|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
29 November 2024 01:00
|
|
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: |
Glenn Hawkins |
| Subject: |
INERTIAL PROPULSION |
| Question: |
The prime question that eluded me for the longest time was: Why doesn't the gyro spin around it's own center of gravity?
One) In order for this to happen on a string the string end of the gyro would have to lift sideways against a pendulum effect. Yes, but that was not it entirely.
Two) Was there friction causing the pedestal to stick slightly to the table? Yes, there is in deed friction, but that is not the prime reason.
IF THERE WAS NO EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION AT THE SUPPORTED END OF THE GYRO, IF THE GYRO DID NOT SPIN AROUND THE CENTER OF ITSELF-- THEN THE POSSIBILITY OF INERTIAL PROPULSION WAS HIGHLY PROBABLE.
The answer: The outer axle end rotates in a large circle around the string. The supported end rotates in a smaller circle around the string. Each time the end in the smaller circle would attempt to keep pace with the end in the larger circle, the outer end would always be somewhere else advancing to future degrees. The little circle can never catch up and as it is forced to leg behind it must turn quicker and sharper.
ONE ACTION OCCURS IN THE FUTURE, THE OTHER IN THE PRESENT. EQUAL AND OPPOSITE ARE SEPARATED AS IN TWILIGHT ZONES. THEY DON'T WORK EXACTLY THAT WAY EQUALLY.
How it works is strange and kind of fun. That is true also with the saturation point.
If I am correct and the world last long enough, a device based on these prime oddities will travel to 83% of the speed of light and coast, and have nuclear power in reserve for a hundred years. |
| Date: |
11 March 2012
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Momentus - 16/03/2012 09:49:45
| | | Hi Glen,
The motion you have described, two circles, is not the only one you may observe.
The supported end can describe a circle of zero radius, or negative radius.
How does that effect your future action - present action scenario, when one of them is no longer present? No equal and no opposite and no twilight?
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/03/2012 14:12:10
| | | Thank you Momentus,
That is interesting and I want to understand you.
Please correct me if I don’t understand, but the calculation of a circle of zero radius, or negative radius would reveal the same physical placement as the pole, which is stationary, in the XY Cartesian system.
Are you saying that the supported point can pivot in a stationary point and that this actions can be described as a circle?
If so this would be three circles. If so, how dose this eliminate to, “ when one of them is no longer present?’ Does that mean the smaller inter cribbed circle is eliminated by the stationary pivot?
I’ve learned that you know what you are talking about and I suspect you may have something I’m not aware of, so please fix it for me.
(My twilight zone?) That may be a little left of leftfield. Pardon me. I may have had too much Kool-Aid. I tried to express what is an oddity to me.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Mon Leyson - 18/03/2012 05:54:48
| | | Hi Glenn,
Your questions are exactly the questions I want to know about INERTIAL PROPULSION!!
I'm studying this one now for be able to test and create a gyroscopic anti gravity device!!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 18/03/2012 14:04:12
| | | Hi Mon,
As before, there are two scribed circling paths a gyro will make if allowed to, an inter and an outer. The condition of that holds promise as the shaft always points to the same distant and separated inward spot, the factor of 0 in the XY Cartesian system.
Professor Laithwaite, whom I otherwise like very much and respect, mis-reposented this fact of inter, outer paths by knowingly demonstrating a falsehood. He stuck a gyro tower, into soft melting ice. Consequently when he placed a precessing gyroscope on the tower, the tower now anchored did not and could not move.
However as Harry K. and I concluded, the professor cheated to support the wrong and manufactured conclusion he thought advantageous to his work. If you want to see the truth, buy a cheep Tyco Gyroscope. Put crushed ice in the hollow of the bottom of the pedestal that comes with it. Place this on a Formica table top and set a spinning gyro on top of it. The Pedestal will scribe an inter circle, as the outside of the gyro scribes a larger circle. The pedestal never stays in one place and pivots, it circles. Note always the shaft with gyro and pedestal continue to point inward to a disconnected and distant 0 in the XY Cartesian system. This fact, the truth, still gives promise.
Good Evening,
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 20/03/2012 12:40:06
| | | Spinning flywheel at one end of long shaft, point of support at the centre of the shaft, small compensating weight at the other end of shaft.
