|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
6 May 2024 17:04
|
|
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: |
Glenn Hawkins |
| Subject: |
? |
| Question: |
Look at this and tell me if you were to push a small, thin hardcover book in front of it, would there be enough wallop to knock the hardcover over? Look at video clips #6 1MB and clip #7 1.1MB http://www.gyroscope.com/movies.asp
Glenn,
PS. Dave S. come on back.
|
| Date: |
6 May 2006
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 06/06/2006 16:07:06
| | | Defeat this! No, no, don’t change to another example. Don’t explain from another standpoint. Defeat this.
The faster the precession the more momentum carried, exactly as in linear motion. The faster an object travels in either example the greater the impact at collision.
Example One: Precess your gyro. Place a heavy object directly in front of its path. You hear a thump. The gyro bounces backward. Throw a rubber ball into a wall. You hear a thump and the ball bounces backward.
Example Two: Precess your gyro. Place a lightweight object directly in front of its path. The gyro collides and stops, but the object is knocked forward. Throw a rubber ball into the gate of a fence. The ball stops and the gate swings forward.
Example Three: Precess you gyro. Place a still lighter weight object in front of its path. The gyro collides and continues to precess while the object is knocked forward out of its way. Remove most of the weight from the fence gate, also the hinges. Throw a rubber ball into it. The ball collides and continues at a slower speed while the gate is knocked over.
After a gyro collision into a lighter weight object the gyro is slowed but an instant, then continues at its previous speed because it is constantly powered by gravity, while the ball is given no constantly applied force.
To avoid confusion please use these examples only and tell me again why a precessing gyro has no momentum, why its not reacting to force and why it has no action reaction potential.
These are two, of the three greatest fallacies ever perpetrated on the study of gyroscopes, yet the visual evidence and sound to provide proof to the contrary was always easy to obtain. It was in front of you all this time.
I await defeat, if you can do it with the examples given.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 07/06/2006 04:21:21
| | | While I’m at it, there is exactly the right amount of centrifuge acting during precession as it is with all things traveling in a curvature. You just can’t see the evidence. You have tricked yourself again. When you say there’s no centrifuge you commit a third great fallacy perpetrated against the study of the gyroscope.
One of the tendencies occurring during precession is that variations of torque combine to push the gyro inward toward the pedestal. The tendency is that the gyro would spiral into the pedestal. As this tendency would happen the shaft would be forced to slide over the top of the pedestal allowing the gyro to spiral inward closer to the pedestal. This is not permitted, because centrifuge pulls the gyro outward away from the pedestal.
There isn’t any magic involved in anything a gyro dose. Every action is as it should be. It is all-mechanical. Centrifuge and the inward push counter one another in near perfect balance. Without centrifuge acting I don’t know what you’d have, but you wouldn’t see precession acting as it dose.
I suppose it is that you correctly perceive there is no centripetal force pulling inward; therefore you reason that if centrifuge were present it would pull the gyro outward. If however, you instead are willing to understand that various alignments of torques are pushing the gyro inward, you can then reason the effect of the push inward as ‘similar’ to the effect of a rotating particle being pulled inward by centripetal force.
This inward push is very strange to us, but without it acting in balance with a centrifuge pulling oppositely outward, propulsion wouldn’t be possible. An inward pull from centripetal wouldn’t do at all for us. You’d have nothing, no possibilities at all. You must have a push inward, not a pull. Then you must have a pull outward. Otherwise all possibilities fall apart and you can pack your gym bag and go home. You lost.
Back to Good Old Centrifuge, so misaligned, denied and malingered. If you had truly understood centrifuge, ‘it is complicated, not easy as believed’ you’d have know all along it had to be present whenever mater changes direction.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 07/06/2006 04:26:45
| | | How did we ever go down these wrong-headed ways, no momentum, no reaction, no centrifuge, the laws are acting yes, the laws are acting no, gyros weighs less and forward precession? I’m not sure what they are saying now about forward precession? Current explanations whether right or wrong are to long and complicated. Until these are simplified I’d be afraid to stir them with a stick. Sometimes I think I have it and some times I don’t. If I’m ever sure I’ll explain it so that it can be understood. I’m not going to put much effort in because I don’t much care. I know how to use it. Ain’t that enough ?
