|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
3 May 2024 10:32
|
|
Welcome to the gyroscope forum. If you have a question about gyroscopes in general,
want to know how they work, or what they can be used for then you can leave your question here for others to answer.
You may also be able to help others by answering some of the questions on the site.
|
Question |
| Asked by: |
Glenn Hawkins |
| Subject: |
What! |
| Question: |
There is no end to this. When will we learn? There are a number of men worldwide who’ve spent twenty years toying with this devil. Some of them, particularly in Russia with PhDs have research money and of course we’ve had our own most herald engineer of his day, Professor Liftwate (sp?) try to understand and prove this, or that. But what about us? We’ve tried as many different approaches as there have been individuals of us. Sometimes we argue over this, but argue over nothing else in our lives. We can even be rude and for what? We have been so much involved it supersedes our personality and absorbs too much of our thoughts and time and other area of our development. Boy, are we committed! And for what? The planet earth has failed to present an inertia propulsion device through the great effort of a great many people, more than are on this site, have tried and failed. Maybe it is not possible, you think? Yeah, that’s right, you maybe think?
I have been doing testing all week. Yes I have, very cleverly devised tests too and taking into account every conceivable possibility of this and that. What is nuts is not that none of them failed to prove propulsion, but that they did not prove there was no propulsion--- what! Keep repeating them, sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t---what!. I have determined something I’ve suspected for years. There is no cheap way to test. Acceptable tests and results would require $100,000. to $200,000. of uniquely engineered precision parts, strange looking parts never before built. I know how to design these parts and perhaps I could build for, far less, but at this point, on this day, do I even care? All the tests I had hoped to do failed during the last seven days.
Glenn,
|
| Date: |
16 January 2008
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 17/01/2008 19:02:38
| | | Quick note: I was very down and disappointed when I posted the above, but in truth I had never expected those tests to prove propulsion. The problem was that they didn’t prove anything, neither propulsion, nor none propulsion as I had actually leaned toward, but wasn’t sure, after I had reasoned and constructed the tests so carefully. It all just now leads to more theory. That is never ending and I’ve grown weary of that.
If anyone has been reading me and remembers, I’ve been saying all along that I had three designs and that the most powerful (the one just tested) was the least likely to work, but was the one I preferred most and concentrated on most, because of its powerful potential. I still know the space inchworm works. I first tested it fifteen years ago, or there about. Now I that I’ve gotten that always-unlikely design I tested out of my system it’s time to try to accelerate the inchworm, if I can only get it built. I don’t need to test it. I wish somebody would rename it for me. Maybe I’ll think of something. I have great confidence it this one as I always, always have. I begin again.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Freeman - 27/01/2008 19:34:32
| | | Perhaps we have to start to think and to admit that Newton was right: we cannot propel a body outside its own dimensions... and this is what inertial, gyroscopic or whatever you want to say it proposes to do.
Perhaps we were wrong at the end. I've spent quite a lot of time investigating and calculations (using classical Mechanics) show that there is NO net thrust at all: internal forces cancel each other and that's it. We are to the point of losing these battle... but the war against gravity will be opened yet, until we win, for shure. Calculations using General Relativity are possible, but out of my mathematical and physics knowledge.
I rely on PhD and specially in the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) that is being built nowadays in Switzerland. There, Phisicians will search for new sub-atomic particles, specially for the Graviton, in order to verify Superstring Theory. I believe that when we know the NATURE of the gravity, then we can start thinking in gadgets to defy it. Any other work is just speculation, (bad?) intuition and a 'blind' work, without perspective and knoledge background.
Regards,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Link S. - 28/01/2008 19:22:49
| | | Here is something to think about when you think about gravity. What causes lightning: lightning is caused when a buildup of positive and negative charges at two different ends of a plain equalize. lightning usually heads downward towards the ground while a certain amount heads upward to meet the down coming surge. Why does lightning like to head to the ground? This is where you need to think. imagine energy existing in a planar field in which there is no Z axis so it is not 3D. Imagine a type of coordinate grid except points are constantly changing and points can travel from A to B instantly. The energy wants to grop with what ever it is that has more energy so instead of infinitely small points you have energy points varying in size and potential. the natural energy will be drawn towards the larger groups of net energy. so Imagine that this is what prodices gravity energy wanting to equalize and their tendency to "Go with the Flow".
