|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
23 November 2024 14:06
|
|
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: |
Glenn Hawkins |
| Subject: |
Special mechanics of the gyroscope |
| Question: |
Special mechanics of the gyroscope
By Glenn Marion Hawkins
Precession
As angular momentum is increased, inertia resistance to tilting is increased. Precession is the result of a tug-of-war between greatly increased inertia resistance to the pull of gravity or any force.
How it works.
Inertia is a constant quality of mass that resists acceleration. Consider inertia in linear travel. A mass travels through space in a straight line for one mile at 100 miles per hour. A rocket of relatively weak power is attached sideways to the forward-moving mass. After one mile the mass is pushed off course by the right angle rocket until its path has curved 45 degrees.
Using the same example, except that the mass speed is increased to 1,000 miles per hour, the mass is forced to curve only 4.5 degrees off course. This is because at greater forward speed the same right angle rocket force had only 1/100 as much time to apply its sideways force at the end of one mile.
Linear traveling and rotation act the same way for the same reasons relating to increased side-ways inertia resistance due to time and distance. When a wheel is rotating in a plane, though the motion is circular, it is nevertheless rotating within the confines of a straight plane. The faster the rotation of a wheel, the less time there is for gravity to exert its tilting force— per each rotation.
As the gyroscope falls in a vertical curve around the pedestal, its top portion is always tilting outward away from the pedestal. At the same time, the bottom portion of the wheel tilts oppositely which is inward toward the pedestal. As a result, the increased inertia resistance at the top of the wheel would hold the wheel from tilting outward. While at the same time, the inertia resistance at the bottom would hold the wheel from tilting inward. The effect is a twisting force. Top and bottom resistances twist against one another which will eventually support the wheel upright.
As the rotating wheel tilts slowly into gravity, the outer rims being heavier and moving faster carry greater angular momentum than does the lighter, slower interior of the wheel. The outer rim, therefore, has greater resistance to tilting as it seeks to hold its aligned position. The center of the wheel, having less inertial resistance, bends more easily into gravity. A thin flexible wheel would bend in the shape something like a’ Z’ with the open ends pointing toward resistance, top toward the pedestal, bottom away from the pedestal. Again, the effect holds the wheel aloft as the twisting converts the wheel’s full weight into torque down upon the pedestal.
The bent wheel can be likened to compressed springs ready to uncoil as the upper and lower springs are rotated to an area where no vertical resistance exist. That area is the horizontal diameter of the wheel which acts as a swivel between top and bottom. Here the springs attempt to uncoil and release their stored force as momentum forward and rearward of the wheel, which twists the wheel into precession. If the wheel is thick and does not bend, think in terms of molecules and atoms being squeezed and held ready to release their compressed condition into a horizontal spring-backs.
At horizontal the spring-back force collides into an opposing inertial resistance. This is because the horizontal circling around the pedestal resists the same way for the same reasons as vertical tilting. The wheel resists horizontally circling around the pedestal but the resistance is not quite equal to the spring-back force that has rotated also into the horizontal alinement. In this collision there is only a little force is left to produce precession, while almost the full force remains squeezed in readiness to spring-back. The squeezed condition is further rotated into once again the vertical alinement. Here, the upper rim springs-back releasing force toward the pedestal, while the lower spring-back force is released oppositely from the pedestal. The deflected forces are once again in the shape of a ‘Z’. The transferred upper and lower forces twist the wheel and lift the gyroscope to hover above the platform
When the wheel is rotating fast and angular momentum is greater, the collisions at horizontal are stronger which slows both precession and tilting. Precession becomes so weak that a paper napkin can stop a toy gyroscope from precession. When that happens, the wheel is no longer moving around the pedestal and there is no precessional inertial resistance. Collisions and deflections cease leaving no momentum at all to carry the gyroscope in a circle as it collapses into gravity. There is then negative spring-back as the bent wheel re-straightens to kick the fallen wheel from roiling forward from momentum as it touches the floor. It is an immediate dead reverse stop action.
The gyroscope is a closed system that acts in compliance with all the laws of motion. Nothing can functions outside of the laws, quirks maybe, certainly not gyroscopes. The universe could not have formed, let alone continue if the laws were in any way alterable. Though is not commonly taken into account: to watch the little gyroscope in its self-containment is to watch all the supreme laws of motion in the universe in action, the inestimable wonder of all order, the wonder that controls everything there is. To see the adherences of absolute order in the little gyroscope is to see the fingerprint of God.
