|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
23 April 2024 23:04
|
|
Welcome to the gyroscope forum. If you have a question about gyroscopes in general,
want to know how they work, or what they can be used for then you can leave your question here for others to answer.
You may also be able to help others by answering some of the questions on the site.
|
Question |
| Asked by: |
Glenn Hawkins |
| Subject: |
Gyroscopes do not lose weight |
| Question: |
A gyroscope attains the ability to resist falling by using the laws of motion.
A traveling mass, whether in a straight line or curving, resist being deflected from its path by the condition of inertia. A mass traveling a distance of 1 foot in one second, while encountering a right angle force will deflected X degrees. Yet, the same mass traveling the same distance of 1 foot, but a thousand times faster, will be deflected only ,1,000/ X degrees. Not much of deflected degree change at all and this is because there was so little time for the applying sideways force to act during each rotation. To belabor the point, if a car is rolling slowly on ice and you push it sideways for one second it should slide a few inches off course; but if you could push the same car sideways for an hour it might slide one mile off its linear course. Comparing the two conditions, in the short duration on one second’s time under sideways fore, the result is hardly any comparative degree of deflection at all.
The mathematical principle is that velocity increases inertia but really, not to be concussed with momentum, it is all about the three mechanical things, resistance x time x distance = the degree of deflection.
When the mass in the rim of a spinning gyroscope curves from horizon to horizon (9: o’clock to 3 o’clock) it is often moving very fast, but for only a very short distance.
Gravity only has an instant to deflect the mass during each single rotation. Per singular rotation, there can be only a very small fall into gravity.
When a gyroscope overhangs a fulcrum the gyroscope is always in the process of twisting as it curves around the fulcrum from an upward slant to a downward slant. As gravity pulls the wheel downward causing the twisting tilt, the inertia in the top of the rotating rim resist deflection from its rotating position, or plain in the same way as a mass traveling in a straight line resist changing its course.
The top rim resists being tilted outward from the fulcrum. The opposite is true at the bottom of the rim. It resists being tilted toward the fulcrum. Top and bottom opposite resistances counter one another.
If you would push your thumb against the top of a none-spinning gyroscope toward the fulcrum, while pulling the bottom of the gyroscope outward from the fulcrum you would twist the shaft down on the fulcrum. This would hold up, or lift the gyroscope by the toque you are applying down on the fulcrum by way of twisting the wheel.
It does not precisely work this way, and this is only a generalize way to perceive a torque acting, and to explain away the incorrect idea that during precession mass weighs less, but of course it does not. The force of gravity is eventually converted into torque by the complex and invisible actions of precession.
Now I will confuse you because I do not know how to avoid it. The deflection from the downward tilting gyroscope does not cause a torque down upon the fulcrum as I suggested. I suggested it for easy of conception and reasoning and not exactitude. The downward torque causes the movement of the wheel around the fulcrum; i.e. precession. In turn, the horizontal circling of precession causes a secondary torque, which is the force that actually applies down upon the fulcrum.
All directional forces in a spinning wheel as it is tilted, will convert into right angle forces. The force of gravity is converted to the right angle precession. The direction of precession is converted into the right angle down upon the fulcrum.
The faster a gyroscope spins the more it resists falling into gravity. This reason is each increment of distance the top has time to twist downward per rotation; the bottom applies a slightly stronger and reverse twisting force upward.
The stronger bottom force guides the direction precession. If there were no friction of any kind whatsoever, this condition of near equal opposing forces would allow a gyroscope to stay aloft for a very long time, but not for too many hours.
The opposing forces not being completely equal is what causes the gyroscope, in a complex and interesting way to continually redirect force in creating the direction of precession. Precession dose not coast. Precession force must be reapplied from millisecond to millisecond, but such a small amount is required to maintain a slow precession that the used-up force dived from the fall of the gyroscope can present an imperceptible fall to the eye.
Precession is very complex, consisting of a number of acting forces all of which are invisible, while busily acting in invisible unison during invisible encounters. There in, is the difficulty in understanding the unintuitive visual conditions.
I find that in order to convey clear and complete understandings of precession, which I have not attempted here, it would be necessary to additionally present animation, drawings or props of some kind. Perhaps I will attempt that in time. For now at least, we can know that recession can occur precisely because the laws of motion are exacting and unalterable. We may know from this explanation at least, how the force of gravity is deflected by inertia into torque, which transfers force of one kind into another kind at a distance.
Glenn,
|
| Date: |
15 August 2016
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Nate - 16/08/2016 22:37:21
| | | Eugene Butikov has an excellent applet program that simulates precesesion and nutation of a gyroscope. You can change parameters and immediately see the effect.
http://butikov.faculty.ifmo.ru/Gyroscope.pdf
Also see his papers titled:
Forced precession of a gyroscope
Inertial rotation of a rigid body
Free rotation of an axially symmetrical body
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 17/08/2016 10:43:18
| | | Hello Nate,
I hate to be contrary, but it always bothers me that people who do not know what they are doing attempt to explain to people who do know what they are doing.
The sad description you suggest has been non-sense for a hundred years. It presents not one iota of mechanical understanding. It is a lengthy and belabored math formula for physics.
I explained in mechanical terms, ‘why’ a precessing gyroscope does not fall. Later I could attempt an explanation of precisely ‘how’ this is accomplished. So far, no one else has done this.
