|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
23 November 2024 17:52
|
|
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: |
Yes, but what do you really think? |
| Question: |
Sandy’s mention of the Jones test gets me going again. As to that device, I’ve explained why I’m certain it isn’t a form of propulsion, but only an optical trick. If the device weren’t manhandled by Jones and were free to do so, it should move backwards a couple inches when lifted and stop. Then when it is dropped it should move forward a couple of inches and stop provided it wasn’t pushed by Jones’s fingers, which in fact it was. The devise is not evidence of propulsion, but evidence of a trick. I can easily believe that Jones wanted so much for the device to work that he tricked himself, thinking that he was only helping a little to make the movement more obvious to the viewer. Why the Professor either didn’t understand, or explain the truth of it, who knows? We may know only that the experiment advanced his desire to prove the possibility on inertial propulsion. As excellent and dedicated as the professors was and as much as I admire him, I have found other errors in both his judgment and lack of it. I’ve come to ignore the Jones test altogether.
A. I’ll offer an example of the same conditions: Tie a long string to one end of the axel of a gyro. Spin it at half-speed. Set the other end of the axel on a tower. Very slowly lift the long string upward and the gyro will precess rearward from the upward applied force. Release the tension on the string and the gyro will precess from the tower forward because of the downward force of gravity. By repeating this action the gyro can be made to continuously move rearward to forward. Though the Jones device is of a different configuration, the same action occurs for the same reasons
B. Stand a spinning gyro with its axel vertical. Rest the bottom hub of the axel on a rubber mat. The reverse side of your mouse pad will do. Begin pushing the hub of the top axel back and forth sideways. The gyro will move in response forward and rearward. There are simple reasons you can reason for yourself. Again we find that although a different configuration the actions and responses are the same as in the Jones experiment.
Jones could have been a regular good guy, your neighbor or anybody you know, but his test was baloney. None of these three cases is propulsion, except in the same way that simple precession can be allowed to occur in one-half of a circumference distance of a circle and precession then purposely stooped. Matter has been moved through space from position a., to position b., propelled by a ninety degree applied force and without there having been an equal and opposite rearward reaction. In the simplest example we can think of, common precession, the Third Law is violated. The professor called this mass transfer. We few around this fire have talked lots and lots about it in terms of momentum, centrifuge and centripetal and whether they occur or don’t. It has always struck me as so strange though, that an obvious happening before the eyes of so many is ignored and avoided by so many. We few around the fire believe what our eyes and cognitive abilities tell us. Strange that of those who are most expected to perceive and know from what they see, 99.0001 % refuse to think for themselves and instead rely on what they’ve been told to think.
Glenn,
|
| Date: |
11 November 2006
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 20/11/2006 16:48:18
| | | ‘Why’ and ‘how’ a spinning gyro stays aloft becomes a simple and certain dynamic condition that once understood the mind grasp and holds easily. Also the seasons it can be made to rise and fall can be understood without much difficulty. The ‘why’ and ‘how’ however, a spinning gyro revolves horizontally around a pedestal has proven far more difficult to understand. This condition is large and difficult and nobody has succeeded in explaining it with a natural kind of short, simple clarity.
We should reduce our search to the mechanical causes of these revolutions, but not merely for an understanding, but to reason a primary way to explain the phenomena in the simplest, most complete and shortest way humanly possible. If we get long winded about it, we may as well forget it. Who will give it a try remembering the necessary economy of words and methods of thinking and while knowing that nobody has been able to come close? Why the revolutions? Who will give it a try, or any part of it?
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 21/11/2006 09:21:41
| | | Why’ and ‘how’ a spinning gyro stays aloft becomes a simple and certain dynamic condition that once understood the mind grasp and holds easily.
It is this first part of your deduction that is hard for anyone to get their head around. Maybe you could enlighten everyone as you claim to understand it.
Add to that, Coriolis Force and you have your answer to the second part of the question.
i.e. directly linked to gravity and the interaction with Earth. The next question you then have to ask is "will these devices work outside planetary influence?".
Of course, if the answer I have given is wrong, then anything is possible.
