Question |
| Asked by: |
Nitro MacMad |
| Subject: |
Welcome back to the prototypes. |
| Question: |
Dear Webmaster,
Thank you and congratulations for having the courage to expose your soul (prototypes) under "propulsion" - "my work". Thankfully most of my early work was done over thirty years ago and the, often embarrasing, results were mostly consigned to the cylindrical, corrugated, galvanized, filing cabinet (dust bin - sorry U.S.of A. - trash can) (trash can what?) (enough rubbishy jokes already). You can tell I am happy to find that there are others prepared to look outside the box of their education.
I never was bright enough to make a matchstick Prototype 1. as an aide memoire. Instead I have, over the years, produced screeds of scribbled drawings that would (save the directional arrows) have had L S Lowry shouting "Plagorist" and overwinding his clocks.
Prototype 2. Shows that I am not the only one to have had trouble with "slip rings". I had great success using a jack plug and socket (god bless Radio Spares) in the end of the main shaft until I stupidly upped the speed. The resultant seizure of the jack plug to the socket converted its wires into a badly woven prayer mat.
Prototype 3. Must have been "interesting" (as in:- " I'm sorry Dear, I don't know why every fuse in the house has blown." "Must have been a power surge on the mains."). Been there - got the Tee shirt (well a drawer full, actually). My wife thinks our Electricity Board is incompetent (sh!).
Prototype 4. Owes a lot to Kidd and shows that the need to minimise the machines overall mass in relation to its "precessional mass" is understood. (bloody hard to achieve aint it?).
Prototype 5. Been there and got that Tee shirt too.
Prototype 6. Nicer engineering (not like some of mine) but precessional movement seems missing.
Prototype 7. Has me stumped but I would guess produce horrendous oscillations.
Laithwaite, Kidd, Strachan (I have just found his patent spec.) and some of your prototypes you will perhaps be supprised to learn all produced the miracle you all sought but in such small amounts as to be pretty-well undetectable. Perhaps because I was "educated" at Summerhill and was thus unaware that anything was impossible I found the two extra crucial steps needed - more on which later.
Kind regards
NM
P.S. Can you stop the Forum pages showing duplicates and the page number staying on "1".
|
| Date: |
5 February 2004
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
DaveS - 09/02/2004 17:05:13
|
| | Interesting that last device shown was built in 2000 (4 years ago). Having seen some of our webmasters newer devices i know that his engineering skills are without question. Looking forward to future additions. Cracking site.
Rather than waste my time trying to exhibit much unused and not so good lathe/milling skills i have an engineering firm making my device. Still time consuming though. Currently being transferred onto CAD and bearings for construction have been delivered.
Hopefully should have something to discuss in next couple of months. Kinda like a first date waiting for this prototype, butterflies and apprehension abound but impatience is predominant.
I thought the problem with the forum pages was specific to my machine. Glad to realise it isn't.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
JAK - 11/02/2004 19:01:05
|
| | what are you guys talking about?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 12/02/2004 22:08:06
|
| | Dear Jak,
(sorry everyone else for extending this tome)
You ask "what are you guys talking about?".
I am so sorry, I forgot that a few in our neglected colonies have strayed from the Queens English and have, by descending into renaming such thing as a bonnet (hood) boot (trunk) car (auto) pavement (sidewalk) lift (elevator) and crapper (er - crapper), shown that they may be in need of guidance. So, put simply:-
It would seem that DaveS and I (and, seemingly, others) are working towards producing a usable gyro propulsion device and, having ourselves produced a plethera of non functioning prototypes while stagering up steep untrod learning curves while crap heads throw the rocks of their ignorance wrapped in preconceptions that are often not even their own at us, It is hardly suprising that we are pleased to find that there are others brave enough to have ventured along these paths so feared by others.
As I am some way down the international patent path ( I have not seen Dave's version but have tried to encourage him to at least file a patent to log a priority date for it. While wishing him well I am honest enough to confess, to hoping that mine is the first workable machine) even those of you way off in the "land of the fee" will soon be able to decide which part of my self description as a "nutter in a shed (inventive genious)" applies.
