|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
26 April 2024 16:13
|
|
Welcome to the gyroscope forum. If you have a question about gyroscopes in general,
want to know how they work, or what they can be used for then you can leave your question here for others to answer.
You may also be able to help others by answering some of the questions on the site.
|
Question |
| Asked by: |
Glenn Hawkins |
| Subject: |
Centrifuge |
| Question: |
Glenn Hawkins - 18/12/2011 01:06:34
Luis and I considered the behavior of centrifugal during precession.
When you push an object it pushes back. The law is, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. There is push-back. Resting objects tend to remain at rest until pushed. Objects in motion tend to remain in straight line motion, until pushed against. Centrifuge is simply the push-back that occurs when particles are attempting to travel in a straight line, but are pushed to change direction. They push-back in an a tempt to escape the circular motion they are forced to travel in.
During rotation the rotating partials are constantly force to curve and this creates the push-back known as centrifuge.
When an overhung gyroscope precess', these 360 encirclement are called revolutions. Both rotations and revolutions act because of push-back. A force must push or pull an overhung gyroscope toward the center of the revolutions, otherwise the gyroscope will not precess, but only attempt to travel in straight lines.
1) During slow precession there is only a tiny force necessary to cause the gyroscopes to remain in precession. A tinny friction between table an pedestal would be enough friction.
2) During fast precession the gyroscope will fly away dragging and tipping over the pedestal.
3) The conclusion is that there is centrifuge during precession.
Bur that is not so cut and dry.
1) There are many other test which clearly indicate there is no centrifuge, or little of it that occurs during precession.
2) Additionally, an esteemed member here has conducted many test that indicate the complete absence of centrifuge.
I, myself find that centrifuge is affected differently while under precession. I believe the difference is caused by deflections occurring in the front and rear of a precessing gyroscope. I believe that to some unknown degree they push the gyroscope toward the center of it's revolutions.
As the force of gravity pulls the gyroscope downward, the gyroscope clearly falls in an arc. It falls in a curve and responds by revolving in a curve which is precession. I think the one curve follows the preceded curve, though the curves are at right angles to one another. The curving vertical force downward causes the curving horizontal precession. The mechanics are difficult to explain and perceive, but one force curving cause the second curving force at a right angle.
IN CONCLUSION: The gyroscope itself, pushes itself toward the center of rotation to some degree by it's own actions. This push-back dose not stop the natural, mechanical actions of nature and motion during centrifuge. It merely absorbs some if not all of the push-back so that it dose not register.
Still there is centrifugal pressure in the metal itself, the squeeze together of particles. Our friend seems to be vindicated by the evidence. Centrifuge is lessened during precession. I am sure and have been for a while.
Glenn,
I will add that the professor’s heavy gyro on a string shows abnormally strong centrifuge, as seen while it precess' in a consequential wide circle, and little or no centrifuge while precessing in a small circle. The difference is not the wheel's spin speed as this is demonstrated. The difference is the tilt of the gyroscopes, whether it is tilted upward or downward. The gyroscope is clearly controlling it's own magnitude of push-back force by the angle of it's deflections. Nothing is pulling inward toward the center of revolutions as happens in all other forms of rotations and revolutions. The gyroscopes untethered, pushes itself inward. Poor Sandy Kidd. Some dip-chit recently called our friend crazy for finding and telling the truth about the extreme and odd behavior of centrifugal during varying angles of precession.
Glenn, |
| Date: |
18 December 2011
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 18/12/2011 16:07:06
| | | I wrote, "When an overhung gyroscope precess', these 360 encirclement are called revolutions. Both rotations and revolutions act because of push-back."
