fans and ducts with suitable drop gears for speed reduction, and large tanks which allowed me to run them for 30 minutes a time. The engines were supplied several years ago by “Just Engines” whose prices and delivery were simply the best. I have run these engines for thousands of hours with no problems and no apparent wear.
As a matter of interest, in recent months I have purchased 3 off, 4 stroke engines of varying capacities, by ASP and again supplied by “Just Engines”. Same quality, same delivery, best price. So their quality of service has not changed.
I hasten to add that both motors were radio controlled for sheer ease of operation.
I am not sure which method you propose to utilise to drive your gyroscopes, but I have found that a miniature custom built bevel gearbox is a prerequisite for gyroscope common drive and synchronisation This of course is fitted with universal output couplings and dog-bone drive-shafts, which are easily acquired model racing car accessories.
I have searched for a manufacturer of miniature bevel /mitre gearboxes, but ended up having to make them myself. They are my most valuable asset, and the single most important part of my machines. All that is required for scientific proof, is a handful of strain gauges, a set of slip rings, and a scope/ recorder/ whatever.
3 I have read the Stine/Davis papers relating to rate of onset, phase shift etc, and there is no doubt there is something there, but how you use it to advantage could be problematic. I, once corresponded with Harry, who sent me the papers, alas now deceased.
4 Your idea of a team would certainly share the load, as this is a lot for one person to take on. How you direct it, control it etc could be a bit tricky. Most inventors / developers want to go their own way and do their own thing. I include myself in that respect.
A fair bit of strength and diplomacy could be needed methinks.
Best of luck and thank you Luis
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 11/12/2005 02:46:56
| | | Sandy,
Expecting inventors/designers/developers to cooperate in teamwork may appear difficult at first glance mainly because the types, extent, and benefits of cooperation are not appropriately defined. You prefer to go your own way (not a team inventor), but still provided me (through this forum) with a degree of detail about results from your accelerated experiments and give me (through this public forum) very useful mechanical advice on off-the-shelf and custom-made components. I call this cooperation (at the right degree for you), and it is you Sandy who have restored my faith in human nature!
I have opinions (hopefully insightful) about your accelerated design method regarding its apparent reliance on sustained “accelerated mass.”
What you refer to as “accelerated mass” is more plentiful under the following basic conditions a) the flywheel has a very low velocity, b) the radius of the system is very large, and c) the radius of the flywheel is very small (narrow and/or long flywheels are not easily induced to precession).
A slow moving flywheel, and one which is more distant from the pivot-point will resist entering the “saturation zone” and will therefore maintain its “accelerated mass” longer. This insight is derived from the fact that slower precession (higher spin flywheel) is more stable while higher rates of precession (slower spin flywheel) are less stable and tend to fall off the tower. This is an intuitive approach to the insight but I will share the simple physics equations that demonstrate it (in part) if you email me directly. Precession equations can predict the rate of motion, but appear lacking regarding the stability (strength, staying power) of precession. It would be interesting to quantify the factors that limit the upper and lower rates of precession.
In the spirit of cooperation I also have further comments on other variables that strongly appear to contribute an explanation of the “saturation zone.”
First, the downward acceleration vector of gravity must be added to the vector of torque from the motor to reflect the overall torque vector (the effect of G is minor but still exists).
Second and more significant, the angle which the gyro’s axis of spin makes with the system’s axis of rotation is initially at 90 degrees (in your experiment) where centripetal acceleration pulls in line with the solid axle of the gyro and is therefore not (initially) a factor that affects the rate of precession.
As this angle varies from 90 degrees, there is an increase in the effect of centripetal acceleration upon the rate of precession (can you visualize that). As the angle continues to change we need to take into account 1) downward gravity, 2) lateral torque around the main axis of the system from the motor and 3) additional centripetal acceleration upon the hinge of the gyro axle (which is exerted toward the center of the system’s axle). Each of these (three) torques can be seen as inducing precession in different directions; alternatively we can see the net torque as resulting from a combination of the 3 different accelerations.
As the angle formed by both axles varies further from 90 degrees, the centripetal effect on the hinge continues to increasing while the system’s round motion effect on changing the axis of the gyro becomes reduced (because the gyro’s axle is becoming more aligned with the system’s axis of rotation).
Therefore, even though we may think that the toque applied by the system is constant (because the main motor has a constant rate of rotation); it is in fact not true. The total torque is in fact the sum of different factors, some of which are changing as the rate of spin of the flywheel is increasing (and changing the attitude angle of the gyro). It is therefore likely that at some point the ratio of the changing torque to the changing momentum of the flywheel may in fact create a zone where the gyro appears to be standing still (the “saturation zone”). As the rate of spin of the flywheel continues to increase, the gyro once again resumes its upward progresses (this time in true precession).
Please evaluate my statements closely before passing judgment and feel free to ask questions for clarification wherever necessary.
Thank you, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 26/12/2005 03:47:47
| | | Alternate propulsion designs:
I call this Sandy’s design but there are similar ones that do not appear to be quite as sophisticated.
Gyro-propulsion designs become inertial-propulsion designs when precession is NO LONGER used solely to reposition the flywheel. (Different designs seek to obtain propulsion by thrusting down the flywheel later in the cycle, attempting to utilize the equal and opposite reaction).
