|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
7 May 2024 03:12
|
|
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: |
Are conversions between angular and linear dynamics possible? |
| Question: |
It should be evident (to advanced members of this forum) that the feasibility of gyro-propulsion is dependent on the ability to convert angular dynamics into sustained linear acceleration.
Forum contributors have broached issues surrounding such conversions but never beyond a superficial level. The basic question has been whether linear Vs angular are independent and not possible to convert into each other? (Is this right or wrong?)
Going straight to the point, here is what I have found:
A) Linear motion CAN NOT convert into angular motion without interacting externally.
B) On the other hand, linear ACCELERATION is convertible into angular MOTION (without external interaction), but NOT into sustained angular ACCELERATION.
C) Angular motions CAN NOT convert into sustained NET linear motion without interacting externally.
D) On the other hand, angular ACCELERATION is convertible into linear MOTION (without external interaction), but NOT into sustained linear ACCELERATION.
E) ???
Though it’s neither intuitive nor easy to discern, the interaction limitations stated above are symmetrical, which gives us a special insight about the challenge. The above rules held true through analysis of all specific conversions that we could produce.
If these 4 rules were the end of all applicable rules, I would have to conclude that it’s not possible to produce real gyro-propulsion because it requires conversion from angular dynamics into sustained linear ACCELRATION. Therefore I am convinced that there are one or more additional rules regarding the family of desired conversions.
You may have guessed correctly that am aware of some of these extra rules. However the 4 above rules may not be clear to some, in part because I have not presented the specific conversions that were analyzed, and in part because the 4 rules are not easy to visualize.
Here are a couple of the most obvious instances, some of which may look like straight conversions and some that may also appear to have no external interaction.
For example, letting go off a weight that has been twirled around at the end of a string or the braking-away of the edge from a spinning wheel, introduces an equal and opposite reaction, and requires the separation into 2 separate objects that become external to each other.
For example acceleration of a vehicle can produce angular activity in a highly unbalance flywheel that is properly placed inside the accelerated vehicle.
For example a spinning wheel rolling on a straight surface.
Can you think of other such conversion instances?
Consider their form-configurations and functional-dynamics to determine if external interaction results or internal counteractions ensue.
Thank you, Luis
|
| Date: |
10 December 2006
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 09/01/2007 08:33:06
| | | Luis,
You have raised what is probably the most important question ever asked on this site, its outcome being fundamental to any possibility of producing inertial drive.
If all personal, and preferred beliefs, relating to gyroscopic action, e.g. precession, angular momentum loss, mass transfer and the rest of it, are put to one side, there is only one issue which at the end of the day must be answered, although it is fair to say that some parts of the above may have to be recovered to solve the problem.
Can rotary action be somehow converted into linear action without a reaction, by that I mean without any mechanical interface (e.g. nuts and bolts, cranks or gearwheels.).
Knowing how to carry this tall order out must surely be the inertial drive equivalent of finding the Rosetta Stone.
Provisionally this would appear to be an impossible task, as physics has deemed that angular and linear momentums are separately conserved and as such this eliminates any possibility of converting some or all of one, to some or all of the other.
However this would appear to be what we shed dwellers are attempting to achieve, in spite of the fact that we are challenging the laws of motion, or to any knowledgeable outside observers, flogging a long dead horse.
If one considers the fact that the separate conservation of angular and linear momentums is a law which no normal person would dispute, it is a law which by its nature is impossible to prove. Most of the belief is more than likely based on the fact that in nature, no obvious examples of such a conversion have been witnessed to date, although such events could take place totally unseen by all.
Another important factor is that if conversion of at least some of one to some of the other would if you think about it, make the 1st and 3rd Laws redundant to any device employing such a conversion.
So, separate conservation is required to protect the other laws, if for nothing else.
My personal belief is that I can see no way (at this time) of converting any linear momentum to angular momentum, but the conversion of angular momentum to linear momentum is a somewhat different story.
