1. Standard memberThequ1ck
    Fast above
    Slow Below
    Joined
    29 Sep '03
    Moves
    25914
    04 Jun '11 08:42
    Is it possible to create a device that defies gravity based on gyroscopes?
  2. Standard memberThequ1ck
    Fast above
    Slow Below
    Joined
    29 Sep '03
    Moves
    25914
    04 Jun '11 09:40
    http://www.teslaengine.org/main.html
    http://www.ganid.net/index.php
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Tesla's_Flying_Machine
    http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/contents.htm
    http://www.pbs.org/tesla/res/res_art11.html
  3. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    04 Jun '11 15:24
    no
  4. Standard memberThequ1ck
    Fast above
    Slow Below
    Joined
    29 Sep '03
    Moves
    25914
    04 Jun '11 17:20
    So what you're saying is that the father of the 20th Century.
    The daddy of electricity which you're so humbly using as we have
    this converstation. Didn't understand the simplest of Mathematical
    laws? Am I reading you right??
  5. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    04 Jun '11 19:05
    Originally posted by Thequ1ck
    Is it possible to create a device that defies gravity based on gyroscopes?
    Try it and see!
  6. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    04 Jun '11 21:32
    Originally posted by Thequ1ck
    So what you're saying is that the father of the 20th Century.
    The daddy of electricity which you're so humbly using as we have
    this converstation. Didn't understand the simplest of Mathematical
    laws? Am I reading you right??
    I thought 'no' was pretty hard to misunderstand.

    Tesla proposed a number of possible flying machines, working by a number of methods.
    It is certainly possible to make a flying machine without wings, that stands on its jet exhaust, Harrier jump jets often do it when they take-off/land. It is however hugely inefficient, and power hungry.

    However making something fly using gyroscopes is not possible. (Not here I am taking 'fly using gyroscopes' to mean the gyroscopes are what's keeping it up, not being used simply as stabilisers.)
    To fly you need reaction mass and something moving it. Usually air and/or fuel.

    Great minds have often made mistakes or gone down blind alleys, sometimes its only be going down them, or with hind sight that you see they are blind alleys.

    Also the aircraft of his day... certainly when he first started on the problem, where flimsy and made of wood. Falling out of the sky was a common problem. If Tesla had seen today's aircraft he would probably have felt differently about them.

    So yes you are probably reading me right.

    I wouldn't say I was using electricity humbly though... not sure how one does that.
  7. Standard memberThequ1ck
    Fast above
    Slow Below
    Joined
    29 Sep '03
    Moves
    25914
    05 Jun '11 03:51
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    I thought 'no' was pretty hard to misunderstand.

    Tesla proposed a number of possible flying machines, working by a number of methods.
    It is certainly possible to make a flying machine without wings, that stands on its jet exhaust, Harrier jump jets often do it when they take-off/land. It is however hugely inefficient, and power hungry.

    However mak ...[text shortened]... t.

    I wouldn't say I was using electricity humbly though... not sure how one does that.
    Yes, no isn't a terribly difficult word to misunderstand.

    But what I don't understand though is that this wasn't an off-the-cuff
    idea that Tesla thought up and discarded. He claimed it was the greatest of his inventions and the product of years of toil.

    It was a technology he talked about well into his old age and took to his
    death-bed with him. How could such a genius get it so wrong for so long?

    p.s. Thanks for typing 'humbly'.
  8. Standard memberThequ1ck
    Fast above
    Slow Below
    Joined
    29 Sep '03
    Moves
    25914
    05 Jun '11 04:12
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Try it and see!
    I don't have the resources otherwise I would.

    It looks very expensive.

