|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
6 May 2024 17:15
|
|
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: |
Rotation & precession |
| Question: |
About rotation?
I have some questions. I haven’t a clue at this time what the answers are. I have no agreements or arguments prepared, only sincere questions.
Draw a circle on a piece of paper with arrows around it to show the direction of rotation as clockwise and as if it were a spinning wheel. Now draw a vertical dotted line thru the center of it. Note that the right side is rotating downward into gravity, while the left side is rotation upward opposite to gravity.
It seems to me that if the rotation at the rim is faster than 32 ft. per second, then generally the right side rotating downward is free falling controlled by centipede, as we find in orbiting spacecraft controlled by the pull of the earth. The left side of the wheel then, as it rotates upwards has to overcome gravity, while also having to thrust upward twice as fast as the speed and effect of gravity. You may wish to draw straight arrows up and down to keep it simple in your mind. It would seem that the adjusted balances can be that resistance to upward rotation can be twice that of gravity, while the downward side has near zero gravitational effect/ (Yes, different degrees of rim curvatures are under different vectors and different combined angles related to centrifugal force and gravity. Many angles result, but I would hope you could temporarily ignore these differences for simplicity’s sake, at least for the time being. Then you have only a circle with a vertical dotted line in the center and arrows one side up and arrows one side down.)
Another perspective can be had by imagining a bike tire, with the tire and metal rim removed, leaving only the spokes and then welding a medium sized ball bearing to each spoke. When it were spun (not too fast) in a vertical position those spokes acting during the upward spin should bend downward, while those on the downward rotation shouldn’t bend at all.
Question: Does this condition play a part precession? How?
I have in my position some reasonably well drawn pictures I’ve done with straight and curving lines added to the above description with a few half bubbles drawn inward and outward to represent areas of suspected increases and decrees of resulting forces between centrifuge and gravity during precession. Here is the wild thing. I have no idea what they reveal. Today my notes seem to be half right and half wrong, but I don't know. I’m not sure exactly what I told myself to remember. Has this craziness ever happen to you. These notes indicate some possible deviations in areas of centripetal rather than centrifugal. Anyway perhaps you can help me with this one.
Wishing you all well,
Glenn,
|
| Date: |
17 July 2006
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 20/07/2006 18:35:46
| | | I’ve been working when I could find time and without hurrying on this question of gravity most of a week now. I find that gravity doesn’t play a part in precession. I was surprised. Gravity’s function is to furnish force downward and nothing more. I learned this by studding spinning tops. You know how they rotate horizontal to the earth rather than vertically as we mostly envision gyroscopes performing.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 25/07/2006 15:18:32
| | | To Louis,
I’m impressed. Your last post is your best. It’s very good in two ways. First you are accumulating a real understanding and secondly you are developing more simplified ways to explain what you understand.
Your next work will be more difficult, because to do it involves understanding the cause of precession exactly and surely. If you are not already doing this I recommend that after you’re sure you have it, try to destroy your mechanics of understanding every way you can passably think to do. Keep attacking the way you understand with countering ways of understanding before allowing for a final conclusion.
If this is of any help, gravity doesn’t have an effect to cause precession except as a power source. Linear acceleration, such as the act of flinging a spinning flywheel incased in a shell as if it were a Frisbee, doesn’t change the perfect balance of rotation on either side of the flywheel, though one side rotates into acceleration while the other rotates away from acceleration. Precession is caused by tilt, or torque on the plain of rotation and isn’t otherwise assisted in any way. I think you are biting off a big chunk, but that you might be able to do it if you can avoid being overly sure of yourself. Without physical measurements it’s going to be theory though it may be correct lacking proof. I am impressed so far. Good Luck.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 12/08/2006 13:57:37
| | | Glenn,
As I understand it, one end of your dotted line would need to be stationary for precession to occur.
Jerry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Arthur Dent - 14/08/2006 11:16:01
| | | I recently came across an old mathematical paper which mentioned, in passing, that it was then commonly believed (by the ignorant of the late 19th century) that a rotating wheel weighed less.
