Bedini RPX Sideband Generator



Monero XMR

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12

Thread: Gyroscope Experiments

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by yourmommy View Post
    i was working on amotor built like a gyro and combonations of poles built like side by side insted of on top like all motors are and some like a ceiling fan motor but each coil detached from ceries each pole negitive and next to a positive pole and the outer coils same way but like a 1985 dodge 75 amp alt, and opamp each of the 3 from the outer coils can use a dial volum increce or decrece amps into coils and it should be ready to use to drive a 2500 watt 120vac genrator for run on its oun power and produce an 1500 watt 120vac output for use any ware any time like emergancy use

    I can't say I follow your post but wish you success with your experimentation

  2. #12

    Understanding Dr. Laithwaite's gyroscopic propulsion patent and Bruce DePalma's m

    Understanding Dr. Laithwaite's gyroscopic propulsion patent and Bruce DePalma's mechanical force machine.

    Well as of yesterday I believe I understand the concepts behind both of these men's approach to generating linear force from a gyroscope. Was thinking of starting a new thread but, while I don't think so, might wake up tommorow and say "wait that's not it" so I'll post it here. I am also not entirely clear on all the mechanical details, however, if the concept is right the rest can follow. Of course what follows would be viewed as absurd from textbook viewpoints, whatever, to repeat the motto of the English Royal society of Newton's day Nullius in verba, "take no one's word for it". This isn't rocket science a trip to a hobby shop and you can look into it yourself.

    So, in his children's Christmas lecture, Laitwaite spent two minutes discussing a drawing by M.C. Escher which showed people going up and down stairs in different planes of perpective each unaware of each other. Bruce DePalma was more precise in saying that when an object rotates there is an anisotrophic change in inertial mass. That is to say the mass of the spinning object changes but the change is in relation to the plane of rotation. In the plane perpendicular to rotation an object gains mass. This was utilized by showman P.T. Selbit with his Mighty Cheese routine where audience members were invited to try and lift a large cheese cylinder and could not because it contained a rotating gyroscope. This is also the basis for the stabilization properties so widely utilized with gyroscopes. In the planes parallel to rotation inertial mass is decreased. This has been demonstrated in various experiments of Dr. Laithwaite which are available on video. Now this whole field is so little written about or seemingly explored there may be serious details omitted and this view may not be entirely correct. From the few meager experiments I have done, I have seen nothing that contradicts it. So let's accept it for now. This then is the first point, angular momentum, rotation, leads to an anisotrophic change in inertial mass.

    There is only one other important concept. What happens when the whole rotating thing is itself in motion? I really need to post more videos to make this part more clear and will look to do so. However, there are two types of motion we might consider. The first is known as precession. When a torque is applied to a rotating gyroscope a new force at right angles to the initiating force (and in relation to the spin of the gyroscope following the right hand rule) occurs. The gyroscope resists any change in the direction of the applied force and instead rotates at a right angle to the applied force. Quite oddly, again I need to show a video, the precession that results is also at right angles to the axis of rotation, yet somehow, to anthropomorphise, the gyroscope is entirely cool with this. There is no secondary precession that results. That is neither here nor there. One could also have precessional motion say if holding a propeller or spinning gyro at arms length and pirouetting around. The important point is whether there is a torque which occurs perpendicular to the axis of rotation. The second type of motion is translational that is to say a straight line, in such a case barring air resistance, there is no torque induced on the gyro.

    So here is a money quote. Gyroscopes, spinning things, behave differently when travelling in precession than when travelling in translation, i.e. spinning things don't act the same when traveling in a straight line versus a circle. Not a very pithy quote. Still this is exactly what both Laithwaite and DePalma made use of. I'll now illustrate this with an example similar to the one Laithwaite used in his patent.

    Let's suppose you have a model train car on a rail, a light one say an empty coal car. Attached to the middle on each side of the car are two arms with weights at the end. These arms are on bearings such that they can rotate 180 degrees. The two arms are brought to one end of the car and pressed together with a spring in between. The spring is released shooting the two weighted arms 180 degrees in a semicircle to the opposite end of the car. What happens to the car? Well, in accordance with Newton it moves a short distance down the track, but the weight of the two arms is now at the opposite end and the center of mass of the whole system moves not one iota, again in accordance with Newton. Now, repeat this (I confess I haven't yet done this am only repeating Laithwaite) with two spinning gyroscopes instead of weights at the end of the arm. To avoid any torsion issues have the two gyros spin in opposite directions. Press them together at one end with a spring in between and release the spring. The gyros precess 180 degrees around to the other side and here is the most important thing, per Dr. Laithwaite, the rail car moves far less in the opposite direction, the center of mass changes. That is the money quote. Now when you return the two weights back to the starting point you don't do a precessional half circle again, instead you bring them back in a straight line, translational motion. In doing this you get the normal Newtonian response. You repeat this cycle over and over and in essence each time take one step back and two steps forward. Now I haven't confirmed any of this but I will say that once understanding what they were talking about I felt a bit of enthusiasm like Dr. McCoy in the Spock's brain episode where he puts on the alien intelligence helmet and comes out saying "A child could do it Jim, a child could do it"

    I believe being published in 1995 after Dr. Laithwaite was how do we say it, crapped on, by the establishment for a few years he may have made his patent exceedingly complex and hard to follow. Still we can now follow his abstract.
    "Gyroscopes are used to cause the first gyroscope to follow a path which involves at least one precession-dominated portion and at least one translation-dominated portion, wherein in the precession-dominated portion, the mass of the first gyroscope is transferred and associated movement of the mass of the remainder of the system in a given direction occurs, and, in the translation-dominated portion, the mass of the first gyroscope moves with an associated second movement of the mass of the remainder of the system in substantially the opposite direction, wherein the movement owing to the translation-dominated portion and(sic) is larger than the movement owing to the precession-dominated portion of the motion, hence moving the system."

    DePalma with a different configuration did exactly the same thing with his mechanical force machine and both speak of the force occuring in a sinusoidal wave. Again I need to more clearly understand the actual mechanical details of both DePalma and Laithwaite but the concept is as described. Now DePalma apparently took this a step further and generated a smooth linear force utilizing the torque upon a magnetically saturated core. He stated that the effects seen with masses are seen as well with magnetic fields. I am as I said at the start of this thread going to leave magnetics on the back burner for awhile as there are too many things I can't see and I am not ready to try and think about anisotrophic inertial changes to magnetic fields! His approach for this does seem very straightforward, perhaps later.

    I have one idea for a variation, and it is I believe a true variation on the approach detailed above. It is so simple I really don't know if it will work. But in the spirit of the Royal Society of Newton's day I'll be entirely open even if this is stupidity. The point here is that Laithwaite also demonstrated a decrease in weight to the Royal society, possibly the reason why his lecture was the only time in the society's 350+ year history the meeting minutes were not kept. The experiment can be seen to be replicated in this video Eric Laithwaite - YouTube starting at 3:30. I put that section in a video editor and slowed it down frame to frame to try and see just exactly where in the cycle it lost weight. I thought, well if it is losing weight when being forced down on the ramp then I know just what to do, otherwise I am at a loss. Then it occured to me, a day or two later , it doesn't matter. In no place, from what I hear, is he claiming there is a weight gain. I mean it must be high or low. Either it is losing weight on the downward ramp or it is losing weight on the upward precession. It may be that being forced down the downward ramp is a "translational dominated" portion of the cycle. I don't know haven't done these experiments, but to be open for the forum that is what I will be looking to work on. Will also try and post some more videos with gyroscopes. Happy Experimenting.
    Last edited by ZPDM; 12-06-2012 at 01:49 AM.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts