|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
29 November 2024 00:51
|
|
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: |
MD |
| Subject: |
Mac-Quan 1 - What do we believe? |
| Question: |
So we all know about the Mac-Quan 1. We've seen the two low-resolution videos and there's been much speculation on 1: Whether or not it works, and 2: Whether or not it's real.
I personally don't know. Literally. The videos are just too uninformative. You never see the internal design, and even if you did, a single video of it supposedly hovering isn't enough to constitute proof.
So I thought I'd ask you guys. What do you believe when it comes to the "MQ1"? Are you experienced enough in the field of inertial propulsion to know it's the real deal, or are you like me, massively suspicious that there's so little information out about it, 7 years after the videos release, that it can't possibly be real? You'd think that if you actually got it to hover like in the video, proving it would be a easy, because it would be. But since the inventor hasn't done it yet I can only come to the conclusion that something suspicious is going on.
At the same time, if it's a fake, why spend all that time making the video? For what purpose? I'll leave it at that. "Confusing" is a word that comes to mind when talking about the MQ1. |
| Date: |
2 March 2014
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 02/03/2014 19:08:11
| | |
Hi MD,
I will try to help, but I think perhaps no one can. The gyroscope is one of the most confusing, intriguing and not understood things. We have all been bitten; and disproving/proving has seemed impossible for so many years I am ashamed to admit to failing for so long. Today however I understand completely.
I HAD ALMOST FORGOTTEN
I have written correctly how the strange way precession works and no one took the time and trouble here to understand. The conclusion was this:
No matter the set-up, the gyroscope works the same regardless. I will select the most familiar example, which is the toy on a pedestal. Forces curving up and down, are transferred to become the forces curving forward and rearward. If you put four cubes of ice on your rails for support and place them on a Teflon coated kitchen vinyl, your whole machine will wallow around, never leaving the center of its gravity, except to accommodate an un-level floor.
The third law was not designed by a man, but by the universe.
The man just discovered it and explained it.
If the law could be altered, the enumerable forces and methods in the universe would find a way to alter universal functions in all quadrants. Then I believe the universe would not function. I can find nothing in nature that could be sustained. Everything would fall apart.
If you wish to search backwards for these mechanical explanations of which I refer and to invest the time and effort to try to understand understand them, then of course you will attempt it. And, if I learn that you have done these things, I will assist you to a greater understanding however I can. I am not humble about knowing everything. How could I be?
Best regards Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 02/03/2014 19:44:34
| | | Seriously?
If it smells like BS and has all the poor video symptoms of starting and or stopping before or after the set up, or the total effect cannot be seen, and has stiff "tether" wires that are clearly supporting it then by golly the most likely answer is that:- it is BS! No confusion!
Kind regards
Nitro
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 02/03/2014 21:22:41
| | | Glenn, what are you talking about? I asked what you thought of the MQ1. There are no gyroscopes in that thing as far as I know.
Nitro> I don't believe the answer to the riddle that is "the final flight" video is some kind of trick in the wires. They look genuine, as if they're holding the MQ1 down. They sway some as well, meaning they're not completely stationary.
I think it reminds you of a super-charged Roy Thornson device, if it IS real that is. But yeah, plain time has more or less proved it a fake at this point. I know Mike Marsden may read this, and if you do... is there a good reason to delay such a huge invention this long?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 02/03/2014 22:37:17
| | | MD, I did not look it up, because why bother? Why??? I saw it before.
Your machine deserved an explanation, which I gave you true; which if you were capable of understand and believed, you should express courtesy and appreciation for the time and effort given to you by a superior understanding-- even if your were not sure!!!
As for your politeness or lack of it given where it belongs: The Mac-Quan 1 does not deserve anything. Nitro nailed its ass to the wall just as he has before.
I give up on you. Your machine is a waist of time. I can't work and you can't understand why.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ted Pittman - 02/03/2014 23:26:25
| | | MD,
Getting people to believe something they think is impossible takes more than any video.
Besides, after real success, why would anyone want to show the details?
Would you (Really) ?
Ted
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
dave brown - 03/03/2014 00:58:34
| | | I fail to see the magic in gyroscopes, as magic is how they seem to be spoken of.
As I understand it, if something is spinning about its center of mass, it is a gyroscope, although, none of the bonds that make it what we call 'physically bound together' can be loose.
Then, if you try to change its axis of rotation in a given direction, it instead precesses in a direction almost 90 degrees to that in which you forced.
As to whether or not there is torque in that there precessing is up to debate if you listen to the Laithwaite videos and compare that to what others say here.
Other than that I have seen nothing magical about a gyroscope.
Are there videos I have not seen?
As far as I understand there has only been an attempt to get all precession in the same direction and in there lies the battle.
Am I wrong?
Thanks. ( don't want to sound ............. awkward.......... ) :)
ps: In the Laithwaite videos there is a disk made with sticks and weights on the ends to show the tilt at 90 degrees to the direction of applied force, although not bound and therefore not precessing like a gyroscope. So, being able to bind and unbind masses to take away the gyroscopic properties as they are repostitioned may be worth looking into.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 03/03/2014 02:17:45
| | | Whoa Glenn. Taking out your issues on someone else are we?
