|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
6 May 2024 13:27
|
|
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: |
What’s needed to get our minds around mechanical propulsion? |
| Question: |
To get one’s mind around mechanical propulsion without getting lost in the details it is necessary to segment the concepts into a number of digestible pieces (starting with the more known ones).
1) Understand why (or accept) a gyro on a tower does not fall under the downward force of gravity, but rather RESPONDS (NOT reacts) at 90 degrees (precession).
2) Understand that a slow spinning flywheel produces faster precession than a fast spinning flywheel.
3) Understand how precession can be forced (induced) mechanically through a rotational torque that can be manipulated to affect the speed of precession.
4) Understand (or accept) that there does not exist an equal and opposite reaction in the direction 180 degrees opposite to the direction of precession.
5) Understand that the path of precession does not have acceleration but does have velocity and momentum.
6) Understand that velocity has kinetic energy that can be calculated by KE = (V^2)/2 and that KE converts into a Force when it meets with another object.
7) Understand that interfering in any way with an object in motion is the same as applying an additional force. If the object is in precession it will accept the interference and again respond to it at 90 degrees; therefore restrictions (or obstacles) to precession have the effect of secondary-forces causing unwanted secondary precessions. A good design makes sure to apply only the intended forces. (How? It’s a trade secret.)
8) Understand why a basic “up-like-a-gyro & down-like-a-weight” device is the first breakthrough of mechanical propulsion but can not deliver useful, efficient linear-propulsion.
9) Realize that most or all current designs suffer from this last flaw (#8) that makes them ineffective. You can find in depth descriptions of this flaw on some of my previous threads. You can also find designs and results from other inventors (regarding #8) in the following links (all from this website):
Ryan Chappell – Nov 19 2005
Di Bellds patent mechanical drive, August 1968
Others - Feb 23, 2006 -
10) Results and interpretations from mechanical propulsion experiments are not usually reliable because it’s not possible to isolate specific factors while holding all other variables equal. The results are always a mishmash of dynamically changing variable all of which affect each other in often unexpected ways.
11) Sorry if I missed other important items; please let me know.
When one understands all the above items with their subtleties then one may have a glimpse of, at least, 2 possible ways to produce linear propulsion.
A) The first successful design will make use of momentum that is created unidirectional without an equal and opposite reaction. It uses the kinetic energy in the velocity of precession to produce a force by interacting with another internal object.
B) The second successful design will capitalize on the REACTION occurring during the application of a force, while the direct motion of the force itself is diverted at 90 degrees (through precession).
These 2 concepts can be made to INCREMENT ELOCITY with each cycle accumulating an ever larger velocity each time; thus they provide the next major breakthrough in mechanical propulsion!
Though both are inefficient, they effectively accomplish the endpoint goal. Both are plagued with multiple building challenges but confidential designs exist to address the known challenges.
The important questions are a) which concept lends itself better to your preferred type of solution, and b) how to address the challenges that arise from that choice?
I don’t think there is another 3rd way to produce mechanical propulsion.
Does anyone disagree?
Anyone who thinks that mechanical propulsion can be generated in a different manner (than the 2 presented above) please state your case. (By different manner, I don’t mean variations or extensions of the 2 concepts that I have explained above.)
I submit that to accomplish useful motion, we must understand Newton with all its intricacies (that’s how useful mechanics has worked up to now).
Newton’s foundations include, first the three laws of motion, and second the Calculus; each one is crippled without the other.
To break beyond Newtonian restrictions we must reach beyond Newton, while standing atop of the same foundation which he laid down for us. (“I saw beyond what others did because I stood upon the shoulders of giants.”)
Should we invent strange new forces with equally strange names? NO!
Instead of looking for the strange and the unknown, why not simply look into the obscure within what already exists and is proven?
How do we break beyond Newton?
We do it by continuing the exploration that he started (which resulted on the first 2 derivatives of distance in respect to time).
Newton’s initial exploration enabled us to visit the solar system; will expanding on it enable us to visit beyond?
It only makes sense to expand into the next derivative (J) to find the explanation for what appears as mysterious phenomena.
I think the expansion of Newton’s exploration is what is needed to find the ways to jump beyond the bounds of currently known rules that bind science from accepting what our kind of thinking is willing to pursue!
Thank you, Luis
P.S. Many of our experiments are flawed because the combinations of multiple dynamic variables create quickly changing conditions in many directions and ways. It is not possible to hold all other variables constant while changing just one variable at time.
We can not trust the conclusions coming from these types of experiments because the effects of overriding variables were distracted by the phenomena. It is easy to attribute results to expectations even though the results appear to function in reverse to what we expect. A solid, coherent, comprehensive theory is necessary upon which to verify or results, and visa-versa. |
| Date: |
1 April 2006
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 03/04/2006 10:57:18
| | | Luis,
I am a little pressed for time at the moment, so I will only comment on a couple or so, of items just now.
The first one is in relation to angular momentum being present in a gyroscopic system subjected to precession.
You stated:
“5) Understand that the path of precession does not have acceleration but does have velocity and momentum.”
There is no angular momentum present in a gyroscopic system subjected to precession (gravity driven) or for that matter in an accelerated system where the gyroscope has proceeded to accelerate inwards, towards its axis of radial acceleration. Angular velocity is all you have, in either type of system.
This is part of the reason I called it saturation, in an accelerated system.
There is nothing left but inward acceleration.
Precession it isn’t, as there is no precession in an accelerated system.
The second one was in relation to the importance of “up like a gyroscope down like a weight”
You stated:
“8) Understand why a basic “up-like-a-gyro & down-like-a-weight” device is the first breakthrough of mechanical propulsion but can not deliver useful, efficient linear-propulsion.”
Having myself carried out many successful experiments with this particular action, over 20 years ago, why do you think this is the first, or any kind of breakthrough?
My last comment at this time is in relation to this very sweeping statement.
You stated:
“9) Realize that most or all current designs suffer from this last flaw (#8) that makes them ineffective. You can find in depth descriptions of this flaw on some of my previous threads. You can also find designs and results from other inventors (regarding #8) in the following links (all from this website):
Ryan Chappell – Nov 19 2005
Di Bellds patent mechanical drive, August 1968
Others - Feb 23, 2006 – “
Luis, please realise that the only reason you know about these aforementioned devices is because they have faults or limitations, or in other words “don’t work”
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 04/04/2006 02:10:38
| | | Sandy,
On #5, I said that the path of precession has velocity and momentum. If you don’t believe it put your head above the gyro then torque it sideways quickly so that it responds with a fast upward precession. Then look at the lump on your head and tell me “there was No Momentum!”
On #8, the concept behind “up-like-a-gyro & down-like-a-weight” was the first mechanical propulsion breakthrough because devices based on it created forward motion (eave though each cycle came to a full stop). This was the first type of device to convert CIRCULAR motion into LINEAR motion without depending on external interaction (the date is not important but August 1968 was the first public presentation).
