|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
23 November 2024 18:06
|
|
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: |
Freeman |
| Subject: |
About Heretic video and the amazing 8th minute |
| Question: |
I saw the video "Heretic" of this interesting web site many months ago (in the first week of October 2005 if my memory serves me well). As the professor Laithwaite, I was just amused when Alex Jones turned on his weird invention and when he let the gyroscope to do the pendulum movement, that vehicle moved without any external force applied to it !!! What the hell was happening?? Since I saw it, there's no week I remember this video and start to think a good reason of this movement: I am a mechanical engineer I don't have any good explanation to this.
I've been carrying an extensive internet search about what I call the Jones-Laithwaite experiment and there are some short texts where it is remarked this invention, but in none of them explains what happened with this device, if Laithwaite or anybody found any explanation to this event.
My 2 question are as simple as these: has anybody explained this "effect" with the Newton's laws of motion? And has anybody ever reproduced this device and showed this effect again?
I think I will try to build the "Jone's device" in summer, because I cannot believe it not even seeing it in the video xD! It has to be any explanation to this, otherwise there's something wrong to Newton's law of motion, as simple and "demolishing" as this.
Thanks to all and to the admin, to let people to see these great videos, specially the BBC ones.
Regards, Freeman |
| Date: |
18 March 2006
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
stef - 02/08/2006 08:31:24
| | | Firstly, I am very new to all of this so don't be too hard on me if you think I'm wrong. It seems to me that the Jones device is basically the same thing as the kid holding the large gyro while strapped to a turnatable. Notice, Jones has to lift the arm and let the contraption fall under it's own weight causing the gyro to precess for the duration that the arm is falling. I'm guessing that the way the gyro and arm are situated in relation to the wheels, and the duration of the precession (the short drop of the arm) produces an impulse force in an arc with an average tangent force in the direction of the wheels. Don't you think if this car were put on a turntable, it would rotate a little?
I keep wondering why Jones never added some sort of automatic raising device for the arm to sustain motion.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Freeman - 02/08/2006 20:05:57
| | | Firstly, I am very new to all of this so don't be too hard on me if you think I'm wrong. It seems to me that the Jones device is basically the same thing as the kid holding the large gyro while strapped to a turnatable. Notice, Jones has to lift the arm and let the contraption fall under it's own weight causing the gyro to precess for the duration that the arm is falling. I'm guessing that the way the gyro and arm are situated in relation to the wheels, and the duration of the precession (the short drop of the arm) produces an impulse force in an arc with an average tangent force in the direction of the wheels. Don't you think if this car were put on a turntable, it would rotate a little?
I keep wondering why Jones never added some sort of automatic raising device for the arm to sustain motion.
First of all, wellcome to the forum, stef.
Well, I understand what you are talking about: you mean that the tangential component of the precession creates an impulse force to the device. You are right! But there is a problem with this: Newton said that for every force applied to a body there is an opposite force, otherwise the body would accelerate, but where does the impulse force of Jone's device come from?
In a road car, the wheels "pushes" the ground and so, the ground pushes the car; in rockets, the ejection of mass makes an opposite reaction (the impulse of the rocket)... but in Jone's device nothing pushes it ! This tangential force that you are referreing to should be compensated by another one, but it is not: I think this is the question...
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
stef - 03/08/2006 05:29:58
| | | "This tangential force that you are referreing to should be compensated by another one, but it is not: I think this is the question..."
I think the compensating factor here is the car moving forward. You said you're an ME so I trust you have some dynamics textbooks laying around. Namely, principles of impulse and momentum. Remember in dynamics, the problems that had a cart on wheels with a pendulum suspended from the top of the cart. Same idea here. The cart with a pendulum would want to oscillate, the jones cart does not because the gyro only produces the precessional impulse while its falling down quickly. I suspect if the gyro arm were raised up quickly, the car would move backwards. The axis of precession is normal to the spin axis and applied torque axis. (i,j,k). The whole contraption seems to be set up just right that the precessional torque acts the same as the pendulum on the cart. Except force wise, it would be as if you were catching the pendulum right after it hit the top of it's swing. I can see this best by actually starting a gyro, holding both spin axis pins and quickly rotating it. The precesional torque is astounding. Again, engineering books are far more useful then physics books here IMO.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Freeman - 03/08/2006 19:35:46
| | | " I suspect if the gyro arm were raised up quickly, the car would move backwards. The axis of precession is normal to the spin axis and applied torque axis. (i,j,k). The whole contraption seems to be set up just right that the precessional torque acts the same as the pendulum on the cart. Except force wise, it would be as if you were catching the pendulum right after it hit the top of it's swing. I can see this best by actually starting a gyro, holding both spin axis pins and quickly rotating it. The precesional torque is astounding. Again, engineering books are far more useful then physics books here IMO."
You went to the point. I also believe (and it can be demonstrated) that a rotation in the opposite way that Jones shows will make the device to move backwards. And when you say that the compensating factor of the tangential component of the impulse made by the precession is the acceleration of the car I want to agree with you, but then a question comes to me allways: this precession makes a momentum in the arm and that's why it raises... with your last reply I have understood that this momentum is converted into a linear force: is this more or less what you wanted to tell me or I have understand you wrong?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
stef - 03/08/2006 22:54:09
| | | "but then a question comes to me allways: this precession makes a momentum in the arm and that's why it raises... with your last reply I have understood that this momentum is converted into a linear force: is this more or less what you wanted to tell me or I have understand you wrong?"
Yes, I think we're on the same page here. When Jones lifts the arm and then lets it go, it falls for a split-second under it's own weight until the acceleration is enough to precess the gyro and then the gyro takes over still consuming the potential energy but in the form of precessional impulse until it stabilizes. If you hang a gyro from your ceiling, start it up, pinch the string off at 10"(to shorten the period) and raise the gyro and then let it fall...it acts the same way. At most points the gyro will resist the oscillatory nature of the pendulum swing, and stabilize. The other thing is, check out the size and visual girth of Jones gyro compared to the cart itself. It looks as if that gyro would tip the whole cart over if things were misaligned.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 21/08/2006 10:02:34
| | | Self & Freeman,
Good job and I agree. I’m glad to see the Jones experiment taken up. Jones cheated a lot and if you care to run the video backward and forward as much as you need you can catch him. Much of the following you already know.
Jones held the device with his right hand while he lifted the gyro with his left. Had he not held the device it would have moved backward as you say and about half the length of the lever and stopped dead still.
When Jones released the gyro with his left hand he pushed the device with his right hand. This is most obvious in his first try. Had he not pushed it, the device would have moved forward about half of the length of the lever and stopped dead still.
Professor Liftwate clamed to have hung a gyro attached to a lever over the side of a toy train and that the gyro powered the train on a circular track. If memory serves me, he also claimed that the curvature of the track could be exceedingly slight. I believe him. I am sure that the lever, axel if you like, would be allowed to curve vertically downward, but not curve horizontally. I further believe, but am not at all certain, that the train would be moved in the opposite direction of precession. There are reasons for my uncertainty of course. I wish I knew. The dig against the Professor’s train is that it only moved in a circle, but it’s how you look at it. If you draw a radius through the track you can conceive the departure and arrival points of the train, as ultimately a linear distance having been transversed. Although it is different, I can somewhat relate this experiment to the Jones experiment.
Back to the Jones experiment. Except for the linear direction on the track the condision is not unlike the simplest form of a gyro precessing about a pedestal. There is no rearward reaction and the linear distance and direction of a radius is again transversed. Matter has been moved forward, yet there was no opposite and equal reaction rearward. Why this is so creates major discussions here and many attempts to explain the why and how of precession, yet no explanation has been accepted by all. In effect, you two are striving to understand precession like the rest of us.
Back to Jones again for a bit of trivia. Someone here said the poor fellow was an alcoholic. Did you watch the nervousness of his hands? They were jerking to and from everywhere, perhaps not only from trickery and deceit. I once observed a distant family relation, an alcoholic, on the morning after a big night of it. He could not light a cigarette. Teasing him I ask, are you a nervous this morning? He said, I’m not nervous. I’m just quick as hell. Maybe Jones was just quick, but whatever he sure was a cheat.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Freeman - 22/08/2006 22:24:27
| | | Thanks for your very interesting comments on the experiment Glenn... ARGH, if all you said above is true, I will have a GREAT deception on that BBC video: I cannot believe that Laithwaite let Jones to cheat about such a thing like that. Jones experiment was the "ignition" that drove Laithwaite to spend his next 10 or more years researching on gyroscopic propulsion: do you really think Laithwaite would have started all his research from a (GREAT) lie? I WANT to believe he didn't... But the "bad feeling" is still there and at the end my mind tends to say me there's something "weird" with the experiment.
