|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
29 November 2024 00:35
|
|
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: |
Mass displacement |
| Question: |
Dear All,
I recently happened on a post by Herman Holushko that included the links, below, to his excellent paper on the action of a gyro precessing on a thread. I missed this paper first time round and as others may have as well I include a link below. As my tolerance of maths is low the important bit for me is the link to a video of the experiment which I also give below.
It lays to rest the idea proposed by Blaze and others that a precessing gyro rotates around its barycentre and not around its support. This has important implications.
Like my “MacPhail’s pendulum” video, (a link to which I also include below) it confirms my belief that gyro propulsion is not only possible but inevitable. My video shows a sideways displacement of a swinging mass without any concomitant opposite displacement of mass as would be required under the third law - just for good measure it also messes up the first law as well.
Seasons best wishes to all
NM
Herman Holushko’s paper is here:-
http://bourabai.kz/articles/Gyrothrust_eng.pdf
and his clear video is here:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWl3FqpobYI
My video of “MacPhail’s pendulum” is here:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNHxSYYMd-Q |
| Date: |
26 December 2014
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Blaze - 26/12/2014 16:06:35
| | | Hi Nitro.
"...that when released the gyro rotates around its pivot (supporting thread) and not, as some have insisted, around its barycentre. The increasing spiral path is quite simply being caused by the non gyro component of the assembly (gyro frame and laser) displaying its inertia or what is wrongly but more easily referred to as its centrifugal action."
From your statement above it would appear that you still believe that spinning mass has no mass but non spinning mass does have mass.
cheers,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 26/12/2014 16:55:03
| | | Hiya Blaze
Of course I don’t believe any such thing (“that spinning mass has no mass”) and have not claimed to believe it. Of course a spinning mass has mass it is called mass – the clue is in the words.
Because there is no such thing (except in mathematics) as a perfect gyro the outermost of its structure is more gyrodynamic in its reaction to a change in its axial angle while the innermost of its structure is more Newtonian. Its non rotating components- frame cage etc. are, of course, totally Newtonian in their reaction.
However – you knew there would be a however, didn’t you - because much of it is spinning, a force acting to change its axial angle largely causes a change of axial angle different to that suggested by the third. For convenience this difference in reaction direction has been named “precession” so that its implications can be ignored by physics and, also, to stop the scientific community from going mad. Luckily some of us are prepared to risk what remains of our sanity to look at the facts.
Please take the time to look at both Herman’s and my videos and try and understand the implications from what you see and not what the church of Newton has tried to indoctrinated you with.
Two questions for you:-
Why does Herman’s video not show the slightest opposite rotation to justify its precessional rotation as would be needed by the third?
Why does my pendulum's mass displace to one side without any opposite mass displacement as would be needed by the third? For good measure, why doesn’t it swing in a straight path as would be required by the first?
If you “get” these you will finally be on the first steps to the path to understanding mass displacement.
Seasons greeting
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 01/01/2015 22:11:07
| | | Hi Nitro. Happy New Year.
My words were carefully chosen in my previous reply to elicit a response. I will cut to the chase. You asked:
"Why does Herman’s video not show the slightest opposite rotation to justify its precessional rotation as would be needed by the third?"
Actually it does but it is difficult to see due to the relatively short string, the light weight gyro used, the less than perfect release and the very short time in which it happens before centrifuge takes over. A better example is video 9, Laithwaite's 15-16lb gyroscope hanging from a long piece of string.
In both videos you can see the gyro twist very briefly before moving in circles. Once it is moving in circles you can also see the gyro leading the string for a while. Then you can see it change from leading the string to lagging the string. In Herman's video it is best to start at 16 seconds to see the brief twist when the gyro starts. At 21 seconds you can see the gyro leading the string. At 23 seconds you can see the gyro lagging the string. At 30 seconds it is leading the string again. Again, this is easier to see in the Laithwaite video.
It seems that the initial twist of the gyro when starting shifts the string to the side slightly which increases the potential energy of the system. The string shifting to the side and the gyro starting to precess setup the start of the centrifugal force that continues as the gyro continues to precess. Once the centrifugal force is setup it does not go away so the gyro starts spiraling its way into larger circles. Larger circles means the string is shifted further from vertical which increases the potential energy of the system even more which of course gives gravity more leverage on the system to try to pull the system back to its vertical starting position. At some point point the centrifugal force from the larger circle and the gravity trying to pull the gyro "down" (ie: pull the string and gyro back to vertical starting position) will balance and the circle doesn't get any larger. Of course by that time the gyro has spun down quite a bit so the dynamics of the system start to change as well.
