|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
20 April 2024 02:00
|
|
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: |
loss of mass effect |
| Question: |
Dear Gyronauts,
Craig Schaefer, who, from his wonderfully over produced u-tube videos seems to be a professor of physics, has inadvertently put up a video which, far from confirming conventional physics that I assume was his aim, would seem to confirm the beliefs of nutters in sheds. Nutters, that is, like me, who hold the view that a spinning mass moved on two axes does not exhibit all the properties normally expected from the inertial mass of a moving body. This means that centrifugal force and other inertial effects to do with momentum are at least reduced and which, with a perfect gyro (which obviously cannot exist), disappears.
In the first part of the video the gyros are not spun and the assembly is pushed one way and then the other. It will be observed that when Craig’s finger is removed from pushing round the assembly, the assembly, due to the expected inertial momentum keeps moving.
Fast forward to near the end of the video where the gyros are spun up but in the “same direction” so that their precession cancels out and the inertial momentum movement, after the removal of Craig's finger, seems much reduced. I am sure that Blaze and others will point up that this is not a properly constructed test but I think, at the very least, it shows a way to test the hypothesis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGun5athdfg
Kind regards
NM |
| Date: |
13 July 2013
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Blaze - 15/07/2013 04:52:47
| | | Hi Nitro.
"Fast forward to near the end of the video where the gyros are spun up but in the “same direction” so that their precession cancels out and the inertial momentum movement, after the removal of Craig's finger, seems much reduced."
Your statement is correct but leaves out the fact that when the gyros are not spinning Craig pushes the apparatus with considerably more speed than when the gyros are spinning in the "same direction". When not spinning, Craig pushes first in a counter clockwise direction at t=52 seconds and then a clockwise direction at t=55 seconds. Both of these pushes are done MUCH faster (especially for the clockwise push) than any of the pushes done from t=2:08 to t=2:20 when the gyros are spinning in the "same direction". That is why the inertial momentum is much reduced when the gyros are spinning in the "same direction", because the input is considerably less than when they are not spinning.
cheers,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 15/07/2013 10:31:42
| | | Hi Blaze,
I thought that one would make you bite. While I have your attention could I ask you to look (again if you have seen it already) at the U-tube video of “MacPhails pendulum”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNHxSYYMd-Q
This shows the normally straight plane of a pendulum swing being altered considerably without external influence. It is clear that at the start the pendulum bob weight by its attachment via a thread to the suspending hook causes the pendulum to perform the usual straight plane arc we are all familiar with. What is not so familiar is the later two curved path examples. To alter its plane of swing a mass must be being displaced within the bob weight to one side WITHOUT an equal and opposite mass displacement within the bob weight that would be expected rom Newton’s third law. Wikipedia quotes its translation from Newton’s Latin Principia as:- Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that of the first body.
Thus; if a mass is accelerated to one side within the pendulum, an equal but opposite mass/acceleration must occur within the pendulum to hold with the third law. If such an equal and opposite mass/acceleration takes place the centre of mass remains constant and the pendulum’s plane of swing cannot curve. Yet it does.
Your comments on this phenomenon would be welcomed .
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 18/07/2013 06:39:08
| | | Hi Nitro. I did look at this before but didn't comment. I took a close look at it again. However, I came up with an explanation/theory of what is happening (based on my own particular understanding of gyro behavior) before studying the video in detail. That way the video could prove or disprove my understanding and the video did in fact confirm my theory. I will only expound on what is happening when the gyro is spun up inside the ball as that is the only important part. There are several things happening here.
First: There is external influence. There are actually two forms of external influence. One is continuous which is gravity. It is always there and acts upon the gyro inside the ball when the gyro is spun up. The other is the changing pendulum movement which is an arc movement.
Second: The pendulum an arc movement means the gyro is also moving in an arc which means the gyro is precessing. All arc movements of a gyro are really just precession movements of one kind or another.
