As an EM engineer who has also studied inertia and gravity, I believe strongly in the Aether and in particular the Active Aether. Here is a paper showing a missing reaction torque in precessing gyros with the conclusion that inertia is not an internal property of a body (to resist change of motion) but is in fact an external force. That requires an Aether to be present. I will post another paper suggesting how matter can react with an Active Aether to create those external inertial forces.
Smudge
Here is my second paper showing a possible model for the active aether and how interaction with that aether supplies forces to any matter particle. When I wrote this I used an old version of Word Perfect that didn't support equations, so the equations are not the best quality. Sorry about that.
Smudge
Both papers are good, but the second paper is a significant one, a "must read" for all here.
Thanks again, Smudge, for sharing your insightful gift with us.
Kind Regards, ION
Thanks, Smudge; I've started reading but its well after midnight already so I need to sleep. Wonderful thing, sleep - when it comes!
I stumbled across Eric Laithwaite's vids the past few days -- enjoyed "the heretic" (BBC production) very much! perhaps you and I feel like him at times?
I think so. Hope I can KEEP GOING as he did.
Anyway, what do you think of his lifting the 50-lb spinning wheel over his head with one hand? pretty impressive, but are aether forces coming into play?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2014.07.06, 05:26:58
.
Anyway, what do you think of his lifting the 50-lb spinning wheel over his head with one hand? pretty impressive, but are aether forces coming into play?
Gyroscopic precession-a wonderful thing.We must also take into account the energy used to get the flywheel up to speed. Would this be more than the energy required to lift that weight to that hight?
A AA battery has enough energy to lift 1 ton 1 meter into the air-something to think about.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2014.07.06, 05:26:58
Thanks, Smudge; I've started reading but its well after midnight already so I need to sleep. Wonderful thing, sleep - when it comes!
I stumbled across Eric Laithwaite's vids the past few days -- enjoyed "the heretic" (BBC production) very much! perhaps you and I feel like him at times?
I think so. Hope I can KEEP GOING as he did.
Anyway, what do you think of his lifting the 50-lb spinning wheel over his head with one hand? pretty impressive, but are aether forces coming into play?
If you imagine Eric Laithwaite standing in the centre of the frame (figure 5 in my gyroscope paper) instead of the pillar, then it becomes obvious how the Coreolis forces help him to lift that weight. So yes, aether forces do come into play. It then begs the question, do those aether forces actually do the work to lift the weight, and the answer must be yes. Aha, so now we can get some free energy!. Not so. As the weight is rising that constitutes another precession motion about a different (horizontal) axis, and that in turn creates Coreolis forces that oppose the original precession drive about the vertical axis. So Laithwaite had to supply energy to swinging the gyro around the vertical axis, and nature being perverse that energy exactly equates to the potential energy gained in the lift, I think, maybe, perhaps :-\ .
Smudge
Hi Prof years ago I was lectured by Prof Laithwaite .. The man was just as he seems as straight as a die , The RI Christmas lectures for school Children as you probably know were first initiated by Faraday. Prof Laitwaite was tasked with doing his second lecture Laithwaite was the inventor and initial developer of the linear high speed train , If all was set fair and equal he should have quite rightly had all the academic honours and awards that signifies, along with a deal of justifiable wealth of course. Although he seemed to care little for the trappings of wealth if his car and eating sandwiches with we students was anything to go by.
Here for you interest is an old vid in which Eric outlines that initial work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI_HFnNTfyU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI_HFnNTfyU)
Eric was as you have noticed Prof ostracised by the establishment after his Lecture (probably because its to close to the truth for comfort) of course all funding was mysteriously stopped Eric was effectively 'sent to Coventry' his work stolen and usurped Tesla style.. (I guess luckily for me as I then had the pleasure of him lecturing in order to try and eke a living.) Being a blunt talking Lancashire gent who calls a spade a spade he was not prepared to be swayed by the powers that be , As you noted in his lecture Prof, the reaction of the powers that be, left Eric with a bitter taste in his mouth, still he was not cowed !
His reaction all those years ago in class when questioned was " let them be doing, the truth will out" I wish I could have that time again .. instead of joking and messing about with Eric in that Class I would be asking very serious questions instead of considering girls, beer and sport .
Erics last few words on that vid .. "one day its possible there might be trains just like this" well that's come to pass but they are not known as Laithwaite trains and Laithwaites family have not enjoyed any benefit from the man's inventive genius .. Prof if its your ambition to put up as much resistance to the establishment as Eric did Its a big hat to wear but if you put it on you'll get a lot of respect from me! Eric was a Gentleman its as simple as that and I really would like to see that truth that he (and many others) know about, 'out' at last . Kind regards Duncan
Very interesting stuff. I haven't seen "The Heretic".
Is this it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eQp4grGdqY
I'm not sure what it was recorded on - probably wax cylinders.
Did he not give a lecture to the Royal Society which has actually been deleted from the record?
I watched Laithwaite's famous lecture on TV and I also attended one of his lectures afterwards. I agree with everything Duncan says about the man. I went on to try to develop a thrust machine using gyroscopic principles, corresponded with him about it and got encouragement. Unfortunately the machine didn't work because of the nature of inertia; although with precessing gyros we can conjure up a reactionless angular force, we cant conjure up a reactionless linear force. We need something a bit more clever than an assemblage of spinning flywheels to get that reactionless thrust. And that leads us into the aether and how we can manipulate things to get that thrust.
IMO such manipulation is possible when one realizes that the aether is a vast continuum of particles whizzing about at light velocity. Those particles, when they interact with electrons, can exhibit properties that we recognize as photons, both real and virtual. Real photons (the classical travelling photons that have both particle and wave-like properties) are simply a pattern imposed on the otherwise randomness of that aether background. The source transmitting those photons doesn't actually create and then radiate aether particles, it merely absorbs and and then emits aether particles but in doing so creates the wave pattern. So photons are simply a wave pattern superimposed upon something that is there anyway. To get such a pattern we have to give the aether particles a characteristic that can be changed, and the simplest one is spin, a vector carried with the particle that can have any angle with respect to its other vector, its velocity. Our background aether has a random spread of such spin-velocity angles.
When the spin has an angle relative to the velocity we have a transverse component, some transversivity, and this accounts for what we recognize as classical transverse fields. But more on this later.
If the spin lies along the velocity vector we have something we can call longitudinal, but it can have two directions, either parallel or anti-parallel to the velocity. The aether particles leaving an electron or a positron have this longitudinal characteristic, irrespective of the arriving conditions, hence such a non-random pattern represents the electric field. Virtual photons (that are used to explain near-field phenomena) do not necessarily have wave-like features because they also account for static fields, so the same principle applies, the source (say an electron or positron) modifies the randomness of the aether particles. So what is the difference between a virtual photon and an aether particle? A virtual photon is simply the minimum number of non-random longitudinal aether particles that have to arrive at an electron to nudge it to change orbit.
The point I am trying to make is that we have electromagnetic means for conjuring up forces from the aether, and since this also involves modifying the aether we can ensure that the reaction to a linear force occurs in distant matter in the same way that the reaction to angular force conjured up from gyros occurs in distant matter. It is simply a matter of designing the right experiment involving near-fields, but not static near-fields. It is already established fact that, using a directional antenna, we can transmit photons in one direction and obtain a thrust, the so called photon rocket. Unfortunately we have to transmit 300 megawatts to get 1 Newton of thrust. But if we have an array of antenna elements each in the near-field of the others we can emit virtual photons in one direction and obtain far greater thrust.
