|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
29 November 2024 00:59
|
|
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: |
Glenn Hawkins |
| Subject: |
What might be? |
| Question: |
It seems that the effort to gain propulsion by manipulating a gyroscope has all but ended. The scarcity of serious articles herein have all but ceased. Certainly, the effort and disbelief in the possibility wasted countless and years of my life and so I don’t say much anymore.
The ideas all hinged on there being an immovable, stationary countering force or substance that did not react when the gyroscope pushed against it—an invisible forcefield created by the gyroscope itself. I found no such force owing to precession.
But consider, what known force could resist without yielding, without experiencing a countering reaction? There is nothing known to have such an ability, but there are ways allowed wherein the effect of a reaction would seem to almost not exist. The gravity of a massive body on a small body is an example. Also, a repulsive magnetic force, as well as an attracting force one is another example. In both examples, the effect of distance and time in reaction and propulsion is measured in the relationship of unequal mass’.
If gravity or magnetic, particularly electromagnetic forces can be used or created and manufactured, then instantons acceleration without harm would be possible, perhaps even to exceed the speed of light. Harm?
(You would need to ignore the black-hole syndrome as its effects are only theorized and they seem illogical.)
You fellows here would have as much chance of reasoning out how to do this, if it is possible, as would any mathematician because the solutions would be mechanical, not mathematical.
|
| Date: |
29 May 2017
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
R S - 15/06/2017 01:09:01
| | | Glenn,
It has not ended; Dr. Mike Marsden (Michael John Marsden) will eventually release his Mac Quan technology (a macroscopic version of the inner quantum mechanics of matter). I know he has been sitting on this technology for a long time, but eventually it will be released.
It already works; he is just finishing perfecting it. His new Mac Quan machine has over 2G's of "inertial propulsion" thrust.
Additionally, he is working on other technologies as well.
Inertial propulsion is possible; it just has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with "gyroscopic precession".... you all had it wrong the entire time. You all went down the "blind alley" as Mike Marsden would say.
Be patient; it has not ended, it is about to begin.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
kristijan - 15/11/2017 13:20:58
| | | That topic is not dead. Here is my effort on that topic. Gyroscopic precession has no moment of inertia and this cna be used for more thing than talking. Here is a device that was made by me that uses gyroscopic precession for propulsion. This propulsion theoretically can be used in space...What do you think about it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZP_ZbnGA9I&t=443s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo-qR0lx_io
Please comment.
thnank you
dr. kristijan
dr.todoroski@gmail.com
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy - 17/11/2017 21:53:57
| | | Hello Kristjan,
I must say your efforts are commendable, however for reasons similar to some other like devices your device will never operate in space.
It is similar to MD’s devices in that its mode of operation is like MD’s but both devices depend on gravity for their propulsion.
You have half of the answer, getting the next bit is not so easy.
Anyhow best of luck with your endeavour.
Regards,
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 26/01/2018 03:34:19
| | | Long ago I believed the gyroscope offered a great, and new propulsion potential. For many years I followed this idea with experiments and reasoning. It was devilishly difficult to reason out for me. In the end, I proved to myself that all the laws of Isaac Newton were correct. A gyroscope follows all, all, all, all the laws of motion precisely. There are no flying gyroscopes and never will be. Too bad for all the time we wasted. I do not goat. We were on the same quest for so many years. It’s time now, sadly, to bury it. Find something else in which we may have a chance to succeed. All this saddens me.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 27/02/2018 15:18:03
| | | I just did a little thought experiment in the form of typing thoughts out. The thing is hard to let go.
How could reactionless drive work? It is explicably impossible, but if anyone could do it, it would be you. The effect of motion, or mass would have to cease and exist alternately. Mass and energy are interchangeable. Steam Not as pressure, but as changing positions of mater due to gravity and heat. Centrifuge instead of gravity.
Instant vaporizing caused reverse pressure.? NO. Angular momentum can be changed back and forth during ˝ rotations.? Not really.
The speed of rotating gas would press forward as it rose to a small circumference of rotation near the axes, creating faster rotation. The remaining solid mater at the outer circumference would correspond by gaining angular momentum (speed).
The Universe I know does not permit inertial propulsion. If fact, if it did the universe would have become unbalanced eons ago. If it was allowed, so many bodies in the universe would have somehow, some way, given enough time found a way to become runaway collisions. Though the Universe is in motion, somethings, I think, must remain stable—so, no inertial propulsion is allowed by God, by you, by me.
Very good day to you,
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy - 27/02/2018 22:20:42
| | | Evening Glenn,.
Seems like you are refusing to let go.
I have said in the past and will quote again the late B Harry Stine who said that any successful
inertial drive device would have to alternately change from one type of device to another hopefully at reasonable speeds.
You said.
"The effect of motion, or mass would have to cease and exist alternately."
Quite good methinks.
Certainly not simple to arrange but nevertheless please take my word for it, it is achievable.
