|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
10 May 2024 22:56
|
|
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: |
Luis Gonzalez |
| Subject: |
Understanding precession is a prerequisite to design gyro-propulsion |
| Question: |
Gentlemen,
Many of us visit this forum with a common goal, to resolve whether gyro configurations can yield useful linear propulsion.
Our interest, no doubt, was sparked by the wonder that struck us when we first saw the unexpected behavior of a toy gyro in precession.
Most of us can recall the moment that set our thoughts on fire, to one day, find out how a toy gyro seems to defy gravity; we determined to know how precession works!
I have stated as I understand science tells me that precession occurs. Expressing my knowledge about precession does not jeopardize my designs for building the ultimate propulsion machine, and I suspect this is true for most of us.
Recently I noticed that very few of us have ventured to explain how they see precession occurs in a toy gyro.
Perhaps I have not found the locations in this forum where individuals, who express authority in gyro propulsion, have stated their explanation about how precession occurs.
I believe most readers would be interested to hear from the learned men of this forum regarding how precession comes into existence. This shouldn’t be too difficult.
It appears obvious that understanding precession is a basic prerequisite to address the more complex task of designing and/or building gyro-propulsion devices.
Anyone who does not know how, is unable to, or is too embarrassed to present their opinion about how precession occurs, may be a bit premature on building gyro-propulsion devices; maybe they should start asking more questions about gyros.
How about it gents? Who’ll be the first to point us to, or state their description about how precession occurs?
Thank you, Luis
|
| Date: |
22 January 2007
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 25/01/2007 13:06:21
| | | Hi Luis,
I know how precession occurs and I know the theoretical background about precession because I deal with gyros since the last 20 years. However, this is basic physics and it is not too difficult to understand (in my opinion). Also it is difficult for me to explain in good English because it is not my native language (I live in Germany). What exactly do you want to know about precession?
Regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
webmaster - 25/01/2007 18:56:15
| | | Have a read of this
http://www.gyroscopes.org/how.asp
I'm currently using this as the basis of "The cause of precession" section of the book I'm
writting. The four rotating balls/masses is a good way to plan it. Saying that, I'll trying to find a even simpler way to present it.
Does anyone have any better ways to explain it?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 25/01/2007 21:26:47
| | | @webmaster
I have read your description about how a gyroscope works. It's a good idea to describe the precession of a gyro simplified with single mass points, I also prefer this way of thinking. However, I'm missing more detailed expanations for example why mass "A" will be forced to move upwards and "D" downwards? Which forces are responsible for this behavior? What happens with the mass points "B" and "D" at exactly this time segment? And what happens if a mass point is elsewere located between sectors D-A, A-B or the corresponding counter mass in esctors B-C and C-D?
The answers for these questions are very important to understand the precession of a gyro and to forecast the velociy of the precession.
Also contrary to your opinion I am sure that it is not possible (better not possible in a simple way) to generate energy from precession rotation from a gyro. If you really understand how the precession works you will realise, that the precession effect will immediately disappear, if you try to use this mechanical rotation energy for no matter what.
I will prepare some more detailed information for better understanding, but I need some time for doing this and it is hard to do this in English as well... ;-)
Regards
Harry K.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 28/01/2007 03:35:58
| | | Thank you for the serious responses gentlemen.
Webmaster,
The Pearson paper provides a good start.
We’ll see about finding a better and more complete way to explain precession.
Harry K,
Please take as much time as you need to give your best explanation.
Your experienced perspective on how spin and toque produce the unusual behavior of precession will be of interest to many of us.
I am looking forward to your explanation of precession as you understand it.
Certainly we are not alone in agreeing that it is not possible to generate propulsion from gyro configurations in a simple way. If this goal is achievable, it will require complex mechanical configurations that are far from obvious.
Best Regards,
Luis G.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 29/01/2007 11:49:07
| | | For Glenn Turner,
In all these types of drawn and worded explanations I have seen one, including the one you intend to alter, that explains why and how precession is accomplished. I think they never can. What they do is explain placement, giving magnitudes of force, mass and speed and direction.
Examples of these explanations:
“The combined motion of A and C cause the axis to rotate in the "precession plane”
Yes but, the real question should be ‘why?’.
“A gyro's axis will move at a right angle to a rotating motion.”
Yes, but again “why?”.
“The property of Precession represents a natural movement for rotating bodies.”
Yes, but “why?” is this so. What are the mechanical causes and effects? How do they work? Explain natural!
“…through the gimbaled plane all the energy transferred to the rim by the tilting force is mechanically stopped.”
Yes, but mechanically how is it stopped? What is happening to cause this?
“The tilting force would be purposely reversed.”
Again, why and how is this accomplished?
I have skiped dozens of such explanations of observed movements and placements. When you have finished searching for all offered explanations in all the methods used, you will still not know why a gyroscope doses what it dose. Consider a compustion engine explanation as an alternate example and you know you can aquire an absolute understand of precisely every mechanical reason that everything happens. Everything begins and ends with force and every element of how this is accomplished is totally explainable. With a gyroscope force begins and ends with force also (I think in terms of pressure transfers.) The methods that have been used to attempt to explain the functions of a gyroscope do not, and perhaps cannot explain force creations and force reaction. They are capable of explaining only in an observed and calculated way, placements giving magnitudes of force, mass and speed and direction. For me, “why and how” is all important and the perfect way to do this would always be the simplest and easiest way to understand and then present it in the easiest and simplest way so that the reader viewing also drawings can grasp it all effortlessly from the explanation.
The present ways of attempting to explain, whether done by professors and graduate students and presented with animation, while providing math and read out counters on websites do not explain why and how. Their efforts are rather pitiful in the attempt to give understanding, for they themselves do not understand. How can the very first ever, suitable explanation be done? Addressing pressures in mechanical ways can do it. I have spoken of this many times. I have virtually explained how to begin.
Cartesian coordination representations of the entire gyroscope are a poor way to go. References to the axes do not seem to be helpful. There is no force generated ‘in’ the axes, but only simple reactions occur there from generated forces elsewhere. All the forces (pressures) for change takes places in the rim and the concentration on why and how the particles caring force therein both cause and react to multiple pressures is the only way to understand precession. You wonder why has this not been perceived as the area and way to begin the explanation.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 06/02/2007 23:41:23
| | | Dear Luis,
Please apologise my late response, however, because I'm new here I first started to read a little bit in the forum. To my opinion this is the only interesting forum for us mad gyro exorcists unfortunately in English language which is not my favourite language as you surely noticed. ;-)
Anyway there are many interesting and fascinating characters sharing their thoughts and experiences with the behavior of gyroscopes and therefore I want to thank the webmaster for this platform and this great site!
It is really funny to see how many guys bother with similar ideas to create profitable force, thrust or whatever. So do I too since the early eighties. However, I first investigated (and still do it) gyroscope systems to transform (better: create) energy. To my opinion propulsion gyroscope devices are not possible. To design a capable model I wanted to calculate the precession rate of a gyro by given tilt momentum, inertia and revolutions of the gyro. Therefore it is necessary to understand in detail what cause the precessing of the gyro. As many others here in the forum I am sure that I have understand how pression "works" and so I am able to calculate the precession rate as well. As mentioned before this is very urgent to know for design reasons of a capable model for transferring energy.
Maybe I would not present new knowledge and I don't want to repeat standard of knowledge and bore other users . It is really hard to find out the standard of knowledge here in the forum and I have not the rhetorical ability for deep discussions as I have noticed in many other threads. Therefore it may be better to keep quit. ;-)
Anyway, if you have a detail question I try to answer as good as I can. But ask in small slices. ;-)
Thank you for your understanding and kind regards!