Third: The gyro reacts with a 90 degree shift to the pendulum movement. If you watch the video really closely you will see the ball shift slightly from one side of the string to the other as the pendulum reaches the end of its swing arc. This happens at both ends of the pendulum swing but it is not always easy to see and it is not always a pronounced amount of shifting. The ball shifting is from the gyro inside reacting to the pendulum movement changing direction. You can actually see the whole ball precess 180 degrees at the end of some of the pendulum swings. Since the whole ball is shifted to one side of the string, it will move to that side as the pendulum continues its swing.
From the direction of the shifting of the ball, I can tell which way the gyro was spinning.
Cheers,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 18/07/2013 10:23:04
| | | Hi Blaze,
Very good observations on the motions and precession, but you have omitted to comment on - perhaps you overlooked - the most important point; namely that the barycentre of the mechanism displaces to one side of the suspension hook on each swing. Without such a shift in barycentre there would be no curved path. This is the illusive “mass displacement”, admittedly in one of its simplest forms. This displacement leads on to the question:- If there is a shift in the barycentre where is the opposing mass shift required by the third? Nitro’s first law gives the clue here.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy - 18/07/2013 19:43:47
| | | Hello Nitro,
Thanks for bringing that stuff to our attention.
The experiments or demonstrations you linked us to, were well done and well presented.
However there was a challenge to Eric Laithwaite by the same group entitled
“NO WEIGHT LOSS” and immediately knowing this was going to be in error, I reviewed the challenge which in fact turned out to be a very real demonstration of what can transpire when ignorance of the facts prevails.
The experiment they carried out was not even remotely similar to the experiment Laithwaite demonstrated.
The presentation was very good, the experiment however was very bad.
This did nothing which would prove Laithwaite was in error.
However these guys are academics so they must be correct.
It is rather obvious that Eric Laithwaite was supporting the heavy gyroscope on his own with the weight being transferred as many of us know to act down through the centre of his body.
This only happened when the wheel, gyroscope whatever was under acceleration by the man, and had to be caught rather sharply when he ran out of room to continue the acceleration, when it was almost vertically overhead.
If he had not stopped the movement then, he would at that stage be attempting to balance a very heavy gyroscope vertically on top of his head
Watch the experiment.
He also declared that during the demonstration, there was no centrifugal force or angular momentum present.
This is also very true, but at that time when none of the audience knew any better, and unfortunately still do not know any better, that kind of statement did not help his case.
However, proving this is in fact true is probably the easiest way of proving that Laithwaite was in fact correct.
.
As to Laithwaite’s large gyroscope, there is no way that even Samson could support that weight at full stretch of the arm, so who is kidding who.
The gyroscope had to transfer a fair percentage or even all of its weight to allow this feat to be carried out, and of course the system, (the wheel and Laithwaite), would always weight the same at any one time.
I have had that gyroscope in my own hands, and I do not consider myself as a weak person, but without some kind of weight transfer that demonstration is just not on.
Best regards
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 21/07/2013 22:04:58
| | | Hi Sandy,
Sorry not to have replied sooner but I have just realised that due to my e-mail address being changed, ages ago, I no longer get an e-mail from this site when someone has responded. I probably do, but it gets lost in the infinite Either. Must check more often and figure out how to update my e-mail.
Bit mystified by you response as you seem to be referring to a different video to the one I put a link to, above. Must be an earlier link. However I think I know the large gyro demo you refer to, though I don’t know the academics’ response. I am not sure that Eric Laithwaite didn’t fall into a trap with this one. I don't think it requires lift to be applied by vertical torque on the wrist and forearm – which would, indeed, be impossible – but instead requires a resistance to a straight pull on hand and arm (and a slight lean back while he rotates) which is where precession would place the “weight”. I don’t think this would cause impossible skeletal loads.
Scary amount of kinetic in that demo – Eric could have wiped out most of his audience if that one got away. Eminently watchable as always though.
Kind regards
Nitro
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 22/07/2013 03:23:50
| | | Hi Nitro.
