|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
27 November 2024 10:57
|
|
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: |
Eric James ----- |
| Subject: |
To conserve or not to conserve... (Uba's Demon) |
| Question: |
Forum,
Okay, so the universe is an apparently un-conserved system. In it we find lots of energy doing lots of stuff with no apparent symmetrical negative energy undoing lots of stuff.
Big whoop. Individual systems within it still appear to be conserved. What good does this do us in the IP field?
Not much. But it hints at the possibility that momentum and energy might not always be conserved.
Mathematically, there is a “demon” that hints at the possibility that energy can be created from nothing, but it “functions” just out of reach in a boundary layer of background “noise” that prevents us from operating it successfully. Specifically, I refer to Maxwell’s Demon which primarily references the 2nd law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy).
Now let me tell you about a new demon. Let’s tentatively call it “Uba's Demon.” It is a demon of momentum.
Let’s consider a gyroscope. Specifically, a gyroscope in isolation:
There it is, happily spinning in space, which it would pleasantly do forever if left undisturbed. Let’s disturb it.
There is a bearing axle that protrudes from the axis. Let’s attach a rocket to the axle such that it applies a torque to the axle parallel to the gyro’s rotation (90 degrees relative to the axle). The rocket is designed to maintain the same angle of attack at all times (not tumble with the axle due to friction).
Start the rocket (say with 1g of acceleration for the system). What happens?
The whole system accelerates linearly at the rate of 1g, but you get a bonus. You get precession.
The linear acceleration is conserved and is separate from the apparent angular motion of the precession. That is that all of the rocket’s linear momentum is linearly imparted to the gyro system. It accelerates away at the same rate as would any equivalent mass, except…
The gyro precesses around the rocket, but not like gyros precess on Earth. The whole system will rotate around its center of mass, and thus the rocket will correspondingly rotate around the gyro. Its exhaust forms a helix shaped tail.
This precession is a response to the applied torque, but it is not a reaction. That is that as long as the torque is applied the gyro precesses, but if we shut down the rocket the angular precession ceases. There is no permanent angular momentum change imparted to the gyro by the rocket...
Except that we have a problem with friction at the axle causing the gyro to slow down (which correspondingly increases the precession rate).
Taking the system as a whole (including the exhaust) we can see that the rocket’s pressure causes the gyro to lose angular momentum due to friction with a corresponding increase in angular momentum to the exhaust (the helix of the exhaust spreads faster as the rocket twists around faster due to the increase in the gyro wheel’s entropy which causes the precession rate to correspondingly increase).
So, here is the demon:
What if we could incorporate perfect bearings that prevent the loss of momentum to the gyro disc? Of course we then would have a stable exhaust helix streaming from the rocket, but the exhaust would still have angular momentum.
Therefore, the whole system (including the exhaust) increases angular momentum internally, apparently against the law of conservation of angular momentum.
To be continued…
Eric |
| Date: |
17 August 2005
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 17/08/2005 20:33:32
| | | Dear Eric,
Seems a good start, though brace yourself for charges of heresy. To save having the complication of a spiralling rocket trajectory and exhaust, use a balanced pair of gyros mounted either side of the rocket.
Kind Regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Eric James ----- - 17/08/2005 23:14:36
| | | Nitro,
I want the rocket to spiral. It is the spiral that induces an angular momentum into the exhaust. This is where the net additional angular momentum lies. A momentum that shouldn't exist (according to the conservation laws).
Eric
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 18/08/2005 12:20:29
| | | The system will not rotate about its combined centre of mass. Gyroscopes don’t do that. The centre of rotation will be the mass centre of the rocket. No spiral exhaust.
You have described the space variant of the gyroscope on a tower, with rocket acceleration replacing gravity. Your variation also gives the friction free environment of the air table for the support.
A gyroscope free to rotate in the horizontal plane, as in your thought experiment (and in my string experiment), does not rotate about the joint centre of mass.
This is one of the gyroscope anomalies we all seek to exploit.
There would however be the inward acting force observed by Sandy (at high precessional speed). This could give you a spiral exhaust, but as this is itself a heretical idea, I’m not sure that it will help a great deal to convince the establishment.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 18/08/2005 12:31:25
| | | Dear Eric & NM,
I normally tend to keep away from hypothetical discussions of this nature .
However, please make some allowances for this old man.