The point is that even if you had a theoretically perfect gyro, it would still move in circles when suspended from a string and it would not move around its center of mass for more than a very brief moment when it first started.
cheers,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 02/01/2015 12:08:25
| | |
And a Happy New Year to you too Blaze,
It seems that it is only the year that is new as you seem to be on the same thought-free gainsaying path that you were last year. The only thing that seems to have changed is that you have stopped banging on with your past fantasy that a gyro precesses around its barycentre and have come up with the latest utter tosh that a near invisible tiny opposite movement is what causes the comparatively massive continuing movement of precession so clearly shown in Herman’s video - how is even that equal and opposite? Like I said and its worth repeating in the hope it will register – your interpretation is utter tosh!
It must be quite clear to any observer, who is not so convinced of a preconceived idea as to have become self deluding, that when the gyro in Herman’s video is released – ignoring the wobble that is inevitable when hand released – it does not (as you have claimed so many times in the past) rotate around its barycentre NOR does it centre its mass directly below its suspension point. Careful unbiased observation is a prerequisite of progress in the field of gyrodynamics as in so many other fields. You have to watch very carefully to learn!
Your gainsaying reply also conveniently chooses to say nothing whatsoever about my second video or attempt to explain why the “MacPhail’s pendulum”, that it shows, displaces sideways with a total absence of opposite sideways mass displacement that would be expected, nay, completely necessary, under the third law. Perhaps you are convinced it has a barycentre that is displacing away like mad in some other dimension somewhere at some other time and space or perhaps you think I own a wand!
Cheers indeed,
Nitro
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 02/01/2015 19:41:42
| | | Hi Nitro. I have commented on your MacPhail’s pendulum in another thread at your specific request. I believe it was last year some time. I have not bothered to find it only to repeat what I have already said although I don't remember if I answered the same questions you are asking now.
How much does a small gyro like Herman's drop when it is started? Maybe a fraction of a millimeter? That is the maximum the string would have to "rise" when shifted to the side by the gyro briefly twisting when it starts. Of course the gyro drops some and the string "rises" some at the same time which means the string likely doesn't have to "rise" the maximum amount because the gyro only reacts to the amount of tilt, it doesn't care about what generated that tilt, string "rise" or gyro drop or a bit of both. But you can believe what you want about the matter.
From your response, if I understand you correctly, it sounds like you don't believe there is any sideways (rotational) force on the string when the gyro starts precessing before it gets up to full precession speed or at anytime during its precession, for that matter. Did I interpret your response correctly?
Do you also believe that there is no sideways (rotational) force on the pivot of a gyro that is sitting on a table when the gyro is accelerating from zero precession up to full precession speed? I do want your answer to that question because what actually happens DIRECTLY relates to experiments like Herman's, where a gyro is started while hanging from a vertical string.
By the way, I am not concerned about if Newton's Laws have it all correct or not or if maybe they are missing something. If they need to be modified they eventually will be, if not they won't.
regards,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 04/01/2015 11:24:42
| | | Centrifugal force or no centrifugal force that is the question?
A Happy New Year to you all.
I will endeavour to attack this question from a different direction and make my comments accordingly.
Consider a flywheel either in a gravity accelerated mode or in a mechanically accelerated mode and in both cases rotating at an angle of 45 degrees above the horizontal,
This mean that in the first case the flywheel is operating in a passive system in decay and probably falling, and in the second case the flywheel is operating in an active system and must be climbing.
The only real difference is the fact that the passive system is developing its geometric disposition in a system which is rotating relatively slowly compared with the active system which in order to produce the same geometric disposition must rotate relatively rapidly.
It is not strange at all that this condition can prevail in both modes but in fact the condition of a flywheel being rotated in order to produce this effect is peculiar only to those two cases in the operation of flywheel systems.
That is simply because there is no centrifugal force being generated in either case to hold them down. Rotation without acceleration?
An unresolved debate which has prevailed for years now, has boiled down to the possibility or not, of a flywheel in precession, developing centrifugal force.
