Question |
| Asked by: |
Nitro |
| Subject: |
reactionless thrust |
| Question: |
Hi Harry and Blaze and others,
Further to your post on my post regarding this machine:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nstIIZZadAM&app=desktop
You pedantic lot!
I said “ – they (the above machine and mine) suffer from producing their reactionless thrust in “impulses”.” I said “reactionless”. What a heinous crime! What I perhaps should have said to keep you happy was that their “overall thrust” is produced reactionlessly (Is that a word? Well, it is now!). In other words; if you shoved a car along in neutral with a large version of this in the boot (sorry US – trunk) the car would not produce any reaction outside it. It would shake your teeth out but then you are bound to have some teething (ouch) problems when breaking a fundamental of physics.
Now sit up straight and pay attention!
In the above machine the thrust producing stroke shoves the machine in one direction while the heavy gyro is shoved in the other – all very Newtonian so far. The cleaver bit is the repositioning of the gyro, after each stroke. This is done by the reactionless (note that word!) precession of the machine round 180 degrees readying the movable mass (my machine also uses this, but very differently) which is the gyro, for the next shove of the next “stroke”. Each “stroke” causes linier reaction on the frame producing the linier motion of the rest of the machine. Therefore, while shoving the heavy gyro certainly has reaction – which is what causes the machine’s motion – cleverly getting the gyro to revolve the machine through 180 degrees to reset for the next “stroke” has no measurable opposing revolving (torsional) or linear reaction (see link below). This leaves just the reaction to shoving the gyro which is what moves the machine.
And Glen, although we old hands habitually look for stick slip, this machine displays none in important or significant amounts. If the machine were to be placed on an air table it would produce the same results. The machine does not require gravity to work either, as gravity could be simply replaced with a spring, or magnate or even, my old favourite, an elastic band. To work well in space it would benefit from a twinning arrangement. The only problem remaining is that the thrust (reactionless) is produced in discreet packages and not the lovely smooth thrust of science fiction. Shame that. Still it’s a start.
To see that there is no opposite rotating reaction to the BASE of a precessing gyro watch this video:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwSCM-Ipy2Y
Although the machine shown in the top video does what we are looking for I shall still continue with my machine as it has the potential for much faster resetting between strokes and thus might be more useful. Knowing what my device does, as far as I am concerned this thing does what it says on the tin. It screws Newton. It also screws the Royal Society and the established scientific community – though it will probably take them forever to notice before they finally find the courage to climb on the shoulders of the new giants.
Kind regards and laughter
Nitro
|
| Date: |
14 May 2014
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
MD - 14/05/2014 23:40:21
|
| | Sorry, I didn't read all that text, only watched the video.
It's not a reactionless drive.
If the machine in question were to be placed on an airbed, the center of gravity wouldn't move. As the gyro precesses around, the entire machine would rotate around it's center of gravity. The reason this particular machine doesn't do that is because it's on a less than frictionless surface, a pool table.
It's literally the same thing as "scooting yourself forward on an office chair".
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 15/05/2014 06:17:14
|
| | Dear MD
Just as well you didn't read the text as you would be none the wiser for it.
Regards
Nitro
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 16/05/2014 04:21:24
|
| | Hi Nitro.
You said "To see that there is no opposite rotating reaction to the BASE of a precessing gyro watch this video:-:
So if there is no opposite rotating reaction to the BASE of a precessing gyro, then how do you explain the small circles that the plastic disc is making?
It appears that the gyro tower is firmly attached to the plastic disc and the whole thing is barycentering around a point between the gyro tower and the flywheel center.
regards,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 16/05/2014 08:43:01
|
| |
Hi Blaze,
I don’t need to explain the small circle OSCILLATION of the barycentre as I spoke, instead, of ROTATION of the base (although for the less observant:- the OSCILLATION, you speak of, is caused by the gyro’s precessional rotation also rotating non gyrodynamic mass – frame, shaft, less gyrodynamic centre of the gyro etc. that is not counterbalanced by an equal non gyrodynamic mass on the other side of the vertical pivot. It is the rotation of this non-gyrodynamic mass that shifts the barycentre around. The observant will realise that the barycentre would shift hugely more if it were being moved by the gyro’s mass as well)
Whatever, whatever! The important thing, that you have chosen to ignore is that, although there will be minute Newtonian reactions that I expect you will spend you life pedanting (is that a word? Well, it is now!) over, this machine does what most on this site seek and the fact remains that it does what it says on the tin. It produces an action on the machine from within the machine without all the opposite reaction to be expected under Newtonian law for the action.
Kind regards and laughter
Nick
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 16/05/2014 14:21:11
|
| | Hello Nitro,
The device on the billiard table will work under gravimetric conditions like a car works too, but it will not work in space in the absence of gravitation. In such an environment the centre of mass would always remain at the same position in space. I know you do not want to hear that but I'm convinced that it is true.
The second video with the air table shows, that all involved masses (spinning and dead weight) trying to rotate in precession direction around the centre of mass. Thus it is not a reaction tp precession but a part of precession movement. Precession movement IS the REACTION to an applied vertically tilting torque!
However, although friction is very low on the air table, it is easier for the gyroscope to rotate around the supporting point on the plastic disk (less friction) instead to rotate all dead weight masses around ist centre of mass.
The reason for that behavior is again friction caused by gravitation. This behavior would not happen in the absence of gravitation where friction force = zero.
Anyway, your experimentals with a rubber band are different to the here stated experiments and thus much more complex.
Best regards,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 16/05/2014 14:55:12
|
| | Hello Harald,
Trouble is Harry, that if there were a torque causing rotation on the base (which is mysteriously missing in the video of the machine) and such a torque somehow cancelled out the linier movement of the machine, it would be simple (if it occurred, which it clearly does not) to cancel that torque by a simple twinned contra rotating arrangement which would produce a cancelling torque – it would do this in the boot of a car, on an air table and, yes, in space too.
Sorry Harry, I know you don’t want to hear this but you don’t get a cigar this time. These guys with their machine have got it!
Kind regards
Nitro
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 16/05/2014 20:25:51
|
| | Hello again Nitro,
I did not state that a torque would be canceled out but that the gyro in the machine precesses in a path of its lowest resistance. This lowest resistance in gravitation environment here on earth is the path around the centre of the platform, because precessing around the centre of the complete machine mass, how it would occur in space in the absence of gravitation, would demand more energy (caused by friction losses=heating energy). Nature won't give something away for free thus it always takes the way of least resistance (unfortunately...).
Put a floor with an office chair into space and try to move forward via stick-slip effect or whatever. Which part is moving? The office chair? The floor? Both?
I would say both, one part forward and the other part backward, however the centre of mass of the complete system (person sitting on the chair, chair and floor) will always remain at the same position.
I do not care regarding the cigar because I just want to stop smoking. ;-)
Regards,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/05/2014 21:57:24
|
| | I heard Isaac has been seen hanging around somebody's house after dark. The rummer is he sure is pissed. ' Better keep the old one eyeball open when your sleeping, Nitro.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 17/05/2014 00:17:03
|
| | Hi Nitro. I am trying to understand what you mean by "ROTATION of the base" and "that if there were a torque causing rotation on the base (which is mysteriously missing in the video of the machine)".
Do you mean rotation of the plastic disc the gyro tower is fastened to? Because that is definitely rotating, but very slowly. It takes about 7 precessions of the gyro to make 1/2 turn for the plastic disc, however by time it gets to 11 precessions of the gyro, the plastic disc has made a complete turn. In other words, the rotation of the plastic disc is speeding up. This is, of course, due to friction from the gyro arm against the tower it is rotating on. The more precessions the gyro makes, the more time it has to accelerate the plastic disc. You can even see that the gyro stands up even more at the end of the video than at the beginning. Since all of this is quite obvious, I must not understand what you mean.
In regards to the barycenter, the gyro starts out by standing up quite high (the gyro arm is NOT at 90 degrees to the table). Therefore the barycenter will be adjusted accordingly and the flywheel mass will have less effect than if the gyro were at 90 to the table. The loops the plastic disc is making at the beginning of the video are actually quite large. Near the very end of the video the loops are smaller which is due to the fact that the gyro is standing nearly straight up.
