|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
29 November 2024 03:33
|
|
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: |
Luis Gonzalez |
| Subject: |
Stress-free gyro propulsion designs |
| Question: |
Spin/gyro-propulsion system designs mentioned in this forum and other sources appear to have common flaws. One of the main problems is that these systems can only be started with either the flywheels or the system at high speed, but not both.
Most systems can not spin and revolve at high velocities without causing undue strain or braking apart at joints and at areas of weakness.
This basic flaw is so common that it permeates the world of spin/gyro-propulsion designs, making it difficult to conceive of spin/gyro-propulsion designs that do not have this drawback. In fact systems often appear to try to make use of this flaw as a necessary segment in the design of the device.
Interestingly, eliminating this design flaw can lead to better devices and may be essential to successful spin/gyro-propulsion.
Even more interesting is the fact that there are potentially numerous designs that can simultaneously spin and revolve at high speeds while remaining in state of balance (even before engaging to produce propulsion).
We would not expect every-day conveyance vehicles to spend most of their energy causing self-destructive stresses to their structure. Sure, combustion engines, jets, and rockets rely upon controlled chemical explosions, but they are designed to assure that most of the energy released is channeled into productive motion. The undesired stress is reduced to a manageable level; a level sufficient to guarantee a useful life span (for both the device and most users).
In a similar manner spin/gyro-propulsion devices need to channel their myriad of forces toward the intended propulsion. These statements may appear obvious but most current designs do not adhere to this common sense, and I fear it occurs as a result of failure to understand the basics of spin phenomena, which are not as basic as most would want to believe.
It does not require a genius to figure out how to design devices where all angular motions and forces can occur previous to engaging for linear propulsion, and without undue stress to the structure of the system.
How? The obvious answer is to use an offset-mounted system, because center-mounted systems can not achieve a position of dynamic balance (where all angular motions run without undue system stresses). Another obvious part of the answer is that that the system must also be motor-driven; only a fool would expect gravity to drive sustained lift internally (if internal-propulsion is possible it should be able to manifest a form of lift, no matter how slight e.g. significant weight loss that is not a vibration).
Experiments with various configurations shows that some offset-system designs can run at both high system and high flywheel velocities in stable positions. It’s virtually impossible to run center-mount systems without running into many unexpected forces a-la “Nitro’s Law”.
It is clear to me that achieving this balance is a prerequisite to achieving propulsion.
I may be assuming too much but many possible alternative designs appear obvious.
I am open to answer specific relevant questions that show serious thinking has taken place about this subject.
I also realize that most contributors to this forum like to keep their cards close to the vest, so I will understand if no questions are asked, or no constructive comments are made.
(* Note: The term “offset-mounted” means that the systems fulcrum/pivot point is not at the main axis around which the gyros revolve, but rather this fulcrum/pivot point is at some distance from the main axle. This term should in no way be taken to indicate 45 degrees, as used by other individuals in this forum.)
Thank you,
Luis |
| Date: |
20 September 2007
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 20/09/2007 07:05:26
| | | Dear Luis,
I really do think you are inventing problems which just do not exist.
It is normal to start and run a car engine before engaging drive, why should a gyroscopic system be any different.
The tool is the angular momentum developed in system rotation, the flywheels throttle the amount.
The term “offset gyroscope”, was first coined by Eric Laithwaite in the early eighties, and referred to 2 devices which were Scott Strachan’s and my own. If my memory serves me correctly, the term was introduced to this forum by myself, some considerable time ago.
The term offset referred to and means gyroscopes whose fulcrum is displaced not from the rotation axis of the machine but vertically up or down it.
I see no advantage or purpose in displacing the fulcrum any way from the rotation axis of the device, or maybe it is just something different to get into.
When I suggested 45 degrees to Ram it was for a very good reason which Ram will discover if he builds such a device. It offers balanced options which a greater or lesser angle does not do so well.
There are very good reasons for using elevate angles of offset, in some cases I have used greater than 60 degrees for a very good reasons and with great effect.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 23/09/2007 20:23:32
| | | Dear Sandy,
This forum and other similar places have documented expressions of concern about stress on joints and materials caused by gyro-forces, as systems approach velocities beyond certain levels of performance (this performance is not limited to, but includes ability to lift against gravity). These are problems that exist (not ones I invented), and they challenge current gyro systems differently from car engines in many ways.
