Question |
| Asked by: |
Blaze |
| Subject: |
Can the pivot be precessed instead of the wheel? |
| Question: |
Let me see if I can describe this in a way that will make sense to anyone other than myself.
In an overhung gyro system under the influence of gravity, the wheel at radius R from the pivot will precess at a certain speed. Instead of letting the wheel precess, why couldn’t one forcibly move the pivot in a circular fashion at radius R around the spinning wheel at what would be the normal precession speed? I believe this should work without the spinning wheel rising or falling as long as the pivot moves at exactly precession speed.
If the pivot is moved faster than the precession speed would the wheel rise or would the shaft at the pivot end try to rise?
If the pivot is moved slower than the precession speed, would the wheel fall or would it "take up" some of the precession speed, the result of which would be a rotation of the pivot and wheel around a common point?
Has anyone actually done this experiment?
|
| Date: |
29 April 2012
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Blaze - 30/04/2012 01:58:04
|
| | Let me clarify. The pivot would not be precessing but rather it would be mechanically moved in a circle of radius R at the same speed as precession.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 30/04/2012 02:58:28
|
| | Any condition that changes by any method, the alignment of rotation will cause the flywheel to attempt to deflect into a right angle. So you could do what you suggest and the wheel should stay aloft, but also (I think) remain at the same grid in space.
You can get a read of what might happen by watching demonstrations of a lecture gyroscope. The center of the flywheel’s mass stays in one place though it responds into a right angle tilt from pressure and movement applied to the ends of the shaft.
Sincerely Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 30/04/2012 03:28:27
|
| | When you say "remain at the same grid in space" do you mean the wheel would rotate on a vertical axis through its center (stay in the same place in space)? If so, good. That is also what I think should happen.
Any thoughts on what would happen if the pivot were moved faster or slower than the precession speed?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 30/04/2012 04:09:50
|
| | (stay in the same place in space)? Yes, I think so.
“If the pivot were moved faster or slower than the precession speed?” I think the gyro act as you predicted and curve up or down in precession.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 30/04/2012 05:00:38
|
| | Thanks Glenn. I appreciate your input.
Sincerely
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 01/05/2012 02:00:59
|
| | Blaze,
Sorry I did not see this question earlier. It's interesting that you are intrigued by configurations that have also intrigued me.
One of my designs involved a similar configuration, and eventually prompted me to build a simple device, which allowed the pivot to move instead of the gyro.
Here is what happened:
In my test device, the pivot does not need to be mechanically moved around the radius.
In other words, the gyro's 90 degree deflection causes the pivot-point to move around in a quasi-precession motion.
Also, you guys are correct, when you hurry the precession motion the gyro rises and when you try to slow it down the gyro goes down (the same way that a normal gyro does).
The gyro stays in the same place in space, but that is because it does not have a choice in my device, due to the way the device is constructed.
You see the precessing PIVOT cannot be fully free to move in every possible direction (otherwise the gyro would simply move in normal precession no matter where you place it).
So, the precessing PIVOT in my device can only pivot UP & DOWN.
The quasi-precession motion is permitted to occur because the bottom leg of the pivot sticks (component) is attached to the bearings on a Lazy-Susan, thus allowing the quasi-precession.
I hope my device reflects what you were asking about.
Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 01/05/2012 02:29:27
|
| | That is EXACTLY what I wanted to know Luis. Thank you. It is exactly what I predicted would happen and it makes perfect sense.
I derived this outcome from that idea that the movement of wheel or the pivot is “relative”. In other words, what is moving is relative to where you are looking from. It depends on your frame of reference.
So, during normal steady state precession, from “the pivot’s point of view” the wheel is moving around the pivot. However, even during normal steady state precession, from “the wheel’s point of view” the pivot is moving around the wheel (remember, at one time people thought the sun and all the planets were moving around Earth because they were looking at things from "Earth's" point of view). What appears to be moving depends on your frame of reference.
Your experiment proved this nicely. But I would predict that if the pivot could move every possible direction, the experiment would still work out the same PROVIDED the pivot was moved in a circular fashion at exactly precession speed which would be a lot more difficult to do, but it would work the same as your experiment. Your experiment is a much easier way of proving the outcome.
