|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
26 April 2024 09:23
|
|
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: |
Nitro |
| Subject: |
equal but not opposite |
| Question: |
Dear all, and especially Ram,
There are some, mostly poor, videos of precessing gyros on air tables, bits of string etc. on the web (bless and curse it in roughly equal amounts). Ironically the best air table example (see link below, showing a view from above) that I could find, is on a website by Emma Wilson in 2007 as part of her MEng Thesis. This site surely shows her to be just one of many scientists who have raised themselves up, not just by standing on the shoulders of giants but, by stamping those who’s shoulders they stand on into the ground. I say ironically because the person she seems to have wasted her thesis on by stamping him into the ground, instead of furthering scientific understanding, was none other than our old friend Professor Eric Laithwaite. It’s doubly ironic really because her brief video appears to show two remarkable things:- 1. That, like Ram, Emma is bloody useless at observing carefully and 2. that Professor Eric Laithwaite and the rest of us that have been banging on about it for ages, are right in believing that the “perfect gyro” in precession exhibits no mass. What this means, and mark my words well for a change Ram, is that a “perfect” gyro will not cause its support (be it a light plastic Eifel tower, on a table ((air or otherwise)), or a string hung from the ceiling) to be displaced to satisfy “the third” because something that has “effectively” no mass, cannot produce any centrifugal force. Therefore, an overhung gyro’s entire weight in precession is straight down the centre of its support and will cause no circular opposite displacement of its support. This is why a well spun overhung gyro, that it is not subjected to too much down force for it to entirely precess, or released clumsily so as to cause nutation to sod up observation, will:- 1. in the case of being placed on a cheap, light plastic Eifel tower, amazingly not knock over the tower by the massive centrifugal force that the gyros precessing mass should produce or:- 2. in the case of being placed on a disc on an air table the disc will not move. That is unless, of course, the bloody fool who set up the experiment has not balanced out the non rotating mass of the gyro’s cage, axial shaft etc. or:- 3. in the case of the gyro being hung from the ceiling on a string, the string will stay straight down from its support unless there is a non gyroscopic component like a steel spindle and handle, that weights can be hung on, in which case this spindle mass’s centrifuged component will cause there to be a small coning angle outwards on the string (instead of an opposite and Newtonianly correct centring of the string’s suspending point with the centre of the wheel) which will be seen to increase, along with the precessional speed, when more (non gyro mass) is added to the spindle (this is shown near the end of the first video, below).
Careful observation is needed, Ram, especially in the case of the air table video (below), as there is indeed rotation around the centre of “some” mass. However you should carefully observe the use of an extraordinarily long lever arm used for the overhung gyro (you don’t think this long arm could have been used just to exaggerate the movement of the base do you?) and also observe that there is a considerable non gyrodynamic component, in the mass of the cage and support axis arm. You may further observe that the reason the base forms a much smaller orbit than that of the gyro is that it is only being moved by the precessional rotation of this non gyro mass. If the gyro’s own greater mass was responsible for causing the base to rotate, the base would perform a much larger orbit – unless, of course, the base has been made of depleted Uranium! The unbalanced, non gyrodynamic, mass could, of course, have been easily balanced out by the addition of a small weight equal to the non gyrodynamic mass at the other end of the long axial arm, but inexplicably it wasn’t (you don’t think this could have been to exaggerate the movement of the base do you? No of course not. Scientists are never influenced by how they want results to turn out. So; just incompetence then? Or just shoddy?).
Ram, forgive me for saying above that you are bloody useless at observation, you obviously have some curiosity in the subject and have irritated me into deciding that when I retire around the end of the year (wife and money earning patents of observed anomalies permitting) I shall remake the fast repeater for everyone to (in Cockney slang) have a butchers at – so you have got (or is that gotten in American?) some uses. I must now try to help you understand the matter you raised in your earlier remark:- “However if the center of mass is moving, work is being done. So where is the energy for this work derived from?” There is no need for energy as centre of mass isn’t moving, only appearing to move because (see above) the precessing gyro has no “effective” mass. Gyros certainly sod up some of Newton’s laws but lets leave that great man and the conservation of energy laws (that’s for another patent and another time) with some credit.