The statement above that in normal revolutions and rotations practicals are pushed into the center is wrong. They are nor pushed, but pulled inward as by a string. Only in precession are the particles PUSHED inward by the odd behavior of rotating deflections within the wheel during gyroscopic precession.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 20/12/2011 02:07:01
| | | If it is true as test indicate, that at certain precessing angles deflections in the flywheel push the wheel inward and that is the cause of precessing revolutions, then propulsion is possible. Consider two balls tied together with a string are rotating. Each ball pulls against the other ball in a way we call centrifuge. If however, there were only one ball and it pushed itself inward toward a stationary axes, causing it to rotate as apparently and overhung gyroscope does in some angles, then again, propulsion is completely possible. A very complicated design and complex mechanical apparatus is necessary. No such designs are yer presented today. I have one.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 22/12/2011 01:50:57
| | | We have two types of reaction forces. One is centrifugal and the other is centrifuge. Each of these has its own action force. With centrifugal, the action is centripetal, which pulls inwards. With centrifuge, its centripedal, which pushes inwards. So you are correct that there's nothing involved with centrifuge which pulls inwards.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/12/2011 20:28:42
| | | Check this out Jerry. It is the best explanation we have concerning this subject.
http://www.mcbridehq.com/ClassHP/LAHS/APPhys/Handouts/Gravity/2%20-%20Centripetal%20Force.pdf
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 23/12/2011 17:46:32
| | | Thanks for digging this up, Glenn. The paper has some important math, so I've saved a copy. However, in his effort to be simplistic he completely misses the mark on various points. He doesn't even discuss centrifuge or centripedal force. When you're 'pushed' into the car door as it makes a turn, the door is providing the action force, NOT your body. All your body is doing is trying to go in a straight line. Moving away from this straight line requires that an action force be exerted. This comes from the door. The action force pushes towards the center, so it is centripedal, not centripetal as he says. The latter force is a pull, not a push. It may seem that your body is reacting to the inwards push, but when the car turns your body does not experience any straight out force against the door as a result of the door pushing against you. Your body changes its direction of motion. And this is the result, not the reaction.
Another point is that centrifugal force absolutely is not fictitious or imaginary. It is an actual force which is the reaction to the action of applying a force to a responding mass. (I wonder if he thinks all reaction forces are imaginary?) A central shaft is in fact pulled away from its starting position when it pulls against a revolving weight. What this guy doesn't understand is that the reaction (centrifugal force) is felt by the same body which exerts the action. The body which is acted upon feels Newton's resultant force. (Newton specifies three forces: action, reaction, and resultant.) The only straight outwards force produced when something revolves is felt by the mass which applies the action force. But this reaction is a real force.
And I also disagree with his statement that a swing will fall straight down if it breaks at the very bottom. His belief that there is zero velocity at this point is untrue, except for the vertical component. Complete zero velocity occurs at the points where the direction changes, not at the bottom.
With the science community 'teaching' us things like what's in this paper, it's no wonder a lot of independent researchers are having difficulty designing a tractionless drive.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 23/12/2011 18:53:43
| | | Thank you, Jerry. The article may not be perfect, but the guy understands his subject and turns very complicated thoughts into simple and easy understanding for a student better than anyone I've seen. I don't think anyone will be confused by his 'general' explanations and can't you see the personality and fun in his mind and in his work? Don't you just like him for that?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 23/12/2011 21:24:06
| | | I don't think he does understand the subject, or he wouldn't have used the term centripetal when discussing the car door. I also failed to appreciate his humor in some of the insert boxes. And his reference to the bucket's falling, as the mechanism for containing the water, doesn't address what happens inside a free falling space ship where the astronauts and other 'weightless' objects don't physically touch the ship. Maybe he doesn't understand what happens. Even if he does, will anyone gain this specific understanding through reading what he says? What about his statement that centrifugal force isn't real?
Perhaps I've become the Heretic, with other members of the alt-science community choosing to embrace officially accepted dogma, rather than consider my statements that Newton specified action, result, and reaction, for each action. It isn't two bodies exchanging action and reaction forces. Two bodies, one action. The body which applies the force is the body which experiences the reaction. An exhaust molecule rebounds from the rocket and the rocket's movement is the result.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 23/12/2011 22:38:48
| | |
Come on, Jerry. Does this all really matter to a hill of beans?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 24/12/2011 02:13:12
| | | It matters to the extent that a lot of students who read that paper are now going to believe that it's not possible to build a machine which propels itself with centrifugal force, since it's been officially proclaimed that this force doesn't really exist.
