|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
29 November 2024 00:53
|
|
Welcome to the gyroscope forum. If you have a question about gyroscopes in general,
want to know how they work, or what they can be used for then you can leave your question here for others to answer.
You may also be able to help others by answering some of the questions on the site.
|
Question |
| Asked by: |
Nitro |
| Subject: |
Equal but not opposite 2 |
| Question: |
Right settle down class! If you have not managed to produce propulsion I urge you to persivere and wade through this, necessarily long, course. I warn you that this is only the start and needs your work, if you want to learn why it is possible and how it can be done.
THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM BECOMES POSSIBLE
I spoke last time (in the “Equal but not opposite” thread) concerning the matter of “Newton's cock up” which is where he unnecessarily added the word “opposite” to his third law. The reason for its inclusion is obvious, in that in his experience all reactions were indeed opposite. I showed in the thread that with what most here now know and can be observed now, the third law should simply read:-
FOR EVERY ACTION THERE IS AN EQUAL REACTION.
Because of his cock up of adding “opposite” Newton, single handed, prevented everyone except the stupid or pig headed, good observers from trying to obtaining better understanding of our world and its full set of wonders.
So, class, as we have about three hundred years of misrepresented science to catch up on and correct we had better get started. Please ignore Dave in the “naughty corner” with the “D” hat on.
Blaze, you have been right or nearly right in saying that a gyro will produce little or no unopposed IP (inertial propulsion) and therefore “cannot produce thrust”. However one should be careful to add the words “on its own” to that statement. I think you know this and should know that what I have been working on and re-patenting over the years (as I came up with simpler and more efficient versions) should really be called a gyro assisted reaction propulsion (RP) machine. Mine is force precessed but, as you know, there is a working gravity precessed version out there.
The holy grail of (RP) is possible but there are many tempting paths that go nowhere, yet are fiercely defended. Picking out why they are wrong upsets people who have worked hard on the subject, sometimes for many years, and correcting them can take too long to be bothered with. However, I will give a recent example in an attempt to help – not to criticise. After all, we have all spent time wandered down many an unmarked path to nowhere, I am sure.
A good example of what happens when using gyros “on their own” can be seen in MD’s video here:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNtIiyBmrgs&feature=youtu.be
It shows a hinged twin gyro arrangement using springs for returnafter a forced precession stroke. It can clearly be seen that the device does indeed produce a quite noticeable inertial propulsion pulse. It can also quite clearly be seen that MD has not yet got the hang of NITRO’S FIRST LAW. It is worth repeating now, as it is clear from MD’S device, and others, that it is being ignored or not understood.
Nitro’s first law is: A GYRO WILL PRECESS EVERY FORCE APPLIED TO TRY AND ALTER ITS AXIAL ANGLE NOT JUST THOSE FORCES YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE THOUGHT OF!
While in the video it can be seen that the gyros move the device to one side, in line with its main shaft, on its powered stroke. Using the corrected Newton’s third law, above, it can be more clearly understood why its return stroke exactly cancels out the movement of the power stroke. This is because the power stroke inputs torsional force to obtain a (not opposite) linear displacement output, while the return stroke (carried out by springs in this instance) inputs linear force and obtains a (not opposite) torque output cancelling out the power stroke exactly. Do not be fooled by the fact that the equal action and reaction force of gyrodynamics is 90 degrees offset compare to the equal action and reaction force of Newtonian reactions being 180 degrees offset – both kinds of action and reaction are equal in their cancelling reaction when used in this way.
The kind of movement shown by MD’s device makes it easy to be deceived into thinking that, as it is noticeably moving itself on its power stroke, being able to repeatedly keep it moving cannot be far away. Because of this feeling that the holy grail is just around the next bend, the poor mug throws more and more money and time into a dead end path. We have all been/still are mugs. Don’t despair though as I have good news for all you hard working shed dwellers. If you keep reading my input you will get more insight in the subject and I will try and give you a better way to look at the problem you seek to answer.
The type of unsuccessful movement that the machine in the video produces can easily be reproduced without a single gyro in sight. Its movement will be similar (though smaller) to that obtained in the above gyro video but with less complication and less balancing needed. Before I go into this let me explain what is wrong with your approach shown in the video.
Oh! There goes the bell. I will continue this next time................
I know that you guys will only read so much at a time and wont search back through the site so I am stopping now and putting this up as a new thread. I will put up more info on how (IP/RP) is done later if Glen does (please, please, note, Glen:- Not “dose”!) not clog up the works with too many new answers and threads.
Class dismiss
NM |
| Date: |
13 June 2014
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Blaze - 13/06/2014 22:35:52
| | | "gyro assisted reaction propulsion", hmmm... GARP. Doesn't have that nice a ring to it.
I like RAM propulsion better, Recycled Acceleration Mass propulsion.
cheers,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 14/06/2014 05:13:51
| | | Hi Blaze
As Ram Firestone was a (very negative) contributor to this site, way back, I would not like to call the answer to what we have sought for so long anything that might appear to give him credit.
kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 14/06/2014 13:16:34
| | | "The type of unsuccessful movement that the machine in the video produces can easily be reproduced without a single gyro in sight"
Yet, when the gyros are turned off in the last video, and the machine configured to shift the center of gravity of those gyros in roughly the same way, the effect more or less disappears.
According to my understanding of the laws of physics, that shouldn't happen. The increased swing momentum should only come from, well, the same place increased swinging comes from swinging on a literal playground swing, "by shifting the center of gravity of the pendulum in sync with the swinging motion".
The machine simple doesn't do that. There are several cycles (power strokes) being performed during one swing, meaning its not in sync at all. Each cycle seems to increase the swing momentum even further nonetheless, but only if the cycles are being performed when the machine is swinging left (forward).
This suggests the machine could stay on one side of the pendulum at all times if the wires are long enough, and I should already have performed an experiment in a indoors sports hall with 16 meter roof height (56 feet I think) which is a lot better than the 5 meter roof height seen in the video, buuuuut... I've been lazy. Swedish summer is short and I've been enjoying it too much.
Stay tuned though. And Nitro, I don't really see anything that contradicts my logic in your post. Feel free to point anything out, I'm a fan of constructive criticism.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 14/06/2014 15:14:01
| | | Hi MD
My words were chosen carefully and I did not say that your machine would produce a movement when the gyros were switched off but that “The type of unsuccessful movement that the machine in the video produces can easily be reproduced without a single gyro in sight”. To be clear it would be a different machine – but this is all unimportant. You need to read again the part about how gyrodynamic actions and reactions, though different from Newtonian, cancel out just the same when used, as your machine does, in forward and then reversed 90 degree action and displaced reaction pairs.
