I've been trying to design a motor that emulates the motion of an electron or the motion of the planets in orbit. I think this is one of the keys for over unity.
The way I currently understand this, and my understanding may not be correct, is the angular momentum (orbital momentum) of the electron or planets pull on the spin of the electrons or planets. This pulling creates a torque or force. This torque causes the electrons or planets spin to under go opposition which causes Lenz's law. The electron or planets spin will thus slow down until it is in balance with the orbital momentum. At this moment the electron or planets are in a perpetual state of motion in regards to their spin path and orbital path but they no longer have any torque or force. This causes space-time to be curved and is know to us as gravity.
When you slow down the orbital path or increase the spin, then this will allow you to reach a farther orbit. In a farther orbit your spin will be faster but your orbital path will be slower or longer. As long as you keep slowing down the orbital path or increasing the spin you will overcome gravity. Once you overcome gravity your spin will be fast and be following a straight path. Since you no longer have an orbital path, then you no longer have an opposition force pulling on your spin. At this point you can increase your spin and move faster in a straight path with no opposition force and Lenz's law does not apply.
This means relativity is wrong about faster than light speed travel. We overcome gravity all the time with our motors when we put a load on them that completely stops the motor. We don't obtain the anti-gravity affect because our motors always have a orbital path that is built into it that is always in opposition to the spin path or current and we don't utilize the orbital path. This means the orbital momentum and the spin momentum are in balance with each other with no torque or force. Now create a motor that has a straight path without the orbital design or create an orbital design that puts its orbital momentum into the current or spin of the electrons and we'll have free energy and anti-gravity.
I understand the principal of motors and other stuff, but when it comes to the designs, I am totally lost. I have ideas on how we can create an anti-gravity motor, but my designs will more than likely not be right and probably to the point that it is laughable.
Anyone following me on this and does this spark any ideas on creating an anti-gravity motor?
This is interesting. As I've made a thread today about these forces as well and using the centrifugal force to overcome the thing we call lenz effect. Look at...
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6880.msg159105
Usually the charged mass will just move in a nice circular orbit, but physicists, for some reason, ignore the fact that this particle has a mass as well thus there will be a centrifugal force which will spiral it outwards. Now this CF can be made to be stronger than the centripetal force caused by the magnetic field. So the charged mass will spiral outwards but by spiraling outwards this creates yet again another force due to the magnetic field this time ALONG the speed direction. Meaning it will accelerate. This causes a runaway effect and make the acceleration go to infinity in an exponential way.
I wanted to write the math down to get all the parameters out but it was a bit harder than I thought as you have variables that depend on themselves in this runaway effect. So I just made a simulation that showed this exponential acceleration.
Can you provide some visuals? I want to understand exactly what you're talking about as I'm also looking for anti gravity eventually.
Edit: I just noticed you're the same guy as the toroidal motor. This is too big of a coincidence to me. I think we have a special bond ;D.
Hi,
you both guys should really take a look at pequaide's thread here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1995.new;topicseen#new
its sunken, but he is very much into exact this.
hope, it helps.
sushimoto
Well from my open minded perspective, looking at how things spin is on the road to sucess but knowing how the apple got to the top is the secret.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49JwbrXcPjc
So if you make a gravity motor on that motion from that video, you will crack it because that pattern is the key and is talked alot by inventors like Viktor schauberger with his self running engine.
Since you cannot create nor destory, you can recycle and it gives more out than in, but it is like plants and seeds and you grow more plants and take seeds and grow more.
Bleh, my 2 cents.
@broli:
It is no coincidence because we have the same understanding of the forces involved. Although our understanding of these forces are coming from a different path, they both are leading us to the same path.
I'll try to do some animation for visualizing but this will take me sometime since I have no abilities in animation or drawing. I will work on trying to draw an illustration in your mind first.
Hopefully someone else will be able to help in explaining this visually.
Edit: The planets tilting on their axis shows these opposition forces to be present with no net force.
wonderful thing about that type of motor design, orbital design, we have 3 built, you get a linear power curve, a 1 to 1 input output ratio.
patent # 6239524 & 6707190
and yes, this is the key to OU, as I have been saying for 13 months on here.
Cameron
Quote from: cameron sydenham on February 21, 2009, 02:47:40 PM
wonderful thing about that type of motor design, orbital design, we have 3 built, you get a linear power curve, a 1 to 1 input output ratio.
patent # 6239524 & 6707190
and yes, this is the key to OU, as I have been saying for 13 months on here.
Cameron
Congratulations on your motors and patent. You have put yourself into the Cabal and elitist category of the powers to be, until you offer full disclosure. Also, the elitists don't care about your patents because they already have this technology. Thanks for helping suppress the rest of society because of your greed.
Either way, we (the suppressed) will bring this information out, with or without you. Patents don't mean nothing. Change a few things on the original design, then the patent is no longer valid for the modified design. Oh, and you can't patent an idea.
What side are you on?
i have only been trying to find people through this site to help with the concept, not to suppress. NO we do not believe that an open source is the solution, but our business plan, if that is even possible with something this large, is set up to be as far from replacing one oil company with another. We simply want to develop the technology we believe we have stumbled into, prove it, (proof of concept) than allow any and all manufacturers, builders, whomever to make the products. in no way do we wish, if we can provide proof of concept, to not allow this to be used and attained by all, there is too much good that will come from who ever comes up with the ability to provide a completely green , abundant source of energy/power.
I understand the stance of the open source platform, unfortunately ,the company I am with has investors that invested in the concept with the intentions of some sort of return. If someone can come up with an idea this grand, why is it such a terrible thing to be rewarded, even if it is Penny's per motor for instance. we know that the numbers will be staggering, the money really isn't the motive, it is providing a sustainable energy source for everyone, everywhere. then you will say, well why patent, this was out of my control in the beginning.
i did not post those patent numbers to smear them in your face or anything like that, I was only bringing the knowledge to the table that this is the path that we believe in too, and the bi product of that type of motor was a linear i / o . I did not mean to push a button with you.
String theory and parabolic motion around the gate, I understand , our planets circle the sun, why dont they lock up at the magnetic gate? How do they get past it and keep going? Thats what i wanna know.
if this technology really works it would be self rewarding...the technology is already providing something in return 100%+
this is why its called Free Energy/Over Unity, etc. what? is it fame? money? control? lol money? cant compare Free energy/Over Unity with money. Free energy/Over Unity is priceless!
and the big guys are not going to let some company replace them... lol if anything they will take that technology for their own never to be seen again at least not to the general public.
look what happened to Nikola Tesla!
OPEN SOURCE is the only way! this way these kind of technologies can not suppressed or prevented from going public once and for all!
Quote from: cameron sydenham on February 21, 2009, 09:18:49 PM
We simply want to develop the technology we believe we have stumbled into, prove it, (proof of concept) than allow any and all manufacturers, builders, whomever to make the products.
