|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
29 November 2024 03:37
|
|
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: |
More experimental results |
| Question: |
Ravi |
| Date: |
8 February 2010
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Ravi - 08/02/2010 18:38:11
| | | Here are some more experimental results.
The graph represents the response of the rel.machine to harmonic torques.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 20/02/2010 15:38:31
| | | Hi Ravi,
Sorry I have not yet commented on your presented results.
I have thought about information contained the 3 lines graph, and have some comments and questions.
My efforts have been channeled into a new contract and my wife has been planning a number of outings that take up a lot of time, not to mention watching the winter Olympics.
I will try to post my initial response soon.
Best Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 20/02/2010 17:44:12
| | | Hi Ravi,
My initial comments about the graph you posted representing your experimental results are:
A) The 1 AMP (blue), 2 AMP (red), and 4 AMP (yellow) lines represent levels of tilting toque applied.
B) The X-axis you labeled as “Time Period of Imposed Harmonic Torque” may also be stated as “Duration of Tilting Torque”.
C) The Y-axis you labeled as “Number of Revolutions of the Carriage” may also be stated as “Number of Hub Turns”.
I do not mean to counter what you have stated but only to bring a different perspective to perhaps clarify for those of us who have become accustomed to different nomenclature.
Please verify that my naming conventions in fact reflect your representation correctly (as well as my comments below).
Base on the above, it seems that applying greater “Tilting Torque” has diminishing-returns in regards to the “Number of Hub Turns” that the torque it is able to produce.
In other words, increasing the strength of the tilting toque (starting from zero) fails to drive the hub over a greater number of turns (even though we would expect greater number of turns to result from greater torque when driving a common (deadweight) mass).
These results lead us to believe that, when the gyros are spinning, as the rate of tilting torque is accelerated, an increasing proportion of the tilt-force is converted into the production of something other than the turning of the hub. (Please let me know if there is more to it…)
The magnitudes presented in your data have great value (from a quantitative perspective).
However at this stage the value of your data is only applicable to the attributes of your device (i.e. diameter of base, distribution and ratios of mass, spin mass, deadweight mass, etc). Thus, only your follow-through can eventually bring this data to some type of fruition.
Before proceeding, I would like to remind us that we are all (without exception) still learning about this field and that each individual has come further in their own area of experience in the subject matter (which varies depending on the areas we have focused our past efforts on).
That said, not everything in your data is surprising, including the explanation stated above.
Classical mechanics predicts that as the torque becomes sufficient to tilt the mass of the entire device upon its foundation footprint, then a proportion of the torque will become funneled or diverted into the phenomenon we know as deflection/precession.
Am I explaining this with sufficient clarity?
Your data reflects that a tilting torque produces deflection/precession, but only when its magnitude is sufficient to overcome any effective interfering force (this subject was discussed by Harry and me in previous threads of this forum).
The shape and mass of your device (base-diameter, mass-distribution, etc) interacting with gravity presents a force that interferes with the deflection of the gyros in configuration (->, ->).
This is why a more sophisticated device would allow up-down pivoting of the gyros plus a means to harness their dynamics to produce lift.
This does not take anything away from the merit of your design and the value of your experiments. It always is best to start from the simple, gather data, and proceed to improve on the basis of what is learned; I believe that is what you are doing.
In case you have not thought this out already, the conversion (or energy leak) in your device is going from angular input in one direction, to a leak or conversion into a different ANGULAR direction.
What we want to accomplish is to convert an angular torque (really a set of angular torques) into a sustainable LINEAR momentum.
Some members of this forum have already accomplished conversion of angular forces into “intermittent” linear motion that comes to a FULL STOP with each cycle. The challenge is to go beyond that and produce effective aggregation of momentum with each cycle.
My advice is only intended to engage your fine mind into thinking about how you can really produce applicable, useful propulsion from dynamically combining spins and torques; that is the challenge.
