|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
29 November 2024 03:35
|
|
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: |
Glenn Hawkins |
| Subject: |
The gyroscope just got wilder. |
| Question: |
I’m going to prove centrifuge, centripetal and momentum occur during precession, but first I want to revisit history concerning these conditions. It had been otherwise reasoned that any effects of these three forces occurring during precession was due to the dead weight of a gyroscope, that being the none rotating cage and other parts, the axel and center of the wheel not moving fast enough. The rationale for this hypothesis can be traced back to the misinformation given by Professor Eric Liftweight. During his famous lecture with his hand he stopped a precessing gyroscope of about fifteen pounds with ease and said, “Gentle as a lamb. There is no momentum.” Latter he attempted to use a wooden peg to stop a precessing gyroscope. The peg however did what he didn’t expect. It didn’t withstand the collision, but instead was snapped in two. This did not faze the professor. He declared there was, “Little, or no momentum.” and that the peg had not been broken in earlier tries and he kept on with the lecture. Still later he sat a small tower with its four sharp edged legs down into soft watery ice, anchoring it solidly against being moved, yet while explaining something like, the coefficient of ice reduces the friction between the legs to ice to almost zero. When he placed a gyro to precess about the tower the tower could not be moved by centrifuge, but the centrifuge in the gyro pulled it off its concaved perch atop the tower. Still this didn’t faze the professor. He clamed the lack of friction on ice proved once more there was no centrifuge in precession.
He was a smart man. Did he not know better? Harry K. thinks he did and I am inclined to agree and more so, because the professor did not debunk the, Jones Experiment, for what it was. Understand that the professor was so taken by the experiment that it launched him into a new career, that of proving inertia propulsion. Therefore how can we doubt that at some point in time a professor so enthused would have insisted on trying the experiment with his own hands and therefore learned as I have learned, written and explained the experiment was a fraud and a trick? Later others for different reasons clamed the same things, which is that there is no centripetal, centrifugal, or momentum. Now to correct and set all this to rights.
Why were the professor’s and our experiments worthless? The inertia force, momentum in a slowly precessing fifteen-pound gyroscope, or a slowly moving fifteen pound object of any kind is weak and not to be compared to weight under gravity, unless a fifteen-pound object is sliding frictionless, horizontally across a table at 32 feet per second. This is true in physics. The professor’s fifteen-pound gyro appears to be precessing at the rate of about one-foot per second, or there about. If we then divide 15lbs by 32 ft. per sec. we get a potential 7.5 oz. collision. Furthermore the collision is elastic, colliding into soft tissue of a hand, which yields as the force dissipates in an extremely short duration of distance into absolute zero force. “Gentle as a lamb.”, he says. You can believe it, but the collision of any fifteen-pound object traveling so slowly, horizontally, into a soft collision not involving gravity would be equally as genital. There is little force, almost no force to be felt. I refuse to be live believe that a professor of engineering so engaged in a test would not eventually know that, if not immediately. The motives of this extraordinary man of accomplishments with absolutely beautiful lecturing ability confuses me. I don’t know why he did it? He did not prove there was no momentum. Later I will prove there is. You’ll be happy, Ram.
Centrifuge and centripetal? Damn! Use a string. Whether the precessing gyro is tilted at forty-five, ninety or one-thirty-five degrees the center of weight is always distributed a distance outward from the string. That is because of centrifuge pulling outward. Where is the centipede? As the string is pulled outward horizontally the gyro must rise in a curvature as in a pendulum rise. It is gravity that pulls the string backwards. There is your centripetal, gravity pulling the gyro backward and downward.
I promised to prove these three old fallacies are wrong. Go on to the next thread below.
|
| Date: |
29 January 2008
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 30/01/2008 00:05:39
| | | A good gyroscope by design is constructed to precess slowly. It is not fast enough to have much centrifuge, or momentum. When you let the thing spin down to where it precess' fast it then has enough centrifuge and momentum to be recognized. This however is argued against as the evidence of dead weight being revolved faster, until the gyro acts like dead weight so goes the argument. So how could you know differently?
Gyroscopes are designed to be as balanced as possible. Let us unbalance one and see what happens. Let us increase the effect of gravity by increasing leverage. Then let us spin up the gyro supper fast and see what happens. Your gyro is constructed with two rings; think as if one were vertical and one horizontal. Note the two opposite points where the rings cross over one another. Straighten a long paper clip into a wire and there at a cross of the rims bend it over and clamp it with pliers. Bend the wire around conforming with the rim, or ring that leads to the little axel knobs sticking out form the bearing. Wrap it around the knob and extend the rest to the clip outward in a straight line from the axel. Go to the other rim cross and do the same thing. Make sure that you bend the wire to the same place at the bearing axes hub as the first one. Use Scotch Tape to hold the wire tightly to the rim as needed. You should now have two strong and folded clips extending outward from the frame. First tie your support string about one inch outward on the clips. Nest try tying the string one half inch outward. You have lengthened an axel giving more leveraged weight against the angular momentum in the spinning wheel.
Spins the gyro up as fast as you can and turn it lose to precess around the string. The gyro is going to go crazy now. Yes it acts absolutely wild. As the gyro circles very fast it pulls itself a long ways outwards while losing altitude. That is strong centrifuge holding steadily against a substantial pendulum effect. Next try moving the precessing gyroscope near a wall and see and hear it bang loudly into the wall. That is a substantial amount of momentum delivered into a collision. Pay attention to the fact that the gyro was spinning very fast and not spun down and so know that dead weight was not much responsible for the wild behavior. Leverage, not unlike adding more mechanically applied force, was responsible for increasing the speed of precession and the greater speed per extended revolution created the recognizable centrifuge and momentum. The centripetal was shown in the pendulum resistance that kept the gyro from rising higher.
In precession there is centrifuge, centripetal and momentum. Everything changes for you now and thinking will have to be reconnoitered.
If you would attempt to argue otherwise, but will not first do the test first and then relate your argument to the test, I will not argue with you. I’ve heard it all before, all the statements without understandable explanations for years. It would be for me like arguing to a fence post for all the good that would come of it. Do the test. Just do the test.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 02/02/2008 19:15:43
| | | Years of struggle and partial stagnation then the new secretes become suddenly revealing with ease and rapidly. Who would have guessed it.
(1.) During the quick and temporary acceleration into the precession plane there is no equal and opposite gyroscopic force at play within the precession plane.
How was this proven?
In repeating this experiment, before it is begun the suspension string should hang six to eight feet from ceiling toward the floor and the gyroscope, not the string, must be aliened vertical to the point where the string is attached to the ceiling. The string attached to the axel hub then will be off set at an angle. To understand why imagine that the string is made of a light weight solid piece of medal in the shape of an L, the top attached to a swivel in the ceiling and the bottom welded to one of the gyroscope’s axel hubs while both hubs are held in a horizontal position. Can we not see from this example that the greater weight would hang straight down from the swivel and the lighter weight metal L shape would be offset? When precessing the string and axel configures in the same L shaped alignment from the top attachment to the gyro’s hub held horizontally by precession the same as if it were held by a welded in an L shaped piece of metal. This is why the gyro’s center of gravity is begun directly under the string’s upper attachment to the ceiling and the string offset. Attention should be paid to the axel hubs and to which the string suspends and which it doesn’t. Release the spinning gyro.
During the leap into various precession speeds, if equal and opposite acceleration occurred in the precession plane the center of gravity of the gyro would begin pivoting from an equal and opposite coupling torque. This does not happen. There is no pivoting. Instead the gyro axel hub suspended in mid air with no visible support orbits in a wide outer circle, while the suspended axel hub held by the string immediately begins without a shudder and follows the circling none-supported hub, but in a smaller circle of its own.
We’re not finished. By however means one chouses create a flimsy paper arrow that is supported and extends from a wall, or whatever to touch the string supported hub as the wheel is held vertically and the axels horizontally. Now release the gyroscope to begin precessing away from the paper arrow. The supported hub touching the flimsy paper arrow will have no effect upon the arrow, but will do as described above circle away from the arrow. It never pivots backward even for an instant to shove against the paper arrow, as would be the case if an equal and opposite pivoting from an equal and opposite precession acceleration had occurred. I found not a smidgen of pivoting backwards into the paper proving there is no equal and opposite coupling during acceleration into the precession plane.
(2.) I have some evidence that in a situation wherein gravity isn’t a factor precession is allowed to orbit into a collision delivering the full force exerted from a mechanically applied force from a ninety degrease action.
(3.) I have some evidence that while under gravity all applied force will also register into a precession plane collision, minis the force of gravity.
Although I believe these last two are correct as well as the first I haven’t yet developed a good enough explanation to support statements (2.) and (3.) Stay tuned.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I am working on more tests some of them old tests, but they are being understood in greater depth and as I said quickly. Anybody would be surprised to know why things are going so fast. I know why, but I don’t feel knowing would make much difference to anything, or anybody except myself.
Glenn H.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 04/02/2008 20:05:39
| | | I have just finished reworking an old collision analyses that solves a dual three-dimensional rotating deflection process that I have been skeptical of in my findings for a long time up until now. If the rotating vectors remain correct as charted then all my machine designs will work, because all are tied to the same basic principals. But, I can never be comfortable with my findings, until I have built, because the analyses defy all three laws of motion. (All three laws are the same thing expressed differently.) What I am more certain of is that none of these conditions could work in nature to produce propulsion. One first considers that in the innumerable vastness of space if any such conditions could work nature would find a way somewhere somehow, but as I see it now only an intelligence, God, or man could make it happen. All the actions of these machines are controlled and forced both into and against the natural order of general mechanics. Motion is trapped to obey man. Nature would immediately free the combinations of motions and forces to work in the natural order of things. These machines would be a great exception to nature as they are confined under force and particularly an exception to the three stated laws of motion and certain other laws. Otherwise the laws will continue to be true in all ways in all places and physics will not be rewritten.
I see it clearly now, but this work I’ve just done is too complicated to explain without drawings. I guess I’m getting close to accepting that I can do no better theoretical work and get on with building. The complications are so difficult at this juncture there's no other way for me to know what is true.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 04/02/2008 22:32:01
| | | "(1.) During the quick and temporary acceleration into the precession plane there is no equal and opposite gyroscopic force at play within the precession plane."
I've actually been wondering about this myself. This is a somewhat of a problem with gyroscopic precession. Where does energy for precession come from? I don’t think the basic equations that cover precession take this the initial release into consideration. This might explain the difference between Laithwaite’s eureka experiment and what you get from simply observing a gyroscope precessing on a frictionless surface. From what I have read not even Lathwaite considered this completely. At least it’s not evident from his patent. However if you watch his experiment he clearly started measuring from a non precessive state. If (and this is a big if) his experiment is accurate, something is clearly happening here that is not covered by accepted physics. Of course the other (perhaps more likely) option is there is unaccounted for friction in his experiment. Yet this does seem like an area for further investigation.
It is easy to assume the energy comes from an initial drop when the gyroscope is released. However if this is the case where does this energy then go when the gyrocopter stops precessing? For instance say you have a theoretical frictionless track on one side of a precessing gyroscope of the exact height such that you could release the gyroscope and it would exactly come to rest on the track when it precesses to the other side without lifting it at all. So now there is no tilting force and our gyroscope has stopped precessing. However if we claim there was some energy input into the system from a slight initial drop then where did this energy go, Laithwaite’s mass transfer? I simply don’t know.
In any case I sent this basic question to a couple of ask physicist web sites last week. I of course removed any reference to gyroscopic propulsion and simply asked about the conservation of energy aspects of precession. I haven’t received any answers yet however according to email I have received one web site has forwarded it to at least three scientists. Hopefully I will have some answer in a week or two.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/02/2008 02:25:01
| | | During the quick and temporary acceleration into the precession plane there is no equal and opposite gyroscopic force at play within the precession plane.
”I've actually been wondering about this myself.”
I remember you wondering in an old post I resurrected last year, because I knew your question was important. However your questions have now been answered with explanations and proof several times. Did I not explain well enough? Did you disagree? Pacifically with what and why and how do you disagree? Why are you unsure of what I've said? Please describe. I can try harder to make myself understood... and surely believed?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 06/02/2008 23:39:51
| | | I had two more questions. They were many years old. Today I solved the last two. I have nothing more that I know of to learn about a gyroscope. It’s been an incredible, often awful trip for about twenty years. There’s no need to explain the last two questions and solutions. You don’t even understand what I’ve already explained. I’m finished.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 07/02/2008 10:23:20
| | | Good Day Glenn,
"I have nothing more that I know of to learn about a gyroscope."
That is to say you know EVERYTHING about gyroscope behavior? Really?
Congratulation! ;-)
Regards
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 07/02/2008 15:05:48
| | | Dear Harry K.,
It is kind of you to reply. Thank you. My guess is that you don’t quite believe me. I completely understand. Perhaps the last publication of an extensive study of the gyroscope was done around 1945 after it had been realized that a better guidance system was need for airplane pilots in bad weather. We can be certain German engineers did the same studies. In this publication I dug up from the library of the prestigious MIT institute I found that our government had censored all the information I wanted. The book was filled with blacken pages. The only thing I got from it was that a combination of about twenty partisans listed in the book had agreed on this one mind-boggling statement from their studies, which was this. ‘If all there was to know about a gyroscope were written down it would fill a great library.’ So if you question me I smile and think yes, Harry K. is pretty smart just as I learned the first time I read him. My findings were different however. I found that there was not nearly so much to know, only a relatively small amount of mechanical understanding really. The most difficult for me was not finding the evidence of uncertainties, but discovering mechanical ways to test them. There might be something else to know that I don’t know exist, but for the best of me I can’t realize any. If I used drawings I might be able to explain in only a few chapters.
