|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
1 December 2024 12:04
|
|
Welcome to the gyroscope forum. If you have a question about gyroscopes in general,
want to know how they work, or what they can be used for then you can leave your question here for others to answer.
You may also be able to help others by answering some of the questions on the site.
|
Question |
| Asked by: |
Sandy Kidd |
| Subject: |
Angular momentum in precession |
| Question: |
Evening all,
In light of the recent and almost universal agreement relating to the presence and magnitude of centrifugal force in gyroscopic systems I feel obliged to ask a few questions.
Please notice I am including gravity accelerated systems with radially accelerated systems, the radially accelerated systems whilst under certain influences, which I will qualify farther upon.
This was from Harry K
“Centrifuge is always present and does not disappear at all even if some in this forum are convinced, Only the effect of centrifuge will be varying between zero and maximum, as Blaze and you already correctly explained.
As we all know, gyro systems will not be affected by single forces but by torques. Thus the centrifugal force will create a torque with its vertical lever arm component to the gyro´s pivot. If the gyro orbits above the horizontal plane, centrifugal torque supports the tilting torque and if the gyro orbits below horizontal plane, centrifugal torque works against the tilting torque.
If the (overhung) gyro orbits above horizontal plane, centrifugal force will have its maximum at horizontal position and its minimum at upper vertical position. However, the centrifugal torque is zero in both positions:
- zero at horizontal plane because the lever arm is zero although centrifugal force is at maximum- zero at vertical position because centrifugal force is zero although the lever arm length is at minimum
That means that the maximum centrifugal force will be at a position somewhere between horizontal and vertical plane. I guess at 45 degrees but without knowing,”
Should have been a politician Harry this is the worst case of “maybe” I have read.
This throws a whole is a new slant on centrifugal force.
IN THE REAL WORLD, “if” any centrifugal force can be generated above or below the rotation centreline of the system lift will be generated whilst above the centreline, and the device will become heavier when the system is operating below the horizontal.
There is surely no argument with that.
However in reality this cannot be done, can it?
It cannot because we are developing the angles using gyroscopes.
By default you are implying that if I can use gyroscopes the angular momentum disappears but the centrifugal force does not. which is absolute rubbish!
No one feels that it is necessary to mention the presence of angular momentum and no one here appears to want to add vertical components to their calculations.
Following this line of thought, anti-gravity should be is easy to produce.
Newton made it possible, in fact inevitable, did he not?
Come on guys this is senseless rubbish and not so easy, because in gravity accelerated precession and or mechanically accelerated systems operating at or above saturation (but only above saturation) there is no centrifugal force, and no angular momentum present.
Some of us are not just guessing we went out of our way to find out, but this is obviously too much for some to comprehend.
However could some bright spark enlighten me as to why they conveniently eliminate angular momentum from their explanation.
Harry says that he thinks centrifugal force is maybe at a maximum at 45 degrees
How much would that be?
If you are pushing a mechanically accelerated gyroscope up to 45 degrees:
What are you using for a mass to generate the centrifugal force at 45 degrees?
What is the angular momentum going to be?
Seems to be, that the only way out of this dilemma is to accept the fact, that what Sandy says goes.
There is NO centrifugal force and NO angular momentum present anywhere above saturation which would be from just below zero degrees to 90 degrees.
That is why Harry a gyroscope in saturation cannot stay still. As soon as it reaches saturation It will continue to rise from zero to 90 degrees (or to the point of least resistance) This is why long ago I called it “Saturation”
I do not think Sir Isaac knew about this either, so don’t be too downhearted.
That said it would have to be this way for the rest of his stuff to work.
Sandy
|
| Date: |
8 March 2013
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 08/03/2013 17:06:43
| | | Hello again,
What gyros do do
I queried members of the forum about their perception of the presence of centrifugal force etc in gyroscopic systems in precession.
I will include in this mechanical systems rotating in saturation which have nothing to do with gravity and are therefore not in precession.
It seems that there are only a couple of us who believe otherwise so I think I should reintroduce some of my findings to save some genuine investigators a lot of time.
Away back in 2004 not too long after the other Glenn ( webmaster Glenn) set this all up, I thought I would be doing the other gyroscope nuts a favour by contributing to this site.
Many of the participants have gone but some still remain.
My first postings were about the loss of angular momentum and centrifugal force in radially accelerated systems and how I discovered this.
It is as fresh in my mind now as it was then.
It was a revelation to me when I first saw this and caused me a fair bit of concern as this could not happen.
After repeating the test many times I came to the conclusion that what I had first seen was real in spite of my engineering misgivings.
I had at one stage the device with twin opposing gyroscopes mounted at about 60 degrees above the horizontal rotating at 500 rpm.
The gyroscopes weighed in at about 1lb or half a kilo each on about 6 inch or 300mm radius of rotation.
What I had discovered was a region of gyroscopic action which was a no go area and could not easily be utilised for anything obvious at that time.
I will not belabour the reader any more with this experiment other than mention the fact that the gyroscopes and the machine was being rotated at 250 rpm and the fact that the gyroscopes had raised themselves above the 60 degrees required at the time and I could not easily get them down again.
I added a mechanism (mentioned in greater detail in a previous posting) which had the ability to double the speed to 500rpm in a hope that instantaneously doubling the speed would increase the centrifugal force and bring the gyros down again.
What transpired took a bit of believing as the mechanism switched the speed up to 500 rpm as the gyros lifted from the 60 degree position. Not only did it increase the speed that the gyros rose up the device itself accelerated in rotation.
OK very interesting but in the final analysis that area which after many other experiments I called the saturation zone was a no go area for inertial drives.
The really useful and interesting thing is that any point outside the saturation point can be used to greater or lesser effect.
THE IMPORTANT BIT.
What I discovered was that if a mass is accelerated in a circle at a fixed speed and the mass itself is rotated the centrifugal force and angular momentum can be manipulated in value by alterations to the rotation speed of the mass (gyro)
The output of the system is variable from zero to maximum.
In reality I have a device which is able at a fixed rotation speed to lose all of its angular momentum and centrifugal force up to the point of saturation
By the same token with the gyroscope stopped rotating will return all of the angular momentum and centrifugal force to the system.
That I thought was clever and had distinct possibilities.
I apologise gents for this but there has been such a load of misinformation relating to gyroscopic behaviour, I thought I should put you right.
I have used much of this knowledge over the years to great effect
However you will have to do a bit better than use Tedeco gyros.
Get on to mechanically accelerate systems, forget the gravity accelerated systems
Regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 09/03/2013 05:07:58
| | | Hello Sandy,
I apologize for not replying sooner.
My friend, the situation here is sad. It is sad because I have always believed you and I have verified enough about your tests. From that, and the issuing logic, I learned your system had to act the way you said it acted. Thank you. It was good of you to share your discovery.
Although your test findings were true, your statements eliminate forces that do exist and do act in your system. Centrifuge would seem for all the world to have no effect, but centrifuge does have an effect and the effect can be powerful. Our differences are technical differences; splitting the pea so to speak. Centrifuge exist! but Sandy, you can not see any evidence of it’s effects, and you can not measure it. Maybe only a real mathematician could find and measure it’s evidence. This is not to deny that we have some very well versed people in mathematics on board here. We do.
I do not believe however, Harry has it down pat yet though. Let us give him more time. (Hello Harry : )
I don’t know how I could say this more intensely. During precession centrifuge does not produce an obvious.effect, because it is overwhelmed by a greater, invisible force opposing it. It just succumbs to that greater force. That greater force produces your discovered saturation, because as centrifuge grows stronger, your saturation grows stronger as a result. It is like a caveman overpowering a cave-woman and dragging her off by the hair of here head to his cave. She resist, but to no avail. Her resistance is measurable, but she is overpowered. Saturation is overpowering too.
The occurrence of this power has been named ‘deflections’. Deflection in fact, generate the power to cause saturation. Deflections are the greater power; overwhelming and greater than centrifuge.
If everyone would take the time to study deflections, until they truly understood them inside and out, all these disagreements would end. Sir Isaac Newton was correct, as these deflections that cause precession obey the laws of motion he created. It is the wondrous paradox of precession; where the laws of motion double back on themselves to result in the very opposite of their meaning. Wow, Sandy! wow!
So you were correct from the start, but it could not connect for me entirely, until I understood the gyroscope; why it works and how it works. Before saturation is reached, and the power of saturation itself, would be stronger if it did not have to overcome the existence of centrifuge.
Try to stay out of the cold sea winds, until it is good enough weather. Then you can soar high up with the eagles once again, old friend.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 09/03/2013 08:57:44
| | | Hello Sandy,
Before I will answer in detail I have a question in advance:
Is 300mn the radius of the flywheel? If yes, what is the radius of the hub rotation?
If you provide this data I'm able to calculate the involved forces in your system. I'm sure the results will show, why your system behaves how you have observed it.
Thanks,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 09/03/2013 19:41:27
| | | Hello again fellows,
Hello Glenn.
Nice to see you getting stirred up a little bit, but I knew you had done the experiment Glenn you and have seen what I have seen.
Sounds like a line from the “Braes of Killicrankie” Not deliberate honestly.
I admit that there was angular momentum and centrifugal force present at the start of the journey, what I am saying is that what I think you are calling deflection (Gyro Torque) correct me if I am wrong has the ability to eliminate acceleration of the rotated mass (gyroscope) and leave nothing.
All that is left is rotation without acceleration as there is nothing left to accelerate.
The gyro is accelerating the mass (gyro) inwards against centrifugal force which is trying to accelerate the mass (gyro) tangential to system rotation.
Above the saturation point the inward acceleration has already won and the (mass??) gyro will freewheel upwards to the point of least action or parallel to the axis of system rotation.
There is a total elimination of angular momentum and centrifugal force.
The result at this point is very similar to a gyroscope in precession in a gravity accelerated system, again no centrifugal force, and no angular momentum
Even the mass of the gyroscope has been transferred to the centre of system rotation?
This will make Blaze very happy as he insists that mass cannot be eliminated, to which I agree but maybe it can be temporarily shifted to act somewhere else.
The experiments certainly show that this happens or some measure of angular momentum would be seen.
So we are not in disagreement Glenn it is just that you are unhappy to accept that angular momentum and centrifugal force are totally eliminated from the proceedings from the point of saturation. I take that you are stating that they are still there but suppressed. I can live with that.
Harry K
I think this is very much the same line as Glenn is supporting, likewise I can very easily calculate the centrifugal force that would normally be there at any angle providing I know the system rotation speed, the radius of gyration at the elevated angle (whatever) and the effective mass of the flywheel.
However I do not think centrifugal force or angular momentum plays any part in the proceedings at all from the moment the system enters saturation.
My contention is that they are totally overcome at the point of saturation and no longer have any effect on the system.