If you're so god damn sure I'm "waisteing" my time, why haven't you attempted to explain what happens in the second video?
I'm starting to regret ever coming to this site. Is this how you greet a fellow inventor?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 03/03/2014 02:39:38
| | | MD, pardon me. I think your invention is a tribute to you and that it is very impressive. I am however tired of it all and personally find no point in dismantling to the demonstration you mention. I have tried to explain everything!!!!!!!!!!!!! over time. Sometimes I feel like I am talking into the wind and I am ignored. So I can get aggravated. I think you are clever and your finding is significant. If you will allow me to encourage you, please continue. Maybe you will come up with more fascinating things.
But will anything on earth do the job? I am sorry. I think not.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ted Pittman - 03/03/2014 10:17:26
| | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL_Gasok8xw
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Patrick Hill - 05/03/2014 04:51:39
| | | Wow ebay an intense 4.31597 pamx942 ny578895b ...realy if you want tve answer ..come
And get it,1.6583400982...lol ..creativity or at least it should be ??
So why all the progressive need? It amazes me........ha ha you fools""""(8.94379)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
RS - 06/03/2014 22:47:47
| | | I have known Mike Marsden for almost 5 years now, and he recently let me know why he is stalling on releasing the technology. It is complicated and I can't talk about it obviously, but eventually it will get released, don't you worry. He even wrote a theory of the Universe and everything in it, which I have a copy of. I could show anyone interested to read it. He still wants to launch one (a Mac Quan) into space to prove it works, so that the Deep Space Network can track it with Doppler effect to prove it is in fact accelerating away from the solar system at 1 to 2G speeds. I have been pushing him to release it. It will happen eventually, he's just taking his time (there are serious implications with this stuff). His son wasn't even supposed to release that video in the first place. You all really should have never seen it to begin with. It just keeps getting placed back on Youtube.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Patrick Hill - 12/03/2014 23:24:11
| | | Confusion...I'm around!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 17/03/2014 23:54:12
| | | something I ran across on this subject while surfing.
http://keelynet.com/news/031514a1.html
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
RS - 21/03/2014 18:18:31
| | | He is not in Rockwall, or Tell Texas. His warehouses are in Brownsville, Texas. And it was the Laguna Madre Enterprise Center, not Laguna Mall.
And he is NOT dead. He is alive and well.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 26/03/2014 01:19:01
| | | Hello R.S.,
How are you this evening?
I think the jig is up my friend.
I think you are Mike Marsden
Good Evening,
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 26/03/2014 13:22:20
| | | I've talked to RS (Hey RS, btw) over e-mail, and he's not Mike, I guarantee it.
Mike Marsden himself is something of an enigma to me. If the video is fake, why make it? If it isn't, why make it and then regret releasing it?
It's still out on his sons website as far as I know. It was recorded 7-8 years ago, yet nothing, Nothing new (at least officially) has surfaced from him.
Eventually you just have to give up. If it never surfaces, it never surfaces.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 26/03/2014 20:22:48
| | | How do you know? because he guaranteed himself?
I have three email names with separate addresses. None of them are me.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 02/04/2014 18:34:52
| | | Might as well answer.
Glenn, it's because he's trying to replicate the MQ1 himself and has shown me his progress. If it is Marsden, he has apparently gotten himself an apartment and a double life where he can spend his time trying to produce something he's already produced.
Again, why Marsden hasn't come forward with his invention is only an indication that it's a fake. The more time passes, the more likely it's a fake, unfortunately.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ted Pittman - 04/04/2014 23:05:15
| | | Dave Brown's post 03/03/2014 00:58:34 is on the right track.
He presents the right questions.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
levi - 25/06/2014 23:12:15
| | | Hi everyone, Ok so this Mike marsden thing got me very how can I say, tangled... for a while now.. So sad I am that I havent seen his original 2006 website before it was removed. I tried every archive engine on the net to see any history but none. I found out however a webservice that can show his original website history, that cost a lot for only some page. but I paid anyway. it was only a low quality image of mike marsden homepage with his Mq1 hovering. there you could see clearly that these were blue ropes that are soft. but.. these were only photos.
Another point is this:
if this whole thing is faked? its strange, why? sponsors? sure but you should NOT lie under cover like this if you want to be SEEN,. but even if you did hide from shame, why would the ONLY words coming from the long time secretly hiding man be:
-- people's skepticism saved my life--
this perfectly fits the scenario that he really built a working model that he was excited about at FIRST but later got some "heat" from those in power, but the disbelieve of us and net community helped to get the attention of him and thus he was saved from getting all the attention that could come from those in power.
his machine cant be complicated because you can clearly see it is just a system of rotating weights. and no violent vibration is there. I am working now in testing and simulation software.
honestly I hope all this is just fake .. so much relief because then I would know that the only way to go is at the subatomic level where Newton laws of mechanics no longer applies to mechanical particles strictly
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 25/06/2014 23:59:29
| | | Here is an alternative view:
maybe "-- people's skepticism saved my life--" simply means that it forced him to take a better look at what he has created and found it was flawed or can't work so he quite working on it and stopped wasting his life on it.
just saying,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 27/06/2014 19:56:10
| | | Well, my opinion on the machine hasn't changed. At this point its just hard to stay interested, as no new information seems to surface. Speculation is fine, but it'll only keep ones interest up for so long...