I am obviously missing something here, or have the wrong end of the stick.
Please inform me as to how the gyro can go into precession without angular acceleration..
Accelerating the gyroscope parallel to and with the rocket will not impart the differential required to create precession.
Nothing will happen.
Please inform me as to where I have dropped the clanger.
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 18/08/2005 19:48:33
| | | Dear Eric,
The reason I suggested two horizontally opposed pivoted gyros was that it seems possible to do away with the complications of the rocket and the spiral exhaust path yet still end up with an acceleration that has not been justified in the usual manor. The linear acceleration produced by the rocket may be more conveniently substituted by that produced by a long and gentle spring with a weight attached to its end (so the acceleration by it of an attached weight may be more easily observed and videoed). Two gyros are horizontally opposed to the vertical movement of the weight’s path and pivotally mounted to the weight.
1. This assembly on the bottom of the spring is extended, with the gyros static, to a set point and released. Its vertical acceleration is videoed and noted over time at fixed vertical points.
2. The gyros are then spun up, held with their starting axial angles horizontal and the assembly extended to the same set point and released so that the vertical acceleration (together with gravity) can precess the now freed gyros.
As the total assembly’s weight has not been altered between 1. and 2., its vertical acceleration will be the same at any given vertical point before the vertical acceleration ceases. A torsional acceleration greater than that which would be cause by gravity alone causing the weight to rotate would seem to be left over.
It will be necessary to check that the loading on the gyro motors only increases to what would be expected by the increased bearing load caused by the spring’s acceleration, to be sure that the gyros don’t somehow load up to cause the weight’s rotation in some mysterious way.
Kind Regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Eric James ----- - 20/08/2005 20:47:17
| | | Momentus,
Although I disagree with your assertion, it doesn't really matter. You could have a pouch on the outer axle end dropping dust in a spiral and get the same effect.
Eric
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Eric James ----- - 20/08/2005 20:51:11
| | | Sandy,
The rocket is pushing on the axle like how an Earthbound gyro rests on a pintle (the rocket is parallel with the flat side of the gyro).
Eric
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Eric James ----- - 20/08/2005 20:57:25
| | | NM,
That sounds too complicated. Basically all I wish to do is depict an unexplainable circumstance that is relatively easy to perceive.
Anyway, when you combine gyros in a system, they tend to cancel each other out.
Eric
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 27/08/2005 21:23:13
| | | >> Although I disagree with your assertion, <<
Which one?
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Eric James ----- - 28/08/2005 03:03:48
| | | Momentus,
Your assertion that a gyro system (as I have described) will rotate about the center of mass for the rocket and not the center of amss for the system.
BTW, do you know Autymn?
Eric
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
dave brown - 28/08/2005 17:24:09
| | | quote:
The whole system accelerates linearly at the rate of 1g, but you get a bonus. You get precession.
I think someone said this in diffirent words but here it is. If the whole system is accelerated at 1g, then it is moving through space. No difference of force on the 2 ends of the axis, no precession.
- unlike on earth, on a pedistal, the other end is free to move.
about the spiral and hence, the motion/reason of/for precession:
There is centrifical force within the gyro itself.
- I have the 'pied' gyro near the end of the lecture in mind.
2 pool balls deflect when they hit so,
A force is applied to point x on the gyro, Action,
x will deflect away from the force. Reaction.
when it reaches the centricial limit, Action,
it will deflect back to alignment, Reaction.
x has momentum as it comes back to and through alignment, Momentum,
it will continue until it again reaches the centrifical limit, Action,
it will again deflect back to alignment, Reaction.
Where it once again reaches the applied force and starts all over, and for each point.
- I figured that all that happening in exactly 360 degrees of rotation was too convenient so I kept looking... .... it doesn't. Hence the movement of the forced end in the direction of the applied force; the center of mass of the rotating and now oscillating gyro has moved a pinch.
- - The relationship between gyro mass, diameter, and rotational speed...(energy) are related to the amount of movement of x in the direction of the applied force. Higher energy = less movement.
--- fyi: the reason his pied gyro continues to rotate is due the system's pivot point not being inline with the center of mass of the gyro. There is a lot of weight on the motor end.
Now, prevent the pied gyro from rotating,
extend it's axis of rotation and allow the ball/wire combo.s to move along it,
cut the gyro so that each ball/wire can move seperately,
now replace the spin force he imparts with a pool ball and
you will see the ball/wire combo.s spiral down the axis.