Smudge
Smudge,
I have to ask because I have spent many hours studying the communications of Wilbert Smith. It would seem there are significant correlations between his work, your research and the physical phenomena we witness in our experiments. According to Mr. Smith, everything is based upon spin as it is the only thing absolute in our Universe. I must say I find his work fascinating, regardless whether he gleaned his understanding from extra terrestrial life or not. His book, The New Science appears incomplete and I do not know the factors as to why this is the case. What I do wonder is if we have enough information to fill in the blanks or could this all possibly be a misdirection. I sure would appreciate your analysis and advice.
http://www.rexresearch.com/smith/newsci~1.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h5WFqg6px4
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2014.07.06, 16:37:19
Smudge,
I have to ask because I have spent many hours studying the communications of Wilbert Smith. It would seem there are significant correlations between his work, your research and the physical phenomena we witness in our experiments. According to Mr. Smith, everything is based upon spin as it is the only thing absolute in our Universe. I must say I find his work fascinating, regardless whether he gleaned his understanding from extra terrestrial life or not. His book, The New Science appears incomplete and I do not know the factors as to why this is the case. What I do wonder is if we have enough information to fill in the blanks or could this all possibly be a misdirection. I sure would appreciate your analysis and advice.
http://www.rexresearch.com/smith/newsci~1.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h5WFqg6px4
Matt,
I have given a cursory glance at Wilbert Smith's paper and I must say I find his analysis going from Nothing through Reality and Awareness etc. a bit off-putting. I would need more time to draw any conclusions. However I can say that I don't believe everything is based on spin or that spin is the only thing that is absolute. I am not even sure that spin exists as such (i.e. something that is actually rotating). To me spin is just a convenient means of considering a vector, not even a vector quantity but simply a vector direction, that can exist in a particle. Then interaction between matter and space particles can obey certain rules that include that vector direction. But those rules also obey other aspects such as conservation of linear momentum, so my space particles must also have momentum. The spin vector simply defines the angle between the arrival and the emitted direction of the space particles. I do not see that in Wilbert Smith's work.
Smudge
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2014.07.06, 05:26:58
Thanks, Smudge; I've started reading but its well after midnight already so I need to sleep. Wonderful thing, sleep - when it comes!
I stumbled across Eric Laithwaite's vids the past few days -- enjoyed "the heretic" (BBC production) very much! perhaps you and I feel like him at times?
I think so. Hope I can KEEP GOING as he did.
Anyway, what do you think of his lifting the 50-lb spinning wheel over his head with one hand? pretty impressive, but are aether forces coming into play?
This link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeyDf4ooPdo&src_vid=tLMpdBjA2SU&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_3902025237
shows Laithwaite's experiment repeated, and if you follow through to the explanation video you will see the guy standing on some scales showing that there is no loss of weight. However he misses the point that the forced precession conjures up an external torque, his arm becomes an extension to the rod holding the flywheel so his muscles do not have to do any work and that is why it seems so much lighter. As to whether he has to put the right quantity of energy into forcing the precession, that is something else to debate.
Incidentally if you have ever wielded a chain-saw you will have felt the Coriolis torque when you (a) swing it about a vertical axis by twisting your body or (b) twist it about a horizontal axis by twisting your wrist. Unlike the simple flywheel, for a given precession rate the two experiments give different values of torque. This is because the chain along the top and bottom of the blade has significant linear momentum that changes direction in one case, but doesn't in the other case. It makes a good case to illustrate what the Coreolis force really is and how the gyroscopic torque is the sum of all the forces over the flywheel, or in the chain-saw case over the length of the chain.
Smudge
Quote from: Paul-R on 2014.07.06, 12:41:00
Very interesting stuff. I haven't seen "The Heretic".
Is this it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eQp4grGdqY
I'm not sure what it was recorded on - probably wax cylinders.
Did he not give a lecture to the Royal Society which has actually been deleted from the record?
Yes. Here is the video I referred to (and which discusses the Royal Soc deletion):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt9wTAL5KoU
Interesting comments Smudge, Duncan and others!
Regarding this experiment,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeyDf4ooPdo&src_vid=tLMpdBjA2SU&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_3902025237
I predicted (correctly) the weight scale would not vary, but agree, Smudge, that something else is going on here (lifting the spinning mass) which was not evaluated.
I'm interested in where this may lead.
Quote from: Smudge on 2014.07.06, 08:41:35
If you imagine Eric Laithwaite standing in the centre of the frame (figure 5 in my gyroscope paper) instead of the pillar, then it becomes obvious how the Coreolis forces help him to lift that weight. So yes, aether forces do come into play. It then begs the question, do those aether forces actually do the work to lift the weight, and the answer must be yes. Aha, so now we can get some free energy!. Not so. As the weight is rising that constitutes another precession motion about a different (horizontal) axis, and that in turn creates Coreolis forces that oppose the original precession drive about the vertical axis. So Laithwaite had to supply energy to swinging the gyro around the vertical axis, and nature being perverse that energy exactly equates to the potential energy gained in the lift, I think, maybe, perhaps :-\ .
Smudge
I have been thinking about that and now I am of the opinion that the energy put into the driven precession does not match the potential energy gained in raising the mass against gravity. To gain from that it is necessary to switch off the precession while holding the mass at its greatest height, then extract energy when the mass falls to its lowest height. Then switch on the precession again to drive the mass back up to its top height, and so on. That would be a very complicated machine but not impossible to engineer.
Most forums discussing this gyroscopic effect concentrate on anti-gravity on the mistaken belief that the flywheel loses weight when it is forced to precess, even Laithwaite claimed something like that. But the man standing on scales shows there is no weight loss. However the fact that the torque is an external one, and we have the ability to "dial up" that external torque by forced precession, should allow us to use that torque to do work albeit over only a limited angle of movement.
Let's imagine our arm with its spinning flywheel on the end has some form of stop so that it hangs down at -45 degrees to the horizontal when not precessing (and of course the pillar holding the rod would fall over, but let's ignore that since it doesn't effect the argument). We force-precess the thing up to the rotation speed that can lift the wheel from its stop. Ignoring friction, the energy needed to do this relates to the precession speed and the M of I of the mass on the end of the arm, it has nothing to do with the M of I of the flywheel or the angular momentum of the flywheel (in theory we can regain all that energy when we turn off the precession). Now we nudge the precession speed slightly to get the wheel to lift off its stop, then let it rise to another stop at + 45 degrees where it is caught by a latch. To achieve this requires a short increase in precession speed where the mass then accelerates vertically followed by a nudge decrease to decelerate the mass back to zero vertical velocity. The net energy put into the precessional angular momentum over this period is zero since it ends up at the original precession speed. So the big question is, during that rising mass period does the angular change from -45 to +45 create a gyroscopic torque on the precession driver opposing that drive, and if so does it equate to the energy gained by the raised mass? Well my calculations suggest otherwise, so maybe here we have the makings of an overunity machine.
