|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
27 November 2024 10:21
|
|
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: |
aaaaaaaaa |
| Subject: |
new patents |
| Question: |
Italian engineer
Alfio di Bella
Alfio di Bella
Alfio di Bella
Alfio di Bella
patented a device to convert circular movement into one-direction movement.
Go to european patent database ep.espacenet.com an download the following patents:
GB 1,074,886
US 3,404,854
This patent was copied from patent 312,496 issued in 1933, of italian engineer Marco Todeschini
For more informations about Marco Todeschini see:
www.nuovaricerca.org
www.nuovaricerca.org
www.nuovaricerca.org
|
| Date: |
15 December 2006
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/12/2006 16:56:09
| | | All I get using google is ‘The page cannot be displayed’. Is it just me? It seems there were other posts recently about European Patents and an engineer’s site address. Was that you? I couldn’t find anything then or now. The web has plenty of information on, Alfio di Bella, but nothing in relation to Circular movement, or this patent. Could you check your site info? Perhaps you could explain something of it?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 16/12/2006 17:26:49
| | | Mr. aaaaaaaaa,
I saw the website; the documents are in Italian but are very interesting.
There is a paper in this very forum that mentions Di Bella’s device and even has a simple patent drawing of it.
It does require some effort and knowledge to figure out how this device works just from the drawing.
Here is a link to it http://www.gyroscopes.org/papers/Space%20odyssey.pdf
Thank you, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 17/12/2006 13:32:26
| | | Very good of you to see and remember.
I looked. What a mess. The Webmaster built a far better apparatus designed to employ the same method in a more balanced and advanced way in hopes of creating lift by not allowing his five disks the freedom to rise in an arch. As I understood he indicated each disk only torqued in upon itself, bending medal in two equal and opposite directions. It was an ingenious test. Hear too, gear b. attempts to torque upwards in an arch while being restrained. Regardless of what the letter claims, for all I can tell I’m afraid this one has to be flunked. Too bad. Nice try of those fellows.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 17/12/2006 16:08:01
| | | Mr. aaaaaaaaa,
The DiBella machine works as stated in the document (though within Newtonian realm).
The DiBella machine does not use a gyro and has no resemblance whatsoever to any machine built by the webmaster (designed on different principles to perform different tasks). We can see the webmaster’s machines at http://www.gyroscopes.org/mywork.asp.
The architecture of the DiBella machine resembles the machines built by Jerry Voland more than any others I have seen, though it is simpler and has a different purpose (to know that one must first understand the principle of the DiBella machine, and that gear B does NOT attempt to torque upward). We can see the Volland machines at http://spaceoffice.us/airbornethruster.jpg
The DiBella machine is very rudimentary and in fact does NOT EVEN HAVE A GYRO (must look at the drawing closely and fully perceive how and why it works). This machine does not attempt to create lift and the gears don’t spin fast enough to hope to be gyros. All it does is shove a mass in one direction at cyclical intervals. The important thing is that it creates linear motion in one direction through purely internal means (it moves without need to interact with the external environment).
The DiBella machine established a standard level of accomplishment that has not been exceeded by any of the successes claimed up to now through gyro propulsion.
The DiBella machine accomplishes this success with great simplicity that uses arcs of motion instead of spin and is able to deliver relatively large bursts of thrust (similar to Jerry Voland’s devices).
However, the DiBella machine is just a quaint notion in that it always comes to stop at the end of each cycle and therefore has a maximum velocity that is governed by that factor. The DiBella machine is not a space drive and its mechanical application is very limited.
Still the DiBella machine is a success that most gyro propulsion devices have not been able to surpass.
Thank you, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 17/12/2006 17:02:25
| | | Poor Luis, how ridicules.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 17/12/2006 20:33:41
| | | Projection.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 19/12/2006 01:58:41
| | | All interested individuals can find the DiBella patent that describes this invention in the US Patent office at this (very long) link START ==> http://patimg2.uspto.gov/.piw?docid=US003404854&SectionNum=3&IDKey=66FFC80D6516&HomeUrl=http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1%2526Sect2=HITOFF%2526d=PALL%2526p=1%2526u=%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsrchnum.htm%2526r=1%2526f=G%2526l=50%2526s1=3,404,854.PN.%2526OS=PN/3,404,854%2526RS=PN/3,404,854 <== END (Just copy and paste it)
Those who manage to understand patent language can know the truth without relying on the vagaries of this thread. The gears “B” and “C” simply synchronize the lopsided turning of the out of balance mass “M” so that its upward half circle arc occurs in the same side as the downward half circle arc. Therefore most of the lateral momentum occurs in one same direction. (Note that mass “M” is not a gyro either.)
