|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
23 November 2024 15:54
|
|
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: |
a simple guide to conservation of angular momentum |
| Question: |
Dear all
Dear God! Glen’s latest post has turned me into Dr David Fisher – I’ve become pedantic! But wait! No! I’m alright! I’m still crap at maths.
Glen has managed to be tangled on so many points in his last post that I really shouldn’t bother, but W.T.H., I’ve got a lazy day so I am happy to spread some teaching for those who can learn.
Glens starts with:- “A gyroscope attains the ability to resist falling by using the laws of motion”. This is wrong as a gyroscope, not being a sentient creature, has no understanding of the laws of motion and so cannot use them. This may seem obvious to many but Newton's laws are so drummed into us that it is very easy to subconsciously think that a gyro “knows” what it is doing – it does not! The “laws” are merely a mathematical way of describing physical observations.
If correct and complete the “laws” should be able to describe what a gyroscope is going to do in a given set of circumstances. The “laws” fail to do this in at least one important part of what a gyroscope does. It is because of this failure in the laws that inertial propulsion is possible – more later on this if you are good.
Much of Glenn’s post is wasted on trying to re-describe the conservation of angular momentum. If anyone else has trouble coping with the concept of conservation of angular momentum:- start by imagining a very large bike wheel. Then cut away almost all of it until you are left with just the hub and a spoke leading to a chunk of outer rim. What you now have is, surprise, surprise, a pendulum – which some find easier to understand than a gyroscope. Holding the hub axel loosely in both hands so that the pendulum can swing free, raise the pendulum bob (piece of rim) and then release it to swing free on the hub. When the pendulum nears the bottom of its swing turn the hub through ninety degrees and the hub will no longer stay horizontal but tilt due to the mass of the outer rim section trying to continue to go straight on as best it can. Going straight on would be conservation of linear momentum but because it is constrained to describe an arc by your loose hold on the hub this becomes the conservation of angular momentum as the rim tries to continue in an arc.
Put back together all the spokes and rim and hopefully you will now understand why a gyroscope processes even though the gyroscope doesn’t understand why. Hopefully you now understand what the conservation of angular momentum actually means and how it causes the precessional change of a gyroscopes axial angle at right angles to ANY force applied to change its axial angle.
Glen continues with:- “If there were no friction of any kind whatsoever, this condition of near equal opposing forces would allow a gyroscope to stay aloft for a very long time, but not for too many hours.” This is wrong as, if there was no friction, the gyro would precess forever. As I have explained too many times before, it is the friction resisting precession that is itself precessed downwards that causes the gyro to fall (Nitro’s first law yet again!). More friction = faster fall. Less friction = slower fall. No friction = no fall. Total friction (dead stop) = normal fall under gravity
Glen then says:- The force of gravity is eventually converted into torque by the complex and invisible actions of precession. I thought the complex and invisible actions of precession was what Glen was trying to explain to us. Glen then says he is going to confuse us! That ship would seem to have sailed.
Amazingly Glen has got the fact that, in his words:- “precession does not coast”. (By the way Glen it is “does”, not “dose”, that’s what you do with medicine) This is because the inertia that the “laws” would lead most people to expect to find as the effect of the mass of a gyro is precessed is, for want of a better term, “precessed away”. Magiced away might seem easier to understand. However, Nitro’s first law and earlier posts of mine explain this, quite simple to demonstrate, loss of inertial effect. Laithwaite observed this missing inertia (can one observe something that’s missing?) but while he and half the nutters (me included) in the world “knew” that something was wrong, he and the nutters (me included) and the world’s scientists failed to follow the implication to a usable conclusion – so far.
Nate, Thank you for putting up the links to Eugene Butikov’s work. Coincidentally his illustrations unintentionally show the very anomaly that is key to unopposed mass displacement and thus inertial drive. While I agree with Glen that your videos are not clear you do not deserve to be attacked and at least you have taken the trouble to make your machine and put videos in the public domain. I wonder if Glen has done anything as constructive as that?
Glen in his reply to Nate astonishingly says:- I hate to be contrary, but it always bothers me that people who do not know what they are doing attempt to explain to people who do know what they are doing. Pots and Kettles leap to mind for some reason.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Date: |
17 August 2016
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 18/08/2016 01:02:01
| | | Nitro,
You are an incredibly limited man, OK I will say it, an incredibly stupid man. A planet housing five billion people, and twenty billion in the past, among them the accepted most intelligent, learned and accomplished humans in this part of the universe we know think you are nuts. All of them who've seen your red ball know that.
Question, how can a stupid person know what he is thinking is stupid?
Stay away from me. Write your idiocies without using my name and my intelligence explanations?
GET OFF ME PLEASE AND STAY OFF.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 18/08/2016 03:35:04
| | | Nitro,
I am very tired, exhausted really. I am in an awful contract and fighting bad people. My poor manners are not forgivable. If it matters I am sorry. I offer my sincere apology and tell you I do not think you are less than quiet very intelligent. Good luck to you.
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 19/08/2016 10:26:15
| | | "...Total friction (dead stop) = normal fall under gravity..."
No, not a "normal" fall under gravity but a fall at momentary precession speed given by the momentary length of the lever arm (rectangular distance to the pivot).
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 19/08/2016 15:51:54
| | | Hi Harry K
Thank you for troubling to read my post. I assume that, as you are a wiz with maths, you have used maths to draw the conclusion that a precessing gyro does not act like a “Newtonian” (non rotating) mass when prevented from free precession. I think you may have found yet another way in which current maths fails to predict one of the effects of a precessing gyro.
