|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
6 May 2024 13:16
|
|
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: |
LACK OF REACTION, ALWAYS TRUE? |
| Question: |
I have questions. I don’t intend to debate, or argue. Do you have answers?
FRIST QUESTION:
We find that during constant precession produced by a constant magnitude of force there is no rearward reaction to precession. However, do you find that as you would increasingly apply greater force to constantly increase the rate of precession, there is an equal and opposite reaction rearward to precession during the time the acceleration is present?
Glenn,
|
| Date: |
19 April 2006
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 20/04/2006 04:38:36
| | | Dear Glen,
You have hit on what I believe to be one of the main anomalies (to the conservation and other laws) to do with Gyros.
The typical gyro on its Eiffel tower has gravity acting to change the axial angle downwards with the tower acting to stop this which in effect pushes up on the tower end of the axis.
Any (90 degree displaced in the gyro’s case) reaction would reasonably be expected to centre at or near the centre of mass. Were this actually to be so, the reaction to the (as near to instantaneous as you can get – Luis) acceleration into precession caused by releasing the gyro to “fall” into precession would cause the tower to be pushed over by the tower end of the axis reaction opposite to the direction of precession.
That the tower does not get pushed over would seem an anomaly as would the force (gravity in this example) acting on the gyro’s mass causing precession at a fixed SPEED of rotation instead of a constant ACCELERATION as would be expected with a force acting on a mass under Newton (Nitro’s first law in action again?).
Kind regards
NM
PS Could Luis and Sandy please kiss and make up as I hate to see two good contributors biting chunks out of each other just because they approach the problems from different directions.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 20/04/2006 10:32:30
| | | Glenn & NM,
With regard to this part posting by Nitro
“That the tower does not get pushed over would seem an anomaly as would the force (gravity in this example) acting on the gyro’s mass causing precession at a fixed SPEED of rotation instead of a constant ACCELERATION as would be expected with a force acting on a mass under Newton (Nitro’s first law in action again?)”
Top of the class, Nitro. Top of the class.
Well Nitro that’s at least 2 of us suffering from delusions.
I still can’t find any of Luis’s virtual angular momentum anywhere.
Still looking, but not hopeful
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 20/04/2006 14:14:44
| | | Very good, men. Thank you very much. Have you dealt with applying extra force downward with, and in addition to allowing gravity to work in the tower example? If so, have you come to additional conclusions?
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 20/04/2006 18:36:27
| | | Dear Glen,
In practice there always is an added down force to a precessing gyro and that is from the small extra weight (mass if you prefer, or happen to be in space) of the gyro’s cage. You can easily set up a simple test to see the effect of this and any other (reasonable) extra down force that you can simply generate with an added weight. Hang the gyro, with its axis horizontal, from a long thread (the longer the better) instead of setting it on an Eiffel tower. It will be seen that the non spinning mass of the cage and any added weight shows the normal expected effect of the centrifugal (sorry) force acting upon the non spinning weight as it is rotated by the gyro’s precession.
The Gyros path will therefore, not surprisingly, be seen to slowly describe an increasingly outward path as the non-spinning mass is gradually centrifuged outwards. Surprisingly however, after travelling outwards to a certain point, the gyro will then start to describe an inward path and almost return to its start point. This weird effect is, I think, caused by Nitro’s first law acting on the gyro that droops slightly as it travels outward.
An interestingly similar, though non gyro dynamic, reaction transfer effect (that I’ve tried to describe before) can be seen with a “Slinky” spring that every British child has converted into an undoable (“word” says that word exists – so it must be so!) black knot at some stage of their childhood. If said slinky is fixed at its top end at a height, hung with a reasonable weight on its bottom end and released it will at first do what you expect and “yo-yo” up and down. After a while however, the torque on the coils of the spring takes over and gradually the weight on the bottom will, instead of going up and down, rotate clockwise then anti-clockwise until it resembles one of those horrid clocks in a glass dome that everyone’s Aunt had in the sixties. After a while longer the rotation transfers again to an up and down motion and so on and so on until friction's toll stops it.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 20/04/2006 21:21:37
| | | Dear Nitro,
Thank you, Nitro. What a fine reply! Fine in deed. Very big question coming, now, perhaps tougher than it appears at least to me.
Do you think there would be a different result if force were applied without adding mass of any kind; therefore avoiding the effects of the inertial characteristics that come with adding mass? For instance, suppose you were to cape a precessing gyro with a wide washer of polished steel, oiled and kept horizontal as it were forced to descend increasingly faster against the ball joint of the outside axel of the gyro. Do you have an opinion as to what would happen to the tower respective to maintaining its position?
Kindly,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 21/04/2006 18:05:43
| | | Dear Glen,
The type and means of downforce does not matter (the gyro cannot "see" what is pushing its axle down) the gyro would transfer the downforce force straight down the centre of the Eiffel tower (less the small amount of centrifugal caused by its cage - as described above) and precess faster due to the increased downforce.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 21/04/2006 20:39:15
| | | Thank you Nitro,
You’ve been good to reveal your mind to me, which is all I ever wanted. We are getting somewhere finally as your reply reveals. Every question I have asked was about the Type and Means of applied downward force and what affect the difference might have on precession. Please pause and think for a moment about the term someone here coined, ‘dead weight’. Dose precession have to deal with extra dead weight, if extra dead weight has been used as the means of applying extra force downward on the gyro? Would the gyro have to deal with extra dead weight horizontally, if force was transmitted through downward pressure, rather than from added weight? Can you rethink if horizontal motion should behave differently depending on the type of force used vertically, whether by gravity, or mechanical pressure? There seems to be a whole lot more to this than centrifuge, but of course as you say--that too. Starting from this point we might go further.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/04/2006 03:40:52
| | | Dear Nitro,
Doggone! I ask a simple question, a baby question, but involving complex mechanics I did not dare mention. Ask a baby question and rightly you get baby answers, but ask complicated questions and you get no answers at all. You lose either way. I learned this on various sites. Never the less I would have thought that it should have been known by now that I am advance beyond the simple and that baby answers do me no good. The fault is mine. I accept fault in the over simplified way I ask, it’s just that sometimes your damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
I still need information, confirmations, challenges and the working of other people’s minds that I can relate to an unreliable series of tests I’ve completed some time ago. It seems nobody has entertained, tested, or questioned deeply the areas of my interest, or they’d know what I want.
Keeping one aspect of one condition, to which you replied, as overly simplified as I possibly can, you may think about it this way. A boy lifts a pail of water and begins running in a straight line as fast as he can. The bucket trails him as he accelerates. (We all know about inertia.) The boy reaches his top speed and the water of its own accord neither moves forward, or rearward, but coast. The boy stops and the bucket attempts to continue forward.
The boy could have accelerated faster, but the bucket resisted. He had to push harder rearward against the ground, because there was extra resistance to acceleration in the bucket of mass he carried. The harder push was an equal and opposite reaction. When the boy stopped the condition reversed.
My question was: If precession were accelerated Fast and continiously, would there a rearward reaction to acceleration that pushes against the pedestal, Eiffel Tower, posts, brace, plate, floor, mounting, wheels, bearings, track, or anything else we can think to call the recipient of rearward reaction?
