|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
29 April 2024 14:58
|
|
Welcome to the gyroscope forum. If you have a question about gyroscopes in general,
want to know how they work, or what they can be used for then you can leave your question here for others to answer.
You may also be able to help others by answering some of the questions on the site.
|
Question |
| Asked by: |
Glenn Hawkins |
| Subject: |
SADLY |
| Question: |
it is not possible.
I am glad to see someone is still enjoying exhausting, interesting and complicated mechanical efforts in search of propulsion. I hope it is fun. For me it was always both difficult and annoying, between highlighted bouts of elation and the feeling I was approaching a success.
However: About two months ago I developed perfect testing apparatus’ to answer the questions I had searched for, for many years. Was there and equal and opposite reaction on the plane of precession? The search at times seemingly impossibly dificult to find a way to answer that question.
The twin apparatuses’ I designed worked this way. Spinning disks without a shaft were allowed to slide down a curving slot in the same arc and angle as an overhung gyroscope slowing dropping. Sliding down these particularly designed slots, the gyroscopes twisted, but met with almost no friction. The differences from the overhung, the actions and questions I was searching were these:
If the gyroscopes twisted while falling in the same arc and path and way as the overhung, but had no shaft and no pedestal to torque their weight upon and hold them up, what would happen? I found this:
ONE) The spinning disk fell at about the speed of gravity and the right angle coupling was equally as fast and powerful and over with as quickly as any mass falling into gravity.
TWO) The two testing apparatus’ being without friction at a pedestal acted exactly as the laws of motion predicted. The gyroscopes twisted; did not precess, but twisted round their center of mass. This was because there was not drag and friction and no pedestal. No matter how light and minute the missing friction at the pedestal might be, precession is not possible without it.
The obvious conclusion has always been for me;
IF THERE COULD BE DISCOVERED AN EQUAL BINARY REACTION IN THE PLANE OF PRECESSION, REGISTERING HOWEVER LIGHTLY AT THE PIVOT, PEDESTAL, OR STRING, THEN PROPULSION WAS NOT POSSIBLE.
Still, some day I may explain it all as no one ever has.
Good luck and happiness to everyone, Glenn
|
| Date: |
16 October 2013
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Ted Pittman - 16/10/2013 14:52:58
| | | Any photos or videos of your apparatus?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
RS - 16/10/2013 21:23:09
| | | You could never gyroscopically propel yourself due to precession anyway. Linear propulsion has absolutely nothing to do with gyroscopic precession. You cannot use it as some sort of "anchor" to push yourself off of.
That guy Mike Marsden has already figured out linear propulsion, but he is just sitting on his invention for some strange reason and not releasing it to the public yet. You have to figure out a way to create an energy vector that moves in one direction. You must be constantly putting in energy, then taking it back out, putting in energy, then taking it back out, putting in energy, then taking it back out, over and over and over and over and over and over.
It's like an alternating electrical current. He does it through acceleration, then deceleration then acceleration, then deceleration, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Just spinning a gyroscope at a steady speed will do nothing; no matter how cool gyroscopic precession looks.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/10/2013 22:18:28
| | | I will add this: The curving slots that the flywheels were allowed to slide down, sat upon a cradle with Teflon feet. If you touched any part of the cradle, you got fast and very powerful precession, until the wheels quickly touched down. It did not seen to matter how lightly you touched the cradle, or where, you got precession. I even mounted ice-cubes on one end of the cradle and they were quickly slung several feet as the wheels precessed for an instant.
However, when there was no friction, no touch, contact or load bearing resistance, the wheels spun not unlike a dime flipped with your thumb to a table. I did and redid these test in may different ways for two half days.
Harry, you and Ram Firestone believed -- and I wonder back and forth, that there was friction at the pedestal to table. Simply yes. You were correct. That is all I have proven, but it is everything. Inertial propulsion would seem to be impossible no mater how you try.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/10/2013 22:21:29
| | | Excuse me Ted.
No. I have no video, but it was a very good question you ask. Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 16/10/2013 23:07:35
| | | Hello Glenn,
I was beginning to think that you had given this all up.
