|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
23 November 2024 16:09
|
|
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: |
Why inertia disapears in precession.......... |
| Question: |
I am putting this up as a new question because I think it will inform more people than just a reply to Blaze.
Oh Dear!,
This is of necessity long but it involves no maths, no experiments and, IF YOU CAN GET YOU FINGERS OUT OF YOUR ARSES AND READ THIS CAREFULLY AND IN FULL, you will understand why inertia and other effects disappear in precession. Sorry to swear but you guys are BLOODY EXASPERATING!
I should not put this simple explanation in the public domain but if I don’t I will be driven mad by you all
Sandy, not you, as you must be as tired as I am of trying to get the blind to see. (That you feel obliged to spare us all” from a couple of other issues is sad – those issues may give our brains a change.) However, I feel the need to keep banging on for god (or Farage, or Salmon, or Newton or whoever is in charge these days) knows what reason. So I’ll give it one more go.
You will all, surely, have noticed my going on about “NITRO’S FIRST LAW”. This is because understanding the implications of NITRO’s FIRST LAW is fundamental to understanding why the effects of (NOTE:- “effects” of) acceleration/mass/inertia/deceleration on precessing mass to all intents and purposes disappear.
This defies the understanding of many many people, some of them quite clever. Indeed, it seems that those better trained in the science of physics and maths have an off switch (just under their right ear) fitted, which makes them less able to get their heads around the simple implications of NITRO’S FIRST LAW. Despite using different ways to explain why some of the more outrageous anomalies, occurring in a precessing mass, happen, I have been unsuccessful.
I am clearly not a good teacher and I may, despite breaking down the ways that mass/acceleration/inertia “effects” seem to vanish, to help you guys understand, have fallen into the common teaching trap of assuming that because I easily “get it” others must surely also “get it”. So, let us repeat the first law again:- A gyro will precess EVERY force applied to change its axial angle NOT JUST THE FORCES YOU’VE THOUGHT OF. Now let us see how this makes infinite acceleration/deceleration, disappearing mass, and so many other outrageous gyrodynamic effects, happen...............
YOU GUYS DON’T DESERVE ME BUT YOU DO WANT TO UNDERSTAND - DON’T YOU? THEN BLOODY WELL BUCKLE UP AND KEEP CONCENTRATING!!!
NOTA BENE:- “NOT JUST THE FORCES YOU’VE THOUGHT OF”.........and NB also:- the use of the word force – means force, not energy .
Let’s start by looking at a “*perfect and frictionless” overhung gyro prior to its release into precession. Upon release, gravity becomes an applied force trying to change its axial angle so the gyro does its gyro thing and precesses that force into a movement 90 degrees from the applied force. Off it toddles on its merry way around its pivot.
All well and good so far? Well, actually no!
Because upon its release its movement around the pivot involves the acceleration of its mass there must be a concomitant inertia to that mass acceleration. AND there, abso-bloody-lutely IS inertia. That inertia has the effect of a rearward force, equal to the inertia, acting in the opposite direction to the gyro’s motion around the pivot. READ THAT AGAIN!
Apply NITRO’S FIRST LAW and guess what? Yes, you’ve got it! (at bloody last!) The inertia’s rearward force effect is also precessed 90 degrees into a downward force effect equal to the inertia. That downward force effect is, in turn, also precessed into a forward force effect equal to the inertia ELIMINATING IT’S EFFECT!!!
HAVE YOU SODDING WELL GOT IT YET. A gyro precesses EVERY force!!!!
What the precession of all the inertial forces (NOT JUST THE GRAVITY FORCES YOU LAZILY THOUGHT OF) involved means is that the effect of every inertial force (and that includes centrifugal force in this example) has been effectively cancelled out. This leaves just the effect of the force of gravity causing precession. AND with the disappearance of the EFFECT of inertia, magically, the gyro can go into precessional motion and be stopped INSTANTLY by the application or removal of the force (gravity in this case) precessing it!
HAVE YOU BLOODY WELL GOT IT YET?
JEEZ I HOPE SO!
Wake up you shower in the back! And don’t waste my time any more until you have read and grasped all the implications of all of the above. If you don’t “get it” now, you are beyond my help. If you do “get it” at last, then a thank-you would not go amiss.
Kind regards
NM
*not possible, I know but, as with understanding an Op. Amp., (you brilliant students have “got” linear amplifiers, haven’t you?) it’s function is easier to follow using a theoretically perfect example.
|
| Date: |
6 March 2015
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Nitro - 08/03/2015 11:27:48
| | | For Blaze and Harry,
A demonstration of missing inertia by Laithwaite for you. It is quite near the beginning of this video so you wont have to suffer long!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiTdJOS467c&list=PLoqW1tDux5_XVlHsdXdv5JMOrJOSKCKm4&index=2
Happy viewing,
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 08/03/2015 15:14:56
| | | Thank you for proving our point Nitro. The professor talks about acceleration in the first part of the video, NOT instantaneous change in speed.
Of course he makes the usual mistakes in the video of using the naked eye to make observations of what is happening and calling that proof instead of using even a relatively slow camera that can shoot 100 to 200 frames per second to see what is actually happening.
Nitro, this seems to be your primary problem as well. You seem to think that changing from one precession speed to another is instantaneous. It is not but you will NEVER see that without a good camera shooting at a decent speed and viewing the results frame by frame. When viewing these phenomenon with a decent camera and looking at the results frame by frame it is quite easy to see what happens. Of course to see some of the smaller motions of the phenomenon clearly, magnification or enlargement is required but that is easily done.
Of course I FULLY expect you to think that everything I just said is all rubbish and that you "know" best. So be it. Like I said before, you can believe whatever you wish. People always do.
regards,
Blaze
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
NItro - 08/03/2015 16:14:58
| | |
Blaze
You must have done your much vaunted high frame rate filming of a gyro going into and/or out of precession. Have you got a copy of this amazing film and have you got figures for your calculation of its observed acceleration/deceleration?
You obviously have not read or not been able to understand any of my description of how inertia is precessed out of existence, This is to your loss because it really does happen exactly as I have described.
Laithwaite did do high speed camera tests and observed, as he said in that video, “...there is an acceleration but it is at a simply enormous value!” This enormous acceleration value is caused, as I described, by the inertia being reduced also by a simply enormous value!
Until you and Harry get to understand my description of the precession of inertial forces a gyro will have no use to you but as an entertaining toy.
Harry,
I just love the way you accused me of having a boorish character (Boorish, seulement moi ??) and then humourlessly suggest in your very next post that I need a doctor. Sadly at my age this is often true but at least I don’t need a teacher in this subject.
Happy learning.
