|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
23 November 2024 17:49
|
|
Welcome to the gyroscope forum. If you have a question about gyroscopes in general,
want to know how they work, or what they can be used for then you can leave your question here for others to answer.
You may also be able to help others by answering some of the questions on the site.
|
Question |
| Asked by: |
DaveS |
| Subject: |
Test run |
| Question: |
Completed the first test run yesterday. It works.
Test was done on a rail. The device moved along the rail albeit slowly at this stage.
Small problem when it is run up to the higher speeds, it tries to destroy itself. The engineers are glueing and encasing certain parts in resin to prevent this. Once done, there will be a visually recorded test run that should hopefully move a bit quicker than the test yesterday.
There was no concrete bunker used, the engineering chap said "we duck when things fly off". My sort of people.
Gyros are only running at 18,000rpm and also need their weight increasing. The overall device can be spun up to approx 200 rpm before it lets you know it is unhappy. With any luck should be able to get quite a bit more out of it once tweaked. The tweaking was also done yesterday but will be at least 24 hours before the glue and resins dry off.
Now the fun starts. Video recordings, Patents, funding for stage 2, etc...
DaveS
|
| Date: |
2 November 2006
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
phase - 02/11/2006 20:37:57
| | | 200 rpm ?
do you mean 200K rpm?
congrats anyway---slooooow in better (great) than 'no go' anyway
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 03/11/2006 09:04:29
| | | No
I mean 200rpm
Gyros are at 18,000rpm
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 07/11/2006 09:42:54
| | | Amazing.
Everyone had loads to say before this post.
I get one reply from someone that I have never seen on the forum before and an e-mail from someone with a patent that was concerned that we may have the same. What has happened to the rest of you.
No questions?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 07/11/2006 12:36:41
| | | Dave S,
Great stuff, but what's the point Dave, you ain't gonna tell us anyway.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 07/11/2006 13:08:47
| | | You're quite right Sandy.
I just expected some of the theorisers and watchers to at least try.
I can't really discuss anything until my situation is secured.
DaveS
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 07/11/2006 18:34:42
| | | Dear Louis,
Sandy is right. How can you discuss what’ isn’t explained? Still, I understand why you expected a response of some kind to your news. I’ll ‘try’ to give you a response.
Firstly, I believe that a unit must have at least two spinning disk, but that a total of four with each opposing the right angle pressure of the others three is absolutely necessary to thrust in a straight line in space. I understood you to say you had ‘one’ gyro. You may have something I don’t understand, or understand that way. I give you the benefit of the doubt and will wait until I see it.
You said, "The device moved slowly at this stage." This suggest certain problems I would expect in the first attempts to find the best ratio between angular momentum, and applied force at an angle to the alignment of gyro spin. If this were what you mean, then having to tweak, or find the right ratio would make perfectly good since to me.
You wrote, "Small problem when it is run up to the higher speeds, it tries to destroy itself." I would think this is the same problem for the same reasons in trying to find the best ratio.
"Gyros are only running at 18,000rpm and also need their weight increasing. The overall device can be spun up to approx 200 rpm before it lets you know it is unhappy." This is opposite to my understanding. From what you've said I would have though you’d need to slow your gyro RPMs, or, add more right angle force, or consider less, not more disk weight.
From the little you've said this is the best I can guess at, otherwise I can't respond, which explains why there isn't as much response to your ‘news’ as we might have hoped for, or expected. We just don’t know anything. Keep it going.
Lot’s o’ luck Dave S.,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/11/2006 17:50:15
| | |
I have to add that ‘one gyro only’ can indeed be made to move forward wobbling all the way. In my tests however, none have ever contentiously accelerated, but rather moved forward slowly, came to a complete stop after each move then repeated this action, stop, move, stop, move never gaining velocity beyond the first move. Necessary for me was having a track wherein ultimately I found that gravity must force the gyro downward, ‘even if the situation were transmitted by gravity forcing downward on a motor that then applied force mechanically downward.’ Ultimately then, I found it necessity that gravity force downward on the gyro, and the resistance of the earth push upward to support the track. It was a situation of equal and opposite vertical forces that did result in horizontal movement a couple of inches at a time, traveling like a crazy looking, wobbling inchworm to the full length of the track and would have gone even further by continually extending the track.