In an unconnected work, the famous mathematician (and wartime boffin), J.E.Littlewood, claimed (1950s) that a light wheel with a very dense weight on its rim could fling itself into the air when rolled. A few years ago, this claim led to a flurry of academic papers. It was concluded that Littlewood was wrong. Experimental attempts (including mine) to demonstrate the effect also failed (obviously).
Note: it is very unwise to draw force arrows on diagrams if one does not have a sound 'feeling for physics'.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 15/08/2006 13:15:42
| | | Dear Jerry,
Thank you. The dotted line is only an imaginary reference to a vertical divide of a disk while it spins. You could just as well hold a pencil in your fingers vertically and sight the spinning disk sideways to view it as two upright and separate halves. However the disk might be moved, you could always move the pencil in your sighting to maintain the view of the disk imaginarily divided vertically. The dotted line involves rotation only at this point and not precession, which probably comes later in additional posts. Always let me know if all I’ve written is clear. Thanks.
I hope your work is going well, Jerry.
Your friend,
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 15/08/2006 13:18:45
| | | Dear Arthur,
Your statement could not be more wrong. It is opposite to the truth. Never mind about that. When one states his opinion in an effort to instruct, he is bound by the purpose of instruction to then explain himself. Why is it unwise for any one at all to use arrows on paper, or arrows on a model to designate motion direction and force direction? Can you give an example?
By the way, the trivia you offered was very good. I enjoyed it and would like to read more from you in the future. Keep it coming.
Good regards to you,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Arthur Dent - 15/08/2006 18:20:59
| | | A physics lecturer recently complained (in American Journal of Physics) that new students (misled by school-teachers) plaster their diagrams with so many arrows that it looks like the aftermath of a (Red) Indian attack (or words to that effect). The subject is indeed a large one, but 2 general cases spring to mind. One is the notorious 'centrifugal force', drawn radially. I have even seen this done in Saab car adverts. The force, of course, is fictitious (but dozens of 'space-drives' have been based upon it) and makes no sense to the onlooker. It would make some sort of sense to someone 'within the diagram', but diagrams are not intended to be used like that. In other words, there is a common failure to define what frame of reference one is using. One can 'blame' this (centrifugal arrow) fault on D'Alembert.
Another common error which is, ironically, the result of (poor) physics teaching is the confusion of real forces with their vector components. Many people put all of them onto the same diagram, and then try to add them vectorially; thus causing complete chaos.
Another case has just sprung to mind, and that is the classic 'rope pulling block' diagram. In the form usually depicted (even in textbooks), there is always a missing force arrow. Without this arrow, it is quite clear that the block should rotate in the plane of the paper. And yet many people are obviously unable to 'see this omission'.
And now I recall the case of a block sliding down an incline. The arrows are usually wrongly drawn, even in research papers (sic). BTW, Laithwaite used to make a 'big thing' about the fact that different-height blocks slid to different extents down slopes, even though the textbook diagram indicated that the force balance was the same for all of them. In this case he was right: friction is treated very badly in most textbooks, and the force diagram is always wrong. Specialist works include a missing arrow (which is clearly required for rotational equilibrium) and this explains the puzzle that Laithwaite tried to use to 'indict Physics'.
I expect that I can recall some more examples, if these are not enough. It really is a pernicious tendency.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 19/08/2006 01:56:23
| | |
I’ve been away because of family illnesses. Now I can’t believe I’ve come back to defend the use of a mark on paper with an arrowhead on the end. Astonishingly someone doesn’t understand what it is.
No! The arrow never lies to the person who drew it. It is an exact presentation of his imagination. People use drawings to understand their thoughts and to transmit what and how they think. The arrow does not guide the mental creation of itself; rather it is the mind that guides the creation of the arrow. If the arrows misrepresent truth, because a lack of a person’s correct understanding, then he has created an array of visual images of his thoughts and then is better able to attempt to see if there are any flaws in his thinking. Every man has to start somewhere, somehow in attempting to understand, doesn’t he? Arrows, like words in sentences transmit thought and whether any form of communication is always presented truthfully, we’d be lost without an effort to use symbols and words—all of us.