At this point no one has seen the machine working with their own eyes. No one *knows* (but member "RS" has a lot of unconfirmed information) anything about it. It's just a dead end as far as what you can do on the internet.
All that's really left is to visit the man and try to get a few answers out of him. Again, it wouldn't surprise me if the video was just a "test video", a rehearsal for what they'd want to release to the internet once they got the machine working. The test video got made, but released as a mistake. The fact that it's still up on Mikes' sons homepage and youtube/google video, even though Mikes' own homepage is down, suggests that.
But, as an inventor that's experimenting with inertial propulsion, that has some particularly weird results, I guess I'll keep an open mind and not *completely* deny it could work. But that only creates the question "What on earth could cause him to keep it a secret for this long?".
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dave Parsons - 10/06/2015 07:24:27
| | | Greetings;
I had a vision about fifty years ago of a device nearly identical to Sandy Kidd's machine. Where that vision came from, I have no idea, but I never got around to constructing it. I was quite certain that it would produce thrust but I could find no explanation in physics to support that belief.
Recently, in the last couple of years, I became preoccupied with that old vision; and with my introduction to computers and the internet, I became aware of Kidd's machine and other devices (Thornson, Dean, Milkovic, Cook, and the archetypal Russian inventor; Tolchin and his double pendulum drive).
I have analysed all of these devices and am of the opinion that most of them are non- functional and some such as Marsden's are frauds. Any machine that uses a parallelogram arrangement to accelerate and decelerate masses is entirely constrained by action and reaction. I viewed Marsden's video and was very disappointed with the fraud he presented.
I edited the video and produced a small clip of the moment after the machine was powered up until several seconds after the wooden blocks were removed. It was very obvious that the machine was suspended by an external connection; probably a vertical suspension wire. When the wooden blocks were removed, the device did a notable drop until the suspension system took up the full load of the device.
There is a syndrome that sometimes afflicts inventors and others who are so sure of their invention or idea that they tell what they consider to be small fibs or make a fraudulent presentation which they are certain will be made up for when they get their final machine functioning; most of them have no real larceny in their souls. If he did delude himself and produced that fraud with no real larceny, I hope he recovers from his self-imposed exile. If he did take investment money for that fraud and skedaddle with it, then I don't think we'll hear from him again.
I have made other comments on Utube as "antiattorney" I have analysed several other devices and will be discussing them in future postings. Sandy; I figured out why the gyro device seems to work but then doesn't seem to work. It suffers from the same malady of all the other inertial propulsion devices. The answer is in the old videos of Tolchin on Utube; the clues are all there, you just have to see them
There is a function in classical physics which I have become aware of that I think will allow a device to experience a spatial displacement when powered in a particular way. I am currently in the design stage for this device and will be constructing a test model in the next month. Please do not offer me any investment money. I will post videos on ebay of the test results of a vertical scale test and a pendulum test. If it doesn't work, I will show the plans and construction for your amusement.
If it does work, you won't see any of that until I have made my fortune from it.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy - 12/06/2015 21:44:37
| | | Dave Parsons
You did address this posting to Sandy Kidd and others.
I would however be obliged if you could advise me as to this common inertial drive malady that prevents my device (which one?) from working.
Surely not my laboratory tested and certified device?
Or could you tell me how you think any of my devices do work, if they do?
Regards
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/06/2015 21:11:38
| | | There is nothing strange or hidden in physics. They gyro works because the physics surrounding it are absolute and final. The difficulties are in the understanding of how physics work to make the gyro preform in ways that seem wrong, but the actions not wrong. They are perfectly logical. It is just that the invisible causes are convoluted in complexity to the extreme degree that how they work you never understood.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 20/06/2015 08:07:10
| | | Well that Dave guy might be in for a surprise if he thinks people will fund him.
Anyway, inertia and physics are not something final. I don't know why the EmDrive isn't a bigger subject here, but there have now been a bunch of experiments that produce thrust. Trust me, the book on reactionless drives is far from closed. If you're interested, check out http://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/ (and press the "top" button on top for the most popular articles).
As for my M Drive, or rather, M Thruster (I renamed it), I will perform new experiments within a month or so. My biggest hurdle is motivation, as usual. I don't have any dreams of money anymore, so that's a contributing factor as well.
The July 8th experiments on my Youtube page do seem to indicate thrust. Just sayin'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag2NdViY50Q&hd=1
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy - 22/06/2015 14:41:34
| | | MD and interested others.
I think that if a cyclic rotational phase shift created by fluctuations in the load of any of those Mac Quan 1 type devices can be produced due to any flexibility of the input shaft or transmission (nothing is solid) as seen and recorded by B. Harry Stine, one way thrust may be produced.
This was found by Harry during attempts to emulate the operation of the Dean Machine.
Harry repeatedly got a 3 degrees phase shift which should not have occurred
Norman Dean claimed he produced 45 degrees of phase shift.