While this definitely defies the third law with proof, and is therefore an incredibly significant achievement, there was no gain in acceleration for me and I was not able to reason a way to cause a ‘single gyro’ to move through space even an inch at a time. In the work I do, or rather used to do I believed four, eight, or, twelve, or any unit of four spinning disks was necessary to move an apparatus through space without the need of a track, and without the need, or use of gravity directly, or indirectly.
Pardon me. While we await the importance of your report, I will mention this. All that was just explained has been done. Excluding one-gyro movement, all the great body of work I did was in an effort to produce powerful, continues acceleration. I was never able to test this work. That is really hard to do for me and especially complicated. Without tests my work remains worthless.
I add all this because I saw that I needed to clarify my earlier post concerning one-gyro propulsion. I hope you have found something that I did not find and that you have success. Keep us informed.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 09/11/2006 12:05:02
| | | Glenn,
Apart from the very real danger to life and limb posed by a single gyroscope being rotated a 200rpm, and that is not including gyroscope rotation, I would tend to think that Dave’s device has at least 2 gyroscopes being rotated to balance the system.
I think he hinted at the gyroscope being of considerable weight hence my comments about the use of a hard hat.
OK the Jones device was a single gyroscopic unit, but it was not being continuously accelerated at 200rpm.
I know nothing of Dave’s device but I am prepared to bet that it has at least 2 horizontally opposed gyroscopes if for nothing else to balance the system.
All of the successful and nearly successful devices I have come across have two horizontally mounted gyroscopes in whatever geometric configuration, so I will be surprised if it has less than 2 gyroscopes, but maybe even has a multiple of gyroscopes.
Maybe Dave will tell us that much?
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 09/11/2006 13:25:53
| | | You are sort of correct Sandy.
It does have 2 gyros but they are not symetrically opposed to balance the system. You have to think in 3 rather than 2 dimensions.
It is because of the imbalance that the device wants to destroy itself. Another reason why I chose an engineering company to make it. They over engineered it which is why the thing is so damn heavy. This is also why certain parts are being resin/glue encased so that at 200rpm it will hopefully not self destruct.
Definately a hard hat situation, even though the engineers think wearing them is wussy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 11/11/2006 01:25:01
| | | Sandy,
You reasoned there was enough evidence in the explanations to suggest a great deal of force was being applied, so much so that there most likely would be a counter directional force in the design. Because we find there isn’t, suggest the need for an especially strong assembly and a likely reason for the additional strengthening of the design, which is now being done. Good guess though.
The Dave S. experiment is in the making. It’s news. I’m glad he’s actually done something
instead of offering theories. I’m even tired of my own theorizing.
How is your work going? Anything new, book or experiments. Do you need a new shed roof? Is the old one still attached? Too bad if it is.
I really am interested in the Dave S. experiment.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 14/11/2006 06:57:11
| | | Glenn,
Good to hear from you. How are you doing?
Getting near the end of the road with this, if there is such a place?
I have been busy working away steadily every night in the shed, as usual.
Found out many interesting things in relation to high speed inertial pulse generation.
Everything is coming together nicely. Time is the problem. Always short of time.
I have a reliable system which has delivered its thrust from design which made me very happy.
The machine did suffer from severe vibration problems as the rotation speed was increased, but that problem (not balance) was eventually sorted out, I then got down to producing thrust.
Now that all the teething problems (I hope) have been put to bed, I am juggling centrifugal force against gyroscopic torque in an effort to get the device to produce its thrust at its design speed.
So far the gyroscopic torque has managed to overcome the centrifugal force of the system as the speed is increased, which means I must keep altering things in a bid to make it rotate faster.
Everything is driven through gearboxes (5, should have been 3) from one electric motor, which means that any change to the system, has to be compensated for, everywhere else.
Have now got it up to about 50% of its design speed, and it is producing a good steady and smooth output.
It is running away quite happily on the floor, trying to knock holes in the side of the shed. It hits the wall quite hard, bounces back, and attacks it again and again, as though it was alive. It seems like there is a lot to come from it yet. The whole thing weighs about 14lbs (I think, never having weighed it) complete with heavy nicads, but so far I have not attempted to measure the thrust of the thing. When I get it up to about 80% of its design speed, I will weigh the thing and attempt to take some readings via pendulum test deflection, which should give me a fair indication as to its differential conversion efficiency.