Now suppose the boy lifts a supper lightweight ceramic magnet an inch above a railroad track and then starts running down the track as fast as he can. The downward pull of the magnet is equal to the force of gravity on the pail of water. The boy reaches his top speed and stops suddenly. There would be only a small inertial effect upon the supper lightweight ceramic during those conditions; very much unlike there was with the pail of water, which has a lot more mass. Pointedly, the boy would not have had to push harder rearward against the ground to accelerate with the ceramic. Hence, there’s no extra rearward reaction to acceleration cause by downward pressure, unless it is a force caused by mass.
I mentioned a side issue of this in the above post to do with horizontal motion resulting from vertical mechanical pressure, verses mass under gravity.
Yes, if the boy runs in a curving path centrifuge comes in to play also, but do we not also know that in accelerating rotation, as in a flywheel, there is an equal and opposite reaction to acceleration and or, deceleration, but not to coasting? Believe me! this can get complicated.
The tower experiment fools you, I think? Rearward reaction from acceleration may be only a hiccup, a quick, short balancing nutation that doesn’t register rearward, because of Nitro’s Law. But, if acceleration is constantly applied, force increasing increased, beyond the quick, short adjusting hiccup; do you get a rearward reaction during this constantly increasing acceleration where the hiccup isn’t allowed to happen instantly? ‘A frightening aspect for builders perhaps, but if this can be overcome.’ If however, these conditions exist as I question, and aren’t known about, then the problem would not to be overcome in design, and many good efforts based on current reasoning here would fail.
I’m not going to mention my tests and their modest suggestions and my tentative conclusions, because I was sincere when I said that I wanted to receive answers, not to teach, debate, or rant. I hoped somebody had done some work in this area and I could benefit. Tests of any kind would be good.
However, if this is an area that hasn’t been questioned, tested and scrutinized deeply, then I withdraw my question and hope I haven’t frightened anybody.
I do not shrink however; from properly and sincerely saying I appreciate you, Nitro. You do in deed well know the gyro bitch, the little bitch that has ruined men’s lives on at least two continents. (Perhaps to some degree even on an island?)
Thanking you once again with sincerity and a since of friendship,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 22/04/2006 14:23:14
| | | Glenn,
As I understand it, precession itself is a reaction (due to the Conservation of Momentum causing the spin radius to shorten on one side, but lengthen on the other), so there is no rearward reaction to precession.
Adding a dead weight will also produce no rearward reaction. The instantaneous acceleration of gravity is independent of the mass. And the instantaneous acceleration is all we have, since the mass acted upon vertically is constantly spinning away, being replaced by new mass.
Jerry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 22/04/2006 16:58:27
| | | Glenn,
I have experimented using elastic that stretches from a lower side of the gyro-frame to the outer end of a light stiff metal length. The light metal length is attached at the lower portion of a vertical road. The hinged end of the gyro-axle attaches to the top of the same vertical road through the hinge (with up-down freedom). The vertical axle is mounted through a bearing on a stand so when the elastic pulls down on the gyro, all parts (gyro, hinge, vertical road, light metal length, and elastic) are free to rotate around-sideways on the bearing. This configuration still does not provide an increasing downward force upon the gyro because the force exerted by the elastic starts strong and weakens (it’s the opposite of what you want). However it does provide a way to increase the downward force that is placed upon the gyro. It also eliminates the inertia that is created around-sideways when using weights.
First I stretch the elastic to swing the gyro up to a higher position. Then I spin up the gyro to desired velocity. When I let go the gyro, the system has a tendency to jump (kind up and back in a sort of angular manner) as a result of the initial jolt from the elastic’s sudden pull.
I would think that the elastic creates a very brief period of extreme acceleration downward (before starting to decelerate due to loss of stretch). I have NOT noticed a sideways effect, but my stand is probably a bit heavier than is optimal for this experiment.
The experiment is not extraordinarily hard to build (it all takes effort and time), but I haven’t tried this specific test for over a year. Maybe you can figure a way to replace the elastic with something that increases the pull over the time frame desired.
Thank you, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/04/2006 17:13:51
| | | Hi my friend Jerry,
This is sort of incredible isn’t it?
Has anyone ever thought of testing their beliefs before confirming them? I can suggest how to do simple tests that require little time and effort. Don’t take my word for anything—funny, as if someone here might. You may determine for yourself what the tests mean, and you yourself can confirm, or deny whether you have had it right, or wrong all this time. Don’t take my word. Test your word.
Before I would explain these little tests I would require that no less than three people agree to actually do the tests if they are as easy and simple as I say.
You are industrious and tireless. You might hit upon something some day, who can say? Here’s to hoping you do.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/04/2006 17:47:25
| | | Hello Luis,
First things first. I’m delighted you’ve done tests in this area. Now I will study your post.
I’ve just read it. Thank you Luis. I encounter the same problem using rubber bands in various ways, before quickly giving up. I’m really glad somehow to learn that we tried the same thing. You might consider using two magnets, which would produce more force the closer together they came, but I think unless such a contraption were designed with precision engineered it would foul up one way, or another. If I could reason how to do it, you could reason how, but it might not be necessary to test that way.
Another thing I found with rubber bands is that they must be stretched tight enough to do the job and therefore when they are first released they totally overwhelm the balance of the angular momentum in the spinning disk and so again rubber band testing reveals inconclusive evidence. Sometimes it is as you said, and sometimes nothing but a small controlled movement is witnessed.
Thank you, Luis,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 23/04/2006 13:21:14
| | | Hi Lous,
I didn’t explain myself well and also I want to help you with your experiment. Speaking for myself, I’m not looking for sideways movement. Consider a binary star system where each star rotates around the other. Consider tying two balls together with a string and tossing them up in the air so that they rotate around one another before they fall. This is what I’m looking for. I think as the gyro precess’ in rotation, the tower should rotate in the opposite direction in a binary way if the downward force is constantly increased.
The objection to this belief comes from the Eiffel Tower experiment. Let’s look at that a moment. When you drop a spinning gyro onto the tower, the gyro reacts at a 90o angle and lunges forward. (Nitro’s Law.) When the gyro lunges forward, force suddenly reacts at 90o upward. (Nitro’s Law) One can see this upward force reaction by pushing with his finger on a precessing gyro to make it go faster.
We have downward, forward, upward, a chain reaction that happens as Nitro indicated, about as simultaneous as it gets. It is the upward force tendency I believe, which compensates for the reaction that should occurs at the tower. Otherwise the tower should twist in a binary way to the acceleration of the gyro into precession.
If we deny this upward tendency to manifest it’s self by continuously increasing downward force, then I think the tower should binary rotate with the gyro.
For this and other reasons I think there will be a rearward reaction consequence to accelerating precession from accelerating downward force. I am looking for a tower rearward reaction.
So as you experiment you might want to take a look at this.
Cheers,
Glenn
By the way my experiment involved a particularly powerful gyro mounted with reinforced steel wires to the inside of a large bearing housed in a sliding double ball bearing track (sliding door track Home Depot). I fixed it so the track could swivel any direction opposite to pressure and of course there were the large rubber bands. It was a failure I concluded, because of the same problems you mentioned.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 23/04/2006 14:42:03
| | | Glenn,
Speaking of coming up with something, I think you may have.