How he did this no one knows.
I do not mind being proved wrong on this one, but I do stress may be?
Otherwise I cannot see any other method of producing any of the elusive inertial thrust with this type of machine.
That said the “YouTube” presentation of “Anti-Gravity Machine” parts 1 & 2 was made nearly 30 years ago.
Just a few months later I was approached by an Australian company who wished to develop the device.
They wanted me to produce any other machine which could operate in a like manner, or even a copy of it which would produce one-way or inertial thrust under strict laboratory conditions.
This laboratory test device was designed to operate in a totally different manner from my first device, but after some mucking about with flywheel weights, I got it to work consistently, much to the surprise of the laboratory staff.
I carried out my promise and the device produced upwards inertial thrust in 20 consecutive runs out of 20.
(Incidentally the device was actually showing an increase in weight during the first couple of runs, until I made a few adjustments, to reverse that trend.)
I was promised a large sum of money if I could do this.
Needless to say I am still waiting.
The technical staff could not get it to comply with accepted principles so as far as they were concerned it was not able to be developed.
That is probably why I never got paid.
It did not seem to matter too much that the laboratory report stated otherwise.
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.”
― Richard P. Feynman
The many pages of the report were printed in total in my book “Beyond 2001” but who, ever asked a question?
Nobody!
However at the end of the day there are several ways that I have discovered with which the deed can be achieved, some good, some not so good.
In the output category, the pair described here, I would put in the “proves the point”, but are placed in the not so good category.
That said a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then.
Much has been learned, from many experiments, and all of the”present” unknowns recognised and clarified.
Originally I was worried that it would all be discovered to be down to a weak secondary force but gladly this concern was unfounded.
Later I became interested only in designs of devices which could be developed into full blooded drive units, even if the designs never see the light of day, and machines are never constructed.
That has been fun and has cost me virtually nothing.
So do not be so surprised at the lack of interest MD, there appears to be a psychological thing surrounding space drives, but if you stand back and really consider what is being claimed or proposed, you have to admit, that it would take a large leap of faith to get anyone on board.
I learned to accept that early on, but I still have the personal satisfaction of having done it.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dave Parsons - 30/06/2015 01:25:09
| | | sandy and others
The answer lies in the double pendulum device of that Russian inventor Tolchin. Many others have tried to duplicate his machine with no success because they build it with the two counter rotating pendulums in a 0 angle plane. If you examine the video of his device closely, you will observe that the pendulums are inclined from the vertical. As such, gravity is exerted on the inclined motion of the rotating weights.
The effects of gravity on an inclined pendulum is best demonstrated in the utube videos of Milkovic. The inclined pendulum device of Milkovic shows an unbalanced oscillatory motion of the device as the pendulum slows it's motion and amplitude. it is a back one; forward two oscillation resulting in a forward displacement of the device. The dampening of the oscillations is in direct proportion to the forward displacement.
There is another device which is almost identical to Kidd's device which demonstrates the principle. The inventor calls it the M Thruster and has his videos on utube. It has the gyros perpendicular to the vertical and the spinning of the structure does result in a definite displacement; however that displacement is entirely due to the unbalanced nature of the motions of the gyro arms which means that the angle of the arms are not symmetrical at all points in the rotation. This produces an approximation to the Milkovic Pendulum and a resulting displacement, but because of the violent motions and dynamic imbalances of the device, the displacement is negligible.
The Dean drive device also falls into the Milkovic inclined pendulum arena; if you disable the solenoids and engineer the rotating offset weights to spin at an incline and keep the rpm's within a certain range, it will function similar to Tolchin's device. It is quite possible that the inertial response of the carriage to the violent action of the solenoids shifts the rotation angle of the rotors momentarily away from the vertical and produces the effect of the Milkovic pendulum.
The "Thornson drive" also falls in this arena. If it is engineered that the offset weights rotate at an incline and the rpm's are kept within a certain range it will function similar to Tolchin's device.
A simple test for the Dean and Thornson devices is to suspend them in a pendulum test with their axis of rotation non-vertical and and vary the rpm's from 0 upwards. Within a certain rpm range, the devices will exhibit an unbalanced oscillation resulting in a displacement Backward or forward in relation to the off horizontal plane of the rotations. The Dean device will exhibit the displacement without any operation of it's solenoids
Sandy's device also is susceptible to the Milkovic pendulum effect if it is unbalanced such that when it rotates, it oscillates around it's vertical axis describing a cone rotation. When I returned a few years ago to my interest in such a device, I envisioned a device which was sliding on a massive steel pipe or rod with close tolerances in order to minimize imbalances and unwanted oscillations. It was the only way I could see for the proof of concept. It is possible that the pendulum effect could result in an increase in the effective weight of the device in near vertical axis of rotation at certain rpm's if it is not sufficiently balanced.
A quote from Sandy
(Incidentally the device was actually showing an increase in weight during the
first couple of runs, until I made a few adjustments, to reverse that trend.)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/07/2015 13:42:44
| | | All this is bull.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dave Parsons - 12/07/2015 00:08:03
| | | Glen:
Your statement "I have written correctly how the strange way precession works and no one took the time and trouble here to understand.".
