|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
3 May 2024 15:25
|
|
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: |
Accelerating the space inchworm. |
| Question: |
This is after my long searches the best inertial propulsion theory ever put together.
OK, what is it? It is an experiment that I don’t think anyone else has done successfully, although the first part of the experimental rational has been foreseen. It is just that as simple as it is no one knew exactly how to do it and more importantly how to advance it in theory into a space propulsion apparatus. This is how I first performed the experiment fifteen years ago, or more. I cut out a two inch slot down the length of a shoebox led and placed the spinning wheel inside the slot leaving the axels to rest on each side of the slot. While holding the led, I lower one side only. Looking down upon the gyro it will precess in a curve from rearward to forward and the axel, which was in motion, will set down at a forward angle. The thing has wattled forward one step. Now lower the other side only, and the gyro axel, presently angled rearward from the last move, will precess forward and set down on the edge of the slot forward. Repeat this exercise and the gyro will walk constantly forward not unlike a duck made to be drunken, wattling unsteadily along, most ungainly of all motions for the amusement of country boys deep in the mountains with a broken pickup truck and no way to go anywhere on Saturday night as I remember as a little tike.
Sometimes the gyro will stutter step out of cadence and hang up and you will have to shake the shoebox led to correct the problem, but sometimes when all is right the gyro will move easily from the rear of the led to the forward end. Recognize that as you tilted one-side-at-a-time you were constantly lowering the led and gyro. All your movements were vertical curves, but the gyro steadily moved forward at a right angle to the vertical manipulation. You can even tilt the front of the led upwards slightly and the gyro will walk up slope, up hill. If you really want to understand my theory of acceleration, start here. Do this experiment until you become good at it so that you will gain a since and feel of such and extraordinary thing that is happening. Don’t think of it as too simple. It isn’t.
Here are the first problems you should realize. To move through space any useful distance this apparatus would require an enormously long track instead of a box led and that tract would have to be lowered one side at a time. The solution to this negative is not so difficult. Recall that looking down on a precessing gyro you see it precessing in the opposite direction to which it spins. Keep this in mind while you set a precessing gyro down upon a mirror. You will see that the reflection of the gyro is spinning forward, not backward. Note also that as the gyro loses spin speed it tilts down toward the mirror. Note that at the same time the reflection of the gyro tilts its axel upward to meet to meet the real gyro’s axel. Pay attention that the spin direction of the gyro and its reflection are as meshed gears relative to one another. At their contact point each would turn the other forward. Note also that as each, gyro and reflection, close the distance between one another they precess in exactly the same direction. This is exactly how two real gyros can be made to behave by using strong mechanically applied force upward on one, and downwards on the other. Ignore earth’s gravity for the time being, because comparative to our best new electric motors earth gravity is so weak it would have only a very modest influence on our powerful motor driven gyroscopes. Discount gravity and you are left with two applied forces, one up, one down pushing against the precessing axels of one another, pushing the axels together. As the gyros tilt toward one another, both precess in the same directions and the two applied, vertical curved forces cause the movement, but otherwise council out one another so that there is no reaction to ether applied force. This is important to pay attention to, because no track is necessary as each gyro furnishes a counter force to the other. Later I will explain a little experiment, which you may repeat to prove this.
There are more mechanical negatives to overcome, such as balance and direction, a solution to the constant closing distance between the gyros toward one another, the lack of precession’s ability to deliver forward force, and the lack of constant acceleration.
First I will deal with balance, direction and guidance. Two gyros are aliened up and down relative to one another. Force is applied from the top one downward. Force is applied from the bottom on upwards. They are a pair. Add another pair and place the two pairs side by side. Each side is to be timed to precess forward toward one another then forward curving away from one another. There are now a total of four. Their alignment is like an X with a gyro situated at the end of each X line. We need two X configurations, one forward and the other rearward at a good distance and the two connected at the center of the Xs. The several individual force vectors in the two connected X configured arrangements are in much better placement to the beginning of an imbalance. From these placements is possible to increasing and decreasing the spin speed of the gyros, especially in pairs. The resistance of each individual to a vectored, applied force will be greater, or lesser. In this matter with a total of eight gyroscopics in a double X forward, rearward arrangement, both balance and direction can be maintained by spin speed and of course guidance can now be accomplished.