Neat stuff. Thanks for making me get that into words. :)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
dave brown - 28/08/2005 17:27:47
| | | clarification
when I said prevent the pied gyro from rotating, I meant in the direction he spins the system.
DO let the gyro spin. :)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 05/09/2005 12:14:11
| | | Hi Eric,
Have never heard of Autymn before, but did a google on the word. He is a prolific poster on science boards isn’t he? Was there a board in particular that you were interested in?
Regarding centre of rotation: I consider it is most unlikely that there is more than one anomaly in gyroscope behaviour. Perhaps I should say only one root cause, but several manifestations. My approach has been to simplify my theory and apparatus to establish this, the suspended offset gyroscope being as simple and transparent as can be. I am confident that I have found this root cause, the point of divergence from the accepted paradigm.
I assume that you accept my description of the behaviour of the basic model, but question the interpretation. (If you don’t accept the behaviour is as reported, you need to do the work for yourself then we can discuss)
There have been other comments regarding the use of a long cord on this forum, mainly in regard to its friction free properties. So here is my reasoning.
Suspend a weight from a fixed point; say a builder’s bob weight from a hook in the ceiling. Once it has settled down, ceased to move, it is possible to state that there is only the vertical force of gravity acting on the bob weight. If it then starts moving then it has been acted upon by an external force. It has been touched, or blown by the wind or whatever. You would not question this fact.
The obverse is also absolute. If it does not move there is no external force. That is the essence of the basic model. The string remains vertical and because it does not move there is no HORIZONTAL external force transmitted to or by the string or acting upon it in any way.
It is at this point that I could scream with frustration. How is it possible for any one with any knowledge of force and motion to look at the basic model and NOT see that it is doing the utterly impossible??? The mass cannot move itself, there must be an external force moving the mass. The only connection to the external reference frame is the string. When the string is vertical it is not transmitting, or reacting a force in the opposite direction to the movement of the mass. Ergo the mass is moving itself, which is impossible, so there must be an external force, but there isn’t because the cord cannot transmit anything other than a vertical force without forming an angle with the vertical!!
Apply this knowledge to your thought experiment. You are accelerating the rocket at 1g the reaction to this acceleration is the precession of the spinning gyroscope
Assume that the end of the shaft sits in a cup on the nose of the rocket. The conditions are identical to a gyroscope on a tower on earth. The forces acting at the cup are the same forces that act upon the string of the basic model. There is no lateral force transmitted from the precession of the gyroscope to string, to cup to tower or to the rocket. The tower and the rocket are inert lumps of mass, with no extra-ordinary attributes. Unless acted upon by an external force they will not change direction.
The rocket will continue to accelerate, in a ‘right’ line, with the gyroscope orbiting happily around it.
Your thought experiment is a demonstration of the gyroscope anomaly; the further discussions about conservation of angular momentum are based on a fallacy that the gyroscope behaves in a Newtonian manner, (rotating about the joint mass centre) whereas what you are trying to establish with the rocket is that it does not conserve momentum, which is in turn not Newtonian! The further discussions are interesting but go nowhere.
Sandy
The mass is offset from the thrust centre, and has to be accelerated. This is done by a couple (disputed couple) so it precesses.
Dave Brown.
You are confusing constant velocity with acceleration. There will be a couple acting on the gyroscope as it tries to remain at constant velocity, but the rocket insists that it keeps up with the acceleration of 1g. The rest of your post is ingenious, but you don’t get the coconut.
Momentus.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
dave brown - 06/09/2005 22:31:13
| | | Yes, I was a-miss on some points and in time, realized more.
The 1g of force constantly applied to one end would accelerate the gyro through space causing precission,
- It would also cause it's axis of ratation to change swiftly enough, as seen in lecture #8, near the end.
(Why are you doing it? I think the same effect as on earth is trying to be set up, but in space, without all the frictions: Air, support to table... Cool.)
- Although, and not that it matters i guess, I still feel like something is missing; Should the statement have been: There is a force equivalent to 1g for the whole gyroscope applied to one end....?
-- Just that the concept of 1g is eluding me.
Due to lecture #8 and some thinking, I realized that the force is not only down on the gyro but, up on the supported end.
