|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
29 November 2024 03:54
|
|
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: |
Sol |
| Subject: |
Progress??? |
| Question: |
This forum is great in many ways. However it lacks VERY IMOPORTANT TOOLS for beeing a sucess.
First, its impossible to really crack any propulsion problems when the structure of communicate is buildt up like it is.
A forum should have the possibility to:
a)Sticked posts should be on the top (sticked are the posts tht ppl ask all the time...and forum users are getting fedd up explaining, and also the posts tht webmaster wanst everybody to read).
b)underneath this shoud the post latest written be. this often will be a reply to a thread started ages ago. But this way we can all know where the dialog is at the moment.
Now -if someone reply, i cant really find out where the reply is. How to crack a propuslion case when we dont know where the communication is taking place?? (iknow i can search for date, but not everybody knew knows tht..).
c) uploading of pictures. Its rather difficult to understand a gyro. and having it all written down without some sort of picture to go along with it is just silly in my opinion.
So hope this things can be implemented cause I think it can be very useful for the people who use this forum.
If the webmaster has any thought about this I would be glad to know. Cos I think there is options to set out the forum to ppl who run it with some ads on the edges, but the forum as a whole will still be under these pages :-)
|
| Date: |
3 May 2007
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 03/05/2007 15:01:51
| | | The ‘Most recently ask questions’ function works well enough to overcome your concerns. If a subject is active you can see it. Otherwise you can scroll to find the subject heading. However, yes to pictures. It is an extreme difficulty to in trying to explain the intricacies of gyro mechanics without pictures. I don’t even try. Not actually. But, an explanation is one thing. Understanding it is another. Probably nobody, I mean nobody could understand a written only explanation of these areas of most complex intricacies without accompanying drawings.
The biggest problem I see is that even if the site would accommodate pictures, it would require that each of contributors purchase software and learn how to use it, also I thank few might be willing to take the time and trouble to sketch, then I wonder if many would really want to explain things kept secrete. The secretes are wherein lie much of the complications.
The structure of this site is excellent. There is no other like it. The ability to post pictures would make it perfect. I’d like that but, I just wonder how much that function would actually be used were it available.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
webmaster - 03/05/2007 16:22:28
| | | Hi,
I think I can add a feature to include pictures with the post (c), and I could easily set the default option to show the most recent answered questions (b). As for (a), I maybe able to setup a FAQ which is only editable be myself.
I would also like to add a new section to the site to allow people to post/edit information (and pictures) about there current. Sort of like a blog but contained within the site. I guess you could see it as a mini website within this one. That way someone can group any information together that they have. I need to consider this optiona more.
I'll try to make these changes as soon as I can. I'm quite busy writting a book right now. BTW: it will have a large section on gyroscopic propulsion and many other topics that will be of interest.
I try and get the picture bit up and running in a few weeks.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
sol - 14/05/2007 23:47:41
| | | Great!
Im a bit embarraced tht I actually didnt notice tht I drop down menu at the top, so the site have easy acess to latest posts. My bad.
I also liked tht I recived mail when somone replied to my post. cool.
In some sites posts tht you have read change colour, and those you havent are more higlited. Just a tip if your on to make changes.
I enjoy this site very much. The readings I find is most interesting and some I have to read more than once to get a grasp at what is really said.
The links are also very funny even thou some are dead. Some I first saw years ago. Does anyone know what happend to the
http://www.open.org/~davidc/update34.htm
http://www.open.org/~davidc/GITheory.htm
GIT machine (pls Copy and paste the 2 links to see wht I mean), and the ppl behind it? Last update they had was back in 2002, and after tht there is no sign of their progress. Did they go for space? Or perhaps burn up in the atmosphare? or is it standing put in some garage somewhere?
Funny it is, cos I build simular device back in 2001-2002 myself. I wasnt awere of these guys, and by the looks they were much better orginazed then me. However their device is very complicated compared to the one I build for the same purpose, but mine didnt excactly burn up in the atmosphere either as I hoped it would do. I have my understanding of why but I never really got it confirmed.
