|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
29 November 2024 00:49
|
|
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: |
TV Documentary relating to gyroscopic device. |
| Question: |
Evening NB, Nitro, and Ted, who has probably seen it, a long time ago.
Just to inform you that the long lost VHS tape has now been converted to DVD and has just been inserted into the You Tube system.
You were right Nitro the tape had deteriorated in a few places but all in all after 27 or so years, it is not too bad.
This thing was done as a human interest story so remember that, when you are reading about what a bad, thoughtless person, I was.
You have to have neglect and suffering don’t you?
At least you can see the machine, tatty as it was after being thrashed almost to death for many months prior to the documentary.
You can see it as Anti-Gravity Machine (Part One)-You Tube and,
Anti-Gravity Machine (Part Two)-You Tube
Best regards,
Sandy
|
| Date: |
5 June 2014
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
MD - 06/06/2014 11:59:26
| | | Here are the links:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Taj4VA1L_vw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmtOAfrGnw0
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ted Pittman - 06/06/2014 16:45:00
| | | WONDERSUL !
Sandy Kidd is a true pioneer.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 06/06/2014 17:40:08
| | | Dear Sandy,
‘ More later, but for now I offer my apology. Please accept it. You never explained at all, the most obvious things of all. I am honored to know even in a limited way such a man as you. I always liked you. That was never an issue. ‘ More later on mechanics and accomplishments and dedication.
Sincerely,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 06/06/2014 19:40:27
| | | Evening MD
Please accept my humble apologies MD for referring to you as NB, another elderly moment.
The thought was there, and it was probably your persuasion anyway, which got it done.
Best regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 06/06/2014 22:13:19
| | | Hello Sandy,
I will not question you again, but there are things I don’t understand. You are such a clever machinist and mechanic and you worked so long and hard. Could you not make your machine rise more than an inch? I would have wanted it to lift three or four feet and I know you could have made the adjustments. I could do that myself, after you have done all the work. I am not dismissing; absolutely not at all, but that test run makes me want to understand more. If it had rose three feet in the air and stayed there; and if you could have added three more machines so the four would counter one another for ballance, it seems to me it should fly or hover across your lawn dragging along an electric input cord. If you could have done more astounding feats with showmanship then like the mouse trap; “Build a better one and the world will be at your feet.” Why did NASA avoid you?
I WISH YOU WOULD EXPLAIN LITTLE THINGS LIKE, “I HAVE A VIDEOS OF MY APPARATUS LIFTING AND SO ON.”
Well, I am glad you shared with us though I like all those before me, I need more information. People cannot just accept something like that and that is why you must pursue more and different methods of showing and explaining if you wish to convince people. People are still like this, “Don’t believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.” I hope you decide to make people believe you. It is not human nature’s fault that people need more. We always have.
Great show and humbling no mater what.
Best Regards
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 06/06/2014 23:40:03
| | | Hello Glenn,
First of all everyone has their own idea of how a device should be tested.
That device was an exercise in expediency.
The gyro support arms were manufactured out of thin probably a bit less than 1mm thick aluminium sheet
The bearings were all plain bearing yellow brass, which because of gyroscopic torque kept seizing until I added some SP something or another, super additive to the oil.
The bottom aluminium stub which supports the bottom of the device was made out of the only piece of aluminium bar I had left and that’s what limited the vertical travel.
The point is Glenn that you are the only person in nearly 30 years who has quibbled about the lifting distance.
It was demonstrated in Dundee University, 3 times at the Imperial College, London, in Edinburgh University at the personal request of a professor, to the Head of Engineering Department of Aberdeen University in my garage, and several times in my absence in Boulder Colorado whilst I was in Australia passing the lab test I previously mentioned.
Every run was successfully completed.
In spite of what our Dr Fisher may think this particular device is not conducive to pendulum testing or any attempt at horizontal running.
Space tends to be up over our heads.
Besides if I was building a machine to run horizontally along the ground or even in space the configuration would be very different, much easier in fact.
It was all very cheap and nasty Glenn in the interests of expediency and my rapidly diminishing reserve of patience.
In my mind any attempt to make it rise higher would have been gilding the lily so to speak.
What’s more it was ignored to death anyway.
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 07/06/2014 00:20:27
| | | Sandy,
Moisture comes to my eyes as I think you you being ignored. I was looking for ways in which you could not be ignored. Maybe distance would have helped, who could say?
The thing is, you and I and others do not know why it did what it did, just as you said you didn't know. People like me must find the reason. We have no choice, but to search.
I am back in Tennessee alone for a time. Business beacons. Why can't they ever run it when I am away?
I am heading out tonight to eat at Ruby Tuesdays. They keep sending me coupons and they have that great pepper steak covered in cheeses and the works; baked potato, sour cream and butter and a wonderful make your own salad and the best little colorful biscuits I ever ate. I so wish you could join me. We could have a couple of drinks while the steaks were being cooked. I can smell them now and hear all the happy, hungry people clamoring about.
Now I get to look over your machines again with a little better understanding this time.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ted Pittman - 07/06/2014 01:30:26
| | | Dear Glen,
Once you switch areal inertial propulsion device on, it just keeps on working until you switch it off. It really doesn't matter HOW high one gets the device to lift itself to. Remember, the text books and academics say it's impossible to get any net lift at all.
Initially, the inventor is simply trying to prove to himself that it works. One inch will do fine!
Cheers,
Ted
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FQXys2Zl80
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 07/06/2014 07:47:23
| | | Good morning Sandy,
The video is great and the quality is pretty good as well. Compliments to the guy who converted the video to DVD and uploaded it on Youtube!
It's a pitty that no one was interested in all these years to find out how and why it works. But it's no wonder that scientists are not interested in such new things as we could see by the approach from a Mr. Fisher. They are more interested in abstract things like string theories in 11 dimensions instead in investigations of practical devices which would be helpful for the evolution of the mankind. Such investigations have to be done, as always, by practitioner like you. The time will come...
Best regards,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 07/06/2014 09:59:59
| | | Hi Ted. Good point there. But I am not trying to convince myself. I am saying that those who saw the demo would be more impressed if the apparatus had risen higher. That is human nature and writers and film makers know about human nature and how to best impress upon it. Don't you see the point to that.
I am about through wasting my time on date sites. Go to the new bars. Write and consider making the machine or candy business. Buy the fucking tires.
Well here is the problem and there is no excuse for it. I do not remember anyone ever saying the machine lifted. I know this is too simple, but if it was said, it was said in a passing way and not in a declarative and certain way. Also the Professor said that the wheel appeared to lose weight, which is wrong. Sandy Kidd’s machine dose appear to lose weight, or rather push itself upwards which is right. There is a world of difference in the wording between wheel and machine, but all the descriptions cropped together as the same thing and same meaning.
Why, why did the Europeans get statements and the history of a TV taping and the Americans and Canadians got nothing? There was a monumental failure to get the information out and that is not the fault of those who did not receive the information.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 07/06/2014 10:23:37
| | | That unfortunate paragraph is the dialog of a character in a comedy film scrip. I didn’t mean to include it. I don't know how it happened and now I don’t know how to remove it. Sorry.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ted Pittman - 07/06/2014 11:26:30
| | | Glen,
Yes, I see your point about a more dramatic demo. But too often those kinds of demos are not real. Besides, I've been told that even the Wright brothers were turned down for a patent AFTER they had flown their airplane! They had to get affidavits from influential people before the patent was finally granted.
People with limited resources and limited budgets, can get results that ARE dramatic in the real world. What's amazing is why those with huge resources and funds fail to do the same. I think part of the reason is because they follow what they "know" and don't accept that their knowledge is limited. On the other hand, guys like us try things because we enjoy it and we are inquisitive like children. We can't let an idea go until we are satisfied with it. The French people have a word for it, they call it 'passion'.
Regards,
Ted
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 07/06/2014 20:34:38
| | | Evening all,
Glenn,
Firstly I shall address Glenn with reference to the viewing of the documentary.
In Britain there tends to be the BBC, and everyone else.
Everyone else consists of television broadcasting companies belonging to the Independent Television network and known as ITV.
ITV serves its dedicated area for instance Grampian Television serves (served) the North of Scotland and Scottish Television serves the rest of Scotland (it now serves all of Scotland).
We have Tyne Tees Television serving the North East of England (Newcastle and Middlesbrough area and so on all the way south.
Each company controls its own programs and in many cases creates them.
Subsequently these programs are offered for lease, whatever, to other broadcasters in the ITV network if they are interested.
I do not know how many of the ITV companies wanted to broadcast my program but many did, although I have no details confirming what companies did.
It was therefore certainly not as far as I know, not broadcast abroad
Incidentally the idea of ID is totally taboo to the BBC who very much represents the establishment.
For instance I loaned the machine seen in the documentary to a couple of people on some pretext or another, stupidity prevailing at the time.
Next thing I knew that it had found its way onto “Tomorrow’s World” where a pair of gyroscope experts (I bet they could not spell gyroscope) systematically destroyed me in my absence, demonstrating the most simple schoolroom tricks.
This is not the only case of persecution I have suffered at the hands of the BBC’s disgusting behaviour.
Hello Ted,
You pretty well hit the nail on the head with your thinking relating to us going our own ways and not following the party line.
Our Dr Fisher is correct in as much as what we are attempting is not in the books but why should it be. No one ever put any of it in there.
We are being judged on what they know and I have no doubt that has been studied to the “nth” degree and would not expect anything new or anything liable to rock the boat.