There must be a gyrodynamic stroke and the Newtonian stroke (yours has two, effectively though not actually, opposed gyro strokes) and something else is missing from your machine. You can extend the pendulum as much as you like but a problem lies in the fact that although your machine does indeed produce an impulse that is not fully opposed on its power stroke. That impulse, though, is exactly cancelled out by an opposing impulse on its return by the springs. These matching impulses are spaced apart in time and while one stroke is short and sharp and the other is longer and softer the overall effect is zilch. I nearly cried when Laithwaite showed an identical (in function) machine as I had already made an identical machine to his (and yours) and abandoned it as useless. That a learned man like Laithwaite said it did the job made me despair that I had abandoned a path I should have continued along. It turned out that Laithwaite had been a dammed fool and placed it with a vertical axis on scales. The scales showed a drop in weight not, as he thought, because it had actually lost weight through upward thrust but due to scales having a one way damper to stop the indicator needle swinging to and fro for ages. Any vibrating device placed on scales would show the same apparent loss of weight. You are at least using a pendulum test but it is really pointless to use such a test until you can maintain thrust.
Although I am sure that you will not take my word for it and will have to convince yourself, this mechanism has been done by me and Laithwaite and is not the right path the way you have the mechanism presently arranged.
I take my hat off to you for your Sterling efforts and I only wish I could get on with some more “shed work” myself but life, the universe and everything seems to get in my way at the moment. I am of a quandary as to how much more to divulge at the moment as I would like to receive the recognition the achievement of finding a way to produce repeatable reactionless drive deserves. Although, as I mentioned, I have a patent filed, knowledge of a process often triggers in others ideas of different ways to achieve the same outcome and recognition of who was first gets lost in a scramble. I will of course stay tuned as I am sure you will.
kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 14/06/2014 15:54:15
| | | Well, I dont quite follow how it can have less of a reaction when the gyros precess forward and more of a reaction when they reset. If that were the case, the machine would generally stay in one spot when it's on a track as well, yet... it still moves consistently forward both on the track and apparently on the pendulum, though more experimentation is needed on the latter to confirm this.
I might mention that while the device looks primitive, there's a lot of weight distribution going on that's unseen to the naked eye. I once made the machine too light, and it simply stopped working. The gyros simply didn't precess forwards, but only inwards. The rest of the machine moved back and forth just fine, but it seems that the actual gyros need to move towards and away from the direction of travel to actually producer propulsion.
Oh and the same wheels and rails were used in both versions, so I guess that means it can't be stick-slip, which my critics over at kerbalspaceprogram.com oh so adamantly claim it is. ;-)
But whatever. I'm proud that I have some weird results so far, and while I admit I may be fooling myself, I still think it's a path worth pursuing. It really is pointless to discuss at this point. The only thing that's ever going to settle the discussion is experimentation.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 15/06/2014 22:41:20
| | | Hello MD,
You said,
“Well, I dont quite follow how it can have less of a reaction when the gyros precess forward and more of a reaction when they reset”
I had a good look at your video and took note of a few points.
The first point was that you are fighting the unbalance caused by gravity.
I have failed in every attempt I have made over the years to make an opposed system such as yours and mine operate successfully in the horizontal plane.
I tell a lie once in 1987 or thereabouts I had a very successful long and fast run all the way up my drive and into the garage where it stopped on the back wall.
However as I think this happened for other reasons I discounted the run even although my Australian sponsor witnessed the run and showed much enthusiasm.
There are much simpler and better ways of moving horizontally than the twin opposed set up.
You would be much better off turning it around to operate vertically and set up to produce thrust on a good counterbalance system.
Do you have a fixation with respect to horizontal operation?
Space is upwards anyway.
Your device is very similar to Nitro’s horizontal demonstration in as much as the gyroscope has the ability to accelerate rapidly into what you all call “precession” I shall leave it at that.
It is known and accepted at least by some of us that all the angular momentum generated by the gyroscope in this “precession mode” no longer acts on the system for the length of time it is accelerating forward in your case in this mode.
If you apply “braking” to the gyroscopes electrically, electronically or preferably mechanically when the gyroscope has reached its farthest forward position a large non Newtonian pulse will be produced, due to the rapid return of the angular momentum, and this can be repeated every time the sequence is initiated.
I did something similar in some of my original experiments 30 years ago and I am sure physics has not changed that much.
The cycle speed your device is demonstrating would not be hard to reproduce in an alternative vertical setup, at least both gyros would be operating identically if your motor speeds are close.
I would also in light of the fixed vertical position of such a setup consider the use of Radio Control equipment, out-runner brushless motors and associated electronic speed controllers (ESC’s)
The ESC’s can be set up to brake when the throttle (so to speak is closed) for both motors simultaneously although from experience I would favour servo operated disc brakes on each gyro shaft.
The stuff you need is easily obtained from your local model store
Most of my stuff I have been getting for years with no failures from a company called HPI, makers of model off road buggies, cars etc. etc.
You really only want to brake hard enough, but as rapidly as possible, to get the gyros to return from whence they came.
How fast you can repeat the cycle is your problem but it will not be any slower than your present cycle speed, but your output will be much better, and much smoother.
It will not be the fastest resetting method by a long shot, but it will prove the point.
Regards,
Sandy Kidd.
PS.
You can of course slow down or stop the device rotation which has the same effect as slowing the gyroscope rotation speed.
This is what you are doing anyway it appears.
My experience tells me that altering the gyro’s rotation speed is easier, and reaction is faster, if you have the means to do so.
I do not know how good your motor control is?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 17/06/2014 19:33:50
| | | Sandy, I'm sort of opposed to doing a counterweight test. It's because my machine's center of gravity fluctuates a LOT towards and from the direction of travel. This means the counter weight would move up and down violently as the machine was turned on, and it simply wouldn't be convincing even if the machine did move upwards. "Oh it's just some form of stick-slip. Not worth my time to even investigate". You know how it goes.
The pendulum test is in own opinion much more convincing as it removes stick-slip doubts in the bearing that would have to be placed in between the machine and the counter weight. Besides, I have everything set up and ready to go. This pendulum test is designed to make it as easy as possible for any reactionless propulsion to be measured, since I'm using the building with the highest indoor ceiling height in the city (17 meters/57 feet).