One other thing. You said:- “Forgive me but. . . Still at it huh?” Ram, that’s pretty crass coming from someone who, in addition to fancying strange fish way back in 2004 was, even then, banging on about accepting nothing but an air table test. Little seems to have changed – are you on commission from an air table company? Any test that clearly shows the displacement I claim, for example the simple string pendulum test, is acceptable if the displacement is good and large (which it is), clearly large enough not to have been caused by such tiny anomolies as air resistance (which it is) and the displacement is repeatable (which it is). Careful observation and an understanding of what is being observed is, of course, needed as well.
Kind regards
NM
PS Blaze, Glad to see that I’m not the only one who ends up placing his e-mails in the wrong part of the forum. It’s just the web (bless and curse it in roughly equal amounts).
Wheel gyro suspended on long rope - later with weight added
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=NeXIV-wMVUk&NR=1
Good video at last showing view from directly above
http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh/gyroscopes/icegyro.html
|
| Date: |
14 May 2012
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 14/05/2012 22:59:39
| | | Not bad Nitro, not bad at all.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 15/05/2012 01:07:28
| | | Dear Ram,
Although I am on board with everyone else, I understand your argument has great merit with respect to science. If the most educated men in history have for centuries believed somethings to be certainties beyond question, who in the heck is Ram Firestone to argue against them, or for that mater any of us?
We have been tinkering unsuccessfully a long time and so had you. It has been difficult for me sometime, but I kept knowing that what you see is what you get! I kept reasoning. I kept doing tests. Others did the same. (Correct testing on an air table can't actually be done) I have lots of things to argue with, but everyone knows most of them.
What am I saying? Well, you can watch a very good gyro demonstration and see the wheel move very slowly around a centered anchor from above and watch it refuse to move in to the center of gravity, yet believe that it has has moved to the center; that it has, but it hasn’t, but it has, but it will, but it doesn’t. That's OK. You are not alone. Professors, engineers, physicist think they see exactly the same thing you think you see. I am not being ugly, or trying to be funny, but instead respectful.
Don't let us get you down my pal. You have an army of blind scholastic masses behind you. Actually, we few are incredibly outnumber. In a war we would get our butt's kicked. Have a good evening and please have a glass of cool-aid on me, Ram. our pal.
Sincerely,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 16/05/2012 03:01:12
| | | I have done the air table experiment using large custom top I had made on eMachineShip.com I had to spin it up with a motor and when it finally dropped watch out! The only non-rotating mass was the puck and that would tend to make the pivot more stationary rather than less. Guess what the pivot still moved A LOT.
Furthermore you guys are ignoring my point about conservation of energy. If a precessing overhung gyroscope in a frictionless environment does not drop, where does the energy come from to move mass? See if you look at the problem from an energy standpoint you quickly run into problems. Energy must be used up to accelerate mass and mass moving in a circle is under constant acceleration. Now you must either admit that a) the gyroscope does drop after all, b) the conservation of energy rule is invalid or c) some mysterious energy is being added to the system. What do you pick?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 16/05/2012 03:38:27
| | | Guys, I'm not against trying new things. I just want to see claims that contradict accepted science proven (or disproven) with rigorous experiments. I have not seen any solid evidence of mass transfer in an ongoing precessing gyroscope. Still, professor Laithwaite did do an experiment that he claimed showed the phenomenon; the one you see near the end of the heretic video. It's possible that his experiment was poorly constructed and therefore his results were bad. However, let's assume for the sake of argument he actually did observe real mass transfer. Since his experiment was started from a non precessing state I would say the mass transfer could ONLY occur during the drop until the gyros reaches stable precession (with or without major nutation). I say this because of the aforementioned conservation of energy problem. This could also be why it isn’t observed in a stable precessing gyroscope. There’s another theory that can be tested. But it MUST be tested with as little friction as possible since friction will give you a false positive.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 16/05/2012 08:45:10
| | | Dear Ram, et al,
I don’t think you have marked my words at all. Did the gyro that you used for your air table test have it axis dead horizontal? Did it have any non gyrodynamic parts (cage, support arm etc.)? If not I gota see that! Were these non gyrodynamic parts carefully, horizontally, counter balanced? If not that sounds, to quote you, “shoddy”!
