|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
3 May 2024 06:45
|
|
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: |
Harry K. |
| Subject: |
EDH's gyro propulsion invention |
| Question: |
Hi EDH and all others,
I would like to continue here in this thread the discussion about EDH's propulsion invention. Here is the link to the old thread: http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=864
I hope some more contributors will join us!?
EDH, you stated that all spheres rotate about the radius of the main drive (hub) in CCW direction from the side view. The hub also rotates in CCW direction from the plan view. That means that in operation all spheres will move upwards. Correct?
For (my) better understanding I first consider only 2 spheres, the one in origin horizontal position and the pivotable locked under a defined angle above positioned sphere. If the rotation speed of both spheres is zero, they would behave like dead masses. That means if the hub would rotate the spheres with a defined rotary speed, 2 different centrifugal forces would act at the spheres. The bigger centrifugal force would work at the horizontal sphere, the smaller one at the upper sphere. Because the upper sphere rotates around a defined height, a torque will be created by centrifugal force and the height distance to the rotation center (hub).
The horizontal sphere ,however, cannot create a torque because the height distance to rotation center is zero. Thus the upper sphere will lift the horizontal sphere until both torques created by the spheres will be identical. This will be the case if both spheres are positioned at the same height above the rotation center.
So far so good. If the spheres now work as gyros, i.e. they rotate with a defined rotary speed around its center in CCW direction, the forced precession causes the spheres to move (deflect) upwards. That means that the horizontal positioned sphere will be supported in its upward movement and the upper positioned sphere will be prevented to its downward movement (caused by the centrifugal force).
I guess that this difference may cause an inbalance of all acting forces and thus may produce lift. But at this stage I cannot recognize a pulsating interaction of both spheres. In my opinion the both spheres should balance and remain at a certain position. How do you achieve the pulsating?
That's only a rough estimation of acting physics and certainly not complete but it would be helpful if you could confirm this so far. Till now I connot find any involved Coriolis forces, but only centrifugal forces.
Regarding the use of spheres instead of disks I guess it is an advantage to use spheres because the mass inertia is identical for all rotation axes (Jx=Jy=Jz).
Thanks and best regards,
Harry
|
| Date: |
13 March 2008
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 13/03/2008 23:14:22
| | | Oh no I have sent this tread twice! - Sorry that's my first thread...
I hope the Admin will delete the other one?
Thanks in advance!
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 14/03/2008 17:12:48
| | | Hello Harry, Glenn and Others.
Thanks Harry for starting this thread! I have a meeting, but I though I'd leave a quick reply. Yes, the differential between the centrifugal force on the horizontal pair and the centrifugal force on the lifted pair play a role. Taking your example of just two spheres, as they are force precessed, they of course rise. During the process of rise, a unidrectional force is created on the "hub" which is also the center of mass of the closed mass system. This force is in the downward direction. It should be noted, that this, all by itself is noteworthy, since this force was generated without either the expulsion of matter (such as a jet or rocket) or interfacing with an external mass system (such as springing off the floor, etc.) Newtonian mechanics offers no explanation for this, but there are other accepted approaches that do (Einsteinian gravitation being one of them). It should also be noted that this occurs with only two spheres.
As the spheres reach their peak, force on the hub becomes zero, then as the spheres decend, an upward force on the hub is generated whis greater than the downward force. When the spheres reach horizontal, force again becomes zero. The force oscillation is a sine curve, and shows that every point mass on the sphere must be fourth order accelerated to produce this unidirectional force to be generated. By fourth order, I mean a description of the movement of a point mass. The first derivative of a point is velocity. The second is acceleration, the third is jerk, or acceleration accelerated, and the fourth is snap, or the acceleration of accelerated acceleration (whew!). It is quite a concept to picture acceleration being accelerated, let alone it being accelerated further, yet this is precisely what is occuring in the example I've presented here. The masses rotate horizontally around the hub which is an acceleration. Then, these accelerated masses are together accelerated by the rotation around their own axis (z). Finally these accelerated, accelerations, are again accelerated by a vertical rotation of the sphere upon the hub during the rise phase. The fact that it rotates in two dimensions about the hube permits the vertical rotation to count as a new one. The result is snap, or fourth order movement of the sphere. This is one reason why a hollow sphere is preferred, since it produces a consistent force on all of the points on the surface of the mass. By the way, it will work with a solid sphere, and produce much more force. It just does it much less efficiently. This fourth order force is one big reason behind the unidirectional force generation. I might also add that the force curve on the hub generated by an identical set up with disks produces a jagged pattern loosely resembling a curve, where as the curve is perfectly smooth when spheres are used.
The second sphere pair operates in opposite phase of the first, so that the net positive force of both is retained and the net negative (downward) force of both is cancelled. So there are essentially two components: 1) The generation of a sinusoidal unidrectional force with a net positive force, and 2) a phase cancelling mechanism that extracts the net positive force from both sine curves.
Talk to you soon,
EDH
P.S. I might take few days before my next reply. A bit busy... :)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 16/03/2008 16:12:33
| | | Hi Skip,
This is a response to Skip's question as to why I don't give a demonstration now. I had stated in another thread that I plan to give a demonstration before the end of the year. There are several reasons for the planned wait. Firstly, we keep discovering new aspects to the technology, so although I have a good understanding of the underlying principles governing it's operation, there are several questons that need to be resolved. When it comes to unconventional technologies, you have to go the extra mile and then some in your do diligence. Mant people will be trying to shoot you down while secretly rooting for you, and you can't entirely blame them. They just want to know if it's safe to believe in you, since this is something so many have hoped for. Others will try to shoot you down because they completely believe you, and consider you a threat to their cash flow system. Still others will try to shoot you down because they consider you a vulgar insult to scientific tradition. Finally, if you're a conspiracy theorist (which I am not), one might conceivably shoot you down because you're revealing technology that the government has long been in posession of and would like to keep private (lol!). My point is, I want to see my technology put to good use, and if I don't handle it carefully, my work will be destroyed before it ever get's off the ground (excuse the pun).
I think a good example of this is cold fusion. Anyone who has even given a cursory glance to recent research in this field can attest that repeatable experiments have been performed which produce both neutrons above background level and excess heat. It took many years to finally get a repeatable experiment, and today nobody knows what is really going on, just that an unknown nuclear process is taking place with hydrogen. The problem, is that it was initially hearlded as desktop fusion, and the answer to all of our energy woes, rather than an intersting questions that needs to be solved. Hype can kill, so I think you can see, why I want to steer well clear of sensationalism. What I have here is an interesting observation with a proposed explanation, and I will be entirely open to alternative explanations.
As for the government, I have been in contact with the FAA for about two years now regarding a vehicle thst uses this technology. Although I've not told them every detail of the engine's operation, they are expecting an inspection in the near future, and yes, they will at that time receive a full briefing on the technology, since they will need to fully understand it before they could approve it for any untethered test flights.
Lastly, I want to remind everyone reading these posts, that I have not yet revealed the operation of the engine. I have given an experimental test set up that proves the possibility of imposing a unidirectional force on the center of gravity of a closed mass system. My engine uses these physics in a completely different design.
Best,
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 16/03/2008 17:57:12
| | | Hello EDH and all Others,
Thanks EDH for your explanations! I have some technical questions regarding your previous post but I need some more time to think about it. During the weekend I had less time.
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/03/2008 18:03:34
| | | HI EDH,
Well ok, so why don’t you go ahead disclose the information? Just kidding. I want to alert you quickly to a looming problem. I have heard some time ago by sources reliable to me that if you ever take government grant money for inventions you will be required to sign a disclosure contract. The result is that you become stagnated. You can’t speak of the project, or deal with anyone else and your project may be held up forever and even buried. I’m told there’s no way out and this is pure hell. You are subject to an inefficiency and in some cases a secrecy, which you indicated you don’t want in preference to wanting to do something for everyone. This may be an unwarned alert for you, but if you didn’t know you do now.
Take care,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 16/03/2008 18:23:36
| | | Hi Glenn.
May be that's the reason why EDH is writing here to provide some basic explanations?
Thus nondisclosure in this matter is no more possible. "Unfortunately" It's too late... ;-)
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/03/2008 22:52:51
| | | Hi Harry,
I don’t yet understand this as well as you. If you think there’s been sufficient disclosure I’ll just have to take your word for it.
I’m moving to this site. We all should. Hi Skip! You too. Already I find it difficult bouncing back and fourth between three threads to find past material inside. This one will be fine.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Skyp T - 17/03/2008 01:05:21
| | | Dear EDH,
What’s the frequency of the pulse or flutter in your machine?
I assume that it coincides with the rate at which the spheres move up and down, is that correct?
Skyp T.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 17/03/2008 12:52:44
| | | Hi Skip,
The spheres complete one full rise and fall cycle at exactly one revolution around the hub. This is the optimal arrangement, and requires the angular frequency of the hemispheres to be at an optimal ratio relative to that of the hub. If this ratio is not met, you will still get lift, but the apparatus will "bounce", and lightly feather touch the ground. As you get closer to the optimal ratio, the machine will stay aloft longer. Once the optimum ratio is met, the apparatus will stay aloft as long as it is powered.
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 17/03/2008 19:48:42
| | | Dear EDH,
You say your engine is secret. There is no way to prove, disprove, or understand that. You offer an earlier example of a mechanical device that would prove the success of your current engine when placed inside a closed compartment. To the best of my understanding there haven’t been any mechanical actions and combinations explained here & accepted in physics that could cause lift, or lavation. Please understand I’m not questioning your truthfulness, or your excellent mind… certainly not. I believe you have genuine belief, but at this point in time I suspect these high sounding explanations to have emanated from any of the following, errors, misleading observations, or complicated mistakes. I find you to be a uniquely interesting, knowledgeable, competent, kind and likable person… who has not been proven wrong… but I will wait the year and see what comes of it. You carry with you my most sincere hopes.
Do not be discouraged by me. I am retiring in an attempt to build a miniature hub motor whereas the stator rotates and the centered rotor is to sever as a dual axel to be locked and unlocked alternately on the outside ends allowing for alternating, pivoting one half precession movements forward, all this after I experienced a number of dismal building failures in the same effort in the past… so how smart can I be? Keep faith as you say. We all have each other. Most people think we’re all ridiculous, but you and I and others have a good chance.
Best Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dear Glenn - 18/03/2008 00:59:23
| | | Thanks for the message. I began this project in earnest in 2001, but formulated my ideas during the 1980's. Back then I called this idea "interactive reference frames" to describe an approach to propulsion that used a dynamic interaction of acceleration frames rather than reaction physics. I worked at NASA as a graduate student in the late eighties, but not as an engineer. I worked in neuroscience in a joint project with the Soviets investigating the effects of weightlessness on muscle and bone mass. We had rats in a satellite, and would study them when the satellite was recovered. We reached a roadblock that required us to monitor the rats during the gravity changes, so I started researching ways to simulate microgravity in the lab. Increasing G's was easy. Decreasing them- not so easy. I spent extra hours in the Ames library, and developed the basic physics that drives my current machine.
So don't feel bad if the physics don't jump out at you. It took many years for me to get it straight myself. I did not begin by investigating forced precession. I began with the physics of interactive reference frames, and looked at different embodiments. The experimental set-up shared here is a simple demo of one embodiment of the technology.
Now if you would, consider the following:
Albert Einstein performed a thought experiment that explains why light bends in a gravitational field. He drew a square with a triangle on top for the roof and a nozzle on the bottom for the exhaust of a simple spacecraft . He then drew an identical craft to the right of the first that was slightly shifted up so that the ceiling of the first craft was just slightly above the floor of the second. This craft represents the first having moved upwards due to acceleration. A line was then drawn from left to right, passing just below the ceiling of the first and just above the floor of the second. Einstein pointed out that although the laser travels in a straight line, a passenger would witness this beam enter the left ceiling of the ship, curve downward, then exit the right floor of the ship. Since general relativity states that a gravity field and an acceleration field are equivalent, he reasoned that a gravity field would bend light.
I have taken this illustration from general relativity and have used it in a different way. Imagine now that this laser is the path of a mass from left to right. If the craft accelerates as in the laser example, the occupant in the craft would see this mass curve and move downward as he did the laser. There is no physical interaction between the mass and the ship, just an observation. Now imagine that the path of the mass is a curved track on the wall of the ship. If the mass follows this track, then in the rest frame, the mass still moves mostly from left to right, but the ship is pushed upward. Now you might be thinking, "hey that sounds a bit like precession since a horizontal force on an acceleration frame frame (spinning disk) results in vertical movement" and you would be right. Then again, you might have thought, "hey that sounds alot like the coriolis force since a line intersects an acceleration frame to create an apparent curvature" and you would be right again.
Now stretch with me a bit more and imagine this: Let the mass be a spinning disk moving across our ship and entering at the same location, but now the ship is motionless. If the disk is tracked down from the upper left to the lower right as before, we now have a situation in reverse of the original. Instead of an accelerating ship creating an apparent curvature of mass in linear motion, we now have the mass inducing the acceleration of the ship. As the rotational reference frame (spinning disk) curves down, the precession force is simultaneously pushing it upwards. The result is that the disk travels straight across the page from the perspective of the rest observer, but appears to be pulled down along a curved path according to the passenger. All we are doing is using a lateral force through a vertical acceleration field to accelerate a craft.
Of course our example here is only in two dimensions, and our pulldown force would also have to be an acceleration force (centrifugal) for the overall forces to mimick that of GR. If we were to take this into the real word and have all of our forces working together in three dimensions, we would need not a disk but a...
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 18/03/2008 01:02:20
| | | Sorry for the name in the above post- It was by me, EDH.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 18/03/2008 02:48:01
| | | Dear EDH,
Thank you. You are interesting. Oh yes you are.
You wrote: ‘Since general relativity states that a gravity field and an acceleration field are equivalent, he reasoned that a gravity field would bend light.’
But… a gravity field and an acceleration field are not the same, not at all. Acceleration doesn’t bend light. Gravity bends light, but an acceleration frame can be wrongly perceived to bend light depending on what screwed up inertial condition you put a poor rat astronaut into with his limited senses to understand what he is seeing when he looks out the portals. You did provide him portholes? Pay no attention to me I know what you mean. Your credentials are impressive and equal no less than what I expected. I applaud you.
The fourth paragraph, ‘I have taken this illustration…’ is only a conjecture, a good one to present a vectoring idea and not a possible condition as you surmised.
The fifth paragraph, ‘Now stretch with me… ’ is also a conjecture for the same reasons and not mechanics, but I do understand you.
Now EDH, I still have no logical explanations. Once a sphere torques upwards to hold at a 60 degrees angle why would it then seek to return to the horizontal, because of a centrifugal force exist? But, that force has already proven to be too weak to hold the sphere from rising. If the sphere did in fact return to horizontal how then would it gain enough upward deflect torque to overcome the existing horizontal centrifuge in order to reposition itself to a position it could not sustain in the first place?
There are some ideas to play with, such as Sandy Kidd’s experiments from which he determined that when two opposing disks were rotated at 60 degrees? elevation there was a great deal of inward push into the axes of the main revolution. I believe him, but that would not remove the tendency of the spheres to stay aloft, and this strange phenomena could not be allowed to work while the spears were revolving in the horizontal plane (it doesn’t) otherwise centrifuge, which is supposed to pull the upper spheres downward could not overcome the force of the rise. So again I have no mechanical explanation in my reserves that allow for the fluttering in your example, but I do in others examples different from your own. Do you see what I mean when I say there aren’t any mechanical explanations that work for me?
Now then you have secretes. Well and good. I am leaning to your side on your word alone and happy to do so and I will wait the year and smile durning that time when I pause to think of your good and determined and I add intelligent effort and when I read your work. You are to be admired, while you help carry our dream. Keep writing. You are enjoyable to read and I am sort of trusting you.
Sincerely,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 18/03/2008 12:58:12
| | | Dear EDH, look at what Art Alexander said of Professor Laithwaite in the post above.
“2) He likened the operation of the gyroscope to a electrical circuit at resonance, with the fundamental difference that power could easily be extracted from the resonant circuit. He was still trying to do this later by having the gyro move, I quote, "in translation" at the same time as spinning.”
‘Circuit resonance’: Here is reference to your flutter.
‘In translation’: But… are we to understand he meant the linear sequence of a geometric figure moving at the same distance in the same direction as all particles of a body at the same velocity along parallel paths? No, I think he meant something far simpler; the change in dimensional, directional- a right angle movement, and this is just too basic to be any of theoretical use around here. We’re ahead of that curve and it’s just another mumbo-jumbo unnecessary word that removes simplicity?
‘Circuit resonance’ now this is something. Here is a more interesting and perhaps a far more applicable reference for you. The professor was an electrical engineer and the inventor of the lavation train, as you doubtlessly know. He would be very apt to understand a kind of correlation between these motions, electricity and the elemental conditions of precession.
I hope this helps support your ideas, Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 18/03/2008 13:13:27
| | | Dear Glenn,
It looks like we're getting closer! If I hear you correctly, you have two sticking points:
1) That a Gravity Field and an Acceleration Field are not entirely equal.
and,
2) That the "tug of war" between the vertical precession force and the lateral centrifugal force should result in equilibrium rather than flutter.
I'll first address the gravity issue. It is, to be sure, very non-intuitive to consider both gravity and acceleration completely equal. The first objection is that acceleration is a fictitious force just as are the coriolis and centrifugal forces. One then concludes, that since we know gravity is real (otherwise we would all be floating about), gravity cannot be compared to any of the afore mentioned forces. However, Albert would respond to this objection by saying something like, "This is my cardinal point, that gravity *is* a fictitious force, and that light bending, be it acceleration based, coriolis based or gravity based is always apparent given a specified observers perspective. There is no objective observation, only that which is 'apparent' ". In otherwords, an acceleration frame DOES bend light, from the perspective of the passenger, and this bending is entirely real and equivalent to an astronomer on earth measuring starlight being bent around a planets gravitational field. Many test have been performed to confirm this, and general relativity has passed everyone of them as of this writing. So it may not seem like an acceleration field and a gravity field are equivalent, but both Einstein and experimentation say that they are!
Now to point two.
Rather than a "tug of war", I invite you to consider this to be a Tango. The two forces are dancing together, holding each other tight, yet actively allowing one to swing away at the appropriate time. Now if the two forces in question were constant, then the tug analogy would be accurate, and equilibrium would be achieved. However, these two forces are constantly changing, and moreover, one decreases while the other increases- and then they reverse. When a disc or sphere is horizontal, the vertical precession force exceeds that of the centrifugal force resulting in rise of the mass. As the mass rises, the radius to the axis of rotation decreases, but the physics governing the rise (coriolis?!) is different than that of the centrifugal force, so now the centrifugal force is greater, and pulls the mass back down. As long as the apparatus is actively driven at the hub, these forces continue their dynamic exchange. Yes there is a point in time and space that both forces meet equally, but due to the fact that they are both accelerating in an opposite and oscillatory fashion, momentum always drives them past this point. It is a choreography not a conflict.
Again, I share scientific ideas here, not engineering embodiments. The science should always be free.
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 18/03/2008 14:08:24
| | | Dear EDH,
Regarding your statements in the last paragraph I have to reply: You are a meany! I just came to the same findings and wanted them to confirm by you later. ;-)
I do it anyway... :-)
See you later.
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 18/03/2008 18:13:28
| | | I like this to build on, "..but due to the fact that they are both accelerating in an opposite and oscillatory fashion, momentum always drives them past this point." this is mechanical. Now we have to explain mechanically why they accelerate much better than has been done.
Dear EDH,
Please do not see me as discouraging. I don’t mean to be. I’m only saying that if I can’t understand mechanically I don’t see how I could add much, but I will address your last Einstein post. I’m blown away by his genus like most people, but he isn’t my hero. My son referred me to a question about him once. “Who would want to live their life almost totally trapped inside their imagination, even while they slept?” I could make an exception for Mr. Einstein and say probably not during the few seconds you’re ejaculating in your cousin. Harry would think that was goot, perhaps not with a cousin. (Is this right H.K.?) Germans are openly aware it is a healthy practice and who would deny them the truth of that wonderful discovery? Am I getting away from physics? Really?
I’m told his mathematics were beautiful and perfect, but the reason that he was awarded the noble prize instead of another presenting the same theory, was because his theory was more mechanical as reported in a book, ‘A brief History of Time’ by Steven Hawking. But, believe me, test me if you like, his mechanics were all based on deceptions of the few and limited senses humans are endowed to have. The mechanics as I read in his own words in a fifty year old book piled up around here somewhere were designed in such a way, because he believed as he said, ‘It is the duty of science to give mankind the illusion of knowledge.’ He did that in an ingeniously simple way of postulating stick drawings such as the one you recount. All of them can be dismantled into deceptions played upon a human’s pitifully limited physical perceptions and certainly Einstein knew what he was doing and why and he did not hide the fact. That’s not the point. We none mathematicians without degrees and the estimated necessary ten years of study to fully understand his two relativity theories believe we understand, but the more astute of us believe we are given only glimpses of genius by way of considering misleading stick-presentation. The theories of relativity are accepted as true by everyone, me too, but I say to you now if you are going to explain and build a functional machine you might consider separating Relativity from practical engineering techniques.
In one way general relativity is outrageous. It require the perfectly reliable nature of time relating to earth, moon rotation and orbit to be abandoned and time to be then related to other none-constant universal standards. When we do this conditions the nature of ‘distance’ ‘speed’ and ‘curvature’ are distorted from what Judge Leonard Hand might have called our measuring stick. When we lose out clock we lose the ability to measure true conditions according to our oldest invention tied to the earth, moon rotation, orbit, and speed and therefore time. An inch on earth could become several feet wide in a space ship traveling faster than 82 % of the speed of light, but with sticking to a universal constant such as earth time and inch would still be inch and time would be greatly increased inside the ship instead of slowed down as in the theory of special relativity. Einstein was probably the greatest theorist ever, I admire him so much and believe in him, but could he build a matchbox? Probably not, but if he could, could he stick his two great theories consisting of imagination only into it? No. You’d need an engineer, or mechanic to come up with something… maybe.
Look at what you’ve said.
“…Gravity Field and an Acceleration Field are not entirely equal.”
They are not the same. When Einstein tried to relate them he gave up after was it was what ten years? He gave up in defeat saying that gravity was the only thing that ever gave him a headache. As I am aware aside from all the bull on the Internet no one yet knows what gravity is. Some, not all of the effects of it to do with human senses and inertia reactions are similar to those occurring in acceleration, but one stays still while resisting gravity, while the other must constantly accelerate through time and space continuously never existing where it once was. In a way acceleration is constantly passing through quadrants of empty non-existence. How can I think of them then as ‘…not entirely equal? ", when they don’t even exist simultaneously in a defined space?
In his elevator in space without windows for sitting, without radar for plotting, robbed of any perceivable connection to the outside universe it would be true an astronaut could not tell the difference between acceleration and gravity… for a while, until he collided into that producing gravity, or began to approach the speed limit allowed in the universe and his body became strands of sideways spaghetti, opposite to the forward strands of spaghetti he would become if entering a black hole.
Let’s go back to the elevator. The astronaut’s lack of correctly perceived perceptions doesn’t make the elements of his confusion true. In reality he will be either accelerating, or he will be caught in the grip of gravity. Distinctly one or the other… whether he knows it or not… and whether ways have been conceived and constructed to keep him ignorant of his relation to the outside universe. There is another a big error here.
If a laser light passes horizontally through the ship and gravity curves it downward, gravity will equally draw the ship in downward fall and so the beam of light would appear to the astronaut as straight across. Now if the ship were accelerating to hold it still in space against gravity then the light would appear bent, but the astronaut would experience double his weight perhaps and know that it was actually the gravity that was bending the light, not force opposite to gravity, which would be a kind of an acceleration against force. If you consider the coordination system that, Harry is currently trying to explain, with limited success I might add then we can see the conditions in practical ways. But, consider that the ship was made of glass. Only if it were held still would gravity bend the light in relation to the ship, but of course not if gravity also affected the ship as well as the light beam as explained above. If however a beam of light were shot trough the glass ship in would emerge in a continued straight line from entry to exit no matter how fast the ship accelerated. We non-trained, non mathematicians lacking the estimated ten years of necessary mathematical study and perhaps the brilliance to do so in order to understand relitivity do not actually understand the two Theories, though we were gently lead to think we do. We have gain only, as Einstein put it ‘…an illusion of knowledge’. How do you mix illusion with real mechanics? If you mix the two, gravity and light speed with nuts and bolts and stick them in a humming bird’s ass would it fly backwards? Sometimes! You bet if it doesen't die first. So now what about my non-intuitiveness?
Concerning your following: “2) That the "tug of war" between the vertical precession force and the lateral centrifugal force should result in equilibrium rather than flutter.
Rather than a "tug of war", I invite you to consider this to be a Tango. The two forces are dancing together, holding each other tight, yet actively allowing one to swing away at the appropriate time. ///// WHY? ///// Now if the two forces in question were constant, then the tug analogy would be accurate, and equilibrium would be achieved. //// WHY ARE THEY NOT CONSTANT? //// However, these two forces are constantly changing, and moreover, one decreases while the other increases- and then they reverse. /// WHY DO THEY DO THAT? /// When a disc or sphere is horizontal, the vertical precession force exceeds that of the centrifugal force resulting in rise of the mass. /// DOES THIS HAPPEN? /// As the mass rises, the radius to the axis of rotation decreases, but the physics governing the rise (coriolis?!) is different than that of the centrifugal force, so now the centrifugal force is greater, /// BUT WHY IS IT GRATER? WHAT IS HAPPING? HOW DOES IT WORK? SAYING IT WORKS DOESN’T EXPLAIN ANYTHING. //// and pulls the mass back down. As long as the apparatus is actively driven at the hub, these forces continue their dynamic exchange. Yes there is a point in time and space that both forces meet equally, but due to the fact that they are both accelerating in an opposite and oscillatory fashion, /// WHY THIS MAY BE TRUE ISN’T EXPLAINED//// momentum always drives them past this point. It is choreography not a conflict. //// WHY? ///”
The reason for my questions is an attempt to show that despite all the revelations I haven’t received mechanical information. How can I make mechanical assessments without mechanical presentations?
You say: ”Again, I share scientific ideas here, not engineering embodiments. The science should always be free.”
My friend I cannot drive a nail into a theory. I must have engineering embodiments.
I continue to encourage you, to complement you, to employ you, to hope you have it right and as I said I sincerely hope you will one day prove yourself. My current concern is that I make myself clear in what I mean by mechanics. I designed what I call archulation and I will be the only one to ever knows it and you might be surprised that for a hard-nosed person as you might think me to be it is built entirely on imagination, but imagination based on known mechanics and then reasoned out to reveal by imagination what was not known.
Is it is true? Are we getting closer? What do you think now?
Best wishes,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 18/03/2008 19:19:02
| | | I will follow you fellows, but I have to vanish for a while. Beat it black and blue in my absence. Have at it. Give it no quarter, no mercy. Remember the Alamo. Remember the battle of the Bulge. I’ll visit, but try not to explain anything more. Bite it for me! Kick it for me! Stomp it for me. And, when you’re old and homeless and bootless and toothless—gum it for me! Tear it up guys! You’re my favorite two forces of scientific disaster. Come on now. Just kidding. Take a joke will you. I actually believe you both are actually brilliant, while I don’t always think so much of myself.
See you some time later, Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 18/03/2008 21:13:57
| | | I just reread all that.
Lord, I make so many mistakes. Why I ask myself do I say what I know perfectly well not to say and know why not to? I posted, “…sticking to a universal constant such as earth time and inch would still be inch and time would be greatly increased inside the ship instead of slowed down as in the theory of special relativity.”
Time would not change. Therefore it would be realized that distance and speed and orbital circumferences and shape in the nuclear and molecular realms would be different when traveling at great speeds. Also you can recover the concept of the either wind. I resist a long winded explanation, but the either wind is allowed if you realize it travels from every point as from within a sphere outward in all directions and from all direction from outward to inward to the point within a sphere where light packets sling-shot around one another therefore entering and exiting as a straight line with no collision to change speed, or direction possible. Consider this happening inside an impossibly small soap bubble, except the action inside is more like a caldron in the boils below the dam. I could go give depth and creditable evidence of odd conditions involving acceleration, but blab, blab, blab, blab. I tire of this endless rig-a-ma-row just like you. I know it. Then to heck with it. I wish I did not make stupid mistake in hurried writing and not say false things like, ‘ …time would be greatly increased inside the ship instead of slowed down...’ Time, unlike distance and speed is not a real entity, but an invention of imagination invented to bridge real things, distance and speed into a constant, sensible and useful way of realizing our predicaments.
Maybe I will be freed now to go blow last year’s leaves before it rains again and to build my hub motor—if I still got sense enough.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 18/03/2008 22:51:27
| | | Dear EDH, Glenn and others,
Glenn, you know I'm more a skeptic person and I still have my doubts that it would be possible to achieve thrust by gyro propulsion systems. But EDH's theory is very interesting and in my opinion promising to come closer in basic understanding of gyro physics. And for the first time I have an indescribable feeling that EDH could be right.
It's understandable that he cannot reveal all the mechanic details of his invention, rather I wonder why he share so much details of his theory. Therefore we should be grateful. Never mind if my feeling turns out to be wrong. ;-)
I'm a silly engineer and can only discuss simple physic issues and mathematic calculations, but not Einstein's theories. Also I do not think we need him at this stage of our discussion. May be later...?
EDH, as mentioned in my previous (kidding) post I have made some abstract thoughts about your basic theory. Although you have already confirmed most of my findings, I would like to summarize how I understand so far the physics behind your theory.
For simplification reasons only 2 spheres are involved, the horizontal and the linked above sphere on one side of the hub. Also gravity weights of spheres, levers, motors and other dead mass equipment are not taken into consideration.
1. Static equilibrium of forces with not spinning spheres
The two spheres are linked with levers. The levers are fixed at center axis of the center drive motor (hub). The lever of each sphere is linked together in a way, that both levers will move towards or move away from each other. This can be achieved for example with two interfering gear wheels.
One lever has a horizontal position and the other has an upper position under a defined angle to the horizontal plane. Also each spheres are placed in an individual quadrant.
The length of the levers is the hub-radius "r". The height above the horizontal plane of the upper sphere (opposite leg) is the variable "h".
If these both spheres will be rotated around the hub, there will act two centripetal forces Fz1 at horizontal sphere and Fz2 at the upper sphere. The upper sphere will create a torque by Fz2 * h. Fz1 cannot create a torque because it rotates around the horizontal plane with h = 0.
The torque created by Fz2 will act at the horizontal sphere and cause it to arise. The upper sphere will drop accordingly. The movement of both spheres will stop until both spheres rotate around the same horizontal plane. The height above ground of this horizontal plane must be at half of the height "h" or at the half of the angle, independently of the hub rotation speed.
To bring this frame system into equilibrium, a counter torque 2 * Fz * h/2 must be applied at the center of hub. (The other two spheres on the other side of the hub will cause this counter torque).
I hope these facts are unquestioned so far?
2. Static equilibrium of forces with spinning spheres
The same forces and torques acting as described under 1). But because the spheres are spinning now, the rotation of the hub drive will cause a precession movement of the spheres. If the spheres and the hub rotate counter clockwise, the precession movement will be in vertical direction.
Now the tug of war will begin. ;-)
The precession torque tries to move the spheres upwards, but the centripetal force acting at the upper sphere (Fz2) tries to move the sphere downwards. Also the centripetal force acting at the upper sphere supports the precession force acting at the horizontal sphere! Therefore the involved forces acting at the horizontal sphere should cause the arise of that sphere. But because both spheres are linked together, the upper sphere must move downwards.