Hope this helps Link S.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 29/01/2008 14:59:04
| | | Hello Freeman,
Very good. You’re maybe right. A great amount of proof supports that you are. I doubt that any of us have not had strong doubts at one time, or another. I’ll go on a while longer. Some of the simple testing I did two days ago prove beyond doubt that an over hung gyroscope produces centrifuge and carries momentum even into a collision. Under the most extreme conditions it can produce tons of it. I am reasoning the new information into my designs to see the effects they have and see what alterations, if any should go into the designs. So I’m not finished yet. This has been a long trip. I want to end up with the concrete truth of it all and in my own mechanical method that I call, archulation. By the way I have used it, archulation, to find and prove some, perhaps miner, but very real flaws in mechanical physics, not mathematical physics. The math models are correct so far as I am capable to of knowing. But, the mechanics can be separated and reveal a few, very few, difference. In these differences I am perfectly correct. I’m not finished applying my good method to search for truth, or mirth.
Later I will reveal how to do the new tests to prove centrifuge and momentum are carried during precession. It has been believed for twenty, or thirty years that thet were missing. How about your calculations? Did you prove any of them? How do you do them? That is the real question always, ‘how do you do them’. However in any case I certainly don’t question your final conclusion any more than I question my own doubts that come and go. It’s just that we don’t always explain how we learn things and how we do testing.
Sincerely.
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Link S. - 30/01/2008 13:21:02
| | | Just remember that at gyroscopic speeds there is a molecular amount of degradation that occurs. At these speeds atoms can be ripped away from the main structure giving a subatomic inbalance to the gyroscope. This could account for the differences from the mathematical models to the real ones. Though its impossible right now if one could act in a negatively charged work space with these then it may prove to counteract the gyroscopic speeds on atoms.
Link S.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 30/01/2008 14:23:30
| | | Dear S. Length,
I’m trying to do something serious with, “Accelerating the Space Inch Worm” and ‘The Gyroscope Just Got wilder’. They are connected and I’m not finished with them. Please don’t add to them.
Thanks,
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Link S. - 30/01/2008 19:02:14
| | | I'm sorry to have to tell you this but after reading the two theories you stated I have not yet understood what you are saying. I must confess this rather embarrasing yet I can't understand the concept that you are trying to get accross. If you could summarize these concepts for me I would be most appreciative.
Sincerely, Link S.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 30/01/2008 20:44:10
| | | I’m not finished with them. I’m in the middle of three new tests. They are difficult. I try to get away from them every so often to clear my head with light stuff. Everything written I expect to rewrite when I’m finished and have time. Don’t be embarrassed. Mechanics are difficult to understand and by their very nature difficult to explain with simplicity. The difficulties are increased when there are no drawings. I strongly suspect you are not the only one having trouble. Almost no one ever responds to the heart of understand, that is to say almost no body responds to the pure mechanical explanation and understanding within. It is brave and commendable of you to ask.
You can help. What is it you do not understand? Where do you get lost? What sentences do you not understand? What do you think they mean? I don’t understand what you don’t understand. Help me.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 28/02/2008 04:07:38
| | | Well maybe this will encourage you...
I have been working on a precession based device for several years now, and have succeeded in producing over 80 pounds of thrust from a device that weighs thirty pounds. I have also discovered a method to sum the forces by simply adding more mass pairs. Each mass pair together only weigh five pounds, but will add another 70 pounds of thrust, so it is feasible to construct a prototype that with four mass pairs that will produce over 250 lb of thrust and weigh less than fifty pounds.
As it turns out, there are many iterations that produce this effect, as long as they follow some simple rules. My most recent model on the drawing board can produce thousands (yes you read that right) of pounds of thrust. Although this model works theoretically, it is difficult to construct mechanically, but I have an excellent mechanic who is trying to work this out.
By the way, I will let you know a secret. After years of theoretical work, I finally found success by modeling my machine as a virtual prototype. This saved me millions, as many prototypes were built within world class physics engines. When physically constructed, the action of my machine very closely matched that of the virtual prototype when friction was taken into account.
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Skyp T. - 03/03/2008 18:19:11
| | | Dear EDH,
Congratulations on your 30 lb device that produces 80lb of thrust; it sounds like a great success.
Is the thrust permanent, or is it intermittent, during a part of the cycle?
Does it lift its own weight in sustained manner?
Skip T.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 09/03/2008 07:51:48
| | | It operates in pulses, and generates a sinusoidal unidirectional force. In the simplest prototype, the force generated from one mass pair will oscillate between a maximum of sixty and a minimum of forty pounds of thrust. Since this is a high frequency oscillation, and that an additional mass pair can be made to oscillate out of phase in respect to the first mass pair, the sine curve amplitude attenuates and generally normalizes around 80 pounds constant thrust for the two pairs. Momentum is an ally, since the center of gravity will continue to experience a unidirectional thrust after the pulse from the first pair. The second pair, then imposes a sustaining pulse before terrestrial gravity can take over. Yes, it does hover.
