|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
29 November 2024 00:38
|
|
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: |
Nitro |
| Subject: |
a demonstration of mass displacement without external application of a force... |
| Question: |
Hi everyone,
Yes! I can hear some of you saying WTF now!
But, if you want to see where the future - perhaps not yours or mine, but our children’s - is gong to come from, please have a look at the link below and try and understand why, though simple, understanding this is so important.
Newton was brilliant (though a bit barmy) and his laws have been shown to be amazingly sound for over three hundred years. However (you knew there was going to be a however – didn’t you?) in more than one area, his laws were incorrect and/or incomplete. The link, below, to my simple U-tube video shows this.
The genuine scientists and those who have a genuine curiosity in all things will still be here. The rote repeaters, the fakers, those unable to innovate and the copiers will be leaving/have left. Bye, Bye guys and girls (are there girl this nerdy?) and thank you for getting this far. To the rest; I thank you, as will your understanding as soon as it realises that there really were some facts missed by those three laws that will affect the future. And think of this:- you will be amongst the very few who are starting to grasp this knowledge after a wasted three hundred and twenty six years (since Newton’s Principia was published). You may be able to tell your grand children that “I believed that – way, way back before the Rutherford labs or Royal Society even tried to understand it!”
Go see the U-tube clip below now – its basic, what else - but it gives a simple demonstration of “mass displacement from within” that if you have a child’s toy, you can check for yourself......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNHxSYYMd-Q
For those working in the same field (bloody cold out here in the winter, isn’t it?) my “fast repeater” is going to take little time (it’s a bar steward getting the ratio between weight and strength right. If only Colin Chapman were still with us!) and I know some have struggled to accept what my “single shot” was showing. So I am putting this simple demonstration video up, partly to stiffen my resolve to finish the “fast repeater” and partly to help those who still haven’t accepted that there is a way round Newton’s laws if you have vision, imagination, a piece of string and, of course, a ball valve float. Hope you like it.
Any questions please ask
kind regards
Nitro (NM)
|
| Date: |
14 February 2013
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 15/02/2013 15:24:24
| | |
Hello Nitro,
Actually so far as I can see, the third law remains correct throughout your demonstration, but you are obviously correct in that the first law of motions is altered in your video. That is significant enough to get my attention. Well done. Very well done. You of all people know perfectly well that you can do the same with a gyro on a string swinging pendulum-like back and forth. However by having the clever insight to put the gyro inside the ball, the visual effect and your statements becomes clearer and the result more immediately inarguable. The direction of equal and opposite reaction is changed to travel in new linear directions and this by an internal force as you prove. Yea Nitro! Your demonstration received no external force to cause it to do what it did and that is in fact contrary to the third law of motion. Thank you for the show and explanation. Keep on keeping on!
Best Regards, Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 16/02/2013 16:10:10
| | | Hi Nitro,
Thanks for the great video (in it you look much more as I had visualized “Nitro MacMad” would look like).
I recently completed a study and analysis (equations inclusive) of the proverbial gyro on a string, as demonstrated by Laithewaite’s Christmas Lecture #9 (and other demos).
I am currently thinking about a catchy title for my post on this matter.
Your work on this quest is highly valued.
But, with all due respect, I must say that the interesting results from your experiment at “http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNHxSYYMd-Q” are caused by “External Influence” (which means that we can happily announce that the basic rules of motion remain intact).
In a few moment you will see how that is so.
(I thought of letting Blaze or Harry have a go at it, but my greed for personal glory won.)
So here it is:
1 - The initial pendulum-motion is not purely linear
2 - The Curvature in the motion produces a mild “Tilting-Torque” when combined with Gravity’s force, and so it causes precession in the enclosed gyro (and we are aware how precession can induce an orbiting arc)
3 - The curvature in the pendulum-motion cannot exist without the “EXTERNALLY attached Swing-Pivot” which introduces the necessary “Centripetal-Acceleration” to prevent the pendulum-motion from being Truly Linear
We can probably dispense with accelerations and decelerations occurring at the swing-extremes, as these resulting forces are not necessary for the net effect that the interesting experiment displays (not that these peripheral forces may actually be useful to cause other interesting effects).
Look for my upcoming posting regarding interpretation of interesting behaviors of gyros on strings.
We have seen the results of gyros on a string but only Momentus (I believe) has come close to start explaining the resulting motions, which do not seem to adhere to any of the presented theories. (There is a classical explanation.)
Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Albert Druid - 16/02/2013 16:55:28
| | | hey lu - great work - yure explainin is clear but i think most will mis the point
Al
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 16/02/2013 17:22:31
| | | Hi Luis,
Oposite reaction? Where?
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 16/02/2013 17:28:27
| | | Hi again Luis,
First law? Where?
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 16/02/2013 17:52:39
| | | Hi Nitro,
“Oposite reaction? Where“
The door casing = the Earth, where the string is fixed.
Unfortunately to small to notice.
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 16/02/2013 18:31:16
| | | Hi Luis,
So you are saying that the straight string is somehow pushing against the hook in the opposite direction to the displacement of the pendulum. Hey! Without trying I've invented non bendable string. I bet Mike Marsden could have used some of that. Oh! Did he?
Sorry Luis but the words "straws" and "clutching" leap to mind.
Perhaps it would help if you reread the first and third laws again.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/02/2013 18:38:13
| | | Luis G.,
I am sorry, but you are wrong.
Firstly, unless you cause a sideways/rotating action, no mater how you let lose a pendulum it will swing in a straight arc line.
Secondly, if you let lose a strong gyro from a long string to swing pendulum like in a wide arc, it will curve like hell.
Thirdly, two such gyroscopes attached by a rigid rod in space can be made to move back and forth in pendulum like motion. Such a self-contained gyros system would rotate and change the direction of the pendulum arcs.
