Question |
| Asked by: |
Glenn Hawkins |
| Subject: |
Some of us can quit now |
| Question: |
Dear all you kind and basically good people I have some information for some of you. Those who enjoy searching for inertial propulsion, why not continue? You need read no further.
Those of you who don’t enjoy it, but were driven to solve the seemingly endless array of mechanical actions that gyroscopes do, you can quit now if you want to and if you want to believe me. Today I did some tests for the thousandth time. The difference is I had finally learned how to read them as mechanical functions.
The discovery: There is equal and opposite reaction in the precession plane. If free to do so each end of the axes would rotate equally around the center of the gyroscope as it is tilted. Gyroscopes do not freely pivot with one axel end remaining in the same place, while the other circles freely. The tendency of both ends to rotate is hidden in the normal string and pedestal experiments. The pedestal provides friction to hold the pivot in one place and keep it from circling. The professor tricked you. The string experiment provides a pendulum effect that keeps the pivot from moving upward sideways oppositely from the freely circling axel end in the general areas of a horizontal plane.
It has been known for a long time there was very little force circling the pivot and so not much resistance was necessary, in some cases only a hint of resistance, to stop the pivot from circling.
Because there is no natural pivot, neither in constant velocity during precession, nor acceleration into precession, but instead a fictitiously acting pivot held in place, inertial propulsion by any means is not possible. If you hate the wasted years as I do and if you believe me you can quit now.
I hope to visit from time to time, infrequently and without offering challenges if you don’t mind too much.
Bless you all,
Glenn
|
| Date: |
21 April 2008
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 21/04/2008 23:29:56
|
| | Forget it. I was wrong. I learned something. Something different is all. My number one design was 100% wrong is all. I was so happy to escape this horror for a little while. I thought it was solved. Suddenly my mechanics were perfect. But in rested eyes they are not complete.
A natural pivot is real. Not in all cases. I’ll never know why. I hope I can quit. I am sad I was wrong. And sad I don’t think I can quit.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/04/2008 14:13:00
|
| | Yes, yes, yes! I am elated. We’re back on track. Within the newly discovered information that confused me was the answer imbedded in what I’ve been searching for, for such a long time. My number one continuous cycling thrust design, seems for all the world to work perfectly. I’m happy. I should be exhausted, but I’m not. Happy days. Oh happy days. Happy, happy days. My mechanics are not complete. I guess you may not always know what I mean by that word. That’s ok. It’s how everything in the universe works. How does torturing deflections cause ‘reaction’ pivoting to move to a single axel end that allows for precession? I may never know. My mechanics end there. If anybody has a mechanical reaction guess please tell me. We can look at it and think it over.
Oh happy days. Happy, happy days,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/04/2008 16:23:17
|
| | FINISHED!
We come full circle.
INERTIAL PROPULSION IS NOT POSSIBLE.
I am free. Free at last. Thank God free at last.
I have learned more in the last week than I did in twenty years. During the development of these new ways of thinking I posted notes here thinking each time I had reached what I thought was a final conclusion. However, each time I wasn’t finished with these newly discovered ways of finding answers. I am now. Everything is complete. IP isn’t possible in any way, form, shape, or fashion. I will never again say otherwise.
Since 1945, or earlier the gyroscope has tricked the visual and logical perceptions of people, some of them brilliant. Today as then our top scholars do not understand the confounding mechanical intricacies, as do the researchers who have devoted so much time. The scholars simply believe IP is against the Law--period. The scholars are right.
I could do a book as never before done with drawings and explanation of new ways to do mechanical thinking that would explain everything with measures of simplicity. There is only a fraction of knowledge necessary, though it was once believed even by scholars that all there was to know about a gyroscope would fill a great library. There is not so much at all. Less than twenty colorful pages might do it if everything were reduced to the economy of only what is necessarily, leaving out the history, examples of fallible thinking and other filler material.
Having invested so much time already, I wonder whether I’m willing to spend more doing a book. How many people are interested in another Gyro Book? How many copies would sell on the Internet? I suspect not many and I’ve already devoted twenty years of free time taken from family and business. Would more time be worthwhile economically?