Simple enough?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 21/11/2006 16:35:48
| | | Sometime later I may attempt to explain what you suggest I explain and as carefully and simply and with as much economy of words as I am capable, but not for the purpose of accepting a challenge. I get nothing for that. My labors would be a gift, the same as I have received here from time to time. To hell with one up-man-ship. I’m telling you that a little, but very little has been made simple, period.
What I hope for is the best method possible laid out for understanding revolutions. If possible, the explanations should be as simple as simple can be and short. We may eventually find that well drawn pictures are additionally necessary.
I understand the Coriolis effect. I don’t see any correlation, and if I did, then not a correlation that should be put towards understanding any part of precession. Even if a coriolis and precession correlation made sense it would add too much complication and require too lengthy an explanation.
If you can produce inertial propulsion, then these devices can be further designed to produce acceleration in deep space.
I hope for short clear explanations. I expect we all will meet individual failure in this to some degree, but that maybe by comity and continued effort we will be able to help one another in producing what is need more than anything--simplified methods of understanding.
If I’m not making any sense please tell me.
Now, we can do this fellows. We’ve done bits of it together here before. Chin-up guys, buckle up men and stiffen your upper lips chaps. We can pull this off if we want to.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 21/11/2006 17:04:54
| | |
For Dave S. Now don’t get defensive. From what you said I gather you are working primarily with gravity as a power source, but I remember you once explained you had used elastic in a test as an applied force. Very good I thought. I recommend that at some time, whenever you’re ready, try to ignore gravity all together and concentrate only on applied force produced by electric motors, or some other form of electromagnetism.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 21/11/2006 17:17:21
| | | You have me confused with someone else Glenn.
I have never used elastic.
I have also never been involved with prior experimentation. I had the design in my head, understood it and then translated it to a drawing prior to building it (Well actually, I had someone else build it). All my designs and inventions are created this way.
Gravity cannot be ignored. Others would disagree. It seems that several of us are working to the same ends and in each instance we have different explanations as to what is happening. I do not hold with any of the discussions relating to forced precession. Others do. I follow the explanation accorded by mass transfer. Gravity is an issue and therefore I am still unsure if these devices would work in the absence of gravity.
Do bear in mind that even in orbit, gravity is a factor. Once you get away from the sun, then what?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 21/11/2006 19:42:03
| | | Dave S.
Yes, I had you confused with someone else. It was Luis Gonzalez who used elastic I believe. Sorry. Thanks for correcting me.
You said, “Gravity cannot be ignored.” I said, “…try to ignore gravity…” I understand why you say that. Gravity has given me fits and it can’t be avoided, but I must try to ignore it as best I can. / Here I must beg off. I just explained how to do that and now I’m cutting it out. It revealed too much about my methods and I haven’t completely given up on attempting to build this machine. Harping about trying to ignore gravity, then not explaining how makes me feel silly. I guess I am.
Insisting anyway, I claim with everything I’m worth that such a thing can be designed to function in space. As to forced precession, force is force by any means, and any means of force can produce mass transfer, but it is acceleration we seek.
Continually wishing you well in your endeavor,
Glenn
WHAT ABOUT THESE SIMPLYFICATIONS?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 21/11/2006 23:34:41
| | |
Dear fellow human beings on this site, I know how to prepare these explanations. They require work and commitment and a lot of very good drawings and I will either do them, or won’t do them. There is no need for me to bother you further for your help. The greatest tragedy that can befall a man befell me a couple of years ago and I haven’t been worth kicking ever since, so I don’t know if can eventually proceed with anything. Anyway, you guys keep at it for me relative to your style. I withdraw the request. Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 22/11/2006 00:51:34
| | | Glenn,
The most essential responce to tradegy is to refuse grief. Then, always remember to know your self. (Self is that which does the experiencing.) In the final analysis, you are your self and everything else is secondary. When we leave this life, the only things the self can take with it are character, virtue, and whatever supply of repetition has been built up. Your virtue comes, in part, from your efforts to help others, by explaining things of interest from your vantage. And experimentation gives you an opportunity to build repetition. So, try to regain your focus on WHY you're in the business with the rest of us and get back to business. You're a strong enough person I know you can do this.
Your friend,
Jerry Volland
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/11/2006 13:18:31
| | | Jerry,
I do sincerely thank you.You understood and you are kind and what you said is true and right more than you can know. I will remember and I haven’t given up. I will use willpower to force my drive into reawakening. We are meant to accomplish a few things. I’ve only been gone for a while, I hope.