Lecturer? Ok suppose the lecturer were walking down the isles in a class room and suddenly saw a paper containing the mass of red arrows you mentioned. The lecture would know immediately, I mean, know at the snap of a finger! that the drawings were misrepresenting mechanical conditions. If the red arrows were not there he wouldn’t know immediately and perhaps would never know. This is because a human’s verbal and written explanations of mechanical thoughts without pictures and directions can seem nearly impossible sometimes. Also know that, using numbers only, without words, drawings, nor symbols you could not tell anyone how to build a matchbox, let alone a wheelbarrow and particularly it’s potential motions. You need numbers for the obvious engineering reasons, but they are not enough. Strangely some people don’t understand this. It is by mechanical reasoning that you understand how machines do what they do, not numbers.
Because of the arrows the lecturer is now able to say, “So, I see this is what is in your mind, student. It’s wrong. Now let me explain why. I am to teach you better ways.” Do you see how the misplaced arrows helped the instructor to know the student’s mind? So you mentioned this lecturer. So the man gets on stage and perhaps with a few twists his rear and a bit of flutter of hands he presents an observation for a purpose. What is the purpose? Arthur, he is not saying it is unwise to use arrows. No, no. I’m sure he didn’t. He was pointing out that first year students didn’t understand physics. Also on the artistic side they haven’t been taught to present thoughts with simplistic ease, and that the over use of arrows can be cumbersome and confusing. The most obvious proof that a student needs teaching is --guess what. Yes, his over use of arrows. They show the instructor what the student knows and doesn’t know. Contrary to your miss use of the lecturer’s intent and purpose, arrows are useful for everybody. Wisdom has nothing to do with it. I can hardly believe I’ve explained this. Arrows are a physical representation of thought. You said in effect, thinking and attempting to think is unwise, until you after you are taught.
Let me touch on another subject, ‘elaborate argument’. Dear Darling Arthur Person,
what a wonderful explanation you gave filled with knowledge, insight and exceptional ability. No, no. You don’t have to acknowledge me, or thank me for the complement. Thanking people is forbidden here, but this practice lacking common good matters doesn’t t keep me from expressing my appreciation where it is due and I can recognize it. You did a fine work in debate.
‘Elaborate argument’, man has a genius for it. To get a feel for it you’ve only to know something about the debating teams in some of the Ivy League Colleges, watched a U.S. Presidential debate, or sat through a high-stakes court trial. Those on either side of an issue could as well have taken other side for the truth does not matter. Winning is all that matters. You may have seen angry argument in court where lawyers appear ready to kill one another, and know that some client and his family is about to have their lives destroyed, but then you may find immediately after the trial the two opposing legal teams in an elegant bar joking and having a wonderful time with one another. One might say, “Did you see I had the jury’s heads bobbing like apples on strings.” The legal debaters, barristers, can rest happily for a while. Its over and they have hundreds of thousands of new dollars in the bank. What was the truth of the case be dammed. I recall the single magic bullet theory invented by Senator Arlen Specter in the assignation of President Kennedy. As a way of explaining the absurdity of the theory the New Orleans attorney Jim Garrison said in court. “Theoretical physics can prove that an elephant can hang over a cliff by his tail tied to a daisy.” All the arguments in that trial were eventually elaborate as well as was the theory. Arthur, that you have argued well has nothing to do the truth of the augment.
You blundered into making an elegant statement that it is unwise for people less knowledgeable than you indicate you are, to use arrows. Blunders happen to all of us. That’s nothing, but then you got caught. Then rather than admit to an error and continue to something else you blundered again by trying to defend the error in creating elaborate arguments. You say you can offer more of them. I’ve no doubt that you can, but none would be true. In physical mechanics things are either true, or not true and argument doesn’t change that. You use an excellent gift in argument. I like that, but I like truth better. I used to like the mechanical aspects of physics, because if you get it right it never lies, argues, or debates. I liked it because it was true, period. You could see and understand truth. Whenever I would be wrong and someone would explain this in a way I would believe I would be happy. For where as I had, had an incorrect understanding I was then give the truth to keep for my self for life, though I would remain open to argument and willing to have my mind changed if any could do it. I would thank the person who gave me new understanding and mean it. Nobody here is like me. I have began to think some would rather have an armed chopped off than admit they were wrong and the devil forbid a reply to an expression of complement, or appreciation. Also, here it seems new ideas run into brick walls, not minds and the reconsideration of old ideas is a damnable crime. I am curious as to how you will react. As for myself this subject becomes a waste of time and I’m through with it, but I could happily read what you have to say on it. I wonder.
