"Darwin123" escreveu na mensagem
...
On May 9, 8:50 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Darwin123" escreveu na
...

On May 9, 8:03 am, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Darwin123" escreveu na
...

Do you agree with the above picture?
At this point, I do not have a clear image of your apparatus. I
also don't fully understand the deviation from theory that you claim
to be seeing.

I've the deviation from theory in a 42+20 pages long so far, but
can be made much shorter once I finish the story.
Well, run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. Have you tried
to publish this work in refereed literature?
I know it is long, but the secret to refereed literature is to
chop it up and submit your theory a piece at a time. If you have
caught actual inconsistencies in the theory, it wouldn't take a long
article to point out the fundamental error. Then you develop it one
lemma at a time. If it is thrown out of one journal, and given no good
reason to doubt your work, rewrite it for another journal.
Some referees will throw it out of hand. However, you can point
out irrational statements to the editor. Sometimes they over rule the
stuffy physicist. The real danger is you may get detailed criticism
from someone who knows what he is talking about. Someone may actually
catch you at a mistake. Such reviewers have caught me several times.
It isn't pretty.

Many thanks for your advises and everything else.
To publish the work done (if I can make it conclusive enough)
in refereed literature is nothing that could make me happy.
Most certainly I'll put it in a web page or Wikipedia, I haven't
still make up my mind. Actually, by the time, I'm taking some
rest because get tired of gyro math/physics.

What I really want is to produce electricity, starting at a
minimum of 1MW per machine. Pretty easy.
Most certainly I'm going to show it all on the Web,
looking for Physicists and Investors.
My experience so far showed me that high qualified
people I've been talking (including the father of
wave energy) couldn't understand enough to be
sure about the physics of the gyroscope, even if
they start saying otherwise (as usual).

People need to see the equations.
So far, I've made errors every time I've submitted
the best I have. Some pretty stupid. No one ever
pointed errors (which mean they were lost from the
beginning).

I've promised David Morin, from Harvard, I will
send him the work done. I'm only 4 month late, but
that's because I still haven't got the full picture.
David Morin is good, very good. He got it on the
book, but didn't finish, or else this is a dead end.
(didn't read David Morin on Relativity, which is
half of the book). He did one mistake. He solved
the quadratic equation and claims there are two
precession speeds, the low-precession and the
fast-precession. One cannot solve it, or else if you
solve the result don't agree with experiment
by miles distance (actually infinite). I've done
the numerical simulation and he is wrong. I've
seen this very recently only. I've say it and my
fish went away (one cannot be honest).

The error, or what's missing to understand, amounts to
less then 1% of the energy conservation and the gearbox
behaviour I need.
The really hard part is to have the picture of a gyroscope
actuated by a mass-spring in resonance + waves force
+ external mass inertia around precession axis (the cause
of the spring behaviour, because stores energy half of
the cycle and gives it back the second half).
Therefore, gyroscope is only a part of the full story,
but for sure the most difficult.

I'm on vacations, now.
I'm recharging batteries in sci.physics for the real fit.