|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
23 November 2024 18:21
|
|
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: |
Sandy Kidd |
| Subject: |
Can the Laws of Motion be defied? |
| Question: |
Shed Dwellers and all interested parties.
Must inertial drive devices defy the laws of motion?
I think there are many conflicting opinions on this subject, although if the present trend continues we may all eventually get somewhere in this search for the truth.
Maybe the interest in EDH’s device has sparked this all off, but at long last the correct questions are being asked.
I can see considerable disagreement arising as a result of all of this, but without an argument who will ever learn anything.
It is all to easy to believe chapter and verse what we have all been taught and believe, basically because in most cases it does not matter too much.
How often has the information relating to discs being spun in multiple axes ever been required?
Not very often, if ever, methinks.
Once upon a time, in a long past other life, a pupil in our science class asked how carbon dioxide gas got itself into a liquid state inside a pressure vessel or bottle.
Our science teacher told us that the if the gas was compressed hard enough, it would turn into a liquid.
When I was 45 years old I befriended a knowledgeable American gentleman, just after I began working on North Sea Oil and Gas installations. Doug’s specialty was in process engineering, including the production of liquefied gas. I got into a discussion on gas compression and liquefaction and was extremely embarrassed at my total ignorance of the facts, due mostly to misinformation by that teacher.
In fairness the teacher probably believed that his answer was correct as that was what he believed.
I got a crash course in the operation of expander compressors from Doug which enlightened me somewhat, and never to take things on face value in the future.
The point I am trying to make is, that was 30 years of ignorance, although it would not have mattered if the question had never arisen.
Ignorance is bliss they say.
Since that time I have scanned my memory banks for similar instances where information has been taken on face value or just plain accepted. There have been several.
Aerodynamics and the effect of lifting wing sections is classic, although the aero modelling fraternity have known that this was untrue for a long time.
This erroneous theory is still being taught today.
Now gyroscopes and their operation have got to be the daddy of them all.
99.99 % of the time it just does not matter what they do, but along comes an instance where some like minded and twisted individuals for their own purposes, want to utilise some of their seemingly magical attributes to make flying saucers, and do things with them no one else would ever wish to do.
What is being discovered is that some of these attributes are creating havoc with accepted principles, and it now looks certain that Newton and Einstein did not get it all correct, in fact in selected cases they are all wrong.
The momentum conservation and conversion laws (in my opinion, and for what it is worth, were only ever an assumption) are under attack here, and it is an attack they will have a hard job recovering from.
Can the laws of motion be broken?
Sandy Kidd
|
| Date: |
30 May 2008
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 02/06/2008 13:53:40
| | | What and outstanding post, Sandy. It really is excellent. Thank you for doing it. Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 07/06/2008 18:57:31
| | | Dear Sandy,
It just occurred to me that a post I did on Art's Alexander's 'time delay' is an additional logically answer to your question. It is proof, or can be presented as the simplest kind of proof that your long time insistence is correct. It's short. I'll just post it a second time, because it fits perfectly here.
Art spoke of Professor Laithwaite’s wish for time delays. I think he knew about them, or at least sensed them. It might seem surprising, but he and you and I and and all of us have been playing with time delay every since we picked up our first gyroscope. I have some drawings that explain how precession is enacted and supported that I may eventually send around to most everyone who wants them. While the drawings explain particle inertial resistance to acceleration and particle inertial resistance to deceleration, which result in twisting the gyro around a fulcrum, they also present time delay quite well. It’s pretty simple really, but like everything else only after you know.
The opposite reaction to particle acceleration is halted by static equilibrium caused by and equal and opposite particle deceleration. The drawings make this understandable with a little effort on the part of the reviewer. But anyway, partials resist being accelerated outward in the direction of centrifuge, but though they resist they are accelerated outward anyway. Now that the partials gaine outward velocity they are rotated in the flywheel to another time and place where they are forced to decelerate. This happens four times in each rotation. You see reaction is delayed while it is transported to another position in space. As strange and completely opposite to classical dynamics as this all sounds I assure everyone it is true. That is what the gyro does and is the the beginning of the causes that can separate spinning, whirling things from known physics. It will be much easier to understand all this for those who would like to have pictures sometime. If anyone wants them ask. That way I can decide how best to go about sending them to you. I get a bonus. If no one asks I’ll know few read here and fewer still are actually much interested in the subject. ehawkins32@comcast.net
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/06/2008 01:48:00
| | | Excuse me, Sandy. I forgot to explain the simple. In time-delay, that is the acceleration of particles outward toward centrifuge, this force is rotated to another place in space where it reacts by being forced to decelerate. Action and reaction are equal, but they are not linier directed opposite to one another. Actions occur in one space and reaction in yet another quite removed in space and time. They are only parallel and they are separate. This is as true as the next breath we take. The Third Law doesn’t work when spinning things are opposed by other spinning things.
