|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
28 November 2024 22:45
|
|
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: |
Brian Morris |
| Subject: |
Conservation of good manners |
| Question: |
Gardner Martin - 27/04/2021 14:40:34
""Mr Morris, I have been taking a close look at Laithwaite as part of my projected history of the antigravity (reactionless propulsion) delusion. Every physicist that I have contacted says that he was an idiot who should never been made a professor and who has done untold harm to the teaching of physics. As you seem to be one of his 'victims' I am curious to know why you believed his fantasies: was it his qualifications, his affiliation or something else?""
He was made a Professor of Electrical Engineering and had a distinguished career before the 1974 RI Xmas lectures in which he posed a number of awkward questions, some of which remain unanswered.
I had been following my own path for several years before I met him. Unlike you, I do not categorise awkward questions as fantasies.
The “or something else”, which I discovered quite independently, was to hang a gyroscope from a string and try to explain the rotation. It should be a conical pendulum. It is not. The centripetal acceleration should be affected by shortening the string, it is not.
As a historian you are no doubt aware, “The thing that doesn't fit is the thing that's the most interesting: the part that doesn't go according to what you expected.”
I have previously posted details of a twin rotor device that creates momentum.
I am currently seeking a scientist willing to examine the device to determine how it can do that. As you claim to have contact with physicists, all of whom think Laithwaite is an idiot, perhaps one of them would welcome the challenge to prove who is the idiot?
Brian Morris (My real Name)
|
| Date: |
5 May 2021
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Brian Morris - 11/05/2021 10:34:24
| | | So Nothing from the anonymous Gardener, not surprising really. Slander and invective require little effort, original thought is difficult.
The twin rotor device makes momentum. There are a number of excellent mathematical proofs which show that momentum cannot be created. As an engineer, these proofs have always seemed to me to be of less importance than a physical machine.
However, it seems that it is necessary to prove the maths is wrong before the new idea can be accepted. But and it is a huge but, the maths cannot be proved wrong. Cognitive dissonance has no place in physics.
The way that the twin rotors create momentum, is to make momentum with equal magnitude and opposite direction and then to change the direction in equal and opposite ways, to an orientation that is neutral to the original.
Hence the magnitude of momentum remains unchanged, and the momentum along the original axis remains unchanged.
I just wish I had paid more attention during HNC year two Mathematics. Mind you that was so long ago I doubt if it would have helped me to express the above in mathematical terms.
None of the proofs I have seen appear to take into account a vector change. The assumption seems to be that the vectors remain aligned.
Anyone out there care to try a maths for dummies explanation of vectored momentum shifts?
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 13/05/2021 21:29:53
| | | Hello Brian,
I suggest that by shortening the string, you also increase the angle of precession which should strengthen the resistance to precession, as the wheel must continuously curve more radically, slowing the speed. See if this is of any use to you.
As for momentum, I think all mass in motion has momentum even when it is countered by an opposite momentum. Then you’d have two momentums canceling out one another but both existed while in motion. You said as much.
You explained it very well.
Brian Morris’ “The way that the twin rotors create momentum, is to make momentum with equal magnitude and opposite direction and then to change the direction in equal and opposite ways, to an orientation that is neutral to the original.
Hence the magnitude of momentum remains unchanged, and the momentum along the original axis remains unchanged.”
Also, I think your approach to reason out mechanical cause and effect is the only way to allow for later mathematical calculations. You already have the right direction. Good for you.
Good Evening,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Brian Morris - 14/05/2021 12:08:08
| | | Hi Glen,
I have long ago done as you have suggested “Shortening the string” of a conical pendulum does indeed increase an angle, the one between the string and the vertical. That in turn increases the inward force exerted by the string, reducing the radius and as linear momentum is conserved the bob completes its rotation in a shorter time. It speeds up.
Changing the length of the string of the suspended gyroscope does not change the speed, or the angle, therefore whatever centripetal forces that may or may not be present do not change.
It takes time and patience to do any experiment. The suspended gyroscope must be released ”cleanly” so as to avoid any lateral forces. When I did my experiments in this way there was no displacement of the gyroscope attributable to a centripetal force. The direction of the displacement indicated that the string was reacting the exact opposite, a centrifugal force.
I did this back in the 1980’s. It has been the constant in my long search for the truth. Try it yourself.
A precessing gyroscope does not exhibit any centripetal force effects.
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 15/05/2021 17:16:27
| | | Hi Brian,
You must already know this but. . .
Centripetal force is a concept created to allow mathematical formulas. It is the assumed placement of a center point between opposing forces. The real force generated is centrifugal wherein two or more binary forces pull outward against one another, therefore, keeping them from escaping in straight lines. The centripetal concept divides the forces to a center point but if you rotate two masses held by a string, you may cut the string at any place in their length, not necessarily in the center and the two mass will exit equally in opposite directions save for the distance of the string.
With none-gyroscopic mass in rotation shorting the string speeds up the rotation. Precessing gyroscopes act differently. Consider precession around a pedestal. The longer the shaft, the greater the leverage torque, the greater the speed increase. Reversely, the shorter the shaft, the lesser the speed, I relate this to the speed carried by angular momentum, not to rotation speed.
I do not question your experimental evidence but I wonder why a conical pendulum in action would perform any differently.
You said, “A precessing gyroscope does not exhibit any centripetal force effects.”
What a clever thing to say. It is true but the explanation of why not is lengthy and laborious. I will just say that the gyro deflects itself inward with enough force to cancel out the existing centripetal force.
Strings beyond the simple observation have not been part of my attempt to understand precession and so there must be a lot I do not know about them.
Sincerely,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Brian Morris - 17/05/2021 10:41:49
| | | Hi Glen,
Centripetal force. Newton named it in the Principia. It pushes (or pulls) a moving body into an orbit. It is Latin word and means directed to the centre. Bearing in mind that you are giving an instance of a special case of two masses etc., you are correct in what you say.
In my experiment the string has no special properties. It gives simply gives a clear visual measure of the magnitude and direction of the external force. (And stops the gyro from falling to the ground!!)
A gyroscope hanging from a hook appears to have the same orbital rotation as a bob weight hanging from a hook. It is therefore considered safe to assume that, as in both cases, there is a known mass moving in a circle, the forces acting on the mass must be the same. The mass is trying to move in a straight line, the string prevents this straight line motion and pulls the mass into a circular motion.
Quote “I do not question your experimental evidence but I wonder why a conical pendulum in action would perform any differently.”
“With none-gyroscopic mass in rotation shorting the string speeds up the rotation”
With a Gyroscopic mass in rotation shortening the string does NOT give the same result, it does not speed up the rotation. I have posted before on this http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=1464
Quote ” the gyro deflects itself inward with enough force to cancel out the existing centripetal force. “
With all due respect that is not the case. With “ants on a hex” I gave details of a mechanism by which a mass can be moved in a circle without requiring a deflecting force.
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 17/05/2021 21:03:48
| | | Hi Brian,
I did an experiment just like this and posted it here, I think it was in 2005.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgZFtCvwTZQ&ab_channel=gyroscopes
Various explanations about anything can be put forth by debating teams, that’s what they do. Humans are so clever we can trick ourselves into believing what we want to believe. There is no end to it. In the past, I have done it to myself big time but the simple observation above works for me.
Abit, I should say that the front of precession pushes inward toward the pedestal, while the rear pushes outward with equal force. I stand corrected.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