It would seem that Glenn’s deflection (a term new to me), at just about zero degrees, (maybe a little bit less due to gravity) has the ability, to eliminate all acceleration in the system at the point of saturation.
This must be unique in physics, it is certainly different.
One point of interest it should be possible to raise the mass from zero degree to 90 degrees at no cost in effort, but how do we reset the system?
I do know that very large non Newtonian pulses can be generated if the gyros are slowed down a bit, or stopped rotating then released from their highest position which should be obvious really.
A sort of reverse Nitro machine.
However there are far better ways so do not be waylaid.
Hope I did not ruffle too many feathers with this.
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 09/03/2013 20:56:22
| | | Hi Venerable Sandy,
I will keep this brief - sounds of sighs of relief - as I seem to cause offence if I stand up to offence.
"they are still there but suppressed"
Include the effect of mass and substitute "precessed" for "suppressed" and you get:- the effects of mass centrifuge and momentum are precessed.
That does it for me.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 09/03/2013 22:44:42
| | | Good points Nitro.
Whatever turns you on Nitro, precessed for supressed.
Not far removed I suppose but you will have noticed I tend not to use precessed in mechanically accelerated systems.
Trouble is Nitro that there are individuals who contribute to this forum who repeatedly
describe mechanically accelerated systems as being precessed when they are being rotated, whereas if the rotated system was in saturation I would suggest it would be much closer to precession.
In this case I would agree with you for the reasons that the examples under discussion would fall into the precession category
The only differences being that the “Gravity Accelerated System” is a system operating in decay and probably running down from a vertical starting position
The “Mechanically Accelerated System” in saturation is carrying more energy than it requires to climb from a horizontal position to its vertical position.
To me precession is a process caused by gravity which is peculiar to gravity accelerated systems, but there and then again I used to get pee’d off when they called transistorised radio sets transistors.
I knew exactly what was meant but I did not like it.
Incidentally” 24/7” has the same effect on me.
The understanding and the outcome are the same in this case and that is what really matters I suppose, and we all appear to be reading from the same page.
Regards
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 09/03/2013 22:57:12
| | | The mass of the gyro (flywheel) isn't transferred anywhere. It stays with the the flywheel (plus cage, axle, etc.). Only the weight is transferred to the hub. There is a difference.
Imagine a long, thin wall aluminum tube laying on the ground. Attached to one end of the tube is a 20 pound brick. You pick up the other end of the tube (the end with out the brick). Where is the mass? It is still with the brick but now you weigh 20 pounds heavier (plus the weight of the tube, of course). The mass stays with the brick, only the weight is transferred to the hub which is the person holding the tube in this case.
Another example would be a balance scale (like the "scales of justice"). The mass put on the pans of the scale "transfer" their weight to the center stand of the balance scale, but the mass itself stays on the pans.
cheers,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 09/03/2013 23:21:50
| | | Hello Blaze
Read your examples.
You say that I cannot transfer mass but I can transfer weight.
I have 2 x 0.5Kilo gyros on a 300mm rotation circle doing 500 rpm.
There is no mass and no centrifugal force, take my word for it.
Let us say that the weight is transferred but there is still no angular momentum or centrifugal force. None
What is happening?
If the mass was still there as you suggest why can I not accelerate it?
Nothing in the universe does anything unless accelerated or decelerated does it.
What is so peculiar about this system, I cannot accelerate mass which you say is still there.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 10/03/2013 01:06:40
| | | Hello Sandy,
You have quoted a post from me a thread where we have discussed the influence of torque caused by centrifugal force to precession velocity in an overhanging gyro system under gravity environment. Thus we are talking from real precession mode and not from forced precession mode (how I call it) what you describe with saturation. We should nod mix both modes together because both modes behave different.
If you read on in this thread after this quoted statement you would have noticed, that centrifugal torque has it major influence at an angle of about 30 degrees, depending on the lever arm length. The longer the lever arm length, the centrifugal torque will get more weighty and thus the "angle of most influence caused by centrifugal force" will become smaller above horizontal plane. However, the influence of additional accelerated dead weight (cage, lever arm, etc.) plays an important role in this consideration as well and must be taken into account.
The experiment you have done and explained many times here in this forum behave different, because a torque into hub rotation was external inserted but not only by gravity as it is the case I have described. You never made any statements about the amount of inserted torque if I remember correctly, you only provided the RPM of the hub rotation. But it is more important to provide the initial torque, which accelerates the hub from zero to destination RPM to make any considerations about what was happening and why your experiment behave in this and not in another way.
Another point is circumstance, that - if I remember correctly - you gave the gyros no freedom to move downwards because they were fixed at 60 degrees and could only move upwards/inwards. Am I correct? If yes, the torque caused by centrifugal force could not act and thus torque caused by forced precession is overwhelming all other counter effects.
So what do you expect from me? That I believe that angular momentum and centrifugal force are disappearing in your saturation zone? No, I don’t think so. These forces are overwhelmed by your design and by the used driving parameters, as Glenn correctly mentioned (Hello Glenn!).
If you want answers why your experiment did respond in this way and not in another way you have to provide as much data as possible to find theoretical answers. But I’m not sure if you really want to know theoretical answers?
I have great respect for experimenters like you, but I’m also interested in the theories behind the outcome of experiments. Each to his own.
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 10/03/2013 01:09:26
| | | Hi Sandy.
I am going to ask some seemingly dumb questions to clarify my understanding. Please bear with me.
When you say "If the mass was still there as you suggest why can I not accelerate it?"
I am not clear on what you mean. Do you mean that you cannot accelerate the hub above 500 rpm?
When you say "there is still no angular momentum". Again, I am unclear on exactly what you mean by that. If there were no angular momentum then if your apparatus hub were spinning at 500 rpm and you suddenly disconnected the motor, the apparatus would stop extremely quickly if not instantly. That is likely not what is happening so that means I am not understanding what you mean by no angular momentum.
By the way, I have been doing experiments with a powered hub for the last several months and have found very large centrifugal forces. I have also found that the counter gravity couple can also be very large. However, I am no where near 500 rpm in my experiments.
regards,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 10/03/2013 01:18:18
| | | Please ignore my prior posting. I have corrected some type errors. Thanks.
Hello Sandy,
You have quoted a post from me in a thread where we have discussed the influence of torque caused by centrifugal force to precession velocity of an overhanging gyro system under gravity environment. Thus we are talking from real precession mode and not from forced precession mode (how I call it) and what you describe with saturation. We should not mix up both modes together because both modes behave different.
If you read on in this thread after this quoted statement you would have noticed, that centrifugal torque has its major influence at an angle of about 30 degrees, depending on the lever arm length. The longer the lever arm length, the centrifugal torque will get more weighty and thus the "angle of most influence caused by centrifugal force" will become smaller above horizontal plane. However, the influence of additional accelerated dead weight (cage, lever arm, etc.) plays an important role in this consideration as well and must be taken into account.
The experiment you have done and explained many times here in this forum behave different, because a torque into hub rotation was external inserted but not only by gravity as it is the case what I have described. You never made any statements about the amount of the inserted torque if I remember correctly, you only provided the RPM of the hub rotation. But it is more important to provide the initial torque, which accelerates the hub from zero to destination RPM to make any considerations about what was happening and why your experiment behave in this and not in another way.
Another point is the circumstance, that - if I remember correctly - you gave the gyros no freedom to move downwards because they were fixed at 60 degrees and could only move upwards/inwards. Am I correct? If yes, the torque caused by centrifugal force could not act below 60 degrees and thus torque caused by forced precession is overwhelming all other counter effects.
So what do you expect from me? That I believe that angular momentum and centrifugal force are disappearing in the saturation zone? No, I don’t think so. These forces are only overwhelmed by your design and by the used driving parameters, as Glenn correctly mentioned (Hello Glenn!).
If you want answers why your experiment did respond in this way and not in another way you have to provide as much data as possible to find theoretical answers. But I’m not sure if you really want to know theoretical answers?
I have great respect for experimenters like you, but I’m also interested in the theories behind the outcome of experiments. Each to his own.
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 10/03/2013 01:31:50
| | | Nitro,
‘ Wonderful discussion going on. Nitro, your are right and we three are in agreement. Please don't feel you need to be brief though. Give us both barrels with a full load of shot. I once challenged you to repeat your tests with the gyro not spinning. Later, you did! Then--- I was ashamed for being less than courteous to you. Please excuse me. I will hold my tong and be civil (though it is against my nature) from now on. I promise. Since that time I have taken your side, because you were right. I think you misunderstood my intention lately and thought I was challenges you again, but I wasn’t. Keep on posting extensively and plentifully!
Tip your cup tonight and toast the New Year. If it is now here yet, it will be. To heck with such unpalatable technicalities anyway, right?
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 10/03/2013 01:48:48
| | | Corrections: We four are in agreement is essence, and I think all we five. Deflections/ driving parameters over whelm centrifuge. All the other discussion is very important and with notable disagreement, but it pails by comparison to what we have agreed on tonight. We have finally reached a conscientious acceptance of a fact. I am happy.
Cheers,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 10/03/2013 11:10:39
| | | Hello Sandy, Nitro, Glenn, Blaze,
Now I will ask some questions which disclose the complexity of what is happening in an overhanging gyro system under the impact of forced precession:
Imagine two overhanging flywheels which have the freedom to rotate in horizontal plane as well as in vertical plane around a pivot in the centre of hub.
1. The flywheels don’t spin, the hub is rotating at any rotation speed.
1.1 Which part is the gyroscope? I would say the gyroscope consists of two mass points (both non spinning flywheels) which are spinning around the hub pivot with a certain rotation speed.
1.2 Is centrifugal force and angular momentum present? Yes it is. Centrifugal force will move the flywheels outwards to 0 degrees in horizontal plane and angular momentum is stored in the hub rotation.
2. The flywheels are spinning very slowly, the hub is rotated much faster than the flywheels.
2.1 Which part is now the gyroscope? I would say both parts, each of the slowly spinning flywheels and the faster rotating hub with the two mass points (dead weight mass of the flywheels). The gyroscopic effects of both gyro systems are overwhelmed.
2.2 Is centrifugal force and angular momentum present? Yes it is. The torque caused by centrifugal force is much stronger than the torque caused by deflection effects of the slowly spinning flywheels. Both overhanging flywheels will rotate around the pivot at a certain (small) angle above horizontal plane. Centrifugal force wins.
3. The flywheels are spinning very fast, the hub is rotated slower than the flywheels.
3.1 Which part is now the gyroscope? I would say again both parts, mainly each fast spinning flywheels and the slower rotating hub with minor gyroscopic effects.
3.2 Is centrifugal force and angular momentum still present? Yes it is. However, torque caused by centrifugal force and stored angular momentum are much lower than the strong inserted torque in hub rotation and thus centrifugal torque has no chance to win the game. This is the situation of the saturation zone, how Sandy calls it. The flywheels will climb upwards/inwards to the point of least resistance, i.e. to 90 degrees above horizontal plane.
