Home : Gallery : History : Uses : Behaviour : Maths : Forum : Propulsion : Links : Glossary
Main Forum Page

The Gyroscope Forum

 29 November 2024 00:54

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.

Search the forum:  
 

Question
Asked by: Ravi
Subject: New experiments
Question: Hi there guys and gals,

Check out my latest post:

These experiments show behavior that physicists would not be able to explain!

Most importantly, the introduction of torque into a system containing angular momentum causes a polarization of the angular momentum i.e. the angular momentum must be either parallel or anti-parallel to the applied torque only. Further, much like electrons in an atomic orbital, two parallel angular momenta cannot occupy the same plane!
One of them must move to a perpendicular plane, even if it means going into energy emission/precession.
Date: 8 August 2012
report abuse

Answers (Ordered by Date)
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 12/08/2012 05:32:30
 Hi Ravi,
Do you have an equation to calculate the magnitude of energy emission?
Regards,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: Ravi - 13/08/2012 21:52:02
 Luis,

The energy is given out when (in the beginning, when the wheels start spinning up) one of the wheels goes 90 degrees to the other and it must be E = m*g*h, where M is the mass raised, and h is the distance through which it is raised. g = 9.8 m/s^2

The mass of the black motor and its supporting arm are roughly about 1 kg and they are raised through about 10 cm or 0.1 m. That makes for E = 1*9.8*0.1 = ~ 1 joule

Its not a lot, but the fact that it is happening is what is intriguing. What does your theoretical mind tell you about what you're seeing in the video Luis?


Report Abuse
Answer: Nitro - 14/08/2012 17:38:45
 Dear Ravi

Where??

KInd regards
NM

Report Abuse
Answer: Ravi - 14/08/2012 17:43:52
 http://relmachine.blogspot.com/2012/08/experiment-8-part-a.html

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 15/08/2012 01:30:01
 Hi Ravi,
One Joule is a tangible amount of energy.
Where do you think it is going?
Regards,
Luis G


Report Abuse
Answer: Ravi - 15/08/2012 02:21:03
 Come now Luis, play fair. A question for a question. Your turn to answer my question first.


Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 15/08/2012 20:31:20
 Ravi,
The video shows a number of pivots for which I have no knowledge of their degrees of freedom or their relative friction levels.
The gyro frames look more massive than the flywheels, and their response to the applied torque is predictable.
My limited analysis of a multi-component device from simple videos cannot be as significant as your analysis from intimate knowledge of your device.
My question stands, where do you think the one Joule of energy is going?
I think that is a fair question.

Regards,
Luis G


Report Abuse
Answer: Ravi - 15/08/2012 22:37:37
 Luis,

Pivots? I dont understand what you are referring to. The vertical axes about the center has only freedom to revolve about the vertical axes. The horizontal suspension of the gyro-holding frames can only revolve about the horizontal axis that passes through the gyro. There is nothing else. There is no other way for the machine to move other than rotate on the lazy susan or actual tip over. Period.

The frames are lighter than the gyros.

I reiterate the stunning fact that when the second gyro goes to 90 degrees, there is no torque in the system. Simply two spinning wheels.

Whether you admit it or not, Luis you know that you cannot explain what you see.

Still, your wilingness to venture this far even to talk around it is more courageous than probably anyone else on this board whose silence speaks louder than crazed accusations of fraud or lack of 'originality' as in the past.

Take your time Luis. You don't need to digest this experiment, because you are not committed to building this device with me. I suppose you will build yours one day when you make up your own mind.

And I will answer your second question, the energy given up must be held by gravity as it is gravitational potential energy that is held by the machine- that would be the only even exchange between gravity and the wheels that would make sense.

Dear All,

Mull it over.

The fact that I have been able to uncover this intriguing behavior and even the likes of Sandy Kidd do not have anything to say is proof of the same things that Sandy has been saying for a while - this area of research has not been touched by human souls and even fairly simply experiments uncover behavior that is 'un-explainable' by traditional physics. Therefore caution prevails and the fear of attaching oneself to false causes kicks in. And reticence and denial are the rule.

So strong has been the headlong rush of the sheep down the well-trodden path of the Newtonan shepherds that the new sheep invariably have run mindlessly by this little by-lane of rotational motion that connects it to electromagnetism. (and let me humbly include myself in that group until about 8 years ago, when Sandy Kidd's and Eric Laithwaite's work came to my attention. I had a questioning mind before but I did not sense the discrepancy between theory and experiment before then.

Sandy has said it before. I say it now, with 100% conviction: We are only beginning to scratch the surface of a new physics. You saw how long it took me to build an elegant model to tease out this behavior (and there is more to come, I assure you). Its simply too much effort to build something just to prove what the books already thundered. So people moved on. Intelligent and capable people like Harry. Like so many others even on this board and I suppose everywhere in the world.

My friends, throw off the sleep from your eyes.if you are courageous and jump into it before it becomes 'cool' enough for the sheep to follow, you might go down in history as bright new inventors who solved some of the world's toughest problems with resolve and ingenuity.

I appeal to Sandy, to Nitro and to others who have seen past the physics book to rally to this experiment. Here we have a way to advance our cause. We can and must, one and all, tell the engineers/physicists we know to come see this video. Let them tell those they know and so on. Until we bring critical mass to this research. We shall not stop till we have explored the truth.

Report Abuse
Answer: Harry K. - 16/08/2012 22:54:31
 Hello Ravi,

I watched your latest experiments and I am amazed about what you have discovered!
At the moment I have no idea why the gyros behave in this way as they do.
I have to think more deeply and will come back with some additional questions, if I allowed to.
However, congratulations to your excellent experiments and resulting findings!

Best regards,
Harry

Report Abuse
Answer: Ravi - 17/08/2012 19:41:16
 Hallo Harry! Wie gehts!

Its good to hear from you. Glad to get your brain cells ticking.

The behavior is not 'classical' as far as I can tell. I have electrical engineers throwing their hands up and saying they don't get it.

I am thinking about publishing the results. I just would like to finish part B before doing that.
Don't ask me what that is. Its easy enough to guess as far as I know. :D What the results of Part B will be is what I can't wait to see.





Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 17/08/2012 23:33:20
 Hello Ravi,
You are one of the few who have escaped gravity induced precession in favour of mechanically accelerated gyroscopes (however fast or slow they are pushed)
I personally do not have a clue how this will all end, but I am pretty sure there are going to be a lot of exciting discoveries, on the way.
When I started this hunt for inertial drive I became convinced that I was one of the very few who had ever gone this way.
As time passed I was even more convinced of that.
Unusual things happened very soon after I got into building experiments which incidentally were all originally based on the design of my first machine.
Going back a few years, many years, I was friendly with the then, Future Projects Engineer at British Aerospace one Dr Ron Evans
Ron, thought there may be some interesting results in a set up not too unlike yours, but he was maybe not thinking about the kind of results you are getting.
I have never been able to get into your kind of experiment due to chasing a lot of moonbeams in my own kind of research area, although I think I have put most of the anomalies to bed.
Some day long after I have departed this life someone will organise a dedicated team of researchers to review many (I was going to say all) of the possible gyroscopic set ups which can be devised and manufactured cheaply to see what results are offered by each.
I can think of a few right know which are begging for research, but if we do not do the research, who will?
Also we must not lose sight of the fact that so far we have been dabbling with spin in two axes only.
What great discovered are going to be found within more advanced systems utilising triple or quadruple axes of spin.?
Go to it Ravi, like myself you are on your own but I am sure your persistence will eventually yield what you seek.
Sandy


Report Abuse
Answer: Nitro - 18/08/2012 21:26:52
 Dear Ravi,

The Joule in the crown?

I fear I am about to display my inability to win friends and influence people, yet again.

I have nothing but respect for anyone who follows their beliefs and takes the trouble to attempt to show, by experimental demonstration, confirmation of those beliefs. However, unless I am misunderstanding the video that you put up I cannot see any processes in the vertical main shaft axis example in the first part of the video that would not be expected. Most of our wizzy-whirly machines can be a nightmare to figure out by those that thought them up let alone by those outside the originators thought processes so I hope you will not take offence and will forgive me if I cause disappointment.

Unless I misunderstand, I surmise from the video that:-

The first unexpected process is that, when the gyros are spun up, the main shaft rotates slowly – seemingly without energy input. I believe this main shaft rotation is simply a contra torque to the gyros being spun up (I assume that they both spin in the same direction; i.e. both clockwise or both anticlockwise when viewed from above, at the start). This is like the contra torque on a helicopters body where the torsional force required to push the blades through the resistance of the air causes a torque in the opposite rotational direction on the aircraft’s body, that has to be countered by the tail propeller (it aint there just to steer the thing!).

The second unexpected process is the axial change, from vertical to horizontal, of one of the gyros before the main shaft is powered. This, I believe, is simply from the above described slow main shaft rotation (caused by the above described contra torque) causing this gyro to precess. This low speed rotation of the main shaft caused by contra torque of the gyros provides enough precession to be able to raise one gyro motor only to the horizontal but is not sufficient to fully raise both gyro motors to the top position until the main shaft motor is actuated. The precession is initiated by the centrifugal force acting on the heavy gyro motors to swing the gyros axial angle slightly out of pure vertical. The gyros would not precess if the gyros were pivoted at their centre of mass and their axial angle was perfectly vertical.

I believe your “Joule” is, therefore, provided by the energy put into the initial spinning up the gyros.

One thing that your video does show is confirmation of something I have droned on about before; namely that you do not need to actually change the axial angle of a gyro for it to precess (so long as it has enough mass/diameter/spin) merely apply a torsional force as though to change its axial angle.

My head hurts too much now to look at the part of the video with the main shaft horizontal- maybe later.

Kind regards
NM


Report Abuse
Answer: Ravi - 18/08/2012 21:34:04
 Dear NM

No offense taken.

HOWEVER....

1) I never stated that it is unexpected for the main shaft to rotate when the wheels spin up.

2) I do not understand how one of the gyros would come up in 'precession' when the main shaft is rotating about an axis that is parallel to the axis of rotation of the wheel. Precession is T = L X w

When T and L have the same direction this equation is patently unusable. A crossproduct always results in a vector perpendicular to the two components of the crossproduct and T is parallel to L.

So while you may have convinced yourself, the physics is unequivocal. This is not expected.

Regards

Report Abuse
Answer: Ravi - 18/08/2012 21:42:47
 Not to mention the fact that if your explanation were true, we would expect both wheels to share the rise equally. You can see for instance at the end of first part of the video that as the wheel speed falls to zero, they come down together at almost the same angle. That one should remain so firmly oriented along gravity and the other at 90 degrees is not explainable with centrifugal force alone as both experience the same centrifugal force.

Sorry NM good try, but I had a similar discussion with my friend over here earlier this week.


Report Abuse
Answer: Harry K. - 18/08/2012 23:26:32
 Hello Ravi,
I see it in same way as you have it explained.
I think this behavior of a prefered rotation around a vertical axis has to do with the stored angular momentum in the wheels. This means, that if the applied torque acts in the same direction as the wheel spin, i.e both movements are for instance CW, then the total resulting angular momentum in the system will be increased what is resulting in NO resistance. However, if the vertical torque will be applied in counter direction to the spin orientation of the wheels, the resulting angular momentum of the system will be decreased! Because of the fact of conservation of angular momentum, the wheels must turn -given by their way of freedom - perpendicular to the plane of applied torque to conserve the stored energy in kind of angular momentum.

This coul be an explanation, but I'm impressed about the fact that they behave in this way. You did a great job in finding this special behavior and maybe this fact could be the key to come ahead, may be not in direction of a propulsion device but in other very interesting aplications!

Gute Nacht!
Harry

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 19/08/2012 22:26:52
 Dear Ravi,

I wondered why this experiment wasn’t understood. I do believe propulsion might be possible, but there is nothing here.

The first part of the video depicts horizontally aliened wheels, with heavy looking motors hanging downward. As the main hub begins rotating, centrifuge begins pushing the motors outward and this lifts the wheel. Once the wheel moves into a diagonal, deflections take over and push the wheel ‘toward’ vertical alignment. ‘Sandy’s ‘forced precession’ takes over and lifts the wheel toward the apex. As the one wheel lifts there is nothing unpredictable happening. Only the shape of the apparatus is different, but all the actions are in accordance with the known behavior of a gyroscope.

There is an additional condition that likely could be explained, but the parameters are not mentioned here. That condition is, the second wheel hesitates before lifting to the plain of the first wheel. There will be a logical answer if all the information is given.

The second part of the video is easier to validate. When gyroscopes are forced to rotate in forced like precession, they tilt diagonally. In this case when the rotational plane of the wheels are themselves rotated in the same plane. . . nothing can happen and everything is in plainer order. There are no deflections happening.

