|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
27 November 2024 10:18
|
|
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: |
Lewis J |
| Subject: |
Alex Jone's Device |
| Question: |
Hi, Im a college student and im currently doing a paper on all aspect of gyroscopic motion, having watched the 'heritics' as part of my research I was wondering is the device Alex Jones possible? If so how? I can't seem to find explanations anywhere but i feel it is esential that i investigate this particularly interesting use of Gyroscopes as part of my paper. Can anyone please help?
Lewis |
| Date: |
19 June 2008
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
. - 02/07/2008 16:38:52
| | | No! When an overhung gyro is precessing it moves from one place in its orbit to another. With small gyros this is a couple of inches of displacement that you can start and stop with your hands anywhere inside the radius you chouse. The Jones contraption moves only a couple of inches too, but vertically/horizontally, but for the same basic reasons as precession. That the Jones device appears to move further rolling in a straight line is a trick. Watch the veto several times with stop and go action and concentrate on his hands. He gives the device a push, the same as he does with trickery when he lifts it. If the presentation were honest and he lifted and released repeatedly, the device would have moved back and forth on the tracks and only a couple of inches repeatedly. The Jones experiment is a visual trick. I say again watch his hands.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 16/07/2008 18:51:28
| | | Dear Lewis,
Would that the subject of Alex’s device were so easy to dismiss as Glenn implied in his reply. (Glenn, shame on you for making a statement as though you had done the practical work)
Lewis, the easiest test that I can give you to show that gyrodynamic mass displacement (or whatever the hell you want to call it – “antigravity” if you are into crank shooting I sadly suppose) can happen is to use a simple pendulum as I have suggested long ago on this site.
The physical laws of pendulum motion are an extrapolation of Newtons laws of motion and as immutable. Simply put; a pendulum will swing to and fro in a straight line until and unless a force is applied to it at one side or the other of the direction of swing.
Bloody obvious really! What is less obvious perhaps is the direction of swing if the weight on the pendulum is not a dead weight but instead is a spun up gyro that has its axis, to start with at least, in line with the pendulum’s hanging string (or whatever it is hanging from). It is necessary that the pendulum hanging pivot is free, as it will be if you are using a toy one hanging from a flexible string, to change its swinging angle.
Its motion will show gyrodynamic mass displacement.
I will say no more in the (perhaps fond) hope that you will carry out this simple practical demonstration for yourself because practical experimentation as found by Faraday, Maxwell, Rutherford, Laithwaite and Alex Jones (and perhaps a few others) is the only path to the truth.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 17/07/2008 07:06:55
| | | Dear NM,
Your post does not at all address my post. When one has done as you suggest the results fits exactly into what I said happens. You make my case in part for me. I have done a lot of testing and the exact, intricate things that happen require a lengthy explanation, which I have already done somewhere on this site, but such an explanation is not necessary beyond what I’ve already posted here in order to understand what happens. Though my post is not addressed in your reply (they hardly ever are) I will address yours.
You say, “I will say no more.” But, have said anything? A toy gyroscope swinging on a string will curve sideways at most a couple of inches. Yes, mass is displaced a couple of inches, but I have already said mass is displaced a couple of inches during both precession and the Jones experiment. The Jones device behaves the way I described it. Yes, in lifting and dropping it, it is like a pendulum and the device does move a couple of inches sideways and that is mass displacement. The point of my entire post is that the Jones device is limited to a couple of inches of movement before it stops as if breaks were applied. The device does not coast down a track of its own volition. I say again watch the man’s groping almost sexually excited hands as he shoves the damn thing down the track. If he were to lift and lower the thing repeatedly, without restraining or forcing, it would move back and forth a couple of inches repeatedly, but not more than that.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 18/07/2008 11:05:00
| | | Dear Nitro,
Please allow me to give you some credit. Yes as you say, exactly, practical testing is the most necessary of all things to do. You are right.
As to the Jones device I was a big champion of it and use to refer to it as proof. I still recognize a condition of it as proof, the proof of mass displacement, the same as I argue that precession is mass displacement, but both are ‘limited’ to a predetermined distance of displacement based on their structural size and shape. Some other things must happen if these whirling bits of metal are to move beyond their perimeter of attachments and the space they work in. Some other things must happen to achieve continuous inertial propulsion.
Where I became disappointed and angry with Alex Jones was when I finally became aware that the reason his device moved down the track, for all the world seeming like propulsion, is when I discovered how he had deceived me. Here I had been championing him, while he had been deceiving me.
Now back to you Nitro. I am in complete agreement with you that when a spinning gyroscope is swung back and forth as a pendulum a wondrous and incredible thing happens. The gyro is deflected in a way that defies the great genius of our beautiful, magnificence dynamics understanding of our very universe. You have provided this example.
Now I will say what I think about how and why the limitations in this and some other examples... No I wont. I’ve just decided not to. Have a nice day, Nitro. I surely have been impressed and interested in and with your posting over the years. This is for certain. By the way I’ve learned some things from you directly and indirectly, just for instance the mechanical understanding behind your ‘Fast Repeater’. This is important and revealing.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 18/07/2008 20:14:42
| | | Dear Lewis,
Sorry to highjack your string again but I need to say sorry to Glenn as I had forgotten that the video of Alex Jones, grainy and old like me, does indeed seem to show him giving his, later and for some reason cruder, demo unit a hearty shove which would reasonably be thought to show that Alex Jones was cheating. Having seen an earlier machine, released without human intervention, I know that Alex needed to add no assistance (heaven knows why he didn’t use an automatic release – lack of funds I guess, seeing how he looks). Alex like many Ridunians (people on Alderney) was keen on the odd tipple but I don’t believe that he was a cheat.
Alex missed out on the fame and acknowledgment that I believe was due to him. He showed, on national television, that he had found a way to “move a mechanism outside its original dimension”. Despite this not being the “Holy Grail” of fully functional anti gravity/unidirectional force it was an incredible discovery. The enormity of what Alex Jones (others) and Eric Laithwaite discovered, invented, made and demonstrated has never been properly acknowledged or recognised and now, sadly, perhaps never will.
The old classic test for having produced (here I go again trying to put a sensible name to what never existed before – unidirectional force – anti gravity – an internal force that pushes more in one direction than another etc., etc.) is that it will be able to move a mechanism within a theoretically frictionless housing, right outside its starting dimension (position) so that no part is left within the outline it started from.
I have watched one of Alex’s early machines very clearly do just that. In doing so it destroyed a large chunk of the very foundation of accepted (Newtonian) physics. This machine was even televised on an edition of BBC’s Tomorrows World where the enormity of what had been demonstrated was, perhaps understandably on a simple program trying to be popular while explaining science, missed completely. Thankfully, at least, Alex was not treated with the kind of derision that poor Laithwaite had, later, to suffer.
Despite understandable doubts; there is something there and experiments, though tiresome, will progress our search.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 19/07/2008 18:50:36
| | | Hi Nitro,
I’ve not been privileged to see this film you saw. I’m then left to take your word for it and although I honestly chouse to believe you are completely truthful and do not doubt your honesty, before I could validate the film you refer to I would of course have to see it. It’s a shame to lose history isn’t it? I remember seeing the film ‘Dances With Wolfs’. In it two illiterates used the personal drawing and history of Kevin Cosner of an American Indian tribe as toilet paper in the sage grass. So goes the history of poor Alex I guess. Down the tube. It’s not funny.
By the logic I use my earlier post are still correct. The problem is if anybody wants to use logic to understand everything there is about the gyroscope he will come to the dead end at the Three Laws Of Motion. Some of us already know they don’t always apply.
I wish you would post more often. Take care.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
