|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
29 November 2024 00:43
|
|
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: |
Sandy Kidd |
| Subject: |
Mass Transfer |
| Question: |
Mass Transfer,
Before this thing is officially put to bed I thought I should have my tuppence worth.
Hello all, this is really for the benefit of Ram who will undoubtedly not accept one word of this, but in light of the fact he shrugged off mechanically accelerated systems with amazing ease, let it not be said that he is not being brought up to date.
I claimed that Eric Laithwaite never would have stated that a gyroscope in precession would not rotate around its centre of mass, or as I claim around its” centre of no mass”
Ram claimed that he did.
I still claim he did not, and would not, and that I am saying that Ram misunderstood in which context precession was being used.
I am somewhat mystified in the fact that Ram assumes that the mass transfer only occurs at the drop.
As there is no drop, as such, in mechanically accelerated systems, I am curious to know how this could be achieved in Laithwaite’s device
I try not to be drawn into debates, discussions if you will, relating to gravity accelerated systems as this argument has been going on since I got into this forum in 2004, without any conclusions, and I now consider it a total waste of time, but this mass transfer thing came from another source, which did not have a lot to do with gravity accelerated systems.
I said previously that I thought Laithwaite’s mass transfer device was a non-event, so I re-entered the “Heretics” to see if I was missing anything.
The term Mass Transfer has been used by many of us for many years and simply relates to the fact that a gravity accelerated gyroscope system in precession has the ability to transfer all of its mass to act vertically down through the axis of system rotation, pivot point, fulcrum point etc. This is also true in many respects for mechanically accelerated systems.
.
Laithwaite and Scovell, were claiming that some of the centrifugal force was lost during “precession”, as it does, which in itself is no big deal, in what I can only assume that was their version of “precession”.
Even when swinging the big disc, the action would have to be called a mechanically, or at least, an artificially accelerated system.
The Mass Transfer device in the Heretics was obviously a “Meccano” mock-up of a mechanically accelerated system which in operation and precession (they called it), is miles from a bog standard gravity accelerated system in precession.
If I am correct in my understanding with respect to what was being said he was claiming that some of the centrifugal force was absent from the system during “precession” and that they had discovered that it had been converted into inertial thrust.
We have known for some time, that all of the centrifugal force is missing in what they call precession, in either type of system, the mass being effectively transferred to operate down through the axis of system rotation, but none of it not upwards as claimed by Laithwaite and Scovell.
I think that they got their experiment screwed up a bit around the saturation point, and mixed in a large amount of wishful thinking.
The last vestige of centrifugal force is transferred at the point of saturation.
Maybe this got their attention, we can but wonder.
Like others on this forum Ram seems to have a fixation with precession in gravity accelerated systems, probably because it is as far as he has gone, but I am certain that Laithwaite’s claims relating to mass transfer is a product of what he calls precession in his mechanically accelerated systems which is something completely different.
Initially your answer threw me, because I did not know where you were coming from, but the penny eventually dropped when you attempted to mix gravity accelerated systems with mechanically accelerated systems, and ne’er the twain shall meet.
Therefore it really did not matter what the outcome of your initial question was, as one way or the other it was not going to help produce inertial thrust.
All the claims on this site are impossible says Ram, then, he will be correct because he knows he is correct.
Sandy.Kidd
|
| Date: |
23 May 2012
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 23/05/2012 22:30:53
| | | “The term Mass Transfer has been used by many of us for many years and simply relates to the fact that a gravity accelerated gyroscope system in precession has the ability to transfer all of its mass to act vertically down through the axis of system rotation, pivot point, fulcrum point etc.”
I do not believe that’s how Professor Laithwaite meant. I think he meant moving mass without the normal opposite reaction.
Laithwaite: “The spinning top showed us that all the time, but we couldn't see it. If the gyroscope does not produce the full amount of centrifugal force on its pivot in the centre then indeed you have produced mass transfer.”
Mind you this has not been proven to my satisfaction and I would even say it’s impossible. Why? Because a precessing gyroscope in a frictionless environment uses no energy. It goes forever. It’s just like spinning a ball in space. It just keeps on spinning. After it has been spun it has its potential energy but if you try to do any useful work with that energy you will slow it down and it will eventually stop. Moving mass though space is ‘work’ (as in physics Force x Distance) and it takes energy to do work. Again like the spinning ball, There is energy to be had from a precessing gyroscope however when you use that energy it will start to drop.
