Home : Gallery : History : Uses : Behaviour : Maths : Forum : Propulsion : Links : Glossary
Main Forum Page

The Gyroscope Forum

 3 May 2024 01:14

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.

Search the forum:  
 

Question
Asked by: Luis Gonzalez
Subject: On Precession Vs Centrifuge, and on to “Gyro”-Propulsion
Question: I ask all forum participants to please allow me this one thread as a place where I can express my model theory, along with its supporting assumptions and explanations, without interruptions.
As with all who write on speculative subjects there will be errors that I will come back and correct in due course.

If you have comments for or against, please be so kind to post them in another separate existing or new thread. I will also respond in other threads if I am invited to do so.

My postings will start soon for any one who is interested. Naturally you can also disregard all I that write as I will not invade your threads unless invited or personally addressed.

My Best Regards to all,
Luis
Date: 8 September 2008
report abuse

Answers (Ordered by Date)
Answer: Graeme - 09/09/2008 13:03:35
 Hello Luis,

Would just like to remind you that this is a PUBLIC forum, where people are allowed to express what they wish, where and when, hope you will understand. Maybe a book or similar type of publication would be the normal course of action here if you wish to proceed without interuptions.

Just a thought.

Best regards
Graeme

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 09/09/2008 19:52:04
 I guess ths means NO!


Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 09/09/2008 20:35:25
 Dear Luis,
I am so sorry to tell you this especially because of the divorce you’ve just gone through, but Graeme is very right and very right to tell you so. Allow me to make a suggestion. Either ignore, or respond, or select and respond to all who would add to your post -- if any. When you are completely finished with it cut and past the entire number of threads onto your word processor. Cut all additions out that you don’t wish to have there. Correct your mistakes that humans make when seeking unknowns. Also restructured anything you‘ve done that you wish. When you are finally finished and are satisfied repost the entire rewritten document under a different heading. You would do the same thing in writing a book of fiction. That is if you care about quality there are endless rewrites you must do. In fact the one dig about posting on all these sites that I have is that once posted you can never change anything about it, even glaring mistakes and glaring oversights. I am 100% certain the advise I offer you is what you need. Bless you and you just have a good time posting and ignoring everybody, until it’s time to finalize your rewrite. No answer is required you mean antisocial. Kidding you Lois! Enjoy yourself if you know how.

Glenn,

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 10/09/2008 21:56:01
 This is good advice.
You are correct on all counts (except spelling names).
I am rather a non-sociable type as nothing annoys me as much as people can.
However, in the end it is people that we do everything for.

Thank you,
Luis

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 20/09/2008 17:39:38
 NOTE - Centrifugal-Acceleration, Centrifugal-Force, and Centrifugal-Torque have different relationships to their Precession counterparts.

Dear all,

I am going to tell an abbreviated (and less complete) version of my views, and then will come back to fill in the gaps in a series of postings to cover each of the listed main points (as I initially intended).

I will play it by ear. And will modify the way I deliver my message depending on interruptions, which may prompt me to develop the postings offline from the forum. Completing all the points should take a significant span of time because of the number of items and their complexity (plus my writing style).
In such case, I will re-evaluate my options during that time, including looking into other potential venues to share my thoughts in an environment where I feel comfortable. I am aware that posting in “portals” can be made available by invitation only with different levels of restrictions (which sounds appealing to me) so I may explore portals among other alternatives (if needed). In the final account, if things don’t go well, I may or may not post in this forum again after that; we’ll see how it goes.
-

The abbreviated version of my views is as follows:
1) Centrifugal-Torque and Precession-Torque CANNOT be equal between 0o and 90o in the hub configuration.
This conclusion results from a conjecture explained in item #1A below, in combination with a hard-rule explained in items #1B below:

1A) Precession-Force (Fp) and Input-Force (Fi) are not only equal to each other, but each of these forces is also equal in magnitude to Centripetal-Force (Fz) of the hub-rotation… (Is this surprising?)
Just visualize that the instantaneous rate of acceleration, produced by a Rotating-hub (a non-static-torque), is equal to the rate of change in the hub’s velocity, at the perimeter where the spinning spheres are located.
Keep in mind that precession is responsive only to the change in angular orientation, which is produced by the hub-rotation… This change in angular direction is measured by the Centripetal Acceleration, which is equal in magnitude to the Centrifugal Acceleration that determines (Fz)!

If someone wishes to contest this statement I hope they will wait for (or produce) the relevant equations, and include a rational explanation for their disagreement (I would appreciate it in another thread please).
My conjecture is that centripetal-acceleration provides the exact rate at which the hub-velocity is affected, and is therefore an accurate measure of the acceleration that changes the gyro-spin’s orientation as well (the gyro-spin-rate does not become affected but the direction of the spin does, when you consider the spin is a mathematical vector). Anyone claiming this is wrong should provide sufficient proof (if they can). Of course some may claim that I am only presenting common knowledge; so I ask, why has it never been introduced in this forum, as this is essential information to determining the feasibility of “gyro-propulsion”? Perhaps fear of sharing knowledge or fear of being wrong?

1B) Another rule (a hard-rule) tells us that the Precession-Torque and Centrifugal-Torque can only be equal if-and-only-if Precession-Force is lesser than Centrifugal-Force by a factor of Sin(A); I will show this proof with equations in my next posting (as I have in a previous thread).
Therefore, this fact along with the one presented in item #1A, relegate the “EQUALITY” of these 2 Torques to absurdity (which means that I was only a couple of sentences away from a complete proof, the last time I presented it in thread at http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=922 on the 23/08/2008 19:45:18 posting).

In other words It is NOT possible to for these “torques to be equal” AND also for “Precession-Force to be smaller than Centrifugal-Force by a factor of Sin(A)”, (which is a necessary condition for the equality); these cannot exist together, therefore the equality is absurd!

I want to come back and show the equations, how they fit intuitively, and why correct mathematics and valid logic proves my assertion about the impossibility of the static balance-point (in this type of hub configuration). It also explains in part experimental results presented elsewhere in this forum.

-
2) The next thing that I would like to demonstrate is, what parameters need to be introduced or adjusted, to create a plausible balance-point between the 2 Torques (Fp x lp) and (Fz x lz).
(In other words, what has to change intuitively regarding the hub configuration and what are the matching mathematical equations.)
-
3) Something else that needs to be presented (along with #2 above) is an intuitive perspective as to why very-slow spinning gyros can (and do) allow for a balance between the 2 torques (i.e. what is going-on before what Sandy calls the “Saturation zone”, and why the so called “saturation zone” occurs at all.
-
4) I would like to then use the intuitive statements (backed by mathematical equations) to explain why a flutter or vibration of the gyro/spheres is necessary, and why the static-balance cannot cause lift without a correctly synchronized flutter.
4A) This presentation should also include, why the amplitude of the flutter angle must be a very short/few degrees wide.
4B) And let’s not forget why the gyro must be spherical.
-
5) Finally, I wish to post about (a) why lift has never been possible until recently, despite limited successes, (b) what the latest breakthrough has brought about, and (c) the challenges that face the new successes due to difficulties sustaining some necessary symmetries.

Let’s see how far this will get.
As a side note: freedom is something that is not always well understood by all; someone once said “freedom is something that little children cry for and grown men die for”.
Freedom requires responsibility by those who champion it, in part because true freedom is largely dependent on respect for the needs of others.
Without some form of the “golden rule” freedom becomes just a word to justify arguments, tossed like a common football.
An important question to ask is whether something hinders anyone’s capability of expression, including our own.
The public sphere provides freedom of speech and expression but only to the extent that everyone is permitted to accurately express their views about the subject in point.

If what I do or write, encroaches on anybody else’s ability to express their thoughts, please let me know how that is so.
All I ask is to please allow me to complete my ideas in this thread (it’s not something we haven’t done before).

To be continued (depending on mutual respect).

Regards,
Luis

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 06/10/2008 21:17:57
 Dear all,
Even though it is not true that Fi = Fz (in a rotating hub), the conjecture stands virtually uncontested anywhere in the forum (except for one posting).
The correct equation to calculate the torque in a rotating hub is not easy to find, and those who know are not telling their secrets. As usual, the ones in-the-know, are not ready to share information, but when we are the ones who bring facts to light, they are quick to call it “common knowledge”.
Their unwillingness to share (common but not easily available) knowledge, can provide an advantage to those who are willing to share discovered knowledge, because the ones who share can claim to be the first to publish the most interesting facts, in this forum which documents date and time accurately.

The lack of reaction to an erroneous conjecture (anywhere in the forum) is interesting; perhaps knowledge alone does not guarantee that everyone can use it to determine gyro behaviors, including why the static-balance-point between (Fz x lz) and (Fp x lp) is NOT possible.

I am now ready to introduce what I know to be a more accurate equation to calculate the Toque delivered through an actively rotating hub.
The more correct equation states that (Fi x li) is equal to the product of two velocities:
****The velocity of the “HUB-ROTATION” (Vi) multiplied by the velocity of the “GYRO-SPIN” (Vs)****.
**** i.e. (Ti = Vi x Vs) ****

This is the most disarming bit of information, to resolve a great number of “gyro-propulsion” questions; and it also brings closure to the static-balance-point question, because it proves that the static-balance-point can only exist under very LIMITED and restricted gyro-spin velocity.

With the appropriate equations on hand, here is the correct explanation as to why (Fz x lz) CANNOT equal (Fp x lp) when the gyro-spin is greater than the hub-rotation (as we know normal gyros function).
But first let’s establish common symbols and assumptions to make communication easier:

R = Hub radius at 0o
Wi = angular velocity of input torque = angular velocity of hub
Vi = R Cos(A) x Wi = input velocity of hub-rotation

r = gyro/sphere radius
Ws = angular velocity of gyro/sphere Spin
Vs = r x Ws = velocity of gyro/sphere spin

The magnitude of angular velocity of precession and the magnitude of angular velocity of the hub, producing the input torque, are equal:
Wp = Wi

The magnitude of Precession-torque and the magnitude of Input-hub-torque are equal:
Tp = Ti

As stated before, the INPUT-TORQUE (Ti) is equal to Mass multiplied by the Velocity of Hub-Rotation (Vi = R Cos(A) x Wi), times Velocity of gyro/sphere (Vs = r x Ws ); with Cos(A) adjusting the true radius for calculation of hub velocity:
**** Ti = (M x R Cos(A) x Wi) x (r x Ws) *****

On the other hand, the Centrifugal torque is essentially equal to the SQUARE of the Hub-Rotation-Velocity, divided by “R x Cos(A)” and then multiplied by “R x Sin(A)”; with Sin(A) adjusting the length of the torque-lever, and Cos(A) adjusts the radius for calculation of velocity:
Tz = M x R Sin(A) x R Cos(A) x Wi**2

If anyone does not know how derive any of the above equations, I will show how to develop them on request.

Now…to disprove the “static-balance-point” conjecture:
If we presume that Centrifugal-Torque can be equal to Precession-Torque (i.e. Tz =? Ti), then we setup the test equality as follows:
Tz =? Ti
This expands into:
(M x R Sin(A) x R Cos(A) x Wi**2) =? (M x R Cos(A) x Wi x r x Ws)

Cancelling like terms (i.e. R, Cos(A), and M) yields:
(R Sin(A) x Wi**2) = (Wi x r x Ws)

Dividing by (Wi) we can further reduce this into:
Sin(A) x R x Wi = r x Ws

Then we can rearrange this equation as follows:
Sin(A) = (r x Ws) / (R x Wi)
Is this CLEAR?

Sin(A) is always less than 1 except at 90o, so this “assumed equality” tells us that (R x Wi) must be greater than (r x Ws), because “R x Wi” is the denominator.
Therefore Sin (A) determines how much greater (R x Wi) needs to be, and we know the value of Sin(A) depends on the angle of elevation above horizontal.

This means that if the centrifugal-torque is to be equal to precession-torque, then the basic velocity of the hub (R x Wi), must be greater than the velocity of the gyro/sphere spin (r x Ws); and this is not a normal ratio for the gyro we know or the devices that we seek.
In other words the product of the radius times the angular velocity in each of these 2 dynamics must be as near to equal as the Sin(A) of the elevation angle will dictate.
In fact the HUB-VELOCITY needs to be somewhat GREATER than the GYRO-SPIN-VELOCITY, in order for the 2 torques to be equal.

