Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gyroscope Experiments

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ZPDM
    replied
    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, 01:49 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ZPDM
    replied
    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
    Yourmommy,

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

    Leave a comment:


  • ZPDM
    replied
    Tachyon,

    With the revised spelling, I can say I do remember coming across Podkletnov a year or two ago spending a couple hours on it and thinking, Wow, there is some guy in Northern Norway shootin frickin gravity beams through buildings. That remains about my current level of understanding of his work. I have also spent more time with Tsiriggakis. Him I had never heard of, and what a tremendous tip you gave me. I can't say he is using a variant of forced precession because he doesn't use any spinning gyroscopes. While I have no theory for why what he is doing would work, when you break it down mechanically what he is doing is almost frighteningly straightfoward. He has one motor spinning the base, he has another motor spinning the elevated rod. There are two rods with weights attached at their ends attached to the mechanism at the center of the elevated rod. So why do the attached rods do their half hemisphere figure eight motion? I don't know yet, am going to try and find a full description but I will take a WAG that what you have in that center mechanism is a 1:1 differential turning with the rotation of the elevated rod. I say that in part because, from the refernces you set me on, I saw where Tsiriggakis, built, patented and extensively tested a "gearless differential" based off his years of work studying the Antikythera mechanism, I swear you couldn't make this stuff up for a science fiction series if you tried. I left a message asking about this on Tsiriggakis Youtube channel but I don't know if he will reply, seems a bit of a long shot, though you never know, I introduced myself to John Bedini by drunkenly saying he knew nothing and he got back to me repeatedly and generously. So who knows, though now I feel very obliged to try my best to provide what I can in terms of content for his forum. I think I have a decent addition which I will post in an upcoming comment, not groundbreaking mind you, half of how I pieced it together were the references from Dr. Peter Lindeman's site, still I think worth posting.
    Last edited by ZPDM; 12-06-2012, 12:50 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • yourmommy
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • ZPDM
    replied
    Okay I finally have a video to post. I'll mention that I intially shot about 20 minutes of video with a great deal of commentary off an iphone. Then I found that the .mov format does not play nice with linux, then I had to figure out how to convert it to a different format, then I wasn't sure about a lot of my commentary etc. So I just said to heck with it, so instead here is a one minute video with no commentary. It illustrates the behavior of a spinning top spun up to high speed and placed on a glass tabletop. I will provide a little written commentary for this forum.

    I think this video is a concise experiment which raises difficult questions, the effect demonstrated is not subtle. Second this sort of behavior from spinning tops is not uncommon, actually there is I discovered, a kids game called "Battle Tops" where four tops are spun up released into the "arena" and bump into each other (hence knocking one or both tops somewhat off balance) the last top standing wins. I also seem to recall noticing this sort of behavior just from spinning a tiny toy top on a desktop years ago. Third, I have glanced at the "conservation of angular momentum" explanation for why, for instance, a spinning gyro placed laterally on a tower doesn't fall over (made that video may try and post it). While I haven't spent much time with it, can't say I understood it. However, the point here is that the plane of rotation of the gyroscope in this video changes, I am not a mathmatician, however, I don't think you can say that angular momentum is being conserved when the plane the thing is spinning in changes. While I think it should be obvious enough to hardly need mentioning, the direction in which the plane of rotation changes is also noteworthy. Here is the video

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I9d...M&feature=plcp

    Finally credit to Dagobert Duesentrieb self uprising gyroscope at high speed; full run - YouTube who posted bascially the same video 2 years ago and gave me the idea to repeat it.

    I have done a few other experiments and would just say at this point that I am fairly well convinced that precession is not simply a torque as it is conventinally presented. While I don't neccessarily understand all (most of?) the nuances of his work, I can say that concerning some of the main points of his work (that inertia is anisotrophic (had to look that one up myself) and conferred, in part, by the rotational environment, it has become, in a short time, much more difficult to dismiss Bruce DePalma's model. Eric Laithwaite, quoted Alice in Wonderland in his children's Christmas lecture on gyroscopes and in a previous post (considering how stupendous what he and DePalma were getting at) I jokingly said they are probably silly rabbits (though really I can't say I ever thought they were). Well after a few weeks, a few trips to the hobby shop and a few bucks worth of experiments I would say if they are rabbits they now look more to me like 7 foot 2 inch rabbits chatting about a tea party.
    Last edited by ZPDM; 12-06-2012, 01:39 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • tachyon
    replied
    Search google for "podkletnov gravity beam" and see http://www.frandeaquino.org/ <-although this is never proven experimentaly.