I posted here some months ago exposing my intention to build another Jone's device. I don't have enough tools to make it on my own and I don't want to convert my little flat in a garage. Despite this, I have experience on ADAMS, a computer numerical simulator of physics: in my free time I am trying to reproduce with CAD (CATIA) Jones' device. When I finish, I will set up the problem in the numerical simulator and run it. It should reproduce the movements seen in the video. If not, we have two options:
1. Jones definetely cheat and Laithwaite was a poor ingenuous man.
2. Newton definitely has a BIG problem with his laws... Einstein made the first "kick ass" with his General Relativity Theory to the Newton's laws; Jones and Laithwaite could have made the second if they were have taken more seriously.
Freeman
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/08/2006 14:47:00
| | | Hi Freeman,
Thank you. Good points, right, the professor wasn’t a gullible person, but in so many ways a particularly, extraordinarily competent man. I like him. Concerning the body of his work I’m sure he made a couple of wrong conclusions, but no matter and he was our best by far. I suggest that the professor no doubt eventually understood the experiment completely. I know from evidence he wasn’t prone to speak out against other people’s efforts in researching gyroscopic functions, rather he supported them and made sensible excuses for them. He appeared to be in all ways a nice person, and totally determined of course. He knew that the gyroscope defied the laws of physics, the study of which he certainly understood.
You and I were first mesmerized by the Jones experiment as well as the professor and who wouldn’t be? That Jones cheated doesn’t explain away the ‘wired’ action’. It is still there and still mesmerizing.
Though in truth as I believe, the devise would move only a few inches rearward and forward the force to cause the action was still delivered from a right angle position. Suppose the flywheel were not spinning and a track were added to the body of the device to guide the still flywheel and arm in the same path as when the flywheel were spinning and released. As the still flywheel curved forward, the body of the device would move rearward maintaining the center of gravity. In the experiment when the wheel is spinning and released the body of the device dose not only fail to move rearward, and dose not only remain in place, but also moves forward on the track twice overcoming the consideration of the natural center of gravity positioning. I guess in any event, what you see is what you get, yes ‘weird’.
Considering all, I don’t see how the unnecessary fudging of Jones could lessen your enthusiasm to study the experiment. I hope you go for it. I know as several others know and at least as you suspect if you do not yet know that the laws are compromised.
I will be interested as you go along. I can’t imagine how I could help, but I am here if you need an ear, encouragement, or a suggestion. While I’m at it I want to say that your last post on physics, math and arrows was masterful and compelling.
In ending I should admit that when I realized Jones had cheated in a study I so admire, because of the truth of it all and realized I had been had in that I had believed in the total truth of Jones’ experiment I became angry at him, but no more. I understand the experiment is real, cheating or not.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Freeman - 24/08/2006 20:23:01
| | | Many thanks for your support. Despite all, inside me there's a voice that is saying me every time that this will not work, but I can't avoid it: I'm a dreamer and I usually go for an idea until I see it is impossible or it is done...
Yes, I agree with your explanation about the flywheel without spinning. Some weeks ago I made some extended calculations (by hand) about this machine and even when the gyro is rotating, the mass center must return to its original place, but I'm curious about the simulation by computer.
I don't want to make myself (and nobody) false expectations: the simulation will probably show us what everybody expects (the conservation of the position of the mass center), but I believe it will be nice to see the results. In this screenshot you can see I'm not joking:
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/2553/gyrojx0.jpg
The hard stuff will begin in the set up of the problem in the simulator: I have little experience on it, so be patient: it will take a long time because I have little time to work on it.
Can anyone help me in one thing? In the video, when Jone's is manipulating his machine, laithwaite sais something to him I can't hear with clarity. Is in the minute 8:23 and he starts saying "when you see something like that... .... that shouln'd happen.... and once you think about that....." At the end of Jones' demostration Laithwaite says "that thing ...."
Can you tell me what he really says?
Thanks a lot. Freeman
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/08/2006 21:50:35
| | | Concerning the computer simulation, in retrospect I think images will only do what you direct them to do and if you program each movement with the use of accepted physics to find a result, you will get accepted results. You however, are searching for unacceptable results. If I understand this you must have a physical model and real actions if there is to be the possibility of an unacceptable result found.