Could you provide some links to where I could find those writings?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 13/07/2015 00:50:54
| | | Hello Dave,
Many times I have become frustrated with my efforts to understand, which seemed to never end. In aggravation I would post things in bad matters; things I would never have otherwise said. My apologizes to you and all.
During the course of time and effort, I posted here the bits and pieces of what I was learning. In retrospect, they are nothing. Six months ago, all of a sudden, (within a week) I completed the theory of understanding gyroscopes. I had begun designs for inertial propulsion beginning in 1970. I was ignorant about everything. The first designs I took to NASA, (you could do that in those days), you would laugh at them and today I would just shake my head blush and apologize. lol, lol.
The theory I completed is correct and proven. It is a complete understanding of more than we ever knew of what a gyroscope does and can do; more importantly is the explanations of why and how it does what it doses. Strangely it seems to so many, the actions are supported by physics as physics is accepted; except of one thing. In the finalize analysis we may be able produce linear force from a right angle application of rotational force. (No wonder we are thought to be crazy.)
Excuse my long windiness,
I have been applying the theory to various designs for six months. The very first one I completed is the promising one. All the following designs were more attractive for one reason or another, but they have bad problems and some you learn in the end, could never work. For me it is all so complicate. You rather learn by designing first then hunting for inertial flaws.
Today I am through creating designs. I finally understand which has the best chance to produce powerful continuous thrust. I am so tired of it, but I will finish the drawings and soon I intent to start medal cut and selecting off the shelf parts. Some may have to be special designs. If I need help in finding and determining special motors I have an engineer and friend and have promises form mechanist who are friend and relatives.
Though I am certain the theory is exact and correct, the machine I seek to build is hypothetical as all prototypes are in the beginning. Its design is based on the theory and logic. It should work perfectly, but there is never a guarantee something will work until it has worked. We shall see.
It is good for me today to have human contact in this field and so I go on with my story writing to unknown, but admired people in my field. Now to the crux of your question, Dave. It is probably of not much use to look back on my process of learning and explaining. I will release the completed theory on video and post the site on here if it turns out if I can, (if I have not sold the rights along with the apparatus-- if it should work).
About this thread: Of the things we try to research here that men have claimed to work; nothing has been sufficiently demonstrated. Additionally the mechanics of a gyroscope seemed to have been endless and unfathomable for so many years, and few others than myself seemed to think a complete understanding was useful (Except Blaze). So, the research has gone on and all based on actions that can be seen, and not the rules and laws of physics acting invisibly to cause actions that can be both seen -- and unseen. It is like the paradoxical of the juxtapose conditions of electrical coil winding the professor explained. Nobody knows what causes the electrical reactions to change, only that they do change, and from that the motor was invented. It was invented from observation and tests, not from complete knowledge and it still is not understood. Not so fast with the gyroscope! It is far more complicated than supposed, and it appears that is necessary to understand it. As for anything other than gyroscopic conditions being capable of perhaps producing inertial propulsion, forget them. Likely I have though through everyone analytically back in the days when I knew nothing, but was still able to think, see and foresee.
All the research and design to this point around the world has failed to demonstrate an independent lift-off.
My effort and all others may be impossible, but for the life of me, for all I have learned and now know, I cannot see why not. Wish me luck and good luck to everyone involved.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dave Parsons - 13/07/2015 05:40:35
| | | Glen
This has gotten a little off-topic, but there is still the question of Marsden and his machine.
Something that does bother me, is the two seemingly supporters of Marsden; RS and MD. They both profess contact or intimate knowledge of Marsden's machine. Could it be that there is another supporter labelled BS? Or maybe RS and MD are mere misspellings of Marsden.
It seems strange that BS, err, MD should bring a question of Marsden's veracity and then proceed to mount numerous defenses and excuses for Marsden while professing intimate knowledge of his machine. It is hard to know who is who around here. As far as I can see, I am the only one who has provided any verifiable identity in this forum. My name is Dave Parsons and my website is cakehole-law.org. My picture is on my website.
BS, err, MD keeps asking why Marsden would go to all the trouble of doing such a fake and then leave the proof of his fraud hanging out on the net!!! Could it be that Marsden has actually done the dirty on some investor and is rubbing his nose in it? Or perhaps he has scammed these forums and is rubbing your noses in it.
There are a number of questions that need to be answered, but that can't happen until we know who all the actors are.
That aside; I look forward to seeing your results. I acquired an old Atlas lathe several years ago. It is older than I am; TV36 six inch. It is remarkably accurate for it's age and I just recently obtained a four jaw chuck for it. I will be machining out the parts for my device. I am behind schedule on my project because of several court actions involving the law society of BC. As you can see from my website, the LSBC has evolved into the largest criminal organization in BC Canada, and I am the one publishing this to the world. My website is my insurance policy; if they put a pill in my ear, my website will become famous and I will do more damage to them in death than in life.
The limited description you give of your device seems to put it in the category of a GIT (gyroscopic inertial thruster). There is a website where an inventor has been publishing his ideas for a device that will operate in a manner similar to what you propose. Maybe you will beat him to it.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 13/07/2015 14:12:17
| | | Glenn,
Dave I guess I wrote that for myself just needing to tell somebody what I was doing.
