|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
23 November 2024 18:08
|
|
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: |
Luis Gonzalez |
| Subject: |
Congratulations to EDH on a credible GP device |
| Question: |
Dear EDH, |
| Date: |
2 April 2008
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 02/04/2008 01:41:57
| | | I finally found the time to read through your postings (twice) and I think the sphere solution appears brilliant in many ways. Still, I am surprised about your decision to postpone a demo, unless it is caused by the details of international patents.
Gyro-propulsion theory is a hobby that I enjoy tinkering with.
Based on all comments, your design relies on a number of simultaneous events, each of which can be illusive due to difficulties in clear visualization. The first such illusive component in your design appears to be in how the spheres (instead of disks or rims) facilitate the use of “momentum” embodied in precessional motion (“spin-deflection”).
From my perspective it appears that spheres smooth-out spin-deflection’s momentum and consequently also the Coriolis force, which cannot occur as smoothly when using flywheels (due to the nature of the coriolis motion).
Advantages of using spheres over flywheels became clear to me after analyzing them, using the criteria in my “rules of spin” (presented elsewhere in this forum).
It is clear that spheres spin with greater symmetric stability over a wider range of orientations than disks or flywheels. The most stable spin in a flywheel or disk is sandwiched between relatively unstable twirling spins. When I picture a disk gradually changing from a spin to a twirl (e.g. a twirling coin), it becomes less stable than a sphere having to gradually modify its spin axis.
This additional smoothness permits a sphere to mix various forces (e.g. torques, and changes in spin orientation), and facilitates the blending of their momentums, with reduced internal interference.
The easier blending of momentums resolves only one piece of the spin-propulsion puzzle, in so far as it smoothly aggregates the various accelerations (and changes of direction) into one integrated flow, possibly yielding higher order accelerations i.e. “Jerk”, “Snap”, etc.
If I have thought this out correctly, another not easily visualized piece of the spin-propulsion puzzle is resolved by correct frequency synchronization between “spin-rate” and “hub-rotation-rate”, to harmonize the directional dynamics between “spin-deflection” and “centrifugal-momentum” (essential to the “flutter”).
I believe this is where the aggregated momentum plays its essential role, as it enables the mass to “overshoot beyond the balance (or stable position) of spin-deflection”. Once the balance-point is overshot (in a fraction of a second) it has enough momentum to blend with the centrifugal momentum “on the other side of the hub’s rotation”!! (or so I perceive).
The combination of the 2 momentums (overshot + centrifugal) appear to be sufficient to overpower the yet weak “precessional” deflection pressure (on the new side of the hub) for a sufficient amount of time (until it reaches near horizontal); then, at some point, the normal torque deflection takes over (after the overshot-momentum has dissipated) and the cycle starts all over again.
Have I gone in the wrong direction in my analysis?
Based on Sandy’s description of his experiments in Australia, his device used hemispheres rather than full spheres or ellipsoids. Also, I don’t believe his device used the scissoring effect where masses alternate, one going up while another one comes down. Otherwise there appear to be some similarity between your devices.
My limited perception also tells me that something else is not quite as ready as we all hoped.
You see, there is no comparison between demonstrating a device that hovers, and demonstrating a device that may or may not support cold-fusion. A “hovering” device is unequivocal, self evident and speaks for itself when publicly examined. On the other hand, cold-fusion cannot be proven by a public demonstration.
We can only speculate whether delaying your demo is caused by the performance of your physical devices (as compared to the performance of your virtual devices), or by timing of international patent filings.
I find it encouraging that your device takes advantage of the momentum that occurs during “spin-deflection” because that is a subject that we have been converging upon recently in this forum.
EDH, you said that some of the behaviors and results, from your spin-based experiments, may require a new type of math. You may be right, but there is a chance that the appropriate math may already exist. Your team may find it worth while to look into the mathematical concepts of “Modular Forms”, which reflect extraordinary levels of mathematical symmetry.
Interestingly every “Modular Form” equation has a corresponding “Elliptical Curve” equation (also known as “Elliptical Equation”). Elliptical Curves reflect high order equations for which solution-methods are well established. Either off these two areas of mathematics is probably too broad for your needs, but it may be possible to narrow down the correct families of equations through Galois Group analysis. If you have already considered these areas of mathematics, please disregard these recommendations.