The above is what I'm talking about not being able to patent an idea. You haven't been able to prove it yet. You are here for us to prove it for you so then you can claim patent infringement after this technology has been distributed. You're previous post said you have built 3 of these motors. Is that not proof of concept? What are you waiting for?
You don't have all the information for this device yet or don't have all the funding to bring it to proof of concept or to the market. As far as I'm concerned your patents are invalid and will always remain invalid, unless you can get this to market before anyone else. I mean you no disrespect. I understand what you're doing. As far as your investors are concerned, let them invest in the companies that will be building these open-sourced motors. There are more than one way to make money where all can benefit and not just a select few.
I'm not upset with you. You and your investors are truly in a pickle. There are advantages and disadvantages to both patenting or to open-sourcing. This has been discussed many times. There is no need in repeating this discussion.
I just hope we're all on the same side regardless of the decision you and your investors decide to make. I believe you have good intentions. The bottom line is I don't really care who brings this to the market. I don't care if it is patented or open-sourced. All I care about is it being released to the public.
May you be blessed.
Quote from: X00013 on February 21, 2009, 09:49:21 PM
String theory and parabolic motion around the gate, I understand , our planets circle the sun, why dont they lock up at the magnetic gate? How do they get past it and keep going? Thats what i wanna know.
There is no magnetic gate. The reason for the sticky point is because the object is in a fixed position that opposes the magnetic forces. When the object is not in a fixed position then it gets pulled into the magnet or pushed outside the force of the magnet.
The sun causes the planets to divide into two different forces. One force wants to go straight and the other force wants to go towards the sun. The force that wants to go straight pulls on the force that wants to go towards the sun. This causes it to lose forward momentum and causes it to have an axial spin momentum until the forces are equalized. After the forces are equalized then the planets will have a forward momentum and an axial spin momentum. Both momentums will add up to the momentum the planet had prior to the influence of the sun. These two opposition forces cause the planets to stay in orbit around the sun and to tilt on it's axis.
A simplified view of gravity is nothing more than 2 momentum forces pulling or in opposition to each other. When you throw a ball into the air going 70 mph, the earth's momentum (speed) is faster than the ball and catches up to the ball. After the ball has lost it's momentum (relative to the earth) due to the earth catching up to it, then it starts to fall towards the earth. Now the ball is no longer in opposition with the earth and the 2 objects will accelerate towards each other (relatively speaking). Einstein even said, "if acceleration feels like gravity, then they may be the same" (I didn't look the exact quote up). We have been bamboozled and hoodwinked for long enough.
Edit: @cameron - Keep up the good work.
I believe we need a device that is similar to the gyroscope that puts the orbital spin into its axial spin. The gyroscope in the wikipedia link below should have a 2 spin axis perpendicular to each other instead of 1 in order for us to get the right results. The question is, how can this have a 2 spin axis that are perpindiclar to each other?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope)
::)
You have it the chase is on ...
If you defy gravity you achieve overunity ...
Technically it may take a massive amount of energy to defy gravity in which case OU would be possible but in order to create the conditions for OU it will cost energy...
It is not an easy task this overunity ...
Magnetic Flux seems to play a role in gravity and spin seems to play a role.
Simple observation :
Put something on a round surface eg. a ball and spin it ... What happens the object is flung off...
Now if you take a full glass of water and you make a long spin you will notice you can spin it upside down without the water falling out...
Now take that same glass of water and try to spin it without closing your hand you will have to spin it that much faster because not only do you have to keep the water in your cup but you need enough force to keep your cup stuck to your hand...
Its almost as all the rest of the planets act as hands easing the burden of keeping the people in the container we call earth.
Without the earths atmosphere I assume that we would all be flung off the face of the earth but then again you look at the moon walks... And there is a degree of gravity there as well...
I don't believe that anyone understands gravity they just know it is there but the full working of gravity is without understanding otherwise we would be manipulating it without problem.
The rest is just assumption!
EDIT:
Anyone know what would happen if you took a ball and encased it in clear plastic then pressurized the air inside of the plastic and placed an object on its surface and spun it if the object would fly off just as quickly?
I dunno this is a very profound topic I commend someone for being ballsy enough to start this thing up.
If you have a unidirectional force you solved the riddle. Today I think I have stumbled on Faraday's paradox in my own way. The results of the paradox experiment is probably the most important thing in magnetism. Forces don't act on magnetic fields at the same time moving the mass of a PM makes no difference. This is a mind boggling conclusion I hope others will see.
If I can crank my mind some more I believe it can lead to a unidirectional force which can defy the gravitational force. All pure mechanics though nothing too exotic like ZPE.
ok im new to all this im intersted in quantum physics but im only starting out if ur familure with the LHC u should no about the graviton and to create anti gravity wouldnt u need to find an umm anti graviton ?? or am i just being stupid
Quote from: thirteen on February 22, 2009, 05:42:45 PM
ok im new to all this im intersted in quantum physics but im only starting out if ur familure with the LHC u should no about the graviton and to create anti gravity wouldnt u need to find an umm anti graviton ?? or am i just being stupid
I think that the observations of lensing indicate that a quantum theory of gravity, based on gravitons interacting with every particle including individual photons, cannot be correct. For graviton interaction to be correct, a photon would have to follow a polygonal path as it passes a massive body, each segment of the polygon being, perhaps, of planck length.
You are not being stupid. That is a good question. It is my own personal opinion that we have been given misinformation from the powers that are, to mislead us and to have us chase things that do or do not exist. I had previously posted the above in another topic. Is this correct or is it misinformation? I don't know.....but I believe and other people in physics believe this to be correct from observations.
Also, the graviton is a theoretical particle and has never been detected (directly or indirectly), isolated or observed from experiments (unless it has been proven since I last researched this and I don't think so). If there are gravitons, then I am sure it is the elementary particles that are well known but are in another dimension (virtual particles).
This other dimension would be the time dimension. I believe time is very important in gravity. Although most people believe time to be just a measurement, they fail to realize the width, length, and height of an object is also a measurement. I have alot of thought on this subject, but I don't believe that information will be of benefit to this topic. The topic of time has led me to this discussion. I will only say that time has no length, no height, no width, and has 0 mass. I also believe time is the creation force of the universes and has a conscious (my personal opinion and I won't try to force anyone to accept this).
Please post any thoughts, ideas, or questions you may have. The only way we will crack this anti-gravity and OU code is information and people with an open mind.
(I also believe time is the creation force of the universes and has a conscious)
i kind of agree since time is another demetion we only precive it as a stright line because at the end of it we die obs if we only live in the 4th demention then there could be being that live from the 4th to the 10th that we couldnt precive ~(once again im new to this XD)
Yes there are many things that have been making me curious...
The water droplet...
The fact that something can be levitated from the hutchinson effect...
And I could go on and on...
I guess I need gravity laid out in laymens terms but no one has a solid answer.
