Anti-gravity gyroscopic device - computer simulated

[savata71]

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?

[Sisyphus]

Can't watch it. "Overcome" in what way?

[savata71]

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

[Sisyphus]

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?

[stereologist]

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.

[savata71]

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

[Sisyphus]

How about you explain why?

[savata71]

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...

[Sisyphus]

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?

[savata71]

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.

[Lan(r)12]

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.

[YT2095]

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.

[stereologist]

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'.

[J.C.MacSwell]

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.

[insane_alien]

can you post the simulation files so we can analyse the exact details of the simulation?

[savata71]

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.

[savata71]

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

[stereologist]

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.

[savata71]

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

[stereologist]

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

[savata71]

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

[swansont]

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?

[savata71]

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?

[Klaynos]

How do you work out what way the arrows point?

 

You'd need equations to do that.

[savata71]

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.