It has twin vertically mounted units, contra-rotating to eliminate unwanted torque reactions and other things, and to keep the whole thing in synchronisation all parts have been pinned together.
Nothing has fallen off so far and nothing has been thrown off so far, which is good.
The motor heats up a bit more than I would like, but I do have a spare if it does decide to cremate itself. The heat of course is a fair indication that it is producing something.
No heat, means no load, means no conversion.
My intention is to finish the device in total by the end of the 3rd week in November, this year!
If Mr Murphy and Mr Sod just keep out of my hair, I should just be able manage it.
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/11/2006 19:41:59
| | | Hello Sandy,
That was unexpected. I suppose I had unconsciously assumed that if I weren’t doing anything then nobody else except Dave was doing anything. I’m happy to hear you have something new. I didn’t understand the design, but of course that is because you didn’t intend that I should. Those things that I did understand make perfectly good sense to me. I’m surprised to hear you are running off a single motor. You may find in the future that two, or even four would be better so that the torque reaction of each is countered by another. Anyway I expect you have it.
It must be delightful to watch it move across the floor. Another thing, that it hammers against the wall repeatedly, is familiar to me. I had one do that, but in my case (complicated) I don’t believe it was propulsion. I did many interesting and various tests, but was never able to do a conclusive and definitive one to prove, or disprove. I’ll never know, but I’ve accepted that it was a failure, because I couldn’t prove it was a success. That’s one of the reasons I’m down on myself. I want to believe you actually have propulsion and I’m delighted to hear about it.
If you attach your devise to a platform, lightweight perhaps made of balsa wood set upon caster wheels, would the hammering action into a vertical side of the platform cause the platform to jerk along forward costing each time and gaining speed?
Who is Mr. Sod? What'd he say?
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 14/11/2006 21:32:58
| | | DaveS
Great to hear that it worked!!
You have achieved slow movement along a track and slow implies constant velocity. This is a major characteristic of all the working models I have made and that others have described.
Acceleration is the key to further progress and I would be interested to hear if you can achieve this.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 15/11/2006 08:54:51
| | | Hello again Glenn, and my apologies Dave S, for horning in on your thread.
The thing does not jerk Glenn, it is extremely smooth in its action.
It has a very high (relatively speaking) output inertial pulse rate.
Just sits on the floor on its 3 ball raced wheels, the 3rd and rear one is for radio controlled steering of the device.
This is the latest and hopefully the last in a long line of devices using this present principle. In order to make the device work well it became necessary to synchronise gyro rotation speed and machine rotation speed.
I use one motor to simplify the synchronisation of all the mechanics. It’s a pain to set up, but consistent as sin when sorted out. Luckily I got pretty close with my design calculations. Well, close enough, anyway.
As I said there was a serious bit of vibration present, when it was run up initially but that was something that I knew may be present as the speed was increased.
I built a test machine about 20 years ago, which was somewhat similar in operation to this one, and did experience a vibration problem then.
I had a contingency plan for that specific problem which cost me many hours of work, and which I hoped I would not need to invoke. Well as they say!
I just sit it on the level floor, switch on the radio control transmitter and receiver, move the throttle control on the transmitter and away it goes on its own.
There is no bumping or jerking till it hits the side of the shed. In fact it moves quite rapidly, once it gets itself moving.
The vibration is now only present as the speed is increased past about 60% of its design speed, and will hopefully be reduced to almost nothing at 100% design speed, by the time I am finished, before the end of the month.
I do not think the motor will survive very long at 100% rotation speed, as the load will increase significantly. I am not optimistic. We shall see.
If the worst comes to the worst I shall get one of those relatively new, very good brushless motors, and controllers, to supply the urge, which of course means that I will invariably have to alter the input gearing to suit. Nothing is ever simple, and it’s all time.
Mr Sod of Sod’s Law ?
Colonel John Stapp of rocket sledge fame invented Murphy’s Law when referring to a job on his sledge carried out, not too well, by a technician of that name, I believe.
Sod’s Law is of much older English origin, but in the end means exactly the same.