If you won’t believe in momentum and centrifuge all you have left is mass displacement and the very best mass displacement devise will get you a steady six, or seven miles an hour, until the fuel is used up, never accelerating faster. I’ve done it. Nitro says he’s done it. There’s a hint of a suggestion that yet another here has done it. When you’ve done it, you’ll only have proven to yourself the laws are broken, and unless you’d mistakenly think you’d be admired in news releases with film, and think admiration is what you want, what would you have? Nothing in my book. If on the other hand you want continuous acceleration you have to find a way to extract momentum from precession. If you deny things like momentum you haven’t a chance and if you deny centrifuge you may not be able to reason how. Without these things what have you got? Nothing. Nothing but a news release with your name attached proving mass displacement. You got nothing, nada, nix.
I think Professor Liftwate is responsible for beginning so much miss-information and it just carried on. I’m pretty bored with it all today.
“I don’t care if I do die, do die, do die.” Johnny Cash
Glenn,
Probably Glenn the hated, Glenn the destroyer of magic, Glenn the bored today, Glenn who wants to go out to a bar to talk and laugh and cuss and drank with men, but has no designated driver tonight, Glenn who’s wife a moment ago smiled sweetly, demurely at this question, while dodging the very thought of filling in for his driver. SHE has to work tomorrow. That’s not true. God I hate to drink alone. If you’d drink more you wouldn’t be so wrong-headed. If you don’t believe me ask the other guy. He’s stanching away enough to last till 2008 and speaking brilliantly I might add. He knows what he’s doing. ‘ Man after my own heart. Well, I got enough to last several weeks and then some. God I hate to drink alone. It’s only slightly less boring than not drinking at all. Well cay-sat-au sat-au. Cheers to all who don’t hate me too much.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 08/06/2006 16:46:24
| | | Mass displacement. At last someone else sees it...
... I think.
I have always described it as mass interaction.
The only problem when you go down this route is not Newtons laws but how does the device equate to flight or space drives, if at all?
Friction drive or something more?
Lets face it, linear propulsion is eluding most on here and how the device works is fairly irrelevent at this stage. It's all a bit chicken and egg.
With gyroscopes, fly wheels we have OBSERVED, actions and reactions, these are what should be harnessed and a device that works should be the first priority. Enough time to worry about the theory afterwards.
Don't get me wrong, a basic understanding is necessary it is just the math that is not. As I have mentioned before, it is kind of difficult to insert numbers into an equation and get an answer when the equation is not all there.
Mass displacement or precession. Lines drawn.
DaveS
ps. Nice post Glenn. A post that actually perked up my interest for a change.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 09/06/2006 12:52:17
| | | Dave,
Thank you. Sometimes we think our post is useful and in some ways good enough and then it just sets there as this one did for a month. Your reply made me smile, because it means you’ve been reasoning well and correctly, therefore you were able to relate your understanding to mine to either challenge, or agree, in this case you agree and that is reciprocated. I agree entirely with what you’ve said. I had not understood what you meant by interaction until now.
When you say, “Mass displacement or precession. Lines drawn.” I could as well say, displacement, or momentum. Both definitions mean the same. Bully for you.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 26/06/2006 15:31:22
| | | Dear Glenn,
In light of the obvious depression you are suffering, and in an attempt to keep you out of the public bar, I feel I should answer your question “How did we ever go down these wrong-headed ways?”
Firstly Eric Laithwaite did not dispense any misinformation relating to angular momentum and or centrifugal force loss which were aimed at passive or gravity accelerated gyroscopic systems.
Similarly, I will add at this point neither did I, when I made the same claims for accelerated systems.
We both made statements, which can be backed up experimentally, and besides who wants to be proved an idiot.
Please note the use of the word proved.
The real problem is that some of us (not myself ) choose not to believe, even though no mathematics are required to see what is happening, basically because it does not suit their purposes.
If I had to answer everyone who disagreed with me, it would become a full time job, so as often as not I just ignore the comment. Howsoever you have me somewhat confused with your statement relating to the extraction of angular momentum from precession.
If I may, from this point onwards, I shall address this posting to all interested parties.
It would appear that many have a fixation with gravity accelerated systems.
You can argue about mass or weight transfer till the cows come home, that’s fine by me, but that has no effect on the main issue, unless you are trying to devise some kind of stepping machine, although, even then, the principles are the same for an accelerated system.
However the point being missed, is that in a gyroscopic system subjected to radial acceleration (i.e. an accelerated system) is that unlike gravity systems in precession, it is not, an all, or nothing at all, situation.
A gyroscopic system whilst forcibly rotated in a circle does not experience precession.