I did suggest to Blaze some time ago to see if he could detect any vertical thrust in a system in precession which must be present if centrifugal force is being developed.
I did not push the issue as it is somewhat hard to get readings from a gravity accelerated system as the precession rotation speed is of a relatively small order.
However when I measure the vertical thrust which surely must prevail in a rapidly rotating system at 45 degrees to the horizontal which allegedly develops copious amounts of centrifugal force, I detect none at all.
Of course if this was not the case, I would easily have produced G’s of vertical thrust 30 plus years ago, and inertial drive would have been done and dusted, at that time.
Accepted principles suggest that in a normal twin opposed flywheel device being mechanically rotated such that an angle of 45 degrees is created with the horizontal, the vertical component should be equal to twice the horizontal component.
That was the consensus of the maths department of Dundee University, so I must assume that universally every other bastion of credibility operates under the same belief.
That said:
An existing device of mine has a nominal hub rotation speed of 360rpm.
It has twin opposed flywheels about 13.5 inches apart.
Flywheel weight is about 1lb or slightly less than 0.5 kilo.
At 45 degrees (or for that matter any other angle above zero) there is no centrifugal force, angular momentum or any vertical thrust present at all.
Accepted principles suggest there should be about 50 lbs of vertical thrust available.
Away back as far as 2004 I submitted a posting to this forum addressing this very issue which I think posed the question of a “Catch 22” in physics the thread of which was I thought appropriately entitled:
“You cannot have your angular momentum cake and eat it”
Sandy.
PS
Blaze how can Newton’s Laws be modified in a case as serious as this, they would surely have to be recognised as surplus to requirements?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 17/01/2015 01:34:40
| | | Hey Sandy, I know you said your machines don't work well horizontally, but you've done experiments with... uh... what's it called... pulleys? Where the machine rises up and there's a counterweight?
My question is: Have you ever performed such an experiment where the counterweight was lighter than the machine, meaning the machine would fall down (slowly) if turned off?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 18/01/2015 19:32:09
| | |
Evening MD
Devices of my standard layout do not like horizontal testing for the pretty obvious reasons that whilst each gyro is free to move of its own accord in a normal vertical orientation of the hub drive, gravity plays havoc when such a device is attempting to operate in a horizontal orientation.
There is a way around this, which I am playing with at the moment, but let me say that this has added a lot of (to me anyway) unnecessary complication to the task. I will enlarge upon this later.
You asked: Have I ever performed such an experiment where the counterweight was lighter than the machine, meaning the machine would fall down (slowly) if turned off?
On my first working device I was able to lift the device slowly or rapidly against a counterweight which was normally lighter than the device.
The lifting speed was proportional to the gyro rotation speed over a range of 2500 rpm, (up at the top end I hasten to add), so it could easily be controlled by the engine rotation speed.
If I slowed the gyros down I could control the rate of descent such that the device floated midstream so to speak, and could be lowered easily from a bump to a soft touch.
If I switched off the gyro rotation when operating against a counter weight lighter than the device, the device would drop rapidly like a brick or slowly depending on the weight difference between the device and the counterweight.
The rig would normally be set up to balance out the vertical thrust being produced effectively making the counterweight quite a bit lighter, such that in the event of gyro rotation being halted the device would invariably drop with a thump.
That device regularly produced thrust equivalent to approx.16 ounces or about
0.5 kilo.
Is this helpful?
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 18/01/2015 21:26:48
| | | Hello again MD and others,
My apologies to Nitro for interrupting his thread.
This posting was for the benefit of our good friend Dr Fisher, in answer to a statement he made on another site in relation to the testing of inertial drive devices.
He made a comment relating to pendulum testing and/or testing in the “vomit comet”, which as far as he is concerned are his preferred methods for testing inertial drive devices.
There are allegedly many ways to skin a cat, and just about as many ways to test an inertial drive device as it would appear that every other person and his dare I say it uncle, has his own idea on how this should be carried out, and most of those ideas for a variety of reasons happen to be a bit less than acceptable.
It seems that everyone has their own pet idea on how this should be done with not a lot of intelligent thought being utilised in the process.
I am aware Dr Fisher, that Prof Steven Salter who I have a lot of respect for, had his own design of test, and from what I heard it was quite comprehensive, but of its particulars I know nothing.