So it looks like we can use that torque to ratchet a unidirectional force or as a discontinuous source of power. We don't even have to involve gravity, we can intermittently force-precess our flywheel axle about a horizontal axis then use some means to couple the intermittent gyroscopic torque into doing work or generating electricity. Do we have any mechanical geniuses here who could get involved in such a project?
Smudge
Smudge
Interesting thoughts. A drawing of the phases involved would help me to visualize how to build such a thing. I don't claim to be a mechanical genius, but I do have a good grasp of most mechanical devices, and how to construct machinery.
All of my life I have been taking things apart and studying them, trying to understand the engineering mindset behind the designs, i.e. exactly why things were done a certain way, always questioning "why" if there was something I didn't understand. Usually the answer would be revealed if kept in the mind.
As in most things there is an easy way and there is a hard way. I spent a long time doing things the hard way and I am sorry to say that I got it wrong :-[. There is no OU. Here is the easy way.
Assume the radius arm is horizontal just to make the math simple. Let the flywheel mass m be raised by a small height increment dH over a small time increment dt. The vertical velocity dH/dt represents a rotation of the radius arm about a horizontal axis at an angular rate omegaH = dH/(dt*R). We are interested in whether that rotation induces torque about the vertical axis which we are driving with our forced precession at rate omegaV.
For any precession omegaP the torque created at right angles is T = I*omegaS*omegaP where I is the M of I of the flywheel and omegaS is its spin. Thus in raising the mass the rotation omegaH creates torque about the vertical axis T = I*omegaS*dH/(dt*R). But we are driving the precession omegaV about that axis, so the torque loads the driver. Power delivered by the driver is P = I*omegaS*omegaV*dH/(dt*R). Over the time increment dt the energy supplied by the driver is E = I*omegaS*omegaV*dH/R. Now the precession rate omegaV has to raise the mass m against gravity so that I*omegaS*omegaV = m*g*R. Putting this into the energy equation we get the energy suppllied by the driver is E = m*g*dH. Thus the motor driving the precession supplies the energy to raise the mass by an amount dH, there is no OU here. Sorry.
Smudge
Smudge
Don't be sad please :-* Here is the topic for you : the lever system but such one when the center of mass is falling free in gravity field. Tis topic was describedon OU.com thread and is very interesting..... O0
http://www.overunity.com/14565/the-bessler-wheel-mystery-solved/#.U8GTu1E6cSk
And speaking of Coreolis Effect, here's a nice little demonstration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdMyLjLhCek
Quote from: forest on 2014.07.12, 20:00:06
Smudge
Don't be sad please :-* Here is the topic for you : the lever system but such one when the center of mass is falling free in gravity field. Tis topic was describedon OU.com thread and is very interesting..... O0
http://www.overunity.com/14565/the-bessler-wheel-mystery-solved/#.U8GTu1E6cSk
Yes very interesting but unfortunately not the answer to the Bessler wheel. I think a more likely answer involves spinning masses, you can use falling under gravity to spin a mass like rolling down an inclined plane, or like a pinion rolling down a rack. Then you can extract torque by reversing the direction of spin by a 180 degree precession, and use that torque to do some work (like drive the Bessler wheel) and interestingly the mass is still spinning. That's conservation of angular momentum at work. And if that mass reaches the top of the wheel it can fall under gravity again to get even more spin added to what is already there. And so on. Something to think about there O0.
Smudge
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2014.07.12, 23:52:10
And speaking of Coreolis Effect, here's a nice little demonstration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdMyLjLhCek
Well not exactly a demonstration of the real Coreolis effect on weather but a good simulation of something similar magnetically.
While talking of magnets here is something else to chew on. The Earth's magnetic field is well known and documented, and is really quite weak. But what is never mentioned are the enormous values of (a) the magnetic vector potential and (b) the magnetic scalar potential. Here is a paper that discusses inertial effects from movement of magnets in the Earth's scalar magnetic potential. At practical mechanical rotation speeds the effects are insignificant, but for solid state with induced magnetization rotation say up to 10MHz there could be useable effects. Enjoy!
Smudge
Blimey Smudge you've gone from failure to find free Energy to a new form of thrust.
Sounds amazing.
This could be the reason why the TPU winds up and has a gyroscopic rotational / washboard effect.
Quote from: Peterae on 2014.07.13, 18:09:38
Blimey Smudge you've gone from failure to find free Energy to a new form of thrust.
Sounds amazing.
This could be the reason why the TPU winds up and has a gyroscopic rotational / washboard effect.
Yes, the TPU of Steven Mark must be looked at firstly from this point of view.
Those not familiar should acquaint themselves with this effect because
it was so important Steven very often made a point of demonstrating it in the videos.
By extension, it then becomes clear why all his work was abruptly and forcibly halted in 1997.
So do we know if the Steven Mark TPU was in any way geo-specific? How about it being subjected to nearby magnetic fields that would have disrupted or overpowered the earth's magnetic field?
ION, I'm not familiar with the circumstances that took place in 1997. Can you give me a hint please?
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2014.07.14, 06:39:49
So do we know if the Steven Mark TPU was in any way geo-specific? How about it being subjected to nearby magnetic fields that would have disrupted or overpowered the earth's magnetic field?
ION, I'm not familiar with the circumstances that took place in 1997. Can you give me a hint please?
I believe (but have only a small amount of evidence to the fact) that SM was given a
first warning by U.S. gov't officials, that it was not his invention, the technology was already known and owned by the US gov't on behalf of the people of the U.S.
A second warning came later in 2006.
It is difficult to keep all the data on the TPU and SM in one's head. A lot of good discussion has been archived in the threads on this forum, but it all requires a lot of reading and memory. The dots can be connected to paint several different scenarios.
SM alluded to the fact that it was geo-specific, but this only affected the direction of spin.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2014.07.14, 06:39:49
So do we know if the Steven Mark TPU was in any way geo-specific? How about it being subjected to nearby magnetic fields that would have disrupted or overpowered the earth's magnetic field?
ION, I'm not familiar with the circumstances that took place in 1997. Can you give me a hint please?
Someone emailed a few of us from an account with the name of a former friend of SM, Mercury, and told us that the US Navy had technology similar to the TPU since the 1950's.
The direction of rotation for the early units without their own magnetic bias coincided with the opposite direction of Coriolis rotation, but the same direction as low pressure meteorological systems. CCW in Northern Hemisphere, CW in Southern.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/glossary/cyclone.shtml
Why hurricanes rotate the direction they do:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=42593
The folllowing is from the NOAA website's Hurricane Research Center.
Why do tropical cyclones' winds rotate counter-clockwise (clockwise) in the Northern (Southern) Hemisphere?
The reason is that the earth's rotation sets up an apparent force (called the Coriolis force) that pulls the winds to the right in the Northern Hemisphere (and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere). So when a low pressure starts to form north of the equator, the surface winds will flow inward trying to fill in the low and will be deflected to the right and a counter-clockwise rotation will be initiated. The opposite (a deflection to the left and a clockwise rotation) will occur south of the equatorI believe that the Aspden Effect is also related:
http://www.haroldaspden.com/lectures/30.htm
Since I was building the motors myself and was anxious to progress as rapidly as possible, I had to shelve, as it were, the fascinating side-line research avenue that opened up with the above discovery, owing to the time pressure and the limited period of funding for the objective that had been set. I may also say that I encountered another phenomenon that still baffles me concerning a later motor built as part of that effort. That motor was a d.c. motor able to run in either of its two directions, but, if set running in a clockwise sense, it would run for two or three minutes drawing its necessary drive power from the supply, but then it would start to slow down and come to rest just transiently as it switched itself over to anti-clockwise rotation, before rapidly gaining speed in that preferred sense. This did not make sense, given that it had started to run well in the clockwise direction and had received no impulse giving it an initial inertial motion in that direction.
