|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
15 May 2024 15:18
|
|
Welcome to the gyroscope forum. If you have a question about gyroscopes in general,
want to know how they work, or what they can be used for then you can leave your question here for others to answer.
You may also be able to help others by answering some of the questions on the site.
|
Question |
| Asked by: |
ravi |
| Subject: |
Youre right Glenn, Sandy and Luis! |
| Question: |
Glenn's words were bang on "There is another process of putting spinning wheels through a series of repeating, complicated manipulations that I think has a real chance of producing inertial thrust. " Thats exactly what I'm proposing. Sandy is right - the saturation zone exists but one must and can avoid it.Sandy knows that. He's seeing it happening. He's reliably reproduced it. The 'complicated manipulation' is for this specific purpose - producing thrust by essentially shirking the saturation zone.
Sandy, perhaps the solution kept eluding you because what you had observed was also being influenced by the things you were doing .
For example,the effect you observed happened to be influenced by the relative positions of heavy levers, arms etc in the mechanism - Which is why it was clearly observable in one configuration but un-reproduceable in another. Because the moment of inertia associated with the free-standing machine is a crucial factor in the effect. But you kept swapping parts, changing speeds, which all influenced the effect you were seeking.
Or, perhaps you weren't doing something you should have been doing - and also perhaps it was something you couldnt have done even if you wanted to. I think Sandy - you are a man ahead of his time - the technology didn't exist in the 70s or even the 80s that could do what I propose to do.
I think that perhaps, if you grew up in the 80's and 90's with the electronics revolution, you'd be fiddling with the things I've been fiddling with too.
Do visit my blog over the next two months and post your comments. http://relmachine.blogspot.com
Luis - You're right. You, EDH and others: 'the science should be free'
It is in admirable spirit. One that I share. I'm going to upload as much as I can. I assure you I will upload my theory as well as my effort to manufacture a prototype, as much as I can and it will all be out there on my blog within the next two months in bits and pieces as and when I find the time.
I'm sorry, I'm juggling a full time job and a personal life and this. Sometimes the only time I have is 15 minutes before midnight.
I will segment and post the information on my blog.
In return, I would like that after you read the paper give me
1. your endorsement of the paper, if you agree with the main conclusion of the paper that a flying machine can be built using the science explained in it, even if you dont agree with certain portions of its theory or working derivations. I wont quibble, i'll be fair and wont keep science secrets and you should deal fairly and throw your weight behind me too, so we can get this machine built soon.
2.if you read the paper,and you are interested in participating in the evolving internet project, your only way to make your pitch to me about why you should be on the team of this project will be via the blogs and this website -
Now, i know it might sound presumptuous, but its really not since this is really an open call to everyone on the world wide web . just open a blog of your efforts so that we can all build a community together even as we build a business. At least I intend to. A fair one. A needed one. One that will bring a needed product to the world market and keep it real. Just post the address of the blog on this forum. I think its a scaleable model and the purpose is righteous - this might even become a new model of a global corporation
In spite of any negative comments you may hear, I urge all who believe that scientific rationalism should triumph over doctrinaire established canon if necessary, to at least read the theory before making up their mind and read it with an open mind - there is nothing in physics that says this cannot be so - if minor procedural mistakes are found, you must withold that from becoming a determinant of the overal 'possibility' of the theory -that should be determined in light of Eric Laithwaite's experiments, videos and papers and your own vision of the congruity of electrical and mechanical phenomena in the ultimate analysis of universal laws. You have to instinctually feel the theory's ability to explain the origin and the invocation of force everywhere.
OK, so the first part of this is a crash course in relativity. Try to brush up on relativity, light cone, null geodesic etc etc.
If thats not you're thing, tough!! No getting past it. Thats where the solutions lie... Thats where we must go.
BUT... It will change soon.. there is some good mechanical engineering work and some eye popping ElectroMagnetic effects. I'll try to have that uploaded Monday.
The address of my blog:
http://relmachine.blogspot.com |
| Date: |
4 May 2009
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 04/05/2009 02:20:00
| | | Ravi,
It sounds like a worthwhile challenge.
I am also looking forward to your side of the science (theory); mine is relatively simple and is already in the forum (though it is still not fully defined mathematically).
