|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
27 November 2024 10:22
|
|
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: |
The Main Flaw of the best Current Devices |
| Question: |
The best built mechanical propulsion devices suffer a common flaw. Until recently most discussions in this forum (or any where else) did not address that crucial flaw. On Feb 23 and 25, 2006, two leading contributors to this forum revealed that their experiments suffered from this same common shortcoming (this dialog occurred in a question posted by Nitro on Nov 3, 2004 that, up to that point, had not received a response).
The posting responses of Feb 2006 reveled that up to now the most successful devices can NOT produce continuous motion without coming to a FULL STOP during each cycle. This flaw limits the overall maximum velocity of the device, to a very small velocity that can be achieved during the short cycle, before stopping. This limit has rendered mechanical propulsion devices unusable for space travel, and too feeble to move a payload under earth’s gravity. My analysis of devices explained this flaw in a posting of Oct 1, 2005 (entitled “Seeking the Illusive Third Derivative”). My explanation centered on a design concept referred to as “up-like-a-gyro and down-like-a-rock (or like-a-weight). I was expanding on one of Momentus’ earlier statement regarding center of mass etc.
The best current devices, though successful at producing forward motion, can not prevented cycles from coming to a FULL STOP. Forward motion starts again and goes on to complete the next cycle again coming to a full stop, over and over. The designers of horizontal devices are able to see this flaw with relative ease. I believe Nitro, Glen, Momentus, Ryan Chappell, and Alex Jones use(d) “horizontal” designs. The clarity of their results is not hampered by interactions with gravity (while it is a big problem in vertical designs).
Gravity complicates the clear observation of results in vertical designs because one needs to measure fluctuations in the weight of the device. It is difficult to separate downward motions produced by the device from those caused by gravity (among many other strong motions in multiple directions). In vertical designs, it is difficult to quantify aggregate causes/effects and whether the desired results are being produced. Controversy and conflicting claims surround vertical devices. (Laithewaite was criticized for using inappropriate measuring equipment which, was said, did not display critical counter-reactions. These counter-reactions are said to have eliminated any apparent gains that the measurements displayed. Sandy’s early vertical devices showed upward jolts but did not maintain the higher position.)
World governments and scientific communities throughout the world have rejected claims of successful mechanical propulsion. It is foolish to claim that they are all blind fools that fail to recognize success. Analysis of previous mechanical propulsion devices reveals that their intermittent motion comes to a stop at each cycle. Any scientist worth his salt can uncover, with relative ease, that the limited maximum velocity of the design is hard wired to the design, and renders these devices of no use for practical applications, EXCEPT TOYS (to their discredit, scientists have never clearly stated the true shortcoming of the devices). On the other hand, it’s more likely that this obscured flaw has been overlooked or appears negligible in the eyes of the inventors (in part because of the way test are conducted, and by the way that results are interpreted etc.)
Despite the shortcomings of these devices, they did make a major breakthrough during the mid 1900’s and laid down the foundation for next-generation devices which we should now be attempting to develop and build. One person who appears to have made this transition is Sandy. Sandy has often warned against efforts that he has failed at. However, Sandy’s statements are too broad, warning that a given type of approach or design is a waste of effort. His intentions appear to be good, but would be more helpful to clearly state the real shortcomings of his previous devices, and not simply tell others that they should not try his previous approaches. Just as Sandy encountered his discoveries through accident (as he has stated), it is also possible that others may benefit from their own accidents and maybe even succeed through pursuing similar methods with slightly different variations in approach.
When clear facts about failures and the degree of success are presented to a group or community, that group becomes able to realign objectives, pursue worthwhile goals, and address the real issues. This clarity empowers the group to move forward in the right direction at a faster pace.
When theory, math, and experimental results are congruent, then we find scientific truth.
Your thoughts are welcome,
Luis |
| Date: |
18 March 2006
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
DaveS - 20/03/2006 10:11:50
| | | What you say about stop start mechanisms is i believe correct.
This is one of the reasons why i keep stating that these devices do not break the laws of physics. Where it gets rather more interesting is in trying to address these shortcomings.