Centrifuge? It is pressure and certainly real pressure. There is actually a great deal to know about it. Those who are misguided have misguided you. The people you are studying, reading and quoting and the physics’ book authors do not know as much about it as I in the confined and narrow corridor of mechanics that I understand. Your experts need to study under me for a while, before you study under them.
If any one, by past experience I mean probably no one, really wants to know about centrifuge and is willing to work hard to understand I will tell you where to fine this information.
You said, “Note: it is very unwise to draw force arrows on diagrams if one does not have a sound 'feeling for physics'.” Is that a veiled cut against the competence of others here, or a veiled braggart suggestion of superiority, unfounded of course? Both? Is it both? Rather, was it only another blunder, unconscious and otherwise innocent?
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Arthur Dent - 20/08/2006 14:05:40
| | | Very eloquent obfustication. The point of putting arrows on diagrams is to guide one's own thoughts (and calculations), or perhaps someone else's. If they are pointing in the wrong direction, you will misguide yourself and point everybody else in the wrong direction (sic).
I cannot emphasize too much that one has to choose the correct frame of reference. For instance, in your original spinning wheel example, you did not state whether this was a stationary one (like a fan) or a rolling wheel. In the latter case, you would then have to state whether your diagram was a 'snapshot' of the situation as it passed your observation point, or the viewpoint of someone travelling alongside the wheel. The arrows would be different in the two cases.
For the umpteenth time, centrifugal force is a fictitious one invented by D'Alembert in order to simplify calculations. It is a reaction to the centripetal force (provided by seat-belts, etc.) which constrains someone to move in a curved path while trying to obey the Newton's laws requirement to continue in a straight line.
In practical terms, it exists only in the brain of the rotating observer. It cannot be used (except via stick-friction on a surface) to move the object rectlinearly in the 'wider world'. In other words, putting unequal 'centrifugal force arrows' on an eccentric wheel (say) will not mean that the object will move in the direction of the longer arrow. But, as I have pointed out before, there are dozens of patents based upon this fallacy.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 21/08/2006 04:16:29
| | |
In opposition to your first paragraph I refer to my most previous post. In opposition to your second paragraph I refer to my original post and sixth post, Dear Jerry. If you reread them, until you understand them, you should be able to discern for yourself that all the reference points you need are there. The position of the disk, still, or rolling makes no difference to the concept.
This is your bone:
PHYSICS FOR SCIENTIST & ENGINEERS With Modern Physics, second addition: In reference to centrifuge, “Sometimes these fictitious forces are referred to as inertia forces. These forces ‘invented’ by the noninertial observer ‘appear’ to be real forces in the accelerating frame. However we emphasize that these fictitious forces ‘do not’ exist when the motion is observed in an inertia frame. These fictitious forces are used only in an acceleration frame but do not represent ‘real’ forces on the body.”
GOLLEGE PHYSICS, Serway & Faughn: A car rounding a curve exhibiting centrifuge on a slick bottomed, outward sliding passenger. “The mysterious outward force ‘does not exist’. The only real external force on the passenger is the centripetal (inward) force due to friction or the normal force of the door.”
This isn’t your discovery. You are not the authority of it. Most students are first introduced to the theory and accompanying math in the eighth, or ninth grade and it is reviewed on into college and offered in reference beyond. It is very simple. Everyone on this site understands it and can do the simple math though some of us have to pick up a book to glance to review the methods sometimes. Everyone here knows it, Arthur. It is common. It is not necessary that you take it upon yourself to tell people the, “umpteenth time” and that you “cannot stress it enough”, as if you were some kind of an authority over them and they stupid and ignorant. It is not even your theory and invention, but that of other men.