Keep on keeping on,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 05/05/2012 00:34:35
|
| | So the real question is if the pivot were free to move in any direction and the assembly were placed on a lazy susan as in your experiment, why would the wheel precess around the pivot instead of moving the pivot around the around the wheel? I believe it would be because of the difference in resistance. The lazy susan would have a more resistance so the wheel precesses around the pivot which has less friction.
By the way, I don't believe the pivot moving around the wheel to be "quasi" precession. It is actual precession, just as it would be in a gimbaled gyroscope.
Your thoughts?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/05/2012 14:27:07
|
| | Hi Blaze,
Set a spinning gyro straight up on your desk. Slide a weight (nut or whatever) on to one of the axles and see what happens. Going back outside to work. See you later.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/05/2012 14:35:13
|
| | I forgot. Elevate the weighted axel a 180 degrees, or above for one answer. Elevate it below 180 degrees for a road show and a different answer.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 05/05/2012 16:02:06
|
| | Hi Blaze,
Let me dig out my lazy Susan set-up.
If I can rig it to do a quick test (as you explain) without having to put too much time, I will do it.
It may be a while, as I am up to my eyes in things to do.
Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/05/2012 17:53:23
|
| | Hello guys,
Are we sure we know what we are talking about? The pivot end has no force of it's own. It is an extension of the flywheel. As an extension, whatever the flywheel dose, the pivot and shaft get a free ride as they are part of the wheel.
How ever a flywheel is tilted by whatever means, it reacts as you know by curving at a right angle. This is caused by deflecting the inertia in the angular momentum in the flywheel. The pivot will not rotate around the flywheel of it's on evolution. It has no force of it's own and it is not tandem to another force. If you cause the pivot to move around the flywheel then you are tilting the flywheel, which causes the wheel to precess in any right angle direction related to the direction the pivot was forced to move. If I understand, I think there is nothing more to this. What else? But please continue of course.
Good talking to you all,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/05/2012 17:59:16
|
| | By the way Luis, my complements on your realizing such a good set-up as a lazy Susan for observations. I had never thought of it myself. I wish I had one.
Glenn : )
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 05/05/2012 19:04:25
|
| | You are correct Glenn. The pivot and shaft are an extension to the wheel so they do what the wheel does, at a distance, so to speak. I agree with you and I was never disputing that.
The question is this. If the base of the pivot (the part normally sitting on the table) is allowed to move freely, and if it had less friction than where the shaft pivots (at the top of the pivot), why wouldn't the pivot move around the wheel instead of the wheel moving around the pivot?
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/05/2012 20:59:30
|
| | Hi Blaze,
It is fine to see you working, even if it is running a beautiful mind into a brick-wall today. At least it is being employed powerfully, Bam, Bam, Bam : ) I am teasing you, because you are smart and I like you.
The pivot, powerless as it is, obeys the wheel. The powerful wheel dose not obey the powerless pivot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg_C9PTO5uI
There is no pivot friction to speak of. There are other like demonstration that are even more convincing. The wheel dose not presses, because an outside force compels it to. It precess' because a forces acting inside the wheel itself provides the force by way of deflections. This is why there is no equal and opposite reaction at the pivot. Nothing is pushing anything. The wheel pulls itself around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=e4BHfJrYfK8
This is like a spinning top. Every time it might lean and drop one one side, the force is transferred to the opposite side. That is how the wheel controls the pivot in a top.
Maybe these help. Catch you later,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/05/2012 21:30:20
|
| | Hi again. I guess these are difficult. I am considering a kid running around a ball in his yard. The kid is pushing forward and SIDEWAYS against the grown to force his movement in a circle around the ball. He has energy. But what would a ball do, pop up in the air and start circling the kid? It has no energy. Moreover, a shaft between the wheel and pivot doesn’t not pull inward as is supposed in rotation. There’s no centripetal in precession, because the wheel pushes inward as its momentum resist sideways deflection. It was the hardest thing to do to prove there was no reaction at the pivot. Countless hours were wasted on this problem. There is no opposite reaction at the pivot in precession, even though there is in rotation. Keep at it, Blaze. You’re getting it faster that I did,
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 06/05/2012 00:24:17
|
| | Hi Glenn. Thanks for the joke (bam, bam, bam). I did actually get a good chuckle out of it.
I am not saying that the pivot has any energy or ability to precess. I am saying that the wheel’s precession, through the shaft, should be trying to move the pivot around the wheel (the wheel should be trying to precess about its center of mass which would try, not necessarily succeed, but try, to move the pivot around the wheel via the shaft). The pivot actually does move for a short time during the Drop.