Gravity is vertical. No mater where the plum bob on the pendulum swings, the force is straight down. Gravity is the engine. It is not the cause of curve in the action. It is the internal nature of an acting gyro can very sharp curves. The swing is S shaped, with a pronounced J-stroke at the end of each swing.
The first law of motion has been recently altered.
THE PAST DEFINITION:
"Newton's First Law of Motion states that an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless an external force acts upon it."
Here the law would deny what Nitro’s experiment did.
NASA’S ALTERED DEFINITION:
Every object persist in a state of rest, or uniform motion in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed on it.
Here NASA's altered law permits Nitro’s experimental results. Where does ‘impressed force’ come from?; the outer, also the enter possibly? The altering force isn’t stated to be only external any more.
NASA knows about gyroscopes and that in the very large and the very small, the first law does not hold true. They are kind of sneaky about messing with Newton, yes? It has been estimated that his I. Q. was ‘200’ which is the highest known to man. NASA just helped him and Nitro out a little bit.
A last observation: The arc of the pendulum is of course curved. The forward swing curves. The rearward swing curves in the opposite direction. All motion associated with the gyroscope seems is curved. In the end Nitro’s experiment acts within the circle of its mass and length of string. It does not turn circular motion into linear motion beyond it’s confines, such as Blaze’s experiment actually does. Nitro’s internal motions however; are what powers Blaze’s experiment.
Kind regards,
Glenn
Hi Harry ; ) Good to see you. Kind regards to you too; bless you.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 16/02/2013 19:28:59
| | | Hi All.
Please look at this site for the translation of the original Newton's Laws.
http://jamesbrennan.org/physics/notes/Force/axioms.htm
In this translation of the original writings the first law is stated as follows:
"Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon."
best to all,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/02/2013 20:48:32
| | | Yes Blaze, but did you read the post above? I beat you to it.
NASA’S ALTERED DEFINITION:
Every object persist in a state of rest, or uniform motion in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed on it.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/newton1g.html
It does not mention the idea of 'outside forces', as do the old definitions you can find a-plenty on the internet.
Best regards Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/02/2013 20:55:47
| | | Pardon me all. I am getting off subject, because I say too much. The point is, this thread is an argument either against, or far the 1st law, not that we must accept the 1st law as the unquestioning authority, without exception, or reservation.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 16/02/2013 22:45:21
| | | Hi Glenn. The point I was making is that NASA did not alter Newton's first law. It is almost exactly the same as it was originally written by Newton.
NASA Definition:
Every object persist in a state of rest, or uniform motion in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed on it.
Newton's Definition (from a translation of the original writing of the first law):
"Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon."
It is the same thing except that NASA uses some slight wording changes that are inconsequential to the meaning.
NASA didn't change the definition.
IF (and that is still a big IF) there was ever some "wiggle" room in the first law, it was always there, right from the beginning.
best to all,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 16/02/2013 22:48:50
| | | Hi Nitro,
I don’t remember having mentioned the “first law” (please check), as the first law refers only to items in straight-line motion, and pendulum do Not have “Straight-Line” motion (at all).
The curve in pendulum motion is determined by the fixed length of the string, which curves the motion through “Centripetal-Force” provided by the tensile strength of the cord.
Gravity plays its role but I will leave that one to your own intellects for now, as the complicated explanations require well thought-out writing, otherwise could be argued for years to come.
Regarding “opposite reaction” Nitro, that’s a much better question (what does happen to the 3rd law?).
This involves more than a simple answer and perhaps I will be able to explain it better after I start a new thread regarding the interesting behaviors of gyros on a string.
Of course the basic answer is that the opposite reaction is external, as Harry indicated.
I know we will endeavor to bring this to some conclusion, but it will take some time and cooler heads must prevail.
Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/02/2013 23:19:09
| | | Hi Blaze,
Thank you for checking. Then whatever wiggle room might be derived from ‘impressed’ as a usage of an idea, is from the creator of the law himself; not from the many translations, even here, which added the idea of ‘exterior force. God! what an incredible man. He did not neglect to say ‘external force’. He knew precisely what he said and exactly what he meant. Had he had been 100% certain, he would have closed the door completely. This means a lot to me. Now I think I will apply myself to something more productive for a while. Wish me luck.
Best to all,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 17/02/2013 17:40:48
| | | Hi Nitro,
Please permit me to provide the basic version as to where the actions-and-reactions “ARE”.
I use the “Plural” because it is important to discern that the action-reaction pairs must be acknowledged to occur in sets of 2… per “Cycle”.
To illustrate, consider 2 individuals bouncing a mass back-and-forward along the length of a cylinder in space.
(Note that equal-and-opposite Events occurs at Each end of the cylinder.)
Let’s be Very Clear, the above illustration “IS NOT Parallel” to the Pendulum Action in Nitro’s experiment!
It does however occur crosswise “Inside” the object at the end of the string. Keep that in Mind…
Now visualize the “Cylinder” illustration occurring “CROSSWAYS” to the pendulum-swing, AND the Action-Reaction pairs occurring “Near the End” of each pendulum-swing (not necessarily during the exact the end of each swing).
Is that still difficult to visualize?
Can anyone not see how the swing is modified by the internal crossways motion of the mass?
The above mental experiment should clearly demonstrate that gyroscopic action is not necessary for the effect demonstrated in Nitro’s experiment.
The gyro merely facilitates building a device that can carry it through.
In conclusion:
1. Straight-line motion does Not exists in the presented experiment (thanks for the review of Newton’s “First Law”, which refers to straight-line motion in the original and newer versions)
2. Action-Reaction pairs are properly maintained in the experiment, as well (even though straight-line motion is not mentioned in Newton’s original “Third Law”)
The Classical Rules of Motion remain Intact.
Most Important NOTE:
The exact effect of Nitro’s experiment could not be duplicated without the restrictions placed by its attachment to the planet, albeit through a mere string (i.e. the space cylinder cannot be made to perform all of the combined actions in Nitro’s experiment, unless the cylinder can be made to move through the curvature of an arc, in a properly aligned and synchronized manner etc.).