As the gyroscope’s speed is increased (and or system rotation speed) there is a progressive reduction in angular momentum and centrifugal force, all the way to the “saturation point”.
The original use of the term saturation point, was mine, and was created in the hope, that it would stop folks using the term precession, which causes confusion as to the type of system being referred to, because precession in an accelerated system it is not.
A certain person many years ago described a forcibly accelerated gyroscopic system as being subjected to “forced precession”, and that’s where this all started.
Then in almost the same breath he described the inward acceleration of the gyroscope in the same system as precession. (See my point?)
This saturation point can be (within reason) at any speed you choose to place it, depending purely on gyroscope and / or system rotation speed.
Besides nothing says you have to run the thing into saturation anyway.
Differential is easy to achieve anywhere below that point.
If system rotation speed is constant, reduction in angular momentum or centrifugal force is directly proportional to increase in gyroscope rotation speed.
If your calculations are based on either angular momentum, or centrifugal force the outcome will be the same.
Remember that all the normal expected outputs from an object subjected to radial acceleration are reversed when a gyroscope or flywheel is present in the system.
There is as Nitro would say “A shed load of angular momentum and /or centrifugal force available for the taking, or using, and contrary to a belief very recently circulated, the device does not need to come cyclically to a stop or even slow down to produce the goods.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 26/06/2006 20:11:20
| | | These were and are suggestions for clear responses, to point of the subject begun:
“Look at this and tell me…” “Defeat this! No, no, don’t change to another example. Don’t explain from another standpoint. Defeat this.” “I await defeat, if you can do it with the examples given.”
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 27/06/2006 15:19:01
| | | Glenn
OK have it your own way, but when you get around to weighing the gyroscope whilst it is in precession, which must surely come next, please let us know your findings.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 27/06/2006 17:35:24
| | | Nice response Sandy.
When the gyro is weighed though. Is it exhibiting weight loss/gain (defying gravity) or weight redistribution or even something else? Does it in reality have a different mass.
As an example. When weighing yourself on a pair of scales and as I'm on a diet, it does happen frequently, it is possible to eke out a little more apparent weight loss by the shifting of my centre of gravity. By the same token, a gut jiggle in the right way gives an appearance of being heavier.
Back to basics:- The whole concept of trying to explain why a spinning gyroscope does not fall from the support tower is a nice one to try and explain away. There are many explanations but do you believe them? Is something still not quite right? So to try and attribute an explanation to some of our devices must be as difficult if not impossible.
Some years ago I frequently had to use ultra centrifuges, 5,000rpm++ The rotor arms were heavy and the sample weight distribution was absolutely critical. To ensure everything was weighed correctly,, a scale pan was used to distribute the weight evenly and even then it was imperative to get the item being weighed as central as possible. Yet another potentialy flawed measurement in gyroscopic observed reactions.
Try using an ultra centrifuge that is only a small amount out on one side and the results are interesting to say the least.
Please note that I am not advocating anyone is right or wrong here but it is interesting to look at some of the previous work done on gyroscopic propulsion and then to look at the interpretation of observations. I do believe that some of the conclusions are attributed to the wrong cause and effect.
We also talk of accelerated systems. Has someone created one yet?
"the device does not need to come cyclically to a stop or even slow down to produce the goods." My device is cyclic but there is no stopping or slowing down. There is an imbalance created in a specific way.
Does your sytem have an imbalance or is it totally symetrical in operation?
Gravity accelerated gyroscopic systems. Is this the same as mass interaction accelerated systems. I don't think it is. Linked yes but not the same.
Hypothesis after hypothesis and no working devices yet.
DaveS
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 28/06/2006 06:02:37
| | |
My Dear Sandy,
First let me get me out of the way. Your physiological profile is not so bad. In truth however, now days I drank very little spirits and infrequently, not often and don’t carouse any more. Those days of youth are gone, but I do have fun with the subject, clowning around you know. We don’t go out much, but last night I treated my wife to dinner at the Red Lobster restaurant. A couple of the items weren’t especially good, but several were. The big southern fried shrimp we would dip in a horseradish, ketchup and herbs cocktail sauce was out of this world. I could have eaten them until I got sick, but I didn’t. Digestion you know. I had three liquor cocktails in two and a half hours and enjoyed the effect with food and conversation. So much for the big drunken Roman orgy huh? Just a man and his wife, food, conversation and a good but limited intake of Canadian Club and then she drove us home. But, I don’t try to justify myself, nor protect any kind of puritan image what so ever. In the kindest way I think, “Take me or leave me I don’t mind much either way.”
