Gyro Gravity Motor

[AllanV]

Gyroscopes are solved but difficult to understand, therefore the many speculations:
https://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/gyroscope-physics.html#:~:text=These%20forces%20act%20in%20opposite%20directions.&text=In%20other%20words%2C%20due%20to,explanation%20behind%20the%20gyroscope%20physics

The dynamics of macroscopic things are solved, there are no more riddles. If you want to come up with something that moves an object in space without throwing much mass away, you have to look at the particle level. But this is impossible at home.

Instead of a chemical reaction in a rocket (which throws away atoms at a relative slow speed) you want to eject particles at the speed of light. You will still throw mass away, but at an incredible speed, therefore you only have to throw away little mass.

The "lifter idea" ( e.g. https://news.mit.edu/2018/first-ionic-wind-plane-no-moving-parts-1121 ) uses Ions in the air, which will not work in space. And a "lifter" also throws atoms (Ions) at a relative low speed.

Ion thrusters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster also throw away atoms and molecules at a relatively low speed.

First study the known physics of gyroscopes and then start dreaming. You will wake up immediately.

Greetings, Conrad

Hi Conrad,

Thanks for the reply.
When precession is mentioned the discussion has taken the wrong direction. Precession holds the flywheel in space but it is trajectory change that produces a force and this is where the thrust comes from.
Precession occurs with a certain movement. It is a bit like the magnetic effect that has to change to induce an output.

What needs to be done is to study gyroscopes by building and applying the known effects. A set up produced 2kg lift when the fly wheel at low rpm was twisted. Working through the problem has given up two different ways of automating the action.
Since the internet began people have produced and posted the same wrong constructions and need to study the basics. Nothing has been posted similar to how the construction needs to be.
A physical simple gyro is not the total answer, there is agreement there.

The experts have lead us down a road of waste and destructive inefficiency. I do not respect them or trust the system that produces them.
The most ridiculous situation of inefficiency was when after some calculation, it would take 10,000 tonnes of water through the turbine driving a power generator to move 9 tonnes of material, up a hill, with a battery powered electric vehicle.

The gyro idea intrigues me. A video of a professor was shown and he went over the math with all calculations that covered the width of the lecture hall to show there is no lift. What he did was to prove the flywheel did not loose weight. And that is ridiculous, how could it.
A 20Kg flywheel spun up to 4000rpm, on the end of 0.9M shaft, is easily lifted over the persons head with arms at full stretch. A 12 year old boy has been shown to do it.
Is it possible for a human to lift a 20Kg weight on the end of a 0.9M shaft with arms at full stretch, off the floor.  No, it is impossible.  You try it.

It interests me.

Regards,

Allan

[Lunkster]

Gyroscopes are solved but difficult to understand, therefore the many speculations:
https://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/gyroscope-physics.html#:~:text=These%20forces%20act%20in%20opposite%20directions.&text=In%20other%20words%2C%20due%20to,explanation%20behind%20the%20gyroscope%20physics

The dynamics of macroscopic things are solved, there are no more riddles. If you want to come up with something that moves an object in space without throwing much mass away, you have to look at the particle level. But this is impossible at home.

Instead of a chemical reaction in a rocket (which throws away atoms at a relative slow speed) you want to eject particles at the speed of light. You will still throw mass away, but at an incredible speed, therefore you only have to throw away little mass.

The "lifter idea" ( e.g. https://news.mit.edu/2018/first-ionic-wind-plane-no-moving-parts-1121 ) uses Ions in the air, which will not work in space. And a "lifter" also throws atoms (Ions) at a relative low speed.

Ion thrusters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster also throw away atoms and molecules at a relatively low speed.

First study the known physics of gyroscopes and then start dreaming. You will wake up immediately.