I believe I have got round this problem using vector mechanics. This should produce a "jumpy" device which in reality will be stop/starting but due to the changing alignment of the device, should produce a perceived smooth acceleration.
As for Sandy. If he has already produced a result or failure and advises others not to follow the same path, unless you think you know better and have the magic "tweak" that will convert the failure into success, why repeat the exercise? Yes, some will benefit from mistakes but why repeat others mistakes?
It makes me very happy watching others waste their time. Especially as it means that there is all the more chance that my machine will be completed first. This is assuming i can get a rocket up the backside of my engineering chap. One and a half years on and only 2 days work required to finish the prototype and i am still waiting.
DaveS
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro Macmad - 20/03/2006 20:53:52
| | | Dear Luis Gonzalez,
I don’t believe that what you describe is in fact a flaw. I believe that the stop/start description, while reasonably accurate at the moment, is (as I have said elsewhere) rather like writing off Gotleib Daimlers early attempts before he fitted a massive flywheel to his Diesel. The original went bang, moved, stopped, was recharged, went bang, moved, stopped, was recharged,…..sound familiar?
We are in at the beginning after all and should not expect the perfecting effects of development yet.
(Igor Sikorsky allegedly obtained US government funding for his early Helicopter by demonstrating it in still air, moving slowly. He had yet to think of the “flap hinge” that was to allow the craft to fly at a reasonable forward speed without flipping over. Having, allegedly again, “crapped himself” with fear over what would have happened if he had been found out, he came up with the answer just days later. Necessity (or, perhaps, a good dose of the scaredy-craps) is indeed the mother of invention. Incidentally, did you know that to move forwards in a helicopter you have to direct the thrust from the main blade to one side. Gyrodynamics is everywhere when you know where to look.)
While an early single cylinder internal combustion engine could hardly overcome its own friction and needed a huge flywheel to carry it over its inlet and compression stroke, multi-cylinders (and more efficient machines) soon appeared. They smoothed out the jerks (as we will perhaps be called) and, as we now know, the stop/start “explosions in a tube” that Gotlieb started with has progressed to wonderful machines that can now very smoothly and without any perceptible vibration….er…. pollute the entire planet.
The use of multi gyro units linked to multi reactive-mass arrays answers the smoothing problem but adds to the mechanical complication (dear God, isn’t it complicated enough already) and other headaches (Nitro’s 1st. again).
Additionally, as any “wizzy whirly” machine will of necessity be “force precessed”; I also believe that there is no problem with the orientation of a machine, whether its main rotational axis is vertical or horizontal. For myself, I have simply found it easier to measure thrust, if and when there is any, with a horizontal main shaft device.
My thoughts, Luis, are that you have a very good and clear way of seeing a way through a myriad of confusing paths without the aid of any clear map. I hope that the paranoid fears of we British inventors (and the recurring tendency of the machine/s, in my case at least, to let go) will soon be overcome by some clear success that will enable us to disclose enough to justify your efforts
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 21/03/2006 07:51:11
| | | Luis,
I agree I have made broad statements relating to areas or ideas where I have personally done a great deal of experimentation and suggested that these specific areas were very time consuming and ultimately a waste of time.
It would really be in my own best interests never to have contributed at all.
Yes I could document every little modification that I have made and tested, but right now I am not prepared to do that, besides I will have to leave something for a book.
These statements are/were made to warn all shed dwellers and future shed dwellers not to expect too much.
I am sure that NM and Dave S can describe the feeling of total deflation and depression which accompanies the failure of the latest device which promised so much
This could also explain why so many inventors become alcoholics.
No NM, the fondness for quality wine, does not (necessarily) constitute alcoholism.
Of course the enthusiasts are all going to go their own ways, anyway.
I am just warning the less experienced members of the club (changed from cult), that this thing is not so easy, and be prepared to fail a lot.
By the way, if the output (thrust) of a vertically mounted machine is less than the weight of the machine how can the machine jolt itself upwards let alone stay up?
