|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
25 April 2024 19:55
|
|
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: |
Mauricio |
| Subject: |
Inertial Propulsion |
| Question: |
I have a suggestion of a test for an inertial propulsion system. A simple test with a sealed tube or a chamber.
Two bodies of metal stuck in 2 engines spinning in the opposite direction. A shooting, a spring between the two engines that may be fired to send each device in a opposite direction.
One of the engines operate a solid block of metal and the other turns a block of equal mass composed of small metal balls held by a magnetic field.
When the engines are fired in the opposite direction the weights are released and go in the opposite direction, the magnetic field that keeps the small balls is removed.
Then we began to have a solid piece of metal that follows in the direction of one side of the chamber and a series of small metal spheres with the same mass that follows the opposite direction
We have the one that follows: The small balls of metal due to centrifugal force will spread and collide with the wall of the chamber following a higher path and losing energy.
Then when the masses fired in the opposite direction reach until the end of its side of chamber will have more energy in one side than the other, creating a kinetic unbalanced system or small propulsion.
We also can reverse the situation by putting in spiral grooves in the side of the chamber where we have small balls.
The friction of the balls sum of the centrifugal energy with the shot, again creating an umbalanced kinetic and propulsion.
If one of you agree with thos theory, I have a project to create such a system which feedback system with better use of energy that may be used for propulsion.
A friend from Brazil! |
| Date: |
19 November 2008
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Bojidar Djordjev - 24/11/2008 14:15:47
| | | Dear Sirs,
I just wonder do you have interest in Free (Reaction less) Torque Generation.
The answer how to test Free Torque is in the paper - according the NASA requarements.
In future this technology can replace Control Moment Gyros and Reaction Wheels used for space craft attitude control.
Despite of this that such an idea can sound not seriously please see the invited paper “Free (Reaction Less) Torque Generation – Fiction or Reality” presented in the WSEAS Conference in Corfu Greece http://www.wseas.org/conferences/2008/corfu/control/ page 139 of http://www.worldses.org/books/2008/corfu/control_systems.pdf
Best Regards
Bojidar Djordjev
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 26/11/2008 22:47:16
| | | Hi Mauricio,
As I understand your idea, you have applied some good reasoning, but it can’t work. Notice a skater spinning, whirling on ice. When they bring their arms in next to their body they spin faster. When they extend their arms their spin slows down. But the distance their hands travel in a small fast rotation during one second, is the same distance they travel in a wider slower rotation. In both cases their hand would carry the same force, the same amount of energy, called momentum that would register if they slapped a wall while spinning. This is the law of conservation of energy. As your balls extended outward their rotation would slow down and only have the same energy as they did when they were first began.
As far friction, verses none friction, again everything equals out and you would have a wobbling cylinder that never leaves the area in which it warbles. Good try though. Maybe you might like studying engineering. You might be good at it.
A friend from America,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Mauricio - 02/12/2008 16:01:07
| | | Glenn,
You are right and I understand the example of skater spinning. I have been graduated in electronic engineer. Id likes to highlight some things; my doubt is a litter bit different of presented material. And yes have a doubt about energy conservation that didn’t found any material about that.
First on my model bellow that spheres are floating, probably considering the superconductor material utilization.
We have 2 spheres inside on an chamber, one spinning and the second one no.
The 2 spheres that will be fired one against to the other in order to follow opposite directions.
The sphere that is turning is made of small balls joined by an magnetic field. When the ball that is turning is fired the magnetic field is removed.
What we have 2 balls with equal mass that was propelled one against to the other following opposite directions.
We have the energy of centrifugal force that is added after. What’s happen? Will the energy of centrifugal force be added to one side generating a disequilibrium?
When we fire 2 balls for opposite directions inside of one chamber the force cancel the counter force, but what’s happen if I fire 2 boomerangs for opposite directions and they turn in angle colliding the both in the same side? May we consider that due the energy conservation nothing will happen?
Regards,
Mauricio
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 03/12/2008 16:01:25
| | | Mauricio
Many years ago when it was then possible, I took my plans to NASA. Their head engineer in charge of new ideas was so kind as to look over my drawings and discuses them and other things with me for several hours. He even gave me a tour of his projects around Redstone Arsenal. I was very lucky. This is not possible any more. In the end he showed me why my alternating centrifugal machine wouldn’t work and suggested what I study. I was impressed by him. I respected him, but I could not abandon my dreams and logical designs. For a couple of years afterwards I kept testing and learning, until finally I knew he was correct. For others it may be different, but for me no method of manipulating centrifuge to produce propulsion is possible.
