Question |
| Asked by: |
Ryan Chappell |
| Subject: |
New Idea |
| Question: |
I have an idea for gyroscopic propulsion that I have not seen anywhere else. This design does not actually have an overall net force to propel itself (in which it would continue forward unless acted upon) but resembles more of a wobble in one direction. The design uses precession and centripetal force separately to jump its way forward one step at a time. I have drawn a flash animation to help explain my idea. If anyone is interested please feel free to email me at rwchappell@gmail.com and I will send you the animation. I would like to know if this idea could work or not. Any comments would be appreciated. |
| Date: |
19 November 2005
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 21/11/2005 09:11:13
|
| | Ryan,
All I get from the address is ‘Gimal’, sign in, pass word. (?)
G.H.,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ryan Chappell - 21/11/2005 18:28:43
|
| | Glenn Hawkins,
I am not sure of the problem you had with my email address. I tried sending the animation to your Comcast.com address but it failed. Send me your email address and I will send you the animation. Sorry for the difficulty but I don’t know how to post an animation
Email: rwchappell@gmail.com
This animation shows how I image the project to work and not actual behavior results, because of this there may be some errors in the design which I don’t know of. This is where I need your help.
The design has two gyroscopes that are attached to arms which move similar to oars would in a boat. On the back stroke (or the centripetal force stroke as I labeled it in the animation) the gyros are being rotated in the same plane as the spinning mass so there will not be any forces of precession acting through the gyros. The gyros will act like dead mass and since we are shifting dead mass back the base will move forward. Keep in mind that the movement of the base has nothing to do with the movement of the unit as a whole, because the Center of Mass (CM) does not move. Now on the forward stroke (precession stroke) the gyros are rotated to a position that with allow precession to move them back to their starting position. Because we are using precession to carry the mass of the gyros back to the front of the base the base itself should not move. The gyros will be rotating about their Center of Torque (CT) not the Center of Mass. Once the gyros are back in their starting position the cycle starts over.
If you still have trouble let me know.
Thanks for your time
-Ryan Chappell
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 21/11/2005 21:16:20
|
| | I tried to send this by email and failed again.
My address is, ehawkins 32@ comcast.net
Hi Ryan,
It’s good you have animation. Those are far better, if not sometimes absolutely necessary to present motion mechanics. So much curving motion is hard to present and harder still to perceive than anything I know of. Your idea is more interesting and less unreasonable than usual, the little I grasp of it. I hope I’ll be able to help a little.
Before we began reconsider that you want my effort at an honest critique. Not counting my work, I’ve never seen one with sustainable thrust and in fact only two that produced a one time thrust.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 25/11/2005 19:17:30
|
| | Dear Ryan Chappell,
Sounds promising, though the only thing an animation will do is show others how to actually make the bloody thing. Are you going to get a simple test rig made? One that tests each stroke ( the gyro-dynamic stroke and the Newtonian stroke) will do you to start with and although the thing should be tested on an air track, that can wait till later. A low friction rolling base will tell you if you are heading along the right path.
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis AE Gonzalez - 03/12/2005 19:42:04
|
| | Ryan, thank you, I saw your design.
There is no disputing that this is a very clever design coming from very intelligent thinking. You have captured the main essence of what Laithewaite’s device set the foundation for and moved it a step forward.
Here are the main challenges facing your design if it is to perform as you hope:
- First, the flywheels need to be repositioned for each stroke. This is a lesser chaleenge because additional components may be used to accomplish that task (though the added mass will affect the performance, possibly in unexpected ways).
- Second and most important, as you are aware, even though the device moves forward it stops at the end of each Centripetal Force Stroke (your graphs labeled “Speed” and “Acceleration” may confuse the fact that they really display distance and speed respectively) .
This is a classical “Up-like-a-gyro Down-like-a-rock” (Precession / Centripetal) model and an excellent one once you resolve the repositioning of the flywheels (unless you already have and I did not see it). The main difference is that this device is sideways and stars with the precession stroke.
The remaining challenge in this technology is to produce a device that can yield speed that is not brought to a stop at each cycle. Once this is accomplished then you can apply each stroke to increase the velocity and achieve intermittent acceleration instead of just intermittent velocity. Does this make sense to you?
Overcoming this main challenge is the key to making gyro-propulsion effective for space travel. A craft that moves only one step at a time at a relatively slow pace will not serve to cross great distances. What is needed is a device that can continuously increment its velocity (no matter how small) over the entire or most of the duration of the travel time because it can then achieve the extraordinary velocities needed to cross great distances in space.
Thank you, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