Nitro’s 1st law shows that the force (gravity) that caused horizontal precesional movement is itself precessed through ninety degrees to cause a downward vertical movement when the horizontal precessional movement is resisted or to drop like a dead weight if totally opposed by, for example, its axial shaft striking a fixed rod. That it drops at an acceleration equal to its mass being acted on by gravity as though its mass was not spinning can be simply demonstrated with a toy gyro set to spin and prevented from precessing – by a rod or w.h.y. and then comparing the speed of that drop with that of the same gyro being again released under gravity but not being spun.
I think another one of Nitro’s laws should read that a gyro that is prevented from moving in its precessional plane will act like a Newtonion (non spinning) mass. The latest incarnation of my machine saves a huge weight penalty of having a separate heavy reactive mass that, of course, reduces the machines useful movement, by using this very fact.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 19/08/2016 21:19:33
| | | No math, Nitro, but by doing experiments.
Did I get you right that you think that a overhanging spinning flywheel (pivotable around a hub) which is prevented (blocked) to precess in horizontal plane would fall at same speed as a non spinning overhanging flywheel?
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy - 19/08/2016 22:15:22
| | | All shed dwellers,
It becomes just a little bit frustrating when having to cover the same old ground with the same old people and producing the same old result namely nothing.
Glenn has in light of his own failure to produce any positive results in the quest to produce inertial thrust has for the last few postings been attempting to somehow justify this failure by discrediting or denying the very real results achieved by others.
If just for once he was suitably motivated to operate a mechanically accelerated system he would very soon discover the error of his ways.
Brilliant minds and foolish minds can argue about gravity accelerated systems till the cows come home and as we all know nothing will be conclusively proved.
Some of us already know that gravity accelerated gyroscopes in precession have already lost all of their weight by transference of that weight to act vertically downwards through the fulcrum point of the gyroscope.
In a mechanically accelerated device and contrary to the accepted fairy story the weight of the gyroscope/flywheel whatever diminishes as the rotation speed of the gyroscope/flywheel is increased.
This has the effect of reducing the produced centrifugal in proportion to that speed.
In the interests of simplicity I have not brought system rotation speed into this because if one assumes the gyroscope/flywheel is rotating at a fixed speed, variation of the system or hub rotation speed as some like to call it, has a similar effect on its own.
I have been trying to educate people like yourself since 2004 on this forum.
However you and others who prefer not to believe it, have not got anywhere.
Loss of weight of Laithwaite’s big gyroscope and the “Anti Gravity Wheel” could easily have been explained away many years ago.
The fact is very easily proved by practical experiment if so required.
Millions on YouTube are trying and failing to get to grips with the Anti Gravity Wheel.
A lot of best guesses?
They do not know about the loss of weight/centrifugal force so mythamatics was invented to explain it away.
Seems that anything that looks convincing or suitably confusing is readily acceptable.
30 years ago now I claimed whilst my device was under investigation in the University of Dundee to be able to change at will the quantity of centrifugal force generated in a gyroscopic system running at a fixed rotation speed.
I was abruptly informed that what I claimed was impossible.
I immediately demonstrated the impossible, to which the assembled university staff promptly tuned their backs and pretended to be ostriches.
None of what transpired was ever recorded, reported, discussed, or later mentioned.
However Glenn, when all else fails you call on the beliefs of millions of people worldwide including all the brilliant ones who really do not know any better to call us idiots.
Let me put it this way, this discounts you and any of them from ever producing inertial thrust, at least with spinning discs..
That all said, nothing claimed here will help anyone very much to produce inertial thrust, but it is a fundamental requirement in any system which can..
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 20/08/2016 08:54:44
| | | Hi Harry,
Can I ask you:- do you think that an overhung spinning flywheel (pivotable around a hub) which is prevented (blocked) in the horizontal plane falls at the same speed as it was precessing horizontally?
Have you got a video of the experiments you have done? Could you repeat them and put up a video?
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 20/08/2016 13:35:48
| | | Hi Nitro,
No I did not make a video but I will prepare one and load it up. But please be patient because I have less time in the moment to do it.
In the meanwhile you may think about the following:
- Let's assume there is an overhanging flywheel which can tilt vertically and can pivot horizontally around a hub, but there is no gravitation present. If you would apply a horizontal torque at the pivot of the hub, the spinning flywheel would arise or fall depending of the torque direction applied at the hub. The upward or downward movement would occur wit precession speed which is given by the applied torque and angular momentum of the spinning flywheel.
Now back to the situation under acting gravity. The gravity applies a vertical torque which cause in return precession around the hub. If precessional movement will be blocked, i.e. the counter torque is equal to the precessional torque, the spinning flywheel "precess" downwards in the same manner as stated before in the absence of gravity but with applied horizontal.
Thus the velocity of downward movement should be smaller as it would be if the flywheel would not spin and falling down like a brick.
Maybe you did not noticed that in your experiments if the angular momentum of the flywheel is too low in regard to its dead weight mass?
Regards, Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 20/08/2016 13:35:52
| | | Hi Nitro,
No I did not make a video but I will prepare one and load it up. But please be patient because I have less time in the moment to do it.
In the meanwhile you may think about the following:
- Let's assume there is an overhanging flywheel which can tilt vertically and can pivot horizontally around a hub, but there is no gravitation present. If you would apply a horizontal torque at the pivot of the hub, the spinning flywheel would arise or fall depending of the torque direction applied at the hub. The upward or downward movement would occur wit precession speed which is given by the applied torque and angular momentum of the spinning flywheel.