This condition (which is made necessary by the math and physics involved) eliminates the possibility that the following example can ever achieve a “static balance-point”. This is an example presented by Sandy and discussed in thread http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=922. In that thread there is a claim that the static balance point should occur at about 80o; lets see how accurate that statement may be:

If gyro diameter = 3 inch (i.e. r = 1.5 inch)
And gyro spin, Ws = 12,000 rpm
And hub-radius, R = 7.5 inch
And hub-rotation, Wi = 325 rpm
r x Ws = 1.5 x 12,000 = 18,000
R x Wi = 7.5 x 325 = 2,437.5

If you have not put it together yet, note that:
Sin(A) will turn out to be => (r x Ws) / (R x Wi) = 18,000 / 2,437.5… ~ 7.38
And Sin(A) can only be equal to 1 or less than 1, which is not true when the 2 torques are set as equal to each other!

Therefore the gyro would have to spin at about 1,622 rpm (or the hub would have to rotate at 2,405 rpm) in order to just come near to a static balance point.
The reason I brought-up the above example is that proponents of the static-balance-point have said that at about 80o a balance point would be achieved for the above described spin, rotation, and radii; I believe we can see that something awfully wrong occurred in any method of calculation where Sin(80) is equal to 7.38; I would suggest recalculating.

I want to thank everybody for allowing me to continue without interruption.
If I am allowed, I will hopefully come back in a week or two to discuss what parameters need to be introduced or adjusted, in order to create a plausible balance-point between the 2 Torques (Fp x lp) and (Fz x lz).
If it is necessary, perhaps I may also provide further explanation as to why the equations presented above are sufficient to explain the occurrence of balance points when the gyro/sphere spin rate is very slow (as this has been observed by multiple individuals).

Best Regards to all,
Luis

Report Abuse
Answer: Harry K. - 10/10/2008 22:45:57
 Dear Luis,

I have studied your equations stated in your last posting. Although I cannot follow with some of your derivations, I have double-checked my own equations due to the mentioned balance angle in Sandy's device. Unfortunately I have to admit that my calculation of the balance angle of about 80° is definitely wrong. The Sinus value exceeds indeed 1, but the Sinus value is much lower than 7 (1.47).

That means that in Sandy's design with its parameters, a balance point cannot be established. Either the hub rotation must be increased (~ doubled) or the gyro velocity must be reduced (~ halve). My new corrected equation states also, that the maximum angle of balance cannot exceed 45° above horizontal plane. That's a very interesting point and may help to explain some strange gyro behaviors in certain situations.

If the hub rotation in Sandy's device would be doubled to 650 rpm, the balance angle would be ~24° above horizontal plane.

Let me know if you are interested in more deatails, then I will write a posting with all the maths in my balance point thread.

Best regards,
Harry

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 19/10/2008 15:56:45
 Thank you to all who understood my request about completing my statements in this thread without interruption.

I try to stick to the established laws of motion in all I write, and my equations are also intended for laymen (not just those trained in physics).

The following are symbols I may use:
C/C indicates Centripetal/Centrifugal force pairs
C of G = Center of Gravity (commonly used)
C of M = Center of mass
(Fi) = Input force (and force of hub-rotation)
(li) = length of input torque leverage
(Fz) = Centrifugal force (and Centripetal force)
(lz) = length of centrifugal torque leverage
(Fp) = Force of precession
(Fq) = Force of Secondary precession that occurs in direction other than direct result from just input-torque
(Ff) = Force that interferes or resists against precession
Ti = (Fi x li) is “Input-Torque”
Tp = (Fp x lp) is “Precession-Torque
Tz = (Fz x lz) is “Centrifugal-Torque
Tg = (Fg x lg) = is gravity-torque, equal force times leaver-length
Vi = Velocity of hub-rotation (input)
Vs = Velocity of gyro/sphere spin
Vp = Velocity of precession
Wi = Input angular velocity of hub = Wp = angular velocity of precession ****
Ws = Angular velocity of spinning gyro/sphere
Wp = angular velocity of precession = Wi
M = mass of gyro / sphere (I will avoid using moment of inertia (“I”) and will use it only when necessary to understand the theoretical explanations).

In the previous posting we have shown that the laws of physics mandate that EQUALITY between the hub’s centrifugal-torque and precession-torque can occur ONLY at predefined RATIOS of hub-rotation to gyro-spin!
The laws of physics prove that a static balance-point CANNOT exist unless the hub-rotation is of grater velocity than the gyro-spin velocity.

Physics tells us that the input-torque (Fi x li) applied by a “rotating-hub” (see other portions of this thread) is equal to the Velocity of precession (Vp), times the Velocity of gyro/sphere-spin (Vs), times the mass of the spheres (M)…Ti = Vp x Vs x M.

The equations in this thread, and other known equations (demonstrated in a previous thread by me and another forum contributor) have never before been posted to this forum, even though they are important to the development of successful “gyro-propulsion”.
One can’t help but wonder why the learned men that contribute to this forum never presented any of these equations before…, unless their intentions are different than just sharing information.

Two of these equations represent centrifugal-torque, and the input-torque that causes precession when it interacts with the spin of the gyro/spheres.
These equations have proven that the 2 torques involved can ONLY BE EQUAL when the velocity of gyro/sphere-spin is slower then the velocity of hub-rotation, as ruled by laws of motion and Physics.
(In other words, in order for (Fz x lz) to be equal to (Fi x li), the velocity of the hub-rotation (R x Wi) must be larger than the velocity of the gyro spin (f x Ws)).

Even more compelling, the results from these equations are in agreement with experimental results presented elsewhere in this forum.
--------------

We have shown that the attempt to set the two torques (Fz x lz) and (Fi x li) as an equality yields the relationship:
Sin(A) = (r x Ws) / (R x Wi).
(See previous postings in this thread.)
Knowing that Sin(A) is always equal or less than one, this alleged equality of torques would require that (R x Wi) would have to be larger than (r x Ws), and we know this is not true during normal precession (or during operation of devices discussed in this forum).
--
Having accomplished this basic proof, I now wish to show how to create a balance point between the 2 torques:

ADDING DEADWEIGHT TO ACHIEVE A BALANCE POINT
Let’s now look at how a balance point may in fact be created by adding deadweight.

*How CAN we produce a balance-point between centrifugal and precession torques, and why should we strive for it?
I have explained these points previously but will do so again here.
***********************
**** Adding non-spinning (deadweight) mass to the spheres INCREASES the centrifugal-force, BUT NEITHER the hub-rotation NOR the gyro-spin are AFFECTED!!!!
**********************(SIMPLE?)

NOTE: the mass of the centrifugal-force is increased because the hub-rotation must carry it; however the gyro/sphere-spin does not need to carry the added mass.
To calculate precession-force (Fp), we multiply the SPINNING MASS, times the spin-velocity, and times the hub-velocity.
(NOTE there is no need to multiply by the added deadweight mass to obtain precession-force.)
The result is that the centrifuge is affected by the deadweight mass but the force of precession IS NOT.

There is an alternate way (just as valid) to view or perceive the interaction.
ALTERNATIVE VIEW:
The 2 forces can be the same when their respective accelerations and masses are equal.
However the inertia of the deadweight mass acts as a force that interferes with the direction of precession’s force. The inertia of non-spinning mass interferes with the force of precession, causing it to deflect again (into the direction of a secondary precession, which matches the direction of the hub-rotation).
Therefore the upward precession-force is dissipated in part toward the lateral rotation.
This reduction in the upward force places a reduced strain against the centrifugal-force.
Thus (Fz) becomes greater than (Fi) and the balance of their respective torques becomes feasible.

Either of these views can be used consistently to derive further equations and establish premises to investigate the dawn of “gyro-propulsion”, and this is what I will attempt to explore in a subsequent posting.

I would like to pause now to point out that the equations presented here, have already shown why slow spinning spheres can produce a balance point (when the velocity of gyro-spin is slower than the velocity of hub-rotation). Therefore I will skip that explanation now, and go straight to the point of my next explanation.

In my next posting I intend to prove that (A) static balance points (once created using deadweight) CANNOT still produce lift (propulsion), and (B) why a flutter or up and down vibration of the spinning spheres (on their pivots) is necessary to obtain propulsion.

Best Regards to all,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: Harry K. - 20/10/2008 21:05:05
 Hello Luis,

You wrote:
"Physics tells us that the input-torque (Fi x li) applied by a “rotating-hub” (see other portions of this thread) is equal to the Velocity of precession (Vp), times the Velocity of gyro/sphere-spin (Vs), times the mass of the spheres (M)…Ti = Vp x Vs x M. "

You are unfortunately wrong. The correct equation with your symbols must be:
Ti = Vp/rp x Vs x M x r/2

I'm sure you will find your mistake! :-)

Regards,
Harry

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 23/10/2008 20:42:27
 Dear gyro enthusiasts,

It appears not everybody has the same level of understanding about freedom and mutual respect.
Thank you again to all who understand.
I will not become distracted by erroneous statements from others in this thread, but will happily respond to all arguments presented in any other thread (not in this one until I complete it).

I have covered items 1 through 3 of the original items that I wanted to explain from an intuitive perspective while touching on some relevant Math and Physics.
Perhaps I still need to expand some of the physics and how the parameters fit together.
But first I am going to conclude the course of my initial plan.

The next item in line is item #4, which calls for explaining why a static balance-point CANNOT produce lift or sustained propulsion (even after balance is achieved), and thus why the “flutter” is necessary for propulsion (here it is)!

PROPULSION AND WORK
One interesting point about a static balance-point is that it does NOT produce “WORK” any more than a toy gyro does (or any more than centripetal force does for that matter).
These types of enigmatic motion are somewhat akin to a simple object spinning in space. They all have motion, but are also in a state of rest from a physics perspective. In other words none of these configurations produce WORK though they exist with continuous motion (at a constant rate).

A spinning wheel has potential energy, as much as a weight on higher ground does (e.g. top of a building).
A toy gyro performs precession pirouettes around a tower, but cannot sustain mechanical work (though it is endowed with potential-energy in a couple of ways…).

The static balance-point requires the help of deadweight (or other means), in conjunction with a rotating hub, and spinning gyros to produce an effect, which is in fact very similar to that of a toy gyro. The result is a spinning mass (with a nominal deadweight) that is rotated around by a hub, at a determined elevation-angle (angle of balance-point).
The centrifugal-torque is opposed by an equivalent precession-torque and the system is in equilibrium, therefore NO WORK is performed. Without work propulsion CANNOT and DOES NOT occur… it’s that plain, though maybe not so simple.

If this argument is not convincing enough, consider that the hub in a balance-point scenario behaves almost exactly the same as a toy gyro on which we have attached deadweight to the spinning overhanging end of the structure.
(Note that both have a constant acceleration driving the input-torque.)
- - The deadweight in the toy gyro causes the gyro to lose altitude (in the direction of gravity’s torque).
- - In comparison, the deadweight causes the sphere/gyros in the rotating hub to also yield in the direction of the input-torque (which is now mechanical).

Just as we could NOT claim that hanging deadweight on a toy gyro in precession would cause “work” to occur, we cannot claim that it does so when it creates a balance-point in a hub/gyro configuration (can you see why).
Perhaps there is a need to also prove that the toy gyro with a hung deadweight does not in fact produce work, or how it in fact is a sort of mathematical parallel of a balance-point on a hub. However at this point I am going to continue on to the next item in my original plan. (If I need to prove any other items, I will come back and do so after I complete all the initial main points.)

On my next posting I will complete item #4 by explaining why some form of cyclical up-and-down motion or quasi-vibration (named “the flutter”) is necessary to produce WORK and thus also PROPULSION.

Best Regards to all,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 24/10/2008 04:40:02
 Dear Louis,
You are welcome. I will not interrupt you.
Glenn

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 28/10/2008 19:15:18
 Dear Forum Members,

We have covered items #1 through #3 and part of item #4, in so far as why a static balance cannot produce propulsion (because it does not perform “work”).

This brings us to the proper item #4 which is to explain why some form of cyclical up and down motion or quasi-vibration (named as the “flutter”) is necessary to produce propulsion… I suspect this may be what some may have been waiting for (or maybe it’s just me).

The key to “gyro-propulsion”:
The most concise statement about the “flutter” is that the up and down cycles take advantage of the overpowering precession on the upward part of the cycle, and utilize net “classical” resulting motion during the downward portion of the cycle; though the completion of the downward cycle requires some tricky complexity, as centrifugal-force performs the “WORK” of “slinging” the entire gyro’s mass downward in a deadweight fashion…(down-like-a-rock).

The “flutter” creates very fast, short cycles of “up-like-a-gyro and down-like-a-rock”, repetitions (this term should be familiar to some in this forum).
This same type of cycle (though much less sophisticated) is what the acclaimed “space-inchworm” makes use of, except that the worm is unable to defray the momentum of its downward thrust… when it encounters the bottom (or rear) end of the cycle.
I suspect these statements may bring some a degree of clarity, while only bringing clarity of mud to others (my apology to those).
I suspect yet others will pretend or refuse to understand something that they should have been able to figure-out, or to convey in writing, but did not.