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 08/03/2015 20:01:57
| | | Yes Nitro, I do in fact have videos of what happens when a gravity powered gyro starts, like I said in another posting recently. I filmed the “drop” with a rather slow 15 frame per second camera (I didn’t have the faster camera at that time). When the gyro is starting it is very clear that the gyro is not moving at full speed instantly. I did these tests videoing the starting of a relatively small 5 inch gyro and a large 24 inch gyro with the same general results. Full speed precession is NOT instantaneous after the release of the gyro. Have you ever actually seen frame by frame what happens when a gyro starts? If not how can you argue about what happens at all? Go do the experiments yourself. It is really not all that difficult. If you need some help in setting it up I am willing to provide some input but do the experiment yourself.
I understand very well your description “of how inertia is precessed out of existence”. I just don’t happen to agree with it, although some parts of your description is correct. I can also see where you are mistaken. It comes from the following:
This forum seems to generally consist of two groups of people with different beliefs. One group believes that a change from one precession speed to another precession speed is instantaneous, that the inertia of a gyro is “eliminated” with precession, that it only takes a force (without any “tilting” of the gyro) applied to a spinning gyro to make it precess, and that there is some big mystery that science doesn’t recognize and won’t acknowledge. There may be a few other points that I haven’t listed, however it seems to be the that last point that the people of this group want to capitalize on to possibly create some form of propulsion. That is the group you appear to be in.
The other group believes that it takes a measurable amount of time (short but measurable) to change from one precession speed to another precession speed, that the inertia of the gyro does not change when it is precessing, that the force applied to the gyro causes a (usually tiny) bit of “tilting” of the gyro which is what actually causes precession, that the way a gyro moves can be explained with known science and physics, and that there is no magic or big mystery required to explain why a gyro moves the way it does. That is the group that I am in and perhaps Harald as well.
From what I can see from all this bantering about on this forum, it sounds like it is the differing beliefs about whether it is the force or the tilting of the gyro that makes it precess, that all the other different beliefs of the two groups stem from. To the naked eye it certainly looks like it just takes a force without any tilting, but again, put in on video and watch it frame by frame and you will see what really happens.
Now I may be mistaken about your beliefs but if you actually do believe that it only takes a force for a gyro to precess and not any actual tilting of the gyro, then I can see where all of the other things that you believe about gyros comes from and neither I or anyone else will ever be able to prove to you otherwise. So again I say that you can believe whatever you want. That is your prerogative.
Regards,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/03/2015 20:57:13
| | | I don’t think any of these arguing points matter, if they are intended to be useful in the investigation of the possibility of developing inertial propulsion.
I think only the question of whether the pivot point attempts to FULLY react defines a usefulness toward that gold.
Everybody has done work on this question. Tests have been presented and physics lay out as proof. The tests are not conclusive as I can question aspects of them and physics is like a crossword puzzle in one respect. The correct information must be in all the blocks and I know the information in full is not known.
My experiments, which I thought were clever at the time, gave indications that a gyro obeys physics in textbook style. I was satisfied for a year, before I realized the tests did not actually give undeniable proof that the actions of precession and reaction at the pivot were totally equal. In fact in retrospect they suggested unequal actions.
As to affirming that physics gives the correct answer, of course it does assuming all the information was known to put into the boxes. Allow me to declare all the fervor of my being that all is not known.
The calisthenics, I can think of no more apt word, of the angular momentum performing in the flywheel as it is forced to curve unnaturally through space, endlessly curves back upon itself tumbling and twisting. Because infinity is not accepted in physics, mathematics repeating endless would prove that something unnatural will eventually happen. I am saying that theoretical mathematics concept proves it already. Nobody understands these calisthenics completely. Moreover I think we are so busy being geniuses, myself included sometimes, that we do not always know that we do not know. I think sometimes that action and reaction may slightly curved toward the not completely unequal.
As to the other subject of instantaneous let me say that the universe is believed to have existed in compaction the size of a pea and when it exploded, within a millisecond it spread hundreds of billions of light years outward as from a point within a sphere. Incredibly that is not instantaneous, but it so nearly instantaneous it is beyond understanding. It makes you believe in God.
A quantity cannot be divided into infinity. Still, for practical purposes we should think of the universe as being born instantaneously, thought it wasn’t. You fellows ever hear of nit-picking?
Gyroscopes are nearly instantaneous. Beyond enjoying mathematics I can’t see a purpose in this argument.
We have a saying over here, “He would argue with a stump.” I speak for all of us in saying maybe that has become our purpose with respect to instantaneous.
Cheers,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 08/03/2015 21:51:59
| | | Hiya Blaze
We should both get medals for persistence. However, while you seem to be tilting towards reconciliation, the facts are still at odds with you.
Your persistence in clinging onto the belief that some sort of drop is responsible for precession’s “acceleration” is understandable (though wrong). However, like the vast majority of people that clung to beliefs in a geocentric universe, a flat earth, the impossibility of man powered flight (my brother and I had a go at that but our entry was rejected by the Royal Aeronautical Society - far too clever, probably) your belief in the need for something other than a simple force to drive precession is wrong.
Now, though you don’t want me to, I will tell you from where your error derives:-
I have described in long ago posts how the effects of gyro dynamics can be overtaken by the effects of Newton dynamics if the gyro's spin/mass/diameter is too small for it to precess the force applied to precess it. From your continuing insistence on the need for a drop to power precession it is obvious that you have carried out your tests with insufficient spin/mass/diameter. Basically, a crap gyro and/or too much precessing force has fooled you!
There is a good example of what happens when there is insufficient spin/mass/diameter in relation to the applied force on the very same video that you have just been looking at (about 2.55 minutes in) which clearly shows the drop you are talking about. However (again), the drop which is the same as you are talking about and which can be nicely seen here is just Nutation. And Nutation is caused by – to give it a simple description – Newtonian and gyro dynamics arguing. They argue because to much force is being applied to too little spin/mass/diameter.
I wont be bothering to do as you suggest as I have done this test so many times as to make it redundant (I may do it when I am bored sh*tless just to help others better understand) but you should certainly do the test again with a decent gyro and a less torturing load (precessing force).
This is nothing to do with points of view or opinions it is about good observations and repeatable results with good equipment.
You could, of course, like Harry remain fooled by crap gyros and crap maths that do not cover the subject properly – that is your perogative.
Glen,
You are right! It feels as if I have been arguing with a stump, maybe two.
The answers are known! It’s just the application of the answers successfully that I am working on now – when life, old age and having my house, Cooper S (1275 of course!) and Daimler Dart massively rebuilt doesn’t interrupt.
Happy learning
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 09/03/2015 00:48:23
| | | "insufficient spin/mass/diameter. Basically, a crap gyro and/or too much precessing force"
Hmmm.... 5 inch diameter gyro spinning at 1600 rpm, excellent quality ball bearings, 1.5 inch distance from pivot to center of flywheel, gravity is the only input force. So none of what you said applies.