Harry K.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Mark Larson - 18/02/2007 23:56:02
| | | My guess is that when a gyroscope is tilted on it's axis, the path of the leading edge of the rotor is being shortened, which causes the rotor to deflect. This is necessitated by the law of conservation of momentum. When a skater brings her arms in during a spin, the spin speeds up to compensate for the distance traveled by the arms is being shortened. But, when a gyroscope is tilted on its axis, just one side's distance is being shortened, therefore just one side compensates by deflecting in the direction of the spin. If you tilt the axis of a gyroscope in the middle of the axis, rather than the bottom of the axis, the top and bottom of the gyroscope will both deflect in opposite directions because both routes are being shortened.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 19/02/2007 02:00:08
| | | Harry K.
Thank you for sharing in the passion for gyros. There is no need to apologize for lateness, as this is an open forum.
Calculating the rate of precession is relatively well explained in physics books as basically the torque-force divided by the spin-momentum (with adjustment factors that may depend on the configuration etc).
Please feel free to write the standard of knowledge because, even if it bores some, others may benefit from it.
I don’t have small slice questions, as I am more interested in getting a flavor for how others perceive precession (what rules precession follows and why it follows these rules).
Our webmaster has presented the best explanation for precession that most of us have seen, but as you mentioned, that explanation is lacking completeness.
You may have guessed that I have an explanation that I prefer and will present in this thread (if it doesn’t become too congested with tangent discussions); it is a short and intuitive explanation. However, the necessary imagery that supports the explanation can becomes lengthy; I’m working on it.
Let’s take our time Harry and do a good job. If we get a lot of flak from others members then maybe we can take our conversation offline. For now, let’s try the forum.
Best regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 19/02/2007 10:09:09
| | | Dear Luis,
"...Calculating the rate of precession is relatively well explained in physics books as basically the torque-force divided by the spin-momentum".
That's wrong, Luis! You have to consider the correct inertia of the gyro. In precession direction the inertia of the gyro is different (the half).
Luis. did you read this thread: http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=689 ?
In this thread, I think, I have explained precession based on my knowledge. I cannot find any violation of physical laws, however, this opinion may be not accepted by some others here in the forum. Never mind, everybody shall be right. I have to design and build my test setup and do not intend to waste my and any other's life time.
Excuse me Luis, this is not against you! ;-)
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 24/02/2007 14:20:01
| | | Dear Harry K.
Thank you for pointing out the inaccuracy of my statement.
My perception of the basic equation for precession is: (WP) = (T) / ( I x WS)
Where:
(WP) is the angular velocity of precession,
(T) is the applied torque,
( I ) is the Mass Moment of Inertia (of a disk flywheel of radius R and mass M), and
(WS) is the spin angular velocity of the disk flywheel.
The product of ( I ) x (WS) is the “Angular Momentum” of the flywheel, which I called “Spin-momentum.”
I think this presents a small-slice question from me to you. Can you provide your equation for the velocity of precession explaining why the “correct inertia” results in “the half” of “spin-momentum” that I presented?
I would appreciate very much furthering my understanding (the Spanish always admire the German love for exactitude and I hope this will always be so).
I read through the posting that referred to above, where in your dialogue with Glenn you explain some aspects of precession. I was pleased with some of your comments including ones about couple. I will reread it to gain better understanding.
I also agree with you that precession does not violate any of the established physical laws.
I find that reading, writing, and experimenting about gyros and precession is enjoyable and does not require too much time. However, trying to build gyro-propulsion (or such) devices, without sufficient knowledge on facts and solid theory, can take a lifetime of trial and error without a roadmap.
I hope you will answer with your more exact equation.
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 25/02/2007 18:10:55
| | | Dear Luis,
Please excuse me I had made a mistake, shame on me!
You are right, the equation of precession is (WP) = (T) / ( I x WS).
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 03/03/2007 15:03:21
| | | Dear Harry K.
Thank you for correcting the small error.
I reread (again) the posting you referred me to (a dialog with Glenn, which has evolved since my previous read). It appears that at least 3 of us agree openly on some aspect about basic gyro dynamics and how they fit well within the existing laws of motion (and common sense).
I urge you to please read through what I have written in this forum as I have attempted to develop a sound theory to connect known (and emerging) gyro phenomena to the accepted laws of motion. I will try to look for the most appropriate places in this forum and (to save you reading time) I will point you to them in a later posting.
Some of the ideas that I think we may agree upon (to some extent) are as follows:
- The laws of motion do not permit rectilinear gyro-propulsion derived from constant/smooth gyro behaviors (however gyro behaviors can produce constant/smooth motion when constrained into a curved path by a rail or some other form of friction).
- The laws of motion do not appear to forbid rectilinear gyro-propulsion derived from the momentum of gyro behaviors, when this momentum is allowed to interact or exchange energy with another component of a device. A major drawback to this method is that the energy exchange is inefficient and of very short duration. The inefficiency is caused by the unique behavior of objects moving in precession; as opposed to objects in classical motion (precession’s momentum is fluid and easily redirected by any encounter).
- I also agree with other esteemed gyro enthusiasts that in absence of gravity (e.g. in space) a minimum of 4 synchronized gyros are required to eliminate disruptive counteractions while applying the needed torques.
I have been directing my efforts towards finding ways to increase the exchange of momentum that gyro precession can transfer or exchange with other components. I my opinion, we can increase the energy transfer by increasing the velocity of precession and decreasing its fluid/mercurial tendency to change directions. Without intricate explanations, I believe that SLOWING the SPIN VELOCITY of the gyro and increasing its relative mass (in relationship to the rest of the device) provides a step in the right direction to accomplish this specific goal (i.e. to increase transfer/exchange of momentum energy).
When gyro-spin is relatively slow (in relationship to the rotation of a system which provides the torque) its 90 degree response still exists but I believe the equation for precession will require the introduction of some interesting variables.
For example, on a more basic level, some of the system configurations require introduction of the Cosine and Sine functions to account for changing parameters as the gyro changes position.
I have also been directing my effort toward designs that allow harmonic interaction of the components; in other words, designs that do not cause disruptive forces on the critical gyro-components. I believe that devices with tendencies to self destruct were designed without these considerations; they are built with many unnecessary stress points.
Though we are both busy individuals, I look forward to further exchange of ideas. Please let me know if at some point you wish to take the conversation offline.
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 03/03/2007 21:46:06
| | | Very good, Luis. Very good.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 04/03/2007 00:15:13
| | | Dear Luis,
Glenn wants to watch us "playing on the ballpark", but it's not easy for me because of language barriers and I also want to proceed with my own invention. Each single post costs me hours to write. It's difficult enough to discuss such strange stuff in your native language... However I will give answer to your post later.
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 04/03/2007 15:28:11
| | | Dear Luis,
Here are my answers to your post:
Luis:
I will try to look for the most appropriate places in this forum and (to save you reading time) I will point you to them in a later posting.
Harry:
Ok, however some of your postings are at great length… ;-)
Luis:
- The laws of motion do not permit rectilinear gyro-propulsion derived from constant/smooth gyro behaviors (however gyro behaviors can produce constant/smooth motion when constrained into a curved path by a rail or some other form of friction).
Harry:
In this case you mean the behavior of one single gyro? If so then I agree, because a gyro can only be affected by a torque and its reaction will be in form of a torque as well (I don’t like the term “couple” in this context). And a torque can never cause rectilinear movement per se.