I will leave that proof to each individual’s own enjoyment…
Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Hewitt Casper, or just plain Glenn - 17/02/2013 20:18:21
| | | To all,
As to the basic versions above, not any of it is correct.
1.) Bouncing balls in capsules will cause the capsules to osculate back and forth. The center of mass and the center of gravity however; always remain in exactly the same space with respect to the combined mass' state of rest, or of uniform motion. After each collision; the inside ball, and the shell of the capsule, bounce equally and oppositely with respect to their mass. Outside this realm, nothing changes.
2.) If one ties a string to the center of the above cylinder and swings it pendulum like, with the ball inside bouncing crosswise, the action will not rotate the cylinder.
3.) I do not know of any means to rotate the cylinder from within except with a gyroscope.
4.) The straight-line motion in Nitro’s show was from the perspective of a top-view, not side-view, as surely he thought everyone would understand. The perspective's view is used in art and math: in 2 dimensional design, particularly in the 2-d cad cam Cartesian coordinate system. Nitro’s meaning and usage is pretty common.
5.) The Laws of Motion are certainly being questioned at this site, that is what the site is all about, though perhaps nowhere else.
6.) All the actions of Nitro’s device demonstrated, can be done in space without a tether to the earth. By attaching two such devices together with a ridged rod. There would me some motion mechanics to design, but a first year engineering student could do that. I could. Probably you could also.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 17/02/2013 20:39:47
| | | Hi all
MACPHAIL'S PENDULUM
Thank you all for your input but firstly an apology to Luis for my thinking Harry’s mail was his and for getting shirty when I felt my baby was being attacked. Though, what did you mean, Luis, that I look “much more as I had visualized Nitro MacMad would look like”? I was given the name by members of a motor racing club I belonged to many years ago because I used to force feed a 1275 Cooper S with Nitromethane/methanol. I suppose I must have grown to look like my name; rather like dog owners tend to look like their dogs. I may look slightly better in the “Jogglevision” Video of me showing off my old Triumph 5TA taken before I became hirsute in November for charity.
I must keep telling myself that knowledge is everybody's baby. Any new knowledge is only on (usually very temporary) loan. I have started to put up the odd video - yes I know; very odd – to try and justify my belief that there is something very interesting waiting just beyond Newton’s “final frontier” and I worry that I might shake off this mortal coil before I recomplete the “fast repeater”. Like I said before:- three hundred and twenty six years is too long for science to still be missing this.
I was first taken to the fantastic Science Museum in London as a child between, I think, the ages of six an eight, for a birthday treat. Coincidentally I had received a toy gyro (a Tedco one I am sure) amongst that year’s presents. It was because of that coincidence that I first learned of Foucault's pendulum (an example of which swung with silent majesty in the foyer of the museum) and was told how it was obeying the immutable laws of Newton. Within a few hours of getting home, opening my presents and playing with my new gyro I had the same uneasy feeling of betrayal I had had when I found that everyone had lied about Father Christmas.
Yes the “MacPhail’s pendulum” (if Foucault can have an bog-standard pendulum named after him....... Incidentally Foucault did not invent the gyroscope; he merely named it. And a bloody typically, stupid, French name it is too! Did you know that the official French crappy name for a video recorder is “un magnetoscope”? Needless to say the French all call it “un video”.) follows a curved path and is, via its string, “fixed” to the door frame, (the door frame is optional and ideally requires a house that is due for demolition and a patient wife who lets one into the house when the shed is too cold) via that to the world and arguably thence to the universe. However (here I go again with the “howevers”), Newton’s observations of orbits lead to his first law that a body will remain at rest or continue in (straight line) motion until and unless a force acts upon that body, the second law which guides to the amount of force required to produce a given amount of acceleration to a body of a given mass (I almost put weight there – silly sod!) and the third law which effectively tells us not to be so bloody stupid as to try to look for inertial propulsion from within a body.
THE IMPORTANT BIT.......
......................
That an orbiting body is on a curved path shows there is an inward force (gravity, if I remember aright) that is in exact *equilibrium to the centrifugal force of the orbiting body. If it were wished to change the orbital path of the body it would be necessary to apply another force in addition to gravity to achieve such a change. So far so good?
A pendulum, just like an orbiting body, is a body in equilibrium with gravity (the force of gravity exactly in equilibrium with the opposing force provided by its string, hook, door frame world etc.) and its swing path, just like the path of an orbiting body, cannot be altered without the application of a force. “MacPhail’s pendulum” simply demonstrates that it is possible for that required force to be produced from within the body.
......................
As I have shown in earlier, equally crude, videos (at least they don’t joggle too much and are in focus and the titling is superb!) it is possible to produce this internal force without a pendulum by using rotation. It doesn’t take a genius (or does it?) to figure out that by balancing out the torques of rotation by using counter rotation it will be possible to produce this internal force without requiring a doorframe, a hook, a piece of string, wheels to support it or an air table to run on – though you could nail it to the platform of an orbiting craft if you thought it might serve some useful purpose!
I have just noticed, Luis, that you have put up your theory as to what happens; good but no cigar! Perhaps some actual practical, experiment work would help?
Kind regards
NM
*In exact equilibrium now, since stuff has mostly finished banging into the other, bigger bits of stuff – except Russia it seems.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 18/02/2013 03:18:11
| | | Hi Nitro,
Thanks for recognizing that we are all subject to human foibles, limitations and subject to confusion from time to time. (Did not realize you were handing out cigars but then…, I don’t smoke.)
The theory I presented is merely analysis based on classical mechanics, and it is performed to interpret results derived from all available practical experiment work.
Each man performs his own different experiments, which reveal different discoveries. However, correct interpretation separates truth from myth.
My apology, as I did not realize how attached you are to your own interpretations, or as you call them your baby…
Your theory must be quite good and based on a strong foundation.
I am sure everyone would benefit from it, and they must be curious to hear something about it (…I am).
