|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
29 November 2024 00:44
|
|
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: |
I.P. conclusions |
| Question: |
THE BIBLE OF GYROSCOPES
FORWARD
This paper is the first in-depth theorem of why and how the laws of motion cause the gyroscope to behave the way it does. The theorem reveals with prove that the gyroscope has capabilities beyond accepted by science.
THE UNIVERSE AND DEFLECTIONS
To understand deflection is to understand all curving motion. It is the beginning and ending of acceleration, deceleration, directions and directional changes. The nature of universe is at all times busily either curving, or attempting to curve from the tinniest particle, to the largest body. Everything is kept in a state of curving by constant deflecting events and there seems to be no straight paths allowed, but for perhaps in the shortest intervals of time.
DEFLECTIONS IN ROTATION
A good way to visualize angular deflection during rotation is to think of a ball bouncing around inside a small octagon made of panels. Ignoring friction, each time the ball collides into an angled panel it is deflected to the nest panel and the next, until the ball has made a complete deflected revolution inside the octagon. Now think of adding hundreds of angled panels and watching the ball being deflecting in tiny bumps and bounces around the panels. Add enough panels and the once regular inside surface becomes almost completely smooth. The ball rolls inside this smooth confined circle, yet still it is being deflected in the same way, though not visually. It is being deflected from its past position toward its future position, though rolling instead of bouncing.
If the ball is connected by a string to a center point of rotation the same things happen, with the difference being how the ball applies its force again deflection. A pliable ball held inside a smooth rim is being deflected, it flattens against the rim; if while a string would hold such a ball; the ball would stretch outward in the shape of an oval. The deflections travel down through the string and ultimately occur against the molecular glue holding the center point together.
Deflections guide the path of all curving motion and of course all rotations and all mass travels in these paths and never straight in line. Even light is bending its way through space.
CENTRIFUGE
The result of deflections in rotation is called centrifuge. It is the outward pressure of particles that while attempting to travel in a straight line are instead colliding against a curved enclosure, which creates the pressure that is called centrifuge.
When we are first introduced to centrifuge it is usually difficult to grasp and understand how it acts. This is so, because the instinctual idea is to assume that a when a ball is held by a string and whirled around a person’s body and the string breaks, the ball will fly away in the direction it was traveling while in rotation; but it will not. Consider that if you swing a bat and strike a ball, the ball will fly away at a right angle to the bat. If however you were to swing a tennis racket with a ball stuck in the webbing and suddenly stopped the racket, the ball would not continue traveling in same direction as it was being rotated. Instead it would fly away at 180 degrees straight out from the line of your shoulder, arm and racket. A ball when released from rotation travels directly in the direction of centrifuge, not in the direction it was rotating.
THE OVERHUNG GYROSCOPE BRICK BY BRICK
Lecture gyroscopes in gamble rings function for the same reasons as overhung gyroscopes supported by pedestals or overhead strings. However the easiest method for study however, seems to be to with the overhung gyroscope and therefore it is chosen.
INCREASING INERTIAL RESISTANCE
During precession the gyroscope resists falling from its pedestal by the boosted magnitude of inertial reluctance to tilting. Inertial resistance is a simple concept. Bodies in motion tend to stay in motion and bodies in a state of rest tend to stay in a state of rest. That is, bodies resist acceleration and deceleration. Now let us see how the condition of inertial resistance to acceleration can be greatly increased; and then how a gyroscope resists falling while it precess’.
Two toy cars of equal weight race across a checkerboard from beginning to end. Each has a toy rocket with an equal thrust glued to the side of the cars to push them sideways even as they rolls forward.
Car A.) Car A travels forward slowly at one mile per hour, while its sideways rocket deflects its direction from straight, to a 45 degrees angle. It arrives in due time cross-wise from the upper to the lower corner of the checker board.
Car B.) It is under the same magnitude of sideways rocket force, however car B. travels forward very fast at forty-five miles per hour and arrives almost in a straight line across the center of the board.
The difference is; though the force of the rockets to deflect the course of the cars was equal, Car B. was traveling 45 times faster. Therefore car B. received only 1/45 as much time to allow sideways deflection.
It is not that increasing forward velocity increases sideways inertia resistance. It is that shortening time or distance of travel decreases the amount of total sideways force delivered.
There are three reasons that cause a gyroscope to resist falling:
The first is speed as is explained above.