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Freeman - 21/03/2006 22:28:06
| | | Hi all
Luis, have you carried any of the experiments that you listed before? It would be really interesting (at least to me, and for sure to all the people right here) that you could upload any little video that you or other people would have done showing us what you really mean. You can use megaupload.com or perhaps the admin would be very interested and pleased to upload to this web site for sure
Regards, Freeman
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/03/2006 16:20:09
| | | LUIS: Excellent. Explained in exacting detail and you’ve hit the nail on the head. The cat’s out of the bag, est. and est. Well…its just good.
DAVE S., I’m with you. Its too bad people are domed to repeat the failed experiments of others, because the failures either haven’t been revealed, or explained completely, and so are either not known, or not known well enough, nor quite understood.
NITRO, yours is a compelling explanation filled with insight and reason. It relates conditions that would support the possibility. Very good stuff.
SANDY, I can support your need for secrecy, because of the book you’re preparing to publish. Otherwise I couldn’t. What good would success be to we who are past our prime to enjoy it? A danger is this, all that has come to be known from countless hours of work and study could be lost. It could end for us at any time. What a shame for us particularly, but also what a shame for the ‘club’ that needs to compile and advance from what’s been learned. That you will publish is the good exception. As far myself I don’t excuse me for keeping secrets. I don’t know why some older men and I do. There isn’t a justification. Good luck with the book.
This is a worthwhile and promising thread. I hope it continues.
Glenn H.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Freeman - 24/03/2006 20:09:26
| | | Dear all gyro community,
I would be glad if any of you could show me any of these devices that needs a full stop to get a net thrust. For now, I only now thanks to this site about Alex Jone's one: has anyone of you carried out similar experiments and filmed or take some pictures of it in movement? I think I could help a bit adding my opinion or trying to understand those devices from a mathematical and physical point of view.
I don't have many free time nowadays, but since I discovered this site, I'm realy amused and interested in studying the hypothetical gyroscopic propulsion; like anybody, I have been tough under the Newton's laws of physics and anyone who dares to study the gyroscopic propulsion is condemned to fail in his efforts. But, when I saw Alex Jones' device in the Heretic video, I did'nt belieeve what I was seeing: this device exeprimented a thrust without any external force applied. This is simply impossible by the Newton's laws... that's why I would very glad if any of you could show me more examples, to let me open my eyes and see what is really happening. Here's my email:
fahgonzalez@gmail.com
Thanks a lot: I will do my best to give a hand.
Regards, Freeman
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 25/03/2006 16:43:58
| | | Try to still be "tough" regarding Newton's laws.
Just because you do not currently have a rational expanation does not mean that the laws are being broken. Too many believe that these devices are exhibiting behaviour that contradicts Newton.
I keep saying, no laws are being broken, it is just the interpretation of them and the taking into account of all the factors involved that is flawed.
IF and i do believe one of us will achieve it, a device is made that exhibits useable propulsion properties, then the physics bods will soon work out the math to explain what is happening.
"When theory, math, and experimental results are congruent, then we find scientific truth." Yes.
Only problem here is the experimentation produces effects that are neither producing significant results or that the means to measure every factor involved is not being measured or taken into account. Add to this unsound mathematical formulas and (some) sloppy non-laboratory controlled experiments and there are too many holes in tying it all together. Bit chicken and egg really.
Only rule i have found important in my work so far is Newtons Third Law.
In my circumstance, it is the interpretation of what constitutes the system that allows a math model to be attributed to the way my machine should work.
Fortunately I do not need the math. I am working with observed effects and the combination of these to produce a controlled observed effect.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 25/03/2006 17:03:13
| | | Thank you for your responses.
All our claims about solutions to the new challenge are premature until the news is accepted by investors striving for a piece of the action. When the correct design to achieve a well defined goal is identified the speed to success is dependent on skills and on the confidence on the design (everything else is excuses).