Your schedule sounds busy; I have 3 hours of commuting to my full time job, finishing a basement, a start-up project at work on my own time, and building the device.
It keeps me out of trouble most of the time.
Best Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 04/05/2009 03:56:40
| | | Hi ,
You wrote, ‘I'm sorry, I'm juggling a full time job and a personal life and this.’ I am very sorry. When I was born my aunt sat aside $46,000.000.00 in an open trust fund, so I can only empathize with you to a limited degree.
Wait a minute. Maybe I was dreaming this and I just woke up? I don’t have any money. Well, not much. All of us have had your problem. Time spent away from young, little families is a awful price to pay. I really am sorry.
I can look over your stuff and try to help you. I’ll start by giving you truth. Above all you do want truth don’t you? Ok, truthfully I don’t expect yours will work based on my considerable awareness of all the effort that has gone on all over the world for 70 years by uncounted numbers of people. They all believed. Today I’m not even certain of my own last design. Just because I’m not smart enough to find a flaw in it doesn’t mean it would fly. I haven’t seen the slightest amount of your work.
My friend and number one side-kick that I loved, who worked with me for 14 years died about a dozen years ago. I am reminded what he would tell my new employees again and again, until he burned it in their heads and got some work out of them. Kenneth Goins would say to them, “Don’t tell me show me.” He would say that a lot.
Kind Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
ravi - 04/05/2009 10:27:33
| | | oh.. and one more thing...
Could all of you out there reading this, also give me your feedback about something -
I could separate the 'science' from the design, and post only the 'science' part of it, (its still possible for someone 'reasonably skilled in the craft' to make it anyhow - thats the threshold to meet to qualify for the patent anyhow).
Once you see the effect, perhaps you'll want to build a prototype yourself, perhaps even one that is identifical to the one I'm building. So, what if i want to post everything, even the designs of the prototype I am building ? Then, its a bit of a problem - because actual specific designs are the product of a lot of engineering work and expertise which I earned through personal experience in model building - as opposed to scientific knowledge, which I gained by sharing in the communal granary of science. Designing a flywheel for example, that is specific to this prototype's energy requirements took me more than 16 hours of mental gymnastics. (I recommend flywheel design to only well trained/read & personally experimentally-inclined mechanical engineering types who also need to be very consciously aware of the dangers of the endeavor.)
That's high value information too but of an especially high, restricted kind of value - to those who simply want to get ahead of you. Especially because we are already giving the science away and anyone reasonably skilled in the craft can make it, (if they invest time and money and above all, effort), access to specific design information should not be provided to those who are not willing to invest hard-slog of proper research and engineering work as we have. Ultimately, it is self-defeating to allow such people access to this specific knowledge in a 'live' fashion.
I want that kind of specific information to be accessible to only those who are serious and able to contribute to the team effort I want to build to duplicate the designs.
However, since I am averse to keeping even specific design information secret, once the 'science' of it is out there, I also want to post the specific design information.
But may I propose the following - Those who wish to accept the information without participating in the communal effort should not have timely access to the same information as those who are genuinely contributing to the construction and progress of the network. That is tantamount to simply stealing a march or idle curiosity and is not acceptable. Its an illegal move- one that we cannot afford to allow on a systematic basis as it would ultimately disadvantage the network's own welfare.
So specific design information is held secret for a period of time from those who do not participate and contribute to the network. But, the design information should be accessible to those who are part of the network.
Here's my proposal:
1. So I propose to convey specific design information in a timely fashion, only to those who have demonstratedly been a part of the network and the communal effort.
2. I would ask that since the network will make available all this information to its participants, those who wish to research specific areas should do so within the community and not outside of it.
3.Something else that those who wish to gain specific design information have to agree to is to uphold the idea that information about the design specifics is restricted to network participants in their own dealings involving any invocation of this information.
4.There should be a clause that those who join and leave, should also agree to help keep the spirit of this arrangement alive in a sign of good faith to those still part of the network.
5. And I also propose that those who wish to gain access to specific design information should be willing and ready an internet legal document agreeing to this arrangement prior to gaining access to the information.
That too is fair, is it not?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 04/05/2009 11:28:29
| | | Hello ravi,
Although I already have left this forum I read sometimes here and now I have to post some comments.