In your example the flywheels control the propulsion throttle by spinning at limited rates of spin; in my opinion this results in a limited capacity to produce propulsion. The major shortcoming, which I claim exists, is lack of system designs that can run all components at full speed (though you may disagree).
I am inventing, not a problem, but an alternate solution to a largely IGNORED problem that has come to be accepted as an integral part of most current system designs. Though clever design solutions can turn a problem into a virtue, these solutions may also limit the desired effects. For example limiting flywheel spin-rates to control the throttle of expected propulsion also limits the system’s performance.
No one appears to have applied a solution that does not limit the device’s capacity to perform. Unfortunately, concepts evoked by terms such as “saturation”, “mass transfer” and “sheds mass” serve to legitimize the limiting flaws; these terms create a paradigm that prevents recognizing that the problem results from the basic approach in operating these devices. (The newer paradigm restricts productive, creative thinking, as much as previously established paradigms which academia created.)
The solution (as usual) is to think out-of-the-box, and that’s one reason I am moving away from designs requiring slow spin flywheels. As the spin-rates becomes slower, objects have a higher probability of responding like classical objects, which is especially true below what you refer to as the “saturation” point or zone.
This means that the motion of deflection/precession in slow-spin flywheels has a greater degree of “equal” and OPPOSITE reaction (this is relatively easy to verify using the “ice on a smooth surface” test; though it requires a well controlled environment and well observed experiments). Motions with equal and opposite reaction are not very useful toward gyro propulsion (we can discus this last point if you don’t agree).
My term “offset-mounted” (displacing the fulcrum away from the rotation point) appears to have collided with your term “offset gyroscope” (mounting the flywheel at a tilted angle to the radial axle).
I did a poor job at defining their difference, at the end of my top posting. This looks like a case of, how the word “offset” is used in America as opposed to how it is used in England.
Innovations are indeed “something different to get into” (as you say), in much the same way that gyro propulsion has been for a few decades. Offset-mounted fulcrum/pivot-point is just another innovation in gyro-propulsion design; it is a small change that can have profound effects. One of these effects is that it will lend it self to prolonged application of “Yank” and “Jerk” (these are real terms tough not commonly used). “Yank” is the equivalent of force, while “Jerk” (or “Jolt”) is the rate of change of Acceleration (got it?). In other words “Yank” is the “force” equivalent associated with the rate of change of acceleration (the next derivative of motion).
Your 45-60 degree offset (or tilted) flywheels design also has a balanced position where all components can run at high velocities without producing unwanted system stresses. However, once the flywheels are allowed to climb to the position of balance, your system is beyond the “saturation” point.
My perspective is that the forces involved in your design don’t play well together beyond the “saturation” point. You may have a different interpretation of what takes place beyond the “saturation” point; however it’s possible that deeper explanations may reveal more than either of us may be willing to do at this point.
Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 27/09/2007 06:51:06
| | | Hello Luis,
I see where you are coming from, but I still think your concerns are unfounded.
By your own words you suggest that relatively slowly rotating gyroscopes are used.
How fast does the system rotate?
The required gyroscope or flywheel rotation speed will be in direct proportion to the system rotation speed.
A small diameter gyroscope / flywheel will have to rotate many times faster than a large diameter one to carry out the same function.
Horses for courses?
The gyroscopes/flywheels are rotated only as fast as needs be to match the system.
My original concern of many years ago now, was the hoop stress in the gyroscope itself, where in effect the bearings (and shafts) themselves were in fact taking the brunt of the load, this being of course down to the gyroscopic torque across the bearing being loaded continuous in the vertical plane.
By using decent bearings and suitable lubrication this problem should be resolved relatively easily.
What I did find out from again many years ago, is that the bigger you construct the thing the easier it is to control and the more efficient it becomes.
Ultimately I see no limit in the output of these kind of devices, especially if built in something “nearly exotic” like titanium with its virtues of strength and lightness, anti creep resistance and corrosion resistance.
I cannot see a device of this type being subjected to any more than a fraction of the stresses normally experienced in a helicopter for instance.
The flywheels are not tilted but are designed to run with their rotation axes at right angles to the system rotation axis.
There is no balance point.
The system cannot be balanced.
The elevated angle is there for a completely different purpose, and is there to focus the output of the device, besides the stresses (except in the flywheel) diminish as the system nears saturation, as all normally expected loads are reversed, which really must be witnessed to be believed.
Incidentally Eric Laithwaite told me the offset on my first machine was not required.