These machines are built neatly, but blindly. They don’t do anything, but toque against themselves. The basic concepts of possible propulsion has been presented by several contributors on this site. This machine type does not display any of them. I think it never can. I am sorry Ravi.
Glenn,


Report Abuse
Answer: Harry K. - 20/08/2012 17:27:19
 Glenn,

You should watch Ravis experiment 7.1 to understand which effect he has discovered.
His last video cannot be understood if you have not seen his experiment 7.1.
Just a hint.
Harry

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 20/08/2012 19:51:35
 Harry,
I looked. What was I looking far?
Glenn,

Report Abuse
Answer: Ravi - 22/08/2012 22:29:41
 Hi Harry, Your explanation was very interesting to read. It kept me busy. I was trying to reconcile what my thought process is, with what you are saying. However, words are often very nebulous tools when discussing the physics of rotation, and I was wondering if we can reduce this to an equation, so we can see what is happening.

You are attempting to explain the situation that happens

Let me state some basics of the situation so we can see that we agree on atleast the basics, before we try to construct an equation.

1. In the beginning, there is no rotation in the system, so nothing is moving. Then I flip the switch and the wheels start spinning.

We have therefore introduced torque/angular momentum into the system. Since the inner-cage (that holds the two wheels) is an isolated system (with friction neglected for now), the inner-cage rotates in the opposite direction to the one in which the wheels rotate.

This way, as the wheels speed up, the inner-cage speeds up in the opposite direction and the net angular momentum of the system remains zero.

With me so far?


And we do see in the initial seconds (up to and including the 5th second of the video) that the inner-cage picks up some speed.

2. But then, at around the 6th second, one of the wheels comes out to 90 degrees and whole inner cage first almost comes to a dead stop and then settles into a steady and slow rotation, with the rotation being even slower than it was at time index 4 seconds or 5 seconds.

Note that at this point the wheels are roaring up to very high speeds, so really any conservation of angular momentum that doesn't appeal to the gyroscopic principle would come up with a much much larger speed of rotation of the inner-cage than what we are seeing.

Further, angular momentum is conserved in a plane, and does not normally apply to activity in multiple planes, the only exception being the gyroscopic effect.

Therefore we are forced to say that what is happening is gyroscopic even if the wheels were covered up with a black box so that we are unable to see if they are spinning.

with me so far?

The problem here is the one I outlined (and I think you agree with me on this) - the fact that the gyroscope equation involves a cross-product and that requires all the three components involved (the applied torque, the wheel angular momentum and the precession direction all be perpendicular to each other.

Further, why does only one of the wheels rise, if we assume that the contra-torque is introducing centrifugal force into the system? Both wheels experience the same centrifugal force and have similar velocities so you would expect them to share the force and rise.



3. Then we introduce a torque into the system via the main motor. This attempts to drive the entire innercage round, but doesn't succeed until the wheels take their 'polarized' positions (i.e. the black wheel motors are positions parallel (or antiparallel) to the central axis.

The introduction of torque into the system, if accompanied by rotation implies energy input into the system. So we know that as the wheel motors go vertical, there is energy being input into the system.

Any analysis of this situation using the conservation of angular momentum would have to involve a single plane at a time (as the law of conservation of angular momentum is restricted to quantitis in the same plane) unless you use the gyroscopic effect which would allow the energy be transferred into a perpendicular plane.


4. Finally when the motors are vertical, the whole innercage starts to speed up really quickly.

It seems to me your reply starts to analyze this situation at point #4, when you say "I think this behavior of a prefered rotation around a vertical axis has to do with the stored angular momentum in the wheels. This means, that if the applied torque acts in the same direction as the wheel spin, i.e both movements are for instance CW, then the total resulting angular momentum in the system will be increased what is resulting in NO resistance."

Am I right?

Further can you please clarify what you mean (which of these points you are analyzing), when you say "However, if the vertical torque will be applied in counter direction to the spin orientation of the wheels, the resulting angular momentum of the system will be decreased! Because of the fact of conservation of angular momentum, the wheels must turn -given by their way of freedom - perpendicular to the plane of applied torque to conserve the stored energy in kind of angular momentum."

At the moment I am guessing this is referring to point # 2, am I right?

Du kannst ja, auf Deutsch reden wann das ist mehr gemuetlich fuer Physik. Ist ja ein bisschen schwerer fuer mich, aber Ich wird versuchen dass zu verstehen, weil Ich wunsche dein theorie zu verstehen.

Viele Gruesse

Report Abuse
Answer: Ravi - 22/08/2012 22:32:40
 Hi Sandy, Thank you for your encouragement and inspiration. Let me say again, without your (and your webmaster's) efforts as well as Eric Laithwaite's efforts, I might have clean passed this by. I salute you for your persistence. I stand on your shoulders, to paraphrase Newton, that great nemesis of gyroscopic physics. :)
If you had not persisted in hunting down the gyros' behavior down dark alleys, I might have still been doing that.


Report Abuse
Answer: Harry K. - 26/08/2012 18:52:58
 Hi Ravi,

I didn't forget you! I will explain more deeper as soon as possible in next week.

Best regards,
Harry

Report Abuse
Answer: Ted Pittman - 27/08/2012 01:46:50
 Very interesting.
But, I believe the gyros must be "vibrated" in some manner to get a net thrust. There are positive reasons for my belief, but the negative reason is:

AS LONG AS THE MECHANISMS ARE SIMPLY SPINNING SMOOTHLY AND THE GEOMETRY OF THEIR MOTIONS DON'T CHANGE, THEN THERE MAY BE NO NET THRUST.

My approach was very similar to the work of Spartak M. Poliakov.
Read "The Monkeybars of Life" for more.


Report Abuse
Answer: Ravi - 27/08/2012 18:27:29
 Hey Harry,

No Problem. Take your time.

Let me go on the record though, in opining that this experiment can be most easily explained by looking at the gyros as the mechanical analogues of electrical inductors.


Report Abuse
Answer: Harry K. - 02/09/2012 14:31:14
 Hello Ravi,

Please apologise my late response but I was very busy last week.
I think it would be impolite to write German in an English forum. If my English explanation should be to poor for you I will send it in German via email.

Please note that the following explanation is based on my way of logical thinking and makes no claim to be complete and true at all.

What is happening in your experiment 8 could be only understand by me after watching your experiment 7.2 "Just playing around...". Thus I suggest for other interested people to watch this video first before watching experiment 8.