The second is distance, such as the circumference of a rotating flywheel, as explained above.
The third is a constantly reversing, sideways force that applies at the top half of the wheel; and reversely at the bottom half of the wheel.
REVERSING FORCES
As overhung gyroscopes are tilted, the horizontal line running through the wheel’s sideways center becomes a hinge. The hinge line is the dividing line between the top of the wheel tilting outward, and the bottom of the wheel tilting inward toward the support pedestal.
Rotating partials are accelerated sideways into tilting in one direction at the top of the wheel and are redirected at the hinge line toward tilting at the bottom in the opposite, inward direction. Each rotating particle experiences this sideways push then pull every one-half rotation. Whatever tiny amount of sideways velocity may be produced in these tiny windows of sideways acceleration, in time and distance; is stopped at the hinge line and reversed. The re-acceleration of the wheel into tilting has to overcome more than from having to continuously restart from a zero, which slows the tilting. The wheel also has to reverse the velocity of an opposite momentum that exist upper and lower between the hinge line.
The magnitude of tilting force from deceleration converts to the same magnitude of acceleration, like a perfect spring compressing and uncoiling. It is a perfectly elastic slingshot. The resistance is increased by increasing the speed of rotation. Greater speed closes the tiny windows of time and distance; and resistance grows more powerful as the time interval for tilting approaches zero.
Note: Lift support is generated by the horizontal curving movement of precession around a pedestal, and not by the otherwise more intuitive idea of upright maintenance from centrifuge against vertical tilt that is generally supposed. More on this later; ignore it for now.
QUADRANGULAR MODEL
To enable us to perceive the deflections and other invisible things, we will divide the wheel into vertical and horizontal quadrangular sections. Each of the four pie-like slices at the rim will equal a span of time and distance revisited by particles in rotation during the time the wheel is being tilted.
The particles at the front/top quadrant (a.) are continuously being tilted greater sideways distances as they rotate upwards. We may imagine with this contrivance; (jaws are opening from the hinge to the front teeth.) From the hinge line to the top of the rim, the upward rotating particles are continuously tilted further and faster sideways as they travel to the top.
As the wheel tilts, particles at the front/top quadrant, (a.) in resisting, apply pressure to twist the wheel inward and forward around the pedestal.
EXCHANGE AT THE CREST
As the front/top quadrant (a.) particles rise to top dead center, they cease to resist tilting. They have reached their maximum sideways velocity and momentum at the crest. From there they rotate down the rim of the rearward/top quadrant (b.) toward the hinge. As they do, the aperture narrows toward the hinge, transferring their sideways momentum into outward force that twist the rear of the wheel and swings it outward and forward around the pedestal.
EXCHANGE AT THE BOTTOM
Sideways forces at the rearward/bottom and forward/bottom work exactly the same way as the top, but in reverse. The rearward/bottom quadrant (c.) resists the inward tilting, therefore applying pressure outward and forward to twist the wheel around the pedestal. The accelerated velocity and momentum of particles releases at the front/bottom of the rim (d.) twist the flywheel inward and forward around the pedestal.
THE PRECESSION VECTOR
The combination of the two areas of resistance is represented in red. They apply force towards a 45 degree upward direction. The two combined areas of blue represent the force of momentum. The momentum applies forces towards a 45 degree downward direction. Each angled directional force, red from resisting and blue from built-up momentum, transfers from one to the other in a perfect elastic reaction creating two equal forces.
Combining the vector of 45 degrees upwards with the vector of 45 degrees downward translates to a 90 degree movement, which is the vector of horizontal precession.
Note: The lift support, which is an upward acting force at a right angle to precession, is caused by the curving angle of precession, or horizontal tilting at a right angle if you will. Precession deflects upwards becoming lift support. The conditions are exactly the same as from tilting vertically downward to cause precession.
DEFLECTING CENTRIFUGE
Pause: These following statements are supported by previous testing, which will be presented here in due time. Precession is not rotation.
NOW TO THE TESTS
The test will be presented in video.
The mechanical theory is correct, also the tests are correct when it is explained that the nonexistent shaft changed horizontal alignment in the extreme because it has no support.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The tests were both complicated and ingenious and difficult to present here. The real meat of this mechanical papper is too complacated to bother with as it would not be understood, especially without drawings. which I can not past here. The conclusions, both written mechanical conceptions and real tests veveal that. . . . who here gives a rat's ass?