As to the inter voice and negative expiations let me interject this: In a simple form I have, and can, move mater a good distance through space without a backdrop of any kind anytime I want to! I’ve kept the detail to myself for thirteen, or fourteen years while I tried to design the best complex machine I could from which to build. Don’t bother to believe me. I wouldn’t believe me, but at least you now have somebody on the planet that swears that he knows the Jones experiment could be very true.
If he’s not cheating why did he bother to hold the thing as he raised the arm. If he was cheating he had to. The fact that he shoved the thing added greatly to the wonder of it. If he had played it true it wouldn’t have been spectacular. Perhaps I wouldn’t have bothered to take a second look at it, nor might have few others.
I will listen to the tape now and get back to you.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/08/2006 00:12:27
| | | http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/2553/gyrojx0.jpg, is a beautiful work. I don’t understand much of it so far. Is that Iron Cad, Rhino, Innovation Suite?
I can’t tell what Professor Liftwate is saying in the space you ask about. I don’t believe it would reveal anything as only a couple of words were devoted to it and they weren’t emphasized and treated with a hint of an explanation. I’m only guessing that it’s unimportant, but I’d put money on the guess.
Reviewing the film I still find Jones infuriates me. He could not keep his hands of the machine and he knew better. HE KNEW BETTER! Even when useing one hand for an instant he is pulling and pushing with his fingertips. I’m sure. Still, I think the machine is working on its own, but more spectacularly with cheating. I guess I’ve beaten this subject to death. That’s all I know about it. Be sure to keep in touch anytime.
Good Luck, Freeman,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Freeman - 26/08/2006 19:26:00
| | | Well, it is true: the computer simulation is restricted to the known (accepted as you say) laws of physics. I only want to make my own experiments with the model and see how it is "really" happening. Probably this "thrust" shown in the video is part of a cyclic movement of the center of mass of the machine: in the simulation (if one day I achieve all the set up of the experiment) I want to impose some boundary conditions. One of them is linear motion, as the machine had to move a railway; the second one is eliminate any friction everywhere. Again, if the model has a movement completely opposite with the video (like to move backwards when the arm rises to keep constant the center of mass ) or something similar), probably this part of the video is all a lie, but I resist myself to thing about that, because laithwaite has more to lose than to win with this demostration: I don't see him supporting a lie like that.
Another way to explain the fact that Jones have one hand on the device is that the arm could be too heavy and the device could tip over if it were released freely: an electric motor of the dimensions shown in the video could make the device unstable in the first moments of the release... but your suspictions are also reasonably: there are moments at the end of the demonstration that he holds the device by the vertical arm, and his hand is nearly impossible to see. Quite suspicious behaviour... but again, I still trust on Laithwaite's fair play and I cannot imagine him leting Jones to cheat in such a serious issue.
The screenshot I showed before is a part of the assembly of the device, made in CATIA V5: the modelling part is quite easy and I'm making it as real as I'm able to see in the video, guessing approximately its dimensions by observing the environment.
Well, thanks for revising again the film: I understand it is quite old and the also noise does not help much too hear what he says. It was only curiosity and my hearing skills on english are not very developed yet :(
Thanks for your interest and support; I will come back here from time to time. Any other comments, suggestions and critics are wellcome.
Regards, Freeman
PD: have you really develop a working "propulsionless" device? Perhaps you should present it to any friend you have which could bring to light the idea to the world's mobility industry...
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 27/08/2006 14:02:51
| | | You're welcome, Freeman. I'm glade we could talk about it and share opinions.
Yes, I have produced IP. Thank you. There is no finished machine. I try. For now let’s concentrate on your project.
Again, wishing you success,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 28/08/2006 11:14:03
| | | Freeman,
http://www.alternativescience.com/eric-laithwaite.htm
Herein the professor explains his reaction to the Jones device. This may in effect answer your question about garbled speech and what he meant.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Freeman - 31/08/2006 20:00:23
| | | Hey, that was a good link: the text is very similar to the Heretic video, thanks for it. Here again we can read that Laithwaite never concludes that Jones machine defied Newton's Laws: he always says (in this text and others i've read) that this device was APPARENTLY a reactionless one. I'm wondering if he said the word 'apparently' only because he didn't now the cause of how it could move as it did (without any drive to its wheels or any external force applied to it) or because he knew something about this device that he wanted to hide to audience... I want to thing that it was because he never wanted to be out of the Newtons laws, but he wanted to believe there was something behind the gyroscopic dynamics.