Let's begin with initial situation in your experiment 8:

- Gyro motors = 0 rpm
- Hub motor = 0 rpm

1. Spin-up both gyro motors
-> direction of spinning gyro (from top view) = CCW (counter clockwise)
-> direction of rotation gyro-motor = CW (clockwise)
The counter direction of rotation of the gyro motor to the gyros spinning mass also causes the hub to rotate in CW direction, given by the degree of freedom in your experimental set-up.

2. Because of the fact that the gyro spin direction is CCW but the hub rotation is CW, an amount of counter angular momentum to the gyros angular momentum will be caused, i.e. the total angular momentum in your gyro system will be decreased.

Since this counter angular momentum is caused by the gyro system itself, the system is trying to keep the total angular momentum constant and thus - given by the way of freedom in your system - the gyros pivot upwards about 90 degrees around their vertical axis in a way, that the afterwards resulting precession movement (caused by the weight of the gyro motors) is directed in the same direction of rotation as the hub rotation, i.e. in CW direction.

The observation in your video that only 1 gyro pivots about 90 degrees upwards is in my opinion explainable due to deviations of e.g. motor data, geometry of gyros and hub, friction in bearings, etc.

3. Now torque will be inserted into the system by the hub motor which is acting also in CW direction. This torque which is acting in same direction of precessing movement causes the gyros to pivot again upwards around their vertical axis about 90 degrees and in the same pivoting direction as they did before.
Now the gyro motors are on the top and the spin direction of the gyros are now CW and thus identical to the hub's direction of rotation.

The still acting torque at the hub accelerates the rotation around the hub of both gyros, i.e. the total angular momentum in the system will be increased.
As soon as the spin direction of the gyros is identical to the hub’s direction of rotation, the total angular momentum in the system can be increased and the gyros will remain in their horizontal position.

4. Summing up findings
If degree of freedom is given as it is the case in your experimental set-up, then we can state the following conclusions:

a) The counter torque to gyros spin-up torque caused by gyro motors resulting in hub rotation with the same direction of rotation, i.e. in counter direction to the gyros spinning mass.

b) This counter torque causes the gyros to pivot about 90 degrees around their vertical axis.

c) The pivoting direction of the gyros is according the afterwards acting precession movement direction which will be the same direction as the hub rotation direction, i.e. in CW direction in this given example.

d) Is now acting an additional torque caused by the hub motor in the same direction (CW), the gyros will continue their pivoting movement until they reach the position in horizontal plane and thus their spinning direction will be in the same CW direction as the hub's direction of rotation.

e) Because the gyros spin direction is now identical to the hub's direction of rotation, the total angular momentum in the system will be increased.
The still acting counter torque caused by the hub motors will now act inverse and will cause an appropriate decrease of total angular momentum in the system.
Also centrifugal forces caused by the masses of the gyros, their motor drives and hub rotation speed will have an influence on the angular momentum in the gyro system.

f) At last based on your experiment 8 as well as experiment 7.2 it is possible to detect the spin rotation direction of the gyros:

- If the gyros pivoting in vertical plane the spin rotation direction of the gyros is in counter direction to the hub's direction of rotation.

- If the gyros remain in their horizontal position the spin rotation direction of the gyros is identical to the hub's direction of rotation.

Finally I cannot not judge whether this behaviour could be helpful to achieve a gyro propulsion device but with the knowledge of this behaviour it is possible to "switch" a gyro in such an experimental set-up between CW- and CCW spinning rotation direction.


I can also not judge in the absence of knowledge whether there are mechanical analogues of electrical inductors.

Again, if my English diction is to poor to understand, than let me know.

Best regards,
Harry


Report Abuse
Answer: Nitro - 02/09/2012 15:45:48
 Dear Ravi,
In my humble opinion Harry has very good understanding of both English and the present subject. I believe that, as I think I mentioned before, the trigger for the movement of the first gyro to place its axial angle horizontal was probably caused by centrifugal force, acting on its underhung motor, moving it slightly causing its axial angle to no longer parallel the hub axis. This lets precesion do its stuff. That one should take precedence over the other is a common mechanical occurrence were freedom and imponderables exist.
Kind regards
Nitro

Report Abuse
Answer: Ravi - 03/09/2012 15:55:16
 Harry,

Thank you for taking the time to do a detailed analysis of the experiment! I really really appreciate it. Let me also apologize if I caused offense to you by offering you the choice to write in German. My friend and I tried to parse what you said in your earlier post and we had some difficulty following what part of the experiment you were referring to.Thats all. Might have been because you were busy or the idea popped into your head and you were typing it up and its often hard to type as fast as you write.

Ich fuehle dass das ist nur ein Gyro-board, nicht ein Englisches-board. Wir koennen ja, das sprache benutzen was ist nutzlich. Your English is probably better than my German and as English is neither my mother-tongue nor yours, I figured at least one of us can be free to use his mother tongue.

I will write a detailed reply to your analysis shortly.

Nitro, Thanks for your vote of confidence in Harry's English! You really showed me with that one!

Report Abuse
Answer: Harry K. - 03/09/2012 19:27:36
 Dear Ravi,

I am not offended at all. I know how hard it is to explain ideas about such relative complex stuff - also in mother tongue language.
Your German is pretty good and thus I will explain in German language if you feel it's better for you to understand.
I'm very curious to read your thoughts about my layman analysis of your very interesting experiments!

My warmest thanks also to Nitro,

Best regards,
Harry

Report Abuse
Answer: Ravi - 04/09/2012 21:28:20
 Dear Shed dwellers and All,

I'm addressing this to all readers present and future because my argument here rests partially on experimental evidence and partially on theory, with several places where a denier (i.e. someone who has no interest in developing a cohesive theory that integrates mechanics into Electromagnetism by way of gravity, but is simply a technical logician who is working to 'deny' our argument without any interest in the bigger picture) might find enough 'doubt' to cast the truth into the shadows. Since we have some first class deniers right here on aboard I expect this argument to end with us agreeing to disagree!

What drives me is the idea that the simple and elegant Wave Theory can be the basis of explaining the behavior of both mechanical and electrical arrangements. This has concurrences with Gabriel Kron's Generalized Machine Theory in very fantastically synergistic ways. The division of engineering into the separate and specialized study of mechanical machines or electrical or E.M. ones has created a damaging segregation of our thought processes. We need to get rid of this mental block that the they are entirely different fields with their own sets of experts and points of view. Ultimately, to unite gravity with E.M. we need a model that fits all so there is in fact a confluence of these fields that must be modeled and experimented with.