That WAS a breakthrough despite who has played with it or not!
On #9, wrong again Sandy. The only reason I know about those devices is because I worked it out as I developed a mathematical (Newtonian) theory. After that it became obvious that some members of this forum had also encountered the same obstacle. Again, these devices move forward but can not increment velocity and I know that the next breakthrough has NOT been accomplished by anyone in this forum, as of today.
How do I know that?
Simple, when the next breakthrough occurs it will make the inventor famous because scientists will know it (despite what some happen to believe about scientists), and it will be the biggest news of this century (millennium, up to now).
Alternatively, a government will have Hushed the invention and the inventor would no longer be found writing in this forum.
Opinions are OK but not easy to backup. I guess we’ll have to wait and see whose device actually “flies!”
Thank you, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 04/04/2006 14:54:12
| | | Luis,
You are so obviously correct, therefore I must be wrong, and as my choice is not to flog a dead horse, let’s just leave it at that.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 05/04/2006 11:25:48
| | | Luis
Have you actually done any experimentation. Is all your theorising just speculation?
Many times on here I have also gone on about Newton and no laws being broken but that does not necessarily mean I am correct. I do believe that I am right but without concrete evidence would not presume to state that any of the others on this forum are catagorically wrong. Especially those that are actually creating prototype machines.
Do bear in mind that most of the things you are talking about so "knowledgably" are as a direct result of the work done by others on this forum. i.e. they have made devices and watched first hand what happens. You are making statements based on "their" devices and although admittedly some of the experimental conditions leave something to be desired it is not a good assumption to presume these individuals are talking out of their backsides unless you have evidence to the contrary.
Although Sandy has had no influence on the route I took with my device, he has been the inspiration for many others.
Do bear in mind that myself, Nitro, Sandy, Glenn and I apologise if I've messed anyone out, have all designed, built or experimented with the machines in which you have such an "in-depth expertise".
What are your credentials?
DaveS
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 07/04/2006 06:22:11
| | | Luis:
You wrote:
>A) The first successful design will make use of momentum that is created unidirectional without an equal and opposite reaction. It uses the kinetic energy in the velocity of precession to produce a force by interacting with another internal object.
B) The second successful design will capitalize on the REACTION occurring during the application of a force, while the direct motion of the force itself is diverted at 90 degrees (through precession).
>Anyone who thinks that mechanical propulsion can be generated in a different manner (than the 2 presented above) please state your case. (By different manner, I don’t mean variations or extensions of the 2 concepts that I have explained above.)
C.P. Kouropoulos wrote a very good article titled "Several Inertial Drives", in which he discusses Laithewaite, Cook, Schauberger, and others. He even goes into Inertial Propulsion using an atom's nucleus as a gyro. The mathematics is rigorous.
http://www.spaceoffice.us/Inertial_Drives/Inertial_Drives.htm
On a lower level, I've built thrusters which fall into three categories, only one of which is precessional, but which is still different from your examples since the applied force is redirected by a lever:
1. Directed Centrifugal Force (non-gyroscopic)
2. Torque Acceleration (flywheel)
3. Split Gyroscope (phase shifted precession)
Jerry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 07/04/2006 17:51:45
| | | Bang! Bop! Whack! Punch! Gang Him! Pain! Ouch! Take that you dirty crook! Well Luis…I see I have to rescue you. You weren’t born to become our human punching bag. You have too much savvy for that.
You want to create a series of facts that can be accepted by the group.
You want group involvement and knowledge in developing these facts.
You want to develop equations to explain and to use these facts.
You then want a joint venture in an effort to produce a workable machine.
I applaud you. This is exactly what needs to be done, but wont be done. It will be safest, but boring to not use the method of scientific debate on this site. If you do be careful how you disagree and politely acknowledge and commit on all ideas directed to you and learn how to accept as well as reject during your arguments… and Luis, for goodness sacks learn how to duck a punch once in a while. Otherwise the intentions you have cleverly reasoned have been exactly right and in this better than anyone else’s. Your effort has value. You have value. You are recognized. Smile.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 08/04/2006 16:27:07
| | | My! Someone has been busy!
DaveS,
The answer is YES.
If you are interested in a more personal conversation, please start a new separate thread and I will respond to it. I have hopes not to let this thread turn into tangents that do not address the original intent.
Following the technical intent of this thread, I will continue to further clarify my statements to make them more obvious.
Starting with statement #5 on Momentum, which is equal to mass times velocity (=MV).
Let’s build an illustration; take an example of a rotating wheel where the mass is not evenly distributed around the perimeter causing a wobble. The center of mass and the center of rotation are in different locations thus causing the wobble. This explanation relies entirely on intuitive perception and leaves a lot unexplained.
A common explanation states that the unevenness of MOMENTUM around the perimeter is the basic cause of the wobble. This is also NOT accurate.
A more accurate root cause of the wobble is that a) the centripetal Acceleration exerts a stronger FORCE on the side of greater mass (F=MA). Therefore the Centripetal Force is not evenly distributed and the greater Force creates an opposite (180 degrees) reaction on the rest of the device.
The greater Force produced by the larger mass changes position around the circle, and so does the opposite Reaction, hence the wobble.
The wobble is NOT caused by the magnitude of the Momentum (MV) but rather by the magnitude of the Force (MA), by virtue of centripetal Acceleration as it is exerted around the circle.
With this explanation in mind, note that precession has a definite velocity, a definite mass, and that both of them, MV, yield momentum (despite contrary statements that probably resulted from misinterpretations of experimental results).
When someone says that there is no momentum in precession (while clearly observing motion /velocity), then they find a need to erroneously conclude that the gyro has no mass, or that there is an unexplainable phenomenon; this is a crippling error towards designing devices intended to overcome the challenges faced in producing mechanical propulsion.
Individuals, who fall into errors of thinking, in this extraordinary challenge, should not be criticized. However the errors must be corrected if we are to find the true path to success in this effort. (Accepting errors as truths can only distort the facts in the solution space.)
In short:
FORCE DOES PRODUCE an EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION
MOMENTUM DOES NOT PRODUCE an EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION
MOMENTUM DOES HAVE KINETIC ENERGY
Let me know if you want a bit of the physics on this.
I will stop here for now to allow time to digest, understand, and verify statement #5. Hopefully some discussion will follow about the science of what is said (not about the individuals involved). Please tell me which of my points are not verifiable or considered wrong but back your claims with facts. I will clarify other points as time permits, if there is interest, and if we can stick to the subject matter.
Controlled experimentation and well developed theory are both foundations to develop more mature technology. Take the theory of relativity which promoted scientific progress well before experimentation could verify the new facts. Was all that theorizing speculation? The physics we contend with is much simpler than relativity but developing the theory is still of great value.
Glenn H.
Your response is appropriate for a thread that is quickly heading into cartoon land.
My annoyances do not compare to the tragedy of a great effort lost in building a failed model.
Thank you for your attempt to clarify my goals; though not entirely correct about what I want, you are close.