I was very pleased to hear from you. I take this opportunity to apologize. Maybe you will excuse me, please?
Sincerely,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 07/02/2008 17:45:23
| | | Dear Glenn,
"I take this opportunity to apologize. Maybe you will excuse me, please?"
Yes of course, if you accept my apology as well. I think we both were a little bit childish in some matters, therefore we should forget the bad blood. At the end we both have the same target in trying to explain gyro behavior. ;-)
I fiind the remarks from Ram Firestone are very interesting because they outline some issues which are difficult to understand.
"(1.) During the quick and temporary acceleration into the precession plane there is no equal and opposite gyroscopic force at play within the precession plane."
No, I think that's not true. Because of gyro's mass inertia the gyro axis cannot deflect at once into precession movement. There is the need of energy to accelerate the gyro into precession movement. Therefore the axis of the gyro will move a little bit into tilting direction of the applied tilting force until the precession velocity has been achieved and all acting forces are in balance.
This energy is conservated in the precessing gyro system and will act back after precession has stopped by removing the tilting torque. That means the axis will arise in counter direction to the formerly applied tilting torque back to the origin position, however, assumed that there is no friction loss at all.
The level of this stored energy depends on mass inertia of the gyro and its angular velocity of pression:
- the higher the mass inertia, the higher the necessary energy,
- the higher the angular velocity of precession, the higher the necessary energy.
The above stated refers only to gyros that precess around its rotating center of mass. You have take into account that there is more energy necessary for an overhung supported gyro system because of additional dead weight mass of the gyro system.
Do you, Ram or any other contributor agree with the stated? Or are my explanations bad understandable (shame on me!)? If you can agree we are a big step forward!
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 07/02/2008 17:45:50
| | | Dear Glenn,
"I take this opportunity to apologize. Maybe you will excuse me, please?"
Yes of course, if you accept my apology as well. I think we both were a little bit childish in some matters, therefore we should forget the bad blood. At the end we both have the same target in trying to explain gyro behavior. ;-)
I fiind the remarks from Ram Firestone are very interesting because they outline some issues which are difficult to understand.
"(1.) During the quick and temporary acceleration into the precession plane there is no equal and opposite gyroscopic force at play within the precession plane."
No, I think that's not true. Because of gyro's mass inertia the gyro axis cannot deflect at once into precession movement. There is the need of energy to accelerate the gyro into precession movement. Therefore the axis of the gyro will move a little bit into tilting direction of the applied tilting force until the precession velocity has been achieved and all acting forces are in balance.
This energy is conservated in the precessing gyro system and will act back after precession has stopped by removing the tilting torque. That means the axis will arise in counter direction to the formerly applied tilting torque back to the origin position, however, assumed that there is no friction loss at all.
The level of this stored energy depends on mass inertia of the gyro and its angular velocity of pression:
- the higher the mass inertia, the higher the necessary energy,
- the higher the angular velocity of precession, the higher the necessary energy.
The above stated refers only to gyros that precess around its rotating center of mass. You have take into account that there is more energy necessary for an overhung supported gyro system because of additional dead weight mass of the gyro system.
Do you, Ram or any other contributor agree with the stated? Or are my explanations bad understandable (shame on me!)? If you can agree we are a big step forward!
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 07/02/2008 17:49:16
| | | Sorry for double posting but there was a server error message on this page!?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/02/2008 03:31:00
| | | Dear Harry K.,
Yes, thank you. We each now stand excused and of course you are right. I have been so involved in this intense subject that I reacted unkindly in ways I never would have in any other subject. What better word than childish?
Your English is fine and your descriptions are good. Aren’t they sometimes hard to do well and clearly in mechanics? They often are for me.
What if you are right? How do you visually prove it? What if you are wrong? How do you visually prove it? As I said, I never had a problem realizing uncertainties. My problem was finding mechanical ways to solve the uncertainties. Now you have a daunting challenge ahead of you in the quest I give you. I am keen on seeing how well you fair. Good luck and I mean it with finding mechanical ways that reveal proof the same as I have tried to provide.
I am redoing a few experiments on your behalf, because you question me. I’ll let you know if I change my mind.
Best Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 08/02/2008 05:08:35
| | | "Do you, Ram or any other contributor agree with the stated? Or are my explanations bad understandable (shame on me!)? If you can agree we are a big step forward!"
It might seem to be the case however there is still one thing that bugs me. Any attempt to make use of the supposed energy stored in precession (i.e. having the precession do work) causes the gyroscope to drop further. Therefore we have just converted more potential energy (i.e. they gyroscope's center of mass is lowered). So did the precession really store any energy at all or did all the energy we used come from the said potential energy conversion? Let's assume its all potential energy. Is there still energy stored in precession? Let's assume there isn't for a second. Now have a situation where we have apparently crated angular momentum with no input of energy. I can't think of any other situation where this happens. If we assume the other way, then we have angular momentum where we can't retrieve any energy. Again this doesn't seem to make sense.
On more thing; horse sense would seem to imply that a gyroscope must drop some upon release simply because it cannot withstand and infinite amount of force. If it drops that means potential energy is converted. If it is converted and it can't be retrieved then where did it go? This is why I want to reexamine Lintwhite's ideas in the context of the initial release not steady state precession.
" I remember you wondering in an old post I resurrected last year"
Not quite Glenn. If I recall, before I was just considering simple precession and not the release.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/02/2008 16:45:10
| | | Excuse me Ram. You are right. I stand corrected.
What was on my mind was two things, one an experiment we discussed and two you said somewhere relating to the experiment as best as I can remember quote, unquote, ‘I should get off my lazy axx and do the experiment.’ Well, please be kinder to yourself than that.
I actually did this experiment in a way I thought quite perfect. It proved nothing and aggregated me very much. I will explain. I wired the rims of two gyroscopes together in such a way that they were free to hinge in unison. I brought the axels of the two nearly together and tied them with a string. Next I wrapped a rubber band around the two most separated axels. Together so aliened they looked a little bit like an open clamshell. Next I lifted the gyroscopes held by a short string balance correctly to an upper doorframe in a way that they hung one over the other, up and down and held them at a pre-determined spot on an upper doorframe. I released the pair at the same time I cut the string holding the axels together. As it turned out (I hadn’t expected it) the cut and release timing is easy to do at the same time. From the predetermined spot on the top doorframe the gyros fell to a spot on a pillow that had been marked with a predetermined spot vertically aligned up to the doorframe spot. As you no doubt understand the spinning planes of the two gyros were in opposite rotation and were tilted together as they began in freefall and then began tilting away from one another by the taunt rubber band pulling each axel together equally during the continuing freefall. I had expected them to land on the pillow with their combined center of gravity removed from the vertically aliened spot (a bit of tape), but this didn’t happen. The wire hinge perfectly separating the two gyroscopes landed precisely on the vertical spot. For reasons of my own, which I don’t intend to belabor this description with further, I conclude that experiment proved nothing.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/02/2008 16:50:52
| | | What a minefield—what a bloody, bloody minefield.
It is amassing that we have accomplished so little that can be agreed upon. Looking through these posts I often see brilliance particularly as in an example go to page 4 of 20, ‘Some more thoughts about the heretic video’. There you will fine instances of brilliance from Momentus, Ram, Sandy Kid, Glenn Turner, Nitro and perhaps myself. Not included in that post, but in others, Harry K., Luis Gonzalez, surely Arthur Dent though some don’t love him as much as I and certainly the short involvement of Eric James, also Dave Brown and Victor Green. There are others who deserve to be listed by their exceptional contributions I have read, but whose names I don’t remember. Yes-- I tell you truly there are many moments of brilliance here from component men who’ve spent years studying the subject. We have proceeded to combine compromises totaling almost zilch. The most agreements we’ve come to, ‘we agree we’re not sure’. The subject of ‘why’ and ‘how’ has too proven impossibly difficult most of the time and has so many side issues of uncertainties we at our very best, sometimes brilliant can agree on little and more often nothing. Take notice that this has been going on for over twenty years.
I feel sad about it for all of us. In conclusion I think that stating and explaining the theoretical is find to do, but is not getting us where we want to be. Mathematics and current physics primarily work against us. What does that leave us? It leaves us with the first post I ever did on this site, which was that mechanical tests that prove one thing, or another work for us. Concerning that, I have only one bone to pick. Testing isn’t done very much and isn’t explained so it can be repeated, or improved on. Almost every test I’ve done and tried to explain has been ignored. But, I think I am absolutely correct from the first time I posted—testing and explaining is the only way to progress. Certainly theoretical brilliance from a combined group is proven not to provide more answers than we have.
My suggestion is we should temporarily postpone too much work in theory and put part of our good minds and individual experience into a mutual gold of trying to reason good mechanical tests that may provide expectable proofs for us. We can try? Nothing else has worked. Somebody start if off.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/02/2008 18:14:27
| | | Excuse me I’ll post a theoretical example of sorts.
Look to the axel hubs. They will tell you what the wheel is doing. One tends to fall the other does not. It is supported. This is not an even happening. Why would we expect the cause of unequal vertical twisting not to register the same unequal effect horizontally in the acceleration of mass? Hence because one axel only is suddenly accelerated vertically, should not one axel only be accelerated horizontally in a response, while the other is not? Think of an unbalanced seesaw in a schoolyard more weighted on one end. We don’t really expect an unbalance beginning to cause a balanced ending do we?
So we are back again needing proof, you see, needing an observable test as described above?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Samuel Clemens - 08/02/2008 19:06:12
| | | "I have nothing more that I know of to learn about a gyroscope"
Quite vain arn't we sunny. just remember no matter how much you know you will NEVER know the whole truth. expiriments that prove nothing prove something in themselve and maybe they only prove nothing under certain conditions. you say you studied for twenty years I say I studied for sixty and I still find new things out every day. I was especially taken aback by Link S's theory of gravity imagine all the possibilities that open up with such insight. Thank you link. But remeber that knowledge is infinite and you cannot learn it all in a single lifetime.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Link S. - 08/02/2008 19:12:32
| | | Thank you samuel but I must confess that Idea was not all my own. My Father, Grandfather and I are all scientists and we develop these ideas together. my Father works on computer simulations sometimes so it is easy to get the idea. and though I thank you for the complement and agree that one can't know everything in this lifetime, I suggest that you keep the sarcasm down to a minimum it is an old proverb that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinigar. Glenn you have provided some valueable insights into the gyroscope that my father and I enjoy tinkering with so please don't be discouraged.
Sincerely,
Link S.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/02/2008 20:54:49
| | | Aw go jump in the lake you hateful old thing. I am finished saying unprovoked, unkind, unnecessary things like you just did. I’ve done it. I’m ashamed. No more for me. You reasoned nothing of any consequences. I have no time for you. Send your un-capitalized messages to somebody else.
How very kind of you Link S. I am fascinated that three generation are working in the same vane together. I longed for that as this has been a lonesome road, but my children were interested in many things, but not at all in my studies that they did not even try to understand. Too bad, one had unnatural mathematical skills. He knew the answers to complex equation at the same time the saw the question. He was a molecular biologist/chemist. He wouldn't tell anybody how he did it, except when I asked he told his father "Dad I don’t know how I do it. " I sure could have used his help. Excuse me for rambling. What is your name, Link S.?
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/02/2008 23:37:50
| | | My dear recently resurrected friend Harry K., hello,
(1.) During the quick and temporary acceleration into the precession plane there is no equal and opposite gyroscopic force at play within the precession plane.
You said: ”No, I think that's not true.”
Understood, but I think it is true.
You said: “Because of gyro's mass inertia the gyro axis cannot deflect at once into precession movement.”
I agree.
You said: …the axis of the gyro will move a little bit into tilting direction of the applied tilting force until the precession velocity has been achieved and all acting forces are in balance.
I agree.
You said: ”This energy is conserved in the precessing gyro system…”
This is an interesting idea to think about and so I hesitate to challenge it, but this is my take on what is happening. What will be your opinion of the following I wonder?
The energy in question is generated during the first part of a four-part nutation tendency I have explained. The result is that energy from the drop into gravity is quickly and fully released back into the system. This is how. The initial free fall monetarily increases power causing a suddenly strong accelerated force that tilts against the plane of angular momentum. As you know angular momentum’s resistance is built from multiplied inertial qualities reliant to rotation speed. The greater force, the quicker force, the accelerating force of the drop causes a reaction, which is an increased resistance in the plane of angular momentum. This is the same inertial resistance principle inherent to all masses under acceleration. The greater is the acceleration the greater the resistance.
The acceleration of the drop downward is suddenly stopped, because the torque upwards on the gyro is suddenly stronger from your conserved energy. (How smart of you) The gyro is virtually jerked from a downward accelerating drop, but in so doing all the extra energy is used and the result is Walla! Precession has been accelerated. It seems there would be nothing left of the ‘conserved energy’ to cause a future reaction.
All the other things you said as I remember I agree with.
My wife just came in with a six-pack of none-alcoholic St. Pauli Girl for me. Can you believe it? What is to become of me? It’s the first beer I’ve tasted in eight months. It taste great, but there’s no kick. My Lord I’m limited to a fake drunk tonight. Who would believe such a person who would do such a hopelessly outrageous thing? Harry?
I am very interested in what you think, because I respect your mind very much. I still owe Ram a good reply. Wish me luck.
My Best Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 09/02/2008 14:17:25
| | | Hello Ram,
Thank you for your answer! At the content of your answer I can see my inability to state accurate descriptions. And I think Glenn has misunderstood my statements as well. Please excuse me, that was my fault!
Though I try to make another attempt.
