|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
29 November 2024 00:34
|
|
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: |
videos of working propulsion machines......... |
| Question: |
Dear All,
At the end of this I will give a link to a YouTube video showing a precursor on the path to my fast repeater. It – the video - is made up of bits recovered from an ancient Hi-8 tape and shows how to achieve mass displacement without opposing *reaction.
Most of you here will have seen this other person’s machine, based on the Laithwaite design, on You Tube that produces mass displacement without opposing *reaction :-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nstIIZZadAM.
It uses gravity to precess its mass (the lovely large gyro) in its gyrodynamic (resetting) stroke then, in its Newtonian stroke, the mass (gyro) is moved linearly, by a motorised rack and pinion. Thus with no gyrodynamics involved in its linear stroke Newtonian, reaction moves the machine on this stroke while gyro precession avoids cancelling the reaction movement while repositioning/resetting.
As far as I have found over the years, this alternation of a gyrodynamic stroke with a Newtonian stroke is the best way (possibly the only way) to achieve repeatable reactionless (there is, of course, the usual amount of reaction, it just is not in the usual direction) mass displacement/impulse drive/inertial propulsion (chose your own preferred name). The disadvantage with the machine shown in the above video is that, although it does indeed produce the desired mass displacement, because it uses gravity as the means to cause precession, it cannot be used in space and its reset time between strokes is painfully slow while it waits for gravity to precess it ready for its next stroke. BTW, Its movement direction is a bit varied because its Newtonian stroke is triggered by someone with a radio control and he doesn’t always trigger it at the right moment.
I got avoided these disadvantages by using motorised torque input instead of gravity for the gyrodynamic and Newtonian strokes. As well as speeding up repeatability it also enables the later mirrored configurations that would be needed in space to counter its driving torque. Those amongst you not already bored to bits with my somewhat crap videos can view my latest video upload under Jogglevision on YouTube. It shows an ancient hi-8 video that I managed to partially recover showing the precursor to my fast repeater (link below). I use a large, (six pound – I think it was) bag of lead shot to creat displacement on the gyro stroke as well as on the Newtonian stroke. This reactive weight badly sods up the useful weight to useless weight ratio, reducing the movement of the machine per stroke - I now have found better ways.
In this incarnation of my machine, to keep non active mass to a minimum, I tried to use the inertia of both the Newtonian stroke and the gyrodynamic stroke to mechanically change the axial angle of the gyros (this motion can be seen in the video) to EFFECTIVELY switch them gyrodynamically on and off between strokes.
However, even after decades of preaching the importance of remembering “Nitro’s first law” I was “hoist by my own petard” as I forgot that on the gyro stroke the EFFECT of the inertia I wanted to use to drive changing the axial angle is EFFECTIVELY precessed out of existence.
So I couldn’t move the gyros’ axial angle between strokes using the mechanical links you can see in my video. Servos were the answer to this problem but the videos of that later incarnation were, I think, recorded over. Strange to think, now SD video cards are so cheap, that video tapes were often recorded over to save money.
The following video shows you how to achieve repeatable reactionless (there is the usual amount of reaction, it just is not in the usual direction) mass displacement/impulse drive/inertial propulsion (chose your preferred name). There are now better versions that have better useful weight to useless weight ratios but, hell, I aint giving everything away.
The video of my early attempt to use mechanical means of switching between gyrodynamic and Newtonian strokes on the fast repeater is here:-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiUr7gAqgLw
Enjoy.........
NM
*as the cognoscenti amongst you know, there is always some small amount of opposite reaction because “there is no such thing as a perfect gyro”. |
| Date: |
18 August 2015
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Dave Parsons - 19/08/2015 05:09:12
| | | Nitro;
I watched your video.
I was quite impressed; it did what you claimed.
It worked similar to what Sandy claims for his machine; that the displacement of the gyros is reactionless during the stroke and that the momentum of the Gyro and arms is translated to the carriage at the end of the stroke. I couldn't see it all that well but it seemed to be in a falling sine wave pattern but that could be due to the fact that both the masses are both reacting and smoothing out the abrupt termination of the relative movement of the gyros and arms. It would be interesting to see a fast repeater of your design.