You can evaluate the merit of the commentators by the quality of what they have written before (there is plenty of it from both in this forum).
Thank you, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 31/12/2006 16:16:28
| | | The DiBella invention is the first (primitive) inertial propulsion drive, but it is NOT a gyro propulsion drive.
It succeeds over other attempts at inertial-drive because it takes advantage of motion in 3 dimensions while other inertial drives rely upon a complex set of motion that occurs on a 2 dimensional plan. The DiBella inertial drive makes use of the one additional dimension but with a simpler set of motions than other attempts at inertial-drive devices such as “the Planetary Gear Drive” “the Dean drive” ...etc. That is what makes DiBella’s an elegant and successful device, for what it is intended to perform.
This machine delivers a very primitive and not very useful motion that halts at each cycle. Also, though it’s not easy to perceive, the DiBella machine relies on gravity to maintain its relatively straight-line motion. In making full use of the 3 space dimensions available, the machine exerts some (limited) force in upward and downward directions, in order to reposition the driving-mass. The limited (vertical) energy spent in repositioning allows the device to exert the bulk of its momentum in one (horizontal) direction.
The DiBella machine can not be useful as space drive because it requires vertical tension (up/down) to maintain its straight (horizontal) motion. In space it would wonder in all 3 dimensions while also gyrating around multiple possible axes. Therefore the DiBella machine would make net gains in any particular direction when operating in space.
In short DiBella’s machine was a great breakthrough for its timeframe (1933 – 1967); it awakened, a select few inquisitive minds, to a realm of possibilities that may result by harmonizing internal arcs of circular motion into net external linear motion. The DiBella machine proved that, given the appropriate mechanical configuration, one could convert certain aspects of angular dynamics into linear motion.
This was indeed a great breakthrough which ushered the fledgling beginnings of internally generated propulsion, which we are a part of.
The limitations of the DiBella machine relegate it to the category of a very intriguing toy. (I’m not sure that I have not seen it as a notion in previous Christmas seasons.)
Thank you, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 01/01/2007 21:50:58
| | | Correction to my previous posting; the last sentence of the third from last paragraph should state:
“Therefore the DiBella machine would “NOT” make net gains in any particular direction when operating in space.”
Thank you, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 02/01/2007 08:37:25
| | | Dear Luis,
I shouldn’t have said ridicules. I apologize. I wonder do you have the good matters to acknowledge me for it. Few do. Anyway I’m sincerely sorry, Luis. You are most certainly not ridicules.
I wasn’t going to respond when you attacked me, but you are a persistent poster aren’t you? Very well. As to my treatment of the machine I will give you some hints. How fast do you think the motor must rotate in order not to stall out? Look at the thick circular mass, size and shape of (gear b.), and then look to the mass of the single little short rod (weight) in the center. Do they rotate at the same speed? Careful now, do the particals within each travel at the same speed? Where dose the greater force reside. What is the ratio of generated force between them? Is it about 50 to 1? More? Much more?
You assert as if by fact the machine works, but your assertion is based on your reasoning only. You offer no proof by visual observations and measurements. Do you think your reasoning is more complete than mine and millions like me? I and three hundred years of physics are in disagreement with you. Don’t you mean, “I think it works?” Haven’t you formed a hypotheses and not a fact? Can you really proclaim with Frankenstein like certainty, ‘It’s alive! It’s alive!” You want to avoid showing the superiority complex too often and too strongly. Keep a led on it. You’ll be happier. If you doubt my assessment of you, go back and reread your messages when they are cold to you, almost any of them.
Now to this machine. The easiest way for you to test your assertion might be to set down on a creeper (used to roll under automobiles) with your legs folded under you on the creeper. Hold a bowling ball with both hands outward from your body and swing it in the same outward curving paths you well know the dead weight follows. See how far the action will take you.
The machine is like all those clever rotation devices, which ultimately seek in one ingenious way or another to change the circular paths of rotating parts into elliptic paths of rotation. The inventor expects to gain a centrifugal directional advantage, but the center of gravity never changes. It makes no difference that this one halfs rotation. They all fail for this same reason.
