|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
29 November 2024 03:55
|
|
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: |
Ravi |
| Subject: |
How to size the motor for your specific design... |
| Question: |
Here is a link to help you size the motor for your prototype. |
| Date: |
5 July 2009
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 09/07/2009 17:22:00
| | | Ravi,
I tried to post this in your blog but was unable, so I am posting it here even though it is not my preference.
In my opinion it would be irresponsible not to respond to your posting at -“http://relmachine.blogspot.com/2009/07/paradox-in-gyroscopic-behavior.html#comment-form” -
The human condition puts no-one above error. And so cause and effect can become confused within cyclical motions, especially in complex surroundings where new theory is evolving.
However there may be a credible litmus test to differentiate "cause" from "effect", even under confusing circumstances.
Here is a sure way to tell cause from effect:
If I remove the cause, then the effect stops. If I try to remove the effect, it will not stop the cause. This is a simple test!
Remove the torque, and precession stops. Remove precession, and the torque does not stop.
I hope you find the place where your analysis appears to have gone awry in this fresh marshy ground of "gyro propulsion" viewed from a quantum angle of perception.
I think you will find the culprit-source your self because it is easier to spot it than it is to explain it over written words.
Best Regards,
Luis G.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 12/07/2009 15:23:05
| | | Hello Ravi,
I do not agree on many points with Luis views of gyroscopic understanding, however, he is right in what he has stated before regarding cause and effect.
Your analogy of gyro behavior and electrical behavior are adventurous to me.
Precession is a very simple effect and ia caused by a static torque, which tries to tilt a free axis of a spinning wheel.
This torque vector is acting perpendicular to the angular momentum vector of the spinning wheel and thus these both acting vectors must be geometrically added to find the resultant over-all vector of each involved mass point.
The angle "A" between this over-all vector and the angular momentum vector of the spinning wheel describes the number of units of the new alignment of the rotation axis.
Because all mass points of a spinning wheel are evenly distributed around their rotation axis, the tilting torque is acting on each mass point and respectively diametrically positioned mass point at the same time.
Therefore the rotation axis of the spinning wheel is forced to rotate perpendicular to the acting tilting torque with an angle "A".
If the tilting torque is continuing acting, the axis of the spinning wheel will proceed to rotate perpendicular with angle "A" in one time unit and this continuing movement is called PRECESSION.
So you can see that PRECESSION will be faster if angle "A" increases.
Angle "A" again increases, if either:
- Angular momentum vector decreases, or
- Tilting torque vector increases.
And you can also see, that the static tilting torque must be deflected into a dynamic precession torque with exactly same size. If precession movement will be disturbed by anything (e.g. bearing friction, barriers, etc.), the formerly balanced system will be disturbed as well and thus the axis of the gyro will move in direction of the acting tilting torque as long as the disturbance does exist.
If precession will entirely be blocked, the axis will move with precession speed in direction of the tilting torque. In this case, precession will be entirely deflected back into the tilting torque plane and leads the formerly static torque into a dynamic torque (because the static torque is acting now in precession plane caused by the blockage!).
If precession will only be partial blocked, precession will be partial deflected back to tilting torque plane according the size of the partial blockage. In this case, tilting torque as well as precession torque are dynamic.
If you would be aware of these well-known physical facts, you would not have to search for unfounded electrical analogies, even though they sound for me very interesting! ;-)
What is the especialness of your gyro design? I cannot see any exciting feature.
I think most of us have tried to achieve propulsion but have failed with such a design. However, this is no wonder because all tilting torques as well as all precession torques will be cancelled in such a design!
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 12/07/2009 15:44:47
| | | Luis,
I noticed that you have not disputed the
validity of my argument that the nature of the
cross-product arrangement for gyroscopic
objects (between the spin angular momentum,
the torque and the resulting precession) is
counter-intuitive.
You only raised an objection about how to
assign cause and effect in interactions.
You have not yourself given an opinion of the
crossproduct arrangment. I think the record
should reflect your opinion on this important
subject.
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my
theory further so that those who are not as
familiar with these new concepts can follow my
thought process.
Harry,
I still feel that my approach is robust and powerful. You too have not yourself given an opinion of the crossproduct arrangment. I think the record should reflect your opinion on this important subject. Do you agree that the terms in the vector crossproduct defining gyroscopic precession to be counter to what is normally expected of vector crossproducts?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 15/07/2009 19:32:57
| | | Ravi,
The equation that derives precession from torque and momentum does indeed appear somewhat counter-intuitive, but it’s for a good reason (especially within classical mechanics).
What we have is a force (torque) that is causing a change of direction upon an existing motion (momentum). From this perspective, an acceleration is causing a change in DIRECTION of an existing velocity (without affecting the rate of the existing velocity). The changing DIRECTION (of the existing constant velocity) is reflected by precession.