All the computers in the world cannot help change the areas where there are unseen fundamental flaws which would stay there until people like us discover some of them. As I have said before to the ordinary man in the street it would never ever have mattered if Newton had ever existed.
Evening Harald,
Thank you for your kind words. They are appreciated.
Incidentally the guy who inserted the DVD watched about the first 80 to 100 runs of the device when it started to operate successfully.
We had some mad moments and a lot of laughs
He also helped considerably in the transportation of all the equipment required to demonstrate the device in the UK
To all,
No one could figure out why my device operated.
It was designed to do what it did but it chose its own way of doing it.
No one will subscribe to a device which works for unknown factors.
I was left to find all the answers for myself this taking me about 12 years.
Mother Nature hides her methods well.
The Australian devices which came closely after were abandoned for the same reason. Newton kept getting in the way which made it commercially unviable.
However over the years I have carried out thousands of experiments and built hundreds of machines most of the machines doing not a lot.
However many of the strange secrets surrounding mechanically accelerated devices have been found which will open a whole new area of research for the believers.
I was tempted to go back to my original philosophy and go through the sequence once again but common sense and decency has this time prevailed so I shall spare you all the gory details
Regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 07/06/2014 23:42:24
| | | I
never heard of this and that is all there is to that.
Just scratching around in the dark, I wonder that it is necessary that the wheels first initiate movement inward and upward by allowing the supports to slide in the inch long slots of the framework. Once the movement happens, then in order for the wheels to continue lifting, the wheels no longer need to move and they may remain locked in an upward constant degree?
In a weird way that sort of makes sense, because a gyro seems not to apply precession force, unless it is first allowed to precess. Then of course the precessing flywheel, weighing enough, precessing fast enough will deliver momentum into a collision. I have done it a thousand time—well maybe less.
The film is impressive to me because I do not believe this particular inventor would even consider applying trickery. All those others looking at the film would not automatically believe in the man’s honesty; not as we have completely come to believe. That is just natural.
More than is presented is needed to convince the skeptics, which are the whole of the scientific community, with the scarce and rarest of exceptions. When you do something like that, you have at some point, to drag along that brilliant community. And obviously, obviously there is not enough evidence to convene them. And obviously they are not convinced, nor are people like me beyond a shadow of a doubt. Brow beating us and calling rational people ‘old meanies’ solves nothing. I don’t think they,with an exception were mean or ever wanted to be mean to anyone.
If you argue that more evidence is not needed, you argue not with me. but with the world of knowledgeable men. They want more, period and it doesn't mater what else is said. They want more.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 07/06/2014 23:54:34
| | | Hello again Glenn,
To put the record straight Glenn the big gyro Eric Laithwaite rotated lost weight, in the case of his demonstration most of it.
Dr Fisher said it was an illusion so why the need to rotate the big wheel up to 2000 and a bit revs per minute in the documentary.
Incidentally it was spun up by me.
For the same reasons my device lost a bit of its weight due to vertical thrust but by utilising the same fundamental action.
In the documentary I said to Eric Laithwaite that I wanted the torque of the gyros to overcome the centrifugal force and then to free fly at that angle (53.1degrees from the horizontal) and lift the device with it)
I continued that it seemed to work quite well.
That was as good as I could guess at the time, but ultimately was not even close.
I was hoping for a balance around that angle which would give me steady lift but experiment proved that this is unachievable.
Our Harald and I had a very good discussion about this hypothetical “balance point”
Remember this was a few months before I found what saturation was.
However my device never did go into what everyone was calling precession.
If it had there would have been no lift.
Therefore the results of free-flying would have been zero.
Incidentally my device with bronze gyros (not shown) at 350rpm delivered a good 1lb thrust.
The device could rise slowly or very rapidly when actuated, could be held in a mid-lift position and lowered with a bump or very slowly if required.
Regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 08/06/2014 00:07:38
| | | Hello Glenn,
Unfortunately Glenn the knowledgeable men are not nearly knowledgeable enough and there lies the problem.
If I try to explain to you what is happening you just refuse to consider my statements and accuse me of inventing home-made phrases.
I have had in my possession this device for years and now know it outside in.
If it is too complicated for your knowledgeable people to understand then it will have to stay that way.
I just cannot win so now you see why I really do not give a damn.
I said I would confuse you no more and I won’t.
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/06/2014 04:37:41
| | | To put the record straight the big gyro Eric Laithwaite rotated DID NOT lost weight. The mechanics that I believe in have been explained, but never grasp that I will not disbelieve, Sandy no mater how often you might say otherwise to me.
If Fisher said that he was wrong.
You make a bold and interesting statement, “The device could rise slowly or very rapidly when actuated, could be held in a mid-lift position and lowered with a bump or very slowly if required.”