How do you measure gravity waves?
can gravity be messured as a wave ??
i would of thought because it's a force, it's not realy outputting anything e.g. like light/sound
Quote from: infringer on February 22, 2009, 11:41:10 PM
How do you measure gravity waves?
This might help you get started:
https://www.ego-gw.it/editorialboard/list.aspx
Since we're talking about waves, below is a link to a video, some food for thought. Dolphins playing with bubble rings that do not float up to the surface. I believe the momentum of both the water and air are combined into one momentum to get this spinning vortex. It's all about combining the two forces into one. Gravity divides a force into 2 opposing forces and anti-gravity/OU combines the 2 opposing forces into 1 force.
Dolpins playing with bubble rings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMCf7SNUb-Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMCf7SNUb-Q)
Below are a couple of comments from other people on this video.
Vortices like these form at the tip of a fin and remain invisible until a dolphin cuts one off and blows air into them. When the air gets trapped inside the spinning water it acts as if it was weightless.
The bubble ring is actually a spinning air vortex. The air inside and the water surrounding it is constantly spinning. Upon the creation of the bubble the dolphin pushes it down, this momentum combined with the force of the vortex prevents it from rising for a few seconds after creation.
@thirteen regarding extra dimensions:
A 3D object will cast a shadow onto a 2D surface. The 2D surface can only see and experience this shadow and can not actually see and experience the full 3D object. Could it be that gravity is such a weak force relative to the other fundamental forces in nature due to the possibility that we are only seeing and experiencing the shadow of time. Is time and gravity the same? Is gravity the shadow of time?
This stuff is mind boggling, as if my mind isn't already boggled enough......LOL
Quote from: gravityblock on February 23, 2009, 06:30:11 AM
@thirteen regarding extra dimensions:
A 3D object will cast a shadow onto a 2D surface. The 2D surface can only see and experience this shadow and can not actually see and experience the full 3D object. Could it be that gravity is such a weak force relative to the other fundamental forces in nature due to the possibility that we are only seeing and experiencing the shadow of time. Is time and gravity the same? Is gravity the shadow of time?
This stuff is mind boggling, as if my mind isn't already boggled enough......LOL
You just made me sleepless for a few more nights - hehe. When I start thinking of the subject, the toughts contiues to work all night. It is a very interesting subject - gravity. I have tried to explain to myself what this is, and have some ideas on what it might be.
What we know is that gravity has a direct connection to mass and distance. So further, we know that gravity is relative linear, by means that two balls of steel, 1 meter in diameter, 1 meter apart work on eachother with the same force as two balls, 2 meter in diameter, 4 meters apart - as a twice the diameter is four times heavier.
gravity is regardless of magnetism and electric charge. Gravity is the third dimension - magnetism, electricity, and gravity.
Further I'm temped to believe that gravity is a product, difference, or sum of magnetism and electricity. Somehow gravity force on another object is double as distance is halving. For magnetism the magnetic force is
four times stronger as you halving the distance. The same for static electricity - two opposite static charged objects attracts in the same way as magnetism. However, an electric charged object can have the same polarity in the whole object, while magnetical objects allways have two poles. There isn't such as a magnetic monopole, right? But an electrically charged monopole is possible.
Gravity is also some kind of a electrical monopole, but the force is allways attracting. So there must be something in the space between electrons and nukes which is attracting eachother, or something opposite of matter that attracts matter somehow. A kind of antimatter which is a product, difference, or sum of electricity and magnetism.
I want to see this antimatter as the "negative" pole of matter as we know it, but the matter as we know it is just so much more dominant in mass. If it make sense I think you have to "make" antimatter somehow. But you cannot do it with matter, so you might be able to make a "lookalike" with electrons and magnetism, by manipulating matter into a less dominant part. Or, you must manipulate mass by removing the captured antimatter in the space between electrons and nukes. And the only approach to do so is to force the electrons to spin faster, making more space between the atoms - in other words reducing density. But then, an antigravity approach will result in no matter at all, so we are on ground zero.... :-\
Oh, man, I get a little excited about the subject. I will definitly NOT sleep well tonight ;D
OK, that was the brainstorm from me on the subject...just thoughts no knowledge. I hope it can be used to something :)
br.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on February 23, 2009, 04:21:39 PM
However, an electric charged object can have the same polarity in the whole object, while magnetical objects allways have two poles. There isn't such as a magnetic monopole, right? But an electrically charged monopole is possible.
Vidar
---A snippet of your post---
Here's some more sleepless nights for you:
According to wikipedia:(Magnetic pole model: Although for many purposes it is convenient to think of a magnet as having distinct north and south magnetic poles, the concept of poles should not be taken literally: it is merely a way of referring to the two different ends of a magnet. The magnet
does not have distinct "north" or "south" particles on opposing sides.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet)
We're having this discussion in another thread. http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6843.0 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6843.0)
I apologize for the sleepless nights. I am having these sleepless nights myself.
Thanks for the sleepless nights ;D
I did some research what gravity is. There is some speculations that says there must be a particle, for now called "gravition". This particle is hard to find as a gravity field is a very weak force compared to other forces in matter. Scientist has as far as I know not been able to find this particle other than knowing it must be there due to the fact that there is gravity forces between two objects with a given mass.
So what has this to do with antigravity? How is it possible to get rid of these particles? It seems there is a direct connection between the mass density and number of gravition particles. So these particles are somehow captured inside the atoms. What if it is? The bond between atoms in matter are quite strong. The harder and more rigid a material is, the harder these bonds are. However the bonds streingth is as I believe stronger the better alignment there is between the atoms and has nothing to do with the amount of gravitions inside matter - like the bond between atoms in a diamond.
I think these gravition particles are doing that bond, means that these particles are many in numbers, but a very few particles seems to leak out of the atoms. The more dense and heavy an object is, the more gravitions are leaking - making gravity between objects greater. A black hole is pure gravity - a mass so dense that all of these gravitions are leaking, leaving only a gravity field left.
That said, gravity can't be removed in a mass, so there must be other forces made which is simulating antigravity.
This is only thoughts based on my wiev on the subject, so please don't see this as facts :)
Br.
Sleepless Nights Because Of The Subject Gravity AND Non-Existing Magnetic Poles, And A Son That Does Not Want To Sleep At Night Because He Has Bad Dreams All The Time.
@Low-Q:
The virtual particles are the force carrying particles or exchanges of particles. As soon as they find or detect the virtual particles, then it is no longer a virtual particle, but is a real particle (such as a photon, gluon, W bosons, mesons, etc). Possibly the theoretical graviton could be the virtual particle of the theoretical Higgs Boson particle.