- It is the up force that causes the change in the axis' orientation. The normal force.
- The whole gyro wants to fall, well, go straight through space/time, but the the support is torquing one end of it's axis.
-- Without the support, it would accelerate downward. a=mF
-- With the the support, it does not have one end falling, no, it effectively has one end being forced up, and it's axis of rotation is changing in relation to it's center of mass, but at the same radius as before from the pivot point.
Now, if the Force of the mass is being detected by a scale under the support, where did the acceleration go? The gyro is still hanging in 'mid-air', so now I/we need a formula for acceleration equalling precession times the gyro's properties.
--- I think I now know why it is called centripital acceleration.
Does the gyro's speed change other than due to fricition and air losses?
I also retried the bicycle wheel gyro and forced it in the direction of precession. the gyro rpm slowed.
I then forced against precesion and there was no easily noticeable change in rpm.
hmmm :)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
dave brown - 06/09/2005 22:59:05
| | | Oh yeah, it is starting to sound like a bonus.
Solong as a 3lb gyro still weighs 3lbs while precessing.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Eric James ----- - 07/09/2005 01:25:15
| | | Momentus and Luis,
Sorry to be absent lately. I made myself real busy elsewhere explaining chaos to some scientists/engineers. Not that it matters here, but I ended up with a total victory in the argument. Now, I seem to be busying myself in an effort to save the world from artificially created blackholes!
Anyway, you both have very valid assesments of the situation, but not quite in the way that you think.
Momentus, your string hangy thing is of particular importance. This reflects directly on one of Einstein's basic tenants. That being the equivalence principal.
The equivalence principal basically states that it is impossible in a sealed room to conduct an experiment that could distinguish the difference between gravity and constant acceleration.
If as you state that the preccession in the room is still around the point of applied torque, then progression of mass off of its center of gravity in isolation is possible! This proves self-contained propulsion is indeed a real possibility.
On the other hand if it only spins around the center of mass for the system, there'd be noticable and measurable acceleration and deceleration effects of the room being jerked around.
In either case, we find serious flaws with the current model of physics and we can't have it both ways!
Luis, I pretty much agree with Sandy that J isn't particularly important. What is important are net acceleration results regardless of how they are achieved.
If as Momentus states the precession always happens around the point of applied torque, then I believe your concept will work (from what I can infer of it). However if I'm correct and it revolves around the center of mass, then it won't work, but it is still an important discovery.
Eric
P.S. Momentus, Autymn (I believe) is an AI chatbot that's being tested on the web. "She" often has continuity problems between posts and your question about the assertion thing seemed to be right in line with her patterns. Sorry to have implied that you might be an AI.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 08/09/2005 11:06:02
| | | Eric,
>>Momentus, your string hangy thing is of particular importance. This reflects directly on one of Einstein's basic tenants. That being the equivalence principal.<<
String hangy thing has a certain quaint charm, but on reflection, basic model is still the description I prefer.
As I have said, repeatedly, it is not a question of what you believe, (there are other sites where belief is the first requirement). Either do the experiment or accept the results. If as you still believe, the offset gyroscope rotates about the centre of mass, a simple observation will prove it to you personally one way or the other. Your choice.
I have not thought about equivalency, but I have considered uncertainty, comparability, EPR, dark matter, wave/particle duality, all of which are simplified/explained by the basic model.
It brings quantum effects into the macro world. My admittedly very crude particle concept is totally scalable and passes the slit/polarisation of both particle and magnet pole test.
The “Internal Propulsion” (not my phrase but I like it a lot) mechanism that I envisage can tell the difference between acceleration/deceleration, recovering energy to reduce velocity, requiring energy to speed up, and no energy exchange when hovering in a “gravity well”.
That last one relates to equivalence, as acceleration due to gravity is perceived by my mechanism as static force. Just as placing your hand between a brick and the top of a wall. You feel the force but the brick is not moving, no energy exchange.
If you sat on the nose of the hypothetical rocket, same brick, you would get the same feeling but a massive expenditure of energy is needed to accelerate the total mass including the brick.
Ergo, it is possible to tell the difference >> “to conduct an experiment that could distinguish the difference between gravity and constant acceleration.” <<
This is an exiting new thought, for which I thank you.