Now, the problems with Harry's reasoning:

a) Harry blithely says "... the gyros pivot upwards about 90 degrees around their vertical axis in a way..." and then adds small print that the reason it isn't happening in my experiments is because of mechanical/electrical defects in the experiment.

Its true only I have in-depth knowledge of the machine's abilities however everyone can see that the wheel frames turn smoothly.

Some more information about the experiments might help clarify the situation. I am able to, at will, change my selection of which wheel comes up and which wheel stays down by changing one single parameter. Can you guess which one it is?

This information goes against the idea that one of the frames is jammed or has lots of friction and the other not, right?

Can anyone produce one geometry of gyros and hub which is reasonably close to this configuration that results in one wheel coming up and one wheel staying down within the bounds of conventional dynamics?

In fact if I'm not mistaken, there is no arrangement of spinning wheels and hub that could explain what's happening, so we have to fall back on the other two (i.e. friction in the bearings or motor data).

Now, the motors are hooked to excellent feedback loop controllers that give +/- 50 rpm of the target speed which comes out to be 1% of 4600 rpm which is too small a fluctuation to cause such a large behavioral difference.

So we are forced to fall back on friction. It is the only technically plausible solution out of the three that Harry can give to the observation. The other two he cited cannot possibly result in this observation.

My new information repudiates the friction claim (videos coming shortly).

We see what Harry did, don't we? He went straight to the textbook, deduced what must happen and tried to simply explain away deviations from the expectations of the textbook.

I can also assure you that a couple of seconds before the torque is applied on the wheels, their speeds are 4000 RPM plus each, so sharing the centrifugal force due to the spin of the inner-cage (holding the two gyros and their frames) should be even between the two sides. It is what I expect when I apply conventional theory to the conditions. We have two independent angular momenta and each is identical to the other in magnitude and direction (relative to the central axis of the machine).

So I expect that they duplicate and trail each other's behavior when a torque about that central axis becomes manifest by whatever means.

b) Let us now come to another, even more important point. So given that the mass of the two wheels is 1/4th of the mass of the inner-cage (when the mass of the wheels is included in the mass of the inner-cage) and that the radius of gyration of the inner-cage is roughly 2 times the radius of gyration of the wheels, a rough calculation says that the MI of the inner cage is 16 times the MI of the wheels.

So if the wheels are rotating at 4600 rpm (~75 r.p. sec) we would expect according to the law of conservation of momentum that the inner-cage would have to rotate at 75/16 = ~4.5 revolutions per sec. Now when you look at what the frame is doing in the seconds before we impose an external torque, its revolving maybe at 1 revolution every 10 seconds and that’s stretching it. So that makes an effective rate of .1 revs per second and thatch 45 times less than the expected rotation rate.

Not only that, we see that its a substantial amount of energy that is trapped in the system and it would take very strong frictional forces to discourage precession in just the one wheel.

Finally, let me say this: When the machine is at 0 rpm and 0 torque, I can move either gyro frame around with just my little finger lightly pressed against it and with no perceptible difference in
resistances.

3. Its interesting the so-called strong frictional force that is holding down one wheel disappears quietly from Harry's theory as soon as the external torque is applied.

Report Abuse
Answer: Harry K. - 05/09/2012 12:52:25
 Hello Ravi,

I’m wondering about your harshly reply. This remembers me a bit on the story of Dr. Jekyll und Mr. Hyde... Maybe it's simply your nature or you are offended about my trials in explaining your experiments. - The last one was not intended by me.
I'm not a "denier" but only try to explain such issues based on my poor knowledge and logical way of thinking.
If you claim that you have found a new theory it's up to you to convince others and not reverse! Only doing practical experiments isn’t a legitimating of being right.
Also you’re playing a bad game if you do not reveal important facts or parameters of your set-up experiments, that is not fair. Yes indeed, only YOU have the in-depth knowledge of the machine's abilities and thus you should reveal this abilities if you expect a useful feedback.

R:" Some more information about the experiments might help clarify the situation. I am able to, at will, change my selection of which wheel comes up and which wheel stays down by changing one single parameter. Can you guess which one it is? "

Yes I can. The only parameter to change should be the point in time when both gyro drives starting their spin-up, i.e. the moment of starting spin-up would not be synchron, however, I assumed a synchrony beginning of spin-up both gyros.

R:"Now, the motors are hooked to excellent feedback loop controllers that give +/- 50 rpm of the target speed which comes out to be 1% of 4600 rpm which is too small a fluctuation to cause such a large behavioral difference."

Why do you think this deviation is too small? It could be enough to disturb the balance in this gyro system!

R:"We see what Harry did, don't we? He went straight to the textbook, deduced what must happen and tried to simply explain away deviations from the expectations of the textbook."

I suggest you to do the same and try to understand what is written in the textbook before claiming own new theories.

R:"I can also assure you that a couple of seconds before the torque is applied on the wheels, their speeds are 4000 RPM plus each, so sharing the centrifugal force due to the spin of the inner-cage (holding the two gyros and their frames) should be even between the two sides. It is what I expect when I apply conventional theory to the conditions. We have two independent angular momenta and each is identical to the other in magnitude and direction (relative to the central axis of the machine)."

How did you prove that each angular momentum is identical to the other?
- Is the spin-up time given by the motors identical for both gyros?
- Are both gyro masses exactly and identically dynamical balanced?
- Is the cage aligned exactly in horizontal plane with a water bubble?
- Is the hub axis aligned exactly in vertical plane with a water bubble?
- Are the structures of hub and cage rigid enough to pretend bendings in any form?

All these factors may have negative influences in the outcoming behavior.

R:"b) Let us now come to another, even more important point. So given that the mass of the two wheels is 1/4th of the mass of the inner-cage (when the mass of the wheels is included in the mass of the inner-cage) and that the radius of gyration of the inner-cage is roughly 2 times the radius of gyration of the wheels, a rough calculation says that the MI of the inner cage is 16 times the MI of the wheels.

So if the wheels are rotating at 4600 rpm (~75 r.p. sec) we would expect according to the law of conservation of momentum that the inner-cage would have to rotate at 75/16 = ~4.5 revolutions per sec. Now when you look at what the frame is doing in the seconds before we impose an external torque, its revolving maybe at 1 revolution every 10 seconds and that’s stretching it. So that makes an effective rate of .1 revs per second and thatch 45 times less than the expected rotation rate."

Given by your data I have calculated the factor 32 instead factor 16. Please double-check your calculation.
Also you did not take into account the MI of the gyro motors, i.e. the housing and stator of the motors which have to be added to the MI of the cage.