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 09/03/2008 20:37:04
| | | Do you in fact have in your possession five pound balanced disks? If so please explain their shape in detail and precisely how and where you obtained them. Also do you use electric motors to rotate them? If so, please explain the mechanical set-up fully and understandably. If this is not all about the theoretical, but about real parts I would be grateful to add your information to my own. In exchange if you'd like I can offer you whatever real information I have.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Skip T. - 10/03/2008 20:40:27
| | | Dear EDH,
When did you first successfully test the device hovering?
When did you first demonstrate it or intend on demonstrating it?
Skip T.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 11/03/2008 15:51:46
| | | Hello,
In the apparatus described above, a hub weighing eight pounds including the six pound electric motor drives four masses. The geometry of the masses is critical to the operation. Each mass is placed 90 degrees from the other and is attached to a hollow arm that is allowed to verticallly pivot upon the hub. Since I'm still completing the patent, I won't divulge every detail, but I will say that the geometry used for the masses is a hollow stainless steel spheroid or ellipsoid. As the hub speeds up to 2000 rpm, and the sphere rotates about it's respective arm at a frequency greater than the hub, a unidirectional force is produced on the hub. Depending on the configuration, this force can range from tens to thousands of pounds. The force is sinusoidal, so there is a high frequency up and down force on the entire closed mass system. As it turns out, the use of discs creates a jerky, erratic force on the hub, but spheres create a smooth one. If the spheres are properly aligned, the positive force amplitude is consistently greater than the negative. For example in our most basic four sphere model using 4" hollow masses, one pair is allowed to rise while the other is kept horizontal. The centrigufal force will then pull this pair horizontal which creates a strong upward thrust on the apparatus. At this tim, the other pair is at peak and ready to come down. When the first pair rises, it creates a strong downward force, however, the magnitude of this force is less than the upward force of the opposing pair. The result is a net positive force and lift.
This has been working for some time now. I've had small physical models to prove the physics, but am only now building a full blown engine (actually four) capable of terrestrial lift.
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 11/03/2008 15:59:17
| | | Dear Skip
Sorry for not responding to your question. I plan a public demonstration before the end of the year. The one constant in this research is constant surprises, so we intend to work out every detail before it's revealed.
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 11/03/2008 18:13:58
| | | Dear EDT,
It was kind of you to take the trouble to explain all that. Thank you for the effort. However, now don’t get aggregated with me please, I don’t need to know any of that. If you’d like you might reread my request.
You speak of hollow masses. Good for you. I’m glad you have what you want, but information about these isn’t useful to me, except perhaps the construction time, cost, material and difficulties encountered.
Perhaps there is someone else I can exchange the type of information listed below?
For instance, suppose you have four 2.5 Lb disks, or smaller. What material are they made of? What is the outside diameter, inside diameter and are they spoke wheels, or solid, but flanged to carry more mass around the outside diameter? What would be the dimensional shape from a side view? Did you have them cut and custom made? If so where and from whom and how much did they cost please? Or, were you lucky enough to find them pre-made off the shelf marketed? Did you find shafts and pillow blocks off the shelf? Where and what are their dimensions? As to the mechanical ‘set-up’ to rotate the disks with electric motors there are only a few sensible ways to do this and I find none have been as satisfactory as I’d like. In any case in the few methods of powered rotation all are understood. The methods aren’t unknown secretes, but I wonder which was has worked best for you? In appreciation I thank you in advance.
Kind Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 11/03/2008 19:33:56
| | | Hi Glenn,
I have several prototypes. As stated, I do not use disks because they do not work (produce lift). This in itself is now a secret revealed. I have checked the patent literature, and I am the only one using spheres in this fashion. The spheres are rotated by an internal motor, so to construct it, you actually need hemispheres. My six inch diameter hemispheres weigh two pounds each, and are obtained by a company called Wagner in Wisconsin (http://www.wagnercompanies.com/Spheres_and_Hemispheres.aspx). I ordered my parts on the internet. The six inch SS spheres from Wagner are very expensive, however, you can go a much more economical route. Four inch SS spheres weighing one pound can be obtained for about $12.00 each if you get them from decorative gardening sites (http://www.uniquegardensandgifts.com/4-Inch-Silver-Stainless-Steel-Gazing-Ball/cid90skuGB-4-SS). Just google decorative spheres, and there are a number of places that have them. Keep in mind though, that these are sealed spheres- they will float in water, so you will have to cut them.