If the pivot had infinite resistance in the horizontal plain (it could only move vertically) and the base of the pivot had very little friction (like when mounted on the edge of the lazy susan as in Luis’ experiment), then the pivot moves around the wheel, NOT because the pivot has energy, but because it is being forced to move via the shaft by the wheels precession. The wheel in this case would precess around a vertical axis through its center of mass.
So, if the pivot had a lot of friction in the horizontal, not infinite, just a lot, at the shaft end of the pivot (top of the pivot) and very little friction at the pivot’s base, then why wouldn’t the pivot move around the wheel? The answer is that the pivot would move around the wheel (as was proven in Luis’ experiment) but of course that movement would be “powered” by the precessing wheel. So, when the does the wheel start precessing around the pivot instead of moving the pivot around the wheel? It must be when the friction of the base of the pivot is greater that the friction at the top of the pivot (where the shaft is).
Bam, bam, bam ;-)
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 06/05/2012 10:29:09
|
| | Hello Blaze,
Again I like it how you see these things because it´s a very similar way how I do it.
I tried to explain this issue years ago somewhere here in the forum, I believe it was a discussion with Glenn.
Applied forces (torques) to a spinning wheel will always result in action and reaction forces (torques) with the origin in the center of spinning mass. Additional dead weight mass, friction, degree of freedom will cause a deviation from the stated before, e.g. an overhung gyro will precess around the pivot and not around its center of spinning mass.
You have to consider that regardless how low the friction force of the pivot will be, this (very low) friction force will cause a friction torque with a lever arm length of the radius of an overhung gyro which is ALWAYS greater than the friction torque caused by the gyro rotating around the pivot because the lever arm when rotatating around the pivot is about zero (depending on the layout of the pivot).
Luis´ investigation with a lazy susan confirms this fact by decreasing the lever arm length to about zero length, thus it`s easier for the spinning wheel to rotate (precess) around its center of mass.
Also consider that in free space without the influence of friction and assumed that no dead weight masses are involved at all, the gyro would also "respond" with the origin of movements in the center of spinning mass.
Dead weight masses, friction and the degree of freedom in a gyro system will adulterate what really happens and let appear the beavior/responding in a gyro system a bit mystical, but it isn`t!
Have a nice Sunday!
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 06/05/2012 17:20:07
|
| | Excuse me, to my mind you very bright people are cracking an acorn with a 9 pound sledgehammer. You are smashing the insignificant to bits.
Subject: Can the pivot be precessed instead of the wheel?
I’ve provided two visual demonstrations showing ‘No’. Who is going to provide me one demonstration showing ‘Yes’?
As I explained, stand a gyro upright supporting itself upon it’s rim guard. Either till it slightly or hang a weight on an arm and the gyro will remain in place as the arms rotate around it. So the answer is ‘yes’. You move the pivot underneath the center of mass and the pivot, pivots around the area of the pivot. Not what you had in mind? ; )
Hi Harry, Yes, we bantered about questioning and I came to agree with you for a long time. It was fun. I agreed there WAS opposite reaction at the pivot. But I was WRONG. There isn’t any.
In reply:
It is the reaction of precession in a gyro system that seems mystical, not the faint drag of friction in opposition to it, or an increase in applied torque from gravity by added weight. However, in this respect you are perfectly correct as is also Blaze who alludes to it. That being there it isn’t mystical.
Drag, friction, or added weight do not themselves cause precession. They only affect precession. Precession occurs with or without them. To my reckoning over a period of years, I discovered reasons that there can be no rearward reaction at the pivot, and in fact there is nothing more to it than the faint, tiny drag of friction. Certainly not enough to equal the horizontal momentum in precession. I believe the professor pointed out that the toy gyroscope weights 300 times that of the pedestal. And If you recalled I did an experiment with crushed ice packed into the base of the pedestal sat on Formica top table and found plenty of pronounced circling movement in the pedestal. . . as is being somewhat suggested here. BUT the view was an illusion. The pedestal was being dragged directly toward the flywheel as if centrifuge were in play, and not actually circling.
You might want to look at the videos I posted above. Why is there not commit about them? I go again outside to work on this very thing. I woke up realizing an error in calibrations.
Don’t worry with this, because it doesn’t matter worth a hill of beans, unless Blaze has a design in mind involving this subject, also don’t worry with this post, because I know it is not what you want to hear.