“IF IT CAN GO WRONG IT WILL.”
Regards
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 15/11/2006 21:39:50
| | | Dear Sandy & Momentus,
Yes Momentus. You have me in agreement. You have it exactly right.
Wonderful for you Sandy. I imagine too many ways your machine might look and how it operates. While I’m guessing I want to ask a question and maybe the best way to go about it is the following.
A while back I did some tests I liked and seemed promising, but ultimately I found that they confused me adding more questions than answers provided the more I tested. Think of an Olympic speed skater. He pushes against the ice at an angle, both rearward and sideways, zig zaging away he goes around the track. What if he pushed sideways only, one hundred and eighty degrees and not rearward at all? He would not go forward, but if he was actually pushing at the slightest angle, one so slight in fact it couldn't be discerned by viewing. You couldn’t know that he was pushing rearward, yet he’d move slowly forward and someone might think-- inertial propulsion.
My tests were like that, the apparatus I believed was pushing 180 o sideways on the floor, was actually pushing at an angle so slight I couldn’t see it and couldn’t measure it. It vibrated forward accelerating fast across the kitchen vinyl. I once explained it on another site. Another one, a different kind I had would set on the floor and continuously hammer back and forth into the wall as long as force was being applied. These weren’t inertial propulsion.
Though your motion is smooth, someone might suspect it is attempting to pivot forward, left and right a little like my tests, but not quite. I say this because you said one bearing wheel was used for guidance and so can it be that it is getting angular traction allowing it the tendency to repeatedly pivot forward, but is otherwise held in a straight line by the friction of the floor?
What would happen if all three bearings were free to move in any direction such as you find in caster wheels? What would happen if you had two devices side by side synchronized and working opposite to one another?
Strange questions, hey? Well I thank you know your design is going to have to withstand every scrutiny possible so we might as well start now while you’re still working with it.
Congratulations. I’m still impressed. Wishing you well.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 16/11/2006 09:26:46
| | | Hello Glenn,
I cannot argue with your comments, they are all valid.
However, after 25 years at this, whatever you want to call it, I have a fair idea what is genuine and what is not.
You know my sentiments on the validity of Newton’s Laws with respect to these devices. I have spent many years trying to isolate the factors which contribute to this phenomenon, all in light of the fact that I built a machine which worked well for all the wrong reasons, the workings of which remained a mystery for many years.
In the final analysis it is relatively easy to prove that the laws of motion are not as unbreakable as was believed, and it is relatively easy to build them into a machine which proves this fact. At least I can explain why it works.
I also agree that the device must stand up to all scrutiny, which from my experience has been a great deal less than impartial. The academics all have their own agenda.
The successful laboratory test I had carried out in Australia, 20 years ago now, was a tightly controlled series of tests, carried out by professionals, in a prestigious facility, to the specification laid down by the laboratories, and at some cost I may add.
No sane person was going to call these professionals liars, were they?
Several days later a physicist from Canberra University claimed that the heat of the engine was creating the lift like a hot air balloon.
What chance did I have with an idiot like this?
I have had “coggling” what ever the hell that is, oscillation, vibration, harmonic resonance, aerodynamics, helicoptering, reaction with bearings, climbing the bearings, slip stick action, ratcheting, and a multitude of other insane utterances, and Dave S, this was years before I was prepared stand in a court of law, and prove the laws of motion were incorrect.
I have been subjected to this sort of rubbish so many times, I think I have heard it all.
The only claim I have NEVER heard made against my devices has been that the loss of weight was caused by attraction from the black hole in the centre of the Milky Way,
although, I am prepared to bet that some idiot academic will come up with this when all else fails.
“Blessed is he who has nothing to say and cannot be persuaded to say it.”
Never ever believe that common sense is a prerequisite for the attainment of a qualification.
In saying that I am not saying that there are not sensible, highly qualified individuals who will give you a fair hearing, that would be wrong, but you must consider the concept you are trying to sell them.
I could give you 25 years of examples pertaining to bias, snobbery, club mentality, stupidity, the seeing blind, etc, etc, but I won’t.
I have not even mentioned professional self preservation, the psychology of the 10 Day Syndrome, and etc. This is not easy chaps, believe me.