I would like to know the weight of the plastic disc and tower as compared to the weight of the gyro, but when I look at it, the barycenter would seem to be about correct for all the gyro mass affecting the barycenter, not just the dead mass.
regards,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 17/05/2014 00:18:58
|
| | I just realized we may be talking about different videos. In my response above I was referring to the gyro on the plastic disc on the air table.
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 17/05/2014 01:16:25
|
| | Plastic disk? If you will crush an ice cube; stuff the remaining crushed ice inside the cavity of the pedestal., flatten the ice by pressing down on the pedestal, put the pedestal on a Florencia counter-top, then spin up the taco and set it on the pedestal; you will see a far, far better demonstration of exactly what is happening to the plastic disk. It is the same reasons for the wobbling actions and the set up takes two minutes to do. I think I don't need to explain what you will see. I think you will understand what you see.
Have fun,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 17/05/2014 19:46:57
|
| | Dear All,
Because the subject is complex some understanding is likely to take a long time. If you are not prepared, or unable, to learn Sod off now, get a malt beer and watch crap on the TV instead!
It’s a difficult one this. Because I have got so far in my understanding I feel like shouting out to Blaze; “Of course I’m talking about the top video , you plonker!” but I have to put myself back decades to realise how I struggled then, before I understood gyrodynamic thrust (call it what you will) was possible, and not just the dream of nutters.
Normal, Newtonian, physics involves nice and simple packages of action and reaction either linier packages or torsional packages. When you start on gyrodynamic action and reaction things are different. No kidding Stanley!
To refresh memories and to put it in as simple a way as possible; gyrodynamic action and reaction packages are “L” shaped and after screwing your mind up to get as many brain cells as possible to fire up you can eventually grasp the fact that if you can get a Newtonian action and reaction package interspersed with HALF of a gyrodynamic action and reaction package (or indeed vice versa) Newton's laws provide incomplete answers to what happens. What happens is quite clearly shown in the video (top one, Blaze).
I will go further, but first, Instead of simply gainsaying me I would ask that you first state where the OPPOSITE reaction is apparent in the machine in the TOP video bearing in mind the obviously hefty mass of the gyro.
Keep observing until, if you are lucky, you understand.
Kind regards
Nitro
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 18/05/2014 18:53:54
|
| | Nitro, all power to you on this one. I get so p*****see off with the intellectual and experimental lazyness on the forum. Keep at it
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 18/05/2014 19:45:25
|
| | Hi Momentus,
Thank you for you supporting comments. I do keep trying, or should that read :- I do keep being trying
Kind regards and laughter
Nitro
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 20/05/2014 02:35:25
|
| | Hi Harry. In response to Nitro you said:
"The device ..... will not work in space in the absence of gravitation. In such an environment the centre of mass would always remain at the same position in space. I know you do not want to hear that but I'm convinced that it is true."
I agree with you Harry. The incorrect assumption that nearly everybody on this forum seems to make is that a gyro has no centrifugal force when precessing and therefore there will be no barycenter for the gyro and the tower. If that were true, then propulsion would have been done many years ago because it would be easy. Of course there is centrifugal force when a gyro is precessing. The reason it appears absent is because the experiments are not being done correctly to be able to see it. Everyone is either working with balanced systems (which balances out the centrifugal force) or is working with systems that are moving quite slowly. Centrifugal acceleration and force are squared functions with respect to speed (precession). The precession speed I see for the gyro in the top video would generate a centrifugal force that is a whopping fraction of an ounce and probably a small fraction of an ounce at that. Far too small to overcome the friction of the ping pong balls on the pool table felt.
Nitro's assumption that "it would be simple (if it occurred, which it clearly does not) to cancel that torque by a simple twinned contra rotating arrangement which would produce a cancelling torque" would not work either. It would simply cause the device to move linearly back and forth (linear barycenter?), instead of moving in a circular barycenter.
Sorry Nitro, no cigar.
regards,
Blaze
.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 20/05/2014 10:18:41
|
| | I did not need to set up and pay attention. The obvious is clear. Harry and Blaze are correct We three gave you two good explanations.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 20/05/2014 15:47:22
|
| | Hi Blaze
I still have my cigar.
Not sure I understand your reason for talking about centrifugal force. It is the opposing torque to the machine's base during repositioning rotation that is missing and that makes what this machine does possible. I asked for you to explain the missing "opposite". I said nothing about centrifugal.
Lets try again to explain the importance of the missing half couple that is the missing rotational torque.
Between each liner stroke, It takes a considerable torque to almost instantly torsionally accelerate the mass of the gyro and frame from a standstill onto its path. This is especially so when you consider that a gyro’s acceleration into precession, when a force is applied to change its axial angle, is nearly instantaneous. Any torsional action should, according the the third, have an equal and opposite torsional reaction on the base. This means that the moment the precession starts, there should be very substantial torsional force together with an equal and opposite torsional force involved and not just the few ounces that you suggest. This very substantial starting torque at the beginning of each of the assembly’s semi-circular orbits would thus be expected to show lots of opposite torque causing clearly observable opposing rotational movement on the base of the machine. It does not show one tiny jot.
Indeed if you look carefully you can see tiny rotational movement in the same rotational sense as the machine probably from bearing friction on its vertical shaft. There is no Newtonian opposite torque. That is why the base does not rotate oppositely (is that a word? Well it is now!) and not, as you suggest because, there is insufficient opposite torque to overcome the small drag of the baize on slate.
Observe again and if you are still not happy a simple test with a motor that rotates a mass (non spinning this time) of about – what - eight pounds, offset on an arm about eight inches long, from a standing start to about about ten revs a minute as near instantly as you can; then you Will see the kind of opposite torque on its base that is missing from the machine in the video.
Have you got a light?
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 20/05/2014 19:02:29
|
| | Hello Blaze, Glenn, Nitro,
I think I do it like Sandy and avoid in the future discussions about gravity related gyro systems because it makes no sense for me to believe to overcome gravity (thrust) with a gravity driven machine. This is an objection and thus the wrong way to achieve inertial propulsion.
Non of the presented devices like the device on the billiard table, inchworm or any other devices (also MDs device) which need the help of gravity will ever work in space in the absence of gravity. This is my belief.
Nitro, I wonder why you think there should be a counter torque to precession in precession plane during the short time span into acceleration to precession movement?
There is indeed a counter torque in this situation, however not in precession plane but in tilting plane, i.e. the gyro descends until precession speed is achieved. We discussed this issue so often here in this forum that I will not repeat the cause of this behavior anymore, sorry.
Also it is a fact, that on the one hand a gyro responds to applied tilting torques always from its centre of spinning mass and on the other hand takes always the path of least resistance (law of nature). That circumstances make it often so difficult to realise the true beavior and responses of gyro under the influence of gravity and acting friction forces!
Appeareances are deceiving sometimes, unfortunately.
Thus for myself I will try to find my fortune with systems which do not need any gravity forces to work.
Anyway good luck to all!
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 20/05/2014 20:28:39
|
| | Hi Nitro.
Your example with the motor spinning a weight from a standing start is a completely different system than a gyro starting to precess. The motor will definitely have a reaction torque trying to spin the motor casing the opposite way that the motor shaft is spinning.
Of course there isn’t any opposite torque on the base of a gyro when it starts to precess or when it is already precessing. The starting torque of the gyro is generated at and by the spinning flywheel, not by the base (or tower) that the arm is resting on. There is a reaction torque from a gyro starting to precess but it pushes the base sideways. In other words the flywheel and the base will barycenter for a short time (very short time) before the gyro settles into precessing around the pivot on the base. Why does it settle out to precessing around the pivot? Simply because of friction of the base against whatever it is resting on. In space the base is not resting on anything so there is no friction and the system will continue to barycenter.