Having said all that, I now leave the subject in your good-natured hands and wish you all the best and finest success’ in everything you do including this research. Have fun.
By for now,
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 07/05/2012 18:31:30
|
| | For another explanation see the post above, 'What causes a gyro to precess." 5th answer.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 08/05/2012 05:09:56
|
| | I haven't posted here for a LONG time but I decided to come back and check out what's happening. In any case to answer the original question the pivot will by default move if you let it. In fact standard physics says the gyroscope will precess around its center of mass which necessitates that the pivot move. If this was not the case gyroscopic propulsion would be simple to implement. Try placing a precessing gyroscope on an air table and you will see the pivot move by itself.
As for the last two cases you describe I haven’t tried them but I’m not sure they will yield the results you described.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 08/05/2012 05:15:44
|
| | Thank you for your input.
I was actually wondering what would happen if you put the gyro on a platform that floated on air as that would have the lowest friction "surface" I could think of. One would have to be careful not to have the air introduce any rotation into the system from the air though. Have you actually tried that experiment?
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 08/05/2012 14:27:10
|
| | Yes I've tried it. The pivot does move in a circle. The gyroscope moves too. Keep in mind the whole thing has to move around its center off mass. There is also still some friction so it’s not a perfect experiment. Theoretically if there is no friction at all the gyroscope never falls.
On a side note Eric Laithwaite claimed that the system didn’t precess exactly round its center of mass which was the basis for his propulsion system ideas. However I have never seen any proof of this.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 08/05/2012 17:56:16
|
| | Dear all,
Ah! The boys are still here and still in need of guidance.
An overhung gyro on an air table or on ice with has been held up many times as an example showing that there is Newtonian opposite motion making the gyro and its support rotate around their centre of mass. This is quite simply wrong! The examples I have been able to find – there is even one from the illustrious Glen, owner of this site (not to be confused with Glen Hawkins from America, who can be found frequently posting here). Glen’s video can be found here:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgZFtCvwTZQ&feature=endscreen&NR=1
and it can be seen that there is some large displacement of the pivot but the gyro is not horizontal and it is unclear, without stop motion, that it really does rotates around its centre of mass. Fortunately clearer examples exists to bust the myth that an overhung gyro and its support, if free to do so, will rotate around their centre of mass.
It can be clearly seen from the following video that far from its almost frictionless suspension wire moving across to put the wire’s pivot point directly above the centre of mass, as would be expected under Newtonian laws, the centre of mass actually moves outward to follow the gyro’s outward displacement – utterly wrong!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H98BgRzpOM&feature=related
Kind regards,
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/05/2012 18:11:02
|
| | Hello Ram,
Forgive me but. . . Still at it huh?
http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=306
If 'standard physics' were not known to fail in gyroscope experiments and known by all here, there would not be a gyro propulsion site. So how do you expect to find relevance quoiting from there to support your argument here?
You say: “Try placing a precessing gyroscope on an air table and you will see the pivot move by itself.”
This has been talked about a lot, but to my knowledge there is no evidence it has ever been done. It would prove to be very difficult to do. I doubt your statement that you did it. Explain all the problems and how you overcame them. You are very wrong about all this and you give only statements and no mechanical explanations that might be mechanically challenged with the known, the reasoned and logic.
If half the logic, observations and evidences I pointed out were read, thought over carefully and understood, there could be no questions remaining on this subject. I think they could not be intelligently argue against. Nobody addresses these explanations. It is as if they were never written and never studied.
I have lost my will to explain how and why precession works. I think no one else in the world knows and perhaps never will. And if you wanted to believe me, I was able to produce two feet of reaction-less thrust, because of what I know. Nobody else on earth has ever done that.
It has been fun and a great pleasure conversing with you gentlemen. Take care now at the wall you two and try to stay out of the rain, Ram. I'll see you all at Walmart if you're careful lucky. Ride a bus.
I hope to put all my future energy working, building and dating. By the way, do either of you fellows happen to have an older, pretty and smart sister? Strike that. Excuse me for asking.
Bye fellows,
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 08/05/2012 19:24:22
|
| | Gentlemen, before we all get too excited, let me restate what I was originally looking for here. I simply wanted to know if the pivot could be made to move around the gyro and if the gyro would rise or fall in that case, not why the gyro normally moves around the pivot (yes, later I did ask that question but I believe I got the answer). That is it. I am happy with the answers I got. Luis' experiment proved that the pivot can be made to move around the gyro without rising or falling. That is what I wanted to know. I don't think more needs to be said about that. Again, at this time, I don't really care about why it doesn't always do that.