The challenge is, to choose all affecting parameters in such way, that the torques ocaused by centrifugal forces and the inserted torque (deflected torque, precessed torque or whatever) are in balance to each other, i.e. the flywheels rotating around the hub with a certain, ideal angle above the horizonal plane. I have called this situation "balance point". Above this balance point Sandy´s saturation zone begins to act.
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 10/03/2013 19:02:26
| | | Hiya Harry (and gang),
And thanks for breaking Sandy's machines motions into bite size pieces to aid better understanding. I shamefully admit to some fogginess about the meaning of saturation and what happens after the saturation zone is entered. Some more reading by me of earlier posts is clearly needed.
My pendulum demo was my attempt to break what happens with my “one shot” machine into bite size pieces to aid better understanding too.
Each single swing of the pendulum is effectively (remember that word!) a small slice of half of the rotating arms carrying the gyros on the “one shot”. The pendulum, despite being fixed to the hanging pivot point, is clearly not being pushed to one side by its piece of string – yet still it displaces to one side without pushing the piece of string or the pivot point equally in the opposite direction. So it is, also, when you complete the circle and make the pendulum effectively (that word again) an opposed balanced pair of pendulums (pendula?) rotating around a centre shaft. When they are caused to precess – while there is a lot of equal and opposite actions and reactions from non gyroscopic components – the gyros change their position with no effective opposite reaction and (as can be observed with your “Tedco special” when you hang additional weight on the outer end of its axis) a well spun gyro can successfully precess much more than its own weight. Thus the “one shot” can shove that four pound weight, with some initial reaction (its equivalent of nutation or “not enough gyroscopic effect in relation to axial change force effect”) but eventually with, not only no opposite reaction on the frame but, an actual same direction reaction.
Harry, of course mass, centrifugal force, and angular momentum are all in the wonderful soup of gyrodynamics however their effects ( Ah! I said you should remember that word) sometimes are not where they should be.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 10/03/2013 21:24:16
| | | Hello Harry
I would say you have vindicated yourself with this offering on mechanically accelerated systems.
There is an area of contention but it is a point that may be too early to raise.
Apart from paragraph 2.2 which I think is in error due to the fact that at plus one degree the system is already in saturation, and your last paragraph which I think is a bit of wishful thinking namely the Balance Point.
However Harry you might be correct, great job very well done
Regards
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 10/03/2013 21:45:35
| | | Hello Blaze,
We are all forced to ask dumb questions although in my experience they are usually not so dumb
You did ask and here it is.
This is part of a much bigger story relating to carry over from my first successful machine which repeatedly delivered about 1lb of thrust. That is the tatty old device shown in the propulsion section.
Anyhow I spend a bit of money getting a much better machine built. My hope was that it would perform much better.
That is enough for that, it did not, but it was noticed that the flywheels kept climbing away from their stops
On my first device they did not.
In these days nearly 30 years ago we would have called this precession.
Anyhow I could exact no control over the flywheels and I was convinced that this was the cause of my problems.
To cut a long story short I developed a little gadget that would instantly double the speed of the device when any inward movement of a chosen flywheel was detected.
The idea was to send the flywheels out again with the increased centrifugal force and start the cycle again.
The speed was instantly doubled from 250 to 500 rpm squaring the centrifugal force.
All it did was speed up my problem.
I did not realise the machine was already in saturation
I personally think that the inward acceleration overcame the outward acceleration effectively stopping anything from being accelerated.
It is one of the weirdest thing you ever saw
I said that I was rotating two horizontally opposed gyroscopes (flywheels really) weighing just over 1lb each on a 12 inch diameter circle at about 60 degrees of vertical offset.
The flywheels rested on stops at this angle and could rise if necessary from them.
With the flywheels rotating at around 2500 rpm the device went into saturation.
The flywheels proceeded to climb as high as they mechanically could circa 90degrees.
What I found out Blaze is that every similar gyroscopic system reacts the same way
The rotation speed of the device and the rotation speed of the flywheels may be different but at the appropriate speeds you will find what I called saturation many years ago now.
In essence none of this really matters at all. I am really trying to bring this problem to the attention of serious experimenters.
And yes Blaze you can generate centrifugal force in abundance below the saturation point, and you can manipulate this to great effect.
Does this help at all?
Regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 11/03/2013 00:03:38
| | | Harry Hello,
That is an outstanding. It is some of the most logical and unique reasoning I have seen, and the art of describing with clarity, in English it is call expository, is equally outstanding. Tell your wife to give you some pats on the back. I would, but I can’t get to you. It’s just the best.
Good cheer,
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 11/03/2013 00:07:57
| | | That is an outstanding. xxxx 'That is outstanding.' I get so annoyed with myself.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 11/03/2013 20:02:04
| | | Hello Sandy, Nitro, Glenn,
I’m very happy about your feedback. This means a lot to me! And it depicts that more clarity in argumentation is helping others to better understanding the own way of thinking. I’ll try to continue with better clarity in my future statements, albeit it is more difficult for me to write in English than in my native German language. Anyway, I will try.
Nitro, I have to admit that I did not grasp the background of your one shot machine in regard to the pendulum demonstration. I have to reread your explanation and have to think a bit more in detail in this context. However, you have a different propulsion concept than the classical machine designs with overhanging gyros in the way how Sandy built it. You are going your own unique way. Very interesting!
Sandy, thank you for your partial agreement (I hope it is so?) from your prominent side. I know you don’t like the term "balance point" but I think we talking from the same effect. Thus we can call it "point of no return" or as for me "saturation point". I totally agree with you that once the gyro enters the saturation zone beyond the saturation point, centrifugal force and angular momentum stored in hub rotation do not have any chance to act against the precessing / deflecting upward / inward movement of the gyro.
You wrote in your last email to Blaze:
"The flywheels rested on stops at this angle and could rise if necessary from them."
Because the flywheels rested on stops, the counter torque caused by centrifugal force * hub-radius*cos(60) could not act. Although the gyros could rise if necessary, but the centrifugal effect would be to small at this stage.
As already mentioned I made a spreadsheet in Excel to calculate precession velocity, angular momentum, centrifugal force, etc. in connection of the angle above horizontal plane for an overhanging gyro under the influence of gravity. The analysis of the calculations shows clear, that the most effective angle is at 30 degrees under ideal conditions.
I will now make a spread sheet for a forced precessed overhanging gyro. I’m by now sure that the ideal angle will be at 30 degrees as well. This would mean that your experiment with the overhanging gyros at 60 degrees have already been operated in the saturation zone and thus centrifugal force did not have any chance to work against deflecting torque caused by the inserted torque into the hub.
Also an important point, as mentioned in my prior posting, is the size of inserted torque into the hub. In my opinion it makes a difference if the inserted torque accelerates the hub in a very short time span (= stronger torque) or in a longer time span (smaller torque). If the initial inserted torque is too strong, the overhanging gyros will instantly begin to move upwards / inwards and thus centrifugal force has no chance to act because the radius for centrifugal force will decrease very fast. But if the initial torque would be inserted slowly on a ramp from zero to maximum in a longer time span, centrifugal force would have a better chance to act .
Another idea, which I had already suggested in the past, could be to start the machine in two steps, at first step starting the hub rotation and at second step to starting -very slowly- the spin rotation of the flywheels from zero to maximum.
Regards,
Harry
P.S. Thanks Glenn, but you overdrew a bit... :-)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ted Pittman - 12/03/2013 03:31:36
| | | WOW, Sandy !
l'll be powering up my Gamma-Max teststand this month. It is fully instrumented for measuring gyro rotation, baseplate rotation, and thrust impulses while video recording gyro orientation via stroboscopic light.
I'm looking forward to contributing hard data to this forum.
Hopefully, the math boys will then be able to tie experimental results to theory.
Ted
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 12/03/2013 19:26:58
| | | Welcome Ted
Join the happy throng.
We are all very interested to see what you are going to present.
You have shown me photographs but I did not have the nerve to guess what you are attempting.
I am sure you will enlighten us.
Best regards,
Sandy.
PS Ted and I kicked our heels and discussed inertial drive for several hours on the campus of Brunel University many years ago now
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 12/03/2013 20:57:11
| | | Hello all.
Can I bore you some more?
Recently we have been flogging the effects of saturation on mechanically accelerated gyroscopic or flywheel systems.
I think we have successfully put it to bed, although the argument, sorry debate, will probably go on for some time yet.
I do hope all agree that is a kind of no-go area for the production of inertial thrust.
Saturation can be a pain in the whatsit but at least you know what creates it and you should be able to recognise it.
First consider that none of this stuff is found in text books and I do presume to say that I was probably the first inertial drive exponent to get involved in this.
Let me put it this way when I scoured the gyroscope world I could find no mention of mechanically accelerated gyroscopes anywhere.
When I saw Laithwaite swinging his big flywheel around in his Xmas Lectures the idea of utilising gyroscopes to do my bidding came about.
Once I got into the thing I ran into a not insignificant problem,
Sometimes the device would seem to exhibit a surfeit of centrifugal force and sometimes there appeared to be none.
Mechanical acceleration was originally called “Forced Precession” a term I think coined by a Professor Harold Aspden to describe a pair of not dissimilar systems one by Scott Strachan hailing interestingly from my home town of Edinburgh and my own.
I think this term was wrongly used as it made no difference between normal rotation and rotation in what we call saturation, but in fairness no one knew anything then.
The effects of saturation were known to me a long time prior to the next part.
That is how it was folks
Now I would like to return to the part we skipped past.
In order to reach saturation we would normally run the machine at a fixed rotation speed and Increase the rotation speed of the gyroscopes until such time as we reach saturation. This is probably the easiest way to do this.
The most useful discovery I made:
During initial testing it was discover that if the machine was rotated at a fixed rotation speed it was quickly discovered that the centrifugal force generated in the system was proportional to the rotation speed of the gyroscope.
Now this was useful and again did not appear in the technical books.
If the system is rotated at a fixed speed, but the gyroscopes are not rotating maximum centrifugal force is generated.
If the system is rotated at a fixed speed, but the gyroscopes are progressively rotated faster the centrifugal force will be progressively reduced depending on the rotation speed of the gyroscope
Eventually there is a point where the centrifugal force reaches zero, and no more can really be done with the system in this condition and the system will not react normally to any farther input of gyroscope rotation speed or machine rotation speed or both.
None of this, from a non- rotating disc being rotated at a fixed speed or the rotated disc rotating at speeds which after progressively reducing the centrifugal force eventually take us to a point where there is effectively no centrifugal force left is not mentioned anywhere.
The system is apart from inwards and upwards acceleration of the gyros arms devoid of any acceleration in the horizontal plane.
