|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
29 November 2024 00:46
|
|
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: |
Hi Ho Hi Ho Its off to the salt mines I go. . . Again |
| Question: |
I have come to believe that Sandy Kidd's machine does not force downward on the pivot/hub center as the wheel curves upward. It is a kind of free vertical lift. Mass is displace upwards to a new point within the machine. Tests would indicate that if the wheel were detached during it's rise it would continue traveling upwards and the remaining machine, though losing mass would experience no equal and opposite reaction. It would be like a gun firing without a recoil. In this instant his construction of the machine dose not detach, but remains held together and only the center of mass has been changed.
Let us start our reasoning from this new point of wheel height. When the wheel would be forced downward by any means it would displace the center of mass actually causing lift. However, when the wheel crashed downward, ultimately stopped by the earth, the momentum would be equal and opposite to the previous height gained in the 'free' rise. There would be no advantage to that.
“In would be like a Mexican jumping bean in space. It would go nowhere.”, Dr. Georg von Tiesenhausen, NASA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_von_Tiesenhausen
However consider, what if the earth were not there. Then the momentum would drive the machine downward, forward forever coasting. However, also consider if there were no earth there would be no free gravity to pull the wheel downward. The force to do that would have to come from the machine itself and that of course would result in equal and opposite reaction and there would be no advantage to that.
Now to the paragon. If the wheel lunged upward, were slightly unhinged as it lunged and it's momentum freed to deliver into a collision, then you would get inertial propulsion. The collision would carry the machine. It would not matter that reloading the wheel to a lower position to begin another upward stroke would cause equal and opposite reactions, I. e. the Mexican jumping bean.
You would receive the advantage of the earlier 'free' vertical lift. . . propulsion. This is a hypothetical.
I'm finished for a while. The salt mines await.
Glenn, |
| Date: |
28 December 2012
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 28/12/2012 19:37:41
| | | Then I am torn between the idea that because the rising wheel must go against gravity, the torque will reverse and apply force down on the pedestal/hub center, canceling out everything I concluded just now (above).
I can say this: The gyroscope has driven PhD’s and doctors nuts for over twenty years, from England to Russia and everywhere else. In a way it is a horrible thing to contemplate. It eats up one's time and mind and yields no finality and ultimate conclusion.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 30/12/2012 19:40:25
| | | Hello Glenn old friend.
I notice you have not as yet decided to give up on this thing.
Noticed your comment that you do not think my device pushes down on the hub centre.
The device does the opposite Glenn, it is the downward movement of disc or flywheel reacting to the device (some say good old Newton) which creates the equal and opposite upward thrust on the hub.
The trick is getting the disc up there in the first place, in a position to create a reaction, without Sir Isaac getting in the way.
A few, no many postings ago, I submitted a letter, or article if you wish, relating to “defaulted” or indirect action.
What I was trying to say without giving it all away is that a gyro, disc, whatever, call it the active gyro, disc, cannot produce inertial thrust on its own, whatever, is done to it, which we all know by now, but can be made to deliver thrust if used to alter the relative position of another part of the device by default.
(Incidentally in case you are curious the other part does not necessarily have to be another gyroscope)
I never ever claimed that the active gyro in a case like this contained more energy than the part of the device being moved.
Everything required to produce the effect has been posted on this forum in many posts many times.
I suppose it takes too big a leap of faith to believe or try to understand my claims and I can sympathise with that but what the hell “c’est la vie”
Fight the good fight Glenn,
Best regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 03/01/2013 19:07:05
| | | Hou's aw wi ye, Sandy?
How delighted I was to see that Sandy Kidd is responding. Sandy, I am sending you some warm weather I saved up from my visit to the Gulf Stream in the Florida Pan Handle. Get ready! I know you can use it : )
Actually I have redesigned for a better way and I am thinking of redesigning yet again. I hope so much that I will settle on something and finish this once and for all.
.
Pardon me as I rephrase you. Tell me if I get it wrong.
Sandy: “. . . it is the downward movement of . . . the flywheel . . . which creates the equal and opposite upward thrust on the hub.”
Glenn: “To each his own my friend. : )”
Sandy: “. . . the active gyro, disc, cannot produce inertial thrust on its own, whatever, . . . but can be made to deliver thrust if used to alter the relative position of another part of the device by default.”
Glenn: “Yes, yes! I understand.”
Sandy: “. . . the other part does not necessarily have to be another gyroscope.
Glenn: Yes. Agreed again.”
c’est la vie, indeed! We've always agreed on the important things, yet not everything. My favorite Scotsman- - I am trying. Thank you for encouraging me and the same to you. Let's get 'er done my buddy!
Best Regards, Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