In the machine you champion the centrifuge you realize in your mind is caused by constantly accelerating the mass in a new direction. When you accelerate there will always be a rearward and equal reaction, though it may be very difficult to realize. You gain nothing. Stick to gyroscopes. There you have a chance. We all do and you’re doing fine at it and you’re working very hard and I admire you for that fact, Luis.
Now don’t get puffed up and defensive. I will always tell you the truth, as I know it. Your writing is good. It has become steadily better and better. Practice and real effort to become better makes you better you know.
Best Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 07/01/2007 15:43:20
| | | Luis,
Don’t get down on yourself if you decide you jumped the gun a little in your assessment. That’s just enthusiasm added to by the natural tendency of people who know they have very good reasoning ability and that the ability is better than most people have. Sometimes modesty escapes us all and we assert ourselves quickly with unreasonable certainty. This is natural and right and unavoidable for those who know they are good at something. It always happens at times and to me too. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
You need to put this old Alfio Di Bella thing behind you and burst out loud and enthusiasm, ready to challenge anybody in your gyro research and then allow for debate to see if you can learn something new as well as try to teach something new. You will be read. Burst out! Chin up! You have lots to say.
Best regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Paul Brook - 07/01/2007 23:31:52
| | | So far everyone seems to be discussing only the "Viviani window" device to US Patent 3,404,854. Anyone seriously interested in di Bella must *get and read* his paper "On Propulsive Effects of a Rotating Mass," for the "peculiar" version of his device where two masses each produce a single shock, or impact during each cycle, always in the same direction (from very innocuous equations of motion). Unlike the original, this device never ceased operation, even in a vacuum, or under 0.001 coefficient of friction conditions.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/01/2007 02:00:12
| | | Dear Paul,
An excellent deduction by you.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VivianisCurve.html
Theoretical, heavy and used to argue things I don’t believe in, such as anti gravity etc. I can’t become interested.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=On+Propulsive+Effects+of+a+Rotating+Mass&btnG=Google+Search
I believe if it is possible that a solution comes to us it will be derived from purely mechanical understandings and that if it could have been done with mathematics it would have already been done. There were and are so many mathematical geniuses. There wouldn’t exist impossible theories, but true theories changed to facts by engineers who would build the things discovered by physics’.
I am on fire right now. My doctor is prescribing steroids to treat an ailment like poison oak. My energy level is sky high, my enthusiasm too. I am working, learning, producing like lighting. I am accomplishing so much so fast I can’t believe it. I tell you this because I can do it quickly. I don’t need to waste this precious momentum on a stupid, impossible di Bella machine. (I read some of it--enough) I hope the steroids never wear out. I will complete my machine at this rate.
Anyway I thought your post was appropriate and excellent. Keep them coming.
Good talking to you,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/01/2007 13:41:42
| | | Dear Paul,
How is your creeper/bowling ball testing coming along?
Of course there’s no magic, but when you watch precession you are seeing something more akin to magic than mechanics, more magic than physics. If this kind of propulsion will be possible, it will be I believe in the magic of the gyro and nowhere else and by no other means.
A vaguely similar condition to precession exists between current induction and magnetic flux. The direction of the changed form of energy from current to flux and flux to current occurs at, or near a right angle. There is a sound theory of why and how this happens, but precession occurs in unconnected space. I have a sound and easily understood theory that can be demonstrated of how and why a gyro stays aloft. It is done by a coupling, but why and how a gyro chooses to revolve around a pedestal in a predestine direction is not known. There are some lose ideas out their, but they can’t be demonstrated and there is sound evidence to argue against them. While the ninety degrees deflection of electromagnetism is understood it may have once seemed like magic, but it has been understood for a long time now. The how and why of the revolutions of precession still remain a mystery. This condition goes against at least the established Five Laws I know of in the science of our understanding of the behavior of the universe. Not in physics, math, or my form of mechanics so far as I know explains what is clearly, visually happing. After all this time and research there are no acceptable explanation on earth that I have seen to explain what is happening when a little boy lying on the floor with his hands on his chin watches in wonderment as a gyro precess around a pedestal, yet this mass displacement without a rearward reaction is proven even to a child.