Luis:
- The laws of motion do not appear to forbid rectilinear gyro-propulsion derived from the momentum of gyro behaviors, when this momentum is allowed to interact or exchange energy with another component of a device. A major drawback to this method is that the energy exchange is inefficient and of very short duration. The inefficiency is caused by the unique behavior of objects moving in precession; as opposed to objects in classical motion (precession’s momentum is fluid and easily redirected by any encounter).
Harry:
That’s your thesis, Luis. Again my question, if you speaking from a system with one or more gyros? I guess the latter. I do not see any energy exchange but rather torque exchange. The precession torque is caused by a tilting torque, i.e. the tilting torque will be reflected by 90 deg. into a constant movement called precession. The precession torque cannot be stored as angular momentum because the precession torque is constant and not accelerated (contrary to the tilting torque!). Therefore every barrier which will cause a counter torque to the precession torque has the impact of a “backward precession”, i.e. the axis with the origin tilting torque will tilt (precess) according the counter torque of the barrier.
But again, we are still speaking from torques and not from energy! If you could achieve to eliminate one or more counter forces caused by the acting torques then in my opinion it would be possible to cause directed thrust or to transform energy.
Luis:
- I also agree with other esteemed gyro enthusiasts that in absence of gravity (e.g. in space) a minimum of 4 synchronized gyros are required to eliminate disruptive counteractions while applying the needed torques.
Harry:
May be, but it depends on what you want to achieve in absence of gravity? In my opinion thrust propulsion with gyros is not possible, neither with 1 nor with 4 or more gyros. ;-)
Luis:
I have been directing my efforts towards finding ways to increase the exchange of momentum that gyro precession can transfer or exchange with other components.
I my opinion, we can increase the energy transfer by increasing the velocity of precession and decreasing its fluid/mercurial tendency to change directions. Without intricate explanations, I believe that SLOWING the SPIN VELOCITY of the gyro and increasing its relative mass (in relationship to the rest of the device) provides a step in the right direction to accomplish this specific goal (i.e. to increase transfer/exchange of momentum energy).
Harry:
I have no clue how you came to this wisdom? In my opinion it makes no technical difference if you :
1.decreasing the revolution of the gyro and increasing its rotating mass, or
2.increasing the revolution of the gyro and decreasing its rotating mass, or
3.decreasing the revolution of the gyro and increasing the radius of rotating,
assumed all changes will be accomplished in a correct relationship. However, I’m open for your minds.
Luis:
When gyro-spin is relatively slow (in relationship to the rotation of a system which provides the torque) its 90 degree response still exists but I believe the equation for precession will require the introduction of some interesting variables.
For example, on a more basic level, some of the system configurations require introduction of the Cosine and Sine functions to account for changing parameters as the gyro changes position.
Harry:
No, I disagree. Of course the 90 degree response of slow spinning gyro still exists (why not?), but the influence of friction increases dramatic in gravitation environment (friction at bearings and at fulcrum/pivoting point). With Sine and Tangens functions you can calculate the precession velocity for a single mass point as well. If you understand how to calculate that, you will understand precession! ;-)
Luis:
I have also been directing my effort toward designs that allow harmonic interaction of the components; in other words, designs that do not cause disruptive forces on the critical gyro-components. I believe that devices with tendencies to self destruct were designed without these considerations; they are built with many unnecessary stress points.
Harry:
Complete agreement! You would be a good machine designer, my compliments! ;-)
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 04/03/2007 21:16:50
| | | Hi Harry, Hi Luis,
Allow me to add a humble observation to your fine work.
This is an excellent deduction, Luis. “I my opinion, we can increase the energy transfer by increasing the velocity of precession.”
You are also correct, Harry because of a single condition you add. “In my opinion it makes no technical difference if (((assuming all changes will be accomplished in a correct relationship.)))”
The behavior of a gyroscope is dependant on the inter action of two forces acting in concert. There is a variable ration between the two forces to consider. If you decrease angular momentum in any way and do not correspondingly decrease applied mechanical force at a right angle, precession will be faster. If you increase mechanically applied force but do not correspondingly increase angular momentum precession will be faster. If you then greatly increase the speed of precession I cannot but see (regardless of past arguments to the contrary) an increase in the momentum of anything wherein matter has gained velocity. Mater in motion must carry momentum and the faster it is traveling the more momentum it carries. Increased precession speed then increases both centrifuge and collision force potential.
Can we not see that a heavy precessing disk would knock over a thin, lightweight book poorly balanced? Can we not realize the gyro would not bounce backward? Because the gyroscope could have been dropped at any degrees sited from an overhead view, from –0- to 360 degrees would you not have created linear acceleration from angular momentum without a rearward reaction occurring? What does that do to the laws of dynamics?
One problem with our general miss-perception of this collision is the way in which the Professor did an experiment. He collided the arm of a gyro into a peg. He did not collide the gyro disk into a peg at a right angle to the gyros precession. Another thing. I believe that instantly after his collision the gyro attempted to nutate in a chain reaction of four directions, one after the other. (Too much effort necessary to explain this here.)
So Luis is right. Harry is right, because he added ‘correct relationship’—that is-- a ratio unvaried. Still, all and all, Luis you are on top of it. You have it nailed down I think.
Best Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 05/03/2007 21:38:23
| | | Dear Glenn,
Nice to meet you again! ;-)
I’m afraid I have to make me unpopular again but I believe Luis and you make a cardinal error in understanding of precession. I think you (and Luis) divide the gyro movement behavior into 2 parts: the spinning gyro around its pivot itself and the 90 degree deflected precession movement. That is definitely WRONG!
In truth there is only ONE movement of the gyro in precession but it to appear that there are two individually movements, coupled together more or less mysterious. That is a typical misinterpretation of an observation because you cannot see the real movement of the mass particles spinning around the gyro pivot.
In truth, the tilting torque trying to accelerate each spinning mass particle in the sphere of influence at 90 degree to the direction of the spinning plane. According to the direction of rotation of the gyro, each mass particle in the sphere of influence will be immediately change its spinning direction in the resultant direction given by the tilting torque divided by the angular momentum of the spinning gyro. And because of the rotating mass of the gyro, this action will be repeated as long as the tilting torque will be applied and therefore the change of direction of each mass particle goes continuously forward and that is called Precession.
That’s all, it is only ONE movement!
Please allow me another comment regarding precession velocity. As we know the precession angular velocity can be calculated by the tilting torque divided by the angular momentum of the gyro. With this equation you can see what will happen to the precession velocity if parameters will be changed. However, you may only change the precession velocity but not the torque value of precession!
As explained before the tilting torque will be deflected at 90 degree, though in any case the value of this torque will be constant, independent from the precession velocity. Also per se, this torque (=additional angular momentum) will be as long available as long the tilting torque will be applied , i.e. this additional momentum cannot be collected over the time and stored in form of angular momentum, because this angular momentum is not accelerated.
Centrifugal forces do not apply to precession velocity as well, because the precession movement is only a relative movement, resulting from the change of direction of each mass particle as explained above.
Precession means, that an applied tilting torque will be deflected without changing the value of that torque, but with a defined precession velocity, resulting from parameters of tilting torque, inertia of rotating mass and angular velocity of the gyro.
If you disturb the precession velocity by a counter torque in any way, the precession velocity will decrease and the counter torque will be deflected back to the tilting axis, i.e. the tilting axis will now precess according to the applied counter torque (that is the backward reaction!).
If the precession velocity will be fast, the backward precession will be fast as well and if the precession velocity will be slow-going, the backward precession will be slow-going as well.
Thus you may decide by the choice of all parameters if a precessing gyro tilted by gravity will fall fast or slow to the ground. But it will fall down in any case in gravity environment!