Although in my paper I allude to the possibility of angular acceleration of a magnet (which would actually be angular acceleration of a rotating magnetization vector within a disc of permeable material) creating thrust, the converse is also true. Linear acceleration of a magnet would cause an angular force to be applied to the magnet. Now it need not be a disc having coils at right angles to create a the equivalent of a rotating magnet, it could also be a ring core. If you have bucking coils each wound over half a ring core you will create N and S poles at the gaps where the coils meet. Then have two more at right angles and drive the two pairs with sine waves that are 90 degree phase shifted and you get poles rotating around the ring. Now use thin Fe wire for the ring and you get something like the TPU. With these thin wires as the magnetic core it is obviously possible to set up mechanical vibrations so that parts of the ring are moving back and forth in linear motion, and that would require other coils to set up that vibratory motion. Now we have the possibility that those vibrations induce a rotation of the N and S poles so that whatever circuit is actually driving that rotation gets some free energy via the earth's static magnetic potential. Forget SM's kicks and concentrate on sine waves at the mechanical resonant frequency of this ring core. It all makes sense. And I read somewhere that SM stated his machine worked in the southern hemisphere but it had to be upside down. That too fits the bill.
Smudge
ROLAND SCHINZINGER's report dispels any explanation that requires a ferrous core and external changing magnetic fields:
SCHINZINGER REPORT
ROLAND SCHINZINGER PhD.
Report on Test of Energy Device
At the request of Mr. Richard Mincherton I was present on October 28th at a test demonstration
of a device that its inventor claims will produce electric power without measurable energy input
except as derived from the earth'' magnetic and gravitational fields. The test was conducted at
the inventor's home. I was allowed to bring and use measuring instruments, but because the
inventor had to leave after
1 ½ hours, I was not able to conduct independent tests on my own.
Based on my observations, I can attest to the fact that the three models of the device displayed
and tested on that day did indeed light up one, two and six light bulbs (each rated at 100 watt and
120 volt) respectively. This was less then the figures quoted to me before the test, but still
adequate to demonstrate that the devices function in some fashion. The smallest unit produced
140 to 150 volts unloaded and 60 to 90 volts when lighting one 100-watt bulb.
The mid-sized unit produced 250 volts unloaded,
and was observed producing
142 Volts at .5 Ampere after 30 minutes of lighting two bulbs.
The largest unit produced 798 Volts unloaded. With a six-bulb load the voltage dropped to 420
Volts.
It was difficult to determine how many hours the devices may be able to operate because the
inventor ended the demonstration after 1 ½ hours.
I could not detect any time-varying magnetic field that might have provided an external energy input.
After the test the inventor cut the toroidally shaped device into segments (though not the
controller box located at the center of the device). These samples consisted of an array of
circumferentially arranged coils and wires grouped around a core made of a cork like substance.
October 29, 1995 Roland Schinzinger
RESUME ROLAND SCHINZINGER
Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering (UCI)
Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering (UCI)
PhD, Univ. California, Berkeley 1966
MS, " 1954
BS, " 1953
Westinghouse Design School / U. of Pittsburgh 1955
Apprenticeship (Technikum), Bosch Co. 1947
High School (Doitsu Gakuin, Tokyo, Abitur) 1945
Academic Appointments:
(UCI) Associate Dean 1979-83, 1985-86
(UCB)Teaching Fellow 1963-65
Robert College Istanbul Turkey:
Associate Professor 1962-63
Associate Professor 1958-62
University of California, energ. & Mgt. (Grad Program) 1991-92
California State Polytechnic University 1978-80
University of Santa Maria, Brazil 1993
University of Kariruhe, Germany-
Power and High Voltage Institute 1986
University of Manchester Inst. Of Science and Tech.-
And Imperial College, London: 1972-73
Honors:
Fellow, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Eng.,(IEEE)
Fellow, Institute for the Advancement of Engineering
Award for Contributions to Professionalism (IEEE)
1983 Centennial Medal (IEEE)
Science Faculty Fellow (Natl. Sc. Foundation) 1964-65
Sangamo Prize Fellowship (Sangamo Electric) 1953
Honor Societies HKN, TBN, Sigma xi
Listed in "Who's Who, Am. Men & Women in Science and Engineering
Publications:
Over 70 technical papers, plus numerous reports and commentaries.
Also four books: Ethics in Engineering McGraw-Hill
Conformal Mapping P.A.Laura
Emergencies in Water Delivery Davis Pub.
Electrical Laboratory SIMA Ltd.
Quote from: Smudge on 2014.07.14, 15:25:27
Forget SM's kicks and concentrate on sine waves at the mechanical resonant frequency of this ring core. It all makes sense. And I read somewhere that SM stated his machine worked in the southern hemisphere but it had to be upside down. That too fits the bill.
Smudge
The "kicks" are just a hv pulse in a static magnetic field. Anyone who actually experiments with this will find it very interesting as the hv pulses are able to affect the magnetic field (or appear to).
SM's comments on rotation direction in response to comments from "Norbert":
March 04, 2006
DEAR LINDSAY,
PLEASE POST THIS RESPONCE TO THE QUESTIONS HE HAS ASKED.Hallo Steve Mark,
i hope that you still read here because this weekend my head was smoking an i would like to ask
you something.
In one of the videos you demonstrate your device which ist connected to a measuring instrument.
When you turn it top down the voltage decrease and you had no explanation for it. Now my
question: did you try your device already on the earth south site?
YES NORBERT, WE DID TRY THEM SOUTH OF THE EQUATER, THEY WORK IN
REVERSE. CAN SOMEONE TELL ME WHY?I was also thinking about the exploding TV and the wire found in the the wall. The position in the
TV of this wire is NOSW at the CR tube and also the small coils inside at your device. These
small coils are enclosed of a big coil like the primary coil of the tesla transformer. May be the
direction of winding the small coils is also important. Starting the first "kick" comes from the
magnets and the kick is a result of the initial inertia of the free electrons is in the cable. About the
control, sure there are condensators, but i dont know how to build it. It could be so, that the small
coils successively counter clockwise be induced, so that there it a rotating magnetic field.
regards
Norbert Käßner
YES THERE IS A ROTATING FEILD WHICH CAUSES ELECTRONS TO FLOW IN COPER
WIRE AND BE USED TO PROVIDE USEFULL WORK FORSE. THERE ARE MANY WIRES
PERPINDICULAR TO THE MAIN COLECTOR. THIS IS A NECESSARY PART OF THE
DEVICE.
SINCERELY,
SM.
From G:
QuoteROLAND SCHINZINGER's report dispels any explanation that requires a ferrous core and external changing magnetic fields:
I would have to disagree, as in my opinion the pickup loop that Dr. Schinzinger used dispelled the claim of power coming from an external field (source of power) which is what he was looking for.
quote:
QuoteI could not detect any time-varying magnetic field that might have provided an external energy input.