"requires a resistance to a straight pull on hand and arm (and a slight lean back while he rotates)"
That statement would indicate an outward pull by the gyro which would be centrifugal acceleration.
regards,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 22/07/2013 12:44:14
| | | Dear Blaze,
It seems a fundamental of the human condition (and as I am – mostly – human, it is just possible I may suffer from this fundamental too) that It is to be expected that those of a certain view will emphasize something that reinforces their view while ignoring something that may disagree with their view.
So it is that you have decided to pick up on my (poor) description of vague memory of a Lathwaite demo in my reply to Sandy while deciding not to comment on the displaced barycentre of mass and the lack of opposing mass displacement within “MacPhail’s Pendulum”.
Any comments on the Pendulum? Or do you need more time to cogitate?
Kind regards
NM
PS Many demonstrations, including some good ones showing the lack/reduction of the expected amount of centrifugal, are shown in the link below. They bear returning to every now and then as memory’s accuracy is short. They are not perfect demonstrations because they had to be rushed together to meet a TV schedule for a Christmas lecture for children at the Royal Society’s lecture theatre. I don't think anyone else has had their experimental work so publicly picked over and faulted but the demos are a good start to understanding.
The demos should be repeated by yourself, for empirical testing beats the hell out of peer review every time. A simple test you can do with a toy (see 5, and others, in the videos linked to below) where it is easy to observe the effect of missing centrifugal force. The huge relative mass of a precessing toy gyro together with the large offset of its centre of mass from the light toy Eifel tower support/pivot should mean it would immediately, upon release, pull over the tower if the normal centrifugal effect were present. That it does not do so is is something further for you to cogitate on.
Pleased to hear your views on that one when you have done that simple test.
http://www.gyroscopes.org/1974lecture.asp
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 22/07/2013 21:49:43
| | | Hi Nitro. I have seen the Christmas lecture videos and have found at least one where things happen quite differently than was indicated by others.
I also have done my own experiments made videos for review for the subjects that I wanted to clarify, like centrifugal acceleration. In my experiments I have seen movement that can ONLY be from centrifugal acceleration. I have done these experiments with a 2 pound flywheel spinning at 1500 rpm and also not spinning. The results are the same whether the flywheel is spinning or not. When "cranking out the math", the movement corresponds to the entire moving weight (both dead and live weight) not just the dead weight. The dead weight alone would not move the apparatus nearly as far because the centrifugal force is MUCH less for it alone and not enough to generate the movement seen in my experiments.
I purposely left some of my explanation out for your pendulum as it would take longer than I have available to explain properly.
cheers,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 23/07/2013 09:51:21
| | | Dear Blaze,
Glad to hear you have done empirical tests yourself. To enable me to better understand your viewpoint would it be possible to see the videos you have made?
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 23/07/2013 21:11:00
| | | Hi Nitro. Maybe I shouldn't have brought up the point as I never intended to post the video. As the saying goes, "trade secrets my son, trade secrets".
regards,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 24/07/2013 22:24:33
| | | Dear Blaze,
“Trade secrets, my son, trade secrets” deserves the repost: (as the saying goes) “put up or shut up”.
If you have observed, through your videoed tests, things that show gyro propulsion is not possible and therefore of no benefit to anyone what could possibly be a ”trade secret”?
If conversely you have observed things that show that gyro propulsion is possible why would your saying so disclose any trade secret as this is already known and even on YouTube?
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 25/07/2013 03:09:12
| | | Good evening Nitro.
"If you have observed, through your videoed tests, things that show gyro propulsion is not possible and therefore of no benefit to anyone what could possibly be a ”trade secret”?"
Correct, in that scenario there would be no "trade secret".
"If conversely you have observed things that show that gyro propulsion is possible why would your saying so disclose any trade secret as this is already known and even on YouTube?"
Posting the video or even describing the experiment would be too close for comfort (my comfort, that is) to revealing what I think may possibly be a case where sustained propulsion is a distinct possibility. I invited a few engineer friends over, expressly to blow holes in the theory and/or math. These gentlemen have an open mind and are very familiar with the the unusual behavior of gyros (not just the "classical" understanding that you might expect from scientists/technical people). After going over my solution for about 3 hours they couldn't find anything that wouldn't work. They walked away convinced it will work. We will see.... Like you said "put up or shut up".