In actual fact the gyro behavior is an easy thing but it’s really difficult to explain in detail. ;-)
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 07/03/2007 11:48:37
| | | Dear Harry,
I have done these debates before on another site. When you debate an intelligent person whom you know beforehand will not change his mind you are in for a trial of endless counter explanations to no avail, because there is no authority to arbitrate who is right. The most pay I ever got was a final grudging reply, which was: “Glenn if you have been able to reasoned this solution in your particular way then you have my congratulations”. Some Pay! For all the work I had done, I’d rather have received a pack of chewing gum than congratulations, which you can’t even chew let alone eat. The possible rewards for the time and really difficult mental effort that might be devoted between two capable people, each sat in their ways irrevocably, is pretty poor pay I think. At this rate I may have to give up Canadian Club Whisky, my preference instead of beer. Does any body want to pay Harry and myself and Luis too? No? You don’t even want to especially hear from me you say? Well ok. Maybe I can ration my liquor intake, but you ought to feel sorry for me. So here goes the cheapest worker in Hixson, Tennessee at zero dollars per hour and not even a pack of gum to look forward to and worse, liquor rationing to have to face at these starvation wages.
Harry: “I think you (and Luis) divide the gyro movement behavior into 2 parts: the spinning gyro around its pivot itself and the 90 degree deflected precession movement. That is definitely WRONG!
In truth there is only ONE movement of the gyro in precession but it to appear that there are two individually movements, coupled together more or less mysterious. That is a typical misinterpretation of an observation because you cannot see the real movement of the mass particles spinning around the gyro pivot.”
Thank you for giving Luis and I these unique abilities, because I don’t think any one else on the planet generally views motion in two simultaneous directions. In the entire world we are unique then, but I never knew it until you told me. I thought that I thought the gyro descends in an angler direction as it revolves and I thought that the words I used to think with were ‘downward spiral’. You are only too kind to Luis and I to give us such unique perceptions contrary to the perceptions of the other five billion people on the planet who generally only see one angular direction of movement for traveling mater, but then you have been kind to me before. I remember that you also gave me magical abilities, that is, the ability to perceive actions that have no possible consequences such as reactions, and reactions that had no cause to induce them. “Poof´ Magical things begin and magical things end without consequences. Before you explained my magical abilities I mistakenly believed that I was like every other person who believed in actions and reactions. I’m so proud of my new magic. Somebody should tell NASA about me. Also I suspect Luis’s chest is also bursting the buttons of his shirt with the new found pride you have bestowed on us, because we two now know we don’t fool around wasting our time considering angularity as a single direction. That is too simple for us. For us matter must only travel in two directions simultaneously and never at an angle. Thank you again for these complements.
Pay no attention. I’m just goofing off, having a bit of fun.
I will pause for a moment. Dear Harry, I realize the languish barrier is difficult for you and a little unfair. I think your effort is in some way noble, but you are getting something for it. You are learning to use the proficiency of English, while we are not learning German. Though you have my sympathies, you also have my congratulations. You are doing very well.
Harry: “In truth, the tilting torque trying to accelerate each spinning mass particle in the sphere of influence at 90 degree to the direction of the spinning plane.
Sorry Harry. Not all the particles are under the same influence, because the tilt accelerates the sideways pressure on the particles to lesser and greater degrees depending on their place in space as they rotate. Also, as you know the top position is tilting in one direction, while the bottom is tilting in the opposite direction. Personally, I divide the disk into four parts like a big X inside a circle. The top quarter and bottom quarters are where the tilt meets most of the reluctance of angular momentum to be curved from its plain. While the top and bottom quarters are acting, the forward and rearward quarters are already beginning and ending in torque reaction. This is why you have to divide applied force in your equation. Matter is traveling to two directions, forward and rearward in relation to applied force so the reluctance to change plains is doubled, but of course up and down quarters of rotation are equal and opposite and don’t have to be dealt with. In the front and rear quarters an exchange takes place as a horizontal reaction. Particle pressure pivots from one direction to the opposite. So your above statement, “Each particle is under a ninety degrees tilt.” can’t hold true, particularly during opposite tilt directions top and bottom and particularly in front and rear pivoting torque reactions.
There is a consequence to this uneven particle pressure. I believe the force in the area of rotation occurring in the front quarter, where the exchange takes place in the direction of precession stacks up to become more powerful than the exchange in the rear quarter. There is a reason for that and the reason would deny an equal couple disrupted by friction occurring on one gyro arm. I will attempt to explain the reason when I come back. Right now I have to go outside and blow leaves.
In Hixson I live in the center of a little forest surrounded by hills and three mountain ranges with a very big lake and the Tennessee River as my borders. There are big oak trees and other kinds too surrounding my yard and big trees also in my yard. I could not get to last fall’s fallen leaves until now, but they are so deep and the trees are bare, black skeletons and it has been a cold, wet winter. Things are bleak, and not fun in my hole in the woods until spring and summer. It is I think lovely then living in a green forest with blooming trees and flower from vines that reach to tops of trees. I even have wild Muscatine’s like big grapes, but that are different and taste especially more delicious than cultured ones and these grow from long vines way up into a few of the trees. The kids and I used to eat them till we could eat no more and there is a special way you have to eat them, otherwise the great sweetness becomes bitter in the after bite. I can’t wait for summer. As soon as I clean a small area the leaves become chest high and I still have a long ways to move them. If you will stop teaching me physic and fly over here, I will teach you how to use a leaf blower and you will be much more help to me. So, how soon can you get here? By for now, I go to fight brown leaves outside before they and the wind cause my house to disappear. Hurry Harry! We need an extra leaf blowing man and you know I already have a lot of confidence in you.
Oh my, oh my. The leaves! Hello Harry, I’m back from outside. This little study will take a while and we will need you to do a drawing please and post it for us, so let me know if I’m clear in my directions.
“The consequence of particle pressures connected from different areas in space.”
Sighting from a rear view, draw an over hung gyro, arm and pedestal at ninety degrees horizontal. Connected to the same pedestal draw another gyro of equal dimensions including arm, but draw it at 45 degrees above the horizontal gyro.
The top gyro is to represent the past position of the gyro before it descends. The bottom gyro is the same gyro, but in the present time after it has descended.
Now we wish to draw some horizontal parallel and vertical parallel lines using two colors, perhaps blue and red.
From the very top of the top gyro ‘past position’ drawn a red vertical line down below the pedestal. From the very top of the bottom gyro ‘present position’ draw another red vertical line down below the pedestal.
From the very bottom of the top gyro ‘past position’ draw a blue line vertically beyond the pedestal. From the bottom of the bottom gyro ‘present position’ draw a blue line vertically beyond the pedestal.
If you have kept all the dimensions and directions correctly you should note immediately that during downward tilt the top of the gyro moves horizontally outward from the pedestal much further, than does the bottom of the gyro move inward toward the pedestal.
Now if you will repeat this procedure from top and bottom gyro placement, but this time draw the lines horizontally parallel, red and blue and you should see that the bottom of the gyro moves further downward than does the top of the gyro.
How many here I wonder are surprised. Well if you repeated this entire procedure for a ‘past position that was 90 degrees to a ‘present position’ that is 135 degrees all the positions of top and bottom placements distances will be reversed. Let’s not go into that. We would end up having to explain a whole new condition, that of centrifuge and most people here don’t believe that centrifuge exist during precession.