Harry, I don't think anyone on the forum is trying to overcome gravity with a gravity powered system. A gravity powered system is just a simpler variation of a powered pivot system and therefore a little easier to understand.
regards,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 20/05/2014 21:23:02
|
| | Hello Blaze,
Yes of course you are right, but gravity powered gyro systems may lead to wrong conclusions regarding general gyro behavior without influence of gravity and friction.. That's the problem in my point of view.
I agree with your explanations.
Regards,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 21/05/2014 03:10:52
|
| | Good Evening Harry & Blaze,
To everyone: EVERYTHING DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE MOMENTUM OF THE PRECESSING GYRO IS EQUAL TO, OR WHETHER IT IS LESSER THAN THE OPPOSITE FORCE AGAINST THE PEDESTAL.
The answer to that determines whether IP is possible. Generally the answer is this simple, but I have conflicting test results and can not answer yet.
Cheers, Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 21/05/2014 08:44:44
|
| | Hi Blaze
So the invisible barycentre movement is so tiny that it cannot overcome the friction of the table yet so massive as to oppose the very visible linear motion of the whole mass?
Any shift that did occur (which it doesn’t) could, of course, be countered by twinning or by offset balancing weights just like on the flywheel of a single cylinder IC engine has to try and balance out the barycentre shifted by the offset main bearing con rod and piston.
I’m still puffing away!
kind regards
Nitro
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 21/05/2014 19:42:21
|
| | Nitro, you are living in “the matrix”. The only cigar you are puffing on is an imaginary one.
Do you at least understand why there is no counter torque on the base of the device in the first video when the semicircular precession starts now that I have explained it?
The device in the first video does barycenter for a very short period of time when the precession starts after the flywheel is shifted to the opposite side of the device (only some of this is from the framework). This is very hard to see because the camera is moving around so much. I found it easier to see very near the end of the video.
The “linear barycenter” I referred to is not the moving of the flywheel linearly from one side of the device to the other in the top video. That is simple action reaction and is massive in comparison to the friction of the pool table felt and ping pong balls.
Your “twinning” idea is what I was referring to when I talked about the “linear barycenter”. Take another look at the SECOND video. Imagine that the plastic disc that the gyro is on is much larger, large enough to put two identical gyros on the plastic disc on either “side” of the disc and far enough apart that the gyros won’t hit each other when precessing. Now have the two gyros precessing at exactly the same rate and angle but in opposite directions (that is your twinning idea). Instead of the disc moving around in circles (circular barycentering) as it does with one gyro, it would move linearly back and forth as the pair of gyros precess in perfect synchonicity on the plastic disc.
Time to take the “red pill” and see the real world Nitro.
regards,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 21/05/2014 21:04:37
|
| | Dear Blaze,
Oh dear, oh dear!
Not needed, as I said, but twinned aligned coaxial opposed rotation if it were! Must I keep wasting my time in explaining the obvious instead of you using your imagination?
Still puffing
kind regards
PS What’s “the matrix” and the “red pill”?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 21/05/2014 22:15:41
|
| | Blaze,you said,
“The incorrect assumption that nearly everybody on this forum seems to make is that a gyro has no centrifugal force when precessing and therefore there will be no barycenter for the gyro and the tower. If that were true, then propulsion would have been done many years ago because it would be easy. Of course there is centrifugal force when a gyro is precessing. The reason it appears absent is because the experiments are not being done correctly to be able to see it.”
I really try to maintain a fair distance from any arguments relating to gravity accelerated systems which have novelty value and not a lot else.
You have the considered opinion that your conclusions are correct, and that all our beliefs are but assumptions, and somehow your experiments show different and correct results from the rest of us.
More than a little bit of wishful thinking perhaps?
You also said that if there was no centrifugal force generated during precession this would make the task easier?
How do you figure that one out?
I think you have it all wrong Blaze, if centrifugal force was present it would have been all over and done with a long time ago.
Incidentally my normal design speed for rotation of the device is a pedestrian 500rpm with a pair of flywheels weighing about 1lb approximately.
Normally a gyroscope in precession is rotating around its fulcrum at an angle somewhere above the horizontal.
Simple triangulation in mechanics demands that there must be a vertical component under these conditions if centrifugal force is present.
But the system does not get any lighter Blaze, does it?
Or have you tried this?
No vertical component means that there is no centrifugal force present.
This is exactly where I came in 30 years ago when I first got involved in this very misunderstood phenomenon, because we were all taught that the momentum laws were sacred, and they are not.
However those of us who have done the necessary experiments correctly and have carefully analysed the results know that once in precession the system cannot be easily altered by increasing gyroscope rotation speed as this only serves to increase the precession speed and precession angle
.
Changes to such a system can only be effected by rapidly removing precession rotation speed and or gyroscope or flywheel rotation speeds.
I will say again “YOU CANNOT ACCELERATE NO MASS”
In mechanically accelerated and gravity accelerated systems there are marked similarities in specific areas as correctly suggested by Brian Morris (in what is in the case of mechanically accelerated systems is wrongly but commonly called precession)
I will not belabour his “Dark Motion” at this time.
Consider a gyroscope or flywheel mounted in a mechanically accelerated system such that the support arm of the gyroscope is able to rotate in the vertical plane.
The gyroscope can if allowed be able to rotate into a position where the rotation axis of the gyroscope and the rotation axis of the device are one and the same.
Where has all the system centrifugal force gone?
Blaze you are correct we cannot see it, but we can see the lack of it.
I gave up smoking completely about 5 years ago, but never smoked cigars anyway.
Regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 22/05/2014 10:48:07
|
| | Dear Sandy,
I think that gravity precessed units have a use beyond just novelty. As they can be expected to be easier to observe and, due to their limited commercial application, less likely have the idea stolen they are more likely to be put into the public domain. And their main purpose would be to aid better understanding of the limits of Newtonian mechanics when the rotation of spin is involved and to allow nutters in sheds like me to move on to more important, and outrageous, ideas.
Lang may yer lum reek (even if you have stopped smoking)
Kind regards
Nitro
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 22/05/2014 23:01:39
|
| | Evening Nitro,
I do think that anyone interested in this hunt for the elusive non Newtonian drive, will need to do a course in gravity driven systems, to get an inkling of what it is all about.
What worries me is that many people only get involved in gyroscopic devices for the wrong reasons
There seems to be a belief that gyroscopes in action display some kind of magic in their unique properties and that the peculiarities seen during that gyroscopic action can somehow be utilised to lift itself.
Not so bad thinking I suppose but far from reality.
I think what bugs me about the gravity driven issue it is that a quantum leap has to be made to get any power to play with, necessitating the use of mechanically rotated multi gyroscope systems.
This is enough to deter the majority of the interested which does not help my case.
I do agree that this path is fraught with problems, from the outset as far as design is concerned.
Where do you start for instance?
If you have a fat wallet it helps ease the need to satisfy the mechanical requirements of the design imposed upon the experimenter but remember there is still no guarantee of anything.
You will need a modicum of luck, but the more that testing is done the higher the chances of getting some.
Since I got involved in this forum sometime in 2004, I have heard the same arguments relating to centrifugal force, angular momentum, and the rotation around the centre of mass issue raised repeatedly with no eventual closure.
So I am convinced we are arguing just for the sake of arguing.
My great grand-children think I was born aged about 70, which in many ways is similar to the belief that we, well the few of us, the converted, always believed what we believe and will never get any credit for reasoning our way to this point..
So in a few words Nitro you are wasting your breath discussing the issue, you are flogging a very dead horse.
We know what we are attempting to do so does it matter, but you obviously enjoy the argument and the banter so good luck to you.
Thanks for your best wishes I do hope my lum reeks for a while longer, but it’s this smokeless zoning that’s going to kill me.
Best regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 23/05/2014 02:18:04
|
| | Hi Sandy. You wanted to know how I figure that if there were no centrifugal force generated during precession that it would be easy to generate propulsion.
Ok, here goes.