So, for about the last month and a half, I have been collecting. fabricating, and assembling parts to build the thing to see IF (and that is a mighty BIG "if") what I have theorized and proved mathematically is actually possible. Unfortunately this thing is a mechanical nightmare so it is quite possible that I may have missed something and it won't work. Time will tell. Due to the complex nature of the device and the fine tuning that is required, I "guestimate" it will take me about 6+ months and about $1000 to build the darn thing just to see if it will work. Like most people I have a day job that pays the bills so I can't spend all my time at this.
Wish me luck. I'm gonna need it.
cheers,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 26/07/2013 15:38:14
| | | Dear Blaze,
My apologies.
I seems we have been metaphorically arguing, as usual, over how many angels can sit in a pin. An unnecessary and time wasting exercise if ever there was one, as we should both be pushing on with what we believe (know) we have to (can) achieve, namely:- a way of producing unidirectional force from within a mechanism and acting upon that mechanism.
Don’t use that expression in your patent as it is in one of my earlier patents on this subject. Hopefully we all on this site have different ways of achieving our aims though they will probably have similarities. If it turns out that ours overlap when they reach the public domain can we try and resolve any conflict like Eddison and Swan did with their simultaneous invention of the incandescent light bulb and not waste time and money enriching patent attorneys and lawyers.
If your process is like mine, the means to “turn off” the gyroscopic effect during part of the cycle will be proving to require the most complex mechanical nightmare and therefor be the most time consuming and expensive to achieve.
Like most inventors I can usually see a way to improve on existing devices. So it has been with this mechanism. I couldn’t see some of the complexity needed until I had physically built the “one shot” (see Jogglevision on You Tube) which enabled me to go on to the “fast repeater” (in reality, not very fast) which in turn lead to the “simple fast repeater” (really faster and not yet in the public domain) that gets round much of the complexity and dead weight problems of the earlier devices. It will probably have the same time scale and cost in fabrication as your project. I don’t find fabricating things easy either as I am crap at engineering - did you guess that from the one shot? - and am now one of the working retired to make ends meet. Although I have some more time now I am often too knackered when I have free time to drag myself to do work in “the shed” and “the shed” has become so cluttered with my day job crap that there is always an “Augean Stable” to clear before the work bench can be even seen. Ah! The old “round tuit” problems that plague us all
Of course I wish you (and me) luck. We’re both gonna need it.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 28/07/2013 20:27:31
| | | Nitro and Blaze,
Seems like you guys are attempting to produce not dissimilar devices, but as Nitro said there are always going to be similarities
Let’s face it any inertial drive device is going to have to operate in a similar manner with a thrusting pulse and a recovery pulse or variations thereof, either slowly or rapidly however it is carried out.
The first half of the movement, cycle or pulse if you like is easy to produce as you already know Nitro, as there are numerous ways in which this can be achieved.
There are several methods which can be put into action which can do this job, but as you suggest the second part, the recovery is a bit of an illegitimate.
I did not think getting rid of the reaction mass was much of a problem Nitro, which you have yourself already admitted you have been able to get around.
The real problem which I have already mentioned when you posted the video of your device is that of creating a non-reactive recovery half cycle mechanism, and this is what it is all about, but this of course by its very nature puts it outside accepted principles,
This fact will not present much of a problem to you Nitro, as you know the limitations of Newton when spinning things are spun, but Blaze I gather you are a guardian of all things Newtonian, or you certainly have appeared to be so far and I am interested to know if you actually think this thing can be carried out within accepted principles.
Nitro I think you could produce a device within your proposed time frame which would at least prove the principle, with continuous operation, but not necessarily delivering a lot of power, but then you could get lucky.