The key to create gyro-propulsion is that “WORK” must occur (work is necessary but not sufficient). The greater part of the downward motion produces “WORK”; this occurs as the centrifugal-torque labors to create downward motion from a velocity of zero (at the top) to the maximum downward velocity at the balance-point.

During this first half of the downward stroke, centrifugal-torque accelerates the mass of the gyro/spheres, and produces a strong opposite (180o) reaction that acts on the hub as a whole. This is an EFFECTIVE source of PROPULSION.
Note also that the fast motion created by the centrifugal action causes precession to fold into secondary precession, in the same direction as the hub-rotation (horizontal plane); this is an interesting motion we may refer to as “Feedback”. Though the secondary-precession (horizontal-plane) does not cause an increase in the hub’s rate of rotation, it does reduce torque-load on the motor that drives the hub (as the hub-rotation is assumed to remain constant).

As the gyro/spheres pass the balance-point (moving downward very fast), the centrifugal-torque becomes weaker then the growing precession-torque.

During the last half of the downward motion, the centrifuge is smaller than precession but the downward momentum (of the very fast downward motion) still overrides precession’s force, though to a lesser and lesser extent, until the momentum comes to a complete stop (at the bottommost position of the cycle).

The most important question is …how does the classical downward momentum (created by the centrifugal-torque) come to a full stop?
Even more interesting is the fact that the mostly CLASSICAL downward MOTION comes to a full stop in a very NON-CLASSICAL way!
In other words, the negative acceleration against the downward momentum, must occur in a way that DOES NOT produce an opposite (180o) reaction.
The “Equal-Reaction” to stopping the downward motion, needs to occur at 90o (though it is equal, it should NOT BE OPPOSITE), otherwise the propulsion that was gained at the start of the downward swing would be completely lost at the ending of the downward swing (and would result in nothing more than the “space-inchworm”, unable to accumulate linear momentum).
-------
HOW MAY WE OVERCOME THE LIMITATIONS OF UP-LIKE-A-GYRO AND DOWN-LIKE-A-ROCK
To reduce the oppositeness created by bringing the mass to a complete stop (at the bottom of the downward cycle) the direction of work created by stopping the downward swing must occur in a horizontal direction (i.e. in a direction other than in line and opposite to the increment of propulsion created in the downward cycle).

Precession (in primary or secondary directions) appears to have force… but also appears to produce NO WORK!
We have said that precession is like an object at rest, much as a spinning wheel has constant motion (even centripetal acceleration) but creates no work. Thus constant precession would create no work as well. However “work” is performed to achieve the actual precession velocity (i.e. from zero to the velocity of precession).
(It is also possible that constant precession can in fact perform “work” for a very shorter duration as it engages…, similar to the way a spinning wheel does when it engages through friction.)
I think we can be sure that there are short periods of time during which precession’s motion performs “work”; those are the periods of precession-acceleration, and deceleration.
--
NOTE:
*On the way down the motion traced may appear more like a downward spiral than a downward “arc”; one portion is down-like-a-rock, and the horizontal portion is secondary-precession.
*Precession’s normal constant motion converts its embodied momentum easily toward the 90o directed plane. But precession that is still accelerating to its normal velocity (or decelerating to zero velocity) does NOT convert as easily into the 90o plane (it requires a special type of interfering force… such as the force of another precession… to absorb a force and defray it at 90o).

Let’s consider the case of secondary-precession that is decelerating (because the causal torque is waning)!

To visualize a glimpse of this complex set of motions, it may be worthwhile to perform comparisons of the forces in the hub, as they compare to forces in the somewhat less complex scenario of toy gyros.
Of course this comparison can be of help only to individuals who have acquired a reasonable understanding about the dynamics of toy gyros.

Toy-Gyro:
-In a toy-gyro the initial short-lived “acceleration of precession” (caused by gravity-torque) produces a temporary downward motion that moves the gyro in the direction of the torque.
-Conversely, one may suggest that causing a deceleration of precession (somehow) would cause the toy-gyro to rise slightly during a very brief period.

Motor driven Hub:
-Similarly, the downward forcing of the gyros in a hub causes the temporary acceleration of secondary-precession (horizontal-pane), thus permitting the mass to be forced downward, and creating the down-like-a-rock effect.
-Conversely, when we decelerate the velocity of the “Secondary-Precession”, by reducing the downward torque (by reduction of centrifugal-torque), then we may suggest that the deceleration of Secondary-Precession would cause the gyro/spheres to have a tendency to rise, without an equal (180o) reaction… THIS IS IMPORTANT!

I will pause here, until the next posting where I intend to expand on why the strokes of the “flutter” cycle must be very short-and-fast, and why the synchronization of the cycle is delicate and must be carefully preserved (as well as why so many previous designs have failed to preserve the necessary synchronicity ).
I will also explain why the upward portion of the cycle is useful because precession produces “NO WORK” (as in the “space-inchworm”), and also why it may be even more useful in devices that make use of “flutter” type cycles.

Until the next posting Best Regards,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: Harry K. - 29/10/2008 08:21:03
 Hi Luis,

.... no comment. How disappointing and embarrassing...
For those readers who are more interested in reality and not in science fiction, I will continue with basic maths in this thread very soon: http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=981

This was my last interruption in your thread, Luis. I will not read here anymore because this would be wasted time.

Scotty, beam me out!
Harry K.

Report Abuse
Answer: PATRICK - 12/11/2008 03:31:53
 is a prime numbered atom unacepted of another ( ie in electron count)

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 15/11/2008 20:39:24
 Dear Forum,

Simple truths can disappoint those who are looking for a mystery, great revelations, or simply miss the point and its ramifications. It can be difficult to accept the seemingly complex when explained in terms of the obvious.
The elegance of the obvious is transparent, such as the fact that PROPULSION REQUIRES “WORK”.
Facts like this can unwittingly offend ones who make ridiculous statements based on silly expectations, such as expecting propulsion to occur from a STATIC BALANCE-POINT that CANNOT deliver “WORK”.
This type of expectation is as “Embarrassing” as expecting to generate power from gyros, when we know you cannot get more energy than you put into a system (maybe Scotty can beam some “sunshine” where such brains live).

It is foolish to mock what isn’t fully understood, especially without providing logical reasoning. Regurgitating knowledge learned in school can help fools make AMENDS for unnecessary mockery (as well as their use of poor notation and frequent typing errors); perhaps we all say foolish things at one point or another.
There is a type of mind that does not comprehend simple requests understood by all, and instead interrupt with half made statements.
Criticism and half-substance help hide each other, and perhaps brings solace to those with bouts of thoughtlessness…I think we can ignore the barking….
--

Let’s move forward.
Last time we looked lightly at the short-lived “acceleration-of-precession” in toy gyros, and how a very-brief downward motion of temporary “secondary-precession” occurs when Primary-Precession encounters the inertia of the mass, as that inertia provides an effective resisting force. (A full grasp of how all the dynamics fit together requires more than a quick read.)

We also speculated that producing a “deceleration of precession” (a slowdown in the velocity of precession) should produce an effect opposite to the one described above, causing the gyro to try to “rise” (with a “secondary-upward-precession”), as the attempt to slow-down precession meets against an established or existing velocity of precession. We are not talking about an interfering force here, but rather of reducing the downward torque (theoretically, because we can’t affect gravity’s force), and the resulting slowdown in precession would then encounter sufficient inertial-resistance, resulting in an upward precession. This can be a bit more difficult to visualize; I know it is for me.

NOTE - During these 2 events (above) the gyro rests upon the tower tip at all times and there is NOT any kind or hint of lift-off of by the device as a whole, but rather a description of the flywheel’s behavior.
I say this to forestall the misguided imagination of any “space-cadets” who may get the wrong idea at this early stage of the explanation (every crowd has some, as we may have noticed).

Then we drew parallels between the behavior the toy gyro on a tower, and the behavior of motor driven Hub-design, as it applies to the “acceleration” and “deceleration” of PRECESSION (i.e. we compared what happens when precession speeds-up to its normal steady velocity, or is caused to slow down).
We said that forcing the gyros (on a hub) downward causes temporary acceleration of secondary-precession (in the horizontal-pane) creating the down-like-a-rock effect which has a complete opposite (180o) reaction (and this induces a limited burst of propulsion before that motion is brought to a stop).

We also speculated about the parallel comparisons between the behavior of toy-gyros and the motor driven Hub-design, as it applies to “decelerating” the velocity of “SECONDARY-PRECESSION”.
We said that inducing a slow-down of the “Secondary-Precession” (which occurs in horizontal-plane) would cause the gyro/spheres to rise for a fleeting moment in time, without an equal (180o) reaction.

In other words, I am suggesting that the gyro/spheres rise with a precession due to the reduction in downward torque, which causes a DECREASE in VELOCITY of the “Secondary-Precession”.
A reduction in the velocity of “Secondary-Precession” requires a transition period (from the fast velocity to a slower velocity) as the changing forces meet, thus resulting in a brief period of upward precession.
(It may require some serious thought, study and testing to fully grasp the concepts and interactions behind these motions; it is not intuitive, and using intuition can often work against understanding of some gyro behaviors.)

Having attempted to clarify the previous posting, I intend to show why the strokes of the “flutter” cycle must be very short-and-fast, and why the SYNCHRONIZATION of the cycle is DELICATE and must be carefully GUARDED.
At some point in the future I will also explain why the upward portion of the cycle, which produces “NO WORK”, is useful in devices that make use of “flutter” type cycles.
---

The Amplitude of the “flutter” should be narrow, its frequency should be very fast, and its phased-motion should be synchronized with the hub’s rotation and the motions of OTHER HUBS (and other components).

The narrow (short) amplitude is necessary to insure that a significant proportion of the cycle occurs while precession itself is speeding-up (ACCELERARING) or slowing-down (DECELERATING); this will assure that the device operates within a band that satisfies requirements that will be demonstrated later.

The frequency of the “flutter” should be very fast, in part to maintain a high enough LEVEL OF PROPULSION OUTPUT, while working within the narrow amplitude. Devices with insufficient levels of propulsion output have plagued many designs because skeptic observers find the results ambiguous and cannot be sure whether true propulsion or just vibration is taking place. The output results from higher frequency “flutter” is much more impressive yielding quick motion and can produce sufficient acceleration to override the force of gravity (overcoming gravity is what it takes for unequivocal proof).

The impeccable synchronization of the “flutter” is essential to prevent the (90°) defrayed forces from changing the direction of the net acceleration. This undesirable change in direction can accumulate quickly with each high-frequency cycle. Even the slightest deviation in timing can induce large and unexpected changes that often turn into a fast destructive arc.

Perhaps before proceeding it may be wise to clarify the concepts of acceleration and deceleration of precession, because their speeding-up and slowing-down in the velocity of precession are not commonly or easily observed.
Normal precession moves with steady constant velocity that does not change (as long as the gyro-spin is steady, and the applied torque induces a constant acceleration).
In other words, even though precession is driven by a consistent acceleration, which would drive a classical object to ever increasing velocity, this constant acceleration can produces only a steady rate of motion upon the spinning flywheel or sphere.

I will not delve into the reasons for precession’s steady velocity, in this posting, except to point-out that there are short spans of time during which the velocity of precession “increase” or “decrease”, and that these short spans are important to the production of gyro-propulsion in so far as they allow us to overcome or transcend the limitations posed by the “space-inchworm”.
The special effects of these short spans must be utilized frequently and properly to obtain positive results in gyro-propulsion.
Thus the “flutter” with narrow amplitude and quick frequency allows a good design to harvest the necessary qualities which occur during each cycle, but can only do so when properly synchronized.

I will stop here for now, and in my next posting I will try to explain why the upward portion of the cycle may be useful (beyond the fact that the upward precession produces “NO WORK”, as in the “space-inchworm”), and why devices that make use of fast “flutter” type cycles it may be able to produce increments of propulsion from this upward portion of the cycle.

Until the next posting Best Regards,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 30/11/2008 14:12:05
 Dear Forum,
I have been away touring but will write my next posting soon now that I am back.
I am sorry to see things have slowed down a bit.

Best Regards,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 08/12/2008 21:51:44
 Dear forum,
On my last posting I touched on why the flutter needs to be quick and of short amplitude. I also said that I would look into the upward portion of the cycle and how it may be useful to produce increments of propulsion even though upward precession produces “NO WORK” (as in the “space-inchworm”).