Perhaps with the above perspective the offending equation becomes more intuitive, as it is more obvious that a greater force (torque) is necessary to change the direction of a greater preexisting momentum.
Next, the rules that govern the cross-produce of 2 like vectors (e.g. velocity vectors) are not likely to be exactly the same as when the 2 vectors are of different order (e.g. velocity & acceleration). It may not be exactly mixing apples and oranges but the rules are bound to be somewhat different. Accurate intuitive perception is always dependent on having the correct premises.
I don’t intend to change your thinking Ravi, am simply expressing my view as I perceive things working.
The truth will eventually emerge through the physical manifestations of our devices if and when they are demonstrated to work beyond doubt. Along the path some experiments will point in the right direction.
In the mean time I know that small conceptual errors can lead to enormous execution errors if we are not extra-careful.
Though I don’t dispose of much spare time, I am glad for our conversations, in part because they stimulate my thinking about test experiments that can verify or disprove theories, including my own.
By the way, the idea that “Cause” occurs BEFORE “Effect” is an error (time-sequence fallacy) that confuses thinking and can produce inaccurate conclusions (thinking can become “wrapped around the axle” or cycles). It is a bit more accurate to think that the cause influences the effect, but the effect des not influence the cause. I think this approach maintains clarity even under “space-time relativity” despite non-simultaneity of events.
Best Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 16/07/2009 18:43:08
| | | Hello Ravi,
You asked me about my opinion regarding your cross product arrangment. Well, I'm afraid your conclusions in this matter are faulty.
Please have al ook at this sketch:
http://www.misc.keipert.net/gyro/Kreisel.pdf
Look at the velocity vectors at mass point P and the diametral located mass point P'.
- v0 is the origin velocity of the spinning gyro
- delta v is the velocty perpendicular to v0, caused by the force vectors Fo and Fu
The resultant velocity vector v´ is the vector of the cross product of v0 and delta v and NOT the angle delta Phi.
Angle delta Phi stands for the direction changing of the resultant vector v' in 1 time unit (here 1 second). If the force vectors Fu and Fo (= tilting torque) do not change in effective direction and in value, delta Phi will remain constant and thus the resultant vector v' will rotate with angle delta Phi per second and this is called PRECESSION,
You see, that your assumptions as well as your conclusiions regarding cross product of gyro velocity vectors are not correct and therefore all folllowing bottom-up theory (e.g. "cause occurs before effect") is faulty as well.
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 16/07/2009 18:43:09
| | | Hello Ravi,
You asked me about my opinion regarding your cross product arrangment. Well, I'm afraid your conclusions in this matter are faulty.
Please have al ook at this sketch:
http://www.misc.keipert.net/gyro/Kreisel.pdf
Look at the velocity vectors at mass point P and the diametral located mass point P'.
- v0 is the origin velocity of the spinning gyro
- delta v is the velocty perpendicular to v0, caused by the force vectors Fo and Fu
The resultant velocity vector v´ is the vector of the cross product of v0 and delta v and NOT the angle delta Phi.
Angle delta Phi stands for the direction changing of the resultant vector v' in 1 time unit (here 1 second). If the force vectors Fu and Fo (= tilting torque) do not change in effective direction and in value, delta Phi will remain constant and thus the resultant vector v' will rotate with angle delta Phi per second and this is called PRECESSION,
You see, that your assumptions as well as your conclusiions regarding cross product of gyro velocity vectors are not correct and therefore all folllowing bottom-up theory (e.g. "cause occurs before effect") is faulty as well.
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 17/07/2009 06:38:59
| | | Hi Harry,
I really appreciate that you took the time to research and phrase your objection to my theory.
I've visited the website you provided.
I tried hard to understand the diagram.
But there are several things unclear from the diagram on this website:
http://www.misc.keipert.net/gyro/Kreisel.pdf
1. Its not clear how the 3-D space is oriented, so for example, I cannot tell if forces F0 & Fu are in the YZ plane (or even if F0 and Fu are co-planar) and if point P is also on the YZ plane. If so, then why does delta V exists at all at point P, since the whole wheel would be precessing about the Z axis, (which should run through PP' and the origin the center of the wheel).
Point P itself wouldn't show any movement, because the entire set up would be rotatng about axis PP' when precessing in response to the torque from forces.
2. Further it is not clear why you would choose to do a Vector addition rather than a cross-product.
It would seem to me Harry that you are not even using vector cross product. YOu are using vector addition to derive the net velocity V.
The resultant vector V that you are referring to is the sum of the two vectors V and delta V.
