|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
29 November 2024 03:53
|
|
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: |
Luis Gonzalez |
| Subject: |
Systems: Gravity-Torque Vs Motor-Torque - Center-Mount Vs Offset-Mount |
| Question: |
Sustainable gyro-propulsion may be obtainable but only through exact configuration and dynamics; no one has yet succeeded (though many have produced halting liner motion).
This worthwhile but illusive goal of propulsion, has lead me to explore the following questions:
What are the main differences between systems with gravity-driven-torque and motor-driven-torque?
What about center-mounted and offset-mounted systems?
Though points about these questions have been hinted, they have never been openly addressed in this forum.
My initial observations and comparisons regarding these questions will be posted shortly (I am predictable).
I don’t really expect anyone else to share serious knowledge on this subject because a) so few understand it, b) so many misunderstand it, and c) those who think they know bits about it fear sharing their knowledge, even if they cannot use it themselves.
I want to play a part in bringing this subject to a well defined conclusion (either way) within my life time.
Therefore I hope my writings will shed some rays of initial light into this complex subject.
Thank you, Luis |
| Date: |
10 September 2007
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 10/09/2007 02:53:06
| | | Comparison2: Effects of Gravity-Driven Torque Vs Motor-Driven Torque on a gyro component
Consider the system that uses 2 opposing gyro-style flywheels (on their separate axles). This primitive propulsion configuration is found in the device that Professor Laithewaite demonstrated for the Royal Institution about 30 years ago (see the Heretic video at http://www.gyroscopes.org/heretic.asp), and in many other subsequent devices, with variations.
While Laithewaite’s system with center-mounted fulcrum/pivot point is popular, others have used offset-mounts for the fulcrum/pivot points (more on this in a subsequent posting).
The basic center-mounted design is interesting in that it may be operated using the force of gravity, or alternatively can use the torque of a motor to drive the system. (Neither has produced sustainable propulsion and often no linear motion at all.)
Let’s start with a tower mounted on bearings, so that it is free to move (turn) on the vertical axis. At the top of the tower, attach a gyro from the end of the gyro-axle, through a hinge that permits up and down pivoting (allowing behavior very similar to a toy gyro on a tower).
This device allows precession under gravity but is built like half of the basic Laithewaite system (mentioned above), sporting just one gyro instead of two.
This simple system behaves one way when driven by gravity and differently when driven by motors.
First thing to note is that the torque axis and precession/deflection axis interchange when the device is driven by a motor instead of by gravity (consequently also torque planes and precession planes are interchanged). In other words the two axes and planes (torque Vs precession) exchange places when we use a motor instead of gravity to power the system’s torque (more on this latter).
When using gravity’s downward force (horizontal toque axis), this test device can function similar to a gyro on a tower; the flywheel hovers in precession as it revolves on quasi horizontal plane, around the vertical (main) axis of the system.
In contrast, when the system is driven by a motor, the torque drives around the vertical main axle causing the flywheel to deflect (in quasi precession) upward (or downward depending on the relative directions of spin and torque) until the axle of the flywheel is parallel to the system’s vertical main axle (i.e. the flywheel spin-plane is parallel to the motor’s horizontal torque plane).
This system functions in both gravity and in motor-driven cases (though in different ways).
Though these phenomena involve similar basic patterns of physical behaviors, the response of this system configuration under the torque of a motor differs from its response under gravity in the following ways.
1) As stated earlier, the fact that the motor-torque is applied to the vertical main axis is different, as gravity’s torque is applied on a horizontal axis; i.e. the torque axes and planes are interchanged.
Most important, note that under gravity the torque-axis (and the corresponding torque-plane) wonder or roam around, synchronized with the motion of the very precession, which results from the torque. This is unique to gravity-driven gyros because they do not need to carry around the mass of a motor (think this through).
This means that the torque-axis and torque-plane of a gravity-driven system are not fixed but rather move as the gyro moves in precession. This is different from motor driven torque, where the axis and plane of torque are fixed and constant because the system motor is fixed (think this through).
2) The torque of gravity driven devices receives a STEADY ACCELERATION from gravity, and the magnitude of the force changes in direct proportion to the mass of the flywheel, etc.
In contrast, the torque of motor-driven devices receive a STEADY FORCE (defined by the capability of the motor) whose ability to accelerate decreases as the mass of the gyro-style object increases (i.e. the acceleration is inversely proportional to the mass).
3) We know that longer system-radius, in gravity-driven systems, provide increased velocity of precession. This is not true for artificially (motor) driven systems. In other words, longer system-Radius does NOT provide increased precession-velocity for motor-driven systems (all else being equal).
For those to whom this is not obvious, consider that all motors have limited initial force (i.e. the acceleration that motors can provide within a given time is INVERSLY proportional to the mass involved and also to the length of the torque-radius). This is different from using gravity, which has CONSTANT ACCELERATION and whose torque increases in direct proportion to both the mass and the torque-radius involved.
I have noticed that grasping these differences is something that not everybody catches the first time, though it is a central point to understanding overall gyro behaviors.
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 10/09/2007 02:54:13
| | | Comparison3: Effects of Motor-Driven Torque on center-mounted Vs offset-mounted systems
Using the same type of device as on the previous example:
We have read how precession/deflection is affected by gravity Vs motor-driven torque. At thread http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=756 we can also read about some differences between offset-mounted Vs center-mounted devices under gravity for radial systems. These analyses provide a background to a more interesting subject; that subject is the behavior of motor-driven offset system, as compared to center-mounted motor-driven systems.
Here are some comparisons of “motor-driven offset system” to “motor-driven center-mounted systems.”
A* - If the overall radius in an offset radial system is equal in length to the radius of a center-mounted system, we may make the following observations.
A1) The effect of the motor’s torque remains relatively unchanged (assuming the sum of the mass of the components is the same)
A2) Therefore the velocity of precession should be the same for both systems
A3) The projected period frequency of precession should be faster for the offset system because its deflection / precession radius is shorter (recall that motor-driven torque occurs around a vertical main axle of the system, while gravity-torque occurs around horizontal axes).
I say “projected period/etc” because motor-torque-driven deflection/precession of current systems find a stable balance position of co-angular motion within 180 degrees, while gravity-torque-driven precession goes on “in circles” as long as friction will allow it. In short, with cycles of less than 180 degrees we can only project or extrapolate a full period frequency.
B* If the gyro-axles are the same length for an offset system and a center-mounted system, then the overall diameter in the offset system is larger. This means that the torque-radius is longer and the motor will have greater difficulty moving the same mass attached at a longer radial distance.
B1) This constraint results in a lower velocity of deflection/precession for the offset system.
B2) Though the compared deflection/precession velocity is slower for offset systems, the projected period/frequency remains unchanged in this comparison. It is interesting that applying the same motorized force to these 2 configurations yield the same period/frequency when their axles are the same length despite the fact that one system radius is longer than the other!
(I will include “Comparison1” in this posting to have all comparisons available in one single place.)
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 10/09/2007 02:54:14
| | | Comparison3: Effects of Motor-Driven Torque on center-mounted Vs offset-mounted systems
Using the same type of device as on the previous example:
We have read how precession/deflection is affected by gravity Vs motor-driven torque. At thread http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=756 we can also read about some differences between offset-mounted Vs center-mounted devices under gravity for radial systems. These analyses provide a background to a more interesting subject; that subject is the behavior of motor-driven offset system, as compared to center-mounted motor-driven systems.