I don’t claim to be one who performs these mathematical applications, but a successful demonstration of the device should attract the right talent without problem. Let me know if you can’t find someone with experience in these areas of math.
It’s also fascinating that you arrived at your solution starting from a “Relativistic” perception of gravity, using acceleration frames. Especially since many of us have been trying to first find gyro-propulsion, and then equate it to “Relativity” as an afterthought.
I think I could go on and on about the theory and science behind gyro propulsion, and my limited glimpse of your intriguing design. For what its worth, I think I also understand why your device does not fall into the trappings of the “space-inchworm”. (Initial descriptions of the “Space-Inchworm” can be found in a couple of places in this forum; unfortunately the forum’s “search” feature does not always work).
The “Space-Inchworm” is not anyone’s invention, as such; it’s a concept that describes the highest level of gyro-propulsion that had been achieved up to now.
Finally, with spin-rates of 4,000 to 18,000 RPM and rotation-rate of 2,000 RPM, I have some difficulty visualizing how your device overcomes the extraordinary upward forces, and the resistance to initial hub-rotation, without braking apart before you release the pivot arms. Does the extreme stress on the device ease off after it gets past a certain point? I am very interested in this last point.
Please accept my congratulations on your extraordinarily clever device and my best regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 02/04/2008 21:59:10
| | | I really should instead be explaining the either wind, but……
You don’t know anything about the worm. It is a detailed and complicated machine beyond the little I’ve explained and my early sketches about the mechanics are on paper yellowing with the age of twenty years. I never explained much, hardly anything of substance, except in privacy to one friend and then there is still more to tell him. What simple, limited, misunderstood and confused reference to these things that don’t work work, don’t count, like fishhooks and metal bars. You don’t even know what doesn’t work. The ideas are mine. Nobody can clam them, because they don’t know how they work. You couldn’t make the machine function wth the limit of what I've said if your subnormal life depended on it and you don’t even realize that. With what you just said about the worm without any reason to put it where it is you really became low, a fifty-year-old mama’s crybaby filled with hate and grudge and sneaky vengeance. You don’t know that people see it. Watch out now. You are about to get in trouble with me. I warned you. I told you I had prepared retaliations about how and which you haven’t a clue and there is no protection in making up and hiding in what you think of as personal posts. Hannibal Lector warned you about discourtesy. He sucked his tongue at you saying: “Gonzales, sehh, sehh, ssehh, that just won’t do.” He would eat your liver if you’d said his inchworm wasn’t his. I might yet do it myself. (Now Let’s see how easy you are to catch.) Watch it! Watch what you say!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 03/04/2008 13:54:23
| | | Glen,
Your threats are a criminal internet action under the law and the law knows how to find you.
Your ideas may be old but I believe the term “Space-Inchworm” was first used by me in this site.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 03/04/2008 14:34:16
| | | Dear Luis,
Threat of what? Threat of free speech? Threat of irony? Threat of being cannibalized by a move characterization traveling on electrons through the Internet? Threat of absurdity? Luis do not worry. I did not know you would be so affected. Come on. Grow up now. The threat is only of free speech and logic as well the transmission reads. Free speech and logical responses are store away from what you’ve written in the past. I told you I had this in store. Want me to turn it lose? So you can see what it is? No you don’t. I suggest you be satisfied with the little you got. I’m satisfied now if you don’t act discourtesy any more.
Let us burry the hatchet (That’s only a metaphor, but the sentiment is real and hopeful.)
Sincerely,
Glenn
You've said: "Your ideas may be old but I believe the term “Space-Inchworm” was first used by me in this site."
That was in responce to Harry not understanding what you were writting, only a name 'space' put to an idea of mine. It is the idea that is meaningful. The turm you 'space' you can have, or anyone can change. Dear Luis you really must stop saying misleading things like this and start proving them. Oh, never mind. Have a good day. I am suddently happy with you.. a lot.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 03/04/2008 21:55:18
| | | Dear EDH,
I hope all the silliness has not made you fearful of responding to my post and questions.