Dave S. and Sandy Kidd! What do you think these two rejects from an ice cream parlor are up to just now? Well, I’m sure they’ll tell us more as they know more. Times must be exciting for them just now.
So Long. We’ll talk again.
Your friend, Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Elder Dr. & Mrs. Hsien-Lu & Hui-Lien Peng Huang - 22/11/2006 14:46:09
| | | Dear Mr. & Mrs. Glenn Hawkins & Family:
A Blessed Thanksgiving Day to you all.
Don't give up. Trust in the Creator & Savior Whom Sir Newton also believed and trusted.
1 Thessalonians 5:16-18 (New International Version)
16Be joyful always; 17pray continually; 18give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus.
To cheer you up, let us share with you all a story we recently were told .
A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed.
>> As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation.
>> They talked about so many things and various subjects.
>>
>> When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said:
>> "I don't believe that God exists."
>>
>> "Why do you say that?" asked the customer.
>>
>> "Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that! God
>> doesn't exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick
>> people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would
>> be neither suffering nor pain. I can't imagine a loving God who would
>> allow all of these things."
>>
>> The customer thought for a moment, but didn't respond because he
>> didn't want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the
>> customer left the shop. Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the
>> street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard He looked
>> dirty and unkempt.
>>
>> The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said
>> to the barber: "You know what? Barbers do not exist."
>>
>> "How can you say that?" asked the surprised barber. "I am here, and I
>> am a barber. And I just worked on you!"
>>
>> "No!" the customer exclaimed. "Barbers don't exist because if they
>> did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards,
>> like that man outside."
>>
>> "Ah, but barbers DO exist! What happens is, people do not come to me."
>>
>> "Exactly!"- affirmed the customer. "That's the point! God, too, DOES
>> exist! What happens, is, people don't go to Him and do not look for
>> Him.
>> That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world."
May our Lord God Jesus Christ bless you, your family, your career, and your invention.
Elder Dr. & Mrs. Hsien-Lu & Hui-Lien Peng Huang
>>
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 22/11/2006 14:49:00
| | | Glenn,
To answear your first question at the beginning of this thread, Newton's Third Law is not violated. When you pull upwards against the string - and, hence, the gyro - there is an equal and opposite pull downwards against your hand. Likewise, when gravity pulls down against a precessing gyro, there is an equal and opposite force pulling upwards against the part of the earth which is beneath that part of the gyro. Why the rotating gyro redirects the applied force at an angle is something Newton didn't deal with. Maybe this is NOT a reaction?
To address your second question, that of the mechanism which causes the horizontal gyro to revolve around the pedestal, we know that this type of precession moves the gyro in the direction the bottom of the wheel is spinning. Since the side of the gyro which is spinning downwards is speeded up slightly by the pull of gravity, and the side which is spinning upwards is slowed down slightly by gravity, these differences in spin velocity are carried over to the bottom and top rims. With the bottom rim spinning faster than the top rim, overall movement of the gyro is in the direction the bottom rim spins.
As for the gyro's ability to remain aloft, isn't the reaction of the top and bottom rims to gravity the same as a satelite's? The equation for Centrifugal Acceleration (an equal but opposite reaction) is A=V^2/r. (This is not the same thing as Centrifugal Force.)
Any thoughts?
Jerry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Jerry Volland - 22/11/2006 16:24:27
| | | Elder Dr. & Mrs. Hsien-Lu & Hui-Lien Peng Huang,
Thank you for sharing this story. It's a good one, and I'll use it myself. May God Bless you, and may you have a Joyful and fulfilling Thanksgiving.
Jerry Volland
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/11/2006 20:31:55
| | | Hi Jerry,
Let us consider this: with regards to these up and down earth forces they certainly comply with Newton’s Laws exactly. In essences no mater how your hand, feet or body is leveraged we find the conditions of opposite and equal force are constant. Of course you are right here, in that these forces always remain perfectly aligned in opposition at all times, whether you are walking, or standing still for instance, but that is not the point.
These perfectly vertical forces applied to a spinning gyro can produce an unusual effect that doesn’t exist in any other example. It is this effect that is not obeying the laws of motion. The gyro can be made to move forward horizontally, without creating a horizontal rearward reaction. How do you explain that? It certainly cannot be because the power source is an alignment of equal and opposite forces vertically. Something else is going on due to the tilting of spin.