Perhaps your theory originated from your early-age experience with pendulums and gyros, as you mentioned.
My personal preference at the Science Museum in London was Babbage’s Difference Engine.
You seem to agree that your pendulum never travels in a straight line but it’s not clear whether you agree or disagree that your experiment has nothing to do with the First Law. Which is it?
Also, I am not able to determine what portion(s) of my explanation you don’t agree with, or do you disagree with every single statement I presented?
I aso can’t help wondering, do you agree with all statement by others on this subject?
I suppose we can… agree to disagree, as it will all become clear eventually.
Best Regards,
Luis G
Oh yes, the name Nitro MacMad evokes images of a fully bearded Scotsman performing Caber Toss in the Scottish Highland Games. The previous video did not reflect that image as much as this last one does.
By the way, I have always enjoyed traveling through your fair land.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 19/02/2013 23:59:39
| | | Sorry people I seem to have put this before as a general question instead of putting it here - clumsy sod!
Hi again all,
Pull up a cosy chair, pour yourselves a beer and get comfy.....
MACPHAIL’S PENDULUM
........................................
Ravi, Blaze Minor, and you scruffy lot in the back; sit up straight and pay attention. That includes you Harry K! And Sandy Junior; I hope that is not gum you are chewing!
Luis, you’re a good didactic argumentalist but you seem to need explanations from others in the school with better maths on Newtonian physics than I have. Blaze? Momentus? Anyone?
OK Luis, as I am unable to move far from the computer at the moment I will play didactic games for now.............
Further to the points you first made:-
“1 - The initial pendulum-motion is not purely linear”
No kidding! This could possibly be because it’s a bloody pendulum!
“2 - The Curvature in the motion produces a mild “Tilting-Torque” when combined with Gravity’s force, and so it causes precession in the enclosed gyro (and we are aware how precession can induce an orbiting arc)”
Yes! But the point is:- do you really think that such mass displacement caused by the “mild tilting force” complies with the third law? i. bloody well e.:- Where is the opposite mass displacement required to comply with the third law?
And don’t be like Harry K (The door casing = the Earth, where the string is fixed. Unfortunately to small to notice.) and go for the Mass of the world is moving a tiny bit, too small to notice crap. If you did the proper observation homework before throwing up such nonsense you would have realised that the world is being moved (that tiny bit) in the same direction as the pendulum’s displacement. A pure anomaly outside Newton, unless you think that you can push something with a piece of string? So no cigar for you either Harry.
“3 - The curvature in the pendulum-motion cannot exist without the “EXTERNALLY attached Swing-Pivot” which introduces the necessary “Centripetal-Acceleration” to prevent the pendulum-motion from being Truly Linear”
Yes! But see answers to 1. and 2. above and a further simple description to help you, below. And, do you think that Newton’s laws do not apply to orbiting bodies because, last time I looked, they don’t go straight either? Or does Newton only not apply if planets are fixed by a string to a hook to a door frame (casing) etc., etc.?
My understanding is that the fundamental maths and observations of pendulum law were laid down by Galileo way before Newton, which is presumably why there is only passing reference to a pendulum in the Principia. Newton was a plagiarist but he would not risk stealing ideas that were in common knowledge by his time.
“MacPhail’s pendulum” is the simplest form of mass displacement device that I can think of and thus the reason for me using it to try and get you lot to understand first principles. Though if you had paid attention and worked harder on your homework we wouldn’t have to go over first principles again.
Putting standard pendulum motion as simply as I can:-
Once set in motion a pendulum will not alter from its straight “swing “ path (see Newton, Galileo, Foucault etc.) unless a force is applied to it to change its swing path. So; that part of a pendulum’s motion is a, surely simple to understand, variant of the first law.
The second law gives its accelerations and decelerations (while Galileo's equations gives that its period depends on its “string” length and, if you want to be very pedantic or are designing an accurate grandfather clock, the strength of gravity).
The third law gives that the action of the weight (or mass if preferred) and the opposing reaction (which are proportional to the relative masses of the pendulum and, via a hook, the Earth) on the top pivot at each point of its swing.
A pendulum’s motions are thus all part and parcel of those prescribed by Newton’s laws of motion. The laws of motion do not cease to apply because an object is swinging instead of traveling in a straight line in space (if that is possible) any more than they cease in the case of an orbiting body; indeed Newton’s three laws of motion can be found used all over academia to describe the pendulum’s or the orbiting body’s motions, as well as straight line motion, by much smarter people than me.
HOWEVEREVEREVER; Newton’s laws of motion most certainly do not explain – no matter how you try and “square the circle” with the maths, Luis – why the pendulum shown in the video (or why my “one shot” machine shown in earlier videos) displaces mass from an internal mechanism. You would have to completely sod up at least the first and third laws of motion to explain it. Your assertion, that this kind of mass displacement cannot be achieved without “attachment” to the Earth is wrong because it can. It is possible, though unnecessary, to build an experimental model that, as in the case of John Harrison’s fabulous clock, can easily replace gravity with a/some spring/s with the unwanted torques countered by contrarotation. Thus the same type of mass displacement could easily be demonstrated, even in weightless orbit. A nice example of this type of clock mechanism can be seen here:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fOX8CYPFNs
Perhaps you would care to put up a demonstration video Luis, of the cylinder device you described which, you say, will give the same mass displacement effect without a gyro. I think you’ll find your idea to be a total non starter unless Newton’s laws cease to apply just because a mass is being shifted in a cylinder. Love to see a video of that one, or any of your experiments you care to show us.
You may want to look again, with cynicism by all means but without your preconception hat on, at:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNHxSYYMd-Q
It shows all that is needed to see something that needs new maths to explain what I have said before shows: “Loads of the equal but not all of the opposite”. If you don’t agree you will have to wait and hope I will last long enough and retain my faculties and interest to finish the fast repeater.
THE REALLY UNIMPORTANT BIT
.......................................