Have you heard of the hundredth monkey effect? It's the same way with Inertial Propulsion. Once the mass mind accepts that it IS possible, a lot of different ways to do it will be discovered. Until then, anything which does in fact work will be ignored, even by the members of our own community.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/12/2011 14:45:06
| | | Yes Jerry, what you say is so. In fact as you surely know centrifugal is an unyielding resistance capable of crushing metal, because it will not let the metal pass as it constantly deflects it's course into a circle.
I once drew a a medal octagon held stationary to the ground. When I introduced a speeding ball bearing into it at the correct angle it bounced from panel to panel eight times making one complete revolution. Of course the friction of colliding quickly alter it course and the bouncing became erratic. (In rotation I knew there is not any friction and so the particles keep rotating smoothly.) I drew arrows to show the direction of impact and deflection in the octagon. Next I drew metal bars connecting the eight panels and put the imaginary thing in space in my mind. Finally I added two balls at equal and opposite positions traveling at the same speed and instead of eight panels I would add more, until there was a billion panels. The inside chase ceased to be bumpy, but round and relatively very smooth. With the panels connected to an axes in the center where the bars jointed, it was an exact condition of rotation, but the drawn arrows of instantiation collusion and deflection were the same as in the octagon.
I mean to explain I understand these conditions regardless of the names given them.
I believe that in these circular collisions that create centrifugal, there might be a force that can be directed toward the linear. As you say so well, students who are taught that centrifugal is fictitious will then not conceive of using the force for propulsion. I don't know that it matters to me what they conceive. After all, we have you, don't we?
Merry Christmas, Jerry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 24/12/2011 22:10:09
| | | Hi Glenn,
Best wishes for your holidays.
You might be interested in this:
http://knol.google.com/k/knol/Search?q=paradox-of-classical-mechanics-2#
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 25/12/2011 02:09:34
| | | Glen,
On a forum like this, we all have each other. This isn't true so much for me, since I'm not here that often. But I do check in from time to time, to see what's going on. When I am here, it's as a peer, not as the Master of the Art. And we all post our ideas for peer review. As well as, hopefully, to gain enthusiasm for our projects.
The issue I had with the article you linked to is that it's presented as an educational authority. One of the primary functions of education is to instill relevant vocabulary. This guy could have added one or two sentences which would have opened up an additional pathway of learning for the student. Just by saying the word centripedal. Centrifuge is not the same as centrifugal. And I wasn't trying to pick on you - only wanting to share my understanding of this part of our endeavor. OK?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 25/12/2011 11:53:09
| | | Hello Glenn and Jerry, and any other interested parties.
I can only assume that the explanation in your quoted website is all correct, Glenn.
I personally could never get my head around the academic way of deciding what centrifugal force was other than the fact I was always told that it did not exist, in spite of the vision of exploding flywheels which keeps springing into my mind.
Be that as it may, we all seem to understand what we mean when we use this term.
.
It would appear that you are trying to get to grips with the “gyroscopic couple,” Glenn, which is the accepted explanation, for the inward rotation force on a flywheel, whilst under acceleration.
I have to say at this point that as I have repeatedly claimed in the past that the gyroscopic couple does not exist and is a flawed and concocted concept for this inward turning force.
I have asked on several occasions in this forum for someone to explain how this “gyroscopic couple” is created, but so far there have been no takers.
Anyway as far as I am concerned the wheel turns inwards for a totally different set of reasons and does not attempt to rotate around the centre of flywheel mass as claimed.
The flywheel does not necessarily have to be in what you are calling precession to be subjected to inward rotation forces, precession only makes the action visible.