Next is a solution to the constant closing distance between the pairs of upper and lower gyroscopes. Allow the axels of each upper and lower on the same side only, to be forced together and therefore precess forward. After that action is stopped, mechanically cause the two bodies of the gyroscopes to separated upwards and downwards, while maintaining the exact tilted axel position they assumed after they were tilted and processed. When they are separated enough they should be in perfect tilted position with the opposite axel, the axel that did not move, but pivoted only, in position to be force toward one another. In this way the system should move continually forward in space so long as there is nuclear power, perhaps solar at first, and as long as the machinery holds up.
I will address the lack of continuous acceleration and the theoretical solution. Experiments prove this inchworm comes to a complete stop after each wattle forward and has to be reaccelerated to a slow velocity before again coming to another complete stop. With such a machine it might take a million years to travel from Earth to Mars. I wouldn’t want to be a passenger.
So far each gyro undergoes three prime movements, applied force movement up, or down, precession first curving one direction and then the other and finally the separation of the up and down pairs of gyroscopes without disturbing the angles of tilt so that their opposite sides can be forced to tilt toward one another. While the gyros are being separated one up, one down, we add a forth movement. This movement begins from the gyroscope’s forward resting place after it has precessed. The gyros are shoved backwards. This creates equal and opposite conditions. The total apparatus is shoved forward, while the individual gyroscopes are shoved backwards. If we allowed the gyros to continue they would eventually collided against the rearward frame and this would stop the body of the apparatus. The center of gravity would not change, and if these four actions continued, the internal parts of the apparatus would be separated and then brought back together and the only motion would be a continuous system that enlarged and then shrank repeatedly.
During the time that the gyroscopes are shoved backward they are precessed forward, once, or as many times as necessary. Quickly the gyros will stop moving rearward without ever colliding to empting their rearward momentum. The nest series to begin is the same cycle as has been just completed. Now we have a theoretical condition of constant acceleration in cycles, where repeated precessions overcome a rearward reaction upon the apparatus, and the faster are the mechanical actions of heavy gyroscopes the faster the machine accelerates.
Yes, I know. Why is this not impossible? This question has haunted me, until in some way it became painfully never ending, but I have done as many different tests as it was possible for me to do, perhaps more than a hundred. I don’t even remember how many. Unless I rely solely on the stated Laws of Motion, and ignore the mechanical and the experimentation and the resulting theory, I cannot explain why this is not entirely a sound finding and a potential for a new kind of thrust. Are The Laws forever true, forever and ever and ever? Mathematics, which is the proof of the Laws, cannot be used to prove that the laws apply infinitely, that there can be no exception. But oh my goodness don’t I trust them so, The Laws, just like you. I will explain two more tests.
I spun up a gyro and sat it up right on a table. At various times I have added weight to one axel to cause it to precess forward then quickly flipped that weight off with my fingers and added it to the other side axel. Another method was that I pressed a flat metal knife blade, keeping it level, from one side then the other side continuously. The gyro continually wattled forward. In other experiments I have actually made the gyro fly across the room and crash pretty hard into walls. I have done so many, many other tests of this nature, but I don’t believe in them. I don’t at all think they are the result of inertial propulsion. I conclude that I think the cause is a number of frictions occurring here and there, but I challenge anyone to prove that. I couldn’t prove it. The many, sometimes seeming weird difficulties in trying find gyroscopic proofs I could never have imagined at the outset. What the tests, all I’ve done, prove to me is that the box led experiment is true. You can make a gyro wattle forward without causing a rearward reaction. A proof against this fact is just not there. It’s not there to be found. I’ve tried too hard. There isn't a negative,
The next concern is, does the gyro when shoved backward and made to precess forward first to stop it’s rearward movement then to accelerate movement forward with the use of precession. Yes. I taped Scotch tape to the edges of the slit in the box led, oiled them with ten weight oil and placed a spinning gyro inside the slot. I tilted the front of the led upwards so as to maintain an upward slope. This is tricky. You have to play with the thing for a while before you can handle it well enough to have complete confidence in the result. With the led tilted in upward in forward slope I began to lower one side of the led and then lower the other. The gyro moved up the slope. Sometimes an axel hub would slip backwards and the gyro would follow. There was just no friction. None to speak off. As the gyro sled backward it continued to precess forward and eventually traveled the length of the led without, as I could tell, ever causing an effect from the rearward momentum gained by the slippages.
I will be sorry for not proofreading this, but I’m tired and it’s free. So what more is needed? Ask if you need to. I have had a great deal of time to think this over, much more than you and I cannot find a flaw. I retain the rights to Patten this idea, but if you think you can build it and want to go ahead. If anyone has some input well good, something to say, that’d be good. If any have a relating talent, drafting, engineering, milling know how and equipment, electronics, finding and matching off the shelf parts, or even just money to help share the cost and are interested contact me. I’m too warn out with all solitary time and things to complete this alone. After twenty years I need human involvement.