Now then to depression. Yeah it comes and goes, but so dose times of morality and when I’m very lucky sometimes moments of elation. This has happened to every truly committed person in history I’m sure. It is the norm for specially people and its happened that way for you too. Oh sure it has. When no progress is made during a long stretch a man can suddenly fall into a bad case of the blues (when he is a committed person). Then when he has success after a long and difficult time and he knows he succeeded he gets that temporary elation and it is wonderful. It’s almost worth everything, pure happiness. I am certain every great-accomplished person in history experienced the same ups and downs. It's not a flaw, but to be expected if you are a committed person. When it really gets bad sometimes, a friendly neighborhood bar where people go to enjoy one another’s company can help. It rests your mind. We are heard animals, not hermit animals as of course you must know.
That is me and enough of me. Why don’t you tell us something personal about your days and goings on? It would be interesting. Next I will get back to physics and try to give your post a decent reply. It’s not going to be mean, or argumentative.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 28/06/2006 15:11:06
| | | Dave S,
All the devices I build I would call accelerated systems i.e. gravity is a non-required, and unwanted acceleration.
Gyroscopes are either individually electrically powered or simultaneously powered by an electric motor or a miniature i.c engine through a mitre gearbox from outside the machine, with the machine rotation carried out by a separate motor and speed control.
I have to keep repeating this term Dave, as so many contributors have a fixation with gyroscopes on Eiffel Towers and appear to wish to go no further.
As you will no doubt know, the application of any type of radial acceleration to a passive or un-powered gyroscope applies tremendous braking to the gyroscope, severely limiting the duration of its run, and helping to destroy the bearings.
And yes, whilst my devices do not slow down or stop in operation they do exhibit a cyclic motion as we know they must.
Glenn,
If I honestly thought there was anything in my previous 69 years that was of any particular interest to anybody I suppose I could be persuaded to recall it.
I do look back (a bad thing to do) and wonder where all the time has gone, and what I have done, (or more importantly have not done).
I smoke too much, but don’t normally drink. I am happy in my own company and enjoy the peace of living a fair portion of my life on my own in my shed.
I have unlimited patience, except with a large portion of the human race.
I have seen a bit, and done a bit, but I think nothing out of the ordinary, well nothing which I think would be of special interest to anyone.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 30/06/2006 04:06:56
| | | I decided not to argue. The only accomplishment would be to hurt some sincere person’s feelings. I don't want to do that.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 30/06/2006 21:34:23
| | | Hi Glen
I will try to exchange views here by giving my point of view. All that I claim is backed by actual experiment.
Quote “…Defeat this! No, no, don’t change to another example. Don’t explain from another standpoint. Defeat this.
The faster the precession the more momentum carried, exactly as in linear motion. The faster an object travels in either example the greater the impact at collision….”
Not so. The only impact from an offset gyroscope is due to the inefficiency of the gyroscope being used. If you swing the static flywheel at the same speed as the spinning gyroscope then the impact will be greater. The only momentum carried forward by an offset gyroscope is due to its inert components. A ‘perfect gyroscope’ will start and stop instantaneously, responding only to the force orthogonal to spin and precession and will not knock anything over.
Gyroscope couple is a vector quantity. Resisting precession is ‘perceived’ by the gyroscope as another torque. The resulting precession is at right angles to the vector sum of the torques.
Quote Example one “….The gyro bounces backward…."
No it will not. It will never ever reverse its direction of rotation unless the orthogonal force causing the rotation is reversed. Upward gravity?
Quote Example Two “…The gyro collides and stops...” No, it falls down; it drops, as in case one.
Quote Example three “…..gyro collides and continues to precess….” Only if it has enough clearance to drop down and then continue to precess.
Quote “……tell me again why a precessing gyro has no momentum…”
There is no reaction to the initial acceleration of the gyroscope from rest to precession at the point of external connection (The Tower?). Precession is instantaneous. Instantaneous increase in momentum would require infinite force.
I have a walking gyroscope experiment, described elsewhere. The linear motion is achieved by alternate precessions. It will not pull a light weight along with it. If the forward motion is impeded in any way, the walker oscillates but does not move forward. Relate this to your examples one to three. If momentum was created by precession, then the walker would exchange momentum with an external mass and drag it forward.