ENERGY STORED IN PRECESSION
This energy is only needed to accelerate the rotating mass from 0 to precession velocity. The reason for that energy is the fact that a mass will remain in its actually state of movement. As you know this behavior is called "mass inertia". However, this energy is in comparison to the applied potential energy for the tilting torque very small. And this energy can easy calculated by the given mass inertia and its precession velocity.
The necessary acceleration from 0 to precession velocity causes the the gyro axis to drop into tilting direction, because the gyro was not able to reach IMMEDIATELY the required precession velocity. As soon as the required precession velocity is achieved by the gyro system, the axis will stop droping into tilting direction.
Now, if the tilting torque will be removed, the (little) stored energy in precession movement will accelerate the gyro system for a short period and this will cause the axis to arise in counter direction to the formerly applied tilting torque. This behavior will stop until the stored energy is converted back into the basic potential energy.
Anyway, the above stated is only therory and difficult to observe in reality. The problem for observation is the fact that there is friction working in the whole gyro system. This friction can be understood as a counter torque to the precession movement and this counter torque causes also the gyro axis to drop into tilting torque. And unfortunately relevant friction is present twice in the gyro system, in tilting direction and in 90 deg. deflected precession direction! Therefore oberservations to prove this stated behavior is very complex and difficult for us "amateurs". ;-)
However, in my opinion the stated gyro behavior is logic traceable and conform with respective physic laws.
I hope my thoughts are more clearer now?
@Glenn
I will give you my answer later.
@Link S.
Where can I find something about your theory of gravity? I didn't find anything in the forum? Thanks!
Regards
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 09/02/2008 15:11:03
| | | Hi Ram,
”… horse sense would seem to imply that a gyroscope must drop some upon release simply because it cannot withstand and infinite amount of force. If it drops that means potential energy is converted. If it is converted and it can't be retrieved then where did it go?”
I see you have missed a couple of explanations that could not otherwise be ignored by someone such as yourself? I wondered for years before the solution came along. Here it is.
What happens when you push precession faster with a penile? It rises! It rises every time!
Why is that? It is because the plane of angular momentum is being twisted around a center point, which causes a 90 degrees reaction upwards by leveraging downward on the supported center point, keeping the gyroscope in a balanced holding pattern... but with the pencil you just gave precession extra speed and so it rose above its balanced plane.
Doesn’t that make sense? How can we argue against it?
“If it drops that means potential energy is converted. If it is converted and it can't be retrieved then where did it go?”
Your potential energy goes into accelerating precession. It’s used up immediately after the drop. Then the lesser, constantly occurring energy from gravity goes into tilting, from tilting into precession then out from precession to upward support the gyro in a circular holding pattern. The chain reaction ultimately provides lift, while gravity continues to force downward. The work of gravity is separated into two forces, deflected gravity force upward and pure gravity downward. In this way they constantly counsel out the effect of one another by pushing against one another. That is where your momentum goes. It is converted to lift and sort of used up.
If this is not clear I will redo the full detailed procedure previous posted. My hope is that once you fully understand you will be freed from the confusion I once suffered—far so long—for so long.
Be sure to let me know something for I value your obvious reasoning gifts.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 09/02/2008 15:59:02
| | | Harry, how very good. Brilliant. I was a bit startled by how good it is. Here, we are in ninety-nine percent agreement.
Comparing the energy in drop to that necessary to accelerate mass got me quickly. Doesn’t that depend on how quickly mass is accelerated? Among other things don’t we need to know the milliseconds from zero to full speed? I have dabbled into this. It is incredibly fast, but I used estimations. I’m more interested in your mathematical model. I would trust it more.
I would only reply to your sentence, “… the stored energy is converted back into the basic potential energy.” I think there is no stored energy after acceleration; but that it continues as free-flow and that the potential energy is used up after precession speed is reached. Sometimes it seems that nothing is stored, momentum for instant as Ram mentioned.
I wonder if you know how close we are in your post? I learned something today, to question the amount of energy produced in drop and the amount needed to accelerate mass horizontally. Congratulations are in order. That is actually exciting to contemplate when you had never before thought of it. Try not to belittle the idea with humility. It’s better than that.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 10/02/2008 01:08:57
| | | Dear Glenn,
Thank you for your kind words but now it's enough. :-)
Here some notes to your statements:
"Doesn’t that depend on how quickly mass is accelerated?"
No I don't think so. Only the necessary kinetic energy is relevant for accelrating the gyro up to precession velocity. This (little) part of kinetic energy will cause an accordant drop of the gyro axis in tilting direction. How quickly the axis will drop depends on the applied force (better: torque) but this have no influence of the value of drop, however assumed there is a comparable precession velocity for all case scenarios.
"It is incredibly fast, but I used estimations. I’m more interested in your mathematical model."
As explained before, the "drop time" isn't relevant for calculating the drop value. For calculating the drop value, I would first calculate how much energy is necessary to accelerate the gyro to precession velocity. This value of kinetic energy must be equal to the value of the necessary potential energy to drop the axis in tilting direction. The drop value can be calculated with the known values of tilting torque and torque radius and mass inertia in precession or tilting plane (please note that mass inertia in precession or tilting plane is half of the mass inertia in gyro rotation plane).
"I would only reply to your sentence, “… the stored energy is converted back into the basic potential energy.” I think there is no stored energy after acceleration; but that it continues as free-flow and that the potential energy is used up after precession speed is reached. Sometimes it seems that nothing is stored, momentum for instant as Ram mentioned."
You agree that potential energy is necessary to accelerate the gyro up to precession velocity. That means that potential energy will be transferred into kinetic energy. This physical behavior is reversible and will be performed when the tilting torque is removed. The before transferred kinetic energy will cause a torque in precession direction (which has already stopped after removing the tilting torque!). This torque applied in the precession plane will be deflected about 90 deg. in the tilting plane and will cause the gyro axis rise in counter direction of the before apllied tiltuing torque.
I know that you understand what I mean because you have explained this correct gyro behavior to Ram two post before. ;-)
I know we are now much closer in our minds than ever before. Maybe there were some misunderstandings in this difficult stuff caused by language barriers.
Maybe you know that I don't believe to achieve a gyro propulsion device, neither with thrust nor with "space inch worm" because symetric arranged gyros will ever nullify created torques or foces.
I'm personally interested to create or better transform kinetic energy from a gyro system. In this context kinetic energy for acceleration into precession as well as friction in the whole gyro system are counterproductive and must be compensated in some way.
And I know that the tilting torque will be deflected into precession plane and therefore it's possible to use this precession momentum calculated by torque and precession velocity. However, if this kinetic energy is used, the axis will drop until the tilting torque is gone. But for this circumstance I have developed a possible solution. ;-)
But there are still many other problems which have to be solved...
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 10/02/2008 17:38:23
| | | Dear Harry,
Your methodology is the languish of the engineer and while I admire that as the best for obvious reasons it is sometimes difficult for non-engineers to follow. I do not think our different native bearings have anything to do with it. You write in English well enough. I’ll cut to the chase.
The amount of inertial resistance is equal to the applied force against it. Newton’s third law. The force of body 1 on body 2 is equal to and opposite the force of body 2 on body 1.
The reason for the drop is confusing to me. In gimbals examples there is no hesitation when an outside force is applied, as action and reaction are simultaneous. We can understand why. Not knowing why assuming some of us don't, the over-hung gyro doesn’t get in our way. It’s enough to know there is a drop and hesitation before the thing reacts by accelerating into precession. What I’m looking for is an explanation of how the full force of the drop is spent totally in the acceleration. You do not believe this because the inertial quality (p) in the gyro is too little to absorb a greater amount of drop momentum and so the remaining force must be conserved. I think that is very smart, but I don’t agree. I don’t see how, why and where it could be held in reserve, nor why and how it could be given back when precession ceases.
(Does this change anything? Consider the drop is less than the necked eye perceives, because the length on motion seen is aliened about forty-five degrees and not stright down into gravity, which is measurably a lesser distance than perceived? Aw, never mind, Harry. It doesn’t do enough for me either.)
Consider these more common examples please, all the following things have the same paired weight: a dragster and a family auto, a modern jet and an old jet, a powerful gun and a gun at half load. We know which in pairs are faster and which reaches a predetermined distance in less time. The examples show more power is necessary to overcome inertia faster. Relating this to the gyro let us consider milliseconds after the drop a suddenly appearing, built-up, fast acting force collides into the many times increased inertial quantity consistent with angular momentum. The way I see it, the faster angular momentum is forced to yield the greater its resistance increases, until all the drop-generated force is absorbed. I don't think there should be any force remaining from the initial drop.
Here it is in a nutshell. The inertial quantity in a none-rotating gyroscope to be slowly accelerated over ice such as is a hockey puck is exceedingly tiny as you so much as stated. However if the hockey stick could hit hard enough into the puck the stick would break. That would be a case of time and distance where the applied force was so great that it amplified the inertial resistance in the puck to the extent that the puck pushed backwards equally into the applied force. Now consider my main point of view. The resistant potential against tilting in a spinning disk from a stationary position can be much more than one-hundred times greater than the resistance existing in a none spinning still mass. I am restate the question.
"Doesn’t that depend on how quickly mass is accelerated?"
Momentus, calmed the acceleration was incredibly, incredibly fast and beginning and ending in an incredibly short length. I only claim it is incredibility fast, beginning and ending in an exceedingly short length. In either case he and I know it is soooo--fast! And so and again, I believe there should be enough resistance to absorb the force plied against it.
Excuse the long-windedness of my examples. This is enough for now. More on the inchworm later.
Thank you for taxing my mind.
Best Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 11/02/2008 16:46:39
| | | THE STARKEST QUESTION OF ALL
As to whether mass displacement and propulsion are real and possible it doesn’t matter if there is equal and opposite torque in the precession plane while accelerating. I estimate the length of acceleration in my toy at about ¼” or, 6mm. Geometric calculations show that is 1:527 of a complete precession rotation for a Taco, or 1: 264 of a half rotation. Therefore even if there were equal and opposite acceleration time and distance in the plane it could not interfere significantly worth consideration. It would be too quick and short to matter.
What matters is whether there is friction at the pedestal/string during constant precession. Our good German engineer, hi Harry, believes there is. I believe there isn’t. Neither point of view has been proven. His arguments are strong. My countering tests presented above in this thread are also strong favoring my position, but not enough to prove beyond doubt. A number of things not known or considered could be happening during tests. I don’t need to remind anyone here the gyro is a mighty strange animal. Well, in oddly formed tests with a number of oddly formed gyros if you really put them through their paces they sometimes act alive. They will do as they will do. Most of the times you cannot even make even one obey enough to do proper testing.
It seems that the most important thing, really perhaps the only important thing is whether there is constant friction against the pivoting axel. I’m going to concentrate on trying to prove, or disprove this for a little while longer. I expect I will not be successful to this end for I never have been. I suspect already I have everything correct, but if I can’t find undeniable proof soon it’ll be time to build. I sure hope I can get that done. Like each of you I will be alone.
Anything you have on your end will be helpful, Harry ;-).
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 11/02/2008 19:51:35
| | | Dear Glenn,
You reply very quickly and I have difficulties in answering your posts in time. ;-)
During the day I have to work and cannot spend much time here in the forum.
Thus please let me give an aswer to your previous post.
Please appologise that I stay so long with this pretended small detail of acceleration into precession movement but I think this is very important for better understanding the gyro behavior at all.
Why are you confused by the reason for drop? You qouted Newton's third law, which is certainly correct in this matter, but I want also refer to Newton's first law (found in Wikipedia):
"A physical body will remain at rest, or continue to move at a constant velocity, unless an unbalanced net force acts upon it."
This law is also valid for accelrating a gyro to a given precession velocity. In reality a precessing gyro has only one movement: an at the same time rotating and tilting mass.
The qyro system has defined degrees of freedom and therefore it seems for an observer that there are 2 different movements, the rotation of the spinning mass and the precession movement. That's all to say about "significance of observations"! :-)
As mentioned before according to Newton's first law additional energy is necessary to accelrate the gyro mass into precession. We could also state that the spinning mass must be extra accelrated to reach its precession velocity.
And according to Newton's first law the precessing gyro must be decelerated if precession was stopped (e.g. by removing tilting torque), i.e. the precessing gyro wants to continue to move at a constant velocity and therefore it must be decelerated. Thus the kinetic energy will be transferred back and causes the axis of the gyro to arise. Can you agree or are you still confused?
I will give you an example which may be helping a little bit:
There are two identical gyros, i.e. both have same mass, same geometry, same tilting torque, same friction losses, etc.
There is only one difference;
- the spinning mass of the first gyro rotates at very high speed,
- the spinning mass of the second gyro rotates at very slow speed.
And as stated the tilting torque for both gyros is exactly the same. What will happen?
- The fast spinning gyro will precess at low speed. The energy to reach precession velocity is very small.
- The slow spinning gyro must precess at very high speed to reach precession velocity. Because of the high precession velocity, a relative high energy is needed as well to achieve precession. If the relation of tilting torque and spinning mass will be to high, precession velocity may not be achieved because the drop of the axis will be faster than the deflection into precession movement. In thsi case the necessary precession energy would be beyond the possible acceleration energy given by the tilting torque.
That's the reason why gyros become very unstable at less spinning speed!
I have uploaded a velocity / time diagram for better understanding. On this sheet you can see that acceleration takes longer for higher precession velocities, Here is the link:
http://www.misc.video.keipert.net/gyro/v_t_diagram.pdf
But again, the necessary energy to reach precession velocity can be seen as a kind of delay, nothing more. The higher the precession velocity, the higher the delay.