The purpose was begun with intention to say there is nothing to Marsden and nothing to his machine. It is the worst excuse for proof on the web. You wonder how an intelligent person capable of communication could believe that garbage. Also, I stated there is no proof that anybody has produced useful propulsion no matter how they went about trying. Poor old David and his GIT. He is an intelligent man with logical and clever designs, who nothing the less refuses to accept the truth. Nothing of the many attempts he tried worked and never could work—not those ways. Being fare, nothing anyone else has done has worked, or worked sufficiently well enough in demonstrations to classify as useful. There is nothing whatsoever, anywhere that is remotely similar to what I am doing.
You wrote; “There is a website where an inventor has been publishing his ideas for a device that will operate in a manner similar to what you propose.”
I have not proposed any functional mechanical process. However, anyone not using gyroscopic functions is as ignorant as I was in the 70’s. I though everyone here knew the only possibility lay in the functions of the gyroscope. A rotation flywheel twisted from its plane of rotation uses physics in extremely complicated ways, not explained by anyone. I know these functions and how to use them. It is not time to explain.
MD is caught-up in a self-imposed fantasy of his own making. He keeps insisting the machine, if you could call it that, works. No one that has investigated it, will ever believe him. The saga belabors on. He is convinced. As for Morrison, maybe somebody bashed his head in with a pool cue-stick in his Texas research center disguised as a poolroom on the corner of a half deserted Texas street. ----- The poor guy, otherwise does it matter?
Glenn.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Listen to me my friend. Corruption pre dates written human history. So you expose it—nobody cares. Nothing will be done. They have money and power and all corruption belongs to the same club. So the powers that be, allows CNN to exposes an outcast among them that the powers want punished. The billionaires own all the people they want to own, and will continue to own them presidents and judges too. Nothing changes. You just hurt yourself. Do yourself a favor and stop trying to be a crusader against Rome.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dave Parsons - 14/07/2015 03:24:25
| | | Glen, and any others interested in these off-topics
I operate in battle with the legal system of BC Canada in the same spirit that I refute Newton's laws and the current doctrine of physics. All doctrines are based on the Troglodyte social systems of "the ugly Chimpanzee". It's only purpose is to restrict all discussion and validity to the dictates of those currently in power in whatever institute hosting said discussions. It is irrelevant to the "Dictators" if their dictates have any reality; just that their dictates prevail. Newton hosted just such an institution and used it to limit scientific discussion to things that tended to support his doctrine.
In the social structure of "pan troglodyte" recurrent social upheavals follow a repeating pattern; a new individual or group challenges the current "rulers". It is a violent and ugly process which sometimes results in the change without death or injury. There is much screeching and threatening gestures and flinging of feces and other projectiles. If one of the groups does not back down, then there is violent confrontation and injury and sometimes death.
It is relevant to mention at this point that there is another Chimpanzee species "pan paniscus". Unlike troglodyte, it is a matriarchal social structure and unlike Troglodyte, it wages love not war. It is a cooperative social structure; not a competitive one. Both these species split off from our common ancestor many millions of years ago. Unfortunately we have both social structures inherent in our instinct. Unfortunately, any cooperative structures created by our "paniscus" side is almost always infiltrated and co-opted by those with predominately "Troglodyte" nature; it is their instinctual imperative, they must dominate any social structure. Once they have dominated any social system, then the recurring social upheavals can lay waste to civilizations. Human history has chronicled thousands of years of these Troglodyte wars and hundreds of civilizations that have been rebuilt by "Pansicus", only to have them torn down again by "Troglodyte".
No matter how intricate and glorifying the propaganda of the "Troglodyte" dictators, they are just ugly chimpanzees mindlessly fulfilling their instinctual imperatives.
Here is a true story:
in Colwood BC, the RCMPigs; attempted to railroad me for obstructing "OINK". I tried to look up the "Rules of Court" to defend my self and discovered that they did not exist. I looked up the law concerning "Rules of Court and discovered that in 1837 a Royal Proclamation made it the law that the Courts of Canada shall be Courts of Record and shall make Rules of Court for the "Pleading, Practice, and Procedure". BC provincial court never made any such rules and the Law Society of BC Canada had been involved in a criminal conspiracy to conduct illegal trials in BC.
A trial was held and the pigs oinked profusely for the prosecutor who was a member of the LSBC. After the pigs finished their oinking and it came time for me to make my defense, I informed Judge Palmer that there were no rules of court and that he was conducting an illegal trial and that I refused to proceed in this illegal trial. He declared a recess and after a while he returned to the courtroom and ordered that I stand mute and make no defense and then he ordered that I was acquitted of the charge. Shortly after, in 1999, the BC government made an Order in Counsel inflicting the "Rules of Court" on the Provincial Court of BC. For the first time in over a hundred and fifty years, the Provincial Court of BC had become a legal Court of Record. Those Rules of Court can be seen on my website
http://cakehole-law.org/crimrule.htm Every trial in that court had been illegal for over a hundred and fifty years and the LSBC had been operating as a criminal organization.