Keep watching to find out which.........
Kind regards to you, Ms Ziehli and my pupil (OB1)
NM
PS My reference to the colonies/land of the fee etc. are not intended to cause offence but to cause thought (however, having just read your later letter.............)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 13/02/2004 15:54:01
|
| | Cheers Nitro.
There are very good reasons why i have not trod the patent route yet. HISTORY. Thieves, large corporations etc... If device being built works, it will be put in an enclosed box and will do the media rounds first (TV, live demos etc). Once the world in general sees a working device and there is nothing else like it that can be demonstrated, anybody else will have a hard time claiming it is theirs. The design has also been lodged with some very close trustworthy individuals with instructions on what to do if things go pear shaped at my end. As for being similar to yours in design, it is unlikely, as there is nothing already filed that comes close (at least not from any of my searches). In addition, unlike you guys who have made several prototypes in the past, mine is a first/last hit. Plan has been with me years but there is no movement on the principal of its working. It will or it won't do what is expected of it. The only tweaking possible will be in the mechanics of the construction and then only if it shakes itself to bits.
It is interesting to see Glenns' matchstick model. The engineering company that are now involved with making my prototype for a stake in its future did so on the back of a model made from cardboard, pencils and bluetack. Would love to share but too early at this stage.
I hope both our devices and Glenns work. I believe there is room enough for all of them.
Regards
DaveS
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 13/02/2004 19:36:25
|
| | I'm not trying to be a total downer but I have been doing some reading lately and make no mistake, any gyroscopic propulsion device that actually worked would definitely defy Newtonian physics (conservation of momentum). There is just no way of getting around this. Please check out this site (http://www.accs.net/users/cefpearson/gyro.htm) . Admittedly the math at the bottom is incorrect but the explanation of how a gyroscope works is very good. If you understand this I think you start to see why any sort of gyroscopic propulsion has about zero chance of working. I think people tend to think a gyroscope can provide some sort of propulsion because it seems to defy gravity. For a long time I wondered about this myself. But now that I understand gyroscopes better I am fairly convinced that there is no way to make any gyroscopic propulsion device work. The properties of a spinning gyroscope (i.e. it resists rotation and precesses etc) are perfectly in line with the laws of inertia. There are no magic or mysterious forces involved.
I suppose I shouldn't say anything. It's your time and money. But it seems like a lot of wasted effort for nothing. Why not put your effort into something that has not been so thoroughly investigated? For instance here is an article I find of interest. http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/nasa-pap/ . I have read elsewhere that even NASA is looking into professor Woodward's work. Maybe he's a nut case like the rest of us, but at least he's looking at something new. I have also read that the equipment he uses is relatively simple and that his experiments can be done in at home.
In any case, I hope I am completely wrong and you can all get your gyroscopic propulsion devices working, but I don't intend to give it any more thought since I am convinced it is quite fruitless.
Best of luck
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 13/02/2004 22:28:18
|
| | Dear Ram,
Newton will certainly need to be revisited but who said they had anything that went against the conservation of momemtum? Certainly not me! Mine, apart from (or rather, including) the usual frictional losses, follows all the expected energy inputs and outputs of any "simple" (I wish!) machine.
Now please pay attention you lot at the back! My machine doesn't even go against all of the third law - just the "opposite" bit.
How many times do I have to write this? ---- It produces "shed loads" of equal but "less than a gnats" of opposite.
Kind Regards
NM
PS For those of you across the pond "shed loads" means lots and lots. "Less than a gnats" is a bit more obscure but I believe comes from an early de Havilland aircraft company manual instruction to adjust something to below that that can be measured on a micrometer i.e. less than the diameter of the sexual organs of one of our smallest flying insects - that is very, very small! How did we win the war? -- Oh! Yes! we had mad inventions (Bouncing bomb, Barnes? You are joking?). Yes, yes, I know you yanks helped a bit - eventually.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 14/02/2004 20:06:12
|
| | Does this mean that this is your last post here Ram?
