|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
24 April 2024 15:00
|
|
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: |
PROOF BY REASON |
| Question: |
Question: THIS TREATMENT IS TO PROVE
A dreamers understanding; verses a blockhead's arguments.
First, impact force does not mean momentum continues in the horizontal plane after the downward force is nullified by lifting against it. The impact force is possible only as momentum is being converted and before it is finished converting. Coasting does not continue in the horizontal plane beyond the effect of dead weight. We have eyes to see, do we not?
I have said for years that momentum is in the precession plane, but that its effect is converted upwards.
The proof of this momentum belongs to Nitro alone, because Nitro was the first to provide the mechanics to explain how and why it was: that is, how and why it was in the sense of cause and effect.
Some here may not completely understand the concept of mechanical explanation; that it is a sequence of reactions explained in sequence. That is why some intelligent arguments are sometimes challenged with only forceful statements of what is; and not why and how it is. With why and how, you provide logical reasons and ways that can be turned around in your mind like dreams in logic and then investigated.
I have stated: “Gravity forces downward on the gyroscope. Angular momentum is caused to twist into a right angle couple-- which is precession occurring. Precession causes angular momentum to twist into a right angle couple upwards. Precession momentum is converted into upward force. Upward force meets downward force. Momentum is used up.”
The other possibility would be: “A series of pressures act and no momentum whatsoever is involved. That too would give a logical explanation to the fact that precession stops; except that Nitro has virtually proven there is momentum to impact, though it disappears without impact.
It is hard to imagine the dreamless mind that argued: “It is not the momentum that causes . . . upward force. It is . . . tilting . . . twisting . . . through its center . . .”
What would that mean exactly? You see? The question had not to do with tilting, twisting; and not whether or they exists and acts. Of course they do. They are the means to transfer force, but they do not cause force. Momentum is force.
The question and explanation is how and why lift, or suspension happens. What is the cause and effect in sequential order? You see? You cannot debate mechanics with people who live in a blockhead's world devoid of sequential mechanics in minds incapable of dreams in cognition.
Relatively new hypotheses are being developed in an attempt to explain the unusual actions of a gyroscope; actions that occur under unnatural human interventions.
Let us consider the extreme and extraordinary nature of this query.
The force ratio required in suspending an active Taco Gyro at a rate of fall of two inches in five minutes, instead of 32 feet per second will be in the realm of almost 1:10,000. There is enough force exerted during the five minutes in that ratio to cause a non-rotating gyroscope to ‘precession if it could’ at speeds greater than the speed of sound.
If momentum were not being converted during the same time it is occurring, the breakaway release would be dangerous enough to kill a man. But there is no blinding speed is there? So where does the magnitude of momentum of any amount lesser or greater go to? Why does it not continue in the precession plane or into the linear breakaway plane?
It is because momentum as it occurs is either being curved upwards to deliver continuous forces, or is curving upwards to cause continuous pressures. There is no third option to explain the disappearance of momentum.
Momentum exist and its effect is to lift the gyroscope; therefore I restate the simplest thing I know, the force of momentum causes lift, and I will add, not the mechanism of rotational momentum which provides the means to lift.
Glenn, |
| Date: |
15 March 2015
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 15/03/2015 16:24:35
| | | I have many things to concentrate on. I cannot return for a long while and I promise this to myself. I smile pleasurably to some of you and wish happiness and good health to all,
Bye for a long while,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 15/03/2015 19:31:39
| | | Well Glenn, you are one of the few that, every now and then, has a glimpse of what is really happening. Too bad you can't get the rest of it.
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 19/03/2015 15:20:37
| | | My absence has been interrupted by my mind's inability to shut down. You ought to be use to this by now.
This post has to do with the questions of instantaneous, momentum and inertia. What do you fellows think?
My math of twenty years ago was based both both measurements and guestimated factors, and the resulting numbers lie only in the general range of probability. Perhaps thirty times this test was repeated.
My Tadaco gyroscope was rotated to 2,700 RPMs. I hit downward on the precessing tip of the shaft with a 20 oz. framing hammer as hard as I could. The hammer’s face was level. The gyroscope flung itself off my desk at in the air toward a wall at 11 miles per hour. The pedestal was flung in the opposite direction at 22 miles an hour. The gyroscope weighs perhaps 300 times more than the pedestal.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 10/04/2015 18:04:43
| | | I am withholding a great and powerful; intricate and complete theory of why and how the laws of motion cause the gyroscope to perform exactly how Eric, Sandy and Nitro have stated, except for losing weight. The information is too valuable and too dangerous to release.