Strange thing is that all the well known figures who advocate the real need for such devices are the hardest to convince, which I think means that they do not believe it is possible either.
I spent over 2 hours on the phone with the late Bob Forward internationally renowned expert on gravity and other allied things, when he was on holiday in Scotland. Bob owned a cottage up north, and not far from Dounreay nuclear power station. We discussed then argued about inertial testing. He was trying to put any reasonable type of testing out of range of acceptance and put almost impossible barriers in place on the type of device it had to be. When I put the phone down I was convinced that he in his own mind thought it was impossible to achieve and not worthy of pursuit, especially from a nutter in a wooden shed
However, Glenn, if this device of mine publicly maintains a steady deflection on a Stine/Davis type ballistic pendulum test, will that do?
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/11/2006 15:12:25
| | | Hi Sandy,
Sure, a pendulum test would do just fine. I never meant to question your ability to know what your were doing, but it came out that way. Sorry. I relate everything others do to my own way of researching. That should be obvious by now. A full 70%, or more of my work was devoted to disproving the results and reasoning of everything I did. I blame that on my previous, profound belief in the Third Law. I wasted a lot of time with that. Inertial Propulsion is real.
When I saw that you were using one bearing wheel to guide your devise my old 70% habit of questioning every miscue detail took over, so I ask a long-winded question. It didn’t dawn on me that I was questioning you. I was intent on questioning a possible condition to the utmost, which is just my way. It’s too early to question your devise. Pardon me.
Now to your last post. I enjoyed it very much. It was sarcastic, funny, informative and interesting. Oh yeah! Sun Spots! You forgot about Sun Spots as another possible source of confusion about your test.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 17/11/2006 10:47:35
| | | Glenn, and any other interested party.
A little bit off the subject Glenn.
Bob Forward wrote a book called “Future Magic” a copy of which I have somewhere, and it is quite a good read.
A question he made in that book was: “Who is going to give us the spin drive to the stars?” or words very similar to that. This question immediately made me think that he was very pro inertial drive and amenable to discuss it with. I did not however approach him directly, the contact was arranged by a third party. So beware many of these top science fiction writers who it must be admitted usually display a fair depth of current knowledge in cutting edge and fringe technologies may only be including articles relating to items like inertial drive to sell books.
I was recommended by someone to acquire a certain book. I eventually managed to get the last new copy in Britain, which I subsequently loaned to someone who never returned it. I managed to source another one in the States many years later which although second hand was in pristine condition. This particular book was by the renowned science fiction writer Jerry Pournelle. The book was called "A Step Farther Out” which I thought was very good, with all sorts of tables and figures relating to accelerations, times and distances at a continuous acceleration of 1G. All good stuff especially for aspiring inertial drive developers (I hate the word inventor for a variety of reasons). He did get a bit screwed up when he started to equate inertial drive output with rocket motor combustion chamber temperatures, but that aside it was very good.
Close to 20 years ago, the late Ron Thomson who was co author of my book, of his own volition, contacted Jerry Pournelle to get his feelings on inertial drive and the problems relating to its acceptance.
In the end Ron asked him how he would or we should conduct a suitable test to prove out a device.
This was the reply: Make two identical machines, and then take them to a tall building.
Run one machine, but leave the other one inert. Drop both machines simultaneously.
If the “running” machine hits the ground after the “non running” machine it could be deemed genuine. Ron told me that he could not answer that statement. I said I could but the reply would be unprintable. However in fairness to Jerry, who I would never have approached anyway, was probably totally cheesed off with continual questions invariably from cranks, and reacted the same way as I would have.
Ask a stupid question?
I did however find the late G Harry Stine very approachable. I phoned Harry at his home in Phoenix, after I had read an article by him, which related to mechanical phase shift in certain mechanical systems. Harry sent me a copy of the complete article, called, if my memory serves me correctly “Detesters, Phasers, and Dean Drives”. These systems were similar in construction and operation to the famous Dean Drive, which Harry had witnessed and had not completely written off. Dean had claimed a mechanical phase shift of 45 degrees whist his device was in operation. Harry did not find 45 degrees of phase shift but he did find 3 degrees of phase shift, which he reckoned should not have been there.