A) A cycle that leaves behind a portion of the momentum (i.e. does not come to a full stop) may be smoothed out to improve the ride. However it does not require smoothing to increase the magnitude of the residual velocity incrementally. The max speed is limited only by “relativity” friction etc. (The smoothing has no practical benefit in regards to increasing the acceleration.)
B) On the other hand, cycles that come to a full stop can be smoothed out and may give the appearance that the motion is contiguous and constant (i.e. does not appear to come to a full stop).
However, full-stop cycles can never generate an incrementally increasing velocity. Full-stop cycles can only achieve a maximum velocity that only approaches the maximum speed yielded by each cycle; it can never exceed the average cycle speed.
This type (B) of device is not useful for space travel because it can not continue to accelerate the velocity indefinitely (and its maximum velocity is too slow). These devices may produce interesting toys or experiments, and may move objects that require a slow governed velocity, but that’s it. In my opinion, smoothed-out type B devices are not efficient and do not appear to offer advantages over existing vehicles.
The first type (A) of device is the breakthrough that we are still waiting for. When it is built, its residual velocity or momentum needs to be significant, in relationship/proportion to the other motions of the cycle.
Without a significant level of residual motion, these machines will not be accepted by investors. The percentage of energy converted into permanent (residual) velocity must be worth the effort of the power spent during each cycle to create a motion and bring it back to a near stop. (This limitation needs more evaluation, depending on the application, to find a threshold level of acceptance.)
Comparisons of full-stop-cycles to those of the birth of other devices must be taken within the context of the intended goal and the attributes of the devices. Questions one may want to ask are “how will it be used once it overcomes its shortcoming (considering the inherent attributes)” “how efficient is it in comparison to existing alternatives” “what is its unique advantage over other devices and how can that be leveraged?”
I don’t feel a need to justify my efforts toward a coherent theory of mechanical propulsion. It is something I enjoy doing for its own sake (the results of my progress so far may reflect that). I will be satisfied to develop a theory that can be used to derive designs to use in building successful devices.
Still, if a collaboration team results (that can quickly take the theory forward to a successful device) all the better for victory and glory. As long as I can continue to develop the theory in an open forum there is no motivation for skilled builders to join a collaborative team, is there? That is as long as the skilled builder can understand the theory and apply the principles (will require serious thinking).
I find that it often takes more than one reading to understand in full the message that others try to convey through written word. A single reading of a complex passage invariably misses some important points. This is especially so when reading about innovative ideas. (Try reading patents.) To start getting the full meaning, I first seek to determine obscured content (or whether there is any worthwhile content at all) in the message.
I have noticed that my message about the “third derivative” has fallen on deaf ears, while it is the one concept that opens the possibility of escaping from the limitations of the current devices (which this thread is about).
Investigating the third derivative will make clear (or maybe just apparent) whether a specific design is capable of braking out from the constraints of Newton’s laws.
Newton’s analysis only went as far as the second derivative (he stopped there), and his rules are extraordinarily accurate when addressing motion within the confines of the first and second derivatives. While we work within his realm, we can not go beyond its constraints (except near the speed of light; why bother).
The third derivative provides an additional mathematical dimension. (Does it represent a real dimension? Maybe, it depends on how one should define additional dimensions.)
For our purposes it is sufficient to understand that acceleration can have a rate of change (though it is ephemeral on conventional devices), and that its short duration prevents it from extended, useful performance. It only manages to make Newton look bad for limited spans of time that thus far have not required practical explanation within the greater scheme of what needs to be looked at in today’s world (to make machinery etc work properly). The third derivative has been easy to dismiss in most cases and thus far requires only a cursory study as a nuisance rather than as something that may have a practical use.
I see that some designs appear to move in the right direction but only some of the time. When the unexpected is encountered, it is difficult to make the right decision about what to change and how, if we don’t have a good theory that explains what has happened. Thus far I have not seen a good, coherent theory.
Does any one have a theory or a way to quantify their expectations from a design?
Thank you, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/03/2006 17:05:04
| | | Hello again Freeman,
YOUR CLUB TEST TODAY:
Its not your fault you don’t realize you’re asking a lot from others for nothing. Now then! You know there is no such thing as free time. One takes time from one thing to give to another. In the choosing of which to give to what you have my sympathy. Welcome. Now then!