Well Nitro all I can say is enjoy living in the imaginary blue pill world. It is pointless for further discussions on this topic.
regards,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 09/03/2015 08:33:05
| | | Hiya Blaze
Thank you for giving the details as they have shown your simple error and explained your sticking doggedly to the wrong theory.
Hmmm.......only 1600 rpm? There’s your problem!
At 1600 rpm you have been observing simple nutation. Like I said:- crap gyro!
Toodaloo and pip pip old chap!
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy - 09/03/2015 10:15:06
| | | Dear Blaze and other interested parties,
It is apparently obvious that you and nearly all of the rest of humanity accept all the existing beliefs with reference to gyroscope or flywheel physics.
So are you genuinely attempting to generate inertial thrust or are you trying to prove that it cannot be done?
Some time back we had a guy who called himself Ram Firestone who presented much the same case as yourself and he was anti inertial drive.
It does become wearying to go through the same junk repeatedly, so I can understand Nitro’s attitude towards the camp you support.
Someone implied that we were going around in circles to which I must agree, but none are so blind, as those who will not see.
The present arguments have festered in this forum for years neither side wavering from its path.
Nitro in other words suggests that unless you believe what we are claiming, inertial drive production will forever remain outside your reach.
He is attempting to do you a favour, to which I agree.
To me it never ever mattered how fast a gyroscope went into precession or whether it slowed down or didn’t slow down when a weight was added or subtracted.
Quite frankly it would not matter one way or the other, as far as inertial drive is concerned, as nothing raised in that heated thread can contribute anything towards its achievement.
As long as you stick within the realms of gravitationally accelerated systems that is as far as you are going to go.
There is nothing in “passive” systems, which is going to do anything for anyone, and that is the primary reason I tend not get involved in, what is to me, a total waste of time.
That said gyroscopes in precession and flywheels which are forcibly accelerated past the point of normal rotation to run in the area wrongly called forced precession, display some very similar attributes, which completely back up my claims of loss of angular momentum, inertia, and anything else you should have when you try to accelerate mass.
I do not think it is too hard to make a twin flywheel machine and run it up to flywheel and hub rotation speeds which will demonstrate these effects, and then you can see who is telling porkies.
Then it is much easier to assess what is really going on in passive systems.
As far as inertial drive is concerned dabbling with gravity accelerated systems is doing nobody any favours.
Regards,
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 09/03/2015 13:23:46
| | | Talking about it will never answer any questions. Only actual experiments with sensitive equipment will. Anyone in here who has a gyro propulsion machine should hang it from a fishing wire as long as possible and try to do what I've been doing (sometimes). Get it to deflect to one side.
The largest building in my little town of Umeå, Sweden could only provide me with 17 meters from floor to roof. And that was barely enough to get any kind of interesting reading. Preferably you should hang the wires in a V pattern, so that the machine is inclined to only swing from side to side, and not twist around it's center of gravity, which mine does.
I want to do this of course, but I haven't had the time or resources to do so yet.
By the way, here's an interesting piece of information about gyros. I recently rebuilt it so that my two gyro arms would interlock in the middle with two cogwheels (gears), and wouldn't you know it, it stopped working. It was as if when there's more than 1 gyro on the same ..... let's say "axle", then they start counteracting each other. The machine I spent a lot of money rebuilding was completely useless, but at least I learned something. Don't use gears and don't try to have more than 1 gyro on a single arm.
More experiments to come of course, but life keeps getting in the way.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 09/03/2015 14:19:49
| | | Hi MD
I agree that talking is pointless and I do tend to get distracted trying to get the blind to see – another pointless exercise. I have seen your tests and have to say that your efforts are to be admired. However, (I can hear the groans, of “not another ‘however’”!) if you need to have such a long pendulum to detect propulsion impulses then you should not be seeking a place to accommodate a longer pendulum but, instead, seeking reasons why the impulses are so small. In your arrangement that I have seen, not dissimilar to my own, I believe that the impulses are very small. The reason for this requires a lengthy explanation and I think everyone is fed up with my lengthy posts. For the moment suffice to say that most, though I don’t believe all, of the useful impulse is back fed into near disappearance by the effects of Nitros first law (see earlier posts ad. inf.)
If I start to look terminal I will e-mail you direct (I don’t see why those who haven’t put in the practical should benefit) with a way to gain hugely on the unopposed impulse in your machine – if that is alright with you. For the moment I hold out the hope to finish mine.
regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 09/03/2015 17:05:06
| | | My e-mail is mdrivegeneral@gmail.com for those interested.
"the impulses are so small"
That's relative. I mean, in comparison to the EMDRive NASA is currently experimenting with, my machine supposedly generates hundreds of times the thrust. The problem isn't only the length of the wires, but the fact that it's shaking and twisting about pretty violently. So the only option is to increase sensitivity to the point where you can tell the difference between the shaking and the thrust.
But here's an interesting thing. I'm almost 100% certain I've AT LEAST invented a machine that can generate swing momentum a lot faster than normal physics predicts.
Building swing momentum... well, just look at a circus artist. You have to move the center of gravity in sync (!!) with the swing. My machine doesn't do that, yet it's still a lot (something like 200-300%) more efficient at generating a swing than when you turn the gyros off and perform the same motion.
This can be seen at 5:45 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNtIiyBmrgs&feature=youtu.be&hd=1
After a mere 6 cycles (rotations of the gyro assembly) we have a significant amount of swing, something that I can't reproduce with the gyros off (end of the video if you're interested). The other interesting thing is that this works in reverse, as can be seen in the same clip. If it's thrusting towards the left then you should be able to reproduce the results in reverse, which is exactly what I did. It's "breaking" the swing by thrusting left as it's going right (backwards).
Pretty weird if you ask me. Both suggest, but unfortunately don't prove, that thrust is occurring. I actually want to slap some ice skates on it and see if it can't accelerate to about running speed on ice. We have some pretty big ice hockey rinks here in Sweden after all.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 09/03/2015 17:59:53
| | | Hello Sandy,
The topic we discussed belonged to overhanging flywheels precessed by gravity. We did not discuss "active" systems, i.e forced precessed (whether you like this term or not) systems and thus you missed the point.
However, if one do not understand how gravity driven flywheel/gyro systems work, how may he ever understand how a much more complex “active” system are working?
I still got no answers from Nitro, maybe you can provide the answers:
“Name only one single instantaneous effect in nature aside from precession?”
“Where remains the additional energy after the removal of the tilting torque?”
Another question, Sandy. You are convinced that there is no angular momentum present in precession caused by gravity and in active “forced precessed” systems. Thus aside from friction your hub motor for your setup does not need any energy to drive the hub, correct? If it nevertheless needs energy (I’m convinced it does!), for what purpose? Just for fun or to heat up the universum? Please explain, Sandy. I’m very curious about your answer!