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 03/04/2008 22:24:15
| | | Hi Luis,
I advised to stay in my thread. So don't complain!
Sorry I could not resist. :-)
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 06/04/2008 21:30:42
| | | First of all, my apology to Sandy for misinterpreting that his device used simple hemispheres when it in fact used full spheres; a second reading made that clear. His spheres do appear to have spun in a different orientation, judging from the way they were mounted on the shaft (perhaps Sandy will clarify).
EDH’s Tango comparison was also a brilliant analogy as it explained the dance interaction between fluctuating forces (and momentums) to facilitate the downward motion of the spheres.
Most enthusiasts know why the spheres rise, but the Tango analogy lets us begin to understand the science behind why they continue on and come down.
The explanation of the science is missing one piece, at the start, when rotation and spin rates are proportionally optimal and the spheres are released….. The sphere at top has no “Tango” at this point in time (at the beginning).
I cannot see how it can come down based on what we know up to now.
EDH, is this something you can tell us without divulging engineering secrets?
What set of forces causes the top sphere to come down when it is first released?
Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 07/04/2008 06:41:52
| | | Hello Luis,
I did explain that my split spheres were “bell-cranked” together such that one pair was in gyroscopic mode whilst the other pair was in free-wheel mode, otherwise there would never have been any point in building such a machine.
There was a good reason why my spheres oscillated up and down, however as Harry K very correctly suggested the “ups” equalled the “downs” and Sir Isaac was duly satisfied.
I cannot see the EDH device being any different in that respect, in fact there appears to be no adequate return mechanism built into his device, or why it should oscillate at all.
Also the sphere rotation speed recommended is so high that the spheres will be operating permanently in the “saturation” zone.
Is he telling us everything?
If it works I feel there is more than gyroscopic action involved.
I am quite prepared to await the appearance of a successful and independent laboratory test and report of the EDH device before I get excited about it
In light of the wealth of information which has been posted on this site I am a little disappointed that you think the vague concept of the “Space Inchworm” is as good as gyroscopic propulsion has managed to get.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 08/04/2008 06:27:36
| | | Hello Luis and other interested parties.
I am not intending to insult any person’s intelligence with this posting as I am positive you will all be aware of most of this stuff already.
However this is the thinking from over 20 years ago which brought me to create the split spherical gyroscope.
If a rotating gyroscope is supported close to its centre of mass the gyroscope will attempt to roll inwards around its centre of mass, towards the axis of applied radial acceleration, whereon it will lie flat, which is the point of least action.
Unfortunately once the gyroscope is lying flat it can no longer present a form with which to react to radial acceleration.
If it was spherical it will always present the same X section available for acceleration and torque generation.
Also if the gyroscope could be made to rotate inwards on demand, this would nullify any gyroscopic effects and create a dead weight situation.
This all seemed like a great idea at the time.
In order to allow the sphere to rotate inwards, the sphere was made in two parts and held together by a shaft designed to support and lock the hemispheres together.
The hemispheres were hollowed out on an NC machine to leave only a thick wall around each hemisphere except for a part left for the location of the shaft, which was secured using special round fixing nuts with left and right hand threads for obvious reasons.
It was calculated that providing the hemispheres were pretty well balanced and they were, they could be rotated as gyroscopes on a thin plate like shaft with machined ends for bearing supports and a boss to support the shaft holding the hemispheres together.
This plate like shaft had to be NC machined from much heavier material to match the design dimensions. The boss required to support the hemispheres was machined such that thrust bearings could be fitted between the boss and each hemisphere to keep them in line and allow them to rotate without drag.
The hemispheres were relieved at the joint line to allow for the thickness of the plate like, sphere rotation shaft allowing about 0.005 inches clearance per side. The plate part was about 3/16 of an inch thick.
The last and probably the most important part was the fitting of 2 needle bearings and 1 one way needle bearing to support the shaft holding the hemispheres together in the boss of the flat shaft allowing the fixed hemispheres now operating like a sphere, to rotate in one direction only.
Now the sphere would act like a gyroscope every half revolution and a dead weight for the other half revolution.
They were fitted to a device initially utilising 4 horizontally opposed spheres all driven from a common bevel gearbox in order to keep them all synchronised.