Luis, I am knackered and cannot be arsed to itemise and properly, politely, answer all of your later, scatter gun, dismissive questions – but here is my, half arsed, best shot:-
“My personal preference at the Science Museum in London was Babbage’s Difference Engine.”
Perhaps you should have stood and studied the Foucault pendulum in the foyer, instead of Babbage’s useless difference engine, it may have helped you with the present subject. You must have visited very much later than I as, to my memory, there was only an incomplete, boring, display of a heap of gear bits that looked like a stripped down bus gearbox next to an even more boring panel of words. I have an old, beautiful, Olivetti mechanical adding machine that is as fiendishly complex as Babbage’s but it was useful, works and is portable. Cannot do Infinitesimals, of course, but then nor could the bits Babbage left incomplete. No way was Babbage’s machine a forerunner of the computer as is often claimed. A Lyonnais, Jacquard, weaving machine from 1725 is a true forerunner of the computer though, complete with punched card program. Hollerith and IBM were much later copiers.
“You seem to agree that your pendulum never travels in a straight line but it’s not clear whether you agree or disagree that your experiment has nothing to do with the First Law. Which is it?”
I am sorry I thought that even a pedantic rote chanter would understand that the straight line swing referred to in the video was “the straight swing line” of a pendulum. I apologise for crediting you with better understanding. The experiment shown in the video, I am sure with sufficient clarity for most people, has everything to do with the first law and the second law and the third law but also with something else.
“Also, I am not able to determine what portion(s) of my explanation you don’t agree with, or do you disagree with every single statement I presented? I also can’t help wondering, do you agree with all statement by others on this subject?”
That sounds like a “when did you stop beating your wife” question. Also, I would probably try and answer this if I were less weary and I also could be bothered.
“I suppose we can… agree to disagree, as it will all become clear eventually.”
No! I suppose we cannot! I can only agree that you are wrong with your cylinder nonsense. “It”, is already very clear.
“Oh yes, the name Nitro MacMad evokes images of a fully bearded Scotsman performing Caber Toss in the Scottish Highland Games.”
I have never lived in Scotland but I have been known to toss the occasional caber, and I do sometimes visit the family’s croft in Mull.
“By the way, I have always enjoyed traveling through your fair land.”
I doubt you have travelled through my fair land as I live in the Channel Islands.
Like I said before Luis; good but no cigar. Just as well that you don’t smoke.
And as you seem attached at the hip to your baby of your own interpretations of Newton’s laws; a little less, please, of your piss taking hypocrisy like:- “My apology, as I did not realize how attached you are to your own interpretations, or as you call them your baby…”
Right you lot, that’s it! There’s the bell. Wait for it, wait for it, Blaze minor! Do your homework tonight carefully, all of you. Tonight’s homework is called “Observing is different to just looking”. I just hope your questions to the answers are better in the next exam. OK, Class dismiss! No running in the corridor, Sandy junior!
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 20/02/2013 20:29:33
| | | Hi you grumpy old schoolmaster,
Just for your information, Newtons 1. law refers to inertial reference frames, i.e. a mass is beeing in rest or is moving in a straight line with constant velocity.
An orbiting or oscillating mass does not refer to an inertial reference frame because fictitious forces are acting (e.g. centrifugal forces) and therefore this reference frame is accelerated. And thus the first law does not apply to accelerated reference frames.
I cannot see any mass displacement in n your uploaded video, neither in the first part nor in second part with the implemented gyro. The pendelum always oscillates around its suspension point fixed on your door frame. The centre mass point in the bottom dead centre does not move at all. So where is the mass displacement? Maybe your house moved away?
Your "MacFail’s pendulum” is fixed at your door frame, which delivers the counter force, (the door fame) otherwise your "MacFail’s pendulum” would fall down to the ground without doing anything else. If you would cut the string during oscillating movement of your pendulum, the pendulum would move in one direction and mother Earth would move in counter direction, if you believe it or not. As long as the pendulum is fixed with the door frame, all acting forces are in balance, otherwise the pendulum could not oscillate. However, you are right that the string pulls the Earth during its oscillation. As stated before, mass displacement of the pendulum and the Earth in counter direction would only occur if you cut the string.
Your "MacFail’s pendulum” would not show any bit of mass displacement in space without influence of any other forces like gravity, also if you would use the presented clock mechanism with spring stored energy. There would only be movement around the barycentre of the whole involved equipment. No mass displacement and thus no cigar for you, unfortunately.
Schoolmaster, you will be so intelligent and superior, but you aren:t You have proved that you know very much from nothing what belongs to mechanical issues.
In this sense,
Bored greetings,
Harry K.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 21/02/2013 12:07:03
| | | Hi Happy Harry,
Oh! How I laughed (for the first ten thousand times) at the “MacFail” play on my name. How clever and original you continental pupils in the Upper Remove can be. Perhaps (after you’ve completed your lines – Nota bene the PS below) for tonight’s homework you would like to look at and no doubt enjoy pulling apart, without much observation I suspect, the “one shot” machine shown here:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3fU67PRkBM
This “one shot” machine was the extension of the MacPhail’s pendulum device which was only put to the class as a simple to understand form of mass displacement in an attempt (seemingly failed) to improve your education. You clearly cannot extrapolate very well as, although you understand that a force (gravity), is required to cause a pendulum to oscillate in one plane but “Phail” to understand that another *force is required (and with the MacPhail's pendulum, supplied from within) to change the original oscillation path and that such a change is mass displacement. To argue that if it were disconnected from the door frame it would fall is fatuous nonsense. No kidding! Its a bloody pendulum not a bleeding hydrogen balloon!