Good one Luis
Sandy Kidd.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 09/01/2007 14:49:31
| | | Luis,
I hadn’t read it. Absolutely, absolutely excellent, Lous! Yes, Sandy! Lous you may play around with my posted tests. I cannot accept them as doubtlessly true, because of the limited nature of them. It is imposable for me and likely near imposable for anyone else to confirm them in anyway as facts, but they are promising and seem to be true. The only way I can know is virtually to build the devise that employs these forces apparent in these tests, which I’m struggling to do. Anyway, these may be the exception to the four variations you listed and may be the new idea you wish to investigate and that you ask for. If you like, you are very welcome.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
nitro macmad - 09/01/2007 19:48:01
| | | Both work!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 10/01/2007 00:00:27
| | | Come on back please Nitro. Both what?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 10/01/2007 00:03:42
| | | Luis Gonzalez: “For example acceleration of a vehicle can produce angular activity in a highly unbalance flywheel that is properly placed inside the accelerated vehicle.”
Very good. And…very strange. Supposing the greater weight is residing at the bottom of the unbalanced wheel, when the wheel and its frame are either accelerated, or decelerated a pendulum effect occurs and begin the wheel toward rotating. When however, the weight neared the top of the frame linear acceleration must cease, otherwise the acceleration will reverse the direction of the wheel in a sort of opposite pendulum way. Linear acceleration is used then to acceleration a wheel to great speeds, but the vehicle must jerk in a timed series of lunges forward and breakings repeatedly. The wheel and framed must literally be jerked forward and rearward in timed intervals. During this action equal and opposite linear forces play upon the frame and wheel, except that some inertial reaction is lost to the energy required to rotate the wheel. Your idea works, Luis and I had never thought of it. You have reasoned and explained it would seem, a way to convert linear motion into angular motion without friction. Perhaps a magnetic axel bearing will help support your notion. Outstanding.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 10/01/2007 18:07:56
| | | Dear All,
Sorry about the previous brief response but I have had trouble with accessing the forum of late and it seemed pointless to waste words if they were to be lost in the either (if the either exists – that is!).
Both the conversion of linear motion to rotary motion (and/or linear force to torsional force if you prefer) and the conversion of rotary motion to linear motion (etc.etc.) “works”.
In its simplest form a spinning gyro is converting the linear force of gravity into a torsional force when the linear force of gravity causes the gyro to rotate around its tower. The energy that can be taken out of the rotation of the gyro is the same as the energy required to lift the gyro back up to its starting angle. Thus the conservation of energy still stands (for now) but can we stop spouting this nonsense about different types of motion being conserved differently. This is just another example of a “scientific” statement that should, by law, have the words “as far as we know at the moment” added.
Kind regards and a Happy and successful New Year
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 10/01/2007 22:56:42
| | | Dear Nitro,
You are forgiven. The either must exist. Where else could your car keys disappear only to reappear twenty minutes later after you have accused everyone in the house of plotting against you, and then you find them in a place you had already twice looked? Don’t tell me there is no either. You have it right, “as far as we know at the moment” and I’m certain of it. If anyone isn’t sure let him consider his personal history. The either feeds on emitted frantic brain energy waves and is particularly active when you are running late for an important appointment. That’s when it goes for your car keys.
More seriously you said, “The energy that can be taken out of the rotation of the gyro is the same as the energy required to lift the gyro back up to its starting angle.”
If my memory serves, you like Sandy Kidd have intently studied forced precession in a way I have not. Is it your understanding then, that when you mechanically accelerate a gyro into revolutions around a center point energy is taken from the rotating disk and used to lift the gyro? I’m not sure I understand.
I’m sorry about Internet problem. Maybe it will get better.
Happiness and health to all,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 11/01/2007 13:00:43
| | | Dear Glenn,
You posted:
“If my memory serves, you like Sandy Kidd have intently studied forced precession in a way I have not. Is it your understanding then, that when you mechanically accelerate a gyro into revolutions around a centre point energy is taken from the rotating disk and used to lift the gyro? I’m not sure I understand”.
I really hope that is not the impression I gave you from any of my postings.
If so I apologise for that. The task would be too easy to complete if that were true, and as such I am glad that you do not understand.
I have said before, that after years of experiment, my conclusions are as follows. Take them or leave them as you wish.
What I have entered below whilst maybe appearing unrelated to your statement leading this posting are all associated and relevant to your statement
1 No gyroscopic system ( i.e. single gyroscope, bearings/ housing, support arm/shaft and including fulcrum attachment) however actuated or manipulated will ever produce inertial thrust unless it is made to act indirectly with another part of the device, out-with that gyroscopic system.