Anyway, this is my last post in regard to this topic and maybe my last post here at all. It’s really wasted time. Some guys here are egomaniac convinced to know everything about gyro related issues but the truth is that they do not understand the simplest physical behaviors! And instead to enlarge their absent physical knowledge they call others, who have much more knowledge in this matter, “blind”. These snotnosed guys are not able to realize who is the really blind in this matter. It’s getting really strange for me if such guys name simple-minded “laws” to place themselves on the same level with famous scientists. How absurd!
Have fun together at this lonely spot here! :-)))
@Blaze
You should have my email address if you want to seriously discuss something. If not, let me know.
Regards,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 09/03/2015 22:40:52
| | | Harald, you will never get an answer to your questions.
I believe I have your email and will contact you directly.
regards,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 10/03/2015 05:06:49
| | | How unfortunate these last two threads.
Look at this couple.
http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/China-High-Quality-Material-Precision-right_1556585309.html
The gears act almost completely, totally, entirely simultaneously, but taken to the tenth power they never could.
If 9.99999 percent of the weight was in the rim, and there was almost no friction (as in opposing magnetic polarity) the gyroscope couple should work almost completely, totally, entirely simultaneously—but not completely.
Look at this seemingly impossible idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance
If two actions occur instantaneously they can be said to occur simultaneously. Looking at the site above, physics espouse that magnetic attraction occurs instantaneously at a distance. I never believed it, but the concept must be almost completely, totally, entirely, simultaneous—but not completely, I think.
The question that started this mini war is about coasting.
WHAT HAPPENS TO INERTIA? WHERE DOES IT GOES; IF PRECESSION OCCURS AND ENDS ALMOST INSTANTANEOUSLY, WHITHER GOEST THOU MISTER MOMENTUM?
One horse pushes a wagon. One horse pushes back. Force pushes precession. Precession pushes back. When force stops, precession pushes back against inertial coasting. The breaks go on. The breaks, the pushing back, are equally as powerful and the force that built the breaks. There is just no coasting almost completely, totally, entirely—but not completely. There must be some no matter how little. Nutation does not dispel with proof there was no coasting. Nutation proves there was—no matter how extremely little or that dead weight cause most of it. If we must go to extremes in an example: molecules compact and expand under pressure and the release of pressure.
Oddly I find that nobody’s argument is wrong. The correctness of each is dependent on ones point of view: which is, since simultaneous and instantaneous is not possible according to me, what do the words mean? If the universe expanded billions of light years, faster than the blink of an eye according to physics theory, and yet this in not mathematically instantaneous, then what is?
I don’t care about any of this crap, but I care that these discussions and hurtful arguments are unnecessary.
As Sandy so much as eloquently put it, the question does not even matter.
People matter. You are people. You matter. Remember the poem, “You are a child of the universe”? You are and you matter.
If instantaneous had a skirt and eye make-up I would hump it all night long, or until it screamed for joy. I’m lonesome and it is dark and cold in the forest outside. Wish I had me some instantaneous tonight.
You all behave now and be friends that disagree.
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 10/03/2015 15:20:30
| | | Hi Sandy and Glen and others,
While all the argy bargying seems irrelevant and unimportant, what is very important is that a bum steer is not given to those new to the subject or those trying to get their heads around something that has defied the understanding of far cleverer people than me (and even scientists) for hundreds of years. Although gravity precession cannot produce any useful propulsion, its understanding has to come before progressing to the even greater nightmare that is forced precession, which can produce propulsion.
It is absolutely factual that the effects of Inertia and momentum, and Glen’s old friend centrifuge, are severely changed from their expected direction under precession. With a perfect gyro, the effects of inertia and/or momentum is completely precessed away, in the way I have described previously. Conveniently, others have also done the work to show that this is quite clearly so.
Let us take a (more) careful look at that Laithwaite video which clearly shows this fact:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiTdJOS467c&list=PLoqW1tDux5_XVlHsdXdv5JMOrJOSKCKm4&index=2
Inertia of the heavy gyro (and its heavy gimbal frame) can be seen to be completely missing upon the lifting of the precession causing weights. Observing the removal, of precession-causing-weight, is better than trying to observe the application of the weights. This is because lifting the weight/s can be done very swiftly with little disturbance of precessional functions. However, applying the weight/s without affecting the gyros free start into precession is difficult. This is because the slow application of weight can slow the speed of take up of precession, while a sudden application of the weight can cause a downward jerk that will exacerbate any nutation. Therefore, it is better to observe the weight’s removal and the deceleration from precession, as is clearly shown in the video.
In the video Laithwaite demonstrates (virtually) infinite deceleration, by simply lifting the precession causing weights.
It can be also observed in the video by extrapolation that a) The brass gyro and its gimbal frame has considerable mass and b) the gimbal (he insists on calling them “Jimballs” – bloody Northerner!) bearings present very little friction to rotation.
These two things can be extrapolated from observing that; a) any nutation is hardly noticeable until the weights causing precession are placed well out on a lever (shown later on), making the Newtonian component overload the gyro’s precessional ability which is what precession is and; b) the rate of downward precession caused by the “Jimballs” friction is slow – if the friction were higher, a faster downward precession would occur.
The downward precession you will know by now (by applying Nitro’s first law) is caused by the vertical axis bearing’s friction (which is in the opposite direction to the original precessional direction) being in turn precessed into a 90 degree change by being precessed into a downward direction. This is most simple to confirm by increasing the friction on a vertical axis bearing and watching the downward precession increase proportionately. The reason that more weight will increase the downward precessing speed is that vertical bearing friction increases proportionate to the weight which increases the bearing load and its friction.
Now, Imagine Laithwaite’s gyro being unspun and simply turned on its vertical axis at the same rate as weighted precession turned it. If Laithwaite’s gyro is turned at the rate it is seen precessing it will be clear, to all but the most stubborn, that the “expected momentum” of its mass will keep it moving for at least a quarter of a turn (probably more) after it’s turning force is removed.
As Nitro’s first law predicts, it does not keep going for a quarter of a turn – it stops dead. Infinite deceleration indeed!
Happy learning
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 10/03/2015 16:38:41
| | | Sorry everyone,
correction to my last post
“making the Newtonian component overload the gyro’s precessional ability which is what precession is ...”
should of course have read:-
“making the Newtonian component overload the gyro’s precessional ability which is what nutation is ...”
Harry and or Blaze,
I have noticed that in his reply to Sandy, Harry asked two questions that I must have missed:-
“Name only one single instantaneous effect in nature aside from precession?”
“Where remains the additional energy after the removal of the tilting torque?”
Both answers to these questions interrelate.