Also you compare apples and oranges. During initially spin-up of the motors, i.e. BEFORE one gyro is moving vertically up, the hub rotation is much faster, however it's difficult to measure in this such small period of time. Your stated rate of 0.1 revolutions per second is refers on the hub rotation in precession mode, which is certainly much slower than rotation in spin-up mode.

And also during the initially spin-up the motors have not reached the 4600 rpm. You can hear in the video, that the motors continue their spin-up relative long time AFTER the gyro has pivoted upwards in precession mode! You sure know that you can calculate the spin-up time of your motors by all given data, which however are only known by yourself.

R:"Not only that, we see that its a substantial amount of energy that is trapped in the system and it would take very strong frictional forces to discourage precession in just the one wheel."

This is not a question of the strength of friction but a question of DIFFERENT friction in the wheels which cause one gyro to act earlier than the other gyro! As soon one gyro pivoting upwards, the beginning precession slows down the hub rotation and thus the other gyro did not have any chance to pivot upwards as well. Only if applying additional torque by the hub motor, this gyro gets the ability to pivot upwards in the same manner as the first gyro until both gyros are again in horizontal plane but with reversed direction of rotation.

R:"Finally, let me say this: When the machine is at 0 rpm and 0 torque, I can move either gyro frame around with just my little finger lightly pressed against it and with no perceptible difference in
resistances."

I have no doubts. Please refer to my explanation above.

R:"3. Its interesting the so-called strong frictional force that is holding down one wheel disappears quietly from Harry's theory as soon as the external torque is applied."

Please refer to my explanation above.

Ravi, my congratulations that you find out by experiment that the gyros can be aligned in horizontal plane depending on their direction of rotation. This is fascinating enough and thus you did a great job in your experimental work, well done!

However, your assessments about the fact why only one gyro pivots upwards and not both at the same time are in my opinion cursory.

I will now finish this discussion from my side because I said everything I know regarding this experiment and thus it makes no sense for me to waste more lifetime.
Believe what I have said or let it be. It doesn’t matter.

I wish you good luck and success with your experiments and theories!

Mach's gut!
Harry





Report Abuse
Answer: Ravi - 05/09/2012 17:28:40
 Dear Harry,

Sorry if I hurt your feelings with my robust rebuttal. I only engaged you on technical aspects, not on personal ones so I'm not sure why you'd get all personal and paint me as a nasty Mr. Hyde. I didn't call you nasty. I didn't say you don't know Physics. I didn't say you're ugly or stupid. I find your analysis to be good and elegant according to existing methodologies of analysis of spinning objects.

I simply pointed out that you are working to deny there is anything unexpected about the behavior of the model. As indeed I think you are. Your last post proves as much. I didn't see you offering an overarching theory that helps bring gravity and Electromagnetism together and its fair enough to point that difference out, as it is crucial to why I am pursuing an unlikely avenue.

That my theory has a small probability of being right is a given, when you see the number of people with 'commonsense' who disagree with me even right here on this board. There is no one who agrees with me here. And yes, as you say the burden of proof rests with me and that is exactly why I'm putting my money where my mind is and building and testing models.

I'm sorry but I think you are disappointed that I didn't surrender to your analysis of the situation and that I pointed out issues that are valid that you had not considered.

Let's take your last post for instance. You stated that any of the following could be destabilizing factors

- Is the spin-up time given by the motors identical for both gyros?
- Are both gyro masses exactly and identically dynamical balanced?
- Is the cage aligned exactly in horizontal plane with a water bubble?
- Is the hub axis aligned exactly in vertical plane with a water bubble?
- Are the structures of hub and cage rigid enough to pretend bendings in any form?

Can you prove using regular physics, for instance that if one of the gyro masses is say, 1% off from the other, then the one that is heavier (or lighter) will come up while the other will stay down even while both are spinning at 4000 rpm?(Or if one of the speeds is off by 1%) No. The difference in mass results only in a 1% difference in angular momentum (and a 1% speed difference would result in a 1.2% difference) between the two and the centrifugal force due to the 'counter-torque' should apply to the two in that ratio. Such is the conventional analysis, if I'm not mistaken. Prove me wrong.

Similarly, I challenged you to produce a conventional model where a slight misalignment of the spin axes verses the hub (or each other) would produce this behavior but you didn't because we both know there isn't. Since the angular momenta are vertical (as the wheels start to spin up) and the central axis is vertical, the angular momenta can be 'transferred' to the central axis with no problem for analysis.

Can you prove for instance, that if the cage is not perfectly horizontal but has a 5 degree canter let's say, then as the inner cage rotates and one side of the innercage goes up slightly and then goes down, that the behavior will correspond to the observed behavior of one wheel staying down all the time and the other not at all? No. I don't think so.

In this fashion, detailed examination of your riders shows that they cannot possibly explain the observed behavior. I merely stated that. And you suggested more now and again I say none of them could explain the behavior.

If you are seriously feel offended by this, its only because you're frustruated by the inadequacy of the theoretical tools at your disposal in the analysis of what is a fairly simple experiment resulting in complex behavior and throwing the kitchen sink at it is still not enough to explain it.

Also, regarding the momentum of inertia calculation, 4 times the mass and 2 times the radius of gyration gives an M.I. that is roughly (M*rsquared = 4*2*2=16) 16 times the smaller M.I. Dont know how you got 32. Please let me know. Even at 32, the ratio between forecast and abserved is 1:22 which is still a big difference.

And yes I included the mass of the motors etc when I calculated the mass of the innercage. I actually gave values at the higher limit for the calculation of the momentum of inertia of the innercage as that would result in the lowest possible innercage rotation speed. Just try to calculate for a model with these mass and radius of gyration ratios, what kind of 'counter rotation' is expected to have the law of conservation of momentum hold and you will find that the factors have to be off by quite a bit (indeed either the mass of the innercage has to be 100 times larger or the radius of gyration off by 10 times or some combination thereof, which is patently not the case.

You do realize don't you that when you say " As soon one gyro pivoting upwards, the beginning precession slows down the hub rotation and thus the other gyro did not have any chance to pivot upwards as well. ", you are saying that there is no centrifugal force in the system once one of the gyros has come up (before there is any external torque).