That said the inward turning torque is variable until precession or saturation is reached, consequently so is the angular momentum and centrifugal force.
If the rotation speed of the flywheel is constant and the system is mechanically rotated until precession ( I like to call this saturation) occurs these inward rotation forces are of the same value at any angle of system inclination.
That being all the way from the horizontal plane of rotation, (and irrespective of flywheel inclination) to the vertical plane of rotation at which point there is effectively no more system rotation, just flywheel rotation.
Large changes are created in angular velocity but due to the absence of mass there are no angular momentum changes to be considered.
That said, everything you would normally expect to happen under these conditions is effectively reversed.
This process begins as soon as mechanical acceleration of the system begins, that is of course assuming that the flywheel is being rotated at a steady speed in this system.
In a gravity accelerated or mechanically accelerated system in what you are calling precession there is no mass left to be accelerated so centrifugal, centripetal force whatever, under these conditions just does not exist.
Whether centrifugal force is an issue or not I must agree with Jerry’s comment about the hundredth monkey effect and that it is the same way with Inertial Propulsion. Once the mass mind accepts that it IS possible, a lot of different ways to do it will be discovered. Until then, anything which does in fact work will be ignored, even by the members of our own community.
Like yourself Glenn, the opinions of others does not concern me too much, I believe what I observe, and what I can prove to myself, however strange the observation may seem. Would we progress if we did otherwise?
Ultimately we are trying to convert angular momentum to linear momentum in spite of the laws of separate conservation and in an effort to generate linear acceleration.
In light of this do we need to invoke centrifugal force in this conversion?
I do not think so, but I am sure you will let me know.
Hope these ramblings from an old and deranged mind, are understandable.
Seasons greetings to you all.
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 25/12/2011 18:49:32
| | | Hi Sandy,
Your acceptance of the officialy proclaimed explanation proves my point.
"I can only assume that the explanation in your quoted website is all correct, Glenn."
The vast majority of people who read that explanation are going to accept that a laboritory centrifuge is somehow producing an inwards pull. This in spite of the fact that nothing connects the affected mass with the center. The reality of the matter is that
the mass is pushed, rather than pulled. A turning car's door pushes you towards the center, and this is the centrifuge force. Which is, of course, just as real as the reaction force which results from an inwards pull. The difference is that with a centrifuge it is the outside mass which feels the reaction, rather than the central point.
With regards to the gyroscopic couple, I've presented my understanding of this effect on this forum in the past. The consensus at the time was that I was correct, although this acceptance was then withdrawn. So I just let the matter drop. Not so much because the majority is always smarter than a given individual, but because I presented it from the perspective of the Conservation of Momentum being an active factor. The Conservation Law must be obeyed by the system in question, but this Law is not itself an independent force. What actually happens when a gyroscope is spinning with the shaft at less than a vertical angle is that gravity's interaction produces a difference in rotational speed from the right side to the left side. The side spinning downwards speeds up, and the side spinning upwards slows down. This change is speed is more pronounced when the gyro spins more slowly, giving gravity more time to interact. For a point of referrence, the bottom of the gyro is considered as spinning to the left. Conservation of Angular Momentum requires that mass increase its radius of spin when it slows down. So the mass on the upwards spinning side moves to the left, away from its center of rotation. At the same time, the mass spinning downwards more quickly must decrease its radius in order to have the same momentum. So this mass also moves to the left, towards its center of rotation. This is the specific effect which occurs during precession, regardless of the actual mechanism which acts to conserve the momentum which is present.
The same conservation occurs when the gyroscope is precessionally accelerated, whether actively or passively. The latter is normal precession. The top side spins against the precessional movement. This means the top mass slows down and has to
move away from its center of rotation to maintain the same momentum. So it moves upwards. The bottom side is already spinning faster, due to gravity's acceleration of the mass when it moved downwards on the side. So the bottom side moves upwards, towards its center of rotation. These upwards movements, top and bottom, are more pronounced when external torque is actively added to the precession.