Russian research is involved far more than we in the particular research followed on this site and unlike the US and UK there are many respected Russian PhDs involved. I keep up with them, but they like we have accomplished nothing, producing only wild theories, lacking mechanical observations and measurements and unsupportable theories that can never, never be proven and of course beautifully engineered devices that don’t work. Nobody knows the answers. We keep searching, because we see and realize mass displacement and look to discover lasting acceleration from mass displacement. The two simply must be connected somehow and the purely mechanical work and searching is maybe the only way to discover a means of acceleration from displacement if there is one as I believe. So far as I know, nobody of great talent has asserted that mathematics can prove mass displacement. That, I have determined is not the way for me to go.
The magic? If it comes is likely to come from the kind of people such as on this site that study and follow the phenomena in a…mechanical way.
By the way, Paul, I like your observations and think them intelligent and hope to hear more of them.
(Still working like lighting. Strange that after all this living I’ve done a doctor with steroids teaches me what a speed freak goes through. There are advantages, as well as the well known disadvantages. I am learning, learning.)
Supper, Glenn, at least for a while more!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 13/01/2007 17:38:24
| | | Interesting logic; if we must first build a device before we can state that it will work, shouldn’t we also have to build it before we can state that it will not work?
I see postings that say I work hard, yet gyro physics is one of my hobbies and I indulge a portion of my spare time because it’s a lot of fun. The only hard work is the one imposed by someone else. I mostly do thing that I enjoy; even making a living by designing software portals for business and government is enjoyable.
I would not waste contrived concern on me. It’s not polite to patronize and it speaks poorly of those who engage in it.
This forum is great when used for technical discussion and exchange of gyro ideas. Any personal comment made about people we have not met is simply a reflection of what’s in the mind of the person making the comment (that’s simple to see). As such, personal insults are a reflection of the sender, and not of the intended receiver.
It’s sad how few people understand this (and that anyone should have to mention it).
Not sure? Give it some thought (don’t need to build a model to prove it).
The Di Bella machine is easy to build (though the frame is not clearly included in the drawing), but requires the ability to interpret patent drawings and specifications. (Note that both A & B gears are the same size and the out of balance mass creates the thrust- jumps.) With a little time and effort most people can figure out this device.
How precession works is well defined and has been known for a very long time. However precession is not widely understood because complete explanations account for more than one set of complex simultaneous dynamics. Mathematic, Physics, Intuitive, and Rule-of-Thumb explanations for precession have been around since before we were born. Some explanations are quite involved and the layman gives up, thus failing to understand. Intuitive explanations are disarmingly simple but not usually accepted because they leave out the complexity which must obviously exist. Rule-of-thumb explanations don’t say much more than to accept certain mnemonics behind which the science is hidden.
No one can tell us what is gravity but we understand its behavior and how it fits in everyday classical physics. Some philosophers say that we can’t tell for sure what things such a motion, velocity and acceleration are, except for how they fit together (picture a child asking for the meaning of one explanation after another, endlessly).
We should look for how a phenomenon fits within science (the hard part is accepting).
Here is the best intuitive explanation that I know of:
PRECESSION is simply a change of spin-direction when a force acts on the existing spin (changing the direction is NOT the same as reversing the direction of spin)!
Because of the gyro configuration (which includes the quasi-disk shape of the spinning mass, and the way the disk is attached via the spin axle), the mass is unable to simply change its spin axis, so it gradually changes the orientation of its spin, to accommodate the effected change in direction. This gradual change in orientation is basic precession.
If a mass is moving linearly in one direction, applying a force in a different direction will gradually change the original direction of motion. (If the force is continuous, the mass will eventually change its motion to the exact direction of the applied force.) We can take this self-evident principle from linear motion and apply it to an angular motion when it is affected by a torque (angular force). The principle is simple but the dynamics are complex.
It’s a common mistake to try to simplify the dynamics by espousing unexplainable (complex) principles.
Thank you, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 13/01/2007 19:17:41
| | | Dear luis,
Remember that the reason that a gyro axis will slowly align with the force (I assume gravity in the example you cite) is because the friction resisting the precession, caused by gravity, is itself precessed through 90 degrees causing a slowly increasing axial angle droop.
Therefore, the reason for the slow axial alignment with gravity in the classic toy gyro example is a predictable and repeatable demonstration of “Nitro’s first law”. That is; the first “thought of” force, (gravity) acting to change an axial angle, will produce other “unthought of forces” (friction in this case) and such further precessed reactions are overlooked at the peril of understanding.
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”.
