|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
29 November 2024 01:00
|
|
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: |
Bent actions and reactions |
| Question: |
Hello Gang,
AN ANNOUNCEMENT
This is an advance exert from my research that I can now prove. For myself, the one condition has led to the most important questions in our combined research.
The questions were these: as precession proceeds slowly, dose the flywheel seek TO apply opposite reaction to the pivot? If freed from friction, would the pivot rotate around the flywheel? Would the barycenter on the shaft moved much closer to the heaver wheel?
I argued, not always in a friendly way, that there was no equal and opposite reactions to precession, for it is not like rotation and dose not precisely, intuitively act as the law of motion predict. I did not know why that is as it is. I did not know how this apparent enigma in nature was accomplished. Well, precession is actually and after all the results and action owing to and following exactly the laws of motion, but in the realm of the invisible.
I intend to explain the full, extensive process with as much clarity as my poor ability will permit, but for now in this advance you may only know the following.
In the overhung gyroscope, downward vertical forces torques into a right angle precession. Down is an action; horizontal precession is reaction. Conversely the actions precessing torque encounters in resistance, reacts vertically in an upward torque. There is no opposite reaction in the plane of precession. The pivot is not affected.
There is a paper in work of a complete understanding, but for now you may lift the theoretical restraints of classical mechanics and counter scholarly objection.
This means, incredibly, incredibly, apparatus using inertial propulsion are possible.
This early exert I hoped would please and justify those who were sure, and those who were inteligentl and intuitive enough to be unsure—as I was in the beginning. Much more to come within the year with drawing.
If you truly believe and understand that I have proven this and will present it, raise you glass high and prost to yourself and our community. I smile with you.
Cheers,
Glenn
|
| Date: |
10 May 2013
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Blaze - 11/05/2013 23:03:10
| | | Hi Glenn. My studies and experiments have shown that ALL newtonian forces that apply to non spinning mass also apply to spinning mass which is not really too surprising when you think about it. Mass is mass, however, there is momentum involved with moving mass, whether that movement is spinning or linear. Just think of how many asteroids are out there spinning as they orbit the sun. None of them show any hint not following Newtons laws.
What this means is that the pivot is, in fact, always affected during precession, no matter if the gyro is precessing below, at, or above "steady state" speed. The spinning flywheel, all the dead mass, and the pivot apparatus (plastic cone or whatever) will always have a barycenter that is NOT at the pivot but in many cases you would only see this IF there were absolutely no friction of any kind involved anywhere in the system. This paragraph and the one before it will not go over well with some people on this forum but so be it. C'est la vie.
I have said for some time now that a precessing over hung gyro (accelerating, decelerating or steady state) is just a combination of simple motions and forces but there are MANY motions and forces acting all at once. The key to understanding the resulting movement of the gyro is understanding ALL of the individual simple motions and forces correctly. If you miss even one motion or force or understand it incorrectly or imperfectly, you will end up seeing/expecting/theorizing something that isn't there or isn't correct and that will lead you down a blind alley every time.
So does this mean that inertial propulsion is impossible? Yes, unless you can come up with some way to actually vary the inertia of matter on demand (and there are some scientific theories on how to do just that). Again, some people will likely be absolutely livid at the statements I have made in this posting but again, so be it. Just because you really believe something is possible doesn't mean it is so. I have never had any designs or ideas that used the concept of inertial propulsion, as I understand it. My designs always used action-reaction for the actual propulsion.
By the way, I too have been working on writing up the motions, forces, and resulting movements of the gyro, perhaps for myself to keep it all straight, perhaps for publication. I started with my outline in early February and have been working on some experiments to verify my understanding of the various motions and forces is correct.
Good luck on your literary work.
cheers,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 12/05/2013 01:40:04
| | | Hello Blaze,
This was not prepared for argument, but only posted as an advanced notice of more to come.
Nevertheless you are incorrect, essentially just as all the millions for three hundred years before you have been, but were compelled to correct we misguided against our misguided opposition anyway, to on avail. You should know beforehand, that the same opposition will not be corrected by you.