You understand the problem. You said: “Why the rotating gyro redirects the applied force at an angle is something Newton didn't deal with. Maybe this is NOT a reaction?”
It doesn’t alter the fact, whether he dealt with it, or not. The fact is there. Not a reaction? I’m not able to perceive the idea of none-reaction. I can only perceive that the reaction isn’t rearward, because it isn’t. Didn’t he imply: “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction?” Then how can we say he is right if we are willing to think, “Maybe this is NOT a reaction?” Do we then say precession is not an action? Can we have it both ways? Can he be right and wrong at the same time? No.
Concerning this second question. I cannot argue with your ideas, but I have investigated vertical rotation’s up and down speeds with respect to gravity on either side of the wheel and although I found what you found, I further found that it makes no difference. The breaking away from gravity and the falling into gravity on respective sides of the wheel are compensated for at the center of rotation where leverage up occupies the same space as leverage down. Both become equal and opposite partners you see. More, much more, I found some ‘relative motions’ in a sailing Frisbee so extraordinary and beautiful, as I had used colors to describe rotating partials in a closed system relative to an outside linear distance and speed, that I am bewildered and resist the implications. I don’t quite believe the evidence, but something extraordinary is happing as a whirling, sailing Frisbee begins to tilt in three-dimensional space. Two separate systems seem to be interfering with one another during the tilting. That’s not supposed to happen. I don’t know what to make of it, let alone describe it. I haven’t been able to qualify any of it, though the evidence is entirely true. All motion was measured on a graph. Anyway, I once reasoned it as you reason it. I don’t disagree with you. Certainly something is certainly happening to cause precession. I’m not sure we have it nailed down.
You ask, “…isn't the reaction of the top and bottom rims to gravity the same as a satellite’s?” If I understand, I think so.
My wife is cooking a turkey. Every four sentences I have to get up to do something in the kitchen, chopping onions, pulling out gizzards, lifting a turkey, unscrewing lids and I don’t know what all. My mind wasn’t in it. How do I know all I did? Why you wonder I had to do that. That’s what I was wondering too, why do ‘I’ have to do that? Anyway if this post is rambling doesn’t make sense I have a reason. The reason is walking around in a skirt in the kitchen, cooking, fixing dressing, dumping out cranberry sauce, making me dizzy with motion and hollering, ‘Honey!’ every time I’m about to remember what it was I was trying to think before the last, ‘Honey!’. Reader beware.
Always delightful talking to you,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 22/11/2006 20:33:28
| | |
Dear Elder Dr. & Mrs. Hsien-Lu & Hui-Lien Peng Huang,
Thank you for your kindness. I hope for you a happy holiday and the same for your days thereafter. You are special.
Mr. & Mrs. Glenn Hawkins & Family,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 23/11/2006 00:53:58
| | | I’m changing my tune just tonight. Not only is mass transfer a reality, but also it seems so logical that it can be used to cause acceleration. I have been going over in my mind some of the simplest little half-forgotten test I did so long ago when I began. I can’t see why acceleration can’t be accomplished with what we already know as soon as it is realized how to use what we know. I hope I’m right. I think so. I have good evidence. It becomes logically very probable. In a way, there is almost proof already. I though I should tell you of my change.
I guess I will now bow out for a time. Thank you.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 03/12/2006 18:41:11
| | | Reasoning toward conclusions become less certain the further you go. I haven’t been able to formulate solid conclusions that I’m satisfied with and I never will be able to. No one has, and no one is any closer than they were at their beginning. Mechanical understanding has eluded all human effort. Even after these devices are built and tested not all mechanical conclusions may be learned. So little is known. Design and build the devices from the best reasoned, but uncertain conclusions you have, or give up. The completed devises themselves must be the tests. Nothing less will do any good
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/12/2006 14:13:23
| | | Dear Everyone,
I'm happy I may have some welcome news for you from my behalf. I’ve done two more tests despite my eariler assessment that more would do no good. I now confirm the probability that inertia acceleration will be achieved. I know that I had cast some doubts earlier and I now hope they weren’t effective. From here I began again with earnestness to attempt to build. It will be difficult. I hope you will do the same and for those already continuing the attempt good luck.