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 17/06/2014 20:10:46
| | | Evening MD,
Each to their own and best of luck.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
RS - 19/06/2014 23:03:23
| | | Also, NASA pretty much mandates that you mount your device horizontally from a pendulum and see if it deflect in order for them to take it seriously. They don't like the vertically mounted ones with a counterweight. You pretty much have to have it fully deflect on a pendulum and STAY THERE for a long time on video before they will even consider that your machine might be producing any valuable thrust. That is just how they are; they are stuck in their ways. It would take almost a miracle to get them to listen to you.
http://web.archive.org/web/20111030093616/http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/TM-2006-214390.pdf
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 20/06/2014 08:56:49
| | | Thanks for that link, RS. Ironically I learned all the stuff the link says about pendulums by myself through logic. :)
Also found this gem while researching Alex Jones:
http://www.padrak.com/agn/PENDTESTS.html
"Alex Jones was able to advance the c.g. of a gyro device mounted on wheels on a
level table a distance of two feet, by forcibly tumbling a pendulus suspended
gyro.
In my successful experiment, I hung the special designed gyro-carriage from a
four "V" string configuration from ceiling 6 feet to c.g. of gyro-carriage
assembly. The motion is thus biased to travel linearly. The total weight is
about 24 ounces. The vertical plumb line through the c.g. is marked on the floor
beneath the test assembly. The gyro is held horizontally and spun up with a hand
drill. It is then released from a dead-rest at the plumb line. In the first 180
degrees of force precession, beginning immediately upon release, the c.g of the
entire system moves outward about two feet away from the plumb line!"
This was written in 1998, and the site is pretty much dead, but still interesting.
My own pendulum test draws near, btw. I'm getting a grip on my sleep, and I suspect it wont be long now before everything lines up. Sleep, weather, timing at the sports hall.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 20/06/2014 11:40:13
| | | Dear MD
As I said before, you will want to do the work for yourself, which is no bad thing, but those who have trod the same path could save you a lot of time. I will try to save some of yours, fruitless though it may be.
The clue to your problem, which you cannot yet see, is ironically present in the web link you put up and repeats what I have tried to show you. Cox’s article describing his own version of Alex Jones device (Alex lived on Alderney, my next door island and I think he got his start on gyro propulsion unintentionally from me) he describes his test getting a large displacement in the first 180 degree swing a then importantly goes on to say:- “In the next 180 degrees, it strokes in the reverse direction”. There is a disconnect in time between two movements of his pendulum that have no simultaneous opposite reaction (see Newton’s cock up – this link passim) but just like yours those two movements (reactions) are equal and cancel out, albeit after an interval. Even someone slightly versed in the craft knows there is something very important in Jones’ , and your machine’s movement (it has, after all moved with no external influence that would be expected to cause it to move in such a way) but there is also something important missing from it, which is needed in order to achieve the grail. When you have finished testing yours and are ready, you will want to ask what it is that is missing.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 20/06/2014 22:18:07
| | | Hello RS
The pendulum test or “Ballistic Pendulum Test” as it was originally known was first mentioned by G Harry Stine who designed model solid rockets for the use of enthusiasts in that sport.
That test was used by Harry to test his model rockets.
Harry utilised his pendulum test in the testing of his laboratoriy's version of the Dean Drive which Harry had seen in operation.
Harry actually believed that Dean’s machine pushed hard against his hand.
There is no way the Dean Drive was going to be able to produce vertical thrust on a counterbalance set up, since it was using a Ľ diameter electric drill, but did not have the luxury of a portable mains battery unit, that it could carry with it, enter the Ballistics Pendulum Test.
See "Detesters, Phasers and Dean Drives".by G Harry Stine
The only thing in its favour is that there is no need for instrumentation, but I do think NASA will be waiting a long time for any machine to pass the test, and if it does it more than likely will not be a horizontally mounted twin or more opposed gyroscope system.
Sort of limits the possibilities to the eccentric mass slinging devices which are a no go anyway.
However if you, or NASA, are going to be stupid about it, how about the source of the device’s power?
I do not think any of these devices carry their power supply with them.
To me this is totally unacceptable in this day and age, but in fairness I doubt if NASA would disagree with me.
At least all my devices had the presence of a fuel tank and where water cooled the system was a no loss system.
Do you think I went to this trouble for fun?
Any other drive I used could easily be converted to DC at that time or to the now excellent 3 phase brushless out-runner motors, those being radio controlled
At present I am using 2 motors weighing 77 grams each the ESCs and receiver weighing just about 30 grams.
Everything is driven from one 3S 2250 mAh Lipo.battery which is fitted to the device.
Any internal power is fed to the radio receivers(s) ESCs and gyro motors via brushes and slip rings fitted to the main rotation shaft of the device.
Nearly 30 years ago I was forbidden from touching my device once each test had been started and had to allow each test to run its minimum of 60 seconds, before the lab staff allowed me to stop it running.
Believe me 60 seconds is a long time on a controlled test like this especially when there was 20 of them.
NB is carrying his controller and a couple of metres of cable.
What about the supply cable to his controller, probably twice as long again?
Carrying a battery or fuel supply sort of destroys any efficiency you thought you had.
Luckily there are more interests around than NASA, some who are a bit more realistic, regarding what is being offered for evaluation.
The point is that like all the seemingly sympathetic science and science fiction writers, many who I have conversed with and who can make money out of the “what if”, just do not believe it can be done.
I think the official line with NASA is that it is impossible but they had better go through the motions just in case.
It seems that we are surrounded by experts in something none of them have the slightest knowledge of.
“Blessed is he who has nothing to say and can’t be persuaded to say it”
To me the people who are making the choice of test procedure probably do not have a clue what they are all agreeing to, other than the fact that it seems to be a good idea, and probably does not matter too much anyway.
Regards,
Sandy Kidd
PS Once upon a time I asked Jerry Pourmelle who wrote “A Step Farther Out” an excellent book for ID enthusiasts by the way for his ideas on how to test a machine.
He said build two identical machines and proceed to drop them from a skyscraper at the same time whilst one of them, the supposed space drive was running.
If it hit the ground after the other machine it was genuine.
That was contempt from a real clever dick who went down a lot in my estimation there and then.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 21/06/2014 19:47:41
| | | Good morning class,
While we wait for blaze and MD to progress with their chosen practical test work and without giving away too much that might bring down the wrath of the D notice brigade at the IP office let us continue with what we have learnt so far.