A "saturation zone" does not exist in conjunction with a pair of opposite mounted spinning gyros, which are rotated together around a hub (please excuse me Sandy).
I have described this issue detailed in my balance point theory here in this forum:
http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=922
This theory was derived by the stated claims of contributor EDH (many thanks to him!).
I have prepared an Excel calculation sheet with all necessary mathematics to prove that this balance point theory is a fact. However, a balance point in a gyro hub system may not achieved if one or more parameters are out of a certain range. These parameters are interacting as well and thus you may draw wrong conclusions from your observations because you may not know the correct physics and mathematics behind this behavior.
Unfortunately this Excel calculation sheet proves also, that there is no propulsion vector left if the gryos are running in balance with centrifugal force. The reason therefor is, that a spinning gyro solely responses to acting forces or torques with TORQUES. And a torque in turn is equal to 2 opposite forces with a parallel distance to each other.
However, to achieve PROPULSION you need unfortunately a SINGLE aligned force. So if somebody find a possibility to transform a torque into a single aligned force, then propulsion will be possible.
Maybe you have found this possibility by using of electric or magnetic utilities? I do not believe but you never know and I would be happy to be convinced by contrary!
I will not attend to your blog because of some reasons but I will keep an eye on it. If you have any questions or comments you may contact me by email as well.
Good luck for your project!
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 04/05/2009 21:41:38
| | | Harry,
You should really stop playing around with mathematics and spreadsheets and do the experiment, then you will not have to state your case for a fictitious balance point, then try to back it up with dubious mathematics
I do realise you needed a balance point to back up EDH claims but that was just not going to happen.
I have already stated and with my reasons why there is no generation of angular momentum at the rotation speeds EDH was using, and if I remember correctly you only reckoned there was a balance point because I said there was no such thing.
You then “got a bee in your bonnet” about this saturation zone and balance points.
It was obvious that it did not suit you for me to be correct.
I have done the experiment thousands of times, you have obviously not attempted it once.
Why do you assume there is centrifugal force and therefore angular momentum present at this balance point., when in effect there is nothing but rotation?
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 05/05/2009 11:48:22
| | | Hello Sandy!
I've already noticed that you do not like mathematics, that's okay. I'm sure you are a genius in building every kind of mechanical setups. But I'm a more theoretic based guy and I hate it to spend time and money for senseless mechanical experiments if I already know the outcome of such experiments.
EDH has send to me at that time a simulation based on mechanical calculations. The simulation shows 2 opposite on lever mounted spheres, which were rotating together on a hub. During hub rotation both spheres moved from horizontal plane to a certain angle upwards and back again to horizontal plane. EDH called this behavior "flutter" and he claimed that there was net upward force between upward and downward movement of the spheres.
This simulation and my private conversation with EDH led me to my balance point theory. Your claims of an existence of a "saturation zone", where mass and thus angular momentum disappears (!), has really nothing to do with the origin of my balance point theory.
This is the main content of my balance point theory:
1. Centrifugal torque caused by hub rotation works against precession torque of the spheres until both torques are balanced.
2. The sequence of initial start up of the gyro system is essential:
- The hub rotation must start BEFORE the gyros starting to spin up!
If the gyros would spin before hub rotation, centrifugal force caused by hub rotation could not be established!
3. Depending on all involved parameters of this gyro hub system the following scenarios are possible:
- The spheres remain at a certain angle about horizontal plane but still moving around the hub.
- The spheres move upwards to the maximum position at ~90 degrees, i.e. a balance point cannot be established.
I hoped that if the gyros remain at a static balance point, a force vector in direction of the angle above horizontal plane would cause net upward force in conjunction with the opposite mounted gyro.
Unfortunately "dubious mathematics" of my Excel spreadsheet did not confirm this. All torques are compensated by each other.
By the way, I made this spreadsheet for optimizing reasons, because I wanted to build a test setup. But now there is no reason to build this setup. Or should I do it to convince you and 3 or 4 others here in the forum?
Sandy, you wrote, "I have done the experiment thousands of times". Really? Did you really start spinning up the gyros AFTER hub rotation? If so then please provide detailed information about how you did that.