I have subsequently discovered that it is a prerequisite in the generation of inertial thrust, for this type of device, and the way in which I am doing it.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 30/09/2007 15:58:32
| | | I would thank other gentlemen to allow Sandy and me to complete our conversation.
More coming later…
Thank you,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 30/09/2007 21:06:35
| | | Sandy,
Regarding the 45(to 60) degree offset, you say the flywheels are not tilted but have spin-axes at 90 degrees to the system’s rotation axis.
1) Where does the 45(to 60) degree angle come into play? Is the flywheel mounted upon something that is placed 45 degrees from the center of system rotation? What something?
2) If the flywheel axes remain at right angles to the system axis, then are they being held fixed (at least for a period)? Otherwise they would deflect (quasi-precession) upward (or downward, depending).
Perhaps you can clarify the “offset System”; in any event Ram and other willing builders can’t build the unit you advise without that information; others, like my self, can not tell how the gyros are located.
I do find it fascinating that “saturation” occurs even when the flywheel axes remain at right angles to the system axis throughout the run.
This is different from your explanation of the “saturation” concept during June and December 2004. From which I understood the following regarding “saturation”:
A system rotates while flywheels are non-spinning deadweights, and Centripetal-Centrifugal (C-C) forces send the flywheels outward.
As spin is introduced gradually to the flywheels you said that “saturation” occurred quickly, that the “accelerated-mass” disappeared fast, and that the gyro axles ended pointing upward (or so it appears).
The explanation of “saturation” on 2004 (where gyros go up) appears different from the “saturation” you refer to in this thread (where the gyro axes remain perpendicular to the system axis).
These two explanations of “saturation” are different and would appear under different “spin”-“rotation” conditions. I am not denying that both phenomena occur. The cause for behavior of the 2004 version has been significantly well explained by Nitro and in more detail elsewhere.
However these are two different types of event and can only occur as result of different relative magnitudes among the interacting forces.
The “saturation” explained in 2004 occur because the forces of primary deflection/precession trump the direction of expected C-C forces, largely because the C-C forces are dissipated by a secondary deflection/precession in a direction that may not have been expected. We both understand there is no real mystery to the 2004 version of “saturation”.
The “saturation” you mention (or introduce) in this thread (where gyros lose the upward deflection/precession force, and loads change, etc, while remaining perpendicular to the system axis) occurs from different causes and NOT from secondary deflection/precession responding to C-C forces (though more complex versions of Nitro’s law may still be at the root).
This “perpendicular” “saturation” can occur when the spin of the flywheels adjusts to a pattern in which the regular (repeated) change in spin orientation is factored into a smooth synchronized and fluid motion. In other words, the regular reorientation of the flywheel becomes part of the spinning flywheel’s motion.
From a different perspective, the disk is no longer settled into its most stable spin, but has rather settled into a motion of alternate stability which may, at an extreme case, be illustrated by a disk or coin twirling on a smooth surface.
The actual twirl that causes your latter type of “saturation” occurs in a more-complex yet more-stable pattern than the coin twirling on a smooth surface.
Anyone who wishes more information about the model on rules of stable-spin will find two postings I wrote about one year ago on that subject.
The concept is explained in greater depth on the following previous postings:
“How precession works in a toy gyro - Why precession has no centripetal / centrifugal force” posted on 16 May 2006 at (www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=571)
And
“The Root Cause of Precession” posted on12 September 2006 at (www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=611)
Once the disk has broken out of its most stable spin configuration, it requires less energy to move among an infinite set of other less stable spin configurations.
Anyway, I still think that the objective of maximizing linear propulsion is being approached from the wrong direction because of the way in which we-all first became aware of the interesting interactions of gyros.
In my opinion, sufficiently large amounts of the force in these types of devices may be funneled into linear propulsion only through first achieving stable high levels of simultaneous “spin” and “rotation”.
A truly stable system with high levels of staged spin & rotation provides a platform from which large quantities of propulsion can be derived by the dynamics in appropriate design configurations.
On the other hand, trying to divert C-C forces to create thrust (lift) is an error from misunderstanding the cause-effect sequence between forces and deflection/precession without applying the rules to all interactions equally (Nitro’s law).
In my opinion there are two ways to create linear propulsion from angular motion; both require a) the dissipation of equal reactions into non-opposite (perpendicular) directions, and b) using the rate of change of acceleration. I may explain part of the design model configuration later.
I am interested in your answer to my two questions at the start of this post.
Luis.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