THE DISASTER OF NEWTON’S ADDED WORD
Newton made the “cock up”, that I outlined last time, where he unnecessarily but understandably added the word “opposite” to his third law. As we discussed last time, his inclusion of the word “opposite” was due to his knowledge being limited compared to ours - we now have a good understanding of the way to alter rotational orientation in space with no opposite rotational mass movement.
NO ACTION IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT SOMETHING REACTING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION – ALLEGEDLY
With that one word “opposite” Newton halted, for three hundred odd years, any scientific research into reactionless propulsion. Yes, yes David, I do know there is reaction. I put that in there to make sure that, although you are in the naughty corner, you are still paying attention. I believe most of the class has by now grasped; the reaction is there but - where is it, class? That’s right! It is not necessarily opposite the action.
MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF ACTION AND REACTION PAIR
What we have learned in the last class – at least, some learned who hadn’t invested so much time constructing test models before the class had got to the test model stage of the course that they convinced themselves that they knew enough to try and run before they could walk – was that there are (as we presently know) two distinct pairs of action and reaction. For simplicity we will call them Newtonian and gyrodynamic pairs. In the “scientific world these two types of action and reaction pairs have wrongly been explained by saying that linear reactions and torsional reactions are separately conserved – this explanation is, as it sounds, utter, pseudo-scientific, crap due to lazy sods not being bothered to look for the true explanation!
EQUAL AND OPPOSITE CAN MOVE A MECHANISM – A BIT
In a closed mechanism, shoving a weight in one direction can cause the rest of the mechanism to move in the opposite direction proportional to the relative masses of the shoved weight and the mechanism and the distance of movement and acceleration of the weight. This was commonly known as “the old black box test”. You can move the box with a weight on a released spring, or other motive force, but you cannot move the box outside its starting dimension. Being able to move the box outside its own starting dimension was used by scientists as a means of judging whether a mechanical device was truly able to produce inertial thrust or not.
THE BLACK BOX BREAKTHROUGH
Some of us clever sods started to play with gyrodynamics. Me and Alex jones separately made machines that actually moved outside their own starting dimension. This should have put the cat amongst the established scientific pigeons. Unfortunately Eric Laithwaite did what MD has just done - he tried to run before he could walk and did so in the full glare of publicity. Laithwaite, rather like Newton, unintentionally put back the very kind of scientific breakthrough that he was trying to advance. Jones (yes, and others – ehem!) had done something that before Laithwaite’s public debacle would perhaps have been recognised as a breakthrough. Instead, being able to move the proverbial black box outside its original dimension, got ignored and thrown out with the bathwater when the establishment rejected all things gyrodynamic to the loud noise of scientific ranks closing.
UP AND RIGHT FOLLOWED BY DOWN AND LEFT IS THE SAME AS LINEAR EQUAL AND OPPOSITE
For that matter; right and down followed by up and left is also the same and all this means is that in an enclosed mechanism any pair of these will cancel out with no overall movement when repeated enough times. It is important to reread that last sentence until you are sure that you understand it.
I will stop now to give you time to let all this sink in as it is very important that I don’t get too far ahead of your understanding with out me realising, as I clearly have heretofore.
Class dismiss. And Sandy, don’t let me catch you giving give David Fisher a wedgey again. Note, I said don’t let me catch you!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 21/06/2014 21:37:48
| | | Hello Nitro,
You have been submitting some interesting statements relating to Newton and his laws of motion, especially the bit about equal and opposite reaction.
It seems to me that we are all attempting to produce an action without producing an equal and opposite one.
Funnily one of my first devices built whilst I was in Australia produced a reaction which was considerably greater than the action, the device actually got heavier, much to the amusement of the lab staff, who were quite prepared to accept this as proof of ID even if it was in reverse.
After juggling the weight of the gyro and slightly altering the machine rotation speed I managed to reverse the trend and so the test runs began.
Over the years I have built many near failures and failures but I have also built quite a few successful devices some of them sufficiently different to be called unique.
However the one item I found which was a prerequisite of a successful device has been the manipulation of centrifugal force or if you are happier with the manipulation of angular momentum let it be so.
The reason I am stating this is that in the Grampian TV documentary there is a part where the operation of the device is supposedly explained.
This explanation was the best that we could find at the time to explain its operation away
In fact it transpired that the operation of the device was weirder than you would like to believe but again its successful operation was down to the manipulation of centrifugal force by Mother Nature herself.
Please accept my apologies for the wild guessing which produced that explanation which although believable according to accepted principles at the time that device was built is in fact impossible due to the total loss of centrifugal force and /or angular momentum at the angles conveyed in the documentary.
Newton never mentioned that bit Nitro but I do not think he could have known that, or subsequently that his momentum conservation laws were junk.
I am more interested in the droves of the best academics, who allegedly gave the study of gyroscopes their best attention, and came and went, for 300 years and did not find anything wrong with the laws or if they did, made no attempt to correct them..
However in saying that there would have been no laws and they would all be out of a job, not that it matters.
Not many of them ever did me any favours.
Regards,
Sandy
PS
Nitro I am not normally inclined to raise the pitch of a man person’s voice by tugging up his knickers
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 21/06/2014 22:32:24
| | | Hi Nitro. Your idea of two types of action reaction pairs, Newtonian and gyrodynamic, is something I realized for a long time but it didn't crystalize for me until about a year ago or maybe a bit more. It is one of the keys to the kingdom, so to speak.
Hi Sandy. "a prerequisite of a successful device has been the manipulation of centrifugal force" I couldn't agree more. It is also an important part of the device I am finishing now.
cheers,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 22/06/2014 09:57:32
| | | Hello Nitro,
Regarding my latest researches and investigations in the last months I am convinced that Newtons laws are true but not complete to describe all possibilities of physical behaviors, in particular angular momentum related issues.
For instance, up to now the flight path of a boomerang cannot be explained completely by Newtons laws. Aerodynamic explanations in connection with gyroscopic effects are not sufficient to explain this very special behavior of a boomerang during its flight.
I think, although it seems or we all believe that all basic physical phenomena have been researched by scientists, there are many open questions left which are still not answered by today.
This fact is good for us. ;-)
Regards,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 23/06/2014 22:45:09
| | | Evening Harald,
About 30 years ago I was given a demonstration in a university of a purely gyroscopic device namely a boomerang
Their words not mine.