To make it short and sweet, the precession in the upward portion of the cycle (using a hub) does carry the momentum that was acquired when the gyro accelerated from zero precession velocity to its max precession velocity. It may not be obvious but this increment of momentum in the precession of the flywheels can be delivered when precession collides or becomes stopped by another object. Simple and blunt this small gain is easy to discount.

In other words, an object can inherit the momentum that has been imbued into precession’s motion. Therefore the upward portion of the hub’s cycle can deliver a positive impact that in fact serves to counteract the small negative momentum that was created within the hub during that fleeting initial acceleration of precession at the beginning of the upward precession cycle.

This is not a huge revelation (none of it by itself is) but it does provide a counteraction that works to benefit the propulsion effort even if it is by relatively small increments.
Remember that the flutter does not produce very large increments of propulsion on any one single cycle, but rather depends on a sufficiently high frequency of cycles for significant propulsion output.

I also want to make it clear that I am an amateur in this field; the concepts I write about fit within my evolving model theory of “gyro-propulsion”, and I have mentioned this point during my many postings in this forum.

Any one can disagree with me (though for the time being I prefer it to be in another thread and I thank you for your courtesy), but I would expect disagreements to be presented I a somewhat rational way (especially from professionals).
Anyone (even ignorant children) can call others bad names and refer to what others write using negative words.
The words used in our disagreements speak volumes about our intellect and our depth of character.
--

Thus far in each posting of this thread I have tried to deliver relatively small concept wrapped in a way that connects the dots with other relatively small concepts; I am aware that this method makes each explanation appear trivial when thy are taken by themselves.
Also these explanations have also often used an approach directed toward the technical even though I am not as technical as others may be.

I recognize that the basic equations brought by another contributor are more accurate. However I chose not to acknowledge because of previous disagreements brought on by arrogance (perhaps from both sides, but let the readers use their own judgment). In any event, dialog (even when disagreeable) often helps to sharpen and focus our arguments.

The important thing is that I (and others) know what has resulted from hub experiments in regard to naively expected balances between centrifugal-torque and precession-torque. I simply seek to find a theoretically consistent reasoning and try to back it up with the known equations (though sometimes I am a bit off on the equations…amateurs…)

I want to take a slightly different approach in this thread so that it may appeal more to laymen; I will reduce use of equations in technical descriptions, and embrace mental experiments and exercises that are more self involving. I hope that this will create personal interactions that translate each concept into a more personal and understandable experience.

Using this method I will attempt to paint pictures with strokes of this different brush, in the postings that follow.

Until then my best regards to the forum,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 09/12/2008 16:48:52
 Dear Forum,

Based on my rationale, as stated in previous postings, I am presenting a set of questions with my own answers, which if proven true will explain some of the most perplexing experimental results conducted with gyros on a typical hub configuration.
We must still keep in mind that good clear thinking needs to remain rationally connected to the rigors of the accepted mathematical formulae in context.
Here are five questions that become interesting when they are considered all together as parts of a larger whole:

Q.1. Is the motion of precession different from classical motion, in that it does NOT display a full measure of equal "reaction" in the exact opposite (180o) direction?
-My answer is a qualified YES suitable for the purpose at hand.

Q.2. If precession does not have an exact "equal" and "opposite" reaction, then does precession have diminished Centripetal and/or Centrifugal forces?
-My answer is YES. (This is a most intriguing idea.)

Q.3. Does the "interference" presented by "centrifugal-torque" against upward precession, cause the upward precession to fold, into a “SECONDARY PRECESSION” that occurs in a horizontal plane, and which coincides with the rotation of the hub?
-My answer is YES.
I have explained this interaction in other postings and threads of this forum, and the explanation has been echoed and by mechanical engineers.

Q.4. Does the “secondary” horizontal precession contribute to the hub's rotation even though the velocity of the hub rotation is not increased (i.e. the torque load of the hub-motor is reduced)?
-My answer is YES.

Q.5. Does this horizontal precession help to diminish the hub's centrifugal force?
-My answer is YES. (This is an even more intriguing idea.)

**********
If my answers to these 5 questions are correct, then we have uncovered the reason that gyros in hubs move upward defying the presence of centrifugal effects (as has occurred in independent experiments performed elsewhere).
**********

In subsequent postings I intend to provide intuitive (and perhaps somewhat more intimate) understanding regarding the answers to the five questions above.

On my next posting will focus on a rational explanation for “Q.1”, which addresses whether precession’s motion has an equal and opposite reaction.

Until then, Best Regards,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 09/12/2008 20:51:09
 Dear Forum,

To support my answers to the 5 questions I now want to provide a number of mental experiments that can illustrate the events taking place so that these intricate events may be understood in a more personal way.

The first question “Q.1” asks whether it is true that the motion of precession does NOT display a full measure of equal "reaction" in the opposite (180o) direction, and my response is that it is true!

First, picture yourself standing on a turntable with one arm stretched out horizontally to one side, holding a disk mass.
If we keep our arm horizontal and move the mass toward the front, then the turntable we are standing upon will allow the rest of our body to turn in the opposite direction. (The ratio of disk-mass to body-mass, the length of the arm, and the girth of our body will determine the distance traveled by the disk-mass as well as the number of degrees that our body "counter-twists" in an equal and opposite direction (sorry to belabor this simple interaction but it will play an important role in the upcoming comparison).

If we repeat the experiment but this time we hold a spinning disk, the disk will move upward in precession, but our body will still "counter-twist" in the same direction and magnitude as in the previous basic experiment.
The equal counter-twist remains the same but the "action" from the cause occurs upward!!
The action / reaction pair occurs at 90o instead of the normal 180o.

Many forum members are 100% aware of these gyro phenomena, however some forum members have NOT come to terms with the question whether the motion of precession has an “equal and opposite” (180o) reaction!!
I think this little mental experiment can help to clarify why so many of us cling to the idea that the motion of precession has a reaction which is NOT 100% in the opposite direction.
I know the illustration that I presented is a simplification of multiple complexities, which actually take place in the depicted interaction. However, the illustration does drive the point home... The motion of precession does NOT have a 100% equal and opposite reaction.

This is the extent to which I intend to prove my response to "Q.1" at this point in time (perhaps in future postings I will have the opportunity to further discuss the geometry and mathematics involved in the physics of this interaction).

In my next posting I intend to provide an illustration regarding my answer to Q.2, which asked whether precession also has diminished Centripetal and Centrifugal forces?

Until then, Best Regards,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 13/12/2008 17:10:31
 Dear Forum,

Having brought "Q1" to a reasonable conclusion, lets move on to the next point involving “Q.2”, which is connecting the existence of "Centrifugal force" to the occurrence of "equal and opposite reaction".

To some, this relationship is obvious or intuitive, but to others it is a completely foreign thought. I hope that I will manage to bring some clarity, rather than further complicating your view of this rational connection.

Picture yourself standing on a sliding platform on an air-hockey table (of proportionate dimensions).
The disk-mass you hold has an axle of about the length of your arm, and you use it to rotate the mass around your body in a horizontal plane.

In this experiment your body will not simply receive a "counter-twist". Instead, in this experiment the disk-mass and the mass of your body will move about in SEMICIRCLES, around the COMMON CENTER of MASS.
The "action" and the "equal and opposite reaction" will take place within a wider range of motions that include angular motion along with the additional "DISPLACEMNT" motion... Note that all the motions result from the ACTION, and from the equal and opposite REACTION (interaction).
If anyone has doubts that action and reaction are what is involved, this would be a good time to address inquiries (please address all questions in a different thread…please).

In this experiment, the ACTION and REACTION have become expressed in the creation of CENTRIPETAL and CENTRIFUGAL force pairs.
--

Repeating this experiment with a SPINNING disk mass may not yield as clear and measurable results. However, the "counter-twist" will still occur…, as well as the upward precession action. Some horizontal displacement arcs will still occur, but these will occur in tighter zones around the center of gravity (as the gyro moves upward). Precession will occur, the same as before so the spin-center of the disk will eventually end-up in line with the center of gravity.

Note that the “ACTION” still remains as upward precession, and that the horizontal displacement arcs are in fact the “REACTION”. Perhaps this fact illustrates that these two motions (upward precession and horizontal arcs) are “action” and “reaction” pairs but occur at 90 degrees to each other. Thus the upward motion of precession does not have an “OPPOSITE” (180o) reaction!

I believe these descriptions may provide a further glimpse regarding my answer to Q.2, which states that precession has diminished centrifugal force!

Having provided answers that I feel comfortable with, for Q.1 and Q.2, in my next posting I will address Q.3, which is in a different vein because it asks whether centrifugal-torque cause upward precession to FOLD, into a “SECONDARY PRECESSION” (which occurs in a horizontal plane that happens to coincide with the rotation of the hub)?

Until then, Best Regards,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: PATRICK - 16/12/2008 22:16:36
 Dear luis

Ihave created something from nothing,,,, jus look at your long reaction.

The outer hub releases compressed air by its reflection again rotation causes the external to be controlled by the equations and decicive actions by the central hub.
AND by which i mean the cental hub to be a processor in control of any decisive compressed air releases to control the outer stability and understand a static point.
TO lift said gyro in its only 2 left dimention.

Yes control of a weightless mass.

Mass only being in a gravitational feild so may precure an induction of disipation of eleron count to produce lift....OH may cause an amount of radiation left."A BIT UNCLEAN"

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 17/12/2008 16:21:57
 Dear Forum,

I want to again thank all who have allowed me to express my lengthy thoughts without interruption. It’s nice to have the freedom to express our thoughts accurately despite their complexity.

Question Q.3 asks whether the "interference" presented by "centrifugal-torque" against upward precession, causes the upward precession to FOLD, into a “SECONDARY PRECESSION” (that occurs in a horizontal plane, and which coincides with the rotation of the hub).

I’m not sure how to present a mental-picture scenario to demonstrate how centrifugal-torque “FOLDS" upward-precession into a horizontal direction.
Perhaps it is best to start with a simple pictorial experiment that explains "centrifugal-torque" itself!

Picture yourself standing on a ROTATING TURNTABLE that makes you feel like an ice skater spinning on ice. Your arms are stretched outward horizontally, as you hold a set of deadweights, one on each hand.
You feel the weights in an outward direction more than the normal downward, because you are rotating relatively fast.

If you try to raise or to lower your dead weighted hands, you feel a force that seeks to move them back to the horizontal position... This is the "centrifugal-torque" that we have mentioned; this torque causes up or down rotation around your shoulder joints.
This "centrifugal-torque" occurs as the centrifugal-force on the deadweights causes your arms to pivot on the hinges of your shoulders.
(We know that bringing the arms “IN” causes a skater to spin faster but that is not relevant to this posting, as the motion in question is NOT bringing the arms “IN”, but rather moving the arms “UP” or “DOWN”, and that is what this posting is focusing on.)

Hopefully we now have a more intimate understanding of "centrifugal-torque", which may help us to visualize the horizontal "Secondary-Precession" that results from the "centrifugal-torque".
First note that the "centrifugal-torque" occurs in a VERTICAL direction... remember that lifting your deadweight hands initiates a downward centrifugal-torque (and lowering your deadweight hands initiates an upward centrifugal-torque)... because the outward centrifuge "pushes" out the masses in your hands causing the shoulder joints to pivot accordingly.

For a moment take, a different perspective, by observing a toy gyro, where we know that VERTICAL torque (caused by gravity on the toy gyro) produces precession in a HORIZONTAL plane.

Now come back and visualize by comparison that the VERTICAL downward (or upward) direction of the centrifugal-torque will cause (SECONDARY) precession to occur (FOLD) in a HORIZONTAL plane as well.

Take the previous example where you are standing on a ROTATING TURNTABLE so that you feel like an ice skater spinning on ice.
Again your arms are stretched outward horizontally, BUT this time you hold a pair of SPINNING gyros, one on each hand (NOTE you will need to slow time down so you observe the results in slow-motion).
Precession will cause the spinning gyros to rise quickly.
To help visualize (and FEEL) the effect of the EXPECTED “Centrifugal-Torque”, imagine you try to force the gyros downward while keeping your arms straight (pretend you are a gymnast on the rings), pivoting on your shoulders to force the masses downward against the rising precession.

Believe it or not, you would become able to relatively easily force the gyros to stop rising, and this would make the gyros shift the precession from “VERTICAL” upward into precession in the “HORIZONTAL” plane (in the same direction as the initiating “hub-rotation”).
You would also note that the direction of resistance in the masses would change:
You would NOT feel the inertial resistance of the masses (which was there for both the deadweight and the spinning masses), when the turning of your body on the turntable had caused the masses to drag your extended arms.
You would also NOT feel the full strength of outward-pull from the centrifuge (which was felt with the deadweights)!