Now back to the situation under acting gravity. The gravity applies a vertical torque which cause in return precession around the hub. If precessional movement will be blocked, i.e. the counter torque is equal to the precessional torque, the spinning flywheel "precess" downwards in the same manner as stated before in the absence of gravity but with applied horizontal.
Thus the velocity of downward movement should be smaller as it would be if the flywheel would not spin and falling down like a brick.
Maybe you did not noticed that in your experiments if the angular momentum of the flywheel is too low in regard to its dead weight mass?
Regards, Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 20/08/2016 13:36:40
| | | Sorry for the double posting!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 20/08/2016 14:40:29
| | | Hi Harry
Don’t worry about the double posting it makes it look as though I have had extra responses which is good for my ego – it is sometimes hard to figure out if you have successfully posted with the site’s mail system.
I very much look forward to a video though if you are right it will punch a large hole in my belief in my ability to observe and my understanding of Nitro’s 1st law. The extrapolation of Nitro’s 1st law explains that the force, blocking the pressesional motion in this set up, is itself precessed downwards and, as the blocking force is equal to the force that caused the precession - i.e. gravity –, the drop is exactly that which would be caused by that originating force i.e. gravity).
Not to worry if I turn out to be right or wrong, I have been back and forth so many times over the fabric of physics on gyro-dynamics over the years that I have worn lots of holes through the carpet already, so one more patch in physics won’t matter.
Kind regards
Nm
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nate - 20/08/2016 16:17:04
| | | What about notation?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nate - 20/08/2016 16:20:33
| | | "NUTATION"
( my smart phone changes my spelling, even when it is already correct. )
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 20/08/2016 16:34:53
| | | Hi Nitro,
Maybe we misunderstand each other. I fully agree with you that an acting force against precession is itself precessed downwards. I only do not agree that the downward velocity is same as it would be if the flywheel would not spin and fall down like dead weight mass.
Nutation? I think nutation is always present but will be damped based on friction.
Sometimes I think that my knowledge decrease the more I think about the gyro issues. .. :-)
Regards, Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nate - 20/08/2016 17:22:43
| | | Butikov 's simulation software demonstrates the magnitude that notation can have.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 20/08/2016 19:12:45
| | | Hi Nate
What was your question about Nutation (or Notation if you spell checker prefers)?
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nate - 23/08/2016 21:44:34
| | | Testing...
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nate - 23/08/2016 21:51:03
| | | My lengthly replys don't get posted for some reason. ???
I will enable replys to my Youtube posts.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
James - 24/08/2016 15:17:10
| | | Nitro,
What did you mean about Butikov when you said "Thank you for putting up the links to Eugene Butikov’s work. Coincidentally his illustrations unintentionally show the very anomaly that is key to unopposed mass displacement and thus inertial drive."?
When I run the applet, one set of values shows a retrograde precession with a increase in the angular momentum vector. Is that what you mean?
Thanks,
James
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 24/08/2016 17:27:56
| | | Dear James,
Sorry if I have unintentionally misled anyone but it was Butikov’s illustrations I referred to, not an applet or any of his work. The illustrations I referred to (e.g. figure 2) simply show a gyroscope suspended from a thread directly above one of its horizontal axial ends.
When a gyroscope is released into precession from this point it would be reasonable to expect several things to happen under Newtonian law and two of those things are important to the present subject. Firstly, most people (or at least I) would think it reasonable to expect the mass to move to one side when released so that it centred under the upper suspension point of the thread – it does not. Secondly, and to me more importantly, most people (or at least I) would expect the suspension point of the gyroscope axle to rotate in the opposite direction to that of the gyroscope’s precession to comply with the equal and opposite part of Newton's laws – it does not.
Then a question needs to be thought about by you:- If there is a displacement by precession of the gyroscope’s mass in one direction with no equal displacement of mass in the opposite direction what does that imply?
If you are bored and at a loose end a further question might be:- why would the mass of a gyroscope stay displaced to one side of its suspending point at the top of the thread against the force of gravity that might be expected to centre it?
I have tried to show these and inertia vanishing effects on a YouTube video here:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi2KyoUIHAM
I apologise for the waffle but you can scroll past the bits that bore you.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Miklos Somos - 29/08/2016 20:31:57
| | | Dear All,
I’m new to this forum, albeit I have already followed it for more than a year now. I have always had some impulses to write some answers, but when I have decided to do so, the forum has suddenly frozen. Meanwhile I have contacted Sandy, and we have exchanged some emails, but sorrily I have always problems with time management, and our conversation has faded away.
Anyway, I’m happy to see, that some of the old folks have returned, and a new and constructive dispute is emerging.
I know, that Sandy would push the talk into the direction of „forced“ precession, but in my opinion, the detailed understanding of „gravitational“ precession is inevitable. Actually, according to classical mechanics they are the same. Naturally, the boundaries of validity of a theory are always questionable. We already know, that classical mechanics looses its sense at extremely high speeds, or at subatomic levels.
It would be interesting, if it would fail in the case of special arrangements too. I’m not convinced yet about that, but I’m open to accept any proof.
Some remarks to the actual flow of this thread.
Nitro and Harry are quarreling about the nutational acceleration of a gyro, that is constrained in its precession by any means. I agree with Nitro, it will fall, or nutate downwards with the gravitational acceleration, as in free fall. Nutation and precession are embedded in each other. The former statement has its roots in Nitro’s first law, and it reflects Newton’s first law about inertia. If one would try to confirm it experimentally, then it should be secured, that during the free fall of the gyro, any means of precession should be avoided. I mean, that any accidental precession in the system, because of for example some flexibility of the arrangement, would cause a nutational moment, which would decelerate the free fall of the gyro.