My design is still in the final drawing and cad stage. I am still in a large legal war with the Law Society and it's taking up most of my time, but I hope to get onto my lathe soon.
aarrrggghhhh ya sem tur ba mukc mure dan nomal intalgent.
dave
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy - 19/08/2015 23:17:48
| | | Hello Dave,
You are reasonably accurate in most of your comment but none of my machines are designed to operate in what you are calling precession.
Away back in 1980 something I had a similar set up to Nitro’s but continuously rotating in a vertical position.
It was being rotated at about 250 rpm at the time.
I found that system impossible to control as it was running continuously in that area, which, for present purposes I will call precession.
However although useless for what it was designed, I learned more from that device than any other, but from then on I have kept away from that kind of “ precession”
I am sure that I mentioned in some post in the dim and distant past the occurrence of massive non Newtonian pulses which I saw in the device every time rotation input power was suddenly switched off and the effects of gyroscope mass reappeared.
At least I discovered in which direction the inertial thrust would appear if and when it did.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dave Parsons - 20/08/2015 00:58:54
| | | Sandy;
You must take into account that the only machines of yours that I have observed is the one in that old video and the only schematics are those of your old patent. Nitro's has a few wrinkles, not in that old video and patent, that seem to impose restrictions on the gyro precession that were not present in your older model. I have only vague descriptions of your more recent models which are so vague that I cannot make any analysis or observation. Those vague descriptions do hint that your newer devices depart radically from your early machines. The references to hydraulics interest me.
I was looking on the net for your book but the only source I could find was selling it for around $200. I don't know if that book has any descriptions of your newer devices, so am reluctant to shell out that kind of money for something that may not answer any of my questions. Do you use a braking action with the power shut-off
How did you like my Glenn impersonation?
dave
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 20/08/2015 22:43:29
| | | Nitro,
I just stopped by to say 'good show' and thank you.
Have a good evening,
Glenn,
Hello David,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy - 21/08/2015 20:29:23
| | | Evening Dave and fellow shed-dwellers.
My first machine was somewhat of a fluke and operated for a multitude of unplanned for reasons. It took a long time and I had to serve an apprenticeship in reality, before I got to grips with what was going on.
The problem will always be that there are too many clever people around who invariably know better.
So one ends up doing it all one’s self, as it were, so to speak, to coin a phrase.
That said I have ignored them all and kept going on my long tedious way, doing what I know can be done, and trying to better what I have managed to accomplish..
It was never going to be easy, but that makes it fun.
Dave, the book, does not contain much technical information apart from a few hints at what I was thinking. I did not wish to be too confrontational with any claims at that time, besides the publishers demanded that it be a human interest story as too much technical content would put people off, or so they said.
The book does contain the lab test in total which because of what its results imply, is suitably ignored by the custodians of what we are allowed to believe.
I have that in a PDF, and I have a reasonably good photo of the device.
I even have a video of the lab test being carried out, but a varnished wooden box oscillating back and forth is not really very exciting, and is therefore not very suitable for YouTube.
A photo should make it easier to understand, than a patent sketch, although I doubt it? However it is certainly a lot easier to see.
I did, many moons ago, explain on this forum, how it worked, without explaining all of the why?
Discounting the interesting people I met, the lab test is the only really important thing in the book as far as ID enthusiasts and shed dwellers are concerned..
I offered testing procedures, drawings of other ID machines, other enthusiasts I knew about, and photographs of numerous physicists and engineers I had met.
I was told that in light of the 25 pages of lab report, there was no room left in the book for the stuff I offered. So be it.
However it is all water under the bridge now.
O.K. I have saved you a bit of money on the book.
If I don’t put on a wooden overcoat in the near future, I really intend to write another book with all the interesting stuff in it, but I am still thinking about it.