Now, that wasn't so terribly hard to imagine.
Note that this example looked at gravity-driven precession and simply COMPARED it to one facet of mechanically-driven precession …note that it is NOT the same as CONFUSING the two types (as some have alleged).
--

Let’s go over it again briefly:
In the typical hub (represented by your sideways extended arms) the centrifugal-torque occurred only after the initial primary upward precession had caused the arms to rise.
Then the precession rise creates a torque-angle, and the resulting torque produces a deflection in the (vertical) primary-precession into an alternate "secondary-precession" (into a horizontal-plane).
Further, this secondary deflected precession occurs in the SAME DIRECTION as the initial rotation of the hub (the same rotation which produced the initial-torque, etc... etc).

Because of this seemingly circular set of motions involved, I refer to the "secondary-precession" as "FEEDBACK" into the input hub-rotation (and torque).

I hope now we can see the reason for saying that precession "FOLDS" from an upward direction into a horizontal direction, when centrifugal-torque enters the scene.
I believe this completes my explanation for my answer to Q.3.

My next posting will seek to expand on the effects of precession after it has FOLDED into a SECONDARY horizontal direction.
This expansion will be presented by explaining on my answer to Q.4 and Q.5, which ask whether SECONDARY precession (in a horizontal plane) manages to reduce the torque load on the hub-rotation, and most important, whether SECONDARY precession has an effect on the hub’s CENTRIFUGAL force.

Until then, Best Regards,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 04/01/2009 02:34:37
 Dear Forum,

I hope most of the more thorough readers understood why upward precession FOLDS into a horizontal plane when it encounters any kind of resistance to the rising effect (as that is what Q.3 was intended to address).
This leads us into Q.4, which questions whether this secondary (horizontal) direction of precession actually has the effect of reducing the input torque-load (without affecting the angular velocity of the hub-rotation).

The answer to this question appears to be self evident because Secondary-precession's motion SHARES the horizontal rotation of the hub, so we can expect the load on the hub-motor to become reduced.

I cannot at this point envision a 100% convincing pictorial experiment to show this, and I believe my explanation may remain open to counter arguments. (In any event, I think this point will probably require one or more equations.)

To explain my answer to Q.4, I am going to expand on the scenario presented in my previous posting.
We imagined ourselves standing on a TURNTABLE that IS ROTATING fast so that we felt like an ice skater spinning on ice.
In that scenario we labored to hold the spinning gyros from rising with precession by using the downward strength of our arms (which were extended to our sides), and I said that, among other things, we would NOT feel the full-strength outward-pull of the centrifuge (which had been felt with the deadweights)!
In this last statement I indicate that the SECONDARY precession is causing its own motion in the same direction as the rotation of turntable (hub) that we are standing on top of.
So, if the masses in your hands are no longer requiring you to DRAG their weight along (as your body rotates on the turntable) but instead the spinning masses in your hands are LEADING the rotating motion (i.e. the masses are pulling your hands, arms, and body in the direction of the hub rotation), then we can expect that the RESISTANCE on the rotation of the turntable (hub) has been REDUCED.

I feel that Q.4 does not need to be fully proven beyond a doubt and to everyone’s satisfaction, in order to proceed to our final Q.5., which is the most important in countering the alleged existence of a "static balance point" (i.e. debunking the erroneous expectation of a static balance point).

This brings us to the explanation of my answer to Q.5, which asks whether horizontal "Secondary-Precession" will reduce the hub's "Centrifugal-Force"?
This question frames a hypothesis which rests largely upon Q1 and Q2.
The answers to Q.1 and Q.2 resolved that the motion of precession has diminished centrifugal-force. Therefore, if "Secondary-Precession" has the same attributes as normal precession, and does in some way share the horizontal motion of the hub's rotation, then we can expect centrifugal-force to also become reduced, and consequently "centrifugal-torque" should also be reduced in magnitude.

***
This means that the "secondary-precession's FEEDBACK" always continues to decimate the classical effects of "centrifugal-torque", and normal precession will continue to climb unabated by centrifuge ...therefore a SIMPLE static balance-point will NOT and CANNOT occur. This is what is observed during experiments with gyro-hubs; the normally calculated centrifugal-torque seems to dissolve or DISAPPEAR. The common explanation is that the mass was transferred (i.e. mass-transfer), but this explanation is rather glib and unsubstantiated.

My explanations up to now are also a bit crude and will require further explanation with perhaps more rigorous science and math. However this initial insight provides a basis of reasoning providing a foundation to build-upon, as we continue to seek the correct equations, which explain the interaction using improved terms that adhere correctly to math and physics.

Through these last postings we have hopefully experienced a bit more intuitively what may be felt if our arms were the hub in this device.
I think some clever readers may have even envisioned how they may expect propulsion or lift to be produced. I must caution all that there are still some obstacles to overcome (perhaps more than we all think).
---

Having provided descriptions and reasons for my answers to question Q.1 through Q.5, I feel comfortable in having explained the reason that the basic static balance-point cannot exist at propulsion-potential levels of performance. This new level of clarity (for some) should open doors to view design flaws where gyro-propulsion may not be possible, and under what kind of conditions gyro-propulsion has a better probability of occurring.

Therefore, in subsequent postings of this thread, I want to continue explaining a number of interesting points. Some of these points address important items that were not taken through to a complete logical conclusion.
But most important, I want to take our renewed level of higher understanding and utilize it toward defining what is possible and what is not, in the search for “gyro-propulsion”!!!

My next posting will involve evaluations of designs that may not produce gyro-propulsion, based on the information that we have been discussing.
I also want to take a look at designs that may be potentially successful in producing gyro-propulsion due to the way they adhere to these concepts.

Until then, Best Regards,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 21/01/2009 22:23:24
 Please excuse my delay in posting.
As much as I hate to admit it, there are a couple of errors in a couple of postings of this thread.
I have been reevaluating the errors and am currently rethinking subsequent postings to assure the errors are corrected.
I will be posting in the near future.

Thank you for your patience.
Best Regards
Luis G.

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 31/01/2009 18:08:31
 Dear Forum,

Among other things, previous postings in this thread provide coherent reasoning that (in my view) explain some of the experimental results as presented by Sandy elsewhere in this forum; these experiments showed that centrifugal-torque disappears very quickly as gyro-spin and hub-rotation are increased (in a gyro-hub configuration).

Sandy’s experimental results were unexpected, and were not exactly welcome news (toward the gyro-propulsion quest).
The quickly vanishing centrifugal-torque was a negative result in part because without centrifugal-torque it becomes necessary to use mechanical means to keep the mass of the gyros at any given angle of elevation (an angle which may have been considered optimal in yielding lift / propulsion).
This apparent disappearance of centrifugal force was attributed to a pseudo-concept that was poorly named as “mass-transfer”, as I have discussed in other threads.

Though it may not be easily demonstrated (or recognized), using MECHANICAL means to maintain an angle of elevation (against precession) SABOTAGES any design because it is tantamount to removing the pivot hinge that enables precession to work at all.
In other words precession must be free to act, if it is to be used toward gyro-propulsion, but removing the pivot ELIMINATES precession altogether. A device without a pivot is in fact a roll-back to the most primitive attempt at gyro-propulsion (i.e. using fixed arms without pivot), which has been proven over and over NOT to yield even the slightest propulsion.
What I am referring to is that we already know that when the arms of the hub are not allowed some freedom to pivot (are fixed), the experimental results are negative (and no propulsion is ever produced).

The gyro-propulsion quest is filled with mirages and specters of error, as much as it is filled with false promises of success. We must however note that the errors are not in the science but in our own minds, our perceptions, and our expectations about the problem space.

One such error is the expectation that “SIMPLE” Centrifugal-Torque could help to produce propulsion because it gives the illusion that the arms in the hub have apparent freedom to pivot up and down.
It is important to recognize that structures which put IN-CHECK the motion of precession (into a static set of forces) will cause gyro-propulsion to FAIL (even when the device manages to use centrifugal-torque to put precession in-check, the FAILURE will result); the net effect is the same as if we had WELDED the pivot point into a specific angle of position.

Anything that prevents precession from rising, whether it be using rigid arms, a mechanical means, or centrifugal-torque, will cause upward-precession to FOLD immediately (into the horizontal plane), and will produce NO PROPULSION (because no WORK is performed during a static balance).

On the other hand we do know some types of devices that perform WORK, (though marginally). For example, the “Up-like-a-gyro-and-Down-like-a-weight” concept (best demonstrated by the “space-inchworm”) provides intermittent spurts of true propulsion, but sadly the space-inchworm cancels each incremental gain in ACCELERATION leaving only a simple gain in DISPLACEMENT. The “Up-like-a-gyro-and-Down-like-a-weight concept succeeds at creating gyro-propulsion but cannot sustain it.

It is clear to me that to achieve gyro-propulsion a device must be able to accumulate increments of ACCELERATION, but that will require a very clever use of precession.
A device claiming this level of cleverness has been presented recently, and it claims to adhere to the laws of motion as well as to the theory explained in this thread!

Please allow me to make some statements that may lead to this (most recently presented) method of producing gyro-propulsion. I will use the image of someone (ourselves), holding a gyro mass on each hand while standing on a turntable (as I have done in previous postings of this thread) to evoke a more personal feeling about the interactions involved.
I will do that as I continue the explanation in my next posting.

Until then, Best Regards,
Luis G.

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 08/02/2009 21:25:48
 Dear Forum,

This posting is the second in a number of postings that seek to evaluate types of designs that may not produce gyro-propulsion, and designs that may be potentially successful in producing gyro-propulsion (based on how much these designs adhere to the information presented in this thread).

In a previous posting in this thread I stated that if the gyros were in a state of upward precession it would take only limited effort from our arms (pushing downward) to stop the upward precession.
I think many of us know that when we manage to stop the upward-precession it “folds” into the horizontal plane, and the new precession-motion matches the rotation-direction of the turntable/hub, as explained in a number of other postings.
When a downward force is precisely sufficient to just block the upward-precession (in a hub configuration), then the velocity of the horizontal-precession is equal to the upward-precession. This fact agrees with statement made by Harry (I believe).

Perhaps some of the readers have wondered what may have happened if we placed GREATER downward pressure on the spinning masses, so that instead of just preventing the rise of precession, we attempt to cause the gyros to move downward (WORK)…
Let’s take a closer look from the beginning.

We are standing on a turntable that makes us turn in a manner similar to an ice skater spinning on ice.
The gyros in our hands are spinning and our arms are extended out horizontally on our sides.
Again we pretend that we are gymnastics Olympians doing the iron-cross on the rings, and in so doing we apply downward pressure to PREVENT upward precession of the gyros.

We know that a small downward effort will cause the motion of precession to FOLD, so that precession will move in-line with the direction of the rotating turntable (which we are standing on).

If we interfere only to the extent of preventing the upward precession, and no further, then the FOLDED horizontal precession will move with the same velocity as the UPWARD precession that it replaces.
This level of interference is the same as if we had simply placed an obstacle that prevents the upward precession.
There is no problem seeing that precession will maintain its velocity despite the direction in which it is deflected to move.

Ostensibly, we may also expect precession to have the same velocity as the hub’s rotation velocity.
Interestingly, we know that changing the spin velocity of the gyros will affect the velocity of precession.
Changes to the gyro-spin will have an effect on both precession and on the velocity of the hub’s rotation; this effect will be the SAME on BOTH motions.

When the gyro-spin changes, maintaining a constant hub-rotation will require additional torque (from the hub-motor), and this will also compensate (increase) the velocity of precession thus maintaining the equality of these two motions.
This may be considered as an academic issue and later on we can use the equations presented by Harry K to derive the exact relationship among velocity of hub-rotation, precession, applied torque(s), and spin-velocity (sorry I have digressed).

Now let’s increase our downward pressure to “WORK” against precession, and force the mass of the gyros DOWNWARD.

In previous threads we have argued whether the angular velocity of HORIZONTAL precession (that has FOLDED as a result of interfering with the UPWARD precession of gyros), can EXCEED the angular VELICITY of the hub’s rotation?
This is a most interesting question…

The answer to the question is yes, HORIZONTAL precession (that has FOLDED as a result of a force that interferes with the UPWARD precession of gyros) can in fact EXCEED the angular VELOCITY of the hub’s rotation. However, this will occur when the TORQUE produced by the downward force (from our arms) EXCEEDS the TORQUE produced by the rotating turntable-platform (that we are standing upon). We will have a closer look at this when we explore using appropriate equations, as presented by Harry, which should also allow us to determine tradeoffs between vertical, horizontal, and downward motions in the gyro-hub configuration.