The presentation I am giving is strange. The parallel difference in distance are proven in the drawing, but if you we were to investigate further by drawing angles of comparison I think you would find that as the gyro moves the torque in the top is exactly the same magnitude as that in the bottom of the gyro. This is not the point. I tell you before I continue that the vertical and ‘permanent’ placement of the pedestal can cause you confusion in this little study. We note that the angle of the gyro arm to the pedestal is always changing degrees relative to the constant vertical upward force of the pedestal. By comparison the vertical force of gravity is not permanent. Wherever the gyro might move gravity will be there waiting to apply its perfectly vertical force and the mass points of the gyro are never tilted with respect to gravity, where as the connection of arm to pedestal is constantly tilted for the pedestal’s position applying upward force is permanent. Relating to movement and space everything is about past, present and future placements and varying leverages as the gyro is tilted. Leverages between top to bottom rims are not equal. We can readily see that the ‘bottom’ of the descending gyro traveled faster into gravity than the top; therefore the ‘top’ has been forced to resisted gravity to a greater degree. We can readily see that the top of the gyro is accelerating horizontally outward from the pedestal faster than the bottom is accelerating towards the pedestal. I cannot but see that in these leverage changes during tilting, leverages must also change in the revolving precession plane. Considering these conditions they do not seem to support the notion of an equal couple, as the cause of would come from unequal leveraged torques. Rather I see that these conditions of space, time and varying leverages at ninety degrees separation of varying distances support the physical experimentations I’d done, all of which suggested there is no rearward reaction to precession. The drawing and measurements I find further supports the notion that precession cannot have an equal couple producing rearward reactions. I refer you back to the drawing to study if Harry will be so kind to do it.
I know an argument will come. I think I know what it will be, so let me wait to see if I am right. This is enough for now. I will try to address the rest of your post later.
Harry, since no one is willing pay us anything perhaps we could pay one another. What have you got to offer, good German beer against Canadian Club Whiskey? Well what then, a visit to your beautiful city against a visit to a hole in the woods in wintertime? What? What do have you? I don’t like to think I’m working this cheep. Some posts are easy and quick to do. This one, this kind, is just work. Why won’t anybody pay us? Somebody would pay us for blowing leaves, so what gives here?
Oh yeah, precession is one direction as you say, but the forces that cause it come from two different directions. Does that mean Luis and I are still stupid? ‘ Just kidding you, my friend. There is no reason to hurry with a reply. I am concerned with your time for you have other things to do as have I have. Maybe you could prepare a reply a little at a time if and, as you want then it might not seem such a robbery when you have other things to do. I go to blow more leaves also for free. Somehow trying to pay myself doesn’t seem profitable either.
Gentleman, All My Best,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 07/03/2007 12:21:22
| | | First the site format fowled up and before I could correct it, it suddenly posted as above for no apparent reason. Maybe this repeat with better structure will be easier to read.
Dear Harry,
I have done these debates before on another site. When you debate an intelligent person whom you know beforehand will not change his mind you are in for a trial of endless counter explanations to no avail, because there is no authority to arbitrate who is right. The most pay I ever got was a final grudging reply, which was: “Glenn if you have been able to reasoned this solution in your particular way then you have my congratulations”. Some Pay! For all the work I had done, I’d rather have received a pack of chewing gum than congratulations, which you can’t even chew let alone eat. The possible rewards for the time and really difficult mental effort that might be devoted between two capable people, each sat in their ways irrevocably, is pretty poor pay I think. At this rate I may have to give up Canadian Club Whisky, my preference instead of beer. Does any body want to pay Harry and myself and Luis too? No? You don’t even want to especially hear from me you say? Well ok. Maybe I can ration my liquor intake, but you ought to feel sorry for me. So here goes the cheapest worker in Hixson, Tennessee at zero dollars per hour and not even a pack of gum to look forward to and worse, liquor rationing to have to face at these starvation wages.
Harry: “I think you (and Luis) divide the gyro movement behavior into 2 parts: the spinning gyro around its pivot itself and the 90 degree deflected precession movement. That is definitely WRONG!
In truth there is only ONE movement of the gyro in precession but it to appear that there are two individually movements, coupled together more or less mysterious. That is a typical misinterpretation of an observation because you cannot see the real movement of the mass particles spinning around the gyro pivot.”
Thank you for giving Luis and I these unique abilities, because I don’t think any one else on the planet generally views motion in two simultaneous directions. In the entire world we are unique then, but I never knew it until you told me. I thought that I thought the gyro descends in an angler direction as it revolves and I thought that the words I used to think with were ‘downward spiral’. You are only too kind to Luis and I to give us such unique perceptions contrary to the perceptions of the other five billion people on the planet who generally only see one angular direction of movement for traveling mater, but then you have been kind to me before. I remember that you also gave me magical abilities, that is, the ability to perceive actions that have no possible consequences such as reactions, and reactions that had no cause to induce them. “Poof´ Magical things begin and magical things end without consequences. Before you explained my magical abilities I mistakenly believed that I was like every other person who believed in actions and reactions. I’m so proud of my new magic. Somebody should tell NASA about me. Also I suspect Luis’s chest is also bursting the buttons of his shirt with the new found pride you have bestowed on us, because we two now know we don’t fool around wasting our time considering angularity as a single direction. That is too simple for us. For us matter must only travel in two directions simultaneously and never at an angle. Thank you again for these complements.
Pay no attention. I’m just goofing off, having a bit of fun.
I will pause for a moment. Dear Harry, I realize the languish barrier is difficult for you and a little unfair. I think your effort is in some way noble, but you are getting something for it. You are learning to use the proficiency of English, while we are not learning German. Though you have my sympathies, you also have my congratulations. You are doing very well.
Harry: “In truth, the tilting torque trying to accelerate each spinning mass particle in the sphere of influence at 90 degree to the direction of the spinning plane.
Sorry Harry. Not all the particles are under the same influence, because the tilt accelerates the sideways pressure on the particles to lesser and greater degrees depending on their place in space as they rotate. Also, as you know the top position is tilting in one direction, while the bottom is tilting in the opposite direction. Personally, I divide the disk into four parts like a big X inside a circle. The top quarter and bottom quarters are where the tilt meets most of the reluctance of angular momentum to be curved from its plain. While the top and bottom quarters are acting, the forward and rearward quarters are already beginning and ending in torque reaction. This is why you have to divide applied force in your equation. Matter is traveling to two directions, forward and rearward in relation to applied force so the reluctance to change plains is doubled, but of course up and down quarters of rotation are equal and opposite and don’t have to be dealt with. In the front and rear quarters an exchange takes place as a horizontal reaction. Particle pressure pivots from one direction to the opposite. So your above statement, “Each particle is under a ninety degrees tilt.” can’t hold true, particularly during opposite tilt directions top and bottom and particularly in front and rear pivoting torque reactions.
There is a consequence to this uneven particle pressure. I believe the force in the area of rotation occurring in the front quarter, where the exchange takes place in the direction of precession stacks up to become more powerful than the exchange in the rear quarter. There is a reason for that and the reason would deny an equal couple disrupted by friction occurring on one gyro arm. I will attempt to explain the reason when I come back. Right now I have to go outside and blow leaves.
In Hixson I live in the center of a little forest surrounded by hills and three mountain ranges with a very big lake and the Tennessee River as my borders. There are big oak trees and other kinds too surrounding my yard and big trees also in my yard. I could not get to last fall’s fallen leaves until now, but they are so deep and the trees are bare, black skeletons and it has been a cold, wet winter. Things are bleak, and not fun in my hole in the woods until spring and summer. It is I think lovely then living in a green forest with blooming trees and flower from vines that reach to tops of trees. I even have wild Muscatine’s like big grapes, but that are different and taste especially more delicious than cultured ones and these grow from long vines way up into a few of the trees. The kids and I used to eat them till we could eat no more and there is a special way you have to eat them, otherwise the great sweetness becomes bitter in the after bite. I can’t wait for summer. As soon as I clean a small area the leaves become chest high and I still have a long ways to move them. If you will stop teaching me physic and fly over here, I will teach you how to use a leaf blower and you will be much more help to me. So, how soon can you get here? By for now, I go to fight brown leaves outside before they and the wind cause my house to disappear. Hurry Harry! We need an extra leaf blowing man and you know I already have a lot of confidence in you.