My basic experiment. Support with NO lateral restraint (air table, long string, ice, Teflon). I have described it before. It is my point of reference for all new theories. When my latest concept failed, this was the place to start again from.
With patience, by trial and error, adjusting the compensating weight moves the centre of rotation to coincide with the point of suspension. Without the weight it will rotate as you have suggested,… “The outer axle end rotates in a large circle around the string. The supported end rotates in a smaller circle around the string.”
With the correct compensating weight present the supported end does not circle the string. Too much weight moves the centre of rotation beyond the support point, a negative radius.
As a real world gyroscope is not perfect some allowance must be made for inert weight. Adjusting the compensating weight to accounts for this.
With a ‘perfect’ model, no friction, light axle, heavy flywheel with all mass at the rim, there is no centripetal force to displace the centre of rotation away from the support. The rotation is about the support point. The weightless tower does not move
I was quite happy with your twilight zone metaphor, but a gyroscope does not always behave in the way you have described.
“..IF THERE WAS NO EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION AT THE SUPPORTED END OF THE GYRO, IF THE GYRO DID NOT SPIN AROUND THE CENTER OF ITSELF-- THEN THE POSSIBILITY OF INERTIAL PROPULSION WAS HIGHLY PROBABLE.”
My sentiments exactly I could not agree more. As Sandy puts it “You can’t accelerate no mass”
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 20/03/2012 19:40:24
| | | Hi Momentus,
Maybe you are right. It’s a little like saying, “ How can you prove what I do not show you is wrong?” Anyway, I rather halfway believe you with some reservations. I don’t know what I mean by that, but anyway, very good of you to reason that as a probability.
I hope your are right.
The needed test could be built with little more than some innovative shad-tree mechanics, but I have fallen too far behind in our race to see who could become the laziest researcher here. Maybe Mon (Hi Mon) will pick up the torch for us.
Take it easy,
Glenn
But do I hope you are right.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Mon Leyson - 21/03/2012 14:40:56
| | | Hi Glenn,, I got One More Idea about INERTIAL PROPULSION!! Inertial propulsion must be have an unbalanced mass to produce a changing inertial force!! But these concept cant defy much force at the opposite side like gravity right?? Because even if the mass is unbalanced, the orbit is still circle, so therefore creating an inertia at all directions.. Allowing the inertia to go more on one side we must unbalance all so the orbit and not only the mass..
An example of that is a semicircle orbit!!
More inertial force will occur when the unbalanced mass passes trough the straight line than going to the opposite side with a curved orbit right??
If so, then the gun with a long barrel casts more range than short barreled one right??
I think its my theory only but what if it can be??
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 21/03/2012 20:24:26
| | | Glenn, Momentus, Mon etc.
I may very well be wrong, so correct me if I am, but was the plastic tower on ice experiment not presented by the BBC, who was extremely anti Laithwaite.
When I visited Eric Laithwaite at the Imperial College in the mid-80s, he made comments to me that these experiments carried out on ice were flawed.
I can think of a few flaws myself.
He then proceeded to demonstrate to me a specially prepared and custom built gyroscope, the likes of which I had never seen before.
This gyroscope cost a bob or two.
I will resist going into a lengthy description of the device other than say it was precision built with a long fixed shaft. The shaft itself was hardened and ground and the non gyro end was tapered and honed to a needle sharp point.
This gyroscope was designed to operate with its needle point making contact with face of a glazed ceramic tile.
Anyway this gyroscope when in precession, showed absolutely no tendency to move its fulcrum point. Remember the shaft of this gyroscope was fixed into the gyroscope itself, so the point was under continuous rotation.
Whatever else there was, there was absolutely no centrifugal force generated in the system.
I think the demonstration I witnessed has to be the most pure way this can be done, and that is by utilising a gyroscope on its own, with no string, no gimbals, no ball joints, no plastic Eiffel Towers, and no ice.
Regards,
Sandy.
PS I agree with you Brian, if there had been any displacement inertial drive would have been a bit easier, in fact inevitable, but there isn’t so it’s not.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Patrick - 22/03/2012 23:04:12
| | | Dear Glenn
Please get in touch i will give you all my work.
359-367 through 360 degrees.