I've been thinking for about a week about your 9 gyroscope experiments you described on another thread, especially the one in which a knife edge was used to stop precession. You said the downwards movement of the gyro indicated that the precession was what caused the counter-ballancing lift. At first, I was skeptical, since the knife exerted a force, and the reaction to this force may have caused the downwards movement. But now you point out that pushing the gyro with your finger increases the lift, so I'm thinking that you're right about the precessional action/lift result. Considering Conservation of Momentum, with the bottom of the gyro spinning in the direction of precession, the added velocity - from precession - on this horizontal side of the rim will cause the spin radius to shorten, and the gyro will move upwards. Likewise, the top rim, spinning away from the direction of precession, will be slowed, so the spin radius will lengthen, with the gyro also experinecing an upwards lift as a result.
So it seems to me that you've proven that precession is what causes the lift which enables a gyroscope to counter-ballance against grayity!
Jerry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 23/04/2006 17:57:37
| | | Yes Jerry. If we have it right the horizontal tilting during precession is what causes a 90o upward lift.
As you mention as well as Sandy, rim speed variation in the vertical, and changing radiuses may be the leverage that causes precession.
What I’m into now is the possibilities of there being a ‘horizontal rearward reaction against the tower’, because of constantly accelerating, increasing in magnitude, a downward force in order to constantly accelerate precession.
Last night a realization came to me of how it all should work in it’s entirety. I had sought this understanding for twelve years. It goes and comes feebly in my mind. I would like to see this study we do through other people’s mind. It would be different for each of us and I’m sure it would be fascinating to see. What a strange thing indeed it would be to see as a different human mind sees, especially on gyroscopes. As for myself there is a lot of motion in my mind of various objects traveling in various curvatures exerting force. It get’s hard to hold onto sometimes. Maybe I’ll be able to put it all together solidly with this new revelation of last night. I don’t have the fuzzy picture clear enough to know yet. If I can there may not be anything left to know about the troublesome little flywheel made to do tricks that nature never intended. We’ll see. Even if I get it I can’t present it. Well, I guess that’s enough about me, but I’ve just had a heck of a glimpse, twelve years in the making, of an out of focus little world of motion. The final, I think. I don’t think I’ll be able to hold on to it.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 24/04/2006 11:30:38
| | | Glenn,
Yeah, I once had a flash of understanding too, about 30 years ago. It was how the gyroscope resembles the universe and how it couples to the entire universe. But I lost it after that instant of knowing. I hope you get yours back.
But if there is a rearward, horizontal reaction to precession, wouldn't it be easy to see using a string rather than a pedestal? It looks to me like the torque - ie, off center rotation - which causes precession is a local force, with precession itself being the reaction. On the other hand, the centrufugal effect Nitro describes might mask what you're looking for. I'll have to keep thinking about it. Maybe Luis can calculate the expected centrifugal force (ie, the equal but opposite reaction to the centripetal force) and see if it matches the observed effect.
Jerry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/04/2006 12:30:37
| | | Jerry, very good,
‘Can’t write much, or think much now. A string ought to do it, if you can figure out how to experiment with it this way. A long string describes a rotation it’s self. As the string is pulled outward it, like a pendulum, it lifts vertically (a little bit) so that the gyro is at a higher position during orbit and force can be spent that way. With a pedestal the gyro can’t lift, but only tilt. I think if the gyro were spun many times faster on a string this wouldn’t happen. I’m pretty sure. Anyway think about it. It won’t alter the pedestal experiment, but see what you can come up with. You and I can look into later. I’ve got to go lift a bale and push a barge for a few days.
Thank you,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 25/04/2006 03:19:12
| | | Thank you,
I conducted those experiments over a year ago for a different reason from yours and my results were conclusive for what I was looking for (despite the side effects); I’m done with those experiments.
I do confirm that (yes) pushing down on a gyro in precession under gravity does tend to push back on the finger. I also noticed, back then, that the push-back (up) force did not appear to be as strong as the force that I applied downward with the finger (the gyro acquired faster precession and reluctantly succumbed to the downward push).
I believe that your analysis is correct about the “downward, forward, upward, a chain reaction” results in the upward push-back.
I would like to add my observation that each, of the 90 degree changes in direction of precession that you mention, occurs because the direction of precession encounters a resistance of some sort created by an obstacle, a counterforce, or the inertia of dead weight that it must carry around (using the finger to push down is also certain to cause some unintended drag or resistance).
I say that each 90 degree change in direction is caused by an encounter that converts some of the momentum (and its kinetic energy) into a temporary force and that without such an encounter, no 90 degree change would occur. The amount of kinetic energy converted (into some thrust) during the encounter is a) in part proportional to the force that resists the current direction of precession, and b) INVERSLY proportional to the rate or spin velocity of the gyro-disk (i.e. faster gyro-disk spin will respond faster to Nitro’s second law).
These are added notes, to the theory being developed (in progress).
In a nutshell:
There needs to be an exchange of energy (momentum, acceleration, force) at each 90 degree redirection of precession, and the extent of the energy exchange / conversion is inversely proportional to the spin velocity of the gyro flywheel, and in part proportional to the force of the obstacle encountered.
This means that, each time precession is redirected it transfers some of its momentum to the object that it encounters (e.g. the finger).
Regards, Luis
PS
Strings always have some elasticity that introduces unintended forces (the slight bounce).
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 26/04/2006 00:23:59
| | | Luis,
Absolutely excellent, all of it. Luis: “The gyro acquired faster precession and reluctantly succumbed to the downward push.”
Agreed. More on that. Each increment of downward acceleration will be adjusted into the increasing speed of precession so the energy spent necessary to maintain that increment speed of precession never needs to be re-spent. The force of acceleration into velocity is paid for. All that is necessary to continue precession at that speed is to maintain a study force equal to the last acceleration force, and probably a little less.
We’re agreed, “downward, forward, upward, a chain reaction.” I think Jerry is almost agreed but needs more time. I hope Nitro will rejoin us and tell us what he thinks.
There is a forth element of force I’m looking for, downward, forward, upward and ‘opposite rearward’. If it is there, builder beware. Opposite rearward can be compensated for in design if one believes it will rear it’s troublesome head during powerful downward acceleration.
##
Lets look at this forth chain reaction that only occurs during continuously accelerating downward.
Tape the end of one axel to a pedestal so that the pedestal must revolve during precession.
Tie a string on the other end of the axel.
Spin the gyro up and sat the connected-pedestal on a table.
Hold the other end of the axel up with the string.
The gyro just spins in one place in space, supported on one side by the upward push of the pedestal, while the other end of the axel is supported by the upward pull of the string. Up push on one side. Up pull on the other.
You know if you loosen the string, precession will travel clock wise around the pedestal.
You know if you lift with the string, precession will travel counter clock wise caring the pedestal with it.
If downward force is constantly accelerated both gyro and pedestal will rotate around one another. ‘Binary.’ The rearward reaction would not take place in the area of downward acceleration, but at the opposite end of the gyro at the connected-pedestal. This is what I mean by, opposite rearward reaction. We get a glimpse of this happening with connected-pedestal when we lift the other end by the string. This is the forth potential reaction ‘opposite rearward’ that may occur only if much force is applied to continuously increase acceleration downward therefore horizontally. If it’s not dealt with it can become a horizontally equal opposite reaction to accelerating precession.