The “one shot” machine shown, rotates two arms with gyros so it is the equivalent of two balanced, opposed, pendulums with gravity’s swing replaced by rotation caused by the released tension in an elastic band. You probably won’t be able to extrapolate any meaningful learning from this as it uses your favourite estoppel; gravity. This (gravity) is keeping it on the work surface and preventing it from contrarotating to enable torque to be applied to turn the device’s main shaft. Sadly, Harry, as you seem incapable of extrapolating the bleeding obvious, you will probably not be able to see that a twinned contrarotating machine would not need gravity to produce the same mass displacement shown, so it would happily work in a weightless environment or, if you haven’t got a weightless environment handy, on an air table. You would probably also be unable to extrapolate that the return stroke of this machine doubles its mass displacement. God! I told them in the staff room “it’s like feeding pearls to swine with this class”!
I regret my “Phailure” in getting through to you but I guess if, as expected, you don’t pass your finals you will always be able to get a job in a continental university or, if you try really hard, a MacDonald's. By the way, Harry, your normally excellent English suffers when you bluster. That last sentence is a classic! Take it calmly next time.
Kind regards
NM
PS Just for your information, Harry, the Smithsonian (and countless others) are in agreement with me, and our school’s text books, that the first law does indeed prescribe the motions of a pendulum; see:-
http://www.si.edu/Encyclopedia_SI/nmah/pendulum.htm
Where it states:- * “When you set the pendulum swinging it will continue to swing in the same direction unless it is pushed or pulled in some other direction. (This is due to a basic law of nature called Newton's First Law.)”. I think, Harry, that’s worth one hundred lines on my desk first thing in the morning, please, saying “I will not contradict my, more intelligent and superior, teacher or disrespect his name.”. That should keep you from being bored! Oh! And hand written, Harry, none of your computer print out nonsense!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 21/02/2013 22:48:37
| | | Hi schoolmaster,
The oscillating pendulum is part of an inertial reference frame, i.e. it indicates an inertial reference frame based on its unchanged oscillating plane. However, the oscillating pendulum itself will be accelerated and decelerated by the transformation of potential energy (caused by gravity) into angular motion energy (caused by fictitious forces) and reverse. Thus the pendulum oscillating plane itself is no inertial reference frame and thus Newton's 1. Law does not apply.
Regarding your 1 shot Fail machine I have to comment, that the demonstrated mass displacement is caused by friction and/or bad alignment of the table and/or thr carriage.
I'm pretty sure mass displacement will not occur in space without influence of friction- and gravity forces. No cigar, schoolmaster.
I hope you are able to understand my Englisch? Otherwise I would suggest to continue our conversation in German. Wie waer's?
Schoenen Abend,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 22/02/2013 03:11:50
| | | Good explanation Harry,
To be fair, the inertial reference context of the Smithsonian statement can be confusing to most individuals who don’t have a sufficient grasp of Physics and/or the time and inclination to work through it in their mind.
Regarding the single shot trolley device, yes there is much room for error but we need to allow room for further proof in the near future to see how it plays out.
Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 22/02/2013 19:34:42
| | | Hello all, I have managed to keep out of this squabble so far, but I have noticed that of late that all and sundry are getting slightly emotional about the First and Third laws, and have decided to have my tuppenceworth.
Have seen this kind of thing before in a university when one decidedly unhappy chappy got himself bent right out of shape when a slight attack on the solidity of Sir Isaac’s Laws was made. He acquired the demeanour of an out of control killer and was actually slavering at the mouth, uttering venomous threats mostly in the direction of Eric Laithwaite who was not even there, as he got himself out of the room, so this type of reaction is not new to me.
In fairness and in my opinion this guy was in dire need of mental evaluation and help, but I think you guys are level headed enough not to step too far over the line.
In 1987 during a period of intense gyroscope testing I built several machines very similar to Nitros, but used slightly different techniques during initiation.
Some tests were carried out with the gyroscopes running and the device rotationally accelerated from rest by an independent motor.
The results were the same as Nitro achieved in his.
Other tests were carried out with the gyros HE 30 aluminium about 150 mm (6 inches) in diameter running at about 2,500 rpm and inclined as far as they mechanically could about 65 degrees above the horizontal and the device itself rotating at about 350rpm. The gyros were then rapidly shut down and the device delivered a massive upward anti Newtonian pulse as the gyros slowed to a stop.
This was some time before I knew what saturation was.
I described this in depth in a posting to the forum some considerable time ago.
In this case the device was vertically mounted and suspended on a pulley and wire balance system.
However I have now seen many demonstrations of “one shot” devices which do appear to show a modicum of non-Newtonian thrust but fall far short of the generally accepted basic requirement of moving “at least” the minimum distance of the length of the experiment.
The device demonstrated by Laithwaite (not his device) was very similar to Nitro’s in that it successfully completed a half cycle of operation but again like Nitro’s was unable to produce the next required part of the cycle.
I will agree that a device utilising a pair of contra rotating devices will move without any intervening help from gravity any acceleration will cease immediately the half cycle is completed but a forward motion in space will endure
Not very useful but it would prove the point.
With Nitro’s device and the one Laithwaite demonstrated I can see that any attempt to produce the required second half cycle will be fraught with great but not insurmountable problems, as Nitro has obviously discovered, as his device was demonstrated in 2001.
Any successful device must be able to generate or regenerate a useful differential in itself (as required), without the necessity to be re-cocked or somehow recover its reaction mass for reuse.
In that respect my devices described above, Nitro;s device and the device demonstrated by Laithwaite, while interesting fall far short of ever being able produce any kind of useful thrust.
However that said Nitro did as far as I am concerned, (but note, relevant only to his device), prove his point with reference to the First Law.
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 22/02/2013 23:02:30
| | | Hi all,
OK! Pax vobiscum Harry and Luis.
I concede that my math is *crap, I grant you that my grasp of inertial reference frames is not brilliant and I acknowledge there are “imaginary” forces present in both the “MacPhail pendulum” and, by extension, the “one shot”
Wait for it.......wait for it......
However..............................,
although in non inertial (accelerating) frames all particles experience the same “apparent external forces”, that does not change the forces between two particles in that frame of reference so, also for accelerating frames, Newton’s third law holds.