Don’t you know you cannot dissect work that has not yet been laid out. You do not know what I have done and how it will be presented. One must to wait to dissect an offering, no mater what is believed beforehand. You have a promised bird, but no bird in hand. You have only eager and impatient amputating tools, but no poor little otherwise healthy bird to whack up.
There are over six billion people in the world now and more in the past. For three hundred years of curiosity, nobody has been able to explain to my satisfaction whatever you may have found and the way you intend to explain in, still you say this is simple? Maybe you have missed allot of things. It is all so not--simple and it is the devil to explain.
When I am finished I will will see if holes can be punched into my theories, but not until then. Blaze, millions of times before you, it has been said this was impossible. Your explanations are essentially different?
Literary to me? Thank you, but I am holding off on a lot actual writing effort and unfinished work. I know how sincere you were, so the same to you. Good Luck.
Cheers,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 12/05/2013 01:50:28
| | | No more. I don’t have time for this. I made an announcement. finished.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 12/05/2013 03:24:59
| | | Hi Glenn. I am not arguing with your or trying to dissect your future explanation. I am not trying to upset you either. I am just stating what I've learned and verified with experimentation. Whether or not anyone believes it or not doesn't actually bother me one way or the other. But I do have one point of clarification. I said the resulting movement of a gyro is the combination of many simple forces and motions. I didn't say the resulting movement was itself was simple. It is far from it. That is why it is so difficult to understand and explain.
regards,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 12/05/2013 12:22:34
| | | Dear Blaze, Hi glen,
Blaze, you are fundamentally wrong in your assumption that a pivoted overhung gyro will rotate around its barycentre if mounted on the proverbial frictionless surface (air table). There is a typical example of a “scientist” carrying out a test to “prove” their hypothesis, rather than get to the truth, in a bad video to be found here:-
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh/gyroscopes/icegyro.html
This was created by Emma Wilson in 1997 as part of her MEng thesis at Cambridge University under Dr Hugh Hunt. Shame on her for this poor work!
At first glance it would appear that your (and her) view is correct (a real scientist should not be fooled by a first glance). However, on further reflection it will become apparent that the reason the base appears to be rotating as you suggest it should, is because the non rotating mass (gyro frame,inner mass, shaft etc.) has not been counterbalanced and it is this lack of counter balancing that is causing the base to counter rotate. If you look at the relative mass of the heavy gyro compared to the relatively light base it becomes clear that, if your view and hers were true, the base should be moving much more than the gyro not the other way round. The rotating gyro component will not cause a counter rotating force on the pivot point.
A simple test without an air table can confirm that rotation occurs around the pivot point and not around around the centre of mass.
First extend the gyro’s axle beyond its pivot point and carefully balance the gyro’s NON ROTATING mass. Suspend your over hung gyro from a thread at its pivot point. Allow it to stabilise and use a pointer to show its stable suspended pivot point. Use another thread to suspend what will be the free end of the gyro so that the axle is horizontal. With the gyro spun up carefully ensure that its suspended pivot point stabilizes and is aligned with the pointer. Burn through the thread suspending the free end so that you don’t influence the motion when the gyro is released to precess. Carefully observe what happens and rearrange your understanding accordingly.
It is because of this type of anomaly and that a gyro enables the separation of angular and linear momentum that makes inertial drive possible. Whether it will turn out to be practicable remains to be seen.
I don’t want to take time at the moment to make and put up a video of this simple demonstration device but, if necessary, I will once I have completed my resurrection of the “fast repeater” which, not surprisingly, I feel should receive greater priority.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 12/05/2013 13:46:53
| | | Hello Blaze, Nitro splendid!!!
Seeing is not always believing. A thousand times we have witnessed a lack of opposite pivotal reaction in the plane of precession, but it is so hard to believe. I understand. I was affected for years.
One thing that seems to be always overlooked and for which I am always again re-corrected --with explanations, is baffling to me for I can not understand why I am not understood in the first place. What I said regarding Newton in the beginning of this post I have repeated for several years.
