|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
23 November 2024 21:40
|
|
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: |
Sandy Kidd |
| Subject: |
Conservation |
| Question: |
A Question of Conservation.
On a couple of occasions I have seen statements referring to the fact that angular momentum and linear momentum are separately conserved.
If this is true then inertial drives, or at least drives of the type that I am trying to develop are deemed to be impossible.
The questions I would like to ask are :-
1 Why do they have to be separately conserved?
2 If it is found that linear momentum and angular momentum are not separately conserved what effect would this have on the conservation laws or any of the other laws?
Sandy Kidd
|
| Date: |
20 May 2005
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 21/05/2005 18:13:29
| | | Dear Sandy,
I am sure you know the answer to this already so I guess you are flying a kite to see if anyone with a conventional scientific background has the courage to try and explain their adherence to the belief that linear and angular momentum are always separately conserved.
It should be said that adherence to this belief is understandable as, like the third law, it is confirmed by so much of our common experience in things mechanical. I also think that their adherence to this belief is often in no small measure due to the appalling lack of things practical now being taught or even encouraged during the educational process. Few are prepared or, sadly, able to try to put simple fundamental mechanics to their own test and so have to rely instead on repeating others beliefs untested which can lead to incredible inverted pyramids of “knowledge” founded on a tiny pin of long forgotten past error. This is a pity as, at least in the belief that linear and angular momentums are always separately conserved, they are wrong.
From the small amount I have seen, your pared gyros are given a rotational input that results in a linear output. Before knowing of your endeavours I made devices that similarly converted rotary to linear and -as often occurs in mechanics – a mirror; the conversion of linear to rotary. As far as I have been able to tell none of the generally accepted laws of conservation or indeed the third law itself (apart from an adjustment needed when it is applied to the rotation of a mass that is then rotated!) were destroyed by this so there still remains a nice firm foundation for any scientist, who may be scared of looking over the edge, to stand on.
I do hope that someone suitably scientific is prepared to try to explain how conservation is split between linear and rotary. Perhaps they will also be able to provide the video of the “first year student’s demonstration” of the stationary centre of mass of a precessing gyro as well. I am still holding my breath on that one, Arthur Dent, David Fisher et al.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/05/2005 14:39:41
| | | An answer to this question will not help, or hinder your future success, or failure. The only thing that can help is mechanical knowledge, mechanical know how and a separation from math-based contrivances and false mechanical inventions for the sole reason of supporting a way to count, regardless of how the mechanics in the universe really, really work. When someone tries to point you into the right direction with a map of logic and truth you come back with a silly question like this. What dose it matter? Go to the ‘Archulation’ post and begin to work on it if you want answers. There eventually, you can learn how to begin to create your own answers and know how to prove them to be true.
For years you have seen the evidence of confusion. If you accept and relate to the written concepts of dynamics, then you are told even before you begin that what you are trying to do is imposable. Yet you know beyond question, from observation and test that gyroscopic actions do not obey in all ways the Laws of dynamics. So why are you bothering with concepts that defy you? You must find, or create something new, something different, that is creating corrections to the way we think. This requires effort and involvement. What are you risking? Someone made you a promise didn’t they? After forty years don’t you want the method and means that allow you use the knowledge you have accumulated in all that time? Want to prove me wrong somehow? Want to beat me up with brilliant retorts? Wont to grind me into the ground with logic for attacking you? Then participate in the discussion of ‘Archulation’. Attack it all you want as time goes by and anyway you can. This way you will be learning how to apply your hard earned knowledge and perhaps learning something new somewhat against your will in the beginning perhaps. Sandy, I may win you over yet to help guide and teach others, until the group comes to learn how and then begins to guide and teach each other and us, and certainly me too.
Conservation last only until it is altered. Because it is your purpose to alter it, the conservation of motion must be approached as only a well-known concept. Please report to the Archulation Post and go to work. I urge you with much respect to your wisdom and knowledge.
With my Warmest Regards,
Glenn Hawkins
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 23/05/2005 07:37:55
| | | Good morning Nitro & Glenn,
Thanks very much Nitro, you saw through that one immediately. We both know the answer, but I thought I would ask it anyway, for the hell of it and as this one seems to have escaped scrutiny.
Thanks to you also Glenn, but it matters very much to us if they are separately conserved.
Luckily they are not.
Very much like most of the theory relating to gyroscopes, this is just another erroneous belief.
However Glenn I do think your heart in the right place and mean well.
Glenn, notice that the bold NM saw through the reasons for my question immediately
Nitro is also very well aware of the reasons that I asked it.
Eventually someone is going to hang themselves with their answers, which will create much merriment for us.
Please never ever consider that I do not know the answers to my own questions, or cannot back up any claim I make.
This is a forum and as such I think it is the ideal medium for debating controversial questions.
How else do we all learn?
Do not think there was such thing as “Archulation” when I started this.
Everything I have discovered has been the result of experiment and luck.
Maybe they go hand in hand?
Quite frankly that is the only way you are going to get to grips with it.
All the reasoning in the world would not have led me to the information gained.
However thanks again Glenn, and the best of luck with “Archulation”
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 06/08/2005 21:08:45
| | | Here is a simple question tossed in the ring with the same spirit as Sandy:
Given 2 gyroscopes built exactly the same way with only one difference; the flywheels of the gyros have different mass (therefore have different weights on earth) even though they have the same dimensions. (The wheels are made of different materials).
Both gyros are spun with the same angular velocity.
Will their rate of precession be different or the same?
If there is a difference, which one will display faster precession the lighter one or the heavier one?
Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