2 May I continue with the fact that it is essential that some kind of
mechanically accelerated system is utilised to provide inertial thrust
3 Consider a gyroscopic in a mechanically accelerated system.
Consider the accelerations and loads on the system. Do not invoke mythical couples which are totally misleading, and the reason a gyroscope lifts or climbs becomes readily apparent.
4 To test the opposition when I first posted to this site, some considerable time ago I made several statements, which went pretty well unchallenged, although much later on, one individual suggested that I must be mistaken, which is the sort of reply I expected.
In general this made me very happy.
My posting was loaded in as much as all my observations had been seen in a mechanically accelerated system, which was subjected to considerable offset of the gyroscopes, and which would not be seen in a bog standard system. The characteristics of mechanically accelerated systems change quite considerably when the gyroscopes are offset.
(Incidentally I discovered all this good stuff in 1986, before I knew why gyroscopes or flywheels do what they do. All the odd shapes on my original machine shown in “Gyroscopic Propulsion” on this site, were a result of me dabbling with offset angles, for all the wrong reasons, however as it turned out the device would not have worked without the offset.
I only found out the truth a year later on my second machine which produced no thrust but taught me a lot about misconceptions in physics.This was an offset machine which really sorted out gyroscopes for me)
My apologies to all for that, but I wanted to find out the strength of the opposition.
An offset gyroscope (Eric Laithwaite terminology methinks) as the name suggests is one where the rotational centreline of the gyroscope is offset to be some distance from the fulcrum of that gyroscope system.
Scott Strachan and I invented the offset Eric Laithwaite I think, invented the terminology.
In a horizontally driven gyroscopic system (machine rotation axis vertical) the fulcrum position can be such that the gyroscope is displaced upwards by 10, 20, 40, whatever degrees above the fulcrum, but the rotational centre line of the gyroscope is still set at right angles to the axis of device rotation.
I have had gyroscopes or flywheels shed all their angular momentum and accelerate inwards at greater than 65 degrees offset. That is when physics as you know it becomes very confusing. All good stuff this.
This is uncharted territory guys, what happens is exciting, untouched by the academics and is not mentioned in any books. I have written up a fair bit about it for future release, if I am still around to release it.
Build an offset system and watch the laws of motion being destroyed before your very eyes. I know I have said far too much, but what the hell, there is still a tricky bit or three to sort out after that.
Hope this helps clarify the situation a bit Glenn.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 11/01/2007 19:57:48
| | | Dear Sandy,
It’s not too much. Its good. It seems to be as I thought. Thank you. I wish to study it more carefully when time permits. I misread Nitro. That’s all. (He’s having either problems like we’ve all had with the net.) Let us wish him better luck with it next time.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 14/01/2007 15:42:32
| | | Dear Nitro,
Your advice for scientists to use the disclaimer words “as far as we know at the moment,” would indicate that outside of using spinning gyros, the non-conversion rule appears to show instances where it holds true.
Which are the instances where non-conversion holds true and which are the ones where linear / angular conversion can occur? How can we classify the type of instances, and what are the significant underlying factors?
The basic 4 (starting) rules, stated in the first posting of this thread, are an initial attempt to identify the underlying factors that rule “conversion.”
My hope is that further “spouting” on this issue, by men of good-will, will provide the dialog necessary to bring the facts to light.
I expect that knowing the rules of when angular/linear conversion (and visa versa) can occur will enable us to slam into fewer walls, thus reducing the pain factor (even if the process appears trivial and knit-picky to some).
Regarding your conservation of energy example, we don’t know to what extent energy may be “taken out” from precession; perhaps you were referring to the potential energy in precession…
I would agree that lifting the gyro back to its starting angle would require the same energy as gravity infused into the system, during its downward-angle, with a couple of exceptions.
First, the upward (lifting) trip is working against gravity in addition to simply displacing the gyro.
Second, the mechanism for the upward trip can not be a simple gyro; one needs to make sure that the tower is bolted to a heavy surface at the bottom, and attached to the gyro axle by a hinge.
Thank you for your input and keep in mind that individuals taking different roads is a good thing; otherwise we would all make the exact same mistakes and would not really profit much from other experiences.
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 15/01/2007 20:08:23
| | | Dear Sandy,
I’m confident you know what you are talking about, but I don’t understand the descriptions.