You want to engage the hectic veto and by using your curser on the moving blue dot in the slot at the bottom of the page play the Jones experiment segment over and over. If you would be a researcher, this is the method of scientific investigation, intense scrutiny and reexamination. Play it fifteen or twenty and as you do concentrate on a series of different things that are happening. Particularly but not only, study the stupid, grubby little, dexterous-less hands of Jones. Watch the weird weak wrist action and the spidery movement of the fingers. The actions are, sexual and sexually incompetent, quick and nervous. Fuddling. Wouldn’t you hate for someone to touch your sister that way. Better he should push the lying hands inside his trousers and f….. himself, than f….. the experiment. Yes the experiment works. It is a success, but not as purposely misrepresented by Jones, nor as the narrator says. Study also, the machine actions ignoring Jones as much as possible and ask yourself ‘what if’ questions. Some things become much less spectacular.
Study the experiment twenty times or more intensely and tell us what you see. Then I will tell you what should have seen ‘if I need to’. I intend to score you. Its pleasing that you’re egger to lend a hand and I have such high hopes for you, Freeman.
Good luck new researcher,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/03/2006 18:20:22
| | | I may have what you’re looking for, Luis also certainly what, Freeman ask for. The ways that we seek appear to exist in these principles. They can’t be sanely presented by words only. It would read as blaa, blaa, blaa, and blaa, blaa, blaa. If I ever take the great deal of time necessary to accurately and I think beautifully draw the many three-dimensional pictures depicting motion, then… …. … …? I would have to stop doing other things. Its about what’s fair the general progress, verses what’s fair to me. One feels guilt. I don’t know what I’ll end up doing. It’s a tiring, reoccurring reproach and all this stuff gets to be a hell of a lot of work any way you go.
Best regards to you, Luis,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/03/2006 19:55:47
| | | Wait! This Jones experiment may not work…not at all! I suddenly believe everything you see is deceiving. I will wait for responses. It maybe that only Nitro and I have produced continuous, horizontal thrusts, unless there are successes unreported. I used to believe in Jones now I’m more disgusted than I was earlier. I’ve no use for liars. He knew what he was doing.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 26/03/2006 05:41:39
| | | When I ask:
<“Does any one have a theory or a way to quantify their expectations from a design?”>
I am NOT asking for help with a theory or a way to quantify my design!
What I want to know is if anyone else has a coherent theory that includes equations.
I presented my equation for acceleration of my device previously, and I am looking for similar equations from other serious mechanical propulsion designers.
Here is my equation for the expected acceleration of my design again:
A = [(PI)(R^2)(P^3)] / [(r)(p)]
Where:
A = Acceleration generated per pound of flywheel mass
PI = 3.1415…
R = Radius of the system
P = Period of the system in full turns per second (CPS)
r = radius of the flywheel
p = period of the flywheel in full turns per second (cps)
(If we plug in the values R=2ft; P=2CPS, r=0.25ft, & p=2cps the resulting acceleration is 201ft/sec-sec. As you can see using relatively slow angular velocities still yields relatively high accelerations; this is because of the design represented by the equation.)
If the device is mounted vertically the acceleration of 201ft/sec-sec would theoretically lift over 6 times the weight of the flywheels.
If the device is mounted horizontally it would theoretically drive a vehicle at least as efficiently as existing vehicles.)
I am curious if someone else out there has a well thought out design that includes equation(s) for Acceleration or for Force (or anything else) that they expect from their design.
Sandy stated that he has working formulae to base his machine designs on but he does not appear to have confidence in them and has thus far not presented his equations.
I am hoping someone else feels more comfortable with what they have derived and is also willing to post it.
Thank you, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 26/03/2006 17:37:34
| | | Dear Luis,
Six G’s Huh? That’s good to know. By what you’ve said about the response to the J. derivative I gather you already suspect nobody is interested in arithmetic. I will tell you what they're most interested in, your devise. How dose it work?