It would seem to imply therefore that you are suggesting that even standard formula sighting vector cross product for precession are also wrong - in which case you've got more than just me to refute Harry. You've got the entire Newton-can't-be-wrong brigade which will burn you alive at the stake.
(Atleast I am showing how their formula is preserved if they make certain compromises. Your analysis seems to say that precession is nothing more than vector additon - which they will pooh pooh in a few seconds).
If thats your stand thats fine. I just want to understand what exactly you are claiming.
3. I see a contradiction when you say
"The resultant velocity vector v´ is the vector of the cross product of v0 and delta v"
But the diagram only shows vector addition going on between V and delta V. If it were a cross product, then the resultant vector would be perpendicular to the plane containing the two input vectors. BUT NEITHER V nor V' are along an axis perpendicular to the plane containing V0 and delta V.
Your diagram clearly indicates the resultant vector V to be in the same plane as the two input vectors Vo and delta V...??
3. Its also not clear to me how your analysis leads naturally to the precession formula (T = w X L).
Vector addition will NOT lead to that formula.
4. Further you said "delta v is the velocty perpendicular to v0, caused by the force vectors Fo and Fu".
This would seem to skip over the most interesting portion of the analysis, since a force cannot result in a velocity (at least in NEwtonian analysis such as you do) without going through an acceleration.
What mechanism are you proposing to calculate the relationship between the force and the resulting velocity.
Based on the above serious issues I see with your argument, I do not think in the end that your analysis shows that anything I deduced is in error.
Sincerely...
Ravi
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 17/07/2009 18:23:31
| | | Ravi,
We don’t really know how many people read the discussions in this forum, but we know that very few are willing (or able) to participate.
I for one am very interested in this discussion, and to see where the theory goes (right or wrong). As one of the few participants, theory discussions certainly generate my input about that are interesting (as long as I can gain some level of understanding about the statement made or the theory).
Ravi, you beat me in responding that the diagram presented shows vector addition while you have been talking about vector cross-product. Still, it is always good to get a refresher on the accepted physics of gyros, especially the items presented in the diagram.
In my opinion, applying mechanics-theory is essential to making the next breakthrough in “gyro-propulsion” (i.e. achieving sustained propulsion), and I welcome this discussion.
Please let us continue (even though I am not able to respond as much or as quickly as I would like due to multiple projects and responsibilities).
Beast Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 17/07/2009 18:36:21
| | | Hello Glenn Hawkins,
Regarding your latest thread:
You do not need to read this, but may be other readers like to read it.
Please let decide the readers!
Regards,
Harry
Hello Ravi,
Thank you for your reply. I will try to bring light to lack of clarity.
Re 1)
Please excuse; I thought the sketch on my web space was self-explanatory. I'm not totally happy with this sketch because I would prefer to use angular momentum and toque vectors instead of velocities and forces. However, at first go I did not find a better sketch.
Here my explanation for better understanding the sketch:
The sketch shows a mass disc, which rotates in horizontal pane in CCW direction from top view around the disc center (= center of mass). The disc is fixed to a vertical rigid axis, which is mounted at the center of disc. The disk with its fixed axis can be freely rotated around the center of disc in any direction.
A tilting torque is caused by the couple Fo and Fu with distance FoFu in YZ plane.
P and P´ standing for MOMENTARY single mass points which move perpendicular to the acting tilting torque in CCW direction of the spinning disc.
The acting velocity vectors at P and P` are represented in the sketch by v0 and delta c.
P (P`) itself MOVES in direction of the resultant vector v (v`), however, at each time unit there is a new mass point P (P`) under the full influence of the tilting torque (Fu/Fo/ dist. FuFo) and thus it SEEMS that there is no movement of P (P`), but in reality each mass point at this particular position will be additional accelerated in direction of resultant vector v (v`)!
To achieve this changing in direction of each involved mass point, the vertical disc axis must rotate in XY plane perpendicular to the tilting torque YZ plane.
Re 2) and 3(
You are right and I was wrong. To calculate the resultant vector v (v`) a vector addition is necessary. I have to admit that doing vector calculations is not by preferred hobby! ;-)
However, I think that vector cross product does not work to calculate gyro precession, because each mass point does not move in one single plane but it rotate in space around the disc center (center of mass). But I think you better know than me that calculating a perpendicular vector only works if the other two input vectors are acting in one plane! Or did I miss something?
The precession formula WP = T/L0 is derived by tangent of vector addition of v0 and delta v. The vertical axis oft the gyro disc must rotate around this angle to allow the vector changing of P (P`). If the tilting torque rotates with the axis of the gyro, the change of direction of all involved mass points will be constant and therefore PRECESSION at constant velocity occurs. Precession is the effect of the acting tilting torque and not reversed!