Nobody truly knows if the quest (sustained or aggregated momentum) is possible but if it is doable, its complexity is somewhat greater than has been shown thus far.
Please accept my best regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/02/2010 08:32:07
| | | I like your post, Luis. As to tilting torque’s effect on precession, it is the same as you always knew it was. Nothing has changed. The greater the torque the faster the precession. This is true, until the torque is increased too much to the point it overpowers angular momentum. For the best balance and function, angular momentum should be kept twice as powerful as tilting torque. The video of Ravi’s machine can cause confusion. You coined the word ‘leak’ meaning lost or wasted force. That’s good enough I guess. It happens.
With the angular momentum remaining the same, while extra force is gradually applied to hub rotation, Ravi’s apparatus tilts higher from this extra tilting force. The place of tilt is constantly changing as the hub rotates, so that the greater resistance to lift is always re-generated. Previous work energy to cause lift is lost with hub rotation. We know this because whichever side of the apparatus rest on the floor, it will soon be lifted from one side to the other. This constant re-lifting, is a constant drag. There is your ‘leak’ demonstrated. The resistance to lift absorbs from the power and speed of precession resulting in the slowing down of precession. I think this is right, because. . .
Tests I’ve recently done show the greater the torque the faster the precession so long as angular momentum is also increased at a rate of 2:1. I am proceeding on my design based on this information.
You say we’re all getting better. Yes, I see and I also note that your last two posts are quite masterful. We all have come a long way in five or six years.
RAVI, let me commit on the excellence of your test. Before your machine we could only see rotting hubs with gyro wheels locked in place and connected to a heavy frame. The only good evidence of torque, though we knew it was there, was a vibrating needle on weighing scales. With your invention we see what we had reasoned. . . tilting torque in action. Thank you.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 22/02/2010 16:33:52
| | | A note regarding units: I've determined that the dynamic friction coefficient for the entire unit is less than 0.1 A. So you have to take that into account in translating the Amperes into a direct measure of the torque. Here's how it would work. If I applied 1 A, that really means I applied 0.9 units of torque.If I applied 4 A that really means I applied 3.9 units of torque. The ratio of the two torques would there be: 3.9/0.9 = 4.333.
Had you not adjusted the units, the ratio would have come out to be 4/1 = 4.
Thus we see that the torque generated by the 4 Amps is in fact 4.33 times larger than that generated by the 1 Amp, making the effect that much more stunning. Think about it! You applied 4.33 times more torque and you actually got an angular velocity that is LOWER than what you got for 1 unit of torque!
And anyone who thinks that its all well and fine and in agreement with current understanding, must explain the key find of my experiments. Namely, what is the reason in your view for the difference in response of the flywheel to two situations that involved an identical amount of torque - one a constant torque and another a variable torque, and for one (the constant) we get 7.5-8 revolutions in 10 seconds and for the variable torque, we are getting somewhere around 5?
Not only that you can further see how in the case of the constant torque the whole rel.machine stayed relatively inert and didn't move about while for the variable torque case, the rel.machine executed a much more complex pattern of behavior - one that I emphasize includes lifting force. (Try this: Sit on the floor and try to execute the same motion that the rel.machine is executing without an upward lifting force sustaining your posture.) What is the reason for this difference in your view for this complexity of behavior?
Now the fact that the behavior of the rel.machine shows any difference at all between the two otherwise identical scenarios means that by the rules of logical argumentation, by virtue of experimental proof, the difference is assignable to parameter that was varied: Namely, Rate of Change of Torque.
The fact that rate of change of torque has an impact on the response of the angular momentum vector is actually a new find. If you disagree, please find me a detailed reference to it.