Here are some comparisons of “motor-driven offset system” to “motor-driven center-mounted systems.”
A* - If the overall radius in an offset radial system is equal in length to the radius of a center-mounted system, we may make the following observations.
A1) The effect of the motor’s torque remains relatively unchanged (assuming the sum of the mass of the components is the same)
A2) Therefore the velocity of precession should be the same for both systems
A3) The projected period frequency of precession should be faster for the offset system because its deflection / precession radius is shorter (recall that motor-driven torque occurs around a vertical main axle of the system, while gravity-torque occurs around horizontal axes).
I say “projected period/etc” because motor-torque-driven deflection/precession of current systems find a stable balance position of co-angular motion within 180 degrees, while gravity-torque-driven precession goes on “in circles” as long as friction will allow it. In short, with cycles of less than 180 degrees we can only project or extrapolate a full period frequency.
B* If the gyro-axles are the same length for an offset system and a center-mounted system, then the overall diameter in the offset system is larger. This means that the torque-radius is longer and the motor will have greater difficulty moving the same mass attached at a longer radial distance.
B1) This constraint results in a lower velocity of deflection/precession for the offset system.
B2) Though the compared deflection/precession velocity is slower for offset systems, the projected period/frequency remains unchanged in this comparison. It is interesting that applying the same motorized force to these 2 configurations yield the same period/frequency when their axles are the same length despite the fact that one system radius is longer than the other!
(I will include “Comparison1” in this posting to have all comparisons available in one single place.)
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 10/09/2007 02:56:06
| | | Comparison1: Offset-Mount Vs Center-Mount in radial gyro-systems under gravity
We know that in gravity driven systems a longer torque radius produces higher velocity precession, all else being equal (we are not as keenly aware that the frequency/period of precession is not significantly affected by changes in the system’s torque radius).
The torque radius in these gravity devices is determined by the length of the gyro-axle. Thus the velocity of precession is directly proportional to the length of the gyro-axle (the length from flywheel to fulcrum/pivot point).
This fact is basic to compare offset-mount Vs center-mount gyro systems under gravity.
*If an offset-system and a center-mount system have the same overall dimension, from system-center to system-perimeter, then the gyro-axle in the offset-system is necessarily shorter (to allow for the off-center mount of the pivot position).
With a shorter torque-radius (under gravity), the offset-system produces “slower precession velocity” than its center-mount counterpart (all else being equal).
However the “period/frequency of precession remains virtually the same.”
*On the other hand, if an offset-system and a center-mount system have the same gyro-axle length, then their gravity-torque-radius is the same length, and both systems produce the same precession velocity. However, the system with the longest overall radius (precession-radius) will necessarily have a “slower period/frequency of precession.” In this case, the offset-system has a slower period/frequency because its overall radius is longer than the center-mount system in this configuration. The longer overall radius in the offset-system is a must because its mount is further from the center and the axle length is the same as the center-mount system.
This comparison illustrates basic differences in the response of two radial system configurations, under the force of gravity. At first glance an offset-system des not appear to offer advantages over the center-mount design because the offset design requires more space to deliver the same torque (in a radial configuration), and it also appears to require more components.
On the other hand, the offset-system is more flexible in that it is not necessarily bound to a radial configuration.
Interestingly, while the center-mount design appears to support only radial configurations, there are varieties of center-mount designs that stimulate analysis; however that takes us into artificial-torque (non-gravity) designs, and that’s a topic for another posting.
Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 12/09/2007 07:50:51
| | | Luis,
You wrote:
“In contrast, the torque of motor-driven devices receive a STEADY FORCE (defined by the capability of the motor) whose ability to accelerate decreases as the mass of the gyro-style object increases (i.e. the acceleration is inversely proportional to the mass).”
Luis, this is just not true.
You are assuming that the gyroscope mass does not alter.
In the normal world your statements may be true, but not in the world of gyroscopes (well to be more accurate flywheels)
If the system is mechanically rotated at a fixed radial rotation speed, and the flywheel rotation speed is increased from zero rotation speed, when the mass is at maximum, it will progressively transfer its mass until it has shed it all at what I call the saturation point of the system.
There is then no mass left to accelerate!
See my previous posting “YOU CANNOT ACCELERATE NO MASS”
Accepted physics is of no use to you here.
However I have been making the same claims for nigh on 25 years, so why should you be any different from anyone else who apparently wants to battle on in ignorance.
You also wrote:
“I have noticed that grasping these differences is something that not everybody catches the first time, though it is a central point to understanding overall gyro behaviours.”
Luis
Why bother trying to understand any of it, if it is all assumption?
It is not complicated at all but you do need the facts, before trying to understand any of it.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 13/09/2007 14:38:00
| | | Hi Sandy,
I'm having a bit of trouble visualizing what you are saying. I know it's very hard without pictures to explain concepts. I sometimes sound like a babbling idiot when I'm trying to explain something :-P. In any case I would still like to understand what you are saying. I was wondering if you could go over it one more times very explicitly and with an example and then maybe I would get it. If it's too much trouble don't worry about it.
Thanks,
Ram
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 14/09/2007 07:04:42
| | | Hello Ram.
Nice to see someone is interested. I would hate to think I snuffed it without someone picking up some of the facts.
This could be a long story but I will be as brief as I can.
Over the years and whilst spending time in different universities I came to the conclusion that the consensus was that whether the mass (gyroscope or flywheel) was rotated or not made no odds to the calculation whether it be for accelerated mass, angular momentum or good old fashioned centrifugal force.
I will if you wish I will enlarge upon the experiments I have carried out over many years, but at this time I will only relate my findings.
This phenomenon happens in all cases of rotating bodies being subjected to an external radial acceleration for example a simple mechanically rotated gyroscopic system.
If you wish to see all of this for yourself by building a suitable experiment then here we go.
1 This is easiest to see in an offset system. By this I mean 2 horizontally opposed gyroscopes offset such that gyroscopic rotation axis is at right angles to the system rotation axis (normal disposition) but the gyroscopes are mounted such that the distance from the system rotation axis to the centre of mass of the gyroscope is the same as the distance from the rotation axis of the gyroscope to the fulcrum. Easier if I just said 45 degrees.
2 The gyroscopes can be held at this inclined angle by simple rods or links between the gyro bearing housing and the vertical shaft or rod, whatever which constitutes the main rotation member of the device.
However ensure that there is some free play in the links, as gyroscopes will do nothing for you if constrained.
3 Driving the system can be of your choice, but the best results I have had are with the use of a bevel gearbox to synchronise the gyroscopes. Rotation speed of the gyroscopes must be reasonably similar. (You will wish to alter this set up later on for other reasons, but I will leave that to you for now) you can use what you like for the main rotation drive, but it is much better if gyroscope rotation speeds and the system rotation speeds are controllable. If one has to be fixed make it the system rotation speed.
4 You can fix strain gauges or whatever else you fancy to the device, the choice is yours.
5 I do not know what size of gyroscope you prefer but a 5 or 6inch diameter aluminium gyroscope rotating around 3000rpm and rotated at about 300rpm. On a 4 to 5 inch radius will do the needful.
Without gyroscope rotation for obvious reasons the angular momentum in the system will be at a maximum for that particular rotation speed as suggested say, 300rpm.
Gradually bring the gyroscopes into play by gradually increasing their rotation speed, and whilst there is nothing visibly changing watch the strain gauge output and all will be revealed.