You ignore everything I’ve said. I’ll reiterate. Unlike you, I have developed my own theory. It is new. It is well supported. It is in-depth. It has been argued. It is in opposition to current theory and you do not know it. You cannot argue against it until you understand it. All you can do is ignore it and keep saying what other men have told you to say.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Arthur Dent - 21/08/2006 07:22:35
| | | Why do you accuse me of claiming to have invented something, whose invention I quite clearly attributed to D'Alembert?
If you have read all of the textbooks, I really worry that you seem to have retained only the words and have not understood their meaning.
It parallels the basis of this entire forum: Euler wrote down the basic equations for gyroscope behaviour some 300 years ago, and moved on. He knew that propulsion was ruled out, simply because he had based his equations upon Newton's laws in the first place. It is true that Euler's equations can be solved exactly for only a few special cases, but that does not mean that 'new physics' is lurking somewhere within them (and computer simulations can handle any situation). So, no matter how many ways one plays around with precession, one is beaten by Euler (a greater genius than Newton BTW).
So, you are determined not to believe Euler's equations - and have made a small start by not believing the physics of simple rotation in a single plane. Fine, but this hermetic forum is the only place where you will be taken seriously; a sort of 'fictitious force for change'?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Freeman - 21/08/2006 22:25:02
| | | Take a breath, friends...
Well, I only want to share my experience in Physics Science with you. When I studied Newton's laws in the school and started to solve my first problems, they were allways with algebraic expresions and for 2D cases or simple 3D cases where the kinetic momentum is calculated without any use of vector calculus (we were not teached in them yet). Although they were simple cases, force diagrams often became difficult to work with because our lack of other more sofisticated maths tools made us to draw many force and acceleration vectors in order to be able to draw a system of equations from the Newton's laws.
Once in the High School, in the first Vector Mechanics lesson our Professor said to us: try to forget what you know about the Newton's laws and how to solve problems with them; we will start from zero and from another approach. Then we learned the generic vector expressions of the Newton's laws and their implications. We first had to learn a little of tensor calculus and a lot of algebra and vector calculus and then we started to solve Vector Mechanics problems in the second course. The diagrams were as simple as put the external forces on the isolated system you were considering from a Galilean reference frame: no centrifugal, no centripede, no coriolis, no accelerations, no momentum vectors, nothing but the external forces... and some kind of MAGIC ESSENCE appeared after solving each problem. The vector expressions of the Newton's laws drived us allways to a system of (almost allways non-linear) equations wich, when solved, the dynamics of the system under consideration were allways defined, without any use of these non-real forces. Many friends (including me) refused for a (short) period of time to abandon this (bad) habit acquired from the basics school, but the high complexity of this three-dimensional world that the high-school wanted to teach us made IMPOSSIBLE to work with those archaic diagrams.
Conclusion after 5 years of high school headaches: an isolated system will stay in his original state of movement until an external force is applied, viewd from a Galilean reference frame. Any d'Alembert force taken into consideration MUST be taken with care. I have not make use of these non-real forces for four years... and nowadays I still continue solving some Mechanical problems (such Alex Jones device for example)
Hope to have enlighten a bit, from a modest ME engineer point of view. Sorry for my (poor) english :(
Freeman,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 21/08/2006 22:45:29
| | | Dear Arthur Dent,
I can’t talk to you. You skim over what you read and then change subjects. You don’t follow the train of thought and respond. Debate is impossible. I can’t talk to you.
Too bad. I'm sure you're a very nice person.
My Very Best Wishes And So Long, Arthur,
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Arthur Dent - 22/08/2006 16:43:48
| | | Well done, Freeman, I think that we are on the same wavelength (although I am worried by your apparent fascination with one of these crackpot machines). It is quite amusing to look back at some of the misgivings expressed by leading scientists - concerning all of Newton's laws - at the turn of the 19th/20th century. Of course, they were crippled by the fact that the first law of thermodynamics was still not seen as being certain (a sentiment that probably still reigns in this forum). Once the first law of thermodynamics can be trusted as an axiom, then all of Newton's laws become inevitable. And, as if that were insufficient, Noether's theorem backs it all up. So, all of the mathematical tools (and arrows) are very useful in the right hands, but the overall consideration must be that, if you seem to be getting 'something for nothing' from your analysis, it is wrong. It is quite amusing that the internet is awash with perpetual motion (sorry, 'free energy') and antigravity (sorry, reactionless propulsion) sites, while real scientists have only one use for perpetual motion, and that is as a reductio ad absurdam. Thus, if some proposed technique or natural process can be arranged so that it breaks the law of conservation of energy, it is immediately ruled out. This 'closed-minded' assumption has served real science well for nearly a century, led to major advances in understanding, and shows no sign of failing in the future.