To understand the motion of a suspended gyro, every laws of Newton should be applied at once. And it should be considered, that the system in question is influenced by outer and inertial (centrifugal) forces. The centre of mass will move according to the resulting forces, and initial or starting conditions. The former sentence is very general. A simple example could be a pendulum on a platform, that can roll freely in the direction of pendulum motion. If the pendulum is raised and released, the system will swing back and forth so, that the centre of the mass of the system will not move. If the pendulum swings to the left, than the platform will roll to the right and vice versa. But if the platform is not released in the same time as the pendulum, but it is retained by any means for a given time, then the whole system will move in a direction, the centre of mass of the system will not be stationary. Newton’s action and reaction holds in both cases, but in the first case only inner forces are acting. In the second case an outer force is necessary to hold the platform in position for a while. This outer force will change the behavior of the centre of mass.
This video shows a similar arrangement, not exactly the same that I have described, but I haven’t found any better:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuTMYgQDUzs
Another video, which explains the motion of the suspended gyro, in terms of Newton’s laws. It is a basic explanation leaves many questions unanswered, but it, as far as I see, connects to Nitro’s first law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33amqcZXeus
Good night for everyone,
Miklos
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 04/09/2016 09:34:10
| | | Dear Nitro,
Sorry for the late reply. I made again tests and although it "seems" that an overhung spinning gyro falls down at lower speed instead of a non spinning gyro, it is not the case. Both, the spinning and non spinning gyro fall down at same speed, i.e. at free fall. This fact was also proven by a simulation software.
Please accept my appologies in respect to my wrong statement.
Best regards,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 04/09/2016 18:14:30
| | | Dear Harald
There is no need for any apology for the “late reply” (my speed with advancing my gyro work has been glacial of late due to having my face *hacked about to remove a carcinoma and then, having recovered – I hope - from that, having my back “go” which, due to the stupidities of the English language, means “not go”. Oh! The joys of old age and being tall!).
And there is certainly no one I know who would expect an apology for being told that they were right. Thank you for going to the trouble of re-examining the question.
Harald, As you are able to cope with maths and have access to simulation software would you be able/prepared to use your abilities to examine a couple of other anomalies I have tried to explain before?
Kind regards
NM
*Don’t worry I am still stunningly handsome and/or stupidly self opinionated!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 04/09/2016 21:36:26
| | | Hi Nitro,
Thank you for your prompt ( :-) ) reply.
"Harald, As you are able to cope with maths and have access to simulation software would you be able/prepared to use your abilities to examine a couple of other anomalies I have tried to explain before?"
Yes of course but the simulation software might be limited for certain/special physical tasks.
Which anomalies do you mean? There are so many... ;-)
Regards,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 05/09/2016 15:31:07
| | |
Hi Harald
There are, as you say, so many anomalies. Lets see if your maths and software can get to the bottom of one of the anomalies that Nitros first law explains but that is at odds with what Cambridge Universities department of Mechanics teaches - and indeed is a view that is held by many.
The apparent disappearance of the EFFECT of mass and inertia in a precessing gyroscope.
When a gyroscope on the classic Eifel tower is released with its axis horizontal so that the torque caused by gravity causes it to precess:-
a) its acceleration to precessional speed is (apart from minor effects) instantaneous.
b) its deceleration to a stop when the torque is removed is, again, instantaneous.
Newtonian laws would indicate that nothing can instantaneously accelerate to a given speed and the maths shows how a given force applied to a given mass will result in a given acceleration (and with a given time will result in a given speed).
Nitro’s first law explains why this “impossible” instant speed happens (see earlier rather wordy posts on this). Do any of your software simulations show instantaneous acceleration/deceleration into and out of precession? If so great, as that means that it will help show a, possibly the, path to mass transfer can be described and therefor speeded by simulation software.
The lack of EFFECT of mass and inertia in the above example is a concomitant of another effect that Nitro’s laws predict but which I am not quite ready to put clearly in the public domain yet, as I may still be mad enough to pound the patent path again with my latest version. As mentioned before my machines would have little use in propulsion as, although it would move the proverbial spacecraft, its motion would be incredibly slow as (unlike usual acceleration) its motions are not accumulative and its vibrations would shake your filling out of your teeth. Hence the value of a patent is doubtful.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Miklos Somos - 05/09/2016 18:52:09
| | | Dear Nitro,
As You have written, Newtonian mechanics does not allow instantaneous change of speed, because it would need infinite acceleration, which would require infinite forces.
Simulation softwares are based on Newtonian mechanics, actually on Lagrangian mechanics, which could be characterized as an enhanced version of the Newtonian laws. It describes a mechanical system by its energy, instead of the forces working in and on the system. Lagrangian mechanics gives a more elegant and systematic way of solving mechanical problems as the Newtonian system. It is more convenient for computer application. But at the end, it will give the same results as the Newtonian mechanics. Therefore Your theory about instantaneous motion can not proved by simulation softwares, it can be falsified only.
In my opinion, the only way would be experimentation, and proper measurements. It is a question, how would You measure something instantaneous, because there are not any instrument, which is capable for such a thing. Every acceleration gauge, every camera has some limits. The only way I see, is to build a proper device with instrumentation, to see, whether it is really instantaneous.
Something like this: http://www.rlas-116.org/userfiles/2017/Classes/7732/Feynmans%20Gyro.pdf
Best regards,
Miklos
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 05/09/2016 20:00:23
| | | Hi Nitro,
I already did these simulation tests. The simulation always shows a nutation, i.e. the overhanging spinning flywheel or gyro first accelerates downwards until the flyhweel has finished the acceleration in precession plane. After precession speed is achieved, the gyro's downward movement stopps. Then precession speed decelerates which cause in return the upward movement of the gyro back to its initial position.