##
Luis: “...because the direction of precession encounters a resistance of some sort created by an obstacle, a counterforce, or the inertia of dead weight that it must carry around.” Agreed.
I’m sort of holding back on this discussion for us later. I see it as complicated and we can build up to it.
Luis: “(…using the finger to push down is also certain to cause some unintended drag or resistance)
Yes. You're right. The little ball at the end of the axel imbeds into the finger. For downward force I used two flat surface materials, steel and Plexiglas kept constantly at the horizontal.
Luis: “There needs to be an exchange of energy (momentum, acceleration, force) at each 90 degree redirection of precession, and the extent of the energy exchange / conversion is inversely proportional to the spin velocity of the gyro flywheel, and in part proportional to the force of the obstacle encountered.”
Agreed. We may find the obstacle when we’re ready in the delayed discussion I mentioned above.
We are essentially talking about nutations. http://phys23p.sl.psu.edu/phys_anim/mech/gyro_s1_nu_avi.html
The flaw perhaps in this site address presentation that are not shone, is that when such exaggerated nutations as presented would occur in reality, precession may lunge forward during the down stroke and slow forward during the up stroke. The slowed precession should show up in our connected-pedestal area being moved a little bit in the opposite circular path of precession, as we have been reading about. This would balance out as slowing. We can’t trust the cad cam designer of this presentation to know about this potential of which we speak. We are working in the undiscovered.
We’re moving together. I haven’t had much luck like this in a long time. I think we need to work a little more on the potential of ‘opposite rearward’ to acceleration before we go further.
Best Regards.
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 29/04/2006 15:03:38
| | |
I guess this is ended before it led to anything new and potentially revealing. This happens lots of times, rather it happens all the time. As a body we just don’t want complications. This tread began in the simple, but it was about to become complicated just as was intended from the outset. There are complications beyond what is known that can be considered, but the body of this site is just not going to go there. I don’t know why, but it’s time to accept that’s the way it is. There are many probable reasons. There are no reasons to complain, or feel bad about it. Smile. We each will have it our way.
Anyway, I’ll leave it as far as it went. Someday someone may come along and want to know.
Summation:
I believe the forces in precession are a chain reaction, downward, forward, upward with a fourth potential.
The forth would be what I’ve been calling, rearward opposite. It is actually a rotation. When downward force is great enough to overcome angular momentum, the gyro can be made to move quickly downward. When this happens the gyro will tend to spin horizontally. That is, the ends of both axels would rotate, one side forward, the other rearward and somewhat similar to normal rotation. This happens only when a gyro is forced continually downward quickly.
There is further evidence in a completely different set up than what is usual to causing precession. That evidence is that if angular momentum is great enough, something likened to precession will accelerate greatly, while the downward movement is negligible. Downward, or tilt is hardly moves at all. Here, perhaps the gyro wouldn’t spin, or rotated while precession was speeded up and a full measure of momentum would be usable in a method less mechanically complicated than most of those that might have a chance.
This set up isn’t explained, because we don’t cotton to new ideas. Still I’m happy that this tread started of well with a number of thoughtful people’s involvement.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis AE Gonzalez - 02/05/2006 00:30:41
| | | Glenn,
If you want this thread to continue, just ask the next logical focused question; then someone will try to answer it.
Thank you, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 06/05/2006 20:39:23
| | | I’ve found the evidence of the chain reaction I called a hiccup to support what we’ve been talking about, downward fast, forward fast, upward slows forward. http://www.gyroscope.com/movies.asp
Yet to be verified is the potential of opposite side rearward rotation during the time constant downward ‘accelerating’ force would be applied. This would be the condition, ‘builder beware’ I cautioned about.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 06/05/2006 20:50:57
| | | See # Twentieth video clip .9 MB
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 07/05/2006 12:44:10
| | | Glenn,
If application of a constant downward ‘accelerating’ force has the effect of shortening the radius along the shaft, this would move the precession center away from the pedestal and produce the opposite side rearward rotation.
Jerry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 10/05/2006 17:30:36
| | | Jerry, No. It is certain that what you suggest as logical doesn’t happen. When there’s grater tilt force than angular momentum the gyro pulls the pedestal outward, rather than pushes it inward. The pedestal itself circles the gyro, assume a circumference of 1”, to the gyro’s circle assume 5”, but while in normal precession the pedestal would remain at a fixed place as the gyro would circle in a 4” circumference. Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 10/05/2006 17:44:25
| | | Forget about the potential of rearward opposite rotation. If it should happen to you, merely increase disk RPMs as a solution. I now realize it is an unnecessary complication for you to study and deal with. Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 25/05/2006 09:23:22
| | | A comment on the original question
"………….apply greater force to constantly increase the rate of precession, there is an equal and opposite reaction rearward to precession during the time the acceleration is present?........”
There is no horizontal reaction, regardless of the orthogonal torque.
My experiment was to suspend a compensated offset gyroscope on a long bungee cord. The cord was stretched and released. Initially the vertical acceleration against gravity increased the torque acting upon the gyroscope and precession was rapid, slowing as the gyroscope reached the top of the bounce, and ceasing for the brief time it was in freefall. There was no horizontal displacement of the cord, no horizontal reaction.
Precession is a purely angular phenomenon; it is the gyroscope rotating about an orthogonal axis passing through the C of G, thus conserving angular momentum. Precession does not displace the C of G.
The offset gyroscope is orbiting a fixed point. This orbiting requires linear motion whereby the C of G is displaced.
This linear motion and the displacement mechanism which produces it, is separate and distinct from the ‘precession’ mechanism which rotates the gyroscope.
Not that this is relevant to your thread, other than the fact that it is not the changing torque which has no rearward reaction.
Although I am not a supporter of the conservation of momentum as such, there remains a distinct separation between angular and linear momentum, they cannot be mixed and matched at will.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 30/05/2006 10:11:26
| | | Dear Momentus,
I enjoyed your very interesting posting right down to the very last paragraph, which referred to the conservation laws.
Whilst there is an almost universal belief that linear and angular momentum are separately conserved, this has been found to be just another one of those specious teachings that has helped wreak havoc upon the credibility of inertial drive freaks.
Conversion of angular momentum to linear momentum without reaction (i.e. not a nut on a bolt) is a prerequisite for the production of gyroscopically derived inertial thrust, in fact this is what it is all about.
Contrary to popular belief it is not so difficult “to mix them and match them at will”.
Neither Newton nor Einstein would have been too happy about this fact, but neither of them was trying to achieve gyroscopically inspired inertial drive.
It would probably never ever have mattered if the one momentum could not be transposed either partially or completely for another, until gyroscopically produced inertial drive was attempted, then it began to matter a great deal.
Fortunately for the freaks, and whilst not blatantly obvious, some obscure portions of gyroscopic behaviour, when suitably manipulated, can make this possible.
It can therefore be seen that this unique behaviour, i.e. the transposition of one type of momentum for another, allows the 1st and 3rd laws to be breached.