Think of it this way, the hight of a gyroscope’s center of mass can be considered potential energy. Just like holding a rock in your hand a meter from the ground. When you drop the rock you lose that energy. It disperses into heat and/or deformation when it hits the ground. The same is true of the precession gyroscope. The lower it gets the less potential energy it has. Let me add it’s not exactly the same as the rock. The gyroscope also stores energy in its precession. If you suddenly turn off the tiling force a gyroscope will stop precessing but will also rise slightly so you retain that energy. It acts somewhat like a spring. When the energy is transferred quickly between its height and precession speed you get the wobble (nutation).
Now let’s get back to the steadily precessing gyroscope with no friction. No energy is being lost so no work can be done i.e. no mass is moved. The only possible loophole I can see in this is during a drop. If you suddenly increase tilting force, the gyroscope will drop slightly and procession will speed up. A physicist will tell you it all goes into the precession. The only question is does it really or could part go somewhere else (i.e. Laithwaite’s mass transfer)? If some of it went into mass transfer the gyroscope would not rise up to it’s innital height but some point in between when you turned off the tilting force. This is the only wiggle room I can see and it would have to be tested. If you remember now Laithwaite’s eureka experiment with the tandem gyroscopes in front of the grid; I believe this is what he was trying to do. However any friction will give you wrong results. It’s worse than that because it will make you think that mass transfer is working when it might not be. Was Laitwaite’s experiment good enough? I don’t know for sure but I have serious dobuts. In any case I don't think he was actually considering the drop even though it was included in his experiment
“Like others on this forum Ram seems to have a fixation with precession in gravity accelerated systems, probably because it is as far as he has gone, but I am certain that Laithwaite’s claims relating to mass transfer is a product of what he calls precession in his mechanically accelerated systems which is something completely different.”
Actually this isn’t true. In fact any propulsion device would have to work on something other than gravity to be of any practical use. It’s hard to turn gravity on and off or increase and decrease it. That being said do not think that it makes much difference where you get the tilting force form as far as precession goes. The only difference is the magnitude of the force that can be applied and whatever additional friction you add when using a different system.
My bottom line with all of this is I’ve seen claims for years yet I’ve never seen a convincing demo. Not one. I’m not a scientist however in my estimation what I read on this forum is mostly pseudo-science. Again I’ll be happy if anyone can produce anything that actually works, but I’m not holding my breath.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 24/05/2012 00:58:51
| | | Ram:
"a precessing gyroscope in a frictionless environment uses no energy. It goes forever. It’s just like spinning a ball in space. It just keeps on spinning. After it has been spun it has its potential energy but if you try to do any useful work with that energy you will slow it down and it will eventually stop. ...... Again like the spinning ball, There is energy to be had from a precessing gyroscope however when you use that energy it will start to drop."
Blaze:
Correct Ram, if you want to take power out of the precession like it is a motor and use that rotation to drive a load such as a generator. There may be other ways.......
Ram:
"Now let’s get back to the steadily precessing gyroscope with no friction. No energy is being lost so no work can be done i.e. no mass is moved."
Blaze:
The mass of the flywheel is clearly moving in a circle as it precesses. The flywheel is coasting and in a totally non-friction environment it would keep coasting (moving in a circle) so mass is being moved however no work is being done because there is no force driving the flywheel while it is coasting. W=FxD, no force, so no work is being done to keep the flywheel precessing.
Well, at least that is the way I see it.
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 24/05/2012 01:07:05
| | | Sandy, I agree with your definition of mass transfer which is "The term Mass Transfer has been used by many of us for many years and simply relates to the fact that a gravity accelerated gyroscope system in precession has the ability to transfer all of its mass to act vertically down through the axis of system rotation, pivot point, fulcrum point etc."
I think that the term "Mass Movement" is the flywheel moving around the pivot (precessing) with no apparent forces moving the pivot sideways.
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/05/2012 01:43:36
| | | So sorry. A gyroscope that is not contunously powered horozonally will not coast, but crash into continous deflectios in the horozonal plane as it orbits, and that works like breaks applied. Precession must be contuniously powered vertically, but no additional power is needed to contunue at the same speed horrozonallly. As this is accomplished it is like coasting--- so long as there is power to overcome the deflections in the precession plane.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/05/2012 01:45:45
| | |
CORRECTION!
"A gyroscope that is not contunously powered -----VERTICALLY----- will not coast, but crash into continous deflectios in the horozonal plane as it orbits, and that works like breaks applied.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 24/05/2012 02:01:46
| | | Yes Glenn. I know that the gyro has to be continually "powered" vertically. I thought that was understood.
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 24/05/2012 03:07:46
| | | "I think that the term "Mass Movement" is the flywheel moving around the pivot (precessing) with no apparent forces moving the pivot sideways."
You can call it what you wish. I was just trying to explain the way I was using the term "Mass Transfer" which I believe is the same way as Professor Laithwaite was using it.