There are a couple of ideas about gyroscopic propulsion them that I still find perhaps possible. In my mind those two designs single are the best chance anybody has.
My advise to you is to pursue inertial propulsion only if is a great pass-time fun, and that you are actually learning something more about engineering.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Mauricio - 04/12/2008 11:12:06
| | | Glen thank you for you suggestion and comments.
The idea to share with all of you this approach was to check if some one else heard some thing related with this experiment involving energy conservation.
On my suggested model I’m not using centrifugal force for propulsion. On my suggested model I’m using the traditional propulsion technique.
I’m only inquiring if some one else has thought to change the counter force direction using angular movement or precession.
The trick will be to create a unbalanced system by combining linear propulsion with angular movement.
Bojidar,
This model is easy to be tested.
Inside of a chamber or a box floating over water or with superconductor material floating on air, a device fire small boomerangs (or spheres spinning out of its mass center) simultaneously for opposite directions.
The spheres or boomerang are rotating in an opposite direction one each other in order to turn both for same side of box.
The system can continuously feed the main device with “boomerangs” for continuous lunching.
If box move we have found a model to be refined for inertial propulsion.
Regards,
Mauricio
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/12/2008 03:56:22
| | | Hi Mauricio,
Your country interest me. I like what I know of it. I use several sources for information. Google Earth is pretty amazing once it’s full range of uses is understood.
There were capable people on other big sites, now defunct, including in all developed countries, who spent twenty and even forty years investigating the none gyroscopic inertial propulsion you are into. I, in my own work and time can attest that it’s a hell of a waist of time. For three hundred years before me it has been known to be possible.
Your idea: If not centrifuge, then reactionless, centrifugeless rotation, beaked into an impact that is supposed to transfer angular momentum into linear momentum- -‘Thor’s Hammer’? It would not matter how the rotation, or expansion was begun, it won’t work. It doesn’t even mater if you think I understand you, or whether I do, or don‘t. It doesn’t change anything.
Too bad, huh? I am actually very sorry,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Mauricio - 05/12/2008 20:04:23
| | | Glenn,
Again, thank you for your feed back, I thought the same. Because of this I open discussing in many forums. I was trying to be in touch with persons that have study more in deep this area before proceed with any thing. I liked of your suggestion when you say to conduct the experiment in a fun way or as a hobby, more to enjoy to don’t become disappointed. My suggestion is so simple that I already thought if nobody has done this test before.
As this test is not so expensive if I have conditions to do I will share the results with you!
Gitirana
P.S: I’m based in Rio de Janeirio. Here is a beautiful place.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 07/12/2008 15:35:35
| | | Hello Mauricio,
What other forum, or forums?
Yes, having fun is a good idea isn’t it? and the experiments should be really interesting. Yes very much, please let us know how they come out. We’re interested too. Well, so long and good luck.
Have a Merry Christmas,
Glenn
P.S. Yes, I see at a distance your Rio de Janeirio, a warm city sliding off the green mountains, falling into the warm yellow sands before a wide blue sea of motions. It is a very beautiful, inviting city.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Mauricio - 09/12/2008 02:27:25
| | | Glenn,
The other forums that I mentioned, are in Portuguese. I'm surprised because I thought that something so simple I will find references in Web Sience, literature or articles, or forums where someone else already had tested this model (counter force deviation) but I was surprise that up to now I´m unable to reach at anyone with this knowledge. Some physicists and engineers with some experience in propulsion already have examined my theory and they chose to not give opinion due the lack of references or test model.
I will be back only next year on February.
Have a Merry Christmas and a happy new year! 2009 need to be diferent!!!
Mauricio
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
svein - 10/12/2008 23:17:06
| | | Hi there ppl.
Me too have been dealing with IP ideas for almost a decade and also been dialog with Glenn before (nice to see you are still around Glenn, this place is sort of where I can find you. I truly appreacheate it).
But I grew cold on the subject and sort of passed by here tonight as I didnt fell asleep.,.