Oh my, oh my. The leaves! Hello Harry, I’m back from outside. This little study will take a while and we will need you to do a drawing please and post it for us, so let me know if I’m clear in my directions.
“The consequence of particle pressures connected from different areas in space.”
Sighting from a rear view, draw an over hung gyro, arm and pedestal at ninety degrees horizontal. Connected to the same pedestal draw another gyro of equal dimensions including arm, but draw it at 45 degrees above the horizontal gyro.
The top gyro is to represent the past position of the gyro before it descends. The bottom gyro is the same gyro, but in the present time after it has descended.
Now we wish to draw some horizontal parallel and vertical parallel lines using two colors, perhaps blue and red.
From the very top of the top gyro ‘past position’ drawn a red vertical line down below the pedestal. From the very top of the bottom gyro ‘present position’ draw another red vertical line down below the pedestal.
From the very bottom of the top gyro ‘past position’ draw a blue line vertically beyond the pedestal. From the bottom of the bottom gyro ‘present position’ draw a blue line vertically beyond the pedestal.
If you have kept all the dimensions and directions correctly you should note immediately that during downward tilt the top of the gyro moves horizontally outward from the pedestal much further, than does the bottom of the gyro move inward toward the pedestal.
Now if you will repeat this procedure from top and bottom gyro placement, but this time draw the lines horizontally parallel, red and blue and you should see that the bottom of the gyro moves further downward than does the top of the gyro.
How many here I wonder are surprised. Well if you repeated this entire procedure for a ‘past position that was 90 degrees to a ‘present position’ that is 135 degrees all the positions of top and bottom placements distances will be reversed. Let’s not go into that. We would end up having to explain a whole new condition, that of centrifuge and most people here don’t believe that centrifuge exist during precession.
The presentation I am giving is strange. The parallel difference in distance are proven in the drawing, but if you we were to investigate further by drawing angles of comparison I think you would find that as the gyro moves the torque in the top is exactly the same magnitude as that in the bottom of the gyro. This is not the point. I tell you before I continue that the vertical and ‘permanent’ placement of the pedestal can cause you confusion in this little study. We note that the angle of the gyro arm to the pedestal is always changing degrees relative to the constant vertical upward force of the pedestal. By comparison the vertical force of gravity is not permanent. Wherever the gyro might move gravity will be there waiting to apply its perfectly vertical force and the mass points of the gyro are never tilted with respect to gravity, where as the connection of arm to pedestal is constantly tilted for the pedestal’s position applying upward force is permanent. Relating to movement and space everything is about past, present and future placements and varying leverages as the gyro is tilted. Leverages between top to bottom rims are not equal. We can readily see that the ‘bottom’ of the descending gyro traveled faster into gravity than the top; therefore the ‘top’ has been forced to resisted gravity to a greater degree. We can readily see that the top of the gyro is accelerating horizontally outward from the pedestal faster than the bottom is accelerating towards the pedestal. I cannot but see that in these leverage changes during tilting, leverages must also change in the revolving precession plane. Considering these conditions they do not seem to support the notion of an equal couple, as the cause of would come from unequal leveraged torques. Rather I see that these conditions of space, time and varying leverages at ninety degrees separation of varying distances support the physical experimentations I’d done, all of which suggested there is no rearward reaction to precession. The drawing and measurements I find further supports the notion that precession cannot have an equal couple producing rearward reactions. I refer you back to the drawing to study if Harry will be so kind to do it.
I know an argument will come. I think I know what it will be, so let me wait to see if I am right. This is enough for now. I will try to address the rest of your post later.
Harry, since no one is willing pay us anything perhaps we could pay one another. What have you got to offer, good German beer against Canadian Club Whiskey? Well what then, a visit to your beautiful city against a visit to a hole in the woods in wintertime? What? What do have you? I don’t like to think I’m working this cheep. Some posts are easy and quick to do. This one, this kind, is just work. Why won’t anybody pay us? Somebody would pay us for blowing leaves, so what gives here?
Oh yeah, precession is one direction as you say, but the forces that cause it come from two different directions. Does that mean Luis and I are still stupid? ‘ Just kidding you, my friend. There is no reason to hurry with a reply. I am concerned with your time for you have other things to do as have I have. Maybe you could prepare a reply a little at a time if and, as you want then it might not seem such a robbery when you have other things to do. I go to blow more leaves also for free. Somehow trying to pay myself doesn’t seem profitable either.
Gentleman, All My Best,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 07/03/2007 14:21:08
| | | Dear Glenn,
Please tell me what you expect from me, you have 3 choices:
1. Flattered lies decorated with flowery impressions about my garden work at home?
2. The plain truth without garden jobs but some more teaching in junior high school physics?
3. No answer?
I'm awaiting your fair and clear decision, Glenn!
However, I have no problems if your dicision would be #3 because this debate is a little bit boring and if you realized correctly I'm a lttle bit busy as well...
Thank you Gentleman!
Harry
(I hope you understood this poor English!) ;-)
Oh I forgot: Pay no attention. I’m just goofing off, having a bit of fun.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 07/03/2007 18:33:13
| | | No I don’t understand you. It makes no since. It doesn’t mater. My reply was not boring to you. It was forcing you toward truth again, this time to see the error of your couple belief. You cannot even be forced to truth with proof by measurements. You drew the diagram then knew you would lose. I told you before you don’t play fair. You start it, but you quit, change, or avoid as soon as you see you are about to lose. Good riddance to you. I win again. You are too easy for me.
You are the worst loser I ever saw to behave this way. I am guilty of flattering lies you say? I am a liar? What do I expect of you, you ask?
I expect you to get lost, you name calling creep and this time stay that way.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 07/03/2007 23:02:59
| | | Dear Glenn,
I believe you are talking to yourself, aren't you?
Your knowledge about physical laws is very poor. You do not understand the simplest physical contexts. Till now you could not give any based on facts replies to my arguments and explanations in previous postings!
Your latest statements are only anchorless thesis but more wrong understood physics which can be disproved at once!
You can only give offended and egomanic replies without any productive content. But Glenn, it's not my fault that you have conceptual barriers but either you present well-founded physical arguments against mine or you better keep quite and learn!
I still offer to give you reply to your "exiting" discovery about a 45 degree gyro in gravity environment, this would be a very easy job to highlight again your poor physical knowledge. It's up to you, however this will be the last reply to you.
I'm very disappointed to waste so much time and effort for really nothing!
Anyway I wish you a good time for the future. Maybe you will find another victim fo waste yours and others life time? Good luck!
Harry K.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 07/03/2007 23:16:22
| | | Dear Luis,
I'm very sorry for the pollution in your thread with that garbage.
Certainly I'm still available for you. Maybe it would be better to continue with communication via Email?
Best regards,
Harry
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 08/03/2007 01:34:01
| | | Harry K.,
I am not angry. You are not capable of understanding me. Using your tools and methods, but far better ones professors, mathematicians and researchers have failed for one hundred years to give a mechanical explanation in a book, but you with your lesser level of competence would teach me? Teach me what? You can’t originate, or follow mechanics. You can only do what others have taught you to do, while I am unique.
These hateful assertions of yours are stupid. You can do them. I can do them. They could never end. The truth is you have no innate mechanical ability. If you are capable of understanding anything, please understand me this time. Get lost. Forget you know my name. And don’t apologize for me. Is there no end to you’re ill matters?