From this point on I really tend to ignore anything published and pertaining to rotated rotating discs.
Onwards to inertial thrust.
Any smart person can with a little bit of spatial utilisation (assuming that they have a modicum of spatial aptitude) deduce, using the above mentioned factors how to put together an inertial thrust developing device.
How good depends on the builder.
I have been using this information for 25 years at least, on all of my devices (except for a couple of types)
The couple of types consisted of the Split Sphere machine and Australian Lab Test machines which were odd-balls but have been previously discussed on this forum.
All the rest including my first ever machine and my present and last machine utilise a fair whack of the above to operate, consistently and reliably.
During operation the device demonstrates unique movements although these movements are not always so visible.
I call the operating motion the Medusa Motion.
Ever watched a jellyfish swimming forward, well, consider a jelly fish rotating rapidly and delivering several thrust pulses in the space of every normal one.
My devices all display this peculiar motion.
By the way Medusa whilst being one of the 3 charming Gorgon ladies is also a term given to jellyfish.
At the time I thought it was appropriate.
Best regards,
Sandy.
PS
I had a very good example of the motion built into my most advanced device.
It worked very well but the electrics could not hack it.
Just finished rebuilding it using all mechanical gears (hardened steel and stuff),
This thing is now bulletproof but has taken me about a year to redesign and complete.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 12/03/2013 22:32:20
| | | Hello Sandy,
You are not boring at all. Thank you for sharing your discoveries!
„During initial testing it was discover that if the machine was rotated at a fixed rotation speed it was quickly discovered that the centrifugal force generated in the system was proportional to the rotation speed of the gyroscope.
Now this was useful and again did not appear in the technical books.
If the system is rotated at a fixed speed, but the gyroscopes are not rotating maximum centrifugal force is generated.
If the system is rotated at a fixed speed, but the gyroscopes are progressively rotated faster the centrifugal force will be progressively reduced depending on the rotation speed of the gyroscope“
I'm irritated about the used term“centrifugal force“ in this context. How did you measured centrifugal force in this system? How could centrifugal force change at a fixed system rotation speed? Angular momentum instead of centrifugal force would make more sense for me.
Thus angular momentum should be inversely proportional to the rotation speed of the gyroscope. Do you agree?
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 13/03/2013 18:59:06
| | | Hello again Harry
You said:
I'm irritated about the used term“centrifugal force“ in this context. How did you measured centrifugal force in this system? How could centrifugal force change at a fixed system rotation speed? Angular momentum instead of centrifugal force would make more sense for me.
Thus angular momentum should be inversely proportional to the rotation speed of the gyroscope. Do you agree?
Sorry you got irritated Harry.
I can understand where you are coming from Harry but the amount of angular momentum produced during the initial testing could only have been a wild guess.
I have described roughly the mechanical setup of the system I used.
It was relatively easy to fit strain gauges to the gyroscope restraining links and feed the outputs through my homemade slip-rings to an oscilloscope.
Half the centrifugal force would be half the angular momentum and so on, very simple really.
As I said to Luis some considerable time ago you cannot have centrifugal force without angular momentum or vice versa.
The fact that centrifugal force can be changed at a fixed rotation speed is what this is all about Harry.
I have stated that if the rotation speed is fixed the centrifugal force at that point will be what it says in the text books
If however I rotate the gyroscopes it will be found that there is a reduction in centrifugal force as soon as the gyros rotate.
If the rotation speed of the gyros is increased it will be noticed that there is further reduction in centrifugal force and consequently angular momentum.
This reduction in centrifugal force will continue at a rate proportional to the increase in gyroscope rotation speed, until all of the centrifugal force disappears at the point of saturation, which is pretty obvious really.
For your interest Harry I drew up this experiment as it should have been done in a university, at a request from Sussex University no less.
It was sent to a person who I can name if required (says it all)
Still waiting 28 years on.
They did not believe a word of it either.
Does this help clarify a little bit
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 14/03/2013 23:13:03
| | | Hello Sandy,
Thank you for the clarifications. It's clear that centrifugal force and angular momentum are related because both are driven by mass acceleration and rotation radius. Thank you clarification.
I'm still convinced that the measured loss of centrifugal force respectively angular momentum was caused by a overlay of deflecting effects.
Another question: is the loss of centrifugal force dependent from the rotation direction of the gyroscope or/and hub? Will centrifugal force always getting smaller regardless of the rotation direction of hub and/or the gyroscope?
This questions may look simple but I have a reason for asking that.
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 15/03/2013 11:32:35
| | | Hello Harry,
Before we carry on we are going to run into a bone of contention with relation to what you call deflections.
This will really not affect the present discussion in any way but will raise its ugly head soon enough as you will discover.
I do not believe there is a couple developed across the face of the gyroscope as is taught.
Even Eric Laithwaite believed this and told me this many years ago but for the life of me I cannot in any way shape or form figure out how there can be a couple produced in either a gravity accelerated system or a mechanically accelerated system.
A figment of some ones imagination I think, or maybe I am just stupid.
However Harry the effect we are at presently discussing will only happen if the machine (system) is rotating clockwise when looking down from above, and the outside face of the gyroscope as it passes in front of you is rotating clockwise.
Obviously if both of the directions of rotation are reversed i.e. anticlockwise the same effect will be created.
I.e. Whatever the direction of rotation of the system, the disc is being accelerated in the same relative direction as the bottom advancing sector of the disc.
The bottom advancing sector of the disc is subjected to the lion’s share of the acceleration.
Sorry Harry there must be an easier way to explain this.
So it does not matter which way the system rotates as long as the disc rotates in the same relative direction when viewed on its front face.
I agree the loss of centrifugal force is due to the increase in the inward disc torque, and will occur in either direction of system rotation.
Any clearer?
Regards
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 16/03/2013 10:05:38
| | | Hello Sandy,
I pretty much enjoying this discussion with you, who have spend so much time in gyro related issues and collected manifold experiences about this topic. Thank you for sharing your experiences and observations here in this forum!
I think I have to explain what I understand with “deflections” before we (hopefully) continue with discussion. By the way I don´t feel this as a “bone of contention” but more as a kind of misunderstanding.
First of all, by definition a torque can be replaced by a couple with a parallel distance of the force lines. Thus a torque can be transformed into a couple and vice versa.
Let´s consider a “normal” gravity accelerated overhanging gyroscope. A torque is caused by gravity which causes a change of direction of those spinning mass particles, which are under the influence of the acting gravity (tilting) torque. Because two sectors in diametric position to each other are under the influence of the gravity torque, this gravity torque will be deflected about 90 degrees and causes the overhang gyroscope to precess around the pivot in horizontal plane. The gyroscope would now precess endless if no resistance would act against precession movement and if the gyroscope would continue with its spinning rate.
So far so good. Important is the fact, that the tilting torque caused by gravity is acting in a static form, i.e. without any movement. The tilting torque will only move (drop) if any resistance prevents the gyro to precess. This resistance will be caused by friction in bearings, angular momentum in precession plane, aerodynamic resistance, etc. Thus this resistance causes again a torque against precession movement, which will be in return “back deflected” about 90 degrees to the acting gravity/tilting torque and is resulting in a “deflected precession” which causes the gravity torque to drop. The drop velocity depends on the size of resistance and will has its maximum at precession speed, if prcession movement will be blocked either by very high resistance or by reducing the degree of freedom by mechanical design. Sorry for circuitous repeating these basics.
Let`s abstract the behaviour of a gravity accelerated overhanging gyroscope:
1. A gravity accelerated overhanging gyroscope will precess 90 degrees deflected in a horizontal plane.
2. Without any resistance against precession movement, the gyroscope would not drop in vertical plane, i.e. the acting tilting torque caused by gravity would remain “static”
3. Any kind of resistance against precession movement will cause a 90 degrees deflected torque back to the acting gravity torque which will in return cause the drop of the gyroscope in vertical plane.
4. The maximum drop speed is equal to the theoretical precession speed if the resistance is big enough to block precession movement. In this case the precession movement will be “back deflected” from horizontal plane to vertical plane.
Now let´s consider a mechanically accelerated overhanging gyroscope.
In this case the overhanging gyro system will be accelerated by a inserted torque in horizontal plane into a hub and the deflections will occur in vertical plane. The function is reverse to the unction of a gravity accelerated system. The fact that hub rotation will occur at all indicates, that there must be resistance against precession movement in horizontal plane either caused by friction, angular momentum, etc. or by mechanically design. Otherwise the pure presence of inserted static torque into the hub would be sufficient to cause precession in vertical plane, i.e. upward/inward movement of the gyroscope in similar way as a gravity accelerated gyroscope behave.
Thus, assumed resistance caused by any kind of friction would be minimized and precession movement would not be blocked by design, the back deflected precession movement into the hub will be mainly caused by the capacity of angular momentum of the gyro system. The angular momentum capacity will be decreased appropriate to the upward/inward movement of the gyroscope. Thus, even if upward/inward movement would be prevented (blocked) by mechanically design, the maximum resistance against precession in vertical plane will be limited by the momentary capacity of angular momentum in horizontal plane.
However, as soon as the gyro begins to move upwards/inwards (what it should do immediately if a torque will be inserted into the hub), angular momentum in horizontal plane will be decreased. That means the gyro system will be instantly from the beginning in the saturation zone. Thus your observations, that there is a certain saturation point where the saturation begins to act, indicates that an additional force must act against precession movement. In my opinion this additional force is caused by centrifugal force of the dead weight mass of the gyroscope in horizontal plane, which causes in return a counter torque by centrifugal force x vertical lever arm about the pivot.
Sandy, you are right that angular momentum as well as centrifugal force disappear in saturation zone, because the dead weight mass of the overhanging gyroscope moves upwards/inwards which causes indeed a loss of angular momentum/centrifugal force.
To operate the system below the saturation point, all parameters of the gyro system (spinning mass, spinning velocity, rotation radius around the hub, inserted torque into the hub, etc.) must be accurate defined. I think without the possibility to calculate these parameters it will not be possible to find an ideal with maximum outcome.
I don´t know if propulsion would be really possible if an overhanging gyro system operates below saturation. You stated it is possible and thus I will believe it. ;-)
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 16/03/2013 13:26:09
| | | Hello again Harry,
Once upon a time I believed in the infallibility of the scientific word but gradually over the piece I became decidedly more sceptical about their promoted spiel especially in relation to gyroscopes in the manner in which we are using them.
My own contention is that there is only ever one edge (sector) of a gyroscope which does the work whether it be in a gravity accelerated system or a mechanically accelerated system.
I have repeatedly in the past made comment about the (in my opinion) alleged couple and explained why it cannot be.
In light of this I will conveniently defer any comment relating to gravity accelerated systems at this point.