One opposing pair was set with joint lines of the spheres set vertically but able to rotate inwards.
The other pair was also set with joint lines vertical but unable to rotate inwards.
The spheres were mounted on arms which were able to rise and fall due to the fact they were attached under the central gearbox on fulcrum pins.
I had fitted a set of bell-cranks between the opposing pairs in order that they could help support/control each other, but I am doubtful if they did very much good.
The device operated every bit as well as hoped, but as I said Sir Isaac Newton got in the way.
One of the most common directions to experiment in is with the idea of a gyroscope folding flat and somehow being recovered, to torque up once more, in the hope of generating inertial thrust. I think my “ball” machine pretty well puts paid to any attempt to research in that direction
This may also act as a warning for others “up like a gyroscope and down like a brick” just does not work.
The answers are elsewhere.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 09/04/2008 19:37:03
| | | Dear Sandy,
Thank you for your responses.
My hastiness and limited understanding of engineering terms has once again caused some error, my apology.
I believe you are correct in that EDH’s device does not have a mechanism to force down (return) the spheres. EDH’s device appears to rely upon the timing of dynamically fluctuating forces (which he referred to as a Tango in another thread). I agree that it does require a significant change of mindset (at least for me it has).
EDH believes he has told us all about the science though not the engineering, but I also think there may be a couple of gaps.
Having increased my consciousness about fluctuating forces (through EDH’s postings) I am more open to accept that forces derived from centrifugal momentum can play a significant role in producing gyro propulsion, but not in a static way nor in an “up-like-a-gyro and down-like-a-brick” arrangement. Therefore I concede that you were in a nearer path than others but did not provide sufficient information at the time (for my limited perception).
The dynamics of fluctuating forces utilized in EDH’s design seem to transcend the “saturation” zone, perhaps because the “saturation” zone exists only within a limited band, or because it is a concept based on more relatively static conditions that lack ongoing fluctuations in higher orders of acceleration (e.g. “J” etc).
Also, EDH’s design does not make use of the dynamics in an “up-like-a-gyro and down-like-a-brick” arrangement.
I am now more convinced that some of your devices that used disks produced some lift but only when the timing of your return mechanism was basically in synch with the natural fluctuations that EDH alludes to. Some of your devices may have failed to hover because they used flywheels, which produce large disruption when their spin orientation is disturbed; others may have failed because they relied in up-like-a-gyro and down-like-a-brick.
Please note that EDH believes that to produce significant lift the ratio between spin and hub should be about 9-1.
I hope my opinions are not too disagreeable, they are only my opinions.
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 09/04/2008 19:42:24
| | | Dear Luis, Sandy and others:
Thank you Luis for the congratulations! We have worked hard to achieve these few pounds of lift, and we hope to develop this technology for practical use by increasing both force and control.
I would like to begin by stating that I am among those who have been inspired by the work of Sandy Kidd. I consider him to be a pioneer in this field, since in my opinion, he was the first to prove that it was possible to reduce the weight of a mass system without matter expulsion or external interaction. Although this did not get the international recognition it deserved, it certainly got my attention and has been one of many inspirations in my research.
After reading the above post, I think I have a vague idea of how Sandy's sphere gyro operated. I would like to be pointed to the publication/description, especially if there is a diagram. Apparently, everybody else around here has read it! In any event, I will present several ways that such devices are constructed, then in the end I will tell what I would do to make it work.
If we have four spheres attached to a central hub, and each sphere is spinning counter clockwise from the side view while spinning CCW around the hub from the plan view, the spheres will rise just as discs would as long as the arms have a vertical joint. It is important to note that whether one uses discs or spheres, this rise creates no weight loss or vertical thrust on the entire apparatus. For example, if a round flat plate were placed so that it was supported by the rising spheres, and a load placed upon the plate, the machine would lift the load, but a scale at the bottom of the machine will register a weight equal to that of the apparatus and the load. This weight never changes regardless of how high the machine lifts the load (I know this because I've experimented with it). Now this may seem obvious, but consider the fact that many researchers in the field of gyro propulsion attempt to generate the thrust *within the gyro itself*. Thus far, my research indicates that this does not occur, and is one very big reason why so many have missed the target when it was right in front of them. When one takes this approach, the tendency is to view the vertical precession force as the lift force when in actuality it is a secondary fulcrum in a true lift machine. You wouldn't believe how many Ph.D's struggle with this one! Now I don't really know how Sandy's machine worked, but allow me to present some arrangements with spheres that do not work, and a simple modification that would make them work.
