Question |
| Asked by: |
Victor Geere |
| Subject: |
Examples of Anomaly |
| Question: |
A subject that seems to be pervasive in this forum is that gyroscopes demonstrate some anomalies, apart from reacting at a 90 degree angle. These anomalies are often thrown in as an undefined variable in some explanations. Yet they seem to be consistent, and therefore in my opinion are new undocumented features of a gyroscope, rather than anomalies.
Can we get some examples of these anomalies so that we can either rule them out or accept them as fact?
... alternatively accept that there are no anomalies.
Regards
Victor |
| Date: |
19 April 2005
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 19/04/2005 18:20:31
|
| | Dear Victor Geere,
Please see last paragraph of my reply to Arthur's reply to Sandy's mail on gyroscopic couple in "basic gyro questions" folder of this forum.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Victor Geere - 19/04/2005 21:54:54
|
| | Nitro,
You refer to Arthur Dent's statement about a top suported on a base in precession mode, with the base placed on an airbed. Arthur states that the top and base will rotate around their joint center of mass, if I understand him correctly.
This is exactly the same principle that Momentus explained in "a working model" http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=350 i.e. a gyroscope and a compensating weight suspended by a rope at their center of mass.
This is normal behaviour of a gyroscope under these conditions.
Regards
Victor
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 20/04/2005 12:03:16
|
| | Dear Victor Geere,
No! See the last paragraph of MY reply.....
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Victor Geere - 20/04/2005 12:16:40
|
| | [... I have mentioned elsewhere that Alex Jones produced what used to be considered a good test of starting to get round the third law. This involves a mechanism that would move – on the obligatory “frictionless” base – outside its own starting dimension. Do you know of any device that does not involve a gyro that can do this? ] -- Nitro MacMad.
Do you have more detail of this device, or a reference to it, so that we can open it for discussion?
I am only aware of Alex's invention that ran on wheels.
Regards
Victor.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 20/04/2005 15:15:18
|
| | Dear Victor,
A crude example is shown on wheels (I did put "frictionless" in inverted commas)and the only example remaining I am aware of is shown in the rather noisey video on this site.
It is only a single shot device and will not meet the demands of a true multi directional frictionless base test but if you know of any other device, without a gyro, that can move outside its starting dimention please let me know of it.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Victor Geere - 21/04/2005 09:08:05
|
| | You almost had me there for a moment Nitro.
If I submit my pet rock to the same external forces as a precessing gyroscope (gravity) it drops to the floor and hence moves outside it's starting dimension. The only difference is that a precessing gyroscope reacts in a 90 degree angle to gravitiy and moves in a horisontal plane.
See my response to Momentus' "a working model" at
http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=350
This brings us back to the 90 degree reaction which is normal for a gyroscope.
Regards
Victor
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 22/04/2005 02:35:19
|
| | Dear Victor,
No one is trying to “have you”, merely enlighten you. The remarkable point about the said simple mechanism is that it moves outside its own dimension on, of course, a horizontal surface. Although the Alex Jones example, presumably for simplicity, uses a gravity drop as its energy input the mechanism will work just as well with an integral motive power source – electric motor, tensioned spring etc.
While what this does is in complete accordance with “what gyroscopes do” it is not in accordance with a part of “what Newton do” and that is what all this is about.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Victor Geere - 22/04/2005 10:20:18
|
| | I know you weren't trying to have me Nitro, this medium doesn't convey friendliness very well, so I will get to the point and stick to the argument in future.
I am beginning to suspect that a gyroscope does not react in a 90 degree angle to a force acting in a straight line, but will only react at a 90 degree angle if that force, by means of one point of the axis of the gyroscope being obstructed, would cause the gyroscope to turn on it's side. I will have to look into this. I think Arthur Dent hinted at something like this, but he didn't expain why.
I need to understand what happens inside a flywheel before I can judge on Newton. The whole thing needs to be taken into account.
The question I asked in the beginning of this thread was intended and still is, to get behind the phrase "believe the oposite of what you think you know about gyroscopes and you are likely to be right." That suggested an unknown variable with the value of -1. I want to know what that is. The second time I followed that advice I arrived back where I started.
Regards
Victor
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 22/04/2005 19:53:30
|
| | Dear Victor,
Sorry, for grouchy response. One should never respond to anything when affected by teenage kids/insomnia (probably related) /righteous wives (well one – thankfully – insufferably and justifiably righteous) and when two thirty a.m. has just struck on the old grandfather clock. Besides, I hadn’t adjusted for your modern American humour – still stuck in UK “Bilko” mode I’m afraid.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 17/07/2005 16:14:22
|
| | Victor
You refer to my “working model” “gyroscope and a compensating weight suspended by a rope at their center of mass.”
NO NO NO a thousand times no.
The suspension point of the apparatus is half way between the light compensating weight and the heavy flywheel. This is far from the centre of mass, which is close to the flywheel.
The point of the experiment is that the model does NOT behave in the way that Arthur Dent stated. It does NOT pivot about the joint centre of mass.
Suspending the gyro by a long cord is a simple and less expensive form of an air bed. It provides vertical support, but gives lateral freedom for the suspension point, as would the air bed.
The “ horisontal force arc is the gravitational arc at a 90 degree angle.” You postulated in your original reply would deflect the cord away from the vertical, if it were present.
A challenge to Arthur or to anyone else is to get an offset gyroscope to rotate about the joint centre of mass. It does not, it cannot.
The only external force acting on my gyroscope model is vertical force, due to gravity. The displacement is at 90 degrees to this force.