There have never been any dissenters in the ranks anyway, but that never ever signified acceptance.
As far as I am concerned a couple means a pair of equal and opposite forces in this case normally assumed to act vertically around the centre of mass of the gyroscope.
Here is a special condition, albeit the worst case condition.
Assume that I have a 300mm gyroscope mounted on a 150mm long shaft the other end being mounted on the driving shaft.(or hub you call it}
So we have system with a gyroscope which has the same diameter as its diameter of mechanical rotation or acceleration.
The rotation speed of the system is the same as the rotation speed of the gyroscope,
So at 500rpm the lower advancing sector of the gyroscope is effectively travelling something close to the equivalent 1000rpm and the top receding sector is effectively rotating back from whence it came
The angular momentum generated by the rotation of the system and the angular momentum generated in the lower advancing sector of the gyroscope generates a fair whack of torque but not around the centre of mass of the gyroscope.
The upper sector of the gyroscope is producing much less.
OK this is probably as close as you can get to the worst case condition, but what is happening is true for every mechanically accelerated gyroscope.
Normally a gyroscope would only experience a differential across its face with more angular momentum being generated at the bottom sector than the top sector.
There is no couple the action is one of pure inertia.
Regards
Sandy.
PS
Was going to make an associated statement or request if you like but I will raise a new question instead.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 16/03/2013 14:31:25
| | | Hello Sandy,
Good point, Sandy, at first sight but I do not agree.
If you look from outside to the face of the gyro and devide the sectors according to a clock face then the involved sectors for the vertical couple are the sectors in the range between 12 to 6 o´clock and 6 to 12 o´clock, i.e. the right and the left sectors producing the couple but not the top and bottom sectors.
The mass particles at 3 o´clock respectively the mass particles at 9 o´clock deliver in this connection the highest level of the couple. Whereat the couple varies sinusoidal between zero at 12 and 6 o´clock and maximum at 3 and 9 o´clock. That means that only the vertical components of the moving mass particles will have influence to the couple but not the horizontal components.
However, only the horizontal components will be affected by the hub rotation speed in the way you have stated, but the effects related to angular momentum will on the one hand be canceled out and on the other hand will have these effects not any influence to the caused couple (torque) as stated before.
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 16/03/2013 14:56:43
| | | Hello Harry
Your answer may affect the outcome of my new question, but luckily this does not affect any of the prior issues.
It does not matter a great deal but I am sorry that I must agree to disagree.
Regards
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 23/03/2013 20:07:38
| | | Hello Sandy,
I have just finished my Excel calculation chart and thus I'm now able to verify your experiment in theory. I have got from you the following data:
- 2 overhanging gyros at 60 degrees offset avove horizontal plane
- flywheel mass = 0,5 kg
- rotation radius (hub)= 300 mm (if horizontal aligned)
- flywheel velocity rate = 2500 rpm
- hub rotation rate = 250/500 rpm
What I'm missing to do the calculation is the flywheel diameter. Could you giive me this data? However, only if you are interested in the results of my calculations.
Thanks,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 23/03/2013 20:40:39
| | | A Pipe Dream.
This question is aimed at all participants in this search, but there are some experimenters who have already gone a bit of the way there.
Seems that there may be at least limited acceptance of what Harry and I have been discussing and the outcome of this could be of great help for anyone intending to proceed in a similar direction.
I did everything by suck it and see and now have the benefit of 30 plus years of experience, and not all of it is bad.
Take my word for it this could save you an awful load of bother searching for the proverbial needle.
I do not think that gyroscopically inspired inertial thrust can be produced by any other method than by mechanical acceleration of the system so please bear this in mind.
In a system of mechanical acceleration the most important factor is namely the ability of a gyroscope or flywheel to apply an inwards and upwards turning torque which is at right angles to the plane of system rotation
This is the only area in all of my travels where I have found that non-Newtonian forces can be generated consistently by design.
To this end it would be nice if we had access to the operating parameters for any gyroscope or flywheel and the operating parameters of the particular system in which it is mounted.
I have produced inertial thrust in several different set ups but in the final analysis the source has always been the same.
For this reason it becomes necessary to know what torque a known gyroscope can deliver at a predetermined gyroscope rotation speed and predetermined system rotation speed as this could help expedite the production of the necessary angular momentum differential needed to create inertial thrust.
I did state that in a mechanically accelerated system of fixed rotation speed that the centrifugal force and angular momentum produced were inversely proportional to the rotation speed of the gyroscope.
I did not mention that in a mechanically accelerated system with the gyroscope rotating at a fixed speed that centrifugal force and angular momentum produced were also proportional to the rotation speed of the system.
A gyroscope can be brass, steel, titanium, high duty aluminium (my favourite) whatever and can be made to any dimensions or for no better reasons than to suit the whims of the builder.
To this end what would constitute a “standard gyroscope”?
And what would constitute a “standard system”?
I do accept that in this pursuit those who experiment tend to be proud and conservative and probably do not wish to be involved in this manner, and of course the fact that this could take a bit of ironing out timewise.
Besides who says this is the only way anyway?
Your comments please
Regards,
Sandy
.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 23/03/2013 20:44:23
| | | Hello Harry
Nice to see someone has been busy.
You have done for me pretty well what I was hoping for
I use 2 different gyros Harry if for no other reason than for checking the difference in rates of acceleration between them.
Smaller gyro at approx.100mm diameter is of nearly the same weight as the other at 0.5Kilo.
The hope was to make the angular momentum as near as possibly the same at the same system rotation speeds.
The larger is 150 mm diameter and both sizes turned by myself from HE 30 aluminium.
You can gather from my posting that this kind of information is crucial for the purposes of differential calculation.
I hope this information is useful to others..
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Rchard Urwin - 24/03/2013 12:22:13
| | | Hi Sandy,
With your Medusa Motion devices how do you speed up and slow down the gyros/flywheels to impart the Medusa Motion?
speed controllers? gearing? at what rate can you impart a impulse?
Richard
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
SandyKidd - 24/03/2013 14:20:22
| | | Hello Richard,
I will proceed to describe my last pair of devices and include some tips for you.
In what was to be the last, but has now become the second last attempt by myself to put this thing to bed Mr Murphy had a considerable hand in the proceedings.
Let me put it this way, after a great deal of work, and much wasted time (nearly 2 years ) I failed miserably to operate the system using brushless out runner motors and associated speed controllers.
Electronics was great but I could not get the gyros (motors) to slow down nearly fast enough when required.
Another major problem was the fact that synchronisation of gyroscope rotation speeds, are essential, but this was found to be unattainable with my motors and controllers. The speed differential does not have to be very large to cause major out of balance forces in opposed gyroscopes and is bleeding dangerous.
You have been warned.
This was my first attempt ever to use electrics and electronic control to do my bidding, hence the inclusion of this information.
My gyroscopes run on twin ball-races with an inboard needle thrust bearing to take care of any centrifugal loading.
In days gone by my gyros were mounted on long plain bearings where there was loads of drag due to gyroscopic torque, unfortunately now they just freewheel on, when I want them to slow down.
There was a breaking function on each controller and when using that it at least proved that my system worked well and as intended.
However the motors and controllers overheated badly during repeated braking and re-accelerating so eventually I had to give up that way of doing it.
(I have just built a quad-copter with the bits)
I had to redesign the system to use an all mechanical set up with one motor driving the gyros and one doing the machine rotation.
Of course there is a bit more in it than that but to answer your question the device does not have to cycle very fast at all to operate well, but the shorter the pulse the faster it can cycle, which is a bit obvious really .
Conversely the larger the output pulse the slower the cycle but the greater the thrust.
My apologies I should have mentioned that the device is double acting, so there is no dead half cycle.
Whilst the rotation speed can be easily controlled the rotation speed of the device does not have to alter at all to deliver a range of outputs which are a product of pulse frequency and magnitude of the pulse.
So Richard manipulation of the gyroscopes automatically creates the pulse, the depth of the pulse and the cyclic rate of the pulse.
Gyroscope rotation speed control is what it is all about, and is a direct result of my findings from years ago, but which are again claimed in the thread Harry and I have been discussing of late.
The requirement for the gearbox which controls the cycling function was not at all easy to build, but make a good gearbox and you can have inertial thrust.
Richard here is a tip on where to start.
I utilised parts from model off -road cars, to assemble my gearbox, HPI to be exact.
You will find many useful and useable parts in the HPI catalogue.
The parts are ready made but are still a pain in the backside to put together.
If I had a lot of money to burn I would have a special gearbox designed to suit my needs.
I had to make do with what is available so the gyroscope transmission system could be lighter and more compact
Otherwise everything else on the device was readily available in my big box of bits.
Best regards Richard and thank you for your interest.
Sandy
PS
I am describing different approaches to the same device here, and not previous devices using the same principle. The reason I went this far with them is the fact that they are better balanced than previous devices, more controllable, and apart from the shortcomings shown when utilising electrics, inherently stronger, more reliable and a bit more simple to operate.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 24/03/2013 14:25:15
| | | Hello Sandy,
Thank you for providing the data. Based on your setup data my calculations stating that centrifugal force should win. However, you have observed the contrary and thus I have to check the equations and theoretical approaches again in deep.
Anyway, I found out that I have overlooked an acting force which I never had considered in the past. Also I think this force was never directly mentioned here in this forum by anyone, or I overread it.
In my opinion this force could be primarily responsible for possible inertial thrust!
Also this force only become manifest during upward/inward acceleration and reverse. I think this is concordant with your observations, isn´t it?
I have to think more in deep before stating more details. However, this story is getting more and more interesting.
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 24/03/2013 15:40:48
| | | Hello again Harry,
Seems to me that what we were led to believe at school, college, or university was not quite what we thought Harry,
I think this happened by accidental exclusion rather than deliberate omission, probably because no one ever got interested in this aspect of the behaviour of spinning discs whilst they are under mechanical acceleration.
Besides no one ever seems to have asked the question?
This loss of centrifugal force and angular momentum in mechanically accelerated systems and whatever else goes with it, may never ever have been found and on the face of it would really not matter a damn to the world in general, but here we are.
We cannot un-discover it and put it back it is too late for that, anyway we have an urgent need for it, even if the rest of humanity does not.
Carry on with the good work
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 24/03/2013 17:36:23
| | | Hello Sandy,
You are pretty right with all of your conclusions in this matter! I have to make a break because my head is smoking. Unfortunately I can only spend time for this hobby during the weekend and because my wife abroad today. ;-)
I believe to understand what is happening, however, the maths behind these effects is much more complex than I have expected. Not the equations itself are complex but the interaction of each single effect and the resulting outcome.
I´m still convienced that the loss of angular momentum (saturation zone) is caused by several counter actions to precession or deflecting actions, i.e. the resultant acting behavior has the appearance of lost angular moment respectively centrifugal force.