If both spheres will move in this way, the counter torque to precession torque will become smaller because the height "h" will become smaller as well.
For me the possible behavior of the spheres in precession is very confusing and not easy predictable. But one thing is definitely certain, that there is no equilibrium in this case as it is in the first example without spinning spheres. If both spheres would rotate on same horizontal plane (h/2), one sphere would counter act to vertical precession and the other would support vertical precession and thus a stable position of the two spheres is not possible to achieve.
EDH, am I right so far or is something wrong?
Thanks and best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 19/03/2008 04:28:39
| | |
SO, EDH what do you think of what I said?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 19/03/2008 13:15:05
| | | Hello Harry, Glenn and others,
That's an interesting way of looking at it Harry. One thing I love about virtual physics environments, is that they have no idea what kind of math you're using. They just differentiate all of the resulting forces as a consequence of movements within a coordinate system. It appears that you have described the action in a manner that I have not previously considered.
Usually when I consider two spheres only, both are horizontal. They are both placed 180 degrees apart, rotating ccw from the side, attached to levers which are attached to a hub with a vertical joint/hinge. As the hub spins ccw, both spheres rise together. As they both rise, h inreases and r decreases for both at the same time. As they rise higher, the plane of "vertical precessions" becomes more horizontal resulting in decreased lift force. At the same time the centripetal force, as you've called it, will seek to move the sphere (or even a disk) to a horizontal position in the same way that a rock on a string will move horizontal if the other end of the string is held and the rock rapidly rotated.
So I think, in the simplest possible explanation, that it can be seen why the vertical precession force decreases as a disc lifts, and what I've called the centrifugal force increases also with disc lift. If the disc were spinning horizontally there would of course be no lift at all, so as it lifts higher, it's lift force decreases since the angle of rotation of the disc relative to the location of force imposition (tangent of circumfrence of rotation about the hub) begins to decrease from 90 degrees to less than 90 degrees. Simultaneously, the raising of the disc increases the force on the spinning mass to move to the horizontal just as it would any other mass. Now, I am oversimplifying because the balance between centripetal and centrifugal force along the lever of a spinning mass is not equal. This is another complex issue, but in the end, the above holds true, that when the mass rises, the force to return to the horizontal increases.
When the masses rise, there is a downward force on the center of mass. When the masses fall back to the horizontal, there is an upward force on the center of mass. Since the upward force is greater than the downward force (by a small amount), there is a net positive lift force. Again, this is just with two spheres! (I used discs earlier because the flutter works with discs, and it is easier to picture the angle of rotation). Even though there is a net positive force, the downward force keeps the apparatus grounded due to momentum. You will see weight fluctation and weight loss, and you might see incremental lift with high frequency "bouncin", but not true levitation. Adding the second sphere set out of phase of the first eliminates the bounce and produces sustained lift by cancelling out the down force, since it's positive force is matched with the first sphere sets negative force. The positive is greater than the negative resulting in nothing but net force. Again, this is very inefficient and makes for a poor engine, but is does work.
Hope this helps!
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 19/03/2008 22:29:01
| | | Dear EDH,
My way of looking at such things is typical like engineers do. You define a frame of reference on your gadget or on single parts of your gadget and enter all acting forces and torques into the coordinate system. Then you enter also all necessary counter forces and counter torques into the coordinate system so that the condition "all acting forces and torques in the reference of frame must be zero", i.e. the frame of reference will be non-accelerated. This is a simple way to find unknown forces or torques to calculate stresses and strains of parts or assemblies. Unfortunately if you do not own such expensive software like you do, you have to use your knowledge. ;-)
By the way, can you send me a copy? :-))
There was a misunderstanding regarding the linked levers of the spheres. I thought the levers on one side of the hub were linked together in the opposite direction, because you wrote in an other post "...Just lock one pair of arms up with the other down,...".
But if I understand you now correctly, the levers of two opposite spheres (180°) are vertical hinged at the center of rotation (hub). Thus the spheres can swing upwards. The expanded (horizontal) position is lowest plane, i.e. the spheres cannot swing downwards. The other pair of spheres is in a hinged position above the other pair of spheres. How are these spheres fixed to avoid that they will swing downwards in idle modus without hub-rotation?
However, this arrangement of the spheres is well known and reminds me of Sandy Kidd's descriptions about his machines.
Such a design is in my opinion not feasible because all acting forces and torques will cancel each other out.
I can follow you when you write that the vertical precession force decreases as a disk lifts, because the tilting torques will become smaller if the disk (sphere) swings to an upward position. But why should the centrifugal (I meant centrifugal not centripetal, sorry!) force increase if the vertical precession force decreases? The rotation radius of the disk will be smaller and therefore the centrifugal force will be smaller as well.
Then you wrote:
"When the masses rise, there is a downward force on the center of mass. When the masses fall back to the horizontal, there is an upward force on the center of mass. Since the upward force is greater than the downward force (by a small amount), there is a net positive lift force."
Yes it is true that when the masses rise, there is a downward force on the center of mass. But you have to take into consideration that the rising masses also belong to the inertial reference frame. That means that the downward forces will be cancelled out by the forces, which cause the lift of the spheres. Please note that precession movement is torque. One half torque acts downwards at the center of mass and the other half torque acts in counter direction at the center of mass of the disk/sphere and causes the lift of them.
The same behavior will happen inversely when the disk/sphere fall downwards back in horizontal position. Maybe the upward force will be greater for some reasons, but the sum of all forces which act in the inertial reference frame will cancel each other out at every point of time.
I'm afraid you have to do some more convincing.
;-)
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 20/03/2008 02:40:38
| | | Very good Harry. So sorry EDH, but yes to more convincing.
Dear EDH and Harry,
This can’t be as simple as below and produce this much confusion and conversation.
“Is the configuration as two, forget four, spherical yoyos with their spindles extended to a horizontal point of dual rotation, wherein the spindles are driven to rotate vertically at the point, which is its self rotated horizontally, while yet the point is also hinged to allow up and down movement?”
This spinning mechanical bull is supposed to bounce its way into flight? Because upward deflection and outward centrifuge are magically changing elevations in never ending fashions, because each full vertical rise and fall overshoots nature’s equal/opposite cause of equilibrium and there is yet an overriding upward vibration?
Please tell me this example is wrong. My computer still doesn’t bring in the two sites you two great guys have given me.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 20/03/2008 02:46:04
| | | Dear Harry, EDH introduced Albert Einstein, not I.
Dear EDH you see, the astronaut in a glass ship sees he is approaching a horizontal light beam, sees one side of his approaching ship strike the beam and then
continues accelerating so that the other side of his ship moves up to
intersect the beam. Then the astronaut watches the light beam as he accelerates at a right angle away from it. No mater that Einstein would put a poor imaginary fellow in a canvas bag, beat him half senseless then blind him from the outside universe… still the beam would not bend in the interior, either in reality, nor as observed inside to a un-blinded fellow to the truth of the universe observable through the glass walls of his ship. Acceleration of any kind and direction doesn’t bend light no matter what stuporous, confused and blind state Albert would postulate his poor imaginary fellows into. The Astronaut in the glass ship knows the truth of it, because he’s not confused as so many of Einstein’s postulated victims are.
Definitive: Gravity bends light. Acceleration can confuse people, but it does not in reality bend light and no amount of argument can make it so.
Here is actually why I bring this up. If you ignore accepting the truth after having misstated it and then tried to wrongly correct me, yet now remain protectively separated in silence from your own recognized error you will lose creditability. This is certain. Questions of credibility arise every day in every courtroom in the land and are controlling factors. I don’t want this to happen to you. Can you say, Glenn perhaps you are right? Somehow I don’t expect it? Too bad.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Hi Harry, - 20/03/2008 03:44:34
| | | This is the key to my approach: The force generated on the hub as a result of either rising or falling rotating masses is not the same as dead weight or a rotating disc. It is not a linear reactionary force, but a fictitious force resulting from the interaction of non-inertial reference frames which generate a force based on relative geometries. The result is that the center of mass is moved. Linear reactions cannot move the center of mass in a closed mass system (at least none that I know of). Yes, there are similarities between this demo and Sandy Kidd's approach, however Sandy was not able to achieve true levitation to my knowledge. He used 2 discs moving in two dimensions. I use 4 spheres moving in three. It is my experience that the phase cancellation you speak of does not occur when spheres are used in this configuration, and the force curves are out of phase.
One of my favorite explanations for the conservation of momentum, describes a toddler in a shopping cart reaching for a toy on the shelf. As she climbs to the edge of the cart and pushes out to grab the toy, the cart pushes backward equally. She has moved forward, but the cart has moved backward resulting in no net movement of the entire mass system. Thus, as you have noted, if the reactions are linear, the masses in my gadget would move up, and the hub would equally move down resulting in no net movement of the center of mass.
Thus the acid test for true propulsion is net force on the center of mass, and net movement of the center of mass. The fact that the center of mass moves in my approach is proof that reaction physics are not responsible for the lift. I have not redistributed the mass, I have moved both the toddler and the cart down the isle.
Now I know that I have been sparse on mechanical and mathematical details, and I think you know why. For those who may have just begun reading this thread, I will explain. in the United States, one may make public their invention prior to patent, but must patent it within one year of any public description of the invention. If however, one seeks an international patent, the invention may not be patented if it has already been made public. The patent office has also been clear that ideas cannot be patented, only embodiments of the idea. This allows people to publicly discuss important ideas without fear of infringement.
For this reason, I have chosen to discuss this test set-up which demonstrates a method of moving the center of mass of a closed mass system from forces within this system. I discuss it openly because I believe that these are important ideas, and require the reflection and input of others for refinement. Who knows, our discussions may advance to the point of you signing an NDA, and me sending you data to analyze. I'm looking at data right now that I haven't figured out! I have an engine that is significantly more sophisticated than the demo and is not driven by the raising and lowering of masses. This is the engine that has successfully generated the lift forces that I initially reported. . So, I have not disclosed the embodiments because I think you would agree that if such technology were properly developed it would have international value.
The program I most frequently use is Dynamic Designer. You can download a two day trial on the internet. It is based on the ADAMS solver which is widely recognized as one of the world's most robust solvers. It costs nearly four grand, so if you want something more affordable, try universal mechanism. You can get a license for $150.00, and the solver is powerful enough to model my engine. There are many forces to consider in the set up presented here, and the software never misses one.
Regarding the centrifugal force question, yes this force would be less if the sphere was directly attached to the axis of rotation at the point of peak rise. However, since the sphere is attached to the hub which is much further down, the sphere ever seeks to return to the horizontal which requires a downward force on the lever.
Thanks for sharpening me with your thoughtful observations! I will consider sending you an avi produced with dynamic designer showing two moving spheres generating the unidirectional sinusoidal force curve.
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 20/03/2008 04:22:50
| | | Hi Glenn,
I just read your post. The notion of making a gravity field indistinguishable from an acceleration field is not mine, it is Einstein's, and a fundamental component of relativity theory. It is called the Strong Equivalence Principle, and you can read about it anywhere. So, I did not make this up, for this is generally in the realm of accepted physics. Of course, the fact that Einstein discovered this relationship does not make it acceptable. It is the fact that it has been rigorously tested that has brought this concept into the mainstream.
Here is the first paragraph on Strong Equivalence from Wikipedia:
"In the physics of relativity, the equivalence principle refers to several related concepts dealing with the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and to Albert Einstein's assertion that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference."
Below is the link to the wikipedia article with examples of experiments that have proven equivalence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
Here is another that gives a comprehensive history of the use of equivalence in physics. You may enjoy this article because they have no problem with questioning Einstein! They really get down to the nitty gritty of equivalence, which is that the laws of physics are the same regardless of one's speed or position. Once this fact is accepted, the equivalence of gravitational acceleration and coordinate acceleration is a natural result. Still, they raise similar questions that you have raised.
Here is the ink:
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath629/kmath629.htm
I should add that I have no desire to convince anyone of anything. I'm just sharing my findings with some very bright people and enjoying it.
Best,
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 20/03/2008 09:09:47
| | | Dear EDH,
Thank you very much for your quick reply! I will reconsider what you have stated and will give an answer afterwards. Maybe I send a sketch because a sketch explanins much more than words.
I would not have any problems in signing an NDA. Thank you for the information about the software. I will download the trial version for testing.
It would be nice if you could send me the avi movie. I will write you an email later. I have received your email address because I have started this thread. I didn't know that before. Can I use this email address to contact you? Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us!
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 20/03/2008 10:50:40
| | | Hi EDH,
If you do decide to read me for understanding you will see that I have already read Einstein, thank you. You can read him and discussions about his work, until your eyes pop out. It doesn’t change what I said. My explanation was mechanical about a reality of a person’s theory, one in which you yourself interjected. You don’t have an argument, but yet you would tell me what to do? You explain wikipedia to me? I live in the stone ages?
If I am aggregated its because you keep telling me to think like other people. I think for myself. You write me back not replying to my reply. What? You can't escape that easily. I discovered early on you wouldn’t admit to a fundamental error pointed to by someone. That’s why I picked at you a little bit, gently and hence I last wrote… “Somehow I don’t expect it? Too bad.”
Added: As two upper yoyos configurations force down, they force the lower two up. As the lower two force up, they force the upper two down. You get propulsion? Hint. Hint! What’s your pall, Einstein say about this?
Please don’t refer me again to the very same material I had just explained correctly, or try to guide me without mechanics and engineering anymore. Of course I don’t keep grudges over a little bit of aggregravation, so lots of luck to you.
Best regards,
Glenn
Answer to Hint, hint: What does Einstein say about your invention? Nothing.
I just wondered why you brought him into the discussion in the first place that was all.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 20/03/2008 12:40:20
| | | Dear EDH, and other interested parties.
Your information relating to the use of spherical gyroscopes was brought to my attention, I was however going to remain out of this discussion, but you did make comment relating to the fact that my disc devices operate in 2 axes only, which incidentally is wrong, and in spite of my intention to call it all a day has prompted this reply.
In 1986 for the sum of circa £11,000 pound (work on Mori Seiki machines is expensive) I built a 4 sphere device and later a 2 sphere device which I gather were almost identical to the ones you have described.
They were demonstrated in America, Australia and even to British Aerospace who had a great interest in the operation of my spheres.
I still have some of the design drawings, many photographs, some even taken at BAE Wharton.
The only clever part of the device was in each sphere which was actually made out of 2 NC machined hollow hemispheres (in HE30 spec alloy)
Each pair of hemispheres, with a gap, deliberately left between them, were attached by means of a steel shaft which locked them together. The shaft was fitted through a specially machined “sphere rotation shaft” actually almost a flat 3/16 inch plate which supported the shaft in a one way needle bearing, and rotated the whole issue.
This “flat” shaft fitted in between the hemispheres so that the sphere could rotate around the shaft, but due to the presence of the one way bearing, in one direction only.
Every rotational half cycle of the sphere (whilst under radial acceleration of course) the sphere would become a gyroscope then a dead weight.
“Up like a gyroscope down like a brick” was a favourite quote on this site for a while.
There were many other linkages, bell-cranks, etc. set to lift one pair as the opposing pair went down and vice versa.
This thing ran beautifully producing beautiful oscillations as it operated.
I had to stick tape across the hemispheres in the BAE lab to prove that it did as claimed. The tape was duly sheared as the sphere turned inwards.
Working drawings or photographs I can supply when I find them.
That was a little while ago.
However everything I did, was released and in the public domain, basically because it did not produce what I thought it should. This was a design full of promise which failed miserably.
However one always learns from ones failures.
I have bits for 6 spheres, shafts, bearings, etc (well made devices) just taking up room, all free to a good home, if someone has a use for them.
Regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Skyp T. - 20/03/2008 17:22:29
| | | Dear EDH,
We know the rotation frequency of the hub is about 2,000 RPM.
1) What’s the spin frequency of the spheres?
2) What is the maximum angle that the spheres rise above the hub’s spin plane?
3) What is the length of the sphere axel (hub radius)?
Skyp T.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 20/03/2008 17:23:15
| | | Thanks for the informative post Sandy! I would like to know how your device failed to operate as expected. As stated, I have several designs that produce lift, and I'm curious as to how yours differs from mine. I would be willing to send you mechanical details of one of my designs (with NDA) if this is of interest to you.
My apologies Glenn for any offenses. I did not intend them, and you've already helped me immensely on two issues. Firstly, I own a non-profit company that is developing this technology, and I have applied for government grants to continue funding the research. I've already decided to stop going down that path due to your warning. I've also looked at the motors that you recommended and am in the process of switching to them. They happen to be perfect for one of my embodiments. So yes, I have learned from you, and I have made changes to my engineering and administrative designs as a result. I believe I've also said that I have many unanswered questions, and am learning new things every week with this technology, so I really don't see why you think I can't admit it when I'm "wrong".
Regarding strong equivalence, I did not mean to insult you. You are correct that you are free to think independently, as I have strong scientific opinions that fly in the face of some textbooks. (For example, I have never agreed with the interpretations of the Michelson-Morely experiment, but that's another issue). I encourage you to follow your heart - even against reason, for I believe that this is the true seat of creativity.
I have not attempted to side step you or anyone. I have simply shared the process by which I have arrived at my invention. I have shared my theoretical basis behind my design, and as I've said, I'm open to others. I brought Einstein into this because I began with the notion that General Relativity was the only known method to move a mass without either ejecting matter or interfacing an external mass system. I began with GR, and developed my current technology purely on relativistic geometry- and it worked. Now there are plenty of problems. This is going to sound audacious, but it almost seems like I need a new math here. I run things through the simulator, build them, they work. Then based on the data, I design somthething 'better' that doesn't work. I have designs that give lift by SLOWING the rotation! Speed it up and it falls! So as I've stated before, there's much to be learned.
Now Glenn, If you are really interested in going down the rabbit hole with the gravity thing, I'd be happy to go there with you. If not, then we can happily leave it alone. Now I've been asked many questions over the past few days, and I think I've given prompt, direct and thorough responses. I think my explanation as to why the centrifugal force and the vertical precession force are dynamic and not static, and why they actively cycle in intensity was clearly explained. I think I explained how the coriolis force would play a part, and how the pull down of a rotating mass could generate GR based acceleration as well. Your other question was really a statement that an acceleration field cannot bend light and therefore is not equivalent to gravity. I gave you a link with a list of experiments that gave strong evidence that it was, and you became insulted.
Well, since all of the questions have been directed toward me, let me now direct one toward you. When the first GPS satellites went up, most were skeptical that time would pass more quickly in space, but they added a compensator just in case. Sure enough, time passed more quickly, the compensator was turned on and has remained on ever since. Okay, gravity slows time, so if an acceleration field is equal to gravity, then the acid test is to see if an acceleration frame slows time. Well, a cesium clock was synchronized to a clock aboard a jet liner. After it travelled for a great distance, the clocks were compared. Sure enough, the clock aboard the jet liner had slowed down, indicating a slowing of the passage of time aboard the frame in relative motion.
So my question to you is this: If time passes slower in both gravity and acceleration fields, how does an acceleration field not bend light, and how is it not like gravity?
Also, I will be out of town for ten days starting tomorrow, so my next post will be my last for awhile.
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 20/03/2008 21:48:28
| | | Hi EDH,
I have sent an email to you. I hope you will receive it before you go.
Nice to see that we could achieve to reactivate Sandy Kidd!
Welcome back, Sandy! ;-)
And if you really want to get rid from your spheres and other parts! I would be happy to get them.
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 21/03/2008 03:54:45
| | | I think this is interesting and related to the subject under discussion.
Vibrating gyroscope, or tuning fork gyroscope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrating_structure_gyroscope Click on, halteres and Coriolis force. More later
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 21/03/2008 04:31:38
| | | Hi Skip:
So should I call you Skip or Skyp???
It sounds like you're building the demo set-up, so an economical way to make this work is to use solid 2.5" hemispheres spinning at a 1:9 ratio to hub frequency. If the center of the hemisphere is 5.5 inches from the center of the hub, you should create a stable lift phase when the hub is at 2000 rpm and the spheres at 18,000 rpm. I have the hemispheres mounted within an outer spherical casing with stainless steel "polar caps". I also have electromagnets with hemispherical cavities so that the arms can be held in place until the optimal frequencies have been reached. Again, a decrease in hub speed disrupts the harmonization, and the thing falls, so there's no way to control it- it's just a one shot demo.
If you don't want to go through all the magnet construction, just use two spheres on two arms. You will get flutter at these frequencies, and you will get significant weight loss. You might need to adjust the distance from the sphere to the hub, so design you arms for variation. Also, you might consider mounting your hub on a platform with four equidistant holes at the perimeter. This way, you can mount four poles to the table for a controlled rise. Once top speed is reached, flutter angle will not exceed 15 degrees.
Best of Luck,
EDH
P.S. Got your email Harry, and I'll answer it before I leave.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Skyp T. - 26/03/2008 20:11:12
| | | Dear EDH,
Thank you for your answers. I respond to both Skyp and Skip, thank you for asking.
Each sphere contains its own spin motor, internally.
Does this mean that the motor spins along with the sphere?
Or is the spin-motor deadweight inside the sphere?
Regards,
Skyp T.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 29/03/2008 12:40:55
| | | Dear Harry,
After reading EDH’s postings, I share a good part of your enthusiasm for his design.
EDH has touched on a number of points important to the success of gyro-propulsion.
Some of these points are new to me and others are ones that I have written about in previous postings, expressing the need to take them into consideration, for successful gyro-propulsion designs.
These points include:
A) The inspired use of spheres, which is something I may have never thought about (I do have a number of other shapes that fit well within my own theory of gyro-propulsion).
B) Using the higher orders of acceleration. In my posting I referred to them as “higher derivatives” such “Jerk”, “Snap”, etc.
C) Synchronizing spin-rates with rotation-rates to optimal ratios. Need for synchronization was derived from some of the experimental results that Sandy’s reported. I have occasionally discussion the need for such synchronization.
D) EDH has also taken full advantage of theoretical analysis and use of computers to reduce cost and effort of proving designs before building them. This is something I have championed, though never taken to the level that EDH appears to have performed,
(I do think that deeper analysis on “Rules of Spin” can serve to demystify many of the yet unresolved events that occur during experiments.)
To me, all these points are significant indicators that EDH’s design is based on sensible, well thought-out principles. Add his professional demeanor and communication skills, and his credibility is high.
Anyone can tell a story but rarely with this level of depth.
My congratulations go to EDH, for the compelling presentation of his device.
I will address my comments and questions to EDH in a separate thread.
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 30/03/2008 03:19:23
| | | Hi Skyp:
Well, I had a restful vacation- now back to work! Regarding the motors, yes they are dead weight. There are a few ways to mount them. You can have two motors mounted back to back, each with its own dedicated hemisphere, or you can have one motor horizontally mounted to a vertical shaft with both hemispheres sharing a common shaft through the motor. In either case, you want to keep the gap between the hemispheres to a minimum in this design. As the gap increases, the positive and negative forces tend to equalize resulting in a decrease in lift force. This is only true for the demo design I've shared here. Also, the higher the torque, the better. Since you're going with the 2.5 inch hemispheres, a motor capable of 20k rpm shouldn't be too expensive, but get the highest torque motor that you can find in this category. You will soon discover that a low torque motor capable of the target rpm won't drive your hemispheres at sufficient rpm for lift. Just get a 20k motor listed as 'high torque', and you should be fine.
Best,
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 30/03/2008 12:25:46
| | | Dear Luis,
Unfortunately I have to mention, that n the meanwhile my enthusiasm has slowed down a bit. But later more.
Why do you want to address your comments and questions in a separate thread? I think this is the right thread for your comments and questions.
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 30/03/2008 14:19:44
| | | I’m going to divulge one of my primary desires of twenty years. I wanted to know the truth. I didn’t want a pipe dream of wild imagined successes of fame and money and a wasted life on foolishness and impossible dreams. If inertial propulsion was possible I wanted to know. If wasn’t I wanted to know. I’m sure you are the same and so I offer you some information.
After twenty years of study I am certain inertial propulsion can be done, but not by any means I have ever investigated except my own. I have explained how to achieve this very clearly and waited. Nobody took the time and trouble to study with care and concentration, while asking for more details. They glanced over the material, saw it was difficult, assumed it would not work, pretended they understood and reject and abandoned the ideas. I do not argue with any who do not understand they do not understand, but believe they do. Why would I?
I am so very sorry to tell you this. I hope that it doesn’t hurt too much, but instead gives you a warning of the truth that I think a competent man would want as I wanted it so much.
It is this. I’ve never seen a design I could not reduce to an unworkable idea (except my own) including the basics of your machine as much as was explained. Nothing you’ve said would work to cause inertial propulsion. Now there is practical information if you can realize it, which has been provided by me that you can use and build on. Up till now you’ve been using the substantial power of your mind to deceive yourself into believing what you want to believe. I feel really bad in telling you what I postponed saying, but I shouldn’t. Harry said in the world of physics and math there is only right and wrong, true and false and no sugar coating. Based on what you’ve said you’re wasting your best juices and because I think you are a capable and energetic man it is a shame.
I hope you don’t hate me. I was unsure for a week if I should post such blunt opinions, but I must. It is my duty first to you then to everybody and finally to myself.
You Have My Best Wishes,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Skyp T. - 30/03/2008 15:54:12
| | | Thanks EDH,
You previously said that:
“The spheres are rotated by an internal motor, so to construct it, you actually need hemispheres.”
Did you mean that the motor which spins the sphere is inside the sphere, in that design?
If not, can you clarify?
Also what’s the minimum and maximum distance between spheres that you have had success with?
Thank you,
Skyp T.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 30/03/2008 16:20:57
| | | Dear EDH,
Welcome back, I hope you have enjoyed your holidays! :-)
Thank you for the animation video which you have sent via email. For the other readers here, the animation shows 2 spinning hinged spheres which rotate around the center of mass of the setup. The assembly of this setup is exactly the same as stated schematic here: http://www.gyroscopes.org/propulsion.asp
under "Sandy Kidd and Force Precessed Gyroscopes".
The only deviation to EDH's design is the use of disks instead of spheres.
On the video animation there a shown 2 function graphs. The first graph indicates the force progression (Y-axis) in dependence of time (X-axis) and the second graph indicates the rotating angle around the hub (Y-axis) in dependence of time (X-axis).
The initial position of both spheres is horizontal at time 0 sec., the the spheres arise to an angle of 15 deg. and decline afterwards back again to horizontal position (0 deg.). The vertical force at the hub applied by the spheres varies between +9195.5 pounds at 0 deg. to -7941.1 pounds at 15 deg. After 1 complete revolution around the center of mass (hub), the spheres are back in their origin horizontal position.
By the way I wonder why you use pounds instead of Newtons?
One word to the animation software. Thank you for the Russian link: www.umlab.ru
I have downloaded the UM-Lite 4 version for free and just trying to learn how to work with it. This software seems to be very powerful and I intend to buy the full version of this software. However, it's a little bit complicated to buy this software because you have first to sign an agreement and the payment must be done via bank money transfer.
Such a mechanical animation software is indeed really good, but it is no insurance against faultless results or misinterpretation. All important formulas related to general gyro behavior must be defined by the user and thus wrong results may occur, at least in the UM-software. Maybe your software works without the need of user defined formulas but I have my doubts!?
The next thing is, that I cannot see any abnormal behavior in your animation:
- During the rise of the spheres there is downward force at the hub. But because the spheres move upwards there is no netted displacement of the setup, i.e. all positive and negative forces and torques are balanced.
- The same behavior will occur during the fall of the spheres back in horizontal direction, but in reverse direction: the spheres move down and cause an upward force at the hub, but again all positive and negative forces and torques are balanced.
In my opinion, this setup cannot produce any lift or downward force, and Sandy Kidd has confirmed this due to his experiences with his field-tested setups.
Also I'm still asking what this kind of setup have to do with Coriolis forces? Coriolis forces must be independent from forced movements applied by an accelerated frame, but this is here not the case, or I'm not able to see it.
I (better: we) need more input! ;-)
Thanks and best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 31/03/2008 04:03:48
| | | Hello All:
Glad to be back. The avi is of a machine with the hub locked to the ground. This is required for the software to measure the force on the hub. The software used to produce the animation was dynamic designer running within Solidworks. There were no equations input or any manipulations at all. The rise and fall of the spheres is a direct result of the frequency ratios between the sphere and the hub. In other words, there is no active force driving them up or down. This is very different than the design you referenced, as the design on the propulsion page has no vertically moving rotating masses. As many know, there is a design with vertically moving masses, but they are mechanically actuated in a cam assembly. As I've mentioned previously, such an arrangement results in a disruption of the natural force curves and ultimately limited lift. So, in the simple demo that I have presented to this forum, there are three distinct differences from the one shown in the propulsion page: The use of spheres, the use of frequency ratios to drive the spheres with dynamic fictitious forces, and the use of two pairs of spheres operating out of phase to maintain lift
The Avi shows the flutter phase in one rotation, and the precise path that the spheres take without any active force pushing them back down to the horizontal position. It also shows a net force in the positive direction of about a thousand pounds. This very large force is a whole new discovery in our research. We found that if the hub was slowly increased from zero to 2000 rpm, we had a gross force of about 150 pounds with a net positive force of about 15 pounds, but if the hub speed was increased very rapidly (in the avi sent to Harry, the hub increased from zero to 2000 rpm in 2 seconds) then thousands of pounds of force were generated. The most interesting behavior was that the machine continued to generate this large force in a non attenuating sine curve. This was confirmed in our physical model. So, the differences I've mentioned here may seem trivial, but in fact are the ones required for sustained lift.
I sent the media file to Harry because it shows the action much more clearly than can be described in words. What is obvious from the graphs is that a high frequency unidirectional sinusoidal force is being generated on the center of mass of the system. Since the force is asymmetric, net thrust can be generated in a given direction. If the frequency ratios are not properly tuned, the curve is not sinusoidal, the arms flail or do not flutter, and there is no net force. Of course, I have virtual prototypes of all of my designs, and since I've physically built two that stay afloat, there isn't any room for misinterpretation here: It either flies or fails- and of course it flies.
I am now involved in building an engine that produces hundreds of pounds of force which can be varied linearly with high precision. It works in the computer, but the dynamic model is not a virtual machine. It just proves what would happen if these masses are moved in a particular way. This would be a daunting project, and I only have 5 people working on this project, so I'm going to need added talent to pull this off. I'm confident that if it can be built, it will work. Early designs worked just as the computer predicted, so we stopped building prototypes and just refined things as virtual prototypes before constructing final designs.
I also have another model that works in the computer and is suitable for terrestrial lift applications such as electric rockets, etc. In the least, it can reduce payload by electrical means serving as a component in a hybrid rocket system. This is the most advanced system I've invented thus far.
Best of luck Glenn on your inertial drive project. As you know, I can't conceive of a way an inertial system can be made to create a unidirectional force on the mass center of a closed mass system (mine is non-inertial), but I would be thrilled to be proven wrong! Thanks again for your support, and don't worry about any discouragement on my part. Every time I see my machine fly I'm nothing but encouraged. It may only be tens of pounds, but it's a step. Oh yes, on the subject of pounds, the software can compute it any way you like, english or metric.
Best to all,
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 31/03/2008 08:10:15
| | | Harry K
Sorry for the delay in replying Harry. This was due to an unavoidable circumstance..
Give me a chance to get all the parts together and they are yours.
One pair is complete, the rest will need to be assembled, but that is no big deal.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 31/03/2008 13:13:53
| | | Hi EDH,
I was surprised to find how delighted I could be just now, in learning you don’t listen to a word I say. You’re obviously enjoying yourself and your enthusiasm and sparkle will not be dampened by my mire reality. Just kidding you. It is not impossible you have found something, as it has been observed that works against initial logic and common knowledge. Anyway I’m glad you aren’t suppressed so easily and as a result I’m relieved from feeling a bit of guilt. Hurray for EDH!
