|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
25 April 2024 18:03
|
|
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: |
Chris Blythe |
| Subject: |
Forced precessed gyro an experiment |
| Question: |
I was wondering if an experiment proposed by both Scott Strachan and Sandy Kidd to me is anomalous or not. Here is the experiment, they recon that this shows something odd;
Take a gyro spinning about the Eifle tower, It is rotating about the tower right over on its side. IE it is precessing about the top of the tower and the axis of the gyro is parallel with the earth. Its natural precessing speed is say a revolution every (say) 5 seconds.
Now scale this all down to a table top version and mount the eifle tower on a flat 1ft square piece of flat steel.on a frictionless airbed 0,0 is the center of the plate and the center of the base of the tower. Imagine a graph marked out on the plate. On the x and y axis and negative x and y axis mount strain gauges linked to an scope with the time base turned off so that the dot on the scope shows diflection of the steel plate. (Touch the steel plate with your finger and move it North, South, East or West and the dot on the scope moves accordingly N, S, E or west)
Set your gyroscope running once again and rotating about the top of the tower, according to Newtons 3rd law the heavy mass of the precessing Gyro moving about the tower has an equal and opposite reaction on the base plate causing the scope to diffect the dot on the screen in a circular motion. All well and good and as it is supposed to be. If you are having trouble with this imagine that you are standing on a tray, the floor is covered in ballbearings, you have a cannonball in your hands and are shoving it forwards or backwards trying to reach the sink, what happens to the tray you are standing on?
Now and this is where it gets interesting...carefully measure the precession speed and add a motor to power round the gyro, set the speed of the motor to drive the gyro round at precession speed one revolution every 5 seconds. The gyro is now being forceably precessed.
Apparently the scope now shows a stationary dot indicating that the equal and opposite reaction of the base plate is now gone. Yet we still have a 1 and a half kilo or whatever mass orbiting a central point which, gyro or not, should obey the equal and opposite reaction law and cause the scope to deflect.
Odd or not? I would welcome any comment on this. Back at school I tried to develop some maths on this and found that if my maths was correct that the gyro would,if forceably precessed at its natural precession speed, generate an upthrust at right angles to its direction of precession. In this case that would be vertically upward. In that case it would counter its own weight. Does this mean that it has managed to move its center of mass to th middle of the tower and hence show no difflection of the scope? I can't believe that it has become weightless. Still as formerly mentioned two experts on forced precessed gyroscopes told me of the exact same experiment and said that this is not in accord with the norm, something odd perhaps?
Chris Blythe Plymouth UK Tel 01752 664091
PS on another subject check out what I believe to be a most important invention that could change all our lives for the better. Our energy and materials tech may never be the same and for a company that gets on board it the benefits could be substantial. (and no I don't have a vested interest) We are looking at an inexhaustable clean energy source. The theory could even have implications for control of gravity. Please bring it to the attention of anyone who is in position to verify it or companies that can accelerate its uptake, Many supposedly bright scientists, without moving from their armchairs to do an experiment scoff at this, All I ask is that you give it a long look before making up your mind but there are a few truly open minded scientists who are beginning to find that this radically different an elegant theory offers many solutions, it is a halfway house between chemistry and nuclear power yet benign...if it is correct it gives me hope that we can survive the next few hundred years. Blacklightpower.com |
| Date: |
4 May 2005
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 06/05/2005 11:07:51
| | | Hello Chris,
Good to hear from you, though I am a bit surprised that you are still interested in this disreputable pursuit.
Don’t know your motives, but I would like to thank you for your efforts in going out of your way to test my claims.
The experiment you carried out was very similar in most respects to an experiment I submitted to a certain university (at their request) the best part of 20 years ago, and it was probably that particular proposed experiment which was under discussion by us at that time.
The university in question never replied to me, so I can only assume they decided it was not worthy of any further investigation.
Noticed you were accelerating the gyro at a relatively pedestrian pace, which with one gyroscope could be plenty fast enough.
If this experiment is carried out at higher system rotation speeds, and I have about 5 to 600 rpm in mind, the same result will be achieved.
Whilst there a lot of things whizzing around, nothing is being accelerated.
The really interesting part is what is happening within the system, as it is accelerated from relatively slow system rotation speeds, to elevated rotation speeds.
Should this be attempted by anyone, in the interests of safety, the device should be constructed with a balanced and opposed pair of gyroscopes in order to keep things under a bit of control.
Thanks again Chris, you just made my day.