Because of the discovery of the prior mentioned unconsidered force I believe to understand now the principle of you experimental design. You have to manipulate either the flywheel rpm rate or the rotation rpm rate to achieve a continous oscillating upward/inward acceleration to get this force and thus to achieve possible thrust. I´m convienced that this could be the key for a inertial propulsion device.
If the maths behind these effects can be discovered (I´m sure it will) than all affecting parameters can be optimal defined to achieve maximum output by given resources.
Sandy, you did a very great job in experimental work! I think it must be nearly impossible to find the correct working parameters by accident to achieve the effects which you have found. I hope you will live to see the approval of your work (I´m sure you will!). Maybe I can help a bit in finding the calculation theory behind it.
It´s a shame that most of us writers in this forum have wasted so much time for sharing irrelevant statements instead of sharing our knowledge or learning from each other. Now it seems most of the writers have been gone. Where is Glenn, Nitro, Blaze, Luis, etc.? Or shall we continue our discussion via email?
Maybe this would be a better idea.
Best regards and thank you for sharing your wisdom,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 24/03/2013 22:36:43
| | | Hello Harry,
I am sure you have heard the term reverse engineering.
The tatty old device shown in the “Propulsion” section of this site was the very first of the machines I ever built and was strangely the first which operated in a simplified Medusa or jellyfish manner of operation.
It also delivered 0.5 Kilos of lift continuously and reliably.
In fairness no one knew why it did it and it took me several years to investigate and prove why it did it. It was examined by many physicists, engineers and mathematicians and that included a multitude of professors.
Even the Australians who put it through its successful and documented laboratory test could not even at very close range figure out why it worked and interest eventually dissolved away.
Newton kept getting in the way so when I returned home I decided to find the missing pieces of the jigsaw which were obviously not complying with accepted principles.
Enter “Loss of Angular Momentum / Centrifugal Force in Gyroscopic Systems under Mechanical Acceleration”, “Saturation” “Vertical Offset” and “Defaulted or Indirect Operation”
The latter two items are extremely important for the automatic creation of the angular momentum differential and its ultimate complete conversion into inertial thrust.
Well almost there is a small but extremely important item which must be considered.
We shall get around to the vertical offset, indirect action and the unnamed factor a bit later
Going back to my first machine Harry, I think you asked me a while ago, personally about the mode of operation?
I was a bit embarrassed because I really did not know how to tell you how simple the thing was. Without prior knowledge of the subject we have under discussion right now there is no way you were going to believe me.
The thing was a totally accidental melange of odd bits and pieces assembled in the interests of expediency and whilst all these pieces were essential to make it work, the point is in spite of anything I had done, it worked.
This machine could be built in a week or so but by using more appropriate bits and pieces would be much better, cheaper, lighter and be externally controlled by means of radio, a luxury I had, but I did not use then.
In this case electrics would be fine as the application is not nearly so critical as a multi gyro device.
I may make one for fun, soon.
Harry you said:
Because of the discovery of the prior mentioned unconsidered force I believe to understand now the principle of you experimental design. You have to manipulate either the flywheel rpm rate or the rotation rpm rate to achieve a continous oscillating upward/inward acceleration to get this force and thus to achieve possible thrust. I´m convienced that this could be the key for a inertial propulsion device.
Sandy he said:
Close, Harry most of the way there but I only manipulate gyro rotation speed to do my bidding but it is a bit more complicated than that.
I should not really say this but I am using two pairs of opposed offset gyroscopes mounted in a cruciform layout to create my differentials.
I did say my gearbox was an illegitimate.
Take it from there.
Wish my wife would go abroad.
Regards;
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 26/03/2013 00:29:52
| | | Hello again Harry,
Thanks very much for your vote of confidence.
I realize that this is only a hobby and as such time is a limited resource
That is one advantage of being retired, time tends to be your own give or take a bit, so I can pretty well do what I like if I like and when I like
Whilst what we are at present discussing i.e. the possibility of angular momentum control and it is a very important issue in the production of inertial thrust there is still a long way to go
A twin opposed and vertically offset gyroscopic system can be built relatively easily and quickly and will produce reasonable amounts of inertial thrust reliably and on demand.
If nothing else this should have put any doubt to bed 26 or so years ago, but that was never going to happen.
The device was demonstrated successfully on Grampian TV (ITV)
That device somehow appeared on BBC’s “Tomorrow’s World” the ITV’s competition.by trickery and was statically reviewed in my absence by a pair of BBCs puppets whose experience with gyroscopes was zero.
I never even got a trial, not that the smug self-righteous dumplings would have understood me anyway. What we would call a snow job.
It was never made clear to me how the device ever got into their hands, I would really like to know, but I have my suspicions. This did me no favours.
However 8 million viewers received the establishment party line that I was severely mistaken, obviously implying that I was a fraudster without saying as much.
However in light of the fact that I have known for a few years now why the original device works, I have in mind a better built version of my original device but with a more precise system of actuation.
If I had more sense I should probably patent this device as no one else could ever
figure out why the thing worked.
Having said that I thought I had better enlarge upon the use of our ability to gain or lose angular momentum as required..
The logical thing to do would be to manipulate the gyroscope rotation speed to create an angular momentum differential which is what I aimed to do from the start many years ago, but using a different method.
However several things affected my ability to do this
I had not experimented to any great length with vertical offset but eventually discovered that it was required, certainly not as much as the 60 degrees I usually use (for my own good reasons) but 15 to 20 degrees anyway.
After much experimenting I found as others have also found that no gyroscope on its own however manipulated can deliver inertial thrust.
However if this gyro, call it the active gyro is made to act or react indirectly (or by default) with another part of the device then things can get to be different..
Incidentally inclusion of vertical offset, is required to make the default or indirect action possible.
I am sure you will figure this all out.
That is enough for now.
I’ll let you ponder for a bit.
Hope this is of some interest or even help,
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 26/03/2013 20:29:23
| | | Hello Sandy,
Thank you for the enlightening provided information. Unfortunately the search function in this forum is very poor or I´m too dumb to get it work. Although I´m sure I had read most of your postings I would like to read them again, in particular the headings which you have stated. Do you have a hint to find them (posting time, etc.)?
You wrote
"I should not really say this but I am using two pairs of opposed offset gyroscopes mounted in a cruciform layout to create my differentials."
I have already implemented a variable in my calculation sheet to select the number of opposed acting gyroscopes. ;-)
I´m still wondering why I did not recognized the "mystic" additional force earlier. Maybe I was too stuck with the idea of a balance point between centrifugal force and angular momentum in precession. However, this static balance -which can occur in my opinion- avoid instead create inertial thrust. Do you remember EDH and his experiments with wobbling spheres? I think he was on the right track with his ideas.
I agee with you, and you know the truth much better because of your experiences and doing a lot of experimental work, that the gyroscope(s) cannot deliver inertial thrust on its own. The special behavior of a gyroscope is only an auxiliary device to transform angular momentum / centrifugal force to achieve thrust. And you have to consider all actions and reactions spatial in all three dimension, that is a key requirement.
I also agree with you that there is still a long way to go. But if the working principle is understood as well as the maths behind these things it should be possible to design an experimental setup with optimised working parameters. An important issue will be also the necessary energy input for such a device. Batteries to drive the motors are heavy and needless ballast. ;-)
I hope to have some time for calculation work during the Easter time. However, we are glad that our children will visit us. Let`see.
Thank you again for this fruitful discussion!
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 26/03/2013 21:41:57
| | | Hello Harry
The double pairs of horizontally opposed, and offset gyroscopes, was an attempt to balance the system which cannot be done with one pair, and you will also find that there are double sets for a more fundamental reason and an important part of the actuation set up.
It is all very well to alter the angular momentum Harry which we can surely do consistently and successfully, but we must be able to alter the position of the altering angular momentum as it is changing to create a reaction otherwise nothing happens.
This is not easy but it is only an engineering problem and not black magic.
This took me some considerable time and some real pain in the backside sorting out.
I am surely the most patient person who I know (except with humans) but my patience was severely tested getting to grips with that, basically because it is all mechanical and had to source and modify a load of model racing car parts to suit.
I can now say that like anything else it is easy once you know.
However it can be done that is what counts.
I am 76 this year and have no intention of snuffing it for a while, but just in case I did not want to see all the work I have done go down the drain.
So I thank you for your interest Harry.
For that reason I was prepared to release a lot of information relating to inertial drive, at least enough to get some interest in what I had discovered.
By the way you mentioned EDF, who suffered from the same belief as I did at the start of my struggle with inertial drive.
He did not realise that angular momentum disappears proportionally to increase in gyroscope rotation speed, but neither did I at the start.
No one ever suggested that this actually occurred. I told him that at the speeds he was rotating his spheres, the device was surely in saturation, and it would display no angular momentum, centrifugal force or lift.
I felt sorry for the lad as I know what failure feels like.
Best regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 29/03/2013 20:26:34
| | | Hello Sandy,
It seems to me that we are the only participants in this forum.
Unfortunately nobody seems to be interested in what we are discussing here!?
I have thought again in depth about the basic behavour of gyroscopes in precession with interesting results, partiulary a possible theoretic explanation of the cause of saturation.
However, my statements will be in fairly length in my usual “special“ English and thus may be not easy to grasp.
I'm also not sure to share my findings here in this forum or if I should better write an email to you directly. Is your hotmail account still valid?
By the way my father is 76 years old too. :-)
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 29/03/2013 21:42:17
| | | Hello Harry,
My email is still valid.
However I sent an email to you at the email address you previously gave me.
I must assume you did not receive it.
By the way I cannot fault your English.
Many years ago I did a lot of touring on the continent, Holland, France, Belgium but mostly Germany where I had several friends.
They lived mostly in the Friesland area and one actually became the mayor of Emden.
He was quite a character?
Anyway I took many lessons in speaking German.
I wish I could say that my German was as bad as yours.
I had some good times over there, and some not so good including being unceremoniously dumped out of East Germany twice at the “Horst” checkpoint.
A forbidding place was the “Horst” checkpoint, believe me.
I await your email.
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 29/03/2013 22:00:53
| | | Hello Sandy,
Thank you for your prompt response. I will send my email within tomorrow because it is not finished yet. In advance I have to admit, that I did see the gyro related issues in a too simple manner, i.e. only in two planes, vertically and horizontally. In reality things will happen spatial in all three dimensions. In this true consideration your saturation zone will make sense and is in my opinion true. Please accept my appologies for beeing blind in this regard in the past!
Very best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 29/03/2013 22:18:12
| | | I forgot to ask, Sandy. When did you sent the email, today? The email adress ...@gmx.de is valid.