Re 4)
At the beginning of my post I have already stated that Fo and Fu are a couple with distance FuFo. Therefore Fo and Fu are part of the acting tilting torque. Please excuse if I have caused confusion in this matter
One hint for better understanding of precession:
Imagine that the gyro is represented by 2 diametric fixed mass points, which fixed rigid at an axis and are rotating at same distance around a common center. The axis will now tilted by a torque. Both mass points will be affected by this tilting torque from zero to maximum and again back to zero. Thus the angle of change in direction of both mass points will change according a sinus function. The area under this sinus function is the value of angle delta Phi per cycle. If you summarize all cycles per second, you get precession WP.
I hope I could bring some light in the darkness... ;-)
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 17/07/2009 18:49:29
| | | Sorry, I have found some mistakes in my text. Please ignore my previous post.
Thanks
Harry
Hello Ravi,
Thank you for your reply. I will try to bring light to lack of clarity.
Re 1)
Please excuse; I thought the sketch on my web space was self-explanatory. I'm not totally happy with this sketch because I would prefer to use angular momentum and torque vectors instead of velocities and forces. However, at first go I did not find a better sketch.
Here my explanation for better understanding the sketch:
The sketch shows a mass disc, which rotates in horizontal pane in CCW direction from top view around the disc center (= center of mass). The disc is fixed to a vertical rigid axis, which is mounted at the center of disc. The disk with its fixed axis can be freely rotated around the center of disc in any direction.
A tilting torque is caused by the couple Fo and Fu with distance FoFu in YZ plane.
P and P´ standing for MOMENTARY single mass points which move perpendicular to the acting tilting torque in CCW direction of the spinning disc.
The acting velocity vectors at P and P` are represented in the sketch by v0 and delta v.
P (P`) itself MOVES in direction of the resultant vector v (v`), however, at each time unit there is a new mass point P (P`) under the full influence of the tilting torque (Fu/Fo/ dist. FuFo) and thus it SEEMS that there is no movement of P (P`), but in reality each mass point at this particular position will be additional accelerated in direction of resultant vector v (v`)!
To achieve this changing in direction of each involved mass point, the vertical disc axis must rotate in XY plane perpendicular to the tilting torque in YZ plane.
Re 2) and 3(
You are right and I was wrong. To calculate the resultant vector v (v`) a vector addition is necessary. I have to admit that doing vector calculations is not by preferred hobby! ;-)
However, I think that vector cross product does not work to calculate gyro precession, because each mass point does not move in one single plane but it rotate in space around the disc center (center of mass). But I think you better know than me that calculating a perpendicular vector only works if the other two input vectors are acting in one plane! Or did I miss something?
The precession formula WP = T/L0 is derived by tangent function of vector addition between v0 and delta v. The vertical axis oft the gyro disc must rotate around this angle to allow the vector changing of P (P`). If the tilting torque rotates with the axis of the gyro, the change of direction of all involved mass points will remain constant and therefore PRECESSION at constant velocity occurs. Precession is the effect of the acting tilting torque and not reversed!
Re 4)
At the beginning of my post I have already stated that Fo and Fu are a couple with distance FuFo. Therefore Fo and Fu are part of the acting tilting torque. Please excuse if I have caused confusion in this matter
One hint for better understanding of precession:
Imagine that the gyro is represented by 2 diametric fixed mass points, which are fixed rigid at an axis and are rotating at same distance around a common center. The axis will now be tilted by a torque. Both mass points will be affected by this tilting torque from zero to maximum and again back to zero. Thus the angle of change in direction of both mass points will change according a sinus function. The area under this sinus function graph is the value of the angle delta Phi per 1 cycle. If you summarize all cycles per second, you get precession WP.
I hope I could bring some light in the darkness... ;-)
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 19/07/2009 15:12:37
| | |
Hi Harry,
Thank you for the explanation.
Objection 1: Clarified. Thank you for the explanation.
Objection 2&3 how ever still stand:
Originally I asked:"It would seem to imply therefore that you are suggesting that even standard formula sighting vector cross product for precession are also wrong "
In your reply to that objection you said:
"However, I think that vector cross product does not work to calculate gyro precession"
So am I to conclude that you are saying that the conventional crossproduct (the one which all physics professors will swear by, as they wake up each morning) is wrong...?
What do you mean by saying the vector cross product doesn't work to calculate gyro precession?
Do you realise that this is your own novel claim?
I ask because you say this just conversationally. You dont say specifically that this is your opinion or theory. But thats what it is. (Because it is in contradiction with 'mainstream' science in this respect.
All major Physics books list the vector cross product formula for precession.)