Continuous Mass displacement is possible, creation of angular momentum is possible, I have done both of these things.
What has so far eluded me is the creation of linear momentum. I think I know how to do it, but cannot devise a means to realise this with my current limited resources. To be more precise, a transitional device which shows the effect at a slow speed, which can then be scaled up. I have made too many fantastic devices in the past which rotated at high speed giving no clue as to why they do not work!!!!!!!
“…why its not reacting to force and why it has no action reaction potential…”
It does react to force. The reaction is orthogonal displacement.
I await your comments.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 01/07/2006 20:35:02
| | |
Hi back to you Momentus,
You say, “I await your comments.” Very well. Here are my comments. You have done an outstanding post. Your explanations are to the point and almost ingeniously simple and based on real test and from an exceptional understanding. I recognize this for I have found the same things as you. As I said earlier I do not want to argue. I want to work now on my motors. But I started this and so it is my duty to respond and thank you. Let me first say again I am genuinely impressed with you, Momentus. Outstanding. I believe you…but…there’s more.
First in order you did not directly address the original post. You knew not to. You understood.
Oh my goodness, I dread this. You said, “The only impact from an offset gyroscope is due to the inefficiency of the gyroscope being used.”
Everything of speed and force into impact comes from ‘how fast’ the gyro is forced downward, because this determines the speed of precession. If your perfect gyro with high angular momentum is mechanically forced downward very fast it will respond exactly as your inefficient gyro, which has low angular momentum and therefore falls faster. Now we want to take into account Sandy Kidd’s’ discovery of a saturation point. Once this point is reached additional applied force will cause no additional precessionary effects of any kind. In fact, if the angular momentum of a spinning disk is week and powerful enough right angle force is instantly increased, a moment of restraint occurs and if the gyroscope is free to do so it tumbles into a, reversing collapse without producing precession. For there to be exceptional collision force we have to first raise the saturation point. We can do that by increasing rotational speed. Angular momentum becomes exceedingly powerful, but right angle applied force upon it must be increase far more than that, far more than the force of resistance in the increased angular momentum. When the increased magnitude of these two opposing forces, acting in exactly the best ratios with one another are instantly exerted with enough force, precession can be ‘supper’ quick. The gyroscope can then release from the pedestal by increased centrifuge, particularly as it touches down on the floor and the speed in which the gyroscope is thrust in an upright way in a straight line across the floor can seem absolutely incredible. All the linearly acceleration occurs in only a fraction of an inch in a micro second and it can happen in a couple of degrees turn up to a quarter turn and it seems like the gyro was shot out of a gun, but I have never done it nearly that fast, but fast enough to be much astonished that way. Here then is the secret to all the power I’ve been talking about. It is in a ratio, (am : raf).
I am so sorry for not revealing more. I feel like apologizing, but I reserve a few things for myself. What I’m working with is not like anything else anyone has said they’re working with. It is much different. Strange things happen in the ‘supper quick’, and once I felt like I understood them they kept clogging in my mind and I have to review ever so often and the review doesn’t last long. I don’t know of anything else like that.
You can recognize this collision force when a heavy, slowly spinning gyroscope falls at a ‘limited’, but substantial speed. When a gyroscope inside a shell, or a toy gyro, its disk protected by a steel ring, spirals downward in precession as in under the conditions stated above, it will touch down on the floor and roll away upright in a straight line. It has gained linear momentum.
To restate: The real magic occurs when the disk is ‘shaped well’, of sufficient weight and the RPMs are in the neighborhood of 20,000. Angular momentum is relatively very strong and the ceiling of the saturation point is greatly increased. Then, when the gyro is forced downward supper quickly precession leaps forward almost too quickly to be seen and here is where your great impact force potential comes from.
Now to the source of confusion. It is how we are thinking. I think in terms of ratios of opposing force, rather than dead weight, efficiency, inefficiency and perfect and imperfect and inert components etc. It is actually all only a matter of ratios.
Consider the idea of a perfect gyro. You are thinking about what is actually a condition of magnitudes and ratios, and not a thing at all. What would happen to this perfect gyro as it precess' extremely slowly apparently without tilting, if all of a sudden gravity were increased by ten? This is what would happen. It would spiral downward exactly as a slowly spinning gyro and roll away. The difference would be that spiral; precession and release into linear motion would all happen very fast. The perfect gyro wouldn’t be perfect any more, would it? Though you can’t increase gravity you can increase applied force that way.