Regards,
Hatry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 29/03/2013 22:34:27
| | | Hello Harry,
I sent the email with attachment on 26th March
Regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 29/03/2013 23:12:51
| | | Hello Sandy,wa
I have just checked my emails but unfortunately I did not received any email from you. Anyway, tomorrow you will receive my email under my very privat email account which will ensure that I will receive further emails from you.
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 29/03/2013 23:16:08
| | | Sorry for the type errors in my prior post. It was sent via my smartphone and thus typing the charakters is a bit difficult with my fat fingers.
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 29/03/2013 23:19:19
| | | Harry and Sandy, I am quietly reading as I am sure others are. I have been busy with some math on other aspects of gyroscope movement and so have been content to simply see what you two come up with on this thread.
cheers,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 29/03/2013 23:32:08
| | | Evening Harry and Blaze
I use an I phone too.
Get yourself a capacitance touch screen stylus.
Very cheap very good.
My fingers were not meant to break either.
Evening Blaze thought you had got sense and given it all up.
Re-sent that email Harry maybe "f" should have been upper case?
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 30/03/2013 00:01:25
| | | Hi Sandy,
Upper or lower case isn't important. Here is my public email address: fahkei@gmx.net
Thanks,
Harry
Hi Blaze
Good to hear that you're still alive. :-)
Don't worry you will be updated about new insights, however, I want to hear Sandy's comments first about my bold theories in regard to saturation before posting in a public forum. At least he was the man who explained the concept of “saturation“.
Thank you for your understanding. We will keep in contact.
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 30/03/2013 00:07:00
| | | Hello Sandy,
Oh my god it seems it is now too late for me! Please ignore the stated email address in my prior post. Here is the correct one: fahkei@gmx.de
I'm getting old...
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 30/03/2013 02:37:32
| | | I have not had time to keep up. but I look forward to reading everything. At first I wrote some input to keep in reserve, then you two men have exploded and left me to catch up later. It is funny that progress comes that way; trickle, trickle along and then an explosion. I can think of many examples. Keep the faith! friends, you are not alone and your work will be joined in the future. Blaze indicated so also.
High regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 30/03/2013 11:00:16
| | | Hello Glenn,
Good to read that you are still on board! I'm looking forward to your apreciated comments if you have more time.
Regards,
Harry
Hello Sandy,
I've received your emails. They were forwarded in the spam folder for unknown reasons. I have changed the adjustments in the email account hence it should not happen again.
The stup looks very professional. I cannot see it on the photo but I assume the 4 flywheels have the freedom to move upwards/inwards from its offset position, isn'it?
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 30/03/2013 19:03:45
| | | Hello again Glenn,
I knew you would be in there somewhere as some time ago you are the one who very kindly named this thing, which is much too long-winded to keep writing down, as “Kidd’s Law”
Thank you again for that kind sir.
You were probably the first on this forum to get to grips with this concept, especially that of saturation.
The point is Glenn what are you doing now old pal?
Have you yielded to the effects of the honey-mead or are you busy building slow or rapid repeaters or both, or maybe even something completely different perhaps?
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 30/03/2013 19:11:12
| | | Hello Harry,
Glad you got the photo.
Obsolete yes but the layout will not change too much.
And yes the gyroscopes can swing in and up on the 5mm coned pins you can just about see in the picture.
(and no, it does not operate near saturation)
I included a photo with a shot of the slip-rings to show how I get the power into the motors.
Regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 30/03/2013 21:14:34
| | | Hello Sandy,
I hope you received my email wich I have sent in late afternoon. Only for the case that my email was guided in your spam folder too.
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 30/03/2013 21:59:31
| | | Hello Harry,
Got your longish email OK.
It will take a fair bit of studying.
I will respond when I have finished reading it.
Thanks Harry
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 30/03/2013 22:32:56
| | | Hello Sandy,
Just found your last email again in the spam filter. I hate it!
Sorry, I had better sent the text as a MS-Word attachment.
I can send it tomorrow if you want.
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Richard Urwin - 04/04/2013 12:46:29
| | | Hi Sandy,
Do you have photos you could share of your original and current devices?
thank you for you response above.
With regards
Richard
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 05/04/2013 10:42:46
| | | Hello Richard,
I will see what I can dig out for you.
Regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Kirk Harper - 24/04/2013 14:02:08
| | | Hello gentlemen, there are indeed, many people reading these posts with varying amounts of interest, myself included. Sandy, you have mentioned a problem with speed differential on opposing gyro's and the havoc it could wreak! I nearly wet myself with the image painted in my head. Question: have you tried powering the Gyro's with hydraulic motors fed from one hydraulic pump? This would allow for very fast speed changes indeed.
Harry, you have mentioned a problem with the ballast of batteries, they can indeed be heavy but, have you considered RING MAGNET MOTORS!? These require no external power and could potentially run a gyro in perpetuity.
I have design concepts waiting on proof of experiment, I just need to find the time to ascertain optimum speeds and angles.
Regards, Kirk
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 25/04/2013 23:10:18
| | | Hello Kirk .
Thanks for your comments and your interest.
In light of the fact we would require non-slip pumps and motors which were never very cheap I think your suggestion could be a very expensive option if used to carry out our needs, at this stage in the game, anyway.
I think that any hydraulic system would be considerably heavier than my geared system, when pumps and motors, reservoir tank, oil, and all accessories are put together and probably harder to commission and probably less reliable than my mechanical one
Remember also, we must still drive the pump and drive the machine.
Seems like it is going to be complicated and involved however we do it.
I will agree that if in the future we combine 4, 6 or even 8 units to power our machine with a “designed in” modicum of redundancy and to deliver acceptable upward and sideways thrust, provide adequate and if necessary independent control of each unit, then a hydraulic system purposely designed and built for the job in hand would probably be the way to do it.
Regards,
Sandy.
PS in light of the availability at extremely reasonable prices of triple axis stabilisation units for use in model multi-copters and model aircraft, it would appear that some of the original worries relating to stabilisation and control of just such a device have been done for us, and could be relatively easily adapted to control an integrated hydraulic control and drive system. I have recently acquired just such a stabilisation device (for other purposes) ready to plug into ESCs or servos and appropriate RC receiver channels.
It weighs in at 70 grams.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 27/04/2013 10:20:10
| | | Hello Kirk,
Thank you for your interest. Tell us more about your idea to use ring magnet motors. Sounds interesting, however, the ring magnet motors have to be powerd too or from where should the necessary rotation energy come from?
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Magneto - 29/04/2013 18:03:23
| | | The magnets perhaps?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 29/04/2013 18:45:45
| | | Dear Magneto,
Steady old boy! Magnets are good for force but if you know of a way of getting energy out of them without putting anything in then you are talking perp-mo. That is one order of magnitude on from our search for inertial drive/anti gravity/reactionless action/conversion of torsional force into linear force. Hell you can go to the head of the class ifn you all can put up a video of that one. Why, we haven’t even got round to properly naming what we are searching for in our sheds. That reminds me I still haven’t found my variably voltage power source. Probably in my box of Ariel Arrow gear box bits I left in the boot of the Daimler Dart – I shouldn’t wonder!
Love and laughter, guys.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Kirk Harper - 30/04/2013 15:57:40
| | | Sandy, thank you for your response, most generous indeed however, there are motors that can provide exactly what is required for the purpose 'on the shelf' and when you consider that I'm talking of spinning up gyros the size of a train wheel, well, you can see the need for something with a little more, oomph! Especially when I'm theorizing 8 or 12 gyros on one ring with a contra-rotating ring identical to the first.
Harry, Magneto has provided the answer to that one, Nitro, before you scoff too quickly, check this link http://www.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DPjmJX4thhGA&ei=Yth_Uc2aK4qm0AXDh4CIAQ&usg=AFQjCNGTE4Z9G3_tMHq24lJJCnA8xpwCBA
You decide, Kirk
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 30/04/2013 23:39:54
| | | Hello Kirk ,
Thanks again for your response.
I do not deny there are systems available to do what you see as being required, unfortunately I think the layout of the system/s you have in mind i.e. multi gyroscope contra rotating systems is far removed from what is required in reality.
The operation of the system is something quite a bit out of the norm, and is peculiar or unique to this form of device..
Harald and I were discussing the problem of the lack of synchronisation between independent gyroscope drives due to the idiosyncrasies of the drive itself in that case 3 phase brushless motors and their associated Electronic Speed Controllers.
I was led to believe that these motors “the 4 matched up for use on the machine” would be relatively closely matched as far as rotation speed was concerned.
That was found to be bad and bad enough but the problem was considerably worsened by the total lack of control when power was removed from the gyroscope motors with no drag present in the system.
The device worked well enough when the optional electronic braking was programmed into each of the ESCs but the rapid onset of overheating of motors and ESCs curtailed any further development of that device.
Yes, hydraulics would have resolved that problem but as I said I think it is much too early to invoke a comprehensive hydraulic set up for it all.
Returning to gyroscope synchronisation which this was the initially about, I suppose for model aircraft use in multi motor systems the difference would not be a great deterrent against using them as the effects of slight speed differential would in no way create the out of balance condition experienced between gyroscopes on my rather unorthodox devices.
For your interest I had designed the mechanical or geared answer to the problem about 18 years ago maybe a bit more but decided to give it the “sloppy shoulder” in light of all the extra work it was going to incur.
Electrics I thought would solve the problem
Regards,
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Kirk Harper - 01/05/2013 13:09:39
| | | Sandy, thank you for your response, indeed I saw you "sloppy shoulder" device several years ago and even critiqued it making reference to the Christmas lectures video as to why it didn't function as you'd hoped.
Question: Which is the fastest moving part of a vinyl record?
Answer: The outer edge!
Your geared "sloppy shoulder" device was driving the gyros from a point very adjacent to the central axis of the gyros about the vertical plane, essentially the slowest point of the "vinyl record". the force you were attempting to generate to create lift was present but, once it was created, it had been deflected from the vertical by so much centrifugal force that the amount of lift generated, was barely perceptible.
Sandy, I have taken the liberty of adding a link to an image which is widely understood by people who lift weights on a daily basis, this should help to illustrate where your lift was being directed.
Think of the top ring as centrifugal force, as the force increases, the deflection from the vertical increases in a linear progression, throught to the illustrated 10 degrees from horizontal, which is showing 17% of lift capacity.
http://www.hitechlifting.com/products/slings/images/chain_slings9.jpg
To use a mechanically driven gyro, you need to drive it from the 'outside' of the "vinyl record", through an infinitely variable gearbox, which will provide the synchronus results and the control you need to impart for directional change.
Harry, sorry, the link didn't work (oops) try this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0DRY7VsL-8
Be careful though! It does lead on to further examples of people ignoring the laws of physics.