Lets take the second one first.
Because of the strange ability of gyros to converts force into motion without the need to accelerate a mass as the precessing mass (and some times more than the precessing mass) exhibits NO inertia or momentum (read my earlier post for a description of how that happens) no energy is involved apart from that required to spin the gyro.
This answers the first question:- I am not aware of anything of human scale that exhibits a similar instantaneous acceleration/deceleration like a gyro passing into and out of precession (or changes between). A lack of any comparable phenomenon in nature is why the apparent lack of inertia and momentum and other effects is so counter intuitive as to be discounted, by most, as being impossible.
I hope that answers that, Blaze, though I doubt you will understand.
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 11/03/2015 01:57:44
| | | Hello Nitro, Sandy, Blazé, Harry K., MM and anyone else who might be following,
Gravity powered gyroscopes pivoting around a stationary platform act differently; than gyroscopes with equal mechanical force applied oppositely to each end of the axle in space.
When the forces cease on the space gyro, it is left to tumble, twisting and flipping over and over endlessly toward the future. The conservation of all angular momentum is conserved.
Not so with gravity powered gyroscopes; remove the force of gravity by any means and all motion except rotation stops in a nit-picking instant. You have seen it stop hundreds of times. Where indeed did the angular momentum go? Where indeedy?
This video can confuse us if we don’t understand it. It can also enlighten us if we do understand it. Forward the video to the end where the gyro touches down on the table.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mbe9LaoGfCY
The gyro is circling quite fast. When it touches down it continues circling as it rolls on the table. This is the angular momentum of dead weight acting.
We can know this because the gyro suddenly stops and jerks backward in the opposite direction quite fast. Why we ask did it do that?
Examine that the frame hub was rolling forward; the heaver flywheel was rotating backwards on tiny near frictionless bearings, but also it was moving forward. Did friction in the bearings suddenly grab hold and heaved the gyroscope and the all momentum backwards with a jerk so quick?
Aw, that is the answer we grasp.
Then some ridicules guy asks, “Are you sure?”
From the Super Precision Gyroscope site:
“Carefully chosen miniature ultra-low friction stainless-steel ball bearings allow it to run smoothly and almost silently for up to 25 minutes, allowing you to perform the experiments and tricks you want to do without having to reattach the electric motor. Please note: Some experiments and tricks remove quite a bit of energy from the gyroscope. This will reduce spin times.”
In light of this information, the guy shakes his head and stands up again, “You trying au tell me the thang jerks bac’ards ‘cause aw bearing friction? You must think I am pretty dumb. Well I am, but I ain’t that dumb”.
Where indeed did the angular momentum go? Where indeedy? Certainty it vacated the premises. It went somewhere. Elvis has left the building. Last seen he was caring away a satchel full of hidden gyroscopic momentum. Blame him, not Nitro and Sandy.
The answers are not difficult. We few here probably have more practical knowledge about gyroscopic behavior than anybody on the planet. I think this is easy for us if we take a deep breath, sigh in exhale, open our minds and let our personal knowledge follow this explanation without preconceived objection until it is finished at least.
A gyroscope whether still or spinning is a very balanced self-contained instrument. Once an outside force is introduced, all the self-generating forces and actions possible within this system will be equal forces.
Gravity forces downward. Angular momentum is caused to twist into a right angle couple which is precession occurring.
Precession causes angular momentum to twist a right angle couple upwards
Precession momentum is converted into upward force. Upward force meets downward force. Momentum is used up. Otherwise without the force of momentum converted through coupling into lift the gyroscope would surely fall.
Another way to ask the same questions is from where does the lift force come? It comes from precession momentum converted through gyroscopic torque into lift.
By the way, the jerk backward we looked at before is because of what do you think? It’s kind of interesting. Give us an answer. What does the dumb guy know that we can’t know?
My friend Harry K. and Blaze, there is no angular momentum and why is that; because it is converted into lift force as fast as it occurs. It is all used up in coupling. There is nothing left. Using your high powered perception, can you perceive this the way it is explained?
It was nothing short of ingenious for the professor and Sandy Kidd and Nitro to know this and harp it, never yielding although I and others did not believe it. Not until much later. There is no momentum left over in precession. Therefore there can be no inertia acting—not without momentum acting.
Cheers,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 11/03/2015 05:59:43
| | | Hi Glen,
Praise from Caesar is praise indeed!
This remarkable old video from 1973 shows that, even way back then, Nitro’s first law was working away..............
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0Y3IpFQB0w
If you watch at about 6.57 in you will see that the lack of momentum/inertia in precession exists in space for the gyro only precesses when a twisting torque is applied with two drinking straws. Note that, just like gravity pression, the resulting turning precession stops dead when the torque, applied by the two straws, is removed. Nitro’s first law even works in space!!!
regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 11/03/2015 16:06:45
| | | Hi Nitro,
What a lovely complement. Thank you. I will act and smile all day as if I were the Roman god Caesar; Harry has already conferred that I am who I am. (Hi Harald) So that makes two high powered angels on my side and who will play Brutus? OH NO! Oh NO!
I do not think my argument of logic can be defeated by logical argument and so I do not think anyone will try.
Your 42 year old video is interesting. I have conflicting information in videos form to unravel for myself on your points. We have time and I certainly may come to agree you are right on.
I know how and why Sandy and I began this long study. How did you begin?
Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 11/03/2015 17:14:34
| | | Hi Glen,
My wife says she thinks that I got into this because I must have been dropped on my head as a baby. She can be so cruel!
In truth, I was given a gyro like most kids and later picked up again on the implications of precession, in my teens, when my elder brother (who was apprenticed at the de Havilland Aircraft Co. at the time) gave me an obsolete helicopter manual. It had all mechanical control links (if it had had modern hydraulic or servo controlled links I would not have noticed anything strange) and I could not understand why when you moved the joystick to go forwards the cyclic control swash-plate caused the blade to create more lift at the side and not, as I expected, to the rear.
The lifelong madness started there.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 11/03/2015 23:04:48
| | | Glenn:
“Gravity forces downward. Angular momentum is caused to twist into a right angle couple which is precession occurring. Precession causes angular momentum to twist a right angle couple upwards. Precession momentum is converted into upward force. Upward force meets downward force. Momentum is used up.”
Close Glenn but not quite correct. It is not the momentum that causes the second twist into “upward force”. It is the fact that the gyro is “tilting” in the horizontal plane as it revolves around the pivot. In other words it is twisting about a vertical line through its center as it revolves around the pivot; which is what causes the “upward force”.
Momentum is mass times velocity. There is certainly mass (the gyro flywheel) and there is velocity from its movement around the pivot, so there is momentum as it precesses.
Try this and then tell me there is no momentum when a gyro is precessing.