Dear Glenn Turner, will you please tell me privately how many copies of your book have sold? ehawkins32@Comcast.net
My best wishes to all,
Glenn Hawkins
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Umamna - 25/04/2008 07:08:15
|
| |
Waiting for U to change your mind again, please need entertainment
Did you try different shapes? IVC
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 25/04/2008 08:01:05
|
| | It's really funny, Glenn. It seems your belief in inertial propulsion will be deflected consistently about 180 degree. Thus I'm also waiting for the next turn... :-)
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/04/2008 10:25:42
|
| | There’s no need for this fellows. I won’t change my mind. I won’t take a turn. I explained the reason for the confusion then stated firmly I was finished. The End. It wasn’t about me anyway. It was about all the new stuff coming into my mind almost too fast, but I’ve always been going through thought process few could, or would follow. To my mind there was only one, or two, perhaps three persons who could respond to the mechanical thinking I often posted. You see? There is no response to this post, just two cuts at me. I might explain the solutions I recently fell upon and how they work, but to whom?
The truth is I feel awful that I’ve let down a friend here of mine, a really nice person and in some way perfectly brilliant. For that reason I wouldn’t have posted this, but for thinking I might help some from wasting years, who’s driving nature was like mine, who from childhood believed they could solve anything they set their mind to and never gives up, all because a gyroscope’s behavior seems for all the world like it will do IP. I wanted to warn them, not you fellows who like it. You don’t lose anything. You don’t require warning.
It’s not funny. When I do humor it is funny. Shapes don't matter. Be nice and understand I encourage you to believe what you enjoy believing.
All my best,
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Boneman - 26/04/2008 16:24:55
|
| | Hi Glenn. Im glad you have seen someting that many others yet have to see.
Me, Im still a beliver that IP perhaps is possible, if we can creat an inviroment internal that behave as it was external so to speak... However I do support you in your idea of making a book about it.
In that book you could also list all your idesa that has been tested threw out the years as well, so that no one should re-invent your ideas.. The book will be the bible of gyroscopes!
I have been afk from this website for almost a year. but we had some dialog when I was here the last time. I was then plannig to spend my summer on making one of my machines. Nedless to say.... the outcome was a stick slip engine.. getting nowhere.
However ther are some question that I have for you and I hope you can give me the answers to, but I have to get my self into the right terms and vocabular as Im not english and the words used to describe gyro behaviour is sort of forgotten for me now..
Bless you all,
Bone.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 26/04/2008 18:16:32
|
| | Hi Bone,
' Good to hear from you. I don’t know about a book, it’s unsettled in my mind, but your thoughts are intriguing.
I will try to answer your questions when you are ready. I believe I can now do that whatever the questions. We can find out if I can. Thank you for not attacking me for what I’ve written earlier. Take care now. See you later.
Sincerely,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Anon - 08/05/2008 22:46:45
|
| | Well done Glen,
I was on this forum some 5 years ago - you were the one who stopped me delving in more than I had already and I thank you so much for that.
Good luck on life without the paradox (and mental honey-trap) of the inertial propulsion.
You're a true Gentleman
All the best
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 09/05/2008 17:43:44
|
| | Dear Anon,
What a delightful little communication. It lifted my spirits and made me happy. Now I get to think I was of some use to somebody after all.
Not working on IP is different. It’s like having your hands in your pockets and being all dressed up with nowhere to go. I’m trying to shift my interest into cars and houses. I tried fishing, which I used to love, but found I wasn’t interested. I belong to two large fraternities where I am welcome, but I’m not too interested in people just right now. Oh, I’ll do something. I’ll fight my way out of the blue and sometimes angry funk and re-devoting my interest to something else. Life without inertial propulsion is a little strange to me. Learning that fact itself is strange. Who would have suspected you could feel a bit like you’d lost your guiding light. For any who were so devoted for so long and finally finish the puzzle you might expect the same. ‘Life without the mental honey-trap’. Yes! That’s it. I made notes and drawings so that as I start to rethink, ‘Yes. But what if?’ I can refer back to my notes and drawings and so far that has satisfied me as I slip up now and then and tend to revisit ‘Yes, but what if?’ ideas.
You are a kind person and a gentleman in the truest sense to stop your busy day to tell another, a stranger he was heard and believed. Thank you.
All my best,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/05/2008 14:16:12
|
| | In truth there is no proof in the string/pedestal example that opposite and equal reaction is free to act in the precession plane. A combination of centrifuge and precession combine to overcome the tendency of the pivoting end of the axel to rotate equally and oppositely to the free axel end, which rotates around the pivotal end. How very strange. Centrifugal force combined with precession displacement eliminates the equal and opposite effect.