If it helps, I spent years trying to reason explanations that would deny the several limited tests I was able to do. With these last two tests I give in. I can no longer find a single reason left to attempt to deny the results of any of the tests done over a period of years. I expect someone will finally achieve acceleration.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/12/2006 23:22:30
| | | Dave, I will do my best to do as you suggested. This would be easy if I could draw pictures for you.
The most well known fact sheared among us is that a rotating disk resists being forced from its plain of spin. It would rather precess than be tilted. When precession is blocked, is disallowed, while tilting is forced you find the condition of resistance that supports ship’s stabilizers. That is powerful resistance.
With this in mind let us add some parts to a toy gyro. Tape a long kitchen matchstick to the top rim of the gyro. The alignment of the matchstick should at a right angle to the disk. Tape another matchstick to the bottom rim, also at a right angle to the disk, but tape it on the ‘opposite side’ of the disk. The match heads are aliened toward one another, ‘except’ that they are at different elevations. Your parts are finished.
Do not spin the gyro, but place one axel end on top of a tower and hold it there horizontal to the desktop that the tower sits on. Now push the horizontal aliened top rim match toward the tower. Push the bottom horizontal aliened rim match away from the tower. The gyro would tend to fall into gravity, but if your matchsticks resist enough due to enough push you apply the tower will not fall. It will twist (torque) down upon the tower and thereby be supported. The weight of the gyro is transferred into toque that would appear to cause the tower to weigh as much as itself plus the tower, but of course this is a combination of force by torque and the weight of the tower and not really extra weight at all though the torque resisted may be equal to gravity upon the gyro.
Comeback to the first paragraph. The resistance of a spinning gyro to tilt from its plain is exactly like the resistance in the two matches you pushed against a non-spinning gyro. The difference is not the resistance, but the causes of forces that cause the resistances being different. Resistance is resistance and no difference is recognized, only the cause may be different. A set of opposite resistances at different elevations to plain spin alignment is what keeps the gyro aloft, “Torque dear child,” the man said and he meant it. “This is completely certain.”
There’s more. I could make it simple and short, but oh! for the lack of a few drawings.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 05/12/2006 23:33:18
| | | Excuse me. I said, “Do not spin the gyro, but place one axel end on top of a tower and hold it there (horizontal) to the desktop that the tower sits on. Now push…”
I meant to say, “Do not spin the gyro, but place one axel end on top of a tower and hold (THE DISK VERTICAL) to the face of the desktop that the tower sits on. Now push…”
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 06/12/2006 15:09:28
| | | Dear Jerry,
I will go a bit further with this while preparing my mind for the task ahead.
Obviously you know gravity is the engine that drives precession. The rotation of the disk neither slows, nor speeds up during precession. No energy is extracted from rotation.
As we have just learned above the energy from the force of gravity is used in creating torque, which is then used up in holding the gyro aloft--- where then does the energy come from to drive precession?
The situation is madding to the mind of reason. An object with mass moves through space, but carries no inertia, kinetic energy, or momentum to deliver a collision force into a wall. The fact that the path is curved doesn’t explain away the seemingly impossibility. Newton would pitch a fit. Me too. I’ve pitched little fits of rejection, because all of his dynamic Laws are violated, not just one.
This knowledge doesn’t affect my plains. The lack of momentum has been compensated for, and this is something I’ve known about from the beginning, but have remained in as much denial as the most stubborn of physics’ teachers. It is difficult to accept and contrary to all three laws of motion, which of course are all the same thing expressed in different ways to better allow for reasoning and understanding.
About the third test within a week of my beginning was designed this way: I used a hacksaw to cut all the unnecessary weight from a plastic Tonka toy truck leaving only wheels, the bed and a vertical wall. I used two clothes hanger lengths bent at a right angle. One end of each was stuck into a cylinder in the bed to hold the hanger upright and allow it to swivel. On the other ends I tied strings then tied gyros to the strings. The gyros were held aloft by a common string hanging from and overhead beam and attached to each gyro. The gyros were spun up. The common string was cut with scissors. At the same time both gyros processed into the vertical wall. They then fell down in a spiraling tumble that seems an equal and opposite torque. I repeated this test half a day trying different things. As I think back on it I was so unquestionably certain that some reason other that the truth of it as we now know it was keeping the little cut-up truck from moving forward an inch and then coasting from the collision of matter in motion into its vertical wall. Other, later and different kinds of tests to find momentum were done as the years went by. Again, I was stubborn. How could the only ‘Three Laws of Motion’ we have all be deigned? I give up. There is no momentum and probably no centrifuge in precession.