I will answer your last post later or tomorrow. Now I have to go to our "horse market" (a festival in my town) and drink some or more beers. ;-)
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 12/02/2008 07:46:01
| | | "This physical behavior is reversible and will be performed when the tilting torque is removed. The before transferred kinetic energy will cause a torque in precession direction (which has already stopped after removing the tilting torque!). This torque applied in the precession plane will be deflected about 90 deg. in the tilting plane and will cause the gyro axis rise in counter direction of the before apllied tiltuing torque."
That may be the case but this hasn't been proven to me yet. First all you can't remove gravity as a tilting force. The only thing you can do is compensate for it. As I stated earlier suppose the gyroscope precessed around and came to rest on some object the exact height needed to support it no more no less. You can surmise the tilting force has been removed but the instant the gyroscope climbs the tilting force is restored. So what exactly happens here?
Secondly unlike a flywheel there is no obvious way to tap the energy supposedly dumped into precession without adding even more potential energy into the system. In other words the second a processing gyroscope encounters resistance it will drop even further. But why is this the case if it has kinetic energy already?
I might be willing to accept that precession does indeed store energy. In fact it makes more sense as far as accepted physics goes. But on the other hand the above phenomenons are confusing to me if this is really true. Do you have an explanation?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 12/02/2008 11:46:27
| | |
Dear Harry,
I don’t mind if you don’t answerer for a few days. It’s ok. Be comfortable please. I will only pose one question in reply.
You use the term-unbalanced force, because of the resistance encountered when tilting angular momentum. This means you have divided incoming force: one part to overcome resistance and one part to accelerate deflection.
Question. Because resistance increases in response to the first of the more powerful build-up force arriving, then continues resisting at lowering rates as the value of the incoming force diminishes against this never ending potential to resists, how could any of the limited and diminishing force escape such a relentless resistance, one so potentially constant as angular momentum to tilting?
I don’t see any initial force left to store. The condition is like force compressing a spring in reverse, in that the resistance to compression would grow weaker in relation to the weakening force against it, rather than stronger the further it is compressed. Ether way the force is consumed.
After acceleration an inadequate force continues that of mire gravity uncelebrated, which is all there is left to affect the gyro during a collision in the precession plane and which is being generated millisecond to millisecond, which explains the near lack of a any colliding force. It almost ends before it begins, but there is a little. Put a folded sheet of paper in front of precession and see what happens. But guess what! Here’s something else. As you pushed precession faster with a pencil to raise the gyro, the collision is like using the pencil to slow precession, which causes a torque downward, not upward. The downward spiraling fall into gravity is assisted for an instant by this torque.
I will never be able to revisit Germany, but hearing about you in a horse party makes me smile. I wish I could help you put away a few brews with all the sounds and colors and gaiety. Ah, carnival, carnival, and to be young again.
Best regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Samuel Clemens - 12/02/2008 18:54:38
| | | Uncpitalized is that the best you can come up with after you misspell two out of three words in all your posts. please I was merely stating that such an outlook is detrimental to progress and if you want to make any progress whatsoever you would keep an open mind. Link I know what I am sying and it would be helpful for you to get this man out of his nonsense world and continue research for the advancement of the gyroscope.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Link S. - 12/02/2008 19:03:14
| | | You seem to have very little respect for those around you wh have different ideas so I suggest that if you wish to complain you open your own post and do so but stop messing around in this one. Glenn I am sorry it seems like I get on and this nut has just left. I do not reveal my name online for security purposes but I can tell you the name of a close associate Dr. Gary Samuelson Sr. Look him up he is quite a renown physicist and he knows what he's talking about. I too know the fact that one's children are not always interested in their fathers work. My father is a genious yet he works long hours for little pay when he could influence the world with the ideas we come up with. I unfortunately can't motivate him because he is still raising kids but I am taking things up into my own hands now and plan to bring our research to light. I do hope you'll forgive me I know this may not be what you are looking for.
Link S.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 12/02/2008 19:43:09
| | | Dear Ram,
Thank you for your comments which highlight again my inabilty to present good explanations. I feel sorry for that.
When you read my comments you have a toy gyro in mind, i.e. a horizontal spinning mass placed with one half axle on the ground, correct? In this case the tilting torque increases from 0 to maximum during the gyro axis is tilting untill the gyro reaches the ground and stops spinning (there are many similar movies here to find on this web page).
Therefore you are of course right that there is no possibility to remove the tilting torque given by gravity and thus an observation of a transferred kinetic energy back to potential energy is understandably impossible.
However, I have in mind a gyro system more similar as showed here:
http://www.gyroscopes.org/showfull.asp?imagename=10.jpg
(Please copy and paste the url-link in your browser)
This picture shows an overhung gyro, however I'm talking about a gyro supported in its center of spinning mass, but unfortunately I didn't find an adequate picture. Anyway, the behavior will be the same.
In such a gyro system you can apply a tilting torque, change or remove it just as you like.
Regarding your second comment:
Please bear in mind that the value of kinetic stored energy is very small compared to the applied tilting torque. The stored kinetic energy is only necessary to accelerate the gyro to precession velocity. Normally the precession velocity is very small compared to the spinning velocity of a gyro and therefore the necessary kinetic energy will be small as well.
You should understand this transferred and retransferred potential / kinetic energy more like a time delay, as stated in my previous post. Precession does only store a smalll part of kinetic energy which was necessary for accelrating the gyro to precession velocity. Because energy cannot be blasted in our physical world, it must be retransferred if precession will be stopped for any reason.
I hope your confusion is disappeared now!?
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 12/02/2008 19:52:59
| | | Dear Glenn,
Please ignore Samuel Clemens comments because it would be wasted time. Non-observance is the best answer for this kind of people! ;-)
Later more.
Best regards,
Harry K.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 12/02/2008 20:43:11
| | | Dear Glenn,
"You use the term-unbalanced force, because of the resistance encountered when tilting angular momentum. This means you have divided incoming force: one part to overcome resistance and one part to accelerate deflection."
Yes, that's correct.
"Question. Because resistance increases in response to the first of the more powerful build-up force arriving, then continues resisting at lowering rates as the value of the incoming force diminishes against this never ending potential to resists, how could any of the limited and diminishing force escape such a relentless resistance, one so potentially constant as angular momentum to tilting?"
I'm really not sure if I understood this difficult (for me!) comment correct? I'll try to give an answer:
I suppose you have doubts about the fact that the gyro axis will tilt because of that very small resistance for accelration into precession but it will not tilt because of the much higher applied tilting torque. Is this correct?
My answer is that the gyro axis will tilt whenever the gyro system is unbalanced. But an unbalanced gyro system is only possible in theory but not in reality.
If a tilting torque is applied to a spinning gyro, the spinning gyro must go immediately into the accordant precession velocity. However, this is not possible in reality because the gyro has to overcome its mass inertia and friction in the system. Mass inertia and friction prevent IMMEDIATELY accelration from 0 to nominal velocity and therefore the gyro system is unbalanced and must tilt the axis into tilting direction.
The energy to overcome mass inertia will be stored in precession in the form of kinetic energy.
But the energy to overcome friction in the system will be transferred into heat and therefore this energy is no more available for the gyro system.
Regardless how small energy of mass inertia for precession as well as friction in the system are, the result will ALWAYS cause in more or less time a counter torque to pecession and therefore the tilting of the gyro axis.
If you understand this behavior, you also understand why the axis will arise or drop if you increase or decrease precession velocity with a pencil. The gyro system tries always balancing all acting forces or better torques. It's like a three-dimensional (up-down-rotating) leverage. ;-)
Best regards,
Harry K.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 12/02/2008 23:16:57
| | |
A QUESTION AND REQUEST
Excuse me for adding another post too soon, but I have found a solution to the current question in discussion, also if I am correct a solution to the one and all-important question in the discussion of inertial propulsion. There are experiments to do, but before I involve myself in the time, trouble and expense of preparing for them I want to know if anybody can logically destroy my method and procedure before hand. Is your mind capable of defying these tests, or helping with them? I’d sure like to know before I engage in them. Would you, or would you not accept these tests as proof positive, or proof negative and why and why not? My energy particularly, and my time to a lesser degree, is especially important, more than the expense, which is not unimportant. Help me to know what you will accept.
I propose to cut a small hole in the center of a pane of glass, push a string through it and tie the string to a small peg; perhaps also a spot of glue would be in order. I’m going to elevate the glass onto a platform leaving the secured long string to hang down to where a gyroscope will be attached far below. Again I choose a common Tedco, preferred for this from my store of many kinds available.
Next I will select and buy a high-speed camera and then build another platform a few feet above the glass from which to secure the camera. The camera will be centered directly above the hole in the glass and look down plumed directly at the imaginary axes the gyroscope will processes around. At the absolute instant the gyro begins to precess the camera will be timed to take pictures and continue shooting frames for the next half-second.
Precession acceleration will be captured in slow frame motion from a procedure, as Nitro first suggested. In these pictures straight lines will be drawn from gyro axel to axel and continue still in the same straight line from the axels to the imaginary axes point plumed to perpendicular from the hole cut in the glass. What will this reveal?
The gyroscope upon beginning will pull the path of precession outward from the precession axes as well as push the gyro around the axes in an increasingly larger circle. If the lines drawn in the pictures are continually straight through both axels and beyond to passes through the axes of precession we may know there is no pivoting in the inside axel hub. If there is no pivoting there was never an equal and opposite torque due to precession acceleration. If the line is not straight to the axes in any frame… there was.
This test has already been done on the cheep using a paper arrow and explained earlier in this post. It got no response. Would actual pictures give you enough proof to accept there is no equal and opposite force during acceleration if that is what the lines indicate?
Thinking more about this as I write I already have an acceptable answer for myself. It satisfies me, but doesn’t satisfy others and because I really need proof whether there is, or is not constant friction at the supported axel hub sufficient to cause constant resistance from which a gyroscope attempting to pivot around it’s center of gravity could push against to cause precession. Does a tendency exist in the energized gyro to pivot around the center of its mass, but finds resistance to it's inter-axel from a rearward leaning string? Is the string tilted? If so it would seek to align itself perpendicular to gravity. If the position of the string is leaning opposite the circling direction the inter hub travels would that not be providing resistance from which a center pivoting gyroscope might push with it's arm to cause precession? Does the string lean a tiny bit off-center away from axel motion in such a way?
To find out the set-up must be rearranged. I must build a rotating platform and probably build a wide-angle leans periscope. The camera will set underneath the gyroscope and the attached periscope must be under the vertical alignment down from the hole in the glass and extend high enough to capture a good potion of the hanging string with gyroscope in frame.
It will be important to have reference points and so a number of objects must be sat in a circle around this contraption with leveled markings out from the periscope lens. One other solution might be a carpenter's leaser horizontally leveled set just below and out from the periscope and also mounted on the rotating platform. Now the trick is to try to manually rotate the platform at the speed of the precession. This does not need to be very much exact, but in some tries it no doubt will be. So what do you get with these pictures?
Remember all my jabber about horizontal markings out from the periscope lens? From these we can draw a leveled line from lens to the markings on outward objects. From the lines we can use a square to plumb perfectly vertical lines beside the hanging gyro string. If there is the least a bit of angle in the string that will mean it is providing resistance. So I come full circle to the most important question before hand. In your mind will these experiments to be documented with photographs prove anything to you? And do you have anything to say that might help me before hand?
P. S. I know mechanics are difficult to study. So far as I know in the last few years there are only two persons, Harry K. and Eric James, that I for sure can understand me mechanically. I feel certain there must be others. They don’t let me know. They don’t respond. Why don’t you write one sentence to let me know, or just ask for clarity to this or that if it’s needed?
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 12/02/2008 23:21:31
| | | Dear Lenth S.,
Are my concepts becoming any clearer as I continue? If I am still failing ask me any anything here, or privately on my email now, or anytime later. No hurry. Thank you for alerting me. I’m trying.
Kind Regards, Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 12/02/2008 23:24:15
| | | Dear Mark Twain, A tired old joke to you, huh?
Please for give me. No excuse sir. Sometimes opinions such as mine are like xxx xxxxx, in that everybody has got one. I can understand why people who know something about this subject don’t believe me. That’s perfectly ok. I condensed a great many actions to repeatable actions and condition and so no longer believe in the stated, “If all there was to know about a gyroscope were written down it would fill a great library.” But, you may be right. Please continue to speak your mind. I love that right---freedom of speech. I’ll soon be 65, in June. Hang in, Sam,
April Fool comes early. The above is what you could have had if you had not continued being hatful in off-subject postings in an otherwise beautiful, communal thread of purpose. I’m taking back the candy above to wait and see how you behave in the future.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 12/02/2008 23:26:19
| | | Dear Harry,
Your posts are interesting also difficult. I will reply later. Thank you.
Best Regards, Glenn
How was the party?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn H. - 13/02/2008 21:53:08
| | | Dear Harry,
I’ve carefully gone over this entire thread again and came to understand your theory. It’s only a theory, but a viable one that couldn’t be easily discounted. To see it my way requires a lot of twisting and mental calastentics, but if you are right you’re most likely the first in recorded history to discover and understand this phenomena. I think most of we here don’t believes there’s a hair’s breathe of friction compared to the relativity heavy force of gravity upon a 8oz gyroscope.-----But, like I said I understand you. I wonder whose gyroscope is wilder, yours or mine, probably both, a dead heat. (Meaning evenly dysfunctional).
I want to digest this more, we could say sleep on it a few days without thinking about it and then make sure I understand and can buy it all.
Yeah sure I understand precession is one directional. I refer to this as a descending spiral, but think of it mostly in two directions like most everybody I guess, that is directionally one forward motion and one downward. I find it is easier to reason that way.
I hope to have more to say later. As we keep saying, keep on, keeping on. whatever we mean by that?