Now if you saw the video, you already know my theory. These findings are all confirming my theory that the inductively suspended flywheels show a variable reactance, much as a charged coil of wire would.The reactance is a variable quantity, being higher for higher rates of changes of torque. This is strikingly similar to the behavior of the rel.machine - at 4.33 units of torque, the response in the applied plane was lower than the response at 1 unit of torque.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 23/02/2010 15:50:14
| | | If you set on the floor and lean on one buttock, the other buttock tilts up. This is not lift, Ravi, though it may be a premier maneuver for a man trying to fart. Twisting buttocks is a kind of ignoble torque, not a lift. Still your lift idea may be useful to NASA as a second stage blast off. Write them suggesting they tie a dozen severely bloated men around a rocket and instruct the men to start farting like crazy once they reach ten miles up. NASA may send you some money.
On second thought, fart-lift is like turbine thrust. We already know about that, but nice try, Ravi.
Smile. I am sending you a joke to preposterous to be serious or mean.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 23/02/2010 16:00:49
| | | One side of your machine twists upwards from torque. That is not lift. There is no lift, unless both sides lift at the same time.
Ravi, the more weight you hang on an over hung gyro to cause tilting torque, the faster it precesses‘, unless too much weight is added, or the wheel’s rotation is too slow and angular momentum too weak.
Try this. Nail your machine to the floor and begin adding more electric power to the hub motor. You will see that the hub and wheels rotate faster the more torque you add.
I will try to explain. Constant pressure such as inside a balloon or existing in centrifuge dose not expend work energy. Think of a fast rotating wheel in a vacuum that has no bearing friction. It would rotate forever, though centrifuge could be exerting a tremendous force as pressure. No work energy is lost because centrifuge is not allowed to move matter in or out. In many situations, perhaps not all, energy is used only while moving something, that is, while accelerating matter. With this in mind let’s look at your machine.
As the body of the machine torques higher and higher, constant movement is re-occurring higher and higher in a rather odd way. Notice that while one side of your machine is down, the other side is up, but this situation will be reversed every half rotation. In this example you may know the condition of constant upward movement as it reoccurs in new places, in a grid around the circle it wobbles in. Can you see that because the hub rotates, the machine is constantly moving upwards against gravity in a changing circle of time and space? Unlike a force of pressure held in check such as you find in centrifuge, your machine is in constant movement against the resistance of gravity and this dose uses work energy.
This energy is taken from precession, therefore precession slows down.
The slowing precession is not caused by adding extra torque to the hub. The slowing is caused by the machine’s constant drains of energy from precession that is sustaining a constant re-torque-ing upwards.
Also try nailing the base of your machine to a wall. Again you will see that adding power to hub rotation increases rotary speed.
I find a ratio of 2:1 (Magnitude of angular momentum ‘2’ and tilting torque ‘1’) to be the best way to increase the speed of precession. When you add force to one, add force to the other. Perhaps I am wrong, but I am preceding with my design based on this.
(Harry, what do you think of 2:1? Perhaps you've already explained.)
I already got your point about Faraday a while back. Sorry but I don’t see much use in possible relationships to Faraday and your ratios relating inertial propulsion so I wasn’t much interested then or now. But I got your point. Better luck next time Ravi. Let me know if I can be of service to you in any way.
Your Pal, Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 23/02/2010 20:50:58
| | | Ravi, Du vergleichst Äpfel mit Birnen!
Wenn Du jeweils die Funktion für einen bestimmten Abschnitt auf der X-Achse integrierst, also die Fläche unter der Funktion bestimmst, erhältst Du die aufgewendete Arbeit (=Energie) für diesen Abschnitt (=z.B. Zeit oder Weg).
1. Bei deinem Versuch mit konstantem Kippmoment ist diese Fläche ein Rechteck und lässt sich daher leicht berechnen mit delta X * delta Y
2. Bei deinem Versuch mit sinusförmig (harmonisch) verlaufenden Kippmoment lassen sich die beiden Sinus-Halbflächen ebenfalls leicht berechnen (integrieren). Wie das geht, brauche ich Dir sicher nicht näher zu erklären. Falls doch, lass es mich wissen.