Keep increasing the gyroscope rotation speed and eventually when there is nothing left to hold them in position they will tend to accelerate inwards/ upwards towards the system rotation axis. This is the saturation point. The system will not react to any more gyroscope rotation speed or system rotation speed. That is it.
All you have is rotation without acceleration, and this is unique in our world of physics.
Hope this is of interest and good hunting.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 15/09/2007 15:22:38
| | | Dear Sandy,
Veerree Intereschting! But, of course, not schtupid. (Rowan and Martin have a lot to answer for!)
I am now beginning to get a hold on the “saturation point”, though I am totally staggered that further increases in main shaft input do not further overcome the precessional forces being produced by the saturated gyros. Have I got this wrong?
For gods sake don’t snuff it! There are people out here that have considerable regard for you. Some of us have partial input but none of us have yet slotted it all together. The next generation are not being allowed educational freedom of direction, see “Arthur Dent”, Dr David Fisher and the like, so bloody well keep breathing!
A large malt (Speyside single malt scotch for preference; not US strong beer though what the hell Glen, whatever works) helps me…..they will probably have to beat my liver to death with a stick, and cremation will be out of the question as it would be nuclear.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 16/09/2007 00:25:27
| | | Dear NM.
Thank you for your good wishes, likewise how are you keeping yourself?
Hate to admit it but I am one of the few very nearly teetotal Scotsmen around, but I must admit I could be forced into partaking of the odd dram.
Anyway I knew you know most of this stuff anyway, so it was basically aimed in Ram’s direction.
However the point you made is very valid but I thought I had given Ram enough to think about without going farther.
You are correct whilst no further input can be utilised by the system, the very force generated to create all these wonderful effects is as you suggest still prone to input reaction, by increasing the rate of acceleration inwards towards the system rotation axis.
The gyro (sorry flywheel) is trying its level best (changed from very) best to get itself in a position where its axis of rotation is in line, or at least parallel to the system (device) rotation axis i.e. point of least action.
Can I add if I may that there is not a hell of a lot you can do with the system as far as any kind of control is concerned once into this “ no mass” zone.
To utilise all of this good stuff for the purposes of inertial drive the device must be kept from entering that zone, as copious amounts of slowing down of system rotation speed and /or flywheel rotation speed are required, to get it out again, and this burns up valuable time if an attempt to create any kind of angular momentum differential is contemplated.
By the way due to a rather involved house moving process, I lost the use of my workshop for the first time in 30 years, and that has been for over a year now and it is extremely frustrating trying to finish this thing off. I will be in my brand new workshop/shed in about a couple of weeks time and can give model aeroplane building a rest for a while.
Best regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 16/09/2007 17:58:41
| | | Sandy,
It may be more appropriate to say that you do not agree rather than saying that a statement is not true. Facts remain after malformed theories fade away. Mass is constant and does not alter; only its behavior changes under complex sets of motions. Please note the different effect on a small (half Kilo) flywheel, compared to a large (1,000 Kilo) flywheel when applying the same week torque of a tiny motor.
A motor’s ability to “ACCELERATE MASS” is NOT constant regardless of the mass it is accelerating; if it were so then the resulting force would increase when the mass increases, as it does under gravity (f = MA). The point of the statement I made is that the larger mass does not contribute toward increasing the rate of precession, as it in fact does under gravity. Please reread the complete posting to find the correct context.
Most important, the statement quoted, points to something that needs attention in the numerator (M)x(A)x(R) of the equation for precession when it is used to calculate the rate of 90-degree deflection in motor-driven systems. That something which needs attention is that the acceleration (A) component of the equation can NOT be constant but rather the torque of the motor is constant. When this is understood, designers and builders can predict important rates in their motor-driven devices. This concept is tested, it works, and gyro propulsion devices can rely on engineering design that uses more than guessing to estimate probable results beforehand (could save a lot of failed devices). This little bit of information is based on the well founded accepted physics (that the quote refers to).
I am acquainted with the postings and the stated experimental results that were interpret as indicating that flywheels “shed mass”. This is a case of good experimental observation resulting in erroneous conclusions, which occur when the observers are not prepared to fully perform complex cause-effect analysis. Unprepared observers often accept explanations that emerge, no matter how unlikely; however, unlikely conclusions are correct only when all other alternatives have been eliminated.
On complex processes it is necessary to perform laborious cause-effect analysis, to discern between “theory” and “assumptions”. Assumptions are not worth understanding but theories can be worthwhile. Basic assumptions are the premises for theory, and theory uses proven assumptions to find the truth about something. I am using premises based on accepted, proven physics (what needs checking is my logic).
Q1. Who truly “battle on in ignorance”; is it those who use established knowledge in cause-effect analysis, or those who say that “accepted physics is of no use to you here”?
Q2. Is it really “not complicated at all” or did it take 25 years to find the truth?
Your response to Ram once again explains the nature of your experiments, which have been of great value to seekers of “gyro-propulsion”, allowing us visualization of events that many had not intuitively thought about.
Depending on how the strain gauges are mounted they produce different and interesting results, all of which are predictable by appropriate (though a bit complex) application of accepted physics.
Measurable radial strain, of centripetal/centrifugal (C/C) forces, diminishes gradually to zero when the flywheels achieve certain angular velocity because interactions of other forces become stronger and overwhelm the C/C forces (at the point you refer to as the “saturation” point).
The use of the term “saturation” in this context can lead one to believe that there is too much of one factor as opposed to other factors coming into play; this term (saturation) can be misleading about what is actually taking place.
Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 17/09/2007 06:35:46
| | | Luis,
If you read the postings to this site you will realise that I have been making these claims for 25 years, or less than one year after my first machine produced thrust.
Nothing I say is going to change your mind, seems like a bit of professional jealousy to me
All I can say is it is about time you stepped into the real world and did some experimentation.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 17/09/2007 16:06:32
| | | I think you guys are arguing semantics. I don't think anyone would disagree all other things being equal, a gyroscope with more mass is going to have more tilting force when precessing under gravity. However if you take the same gysrosocpe and put it in space and then use a motor, a rubber band or whatever to provide a tilting force equal to what it would have on earth, it's going to precess in the same way. In my view having something that is gravity driven is of limited value anyway since it would not work in space.
In some sense I don't even see how a precessing gyroscope that is not dropping could be made into a propulsion system. When you think about it, this would be like free energy. If the gyroscope is not dropping under its tilting force then no energy is being expended, so where does the energy come from to make anything move?
On the other hand if the gyroscope does drop, where did the energy go? There is always friction of the pivot that we know for a fact causes a gyroscope to drop, however let's take the theoretical case of a frictionless pivot point. Are we claiming that such a gyroscope would withstand any amount of tilting force without dropping and it would only process faster and faster? This seems highly unintuitive. There must be a point where the gyroscope drops. I am thinking that this may be the reason that people get different results for different experiments. The tilting force has to reach some critical level to cause anything special to happen.
I'm not making any claims here. This is more of a thought experiment
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 18/09/2007 00:03:21
| | | PRECESSION WITHOUT DROPPING?
Agreed to all in the posting immediately above, except for my experience with adequate force, verses inadequate force to attempt to cause the drop. First I will say the following amassed me when I first discovered for it I had always believed that a gyro must tilt at least to some inestimable degree over time, or it wouldn’t precess at all. I found however that during the time that angular momentum is strong enough and friction remains week enough, the pull of gravity will not tilt the gyro, yet the gyro precess anyway. This finding seemed so wild I still don’t clam it as a certainty, but it seems to be quite true.