I feel that all truth has to start with a guess based on all the information reasonably available, but for the ultimate in an individuals understanding such a guess has to be substantiated by repeatable experimental confirmation. This path is bloody hard to complete and many fall on the learning slopes of guessing. I seem to keep painfully slamming into the trees off the beaten track but as the Yanks say “what a ride”!
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 14/01/2007 14:39:34
| | | Dear Nitro,
The example did not involve gravity or gyros. It was an illustration of the (more familiar) LINEAR motion (velocity) and its interaction with LINEAR Force. My purpose was to present accepted facts about linear interactions, and apply them to angular interactions. I don’t think I did a good job in clarifying the connection.
I have not referred to axial drop at all; I apologize if I gave that that impression. The only axial alignment I ever talk about (though not in this thread) is that of the spin axis with the torque axis, and we know that in a simple gyro, gravity’s “Torque AXIS” is never in line with the vertical force of gravity).
I enjoyed your colloquialism; fortunately I have managed to maintain my head looking straight ahead, even when using artificial means to force precession.
Though truth should be the same to all, the path to it is unique for every individual.
Thank you for the encouraging words.
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 14/01/2007 14:49:33
| | | Correction, In my posting of 13/01/2007 I meant gears B & C of the Di Bella drawing at http://www.gyroscopes.org/papers/Space%20odyssey.pdf
Thanks, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 15/01/2007 21:35:34
| | | I admit error in saying that the Di Bella machine moves without need to interact with the external environment; my apology, I had forgotten the exact sequence of motions that the machine performs. (In a subsequent posting corrected in part stating that gravity is essential to the Di Bella device).
I should further clarify that the linear motion of the device also relies on digging its rear heel during the downward/backward part of the cycle (i.e. during and including the segment preceding the Out of Balance Mass’s swing away from that lower-rear segment of the swing).
Squeezing propulsion from gyro configurations is many times more complex than from the Di Bella device. While the type of propulsion that either of these 2 types of device are expected to yield is radically different, both mechanisms depend on conversions from angular force to linear motion.
As such, understanding how the Di Bella machine functions should be much simpler than understanding gyro propulsion.
My simple question is, what’s the purpose of the Out of Balance Mass “M” in the Di Bella device (please see the picture and explanation at http://www.gyroscopes.org/papers/Space%20odyssey.pdf)?
Hint - note that the Out of Balance Mass revolves (up and down) around the horizontal shaft (within the inner-ring-frame “A”) while at the same time the inner-ring-frame spins laterally around the vertical shaft. Can you picture that?
Both gears are exact in size and therefore synchronize the motion of the Out of Balance Mass so that “M” traces the exact same path within the device during every cycle. The path is neither pure up/down nor pure horizontal cycle; the cycle is somewhat diagonal when the vertical and horizontal components are combined.
Attacking others is often the result of a week argument.
It is however, one important purpose of this forum, to point out and correct looming errors; otherwise what’s the purpose of exchanging ideas, if not to achieve clarity?
I hope not to offend anyone by my pointing out corrected interpretations of how devices function.
Thank you, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Arthur Dent - 22/01/2007 13:20:35
| | | Two points.
One: how come nobody noticed (did not check) that the widely-cited Todeschini patent does not - in fact - exist?
Two: the (here) much derided Di Bella patent is, in fact, the most deeply researched and most successful one of its type (Di Bella was a respected naval architect). It was presented at a (real) engineering conference and was evaluated by the US government (ONR). It was used to propel a small boat, was installed in a Fiat car (which could then park sideways!) and was even used to propel a model airship. This was all in accord with Newton's laws. The reason why it was not used for space propulsion was that this would contravene the third law and, therefore, nobody in their right mind would waste time on such nonsense.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/01/2007 19:39:43
| | | Hello Arthur,
These are fantastic statements, but where did you get the information and facts to back them up? Books? Websites? What? How can we verify?
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Arthur Dent - 23/01/2007 18:10:56
| | | No mystery; it is called academic research (rather more reliable than simply clicking on dodgy internet sites):
1) The Todeschini patent cannot be found in any catalogue of granted patents (try the British Library). One of the people who has it on a website admitted to me that he had simply trusted the Todeschini Biopsychophysics Foundation people. He has a copy of such a 'patent', supplied by them, but I deduce (if my Italian is not too rusty) that it was only an application. I may get him to send me a copy of it - if I can be bothered.