This cycle will be repeated again and again. It's a continuous energy exchange between potential energy in vertical plane and kinetic energy in precession plane. The resulting motion is a nutational movement of the overhanging gyro.
The faster the gyro spinns, the smaller the amplitude of nutation movement and the smaller the torque caused by gravity, the smaller the amplitude of nutation movement.
However, this nutation may not be noticed in real experiments because of the inertance of the involved masses which damp the nutation moevement. Also, instantaneous change of movements are not possible or at least have not been proved in nature.
Miklos is right. The multi body simulation software solves the resulting movement by numeric-iterative generation of equations of motion. The equations of motion of a system are generated according to the Newton-Euler formalism and are differential-algebraic.
There are different solvers available for stiff and non-stiff initial conditions.
Here a quote from the manual:
"The equations analysis is carried out by means of the ABM, BDF numerical multistep methods with the automatic choice of the step size and the order of the method, as well as the Park and Gear methods for stiff equations.
The Park Parallel solver is the powerful numeric-iterative solver, which allows usage of multithreading on the multi-core processors.
While integrating the equations computing kinematical characteristics and constraint reaction forces is possible.
The Park and Gear methods with computing of Jacobian matrices are recommended for solving stiff differential-algebraic equations of motion.
The obtaining of equilibrium positions of non-linear objects and the linearization of the equations of motion in the neighborhood of the equilibrium position can also be performed. For linear systems, there are standard analysis procedures: the obtaining of natural frequencies and vibration modes, root locus and so forth."
Regards,
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 05/09/2016 22:46:32
| | | Hello Miklos
Your question “how would you measure something instantaneous, because there are no instruments to measure such a thing” while seemingly the obvious answer, your suggested “experimentation and proper measurement” is unnecessarily complex. In such a case as this extrapolation, not more complex equations or equipment is the name of the game. It is thus only necessary to show that the acceleration and deceleration is greater than that predicted by the Newtonian or Langrangian equations - which it is – to trigger your need for re-examination.
The video that I put up on my Jogglevision location on YouTube, though crude, is clear enough to show that Newtonian expectations of a gyros acceleration into precession are exceeded. That fact on its own says that the current understanding on this (and so much more to do with precession) needs very careful re-examination.
Thank you for the link to The Physics Teacher site but although I used to love listening to the late great Richard Feyneman’s descriptions of Physics he was not always right in his, often beautiful, extrapolations – indeed, the extrapolation he made in your link shows he was human as it continues to spread the common error of understanding that suggests that the “power” driving precession is something to do with the droop of the axial angle and Nutation. It is not, as it takes no “power” in the conventional sense to ”Keep its mass aloft”. If power were required to hold the mass of a gyroscope aloft it would take more than a couple of degrees of axial droop to power such a powerful force. Spin and precessional rotation would also quickly stop if they were needed to power “holding its mass up” against the force of gravity. For a similar reason a gyro being prevented from precessing drops not at its precessional speed but drops like a non rotating mass – please see Harald’s post about the result of his re-examination of one of his beliefs, it may stiffen you enough to re-examine these ones of yours.
As shown by the Physics Teacher link you put up, Miklos, the nutation reduces to the tiny vanishing degree as the spin speed increases. This shows what every child with a toy top soon discovers:- a gyroscope (top) has two stable states:-
1) spinning good and fast - which will keep it spinning smoothly and stable and
2) not spinning - which will, of course, cause it to drop to one side like a dead weight.
However, there is a transition between these two states where, to give a child's description, Newtonion and Gyrodynamic forces argue and interchange with a frequency dependent on spin speed/mass/diameter. This you call nutation. Nutation is the approaching death of precession not its birth.
I seemingly cannot repeat it enough:- It is all to do with Nitro’s first law. Please learn it and apply it and all will become clear – eventually.
It becomes apparent that until someone writes a programme that incorporates Nitro’s first law I shall have to try and complete my machine – dam! I was hoping to be lazy and leave it for someone else!
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Miklos Somos - 07/09/2016 20:05:06
| | | Hello Nitro,
In some points I agree with You. In my first post I have strengthened Your expectations about the fall of a non-precessing gyro.
It falls as a non rotating mass, it is clear, and it is confirmed by Newtonian mechanics too.
I have learned over the years, that I can absorb new ideas easier through examples.
Let’s consider an another thought experiment:
Staying by the blocked gyro, let’s invert the experiment with the blocked precession, and block the nutational freedom instead
of the precessional. So now there is a system where the gyro can precess freely, but it can not nutate, droop, drop or whatever.
What will happen in this case based on Your law? Will it blend… sorry precess?
Regards,
Miklos
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 07/09/2016 22:52:21
| | | Hi Miklos
If a gyro with a horizontal axis cannot precesses freely because it’s extended axis is restricted by, for example running above a guide rail, it will stop dead the instant it touches the rail because, as I keep banging on, a precessing gyro exhibits no inertial effects. This is because, as dictated by Nitro’s law, the inertia is fed back and removed leaving nothing but the original force, gravity, the ability of which to act is removed the instant it touches the rail. Nitro’s law would indicate that because the upward force of the rail, exactly opposes gravity’s induced precession the gyro will stop. It helps if you understand Voltage follower operational amplifiers as they, too, cancel out all (well, almost) spurious input to leave only the originator. Op amps also act instantly (to all intents and purposes) which is why they and gyros approach the infinite in the relation between their input and their output.