Well, I have the CAD model complete.
http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/6097/jldeviceoi7.jpg
Now, the hard stuff. I wish I could arrive to something enlightening about this device, I don't mind if good (any thrust is present) or bad (crackpot machine): only the truth and "playing fair" (Newton's laws). Time will tell...
Regards, Freeman
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn H. - 01/09/2006 17:02:53
| | | Yes. “…he never wanted to be out of the Newton’s laws.” How many times can you butcher a professor before he catches on? He was older, and had been forced to learn ‘not to suck eggs’, when a remake of the experiment was filmed.
Will you be able to animate your cad drawings?
Good work!
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 21/09/2006 14:49:50
| | | Freeman, Stef & Glenn,
Noting your comments in relation to the 8th minute, I decided to have a good look at the thing myself for the first time. There is also a story attached to this but I have resisted the temptation to bore you with it.
I had seen it before but I was not too interested in a half cycle machine.
It is a very interesting device, and quite impressive to see in action.
It puts a new slant on radially accelerated systems.
Never thought we would have a gravitationally radially accelerated system, well there you are, there is one.
I think you were being rather unkind to the guy, I do not think he was trying to con anyone.
What really surprises me is that this was done so long ago that I would have thought that maybe Laithwaite would have managed to figure this thing out, because I am sure that Jones did not have much of an idea why it did, what it did.
I think that it was something that happened accidentally at that time, but was genuine and was repeatable.
Jones had nearly half of an inertial drive device in his hands, but unfortunately, neither he nor anyone else for that matter, at that time, had enough information available to them, to recognise that fact.
I am wondering how or why he arrived at the use of an offset gyroscope. Maybe he knew more than we gave him credit for, but that we may never know.
When I first spoke at length with Eric Laithwaite that being some considerable time after Jones had arrived on the scene, he knew offset gyroscopes produced some unpredicted effects, whether or not this was from studying the Jones machine I can only guess, but I do not think he had a chance to study them in depth, or knew the full extent of their attributes. He was always referring to skewed axes, without being too specific about them, so he knew a bit, but whether it was from his own research or from third party sources, I have no idea. The professor’s notes could be interesting.
A couple of years ago when I was feeling very benevolent, I was going to post an article called “The Offset Gyroscope” to this site. This report was the result of my findings over a period of years researching them, whilst set up in leading and lagging roles and in a multitude of variations of vertical displacement.
In an article I had compiled for this book I may eventually get around to putting together I have a completed chapter entitled “The Prerequisites for Gyroscopic Drive” highlighting what I think are elements necessary to acquire gyroscopic inertial drive,
The most important element in this list was the suitably configured offset gyroscope.
However I decided at the time that I would be giving too much away, and decided against it. Now it does not matter so much, besides it may force folks to find out for themselves, and that things are just not the way they thought they were.
I do not think Jones was totally conversant with gyroscope offset, he may just have been lucky, or on the other hand, he may have known enough, to do the job.
By the way Eric Laithwaite was very aware of the need to defy the laws of motion, to acquire inertial drive. Much later on he changed his mind, I think, to get some forgiveness/acceptance from the high priests, by suggesting that all his work had complied with the rules, and that Newton reigned supreme.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/09/2006 13:55:06
| | | Dear Sandy,
“Jones had nearly half of an inertial drive device in his hands…” Very good, I think so too.
“The Prerequisites for Gyroscopic Drive” highlighting what I think are elements necessary to acquire gyroscopic inertial drive. The most important element in this list was the suitably configured offset gyroscope.”
What a can of worms that will be. The list will be interesting. I don’t have one. I was unaware that you’re investigating apparently several different methods beyond the one we are familiar.
“By the way Eric Laithwaite was very aware of the need to defy the laws of motion, to acquire inertial drive. Much later on he changed his mind, I think, to get some forgiveness/acceptance from the high priests, by suggesting that all his work had complied with the rules, and that Newton reigned supreme.”
Yeah, isn’t it a shame, trying to explain a condition by saying it dose, but it doesn’t in order to comply with those who wont accept what they see? It dose, but it doesn’t. It is, but it isn’t. What you see is not what you get? Strange?