Fortunately for all you inventors and theorists, the physics institutions are not taking you to court to defend your wrong-thinking. You would have to prove that Newton was wrong.
To get back to the main topic; I think that any trial would find that Marsden had not disproved Newton and that his machine was a fake.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/07/2015 05:07:24
| | | Buddy you take the cake. Compared to Newton's mind, your mind is equal to less than a worm. You are just too completely out of it, to know you are out of it. I can't believe half the people on here. Where did you all come from-- never mind. He invented calculus at 17 without ever having gone to college. What have you invented, but only to learn from the contents of someone mind? Dummy. I was just writing about what I was doing. No more on here for a while.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dave Parsons - 14/07/2015 07:49:08
| | | Glen, and any others interested in these off-topics
The true story in my last post was to show that we are capable of changing the most monolithic of institutions. What I didn't mention in that post was that I had prepared an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada while the trial was adjourned. The Law Society of BC did not dare allow that trial to be completed. That is why the judge did that extremely strange thing in ordering me to stand mute and then acquitting me.
If that trial had been completed, I would have had a bona fide case in the Supreme Court of Canada. By not completing the trial and then creating the Rules of Court, the LSBC made the application to the Supreme Court of Canada "Moot". The Attorney General of BC who is a member of the LSBC and a bencher of the LSBC was the defacto prosecutor in my case and made absolutely no objections to the actions of the judge and had the entire process completed as quickly as possible to get me out of the system. If I had brought the case before the Supreme Court of Canada, they could have ruled that all trials without the "Rules of Court" were illegal, and then all trials ever done in the Provincial Court of BC would have to be declared illegal. The legal system in BC would have imploded.
I am in the habit of changing things that I find to be "broken". I have an ability to see through the bullshit no matter how high it is piled. Incidentally, I was actually innocent, but the piggies piled their lies so deep that it was an open and shut case that I would be convicted.
What I accomplished at that trial was stupendous from what several lawyers have said. There are other equally important changes that I have made to their court systems; they are all recorded on my website. I had to do a quick study on law before that trial and saw what was there in plain sight. All those lawyers and judges were blinded by the indoctrination of the LSBC and could not see what was right under their noses.
To get away from these off-topics; I have tried to analyze the phenomena of the precession of gyros and have come to the conclusion that newtonian physics is incapable of any such analysis. I think that an analysis is possible, but has to be done in a minimum of six dimensions, probably nine or higher. I have tried to read the various string theories in hope of finding something obvious, but am getting the same inkling as I did in the legal system that those people are just making it up as they go along and are not logical in what they're doing.
Glenn: Take your meds
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/07/2015 14:56:58
| | | Put your armor plated dippers on and attack Rome. With you are filling that dippers with equal mentality, put on your far too tight little pointed dunce hat and attack the the mind of the man attributed to have the highest I.Q. in human history.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dave Parsons - 14/07/2015 20:28:18
| | | Glenn:
TAKE YOUR MEDS
and go back to school and learn the proper spelling and grammar for the English language.
It's bad enough that you spew all your unfounded and fact-less assertions of secret knowledge of Newtons laws of motion for gyroscopes; do you have to do it with such bad spelling and grammar?
I'm sure that the other posters here are just a little disgusted with your rantings too.
A few facts about Newton:
He was a religious nut and an alchemist and one of his most famous equations was not his. His original equation was e = 1/2mv; a french physicist had to correct him with the equation e = 1/2mv(squared). All you Newton nutters are running around claiming that Newton discovered that equation. He simply stole it from somebody else.
There are many people posting here because they intuitively know that Newtonian physics cannot explain the phenomena of gyroscopic precession and the fact that such precession occurs regardless of Newtons laws have led them to investigate whether it could lead to a propulsion system. Whether it is possible is a grand question that one of us (not you) may someday answer.
I think you should find some other endeavor that suits your talents; perhaps politics
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/07/2015 23:48:56
| | | Got to you huh? Lo,lo,lo
I have always had an editor when it mattered. You watched a documentary created for sensationalism that later revealed the producers lied to help sell the documentary. Alchemist? He was an early chemist who separated from the stupidity of the religious beliefs of his time. As science minister he executed 14 Alchemist. I’m sure he would have had you spanked. You are too much fun to be hanged. You did not understand what you watched. Why am I not surprised? It was a little taxing with a full dipper for brains, Huh? Lo,lo,lo.
Meds is the best you can do?
You poor guy. The LSBC and I are finished spanking a howling bug. You don’t speak for anybody anywhere, here or there. Get lost.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dave Parsons - 15/07/2015 02:42:15
| | | Glenn:
You are not listening!
TAKE YOUR MEDS
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
000000 - 04/04/2017 09:07:15
| | | Dave Parsons, are you an atheist bigot? Why did you make the immature broadside "religious nut"?
1. Meaning?
2. So it's bad and "nutty" to
A. Not invent and worship imaginary gods and idols
B. Lie
C. Steal
D. Murder
E. Covet
F. Cheat/commit adultery
G. Break the Sabbath of the God that made these laws (a day meant to fully remind everyone that it is his work that saves us from breaking these laws, the consequences being Hell, not us.