Regarding Jerry’s statements, what can I say?
I have read Jerry’s claims and websites. Have looked and analyzed one of Jerry’s devices (our dialog is found in a previous thread at http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=506). Please judge for your selves.
Regarding the Kouropoulos article, yes the math is challenging. Using atom nuclei as gyros puts us in the quantum world and that’s a different set of equations.
I can count on Jerry to take things down a path where there are a lot of things that can not be either proved or disproved (It would be a long tangent, perhaps decades). If anyone can do it Jerry can.
In this thread, I intend to stick to the current mechanical effort. Jerry, please pursue the more futuristic effort in a new thread intended for that subject so that things don’t get too mixed up.
Thank you to all, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 09/04/2006 05:24:08
| | | Luis:
Your flywheel with a lopsided weight on it has merit. But, I feel that it's only a component of a larger system. For instance, if it were mounted in a horizontal track and positioned between two springs, it would move back and forth, with the off center mass tracing an eliptical path. This is the exact movement Kouropoulos describes with the nucleus. So, what do you predict would happen if the horizontal track is then vibrated from side to side, similar to his accoustic signal? The lateral mechanical 'signal', correlating what he said, would need to be twice as fast as the rotation, i.e., one complete side-to-side cycle for each half of the flywheel's rotation (front to back). Also, he says the lateral signal needs a pi/2 phase shift. The sideways action would be applied when the weight is lined up with the springs, then reverse after the flywheel turns 90 degrees. If my analysis is correct, this should make the whole system move sideways, but only towards one direction.
Jerry
Jerry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 09/04/2006 13:55:17
| | | THE SEARCH FOR MOMENTUM
To confirm, deny, or incorporate.
You have hit on a subject that interest me. I will try once again to convey my understanding to see if this time I actually get any general responses of some kinds from the group. We will be looking for momentum.
We have observed Professor Liftwate’s demonstration of crashing a gyro into a wooden peg. Of concern to me was how he crashed it. The gyro itself didn’t hit the peg, as the demonstration should have been done. Instead the opposite axel from the pivot hit the peg. This causes torque, which confuses one’s understanding of the conditions.
I reason this secondary torque this way. Acceleration and deceleration are the same things in reverse of one another and each produce inertia force. When the outside axel from the pivot hit the peg, the axel decelerated tremendously because of the short distance it was stopped. The results should be the same as if the outside axel had been shoved rearward especially, forcefully. The gyro then should have dipped downward quickly.
A tricky thing to reason is this. If the dip downward is near the same speed as gravity the axel setting on the pedestal should not rise. If however the dip is faster that the initial reaction speed to gravity in a short distance, the pivoting axel should rise.
We may note that the velocity of a falling object is quite slow during the first half inch. In Professor Liftwate’s demonstration sudden lift torque on the pivotal axel is much stronger than gravity. We may determine this by paying close attention while we repeatedly view the demonstration.
Concentrating on the pivotal area we can see that it first lifts the connection. We see the action. We hear a loud clang. That is the medal of the pivot connection as it crashes from a clearance into full contact. The noise isn’t from the wooden peg, as we know.
When the pivotal connection has risen to full contact and can rise no further, another deceleration occurs and this should forces the pivotal connection backwards as the demonstration would seem to confirm.
These actions we should expect as a result of Nitro’s Law, which explains that a gyro precess every damn which way, not just the way you first thought. This law apparently agreed upon by all can be applied to the conditions of deceleration as is explained here. Together, Nitro’s law and the effects of a series of contentious decelerations give consideration as to why a gyro dose not deliver the full amount of momentum that it carries. It would seem that when a gyro is collided its resulting reactions take away some of, and then all of the final results of the momentum that was present the instant of collision contact.
I suggest that even if the gyro itself is collided, and not merely the outward axel, the gyro will still react in such ways, thought probably differently as to take away the final results of forward momentum. I have done three different tests, one with a toy truck with two gyros precessing into a collision. There was no acceleration in the truck. All the tests confirm that gyros do strange motions when free to collide and then react. They lose their loft support and tumble downward in an uneven spiral.
From what I understand Sandy Kid and Professor Liftwate are correct in that there is no momentum advantage in the crashing of a precessing gyro. Its nature is to council out the force advantage it carries once you try to use that force.
Importantly in this search to confirm, or deny momentum is Luis’ insistence that a gyro carries momentum and I will add also centrifuge if he has not. I cannot imagine that this is not true. When mater is in motion it must obey the Laws of dynamics. It must carry momentum. It must produce centrifuge, though the effects are counseled out by the somewhat complicated opposite reactions listed and some which are not, still momentum and centrifuge will be present while the gyro is in motion. It’s just that momentum and centrifuge are hidden from detection and cause no ultimate effect, but they are there.
Don’t despair. There may be a way, or ways to extract and use these elusive forces. We all have ideas and have tested them to some degree.
As I see it this is a continuation of the theme begun. I see the need to confirm that the two opposite schools of thought here are both correct and to understand why they are by understanding more about a gyro.
There is so much more to go from here, but this is enough. These ideas should first be beaten about much more. If you wish Luis’ tread to continue, and my part continue in it say so. Add to it, argue for, or against, or question anything you don’t understand. If you don’t want to add, or question just say “Keep it up!” and give your name.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 09/04/2006 14:53:01
| | | Glen,
This is a good thread; both you and Luis should keep at it. However, I question your contention that a gyroscope has centrifuge force, at least when it is precessing. The author of the math papers I posted says there isn't, or else the gyro would fall over. When I look at it, while precessing, one side of the gyro is closer to center than the other. Also, as Luis pointed out in another thread, the radial velocity can be added to the circular motion of the tip rotation. This would increase the velocity of a particle on the rim on the side furtherest from center, but decrease the velocity of a diametrically opposed particle. This increased velocity on one side would cause the gyro to tip over. Of course, with applied forces being redirected by 90 degrees, this imballance might be what causes precession in the first place. If this unballanced centrifuge force does exist, and is redirected, it just goes to show that everything which can be shown mathematically isn't necessarily representative, especially when dealing with a gyroscope.
Jerry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 09/04/2006 20:08:49
| | | Jerry,
I’ll try. Good to see your up and kicking again. There are intelligent people here who agree with you and I respect the reasoning of their minds and see no reason to try to alter their thinking. The old idea is that no centrifuge is present during precession. I’ll try to explain why I think there is. How I’m going to try to put this is the easiest way I can think of, which isn’t precisely how it happens, but somewhat.
Place a small T square before you. Line up the square so the long bar lays sideways to your vision, left hand, right hand. The top of the T will then lie linearly toward you and from you. You have twisted the square 90o from how you see it printed.
At the disconnected end of the long bar place a ruler. The sight of the ruler should also be aliened to and from you. That is parallel to the T-tops, and is at a right angle to the bar.
As you look at square can you imagine that it is a snap shot of a precessing gyro from a rear view? Can you then imagine that the picture is laid down before you? Then can you imagine the ruler is a tower, or pedestal?