As to Butikov and others repeating the same semantics and words, if people could actually understand the diagrams and explanations as you suggest, they would then realize it is non-sensible and does not convey an understanding of why gyroscopes do what they do. The word ‘deflection’ explains what, not how and not why. Butikov did not know why a gyroscope does what it does.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
By the way, Nate:
Whatever it is that you are doing whirling a something or other in an enclosure, with computer read outs and words over, it is beyond your explanations. Nobody knows what you are doing. I am sorry, but it just suggests you are confused.
Good morning,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nate - 17/08/2016 14:19:46
| | | Glen,
Here’s what Harvey Fiala had to say about explanations:
Answer: Harvey Fiala - 09/09/2004 05:36:10
I wholeheartedly agree with Ram Firestone's answer of October 28, 2003, wherein he disputes Jeremy O'Connor's contention that "The theory needs to be developed along with any physical design". And this applies not only to gyroscopic propulsion, but any type of device that seems to perform in an unusual manner. Some people are gifted with mechanical or practical insights into mechanisms or chemistry or other processes, but yet know nothing about differentials or integrals or relativity or Newton's Laws. It would be seriously wrong to criticize someone who developed a device that worked, but had no idea of how or why it worked. This is where those gifted with a deep understanding of the laws of physics should step forward and attempt to explain how it works instead of "blacklisting" the "inventor" or calling him a crackpot. It takes a team of gifted people to fully develop, understand, and exploit new devices.
It would be just as wrong to criticize those who think they understand the known laws of physics very well for not having invented all the devices that are inventable using those laws of physics. Should we call our top-notch physics and math professors stupid for not being able to invent all inventable devices and solve all math problems? I don't think so.
U.S Patent 2011021983A1
Inertial propulsion device to move an object up and down
Inventor: Harvey Fiala
Abstract
Disclosed herein are two separate processes that do not require a propellant and do not produce an equal and opposite reaction against any external form of matter in the Local Inertial Reference Frame and do not violate Newton's Laws in the Universal Reference Frame. The first process produces horizontal motion, relies on the earth's gravitational field as an external force, and has been successfully tested. The second process produces vertical motion and relies only on the aether. It has been successfully tested considering the effect of the earth's gravity. Due to the law of conservation of angular momentum, the first process is considered by some to not be possible, but with the proper use of an external field (for example, gravity) and the phenomenon of precession, it is clearly possible. A clear distinction is made between a simple rotor and a gyroscope which is a far more complex device.
Good luck,
Nate
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 17/08/2016 19:52:58
| | | Forgive me Nate, but I am tired and do not have time and inclination to read this non-sense. To me it is very stupid. If anyone wants to read my explanation go for it.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy - 21/09/2016 22:23:43
| | | Seems to me that inertial drive is never going to be invented by those who should really know how to.
Comments were made that the experts should have a crack at the problem of why a device works in spite of the knowledge of the inventor.
Nobody mentioned the fact that they probably cannot provide an answer either, in other words they may just not know, and if accepted principles cannot supply the answers, then what chance has mathematics.
When I finally had my first device perform successfully and repeatedly I decided I had better let Professor Eric Laithwaite see it, as I thought of all people he would be interested.
At this point I remember my son in law Rod asking me why I should take it to him.
I replied that he was the recognised expert in this matter, to which Rod said but you have done it and he hasn’t, which makes you the expert.
I had to explain to Rod that things did not operate in this manner, and that some recognised person would have to endorse my claims, Laithwaite obviously being the most likely
Laithwaite was in raptures with the performance of the machine, however the problem became one of attempting to convince the rest of the world.
Any mention of a device operating in an orthodox manner brought immediate and very often, ill mannered rebuff.
After my successful Australian VIPAC laboratory test and report.
The project team stated that whilst the device was obviously genuine, its operation did not comply with Newton so it could not be developed.
30 years later I am still trying to figure what was meant by that statement.
On return to the UK I took the report to Edinburgh University for their evaluation.
I just wasted petrol going there as the report was declared rubbish and thrown on to a desk whilst still in the envelope, this by a very Ignorant, arrogant, foolish academic person. There are many like this unfortunately.
A professor who I had previously befriended was present at the time.
He said “Now you can see what you are up against, I would like to help you Sandy but I would also like to return to work on Monday”
That said it all.
I ended up doing what all those clever people should have done and got all the answers for myself.
Of course the reasons do not comply with Newton.
No machine can deliver inertial thrust and comply with accepted principles.
However machines can be made to deliver inertial thrust.
In normal circumstances which really do not affect us too much Newton’s law tends to work well enough.
However I would say he stopped a long way short of the end of the task.
Newton was a very clever guy, nobody would dispute that, and for the most part his claims and predictions were accurate. but only up to the point where assumption was traded for fact.
Beyond that point the inventor is on his own, and past that point Newtons laws become detrimental to the advancement of physics, serving only to create an impenetrable stumbling block.
I have had to suffer 30 plus years of this academic brainwashing and stupidity and have just about had it.
The establishment in the meantime will continue to teach the specious junk that is peddled as gospel
Seems like they could be building rocket powered space vehicles for some time yet.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy - 21/09/2016 23:00:18
| | | Any mention of a device operating in an orthodox manner brought immediate and very often, ill mannered rebuff.
My apologies guys it should have been unorthodox,
The price of od age?
sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 20/01/2017 00:42:08
| | | Early this morning I finished rewriting a 350 page manuscript. The book was years in the writing and there is not one damn gyroscope in it. I know this does not belong here, but it was such an awful burden to have to finish I wanted to tell somebody. (First drafts are fun. It is the fine, correct and good later tuning that is hard.) I feel different now, really, really different. Everything looks different to my eyes. I am . . . . . . made anew. Somehow.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