Probably the better test is to set a spinning gyro on a “LEVEL” table, upright on its outer rim and add weight to one of the axels. If it is a light enough weight the gyro will pivot perfectly at the point of the rim guard to table contact. If you add more weight the gyro will roll in a circle around the heaver mass as it should.
My theory then is that a gyro with enough angular momentum, in a vacuum, pivoting on magnetic bearings would precess indefinitely into the future.
Dear Sandy,
Wonderful! I finally understand your saturation point.
I also finally understand “No Mass”. As it physically moves inward, upwards it isn’t where it was. Then how could what’s not there be accelerated? I enjoyed the discoveries very much.
Regards,
Glenn
Dear Nitro,
That was funny, Nitro, irony you know. Of course I wouldn’t believe your story in a million years, which was what made it funny. However, I’ll stop jousting about the fruit with you from now on- for sure. Please don’t be mad. It was all in fun.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 18/09/2007 06:35:47
| | | Glenn,
You wrote:
Wonderful! I finally understand your saturation point.
I also finally understand “No Mass”. As it physically moves inward, upwards it isn’t where it was. Then how could what’s not there be accelerated? I enjoyed the discoveries very much.
Regards,
Glenn
Strange as it may at first appear that is the way it is.
However it is not an all or nothing at all scenario.
The loss of mass varies with the rotation speed of the machine and /or
flywheels, which with a bit of cunning makes it usable, but bang on Glenn,
bang on.
As Luis says, the mass has got to go somewhere, but that was not the point of the discussion. We know where it goes, and so should he.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 18/09/2007 07:37:30
| | | Shed Dwellers,
Just a point, for clarification.
The flywheel will display no tilt as you are calling it, until the saturation point is reached, which is when the system angular momentum has all been nullified.
Therefore the level of angular momentum generated in the system, so to speak, is hard to discern, as there is no optical clue as to what level it is at.
So be careful.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 18/09/2007 15:19:10
| | | Glenn, I actually agree with you that a gyroscope does not typically appear to drop under precession. In fact I think this is even accepted in standard physics texts. Note that in the normal case it takes no energy to keep something spinning. For instance, once you start a wheel spinning in space it will theoretically spin forever without any input of energy. It's not clear to me that gyroscopic precession should be treated any differently.
It might be that when you release the gyroscope it initially drops some small amount to give the system some small amount energy to start processing. From then on, no more energy is used and it is acting like it is coasting. Note this explanation does not really apply to the physics that makes a gyroscope precess but rather its use of energy in the process.
However, If no energy is being used then we should not be able to derive any propulsion from the system. Otherwise we would be breaking conservation of energy. I know were are already talking about breaking conservation of linear momentum but I don't think anyone wants to break a second Newtonian law :-)
So therefore we need to think of a system that uses energy unlike our standard precessing gyroscope which apparently does not. Hence my next question; when a gyroscope is in the process of (non friction induced) dropping where is this expended energy going? I can see two possibilities. It is used to increase its angular momentum (i.e. it's precession) to the point where it is again not dropping. In this case if you suddenly released the force applied to it you should get its energy back (i.e. it should rise back up). Otherwise we are again breaking conservation of energy. Sadly in this case I don't see how you could build a propulsion system out of it. The other possibility is, it does something similar to what professor Laithwaite claimed and transfers mass. I noticed that in Laithwaite eureka! experiment, he was using heavy gyroscopes at the end of long shafts. Since he was releasing them from a standing start maybe they were in the acceleration phase of precession and this is where the mass transfer occurs.
This needs a further experiment to verify, but it is one explanation as to why no one else has noticed this effect. Of course it is possible that his experiment simply was not set up well (i.e. it had too much friction), but at least it is something that should be checked out.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 18/09/2007 17:23:08
| | | Ram,
Your last two paragraphs focus’ on the subject where out attention should be, mass transfer. I may try one last time to explain my work in that subject. It is so hard to do without good sketches. Without them the explanations become bla, bla, bla, with each bla demanding more imagination, until the reader is overwhelmed, or board with it all. I believe you understand.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 19/09/2007 19:24:18
| | |
I should answer this outstanding post. I use the verb tilt, because it exactly describes movement in an arc/arch, rather than an implied vertical drop straight down into gravity, which precessing gyros never do. If the gyro were dropped, rather than tilted the plan of angular momentum would not change and nothing would happen. It ‘d be like dropping a dead weight. I explain this, because someone made note of my choice of the word tilt.
“… once you start a wheel spinning in space it will theoretically spin forever without any input of energy. It's not clear to me that gyroscopic precession should be treated any differently.”
Sure, any kind of movement will continue, until a force acts to stop it.
“However, if no energy is being used then we should not be able to derive any propulsion from the system.”
Pardon me. A lot of energy is being used to hold the gyro aloft while it precess’. How the energy is used is not the first question anyway, but the second. Where the energy comes from to hold the gyro is the first prime question. Consider, we cannot deny that energy is being used to keep the gyro aloft, unless we are willing to deny that gravity is a constant force.
I will attempt an explanation without needed sketches to illustrate. Try this. From 45 degrees tilting, the top rim of the gyro is being forced to tilt away from the pedestal. The angular momentum in the rim resists being moved from its alignment of spin. The bottom of the gyro is being forced oppositely inward toward the pedestal and angular momentum resists this as well, or is reluctant. You can imagine this. Hold a non-spinning gyro onto its pedestal. Place one finger at the side of the top rim pointing towards the pedestal. With your other hand place a finger at the side of the bottom rim pointed away from the pedestal. As long as you keep these fingers pressuring adequately the gyro cannot fall. If you increase the pressure the gyro will rise above the pedestal in levered fashion. If you decrease the pressure the gyro will lower. Just as your fingers resisted the gyro from tilting, the plane of angular momentum resist being tilted top to bottom. Maintaining opposite sideways pressures, which is how angular momentum works, is all there is to holding the gyro aloft. Consider, there is hardly any energy necessary for horizontal precession, your coasting. My coasting too. This takes us back to the prime question, where dose this energy to cause constant lifting support come?
There can be so much energy in spin that the loss of some might not be noticed. A powerful gyro protected from friction might stay aloft for years while the energy for staying loft was drained. Didn’t we watch Professor Laithewaite drop a small flywheel with a rubber rim? If allowed it would have leaped with tremendous speed into the high ceiling and still continued spinning, bouncing dangerously all over the theater regaining speed and direction each time it collided into a new wall.
I end with the beginning, from where does the energy come? If not from angular momentum, from where?
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 20/09/2007 02:00:47
| | | Sandy,
When words become dialogs emotions of one type or another emerge, and I suppose jealousies are no exception; the question is whose?
I suppose anyone could become jealous about the number of individuals in this forum that stick up for you and are mindful of your well being, so feel good (or feel better).
However, considering all responses, the points have I made still stand; all else is a distraction from the facts and to what we are all trying to accomplish (prove or disprove gyro propulsion).
A wise man is mindful to whom he points the finger of ignorance; least the finger ends up pointing back. No one is competent at everything, and insults are often prompted by frustration and inadequacies.
Unfortunately BS and backhanded insults can stifle productive conversations but that may very well be the goal of some.
Thank you,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 20/09/2007 02:33:38
| | | I restate from my post above.
"We cannot deny that energy is being used to keep the gyro aloft, unless we are willing to deny that gravity pulls downward with constant force."