A couple more things. Tie two separate strings to each of the T-tops. The top of the T terminal from your view should have its string lie toward the ruler, tower. The string should be parallel to the ruler and separated to the same height as the top of the T terminal.
The bottom of the T top string should lay the same but in the opposite direction, away from the ruler, tower.
Now you are ready. Pull each string, one left, one right with your fingers. Notice the end of the long bar of the square pushes the ruler downward. Notice also that as the end of the long bar moves against the ruler, both move in a curvature. If the ruler were not allowed to move this curving force would still apply against it.
If you’ve been able to follow my poor attempts at leverage mechanics this far, believe it or not we can eventually get to centrifuge from here.
We want to concentrate on the top and bottom of an actual precessing gyro. The top resists being moved from its alignment. We may think of this as if it were pushing toward the veridical top of the tower, just as our T square when the top string is pulled.
The bottom of the gyro resists being moved toward the tower. We may think of this as when our string on the bottom terminal of the T-square is pulled away from the tower.
But of course a precessing gyro dose not pull. It resists, but we may now imagine how it resists, the dual directions top and bottom and how the tower is affected.
From here we understand how and why the gyro stays aloft and resist falling. The weight of the gyro acting against the ability of angular momentum to resist tilting converts the weight of the gyro into a curving torque upon the pedestal. The force of gravity then is equal to the force of applied torque. This has caused some of us to say a gyro appears to lose weight and that the weight is transferred to the pedestal. This would be OK. It is simple and easy, except it draws the err of scholars. Anyway I think this is how a gyro stays aloft.
Now we should have the tools to approach centrifuge. Some of us have noted rightly that the top of the gyro would always move outwardly from the tower as the bottom would move inward. Considering horizontal and vertical in the tilt from 45o to 90o the top moves a greater distance than the bottom. From 90o to 135o the bottom moves the greater distance. Always the greater the area of movement the greater the direction of curving torque acts opposite to centrifuge. The main torque is basically twisting away from centrifuge, just as centipede opposes centrifuge, and just as the T square twists away, while also partially countered by a lesser twist into, which all combined balances the tower. Therefore centrifuge is always countered. Therefore it is difficult to detect--- but it is there—it is acting.
It would be good if this could be either accepted, or rejected, but not left in limbo.
This has worn me out. I hope it is understandable. Devilling in mechanics without pictures ought to be against the law.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 10/04/2006 15:34:26
| | | Shed Dwellers and others,
I was not going to get involved in this, but I have read so much junk relating to this subject I feel I must get my oar in, and attempt to set the record straight.
Example 1
Irrespective of whatever anyone thinks, or whatever mathematics tells you about gyroscopic systems, how the hell can a gyroscope in precession (a la Laithwaite) possibly continuously rotate around a fixed point on a ceramic tile without increasing its radius of rotation, if there was any angular momentum and or centrifugal force present.
Gentlemen, do we really have to plumb these depths again?
For goodness sake let common sense prevail.
Example 2
Or if we have an accelerated system which is able to raise its gyros above the horizontal (and that is in any accelerated system) due to the fact we are accelerating mass above the horizontal means we would be generating vertical lift, the higher the angle above the horizontal the greater the lift.
At 45 degrees, vertical lift would be equal to centrifugal force.
That’s how easy it is to build a 3 or 4G, vertically accelerating inertial drive machine.
Simple mechanics and not advanced dynamics.
Or so it would seem.
However, when we try to do this with an accelerated system, we will discover that there is no vertical lift. There’s about 65 lbs of vertical thrust missing.
Why?
Because there is no angular momentum / centrifugal force left to create it.
THIS IS WHERE I CAME IN, AND THAT WAS 24 YEARS AGO.
Look at the shape of my machine. What does it tell you?
FYI the angle is 51 degrees and a bit, or the tan of 1.25
That machine had the ability to put its gyros in what you would call precession (I would call saturation)
Not 1 milligram of thrust. Nothing
I’m inviting Luis to explain this one away.
Example 3
We have an accelerated system rotating at 250 rpm and just going into (precession some would call it) saturation.
We instantaneously increase the rotation speed to 500 rpm.
Does the gyroscope move outwards due to an increase in angular momentum / centrifugal force?
No it accelerates inwards even faster.
Why is this Luis?
I’d be obliged if you would also explain this one away.
If you can answer any one of them satisfactorily I will settle for that.
By the way I can keep going on like this all day, with questions you will find almost impossible to answer.
My very first posting to this forum, a long time ago now, was to inform everyone of this loss of momentum / centrifugal force phenomenon, because I thought it was important enough to report.
It seems to me, that nobody else is prepared to venture down this path, and would rather base their calculations on erroneous assumptions.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 11/04/2006 02:16:13
| | | Hello Sandy,
I see the man who helped fight World War ll is on the warpath. Bless your heart. Thank you for what you did. There is a solution available.
Angular momentum is redundant to centrifuge in the way this question is stated.
Example 1,
Your question: “How… can a gyroscope in precession … continuously rotate …without increasing its radius of rotation, if … centrifugal force is present?”
My answer: As centrifuge pulls outward, something must pull inward. Can you see what pulls inward? No. Can you see what pulls outward? No. Can you prove equal and opposite are not occurring? No.
As you have no way of proving, I have no way of proving, as least for now that centrifuge is countered by an invisible inward pull.
The mechanical ways in which these twin opposite forces could exist to council out the effects of one another has been baffling.
All that I can do is offer mechanical theories based on logic and presented for speculation. This I have done, poorly I admit. The precise ways I have done it have never been challenged in the same precise ways.
I have the world of science under my feet. You have real tests under yours. If you would be willing to change your statement just a tiny, tiny bit the entire world would agree with you.
If you should say, “Centrifuge shows no effects during gyroscopic precession.” You would have me following you.
However, if you state categorically that centrifuge doesn’t exist, well there we go again, because you can’t prove that. You can only prove that no effects of it occurs.
This is enough for now. I’ll let you have at it with poor beat up Luis. Watch out for falling rocks. Take care.
See you latter,
Glenn
You too Luis, take care.
This thread is getting good isn’t it?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 11/04/2006 06:55:32
| | | Glenn and Shed Dwellers,
I was alive all through World War 2, even witnessed the first air raid on Britain, Glenn, but I am not that old.
It is the easiest thing in the world to prove in an accelerated system.
The same rules apply to a passive or gravity accelerated system.
Just stick a strain gauge or 2 on the gyro support links, couple it all up through slip rings to a suitable recorder or a dual beam oscilloscope and all will be revealed.
You will see something which shocked me to the core when I first saw it.
Seemed to me to be impossible, but that’s gyroscopes for you.
It is as easy as that, and it will end this argument once and for all.
Does nobody do experiments anymore?
Would you all rather try to talk this to death, or learn something exciting and useful.
Guessing is just not good enough.
Forget the junk you have been taught, this is the real world.