By the way Glenn, I do have a design in mind that would use this idea, but unless something really wonky is going on I doubt it will make any difference.
Be happy guys, life is too short for anything else.
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 08/05/2012 19:38:23
|
| | Nitro from the video you linked it may be unclear that it is really rotating around its center of mass yet this is still what accepted physics says and I have never seen anyone disprove it. When something is accepted in science it is up to the challenger to prove the current physics is wrong. Making a claim it is wrong is not valid without proof. It is right until proven otherwise. Marking the center of mass on a gyroscope on an air table puck and is not that hard to do. As the gyro falls the center of mass will stay still stay in the same place. If you look down on the whole system you will see your marked point stays in about the same place. I tried it a long time ago. Sure it’s not perfect. There is still friction in the system but at the same time there is not enough evidence to prove that the center of mass is moving.
Finally there is another theoretical problem with the center of mass moving under precession. As I said in a perfect system the gyroscope will precess forever. However if the center of mass is moving, work is being done. So where is the energy for this work derived from? See now you are breaking two laws of physics not just one.
Now if you want to talk about a system where an increasing tilting force on the gyroscope is causing it to drop (i.e. lose potential energy) then you can claim the energy could comes from there. However currently that energy is assumed to go into the precession of the gyroscope, it’s frame and/or an air table puck (whatever you are using for you test), and again there is no proof that it goes anywhere else.
As for the MIT video I don’t see anything frictionless about it. Gravity is always going to try to center anything hanging from a sting. I don’t see how this proves anything. It is simply a demonstration of precession.
Bottom line is accepted physics rules, until proven wrong.
“Forgive me but. . . Still at it huh?”
Well Glenn I still think about it from time to time but I have done enough tests to convince me that most of the things that have been claimed to be gyroscopic propulsion aren’t. I keep an open mind about it but I don’t want to be a “believer”; someone who believers so much in something they refuse to consider it might not be true even given the lack of evidence. Also the existence of a web site is no proof of anything. Note the flat earth society has a web site.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/05/2012 19:40:07
|
| | Last time I promise. I clicked on to see if my post had took.
Nitro, that is excellent. It was your little propulsion, 'the first ever seen' and which I wasn't 100% on until I matched it, at least. You shook me into testing my idea. Thank you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgZFtCvwTZQ&feature=endscreen&NR=1
This video is impossible to argue with and I will not try. It is the same visual illusion I spoke of from my own similar experiment. It was my conviction then and now that the ice was not rotated, but pulled along by the gyroscope which was curving, causing the ice to curve to keep up. The ice is not compelled to rotate, it compels itself. I will explain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KlddP16uuU
This is an example where it is easily determined the pivot is being pulled directly toward the gyro and not curving.
This is what has happened with the ice: This is tricky. As the ice is forced to curve a little in order to keep moving directly toward the curving gyroscopic, it is being slung a little toward the area the gyro once occupied. It moves that direction, because of it's inertia. The places of the ice is then curving a little. The ice is heavy and curving a little creates centrifuge, which pulls it outward much further. The ice pulls the ice outward. The more outward it pulls itself by centrifuge, the larger grows it's radius. The ice is rotating and there is rotation around the center of the two mass'. BUT if there were no ice, if there would be no mass, there would be no rotation around the center of two mass, because there would only be one, the wheel. The visual suggestion is blatantly not true. The overhung gyro never attempts to rotate around it's center of mass and . . . . the pivot never experiences a sideways force. The table top? Hay, com'on.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 09/05/2012 06:18:03
|
| | "I simply wanted to know if the pivot could be made to move around the gyro and if the gyro would rise or fall in that case"
As far as I know any friction at the pivot in the typical set up (this could also be resistance when moving the pivot) will cause the gyroscope to drop. On the other hand a perfect example of a gyroscope rising is a toy top. When the top is tilted somewhat on its side the tip will want to move in the same direction as precession. It sort of acts like a wheel. This indeed does cause the top to rise, or in other words a top will often right itself while a gyroscope typically doesn’t .