Kind regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 31/03/2008 16:58:45
| | | Dear Sandy,
Thank you very much to consider to send the parts to me! - I hope my request was not too impertinent? I'm very happy to get these parts if you really have no further use for them. Certainly I will pay all costs for package and postal charges. Do you still have my email address? If so, could you send me your bank data and the estimated costs? But please take up time, there's no hurry!
Thank you very much!
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 31/03/2008 17:02:56
| | | Dear EDH,
Thank you for your quick reply! Please apologize my overhasty conclusions. I have to think more about it and thus I will answer later.
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 31/03/2008 17:40:16
| | | Dear all,
Something just came into my mind and I don’t have time to reason out the logic, but any who want to well… here it is.
If the hemispheres are rotated in vertical planes as is usual directly in line with the main drive motor as it rotates, four spears on the same level will of course lift, while applying extra downward force on the main drive. Once lifted, if the spears are then twisted to cause them to rotate in horizontal planes and the angle of the spheres to horizontal adjusted as the spears are then pulled downward by centrifuge and when reaching the same horizontal level in line with the main drive again twisted to rotate in the vertical planes as before the spears will lift again. I see no ultimate advantage of thrust here at all, but the idea should cause constant fluttering for any who wish to play with the idea in their minds for a while.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 01/04/2008 18:51:26
| | | Hello-
I like your thinking Glenn. You might also like to know that we tried your idea in the software about a year ago, and it basically works, it's just a little hard to implement at high frequencies. Still, it's a great idea.
I received your email Harry, and I'm working on some calculations, data and plots that can help answer your questions. Remember that the torque on the hub is greater when the spheres are moving down, than when they are going up because they are moving against the secondary precession force (sphere lift force) during the down stroke, and assisted by it during the up stroke. I'll get the data to you asap.
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 01/04/2008 19:09:59
| | | Hello EDH,
I'm afraid I have sent my email from yesterday too hasty because there is a mistake related to the vertical force at the hub. Shame on me!
As mentioned in my email, I believe that the up-down movement (flutter) may caused by nutation. In my opinion this nutation is not the optimum operating point and there must be an individual angle where a optimum lift force can be created. However, you know it better and therefore I will patiently await your answer... ;-)
See you later,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Skyp T. - 02/04/2008 02:27:34
| | | Harry,
How do you calculate the torque produced by a rotting system or hub rotating at 2000 RPM or any angular velocity with a radius of (R)?
Will the spin rate of the gyro make a difference?
Can other factors besides mass affect the calculation of this torque?
Skyp T
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 02/04/2008 09:26:37
| | | Hello Skyp,
Have you already finished your test setup device? ;-)
To calculate the torque created by the rotating hub you need the base formula of precession angular velocity: wp = T / Lsp
- wp (Omega "p") - angular velocity around hub
- T - torque caused by rotating hub
- Lsp - angular momentum of rotating sphere (gyro)
With this equation you can calculate the torque: T = wp * Lsp
Lsp can be calculated: Lsp = Jsp * wsp
- Jsp - mass inertia of sphere
- wsp (Omega "sp") - angular velocity of rotating sphere
Jsp can be calculated: Jsp = 2 / 5* msp * r * r (massive sphere)
- msp - rotating mass of the sphere
- r - radius of rotating mass of the sphere
On the basis of these equations you can see the influence of all parameters to the torque. The torque will be higher, if:
- wp increases,
- msp increases,
- r increases
This is a rough explanation and for only one sphere. For more spheres you have to multiplicate accordingly the values.
You also have to consider the angle of the spheres above the horizonatal plane in your calculations. This angle also depends on the radius of spheres to center of hub and the ratio of the velocity rates of spheres and hub.
I hope this information will help a little bit.
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 02/04/2008 23:01:03
| | | Hi EDH,
Pausing to think about it during the course of the day I could see how your computer simulation may be right and so I enjoyed what you said. I saw that as the spheres/disks were twisted to horizontal and were being pulled downward by centrifuge, centrifuge should provide an angular lift to the main drive motor without a negating reaction. Also noted if the twisting were such that it moved the center of gravity outward as from a hinging action, rather than merely rotating it while keeping it in the same main horizontal circler paths, centrifuge would increase… unless the main rotation were allowed to slow down in natural response (the ice skater). Once the sphere/disk came downward in plane alinement with the main drive it dose not seem to make a difference whether the disk were tilted up, down, or rotated, but if there were an advantage it could easily be found and used.
I can see what you mean by the difficulties in accelerating the tilting of the, Whorly Things (tired of repeating spheres/disks) from zero speed into vertical and horizontal positions, while the main drive by comparison has built up momentum to very, very fast continual rotation. Anyway I’m glade to hear you’ve tried it a year ago and it appeared to work.
Hang in,
Glenn
Looking at these posts, I wonder sometimes if we have a real engineer somewhere hiding in here, or did this guy get lost on his way to the Dr. Von Braun’s space launchings platform? Hi Harry! You’re looking good. You hang in too.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 03/04/2008 16:50:33
| | | Hi Glenn,
My first job out of college was as a histologist. I had to stain hundreds of slides. When they wanted me to do tissue culture, I built a contraption to automatically stain the slides. My supervisor commented that maybe I should consider engineering :) Then, when I got to NASA, I regularly attented a monthly meeting on advanced propulsion technologies. Other aerospace engineers would have to sneek over, because at the time many of the topics were considered exotic. I became close friends with the group moderator who was the chief of a flight studies department at NASA-Ames. We worked on alot of problems together, and He eventually commented that I might consider aeronautical engineering...
So I'm not an engineer by training, but apparently I have the soul of one in there somewhere!
I'll be gone for the weekend for a conference.
Best,
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 03/04/2008 18:32:38
| | | Hi EDH,
Good stuff to know. Thank you. Actually I was teasing our pal Harry K.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 03/04/2008 23:01:14
| | | Hi Glenn.
It's sometimes difficult to follow your subtle irony...
Nevertheless have fun!
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 04/04/2008 01:49:29
| | | Dear EDH,
Have you read my posting at http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=895? Do you have any comments or response?
Hi Harry,
I guess I should have listened.
Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Skyp T. - 04/04/2008 20:32:34
| | | Thank you Harry,
Your information is helpful.
Can the spin in a simple wheel produce torque when it engages like through friction?
How do you calculate torque if you know radius mass and spin?
Skyp T.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 04/04/2008 22:27:40
| | | Hello Skyp,
Please explain more detailed what you want to know. I'm not sure what you understand under "torque" in this context? The angular momentum of a spinning wheel, or an applied tilting torque, e.g. by friction? And which torque do you want to calculate?
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 04/04/2008 22:58:35
| | | Hi Luis!
Please forgive me for not responding to your thoughtful and eloquent post. I've been on autopilot just clicking to this thread! I'm about to catch a plane to Baltimore, but I will read your previous posts so I can catch up on your theory. I look forward to responding to your post when I return (after the weekend).
Best,
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Skyp T. - 07/04/2008 14:14:03
| | | EDH,
Thanks for instruction on how to build a model.
How high should I lock the upper sphere(s) before releasing them, 15o or more?
When I release the spheres, the lower one will go up and then continue on its way down because of the way the forces change.
But when I release the up locked sphere, the forces to make it come down are not there yet.
What should make that sphere come down at the start?
Skyp T.
Hi Harry,
Here is an example.
Put a spinning rubber wheel on flat ground.
It goes from zero to some speed.
How would you calculate the torque generated?
Skyp T.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 07/04/2008 17:47:25
| | | Hi Skyp;
The spheres that are raised will be drawn down at the given angular frequencies because in this particular arrangement, the centrifugal force exceeds the vertical precession force when the spheres are at 15 deg or higher. Momentum will continue to push them to the horizontal at which point the vertical precession force exceeds the centrifugal force and the spheres rise. The process is similar to nutation and actively kick-starts the oscillation. If you're building the four sphere version, you'll have plenty of opportunity to test this phenomenon with just two spheres. If you lock the hub to the ground and simply spin the the spheres and the hub at the afore mentioned frequencies, the harmonic oscillations will automatically be generated. Even without the additional sphere set, this arrangement will exhibit significant weight loss.
Best of luck on your construction,
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 07/04/2008 19:40:09
| | | Hello Skyp,
A spinning wheel has no torque but angular momentum "L". The angular momentum can be calculated by the given mass moment of inertia (J) of the wheel and its angular velocity (w - Omega).
Here are some examples of mass moment of inertia "J" for different geometric shapes of a body:
- flat disk: Jx = m / 2 * r * r Jy = Jz = m / 4 * r * r
- massive sphere: Jx = Jy = Jz = 2 / 5 m * r * r
. hemisphere with thin wall thickness: Jx = Jy = Jz = 2 / 3 m * r * r
Jx, Jy, Jz stands for the possible rotation axis of the geometric shape.
Angular momentum: L = J * w
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 07/04/2008 20:14:33
| | | Hello EDH,
I have told you that I have made some calculations based on the given data by you and based on my own minds how it could work.
With my simple mathematics I'm able to calculate the angle of the upper sphere. At this angle, the torques caused by centrifugal force and vertical precession force are equal.
The equation to calculate this angle indicates that the mass of the spheres have no impact to the angle size. Only the frequencies and the radii of sphere and precession torque will have an influence to the angle size.
And due to this calculations you can see as well, that this angle is a stable position, where centrifugal force cannot exceed the vertical precession force. Therefore I cannot see any reasons for a harmonic oscillation of up-down movement.
Either you may know it not better (but I don't believe) or you want to lead us in a wrong direction to protect your patent, what I could however understand. ;-)
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Skyp T. - 08/04/2008 14:45:35
| | | Thanks Harry,
In the rubber wheel example Is the angular and linear velocity equal?
Does angular momentum convert into equal linear momentum?
It looks like angular motion decreases while the wheel gets linear acceleration.
Does angular momentum convert to force then back to momentum - or does it occur automatically?
Is there a formula for this transition acceleration?
Skyp T.
Thanks EDH,
Does this mean that there exists a position angle where the centrifugal force and the vertical precession force are equal? What would the value of that angle be?
Skyp T.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 08/04/2008 15:25:03
| | | The equilibrium angle can vary for different reasons including deadweight, friction, etc.
It may be of value to calculate the dynamics of what occurs when the spheres are released after being held at equal-force distances on opposite sides of the balance point.
Can calculations indicate that the “Tango” occurs, meaning that the spheres travels with enough momentum to continue past the balance point, and by how much?
Will the “flutter” occur like a bouncing ball whose height decreases with each bounce?
Would (theoretically) eliminating air and other frictions eliminate all flutter limitations?
These are just some thoughts.
Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 08/04/2008 17:23:53
| | | Hello Skyp,
Your questions are related to basic physics and therefore the answers can be fined in accordant physic books. ;-)
"Is the angular and linear velocity equal?"
Angular and linear velocity are not the same. The linear velocity depends from the radius of your rubber wheel: v = r * w
"Does angular momentum convert into equal linear momentum"
Not completely, because the movement will be a interaction of linear and angular movement of the wheel:
- a small winding radius will cause higher angular momentum but lower linear momentum,
- a big winding radius will cause lower angular momentum but higher linear momentum.
"It looks like angular motion decreases while the wheel gets linear acceleration. "
Really? Why do you assume this?
"Does angular momentum convert to force then back to momentum - or does it occur automatically?"
Angular momentum is equal to stored mechanical energy and therefore it can be transformed into translation energy and back as often you want. However, there will be losses caused by friction (transformation into heat).
"Is there a formula for this transition acceleration?"
Yes, as stated above: v = r * w
I'm not really sure to imagine, what kind of device you are building? ;-)
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 08/04/2008 17:56:52
| | | Hello Luis,
"The equilibrium angle can vary for different reasons including deadweight, friction, etc."
Yes you are right of course, but these reasons will only cause additional torques at the end. These additional torques can be considered in the calculations as well.
"It may be of value to calculate the dynamics of what occurs when the spheres are released after being held at equal-force distances on opposite sides of the balance point."
Really good question! I believe that I'm able to calculate what exactly would happen in theory.
"Can calculations indicate that the “Tango” occurs, meaning that the spheres travels with enough momentum to continue past the balance point, and by how much? "
As mentioned in some other posts before, I believe that the flutter will caused by nutation, and EDH states this in his last post as well. I think this nutation may be caused by either immediately acceleration of the spheres at operating hub rotation or by immediately acceleration of the hub with the spheres at operating spin. Or it is a mixture of both scenarios? In my opinion this assumption would make sense.
Anyway, I think this "flutter" or nutation should be avoided to achieve better results. But EDH states that the "flutter" is the reason for the lifting force?
Just my two cents...
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 08/04/2008 21:01:41
| | | Hi Skyp:
Just a quick reply-
Dynamic designer calculates the equilibrium to be at about 7.5 degrees. Momentum from the upward swing carries the sphere past this point to about 15 degrees. At this point the torque reverses, pushing the sphere back down with momentum again carrying the mass past the equilibrium point. When the sphere reaches horizontal, torque again reverses, and the cycle repeats. No need to mislead!
Thanks,
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Skyp T. - 09/04/2008 14:33:37
| | | Thanks EDH, That's what i thougt.
Thanks Harry too for your help.
Skyp T.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 09/04/2008 19:58:29
| | | Dear Harry,
Thank you for your responses.
I think EDH said each sphere had a spin motor within, and that each motor weighs more than the sphere (I may be confused about this). Please correct me if I’m wrong.
I do know that deadweight will certainly INCREASE Centrifugal force while contributing zero or less to precessional deflection, thus REDUCING the angle at which equilibrium occurs.
The hub’s torque is provided by its motor; if anything the additional mass of the spin-motors would cause inertial resistance to the hub’s torque motor.
If we think of the flutter as nutation, do we then have to consider it as undesirable, and try to eliminate it, even when the designer claims it is what causes the lifting force?
In that case let’s not think of it either as nutation or as undesirable (it’s just a mindset); create a fresh approach to a new problem.
Rules-of-thumb are great until we try to apply them to the exception.
I think we need to first calculate the events that occur (theoretically) when the spheres are released etc.
If the result is a sinusoidal wave then we will know a bit more.
Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Skyp T. - 10/04/2008 18:52:55
| | | EDH,
Can you release all spheres from horizontal bottom but at different time?
Then you can release some when the others are ready to return down instead of holding some up and some down and releasing them at the same time.
Can this work?
Skyp T.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 11/04/2008 01:27:25
| | | Hi Skyp:
If I understand correctly, you want to wait until the top spheres come down before releasing the bottom ones. If you do this, you will not get phase cancellation, and the machine will hop, but not achieve sustained lift.
Good luck,
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 13/04/2008 18:16:13
| | | Hi Harry,
You said, “- Why I hope to be back on next Friday?” That’s funny. If you don’t board Charles’s NTA I think you’ll be aright. But, I sort of already know why a man would hope to be back if he intends to be back.
You ask, “Why you should be patient?” That is the question. Yeah, why? I thought I made a good suggestion. Actually I think it was the perfect suggestion. That’s why I repeated it. Why do you want to mask over my question? Don’t you think it’s a good suggestion? Wouldn’t you like to see pictures? Don’t you believe in our old saying, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” Don’t you think we would learn far more from pictures? Well, I would. So I will be hushed and quieted. I will ask again. But I clearly understand you meant well and are kind. Thank you.
Have a good and safe trip and we’ll look for you back after Friday.
Regards,
Glenn
Dear EDH,
Please consider taking pictures of the machines you explained and email them to the few of us.
Kindest regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 17/04/2008 02:04:33
| | | Hi Glenn,
Although pictures and video mean nothing nowadays in terms of proof, I will consider your request. To me, confirmation that the computer prototypes work within virtual physical environments constitutes proof. There are exotic physical phenomena that cannot be modeled in commercial virtual prototyping software, but these physics engines are built upon the laws of physics as we understand them. If it works in the virtual environment, it works in real life. Let's face it, when someone sees a picture, their first thought will be how it was faked, but when it comes to physics, there is no way to fake it. The program will tell you everything you want to know-where the forces come from, and why it works. Nothing can be hidden, so in my mind, anyone serious about examining the veracity of my engine would want the actual models and an appropriate virtual prototyping program to analyze it with.
You might be pleased to know that I am currently considering releasing some of my models to a third party for examination. Since this would not qualify as publication, my patent(s) would not be jeopardized. I believe that this is the best approach, but I will certainly consider photos of the parts, assembled machine, and the machine in action. If I do this (and I'm not making any guarantees here), it would of course be of the demo model only, which would have to be reassembled since it has been used for parts on other machines.
Best,
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 17/04/2008 06:06:42
| | | Dear EDH,
You’re explaining science to me to avoid a request. Science! You would apply the dynamic laws in a virtual physics program to prove inertial propulsion. Good for you, but these are completely juxtaposed ideas. Unless the application and usage is compromised, you can’t use evidence against a thing, as prove for the thing. But, do as you like. I’m all for that. Still, know that I asked only for pictures, not arguments and instructions. I know why I asked and you should note I asked for pictures of machines that I said YOU HAD ALREADY EXPLAINED. Now dear EDH, contrary to what you argue, virtual is hypothetical and theoretical and doesn’t carry the same weight as real physical experimentation and examination. For instance with pictures you would prove you had physically constructed what you say. You say you don’t have to give evidence? Well of course you do during scientific discourse. What then is accepted in science as fact, but physical proof first, foremost and only? “Where’s the beef! Show me the beef!” Apparently there is no beef old woman. I would like to be very kind to you in some way, EDH, but science is pretty harsh. Forget about the pictures. Do as you like and we can all try to be happy.
Best,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 17/04/2008 12:52:35
| | | Luis, EDH, Glenn, Harry K, Skyp T and all interested parties.
EDH said
“To me, confirmation that the computer prototypes work within virtual physical environments constitutes proof.
There are exotic physical phenomena that cannot be modelled in commercial virtual prototyping software, but these physics engines are built upon the laws of physics as we understand them. If it works in the virtual environment, it works in real life.”
Nobody could normally fault anyone for that statement but under the present circumstances I must offer my apologies to EDH as sadly this is far from the truth.
Early on I did think that EDH may have used the laws of physics “as we understand them” in his modelling.
It is generally accepted that there is no provision for reaction-less drive, anywhere within the bounds of physics.
Therefore any answer to the inertial drive question, if there is an answer, must lie outside the bounds of our present understanding, meaning physics would have to be fundamentally flawed.
That said, I think I know where EDH achieved his output figures from.
The universal understanding is that there is no allowance for loss of angular momentum in the system even if the rotated mass is itself rotating. I found out the hard way that this understanding is in error.
This all boils down to discs or spheres operating in the saturation zone, which according to the rotation speeds of device and spheres quoted on this site it most certainly is.
I have claimed so many times before, in this area of operation there is no mass left to accelerate so there can be no thrust
As a result of countless experiments my findings were that:
“If a mass is subjected to steady radial acceleration and that mass itself is rotated there is a reduction in angular momentum and centrifugal force proportional to the rotation speed of the rotated mass”
I am prepared to enlarge upon this statement if required.
As this is not accepted in the universal understanding of physics, I think this has caused EDH’s computer program to produce significant output errors, as these facts would not be accommodated for in his program, no matter how sophisticated.
I am hereby calling this “Kidd’s Law” as I appear to be the only person prepared to believe it.
No folks, a bit of fun, I’m too long in the tooth for an ego problem.
Sandy
PS
Will soon have all your bits together Harry.
I think I still have your email address.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 17/04/2008 13:50:08
| | | 23 years ago.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug75diEyiA0
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 17/04/2008 18:37:11
| | | Hello All:
The fact is, my device operates within the known laws of physics. The reason for this is that it is based on geometry, and the virtual physics engines that are sufficiently robust are ultimately nothing more than sophisticated coordinate systems. They do not make errors. It will not calculate 2 + 2 to equal 5. People can make plenty of errors in their designs, however the program cannot be made to violate the laws of physics. As an example, an engineer might build a design in a virtual prototyping program with advanced kinematics, and then find that it operates differently when built. After examination, he would find that he made an error in his translation of the prototype from virtual to physical. The virtual one actually worked, just not as he intended. So, if a model can be made to work (with contacts and friction, etc.) in the virtual environment, then it can be made to work in the real world. This of course does not imply that everything in the real world can be modeled, such as quantum effects, etc. This is a kinematic engine.
The model works the same in more than one program, so this is not a 'bug'. This was based on theoretical research that I began in 1981. I made my first breakthrough seven years later while at NASA. My next breakthrough would not come until 2001, and I built my first "proof of concept" in 2005 which demonstrated thrust (a series of physical models). It was during this time that I first noticed the flutter. This was in a disc based model built with parts purchased on this site. Two 2.5 inch discs rotating at up to 20,000 rpm attached to machine threaded rods which were attached to a motor. The flutter was noticed at a very slow speed of revolution, about 4 per second. The flutter was very exaggerated, and I thought my machine was imbalanced. I almost dismissed it, but something in me said "look at that". So I did. This led to the mathematical analysis, and eventual virtual prototype confirmation. So, this is not an error. My current machines are the product of over a quarter century of research and corroboration between mathematical and physical experimentation, so this is based ultimately on physical observations.
Anyone who has spent some time on this site, has seen the video of Laithwaite with his rotating flywheels on a scale. They aren't moving very fast around their shared hub, but when he pulls one of them down, there is a sharp decrease in weight of the entire apparatus. Now I am sure there are those who think he had the thing rigged to a pulley and was pulling a string behind his back, but I can tell you that this is an authentic demo. My machine works similarly. Change the discs to spheres, add another pair of masses, up the speed to 2000 rpm, and alternate the phase of the mass pairs, and there you have it, a high frequency pulsed unidirectional force on the entire apparatus. If you believe that Laithwaite's demo was not a hoax, and that the force on the hub is less going up than when pulling down, then it is not difficult to understand how my demo machine works. Although my physics may be unrelated to those employed in Sandy's design, they are very much in line with those explored by Eric Laithwaite. The difference is that I understand the physics which govern this force, and am able to control it. This has permitted me to design and build engines of significantly greater capability.
Since it is obvious that I have been written off as some sort of prankster, I will go ahead and tell you some things that you wouldn't believe anyway. I have an engine that I'm currently building which is about four feet across. It weighs less than fifty pounds not including a power source, but is capable of accelerating upwards indefinitely. It is mathematically capable of launching a microsatellite into orbit in less than two hours, and can do so with a battery charge. This is possible with present day technology. I have another engine that can replace an automobile engine while getting well over a thousand miles on a single charge. This would require some engineering work on ultracapacitors, but all of the other technology presently exists. I have been giving special attention to the automobile applications, and this is one reason why I'm based in the Detroit metropolitan area in the U.S. There are also energy generation applications related to this technology, but if I told you how much energy this thing can generate, you wouldn't believe me. There are even more applications of this technology that go far beyond what I've mentioned.
I am scheduled to give a public demonstration of my technology near the end of October at a large propulsion technology event. I haven't heard much from the committee lately, so it may be cancelled. This would be the perfect forum to unveil my work, but if the event is cancelled, I may do it sooner.
It is obvious that a test on the physics of movement is vastly superior to a digital photo. The only thing better than a virtual model is a real one, so this process has been very educational for me. It has shown me that I will need to build several completely operational thruster units to put into the hands of interested parties. This is now my new course of action based upon the feedback in this forum.
This last month reminds me of an experience I had during my freshman year in college. I was very interested in physics way back then, and got into a conversation with a group of guys on time travel. They said that if you wanted to travel backward in time you only needed to travel backward across time zones on the earth. I politely reminded them that these were artificial barriers, and that it was really the same time in Hong Kong as it is here, and that the only way to go backward in time was either to move faster than light or enter another dimension. Well, one of them became very angry. He insisted that I had no idea of what I was saying, that it was nonsense, and he demanded that I take it back! I refused to, and simply turned to leave the dorm room. He blocked the door, and demanded again that I take back what I said (he was bigger/stronger than me:)). I then told him "I'm not going to say what is untrue because you're threatening me. Crossing time zones has nothing to do with traveling through time." He then proceeded to pummel me to the ground while the others stared aghast. He was the leader of the group, and was apparently offended that the others had begun to listen to me instead of him.
So, I've learned the hard way how to tactfully leave a room. Right now, I'm absolutely thrilled from the data my team generated on Tuesday. This is the one that achieves terrestrial lift into orbit in an hour and twenty minutes! Laugh away!
My very best to all. Please keep the courage to follow your dreams. My approach has always been based on the greek word Agape which means understanding, creativity and charity. When we refuse to be threatened into the follies of ego and embrace an objective understanding, then all things are truly possible. As you've sensed, this will be my last post for quite some time.
Again, my very best to all,
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 17/04/2008 19:34:27
| | | EDH,
I am sorry that the offensiveness in this forum has turned you away.
Open forums have that invariable flaw.
Hopefully you will find it in your heart (and in the spirit of Agape) to respond to legitimate questions from individuals who do not offend you.
I am particularly interested in my last question posted today in my Congratulating thread at http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=895
Please let me know if you don’t mind communicating through email (I have your email already).
I would wish you luck, but I know that you don’t need it.
My congratulations again, and I hope to be in contact with you soon.
Bet Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 17/04/2008 22:20:22
| | | Dear Sandy,
You wrote:
“If a mass is subjected to steady radial acceleration and that mass itself is rotated there is a reduction in angular momentum and centrifugal force proportional to the rotation speed of the rotated mass”
This statement is certainly right if both rotations are in same plane. But in EDH's model both rotations, the rotation of the sphere itself and the rotation of the sphere around the hub are in different planes.
For instance imagine a car driving through a curve. In this scenario the wheels describe rotating gyros which are rotated again by driving through the curve (=hub). The car as well as the rotating wheels are still under the influence of centrifugal forces and angular momentum. I do not see any reason for a reduction of these forces except for rotations in same planes.
Thank you for searching all the bits but there is no need for hurry!
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 18/04/2008 03:58:29
| | | Hello EDH,
Your story made me feel sorry for you. I have a kind heart. If I had been there I would have knocked the guy out to save you. Oh yes I could and would. Except for my first fight in the ring at thirteen I always won, always won hard and quick. In addition to once being beaten up you are quitting the forum? I can’t feel sorry for you in this. All I asked for was pictures. I have pictures of my first failed tests twenty years ago, but you didn’t bother to take pictures of your successes before you scavenged and destroyed them? You have a right to believe virtual is the same as actual. I have a right to believe differently. But you said you had done actual tests, that’s what you said, and now you say you don’t have a photographic record of them. Excuse my none-sweetie-pie languish, but I think that is bull-$^#%&%. You were very gently, very nicely asked for some sort of proof. Your response? You became indignant, clamed you’ve been beaten-up before as well now and begin singing the swan song. My #$&%9# response? My response is: ‘My kind compassion for you still exist.’ “Live long and prosper.”
My best also,
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 18/04/2008 07:13:39
| | | Dear Harry K, and anyone else who is interested.
Sorry Harry but I must disagree with you, it really does not matter too much what the “hub” is doing.
If I think you mean “offset” by rotating in different planes I can assure you it makes no difference to the gyroscope, as long as it has a fulcrum, as it is going there anyway.
In a mechanically accelerated system, as soon as the disc begins to climb, above its centrifugally generated path, which lies just below the horizontal, it is in saturation mode (no angular momentum) and can not be stopped at 15 degrees or any other angle above the horizontal, unless rotational energy is rapidly removed from the system, or some mechanical stop is applied, otherwise there is no return.
There is no balance point as I am sure you realise. Once it has gone, it has gone.
I have spent many dismal, frozen cold nights trying to get to grips with this phenomenon before I eventually discovered what rotating discs in mechanically accelerated systems do. None of this stuff is in books.
There is nothing in the books relating to “Offset Gyroscopes” which in my mind is a prerequisite in the generation of usable differential, which can be converted to inertial thrust. Offset only means the gyroscope is well into its “climb” when one wishes to do what one wishes to do, and does not have to start at 0 degrees, because as I have said it is going there anyway.
Example
Gyroscope offset 45 degrees above the horizontal.
It takes very close to the same energy to lift the disc from this position, as it does from 0 degrees, but it saves a lot of time. (not to be confused with precession)
At this point it is well into the saturation zone, so, and this is the part that many people seem to struggle with, any increase in disc rotation only increases the “lifting velocity” of the disc due to increase in torque, however any increase in system rotation does exactly the same. There is no mass left to accelerate so it also increases the disc torque and “lifting velocity” the same as increases to the disc rotation speed.
It will be obvious that centrifugal force or angular momentum is non existent in this scenario.
I will add that when all these factors came at me one at a time, I had one hell of a job making some kind of sense of it all.
If this all flies in the face of accepted beliefs, so be it.
Newton was good but luckily for us not that good.
However take it or leave it, that’s the cold hard facts, and there is no computer program anywhere except maybe in secret laboratories which has this information.
I actually gave up on the idea of writing a book on all this junk, being too busy doing other things, but maybe I should reappraise the situation, before I give this all up completely.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Skyp T. - 18/04/2008 19:28:20
| | | Harry,
I can’t find a physics book that shows how to calculate precession’s force.
I can’t even find a way to calculate precession’s velocity when I only know spin rate of the sphere, hub rotation rate and their respective radii.
For example EDH’s machine spins at 18,000 RPM, with a hub rotation of 2000 RPM and 4 inch diameter spheres.
It’s easy to estimate centrifugal force produced by the hub but how did you calculate precession’s force?
Skyp T.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 18/04/2008 22:13:00
| | | I agree with EDH that Laithewaite’s device lost weight during the brief moments that each flywheel was forced downward. Even though Laithewaite’s model produced the most primitive form of gyro thrust (using up-like-a-gyro and down-like-a-rock), it was an extremely limited success.
On the other hand, all of the arguments that I have seen or heard against Laithewaite’s limited success have been sketchy, unclear, and not convincing.
Though we know that “up-like-a-gyro and down-like-a-rock” is capable of producing intermittent thrust that can move a device in a fashion similar to an inchworm, it is not sufficient for any known useful applications.
The reason is that any thrust producing mechanism that comes to a complete stop during each cycle (without residual momentum) cannot produce continuing acceleration (even if we use multiples, one can only achieve limited maximum velocity).
The next stage of development in gyro propulsion may be exemplified by Sandy’s successes. Sandy’s machines appear to have enjoyed higher rates of spin and rotation than Laithewaite’s prototype, and more sophisticated return mechanisms.
As stated by Sandy, he accidentally (by default) encountered a more significant level of lift, which was still not sufficient to lift the device, off the ground, and therefore not able to hover or fly.
Sandy claims to have found the reason for the default success, years later, but as of yet has not claimed to produce a device that gets off the ground (at least not for a significant period of time).
Even though EDH has shared the science behind his claims to success, and Sandy has not, both have provided us with means to verify some of their claims.
EDH has provided us sufficient information with which to follow-up and verify the functionality of his prototype, and Sandy has provided us with a verifiable “saturation zone” that we can test.
Sandy claims that once the device enters the saturation zone there is no mass left to accelerate and centrifugal and angular momentum is non-existent. His claim extends to say that increasing either the spin or rotation of the device only helps to increase the velocity of the flywheel’s deflection (while increasing spin in gyros slows the velocity of precession). Therefore Sandy also provides something we should be able to test and verify as well.
Sandy’s response also asserts that there can not be a balance point between the forces of precession and of centrifugal momentum.
However, I think there is a factor that can bring reconciliation to these 2 different points of view.
That factor is the judicious use of DEADWEIGHT MASS (which we often consider as nuisance)!!