However a bit out of context here but part of the same thread, I must really add that I do hope that the Dundee engineer who according to Dr Fisher has produced a100 sheets of enlightenment whilst referring to the impossibility of inertial drive is young enough to suffer the inevitability of the totally self-inflicted embarrassment which he will be subject to.
Blessed is he who has nothing to say, etc., etc.
Knowledge should never be confused with intelligence, and whilst both are very nice to have, unfortunately they do not necessarily travel together.
Speaking as someone who has had considerable experience in the testing of various types of inertial drive devices let me put the record straight, as it has appeared from my side of the fence
My devices can already go in a vertical direction repeatedly with ease, but I hasten to add they do not like operating on their side, due to the large reversing cyclic loads imposed on them by gravity, and the consequent necessities of design modification.
This fact does not make them impossible to modify in order to operate horizontally in a successful manner, but when considering the amount of effort required to achieve this, the effort is way out of all proportion to the result which as far as I am concerned can never justify the means.
I think the pendulum test is only of any use in the testing of devices which are gravity driven, cannot deliver vertical thrust, are very heavy and/or are of the “mass accelerating” type of device, and the majority of them have vertical drive shafts, anyway.
To the advocates of the pendulum test I have to say that none of this added complication is of any use to anyone once in space and has in reality only been added to an already balanced vertically rotated device which suitably built would operate in space, anyway, and would only be done to prove a somewhat dubious point to a certain faction, and for no better reason than to cater for their personal whims.
The pendulum test I believe was introduced originally by G Harry Stine in an effort to test such devices as the Dean Drive, or the Mac Quan type of thing, and other heavy “mass accelerating” devices which were never conducive to vertical testing, and that is even though they will never be capable of producing the goods anyway.
The Dean Drive was powered by a mains powered 1/4 inch electric drill of a few hundred watts of power, complete with cable and something (probably Norman Dean) to restrain the hand drill, as it delivered its thrust.
How can a device set up like this, be considered to be acceptable, to take part in any pendulum test?
Everything including batteries and/or engine fuel should be contained within the confines of the device, ensuring that a completely, self-contained unit is offered up for test.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 18/01/2015 23:46:38
| | | Dear Sandy
Your input is never regarded by me as an interruption but as an addition. We are in the middle of building with all the distraction, cost and madness that involves so more will have to wait until later.
Have a good Burns night
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 19/01/2015 22:19:30
| | | Evening Nitro,
Thank you for your kind words.
As for the Burn’s Night?
Unlike a fair percentage of my countrymen and women I do not normally partake of alcoholic beverages, but the odd “Rusty Nail” or two does not go amiss on special occasions.
Haggis I like, the tatties too, but I can easily give the “neeps” a miss.
Best regards
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 20/01/2015 21:38:01
| | | I'll be short.
Sandy> That's actually very interesting, as, according to my knowledge of physics, that's not supposed to happen. If the counter-weight is lighter it shouldn't be able to touch the ground. If there's a video of this somewhere I'm interested in seeing it. The only one I've seen is this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL_Gasok8xw
But in that one the counter-weight was equally heavy (I believe). Still weird how it was able to move though.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 21/01/2015 00:10:47
| | | Hello MD
That device was probably the worst possible case I have had the misfortune to demonstrate in 30 plus years, as I have previously stated.
The device had been recently assembled and had not been developed at all.
The set up was pretty well balanced prior to the demonstration and the thing probably with a bit of luck was delivering about 1ounce lift.
In that case the device should really stop moving when the lifting mechanism was switched off, but I would not have expected it to descend.
There was a cam mechanism on board that device which was not very prominent or obvious, which as part of its function was designed to alter the hub rotation speed of the device intermittently.
There was not a lot of this intermittent or braking action going on in that demonstration as you can see hence the low power output.
The mechanism was built only months after the Australian lab test to identify the factors involved in the lab test devices which were not at the time fully understood, but the lab test machines incidentally did perform a bit better than that device.
(They were incidentally not tested on a counterbalance type set up)
That mechanism I described in considerable detail some time ago in postings to this forum, but if you need details just ask.
Regards
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 21/01/2015 16:04:27
| | | Pendulum theory.