Vergleicht man nun 1 Sinus-Schwingung mit der Periodendauer 2Pi (-> Einheitskreis) mit der Funktion für das lineare verlaufende Kippmoment für die gleiche Periodendauer (2Pi), dann verhalten sich die Flächen zueinander wie folgt:
Lineare Funktion des Kippmoments : Sinus-Funktion des Kippmoments = 2Pi : 4
Das heisst, die Fläche und damit die aufgewendete Energie ist bei sinusförmig (harmonisch) verlaufender Funktion des Kippmoments um den Faktor Pi/2 = 1,57 KLEINER als die aufgewendete Energie mit konstant verlaufender Funktion des Kippmoments im 1. Versuch!
Hier die rechnerische Überprüfung:
- im 1.Versuch bei 2A Stromaufnahme mit konstant verlaufenden Kippmoment habe ich ca. 8 Umdrehungen in 10s gezählt.
- im 2. Versuch bei 2A Stromaufnahme mit harmonisch (sinusförmig) verlaufenden Kippmoment habe ich ca. 5 Umdrehungen in 10s gezählt.
Das Verhältnis beträgt demnach 8 : 5 = 1,6 und ist fast identisch wie das oben erwähnte Verhältnis 2Pi : 4 = 1,57 !
Du siehst, es ist alles erklärbar und Du befindest dich auf dem Holzweg!
Tschüssi
Harry K.
P.S. Sorry guys that I wrote in German language for time reasons. If you are interested in I will translate this text later. Maybe Google translation is sufficient for you? Let me know.
@Glenn
I really enjoyed reading your last postings. I love this fart propulsion idea! This is indeed a big step ahead! :-)))
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 24/02/2010 04:17:39
| | | Harry,
Entschuldigung, Herr Harry, aber Sie haben einer grosse Feller gemacht. Siene erklarung hat keine antwort fuer T = 3 A, T = 4 A even at T = 5 A. Fuer alle diese values, es aber ist so, im Experiment.
Dear Forum readers, Harry's explanation is ad hoc and holds only for one value. Not only that, but if you examine the way he constructed his argument for that one value (T= 2 A), it implies that if you substitute higher values, such as 4 or 5, the ratios will be different and therefore the expected behavior is differnt and unique for EACH value f Tmax. Tmax = 2 A has one expected rotations per sec value, Tmax = 4 A has another expected rotations/sec value etc. This means that if his explanataion is true, then it explicitly means that it cannot hold for T = 4 A or T = 5 A.
Yet, the experimental results are already in the graphs and show that it DOES hold for T = 4 A (my first experiments with 5 A are also showing confirmation). so his explanation is completely wrong, defeated from within his own argument.
Face it Harry, you have no explanation. Your mind is unable to grasp this topic. Your nihilist belief that there is nothing here to study impedes even your logical constructions from adding new, known facts that your fantasies couldn't explain away.
Accept the truth Harry. This is a relativistic machine. You are a Newtonian who cannot arrive at a coherent answer to this.
Danke
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 24/02/2010 21:18:42
| | | My dear "scientist" Mr Ravi,
Your German capabilities are unfortunately not so good as I have expected and thus I better answer you in English. However, this is not the only disappointment for me...
First of all, Mr. Ravi, please note that Ampere (unit "A") is not equal to torque (unit "Nm")! As a electric boy you should know that the characteristic line of the torque of an electric motor is not linear and it depends from factors like revolution speed, kind of motor (AC or DC). So you should measure the REAL torque to make representative conclusions.
Second, where can I find your experiments with torques HIGHER 2 A for CONSTANT LINEAR TORQUE INPUT??? I did only find experiments with torques higher 2 A for HARMONIC SINUSOIDAL TORQUE INPUT!!! Or did I miss something?
Therefore your drawn conclusions in this matter are not permissible, Mr. Ravi.