What’s more you ain’t going nowhere without it.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 11/04/2006 15:03:30
| | | Dear Sandy,
Ok, here is the imposable problem. Most replies don’t address the main points of many posts.
My point was. “THERE IS NO PROFF THAT IN PRECESSING THE GYRO DOES NOT PULL-PUSH ITSELF TOWARD THE PIVITAL CENTER OF ITS ORBIT.” I contend it dose and this councils out the effects of an existing centrifuge.
Are you willing to select one of these answers and go from there?
(1.) I KNOW THERE IS NO INWARD PUSH-PULL.
(2.) I KNOW THERE IS AN INWARD PUSH-PULL.
(3.) I DON’T KNOW.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 12/04/2006 06:37:37
| | | Dear Glenn,
I’m not so sure what you mean by push-pull.
INWARD PUSH THERE MOST CERTAINLY IS.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 12/04/2006 07:13:39
| | | Dear Glenn,
Keep going you are really getting somewhere.
Somewhere I posted a thing relating to the non existent centrifugal and centripetal forces.
Now you have to be a little more careful with their use.
Where else can you find a rapidly rotating object which wants to accelerate inwards?
Where else can you find a rapidly rotated object which displays no acceleration?
Where else can you find an object which when rotated, acceleration and angular momentum are progressively reduced as rotation speed is increased?
You will notice that all expected outputs are reversed.
The gyroscope is most certainly unique in its properties.
Add a host of other anomalies all peculiar to the gyroscope.
Eric Laithwaite once said to me,
“Sandy, in the future one of the most important areas of study will be in the Dynamics of Spin”
Who am I to disagree with that statement.
Glenn you will soon be as mad as myself.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 12/04/2006 13:12:09
| | | Dear Sandy, I must wait to continue. There is more. It is important. We'll will see. Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 12/04/2006 15:25:19
| | | The long wait is over.
Dear Sandy,
This is good. Communication can be aggregating at times, but that is not because of the personalities involved. It’s because of the damned gyroscope. Mad? Yes it is madding and the deeper you go the more so. We who study the thing can’t write all that we think. There’s too much, but this has been a good thread, because we essentially concentrated on one thing at a time. This lead toward allowing the formation of a single acceptable statement in an area where before there was none.
For years you have been banging around the knowledge that a gyro pushes inward, but few if any that I can see acknowledged this as true and understood. It is understood now, because this subject has been beaten about hard and lengthily between two minds for everyone to see.
To have this understood and accepted is progress. It is not a little thing. It is communal progress. Though it may seem little to some now, it’s good. It’s going to lead us a long way. Wait and see.
Your way of thinking and your types of tests are and were independent and different than mine, but we each reached the same conclusion. That is the existence of inward push. In rightness, because you first discovered and reported it, it is your discovery, supported and confirmed by my work of a different kind. You thought that people understood you? No. Not until now. I will state this for you, please change it as you like.
KID’S RULE: Precession pushes into the pivotal center of rotation.
This is part of what Luis wanted I think, laws and rules. We have Nitro’s law and Sandy’s rule if you agree. We should be finished with these. The mechanics of push aren’t explained. These would surprise us, but I guess this is good enough for now. We can go from here to attempting to add more laws and rules.
As far now I’m going to wait and digest other things you’ve said. They were not grossed over. I have to rest from this a while anyway and do actual work with my hands. Next I want to keep hammering centrifuge mercilessly to see if it is at all possible to a reach joint agreement by we several, and thereby add to our pitifully small number of accepted truths.
We are on top of the next already. There is so little difference between what we say about centrifuge. You’ll see. Then on to momentum like slowly pulling teeth.
My argument from here would be. You mentioned Liftwate’s’ experiment with a precessing toy gyro sat upon a tower above an ice surface. I ask, why did the tower not move? By Kidd’s rule we know the gyro pushed inward toward the tower. Why then did it not push its axel over the top of the tower? There being no friction between tower and ice to stop this confirmed push, I ask why then did the gyro not move the tower in the opposite direction of its position? Centrifuge—a condition accepted by almost every learned person in the world--would explain why.
When centrifuge is real, momentum is real. There aren't any exceptions to this in math and science. Just because these forces are acting fully only during precession, but not at the instant precession ceases, dose not alter that they are acting fully during precession.
I wish to digress from physics for a moment to remember the happy days of my youth when fried chicken tasted better and the world was filled with excitement.
When I was a boy I would be sent out to the chicken pin to bring back supper. Have you ever tried to hem in a chicken in the corner of a wire fence? There are problems. The chicken goes through, around and over your legs dodging like lighting every which way, but sometime you get one if you are persistent. The chicken uses quickness and speed to avoid being cornered. A human however, uses his wits to avoid being cornered when he doesn’t want to be cornered. You can out wit a chicken on the run, but you can’t out wit a human’s ability to change the subject and fail to respond directly to the way the subject was put to him if he doesn’t want to. That’s ok I guess. You can’t eat a human anyway.
Don’tcha get annoyed at me. I’m not serious, well not serious to the extent that my friend Dave S. is serious anyway.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 15/04/2006 04:40:11
| | | Sandy,
Though I am not sure what it was that you guys finally agreed about, I am glad and I am sure that both of you are also very satisfied with it. I confess that “it” was beyond my limited understanding.
Sandy, I am going to respond to you on another thread, away from this one that has become a three ring circus.
I will entitle the new thread “Let’s stick to one subject at a time until we get it sorted out.”
Jerry,
You are a bright man with ideas that go far and wide. Unfortunately my threads are intended to focus on specific items that are not as futuristic as yours, but that I wish to get fully defined and that I see as essential to the type of design which many of the guys are pursuing (different from yours).
I would prefer if your more futuristic subjects are discussed in separate threads so that more focused attention can be given to your efforts as well as to what I am pursuing.
The direction of exploration that you have taken may prove very valuable after the more basic concepts (that others such as myself are working on) are proven beyond scientific doubt.
Thank you, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 15/04/2006 16:11:48
| | | NUTS.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 15/04/2006 23:34:00
| | | Glenn,
Whilst the gyroscope is in precession the little plastic tower does not
tip over because there is no sideways load on the tower.
The gyroscope is levering itself upwards against / around its fulcrum.
The load on the fulcrum is purely vertical.
The area of maximum inertia is the bottom sector of the gyroscope which
creates the leverage.
This is translated into a vertical force acting down through the
rotational centre of the system / fulcrum.
The gyroscope going into precession, transfers its own weight, to act
vertically downwards through its axis of precession rotation.
As it transfers its weight this causes the angular momentum /
centrifugal force of the gyroscope to diminish proportionately.
Equilibrium is achieved.
There is no change to the system weight.
There is no sideways displacement.
In fact there is not very much of anything, just a visible display of an
object being rotated in a couple of planes.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 16/04/2006 05:40:52
| | | Glenn,
You've done a pretty good job of diagrametrically presenting a precessing gyro, using the horizontal T. But I dissagree with your mechanics. The precessional forces would be perpendicular to the direction towards, or away from the T.