The usual way a gyro propulsion researcher begins to investigate thrust potential is to perform a forced precession experiment with discs. When the discs rise, the researcher then begins to concentrate on the disc as a source for lifting the entire apparatus. This results in elusive results because the researcher is constantly looking for answers in all the wrong places. They will usually then proceed to look for ways to perpetuate the vertical precession force by recycling it. This is usually done by thrusting up a set of discs, then thrusting up another set while the first set recycles. This will lead to even further frustration because the return phase generates opposing forces which always result in a lift force that is less than the weight of the entire apparatus. The problem here is not that that a gyro cannot produce lift, but that the authentic vertical force is not generated by the gyro. The vertical force is generated by an acceleration of the gryo which results in a unidirectional force on the hub. This is a major distinction because it requires the engineer to synchronize her discs or spheres in a manner which opposes common sense. The authentic vertical lift force on the hub is in fact generated when a force precessed gyro with an upward secondary precession force is accelerated in a downward direction. This will produce a true lift force on the center of gravity which is the hub.
It is therefore possible to design a machine with four spinning spheres which rotate when they reach their peak height, and are then forced vertically down in the opposite direction, however such a machine would never produce lift because the spheres are being pushed in the same direction as the secondary precession force, rather than against it. It doesn’t matter whether the spheres rotate on their respective y axis, z axis, or vibrate back and forth between perpendicular and parallel to the rise lever. If the forced rise is in the same direction as the vertical precession force, no lift will occur.
Now let’s move on to a machine with the spheres oscillating up and down in a direction that is always opposite to the vertical precession force. Now we have a design that can produce lift, but only if certain other criteria are satisfied. If one chooses to use spheres, they will then be pulled down against the vertical precession force when they reach peak height. One may then decide to return the sphere to the top of the power stroke, and do so without generating excessive counter force during the return phase. As it turns out, the simplest method is the best one here. Just moving it back up without any rotation at all can do the job. The reason is for the one previously mentioned. You would now be moving the sphere in the same direction as the vertical precession force which results in less relative force than the power stroke. If however, the sphere is rotated just prior to the return stroke, the return stroke would in most cases equal that of the power stroke resulting in little or no net propulsion force.
Just as a reminder, I’m describing a number of scenarios where a machine with four spherical gyros would not work. I do not know the technical specifics of Sandy’s machine, and do not claim that it necessarily fits into any of these categories. In fact, I would be very surprised if his machine fits into the previous category.
Okay, now here’s another one. If the spheres are rotated about their respective y or z axis during any part of the phase, something interesting occurs. The spheres become very sensitive to the gap between the hemispheres. For example, a 6 inch diameter hollow stainless steel sphere will produce about forty pounds of net force on the hub between strokes, but if a one inch gap is present, it will produce none. Gaps eliminate the force asymmetry, so even if you had your spheres properly synchronized, you would still get no lift if you had a significant gap. Furthermore, let’s say that there was a plate in that gap that was rotating with the spheres. This would essentially be a disc gyro within a sphere gyro, and would disrupt the sinusoidal nature of the force curve resulting in erratic performance.
But wait, there’s more. A sphere gyro which is rotated along its y or z axis does produce a force on the hub, but it is non-sinusoidal. The curve looks like a Fourier transform of a sine. This curve oscillates about 300 times per second in a varied pattern with positive and negative peaks of more than 800 pounds. Imagine trying to plot this force curve in high resolution with a digital scale! We have done experiments with this and have found that spheres with a sufficiently thin gap, and properly synchronized, lift off nicely up to about four feet.. They then proceed to crash spectacularly. We discovered that the force curves were shifting, producing a lift force then a down force, then a lift force, and so on. The lack of a pure sine curve for two spheres was the cause of this.