And are you truly saying it's crazy to: do to others as you would have them do to you? Yet you don't want to be seen as a nut, crazy? Why not say, "morality is crazy, abusing kids is fun"? Don't be filled with hate, it makes you look like trash.
By the way, tell us what atheists invented, Dave. Christians: telescope, microscope, need I go on? Religious "nuts" built the pyramids of Egypt and Mexican step pyramids, they made the Parthenon, proven to be earthquake resistant, it's been standing for 1000's of years. The Greeks or Romans even made the Antikythera astrocharting device. There are many advanced devices that would have required scientific/logical thought. Where were the stupid moral-relativist atheist apes, those credit-hiding, credit-thieving oblivious brutes? Did you know that worse then a moron who worships wood and stone is a godless moron, according to God? What's nutty is to deny that right from wrong exists and then argue as you do insisting you know right from wrong! Contradiction! Blind hypocrisy!
Atheists: 1. Useless evolution theory (Darwin twisted this theory from Blyth), a massive time-distraction that denies God's work (and how to hide all those living "fossils")
2. Big Crappy Bang (Catholic nonsense supported by atheists), thoroughly shown to be a monster of WRONGness 3. Spontaneous life from oatmeal... no proof either
3. Heliocentrism (Catholic nonsense supported by atheists) which ends up denying intertial propulsion, it requires the traditional Bible-based geocentrism to make sense.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
000000 - 04/04/2017 09:07:16
| | | Dave Parsons, are you an atheist bigot? Why did you make the immature broadside "religious nut"?
1. Meaning?
2. So it's bad and "nutty" to
A. Not invent and worship imaginary gods and idols
B. Lie
C. Steal
D. Murder
E. Covet
F. Cheat/commit adultery
G. Break the Sabbath of the God that made these laws (a day meant to fully remind everyone that it is his work that saves us from breaking these laws, the consequences being Hell, not us.
And are you truly saying it's crazy to: do to others as you would have them do to you? Yet you don't want to be seen as a nut, crazy? Why not say, "morality is crazy, abusing kids is fun"? Don't be filled with hate, it makes you look like trash.
By the way, tell us what atheists invented, Dave. Christians: telescope, microscope, need I go on? Religious "nuts" built the pyramids of Egypt and Mexican step pyramids, they made the Parthenon, proven to be earthquake resistant, it's been standing for 1000's of years. The Greeks or Romans even made the Antikythera astrocharting device. There are many advanced devices that would have required scientific/logical thought. Where were the stupid moral-relativist atheist apes, those credit-hiding, credit-thieving oblivious brutes? Did you know that worse then a moron who worships wood and stone is a godless moron, according to God? What's nutty is to deny that right from wrong exists and then argue as you do insisting you know right from wrong! Contradiction! Blind hypocrisy!
Atheists: 1. Useless evolution theory (Darwin twisted this theory from Blyth), a massive time-distraction that denies God's work (and how to hide all those living "fossils")
2. Big Crappy Bang (Catholic nonsense supported by atheists), thoroughly shown to be a monster of WRONGness 3. Spontaneous life from oatmeal... no proof either
3. Heliocentrism (Catholic nonsense supported by atheists) which ends up denying intertial propulsion, it requires the traditional Bible-based geocentrism to make sense.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
000000 - 04/04/2017 09:07:40
| | | Dave Parsons, are you an atheist bigot? Why did you make the immature broadside "religious nut"?
1. Meaning?
2. So it's bad and "nutty" to
A. Not invent and worship imaginary gods and idols
B. Lie
C. Steal
D. Murder
E. Covet
F. Cheat/commit adultery
G. Break the Sabbath of the God that made these laws (a day meant to fully remind everyone that it is his work that saves us from breaking these laws, the consequences being Hell, not us.
And are you truly saying it's crazy to: do to others as you would have them do to you? Yet you don't want to be seen as a nut, crazy? Why not say, "morality is crazy, abusing kids is fun"? Don't be filled with hate, it makes you look like trash.
By the way, tell us what atheists invented, Dave. Christians: telescope, microscope, need I go on? Religious "nuts" built the pyramids of Egypt and Mexican step pyramids, they made the Parthenon, proven to be earthquake resistant, it's been standing for 1000's of years. The Greeks or Romans even made the Antikythera astrocharting device. There are many advanced devices that would have required scientific/logical thought. Where were the stupid moral-relativist atheist apes, those credit-hiding, credit-thieving oblivious brutes? Did you know that worse then a moron who worships wood and stone is a godless moron, according to God? What's nutty is to deny that right from wrong exists and then argue as you do insisting you know right from wrong! Contradiction! Blind hypocrisy!
Atheists: 1. Useless evolution theory (Darwin twisted this theory from Blyth), a massive time-distraction that denies God's work (and how to hide all those living "fossils")
2. Big Crappy Bang (Catholic nonsense supported by atheists), thoroughly shown to be a monster of WRONGness 3. Spontaneous life from oatmeal... no proof either
3. Heliocentrism (Catholic nonsense supported by atheists) which ends up denying intertial propulsion, it requires the traditional Bible-based geocentrism to make sense.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