You said:
>We want to concentrate on the top and bottom of an actual precessing gyro. The top resists being moved from its alignment. We may think of this as if it were pushing toward the veridical top of the tower, just as our T square when the top string is pulled.
>The bottom of the gyro resists being moved toward the tower. We may think of this as when our string on the bottom terminal of the T-square is pulled away from the tower.
With a gyro in gravity driven precession, the action against both the top and the bottom areas of the rim is downwards. I realize that as the gyro, in the horizontal T configuration, is torqued downwards the top would tend to move one way and the bottom the other way, producing motions towards and away from the ruler, as you have presented. However, these motions are very slight, due to what seems to us to be 'instantaneous' reactions to the downwards pull caused by gravity against both the top and bottom rims. The reaction to this downwards pull (in a non accelerated system), on both top and bottom, is a centrifugal acceleration upwards which almost exactly counteracts the downwards force, depending upon the spin rate. So the torqueing of the base point of the T against the ruler would be minimal. Furthermore, the movements towards and away from the ruler would also result in CA reactions in the opposite directions. (Is this what you mean by push-pull?)
You said:
>From here we understand how and why the gyro stays aloft and resist falling. The weight of the gyro acting against the ability of angular momentum to resist tilting converts the weight of the gyro into a curving torque upon the pedestal. The force of gravity then is equal to the force of applied torque. This has caused some of us to say a gyro appears to lose weight and that the weight is transferred to the pedestal. This would be OK. It is simple and easy, except it draws the err of scholars. Anyway I think this is how a gyro stays aloft.
Here again, I don't think the torque applied to the pedestal is equal to the force of gravity; the forces which keep the gyro aloft appear locally, at the rims, and nearly negate any force transmitted to the pedestal. But Sandy seems to dissagree (I think), and he may be right.
Then you said:
>Now we should have the tools to approach centrifuge. Some of us have noted rightly that the top of the gyro would always move outwardly from the tower as the bottom would move inward. Considering horizontal and vertical in the tilt from 45o to 90o the top moves a greater distance than the bottom. From 90o to 135o the bottom moves the greater distance. Always the greater the area of movement the greater the direction of curving torque acts opposite to centrifuge. The main torque is basically twisting away from centrifuge, just as centipede opposes centrifuge, and just as the T square twists away, while also partially countered by a lesser twist into, which all combined balances the tower. Therefore centrifuge is always countered. Therefore it is difficult to detect--- but it is there—it is acting.
It would appear that the top and bottom rims would therefore move the same distance at the 90o, or horizontal angle. Therefore, there would be no torque against the pedestal.
>It would be good if this could be either accepted, or rejected, but not left in limbo.
Glenn,
The best way to settle the question of the centrifuge force in precession would be to construct a plastic gyro with a heavy rim, so that it will fly apart at a reasonable spin rate, due to the centrifuge forces. Then repeat the experiment at the same, or higher spin rate, while allowing the gyro to precess normally. If it doesn't fly apart, then there is no centrifuge force while in precession. If it flys apart at, but only at, a higher, or much higher, spin rate, then the centrifuge force is reduced by precession. I've built flywheels using toy bicycle wheels, with the rim wrapped with a few layers of solder wire, and I have seen one fly apart, using a small motor. But this may not have been a case of precession, since I don't know if the shaft was tilted of not.
Jerry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 16/04/2006 06:04:45
| | | Luis,
You keep saying I'm focusing on futuristic ideas. But, actually, my focus is, and always has been, on the MECHANICAL generation of thrust. (I've built and tested 76 different MACHINES [not even a close second to Sandy's 200], and I'm starting on number 77.) The futuristic idea about using a nucleus, NMR (with a diode - which I failed to include, mechanically), and a latteral accustic signal was Kouropoulos' idea. I feel that he based his futuristic idea on his knowledge of mechanical systems, and that's why I mentioned it. In fact, the main reason I posted his articles was because you had asked for some all-encompassing theory. And to show you what kind of math is involved - it's not High School math.
But these Basic Concepts are also something I'm working on, and I intend to keep barraging you with my two cents' worth. It was a long time before I finally built a system which did what I expected it to. But it did, so I do know some of the Fundamentals, mechanically.
And I do owe you some gratitude. In the 12 years that I've been trying to figure out one of my main machines, I've been fortunate to find a half dozen people who would discuss it with me - including one guy with a PHD. But it wasn't untill you 'analyzed' it that I was forced to focus on what turns out to be one of the main elements of its operation, and now I understand what it's doing.
Jerry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/04/2006 14:18:13
| | | What is grand is that every person here thinks, and thinks his way. What is grand is the uniqueness of the human. What is grand is that we are different.
What I think is of no grand consequences in the events of the world, but that it is my difference.
GLENN’S DO NOTS:
Precessing gyros do not weigh less.
Do not defy the nature of momentum
Do not defy reactions that cause centrifuge.
This sums me up.
Sincerely,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 21/04/2006 02:49:50
| | | Well said Gen.
I think it is important that we respect the threads that others start and try to stick to the point.
This does not exclude a brief exception now and if we want to get someone’s attention.
If we have a different point to make ten we should start our own thread.
Once again well done Glen!
Thank you Jerry,
I agree that once we resolve the Mechanics issue it will open the door for doing something similar at the molecular level. A major question to as is: What type of molecule will have the right structure and lend itself to be manipulated via electric, magnetic, and other forces, in a configuration that will provide the right type of behaviors?
Finding the correct molecule or combination of molecules will be a great discovery. I am personally leaning toward the helix shaped molecules such as the ones that makeup life’s DNA. Of course there may be other more suitable molecules or quantum level configurations. The US government was sponsoring super-cooled environments for this effort. Here is an interesting item. A normal liquid forms a single funnel when stirred around in a circle. Liquid Helium will form many smaller funnels when stirred around in a circle; due to quantum behavior.
Regards, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 02/05/2006 14:31:28
| | | Sandy,
That was an excellent post with your understanding explained perfectly well. It is hard to argue with, but of course the main points of contention I differ with, as you know. Anyway, I think you should get recognition from me for how well you did it. It was good.
Jerry,
Good points, but I can’t think of any easy way to prove, or disprove that 'precession-centrifuge' is acting, but is countered by other forces, as I perceive. There are evidences that it is acting during certain experiments, but these arguments are countered by the idea of ‘dead weight’. To maintain this idea of dead weight while altering it requires a lengthy discourse. Sometimes one thinks the best way to explain the gyroscope is with a sledgehammer followed with a fishing trip and a few beers.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 04/05/2006 10:38:28
| | | Luis,
Your last question, at this point, was about which molecule could be used to generate propulsion. Your preference for DNA type spirals is interesting and makes me think of microbial flagella. (Are they Inertial or hydraulic? [Not to get sidetracked.]) But I would think that water might be the best choise. Kilowatt level magnetrons at the right frequency to stimulate water are readily available, in our microwaves. We just need a filter plate or something to rectify the signal. A steam molecule has a lopsided mass and so might emulate the weights on spokes I'm fond of using. Also, like a plasma, a group of steam molecules can be polarized so that they all rotate in sync. Kouropoulos would say that once the molecules are polarized, speed up the rotation for one half of the cycle, but use Conservation of Momentum effects to slow the rotation during the other, non-powered, half cycle.