>>I just want to see claims that contradict accepted science proven (or disproven) with rigorous experiments.
According to your own rigorous requirement for a belief to be proven (or disproven) you should repeat the air table test, more carefully balanced, and put up a video?
>>Now you must either admit that a) the gyroscope does drop after all, b) the conservation of energy rule is invalid or c) some mysterious energy is being added to the system. What do you pick?
I don’t “must admit either” anything but you “should” show your evidence to support your beliefs. However, with a “perfect gyro”:- a) it doesn’t drop at all (Precession is a conversion of a force not an energy. Therefore, disregarding “spin up”, no energy is needed except to overcome tiny pivot and air resistance and that is provided by the slow axial droop – a sad fate for many of us! ). b) In your interpretation of the rule; correct. c) incorrect.
Anyway! To Hell with all this fatuous discussion on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin – the Pubs are open and there is a beautiful Cobo sunset..........
Reactionless thrust, perpetual motion and so on can wait a bit longer. Priorities, boys, priorities.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 16/05/2012 15:52:47
| | | Nitro as I stated I did this with a top not a gyroscope. Everything was spinning but the puck. Counterbalancing the puck would only make it move more not less. Secondly no, the top was not exactly horizontal. I’m not sure why you think that matters. Are you claiming when it reaches exactly 90 degrees from vertical a gyroscope magically changes its entire behavior while 89 or 91 degrees it acts in line with Newton? That seems unlikely to say the least. I can’t currently repeat this experiment since I did it years ago and I don’t have the air table any more. In any case you’re are asking me to prove something that is already accepted by the scientific community while evidently you think you only needs to make claims and prove nothing. If the fact that when you move a gyroscope from a fixed stand to an air table it does something completely different, doesn’t make you think you might be wrong, I don’t know what will. I’m sorry but if you want to claim Newton’s 3rd law is wrong the burden is proof is on you.
As for a) b) and c) the whole point was that they are all wrong. You have already admitted a) and c) are wrong so all that remains is b). Now if you are still claiming mass transfer happens under precession where does the energy for it come from? You tell me. If you think my use of conservation of energy is incorrect tell me where I made the mistake.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 16/05/2012 19:51:17
| | | Hello Nitro,
You are right, carefully observations are important but they may lead in visual illusions if you do not know what really happens.
Ram is right, in a frictionless environment a spinning overhung gyroscope will precess around the center of mass, i.e. around the sum of the center of spinning mass AND dead weight mass. That means the pivot of an overhung gyro would rotate around the center of mass in the same direction of rotation as the overhung gyro would rotate around the fulcrum with the influence of friction. I've tried to explain that many times here in the forum without success or statements to any of my arguments.
The nature is not dumb. The nature ALWAYS takes the path of LOWEST resistance. That means in an environment with friction the lowest resistance for an overhung gyro system is to precess around the pivot although the origin of its precession movement is ALWAYS the center of spinning mass. Thus, without friction mostly at the pivot, the gyro will also take the path of lowest resistance which is center of spinning mass plus dead weight mass.
I must and will accept if you have other beliefs but belief is not knowing...
Did you watch this youtube video?
http://m.youtube.com/results?gl=DE&client=mv-google&hl=de&q=npEiWL9gyFU&submit=Suchen
This video does not show a perfectly frictionless environment, however, at the end of the video you can see how the gyro precesses around its center of mass.
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 16/05/2012 20:04:00
| | | Hello Ram.
Following on from where you have reached Laithwaite was not the only one who was aware of the mass transfer phenomenon.
I was aware of it long before I ever met Laithwaite and saw this thing first hand hundreds of times on my own test machines.
In a gyro in precession the mass transfer is 100% whether you care to believe it or not.
I have the impression that your attitude is a negative one and you could not really give a damn if we are right or wrong, but here goes.
I think Laithwaite’s mass transfer device was a pile of rubbish and that the man had already lost the place.