So yes you can probably design a device that will force a gyroscope to rise and fall by moving the pivot, however I'm not sure how that would translate into propulsion.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 09/05/2012 13:34:21
|
| | I wasn’t going to continue but there seems a need for others to know why shed dwellers remain addicted to this subject despite its cursed slipperiness. Conducting the simple Newton defying tests below may go some way to explain the addiction. It may seem like a blind religion but you cannot look for something unless you believe there might be something to be searched for. I would suggest that Newton, Galileo, Rutherford, Faraday, Baird and even the odd American inventor/discoverer started with that belief.
It may be necessary to be British and a little mad (Newton was, after all, mad enough to distort his eye with a needle when researching the spectral effects of white light) to move beyond Newton’s observations. So let me try. Newton was undoubtedly brilliant and, of course, British.
Trouble with his “laws” arise however when the body being acted upon is rotated on two axes. Do these simple gyro pendulum tests, please.
It has been shown by Foucault and others that, discounting friction, a pendulum being acted upon by the perfect linear downward (to us) force of gravity will swing to and fro along a straight line until and unless acted upon by additional force/s (that’s resultant appears) at right angles to its swing. All well and good so far. Unless, that is, you replace the bob weight of the pendulum with a gyro that, unlike the video examples cited before, has its axis in line with the pendulum’s suspending wire. Now the pendulum’s path describes a curve and (here’s the tricky bit for devotees of Newton) there is no mass displacement in the opposite direction as required by the third law (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction). The edges of the third law have suddenly frayed. A fairly large hole in the first law has also just appeared ( An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force). Clearly there is an unbalanced force causing the pendulum’s path to curve yet there is no external force being applied. What of the second law? (Objects at equilibrium (the condition in which all forces balance) will not accelerate. According to Newton’s second, an object will only accelerate if there is a net or unbalanced force acting upon it. The presence of an unbalanced force will accelerate an object - changing its speed, its direction, or both its speed and direction). It is obvious that there is an unbalanced force causing the gyro pendulum’s path to change its direction. What is causing its sideways acceleration? Where is the mass being displaced in the opposite direction? Does a problem also exists with the second law as well? Dam right there’s a problem – or several!
The simple observable fact is that the gyro on the pendulum wire moves its own mass and the wire to one side of the straight line that the the pendulum would be expected to swing, with no opposite reaction. Under Newton the string should move to the opposite side to the expected straight line swing, to maintain the centre of mass of the gyro dead in line with the suspension point of the wire, if the “laws” were being followed. That doesn’t happen. Further; the gyro is able to precess even more than its own mass to one side yet still there is no sign of movement of any mass in the opposite direction nor opposite sideways movement of the suspending wire or its support (indeed the wire will move, as in the MIT video, slightly in the same direction as the gyro’s displacement) Now that is a little mad!
Incidentally, the blind unquestioning religious following of existing scientific beliefs can be just as daft as followers of the flat Earth society. Such blind faith can cause someone to believe on the one hand that a gyroscope, that has slowed to the point where nutation takes over from precession, produces reactions in the same way as one that is fully spun and carefully released with its axis horizontal and yet on the other hand refute an MIT video clearly showing no pivot (suspending wire) displacement. Such blind faith may cause such a follower to further say that friction – which would simply cause the gyro’s axial angle to droop – is why there is no equal and opposite reaction that would be shown by such wire displacement. Come on Firestone! This subject deserves more effort than that. In addition to the doing the simple test above you may like a bit more proof that something is wrong by looking at the video of my early test unit (if you haven’t already done so) here:- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CykYS35bDGE
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 09/05/2012 14:12:47
|
| | Nito, Put your experiments on an air table and you will see the opposite reaction. In the absence of an air table the opposite reaction is that the earth moves. It's the same reaction as when you walk across the floor. You just don’t see it because the earth is so large its movement imperceptible.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 09/05/2012 14:35:13
|
| | One more thing, you said:
"Come on Firestone! This subject deserves more effort than that."
Fair enough, however If it deserves more effort then it deserves the effort to do it properly. Things hanging from stings or on rollers add external forces and friction. Ideally these experiments would be done in zero gravity using magnets instead of gravity to apply the tilting force. If it moved then, you would know you had something. However since this is difficult at MINIMUM try your experiments on a leveled air table. The reason why people don’t take this stuff seriously is that many of these experiments are downright shoddy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 09/05/2012 15:53:59
|
| | Shoddy? Absolutely! However you don’t need to carry out experiments in the frictionless vacuum of space to be able to see that there is something wrong with “the Laws” when a simple pendulum follows a curve just because its bob weight is a gyro. Friction is not the cause of the curve and neither is Magnus as it does the same curve when enclosed. Read my words again, do the simple suggested test, Ram, take time to properly observe. Then tell me about friction being the cause of the anomaly if you still must.