Sometimes we concentrate on the difficult and take for granted that the simple will be reasoned. Sorry. I will argue what I’m saying with anyone. The great genius with an IQ of 200 did not even know what a gyroscope was. It hadn’t been invented in his time. Otherwise he would have explained it for us. Opposite reaction doesn’t happen. It is rotated somewhere else in space and time. Are we on top of it, or what?
Sincerely, Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 14/06/2008 01:33:18
| | | Dear Sandy,
Basic physical laws are “assumptions” that have become accepted because they work when used, and are experimentally proven (such as the laws of motion and conservation laws).
These helpful assumptions (laws) also make the universe more PREDICTABLE when we apply our intellect (sometimes this requires larger effort and deeper thinking).
Basic assumptions are not perfect, as they are not 100% provable (because they are foundational concepts that, at best hang on other such vetted assumptions).
Gyroscopes and spinning objects do NOT defy the laws of motion (and I am not currently aware of anthing that defies these laws).
Perhaps “inertial drive devices” by definition are required to defy the laws of motion.
However I am not familiar with the definition of “inertial drive”, as I don’t consider any of my propulsion designs as “inertial drive devices”. My propulsion designs rely on actions that defray their equal reactions at 90o, and depend on cyclical actions to reposition the mass of the spin object.
-
I do agree that most people do not understand the technology well enough to explain the concepts that they practice (including people that we would expect to know, such as your science teacher).
However this does NOT prove that the accepted underlying concepts are wrong.
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 17/06/2008 06:16:05
| | | Hello Luis,
My reply posted here is actually in answer to one of your postings on a different thread, but are very similar in context.
Several postings ago you made reference to me wrongfully assuming that gyroscopes defied the laws of motion.
Whether I do, or do not believe that gyroscopes defy the laws of motion, I have never ever suggested in any of my previous postings that they did.
That could become a complicated and drawn out debate at this stage in the game, and in the final analysis does not affect the eventual outcome.
Sorry you got that impression Luis, as all I am really trying to explain is that gyroscopes under mechanical acceleration react somewhat differently from what is generally believed.
The significant difference I highlighted was the fact that angular momentum generated in a system of fixed rotation speed is directly proportional to the rotation speed of the gyroscope.
I am in effect stating what should have been stated hundreds of years ago to make the laws of motion correct.
If there was any angular momentum present in the system at any positive (any angle above zero) angle of offset, Harry’s balance would be possible, and some vertical thrust could be generated. Alas this cannot be.
Any comments I have made relating to the attributes of gyroscopes in mechanically accelerated systems does not make inertial drive devices any more possible, it only clarifies what gyroscopes really do.
Inertial drive systems utilising mechanically accelerated gyroscopes are a bit farther down the road and are something different again.
There and then we can argue about the laws of motion.
Hope this clarifies my position.
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 21/06/2008 21:18:28
| | | Dear Sandy,
You’ve been hacked on for some time now haven’t you? Let’s clarify. We will open and study the ‘Gallery, RIGB Christmas Lecture 1974-75, 8. Gyroscope on an arm with a second pivot point. Making a body lighter than it is.’ This is what the professor said is one of the most remarkable experiments he thinks he’s ever done. Go to near the very end of the video, the last experiment and prepare to run this segment back and forth using stop action several times. We will refer to this experiment as the ‘double hinge’.
First concentrate on the professor’s left hand as he sets the ‘double hinge’ experiment in motion. With a quick slight of hand he twist the gyro inward toward the pivot and upward making the axels bow upwards. It is a quick hand movement as I said and you may need to watch the segment several times in order to satisfy yourself that it takes place. We now set aside this experiment and go to a sheet of clean paper. We will later come back to the ‘double hinge’ experiment.
Do the simplest stick drawing you can. Draw a tower. Draw a 6” line at 45 o from the tower. Draw a straight 2” line in the middle of the 45 o line and at a right angle to it. Draw another, same configuration, out from the tower, but at a 90 o angle from it. Now you are ready to discover 'a little bit' very little, but enough of the way I have envisioned and tried to explain many times the simplest part of a phenomena.