Nobody’s interested in my mechanics, archulation and nobody seems interested your equations as a way to produce propulsion. Is this true, or not? Too bad huh? That’s just the way it is.
Hang in,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 27/03/2006 01:53:07
| | | Serious? there’s that little innuendo peeping from its hiding place again, serious? as opposed to none serious? which is defined as? in disagreement with? what you think? what you think is seriously necessary? This is a censure, right? Seriously in disagreement with you reduces one to non-seriousness? are you sure? Seriously now? I’m not really serious? Hell, all this time I thought I was. Wasn’t it wonderful of you to straighten me out.
All those here also straighten out should get together and send you money. Would a total of almost two dollars be sufficient?
On a more serious note I’m happy to report to you that you have at least one famous college in full agreement with you. “Serious is as serious dose.” Forest Gump’s mama.
Hang in there pal,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 27/03/2006 04:33:32
| | | How does anyone know if their device will produce any acceleration, before they build it?
To produce six G’s the ENTIRE device needs to accelerate six times gravity.
A device that gets JUST THE FLYWHEEL to 201ft/sec-sec still needs to carry along the mass of the rest of the components (e.g. the motors, frame, control mechanism, electronics, etc). NOT six G’s!!
I am not interested in everybody’s equation, only the ones that are willing to come up with one or already have one.
If someone is interested in my device they can derive it from the equation.
I don’t want to sell my equation that’s why it’s now publicly posted. Keep your two dollars thanks.
The good thing about forums is that we don’t have to read the ones we don’t like.
We can start any number of threads and express our opinions. No reason to censure anyone.
Can we get back to mechanical propulsion?
Thank you, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 28/03/2006 00:26:44
| | | Dear Luis,
Ah, come on Gonzalez. A transmission exerts a force capable of accelerating itself at 6 G’s. That doesn’t mean the car accelerates that fast. Who here would not know this? I answer you this way. One believes his devise may work by having tested the results of its thrust components. It’s all mechanical.
To think of the efficiency of G. to mass my way is most useful, because it’s falling down simple. One’s inertial transmission weighs, suppose one hundred pounds and produces suppose 6 G’s. From there a man may realize immediately any of a billion potential variations between speed related to mass add-ons, take-offs, changes and alterations he will have to make through out the entire process’ of designing, building, changing and lastly tinkering. There are other ways to calculate and many unnecessary equations are available, but my creation is the only correct way, subtraction and addition (1600 oz : 6.000 Gs, or what ever the actual ratio) because it most perfectly obeys Occam’s Razor. Now that I have stated this method, all other methods that would do the same are reduced to incorrectness. Below you may see this standard, accepted and unopposed in physic and math for six hundred years.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
You just subtract from the decimals of G., whatever amount of ounces you add.
Reversibly, whatever amount of ounces you subtract, add to the decimals of G.
If you can simplify this further, I become incorrect and you become Occam’s appointed king of the all the world in the ream of mathematically alternating speed and mass. All you have to do is make it simpler than two column adding and subtracting in one’s head. Let me know how you’re coming along from time to time.
By the way in the unlikely event that someone would actually want to know. My thrust tests appear to be equal to applied force. There isn’t a high accuracy in the testing methods and I have not been able to measure bearing resistance, but the test numbers should be close to the unknown exact numbers. This is another Occam Razor explaining the results of my testing (f:a). This is the greatest of all I think, you know it, (e=mc2). If one could travel the entire universe he could not find a better one I think. Such great complexities are reduced to such simplicity that it is mind staggering even for one so low as I. I’m nowhere ready. I’ve a million miles to go.
Sincerely,
Hawkins
Well, I see I’ve fooled around with math on the internet, which I’m not supposed to do. I’ve explained why. I’ll just leave it here.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 28/03/2006 00:49:50
| | | Dear Luis,
You need to rethink something. Do you think two of the greatest mathematicians in history could tell one another how to build a matchbox, let alone a wheelbarrow using numbers only? Possibly, if you think about it. What is certain, we can’t. What we need in order to understand is words and better still words and drawings. What we need in order to build is blueprints. Is that not the way of the world?