Best Regards As Always,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 13/02/2008 22:34:09
| | | Dear Glenn,
Thank you for the flowers, however, I have to admit that this "theory" does not arise from my mind. When I wrote my first post to you in this forum, I was not aware about the necessity of transferring potential energy into kinetic energy to accelerate the gyro to precession velocity. I searched for deeper information about gyro physics in the web and found some pages of universities which describe more or less my stated "theory".
However, the relevant information on this web pages are spongy explained and therefore you have to add missing information by logical thinking and my statements here in this thread is the result of my new knowledge and logic.
I admit it's difficult to prove this theory but maybe one of us will find a useful test setup.
It's a good idea to sleep a few days over it.
The party was fine! It was a sunny but cold day. Maybe you will come one day back to Germany? It's a small world and It's getting smaller every day! ;-)
Best regards,
Harry K.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Samuel Clemens - 15/02/2008 18:59:31
| | | I do not want any "Candy" from the likes of you but I will say that some of your posts have proven quite useful. make sure you know the whole truth. never the twain shall meet. goodbye.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 15/02/2008 22:48:27
| | | Hi Samuel,
I would be appreciated if you and others may contribute your knowledge and experiences in gyroscope behavior? This issue should not only be discussed between Glenn and me. ;-)
Hence welcome to the group! :-)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/02/2008 01:30:30
| | | Dear Samuel,
You win the beginning by shear frontal audacity and pointlessness and you win the ending too by my acquiescence, as I am unable to withstand the merriment any longer. I have imagined you and enjoyed the image very much. I yield, I yield. Samuel, now please don’t disappoint me by saying something intelligent, but if you do in deed have knowledge and experience as Harry insist then do by all means let the car out of the beg and please let’s have some of it.
Such as--I bid you a kindly a due,
Glenn
Vaya Con Vaya,-----------
Translation: Spanish origin, ‘Go With God.’
We could become Internet friends. It's not imposable.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/02/2008 01:31:19
| | | Dear Samuel,
You win the beginning by shear frontal audacity and pointlessness and you win the ending too by my acquiescence, as I am unable to withstand the merriment any longer. I have imagined you and enjoyed the image very much. I yield, I yield. Samuel, now please don’t disappoint me by saying something intelligent, but if you do in deed have knowledge and experience as Harry insist then do by all means let the car out of the beg and please let’s have some of it.
Such as--I bid you a kindly a due,
Glenn
Vaya Con Vaya,-----------
Translation: Spanish origin, ‘Go With God.’
We could become Internet friends. It's not imposable.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/02/2008 03:26:17
| | | Hello,
I have found a ‘perhaps’ suitable solution to solving the two primary guestions. I’m sure this thread is being followed, simply because the two questions are the same two most important we so enthused, inquisitive and logically minded people have in common and who have fallen into what,’ Sandy Kidd’. kindly warned against, ‘an obsession’. It is obvious anyone interested in this quagmire this far into this tread has already encountering in their own studies these two questions.
Question One: Is there equal and opposite reactions occurring in the precession plane during acceleration? Question Two: Is constant velocity precession caused by what maybe a gyro’s natural proclivity to pivot around its center on mass even as it is tilting, but cannot pivot there because one of its axes must push against an exceedingly small amount of friction resistance created at the pedestal/string and so is forced to precess?
Nobody knows, not even our good Harry K., who at first meeting believed against all, or all most there was sufficient friction constant at the pedestal/string area to explain away our chances for propulsion and set our minds all in a tipsy tizzy of silent counter attacks. It would all be funny if it weren’t so absorb, serious and ridicules. Well…it’s ashamedly a bit funny. Now Harry has a new theory aided by some university papers he found. This has become increasingly serious, because we may be closing in on our gold, to prove there is, or prove there isn’t a chance to achieve inertial propulsion, or for some to achieve a lesser gold, which is to understand gyroscopic behavior as nobody ever has. These are very important times for us. Honestly, we may be closing in on answers. We must invent community acceptable tests. I end by repeating the first sentence in the first paragraph; I have found ‘perhaps’ suitable solutions.
Cutting to the chase.
Continued
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn H. - 16/02/2008 23:40:13
| | | Dear Harry,
You mention needing a test set up. Will this do?
We can measure time and distance of the drop from beginning to ending. We can measure time and distance of precession acceleration from beginning and then triangulate the two separate data’s. Elementary trigonometry will tell us whether the gyro completely drops to it’s ending before lunging into precession, or whether precession acceleration is gradually increased in time with the gradual drop.
There are many capable instruments available to help us. Below is only one.
http://www.ecplaza.net/trademall/27714/multifunction_timercounter.html
We can use a dremel drill as we have done (Right Link S.?) and procure instrumentation to measure RPMs. Also if we arrange a permanent height platform for the gyroscope to set before it is dropped by an electrical button we can eliminate further discrepancies in numbers. In these ways we can keep each subsequent test equal to the first. Next using low voltage breakers suitable for a flashlight battery we can run a negative electrical terminal to the axel hub. Then maintain a horizontally ¼”, (0625 mm) curving positive terminal atop a worm gear held in permanent placement below the gyro placement and marked in increments of micro meters. Of course we now need the instrumentation which consist of an electric breaker and internal timing devise within. If we keep dropping the gyro from a permanent height, while maintaining rotation at a precise speed we may eventually adjust the worm screw upwards until contact closes the breaker. Now we have the means to measure both the time and distance of drop. We can then put this information on a graft charting vertical increments of exact, electronically measured, time and distance. On the graph we can use too different colored marking pins one for time and one for distance. Next we add similar arrangements horizontally. Here the question becomes, from a known vertical/horizontal starting point how do we determine the point at which acceleration ceases? This isn’t tricky provided we have purchased the correct instrumentation. Our device should register the acceleration in increments of time and distance. Then register the point and time that velocity becomes constant.
From here I think every one knows how to triangulate. Just draw a dotted line from the point the gyro was released to the horizontal point at which acceleration ends and constant velocity precession takes over.
ONE. If the dotted line is straight down at one hundred degrees we know that there was a hesitation and build up of potential net force that was eventually converted to kinetic energy to accelerate precession and that you, Harry have electronically tested proof your theory is correct.
TWO. If the line is forty-five degrees then we know there wasn't any hesitation during the drop and an unbalanced net gain of force to be converted to kinetic energy didn’t happen and that that vertical acceleration is equal to horizontal same-time acceleration and I am correct.
THREE. If our descending line is somewhere between zero and forty-five degrees we know there is a difference in vertical to horizontal friction and that your university inspired theory, Harry has been proven wrong.
This may have been hard to follow Excuse me it was the best I could do. I should add that I made a mistake in an earlier post when I knew better so well. I said that the known fraction of distance during acceleration would hardly affect at all our efforts to design a potential inertial acceleration device. That was wrong. You can bet your bottom dollar, mark, yen or euro that everyone wants to continually accelerate precession for at least a quarter turn supper fast. I think, relating to the Tedco, without measuring and figuring, I guess at about five, or six inches. The inchworm however must constantly accelerate a full half precession revolution.
Luis, come on board. I will not attempt to discredit anything you say, nor show unkindness, except when attacked. I’m through with all that I hope forever and I’ve just now decided not to inter your post. Allisss ok my friend. Hackberry Fin, you come on board too under the same agreements and anybody else, just as Harry invited you. Momentus and Nitro please accept the same promises made above to Luis and a special apology to you as well. Less get this old show over with now. Will it, or won’t fly. We suddenly have a chance to answer questions we have all harbored so many years. Note: Nitro suggested a slow motion camera. Awfully good idea also, but I think electronics is more convincing, exacting and reliable, but very good Nitro. No other ideas were better, until Harry suddenly began presenting his theory and suggested we need a way to test its truth, or fallacy.
Please note. You see I am again reporting my previous mistakes above. Harry’s theory, whether true, or not true determines whether we will have our great big cheesecake in the sky. As we go forward I realize how imperfect I am. Forgive me you three, or you four.
The next need of prove will be easer to obtain, that is whether there is constant equal and opposite force in the precession plane. I have explained already much of how to discover the truth of this, now we can use the same instrumentation spoken of above and this will be far better and the results not really arguable. Finding the unarguable truth of twenty-year-old burning questions is with in our immediate grasp. We will virtually prove, or disprove the great possibility and be done with theories whirling in our inquisitive minds and perhaps delaying building efforts!
Best Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/02/2008 23:50:01
| | | CORRECTION
ONE. If the dotted line is straight down at ONE-HUNDRED-EIGHTY degrees we know that there was a hesitation and build up of potential net force that was eventually converted to kinetic energy to accelerate precession and that you, Harry have electronically tested proof your theory is correct.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 17/02/2008 00:36:39
| | | Dear Glenn,
I admire very much your enthusiasm! And please believe my wish that you're right and I'm wrong... :-)
But before you run away for buying expensive measurement tools and test setup equipment, please give me some time to read carefully in detail what you have written.
I would also apreciate every further contributor and their ideas regarding this issue. I'm also wondering why we hear nothing from Luis? Maybe he is on vacation or away for business?
Have a nice Sunday!
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 17/02/2008 17:25:23
| | | Dear Harry,
Of course, please check and think. I’m not ready to do a jump shoot out of the gate just yet; I don’t have that much enthusiasm and maybe will not even do these tests. Quality help and time from another mind was what I wanted. Thank you for the continuous supply of it. There are one or two mistakes in the above post of mine, the ‘test equipment’ post. You’ll note them. They are nothing.
The true question I’m concerned about is whether there is equal and opposite force in the precession plane during acceleration. For that I would pay money for the necessary equipment to find out. I would measure acceleration into extreme precession speeds to find out how much momentum is created (There is some) and whether it was created during equal and opposite occurrences in the plane.
Even if if it is discovered there isn’t equal and opposite there will then come into focus concerns about the nature and effects of powerful centrifuge and centripetal. Some people don’t believe they are there, but I know they are. Sandy Kidd found the opposite of centrifuge, but his experiment was with two wheels in balance pulling out from one another while the axels and frames held them together. He found forces instead toward the interior acting. I full believe his report, but we are concerned with the happenings of a single, unattached and overhung gyroscope. I do not yet know precisely the best way about finding the answers in this that I seek. To this end I could use a lot of help from other minds, but it looks like we are alone.
Let us put my needs and wishes aside for now and continue to work on testing your new theory. We can gain experience in the reasoning and testing that might later help us find one directional accelerated momentum…or, none. I will now stop adding further concerns and get back on track. The testing equipment I mentioned for your theory is from China and does not appear to be that expensive. I have lost the sites and search engine information used. Not to be concerned, we’ll find it.
Thank you fro being there,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 17/02/2008 17:49:47
| | | Good day Glenn,
I'm just thinking about an easier and cheaper way to prove "my" theory.
To ensure that we talking about the same issue I have a question:
"The true question I’m concerned about is whether there is equal and opposite force in the precession plane during acceleration."
What do you understand with acceleration in this context? - When I wrote about "acceleration" I always mean accelration from zero to precessing velocity and nothing else. I believe you mean a posssible, however not yet proved, propulsion acceleration of a gyro system. Am I right or are we talking indeed about same nomenclature? That's important! ;-)
Thanks!
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 17/02/2008 18:02:42
| | | Glenn,
I am replying to this thread by your and Harry’s specific invitation only…our gentlemen’s agreement still stands (things have not changed Glenn).
I hope you will understand that as usual we perceive the world of gyros from completely different perspectives. Perhaps when you rewrite the descriptions of your experiments I will perceive them in a clearer context.
By the way, gravity’s acceleration is constant and does not increase or reduce; only the velocity and momentum that results from gravity can change (not gravity’s acceleration).
From my perspective, Harry’s statements are correct deductions based on the wisdom of physics text books. His statements about acceleration & deceleration of precession’s displacement-motion may not be quickly found in English physics books, or easily transformed into simple vernacular, but they reflect correct deduction from known physics (and it matches what I and others have also derived, on our own, from the same basics).
Harry’s statements are also exactly in line with Momentus’ comments about acceleration of precession’s displacement (on a previous thread).
Regarding the prescribed experiments:
Recursive experiments provide questionable results at best. Less-intrusive experiments may be designed using A) a dark room, B) an adjustable strobe-light (of good quality) C) bright fluorescent paint, D) fast photographic film, E) a number of cameras capable of long exposure times, F) the time and rigging utensils to setup the correct picture angles etc, G) a white golf ball or such, and H) of course any number of gyros. The strobe light is the most expensive piece, though some of the other pieces may not be as easy to find and certainly not easy to setup and execute; however the experiment measurements will not interfere with the working of the gyros.
Experiments using gyros hanging from strings include unexpected variables that we can not account for and provide illusive and inconsistent results. With good photography, a standard gyro with an extended axle can provide greater accuracy with less peripheral effects.
Harry, I have continued writing but just not posting lately (no vacation yet). I am writing a further response to Nitro and also addressing the underlying reason for the “seemingly” immediate STOP of spin-deflection, when the torque is removed (it looks like Harry has paved the way for the correct answer in this thread). I will post soon.
My congratulations to Link S, on his family’s approach to gravity, I will have to spend some time evolving thoughts about it.
Regarding vacation, I am expecting to be in Barcelona on September 7 and 19, hopping to spend a couple of leisurely days in one of the two occasions. Perhaps some of the chaps on that side of the pond can arrange to meet for lunch one day.
Thank you,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 17/02/2008 18:02:42
| | | Glenn,
I am replying to this thread by your and Harry’s specific invitation only…our gentlemen’s agreement still stands (things have not changed Glenn).
I hope you will understand that as usual we perceive the world of gyros from completely different perspectives. Perhaps when you rewrite the descriptions of your experiments I will perceive them in a clearer context.