There were, in Victorian times, Gyros/tops with their upper axis extended so that the end of their shaft could run along a shaped rail. There was only one rail needed to keep its axis captive and unlike modern toys it did not need a magnetic shaft. The shaft would keep frictional contact with the rail with precession keeping it pressed against the rail due to the ninety degree displaced reaction to the axial change from the shaft's rotating contact with the rail. Thus, the top would faithfully follow the convoluted shape of the rail. This has nothing in particular to do with your question I just throw it in as a point of interest.
Unless you had had one in the family collection of oddities, which thankfully I did as a child, you would probably not realise that a picture of one of these rarest of toys (scientific oddities) is here on this Gyroscope web site (thank you so much for this, Glen Turner). You can see the extended top axial shaft and the wire, rounded, star shaped guide at the top of the device, which the shaft would follow.
The link to the picture on this site is here:-
http://www.gyroscopes.org.uk/showfull.asp?imagename=73.jpg
another, later, version is shown here:-
http://www.gyroscopes.org.uk/showfull.asp?imagename=85.jpg
By the way, Miklos, what was the point of your question?
kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Miklos Somos - 08/09/2016 19:09:11
| | | Dear Nitro,
My sole intention is to understand Your theory as much as I can. As I have mentioned in my previous post, for me a convenient way of learning new theories,
is to see them in action. Practical examples are the best tools for that. A law is just a statement, which expresses a process. A law is general.
I need to see the logic behind it, the process it describes, to fully absorb it.
Gyro motion is quite complex, I think. Therefore I have tried to find a similar example of a constrained gyro, as the falling one, to see Your logic from another perspective.
One thing has already appeared to me, that needs further clarification. You use the word inertia, and I have a feeling, that You mean something else by it as Newtonian physics.
Sorry that I always throw up his name, I hope that it doesn't irritate You too much, but I know only his way of thinking. So Newtonian mechanics defines inertia as a inherent property of matter. It's another question, whether it really is inherent, but if You say inertia to a guy like me, grown up on classical mechanics, he would understand it as that. Inertia itself depends only on mass, inertia is homogeneous in every direction of the movement. It cannot be rotated, or precessed.
So You should define, what You mean by inertia.
I have to dig the forum, to find the details of Nitro’s law.
One finds things on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6T1_HEDeck
Kind regards,
Miklos
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 09/09/2016 04:15:32
| | | Hi Miklos
There comes a time for everyone treading the path of improving their learning of the oddities of gyrodynamics when they have got to get a gyro and set up their own test rigs to satisfy their curiosity about what is true. You have reached that time. You now need to – as we British say – “get your finger out” and carry out your own tests and not just rely on the opinions of others (though mine are, of course, perfect-ish!) and the stuff on the web.
You are wrong about my regard for Newtonian mechanics – they stand supreme as does Newton in my estimation (though Galileo was pretty clever too!). I am, therefore, not in the slightest bit irritated by the mention of his name. He was undoubtedly a genius – though his poking about by his eye with a needle, when studying light, was a bit weird!
All I have seen, so far, conforms to to his laws (strange to think that Newtonian laws can be broken by Newtonian reactions). However, there are things wrong with the extrapolation of his laws when applied to matter being spun and its axis rotated. As I have repeated till blue in the face some of the EFFECTS OF inertia (and for that matter centrifugal and all other forces) acting to change the axial angle of a gyroscope are precessed away. Please note the capitals emphasizing the words EFFECTS OF. Inertia itself IS still there but its effects are precessed away. If you want the simple explanation:- It is “magiced away”. If you really want to understand what happens to the inertia, then apply NITRO’S first law to it.
Nitro’s first law, in case you have not been paying attention, is:-
“A GYROSCOPE WILL PRECESS EVERY FORCE APPLIED TO CHANGE ITS AXIAL ANGLE - NOT JUST THE FIRST FORCE YOU THOUGHT OF”.
Thus, with an overhung gyro, the first force that you thought of will probably be the downward force of gravity which tries to cause the gyro’s axis to tilt downwards. This produces the well known horizontal precession. This horizontal precession initially causes an inertial force to oppose the horizontal precessional axial change. This horizontal inertial force, opposing the direction of precession, thus produces a downwards precession which, in turn, produces a horizontal precession in the same direction as the originating force (gravity). Thus the EFFECT OF inertia has been precessed away as if by magic. This is why a gyroscope accelerates into precession at a speed that exceeds that which the Newtonian laws would predict. A gyroscope, being a non perfect mechanical device, causes its incredible acceleration to produce incredible reactions which noises up its start into precession. Watch this here:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi2KyoUIHAM
Like the op-amp I mentioned before, the inputs affecting the gyroscope are to all intents and purposes instantaneous, like the electrons effecting the op-amp. Both their inputs probably act at the speed of light. As a gyro is a clumsy mechanical device the speed of reaction to input will be less than the near instant output of an op-amp.
Thank you for the you tube link. Seems the older Russians have still got some Victorian toys left. All our kids are too busy, playing z box games or on Face Ache while wearing their thumbs out texting rubbish to strangers, to be interested in Newton.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Brian Morris - 19/09/2016 17:31:07
| | | Good afternoon All
Have been away for a couple of weeks, reading the post on my Nexus, but my attempted reply was lost by the vagaries of the site. Back now at my desk so here goes.
Hello to you Miklos, a new voice is always welcome.
To précis what has been said already.
A bar constrained at one end by a universal pivot can only swing about the pivot. A gyro on the end of the bar will orbit this pivot by precession, in all directions.