I don't think there is a direct connection between the mass density and the gravitons or virtual particles within the atoms. Drop a bowling ball and a marble from a 200 ft building at the same time. They both hit the ground at the same time. Does the bowling ball have more mass than the marble? Yes. Why doesn't the bowling ball hit the ground first since it has more mass (has more gravitons) than the marble? Gravity is acting on the atoms from the outside and causing the atoms to behave differently on the inside, such as ticking at a slower or faster rate, oscillating slower or faster, etc (which is related to time) The atoms in both the bowling ball and marble are being influenced by gravity in the same way (oscillating and ticking at the same rate relative to each other) regardless of the weight or mass of the marble or bowling ball, thus hitting the ground at the same time.
A black hole is an object of such dense mass that it creates a gravitational field so strong that the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. If black holes have a magnetic field, and it can get out, this seems to imply that virtual photons (flux quanta) can travel faster than the speed of light.
There are many observable physical phenomena resulting from interactions involving virtual particles. I will list 2 of them:
The strong nuclear force between quarks - it is the result of interaction of virtual gluons. The residual of this force outside of quark triplets (neutron and proton) holds neutrons and protons together in nuclei, and is due to virtual mesons such as the pi meson and rho meson.
The weak nuclear force - it is the result of exchange by virtual W bosons.
I feel one of the reasons why physics haven't been able to have a Grand Unification of all the forces is because they ignore and completely disregard time, as most of the people on this forum does. Let's say an object has a length, width, and a height. This object can not change it's position or release it's energy within the universe if there is no time to do so. Mass curves space-time. This has been proven with relativity and will remain so unless proven otherwise. Mass causes space to curve and time to slow down. The atoms in a dense mass has less room to oscillate back and forth (has less time), thus causing it to move more slowly and to release energy more slowly, thus more of the energy is being retained within itself instead of propagating out into space. The subject of time is not a productive subject due to the fact people won't even consider it to be a force, or a mechanism to release energy or to allow movement. After saying this, I am through with the subject of time.
Writing from my cellphone. The earth is so big that the relative mass to a bowling ball and the marble is almost the same. I mean: earth + bowling ball almost equals earth + marble. Hence these two balls hits the ground almost at the same time. If we drop a ball at the size of earth, it takes halv that time that the balls do.
Quote from: Low-Q on February 24, 2009, 09:20:11 AM
Writing from my cellphone. The earth is so big that the relative mass to a bowling ball and the marble is almost the same. I mean: earth + bowling ball almost equals earth + marble. Hence these two balls hits the ground almost at the same time. If we drop a ball at the size of earth, it takes halv that time that the balls do.
If you're driving while writing on your cellphone, then you may experience gravity in your own way and know it very well. This is what we do in the USA, LOL.
If you mean, dropping a ball with the
same mass of the earth, then it will take half the time than the balls with little mass? I believe it has to do with both the speed and momentum.
Will someone please set both of us straight......LOL
wow this thread went deep. but fascinating. as far as gravity we are all taught that dropped objects fall at the same rate, in a vacuum. prooven on the moon, hawks feather and hammer. but what I think is really interesting is two things
1 objects of different masses roll at different velocities down an incline, the heavier one always will win.
2 no one ever goes into the impact that the object makes when you drop them. what i mean is, yes they fall at the same rate, but one for sure makes a bigger whole in what ever it hits. same speed, more energy.
cam
Quote from: cameron sydenham on February 24, 2009, 12:36:08 PM
wow this thread went deep. but fascinating. as far as gravity we are all taught that dropped objects fall at the same rate, in a vacuum. prooven on the moon, hawks feather and hammer. but what I think is really interesting is two things
1 objects of different masses roll at different velocities down an incline, the heavier one always will win.
2 no one ever goes into the impact that the object makes when you drop them. what i mean is, yes they fall at the same rate, but one for sure makes a bigger whole in what ever it hits. same speed, more energy.
cam
You may have hit the nail on the head. This is how I was thinking also, just wasn't able to find the right words or illustration. Speed, velocity, and momentum changes the way we think about this. You're right about this being deep. I feel like I'm chasing the wind.
here's one that will boggle your mind.
referencing a rolling wheel on any surface.
any point on a perimeter of a circle or wheel will travel 4/pi (127%) further than the center of the wheel traveled, with a minimum of 1/2 of a rotation. the equation would look something like, with a minimum of .5 rotation of a wheel, any point on the perimeter of that wheel will travel 4/pi times the distance the center of the wheel traveled.
what this means is the outside of the wheel travels farther than the center of the wheel travels. spooky we never saw this in algebra or calculus. You can not patent a math equation though , hehehe.
the reference to the minimum of 1/2 rotation maybe something to do with quantum physics and the 1/2, 1, 3/2, so on. who knows.
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/Curriculum/Geometry/Cycloids.shtml
place a dot on the edge of the circle to get a visual of what i mean.
Cam
Quote from: gravityblock on February 24, 2009, 11:53:47 AM
If you're driving while writing on your cellphone, then you may experience gravity in your own way and know it very well. This is what we do in the USA, LOL.
If you mean, dropping a ball with the same mass of the earth, then it will take half the time than the balls with little mass? I believe it has to do with both the speed and momentum.
Will someone please set both of us straight......LOL
I "never" write on my cellphone when I drive. This time a actually had a fully controlled stop before I wrote ;)
Well. The acceleration of gravity on earth is about 9,81m/s
2. On the moon it is about 1/6 of the earth gravity. The earth, or the moon, have the dominant mass compared to a hammer, a feather or Newtons apple. I am however not completely sure about my previous statement. That greater mass in a bowling ball compared to a marble ball takes also more energy to accelerate. So that might be the main reason why they fall down to the ground in the same speed. However, the increased mass of the bowling ball should also affect the acceleration of gravity, and should increase it a small bit. So the bawling ball should hit the ground just a tiny-tiny fraction of a microsecond before the marble ball. You need a great deal of decimals to calculate the difference, but we can make a try:
Weight of the earth is approx 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms.
Bowling ball: 3kilograms?
Marble: 5 grams?
OK, the equation: 6000000000000000000000003 kilograms / 6000000000000000000000000,005 kilograms = 1,0000000000000000000000004991667
So the bowling ball falls 1,0000000000000000000000004991667 times faster. After 10 seconds fall it hits the ground 0,00000000000000000000004991667 seconds earlier. Not much to measure with a stop watch :)
Br.
Vidar
maybe rolling fown an incline instead of falling, exagerates the effect of gravity??? thats why the heavy one wins???? but the physics is, the heavier one has a higher moment of inertia, sooo. ..... I think they are not related????? hmmmm
cam
Quote from: cameron sydenham on February 24, 2009, 01:40:54 PM
maybe rolling fown an incline instead of falling, exagerates the effect of gravity??? thats why the heavy one wins???? but the physics is, the heavier one has a higher moment of inertia, sooo. ..... I think they are not related????? hmmmm
cam
The rolling example must concider friction due to the ground pressure and the friction as a cause of that. Small objects vs. big objects, made of the same matter and having the same surface structure, rolling on the same track, in the same air, will meet relatively more friction through aerodynamic issues and friction between the balls surface structure and the track. Small enough particles can even be trapped in a focused laser beam and let it be guided wherever I want it to go through space. That is as close to antigravity I have got. However we are talking about forces in less than pico Newtons - not three kilograms.