Kirk
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 01/05/2013 18:48:51
| | | Dear Kirk, (and Hi Sandy)
Sorry if you thought I was scoffing quickly (a habit I probably got from having to rush boarding school lunches). I merely wanted to say that looking for inertial drive is quite mad enough for most of us but, if someone has the key to perp mo (perpetual motion/overunity/something for nothing etc etc ), then they would surely have to go to the top of the class as that would surely trump all our feeble efforts. However, having looked at hundreds of U-tube and other claims to have achieved this overunity wonder I have come to the conclusion that we on this site are prepared to battle bull while trying to get to our subject’s truth and, mad as we may be, are on the outside of the asylum – mostly.
Thank you for putting up a new link that got somewhere. The first link didn’t work and had me looking in my 5TA Speedtwin tool box for a big “Monday hammer” to reset my netgear link. Despite seeing your U-tube link I am still not sure what it is that you are trying to say as it just shows a home made version of an executive toy that amused us in the sixties. It shows a shaft with a ring magnet being repulsed (like poles and all that) to keep it away from the magnets on its base while slightly pushing the tip bearing against the glass (mirror) which (metal on glass) is a nice, efficient, low load, bearing. I actually have a still boxed version of this toy, given to me by a family member who thought that because I was interested in things rotating in more than one direction it would be an apt gift. I can put up a link if you like.
Having seen the U-tube link I feel inclined to ask a withering – Yes! And? However you may be seeing something in it that my rheumy old eyes cannot. Please elucidate.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Kirk Harper - 01/05/2013 20:46:03
| | | Nitro, in the u tube video, you see rotation imparted onto a stick! Rather than it slowing down and stopping, it accelerates with no further interference from an external source! If this was applied to a gyro, you wouldn't need batteries to keep them spinning, which was the original reason I presented this information.
I shall post a new question in the 'gyroscopic propulsion' forum that if successfully answered, may well end the entire debate.
Kirk
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 01/05/2013 22:23:08
| | | Hello Kirk,
You seem to be implying that you understood why my first machine operated, so I am curious to know what my first machine was designed to do, what in fact it did, and most of all why it did it?
Incidentally when some-one gives something or somebody else the “sloppy (angled downwards) shoulder” it means that he/she /it is wilfully ignored, dismissed or deliberately forgotten.
That is what I meant when I described the large amount of extra effort I was going to have to expend, in order to build a special gearbox and associated drives.
I deliberately avoided the problem for years until I was in the mood to attack it.
You seem to be over simplifying the production of inertial thrust, the answers are not easy to obtain as Mother Nature hides her secrets well.
They are there but are not at all easy to recognise, and subsequent modification and or manipulation of the factors takes a lot of time.
What is more if you are unable to manufacture the parts required and integrate them into a working device the whole project could become an expensive and tedious nightmare.
Regards,
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 02/05/2013 02:09:27
| | | Dear Kirk (hi Sandy),
I am really sorry to be so negative but you have got to accept that while some here (me for one) think that Newton’s laws need modifying, Newton’s laws still apply in almost every aspect of our world. It is so very important to understand them, how they apply and what they mean if one is not to waste time flying off down dead end paths, be fooled by charlatans or, much worse, spread the word of charlatans. There may well be the tiniest chance that someone will crack overunity and/or indeed unidirectional thrust but while there are many claiming to have done so on U-tube and elsewhere the vast majority are fooling people and, often, fooling themselves.
The U-tube link you put up does not show a rotating device that “speeds up” indeed the person who put up the video makes no such claim. He only shows how to make a low friction magnetically supported toy. Why did you think that it does speed up or that it could be a key to over unity or a better gyro drive?
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Kirk Harper - 02/05/2013 09:58:01
| | | Hello Sandy, unless I am grossly mistaken, your first machine was designed to create vertical lift using two gyroscopes, this was after watching Eric Laithwaite's Christmas lecture. Your first device was apparently somewhat crude and you, alongside Professor Laithwaite, designed and built a 'better' device, this apparently didn't work as well as the first and after some closer inspection, you came up with another device that more closely matched some of the idiosyncrasies of your first device namely, a short telescoping area on both drive shafts leading to the gyro's that allowed them to move closer to or further away from the vertical central axis, this is what I mistook for what you referred to as 'sloppy'shoulders'. You had to counterbalance the entire device to such a degree as to almost make it weightless before you could demonstrate lift. As far as I can tell, your lifting force was deflected away from the vertical by centrifugal force, the gyro's, being driven by a small bevel gear at the centre of the device, couldn't attain enough speed to overcome the deflection because of the speed that the gyro's were being rotated about the vertical axis. The lifting force was there but, at such an acute angle as to make it almost totally ineffective.
Nitro, You are not being negative at all, just cautious and somewhat jaded by the umpteenth person who says they have the answers. I do not profess to understand quantum mechanics, particle physics or newtonian laws but, can a genius I.Q. combined with a firm understanding of these matters have all the answers?
QUOTE: "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." -- Albert Einstein, 1932.
Just as there were gaps in the periodic table, maybe there are gaps in peoples theories and beliefs that will not be seen until something comes along to fill them.
Kirk
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 02/05/2013 22:03:45
| | | Hello again Kirk.
Firstly Eric Laithwaite never had anything to do with the design or development of any of my machines in any way shape or form,
Contrary to belief Laithwaite never ever mechanically rotated his devices he always utilised passive systems, normally using air driven gyros.
He also never ever produced inertial thrust.
No-one had the slightest idea why my first device worked I found out myself after many years of testing and experimenting, although it consistently delivered 1lb of vertical thrust. It weighed about 5.5lbs I think.
What better way to demonstrate vertical thrust than on a counterbalanced system.
The second device produced nothing but valuable knowledge relating to the real nature of the behaviour of gyroscopes.
The next machines no 3 along with no 4 passed a laboratory test in Australia completing 20 runs out of 20 of recorded thrust.
There is an official laboratory test from the VIPAC laboratories confirming this.
I must apologise Kirk because the rest of your posting I just do not understand.
Regards,
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 02/05/2013 22:16:00
| | | Hello Nitro,
I dp not believe in over unity power generation either or perpetual motion.
In your posting relating to Newton's Laws you are absolutely correct.
However I think Newton's Laws relating to separate conservation of angular and linear momentum are garbage as you yourself have demonstrated on "Youtube" may I add.
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Kirk Harper - 02/05/2013 22:19:21
| | | Sandy, I think we need to take this discussion offline, how we do that is your call, direct e-mail, telephone or meeting, I have no problem with any method.
Kirk
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 04/05/2013 09:36:11
| | | Hello Kirk,
Thank you for the link. Nitro has already explained the reason for the observed continuing motion. The 4 ring magnets only compensate the rotating weight of the device but they have nothing to do with any generation of accelerated rotation motion. The bearing on the side (metal ball on glas) holds the moving part of the device in horizontal position.
The friction in this device is very low, mainly friction caused by air ventilation is present. Thus the device will decelerate its motion very slowly, however it will decelerate in any case caused by the presence of friction forces! In space with the absence of gravity and air, the device would rotate forever, with or without magnets.
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 04/05/2013 09:49:47
| | | Hi Sandy,
Thanks for that. It’s nice to know that someone else is on the same path with his own sandwiches as it can get mighty lonely out there and you would not want to share your sandwiches with all the people you meet. It is sometimes hard to tell, when one is wandering the less well trod path, if it is those you meet or yourself who has a slice short.
You are, of course, right that it is possible, by using gyrodynamics, to separate torsional reaction couples from linear reaction couples within a mechanism. Once that separation is achieved, as you know, it leads to the path round much of Newton’s Laws and means that the reaction between “particles” in a closed system can add up to something other than zero. The third law in this type of mechanism has to change from “equal and opposite” to just “equal” because of the disconnection of (some of) the linear and torsional reactions. I put “(some of)” in there as there is no such thing as a perfect gyroscope, just like there is no such thing as a perfect operational amplifier, although you can get bloody close. I am now sixty nine and a quarter (going on 7) and have now been retired for three months. My intention, upon retirement, was to immediately leap straight into “nutter in shed mode” and put together a “fast repeater” with much improved action to mass ratio. We all know where the road paved with good intentions leads. I must get my wife to lock me in the shed (she’d probably be happy to do that as it will get me out from under her feet) with my gyros before the sunny weather and my 5TA Triumph Speedtwin tempt me away from the paths of righteousness.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 04/05/2013 22:23:33
| | | Please excuse me everyone for not getting involve, especially to Sandy and Harry.
The little time I had to devote to the gyroscope I have been applying to papers I've named the 'Bible of Gyroscopes'.
Anyway, glad you all are working.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 04/05/2013 22:56:05
| | | Good evening Glenn,
Thought you had left the planet,
Good to here from you.
Your compilation sounds interesting
Regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
leviterande - 27/05/2014 16:09:44
| | | hi, this is the heart of the subject. i think just it should be off or on; yes or no: there is no middle in physics: if a gyro can slightly do what we think it does ; let it be known it will be able to propel great masses: if it turned out all to be just illusions we will be all on the ground: too many calculations and theories and thinkings: while i agree with theorizing: nothing beats careful and hard testing: this should be very very easy: just money ofcourse: testing for what we call centrifugal force is the most important of all:
simplest is to hang a long rod witha gyro from a string: but thats not enough. mechanical machines will be built to test. its not hard at all. some money is all that is needed.
i really always ignored gyros because i understood the mechanisms and they all applied to the known laws and no closed propulsion could be done: recently now however i saw that perhaps i think i am a little mistaken. all these years
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 27/05/2014 16:52:12
| | | I agree with all, except that it's not easy, but pick up an additional part-time job, save your money and have a go at it.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
levi - 30/05/2014 13:45:57
| | | Hi again. I just finished some tests the past few days. I was on a hunt for centrifugal force by a straightforward mechanism. thinking I would get a definitive result, I was wrong. While in my sensitive pendulum tests I saw centrifugal forces with precession, I sometimes got big and sometimes got less centrifugal forces. So I got confused with the mixed results. Clearly lots of these mixed results is because of no perfect metal/plastic/bearing parts in the experimenting model. For example, the two gyros that I made spin werent always spinning at the same speed with the same rpm ofcourse, furhtermore the bearings were not perfect either on each side, also some slopping in the machine cause lots of trouble. however let it be known that yes centrifugal force exists but it seems that it is less than if you had simple pushed the weight. Not sure about all that.
I need just to do more testing soon with very precise methods, people dont understand how much precision plays a HUGE role here. there are so many factors and I hate that it just takes so much energy and time and money jsut to do some seemingly simple testing. I learned that you cant just test something unless you make every single part perfect and balance "as if it was in free space"
For next experiment I need to do this:
-let a gyro precess at certain velocity (lets call it velocity A)
-let the same nonrotating mass of gyro be accelerated manually to velocity A
watch how the reaction arm on the bearing moves.in each case
this test should end all this decade long debate once and for all, unless that the centrifugal forces or effects vary in relation to precession velocity....
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