Third, the only relativistic thingy which I can find in your machine is the relative movement of the support frame of your device in counter direction to deflection (Precession) motion. This movement is an error source and must be certainly taken into account! Fix the frame on the floor with screws as Glenn had already suggested to eliminate such error sources.
For Glenn and Luis and any other interested parties I have attached a PDF document on my server, which describes the German content in my previous posting.
Here is the link (please copy and paste into your browser*s URL address field:
http://www.misc.keipert.net/gyro/sin_lin_torque.pdf
This document is self-explanatory for everyone.
Ravi, langsam wird es peinlich! Dir fehlen die Basics, aber Du bist zu arrogant und selbstverliebt um das zu erkennen. Schade eigentlich...
So long,
Harry K.
P.S. Yes you are right, I am a Newtonian because Newton is right. Thank you for this compliment!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 24/02/2010 23:28:08
| | | The last part of the experiment shown here:
http://relmachine.blogspot.com/2010/01/experiment-28-inductive-effect.html
includes three 20 second cycles of 4 A torque.
This is already explained in the notes that appear at the beginning of the video. Please hit pause and read the text at your leisure.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/02/2010 05:03:36
| | |
Hi Harry,
Because you liked the latest set-in-the-floor bean thrust technology this made me happy. Thank you for letting me know.
I hold your opinions in high regard. Keep the faith. Stomp the wounded, hurtle the dead, full speed ahead, don’t look back.
Sincerely,
Glenn
..........................................................................
Hi Ravi,
My dear esteemed theorist, it seems you have a little war to attend to and so I understand your failure to reply to Luis and myself. A clever fellow always keeps two flags, one to champion his cause and one to surrender should the situation worsen. I pray you are prepared for any event.
Sincerely,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 25/02/2010 14:03:25
| | | Dear Forum Reader,
I will rephrase the question that I asked harry (in case his obfuscation has succeeded in throwing you off ). For that matter, anyone can answer this question.
Question: What is a Newtonian's explanation for the experimental data, namely:
@ constant torque of 1 unit, the number of revolutions of the carriage is 12 in 15 seconds (thats equivalent to the 0-Pi section of the harmonic wave of time period 30 seconds)
@ a harmonic time period of 30 seconds and a torque of 1 unit ( generated by a current of 1 A), the number of revolutions of the carriage is 8.25
@ a harmonic time period of 30 seconds and a torque of 4.33 units (generated by a current of 4 A), the number of revolutions is 7.75?
I still await an answer.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 25/02/2010 14:07:16
| | | And dont forget, since the Newtonian claims no 'lift' is going on, there is no energy lost in interaction with gravity as far as the Newtonian is concerned.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 25/02/2010 16:39:21
| | | Quote
"The last part of the experiment shown here:
http://relmachine.blogspot.com/2010/01/experiment-28-inductive-effect.html
includes three 20 second cycles of 4 A torque."
Unquote
Read my question again:
Second, where can I find your experiments with torques HIGHER 2 A for CONSTANT LINEAR TORQUE INPUT??? I did only find experiments with torques higher 2 A for HARMONIC SINUSOIDAL TORQUE INPUT!!!
CONSTANT LINEAR TORQUE INPUT but not HARMONIC SINUSOIDAL TORQUE INPUT.
Got it now?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 25/02/2010 17:06:42
| | | Quote
"Question: What is a Newtonian's explanation for the experimental data, namely:
@ constant torque of 1 unit, the number of revolutions of the carriage is 12 in 15 seconds (thats equivalent to the 0-Pi section of the harmonic wave of time period 30 seconds)
Unquote
Where can I find this experiment with constant torque of 1 unit and 30 seconds time period? Claim rejected!
@ a harmonic time period of 30 seconds and a torque of 1 unit ( generated by a current of 1 A), the number of revolutions of the carriage is 8.25
Unquote
Where can I find this experiment with harmonic torque of 1 unit and 30 seconds time period? Claim rejected!
Quote
@ a harmonic time period of 30 seconds and a torque of 4.33 units (generated by a current of 4 A), the number of revolutions is 7.75?