It has been explained to me that momentum is missing and centrifuge does not display itself to the full measure it should. The term dead weight (who termed this?), which exist in the non-spinning carriage, and the axes area and the axel itself, which produces only a little angular moment, are responsible for the small effects we see of centrifuge and momentum.
Sandy Kid, Momentus and Nitro MacMad have been singing this tune loudest for a long time, but how dare them and now you insist that mater in motion can have momentum and centrifuge reduced, or totally lost and yet the matter in motion continues. How dare all of you to tell me that just because it’s true. Hello fellows.
I should add, you may attach a lump of non-spinning lead to a strong gyro and precession will carry it. The lead will have momentum, but you then have to contend with the centrifuge it creates.
Jerry, you said: “Maybe precession is NOT a reaction.” I succumb. I can’t argue. Accept my apology. I don’t have an idea of why and how this condition is as it is. I only know the truth is almost unacceptable. I accept now.
One more post to sharpen my dulled and unused tool then I go to work.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 06/12/2006 15:49:37
| | | I mentioned earlier the strange and to me beautiful shapes and colors that can be transposed on a graph to show the relation of a spinning disk as it travels through space. I’m sorry for not being able to show you the graphs of another seemingly impossible event. The spinning disk relative to the space it travels through show the following by measurement and it is wild. Relative to the space traveled through the particles on one side of the disk begin to move back and forth from rim to axes, while the particles on the other side move rearward more and more toward a straight line. Again, this is relative to space traveled thru.
I haven’t added tilt to these graphs, but it would seem that if you did you could conceive how a tilting gyro moving through space would invade the space it travels through, that is that a rotating system would interact with an outside system. Still the universe is magical and the little gyro is a major magical component. I hope this rambling on one of the great wonders is not out of place. PS, I use the word magic metaphorically.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 06/12/2006 17:30:31
| | |
OK, I see it is a mistake not to explain the above. Though my methods were more exacting, measured & carefully grafted you can see what I’ve been talking about this way: Cut out a cardboard disk. Stick a nail through the center. Stick four different colored ink pins through the outer edges of the disk at equal distances. Tape blank pages of paper in a line on the bottom of a wall. Now you are ready. Roll the disk along the floor next to the wall, while pushing the pins individually into the wall of paper. Do this again on new paper, but this time do a control spin of the disk, with the spin being much faster than the disk is moved linearly across the floor, much like your car wheels spin fast in mud as your car slowly moves forward. Lastly, remove one of the sheets of paper and lay it on your desk and place the disk on top. Trace a circle around the disk and remove it. This should reveal enough to blow your mind. The ink lines represent the paths of particles. The faster the spin relative to the linear distance traveled the more different the traced paths become. The partials on the bottom half of the disk moved nearer to up and down, while at the top half partials moved nearer to the linear from forward to rearward. It is a picture of something near Relativity and is an actual (true) translation. We should all go back to actual work now. There’s nothing more I see to gain here beyond these moments of wonder and surprise and to me a beauty, unless you wish to add tilting as a spinning disk travels through the space you’ve drawn on the lengths of pages taped together.
“””” In that case you might get a glimpse of how air dynamical effects create an air foil vacuum (lift) upon the rearward, top potion of the cone shaped Frisbee when sailing through the air. Could you see how rear, top vacuum lift should tilt a spinning Frisbee therefore creating precession and thereby creating a new and different direction where more lift continues so the Frisbee begins to curve most as it nears the catcher? (But wait. A Frisbee is not a gyroscope. Not at all. I don’t mean that. It’s just that spinning things do funny things.””””
I don’t see that any of this is of a practicable use toward the search for inertial acceleration. It is only an interesting glimpse of wonders we’ve not realized. Particle paths are relative and spin seems to be everything and more than we know and have dreamed of.
I seem ready to go to work. I'll read you now.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