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 20/09/2007 06:13:48
| | | "We cannot deny that energy is being used to keep the gyro aloft, unless we are willing to deny that gravity pulls downward with constant force."
I have to disagree here. Take the case of a satellite orbiting the earth. There is no energy being imparted to it yet its momentum "resists" gravity and it does not fall. In my view precession is the same. It is a less familiar phenomenon and one that we are not schooled so heavily in so it seems like some energy must be used to counter gravity. However I think this is false.
The thing to remember is force does not equal energy. You can apply a continual force to something without expending any energy. It's only when something gives into that force and is moved that energy is expended. For instance stretch a rubber band and place it around two fixed points. There is force pulling those fixed points together yet no energy is expended. The rubber band holds potential energy and when it is release that energy converted to motion (another form of energy).
In the case of a gyroscope precessing under gravity, no energy is being used other than that the small amount being slowly converted to heat as a result of friction. If you could eliminate all friction a gyroscope would precess forever.
This whole concept takes a bit of thinking to wrap you had around it. It did in my case. But I believe if you give it some thought you will see that it is correct.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 20/09/2007 09:18:26
| | | I am correct, but then so are you. I have thought these very same thoughts as you, Ram.
Still and yet, the energy to stay aloft, or orbit comes from angular momentum, which opposes gravity.
The energy is constantly replenished in a way, even to day; I still try to explain with words only, but am not satisfied. It is a lengthy and heavy peace not suitable for understanding. Main time I simply suggest that energy bounces back and forth between gravity and momentum without lose. (my collisions remember) You definitely find this in rotation; verse a steel ball circulating inside a chase rim. One has friction and a short, while the other has no friction and therefore is able to rotate toward endlessness in space. Since I furnish no explanation I will hush about it.
It has been enjoyable connecting with your good mind. I have been playing a bit. I’ve been talking about where the support energy comes from, while you’ve been talking about whether some energy form is being depleted, or isn’t used.
I stand on these statements. We cannot deny that energy is being used to keep the gyro aloft, unless we are willing to deny that gravity is a constant force. I end with the beginning, from where does the energy come? If not from angular momentum, from where?
Note: You are never the less correct, Ram. I stand with you too. This has been a strange exercise.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Rob Tobb - 21/09/2007 08:04:13
| | | @Sandy Kidd
"..., or less than one year after my first machine produced thrust."
Very interesting! - Can you present a proof (video or anything else) that your machine has produced thrust?
And if your statement is true, why are you or your machine unheard-of?
Thanks
Rob Tobb
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 01/10/2007 19:48:28
| | | What an interesting thread!! Full of contradictions and misconceptions.
Staring with Louis’ first answer to his own question!
Luis Gonzalez …Quote .“This simple system behaves one way when driven by gravity and differently when driven by motors. First thing to note is that the torque axis and precession/deflection axis interchange when the device is driven by a motor instead of by gravity”...
Not so. A gyroscope is an orthogonal device. The rotation of the flywheel is spin, the rotation at right angles to spin is precession, the force at right angles to spin and precession is the gyroscope couple.
These do not ever, under any circumstance, change. They are always immutably locked in these RELATIVE positions.
Motorising the shaft will add a torque input to the system. This torque will be added to the existing gravity torque (as a vector sum) and the gyroscope will precess at right angles to the resultant torque.
This is the mechanism by which….. quote “First thing to note is that the torque axis and precession/deflection axis interchange when the device is driven by a motor instead of by gravity (consequently also torque planes and precession planes are interchanged).”
Sandy,
To echo Nitro hang in there and at last I too can get a grip on saturation point and no mass!!!
Alas I still do not agree with your interpretation of what the strangeness of the gyroscope is all about.
When we previously discussed centrifugal effects, I had not appreciated that you were running the gyroscope at a 45 degree angle. Assume for the moment that the flywheel is not spinning, an inert mass. Rotating it about the precession axis will cause it to fly outwards, or try to continue in a straight line, whatever. That outward force will be transmitted down to the pivot as a torque!, where it can be reacted by an equal and opposite torque, and the mass of the flywheel will be held in equilibrium.
Spinning the flywheel to introduce gyroscope effects will produce just such a torque at the pivot point, the gyroscope couple, which will at the “saturation point” become equal and opposite to the centripetal force, holding the mass of the flywheel in equilibrium.
My assumption previously, and subsequent comments about ants and hex nuts, was that the gyroscope shaft is at right angles to the precession axis, hence there is no centripetal torque to be overcome and no saturation point..
None the less the fact still remains that the orbiting gyroscope does not exert centripetal force, I fear that mounting the gyroscope at 45 degrees serves only to offer the opportunity for a conventional explanation, within Newtonian laws as Louis has pointed out.
The experiment where you had two gyroscopes on a common vertical shaft, but running at different spin speeds, which destructed due to the unbalanced forces, shows that there is an issue to be resolved. Even though I now see what you mean by saturation point, I still do not agree with no mass.
Ram,
Shed dwellers consider a gyroscope to be a flywheel at one end of a shaft and mounted at the other end, so that it orbits this mounting point and the mass is displaced.
Text books use flywheels mounted in gimbals where the precession does not involve displacing the mass. The formulas are derived from this layout and it is proven that the theory that applies to the gimbaled gyroscope also applies to the offset gyroscope.
A gyroscope does not “start precessing” does not accelerate from rest up to speed. The transition is instantaneous. Therefore there can be no work done, no energy exchanged.
With the gimballed gyroscope theory, this is not a problem as the mass is not displaced anyway.
There is an initial drop but it is very small. By experiment a gyroscope with an additional weight, i.e. lump of plasticine drops more.
The conventional explanation of how an offset gyroscope displaces its mass is that the initial motion is a downward precession with a horizontal torque. This torque is reacted at the support and the mass levers itself forwards. The inertia of the mass resists this movement so that there are two torques acting, the gravity torque and the inertia torque. The resultant torque determines the direction of precession, initially down, then finally horizontal as acceleration ceases and precession speed is reached.
The drop ceases once precession speed is reached. Any further spiraling down will be due to friction torque at the bearing. In a vacuum with ‘perfect’ bearings it will precesses for ever as long as it spins.
Glen. … Quote “We cannot deny that energy is being used to keep the gyro aloft, unless we are willing to deny that gravity is a constant force.”
No. Read Ram’s post. Energy is force x distance moved in the direction of the force. There is no movement in the direction of the applied force, gravity, therefore no work is done by gravity. None.
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 02/10/2007 01:39:45
| | | Momentus,
Thank you for your response.
No amount of care and attention to detail can prevent any of our written articles from misinterpretation. It reflects on human error in using language. Haste will always create inconsistency in the things and names we write.
Please note the context of my statement rests entirely on the device that I thought I had clearly explained (obviously not).
Excuse my poor choice of words; this is what I tried to say, as I tried to set the stage:
When driven by the downward force of gravity, torque is created on horizontal axes. OK?
When driven by a motor, the torque is applied on a vertical axis (on purpose, by design, because the device described can not receive motor torque on the horizontal axis due to is configuration). OK?
As a result of mechanical restrictions, the deflection/precession from motor torque occurs on a horizontal axis; while the precession from gravity occurs on a vertical axis (simple enough).
Though the rules are immutable and remain inviolate, the devices we build can apply torque on different axes than gravity, and that was all I was trying to convey so that I could explain subsequent observations that I thought may be of interest to others.
Perhaps if you reread my statement from the perspective I intended (after this clarification), we may be able to discuss other points of higher interest and of substance.
Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 08/10/2007 14:30:59
| | | Dear Momentus,
If a flywheel can go into “saturation mode” as I have called it when the gyroscope rotation axis is directly in line with the fulcrum, it goes without saying that the system is capable of entering the “saturation mode” from any starting, higher angle of offset whether it be 45 degrees or 89 degrees, using the same inputs speeds, because it is going there anyway.
The offset position is necessary to produce the effect I require, otherwise the flywheel would need to climb (accelerate) all the way to the elevated offset position and back again, which would make its cyclic speed much too slow for my uses.
I suggested 45 degrees to Ram, because if he built such a device he would realise where I was taking him, which is well on the way to developing inertial thrust.
The “no mass”, no angular momentum, no centrifugal force, I stand by.
This statement was not made from uninspired, or for that matter inspired, guesswork, but from observation and testing which can be reproduced by anyone who really wants to.
This may all seem to be very unreasonable, and hard to believe, as it was to me to start with, all I can say is, until you see it you will just not believe it.
Unfortunately workshop facilities are required to carry this out.
Let me put it this way, without getting into further arguments about gyroscopic couples and suchlike, “Whether it be neutralised or balanced out, for all intents and purposes there is no mass, either, gravitational, or accelerated, apparent at the gyroscope in the system at saturation”.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/10/2007 16:30:55
| | | My dear Momentus,
What you say to me is correct, but you are wrong to say it to me for it has nothing to do with my statement. I did not mention the work-energy of gravity, you did. Listen to me. If you no not spin the damn gyro fast enough it will fall. If you do not give an orbiting satellite enough speed it will fall. Angular momentum is used somehow to maintain elevation don’t you understand? The confusion is in your perception of how the word ‘used’ applies. I have never actually believed that energy is used up, drained, or removed in any way, never the less the energy in angular momentum is used to support a gyro. Look up the word ‘used’ in the dictionary and the thesaurus, http://dictionary.reference.com/
‘ Still don’t understand? Let me try again. Suppose long ago I borrowed your best girl friend, Momentus. When I brought her back to you the next morning she’d be good as new without a loss of energy, but you can bet she would’ve been used and used hard. ‘ Still don’t understand? Suppose the rock singer Boy George borrowed you for a bit of late evening flogging back stage and as you latter staggered out into the light…. Oh, never mind, Momentus. The idea of use and abuse without loss of energy is confusing enough without physic anyway.
You would have ‘nothing’ holding the gyro aloft. Torque you say? Yes torque, but torque is cause by the resistance of angular momentum to being tilted. Angular momentum is used this way.
Do you understand now?
Let’s try again. I’ll do some guessing. I think this ‘dynamic condition’ causes the gyro to torque down upon the pedestal with a levered force equal to the force of gravity and that the levered force then gives back the energy as it functions while resisting the torque at the fulcrum. Consider, a perfect bouncing ball, (none exist in reality). The ball is dropped and bounces back to the same height. Energy would be used, but not depleted, nor taken from. Real colliding balls lose energy of course, but my point is, conditions are not things. A million conditions can occupy the same space at the same time and weigh nothing. If angular momentum torques against a lever and gravity torques equally back against angular momentum I can see no friction/heat loss, again because these are not things, but conditions and conditions do not have physical properties. Energy may be used without being expended, or depleted. It is this energy I wonder about, bouncing back and forth between angular momentum and gravity, perhaps at the speeds of radiation? Haven’t we not read from so many authoritative works that every thing in existence vibrates, spins and travels in waves? Energy surrounds all things, therefore it must travel the same paths as things, vibrating, whirling and traveling in waves.
I wonder if you did not manage to piss-off every man in this thread. You are forgiven for my part, but tack my friend, tack next time. Do you understand?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 09/10/2007 12:42:57
| | | Dear Momentus,
In a previous posting you seem to imply that a gravity accelerated gyroscope, drops momentarily and goes straight into horizontal precession. That’s OK but what holds it up?
If it does not react to gravity by attempting to climb back from whence it came there is no way it can support itself by a purely horizontal movement.
All shed dwellers,
I have previously made comments about the fictitious gyroscopic couple but no one appears to be able or willing to enlighten this old man how this couple is created, and what part it plays in the generation of gyroscopic torque.
Can someone prove to me that it is not just another “convenient” gyroscopic action which I personally think is just a myth born from misunderstanding.
Maybe I am just totally stupid but I fail to see how the receding sector of the flywheel or gyroscope ( the bit at the top ) can generate an inward turning force equal to the outward turning force that is generated on the advancing sector (the bottom bit ) to supply a gyroscopic torque couple.
Why does plain old inertia never come into the discussion.?
What is good for gravity accelerated systems is also good for mechanically accelerated systems, where there is even less chance of generating a gyroscopic couple.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 09/10/2007 22:44:16
| | | Dear Momentus,
I disagree. You said: “A gyroscope does not “start precessing” does not accelerate from rest up to speed. The transition is instantaneous.”
This is like the imposable idea of electro magnetism occurring at a distance from its source spontaneously, presumably without distance traveled and without the passage of time. No one actually believes this, but you find it in physics books. Such conditions as electro magnetic action at a distance, and instantaneous reactions of gyroscopes and velocity created without acceleration are not possible. These mechanically screwy ideas are but suppositions created to support certain mathematical principles for engineering and manufacturing. They work perfectly for their purpose, but they aren’t real. I don’t think we were expected to believe them.
Apparently you don’t, for here you begin to reverse yourself.
You said: ”There is an initial drop but it is very small. By experiment a gyroscope with an additional weight, i.e. lump of plasticine drops more.”
Here you fully reverse yourself.
You said: ”The drop ceases once precession speed is reached.”
Dear Sandy, my view is that a couple must be equal on two, or more opposite sides, like a bike handle, a cross, or an X. Also, it is not defined to function in opposite planes where the horizontal and vertical can’t be responsive to and from one another. Try building a sink faucet handle that way, with one ‘up’ knob handgrip, and one ‘sideways’ knob handgrip and see what you come up with. You could name it the One-lever-disaster; perfectly destine to destroy the thread clearances and eventually require a new rubber washer once a week, until the handle broke off as it likely would. The up knob handgrip would be useless. If Momentus were a plumber in America at 85$ to 150
$ per trip call, plus time installing these one-lever-disasters, just think how much more money he could make in repeat business. Maybe that’s what he has in mind for himself. This could be why he pushes these screwy definition?
One handle does not make a couple. However a couple clearly exists during gimbals applications, but so far as I can see it doesn’t occur at all in any application we here are interested, i.e. overhung gyroscope, forced precession. Kidd you knew. Your question was a way of making a point, but you did ask.
“What holds it up?” you say. So, you too believe the gyro cannot hang over thin air without a countering force made of energy used, but not abused… that is, not drawn from, nor weakened, nor lessoning i.e. from the energy of angular momentum. Momentus will be much disappointed in you, but concerning his last post I suggest, ‘What’s good for the goose is good for the gander’, yes? We here are an equal opportunity site and have not denied that good man his turn on the hot coals. We aim to be fair and you just know he has to be very dubiously pleased at being highlighted this month.
A plumber walks into a house, tightens a handle on a commode in two minutes. He walks back toward the front door, but stops to give his bill to homeowner.
Homeowner; “Eighty-five dollars! I’m a doctor and I don’t make that much.”
Plumber: “When I was practicing medicine I didn’t either. That’s why I became a plumber.”