Moreover…
It is possible to use a geared arrangement so that the spheres are actively lifted on levers, however, they must move in alignment with their natural force curve. If this is not done, the active oscillation disrupt the lift curve producing the same effect as the active y rotation. The apparatus lifts, then dives into the ground with kamikaze vengeance.
So, to make it work, you power stroke against the vertical precession force, eliminate y rotation, eliminate forced oscillation, and reduce the gap. Now there are many other parameters to be aware of, and I have only scratched the surface here. For example, there are designs where a gap is preferable, but the mechanics of operation are very different than any of the examples described above. My point is that there are many ways to make a four sphere gyro, and the mere fact that one design did not work should in no way disqualify another.
On another note, the magnets I used to hold the spheres in place are interesting devices themselves. They can hold 500 pounds only powered by a D cell battery! The thrust on the spheres at maximum operational speeds is less than 1,800 pounds, so the magnets hold.
Best to all,
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 09/04/2008 23:12:53
| | | Dear EDH,
Thank you for your detailed explanations. I have to read it a few more times.
But one question in advance: did you ever made test setups with real mechanical prototypes or did you made the tests exclusively with virtual software emulations?
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 09/04/2008 23:16:47
| | | Dear Harry:
Two physical prototypes were built, and both were designed to be modified. The first was the "demo" that has undergone many changes, and the second is the engine that I claimed in my first post.
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 10/04/2008 11:50:49
| | | Hi Harry;
I think I just realized that you wanted to know if the models that crashed were physical or virtual. The spectacular crashes were all virtual, and I do have some entertaining avi's of this phenomenon. The general rise and fall effect was confirmed in a configuration of a physical test set up. Total physical configurations have been a few dozen, and total virtual configurations a few hundred.
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 10/04/2008 18:57:21
| | | Dear EDH,
Thank you for the information. I have some problems in understanding your prior post:
"It is therefore possible to design a machine with four spinning spheres which rotate when they reach their peak height, and are then forced vertically down in the opposite direction, however such a machine would never produce lift because the spheres are being pushed in the same direction as the secondary precession force, rather than against it."
What do you mean with "peak height" and how can the spheres reach this height?
I also do not understand the next sentence. The spheres move upwards to reach their peak height, are then forced vertically down (by centrifugal force?) in the opposite direction, but this does not work because "the spheres are being pushed in the same direction as the secondary precession force, rather than against it".
This sentence is in my opinion very confusing.
Also confusing for me are your statements:
- "...the spheres rotate on their respective y axis, z axis..."
- "...the spheres are rotated about their respective y or z axis..."
- "...A sphere gyro which is rotated along its y or z axis..."
A sketch would be helpful...
Btw, in the meanwhile I have learned what is meant with "Coriolis force" in relation to gyroscope behavior. It is meant what I call "deflection force" of a precessing gyro. I think there are many ways to describe this behavior and "Coriolis force" may be one of them.
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 10/04/2008 20:30:43
| | | Dear EDH,
Your post on “examples that do not work” appears to use 2 terms in an interchangeable manner.
The terms are:
A) Secondary Precession Force (upward)
B) Vertical Precession Force
Do these 2 terms have the exact same meaning?
If no, please tell us what the differences are.
If yes, why do you call one “Secondary”; what makes this deflection/precession secondary (as opposed to primary); which would be the primary (in comparison)?
Also, on your 6th paragraph (of same posting), what do you mean by *”sphere which ROTATE”*, in the sentence:
“It is therefore possible to design a machine with four spinning *spheres which rotate* when they reach their peak height, and are then forced vertically down in the opposite direction, however …”?
Can you please clarify this very important point?
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 10/04/2008 21:02:35
| | | Hello Luis,
It seems as if we both have the same problems in understanding. :-)
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 10/04/2008 21:11:05
| | | Harry,
Maybe it is the language barrier...Ha Ha Ha… (Just joking).