Does anyone here know the reason why this device will never work?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 15/05/2007 02:18:20
| | | Hi again Sol,
David E. Cowlishaw, is, or was one of the most enthusiastic researchers ever. He is very smart. It’s been so long ago that I studied the GT that I’ve forgotten much of the details, but it was eventually the communities, as well as my own findings that the GT wouldn’t work. In a rather ironic way of lesser importance one thing you might look at that always disturbed me is that the gears on the pyramid gear will never mesh as the horizontal plain gear moves up and down the pyramid. I once worked on a transmission with sliding gears with electronics to maintain the optimum smooth efficiency of such a configuration. There was no way I could make it work, or work well enough. Oviousley no one else could either, because it was a great need and idea. I had to give up. It is so simple I wonder why it was never noticed in the GT.
Sol, do you really, really want to knoe why the GT could never work? Really? Is it importaint to you?
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
sol - 15/05/2007 12:52:58
| | | Hi again,
Well yes Glenn, I would most defenently like to have an explanation -other than my own assumptions- on why this machine will not work.
Back when I first came up with my idea (its about same time has he did with his GT actually) I did much of the mathematical calculations on it. It was a great time in my life, and I faced the millennium with great enthusiasm convinced that this machine would work. Having an even more complex setup in mind as his GT, I didn’t start on a production until I came up with something I thought was a smarter solution (No E.T would fly around in a mechanical stress machine - it had to be simpler than a car wheel).
Finally when I got it, and according to my calculations, I had to build a device consisting of two circles each containing 8 iron objects that should rotate in each direction to make it stable. It had to be 8 objects rotating or the system would actually go a bit back and forward. With 8 it produced a steady stream of forward force. The system could do with its engine (a drill) about 1000 rpm, but was set up for smaller thrust I hoped-not to go thru my wall.
My machine was then hanging from 4 ropes from the ceiling, and hopefully when I turned it on it would lean horizontal in the assumed forward direction. But to my mistake and great enthusiasm I totally forgot to tight the engine, with the outcome that the engine was rotating around its axel, and damaging the whole set up. After that I was only down to a few rounds per second with lots of friction. And with the weight of the system I was never really able to see whether it would work or not. It was a stick- slip machine based on friction.
I then quickly produced a smaller one, but that one really never gave any results at all (less accuracy made this one also look like a stick slip), leaving me all frustrated and going back to the math checking my calculations for outcome that would give zero thrust.
And from there I landed on the idea that if time is to be multiplied in, this system might not work. By this I mean that sure it will go fast on the top, giving great thrust upwards, but it will only do this for short time. It will give lesser thrust downwards but now for longer time, and the outcome will be zero propulsion. My old borrowed book of physics don’t support this as it doesn’t mention time in its formulas. And the math that I did was also done in a bit moody moments. This is also why I never quite left the idea.
The outcome of this was that I moved on to gyros. This was around 2003 and I then notice the GIT webpage from here. But they have been quite dead since that, leaving me in the assumptions that my math was perhaps correct.
And also with some new 3 toy gyros, I quickly got confused and left the whole internal propulsion world until I recently got tht itch back. Now Im all hung up on the gyros behaviour, and hopefully with the minds and skills of people like you, I can get some answers of gyro behaviour before I cough up a new idea again and start to produce some new engine. Cos some idea an engine it will be anyway, and it will be silly to start to produce something that people already know will not work.
So hopefully I can get answers from this forum :o)
Sol
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/05/2007 01:11:41
| | | Hello Sol,
You know the GT doesn’t work by virtue of all the efforts put into it that haven’t met with success during all this time. But why you ask. Why it doesn’t work is tiring to me. But a promise made is a dept unpaid and so I will explain. Not now. For years I have been searching for parts I need. I’ve been going in circles finding the same conclusions that they either don’t exist, or the technology I need is not findable in order to build my own. The Clinton’s (President) say that the definition of insanity going in a circle expecting a different results each time. So by the definition I might be nuts for not giving up. Days and days are wasted. I’m still pushing. Doing the GT seems difficult and time consuming. Eventually I’ll get to you. You have my sympathy because you are going through the same things I went through.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 21/05/2007 20:21:00
| | | Dear Sol,
Why do I think the GIT won’t work you ask. The design of the GIT is different, but it employs the same wishful, hopelessly imposable mechanical errors as all the others, excepting perhaps those that attempt to manipulation gyroscopic functions. These gyroscopic functions primarily may, or may not one-day work, but no other methods such those of the GIT’s and all the others included can ever work.