Torque is defined as an off center rotation, or tendency, produced by a change in speed. This is exactly what happens with precessional movement. So torque is the active mechanism involved with precession.
Another point I'd like to make is that horizontal precession is not a turning inwards. Both sides of the gyroscopical wheel maintain the same distance from the center. And when the precession causes the wheel to tip upwards, careful scrutiny will show that the top does move towards the central line, but the bottom actually moves further out.
Jerry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 25/12/2011 19:56:25
| | | In order to get an actual turning in, the entire gyro must be pulled in the direction of the pedestal. Ideally, this will enable the lower rim to stay at the same distance from the original center. Even then, the gyro's rotation may need to be decoupled from the source of the mechanical acceleration, momentarily, as I show with my experiment presented here:
http://www.overunity.com/11706/inertial-propulsion-secret/
Decoupling allows thrust to occur, whereas only torque would otherwise be produced. Then, as the gyro is tipped back to the starting position, the clutch is engaged, resulting in torque, as the reaction, rather than reverse thrust.
The challenge is to guess which direction the thrust is in, with my experiment.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/12/2011 22:26:08
| | | Express your notions with all your emotion my dears. Please do. Goodness knows I have expressed mine enough times. I do admire you so sometimes.
Merry Christmas, and my hope for you is a happy and prosperous coming year.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 25/12/2011 22:51:51
| | | Hi Glenn,
I hope your coming year is also fruitful. I expect mine will be since I'm just now officially retired, waiting for my first SS check.
The good thing about expressing our notions is that it gives us a way to organize our thoughts. In fact, I've went so far as to write messages I've never sent. But I'm about done for now, and I may decide to retire from all the forums as well, to focus on business matters. But I do hope you'll keep posting your ideas.
The oriental masters have a saying: "If your glass is full of water, in order to receive new water you must first pour some of your water into someone else's glass". Water in this case refers to knowledge. So keep pouring it out.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 27/12/2011 12:02:13
| | | Hi Sandy,
Your mention of exploding flywheels brings some relevant thoughts to mind. So I've decided to submit a final post before I retreat to the sidelines and beyond.
Flywheels do explode when severely overdriven. When this happens, at least some of the mass appears to fly straight outwards. This is due to the centrifuge force. The surface tension of the outer atoms causes them to exert a centripedal force against their nearby adjacent atoms. This force is straight inwards, towards the center. The act of applying this action force produces a reaction, which is straight outwards, and this reaction is felt by the atoms which apply the inwards force. There can be no doubt that the centrifuge force is real. The confusion arises when this force is mistakenly refered as centrifugal. This latter force is the reaction felt at the center. Even though this reaction is also straight outwards, it has no effect on the atoms at the rim. Atoms which are acted upon by centripetal force - the inwards pull - will not fly straight out when released. They only move at a tangent to the rim. It's easy for people to be mislead to believe that centrifugal force is fictitious, WHEN the term is associated in their minds with the resultant force felt by mass at the rim. In reality, both centrifugal force and the centrifuge force are real. But each is felt, as a reaction, by the mass which applies the force. Centrifugal force is only fictitious when it is used in relation to the outer responding mass.
The force which actually IS fictitious is centrifugal acceleration. Force is the mass times the acceleration. However, there is no mass in the centrifugal acceleration formula. Therefore, this is not a force.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
padmag - 29/12/2011 22:19:04
| | | The centrafugal force is...thus
At the very cenre of three precessing gyros via 359 367 opposition, the centrifuge has a possitive electro mag face to its first face
This pushes all protons to the centre whilst pulling the electrons outwards into the outer chambers of the disc
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 31/12/2011 18:53:35
| | | Clarifications
The authorities in practicing science and academia give a scholarly treatment of the subject here. My examples below mirror their authority.