“The mass of the flywheel is clearly moving in a circle as it precesses.”
Yes individual points of mass are moving in a circle; however the center of mass is not. This is what I mean. Again this is identical to spinning a ball in space. I think this is our major point of contention here since some of you claim the center of mass indeed moves under precession while I claim that it only does so because of friction between the pivot and what it is sitting on.
“So sorry. A gyroscope that is not contunously powered horozonally will not coast”
What do you mean not continuously powered horizontally? Do you mean that the gyroscope disc itself is not powered? Or there is no tilting force. If you mean no tilting force it will in fact coast for tiny bit if it was already precessing when the tilting force was removed. Noting is going to stop instantly. What will happen is precession will now happen in the other way around. And the gyroscope will rise back up a bit before it comes to a halt. It may also simply oscillate. Hard to say what will happen exactly without friction. Also keep in mind it takes no power to provide a tilting force. Gravity does not take energy. And neither do permanent magnets but they still provide force. Maybe I do not understand what you mean
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/05/2012 03:29:28
| | | HELLO BOZES, I LOVE YOU ALL,
Just got home from Illinois, lock the front door, oh boy!
Got to sit down, take a rest on the porch.
Imagination sets in, pretty soon I'm singin',
Doo, doo, doo, Lookin' out my back door.
There's a giant doing cartwheels, a statue wearin' high heels.
Look at all the happy creatures dancing on the lawn.
A dinosaur Victrola list'ning to Buck Owens.
Tambourines and elephants are playing in the band.
Won't you take a ride on the flyin' spoon?
Doo, doo doo.
Wond'rous apparition provided by magician.
Doo, doo doo.
Forward troubles Illinois, lock the front door, oh boy!
Look at all the happy creatures dancing on the lawn.
Bother me tomorrow, today, I'll 'bide no sorrows.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 24/05/2012 21:21:57
| | | Hello again Ram.
Please accept my sincere apologies with respect to Laithwaite’s statement, he did a real about face with that lot.
I would have bet that he would never have stated that.
Well I was wrong, but that does not make him correct.
He was a completely different person from the Laithwaite I once knew.
Seems to me that his confidence was totally shot, and I got the impression that the exercise was in order to gain redemption for past crimes i.e doubting Newton.
Alas there was no way back.
So there you are Ram you were correct and I was wrong, but I still think his mass transfer as described is a figment of his imagination.
We do seem to agree on that score.
A point of interest, I went with the UK boss of the Aussie company I was working with to see Eric Laithwaite at the Imperial College, London.
The Australians wanted to get him to join us as a consultant for our team in Australia.
Initially he seemed interested, then he demanded the right to utilise any information gained for his own use.
I thought this was a bit much but decided it could be an acceptable price to pay at the end of the day.
However he then queried me about my split sphere device which was being tested at that time.
I made a few comments about it and he started to go ballistic and then accused me of withholding information from him.
At this point I began to get concerned about his attitude and decided he had been told too much as it was, and said no more.
He ended the meeting there and then.
Apart from his changes of direction and denials in the “Heretics”, relating to the success of my first device, my interest in the man ended.
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 24/05/2012 23:25:57
| | | Sandy I don’t take these things personally so you have nothing to apologize about. I’m simply trying to arrive at that truth. If anyone can demonstrate to me I’m wrong about something I’ll be the first to admit it. Also if anyone can produce a working propulsion system I’ll be the first in line to shake their hand. This stuff has gone on so long. I don’t care who finally cracks it or who gets the fame and credit. If someone can do it, more power to them, I hope they become a billionaire.
The only reason I may seem like such a downer on this board is that there seems to be a desire here among some not to test things thoroughly because it might break the fantasy that you have something that works. For some it may be easier to keep dreaming. This mindset will never produce anything real. There are certain tests that are to be considered more convincing. A pendulum test is good for instance. Can a device hold a pendulum reasonably steady to one side at X degrees? If I ever see this I’ll sit up and take notice. Anything that requires friction to work is not really a reactionless drive.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ted Pittman - 15/09/2012 00:46:35
| | | (Where's the more recent entries to this forum???)
The answers to gyro-inertial propulsion are NOT intuitive. That's why there's so much debate here. And if a concensus is reached, that won't mean the conclusion reached is correct.
If it were as easy as spinning some parts, inside some other spinning parts, the essential discoveries would have been made a very long time ago. If it were as simple as looking at some equations, then the successes would have been proven long ago - without debate.
YOU HAVE TO EXPERIMENT WITH ACTUAL GYRO HARDWARE!
Examine the photos and writings of Kidd and Poliakov. And I'm willing to send you photos of my work which got similar results to theirs. The essential geometries are the same.
It's already been done folks!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