Many a Thesis will be thesed, Doctorates Doctored and PhDs Peed, Nobels will be nobled. Science will say, we knew this all along really. Hope it happens in my lifetime, I want to go to the moon. (In Half a day at a constant and comfortable continuous 1g acceleration)
So where’s the University with one, informed, questing, open mind??
Momentus.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 08/09/2005 11:27:10
| | | Eric:
To continue >>This proves self-contained propulsion is indeed a real possibility<<
It is more than a possibility. My gyry walky thingy moves up a friction free surface. No ifs buts or qualifications.
The gyroscope walker described in ID 350 moves by internal action without external horizontal force. It is explained in sufficient detail for the experiment to be replicated. You can choose to do the work, or feel free to use the information, citing your source naturally.
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Eric James - 09/09/2005 02:18:31
| | | Momentus,
The hanging string test works like it does because the whole contraption is in Earth's gravitational field, and ergo it is all part of Earth's system. The center of mass isn't in the gyro, it is in the whole system (including the Earth). Try it on an air table and you'll see what I mean.
There are also gyros that are isolated in gimbals that just spin in place by themselves but will precess around in a circle when you hang a weight on an axle. The wieght (point of applied torque) doesn't just stay put, rather it orbits around the gyro. A site I referred Luis to earlier has a little animation of such a system.
I don't think it's quantum effects at all. It's just that Newton didn't perceive every possibility. Same goes for Einstein.
I don't know what you mean by "ID 350," but I remember brief descriptions of your concept here and there. Your walky thingy is pretty neat, but keep in mind that it is resting ON something in order to precess and is therefore part of Earth's system.
It doesn't really matter though. Einstein's equivalency thingy is shot to heck because of it. I wrote a bit about this elsewhere a year or so ago, but nothing came of it. It'd be nice if someone in the physics community examined it, but I've tried many venues and get nothing but stoney silence.
Anyway, should you go for the Nobel, remember me when you get there.
Eric
P.S. Let's stop CERN from destroying the Earth with their doomsday machine!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 10/09/2005 11:27:02
| | | Eric
>> Try it on an air table and you'll see what I mean. <<
There is a general assumption on the boards that an air bed is the only way to get “accurate” gyroscope behaviour. This is nonsense.
Take an air bed, any air bed, place a light puck on the air bed, place a light tripod on the puck, hang an offset gyroscope from the tripod, as described in
http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=350
With the air bed switched OFF perform the experiment. The tower is part of the earth’s system; it will behave exactly as it always does. The string remains vertical, no HORIZONTAL force is passed by the string to anywhere, because there is no horizontal force, It is absent. It is not there this is a nonexistent force. (Bangs parrot on counter)
Now switch the air bed on, the puck floats, no frictional resistance, it is however still part of the earth’s system. Perform the same experiment. The string remains vertical what else can it do? No force is passed to the puck, it does not move, what else can it do?
What is the strange thing that will happen that I will see? What do you mean?
>> Einstein's equivalency thingy is shot to heck because of it. <<
I have pondered on this but conclude that the string experiment does not detect the difference between the two types of acceleration. Placed on the nose of a rocket accelerating at 1g it will behave as it does under 1g of gravity (with or without the air bed).
It is however a prerequisite of an “internal propulsion” space drive to be able to tell the difference. So if your own pet theory does not take the detection of the two types of acceleration into account, it is in all probability still in need of refinement.
>> I don't think it's quantum effects at all <<
Einstein was not convinced that quantum theory was complete. He worked to the last to figure this out, disagreeing with the consensus and being treated accordingly.
It is not quantum theory that produces his EPR paradox, it is classical physics. He was correct, but in the wrong way. It is not quantum theory that is wrong as he thought, but classical theory. Even his great mind was trapped “in the box”, as are all today’s great thinkers, products of their backgrounds and training. They are trying to solve complex problems with flawed basics; hence if you can’t do the math you can’t understand the solution. Only the advanced mathematical manipulation of symbols has the internal consistency to support the theories which bear no relation to reality.
If the correct concepts were assigned to the correct symbols, the conclusions would be based in reality.
Please bear in mind that any mathematician worth his salt will be able to give you at least three methods to prove momentum is conserved. There may well be more, I have only come across; calculus; LaGrange transformation; and somebody’s (was it Euler?) symmetries. The name escapes me.