I said, “Well, precession is actually and after all, the results and action owing to and following exactly the laws of motion, but in the realm of the invisible.”
To this one Newton issue, Nitro, we may disagree (You too my friend, Sandy :- ) but it is a mute point in a way, as it doesn’t affect our possibilities of producing inertia propulsion.
I respond, because I want to say, Nitro your piece is so well stated it is a bit humbling to me. Thank you for waking up over there long enough to step in. Did your misses drive you out of bed with a broom : - ) Is that why you are driven to your fast repeater? Good luck!
Blaze keep working. You are very smart and very diligent and you have more to learn.
Yours Truly,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 12/05/2013 16:38:04
| | | Yes Nitro, there are many problems with the experiment in the video link you provided.
However concerning your hypothetical experiment:
"First extend the gyro’s axle beyond its pivot point and carefully balance the gyro’s NON ROTATING mass. Suspend your over hung gyro from a thread at its pivot point. Allow it to stabilise and use a pointer to show its stable suspended pivot point. Use another thread to suspend what will be the free end of the gyro so that the axle is horizontal. With the gyro spun up carefully ensure that its suspended pivot point stabilizes and is aligned with the pointer. Burn through the thread suspending the free end so that you don’t influence the motion when the gyro is released to precess. Carefully observe what happens and rearrange your understanding accordingly."
I have to ask if anyone on the forum has done this experiment? I doubt it because if they did they would be disappointed with the result. When you burn through the string the pivot will jerk in the opposite direction of the gyro travel and then will move in a seemingly chaotic motion until it settles down due to friction. When it does settle down, the string will be moving in a "cone" shape due to the mass of the spinning flywheel "orbiting" the initial pivot point (mass doesn't "disappear" because matter is spinning). The magnitude of the initial reaction jerk will depend on the gyro system parameters but there will be some reaction jerk when burning through the string no matter how fast you spin up the gyro, unless you can do the impossible and get the gyro spinning at near infinite speed. Then the reaction jerk will be so small you probably won't be able to detect it. Whether anything useful can be seen after it settles down is debatable as the flywheel will be slowing down which will be causing a small reaction force on the pivot and that will skew the results and of course the string will be "coning" as well. An experiment like this would be difficult or maybe impossible to do well in a gravity field.
I know that you and Glenn (and likely most others on this forum) probably don't believe a word I've just said, but like I said before, so be it. To each his own beliefs. C'est la vie.
good luck to both of you in all your endeavors,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 13/05/2013 10:56:10
| | | Dear Blaze, Hi Glenn (remembered your second “n” this time – Sorry! Scottish mistake!),
One problem at a time please Blaze. I don’t remember saying anything about mass disappearing just that the system described does not rotate around the centre of mass but around its pivot point. Its mass effect (Momentum?) thus seems displaced, not vanished – at least not in this system..
As I have written in a new thread:- My observations on this have, as usual, been made by the late great Eric Laithwaite and are shown on this very site here:-
http://www.gyroscopes.org/1974lecture.asp
It can clearly be seen that far from rotating about its centre of mass the gyro imediately it is released precesses outward from its pivot centre with no contra rotation around its barycentre at all.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 13/05/2013 23:23:58
| | | Hello Blaze, and anyone else interested in this sort of stuff.
Blaze you made a comment relating to the multitude of asteroids blindly following Newton.
It really does not matter too much how slow or how fast they spin apart from the affect the speed will have on the position of their axis of rotation.
Everything else is your postings is your opinion to which you are entitled.
Enough said.
However before you get carried away with the correctness of Newton can I ask you if you have read anything relating to the “Electric Universe” by Dr Immanual Velikovsky
Excerpt
“It became clear to Velikovsky that Newton’s concept of gravity was insufficient to explain the reported behaviour of the planets.
And it certainly could not answer the obvious question, “why do the skies look so peaceful now?”