More than a few years ago I suggested that any set up utilising a gyroscope which is being manipulated in any way shape or form can never produce anything useful.
By this I meant any method of acceleration or deceleration of the gyroscope, either in the rotation speed of the gyroscope, or the rotation speed of the system, or some of each, or any change to the geometry of the system, except in one obscure case, I know of and which I will keep away from at this point
I have been producing thrust utilising gyroscopes in many different set ups for close on 30 years.
I submitted an article to the forum describing the use of gyroscopic vertical offset, associated with an indirect or as I prefer to call it a default action.
In other words no single gyroscopic system on its own can develop inertial thrust, but when the torque of that gyroscope is made to react with another part of the device indirectly thrust can be produced
(not quite the same as the reaction mass in Nitro’s device, but there are certain similarities)
Suitably manipulated and using at least a pair of gyroscopes and a bit of spatial aptitude continuous thrust can be produced.
Contrary to what R.S. claims continuous gyroscopically inspired inertial thrust from continuously rotating gyroscopes was delivered and proved in a prestigious laboratory 26 years ago.
There is a genuine laboratory report to prove it.
.
By the way I am curious to know what you are calling precession, which is a very misused term in mechanically accelerated systems, but in that context you are correct, continuous thrust cannot be generated whilst the gyroscope or gyroscopes are in what I think you are calling precession.
However gyroscopic devices when suitably designed can be made to deliver inertial thrust quite happily from within closed systems, making the systems totally autonomous.
There is no need to push on anything, and quite bit lighter than Mike Marsden’s device I will wager.
Regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ted Pittman - 17/10/2013 00:45:02
| | | Thank you Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 17/10/2013 02:43:41
| | | Gyroscopic propulsion is not possible. The gyroscope itself, acting as a gyroscope, cannot produce propulsion. That doesn't mean that a gyroscope is not used in a system that produces propulsion, just that the gyroscope itself, acting as a gyroscope, does not produce propulsion. That is why I have never called it "gyroscopic propulsion".
The theory and design I have developed indicates that propulsion is possible in what is conventionally called a "closed system". This theory makes use of several gyroscopes, but the gyroscopes themselves don't produce any of the propulsion. I have gone over this theory in depth with a couple of engineers and they haven't been able to blow any holes in it. Because the theory and design look like they have merit, I am in the process of building a device to prove out the theory. I would say that I am about 60 percent complete at this time.
cheers,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 17/10/2013 11:49:36
| | | Hello Sandy, Blaze, Ted and R.S.,
It is good to hear from you Sandy. I think about you sometime and in the nicest way. Blaze, I admire your effort and stick–to–it•ive•ness very much; yes very much. I have not committed on your thread, because I could not add anything helpful; not because I wasn’t following you.
Sandy, you and Blaze explain that the gyroscope in precession movements can not itself produce propulsion, but of course there was never a thought that it could. Still it is the heart of all efforts, and if it does not precess without experiencing an equal and opposite reaction in the precession plane, it is useless to propulsion. Then throw it away and then you have nothing. Dear Sandy, you know what precession entails, you sly guy you.
Happiness to all, Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ted Pittman - 17/10/2013 20:23:17
| | | Who says a gyro has to be symetrical and/or one solid piece?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 17/10/2013 22:14:05
| | | Ted,
Nobody
Certainly not me
Regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 17/10/2013 23:01:45
| | | Evening all interested parties.
Do not give up yet Glenn.
I was thinking about the comments made by Blaze and myself relating to the production of thrust by gyroscopes.
I think part of the problem is in the description and the workings of the “gyroscope”
For me a gyroscope is a spinning wheel designed to acquire gravity accelerated precession and utilise that precession for the purposes of stabilisation in aircraft, ships, tandem wheeled cars, and railroad vehicles etc., etc., etc.
They can be powered to run continuously but are normally seen in passive systems in decay.
For some time I used the purist term “flywheel” instead of gyroscope but as time passed I reverted to using the term gyroscope.
What we are using is a different animal altogether really a flywheel which displays no gyroscopic effects at all, but due to the fact it is mechanically accelerated, with gravity playing little or no part in the proceedings is capable of delivering some very interesting and useful effects that can never be generated by a gyroscope.