When in Australia I went into a shop in Melbourne owned by an aboriginal Australian.
He was quite a character, extremely helpful and gave me a lecture in the art of making a boomerang so I decided to buy one as it was the genuine article.
He informed me that he had no left handed boomerangs in stock but could get one made for me if I could afford to wait a week or two.
He then proceeded to explain that a boomerang is made with several degrees of incidence or “angle of attack” on each leading edge creating the lifting and curving path feature seen as the boomerang rotates.
This however depends very much on the direction of rotation.
I was going back to the UK that week so I took my chances and bought one.
Unfortunately it is hard but not quite impossible for a left hander to throw a right handed boomerang as everything is set up for anti-clockwise rotation.
At the start I would have got better results throwing a stick
Regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 29/06/2014 19:49:53
| | | So, here we are again class at the bright beginning of another term.
Never mind the loud groaning Kidd Minor and, MD, stop playing with that bloody pendulum while I’m speaking! We all have suffered from the crass stupidity of the exam boards of the past. We just have be happy, for the moment, in ourselves with what we have achieved so far and continue to do our best in this field we have chosen to specialise in. We will, I am sure, show the exam boards that they are not the experts they think they are in all things and are lacking in our field. We will eventually gain some of the accolades we deserve. I have a feeling that if we concentrate hard this term we will have a few surprises for them – and for ourselves.
You will, I hope, have inwardly digested all that was said about Newton’s “cock up” (I am sorry if some have found that expression offensive but the scientific establishment members of the exam boards won’t accept the word “error” in the same sentence as “Newton”! I have to admit that they may not be too happy with “cock up”, instead.) and that by now you understand that we already know how to produce rotational movement without the equal and opposite movement required to comply with Newton’s third law. Thus, class, one has to now ask the obvious question :- if Newton’s third law of equal and opposite does (nota bene, not “dose”, Glen) not always apply to rotational acceleration then could it be possible that with enough imagination and mad engineering the third law could also be made to not always apply to linear acceleration?
The answer to this is, of course, YES!
We can already see on You Tube, and elsewhere, examples of what is commonly regarded as our Holy grail. The Holy grail in our area being repeated (or continuous – but lets not try to run before we can walk) linear propulsion (MD this is relevant to your bloody pendulum) to make the exam boards happy it needs to be shown that a continuous impulsed linear movement is being produced by a mechanism (without, of course, any opposite linear movement/stick slip/jiggery or pokery!). I believe that I and MD and others on this site have shown at least single linear impulses and that there is at least one mechanism out there that displays (slow) repeated linear impulsed movement (the one on the pool table). Sadly, unless they can show a twinned version of this working in orbit, the establishment will cry out “it’s not on a frictionless surface” and not accept this. So, for now, we must strive to show a pendulum suspended device with a sustained (NB, MD) displaced angle as anything that wobbles back an forth aint going to cut it with the scientific community or me.
If a member of the class does show substantial inertial propulsion even if, like the You Tube one on the pool table, it is not on a frictionless surface it will be clear to all except Dr Dave Fisher whether slip stick is involved or not You will, however, have to be prepared that such ignoramuses in our field like Dave who, less than a month ago was daft enough to be prepared to write “What makes you think that this proves anything? That is not a friction-less surface.” on the YouTube comments under what is the first publicly demonstrated successful RD (reaction drive) machine. Dave you will go down in history like our own astronomer royal who said we would never be able to get a man on the moon “Why! Simple mathematics will show you that you would have to throw as much as eighty per cent of the launch weight away just to get there”. They threw away a lot more than that!
Dr Dave Fisher don’t go down in history as the pompous balding prat who by missing a simple detail rubbished a scientific revolution.
Class, people like Dave know that there is something other than the obvious that is anomalous about precession and will return here time and time again to see if they can understand what that something is. I would guess that because he cannot get his over-channelled mind around some of the things that I and others have shouted about he is left with spending his time searching for impulse machines, no longer to try and understand them, but to ridicule all of them as, on average, he has been right to in the past. You have to do the practical, Dave, math alone is not enough.
When you are ready to learn Dave you have only to say you are sorry for the insults and that you want to help with creating a new math to aid a new understanding of Newton's laws and I am sure I would consider your conditional return to the class.
Again, I would like to allow time for the above to sink in and to facilitate this I would like you all to look (again) at this you-tube video for relaxation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3fU67PRkBM
Class dismiss.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 02/07/2014 20:21:26
| | | Good afternoon class,
I know this is not your time for a lesson with me and that I probably should not be invading your metalwork class but I was passing and thought I would drop in and see how you are all doing. As you all know metalwork is an important part of the requirements of my class – sadly though this is not a subject that Dave has excelled in or, indeed, been a class he’s attended. Much of the maths required to cover our subject has not been expressed yet. Strangely this gives an opening for Dave’s talents – yes, class he does (note not etc., etc, Glen) have talents and good ones too. Sorry! I must not get fixated with a probably lost sheep.
Due to the reduced budget given to my gyro course by the education department. (Gee thanks all you Yanks Banks that screwed up our economy by giving loans to people who could only afford them while the economy was buoyant and then flim flammed our tossers - sorry! wonderful financial institutions! Known as “Merchant Bankers” - Cockney rhyming slang - to us !) I have been using the small 12 volt battery from my Triumph 5TA Speedtwin motorbike to power up the gyros of my latest “fast repeater”. The battery is not as old as the bike, but nearly. Not surprisingly, having been stored in the garage/shed over the winter its charge must have faded too much. As I had used the bike a week before I assumed everything was in order. Yes! Yes! I can hear you all shout:- ”Never assume”! Smart arses!
On Tuesday as it was a lovely sunny day I decided to ride my old Triumph to my Doctors for my regular blood sample. After refitting the battery from the bench and kicking the living s**t out of the old heap (read “treasured motorbike”) for about ten minutes with it producing just enough blatty, coughing sounds to convince me that it was worth continuing kicking and not to give up and, instead, drive my cool, air conditioned, Lexus to the Doctor’s. It finally submitted to the oaths and threats and fired up. So away I sped with the occasional raucous explosion announcing my passing to the still dosing populace - I headed Doctorwise.