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 10/04/2008 23:17:22
| | | Good idea, Luis! May be I have had negative influence over you! Ha Ha Ha Ha
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 11/04/2008 01:23:24
| | | Hello all:
Sorry for my colloquial American bias :)
My meaning for secondary precession is equivalent to vertical precession. By rotate I mean to turn a sphere or disc which is spinning on the axis of the lever (x) simultaneously about it's vertical axis (y) in either the clockwise or counter clockwise direction. This reverses the spin of the mass relative to the hub resulting in a reversal of the direction of vertical precession. If the mass is only rotated 45 degrees, then vertical precession forces disappear. This is also true if the mass is rotated 45 degrees on the z axis. One might wish to do this so that reactive precession forces are not generated during the return stroke.
Best,
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 11/04/2008 01:23:35
| | | Hello all:
Sorry for my colloquial American bias :)
My meaning for secondary precession is equivalent to vertical precession. By rotate I mean to turn a sphere or disc which is spinning on the axis of the lever (x) simultaneously about it's vertical axis (y) in either the clockwise or counter clockwise direction. This reverses the spin of the mass relative to the hub resulting in a reversal of the direction of vertical precession. If the mass is only rotated 45 degrees, then vertical precession forces disappear. This is also true if the mass is rotated 45 degrees on the z axis. One might wish to do this so that reactive precession forces are not generated during the return stroke.
Best,
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 11/04/2008 03:30:50
| | | Dear Harry, EDH and all,
I may not have internet connectivity for a few days.
I will talk to you next week.
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 11/04/2008 19:21:31
| | | Dear EDH,
Thank you for your clarifications, but I have still problem in understanding. :-(
"By rotate I mean to turn a sphere or disc which is spinning on the axis of the lever (x) simultaneously about it's vertical axis (y) in either the clockwise or counter clockwise direction."
- Does the sphere rotate ON or AROUND the x-axis (lever)?
. Will the sphere turned ABOUT or AROUND its vertical y-axis?
- Or does the sphere will be turned together with the connected lever around the center of hub?
It's really difficult to understand. By the way, what is the meaning of the black lines around the circumference of the spheres in the AVI -file which you have sent to me. Are these lines related to what you have stated in your last post?
Thanks!
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 11/04/2008 21:38:49
| | | Dear EDH,
I’m happy to see your autopilot brought you safely back to us all the way from Baltimore.
You might consider taking pictures of your machines and parts previously explained, running them through a scanner and emailing them to a few of us. We would understand you much more certainly and might also learn something new in parts design and fit-up. I think I will offer some cad drawings of my own poor as they are to any who want them.
ehawkins32@Comcast.net
Regards,
Glenn
Dear Harry,
That is the most astute observation made around here in ages in that the deflections we perceive is the Coriolis Force acting. I think it must be true. For what its worth you would find there are major differences in the causes as well as the reactions to the effects. But bravo! you have put together a hereto-unrecognized correlation of ideas that work. That is a Devine spark of conception existing in a phantom state and space of nothingness. From where does new thought come and why and how does it arrive? The brain is only a physical thing. Isn’t imagination the greatest wonder of all. I see the Coriolis Force acting in deflections.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 12/04/2008 01:17:20
| | | Mistake. I meant to post in Harry’s thread. No mater. Luis if you want to look over my drawings you also are very welcome.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 13/04/2008 01:03:45
| | | Hi Harry:
I will respond to your question in a comprehensive email.
Thanks,
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 13/04/2008 03:49:46
| | | Dear EDH,
No, No! Take pictures of the machines you were willing to explain, run them through a cheep $78.00 scanner and email them to the few of us.
I will try to do the same for you in a far more expensive cad cam presentations of my machines if you should ask.
Less get it over with. Show what you have. You don't have to do secretes. Show what you've been tlking about.
ehawkins32@Comcast.net
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 13/04/2008 12:29:09
| | | Dear EDH,
Thanks and I'm very curious about the content of your email. Be patient, Glenn, I'm sure we all will be informed early enough. ;-)
Next week I'm away on business for several days. I hope to be back till Friday next week.
Cheers!
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 13/04/2008 15:03:55
| | | Why?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 13/04/2008 15:43:54
| | | Why? - Which why, Glenn?
- Why I'm curious?
- Why you should be patient?
- Why I'm away on business?
- Why I hope to be back on next Friday?
???