Using a pendulum to test inertial drive effects? This was done by Prof Laithwaite way back. It is the experiment analysed by Herman Holushko at the start of this thread. The mass of the pendulum accelerates after release, without an external force applied in an equal and opposite direction to the acceleration. Newtonian Dynamics offers no explanation how the observed magnitude of the tangential velocity increases. How when the mass is released below the point of suspension it is then possible for it to move outwards in a spiral.
Newtonian Dynamics requires a propeller or some such to be attached to the mass to provide constant tangential thrust.
As Dr Fisher does not understand the dynamics of the simple Laithwaite Pendulum, his opinion on pendulum testing is of little or no value. To insist that Prof Steven Salter has proposed the only viable test for an inertial drive is bizarre, further demonstrates his ignorance.
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 21/01/2015 18:14:17
| | | Sandy, if you know of any Youtube videos of counter-weight experiments other than the one I linked, please let me know. If they're on VHS somewhere, get them on Youtube. ;)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 21/01/2015 22:56:10
| | | Hello again MD.
I do have some other stuff on VCR tape analogue stuff unfortunately which will need to be converted.
I know there was a recording of a device of mine going through its paces in Boulder,
Colorado by a third party incidentally, on a counterbalance set up.
By the way what is wrong with the counterbalance set up on “Anti-Gravity Machine (Parts 1 & 2)
My lab test device was on another tape but it was not tested on a counterbalance set up anyway, so there was not a lot to see but there were some other interesting bits and pieces on that tape which I do intend to extract at some point.
Ted Pitman was heavy into counterbalance testing at one point and probably still is, but I do not know if his recordings show very much.
It depends what you are looking for?
I may be wrong but I do believe that Scott Strachan used a lever to carry out his counterbalance testing 30 years ago, but I believe (I was informed) that in order to make his set up more compact and therefore transportable he utilised a scaled beam of 5 to1 or 10 to1ratio. Good thinking.
I know it was demonstrated in several places but whether it was ever recorded on tape you will have to enquire about that from Scott.
I did at one stage make a balanced beam out of a piece of mahogany with a shaft through the middle which was mounted on a pair of ball bearings.
It could be mounted on a plinth or be suspended from the shed rafters.
It worked very well but I do not know what I did with that?
In the meantime I will see what I can dig out.
Sandy
PS The trick is in making the counterbalance drag free.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 22/01/2015 18:02:50
| | | The problem would be that the device is allowed to touch the "ground", which makes it hard to see where the thrust is coming from. I was hoping more for a device hanging freely, or with at most a cable running to the device, like in the BBC link I posted.
I might actually attempt a counter-weight experiment at some point. I guess I'll just point it straight up. The wobbly-ness of it might even go away because gravity affects the two gyro-arms equally, which isn't the case when it's horizontal. It'll still spin around like crazy, and it'll be somewhat difficult to hang it straight above it's center of gravity, but it's nothing impossible to overcome.
I just wish I had a shed of my own. Apartment dweller here. Also, I've recently become a (poor) student. Going to try and become a programmer.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 22/01/2015 23:37:38
| | | Hello MD,
You say that if the device is touching the ground (floor, whatever) meaning the counterweight is lighter than the device, you cannot see where the thrust is coming from.
I cannot see why that would make any difference, as the source of the thrust is nearly always very hard to nail down.
In my experience the generation of inertial thrust is a combination of more than a couple of factors, but in saying that you do have a working machine, take it from there.
You will discover that your device will be able to rotate many times faster with the hub rotation axis vertical allowing the device to develop a great deal more centrifugal force, smoothly, which can be no bad thing.
However you will need to build a framework containing the machine and its power source to stop uncontrollable spinning.
Otherwise it is more than likely the power source will try to do the spinning (in reverse).
A large nostalgia moment here, you have just taken me 35 or so years back in time.
By the way, good luck at being a programmer.
Regards,
Sandy.
PS I am just finishing testing of a modern version of the one seen on YouTube, not the Discovery thing.
This one is mounted in a purpose built cage (used for all my testing in the last couple of years).
A couple of years ago during testing a 4 flywheel device decided to try and kill me. The cage which slides up and down in a really solid framework using 5 aluminium tubes and a multitude of ball bearings (12) was made. It works very well and makes me feel a whole lot safer.
I am getting old but I cannot see any sense in speeding up the proceedings.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