Let’s take a closer look at the main point regarding what will happen when we increase the downward torque against upward precession.
Around the time that the downward torque exceeds the hub-rotation-torque, the angular velocity of horizontal-precession becomes FASTER than the angular velocity of the turntable; at this point HORIZONTAL precession should begin to experience RESISTANCE as it begins to CARRY the LOAD OF THE “HUB”.
The onset of this resistance will introduce DOWNWARD PRECESSION from this point onward!!!

As explained in previous postings, when the bulk of downward motion is caused by STEADY precession, then this downward motion no longer has an equal and OPPOSITE REACTION.
When this occurs, the propulsion that we seek will CEASE to OCCUR. This is very important and interesting!!

Let’s go back a little bit now. During the time that we are applying DOWNWARD torque (for brief periods of time when precession is in transition from one direction to a different direction) we are obtaining propulsion from the equal-and-OPPOSITE REACTION to the DOWNWARD torque.
During these brief periods the gyro-mass is producing UPWARD PROPULSION, by virtue of the EQUAL AND OPPOSITE reaction that occurs when a mass is accelerated by a force.
Please note that propulsion can only occur when a force effectively accelerates a mass… if the force fails to accelerate the mass then no propulsion will occur, as in the case of static forces.
Also please NOTE that centripetal/centrifugal force pairs do not produce propulsion until the pair of forces is DECUPLED from each other (i.e. the forces are no longer in a static balance point).

In my next posting I intend to present design considerations that should improve the chances of success in gyro-propulsion devices (based on the concepts presented in this thread).

Until then, Best Regards,
Luis G.

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 14/02/2009 18:54:43
 Dear forum,

This posting is the third in a number of postings that seek to evaluate design types that may be potentially successful in producing gyro-propulsion (based on how much these designs adhere to the information presented in this thread).

The concepts presented in this thread indicate that there are small windows of opportunity to create (temporary) propulsion from the time that we interfere with upward precession, through the period of increasing or accelerating precession, until the time that the mass moves DOWNWARD in “STEADY” precession. This window of opportunity can be sabotaged anywhere along the way by poor design an by poor operation.

NOTE that IF this were a non-spinning deadweight mass, then it would CRASH to a STOP at the end (BOTOM) of the downward motion, thus CANCELLIN out any acceleration gained by the device (this should not be a surprise).

However, in our experiment the mass of the gyro is spinning; thus when we decide to stop pressing downward on the gyros (with our arms), we find that the mass does NOT come to a crashing stop but feels more as if we were pushing down on an air-cushion. This “cushion” almost immediately sends the spinning gyro-masses into an upward motion of normal UPWARD PRECESSION (because the turntable we stand upon is still rotating in the same direction, and the downward pressure has stopped).

It should be relatively easy to visualize that the upward pressure of upward precession exists as long as the turntable/hub continues to rotate and there are no interfering forces (or very limited interfering forces).

It may appear that creating gyro-propulsion is a simple proposition (and in principle it is to some degree) but the devil is in the details and this applies much more so to gyro-propulsion.

I hope by now everyone has guessed that the main point of the “SECRET” to achieve PROPULSION (in this configuration) depends on WHEN and HOW we push down (or stop pushing down) on the gyro-masses, AGAINST the DIRECTION of PRECESSION… It is important to NOT CAUSE STEADY DOWNWARD PRECESSION for longer than necessary!!

*** A most important and somewhat difficult part in creating upward gyro-propulsion is to avoid OVEREXPOSURE to downward precession, in order to capture “equal-and-opposite-reaction”, with which to produce propulsion!! ******

We have demonstrated that SUSTAINABLE UPWARD PROPULSION may be POSSIBLE, if we don’t spend all our energy in downward precession (during that portion of the stroke), and most important, as long as we can FORESTALL the CRASH of the mass when the gyros reach the bottom of the cycle.
We also demonstrated how to apply this concept (falling short of telling how such machine would be built).

In the next posting I will address why many good designs have failed to measure-up, and how we may utilize knowledge about the correct physics THEORY to improve the yield magnitude of gyro-propulsion in the mechanical devices we build.

Until then, Best Regards,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 01/03/2009 15:52:24
 Dear Forum,

In our last posting we summed-up POTENTIAL USES for what has been posted in this thread, and in the process derived interesting theoretical breakthroughs to create gyro-propulsion.
We demonstrated why SIMPLY applying CONTINUOUS downward thrust, will NOT provide greater upward propulsion (Vs applying gradually INCREASING torque - REMEMBER “J” and what “J” is).

We also determined that it is more important to know when and how to apply the downward pressure.
In essence, we provided a somewhat detailed explanation as to why persisting downward precession (of STEADY-velocity) very soon brings an end to the upward-propulsion, and explained that effective, upward gyro-propulsion must MINIMIZE the time spent in STEADY downward precession.
(Please be sure to differentiate between the words “precession’ and “propulsion”, which can become confused in quick reading.)

Minimizing STEADY precession can be difficult to accomplish, as precession is easily produced unwittingly, in directions that we are not aware of (Nitro’s law).

For example:
Prolonged a downward pressure will at first cause horizontal precession.
When the horizontal precession achieves a steady velocity, propulsion will end.
If we then increase the applied downward torque, the velocity of horizontal precession will increase and propulsion will kick-in again for a short spell.
However, when the velocity of horizontal precession increases, it will eventually exceed the initial velocity of the turntable/hub.
And when the velocity of horizontal precession exceeds the angular velocity of the turntable/hub, it will cause a switch (fold) to downward precession, producing temporary precession again. When this downward precession becomes steady, it will again stop yielding propulsion.
(Yes, propulsion comes to an end very soon, every time we act to create it.)

We can see that good machines can be caused to perform poorly or not at all depending on how they are operated.

This is a common culprit in the failure of most gyro-propulsion designs. It has caused many well made machines to fail because the makers failed to understand the theory with sufficient detail and clarity.
Without sufficient theoretical understanding, inventors are completely unaware of when and how-much downward pressure should be applied (as well as other factors). Small adjustments can make the mechanisms produce propulsion, increase propulsion, decrease propulsion, and even stop producing propulsion altogether.

In the world of gyros it has often appeared as if things are working in opposite direction from the way they should be; I have read this more than once from our most advanced contributors in this forum.
Therefore simply increasing the length of time in downward-thrusting of the gyros does not necessarily increase the amount of gyro-propulsion produced; the timing and rate of thrust-applied are just as important (remember “J”)!!
This is a point which most (if not all) gyro-propulsion designers have missed altogether.
This also means that in order to accumulate larger rates of propulsion, the cycles must occur a lot QUICKER and therefore the displacement (amplitude) of each cycle must be SHORTER, and both ratios of spin and of rotation must be impeccably SYNCHRONIZED with the torque of the downward thrust!!!!

Individuals, who have taken lightly the need to know about theory, have never fully succeeded even if their machines were designed and built well. This is a travesty to these good designs.

I previously mentioned that the appropriate cycle has a short window of opportunity for capturing sustainable propulsion, and have just explained the conclusion-END of this opportunity window (i.e. when the torque of the downward thrust is sustained too long); at this point propulsion stops being generated.

The earlier side of the opportunity-window (in the cycle) occurs when the upward precession is brought to a stop. In other words PROPULSION begins when the gyro-mass is stopped from moving in upward precession (at this point precession begins moving horizontally).
(This type of simple fact, often lays the foundation for valuable discovery.)

It is important to note that this is the beginning of propulsion on a cycle (I thought it easier to grasp the ACTION and REACTION connection to propulsion by examining other parts of the cycle first, thus I presented latter parts of the PROPULSION-PERIOD first. Hope it has not confused the main drift of the explanations).
As the cycle progresses from here the downward velocity of the gyro-mass accelerates, and the upward propulsion of the vehicle continues to increase (temporarily).

At this point I want to jump ahead to the end of the PROPULSION-CYCLE to present a very important point in the preservation of upward propulsion (propulsion which we managed to produce through stages of the downward cycle-segment).
**************
Here it is:
If we manage to stop the downward thrust of the gyro masses at the exact TIMING, then the gyros will RENEW their upward precession, WITHOUT CANCELLING the increment of GAINED PROPULSION (this is profound, if you understand the timing well!).
*****************

In this posting we saw that even well built devices can fail (or appear to fail) due to the way they are operated because of shortcomings in understanding the underlying theory.
First we focused on the ill effects that may occur when steady precession starts to steal-away the “equal-reaction” that produces propulsion.
We also had a first glimpse at what to look for when operating properly built devices.
And finally we plunged right into how gyro-propulsion can be created and even more important, how gyro-propulsion can be preserved (one increment at a time).

On my next posting we will continue to speculate and embellish factors that can introduce success or failure into the design and operation of gyro-propulsion devices. We will attempt to make an intuitive connection between PROPULSION and WORK, and will seek to explain why static forces CANNOT perform WORK and therefore do NOT produce gyro-PROPULSION (contrary to what some would like us to believe).

Until then, Best Regards,
Luis G.

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 15/03/2009 23:48:08
 Dear forum,

In the last posting we addressed the point of why so many good designs have failed to measure-up, and how knowledge about physics THEORY can help to improve the gyro-propulsion yield of devices.

On this posting we will continue to speculate on factors that may MAKE or BREAK gyro-propulsion designs and operation. I am convinced that success can only occur when we make accurate connections between “propulsion” and “WORK”. This understanding will also explain why static forces can neither perform WORK nor produce gyro-PROPULSION.

Relatively simple experiments demonstrate that torque of correct magnitude and properties can produce both precession (motion at 90 degrees), and DIRECT MOTION (in the direction of the torque), SIMULTANEOUSLY.
***These simultaneous motions produce temporary gyro-propulsion by making use of WORK, which results from the equal and opposite-reaction (the propulsion occurs in the opposite direction from the classical non-precession motion).

So, the application of downward torque can create sufficient ACTION / REACTION to produce slight, temporary propulsion (SIMILAR to down-like-a-weight and the space-inchworm).

1) We know and can easily demonstrate that applying a horizontal torque to an active gyro-hub produces an equal horizontal torque in the opposite direction (a “counter-torque”). Within a limited short arc, this temporary “counter-torque” can yield a net primitive displacement from the device.
2) A similar set of events should occur if we apply a vertical DOWNWARD torque (in the same hub)!
The first case produces upward precession with horizontal “reaction”.
The second case produces horizontal precession with upward “REACTION”!

The applied torque will advance “downward”, as it transforms precession from the horizontal direction into its own downward direction, and in the process it will YIELD PROPULSION in the opposite direction (upward), but only briefly again.

--
Here is another very interesting point that needs to be clarified:
Some readers may be wondering, can action-and-reaction occur even when the forces in the torque are STATIC (e.g. gyro precession on a tower)?
At first glance, the answer may appear to be yes, however propulsion only occurs during the time-span that precession accelerates from zero to precession’s maximum velocity (and during this brief period, of precession’s acceleration, the interaction is NOT a static interaction)!! Note also that during this brief period, REACTION occurs in the OPPOSITE direction TO THE direction of the TORQUE (and at 90o to the direction of precession, which is very interesting if you can visualize it …). In short precession that has achieved a static balance is no-longer able to produce propulsion.

Gravity’s constant acceleration CANNOT produce the ACTION & REACTION interactions that yield propulsion because; first of all gravity’s acceleration is constant and CANNOT be INCREASED or DECREASED.
Second, gravity permeates all Frames-of-reference EQUALLY.
And third but most important, the Equal-and-Opposite reaction to all gravity created motions are felt only by the object that produces our gravity i.e. by our EARTH. When the earth attracts another object or planet, the other object excretes an equal force upon earth, which most often is too minute to significantly affect the large mass of earth!

I hope we can see that when the opposite REACTION occurs on the entire planet; if this is the case, it means that the device is configured wrong… thus a gravity-driven gyro can NEVER produce propulsion upon a device (because earth is part of the device in such cases).
Neither would we expect a deadweight object that is dropped (while attached to the end of a pivot arm) to create an equal “COUNTER_TORQUE”, and therefore we cannot expect gravity to produce counter-torque in a gyro either.

On the other hand, we do know that an applied mechanical torque, which originates within the FRAMEWORK of the system, does indeed create an opposite reaction (counter-torque).
For instance, even a deadweight object turned around a pivot by mechanical means DOES provide an opposite reaction that we can refer to as a counter-torque!
(Even though in this specific scenario the completed cycles achieve no net displacement, because we are using deadweight.) If these last 2 sentences are confusing you can ignore them.