So your claim (based on the idea that the cross product idea is wrong) has to explain WHY the cross product formula works - i.e. why it gives correct predictions allowing the construction of rate gyros etc eventhough its wrong.
I dont see any such explanation in your text.
Object 4: Sorry I think the miscommunication was on my part. Let me clarify by question again.
My objection is that you say you have a torque. But tHen you state the result of this torque is a velocity.
Now, normally the result of a torque is an acceleration. Hence the formula T = I*Alpha, where Alpha = angular acceleration resulting from it.
What is your formula to calculate what torque results in what acceleration and how to calculate its final precessive velocity?
New Objection 5:
You say "The precession formula WP = T/L0 is derived by tangent function of vector addition between v0 and delta v. "
The tangent of the vector addition triangle V0 and delta v would be tantheta = opposite/adjacent = delta v/v0.
How do I get the precessive formula from that?
New Objection 6:
then, you say "If the tilting torque rotates with the axis of the gyro, the change of direction of all involved mass points will be constant "
I'm not sure I understand why the change of direction has to be constant. Because the precession is constant? But how do we 'know' it will be constant? Because the experiments already show that? Thats not enough. We have to show how the formulas naturally predict that the precessive velocity is constant.
OK, lets start with a pratical situation.
Say, I haVE a gyro spinning at 600 rpm. I can calulate V0 from that and the radius of the wheel. Now given a couple of known force, say 10 N, with distance between the two tips of the axis equal to r = 10 cm. To calculate the resulting precessive velocity I use the tangent formula you gave, i.e., tantheta = deltaV/V0.
Am I right?
So I already know V0. How do I calculate delta V?
And how can I use that tan theta to calculate the precessive velocity?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 19/07/2009 16:01:13
| | | Hi Luis, Good to hear from you. Do you get the same thing from Harry's post as I did (i.e. that the gyro's precession cannot be measured using a cross product?).
Did I miss something?
Regards
Ravi
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 19/07/2009 16:27:15
| | | Hello Ravi,
I have tried to explain in my words how and why precession occurs only with the help of logical thinking but without cross product considerations. I'm sorry if you still do not understand my explanations. I know that angular momentum can be calculated via vector cross product, but you say that this is also true for precession formula. Maybe I am too dumb but I didn't find anything in this context. Would you be so kind to provide a link with deeper explanations? - Thanks in advance for your help!
Regarding your practical situation:
To calculate precession velocity, you have to calculate the angular momentum of the spinning gyro. To calculate angular momentum, you need mass inertia of the gyro.
I'm sure you know, precession velocity cannot be calculated without these data.
Ravi, I'm sure you are very clever in doing vector calculations and that you are a very clever person at all, but I have my doubts if you really understand how precession and/or nutation occurs mechanically. If you like to think only with vector math, it's fine and surely not wrong, but this is not my way of thinking in this matter. My way of thinking is more "practically" oriented. ;-)
By the way, it seems that you have already built your prototype. When can we see it fly?
Have a nice Sunday!
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 19/07/2009 17:09:04
| | | Hi Harry,
Communication often involves detailed back and forth interaction - which is why its usually slow and tedious. However, if we stick with it, it can be very useful.
Harry Said
I have tried to explain in my words how and why precession occurs only with the help of logical thinking but without cross product considerations. I'm sorry if you still do not understand my explanations.
Its not just about understanding your explanation - Fully understanding your exnalation involves understanding how your explanation sits with existing validated facts about the gyroscope. So if you allege that vector crossproduct is not valid for calculating precession, and conventional physics already has a vector crossproduct equation that has worked well for them, then your claim is contradictory to it and therefore open to analysis on how the two are related (or not).
Harry said:
I know that angular momentum can be calculated via vector cross product, but you say that this is also true for precession formula. Maybe I am too dumb but I didn't find anything in this context. Would you be so kind to provide a link with deeper explanations? - Thanks in advance for your help!
precession is calculated using T = wXL
try this website...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope
You will find that formula there.
Harry said:
Regarding your practical situation:
To calculate precession velocity, you have to calculate the angular momentum of the spinning gyro. To calculate angular momentum, you need mass inertia of the gyro.
I'm sure you know, precession velocity cannot be calculated without these data.
Harry, earlier, you claimed
"The precession formula WP = T/L0 is derived by tangent of vector addition of v0 and delta v."
That statement implies that you can calculate precessive velocity with the trigonometric ratio of the vectors V0 and delta V. Am I mistaken? If you want to introduce Angular Momentum etc, feel free to do, as long as they appear as part of how you calculate delta V or something. That is, you'd start with nothing but tan theta = delta V/ V and you'd substitute V = some mix of variables (involving angular momentum etc etc that you think is right) and you end up with an equation that defines precessive velocity.... No?? Or am I missing something?