By the way, gravity’s acceleration is constant and does not increase or reduce; only the velocity and momentum that results from gravity can change (not gravity’s acceleration).
From my perspective, Harry’s statements are correct deductions based on the wisdom of physics text books. His statements about acceleration & deceleration of precession’s displacement-motion may not be quickly found in English physics books, or easily transformed into simple vernacular, but they reflect correct deduction from known physics (and it matches what I and others have also derived, on our own, from the same basics).
Harry’s statements are also exactly in line with Momentus’ comments about acceleration of precession’s displacement (on a previous thread).
Regarding the prescribed experiments:
Recursive experiments provide questionable results at best. Less-intrusive experiments may be designed using A) a dark room, B) an adjustable strobe-light (of good quality) C) bright fluorescent paint, D) fast photographic film, E) a number of cameras capable of long exposure times, F) the time and rigging utensils to setup the correct picture angles etc, G) a white golf ball or such, and H) of course any number of gyros. The strobe light is the most expensive piece, though some of the other pieces may not be as easy to find and certainly not easy to setup and execute; however the experiment measurements will not interfere with the working of the gyros.
Experiments using gyros hanging from strings include unexpected variables that we can not account for and provide illusive and inconsistent results. With good photography, a standard gyro with an extended axle can provide greater accuracy with less peripheral effects.
Harry, I have continued writing but just not posting lately (no vacation yet). I am writing a further response to Nitro and also addressing the underlying reason for the “seemingly” immediate STOP of spin-deflection, when the torque is removed (it looks like Harry has paved the way for the correct answer in this thread). I will post soon.
My congratulations to Link S, on his family’s approach to gravity, I will have to spend some time evolving thoughts about it.
Regarding vacation, I am expecting to be in Barcelona on September 7 and 19, hopping to spend a couple of leisurely days in one of the two occasions. Perhaps some of the chaps on that side of the pond can arrange to meet for lunch one day.
Thank you,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 17/02/2008 18:07:10
| | | Sorry about double posting (sever error).
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 17/02/2008 18:57:36
| | | Hi Luis!
I'm glad to hear something from you! I'm sure Glenn and you will find back to a productive way of communication (hey... Glenn and me were successful as well ;-) ).
Your suggested test setup environment is indeed scientific perfect but to be honest very complex and expensive for us poor amateurs! ;-)
Therefore we should think about a simple solution to prove or disprove this theory (yes you're right, I remember I have read similar comments from Momentus). The problem of a simple solution is the friction in the system (as always). This friction may falsify measurement data and I have still not found a good idea to resolve this problem. But may be someone else find a good idea?
In the meantime I could provide calculations about the expectant drop of the axis in titing direction, caused by mass inertia acceleration in precession plane.
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 18/02/2008 00:03:23
| | | Hi Harry,
Yes, same nomenclature. The ‘true question’ is the same for you as it is for me. In the acceleration precession if it shall be proven there is, or is not rearward reaction, that there is, or is not opposite torque pushing the opposite axel in the opposite direction of rotation, then the ‘true question’ is answered. From that true answer if it shall be discovered there is no equal and opposite force reacting in the same plane the next step for me is to proclaimed loudly that I and surely others will be able to build the great transition contained within a closed structure capable of accelerating a craft through space with nuclear fuel and being independent of the need to thrust rocket fuel rearward to acceleration. I need the answer to the ‘true question’ in order to know whether to continue, or give up and stop trying. I understand you need the answer only for academic reasons. Ether way it’s the same gyroscopic question. There’s not any difference in what we seek at this stage, not any difference at all. Your question took me aback a little. I thought I was quite clear, but I can assure you we are together one hundred percent, because I understand you. Very good work of yours too I add.
Wild? My idea? Yes, but that’s what the heading for these posts implies, ‘gyro propulsion’. Am I a victim of my own mind? More, or less most likely. Yet this is the only reason I pursue the ‘true question’ that you also peruse for your own reasons.
It’s drizzling rain outside and the sound is a bit loud, but good and its so nice and warm here at my keyboard. My wife is quit and reading. I’m so relaxed. I hope the day’s good to you as well.
I appreciate you,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 18/02/2008 00:07:13
| | | Lewis I am biting my tongue. I’ve written a response that I’m postponing sending for a while. You were offered a kind and friendly hand and I was felling so nice and pleasant with the rain patting sweetly on the green corrugated plastic roof of my back porch and from the tall wet forest and fog behind and had just finished writing to Harry and was wondering if I was about to fall gently into a safe, warm sweet sleep. Then you came along. You’ll get your reply when I’m ready. Sweat it for a while. You don’t know when. You don’t know what. You don’t know where. Buckle up. It’s coming.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 18/02/2008 00:36:33
| | | Glenn,
When you decide to respond, please tell me which part is it that bothered you.
If it’s something that does not compromise expressing my views then I will try to abstain from it.
Otherwise I am perfectly happy to stay out of threads from anyone who requests me to stay out.
I suggest we continue making progress in resolving the gyro issues as we have up to now.
Thank you,
Luis Gonzalez
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 18/02/2008 00:44:50
| | | Harry,
Please provide the calculations you offer; I will appreciate them very much.
By the way, the table you mentioned earlier in this thread is no longer there.
Best Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 18/02/2008 22:03:47
| | | Dear Glenn,
Please appologize my question regarding understanding of "cceleration", however, I wanted to asure that we really talking about the same thingy. ;-)
Luis and Glenn,
I have uploaded my calculations on my server:
http://www.misc.keipert.net/gyro/gyro-calculations-1.pdf
(Please copy and paste the url-link in your browser url)
I have just noted that my link of the v-t-diagram, posted 11/02/2008 19:51:35 does not work! (And nobody has noticed that...!)
Here the correct link:
http://www.misc.keipert.net/gyro/v_t_diagram.pdf
Please let me know if you find any errors in my calculations or if you have further questions.
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 19/02/2008 09:25:54
| | | Dear Harry,
We mustn’t apologize for wanting to make sure we understand. That’s what we both wanted. Thank you for asking and making sure.
I can’t get your files. I think the problem is mine. I bought a computer a few days ago for my son. He repaired mine. He wants me to buy another for myself, but mines fine now, but the software is going nuts.
The high-speed camera and strobe is another way. It should give you angles and enough known numbers to estimate speed and distance I hope.
Lot’s of things are going own in my life right now. You’d be very surprised. Plus I’ve put things off and now they have to be taken care off. I’m going to drop out of the discussion. I hope very much you take over and continue and that some of these guys will join you, especially upon my departure. I’m not much loved around these parts. My absence may help you.
It’s time for me to go. Looking back on the thread I explained many things no one ever has and that’s what I intended to do. Maybe some day someone will come along and understand them clearly and take them to heart. That job is finished for me. I always felt I owed it.
I am back to where I have always been, needing to build, but there is a great difference. I feel more comfortable now for having put my mind to paper I am surer of certain things. Another thing, whether I like it, or not I learned an inventor is alone. No one helps him, few could and perhaps no one should. It’s not so bad. I just look back on all the material uncommented on, un-advanced and note my time involved and think...well it beat watching TV.
You see Harry, when you solve the questions we posed it will be about direction and speed and I will still need to know about the delivery and use of force. I may as well get to it. It’s time.
I will keep an eye on you. If you can think of a way I can help from time to time please ask.
My Highest Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 19/02/2008 10:48:36
| | | Dear Glenn,
I'm very surprised about your abrupt decession to leave the forum! I've just thought we were in agreement in some important gyro behavior issues and that we may approach the intention for better understanding gyro behavior. What a bummer!
Anyway, I have to respect your decession and maybe you reconsider your decesssion. I hope you are and will remain in good health!
If you like you can write an email. I can send the calculations per email as well. Here is my email-address:
fahkeigmx.de
(please replace by @).
I wish you all ´the best for the future!
Best regards,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 19/02/2008 10:53:18
| | | Oops there is an error with the email address.
Here the right email address again:
fahkei_at_gmx.de
Replace _at_ by @
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 19/02/2008 16:50:20
| | |
Dear Harry,
I emailed you, “You are very smart, Harry. Yes please send me your calculations.”
My computer responded, “ No matches found” I would buy another as my computer literate son insists, but I think it’s my not understanding the new software after my hard drive was repaired and updated. I’ll get it right when I have time.
My address is ehawkins32@.comcast.net
Perhaps you can send to me?
Best Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 19/02/2008 17:24:41
| | | Hi Glenn,
Please check your mail box. Till now I have not received your email but I hope you will receive my email.
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 20/02/2008 11:14:33
| | | Hi Harry,
Your calculations look so clean and impressive. I printed them and put them in a book in the little library beside my desk to keep them safe. I hope to use them when the time comes. Thank you.
I enjoy the time spent with you allot. You can be sure I will keep in touch.
I just though of a little puzzle in parting. As you know a name is only a name. Precession in non-gimbals describes the third action in a series of four. If the momentum that exist does not deliver into a collision in the third plane it does in the fourth as it torques upward to councils out gravity as in a collision. If there were no gravity collision there would be an endlessly progressions of these reactions. In these series it should be evident that because the force of momentum delivers fully into a coupling, the coupling can be directed to deliver wherever one chooses. How? I never explained.
I think congratulations are in order. I’m proud of you, Harry.
Best Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 20/02/2008 12:34:55
| | | Dear Glenn,
I'm glad th hear that you may have a use of my calculations.
"...If there were no gravity collision there would be an endlessly progressions of these reactions. In these series it should be evident that because the force of momentum delivers fully into a coupling, the coupling can be directed to deliver wherever one chooses. How? I never explained."
Now you have reached the more interesting part of gyro physics. That's the part I deal with: momentum transfer... ;-)
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 09/03/2008 08:17:34
| | | Glenn, Harry
The immutable nature of force is that it always and only comes in pairs. Therefore, as long as a rotational reference frame has sufficient angular frequency ALL of the reaction force will emit at 90 degrees. If not, then the rotating frame will repel at an angle which is an average of the 90 degree and 180 degree reaction force vectors (still one direction of reaction). The secret to lift is doing this in two dimensions rather than one, and doing so simultaneously on a given point mass.
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 10/03/2008 08:01:12
| | | Dear EDH,
You are right that forces come in pairs if you mean actio and reactio. However, in this sense there are 2 pairs involved during precession of a gyro:
- First pair: tilting force with counter force at the gyro support to create the tilting torque.
- Second pair: diametric acting resulting forces, created by the components of angular momentum of spinning mass and tilting force. This pair of resulting forces create the 90° deflection and therefore precessing movement.
All these acting forces and counter forces (actio reactio) during precessing will nullify each other and therefore I cannot see any secrets to achieve lifting. But maybe you can provide more secrets? ;-)
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 10/03/2008 21:21:16
| | | Hi Harry;
Yes there are at least two forces on a precessing gyro, however, both the force used to induce precession, and the force used to maintain disc rotation have dual components because all forces are dualistic in nature. Newton was never disproved on this fact. The primary difference between reaction in a linear frame, and reaction in a rotational frame is that one is inertial and one is non-inertial. Because the non-inertial reference frame is equivalent to an acceleration frame, a fictitious force comparable to the Coriolis force is created, as this is what occurs when a linear or inertial frame interacts with a rotational or non-inertial frame. This Coriolis force performs real work, and the term fictitious should not be interpreted to mean false. Fictitious only means that the point at which the force is measured is not the point at which the force originates.
Since the Coriolis force produces real work as does the centrifugal force, the next step is the application of these forces for linear movement. Most researchers have struggled at this step for two reasons:
1) They apply Newtonian inertial laws to non-inertial reference frames.
2) They seek Newtonian reaction based solutions to acceleration frame problems.
As it turns out, neither the Coriolis nor the centrifugal force can produce the required lift. There is an extensive international patent that claims to have achieved this, but my research does not support this. What does work, however, is a dynamic interaction between the two. When both fictitious forces are properly synchronized with the optimal geometries, a unidirectional acceleration frame is created. Since general relativity based gravity is the only known method of unidirectionally moving the center of gravity of a closed mass system, and since the equivalence principle states that gravity is equivalent to an acceleration frame, the acceleration field produced by this arrangement generates unidirectional movement of the apparatus.
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 12/03/2008 14:16:56
| | | Hi EDH,
Your total post touches lightly on several complicated mechanical sequences some of which I know have not been explained in all the variations possible. What I mean is there are various ways to think these forces through that are different and more correct than we’ve been conditioned to believe. I have explained these on another now defunct engineering site and so I know before hand how difficult and lengthy is the time and space necessary to put them to paper, especially without drawings. Maybe no one needs to know the details, because essentially I think you are right. In this way of thinking I get off Scott-free without feeling compelled as I sometimes do to explain, and this sudden realization makes me happy and much relieved. I’m free to go back to my parts. You’re going good. Keep it up.
You might find this interesting. I could never understand how to do the winding in miniature form from the pictures and there isn’t a sufficient explanation to the questions I had.
http://www.bicycles-electric-bikes.com/how_it_works.htm
Click on ‘technical’ and ‘how it works’.
Hang in there,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 12/03/2008 18:43:32
| | | Hello EDH,
I have read all your posts in the other threads and I have to state that I'm very impressed about your statements and explanations. I'm convinced you know very well what you're talking about. However, I'm wondering why you share your knowledge at this stage of your project, so short before your patent application? What is the reason?
The next thing for me is the question how much more information you will share with us? I'll simply try it! ;-)
If I understand your explanations correct your test set-up consist of:
1. A platform with one center mounted motor drive (= hub?).
2. Two pairs of hollow spheres (made of hemispheres). 2 spheres are connected by pivotable hollow levers and supported in the center of mass at the axis of the motor drive.