In a similar manner, a mechanical torque applied to a spinning object (in a gyro-hub configuration) creates a TEMPORARY equal REACTION (in the opposite direction from the applied torque) and can be referred to as a “counter-torque”. In this case also the equal and opposite reaction (to the applied torque) is useful (to produce propulsion) even if for only a brief period. In other words, it is NOT possible to obtain propulsion indefinitely by simply applying a mechanical torque to a spinning gyro in a hub (if this was the case, gyro-propulsion would already be widely used).

In this posting we continued to speculate how, for a brief period, torques applied to spinning objects can be harnessed into gyro-propulsion.
In the next set of postings we will take a look from a different perspective, at what we may refer to as the key or “revealed-SECRETS” of gyro-propulsion.

Until then, Best Regards,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 31/03/2009 01:49:14
 Dear Forum,
I will return soo, Sorry abot the delay.
Regards,
Luis G.


Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 06/04/2009 00:59:42
 Dear Forum,

After giving this much thought I have come near a full circle, but with much greater clarity.
Here is what I have found to be most important in revealing the SECRETS of gyro-propulsion:

1. Propulsion can ONLY occur as an equal “Reaction” to an applied force (very simple and basic rule).

2. The Action & Reaction pair CANNOT be fully “static” if it is to yield propulsion (perhaps not as simple but still basic).

3. The “Reaction” to an applied “torque” can yield propulsion (in one direction), but only for a brief increment (in part because of torque’s circular nature).

4. **** The “Reaction” to a torque that drives precession can yield propulsion only for a brief period during the time that the velocity of precession is accelerating, and when the resulting precession is forced to FOLD (by an obstacle, by the configuration, or by a strategically applied force), and yes, also when precession is forced to stop.
****
These are four IRONCLAD RULES limit when propulsion can be created, because once precession achieves its normal constant velocity it no-longer has a “Reaction” (as explained in earlier postings), and therefore it produces NO propulsion.

This last rule (#4) appears somewhat mundane and unimpressive, when stated in the simple terms above. However the deep (and easy to miss) wisdom, is found in the reason behind the BREVITY of the period that yields propulsion.
Normal precession has no “Reaction” once it achieves a stable velocity. However “reaction” does exist during the time that precession is accelerating to its normal velocity!! (This is probably one of the more profound statements.)
I know of only one builder of gyro-propulsion-devices (among those who contribute to this forum), who has not completely missed this subtlety when attempting to obtain propulsion.
It appears that even the brightest stars have become wrapped around the axle; I have seen many an exclamation that “things appear to occur in the opposite direction than expected”.

The machines built by largely intuitive geniuses have often failed, NOT because their machines couldn’t produce propulsion, but often because the propulsion produced could not be discerned (or was not of sufficient magnitude to be of interest to investors who pursue only what they see as feasible).

--
By now we may have noted that producing propulsion is not the largest challenge in this quest. The largest challenge is in managing to retain the bits or increments of propulsion produced by cleverly built devices and thus managing a growing or increasing net accumulated velocity.

A typical space-inchworm uses the “Up-like-a-gyro-and-Down-like-a-weight” concept to effect DISPLACEMENT of mass, through increments of propulsion, but is unable to aggregate increasing velocity.
So, we see that the act of producing gyro-propulsion is not such a big-deal anymore (as some form of intermittent propulsion has been accomplished by many builders with relative ease); the big-deal is in accumulating each incremental bit of propulsion produced during each cycle, and doing this as quickly as possible!
If propulsion produced by a device is not sufficient to create stable lift, no one will accept it (this is bad because most inventors don’t have the means to demonstrate their devices in space wherever feeble propulsion would be noticed).

For this reason I will now attempt to explain how to optimize the retention of incremental propulsion, to in-effect produce “significant” rates of propulsion.
Clear understanding of this explanation assumes that the reader has carefully conducted the necessary mental experiments to know exactly why one cannot use deadweight (non-spinning) masses to impart propulsion into a space vehicle (or any vehicle).
In short, we must know that if we eject the deadweight mass it will provide an equal-and-opposite reaction (yielding short-term propulsion)… unfortunately, when we catch the deadweight mass (to reuse it), it will counteract ALL gained propulsion, and both the mass and the vehicle will come to a full stop (the center of gravity and/or center of mass will remain unchanged, when using deadweights).

Many of those who THOROUGHLY understand every step of this simple mechanics stated above (among other mechanical rules), will be prepared to grasp the explanation that follows.
We previously explained that thrusting the spinning gyros downward (in a gyro-hub configuration), would create HORIZONTAL precession, accompanied by a small increment of “upward propulsion” (when handled properly).
We will recall that the gyros were spinning and the hub was rotating, and this was presupposed before performing the downward thrust.

***** Here is the interesting part… as we apply downward pressure (torque) on the gyros, precession’s velocity winds-up (accelerates) from zero to its normal precession-velocity, and PROPULSION is produced during this period of time only.
Any subsequent STEADY pressure (force/torque) that we continue to apply, after precession settles into its constant precession-velocity, will PRODUCE NO-MORE PROPULSION (also the gyro will more or less maintain the elevation angle where precession settled into steady constant velocity). This is because steady precession has NO (or reduced) Equal-Reaction (and we know that the Equal-Reaction is necessary to produce the WORK that yields PROPULSION).
*****
Note:
When we remove the downward pressure, we reduce & remove the horizontal precession.
This action may cause a slight upward motion of the gyro-mass, but motion is in turn overrun by upward precession, which produces NO OPPOSITE REACTION)!
The effects of the hub’s horizontal rotation overwhelms the slight classical-upward effort, inundating it with upward-precession, and this occurs as soon as downward pressure (torque) is removed thus reducing or eliminating the small opposite reaction from the end of the downward cycle!!! *****
This is a five star event because the complete cycle produces UPWARD PROPULSION WITHOUT the seemingly inevitable crashing stop that occurs at the bottom of the cycle.

To gyro-propulsion this is the equivalent of the “HOLY GRAIL”!!
With the appropriate device and by operating it correctly we can create UPWARD PROPULSION while being able to ABATE the counter-action that would eliminate the gained “propulsion-increments”; thus we become able to increase velocity gradually with each cycle.

It is possible that I have not yet made my vision sufficiently clear to remove doubts. Therefore I will provide a pictorial experiment to represent each step in a manner that is more intimate and easier to understand.
I will present this mental experiment in the next posting.

Until then, Best Regards,
Luis G.

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 29/04/2009 00:50:16
 
“. . . keep up the references and see how it goes.”
“I wish it were as easy to prove my point about gyro propulsion as it is about personalities.”

You don't listen. Well, O.K. Get ready for fun --- where ever, whenever I wish.
Let us dissect some of this idiotic writing. Post away. Fun for you, fun, fun, fun. Let me know when you've had enough after a while. Then apologize nicely.

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 04/05/2009 00:32:43
 Dear Forum,

A court jester’s talent is oft measured by their sense of timing!
Interruptions (though with unpleasant odor) could not come at a better time for this thread.

A coherent explanation of my “gyro propulsion” theory (as it stands) has been presented for some time in this thread.

I could go on endlessly providing explanations from different perspectives (to clarify for anyone who finds it still difficult to grasp, as it has been stated), and would inevitably start describing my solutions to the challenges encountered in building a working model that demonstrates the theory.
This would not be a good idea, as I have been building pre-functional models (to determine correct configurations, dimensions, couplings, standard components, etc), I am progressing faster than expected, and it would be a mistake to describe how my working model is designed and built. (The science should be given freely but not the actual invention.)

Thus, I have completed the explanations of my theory in this thread, and if there are any coherent disagreements or comments about the theory, I welcome them.

If past experience is an indicator, I expect no one will challenge the actual theory. Nonsense and perhaps even personal insults are more likely to come from those unable to understand the theory, or to formulate their own cohesive theory.

I will look in once in a while to see where things are going, and will only answer questions and comments about PHYSICS as it applies to the theory.

Videos of my working model will also be posted; when success occurs (all previous claims of success have not provided sufficient proof).
I may also continue pursuing conversations with people who have something of value to say about “gyro propulsion”.

Best Regards and farewell for now,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 04/05/2009 02:56:11
 
I started writing the detailed reply you deserve and why. You could never guess. Then I saw that if this guy began to realize what he is, he might hurt himself. It happens on the internet. So, you get off Scott free again. I just can’t risk it.

You can’t guess, because incompetence is a two edge sword. The incompetent doesn’t have the capacity to recognize he is incompetent. He can’t guess how bad off he is, but others see it every time he transmits his mind. So, he keeps transmitting. Its kind of sad.

Report Abuse
Answer: Spinman - 21/08/2009 20:56:45
 Continue explining your theory. a lot of it is wrong but some of it fits with what my machines do. Spinman

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 22/08/2009 17:11:59
 I appreciate your request Spinman. This thread was intended as a place to publish how I perceive the theory that I expect will lead to “gyro-propulsion” but it became compromised.

I have been writing in another forum with limited attendance to allow positive uninterrupted posting. Unfortunately the content has been evolving into design of proprietary component-devices that we do not want to publish.
I will start a new forum by invitation as soon as time permits, where we can discuss my theory in-depth and without personal interruptions.

In the mean time I would appreciate if you state specifically what parts of my theory you think are wrong and why.

Regards,
Luis G.

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 26/08/2009 21:46:39
 Okay Spinman, I will continue posting some of my theory items in this thread.

Regards,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: Spinman - 19/09/2009 19:29:08
 hey luis can you explain why gyros dont fall down.. everything else placed offbalance falls off the tower. why? Spinman

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 21/09/2009 23:11:19
 Hi Spinman,

This question is old and has been fully answered to science’s satisfaction using physics and math symbols. Scientists and Engineers worth their salt can provide answer using these symbols etc.

However I see the merit in your question because I have yet to find a place where this question is answered in an intuitive manner. I don’t think there is an easy answer to this question that can satisfy the layman.

Your challenge is welcome. I have read a number of the accepted explanations using Math and Physics, and believe I have an understanding of their common thread (the gist of it).
I can probably provide intuitive explanations but may require a series of postings in this thread.
I have some ideas on how to present a more intuitive explanation.

Regards,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 22/09/2009 17:54:38
 Spinman,

In previous postings of this thread I explained how my theory proposes to generate propulsion.
To recap the theory, it proposes that spin phenomena will serve to support propulsion from 2 limited perspectives, 1) to reposition a mass to the top, and 2) to distribute and defray counter-propulsion at the bottom of the cycle.

Unfortunately I have never explained (in this thread) the most basic phenomena displayed by simple toy gyros; e.g. does a gyro defy gravity? How about an orbiting satellite?

Well, neither whirling gyros nor orbiting satellites defy gravity at all.
And believe it or not, the dynamics that keep gravity from bringing satellites crashing down are nearly the same as the dynamics that keeps gyros whirling at top a tower without toppling down, but neither case defies gravity at all.

In the case of satellites, it is well understood that “MOMENTUM” is the known counterbalance to gravity’s force. In other words, MOMENTUM and gravity’s force are in balance, and this keeps satellites from falling. This balance is maintained without performing “WORK”, which is the DOT-PRODUCT of Force and displacement (W ~ F x d).

In the case of a gyro on a tower, it is also understood that “MOMENTUM” again balances against gravity’s force! YES, MOMENTUM (derived from the flywheel’s spin) creates a balance with gravity’s force, keeping the gyro from falling, also without performing “WORK” (W ~ F x d). If this is surprising, perhaps I can explain in my next posting.

Best Regards,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 24/09/2009 21:45:41
 Hi Spinman,

Here is the starting explanation for the statements in my last posting where I began a comparison between orbiting satellites and gyros.

In the case of satellites we deal with their LINEAR MOMENTUM balancing against RADIAL gravitational force. In this case GRAVITY provides the CNTRIPETAL force (think about it).

In the case of gyros we deal with the ANGULAR MOMENTUM of the flywheel, balancing against the ANGULAR FORCE, which is generated by gravity. Though gravity acts straight down (because the gyro is stationary on one location of the planet), gravity generates angular force as it acts on the pivot. (Does this require further explanation?)

In both cases gravity’s force deflects (changes, amends, or modifies) the DIRECTION of the existing MOMENTUM, without affecting the magnitude of the momentum; this common factor makes a world of difference!

The satellite example presents proven evidence about the balance between momentum and force, which is straight-forward proof even for people who have no understanding about the physics involved (because most people know that satellites work).

I will expand a little more about the physics involved on the next posting.

Best Regards,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 27/09/2009 15:07:28
 Hi Spinman,

Assuming you are okay with the material presented up to now, so here is a bit more.