2) About 15 years ago, I wrote to one of the late Dr Di Bella's colleagues. As a result, I acquired a pile of his published work. This contains a wealth of photographs and experimental details. It is all available via inter-library loan but, unless one has a University library-card, the loan fees can really add up. In fact, there is no need to bother, I intend to publish all of my findings in the near future. I just have to find the money to pay a good libel QC to read the 1000pp manuscript.
There is nothing mysterious about Di Bella's work; the basic physics aspects are routinely (no overheated calls to gullible journalists) covered by scientific journals, and the methods are - in effect - used in everyday industrial gadgets: have you never seen one of those component-feeding bins (for mass production assembly-lines) in which objects move up (sic) an inclined smooth spiral ramp, with no visible means of propulsion?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 23/01/2007 19:18:43
| | |
My Dear Arthur,
I will just have to wait for your manuscript publication before I can comment on your manuscript. I do not know why I should have any interest in the Todeschini patent.
As to the component-feeding bins I could better assume that objects move up because of friction and vibration being timed to kick the objects upwards, but I really don’t know anything about feeding bins and so I don’t actually suggest anything, except that physics isn’t being broken. If no visible means of propulsion is apparent, why would we prefer to chouse the Third Law as being violated?
As to obtainable information and proof, we're back where we started aren’t we? You haven’t given any. Being skeptical, but also being fair and having good manners I will reserve further comment and wait on your publication. Very good luck on your book.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
arthur dent - 23/01/2007 21:14:43
| | | A misunderstanding. My answer was not addressed to you, but rather to those in this thread who had brought up the Todeschini patent in the first place.
This question of 'evidence' is rather quite tiresome. There is no 'democracy of evidence'. Something (like a proper scientific paper) which has been through many critical hands, and survived, is not on the same level as something which is observed only by uninformed similarly-minded friends, and described on an uncritical website.
I do not have to prove anything; 300 years of physics research (and harsh reality) can do it for me. It is the 'person with the unicorn in his backyard' who has to a) persuade someone to come look at it and b) not look too closely (in case the glue has not set).
Of course the explanation is 'vibrational symmetry-breaking', but that (and other more unusual phenomena) is the explanation for any device which appears to contravene Newton's third law.
As somebody has said of the SEG device, in another thread, let's see it hovering before listening to reasons for why it should hover. In this respect, 'electrogravity' crackpots have an easier job: they can make things hover (for journalists) at the drop of a hat. But then they still have to convince physicists that gravity has been nullified (rather than simply opposed). However, with such clear 'evidence' (that word again), they can easily leapfrog the physicists, and go straight to gullible senators and businessmen leading - for instance - to NASA's wasting millions of dollars on the 'Podkletnov effect'.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 23/01/2007 23:39:16
| | | Well…you do have to prove it, Arthur, tiresome journey for you though it may be. One just has to and you know it.
Now then, I am impressed. The first time in a long time. I’m impressed with the depth of research into, Sear. And, impressed by your cruel lack of sympathy for the ' electrogravity ' dote sect. Very impressed by that. If it makes any difference to you I discovered that I like reading you.
Do you remember the mammoth machine running a zillion watts of electricity that levitated a frog and a strawberry about ten years ago? The engineers had clamed a $ 1,000,000 prize left by an Englishman to any who could invent an antigravity device. They never got the money. One said he could levitate your grandmother if he could get enough money for a bigger machine. Were theses the 'electrogravity' guys belonging to you? You do own them, intellectually, in a sense? I would hate to think that no one is in control, at least partially. One sees immediately that if a person walking by the building tossed a strawberry and frog and a grandmother through a window into the levitation chamber the building would suddenly weigh one strawberry, one frog and one grandmother more than it did before.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
arthur dent - 24/01/2007 03:16:12
| | | Firstly: I know that it does not interest you, but I now have a copy of the Todeschini patent (I don't let the grass grow ...). A small mea culpa to everybody; it does seem to be a real patent but, for some reason, it is missing from the databases to which I have access (so it should have been a question of first 'phone a friend'). It is essentially the same as the Di Bella patent, and would probably work just as well. So far my Italian has not detected any claim that it would work in space, so it is not entirely crazy. OTOH Todeschini wanted it to be powered - it seems - by electrolysing water and then exploding the gases. This is a classic con-trick (cf Archie Blue).
The levitating-frog work was bona fide science (but rather media-inspired, so they deservedly got an Ignobel prize for their pains). They could not win any anti-gravity prize (the Babson?) because it was not antigravity; just a previously impractical form of diamagnetic levitation. Of course, this prompted one of the real anti-gravity nuts to visit Andre Geim's laboratory. I still have his reaction to this, in an email which he sent to me. What a pity that it is too 'frank' to repeat in public.