OPPOSITIONAL magnetic repultion%, thou you have done well on
your own putting it out there you would do better with more punch of
figures drawings and explanation.
pat england
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 23/03/2012 03:00:25
| | | There are so many interesting things suddenly going on here from so many very intelligent people. I will enjoy interacting with you again. I will respond someday. I’m building now, but stopping to read what you write. Keep it up fellows. It’s good.
Cordially yours,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
glenn Hawkins - 23/03/2012 19:37:50
| | | Dear Pat, I don't know how to get to you. My address is ehawkins32@comcast.ner
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 23/03/2012 23:33:52
| | | Dear Sandy,
My mind is tiring out on the machine so I’ll write some. (It’s not wanting to cooperated this evening with the solving of a few little innocent complexities though I have threaten it and gave it a good cussing out.) So, I’ll write some.
I don’t know the answer to your question, but I have been visiting here since about 2003 and to the best of my recollection no one ever mentioned putting crushed ice or any other kind of ice in the base of a pedestal, until now. I don’t get a chance to watch British TV, but if they did as you suspect, it is a significant little experiment. Only a few points of the crushed ice actually touch to table.
As I understand your description of the professor’s experiment, it must have acted like, but not resembled, the one below, even though it is caring dead weight in the form of two ring guards. Notice Supper Gyro 7.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZQ7KlolK20
Even without the appendages the inside of the wheel must travel in a smaller circumference than the outside. There is no way mechanically or mathematically to avoid this while the wheel is circling, so even if you and Momentus are correct there is no way you can precisely prove it. LOL.
Love you all,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 24/03/2012 12:48:17
| | | Hi Sandy
A Blast from the past, your description took me back to the first time I met The Prof. In his office at Imperial College, he showed me a spinning top with a brass wheel and thin shaft. He held it in a special holder, and used string wrapped round the shaft to spin it up, then laid it at an angle on his desk. Of course back then I did not appreciate the significance, it was the start of my journey. Would that there was a present day scientist with his passion for knowing.
Glen H
“So even if you and Momentus are correct there is no way you can precisely prove it. LOL.”
You are wrong on so many counts. I get annoyed when those who espouse the status quo say that my experiment cannot be right, so there is no need to do the experiment as they know what the result must be.
In your case I find your arrogance inexcusable. You can either do the work yourself or accept the results.
Either way if you are planning a machine which depends upon centripetal force, you will fail.
Rant over.
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Mon - 24/03/2012 13:44:15
| | | Hi to all,, I know that we are all good experimenters here and this is not a senate hall , so please , may your mind be opened, stop debating about of this! It can't help unless if we are all an opened minded people.. Im Mon Leyson of PH.(monleyson@yahoo.com) researching for a gyroscopic application for propulsion and others. I know we all here is researching also so why deabting?? We can help each other!! pls.. ALL MUST BE OPEN MINDED!! I know this site will be start of something very big!! PROMISE!!!!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/03/2012 16:03:18
| | | I have written a couple of entries in response. Should I sent them? I will think about it. They are kind of cruel, because they relate to inescapable truth. You just aren't fair game-- but then why did you go nuts. I'll think about it.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/03/2012 16:36:52
| | | Did you think I would let you get by with this?
If you are going to rant, try to know what your are talking about. You got your panties in a wad from a lack of understanding and then whine to me like a slapped bitch saying, “I get annoyed when those . . . say that my experiment cannot be right.”
You wrote, “. . . say that my experiment cannot be right, so there is no need to do the experiment.”
I never say this. I am for experimentation and re-experimentation again and again big time. Find a precise quote where I said otherwise, not something you construe to mean equitable.
…………………………………………………………………
This is where your wad got wadded. Can’t you see your error?
Glenn Hawkins - 20/03/2012 19:40:24
Hi Momentus,
Maybe you are right
"NONE ARGUMENTATIVE"
. . .very good of you to reason that as a probability
"COMPLEMENTARY
.. . . I hope your are right.
"ENCOURAGING, AFFABLE"
Glenn Hawkins - 23/03/2012 23:33:52
Dear Sandy,
I don’t know the answer to your question . . .
“HONEST”
There is no way mechanically or mathematically to avoid this while the wheel is circling, “THIS IS TRUE”
‘. . . so even if you and Momentus are correct there is no way you can precisely prove it. LOL. “THIS IS HUMOR”
Love you all,
Glenn
“THIS IS NICE”
But do I hope you are right.