Imagine a simple platform on wheels where the axles are parallel so the platform can only move forward or backwards in a straight line. The platform has hard wheels to minimize friction and the platform is on a long smooth, level, hard surface. On the platform you have mounted a special gyro. The gyro would have all mass spinning (both shaft and flywheel). Furthermore the shaft is hollow and is a large diameter to minimize the “low speed” spinning mass and maximize the gyroscopic forces. There is no framework around the flywheel so there is absolutely no mass that isn’t spinning in this gyro. If there were truly no centrifugal force during precession of a gyro, then it wouldn’t matter how fast the gyro precessed, it would not move the platform it was on (remember, there isn’t any non-spinning mass).
Now we start the gyro precessing. You will be using a motor where the pivot tower would normally reside so that you can speed up the precession beyond its natural rate that it would have due to gravity. You will also have to have some method (like a strong spring) to prevent the gyro from climbing upwards as you increase the motor speed and therefore the forced precession speed. As long as you don’t drive the forced precession speed beyond the strength of the spring the system will come to a balance point when precessing at some higher speed.
Get this thing going at a good precession speed and when the gyro arm is parallel to the platform axles, use the motor to suddenly and briefly slow down the precession speed (over an angular distance of about 5 or 10 degrees). This will drag the platform forward due to the momentum of the mass of the gyro (and I hope I don’t get any lectures from anyone that is reading this that a precessing gyro doesn’t have any momentum because of course it does have momentum; that has already been proven). Let the gyro precess at the slower speed for about 180 degrees when the gyro arm will again be parallel to the platform axles and then suddenly and briefly speed up the precession rate. This will cause the platform to kick forward in the same direction as the platform went when you suddenly slowed the gyro. If there were truly no centrifugal force from a precessing gyro then the platform would coast between pulses and you would build up considerable speed from the thrust pulses over time.
Of course this scenario won’t work and can’t work. However, if there were even a slightly less than the normal amount of centrifugal acceleration when a gyro is precessing, then this scenario would work. Again, it doesn’t work and it can’t work because there is in fact the “normal” amount of centrifugal acceleration when a gyro is precessing at any speed.
In regards to your questions about where the centrifugal force “goes” in your system, Glenn already answered that in a recent post but I will give you a different way of looking at it. Imagine two vehicles placed with their front bumpers touching. One is a Fiat 500 with 101 horsepower. The other vehicle is a 4 wheel drive one ton truck. The Fiat represents the centrifugal force in your gyro system The 4 wheel drive one ton truck represents the gyroscopic force. Start them both up and push the gas pedals to the floor. You know what will happen. The truck will push the Fiat backwards even though the Fiat is pushing forward with all its might. The Fiat is just simply being overpowered by the greater force. Saying the Fiat isn’t there or “goes away” would be incorrect. It is still there, just overpowered.
This last part is for everyone reading, not specifically for you Sandy or anyone else in particular for that matter. I have not been involved with gyros for a long time, only a few years but I haven’t seen any real amount of success from the approaches taken and the “beliefs” held by the people who have been working gyros for a long time. So I decided some time ago to have a look at from the opposite viewpoint. What if, just if, momentum, centrifugal force and acceleration, etc, affect spinning matter to the same amount and to the same degree as non-spinning matter? Could one still explain the behavior of a gyro? The answer is yes you can. That does not necessarily mean that science knows everything about gyros but simply that the known gyro phenomenon can be explained without having to invent any new forces, motions, magic, etc. or breaking the laws of physics to explain what is happening when a gyro is precessing. (By the way I firmly believe gyro propulsion IS impossible but that a propulsion system that uses gyros MAY be possible, and yes, there is a difference. I think Sandy knows what I mean by that.)
Does all this mean that propulsion using gyros is impossible? Not necessarily but it does definitely put one into a different frame of mind when trying to come up with a solution. After all, how many people have actually purposely tried to come up with a solution for propulsion using gyros where they start with the concept that all the rules of physics apply to precessing gyros rather than the belief that only some of the rules of physics apply or only partially apply to precessing gyros? Not many I’d bet.
Best to all,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 23/05/2014 10:26:50
|
| | Hi Blaze,
I agree and disagree. It seems your way of thinking is same as my own was a few years ago when I wrote about my balance theory.
Sometimes things are differently as they seem to be...
You should not underrate Sandy's experiences in this matter.
Best regards,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 23/05/2014 15:10:00
|
| | Hi Harry. I certainly did not mean to underrate Sandy's work or the work of anyone else. I just am trying to get across that there is a way to explain what is happening without resorting to anything mystical. Sure seems to be a "tough sell". The interesting thing is that I still think that propulsion may be possible even though gyros obey all the law of physics.
cheers,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 23/05/2014 20:18:02
|
| | Evening Blaze,
I see you have given this thing a bit of thought but it is obvious that you have never got very far at trying it on for size.
There are a few pretty important issues to be resolved when attempting this type of set up.
There is a point where a mechanically driven gyroscopic device will go into a vertical and inward acceleration which you will probably call precession the description of such at this point I will not dispute.
However some very interesting things happen when the gyroscope (or flywheel) enters this area.
This area will be found to extend all the way from zero degrees i.e. the horizontal to 90 degrees i.e. the vertical or over the rotation axis of the “hub” itself.
It will be found that once the gyroscope enters this zone it will continue its inwards and upwards acceleration with no increase in input energy until it reaches its point of least action.
(This action was the bones of Eric Laithwaite’s “Free Lunch Scenario”)
You will find that there is no “balance point” which was for some time the source of much amusement between our Harald and myself.
You had better find a very strong spring because in this area the gyroscopic torque is absolutely immense.
I am really sorry I must go over this once again but once in this area you can accelerate the gyroscope or the hub or both together and the gyroscope will only accelerate upwards and inwards even faster.
At this point all control is lost and the only way to end the action is to remove copious amounts of gyroscope rotation speed and/or hub rotation speeds.
Because of this state of affairs I called this the “Saturation Point and the Saturation Zone” a no go area for the production of anything.
In this zone all vestiges of angular momentum and or centrifugal force are gone hence the reluctance of any increase in acceleration to halt the upward and inward (repetition gets tedious) acceleration of the gyroscope.
I will enter here my account of what happened the best part of 30 years ago, forgive me Blaze but you can try this out anytime you like.
Similar in most cases to my posting of 2004
In any event I went ahead and built a rather expensive second machine which I thought would perform much better than the first one. This was an updated but very similar device, incorporating many improvements over the original.
When testing my original machine I was aware that something was amiss.
The copious amounts of centrifugal force which should have been apparent, were not evident. The alarm bells should have started ringing then.
I commenced to test the newer machine, and a whole range of unexpected issues were thrown up. In light of the fact it was built so much better than the original, the gyroscopes lifted themselves incredibly easily to a position just as high as the structure of the device would allow. I thought at the time that this was very good, but there appeared to be no lifting force or vertical thrust at all.
This baffled me. Raising a one pound weight rotated on a six inch radius at 300 plus revolution per minute past an elevated angle of 60 degrees and more should have driven it through the garage roof. Something was fundamentally wrong here, and I did not have a clue what it was.
I had managed to get 16 ounces of thrust out of the first machine and it just did not have the ability to do what the newer one could do.
In my diary which I used to keep I had written that something appeared to terminate the ability of the gyroscopes and support arms of the original machine from climbing any higher. What this could be I did not know.
I tried several pretty pathetic mechanical modifications to exact some kind of control, but this was found to be a wasted effort.
I just could not stop the gyroscopes accelerating inwards towards the centre of the device. As the gyroscopes went through this motion the machine rotation speeded up and the machine apparently unloaded itself. Gyroscopes often appear to have minds of their own, but this was something completely different. It seemed sensible to me to accelerate the gyroscopes in precession to increase the rotation speed. That would drive them out again as the centrifugal force increased. This approach seemed reasonable to me at the time. The next month was spent building a twin cylinder hydraulic pump to fit on to the main drive of the device. This pump was set such that as soon as the pump detected any inward movement of a gyroscope the pump would no longer allow oil to pass and so create a hydraulic lock. The pump was designed and set, to slip under normal circumstances, at 250rpm.