Glenn,
|
| Date: |
25 March 2014
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/03/2014 16:22:49
| | | The paper is actually much longer, but it becomes far too complicated to be understood without props. The conditions; if they could be envisioned here are incredible and fascinating and I wish I could show you. I can't do that.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 25/03/2014 19:02:05
| | | Hmm... your Quadrangular Model sounds amazingly similar to what I descried in this forum on May 5, 2012. I had a link at that time to a picture that had the explanation on it but that link has long since expired.
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 25/03/2014 19:04:48
| | | Actually the link still works! I have added the link to the posting in this forum. The link to the picture is in the forum link.
http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=1428
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/03/2014 22:36:29
| | | The explanation Blaze speaks of is ultimately incorrect in its conclusion, but I am impressed with that man who did it.
This man did some serious thinking and we share schematic designs initially, because the conditions that act, call for those drawings. There is sameness between us in the 2D circumference view. What is missing is views of the very complex twisting of particles presented in 3 D drawings. These 3 D drawing show how increasing the speed of rotation, verses the speed of the flywheel falling in a curve; as ratio variables that control the angles of force into and out from the pedestal; and thereby control the speed of precession. That is to say, how and why increasing the speed of rotation slows the speed of precession. Nothing in the article Blaze mentioned and drawings attempt to explain, or even mention the things I wrote about; the hows and whys of it all. That is to say, why and how the gyroscope uses the laws of motion to do the things it dose.
The man’s ultimate conclusion is wrong. He said, “The pivot has a major advantage in leverage, because of its distance from the wheel. This means that a small force due to friction at the pivot’s base can oppose a much larger force of the wheel processing.”
That is wrong. Equal and opposite apply. There is simply so little force opposing precession in the form of air resistance during very slow precession, that the tiniest friction at the pedestal base is sufficient to maintain it possession.
In other words, the ultimate conclusion (not explained anywhere) but reached by me is that inertial propulsion of any kind is not possible. I sincerely wish I could be wrong.
I also wish I knew who made the drawings in an attempt to explain. I believe he would be capable of understanding my mechanics.
He is pretty sharp. We both wanted to prove I. P. was possible. He tried to make I. P. possible by giving the pivot more resistance than the laws of nature allow.
Initially I tried to prove I. P. was possible by explaining how the flywheel under so much veritable forces chose to move independently around the pedestal without transferring torque to the pedestal. Subsequent tests (I attempted to explain here some time ago), proved rather ingeniously that the torque of the wheel and pedestal are equal and opposite.
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 25/03/2014 23:07:20
| | | Glenn, Blaze good evening,
I am not suggesting that either of you agree with this.
I think it is far more complicated than it needs to be.
“The tests were both complicated and ingenious and difficult to present here”.
I'll bet they were.
It’s a bit like weighing a gyroscope in precession?
It is novel as far as I am concerned, but sorry folks it does not work for me.
Regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/03/2014 23:44:34
| | | Hello Sandy,
The truth is that the mechanics of why and how the things of gyroscopes work is on a minor scale like explaining the theories of Steven Hawking and Einstein. Not all of us care about the explanations, but there is room for them for people who do want to know and by knowing foresee into the actual designs of apparatus' and of even if they work and how best.
I have explained almost nothing above.
I have not even posted the full measure of what I have. It would be pointless. No one would understand, because the explanations are imposable, at least to me, to present well enough for human understanding. If there were fault, which there isn't, it would be with my inept presentation,not with the comprehension of an audience.
My work can not be understood given words only and not even with sketches. 3 D animation would allow for understanding, I think nothing less would. But; I know what is happening when I see gyros manipulated. It would be a fine thing, I say; to see these magnificent things occurring in one's mind. And if it has never been seen that way by people, how can it be faulted? How can one dismiss what he hasn't seen? The incredible pictures of particles in colors doing tricks against one another in space to show how forces in the universe work is a very pretty sight. Once seen, one would not never wonder why the history of scientific understanding has led us to these amazing things all around us. You have seen it. That is how you design, but you have not seen what I have seen.
I love you. I hope you don't get annoyed with me.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ted Pittman - 26/03/2014 12:15:50
| | | www.iseti.us/WhitePapers/Mars2005/MarsSociety-2005-(DoestheLaithwaiteGyroscopicWeightLosshavePropulsionPotential-2005-09-11).pdf
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 26/03/2014 21:29:22
| | | I am in error. I.P. is possible. Long story. I found the evidence of it's potential. I AM SORRY. Everything I've written above, other than that conclusion, is correct I believe. I will begin in another post when I have time. I think I can explain this one.