Well, I just though I’d add my two cents. Take care, Sandy.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 26/09/2006 06:43:04
| | | Glenn,
Yes Glenn, it is a real can of worms, and takes a long time to sort out.
You asked if I was investigating other areas, to that I would have to say that it’s all part of the same issue.
Funnily, it was the first question Eric Laithwaite asked me when I offered to demonstrate my machine to him in 1984 if my memory serves me correctly.
Did it have skewed axes or offset gyroscopes? I take it from that question that he had come across it somewhere else, probably Scott Strachan’s machine, which was demonstrated to him some time before mine. Interestingly he never told me about Scott, although later on in a telephone conversation with Scott, I was suitably enlightened.
Anyway how’s your end doing Glenn?
You’ve been a bit quiet of late.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 28/09/2006 23:52:23
| | | Sandy,
I have developed a mental block on the whole subject and can’t go further. Either the subject is dead, or I am dead. I can’t motivate myself into doing anything at all, gyroscopes or anything else. Maybe it will go away. Until then I’ll keep reading what precious little there is to read. Nice to here from you.
Glenn,
Momentus, maybe I have performed the lobotomy on myself and don’t remember? Well…how could I remember it, if I did it right? Answer me that.
Has anybody experienced this block?
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 29/09/2006 07:44:02
| | | Dear Glenn,
This block can happen quite often over a period of time.
I think it is a form of frustration when things do not go too well.
In this pastime which it most certainly is, can this really be surprising?
I usually stop myself from throwing everything in the bucket and walk away for a bit (an extended strain break) this can depend on the depth of frustration, depression whatever you wish to call it.
I then as coolly as I can, weigh up all the options, analyse what I did, and what I didn’t, then carry on for a bit longer.
Eventually when the options run out (usually the last ones) that’s it.
Unfortunately there are a hell of a lot of options, and permutations of these options.
If, and I doubt it, it makes you feel any better, I honestly believe from what I have seen and done, there are many ways to do the job, once certain critical features have been recognised, and utilised to suit.
It is all mechanics Glenn, just unusual mechanics.
Do not give up Glenn, too much valuable time has already been spent on it.
But you could always take to peddling “Ring-tones” I suppose.
Sorry, that was nasty.
Keep your chin up.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 09/10/2006 01:08:47
| | | Thank you Sandy for the time and trouble in advising me. It sounds right.
I had rather do my ringtones peddling with a baseball bat if that’s ok with you.
American: Paddling means either selling, or spanking. A baseball bat is a wooden club used for the American sport, or possibly in my case for bludgeoning ringtone advocates.
Take it easy, or take it anyway you can get it.
Thanks again,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Laszlo Zagyva - 18/08/2007 09:23:59
| | | First excuse me for my poor english, I am writing from Hungary.
I am totally new to this question, and read about Laithwaite yesterday.
My profession is nothing to do with the science, well not much, since I'm an artist. But I build analogue turntables, that you can see on http://zagyva.hu/bow
So when I read about Laithwaite, the most interesting thing I met was, that I cannot find explanations, answers to many of his questions on the internet. I don't really understand, how is it possible, that this phenomena couldnt be explained to such an enginier like him.
If someone knew the answer, why didn't just tell him? If nobody knew-knows, why dont they think about it?
8th minute. I watched the videos. Well, I still don' understand, how could be such weights lifted by a kid, but I think I understand why the car goes forward, when the attached gyroscope is dropped.
1. Imagine, you are standing on a skateboard. You can make such movements wihtout touchnig the ground, that the skateboard moves forward. The reaction to your movements is that the skateboard moves forward. It is quite simple.
2. when you push a gyro from one direction, it looks so, that you pushed it from a right angle - for example, if you push it from the top, it doesnt move down, but turns around to the right.
3. combining these facts it is quite undrstandable, that if you apply potential energy to the gyro from the top, by lifting it, the vector of the energy points down. The gyro would turn around, if it had the opportunity. Now the gyro can not turn around, because it is fixed on a car, so it can use the forward pointing vector part of the energy it gained.
Am I not right?
It is like a strange skater, that sits down on the board thransforming the vector of his movement energy to a forward move with a gyroscope.
BUT
I still dont understand, how can a gyro "loose weight".