That is fine and I do not question you, but I am turning blue in the face repeating that this stuff must be demonstrated much better, not stated much better.. Stated does not count. How far has it gotten any of us in the past?
You write, “I just cannot win so now you see why I really do not give a damn.
I said I would confuse you no more and I won’t.”
I am very sorry you are sore about this, but damn it, I am only saying there is not enough proof. You can satisfy yourself. You can satisfy a few others here. That is not good enough. You must satisfy the ones whose voices count if you ever want to win. You have not done that. Why can’t you see that? You may think I am against you. I am not. ‘Homemade?’ I explained ‘saturation’ was not being understood. Do you contend that is was? Think about it. Now that you know, you can work on it if you wish. It was a devil of a description to understand though it was actually simple. I dare any honest person to say it wasn’t difficult. Was I helpful to point this out?
You are not being challenged, Sandy as I try to understand what happened. You are being praised and admired, but not given carte blanche just yet. How could anyone hope for more?
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 08/06/2014 11:38:11
| | | Hello Glenn,
The wheel indeed lost its weight because the weight was transferred to the system rotation point, i.e. via the Professors feet to the ground. The Professors weight was acordingly increasd by the weight of the wheel, that means the system which consists of the Professor and the flywheel did not lose any weight, it was only transferred to the system rotation axis. And if the Professor increases his system rotation speed, the flywheel moves upwards which causes during the upward motion again an increase of the weight in the system.
Sandy had explained this in the thread of Mr. Fisher (Stan) absolutly correct but it seems that neither Mr. Fisher nor you did understand this well-known facts.
Regarding Sandys machine I think he "must" not do anything to convince anyone. if I understand Sandy correct, the approach of his device shown in the video was to produce an upward force by balancing centrifugal and upward force caused by "forced precession", i.e. 90 degrees deflection force caused by system rotation. This theory was also my approach which was discussed in detail in my balance point thread.
Sandy found out, that this theory is only correct in a certain range of system acceleration and spinning rate of the flywheels. If this certain range will be exceeded, no additional centrifugal force in system rotation can be generated what Sandy calls "Saturation". If I understand Sandy correct, he does not know the resson for this saturation behavior or at least he does know but will not explain it for certain reasons.
If you don't know in detail how and why a machine works, it is difficult to design by try and error a better working machine with an increased output. That's in my opinion the reason why the machine was not improved over this long time. However, I'm sure that Sandy is still working on it to improve his machine which was proved to deliver a small amount of thrust.
But again as stated before he "must" not explain anything to you or anyone else!
Regards,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 08/06/2014 21:06:16
| | | Dear all,
I would like all interested parties to remember that that documentary was made about 28 and a bit years ago. The machine first lifted on the 21st November 1984 the best part of 30 years ago, well 29 years and six months
I did realise that the device was useless unless I could find out the reasons why it lifted, and the same could be said for the Australian laboratory test machine, the laboratory test results of which, were shown the contempt that is given to inferior beings and not to be considered.
However there is no way that the device would keep its secrets forever although it took me the best part of 12 years to collect them all.
It was quite a concoction of interacting mechanical movements.
As a result of much investigation and subsequently discovering that accepted principles were in error I decided to help the contributors to this forum by supplying many of my easily provable claims starting in 2004.
It seems that no one was really interested but that cost me nothing.
The information submitted went most of the way to explaining what flywheels can be made to do if suitably coaxed.
I can assure you that I did eventually find the answers to the problem if that is what you want to call it, but they did not unfortunately help my case at all.
The answers are unacceptable as they do not comply with accepted beliefs.
Be warned it is not nearly as easy as you would like to believe.
That is nearly 30 years wasted due to arrogance, ignorance, and down-right stupidity.
May the next challenger have better luck.
Regards
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/07/2014 02:08:59
| | | Dear Sandy,
It is odd that we contact one another when one (me) has been thinking of the other, which I have. I do not know my email password; you see I am partially computer illiterate. I hate the thing often. When I remember or find it, I will join your club. I lost your email address too somehow of course. It's just me. It is good to hear from you. Thank you for remembering me my friend.
Good evening, Sandy,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/05/2015 22:22:21
| | | Dear Sandy,
I look forward to the day I can give you the theory. You deserve it more than anybody and I owe you so much to your work and discoveries. It is a complete theory that answers all your questions of why and how gyroscopes do what they do. The theory took me almost forty years and yet it is only very complicated and absolutely, but not extremely, extremely complicated. It answers everything and with proof. I can't imagine the learned mind that could deny it and then the proof that has been seen happening for so many years, but ignored.
We are building the hypothetical machine with a a high probability now, based on the theory which is a certainty and a series of facts. I am having to redo and constantly change and recalculate everything, as you well know will happen. I give myself three anxious months to complete the engine and test it.
I hope you and all of yours are healthy and happy and you are having a good summer.
Sincerely,
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