Do you really assume if hub rotation dominates gyro spin, gyro precession would be stronger than centrifugal?
Best wishes!
Harry
@ravi
I'm sorry for polluting your thread. I'm now quiet again.
.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/05/2009 17:53:13
| | | Dear Harry,
I know your still mad at me. That‘s ok. Still I admire you. I want to address some of your reasoning.
You said, “I hate it to spend time and money for senseless mechanical experiments if I already know the outcome of such experiments.”
Well you should have it your way! However, someone has done the actual experiment and told you from actual observation that the outcome is different than your estimate. Observation always takes president over estimation no matter how expertly the estimation was done. Sandy may be wrong and you right, but he offers a challenge to build a working model such as he has done. You have a lot of confidence. That’s good in a man and you have wonderful credentials, but in this argument, estimations and calculations can’t win over trial and observation. In order to clearly win, you’d have to build no matter how smart you are. And yeah, we all know you are smart and have knowledge-- we don’t question that. In an ultimate trial of machines either of you may win, but you don’t have a machine. The man brought a knife to a gun fight, but you forgot to bring your knife. Sorry.
You said, “. . .a simulation based on mechanical calculations. The simulation shows. . .”
The key word is simulation. We had to dig! that word out of EDH. He resisted a little bit contending that simulation was the same as reality, but yes he was special and I too liked him. We also conversed privately a short time and then stopped. Please forgive me for belaboring the point, but my contention is that the observation of a trial wins over a simulation. This does not mean that you are anything less than perfectly correct, regardless that I too do not believe in a balance point. What it means is that you don’t clame to be proven by trial.
In your balance point theory: “The hub rotation must start BEFORE the gyros starting to spin up!” This is interesting, Harry.
You said, “I made this spreadsheet for optimizing reasons, because I wanted to build a test setup. But now there is no reason to build this setup.”
Engineer, if you want to prove to the world you do have to build a setup. It’s been done that way through out modern history. Allow me to present some examples.
Albert Einstein created the greatest theories (mathematical simulations) in the world so far as I know. They were partially rejected for twenty years. We all now know they are hold-heartedly believed to represent the truth, but still they are stated today as theories and people are still doing experimental work to try to prove them.
Isaac Newton did not stop at theory. He proved them by testing. His observation became Laws.
Now Harry you maybe correct as I‘ve said. As for myself I will have to see and measure a balance point in action to believe it. So what are we to do. --- I’m going be civil. I hope life has been kind to you and your family since I last wrote you.
Best wishes!
Glenn
(Do you use Google Earth plug in?)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/05/2009 17:54:17
| | | Dear Harry,
I know your still mad at me. That‘s ok. Still I admire you. I want to address some of your reasoning.
You said, “I hate it to spend time and money for senseless mechanical experiments if I already know the outcome of such experiments.”
Well you should have it your way! However, someone has done the actual experiment and told you from actual observation that the outcome is different than your estimate. Observation always takes president over estimation no matter how expertly the estimation was done. Sandy may be wrong and you right, but he offers a challenge to build a working model such as he has done. You have a lot of confidence. That’s good in a man and you have wonderful credentials, but in this argument, estimations and calculations can’t win over trial and observation. In order to clearly win, you’d have to build no matter how smart you are. And yeah, we all know you are smart and have knowledge-- we don’t question that. In an ultimate trial of machines either of you may win, but you don’t have a machine. The man brought a knife to a gun fight, but you forgot to bring your knife. Sorry.
You said, “. . .a simulation based on mechanical calculations. The simulation shows. . .”
The key word is simulation. We had to dig! that word out of EDH. He resisted a little bit contending that simulation was the same as reality, but yes he was special and I too liked him. We also conversed privately a short time and then stopped. Please forgive me for belaboring the point, but my contention is that the observation of a trial wins over a simulation. This does not mean that you are anything less than perfectly correct, regardless that I too do not believe in a balance point. What it means is that you don’t clame to be proven by trial.
In your balance point theory: “The hub rotation must start BEFORE the gyros starting to spin up!” This is interesting, Harry.
You said, “I made this spreadsheet for optimizing reasons, because I wanted to build a test setup. But now there is no reason to build this setup.”