Glenn,
I.P. IS POSSIBLE.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 27/03/2014 19:14:53
| | | Hello Glenn,
I hope you know that I like you. Your human freshly change of mind makes me smile. Sometimes you are very impulsive but you are a likable person! ;-)
Regarding your gyro related explanations I have however my doubts, but I think each person has own ways of thinking and imagination how special things may work.
Therefore it is difficult to discuss or to convince others how such things may work without the use of a "common language" which everybody is able to understand.
Such a common language could be for instance the maths, however with the problem that not everybody is able to understand this language beyond a certain level, depending on the own level of education. This applies to me as well!
The graphic posted by Blaze is not totally wrong but in my opinion it demonstrates poorly understood gyro behavior.
But I definitely disagree with your "centrifuge" explanation. Centrifugal force is a fictious force contrary to the centripetal force, which is the counter directed force with same size.
If the real centripetal force does not act anymore (e.g. cut the rope during revolving of a mass), the fictious centrifugal force disappears instantly and thus only the rotation vector force of the mass is present which cause the mass to move away in a straight tangential path.
Think of a grinding pulley wheel in touch with a rigid Body on its cricumference. The sparks fly away in a tangential straight path but not in direction of the formerly acting centrifugal force!
All your other explanations are different to my way of thinking but it is your way of thinking and thus it is okay if this may help you for understanding these issues,
Best regards,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 27/03/2014 20:36:33
| | | Hi Harry,
Thank you for responding and your example is clever. Good for you. I disagree though and can explain and I would like to and I will. I am too tired to think right now. My help laid out drunk again-- not German like; efficient and stable at all. Sandy is on my ass right now too.
I just love him. Later my friend,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 27/03/2014 20:37:54
| | | Hi Harry,
Thank you for responding and your example is clever. Good for you. I disagree though and can explain and I would like to and I will. I am too tired to think right now. My help laid out drunk again-- not German like; efficient and stable at all. Sandy is on my ass right now too.
I just love him. Later my friend,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Patrick Hill - 28/03/2014 04:32:16
| | | Glenn... relax its easy and it is here soon,all you have to think is the offset of 359 367 both primes opposing each other .,one circle within another with cogs on the outside of one and inside the other.only one can ever meet,each faces of cogs one negative next possitive next neg then pos.....07766748196 ring me
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 29/03/2014 16:25:37
| | | Hello Pat my friend,
It's good to hear from you. I understand! Your communication is very well expressed. Thank you again. I can't call, but I will try again.
All my Best to you,
Glenn
Hey, somebody in England call Pat.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 29/03/2014 16:27:45
| | | Hello Harry,
It is always fun to hear from you. I have finished that tough little project without help and now can pause to concentrate.
I, as doubtlessly you also have been familiar since I was in knee-pants with the classroom explanations of centrifuge and centripetal. I knew it was mechanically wrong then as ever afterwards. If any of us should need a moment’s refresher of what we are talking about, I have listed two sites below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_motion
I physics the two concepts are designed to allow for easy and correct mathematical expressions and results. Bully for that. By that I mean ‘good’. Scholastically Harold, I well know your are perfectly in line with the world of accepted physics and of course mathematics, but all of that is not correctly, exactly how things happen mechanically. I will explain, but first I want you to know I was reasonably well trained in some forms of mathematics to include; arithmetic, algebra, geometry, trigonometry and logarithms. My business and limited design and engineering work do not require much math and for a reason I otherwise avoid math as to do with gyroscopes. He is mad some would say, but I have a purpose. My plain was to always thing mechanically. There is world enough of mathematical efforts, but to study them; to use them lessens the mechanical thinking out of the box. Hundreds of millions of people know the gyroscope mathematically, but I maybe the one, or the few who know it mechanically in my mine. I think, mechanically, that is the precise how and why things actually work the way they do. I think Glenn’s mechanically, mechanically, mechanically, mechanically, mechanically.
This is impossible to follow obviously for some people. The class room keeps a lead on the box, and a led on an open mind.