Some of the designs are very clever, different and even ingenious at times, but they all end up relying on one primary error. It is believed by the inventor that by extending one half of a rotation such as by extending the spokes on the forward side and retracting the spokes on the rearward side an advantage in creating greater centrifuge in one direction can be had. This can never be. Distances the mass must rotate are different. The speed of the rotating objects will be the same, but the RPMs will attempt to be faster in the shorter diameter half. The result is there will be more matter, more spokes stacking up on the shorter side of rotation therefore the centrifuge will tend to be the same, except for an out of balance wobble. There will always be an attempt to compensate, one way, or another made by the equal nature of angular momentum in any kind or rotation. The laws of motion hold true.
The GIT, as best as I can recall from a now defunct engineering site is where I think engineers and later myself first discussed this design that relies on a kind of dual rotation. That would be rotating objects that are themselves rotated while they are rotating in their own environment. This does not change anything. If you study it and the others you can see that the result is to extend the circumference of one half of each rotation.
I have some months ago seen a beautifully designed Russian apparatus, which although it looked different than the GIT, it followed it’s principles exactly. Of course it didn’t work, thought the site and inventor would attempt to suggest it did. Like the Jones device the man had to use his hands. I wish I could find this site and give it to you, but if you try you may be able to find it.
I wonder if your reasoning was much the same as mine? If I haven’t done a good enough job explaining myself let me know and I will try again.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
sol - 06/06/2007 00:12:58
| | | Hello again Glenn,
Sorry for my late reply. I was doing this reply some while back but I must have done something wrong in the process cause I cant see that it has been posted.
Well I will re-write my message:
Thanks for your reply! I do understand very well your descriptions. Mine was also having spokes, but with Iron “donuts” on each of them, and while they where rotating they were to give newtons/leaning to a solid circle tht was not in center of the wheel with the rotating spokes. This gave the apparatus the effect that the iron donuts where to go fast on one side(forward) and slow on other side.
Mathematically the way its formula are represented to me this should give a woubbling effect if it was one donut on one spoke, but also with a bigger wobble to the “forward” side/ fastest side. The outcome should be the same with 1 or more numbers, and graphical it was shown tht with 8 spokes in 2 systems going clockwise and counter clockwise it should give a dead steady thrust in its forward direction/fastest spot.
However due to mentioned lack of engineering skills I never got It proper tested, and also the outcome of the test I conducted gave me some other results. I noticed tht the friction on the circle they where rotating in was highest on the spot where the rotating Iron donuts was to decrease in speed. This tells me that this was the spot where the newtons or propulsion was heading so to speak.
On the accelerating side there where very little friction on the circles (like they didn’t reach out from the spokes-wich of course they did all the time, it wasn’t that slow). Based on the signs of the friction and how my apparatus was set up (quite solid) I then had built the propulsion of each circle towards each other...
So if I was to build it again- only to test its principle, I would have to set it up on some sort of track so the moving direction was locked to only forwards and backwards. Then -with only one circle wich had the ability to rotate its “expected propulsion direction”, I could have proper tested if there was any propulsion in this device or not.
But again, since the laws of physics is to be beaten here I ended my testing with the conclusion that the TIME of wich one “donut” is to spend on the fast side is shorter than the TIME it spends on the slow side, and if you calculate/multiply the TIME into this (my book of physics don’t do this!) then the outcome will be much smaller, but still give a very tiny effect. Logically this might be the answer to it also.