Just see here where I focused a 16x DVD burner laser into plastic. The vapour molecules is trapped and locked in the focuspoint, and I can guide the molecules where I want. Power is about 300mW. (I am "jallaguri" on YouTube):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig_L3PnSuo0&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AzdMJSvuUU&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHx5312UxII&feature=channel
Try this with a bowling ball - you need at least 1 x 10
18 W pr cm
2 - I mean plenty of power to trap that ball in a laser beam.
Br.
Vidar
No comments on the dolphin/bubble ring video? I realize this may not be new, but I find this truly fascinating. I guess the video speaks for itself. :)
Quote from: gravityblock on February 24, 2009, 11:09:20 PM
No comments on the dolphin/bubble ring video? I realize this may not be new, but I find this truly fascinating. I guess the video speaks for itself. :)
Cool dolphin video :)
Optical trapping isn't new either - btw. But it's nevertheless fascinating to be able to catch particles and hold them in place with light. Maybe the photons, or radiation, controlls gravity?
I found a thread with a 3D Gyroscope video posted by Stephan:
3D Gyroscope Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/user/ganidllc (http://www.youtube.com/user/ganidllc)
Here's Stephan's thread:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6455.0;topicseen (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6455.0;topicseen)
This all looks very interesting, but is the gyroscope in the video combining those 3 different axial momentums into one directional linear force? Looks to me like it's dividing one axial momentum into 3 different axial momentums providing stability only and would not give OU or anti-gravity (there would not be a combined angular momentum). Don't we need to combine the angular and axial momentums or am I confusing the issue?
It appears to me that it is no more than 3 discs spinning inside each other. Am I missing something here? Could this be modified to give us the affects we would like?
Here's another video from Stephan's thread that shows the stability of gyroscopes in microgravity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdAmEEAiJWo
I would like to hear Cameron's thoughts on this also since I believe his device and the device in the video may have the same principals but I don't think the device in the video is combining the angular momentum like Cameron's device. I'm not after any details, just want to know if this is combining the angular momentums like your device. I also realize your device only have 2 masses instead of 3 ( I am guessing since three masses would be needed for direction and control of flight and only 2 masses needed for OU or a highly efficient motor).
Edit: After more thought, the "handles" he takes away early in the video may cause the momentums to be combined. The more I analyze this design, the more I see the brilliancy of this. This is very different from an ordinary gyroscope.
this is really really neat. once i got involved with the inventor and his ideas, it opened my mind up to a gyroscope / gimble came up with.
To answer gravity first, from what i can see, it looks like they are trying to use the inertial effects of multible flywheels, we commonly see this as a gyroscope. the only problem i see with the one shown is, and someone brought it up earlier in this thread is, you need a uni directional force. this one appears to be a plurality of directions, no bonus in one direction. as far as using angular momentum.... this is still like a compination of flywheels as far as i can tell. (unfortunatley without further transparency with my motor, most people think the same thing) but...........
I guess the following will be my first honest attempt at open sourceing an idea.
I came up with what I called a directional gimble / gyroscope.
It works like this, ill try to be as clear as possible. i have cad drawings i can put too if needed.
take the inner ring of a gyro, and make it gimble, what i mean is it can freely spin, not end over end, but like a clock. now place a weight on it. so now if it were to spin, it would wobble really bad.
now take the next outer ring, here the timing would be crucial, it allows the inner ring to turn end over end. you make the timing so that ... try to visualize this, if the weight on the inner ring is at 9 oclock and moving clockwise toward 12 than 3 but the second ring keeps flipping the inner ring over end over endr, the weight would follow a path like 9, 12, 3, 12, 9, 12, 3... and so on. so the angular addition of the weight is always on the plane above 9 and 3. wouldn't that produce a unidirectional force???
has any one ever seen or tried to build this.
cam
wont it just pull itself apart ??? i would of thought the forces and the vibrations would
rocker arms on car motors that rev as high as 18K rpm with pistons that weigh a couple of pounds dont rip off.
A Gyro Compass is a cool thing to work with, it is based on similar principles and you occasionally can find one on ebay.
http://www.navis.gr/navaids/gyro.htm (http://www.navis.gr/navaids/gyro.htm)
Quote from: PhiScience on February 26, 2009, 02:24:17 PM
A Gyro Compass is a cool thing to work with, it is based on similar principles and you occasionally can find one on ebay.
http://www.navis.gr/navaids/gyro.htm (http://www.navis.gr/navaids/gyro.htm)
Since your not able to visualize anything more than a compass, then you always have the option to navigate yourself to ebay.
Yes I can visualize a gravity-manipulating device and have been experimenting for quite awhile now, mostly learning what does not works.
It is difficult to control something when you are not 100% sure of what it is that you are trying to control. I personally think that the Ether-Vortex Theory offers the best hope for such a device to work.
Here are some things that I have posted on this theory.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3704.msg62833#msg62833 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3704.msg62833#msg62833)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3704.msg62960#msg62960 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3704.msg62960#msg62960)
Quote from: PhiScience on February 26, 2009, 03:39:23 PM
Yes I can visualize a gravity-manipulating device and have been experimenting for quite awhile now, mostly learning what does not works.
It is difficult to control something when you are not 100% sure of what it is that you are trying to control. I personally think that the Ether-Vortex Theory offers the best hope for such a device to work.
Here are some things that I have posted on this theory.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3704.msg62833#msg62833 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3704.msg62833#msg62833)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3704.msg62960#msg62960 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3704.msg62960#msg62960)
A vortex (pl. vortices) is a spinning, often turbulent, flow of fluid.
Any spiral motion with closed streamlines is vortex flow. The motion of the fluid swirling rapidly around a center is called a vortex. The speed and rate of rotation of the fluid are greatest at the center, and decrease progressively with distance from the center.
A couple examples below of vortices:1) In the hydrodynamic interpretation of the behavior of electromagnetic fields, the acceleration of electric fluid in a particular direction creates a positive vortex of magnetic fluid. This in turn creates around itself a corresponding negative vortex of electric fluid.
2) Lift-induced drag of a wing on an aircraft.
3) Smoke rings or Bubble rings
4) Tornadoes and Hurricanes
In the meantime, please don't discredit this on the basis it doesn't fit with your Ether-Vortex Theory. I believe in the ether, but I also know a device that generates a vortex such as the potential capabilities of this device, could manipulate this ether or the examples above for anti-gravity. I do not believe we need to have an ether-vortex for over unity.