With that drawing finished from a rearview the gyroscope is falling from a 45 0 angle to a 90 o angle. It’s time to make a few marks in order to measure the difference in the magnitude of upper positions of flywheel deflections to that of low positions of flywheel deflections.
At the very ‘top’ of the 45 0 flywheel make an upward mark. Next at the 90 o position again make a mark from the ‘top’ of the flywheel upward. Now it is time to measure the horizontal distance between these upward marks. Write the inches, or mm between the two lines to show the distance of horizontal separation, as the gyro would fall from 45o to 90o.
Now it’s time to do the same with the bottom potion of the flywheel. From the ‘bottom’ of the 45 o flywheel make a mark straight downward. Next make a mark straight downward from the ‘bottom’ of the 90 o flywheel. Now measure the horizontal distance between these two lines and place the number between the two bottom lines. From this it is easy to see the dual tendencies of force resistance to tilt. The top of the gyro in the tendency to tilt is a great deal more outward in distance to be traveled from the tower, than is the bottom of the flywheel tilted inward toward the tower. These distance tendencies represent perfectly the different magnitudes of force 'static force' on the top half to the bottom half of the gyro.
Not only is this resisting nature of angular momentum to become a torque down on the tower, obvious from the drawing, but also we can clearly surmise the top deflection force is for more prevalent inward than is the bottom force outward creating the twist down on the pedestal and although the bottom is to a lesser extent, it is still helpful and necessary to produce this torque. It will be important to remember the greater force deflection resides in the top half of the flywheel, because that force is exactly opposite to centrifuge.
Now, with this knowledge it is time to return to the professor's video of the ‘double hinge’ experiment.
Seemingly the gyro is doing the weirdest thing. It would have seemed that as the gyro must torque down on the hinged lever creating a downward elbow at the pivot as the professor indicated earlier in this lecture and experiments in order to support itself from tilting and falling. This doesn’t happen, instead the elbow bends upwards. It surely does. There are always reasons for these mystifications. The universe is a logical place to live—always if we have the mind to understand parts of it. The professor’s slight of hand placed the gyro in that position, elbow bent upwards, rather than extend the axels and pivots horizontally in a level straight line outwards as we first expected that he did and we thought he dropped it-- before we begin to carefully study his hand movements by re-running the video. Once positioned so the gyro did not want to be moved. We shall see.
Next reverting back to our stick drawing we can understand the upper force of deflection in the video is strongest. This upper force resist both falling and the tilting that would be necessary for the most outward elbow pivot to straighten. To straighten the elbow the flywheel would have to actual tilt! rather than maintain it’s current state of only ‘tendencies’ of force, tendencies of tilt, or we could say ‘static resistances’ acting against tilting.
Now we come to the inward force that you have steadfastly maintained is stronger than centrifuge. Can we now begin to see that this is surely so and ‘WHY?’ You were right all along in that centrifuge did not present a force. But, as the German put it this does not mean there is no centrifuge, but only that a greater force in the opposite direction must be overcoming centrifuge. I have been saying this several times in several posts since 2003, but I don’t think anyone ever understood, because I gave mechanical reasons such as I have given here. For such sacrilege against the science of numbers in preference to understanding 'why' and 'how' I may yet be hanged by the community in this forum—present company excepted.
You were always correct concerning inward force from upward precession (your kind) from horizontal force, but in even stranger mechanical and logical ways centrifuge is absolutely prevalent and can be made a fairly strong influencing force in horizontal precession such as from gravity powered. I understand the mechanisms whereby this happens, but I dare not attempt to explain why at this time. The forum will be lucky if one, or two people understand what I have just written. There are people here who cannot even grasp the possibility that an excellent mind such as I have for mechanics is capable of understanding the simplest ideas to do with of some of EDH’s work. They would say, “I don’t think you understand my theory.” I couldn’t believe it at first. I even wrote a jest to make my point in a funny, gentle and harmless way by making fun of myself, "The low grade moron Hawkins is too dumb to understand." You won’t believe this, but the purpose wasn't understood. The reply I got was, "Nobody has to read that." Then more, " I don't think you understand my theory." After a time of continual, but useless insistence from me that, “Your theory is too simple to be misunderstood. I UNDERSTAND IT! 100%!!!! !” to no avail, it all eventually began to exasperate me. I still can hardly believe the complete denseness of it all. Oh well, hell’s bells. I don’t care. But, I do wish I could show you the dozens of schematics I’ve been doing. They tell every thing. They aren’t ready. They’ve got to be cleaned up.