The clinic nurse, despite my hatred of having to be a stabbee and being inexplicably expected not to stab the stabber back for making me a stabbee, has always been kind and ignored my screwed up eyes and clenched fists when the pain was administered. But enough about my bill! After, a la Tony Hancock, having given almost an armful of blood, the nurse said “right let’s do your blood pressure now”. I said that I hadn’t thought I was to have a blood pressure test and that due to my kicking the living s**t out of my Triumph for ten minutes and having followed the fitness regime of Jubba the Hut for twenty years, my blood pressure might be a little high. “A little high” turned out to be a bit of an understatement as the nurse had difficulty deciding whether to call an ambulance or an undertaker. However, as I hadn’t at that time paid for my visit, she sent me, instead, back to the waiting room where after relaxing and reading two of the most up to date issue of Punch magazines, dated 1962, I was pronounced alive and normal (ish).
To cut a long story short – what do you mean “too bloody late”? – It turned out that bike batteries, like their owners, don’t last forever and I had to spend half my States of Guernsey pension on a new one. Now I have to decide whether to ride my Triumph in the glorious sunny weather we have at the moment or to take the battery to the shed to run the gyros on my latest gyro assisted reaction propulsion machine (GARPM, yecht!) – you know the bike is going to win.
Enjoy your metalwork, class.
By the way before I put the battery back under the saddle of the Triumph I couldn’t resist running up the gyros – And, yes! It is all behaving as I hoped, so far, if a little wobbly as it needs tightening everywhere. You and I will just have to be patient and wait for rainy weather for further gyro tests.
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 08/07/2014 15:18:31
| | | Just performed the experiment. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. I'm updating my own "Pendulum test" thread here on the forum.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 09/07/2014 17:37:35
| | | Youtube video is up. Have a look and tell me what you think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1KtInq4Jo8
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 09/07/2014 20:06:35
| | | Dear MD
I am writing here to you rather than on the YouTube response slot. I have done the same scissor device tests as you show many years ago. I am not trying to steal your thunder as there is hardly any thunder to be heard at this point in this development of this type of machine. It is, however, as I have said earlier, a starting point but the amount of displacement (thrust) is, as your video shows, bloody tiny. I should think that if you timed just blowing on the assembly the way you time your rotation of main shaft rotation you would get almost as much displacement.
The video should show the machine as well as the point of light to give better view of the actuation of the machine – though having seen your earlier videos I don’t need that. It would also make it easier for yourself and others to view any displacement if the support wires were triangulated to eliminate the sideways torque causing more confusing motions – you are,after all, only interesting in the back and forth motion so damping out sideways motions is quite legitimate.
As I have tried to allude to without giving to much to the public domain, this type of action needs more complexity to amplify and retain the tiny movement each stroke produces. That it shows such a tiny displacement despite hugely long suspension threads give you a clue to how tiny the thrust causing the displacement is, much if not all of which is countered by the return stroke by the springs. You are to be applauded for the amazing efforts with the astonishing suspension arrangements but cruelly the expression “close but no cigar” to which the optimistic word :- “yet” should be added.
More info from me when I feel safe with my own progress.
kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 10/07/2014 07:58:57
| | | It is the 'return stroke' that causes the propulsion in my machine. I've yet to see it displace from anything else.
But I suspect the machine isn't in it's prime yet. I've made a few modifications since the first video (where it travels on a rail), so as always, more experimentation is in order.
As for how weak it is, well yeah. But does it matter if you can prove it works? In space a machine like this wouldn't have to be very strong. It could build up speed (tremendous such) over time.
Oh, and the machine does weigh ~7 kilos (15-16 pounds), so there's a lot of weight to move around for those 2 small gyroscopes.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 10/07/2014 09:53:40
| | | Dear MD
A reaction drive machine that uses gyrodynamics for part of its function produces its motion in packets (impulses) that, if you are successful, will on each cycle move the entire device a small distance that will be very much less than the machines dimension because its length of reaction is confined to the dimensions of the device. After each packet of movement the machine stops dead – it does not coast at its peak speed of movement as you would expect from experience with other reaction devices like a rocket (which keeps on moving after its lost its propulsion). Almost everything to do with gyros is counter intuitive. A successful device will therefore require a huge number of strokes just to move itself a few feet and when attached to the mass of a spacecraft the number of strokes required multiplies enormously. For this reason I believe its usefulness in “space propulsion” will be limited to interesting experiments to better understand the laws of motion and little else. Thus freed of Newton's constrictions, it may be that such a gyro reaction drive machine will trigger in someone's mind an alternative way that gives an acceleration that builds up on itself, like the acceleration of gravity, but in my experience a gyro device won’t do this for the reasons given above. Still it is something, that may make minds think again, just to show the defect in the third law that I outlined in earlier posts.
Good luck anyway and don’t be too disappointed by this restriction to its usefulness – we are at least learning which is no bad thing.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 10/07/2014 11:43:06
| | | In my opinion, Alex Jones' device worked perfectly, and the only reason it stopped almost instantly after the cycle ended was because of the terrible quality of the bearings (IF the wheels even had any, there may have just been a stick through a wheel) and the uneven surface of that worn out wooden table.
On earth a small amount of thrust would only move it as long as friction would allow, but in space, there literally is no friction, meaning that small push that would require maybe 10 pushes to move it a few feet, that one small push would simply give it a new speed. There'd be no limit to how far it would move, as you could only wait for it to go that far.
So if you gain speed with every little push, speed will accumulate and eventually you'll have the fastest space object we've ever launched.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 10/07/2014 14:34:57
| | | Dear MD
Alex Jones used old metal English roller skate wheels that had good ball bearings in them. It is not on an air table but neither is there anything on the smooth work bench that would slow it so much other than the effect I have told you about. You continue to display an inability to accept experienced information offered to you in good faith – why would I expect you to? Gyro assisted propulsion is not, and I think will not be, able to propel in the way most would expect, or as you describe, sadly. Unlike anything you have experience of, it will not accumulate speed only add distance (the same distance with each cycle) with extra impulses. Its movement is an extension of the old black box test, that I described before, in that it is impossible for it to move outside its starting dimension on each stroke or continue moving after its movement (I’ve incorrectly called this an “impulse”. It probably needs a new word. I would suggest “Inpulse”) as it will not as a whole have gained any change in its inertia just a change in its position. I expect you will continue in your present belief until the truth dawns on you at some time in the future – that is fine by me. We all have different learning rates.
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 10/07/2014 14:47:31
| | | Decided to upload all of the videos, which totals over 1 hour.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag2NdViY50Q
At the start of the video (about 2˝ minutes in I think) you can see how it behaves with the gyroscopes off. It utterly loses all ability to stay away from it's starting position.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 10/07/2014 15:44:28
| | | Nitro and MD:
Nitro said "After each packet of movement the machine stops dead – it does not coast at its peak speed of movement as you would expect..."