Actually a ferrous core or iron wire would concentrate and guide the magnetic flux in a loop, making external leakage flux more difficult to detect.
We do know he used a ferrous wire from the latest unearthed video demonstration.
We may be veering slightly off topic, but I welcome this dialog and input.
Quote from: ION on 2014.07.14, 17:36:41
I would have to disagree, as in my opinion the pickup loop that Dr. Schinzinger used dispelled the claim of power coming from an external field (source of power) which is what he was looking for.
That's what I meant. He did not detect an external source of power.
Ferrous "wire" perhaps, but the Dr. says the "core" was a cork material.
=============================================================
It's curious that no one discusses Dr. SCHINZINGER's mention of "gravitational field"
At the request of Mr. Richard Mincherton I was present on October 28th at a test demonstration
of a device that its inventor claims will produce electric power without measurable energy input
except as derived from the earth'' magnetic and gravitational fields.Gravity? Really? Gravity influences precession of a spinning top or gyroscope:
http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/gyroscope-physics.html
Later TPU's reportedly did not cease to produce electrical current when flipped over, and they supposedly had an additional set of windings with DC bias applied to them.
In the later versions of TPU's, does a static magnetic field replace the earth's gravitational field?
If we surmise that it does, then we can also surmise that the energy is not collected from earth's gravitational field in early units.
Electrons spin and precess. What are electrons doing when moving together as a current?
Edit:
good TPU discussion and details here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=403.0
I have tried to find "John Sanchez" to no avail.
Quote13. No time varying magnetic fields were observed in the vicinity that could account for the power output (See Schinzinger report#1)
They measured from the outside but what about a wave front expressing inside the dc bias or magnet supplied field? Domain flipping, i believe. Correct?
I posted about the wire core. Sm stuck magnets to it. Did they miss this in looking for transformer cores?
I am heading down this line of thinking in my current build.
A little off topic,but it is gyroscopic,and a neat little toy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPxIBkcnjXQ
Quote from G:
QuoteROLAND SCHINZINGER's report dispels any explanation that requires a ferrous core and external changing magnetic fields:
From G:
QuoteThat's what I meant. He did not detect an external source of power.
Ferrous "wire" perhaps, but the Dr. says the "core" was a cork material.
Yes, sorry I was only disputing the "dispels any explanation that requires a ferrous core" part of your original statement.
The ferrous wires may have been sandwiched between the cork layers to allow some vibration motion.
Quote from: Peterae on 2014-07-13, 19:09:38Blimey Smudge you've gone from failure to find free Energy to a new form of thrust.
Sounds amazing.
This could be the reason why the TPU winds up and has a gyroscopic rotational / washboard effect. Quote from: ION on 2014.07.14, 02:22:03
Yes, the TPU of Steven Mark must be looked at firstly from this point of view.
Those not familiar should acquaint themselves with this effect because it was so important Steven very often made a point of demonstrating it in the videos.
By extension, it then becomes clear why all his work was abruptly and forcibly halted in 1997.
1999 and 2006 were the years mentioned, but the 1999 one was to Stephan by "Steven Marks" so this is suspicious.
Throughout the whole messaging time period, SM stated the technology was owned by an "offshore company", UEC (United Energy Corp.), and the US Government. Considering what Spherics said, I think the US Government seized it.
Also, during some time period that is hard to determine, further development occurred.
Quote from: ION on 2014.07.15, 14:11:37
Quote from G:
From G:
Yes, sorry I was only disputing the "dispels any explanation that requires a ferrous core" part of your original statement.
The ferrous wires may have been sandwiched between the cork layers to allow some vibration motion.
Notes from "SM" regarding the windings of the TPU (later versions):
About the collector:
It is three separate coils of multi strand copper wire laid one on top of the other, not interleaved. Three is important. You can do many things with three coils. You can run them in parallel, you can run two in series and one in parallel, or etc.
You can run a separate frequency into each coil for better control on large power units if need be.
The control wiring is vertically wound in several segments around each of the horizontal collector coils.
Other control wires are wound around all of the horizontal collector coils together.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2014.07.15, 14:25:29
Notes from "SM" regarding the windings of the TPU (later versions):
About the collector:
It is three separate coils of multi strand copper wire laid one on top of the other, not interleaved. Three is important. You can do many things with three coils. You can run them in parallel, you can run two in series and one in parallel, or etc.
You can run a separate frequency into each coil for better control on large power units if need be.
The control wiring is vertically wound in several segments around each of the horizontal collector coils.
Other control wires are wound around all of the horizontal collector coils together.
In the video where the magnet sticks to the wire as he lets go to change hands, it is reasonable to assume this is a ferrous metal wire. There were no vertical over windings visible on that unit They would have hid the clearly seen horizontal loops.
Later 15 and 17" units the over windings are visible, their use? possibly to orient the dipoles in the copper wire which he now used. No further need for magnetizing iron wire along it's length by swiping a magnet.
Quote from: ION on 2014.07.15, 20:46:52
In the video where the magnet sticks to the wire as he lets go to change hands, it is reasonable to assume this is a ferrous metal wire. There were no vertical over windings visible on that unit They would have hid the clearly seen horizontal loops.
Later 15 and 17" units the over windings are visible, their use? possibly to orient the dipoles in the copper wire which he now used. No further need for magnetizing iron wire along it's length by swiping a magnet.
Was he magnetizing a wire or inducing a small current that was then worked-up to full power by successive iterations?
If he was magnetizing a wire, was it to correct the tuning, or to provide a small magnetic field in the same direction as the field around a copper wire?
If he was just inducing a current, then the device would start with very low output that is fed back into the input and it slowly increases. This is more or less what SM said. Investors wanted him to able to state that no batteries were used in the device.
Think more about this, in on video, I recall he waved the magnet all around the ring. So, his is more akin to magnetizing along the length of a wire.
Would a winding around the core wire create the same magnification direction?
Edit:
regarding the use of magnets in early units:
My Dear friend,
The use of the magnets are not necessary as used in a few of the units. There were different designs. some designs were based on different control and start up systems.
I don't know if my answer helped you or not.
Sincerely,
SM
OK, I have just updated the figures in my paper dealing with how the aether creates electric forces so here is the revised paper. For any matter particle there is an outward flow of space particles, but also an inward flow. To establish any net force on matter you must consider both inward and outward flows and the momentum exchange for each. I have already suggested how the simple feature of an internal time delay between an incoming and an outgoing space particle can yield the property that we recognize as mass inertia. This paper takes that one step further by giving space particles a spin-like vector where the spin arrows indicate the direction of an electric field. Enjoy!
From G:
QuoteWas he magnetizing a wire or inducing a small current that was then worked-up to full power by successive iterations?
My belief is he was pre-orienting the domains in the magnetic wire. The direction of movement is wrong to induce a current, it should have been up and down movement.
QuoteIf he was magnetizing a wire, was it to correct the tuning, or to provide a small magnetic field in the same direction as the field around a copper wire?
My belief: the previous answer
QuoteThink more about this, in on video, I recall he waved the magnet all around the ring. So, his is more akin to magnetizing along the length of a wire.