Newton was right Newton was wrong, Kidd was right Kidd was wrong.
What did he say which you could believe at that time?
He was but a shadow of the man I knew.
Strangely Laithwaite and I parted not so good friends in a discussion relating to mass transfer.
I had made a statement relating to my current split sphere machine and what happened to a certain part of it. He actually accused me of hiding information from him (which I was) and at that juncture that was that..
The Heretic video was made a good few years after that.
There were many things about gyroscopes Laithwaite did not know but which have been pretty well sorted out since his demise.
Laithwaite specialised in gravity accelerated systems which unfortunately have severe limitations.
For you Ram if you test mechanically accelerated devices, machines, systems if you like, you will be surprised how easily you can see and/or record results relevant to the present topic which are not generally accepted.
According to accepted beliefs a non-rotating wheel accelerated on a horizontal plane will provide a consistent measure of angular momentum.
At the same machine or system rotation speed but with the wheel rotating there will be a measurable loss of angular momentum.
(This is not in the books)
Continue to increase the rotation speed of the wheel and the angular momentum will for all intents and purposes disappear.
(Not in the books)
Some people call this precession which it is not.
Nevertheless the device loses no weight but there is no angular momentum present, just like a gravity accelerated system in precession.
I like to think that while the gravity accelerated system is one in decay, the mechanically accelerated system is the opposite and is one which is active.
With no apparent angular momentum or centrifugal force present the system is devoid of mass and all the mass in the system, wait for it, has been subject to mass transfer and can be found ( if you have some magical equipment to measure it) acting down through the axis of system rotation.
So Ram we have rapid rotation without acceleration.
( I do not think this is allowed either )
So why should a gravity accelerated system be any different, not that it matters.
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 16/05/2012 21:20:50
| | | Sandy, all I can say is I've never seen solid evidence of your claims. I will say this. If you apply a tilting force mechanically, you may be in a sense forcing nutation depending on how you implement this. Applying gravity does not mean your gyro has to drop although it should at least drop a little to start precession and will continue to drop over time due to friction. One point on which nitro, myself and physicist seem to agree upon is that once precession beings a gyroscope in a frictionless environment would continue to processes forever without dropping. This is well known. It strikes me that the difference between using gravity and mechanical force is not the force itself but how it is applied. For instance a mechanism that used springs for the tilting force might would not require the gyroscope to tilt but yet would still apply force to cause it to precess . This would be analogous to a gyroscope precessing under gravity albeit with increased friction. On the other hand I would guess actually mechanically gorilla forcing a gyroscope to tilt against its will so to speak, will certainly produce very fast precession (if not a catastrophic explosion).
In any case for those of you who really think you have it all figured out, it begs the question why aren’t you world famous millionaires by now? I mean if you can really build a machine that works why haven’t you? I know some of you have been going at it for years. This in and of itself is fine, but when I hear claims you have working examples, well ……. if they really work then have them independently tested and prove it.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 16/05/2012 23:32:35
| | | Ram,
My first machine produced 1lb of thrust out of a 5 1/2lb machine consistently in many labs and universities on 3 continents
This device was subject of a 30 minute documentary on the Independent Television Channels, .i.e.all over Britain.
Eventually after many disasters I got this device installed in Dundee University for their appraisal and to find out why it was not producing inertial thrust.
Well that is the way it worked out, because they were all so brainwashed they knew it was rubbish.
The initial meeting was with patent attorney, the head of industrial liaison department, the professor who was head of the engineering department and the gyroscope expert whose wing I was to work under.
The meeting was hardly started when this gyro expert jumped to his feet and screamed in real emotion and with the utmost venom, in fact bent right out of shape “I want it noted that I wish not to be associated with this disreputable device” and stormed out of the room.
I was really quite glad Jimmy had done that, he was a real pain in the backside.
The academics in there were quite prepared to spend the rest of my life proving it was something else, anything else
It was 4 months of wasted money, time, and effort.
I have a laboratory test for another one of my machines from one of the most prestigious laboratory facilities in the southern hemisphere, VIPAC laboratories in Port Melbourne to be exact.
Check it out.