This allowed a dogmatic response by academia to Velikovsky’s seminal breakthrough. It was said his theory didn’t obey Newton’s laws. But what did Newton know of electricity? And if anyone believes that Newton’s laws guarantee a stable planetary system – think again!
Any gravitational system with more than two orbiting bodies is unstable. Yet the question is hardly ever asked, let alone answered, “what produces the observed stability of the solar system?” Velikovsky was convinced that the clue lay in his discovery that electrical forces dominate the incredibly weak force of gravity at times of planetary close encounters. Although he was unable to explain at the time how this would create the observed stability of the solar system, with his uncanny prescience he had pointed the way to the Electric Universe.”
For your interest
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/05/2013 05:47:21
| | | Dear Blaze,There is no opposite reaction at the piviot, but contunue your belieffs and be happy. To each his own. There are no personal attacks.
Good fourtune to you, I mean it.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/05/2013 17:06:14
| | | All Newtonian forces that apply to non spinning mass also apply to spinning mass. This is completely true. In apparent behavior however, the opposite would contradict the truth. Gyroscopes misguide everything.
They appear incorrectly, even to us not to follow Newtonian laws at all. Still I think we few here we can agree at least, they bend the hell out of the laws. The devil is in knowing the way these twisting motions double back on themselves to redirect opposite reaction to a 90 degrease reaction.
When this treatment of how and why is finished, I intend to send it first to Steven Hawkin in hopes that a trusted authority such as he and his team will substantiate these new mechanical explanations and apply the math with perhaps new equations, though they would equal the same as the currant ones. I think maybe a new bit of understanding the universe may come of this.
This is important, but I am in no hurry.
Let us keep the fraternity here,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 29/05/2013 05:58:13
| | | The pivot does not serves as a background that the gyro twist against to gain forward precession. The gyroscope pulls and pushes itself independently around the curvature we call precession without help from the pivot.
Eventually I will explain how this works. I'm workin' on it.
The pivot serves only to guide the gyro down through a curve. After that the pivot’s job is finished.
If there were a curving slot that a flywheel could slide down in a similar curving/tilting path; the wheel would precess without a shaft, or pivot. It would circle around a spot in empty space, while holding itself up. Of course the slot would serve as a shaft and pivot, but you get the idea of what I mean.
Why is difficult to understand that precession is not rotation, that the two act different, because they are different?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 02/06/2013 18:56:30
| | | I have finished the explanation in four full pages. Next comes sketches. It is mechanically built with and by all the laws of motion. There are no exceptions.
Watch-out for falling rocks and landslides, Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 06/06/2013 00:56:30
| | | It is so good. There is nothing like it.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/06/2013 21:25:26
| | | I have hesitated from my explanation theme long enough to reason out how to do a frictionless pivot test. I am working on building the little mechanical do-dad testing apparatus now. I will get back to it and let you know how it performed.
Smile and the world smiles with you.
Hi Sandy, I think of you often. We are friends. I liked your the electric universe addition. Good show.
Hello Harry! Don't be alarmed at my friendly salutations. I happen to like you. You are our pivot man! I may yet plead for some new equations when I have my new mechanical explanations ready to edit. You'd be the go to man, our pivotal mathematical man.
Hello Momentous. “You are my ace if you don't never win no race.” Say, are you French?, English are some other good flavor? I have often wondered, because of the fine and unique way you write.
Nitro of the fast repeater. I am pulling for you, Scotty. Do you and Sandy know where Alexander Graham Bell was born and grew up?
Hi Blaze, Don't you dare stop posting. Remember, I was the one who first saw and applauded your excellence and abilities.
Back with the results today—I hope. (I know you are watching.)
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 10/06/2013 01:36:06
| | | It was a success.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 10/06/2013 18:38:20
| | | With some readjustments it was a success in proving me wrong.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 11/06/2013 14:28:08
| | | I fixed the problem. All is right and on track again.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 12/06/2013 21:49:43
| | | Hello Glenn.
No matter how you attempt to achieve it, all of the transferred weight of the gyroscope will always bear vertically downwards on the fulcrum point.