Best regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 04/03/2018 14:19:58
| | | Good Morning Sandy,
Yes, these things are true as you have said. Mass and energy are interchangeable. Still and so far as I know, in order to create even a small, but significant amount of change from matter to energy, requires a massive burst far too great to be of any use to us. Then there would be the problem of re-converting energy back to matter. Certainly I do not know a lot about all this, but considering that light has traveled through space for billions of years, encountering a multitude of events, we see it still has not completely converted to matter.
A theory based on possible future discoveries in science for significant conversions/re-conversions of mass/energy to allow for inertial propulsion would be a stretch for many
people in science, but it has not been proven impossible.
All the best people fly helicopters. Best wishes for yours to be up and running this Spring,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Brian Morris - 05/03/2018 14:13:16
| | |
As you say Glenn:-
"the universe would have become unbalanced eons ago. If it was allowed, so many bodies in the universe would have somehow, some way, given enough time found a way to become runaway collisions."
The universe is constantly gaining momentum, due to random collisions. This phenomenon is known to big science as "Dark Energy".
It is not the case as you say, that "The Universe I know does not permit inertial propulsion" The proof is out there. Once you accept that Momentum is NOT Conserved, then the two biggest problems in Physics, Dark Matter and Dark energy cease to exist.
Momentum is not conserved. There is a gyro experiment, indeed there are a number which demonstrate this. The difficulty is not in the proof but in the refusal of mainstream science to even look at the proofs. Mind you it does not help that most demonstrations are to easy to dismiss as slipstick or, he pushed it.
My definitive experiment is with a pendulum, no gyro involved, the pendulum swings more to the right than to the left and I call it an Asymmetric Pendulum. Which got me thinking about free pendulums and a gyro on a string. Hang a gyro on a string and it is a free pendulum. So take a new look at a familiar scenario.
Hang a weight on a string passed over a hook, so that when you pull the string, the weight goes up and down. Now set the weight , or the bob of the pendulum swinging in a circle. It is the embodiment of Newton's three axioms. Indeed Newton, Hook and Kepler, back in the day, all experimented with free pendulums. The interaction of momentum, inertia, centripetal acceleration. All there.
Now whilst the bob weight is circling around, pull on the string to lift it up. This shortens the length of the pendulum and in order to CONSERVE MOMENTUM the rate of oscillation speeds up. It Goes around faster than before. The tangential speed of the bob is not changed by the action of shortening the string, but as the radius of the circle is reduced, the circumference is reduced, so it takes less time to complete a rotation. Call it a Synchronous Pendulum. All the Synchronous pendulums of a set length, anywhere in the world, oscillate at the same speed. Countless grandfather clocks will testify to this. No one doubts that it is so and always will be so.
I guess you can see where I am going with this one. Spin the bob weight, like a gyroscope. Hang the spinning gyroscope from the hook. It will circle around, just like the synchronous pendulum. It will be assumed that the same interactions with Newton’s axioms are present, nothing novel, new or different.
Now pull the string to shorten the length of the pendulum and see the absolutely impossible result before your very eyes.
An asynchronous pendulum.
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 11/03/2018 17:32:34
| | | Excuse me. I’m just goofing off a minute.
Momentus can be lead to kool-aid, but you can’t force him to drink.
Of course momentum is conserved. Your example, like the girl on ice skates folds her arms in and out as she spins slower, or faster in order to conserve momentum. You, yourself proved that. Your example proves it.
Gravity puts the breaks on momentum. Throw a stone up in the air. Friction puts the breaks on momentum. Drag your foot when coasting on your bicycle.
The pendulum continues, because all things including momentum obey the equal and opposite law, minus also some being conserved (changed to heat) by a bit of friction.
Do you live in Australia? How interesting. I think it must be wonderful there. I love Olivia Newton John and the movies, Crocodile Dundee. I just know I would like you too. I already do. I do wish you would drink my kool-aid though and be done with it.
All my best
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 11/03/2018 17:39:06
| | | Hi Sandy,
It is always good to see you in print. We, you and I always understood our own points of view with Chrystal clarity. Your mind is as sharp as ever.
As Momutus might say,
Good daaay Mate,. . my friend,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Brian Morris - 20/03/2018 16:25:33
| | | Glenn
You say
“of course momentum is conserved. Your example, like the girl on ice skates folds her arms in and out as she spins slower, or faster in order to conserve momentum. You, yourself proved that. Your example proves it.”
When you lift the inert bob weight it speeds up, like the ice skater example. It does this to keep the instantaneous linear speed constant, to conserve momentum. This is an example of how to conserve momentum.
I gave a second example in my post. When you lift the spinning gyro it does not speed up. That was the point of the experiment.
The spinning gyro pendulum is DIFFERENT to the bob weight pendulum.
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Brian Morris - 20/03/2018 16:25:47
| | | Glenn
You say
“of course momentum is conserved. Your example, like the girl on ice skates folds her arms in and out as she spins slower, or faster in order to conserve momentum. You, yourself proved that. Your example proves it.”