Harry said
"Ravi, I'm sure you are very clever in doing vector calculations and that you are a very clever person at all, but I have my doubts if you really understand how precession and/or nutation occurs mechanically."
OK, thanks for letting me know. But I still don't see you backing your criticism up with any thing that withstands analysis.
You have as much right to stake a claim to your own theory as I do for my own. I do not have an issue with that. I wish you best of luck with your claim.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 19/07/2009 18:37:20
| | | Dear Ravi,
I’m impressed with your mastery and use of the English languish. There are instances where your mind and pen flow with beautiful, exceptional clarity. You are a very fine expository writer. Yes, I would be one to know. Where do you come from, Ravi. In what country were you educated? Where were your teachers educated?
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 19/07/2009 21:33:54
| | | Hello Ravi,
Thank you for your reply and the wikipedia link. You are of course right regarding cross product calculation for precession. Please excuse my ignorance...
Now I understand your "cause and effect problem" relating to gyro precession movement. Because angular momentum vector, angular velocity and torque are calculated via cross product, the precession velocity again can be calculated via cross product as well. That's of course pure vector mathematics, but I'm not sure if this kind of "vector thinking" leads to better "gyro understanding". But again, you were right and I was wrong.
Ravi wrote:
"That statement implies that you can calculate precessive velocity with the trigonometric ratio of the vectors V0 and delta V. Am I mistaken? If you want to introduce Angular Momentum etc, feel free to do, as long as they appear as part of how you calculate delta V or something. That is, you'd start with nothing but tan theta = delta V/ V and you'd substitute V = some mix of variables (involving angular momentum etc etc that you think is right) and you end up with an equation that defines precessive velocity.... No?? Or am I missing something?"
Ravi, I already have admitted, that I'm not happy with stated velocity vectors in the sketch. It would be better to show the angular momentum vectors in the sketch. To be conform with the stated vectors in the sketch, I used the velocity vectors.
The angle between L0 and new resultant vector L per time unit can be calculated by using trigonometric calculations of ratio angular momentum and tilting torque. To do this, you must calculate the total angle of all involved mass points per time unit by using integral calculations. I have tried to explain this issue two posts before:
"One hint for better understanding of precession:
Imagine that the gyro is represented by 2 diametric fixed mass points, which are fixed rigid at an axis and are rotating at same distance around a common center. The axis will now be tilted by a torque. Both mass points will be affected by this tilting torque from zero to maximum and again back to zero. Thus the angle of change in direction of both mass points will change according a sinus function. The area under this sinus function graph is the value of the angle delta Phi per 1 cycle. If you summarize all cycles per second, you get precession WP. "
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 20/07/2009 13:05:44
| | | Glenn, thank you!
How are you today?
Since English is my second language I'll take that as a compliment. My mother tongue is Telugu. Are you a writer ? What do you mean by saying you would know better whether or not someone is a good expositional writer?
I come from India.
My alma mater.
My teachers?... If you count the books I read, my teachers are from all corners of the world. Eric Laithwaite is right at the top of all those. But in a more direct sense, all my school teachers are all from either around where I grew up in India or from the state (Andhra Pradesh) or from other parts of India.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 21/07/2009 00:09:07
| | | Ravi,
It would be a special complement even if English were your first languish. Yes, I write. I recently watched the movie, ‘Passage to India’ to get a glimpse of the country and it’s people, also I use Google Earth to surf and see the earth. I like your country.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 21/07/2009 16:36:51
| | | Thanks Glenn. America is alright too. :)
I briefly worked there in Memphis and Boston.
So different from India - but I still felt at ease.
It was good to meet people from all over the world there, living and working side by side.
You should visit India. Its a good place and very beautiful if you dont mind going rough for a bit. Try Konaseema, Araku Valley or Ettipotala Falls under google image search.
You should get some beautiful images of nature at her best.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 21/07/2009 16:45:15
| | | Harry,
You said :
"To do this, you must calculate the total angle of all involved mass points per time unit by using integral calculations. I have tried to explain this issue two posts before:
"
This is a very tough integral. You need to integrate over all mass points, over time.
I think there are easier ways to attack this problem. Perhaps I just want to think that. You can still pursue that integral though, if you are convinced thats the way.
Harry said:" Both mass points will be affected by this tilting torque from zero to maximum and again back to zero"
Its not clear to me why the tilting torque is going from max to zero under these conditions. Whats compelling it to diminish? Whats compelling it to change at all? i.e. why isn't the tilting torque constant according to your thinking?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 24/07/2009 15:12:26
| | | Hello Ravi,
This integral is not tough at all if you would consider all mass points concentrated in two single, opposite mounted mass points.