PROFESSOR ERIC LAITHWAITE’S FAMOUS 40-POUND WHEEL DEMONSTRATION
A man holds a three-foot shaft connected to a forty-pound gyroscope. He pushes it horizontally into faster precession. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeyDf4ooPdo
Two questions arise: How is he able to grip against torque and lift so much weight at a levered distance from his body? Why does the wheel appear to pose almost no weight as he easily lifts it?
1 By holding the weight close into his body, most of the weight is supported by his skeletal frame, therefore, he exerts less energy holding it. The simplest example is an African woman caring a heavy burden on her head while exerting little energy.
2 The gyroscope changes its weight into torque that forces directly down onto his hands. His hands and body act as a pivot point. It is not necessary to grip and twist against a downward force in his hands.
3 In lifting weight we are prone to assume that extra force downward is created. But the extra energy the lifter exerts is necessary only because of the leverage disadvantage he creates in his limbs as he bends his elbows. The true resistance is so little that when a man standing on scales lifts a barbell, the scales hardly measure a difference. The only extra energy needed to lift it further is that to overcome the inertia resistance in slowly accelerating a deadweight upwards. That amount is slightly less in equivalence than slowly shoving a 40-pound bowling ball across the floor.
4 The rising arc of the wheel is caused by accelerating the wheel’s precession speed from the man’s horizontal push. The rising arc can be vectored in two directions, inward and upward. When the man’s hands lift, his levering force counters the inward force direction of the wheel toward the pivot. Therefore the wheel cannot move inward, only upward. Two lifting forces exist, that of the man modest lift, and that maintained in the wheel from the previous sideways push to add precession speed. The combined energy required is divided and balanced. The wheel furnishes half and the man furnishes half and the net result is that the man lifts against no resistance but for the weak force of inertia.
|
| Date: |
21 August 2019
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
James Walter - 16/01/2020 03:31:26
| | | Thank you for this.
Do you have the math and vector diagrams to support this?
You said, "1 By holding the weight close into his body, most of the weight is supported by his skeletal frame, therefore, he exerts less energy holding it. The simplest example is an African woman caring a heavy burden on her head while exerting little energy."
Starting with the last part, whether she carries it on her head or with her arms, she exerts the exact same amount of energy. If she carries it with her arm, the smaller muscles feel more stress/weight. But the arms do feel it. With Laithwaite's demonstration there is no connection between the gyroscope and the skeletal frame except through the arms. Since the arms do not feel it, that disproves this explanation.
"2 The gyroscope changes its weight into torque that forces directly down onto his hands. His hands and body act as a pivot point. It is not necessary to grip and twist against a downward force in his hands." You need to rephrase this since, obviously, weight cannot be changed into torque. Moreover, if the torque forces directly into his hands, he would feel that force.
If you answer these, I have more.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 16/01/2020 11:33:09
| | | Hello James,
„ Do you have the math and vector diagrams to support this?“
Good joke! I‘m very curious about his answer. :-)))
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/01/2020 16:38:12
| | | Hi James,
I hope you are enjoying this fine weather. Maybe you are out surfing somewhere off of a sunny, sandy yellow beach with the waves creaming in and seeping away. If that is not the case, well, it was my hope for your good fortune anyway. Hang in till Summer.
For whatever reason, the top or you respond to was actually dated posted, 21 August 2019. While the post placed below it, “UNDERSTANDING THE GYROSCOPE An improved study’ is dated 11 January 2020. It is the later and I think better. Refer to it.
The post explains the absence of math and the reasons why. It is unnecessary and cumbersome to the beginning of mechanical understanding of ‘why and how’. Math is separated. It comes later. You have to know what is happening first.
As for Laithwaite, my explanation bothered me in retrospect and so I set out to re-do it. It became complicated but I did learn, accentually the question reversed itself. Instead of wondering how he is able to lift the weight, I now ask why does the weight not lessen during his lifting. It should according to my latest insights. I will spare you an explanation.
TO TRY TO ANSWER YOUR OTHER QUESTIONS:
I am not following what you are saying,” … Whether she carries it on her head or with her arms, she exerts the exact same amount of energy. If she carries it with her arm, the smaller muscles feel more stress/weight. “ Certainly the arms do feel it. I don’t understand your point.
You write, “With Laithwaite's demonstration there is no connection between the gyroscope and the skeletal frame except through the arms.” But of course, that is true. Why repeat it?
You write, “Since the arms do not feel it, that disproves this explanation.” But the arms DO feel it. Have you ever lifted a barbell?
You write: “ … Weight cannot be changed into torque.” OK, converted. You like that better?
You write: “Moreover if the torque forces directly into his hands, he would feel that force.”
But of course, he would. Was there any question that he would not?
Adiós James, vaya con dios,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