Example:
When a gyroscope is hanging by a string the center of gravity is always offset outwardly from the vertical position of the string. The longer the string the further outward will be the offset though the angle will be the same. The eventual result is that the entire gyro when connected to a long enough string rotates in a wide circle outward from its natural center of gravity. The widening circle is contained and restricted by the pendulum effect, which works in constant opposition to gravity, which attempts to pull the gyroscope inward to hang directly under what would otherwise be a vertical string.
At the same time precession is moving the pendulum effect constantly forward degrees by degrees. At each rotating placement wherein the inter axel end would otherwise rotate in equally response to the outer it is moved to a new location forward in precession rotation. Equal and opposite is denied to act by the movement of precession. Also another directional condition of the pendulum effect is acting. It is in reverse to the direction of precession and would counter a natural tendency of the enter axel end to rotate in balance with the outer end. The enter must pivot instead, even as it rotates in a smaller circle about the string in relation to the outer axel end, which rotates in a larger circle.
The combination of centrifuge and precession overcome the natural equal and opposite condition in the precession plane. Isn’t this strange my fellow enthusiast? Where does that take us? Back to the beginning? Perhaps in seeking simplicity the best solution is that we should stomp every gyroscope we see.
Bless You,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 22/05/2008 14:54:49
|
| | Hello Luis,
This is a very good example to prove that there is an interaction between centrifugal and precession forces. Both forces trying to balance each other. Very good observation!
Thank you!
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/05/2008 15:42:31
|
| | Dear Harry,
I’m not Louis. The observation is purely mechanical in nature, which is what I’ve been saying is also important, that is mechanics in addition to equations. Now I know you should say hello to Louis. He is surely on your mind. My name? All is forgiven. It is a little mistake that doesn’t matter at all. I understand. No apology is necessary. I just smiled about it.
You also made a very fine connection, relating as proof how centrifuge and precession relate and react and try to ballance one another. Well done also. There is the ballance we looked for. Very good indead.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 22/05/2008 16:04:11
|
| | Sorry GLENN!
I think we come closer to the real operation of gyro behavior in certain situations. Both will help, precise observations (mechanic ´setups) as well as finding the correct equations for calculations. That's the right way to prove or disprove inertial propulsion!
Thanks Glenn!
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 26/05/2008 22:23:10
|
| | There is a simple proof that the gyroscope does not exert a force on the pivot.
Take a shaft with a flywheel on bearing at each end of the shaft. Suspend from strings at each end.
Rotate only one of the flywheels then cut one of the strings.
If you are right and a force is exerted to accelerate the mass, then it will make no difference which string is cut, or which flywheel is spinning.
“The combination of centrifuge and precession overcome the natural equal and opposite condition in the precession plane.” Not so.
The device is symmetrical in terms of Newtonian force/acceleration, where it is said that the spinning flywheel has the same inertia/centripetal force action as an inert mass. But not in reality.
Do the experiment. The precession of a gyroscope is not Newtonian.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 27/05/2008 00:48:55
|
| | Momuus, you said: “There is a simple proof that the gyroscope does not exert a force on the pivot.”
If you believe this why bother to try to contradict me for I have plainly said the same, there is no equal/opposite reaction in the precession plane?
You said: “The combination of centrifuge and precession overcome the natural equal and opposite condition in the precession plane.” Not so.
You are so wrong it is painful.
You said: “The device is symmetrical in terms of Newtonian force/acceleration, where it is said that the spinning flywheel has the same inertia/centripetal force action as an inert mass. But not in reality.
Oh yeah it does, but if you are to challenge this old standard you had better learn how to describe comprehensibly whatever it is you wish to impart.
I am about to prove you wrong in another post, that centripetal force fully acts during precession, but the old saying is you can lead a hoarse to water, but you can’t make him drink. I will not be able to force you to see the light, but everybody else will see. Later. I’m in no hurry.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 27/05/2008 01:51:36
|
| | Correction: You said I said: “The combination of centrifuge and precession overcome the natural equal and opposite condition in the precession plane.”
You said: “Not so.”
I was correct and you are so wrong, Momtus it is painful. I believe I proved I was correct, but you avoid my mechanical explanations, do not address the argumentative proofs I stated in a following train of thought and neither explain, or expand anything of understanding whether positive, or negative to what I said, instead you make a blanket statement---- “Not so.” you say.
That’s it? Why bother? when we few here are trying so hard at this time to explain ourselves with greatest clarity?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