So no matter how small the contact area of the gyroscope’s part is in these proceedings that weight will always be acting vertically downwards at that very small point at which the gyroscope assembly rotates.
There is absolutely no sideways bias at all.
Many of the false claims are simply because most non-expensive gyroscopes, are cheap and nasty devices with gyroscope rotation balls anything but spherical, the same thing applying to the location cups they rotate in, but what do you expect at that price.
You pays your money etc.
What’s more chuck the gimbal bit in the bin as it only tends to mislead the uninitiated.
Its only use is to hold the damned thing while the string is pulled.
Eric Laithwaite’s custom built gyroscope which was quite heavy was supported in rotation on a relatively long hardened and ground fixed shaft.
The very point was honed like a stylus.
When that gyroscope was rotating in precession and irrespective of the angle made by the gyroscope’s shaft and the medium on which the gyroscope was being rotated,
there was never ever any attempt by the gyroscope to move from the contact point at any time during precession.
He ran it on a ceramic tile which is just about as hard as you can get, and of course it would have to be, as there is a significant vertical pressure generated at the point.
I am sure it would have performed just as well on tungsten carbide or even diamond.
Centrifugal force is non-existent unless you cannot see because you do not want to.
Several contributors to this forum have seen this gyroscope in action, including myself of course.
A great scientist once said
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Richard P. Feynman
So be it.
Incidentally Alexander Graham Bell was born in my home town of Edinburgh.
He was often called Aleck but never Sandy as far as I am aware.
I am an Alexander myself but only the Inland Revenue and the Police Force ever address me as that.
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 13/06/2013 02:46:34
| | | Hello Sandy,
So you are on a police blotter, with an alias no less. I figured as much.
I knew you would know Mr. Bell was from Edinburgh and I thought it a complement to you. How nice I am. His was the most world consuming invention all, and yet he came from your little neighborhood, planet wise and populations wise. People had better pay attention to you guys. :-)
I admit I was taken in by the appearance of centrifuge, even when I knew better. That is strange, for I did know better. This has been the toughest system to reason out and I bounced back and forth for many years thinking this and that out, then the opposite and then starting all over again.
I know you are right. Yours is as convincing an argument as could be; backed up with proof. Still, the device I built to prove the same thing for the doubters is clever.
I will lay it out for you. I used the thin aluminum rims from a small peanut can and wired a gyroscope with light weight paper clips in a way that would allow it slide down the rims in a curvature in the same angle as if it were falling from a pivot. Nest I affixed tinny steel wire to the aluminum rims and extended them outward from the circle that would be precession. I created four pivots, by bending the steel wire downward OUTSIDE THE CIRCLE, the circle that would be precession. Next I drilled tiny holes in chips of ice, refroze them in waiting, and eventually stuck the wire feet into the ice chip holes. I added weight to the wires outside the precession area for balancing the falling gyroscope. Why did I do it; when I already knew what would happen and why? The apparatus, by contumely reloading it, that is by lifting it up and letting is slide down again, jerked around the area a precession circle of empty space.
I think you have never known anyone, who was able to eliminate the interior pivots and shaft and show precession; is that correct?
One other thing--for everyone. If you will use and arm’s length of 8 pound nylon fishing line, it will wrap many times more that a string, perhaps four times more. (remember to oil also) You will get impatient wrapping, but when you pull, the spin is so fast the thing comes alive in your hand. I estimate it at somewhere near, 8,100 RPMs. At that speed it ceases being a toy.
In the end, the mechanics I have finished, but for the drawing, is going to set academia on it’s heals, because they won’t be able to sanely argue against my Newtonian mechanics. The mechanics are of course complex, so much so that nobody before me ever figured them out, or at least they never published them.
So-- clever will win again. I will not be so modest, as to not claim my victory when my work is revealed, because the universal explanation of precession through the generations is non-sense. It is as useful to understanding to a thinking man, and as correct as explaining how to grow peas in a pot as related to the gyroscope and precession. I will prove what I am saying. I will not eat crow, and this is a first. My deal is that good.