During the rotation of both mass points around the gyros circumference, both mass points are affected by a static tilting torque and thus the tilting torque periodically change its value from 0 to maximum according the sinus function of the rotating mass points.
Please note that the tilting torque is acting on both semi-circular circumferential mass points at the same time and thus the lever arm of the tilting force varies according the sinus function and therefore the tilting torque (=tilting force x lever arm) periodically change its value as well.
This imagination helped me in basic understanding of gyro beahvior. And this imagination does not lead in flawed temporal interpretation of cause and effect, in contrast to vector math considerations...;-)
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 25/07/2009 11:43:02
| | | Harry said:
flawed temporal interpretation of cause and effect, in contrast to vector math considerations
To those who would consider what I presented as being doubtful or over-the-top, I say this: All science is about 2 things:1. The best weapon in science is analogy. We apply the existing known processes in discovering/understanding new processes. Harmonic motion is one such concept. Wave motion is another such concept. Capacitors and Inductors are also such a concept. Fundamentally, its a generalized tool that sorts the spatially extended obects from point objects, so that scale is determined as a proportion to energy involved. This analogy I am presenting is powerful because it folds two sciences into one.
In merging Mechanics-Gravitation with Electro-Magnetism, we open the door to the Unified Field Theory. Lets not forget that Gravitation has long been the wedge that kept the whole structure from beautifully fitting together.
By collapsing it into EM, we can guarantee a Unified structure that would still look very familiar, but with a twist (almost literally) of the third derivative.
In addition, it will give us the key to building ships that can cross space and make green transportation a reality.
My prototype testing (of the previous generation prototype) has already revealed that a truck battery would have sufficient power to lift a craft with 2 people and keep it afloat for 12-14 hours.
This is what Tesla meant, surely when he said that when he stepped on a real flying machine, it would feel as sturdy as a rock.
The relmachine operates upon a much more fundamental level and can be mounted inside the body, making it more secure and reliable.
It will also naturally resist tilting and tossing about.
I dare say, no more crashing flying machines.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 26/07/2009 16:20:38
| | | Hi Ravi,
Sorry I haven’t responded (or commented more) on this interesting conversation.
Unfortunately, besides my overly busy schedule and long daily commutes, my dear wife has not been feeling well (though she is quickly improving).
Hopefully I will respond to all interesting matters in due time.
I continue working during spare moments on a wood model of my design.
Most recently I struggle anew with what I call the "thruster” mechanisms of my device, which apply a “YANK” or “J” (the third derivative) level of motion for extended periods.
The solution has not been quick but the resulting design is rewarding; am currently designing modularly componentized thrusters to reduce effort and facilitate subsequent modifications.
Regarding your design, (if I may) your picture shows no up-down degrees of freedom, and your theory appears to boil-down to "harmonics".
It looks to me like your machine intends to optimally harmonize the gyro-spins with the hub-rotation (or perhaps their rates of change), thus producing “MECHANICAL INDUCTION” to produces linear propulsion. Is this correct, or have I misjudged your theory/design?
Whether or not am visualizing your pursuit correctly, your ideas are worth exploring and I continue to look forward to new developments. I am hoping we will soon see a successful demonstration.
Best Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 27/07/2009 19:15:25
| | | Please visit my blog here in order to read some more about the problem of integrating gravity with the strong and electroweak forces.
Shortly, I will present how the analogy between inductors and spinning wheels helps to reconcile the 'problem of infinities' that prevents the integration of gravity.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 30/07/2009 07:41:24
| | | The rest of the write up on QED is is now uploaded.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 07/08/2009 16:57:34
| | | And also, some more stuff about time symmetry. Energy traveling backwards in time is not all that alien a concept. Feynman's theory assumes it. Maxwell's Laws allow it. General Relativity works fine with it. In fact any theory incorporating Time SYmmetry will be more elegant than one that doesn't. Just read about that Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 07/08/2009 18:41:30
| | | Dear ravi,
How are you? I have to point out that this is a Gyroscopic Propulsion forum. You are very smart, well educated and likable, but your subjects are getting further and further off target. They are muddying the water and I think probably reducing the traffic here and possibly discussions about fundamental gyroscopic behavior and apparatus‘. You espouse all these: common knowledge physics, theoretical science, and elements of your profession in ways that don't relate to the subject here. You used to try hard to twist and force and tie, off-topic subjects to gyroscopic propulsion. It didn’t work well then. Lately you’re not even trying to do that. Much if not all of your information can be obtained by any who wish it from far more advanced experts on the internet. This is probably not the best site for these interest, unless you can figure out how to relate them strongly the subjects here. Don’t you think? Think up something about gyroscopes and stay with us and post away, post lots and lots --- about gyroscopes. I’m betting you understand me, and that you can do it.