This subject could go no endlessly. Most of your statements have been answered in an indirect way already, but I’ll try to answer the entirety of your post sometime. It’s a bit of a difficult time for me right now. I so hope I can do my disk motors. For now you can do these things related to this post. Pick out a little toy gyro from the stack we all have. Spin it slowly and place it on a tower and watch it touch down and roll away. Nest, tape a heavy object on the gyro, but this time spin the gyro very fast. You should realize that in both instances the gyro acts the same. The gyro will ‘constantly’ pull the extra weight. (I can’t go into the difference in balanced rotation and precession just now.) Every degreed of precession is a constant pull requiring force and it never glides, or coast as in rotation. You knew this.
There is something else you will note. As a quickly descending gyro precess' it pulls the tower toward it. Precession takes places at an increased circumference to a fixed point of center reference. The tower moves in a smaller circumference. It may be difficult to realize at first, but the tower isn’t being moved around in the same angular way that the gyro moves around. The pedestal is always pulled toward the gyro. It is just that the gyro is always pulling toward a new and different degree as it revolves, which gives the appearance that the tower is being pulled in a circular way rather than directly toward the gyro. Centrifuge yes. One last thing, try taping the tower to the table and repeating these experiments and see what happens. Can you realize a similar thing would happen to a ‘perfect gyro’ if enough tilt force were applied. And, if done suddenly, the gyro rolls away.
I conclude by restating my opening statement. Everything of speed and force into impact comes from ‘how fast’ the gyro is forced downward, because this determines the speed of precession. To that I add that I do not use mass to increase downward movement by gravity, but pressure is what I use. In this process precession doesn’t have the burden of constantly reaccelerating mass in horizontal angularity toward a new direction. Remember in rotation it is stated, ‘mass is constantly accelerated’? What isn’t stated is that the mass is also constantly decelerated and this is why rotation doesn’t speed up of it’s own accord. In precession mass is not accelerated of its own valuations, but it is constantly decelerated as it is forced to change the circular direction of its mass. By using pressure, instead of mass, precession is free from the constant drag of reaccelerating mass horizontally and so precession is so much faster though the magnitude of right angle force may be the same.
Supper quick, unimpaired action is where I work. Finding the mechanical ways to do this constantly is a one-man hair-pulling contest. I believe it is the Holly Grail of inertial propulsion. I think I have it, but as Dave S. indicated, ‘Where’s the beef!’ and as my friend Kenneth who worked in construction with me for thirteen years was most fund of proving some egg-head didn’t know what he was talking about would say, ‘Don’t tell me. Show me.” And of course the fellow couldn’t, because he was wrong. There! We are all put on the spot.
Lastly I want to brag on you again for a moment. I am so sincere. I am proud of your exacting work in the good post you’ve done. Your good argument makes it difficult for me. It forces me into difficult explanations I had avoided and that most people won’t understand. I owe you more explanations and perhaps some concession.
For instance, you said, “If you swing the static flywheel at the same speed as the spinning gyroscope then the impact will be greater.” You have me here. I concede. I stand corrected. In either case I should add there can be a tremendous impact, but as you said ‘greater’ is right. What more can I say?
Where can I find your walking gyro? I have to force myself to work now on my self rotating disk-motor and stick to it no matter what. I'm worried I might fail again. Wish me luck.
Let me know when you intend to open the aging brew. I’ll try to be there if I’m still alive glass in hand. I’m bringing my own--- glass that is.