When gyroscopic movement was detected, a very precise rotary valve was designed to close rapidly, increasing the rotation speed instantly to 500rpm.
Doubling the speed squares the centrifugal force generated.
The expected result was that the gyroscopes would accelerate inwards until the pump stopped the flow. The immediate increase in speed to 500 rpm would drive the gyroscopes out again, and so on.
When the machine was run up the system worked very well, apart from the fact that I just did not believe the speed at which these gyroscopes accelerated inwards.
Instead of slowing the gyroscopes down, the opposite had happened.
I sat in front of that machine for hours watching that motion in total disbelief.
Complete confusion now set itself into my mind.
Why the first machine operated so successfully when the second much more powerful, much more efficient, and much better constructed machine failed so miserably caused me a great deal of anxiety, and caused me to spend many successive years of my life clutching at straws.
Creating an experiment like this Blaze may change your mind.
Incidentally I attempted to stop this inwards and upwards acceleration by inserting a pair of ¼ inch diameter silver steel pins (drill rod to those across the pond) into the solid aluminium gyro mounting arms.
One got itself bent double the other was sheared off, so be warned these devices can be dangerous.
Best regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 23/05/2014 22:37:12
|
| | Hello again Blaze,
My apologies I should have made mention of the fact that when I attempted to control the upwards and inwards acceleration of the gyroscopes my ignorance of the situation did not allow me to realise that my hydraulically speed controlled device started off in the saturation zone (or precession) if you wish to call it that.
I was using the inward acceleration of the gyroscope to actuate the hydraulic shut down valve and stop the oil flow, which meant that the device was already operating in the saturation zone, which effectively meant that my 60 degrees of vertical offset and the reasons for it were not required.
Whether the system was operating at plus one degree or 89 plus degrees there are effectively no differences anywhere within that area.
If you can picture a system rotating without producing anything, or more simply stated rapid rotation without acceleration?
None of this is in the books.
Quite enlightening stuff this.
Do the experiment and you will see what Momentus means by “Dark Motion”
This is the real world of the gyroscope or spinning discs.
Besides you will discover how ID can be acquired.
Best regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 24/05/2014 02:01:15
|
| | Hi Harry and Sandy.
The idea on the device I described is to suddenly and BRIEFLY speed up the precession rate but not to speed it up to the point where the upwards motion or force becomes so great it can't be handled. There is no real problem in stopping the upwards motion as long as you don't get carried away with speeding up the precession rate (I suppose Sandy would say you would have to stay below the saturation point). There is no "balance point" like you seem to think of it, which would apply if there were no mechanism to stop the upwards movement, like a spring or a mechanical stop. The device I described would have a stopping mechanism so the "balance point" would be a "forced" one, not one from just gravity pulling down on the gyro. The gyro arm essentially stays nearly horizontal, 1/2 turn slightly above and 1/2 turn slightly below horizontal.
Regardless, the idea won't work because there is centrifugal force acting during precession. The device will simply oscillate back and forth and go nowhere. I am sure you already know this. What do you think is causing the oscillation if not centrifugal force?
regards,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 24/05/2014 21:33:32
|
| | Hello again Blaze and Harald.
I like your way thinking Blaze but, I think you are going to be struggling with any device you build to achieve your aspirations.
What I have written below is all the result of a system being devoid of centrifugal force.
As soon as the gyro attempts to rise above the horizontal it is in the saturation zone and you will find that it is almost impossible to control.
You are correct I would strongly advise against operating any device in this area.
The only times you will ever see a gyroscope or flywheel rotate above the horizontal, is with a gravity accelerated gyroscope in precession or in a mechanically accelerated gyroscope operating in the saturation zone.
Let us presume that you can mechanical stop the upwards and inwards acceleration of the gyroscope, it will take a long time to reduce the rotation speed of the gyroscope and /or the rotation speed of system rotation, and this will have to be to a point where the gyroscope has the ability to descend below the saturation point.
You may be able to control it somewhat if the gyroscope has enough energy just to get itself into saturation but I still see problems trying to get useful work out of it.
What you are describing is not too far away from the problems that I came across when trying to control my new (at the time) updated device.
If you attempt this I would really like to know how you get on
Would it not be more logical and much simpler to construct a device which can create a differential (which is all we are trying to do) well below the saturation point where there are large differentials to be easily had without the need for artificial balance points?
However you will know better yourself which way to go
Best of luck,
Sandy
P.S. The oscillation you mentioned, I have never seen Blaze, so you have me at a disadvantage.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 25/05/2014 09:35:22
|
| | Hello Blaze an Sandy,
We (=contributors in this forum) always talk about centrifugal and angular momentum and I think we often mix these terms together in connection with gyro related issues.
About which centrifugal or angular momentum we are talking?
- caused by spinning mass of a flyhwheel?
- caused by precessing movement respectively mechanical acceleration in precession plane of the spinning flywheel mass respectively the dead weight part of the spinning flywheel?
- caused by upward/inward movement of the spinning flywheel mass respectively the dead weight part of the spinning flywheel?
- a combination of all above mentioned types?
I think all of these mentioned types of centrifugal forces and angular momenta have to be taken into consideration to find out how a mechanically driven gyro/flywheel system may really behave respectively responds to the acting forces and torques.
Interestingly one and the same mass is responsible for all kind of the above mentioned types of centrifugal forces and angular momenta!
Best regards
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 25/05/2014 16:45:27
|
| | Hi Sandy and everyone. Take a look at the video in the link. It is a 2 pound gyro precessing at about once every 2.2 seconds on a platform like I described a the previous posting on this thread. The flywheel is 5 inches in diameter and two pounds and is spinning at about 1600 rpm. The arm length is 3.75 inches from the pivot to the center of the flywheel. The board the platform is on is leveled.
If you download the video you can see it on Quiktime which will allow you to see it frame by frame when you use your arrow keys on your keyboard (press the arrow key once for one frame advancement). You will also probably find the video is smoother when holding your arrow key(s) in Quiktime. If you go to the bottom left corner of the downloaded Quiktime video you can change the seconds to frame number which will give you a much smaller time increment than seconds. This video was shot at 15 frames per second. This particular gyro uses a dead axle (not spinning) but the axle is literally only a few ounces and therefore has little effect on the movement seen. You can do the math if you want to. There are several interesting things you can see when going frame by frame. I will leave it up to the people reading this to see if they can discover those interesting things.
Sandy, the general movement back and forth is the oscillation I was referring to. I have also done this experiment with a motor powered pivot without any problem in controlling the upwards movement of the gyro.
http://vimeo.com/96423217
cheers,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 25/05/2014 17:57:47
|
| | Hello Blaze,
This video is a good demonstration about misinterpretation of gyro behavior.
The forward/backward movement is not caused by centrifuge but by precession movement. The gyro tries to precess around its center of spinning mass but it cannot do this because of the given degree of freedom and because of acting friction forces. If centrifugal forces would act, the platform would move only when the gyro is aligned lengthwise to the movement ability of the platform but the movement only occurs when the gyro is in rectangular position to the platform wheels. Only at this position the gyro can transform precession movement to the platform.
Thank you for this excellent example!
Cheers,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 25/05/2014 18:34:06
|
| | Hi Blaze
Nice one! Would be lovely to see how much counterweight is needed on the other end of the pivot to shrink the barycentre movement to zero.
kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 25/05/2014 19:03:55
|
| | Hi Harry. Thanks for your comments.
"The gyro tries to precess around its center of spinning mass but it cannot do this because of the given degree of freedom". That is part of the answer. The gyro does, in fact, try to precess round its center of spinning mass but there is also the mass of the platform to contend with which is about 1 pound, if I remember correctly. This causes a barycenter between the gyro and the platform. The action of the gyro coming up to precession speed creates a force that moves the gyro one way and the reaction to that force is the platform moving the other way. After reaching precession speed there is no longer a precession acceleration force acting, the gyro has reached a certain speed and is simply coasting.