Anyway I have explained. So there is no longer a reason anyone can say to you after this message, unless they are exceedingly dense of course, that they have to understand ‘why and what’ before they do your experiment. Why and how is explained for any with the mind to follow it. It cannot be wrong. Besides that put-down statement to you was all backwards. The best of theoretical science puts together what physical science gives them in the way of tests. Even the professor said exactly this. Left to their own resources these guys in theoretical science without test to first confirm truths, come up with wormholes, dual universes and time travel and elephants holding themselves over a cliff with their tails wrapped around a daisy and most, but not all such imposable and improbable things that can’t ever, ever be proven, or disproved. Give me tests first when possible.
Your force registers inward. Whenever it makes itself known, causes and action, it seems it will and must always be stronger than centrifuge such is the nature of the mechanics I have toyed with here that create lift, precession and greater inward force than outward.
Kindly Yours,
Your Friend
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn - 21/06/2008 22:06:55
| | | I have just now emailed you a drawing. That should help.
G. H.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
. - 22/06/2008 03:01:44
| | | Correction: Watch His right hand, which is the left side from your view.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/06/2008 16:58:59
| | | Dear Anybody and Everybody,
Totally forget this post above. Much more schematics and with greater complications are necessary. At least necessary are the dozens I’ve recently done. I first thought the post and single drawing I sent would be sufficient. Only now do I realize this isn’t enough information. You see I have to realize not what I understand as it is based on a combination of my kind of understandings and drawings if you will, but I must now learn to see through others eyes who haven’t studies using the same methods, but have used different methods. One drawing, or explanation such as above by itself just won’t do. I’m actually sorry I posted it.
I see I’m going to have to do a book. There have been well over 200 books written on the subject of gyroscopes in the last forty years coming out of several countries. You can find the titles, dates and authors that are kept up to dated by NATO surprisingly and available on the Internet if can sift through the sites. In all those books not a single author has understood the mechanical visions, nor known of course how to explain how and why the gyro operates, because he did not know. I think no one has ever known until now. The books are mathematical in nature though some have a popular oblique like, flat drawing in pitifully one dimension as an excuse for an explanation. The drawing is mechanically useless to my mind. You see, if good and full explanations had ever been done we would not be here today pouring over this site, because we would then know how and why it all works and what was possible and what was not possible. You see, if good and full explanations had ever been done only a handful of books applying to advancing modern technologies and means and usages for guidance systems would have been sufficient instead on more than two hundred books and this fact is even more incredible considering that some of these doubtlessly were written by the most competent scholars the earth had to offer, while primarily only reproducing essentially same information over and over again. So I think I must try to write this book of explanations and drawings never done before of mine that I have been trying to avoid. As for the math I will scavenge and plagiarize from sufficiently old books written by mathematicians. That is legal and more than 90% of all the information in these books was already plagiarized anyway. It’s all been done before from scholar to scholar using methods hundreds, even thousands of years old. The math was never the problem. I will add it as needed and though absolutely essential to engineering, it alone without mechanical augmentations was in some ways misleading as it has been accepted as an excuse for mechanical explanations, which it is not. The excuse was used with a blind eye, because the mechanics were difficult almost to the point of being impossible, and consider what scholar is willing to say, “I DON’T KNOW WHY AND I DON’T KNOW HOW!” certainly not a single, solitary member of London’s great ‘Royal Academy Of Science’ was, or is willing to say that. Who among any of them in high positions residing in all parts of the world is willing to say that? Perhaps none I think. Math alone is all that has been known and so today in, 2008 people are still trying to figure it all out. The search on this particular site is devoted to trying to understand ‘why does ‘it’ do what it does?’ My book won’t pay a damn thing. In fact I will have to pay money to a viking press to publish it for me, because publishers know it won’t sell enough copies to pay a junior editor to edit, printing set-ups, marketing and general publishing cost.
Feeling more humble and forced into doing the book than anything else I will set out to do it, because I feel I owe it to humanity before I fade away. The mechanics kept secret from our minds for so long is a debt to all who wish to know, owed by the first human who has managed to formulate a method of understanding. I think I will refrain from posting here for a while and just continue working. It was going well.