“THIS IS RESPECTFUL”
You see? You were never argued against. You experimented and explained and that is good, but the experiment was not shown as an example as was Nitro’s, yet you would expect the same level of acceptance. You call me arrogant. You have a fit when what you say, not prove, is not accepted as a certainty. What do you say to the millions of engineers who disagree? You call them arrogant too? Hay! Who is arrogant?
……………………………………………………………….
I am through. I offer the peace pipe, though I suspect you are emotionally unsuited to forgiving and forgetting. If that is your make up, I did not say it was, I will go on happily theorizing, experimenting, working and believing in what I know is true. Do you mind if I rely on my own mind and not yours. Do you mind?
I will now go and help you explain on the nearby, INERTIAL PROPULSION THREAD’
Your best friend and most devoted, adoring, admiring underling and follower Glenn,
Help is coming. Get ready.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/03/2012 17:01:28
| | | Momentus I am taking the time to help you.
“Momentus - 20/03/2012 12:40:06 Spinning flywheel at one end of long shaft, point of support at the centre of the shaft, small compensating weight at the other end of shaft.
My basic experiment. Support with NO lateral restraint (air table, long string, ice, Teflon). I have described it before. It is my point of reference for all new theories. When my latest concept failed, this was the place to start again from.
With patience, by trial and error, adjusting the compensating weight moves the centre of rotation to coincide with the point of suspension. Without the weight it will rotate as you have suggested,… “The outer axle end rotates in a large circle around the string. The supported end rotates in a smaller circle around the string.”
With the correct compensating weight present the supported end does not circle the string. Too much weight moves the centre of rotation beyond the support point, a negative radius.
GLENN:
"WHAT IS THE GUESSTIMATED RATIO OF, ‘the correct compensating weight? DO YOU MEAN A GRAVITATIONAL FORCE EQUAL TO THAT OF THE WHEEL DEPENDING ON WHERE IS THE BALANCE SUPPORT POINT IS PLACED?"
GLENN:
"I DON’T BELIEVE, ‘‘negative radius’ IS A UNIVERSALLY KNOWN AND ACCEPTED TERM, BUT PERHAPS A MADE UP ONE. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN, BUT ONLY WITH EFFORT, AND NOT EVERYONE CAN OR WILL TRY. PLEASE WORK ON THE DESCRIPTION."
As a real world gyroscope is not perfect some allowance must be made for inert weight. Adjusting the compensating weight to accounts for this.
GLENN:
"WHAT ALLOWANCES? HOW DOES ONE ADJUST TO A COMPENSATING WEIGHT. WHAT DO YOU DO? WHAT ARE ALLOWANCES TO WHAT? WHAT IS A COMPENSATING WEIGHT? COMPENSATING WHAT?"
GLENN:
"ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY THE SUPPORT IS AT THE CENTER OF GRAVITY?"
With a ‘perfect’ model, no friction, light axle, heavy flywheel with all mass at the rim, there is no centripetal force to displace the centre of rotation away from the support. The rotation is about the support point. The weightless tower does not move
GLENN:
"THERE CAN BE NO ORBITAL PRECESSION, NO MOVEMENT AROUND THE CENTER OF SUPPORT, UNLESS THE WHEEL IS TILTED. WHAT TILTS THE, IF IT IS NOT FREE OF A COUNTER BALANCING WEIGHT? IF THE WEIGHT AND WHEEL ARE SUPPORTED AT THE CENTER OF GRAVITY, WE ARE VERTICALLY AND HORIZONTAL MOTIONLESS. IN YOUR SET-UP. ONLY OVERHUNG AND UNBALANCED, OR FORCED GYROS PRECESS."
GLENN:
" WE SEEM TO BE BACK TO THE BEGINNING."
YOU WROTE, “Without the weight it will rotate as you have suggested,… “The outer axle end rotates in a large circle around the string. The supported end rotates in a smaller circle around the string.”
GLENN:
"I DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING. THERE ARE MANY VIDEOS ON THE NET THAT WILL HELP YOU EXPLAIN YOUR EXPERIMENT. THERE IS ONE BY PROFESSOR LAITHWAITE IF YOU CAN FIND IT."