Example:
Take a very small flywheel with a heavy frame that provides 3, 4, 5, or up to 100 times the mass of the spinning flywheel in deadweight mass.
I am certain that increasing system rotation will cause centrifugal momentum to overcome the force of “upward” deflection at some point in such a system (and consequently a natural balance point should also exist).
Case Closed…? only from a practical aspect.
We still need to resolve the conundrum of “SATURATION” as explained by Sandy, if we want the theory to be complete.
Though I have been chastised before for speculating, and accused of making false statements, I reserve the right to speculate; even if my speculations are not accurate they may at times initiate discussions that can lead to the correct facts.
Therefore, in the near future I will speculate about the mysterious disappearance of centrifugal momentum etc from spinning flywheels subjected to radial rotation etc.
Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 18/04/2008 23:42:31
| | | Dear Sandy, Luis and all others who are interested,
First, it's a shame that EDH do not want to post here anymore in this forum. We all should be grateful that he has shared so much of his knowledge about his invention. I'm also grateful to all others here who share their knowledge and experiences, especially to Sandy.
But if somebody states that he found a possibility to achieve propulsion thrust AND provides his theory in addition, we should try to prove or disprove his arguments in a objective manner, but we should not denote his stated theory beforehand as to be absurd without any proven argument. Only my two cents worth.
Sandy, I'm also sorry that I must disagree with you. What you describe as "saturation zone" may be true for less precession velocities, but at the end there are mass points which are moving more or less complex in one or more directions at the same time. Thus the dead weight of a gyro must ever be considered for all kinds of accelerations. I have already tried to explain this issue to Glenn in an other thread.
Imagine a gyro system as described by EDH, i.e. an overhung (offset?) spinning gyro will be rotated around a hub. What happens if the rotation velocity around the hub would be far greater than the spinning velocity of the gyro itself? Your answer might be that the gyro "climbs" very fast in its angular- and centrifugal free saturation zone.
But I would say that in such a scenario the dead mass of the gyro has the preponderance and therefore the centrifugal force as well as the angular momentum around the hub will be more relevant than the saturation zone of the less spinning gyro.
If this is true and I'm sure it is, than it will be also true that there is a balance point where the centrifugal force of the dead gyro mass is equal to the deflection torque (saturation) that is caused by forced precessing around the hub.
To prove my statements, you could also imagine that the gyro is placed at the center of hub and that there is mounted a dead mass in a distance at one axle of the gyro. In this scenario, the centrifugal force and the angular momentum are acting only at the mounted mass and the gyro precesses without the influence of its own dead mass around the hub.
The effect would however be the same, the deflection movement (saturation) caused by forced precessing would be balanced by the centrifugal force of the rotating mounted mass.
I believe Luis thoughts are going in same direction.
Best regards,
Harry K.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 18/04/2008 23:57:48
| | | Hello Skyp,
How I make this calculations? Please understand that I don't want to reveal my findings at the moment. However, the calculations are based on more or less simple common physical equations. ;-)
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 19/04/2008 18:59:38
| | | The laws of motion are assumptions through which man has been able to increase his understanding, and expand his capabilities.
Saying that radial acceleration of spinning objects enter a “Saturation” zone where there is no mass left to accelerate is a similar type of assumption based on a perspective (right or wrong).
The reason for this assumption is that if there is no mass to accelerate then there is no centrifugal force and we can also eliminate angular momentum. And this seems to agree with some observations.
However this assumption does not sit well or eliminate the effect of the mass (which is supposed to be missing) upon momentum etc when the entire device is moved in a straight line (think about it).
This assumption may be elegant in so far as it explains away all of the observable angular results, but it flies in the face accepted science and common sense. Mass (an untold number of atoms x 10 **23) can not simply disappear (without leaving behind extraordinary levels of energy).
Perhaps different assumption may be more elegant with a better fit within the realm of accepted science and common sense, by focusing on just modifying a dynamic factor in a less radical manner (rather than eliminating physical mass).
Suppose we rationally rule or assume that multiple centrifugal momentums “blend” into the overriding object (the flywheel) when mixed, rather than continuing to exist as independent momentums.
(This is what occurs with multiple linear momentums on an object.)
Thus the centrifugal momentum of the system (or hub) becomes absorbed (blended) into the centrifugal momentum of the spinning flywheel (or sphere). The forces that result from the centrifugal momentum then also become embodied into the flywheel.
If this new assumption were correct, then the centrifugal effect of the hub becomes embodied into momentum in the flywheel (even though in directions other than its natural direction (refer to “rules of stable spin” in http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=611).
This (not too radical) rule provides a model that can explain the absence (or reduction) of centrifugal action around the hub, without need to embrace radical unlikely assumptions that require mass to cease existing (even if in a figurative way). It also explains the apparent lack of angular momentum around the hub. And finally, it sits well with any linear mass and momentum of the device as a whole.
(Here is a couple of interesting questions: would this mean that the hub rotation contributes to the spin velocity when both spin and rotation are aligned, or only when they produce some resistance to each other due to misalignment of their axis?)
We have different basic assumptions that explain certain behaviors.
Which one explains more observable effects?
The concept of “Saturation” is born out of considering change in mass.
The alternate concept of “blending” or combining is born out of considering interactions of momentums.
It seems more appropriate to address phenomena that arise during “angular” interactions through “angular” causes, effects, assumptions, or exceptions.
If we try to address angular phenomena by affecting larger encompassing factors or variables (e.g. mass) we create a host of unanswered questions and must contend with a mystery that cannot fit well.
Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 19/04/2008 19:55:47
| | | Poor Harry, who is only now beginning to sense that Hawkins is a low grade moron incapable of understanding cause and effect and working from the center out and explanations of coordinate vectors for mass points. It must be near exasperating to attempt to explain these things to the idiot Hawkins considering that small children catch on faster than Hawkins. And worse for poor Harry, is that the idiot American keeps insisting for the fourth time that he understands. Let’s hope our friend Harry can keep his composure a little longer and not give up on, Hawkins. While I’m here he wants me to ask somebody if action and reaction is the same thing as point mass. I think Hawkins is going to attempt to impress Harry with this new expanded cranium if he can get an answer. Laugh Harry. The jokes on me. EDH will come back when he wants, not when we want him to. I have it on good authority he is a man. He doesn’t require baby-sitting. EDH could eat some of us for breakfast if he ever felt challenged. I should worry about my own competence and capabilities. Feeling happy and sort of goofy. See you in the funny papers. Now don’t get sore.
My work has exploded, literarily, after twenty years of searching. Erika! Erika! today for me.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 19/04/2008 21:32:19
| | | Dear Harry,
I agree with your statements about EDH.
Yes I have been saying so… starting with my response to you of 09/04/2008 19:58:29 in this thread, where I tried to convince you that a “balance point” is possible when you take into account the deadweight of the motor that is inside the sphere and is heavier than the sphere.
I reiterated it on my posting of 18/04/2008 22:13:00 where I stated that the judicious use of deadweight mass is the factor that can produce a balance between centrifugal and force of deflection.
I had no doubt you would be able to understand it.
You may also find some interesting thoughts regarding an alternatives to Sandy’s concepts of “saturation” and “no mass left to accelerate”, in my posting above on 18/04/2008 22:13:00.
In my opinion EDH’s claims are the most believable up to now (I have explained why in my other posting).
Therefore the quest for gyro propulsion should be over soon (unless things take a not too unusual turn and then it is up to us to get the technology commercialized).
All that’s left to do is, work on applications, and most important figure out the physics and math behind it.
I leave the quest to extract energy from gyros to you Harry; because I am convinced it’s not practical. In regards to energy production, the only practical application of this technology is to store energy because it will require more energy than it can produce (just my two cents).
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harr K. - 19/04/2008 22:09:53
| | | Hello Glenn,
Sorry if I gave you a reason to be offended. Anyway, continue with such kind of postings if you feel better afterwards. Nobody is bound to read them... ;-)
Have a great weekend!
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 19/04/2008 22:30:07
| | | Hello Luis,
Thank you for your further comments. I believe, our way of thinking and understanding is now similar. The question is, how we should continue in this matter?
I'm just thinking if I should put all my cards on the table to be able to continue with further discussions, or better do not? I don't know yet. I need a good advice...
Best regards,
Harry K.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 20/04/2008 17:01:47
| | | Hi Harry,
I am not entirely sure what you mean by putting your cards on the table.
Perhaps if you explained a little about what you have to offer, maybe I can help.
EDH’s wisdom was to not reveal the engineering, just the science.
You may want to start with generalities about what you think you have discovered without revealing much of anything, and then see how you feel about it.
Alternatively you may want to begin the dialog away from an open public forum.
Under the current circumstances, tat the best I can come up with.
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 21/04/2008 07:21:26
| | | Dear Luis & Harry K,
I would agree completely with the pair of you on your comments and reasoning relating to “saturation” At long last someone is asking the right questions.
I chose this word only because it sort of described what was “not” happening.
It is a large pill to swallow but I as I have said before you will both be quite surprised if and when you see this being created.
Harry K
There is always going to be a point where delivery of saturation will not take place, but in fairness we are talking about a gyroscope or flywheel in the normal sense of the word and not a nearly rotating brick.
If any system has sufficient rotation speed and the disc has sufficient rotation speed (this offers a very large envelope of permutations) where either is sufficient to create (lift as some wish to call it) above the horizontal then the effects of saturation have begun and balance is impossible.
I spent months with my second and at that time expensive machine trying to figure out what was going on. My first device did not suffer from excursions into the saturation zone, so I believed there was some mechanism within the device terminating its affinity to enter that zone.
However I was just beginning my apprenticeship in gyroscopes and was totally confused although I did not think so at the time.
In my second I think posting to this site I described my attempts using a miniature (home made hydraulic pump) to control the gyro’s affinity to become uncontrollable and accelerate into the saturation zone.
I do not intend to relate the whole story but in effect I allowed the pump to slip at 250 rpm and jump to 500 rpm immediately on receipt of a valve action created by the first gyroscope attempting to “lift”. I did not realise at that time that it was already too late and the gyroscope accelerated at a much greater rate upwards and inwards towards the axis of system rotation.(as soon as the gyro started to rise it was already in the saturation zone)
I did think that the increase to 500 rpm (4 times the centrifugal force) would drive the gyros out again and give me some modicum of cyclic control of the gyroscopes.
This I just could not believe as it flew in the face of everything I believed about rotating systems of any kind, and started me on a long program of research which eventually led me to the reasons which created the thrust of my first machine.
This was a somewhat convoluted path, and a long way past the gyroscope’s ability to shed /neutralise angular momentum.
Sorry I had to go on a bit there.
Luis,
You are absolutely correct I have never been able to generate enough thrust to hover, but it is well within the realms of possibility providing some sophisticated electro-mechanical mechanisms can be manufactured. They are not so complicated as different, and not so easily filched from existing and available equipment.
However as luck would have it!
I will keep you posted.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 21/04/2008 12:20:34
| | | Harry K & Luis,
To compliment my previous posting, I would like to add the following.
It is rather obvious from what I stated previously that my first and extremely lucky machine was not operating within the saturation zone, but very slightly outside it.
This is the main reason the output was only 1lb from a 6lb machine. Still significant, but not what I wanted.
The idiosyncrasies of the machine demanded for a variety of reasons that it would only operate inside a narrow gyroscope rotation speed band, at elevated gyroscope rotation speeds limiting the possible output.
Gyro rotation speed was about 12000 rpm. Operational band: the top 2,500 rpm.
If according to the claims I have made, that I could produce the same weirdness at much lower gyroscope speeds, I could have produced many times the 1lb of thrust.
The weirdness if I may call it that was a combination of many factors, 3 of them being prerequisite to the production of the thrust.
One of them and probably the most important one, came from a direction which was extremely hard to believe, and very difficult to reproduce mechanically, but such is the world of the spinning disc.
I could reproduce this device again and again and again and it would produce the same results, every time. That is how consistent it was, so do not let physics and negative predictions hold you back, it can be done, and not necessarily the way I have done it.
Due to certain unforeseen circumstances I have been curtailed in the completion of my last machine, which I predicted would be completed some time ago.
If this thing does not produce what I want it to produce, I am calling it a day, and ceasing to be a hermit. I will divulge all at that time, and some other person with masochistic tendencies can finish the job.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 21/04/2008 19:18:21
| | | Dear Sandy,
Thank you for your postings.
I am glad to see that we may be getting closer to a meeting of the minds.
Perhaps one day we will meet and share war stories about the quest for gyro propulsion.
Is your first successful machine the one that appears I this website?
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 22/04/2008 06:30:06
| | | Luis, Harry K and other interested parties.
In answer to your question Luis, the very weary and tatty device shown was my first device.
I gather by now you are asking why it took me so long to find out why my very first machine worked, and why it has all taken so long.
Unfortunately it was gyroscopes and there is nothing quite like gyroscopes in the engineering world.
I knew from that machine that it could be done, and that is really what mattered, and there would be no turning back, as this was much too important for that.
It took me 12 years to find out the basic facts by experimentation and a process of elimination.
In the meantime machine number 2 was a quality built example of my original machine, better built, more power, and variable speed electric drives.
This is the device on which I attempted to control the gyroscopes using the hydraulic pump/motor, but to no avail, but it did reveal to me the dreaded saturation zone, and loss of angular momentum as rotation speeds increased.
Unfortunately, a person in this situation tends to assume certain facts and invariably goes heading off at a tangent, and I was no exception. I assumed that, rightly or wrongly the device was undergoing some kind of oscillation and my thinking was that the gyroscopes were somehow being drawn in and expelled in a cyclic pattern. I decided that I would help the process along by rotating the gyroscopes around a fixed cam so that they were both pulled in then released from the cam once every rotation of the device.
The Strachan machine worked on a similar principle so there was a fair chance that’s where it was at. In reality I was clutching at straws.
This device proceeded to do 20 consecutive and positive runs out of 20 and earned a laboratory test report which proved it.
Great stuff but this only added to the confusion and took me further away from the truth.
At the time it seemed that up like a gyroscope down like a brick was the way to travel.
The cam operated system worked all right I had proof of that, so that approach to the problem had to be correct.
The next logical approach was the spherical machine recently discussed on this site.
It had everything going for it, and like EDH, I was positive that this would be the end of the road. The spheres did exactly as hoped but the performance of the machine was a non event.
I now had 2 types of machine which worked successfully and I did not know how or why either worked.
From the cam operated machine I designed and built dozens of other machines which all operated successfully but not much better than the original, but they were consistent. I sort of figured out how and why they worked, but I estimated that they were not going to be large power producers, and lost interest in them.
I continued to build and test machines, learning a little bit more all the time, until eventually the penny dropped. There were several factors built into the first machine purely for the sake of expediency, which when combined allowed the device to work, smoothly and consistently, and only ever failed me when some other peripheral part of the device failed. My home built centrifugal clutch was one, which if it got hot tended to lose its friction linings. I should have used Araldite Heavy Duty epoxy.
I have tested part gyroscopes, dog-bone gyroscopes, in fact about every conceivable permutation of shape with no more success than already achieved.
I have tested just about every offset angle imaginable, but in the case of gyroscopic offset, I started to gain at last. The offset angle I found is very important in helping the machine to work and strange as it may seem also control the direction of thrust.
There are another couple of extremely important factors required to produce good thrust, one is easily catered for the other is a mechanical nightmare, which will be overcome very soon. I have spent the last few years sorting that one out.
This so called mechanical nightmare when overcome will make all the difference between a unique conversation piece and a 2 or 3G space vehicle.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 22/04/2008 10:55:20
| | | Dear Sandy and Luis,
Thank you for your detailed comments. At the moment I have unfortunately less time but I will write my comments as soon as possible
Sandy, where can I find more details about the design of your first machine? The search function here int the forum is really poor.
More information would be helpful for better understanding of the origin of the lifting force. I have an idea... ;-)
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/04/2008 12:58:21
| | | Dear Sandy,
Forgive me for not joining in. I am overwhelmed with my own work. I hope to add my two pennies later. I will not miss the depth of your writing. That will require time and intensity. Meanwhile Louis and Harry are putting their best into it. Good show. Congratulations to these efforts.
Regards Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 22/04/2008 13:00:52
| | | Harry K
In answer to your question Harry,
It was about 15 inches in diameter, gyros were just over 3 inches in diameter just over 1lb in weight, (originally brass, but it also worked well with aluminium)
Original machine rotation speed 325 rpm, gyro rotation speed 12000rpm.
The angle on the machine, was eventually set at 51.3 degrees above the horizontal or tan 1.25 give or take a bit.
I’ll try to get some information for you Harry,
I have some photographs taken by Grampian TV when they did a half hour program about the device.
If I get a moment I will scan them and see how they look in digital format.
If I had time my intention was to turn the VHS tape of the program into digital format onto a DVD. That would have been better for you, as the machine is seen running a couple of times on it.
Prof Eric Laithwaite also appeared on the program.
He also rotated his large gyroscope around his head, which incidentally was spun up by your truly.
I will give you the complete spec Harry, as I am very curious to see if you can come up with the reasons why it worked.
If you do you are pretty sharp.
That will keep you going for a bit methinks.
Sandy
PS
If you speak awfully nicely to Webmaster Glenn, he may have some stuff on this as he approached Grampian TV for permission to use it, when he first set up this website. I gave him my permission so I assume he got something from them.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 22/04/2008 13:05:00
| | | Dear Glenn,
It seems as if frustration is creeping into the act.
Do not be disillusioned, it can be done, and my personal opinion is that there could be many ways that it can be done.
I chose a particular direction but there is no guarantee that it is the best one.
At this stage in the game who knows who is right?
I do think that inertial drive is just about ready to break out upon an unsuspecting world as they say. This time around it may just be accepted.
At this stage in my life, I am not interested in glory, or even money, (well a wee bit would be nice) I am more interested in not seeing all the effort we have put into this thing wasted, and achieve some kind of acceptance.
We must get the physicists to look at spinning discs once more, in an effort to get them appreciate the strangeness of gyroscopic effects, and the implications of those effects.
There is a whole new facet of science here, which when suitably developed will have far reaching consequences in a multitude of areas but especially in deep space travel.
So hang in there Glenn, take it easy, it will all come out in the wash.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/04/2008 14:18:54
| | | Dear Sandy,
Thank you so much and I am in 100% agreement with every single thing you said. It's time is about to arive.
Best Regards.
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/04/2008 20:49:46
| | | Dear All,
“If a mass is subjected to steady radial acceleration and that mass itself is rotated there is a reduction in angular momentum and centrifugal force proportional to the rotation speed of the rotated mass”
Surely ‘Kidd’s Law’ is true and economically stated and so shouldn’t be altered. There can’t be a disagreement by gyroscopically enlighten people, but for me to accept it into my mechanics I must expound on it.
I believe the full load of momentum and centrifuge is there, except the ‘effect’ of them is countered by torque reactions in the complicated deflections that seem to push inward from the outer. The opposite is true in centripetal, which pulls the outward inward. And so the ‘effects’ of angular momentum and centrifuge are reduced. By stating these conditions as countered effects and as ‘as if’, we do not detour from accepted physics, and yet the original statement is still true. For a better understanding of how this all might work go to THE THEORY OF EXTERIOR-FORCE ACTING ON CENTRIFUGE, currently at page 6, third post, first and second threads.
Hello Harry, from your 17/04/2008 22:20:22 statements above your sentences are clear, but I don’t understand.
You say of Sandy’s statement: ”This statement is certainly right if both rotations are in same plane.”
If you speak of parallel rotations, but one inside the outer rim of the other, I don’t understand why there would be a reduction.
“But in EDH's model both rotations, the rotation of the sphere itself and the rotation of the sphere around the hub are in different planes.”
What is meant to be deuced from this reference?
”For instance imagine a car driving through a curve. In this scenario the wheels describe rotating gyros, which are rotated again by driving through the curve (=hub). The car as well as the rotating wheels are still under the influence of centrifugal forces and angular momentum. I do not see any reason for a reduction of these forces except for rotations in same planes.”
Here I smile and nod my head in both appreciation and sympathy. Your wonderful training is getting in your way. Sandy’s Law is true and it makes no academic sense. He keeps saying that in so many words. We discover these things by doing hand’s on experiments and everyone who does enough of them comes into complete agreement with one another. Try the THEORY POST above. Maybe that will help.
So now we understand the saturation zone. A precessing mass has lost some of its effects as they are deflected away, I think inwardly as Sandy says. What I don’t understand is how this lose and overriding lift, instead of a kind of equal oscillating force up and down on the main drive. What goes up must come down some way, or another? I’m talking about force coming down on the main drive.
Harry you said, ‘Thus the dead weight of a gyro must ever be considered for all kinds of accelerations.’
Yes, but also to be considered is that the greater the angular momentum the greater amount of dead weight can be overcome. You need only add limited weight to the freely circling axel outward from the pivot in the toy to see the deadweight is comfortably carried, but faster. So while dead weight must be considered for all the understood reasons, if the weight is within a kind of gyroscopic balance the only effect I can see is precession is faster and lift is faster. Crazy? Well… the thing’s none seemingly rational actions and conditions is what attracted all of us in the first place. What are the numbers? That’s what your good at.
Harry, “To prove my statements, you could also imagine that the gyro is placed at the center of hub and that there is mounted a dead mass in a distance at one axle of the gyro. In this scenario, the centrifugal force and the angular momentum are acting only at the mounted mass and the gyro processes without the influence of its own dead mass around the hub.”
You have described the gimbals experiment. It seems to me that gravity acts as an applied force on all masses and whether the mass is levered by extended gyro, or extended dead weight precession takes place. In the gimbals everything is extremely simplified and easy, I will say immediately easy to understand, but when we extend the gyro out from a pivoting axel we fall into the trap that keeps us here.
I will tell you the origin. It is not the axes of the spinning disk. The disk is only an inertial batter of stored energy in motion. The energy is not depleted from the disk when the axes of rotation is tilted, except from a small increased friction on the bearings. All the energy there is is in perfect balance in the flywheel and otherwise stays there. The origin of discussion is when the gyro would be subjected to arch that is ‘partially rotate’ around its pivot point. All the energy absorbed is from either gravity, or in the case of applied force in the horizontal then from the source of applied force. To find the origin of energy being used we have to ask from where is the energy depleted. It is in the right angle points relative to rotation. That is where the conversions take place. You may have it that the origin is the pivotal area. That’s ok. Whatever works and I sort of favor that when I’m working from inter toward outer. Believe it or not there are other ways to conceive and analyze these actions. By the way, you sometimes explain enlightening things for me to think about. Good.
“Mass (an untold number of atoms x 10 **23) can not simply disappear (without leaving behind extraordinary levels of energy).”
Well done, Luis. I suggest we consider that the ‘effects’ of mass in circular motion disappear from obvious realization into conditions of equal and opposite, because the effects are countered in some way, perhaps as in the ‘THEORY POST’ mentioned above. Saturation ‘that we have all witnessed’ can then be true without defying your above true statement.
This might help. In the gyro extended by an axel, when force is applied to cause it to pivot in any direction by any means, deflections occur at nearly an absolute perfect right angle to the motion of the flywheel. Some of the particles are forced to accelerate sideways to rotation. Those areas of the rim of the flywheel resist being accelerated sideways and the resistance is greatly enhances by the force of angular momentum. Once the sideways acceleration of particles has begun they are rotated to another potion of the rim where they release as if colliding sideways to the spin of the flywheel. There is your time-delay occurring from one space to another point in space. It is infinitely more complicated than that, but you might enjoy fooling with the idea if you haven’t already.
Saturation is real and real hard to believe. Sandy owns it. I wouldn’t want that apostrophe hanging around my neck. I’m living with enough confusion at the moment to almost go mad as it is. Ha, Ha Sandy.
Men this is all I could do now. Sandy deserved that his hard fought for finding and explanation be explored by all of us and the fact its self needs to be further and more fully explored. You’re all doing a great job. I am really on to something different and have to get back to it. Keep it up please.
Sandy is it true the faster you rotate, or faster revolve the greater is the inward force? Wow!
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/04/2008 22:52:48
| | | Excuse me. I realized I must add.
“You can’t accelerate no mass.” Right. As in you can’t accelerate 'accelerated effects' that are held in check and not allowed to act. You can only accelerate what is, not what isn’t. In our gyro the more you increase accelerating effects, the more you accelerate, I think much more, the countering effects ‘the pushing inward’ however that works. If I understand Sandy his gyros just kept pressing inward to a greater extent, a veritable ratio favoring inward force. I think. Smile. The evening is near.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 23/04/2008 04:26:07
| | | Hello Sandy,
In may seem that in the, PRECESSION POST, I am attempting to discredit your statements by showing in some situation what I believe is centrifuge. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am suggesting in some cases ‘fudge can act such as when angular momentum is too weak, or a countering weight added is too heavy. Both are conditions of a ratio where dead weight verse the strength of angular momentum and if the ratio is too weak and imbalanced this can cause centrifuge to show itself in a way and for reasons everyone here knows about.
In retrospect I see the PRECESSION POST is not clear. I mean to say that the circle of acting deflection like forces on particles occurring at 90 degrees from the plane of gyro rotation, some in resistance mode, some it thrust, combine to twist the gyro inward vertically and inward horizontally. Your Law is true!
In other situations a gyro on a string will pull outward from the natural vertical line to which the string would ordinarily hang. The longer the string the greater the circle the gyro makes and follows. Anybody can try this. Why is it so? I don’t know. I don’t know why evidence of centrifuge is not curtailed by deflections twisting inward toward the string fulcrum.
I believe, THE INWARD TWIST/PUSH, THE SATURATION POINT, THE CAN’T ACCELERATE NO MASS, are all real and the same thing in ‘forced precession?’. That is why I joined in these threads here. It’s what I believe.
The difference in Sandy’s Law verses examples of centrifuge acting might also be in some strange way gravity power verses motor power. Somebody smarter than me will have to tell me why. I guess I’m finish.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 23/04/2008 12:38:54
| | | Hello Glenn and other interested parties,
Thank you Glenn for you vote of confidence relating to the saturation point and saturation zone.
I do agree with you Glenn that the mass accelerated or otherwise just cannot disappear, I hope no one got the impression that I ever believed that it did.
Anyway this will probably be the most controversial posting I will ever make, but you cannot beat a good argument, can you?
I will answer your other question first, and that is that the faster you rotate either the system, or the discs, or both, the greater the torque reaction and the greater the inward/upward acceleration
I am first of all unfortunately going to cover some old ground here.
I will leave gravity accelerated gyroscopic systems out of this as they really cannot be considered as candidates for the production of inertial thrust, and I will relate only to mechanically accelerated systems.
Primarily, I think that the gyroscopic couple is a myth, at least the way it was originally explained to me, and believed by most.
All of the work is done by the lower sector of the spinning disc as it advances due to mechanical system acceleration. There is no couple just a larger differential in accelerated mass between the upper sector of the spinning disc and the lower sector.
Inertia itself creates the so called lifting or torque force acting upon the lower sector of the spinning disc which creates the tendency for the disc to accelerate upwards and inwards towards the axis of system rotation, which is at right angles to the horizontally accelerated mass.
This is the path of least resistance.
Eventually a balance is struck as the inward turning force gradually reduces the outward force bit by bit until there is nothing left to accelerate.
The system is now saturated.
However there are still large torque forces acting upon the system which will continue to accelerate the spinning disc inwards/upwards until it can lie with its plane of rotation parallel to the plane of system rotation, or until it meets an obstacle on the way.
The strange thing is that as the accelerations neutralise each other, the system has the ability to gradually transfer the weight of the spinning disc to act vertically downwards through its fulcrum.
This action is of course invisible to the eye and will only become apparent when the disc starts to accelerate inwards/upwards, at the point of saturation so it is hard to determine the angular momentum level generated in the system prior to saturation, without attaching strain gauges etc, etc.
To my simple mind it is the gradual transference of the weight of the spinning disc to act over the fulcrum which is responsible for the gradual reduction in angular momentum and centrifugal force.
This seems to be a chicken or egg situation.
I do not mind being corrected on this one as it is does not affect any outcome but it is not so easy to otherwise prove.
I would welcome any comments adverse or otherwise, although I do expect some adverse comments relating to this posting.
Hints for the enthusiastic.
All of the above are much easier to study in a twin opposed gyroscope system (in the interests of safety) with a fair degree of offset, about 20 degrees or more.
At any angle greater than 45 degrees the spinning disc will be seen to turn more inwards than upwards and the whole issue will become much easier to understand.
I have regularly run systems at 60 degrees plus where the action is much more in than up and the centrifugal force when carrying this out at elevated angles is just not the problem you would expect it to be.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 25/04/2008 02:25:03
| | | Hi Skyp,
First let me say that I like your questions because they help me to visualize how math and physics fit into some important aspects of spin phenomena.
Perhaps I can offer my perspective on answers to your inquiry using the rubber wheel, and the one regarding how to determine the force (or toque) encountered when a spinning object becomes “engaged”.
I will use the following symbols: (time = t); (mass =M); (distance or displacement = d); (velocity = V); (acceleration = A); (force = F); (momentum = L); (work = W); (kinetic energy = K); (power = P).
To start from common ground I will begin with familiar equations and use them to develop answers to some of your questions:
1) V = A * t, = d/t
2) A = V/t, = d/(t**2)
3) F = M * A
4) W = F * d, = M * A * d, = M * d * v/t, = M * d**2 / t**2, = M * V**2 = W
Therefore: F * d = M * V**2
Though these are linear equations they should suffice to explain your questions.
I think one of your main interests was finding the torque from which to derive precessional velocity and other items of importance (please correct me if I read this wrong).
We usually convert momentum from one object to another without need to calculate interacting forces, however it is possible to derive force from velocity and momentum, which is what I think you were asking.
Basically, velocity squared is equal to Acceleration times distance (because M V**2 = M*A*d, and M cancels out leaving v**2 = A*d).
So, if you square the velocity and divide it by the distance of motion (displacement) you are left with the Acceleration (the math is not too hard).
From there it’s easy to obtain force. However be careful when you try to derive torque for mechanically driven devices. To get a handle on this issue, see my posting entitled “Systems: Gravity-Torque Vs Motor-Torque - Center-Mount Vs Offset-Mount” at: http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=768, for more information about torque. I hope you don’t find it too confusing.
I know that calculation results, using the priitive methods I describe above, are not going to be exact, but you will have approximations with the right order of magnitude; a little tweaking should get you very close to the right answer.
Perhaps someone else in this forum can help or maybe even tell us if I have advised wrong.
After you have derived “Torque”, you can use it in calculating the velocity of precession/deflection, which is a good approximation for precessional displacement or better defined “precession movement beyond center of spinning mass” (see Harry’s definition on 04/03/2008 19:32:41 at http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=882).
You may use the velocity of precessional displacement to again derive precessional momentum, acceleration, and force, using the same equations, but will need to make more complex adjustments that depend on the ratio of spin to hub rotation (I wrote something about such adjustments in another thread, let me know if you can’t find it).
I think this is what you were asking for (unless some else thinks differently).
Have fun Skyp and let me know if you have any other questions; I’m sure one of us is likely to provide you an answer of sorts, just know that the answers may not always be correct (until you have tested them).
Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 25/04/2008 08:42:28
| | | Hello Luis,
I have really no idea what you're trying to calculate? But this is a good example of why we contributors so often talk at cross-purposes. This shouldn't be a criticism, because it's difficult for us all to explain our thoughts and understandings by only using words without drawings (->language barriers! ;-.) ).
If I understand Skyp correct, he wants to know the precession’s force by given rotation speeds? The precession’s force can be derived by the precession’s torque. The necessary precession’s torque to accelerate a gyro system to a defined precession velocity can be easy calculated. I have stated the necessary basic equations already here in this thread.