For my models with four inch diameter spheres, I use a Kollmorgen motor. It is high torque, and incredibly affordable. As it turned out, Kollmorgen made a boat load of these for a large company, only to find that they were turning in the wrong direction! As a result, these very fine motors that would normally cost over $400.00 can be found on ebay for about sixty bucks. I got mine from EV deals, on the internet (http://www.evdeals.com/Motors.htm#Kollmorgen%20400W%20(bike,%20USPD,%20Pro-Drive). I needed to have them turn in a certain direction, and as far as I know EVdeal is the only company that knows how to change the direction of shaft rotation on these motors. If you don't need this done, save your money and get it on ebay. One other nice thing about the kollmorgens is that they come with a built in controller, which makes for a less complicated set up. For my models with six inch spheres, I use the famed Etak. You can also get a good Etak from Evdeals, but they are expensive, and have an external large box for a controller.
As it turns out, the most expensive motors are the ones that drive the spheres. When the machine is in motion, the torque requirements on these motors are extremely high, therefore a motor that produces both high rpm and high torque is VERY expensive. We used these in our original models, but we've since gone to a geared approach, since the Etak is so powerful. The current design is a fairly sophisticated machine employing complex gear dynamics.
If you want to build a working model that produces lift, I've told you everything you need to know! Just lock one pair of arms up with the other down, ramp up your spheres, turn on you central motor (I call it the hub), let your arms go when the hub reaches target speed, and watch it fly.
Of course, this is just a simple proof of concept. An engine which consistently produces a wide range of thrust on demand is significantly more complex. I have a team of people working on the project, and one is a mechanical engineer who owns a prototyping company. He construct everything. I don't mean to eat anyone's sacred cow, but there are many unknowns regarding this science. I discover something new almost weekly, and just when I'm sure about one thing, a new piece of data forces me to revise my view. There are many things which we have learned that have been incorporated into the present design- none of which have been published by anyone.
Best,
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 11/03/2008 21:06:50
| | | That is an absolutely outstanding reply. It is appreciated. I have actually considered some of these things, spheres and concaved paired disks with dual shaft motors inside and have visited some of the sites you mentioned. I am very impressed and will visit and revisit and reconsider some of these things. I think for my own proposal, different, but somewhat a little the same as yours, the main thrust will come from a more standard wheel, or disk. And, yes I have to have four of them in pairs too. I however in order to maintain static and action stability must use four additional motors to cause precession like movements in addition to using four individually power rotated disk. You may wish to consider my reasons then double check the use of you single motor in space. In space would not a single drive motor torque in a continuously tumbling way?
Actually I have three designs, each is very different. None are completed, but all have been tested as much as is possible and at this point have to be built to prove, or disprove them. My hat is off to you. Building is hard to do especially since nothing is mechanically normal in our work.
You seem very professional in deed and prepared with much information in store. I am becoming more interested your operation. I hope you achieve all that you want and I sincerely wish good luck to you. Keep us up to date.
Oh, dual shafts will always be too small to use as axels. You might however be interested in ETEL, Inc. hollow shaft motors. If you’re not familiar you can insert a large shaft into the hollow motor and lock the shaft ends down in stationary faction, while the motor housing (supposing you insert it inside a wheel and attached to the wheel.) rotates. There are unique problems to overcome in using this strange motor, but if it would work for you it would eliminate gearing, dead weight and supports and it has an especially powerful beginning torque. Speed reducers should not be necessary.
Thank You for your information,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 12/03/2008 00:42:56
| | | Thanks for the tip on the Etel torque motors. They remind me of the kollmorgen direct drive motors (a different kollmorgen than the one previously discussed). Hopefully the Etels are cheaper! With my set up, four engines are used in a square to create to create a lift platform. Engines that are diagonal rotate in opposite directions resulting in overall stability. This also allows the platform to be turned or tilted by varying the relative speeds of the central motors.
There is so much to be learned here that I'm sure we will both make valuable contributions.
Keep the faith!
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Skyp T. - 15/03/2008 17:50:56
| | | Dear EDH
What is preventing you from doing the demo now?
If you have a device that hovers on its own power, without aerodynamic support, then you already have the greatest demonstration since the electric light-bulb or powered flight.
Does your device have stability problems?
How long does it manage to hover at any given time?
Would you be willing to do a demonstration for the US Government?
Skyp T.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 16/03/2008 15:32:57
| | | Hi Skip:
I will answer your question in the EDH propulsion thread.
Thanks,
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