The satellite example proves that if you take an object moving constantly in a straight line, and if you start applying a force that ALWAYS act perpendicular to the direction of the motion (at all times), we end up with a smooth curve that forms a closed circle or ellipsoid.
This should be evident to physics buffs who consider that applying a steady force CONSITENTLY-PERPENTICULAR to the motion of the object (at all times), is the same or equivalent to a CENTRIPETAL force (i.e. they share the same basic definition).
(This argument was presented previously at http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=882. However I had prolonged difficulty convincing an intelligent Engineer. Perhaps the initial failure to find clarity, before we finally agreed, was due to both our mutual stubbornness. You can read the posting to determine where I went wrong.)

Let’s move on.
The fact that neither precession nor orbiting satellites produce WORK (W ~ F x d) (dot product) is arguably a very interesting point that provides significant insights.
These insights may allow us to say (perhaps coin a rule) that any force, which only changes the direction (not the magnitude) of a moving object, into a smooth closed-loop curve (ellipsoid), does NOT perform WORK, nor use energy (?).
This type of closed-loop curve has properties that resemble (perhaps are near the same as) an object moving in a straight line, which is considered to be "at-rest" by the First Law of Motion.
This point may require more clarification if my ensuing explanations are not sufficient.

"Relativity" defines gravity “intuitively” as a CURVATURE in space.
Note that the descriptions in this thread about a satellite’s curved path are consistent with relativity's definition of gravity as curved space.
Note that we may also extend the “curved-space rule” to all forces; i.e. we can say that all forces cause curvatures in space. (Isn’t that interesting?)

So, if we visualize gravity’s force as a curvature in space then the properties of the curved motion of satellites in orbit become expressed as extensions to the “First Law of Motion” (as it also applies to curved space). Under this assumption, the first law of motion would basically state that an object in steady smooth motion (straight or ellipsoid) is fundamentally “at rest” (i.e. it performs no WORK etc).

We arrived at these conclusions after having determined that ORBITING satellites are indeed at rest (performs no WORK) within their curved paths. I personally prefer to dwell on these kinds of thoughts before deciding about their validity on the face of known facts.

On my next posting we will continue to explore the properties of curved motion, and hopefully find out how the curved motion of precession fits in.

Best Regards,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 05/10/2009 01:35:22
 Spinman,

I received your insightful communication, thanks for the find.
You are correct; there is a glaring error in my last posting, and I am glad you let me find the error myself. I am also surprised nobody else saw the error (or may be not).
I will address it in my next posting.

Best Regards,
Luis G.

Report Abuse
Answer: Spinman - 05/10/2009 23:06:42
 this one giving you fits luis? guy like you should figure it quick - Spinman

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 16/10/2009 19:34:45
 Hello Spinman,

I see the error; if a rocket is used as the source of force that induces a smooth, closed curvature in the trajectory of an object moving with constant speed, then energy is being spent! Right?
Good catch Spinman! I stand corrected of error in overextending the realm of the curved space effect, and will address the differences after I have completed the main point of this posting series.

I assume you are in agreement or are deeply pondering the remaining content of my postings.

If you thought the last postings were interesting, here is something else that is of much interest!
If orbiting satellites and precession perform NO WORK (are basically at rest) then spin (which is also motion without WORK) must also create something akin to a curvature in space!! (Do you see the connection?)

The obvious question is, “Does the Centripetal Force of spin cause curvature in space?”
A wider question may be stated “Do some “Static” forces cause Curvature in space if they form closed loops that do not spiral into lower (or higher) energy levels?”
I found the above statements incredible at first; until I recalled that spinning objects have very much the same qualities of an orbiting satellite, as (a) both objects perform NO WORK, and (b) the mass-points of spin-objects also move along smooth curves. To clarify this comparison in your mind it may help to recognize that on spinning objects the "centripetal-force" is created by the cohesive forces of the mass itself (I hope this is not too hard to visualize?).

The extraordinary toy-gyro on a tower manifests all of these physical effects in an extraordinarily clever and elegant manner that is hard to improve upon. To top the performance of a toy gyro one would need to make it do something even more extraordinary, such as flying or something clever like that …

My next posting will provide a perspective of what precession’s curved space looks like.

Best Regards,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 25/10/2009 17:21:48
 From Curved Space to Spiraling Space

The comparison between an orbiting satellite and a gyro in precession (on a tower) may appear somewhat naive or trivial at first glance; however it presents a foundation from which to start searching in the right direction. It opens the door for the groundwork to complete a theory that explains all, including the most basic, well known (and yet complex) behaviors of gyros.

Momentum keeps a satellite hovering against gravity, and momentum also keeps the mass of the gyro from toppling off the tower-top.

We have said that the satellite’s trajectory becomes curved through its proximity to gravity’s force, and this trajectory acquires the curved shape of an ellipsoid around our planet, while our planet provides the (centripetal) gravitational force.

How about the gyro on a tower, what can we conclude about it?

On a gyro, gravity motivates torque (around the pivot point), which acts on the spinning disk in a way that is oft referred to as a “couple”. We could ask if the gyro-spin creates a tight curvature in the space around it.

The net effect of the torque (couple) is to deflect the existing angular momentum in the disk’s spin. As with the satellite, the force in the “couple” deflects the disk’s momentum (and the deflection occurs toward the same direction that the torque itself turns). Visualizing this is paramount to understanding how gyro dynamics work.
**(Alternatively we can view the steep curve that drives the gyro-mass downward, as encountering the tight curvature created by the spin in the flywheel.)**

Again, in comparison, note that a satellite’s momentum is also turned toward the direction of gravity’s force (the satellite would fall to earth if the satellite’s momentum were not sufficient).

When we ignore that the flywheel disk is spinning, then we claim that the disk-object appears to respond at 90 degrees to the direction of the torque! This is an acceptable description in casual conversation, as it is what our eyes see, but is not entirely and strictly correct because each mass-point on the flywheel does not really move at exactly 90 degrees to the direction of the torque (even though that is the net effect for the whole disk as a unit)! It is a case of “reference-frames” that is better explained from a “Relativistic” perspective.

Take an unattached spinning disk floating in space (or in gimbals) and allow the force of a torque to act across it. Since the torque diverts the disk’s angular momentum into the torque’s direction, it causes what we see as simple-precession on a disk, as it floats in space or in gimbals.
When we introduce the gyro’s overhanging axle (which adds a dimension to the torque) the dynamics become more complex but the basic rules remain the same (the simple-precession of the disk becomes a more interesting precession of a gyro).

In a toy gyro on precession, each mass-point on the gyro-disk follows a path that resembles the shape of a long spring that has been (a) bent into a circle with a gradual spiral, and (b) flattened against the wall of the imaginary traced circle (not easy to visualize). Therefore the shape traced by the mass-points is that of a distorted SPIRAL (a flattened spring (spiral) within a large circle that has a spiral of its own). The trajectory of motion derives “From Curved Space into Spiraling Space”, i.e. beyond curved space).

One could say that the combination of space curvatures caused by (a) centripetal-force of the flywheel (derived from spin and the disk’s cohesive forces), plus the curvature caused by (b) the torque’s force, yield a compound spiraling curve in space (this is the path which provides least resistance under all existing constraints).
This is the path that the mass-points on the flywheel follow. The path of the mass-points is similar to the curved path followed by the satellite around a planet, but more elaborate.

This is the result from compounding multiple angular forces, which create multiple compound curvatures.

In my next posting we will take a closer look at the basic physics that are involved in the balance of orbiting satellites and in gyros, and the resulting curved motions.

Best Regards,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: Spinman - 30/03/2010 16:42:05
 luis - i know you are not done with this thread - where did you go?
Spinman

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 01/04/2010 02:07:34
 Hi Spinman,
You are correct. I am not near finished with the complete theory. Unfortunately my time has become even more occupied than before with the new contract.
I will post as soon as I get some spare time.

Best Regards,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: Albert Druid - 20/08/2010 14:59:00
 Hi Lou - Don't you have more to say bout gyros etc? I like reading your ideas.
Best wishes.
Al Druid

Report Abuse
Answer: Albert Druid - 24/09/2010 18:48:20
 Luis - can you answer my questions - are you still there?
Good wishes Al Druid

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 10/10/2011 04:32:55
 Dear All,

Are the laws of motion compromised by devices that displace their center of mass without creating an “Equal and Opposite Reaction/Force” (E&OR)?

Devices that use “deflection” (& precession) to displace mass break the 3rd law of motion only as much as hot-air balloons break the 3rd law of motion.
Both of these types of devices trace a basic straight line and neither of their motions have an observable Equal & Opposite Reaction/Force (E&OR).

Why does no one claim that hot-air balloons defy the 3rd law?
(I am certain that when one answer is correctly and clearly stated, the other one should become obvious.)

Regards,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 10/10/2011 14:00:42
 Gentlemen,
Please excuse my error, hot air balloons do displace an equivalent air mass, and that is their equal and opposite reaction. I thought I was on to something but it was just a mirage.
Regards,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: Al Druid - 22/11/2012 21:33:16
 hey lu – do you have a theory if precession has opposite reaction or centripetal and centrifuge? Al

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 24/11/2012 07:16:00
 Good question Al,

Orbiting precession is an arc (curve, not straight-line) that originates (and is driven) from the flywheel’s center of mass (at the orbit’s periphery), not from the gyro’s orbiting center.

Therefore “Centripetal Force” is NOT required to pull, from the center, on a straight-line motion in order to form a curve, as is normal in familiar angular motions.
In short, precession occurs directly as a curve; it is NOT derived from a linear momentum.

Still, we may intuitively expect “Centrifuge” to emerge from orbiting precession’s momentum, in the same way that Centrifuge emerges from a motor (where no linear momentum needs to be curved into an arc).
I believe that precession’s centrifuge only emerges when the tilting torque (or other gyro parameter) is altered on the fly.
Don’t confuse precession’s centrifuge, with the centrifuge of a motor driven hub (as presented in Sandy’s experiments).

Last but not least, “equal and opposite reactions” occur when work is performed.
Precession does not perform work, therefore precession does not exhibit equal and opposite reaction.

I hope you find this explanation plausible Al.

Best Regards,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: Blaze - 24/11/2012 22:48:19
 Good explanation Luis. I agree.

Blaze

Report Abuse
Answer: Albert Druid - 15/12/2012 00:15:03
 lu - got any thoughts on the difrnt posts goin on now? Al

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 17/12/2012 23:27:19
 Hi Al,
I have many thoughts about the latest postings flurry.
But all am going to say is that, interpretation errors are always rife in this subject matter (from all corners).

At this stage, I prefer to spend less time arguing theory and perceptions (it can be time consuming), and I am not one to keep everyone happy by simply agreeing with all.
Most important I don’t want to divulge further information about my design. It’s amazing how few words can reveal so much (humans may not be mind-readers but we are exceptional at reading facts between the lines).

There is also an interesting posting in the “Basic Gyroscopic Questions” forum, entitled “gyro in space” (dated 16 November 2012).

My Regards,
LuisG

Report Abuse
Answer: Albert Druid - 30/12/2012 15:45:37
 hey lu – have you seen glenn’s esperimen resolts?
esperimen A resolt = ratio of tilt distance to distance of 15 revolutions to touchdown is 1:57 – and it took 22 secons
esperimen B resolt = ratio of tilt distance to distance of 22 revolutions to touchdown is 1:83 – and it took 22 secons again - he added weigh to increase force on esperimen B
i bet you got some idea? Al

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 30/12/2012 22:16:38
 Hi Al,
Not knowing all the details makes it difficult.
We don’t know the value to some factors of great influence to the rate at which the tilting motion advances downward (for starters, Friction factors and Deadweight-mass are not known).

One thing I do know is that changing the torque’s Acceleration-Rate does Not affect the “Time” to reach max-precession-velocity (but does affect the downward “Distance”).
I am not sure whether this property of “Acceleration” also applies to the downward motion of gyros in steady-state precession.
Interestingly, Blaze believes that true steady-state cannot be achieved by gyros. Hope this helps.

Regards, Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: Albert Druid - 24/02/2013 15:15:39
 Lu – am lookin forwar to your explanation of gyro hanged on a string – you told us you was going to write. Al

Report Abuse
Answer: luis.gonzalez - 24/02/2013 15:59:51
 Hi Al,
I hope all is well.
The gyro on a string presents extremely interesting opportunities, as it is not yet fully explored in this forum.
There are some equations that can shed interesting perspectives regarding the symmetry of action-reaction pairs of gyros in steady-state orbiting-precession.

My intent is to discuss it with blaze and Harry (perhaps Ravi too), who are well versed on the advanced math involved.
For now, I am going to wait until other discussions conclude.
Best Regards,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Add an Answer >>
Website. Copyright © 2024 Glenn Turner. All rights reserved. site info
Do not copy without prior permission. Click here for gyroscope products