My device produced 20 successful consecutive runs out of 20 in tests controlled by the laboratory.
To my knowledge it is the only successful test of an inertial thrust producing device ever carried out, and that was in the mid-eighties to be exact.
This laboratory test was taken to Edinburgh University for their appraisal.
The physicist (well that is what he was called) took my lab test without opening the envelope and threw it on to a table and sneered “Rubbish” as he disappeared out of the office.
An ignorant illegitimate, and one of many.
The watching professor said “Sandy I would like to help you but I would like to return to work on Monday”
This was the first of many such disappointments.
Maybe you with all your wisdom could enlighten me as to the correct approach in a situation like this, because it does not work out the way you think it does.
I was promised a million for one of my machines, 25 years ago, I will not go into the details, but I am still waiting.
As I have explained before there are too many people like yourself who are right because they know they are right, who have caused my problem.
Like you they like to think they know a bit about gyroscopes and they don’t
I thought we were discussing the dynamics of gyroscopes and not the finished article
Sorry Ram was I taking you too far out of your depth?
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 17/05/2012 01:14:20
| | | "My first machine produced 1lb of thrust out of a 5 1/2lb machine consistently in many labs and universities on 3 continents"
If that is really the case you could easily put on a pendulum and film it for YouTube. 1 pound of thrust on a 5 1/2 lib machine would be very visible. All I’ve ever seen are written claims that you and others have broken Newton’s 3 rd law and stuff like giggling machines bouncing up and down on cheap spring scales. These things aren’t all that convincing to anyone with half a brain. Let it hold a pendulum to one side steadily or drive a low friction cart up a ramp. You show that to people and someone will take notice. It simply stretches credibility that someone could have a truly working inertial drive of reasonable trust and yet they would not be able to get one single physicist to give it a fair look after 20+ years. Given what goes for proof or even just evidence around here it’s not surprising devices like this aren’t taken seriously. To me what would be considered healthy scientific skepticism anywhere else is considered closed minded or acting as one is “right because they know they are right”. I assure that’s not the case. Prove that you are correct and I will gladly admit it. In fact I would be overjoyed if you could prove it. It would open up whole new doors for space travel and propulsion in general.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 17/05/2012 02:38:05
| | | Here is something to contemplate.
If you go back far enough in time, everyone knew the Earth was flat.
Some time later, everyone knew that the sun and all the planets revolved around Earth and there was math and physics and astronomy to prove it.
Just a little over 100 years ago there was mathematical proof that heavier than air flight for more that one human being was impossible. http://www.besslerwheel.com/flight.html
About 40 or so years ago it was known in scientific circles that the maximum speed a computer could run was about 400 megahertz.
And there are probably a few other notable impossibilities that I don’t know about that had mathematical and scientific proof but that have since been proved possible.
Now, I am NOT saying that gyroscopes could or could not be used in some way for spacecraft propulsion. I AM saying that currently accepted science and math doesn’t always know everything and they are NOT always correct. Whether that is the case for gyros I really don’t know.
Just some food for thought.
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 17/05/2012 03:41:45
| | | Hi Ram,
Ram, you wrote: “I did this with a top not a gyroscope.”
Why would you use a top when you were investigating overhung gyroscopes? You owned an air-table at home? You have gyroscopes you've been testing for years? Did you get confused? (just kidding a little)
The bottom of a top moves about by rotating on a surface. If you tried to restrain this movement by putting the cone end in a concave housing, the top would attempt to rotate the housing and the platform floating on air. Tops and overhung gyros do not imitate one another and if it will be argued by some they do, then not a visual way, which renders the test less than good even to them.
One can argue physics, but how can one argue this test as a proof? No test was done.
What good is to arguing points of physics, a person who argues he sees an exception? You have to engage into his explained reasons for an exception, otherwise your are ignoring him and repeating what a half billion people already know, and in fact what he already has full knowledge of.
I said I did not believe a test of an overhung gyro on an air table could be done. I have the explanation, but it is long and I will spare you, unless you really want it.
By the way if you cared, Ram, I like you. I always did. You were here before even me.