Greetings, Conrad

Thank you for your response:
I have to admit that I have a hard time following the math, It is not my strong point, but I believe that the math is true.  I have to admit that I have made the mistake in calling out gyro's in some of my drawings.  What I want to do is to power up a wheel to a specific speed in order for  the wheel to have a momentum in and of itself.  On the large gravity wheel, I want either to twist, rotate or move the smaller spinning wheel  in such a way that on the left side of the gravity wheel it enhances the gravity wheels movement.  On the right side of the wheel I want to either twist, rotate or move the small rotating wheel in such a way to resist the movement of the larger gravity wheel.  Now if that can be done then maybe I would have a way to create movement more than just rotation in a spacecraft as well.  If we could paddle momentum like rowing a boat in water, I would have such a motor.  Now for the case of the gravity wheel, there could be more energy needed in performing this task than any output achieved for the Gravity wheel.  But for space travel, collecting solar power to operate such a motor would then be worth looking into.  When you look at the gyro video's with scales, There is a spike in the weight when the natural movement of the gyro is disturbed.  Several disturbances in a gyro's movement in a system needs to be looked at more closely.

What I am trying to say is that I will be mechanically placing forces against the spinning wheel that will be constantly changing the mathematical behavior of the system.  Yes those formula's along with the formula's of the instances of all the mechanical disturbances I place on the spinning wheel would be helpful for the final systems operating performance and understanding of it.

I also know that if I get something to work on a gravity does not automatically mean that it would work in space, but it would need to be looked at for other applications. 

I am sorry I did not make myself more clear,  Again thank you for the information you provided

The Lunkster

[conradelektro]

I also know that if I get something to work on a gravity does not automatically mean that it would work in space, but it would need to be looked at for other applications. 

The Lunkster

Look at this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5opoI3ryiQ (Gyroscope Attempting to Climb a Vertical Threaded Rod)

It only works, because the gyroscope is lifting itself by pushing against the firm tabletop.

Whatever you do in space with gyroscopes (or whatever moving parts, without throwing them away) you will get a a forward and backward movement around the center of mass, a turing around the center of mass or a combination thereof.

All strange movements based on gyroscopes on a table (or in the hand of a professor) happen because the table is firmly on the ground (or the professor is firmly on the ground). Or said complicatedly: because  the enormous mass of the earth looks like a firm object which does not move in space relative to the gyroscope.

Five good lectures:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYF0PGsF92k (Physics - Mechanics: The Gyroscope (1 of 5) The Concept of Torque Revisited)

Try to think about ejecting particles with the speed of light by help of electricity (from solar panels). This will be the drive to fly to other planets in our solar system. But it will still not be enough to fly to other stars. To fly to other stars you have to overcome the speed of light barrier.

This brings me to another great misunderstanding often observed in this forum:

The fact that no macroscopic object can fly faster than the speed of light is not a "law" dreamed up by scientist. It is a "fact" observed by looking at nature. And the "law" was then formulated based on real observations. If some macroscopic objects are observed flying faster than the speed of light, the "law" will be revised. It is also not really a "law", it is a set of mathematical equations describing nature (as far as nature is understood today). And if you want to argue against this "law", you have to draw attention to some pretty good observations.

The same is true for all "laws" concerning gyroscopes. They were drawn up by observing nature without delusions.

Greetings, Conrad

[Lunkster]

We have all been taught that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  But how do we each interpret that to mean?  When linear momentum is transferred into angular momentum, is it true that the reaction is equal and opposite at the same time?  In the drawing, a person is using linear momentum and converting it into angular momentum.  The question is if the reaction is in the opposite direction then how can the wheel rotate with angular momentum at the same time as having a linear reaction in the opposite reaction to keep the cart still in place.  Even if there is a split between the momentum reactions, there is some movement in the wagon. 
This demonstration needs to be replicated by someone in order to be valid. This is just a simple illustration that can have much better mechanical designs built using it to perform movement in space or several other movement applications.

The Lunkster

[Lunkster]

After reading the Rant inputs for the last hour, I thought it was time for another "Laugh of the Day"
The gravity motor is non-functional as a free energy device, BUT
The mechanism may be instrumental for moving permanent magnets into and out of motor systems.
The cam shaft is better at moving magnets straight in and out, but this movement has some vertical
along with horizontal movement in it.

Well, enjoy the laugh!  Ha!, Ha!, Ha!

The Lunkster

Question of the day:  How many prototype light bulbs did Edison build before he got it correct? 
Making a free energy system is a lot harder than a light bulb, so keep up the hard work