Engineer, if you want to prove to the world you do have to build a setup. It’s been done that way through out modern history. Allow me to present some examples.
Albert Einstein created the greatest theories (mathematical simulations) in the world so far as I know. They were partially rejected for twenty years. We all now know they are hold-heartedly believed to represent the truth, but still they are stated today as theories and people are still doing experimental work to try to prove them.
Isaac Newton did not stop at theory. He proved them by testing. His observation became Laws.
Now Harry you maybe correct as I‘ve said. As for myself I will have to see and measure a balance point in action to believe it. So what are we to do. --- I’m going be civil. I hope life has been kind to you and your family since I last wrote you.
Best wishes!
Glenn
(Do you use Google Earth plug in?)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/05/2009 18:10:30
| | | @ravi
“I'm sorry for polluting your thread. I'm now quiet again.”
You mean, no-good, awful person. We will have to hunt you down and beat you!!!!!
You are pushy, sure of yourself and would take leadership rolls. Sound like I used to be. Now you show humility. Good, we can be friends now. What can we do for you? We don’t agree to anything, but you have our ear. We await the Manna. Hand it down .
Best wishes,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 05/05/2009 22:22:01
| | | Ravi
My apologies for breaking in again sir.
Dear Harry,
I did the opposite of what you did.
Physics told me I was correct in the manner I built my machine but unfortunately discovered the “Catch 22” (previously mentioned in a posting a few years ago) relating to angular momentum produced in mechanically accelerated systems
Then I knew the rest was at best assumption, and it is this assumption you are basing your claims upon.
I don’t mind maths Harry but I do know that any mathematics relating to mechanically accelerated systems utilising accepted physics is in error and that does not excite me at all.
Anyway on many occasions to reduce the starting load on some of my machines it was sometimes easier to start the mechanical driven machine rotation than vice versa although in the final analysis the outcome was always the same.
Increasing the machine rotation speed has the same effect as increasing the gyro speed i.e. it produces a loss of angular momentum and a loss of centrifugal force, whereas accepted physics suggests that increase of machine rotation speed should increase angular momentum and centrifugal force (holding the gyros down perhaps?)
I have news for you. It does not.
Check my very first posting in June 2004. “So much for conservation” and my second also in June 2004 “You cannot accelerate no mass”
Nothing has changed since then, likewise attitudes.
Unfortunately this is all part of the assumption and like the rest of accepted physics relating to mechanically accelerated gyroscope or flywheel systems is worthless.
Is it really so hard Harry to get a simple test unit built to see all of this good stuff, or are you just so sure of your maths and logic that it is not worth the effort?
Sandy.
PS
Harry it means absolutely nothing to me whether you build the experiment or not, but it would be a shame after all your efforts, that you did not know the truth.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/05/2009 22:47:05
| | | HOLD ON!
Harry K. you are so right. I just dumbed it up. I give no excuse, but I can give an explanation.
You solved it for me mechanically.
I have one minor exception to get out of the way.
It doesn’t make any difference if the spheres are rotate before the combination of two spheres aligned oppositely are rotated around the hub, or whether hub rotation comes first. The magnitude of force in ratio of spheres to hub rotation makes the difference.
You solved it this way. You said something like, have you tried it by rotating the hub first. Erika! That forces a person to understand. It all becomes simple and I must now say-- a certainty.
We all know what will happen if you rotate a pair of separate ‘non spinning’ objects fast enough. They will rise, until they are nearly parallel with the elevation of their connection to the hub.
Now. . . If the spears, or wheels are begun to rotate during hub rotation, a kind of precession begins to take place and the spheres rise. We all know this.
The question of the argument arises: What will stop the spheres from rising and the answer is, electronically slow the rotation speed of the spheres, until they cease to rise. If the speed of the spheres, or for that matter, speed of the hub is constantly speeded and slowed the disk will rise and fall, assume for example from 90o up to 45o. Up and down. Up and down. Up and down. There is your flutter, undeniably so. The strange thing is that no one was able to explain it so. We, you too (for a while) were uncertain and EDH brilliant that he was, was unable to explain well enough.
The balance point seems to be a region where flutter takes place, rather than a precise point, but maybe perfect engineering could maintain a precise place and point. I guess it could.