And now Glenn will complain that I have changed the subject again! I am afraid that that is the tragedy of the situation: if one cannot see the big picture, and the interlocking of all of the contrary evidence, one is lost. Too many people in this forum love to point out actions, but fail to foresee the reactions.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 01/09/2006 07:33:27
| | | Dear Arthur,
Thank goodness I did not even attempt to read the words, or I would surely have turned out to be another sad, brainwashed soul, like yourself, or to put it another way a continuous source of useless information.
A genius normally means someone who knows a hell of a lot more about a certain subject, than anyone else, but I do not think that a high degree of intelligence is a prerequisite for acquiring that amount of knowledge.
I would tend to agree with you in relation to Euler’s abilities but like the rest of the bunch, and including computers, if the facts are not all known, how can predictions be either correct or complete, especially if it is not even known what is being looked for?
Remember, neither Euler, Newton, nor Einstein, were engineers, nor for that matter gods, as you would wish us believe.
Can’t really blame Euler, probably did his best, but nobody at that time knew everything there was to know about gyroscopic effects, as you, yourself will in time, discover.
No one is suggesting a “new physics” just a more complete one, complete with the distasteful bits, and their implications.
Newton and Einstein were both aware that angular momentum and linear momentum had to be separately conserved to ensure the validity of the other laws.
The momentum conservation laws and the inability to transpose angular momentum for linear momentum (without screw threads) was just specious wishful thinking, and can easily be disproved, at least to anyone who matters.
What price the rest?
Arthur you are quite correct that this hermetic forum is the only place we likeminded souls can air our thoughts, but I will add, that even here, and I include yourself in this, never expect to be taken seriously.
Sandy Kidd.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 01/09/2006 14:34:13
| | | Sandy,
Wow! I didn’t know the extent of your talents. Good post. An ax murderer couldn’t have done much better. I approve of course.
Impressed,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Arthur Dent - 01/09/2006 15:49:58
| | | Dear Mr Kidd,
I would be the last person to want to describe Newton, Euler* or Einstein as engineers. Engineers are a rather inferior breed; always working from out-of-date textbooks and misinterpreting every puzzling experience that they have as a 'need for new physics'. When Pauli found that his momentum calculations did not balance for elementary particles, he did not doubt momentum: he instead guessed that an unknown particle was involved - and this proved to be the case. One might argue in retrospect that every such discovery since Dalton has been made by 'hanging onto' the principle of conservation. The same type of principle, you may remember, that says that your gyroscopes will never fly - un point c'est tout. If you have some contrary proof, write it up for a peer-reviewed journal. And by peer-reviewed, I mean one manned by real scientists; not like-minded pseudoscientists and crackpots. That is not peer-review; it is conspiracy.
*BTW, Euler left behind such a wealth of work that they have only recently finished examining it all.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 02/09/2006 17:18:54
| | | Dear “a dent”,
We only seem to hear from you just before the beginning of the university term. Is this because it is the only time you have away from a restrictive home environment and where you have free (to you at least) web access?
Own up! You are really a “University David” aren’t you?
I wonder if the reason that “they” have only just recently finished examining all of Euler’s work could be that it was terminally boring and totally meaningless in its majority.
I have always admired your catholic scientific knowledge and have assumed that you are a Planning Officer or a Parking Warden or have some other worthwhile ability, as you consider engineers a rather inferior breed. You can only thank God (Assuming that you believe that there is at least one.) therefore, that you are not a mathematician or worse still a statistician or, God forbid (Assuming-etc.-etc.) a university lecherer.