See you latter,Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 01/07/2006 20:35:49
| | | Sandy,
I’ve learned things from you and hope to learn more, but the confusion is sometime like we were trying to build the Tower of Babel in different tongues. Still, consider wouldn’t it be boring if we all agreed and sheared the same knowledge? What would be the purpose in conversing? You know, wars would come to an end, economies would flourish and unexciting non-events would dominate and what of us, what would the grope be left to do, set around looking at one another thinking yeah you’re thinking the same thing I’m thinking, so why mention it. Boring huh? Well I was interested to know how the days go by for you and I wasn’t surprised to learn you were not a retired 007 double agent. We couldn’t have stood the excitement. Your recounting of you efforts in the awful and unfair situation you encountered with academia is always most interesting. Tell us again how professors kill technicians at will by removing a few wraps of Scotch tape holding lead weights onto a supper fast rotating bike rim. They were probably aiming at you through the wall into the room next door. With the right set up a technician can be had at any time, but you would have been an academic prize, begged from any angle. While I’m at it. Stay away from Dick Chaney. It is said he can’t tell the difference between lawyers and inventors. They all look the same to him. Maybe he identifies in his daydreams with a professor set out to beg a technician, unless he can find a 78-year-old lawyer, or a 69-year-old inventor. ‘Hey Dick!’ ‘Yeah?’ ‘Pull !’ Watch it Sandy. He and his buddy are scary guys. I just told myself I have to go to work. Wish me luck.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/07/2006 14:58:19
| | |
I attempt to set this to rights. I do not disagree with Monentus, or Kidd. They are correct I believe. How is that? Well… we were warned in school not to try to understand how a gyro works. It is a devilishly mystery, the understanding of which has defied men for a hundred years and brings them into disagreement even today. I wouldn’t put a gyroscope past doing anything, or refusing to do anything. Often I think its reactions depend on the circumstance in which it operates. If I could call it a stubborn creature with a mean streak and a mind of its own I would have a satisfactory explanation, but it isn’t mean or alive. Small as it is, it is a great mechanical wonder. I suggest you believe Momtus and Sandy Kidd. I do. I believe them. I have decided. I have evidence to support their beliefs and explanations.
I am trying different things under deferent conditions and sometimes getting conflicting evidence that I don’t understand. I’ve succeeded in sorting out most of the confusion, but not all. One thing is certain. I have never been able to do a satisfactory test using toys.
For instance: Even in what is believed most, the Liftwate, toy gyro, ice demonstration I can prove to your satisfaction is misleading. You can’t spin up these toys with a string fast enough that there will not be an obvious circular reaction/motion from the pedestal if it is completely free to act. You’d have to spin them much, much faster and when you try they begin to vibrate out of control. I am guessing the feet of the post of his tower dug down into soft ice. This means that even what I believe in most is not proven.
So Sandy and Monentus keep hammering at it. You have it right I think. Don't change. I am with you, but I am different and not by choice. The things I do are not the same as the things you do.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn H. - 08/07/2006 15:27:41
| | | YOU SEE! YOU SEE! I am already made to partially contradict myself. The gyro in the film clip I mentioned is a precision gyro of good shape and spins at 12,000 RPMs and so the pivot point dose not move across the floor as a taco gyro and pedestal can be freed in such a way as to show movement. Now we come to the imagination of the precision gyro supported by a string. The string wouldn’t hang vertically and the center of mass of the gyro would not be under the string and the gyro would be extended outward from the above attached string which constitutes nothing less than a pendulum deflected a couple of degrees and actually therefore applying lift. I hope to God I stop trying to explain a gyroscope for a while. I go back to work now.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 21/07/2006 23:36:51
| | | Between 30/6/06 and 21/7/06, three weeks have pasted.
Did I set you on a new course of work and invention, or are you just worn out with me? What happened? What is your mindset today, same as before, uncertain or changed?
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 28/07/2006 08:34:18
| | | Good day Glenn,
I can only speak for myself, but my course is fixed.
Just to let you know, the other day I had occasion to visit another website relating to inertial drive, you will know the one.
I know you were only funning, but Sandy is wondering what Little Richard has got to do with inertial drive devices.
Sandy reckons your head is wasted.
Also, it seems like you have you upset the peddlers of free ring-tones?
They seem to have followed you on to this site.
Looks like a deliberate act to me.
You should not have threatened them Glenn.
That aside, how are you doing?
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 29/07/2006 15:06:23
| | |
At this time my understanding is that for best efficiency applied right angle force should range between ½ and ¼ of that of all the combined force of centrifuge. Physical measurements will have to done to insure the exact, best ratio.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 29/07/2006 20:44:49
| | |
Also, applied force should last only an instant. Precession force either from collision or constant contact pressure should deliver in the same instant. This is because constant applied right angle force meets constant resistance. An example is that such applied force, applied for days would never increase the speed of precession beyond the first instant it was applied and therefore all the energy applied beyond the first instant would have been absorbed and wasted. The energy applied should be constantly increased, or accelerated, but not in excess of the saturation point before it is immediately released. Consider a vibration reciprocating from one side to the other in constancy. The additional advantage to vibration is that all the victors of force are nearer forward than angled outward. I’ve just given you a hell of a lot of information with my blessings.
You need more information probably not suspected. If you ever obtain it, then with this go conquer your dreams.
Glenn Hawkins,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