You wanted to know how. Now maybe you do.
I’d appreciate a comment of any kind, from any and all.
|
| Date: |
21 January 2008
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn H. - 22/01/2008 17:11:04
| | | There is a lot more to explain, especially in the many details and also you should know the that limited explanation already given can be improved if you ask My old drawings if I could find them would be a lot of help, but basically the outline above should be enough to get you started, at least enough to get you thinking about it. I have the real design incorporating all the necessary causes and allowances of motions, forces and structure for this apparatus and I don’t know of any machinery ever built similar to it. It is necessarily very different.
I will say this much. Each gyroscope must be individually rotated with a motor of its own even while it is walking forward with its axel hubs alternately suspended in air. This is doable in the design and necessary for several reasons. One reason is that the gyros in combinations of fours must torque against one another, also the spinning disk in combinations of fours must torque against one another in order to maintain stability in space. There will be quite a balancing act for a computer to handle.
There is only one uncertainty in the mechanics. I do not have enough proof that once the gyros are shoved backwards, while at the same time are made to walk forward as in alternate precessions forward that the gyros will in deed stop moving backwards and again begin to move forward without ever having created a rearward reaction. The Scotch tape and ten weight oil test I did was not a good enough to suit me. Primarily, reason alone leads me to believe that a forward walking gyro must eventually go forward even though it was initially moving backward. It’s only a theory, but to my mind and the time I’ve invested, it is a very sound theory. I trust it. I will go ahead and say this, I have never once seen one single, solitary other design that would produce inertial propulsion. I’m sorry to any and all who might be offended, but it was easy to find the flaws and then reason the ideas and designs to failure. I think my design will work. I’ve spent years trying to find a flaw and never could.
Now I must wait to see if today there are any serious people remaining in this research, or whether it’s become a harmless, friendly little kind of all talk and pipe dreams dance.
In any case peace, happiness and good health. You’ve been interesting at times one-way, or another.
Glenn,
I wait for words.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/01/2008 17:59:57
| | | I had forgotten. This design is very old. These are the reasons for concern that have always come back to me. As the gyros are shoved backwards while one precessing axel hub moves forward, the other axel hub, which is pivoting continues to move rearward from the shove. This condition could become like a gimbals’ supported gyroscope that does not move out of its torque frame area whether the frame is moving, or still, but only twist in place. In order to avoid this the individually applied forces that bring the gyros tilting toward one another must be very powerful and therefore cause very fast precessions. There are two other adjustments that might be necessary. I know what they are.
I have yet another design wherein two wheels rotating in the same direction are set close together side by side. If you believed in flying assures, I don’t, this would be the way they thrust and why the assembly would resemble the shape of a saucer. The test of this design was the result of an accidental event that showed positive and is more than 40 years old.
Of course there’s more. I guess I’ll leave this alone for now.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/01/2008 15:04:51
| | | The eight-minute experiment that confirmed the theory
I suppose I should say Eureka! A few moments ago I cut out the two inch slot in a piece of cardboard, spun up a Taco, placed in the slot, begin to lower one side at a time making the gyro walk forward and while holding the cardboard in my hands I walked backwards. The gyro always cycled forward on top of the cardboard no mater that I varied my backward walking speed from slow to fast during several subsequent tries. This theory is now all but proven, as each individual step within it has now been proven. As far as I’m concerned all that remains is to build the machine. I challenge anybody that I can easily debunk with simple mechanical logic all other methods ever put forward, but not this one.
From the time of cutting the cardboard to the end of this testing took eight minutes. How many years have we searched not merely for a method, but for the near-certainty of a method?
I have the machine design already.
Good by,
Glenn Hawkins
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 02/02/2008 19:34:50
| | | I have a far better design now than the space-inch-worm-accelerated. Of course it incorporates the same fundamental mechanics, but differently and the design is so much simpler and more powerful as less motion changes are required between thrust. I sense there is yet another excellent advantage, but I have to work on that particular question to be sure. More when I’m fresh enough to finish my studies.
Have fun tonight all, one way or another, but don’t get into trouble. Stay away from the law. Good luck! Good cheers. Cheers to you. I’ll try to do the same!
Glenn H.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Isn’t it good to feel your making a little progress after so long a down time. You feel good and maybe a little silly as might be seen in the paragraph above. But, I meant it! Have a good evening I hope for you whoever you are if you can.
Glenn H.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