That is exactly correct. The reason being that the same gyrodynamics that got the device moving also stops the device at the end of the cycle because of the change in the orientation of the gyros. The end of the cycle is a "mirror image" to the start of the cycle so the end of the cycle stops the motion and the start of the cycle starts the motion. When using only gyrodynamics to move the device, it does not and cannot coast between thrust pulses.
The Alex Jones device uses only gyrodynamics to move the device and therefore it cannot coast between pulses.
regards,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 10/07/2014 16:35:49
| | | I don't know why you believe that. I've gotten my machine to coast, and Jones' device seems to coast (it has a slight speed) after the gyro hits the "stop" in several of the tries here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5kkoiW3iaY
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 10/07/2014 21:41:50
| | | Hello,
I understand why you say that Blaze. I t comes from a superior knowledge of what is happening; but your final conclusion is wrong I think. I feel confident powerful acceleration can be caused continuously. I may put aside some things in life that I want to do; and prepare to build for acceleration in the ways I know. It is a tough decision for me.
Yours,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 13/07/2014 09:40:10
| | | Hello,
I did tests yesterday that validate my mechanical conclusions, which are that acceleration can be had. This is definitive. The tests were so simple and yet, I had searched for a means of proof for years.
Several of us have produced go then stop motion and some have produced a continuous go/stop, go/stop, go/stop series of motions in a form of non acceleration I called the inch worm and I always thought was very strange.
You are so close to creating acceleration. You just don't know it.
Cheers all,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 13/07/2014 12:28:31
| | | Glenn, being secretive about this sort of stuff is so out of fashion. If you have convincing evidence, I say publish it. Eventually you'll have to either way, right?
Because trust me, there's no way of trying to remain secretive until you have a patent issued and then hoping to sell it quickly. There would necessarily have to be a complete openness about the invention if you're ever going to have it thought of as real.
...Unless you have some other reason for being secretive?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 13/07/2014 15:02:52
| | | Good Morning MD,
Forgive me for making bold statements with out supplying proof. I mean only to encourage you. I have been negative so many times.
I mentioned recently that I might put away some things and build. If I come up with a good demonstration, not just seeing the proof which satisfies me based on my mechanical predictions over the years; but seeing a machine accelerate, then you shall shear in it with me. At this point my proof is too embarrassingly simple after doing so many elaborate tests that fail to give me proof. In the end, the knowledge it is simple, but the use of it in terms of building is not. Look at what our Blaze has gone through.
My answer? Keep working. You already have created a kind of coasting.
Cheers,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 13/07/2014 15:43:59
| | | I actually also have a somewhat 'embarrassing' proof on video. If you want, we could do a trade. My e-mail's mdrivegeneral@gmail.com
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 13/07/2014 18:12:10
| | | I have tried unsuccessfully to explain my propulsion design idea on here several time over the years. It is very hard to explain and no one ever understood any of it. It is published.
So I say again this simple proof I just learned how to create is proof definite, but it is not fathomable as proof without the knowledge of how to use it; the knowledge I speak of above.
Perhaps I should have kept my mouth shut, until if and when I had a bird in hand, but I still clam to you that constant acceleration can be done. You in fact have had a little taste of it. What you did is not a trick with causes and reasons why it works still in the unforeseen the realm of physics. No in deed. What you saw was real. My bashful test prove it.
I am glad you were interested MD and good luck with your work.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 13/07/2014 20:47:01
| | | English being my second language I do have trouble understanding everything you guys say on this site. A video would tell me so much more. If you want I can send my video first, and you can decide after you've seen it if you want to send anything in return. It's just nothing I plan on publishing on Youtube.
You have my e-mail!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 13/07/2014 22:02:54
| | | With my old Cannon printer I could copy drawn sketches to my computer and include them in my email. With my new Brother printer I cannot and I don’t know the first thing about filming in motion, sending to youtube and I have no camera. I just don’t care that much to get involved. I don’t even want to learn how—not for this. A commercial motion picture with technicians-- maybe. So there: you and Harry have it. Sorry. If you wish to send me something;
ehawkins32@comcast.net
Take care now,
Glenn
I will get something to you eventually MD. I promise. I need to do more study and testing only because that is my nature. I think I am making a mountain out of a mole hill anyway. That means too much about too little, or almost as Shakespeare wrote, ". . .much ado about nothing... ". Or, "A tail told filled with sound and furry signifying nothing as seen through the eyes of a babbling idiot." Maybe I am not quite that bad off yet. Wish me luck to remain above that.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/07/2014 01:09:09
| | | What else have we been told is imposable?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkLfpXpO5sQ
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 14/07/2014 10:12:10
| | | Glenn, I sent you an e-mail.
Also, from the comment section in the above video:
"Look at who posted the video... then look at this website. http://www.veproject1.org/vepprograms.htm It's the same people. They admit that there is a motor in it. It's to demonstrate how the inventor hoped the perpetual motion machine would work."
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/07/2014 16:56:15
| | | MD, Thank you for the research. I am pretty gulable at times. The demonstration did everything possible to convince people there were no hidden tricks, turning the thing this way and that for inspection. Screw them.
I did not receive you mail. Would you try again, please.
ehawkins32@comcast.net
After another night's sleep; my test set up is still falling down simple, but the results of all the mechanics in play is not quite so simple and is kind of fascinating. It is still true.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/07/2014 17:05:55
| | | By the way, I found that Nitro's statement is partially true.
In this test I mention, I found powerful results that neither equal, nor opposite is true in all cases and further that you can convert partial rotations into linear vectors. So linear and rotational motions are not always conserved in all possible ways. I am working now. I will do it after twenty years of not doing enough on my part.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 14/07/2014 18:09:54
| | | Sent another mail. Check your spam folder.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 17/07/2014 20:56:19
| | | So I got some great news yesterday. The latest pendulum test showed that there is indeed deflection occurring. However, the one and only clip we analyzed (I'm going to learn how to do this myself soon) got disqualified as evidence because of a technicality with the power cables. They interfered too much.
I'm very certain I'm close to proving it though. I just need to go back with a different cable solution and I have good evidence of a working reactionless drive.
