Hi All,
have a look at these 2 videos:
http://www.youtube.com/user/ganidllc
and their website and PDF file.
http://www.ganid.com/
The video, where they show the 2 gyroscopes
running in each other is quite impressive,
cause it shows a real horizontal
displacement, so it really generates unidirectional forces already
with 2 gyroscopes.
Regards, Stefan.
Extremely interesting!
It doesn't seem that it would require much capital to machine a high precision working prototype to undeniably prove the concept. In fact Mr.Tippett already has, has had all that he needs to get the job done yesterday. It is a very common practice for patent holders to offer a percentage of the business to principles which have the money, tools and wherewithal to get the jobs done that need getting done. With such a valuable, earth shaking product as the anti-gravity 3-D Gyro there certainly is shares to go around.
He hasn't done this, nor is there any mention of him seeking such. Rather he wants money, money, money. Which is how it would be done if the invention had little real value. I hope I'm wrong about the invention; but I'm not wrong about an all too familiar pattern used by crooks.
jt
Have built several 3 (and more) axis gyrostabilizers, long enough time expereminted with ... unfortunately not any effects close to antigravity have been detected,
Sooner au contraire - full apparatus has always too high weight :'(
Gyroscopes are nice and interesting things,
When studied and when no deficit of ability to think 3D - then it is understandable wheres made mistake when hoped to get antigravity with gyros 8)
- just forgotten virtual "mooring" points what could locate far enough from ... and that every force has always contra-force ...
Anyway - Gyroscopes are devilishly exciting things,
With due respect,
khabe
Has anyone experimented the rotation of 3 dimentional (only) magnetic fields?
What do you imagine might be gained by such a system?
Quote from: AhuraMazda on January 02, 2009, 05:33:28 AM
Has anyone experimented the rotation of 3 dimentional (only) magnetic fields?
What do you imagine might be gained by such a system?
You mean 3 rotating magnetic field units placed XYZ ?
Then first question - how it looks this single unit, whats direction of magnetic flux - radial... axial... or circlewise ???
When circular, just wound toroid, then radiated field is "zero" and at that by my opinion there is no spinning effect in reality.
I have made especially tests with toroids, included Ferro-Fluid inside of transparent plastic torus - tried at DC up to 10kHz used even audio amplifier for more power - no spinning >:(
Some kind of results I got when use 3ph and out-side radiating flux ...but even this was far from hoped,
cheers,
khabe
Looks like a fun experiment. A more exotic experiment can be done using a circular super conductor and an indefinitely running current inside of it. The electrons will act as the spinning rim in this case.
Of course included fun :D
These experiments with "rotating magnetic field" I did to get at least smallest gyroscopic effect without real flywheel ... and I bought six 2x20w audio amplifiers, tens of Fet full bidge end stages - bldc drives even up to 1...2 kw :'(..., several funcktion generators ... huge lot of stuff - it was year ago -> was high-season of Steve Mark TPU ::)
The best choice is to try, not just speak and pick your nose ;)
Tried and true ... :o
...or not true >:(
cheers,
khabe
You should check out what someone rather uncharitably called
Tesla's flying stove:
http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/tesla-flying-machine/Tesla-Flying-Stove-motor.php
and also:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6409.msg146268;topicseen#msg146268
Don't forget Eric Laithwaite and his lecture to the Royal Society which appears to
have been expunged from the records.
Paul.
Its typical!
Tesla's flying stove - but it does not fly !!!
The same like typical are headlines in this forum:
Complete information on working ................... :o
Successful ............. replication ! 8)
................. End of Game... >:(
..........................................
....etc .... but nothing, absolutely nothing! --- Just empty words,
No complete info, even no near complete info ... nothing replicated, none working devices ... and ... not any game has been ended ::)
Even discreditable waterwheel selfruns up till today ...
curiously,
khabe
I wonder if these demonstrations would behave the same, or differently, if Tippett's theory were true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdAmEEAiJWo
Yeah space research. It's almost like they're mocking where tax money is going..
While the spokeless ring gyros that comprise this 3-D gyroscope are certainly a cool invention with many possible applications, the concentric configuration proposed stands a pretty slim chance of demonstrating antigravity or linear thrust, imho. It will act as a rotation stabilizer, resisting any applied external torque, but will do nothing against the linear force of gravity.
A more interesting configuration would be to construct a Hopf torus with these spokeless ring gyros (I know, I know, I am a one-trick pony...but it's a good trick!!) -- While still a long shot, I propose that this configuration has a better chance of producing thrust, since the density of the moving rotors is greater on the inner (aperture) portion of the toroid relative to that on the outer edge (producing a gradient in the momentum field). This is an idea I have been sitting-on for about a decade now, and it's finally time that I let it out of the bag. So there ya go.