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 16/04/2008 06:32:00
| | | Thanks for your reply Luis,
I do not expect replies to be necessarily agreeable. I have no complaint with your comments, they are after all the way you see it. However we have 2 completely different modes of operation here, and ne’er the twain shall meet.
The only other point we can disagree about is the fact that once in the saturation zone there is no quick way out. It has a lower limit but no upper limit, maybe perhaps a mechanical failure limit.
However Luis, after much research and development, it transpired that my answers lay in a completely different direction, and not at all related to EDH’S claims and nothing at all to do with synchronised return mechanisms.
I still maintain there is nothing to gain by using a sphere instead of a disc unless you want to generate angular momentum because the sphere is going to be at least twice the weight for the same amount of reaction.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
leander - 17/04/2008 17:37:31
| | | Hi all, I`m new in here. I used to check for any success every now and then in this site. Lately some hopes seem to be arising with EDH. good luck EDH !!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
leander - 17/04/2008 17:47:45
| | | Hi EDH. I read these last treads conserning your device mank times. You gave us a very good description of the device, and how it works, showing some important details as well. Can you show us any videos or animations of the functioning device.
As we say a picture/ video is a 100 times better than written words to describe such a machanism.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 17/04/2008 19:19:07
| | | Hi EDH and all,
I would appreciate it if you can clarify the one point that I am still confused about in your answer on rotating the sphere in a way that causes negative effects.
By the way, the weather in Aruba was great. It’s a great vacation island but I’m always glad to be home again.
I see 5 basic ways that can cause the sphere to turn:
#1) Spin around the sphere axis
#2) Hub rotation, around the hub axis, which can turn the sphere from across (90o), to slightly across (about 75o) in relationship to the sphere axis
#3) Precession that occurs at about 90o (+ or -) to the hub’s rotation axis and to the sphere’s spin axis
#4) Centrifugal action, which occurs opposite to precession’s direction (behaving as the counterpart in the tango)
#5) Tilting the entire hub or device in any direction
We use two continuously operating motors to drive #1 and #2 (with a ratio of 9 to 1), so I don’t see either of the first two as possible causes of the negative effect.
Causes #3 and #4 (precession and centrifugal) are the desired results that blend into desirable flutter (tango), so I also don’t see either of third or fourth as possible causes of the negative effect.
The last cause #5 may occur because of imbalances in the hub and/or device etc.
My questions are, where does the turning of the sphere(s) that we need to avoid come from... how does it happen… can it result from timing error… imbalance… how do we prevent it?
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 23/04/2008 17:17:24
| | | Dear EDH,
I don’t know if you will read this but I think I now understand why you must prepare well before conducting a successful demo of your device. Stability during a prolonged hover is essential to a successful credible demo. This must be performed without external guides of any type (what so ever) because any form of guide can be misconstrued by observers.
I believe that maintaining a prolonged hover (or flight) with solely internal control introduces a risk because there is a need to compensate and adjust the balance with small tilts of the device that can produce disastrous results.
Unless I have missed the point, item #5 of my previous posting (above) can result from almost any attempt to re-balance through internal compensation using ballast etc. This action could potentially cause your device to dive into self destruction (something you have managed to avoid outside the virtual world, up to now).
It appears to me that it may not be easy to hold a demo of indefinite length without such risk because other external factors can precipitate the dreaded rotation to the sphere, in mid demonstration.
Whether correct or not, my insight fits well with all the information that has been provided in this forum. It is possible that more information may change my conclusions but frankly I can’t imagine how at this point.
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 29/04/2008 01:31:46
| | | Dear Harry,
Did you ever figure out what EDH ment by the turning of the spheres that causes reversal etc?
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 29/04/2008 07:30:17
| | | Dear Luis,
Unfortunately I didn't get further explanations from EDH per email.
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
PATRICK - 01/01/2009 09:59:04
| | | My yellow papered drawings in 340AD may b th e first ever and some unwanted illegigible txt in this forum of which i was sure was an open place 4 incoming new ideas has become a sumittannnce of riddle and ridicule,oh how we larf at those for their migivings and please forgive my indicicive perambula.May we change some day-----TRo want to listen,or just look at all mass evaluation and input 2 say why a surcumstance of so much evaluatin-------------of course,yet 2 say enlightenment still ones own
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