As I stated in my last posting all my devices are designed to run below the point where centrifugal force and angular momentum go walkies, so I never need to shut the thing down to reset, which otherwise must happen.
Nitro explained it well with gyroscopic motion and Newtonian motion.
Many years ago Eric Laithwaite told me that in what we call precession that is in a mechanically accelerated system the gyro/s will climb for no extra effort from the horizontal all the way to the vertical. He called this a free lunch.
It was In this area I did most of my initial experiments to find out what really goes on there.
Eric Laithwate was aware of the consequences of operating systems in this area “precession” if you will, the main problem always being the rapid and almost total shutdown required to get a pulse, and the even longer time required to reset.
In light of the fact we do not really care to attempt to adjust the gyro rotation speed, we really need some bright person to find a way, to back a system out of “precession” far enough to where a bit of control can be affected.
This may or may not be possible.
I do not know if any of it is available but if you manage to acquire any literature on Eric Laitwaite’s “Free Lunch Scenario” this pretty well explains the aim, and some of the problems the enthusiast is up against
Incidentally it was during this phase of my experimenting that I saw a lot of confusion relating to forced precession which was originally used to refer to a system being mechanically accelerated.
Then came, precession/precession, where the gyro left the horizontal plane, and went skywards as it does.
I was going to give you a break here but I should really relate that this is the reason I coined the term “saturation point ” and “saturation” to describe this condition .
At this point no more energy can be put into the system capable of accelerating anything other than the ascending rate of the gyroscope, in its attempt to reach its point of least action.
Regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dave Parsons - 24/08/2015 02:56:05
| | | Sandy;
Until Nitro posts his full fast repeater, I don't have much to comment on that subject. His video shows a spin-up, spin-down but there's no indication how he's going to reset his device for the next stroke. Your email on the hydraulics of your device and the resulting action of the gyros was interesting, although not what I expected. It did start some visions of hydraulics and solenoids dancing around in my head. I do have a vague vision of an ass-backward version of your original machine that might be able to achieve a rapid pulse rate. As with my own gimcrack device, I don't really have enough time outside of my battle with the Law Society to give it the full attention necessary for it's realization. Another week or so, and I will be able to do a full submergence into these devices; my factum and appeal book will be filed in the Court of Appeal and I'll be able to do a 100 per cent concentration on the subject.
Nitro;
what's your device for completion of your "fast repeater"? Don't leave us hanging
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 24/08/2015 23:39:21
| | | Hello all. Long time no shed.
I'm currently busy studying, but I definitely haven't given up. I just need a good experiment, that *other* people than myself find interesting.
Anyway, that construction certainly reminds me of my own.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYliuFLMIHY
Have a look if you're interested. A lot of people on different forums have said it's a dynamic friction phenomena, or "stick-slip", but I'm skeptical of their logic. How do you even get a consistent stick-slip action in a setup like the March 2013 "first successful experiment" one?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy - 28/08/2015 20:17:01
| | | Hello Dave,
I know that the little bit I sent you on the hydraulic pump and “precession” control was not what you thought, but it was probably much more important..
I did at one stage make a comment relating to the use of hydraulics for power and control of a multi-unit powered craft.
I see 6 or 8 units as a good safe basis to start from.
Oodles of redundancy if ever needed.
In reality this is still my favoured option.
Hydraulic power and control has a lot going for it.
That said, I am curious to know how you intend to create your pulses and utilise them to produce thrust.
To produce one pulse is good going, but to increase the pulse rate without having yet produced a pulse could be a task fraught with many problems.
By the way Dave I am pretty sure Nitro is aware of the task at hand.
What’s more I am not at all sure he is going to enlighten anyone as to how he does it.
That knowledge is hard won and is never going to be easy for him to divulge.
Now for a bit of nostalgia.
It was 30 years ago that I had a device successfully go through a lab test, proving that the device was genuine.
This device was built as simple as possible to keep the weight down, which in the end produced a machine with one input which drove not only the rotation of the device but also the gyroscopes.