I do not think the imaginary forces involved in the actions of “MacPhail’s pendulum” or the ”one shot” negate what they do. It might be considered that to get round Newton’s third one has to look outside the inertial frames of Newton first.
I believe that there is a tendency amongst those classically educated in maths to use the “inertial reference frames” gambit as a “let out” when describing complex and almost unexplainable mechanics.
Now hold on, before you go off half cocked. I know that that comment got a few feathers ruffling, but clearly there is a minefield of garbage, complex, machinery out there claiming the impossible. I have seen loads that give fakery a bad name but I don’t think you would be honest if you said you had not used the inertial reference frames gambit to explain what you cannot be arsed to thoroughly examine, at least sometimes. Fair enough. Under similar circumstances I have just shrugged my shoulders and thought; “I’ll wait and see on that one.”
So, it is clear that you, and indeed I, must wait and see. I ran the one shot and a later repeater (now lost) in both directions, on enough different low friction surfaces to be sure that stick-slip or slope were not involved. I have pulled my hair out whenever I made a parameter change because just one small change can lose the functioning “sweet spot” and take ages and loads of other changes to regain (yes, I know, a good grounding in maths would have made that simpler – but then, a good grounding in maths may have made me think it impossible and prevented me from looking), but I can say now that I believe that with the “one shot” I have always been able to at least move that four pound weight and the frame, in the same direction a short way, even on a bad day. This has left the irritating fact (irritating because it has meant that I cannot shrug my shoulders and wait. If I want to find out if the fast repeater can be proved and be made – I have to make it myself) that, combined with its return stroke, has the potential of producing a usable mass displacement that I have not seen in a anywhere else. That is, with the possible exception of Sandy’s machine and a videoed one that I don’t think could be “fast repeated”. Of course, none may turn out to be useful for shoving at all, due to their impulse output, but they may unlock a bit more understanding and that, though disappointing, must be enough for me.
We already know that Newton's laws start to wobbly when we examine subatomic or relativistic scales of speed/time/gravity. It is now known that Einstein's lock on the speed of light in his equations needs some adjustment, as different parts of the spectrum travel a different speeds (albeit at only about four seconds over ten million light years – so not much). The laws of physics tend to be “mathed up” to fit the new frame and so math is an ever evolving, not quite so elegant as it seems at a distance, creature.
Whatever we think or say, in the end we can only wait and see what evolves.
Kind regards
NM
PS Hi Sandy, I noticed your latest just before putting this up. Thank you for your input. Don’t worry – squabble over! You know more that others here, I am sure, that Scottish pride forbids ignoring a perceived insult – justified or no. I have vented my spleen. You are, of course, right that the return stroke is the secret to it all (well, all, after you have found a way to displace mass in the first place). My original repeater had such horribly complicated mechanics to “switch off” the “imaginary” forces (this week’s phrase) on the return stroke, that most of its useful mass displacement was concealed by its crap, huge, mechanical masses in relation to its displaced mass. That, and the need to feed my family, was the reason I had to put it on the way, way, back burner. I have, I am sure (or as sure as you can be in this game, prior to an experiment) a better way of achieving the return stroke with less mechanical complication and thus have a better chance of achieving a useful displaced mass to frame mass differential. Fingers crossed!
* I think that is because I have some kind of Mental block on maths, I don’t know why. My father, from Mull, was an inventor like me and specialised in X-ray and electronics (back when maths had to be done without aid from a calculator, let alone a computer). My mother, from Hitchin, had a BA in maths and was head of the maths department at the local college so it’s not a genetic omission – just thick I guess!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 23/02/2013 14:23:53
| | | Hi Nitro,
“Errare humanum est, sed in errare perseverare diabolicum.”
I appreciate very much your factual last posting! Non of us is stupid and we all are looking for mass displacement, propulsion, etc. That's the reason why we are reading here and share our knowledge. Thus we should use our precious life time to help each other and not to insult each other. This is not only directed to you but rather to all of us, included me. Maybe humorously meant comments could be misunderstood as insults by non native speaker like me. If so, then please apologise inappropriate reactions from my side in the past.
Inertial reference frames are definitions to divide complex mass movement behaviours in more simple and thus better understandable behaviours. These defined reference frames are only helping instruments for better understanding, nothing more.
The maths behind physical reactions is an helping instrument too to calculate any kind of output of a physical device or set-up. However, the most important thing is the idea of a physical set-up. The idea of a physical device could be based on mental work or by building a test set-up, how you and others do and did it. Some people are more talented in practical manner and others more in mental imagination. There is no better or worse in my opinion.
Regarding your pendulum demonstration I have the opinion, that this has nothing to do with mass displacement, because the centre of the oscillating mass (the fix point at the door frame) remains at its place.
Regarding your one shot device I see it different. I have watched again your uploaded videos. This device has to do with Newton's third law (actio=reactio) but less with Newton's first law. It is a very clever idea, to transform a part of the reactio into rotation movement to achieve an unbalance between actio and reactio, and I think this could be promising to achieve mass displacement. As Sandy correctly mentioned, this one shot mass displacement would be sufficient to achieve a linear velocity in space without influence of friction- and gravity forces. The force impulse would be small but it would be proved that a inconsistency in Newton's third law could exist.
In my opinion, the delta force of actio and reactio forces may be caused during the acceleration period into rotation movement of the gyros after the moment, when the stored energy in the elastic band is acting to accelerate the both gyros.
Imagine you would stand on a weighing machine in an elevator, which drives downwards. The weighing machine would show a smaller weight, depending on the acting acceleration amount. During free fall the weighing machine would show a zero weight.
However, the change of weight only occur during acceleration respectively deceleration phase but not during linear velocity because then Newton's first law is taking effect.