The gyro does not fall under the acceleration of gravity, it precesses in the vertical plane with an accompanying couple in the horizontal plane.
The magnitude of the horizontal couple determines the speed at which the gyro precesses and thus the speed at which it “Falls”
The speed of “fall” precession can be seen to constantly increase with acceleration, therefore the magnitude of the horizontal couple also increases over time.
Instantaneous. A mass is deflected instantaneously. It is either moving in a straight line, or its path is deflected by force. There is no gradual change over time Additionally the force does not displace the mass along the line of action of the force. This action was explained by Newton as centripetal acceleration.
The precession of a gyro is essentially a complex deflection. The mass does not rotate in the plane of the applied couple but at right angles to it. You knew that, but perhaps had not linked it to the instantaneous nature of gyro precession.
So a thought experiment.
Whilst the gyro is “falling” there is no gyro couple and no reaction to the couple at the pivot. The gyro appears to be in free fall and is thus weightless.
Stop reacting the horizontal couple and the “fall” precession stops. The gravity couple reappears, the gyroscope precesses horizontally, the weight reappears.
By applying a pulse of horizontal force at short intervals, the gyro will precess alternately about each axis. The “fall” will start again with each pulse, rising to the same velocity each time. This will average out to a constant velocity, determined by the duration of the horizontal force.
In practical terms by applying a pulse of horizontal force at constant intervals, the gyro will fall slowly in a spiral as it precesses about each axis in turn.
Which is very interesting, but not quite as interesting as the effect upon the average measurement of the weight at the pivot. If the pulse gives equal time to both the precessions, then the gyroscope will be in free fall for half of the time that it is spiralling down.
Does the idea that a spiraling gyro loses weight seem familiar?
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nate - 19/09/2016 22:00:39
| | | Pulsing a spiraling gyro is all I've been doing.
(Search 'Nate Lachae' on youtube)
Thank you Momentus.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Brian Morris - 22/09/2016 10:36:09
| | | Hi Nate,
Bit of a stretch from my drooping gyro to your Gammamax.
I would hope for your sake that there is no connection, as the thought experiment shows that loss of weight or lift recorded by counter weight is not necessarily due to any exotic gyro phenomena, but can be simply that the fall has been slowed down.
Whilst I know and can prove that Conservation of Momentum is a general rule, not a law, an experiment will only show what is actually happening and is always subject to analysis.
I have always favoured testing for horizontal thrust as it avoids some of the obvious pitfalls associated with trying to conduct experiments at the bottom of a gravity well.
Have you measured horizontal thrust?
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nate - 23/09/2016 19:08:44
| | | testing
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nate - 23/09/2016 19:10:58
| | | My lengthly replys don't get posted for some reason. ???
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 24/09/2016 08:55:27
| | | Nate:
Your login is limited to only 20 minutes! I asked Glenn Turner to remove this time limitation but unfortunately nothing happened...
Just a hint: copy your answer into a text file, login again and paste the text from the text file into your (new) answer window and push as soon as possible the "Answer Questions" button.
Regards
Harald
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 27/09/2016 18:00:05
| | | Hiya Sandy
The price of “od” age is Aphasia apparently. There should be a smiley face after that mick-take to show it is meant in friendship – please imagine one there.
In my case the price is the unstoppable urge to see the humorous and the tragic effects of my age at the same time.
It seems that the minor op., I just had, got all the skin cancer that had been decorating my shnozz (Jeez “minor” op.! I woke looking like a road accident victim the next morning and my was pillow stuck to my head with dried blood - eeuck). That it is clear of cancer for now is good but it is rather irritating that the top of my nose is left permanently numb (Yes! I know, it now matches my brain!) and, due to the borrowing of skin from my forehead, to fill the hole that the cancer left, I now have my original two frown creases replaced with a single vertical crease and two downward angled ones. I now have a permanent three crease advert for Mercedes at the top of my hooter. I wonder if I can get a discount on an AMG Merc now?
Sandy, the old British wartime fake Latin expression “nil illegitimi te carborundum” is easy to say but bloody hard to follow when the bastards surround you – but you must not let them grind you down. Just remember that you have had the balls to get off your rear end and fabricate machines to confirm your beliefs and only a handful of people have had the courage of their convictions to do that. You may not get the public acclaim that such dedicated effort deserves but those like me who have struggled with the technology understand the sacrifices that have to have been made when there is no support forthcoming from the “scientific” community who are too shit scared to look outside their comfort zone at something new.
While I have to agree with you that the blind acceptance of the current understanding of the extrapolations of Newton’s laws is detrimental to the advancement of physics in our field of gyrodynamics, I now believe that each law applied to each individual chunk of what happens when a mass is rotated and then the axial angle rotated is correct. The lunatic thing is that, when a bunch of gyrodynamic tricks are mechanically linked in the right manor, it is indeed possible to produce things, like mass displacement, that Newtonian law would absolutely preclude. It seems that you can actually use Newton to get round Newton. I always knew that gyros were weird – it seems the more you study them they become even more weirderer (?).
I described in my response to Miklos on the 9th how the EFFECT of inertia as an overhung gyro as it is released into precession is precessed full circle and thus the EFFECT of inertia (where the gyro would, as with any mass acted on by gravity, be expected to increase gradually in speed, it does not. It reaches its precessional speed to all intents and purposes instantly.