Because the platform is restricted in its movement, it will move back and forth. If this were in space and you could somehow create a tilting of the gyro to start it precessing, the barycenter action would cause a circular movement of the two objects (the platform and the gyro). That circular motion causes centrifugal acceleration. In the video, after the gyro is precessing there is so centrifugal acceleration acting on the gyro and the platform but it is "restricted" by the linear movement of the platform.
The point is that if there were no centrifugal force acting on the precessing gyro, then the barycenter movement would act from when the gyro axle was perpendicular to the platform axles until it was again perpendicular to the platform axles 180 degrees later. Do you agree on this point?
There are a number of unusual things that happen when you restrict movement like this.
Did you look at the video frame by frame? If you didn't you are missing something important.
regards,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/05/2014 19:04:45
|
| | Hello Blase,
' The best and simplest demo ever! Consider the mass displacement as linear, though it must curve to achieve such coordinates. The demo then reveals the law of equal and opposite without equivocation.
Thank you for it!
Cheers,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 25/05/2014 19:08:44
|
| | typo correction:
"In the video, after the gyro is precessing there is so centrifugal acceleration acting ...."
should read:
"In the video, after the gyro is precessing there is also centrifugal acceleration acting ...."
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 25/05/2014 19:14:36
|
| | Hi Nitro.
"how much counterweight is needed on the other end of the pivot to shrink the barycentre movement to zero" would depend on the distance from the pivot. If the distance were exactly the same then the same weight would be required. I don't think you could move the barycenter to the pivot any other way (which is what you would have to do to eliminate the barycenter movement), however then the pivot becomes the barycenter, so you just can't get rid of the barycenter.
cheers,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/05/2014 19:42:14
|
| | A point that may be overlooked is that the far greater weight/mass does not involve the relative light weight cradle; i.e center of which is the barrier center rests.
The wheel is both the weight and the counter weight. It move North as the weight: then it moves South as the counterweight. The magnitude of force against the cradle, whether great or small hardly enters the equation. Sorry Nitro. Your statement was good for me as I am searching for that answer myself.
Glenn,
Another thing: mass may shrink to tiny, or expound to great in any shape inside a circumference, but none of it may leave the circumference of it's own volition, except as equal and opposite ejections.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 25/05/2014 20:34:29
|
| | Evening Blaze, Harald, Nitro, Glenn, and all other interested parties.
Very good video there
I would have to see the experiment close up.
I am not at all convinced the video is demonstrating that this this device was in precession.
Seems to me it is either just going into precession you wish to call it or on its way out.
There is too much centrifugal force present to be otherwise.
In precession the oscillation will be absent.
Your words Blaze
“The action of the gyro coming up to precession speed creates a force that moves the gyro one way and the reaction to that force is the platform moving the other way. After reaching precession speed there is no longer a precession acceleration force acting, the gyro has reached a certain speed and is simply coasting”.
That seems to be a bit of a contradiction Blaze.
I bet the oscillation gets a lot worse when it gets slower.
Otherwise the thing is acting exactly as I have predicted.
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/05/2014 22:05:35
|
| | Good evening Sandy,
You have devised an excellent argument, you clever man you. I believe the wheel is spinning, but none of us can prove it. At this point the demonstration can not be call definitive proof, as I thought it was.
My regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 25/05/2014 22:08:54
|
| | Hi Sandy. Thanks for your comments.
You say you are not convinced the device is in precession. I believe you mean you don't think the device is in "steady state" precession, is that correct?. Please define what you call "precession" for a gravity powered system.
To me, steady state precession is when the gyro has finished accelerating up to its final precession speed for a constant input force that is attempting to tilt the flywheel. Precession in the video happens in the horizontal plain. The time it takes to get up to precession speed is an extremely short period of time, even on a large system and I am not saying that this is a large system but it is larger than a toy gyro. So lets say for the sake of argument, that the time to get to full precession speed for this system is rather long at 3 frames of video. At 15 frames per second that would be 0.2 seconds which is probably quite a bit more than it actually takes. In three frames from the starting position, the gyro arm has traveled less than 45 degrees. The time for the gyro arm to move in a 360 degree circle (precess once) is 33 frames which is 2.2 seconds. So, unless you have a different definition of precession than I do, I would say the device is in steady state precession for the vast majority of the time it is moving.
The gyro is moving at about 10.7 inches per second which is fairly fast due to the 3.75 inch arm length from the pivot to the flywheel center. The reason that the platform moves so much is because of the HIGH SPEED of precession. The amount of centrifugal force causing the system to barycenter is far greater than the friction of the axles or wheels, so the platform moves back and forth.
If the precession speed were a lot slower, the gyro would still move the platform the opposite way that the gyro moves (but it would have less of a kick) when precession is started but would settle down quickly to where the platform didn't move or moved very little after about 90 to 180 degrees of arm movement (precession movement). This is because the centrifugal force, being a squared function of speed, is so much smaller that it can't overcome the friction of the platform axles and wheels even though that friction is quite small. The starting kick in either case of fast or slow precession is not from centrifugal force but from the 90 degree reaction to the input force, gravity in this case.
Could you be a bit more specific about what it was in my statement that you quoted that seems to be a contradiction?
When you say "I bet the oscillation gets a lot worse when it gets slower.", do you mean when the flywheel rpm gets slower or when the precession speed gets slower? By precession speed getting slower I mean it takes longer to make 360 degrees of precession. If you mean when the flywheel rpm gets slower, you are correct, because of course this means that the precession speed gets faster.
regards,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 25/05/2014 22:38:37
|
| | Hi Glenn. Thanks for your comments.
I built the device and made the video back in August of 2012 and yes the flywheel is spinning at about 1600 rpm.
If you download the video so you can look at it frame by frame and you watch closely you will be able to see the drop distance of the gyro when you go from frame 5 to frame 6. The platform just barely starts moving during this drop. If you quickly go forwards and backwards frame by frame between frames 6, 7, 8 and 9 you will see the platform actually moves sideways and back a bit (parallel to its axles). It is actually getting dragged sideways (parallel to its axles) as it is moving forward (perpendicular to its axles). This is from a combination of the reaction of the gyro coming up to speed, the angle of the gyro arm in relation to the platform axles and some small amount of nutation during acceleration to steady state precession speed.
cheers,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 25/05/2014 22:50:10
|
| | Hello Blaze and all others,
No, I did not watched the Video frame by frame because I used my smartphone to watch it and unfortunately it is not possible to do with it.
A barycenter, which you described, would only be present in the absence of gravity and friction (in space). The barycenter in your video is the fulcrum on the platform, given by gravity, friction and degree of freedom of movement ability.
Acceleration into steady precession speed would cause a tilting of the gyro axis in vertically gravity plane but would not result in a horizontal force and counter force to move the platform. As mentioned in a post before the tilting torque in gravity direction is the counter torque to accelerating into steady precession velocity.
The point is, that a gyro or flywheel ALWAYS responds from its center of spinnig mass. That point is the ONLY possibilty of a gyro/flywheel to response to outside loaded forces or torques.
A barycenter is the resulting pivot point of all involved masses, i.e. spinning masses and non spinning masses (dead weight masses).
This barycenter is important to calculate resultant forces and torques, but it does not indicate the behavior of a gyro/flywheel system because this behavior depends on the given environment where the gyro system operates( degree of freedom, gravity, friction, etc.).
You wrote: "The point is that if there were no centrifugal force acting on the precessing gyro, then the barycenter movement would act from when the gyro axle was perpendicular to the platform axles until it was again perpendicular to the platform axles 180 degrees later. Do you agree on this point?"
Sorry, I do not understand. This issue exactly happens in the video and thus there is no centrifugal force present, as I stated before. Maybe I do not understand what you intended to describe.
Regards,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 25/05/2014 23:17:52
|
| | Hi Harald. You said "The barycenter in your video is the fulcrum on the platform...". Later you said "A barycenter is the resulting pivot point of all involved masses, i.e. spinning masses and non spinning masses (dead weight masses)."