Take a nearly ideal 200 pound gyro on a 2 foot arm (ie: precession diameter is 4 feet) precessing at 360 degrees every second. The shaft is hollow, thin wall, high strength aluminum and extends about a foot past the outside of the flywheel (about a foot outside of the precession circle). The flywheel has high strength ultra thin spokes from the hollow shaft to the rim of the flywheel where 99.9% of the entire system weight is located. Total dead weight is about, say for the sake of argument, 1 pound. Get this thing precessing at 360 degrees every second and stand in front of the shaft that extends past the flywheel and let it hit you. Then when you wake up you can call me from the hospital you are in and tell me there is no momentum.
Regards,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 12/03/2015 01:15:30
| | | Blaze,
When you build this monster and have it running to the specifications with which you wish to kill me, show it to me actually colliding into your mama and I will take you for a serious and dangerous man.
Meantime:
You write: “It is not the momentum that causes . . . upward force. It is . . . tilting . . . twisting . . . through its center . . .”
Can you use your excellent grasp of mathematics to calculate how much force ratio is required to suspend an active Tadco Gyro at a rate of fall of two inches in five minutes, instead of 32’ per second? I will guess the answer would be in the realm of 1:9,600. We bear in mind the force supplied does not come from the rotating flywheel, if you can agree.
The clear concession should be that after discounting for friction--- all the force is used, 100% of it. You know about inertia. Force to change its state is necessary. Where does this force come from if there isn't any left in the system? By the way, how many times have you dropped a fast spinning gyro on a string to see what happens? When it touched down it stopped.
I saw your wheel dropped from a tree and admired you then and I still do; but Blaze there was such a small forward movement it could easily be attributed to dead weight. Bravo! nevertheless and excellent.
I have noticed for a long time some of us on here have very little humor, not all of us certainly. So I had better remove your mother from the suggestion that she demonstrate your intend to kill somebody. If I could I would send both of you some flowers and my most sincere and kindest wishes. Have a good evening and know that I do not expect agreement, only continued civility.
Thank you, Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 12/03/2015 12:39:47
| | | Blaze,
You never addressed the points I made with mechanical explanation. You just repeated countering statements and that ends the debate.
If there were momentum to carry the gyroscope sufficiently forward without it jerking backward; then someone would have proven it sufficient to accept during these hundreds of years.
Good fortune and happiness to you, Blaze. Glenn,
Nitro, my story is even worse than yours and nobody has given me a clue as to why my head is lopsided and I have a cow-lick. At least you know. Take care my friend.
I have to go now.
Regards, Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 12/03/2015 15:51:39
| | | Hello Blaze,
Give up. They do not or cannot understand what we are talking about.
Wasted time as said before to convince someone of the truth..
Regards,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 12/03/2015 16:11:21
| | | Hi Harald. I contacted you by email but I may have an old email. Please respond to my previous question so I can get your current email.
http://gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=2837
thanks,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 12/03/2015 23:15:04
| | | To Glenn and all those living in their dream world on this forum. Why would you EVER think that the hollow shaft of this large gyro that is crashing into you would be damaging to you? It is not the spinning flywheel that is crashing into you, just the hollow shaft of the gyro. The gyro will, after all, "stop instantaneously" according to the "experts" that are on this forum. The only thing to fear is the one pound of dead weight there is to stop and even though that may create a bruise it certainly won't kill you. Even my mother could handle stopping that one pound of dead weight without getting killed especially since some of the one pound is at the pivot end of the shaft.
However if you live in the physical world that Harald and I do, then you should be scared, you should be very scared about the hollow shaft hitting you because it will knock you down, probably violently, and maybe even break a few bones. But again, according the the dream world experts, that won't happen because the gyro will stop instantaneously so there is nothing to fear but fear itself.
Just remember to call me when you wake up in the hospital to explain to me how there is "no momentum when a gyro is precessing" and "how a gyro stops instantaneously". I anxiously await your call.
happy dreaming,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy - 12/03/2015 23:37:59
| | | Evening all,
I think I was being accused of trying to be smart when I introduced mechanical hub rotation of opposed gyroscope systems into the discussion.
I apologise if that is the general impression.
However I did this deliberately and for the sole purpose of demonstrating the progressive loss of angular momentum, centrifugal force and anything else that occurs when mass is accelerated in flywheels.
This action can only be guessed at (unfortunately usually wrongly) by people you would think might know better.
A device purposely built to produce these effects is easily built, if one has access to a workshop with a small lathe, the ensuing demonstration is quite disturbing to witness, and it is absolutely obvious what is happening.
No fancy maths (required to exclude the ordinary person from the proceedings) is needed to understand this.
In fact I would hazard a guess that there are not yet any suitable formulae that the maths can be applied to.
The visual demonstration whilst appearing to be defying what is normally construed as possible leaves very little room for argument, hence my belief in the need for its inclusion in this thread.
I was shocked by what I saw and repeated the experiment in disbelief, a hundred times or so in quick succession, in essence that would be for the rest of that day.
Once upon a time I used to believe in all the specious stuff dispensed in the academic institutions of the world. However when this demonstration was considered along with some other doubtful issues relating to commonly held misunderstandings my changeover came swiftly.
One must realise the rather controversial nature of such claims and the initial replies, by people who are ignorant of the facts, will at least be placing one’s mental health in doubt.
For many years I worked away quietly looking for the answers to my first few machines, (especially my Australian machine which earned a positive lab report, possibly the only one of its type in existence) as there was a bit of a mystery surrounded their ability to produce non Newtonian thrust.
It transpired that in every case inertial thrust was being produced as a side effect of my designs and not as a direct result of them. After I discovered this fact, I began working on this side effect in an effort to enhance it. I am pleased to say this became easier as time passed, and I have continued to develop it ever since.
One important point I must stress is that this “side effect” cannot be produced utilising accepted gyroscope or flywheel physics.
In the knowledge that gravity accelerated systems whilst interesting to watch, are not conducive to producing inertial thrust, or call it what you like, I decided to try to enlighten the interested on this forum in 2004 or about 10 years ago.
I did not intend to give all my hard gotten information away but hoped to lead some of the interested a fair bit of the way along the road to mechanically accelerated systems.
A point of interest here:
Strange as it may seem, prior to my involvement in this quest, I could find no reference relating to mechanically accelerated gyroscope systems anywhere.
I have been involved in heated arguments with many, many people who are sure they know better and are only correct because they know they are.
They claim that gyroscope theory is complete and everything about gyroscopes is known and has all been sorted and sifted by many superior academic brains, over a period of many years.
All I can say is that they seem to have been misemployed, as they did not do a very complete job. A great deal of fundamental information is missing.
My findings only demonstrated what should already have been known.