In the final analysis is this not what we have all been trying to achieve?
My apologies Dave S, you are not going to like this, but I just had to get my oar in.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 30/05/2006 14:02:06
| | | :)
Sandy,
It is not that I don't like it. I actually agree that there is "apparent" deviation from the known laws, It is just that I am confident that these abnormalities when "correctly" interpreted will show that they do fit into the existing laws.
This was what let Laithwaite down. If he had not claimed that Newtons laws were being broken and instead had challenged the scientific community to explain the observations, then maybe the whole gyroscopic enigma would be viewed differently today.
I also do not believe that linear and angular momentum are separately conserved. There is a much bigger picture and it is too easy to only look at parts and think you have the whole. The reality is that there are factors that need to be added or combined.
You need to get a second oar in, if you want to go in a straight line. :)
With regard to gyroscopic propulsion, there too many individuals getting involved in speculative theory instead of harnessing the real observed phenomenum.
I have the greatest respect for certain members of this forum and I am still here, just careful as to which forum members I am prepared to commit my time.
DaveS
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 31/05/2006 12:12:06
| | | Dave S
Thanks for your reply Dave, thought it may have been more of a retaliation, so you must be mellowing.
I will go along part of the way with you, but in the final analysis the laws have been broken and it will require some serious repair work to keep them viable.
Because the existing laws are so closely associated with each other, if one goes down, it’s a bit like the proverbial dominoes, they will all go down.
I do not know how the “red bricked bastions of credibility” will handle this, but they could use the existing set for all “normal” actions, and utilise another set
to cover self propelled particles, (albeit large particles) although maybe only the 2nd law would apply to them.
On the other hand, and at the end of the day, can there be any hard and fast laws, or to put it this way, any laws without any exception?
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 31/05/2006 14:56:44
| | | I still say that the Laws are not being broken because Inertial Propulsion is a REACTION. This is true even if the action is applied at an angle to the direction of resultant thrust.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 01/06/2006 08:07:12
| | | Jerry,
You have me at a slight disadvantage.
I am getting old, no, I am old, so make allowances for an old man, I am not sure if I understand your statement.
However here goes.
It is always going to be a reaction, but with what?
If the reaction is made against anything outside the confines of the device i.e. air, water, road surface, in a vacuum, (for rockets) whatever, then this could be classed as an external reaction in line with the 1st & 3rd laws so the device would comply with the rules.
If however the reaction is created within the confines of the device and can produce a one way thrust whilst reacting with itself (i.e. an internal reaction) it does not matter how, or at what angle, the reaction presents itself, the device is not operating within the confines of the 1st & 3rd laws and is clearly breaking the rules.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
momentus - 01/06/2006 11:43:09
| | | Hello again Sandy.
We are in complete agreement that conservation of momentum is false. It seems a moot point then that they are not ‘separately’ conserved when they are not conserved at all?
My gearbox, or more correctly CVT, had the creation of angular momentum as a side effect, useful for a power torque wrench, but an insurmountable obstacle for commercial acceptance. So, by experiment the creation of angular momentum can be proved.
The walking gyroscope I posted some time ago, whilst it does transpose the angular momentum of a spinning wheel to linear movement and so displaces mass by internal action, paradoxically it does not create linear momentum.
Newton’s laws http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/ can be read here.
LAW II.
The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed.
Newton states in his definitions, motion is mass times velocity, therefore the change in angular momentum in the direction of the applied force (orthogonal torque/precession/spin) is covered by this law, even though the rotation is at right angles to the force.
However the directional component of velocity is ignored and it is treated treated as having only magnitude in:-
COROLLARY IV.
The common centre of gravity of two or more bodies does not alter its state of motion or rest by the actions of the bodies among themselves; and therefore the common centre of gravity of all bodies acting upon each other (excluding outward actions and impediments) is either at rest, or moves uniformly in a right line.
Displacement at right angles to applied force is not taken into account. This is the basis for the conservation laws. This is wrong.
Newton’s laws were intended for planets and cannon balls and are interpreted as such.
For spinning wheels the INTERPRETATION of the laws must be altered. In particular the notion that equal and opposite means opposite in direction. The basis of the gyroscope anomaly that is studied so intently by shed dwellers is displacement at right angles to force.
Whilst the Laws of motion may be considered correct, the interpretation of the laws, by Newton, is wrong.
So Sandy you are right, but for a different reason.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 01/06/2006 14:30:35
| | | Good day Momentus,
I did some time ago really appreciate the battles you got yourself involved in, on I think it was, BBC’s “Not Rocket Science”
I did admire your fight against considerable odds. I was going to join in and lend some support but I really thought it was a wasted effort.
As I said at the time most of the anti inertial drive squad who posted to that site would be dangerous with a Lego set
That aside, to me and from a purely personal point of view this posting has to be one of the best so far.
My devices easily create and convert angular momentum into linear momentum, but like your own cannot create linear momentum.
Never had occasion to think of this fact before, but you are correct, and it looks like it is a one way conversion, although that is enough to do the job.
But in saying that, if this is all that holds the rest of the laws together, then the laws are in real trouble.
Without separate conservation there can be no hard and fast laws of motion.
So Dave S looks like you win by default.
You have obviously gone into the Laws of Motion in fair depth, quite considerably deeper than I thought I needed to.
It is also rather obvious that you have carried out many experiments.
Howsoever the problem runs a bit deeper than I gather Newton could see it, and it is just a trifle more involved than reaction at right angles to an applied force. I get the feeling Newton did not quite realise the full implication of that reaction.
Anyway Momentus, thanks for a most illuminating posting.
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/06/2006 10:21:24
| | | Momentus, thank you for the interesting test. Will you please explain your walking gyro, the materials and methods used and the action in as much detail as you are willing?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 05/06/2006 11:26:07
| | | Sandy,
I'm getting old too. Still, you've got me by a little over a dozen years. But age shouldn't dimminish our understanding, only increase our wisdom, and, with further work, our Skill in the Art.
You said:
>It is always going to be a reaction, but with what?
If the reaction is made against anything outside the confines of the device i.e. air, water, road surface, in a vacuum, (for rockets) whatever, then this could be classed as an external reaction in line with the 1st & 3rd laws so the device would comply with the rules.
If however the reaction is created within the confines of the device and can produce a one way thrust whilst reacting with itself (i.e. an internal reaction) it does not matter how, or at what angle, the reaction presents itself, the device is not operating within the confines of the 1st & 3rd laws and is clearly breaking the rules.
-When I think of Inertial effects in terms of the thrust being a reaction, the action force, in my mind, is external to the rotary system which produces the reaction. This is still true even if, for instance, a linear actuator is mounted inside a box which also contains a gyroscope which is tipped by the action of the actuator. The actuator is technically 'external' to the gyroscope, which is a rotary system, since the source of the action force is not part of the rotary system.
Like all Laws of Science, Newton's Laws are incomplete and need to evolve as we continue to learn. As a case in point, an obscure part of Quantum Physics holds that anything which rotates is external to the rest of the universe. This would include the frame the rotary system is bolted to. With this in mind, we can clarify Newton's Laws, rather than violate them, and the 1st and 3rd Laws remain intact.