So now we know why Momentus is shoving these theories around that will certainly end up being responsible for manufacturing poor plumbing parts. He wants to be a plumber on constant repair call. I have figured it out all by my self, thank you. This proves you can make since of anything and that there certainly is purpose to madness.
I don’t care to challenge you any more. So, hang in there, Momentus, my friend. It’ll get better. It will blow over and all will be buried in time.
My Best and Most Fateful Regards to You, You can trust me to be your friend now if you will allow me, Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 10/10/2007 02:09:30
| | | Momentus,
When a force changes the direction of a moving mass it performs work and there is indeed an energy exchange.
In the same manner torque (angular-force), which changes the direction of angular velocity in a flywheel, performs work.
Hydroelectric plants use force derived from gravity to perform work in creating electricity.
A gyro uses torque derived from gravity to perform work in changing the direction of the angular motion in the flywheel; this change in direction (orientation) of the flywheel is the root cause of precession.
Though we may not realize it, we communicate the odd behavior of a spinning object as a comparison to how it would behave if it were not spinning. We say that a spinning flywheel responds at 90 degrees, but this is only a comparison to how it would behave if it were not spinning. Using such comparison facilitates efficient communication about how we see precession’s behavior; it conveys the (macro) observation. Unfortunately it fails to provide an accurate picture of the (micro) dynamics taking place. The simplicity of the initial communication leads to more complex cause-and-effect reasoning.
Initially all we want to say is that the wheel behaves weird; we feel a sense of quantitative accuracy by observing the 90 degree deviation from the norm. More accurate communication would include all the motions involved but may not convey the simple thought as efficiently. The shortcut we take has come to take the place of the actual facts because it is easier to perceive than the real events.
From the true perspective, of interacting angular motions, we would see that individual “points” on the flywheel are objects in motion acted upon by a torque that starts moving them in the direction of the torque. As the angular motion of the “points” becomes congruent with the angular direction of the torque, the flywheel must change its orientation and that is reflected as a 90 degree motion, from the perspective of the external observer (us).
The angular motion of the “points” becomes congruent with the angular direction of the torque by moving toward the direction of the torque, just as in the linear case. (Many think this is a mnemonic but in fact explaining the motion as 90o is a mnemonic to the more complex explanation presented here.)
We have not yet explained how the “reorientation” of the flywheel telegraphs its own displacement via the pivot point; that’s a discussion for another posting.
The motion of precession does require work just as a hydroelectric plant does albeit in a much smaller scale.
I like the way you sticks to the point without much BS; I wish the rest of us performed as well. Your comments and statements are conducive to clearer thinking and help to formulate better answers.
Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 13/10/2007 00:59:10
| | | Momentus,
Many of us know that you did not contradict yourself, as we understand that the transition to precession by a flywheel alone is instantaneous while the precession-displacement of an offset gyro encounters “inertial-torque” (because one is displaced and the other isn’t).
Your succinct postings in this forum are packed with excellent insights that help clarify important points.
Forums intended for discussion of ideas include challenges to opinions as we seek to uncover hidden truths. We should applaud those who attack opinions with logic and brilliance (even if it brings some discomfort).
On the other hand, we should loath personal attacks. I apologize for the unsavory imagery because it occurs in one of my threads and hope it doesn’t happen again. Please don’t let it deter you from responding to my postings in the future.
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 13/10/2007 14:12:48
| | | I have stated that the motion of gyro precession uses the acceleration from gravity.
However it’s necessary to clarify that gyros do NOT use the force of gravity to keep the flywheel aloft. In other words, the force of gravity does NOT prevent the gyro from falling.
While most motions continue without need of constantly applying a force, precession does require the application of a constant force otherwise it stops. Precession is NOT the type of motion that will continue on its own until a force or obstacle stops it.
The gyro configuration manages to utilize the flow of force (produced by gravity’s acceleration upon the mass) to displace the gyro as it revolves (not rotates).
Since the flow of force (generated by gravity) is nearly fully consumed by the revolving motion, it becomes absent, void, removed from its normal effects.
I admit having resisted this notion (as many people do) because all normal motions are (in our minds) automatically filtered through the peripheral effects of gravity. However, in his case it is the effect of gravity that is being consumed rather than serving as a backdrop environment (that’s the difference).
I repeat, gravity is NOT used or serve in any way to keep the gyro from falling!!
In a thread full of misconceptions, are these statements simply more misconceptions, or not?
Thank you,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/10/2007 01:38:33
| | |
Angular momentum is reluctant to being tilted from its plain of spin. When a gyro’s weight is balanced between the pull of gravity and the resistance of a pedestal a levered force to tilt occurs. The weight of the gyro is then converted to mechanical torque down on the pedestal with an equal, or lesser force to that of gravity. It is the angular momentum’s reaction against tilting that supports the gyro, without a loss of energy occurring, while the loss of elevation toward gravity is occurring. Under controlled circumstances when the gyro touches down most of the angular momentum will be present, while the force of gravity sustained for a couple of minutes in the air is missing entirely as evidenced by the reduction in measured elevation multiplied by the amount of time passed. So what holds the gyro up? The combination of two forces, one is used up and the other not used at all, but never the less producing a necessary function without a drain or loss of its energy. How I do understand is complicated, but the only energy you will ever find missing, is the energy that was contained in the distance of the elevated gyroscope for two minutes suspended in the air. At touch down very single bit of gravity energy is used up. Nothing is left, but how much angular momentum energy is left. Almost all of it.
One day you see me walking down the street toward you, whistling a fun little tune and smiling at you. You have pocket change that you think of as Energy-money in both pants pockets and I accidentally bump into you on the way to the liquor store and you later find you only have Energy-money remaining in your right pants pocket. From which pocket did I steal your Energy-money? How do you know, because it’s empty? That’s the one whose Energy-money contents I will use-up for a fifth of Canadian Club with which to enjoy myself mightily. You were robbed of Energy-money from your left pocket. You know because, there is no Energy-money left there. How much simpler can this be? Angular momentum holds the gyro up with the use of the energy taken from the gravity drop. I’ve explained this here years back. I tire of it. Say anything you like. Believe whatever endless continuation you like. I’ve given you the truth and there are no reasonable mechanical arguments of this nature given to the contrary, just statements. Nothing! Just unexplained made-up statements! You can have it. Such as that! I’m, outa here. Believe as you like. What ever blows your hair back.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 25/10/2007 00:12:41
| | | Dear Ram,
Sandy and I have already argued semantics some time ago but not in this thread. This discussion in thread is about terms that indicate what is happening during the observed phenomena. It’s about how we see the dynamics interacting.
You are correct in questioning whether stronger tilting forces (torque) can cause gyros to drop instead of simply making precession go faster. As we know, the velocity of precession is determined by the ratio of torque (tilting force) to spin-momentum. When the spin is too slow for the torque magnitude (or the torque is too strong for the rate of gyro spin), precession behaves erratically and the torque becomes able to overcome precession. The simplest proof is that a relatively slow gyro falls off the tower. In the moon the gyro will hold, without falling, at even slower rates of spin. In very large planets the gyro will fall off the tower well before it falls of on earth.
I agree that there are some similarities between a gyro in uniform precession and a frictionless spinning wheel; however, note that precession stops as soon as the torque is removed, while a spinning wheel does not need a constant torque. Precession is much more complex to test.