Sandy Kidd: “I have had gyroscopes or flywheels shed all their angular momentum and accelerate inwards at greater than65 degrees offset.”
"…Inwards…?" Are you saying the wheel forces inward toward the pivotal area?
"…65 degrees offset?” Do you mean lifts above the horizontal horizon? Isn’t the horizon either 270 degrees, or ninety degrees?
Would you explain the actions, positions and movements as you saw them, please?
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 16/01/2007 12:09:51
| | | Glenn, you said:
I’m confident you know what you are talking about, but I don’t understand the descriptions.
Answer--Thank you for your vote of confidence Glenn, you will find that it is not misplaced.
Sandy Kidd: “I have had gyroscopes or flywheels shed all their angular momentum and accelerate inwards at greater than 65 degrees offset.”
Answer-- The gyroscope is mounted such that it is sitting in the orthodox position i.e. The gyroscope is mounted such that its rotation axis is at right angles to the of the rotation axis of device/machine.
However the fulcrum is positioned such that a line drawn between centre of mass of the gyroscope and this fulcrum would make an angle of 25 degrees to the vertical axis or machine rotation axis.(or 65 degrees to the horizontal)
See “Propulsion” section of this site. For example there is a photograph of my rather weather-beaten and much modified first device in there. On this device a line drawn between the centre of mass of the gyroscope and its fulcrum in this case makes an angle of 39 and a bit, degrees to the vertical machine rotation axis, or 51 and a bit degrees to the horizontal.
"…Inwards…?" Are you saying the wheel forces inward toward the pivotal area?
Answer—Yes.
My second device was operating at 60 degrees offset above the horizontal and it carried out this task with the greatest of ease. It produced no thrust which upset me a bit, but it taught me that current knowledge of gyroscopes and their capabilities is severely limited and/or mistaken.
Also, because the action is more in, than up, means the device is biased to neutralise centrifugal force (sorry, am I offending the purists?) in this action.
You will also find out why I used the word “saturation” to describe the condition which prevails when all the centrifugal force and angular momentum are gone. The device will unload and speed up quite considerably.
The reduction in centrifugal force or angular momentum can be easily controlled by altering rotation speed of the device and or gyroscopes.
Remember Glenn as angular momentum and centrifugal are shed off the load is progressively reduced so there is not nearly so much brute force and ignorance required to carry this out as you would initially think.
I have carried out thousands of hours of experiments on forcibly accelerated systems, and the results are predictable and consistent, and as far as I am concerned the only direction in which to experiment.
The system does not need to go all the way into “saturation” to lose centrifugal force, as this shedding action begins, as soon as the machine and its gyroscopes all start to rotate.
Hope this helps Glenn. Have fun.
Sandy.
PS Do I really have to advise you not to use a single gyroscope set –up?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/01/2007 14:18:04
| | | Dear Sandy,
Fascinating. More later. By the way, you explain what I was always sure of, which is that centrifuge must exist, but that it is countered in some way so that it exhibits only a little, which it dose with gravity, but exceedingly little, not much at all, a hair’s breath.
Again, fascinating and more later and thank you very much.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/01/2007 23:14:54
| | | Dear Sandy,
Sandy Kidd: “PS Do I really have to advise you not to use a single gyroscope set –up?”
Nope! I’m not that far gone yet, but the year is very young. I’ll let you know… if I can remember. Getting old you know. Thank you again.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/01/2007 23:16:48
| | |
Dear Ntro,
Nitro MacMad: “Forced precession is worse as it causes so many “unthought of’s” that “yer bleedin’ ‘ed’ll precess”. That is a local colloquialism that means “it’s rather difficult”.”
A Cambridge graduate student I believe built a dual shaft motorized gyroscope with the motor, yoke and housing rotating as a wheel. He indicated in a way that seemed giddy and mischievous that it acts very differently than a none motorized gyro, but he wouldn’t explain when I attempted to ask.
MIT also built a very clever one, but detrimentally the motor was set at a ninety degrees angle from the wheel, next to the wheel, which required a heavy gearbox with helix gears and frame support. So, not so good then. They never explained anything.