GLENN: "His mimics your experimentAL set-up, yet his results defy you claim.
GLENN: "You are such a sweetheart, even if you are over your head and out of your league most of the time.
Cordially yours,
Glenn
This is so damn pointless, Momentus. Why can't you behave? I wouldn't have attacked you. . . . . . . . . . . . . not ever.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 24/03/2012 22:42:18
| | | Hello Glenn, Momentus et al.
I wish I had a copy of the televised experiment on the ice.
The very biased guy who was presenting the experiment was in raptures, shouting “There is the centrifugal force, there is the centrifugal force” as the tower etc. began to wander a little bit.
My complaints are as follows:-
Being cheaply manufactured, there is no guarantee that the bottom of the plastic tower is flat, or that that the ball in contact with the tower is round, or that that the socket on the tower is round also there is no guarantee that the centre of the ball and socket rotate through the centre line of the base
.
However by far and away the worst problem is the use of equipment which is not up to the job
It is a gyroscope which is in question not a gyroscope and a lump of useless deadweight we call gimbals.
The equipment should be fit for purpose without the need for gimbals.
Test the gyroscope without the deadweight.
You may be surprised at the results?
Il light of this can I add that in 35 years of experimentation I have never utilised or felt the need to utilise any form of gimbal.
That said why does everyone seem to need gimbals?
I watched a demonstration on “Youtube” earlier this evening on ice of a Super Duper whatever it was with a heavy gimbal on it which wandered about as I expected.
Ask them to try their Super Duper whatever it was without the gimbal and show that.
Different story I bet.
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/03/2012 03:54:55
| | | Dear Sandy,
I assure you I can believe what you say, as I respect you, varsity and all. Before, you didn’t explain, but rather put forth a question you seem to be pondering. Actually I don’t recall questioning the other guy either.
I don’t believe an extreme exactitude in re-engineering the current pedestals would make much of a noticeable difference, but hay, what do I know?
I wrote you a heavy two page dissertation in response to your post fill with truth inserted between a bunch of malarkey. I will spare you the pain.
Thank you for responding to me. I try to keep up with you and what everyone says. Now I need to attempt to do what you did—get busy and build.
Oh hay, I woke up this morning and knew a gyroscope could be made to sling itself forward. I knew how to do it. I just didn't know if it would work. That was my major worry and is the reason I give myself for putting my attempt away years ago.
Thank you and everyone for being a part of it all and helping keep my mind into it.
Cordially Yours, Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 26/03/2012 11:15:30
| | | Hi Sandy
You may find this site of interest
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh/gyroscopes/icegyro.html
It shows, as a shed dweller would expect, that a gyroscope does not orbit about its centre of mass. Just as Laithwaite predicted so many years ago.
As Dr Hunt knows that this is absolutely impossible, the centre of mass has been placed in a more convenient position, to suit his prejudice and allow Emma to get a degree?
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 26/03/2012 20:33:06
| | | Hello Brian,
Thank you Brian.
Checked it out as you suggested
I am glad I was never subjected to any of this stuff, or I would never have got anywhere.
It is served up as being the real deal although it just more of the specious junk surrounding the behaviour of spinning discs.
It is really amazing how far folks have gone to make gyroscopic behaviour agree with Sir Isaac.
The problem is that everyone and Emma is a specialist in junk.
If they would just dabble a bit in mechanically accelerated systems it would cause them some real grief.
No mass, no excuses and nowhere to hide.
Brings back memories of the bold Momentus of a few years ago now, battling the same type of idiots on the BBC’s “ Not Rocket Science” or something like that.
Same argument too, if I remember correctly.
They were not even very polite about it, and gave you a rough ride.
However you discovered as I did that you are better not getting involved with them.
I have got to the point that I do not engage them at all as it is just a wasted effort,
besides what do they have to offer?
Best regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 27/03/2012 15:43:43
| | | CHEATING, CRAZY PEOPLE!
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh/gyroscopes/icegyro.html
I see now! No one understood me!
The demonstration represents the precise actions it should.
But, the explanation is made-up, misrepresented garbage.
I think we all see it easy as pie. They extended the axle beyond the other-side of the pedestal so that it would exhibit centrifuge to pull the gyro a inward and trick people into believing the gyro and pedestal were revolving around a common center of gravity.