Finally the precession’s force can be calculated on the basis of the precession’s torque devided by the distance (radius) of gyro and fulcrum (center of hub). However, you have to consider that the precession’s torque will deviate if the gyro isn't placed exactly in the horizontal plane (offset position).
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Skyp T. - 25/04/2008 13:57:10
| | | Thanks Louis,
I found the work equations in my book
I see how velocity and acceleration relate to work.
Its an option to estimate torque when all i have is rotation rates.
Skyp T.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 25/04/2008 19:31:50
| | | Hi Harry,
This subject provides a lot to think about, “in” and “out of the box” (you understand?).
Communicating “within the box” provides guidelines permitting us to grasp even across languages with some degree of ease (there are standard ways of seeing things and communicating).
Skyp’s questions were somewhat “out of the box”.
Your first response was to herd him back “into the box” of accepted engineering methods.
When he approached the question from a different direction you answered that you were not ready to reveal how you made your calculations.
Skyp’s question indicated he would have been satisfied to just find out how to calculate the velocity of precession when he knows the rates of spin and rotation, but has no knowledge of the torque or the precession rate.
In this case the formulas you provided do not address his question because we don’t know the torque and we don’t know velocity of precession.
I am sure Skyp knows the equation for precession’s velocity but it is not sufficient in this situation.
It is okay not to perceive everything as intended by others, whether it is from knowing too little or form having disciplined thinking (within the box).
The important thing is that if one of us misses something perhaps someone else will catch it.
There is plenty of room for errors from everybody.
There are positives and negatives to having people who think in different ways.
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 27/04/2008 02:30:25
| | | Dear Harry,
Can you tell us your estimate for the precessional velocity of EDH’s model?
(You don’t have to say how you derived it.)
If you don’t mind giving this bit of information, would you be willing to give us your estimate for the force of precession for EDH’s model?
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 28/04/2008 22:18:46
| | | Dear Luis,
Why do you want to know the precessional velocity of EDH's model? You know that the spheres rotate around the hub under forced precession with 2000 rpm. EDH's animation indicates a sinusoidal vertical deflection movement of the spheres from 0 degree (horizontal plane) to 15 degree above horizontal plane and reverse. The vertical lifting force at the center of hub is stated sinusoidal and oscillates between +9195.5 lbf and -7949.1 lbf (+40903 N and -35359 N). The average value of this sinusoidal lifting force is stated as +623.2 lbf ( (9195.5 - 7949.1) / 2 = 623.2 lbf = 2772 N) ).
Contrary to EDH's I don't believe that this possible lifting force is caused by the sinusoidal vertically movement of the spheres but by an individual balance point of acting centrifugal and precessional forces at the spheres.
According to this theory, I have calculated the following values for EDH's model:
(Please note, that I have not considered any gravitation forces and additional dead weight masses (motor drives, etc.) in my calculations.)
- angle of sphere above horizontal plane: 13 degree
- vertical lifting force at center of hub: 2633 N (EDH's animation states 2772 N average!)
- necessary precession torque: 325.6 Nm (!)
- necessary mechanical power for rotating the spheres around the hub: 68.2 kW (!)
You see, that my calculations are very similar to the data stated in EDH's animation. The small differences may be caused by small unknown values. For instance, unfortunately I did not get from EDH the exactly radius of the spheres around the hub and also the weight of the spheres (1.05 kg) may deviate a little bit from EDH's model.
But keep in mind the very big power consumption of 68.2 kW for one pair of spheres! EDH has confirmed that the power consumption may be very high.
I think my basic calculations confirm EDH's model, although I have a different view of the cause of the lifting force. If I would show you my calculations, I'm sure you would recognize immediately the real cause of this force! And exactly this is my problem, that the cause of this force may be too obviously for me. Therefore I'm still searching for the failure in the system. ;-)
Best regards,
Harry
P.S. Sorry for my late reply, but I was very busy last week and at the weekend.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 30/04/2008 01:36:36
| | | Dear Harry,
Thank you for your response and information.
I don’t have a copy of EDH’s animation, is there a place I can get it?
The 2000 RPM represents the rotation of the hub by its motor that provides the force and torque (we both know that 2000 RPM is not the precessional velocity).
I perceive the average precessional velocity as only the total vertical upward motion, divided by the time it takes to get to the maximum height (15o).
If the spheres are of 4 inch diameter, we may estimate they are 8 inches apart (from center to center). Each sphere will pivot form the system on a 4inch radius.
In a 4inch radius circle a 15o rise will displace about 0.73853 inches in about 1/66th of a second (considering 2,000 RPM are 33.333 CPS and it only takes half a cycle to get from 0o to 15o).
This translates to about 47.11432 inches / second or a bit under 4 ft/sec or 32 miles/hour.
This is my estimated average precessional velocity, because the precessional velocity will vary reaching maximums at the balance point and minimums at the highest and lowest points (common sense).
In my opinion the sphere’s vertical sinusoidal motion, in EDH’s explanation, results from the balance point that I have been talking with you about.
In other words, the balance point between centrifugal and precession forces (together with the ratios of spin and hub rotation) are synchronized to produce the sinusoidal motion (flutter).
I also believe that EDH is aware of this balance point (he didn’t mention it because he could not or would not cover every aspect of his invention).
So I don’t think we are in disagreement with him about this point.
In this context, the lift is a result of the same cause, no matter how we chose to explain it.
If you don’t agree, please let me know what you see as the main differences.
I also have a statement and question regarding the high consumption of power to rotate the spheres around the hub (68.2 kW for 2 spheres).
EDH mentioned that type of motor he is uses a Kollmorgen motor to drive the hub with 4 inch spheres, and the Etak motor to drive the hub with 6 inch spheres.
From your expert point of view, are these motors capable of delivering that level of energy?
I am rather excited that your calculations are in line with EDH’s because that’s a strong indication that the quest for gyro propulsion is coming to a conclusion (finally).
This conclusion opens the doors for a host of new technology, applications, and opportunities for this new millennium (maybe just for this century).
If you are willing to share your calculations I would be more than happy to take a good look at them.
Best regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 30/04/2008 11:10:19
| | | Dear Luis,
"Thank you for your response and information.
I don't have a copy of EDH's animation, is there a place I can get it? "
I will ask EDH for his allowance to send a copy to you.
"The 2000 RPM represents the rotation of the hub by its motor that provides the force and torque (we both know that 2000 RPM is not the precessional velocity).
I perceive the average precessional velocity as only the total vertical upward motion, divided by the time it takes to get to the maximum height (15o)."
I have a different approach in my theory. I do not consider the vertical upward precession velocity because this motion changes between a maximum and minimum value, as you correctly mentioned.
This approach would also not be helpful in any way for my calculations. Much more interesting for my theory is the the precessional TORQUE, because this torque results on forced precession and therefore it can be easy calculated with appropriate formulas.
"If the spheres are of 4 inch diameter, we may estimate they are 8 inches apart (from center to center). Each sphere will pivot form the system on a 4inch radius."
The spheres in EDH's animation are of 2,5 inch diameter. I have estimated the hub-radius of 6 inch diameter (I'm not really sure because I'm not at home. I'll double-check).
"In my opinion the sphere's vertical sinusoidal motion, in EDH's explanation, results from the balance point that I have been talking with you about.
In other words, the balance point between centrifugal and precession forces (together with the ratios of spin and hub rotation) are synchronized to produce the sinusoidal motion (flutter)."
A balance point means that all acting forces are BALANCED, thus a sinusoidal motion makes no sense at all. You have also to consider that this individual balance point is ONLY caused by the ratio of spin, hub rotation and radius of spheres-hub! Please note that the mass of the spheres do not have any influence to the offset of this balance point. This is an interesting result of my calculations. However the mass of the spheres will have an influence to the value of the lifting force.
"I also believe that EDH is aware of this balance point (he didn't mention it because he could not or would not cover every aspect of his invention)."
I don't believe but perhaps you are right I don't know... ;-)
"I also have a statement and question regarding the high consumption of power to rotate the spheres around the hub (68.2 kW for 2 spheres).
EDH mentioned that type of motor he is uses a Kollmorgen motor to drive the hub with 4 inch spheres, and the Etak motor to drive the hub with 6 inch spheres.
From your expert point of view, are these motors capable of delivering that level of energy?"
I have read again this concerning posting. EDH states that the spheres need motors with big torque, but I'm sure that the center hub-motor must have much more torque and therefore a big power rate of estimated 70kW for two spheres.
In my opinion the Kollmorgen motor would be sufficient for running the spheres, but the stated RPM is much too low. Regarding the Etak motor I did not find any technical information.
"If you are willing to share your calculations I would be more than happy to take a good look at them."
You remember my question some postings before, if I should put all my cards on the table? ;-)
I don't know yet. On the one hand I think it would be good to share all the knowledge in public to avoid that somebody make patents which may afterwards disappear in a drawer. On the other hand I have still my doubts and do not want to blame myself...
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 02/05/2008 20:02:48
| | | Dear Harry,
It looks like we are analyzing EDH’s invention from different perspectives; that’s good because it may allow us to see if our results converge with some degree of coherence (we are probably just starting to scratch the surface at this point).
Please do verify the hub-radius that you used to obtain your calculated results, thank you.
Instead of “balance point” perhaps I should have said that “a point exists in the device where the centrifugal and precessional forces are equal, and this point of balance is a requirement for the creation of the flutter motion (I think the word sinusoidal can become misleading at this stage of the discussion).
Are you saying that a static balance point, where the spin object resides, is sufficient to produce lift propulsion without need for flutter?
In my opinion that’s not possible, lift can not occur without a very special type of cyclical motion.
This (up and down) flutter motion with the point of balance at the center is one part in an intricate set of requirements to produce lift propulsion. The balance point must exist but the masses should not become lodged in it (if we want propulsion).
The balance point of a pendulum plays a role similar to that played by the balance point of the device.
The balance you speak about exists when the pendulum mass pints downward and is in a static condition.
But the pendulum’s balance point can also play an intricate role when we pull the mass to one side and then let it go causing the mass to move from side to side overshooting the balance point (this may be seen as a sinusoidal motion, but let’s not take this example as a replacement of the real thing we are analyzing). This example is just to make sure we see the same mental picture about balance points and dynamics that can occur around the existence of that balance point (get my meaning?).
A more accurate representation can be depicted by 2 pendulums side by side, connected via a rigid road from one mass to the other, so that the masses are always applying some degree of force, even at the balance point.
On the next point, I agree that the mass of the spheres (by themselves) have no influence on the “location” of the balance point (the word offset can be misleading); but even more interesting, the spinning mass by itself CANNOT produce a balance point between the two forces in play, in our given configuration (I will explain in due course).
Also it’s not surprising that when we compare 2 forces (using the same mass on both sides of the equation) the mass cancels out becoming irrelevant to the relational calculations.
(I think this is what happened when you were calculating the balance point between centrifugal and precessional forces, using the sphere mass on both sides of the equation.)
There is a lot more than meets the eye to consider here:
(1) -To begin with, the centrifugal and precessional forces interact with the different types of mass in different ways.
(A) - - Centripetal acceleration creates centrifugal momentum with deadweight-mass but NOT with the spinning-mass, in this configuration (I will explain in sentences that follow).
(B) - - Precessional activity becomes engaged to produce force only with spinning-mass even though the resulting momentum does carry the deadweight (non-spinning-mass).
(2) - Next (rather important), the centrifugal force that results from centripetal acceleration has a special effect on spinning-mass as handled in this configuration (my explanation to item “A” above).
(A) - - We know that when a motor drives a hub round a vertical axis, the motor’s torque creates an upward precessional motion.
On the other hand, the centrifugal effect (in the discussed configuration) creates a force that resembles a strong gravitational pull on the spin objects, when it is above 0o.
Though the centrifuge pulls away from the rotational axis, the net effect on the pivot point is the same as if gravity was pulling down on the spin object, and it produces the same type of torque, when the mass is above 0o. The resulting motion resembles the precession of a gyro on a tower.
This resulting (secondary” centrifugal-created precession occurs in the same direction as the spin but at a slower rate (I will post further information about the possible behaviors that can result, at a later time).
For this reason, it is not possible for a spinning-mass alone to ever create a downward centrifugal-motivated-force, when rotated (as opposed to the way that a deadweight would when rotated in a similar manner).
I hope this is clearly stated?
In short:
a) An angular force is a torque, which when applied to a spinning object causes precessional motion (given).
b) Centripetal/centrifugal forces produce a torque round the arm pivot of the spinning object and causes a secondary precession (in the same direction as the spin but slower).
You can verify this yourself; it causes what Sandy has called the “Saturation” zone. It makes the normal centrifugal effects vanish, because the effects of centrifugal force are folded back into the rotation of the hub etc.
I hope we do not enter into communication failures, as often occur in this complex subject, because this is important stuff. I ask you to, at least consider; …why wouldn’t “centrifugal induced torque” interact with a spinning object, in the same way that spinning objects respond to all torques?
Finally, I agree with you that the hub motor should require a larger torque than the spheres (I will look at EDH’s posting in more depth to see if we are missing a point).
Thank you for the information about Kollmorgen motors.
Regarding “putting your cards on the table” it’s your judgment call. I think that all facets of this new technology will become popular once EDH and his team perform their demo. This will cause large numbers of scientists and engineers from top schools to jump into the subject. They will write journals about the science etc, and the rest will become history.
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 04/05/2008 16:13:33
| | | Dear Luis and other interested parties,
Thank you for your reply. My answer to your posting will be more extensive and may be it will be last posting regarding this issue.
Let me begin with the end of your posting:
“Regarding “putting your cards on the table” it’s your judgment call. I think that all facets of this new technology will become popular once EDH and his team perform their demo. This will cause large numbers of scientists and engineers from top schools to jump into the subject. They will write journals about the science etc, and the rest will become history.”
Noted. Therefore there is no need for further discussions between us “underprivileged” guys from average schools! Or what else did you want to state? Just kidding. ;-)
Luis:
“It looks like we are analyzing EDH’s invention from different perspectives; that’s good because it may allow us to see if our results converge with some degree of coherence (we are probably just starting to scratch the surface at this point).”
Let me allow to make a comment. I could present a physical and mathematical explanation how a spheres or disk model could possibly create a lifting force under certain conditions, but I have still doubts…
You don’t have any doubts that the “flutter” movement of this device could produce a lifting force but you cannot provide an explanation why and how this could work.
Indeed, that are really different perspectives! ;-)
Luis:
“Please do verify the hub-radius that you used to obtain your calculated results, thank you.“
My calculations are based on an estimated hub radius of 127 mm (= 5 inch)
Luis:
“Instead of “balance point” perhaps I should have said that “a point exists in the device where the centrifugal and precessional forces are equal, and this point of balance is a requirement for the creation of the flutter motion (I think the word sinusoidal can become misleading at this stage of the discussion).”
Please explain in detail, why you are convinced that “this point of balance is a requirement for the creation of the flutter motion”? I do mot have any evidence for such a behavior.
Luis:
“Are you saying that a static balance point, where the spin object resides, is sufficient to produce lift propulsion without need for flutter?“
Yes of course. Why should a back and forth movement (=flutter) create a directed force?
Luis:
“In my opinion that’s not possible, lift can not occur without a very special type of cyclical motion.
This (up and down) flutter motion with the point of balance at the center is one part in an intricate set of requirements to produce lift propulsion. The balance point must exist but the masses should not become lodged in it (if we want propulsion).“
How do you know this? Please explain in detail.
Luis:
“The balance point of a pendulum plays a role similar to that played by the balance point of the device.
The balance you speak about exists when the pendulum mass pints downward and is in a static condition.
But the pendulum’s balance point can also play an intricate role when we pull the mass to one side and then let it go causing the mass to move from side to side overshooting the balance point (this may be seen as a sinusoidal motion, but let’s not take this example as a replacement of the real thing we are analyzing). This example is just to make sure we see the same mental picture about balance points and dynamics that can occur around the existence of that balance point (get my meaning?).
A more accurate representation can be depicted by 2 pendulums side by side, connected via a rigid road from one mass to the other, so that the masses are always applying some degree of force, even at the balance point“
I understand what you are meaning, but the pendulum will not moved away in any direction and thus I do not see any analogy to EDH’s device.
Luis:
“On the next point, I agree that the mass of the spheres (by themselves) have no influence on the “location” of the balance point (the word offset can be misleading); but even more interesting, the spinning mass by itself CANNOT produce a balance point between the two forces in play, in our given configuration (I will explain in due course).“
That may be the problem of many here in the forum, that they CANNOT accept that a mass is a mass, regardless the mass is spinning, translative moving, not moving at all or a combination of all of these states. If you still make differences between spinning and not spinning masses, you will never understand my theory how EDH’s device may work!
Luis:
“Also it’s not surprising that when we compare 2 forces (using the same mass on both sides of the equation) the mass cancels out becoming irrelevant to the relational calculations.
(I think this is what happened when you were calculating the balance point between centrifugal and precessional forces, using the sphere mass on both sides of the equation.)”
In this point you are certainly right. ;-)
Luis:
“1) -To begin with, the centrifugal and precessional forces interact with the different types of mass in different ways.
(A) - - Centripetal acceleration creates centrifugal momentum with deadweight-mass but NOT with the spinning-mass, in this configuration (I will explain in sentences that follow).
(B) - - Precessional activity becomes engaged to produce force only with spinning-mass even though the resulting momentum does carry the deadweight (non-spinning-mass).“
Re 1) As stated before there are no different types of mass!
Re (A) I’m curious about your explanation!
Re(B) I agree. However the deadweight will have an influence to the size of the tresulting momentum. And certainly the spinning- mass is deadweight as well!
Luis:
“(2) - Next (rather important), the centrifugal force that results from centripetal acceleration has a special effect on spinning-mass as handled in this configuration (my explanation to item “A” above).
(A) - - We know that when a motor drives a hub round a vertical axis, the motor’s torque creates an upward precessional motion.
On the other hand, the centrifugal effect (in the discussed configuration) creates a force that resembles a strong gravitational pull on the spin objects, when it is above 0o.
Though the centrifuge pulls away from the rotational axis, the net effect on the pivot point is the same as if gravity was pulling down on the spin object, and it produces the same type of torque, when the mass is above 0o. The resulting motion resembles the precession of a gyro on a tower.
This resulting (secondary” centrifugal-created precession occurs in the same direction as the spin but at a slower rate (I will post further information about the possible behaviors that can result, at a later time).
For this reason, it is not possible for a spinning-mass alone to ever create a downward centrifugal-motivated-force, when rotated (as opposed to the way that a deadweight would when rotated in a similar manner).
I hope this is clearly stated?“
Okay, now this issue becomes confusing. In general I can confirm your described scenario, if you would implement also the spinning mass into your consideration.
But you have made a mistake. You are mixing forced precession with “normal” precession. Please note, that under “normal” conditions the hub would not rotate! The applied torque (force) by the hub drive would cause the spheres to move upwards, 90 deg deflected to the applied torque.
But the hub will be rotated anyway by the drive motor and this means, that there is acting a counter torque to the precession torque. And this counter torque was created by the centrifugal force caused by rotated deadweight and spinning mass!
I know this situation reminds on the “egg or chicken” discussion. What was first present? But this may be the reason, why nobody has discovered this behavior in the past.
Luis:
“In short:
a) An angular force is a torque, which when applied to a spinning object causes precessional motion (given).
b) Centripetal/centrifugal forces produce a torque round the arm pivot of the spinning object and causes a secondary precession (in the same direction as the spin but slower).
You can verify this yourself; it causes what Sandy has called the “Saturation” zone. It makes the normal centrifugal effects vanish, because the effects of centrifugal force are folded back into the rotation of the hub etc.“
Re a)
Yes, I agree!
Re b)
Yes of course. This secondary precession will cause the forced precession of the hub! Without this centrifugal force, the hub would not rotate itself!
In my opinion there is no “Saturation” zone. May be some parameters in Sandy’s design didn’t match properly together and thus the balance point was out of the range of his device. That was the reason why I have asked him for more details of his device.
Luis:
“I hope we do not enter into communication failures, as often occur in this complex subject, because this is important stuff.”
Yes I fully agree!
Luis:
“I ask you to, at least consider; …why wouldn’t “centrifugal induced torque” interact with a spinning object, in the same way that spinning objects respond to all torques?“
As stated and explained above, I’m not your opinion in this matter.
Luis:
“Finally, I agree with you that the hub motor should require a larger torque than the spheres (I will look at EDH’s posting in more depth to see if we are missing a point).
Thank you for the information about Kollmorgen motors.“
Thank you for you confirmation!
Finally some additional comments, because I’m afraid you may state again that there are communication failures between of us.
You know I’m a mechanical engineer. All my calculations are made in the same manner as I would do during my normal engineering work. I’m skilled to consider all acting forces on a single part or an assembly. A torque can be replaced by two counter directed forces with a parallel distance. And the sum of all acting forces must be zero in a balanced frame of reference. By the way. A moving or rotating frame of reference with constant velocity will be considered “balanced” as well!
Considering all of these rules I have implemented all acting forces in form of vectors in a sketch. By doing this you see immediately, that a negative lifting force must be applied to keep frame of reference in balance! And you will also notice, that this lifting force can only occur at an individual balance point.
These provided information are sufficient to make own calculations. Let’s see what happens.
Another thing regarding spinning and non-spinning masses.
In this thread:
http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=864
I have already discussed whether a spinning mass may also behave like a dead weight mass. There are signs that confirm that spinning or precessing masses also behave like dead weight masses.
For instance, a gyro cannot move immediately into precession movement by applying a tilting torque, because the spinning mass of the gyroscope must be additional accelerated and because of the mass inertia the axis of the gyro will tilt a little bit. This tilt will be greater if the mass of the gyro will be greater and reverse. However, in general the value of this tilt will be very small, because the precession velocity will be normally much smaller than the spinning velocity of the gyro. Thus this very small movement may be not noticed, but it is still present. And if the gyro will be forced precessed as it will be done in EDH’s device, than the “dead weight effects” will become much more important.
If you have still doubts than please explain, why an overhung gyro will precess only under the influence of its dead-weight spinning mass? According your statement this shouldn’t be possible…
I now will make a rest. If I have time and feel like, I will make a small setup to prove my calculations. Or I will wait for the guys from top schools… ;-)
All the best!
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 07/05/2008 06:31:19
| | | Harry K
You said
“Yes of course. This secondary precession will cause the forced precession of the hub! Without this centrifugal force, the hub would not rotate itself!
In my opinion there is no “saturation” zone. May be some parameters in Sandy’s design didn’t match properly together and thus the balance point was out of the range of his device. That was the reason why I have asked him for more details of his device”
Whether you choose to believe in the “saturation zone” or not, why do you not carry out the experiment to know for sure. One thing is rather obvious, and that is, that there cannot be a balance point. Your belief in this surprises me somewhat.
Do the experiment Harry and you will find out that the “saturation zone” exists in all cases and that there is no balance point, in all cases.
The particulars of any of my machines, makes no difference to the cold hard facts.
If the machine in question exhibits a “balance point” then the effect it is not gyroscopic.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 07/05/2008 18:38:43
| | | Dear Harry,
Thank you for your interesting and provocative posting.
I am working on an appropriate response that’s as complete as possible; will respond soon.
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 07/05/2008 19:24:33
| | | Dear Sandy,
I have to admit that all my statements are based on theory only and therefore I have to believe that you have made different observations and have come to different conclusions.
Beside the existence or not existence of a balance point, I do not trust my own calculations. I'm sure that I have overseen something important and therefore I will take a little break. However, I will think about a simple experiment to prove or disprove the balance point.
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 07/05/2008 19:30:11
| | | Dear Luis,
I'm awaiting patiently your response. I hope my posting was not too provocative for you? - I don't think so, because you are a tough Spain guy! :-)
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 08/05/2008 23:26:55
| | | Dear Harry,
Maybe you should have picked a better school… Just a joke…
However you are wet behind the ears on this one…
The one line by one line rigid responses seem to lack thought-synthesis (can’t perceive the overall idea being conveyed), that’s beneath your capability…
It is a tough subject; there is no doubt that gyro propulsion is one of the most challenging mechanical conundrums of our time.
Thank you for the radius measure used in your calculations and for recognizing what can happen to mass in basic force comparisons.
The way I see it, we are hoping that EDH is right, and applying our best to determine how propulsion may work, so we keep sharing our perspectives.
I am exploring to expand my knowledge and have nothing to prove, but apparently you do. Maybe later I will too.
I am glad that you addressed the fact that in EDH’s device the hub is in full rotation mode when its torque acts upon the spin-object (while under normal conditions the system’s rotation is imperceptible if any).
This fact guarantees the existence of centrifugal action, and now that we have established that, we can follow your and my lines of logic.
You appear to think that the centrifugal force (caused by spinning mass) creates a “counter-torque” to the “Precession Torque”. (???)
The term “Precession Torque” is ambiguous; do you mean the torque which is the cause of precession, or a torque that exists as a result of precession’s motion?
Ambiguity gives birth to chicken and egg riddles.
Something else that is not clear is, where does the “deadweight mass” come from in the statement where you state:
(Harry said) “And this counter torque was created by the centrifugal force caused by rotated “deadweight” and spinning mass!”
I thought, that you had previously said that deadweight is not necessary to create a balance point (I will wait for your clarification to respond on this one).
Perhaps you are saying that spinning mass is the deadweight (even under angular motion)? I can’t be sure!!
I will respond to this very interesting area when I can be sure what you are saying (otherwise I will state my one sided thoughts).
My line of logic is that since centripetal/centrifugal forces exist (as established above), then their effect is determined by the configuration and structure of the device and its constraints.
The spin-mass is attached via an up and down pivot point (given).
This is pivot is the most important constraint because it restricts the motion (caused by centrifugal forces) to only up and down ANGULAR motion which seeks to change (reorient) the position of the spin axis (this is important).
We know that whenever this occurs we obtain precessional deflection!!
Therefore the force generated by centrifugal action also causes a precessional deflection at 90o to the direction of this centrifugal force!!
Coincidentally, this new (additional) precessional deflection (caused by centrifugal induced torque) happens to turn in the same direction as the hub’s rotation (remarkable but not too difficult).
Furthermore, this portion of this set of interactions resembles normal gravitational precession (no “mistake”, no “mix-up”, and no chicken and egg riddle, just clarity to a confusing issue by adopting real perspectives).
(Did you notice the words “AS IF” in my earlier posting?)
Regarding your static balance point that you say causes lift:
As I understand it, mechanisms in a static state of “balanced-forces” perform NO work.
When all the forces are in balance propulsion can NOT occur (didn’t an excellent engineer state this in another posting?).
How does your static balance point escape and produce lift?
I’m just having a little fun… please don’t take it too badly.
I think that anyone, no matter how bright, will have trouble unraveling this tough nut, even ones from top schools.
Maybe ya shadda pic a beta skul… ah mate?
Regarding classifications of mass (Vs one mass fits all):
-Are you saying that all mass is deadweight too, and behaves the same even under torque??
-I say it’s obvious that spinning mass behaves different (from deadweight) in response to angular forces (torque) that affect the spin axis, and regular precession is a prime example of it (even though all mass behaves like deadweight in regard to linear motion). See the difference? It’s that simple!!!
This is true despite how many engineers dispute it. It is a difference about behavior of masses that should be intuitive to people who have carefully observed gyros.
So you see it’s not whether spinning mass stops being normal mass, or not (that’s not the question) but rather how mass behaves under certain specific conditions (the conditions that we are addressing).
That said…, centrifugal produces an angular force when the mass is attached to a pivot point via an arm length…if the arm coincides with a spin axis … precessional deflection results … How many ways do I need to say it?
By the way, the chicken and egg riddle is just a poorly posed question to determine whether some believes in evolution or in creationism (many people miss this).
Regarding why a balance point can be used as the midpoint of vibration or flutter, I have already explained that point. I know you can get the point if you really want, even if you need to re-read with a fresh perspective.
I will start a new thread and explanation how I perceive that EDH’s device may have achieved success.
I know it can be a bit frustrating understanding the explanations of others, and making ourselves understood by others, but I think we can do it if we exercise a little patience, and put a little extra effort toward understanding what others say.
I hope we have not created sore feeling, and look forward to continuing toward a new level of understanding.
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Graeme - 13/05/2008 14:24:05
| | | Hello All,
Has EDH's device been independently assessed and been verified as being successful?
Some of the participants on this forum are micro analysing a device which has not been proven that it works (No disrespect to EDH intended) or what its precise dimensions or configurations are. I understand that property rights issues, patents etc, prevent EDH from giving more details, which can never be a crime. Theory is all good and well, but you can disappear up ones own proverbial backside if people are not careful, this particular post is a case in point, unproven info on an unproven device.
There's a lot of brainpower being occupied on this particular device / issue. All it takes is one dimension to different from the original design, and all can be lost or in some cases found, it can be so much a hit or miss subject.
Graeme
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 14/05/2008 02:26:18
| | | Hi Graeme,
Sorry about the excessive analysis, it’s what I do for a living and I also enjoy it (everyone’s different).
I hope it doesn’t disturb you very much if the microanalysis about what may constitute gyro propulsion continues in this forum.
The dimensions of EDH’s model are just a minor exchange of information; the real quest is for the theory and some of us enjoy the search (others may not).
I hope nobody’s back side is too uncomfortable, and I am not sure what we should be careful about.
Please let me know if you think we are hurting someone in any possible way.
Otherwise please don’t worry about us; I think Harry also enjoys exploring the nature of spinning objects.
I guess we will see when and if he responds.
Just for the record, I have a reasonable level of confidence that EDH’s device is almost fully workable because it is consistent with my model theory (for whatever that’s worth to anyone else).
Please don’t be concerned about how others use their brain, and don’t feel that you have to read everything. Let’s all just do what we feel right doing, and do let me know if you think that what we are writing can be doing someone a disservice.
Thank you,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 14/05/2008 11:16:22
| | | Hello Luis,
Sorry that I did not yet replied to your posting but I was sick in the last week. You will get my answer in the next few days.
Regrads,
Harry
Hello Graeme,
this is a special forum were special things are discussed. Therefore I do not understand your problem. If you do not like this stuff, then simply do not read it!
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/05/2008 14:54:07
| | | Hi Graeme,
I liked your opinion. It is witty and clever and uniquely expressed with logic. What more could one ask of writing here, or anywhere else? Please continue.
You other two also continue doggedly absorbed in happiness as you please, I’m all for that, though I will say as courteously as I know how that I can hardly believe that you don’t automatically know the answer. I hope you are feeling much better, Harry.
Give us more Graeme.
Best Wishes To All,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Graeme - 15/05/2008 23:14:47
| | | Hello Luis,
Thanks for your reply,
I'm not disturbed,
I said "disappear up ones own proverbial backside" this was a reference to the circular chicken and egg argument/discussion in a polite manner, it's a figure of speech which refers to ones head being stuck up their rectum. For example, going round in circles, just like a spinning disk.
As for hurting anyone, maybe a sore brain could result in the self perpetuating circular argument your offering.
Anyway enough of this mind clouding wool.
I notice that you avoided answering my main question, Is EDH's device successful? In your reply previous to my first, you more or less accept that the device in question has achieved success, in your own words:
"I will start a new thread and explanation how I perceive that EDH’s device may have achieved success."
Now this would seem that you accept the device is already successful, and you are offering an explanation of how the device may have achieved this success, newer people on this forum, may take it for granted that EDH's device is successful, I would suggest that this area is for EDH alone, to say if the device is successful or not, until independent testing can verify otherwise. This brings me back to the chicken / egg or bee / flower etc paradox. How can you give an explanation of how you think the device may have achieved success, if the success has not been validated?