My belief also
QuoteWould a winding around the core wire create the same magnification direction?
If you meant magnetization direction, my belief would be yes, depending on the direction of current in the over winding.
My belief: This was the biggest clue and the reason why it was eliminated in later models of large output devices with the over winding.
Smudge: Sorry for the derail but I felt it was necessary to answer G, also it is in the spirit of the last line of your latest paper. (And many thanks for that)
So together, lets find the answer. Any new ideas?
As a physicist and EM engineer I thought I knew everything about antenna including their near field effects. However I have just come across this paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.4834v1.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.4834v1.pdf). What the guy points out is that although the electric and magnetic fields propagate at light velocity, only in the far field does the energy also flow at light velocity. In the near field the energy flows slower. This simple fact does not appear in any text books on EM radiation and perhaps explains some of the oddities of the near field. Since we OU heretics usually work with near fields, and mosty with magnetic near fields, perhaps the fact that energy flow from A to B goes much slower than light velocity can be exploited somehow. When you are pumping energy of value 0.5*L*i^2 into and out of an inductor, the reactive energy associated with the external magnetic field lines goes out and in at low velocity, whereas the magnetic field itself travels at c. The same can be said of a moving (rotating) magnet. If that reactive energy is to do some work on another nearby object, then the time delay can be quite significant. Until now I assumed the time delay was associated with light speed but this new revelation opens the door to some new thinking. Of course some energy gets radiated but that radiation leaves behind the reactive (stored) energy. There must be a way we can use this slow moving energy to break the otherwise reciprocity that occurs in non Ou machines.
Smudge
2 things:
The radiation in the near field is just the dissipation of trail left by the higher speed energy exiting.
Helical antennas beam a rotating field.
Quote from: Smudge on 2014.08.01, 15:56:44
When you are pumping energy of value 0.5*L*i^2 into and out of an inductor,
Smudge
@Smudge
I need to ask you a question about the 0.5 in your above formula. Where does this come from? If you can explain this one part and relate it to the rest of the formula, this will surely give you an answer to many of the effects.
This one example needs to be questioned from all possible angles since this same 0.5 appears in many other formulas that everyone seems to consider a given reality but why is it a reality?
Wattsup
PS: This may seem off topic but I can assure you it is not.
Quote from: wattsup on 2014.08.01, 22:23:14
@Smudge
I need to ask you a question about the 0.5 in your above formula. Where does this come from? If you can explain this one part and relate it to the rest of the formula, this will surely give you an answer to many of the effects.
This one example needs to be questioned from all possible angles since this same 0.5 appears in many other formulas that everyone seems to consider a given reality but why is it a reality?
Wattsup
PS: This may seem off topic but I can assure you it is not.
The simple answer is that while the inductor L is being charged with current the current is rising hence the inductor creates a back emf given by V = L*di/dt (I have omitted the usual minus sign because V is back emf. The minus sign is necessary if your reference point is forward emf in the direction of the current. Note that the voltage drop associated with a resistor is also back emf if you imagine it is coming back out of the resistor). The current has to push against this back emf hence there is a power flow P = V*i =L*i*di/dt. In the small time increment dt the incremental energy E supplied is given by E = P*dt = L*i*di (because the dt's cancel). The total energy supplied when the inductor is charged to a current value I is found by integrating E from i = 0 to i = I. That integral evaluates to (1/2)* L*I^2.
While that is mathematically correct it perhaps doesn't really make clear what is really happening. If you are familiar with B v. H curves you will know that any area having dimensions of B*H represents an energy volume-density in Joules/m^3. It is instructive to produce something similar that is flux v. current (or rather flux V mmf) where any area represents energy directly in Joules. Now for linear materials (because the (1/2)* L*I^2 can only apply to linear inductors) you can draw the line from the origin representing the inductor being charged from zero current up to I, and that is of course a straight line. The energy is then the area of the triangle to the left of that straight line (between the line and the flux axis). And since the area of a triangle is (1/2)*base* height, that is where the 1/2 comes in.
Hope that helps.
Smudge
Smudge
Great papers. I'm half and half in agreement with you.
There is most definitely an aether (zero point energy, dark energy, dark matter, etc. People can call it what they will.) that exerts a force on anything occupying its space. We are in agreement on this point.
But I say that this is separate and distinct from inertia, i.e., the back reaction to gravity. This back reaction is due to an internal force. In fact the GFT posits that gravity is strictly due to a magnetic force being applied to a magnetic dipole. Here's how it works. According to Newtonian physics a gyroscope precesses due to the pull of gravity on its axis. The GFT says the converse must be true; that gravity is caused by precession. Let's take an electron. The electron is composed of 3 quarks (I like to call them quarkternions) These three quarks are equivalent to ijk. We know that i=jk. Two of the quarks, jk, form a GFT up quark. In so doing it forms a magnetic dipole. When jk or the up quark interacts with the B field of the i quark then the magnetic dipole of the up quark will precess about the lines of the applied B field from the i quark. The larger the B field of the i quark the more the jk down quark will precess which is equivalent to making the axis of the up quark tilt. The B field of the i down quark can be increased by accelerating it rectilinear or radially. This is the mass dilation predicted by Lorentz and Einstein. The back reaction, or inertia, is given by Ida' Law where F=((mu)B)/r. Now the forces exerted by the aether (I call it an ijk innerspace) on any particle in its confines is different and is ultimately a function of F=(hc)/r^2. We have 3 states of matter; mass, m, charge, q, and the this changing mass complex that equals rho x eta where rho is a magnetic particle analog to mass or charge and eta is vorticity.
No, Newton's laws are just fine. In the aether we are just dealing with a different type of matter, the matter that comprises the ijk space, acting on mass and charge. These type of aetheric interactions are described by a different set of laws. Even though they are different they still do and must obey Newtonian physics.
I'm attaching a series of diagrams from the Sagitta Key to illustrate the formation of and electron from the ijk quarks or quarkternions and the creation of inertia. According to GFT precepts it may be more apropos to view gravity as being the back reaction. Indeed, gravity resists Ida's law at it's maximum when the dipole is pointing straight up vertically but as gravity (inertial mass) increases the amount it resists Ida's law becomes less and less until when the dipole is at 90 degrees to the applied force there is no more gravitational affects experienced by the particle. Result? Velocity can only obtain a maximum speed of c and a mass aggregation can only obtain a finite quantity. This makes sense otherwise the whole universe would be constantly being sucked into one large uniform ball of mass.
E=muB is the magnetic energy. See PNG EmB. This energy is the seat of the inertial force. It resists the pull of gravity or more precisely gravity resist E=muB influences to keep the axis of rotation vertical. The greater the inertial mass gain the less that mass is able to resist the effects of E=muB. Again, gravitational mass is due to the tilt of the magnetic dipole which necessarily resists E=muB. Inertial mass is due to the radial or rectilinear acceleration of the particle. This acceleration however increases the B field of the down quark thus increasing gravity or the tilt of the dipole. Thus gravity and inertia always act in opposition to one another except when the axis is 90 degrees to the B field of the down quark. Gravitational force goes to zero and the inertial force or inertial mass reaches a maximum because this would be at the speed of light. We can't go any faster so we can't generate any more inertial mass nor can we generate any more gravitational mass because the B field of the down quark is now inert relative to the the magnetic dipole.