The ability of a device to generate inertial thrust can be made possible by utilising some of those interesting and useful effects
These effects can be generated at elevated machine rotation speed but where no obvious precession effects can be detected at the flywheel.
I posted a lengthy submission on this topic a year or two ago so I will not bore you with the details
Regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 20/10/2013 00:15:00
| | | Good evening Sandy,
It is getting cold here; this was the first morning chill. I guess you are already firing up your shed. Do you burn wood, sod, or coal?
I have been to busy to spit and tired all the time. I just finished that project and I am so glad. Take it easy.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 20/10/2013 19:55:47
| | | Evening Glenn,
It is getting colder here too.
I have just returned from a couple of weeks’ vacation in Turkey where it was 40 plus (even at this time of the year) for a fair bit of the time.
I like the heat, so I’m taking bad with the drop in temperature.
We live in a smokeless zone Glenn so burning coal, wood or turf (would that be peat?) is not allowed.
I cannot use gas or paraffin as the condensation wrecks everything as you are probably aware.
When it becomes extreme I have been known to use an electric powered oil filled radiator.
This is very expensive to run for any length of time, and my wife Janet is not very enthusiastic about its use.
I do wear “hummel doddies” most of the time.
That is a Doric term from the broch which is a bit north of here, the Fraserburgh area in fact.
These are of course fingerless gloves which I find indispensable with my old thin blood, due in large to my heart medication, mais c’est la vie.
In fact I was out shopping for new ones today and got myself a couple of pairs.
You did ask?
Regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 21/10/2013 14:52:15
| | | Evening Glenn, Sandy and all,
Funny how it is always evening all round the world when we put pen to paper, or its computer equivalent.
Sandy, I fear for your health if you have been foolish enough to holiday in such a far southern reach as Turkey! It is well known that we with a Scottish genome risk almost instant death from such southern solar radiation without factor 2000 sunscreen (equal to about a half inch layer of cement fondue). As to the thermal shock of the return trip to the “gentle coolth” of Scotland – even ex-highlanders like me have been know to shatter into small single malt and Haggis flavoured shards just by joyously jumping off the last step of a Dreamliner to greet their return to the best (and dreichest) place on Earth! And trying to warm up by hugging an overheating Dreamliner battery pack helps little and risks evaporation of much of our costly Scotch content!
I am fortunate, in a way, that before I was borne, my parents went south to the Channel Islands to find work before the war – the last real justifiable one, not one foisted upon us by arms manufacturers/governments creating sales, lining pockets and alienating everyone, though I suppose all wars involve the same lunacies. They retired back here and I followed later for a fortnight’s holiday and fifty odd years later I’m still here (some holiday!), but I can still remember visiting the ancestral croft cottage in Mull when the line of the snow covered roof continued down to the ground in drifts over the front porch and which took two hours to dig through to get to the front door and my Granny – who thought there was nothing unusual about this and anyway she had plenty of peat. A tough breed our lot – if slightly balmy!
You probably know, Sandy, that digging peat was done in the summer with a strange shaped “spade” that had a right angled cutting blade that enabled a long “brick” of peat to be cut and swung behind to make a pile. This would be left to dry before moving to an indoor store or being covered for winter use. Woe betide you if you didn’t make provision for the winter. Winters could, and did, kill! There was no electricity or mains water or sewage – don’t ask how people coped!
Having experienced the worst that a Mull winter could throw at me I swore that when I grew up I would never suffer from cold again. This is probably why I ended up designing heating systems for everything from flats to factories and hotels for my living and patented ways to improve boiler and system efficiencies – long before the word “green” was invented. In truth, it was just to save people’s money, and hopefully make me some, as the nonsense of global warming hadn’t been thought of and scientists were, in those days, saying we were just starting on a new ice age (Oh! And that the oil would run out by the end of the nineties – remember that?) – hang on for a few years and scientists will reverse what they said before, in my experience.