Best regards
Graeme
Hello Harry,
Thanks for you reply,
Everything is special in this universe, from the simple to the complex though what is deemed to be simple or complex could be interchangeable, this forum does not have a monopoly on special things, I do like the stuff on this forum and I don't have a problem with anyone on it, it's a free world or so we are told, I just thought i would clarify a point with Luis about the status of EDH's device.
No harm was meant to anyone.
Best regards
Graeme
Hello Glenn,
Thanks for your reply,
I'm not trying to cause trouble, just offering a few comments about fickle subjects, regarding the facts and possible fiction.
Best regards
Graeme
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/05/2008 01:19:15
| | | Dear Graeme,
“Sorry ‘bout that!” But no cigar. Millions of times each year military personnel are shouted at, “Bend over and pull your head out of your Ass!” This is to teach them to stay alert. They are also trained to say “No excuse, Sir!” no mater that something isn’t their fault. Soldiers are being taught to take responsibility for their actions. Apologies are never offered, except “Sorry About That.” which isn’t really an apology, but a humorous, snide and insensitive remark toward another’s pain and predicament and means precisely, “I couldn’t care less.” Solders are being taught to ignore problems, except and see humor whenever possable. “Ain’t no use in goin’ home! Jody’s got your girl and gone, hut, two, three, fore!”
Now let’s get this right. You said? “"disappear up ones own proverbial backside" this was a reference to the circular chicken and egg argument/discussion in a polite manner, it's a figure of speech which refers to ones head being stuck up their rectum. For example, going round in circles, just like a spinning disk.”
The purpose of a soldure’s training is to make men out of boys. There is meaning and intent. What was the purpose of what you said? Huh….. I’m thinking. Well it seems I misunderstood you. I acused you of, “…witty and clever and uniquely expressed with logic.” “Sorry ‘Bout That.”
Chears and happeness and a rousting solute to Graeme, and all,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 16/05/2008 13:41:14
| | | Harry,
Am sorry that you have been sick and I hope you recover soon.
I have been very busy and also unable to write on gyro propulsion for a few days, but am hoping to get back into it soon.
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 16/05/2008 16:27:03
| | | Hello Graeme,
Please excuse my nerved reply. This thread has become very long and therefore it may be difficult to find and sort all stated things.
In short: EDH certainly believes that his design can achieve propulsion. He stated that he has built physical devices which prove a higher sinusoidal upward force and a lower sinusoidal downward force. You can find these information in the latest threads here in the propulsion forum.
EDH, however, has provided only very basic information, because he certainly do not want to reveal his future patent. Therefore Luis and me, assited by critical notes from Sandy ( :-) ) are trying to find a theory, how inertial propulsion may be could achieved with EDH's design.
Luis believes EDH, that the upward force is caused by a sinusoidal up and down movement of the rotated, spinning spheres. EDH believes, that Coriolis forces, which are caused by the up and down movemet of the spheres, are at the end the origin of the sinusoidal upward force.
And I don't believe that the sinusoidal movement could be the cause of thrust. I think, that there exists an individual balance point, where centrifugal forces and reaction torques ,caused by forced precession, are equal. Depending from the angle of this balance point about the horicontal plane, the upward force can be calculated.
I consider this issue more from a static forces sight, but Luis more from a dynamic forces sight. However, I do not trust my calculations and therefore, at the moment, I cannot believe that EDH's design may really work.
That's my very roughly conclusion of this issue. I would appreciate it, if you would like to discuss with us this stuff in the future. ;-)
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 16/05/2008 21:34:26
| | | Hi Graeme,
Am glad we are not bothering you and that no one is opposed to our analysis on this thread. Each of us expresses our opinions with our own imagery.
My headaches come from having to do things I don’t like (not gyro theory).
Gyro technology has many convoluted turns, and communicating about its intricacies can appear similar to going in logical circles.
As I said previously, EDH’s explanations of his device are in line with my model theory, so I endorse it because our findings appear to validate each other’s.
This specific thread is intended for discussion of advanced gyro technology and beginners need to read the rest of this website for perspective (including fair and not so fair content with room for lots of criticism (have at it)).
EDH has already said that his device is successful; everyone else is free to theorize about it and the technology involved in this type of invention (that is what this specific thread was started for).
I acknowledge your opinion and suggestions but respectfully disagree, so I will continue to theorize about gyro propulsion (whether it includes EDH’s design or not), as I have been in this forum for more than a couple of years, and hope to continue.
I hope you don’t mind if I kindly ask that we keep this specific thread for the purpose of theorizing about gyro propulsion as initially intended (it is easier to follow the flow of the stacked responses).
I appreciate your comments and hope you don’t mind asking non-technical questions in another thread (I will respond to questions addressed to me).
I do prefer to spend my time writing about technical theory, instead of about who should or shouldn’t.
No harm meant (I was awakened in the small hours of this morning).
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 17/05/2008 21:27:35
| | | Hi to all,
I thought this over a while back. This is how I reasoned. I post it in hopes that it will be of some use to someone, or interesting.
Imagine two juxtaposed gyroscopes in forced rotation about a main drive motor. The gyros will lift all the way to vertical the same as I believe Sandy explained to us earlier, but never mind. I will concentrate on the opposing binding forces that each gyroscope is independently under.
It is understood that deflection drives the upward arch of these gyros. Consider the axel attaching the gyro to the main drive motor. Consider it to be hollow like a giant soda fountain straw. Insert a single chopstick into the straw. Raise the straw/chopstick to a 45-degree angle and glue it to the main drive motor so it is held in place at 45o. At the top of the chopstick sticking out of the straw tie a string. Hold the string at horizontal and pull it the same direction as would centrifuge pull it. Notice that the top of the straw disfigures toward the horizontal pulling. Notice the bottom of the straw and see a knot forming upward. That is caused by the inserted chopstick prying upwards in response to the vertical pulling. From this we should realize torque is created that would twist the gyro in a downward arch.
Remember that the straw/axel is glued to the main drive motor so that the straw/axel can neither travel in torque upwards, or downwards. Do you see there is nothing being pulled OUTWARDS at a 45o, but that only twist up is fighting twist down? Do you think the same would happen if the axel were free to pivit up and down?
The discussion here is about this upward arching force, verses the downward arching force. Would it not seem whichever is stronger rules the day? Would it not seem a static balance is reached in equilibrium? Can we think of and list any other example in nature where opposite forces do not come into balance. The answer to this I’m pretty sure, is why Harry is suspicious.
Do you see lift by static placement and force, Harry?
Consider two cones in 3 dimensional balanced gravity in space and that the concave openings of the cones face each other and that the cones are welded at a distance apart. Consider the insides of the cones are magnetic north charged. Now consider a mettle ball whose exterior in magnet south charged (That’s not possible, but imagine it anyway). Put the ball in motion so that it goes into one cone and then is pushed out by magnetic repulsion and into the other cone. This back and forth motion might go on for years. I’m not sure. What is certain to stop it, is to withdraw some of the energy in the motion to perform a task of any kind.
Can you think of any other condition where such motion might continue without eventually falling into equilibrium? If you can, then can you think of any way energy could be extracted from such an imaginary condition without slowing and bring the motion under the control of equilibrium, Luis?
You’re right. You aren’t hurting anybody and you are exercising your minds and practicing the use of mathematics. If the world doesn’t receive a benefit from what goes on here, then at least you two might become more efficient thinkers. I thank fooling around on this site helped me. It depends on whether you want truth, or pleasure and mental exercise, or maybe all of these. Good luck. Full speed ahead men.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 18/05/2008 10:28:43
| | | Dear Luis,
Dear Glenn,
Thank you very much for your kind recovery wishes. This (and antibiotics) had helped and so I feel much better now!
Now I will write an answer to Luis posting from 08/05/2008.
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 18/05/2008 14:45:38
| | | Dear Luis,
Thank you for your reply. You have raised some questions and I'll try to give answer.
You wrote:
"You appear to think that the centrifugal force (caused by spinning mass) creates a “counter-torque” to the “Precession Torque”. (???)"
That's correct. I mean the centrifugal force caused by the "dead weight" mass rotating around the hub. This centrifugal force is independent from the fact whether the gyro is spinning around its center of mass or not. Sandy, however, doesn’t believe that this centrifugal force could be achieved with spinning gyros rotating around a hub. Whether his opinion caused by his experiences is really true or not, that's the big question.
You wrote:
"The term “Precession Torque” is ambiguous; do you mean the torque which is the cause of precession, or a torque that exists as a result of precession’s motion?
Ambiguity gives birth to chicken and egg riddles."
Is there a difference between the torque caused by precession and the torque that exists as a result of precession’s motion? I would say input-torque at hub in horizontal plane is equal to output-torque of the spheres in vertical plane. Or did misunderstood your question?
You wrote:
"Something else that is not clear is, where does the “deadweight mass” come from in the statement where you state:
(Harry said) “And this counter torque was created by the centrifugal force caused by rotated “deadweight” and spinning mass!”
I thought, that you had previously said that deadweight is not necessary to create a balance point (I will wait for your clarification to respond on this one).
Perhaps you are saying that spinning mass is the deadweight (even under angular motion)? I can’t be sure!!"
A spinning gyro has the same deadweight mass than a non-spinning gyro. Therefore the spinning part of mass must be considered as deadweight too. That's my opinion, Sandy thinks different regarding this point.
You wrote:
"The spin-mass is attached via an up and down pivot point (given).
This is pivot is the most important constraint because it restricts the motion (caused by centrifugal forces) to only up and down ANGULAR motion which seeks to change (reorient) the position of the spin axis (this is important). "
Please don't forget that FORCED precession is acting here! Normally no centripetal/centrifugal forces would occur, because a static force (torque) at the hub would be sufficient to cause the upward/downward precession deflection reaction of the gyros. This insight is important.
Also, the centrifugal forces will not be restricted by the pivot, because instead to state an up- and down movement of the spheres, you can also state an inward or outward movement of the spheres. Therefore centrifugal forces can act in the same way as they would to at "normal" rotated deadweight masses. Think of a centrifugal clutch. The interaction between centrifugal and gravitational forces is very similar, "only" the precssional deflection force is missing here. A centrifugal clutch has an individual balance point, depending on angular velocity, weight of rotated masses and diameter of rotated masses. I'm talking from the same balance point in context with spinning gyros!
You wrote:
"We know that whenever this occurs we obtain precessional deflection!!
Therefore the force generated by centrifugal action also causes a precessional deflection at 90o to the direction of this centrifugal force!!
Coincidentally, this new (additional) precessional deflection (caused by centrifugal induced torque) happens to turn in the same direction as the hub’s rotation (remarkable but not too difficult)."
Please forgive me Luis, but I'm not sure whether you have understood the precession behavior in this context. You are mixing cause and effect issues:
Scenario 1):
A spinning gyro will be rotated around a hub. The rotation around the hub is the cause (forced precession), the deflection about 90 degree in vertical plane is the effect.
Scenario 2):
A spinning gyro is positioned under a defined angle about the horizontal plane of a hub. If we do not consider gravitational forces, nothing would happen, i.e. the spinning gyro would remain at its actual position.
Now we would simulate an acting centrifugal force in that way, that we pull the gyro outwards with a string fixed at the gyro. This "centrifugal" force is now the cause. The gyro will deflect about 90 degree to this acting tilting torque and thus the hub will start to rotate around the hub. This reaction is the effect.
Do you see the difference? You can certainly mix both scenarios but you cannot mix the outcome. In other words, the acting centrifugal force at the rotating gyros would cause a decrease of the input torque for forced precession around the hub. And this decrease of "input-torque" decrease the reaction deflection in vertical plane of about 90 degree of the spheres. At a defined value of this centrifugal force, the "input-torque" of forced precession will be zero. If this is the case, the gyro system is balanced.
That's my theory, how things work in this context.
You wrote:
"Regarding your static balance point that you say causes lift:
As I understand it, mechanisms in a static state of “balanced-forces” perform NO work.
When all the forces are in balance propulsion can NOT occur (didn’t an excellent engineer state this in another posting?).
How does your static balance point escape and produce lift?"
Sorry, I didn't explain this issue well enough. When I state "balance", then balance of movement is meant. Consider the game tug of war. If both parties pull the cord with same size of forces, the system movement is balanced, however big forces are acting in the system. Now consider, that the cord would be fixed in the middle between both parties on the ground, i.e. both parties would pull the both half cords under an angle. Now there are acting 3 forces:
2 forces under an angle in counter direction, and 1 force in vertical upward direction at the middle of the cord. This upward force is equal to the lifting force in the gyro system.
To consider a system in static balance, so how I do it with my calculations, ALL acting forces in the system must be considered, also a counter force to a possible lifting force. This counter force is necessary to keep the system in balance. I f there is no lifting force present in reality, the value of this counter force would become zero.
You wrote:
"Regarding classifications of mass (Vs one mass fits all):
-Are you saying that all mass is deadweight too, and behaves the same even under torque??"
Yes this is correct. I have explained this already above.
You wrote:
-I say it’s obvious that spinning mass behaves different (from deadweight) in response to angular forces (torque) that affect the spin axis, and regular precession is a prime example of it (even though all mass behaves like deadweight in regard to linear motion). See the difference? It’s that simple!!!"
Maybe that's simple for you but not me. If there would be a difference between angular movement and linear movement for masses, why is it possible to interchange a mass between angular and linear motion? Cut the string of a rotated mass and angular movement will be converted completely into linear movement! It's that simple!!
You wrote:
"This is true despite how many engineers dispute it. It is a difference about behavior of masses that should be intuitive to people who have carefully observed gyros.
So you see it’s not whether spinning mass stops being normal mass, or not (that’s not the question) but rather how mass behaves under certain specific conditions (the conditions that we are addressing). "
Please reconsider what's true. ;-)
I agree to your last sentence. You indeed have to consider how mass behaves under certain specific conditions. It will be always a mix-up between different reactions, depending which acting forces or torques a dominating under a certain condition.
For instance consider a non-spinning gyro. This gyro will be rotated with 5000 rpm around a center (hub) similar like a centrifugal clutch. I hope you agree, that centrifugal forces will act on the non spinning gyro in the same way as on a deadweight mass?
Now start to spin the gyro during his 5000 rpm rotation to 10000 rpm.
What will happen? Which forces will be dominant? The already existing centrifugal force or the precessional force? Does the gyro change his mind and thinks "oh, I'm now a spinning gyro and not only deadweight mass and therefore centrifugal forces don't have now any influence to my behavior!“?
Sorry for this joke, however, I think this hits the bull's eye. There is no black and weight, no "angular moved mass" or "linear moved mass". It's always a mix-up of both.
I hope I could explain my sight regarding the possible function of EDH's design a little bit better. Anyway, deep in my heart I have the feeling that this design will not work at all. I think this design is too easy and therefore unlikely, that nobody has revealed it till now. And thus there must be mistakes in my calculations. Blame on me...
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 18/05/2008 14:59:54
| | | Sorry I have detected several mistakes in my previous posting. I hope you can read it nevertheless.
The most bad one: "black and weight" must be read as "black and white".
:-(
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 19/05/2008 06:47:43
| | | Dear Harry,
My very first machine was built on the principle that there was no loss of angular momentum when the gyroscope had the ability to carry itself up to an angle of 51 and a bit, degrees above the horizontal.
To be honest I never gave it a thought.
The vertical components would then become greater than the centrifugal components of the system by 25 %.
I had no argument from mathematicians on this idea at all. The only snag I saw was that it would breach the laws of motion, but so be it.
This is very similar, if not much simpler, in many respects to the operation of EDH’s device.
The long and short of it was that whilst the gyroscopes completed the action admirably there was no centrifugal force or angular momentum left in the system, so I got no thrust at all.
Newton had his way on this attempt.
My second device was the one in which I used a hydraulic pump to increase centrifugal force in an attempt to control the action of the gyroscopes.
This failed miserably, but taught me many of the fundamentals relating to the operation of gyroscopes / discs in mechanically accelerated systems, e.g. the loss of angular momentum and centrifugal force, the zone of saturation and the absence of any balance point in such systems when in saturation.
So in my opinion is that EDH’s machine may work, but it is not gyroscopic.
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 19/05/2008 22:07:17
| | | Dear Sandy,
Thank you for your reply. As stated already, the presence of a balance point is only my theory based on logical thoughts (in my opinion...).
I have asked several times for more detailed data of your device, however, with no success. To be honest, it could be possible that the design specifications and operation parameters of your device were beyond the range to establish a balance point between centrifugal and precessional forces.
For instance, how was the 51 degrees angle defined and caused by which kind of effect? That's not clear to me. Also I should know all parameters of the spheres, hub radius, velocities, materials, weights and so on. Without these data it's difficult to make any further statements regarding the possible operation of your device.
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 20/05/2008 07:04:04
| | | Hello Harry,
In a system which is mechanically accelerated / rotated a gyroscope / flywheel requires no more energy to maintain upward / inward acceleration.
I am claiming that all angular momentum and centrifugal force are cancelled, eliminated, balanced out, whatever, but the gyroscopic torque is still present.
The gyroscope /disc whatever will continue to accelerate inwards until a large lump of rotation is removed from the gyroscope, the machine rotation, or both, to get the gyroscope out of the saturation area, which in effect is returning some angular momentum to the system.
I must disagree with you Harry with respect to the operational parameters of my machines. Any of them can be put into saturation mode, but as there is nothing to be gained for me in this area, my devices are all run outside of it.
How can any useable differential be created if the device is run in a position where it can not deliver it. This would seem a bit pointless to me.
The 51 degrees Harry.
I tried to explain that at 45 degrees the sum of the vertical components( if there had been any angular momentum available at that angle) would be equal to the sum of the horizontal (centrifugal components) as apparently believed in “the red bricked bastions of credibility”(a phrase coined by one Martin Rose many years ago)
I got greedy and wanted 25% more vertical component which made the operating angle the tan of 1.25 or 51 point something or another degrees.
However I discovered many years ago that this is all junk anyway, because as soon as a gyroscope begins to accelerate inwards/upwards it is already subject to the rules of saturation and will continue to accelerate from slightly below the horizontal to a position where the rotation axis of the gyroscope is parallel to the rotation axis of the device or vertical.
What I am trying to explain is that to chose any angle above the horizontal and attempt to attain it, is a waste of time, as the gyroscope will go there anyway.
However that does not mean that there are not other important attributes to be found in the “offsetting” of the gyroscopes, and operating outside of the saturation area.
I can get into that a bit later.
Best regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 20/05/2008 19:27:02
| | | Dear Harry,
Looks like another provocative posting, and once again I find myself short of time, with lengthy task lists at work and home.
I will respond soon, as I see a lot to respond to. It looks like you wrote your posting under the influence of a high fever. Perhaps you should re-read the entire thread from the beginning to end and make amends for misstatements and for copying statements from others about facts presented. While you are at it you may want to check the equations in your calculations.
I will post my response as soon as possible.
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 20/05/2008 20:57:30
| | | Dear Luis,
It's not my intention to write any provocative postings because I'm writing always the same and this is only my opinion. So it is your problem if you feel provoked.
We can also stop our communication immediately, because I'm bothered about your insulting statements against me!
What is your problem? I have tried to present precise answers to you statements. Please tell me, WHERE I have made misstatements, WHERE and WHAT statements I have copied from others and which equatations I have to check?
Luis, instead of writing harsh and offended postings, you better should bring forward ARGUMENTS. Till now you only wrote meaningless statements or have copied statements from EDH. That's insufficient.
Harry K.
Harry K.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 20/05/2008 21:55:55
| | | Dear Sandy,
Thank you again for you reply. I have reread your posting from 22/04/2008 13:00:52.
Maybe we talk at cross-purposes and do not understand each other correctly. I have prepared a sketch with showing a gyroscope on a pivotable lever balanced at a certain angle. I have also implemented the acting forces/torques on the force precessed gyro, and these abstract forces are the basis for my calculations. However, after the last posting from Luis I'm not sure to present this sketch here in the forum.
If I understand you correctly, you have SET the gyroscope to the DEFINED angle of 51,3 degrees (and locked it at this angle???).
That's not the same what I mean. I claim that there is an INDIVIDUAL angle, where acting centrifugal forces and deflection forces, caused by forced precession, are in balance.
I have made a rough calculation based on the presented data of your device:
- lever radius = 7,5 inch
- sphere diameter = 3 inch
- sphere velocity = 12000 rpm
- hub velocity = 325 rpm
According to these parameters I have calculated an angle of about 80 degrees above horizontal plane. Therefor it's no wonder that the spheres in your design still trying to move upwards/inwards.
Basically you should also consider, that the rotated gyros around the hub will also behave like a gyro itself. It's a gyro in gyro and therefore the gyro system with most angular momentum will be dominant.
You wrote:
"I am claiming that all angular momentum and centrifugal force are cancelled, eliminated, balanced out, whatever, but the gyroscopic torque is still present."
If this would be true, it would be impossible to drive around a cycle with a bicycle without to tilt over! ;-)
Please apologise if I still get you not correctly. Maybe you can send a drawing?
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 20/05/2008 22:06:18
| | | Hola Luis,
I have now decided not to answer to further postings from your side. It does not make any sense for me. So you also should spare your time for more interesting issues.
Adiós
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 21/05/2008 00:29:35
| | | This is not working. It never has. Nobody completely understands what Harry, Luis, Sandy, or myself says. I am telling you the truth. Each of us wonders why we ourselves are not fully understood, though we are well aware that others are very difficult, sometimes imposable to understand. Others can’t express themselves clearly, but we ourselves can. Right? -----Wrong! Don’t you, who ever you are, myself included knowwww that you are not understood? You don’t know how to be understood—neither do I though I can hardly believe it. There is no system, no common languish, no sheared mechanical thought, or way of thinking communicably. If you think I am wrong, you are dead wrong! Some of us have been trying to make ourselves understood for three, or four years. We failed. All have failed. We will always fail at this rate. This even eventually causes animosity for several reasons. What is the solution?
Sometimes sending sketches between us would help, but that depends of the quality of explanations to go along with the pictures. What else would help? This! First stop trying to communicate these ideas. Instead concentrate instead on building a new languish attached to sketches. Start by asking each other detail questions again and again and again—never give up until you understand and until the person you are questioning learns what it is he’s saying that people have trouble understanding and how to explain his pacific idea perfectly and simply and fully and as much as possible with economy.
UNTIL YOU DO THAT! UNTIL YOU DO THAT, YOU ARE WASTING COMMUNICATION AND PUNCHING LITTLE POTENTIAL FRIENDSHIPS IN THE MOUTH, BECAUSE OF FRUSTRATION.
You really are good guys every one of you and smart too. There is not a single BS here. You are meant by your obvious kind nature to be friendly. You just get aggregated with a subject that defies common communication. If nobody starts questing, after a while I will begin.
Harry, you speak Mexican? Excuse me Louis, Spanish! Harry, Louis didn’t mean it. Fuss at him then forget it and reply. He respects you. I hope everybody will start questioning and never stop, until its know what in hell each i
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 21/05/2008 00:53:16
| | | … until its known how each in our unique patterns actually reason and how to design standardize meanings do deal with this. We already have build some standards while I’ve been here.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 21/05/2008 12:40:06
| | | Dear Glenn,
You are really a philosopher! :-)
And you are right. I know it's difficult to explain how you think, because everybody has a different way of thinking. Try to explain a schoolchild how you have learnt to calculate something (e.g. addition calculation). You will fail, because you cannot describe your own way of thinking.
Therefore it's very difficult to explain your thoughts to others and reverse. Helpful for better understanding would here be a common and accepted level of understanding Physics. This basic knowledge would be a good platform for starting discussions here. For instance, if somebody does not really know the difference between torque and force, angular momentum and linear momentum, or a mix-up of both, then it's really hard to discuss constructive issues.
Anyway, I'm tired to explain again and again the same issues with the only result to be attacked by somebody. That's wasted time for me.
Best regards,
harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 21/05/2008 15:44:59
| | |
Dear Harry,
You are right. The more we understand physics the better equated we are to communicate this subject. But there is another way. Physics is primarily mathematical. Mechanical is pure logic based on all the causes and affects we’ve ever come in contact with and were able to understand and retain and later apply. We know how to twist a doorknob and how that causes the latch to slide sideways horizontal? That is mechanical. Numbers aren’t necessary to convey this thought. Sometimes numbers can get in the way. Other times numbers are the perfect way. I recommend we use either, or, or both.
You site a good example: ‘...know the difference between torque and force, angular momentum and linear momentum, or a mix-up of both...’ We four and others know this perfectly well, still as an example it’s good for we are limited in some similar ways to lesser, or greater extents.
Of course you tried to explain. Of course you feel attacked. I smile and snigger, but it is not funny. I've been through it. I’m sorry. And, probably you some times feel like you are conversing with ignorant people. You see! This is how we all some times feel and is the reason for my post on this subject. To better understand my meaning and search for a solution someone, anyone pick a communication you’ve had trouble with and begin to very respectfully question all points of the subject and explanation relentlessly. We can all join in. I know it is possible to devise and improve, until we can write falling down simple ideas. Most of this stuff has become simple by now in one's own privit thoughts anyway. To comunicate will require all of us working together to devise.
Who among us has not read three year old posts and came away with questions, “what did he mean by this, or that, how does that work?” I know this problem can be corrected. Then wouldn’t it be wonderful to write and read and understand almost without effort. Look how far and fast you could go. It just takes one person to start. Ask for answers. I’ll help you.
Best Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 21/05/2008 22:14:31
| | | Dear Glenn,
Thank you for your wise reply! Your example with the door is good, but if somebody wants to know which forces and torques are acting at each hinge in dependance of different positions of the opend door or during opening process with different accelerations? Do you know what I mean? - I'm sure you do! ;-)
What do you think, would it be a good idea to start a new thread to collect basic physical knowledge which belongs to spinning objects and gyroscope behavior or to basic physics at all?
My imagination is, that everyone may present basic equations and everyone can either confirm or provide a proved correction. Thus we could collect step by step a formulary which are confirmed and accepted by everyone.
This would be only one step to improve our discussions here and to ensure that we talking about the same things.
I would be glad to hear your or everone else (also Luis!) opinion. Thanks!
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/05/2008 01:15:49
| | | Dear Harry,
Now I’m afraid to open a door. I’m afraid I'll make a mistake. Ha. Thanks Harry.
Harry: “What do you think, would it be a good idea to start a new thread to collect basic physical knowledge which belongs to spinning objects and gyroscope behavior…?”
Yes! That might be the way.
Harry: “My imagination is, that everyone may present basic equations and everyone can either confirm or provide a proved correction.”
Yes! That also would be really good I think. The simpler the better. Occam's Razor: “When you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the correct one.” --- We may not always be correct by this exacting law universally accepted, but it could be our gold to try to be.
Very separately I would also hope we could learn to use mechanical examples. This has been a great effort of mine and I’m probably suited to help everyone begin to try to build on it. I think standards can be designed as simple as, ‘equal and opposite’ to be formed so that you know immediately without effort how it applies to every single condition in the universe.
Before we make decisions it will be necessary for two, or more ‘more please’ to engage and try and then see if we have any success. I will stick to mechanics. I can follow you well enough I think, but that's what I'm good at.
Send your friend some roses. You’re his chosen pal and a sinsitive one. You must be well?
Best Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/05/2008 19:45:30
| | | Dear Sandy,
It’s nice to write to you again. I just have some commits.
Sandy: “My very first machine was built on the principle that there was no loss of angular momentum when the gyroscope had the ability to carry itself up…”
Isn’t that strange. It is my understanding as well. Precession rise due to your accelerated system doesn’t extract energy from the angular momentum in the gyroscope and yet that momentum is responsible for the mess we’re in. The angular momentum guides force through deflections into a right angle reaction without losing an ounce of momentum. This is an old understanding, but every time you think about it the stranger it continues to be, ‘the use of force without the loss of force’.
Sandy: “The vertical components would then become greater than the centrifugal components of the system by 25 %.”
Yes. It is about ratios. Without attempting to do the hard math I would bet the magnitude of the dual forces you use, angular momentum and system rotational force is correct to your percentage. It would seem that angular momentum must always be greater than centrifuge for the rise to occur.
Sandy: “This is very similar… to the operation of EDH’s device. The long and short of it was … I got no thrust at all.”
That’s very clear.
I know you know, but I do not. How does the hydraulic pump increase centrifugal force?
Sandy: “…the loss of angular momentum and centrifugal force, the zone of saturation…”
We will have to put this in deep freeze, until it can be explained to be understood as to why and how this happens for we who believe it are having trouble with it. I do not doubt you, however as you are aware no one understands.
Sandy: “…the absence of any balance point in such systems when in saturation.
Thank you. That is how I had supposed without actually testing it as you have.
My best wishes & always my highest regards and respect,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/05/2008 20:04:50
| | | Dear EDH,
You have achieved celebrity. Nobody in history has gotten as much attention on this site as you and it couldn’t happen to a nicer fellow. I can’t champion you ideas, but then I know so little about them and so my two cents has the exact value of two pennies. Not enough value to crank a tricycle. The cheep power of my opinion in this evaluation is not awesome! Please ignore it. I know your working hard and brilliantly. Please pay no attention to me. I just wanted to say hi, because I like you.
My respect and regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 22/05/2008 20:23:34
| | | Thank you Harry and Glenn;
Feelings are easily bruised when you are in the receiving end and seldom noticed when you are the offender.
Most people in this site think highly of their own skills and are to some extent well versed on the physics necessary in to analyze spinning objects. Much of it is found in books tough some aspects are hard to find in English (German books take mechanical physics more seriously).
I applaud your effort toward consensus of terms in hopes of approaching a meeting of the minds.
Up to now my strategy has been to persist with responses as long as I am able to understand the meaning in the other person’s postings. When I do not understand the other person’s postings I prefer to stop responding because it will go no where. The problem still remains that the other party may not understand me and that we may not fully understand each other.
Arguments are caused by misunderstandings and can hurt feelings.
I believe it would go a long way to spare hurt feelings, if we took the time to understand what has been written, before we respond, as we often underestimate thoughts that others have put together with interesting and sometimes brilliant insights.
The esoteric nature of this subject necessitates more than one reading and deeper detailed postings often require multiple readings.
In a previous posting I requested gentler responses without accusation of being “wrong” (because we are not often completely wrong, we just express our thoughts in imperfect ways).
I was told that:
“in Physics or Mathematics world there is only "right", "wrong", "false", "true" without flowery phrases.”
In that same posting I asked if they would please take the time to re-read and think about the meaning of what I had written.
The response was sent immediately after my posting, and with a remark that said:
“You see I do not accept you advice and reply quickly.”
I tried providing language as a reason to take our time to understand before pointing and shooting. The response was to tell me that they understood well and that no one else complained about a language barrier.
I am willing to try your method in which we ask basic questions that we may already know and let Harry respond with the obvious answers until we build a list of nomenclature acceptable to a group of us This will not fix problems we have in understanding the way others express themselves but will make the terms uniform.
I insist in responding to the errors I see in Harry’s last technical response to my own last technical posting. I suspect Harry may have already figured out what some of his errors were but it is also important to set the public record straight (whether I receive an answer or not).
I will post it when I find the right words.
Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 22/05/2008 21:41:59
| | | Hi Harry,
I suspected you may choose to stop or dialog before the errors came to light. I prefer not to leave things unsolved, in part because I felt offended by your response and in part to set the record straight as it is recorded in this forum. The correct things written in this forum will be remembered especially if EDH succeeds with his device.
I am very glad you got one important thing right, after I tried to explain it in 2 postings.
YES! The centrifugal force causes the spinning-object to turn in the same direction as the hub.
(Even you must agree that this would not be the exact response of deadweight to centrifugal force. I believe we have different definitions for the word “deadweight”; I will try to clear it up in another posting.)