I also know a lot more about Searl, but I want to keep that for the book.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/01/2007 13:41:45
| | | I see I should not have presumed to be understood without finishing an explanation (dotting the i’s). The frog reference was meant to be a mechanical explanation where one can readily see why magnetic levitations of any kind is not an anti gravity success. Gravity never lessens its hold on the frog in the chamber. The weight of the frog presses down on the repulsive magnetic flux. The field flux in turn presses down on the plate, or what ever is producing the field. The plate presses down on the machine and the machine presses down on the building. In order for the frog to experience anti gravity it would have to lose its weight as if it were in a quadrant of space where gravity is equal in all directions. One can think ‘float’, thought that is not a true explanation. In all electromagnets experiments the objects never lose their weight. That’s why the poor fellows didn’t get any money.
Understandable greed, or need and hope led them to claim anti gravity and that’s too bad, because it down graded them, otherwise their experiment is important. It proves that anything, plastic, dirt, or whatever can be magnetically charged.
I end by revisiting the original subject, the Di Bella machine. I have not seen any mechanical reason why, or how it would produce propulsion, and any idea that it dose challenges the strongest foundation of established dynamics. (so does precession and mass displacement, except that they are proven.) There has not been one bit of mechanical reasoning to support this machine, so far as I have seen. I can yield this much. My skepticism doesn’t prove the machine won’t work. I’m not merely willing to be (here’s that word again) proven wrong. I would be thrilled and happy to be proven wrong. My personal vanity is low in this area where I am challenged. My desire for the truth of it is much higher. If I could be proven wrong, just look at how much more I would know. I would smile. So…good luck.
One last thing, the machine is very simple and easy and inexpensive to build. If one were built, did in fact function and was filmed in action all the controversy would near an end. We’d have an indication and a machine to investigate and perhaps end up confirming. A kid could build this one. Who couldn’t if they were determined? Actual testing with great care is the only possible way of proving anything. Also you said something somewhere like, let’s see in hover before we start explaining why it hovers.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
arthur dent - 24/01/2007 15:19:50
| | | Sorry again for any misunderstanding. Actually, the frog levitation is in a class of its own, in this sense: if someone is in free fall, this approximates to outer-space gravity conditions and all parts of the body are 'in the same boat' as it were. In aerodynamic levitation (as in those fun-fair 'flying' devices like vertical wind-tunnels), one feels weightless overall but ones internal organs are still pressing down on ones rib-cage due to gravity. In the frog case, the levitation effect depends upon the detailed properties of each organ, so that some might rise in the combined fields and others might sink. It must feel very strange to the frog.
There is no reason why Di Bella-type devices should not work when placed on any surface (including water). After all, every large machine tool has to be bolted to the floor because, otherwise, it would go wandering around the factory when operating. Even my washing machine has been known to go walkabout on fast spin. There is no mystery, just well-known vibrational effects.
It works for boats as well because of their asymmetry. It is said that fun boat-races were sometimes held in which rowing-boats were propelled simply by tugging on thwarts. The Di Bella device was thought to have been able to propel a model airship due to waves which were generated (by vibration) in the fabric of the balloon. These travelling waves then interacted with the air. None of these phenomena would work in space (unless the vibration produced the Wisdom-effect by cyclically altering the entire shape of the machine).
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/01/2007 00:59:29
| | | That poor frog. You really put it through the grinder. Are you the one that grinned through out the dissecting class where each student sliced a little live animal apart?
The Di Bella debacle is ended with a crash. The problem began as a single word ‘smooth’. When I first read about it that’s how the action was described, smooth. Later someone described it as inertial propulsion, which of course it is not. Now you’ve been talking about vibrations and that makes all the difference in the world. I equate that it took me so long to see, this way. When you are teaching someone golf, or pool you must first correct the bad things they were taught and have been practicing. That is very difficult, where as it is hundreds of times easier to teach them a right way if they have not first been taught a wrong way. Smooth was a wrong way and was in my mind. Smooth won’t move anybody smoothly across the room. So much for the poor understanding of the instructor.