When Professor Laithewait’s demonstrated a non-understood phenomena at the most precious Royal Institution, not one Augustus member classroom science offered an explanation, or later tried to publicly explain the why and how of the demonstrated actions occur. They did not know and so the class room keeps-a-led-on syndrome followed in the form of closed lips and the concept of open-mind closed tight. That is what happens in the community toward my form of mechanics. They can be seen, or realized, but they cannot be accepted by scholars, because the books don’t say the demonstrations they see act as they see them.
Here we go Harold:
The sparks on your grinding wheel spew out in the direction they are deflected by the object being sharpened and being ground down. Will you please do a couple of experiments? I mean actually do them. Throw a ball over-handed, that is, in a circular motion over your head, arm pivoting at your shoulder. When you release the ball with your arm pointed at a target straight a head, the ball flies away in that pointed direction, not down at the ground at your feed to complete the direction of the rotation of your arm. Watch a baseball game on TV. Watch the pitcher. Try this. Tie a string to a ball and whorl it around like a like David did with his sling shot to kill the Giant. Wherever your grip loosens the string, the ball will fly off sideways in the direction your arm was pointing, and not in the direction your arm and body was rotating.
Just think, if you do the tests with careful observation and another observer you will have evidence to suit me and prove your point, if you are correct, but of coarse my friend you are not correct.
Again, the truth of the mechanical has in a few cases been altered to suit and convey methods for use in mathematics; not in logically and actuality the way things happen. I claim the opposite of what you say is true. Centrifuge is real. Centripetal is fictitious. Let us do some mental calisthenics. My turn :-) my friend, I do admire your excellence so. Please know that as I proceed.
HOWEVER: Position two heavy balls in space tied together by a long rope and cause the balls to rotate around one another. The rope holds the balls together by its molecular glue. It is lengthwise stationary and produces no force. There is no acting force in it. It resists force and its mire existence, even as only a resistance; both come into play as tightness only while an acting force is applied against it. Remove the cause of the tautness, that remove the acting force and the tautness disappears to non-existence. It never had force. It is molecular glue holding together chain two objects producing opposite forces.
The rope has no force at all at any point of its length, or at the center of its rotation. Imagine that you are able to cut a small parallel section of it away with two scissors at the same time. The balls that have been trying to travel in a straight line in opposite directions fly away taking with all the force they possessed in the form of momentum: force that they had been using to cause binary rotation. It is the balls that contain the outward force called centrifuge which is momentum. The little piece of center rotating rope that remains just continues to rotate its few ounces of mass. The center ‘centripetal’ never had any force; no power pull, only to resist and only to resist while real force acted against it. After the real force that caused everything is gone, it is nothing left, because there was nothing before. Nothing and nothing equal nothing. If the exited balls collide into an object they will deliver the force they carry. On the other hand the bit of rope, the past center of rotation should collide with something nothing happens. Lastly the center of mass of the rope in rotation, centripetal, had no force. It is a chain. Centripetal is fictitious. Centrifugal force is real for therein lies all the force and power.
Spring is about to visit your beautiful country. I am happy for you.
Wishing You and Family the Best, Sincerely,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 31/03/2014 11:24:45
| | | Hi Glen.
Quoting from your post "Throw a ball over-handed, that is, in a circular motion over your head, arm pivoting at your shoulder. When you release the ball with your arm pointed at a target straight a head, the ball flies away in that pointed direction, not down at the ground at your feed to complete the direction of the rotation of your arm. Watch a baseball game on TV. Watch the pitcher."
We do not play base ball, as you know the British game is cricket. I do not play cricket either for that matter, do not like the game. Non the less I have observed the action of bowlers and pitchers. Pitchers throw the ball, wind up project the arm forwards and release the ball, sort of. That pitcher's action "Throwing" is a no-ball in cricket, and adds a run to the oppositions score. With Bowling the ball is released at the apex of the swing, when the ball is directly over the bowlers head. Think max tangential velocity parallel to the pitch. An even better example is the medieval catapult
http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/catapult-physics.html
The mangonel swings is an arc until the arm strikes a bar , releasing the pay load tangential to the arm.
I particularly like the ball in an octagon, smoothing to a smooth surface. It precedes my own visualization of a ball bearing in a crystal sphere. I will post further on your concept, but cannot see how to reconcile your views on "pitching a ball " with my world view.