When the gyro arm is parallel to the platform axles (say after 180 degrees of rotation) the barycenter is NOT the fulcrum on the platform. By fulcrum point I think you mean what I call the gyro pivot. The barycenter is at a point somewhere between the pivot and the flywheel. If it were at the fulcrum point on the platform, then the platform would not move. If you get a chance, download the video go frame by frame and you will see that when the gyro arm is parallel to the platform axles the barycenter point is just past the end of the brass coupling that attaches the pivot to the flywheel axle.
In regards to the following:
"The point is that if there were no centrifugal force acting on the precessing gyro, then the barycenter movement would act from when the gyro axle was perpendicular to the platform axles until it was again perpendicular to the platform axles 180 degrees later. Do you agree on this point?"
Sorry, I do not understand. This issue exactly happens in the video and thus there is no centrifugal force present, as I stated before.
That is NOT what happens in the video, but you have to go frame by frame to see what does happen.
cheers,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 25/05/2014 23:39:51
|
| | Hi Harald. I forgot one thing. You said "Acceleration into steady precession speed would cause a tilting of the gyro axis in vertically gravity plane but would not result in a horizontal force and counter force to move the platform."
The flywheel responds to tilting by twisting about an axis in the vertical plain that passes through the center of the flywheel (even that is not quite 100% correct but it is close enough). The flywheel is attached to its axle which is attached to the pivot of the platform. So of course this twisting of the flywheel causes a horizontal force on the platform which is what moves the platform. The gyro has to "push against something" to get up to precession speed. It doesn't just happen. The twisting of the flywheel pushes against the mass of the platform and in doing so it moves both the platform and itself but in opposite directions.
regards,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/05/2014 23:55:56
|
| | Bravo Blaze for the show. I am impressed.
For me it is all too simple to argue. I must be missing a few brain cells today. If the wheels were ice cubes the cradle would follow the wheel in a smaller 360 degrees circle. Then much of all that is being argued would be the same.
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/05/2014 23:58:20
|
| | Hi Harry my friend, In order to overpower the effect of centrifuge I believe the wheel must be forced to precess faster beyond the power of gravity. I think it is only then when the wheel is forced to actually rise, that inward and upwards forces overwhelm centrifuge. Is that right Sandy?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 26/05/2014 00:07:42
|
| | Hi Glenn. I agree with both of your last two points.
cheers,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 26/05/2014 11:21:06
|
| | Hello Blaze and Glenn,
I'm impressed as well. I assumed that how a gyro/flywheel responds to outside applied forces respectively torques was already discussed and basicly confirmed. It seems I'm wrong with this asumption.
Currently I have no time to go in this deeper because I have to work on the office but I will answer today in the evening.
But in advance I'm afraid you are on the wrong track about basic gyro behavior. But later more.
Regards,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 26/05/2014 13:29:24
|
| | Hello Blaze,
Are you sure that the flywheel in your video is spinning at 1600 rpm and not at 160 rpm?
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 26/05/2014 14:04:27
|
| | Good Morning Harry,
I am drinking coffee and waiting on a friend to show up at the door to borrow a truck. I clicked on the thread and saw to my surprise its still alive. Excuse me, Harry for jumping ahead of you, but I know I will not herder your response.
Basic gyro:
The post with ice cubs cannot be wrong.
Non-basic gyro:
The post explaining centrifuge is not lessened, unless the position of the wheel is allowed to move inward is controversial here. And actually I could be wrong, but I would bet $10. against a donut. We will depend on Sandy's response a lot. He has tested much of this following.
I thank of the condition somewhat differently than this explanation, but essentially it is the same; simplified here for my benefit. It is easier for my coffee deprived brain to this morning to explain this way.
HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT
If one griped the front of a none spinning wheel with his right hand and griped the rear of the wheel with his left hand and twisted the wheel; right hand pushing forward and
left hand pulling backwards, the wheel would twist. If a shaft were running through the wheel toward a distant post, the wheel would attempt to twist around in a precession -like movement. The movement of the mass of the wheel must release some of its energy necessary to cause motion; while the post does not release energy from compression as it remains stationary. This is important in understanding why a stationary pedestal resist slightly less than equal and opposite to the force of the wheel and this is the reason I.P. may be possible. (the unequal force is what Nitro was invested earlier)
VERTICAL MOVEMENT
If one now changes his grip; right hand on top of the wheel, left on the bottom and pushes with his right hand while pulling with his left; the distant tip of the shaft resting on a pedestal will register torque down upon the pedestal. This would tend to cause the gyro to rise. When the wheel rises in response, we all know it must also move inward. Mass is displaced inward. The wheel is pulling against week centrifuge and overpowering it and essentially eliminating the effect of centrifuge. Sandy has explained this for centuries, but in a languish of thought patterns foreign to the workings of my mind.
My friend; Harry, it seems to me that if mass is not displaced inward toward the pedestal, then there is no pulling the force of centrifuge inward. When nothing moves, how can force be applied?
I hope you have such a fine working day, Harry. Until later then when you have time. . . . .
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 26/05/2014 14:07:10
|
| | Thank you Blaze. It is good to have a mind like yours agree sometimes with my little contributions.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 26/05/2014 14:19:34
|
| | CORRECTION TO ABOVE:
"When nothing moves, how can force be applied?"
Should have read, "When nothing moves, how can force produce anything other than and an equal none acting pressure?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 26/05/2014 14:26:34
|
| | Dear Harry,
That man is not going to make that kind of mistake. Don't you know, but nice try.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 26/05/2014 14:52:32
|
| | Hello Blaze,
1600 rpm is correct. Sorry I made a mistake in calculation.
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 26/05/2014 17:03:31
|
| | CORRECTION
The forced divided between the wheel and pedestal is equal and opposite.
I am through with this discussion.
I have decided there are too many things to do in my life without using it up building an extremely new and unique machine that only oscillates in place.
I was going at it mostly because of the beauty of the mechanics in action and the visual wonder and beauty of such a machine that is in my mind.
Prove me wrong, Blaze. Good luck.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 26/05/2014 17:23:40
|
| | You are not wrong Glenn. This device will never produce propulsion. It is not the device I am currently building.
cheers,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 26/05/2014 20:01:18
|
| | Has anyone looked at the video frame by frame?
cheers,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 26/05/2014 20:35:24
|
| | Hello Blaze and Glenn,
Now I have watched the Video frame by frame and I believe to know what you mean, Blaze. Short before the gyro reaches the position in alignment with wheels (3 and 9 o’clock) the platform reverses its movement in the direction to the gyro. You are right, this reverse movement is caused by centrifugal force of the gyro’s dead weight mass.
I do not dispute the existence of centrifugal force in precession movement, I never did this. However, this centrifugal force is a side effect caused by the inertia of the involved mass(es) but it is not the reason of precession movement. Precession movement does not need a centripetal force to compel the dead weight part of the flywheel mass revolve around an orbit and thus precession movement itself will not cause a centrifugal force to orbit around a pivot (not fulcrum, sorry). But as mentioned before, centrifugal force will nevertheless be generated based on the orbiting masses around the pivot. This may sound contradictory but the important thing is the fact that centripetal/centrifugal forces are not the reason for precession movement.
An applied tilting torque in vertical plane, applied either by gravity or by mechanically acceleration increases the effective velocity of each mass particle of the flywheel. Based on the spinning direction and the direction of the applied vertical torque each mass particle has to increase its resultant velocity given by the constant spinning speed and the perpendicular acting tilting force. To achieve this increase of velocity of each mass particle, the spinning plane of the flywheel has to draw aside slow are fast, depending on all given parameters (spinning rate, mass, shape of flywheel, tilting force, etc.). This draw aside behavior of the flywheel’s spinning plane can only occur if the flywheel rotates in addition perpendicular to the spinning plane what is called precession movement. It seems for us, that there are 2 different perpendicular movements, but in truth each mass particle moves only in one spiral path.
Sorry for this excurse but to understand that all spinning mass particles of a precessing or mechanically accelerated gyro move in reality on each single paths is very important to understand the following.