Take Care and stay cool,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 11/08/2009 12:51:51
| | | Glenn Turner,
Please just take all my other threads on this forum and dump them into this thread, would you?
That way, we can bring back more topics (that were being discussed prior to my posts)....?
Thanks
Ravi
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 11/08/2009 18:09:03
| | | Dear Ravi,
If you did not know, the remarks above are mine, not Mr. Turner's. He will not do as you ask. As for me I say post, post, post away, anything you like. I feel quite ashamed for trying to tell you what to do. You have gathered at least one idolizer here, who knows, there may be others holding their breaths waiting for more. You must do as you please, not as I order you to do. Your post are harmless. Even I have found several interesting. I saw a movie about Mahatma Gandhi two nights ago. He said if everybody demanded an eye for and eye there wouldn’t be anybody left in the world. A great man, he even got into my head. Hay, is it true everybody stops what they’re doing and screws like mad during the monsoon seasons? That’d be the time to visit India. Tell Sandy about it. Maybe he’ll come see you and talk . No harm in offering a man a bit of extra warmth. Who knows?
Take care good of yourself, my friend,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 13/08/2009 14:39:54
| | | Hi Glenn,
I thank you for your good advice.
But then, I have to say, I AM doing what I want. Aren't I? :)
Have you healed from your surgery?
I hope all is going smoothly.
Gandhi was a great man. He took adversity and allowed it to turn him into the change he wanted to see in the world.
The scene on the train to Pretoria is a good one. I believe it is at the very root of his transformation. The best accounts of Gandhi though are still biographies in print. I highly recommend Yogesh Chadha's Gandhi- A Life.
(In that book, there are a lot of details and more incidents. The chapter "Unwelcome Visitor" recounts another incident on a stage coach to Maritzburg that happened after the train incident. By then he learned to articulate what he thought the fair thing to do - He is beaten by the stage coach leader for his reasoned defiance.)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 13/08/2009 14:42:02
| | | And as for you or Sandy looking for fun in the monsoon, I have one word - Goa. :)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 13/08/2009 19:49:48
| | | Also, Eric Laithwaite & Sandy Kidd also fit with that Gandhian-type of resistance that increases in proportion to the disparity they see between fact and dogma.
They are scientific revolutionaries who were conscientious objectors who recognized the unique nature of the gyroscopic behavior.
Its time to take note of their experienced words.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
patrick - 29/08/2009 04:25:39
| | | england 43 le2 8eg,
Each end is a new start instantly and along the way of each revolution of 360-- a passmentation an also amasing plucking of the next wave of math,.,.in every revolution of the 360,,,,,,,,,,,,,,a breath it takes.
554 283
*10 *20
=5540 =5660
*3 *3
=16620 =16980
554 degres * 30 has a difference to 283 degrees * 60.............of one full turn of 360 degrees
Progress in curcum 360 is the alighn of numerics,one match is a tear in the ocean. The numerics hold a code at which we are on the cusp of grasping. But only in the purity of the need,will then the ans slowly unlock.
This entropic circular repultion,of math,of linear conection to each numeric amount.
Has to have a backing of unselfish desire,,,, 2 b of any use in a global economic structure or 2 find a kindred of soulfully bound persuers of a ballanced ecological future.
Lets imagine 4 1 moment there was at the end of ure life a bright light,a relative or close person lost in death b4 ureself waiting there 4 u,,,to say hello cmon u will c.....
For what they would have to show u~in most cases would at that moment put the fear of god into the soul infear of the selfish and ungiving at times that soul they owned.
THE SOUL THAT WAS the own personal even after educationary influences was in all in all thier own.
I post here to trow out my voice............i post here cos maybee my open soul of numbers an math may be heard....BUT in all the time i post here i have no writen conformation from what i put in only to watch some missuse or frayed judgement.
I HAVE DRAWINGS i do math,,and to understand fluidicity and vectors and to work upon my own math for repulsive dynamics of EM 359 367 to find most working primes in 2 different circumferences,,ie on inside another deliver vectors of repultion from the centre............................well I CANNOT say im unsure in my findings or work.
Because the frequency of the notes caused by air passage, controled in release and also created by different temperatures of the inner to outer gyroscopes is not an online discuss.............
patrick hill
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Patrick Hill - 15/06/2014 11:49:03
| | | Wow.. lol.just been looking back and oops where did those come from slid in with dates earlier than mine,that's not very clever!!! Actually in all becometh 're fools,could have been very good corespondance if you would only put pen to paper.then I suppose u prefer da more tecnomalogical way rite guy of da(,WORLD WIDE web) sound I respect that lads,a playground is fo children afterall
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