In relation to all new methods of propulsion, I recently spoke with BAe/NASA and they still fund £70k per annum to alternative propulsion research with all monies going to 3 UK universities. This figure was once closer to £3million per annum. They are channeling all their other efforts into electromagnetic propulsion. They will not put funds into gyroscopic individual enterprises such as Glenn/Nitro/me or others as no results have been forthcoming as yet. One of their top researchers did expressly point out that they are not discounting that there may be something in gyroscopic propulsion though and in the future they may start funding again.
It is not that i disagree with your statements but I believe our understanding/perception of what may be/can happen is distorted. This is why i asked the question earlier on the forum relating to ratcheting/changes in gravitational centre. Space drive or not?
I agree It is better to be pessimistic as then you are never dissapointed and when good things happen it is always a bonus.
Regards
DaveS
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 15/02/2004 09:39:13
|
| | Hence "Gnats' chuff" (tiny insect b*****ks)
Dear Nitro
I think it is about time you accepted that our brothers across the briney (sea) do understand Queens/Kings English as they have to deal with us eccentric Brits much more than they would probably like.
Funny though
DaveS
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dean Hunt - 27/03/2004 13:30:34
|
| | You know I did some thinking about Newtons laws and I can not find any reason why you can not get "shed loads" of opposite force to be diverted by a few degrees.
Does this break the laws of physics?
The opposite force is still there but not at 180 degrees.
I don't have to prove to you that I had built a machine that pulled a force 3 times the the weight of its self, I could just be one of those English cranks who thinks that he done it.
It is simple to do if you have got engineering skills.
So wheres the machine now you may ask? Well I smashed it up in a temper one night when my wife left me for spending my life in a shed.
I wanted the front stage and all the money that goes with it.
I have been away from my wife for a while now and I think that its time to rebuild.
Sandy Kidd once said to me that "some times all you need is time to think", and I have had plenty of time.
Knats don't exsist in my projects, and you are all right to keep trying don't let the critics get you down, they are already down and tend not to drift from what they see or am told in a text book.
Best of luck to you all
Dean
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dr D.J.Fisher - 24/05/2004 03:27:14
|
| | Summerhill School (see previous messages)? Was that not the school, founded by a mystic and crackpot, which encouraged nudity and underage sex among the pupils and eschewed formal education? Sounds like a great background for a laid-back artist, but a disaster if one needs to understand physics (or spell properly) later in life.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
webmaster@gyroscopes.org - 30/05/2004 16:07:13
|
| | I almost removed the last comment. Unless anyone has any objections I’ll keep it in as a warning.
This forum is intend for people to discuss gyroscopes in general and gyroscopic propulsion (you can debate between yourself whether it exists or not). I don’t mind a little waffle or chatting. However if it becomes offensive I’ll have no choice to remove it.
Taking ‘pot shots’ at someone’s background has no place on this forum.
Giving objections to theories will always be welcome (even if it not by the person that has the theory).
Please bear this in mind.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 31/05/2004 22:33:25
|
| | Dear Webmaster,
Thank you for reminding us of the need to observe common good manners (and more fool you for saying that you didn't mind waffle!) but first:-
In answer to Dr David Fisher's question - no. Seems like a good place to learn about real life and relationships though.
I always was a little dyslexic even after departing grammer school hence my carp spelling. How scientifically thorough of David to point this out in public, though it does make his earlier comment about cheap shots, by others, seem hypocritical.
Davids scientific philosophy seems to be that if he read it in a book it must be so (by the way David how are sale of your "rules" going?) and one connot help but wonder if he has done any practical research himself (not just on paper) into the "false science" he claims to debunk. I do hope that his recent pedantic, mantra chanting, spleen venting(sounds like a Pepsi ad. don't it?) session, attempting to hide behind a self delusion of championing the debunking of "false science" is the last of this summers (Elderberry Rd.) whine.