3. One pair of spheres is aligned horizontal and the other pair is aligned under a defined angle (>60°?) above the plane of the horizontal pair of spheres.
4. The two pairs of spheres are mechanical connected in the center at the drive axis in a way that if the above pair of spheres turn downwards the other pair of spheres turn upwards.
5. Each sphere is driven by an internal motor or by a common drive over a gear system.
6. To produce lifting of the whole apparatus, all spheres must spin at a defined speed frequency and the center mounted drive will spin both pairs of spheres at a defined speed frequency as well.
I hope my list is correct!?
Now my questions (I'm curious whether you will give answers):
a) How are the rotation axis of the spheres alligned to the center axis of the main drive (hub)? - In direction of the radius or 90° to the radius (hope you understand what is meant)?
b) Is the spin direction of all 4 spheres the same or may it be different?
c) Is the tilting torque applied only by centrifugal forces of the spheres or is an additional torque needed to pulse the spheres?
d) Why are you sure that this design does not work if the spheres are replaced by disks or rims?
e) Are you sure that there is no influence of air ventilation produced by the rotating spheres?
I'm also wondering why you have mentioned Coriolis force in this context? This force acts only if a moving mass has no more forced "connection" with a rotational (accelerated) frame, i.e. there is no longer centripedal and respectively centrifugal forces acting at the moving mass.
Thanks and regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 13/03/2008 00:56:59
| | | Concerning The Coriolis Force
Hi Harry and EDH,
It’s good to see all you fine feathered fiends working so diligently. I will join you. I am not explaining the Coriolis force to you Harry for I know you understand, nor would I presume to answer for EDH as he will answer well as he pleases and of course he understands without me. I am explaining to everyone who doesn’t understand, but would like to.
Consider a merry-go-round at the fair with wooden horses not yet attached. You have a giant rotating disk in a horizontal plane. Stand in the center of it and release a bowling ball to roll wherever it may. To an outside frame observer the ball as it is rotated, rolls from the center straight toward the outer perimeter. But to the inertial observer inside the center of the empty merry-go-round platform the conditions are different. He sees the inertia of the ball resisting the acceleration of the rotating merry-go-round and this causes the ball to rotate counter to that of the merry-go-round. At all times centrifuge is acting on the ball as it is reluctantly accelerated into rearward rotation, therefore it moves outward from the center, but curves rearward to the direction of the merry-go-round rotation. The further the ball moves outward the more it encountered the increasing speed in the greater diameters of the merry-go-round, therefore the ball must rotates constantly faster in its opposite direction, because of friction and mater’s inertial resistance to acceleration. The combination of these actions viewed from the inertial frame (inside) show that the ball therefore is constantly ‘curving’ outward and rearward from the merry-go-round rotation.
This is how weather patterns are formed. Some of the heavier than air partials of moisture contact the spinning earth about the same as the bowling ball contacts the spinning merry-go-round. In both cases two separated forces are at play to curve the motion of mater.
Now let us look to the particles in a rotating disk. These are stationary and cannot move independently, but must move as an interlocking part of the total family of all particles in the disk. In rotation alone there is no Coriolis force. However let us begin to give the disk a direction of movement through space while it is rotating.
A right-handed astronaut slings a Frisbee through space. The left outside edge of the Frisbee is rotating in the direction the Frisbee travels linearly. The right side is rotating in reverse to the linear direction. The result is a veritable ratio of opposite speeds. Suddenly we are looking at two separate frames of reference at once and nothing comes of this. You know why, but if we somehow change the linear travel to one of curving travel whala! We suddenly are dealing with both right angle deflection and the Coriolis force.
“You gyroscopic people from outer space visiting this forum, Mars and other earth envious coordinates beyond should be able to see and understand deflection easily. Now for the rest of us puny limited earthlings—let us consider the Coriolis force.”
In the Frisbee example so far as the Coriolis force is concerned two separate systems of motion are inter-acting. Particles inside the disk acquire two momentums, both linearly and rotationally and as in precession the top potion of the disk has more momentum than the bottom rotation opposite to the direction of precession. Also consider that the rear outer rim of the precessing gyro is rotating downward in the direction of applied force. Therefore the stronger the angular momentum and equally the stronger the tilting force the faster and more potentially powerful is the condition of momentum in deflected precession. In order to understand it is necessary that you understand in exactitude the much talked about ‘deflection’. If you do you should be able to realize how the two forces, angular momentum in one plane and tilting force in another combine to cause the front and rear of the precessing gyro to force curve the disk around a center point. Can you also see that during precession the families of molecules in the disk produce the Coriolis force due to the dual tilting, down and around? The particles though they do not move independent of one another, they as a family are accelerated circularly horizontally in space, while vertically forced in a downward curve through space— in a real way, or at least in tendencies. They move in curved space and this maybe is why EDH relates gravity to precession. I don't know.
That whole post I tell you gets really complicated much, much more than this. The reality it is way out there and who has time for all that. Maybe it shouldn’t be explained more than has been?
Wishing you two smart guys good fortune,
Glenn
PS Harry, I don't see how EDH can abswer you.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 13/03/2008 06:17:47
| | | Hi Harry and Glenn;
As you have probably surmised, I'm only sharing basics here. Much more goes into making this a practical invention, and since the USPTO does not patent ideas, but only inventions, the concepts I've given do not jeopardize my patent (It will be submitted in a day or two). For example, the model I've presented generates several hundred pounds of force to created a net force of a few dozen pounds. Not particularly efficient! Still, it demonstrates an *apparent* violation of the law of conservation of momentum and is an interesting sight to behold.
I also begin the patent with this illustration using two spheres, and use this to lay down the groundwork for the principles of operation, but then build upon these principles to disclose three embodiments. All of these are highly efficient. I have not shared those embodiments here (or anywhere yet).
Your items 1-6 Harry are exactly correct. The angle of initial displacement depends on your ratio of "hub" to sphere speed. If for example, your hub rotates at 2000 rpm, and your spheres anywhere between 4000 and 18,000 rpm, your angle of displacement will not exceed 15 degrees. Thus, a small amount of flutter creates a large amount of force.
You will have to decide on your preferred test set up. For my initial tests, I essentially turned the apparatus upside down, added a stabilizing weight to the hub, and placed it on a precision scale. When I was able to generate a stable increase "weight" that exceeded the weight of the apparatus, I knew I had enough force to produce lift.
My mechanic later built a test rig for a single engine that is basically a cylindrical cage with vertical rails. This is great for working out the kinks before placing it in the four quadrant lift platform. Your applications may be different from mine, in which case it might be easier to build two and connect one on top of the other (of course reversing the sphere direction).
Now to the specific questions:
a) Yes, they rotate about the radius of the apparatus. I call this the Z axis. At first I called it X, but my software guy, said that it was Z in his system, so I just got used to calling it Z.
b) Yes, they all go in the same direction which is CCW from the side view while the hub turns CCW from the plan view.
c) Yes, the tilting torque is only applied by the centrifugal force. This is important as active pulldown disrupts the force curve in most cases.
d) Because I began with discs and modeled it as a virtual prototype. After extensive study, I discovered exactly why my lift was always limited with discs. The data led me to replace them with spheres which gave surprising results.
e) The sphere model worked in the computer before it was ever built, so we know the physics behind the forces. We have also built enclosed engines which work with slightly greater efficiency.
Regarding the Coriolis force, I mention this because some researchers in this field claim that this is the lift force. Most of the researchers seem to be in Canada, Russia or Japan. I think there are more in the US, but they don't publish their findings for fear of ridicule. Now there are those who agree that the lift force is the Coriolis force and those that disagree. I'm somewhere in the middle. I do believe that the force on the hub that results from a pair of flywheels force precessed about that hub can be correctly calculated using the Coriolis equation. My findings support this. I however, do not agree that this force will produce lift on the apparatus. My reasons for this are extensive and are best left for another post. I'm including a link to a russian patent that in my opinion has everything correct with one glaring exception (not counting the fact that they use discs). Can you spot it? Those who have worked with these things will spot it quickly!
This is a LONG link...
http://www.wipo.int/patentscopedb/en/fetch.jsp?LANG=ENG&DBSELECT=PCT&SERVER_TYPE=19-00&SORT=1211166-KEY&TYPE_FIELD=256&IDB=0&IDOC=1552733&C=00&ELEMENT_SET=B&RESULT=1&TOTAL=1&START=1&DISP=25&FORM=SEP-0/HITNUM,B-ENG,DP,MC,AN,PA,ABSUM-ENG&SEARCH_IA=UA2006000074&QUERY=coriolis%27s+AND+forces+AND+gyroscopic+AND+system
copy the whole string into your browser :)
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 13/03/2008 09:34:41
| | | Dear EDH,
Thank you for quick answering my questions! Now I can study the principle of your invention and I hope to find the behind hidden physics as well. ;-)
I have to admit that till now I didn't believe that it would be possible to achieve propulsion thrust with a gyro system. I myself working on a gyro system for power generation. So if it should work someday I could provide the necessary energy generator for your gyro propulsion system. :-))
Thank you for the link. At first view ( I hate it to read that kinky patent language...) I miss the generation of centrifugal force by hinged pair of disks. Also all pairs of disks (gyros) are not hinged together and coupled with the other pairs. Am I right?
Thanks again for your efforts and I'm sure I have to ask some more questions.
Best regards,
Harry
Dear Glenn,
You were wrong, EDH gave the requested answers! :-))
Thank you for your explanations.
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 13/03/2008 14:16:56
| | | Yep, you saw it immediately. The arms are locked, and therfore the apparatus will produce little if any lift. It is clear that the authors did much math and little prototyping.
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 13/03/2008 18:14:44
| | | Hi Harry,
You’re right. Mistakes in bunches lately is seems. I made another in the Coriolis post. I’ll keep it to myself rather than cause more mumbo-jumbo about a post of no actual consequence anyway. I retire again my mind, whatever little of it is left these days, to do parts work where I hope to make a difference :-)) Wonderful things are happening for me aside from IP, after two of the worst defeats a human can have. You sensed something wasn’t right though today you may not quite understand that you did, or remember. Today I feel good. I feel great. Always I wish you much success and I should add many happy days. We’ll keep in touch.
Best Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 13/03/2008 18:21:36
| | | Hi EDH,
I want to take my time to think over your work and see if I have anything interesting to say. You must be thrilled. I too am happy and enthusiastic about it too up to this point. I don’t yet completely understand the apparatus as much as I’d like, but I’ve got my fingers crossed hoping for the best.
Here’s hoping you many happy, frutfull days ahead,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 13/03/2008 19:42:53
| | | Dear EDH,
I'm glad I didn't embarrassed myself! :-))
I have made some thoughts about the physics behind your brilliant idea. I suspect to know the reason why spheres may work better than disks or rims. But I want to start a new thread because this thread has become very long now.
I hope, Luis and some other contributors will also jump in. - It's very exciting!
See you later...
Harry
Dear Glenn,
I hope all things will work fine for you now and ind in future!
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 13/03/2008 23:10:33
| | | Hi again guys,
I do not understand your machine, nor do I understand how Harry apparently understands some of it.
Harry ask:
1.“A platform with one center mounted motor drive (= hub?).”
I cannot reason why the center mounted motor would not rotate it’s self and the platform in space naturally, but more particularly because the spheres should ultimately produce resistance of some way. I spoke of the need of four main drive motors rotating against one another as well as two of the four disk ‘spheres’ rotating against one another. You said as much as these problems were solved, because the sphere motors rotated against one another. Good, but that alone would not eliminate the need for static and dynamic control in space.
2. “Two pairs of hollow spheres (made of hemispheres). 2 spheres are connected by pivotable hollow levers and supported in the center of mass at the axis of the motor drive.”
Are the levers permited to pivit up and down, horizonally, or both ways?
”3. One pair of spheres is aligned horizontal and the other pair is aligned under a defined angle (>60°?) above the plane of the horizontal pair of spheres.”
”4. The two pairs of spheres are mechanical connected in the center at the drive axis in a way that if the above pair of spheres turn downwards the other pair of spheres turn upwards.”
This seems somewhat, well a little like, my space-worm where disks are located at the ends of an X configuration that sissiors sort of up and down, drawn if you will perhaps by linear motors that travel with and are carried as dead weight by the precessions, where the top two disk are drawn down, while the bottom two are drawn up? The top and bottom disk must rotated opposite to one another. Are there similarities to yours?
”5. Each sphere is driven by an internal motor or by a common drive over a gear system.”
As explained above I see stabilization problems here.
“6. To produce lifting of the whole apparatus, all spheres must spin at a defined speed frequency and the center mounted drive will spin both pairs of spheres at a defined speed frequency as well.”
All spheres should attempt to rise and none should attempt to force downward as suggested in my questions (4.)
”a) How are the rotation axis of the spheres aligned to the center axis of the main drive (hub)? - In direction of the radius or 90° to the radius (hope you understand what is meant)?”
Yes, which please?
”c) Is the tilting torque applied only by centrifugal forces of the spheres or is an additional torque needed to pulse the spheres?”
Would not such an action occur only once to reach the same plain as the hub and not continuously move thereafter?
”d) Why are you sure that this design does not work if the spheres are replaced by disks or rims?”
Good question. Can you give a mechanical explanation?
EDH explained:
“Your items 1-6 Harry are exactly correct. The angle of initial displacement depends on your ratio of "hub" to sphere speed. If for example, your hub rotates at 2000 rpm, and your spheres anywhere between 4000 and 18,000 rpm, your angle of displacement will not exceed 15 degrees. Thus, a small amount of flutter creates a large amount of force.”
I understand, “initial displacement”, but flutter is a continuous movement and so I refer you to my commit in (c.) above.