The explanation is exactly OPPOSITE to what I have been saying.
The center of gravity is always UNDERNEATH the pedestal as it follows the gyro.
My ice experiments show the gyroscope goes outward, not inward (sideways direction) pulling the pedestal with it. There they circle, gyro in a large diameter, pedestal in less large diameter. The shaft always remains pointing toward the coordinate ( spot) where it began.
A thousand times we have watched a gyro string pulled outward from a vertical to form an angle and revolve like a cone. Obviously to everyone the gyro pulls the anchored string outward (side-way). But according to the explanation, the string would have to hang like a snake.
And right your are Sandy.
Momentus, thank you for putting this web site up. It confirms by incorrect opposition the things I believed. Sorry for what I said in anger. It was not true.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 27/03/2012 15:56:03
| | | Actually it is the torque in precessing action that twist down on the gyro to transfer the gravitational force upon the gyro to the pedestal.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 27/03/2012 22:07:47
| | | Hello Brian and Glenn,
I had in fact witnessed the total lack of mass, and subsequent lack of the ability to accelerate the flywheels many, times in my accelerated systems, and reported the fact to Eric Laithwaite on the phone long before I was ever shown the attributes of his super gyroscope.
Like yourself Brian I did not immediately realise the significance of what I witnessed as I only operated mechanically accelerated systems and Eric did not.
Just the same I was amazed that this relatively heavy gyroscope was capable of precession on the tile at an angle where the rim of the gyroscope was spinning just clear of the tile and the gyroscope was still making no attempt to move away from its fulcrum position.
Although there are differences in the causes of precession in gravity accelerated systems and what I call saturation in mechanically accelerated systems the resultant loss of mass, would surely cause the Dr Hunts & Emmy Wilsons of this world to rethink their position.
Better still the position of the “centre of no mass” of a gyroscopic system, but who will ever be able to enlighten them.
Best regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 27/03/2012 23:19:58
| | | My complements
I have watched old videos of the one sided shaft on a table experiment. I even built one long ago and experimented with it. I have no excuse for believing only my ice/pedestal experiments (which are true) while rejecting that the one-sided shaft experiments that prove the pivot stays in the exact same place at all times (equally true) and is not pulled outward as is suggested by an overhead string angling outward like a cone, or a packed ice pedestal moving outward.
You are both right. I am confused, because I am now also both right, though like the gyroscope that seems impossible, but I am happy. I need this way. Thank you.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 28/03/2012 15:32:00
| | | This is disturbing. I explained that the non-gyro caring shaft end extended beyond the opposite side of the pivot. And that this oboist shaft weight causes centrifuge to pull the gyro inward, hence the wobble. I neglected to note the shaft section caring the gyro is even more weighty and should exhibits even more centrifuge to pull the gyro outward. This centrifuge would more than council opposite-side centrifuge. Therefore my earlier explanation doesn’t hold water.
Also when a long one-sided shaft is connected to the gyro and pivoting in one spot, why would not the shaft produce centrifuge? Why would in not tend to pull the gyro outward?
I have a lot of explanations for what and how things do what they do. But at the moment I don’t have one for this and I have not seen an explanation from anyone else that was understandable.
The confusion is disturbing. Nothing I see or know allows the video make sense. I am going to stay off air for a while and now my building effort is on hold. How could it not be after all this?
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 30/03/2012 00:59:26
| | | All is OK. Back on track. All is as I said it was. All is as Sandy and Momentus theorized. All is as Professor Liftwate demonstrated.
Glenn : The pedestal follows the light weight Taco gyro, each circling a distant, disconnected spot on the floor.
Sandy & Momentus: Invent the perfect gyro with 99.99 % of the weight in the wheel and the pedestal will remain precisely in a stationary spot.
Eric Leftwate: Increase the ratio of weight overwhelmingly greater in the wheel and the shaft end remains in a stationary spot.
Even if the video were correct, which it isn’t, it would make no difference. The greater the force down on the gyro by any means, the further inward the center of rotation would move toward the pedestal, until it rested squarely on top of the pedestal. There would be no counter rotation. It is not about the center of gravity. It is about torque and the center of rotation. Torque lifts the gyro by twisting down on the point of the center of rotation. As we know it that is the pedestal.