I have had noumerous ideas on IP, built them too, and none of them work. Its simply the beauty of circle and laws of physics you truly encounter when you finally crack up your system only to notice it doesnt really move an inch.
I belive you would gain linear propulsion as your magnet would let go of its weight, but as your system moves and the magnet wich is then in free air is hitting the other side (rear side) tht force will even out your benefit of linear movment. In fact the more you get linear movment the harder they also would hit. Next is then to think ... what if they hit water?.. but then the energy consum of it all is annoyingly big.
But your educated in electical field? And there you have a much more interesting system to create:
Its possible to trap electical charge in an magnetic field (they go in circle), and then use tht charge (since electical chrge also has its own magnetic field), as "the reaction force" . If you can imagine: it woudl be like LENZ LAW, with the copper tube, you kick your whay upwards while the magnet is kicked downwards. exept tht the magnet is an electical charge, (and perhaps even the way it will go is not even downwards but actually outwards in a bigger circlular spin as the repelling force in magnetic fiels is 90 degrees.
Wow lads, its time to go to bed.. but an interesting thougt there.
Svein
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 11/12/2008 14:55:22
| | | Hi Svein,
I smiled when I saw your post. We adopted an old saying, “Long time no see.”. In your case I guess it should be, “Long time no read.” Welcome back.
I think nothing has drained clever men’s mind more than trying to understand inertial propulsion, particularly gyroscopic propulsion and yet to have come up so empty. There are still questions. Perhaps some will never be answered with proof. The tests are so difficult and gravity makes them more difficult.
Let me ask you. When you had built one of your little apparatuses and glanced at it one last time before you flipped a lever to crank it up, was your mind more focused than at any other time in your life, except perhaps while experiencing sudden danger? If our answer is yes, then that intense instant was very valuable to our life’s experience and worth the work. But man, oh man! What if the blasted thing had flung itself of the table and crashed into the wall, hey? What a trip that’d be.
Regards and sleep well,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Mauricio - 22/12/2008 21:39:30
| | | Hi Svein,
These experimental models are only the principle test because de model that I though probably will use gas x plasma or nano particles with super conductor techniques.
I appreciate you comments and I already study deeply the concepts mentioned, I understand. Thank you for you time and attention.
My conceptual model is litter bit different from these models that I presented, but as it is more expensive I have used this less cost approach. I’m trying to simplify using these examples. What I’ trying to do is a trick with Newton laws using the new materials with an approach that I didn’t saw nothing up to now.
All propulsion systems are based in the rule that to move in one direction we need to push mass in another direction in a linear system, it’s avoid the inertial propulsion.
What I though? Why the propelled mass need to follow in a linear direction? Why we cannot use particles or small pieces that after fired assume a behavior like a boomerang returning for its starting point? And in order to have a null effect of this principle may we shut the small pieces in the opposite directions with one mass using the other as a support to be fired?
Then I though: And if the disks are made by diamagnetic material allowing the floating without any contact. One disk turning in an opposite direction of other. The disks may have teeth like small ramps. When one disk touches the other disk, due the high rotation the teeth it send them for opposite directions. A mechanical device may be used in each disk to change its form when this shut happens; we may change the disk form to allow it turn out of mass center helping to create the angular trajectory.
What do we will have: 2 masses propelled one against to other moving with its inertial energy in an angular (non linear trajectory), for same side the box or chamber. But instead of these 2 disks return for its start point, in the middle way they will collide with chamber wall transferring its energy.
The big jump will be the usage of superconductor material to break the physical connection. The disks that will float free may be accelerate magnetically without physical contact. To feed the system again, the disk may loose its diamagnetic condition by using a laser and falling in feedback mechanisms.
I’m trying to identify if with this new materials I found a breach in the energy conservation rule or if I’ missing some thing! If I’m not finding anything using the simplified model I do not hope that I will find some thing with this model that I presented.
Again thank you from a friend in the other side of planet!
I liked the Gleen words and I see that we are doing more than our mental exercises or polishing our egos. Doing right or not at least we are working for a better world. Because each time the technology advance the world become a better place to leave, see some centuries ago. If this technology advances the survivor condition of human race in the universe will increase.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
PATRICK - 01/01/2009 11:55:27
| | | Mouricio
I hear, the first 2 come will see!!!! that i state and oh i hope my illiteracy does not end up in any other postings in the forum
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