Further, this somewhat unexpected response (by the spinning sphere/flywheel) to centrifugal force does not help your calculations (which I believe you performed before becoming aware of this fact).
I adhere to “cause & effect” but don’t like it used as an empty mantra to gain credibility while tearing down another’s otherwise logical and sound presentation (I am still right on this one).
While you pretend to teach me about the true effect of centrifugal force on spinning spheres/flywheels (which took me 2 postings to convince you of), this fact also destroys all possibility of your “static” balance-point (that you claim would support propulsion), as opposed to my balance-point (at the center of the a vibration or flutter) that plays a role in supporting the vibration, as I have also stated in 2 previous postings.
Though you have chosen to aggressively claim facts presented by me, as if they were yours, it appears that the information about centrifugal caused deflection (introduced by me and claimed by you) does not fit with the rest of your original claims:
A) You claim a static balance-point:
Your claim that the centrifugal-caused deflection can achieve a velocity that reaches (anywhere) near the rotation velocity of the hub (thus causing a balance point), has a big ERROR!
You see, the centrifugal-caused-deflection can only approach the velocity of the hub by drastically slowing down the spin velocity of the sphere/flywheel (to near that of the hub itself)!!
Only then may your balance point occur, as this is absolutely necessary to achieve your static balance-point. Think about it.
In other word, if spin velocity is near or less than the velocity of the Hub-rotation, only then can the “secondary” precessional deflection (caused by centrifugal force) approach the velocity of the hub-rotation.
Do the math…an engineer can figure this out (as can anyone capable in physics).
All you need to know is that Centrifugal Force is roughly equal to the Square of the hub velocity, divided by the hub Radius.
Derive the Torque from Centrifugal Force, and divide that by the Velocity of the spinning sphere/flywheel to yield the Velocity of the “secondary” centrifugal-deflection, which is caused by centrifugal force. I can post the development of the equation if anyone is having trouble deriving it; it is basically the PRODUCT of two ratios:
1) The ratio of hub’s radius to the radius of the spinning-object
2) The ratio of the hub’s angular velocity to the angular velocity of the spinning-object.
This short equation will convince anyone that (with a ratio of 9 to 1 spin to hub rotation) the velocity of the centrifugal-created deflection can never come close to the velocity of the hub rotation (unless you have a very long hub-radius).
Once you know the correct direction of motion caused by the centrifugal force it becomes simple to see the facts (it does require a bit better than average cleverness). Use the basic equations, develop a formula for the velocity of the centrifugal-generated-deflection, and maybe we can match the theory, to the experimental results as stated by Sandy in other threads (I have never questioned Sandy’s experimental results, only his interpretation and the language he chose to use to describe them).
Am sorry Harry but it is plain to see for those who understand and are willing to accept the facts.
By the way, even after the velocity of this “secondary” centrifugal-precessional-deflection matches that of the hub (by slowing the spin) there are many other factors that will thwart achieving a static balance-point (making it an illusive goal), but that’s a story for another thread.
B) Your tug of war example made ma laugh, even as an analogy for propulsion based on the static-balance-point that you explained….
Harry said:
“Consider the game tug of war. If both parties pull the cord with same size of forces, the system movement is balanced, however big forces are acting in the system. Now consider, that the cord would be fixed in the middle between both parties on the ground, i.e. both parties would pull the both half cords under an angle. Now there are acting 3 forces:
2 forces under an angle in counter direction, and 1 force in vertical upward direction at the middle of the cord. This upward force is equal to the lifting force in the gyro system.”
**
I could not believe that you wrote in these sentences!!!
Please note that in your tug of war explanation the ground is part of the equivalent internal system. Simply transfer the people ropes and attachments to a standalone platform and see how ridiculous the whole idea is. You are basically proposing that someone can lift themselves off the ground by pulling their boot straps at an angle rather than straight upward (plain and simple)… that kind of rigging will not work even within spinning systems… I know that you can do much better than that Harry.
You are an excellent engineer Harry but in this subject you have yet some way to go before you catch-up with so many of the facts about the behavior of spinning objects and gyro propulsion.
We are all learning, including EDH, whose basic design has the best chance up to now, as I will attempt to explain in another posting (which may satisfy some other questions).
I only hope that everyone will then have the fortitude to give credit where it is due.
I don’t mind sharing facts that I have figured out, but I do mind being told that am wrong, especially about facts that I have just shared, and by those who have so obviously learned them from me (and from others in this forum). You should have been a politician with that kind of brass.
This is not an insult in America because it takes that kind of personality to achieve certain goals.
I have responded in kind as was handed to me and hope that we can take the time to understand each other’s ideas as we present them; without underrating each other.
It is difficult to find out the level of knowledge of others. Our lack of understanding what they say is not necessarily a good gauge for their level of knowledge.
I myself have learned that, in regard to Glenn Hawkins because of the way he delivers his messages. I still don’t understand some of what Glenn says but I have started gaining some respect for his ability to think out certain things.
Best Regards to all,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 23/05/2008 00:38:59
| | | Hello Luis,
I have reconsidered and decided to reply. ;-)
First of all, please appologise if you have felt attacked or offended by my replies to your postings. Please believe me, that this was really not intended by me. Your feeling may be caused by my way of writing in worse English language and by the attempt, to write statements as short as possible. Right, wrong, false, true, yes and no are then the result. Sorry, I'll try to improve my further postings.
Before I will respond to your last posting, please would you be so kind to give me the date of the 2 mentioned postings from you? Thanks.
One thing in advance, Luis: you and possibly all or some other readers too, did understand me wrong, regarding how I understand that "balance point". That's not your fault, but mine, because I wasn't able to explain this matter well enough. This misunderstanding may also be caused by the fact, that I did not want to reveal my concept and calculations.
In advance to my detailed answer, the static balance point is not located in the rotation plane of the hub, but in another plane. You have to know, that calculations of static forces can be only done in 2 dimensions (=plane). The hub velocity is essential and must not decrease to establish this balance point!
And I'm sorry to state again, that in my opinion your assumption is not correct, how centifugal force is interacting between forced precession.
And one last issue for the moment: the tug of war example should only demonstrate what kind of different forces may result if you change the direction of acting forces. Of course you cannot achieve any propulsion with that example! :-)))
Luis, you also should be carefull not to state false pretences, only because you possibly did not understand what your opponent tried to expalin... ;-)
Kind regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 23/05/2008 01:01:41
| | | Hello again,
Unfortunately I have discovered a mistake in my prior posting.
I wrote:
"In advance to my detailed answer, the static balance point is not located in the rotation plane of the hub, but in another plane. "
Correction:
"In advance to my detailed answer, the static balance point is located in a plane which is rotating commonly with the hub. That means that the balance point rotates in a cycle at angular velocity of the hub."
Thanks,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 23/05/2008 03:26:35
| | | Hello everybody,
#.-o! I just read some of my old posts only to find I don’t always know what I meant! Everything was so clear when I wrote. By this discovery it is easy to see why we should be and are in total agreement that the subject is often too difficult to convey with clarity. To our advantage we understand this.
I have already asked Sandy for help in understanding his work.
Dear Harry this is for you.
You say: “… the static balance point is located in a plane which is rotating commonly with the hub. That means that the balance point rotates in a cycle at angular velocity of the hub."
I need your help. Do you use the word commonly, to mean parallel and at whatever veritable altitude separations? Do you mean the balance point can be found in some kind of alinement between the main drive and the gyroscope? Is the cycle increments of change occurring at points during 360 degrees movement, or conceived as a total revolution? Please explain. More later.
Dear Louis,
You say: “The centrifugal force causes the spinning-object to turn in the same direction as the hub.”
I know you know what you mean. That much is certain. Can you please explain how you reason this idea? It is a fascinating idea.
You say: “… this “secondary” centrifugal-precessional-deflection matches that of the hub (by slowing the spin…”
Do you believe the spin is slowed by any of the maneuvers applied against it? [Thank you for your kind assment eariler.]
You two are way, way too sensitive, a sign of intelligence, but unrestrained it can bread aggressiveness, the bad kind of competition and animosity. It couldn’t happen to better people. What a shame. You will get over it.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 23/05/2008 09:14:17
| | | Good day Glenn,
I'm afraid I have caused again nisunderstandings! What a shame!
Glenn, I only wanted to explaint that the frame of reference for calculating the balance point will be rotated simultaneously at same angular velocity of the hub. This may sound complicated but in truth this is very simple.
Imagine you stand on a rotated carrousel to make trials. In this case your frame of reference will be rotated simultaneously with the carrousel.
I hope you see clearer now.
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 23/05/2008 09:52:36
| | | Hello Glenn,
I thought common sense had prevailed and you had given this thing up?
My calculations were based on simple triangulation of forces (very simple)
What I had been taught and believed did not matter at all until I got involved in this “can of worms”
I had to do a mental re evaluation of what was correct and what was not.
I became very frustrated, angry, and depressed all together or one at a time trying to put it all into a logical package.
If I had a lot of money to burn I could probably create some formulae pertaining to rotation speeds, gyro weight, radii of gyration, gyro material, gyro dimensions, offset, etc, etc, etc, but every system is unique, so where do you start and stop? I know from experience what tends to happen under certain circumstances and that seems to work for me. As there is no maths to cover the situation I think this is as good as it is going to get for a while yet.
The only way to prove the possibility of inertial drive is to build a machine which can produce inertial thrust and it really does not matter how much as long as it can do it.
Incidentally science fiction writer Jerry Pournelle stated in his book “A Step Farther Out”. “The production of one milligram of genuine non Newtonian thrust means physics is in trouble”
Then provide the reasons why. Maths or any kind of formulae is irrelevant at this stage in the game.
The reasons are going to be at least controversial, most definitely unorthodox, and even blasphemous to the high priests.
However that is the state of affairs which prevails at this time.
Some time ago I think I mentioned the fact that a well built device of mine, when in operation had a pair of horizontally opposed and offset (60degrees) gyroscopes which just accelerated uncontrollably inwards and upwards at a high rate of knots.
My first and successful machine did not display this uncontrollable action, so I attempted to control the gyroscopes, by introducing large lumps of centrifugal force to the system to exact some modicum of control.
The thinking was this:
If I reduced the radius of gyration of one of the gyroscopes about 1/16 of an inch it would be the first to go into precession (I still called it precession at that time) Onto this gyroscope I attached a link to a very precise sleeve valve which closed fully, inside another 1/16 of an inch. This sleeve valve controlled the oil flow through a little twin cylinder hydraulic pump I made up for this purpose. With the valve set very slightly open I could make the unit “slip” at 250 rpm but when closed, the pump hydraulically locked and the drive became a direct 500 rpm. Doubling the speed squares the centrifugal force.
With 4 times the centrifugal force instantly applied to the system I expected the gyros to return from whence they came.
This was my baptism of fire with mechanically accelerated gyroscopes.
Instead of being returned, the gyroscopes accelerated ever faster inwards and upwards.
From this series of experiments was born all the things, which when stated have irritated folks ever since.
• No angular momentum
• No centrifugal force
• No gyroscopic mass
• Saturation
• Variation of angular momentum with gyroscopic rotation speed change.
• Similarity of effect between system rotation speed and gyroscopic rotation speed when the gyro is in saturation.
• The return of some or all centrifugal force, again depending on gyroscope rotation speed, anywhere below the saturation point.
Very similarly to all on this site I just did not believe what I was seeing. I am an engineer and this was impossible.
Fortunately for us all it was not impossible it just happens to be the norm.
Initially with this device and then others I began to sort out in my head, what happens when gyroscopes are mechanically accelerated under conditions of “precession” which it is not, or when there is some if any mass left to be accelerated.
Whilst my statements and claims have been provocative to say the least, I have chosen my words carefully and any other person carrying out experiments in this area, will confirm my findings.
Contrary to what you wrote Glenn, I did not expect the gyroscope to have the ability to overcome the centrifugal force. To me angular momentum and centrifugal force are facets of the same thing. You cannot generate one without the other. But you can apparently accelerate a mass and have neither.
Weird isn’t it.
C’est la gyroscope.
Consider:
I have one hell of a job convincing the faithful to the cause, imagine the problems I have had in the real world where you would think I was promoting voodoo or some outrageous form of black magic.
Acceptance?
For the birds!
If you require any more clarification from my bent brain do not hesitate to ask.
Best regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 23/05/2008 11:14:36
| | | Hello Sandy,
May I ask a question? Have you tried with this device to accelerate the rotation speed slowly to 500 rpm? If so, was the final behavior the same as if rapidly accelerated to 500 rpm with the help of the hydraulic unit?
And another question. How have you measured the absence of angular momentum, centrifugal force, gyroscopic mass?
Could you imagine, that the behavior which you call "Saturation" may be a kind of nutation, caused by the abrupt acceleration to 500 rpm?
Thanks!
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 23/05/2008 14:27:56
| | | Hi Harry,
I see Harry. As I understand your frame of reference is right to calculate angular momentum and centrifuge. How do you determine the force of rise? Would another reference frame, a vertical one, be useful in calculating the force causing the rise? Could one then relate the two together to form simple ratios? Is my ignorance coming to full fruition in this?
Thank you, Harry.
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 23/05/2008 14:31:41
| | | Hello Sandy,
In, or out? I don’t know what I am. I just discovered an observation that proves there isn’t equal and opposite reaction in the precession plane and I have not gone over my anti propulsion notes of reasoning and drawings in a while to bolster my none belief, but the evidence of none equal reaction in the precession plane confuses me. Right now I will classify myself as a confused person. I did miss the dialog here. It is a good diversion and I am accustomed to and comfortable with the contributors. So I was glade to get back for a while.
Your writing is a joy. It is clever and quite beautiful, but then comes this damn technical stuff. The effort and result is the same for everyone writing about gyroscopes. The more explained, the more confusing. We can’t help not understanding one another completely. That is the nature of the beast. I am promising myself as a duty to me to and to you and this long and difficult effort to work with you on this, until we can get the best and easiest understanding of your mind and everyone else’s that can be had. I see some things you said are excellent. How can we sometimes be so excellent and yet confusing in the same post? Please forgive me for I will be slow in responding. Harry has sent me yet another great problem.
Thank you,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 23/05/2008 14:32:49
| | | Hi Louis, Sandy and Harry,
I bought a wrecked car of Harry’s out of a salvage lot to have something to do instead of IP. In the evenings I have rebuilt nine new cars from complete wrecks. That was a long time ago. Now with Harry’s strange car resisting me with confusing, alien engineering on top of I.P. I may finish going mad. Aside from the body damage, which is usually straightforward and simple, there are engine, mechanical and electrical problems never expected. Right now I ‘m trying to find not! what doesn’t work, but what in hell dose work. Never work on a 540i BMW. It is hard and different from anything I’ve encountered. I spent half day getting the un-wrecked hood open only to break the cable in the process. What a mess. Then I couldn’t find the battery. It is sometimes under the backseat in these cars, this one is in the trunk. The trunk won’t close, but just whistles at me. Now the engine won’t start and some BA%$#& has cut out and stolen both catalectic converters. The engine looks new, but as I said like something from outer space. Harry has written me notes on the windshield on how to fix the thing. “cdefghijklmpqsyxwvÑÖ” I don’t know how to work on this car. If I start drooling I’m giving up on one of the two, Harry’s car, or I.P for a while. I don’t know when I can get back to the subject. Pardon me for a little while.
Take care,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 23/05/2008 14:52:06
| | | This site doesn’t translate strange symbols, but only emoticons. To bad. The “cdefghijklmpqsyxwvÑÖ” posted doesn’t indicate at all the strange ‘Area 54’ signs I added, which of course look so alien to engineering. Without the exact translation both the meaning and humor I meant is missing.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 23/05/2008 15:36:42
| | | Hello Glenn,
My frame of reference is a vertical cross-secion thru the center of gyro and the center of hub and rotates simultaneously with the gyro around the hub.
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 23/05/2008 16:24:01
| | | Hi Harry,
Understood. I tried to further simply your description and couldn’t. It’s actually economical and easy as it is. You are measuring centrifuge and angular momentum from vertical movement in the vertical plane? On second thought I’m sure I don’t completely understand. These forces would only exist in a sudden leap upwards and would be weak from acceleration from zero to slow velocity and then eliminated at TDC. Excuse my ignorance and try once more please.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 24/05/2008 00:36:49
| | | Dear Luis,
First of all our discussion should become more objective in the future. We do not know each other face-to-face and therefore there no need to insult each other. If you feel that my postings are aggressive or provocative, then please accept my apologize, because this was never my intention. So if you disagree with some of my claims, then please provide a point by point correction. I will do it in the same way.
Luis, to be honest and I hope you will not be offended again, your discovery that the centrifugal or radial force of an overhung gyro will cause a deflected rotation in same direction as caused by the origin hub rotation, is well-known and no mystery. Imagine an overhung gyro at e.g. 45 degrees above horizontal plane (Sandy calls this “offset”). The gravitation force causes a tilting torque on the gyro axis and thus the gyro begins to rotate around the pivot in a certain direction. If you would help the gyro to rotate around the pivot, the overhung gyro would arise against the tilting torque caused by gravitation. That is well-known and also understood by everyone here.
A centrifugal or radial force would do exactly the same as the gravitation force does, even cause a tilting torque in same direction as gravitation force does and therefore the effect would be exactly the same.
However, it’s really brilliant from you that you have described this behavior right now! I have to admit that I did not thought about the consequences of this behavior with respect to the input torque of forced precession of the hub.
To my understanding, the more the angular momentum of the hub will be increased, the more torque will be deflected back to hub drive for assistance. As a consequence, the torque of the drive motor for rotating the hub should be decreased accordingly. If this is really true, it would be easy to prove this behavior by measuring the amperes of the drive motor: increasing of angular velocity of the drive motor should result a decreasing of the amperes consumption of the motor.
This is a very interesting point with respect to the power consumption of the hub’s drive motor. Thanks Luis!
To your response under A):
I have to admit that I do not understand what you are writing.!?
We both are in agreement that “centrifugal caused deflection” has the same direction as the origin angular velocity of the hub drive? And thus there is only one velocity acting, the velocity of the hub drive. As explained above, centrifugal force (better torque) will cause only “back deflected” torque to assist the drive motor of the hub.
Therefore I don’t know for what your adventuresome calculations are good for?
I believe you did not understand my definition of the balance point, but that’s not your fault. It seems that you try to define that balance point directly based on the velocities of hub and spheres? – That’s not my approach. As mentioned several times before, I define this balance point by static acting forces and torques in an equilibrium. That means, the forces and/or torques which are derived for instance by centrifugal or forced precession effects are considerable for the balance point and not the “movement” itself of gyros or hubs. Do you understand what I mean? I believe this different approach of us both is the main reason for our misunderstandings.
Maybe you now understand why I have chosen the “tug of war” example in this context? Because I only wanted to demonstrate the acting STATIC forces at the rope under certain conditions. And also the example of the “centrifugal clutch” should disclose the acting STATIC forces.
By the way this example is very similar related to the balance point how I understand it!
And with ma last sentences I have reached your response under B)
I hope you now understand the sense of this example? Yes I know, that it is impossible to pull myself on the hairs upwards. ;-)
One last note to your “shared facts”. I admit that I have not read too much old postings from you and others here in the forum because for time reasons.
Therefore I don’t know how much “facts” you have already claimed and shared. But please note that till now I neither “learned” facts from you, nor from others here in the forum, and least of all I never would claim facts from others as facts from me!
Present a proof if you don’t agree, otherwise do not state false pretences here again! I’m not joking, Luis! :-(
Now we should stop this argument and counter argument game and go ahead with productive questions and answers to technical gyro issues.
We should prepare small pieces for better understanding. If desired, I could prepare a new thread for basic calculations.
I will also share here step by step my concept for my balance point theory with all calculations. Maybe I will start a new thread for this issue? This thread has become quite long…
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 24/05/2008 00:45:47
| | | Dear Glenn,
I have not noticed any ignorance from your side, Glenn? Quite the contrary!
Please be patient, I will answer your questions soon.
Best rehards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/05/2008 01:23:56
| | | Hello Sandy,
Sandy Kidd: “had a pair of horizontally opposed and offset (60degrees) gyroscopes which just accelerated uncontrollably inwards and upwards at a high rate of knots.”
Good. Your statement is clear and complete. Out of curiosity may I assume the vertical lift happens at all degrees? Would precise degrees make a difference, say 60? Do you think that if the rise were begun at 135 degrees, inward force would occur the same as from beginning at ninety degrease, or sixty?
Sandy Kidd: ”My first and successful machine did not display this uncontrollable action…”
What was the difference in design? Why would one do what the other would not?
Sandy Kidd:
“…so I attempted to…introducing large lumps of centrifugal force…to exact some control.”
You wanted to control the speed and outward force of the rise? So would I, but what did you hope to accomplish by this control?”
Sandy Kidd:
“The thinking was this:
If I reduced the radius of gyration of one of the gyroscopes about 1/16 of an inch it would be the first to go into precession.”
Why would this have seemed to be so? Please understand I’m trying to help. And so you shortened the axel by 1/16”? Is that a significant distance to make a reaction observable?
Sandy Kidd:
“Onto this gyroscope I attached a link to a very precise sleeve valve which closed fully, inside another 1/16 of an inch.”
You added a hydraulic pump that would extend and retract the axel and radius from remote control? Wow!
Sandy Kidd:
“With the valve set very slightly open I could make the unit “slip”
I don’t understand ‘slip’. Do you mean slide inward/outward at your command? Why did 'open' make a difference?
Sandy Kidd:
“… at 250 rpm” “but when closed, the pump hydraulically locked and the drive became a direct 500 rpm.”
Why? What is happening? I see how if you hydraulically reduce the radius the system rotation would increase ‘The spinning ice skater’. Is that it?
Sandy Kidd:
“Doubling the speed squares the centrifugal force.”
You’re doubling the speed of system rotation by hydraulically decreasing the radius?
Sandy Kidd:
”With 4 times the centrifugal force instantly applied to the system I expected the gyros to return from whence they came.”
This does not compute well for me. If you mean by hydraulically decreasing the radius to increase RPMs, the speed given the gyros doesn’t change and so nether should centrifugal force? I well know you are not making simple mistakes. There’s a lot I don’t understand.
Sandy Kidd:
“Instead of being returned, the gyroscopes accelerated ever faster inwards and upwards.”
Increasing the system rotation speed should increase upward lift speed every time. As for inwards I’m with you, yet I find much centrifuge in other examples that cannot be pushed aside. It is real. There is a different reaction in your apparatus than in the string/pendulum examples. I’m currently playing with these differences and like everything else gyroscopic it could be hell to explain comprehensible.
Sandy Kidd:
“From this series…
• No angular momentum
• No centrifugal force
• No gyroscopic mass
• Saturation
• Variation of angular momentum with gyroscopic rotation speed change.
• Similarity of effect between system rotation speed and gyroscopic rotation speed when the gyro is in saturation.”
Let us reserve this for a time then work it to death. You know, you just know it doesn’t sale, as it is, not ever. We have got to figure out how to explain these things with mechanical observations, cause and effect, cause and effect etc. etc. and give people an understanding they can bit into and bob their heads about a bit. It’s going to be hard to make readers bob their heads like an apple on a string. We must try. Is that possible?
Sandy Kidd:
“… when gyroscopes are mechanically accelerated under conditions of “precession” which it is not,…”
It most definitely isn’t precession as you’ve been screaming for years. It is force allied horizontally and the precession plane is deflected upwards.
Sandy Kidd:
”Contrary to what you wrote Glenn, I did not expect the gyroscope to have the ability to overcome the centrifugal force. To me angular momentum and centrifugal force are facets of the same thing. You cannot generate one without the other.”
Yes of course and a well made point. I don’t know what I said, but it must have been wrong.
Sandy Kidd:
”If you require any more clarification from my bent brain do not hesitate to ask.”
Speaking gyroscopically, which direction does the bending occur and what time of day? When I am heavy into gyros mine bends the same direction as a dog’s dXXXX, but a little more crooked.
Dear Sandy it’s so good talking to you.
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/05/2008 12:49:07
| | | I’m going to challenge the belief that centrifuge is responsible for deflections. My purpose is as it should be, to establish theory, as I believe it to be based on evidence, as I understand that evidence to be. In so doing I am sensitive and caring to the feeling of others who’s opinions differ and therefore I am annoyed with this paradox in which we often find ourselves. How do you make arguments without disagreeing with people?
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/05/2008 19:25:07
| | | Hi Sandy,
Excuse me.
Sandy:
“To me angular momentum and centrifugal force are facets of the same thing. You cannot generate one without the other.”
Yes, perfectly put and beautifully simplified.
Sandy:
”… I did not expect the gyroscope to have the ability to overcome the centrifugal force.”
But it must overcome you see in order to rise!
I suspect this is no more intentional than a momentary lapse caused by restructuring a sentence and not rechecking it, an error that I commit all the time.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/05/2008 19:28:23
| | | Harry, when is this new thread expected to arrive?
Best Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/05/2008 22:06:42
| | | “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”
Abraham Lincoln
He could have said as well-- the best of us are sometimes gullible and the worst of us are sometimes brilliant.
I know I am sometimes gullible. What about you?
When I will disagree with you shortly am I your dark angle, and are you endlessly brilliant without the possibility of fallibility. Is it Abraham’s ‘Better angle of your nature’ whispering in your ear, or I a darker angle sitting on your shoulder challenging you? How—I’m wonder will you respond.
Are you going to kill me, Luis? Harry?
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/05/2008 22:40:00
| | | Deflections:
I understand deflection. However, I still do not understand every aspect of it with the degree of certainty I would like, nevertheless let me begin by establishing some common observations. When the little girl touches Professor Eric’s heavy gyroscope with little more force than a baby’s breath the thing twist easily in response at a ninety degrees deflection from the lightly applied force. If there were any centrifuge to speak of, would it not be distributed evenly and oppositely between the front and rear and top and bottom sections of the gyroscope’s rims? Yes, of course. Consider the first instance of movement. There was no centrifuge built up at all, yet precession began. By eliminating centrifuge as a beginning cause of deflections, we are left only with applied force as the factor in beginning gimbals precession. We can establish this kind of precession in all instances as being responsive to applied force, not centrifuge.
We go to the overhung gyro. First consider that when the gyro is in a complete vertical alinement centrifuge is acting evenly at all points of the rim. While centrifuge is distributed evenly I see no way it could be a factor in either accelerating, or maintaining precession. Consider something else is accelerating the gyroscope from zero into precession speed. At the very beginning of acceleration there is no centrifuge. What else could be the cause of precession, but applied force? In this argument the direction of precession has nothing to do with centrifuge. How could it? It either doesn’t exist at the pre-beginning and it is evenly dispersed when the gyro is in vertical aliment.
I hope to do this in three installments. This offering explains some observations. Next I hope to explain the mechanics of how and why I believe deflections work.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/05/2008 00:44:14
| | | ANGEL, ANGEL, ANGEL, ANGEL—DARK AND OF A BETTER NATURE--NOT ANGLE!
Dame the messed-up phonics in the English languish. Did I tell you after the chemotherapy ended two months ago I more often than not see numbers backwards. I see 28 as being 82 and so on. Try using the phone book in a hurry with that running around in your head and see what it’s like. I’m told the problem will likely will correct itself.
Sorry, wrong number. Sorry, wrong number. Sorry, ….. Oh no. Not again. Pay no attention to me, mam. I can't even seoll, spoil, spile, spell ANGLE. You know. The kind of angle what got wings and shixxxx. If I call you again just hang up. I'm really a nice person.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 25/05/2008 18:59:51
| | | Dear all,
A question has been asked by one of our illustrious members with whom I have a gentlemen’s agreement because of irreconcilable perspectives that often prevent mutual understanding. I will answer his gentle question.
The question is, how I reasoned the idea that:
“The centrifugal force causes the spinning-object to turn in the same direction as the hub”?
The answer appears simple after it becomes clear, but visualizing it the first time cost me a long time of effort (so I know it’s not simple for everyone, including me).
The difficulties arise because this RESULT (a) is not directly intuitive, (b) is near impossible to test, (c) goes against what we are accustomed to see, and (d) all previous explanations of occurrence (i.e. from experimental results) have been a bit misleading, starting from professor Laithewaite (tough not intentionally).
I will try to illustrate my reasoning by asking progressive questions, with corresponding “YES” or “NO” answers, that should lead in the right direction. Ultimately it is necessary to see it in your mind’s eye.
Q1.) Are “centripetal” and “centrifugal”, “TRUE Forces”, with mass and acceleration (F = MA)?
-My Answer to Q1 is = Yes…
The mass of spinning-object (ignore other deadweight for now), and the acceleration that changes the linear direction of the motion into a circular path.
Q2.) Do centripetal/centrifugal forces produce torque, in the hub configuration (perspective of merry-go-round may help visualize the hub on which to attach the mass via a pivot arm)?
-My Answer to Q2 is = Yes…
At angles from greater than 0+ to 90 degrees (above horizontal), the centrifuge FORCE produces TORQUE around the normal pivot (can everyone visualize this Y or N?).
Q3.) At angles from 0+ to 90 degrees does the centrifuge TORQUE cause behavior similar to a gyro in a tower?
-My Answer to Q3 is = Yes…
Visualize (A & B below) as follows:
(A) A spinning-object (at 0+ to 90 degrees), attached to a pivot within the merry-go-round (void of gravity)
Compare it to:
(B) A spinning-object (at 0+ to 90 degrees) attached to pivot on a tower under gravity.
NOTE - Between 0+ to 90 degrees, the direction of each of the two depicted TORQUES, are virtually the same in respect to the pivot point, when considered from the perspective of the effects on the mass of the objects (you MUST visualize this to understand the reasoning).
The magnitudes (of these two TORQUES) may differ (for various reasons) but the important thing is that the DIRECTION of the force IN RESPECT TO THE PIVOT POINTS will be the same because of the way that both scenarios (“A” and “B”) restrict the direction in which the mass can move (degrees and direction of motion).
Please try to see beyond the limitation of my words:
Notice that the significant common factor, causing precessional deflection, is the direction of a force in respect to a pivot point (because that is the applied torque that causes precession as it interacts with spin, etc…).
If we can accept the point congruence between these two scenarios (A & B), then we must accept that the result in both cases is precessional deflection.
I am not going to attempt explaining in WHICH of the 2 possible directions the motion of precessional deflection will occur (it will be the same as it would under gravity).
That explanation can be an unnecessary, convoluted, and messy; many people have a rule of thumb that helps determine the direction of deflection in response to torque and spin. I suggest everyone should adopt such a time-saving rule of thumb that always works (even if it takes an initial investment of time).
It is just not worth wasting time in that very long explanation every time it comes up in an already complex advanced discussion.
I hope this will help expand our perception about the dynamic responses of spinning-objects.
Fell free to inquire if you disagree with any of my YES or NO answers.
Regards,
Luis
Dear Harry,
I will respond to your thoughtful posting soon.
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/05/2008 20:38:20
| | | Dear Luis,
Please don’t feel provoked, but we don’t have an agreement of and kind. We never have. I just never felt it necessary to counter you in this. If it’s important you can check through the posts. It isn’t important to me. But, none of us have a right to dictate to others on a free and open forum. My belief is that we do not own a post even if we begin it and there’s no way to enforce our will on others. The Webmaster owns everything legal once written. I will post wherever I please and feel comfortable with that. The reason I haven’t often written in posts you began was out of courtesy to your comfort, though I don’t agree with you. But, dear Louis I will post wherever and whenever I wish. You must make your own decisions as to what you will, or not do.
