|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
12 May 2024 16:13
|
|
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: |
Glenn Hawkins |
| Subject: |
Gyroscopes do not defy gravity. |
| Question: |
The ‘Antigravity News’ claims are misleading and bring ridicule and deservedly and correctly so upon our little society. Antigravity would be the elimination of the effects of gravity. Today this is beyond technology and reasonable theory. It may in fact have always been only an imposable dream for the future, science fiction. But, if and when in man's questionable future antigravity should become a true possibility it wouldn’t owe to gyroscopic phenomena in its purest sense.
What gyroscopes are capable of is producing measurable force against the pull of gravity even to the extent they can be made to accelerate upwards overcoming the force of gravity all together. During even the simplest experiments the gyro can be seen as performing the action of ‘pulling itself upward. This is a condition of force acting against force and the force of gravity is not lessoned.
It was unfortunate when it was said that a gyro could be made to appear to weigh less. ‘Appear’ of course is correct, but the mire mention of ‘weigh less’ was most damning. It has also been profoundly misleading to the future mindset of some of his followers. Had Professor Liftwate said instead that the gyroscope can be made to thrust itself upwards he would still have been rejected, but he would have been right.
Forget about gyroscopic antigravity and concentrate on thrust.
|
| Date: |
11 November 2005
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 14/11/2005 07:48:14
| | | Dear Glenn, but not specifically Glenn.
I do agree that gyroscopes do not defy gravity, however with reference to your last paragraph, I am a little bit concerned with the comments you made about the apparent loss of weight. They tend to be misleading, if not totally incorrect.
The only way a gyroscope can “climb” is by transferring (losing) its weight, and in an accelerated system this is what causes the loss of accelerated mass, centrifugal force, angular momentum, whatever.
A gyroscope just does not have the ability to accelerate itself vertically against hundreds of pounds of accelerated mass.
Only by losing (transferring) its weight to react down through the axis of system rotation can accelerated mass be nullified.
In a passive system which is precessing or in an accelerated system at what I call saturation ( I shall say it once more, there is no precession in an accelerated system) there is neither weight, nor angular momentum available at the gyroscope.
Laithwaite’s said that there was loss of weight at the gyroscope.
This was in fact correct. It did get lighter, and this had nothing at all to do with upward thrust.
The problem may have been in the way he said it, or what his claim implied.
The weight had been transferred, consequently the system weighed the same.
I do not honestly think that Eric Laithwaite believed the whole thing got lighter.
The whole thing, in this case, being Eric Laithwaite and the gyroscope.
There and then again, maybe he did.
He also claimed that there was loss of centrifugal force, which implies loss of angular momentum, this again was correct.
Nobody mentioned that, or chastised him for it.
Would someone else just carry out this simplest of experiments and put this controversial topic to bed once and for all.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/11/2005 20:31:15
| | | Dear Sandy,
Thank you for replying and so intelligently too. I will try to respond one day with a better explanation. For now the crux of this beginning post was that a gyroscope is empowered with the energy that enables it to be manipulated into lifting itself up against the pull of gravity. Gravity’s grip never vanishes, never relinquishes, but thrust overcomes gravity. That’s about it. It never weighs less as you also state.
As to the rest of your reply you are pretty sharp to guess at the subject and thoughts behind my words, though they weren’t stated.
I find that professor Liftwate came to several profound misconceptions. To the best of my recollection, not once did he attempt to explain ‘why’ a gyro behaves the way it does. That is, what are the conditions of cause and effect? How does it work? He was a demonstrator, lecturer, an inventor and more, but not much of a mechanical theorist. He guessed at what was happening without understanding the mechanical sequence taking place. The visual appearances and end-result measurements gave the illusion that some of the most absolute conditions in nature were not occurring as they should. However, it was the very presents of these absolute conditions that caused his gyro to act the way it did. I speak of inertia, momentum and centrifuge. Nature can never disallow them as certain reactions occurring under certain conditions, nor refuse their effect to be transmitted in a perfectly exacting way, but their existence and effect can be totally hidden from human reason and understanding to the point they appear to be unnaturally altered, or missing. The professor was incredibly wrong. The mechanics of nature (not the physics of man so much) are never ever wrong. Under the same given conditions, they will always act the same way.
He said: “…Does not appear.” and as to final events he said, “…Does not exhibit.” Notice he carefully avoided making a definitive statement of a fact. He knew he did not know the ‘how’ of it all. He even playfully toyed, somewhat jokingly with the word magical rather than use the word mechanical.