It is the understanding of the nature of this force which produces motion at right angles which has been my study for the past 5 years.
You asked for examples of anomaly. Try this, I would be interested to hear of your experience.
Momentus.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Victor Geere - 19/07/2005 11:48:00
|
| | The light weight ofsetting the gyroscope is completely irelevant in this case. If you attached a spinning gyroscope's axle to a rope it will precess around the end of the rope in any case, regardless of the length of the axle. A rope is also NOT (and the thousand times thingy) an airbed. The gravitational arc also does not move the rope away from the vertical, it moves the gyroscope in a circle around the rope.
I think you will have to take the rope and yourself and the earth into account in your system to calculate the centre of mass, but that is beyond me. See Nitro's first law.
A gyroscope might not even precess on an airbed, as a gyroscope in a "passive system", as Sandy calls it, might not precess in space. No effective gravity. If you notice that I'm changing my tune here, it is because I'm learning as I go along. I was hoping to learn a lot more here but the ambient attitude (that I have become party to) has become unbearable. I thought this forum would implode in Eric James' absence, and I seem to have been right. At least once.
I still think gyroscopic propulsion would be possible, but who knows, I might be wrong.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 19/07/2005 15:42:27
|
| | Victor.
You quoted “Arthur states that the top and base will rotate around their joint center of mass,”
This is the accepted Newtonian viewpoint, which Arthur is known to espouse.
You went on to say that “This is exactly the same principle that Momentus explained” It is not the same. The working model demonstrates that an offset gyroscope DOES NOT rotate about the joint centre of mass.
The centre of mass is the same as the centre of gravity. It can be determined experimentally by balancing the model on a knife edge. The weight of the cord I use (fishing line) is too little to affect this balance point.
I am aware of the difference between an air bed and my rope. I have, correction did have, an air bed for my early experimentation. I got hold of an old plastic vacuum forming machine, which had a flat sturdy table pierced with a multitude of holes. It was a nightmare to use. The string suspension is far superior in practical terms, and performs exactly the same function in that it gives vertical support with complete horizontal freedom of movement.
Gyroscopic propulsion is possible. You can make your own.
The walking gyroscope as described in my “working model” post.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
d brown - 14/08/2005 12:10:15
|
| | Hi, about getting something from nothing:
I am not well educated, but do read alot.
Every time there is a claim of free energy, it is later proved that the energy came from something smaller; we are now getting down to the spin of an electron and not even the electron itself. A property of something, rather than the something itself, is quite small in my eyes, sorta like the size of a thought.
Based on what I have read:
If we spin a substance which is generally seen as non magnetic, and non conducting, we can get a magnetic field, ok.
The field must come from the 1st force applied to substance to spin it to the gyroscopic state,
from that substance's make-up, with it's spinning protons, neutrons, electrons, we then see the magnetic field, derived from the external force. It has been tranduced(tranducers). (i now see how superconductors rely on alligned atoms)
now we apply a 2nd force to induce precessing,
this rotating gyroscope's field, if placed beside a wire(s) will induce a voltage onto it,
but if a current is drawn from that wire/conductor, the motor creating the 1st force, it will create a field opposing that of the created field,
which will in turn be relayed back through the created force to stop the precession which will allow the 2nd force to move the axis in the direction of the applied force.
no more 1st force.
True, taking energy from a spinning planet will relatively look like 'from nothing'
:) just my thoughts.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
PATRICK - 10/09/2008 07:49:53
|
| | 367 MAGNETIC POINTS IN A 360 DEGREE MODULE,SUROUNDED BY359 OPPOSING POINTS IN 360 CIRCLE. GIVES 2 CIRCLES,THE LARGER BEING MADE UP 359 COGS OPPOSES THE INNER 367 COGS IN A LESSER RADIUS.AS 359 AND 367 ARE PRIME NUMBERS ONLY 1 POINT CAN EVER REACH EQUILIBRIUM,THE REMAINING ACT AS EITHER PUSHERS OR ATRACTORS TO THE WHOLE.IF ONLY 1 IN 367 THEN 183 BEFORE ACTING AS ATRACTANTS AND183 REPELLANT. LAITHWAITES MODULE AND THE IDEA WAS CLOSE 2 THIS...BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS GRATIFIED IN THE EDUCATION OF THE STUDY OF FLUIDICITY. A SIMPLE REVOLVING MODULE WITHIN A CARVED SURROUND ENDUCING CICULAR MOTION BY REPULTION AND ATRACTION TO GIVE BIRTH 2 PERPETUALITY 2 B USED AS A CONDENSER OF AIR FOR AND USED BY THE MODULE 2 CREATE MORE CONDENSED COMPRESSED AIR OF WHICH CHANNELED INTO THE INTAKE IN MANY WAYS. J AS A TURBINE WORKS,,,THE SMALLER GEARING IS SPUN UP AND IN TRANSFERANCE ALONG ITS AXEL ENDUCES A LARGER CONDENSER TO ROTATE....STOP....QUOTIENT MUSICAL SCALES,KING JOSERS CHAMBER,PRIME NUMBERS,POUNDS OUNCES,DECIMAL 10?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Patrick Hill - 08/04/2014 05:06:11
|
| | For all i gavé read and gavé Bégin to read then yes oh yes .how so obvious the jabbawok
13 27 61 73 ...
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Patrick Hill - 08/04/2014 05:06:24
|
| | For all i gavé read and gavé Bégin to read then yes oh yes .how so obvious the jabbawok
13 27 61 73 ...
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