These are absolute mathematically consistent proofs. If you were taught anything at Uni, then this has to have been part of it. Only those who did not have the benefit of a higher education can think the unthinkable. The exception was Prof Laithwaite, who got the Einstein treatment. Conform or be ostracised.
>> Newton didn't perceive every possibility. <<
It depends: if you look at his third law “opposed motion” This is interpreted as equal and opposite displacement.
He however used the word motion as we now use the word momentum. Centripetal acceleration is change of momentum, but the displacement is defined as tangential, i.e. at right angles to the opposed force. Equal and opposite motion but not equal and opposite displacement.
To be fair to those who interpreted his work, he himself does give examples which show opposed displacements, so the great myth was born, which has distorted our developed society in a way that must be unique in the galaxy. Is this why we do not get visitors? Lol.
Nobel prizes are for scientists. I am not a scientist.
Momentus
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis AE Gonzalez - 18/12/2005 01:20:36
| | | I see items that need some attention in this thought-experiment.
Setting - Thrust produces a force that gives the mass of the system as a whole, an acceleration of 1g or 32 feet per second per second.
A small gyro (with a small mass) inside the cabin of a large accelerating rocket (with a very large mass) behaves in close to the same manner as a gyro does on the surface of earth.
However, as long as the masses of the rocket and the gyro are of similar magnitude, then the direction of the torque can NOT be both a) exactly perpendicular to the other end of the gyro’s axis and b) still maintain a constant angle of attack (i.e. not letting the interaction of both objects cause changes in angular momentum around each other).
To prevent the mass of both objects from making each one adjust by turning, the torque or acceleration must be directed to the center of mass of the system as a whole (in order to maintain both objects’ direction constant). Precession is still induced but at a slightly different rate due to the non- perpendicular torque which is a bit less strong (alternatively, slightly larger thrust/force may be applied).
Most important, since the flywheel of the gyro is constantly changed by precession, the direction of thrust must be repositioned constantly to push toward the changing center of mass and this requires additional torques/accelerations. (Attempts to oversimplify will often introduce unintended complexities.)
Next, the “spiral” may result when using real world gyros that always have a degree of deadweight and of friction in them. This spiral would not be caused by the center of mass of both objects in relationship to the precession. Precession does not have equal and opposite reaction at 180 degrees.
Nitro’s idea of balancing two gyros eliminates the unintended complexity (unfortunately he introduces other types of complexity; it is flaw of human nature) and appears to vindicate the main premise in the focus of this thread; precession appears to be a free byproduct of acceleration when gyros are involved. This is exactly what occurs on the surface of earth. However, the rocket thought-experiment illustrates that a small self sustained system stands to gain tremendously more from the anomalies of gyros than a system on the surface of earth.
Momentus, I respect your ideas and clarification of points, but must inform you that you did not present how one can differentiate between gravity and acceleration in an enclosed environment; Einstein thought he could not, and I am not sure whether I can dispute it. Also, I would be extremely impressed if anyone can tell me why it is necessary for internal-propulsion to differentiate between constant acceleration and gravity (a successful device only needs to incrementally augment velocity and does not need to augment acceleration).
To learn more about how “J” fits, see posting on “The Illusive Third Derivative”
Thank you, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Eric James ----- - 18/12/2005 17:02:16
| | | Luis,
The point isn't to stabilize the rocket in a straight line vector. The point is that the rocket will NOT be in a straight line vector even though it is simply accelerating normally. In other words the point is to LET the interaction of both objects cause changes in angular momentum around each other (the opposite to your statement).
Normal acceleration doesn't include an angular element. The addition of an apparently permanent angular element to the exhaust without a reactionary permanent angular change to the rocket/gyro system is the key to understanding this "demon."
Eric
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 20/12/2005 16:42:24
| | | Eric,
If we ignore the issues regarding angle of attack (and also assume a perfect gyro), then there will be no exhaust spiral (at all).
Many tests (including a couple in the Christmas Lecture), and devices (including some, if not all, in the Heretic video) prove that precession does not have an opposite 180 degree reaction. This is the principle that started the gyro-propulsion effort (though some designs appear not to make use of it, at least directly).
Your thought-provoking experiment did initiate interesting lines of analysis and discussion that I hope will be resolved sometime.
I still believe that Einstein’s equivalence principal holds true (and may always hold true); lets see if anyone proves it wrong).
Thank you, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