Yes, I wish you and every other person in the world happiness and long life. This is very true of me. It’s just that I don’t want you to contact me, or speak of me, or apologize for me again.
Good luck and try to remember you don’t know me.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 08/03/2007 17:44:07
| | | Glenn,
I appreciate your enthusiasm and desire to help, but can you allow Henry and me to continue our discussion without introducing additional directions in thinking? There is no need for anyone to join every single thread of this forum (imagine if everyone joined every thread).
Please accept that I consider you very intelligent and that some of your contributions are valuable.
I find that your style adds confusion to threads that I begin in an effort to explore and communicate my ideas.
I also think we communicate quite well when we write in separate threads (and find fewer reasons to argue).
Regards, Luis
Dear Harry,
Thank you for your clarifying explanations about gyro dynamics as they apply to current technology. However, I am surprised that you believe increasing the mass of the gyro will counteract the effect of decreasing the gyro’s spin velocity. I believe an expert in gyro dynamics can deduce that changing the mass of the gyro does NOT affect the rate of precession (all else being equal). I am sure you can figure this out on your own. The key is to recognize that the mass (M) of the gyro is included in the numerator (torque) as well as in the denominator (angular momentum), of the equation for the rate of precession. Thus the value of “M” cancels out even if “M” is light or heavy.
On the other hand, we all agree that decreasing the spin-rate of the gyro does indeed cause increase in the rate (velocity) of precession. Does this shed a clue on how I came upon the bit of “wisdom” that I stated in my previous posting? It appears to me that both increased mass and increased velocity should contribute to greater momentum.
Here is another bit of “wisdom”: Slower spinning gyros behave closer to classical deadweight objects!
Consider a gyro whose spin is so slow that it is imperceptible. Apply a good strong torque to it. Will it behave more like a spinning gyro or like a non-spinning gyro? Most of us have tried it, and know it behaves more like deadweight (even though the equation predicts the fastest rate of precession).
To better describe the results of experiments that use extremely slow gyro-spin-rates it is it reasonable to expect some change in the precession- equation (and it’s not all caused by friction).
On another point, I referred to use of trigonometric functions in a much simpler manner than your perception. What I meant was that in systems that rely on artificially forced precession (by use of motors torque etc to apply torque) it’s more accurate to multiply, the precession equation, by the Cosine of the raise-angle. The purpose is to reflect the true distance (radius) from the gyro, to the system’s axis of torque-rotation. Please experiment some and you will see what I am talking about (this should become obvious to you).
I believe you stated that when torque is applied to a gyro, the gyro responds with a torque of its own (precession). I don’t agree that precession is a “torque.” It’s possible that you are using the word “torque” in a different way, or that I have misunderstood you. To me “torque” describes a Force (Mass x Acceleration) multiplied by the length/radius distance from the gyro to a pivot point. You appear to use the word (torque) to mean only pivot around a point, but do not include the Force and length factors that makeup torque. Further, in a strict sense, precession itself does not have (full) force or torque; precession only has momentum (some people don’t think so).
Language can present problems when communicating about this complex subject. I also think that your training in the conventional use of gyros, omitted many important facts that are only important regarding their application to the quest for gyro-propulsion. Despite this shortcoming, I expect that someone with in-depth classical training on conventional gyro-dynamics will be among the first to breakthrough the conundrum of gyro-propulsion (either way). However this will not be possible until such trained persons explore and uncover the less intuitive behavior of gyros (for example, that differences in the mass of do not have very much effect on the rate of precession). Most of these facts become obvious once they are recognized.
Your answers come from good engineering train, but they tell me that you probably have not spent sufficient time, attention, and in-depth thought on the basic requirements and experiments to find if gyro-propulsion is possible or not. For example, why it is necessary to use sets of 4 synchronized gyros in order to prevent undesired countermotions when applying artificial torque (with motors or such) to gyros in absence of gravity. The shortcomings, in understanding important factors, indicate that some of the basic challenges have not yet been considered.
Please do not think of my comments as insults Harry, as I only want to point out what I have determined to be facts about gyros. However, I am curious, since you don’t believe that gyro-propulsion is possible, may I ask what is it that you are trying to invent, and what do you expect to find in this forum?
I also want you to know that I don’t separate the resulting behavior of gyros into 2 parts as you stated, but I do know that precession can only result 2 causal components are brought together and they are torque and spin (cause vs. effect).
Finally, if precession has “torque value” as you state, what is the equation for this torque value of precession?
Please be assured that I am aware that precession has no Centripetal-Centrifugal forces; please take the time to read my writings so that you can make accurate statements about what I believe about gyros. I think you may enjoy a lot of what I have written.
Please let me know if you prefer to continue our dialog with direct emails (I suggest we give the forum one more try).
Best Regards, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 09/03/2007 06:45:57
| | | Hello Luis,
I think you knew I had vacated, but very well, I will return for a moment only because you spoke of me. I want to show you something. Your first paragraph states that changing the mass of the gyro doesn’t alter the rate of precession, but you failed to distinguish whether the gyro was powered by gravity, or powered by mechanically induced force. The possibility of creating a useful acceleration must employ mechanically applied force, so the distinction is important.
Considering a gravity powered device: When you add mass you add additional gravitational force as well as adding additional angler momentum. The two forces balance one another in an equal way and so the rate of precession isn’t affected.
Considering mechanically applied force: Again, when you add mass you increase angular momentum, but mechanically applied force is not automatically increased, as is the case with gravity which is automatically increased.
Therefore in a non-gravity powered system if mechanically applied force is not increased against an increased angular momentum, precession will slow. This will be true to you if you concede to what you know. The greater the angular momentum the greater the resistance to tilt and the rate of tilt determines the rate of precession.
From a quick read the rest of your reply looked ok.
Farewell,
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 09/03/2007 09:55:49
| | | Do not flip out. I am not coming back, but for only this one reason. I made a mistake. I have to correct my mistake. I have no choice.
Correction:
Even in gravity powered precession, adding mass to spin affects the rate of precession. Maybe this can be best understood this way. I will limit the veritables to two. Then, changes in the magnitude of angular momentum in the same areas of a disk of unvarying dimensions is created by only two conditions, spin speed and mass. During the slow rotation of a disk the affect of adding mass to an over hung gyro is that gravity can be stronger than angular momentum and therefore tilt can be rapid and precession fast. Now I consider the affect of mass in a disk rotating at 30,000 RPMs. Adding additional mass will multiply angular momentum to a degree far, far greater than that of the force of gravity upon the added mass. Tilt slows. Precession slows. No matter how you do it, adding and decreasing mass to rotation makes a difference to precession speed.
I came back to do this because ‘I’ was wrong.
Now you are freed from me. I'm not coming back. You may stay, or you may go. Whatever blows your hair back. Have fun. I’m genuinely glad for the two of you.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 09/03/2007 11:01:34
| | | Dear Luis,
Before I'll reply (maybe within tomorrow) please answer ne the followin question:
You wrote:
"...For example, why it is necessary to use sets of 4 synchronized gyros in order to prevent undesired countermotions when applying artificial torque (with motors or such) to gyros in absence of gravity...."
Do you expect an explanation from my side, i.e. you do not understand this question, or you know the answer but you think I could not give answer to that issue?
Thanks
Harry
Mr. Nobody,
Your first reply was correct but your second reply failed.
What a shame because I was almost proud of your superior knowledge!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 10/03/2007 18:11:00
| | | Dear Luis,
It seems you only have limited online access? Maybe that’s the reason for your slow response? Anyway, I’ll answer your last post.