The gyroscopes and the machine rotor rotation ran at a fixed reduction speed meaning that it had to work first time out.
I got lucky as the device did produce vertical thrust consistently when required.
The throttle was manually set so the device had to complete 20 runs without the throttle being touched.
That was really doing things the hard way.
So, yours truly decided to commemorate the event by travelling down memory lane and building an improved version of that lab test device, which operated in a fashion different from all the others I have ever built.
It is all-electric with radio control for both hub rotation speed and also for gyroscope rotation speed, which is via independent brushless motors, all in the hope that the laboratory results could be significantly improved upon.
I have previously criticised the claims relating to much of the stuff on YouTube as being doubtful, and my opinion has not changed in that respect.
However it appears that it is the only way to gain attention, which cannot be all bad.
This one will be demonstrated shortly on YouTube uncovered and can be scrutinised by anyone interested enough to look, and see what makes it tick
.
It is also my intention to demonstrate, again on YouTube and about the same time a device completely different in design and mode of operation, but in this instance the device will be covered during the demonstration as there are several features of the device I do not wish to be disclosed at this time.
Sandy.
PS I have yet another machine which is quite complete and is a modernised and modified version of the “Anti-Gravity Machine” Part One & Part Two as seen on YouTube
I had hoped to run the 3 of them, one after the other but I have just not had the time to run, the latter, as most of my time has gone on the latest addition.
I’ll do that one a bit later.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dave Parsons - 29/08/2015 08:21:14
| | | Sandy;
I just filed my factum and appeal book for my Court of Appeal action; I will be posting it on my website and on the internet, possibly utube, in the hope that other legal reformers will be able to use what I have ploughed up.
I will be retiring to my shed and my lathe for the next few weeks or so to do the "Proof of Concept" for my device. I have a couple of days of cad work to finalize my drawings before the full retirement to "The Shed".
My endeavours will be presented on utube as well. If my device functions as I think it will, I will present a utube video of a vertical weight reduction and a pendulum suspension test, but the device will be enclosed with no visible mechanisms.
If it doesn't function then I will show the drawings and construction of the device for the amusement of all. My friend Bruce is an engineer and I have arranged with him to do the above tests and certify it one way or the other. He's older than my lathe, Atlas TV36, and I'm almost as old as my lathe.
Tinkerers and Thinkerers are never finished; they just go from one plateau to another, even if it's only a hairbreadth better than yesterday. Occasionally, they make great leaps and create new inventions. From what you've posted, it sounds like you've moved in an entirely new direction. You sound very confident; I hope you haven't beaten me to it.
Sandy,my device is entirely different from your initial machines. I cannot give any real info on the principles and operation of my device, but as I said, if it don't work then at least I will have provided some amusement.
My references to an ass-backward derivative of your initial machines that could achieve a "fast repeater status" as Nitro would say, would be a device that did not sacrifice centrifugal force and momentum. That would involve hydraulics, springs, and possibly solenoids. I don't know how close or distant my visions of your machines are, but any further analysis might not be appropriate. I am fully enamoured with my own device at this point and only stumbled into the discussion because I can't resist a puzzle. You put out clues.
Your description of the motions of the gyros upon the hydraulic action, was unexpected, and as you say, very important. Upon some meditation, it becomes clear that those motions are predictable upon the observed actions of gyros, but are not obvious from any Newtonian analysis. That is the problem with gyros; they follow a set of rules that Mr. Newton never could understand.
I don't really expect Nitro to make his machine naked to us; just to push him to show some definitive test. Something to fill the space left vacant by the failure of the Dean and Thornson and other devices that ultimately have been occupying a pedestal they didn't belong on. There is another effect involved in Nitro's device which is partially responsible for the impulse of the device and it is not the inclined pendulum effect. When he posts a definitive test result for analysis, I will detail that effect.
You and Nitro have both demonstrated your entitlement for a spot on that pedestal, but I hope to make your places only second and third after I complete my device.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