Quote from: gravityblock on February 26, 2009, 04:13:47 PM
A vortex (pl. vortices) is a spinning, often turbulent, flow of fluid. Any spiral motion with closed streamlines is vortex flow. The motion of the fluid swirling rapidly around a center is called a vortex. The speed and rate of rotation of the fluid are greatest at the center, and decrease progressively with distance from the center.
A couple examples below of vortices:
1) In the hydrodynamic interpretation of the behavior of electromagnetic fields, the acceleration of electric fluid in a particular direction creates a positive vortex of magnetic fluid. This in turn creates around itself a corresponding negative vortex of electric fluid.
2) Lift-induced drag of a wing on an aircraft.
3) Smoke rings or Bubble rings
4) Tornadoes and Hurricanes
In the meantime, please don't discredit this on the basis it doesn't fit with your Ether-Vortex Theory. I believe in the ether, but I also know a device that generates a vortex such as the potential capabilities of this device, could manipulate this ether or the examples above for anti-gravity. I do not believe we need to have an ether-vortex for over unity.
Well, the speed is constant in a vortex, but the rpms at the smaller diameter in the center is higher. Different speed in a vortex cause friction and force it to stop spinning - but that is not the case in a vortex, right?
Vidar
i am in way over my head. after trying to read about ether, i feel like i have been drinking it. :o ??? ::)
Quote from: Low-Q on February 26, 2009, 04:45:22 PM
Well, the speed is constant in a vortex, but the rpms at the smaller diameter in the center is higher. Different speed in a vortex cause friction and force it to stop spinning - but that is not the case in a vortex, right?
Vidar
Low-Q, You have some nifty thinking. You're alright with me.
From the research I have done, a two axial system will provide a linearity of 15, and this doesn't take into account the angular momentum of the additional mass in a system such as this. Since we have electric motors that are 85 - 95% efficient to begin with, this linearity of a conservative 15, without the additional mass being considered, should push us over unity. This doesn't mean my research is correct, but I feel it should be investigated. Just my thoughts on this.
what does linearity mean?
the motor we have built does have a linear input to output. 10 % in, 10% out.
and you are right, once you ad in the benefit of the angular momentum, ......
Again, I just need someone to help me get in front of the right group to see this to completion.
Cameron
This is similar to the method NASA uses to sling shot the space shuttle off a planet in order to gain speed and momentum without additional fuel.
This motor does the same thing except it uses some of it's speed and momentum that it gained from the angular momentum to put back into the axial momentum, thus having a linear (additive) affect. The linearity of this motor has a limit. This limit is reached when both the angular momentum and axial momentum both have the same amount of force that is in opposition to each other, thus not able to overcome each other. It appears your motor has a linearity of 10, which is good. The force (torque) in this system should be high. This is my analysis at the moment.
i used 10 % in the above post, but & can demonstrate slighlty higher than a 1 to 1 i/o ratio . and what is unique, because of the design of the motor using Cf, the ratio gets better the faster it runs!
Quote from: cameron sydenham on February 28, 2009, 01:59:46 PM
i used 10 % in the above post, but & can demonstrate slighlty higher than a 1 to 1 i/o ratio . and what is unique, because of the design of the motor using Cf, the ratio gets better the faster it runs!
Thanks for correcting me on your motor having a linearity of 10. You were referring to the ratio between input/output and I was referring to something different. Since you say the ratio gets better the faster it runs, would then refer to what I'm talking about being linear. Very interesting.
We may not know what gravity is 100%, but we don't know what the aether is 100% either. Does this mean we abandon the idea of trying to control it, bypassing it, tapping into it, or using it in our favor. If this is the case, then we should abandon all the ideas on OU or anything else. I won't accept this, this leads to only failure.
I would like the community involved. I have these questions for anyone who is interested. Could an unidirectional force lead to anti-gravity or OU? Are there other ways to have an unidirectional force other than gimbals or gyroscopes? Could the spin, angular momentum, vortexes, and multi-directional forces have an affect in counter-acting gravity or providing OU?
We live in a 3D world. The common motors of today are only operating in one direction, operating in one dimension only. Gravity is acting on the entire object and not just on a single dimension of the object. In order to overcome gravity, we must overcome it on all dimensions, or at least on two dimensions for OU. There's another thread here about counter rotating magnets for anti-gravity. I see a lot of research heading in this direction.
Please post your thoughts on this or other ideas you may have for anti-gravity or OU.
Failure is not an option.
as i see it, for work to be done, wether it be flight or propulsion to torque to turn, newton must be answered. action reaction, objects at rest..... so on.
when we walk, we push back on earth to go forward. when a rocket goes up, the propelant pushes back behind the object which then goes up.
gravity is unique, it pulls objects toward it, a constant attraction toward a singular point.
Centrifugal force is a reverse representation of gravity. always pushing out from a singular point. I still firmly believe that by working with this force, ou is very attainable. (I still think the design we came up with will work. )
I have and will continue to knock on doors and call who ever might be able to help. I now understand the issue of looking in here on this site, being an open source community and all.
Quote from: cameron sydenham on March 04, 2009, 12:19:15 PM
as i see it, for work to be done, wether it be flight or propulsion to torque to turn, newton must be answered. action reaction, objects at rest..... so on.
when we walk, we push back on earth to go forward. when a rocket goes up, the propelant pushes back behind the object which then goes up.
gravity is unique, it pulls objects toward it, a constant attraction toward a singular point.
Centrifugal force is a reverse representation of gravity. always pushing out from a singular point. I still firmly believe that by working with this force, ou is very attainable. (I still think the design we came up with will work. )
I have and will continue to knock on doors and call who ever might be able to help. I now understand the issue of looking in here on this site, being an open source community and all.
I agree with you Cameron. It appears this open source community will turn a deaf ear to this. They're not interested in even the possibility of a truth on the basis it's not open sourced. There is nothing new under the sun. Everything will be revealed, weather it's open sourced or not.
Their argument, is nothing has come to the public from a patented source regarding OU. They're right. What ever happened to Tippett's patented idea? Nothing. I have found a pdf article on his gyroscope motor idea that goes back to the year of 2000. Where is this gyroscope motor after 9 years? Tippett has the financial means to bring this to the public, but it's still not available. It either doesn't work, he was ignored, he was bought out with non-disclosure agreements or with other threats and pushed under the carpet by the powers that are.
Who is right? Neither is right. It just continues to be ignored by both sides. lol
lets assume the motor design I have will work, or any one, here is the dilemma and what our efforts are to bring to everyone.
if one does not pattent, we face the possibility of someone else bettering the idea, then patenting and "selling out"
The wrong person comes up with the idea, patents it, and sells out"
What we have come up with. patent the 3or 4 integral parts, patent these parts, (they are what we came up with anyway) than offer licenses to any manufacture to make them with no exclusive rights. Some people say that no one will pay a penny without exclusive rights. well, lets see how this plays out. go to ge or Toyota or whoever, they say no, we want exclusive rights, we say no, and go to a smaller co, they say, OK, GE or Toyota now is in competition with a smaller company, that has a totally green motor.
the larger company will play ball, or go out of business. I believe that with this process, you force a level playing Field. I could be wrong, but I guess time will tell.