When flywheels explode, each piece of broken metal is freed to follow the straight path it was seeking during the time it was forced to curve in rotation. The straight path of the broken pieces travel tangent to the circular path of rotation. They cannot move outward toward the direction of centrifuge, because they were never pulled in that direction, but pulled inward toward the axes by centripetal connections, which keep them from from traveling in a straight line.
The explosive action can seemed like a hand grenade forced to explode outward in a confined narrow circle, but what the mind's eye sees is not true. The confusion is because the human eye is limited to 32 fixations per second. A view with stop-frame film that is slow motion, will revel that the broken pieces exit tangent to the circular path.
Consider a elastic rubber wheel stretching outward in a circle at high rotation speed. The inter molecules do not push the outer molecules outward. All are in an elastic state seeking to come together.
If you stretch a water balloon and let the ends go, it fluctuates back and forth, but the center of gravity remains the same. All the molecules are drawn together and the enter ones do not push the outer ones outwards. They do not spring apart.
Consider the rotating rubber wheel is like a spring that is not compressed, but stretched. In either case
if the spring were shattered none of its parts acquire motion. Rotating wheels on the other hand have velocity that is attempting to travel straight. Exploding fragments in a flywheel exit tangent to the grid of what was once the the axes.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 01/01/2012 15:04:16
| | | Happy New Year 2012 to my fellow enthusiasts!
1. It is not quite clear to be how the website quoted by Glenn could be correct in its explanation about centrifugal force.
For one thing, its explanation that the centrifugal force is not real because if it were, the ball would fly off radially (instead of tangentially) could also be used to argue for the non-reality of centripetal force equally.
2. Sandy, I do have a response to your challenge of how the gyroscopic couple is created.
But in oder for that to be understood, you'd need to discard this concept of saturation that you have used until now as a place holder for the metaphorical glass ceiling the lift generated by your devices have hit.
We need to understand that mechanics have not encountered the kind of feedback loop that our electrical fraternity has been dealing with.
If we see that the gyro is releasing energy into the plane perpendicular to its axis (upon being rotated by gravity or applied torque) and also see that the released energy causes the axis of the gyro to be effected by that process, we would see that this feedback loop is what complicates matters.
The active feedback loop is what prevents the 'normal' behavior of the gyro- i.e. falling down.
It is what sustains the precession. Saturation is the situation where the feedback loop has succeeded in siphoning the applied torque (i.e gravity in the case f a gyro on a tower) completely.
Far from being a sign that there is no useful work to be had anymore, saturation is a sign that the system has a strong feedback loop in operation. What is needed is another gyro in a complementary plane to re-unbalance the loop and shift the feedback axis by 90 degrees yet again.
I'm almost giving away the answers here.....
Centrifugal force in this context is definable as what remains when the feedback loop is not active. If the feedback loop is active there is no centrifugal force. If the feedback loop is inactive, there is full (i.e. equal to centripetal force) centrifugal force.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 06/01/2012 01:03:57
| | | Ravi, you wrote, “It is not quite clear to be how the website quoted by Glenn could be correct in its explanation about centrifugal force.
For one thing, its explanation that the centrifugal force is not real because if it were, the ball would fly off radially (instead of tangentially) could also be used to argue for the non-reality of centripetal force equally.”
No, No, It is very simple. Centrifuge is a condition of sustained resistance which can be powerful. It is the result of momentum being forced to curve against it's nature. The instant centripetal forces cease (the string breaks) the pressure is relieved and instantly there is no after effect.
The resistance is a place and time where two forces meet, centripetal and momentum. Centripetal and momentum are true forces and are the cause and effect of circumferential resistance. Someone named this resistance, this pressure, this meeting of two forces in conflict, this time and place, centrifuge. The name could have been better, for example 'the resistance of bend force'. Centrifuge ceases to exist or pass on any effect, once the two real forces separate and leave it. They course do cause an after effect as well as they caused the beginning effect. They were and are real.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 06/01/2012 16:46:39
| | | Glenn, I'm with you on thi one.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