Throw the misleading video in the trash.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 30/03/2012 10:05:01
| | | Hi Sandy,
Bruising battle on the BBC indeed but more to come I fear, got a fantastic experimental result this week and feel rejuvenated.
My mechanism created linear momentum, without using a spinning disk. I have had the theory for some time, over a year now, but yesterday built a mechanism to prove it, which for a pleasant change worked first time!!
Now all I’ve got to do……………………
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 01/04/2012 20:03:07
| | | Hello again Brian,
Nice to see someone is getting good results.
I got too damn smart for my own good and had to rethink a bit.
I have it pretty well sorted now though after much messing about.
I am mystified by the fact that you are achieving linear thrust without a spinning wheel.
There are bound to be more ways than just one to do this thing as I have previously suggested, but utilising spin.
Now you have to convince the world, which is not easy.
Best of luck
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Mon Leyson - 05/04/2012 14:03:50
| | | The topic is going insane!!! Good Luck! everybody!! :-)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/04/2012 15:59:55
| | | “Mon Leyson - 21/03/2012 14:40:56 Hi Glenn,, I got One More Idea about INERTIAL PROPULSION!! Inertial propulsion must be have an unbalanced mass to produce a changing inertial force!! But these concept cant defy much force at the opposite side like gravity right?? Because even if the mass is unbalanced, the orbit is still circle, so therefore creating an inertia at all directions.. Allowing the inertia to go more on one side we must unbalance all so the orbit and not only the mass..
An example of that is a semicircle orbit!!
More inertial force will occur when the unbalanced mass passes trough the straight line than going to the opposite side with a curved orbit right??
If so, then the gun with a long barrel casts more range than short barreled one right??
I think its my theory only but what if it can be??”
….....................................................
Yes to all your beliefs. What seems to be the gold here is to reason out and build a small model that will accelerate. Nitro has recently made a step in that direction. I am working at it and there are others.
Insanity on this thread on this tread? You are kidding. Actually many people think we are all crazy. My temper flared up inexcusably and then Momentys gave a web site address where fallacy was painstakingly attempted to supplant the truth. In response to that I say again. “It is not about the center of gravity. It is about the center point where torque is transferred. It is about the center of rotation (precession). It is about deflections causing torque at a distance. It is not about a point of natural balance. We all got pizzz off at that site.
Was there something you wanted to add, or something you wanted to ask?
Respectfully Yours,
Glenn
By the way, where a bouts do you live?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 05/04/2012 22:33:17
| | | I know I am insane because many people say that I am.
Glenn you wrote:-
I got One More Idea about INERTIAL PROPULSION!! Inertial propulsion must be have an unbalanced mass to produce a changing inertial force!! But these concept cant defy much force at the opposite side like gravity right?? Because even if the mass is unbalanced, the orbit is still circle, so therefore creating an inertia at all directions.. Allowing the inertia to go more on one side we must unbalance all so the orbit and not only the mass.
You did not say how you unbalanced the mass?
Did you start with an unbalanced system?
This is important.
Never mind the semi-circular orbit think out of the box, or sideways as they say.
Nobody said it was easy, but you have to admit that it is a lot of fun.
Best of luck
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/04/2012 23:10:48
| | | Dear Sanity Sandy,
Thank you for the advice. Actually, I did not write any of that. I was quoting a post by the new comer, Mon Leyson. The fault is mine. I did such a poor job of making that clear. Well. . . I don't think you are crazy. I just think the people that say our pursuit is are limited to the guidance of others and have not the cognitive skill to perceive there is more than they have been told. Any way, Sanity Sandy with a question mark, I'm having a question mark tattoo to my forehead so as not to rile people when I walk by caring a box of gyroscopes. As long as they can point a thumb at me and grin I'll be safer. You might consider it also, a big shzzzzzzzzz green one.
Well bye my friend. We must keep each other posted from time to time, Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Mon Leyson - 18/04/2012 19:15:40
| | | So , all of you said that my THEORY is TRUE?? As I see , my studies and graphings tought a very great idea about this!! But , I may WRONG!!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 18/04/2012 20:10:27
| | | Mon,
So that is where you live, ‘Wrong’ Bang Wong. Thank you. Is that in a hemisphere we have ever heard of? Mon, not all here agree with you and how could you be wrong? This is pretty old stuff.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