Yes. You can move anything with lateral deflection, which can be made to occur in unknown numbers of machines that bounce. And, of course a lateral jerking back and forth can easily move a boat through water. When the boat is jerked fast one direction it meets greater resistance due to the accelerated inertia reaction and a little to molecular bonding of the water. When it is then pulled in the other direction more slowly, but with the same magnitude of force (in some cases a spring would slow the action) the water yields more easily, because it has more time. This has been known about forever and some claims by inertial propulsion inventors using water as a median to supply proof have been debunked with this knowledge. If this describes the Di Bella device then it is nothing new, or important and no longer very interesting.
I admit the machine can work by lateral deflection, but it would not work on well-oiled caster wheels, or a bed of ball bearings.
Now back to something more to my liking. By the way, thank you for showing me the internal problems of a levitated frog. I hadn’t thought of it. As the frog was flipped over and set into rotation, its heart filled with blood, its muscle masses and bones weighing more would bounce up and down and other directions inside a jelly body. The frog, it being highly intelligent, more than man, would be certain to crock loudly and bitterly, its reptilian eyes following the lead engineer: “I don’t know~~ what insane things~~ you are doing to me ~~, but listen stupid its not anti gravity.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 03/02/2007 20:17:58
| | | Glen,
Go back and re-read carefully what everyone said in this thread (especially your own statements) including the document I mentioned. (Who said “smooth” about what?)
Evaluate what was said and form an impartial perspective, if that’s possible.
See if you can evaluate and form a clear opinion about the participants.
Thank you,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 04/02/2007 02:07:45
| | | Hello Luis,
I don’t understand what you want. Things can be made to continuously bounce sideways, because they are responsive to equal and opposite reactions against an anchored backdrop. This is lateral deflection and if this explains what the machine is doing I never understood, and if so, so what? If so, I think this thread has been a great deal to do about nothing, kept alive because the machine was supposed to be a new, first and unknown phenomena that was producing inertia propulsion. I see none of this being true—if it only deflects equally and oppositely. I wish I could give you more of what you want, but I don’t know what that is and I have soooooo lost interest in this machine. Sorry.
http://www.gyroscopes.org/papers/Space%20odyssey.pdf The sixth paragraph reads: “The proposed application was for docking ships sideways and as such did not retain much attention because of low efficiency but the force was a study one without vibration.”
Isn't this a description of smooth?
Take care,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Paul Brook - 07/05/2007 11:36:00
| | | A bit more about my previous post re the "peculiar" version of di Bella's machine:—
Di Bella's paper "On propulsive effects of a Rotating Mass" was published in the "Proceedings of the 7th Symposium of Naval Hydrodynamics," Rome, August 1968, pp1373 - 1396.
The reason I find this device interesting is that it generates impacts, i.e. higher derivatives of displacement than just velocity or acceleration. According to (among others) William O. Davis, impacts are not adequately described by Newton's laws of motion, and so could if properly engineered, possibly provide a means of propulsion. See W. O. Davis "The fourth Law of Motion," Analog Science Fact and Fiction, August 1962 (British Edition), pp96 - 107. Davis was a former Director of the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Arthur Dent - 02/08/2007 04:35:47
| | | W.O.Davis, being a mere engineer, became terribly confused between fundamental laws and empirical laws. It is easy to put together a machine in which the 3rd differential is required in order to describe its operation most effectively in an empirical sense. However, that has nothing to do with the fundamental laws of physics. Physicists have not even bothered to name differentials higher than the 2nd; although there have been several suggestions for such a name. The Davis concept is simply not required/valid in classical mechanics. But, to be fair, there are signs that it might be required when treating collisions, etc., quantum-mechanically. The 3rd differential sometimes turns up there. However, that is to be expected as there really is a temporary 'gap' between cause and effect at the quantum level, due indirectly to the uncertainty principle.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Arthur Dent - 02/08/2007 04:36:40
| | | W.O.Davis, being a mere engineer, became terribly confused between fundamental laws and empirical laws. It is easy to put together a machine in which the 3rd differential is required in order to describe its operation most effectively in an empirical sense. However, that has nothing to do with the fundamental laws of physics. Physicists have not even bothered to name differentials higher than the 2nd; although there have been several suggestions for such a name. The Davis concept is simply not required/valid in classical mechanics. But, to be fair, there are signs that it might be required when treating collisions, etc., quantum-mechanically. The 3rd differential sometimes turns up there. However, that is to be expected as there really is a temporary 'gap' between cause and effect at the quantum level, due indirectly to the uncertainty principle.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
