|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
29 November 2024 00:49
|
|
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: |
anonymous250280 |
| Subject: |
Working Gyroscopic Propulsion Model - What If? |
| Question: |
Lets say I have a working gyroscopic propulsion model, how can it make me major cash ASAP?
Is there any economic value for such a device?
The rest of the world seem uninterested or they say "it's impossible for a machine to lift itself by itself." |
| Date: |
10 November 2011
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 11/11/2011 12:44:51
| | | At one time a simple pendulum test would have generated enough interest. This is no longer enough. Today, it must be completely inclosed and hover over the ground without ever touching for minutes, while being pushed horizontal distances of several feet.
Create that, then call news papers and TV channels from everywhere. You will find a reporter that will look at it if you take it to him. If it works, the results will be published and broadcast and that news will be picked up by other news agencies and spread to millions of people. Then interested people of positions and means will call you to bring the thing to them for more testing. Don't give the secret away. Keep the thing inclosed. After that you own the world.
I don't have faith in video presentations. There have been so many fakers. It's easy, like a thousand flying saucers.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 17/11/2011 14:57:11
| | | Hello Glenn,
It is much easier for supporters of the establishment to invoke the “Ostrich Syndrome” than get involved in anything so controversial and consequently a danger to their future academic prospects.
I spent 4 months in Dundee University and not once did the head of department make himself available to witness testing of my device. He was terrified that it was genuine and was worried that he would lose his job if he had reported that fact.
25 years or so ago, when I submitted my laboratory report for appraisal a very well-known professor told me that if the report had been for anything else he would have accepted it unconditionally, then he added, “ Sandy I would like to help you, but I would also like to return to work on Monday”
That was from one of the good guys. Many were not so nice.
I have seen some of them twisted right out of shape with raging hatred and exuding venomous emotion, You know them, the ones who are right because they know they are right, and to whom Newton was a god, in fact one lecturer in Dundee University got twisted up so badly with hatred, initially at Laithwaite, and then anyone or anything associated with Laithwaite (me) I reckoned he was in urgent need of psychiatric help.
At about this point in time I discovered that the fear was not of anti-gravitating discs, balls or boxes, but for the laws of motion themselves.
Newton was a very smart guy but he never got himself involved in accelerating spinning discs.
The outcome is that in this area angular momentum can be converted to linear momentum which is at odds with the generally accepted separate conservation of linear and angular momentum
To put in another way Glenn, positive proof of one gram of inertial thrust should be enough, I initially produced 500 grams plus, with my first machine.
Initially a real bright spark, a lecturer in gyroscopics at Dundee University maintained that “coggling” of the machine rotation input drive was creating the lift. I tried to get my head around this coggling but failed. He wanted all the rest of my life to prove that the lift generated was something else, anything else. This was going to take some time so he had to go.
The Dundee University “Review and Snow Job Squad ” alleged that my device was only reacting to its bearings, with no coggling in sight.
I will refrain from mentioning Lego set construction qualifications here.
Another bright person, a physicist from Canberra University, suggested that the lift generated on my successful lab test, (20 consecutive times even) was the result of the air in the box containing the device losing density when warmed up.
This would be less than about 0.5cu ft. of air in a 12lb box.
This beauty had a PhD?
At least I have so far been spared that the attraction of the black hole at the centre of the Milky Way being responsible for the lift.
However you are right in the fact that any device would have to float, or float and move above the ground in order to be accepted, which would eliminate the myriad of pathetic reasons I have had to endure for the production of thrust.
The establishment would still not want to accept it, but it would become very much harder to deny
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 17/11/2011 19:18:02
| | | I believe you Sandy and I am sorry.
Adding just a bit of levity I suggest we must not take black holes out of the equation. No one has ever been inside one, in fact no one has ever exactly seen one, but indications are prevalent and theories abound that they should exist. Still, we have more visual evidence of mass movement than they have of blind black holes. Perhaps the fearful bunch would be more comfortable putting forth theories of black-hole-generated-precession' to explain some of the experimental results of the Sandy Kidd devices.
In a more serious note, you gave it your absolute all and the world was not ready for you, but some day you may be vindicated posthumously and hopefully a lot sooner.
Bless you,
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
pat - 17/12/2011 09:24:56
| | | when all is negative it is easy to absorb and not reject, but upon fulcrum mass rejection is impossible...only rejection of particulars is enevertable
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 18/12/2011 01:06:34
| | | Luis and I considered the behavior of centrifugal during precession.
When you push an object it pushes back. The law is, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. There is push-back. Resting objects tend to remain at rest until pushed. Objects in motion tend to remain in straight line motion, until pushed against. Centrifuge is simply the push-back that occurs when particles are attempting to travel in a straight line, but are pushed to change direction. They push-back in an a tempt to escape the circular motion they are forced to travel in.
During rotation the rotating partials are constantly force to curve and this creates the push-back known as centrifuge.
When an overhung gyroscope precesses, these 360 encirclement are called revolutions. Both rotations and revolutions act because of push-back. A force must push or pull an overhung gyroscope toward the center of the revolutions, otherwise the gyroscope will not precess, but only attempt to travel in straight lines.
1) During slow precession there is only a tiny force necessary to cause the gyroscopes to remain in precession. A tinny friction between table an pedestal would be enough friction.
2) During fast precession the gyroscope will fly away dragging and tipping over the pedestal.
3) The conclusion is that there is centrifuge during precession.
Bur that is not so cut and dry.
1) There are many other test which clearly indicate there is no centrifuge, or little of it that occurs during precession.
2) Additionally, an esteemed member here has conducted many test that indicate the complete absence of centrifuge.
I, myself find that centrifuge is affected differently while under precession. I believe the difference is caused by deflections occurring in the front and rear of a precessing gyroscope. I believe that to some unknown degree they push the gyroscope toward the center of it's revolutions.
As the force of gravity pulls the gyroscope downward, the gyroscope clearly falls in an arc. It falls in a curve and responds by revolving in a curve which is precession. I think the one curve follows the preceded curve, though the curves are at right angles to one another. The curving vertical force downward causes the curving horizontal precession. The mechanics are difficult to explain and perceive, but one force curving cause the second curving force at a right angle.
IN CONCLUSION: The gyroscope itself, pushes itself toward the center of rotation to some degree by it's own actions. This push-back dose not stop the natural, mechanical actions of nature and motion during centrifuge. It merely absorbs some if not all of the push-back so that it dose not register.
Still there is centrifugal pressure in the metal itself, the squeeze together of particles. Our friend seems to be vindicated by the evidence. Centrifuge is lessened during precession. I am sure and have been for a while.
Glenn,
I will add that the professor’s heavy gyro on a string shows abnormally strong centrifuge, as seen while it preceses in a consequential wide circle, and little or no centrifuge while precessing in a small circle. The difference is not the wheel's spin speed as this is demonstrated. The difference is the tilt of the gyroscopes, whether it is tilted upward or downward. The gyroscope is clearly controlling it's own magnitude of push-back force by the angle of it's deflections. Nothing is pulling inward toward the center of revolutions as happens in all other forms of rotations and revolutions. The gyroscopes untethered, pushes itself inward. Poor Sandy Kidd. Some dip-chit recently called our friend crazy for finding and telling the truth about the extreme and odd behavior of centrifugal during varying angles of precession.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