Quote from: GFT on 2015.01.14, 02:26:38
Smudge
Great papers. I'm half and half in agreement with you.
There is most definitely an aether (zero point energy, dark energy, dark matter, etc. People can call it what they will.) that exerts a force on anything occupying its space. We are in agreement on this point.
But I say that this is separate and distinct from inertia, i.e., the back reaction to gravity. This back reaction is due to an internal force. In fact the GFT posits that gravity is strictly due to a magnetic force being applied to a magnetic dipole. Here's how it works. According to Newtonian physics a gyroscope precesses due to the pull of gravity on its axis.
I disagree entirely with that last statement. Gravity acting on the axis of a gymballed gyroscope will not make it precess. An applied torque or couple is what makes the gyro precess as it tries to obey conservation of angular momentum. Gravity can provide that couple if the gyro is held off its axis as the gyro on a pillar demonstrates. But it doesn't have to be gravity, you could perform the gyro on a pillar experiment in deep space where gravity is zero but use magnetic force to apply the couple (of course this would require a magnet attached to the gyro) and it would still precess. So IMO your perception of precession is wrong.
And if I may make some further comments about your posts. I couldn't agree more about dimensional analysis, this is something everyone should do over and over as it sorts out the wheat from the chaff. So often people use formula to predict performance without realizing they are wrong, especially so in the field of electromagnetism where history has evolved the use of different units like emu, esu, cgs, mks, SI etc not to mention imperial v metric!! In some the velocity of light is suppressed (c=1) and in others the permeability or permittivity of space is suppressed (mu-nought=1 or epsilon-nought=1) hence their dimensions disappear and this leads to all sorts of problems. I once had cause to be the systems engineer on a project that took NQR detection of explosives from something being done at a University as a research project to a product that could be used in the field. And the formula used by the researchers didn't pan out dimensionally, so I had to track it back through the previous 40 years to get to its origin to find the error (which was just that missing mu-nought).
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.01.14, 10:28:52
I disagree entirely with that last statement. Gravity acting on the axis of a gymballed gyroscope will not make it precess. An applied torque or couple is what makes the gyro precess as it tries to obey conservation of angular momentum. Gravity can provide that couple if the gyro is held off its axis as the gyro on a pillar demonstrates. But it doesn't have to be gravity, you could perform the gyro on a pillar experiment in deep space where gravity is zero but use magnetic force to apply the couple (of course this would require a magnet attached to the gyro) and it would still precess. So IMO your perception of precession is wrong.
Smudge
I'm pretty sure I'm right on precession. We may however be getting caught up in semantics and ignoring the components of torque. You like gymballed gyroscopes. I like spinning tops and bicycle wheels. A classic demonstration of precession is the precessing bicycle wheel. In the classic bicycle experiment one end of the axle has a rope tied to it and is held in the demonstrator hand the other end is just held in his his other hand absent an attached rope. The wheel is set spinning at a high rate of speed. The non-rope end of the axle is released. The demonstrator holds one end of the axle with the rope. Instead of the wheel just "flopping" over due to the pull of gravity the wheel instead stays "upright" and precesses in a circle. Now you could say an applied torque caused it to precess. But what is torque? A force applied at right angles to the moment arm which in this case is the axle/angular momentum vector. The wheel precesses because of the orthogonal interaction of the angular monument vector and the gravitational force, and the law of conservation of angular momentum says it must precess, not "fall". Gravity is the force component of the torque. Gravity definitely causes precession in a spinning top and the precessing bicycle wheel.
Here is are a few brief paragraphs for Butikov's
"The torque N produced by the force of gravity at any moment of time is directed horizontally at right angle to vector L of the angular momentum, as well as to the axis of the gyroscope. This means that the force of gravity can change only the direction of L, but not its magnitude. The upper end of the axis moves in the direction of torque N rather than in the direction of the force itself. This explains the unusual at first sight and counterintuitive behavior of the gyroscope. As a result, vector L and the axis of the gyroscope together with L are turning uniformly about the vertical line passing through the supporting point.
This motion is just the forced precession.
The regular precession of a gyroscope occurs only if the initial conditions are quite definite: in order to observe this regular behavior, we should make the gyroscope spinning around its axis and set to this axis a rotation about the vertical with a certain angular velocity, namely the velocity which is characteristic of the following precession. Only this initial angular velocity of the axis will provide the regular precession.
In this sense we can say that the force of gravity that tends to turn down the gyroscope is actually only maintaining, but not causing the precession.In the general case, i.e., for arbitrary initial conditions, the motion of a gyroscope is a superposition of forced regular precession and nutation. "
http://butikov.faculty.ifmo.ru/Applets/Gyroscope.html (I can't recommend Butikov's papers enough. A must read to get a deeper understanding into gyroscopic behavior.)
He makes a distinction between forced precession and regular precession. I'm referring to forced precession when I say it is the interaction of the magnetic force of a quark with the magnetic dipole of another quark that causes gravity or the tilting of the dipole (axis) which is defined as precession.
Quote from: GFT on 2015.01.14, 17:25:17
I'm pretty sure I'm right on precession. We may however be getting caught up in semantics and ignoring the components of torque.
I think it is more than just semantics.
QuoteYou like gymballed gyroscopes. I like spinning tops and bicycle wheels.
I only mentioned the gymballed gyroscope because that allows one to apply gravity to a gyro wheel which is not offset from its support (i.e. the gymbal system is supported at a central point) in which case the wheel will not precess. I am totally familiar with offset wheels as in spinning tops and your bicycle wheel.
QuoteThe wheel precesses because of the orthogonal interaction of the angular monument (I think you meant momentum) vector and the gravitational force.
And therein lies the difference we have in our perceptions of precession. You see some
interaction (your word) between gravity and an angular momentum vector whereas I see no such interaction.
QuoteHere is are a few brief paragraphs for Butikov's
"The torque N produced by the force of gravity at any moment of time is directed horizontally at right angle to vector L of the angular momentum, as well as to the axis of the gyroscope. This means that the force of gravity can change only the direction of L, but not its magnitude. The upper end of the axis moves in the direction of torque N rather than in the direction of the force itself. This explains the unusual at first sight and counterintuitive behavior of the gyroscope. As a result, vector L and the axis of the gyroscope together with L are turning uniformly about the vertical line passing through the supporting point. This motion is just the forced precession.
Yes gravity produces the torque N but only if the wheel is off-centre to its support. There is not some gravity-momentum interaction there, the torque N is simply the well known torque mgr for a force mg acting at a radius r. If we were in a non-gravity environment we could till create a torque by some other force, such as a magnetic one, and we would still get precession. You further quote Butikov "The regular precession of a gyroscope occurs only if the initial conditions are quite definite: in order to observe this regular behavior, we should make the gyroscope spinning around its axis and set to this axis a rotation about the vertical with a certain angular velocity, namely the velocity which is characteristic of the following precession. Only this initial angular velocity of the axis will provide the regular precession. In this sense we can say that the force of gravity that tends to turn down the gyroscope is actually only maintaining, but not causing the precession." So even Butikov does not believe in your gravity-momentum interaction as the cause of the precession.