I know it is the dead weight that pulls the gyroscope outward and causes it to circle an area of empty space. I have done Professor Eric’s experiment ‘mine the pin point on glass experiment’ with a heave gyroscope. It weighs about 3 big blue pounds and has a crank.
Until I prove my brag, consider me anything you like. It’s OK. I will smile and wish you good fortune and I would pat you on the back if I could.
Sincerely,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 13/06/2013 04:39:00
| | | Hi Sandy. Is there a video of the special gyro that you described the professor using and where would I find it? If not, can you tell me what the approximate weight of the flywheel was and more importantly, how much time it took for it to precess 360 degrees?
Thanks,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 13/06/2013 05:02:07
| | | You see, Sandy? The little device I explained how to build is needed.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 13/06/2013 13:18:11
| | | Good morning, I am withdrawing. I'm not going to give away any more of my hard earned knowledge. This place was a sounding board, but the subject combined with human vanity produces animosity and a few lame ideas, and for me no useful information.
I will speak on this. Professor Laithwaite was a superb lecturer, interesting and friendly and the inventor of the levitating train. Beyond this he was a showman and soap salesman. He discover a device and made it do tricks, none of which he ever understood. I have never understood how one could be so intense about a subject and device without wanting to know how it worked. If one were to know that, all the tricks and demonstrations would be understood as logical and series-wise simple.
Propulsion has never been achieved, though the professor with Essex University (I think) granted money and a furnished engineer spent a year with machines and measuring devices trying to establish evidence that opposite rotating wheels would produce lift. They were not able to prove that the devices produced even a miscue amount of it.
If propulsion is possible, it is because precesion pulls itself in a circle, independent of an equal and opposite binary momentum.
The idea cannot be envisioned by many people. There is a concrete block in people’s mind, weighted against any theory that seems to conflict with what they expect, regardless of countless supporting observations. They will not accept that speed and time with multiple deflected victors of motion could move an equal and opposite force to apply at a distant place and time. You just get animosity.
Good bye,
Glenn H.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 14/06/2013 21:44:11
| | | Evening Blaze,
I have often wondered what happened to that particular gyroscope.
It must have cost a bit to make.
All the weight was in a relatively narrow rim and the disc was about as thin as was possible.
The rest of the disc was a lot of holes joined together.
Remember also that the shaft was fixed into the gyroscope and the point also rotated with the gyroscope.
It was built to eliminate as much non- effective or spare material in its construction as possible.
It was as nearly perfect as it could be made.
I was going to make a similar gyroscope but I was just too busy doing other things.
There may be a video of it performing, somewhere but I have never seen one.
I think Momentus has also seen it in operation.
I may attempt to find out where it is and who owns it now.
I tend to think that his family will have it.
It would make an excellent museum piece.
It was kept in a wooden presentation box with a special holder for winding it up to speed using the usual string
The gyroscope’s shaft was released from the holder when it was up to speed.
This was a very effective mechanism which left the gyroscope to rotate on its own.
I shall pursue this Blaze.
Regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Pat h - 15/06/2013 00:01:58
| | | Around in forum again Glenn,still dinner awaits...359 367 hey ho!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/06/2013 22:03:38
| | | Dear Pat,
Hi! Good fortune to you my pal. Pat, do you know what asperger's syndrome is? Do you have a genius for numbers and math?
I have to come and finish this:
I wrote, "One other thing--for everyone. If you will use and arm’s length of 8 pound nylon fishing line, it will wrap many times more that a string, perhaps four times more. (remember to oil also) You will get impatient wrapping, but when you pull, the spin is so fast the thing comes alive in your hand. I estimate it at somewhere near, 8,100 RPMs. At that speed it ceases being a toy."
A mistake is made in explaining. The length of fishing line should be from hand to shoulder and across the chest to the opposite shoulder. The distance is the same as pulling a bow string to shoot an arrow. (if you know how) You will have a hand full and you will know it.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