Hopefully, having got it out of his system, David will now use his undoubtedly vast and varied knowledge to guide others with questions on the maths of gyros on this site while really trying to look into what is possible in the field of propulsion (honest, David, it really works) instead of hoping that by brainless bullying, the nasty man with the impossible machine will go away.
Kind regards
NM
PS Haven't been too hard on friend Fisher as my inventors block is now broken and this nutter (inventive genius) is back in his shed completing the fast repeater - and anyway fF is bound to be a bit uptight when you think of all the sex and nudity he's missed. Sorry, Webmaster and all others - only comments on gyros from now on honest (ish).
PPS David, if I may repeat, what is already produced has nothing to do with the "stick slip" cable laying moles etc. you refer to in yours of 23/05/04. The production of unidirectional force, impulse drive, the (easy peasy) linking of the conservation of rotary and linear motion, star drive, call it what you will (we must decide on a name sometime - no David, BS drive will not do!) has no argument with the conservation of energy, angular momentum and almost all the other accepted "laws" ((though we must all remember that these "laws" are not handed down by some deity on a mountain but are observations of mere men (yes, yes and women) that have proved over time to be a good basis for future judgement and save us from having to repeat the work of others. However they can justify revisiting by those not too lazy to accept them unexamined and by nutters in sheds or inventive geniuses as they are becoming known)). It only has a slight but important problem with the "opposite" part of Newton's third. Regretfully David, the production of unidirectional force has nothing to do with the production of perpetual motion as you seem to think in your 23/05/04 posting and as the BBC seems to think in their shamefully ignorant reference to Laithwaite - plus sa change. If you think that perpetual motion is an inevitable concommitant of unidirectional force please urgently let me know what I'm missing. Oh, and David, although my lovely sexy lady (not nude at the moment unfortunately) has glanced at my spelling for me - please feel free to double check if you have nothing better to debunk.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dean - 19/09/2004 07:30:11
|
| | I must apologise (that’s a big word for me) especially to you Dr D.J. Fisher.
I did not mean to offend you with my poor literary skills and yes I did use a spell checker this time so if you have a problem with the spelling then blame Microsoft
It would give you something to get your teeth into.
I may not have been to grammar school and at the same time I was not having under age sex, however I do have a small understanding of physics maybe not as much as the rest of you but enough to be a thinker. I may be the sites joke however I will give you an idea to ponder on, I would like an honest opinion and then I will go away.
This idea is very hard to explain in writing especially for me however I will give it a try.
If you got gyroscopes hollowed out and half filled them with mercury or barium and then spun these gyros (spinning) around a centre shaft and at the same time tilt the gyros from vertical to an angle of a few degrees (top of gyros outward) would the mercury not want to go upward and out at 45 degrees, so would the force from the mercury be at 45 degrees or both 360 and 90 degrees or all angles between 360 and 90? And also what happens to the opposite force from the mercury in the free space of the hollowed out gyros?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
webmaster@gyroscopes.org - 19/09/2004 13:46:44
|
| | I think I can answer your question about a mercury filled gyroscope. I have a couple of gyroscopes here which are filled with water. There is a thin outer clear plastic casing which you can see coloured water through.
I can tell you that the whole thing acts just like a normal gyroscope. If you spin the gyroscope (case) up the water it very quickly gets up to the same speed of the case and 'sticks' firmly to the outside. There is air pocket that becomes a near perfect circle
in the centre once its spinning. If you turn the gyroscope 90 degrees in any direction and you feel the force of a normal gyroscope. The water does not slosh around.
So the centripetal forces are much stronger than the gyroscopic forces, which makes sense to me because I see precession as a bi-product of the centripetal forces.
I dont know exactly how efficient a liquid gyro is compared to a solid gyro but there is no
significant difference. But there must be a degree of free movement by the water which will make it less efficient.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