However, I became accused of misunderstanding what I was witnessing, this first took place on this very forum by a guy called Luigi Gonzalez, who eventually like the rest of the self- opinionated clever chappies and having exhausted every aspect of gravity accelerated systems he knew about, got fed up and went.
When I first got involved in this stuff almost the first thing I noticed was a Catch 22 in physics, the details of which I will spare you at this time as I have posted the info to this forum many times previously, but it was conclusive proof that the separate conservation of angular and linear momentum was no more than an assumption which, in many ways it is similar to the claimed instantaneous acceleration and deceleration of a gyroscope or flywheel.
This is assumed not to exist only because nothing similar has never ever been previously witnessed in nature.
What was that about the Higgs Boson?
Regards
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy - 12/03/2015 23:41:51
| | | Blaze what was the gyro rotation speed of this 200 lb gyro precessing at 60rpm
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 13/03/2015 01:19:08
| | | The speed of the flywheel to precess at that rate would, of course, depend on the diameter of the flywheel and the input force (not hub rotation torque, not mechanically powered hub) on the gyro. The combinations are infinite. Pick something suitable that will work so that the gyro precesses "correctly" (ie: "has no momentum when precessing").
regards,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 13/03/2015 12:37:56
| | | The inertia in precession conundrum.
This is not easy either to explain or have explained.
I am going to attempt to square the circle and explain why, while there is no inertia/mass effects in starting or stopping precession by applying or removing the force causing its precession, you can still get a sharp and at the very least painful smack on the legs if Blaze’s heavy gyro was allowed to use your legs as a stop. And yes it is all to do with Nitro’s first law – sorry!
When gravity acts on an overhung gyro we all know that it will convert that gravity force acting on a mass (we know as weight) into a 90 degree displaced rotation around a vertical axis. If you wanted to stop its rotation you could instantaneously achieve this by applying an upward force equal to the downward force which, by the application of Nitro’s first law, is precessed in the opposite direction to the rotation exactly cancelling its processional movement, as described in earlier posts. To achieve this instantaneous cessation of precession an upward force (not force over distance so no energy is required) equal to the original force – gravity acting on whatever mass you chose for your gyro.
However, to stop a gyro from precessing by placing your leg or any other means of applying a force in the opposite direction to its precession, requires it (your leg) to apply force exactly equal to the force that precessed the gyro in the first place (gravity acting on whatever mass you chose). If your leg or other chosen means of applying the force applies a force equal to the precessing force acting on your chosen gyro mass this is precessed 90 degrees into a downward direction and the gyro drops. In applying a force opposing precession your leg (or whatever) not being a gyro will not precess this force but instead feel a hearty smack.
So you see while you can instantaneously (to all intents and purposes) stop (or indeed start) the precessional movement of a gyro you can, illogically, still get a sharp smack on the legs if you don't pay attention to the direction of applied forces and the implications of Nitro’s first law. Gyros are indeed counter-intuitive in their behaviour.
Regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 13/03/2015 23:56:42
| | | Good evening Sandy,
It is me, the guy who insulted you. My mind and emotions have gone through a hell that no one here can imagine; but I make no excuses for my sideways outburst. I apologize to you and admit I was wrong both mechanically and in lacking civility and now I am championing you work once again, because it is meaningful.
Kind Regards,
Glenn
Good evening Nitro,
You’re saying a precessing gyroscope will collide with force into an object blocking it. Can you tell me the methods of tests you performed to determine this and generally what percentage of force was related to the initiating force?
I have done work on this effect too. I find there is generally no gyro recoil, UNLESS (I pass over many complications here). I also find the less distance the impacted object is allowed to yield, the more forceful the impact.
Kind Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/03/2015 04:42:09
| | | I wrote responses to each of you that I thought were clever and humors put-downs with added accusations that you could not think out-of-the-box, and using your own words as evidence.
I decided this was hurtful and mean and below me. I would prove my cleverness to myself, for what? I would anger and demean another person for my own vanity and amusement? No, I will not. You get a reprieve. I would take it.
Harry, there is no one on here who failed to understand you. You define with numbers to support old concepts. We define with new theories and mechanical actions suggested. We not jell.
Blaze, you understand, but you will not engage with why and how. You reject and assert.
We are probably no better, only different.
All this obsessive arguing over so little a thing was unnecessary. In the grand scheme of things, what does this matter a drop in the ocean that we frail and insignificant beings lift up our puny voices to either defy, or champion the mechanics of God?
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
John Smith and Glenn - 14/03/2015 18:09:40
| | | The post above was meant to delay hostilities between we five.
It was meant only for you fellows, Blaze and Harold.
Sandy and Nitro, it wasn't meant for you two out-of-the-box champions thinkers.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Blaze - 14/03/2015 23:23:51
| | | Very good Nitro. We actually agree on something. Of course anyone standing in the way of this gyro would get hurt badly. I wasn’t sure you or anyone else would actually get this one especially after all the discussion a few years back about how there would be no force experienced when stopping a gyro, even a large gyro, when crashing into something because, according to the dream world “experts” a gyro “doesn’t have any momentum” when precessing. Unfortunately I couldn't find the specific posts relating to that discussion.
Of course, the scenario I proposed is not actually the same as what is currently being claimed by the “experts” of the dream world which is that a gyro will stop precessing instantaneously when the input force is removed.
Keep on dreaming,
Blaze
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 15/03/2015 11:57:55
| | | Dear Blaze
Oh, dear! I’m afraid to say that we still are not in agreement.
You believe that an impact of a precessing gyro (previously described) is caused by its inertial mass being decelerated to a stop, whereas I believe that the impact will be that required to equal the force causing its precession in the first place (ie its mass being acted upon by gravity (its weight, but applied horizontally, if you like) whereupon that impact force is precessed 90 degrees into a downward direction. Stopping a gravity precessed gyro by obstructing its passage involves an impact equal to its weight but stopping its precession by removing the force causing precession is an altogether different thing, Stopping such a gyro’s precesional motion of course cannot be achieved by removing its input force as no one, to my knowledge, has managed to “turn off” gravity - yet. However, and thankfully, this effect can be simply achieved by applying an upward force equal to gravity, in which case the precession stops. And stops instantly. The way in which this occurs was described in the post at the top of this – perhaps you should try and read it again but in full.
Keep on learning
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 19/03/2015 15:34:45
| | | Look at this as it is related tho the argument.
http://gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=2840
The forth post down 19/03/2015 15:20:37
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 19/03/2015 16:54:18
| | | High glen,
To save people having to waste time searching for “the fourth post down” I copy it below with my response below that..........
---------------------------------------
“My Tadaco gyroscope was rotated to 2,700 RPMs. I hit downward on the precessing tip of the shaft with a 20 oz. framing hammer as hard as I could. The hammer’s face was level. The gyroscope flung itself off my desk at in the air toward a wall at 11 miles per hour. The pedestal was flung in the opposite direction at 22 miles an hour. The gyroscope weighs perhaps 300 times more than the pedestal.”