When you lift the inert bob weight it speeds up, like the ice skater example. It does this to keep the instantaneous linear speed constant, to conserve momentum. This is an example of how to conserve momentum.
I gave a second example in my post. When you lift the spinning gyro it does not speed up. That was the point of the experiment.
The spinning gyro pendulum is DIFFERENT to the bob weight pendulum.
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 01/04/2018 15:54:21
| | | Hello Brian,
Very good sir. I had not thought of it that way as I have not done anything with a bob. I think some Japanese in the 90's were drooping gyroscopes from planes and claiming that those during precession, fell slower, but I hardly believe it. There was no conformations.
Your post is good.
Glenn,
,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/04/2018 23:19:40
| | | Well Heck, Brian. I re-read you post. You say, "When you lift the inert bob weight. . ."
Actually nothing happens except the blob changes vertical positions. 'Inert' means 'without motion' or still. If you mean lift the bob when it is swinging the results of lifting it depends on the position of the arc of the curve it is in, More, if the bob is swinging downward, the lift will speed up the swing. If on the other hand, the bob is swinging upward, the lift will slow the swing down. Maybe you can get this without a further belabored explanation as to 'why that is'
Glenn,.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Brian Morris - 19/04/2018 13:23:01
| | | Hi Glen
The Japanese experiment claimed loss of weight, which was said to be insignificant. Logically a gyro in free fall is not subjected to any disturbing Torque and so cannot precess!
When you re read my post you missed the bit where I said:-
“Now set the weight, or the bob of the pendulum swinging in a circle” and the other bit “Now whilst the bob weight is circling around, pull on the string to lift it up”
Put into the above context, inert means not spinning like a gyro.
Your comments about the position of the arc of the curve do not apply to these experiments.
The two examples were:-
1) an inert(not spinning) weight orbiting about the vertical axis.
2) a spinning gyro doing the same thing, orbiting about the vertical axis.
Visually, that is when you look at them, these two examples appear to be the same. A mass on a string swinging around a vertical axis. This is known as free pendulum.
It is an inviolate fact of physics that the period of rotation of a free pendulum is governed by the length of the pendulum. When the pendulum is shortened it has effect of increasing the inward force (centripetal force) acting on the mass. This moves the mass into an orbit of smaller radius, but crucially, does not change the speed at which it is travelling. The speed vector of the momentum of the mass is not changed, momentum is conserved and everyone is happy.
The smaller radius of course means a smaller circumference, so that the mass travels a shorter distance each revolution, completing a revolution in less time. It speeds up. Just like the skater.
When the mass is configured as a spinning gyro, orbiting due to precession, it does not behave like a free pendulum. Changing the length of the string does not effect the rotation. If there is any centripetal force present, it has no effect upon the mass when the geometry is changed by changing the length of the pendulum.
My conclusion is that the spinning gyro is not held in orbit by a horizontal force exerted by the string.
There is another mechanism in action which I call Dark Motion.
The gyro anomaly is alive and well and can be used to produce Propulsion.
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Brian Morris - 19/04/2018 13:23:17
| | | Hi Glen
The Japanese experiment claimed loss of weight, which was said to be insignificant. Logically a gyro in free fall is not subjected to any disturbing Torque and so cannot precess!
When you re read my post you missed the bit where I said:-
“Now set the weight, or the bob of the pendulum swinging in a circle” and the other bit “Now whilst the bob weight is circling around, pull on the string to lift it up”
Put into the above context, inert means not spinning like a gyro.
Your comments about the position of the arc of the curve do not apply to these experiments.
The two examples were:-
1) an inert(not spinning) weight orbiting about the vertical axis.
2) a spinning gyro doing the same thing, orbiting about the vertical axis.
Visually, that is when you look at them, these two examples appear to be the same. A mass on a string swinging around a vertical axis. This is known as free pendulum.
It is an inviolate fact of physics that the period of rotation of a free pendulum is governed by the length of the pendulum. When the pendulum is shortened it has effect of increasing the inward force (centripetal force) acting on the mass. This moves the mass into an orbit of smaller radius, but crucially, does not change the speed at which it is travelling. The speed vector of the momentum of the mass is not changed, momentum is conserved and everyone is happy.
The smaller radius of course means a smaller circumference, so that the mass travels a shorter distance each revolution, completing a revolution in less time. It speeds up. Just like the skater.
When the mass is configured as a spinning gyro, orbiting due to precession, it does not behave like a free pendulum. Changing the length of the string does not effect the rotation. If there is any centripetal force present, it has no effect upon the mass when the geometry is changed by changing the length of the pendulum.
My conclusion is that the spinning gyro is not held in orbit by a horizontal force exerted by the string.
There is another mechanism in action which I call Dark Motion.
The gyro anomaly is alive and well and can be used to produce Propulsion.
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