I am now developing plans and designs using the theory of these perfect laws acting in great complexity to build a power plant. The engine will continuously thrust an apparatus from within a closed sphere and the potential for how it is used is greater than any machine ever built.
Those of us who have questioned and attacked viable demonstration all around us and who have created countering arguments and viewed and sighted false testing will never understand without the theory.
I understand. I am very sorry.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 23/05/2015 16:42:32
| | | I am wearing myself out day in and day out and still have not found and selected the most suitable bearings and exactly right motors, and I have yet to cut a single bit of medal. This is unique and delicate and powerful all at the same time and you can not just lumber through it picking whatever is available off the sheaf. I think I will make it, but I am blowing the springs and probably the summers by staying in doors all the time. It's costing me a piece of my life. I guess that is what inventions do. I never tried before because I did not have a theory based on facts that I could believe in until now.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/06/2015 17:42:27
| | | There seemed to be no end to how much there was to know about a gyroscope. Not simply to watch it working and know what it does and what it will do; but not to know why it does what it does. I kept thinking each progressing day I had everything after years of study, but yesterday I kept running into a the same old and final question I had never solved.
"What is the ratio between precession's inward torque; and centrifuge? When does inward torque fail and centrifuge become more powerful? As I search for these last two days the answer came to me. It is the saturation point.
That is the point where angular momentum overcomes inward precession torque. When are the effects of rotation- not precession- added to the precession equation?
When the rpms of the toy gyroscope slow down and it is placed on a pedestal, the reason it flies off the pedestal is not because it orbits at a faster speed. It is because rotation is not fast enough to hold against increased centrifuge. Also when you extend the distance of the shaft you increase leverage and orbital speed and again the gyro flies off the pedestal. Again too, it is because the flywheel rotation speed has not been increased to match and overcome the increased centrifuge.
A gyroscope may circle its un-ancered pivot on a slick table extremely fast if the RPMs are extremely increased and the gyro will not succumb to centrifuge. The pivot will remain stationary if angular momentum is increased. It is very complicated but that is the way it is. The effects of centrifuge disappear with greater rotation speeds..
How can science be so conditioned as to fight against what they see happening? Precession overcomes varying amounts of, or all of centrifuge, period.
Anyway, I was so flustered with unanswered questions, I once attacked the idea of a saturation point, but it is real and it is what helped me solve what i believe must surely be the last answer to why and how the gyroscope functions.
Also to your question: "Does anybody else know why my gyros lift?" The short answer is obvious, they precess upwards. The long answer is long.
My machine? I am worn out. I stopped today. May be this winter. Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/06/2015 17:47:25
| | |
"What is the ratio between precession's inward torque; to centrifuge? When does inward torque fail and centrifuge become more powerful? As I searched for these last two days the answer came to me. It is the saturation point.
CORRECTION
That is the point where CENTRIFUGE overcomes inward precession torque. At that time the effects of rotation- not precession- are added to the precession equation.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 30/06/2015 03:09:50
| | | Hello fellows,
My theory has been complete for some time now. I have to withhold it for a while longer. I intend to send it to Steven Hawking and his team to study it and provide the new math for it and then to publish it.
the theory has virtually been proven. The apparatus I am building is mechanically hypothetical, which in this case means logically based on theory it should work, but there can be no certainty no mater how probable until it works.
I have day dreamed a bit. If it does work for any of us we would have plenty of money. In my daydream I would send each of you and your families a round trip plane ticket and $ 20,000. You would come to see me and each other in the Florida Keys and be treated like royalty and have all the vacation fun there is to offer. Also there would be a huge work shop there with machines and machinist, an engineer and draftsman. They could build anything you could dream up and build it to perfection. wouldn't that be wonderful? We could set on the veranda in the evenings with the waves creaming the sand, the red sun going down, a gentle, salty breeze through the palms and smoke Cuban cigars, have Mint Julip cocktails and and I could just set back smiling easy and listen to everybody. Everyone who has ever been on here would be invited and welcome with open arms and hand shakes. I would love to see and hear you all. Wow, isn't a few minutes spent on day dreams sometimes very fine?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