Every kind of restriction, such as friction, energy losses to accelerate into steady state precession, any kind of orbiting dead weight masses, etc., against the ability of a gyro to precess will cause a counter torque to the applied tilting torque which will cause in return to draw aside the spinning plane now in the vertical tilting plane, i.e. the gyro now precesses in the direction of the tilting torque with a precession speed based on the “size of restriction”. For instance if precession movement will be blocked, the gyro is tilting with the normal precession rate.
Now back to the video. As explained above, a counter force/torque to accelerate into steady state precession can only occur in the vertical plane of the applied tilting force/torque but not by any centrifugal forces. That means that the necessary energy to accelerate to precession plane will be used by the potential energy in vertical tilting plane and will cause a downward movement of the gyro. I have calculated a downward movement of about 4,2 mm for the gyro in your video to provide the necessary energy for this acceleration work. If the tilting force will be removed, the stored energy in precession movement in form of angular momentum will cause the gyro to arise about 4,2 mm to the original position (friction losses neglected). Thus the conservation of energy is fulfilled.
The backward and forward movement is mainly caused by precession itself. The gyro is trying to move the platform around its center of mass or as far as I am concerned from its barycenter nearby the center of spinning mass. In space in the absence of gravity the platform and would rotate/orbit around the center of spinning mass respectively its barycenter.
I hope things may be clearer now and I hope I did not forgot something important.
Best regards,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 26/05/2014 20:43:07
|
| | Correction:
"In space in the absence of gravity the platform and would rotate/orbit around the center of spinning mass respectively its barycenter."
must be read:
"In space in the absence of gravity the platform and gyro would rotate/orbit around the center of spinning mass respectively its barycenter.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 26/05/2014 21:04:32
|
| |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/05/2014 23:55:56
Bravo Blaze for the show. I am impressed.
For me it is all too simple to argue. I must be missing a few brain cells today. If the wheels were ice cubes the cradle would follow the wheel in a smaller 360 degrees circle. Then much of all that is being argued would be the same.
Regards,
Glenn
Not in space.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Harry:
"must be read:"
"In space in the absence of gravity the platform and gyro would rotate/orbit around the center of spinning mass respectively its barycenter."
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Harry, the barycenter is itself rotated, note a gyro on a string. The same is true with a pivot/cradle supported on little ice cubes.
The reason is interesting. I am curious; do you all know why?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nate LaChae - 27/05/2014 02:11:07
|
| | To prove gravity is not needed, let's see a counter-weight test.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 27/05/2014 04:36:28
|
| | One more video some of you might enjoy. Although this probably belongs in a different thread, it is similar to the air table video that Nitro posted earlier in this thread however, there are some distinct differences between the two videos.This one was also done in August of 2012 with my daughter as my lovely assistant. You will notice the same platform being used as the other video I posted. This video is probably best viewed at normal speed but you can certainly look at it frame by frame to get a more detailed view.
http://vimeo.com/96548358
regards,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 27/05/2014 05:56:47
|
| | Fine Blaze,
The platform rotates nearly around the center of spinning mass as I explained it before. QED.
Regards,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 27/05/2014 06:04:19
|
| | Excellent Blaze.
I have an interesting report relating to your video. I designed a strange method that also proved the heavy wheel would remain in the same grid and spin like a coin flipped on a table. But then it became confusing and not so simple.
I attached looping hooks holding a heavy spinning flywheel that had no shaft ,by its sides (Ignore how I might have done it) I placed the hooks on two curving stiff wires. When I would release the fast rotating wheel it would slide in a curving path to the platform below that the wires were was attached to. Can you imagine this; The wheel drops in a the curve of the wires the same as a gyro curves downward with its axle supported by a pedestal. Because this wheel has no support 'pedestal' or shaft to apply torque support and resistance, the wheel falls at near the sped of gravity; very quick; and very powerfully because of the quickness.
The light platform moves so that the pedestal is always about directly underneath wheel. This proves the same thing you video proves.
Now comes the weird part. If I add a few light weight coins to any of the four corners of the platform, the gyro precess around the coins, though the wheel weighs a hundred times more. The wheel will jerk to the left, or to the right hard depending on where the coins are placed. What happened to equal and opposite. Go figure.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 27/05/2014 06:13:23
|
| | Oh, my for corners were supported by small bits of ice sliding on Floormaca. Give or take; it allows for freedom of movement about like the ping pong balls.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 27/05/2014 15:47:41
|
| | Hi Harry and Glenn.
There has been a lot of controversy on this forum in the past about whether a gyro would precess around the pivot or the pivot would precess around the gyro (flywheel) if the pivot were really low friction or had no friction. My posting from April 29, 2012 was one of them but I am sure there probably were others.
http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=1425
The video with the ping pong balls is a low friction surface but certainly not a no friction surface. The orange ping pong balls are the "high quality" ones that are supposed to be professional grade. They are supposed to be more consistent and more uniform roundness. They are more money but I splurged for the extra couple of bucks anyway.
It is not necessary to view the video in frame by frame to get the gist of what is happening but if you do you can see the drop distance and some nutation for several frames after the drop. One of the interesting things is that the gyro only precesses about 75 degrees or so with respect to the platform the pivot is mounted on (gyro arm is almost perpendicular to the platform axles) before the whole apparatus spins on its barycenter which appears to be right beside the flywheel (on the pivot side of the flywheel). When the gyro arm gets to about 75 degrees with respect to the platform axles, it no longer precesses with respect to the platform but rather the whole apparatus precesses, more like a gyro on gimbals.
To me, this means that the friction of the pivot is greater than the friction of the ping pong balls at 75 degrees for this device. The initial kick from releasing the drop drives the platform almost perfectly sideways for 3 frames before the platform starts making any noticeable circular motion (fully circular motion happens at about 75 degrees as stated before). Three frames puts the gyro arm at about 45 degrees to the platform axles which is about the same angle that centrifugal acceleration is noticeable in the previous video I posted. Interesting coincidence.
Glenn, for your experiment, is it possible that the coins in the corners sucked enough heat out of the ice to freeze it onto the "Floormaca"?
regards,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 27/05/2014 21:03:50
|
| | Good thinking, Blase, but before the ice, I cut little pieces of silicone from furniture sliders and hot glue-gunned them to the platform as feet and the result was the same as ice. I posted about this last year with more detail:
http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=1613
On still earlier postings I explained that I owned two blue disk resembling flying saucers. Inside the disks were a heavy crank flywheels to which I could generate a great deal of angular momentum; as much as your big brass wheel I think. I heated a bit of close hanger and melted through the edges of the plastic disk in four uniform points and in these holes I inserted metal rings, like ear rings. These ear ring like loops fit over the two vertical , strong and thick wires that were curved and attached to the light weight cradle. When I released the disk with rotating wheels inside to slide down the wires; well all reaction was as I said.
The cradle jerked around so that the disk twisted remaining in the same point in space, like your deal. Without a pedestal and shaft the effects are so quick they are powerful and not at all weak and slow like precession. So much so that friction had almost no relative effect in registering. I thought myself very clever to have reasoned out this test of relative pivot resistance almost devoid of friction. The wheel revolved around its center of mass, of course.
Then as I added a few coins to one corner or another and saw the flywheel in response jerk hard one way or the other disproportionately to the balance of the mass of the coins added. By the way, I then put ice cubes on top of the platform with a backdrop and they were flung three feet off the table although the jerking precession was perhaps only 2.5". As I tried to reason why, I stopped felling clever. I don't know why.
Go figure!
Cheers,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 30/05/2014 22:17:55
|
| | Hi Sandy. I think that the reason I had no problem with controlling the upward rise of the gyro for my powered pivot (or hub) experiments is because I was running the system rpm an order of magnitude or more slower than you were in your experiments. My pivot speeds would change from about 15 to 25 rpm for about 90 degrees and back down to about 15 rpm again. If I had been running pivot speeds of 250 rpm or better I would have had far greater forces involved and far more difficulty in controlling the upward movement of the gyro. The slow speeds I was running could probably be done just by using one's finger pushing against the gyro arm to speed it up and in that case the upward rise is quite controllable.
regards,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