    Mr. Pappas says:
    THE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD IS NOT DEPENDENT ON ACCELERATING FRAMES, WHICH FRAMES ARE PURELY KINEMATICAL CONCEPTS THAT EXCLUDE THE CORRECT IDEA OF GRAVITY. AND THEREFORE, OF ANTIGRAVITY. BECAUSE THE THE CHANGE OF FREQUENCY OF PHOTONS IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD IS DEPENDENT ON Δν=V0*(1/c2)*g*Δx WHERE INTENSITY "g" IS IN A STATIC FRAME. THEREFORE IT CAN NOT BE ASCRIBED TO AN ACCELERATING FRAME WITH ACCELERATION "g". THE ACCELERATING FRAME IS EQUIVELANT TO FINAL VELOCITY "u". THAT'S WHY IT CAUSES ONLY DOPPLER CHANGE OF FREQUENCY TO WAVE FORMS LIKE PHOTONS, GIVEN BY: f=((c+Vr)/c)*f0 WHICH IS A FUNCTION OF INSTANT VELOCITY "u" AND NOT ACCELERATION "g"
    Last edited by tachyon; 11-19-2012, 02:29 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ZPDM
    replied
    Hi Tachyon,

    I couldn't find anything easily on pokletov's experiment. Do you have any links? I am glancing more and more at Tsiriggakis' work.

    I quoted the first line of the Gospel of John and deleted it. I am Christian though really quite likely not one you would ever like to reference. Not fully sure why I quoted that line but in part that it is to me a deep "Zen Koan" if you like. The point being, on a much less spiritual level, looking at these strange phenomena can seem an almost similar sort of mental exercise. I realized that there was so little direct connection with what I was writing and the topic at hand as to appear nonsensical so I deleted it.

    I have received all of my equipment and started a few experiments. I have seen some amazing stuff. I have an iphone 4 and a linux computer, will look to make a video soon.

    "In the beginning was the word ... and the word was with God ... and the word was God."

    Ciao,
    Paul
    Last edited by ZPDM; 11-18-2012, 03:27 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • tachyon
    replied
    You should look up pokletov's experiment .. why did you delete your post?
    Last edited by tachyon; 11-17-2012, 05:11 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • tachyon
    replied
    The inertial mass isnt the same as gravitational attraction or else the machine of tsiriggakis would bend a laser beam, easy experiment to replicate you just put a receptor and a laser beam over and near what you want to measure.. Im not sure they have made that test though... in tsiriggakis expample the inertial vector is pointing to any direction he wants.. instead of normal gyroscopes that constantly change their inertial vector in a circular manner .. and this it's why they stay at the top.. ofcourse this is my opinion and I can be wrong... there's not much for gyroscopes in my physics books yet. What is important is the "time delay" of inertial forces this machine manages to make..

    As a side note: these experiments of precession gyros reminded me of http://mirit.ru/index_en.htm (many things he says are probably fallacies..) but I agree on the obsession of this guy on wave synthesis .. wave synthesis has an important role in everyday phenomena. Probably gyroscopic machines can be explained using wave synthesis matrixes in a "time delay" manner so as to different "wave" vectors overlap each other ... ofcouse this is my opinion don't take it for granded. Imagine two wave vectors making a third vector and so on.. this way the direction of tangential inertial forces is manipulated, by this theory inertial forces and gravity is a wave. Made it in two minutes.. probably wrong.
    Last edited by tachyon; 11-16-2012, 03:04 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ZPDM
    replied
    Hi Tachyon,

    I suppose part of what I am trying to do is just to keep my mind occupied I took a quick glance at the Tsiriggakis work, thank you. It seems to be using some manner of forced precession, I may look at it in more depth but I also don't want to confuse myself. A child's spinning top is "antigravity". Even as the forces are diagrammed on Wikipedia they include an Fg and -Fg. If a spinning top falls off center it is righted again. What is the force that righted it "pressing" against? Also if a gyroscope or top starts off half fallen over (see the animation at the top of Precession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) it does not right itself neither does it fall over. That spinnig disc is constantly changing its three dimensional orientation in space all to keep constant a specific relationship in regards to the torque applied by gravity.

    Precession does not need to occur only as a gravity induced force from a hanging mass but apparently shows the same behavior from any applied torque, i.e. forced precession. I have very very little doubt that precession is an important phenomena to try and understand and there are lots of things that rotate and that have tangential forces acting on them. I can't imagine how precession is either described or predicted from Newtonian mechanics.