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/hsc/hsc/electric_motors.pdf Click photos bicycles
This company builds a unique motor/wheel, but potentially a dual shaft gyroscope, probably of an English design and it is near perfect and is a beautiful idea, but far, far too big, heavy and powerful for my needs. I don’t yet understand the winding technique.
Sandy kid has explained something fascinating that occurs during forced precession. It apparently supports my Forth Test, which I don’t have enough confidence in.
Now it’s your turn Nitro. If you have time would you be willing to explain in detail what you have seen from moment to moment action in previous “unthought of’s” and how and why the thing acts as it dose and how you have reasoned an explanation?
I hope I am not asking for too much.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 19/01/2007 10:42:09
| | | Glenn & other interested parties.
Nitro did make a comment referring to the strangeness or complexity of mechanically accelerated gyroscopic systems, and I would tend to agree with that comment.
Here is some more stuff on forcibly rotated offset gyroscope systems
When you eventually accept what you are seeing as being real events, then you can start to develop ideas on how to utilise these special attributes to create inertial drive systems. It is all there for the taking.
Over 20 years ago when I first started dabbling with this type of system, what confused me quite a bit, was the relationship between gyroscope rotation speed, and machine rotation speed.
Another real issue to contend with was the fact that all expected outputs appeared to be reversed.
I knew that if the gyroscope rotation speed was increased angular momentum and its close friend centrifugal force were diminished.
Initially I thought that an increase in machine rotation speed would increase the angular momentum and centrifugal force as the rate of machine acceleration was increased.
Initially I thought that this fact would help me control the device, but it took some time to get to grips with the fact that any increase in machine rotation speed actually diminished the centrifugal force and angular momentum.
So in effect you cannot balance a system like this by increasing a rotation speed, you can only reduce a speed to bring the thing back from the saturation point.
Once past the saturation point there is little or nothing you can do to influence the proceedings.
Inside the saturation area there is no mass left to accelerate.
None of this appeared to make sense, as my findings appeared to fly in the face of all accepted principles, because I could now rotate a spinning mass at elevated speed yet that mass would not be subjected to any acceleration.
One good thing about being who I am, is the fact, that unlike a university professor, I can claim all of these controversial good things and still go back to work next week.
That is as far as I should go just now Glenn, but as I have said before, and I quote: “Gyroscopes are a state of mind”
Have some more fun.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 21/01/2007 23:56:40
| | | Dear Sandy,
It is no fun for me. It’s work.
That the wheel increasingly presses inward with increased machine rotation makes sense; that the resistance lessens to increased machine rotations makes no sense, but I believe you.
The special mechanics I developed answers questions. That’s what it was designed to do. I believe in physics as it is, excepting in the final reactions of gyroscopes. I believe everything that builds to the final reactions is explainable and acts in accordance with physics. However it is certain that these final reactions do not behave as predicted. I thank that human manipulations using the laws, constraining them and forcing them cause them to act against themselves in a way that nature in space would never allow. If anything in nature were to start precessing, nature would stop it. It would find a way to react in other ways to prevent it. I use the laws, more than those limited to dynamics, but also dynamics and leverages and directions to study and explain how and why things happen the way they do. I’ve not been able to understand enough.
I believe it will be found one day that all the momentum that is supposed to be there, is there, but that it is countered by a system of reactions that equal it in the opposite direction. That is what happens to centrifuge and that is what you have been talking about with inward pressure. Everything is mechanical and perfectly logical, if we could understand it.
During the last world war the British government put a team together to build a guidance system for Royal Air Force. When they had done it and before disbanding they put together a joint statement.
It was: “If all there was to know about a gyroscope were written down it would fill a great library.”
I don’t believe this team of experts. I don’t believe there is nearly so much to know, but there is a lot. I think there are questions we don’t even know to ask.
Congratulations on your fine tests and discoveries. Excellent.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
arthur dent - 23/01/2007 18:56:24
| | | I have seen an experiment in which 2 identical blocks were projected upwards simultaneously by bullets from identical .22 rifles. One block was hit off-centre in order to make it spin. The spinning block rose higher than the non-spinning block.
Did this change my mind about well-established physical laws? No. The experiment was by way of being an instructive hoax. A deliberate (but very subtle) mistake had been made in the experimental set-up. It would have been invisible (although in full view) to 99.9% of engineers because it depended upon a common misunderstanding of dynamics. The real point of the hoax was show that, just because an experimental result appears to prove something, one should immediately doubt it - and keep looking for mistakes. That is the difference between science and psudoscience. I bet that, if some crackpot had shown this 'proof' to a journalist, it would have got straight into the newpapers (especially New Scientist; a rag that should drop the second word from its title after putting that Shawyer nonsense on its cover).
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 23/01/2007 20:03:05
| | | Arthur Dent: “…just because an experimental result appears to prove something, one should immediately doubt it - and keep looking for mistakes.”
For myself, not others, I live by this, eat it, drank it, sleep it, do it and add my recommendation to it. Well said.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 24/01/2007 13:28:00
| | | Arthur Dent
What are you really trying to say Arthur?
You seem to me to be a little bit more than just interested in inertial drive and suchlike.
If you believe none of this, why do you spend so much effort, studying it?
You have apparently extremely well informed in areas many of the contributors to this site, would just ignore as a matter of course.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
arthur dent - 24/01/2007 15:35:03
| | | It is quite simple. You may have heard of the book(s), Perpetuum Mobile, by Dircks. This is a monumental guide to everything written on perpertual motion up to 1870. I am trying to do the same thing for anti-gravity (up to 2007). When I have finished, I shall probably lose all interest in the matter. The nonsense will of course continue unabated, just as it did even after Dircks' work was published. In fact, machines identical to those described by Dircks continue to be patented right up to the present day.
Of course, you will nevertheless have your place in posterity.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 24/01/2007 21:58:43
| | | Dear Arthur Dent,
I guess that the students are doing their finals and you need something to do while the college computer is available to you. Intelligent input should be welcomed here. However, if that input is flawed is it still intelligent?
You have indiscriminately criticised, harangued and generally put down others who in the main are guilty of nothing more heinous than seeking the truth in the best way they can. Here, like in any other area where the search is beyond present understanding, there are the odd fools and charlatans like me who, accidentally or no, without proper research, make false statements. Your own “small mea culpa” only goes to show your own ability in this area. That you have taken such a high stance on fact in the past would make anyone else more humble at such an error.
Will you include in your book (that will likely be a diatribe on frauds, fools and the mistaken instead of praise for those who have striven to add to understanding) the many, many scientists who have stated categorically that their knowledge of the “laws of physics” proved that this or that was totally impossible; usually just before some nutter in a shed (more often than a bookish campus pedant) showed that this or that was not a real problem after all but simply something that needed someone able to look, wonder and experiment?
Are you, I wonder, able to look and experiment? I very much doubt it, but if you are so able I will gladly set you an enlightening experiment to look at that you can do with a toy gyroscope this very weekend. You can clearly spare the time but can you risk your opinions?
Nitro MacMad
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick hill - 02/02/2007 03:31:22
| | | Dear mr uper prime, in sarch 4 gyroscopic magntic repultion, due 2 b driven on by laithwaite i progress thru books on fluidicity & there in my face is the answer 2 the gyroscopics of perpetual motion. LAIHWAITE a f...... geneous. IF now he could b here 4 me 2 answer the questions of a mere bricklayer and aid in my advancements that are prob brought on by my very own gene pool given to me by my family back ground, enabeling me to compute intensly throu much thought......and beleive me 24/7 365. That laithwate based his assuption on 360degrees, and this is correct to finding perpetual motion! In itself redemption arose when his ridiculed ideas came 2 light in the industrial advancement of travel via maglev..brought about by intense reaserch into technological advancement in other continents!...typical of UK today to turn from being a world leader in science along with USA in space development technology to riddicule a person a proffesor only 2 let others see an insight.......LAITHWAITE was advancing and not 4 need of faster commuting but in search of CLEANER more ENERGY EFFICIENT ways,......................................AND HE WAS SO CORRECT!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick hill - 02/02/2007 03:34:03