Jerry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 05/06/2006 12:14:58
| | | Dear Jerry,
Piffle!
Kind regards
NM
PS Sorry to be harsh but true
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/06/2006 12:56:46
| | | Hello fellow outcast,
I began this post saying I didn’t want to argue, but investigate what others believe and why they believe it and I’m sticking to it.
I have not seen the evidence of any stupid people here. A gathering of better minds then has individually studied the evidence for a long time and came to differing conclusions. We haven’t a clear consensus, because each of us so adamantly adheres to our own beliefs that no amount of insistence from one to another can lead to a unifying conception. We aren’t willing to change our minds no matter what is said. Another problem is that mostly we don’t explain in detail how we came to our conclusions. Some have, but even then to little affect.
If you’ve been here a while you should have learned that statements of what is and what isn’t only strengthen pre-opposing ideas against those statements. Even good explanations of tests performed and logic don’t affect opposing ideas. We are unyielding, but some of us have to be right and some wrong and if we are reasonable people we understand that even we who are right are probably wrong some of the time and then there is always the question is there still more to learn. One begins to wonder if a unified understanding is possible.
I think so, if anyone would design and built a machine to provide testing so precisely and clearly that the observations forthcoming would reveal inarguable evidence to even modestly reasonable people.
I thought of building a proto type machine as would demonstrate and substantiate every current statement and answer every question. Yes this is possible. I though of then trying to sell the machine to all the physics departments of universities and some better high schools all over the world. I decided not to.
If anyone seriously wished to build such a machine I have the plains in my mind and can put them to blueprint and I will give them to you. The project shouldn’t be especially difficult, or expensive for a determined and competent person. I’ll be happy to respond to serious inquires.
I repeat there are no stupid people here, not a single one as I have read and there is no lack of experience, time and investigation into this subject during all these years, yet we disagree. The only way to confirm the truth is by building such a machine as I refer to.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 05/06/2006 21:03:08
| | | Dear Jerry,
I am sorry for my intemperate earlier exclamation of “piffle”! Please put it down to a rushed reading at lunch time and a grumpiness caused by the nasty shock of returning to work after a very pleasant meander through France.
The lovely wife and I travelled via Nantes for some refreshingly dry Muscadet sur lie from Mons. Y. Huchet (Oh! A cool glass of that is going to be so refreshing on the warm summer days to come). We then travelled onward to my friend Tony on the Carmargue before heading off to try the Mathieu family’s superb “Domaine Mathieu” at Cateauneuf du Pape. My Ministere du Finance even allowed me to secure some cripplingly expensive but beautifully complex “Vin di Felibre” from them. This is really a disaster as it doesn’t reach perfection until about 2008 – I hope I live that long. After visiting friends in the high Dordogne we headed to Montlouis on the Loir to get some of Mons Chaput’s superb pink fizz “Touraine Pettilant” only to be disappointed to discover that, I think, the son has sold to new producers and no Pettilant is available this year. I can only hope that the new producers bring it back soon and can reach the perfection of the earlier production. I shall obviously have to return quite often to check!
O.K.! Enough of the wine bore, back to the Gyro bore.
Much as we can marvel at Newton’s wide ranging insight into our world and feel relieved by the discovery that he was probable a bigger nutter than anyone meeting here (you have to be a nutter to depress your eyeball with a needle’s edge just to observe the spectral effect – yes he really did that!), he is dead and won’t feel offended if we say his wonderful observations are incomplete or (gasp) just plain wrong in certain cases. The scientific community in this area are also mostly dead and tend to ineffectually fulminate at the merest suggestion of deviation from Newton. They will change as they have had to with the Earth not being the centre of the universe, the circulation of blood, plate Tectonics, electron/hole movement, the existence of the ether etc. etc.
The movement of any mechanism as a whole in one direction without external force or its concomitant reaction is in itself proof that the 1st 2nd and (especially) the 3rd of the classic laws are simply wrong. The movement of such a mechanism also is proof that the reactions taking place within, in sum, CANNOT be complying with these laws.
I accept that until I (or some other "innovative genius") “puts up”, these discussions can be likened to the old Christians arguing over how many Angels can alight on a pin head. I often wonder how many Angels sitting on a pin head it takes to make Christians argue….
Kind regards
NM
PS I bet you all wish I would stick to the “brief intemperate exclamation” now.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/06/2006 23:23:10
| | | Beautiful Nitro. You have a gorgeous hand that I do so enjoy reading.
You are all right. I see it both ways, your way too Jerry. The argument is very much like that between classical mechanics and the theory of relativity. You are free to choose either, or choose both though they conflict with one another. No one is in error, but the question below attempts to settle on a preferred understanding that explains a final outcome.
What will have happened if you put your finished apparatus inside an air-tight box, nail the led shut, set the box on a lake of ice and then flip a switch that remotely turns on your apparatus which causes the box to slide a distance several times greater than the dimensions of the box itself? How do you compromise the outside action of rhe box to support the constancy of the third law by arguing a constancy of the third law inside the box? How do you do that?
Before we began unraveling this let us reiterate a simple truth. Anyone who’s seen a gyro, powered only by vertical force aligned against the offset parallel, vertical force of angular momentum, precessing from one horizontal place to another has seen an inertial change take place and the center of gravity moved forward, without having experienced an originating force from rearward. You wonder how anyone in the world could argue against this. They can’t. It is so real as we accept, but the outside world ignores it because it’s not supposed to be real. The outside world quotes laws, as proof that what is real can’t be real. How utterly crazy. Doubtlessly you have better proof than a precessing gyro, but really that’s all that’s needed, that and the nerve to say out loud no matter what you’ve been taught, ‘Hey, something’s not right here’. Now on we go on to the attempted explanation first began.
If one traces the forces and resistances forward, backward or in any order of dimensions the individual chains of actions and reactions that cause mass displacement he will find that the laws hold true. I firmly believe this. However these conditions explained by laws are conditions during precession that are forced to oppose one another. These conditions that hold true to the laws are conditions forced by human intervention into curving into one another in such ways as to produce a final outcome, which is in reverse to the laws themselves. Still and again no matter how you look at it the laws are working, but working to produce a byproduct of force different than the ingredient forces.
Energy can’t be deigned a way of changing form one kind to another when sufficient force is applied in opposition to it’s current state. In precession, precisely aliened energies are forced into opposition and some form of energy change relating to victors must be allowed to occur. If this weren’t so the whole universe would become stagnant, heatless and unthinkable. During precession conditions, we call them laws, conditions must continue in some way as none of them collide head on, but they can’t continue unchanged because they deflect into continuous curving angles. Behavior and the laws that would govern are altered in the deflected curve continuously and yet individually the laws remain true. Well, I told you this was like trying to compare classical mechanics to relativity.
As we end concerning the final outcome let’s take another look at the box. How do you argue the outside by arguing the inside? If you try, how do you argue there is a push on one side of the inside of the box, but not on any other side and yet hold the third law to be true in the final analyses? I’m curious to see what argument can issue from this.