With regards, Glenn
Hi Harry : )
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 17/05/2012 05:49:32
| | | “Tops and overhung gyros do not imitate one another and if it will be argued by some they do, then not a visual way, which renders the test less than good even to them.”
Tops are typically only different because the friction of if their spinning tip on a surface tends to cause them to right themselves though precession. However if you place one on a puck on an air table that no longer happens and they work the same way as a gyroscope except without a frame.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 17/05/2012 06:03:37
| | | "I said I did not believe a test of an overhung gyro on an air table could be done.'
I don't see why not. Yes in fact I would like you to explain. Harry K's experiment does exactly that. It's not quite as good as an air table but it does demonstrate that the gyroscope tries to precess around something other than the pivot. Again, using a top is further evidence because now there is no dead weight (except for the puck which would work against you anyway) so you can't claim the dead weight caused the pivot to move.
Also I notice nobody has even attempted to address the conservation of energy problem I brought up.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 17/05/2012 15:31:17
| | | Dear Ram,
Sure. I will try to answer. First, I do not know what another man has done, or what he can do. You never said though, you tried to test a gyroscope and failed. You never answered me either, why an owner of gyroscopes did not test one. Why instead you chose to test a top, though you would have to support this choice with a new and additional argument. I predicted your argument would be that they act the same. I think you tried and failed to test a gyroscope, until you finally gave up. That's my guess. The experiment is too delicate to be precise and the only way it might be tested at all would prove your argument wrong. It would prove the gyro elects to precess around it's pivot, not around its center of gravity.
In the study of HAV heating and air you learn with math why air volume and pressure is could not be uniform in an air-table. Additionally there will be eddy currents around a floating platform. These disturbance cause an up hill, down hill effect on a puck, or platform, especially one caring a weighted object itself in motion. (You might check out air-table experiments on youtube.)
You cannot find the exact CG between the static gyro, shaft and pivot by keeping the gyroscope level, elevated and horizontal without being supported. The support negate the attempt. You can find the static balance point, the CG, mathematically and then mark that spot on the shaft with a magic-marker. You then place this static CG spot in the center of the floating platform. Did you do that with a top? You spin up the flywheel and release it, but now you find that unlike the static weight, all the dynamic weight is transferred to the pivot, removing the balance from the previous static CG. It's fun isn't it? Now the pedestal is forcing the platform out of level and the hole contraption out of balance so that the platform leans heavy-side down-hill which causes the platform to sail away, tacking in the breeze towards an imminent crash.
Back to the old Ram drawing board. You eventually find that the only way to test the precessing gyro. You must temporarily accept that the CG will act as if were underneath the pedestal. You now ignore the present static CG and place the future dynamic CG in the center of the the floating platform. Now everything is dynamically in balance, but staticly out of balance and you have had to compromised your argument that a gyroscope wants to precess around it's center of gravity. Given that as immaterial at the moment, you now watch for the pedestal to cause the platform to rotate around the original magic marker spot on the shaft, which again is the static CG balance spot. It never does. So what is a poor fellow to do? He buys a top and prepares for a new and different argument to support his failed argument?
I am through with this. There can be no winners. I am going to find Nitro who's video was not addressed by you Ram, or even Harry, and see if he has left any beer. Surely to God he hasn’t drank it all. I've run out of free time for the month.
Best Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 17/05/2012 17:02:57
| | | “Why instead you chose to test a top, though you would have to support this choice with a new and additional argument. I predicted your argument would be that they act the same. I think you tried and failed to test a gyroscope, until you finally gave up. That's my guess. “
Sorry I thought it was obvious and also I did hint at the answer but let me be explicit: I wanted to eliminate the frame. I wanted all mass that could possibly cause the puck to move to be rotating mass. Also I find your characterization of “failure” disturbing. In any experiment you are looking for the answer, whatever it may be. You should not be trying to come up with excuses why the results differ from your preconceived notion (which brings me to your next statements). It’s even more silly to do this when your results apparently match accepted physics.
“In the study of HAV heating and air you learn with math why air volume and pressure is could not be uniform in an air-table. Additionally there will be eddy currents around a floating platform. These disturbance cause an up hill, down hill effect on a puck, or platform, especially one caring a weighted object itself in motion. (You might check out air-table experiments on youtube.)”