For your bicycle wheel the instant the demonstrator lets go of one end of the axle gravity pulls that end down ever so slightly, and that turning moment (about the horizontal axis) induces (via conservation of angular momentum) the torque about the vertical axis needed to angular accelerate the precession motion from zero which occurs about the vertical axis. That tiny gain in gravitational (falling) energy supplies the energy for that precession motion. For the typical heavy gyro wheel the slight fall is imperceptible, but it sets up Borikov's "specific initial conditions".
So to sum up you seem to believe in some sort of gravity-angular momentum interaction whereas I just see gravity providing a linear force mg acting on a radius r then precession simply comes from the angular forces pertaining to conservation of angular momentum.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.01.17, 20:30:18
And therein lies the difference we have in our perceptions of precession. You see some interaction (your word) between gravity and an angular momentum vector whereas I see no such interaction.
I basically see a non electrical right hand rule. Apply two orthogonal forces you get a 3rd, that being precession. That's why I know gravity can and does create precession and therefore (my theory) precession must induce gravity.
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.01.17, 20:30:18
So to sum up you seem to believe in some sort of gravity-angular momentum interaction whereas I just see gravity providing a linear force mg acting on a radius r then precession simply comes from the angular forces pertaining to conservation of angular momentum.
I agree -almost- wholeheartedly with this. If gravity provides a linear force then the force is parallel to the angular momentum vector and no "conventional" precession occurs. I do however believe in a gravity angular momentum interaction. Not only do I believe it but know that such an interaction can and must exist since the angular momentum vector can and does lie collinear with the rotational axis of the top. Gravity is an
orthogonal force mg acting on a component (r sin theta) of the radius. The radius, in this case,
is the angular momentum which is also the axle or rotation axis. Pull or push L or the axis or the axle at any angle other than zero and the wheel or top precesses. We can have radius=L=mg x precession (equivalent to creating a torque or making the axle spin) or L x mg=precession or gravity =mg=L x precession.
Quote from: GFT on 2015.01.21, 00:08:17
I basically see a non electrical right hand rule. Apply two orthogonal forces you get a 3rd, that being precession. That's why I know gravity can and does create precession and therefore (my theory) precession must induce gravity.
I agree -almost- wholeheartedly with this. If gravity provides a linear force then the force is parallel to the angular momentum vector and no "conventional" precession occurs. I do however believe in a gravity angular momentum interaction. Not only do I believe it but know that such an interaction can and must exist since the angular momentum vector can and does lie collinear with the rotational axis of the top. Gravity is an orthogonal force mg acting on a component (r sin theta) of the radius. The radius, in this case, is the angular momentum which is also the axle or rotation axis. Pull or push L or the axis or the axle at any angle other than zero and the wheel or top precesses. We can have radius=L=mg x precession (equivalent to creating a torque or making the axle spin) or L x mg=precession or gravity =mg=L x precession.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Your starting point seems to be a spinning top and the math needed to explain precession when that top is disturbed. You see a vector multiplication (right hand rule) in that math and view it like the vector multiplications that occur in electromagnetic field interactions such as E = v X B. My starting point is the classical offset gyro wheel where the math is the same but I can't relate the vector multiplication to a field interaction.
One of the demonstrations made by Laithwaite is a precessing offset wheel on which he hangs an extra mass. Immediately the precession speeds up. Unlike the wheel, that mass does not have spin so you can't invoke a field interaction between its angular momentum and gravity, so what explains the changed precession speed?
Also I can visualize a gedanken experiment where I have a spinning top in outer space where gravity is insignificant. Attached to that top is an unspinning mass made of soft iron. The top sits on a permanent magnet so that attraction of the soft iron to the magnet provides the force holding the top to the magnet and also the torque that can topple the top to cause precession. The top will behave as though it were in a gravity environment, the math is the same involving vector multiplication, but where is your interaction with the field?.
Smudge
I tend to agree with you on this Smudge. We know the Hubble Space Telescope uses gyros as does the Mir. It may seem like gravity is the active component, but I highly suspect gravity is also an artifact of the real component causing this effect. Ken Wheeler has been talking quite a bit lately about "dielectric inertia"; I can only assume this is what we would normally refer to as the Aether. And being pervasive as it is, would account for this effect happening any place within the universe.
When I think about the Aether, what comes to mind is a humongous sink, something that connects everything, like a master ground bus, or an all-encompassing wall--something everything can push against or use as a fulcrum. Where I think our confusion comes from is this Aether isn't just around our objects of interest, it is also inside these objects, a gyro being a prime example. A spinning wheel is in-effect tearing and thrashing the uniformity of the Aether by simply rotating, much like an impeller spinning deep underwater. We can't see the turbulence it is making, be rest assured nature is trying its damnedest to counter the disruption.
Linear velocity battles against resistance of the surrounding environment where a spinning object / a smooth wheel does not 'see' this resistance and can therefore attain a speed that has no impedances like the cloud of the environment would show. This spin 'gets' to a greater level of interaction at the sub atomic level where the valence bond is prevalent. The manipulation of the covalent bonding is where the wheelwork of nature resides. Tesla coils resonate this. It is what Bearden talked about, stretch the distance, control the electron spin or angular position. The effect you are trying to attain comes from the resultant angular moment.
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.01.21, 11:53:53
One of the demonstrations made by Laithwaite is a precessing offset wheel on which he hangs an extra mass. Immediately the precession speeds up. Unlike the wheel, that mass does not have spin so you can't invoke a field interaction between its angular momentum and gravity, so what explains the changed precession speed?
Absolutely correct. Which is precisely what I detailed in listing the conformers. This is easy. First keep in mind rotational velocity is different and distinct from precessional velocity. They are two entirely different things that occur simultaneously in opposition to each other and they are inversely proportional. As the rotational speed slows up the precessional speed increases. Now as far as adding the weight this is very easy to explain. By adding the weight we in effect increase the pull of gravity. We increase mg. But the law of conservation of angular momentum (LCOAM) says L stays constant, so using precession=L x mg if we increase mg we necessarily increase the precession speed but also necessarily decrease the angular velocity all while keeping L constant. That's why as a top is about to "die" and stop spinning, i.e., its angular velocity is reaching a minimum while it simultaneously has the precessional velocity reaching a maximum by speeding up. There's a great You Tube video of a metal disc doing this.
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.01.21, 11:53:53
Also I can visualize a gedanken experiment where I have a spinning top in outer space where gravity is insignificant. Attached to that top is an unspinning mass made of soft iron. The top sits on a permanent magnet so that attraction of the soft iron to the magnet provides the force holding the top to the magnet and also the torque that can topple the top to cause precession. The top will behave as though it were in a gravity environment, the math is the same involving vector multiplication, but where is your interaction with the field?.
Smudge
Ok. You've just created a homopolar generator. I think Grumpy has posted somewhere my diagrams on how a HPG works. But you don't even have to go that far. I have contended that gravity is essentially the effects of a magnetic force. What you have described is essentially a GFT up quark. If you want an interaction with the field or its surroundings either tilt the axis or accelerate the top rectilinearly. Again this obeys F=qvXB. Increase v then B and F must also increase. This increase in F , this downward pull on the angular momentum vector is manifest as gravity. This is why any mass when accelerated gains weight. The F component of F=qv x B always increases.