I’m still sure it won’t fly. I don’t think your saying it would. I see the idea of continually forcing the spheres down then allowing them to rise.
That would be, CONSTANT MASS DISPLACEMENT RECOVERY, which is the great solution I believe, but diffidently NOT that way. My system uses that principle, but in very different and complicated ways and incorporating critically necessary additional actions. (Excuse me. I like me don’t I)
None of this conflicts with what Sandy Kidd has been saying as I can see. I believe him, all except we at first didn’t believe in flutter and point.
I wish EDH would visit and tell us how it’s going.
CONGRATULATIONS HARRY K. That is an real accomplishment. Maybe you can learn to work faster. I couldn’t resist the dig.
Sincerely,
Glenn Hawkins
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/05/2009 22:48:44
| | | Dear Sandy,
I understand why you are correct. I have not explained my discoveries. Maybe I will muster up enough energy to present them. You of all people deserve a good second opinion. Until then let me say, all the things you say do not present themselves --- do not present themselves. How could you possibly be more correct in the final analyzes? The things are there. They did not disappear. They are overridden. Other forces over whelm them and assert themselves more powerfully, so the ’normal’ can’t be realized and for all practicable reason as work continues, work as if they don’t exist. That’s right-- under the circumstances they have no effect.
Sincerely,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 06/05/2009 02:26:18
| | | Ravi,
I think your enthusiasm will meet with a deserved degree of success (not unlike other successes in your life).
An extensive effort waits before us to accomplish our lofty goal. I know you understand the value embodied in previous years of earnest effort and derived experience that is found in some quarters of this forum (and elsewhere).
I know of nowhere else where some individuals with the right level of experience and interest, for this subject mater, are likely to congregate over time.
Using COTS has been mentioned previously in this forum but not as explicitly as you have.
You also mentioned having spent significant time designing the flywheel. My following comments may (or may not) be of high importance for a successful device. For what it’s worth, a fellow called EDH stated that disk or rim shaped flywheels cause unnecessary “disturbances” in the propulsion effort. EDH claimed to have achieved success by using spinning hallow-sphere shaped flywheels (he mentioned sources for metal spheres).
Since you have been recently focusing on flywheels, I thought it may be better to become as widely aware about other opinions, in that realm, sooner rather than later.
Most people can see that there are interesting differences between the way disks and spheres behave, due to their differences in symmetry. I believe these differences may be worth considering but am not sure if these differences will help or hinder propulsion, depending on the type of design.
I have personally concluded that thinking “modularly” about all the functional parts can simplify many aspects of building mechanical prototypes for this effort. However, even this simple approach can produce other complications.
We can exchange some of these ideas through our blogs, after I return from my upcoming trip.
My wife and I are going to the Baltic area for a couple of weeks later this month.
Am afraid this trip will set me back from keeping-up with your 60 day program.
I hope you find helpful the information I presented about the flywheel, as that is all I can contribute for now, with my current time crunch.
My interest in the joint effort is still strong but we must resolve a number of issues before entering in full agreement.
Best Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 06/05/2009 14:12:42
| | | ...Sorry again @ravi...
Good day Sandy!
Let's forget about maths but rely on logical thinking. My balance theory is not based on math equations but on logical thinking of physical laws. The maths behind the physical laws is only necessary for design reasons to define sizes, geometric shapes, power, etc. for this hub gyro system. Please also note that I'm not a "math genius" at all but only a normal mechanical engineer.
I believe I read nearly all of your postings and thus also your very first postings in the thread “So much for conservation”. I have no doubts about the outcome of your experiments, but I do not agree with your conclusions about the reasons of the observed outcome.
Please imagine the following situations:
+++ 2 opposed gyros are each fixed with its axis on a lever with a certain length.
+++ Both levers are fixed on a hinge at the center of a hub. Both gyros can be turned around the center of the hub in vertical plane from horizontal 0 degree position to maximum vertical 90 degree position.
These are the initial start conditions:
1. Both gyros are aligned exactly in horizontal 0 degree position.
2. Both gyros are NOT spinning.
3. The hub is NOT rotating.
*** Now the hub will start to rotate with a defined rotation speed.
Outcome:
1.Both gyros will behave like death masses and therefore centrifugal forces will act on both gyros in outward, opposed and horizontal direction.