An alternate-tech version of such "spokeless" gyros would use magnetohydrodynamic pumps to move a dense metallic fluid inside the rings. Hmmm... there would be associated electromagnetic effects as well-- corona discharge, perhaps... this is starting to look like a classic flying saucer! (but i'm getting ahead of myself here... one step at a time.)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4009.0;attach=17036;image (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4009.0;attach=17036;image)
Eric Laithwaite's story is one of the most depressing instances in the field of study forums such as this are dedicated to. The pity is that people like @khabe are so categorical in their denial. Can, however, @khabe show results as rigorous as those shown in Hayasaka H., Takeuchi S., Phys.Rev.Lett., 63, 2701-2794 (1989)? Even the powers that be in their attempts to promptly smash these studies show experiments nowhere near in sophistication as those of Hayasaka and Takeuchi. The powers that be couldn't wait to denounce the findings by the latter -- within a month and they were ready to report negatively on them, irrespective of the low quality of counter evidence presented. Such travesty of science is ubiquitous these days.
You should've seen the crowd the other day listenening in one of the Barnes & Noble stores in New York City to the crap that string theorist was spewing. Nothing but crap, that's physics mainstream today. Travesty of science.
Oh, and, regarding Newton's second law -- yes, it is incomplete and that can be seen regardless of Eric Laithwate's studies. Let alone Hamilton's equations -- utter nonsense. You will not see the Royal Society, however, to be in icy silence when listening to crap such as Hamilton's equations. Quite the contrary, it celebrates that kind of crap. The silence of the Royal Society is for innovative thinkers such as Eric Lathwaite. What a sad world we live in.
This is 2012 right??? this is junk
On the subject of antigravity and gyroscopes, does anyone remember Sam Kydd? He was an Australian inventor who developed a giro antigravity device. I read about him in a book from my local library. I think it was probably back in the 1980s. The device was driven by a model aircraft engine, and when placed on the scales, showed a weight reduction of about 10%. When mounted in a horizontal position on a model boat, it would propel the boat. He was looking for funding for further development. I can find no reference to him on the internet.
I cannot find any discussion anywheres on the Wallace patents, trying to find out if anyone has ever attempted replication of any of the devices in these 3 patents. If you read them over closely it certainly appears as if Wallace built at least 2 of the devices, the initial experimental setup has test data in the patent, and the heat pump patent is in tremendous detail which leads me to believe it was also built. Not sure about the gravitational shielding embodiment however as he doesn't go into great detail there. Why would he indicate that the gravity shield shell should be made of bismuth when there are other materials with much higher densities of unpaired nucleons per volume such as aluminum? Could it be that aluminum has longer relaxation time of the nuclear spin axis alignment and would therefore not be suitable as conductor of the gravitomagnetic field at such high frequencies?
Even replication of the specific heat change in a copper sample exposed to the field would give great validity to these patents and should not be overly difficult or pricey.
I am very surprised that there is not more on the net about these patents!
You can find the patents here:
http://www.rexresearch.com/wallace/wallace.htm
-boots
Apparently no one understands or gives a **** about conquering gravity anymore, guess I will have to attempt replication myself. This makes way too much sense not to attempt.
Apparent lack of mad scientists in the world these days....
-boots
RB
Do you know anything about the inventor ...company.. is he still on the planet?
wheres he from?
thanks for the links
http://www.rexresearch.com/wallace/wallace.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/wallace/wallace.htm)[/font]
Chet
ps
for the TinMan
repost from this thread by Neptune
On the subject of antigravity and gyroscopes, does anyone remember Sam Kydd? He was an Australian inventor who developed a giro antigravity device. I read about him in a book from my local library. I think it was probably back in the 1980s. The device was driven by a model aircraft engine, and when placed on the scales, showed a weight reduction of about 10%. When mounted in a horizontal position on a model boat, it would propel the boat. He was looking for funding for further development. I can find no reference to him on the internet.
Quote from: ramset on October 11, 2014, 03:21:34 AM
Chet
ps
for the TinMan
repost from this thread by Neptune
On the subject of antigravity and gyroscopes, does anyone remember Sam Kydd? He was an Australian inventor who developed a giro antigravity device. I read about him in a book from my local library. I think it was probably back in the 1980s. The device was driven by a model aircraft engine, and when placed on the scales, showed a weight reduction of about 10%. When mounted in a horizontal position on a model boat, it would propel the boat. He was looking for funding for further development. I can find no reference to him on the internet.