Kind regards
Nitro
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 09/05/2012 19:52:55
|
| | Again the question is would the center of mass move if the whole setup (pendulum, support etc.) was on an air table. Even with the air table a swinging pendulum will create air currents that may move the apparatus. It doesn’t take much to move something on an air table. So the whole thing would have to be in some sort of bubble to be remotely accurate. My guess is after you did all this the center of mass would not move and therefor it would just be another experiment showing a form of precession.
That being said, maybe I’m wrong! but if I am, Newton is wrong too. The point is you need to prove these things not just make a claim that something looks odd. On the face of it a precessing gyroscope looks odd too yet a physicist will tell you it is perfectly in line with Newton. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The bottom line is someone needs to PROVE they can move mass without an opposite reaction. Until this happens scientists are just going to laugh at you. I commend anyone who wants to try experiments that fly in the face of accepted physics. However be ACCURATE. In fact if you have a theory do you best to disprove it experimentally and if it survives then you know you have something.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 11/05/2012 19:50:19
|
| | Hello Ram,
It would seem that not very much has changed for you since you last contributed.
You said
“In fact standard physics says the gyroscope will precess around its center of mass which necessitates that the pivot move. If this was not the case gyroscopic propulsion would be simple to implement”
I argued with you about this statement sometime in the past Ram and I tend to think that you still have it the wrong way round, but do you think you could you please explain why this would make gyroscopic propulsion simple to implement?
You also said
“On a side note Eric Laithwaite claimed that the system didn’t precess exactly round its center of mass which was the basis for his propulsion system ideas. However I have never seen any proof of this!”.
This Ram is likewise the wrong way round.
Anyone who knew the man personally would be pretty sure Eric Laithwaite never ever claimed such a thing.
Any gravity accelerated system is a system in decay and is therefore never ever going to produce any “useful” amount of inertial thrust no matter what you do with it, and that is including any movement of the gyroscope’s fulcrum.
In this context, does it really matter at all if the gyroscope rotates around its centre of mass, or not?
However you can be happy in the fact that most of the world’s physicists are in agreement with you.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 12/05/2012 07:12:26
|
| | "do you think you could you please explain why this would make gyroscopic propulsion simple to implement?"
Yes I can. If a gyroscope is truly (and by truly I mean in a frictionless environment) not precessing around its center of mass then it is moving mass with no reaction. Now all you have to do is move that same mass back to its original position the normal way and repeat the process. If you look at Laithewait’s patents they all try to do this in some fashion. And I’ve thought of a few even simpler ways to do this. However the point is moot if they theory is wrong.
"Anyone who knew the man personally would be pretty sure Eric Laithwaite never ever claimed such a thing."
He did. He called it mass transfer but it amounts to the same thing. Of course for this to make any sense it requires that the pivot of the tilting force is not at the center of mass. In any case I haven’t seen good evidence that it works. There was that test in the heretic video but you pretty much have to take his word for it that it was doing what he said it was and also the friction in his test wasn’t the reason for his results. I tried to do similar tests myself a few years back but I didn’t get anything that convinced me of mass transfer. To be fair I haven’t tested it under various states of nutation so maybe it works and I simply haven’t seen it yet. If it did work I would guess that it would only work under the initial drop of the gyroscope before precession. The reason being is because at this point potential energy is being lost or rather converted into precession. Now suppose part of this potential energy was actually lost and not converted into precession? Where did it go? Maybe that would be where the mass transfer comes in. This however is all HUGE speculation and I don’t really believe it myself, but at least it’s a testable theory and not just throwing gyroscopes in random directions to see if something moves. For stuff like this the burden of proof is still on the one making the claim since it defies accepted physics. People have been tinkering with this stuff for years with nothing to show for it. Before scientists are even going to consider this they need to see a controlled test that proves the theory. Finally if you go look at Laithewait’s patents you will see they all work on this general theory of his.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 13/05/2012 13:39:22
|
| | Welcome back Ram,
An inertial propulsion device will require a bit more than just moving a mass "without-reaction" in one direction, and then moving the mass to original position in the "normal-way".