Harry did believe that inertial drive would be achieved, however he told me that he had tested for others, just about every conceivable kind of snarling, screaming, vibrating, etc. etc gizmo imaginable in the search for inertial thrust, which in the end all failed to produce anything. When I spoke to him he seemed to be almost frustrated that no one had so far done it, but was still very enthusiastic about the prospect.
I do think Harry Stine was an exception. That said, I would be very wary of approaching any other top drawer science fiction writer with any question or advice relating to inertial drive devices, as they will probably be not nearly so amenable.
So be warned just because some folks are prepared to write apparently enthusiastically about non reactive thrust does not mean to say they are necessarily believers in the possibility.
Don’t know if any of this was of any interest to anyone. If not accept my apologies.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 17/11/2006 17:39:28
| | | Sandy,
I have proved to my satisfaction that the Third Law and other laws relating to it have been breached. I have remaining two mechanical theories of how acceleration might be achieved. I remain committed to my beliefs, but more committed to finding proof. I can’t make my position clearer than that. Can I?
Considering a ‘proof by evidence’ I have not seen much literature offering it. Fiction is fiction no mater what appendage is attached to it, science or whatever. Give me solid evidence, or give me a child’s book of fairytales, but don’t give me propaganda such as, if this is true and that is true then this seemingly impossible thing you should believe is true. If such is offered for research, or to develop a theory to be to proven all is well. If such material is read merely for the interesting way it tumbles your mind all is well. If it is written only suggestively however, as a way of indicating ‘proof by evidence’ then give me ‘Hansel and Gretel’ every time. What I find in most Science Fiction is either propaganda for profit, or an author’s innocently little distention between imagination and evidence.
My family buys me crazy books for birthdays and Christmas’, because they know of my interest and because physics’ and other experts of world renown write these books. I will admit to paging through them from time to time, but that dose not mean that I don’t know they are crazy. I could do a lengthy passage on the absurdity of most every one of them.
Just give me simple proof that is all. I want to watch a devise accelerate on film and then see that it’s tested. I may make another attempt to build such a devise. Until then I’m interested here in what others who believe as I believe are doing and what they have to say and how they think. I suspect there is a lot out there to know from among the few who know, but neither I, nor they will explain the individual particulars of our work. We are not science fiction writers. We are searching for proof and saying what we believe. We, or at least I want to watch a devise accelerate on film and then see that it’s tested.
Science fiction has without a doubt been an asset toward future realities, and if its well written it can be interesting, but I already know my subject and now need only ‘proof by evidence’. I don’t take fiction seriously in my field, but prefer concrete tests giving inescapable proof and offered by anybody. Perhaps someone among this little group will yet accelerate a device down a drag strip.
My take on science fiction then is not enthusiastic, but there are subjects on this site that interest me, and two of the writers are deep into testing. This isn't the same as science fiction. Keep writing.
When I wonder about how much proof a sad recollection comes to mind. A poor fellow built a mammoth machine. You have seen pictures of it and I’ve written about it. From the look of it, it must have weighed between one and two tons of motors and metal. Inside it was a small metal cylinder, lose around a rod. The purpose of the mammoth, while using a great amount of electricity was to prove an ant’s ass worth of inertial propulsion. The bit of metal was supposed to move horizontally by inertial manipulation slowly for an inch or so. This was tested, but no proof came from it, but what if it had worked? So what? So what if it had worked? I always wonder about how much proof is offered. I want to see enough proof, enough constant force that it can’t be denied. The least I want is for a ten pound devise to be made to constantly weight 8 pounds for one constant minute without vibrating a needle. If that were done and tested I’m pretty certain not more than out of ten thousand people who tested it would then say it didn’t happen. So how much proof? More than has been offered.
I remain committed to my beliefs, but more committed to finding proof.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
James Roberts - 16/02/2007 23:16:24
| | | Re: Dave's machine. I think I know what Dave is trying to do. He is attempting to gyro-stabilize a vehicle. I'll leave it at that so I will not reveal anything/
J.Roberts
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
James Roberts - 16/02/2007 23:16:49
| | | Re: Dave's machine. I think I know what Dave is trying to do. He is attempting to gyro-stabilize a vehicle. I'll leave it at that so I will not reveal anything/
J.Roberts
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