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/09/2007 19:40:50
| | | Hello Freeman,
It can’t lose weight. Nothing can. Something’s weight can be removed by converting matter into energy, a fire, a condensation, a nuclear explosion, but then the weight of matter is not reduced. It is removed moved, moved to become something else, usually expanded, often energy.
A processing gyroscope overhung on a pedestal changes vertical weight to horizontal energy and transfers that force twisting down upon the pedestal. It does this, because the angular momentum in the spinning wheel resist being changed from it plain of spin, that is its position and alignment in space. As force such as gravity acts vertically on the gyro to tilt it into a downward curve, the gyro applies a twisting force as a resistance to changing its plain of spin to downward curving. This twisting force is more correctly called torque. Torque forces down upon the pedestal using the gyro’s axel as a pry bar. The result is this: However much the force of gravity is upon the gyroscope it is changed to an equal, or greater force of torque down on the pedestal. Gyros don’t weight less. The weight is transferred to the pedestal so that the pedestal would then weigh more.
How one is fooled: To hold up a seventy pound none-spinning wheel by a six foot axel would require a supper act of human strength. This is because the axel and distances act like a pry bar. Wasn’t it Archimedes, who said something like, “Give me a long enough lever and I will move the earth?” In the example above the non-spinning gyro has all the leverage advantages over the human. However, once the gyro is spun up and forced to move a bit in a horizontal direction, which is easy to do, because the horizontal resistance is not heavily opposed such as is gravity, but is only this week inertia resulting from slowly moving an object sideways, the gyro lifts by transferring more than its weight to a twisting force directly down upon the same hands that caused it to move horizontally. If a person’s hands are close-in to his body there is no leverage advantage for the spinning gyro, only a downward vertical force on those hands. This make it so much easier to lift and hold a spinning wheel.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Keith Fisher - 30/09/2009 13:23:00
| | | The movement is caused by aerodynamics. The gyroscope is acting as an aerofoil. The vertical movement produces low pressure on one side and high pressure on the other.
Thus we have horzontal movement. There have been ships and planes fitted with spinning cylinders which acted as sails and wings.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jack Hadley - 06/04/2011 16:08:51
| | | Newton was an aetherist. Check out Newtons bucket if you havn't allready. Although with your modern physics perspective you will likely refuse newtons conclusions, I believe that if we asked Newton to explain the laithwaite-jones gyroscope anomaly he would refer to the swirling of the aether around and within the gyroscope as the causal agent of this effect.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
harvik - 26/04/2014 18:20:43
| | | jones n laithewaite were not cheatn..never disqualify something you havent tried n seen for yourselft..they are attempting to demostrate a reactionless drive and so far they have succeded.overlook advanced physics and lift jones gyro while da gyro aint spinning..no movement foward or backwards for his device wen lifting a dead gyroscope..once on top spin da gyro and then release..the gyro will move a distance in either direction depe nding on direction of spin..the arm will obviously drop...take da energy of gyro n store it via some mechanism..once da gyro is dead again lift it again and once on top give it back its spin energy that you stored and release..wen u put together a mechanism of this sort u bet ul have a reactionles drive though it will move with jerks not much 2 fancy about bt its enough 2 ask questions like laithewaite did...plz try it experimentally and ul see...no disapointement i guarantee you....it should be a base 4 mo discoveries...it cnt work on air or in space coz it relies mainly ground and friction
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 29/04/2014 09:15:40
| | | That was certainly an interesting read (read through the thread). Wonder if Freeman ever built a Jones' device replica. Oh well, I'll get on it, eventually. Even if I succeed with my invention tomorrow I'll probably make one just for fun.
Still perplexed as to why no one (or more people at least) on this forum has attempted to make one as it's a pretty simple design.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Catmanna - 03/09/2018 08:58:17
| | | "Newton was an aetherist", I thought that said "atheist" at first. I thought, "how did religion get into this?" By the way, it's arguable that geocentrism is true based on statements in the Bible. Strange fact on how "religion" or rather the Bible relates to intertial propulsion: according to Wikipedia earth would be at the center of the universe if such devices work/can work. Now supposing a few do, and suppose the Bible does imply earth is at or NEAR the center... well then, God himself supports inertial propulsion as viable.
Good day to yall.
Daniel the non-free-will Baptist (not a Catholic, empty-headed Buddha fanboy or other cultist)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