Yet the pick sits relatively steady with nothing on it. Also are you claiming somehow said currents move the puck exactly opposite the gyroscope? Come on.
“You cannot find the exact CG between the static gyro, shaft and pivot by keeping the gyroscope level, elevated and horizontal without being supported. The support negate the attempt. You can find the static balance point, the CG, mathematically and then mark that spot on the shaft with a magic-marker. You then place this static CG spot in the center of the floating platform. Did you do that with a top?”
Once you find the CG of your top you can weigh the puck which has its CG in the middle and calculate the combined CG for puck and top then mark that new spot on the shaft. As the top drops the combined CG of the gyroscope does not move since the CG of the puck is at the pivot. Testing it at exactly 90 degrees is more complex since you need some sort of tower and not just a gyroscope or top with a long shaft (as I used). But again I do not see why 90 degrees is a magic number.
“You spin up the flywheel and release it, but now you find that unlike the static weight, all the dynamic weight is transferred to the pivot, removing the balance from the previous static CG. It's fun isn't it? Now the pedestal is forcing the platform out of level and the hole contraption out of balance so that the platform leans heavy-side down-hill which causes the platform to sail away, tacking in the breeze towards an imminent crash.”
I have no clue here what you are talking about here. If the weight of the top (or gyroscope) is transferred to the pivot (as we all admit it is), the EXACT OPPPOSITE is true. Everything is pushing straight down. There is nothing causing it to be “out of level”
“He buys a top and prepares for a new and different argument to support his failed argument?”
I have yet to see where my argument has failed. Yes an air table is not completely frictionless, but it’s the closest thing I can think of that I can use. Air tables have been used for years in classrooms for this reason. Meanwhile you can just claim you have broken Newton’s 3rd law and have to prove nothing.
Now we are again left with my conservation of energy problem which still remains un-answered.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 18/05/2012 20:29:43
| | | Dear Ram,
As usual you have shown yourself lacking in the observation department. I answered your problem handling the conservation of energy question and you answered your question about one of the differences between a gyro and a top.
Kind regards
Nitro
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 19/05/2012 18:38:36
| | | Hi Ram,
I hope the day is treating you well and you are happy.
I am pretty certain a traditional spinning top has more dead weight than than a good toy gyroscope. If you put the top lengthwise between a press and pressed it flat, you would find the rim thin and that the metal would become progressively thicker towards the center. The nearer the center the slower the velocity. By this example one can see that the top would have to spun the center at tremendous speeds to convert the effect of dead weight near the center into angular momentum. The gyroscope is the reverse of that with most of the weight in the rim.
I guess we all have disassembled a Tadco gyro and found the shield guard to be made of light weight material. Also to be considered is that the less advantageously balanced conventional top usually has a push-down crank and worm gear to add to the balance disparity.
I know we can argue about anything, but is seems reasonable an obvious that a top does not have less dead weight than a good gyroscope.
If you want to test tops, a very good top can be made by removing the guard from a gyroscope and using it as a top. One reasons a way to hold the shaft ends of the converted top, until the string has been pulled.
Sincerely,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 19/05/2012 19:45:54
| | | In my view a top has no dead weight unless you want to consider the infinitely tiny line that runs thought the center. Everything else is spinning to some degree. Also the tops I used were custom made for me so they had most of the mass on the rim.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
glenn Hawkins - 19/05/2012 20:55:32
| | | You are imposable. We explain. You make up bullshit. I don't think you are stupid, but your stuff is getting more limber-legged each time you digress.
Have a good day, Ram. You have the floor. Have fun.
I'm not mad at you at all. I feel good. I've been riding my Schwinn in the park by the big lake. It is hot and the bike breeze is lovely. Everything is beautiful, green grass and trees and blue sky and lake. Pretty girls in bathing suits are everywhere. I just stopped on my way home and had a couple in the weeds. One for you and one for me. You be nice now.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ram Firestone - 19/05/2012 22:44:00
| | | "You are imposable. "
Well then, I fit right in with most of the ideas in this forum.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