Inertial-propulsion does not try to obtain propulsion from a “Newtonian reaction!” Inertial-propulsion rather opts to use the behavior of a gyro configuration (well before the flywheel achieves sufficient spin to have self-sustained precession), to create an upward “momentum” at 90 degrees (similar to precession but before it is self-sustained precession). This upward motion by itself produces no effect, until it is met by a stop-component which absorbs the upward momentum of the flywheel and thus converts it to upward acceleration.
It is important that the flywheel is spinning well below the “saturation zone” (and maybe as far from it as possible) so that it can respond (upward) with high momentum. This relatively low angular velocity of the flywheel is important because at higher spin velocity (in or after the “saturation zone”) self-sustained precession is dominant and the flywheel will no longer responds with a type of upward motion that has momentum and when stopped will convert into directed acceleration. Note that interfering with the path of self-sustained precession only causes precession to change direction shedding little or no acceleration to the object it has encountered. (Most of the momentum of self-sustained precession is kept by the flywheel and carried on to the new direction of precession.) At a low spin velocity, which can NOT sustain precession, the flywheel will respond at 90 degrees to a torque within a system that has an appropriate configuration, yet it will readily transfer part of its momentum to an object that it encounters in its path; this is where. I think that, Sandy’s design hopes to obtain the necessary thrust.
From a crude point of view, we are trying to toss the momentum of the flywheel upward so that it strikes a component just above it (the flywheel need only travel a very short distance) effecting the greatest possible conversion from momentum of the flywheel to acceleration and therefore upward force of the device as a whole. The first point to consider is how that flywheel is tossed upward.
The conversion of momentum to acceleration is more effective when the flywheel is spinning slowly (well before “saturation zone”) as it strikes the component above. Inversely, the conversion is inefficient if the flywheel were spinning fast when it strikes the component above; a higher spin can provide self-sustained precession with a higher propensity to respond with yet another change in the direction of precession (again at 90 degrees). Also, if moving in self-sustained precession, the striking motion of the flywheel will be slower (even though it is spinning faster) possibly producing a reduced effect toward acceleration.
This is how I envision the function of this type of design: Initially the flywheel is not spinning at all while the system is revolving very fast. Then a very fast rate of change in spin is infused for a very short time span into the flywheel, using “J” or a higher order derivative, so that the wheel is quickly kicked upward for a very short distance (at the latter part of that short distance the spinning motive force is removed from the flywheel and the spin rate reduced). Then the fast upward-traveling flywheel strikes the component above, transferring the wheel’s momentum to that component (which is designed to stop the wheel’s upward motion); this causes both the device and the flywheel to bounce off from each other in opposite directions.
The flywheel has now very little spin and is being returned back to its original position by two effects: First by bouncing from the component above or the frame of the device (part of the energy/momentum is transferred to the above stop-component and on to the frame of the device, minus gravity factored in). Second, by the strong centrifugal action of the system that has continued rotating very fast. The centrifuge is effective in returning the flywheel because it is strong enough to overpower the flywheel’s spin effects which are now very week.
To obtain maximum upward momentum, the flywheel needs to be spun with the greatest possible increase in angular “acceleration,” in the shortest possible time increment. This can not be accomplished by applying a simple torque (which has simple angular acceleration). What is required is a force of higher order such as “J” or higher order derivatives that may be delivered with the right components and the right design.
A question remains to be answered whether the final stop of the flywheel’s return trip will cause a similar effect as “up-like-a-gyro, down-like-a-rock.” After all the momentum transferred to the device should be equal to the momentum of the returning flywheel. Some designs attempt to mitigate this counter-effect by pulling the flywheel in, closer to the system’s center of rotation (on the way down). However this does not effectively resolve the issue because the momentum is absorbed in one form or another creating the same net effect.
The solution comes from an unexpected and not too deeply explored place. In this design, the challenge is to achieve a differential between the momentum transferred to the frame of the device, and the momentum of the downward returning flywheel (it is the same solution required by the design that seeks to obtain propulsion from the downward thrust of a gyro and the solution is in the proper use of “J”). How can we obtain maximum flywheel momentum at the point where it strikes the component above, and in effect transfer to that component more of the momentum than that which the flywheel has when it finally reaches its lowest-most position? Alternatively (or additionally), is there a way to diffuse the momentum of the flywheel during the trip from its uppermost position to its lower-most position?
Note, have we successfully INCREASED the momentum of the flywheel during its trip from its initial position to the point where it strikes the component above? If yes, shouldn’t we be able to employ the reverse effect (REDUCE the momentum) on the way down?
Reiterating the key questions - Can we effectively increase the upward momentum of the flywheel as it travels upward (before it meets the stop-component)? Inversely, can we decrease such momentum as it travels downward (before it fully stops)? How can this be done? In my opinion the answer is, by using “J” and higher order derivatives at the right times and places of the cycle.
Does precession have momentum? Laithawaite thought not!
What technique will yield precession with momentum and/or acceleration? When should precession without momentum be used? When should precession with momentum and/or acceleration be used? Most of the answer have been presented in this forum; all you need do is read what I and others have contributed (not that much) and you will find it.
If you are interested in collaborating, please POST in THIS thread a short note expressing your interest.
Thank you, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