Cam
So you think anti-gravity motor is not invented already and you are worried about your (future) patent rights!
The military has already got all the know how and they would want to keep a lid on it as long as they can.
On the other hand if you open source your knowledge, you will be recognized and your name will live on, and
you make your money in other ways.
If you really have something, maybe you should contact John Searl. He will tell you how ego maniacs drive a good man into the ground.
@Cameron:
That is one of the problems with open sourcing. Someone else comes along, patents it, and takes credit for it. Now it is no longer open sourced. Licensing agreements after achieving a patent is the best way to go, like you have said.
One thing to keep in mind, this is not your average technology. Just like Ahura mentioned, the government already has this technology. There is good reason why it's not public, as far as the governments are concerned. Do you really believe they will allow you to bring this to the public, since they have been suppressing it?
You must ask yourself these questions. Does the government have this technology? If yes, then Why is it being suppressed? If no, then why haven't they figured it out, since they have all the resources. They have the best minds in the world. Unlimited financial resources. Unlimited access to information. Access to physics that is not taught in the schools. Reversed engineering of UFO's or possible help from other species not of this planet (This is based on speculation, but the evidence is overwhelming). Can I bring this to the market if the government and big corporates are suppressing this technology?
I'm not against you. It is evident there will be resistance from all sides.
We don't even know if the people here even accepts your device, method, or an unidirectional force could lead to OU or anti-gravity. I haven't even been able to get their opinion on this. It's just being ignored. There isn't a reason to discuss this device if people aren't willing to share their thoughts on this. Let's first get their opinions on this, then maybe we can move forward.
I haven't heard one person give a reason for it not working. Also, I haven't heard one person say it will work. What do we do now? There is nothing we can do, until we can have a discussion.
Well someone can go and patent it, get money and then collect dust, as long there is still plans on the internet for people to build, would you care?
Is fame important to you, or what about the environment..
It's up to the person, if he will open source it, he can expect someone likely to patent it, as long as there are plans to build, if you can get someone to get off the grid, easeing the power stations to make them emit less pollution, you are suceeding and in anycase you know the goal for free energy or shall i shall converted energy.
The reason no one in this forum will explain why your machine will not work is because we all work for oil companies.
You included.
.
@daniel1: I believe enough information has been released to the open sourced community to build this device to completion, although I could be wrong. If the device is duplicated and shown to work, then the information is already on the internet.
Anti-gravity and OU was open-sourced approximately 2600 years ago in Ezekiel.
15) As I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel on the ground beside each creature with its four faces. 16) This was the appearance and structure of the wheels: They sparkled like chrysolite (golden), and all four looked alike. Each appeared to be made like a wheel intersecting a wheel (gyroscope and gimbals). 17) As they moved, they would go in any one of the four directions the creatures faced; the wheels did not turn about as the creatures went. 18) Their rims were high and awesome, and all four rims were full of eyes all around (round or oval shaped magnets ?).
19) When the living creatures moved, the wheels beside them moved; and when the living creatures rose from the ground, the wheels also rose (anti-gravity). 20) Wherever the spirit would go, they would go, and the wheels would rise along with them, because the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels. 21) When the creatures moved, they also moved; when the creatures stood still, they also stood still; and when the creatures rose from the ground, the wheels rose along with them, because the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels (UFO).
Ezekiel 1:15 - 1:21 (NIV)
For more information, read all of chapter 1 in Ezekiel.
Like I said, there is nothing new under the sun. Everything will be revealed.
Quote from: AhuraMazda on March 04, 2009, 05:59:24 PM
So you think anti-gravity motor is not invented already and you are worried about your (future) patent rights!
The military has already got all the know how and they would want to keep a lid on it as long as they can.
On the other hand if you open source your knowledge, you will be recognized and your name will live on, and
you make your money in other ways.
If you really have something, maybe you should contact John Searl. He will tell you how ego maniacs drive a good man into the ground.
Two opposing magetic fields generate anti-gravitational field around it. A simple googling will bring you interesting information. I did believe in anti-gravity already had been understood by U.S military agencies many years ago both reverse engineering of alien crafts and discoveries by scientists and inventors.
Otis. Carr flew anti-gravity aircraft half century ago. His machine and reserach banned as soon as he did demonstration of flight, tried to get investor for mass production.
I found something interesting on youtube that might be relevant to this thread or might deserve its own thread. Anyways it uses gyroscopes to fight gravity, check out his channel with SIMULATIONS.
http://www.youtube.com/user/savata71
Okay I just understood the principle behind this and it makes a lot of sense.
Edit: Here's the same idea that I saw a while back and didn't understand but do now...
http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/SmartSPIN_X2/SmartSPIN_X2.htm
Is this scientific proof?
At some amusement parks, there is a ride called the "Graviton". They put people against the walls and the ride will spin on it's horizontal axis. When the wheel reaches a certain speed, then the floor drops about 6 inches. The people will be pushed against the wall due to the horizontal centrifugal (CF) force and will not drop to the floor. The people can not leave the wall due to the horizontal (CF) force but they also won't be pulled to the floor.
Now, try to visualize this wheel is spinning on both it's horizontal axis and vertical axis. When the floor drops, then the people won't fall to the floor, due to the horizontal (CF) force. Also, since the wheel is spinning on it's vertical axis, the people will no longer be stuck to the wall due to the vertical (CF) force. The people will be able to leave the wall due to the vertical (CF) force and will be able to leave the floor due to the horizontal (CF) force. They will then experience a zero gravity environment inside this wheel due to the horizontal and vertical (CF) forces. This is anti-gravity. Anti-gravity is both the horizontal and vertical (CF) forces combined within the same entity or object.
Put a little thought into this and you should be able to understand what I'm trying to describe.
How could this not be correct?
Yeah I think I see what you mean. But this zero g only applies for the people inside, no?
Also the graviton you speak of is slopped where the people have to take place. So if there was no gravity the centrifugal people would push them up and out of the machine. But what does this have to do with the simulations from youtube?
Quote from: broli on March 11, 2009, 07:57:01 PM
Yeah I think I see what you mean. But this zero g only applies for the people inside, no?
Also the graviton you speak of is slopped where the people have to take place. So if there was no gravity the centrifugal people would push them up and out of the machine. But what does this have to do with the simulations from youtube?
The gravitron being slopped has no effect on it having both the horizontal and vertical CF. It still only has one CF regardless of it's orientation, since the graviton is only spinning on one axis. You need to have a 2 axis system that are spinning perpendicular to each other for the anti-gravity affect. The people will not be pushed up and out of the machine since the CF will be equal in all directions.
I think the zero g would apply to the people inside and to the entire object. The simulations from youtube look interesting also. I believe it works on the same principals as I'm referring to.