I believe you will find all physics professors will disagree with you. When the one gyro is in precession and the other is down and the inner cage is rotating at a fixed rate, conventional physics says that the gyro that is down will continue to experience centrifugal force commensurate with the precession velocity so yes, it has every chance to use the centrifugal force to go offbalance (as its sister has just done) and then use gravity to come up horizontal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think thats what a regular professor in physics would insist. Laithwaite got into a whole lot of hot water for saying that there is no centrifugal force in the precession plane and so will you. So be careful what you say because there will be a whole lot of people disagreeing with you who are on the other side of you. As for me, I am convinced that there is no centrifugal force in this situation but I sure didn't expect to have you agree with me on that one.

It is also not clear to me what you consider to be good enough about this experiment to congratulate me on, when you say that the one gyro came up only because of regular precession. What's left to be 'fascinated' by when the other simple stayed down due to friction?

Bitte, bleib geduldig! Ich habe kein problem mit dir aber ja ein bisschen Hitze, ein Feuer zu bauen wichtig ist.

Report Abuse
Answer: Harry K. - 06/09/2012 09:45:13
 Hello Ravi,

I'm currently on vacation and thus I can only write via my mobile phone what is a bit uncomfortable. When I am back home I will answer more detailled.
Regarding the calculation of the mass inertia I be is blieve you missed the fact to devide the wheel mass by 2. The formula to calculate the mass inertia of a flat wheel is :
J = m/2 x r x r

Harry

Report Abuse
Answer: Ravi - 10/09/2012 02:14:23
 Have a nice vacation!

Report Abuse
Answer: Ravi - 10/09/2012 02:14:24
 Have a nice vacation!

Report Abuse
Answer: Harry K. - 15/09/2012 14:51:29
 Hello Ravi,

I'm not your adversary or denier but I only want to highlight possibly reasons of the demonstrated behaviour in your experiments and as stated at the beginning I do not claim to be right at all. However, till now your trials to refute my arguments are nonsatisfying.

Let's come back to your experiment 8 Part A.
In the first part of the video one wheel is moving upwards first instead both wheels moving upwards simultaneous.
I think we are in agreement about the general reason of this upward movement. It is caused by the counter spin of the motors (i.e. the stators of the motors) during initial spin up of the wheels.
And now we come to my BELIEF about the reason why one wheel (or both wheels) moving upwards:
- During the spin-up of the wheels, the counter spin of the hub -caused by both motors- is acting against the spin-up of the wheels, i.e. the counter spin decelerates the spin velocity of the wheels.
- Because of the law of conservation of the angular momentum in the system, one or both wheels transform the part of angular momentum, caused by the spin deceleration, into vertical upward movement to leave the horizontal plane to be able to increase their acceleration without counter acceleration.
- the acting centrifugal forces caused by the dead weight masses in the inner cage support this behaviour. However, the centrifugal force is in my opinion to small due to the relative small angular velocity of hub rotation to cause this behaviour mainly.
- Once one or both wheels have moved upwards about 90 degrees, the counter spin of the motors cannot act for the hub rotation anymore and thus the precession movement takes over the hub rotation, which is much slower than the formerly hub rotation velocity caused by the counter spin of the motors.
- In this situation, additional torque around the hub will be inserted into the system, which causes the wheels to continue their upward movement until they are again in horizontal plane but now with the same rotation direction as the the hub rotation. In this situation additional angular momentum can be inserted by the hub motor to accelerate the hub rotation.


I hope you agree so far with the points above, otherwise please provide your arguments against one or more points.

However, you disagree with me regarding the fact that only one wheel but not both wheels at the same time is moving upwards in your experiment.
I stated some possibly reasons, e.g. unbalance, friction, deviations of the drives, etc. but you refused these arguments because you think these deviations could only have minor ore none impacts to the observed behaviour.
I think this is not true. Both wheels can only behave in the same way at the SAME TIME if they are identically in all their properties, e.g. mass, geometrical shape, balanced arrangement, spin velocity, etc. Think on a a beam balance: if both weights or their distance to the pivot deviating only a very little bit, it cannot be balanced.

So if I watch the second part of your video at the time 1:08, I can see that both wheels are not horizontal balanced, i.e. the wheel with the red part is located under the other wheel but they should be located both in horizontal plane. That means that the inner gage isn’t either balanced or the gyro with the red part is heavier than the other.
Also at the end of the video at time 2:35 when the inner cage stops the movement and rests, the gyro with the red part is again in the same bottom position as before.
By the way the gyro with the red part is the one who moves upwards first.

Ravi, I suggest to balance the wheels in the inner cage correctly, to verify all technical parameters and then repeat your experiment. If still only one wheel moves upwards, than I'm wrong and we (or better you) have to find another explanation.

Best regards,
Harry


Report Abuse
Answer: Ravi - 25/09/2012 00:14:11
 I agree to disagree.

cheers

Report Abuse
Answer: Harry K. - 25/09/2012 15:50:12
 It doesn't matter.

Cheers

Report Abuse
Answer: Ravi - 25/09/2012 17:53:05
 Sorry, What doesn't matter? I didn't understand what you're referring to...

Report Abuse
Answer: Harry K. - 25/09/2012 20:42:58
 It is referring to your statement before, Ravi. I don't care that you disagree with me. I tried my best to explain your experiment in my way of thinking and I gave some hints why only one wheel moves upwards in your experiment.
But the only comment from you is that you «agree to disagree».
This subject is now finished for me, sorry.

Good luck!
Harry




Report Abuse
Answer: Ravi - 29/09/2012 00:25:06
 http://relmachine.blogspot.com/2012/09/addendum-to-exp-8a.html

Report Abuse
Answer: Nitro - 29/09/2012 13:01:08
 Hi Ravi,

That’s a doozy, as the USAists say. Only logical reason I could suggest, and its not definitive by any means, is that the axial angle through the gyros is bent by their weight and that when you lift one it expands the axial length on the lifted gyro placing more inward pressure on the other via the horizontal arms causing an axial change on the other gyro. Not really sure why this should make the second gyro lift, though.

What’s is you thinking on why this happens? And, of course, where is this taking you?

Kind regards
NM

Report Abuse
Answer: Ravi - 30/09/2012 13:43:44
 Gyro -> Mechanical Inductor

Qualitative Information: In the experiment, I felt greater resistance when I tried to increase the torque I applied, to turn the wheel sub-assembly horizontal.

This is equivalent to an inductor's behavior - an electrical inductor's inductance depends upon the rate of change of current. I theorized in my blog post (http://relmachine.blogspot.com/2009/06/generalizing-capacitors-and-inductors.html) that the rate of chance of current is the equivalent of rate of change of torque. The behavior is consist with that theory.