    So what I want to do is try and determine a little about the nature of precession (i.e. the questions I noted above). From there perhaps look at forced precession. There are levels and levels to the oddness here, Laithwaite seemed to look at it as different planes which were unaware of the behavior of each other, he also demonstrated conditions where inertial mass would behave as though greatly decreased. DePalma came to the startling conclusion that inertial mass is not a fixed property but a function of the behavior or environment of the mass. I guess I've been under the false impression that mass is what is is made of. So really my level of understanding of these two is at the point of saying they are both silly rabbits if you ask me. So I want to start very slow and methodically in the dust of where others have gone. While it may be in textbooks correctly, for a start I just want to try and determine what direction the precessional force points in and how its magnitude changes under different conditions.

    Leave a comment:


  • tachyon
    replied
    What are you trying to do? You should search for tsiriggakis anti-gravity gyroscope.. its a working machine.. uses inertial forces.. actually it uses the inertial forces "time delay" .. very complex to understand .. if you look at the movement in the xyz axis it looks like electron orbits.. which is peculiar... extremely peculiar.. http://www.google.gr/imgres?imgurl=h...QEwBg&dur=2591 I have quit trying to explain what this means for the moment..
    Last edited by tachyon; 11-15-2012, 04:10 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ZPDM
    started a topic Gyroscope Experiments

    Gyroscope Experiments

    Well after lying awake a couple times thinking about spinning things, I've finally decided to try some experiments in the area. I mean why does a child's spinning top stay upright? So having read and researched just a little on this I am again humbled by just how much has been done by for the most part unknown people. I have also the distinct impression that very very smart people struggled greatly with what they were finding often utilizing new terminology and questioning very basic assumptions. By way of background I would direct people to Dr. Eric Laithwaite's PhD DSc Christmas lecture to children on gyroscopes. It is just my speed. Also the work of Bruce DePalma.

    In trying to simplify the issue of a gyroscope's behavior in my mind as much as possible the question that occured to me is can a ball spin in more than one axis simultaneously? Picture a bright blue ball just spinning, spinning free ... it's dizzy with possibilities (sorry, line from a Grateful Dead song). But if you have say a beachball spinning one way can you also spin it at right angles? Well, per what we see from gyroscopic precession the answer is yes, but that's where all sorts of madcap zaniness ensues for our rowdy beachgoers. The ball, or disk in the case of a gyroscope resists the force applied, does not rotate in the direction of the applied torque but instead generates a torque at right angles to the applied torque. Dr. Laithwaite made the observation that this is analogous to the Righthand Rule for electromagnetic coils.

    So the first experiments will be to look at precession and repeat what others have done. The experimental set-up will consist of a gimbaled gyroscope, a rotary tool, an RPM meter and some small weights to apply torque. Initial questions include what is the relationship between the rate of precession and the applied force, I am guessing a direct relationship. What is the relationship between the disc's rotational speed and precessional rate for a given force. I have no idea. If I understand Bruce DePalma correctly he said it follows a square law. Laithwaite demonstrated doubling the moment arm of a weight on the side of a gyroscope and showing increased precession speed. The oddness of that one did take a while to sink in. When you double a lever arm you increase the force but the mass is displaced by a lesser distance, in this instance not only is the mass not displaced in the direction of force at all, but the speed of the hanging weight is increased, you on the surface are getting different work rates from the same input. There is much more to examine, especially in regards to inertia but that can wait for later experiments. Other things I would like to do initially but likely won't unless I contact a machine shop would include how does the mass of a rotor relate to precession, how does the distribution of mass of a rotor relate to precession, how does the geometry of a sphere or tube compare with a disc?

    There is a very great deal that is strange and wonderful with spinning things. DePalma states that the these findings and interactions extend to magnetic fields as well. I want to stay away from that for now as it occured to me that we don't have a good sensory system for electricity or magnetism and there are already unseen forces at work when dealing with gyroscopes. So along with all the other things happening with gyroscopes, in this first part I just want to confirm that there is a right angle tangential force generated with gyroscopes and that it is only a torque and and not also a translational force. I.e. does a spinning ball on a straight track show any non-Newtonian behavior? I don't know, I don't think so. However, for those familiar with DePalma's spinning ball experiment, what I am guessing is that you would have greatly different results depending on whether the spinning ball and the control ball are shot at 90 degrees to the Earth's gravitation field versus 45 degrees. Further that the very small difference in the later dropped spinning ball versus non spinning ball might be due to imperfections in the sphere leading to minute torques on the falling ball. Then again I don't know, maybe I'll find out. Considering the state of our world is it any wonder we are also blind to the creation around us?

    So hope to have a video and some data maybe late next week.
Working...
X