But this thread is about mechanical propulsion, like all of ours research, thinking and experimentation. So I want to go back to the top of the thread and summarize what we've got so far. You said it is necessary to segment the concepts into a number of digestible pieces, so let's consider one or two points at a time.
1) Understand why (or accept) a gyro on a tower does not fall under the downward force of gravity, but rather RESPONDS (NOT reacts) at 90 degrees (precession).
-I think we're all in agreement that gravity speeding up the mass spinning downwards on one side, while slowing down the mass spinning upwards on the other side is responsible for the horizontal off center rotation, or torque, which results in precessional movement. And the subsequent result of this movement is a similar vertical torque - top and bottom - which counteracts gravity's pull and stops the gyro from falling over. Downwards force, sideways movement, then upwards force. One thing after the other, but basically everything at once, since the effects happen so quickly.
2) Understand that a slow spinning flywheel produces faster precession than a fast spinning flywheel.
-Right. This is because the slower wheel has a more vertical orrientation, so gravity's angle is more direct.
I'll stop here for now, in case anyone has something to add, then I'll check back tomorrow.
Glenn,
Don't forget the Second Law of Inertial Propulsion: any force which can appear does appear, with the least desirable effect being the most likely. (The First Law is: when something changes directions, the previous motion dissappears. [Transfering the force to the frame.])
Jerry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 04/05/2006 15:17:19
| | | For crying out loud. Yet another in a long line of ridiculous statements.
"A normal liquid forms a single funnel when stirred around in a circle. Liquid Helium will form many smaller funnels when stirred around in a circle; due to quantum behavior."
Super cooled gasses are not stirred like dipping a spoon into a cuppa. It is done using rotation lasers and/or magnetic influence. Very different mechanics and physics to that observed in a normally stirred cup of water. And how do you know it is quantum behaviour even though that term could be used to describe anything?
I am finding the comic book, science fantasy nonsense spouted by a certain individual irksome and as such I will leave you all to get on with the b*llox talk and the entertainment of this individual and go do more useful things.
Enough is enough.
Any of those that I have had correspondance with in the past may speak with me on my e-mail address if you need to contact me.
Glenn (webmaster), I will speak with you on completion of my machine.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 05/05/2006 10:26:52
| | | Luis,
You're first impression was right, let's leave out the futuristic stuff, except as it correlates with something mechanical which can be built and tested. The only reason I mentioned the nuclear embodiment was in responce to your A and B above, to show that there is another way to generate propulsion mechanically.
Jerry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 05/05/2006 10:30:33
| | | Luis,
Your first impression was right, let's leave out the futuristic stuff, except as it correlates with something mechanical which can be built and tested. The only reason I mentioned the nuclear embodiment was in responce to your A and B above, to show that there is another way to generate propulsion mechanically. You're apparently not the only one who, like me, is grounded in the mechanical. But I still think this latteral signal, at twice the rotation frequency and with a pi/2 phase shift, is important, so I'll continue making my case for it, as you requested near the top of this thread. Thank you.
Jerry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/05/2006 22:47:46
| | | This has gotten out of hand. I speak of Luis, Dave S. and myself. When we say something hatful it hurts other people’s feelings. Words can hurt and anger. Do we three really think that anything we say and do is important to others just because it’s important to us? We who would be perfectionist, and have it our way only, on a free speech forum, require that others fall under our will and obey our individual standards and determinations? We know better. People do as they please, sometimes innocently and sometimes incorrectly and it is their right as well as our right whether we like it, or not.
We are communal animals and cannot live as individual hermits and tyrants. The very First Amendment in the Construction of United States of America guarantees freedom of speech. ‘It is the law’ and probably English law too. It is no wonder that the Founding Fathers being philosophers and historians found it necessary to grant free speech before all other rights. One other great right granted is the right to be happy…this is for everyone.
As the communal animals that we are, lately we have been acting like idiots. This is a community web site and free speech runs wild. When we three individual perfectionist blow up like a balloon full of hot air and explode over nothing, it is our own fault and our personality flaw. I see flaws everywhere not just among we three. Just make damn sure you understand that I don’t have any…just kidding you. Actually, I may have a couple though they’ve never been proven to my satisfaction and I dare anybody to try to prove them again, growl, growl, growl.
I am for forgiving and forgetting entirely, which is the communal way of getting along. We should all restart from scratch.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 07/05/2006 04:03:05
| | | DaveS
Crying does not help, no matter how loud you do it. You found something to criticize but I’m so sorry you missed the mark.
No one stated how the liquid Helium was stirred; you brought in the “dipping spoon,” how clever.
So, they are now putting educational content in comic books? You a reliable source?
It’s pitiful to see anyone in such discomfort and full of venom.
You could, instead, write threads that point out the errors in specific points of my evolving theory, but that presupposes your ability or desire to understand the different points and how they connect. I’m afraid I can’t help you there.
Those who feel that applying mathematics to develop a theory of mechanical propulsion is a waste of time can’t possibly understand the points I am making; what I write is not intended for those individuals.
It’s also possible to relieve some of your pain by not reading my posts. Alternatively, you may show your much greater intellect and knowledge of the subject by writing about it in your own threads.
I don’t think that one (or any number of participants) should bully, and try to intimidate anyone into stopping from expressing themselves (especially when that expression is based on facts that extend into logical deductions and inductions toward a coherent theory).
If someone finds no value in such expression, don’t read it!
I certainly feel some statements made in certain posts have little or no value; however you don’t find me trying to stop anyone from posting threads (even the most inane postings appear to have some redeeming value).
Thank you, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 07/05/2006 12:37:01
| | | Luis,
I agree that liquid helium exhibits quantum behavior. That's why mining it on the Moon may become a profitable business. It also the coldest refrigerant. It's interesting - but probably irrelevant here - that this liquid will climb the sides of a bowl, spill over the top edge, and completly empty the bowl.
Glenn,
You said:
>Those who feel that applying mathematics to develop a theory of mechanical propulsion is a waste of time can’t possibly understand the points I am making
Yes, it's important to apply methematics. But before this can be done successfully all potential effects must be identified. Otherwise, a calculated expectancy might not occur. For instance, torque might appear, rather than centrifugal force. This is why Luis' post is so important.
Jerry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 10/05/2006 01:12:37
| | | Jerry,
In response to your posting of 04/05/2006 10:38:28 in this thread, I want to correct a common misconception.
You were responding to my first point at the top of the thread which reads:
1) Understand why (or accept) a gyro on a tower does not fall under the downward force of gravity, but rather RESPONDS (NOT reacts) at 90 degrees (precession).