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 31/03/2014 14:17:44
| | |
Hi Momentus,
Hi Harry,
I see you are both correct, which means of course I was wrong about this:
Correction and agreement: A rotating ball will continue toward the straight path it was attempting to travel, until and unless it is deflected. The instant the deflecting surface is removed, centrifuge is removed, and the ball is free to travel the way it wanted to, that is, travel straight ahead and not at all in the direction of the previous centrifuge. After all, centrifuge is only the pressure of a collision of momentum against a stationary retaining wall. How simple huh? And, how simple minded of me to miss it. Congratulations boys. You did a fine job.
Still, I otherwise stick by my observations and explanations that centrifuge is real and centripetal is false, though it is an excellent mathematical tool. Yes! I can see a bearing rotating inside a glass sphere and I can see the sphere rolling back and forth on a table as a result of the centrifuge the ball is creating as it rotates.
Otherwise, Cool Harry K.!!! I like it.
Momentus, What a good post. I was delighted to hear your voice. From time to time I wondered, ‘What’s happened to that interesting, well mattered and smart guy.' You have won me over with your ‘instantaneous precession’, except for the ridiculously small amount of time molecular compression takes place when transferring force from one end of an object to another. Suffice to say, I agree with you.
Spring is HERE in my Southern Smoky Mountains of Tennessee!!!!! Yepeee!
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 31/03/2014 14:49:03
| | | Hello Glenn and Momentum,
The link from Momentum provides good explanations regarding the centrifugal/centripetal issue.
Glenn, I believe you underlie a misinterpretation regarding the behavior of masses under the influence of acting forces. The mass or rather a mass point always try to keep its momentary state, either to remain at rest or to remain at its actually non-accelerated (!) speed in any direction and this behavior is called mass inertia.
To move a mass/mass point around a central point, a constant additional force to the existing speed is in linear direction necessary to FORCE the mass/mass point moving around a central point. The formerly linear speed of the mass will now be transformed into the circumferential speed with the help of CENTRIPETAL force. This centripetal force is acting at each moment rectangular to the circumferential speed of the mass and is directed from the mass to the central point. Due to the existence of centripetal force, the mass will permanently forced to rotate around the central point and thus this forced rotation at constant circumferential speed is anyhow an accelerated but not a translational (non-accelerated) system!
The existence of this REAL centripetal force CAUSES a FICTIOUS CENTRIFUGAL force at the mass in counter direction to the causative centripetal force, i.e. from the central point to the perimetric mass. This centrifugal force is caused by the mass inertia, which defy the forced rotation around the central point. Now, if centripetal forced will be removed, for instance by cutting the rope of a rotated mass, the (causing) centripetal force is instantly not existent anymore and thus centrifugal force is not existent anymore as well. As a result the formerly orbiting mass will now move away in a straight pass in the direction of the last position on the circumference at the moment when the rope was cut. This direction is always tangential to the last position of the radius at the moment when the rope was cut, but it will never be the direction of the formerly acting centrifugal force vector which was congruent to this momentary radius.
I believe you think it was claimed that the mass would keep its rotation movement after the cut of the rope, what is not true. A rotation movement can only happen with the existence of a centripetal force (which in return causes a centrifugal force).
I cannot find any discrepancies regarding your example with the heavy balls rotating around each other. This is a two mass system, whereas each mass delivers the centripetal force for the other mass which in return causes the centrifugal forces at each mass. The “molecular glue” is responsible to force the both masses to rotate around their common centre of mass (central point of rotation). Imagine the rope would be made of a flexible rubber. In this case no or less centripetal force could not be generated to force the both masses around an orbiting path.
Hope this helps a bit for better understanding.
Regards,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 31/03/2014 15:17:06
| | | Hi Harry,
I have earlier agreed that I was mistaken and that a mass released from rotation will continue in the path of its last deflected direction and not outward from a center point of rotation.
Beyond that nothing is new here. Your explanations are not unknown and not challenged. The crux of the disagreement is simpler. We have opposite views of centripetal and centrifuge. I can see it your way perfectly. I always could. It is a contrivance of reason to support a method of counting. My method is purely mechanical and exact and most people can not grasp it. So we are not bulging here. We are going no where.
What is new in your life, Harry. The last report I got was that you had received a promotion. I was happy. That is what comes to people with excellent ability, even those who are mistaken about push and pull. Smile Harry.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 31/03/2014 15:44:08
| | | Hello Glenn,
Sorry there was an overlapping with our postings. I know that I did not told any news. That physics is hundreds of years old... ;-)
No news here, besides that my son married last year and I'm impatiently waiting to become a grandpa. :-)))
Best regards,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