Now then. I like you just fine. You have some fine qualities, among them you are smart and have a lot to impart to others about gyroscopes. It is your obstinatneness borne of extreme sensitivity that gets you in trouble. Actually that’s the only negative I ever faulted you for. It is the bases of ever-unkind word you’ve receives on the net. Just lately you’ve almost lost the attention of, Harry with this overly sensitive emotional outburst. I forgive and forget. To heck with it. I am easy. People who come from large family are used to infighting one day and kissing the next. It’s nothing to them. Please don’t hold a grudge. If you do I don’t want to hear about it.
I don’t mean anything unkind to you in what I’ve said, but it is the truth. I would be the first to champion your right to be however you please, but I would also kindly encourage you to be tolerant. Louis, I have found things you’ve written that surprised the heck out of me. I would think to myself, “I didn’t think the man had it in him.” but you do. You do. I'm glad for you.
Now then. I will begin presently looking over the technical potion of your reply. Where you deserve it I will complement you. I do this for everybody. If I find fault I promise to be nice and careful in how I challenge you.
Now, my old internet acquaintance if I’m not allowed to call you friend alright, but I must tell you afain that this degree of sensitive can deny you many things, and holding a grudge is aggregating to the holder and can make him unhappy. Get over it.
‘ Remember this from an earlier posts? “How—I’m wonder will you respond. Are you going to kill me, Luis? Harry?” You have a nice Sunday evening and I’ll have something interesting and maybe nice and true to say later in response to your post.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 25/05/2008 23:44:17
| | | Hello Luis,
Your illustration with YES / NO answers is very good! In such a way we should proceed in our further communictations. Simple questions - simple answers. Very good idea! :-)
The understanding, what centrifugal force is really doing here in context with the special geometric assembly of this gyro system, is very important to understand my theory of the balance point. In Q2 you have correctly explained, that the centrifugal force will cause (vertically) torque around the pivot of the hub. The maximum torque will be achieved at 45 degrees (this can be simply proved with the help of simple trigonometric functions).
A note to your item Q1:
I think your definition (F=m*a) is incomplete. Centripedal force is caused by a forced change of direction of a mass during circular rotation around a center and the centrifugal force is the counter reaction of this force. If you would abruptly disconnect the rotationg mass from its center of rotation, the mass would not be accelerated in direction of the formerly acting centrifugal force, but in tangential direction from a momentary point at the circumference, when it was disconnected from rotation. Therefore this force is called a virtual force. I hope my explanation is understandable.
Another renmark to your Q3:
Because especially you do not like it to be copied, I want to remember what I have written in my previous posting:
"A centrifugal or radial force would do exactly the same as the gravitation force does, even cause a tilting torque in same direction as gravitation force does and therefore the effect would be exactly the same."
;-)
Thanks again for this productive posting. However, it would be fine if you and Glenn could overlook your discrepancies in the past? At the end, we all are searching and working for the same goal...?
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 25/05/2008 23:51:33
| | | Hello Glenn,
You wrote "Harry, when is this new thread expected to arrive?". Which thread do you mean? The calculation or the balance theory thread?
It would make sense to start both threads at the same time, but unfortunately I have to do some other things, too. I'll do my best! ;-)
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 26/05/2008 09:37:20
| | | Dear Louis,
(Q1.) I’m proud that you know centrifuge is a true force. I have a very unique and detailed octagonal way, truer than in physics, of viewing the two forces, but I’m not going to muddy the water here especially now. It really makes little difference, except it is important to use the reaction centripetal for traditional math, yet see and use centrifuge as a real force. I can go ahead and say (y) and I can say Bravo!
Q2.) Do centripetal/centrifugal forces produce torque, in the hub configuration (perspective of merry-go-round may help visualize the hub on which to attach the mass via a pivot arm)?
-My Answer to Q2 is = Yes…
At angles from greater than 0+ to 90 degrees (above horizontal), the centrifuge FORCE produces TORQUE around the normal pivot (can everyone visualize this Y or N?).
(Q2.) Amassing, Luis. I honestly believe this is one of the most brilliant deductions here ever. One I had not thought of beforehand. You need sketches to transfer this vision with ease. From the direction of 0 to 89 degrees the torque increases.
’So sorry. The rest of your post is not explained completely. Did you ever notice that Newton’s explanation were neither short, nor clean, nor easy compared the restructuring of his statements over the passage of time? I guess he to had problems too, huh? like all of us. I will try to help, but of course you do the work.
Louis: “Q3.) At angles from 0+ to 90 degrees does the centrifuge TORQUE cause behavior similar to a gyro in a tower?”
Yes I agree with you. I think however, the comparison as thin as it is will mislead people. We know as in the disconnect of the tower example, there is no effective centripetal acting in machine forced precession (doggone that description). The non-researcher would not, but would naturally assume centipede is working because of the multiple connections. We must expand this explanation.
Louis: “Visualize (A & B below) as follows:
(A) A spinning-object (at 0+ to 90 degrees), attached to a pivot within the merry-go-round (void of gravity)”
Would it be better to state (at 0+ to 90 degrees vertical) and (at 0+ to 90 degrees horizontal)?
Louis: “Compare it to:
(B) A spinning-object (at 0+ to 90 degrees) attached to pivot on a tower under gravity.”
I don't understand why you are comparing gravity to non-gravity situations?
Louis: “(you MUST visualize this to understand the reasoning).”
You old-lazy, you! I have to sweat bullets imagining so you can avoid a tiring explanation?
The problem is the world understands rotation to be free. Without friction it just coast and coast. There is no torque except during acceleration and deceleration. Our gyro deal seems a bit crazy doesn’t it? Constant force is required to keep the thing rotating—therefore there is constant torque in the force plane just as you predicted. Someday you will want to explain this to non-pacific researchers and sometimes to some pacific researchers. This is difficult stuff. You might as well begin now practicing explaining.
BUT HERE IS A REAL MESS TO UNRAVEL. I have recently confirmed there is no equal and opposite reaction it the precession plane, BUT THERE IS IN THE FORCE PLANE. According to this in gravity powered precession there can’t be torque in the horizontal plane no matter the alternated elevations. It follows then that in machine forced rotation there should not be torque in the vertical precession plane. But as you have virtually proven there is.
Sandy Kidd’s discoveries are going to rescue understanding here before this is over. Inward-rising force is always stronger than centrifuge and so the tendency of torque in the vertical plane and well as the horizontal is going to be nullified. This is all so complicated. I will work on it in my ongoing post. You can join me here, or there.
My tentative understanding is: There is torque, but nullified therefore it doesn’t act. No reaction is produced, not as in centrifuge causing lift, or directing the path of precession.
Louis: “Please try to see beyond the limitation of my words:”
You lazy dog. Har, Har, Har ladies. Up the crow’s nest with yea!
Louis: “If we can accept the point congruence between these two scenarios (A & B), then we must accept that the result in both cases is precessional deflection.”
Excuse me. I disagree. I’m working on another series of posts about this and presently letting the first cool and settle in. I’ll argue there.
We must seek to understand why and how precession elects to go one way and not the other. Discovery and explanation is our purpose here.
Yes to you, Louis. You have done an outstanding piece of work. I have learned.
Regards.
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 26/05/2008 09:43:56
| | | Harry, what ever pleases you just pleases the daylights out of me, Glenn.
Best Regards, Harry :)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 26/05/2008 13:05:02
| | | High Harry,
On second thought the balance theory thread is what all the fuss is about. I could work with it.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 26/05/2008 13:13:34
| | | Hello again Glenn,
If the order I try to answer your questions is wrong, which it will be, please forgive me.
I shall try to answer in a logical manner which will take your points into consideration.
When I first saw Laithwaite demonstrate his large gyroscope rotating around his head, my idea was that I may be able to do this at a much higher rate of rotation than the professor could rotate, but did my little gyroscope have the ability to overcome the greatly increased centrifugal force. I did not know, but there and then again I knew nothing of the weird characteristics of gyroscopes, so it was very much suck it and see. I sucked it, and saw, and it worked. That is where it all started.
When a gyroscope moves into saturation at a nearly horizontal position, it requires no increase in input energy to go the rest of the way to the vertical position. I was obviously not aware of this when I first got into this so I thought that I would have to increase the input power to overcome the increasing load as the gyroscope rose upwards.
This is not what happens at all, as I could start my manipulations with the gyroscope rotating straight and level, at 10 degrees, 30 degrees, or 80 degrees, the energy level is the same. I admit that it does not appear to be logical, but neither is anything else relating to mechanically accelerated gyroscopes.
So in effect to answer your question you can start at any angle you like for the same input rotation speeds.
For certain reasons I use large offsets from 30 to around 60 degrees, but I am not prepared to wait until the gyroscope gets to the chosen position before I can start my manipulations. It saved a lot of time if I can start at the offset angle I have chosen.
The hydraulic pump only changed the device rotation speed (precession if you must) and made no alteration to the geometry of the machine.
In the interests of simplicity I intended to utilise the inward/upward movement of only one gyroscope to carry out my speed changing process.
I had to ensure that the chosen gyroscope would react before the other, so I reduced the distance from the centre of mass of one gyroscope to the axis of system rotation by 1/16 of an inch in diameter. That is all that was required to guarantee that that gyroscope was first to move.
That chosen gyroscope only had another 1/16 of an inch to travel to close the hydraulic pump valve.
The maximum rotation speed was set to be 500rpm.
“Slip” is commonly used terminology for the inability of a pump to shift 100% of the pumped oil. Piston pumps are pretty well 100% but centrifugal pumps, gear pumps etc usually have varying rates of slippage.
I was using a horizontal twin cylinder piston pump (home made of course) with a tiny reservoir tank, to carry all the recycled oil required.
In this case the slippage was a deliberate attempt to control the rotation speed of the device, by holding the rotary sleeve valve slightly open to control the speed to 250 RPM, after which it jumped to 500 rpm when it was shut.
It worked very well indeed, although increasing the centrifugal force by a factor of 4 only served to increase the inward /upward acceleration of the gyroscope.
From that moment it meant that my understanding of centrifugal force, and accelerated mass as far as gyroscopes were concerned was far from correct.
A simple way to look at all of this Glenn is to accept that everything is normal or as you would expect this side of “saturation”.
However everything is pretty well reversed on the other side.
Example:
1 Any increase in system rotation speed on the lower side of saturation increases the centrifugal force of any residual mass in the system or all mass if the gyroscope is not rotating.
2 The mass available to be accelerated would of course depend heavily on the rotation speed of the gyroscope.
3 Any increase in system rotation speed on the other side of saturation only serves to increase the vertical speed of the gyroscope as it rises and turns inwards. It has no effect on centrifugal force as there is no mass left in the system to accelerate.
4 I have found that as the gyroscopes go through their climbing motion the system unloads and speeds up, for the same reason as 2.
I have gone through most of them, Glenn what have I missed?
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 26/05/2008 13:30:15
| | | Hello Sandy,
It's a pitty that you only answer questions from Glenn. So I give up in asking questions again.
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 26/05/2008 13:45:29
| | | Greetings all.
I looked away for a month or so, did not help so here I am back again.
This is a long thread, most of which seems to miss the essential point, which is in the forum title, gyroscope propulsion. This is outside of the Newtonian laws!!!! It has to be so.
The motion of the gyroscope orbiting a tower cannot be described in terms of F=ma. There is no F present (in the horizontal plane), to accelerate the mass of the gyroscope from rest to orbital speed.
For want of a better phrase, I call the Linear component of this movement -“Dark Motion”, as it offers a better explanation than the “Dark matter” assumption given to the anomalous motion of distant stars.
Which elaborate introduction leads to answering Luis’ post of 25/05/2008.
Q1 No.
The circular path followed by an offset gyroscope is not determined by centripetal/centrifugal force.
“The mass of spinning-object (ignore other deadweight for now), and the acceleration that changes the linear direction of the motion into a circular path.” No. This change of direction is not Newtonian, there is no centripetal force.
Q2 No.
Dependant upon spin speed, precession speed, distance of offset from vertical axis, the measured force can be shown to act in the OPPOSITE direction to Centrifugal force.
Sandy has described many times this effect. There is no point where the desire of the mass to continue in a straight line overcomes the torque reaction of precession.
Q3. No.
The motion of an offset gyroscope is not Newtonian. The spinning mass is not deflected from straight line motion by an external force. There is no torque generated by the spinning mass.
On the more general point of EDH’s device. I do not see how Newtonian Force/acceleration software, can give meaningful results. If This software, or any other math, can give the position of the mass of an offset gyroscope on a tower, (n) seconds after release, then I will of course review that statement.
This is not to say in any way that the EDH device does not/will not work. As Sandy has shown, there is a huge gap between doing and understanding, let alone explaining.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 27/05/2008 12:39:02
| | | Hello Harry,
I am dreadfully sorry you feel that I have ignored and/or offended you.
Anything I have offered you as far as the video, spheres etc I am in the process of arranging for you. Like yourself I tend to be a little busy when at home, attending to non gyroscopic chores.
I am not aware of any other specific question you have put to me, which I did not reply to.
If my memory serves me correctly the last statement was in relation to a hypothetical gyroscopic balance point which you believed was outside of the design parameters of my devices at 80 degrees.
I responded to by saying that as far as I was concerned there is no such thing, and that the EDH device if it works is not gyroscopic.
Regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 27/05/2008 13:04:49
| | | Dear Sandy,
Thank you. I understand a little more of how you think about it. I want to add some things and see if they can relate to yours. It will require some time and thought first and simple
experiments to observe. Also, sorry to make excuses, but I’ve got to stop hiding from the mess in my shop and get on with this car repairing/restoring I got myself into. Eventually------- more.
So long for now and take care,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 27/05/2008 16:59:16
| | | Greetings all, was a good start. Beyond that let me say, Albert Einstein standing in opposition to everyone in the world quickly added to the explanation of his first theory this way. “If you are willing to accept…” My lawyer says, “You can win more arguments with honey than correctness.” You can’t even get a date with blunt assessments, “Women your feet are too big!” “Girl, you are not correct!” That is a good way to spend some lonely nights. I can tell you right now I was not smiling and gushing all over the way you approached my separate post with stony contradictions unexplained and unrelated to the mechanics I had painstakingly laid out. With that out of the way let us begin a new.
Hi Momentus,
Greetings back to you. We missed you. Welcome back. You must know you are well received among everyone and your mind is much respected. Already you have made some excellent assessments. Thank you. Still, there are elements in some of your views that trouble me and I take issue with them, but they are interesting ideas. For now I want to respond only partially.
You say: “I looked away for a month or so, did not help so here I am back again.”
I can’t help but be curious. Why and how did you think absence from here might help you?
You say: “This is a long thread, most of which seems to miss the essential point, which is in the forum title, gyroscope propulsion.”
You are displeased with us? We’re sorry. Perhaps we can dispense with annoying non-essential words and harmful phrases? Bless you, would that be satisfactory?
You say: “The motion of the gyroscope orbiting a tower cannot be described in terms of F=ma. There is no F present (in the horizontal plane), to accelerate the mass of the gyroscope from rest to orbital speed.”
Yes Momentus: You are correct again, thank you. Also there is little evidence of force when decelerating the orbiting gyroscope into a circular collision. Boy! Are you ever right on this one below. You say: “This is outside of the Newtonian laws!!!! It has to be so.” You, Sandy and I are joined at the hip on this one.
You say: For want of a better phrase, I call the Linear component of this movement -“Dark Motion”, as it offers a better explanation than the “Dark matter” assumption given to the anomalous motion of distant stars.
Dark motion? Not bad. Much about dark mater in theory is understood. I wish we could say the same about our trinket. Kidding. Ours trinket is very important.
You said: “Which elaborate introduction leads to answering Luis’ post of 25/05/2008.”
I want to point out that Luis sweated bullets over time like the rest of us to develop and offer his theories to be considered. While I agree with some and disagree with others it really was a masterful effort on his part and he has to be applauded. There are things to be learned in his, 25/05/2008 post.
Louis wrote: “Q1 No.
The circular path followed by an offset gyroscope is not determined by centripetal/centrifugal force.
“The mass of spinning-object (ignore other deadweight for now), and the acceleration that changes the linear direction of the motion into a circular path.”
Louis is deadly correct.
You replied: “No. This change of direction is not Newtonian, there is no centripetal force.”
Sorry Momentus, my understanding is that gravity poweded precession at least is full of centripetal & centrifugal force, but it is difficult to realize. I have given a method of knowing and reasons why. I will try to do more work on this and make it harder to ignore. I am sure of myself. Sorry, but it is, Louis I completely agree with and for reasons I’ve explained elsewhere.
Louis said: “Q2 No.
Dependant upon spin speed, precession speed, distance of offset from vertical axis, the measured force can be shown to act in the OPPOSITE direction to Centrifugal force.”
This can be stated much better Luis, more clearly. But by force you have to mean centripetal and you are again deadly accurate.
Here is something very important! going on here. We have begun to struggle much more to understand and express from and to one another. So Momentus when you state: “No. This change of direction is not Newtonian, there is no centripetal force.” and you say no more, that is a method of response, which is a nondescript, blanket statement with no attempt to explain and give examples of how and why it is so. No understanding is gained. It’s like the omnipotence makes a law. No explanations are giving and none are necessary. Accept on faith. However, we all wish to know the inter workings of everything to better attempt to manipulate them. I guess you just need a little time to catch up with what we’re trying lately, that is simplification, simplification and explanation and examples. I understand this recent idea is all new to you. Please take your time and don’t give up on us. Your mind is needed.
Q3. No.
You said: “The spinning mass is not deflected from straight line motion by an external force.”
This isn’t clear to me. Is gravity straight line?
You said: “There is no torque generated by the spinning mass.”
How can that be? My friend I think we could do a lot of examples.
You say: “This is not to say in any way that the EDH device does not/will not work. As Sandy has shown, there is a huge gap between doing and understanding, let alone explaining.”
Yes, of course. That’s right, but our friend EDH has said he’s done both virtual and actual testing.
I wish to continue my high regards for the understanding of your fine mind and even more so if I can see examples explained. I hope to hear from you more often.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 27/05/2008 17:41:04
| | | Hello Sandy,
No, I'm not offended but I was afraid that you could be offended by a posting from me. :-)
I have asked my last questions in my posting from 23/05/2008 11:14:36. It would be very interesting for me to read your opinion. Thanks in advance!
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 28/05/2008 01:15:06
| | | I am rather fond of the small courtesies that members of this forum afford each other, and am not willing to give up the respect for my wishes regarding the threads that I start.
I don’t own threads in a forum anymore than I own a project at school or at work, but I expect the same respect in all cases.
Since we have no way to enforce our wishes, in a public forum, I will do what I need to do in order to express my self in a place that I am comfortable.
A place where my name won’t be spelled incorrectly every time (on purpose), and where I won’t be called demeaning names by people whose attitude I don’t care for.
-
Bringing clarity to the effects of centrifugal Momentum (and the Force it delivers when it interacts, as all momentum does) is just the beginning in the journey to understand the dynamics of spinning objects.
-
Forcefulness and repetition does not make a statement correct.
Embracing a mystery that is not understood (as a logical explanation) bring an argument to a premature end. It is a way of keeping the ignorant from learning. Also asserting that something is so because it was said before is an even weaker argument.
Momentus stays away too long and reads things a bit too quick the way most of us do.
-
Dear Harry,
You are doing a grand job at leading the in-depth charge to clarify the way spinning interacts with a centrifuge.
Please do not be concerned, I will find a way to express my perspectives when necessary in a place that I feel comfortable and without demeaning name calling; most important in a venue where my opinions are not diluted and confused by those of others.
-
My thanks to Mr Turner for the unique website,
Ciao and Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 28/05/2008 04:15:24
| | | Louis, Louis, Louis,
I am exasperated. I tried to be friendly again. I’ve never misspelled your name on purpose, but shame on my carelessness. Sorry. It seemed ‘Lazy dog’ would be funny to you and harmless as hell. Otherwise everything I said was true and to me nice.
I can’t imagine the environment you grew up in, or how you later survived around men, but I guess I am finally forced give up on you. It's too bad. I pity you for being petted almost beyond belief. Go your separate way with my blessing.
Adios and may you always find happiness,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 28/05/2008 10:54:25
| | | Oh no, this was really not necessary! I thought we have found now a productive way in better understanding of each other?
Luis, I need your critical and sophisticated arguments and notes. I hope you will stay in my other thread? Anyway, you have my private email address.
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 28/05/2008 14:07:23
| | | Dear Luis,
I have thought about you. If it will make you happy to exclude me from critiquing your thoughts I am well enough developed that I can acquiescence in kindness for the sake of your happiness. I can do as I please of course, but go a head and do your threads and I’m almost certain I can I kindly avoid them. On all other posts I may, or I may not counter your thinking at times, but if I do I can avoid your name and reference to you when possible. So you get your way. You can raise your upper lip now and stay home.
I will leave you this to understand me and the condition of camaraderie and merriment I like. Try ‘Youtube Dean Martin Roast’. Once opened select Foster Brooks, Don Wrinkles and any others you like. You’ll have fun for these are among the most delightful clips ever created. It’s about one’s ability to laugh at one’s self.
In any case http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wtv0CxqSxZ8&fe
Sincerely,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 28/05/2008 19:53:41
| | |
I fell upon another major; major understanding while studying Sandy Kidd’s last explanation and preparing a response. I always new there would be something major in understanding Sandy’s interpretations, because they were based on actual trial and observation. I am tired now. From here it is possible to finish understand every single solitary aspect of the gyroscope. I was already close, but I had taken a sort cut. That is I accepted a happening as true, but leaped over the how and why of it and continued. I am tired now. Don’t know when I will return. Good luck, Harry. Otherwise I think mechanical understanding based on testing, observation, and reason, and not on mathematical designs is the only way to receive the full divine spark of discovery, recognition and invention. Sandy agrees and perhaps Momentus. I don’t know. He’s run away again and he never would respond to a question anyway. Nitro probably agrees too. Who could know? He has deserted this property. Harry, you and the guy believe otherwise so again Good Luck. I really have grown tired.
Glenn,
If I can just remember.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 28/05/2008 22:42:39
| | | Dear Glenn,
Why not try to prove the mathematical designs by testing in reality? We all should benifit from individual abilities of each other. So what is the problem? Don't give up, Glenn! ;.)
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 28/05/2008 22:59:27
| | | Dear Harry,
Good! I’m just tired right now.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 30/05/2008 06:30:52
| | | Hello again Harry,
Sorry I missed this one.
It really does not matter if the device is accelerated rapidly as stated or slowly, as once past the point where the mass has all been transferred any kind of increase to machine or gyroscope rotation, or a combination of both creates the same effect.
I think “nutation” can only be applied to the workings of a gravity accelerated system Harry. A bit out of place in this context, I would have thought.
Angular momentum is not so easy to measure in a test set up Harry but the absence of centrifugal force denotes the lack of it.
You cannot have one without the other.
The beauty of this Harry is that whilst strain gauges, or light springs mounted on the links which hold the gyroscopes at the appropriate offset angle will show you all you need to know I would have thought that none of this was necessary as a gyroscope accelerating inwards cannot be subject to centrifugal force (I am an engineer. They do not make centripetal pumps)
Harry you are never going to be convinced whatever I say, you must construct the experiment, and the answers to all the mysteries will be revealed.
I am off to the Greek Islands for a couple of weeks, I will catch up on my return.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 30/05/2008 06:39:55
| | | Welcome back Momentus,
I totally agree with you with respect to inertial drive and Sir Isaac.
If inertial drive is or becomes reality it must do so in conflict with Newton’s Laws.
There is not a lot in your posting I could disagree with.
What does concern me is that inertial drive can be proved to be possible using classic physics a la EDH, and my own, where copious amounts of angular momentum are apparently generated where in reality there is none.
I got myself into this quest doing something very similar to start with, but eventually a long apprenticeship consisting of building and testing many gyroscopic devices painted a completely different picture for me.
If computer programs are assembled in the hope of providing answers using classic physics the outcome is doomed to failure from the very start.
Regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 30/05/2008 10:10:15
| | | Hello Sandy,
Thank you for your reply
The gyroscopes of your device can move upwards or inwards? So they are still under the influence of gravitation and therefore Nutation can occur. Or did I miss something in the correct function of your device?
I agree that angular momentum is not easy to measure in a test set up, but how have you measured the absence of centrifugal? Strain gauges will state only the complete mechanically stress but not stress caused by all individual forces. An inward moving gyro is not a safe sign that there is no acting centrifugal force left!
Yes, it's true, I'm still not convinced... ;-)
Have a nice time in Greek!
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 14/06/2008 01:34:59
| | | I say with confidence that, in his answer of 26/05/2008 13:45:29, Momentus did not understand the context of the 3 questions and answers that I had posed on 25/05/2008 18:59:51 (in this thread).
I had placed these three Questions & Answers, in hopes of clarifying the stream of postings, which addressed “what happens to centrifugal effects”, in the much discussed hub configuration; (this was also a sub-subject to a yet more interesting original subject).
The 3 Q&As were intended to start from the most simple, while remaining relevant and hoping to create an initial association to the concept discussed. The 3rd and final question in the Q&A was the only one intended to make a significant comparison to the problem of HIDDEN centrifuge.
Let me clarify; I did NOT say that centrifugal force makes the hub go around; we KNOW that a MOTOR makes the hub rotate.
What I did say, is that the “deflected” centrifugal TORQUE happens to move as a “shadow-motion”, hidden behind or within the motor-driven-rotation of the hub.
The fact that the “centrifugal-torque-deflection (90o)” is always slower than the hub rotation makes it difficult to see, and almost impossible to detect.
The term “SHADOW MOTION” may be much more appropriate than “DARK MOTION”, wouldn’t you say?
With all due respect to everybody, I hope you find the time to wrap your mind around this segment of gyro-behavior technology. I can attest that the concepts don’t appear trivial until after you get to understand them well enough.
Note for Harry K:
The net hub-torque that caused precession, depends only on the instantaneous force of the motor (despite whether the hub TURNS OR NOT), because precessinal-deflection results just as well from a “Static-force”, as it does from a rotating force. Therefore the motion of deflected centrifuge cannot affect the magnitude in the torque of the hub (as determined in the other contemporary threads).
Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 18/06/2008 06:38:56
| | | Hello Harry,
I enjoyed my Greek island holiday very much, thank you.
If there is no mass available to accelerate there can be no mass subject to gravitational acceleration which rules out any nutation.
I would have thought that any object accelerating inwards against any centrifugal acceleration would denote that there was no longer any net centrifugal force acting upon the system, therefore no angular momentum.
I realise that my claims are hard to swallow Harry, but as I have suggested earlier the only way you are going to get to grips with this, is to carry out the experiment and you will be immediately convinced.
Regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 18/06/2008 08:32:51
| | | Hello Sandy,
I'm glad to hear that you have enjoyed your holidays!
So you believe that mass inertia may disappear under certain conditions in an operating gyro system?
If an object is accelerating inwards against any centrifugal acceleration, it does not necessarily mean that there is no longer any net centrifugal force acting upon the system. It only does mean, that the resultant force is greater than centrifugal and acting against centrifugal force.
I don't know how you understand "angular momentum"? For my understanding, every rotating mass must have angular momentum (L = J x w).
I will carry out the experiment, as soon I am able to define reliable all necessary parameters to achieve reasonable results. If the defined parameters are beyound a certain operating range, reasonable and predictable results could not be achieved.
That's may way of working. I don't carry out senseless test setups for wasting time and money.
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 19/06/2008 06:53:27
| | | Hello again Harry,
You have hit the nail on the head Harry with:
“I don't know how you understand "angular momentum"? For my understanding, every rotating mass must have angular momentum (L = J x w).”
We have total agreement here Harry, but the crux of the problem is that a spinning mass has been entered into the equation.
Angular momentum is a result of mass acceleration.
I think we all agree that a gyroscope has the ability to transfer its mass to act down through the axis of system rotation.
There has been enough discussion about this fact in the past with reference to gravity accelerated systems.
I believe it is the progressive loss of mass (by transfer) of the gyroscope as its rotation speed is increased which creates the progressive reduction in angular momentum.
I do not mind being corrected here, but this is the “chicken and egg situation” I mentioned previously. However the outcome remains the same.
If the object has no mass to accelerate, what do we have?
You cannot accelerate “no mass”
Admittedly this is unique in our world of physics but angular momentum does not have to exist just because we think it should.
I did say that the operation of gyroscopes in mechanically accelerated systems is a state of mind.
I am beginning to enjoy this.
Regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 19/06/2008 11:00:21
| | | Hello Sandy,
At last it's now clear to me what you mean with "You cannot accelerate “no mass", thank you for clarification.
I believe you will not be surprised that I have a different opinion in gyro behavior. You are right that a spinning mass has been entered into the equation. And I also agre with the fact that angular momentum is a result of mass acceleration.
But I don't agree that a gyroscope has the ability to transfer its mass to act down through the axis of system rotation. The spinning mass with its inertia remains at its momentary position, but the acting force caused by the mass will be transferred to act down through the axis of system rotation. The forces will be transferred but not the mass or its inertia. That's a big difference.
Here is my understanding of a mechanically accelerated gyro:
- The mass of the spinning overhung gyro will cause a tilting torque.
- The reaction of the gyro is a 90 deg. deflection to this tilting torque and the gyro begins to precess in 90 deg deflection plane.
- The precession velocity can be calculated by tilting torque devided by angular momentum of spinning mass of the qyro: wP = T / LG (T= tilting torque, LG = angular momentum of gyro).
- If the gyro will be constrained to precess, e.g. by any kind of counter torques against precession torque (friction, mechanical design, etc.), the counter torque will be deflected again back to the origin plane of the tilting torque. This behavior is the reason why the gyro begins now to rotate also in the same direction of the acting tilting torque, in addition to the precession movement.
- If the gyro will be blocked to precess, the complete deflected tilting torque will be deflected back to the origin and causes the gyro to rotate only in the direction of the acting tilting torque. This behavior is called "mechanically accelerated" or "forced precessed".
- Due to the explanations above it is clear, that the tilting torque will remain constant and will not change its size after deflection to precession plane. That means, if the gyro will be blocked to precess, the necessary torque to cause this block in precession plane must be the same size than the tilting torque. Therefore the size of tilting torque is equal to the size of precession torque.
- If the gyro would now spin faster, the tilting torque, as well as the precession torque would not change its size, but the precession velocity would decrease, because the angular momentum LG increases and therefore precession velocity wP = T / LG decreases.
You see, there is no mass transfer, but precession velocity will decrease if spin velocity of the gyro will increase and tilting torque will remain constant.
However, if precession velocity will decrease, centrifugal forces will decrease as well because of the lower rotation speed. To overcome this issue, rotation speed must be increased, but this can only be done bei increasing the size of the tilting torque because wP = T / LG.
At this point we have reached again the situation of "chicken or egg". Therefore it is very important to use reasonable parameters in a gyro system to prove the presence of a balance point.
I enjoy this too.
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 20/11/2008 10:51:50
| | | Dear forum,
BYE
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
John smith - 01/01/2009 09:35:51
| | | yes deffinately
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
PAT - 03/01/2009 08:21:45
| | | The centrapege has angular mass which against the outer prime can be mapped,there is no up and down only a variety of circular force and mosion in the horizontal feild using fluidicity caused by prime repultion and the disadmitance of equilibrium.The angle at which mass is lateraly thrown will always be horizontal but even if thrown downwards will curve outwards to the horizontal and the curve dependant on the velocity of the inner rpm changing the curvature or time taken or revolutions before becoming latteraly thrown
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick - 21/04/2010 03:16:42
| | | PADMAG TO EDH
I GUESS we can only try to teach,mass inersia is derived from possitron attraction or collection condensed then thrown out in fluidicity......which causes spiyral collection and envelops to spirametric geometry in its own plain
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
