|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
23 November 2024 15:13
|
|
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: |
Luis Gonzalez |
| Subject: |
Trains, Gyros, and the Plane Truth Regarding Friction |
| Question: |
Having read about, and observed experiments with gyros, has lead us to consider whether opposite-reaction is to some extent thwarted by gyroscopic action.
Until recently, my own measure of conviction told me that the thwarting of gyroscopic-opposite-reaction had been successful in displacing mass albeit one step at a time (coming to full stop at each step).
These convictions spawned a mired of questions on how to extend our perceived phenomena into “Persistent Acceleration”.
We have been so focus that we failed or avoided asking the most important basic questions:
In other words, How Much MASS can be DISPLACED by a given Amount of FRICTION?
(And how to assess the interactions involved!)
This is the core question of today, and it is exemplified with an analogy that tells us much.., as the answer has been under our vey noses when we drive cars, motorcycles, bicycles, and (most telling) TRAINS.
A locomotive’s Contact-Surface-Area that drives the entire train is incredibly SMALL in relationship to the load it carries.
The friction-driving surface of a 16 wheel locomotive cannot exceed 36 to 64 square inches (i.e. 6x6 to 8x8 inch surface).
This tiny surface-area produces sufficient friction between two very smooth and slick surfaces made from stainless steel to easily drive 7 (or more) fully loaded rail wagons.
I think this fact presents a compelling comparison for how the friction in the cupped pivot-top of a gyro-tower (or the bottom-tower-surface on ice) can move the orbiting mass of gyros without budging the tower.
This gyro-feat is not so incredible when we consider the actual velocity of stable orbiting precession (and the tiny centrifugal force involved, which is sustained by friction).
So, a group of intelligent grown men (as we are), have been fooled for decades by a tiny “friction”.
It is not surprising that humans will follow their convictions over facts when given a choice (especially when the overwhelming fact is apparently negligible).
Best Regards to All,
LuisG
|
| Date: |
2 February 2013
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 03/02/2013 05:32:30
| | | You could still be right, Luis. The question has existed in our collective minds for a long time as you explain. It is good to bring it up. I do not think your answer is correct, but it is profound. A flat 8” x 8” contact surface between two polished pieces of steel must have a very low friction resistance. The resistance friction must come from the amount of weight forcing contact between the ‘hard’ polished surfaces, as no other reasonable to assume factors exist. Inertia is not a factor, only gravity and mass.
If we replace the pedestal, with a long string, the action can be confusing, but the results are that precession is exactly the same, but now without the possibility of friction existing. So we seem to be back at square one.
As for myself, I wasted lots of time pursuing this profoundly unanswerable question. My evidence is that friction in the cup, or from pin-points of ice do not at all produce enough friction to explain the details of the phenomena.
Good luck with your sane pursuit of an answer to wipe away all our findings. I can not outright deny your hypothesize, but I am sure it is wrong based on many things mentioned in these past threads. Keep the faith,
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 03/02/2013 18:07:58
| | | Hi Luis. I think that you may be optimistic on the actual area of contact. The top of the tracks where the train wheels ride on is domed. Therefore the full width of a track is not even in contact with the wheel. I believe that the tracks are steel, not stainless steel, at least in my part of the world, because they rust if not used.
Glenn is correct about the amount of weight forcing down on the contact surface. The friction experienced is the result of the coefficient of friction of the materials and the amount of force bearing down on them. This is interesting as it directly applies to gyroscopes. As we all know when the gyro is precessing it "transfers" its weight to the pivot. That is the force bearing down on the pivot. A good way to think about it is like this. If you were to push sideways on the pivot of a typical Tedco gyro without the gyro on it you would find it moves very easily. If you were to balance a ten pound weight on the pivot and then try to push it sideways you would find that it takes more effort to do so.
You bring out a good point that has been discussed in various forms previously on this forum. I would think that because of the minimal precession speeds and minimal centrifugal forces involved, the amount of "mass movement" that could be generated and obviously is generated is very large compared to the amount of friction between the pivot base and whatever it is sitting on. When the gyro is precessing slowly the pivot does not slide around even when on a very smooth surface. However as the gyro flywheel slows down and the precession speed increases, the friction between the pivot base and what it is sitting on is overcome and the pivot starts moving. The centrifugal forces are much larger at this time, probably 9 to 16 times larger (precession rpm increases by 3 to 4 times of what it was when precessing slowly) so the friction can no longer hold the "load" of the centrifugal force generated by the fast precessing gyro and the pivot moves.
regards,
Blase
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Albert Druid - 05/03/2013 02:30:01
| | | hey Lu you gona to stop posting? Al
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Albert Druid - 11/03/2013 17:49:44
| | | Lu – caint figure what the guys are sayin - am gessing yor gone. Al
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 16/03/2013 01:28:24
| | | Yes Al,
My ideas don’t belong here; this is a place of belief where counter-ideas are taken as insults by believers.
I don’t mind sharing my ideas with you Al (you have always been polite) but don’t have the slightest desire to become involved in personal arguments (that can end badly).
If you wish I can communicate via email.
Best Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Albert Druid - 19/03/2013 18:31:10
| | | thanks for offerin Lu – i use my daugter in law computer - some times the bossman - dont need email. Al
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 23/03/2013 21:11:32
| | | Hi Al,
To you only, I owe some explanation via this forum.
In short it’s over because I found the answer to what I came here for.
A basic assumption has been that linear acceleration is attainable from angular motions if and only if orbiting-precession’s motion produces no matching centrifugal & centripetal forces pairs, consequently no equal and opposite (Newtonian) reactions (in some segment).
It’s great to find the answer to a 10 year search, and my thanks go to Blaze who refocused attention on the core question, and provided experimental evidence.
The search has been great fun; this has been the most challenging from my list of puzzles to resolve (for my own satisfaction), and there are still a number of other fascinating puzzles to resolve. This forum is unfortunately not the best place for sharing discoveries.
I will continue to explore equations and physics of gyros, which are only meaningful to those who can find them and enjoy making the discoveries themselves. To others, such equations & math are irrelevant clap-trap, and established physics is insufficient (while relativity and quantum mechanics is too advanced).
Everyone should be true to their heart, and continue toiling their life for the things they believe in.
Perhaps our paths may cross again somewhere else.
My Sincere Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ted Pittman - 05/08/2013 16:47:07
| | | Hello Luis,
This is in response to a post you made, some time ago, titled "Seeking the Illusive Third Derivative "J"".
I have built devices that perform in the manner you described and would like to coomunicate with you via email. Please read my post titled "Gamma Report 3" and respond.
Photos can be seen at http://themonkeybarsoflife.wordpress.com/ + ( link to my email )
Thank you,
Ted
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