You said:
“-I think we're all in agreement that gravity speeding up the mass spinning downwards on one side, while slowing down the mass spinning upwards on the other side is responsible for the horizontal off center rotation, or torque, which results in precessional movement. And the subsequent result of this movement is a similar vertical torque - top and bottom - which counteracts gravity's pull and stops the gyro from falling over. Etc.”
I admit that at some point in time I thought that explanation may have been correct, and others have expressed a similar belief. (I still think that there is some merit in viewing precession as a result of the opposing effects of an applied force. It is a creative explanation for precession but appears to rely on a gradual drop.)
I believe this explanation for precession is wrong. It excludes the precession that is created by applying torque to a spinning gyro in gimbals (in other words, a gyro with an axle of length just about the size of the diameter of the gyro-flywheel). I am talking about a gyro that does NOT have an axle with longer end to rest upon a tower. If you are having trouble visualizing it look at the 4 experiment clips, starting with the middle of the fifth row to the middle of the sixth row, in the following link http://www.gyroscope.com/movies.asp.
Can you see that precession can be induced to a gyro on gimbals without necessarily speeding up and/or slowing down of the spin rate on any specific side?
I believe there are better, more accurate explanations for precession.
Here is an intuitive explanation that may help clarify what occurs during precession:
The interactions between a spinning gyro-flywheel and applied torque (applied to modify the spin axis), which produces precession, can be simple but the subtleties often make the process difficult to visualize.
First, keep in mind that a force applied to an object moving in a straight line, modifies the direction of the moving object’s motion and redirects it towards the direction in which the force is occurring.
A spinning gyro-flywheel is slightly more complex (it’s also continuously subjected to centripetal force), but it still is an object in motion.
Second, remember that a torque is basically an angular force (around a curve instead of in a straight line).
When the angular “force” (torque) is applied to the spinning flywheel (a moving object), the applied force modifies the direction of the object’s spin / motion toward the direction in which the torque is applied!
Please note or recall that the resulting precession causes the gyro-flywheel to end up spinning in the exact same direction as the direction that the torque force is applied. The gyro will settle into a spin congruent with the spin of the torque applied! (I hope this is not news, otherwise please conduct the simple tests to verify.)
The explanation for precession is that simple!
The complications emerge because we focus on the wrong experiment when analyzing precession. A gyro on a tower under gravity is the wrong experiment with which to analyze precession. Why?
Though a gyro on a tower is the cheapest and easiest to conduct, it has additional components that introduce multiple variables into the configuration and drive the complexity up, at least fourfold.
We all know that the precession occurring in a gyro on a tower never achieves a destination (it goes around until the gyro falls). Precession on a tower never catches up with the direction of the applied force because gravity is a linear force (not a curved torque) in relationship to the gyro. Torque is circular but gravity is NOT.
This is not always an easy thing to picture or to understand. Whenever I want an accurate representation of how precession is induced, my solution is to “completely forget about gyros on towers under gravity.”
To recap, a persistent linear force carries an object, which is moving in a straight line, toward the direction of the force.
In the same manner, a curving force (torque) carries a spinning object (circular motion) toward the circular direction of the torque.
What follows is very important: the path that the spinning object takes to become able to match the direction of the torque is what we see as precession!
This is the best intuitive explanation of precession that I have ever become aware of. Does it make sense?
Can anyone visualize the explanation?
(Please let’s try to keep responses simple and stick to the point.)
Thank you, Luis
PS – This definition of precession provides a perception of the dynamics that may help to find the answers to the first 2 questions in my posting of 30 April 2006 with tile “Why do we post our ideas… etc.”
(Please ignore my feeble attempt at Shakespearian drama that I used to introduce that thread; I had watched Hamlet just before I wrote it).
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 10/05/2006 17:07:39
| | | JERRY, YOU SAY I SAID THE BELOW. WRONG. I DIDN’T SAY THIS.
Jerry said:
“Glenn, You said:
>Those who feel that applying mathematics to develop a theory of mechanical propulsion is a waste of time can’t possibly understand the points I am making”
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 11/05/2006 10:19:25
| | | Glenn,
You're right, and I'm sorry. That was from Luis' post. (I've been losing sleep, but still trying to keep up.)
Jerry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 11/05/2006 11:18:42
| | | Luis,
Without a high speed Internet connection, I'm unable to view the clips you cite. However, the idea that precession causes the gyro-flywheel to end up spinning in the exact same direction as the direction that the torque force is applied seems to contradict the conclusion we've come to that a gyro will respond at 90o, rather than in the same direction.
Also, gravity may or may not be a circular force (this isn't the place to discuss it), but the effect which gravity produces on a falling object which has one end supported is torque, in the sence that torque can be considered as an increasing rotational speed or potential. I've tried to find a definition of torque, but have only found equations. But in order to get our minds around Mechanical Propulsion we should consider all examples, to make sure any understanding is consistent.
Finally, if a gyro on gimbals is torqued - that is its shaft is twisted - one side of the wheel will still experience a tendency to speed up, while the other has the potential to slow down. The difference between this experiment and that involving a gyro on a pedestal is that both ends of the shaft are moved. Or, the center of the torque movement is somewhere along the shaft, rather than at its end. But, if our understanding is accurate, the results in both cases will be covered by the explanation.
Jerry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 12/05/2006 10:10:00
| | | Luis,
I'm starting to better visualize your explanation of precession. Am I correct in thinking that you're referring to the tendency for the plane of rotation to align with that of the applied torque?
Jerry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 13/05/2006 04:42:19
| | | Jerry,
I think you’re starting to get the idea. Read the explanation carefully until you understand the different points.
Do NOT think of gravity while you try to understand the item because gravity has nothing to do with it.
(The effect of gravity is negligible for the explanation of precession that I provided.)
Also, note that each side of the axle is of the same length on both sides of the gyro-flywheel; the total length of the axle is about the same length as the diameter of the gyro-flywheel (this is important).
Yes, torque means twisting around with a force, but it does NOT give one side a tendency to go faster then the other side; the sides just go in opposite directions.
Think about it, figure it out, and then remove all the misconceptions that you have adopted (misconceptions appear to be prevalent).
You can and should consider all examples, but the subject is complicated by more simultaneous interactions.
The best approach is to reduce the variables and interactions so you can see clearly what is occurring at the simplest level.
Once you have the basic facts then you will be able to precede building facts upon facts (if you start with fiction you’ll have difficulty getting the facts straight).
The introduction of additional factors such as an asymmetric axle, and gravity can only add to the complication. Unfortunately that is where investigation of gyros started. It’s no wonder the science of gyros has been so slow to develop and become fully understood.
I have wanted to write a comprehensive thread explaining the different points over time, but I’m afraid the discussions of disparate ideas confuse the readers and it becomes easy to confuse who said what. Someone said that I contradict myself but I think they attributed someone else’s writing to me.
Thanks, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