Regarding the initial drop of a gyro, Momentus provided the most excellent explanation yet. The drop occurs, NOT to “obtain” an increment of energy, but rather in a deflecting-response to the “inertial-force” it encounters as it begins precession’s displacement (i.e. the “drop” is caused by a modified deflection/precession due to forces that arise from inertia during the start of displacement).
Ram, gyros do not break any of the conservation laws that apply to an object. Also note that when gyro-propulsion is successful it will require a highly complex mechanism (not comparable to a mere object).
The standard gyro in precession consumes energy from gravity (just as a hydroelectric plant does) to power the motion of precession, it does NOT consume energy to keep the gyro from falling. Rather it would require energy from gravity to fall, but the power is used to run precession instead (therefore it does not have the power to fall). We are accustomed to see things fall when they run out of power, but that perception is misleading.
Laithewaite helped to raise the gyros above his head by providing a sideways torque that caused upward deflection/precession.
You are right Ram, the gyro does NOT need energy to be kept aloft; however it does require energy to move the mass of the gyro in ANY direction including falling downward, as well as to power the motion of precession. Since the energy is used for the roundabout sideways motion of precession, it can not be used for the normal downward motion of gravity (it can’t fall down). There is no need to resist gravity when you consume it in doing something else. Gravity delivers work at its constant rate of acceleration times the mass of the object.
I think most people will agree that when a force produces motion energy is expended.
A frictionless gyro would move in precession for ever only as long as torque force is applied; as soon as the torque is removed the motion of precession would stop.
Regards,
Luis Gonzalez
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 29/10/2007 20:42:40
| | | Dear Luis,
You’ve argued well enough and you are correct up to a point. Beyond that there is a continuing series of torque reactions unmentioned, but best described by Nitro’s Law and my Quad Nutations. Look this over and see what you think.
When an over-hung gyro is precessing, push it faster in the horizontal plain with a pencil, or your finger. It will as you know rise in accordance with Nitro’s Law. It rises from additional torque supplied by the additional energy of your pushing action. Before that, my explanation is that the gyroscope was held aloft by the same kind of upward torturing support action, except that the energy to support was limited and came from the natural balance that precession seeks between angular momentum and gravity. As the gyro twisted around the pedestal, it attempted to twist upwards in reaction. There wasn’t enough energy supplied by the tendency to tilt downward into gravity and so the gyro was not given enough torque to lift above the pedestal, but only enough to maintain its elevation within the balance of the forces at play. When we push the gyro faster in the precession plain we can see how the forces were in play and what they do.
QUAD NUTATION
First Nutation:
After a gyro is loosened to begin its drop, though the drop distance may be miscue, or the force only a tendency without movement, the drop gains excessive acceleration, or gains excessive force, or both. The magnitude of force quickly becomes unequally greater than the natural balance of the restraining force in the plain of angular momentum and then the system of precession is out of balance.
Second Nutation:
While the velocity, or force is temporarily increased downward beyond the normal balance, according to Nitro’s Law precession torque will increase just as suddenly at a ninety degrees angle causing precession to jerk forward faster than the natural balance between forces would permit.
Third Nutation:
Because the gyro is now processing faster with additional energy greater than in the normal balance, the gyro will torque suddenly upward, again in accordance with Nitro’s Law.
Forth Nutation:
Because the gyro now rises, precession slows below what would be normal, and of course again because of Nitro’s Ninety Degrees Law.
Quid Nutations can best be thought of in this way.
Nutations bounces downward, then forward, then upward, then rearward, then downward again and so on. These sequences may continuously repeat if the circumstances are right.
If we keep this simple it’s easy to understand. First we understand without torque there would be very little inertia resistance to horizontal precession, because the gyro is lightweight, slow in motion and is not accelerated beyond its beginning speed. It would coast easily while it is held aloft, except that as has been explained, as precession occurs the spinning wheel is being forced to twist around a pedestal. This twist as in all gyroscopic conditions causes a ninety degrees reaction, in this case an upward reaction of torque. The only resistance of any consequence that precession meets horizontally is caused by gravity pushing down against the upward torque, which is a reverse of forces, the effect becoming a ninety degrees torque pressing horizontally back against a slightly stronger precession force, a force which is strong enough to continue precessing, because the gyro continues tilting, or produce a continuous tendency to tilt, which drives precession.
If Nitro’s Law is true?
If Quad Nutation is true?
If the Professor’s demonstrations are true?
If Sandy Kidd’s experiments are true?
If the result of pushing precession faster with a pin is true?
If all of our otherwise general understanding here of deflection and torque is true?
Then precession, the horizontal curving of a spinning wheel, must torque ninety degrees upwards against gravity. And so reason comes to full circle. Gravity forces a tendency to tilt. Angular momentum resist tilt and deflects the force into precession. Precession causes an upward torque, which then opposes the downward pull of gravity. In this strange way of the gyroscope, so alien to our sinces, so opposed by our unwillingness
to believe, it is the force of gravity furnishing energy through a series of deflected events that come full circle to hold the gyro up.
We may know this in yet another way. The gyro and pedestal combination will not reduce in weight during precession and so we know the force of gravity is not used up by precession, but is levered back downward onto the pedestal producing the same force as registered weight, completing the ninety degrees secquence of deflected events and proving again that time after time energy is never used up, but may be converted into another form of energy, in this case into a series of changing energy directions each of the same magnitude.
Louis, as I mentioned in the beginning you may wish to reconsider and then continue the logical secquences you began and come to a new and final conclusion that after all is said and done precession causes lift against that very gravity that causes tilt deflected precession, but if not, to each his own. All is ok. We have no problems. As I said you’ve done a good job arguing and however either of us ultimately decide for ourselves is of no great world event. I know its wild when everyone hears for the first time that gravity through a series of events supplies energy that is converted to lift-support. Something like a weird seesaw? It’s up to you.
Sincerely,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 03/11/2007 20:26:00
| | | Glenn,
I think you believe your ideas.
However, your explanations require that precession cause precession and that’s not possible (though a resistance to precession CAN cause precession to change direction). No structure can be sounder than its foundation.
Also, since energy can not be created or destroyed; therefore using energy implies a conversion from one form to another (this basic concept should need no explanation however applied).
For example: A hydroelectric plant “uses energy” derived from gravity to produce electric “energy”.
A gyro “uses energy” derived from gravity to produce the kinetic “energy” of precession’s motion (simple and does not require the device to loose weight).
Your world of ideas and mine are much too distant for amicable agreement as we have found in previous occasions, which have lead to arguments I don’t care for.
Why don’t we preach our different gospels in different places (threads) as different preachers do peacefully, and keep our word as gentlemen to stay out of each other’s threads in this forum?
If you have a specific question, please ask it in your own new thread and if you address it to me I will try to answer it if I understand it.
I wish you well Glenn,
Sincerely,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/11/2007 23:21:34
| | | Ask such as you a question? You gota be kidding.
For any poor reader who innocently staggers into this quagmire of the depressing and finds he really wants to know how a precessing gyro stays aloft, he need only go to my last post in this thread, read and then decide for himself. If you have average, or more likely a higher intelligence as I believe you do, or you wouldn’t be here, (I don’t know why Gonzalez is here.) you will easily understand and then can dismiss all the truly unworkable misinformation in accordance with your own discerning ability. I’m sure you’ll get it right.
Gonzalez, leave it alone and let the individual have a go at it.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 06/11/2007 00:39:38
| | | I will take that as an agreement to stay out of each other's threads.
Surely someone with your intellect can hold his own threads.
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 08/11/2007 20:28:07
| | | Well done, Luis! ;-)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
