Cancer Sonics Reveals New Technology: Potential New Cancer

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Previous message: Steve: "Re: article"
• Next message: Jerry W. Decker: "Re: Minato device is much like the Hamel Spinner?"

</x-html>.
Received: from ???@??? Wed Jun 03 00:27:17 1998
Return-Path: <KeelyNet-L-return-2580-danyork=iadfw.net@lists.kz>
Received: from lists.kz from [207.180.91.8] by mail.airmail.net
(/\##/\ Smail3.1.30.16 #30.237) with smtp for <danyork@iadfw.net> sender: <KeelyNet-L-return-2580-danyork=iadfw.net@lists.kz>
id <m0yh62M-000MOJB@mail.airmail.net> Wed, 3 Jun 98 00:24:34 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (qmail 22716 invoked by alias); 3 Jun 1998 05:37:49 -0000
Mailing-List: contact KeelyNet-L-help@lists.kz; run by ezmlm
Reply-To: KeelyNet-L@lists.kz
Delivered-To: mailing list KeelyNet-L@lists.kz
Received: (qmail 22707 invoked from network); 3 Jun 1998 05:37:48 -0000
Received: from mail1.halcyon.com (206.63.63.40)
by mail.starfire.douglas.ma.us with SMTP; 3 Jun 1998 05:37:48 -0000
Received: from default (mtv-lx100-ip25.nwnexus.net [204.57.234.25])
by mail1.halcyon.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA24694
for <KeelyNet-L@lists.kz> Tue, 2 Jun 1998 22:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199806030524.WAA24694@mail1.halcyon.com>
From: "Fred Epps" <fepps@halcyon.com>
To: <KeelyNet-L@lists.kz>
Subject: Re: Laithwaite/Dawson Paper
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 21:14:16 -0700
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello Gerald, Bill, and other Laithwaite fans,

Reading the Laithwaite paper reminds me once again of something that has
been in my mind for a long time now, about the gyro torque equation he
brings up towards the end. I've asked several people now about this and
haven't gotten what I think is a good answer, so I'll try again here.

The output torque of a gyroscope under forced precession is:

T = IwV

Where

T = output torque
I = moment of inertia along gyro spin axis
w = gyro spin velocity
V = forced precession velocity

(This is the equation referred to near the end of the Laithwaite paper,
with the angular momentum term broken down into its two components, gyro
spin and moment of inertia).

By Newton's laws, in the ideal, friction-free situation, the rotation
around
both the spin axis and the precession axis can continue forever-- its a
closed system.
When a counter torque ( -T) is applied to the output torque axis, the
precession
velocity decreases, as w and I are fixed. An additional torque must be
applied to the precession axis to compensate for the countertorque,
otherwise the precession will come to a stop. There are gyro torque
converters that work like this, sometimes used to change the direction of a
force at right angles.

Usually the gyro spin velocity is fixed-- and the countertorque
being applied to the torque axis has no effect on it.
But at the same time the gyro spin does contribute to the output torque, as
can be seen from the equation.

Returning to the physical situation of a countertorque (load) applied to
the output axis... Suppose while the -T is being applied, an additional
torque is applied to the spin axis so that the original torque

T = IwV

is maintained. In other words w is increased so that V does not have to
decrease. I don't think that an increased spin velocity will slow down the
precession because the spin force is applied at right angles
to the precession force. The new torque on the spin axis does not create
any countertorque on the precession axis.

Now lets examine this torque applied to the spin axis because this where
the strangeness seems to come in.
At first it looks like energy is conserved in the system because energy is
fed in
to spin the gyro faster to compensate for the countertorque.
The strange part is that the energy fed into the disc is STORED there.
It is not used to do work.

As the loading of the countertorque is continuous, the gyro disc must also
be continuously torqued,
constantly accelerating the disc and storing energy in it according to

E = 1/2mV^2

The gyro disc is a flywheel, and in theory all of the energy fed into it
can be recovered.
Spin is a form of energy storage and doesn't
dissipate.

My question is:
How is the conservation law maintained over the whole situation? The spin
energy contributes to the output torque, but using this torque to do work
against the countertorque
doesn't dissipate the spin energy!
It looks like the energy debt has been paid with a rubber check!

I don't think this idea would make a useful device as it is, because there
are too many
energy losses involved in a practical model, but if its true, it does show
that something is not right in the world of gyros and angular momentum.
I think you could test it out by making a platform like you see on this web
page:

http://members.aol.com/overunity4/html/gyrotest.htm

If you start the platform spinning, then turn on the gyro motor, my theory
says that WHILE the gyro is accelerating (and ONLY then!) the gyro will
lift and the platform will not slow down.
If this is what happens then the energy to lift the gyro has to come from
somewhere else, because
the energy stored in the platform is still there, and the energy in the
gyro is still there.
Of course it may well be tht I'm missing something...

Sorry to be so longwinded, but I couldn't think of any shorter way to say
it.
I'm interested in comments of course.

Fred

• Previous message: Steve: "Re: article"
• Next message: Jerry W. Decker: "Re: Minato device is much like the Hamel Spinner?"