    YouTube&playnext=1&list=PL1819E3D3A9101C20
  9. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    6873
    06 Jun '11 11:25
    Originally posted by Thequ1ck
    http://www.teslaengine.org/main.html
    Is a scam site. They promise you free energy in your back yard, and then ask you real money for the plans. No different in essence from those sites promising you a way to cut your car's petrol use in half using only a pair of magnets and their patented invention, plans $40, for you only, honest guv'.

    http://www.ganid.net/index.php

    Is a nutcase who claims to have invented something similar while meditating. No proof of its existence is forthcoming; as usual with such people, there's a lot of talk about patents. USA patents can be had for inventing the tinfoil hat.

    http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Tesla's_Flying_Machine

    Is sane and honest, but contains only speculation and quotation of rumours and vague statements by Tesla himself. As that is all the real information there is about this invention, this page is correct to speculate no further.

    http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/contents.htm

    Lists some writings by Tesla himself, but unless there are some blueprints hidden among them, I don't see anything beyond what we already knew - which is vague hints and no technical plans.

    http://www.pbs.org/tesla/res/res_art11.html

    Is an article from 1937. It shows an interesting sight into the man's mind, but no real technical content.


    In short, there's a lot there which shows that Tesla thought this machine was possible, and nothing whatsoever that shows that he was right. He often wasn't, you know. He often was, but he also often wasn't. That was his essential nature: not the plodder towards undisputed truth, but the visionary whose hits and misses could be equally spectacular. I wish Tesla's fans would recognise that great genius can easily go hand in hand with great delusions, and in Tesla's case, often did.

    Richard
  10. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    06 Jun '11 19:56
    From the clip offered earlier:

    YouTube

    It looks to be an attempt at a three dimensional version of rifling; a rifle bullet goes straighter because it's spinning, which resists forces to push it to the side. A spinning top refuses to fall down because it's spinning. This thing has components that spin in all three dimensions. I've often wondered what would happen if you did that. Isn't there some theoretical law of torques that prevents an object from spinning in three dimensions or something?
  11. Standard memberThequ1ck
    Fast above
    Slow Below
    Joined
    29 Sep '03
    Moves
    25914
    07 Jun '11 16:10
    Originally posted by Shallow Blue
    Is a scam site. They promise you free energy in your back yard, and then ask you real money for the plans. No different in essence from those sites promising you a way to cut your car's petrol use in half using only a pair of magnets and their patented invention, plans $40, for you only, honest guv'.

    [b]http://www.ganid.net/index.php


    Is a nutc ...[text shortened]... sily go hand in hand with great delusions, and in Tesla's case, often did.

    Richard[/b]
    Thanks for posting back and taking the time to read the links.

    Sorry about the first two, you're right, they are either nutters or scammers.

    I was trying to find a sketch that I saw whilst reading up on mrT that illustrated
    the concept of adjacent, opposing gyroscopes. I think it was linked from the
    engine builders link. Someone did actually try and build one based on this
    sketch.
    The ganid link shows the concept behind it.
    Probably just more scam and misinformation though.
  12. Standard memberThequ1ck
    Fast above
    Slow Below
    Joined
    29 Sep '03
    Moves
    25914
    07 Jun '11 16:12
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    From the clip offered earlier:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lka6d6DDBs

    It looks to be an attempt at a three dimensional version of rifling; a rifle bullet goes straighter because it's spinning, which resists forces to push it to the side. A spinning top refuses to fall down because it's spinning. This thing has components that spin in all th ...[text shortened]... tical law of torques that prevents an object from spinning in three dimensions or something?
    Rifling is a good analogy, not only in the bullet but in the gun.

    Modern guns are able to dissipate the energy created from reaction to the
    bullet into their mechanisms. Can it not then be said to be true that the
    opposite is possible? This wouldn't violate Newton's second law.
  13. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    07 Jun '11 16:15
    anything that relies purely on the rotation of gyroscopes, in whatever combination to produce lift, will not work.
    It falls under the heading of reactionless drive.
    Otherwise known as breaks the laws of physics drive ;-)
  14. Standard memberThequ1ck
    Fast above
    Slow Below
    Joined
    29 Sep '03
    Moves
    25914
    07 Jun '11 16:23
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    anything that relies purely on the rotation of gyroscopes, in whatever combination to produce lift, will not work.
    It falls under the heading of reactionless drive.
    Otherwise known as breaks the laws of physics drive ;-)
    Are you saying that Buzz Aldrin was a hoaxer?

    YouTube
  15. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    07 Jun '11 16:30
    no, I am saying spinning gyroscopes won't produce lift.
    You can use gyroscope's to rotate your air/space ship whatever, but you can't use them to propel it.
Back to Top