Report Abuse
Answer: Nitro - 30/09/2012 16:20:09
 Dear Ravi,

Yes, yes, but what will you do with the knowledge of parallels between a gyro (a mechanical condenser -oops, capacitor sorry old school) and a capacitor. Incidentally did you know that in Faraday’s day it was all big volts/currents and therefor big capacitors. The capacitors had to be big because the conductive foils (plates) were thick and the dielectric was brown paper soaked in fairly insulating sperm whale oil. Why a sperm whale was created with/has evolved one of the best electrically inert oils for its huge, echo sounding, head a God/Darwin alone knows. In his day huge capacitances where needed which is why the unit of capacitance is the “farad”. A one farad capacitor made in his day was the size of a small dustbin (trash can).

Wow! So much useless information but at least its for free!

Kind regards
NM

PS I have found another old video in a loft – Oh! So many lofts! Oh! So much junk! – which shows both the primary and secondary stroke of my gyro impulse drive (See! Captain Kirk got it right all along!). Anyone with a bit of imagination will be able to see how to make my fast repeater – I ask for acknowledgements if they do. As I am old and it may be lost forever I shall put it up on You Tube soon.

Report Abuse
Answer: Ravi - 01/10/2012 03:02:20
 (Reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductance paying special attention to the concept of mutual inductance in the section titled 'coupled inductors')

The analysis of the experiment Addendum to Expt:8A proceeds as follows:

The two mechanical inductors in the circuit of the RelMachine have a strong coupling and therefore a very high mutual inductance, M. In fact this mutual inductance is almost equal to the inductance of a single wheel. That is why when one wheel is rotated, the mutual inductance causes a rotation of the other. Thats why the second wheel moves when the first is rotated.


Report Abuse
Answer: Ravi - 01/10/2012 20:34:26
 Correction: I stated incorrectly above that "an electrical inductor's inductance depends upon the rate of change of current." I should have said "An electrical inductor's voltage response depends on the rate of change of current.

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 09/10/2012 18:00:32
 Hi Ravi,
Sorry for being so slow to respond (staying incredibly busy).
No two snowflakes are exact, and identical tweens are not identical.
Also hand managed experiments are always unwittingly affected by the handler in subtle and sometimes not so subtle ways (the relevance of this statement is verifiable only by observers who have an in-depth understanding of “gyro-mechanics”).

However, your experiment does in fact demonstrate that BOTH gyros cannot “Simultaneously” perform the transition that is performed by ONE single gyro, Ravi.
(Someone else will be needed to argue whether this “transition-phenomena” should be attributed to the same causes as those of electrons in an atom; it may or it may not.)

I will say that the observed “phenomena” will occur even if the two components were constructed “Exactly” the same to the millionth of an ounce.
Is someone asking why?
The reason is that (as long as the main hub motor is NOT turned on) each gyro assembly unit is expected to produce the CAUSE, as well as to be the recipient of the EFFECT… (Ponder a bit).

The gyro(s) rotation provide the sole initial CAUSE for hub rotation, which provide the tilting torque, and the gyro(s) are also the units that respond with the EFFECT from the tilting torque.
It is not possible for a single ONE of these mechanical units to “Simultaneously” cause the torque and respond to the self-created torque.
So, what is going on?
Well, even “exactly built” components CANNOT be positioned in exactly the same manner or spun at the exact same rate.
Yes, under the confines of the experiment, even the slightest difference will cause one “exact” gyro to respond before the other.
I hope my statements were clear to all concerned.

Best Regards,
Luis G

Report Abuse
Answer: Ravi - 09/10/2012 22:21:09
 Luis, Always a pleasure.

Can you clarify the following part of your expatiation:

You said "It is not possible for a single ONE of these mechanical units to "Simultaneously" cause the torque and respond to the self-created torque.
So, what is going on?"

Thank You

Report Abuse
Answer: Momentus - 11/10/2012 10:57:32
 Well done Luis, an excellent explanation of a complex reaction. I had considered posting but gave up on trying to explain why only one gyro will lift. You have done that well

The concept of feedback amplifying an action might help Ravi to understand your post.

The instant one gyro starts to move then that is precession and there exists a torque which will try to stop the rotation of the cage, slowing it down. The second gyro cannot pop up at this slower speed.

Once the gyro starts to precess, then the rotation of the cage becomes precession. There is however no gravity couple at this point in time to provide this precession. The full inertial torque of the rotating cage precesses the single gyroscope up, almost bringing the cage to a stop before the gravity couple has an effect. (You see this in the video).

Second video where the hands come in? If only Laithwaite had used a match, like Nitro. Hands on experiments should not be taken literally. Once you touch it the experiment is contaminated.


Report Abuse
Answer: Ravi - 15/10/2012 19:04:15
 In any case, I only have the answer I gave Harry. Let's agree to disagree.

I don't see how an asymmetry of the kind you describe could lead to symmetric behavior in the Addendum to Experiment 8A video. Both sides shows identical behavior in identical circumstances. That's a symmetry. Can you cite an example of how an asymmetry leads to symmetric behavior? I'll even take a mechanical one if you have it.

My Electromagnetic theory of Mechanics is able to do an excellent job of shows a) why only one wheel came up (combined inductance is half of total inductance contained) and also b) why the behavior is symmetric - its because their fields are coupled. Each can be the primary or the secondary of an equal turns transformer for instance.





Report Abuse
Answer: Ravi - 15/10/2012 19:08:33
 I call it an Electromagnetic theory of mechanics but what it really is, is a generalized theory of mass and charge (along with the concept of field) that encompasses gravitational and electromagnetic and mechanical properties of spacetime.

Report Abuse
Answer: Luis Gonzalez - 30/10/2012 18:58:09
 Hi Ravi,
Multiple different theories (e.g. yours) may very well explain the relevant phenomena in a self-consistent manner (e.g. wave/particle theories).
A theorist’s failure to perceive successful explanations derived through the widely accepted paradigm, can work against an emerging theory’s credibility.

A theory proponent must be able to accept the reality regarding which phenomena the ruling paradigm is capable of explaining consistently, before becoming truly ware and able to identify what the old paradigm is in fact not able to explain; and then must prove it experimentally and without doubt, in order to gain acceptance.

Your demonstration is excellent but does not establish yours as the unique explanation.

Regards,
Luis G.

Report Abuse
Add an Answer >>
Website. Copyright © 2024 Glenn Turner. All rights reserved. site info
Do not copy without prior permission. Click here for gyroscope products