2. Each centrifugal force cannot create a moment of torque, because each centrifugal force is exactly aligned with each lever and thus there is no vertical lever arm to the center of hub.
3. Both gyros are in balance and behave like a normal flywheel, which consist of two opposed point masses. Therefore angular momentum is stored in the flywheel as well.
*** Now each gyro begin to spin up to a defined and exact equal rotation speed.
Outcome:
1. As soon as each gyro starts to spin up, the gyros will IMMEDIATEL begin to rise, independent from size of hub rotation speed and therefore independent from size of centrifugal force! This insight seems to be not logical on the first view but it is correct.
The reason is, as soon as the gyros begin to spin, the gyros begin immediately to precess because of the present hub rotation. Because of the degree of freedom, the gyros can only move upwards in vertical plane during their rotation around the hub center.
2. Thus starting precession movement of the gyros create a moment of torque, caused by tilting force and its lever arm with the distance of center gyro to center of hub!
3. Now the gyros begin to rise and leave the horizontal plane in upward direction, i.e. they turn in vertical plane around the center of hub from 0 degree to 90 degree position.
4. When the gyros rise they also move inwards to the center of hub and thus the acting centrifugal forces will be reduced because of the decreasing rotation radius around the hub.
5. The upward/inward movement of the gyros cause on the one hand a reduction of centrifugal force, but on the other hand an increase of the vertical lever arm (which was formerly zero!) and thus a moment of torque will be created which acts against the rising precession moment of torque.
6. This centrifugal moment of torque increases on the one hand if the gyros rise higher and higher because the force lever arm increases as well, but the centrifugal moment of torque decreases on the other hand because centrifugal force decreases because the rotation radius becomes smaller.
7. If all involved design parameters are in a certain range, the moment of torque caused by centrifugal force will be equal to the moment of torque caused by precession force at a certain angle above horizontal plane. In this case the gyros will remain at a certain angle above horizontal, which can be calculated. The rotating system is now balanced and the gyros will remain at their actual position as long as all parameters will not be changed!
8. If one or more design parameters are out of a certain range, a balance point cannot be achieved because precession moment of torque "eats" centrifugal moment of torque too fast!
Sandy, I believe you have observed exactly this situation (#8) and called it "saturation zone". In this situation there is no chance to balance the gyro system because centrifugal force cannot be achieved fast enough to cause a counter torque against precession torque.
However, if you know the reason for this behavior you are able to change the parameters to achieve a balanced system.
Yes, it is indeed hard for me to get a simple test because the test is NOT simple:
- The speed of both gyros must be exactly equal and adjustable, otherwise unbalanced forces and vibrations may destroy the complete system. You already made such experiences...
- The drive of the hub must be very powerful and exactly adjustable as well.
- A lot of electronics for control and measure purposes is necessary.
Unfortunately I do not have the possibilities to build such an exactly manufactured and complex test setup at home in my garage. To do this anyway, I have to spend money for a manufacturer to build the device. However, I know that the device cannot produce thrust, so why should I spend money and time? Only to convince you, Glenn or Luis?
Believe my theory or let it be, I don't care.
Best wishes!
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 06/05/2009 14:54:35
| | | Hello Glenn,
It took long but it seems you finally understood the basics of my theory.
CONGRATULATIONS, you are the FIRST one! :-)
This is an evidence of incapacity for my part that I was not able to explain good enough in my numerous postings. However, gyro stuff is very complex and it's difficult to explain own way of thinking, especially in a different language.
Yes you are right, I believed EDH's "flutter" is a vertical movement around a balance point, caused either by non-accurate parameters or intended manipulated parameters.
And yes, I'm now also sure that it won't fly.
As already stated, to achieve thrust, it would be necessary to transform torque into linear force. I thought, the interaction of centrifugal and precession force could achieve this but I'm wrong.
EDH stated that Coriolis forces might be responsible for his claimed thrust. Maybe, goodness knows...
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 06/05/2009 23:57:14
| | | Hello again Harry, and any other interested party.
You are so nearly there but for one small but important point.
I went through your posting and was beginning to think that we were on exactly the same track but you will probably cringe at this reply to your posting.