What we need to do is to have the CF surrounding the entire spinning object in all directions to be canceled out, thus not being in opposition to each other on opposing sides of the object. Once you have a system with no opposition on opposing sides of the object, then you will obtain anti-gravity for the entire object.
Let's say you have an object that is spinning horizontally like a top. As the top is spinning, on the left side of the top, the CF is coming towards you. At the exact same moment, the CF force on the right side is moving away from you. They are in opposition to each other. Cancel out this opposition with a two axis perpendicular system, then you will have a linear force in the predominant direction of movement.
I have a feeling that I confused you again......lol
Let's assume the below is correct for a moment.
1) CF force in all directions are equalized = Zero gravity.
2) CF force in all directions are equalized except for 1 direction (down direction is predominant) = Earth's Gravity or linear direction downwards.
3) CF force in all directions are equalized except for 1 direction (up direction is predominant) = Anti-gravity or linear direction upwards.
4) Predominant CF force = linear direction in the predominant direction of the CF force.
Does this help?
A coaxial rotor within a coaxial rotor, perpendicular to each other, in the form of a gyroscope or gimbals is the key I have been holding back.
An example of a coaxial rotor is a helicopter with no tail rotor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaxial_rotor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaxial_rotor).
Now imagine a coaxial gyroscope rotor.
Gyroscoop coaxial video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMV29qjjJ4E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMV29qjjJ4E)
This just needs to be taken 1 step forward with a vertical axis perpendicular within the horizontal axis (magnetic wheels and not blades). This will not be using air for lift, but will be a true anti-gravity machine.
The electron travels in a corkscrew motion around a conductor wire. This corkscrew motion is the angular momentum of the electron. In addition to the angular momentum, it is spinning around it's own axis, and this is the axial momentum of the electron. The axial momentum undergoes Lenz's law. It is the orbital momentum that overcomes the Lenz's law to give us torque. When you wind the wire around a conductor material, you're increasing the torque that is available (increasing the magnetic field), due to increasing the angular momentum of the electrons by the number of turns of the wire. The angular momentum of a unidirectional force, such as a gyroscope does the same thing.
Nasa even uses a gyroscope type device to create artificial gravity. They use a motor within the gyroscope to move the gyroscope wheels to create artificial gravity. Use a motor on the outside of the wheels, one on each wheel, not to create movement, but to create anti-gravity within the object. In addition to the motor on the outside of the wheels, have a motor on the inside of the wheels. The motors on the outside will allow you to determine direction of movement by creating a Lenz's force on the inside motor, which causes the wheels on the outside not to turn (this is the same as putting a heavy load on a motor) and the motor on the inside to provide torque to the other wheel. This is nothing more than reversing the gyroscopes function, from creating gravity to creating anti-gravity. It is using 3 motors to reverse gravity or flip gravity. Nasa is only using one motor in the gyroscope to create gravity. In Ezekiel, it says the wheels/motors on the outside do not turn. The motor/generator on the inside is turning, but Ezekiel wasn't able to see this. Instead of turning the wheels on the outside, it is turning gravity or flipping gravity by using Lenz's law to create a force against the direction of travel, thus propelling or pushing it through space. The motors will be acting as either a generator or motor depending on the direction of travel. It comes down to the triune force or the trinity force.
If one really thinks about this, it should become very clear to you. I feel like I'm trying to beat a dead horse to awaken........lol
I may not have this totally correct, but this is the path for anti-gravity and OU.
The fact that an airplane takes a parabolic path for the affect of weightlessness is proof that the gyroscope using an unidirectional force can achieve an anti-gravity affect.
A parabolic path has a vertical and horizontal angle, and the gyroscope can provide this same motion in all directions with coaxial rotors on both the vertical and horizontal axis. The top horizontal half of the gyro will have more G's than the bottom half of the gyro. Now we have a potential in the G's that can be exploited to our benefit for an anti-gravity affect on the entire object that will be opposite to the affect of earth's gravity.
An artists rendition from the description of it from the bible.
Its most basic form. Notice how one intersects the other.
Good post Yodi!
I didn't know about the UFO experience in Ezekiel until after I was led to the gyro. The gyro does have quite a few similarities to the "wheel within a wheel" in Ezekiel's description.
It would be nice to see drawings from this community, from a physics/over-unity perspective of Ezekiel's description of the "wheel within a wheel".
Tippett's gyro design, http://www.youtube.com/user/ganidllc (http://www.youtube.com/user/ganidllc), was based on the Urantia book, a book that supposedly was inspired by celestial beings on the physical universe and spirituality. I am very surprised the Urantia book has never been mentioned on this site. This book does have suspicions of it's authenticity though, of being from celestial beings. You can find the Urantia book here, http://www.urantia.org/about.html (http://www.urantia.org/about.html), but don't pay for it. This book is in the public domain and is in the form of an audio book also.
If I were to design a gyro, I would design it similar to Tippett's design with a few modifications. First, I would remove one of the wheels, so it only has a wheel within a wheel. Second, I would divide the gyro into hemispheres. I would have the horizontal and vertical axis on a coaxial rotor. The top hemisphere would rotate contra to the bottom hemisphere on the outside wheel, it's vertical axis. The inner wheel is more complicated. In addition to dividing the inner wheel into a top and bottom hemisphere, we will also divide it into a left and right hemisphere on a coaxial rotor, it's horizontal axis. We'll divide the top hemisphere into a left and right hemisphere, where the left hemisphere will be rotating contra to the right hemisphere. The bottom hemisphere of the inside wheel will also be divided into hemisphere's like the top hemisphere. Now you have 4 separate hemispheres on the inside wheel, where the spin of each hemisphere is aligned with all the other hemispheres. Now, the four hemispheres on the inside wheel, would represent 4 electrons, with their spins aligned.
This design is just like aligning the spin of the electrons in a metal to manufacture a permanent magnet. This is a permanent electromagnet on a macro-scale that mimics the spin of the electrons being aligned on an atomic scale. The outer and inner wheels will constantly be changing each other's magnetic field due to it's spins, and will feed off each other to have a perpetual motion.
I have a few more ideas, similar to this, but it appears, this topic is lacking interest. :(
Maybe I'm a crackpot......if I am, then I at least, hope you find this humorous.
Quote from: gravityblock on February 28, 2009, 11:11:37 AM
This is similar to the method NASA uses to sling shot the space shuttle off a planet in order to gain speed and momentum without additional fuel.
nasa used the gravitational pull to increase momentum, after gaining this they then used fuel to accelerate out of the gravitational field in addition to the momentum they gained while being pulled on by the planet. if they had no fuel left, it would still be orbiting.
if it were true we could satelites on the earth to do this
I did study Ganid gyroscopic there for little bit several years ago (because at first glance I didn't know that it was a gyroscope and thought it was something else).
Sure wasn't what I thought it was.