PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-11-29, 03:04:41
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature. :)

Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Gyroscopic (Coreolis) forces and the Aether  (Read 27903 times)

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
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
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
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
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3541
It's turtles all the way down
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


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2881
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?
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
.

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.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
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
   
Group: Restricted
Hero Member
*

Posts: 686
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
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  
        
« Last Edit: 2014-07-06, 11:09:41 by Duncan »


---------------------------
How many more to be .threatened, abused murdered, Their research in the hands of evil corporations intent on total control ?
http://dnp.s3.amazonaws.com/b/b9/suppressed.pdf
whilst we know little .. friends remember,
In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
D. Erasmus
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1431
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?
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
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
   
Group: Guest
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
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
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
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
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
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2881
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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
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
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3541
It's turtles all the way down
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.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
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
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 339
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
   
Group: Guest
And speaking of Coreolis Effect, here's a nice little demonstration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdMyLjLhCek
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
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
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
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
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3844


Buy me some coffee
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.

 
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3541
It's turtles all the way down
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.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
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?
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3541
It's turtles all the way down
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.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
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 equator


I 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.
   
Pages: [1] 2 3
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-11-29, 03:04:41