The closest to mechanical he came was to introduce a rimless wheel made of bendable spring wires weighted on the ends. Here is the problem with that. The wheel was restrained so that it could only produce gimbals precession, where the center of mass remains in the same space. We remember how the spring wheel acted. But what his and our work is all about is a gyro extended by an arm to form a precession axes, which in the case of action is orbital precession. Orbital precession is what we are all about and that is so different from gimbals-like precession, which was the only thing demonstrated
Suppose on his spring wheel an axel had been added and orbital precession issued. Now suppose a camera had been mounted on the same center post and followed the precessing spring wheel around and around the post. When that film were shown on your TV you would see something very different than you did on the film of Professor Liftwate’s gimbals-like experiment. You would see true mechanical events taking place in the area of your study. Yes I know. The spring wheel would not behaved exactly like a solid spoke wheel, but it would behaved close enough for you to see what was happening. This image would be the beginning of knowledge and from there on it would be a difficult series of invisible events to find and follow and also require methods allowing you to know your issuing mechanics from that would be facts. It is a long hard road to travel and nobody has yet reached the end and this we may know because sustained thrust hasn’t been proven. It will not be proven for one and a half, to two years.
This was the closest the Professor ever came to explaining ‘why’. That was not his way and that is why he made mistaken assumption. What’a I think of him? He was mortal of course, therefore capable of error and he was locked in a battle of trying to understand one of the most proven to be difficult areas in science. (Simple? Look at our continuing arguments here after decades and we are the experts! Oh yes, we are the experts.) He was our best. I liked him, admired him and still respect him most of all. He was such a sweet, tough, defiant and brilliant man. I wish we could have had many brews together in one of his favorite pubs and talked not of science, but only of cabbages and kings and sweet, magical things.
You and I, Sandy, could have a fun too. I’ve seen your picture. We’d be a handsome pair of older obstinate mates. We could talk of the most recent happy batch of Ginus, American football? No you say? Well, anything at all then, but not gyros. We wouldn’t want to risk an eventual beer mug throwing fight. But now, as the night wore on we might find someone older, weaker, unprotected and particularly far drunker than we. He might become a fun target. I understand the police don’t carry guns over there, an outstanding advantage for we happy few, yes? What are they called? bobbies, or are bobbies girls on bicycles two by two? Never mind. You can tell me soon after I receive the ticket. Well, maybe we’ll just have fun. I won’t cause trouble if you won’t. By the way, if we should by chance happen upon a truly refined English gentleman in the pubs, how do you’ll go about determining he’s actually male? For instance, what about the legendary Terry Thomas? How did you know… for sure? Anybody can glue on a mustache and hacksaw a gap between their teeth. That doesn’t prove anything. Just kidding a little. Don’t get mad. I’m not mean.
Actually, my coloring, shape and name being what it is I seem to have somehow landed on the wrong continent anyway. Anyway, after so much mutual aid and mutual respect of our fathers toward one another during the big war, and jokes aside then and now, and today’s wrong war not counting, how could we deep down inside be anything less than friends.
Let’s bring Nitro, Victor, Luis, Eric, Momentus, and who else? Glenn T. Who else? Which one wrote about his upcoming vacation with his misses? We sure want him. He knows how to plan a party. Wasn’t it Momentus? That was the best post on here. Boy, can that guy write. He made me want to handcuff myself and wife to the back seat of his car and force him to take us along with them. I wonder how the vacation went. We’ll insist he come along with the others if you can just send me the plane ticket.
I believe you often and intend to someday better understand your findings, for I fully believe they have value based on test. Well I’m off to the races. It’s always good to read your mind, which works so well. Don’t forget the ticket.
Someday I hope to be able to explain what the heck I talking about. I won’t be received well by any of you, because most of what is believed now is wrong and people would literally fight you rather than change their mind over something as frivolous, meaningless and troublesome as mere proof.
Glenn Hawkins,
A reminder of the main theme of the beginning post: “Forget about gyroscopic antigravity and concentrate on thrust.”
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 15/11/2005 07:57:39
| | | Hello again Glenn,
I am dreadfully sorry to have to correct you once again, but sustained inertial thrust was first achieved, but more importantly scientifically proved around 20 years ago.
The laboratory tests were carried out on 2 different machines several weeks apart.
However, please do not consider that a laboratory test from a high profile institution ends the quest, on the contrary, many highly qualified physicists and mathematicians refused point blank to even read the report.
It is such a fundamental issue they would rather not get themselves involved.
“Utter garbage” to my face was the comment from one.
Why do you think I am still pursuing the thing?
I would have given this up years ago if I did not know that it can and will be done.
I now think I am in the position where I can demonstrate a device which will display enough inertial thrust to silence the non believers.