Do you mean Sandy kidd ?,who was scottish,and a member of the RAF. He was said to have designed a Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster (GIT),but after many built and tested devices,it never showed the results he had hoped for.
Sam Kydd(the Aussie) is an actor that stared in a film, where a college professor invents an anti-gravity substance.
It is strange how things get all muddled up on the grape vine lol.
Ramset;
That same site I linked has stuff written about the inventor that states that he was working for Lockheed Martin skunk works and GE re-entry systems in the 60's 70's era, last sign I can find of him is that brief article from ~1983 regarding the inventions where he gives some futher explainations about density of nucleons being in the range where it would be necessary to see such GM fields generated.
Absolutly nothing after that point, find it weird he would bother patenting the heat pump patent several years after the initial patents if this this did not work, also strange he never seems to have used the patents as it looks like he dropped of the face of the earth, no further writings or mention of him.
-Boots
Quote from: Real Boots on August 23, 2014, 11:15:28 AM
I cannot find any discussion anywheres on the Wallace patents, trying to find out if anyone has ever attempted replication of any of the devices in these 3 patents. If you read them over closely it certainly appears as if Wallace built at least 2 of the devices, the initial experimental setup has test data in the patent, and the heat pump patent is in tremendous detail which leads me to believe it was also built. Not sure about the gravitational shielding embodiment however as he doesn't go into great detail there. Why would he indicate that the gravity shield shell should be made of bismuth when there are other materials with much higher densities of unpaired nucleons per volume such as aluminum? Could it be that aluminum has longer relaxation time of the nuclear spin axis alignment and would therefore not be suitable as conductor of the gravitomagnetic field at such high frequencies?
Even replication of the specific heat change in a copper sample exposed to the field would give great validity to these patents and should not be overly difficult or pricey.
I am very surprised that there is not more on the net about these patents!
You can find the patents here:
http://www.rexresearch.com/wallace/wallace.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/wallace/wallace.htm)
-boots
Yes, the Wallace antigravity claims have been investigated in some considerable detail by some very well-funded and competent people. All I can say about it is that it didn't pan out.
My own feeling is that Bismuth is specified because it is the most diamagnetic of the metals. As we now know, bismuth is easy to levitate in a magnetic field because of its strongly diamagnetic nature. I think Wallace fooled himself by magnetically levitating or reducing the weight of bismuth structures or parts in his experiments, and believed he was seeing a gravitational effect instead of a magnetic one. Of course many people seem to believe that magnetism can affect gravity actually, rather than apparently.
Quote from: tinman on October 11, 2014, 07:24:04 AM
Do you mean Sandy kidd ?,who was scottish,and a member of the RAF. He was said to have designed a Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster (GIT),but after many built and tested devices,it never showed the results he had hoped for.
Sam Kydd(the Aussie) is an actor that stared in a film, where a college professor invents an anti-gravity substance.
It is strange how things get all muddled up on the grape vine lol.
Yep, and there are a few video clips on YT concerning Sandy. Pretty clever gyro devices he had, too, sort of combinations of gyros and Dean Drive kind of things. His machines were a class of Forced Precession Gyro systems which are indeed interesting. I have one such here on my bench at the moment that is the closest thing to antigravity I've ever seen. But it isn't, really.
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 15, 2014, 03:16:12 PM
Yep, and there are a few video clips on YT concerning Sandy. Pretty clever gyro devices he had, too, sort of combinations of gyros and Dean Drive kind of things. His machines were a class of Forced Precession Gyro systems which are indeed interesting. I have one such here on my bench at the moment that is the closest thing to antigravity I've ever seen. But it isn't, really.
Well we could always use acoustic levitation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz6UzqegA6Q
Tinsel
Quote
the closest_ thing_ to antigravity I've ever seen.
--------------------------
SSoooo
when yah gonna show us your antigravity Thingy ??
thx
Chet
The lifting / gravity control of mass was already done in the late 1800's , by John W. Keely machinist , inventor and musician in Philadelphia. Lots of documents available. See S V P. Books , and copies of documents. One of 4 different Keely gravity demonstrations was 3 spinning brass flywheels on heavy metal platform as SIRENS . The cup shaped ridges on rims was speed up by forced compressed AIR. When the tones generated was appropriate, Keely slowed down two so as there was an Inharmonic blend of tones in the air on top edges on angle, with certain ratio. The whole unit slowly rose up. The compressor was stopped. The base plate slowly settled down with decreasing RPMS. Why are people not studying the works of Keely? (3 gyroscopes / flywheels are needed not 1 or 2)