savata71 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I am sure that the following will be interesting to be seen. http://www.youtube.com/user/savata71 These are computer simulations ( I have made with MSC Visual Nastran 4D) of a gyroscopic device that overcomes gravity. And these simulations say it works. So, what you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Can't watch it. "Overcome" in what way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savata71 Posted March 31, 2009 Author Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) It just flys off. There is a precession induced by using a motor which induced force in the direction against gravity.But you have to see the videos to understand me. Edited March 31, 2009 by savata71 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 So even if that worked, it wouldn't be "anti-gravity," except in the way that an airplane is also "anti-gravity," i.e. it just exerts a force in the opposite direction. Now, not having seen how this is supposed to work, I can tell you that if it violates Newton's third law, then it doesn't. To push itself upwards, it has to be pushing something else downwards with equal force. Is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Computer simulations are used to suggest that something may work. Only physical experiments can prove something works. Since this is a simulation can you explain to us why the device moves upwards? Why is there a net force pointing upwards? I have to tell you that when I see what is happening I see a simulation that does not appear to properly reflect the physical world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savata71 Posted March 31, 2009 Author Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) Yes, but this software uses Newton's physics and it is not in violation with Newton's third law. Why is there a net force pointing upwards? - In this video is explained why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q87-Lt8sCsY Edited March 31, 2009 by savata71 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 How about you explain why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savata71 Posted March 31, 2009 Author Share Posted March 31, 2009 If precession is caused by a moment (gravity and its reaction) then what if WE induce the precession (by using a motor)? Will there be an induced force in the direction against gravity for instance? These simulations say yes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I'm not really picturing what you're describing, but it sounds like you must be misusing at least one of those terms (reaction, moment, precession). Does your simulation even include gravity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savata71 Posted March 31, 2009 Author Share Posted March 31, 2009 Some simulations include gravity and some not. All I do is: I put motors in the model and start them. It can be seen when gravity is on and when it is off - there is an arrow that shows direction of gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lan(r)12 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Yes, I agree with the scary moderator...you seem to be confused in your terminology... Simulations must be calibrated to real world conditions before they are even, in the slightest, admissible as an argument to violate the laws of motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 if it is what i think it is, I`v seen a real one, it basically converts angular momentum into linear momentum, by using opposing G forces set up by spinning gyroscopes which are manipulated suddenly and cause the thing to jump into the air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I guess I have to ask again. Have you actual tried this? I think you'll find that your vectors are wrong. You don't have to get anything to fly or turn as fast as you state. Hang a model on a string with a spring. According to your claim you should see the spring contract as your device 'defies gravity'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.C.MacSwell Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Yes, but this software uses Newton's physics and it is not in violation with Newton's third law. Why is there a net force pointing upwards? - In this video is explained why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q87-Lt8sCsY Because the computer is program is not consistent with physical law. Otherwise it can only be present while in contact with the ground or" jump" as YT points out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 can you post the simulation files so we can analyse the exact details of the simulation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savata71 Posted March 31, 2009 Author Share Posted March 31, 2009 Well, maybe you are right about terminology – maybe I mix up “moment” and “torque”. But if you watch the first video you will understand what I mean. And I don’t think that there is a violation of the laws of motion. It can be taken as a specific appearance of the laws of motion (if it be proven by a real experiment, of course). OK, I will post some files in next post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savata71 Posted March 31, 2009 Author Share Posted March 31, 2009 Here is the first. The others are too big and if I can't attach them with the results of solutions, I will attach them without results. You will have to start the simulations and to wait and see what happend. IN Cosmos.zip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Without looking at the simulations here is what I think is going on. If I stood on a chair and grabbed the back and pulled upward. There would be a force going upward. Why doesn't the chair move up and defy gravity? There is another force pointed downward in the opposite direction. This has already been pointed out by Sisyphus. I think your original vector diagram is in error. The jump YT talked about is not a failed flight. It is likely due to a change in velocity of the gyroscopes. That change in velocity is an acceleration and F=ma and all that stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savata71 Posted March 31, 2009 Author Share Posted March 31, 2009 This is without solutions. You have to start simulation and wait. I think this is enough. Specially for stereologist who wants springs: Here is a video I made with spring hanged model and some other files with solution include. 1. AntiGravity_Explorer_B.avi - http://dox.bg/files/dw?a=c027f491fb 2. Gyroscopic Flying Car - Gyroscopic Space Craft 4.WM3 - http://dox.bg/files/dw?a=b9c35b64ac 3. BG_Flying_Saucer_Loaded.WM3 - http://dox.bg/files/dw?a=eb50ca6d88 4. AntiGravity_Explorer_B.WM3 - http://dox.bg/files/dw?a=f175fcf80e These addresses are temporary AntiGravity_Explorer_A.zip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) I have seen these simulations. I don't care if you added a spring to your simulations. That is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting you use real, physical models to better understand what you are simulating. Your simulations are incorrect and we are all trying to assist you in finding the cause of the mistake. I do have to commend you on your simulation movies. They are very nicely done. Edited March 31, 2009 by stereologist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savata71 Posted March 31, 2009 Author Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) Agree, the real physical model will have the last world. I am not absolutely sure if this works but I have to defend it until someone show proof that it does not. I think to try it in real but it will be not soon as I am out of job. As soon as I start work I will spend some money for a little experiment. For beginning I will try the same tests with other software. And if someone try it too it will be good to share what happen. Edited March 31, 2009 by savata71 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 if it is what i think it is, I`v seen a real one, it basically converts angular momentum into linear momentum, by using opposing G forces set up by spinning gyroscopes which are manipulated suddenly and cause the thing to jump into the air. I'm guessing that this system is on a surface when it happens. The surface is exerting a force in this case. Anyway, as to the OP, what is the equation you are using to find the "force" of precession? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savata71 Posted March 31, 2009 Author Share Posted March 31, 2009 Anyway, as to the OP, what is the equation you are using to find the "force" of precession? If you ask me – I don’t know the equation. Here is my reason to believe. I hope you can read from picture. I just check this with the simulating program. If this reasoning is wrong, where is the mistake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 How do you work out what way the arrows point? You'd need equations to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savata71 Posted April 1, 2009 Author Share Posted April 1, 2009 There are known rules how to find in what direction the precession appears. I can't explain it in English now (I'm not sure that I can do this in Bulgarian too), but if you see this ocular demonstration http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H98BgRzpOM&feature=related you will agree with the smaller scheme in my previous post. The bigger scheme derives directly from the smaller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now