The same acceleration effect in the elevator could occur in your one shot device during acceleration of the both gyros. To repeat that effect and if I'm correct with my assessment, you could think about to release the vertical rotation acceleration with the help of a electrical drive instead of an elastic band. The motor could be driven in reverse direction after the first cycle to repeat the acceleration mode. However, more deep thinking in this regard would be necessary.
At this stage, maths would be helpful to quantify the outcome and thus to optimise your device. If you do not like to calculate this by your own, I'm sure members in this forum, like Luis, Blaze or myself, would gladly help you in this matter.
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/02/2013 00:06:21
| | | Dear Nitro,
I feel bad that I posted a reply that was so ambiguous as to appear, it would seem, contrary to my actual intent. I was in full support with of half your conclusions and I wasn’t sure about the other half. Maybe if you struggled (sorry again) with the post again in rereading it you might realize support where you did not expect it and the reasoning I applied in supporting half of your golden findings.
As to your latest demonstration at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3fU67PRkBM
It is what I wanted to see; a test with, and a test without, the flywheels rotating. That is scientific mythology. You passed in flying colors. Bully for you. I am duly, very impressed.
Kind regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/02/2013 00:47:25
| | | Dear Harry,
You always give so much excellence that one can never fail, but to be greatly impressed. You shake the fundamental laws of Glenn at times and (perhaps also Sandy’s and Nitro’s for a moment, but perhaps not). What a prize you are to be here. If I can get you on a TV debating team, I’m betting on you, even my lunch money.
I still believe it may be possible to create sustained acceleration from the interior of a mechanical apparatus. I surely do not assert that it can be done. You could be right.
Kind regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/02/2013 00:54:35
| | | Dear Sandy,
Old friend I smile when I see your name.
You said, “Any successful device must be able to generate or regenerate a useful differential in itself (as required), without the necessity to be re-cocked or somehow recover its reaction mass for reuse.”
Very good, but in my long work and hours, a device must re-cock, recovering it’s mass. I think Nitro is working toward that end, and Blaze certainly has investigated this notion and explained gone beyond the bike wheel being dropped. As I understand, he has done mechanical reasoning, at least some of it similar to my own.
In the end you could be right, but whether you are, or aren’t, has no bearing on the constant force methods you use. We will all just have to wait and see who gets to Mars first; Sandy, Blaze, Nitro, or yours truly. I think we will have to kidnap friend Harry K., or he won’t go with any of us.
Kind regards,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 24/02/2013 05:14:19
| | | As the recipient of the unjustified insults I will add that inebriation makes people act stupid everywhere (not only Scots) and it is generally confused with pride. . Be good to your spleen.
Cheers,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/02/2013 07:09:39
| | |
Luis,
You say, “Inebriation and Scots,” meaning Me & Sandy & Nitro) ?”
Forget the physiology, the human proclivities and your bastardized race antipathy. You are over your head in those categories, as well as in all mechanical understanding.
This started about seven years ago and you continue; now you say, “I insulted you???”
Hey! You were wrong on all accounts. I only corrected your assertions after you ‘sweetly’ and wrongly attacked Nitro’s conclusions. I don’t sweat you Luis. You are hardly ever, ever mechanically understand what you write.
That’s ok, but it is so easy for me. It comes quickly and I don’t struggle. Now, to the question. Would you like for me to correct your every single mistake you make from now on, by giving how and why explanations-- every one of them, Luis?
I will forgo the drastic for the moment. I will let you slide, but you must not show your butt so‘sweetly’ in attempting to garner support from others to gang-up on one of us (Nitro) who has been nice and did outstanding work. You may not attempt to use marshmallows chocolate coatings to attack people who have made actual videos, done outstanding tests and been nice.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/02/2013 07:24:59
| | | My God! I have to stop this crazy waste of time and fussing. Good fortune to all of you. (Luis straighten up and you’ll do) I hope not to annoy anyone any more. I will return if and when I have something new worth saying on the subject. I will be thinking kindly of you. So long.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 24/02/2013 21:09:16
| | |
Evening gentlemen and hello Glenn,
You said
“Very good, but in my long work and hours, a device must re-cock, recovering it’s mass. I think Nitro is working toward that end, and Blaze certainly has investigated this notion and explained gone beyond the bike wheel being dropped. As I understand, he has done mechanical reasoning, at least some of it similar to my own.”
From your reply I get the impression that you think I am claiming to deliver inertial thrust in a smooth continuous manner.
I do not think inertial thrust can be generated without some cyclic creation and use of a differential
That said my devices do not need to change rotational speed during operation.
The differential is generated within the rotational envelope of the device..
I have previously written at length exactly what happens when flywheel systems are rotated at fixed speeds and what happens when changes are made to the rotational speed of the flywheels.
This differential is created purely by what is done to the flywheels of which I use 4, 2 pairs of 2
Not easily done.
I completed an all-electric (electronic) device about 18 months ago now.
Did as it was designed but the motors and associated ESCs could not handle the heat generated by the speed changes, especially the electronic programmed motor braking.
Also the motors kept getting out of sync causing massive unbalance during rotation, and twice threw the device off the test rig.
I got thumped heavily on the shoulder the second time and consider myself very fortunate that I got away with it.
By the way physics states that this cannot happen, but it does.
Eventually got P’d off with it and called it a day (I think it was Thursday but it could have been Friday).
Have redesigned the system to be totally mechanically actuated.
The differential does not lose even a fraction of a revolution during operation.
It is extremely efficient in operation and synchronised to perfection.
However the system was a mechanical illegitimate to build, the electrical system was so easy by comparison.
I should really patent the gearbox and forget the inertial drive bit.
Geometric changes are required to make the system work and are effected in the deliberately vague but previously described manner.
This thread is all about the destruction of Newton’s Laws.
This is how they can be destroyed.
It is rather obvious that no one believes this, but what the hell you are being told again anyway.
Regards,
Sandy.
PS I have 4 good motors and ESCs that I have built into a quad-copter
Much easier to build and fly. Going to fit an airborne video camera to it some time
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