”My mechanic later built a test rig for a single engine that is basically a cylindrical cage with vertical rails. This is great for working out the kinks… Why is this great?
…it might be easier to build two and connect one on top of the other… reversing the sphere direction.”
You’d have eight spheres. Which are you reversing the rotation of four spheres, or the quad direction of upper, or lower main power revolutions? Why are you doing whatever your doing? Do these continuously revolve?
PS. I understand the statement, “the Russian arms are locked.” Your hub platform sets on the floor and the sphere are rotated, or half rotate around it and therefore are free to rise? Is this too simple and basic?
Dear EDH if it seems I am unappreciative of you fascinating work, I am in fact to the contrary very fascinated with it. I am with you and far you 100 %, but my mind’s eye does not see your machine and I must be able to imagine it in full function if I am to understand it. I cannot access the Russian site to view similarities of how you do what your doing. That’s my problem to correct, but I must ‘see’ the machine and then I don’t even need explanations in order to approve of it, or debunk it. I’ll also retrace your writing. Maybe that will help. Please remember I am optimistic and expecting my mind’s eye to award you even if my approval is of no use to you. That is my hope, hope positive.
I have decried the lack of a means to post pictures for a long time. I’ll soon have my computer adjusted to view the site and get back to you.
Thank you for sharing so much.
Sincerely Glenn,
Sorry Harry. I’ll stick to this site… at least until I understand what I am compelled to and afterwards I can go back to concentrating mainly on parts.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 14/03/2008 10:53:12
| | | Hi Glenn,
I will send later at home a sketch of EDH's idea which shows the basic principle as I understand it. Drawing a sketch was my first action for better understanding! ;-)
The rough function of EDH's idea can be described by the imagination of an elephant and a rhinoceros connected by a rope and both try to pull the rope in counter directions. Both animals will move slowly in the direction of the elephant! :-)
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 14/03/2008 19:47:00
| | | Dear Glenn,
Here is the link of the sketch (copy & paste the link into your brower URL address box):
http://www.misc.keipert.net/gyro/basic_gyro_principle.pdf
I'll try to give some answers to your questions:
Re 1) You are certainly right that the motor will rotate itself in counter direction. The platform must be stabilized, but here is discussed only the basic principle of EDH's idea.
Re 2,3,4) In my opinion the levers are only permitted to pivot in vertical direction. The upper sphere pair is linked with the horizontal pair, i.e. if the upper spheres move down, the lower origin horizontal spheres will move up and vice versa.
Re 5) As mentioned before we discuss only the basic principle of the gyro design but not a complete machine.
Re 6) That's the mystery. I think there is an overlay and interaction between forced precession, 90 degree deflection, centrifugal forces and maybe Coriolis forces. However the exact function is not clear for me as well. Thus we have to discuss and ask EDH in the other thread.
Re a) EDH has already confirmed that the rotation axes of the spheres are alligned in radius direction of the hub drive.
Re c) Yes I think the same. EDH wrote in the other thread a more detailled explanation. We have to study this statement first.
Re d) Maybe the reason is the same mass inertia for all rotation axes for spheres (Jx=Jy=Jz). For disks and rims the mass inertia is different for other rotation axes (Jy=Jz= 0.5*Jx).
I hope this helps a little bit for better understanding.
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 14/03/2008 21:23:31
| | | Hi Glenn,
IJust a few notes on your questions-
- The engine is a motor with the four spheres. A platform is four engines. The four engines are placed each in a quadrant of a square. The diagaonally placed engines rotate in opposite directions. In this arrangement, the platform is entirely stable.
- The levers pivot vertically but not horizontally.
_There is a scissor action, but al of the spheres turn in the same direction .
- The spheres move down due to centrifugal forces that are greater than the secondary (rising) precession forces. They naturally oscillate because when the spheres are horizontal, the forced precession induces the vertical reaction that pushes the sphere upwards as expected, however as the sphere rises the radius of rotation decreases which results in a decrease in both the induced and reactive precession forces. The centrifugal force now takes over and due to momentum, continues to the horizontal re-initiating the cycle. The oscillation continues and does not attenuate (wih the proper frequency relationship).
-By "flutter" , I mean the levers raise to 15 degrees, return to horizontal, then repeat in a sinusoidal fashion..
-Regarding the reason why spheres work better, there are several advantages, but the most important one I cannot tell as it would jeopardize my patent.
- As fot the eight spheres, I was only offering one possible configuration that would be stable. If you have two central motors which are together connected by some central armature, and each with their own set of four spheres, then the spheres on one motor would have to rotate in the opposite direction relative to the spheres on the other motor in order for both to create lift and be stable.
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 15/03/2008 14:44:24
| | | Hello fellows,
As I begin to reread our newest musketeer I may as well make commits beginning with, ‘EDH - 09/03/2008 08:17:34.’
You say: “… ALL of the reaction force will emit at 90 degrees.”
Yes of course, but this explanation lacks details necessary for a complete understanding. Short as it is it doesn’t allow for a means, which is the chain of reaction deflections upward, to support the over-hung gyroscope from falling. We must take into account the question, ‘What keeps the gyro aloft?’
Note if you push a precessing gyro faster than its balanced speed it will raise. The same causes of upward lift during precession are the same as when adding this extra horizontal force to cause the gyro to revolve faster and rise. The difference is that with only gravity committing the sequence of balanced reactions culminating in upwards lift, the force upwards cannot be greater than the gravity that empowers it.
Here we see that all the forces cannot totally emit at 90 degrees to horizontal from vertical, but ultimately emits to a third sequence upward to counter gravity. This is what the two posts just above EDH’s are about, my ‘gravity collision’ that stops the sequence and Harry’s ‘momentum transfer’ that is about the continuation of these reactions.
Interestingly since 1982 (The time of the professor’s statements.) enthusiastic didn’t believe centrifuge was acting. We three seem to be the only ones who’ve recognized it, written about it and use it and in fact though it may seem strange at this point proving centrifuge is the beginning purpose of this post.
You say: “ALL of the reaction force will emit at 90 degrees. If not, then the rotating frame will repel at an angle which is an average of the 90 degree and 180 degree reaction force vectors (still one direction of reaction).”
Yes, the repelling path I see is a rather broken and fast tumbling spiral.
You say: “The secret to lift is doing this in two dimensions rather than one, and doing so simultaneously on a given point mass.”
My friend you have my attention.
Until I have my Google search fixed on Monday I am happy to wonder how the conflict between precession induced rise and centrifuge cause flutters in your machine rather than the two producing a kind of stagnant equilibrium between one another.
Thank you both for trying to help me understand what I cannot see.
Weekend cheers and I will post more completely later,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
EDH - 16/03/2008 20:38:32
| | | Hi Glenn,
Just to clarify, when I spoke of all of the reactive forces imposed on a spinning disk of sufficient angular frequency being redirected at 90 degrees, I was speaking of only one imposing force. In a forced precession apparatus, there are many imposing forces which create a circuit. For example, the spinning gyro which is dropped generates a reaction which is horizontal. This reaction then creates a secondary reaction which is vertical. Since all of the force reactions are at 90 degrees, the gyro will remain aloft at 90 degrees from the originating force source which is gravity. So again, I was not speaking of the entire force circuit, just a single component.
Regarding the flutter, I first noticed this in a crude model I had built. I used two of the powered gyros available on this site and then attached them to arms which were attached to a disassembled fan motor with vertical door hinges from a hardware store (!)
When I powered it and placed it on a scale, the gyros rose as expected, but then this strange flutter would start, and the wieght changed with the flutter. I tried to reproduce it but couldn't. Eventually I found the right frequency ratio, and there it was- flutter with weight change. I modeled it in the computer, and it did exactly the same thing. At the right frequency, momentum carries the disk past the point of equilibrium whether it's going up or down. This happens with disks as well as spheres, but the spheres are much more impressive.
EDH
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/03/2008 22:40:07
| | | Hi EDH,
Thank you.
I am in agreement with your first paragraph.
I find your second pagragraph very revealing.
The third paragraph is wherein your secrets lie.
So far I see a conflict between circling elliptical wave patterns perhaps sometime vertical and sometime horizontal. These might cause oscillations in many dimensions, upward, downward, forward, rearward, changing every half revolution from left to right then right to left movement, changing rotation forward to rearward and finally with both vertical and horizontal curving to consider, but I’m not sure of anything right now. Maybe this all malarkey, but it is difficult motion to deal with.
Steven Hawking, assumed by many to be one of the greatest physics alive, indicated indirectly he could sometimes think in four dimensions, but said he often had trouble thinking in three.
Like Harry, I too have questions building, (Hi Harry) but I should wait, until I’ve sorted through all the information not yet received.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 03/04/2008 13:52:14
| | | Dear Harry,
Charley and I had a short and speedy conversation the other day about you. Charley very respectfully suggested that you might be willing to consider adding to your conception of what you’ve elegantly termed ‘gyro physics’. Charley said he is an expert about the following and that I should pass on his experienced opinions.
Charley shouted to me quickly: “ Tell Harry to about mass movement. Tell him that when he drives his car he is driving in a circle around the globe. Tell him that as the earth revolves around the sun it returns to the place whence it came. Tell him that stars may revolve inside the gravity of the Milky Way as might all star in their galaxies. Tell him that some of us believe the universe itself is revolving around its center. Tell him that if he sails halfway around the earth and docks at an island he has moved in a curvature of 12.500 miles. And, say to him if he boards at Hamburg and travels half way around the earth and docks at the uncharted island nation of Bangy Bangy Land he has traveled the diameter of about 8,000 miles. Charley said however if your ship fails to dock, but continues to circle the seas back to Hamburg then according to your calculations you haven't gone anywhere, nor has the earth during the four seasonal changes, nor would the sun after a few billions tears of orbiting in the Milky Way, nor any point in the universe if time extends long enough to allow for a full universal rotation. Charley said to tell you he has reason to know there are no straight lines and that all motion travels in a curvature, but that the ‘trick’ to traveling is to get off the boat before it returns to the port of Hamburg from where it began. Charley says he is able to conceive of a precessing gyro that way. He said you might be willing to consider setting a gyroscope on your desk and letting it precess 180 degrees then causing it to stop and see if you can then in reconsideration entertain an additional way to reason that supposes mass movement can move the center of gravity, as well as all motions from the electron to the universe itself move from one place to another. He says gyros and the universe and everything in it has got to stop before making a complete circle, or they don’t end up anywhere, except where they begin as you explain it. And, he said to respectfully tell you that according to your way travel would not be possible anywhere in anyway and the concept of travel would be dead.
By the way, Charley also shouted as he was roaring past for me to tell you he understands and admires your work as he’s been keeping up with it from his perspective as an expert on the subject of circular systems.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VMSGrY-IlU
I hope you’ve enjoyed this. Please, can we put mass movement back in business?
Best Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 03/04/2008 14:57:46
| | | Dear Glenn,
If Charley have really said all these things then it must be true! :-)
Have a nice day!
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 03/04/2008 19:31:39
| | | Hi again Harry,
Then mass transfer is real.
During the quick and short acceleration into precession speed there is probably a condition of equal and opposite and so I favor the notion just as you do, that the over-hung gyro would begin to spin in place and not precess----- However, after the acceleration is finished I feel sure that the precession velocity itself is a kind of powered coasting and doesn’t produce a rearward reaction in the same plane in the same way as durning acceleration. Walla! My inchworm takes its first step. Then it is in opposite angular position to takes it’s second reversing curvature step and so on and so on!
Yes, it is a wonderful day!
:-) Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 03/04/2008 22:14:51
| | | Dear Glenn,
Basically I agree with your conclusion. However, you always have to consider the origin of the precession velocity and this will always be the center of the spinning mass, regardless you use an overhung gyro or not. This is my belief and in my opinion logical as well. I have tried to explain my belief at the very beginning of our conversation and called this "cause and effect". "Cause" is a tilting torque and "effect" is a torque deflection of 90 deg to the tilting torque with the origin around the CENTER OF SPINNING MASS.
This facts are also valid in the design explained by EDH. But EDH claims that his design eliminates a reaction force with the help of fictitious forces. This circumstance will produce a vertical sinusoidal force at the center of his gyro system (hub) and I think he is basically right.
This work flow is a bit different to the principle of your inch worm, isn't it? ;-)
Stay on the ball and my best wishes to Charley! :-)
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 04/04/2008 09:56:47
| | | Dear Harry,
Thank you. So mass displacement is a real. And perhaps, inertial propulsion by no less than two means is a possibility? My friend I sometimes don’t know if we are making progress, or digression in science.
Whatever blows our hair back is good I guess.
I know you are a very serious man and so is EDH very much in his own way. I guess I will step aside and let the two of you work it out. Try to have some fun along the way.
Meantime I will try one last time to build my machine.
Best Regards :-),
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 10/04/2008 14:18:53
| | | Dear Harry,
I’m visiting again, because I must tell you your efforts were successful. I hope you were never confounded by me if I failed to readdress the issue below, until now.
You said, “I have tried to explain my belief at the very beginning of our conversation and called this "cause and effect". "Cause" is a tilting torque and "effect" is a torque deflection of 90 deg to the tilting torque with the origin around the CENTER OF SPINNING MASS.”
Yes Harry, I’ve always known that.
Right! I’m trying to stay on the ball as well as I'm able. Thanks and your friend Charley says hello back and to remind you how lucky you are to have breaks on your car and nobody to stop you when you want to exit it. After about sixty-five years he says he’s about fed-up with his own situation.
Take it easy,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
------------- - 03/01/2009 11:07:28
| | | TALK 2 USELF cos ime Not SUre U avee the dCENCY ANYHOW
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
John smith - 03/01/2009 11:38:18
| | | yes deffinately
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