Here, we have long period off peak electricity tariffs from which Scotland also benefits due to its hydroelectric input – which, like most of the input we have here from French Nuclear/tidal generation, is still produced even when there is little demand – thus the off peak electricity is sold off cheap. To take advantage of this I invented a thermal storage off peak combination boiler to provide heating and hot water that, despite an intermittent input, gives a constant output, is clean, fuel storage free, Carbon monoxide free, flameless, safe and, perhaps, most important off all for its sales, cheaper to run than other fuels due to its ability to use cheap off peak tariffs. It’s called the “Ecostor” and, of course, because it is good it has been ripped off by others both in function (in Scotland and London) and in name (in the USA). How the hell the US patent and trademark office can seemingly allow the plagiarising of a predated UK trade marked name I don’t understand.
Because I have been shed incarcerated working on the Mark 2 (or as you in the US would say the #2) of the Ecostor – The wife, wisely, always makes me concentrate on the potentially money earning inventions – the gyro has been left hanging a bit. But watch this spot, it is not abandoned and has continued to give positive results continuing on from the videos already put up.
Glenn, you must be able to put up videos that better explain why you think there is no path. Please redo your tests and video them for us to understand as my ancient brain struggles with your descriptions.
Regards and laughter
NM
PS the great thing about “hummel doddies” is that you can keep your hands warm and scratch your nose at the same time without leaving glove fluff in your hooter!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/10/2013 04:16:39
| | | Evening Sandy,
I have often wondered about living in your climate, though I have bivouacked for a month at a time in the high altitude mountains of Germany during cold weather indoctrination training; that means no heat of any kind allowed. I loved it, everyone else was beyond miserable. The trick is to stay very clean, bathing in ice water and then donning clean underwear and woolens at least once day, or more.
If I could wish for you, I would wish you had your great forest of two thousand years ago, as I have now. I am surrounded by countless miles of trees. With firewood I would wish you a big fireplace to set in front of at night when the thermometer drops below freezing. You would become hypnotized staring at the glowing embers of the big green jack-log in the back and the slow flicker and flam, red and yellow and the smell of wood smoke. That is the only experience I have ever had where my mind completely stops working. It is very pleasant. One smiles slightly, stupidly, probably drooling like our Neanderthal cousins around a fire and the world goes away for a little while and can not bother you.
Dear Sandy, get a big propane tank and a radiant heater. It will do the same and if you ever have a power outage you can all move in the living room and sleep on pallets. I have that set up and I recommend it. It comes in handy every couple of years, but lots of mornings to when you step out of the shower. It is like Captain Call said in Lonesome Dove. “It is better to have a gun and not need it, than to need it and not have it.” Thank you for telling me this about life in the cold. (Thank you too very much Nitro) Peat is sod: when one doesn’t know what he is talking about. We’ve never used it. ‘ Too much free wood.
Regards Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 23/12/2013 00:18:42
| | | Hello to those who liked me, and hello to those who do not dislike me,
Again, I am going to attempt to explain these tests.
THE POWER OF PRECESSION GREATLY INCREASED
You know that when a shaft is supported by a fulcrum and the free-end is let to fall from a zero degrees to a 180 decrees, the free end will fall in an arc of a half circle. You know that a gyroscope inserted into the shaft falls in the same arch, TWISTING as it dose. You know how it twists in downward arch. It does not fall straight. It falls in an arch and it twist as it does.
A rotating wheel dose not want to twist. It resists TWISTING. I am certain you well know that the resistance to TWISTING causes the free-end of the shaft to TWIST down on the fulcrum and thereby holds the wheel from falling.
Now then, what would happen if you remove the fulcrum so the wheel would not, and could not, be held up in the air? What would happen if the wheel simply fell? What would happen if it TWISTED as it fell? What would happen if the wheel fell at the speed of gravity while TWISTING?
It is easy to build a slot curved at 180 degree. You can use two stiff, but bendable rods to make a simple slot. You can also attach two wide platforms of Teflon® to act as sliding feet attached to the down side of the 180 decrees bent rods.
Now you drop the gyroscope/flywheel down through the slots and it TWISTS as it falls at the speed of gravity, because there is no fulcrum to support it and hold it up.
Precession becomes equally as powerful as the weight of the wheel falling into gravity. Precession will jerk around the hell out of the frame on the sliding Teflon® coated feet.