I end by repeating you are all right relative to how you wish to think whether you trace the flow of multiple actions, or just look at the box and accept a final conclusion, the last act of an altered third law, which would be simplest and it would be correct as a final conclusion. You know. The box slides along. Nobody is pushing it.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Brian Morris - 07/06/2006 10:22:54
| | | Hi Glen
“…..Momentus, thank you for the interesting test. Will you please explain your walking gyro, the materials and methods used and the action in as much detail as you are willing?...”
http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=350
This is the original posting. The gyroscope is suspended by hooks, from parallel bars mounted in a frame. The frame swivels so that when one bar rises, the other descends. This rocking of the frame alternates the support to each end of the gyroscope shaft, which swings (precession) in a series of short arcs, travelling along the bars. To remove the effect of friction the entire apparatus is tilted at an angle such that the gyroscope slides down the slope and is returned up the slope by the walking action.
This produces a displacement “….a distance several times greater than the dimensions…”
If you use a pair of dividers, you can simulate walking with alternate arcs.
This apparatus is clearly not acceptable to classical physicists. It does not break any of the three laws.
Newton’s laws apply to single bodies. He says so.
Law I: - force must be applied to change the motion. This applies to the Gyro Walker. It does not move until a gravity torque is applied.
Law II: - Change of momentum is proportional to force. By altering the distance between point of suspension and C of G, the speed of displacement of the Gyro Walker is varied “proportionally”
Law III: - Equal and opposite reaction. You cannot clap with one hand. Forces do not come singly. The hook of the Gyro Walker bears down upon the parallel bar with exactly the same force as the bar resists the hook.
What Newton did not know was the orthogonal nature of gyroscope force.
There are two distinct ways of changing the momentum of a flywheel. The one that would be familiar to Newton was a torque applied along the axis of spin, increasing or decreasing the spin speed. The one that is familiar to shed dwellers is torque applied orthogonal to the spin and displacement axis.
Whereas Newton was correct to say that motion (we refer to this as momentum) is always ‘made in the direction of the right line’ displacement is not. It is displacement at right angles to the right line of force which enables the Gyro Walker to move outside of its own dimensions.
The laws of themselves are correct. It is in the corollaries where the laws are expanded and commented that the basic mistake of Symmetry is made and from which the conservation laws are derived.
So brothers it is the tyranny of symmetry that we oppose!!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Brian Morris - 07/06/2006 10:56:06
| | | Hi Sandy
“…fight against considerable odds….”
Yes that was bruising encounter. I agree (in hindsight) that no intervention would have helped. At the time I felt very isolated.
I have lately taken an interest in Dark Matter, following a programme on TV. I have long felt that as the gyroscope anomaly is a real phenomenon, it should occur ‘in nature’. Orthogonal motion is an alternative explanation to the strange movement of distant galaxies, which is actually what Dark Matter is all about.
Tried the idea out on a science forum, with much the same result as before!
There is a total lack of understanding of basic NEWTONIAN mechanics. I ended up, as before, having to argue both sides, needing to explain what the classical view was, before being able to make a point.
I now have a complete conceptual model of the nature of motion and in so far as I am able to do the math, (more like extended arithmetic), formulae to calculate the forces and displacements.
The basic schema offers insight to many of the quantum absurdities of duality, uncertainty, comparability, spontaneous motion and equivalence.
It is intensely frustrating to have these ideas, working proofs and yet not be able to explore and expand them, commercially or intellectually.
If there is a way to get the attention of the great and good, I have yet to find it, but as always, I live in hope. Letting off steam here is a help.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 07/06/2006 10:59:01
| | | Just in case you are in any way confused, I am posting with my real name now, rather than my Nom de Forum
Brian Morris
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 16/06/2006 08:25:47
| | | Hello Brian,
I would agree that the gyroscopic behaviour we are discussing here, must appear in nature, and most probably, but not necessarily at subatomic level.
I have myself had this belief for many years ever since I discovered gyroscopic behaviour was not what it was supposed to be.
Like yourself, this was discovered as a result of countless practical experiments and tests, and not as a result of delusion, as a certain person claimed, but in fairness he has never seen any of these experiment carried out.
However, I, (maybe even we) have so far only experimented with a pair of planes of spin.
What goodies could be lurking in objects subjected to multiple planes of spin?
I think we shall have to wait till some enlightened individual alters existing or creates new formulae to comply with reality, then lets the computers loose on it.
Was going to add a bit more here, but it would be a bit provocative, so I shall leave it alone for now.
Nothing does anything without acceleration, and it is my belief that inertia is a product of gyroscopic action.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 16/06/2006 11:39:37
| | | My machine is subject to multiple planes of spin.
To obtain 3 Dimensional control it requires several flywheels and associated gyroscopes working in a pattern.
Go on, share it Sandy, what would be provocative?
DaveS
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 17/06/2006 11:56:13
| | | I can’t use these. They are too small for me and particularly the diameter for the shaft is too small and I don’t see how you could re-bore it without getting it out of balance. The last contact I had with the seller he said they had five and I believe he told me they were five and a half ounces. Maybe you can use them.
http://cgi.ebay.com/PRECISE-BRASS-FLYWHEEL-for-ELECTRIC-GYROSCOPE_W0QQitemZ6065433444QQihZ009QQcategoryZ30QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 17/06/2006 13:35:22
| | | I should have added that Maxon Motors have small, high-speed motors with dual shafts that can be extended to desired lengths. This permits the motors to be set next to the disk. These motors can rotate the disks 10,000 to 20,000 RPMs therefore gearing and offset imbalance problems are then eliminated. The draw-backs are that with high speed motors it appears in all cases I have examined that the diameter of the shaft must be very small and if it is the shaft itself that is to sever as the leverage means, then a 2mm diameter, even perhaps with titanium would be subject to bending or breaking under the necessary high forces to cause high speed precession. Also, these rare earth magnet motors as with any others would need special contact bearings, perhaps a double row front and rear and a strong housing to avoid binding the motor. In short, I’d need special designs. I leave it to you to decide if you can overcome these problems and secure any solutions with these disks and small dual shaft motors. This would be by far your cheapest way out if you can figure how to do it. Good Luck.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 19/06/2006 07:26:21
| | | Dear Glenn,
I think that we must all have come across this problem at some time or other.
Small electric motors of the type and size to which you are referring are not too good at directly driving gyroscopes, and as you suggest shaft failure is common.
I built a small machine to prove a point and utilised 2 small aluminium gyroscopes directly driven but electronically speed controlled through a set of slip rings.
They were of the 400 size of motor with an oddball shaft diameter of 2.1mm.
They are cheap and cheerful, but breakage was frequent, very time wasting and a real pain in the proverbial.
I examined the bearings and noticed that they were spherical self aligning bushes with a shaft bearing length of about 4mm, providing no axial support, and an expected shaft survival rate about 10 minutes if I was really lucky.
These shafts are destined to break right in front of the armature windings.
I removed the drive end bearing carefully so as not to distort the motor casing, I then manufactured 4 bronze bearings with a bearing length of 12mm and a shaft diameter size of 6mm. With heavy duty epoxy resin I bonded the replacement bearing bushings into 4 casings.
I then carefully drilled some 6 mm silver steel rod 2.1mm to fit over the existing and yet unbroken shafts (drive end only) of 4 armatures and again bonded them with epoxy.
None of these shafts have failed in about 3 years of albeit intermittent operation.