| | | Dear mr uper prime, in sarch 4 gyroscopic magntic repultion, due 2 b driven on by laithwaite i progress thru books on fluidicity & there in my face is the answer 2 the gyroscopics of perpetual motion. LAIHWAITE a f...... geneous. IF now he could b here 4 me 2 answer the questions of a mere bricklayer and aid in my advancements that are prob brought on by my very own gene pool given to me by my family back ground, enabeling me to compute intensly throu much thought......and beleive me 24/7 365. That laithwate based his assuption on 360degrees, and this is correct to finding perpetual motion! In itself redemption arose when his ridiculed ideas came 2 light in the industrial advancement of travel via maglev..brought about by intense reaserch into technological advancement in other continents!...typical of UK today to turn from being a world leader in science along with USA in space development technology to riddicule a person a proffesor only 2 let others see an insight.......LAITHWAITE was advancing and not 4 need of faster commuting but in search of CLEANER more ENERGY EFFICIENT ways,......................................AND HE WAS SO CORRECT!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick hill - 02/02/2007 03:34:10
| | | Dear mr uper prime, in sarch 4 gyroscopic magntic repultion, due 2 b driven on by laithwaite i progress thru books on fluidicity & there in my face is the answer 2 the gyroscopics of perpetual motion. LAIHWAITE a f...... geneous. IF now he could b here 4 me 2 answer the questions of a mere bricklayer and aid in my advancements that are prob brought on by my very own gene pool given to me by my family back ground, enabeling me to compute intensly throu much thought......and beleive me 24/7 365. That laithwate based his assuption on 360degrees, and this is correct to finding perpetual motion! In itself redemption arose when his ridiculed ideas came 2 light in the industrial advancement of travel via maglev..brought about by intense reaserch into technological advancement in other continents!...typical of UK today to turn from being a world leader in science along with USA in space development technology to riddicule a person a proffesor only 2 let others see an insight.......LAITHWAITE was advancing and not 4 need of faster commuting but in search of CLEANER more ENERGY EFFICIENT ways,......................................AND HE WAS SO CORRECT!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
PATRICK - 10/09/2008 11:29:37
| | | URE NOT TRYING HARD ENOUGH, 0 IN MIDDLE WORKING OUTWARDS -SCALEAROUND TO +SCALE SHOWS THE MATHS? GIMME SOME MORE
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
PATRICK - 08/04/2009 02:49:59
| | | PLS PLS all i need is 330 dollars per week 2 work 4 someone, ring say or state who u r or write in ld fashioned ink......england 07766748196,43 duncan road,aylestone.leicester,le2 8eg..... nitro stick ure f........ neck out 4 once
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick - 03/12/2009 02:15:47
| | | why not preclude eternal perpetual motion,359 0pposed 367 in rotational force.Fluidicity gives an answer of lateral force in nature!
why cant we strive to live this way,I MYSELF NEED HALF OF WHAT MAKES ME SMILE, yet in a world of selfish desire i selfishly desire that world,that world i see more than them. Them being our prime oh so late starters.....but at the back of their mind is a NIGGLE they know.
Love can be found 4 sure or lost obscure,
OUR minds computate'
A lesson in time of man
B4 its 2 late
HELLO IM HERE maybee in a state
But carry any load like railroad freight
ITS how it is jus now an den
can a boy turn in 2 those men
In places they have ever been
AND all the obscurities they have ever seen
Show me the face of an atomic child
cos theyl bleed the love in awild smile
So gracious in love 2 leave us all begulled
IS this me or my past child
the love
is riffe
the love
i striffe
SO ALL BOUT ME,
A PLACE I CAN C
BOUT THE BROTHER OF HUMANITY
SO SIMPLE BLIND IN COMPLEXITY
SABOUT LIFE DA WAY WE CAN B
YA ME GOT DE ONE UNITY
ENTRAPMENT N DE MIND
CHA BREDD DAT COM BE
ME ONLY RESOLUTION
OF PERPETUALITY
CHA CUM DE PRICE
MEYA NA BIGUP NOT ONCE BE TWICE
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
RS - 22/05/2014 22:41:46
| | | Luis,
Angular acceleration is convertible into linear acceleration. Mike Marsden figured out the key to keep it sustained. Eventually if you keep accelerating a disc, it ends up shattering apart from too much centripetal force. However, if you ALSO include angular DECELERATION then it IS possible. Deceleration feels just like acceleration; it is a force. So his Mac Quan 1 basically alternates back and forth between the two; 90 degrees it converts angular acceleration into linear acceleration, then 90 degrees it converts angular deceleration into linear acceleration. And then the process starts again, over and over. That is how you sustain linear thrust from a spinning disc and it is how the Mac Quan 1 was able to self-lift.
Ross
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