---------------------------------------
This kind of experiment having the guesstimated parameters described in your link is only going to give spurious results that can easily lead to drawing wrong conclusions. Quite apart from there being no means of measuring how hard is the hammer ‘s impact. Statements that it flew of at 11 miles an hour (I assume also a guess) while the pedestal was flung off in the opposite direction at twenty miles an hour are, as would be any conclusions drawn, pointless.
There is also an important fact to be remembered – an excessive force (and by that I mean any harsh precessing force that exceeds the ability of a gyro’s spin, mass and diameter to precess that force, without causing the gyro’s Newtonian effects to overtake its Gyrodynamic effects) will cause Newtonian dynamics to take over from gyrodynamics in the observable results. Any such haphazard test having guessed parameters, that cannot be measured, should be avoided as much as possible if you are not to be led to incorrect conclusions. Having said that. we have all been there in the hope of a quick result to the question:- What if?
Discount that hammered test!
Regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/03/2015 14:26:22
| | | Hi Nitro,
Your response is pretty bad. How much of this and that, does not deter what you can watch happening. Knowing the exact force, distance, acceleration and speed would not change the viewable explosive series of reactions of what you see.
Of all the many ridicules posts on here I think your response may take the cake. Well, it comes in as a close second to dark matter. Eccentually it is, “It does not matter what you see?”
Is that! to protect the preconceived notion of there not being momentum in precession? Even though momentum vacates the precession plane very quickly?
I know why and how things happened in my experiment, but my many requests on here for challenging arguments to be explained in a series of cause and effect events have always been unresponsive requests. I still receive only statements that have no logic, proof or explanation of why and how a series of events has taken place to cause a resulting condition.
You say, “There is also an important fact to be remembered – an excessive force . . . that exceeds the ability of a gyro ‘ROTATOING ANGULAR MOMENTUM’ . . . will cause Newtonian effects”. Is that what you said?
That is dead wrong! There can never be excessive force that surpassed the flywheels resistance. Whatever amount of momentum is in the flywheel, great or small; its magnitude of resistance to being tilted depends on the acceleration in forcing it to tilt. It is about inertia. How fast is mass accelerated? A bobby-pen accelerated quickly to half of light-speed will have more collision force than a 100 ton freight train accelerated to one mile an hour or --THERE-ABOUTS -- if you want to argue exactitudes of numbers.
Nitro, why should an observable example of a great transfer of power occurring in a few millimeters during only microseconds be ignored and avoided? Where is your head? Measurements will not change what you can see happening.
If a 45 caliber bullet strikes you in the head, you don’t rise up and ask for the exact parameters of all the measurements. You’re dead. People can look at you lying there on a barroom floor with your tong hanging out and your eyes glazing over do not say, “He so much would have wanted to know what the nomenclatures and measurements were so that he could have been sure of what was happening to him.”
Oh yeah, the video being bounced around with double hinges does not demonstrate a loss of weight. It is simply not understood. I am capable of explaiing the cause and effects that lead to the misconception if there were anyone were willing to understand and wanted to.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 25/03/2015 06:14:45
| | | Very good, Glenn!
Regards,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 03/04/2015 02:11:15
| | | Forgive me Nitro. You deserved better and in any case you were right about a most important function. I am glad you are not close enough to kick my rear which I no doubt deserve and which you no doubt have a right.
Today I have finished the great study of my life. I know everything and why and how. Yes, to you. Yes, too much initiating force can overpower a relatively slow gyroscopes' ability to counteract centrifuge.
Thank you Herold. I hope you are well and happy. Please do not take my study to heart. Someday I may publish it on here and until; if and when I do, just smile and consider me slightly addled but friendly to you.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 30/04/2015 20:58:23
| | | Good Evening Nitro,
I am taking the liberty of changing your words a little, because you were so pissed the clarity of your meaning needs to be increased. The meaning itself however; is unchanged and exactly the same as you have stated.
As the overhung gyroscope circles the pivot there must be a constant inertia from mass in motion. There has to be unquestionably inertia!
Precessing inertia is different from rotational inertia. Precession’s effect creates and maintains a force inward to the pivot, and can be made much stronger than rotational inertia. Additionally, precession inertia curves the flywheel around the pivot and again; while overwhelming common rotational inertia.
I am amazed you could reason this out without a theoretical means to think and reason and explain why and how it is as you say, but of course you had something special whirling around in the grey matter. You are in any case exactly correct. Well done. My work goes on.
Have a drink for me this evening and be happy.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Thomas Welch - 05/08/2015 09:46:42
| | | Gyro propusion has nothing to do with precssion never did never will. YOU ARE ALL LOOKING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
kristijan - 15/11/2017 13:19:23
| | | Great topic. Gyroscopic precession has no moment of inertia and this cna be used for more thing than talking. Here is a device that was made by me that uses gyroscopic precession for propulsion. This propulsion theoretically can be used in space...What do you think about it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZP_ZbnGA9I&t=443s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo-qR0lx_io
Please comment.
thnank you
dr. kristijan
dr.todoroski@gmail.com
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 19/11/2017 14:02:51
| | | Answer: kristijan - 15/11/2017 13:19:23
Great topic. Gyroscopic precession has no moment of inertia and this cna be used for more thing than talking. Here is a device that was made by me that uses gyroscopic precession for propulsion. This propulsion theoretically can be used in space...What do you think about it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZP_ZbnGA9I&t=443s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo-qR0lx_io
Please comment.
thnank you
dr. kristijan
dr.todoroski@gmail.com
Hi Kristijan
Your machine has all the elements required for propulsion but suffers from the common problems that I, and I am sure others, have struggled to overcome. This, apart from time, engineering ability, money or an engineering savvy friend, is the age old problem of getting the gyrodynamic forces large enough so they are not swamped by the useless non gyrodynamic mass of the mechanism, frame, power source and motors. Without better gyrodynamics (or lighter mechanics) your device is doomed to be written of by all but the cognoscenti as yet another example of a “slip/ stick” effect.
While Sandy’s reply saying that your machine would only work within a gravitational field may be technically correct the effect of gravity can always, I have found, be replicated by other force producing devices as simple as a spring or even an elastic band.
As Sandy said in his reply to you:- good luck, though don’t go crazy on patents yet as one of mine predates where I think you are going and would constitute prior art. And, as you probably have discovered, the device will only produce movement in discrete packages (impulses). While the fact that it punches a hole in the third law is fantastic and it may enable further improvement as understanding improves, it is pretty useless for propulsion if constant acceleration cannot be achieved.
As your post is buried in amongst old answers that most will not find I shall also copy this to the questions section so more can see your video link.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