Probably not so
Kind regards,
NM
PS Glen, That comment about Lobotomies was absolutely horrendous – bloody funny – but horrendous!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 05/09/2006 11:56:23
| | | An interesting point of view Arthur, that all physics is known and nothing new is out there.
There exists an anomaly, related to gyroscope behaviour. All shed dwellers know this and have varying examples of the phenomena.
I have in the past tried on other sites to see if the anomalies were known or documented, without success.
Perhaps, as you have posted here before, kept a watching brief as it were, you could assist?
1) Baryonic centre. The traditional gyroscope on a tower. Given freedom of movement the gyroscope and the tower would rotate about the centre of combined mass?
2) Centripetal force. The traditional gyroscope on a tower requires the same restraining force as a similar mass orbiting t the same speed?
Both questions can be answered experimentally, that is after all what shed dwellers do! Can they be answered theoretically?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Arthur Dent - 05/09/2006 13:26:20
| | | "Those who claim to have new knowledge should first prove that they have all of the old knowledge" - Augustus De Morgan
Dear Momentus,
where did I say that all of physics is known? I merely pointed out that real progress has always been made by hanging onto well-established principles for as long as possible. Those whose first instinct is always to look for something new usually end up nowhere. The very very few successful exceptions naturally get a lot of public attention and that is what lures certain superficial would-be Einsteins into dead ends. To be fair, those who hang onto the old ideas for too long can also end up looking stupid; like the scientists who invented invisible planets (such as Vulcan) in order to explain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Unfortunately, the physics of gyroscopes (pace [pronounced pa-chay] certain extremely weak interactions predicted by general relativity) is too well-established to allow for any surprises. The anomalies which you think that you see are due to sloppy ill-controlled experiments. You know what the answers to your questions are; they are the ones in the blessed Goldstein (for example). Only a cack-handed engineer like Laithwaite (ice-on-ice as a frictionless system - ha! - even Jack London would have spotted that fallacy) would think that a toy gyroscope was suitable apparatus for conducting a 'critical experiment'. It is the mechanical equivalent of drunken students playing card-guessing games and thinking that their 'anomalous' results indicate the reality of telepathy. Indeed, whenever I come across an anti-gravity inventor, I am constantly waiting for 'the other shoe to drop'. It is never long before he tells me about his perpetual motion machine ... and then his belief in homoeopathy, telekinesis and creationism. He is often also a bad driver (does not believe in speed limits - you see - because of his 'superior but conventionally undemonstrable' skill).
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Arthur Dent - 05/09/2006 13:57:06
| | | Dear McMad,
funnily enough, I was once advised (on the basis of a battery of psychometric tests) to become an actuary. Now, that would have been boring - but much more financially rewarding. Your remark about Euler's work being boring perhaps reveals an antipathy to tackling difficult topics (like gyrodynamics?). The true reason for the lateness was that the work was not started until 1907. By 1964, 59 volumes had been published and the final total was - I think - 80 volumes. I am not sure whether his 3000 or so extant letters (also containing many fascinating ideas) are included therein. It is interesting that the only criticism by modern pure mathematicians is that he makes logical jumps that are not justified by modern function theory. Nevertheless, the proofs work as; far as applied mathematicians are concerned. I would have thought that this iconoclastic aspect should appeal to this forum.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Momentus - 06/09/2006 12:15:33
| | | Arthur
Well ranted.
Does the tower gyroscope rotate about the baryonic centre in a controlled experiment or not? Who did the proper experiment and when? Have you any knowledge on the subject, first hand or otherwise?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 23/11/2006 16:26:45
| | | Arthur,
You said:
>One is the notorious 'centrifugal force', drawn radially. I have even seen this done in Saab car adverts. The force, of course, is fictitious (but dozens of 'space-drives' have been based upon it) and makes no sense to the onlooker.
Centripetal Force is defined as the force which pulls a moving mass into a circular motion. In the case of a shaft with a weighted spoke, this force is towards the shaft. Centrifugal Force is the "equal and opposite reaction" to this force, so it is directed straight outwards. Since you say that Centrifugal Force is fictitious, does this mean that you consider all reaction forces to be fictitious?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