My problem right now is choosing a path / venue which will demonstrate inertial thrust in such a manner that it will not be ignored, and will force answers from the custodians of all knowledge.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/11/2005 07:34:24
| | | Hi again Mr. Kid,
Ah, come on, Sandy. You’re correcting me again? Very well, let’s examine the level of authority you’ve offered. The subject is your accomplishment, and in support of the validity of that you’ve given me your word, supported by a report. Do you have something more, perhaps something current, something moderately accepted by a few? It’s tough being a corrector of men isn’t it. The criteria some of them set for themselves, as a necessary requirement for proof is sometimes higher than we wish it were. You particularly are aware of that.
One must use the words, ‘correcting you’, more carefully. Before I accept your correction as to what I should accept as an absolute truth, I require more authority than you’ve offered.
I stand uncorrected. Sustained thrust has never been proven to the world.
There are many ways to get your point across without saying you must correct someone again, and “Dreadfully sorry.” doesn’t do it for me. I could have been nasty. Maybe I’ll have something consolatory to say after I see how this is received.
Glenn H.,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 20/11/2005 03:42:12
| | | OK. The long postponed simple explanation: The greater the angler momentum, the more a rotating wheel will resist being tilted. Tilting occurs when the wheel is forced to follow a vertical curving path.
The pluses and stars below represent the direction of resistance as the gyro falls into its curving path. Imagine if the directions of resistance were the directions of the wheel being pulled. From there you can realize that a torque, the causes invisible to the eye, is forcing the axel of the gyro down upon the pedestal. The condition is really only an example of common leverage.
AN IMPORTANT DESTINCTION:
NO TORQUE, OR COUPLE OCCURE HORROZONALLY DURING PRECESSION.
> >>
+
+
+
+
+
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxx XX
xxxx XXX
xxxx XXX
xxxx XXXX
xxxx X XXXXXXXX
xxxx
xxxx
+ +
+
+ +
<<<
The gyro would fall straight into gravity, but the pedestal forces it to tilt. If you could somehow magically remove the mater-gravity connection (weight) of the gyro and place it directly on top of the pedestal it wouldn’t be possible for gravity to force a tilt. Nothing would happen. Everything would be still. It would be the same as if you placed the gyro on top of the pedestal. You’d just have a vertical balance one upon the other.
If your force the gyro to precess very fast around a pole the gyro will lift very fast. Explaining why that happens is yet another explanation. For now it is enough to know that when a precession orbit is twisted very fast around a pole an upward thrust occurs very fast. Torque can become many times stronger than gravity, or rather many times greater than the weight of the gyro. Constant weight can’t explain this, but increased torque can.
The gyro can’t transfer its weight. That’s impossible. If you draw a straight lined, vertically down through a gyro that will always be the direction of weight.
What is really transferred to the pedestal through invisible leverage magnesiums is the invisible inertial resistance to tilt.
I think Victor may understand.
Glenn H.,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 20/11/2005 03:46:13
| | | The drawing fouled up when I posted. Oh, to heck with it then. Its not as if it were important or something. It's not to me.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 22/11/2005 11:33:34
| | | Glen,
Refer. your statement we shall call 1.
“If your force the gyro to precess very fast around a pole the gyro will lift very fast.”
I must assume from this statement you are describing an accelerated system.
Refer. your statement we shall call 2.
“The gyro can’t transfer its weight. That’s impossible. If you draw a straight lined, vertically down through a gyro that will always be the direction of weight.”
I take it that statement 2 also refers to an accelerated system.
You conveniently omitted angular momentum / centrifugal force from your statement.
If the weight is still there to be accelerated, as a consequence, there will be angular momentum and centrifugal force.
Back to statement 1: By “will lift very fast” I assume you mean that in this case the gyroscope has been accelerated somewhat above the horizontal?
If the weight is present as you claim, along with angular momentum and centrifugal force, at an inclination of, for instance, 45 degrees above the horizontal, the vertical component of the system should be equal to the horizontal component (centrifugal force) generated in the system.
If you were right in your assumption that gyroscopic weight was always present you would have, just designed, an extremely powerful inertial drive machine?
Unfortunately this is just not the case.
With gyroscopes, things are never quite so simple.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/11/2005 20:58:10
| | | Dear Sandy,
I’m so very pleased to hear from you. I was worried that you might think I didn’t respect the experiments you did, the work you do and the opinions and beliefs you have. Of course I do.
I think I should close down somewhat until time is right for me. I haven’t as yet related much that can be of any use to anybody, very little, but I’ve said enough.
It will be interesting to see how you are torturing meddle these days. What’ve you come up with this time? Secrecy? Never mind. I can wait ‘til your ready.
If I should happen to look up one day in the future and see the strangest looking glob of whirling mettle hovering over my house, I’ll figure that its you come to explain to me everything in person. Wouldn’t that be fine?
So long for now,
Glenn H.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