Unquote
Where can I find this experiment with harmonic torque of 1 unit and 30 seconds time period? How can you be sure that 4 A current will cause torque of 4.33 units? Please provide directly measured torque data for all of you experiments
Claim rejected!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 25/02/2010 17:25:09
| | | Quote
And dont forget, since the Newtonian claims no 'lift' is going on, there is no energy lost in interaction with gravity as far as the Newtonian is concerned.
Unquote
The Newtonian KNOWS that there is no lift and he has provided mathematical proofs. But the Relativistic guy claims there is lift and thus it*s up to him to provide real proofs.
Energy lost is caused by oscillating up and down movement (which is caused by deflection TORQUE) of the carriage, the necessary oscillated sinusoidal accelaration of the hub and friction loss.
Wake up, Ravi, you are on the wrong track. A simple hint: what would happen with your experiments if your machine would placed in space without any influence of gravity?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 25/02/2010 18:13:13
| | | Questions:
Where can I find this experiment with constant torque of 1 unit and 30 seconds time period?
Where can I find this experiment with harmonic torque of 1 unit and 30 seconds time period?
Where can I find this experiment with harmonic torque of 1 unit and 30 seconds time period? How can you be sure that 4 A current will cause torque of 4.33 units?
Answer:
The results are summarized in this graph here:
http://relmachine.blogspot.com/2010/02/expts-210-response-of-angular-momentum.html
The graph posted there shows the clear trend of the 4 A harmonic torque resulting in a lower number of revolutions for a range of time periods, upto and including current experiments exceeding 30 seconds.
I have the actual experiments in raw video with me and I will post it if Harry or another Newtonian can come up with an explanation for the data.
Again, to be clear, the question is this:
Given that the videos show:
@ constant torque of 1 unit, the number of revolutions of the carriage is 12 in 15 seconds (thats equivalent to the 0-Pi section of the harmonic wave of time period 30 seconds)
@ a harmonic time period of 30 seconds and a torque of 1 unit ( generated by a current of 1 A), the number of revolutions of the carriage is 8.25
@ a harmonic time period of 30 seconds and a torque of 4.33 units (generated by a current of 4 A), the number of revolutions is 7.75?
What kind of explanation does the Newtonian offer for this?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 25/02/2010 20:33:29
| | | It's not possible to verify the accuracy of your posted graphs because you have only made experiments with time periods up to 20 seconds. Beside this you also have not posted experiments with constant torque within this range for verification, as I mentioned it now for the third or fourth time!
Again, your questions cannot be answered without the presentation of REAL MEASURED torques! I have explained in my prior postings why unit Ampere is not the same as unit Newton Meter and why current (A) s not necessarily proportional to torque (Nm). For instance an AC-motor has a nearly constant torque within its speed work range.
However, till now you never provided detail data of you your equipment or answered any technical related questions. Thus it is impossible for us readers to verify any of your presented data!
First present valuable, approved data and then you will find the correct answers to your question by your own insight. - If not I may help you if you like!
Have a look on my PDF-file to recognize your faulty conclusions. The area under a sinus function is always smaller (factor PI/2) than the area under a linear function with constant Y-value (torque), assumed that time period (X-unit) and torque value (Y-unit) are equyl for both functions. That's "relative" simple maths for sixth former.
I will not reply to further postings from you with always the same false claims. Come up with valuable, approved data or at least show a video of your levitated Rel Machine, but without any video tricks...(be sure that I will recognize any video trick).
The readers in this thread are not stupid and they are all able to distinguish between real arguments and rhetorical phrases.