Lets hope a few of the passive precession people jump over the fence to accelerated systems, and they will be pleasantly surprised to find out how easy the truth is to find.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Victor Geere - 06/05/2005 13:42:24
| | | There is nothing weird about this. Ok, maybe it's weird the first time, like pressing a light switch.
Firstly because you cannot "force" precession. At best you can cause it.
If natural precession causes the gyroscope to move on the horisontal plane, adding force in the direction of precession will cause precession on a vertical plane.
Precession will always cause the spin of the gyroscope to align with the external force that caused precession. In this case it will attempt to align the axis of the gyroscope vertically, not exactly causing a "vertically upwards" thrust, but an arc pointing to a point in the centre above the eifel tower model at a height equal to the radius of precession. Effectively creating a upward vector and an inward vector. It is this inward vector that opposes the force that caused the movement of the plate.
A gyroscope in precession mode does become weightless, but keep in mind that one side of the axle has to rest on something like an eifel tower to cause precession. Put the eifel tower on a scale and check it out.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Chris Blythe - 09/05/2005 03:02:20
| | | Thankyou Sandy, and thankyou also Victor, I appreciate and am digesting your coments. I take it Sandy that you agree with Victor on his comments, yet while Victor seems to take this as fairly pedestrian, you Sandy seem to recon there is more to this and that it is a path to follow.
I dont know if you remember me Sandy but I came up to see you in Dundee some 15 years back, It is good to find you at it still after all these years, I was wondering how you were getting on, I tried contacting you in Dundee some years after we met but your number must have changed, As to my motives I always like a bit of the disreputable, I figure that where there is an anomaly there could be an insight into something new. It amazes me how mainsteam scientists dismiss and deride anything outside of their rulebook...checkout the roasting that Randal Mills at blacklightpower has recieved for his incredible alternative reseach. Its really rocking some folks boat, its really quite an insight into human nature how vehmently people react if the sacred laws are questioned. Are modernday scientists so arrogant as to believe that we have discovered all there is to know? It Iseems in many cases so. After all we are just getting starting to get a handle on controlling electricity. Mills has had the kind treatment that Sandy knows of at the hands of academia and yet is obviously a brilliant and talented mind on a par perhaps with Einstein, his work is revolutionary being a GUT or Grand Unified Theory.
There is revolving electron work in Mills's theory that may be relevant here, Mills theory is a dream for engineers, it effectively does away with quantum theory and says that be it on the scale of the atom or the cosmos it is all little balls revolving around lager ones, sun and planets. No 'n' dimentional fudge factors as in stringtheory or and things working differently at different scales as in the quantum world . It goes on in later chapters to predict gravity control though controlling electron spin which after all are like little gyroscopic systems...I wonder if there is a link at all? The PDF of Mills's book is available to download at blacklightpower.com
Regards and thanks
Chris
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 09/05/2005 07:32:40
| | | Hello again Chris,
In answer to your query and experiment, I feel I should say that I think your passive system running at that angle was in decay, so I must assume a bit of centrifugal force will be seen.
Also a passive system is subject to nutation and precession, (gravitational acceleration) your accelerated system is not.
The accelerated system will react continuously at right angles to the applied force. There is no precession present in an accelerated system.
Why did you decide to accelerate the system at the same rotation speed as the passive run? Was this deliberate? Was this to prove a point?
The faster you accelerate the system the easier it is, as I am pretty sure you have already found out Chris.
They (the academics) do not wish to know these things Chris, because it will cause them all sorts of hassle.
I am pretty sure more than a few of them know this anyway, but it is in every ones interests for them to shut up about it.
I still have a couple of tapes of yours Chris, one of them relating to Arthur Dent’s best pal “Controller Searl” Will return it to you if you feel you want it back.
Chris I did move about a few times around that period even stayed in Perth for a couple of years. Sorry about that.
Would add at this point that inertia may be the result of gyroscopic reaction at subatomic level. My guess is as good as theirs.
Will have a look at Mill’s stuff.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Chris Blythe - 10/05/2005 10:48:15
| | | Cheers for the call Sandy, good to hear from you. The interesting link with regards to inertia is:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0012/0012025.pdf
a classical and discarded theory, but discarded when it covers so much ground that modern day theory does not reach?
regards
Chris
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Chris Blythe - 09/10/2012 17:25:15
| | | It would be good to hear from you again Sandy, I hope this finds you well, if you get this drop me a line at chrisblythe2012@gmail.com with your number and I'll give you a ring...best regards Chris
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