The result from repeating this process is a vehicle that progresses one step at a time, coming to a full stop every cycle. This process cannot aggregate acceleration into increasing velocity; it has a maximum velocity that it cannot exceed.
Something more sophisticated will be necessary to yield sustained propulsion.
Perhaps you haven't thought this piece through because it isn't worth the effort, previous to a definitive proof that precession is a motion without equal-reaction.
I agree that, up to now, definitive proof does not exist, even though superficial evidence to support both camps is available (even the air table videos are not conclusive).
Best Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 13/05/2012 16:06:06
|
| | "The result from repeating this process is a vehicle that progresses one step at a time,"
I'm not sure this is the case. Imagine you are in space inside a hollow tube with the ends capped. Now from one end of the tube you throw a ball. While the ball is traveling down the tube it appears from the outside that the tube is moving.
Suppose now there is someone else on the other end of the tube that catches the ball. Now the tube stops. However, suppose that guy has a magic glove that eliminates half the momentum imparted to it from anything it catches. Now the tube continues to move with reduced speed. Now we simply throw the ball back and start over. Since we have already determine by standard physics that throwing the ball back will not affect the tubes final velocity it is still moving at the end and repeating the process will increase speed.
In any case even if everything I said above is wrong and you are correct, the fact you can move anything with gyroscopic propulsion would be a HUGE step forward. You would get a lot of attention and funding. It would be worth doing if possible.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 14/05/2012 13:12:08
|
| | Hi Ram,
Thanks for confirming that it will require a bit more than just moving a mass "without-reaction" in one direction, and then moving the mass to original position in the "NORMAL way".
A “magic glove" is one way to describe the solution.
And Yes, if precession's motion does not have an opposite reaction, then it does point us toward the first step in many toward potential gyro-propulsion.
It is great to hear from you, as you have always focused on the core of the issue.
Best Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 14/05/2012 21:32:58
|
| | "Thanks for confirming that it will require a bit more than just moving a mass "without-reaction" in one direction, "
I'm not sure you got my point exactly. Moving or rather accelerating a mass without reaction WILL do the trick nicely assuming this was possible. Let’s change our example. You now have a magic arm that throws the ball with no reaction and the glove on the other side is normal. Now the tube does not move until the ball reaches the other side. Once the ball is caught the tube is accelerated and is now moving at some velocity. This becomes our new frame of reference in Newtonian relativity (note we aren’t talking Einstein here) . If we now throw the ball back normally (no magic arm or glove) to its starting point we retain that velocity we just gained albeit with a temporary further increase and then decrease in velocity during this phase. The next time we repeat the process our final velocity increases yet again. We are therefore increasing our velocity on every iteration, i.e. accelerating.
The main difference here is it sounds like you are thinking as if the mass teleports (the name mass transfer is a bit misleading I think). I mean not really teleports but acts like it does. If that is the case then you are right the speed is capped by how fast you can repeat the process. However if you think about it as accelerating a mass with less opposite reaction than normal, then you could indeed create a drive that accelerates a vehicle like this.
However just to reiterate I don’t think any of this has any chance of being possible under simple precession. The reason is there is no energy being spent. Without friction a gyroscope should precess forever. You would therefore be breaking conservation of energy law and not just the equal but opposite law. I think many people here have been considering a modification of equal but oppose as equal but not necessarily opposite. Let’s say we assume for a second this modification might be valid. We still must contend with conservation of energy for anything to move.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 15/05/2012 01:12:07
|
| | Hi Ram,
The quest for gyro propulsion comes tainted by a human flaw that causes all of us (no exception) to underestimate everyone else's understanding of the subject.
So I accept your personal comments without malice.
Your magic arm example resembles Nitro's video (minus the inert mass).
Is it the same?
In other words, torque causes deflection/precession, which in turn slams to a stop thus causing the overall device to accelerate.
Repeat this over and over, and you aggregate velocity incrementally.
(You have seen Nitro's Video, haven't you?)
How is your "magic arm" different?
Best Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 15/05/2012 01:30:05
|
| | Hi Ram. Take a look at my post entitled "Could this be the reason that mass movement happens?" It looks at this whole thing a different way and it poses a unusual way of looking at why the pivot doesn't normally precess around the gyro wheel. It might make some sense to you.
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