There are several other gyro effects that make no sense under Newton. The overhung gyro displays several of these anomalies. While I know, Sandy, that you are into force precessional effects, the gravity precessed overhung gyro helped give me a clear indication, in the lack of opposite motion of its suspension point, that a force precessed machine can be made that will produce the unopposed mass displacement which is necessary for inertial drive. I am sure that you know, if you have looked at where my Jogglevision gyro videos are leading, that I have now made just such a machine but I am hoping to get more efficiency and clarity from it.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 02/10/2016 11:50:17
| | | I do not believe my explanations require extreme intelligence to be understood, but only a willingness to study. I received not discussion, but instead a censurer, who instead of applying his mind to the treatment, he rejected the carefully laid-out mechanics of logic by pretending to misunderstand me.
He pretended to believe I was writing that a gyroscope has a brain and physical abilities; and that this cold piece of metal mind orders its physical abilities to gather an assortment of stated maximums, i.e. words that explain the Laws of Motion, and then manipulate the words into becoming an active force. In his genius reply there was not one countering bit of logic listed, only statements meaning basically nothing.
Nitro, I have heard lately, there is an accursed two thousand year old Italian sodomite hanging around your town. Give me your address and I will send him to you. Therein you may receive my delayed scientific response et profundum.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 29/12/2016 17:45:03
| | | Hello all and good tidings,
Hi Miklos Somos: Good post but, Harry explained correctly against Nitro’s conclusion. You wrote: “. . . it will fall. . . nutate downwards with the gravitational acceleration, as in free fall.”
Miklos, if the wheel is falling very slowly it has time to find a balance which it seeks. Nutation is an unbalanced condition ‘bouncing’ up and down until it finds a balance between up and down motion. There must be enough power (fast spin) to allow it to find its balance. Think of a rubber ball bouncing on the floor, compressing and expanding. As the bounces shorten until it reaches a balance.
As to your “as in freefall” the wheel cannot fall straight down because its arm forces it to fall in a curve around the pedestal. This is an incline where the wheel must travel further, therefor it take longer to touch-down.
………………………………………………………………………..
Sandy you wrote: “Glenn has in light of his own failure to produce any positive results in the quest to produce inertial thrust has for the last few postings been attempting to somehow justify this failure. . .”
Not so: I do not work that way. Always I sault to understand why a gyroscope works and thereby correctly reason what it could and could not do and then test my conclusions. I failed in many attempts, but reasoning out the failures as I went along. There is a reason for everything. Eventually the accumulation of enough knowledge will solve all unknown questions.
Sometimes nobody seems to care that gyroscopes under all conditions-- work for precise and explainable reasons. Consider the four stroke engine. A series of conditions cause it to run. The same is true with gyroscopes, except in the case of the gyroscope the interactions cannot be seen, but only reasoned based on knowledge.
Cause and effect occurs in series’:
1.) the drop delivers force.
2.) the angle of the fall causes torque
3.) torque causes precession
4.) The torque at bottom of the wheel is stronger and rotates up to apply more force it the direction of precession.
5.) Precession then causes a secondary right angle torque down on the pedestal, equal and opposite to the force first derived from the fall—except light frictions absorb some of the initial drop force.
The exact and intricate ways this happens is complicated, but above are the several complications condensed into a series of five strokes that make the gyroscope work. By comparison the series of a four stroke engine can be seen happening in classroom in plastic engine models. Why and how the engine works in visual. The strokes of a gyroscopes; a series of cause and effect, cannot be seen. That is why nobody ever knew. The causes are all invisible; and yet that which is visible appears to be like magic for lack of knowledge.
Gyroscopes cannot produce force beyond the space they occupy.
……………………………………………………….
Miklos : Your example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuTMYgQDUzs
The ball when rolled down an incline, bounces backward, forward and backwards again and so on. Both visual directions are straight line opposites, but rather this is only partially true in the miniature world of molecular actions that we cannot watch.
Collisions reduce force as matter absorbs impact, wherein the squeezed mater changes force to heat and redirects straight collision forces into a perceptible expansions in all directions, as from a point within a spear outward, equally in all directions. Collision force is then divided by compression and expansion in all spherical directions. The effect of the balls forward collision is lessened.
However when the ball swings, its full mass and force is delivered gradually and the molecular squeeze is less compacted and the collision, expansion is less forceful. More of the energy is conserved and reapplied gradually full forward. Bounces as explained lose some of their forward force.
…………………………………………………………………………………..
Your example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33amqcZXeus
This is excellent up to a point. It does not explain everything, but as generalities go it is almost good enough.
If he had added a top view down on the gyroscope you could see why the bottom rotating wheel-force that resist the twist INTO toward the fulcrum is stronger. The top rotating force falls outward from the fulcrum while it rotates to rear horizontal position. As the stronger bottom force rotates toward delivers its stronger force toward the direction of precession.
Looking downward remember the girl on ice skates; with her arms out she spins slowly, as she pulls her arms inward she spins faster.
The girl is the center of mass. In over hung gyroscope precession the fulcrum is the center of mass. Physics work the same for each in that regard.
The top of the wheel falls outward away from the fulcrum/center/of/mass and is therein constantly attempting to decreasing in speed and torque, while the bottom is increasing in torque. It is like the gears in your car. Fast gear is weak. Slow gear is strong.
So, we understand why the direction of precession. Precession is slow, much slower than freefall because most of its energy is converted into a right angle torque down on the fulcrum, enough so that it keeps the wheel from falling.
Unless you are curious you do not need to know all the intricate things other than this general explanation with which to reason from here out—that is to reason what a gyroscope will and will not do; can and cannot do under any circumstance applied to it.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 29/12/2016 17:51:46
| | | Nitro, hi, if a gyroscope is not falling to some degree, no work force is produced. It must fall in order to work.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
