|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
27 November 2024 11:02
|
|
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: |
DaveS |
| Subject: |
Piffle, waffle, Etiquete and Newtons Laws |
| Question: |
I have just waded ( i really mean that) through most of the previous threads relating to gyroscope related propulsion.
Wading:- Some of the posting styles leave little to be desired. It is normally a good idea to read what you plan to post before submitting it.
It is also a good idea to wait a few moments after writing an essay to ensure you have covered everything that you wish to convey. Too many posts are submitted and then an addition by the same person follows on immediately afterwards. Get it right the first time and you only need to post once to get a response.
BACK to the main TOPIC.
A few things discussed and stated as facts concern me.
Enclosed systems, reaction-less devices, inertial propulsion. CONSERVATION of ENERGY??!!
Someone suggested "You cannot have a device that moves in one direction without lobbing something in the opposite direction and having to re-examine Newtons third." to argue why these machines are impossible.
YES I agree that you do need to lob something out in the opposite direction.
Someone else has stated that "an education in physics would help many of the believers to quickly become skeptics themselves."
Err, excuse me, but am I struggling to get my head around the theory? I don't think so. An education in physics, chemistry, biomechanics, quantum mechanics, magnetism & electricity and engineering helps.
Many others (normally those that are building devices rather than talking about it) also have a very good grounding in the logical even though we are often perceived as barking mad. That reminds me. Morning Nitro.
"By the very definition of the first law of motion, force must be applied from an external source in order to disturb equilibrium (induce motion) in an object."
Yes, yes, yes.
OK
We then make a machine that in itself is going no-where.
We then pump in energy which makes the gyroscopes spin. We then maybe pump in more energy to move the spinning gyroscopes. Currently this energy is absorbed into the system causing heat, vibration (destruction) but not much in the form we are looking for, movement .
Even so, If the energy pumped in is not an applied external force, what is?
WHAT IS THE SYSTEM???
I believe that some of the so called physics and maths bods on here are incapable of explaining what is/could happen because they either do not understand what is happening or they have bogged themselves down in ridiculous theorem to try and explain their misunderstanding.
Keeping things simple seems impossible for certain individuals.
I can also definitively say that *NONE* of the three laws would be broken and a machine will be made that produces linear thrust.
Just one more thing:-
When did religion get intertwined with this subject? Thank God i'm an atheist. Actually that is not true. I'm a pantheistic, atheist with occidental and oriental tendancies. TILT
rant, rant, yawn.
DaveS
Hugs and kisses. Xx
|
| Date: |
28 March 2006
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Arthur Dent - 05/09/2006 14:50:30
| | | Do you really believe that physical laws are dreamed up by theoreticians, in the same way that parking regulations are dreamed up by local councils, and then imposed on experimenters? It is exactly the opposite, millions of man-hours of practical study are found to be described by a - usually simple - law. When one then tries to claim an exception, one is not fighting closed-minded academics (the usual insult) but the huge dead weight of contrary experimental evidence.
Some specific points.
The 'system' is whatever one chooses it to be. But having chosen it, one has to be consistent. Too many inventors make devices that travel across shiny floors or swimming pools, or which produce anomalous readings on simple scales, and claim to have created reactionless propulsion of a closed system. To them, the system is their machine. To the physicist, the system is now their machine: plus the floor, pool or measuring device, and they have 'moved the goal-posts'; it is no longer a closed system. Consider a stationary rocket in outer space. Where is the centre-of-mass after the rocket moves off? If one says that the rocket is the system, then the COM has moved with the rocket. If one says that the rocket plus fuel is the system, then the COM is right where it was to start with; at an unoccupied point in outer space.
Most people imagine that any spacecraft would carry its own energy supply. If energy were 'pumped in', the craft would not be a closed system and anything would be possible. Merely beaming laser light at it (as a power source) would also propel it.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 05/09/2006 15:55:51
| | | "Do you really believe that physical laws are dreamed up by theoreticians"
Where did that come from?
Incidently, I have always been a firm believer that the rules are not broken. As you have also touched on, the perception of what comprises the system in most individuals eyes is where the problems start. I think that some have got themselves so entrenched in their own logic that they have to believe there is deviation away from Newtons laws. Is it any wonder that the scientific community believes we are crackpots.
If someone put together a working theory that included Newtons laws then maybe this would change. Hence we come back to the point. What is the system? Once the system is decided upon, then, are all the relevent factors taken into account. I know for most they are not and this is where the problem lies.
A quantum jump in your reply now. Centre of Mass (COM). Not mentioned by myself in this thread but used as an example. You are obviously clueless (I actually know that you are not) or a much more enlightened individual than your reply first portrayed.
Changing the COM is where it is at. This then brings into play a number of factors that most ignore in their theorising.
Strange reply and a long time in coming, I don't disagree with you but what point were you trying to make?
Cheers
DaveS
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
