|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
29 November 2024 03:43
|
|
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: |
David Brennan |
| Subject: |
Directonal Gyroscope |
| Question: |
Directional Gyroscope:
Is it in Equilibrium?
Does it have Potential energy?
Does it have Kenetic energy?
Has it got Inertia?
Has it got Momentum?
|
| Date: |
10 October 2005
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 12/10/2005 01:18:25
| | | Dear David,
‘Yes’ to all questions, but this is argumentative, because many people believe the answers should be ‘no’. Nobody has ever explained precession. It isn’t ‘torque’ and it isn’t ‘couple’, two words most often used by none inertial propulsion advocates. Torque and couple require two equal and opposite conditions or forces. But, nothing may precess, but only pivot around a common center point while in true couple, or in common torque.
I believe I understand precession and it would require a full-length book with pictures to explain. Perhaps I only believe I understand it. In any case it is difficult for the mind to grasp the constant additional changes, because it is all angularity and multiple curving motion, while we humans are a linear minded species and lose our place and have to start all over again, certain only, to lose our place again. At times I almost thought there was no end to it.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/10/2005 13:41:46
| | | Nobody has explained orbital precession.
If the prior post is confusing it is because in physics the expression ‘precession’ makes no distinction between couple and torque such as occur in a gimbal configuration, and the orbit of a gyro around a fixed point. Both conditions are called precession.
TORQUE: Suppose you apply a wrench to turn a bolt extending through the threads of a piece of metal, and at the opposite extended end of the bolt you have wielded a propeller. Each blade of the propeller will acquire a force equal and opposite to the other.
Suppose you remove one blade so that you have only one side capable of applying reaction force. Well, the threads in the bit of mettle acquire equal and opposite reaction forces much as a sea-saw and the piece of metal has to be secured or it will exhibit equal and opposite force and so be moved out of its position.
TORQUE MUST ALWAYS CONSIST OF EQUAL AND OPOSITE FORCES.
COUPLE: Suppose you awakened sleepily and went to wash your face. You turned the faucet horizontally, equally and oppositely on both sides, but the faucet suddenly began turning itself and your wrist vertically, equally and oppositely on both sides. That’d bring you wide wake, huh? Well, that would be the action of a couple. We see the same thing with a gyro in a gimbal set. If you push the gyro toward rotating in one plain it reacts equally and oppositely by rotating in the opposite plain. The center of mass never moves.
COUPLE IS A RIGHT ANGLE FORCE THAT ALWAYS REACTS EQUALLY AND OPOSITELY, IN THE OPOSITE PLAIN.
ORIBITAL: As a gyro orbits around a pedestal its function can neither be explained as a condition of couple, or torque. Let us see why. The resistance of the pedestal, which is measured as pushing upward, equals the force of gravity pulling the spinning disk downward. That is an equal twist. That is couple. Now let us look at the reaction in the right angle horizontal plane to see that the orbital isn’t governed by the same equal and opposite law.
Suppose you paint the axels supporting the spinning disk, one side red and the other blue. When you place the red hub and axel on a pedestal it remains of its on nature atop the pedestal, yet the blue hub and axel travel horizontally through space. The blue is forced to orbit; yet the red has no equal and opposite force acting and so doesn’t move. Mass is moved through space. There is no equal and opposite force acting horizontally. This type of orbital can neither be explained as a couple, or torque. Force isn’t evenly dispersed equally and oppositely.
So it is that when I see where some academic has attempted to explain an orbiting gyro I'm always disappointed to see that the condition is grossed over with the use of two none applying words, couple and torque, while ignoring the exception, which is the orbital condition as opposed to the gimbal condition. Gimbal couple and torque are so easy and simple to explain correctly, but I’ve yet to see an acceptable explanation for orbital, which I assure you is a great complication of mechanical events. So much so that it has required years of determination and hard work to understand it. It is so totally mechanical.
Nobody has explained orbital precession.
Glenn H.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 23/10/2005 16:29:30
| | | To clarify further: Torque and couple are not the end game, because the gyroscope is itself empowered by imposed angular forces acting in conjunction with differently aliened and imposing angular forces, all in curving motion. The result is that the gyro is empowered to pull itself along and further empowered to pull itself in a curving path. Torque and couple are not directly responsible for moving mass from one place to another. They are responsible for initiating the mechanical events that empower the gyro with the mechanical energy to pull.
If it weren’t so, the pedestal and gyro would revolve around one another. They do not. There isn’t an equal and opposite coupling and torque effect horizontally, but just a gyro pulling itself horizontally with the power acquired from the initiating effects of a 90 degrees acting torque and coupling. The end game is again, the gyro pulls. Torque and couple do not force it horizontally.
Remove the misuse of these two words, torque and couple where the do not apply from textbook explanations and from all explanations currently given and there isn’t an explanation left to explain orbital precession.
I don’t like being opposed by someone claiming the authority of test books and accepted theory, while they themselves don’t understand the mechanical exceptions we vision and try to explain, will not except their own visual observations, nor are able themselves at all to explain mechanically, nor defeat the arguments of the visuals in debate, but only rely on text and theory, which I’ve just outlined with given reasons text and theory is in error relating to orbital precession.
It’s sad. Some of us, even the best of us have been so bullied we’ve tried to claim that the concept of our machines do not defy any laws of motion. That’d be crazy if it weren’t that we’re only trying to protect ourselves. I’ve already been called a crackpot. But you see. I know that this post is true.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