Considering all the higher mathematical computations done by professor Liftwate and a competent engineer at an English college precisely relating to gyroscopic behavior, what good did it do them? Now considering all the important work in engineering mechanics done in pre 1945, what did they accomplish? Two things, first a navigational system for war pilots at night in bad weather, a crucial development. Secondly, a team statement from this hand picked many, “If all there was to know about a gyroscope were written down it would fill a great library.” This is a perfect assessment for us. It explains so much. It explains the length and breath that is our problem to overcome.” Do we think we know everything? Mechanics, mechanics, mechanics. Sometimes some people lesten to me.
Luis, if one should ever feel picked-on, it is his to reason why. There will be a cause for all things. Mechanics, theory and mathematics may cause disagreements, but what causes conflict? ‘ Need a hint? Matters my friend, matters.
Sincerely,
Hawkins
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 28/03/2006 07:42:13
| | | Dear Luis,
Luis, please understand that because I choose not to post my formulae (for want of a better word) here that I am not comfortable with them.
I am more than comfortable with my calculations, but they are so very different in approach to yours, are unique to the design and operation of my machines, and if publicised, would surely compromise all my work.
They would mean nothing to anyone without the design, and mode of operation of the device with which to calculate.
They were assembled to marry the produced gyroscopic differential / angular momentum into linear momentum.
In theory 50% of the system angular momentum should be capable of being converted to linear thrust, however this is the real world.
An “average” device of the type I build should be capable of at least a 15% conversion on a bad day, I hope
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 28/03/2006 09:54:44
| | | Dear Luis,
Oh, my goodness. Cross out the (a.) in (f:a) and replace it with momentum. That is the w conversion. Like Elvis Presley said with humor, “I don’t know why I ever did it.” This completes my career in internet math, begun and ended the same day, but I’ll look at yours.
Very good Sandy. I’m sure you are right for you. I’m not totally certain in some of my ways. I’ll explain my Dogpatch Bathroom measurements. Using a spring I measured twenty force pounds downward on a bathroom scale. Then I sat the scales vertical to the wall, but then the same twenty force pounds in the spring only registered 10 pounds of force. Next I sat an experimental component next to the vertical scales supported by the wall. I repeatedly applied twenty-pounds of force downward and the scales repeatedly registered ten pounds horizontally. I did more to determine my bathroom scales are out-of-whack this way.
Determining the scale conversion, I get horizontal output force equals linear vertical input force. You remembered the scales only registered one-half of the actual force. Do you see why I was mumbling around about accuracy and uncertainty? I think the Dogpatch Bathroom Test is laughable. I think its funny, but until I do a better way testing, I’m stickin’ to what I got.
(Amos sold Andy a percentage of the atomic ‘mulsifier’ for venture capital. Two days later. “If I don’t got 100% den I gots 50%. I got someum percent uh de mulsifier. Ain’t dat right, Amos?” You’d have to know them I guess. Why won’t they bring Amos ‘n’ Andy back to TV? The whole nation liked them so much.)
Any way, I got sumeum percent.
Hawkins,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 28/03/2006 10:54:42
| | | For the forum,
What was potentially one of the most important developments ever on this site was the destruction of the Jones device and theory in order to keep true as we go along. There would have been positive things to learn in the destruction. It was missed by all. Many other things in my time here were missed.
Most if not all of what I’ve given here was never accepted. What I received was only the saturation point, nothing more.
Before retiring from this site I will offer you a choice, Luis. If you will find the reasons to apologize to me and do so, I will apologize to you. If you give and receive this simple act of common good matters, then I might give you what you want most, real inertial propulsion not to be counted, but to be tested and viewed with your own eyes. Then you can apply math. I sort of feel it won’t be necessary of me. It’d just be more work anyway, but not like casting pearls. I’m not that mean to say that.
Wising you all happiness and success and that the crossing will be easy for you, so long fellows,
Glenn Hawkins
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