Harry. K.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 26/02/2010 00:28:25
| | | Dear Forum Reader,
Again, to be clear, the question I had posed was this:
Given that the videos show:
@ constant torque of 1 unit, the number of revolutions of the carriage is 12 in 15 seconds (thats equivalent to the 0-Pi section of the harmonic wave of time period 30 seconds)
@ a harmonic time period of 30 seconds and a torque of 1 unit ( generated by a current of 1 A), the number of revolutions of the carriage is 8.25
@ a harmonic time period of 30 seconds and a torque of 4.33 units (generated by a current of 4 A), the number of revolutions is 7.75?
What kind of explanation does the Newtonian offer for this?
As is evident from the rather poor example above, the Newtonians have no explanation for the new evidence being unearthed by my experiments.
Invective and smoke and mirrors will not obfuscate the truth.
My experimental results are verified (I have also not posted any data without performing the experiments on two separate occasions to verify repeatability.)
This is the note first proud Newtonian who will be unable to experimental results.
Sandy Kidd, Eric Laithwaite - These men have braved invective, ignorance and arrogance to bring the truth to light.
I will continue with my experiments to map out the phenomenon and I WILL build a flying machine.
Thank You
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 28/02/2010 18:28:42
| | | Dear Ravi,
You wrote, “As is evident from the rather poor example above, the Newtonians have no explanation for the new evidence being unearthed by my experiments.”
Here is your answer: Forget all the @ shit you’ve put together to confuse yourself, the graphs, waves, volts, amps, watts, ohms, time, torque’ speed, revolutions and people, including Einstein.
Weigh the machine. Tie a rope to the hub motor on top of the machine. Put the rope through a pulley harness attached to a rafter. Continue, put the rope through another pulley harness a distance away. Let the rope hang. Tie a number of buckets to the rope. Add and remove sand to and from the buckets, until the buckets and the machine are suspended in the air and balanced, each weighing the same. Turn the machine on and accept the truth that you will discover. A truth that would have satisfied Newton with his 200 IQ, which is the highest measure of intelligence ever estimated for anyone on earth. A bit higher than yours? but of course I am only guessing.
I, like Harry, have to withdraw from contributing further to this post. Try something else, Ravi.
Sincerely,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 03/03/2010 14:35:51
| | | Dear Ravi,
I am in error. Excuse me. You must set your machine on a small square platform and tie ropes at each corner of it and run the ropes through four pulleys. With only one rope tied to the hub motor as I had suggested, the motor housing (stator) would be free to rotate and would try to because, the rotor would meet resistance from the spinning wheels. Even doing it this there will be problems, but you can adjust them away by adjusting motor speeds. I hope everything else is going well.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 03/03/2010 18:18:01
| | | Please check out the latest test results:
http://relmachine.blogspot.com
The latest results are added to the previous results to generate this graph. New information includes the following:
a) Results for harmonic torques of time periods 30 seconds - 38 seconds have been added for 1 Amp, 2 Amp and 4 Amp amplitude. These results continue the trend we've seen earlier, namely, a falling number of revolutions with an increase in both the time period of the applied rate of change of torque and the maximum amplitude of the torque.
b) Results for harmonic torques for time periods 9 seconds - 16 seconds at a maximum torque amplitude of 5 Amp have been added. These results continue the same trend as mentioned above. Being of higher amplitude, these harmonic torques result in the lowest number of revolutions yet (for example, 3 revolutions in 8 seconds which translates to roughly 3.8 revolutions in 10 seconds - compare that to the case of a constant 1 Amp torque which nets us 8 revolutions in 10 seconds)!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 25/03/2010 16:45:28
| | | A regression analysis of the observed results is presented here, which further boosts the theory that the observed number of revolutions is highly correlated to the rate of change of torque.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 18/04/2010 11:26:50
| | | Details of latest modifications to the relativistic machine are given here. An introduction to a Lattice Theory of SpaceTime is also given. Testing begins in a week!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick hill - 11/06/2010 01:20:17
| | | How can u say time 1.21 seconds glenn would surley say as i would.......
The closser u approach speed of light,,, then ... timing becomes TOTALY ERELAVENT or ERELEVENT or MANIPULENT
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