Hopefully this'll be enough to convince someone, Anyone within the scientific sector, opening the way of having it tested in a laboratory setting and eventually acknowledged as something real.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 18/07/2014 18:45:17
| | | Dear Class,
During the summer break I have not been able to prepare any homework for you as I managed to put my back out. As usual, such a massively painful event was caused by the smallest and simplest of actions. This time it happened when I was posting a letter, that had been misdirected by the Guernsey Post Office to me, into a low letterbox. I was found half an hour after re-posting it, in agony and unable to move, hanging over a nearby garden bench, in my neighbours garden, to take the weight off my spine. My neighbour always had suspicions that I was a bit weird - now she is sure – was very kind and got me analgesics and stayed with me until I recovered enough to shuffle home, occasionally gasping and swearing like I had Tourette’s syndrome! As the famous Judge Judy says “ no good deed goes unrewarded (punished – surely).”
Today, a week later, I have, at last, been able to hobble like the hunchback of Notre Dame, complete with dragged right foot, over to my workshop. There I have managed, with no little pain, to jury rig the latest incarnation of my magnificent machine (all right! Cobbled together mechanical nightmare!) to try out a few “single shot” tests before the “dammed-bloody-pox-ridden thing” (magnificent machine) lets go in a manner that would cause an ‘Elf ‘an Safety inspector (latest reincarnation of the Gestapo) to have a multi coloured fit (kindle notice the correct way to spell “coloured” you USA ists) (is it the same spelling in Canadia, Blaze?).
The actions (or reactions- Hell! It’s so hard to tell them apart with gyros!) are what anyone who has worked with gyros would expect:- Totally and completely screwy! The results are simultaneously as expected (HURRAH!) and contradictory (OH! BOO!). One of the least expected results I have discovered is yet another gyro-dynamic anomaly. The reactive movement of the entire machine – its movement in one direction more than any other - seems not to be determined by the speed of the reactive motion within the machine but, assuming you are producing enough motion to overcome the frictional inertia of the machine, seems, instead, dependant solely on the distance moved by its reactive mass. This is totally illogical, as is usual with gyro devices, and means that unlike throwing a brick away from the back of a sledge on ice, the forward motion of the sledge is not determined by the weight of the brick and the acceleration imparted to the brick but, in effect, solely on the distance the brick travels (in such a closed device as my machine)! Dammed-bloody-pox-ridden crazy! No! Not me, the machine. Well, maybe me a bit as well!
More later when my back permits.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 20/07/2014 12:17:48
| | | Good luck, MD!!!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Patrick Hill - 28/07/2014 23:06:15
| | | No emails no internet,I have no interest, just postal ,it's not that hard to do just expensive.it's not even that much dollar just so much more personal and no person appartfrom receiver can actually open or look into that mail
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 29/07/2014 13:41:15
| | | If I were to say that the reaction has just taken another form, would you agree? In my machine I'd guess that the reaction is simply the base trying to counter-rotate as the gyro arms rotate. If you held the wagon part in the air you'd feel it try to rotate counter-clockwise if the gyro arms rotated clockwise, and quite violently so. The gyros will move forward, and yes, push the wagon back, but some of the reaction is actually lost in that counter-rotation.
Is this what you're trying to explain in your latest post?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 29/07/2014 16:48:56
| | | Hi MD,
My last post was mainly to pass the time while I waited to get more mobile, though it was also to show that gyros are a nightmare – as if you didn’t already know that! To further pass the time while I was immobile my lovely wife has had me sitting in on the TV quiz programmes (note correct spelling you USAists) she is addicted to. One of the “true or false” quiz questions that came up was; “The river Piddle runs through Puddletown – true or false? After turning to Irene and innocently showing off my vast knowledge of Dorset villages and their rivers and boasting “I’ve paddled in the piddle” I realised that that was something I should perhaps not announce in public! Not unless I want to be carted off to the funny farm after having my feet sprayed first with Dettol and TCP and deodorant!
I digress. Your descriptions of the reactions of your machine are to be expected with the one obvious exception (obvious to those oldies on this site).
There is to be expected an opposite torque on the frame to that applied to turning the main shaft. What is not expected by the outside world is that given a perfect gyro (Yes, I know that no such thing exists) the torque action applied is converted into linear reaction motion in a device like yours (and mine).
However (why is there always a however?), as there are only imperfect gyros, only a (sometimes tiny) proportion of the applied torque action is converted into linear reaction. The non perfect gyrodynamic portion of the gyro acts in a purely Newtonian way hence the opposing torque and some opposing linear reaction on the frame.
And however, however (yes, there are sometimes however, howevers), there is an even greater block to achieving action without opposite reaction cancelling out the very thing you’ve just got (or is that gotten – to you, like the USAists?). That greater block is; returning the mechanism to the start of its cycle (the second stroke) without cancelling out what you have achieved in the first stroke.
I would not worry unduly about the opposite torque on the frame at this stage (it can easily be countered in any later space traveling version by back to back, opposite rotating copies and you don’t need to waste time and money with such complications yet). By triangulation of the suspending threads (at right angles to the direction of travel) you can damp out most of the counter torque on the main frame though, as the suspending points are so far away, you will be bound to get all sorts of nightmare jiggling – but triangulating the suspension may help smooth things a bit.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 29/07/2014 18:19:31
| | | "However (why is there always a however?)"
Oi, tell me about it. Every single time I do an experiment I'm hopeful that "This will be it! This will finally prove it!". But that seems to be something that's always on the horizon, like chasing the sun. But I do feel I'm getting closer. Rationally speaking, if skeptics were to really look at my latest 1 hour long video and really analyze it, they'd have a hard time coming to any other conclusion that I'm actually on to something.
As before, everything's pretty much set up and ready to go. I just need to fix my sleep schedule a bit. And even if I do succeed, which I'm 99% sure I will, I'll still be nowhere near convincing a skeptic, because it's 1: Not remote controlled 2: Not encased in a big plastic bubble to prevent supposed air drag from propelling it. Oh well, getting closer at least.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
John Ingles - 07/08/2014 15:55:00
| | | Why not work on first creating a gyroscope that can create energy? Why not use a combination of magnets to run some motors, subsequently making thrust later?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 08/08/2014 14:04:49
| | | Dear John,
What a clever idea. Please give us a description as to how you think that creating energy can be done.
Regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Imadree mah - 21/08/2014 22:39:30
| | | Yes, I agree we should keep the easy stuff till later, until at least after the energy solution has been sorted out first, this goes without saying.
IM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