You will gather that the gyroscopic torque is developed across the 12mm of bearing length instead of the silly unsupported 4mm, and with a shaft diameter of 6mm is much stronger and better suited to attaching gyroscopes.
This worked well for me Glenn.
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 19/06/2006 13:59:55
| | | Dear Sandy,
I’ve never received any nuts and bolts mechanical help and advice before, but then I suppose I’d never attempted to offer possible mechanical ways and means to the community before. I had reasoned the solutions you’ve used, but was unsure of them. I’m very glad to know someone has actually tried them and that you were actually able to make them work. It was very good of you to take the time and trouble to explain your methods and results to me. Thank you.
I am trying to design and build a new kind of motor, or at least one not on the market. If I have any luck I’ll let you know and see if you want any. I’ll probably fail. I’m good at that lately.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 19/06/2006 15:01:17
| | | Dear Glenn,
The devices we attempt to build are unique in many ways.
You obviously have your own reasons for long shafts from either end of the motor.
Now if the motor could drive them in opposite directions I would be very interested, but methinks this is asking just a bit too much.
The only alternative I had was to construct bevel or mitre geared gearboxes to give me opposite drives, instead of using independent motors This is a lot of work but I have built several of them up until this time.
The good thing about them is their strength and long life. I have had no problems with them since I started this over 20 years ago. Very valuable little devices.
Like yourself, I spent a long time trying to find a manufacturer or supplier for them, but who else would want them. Same problem as yourself.. In this respect you have my sympathies.
Otherwise I have managed to source just about everything else I needed from the nearest model car and car accessories shop
Latest generation of model aircraft electric motors and controllers are also worth looking at.
Regards,
Sandy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 19/06/2006 17:48:25
| | | Dear Sandy,
I think our designs must be extremely different, which makes them all the more interesting to consider and try to compare. I think you’re right angle bevel gear design must be better in many ways, otherwise two flat, or pancake motors bolted back to back with special bearings of your own design and with especially large individual shafts would be a compact, high speed solution. Yeah, me also thinks it’d be difficult to do. As for myself, I can’t use opposite rotating shafts. You’ve gone through a rig-a-ma-row with manufactures? Just kidding. I already knew you must have. Madding isn’t it? I’m still at it. In the end I may have to give up on finding the unique things I need, or of getting any major help and do as you suggest and build them myself if I can.
You’re way ahead of me in many ways, but maybe not so in finished designs. Who knows? I’ve built some strange looking things and used a rather wild assortment of make-do parts and make-do materials. I once even built a wooden machine. It is funny to me now. It was a sculpture really, with movable parts in order to better visualize the total conception, decide which solutions to this and that were best and make changes. I can tell one thing. I was most unsatisfied with the amount of torque and RPMS a solid wooden blocks produces. My designs have been up till now, mostly testing devices and except for the one mad Trojan adventure, all were metal and action of course, but then maybe that’s all that any of our machines are, testing devices. I hope to build one to accelerate now.
I’m glad the model car parts are working for you and I also found model airplanes motors quite advanced. I’ve posted the following site before. If you haven’t seen it, it might be interesting.
http://www.sdp-si.com/D785/D785Cat.htm
My total out put of work this morning consist only of two pitiful little drawings to fax off. I’m gona have more black coffee and try again to get some work done. Maybe someday I can explain what I’m doing.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 24/06/2006 19:52:15
| | | Have you ever kicked a spinning disk?
When firecrackers didn’t light you’d break them open, place them on the sidewalk, light the spilled power and stomp them. Boom, they’d explode and you’d be ok. I once placed a broken firecracker on the deep edge of an abandoned, empty swimming pool, lighted it and stomped. When it exploded I think the bone in the hill of my foot was cracked. I fell on the edge of the pool holding my shoe and rolled around hollowing for a good while. I was about seven years old. Later in life I determined that the edge of the deep end of a pool is about twelve feet straight down of steel reinforced concrete and very much unlike the shallow concrete of a sidewalk. The force of my stomp added with the force of the exploding firecracker was not met merely with resistance. At the instant my heel was ultimately compressed downward and the explosion forced downward, the concrete reverberated with the reaction of an upward shockwave from deep inside the solid mass. The concrete kicked back. However that works, the force against my compressed hill was many times greater, perhaps ten times of what it would have been on a sidewalk. One doesn’t forget childhood pain and surprise.
When I was sixteen and seventeen I worked part time in a garage after school, usually alone inside two large grease pits cleaning up. I didn’t like it. One evening I was doing a break job on one of those trucks that hall chickens. I was greasy and aggravated, but mostly I was bored. Occasionally I would pick up a smooth steel disk of about twenty five pounds and hurl it with the motion of a Frisbee throw, except I would get a running start and use the weight and force my whole body. At the end of the throw I would grip the edge of the disk and pull it backwards. The disk would travel a couple of feet and land on smooth concrete covered with grease and wobble. It was the same wobble as when you flip a penny on the table. It spins but it wobbles horizontally face down. When the disk would land it would whine and roar as it wobbled and the sound would reverberate off the walls of the pit. I would work a while longer then try another. The last one I heaved was different. I was like magic. The roar inside those pits was deafening and I clasp my hands over my ears and ran over to it to silence it. I jumped as high as I could, folded and cocked my leg for a kick and as I came down I stomped the edge of the disk as hard as I could. Instant sever pain shot through my foot. I think the bone in my hill was cracked again. I lay down in that pit, holding my boot and jerking around cursing for a while. I knew it had happened again, something had kicked back many times harder than I’d kicked down and at the time when my hill was compressed.
Mechanically this is what I remember vividly. How? I don't know. There could not have been much friction in the contact of stomping. The disk was smooth steel. The concrete was smooth and greased. The hill of my boot was hard black rubber coated with grease. There was no sideways force on my leg, such as in a horizontal reaction against my foot and leg to move them sideways. All the great force on the spinning, wobbling disk was vertical. The disk raised up off the floor seven or eight inches and thrust ten to twelve feet like a hurled diskette and crashed through a stack of oil cans breaking them open and continuing into the side of a cinder block wall where it knock chunks from them half the size of your fist.
When I was able, in about half an hour, I began trying to repeat the reaction that was like nothing I had ever seen. It had seemed like magic. I would throw the disks and hop on the toe of my bad foot and stomp with my good foot. Nothing came of it and many times on as many nights I was never able to repeat the magic that I’d seen. I told everyone I knew at work and school and none was the least bit interested. Finally I went to the smartest man I knew at the time and ask for an explanation. He was my boss, the owner and it made him mad. He didn’t try to explain. He wouldn’t have known how anyway. “Don’t do it again. You’ll break your damn leg. Now! Go help Slim wash the chicken trucks.” I was being punished. It wasn’t my job for a dollar an hour to wash chicken shit and get wet helping Slim.
From this story you get two things. One is an understanding of the level of interest most people have in all the fascinating things we see. The other is a possibility. Had the disk been under an inertial thrust? I myself don’t know, but I have always strongly believed it was. Well, you’d need to have been there. It left a great imprint on my mind. This was my first encounter with the strange reactions of a spinning disk. I wonder if the mechanical reaction of this revelation will be of any use to your research.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