The important thing to lean is that friction at a fulcrum, or pedestal can no longer cause confusion and wonderment, because of this test. Any previous effect of friction at the fulcrum is completely eliminated from consideration, because there is no more any fulcrum and because the far greater, overpowering force of precession.
To each his own; to each is own ability; but you should see, realize and learn by doing this experiment that a gyroscope reacts precisely in accordance to the laws of motion. Given some exceptions and obvious and calculable reasons for minor exceptions; the total weight of the frame, shaft and wheel will twist, or rotate around the center of their combined mass.
You should have the truth if you desire it. I hope it is not too painful. Merry Christmas and wonderful, happy, good cheers,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/01/2014 17:51:42
| | |
Good morning gyro mechanics,
I dub the my Musketeers,
Today I have a notion that we, so steadfast for so many years, cannot be wrong. My tests proved to me all the negative slander we suffer in the minds of the many has a sound basis after all, for we were wrong in at least one assumption. At least that is true for me. HOWEVER, I am most unconvinced today. There is something going on in a gyroscope and my hat is off to those who feel it, sense it and have found bits of proof of ‘it’ and will not be deterred as I was. As for my past and temporary digression:
We have an old saying in the South of the USA, ”Don’t get too smart for your own britches”.
In recalling the exacting tests I did, my findings still remain certain. . . however as I recall in the clear light of reason of events grown cold, there was some compelling evidence that did in fact prove ‘something’ unknown and quite powerful was going on in the gyroscopes I tested.
The center of gravity was where it should have been, exactly in the center of two balanced masses as our scoffing friends chuckle and point out.
As my mind unfreezes; when one area of the testing frame was exceedingly lightly held by a cue-tip, or a very small weight, (a USA quarter), that caused a tiny amount of friction; the frame would hurl a dozen ice cubes I had mounted (much heavier weights) very fast across my glass table. ‘Something’ was happening. A tiny restraint of at one corner of the frame, had resulted in much greater thrust on the opposite corner.
My life for a change is good and I feel wonderful. My blessings to you.
I salute you, "All for one and one for all!”
Cheers and happiness,
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 08/01/2014 23:24:47
| | | Evening all,
FYI,
I cannot remember which thread I am responding to but I am sure this one will do.
Some time ago Blaze was querying the particulars of a certain gyroscope demonstrated to me by Eric Laithwaite in his lab at the Imperial College, London.
I enclose a demonstration of a gyroscope which I am sure for certain reasons, is not the same one, but is very similar to it, in the BBC youtube video called “Secrets of Levitation”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw8BV4VFOwM
The part I have drawn your attention to is a rerun of the lecture which destroyed his credibility.
The audience in this case were replaced by the cardboard cut outs one hears about which were probably just about as receptive as the humans they replaced.
There is a section relating to Eric Laithwaite, and his electrical work on his “Maglev” project.
Good enough for the Japanese and Germans but not good enough for the British.
This program contains a lot of good stuff and a fair amount of junk, but watch out for Laithwaite from minute 34, and that gyro Blaze, in minute 40, or thereabouts.
Regards
Sandy
PS
In a previous demonstration, Laithwaite claimed that the flywheel lost weight and he also claimed that there appeared to be no centrifugal force present.
For the life of me I cannot figure out why it was so hard for the man to prove that he was correct.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 09/01/2014 10:30:43
| | | Hello Sandy,
That is part freak show. Somebody for BBC spent a lot of money and expertise to put it together. The 'beginning' old science was very interesting to see again. The middle 'rope and meditation elevation' bullshit was stomach turning. The Eric Lithwate (sp.) was good, though we all here knew it.
Sandy, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR IT!
All the professor had to do was stand on a scale; weighing himself and the gyro before he slung it around, and then as it was being slung around. If he and it weighted less while the thing was in the air, and if he and it did not momentarily weigh more than both when he stopped slinging it, then there would be the proof. I can't help but to know he knew that. In fact he an a engineer spent one year trying to prove the weight changed constantly while the thing was being rotated horizontally. They ended up with no verifiable proof after the year was up.
Thank you for the good video and the awful part too.
Cheers Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
