|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
27 November 2024 10:03
|
|
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: |
Shahriar Yazdani |
| Subject: |
Non-Reaction Torque Drive |
| Question: |
Hi, I have designed and made a new device named Non-Reaction Torque Drive
Which is a motor and drive that produce and apply torque to a load but delete the reaction torque from load, and transfer only up to 10% of it to the shell and structure of motor.
This apparatus uses gyroscope and acts very strangely. Actually it overtakes third Newton` law.
I want to know if this event was occurred for gyroscopic device before or it is the first time.
|
| Date: |
3 October 2007
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 04/10/2007 01:59:37
| | | It's hard to say without a better description. Have you tested it on an air track or ballistic pendulum? In other words, can it be shown that it actually works and does not require friction like so many other devices before that have had claims made for them?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Shahriar Yazdani - 04/10/2007 06:14:03
| | | dear Ram,
I don't understand your mean about air track or ballistic pendulum. But I have tested it on air without friction by holding the motor on two ball bearings only.
Suppose it acts as an electromotor which is hang in air with two bearings.
One bearing holds it from rotor shaft, and the other bearing holds it from another shaft which is welded to stator. (Two shafts has same diameter)
Therefore this electromotor is hanging without friction and its rotor and its stator will turn simply. Now I connected a 2Kg mass to rotor shaft and a 1kg mass to stator shaft. Then I turn on the drive. The rotor rotated and pulled the 2Kg, and the stator also rotated in opposite direction and pulled the 2Kg mass. But it is strange that the speed of lifting for 2Kg mass is 5 times more than speed of lifting for 1Kg mass!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 07/10/2007 15:48:58
| | | Dear Shahriar Yazdani
I am sorry if this disappoints; but producing reaction-less TORQUE is fairly straightforward by using gyroscopic reaction to convert the rotational input of, for example, an electric motor. This unoposed reaction would nonetheless (in my humble shed-dwelling opinion) seem to fundamentally question the third law of motion – as you have concluded.
However “the established scientific community” (whoever they are) sidestep this anti-Newton anomaly with their habitual, meaningless, statement that “rotary energy” (they say motion) and “linear energy” are separately conserved” (they picture a god holding a separate bag for each one – perhaps). This is their cop-out way of explaining why it is so-o-o-o-o hard to produce reaction-less LINEAR motion. And reaction-less LINEAR motion is what everyone on this page (unless I’ve been hugely mistaken – and that has been known) is searching for.
It is always possible that the nutters in sheds (well, there is one in my shed!) are wrong and the experiments they have done, that convince them that there is a pathway to follow, are all bad light, smoke and mirrors.
However, having been a “doubting Thomas” on many occasions and sworn that I would not venture down this lunatic gyro path again, so many times; I later have come across my early fundamental gyro tests and run them again from an even more sceptical viewpoint than before. Each time I do this I find myself back on the lunatic path again – but with better quality climbing boots - because there is a path but it is steep and hard to follow.
Kind regards
NM
PS. Hi; everyone else. Yes, I’ve been hammering through France again and yes, I have obtained a few beverages to remember the districts I’ve visited. Mmm: - Cheek shrinkingly dry sur lie from near Nantes. Sumptuously sweet Mascat de Lunel, to remind me of when my son was lovingly conceived in the Camargue twenty years ago. And, of course, from a little further up the Rhone; Neuf (Chateau Neuf du Pape) from Domaine Mathieu for the same memory.
We (the ever lovely Irene and I) came back, this time, through the Massive Central (only partly because most of the autoroute is my favourite price; free) via the Tarn Valley and the fantastic Viaduc de Millau. Utterly stunning!
For some reason no-one in France seems to know that it (the Viaduc not the Tarn Valley) was English (all right! British) designed by Sir Norman Foster’s practice.
I have a difficulty here in that I am proud that we (the Brits) can still come up with engineering answers that are world beaters while at the same time hating the loss of the beauty of the original site. For example: I see LONDON’S GHERKIN as LONDON’S SUPPOSITARY. I guess I just like old! Luckily for me so, it would seem, does Irene!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 10/03/2008 22:24:44
| | | Hi Shahriar;
Congratulations again on your achievement. I may be a tad less skeptical than the others, since after seven years of intensive research, I have achieved the same. My work is in its very early stages in terms of physical prototypes. I began with a theory based on general relativity, modeled it in Autodesk Inventor, then Dynamic Designer, and watched my apparatus lift three inches from ground within the software environment while obeying all of the laws built into the physics engines. Results have increased significantly after further refinements and physical construction.
Newton's third law only appears to be broken. The reaction forces are being geometrically redistributed into positive force. I know this sounds like heresy, but the math is agnostic to tradition, and it is in keeping with physical laws (otherwise, my $11,000 software, based on first rate solvers would not have permitted it!)
Best,
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