1 The gyroscope will not rise vertically until it is rotating fast enough to have transferred all of its mass to overcome the centrifugal loading in the system.(and all that implies)
What happens to the system when the gyroscope is not rotating fast enough to rise?
The gyroscope cannot just jump from total angular momentum at zero rotation speed to “X” revs in saturation.
What does the system produce at 50% of “X” revs?
As the gyroscope gains rotation speed (and assuming the system rotation speed is constant) the gyroscope sheds both angular momentum and centrifugal force until there is none left.
The gyroscope does not have to fight centrifugal force, the gyroscope removes the centrifugal force by transferring its own mass, bit by bit, as the gyroscopic torque is increased, to act vertically down through the rotation axis of the machine. No you will not find that in any book.
Is that not awfully clever?
The gyroscope only begins to climb after saturation has been reached.
In effect the gyroscope is shedding angular momentum and centrifugal force as soon as it starts rotating, but this is not necessarily noticed until it enters the saturation zone and begins its climb.
Of course if you wish to insert a few strain gauges into the system the changes will be seen immediately.
2 Unfortunately Harry it is not the reduction in effective radius of rotation which creates the continual rise of the gyroscope, it is the gyroscopic torque applying leverage, in the vertical plane to a disc which has no longer got any mass.
Once the gyroscope starts to rise it cannot be stopped (saturation or whatever else you wish to call it sees to that.)
“You cannot accelerate no mass” I entitled one of my original postings.
What I meant by that was that you would normally expect an increase in system rotation to increase the centrifugal loading and bring the gyroscopes back down as I intended to do.
I doubled the system rotation speed, immediately vertical movement of the gyroscope was detected
I reported the result. The inclination rate increased dramatically.
My life changed at that point.
3 The most important point is that any manipulation of gyroscopes for the purposes of generating inertial thrust must be carried out as I have repeatedly said outside the saturation zone.
OK Harry this is going to be extremely hard to swallow but if you test my claims you will discover why it is so hard to be believed.
None of my claims are surely too hard to test?
However if you think it is a waste of time so be it.
I apologise if I have repeated myself in this posting.
Sandy.
PS I do realise how hard it is to acquire a balanced twin gyroscopic device unless you can make it yourself, have a friend who is a toolmaker, or have a fat wallet,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 07/05/2009 14:22:06
| | | Hi Harry,
Glenn:
“CONGRATULATIONS. Maybe you can learn to work faster. I couldn’t resist the dig.”
Harry:
“It took long, but it seems you finally understood the basics of my theory.
CONGRATULATIONS,”
Good comeback. I got a laugh out of that.
I have wondered for a long time if the three of us were not all correct in most things, but that we were expressing our understanding differently, while denying one another.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Dear Sandy, please correct me if I misstate you. I understand your contentions are:
There exist a saturation zone. When this zone is reached, there remains no centrifuge, no momentum and no mass to accelerate. All these are transferred down upon the hub.
This is crazy. Why, because it is mostly correct. FACT: You have not been understood in twenty-five years, because of the way you explain these conditions. The world will never, never buy it. Well . . . what is the purpose of explaining one’s self? The purpose is to make himself understood, his view of something. What is the solution? Ether change the descriptions, or forget about it. What good is it to say your are right and be right and nobody believes you? My friend you are smart. Sometimes the simplest things escape us. If the world will not change its thinking, then one man must change his way of presenting if he is to join in and be understood. Right is not enough.
Sandy, don’t get sore. I am your pal. If it sounds like I’m not well, duh, duh, duh, I’m trying.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I have said the same thing, Sandy. Nobody however, has ever answered me.
. . . all the things that Sandy said do not present themselves --- do not present themselves. Oh, but they exist and can never be removed. They act, but they are overridden. Other forces over whelm them and assert themselves more powerfully. That’s right, for practical purposes-- under special circumstances those ’things’ have no effect.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Now it gets complicated, because Harry is correct too. No I’m not nuts. I’ll take a break and get back to this.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick - 24/05/2009 05:54:35
| | | WHAT is this thing u av 2 build so secret all outsiders ask, u give them nothing of what ure all buzzed about n why....HURRY UP THEN N N N 4 SURE BUILD DA DAM TING
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