Blaze unless you have recently decided to utilise non Newtonian principles which I do not believe you have, I have to say at this point 6 months plus to prove the principle in such a case is being more than a little bit optimistic.
However at the end of the day it’s only time and there is plenty of that.
Wishing you both the best of luck
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 30/07/2013 03:14:51
| | | Good luck on your project Nitro.
Hi Sandy.
"The real problem....is that of creating a non-reactive recovery half cycle mechanism.... but this of course by its very nature puts it outside accepted principles"
Exactly right. However I believe the accepted principles you mention are really the concepts of open and closed systems.
"Blaze I gather you are a guardian of all things Newtonian, or you certainly have appeared to be so far and I am interested to know if you actually think this thing can be carried out within accepted principles."
Not the guardian but rather, I don't see where I have to violate the laws to accomplish the goal.
Newton's first law, as per Wikipedia: "When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either is at rest or moves at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force." Interesting to see that it doesn't actually say an "outside" force, although that is assumed.
Newton's first law as originally written: "Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon." Again, it doesn't actually say an "outside" force.
I don't have a problem with Newton's first law, or any of his laws as written and understood by current academics. I just think that there is a possibility that one of the famous laws is incomplete and therefore the understanding of it is also incomplete. At least that is the way it looks based on my experiments and my understanding of what is happening in those experiments. Where I see the problem I see is the violation of the concept of a closed system as the current academics understand it. Open and closed systems are not "laws" but rather concepts, or at least I have never seen them stated as a "laws". It is the "closed system" concept that is being "violated" by a viable recovery half cycle. I also see the current understanding of a closed system as being incomplete.
I am using the "incomplete portions of understanding" of Newton's law (note that "law" is singular, not plural) and of the closed system concept in my design. So does that mean that I "actually think this thing can be carried out within accepted principles." That is a good question.
regards,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 06/08/2013 22:22:28
| | | Hello Blaze,
I apologise for my belated reply to your last posting.
This is my view for what it is worth from the other side of the fence.
I can see where you are coming from, however it would appear to me that unless it is specifically a closed system which is being manipulated inertial or one way thrust cannot be generated.
The reaction would have to take place within the confines of the closed system otherwise the task would already have been over and done with.
I think you are agreeing with that Blaze but you have reservations with respect to the current understanding of the closed system.
The only way inertial thrust could be generated in a gyroscopically inspired set up as I see it is if some angular momentum can somehow be converted within that closed system into linear thrust.
There is plenty of it floating around when spinning discs are being spun.
The problem is in knowing where to start, and having generated some thrust, a pulse, whatever, invariably as part of a cyclic operating mechanism, being able to return the mechanism to its starting point without a reaction
It must be assumed that a fraction of the angular momentum generated within this proposed and (obviously rotating closed system) must be converted to linear momentum in an effort to generate inertial thrust and that is not allowed as it flies in the face of the separate conservation of angular and linear momentum.
For very good reasons I think that separate conservation of angular and linear momentum was only ever an assumption and for some time now I have been standing on the other side of the fence.
I also think a law is incomplete as you suggest, but that it also appears to be in error as a result of that omission consequently giving birth to the “Catch 22” I elaborated on in a posting many years ago.
I said at the time in 2004 in fact that “You cannot have your conservation cake and eat it”
This unfortunately did not immediately make the hunt for inertial thrust any easier but I suggested that the conventional understanding relating to “Spinning Discs Being Spun” and the perceived resultant generation of angular momentum was in serious error.
In the everyday world I think Newton’s laws are for the most part correct, and it is only in one specific area of physics that the effect is manifest.
However my honest opinion is that, to 99.9% of the population it would never have mattered at all if Newton had ever existed so it really does not matter very much at all.
However from an academic point of view it is hard to ignore the implications of such a breach, and the universal impact.it would finally have.
All that said, and while they still exist, I tend to think that the first and third laws were meant to be interpreted as they normally are and that is that the force in question is understood to be an external one.
Still fight the good fight and best of luck,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Pat - 27/09/2013 23:02:25
| | | Still here
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