So for now I have abandoned the idea. But perhaps I will do a Clinton later on and test it again…
These days I have another idea in my mind, and I have just started to gather recourses to build it. Hopefully it will burn up in the atmosphere..but chances are it might never leave the ground.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 02/07/2007 16:37:31
| | | Isn't there some new information to post from anybody?
Is there anything in past posts that can be expanded on, or better explained by anybody who’d care to?
The last propulsion information posted was a month ago, 6/6/07 and 25/ 5/ 07. I am becoming more surprised each time I visit only to find that nothing is going on. What gives?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
A.Dent - 07/07/2007 02:16:21
| | | I expect that they are all watching developments on Youtube, re the Searl device. It is just as forlorn a hope as gyroscopic levitation of course, if not fraudulent, but it looks good (to the credulous).
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
A.Dent - 07/07/2007 02:17:20
| | | I expect that they are all watching developments on Youtube, re the Searl device. It is just as forlorn a hope as gyroscopic levitation of course, if not fraudulent, but it looks good (to the credulous).
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
glenn Hawkins - 07/07/2007 15:46:02
| | | Hi Arthur. I think you're right on all counts. Except mass movement is possable and I think, or believe inertial acceleration without a rearward reaction is possiable. I've no proff, but I have wonderful evidence.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 12/07/2007 06:37:21
| | | Glenn,
If Arthur believes it is all a forlorn hope that is up to him.
For your interest I have never ventured into Youtube or followed Searl’s progress, probably because I am just not interested in what he is doing.
You replied to Arthur Dent agreeing that he was correct on all counts, but you believe in inertial acceleration without a rearward reaction.
You have no proof but wonderful evidence.
What are you saying Glenn?
You believe it cannot be done but you believe it can be done.
I am somewhat mystified by your posting.
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 12/07/2007 08:46:49
| | | It was a poor posting, Sandy. Fortunately it was short. Please just ignore it.
I have good evidence I lean to in my beliefs that IP can probably be done. Like most everyone else, proving it is another matter.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
David E. Cowlishaw - 26/07/2010 06:35:07
| | | Hi guys (and gals);
This is the one and only DavidC, formerly of open.org/davidc fame.
I've been on "vacation", sorting out the sheep from the goats.
The sheep seem to be in charge, and killed over 8 of my computers that I allowed to go online.
update34.htm has the math, and is still relevant (in my honest opinion).
It can be found on archive.org use the search term www.open.org/davidc
The ALFA series of machine was generated in rapid prototyped form, tested, and found to be a weak performer at best. It had in infinitely approaching two front to back tangential ratio (TR term in the math)
I DO have a new variant, that I call the SHARRMIA (Spin Hammer Angularly Rotating Ring Mass Inertial Accelerator), that in theory, produces 80 units of thrust towards the front, with one unit holding us back, with a 9 to one eccentric gearing ratio (angular accelerations are squared, last time I checked).
Just taking a break from you "Hoomans", working in my garden, and keeping body and soul together for the while.
I have pictures and animations, care to receive them and share with the world?
DavidC
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
David E. Cowlishaw - 26/07/2010 06:35:29
| | | Hi guys (and gals);
This is the one and only DavidC, formerly of open.org/davidc fame.
I've been on "vacation", sorting out the sheep from the goats.
The sheep seem to be in charge, and killed over 8 of my computers that I allowed to go online.
update34.htm has the math, and is still relevant (in my honest opinion).
It can be found on archive.org use the search term www.open.org/davidc
The ALFA series of machine was generated in rapid prototyped form, tested, and found to be a weak performer at best. It had in infinitely approaching two front to back tangential ratio (TR term in the math)
I DO have a new variant, that I call the SHARRMIA (Spin Hammer Angularly Rotating Ring Mass Inertial Accelerator), that in theory, produces 80 units of thrust towards the front, with one unit holding us back, with a 9 to one eccentric gearing ratio (angular accelerations are squared, last time I checked).
Just taking a break from you "Hoomans", working in my garden, and keeping body and soul together for the while.
I have pictures and animations, care to receive them and share with the world?
DavidC
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