Incidentally, Sandy the book should answer the heading of your post here and should also provide a logic that can be trusted so that the answers once individually arrived at will be believed. Tall order, huh? Otherwise there will be no generally acceptable answers. In all this time there never have been. This site is further away from acceptable answers today than it was when it was begun. For one to think he has added to the acceptable for the community, is to suffer from allusions.
Catch you later,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
glenn hawkins - 25/08/2008 12:41:06
| | |
Dear Sandy,
I have messaged you a couple of times and also Art. My messages come back. I don’t know why. Have you received them?
Regards Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 01/11/2008 15:59:25
| | | Hello Sandy,
I’ve been pleased to receive your few, but good and welcome emails, the last one dated, 10/22/08, in which you said you had noticed I had not managed to get any emails through to you.
Actually, I’ve sent you several messages in the last three months. My computer indicated that my mail went through to you, but because of what you say above I know there is some problem in your receiving the mail I send. I think you would answer me, so I don’t know what’s wrong. It’s too bad. I hope somehow we can fix it. I think of you sometimes.
Take care my friend,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick - 02/11/2008 02:26:11
| | | pls forget my e mail would be simpler to post a letter
time delay what the fuck! yes possible only after the fact of reversing fluidicity of thown out masses... then entering replacement by acumilation of protons within a negative feild dohh
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 02/11/2008 09:38:45
| | | Numb nuts, you can’t post schematics here and a letter alone would not do. Since you don’t understand semantics-- schematics mean diagrams/drawings. Drawings are used to convey thought and design where words alone aren‘t enough. “A picture is worth a thousand words.” Hence the necessity of using emails.
If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, was there sound? If no one understands your half baked ramblings, was there a fucked up mind behind them? Even if you don‘t understand time delay at least be respectful of Art Alexander and I and the originator of the idea, professor Laithwaite. Though Art and I are young we are your seniors just like every other person you will meet in your life. And, “dohh.” back to you.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harvey Fiala - 26/03/2009 08:13:18
| | | Dear Sandy:
I do not believe the laws of motion can be defied. I can go into sufficient depth to prove this to you, but maybe not in this one answer. It just depends in how broad a context you interpret them.
The Webmaster forwarded an email from you to me about four years ago. I am sorry that I never answered it. I truly am always so very busy. But now I would like to share some knowledge with you. I became interested in gravity research at the age of 8. I graduated from the California Institute of Technology. I retired at age 57 for health reasons. I am now 74. In 1996 I began experimenting with inertial propulsion in ernest.
If one looks only at a single device that may or may not work, it may appear that the laws of motion are violated. However if one takes a broader view (like literally looking and thinking outside the box) the laws are definitely not violated. However, the establishment physicists do not think outside the box. I have a device that does produce motion, but does not produce sustained acceleration, which would be the Holy Grail of travel to the stars. I have a patent application pending and hope to have a patent within a year. I have purposely kept very low profile. I do not want to pull another Laithwaite or Pons & Fleischman. As soon as I have the patent and a sufficiently impressive demonstration model, I will tell the whole world. The guys on these propulsion threads that feel like they are in hell will all get out of hell-I promise.
I consider Alex Jones the "Father of Inertial Propulsion". He was the first one to demonstrate that precession could produce motion. But neither he nor Laithwaite were ingenious enough to practically generate continuous motion. The device on Laithwaite's patent could successfully produce ontinuous motion, but it was a rube-goldberg of a contraption that was not practical to build. However, if it could have been built, it would have successfully the principle involved (except not to the Royal Institution or other "Establishment Physicists". Sadly, their minds are already made up and closed.
Webmaster, could you please forward my email address to Sandy so that we could communicate on the side? My address for him from four years ago no longer works. Thank you very much.
Sincerely, Harvey
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
ravi - 15/04/2009 15:29:12
| | |
Sandy said "What is being discovered is that some of these attributes are creating havoc with accepted principles, and it now looks certain that Newton and Einstein did not get it all correct, in fact in selected cases they are all wrong.
The momentum conservation and conversion laws (in my opinion, and for what it is worth, were only ever an assumption) are under attack here, and it is an attack they will have a hard job recovering from.
Can the laws of motion be broken?"
Hi Sandy
The answer to your question is yes.
Only now did I know the answer to that question. After building/testing prototypes for the past 5 years.
Can we talk?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