Luis, I find you are a nice guy although in my opinion your last response seems to me a little bit overweening. Please remember that you asked me for something and not reversed. Maybe you wanted to show yourself in brightness to please Mr. Nobody? It’d be understandable, so be it!
Before I’ll give you detailed answer to your questions I want to give you some information about my person.
I’m a middle age (above 40) skilled mechanical engineer. I worked over 20 years as a designer, i.e. I have designed mechanical machines and equipment for the basic chemical industry. In the meanwhile I’m working in the position of a project manager and supervise the development of complete machine lines for our customers, starting with technical kick-off meetings at site all over the world till shipping of the complete equipment.
I’m able to make all necessary calculations (e.g. dimensioning of screw connections, bearing lifetime, material stress calculations, dimensioning of power drives, etc.).
I don’t tell this to impress you, but I want highlight my professional well-founded general technical knowledge .
However, I’m not a physical scientist. My physical knowledge compared to a physical scientist goes against zero. For instance I do not have any deep knowledge about the physical microcosm or macrocosm and also I do not know much about nuclear physics.
Luis, do you guess what I want to say? What is your education? I guess it’s not a technical based education, or maybe you are still a student?
Again, what do I want to tell you? – I stated I know nothing compared to a physical scientist, but how about the level of physical knowledge of yours and some other people here in the forum? You may answer this by your own because I will keep politely!
Let’s state that you, me and some other people have poor knowledge about general physics. But you and the other people here know, that physical laws could be broken, that there are shortcomings in classical physics , or that “many important facts are omitted” and of course you know that gyro propulsion would be possible! You know all these things but you have poor knowledge of classical physics! Congratulations! Here are convened many genies!
My belief is that gyro propulsion won’t be possible. However that is my belief and does not mean that it wouldn’t be possible at all. You and some other people know it would be possible to build a gyro propulsion system, but you cannot give any correct technical based explanation how this may be accomplished?
I have given some technical advises and explanations to some people here which are based on standard laws of classical physics. The result was that I was attacked as an arrogant teacher or I should attest the trueness of my advises which are all based on standard physical laws. But on the other hand there isn’t any need to attest the “wisdom” of some guys here, their “belief” is absolute sufficient! That’s really absurd!
Luis, you asked what I’m trying to invent? I have already finished my invention in theory and I’m working currently at the detail design of the machine (how I learnt it). If this work has finished, all single parts will be manufactured by a workshop. Afterwards I will assemble all parts, test the machine and if the tests are successful (assumed by me) I will try to request the patent for that machine. The machine may transform energy. I do not want to go into deeper detail of the function of this machine.
And you asked what I expected to find in this forum? I hoped to find guys with similar way in thinking but I was badly disappointed. What a shame!
Moreover I have the feeling that some guys understand physic laws likely as a contest: the guy with the most flaming speech will be the winner and is allowed to publish a pack of nonsense about his perception of physical laws. – Without me!
Therefore, Luis, I will leave this forum now. This post will be the last one. I have really much to work and have no time to lose. I hope you will understand.
Now back to your statements:
Luis:
“However, I am surprised that you believe increasing the mass of the gyro will counteract the effect of decreasing the gyro’s spin velocity. I believe an expert in gyro dynamics can deduce that changing the mass of the gyro does NOT affect the rate of precession (all else being equal). I am sure you can figure this out on your own. The key is to recognize that the mass (M) of the gyro is included in the numerator (torque) as well as in the denominator (angular momentum), of the equation for the rate of precession. Thus the value of “M” cancels out even if “M” is light or heavy.”
Harry: You are right and you are wrong. ;-)
1. The material of a spinning mass of an overhang gyro or a gyro placed horizontally with one half-axle onto the ground may be different without influence to the precession velocity. But this is only correct for the spinning mass and not for dead mass like bearings, gimbals or axles. Also you have to take into account that friction losses of lighter spinning mass will be less.
2. If a gyro pivots around an axis thru its center of mass, an additional tilting torque must be applied to achieve precession. In this case the spinning mass of the gyro is different to the applied mass to achieve a tilting torque.
Luis:
“On the other hand, we all agree that decreasing the spin-rate of the gyro does indeed cause increase in the rate (velocity) of precession. Does this shed a clue on how I came upon the bit of “wisdom” that I stated in my previous posting? It appears to me that both increased mass and increased velocity should contribute to greater momentum.”
Harry:
An increased mass and increased velocity of a gyro will certainly cause a greater angular momentum of the gyro. And of course to achieve a faster precession velocity, the applied tilting torque must be increased accordingly. Sorry but I don’t know really the sense of this statement.
Luis:
“Here is another bit of “wisdom”: Slower spinning gyros behave closer to classical deadweight objects!
Consider a gyro whose spin is so slow that it is imperceptible. Apply a good strong torque to it. Will it behave more like a spinning gyro or like a non-spinning gyro? Most of us have tried it, and know it behaves more like deadweight (even though the equation predicts the fastest rate of precession).
To better describe the results of experiments that use extremely slow gyro-spin-rates it is it reasonable to expect some change in the precession- equation (and it’s not all caused by friction).
Harry:
This is a really good question! I agree with you that very slow spinning gyro behave closer to classical deadweight objects. The reason for that, results from nutation behavior. That means, that the inertia of the slow spinning gyro as well as friction losses prevent the precession velocity in 90 degree deflection. Thus the gyro is not able to precess “immediately” because of all counter torques resulting from inertia and friction losses.
If you would spent additional energy to support the precession velocity the gyro would precess as predicted by the equation. But without artificial energy the counter torques against precession will cause the gyro to tilt immediately in direction of the tilting torque and thus the gyro will behave more like a deadweight object. Anyway the general equation for precession is correct.
Luis:
“On another point, I referred to use of trigonometric functions in a much simpler manner than your perception. What I meant was that in systems that rely on artificially forced precession (by use of motors torque etc to apply torque) it’s more accurate to multiply, the precession equation, by the Cosine of the raise-angle. The purpose is to reflect the true distance (radius) from the gyro, to the system’s axis of torque-rotation. Please experiment some and you will see what I am talking about (this should become obvious to you).”
Harry:
Noted. That was a misunderstanding. There is no need for experiments, I can imagine! ;-).
Luis:
“I believe you stated that when torque is applied to a gyro, the gyro responds with a torque of its own (precession). I don’t agree that precession is a “torque.” It’s possible that you are using the word “torque” in a different way, or that I have misunderstood you. To me “torque” describes a Force (Mass x Acceleration) multiplied by the length/radius distance from the gyro to a pivot point. You appear to use the word (torque) to mean only pivot around a point, but do not include the Force and length factors that makeup torque. Further, in a strict sense, precession itself does not have (full) force or torque; precession only has momentum (some people don’t think so).”
Harry:
If I state elsewhere “torque” I mean torque and nothing else! That is a general problem here in this forum that someone talking for instance about “energy” but meaning “force” or “torque”.
Again, the applied tilting torque at a spinning gyro will be deflected to 90 degree which cause precession! Now you have again confirmed that you think precession can be divided into different parts. You still do not understand how precession works, Luis! ;-)
Precession must have a torque, otherwise it wouldn’t be possible for the precessing gyro to overcome the friction torque or counter torques resulting from mass inertia or air resistance.
And this counter torques cause the tilt of the gyro axis. If the sum of that counter torques is equal to the sum of the tilting torques, the gyro will stop immediately the precession and tilt its tilting axis with precession velocity, i.e. the gyro precesses in counter direction.
If you have doubts, Luis, than make experiments! I have done these experiments many years ago!
“…(some people don’t think so).”
“Some people” are right, Luis! Momentum cannot be stored in precession: You made again the mistake to understand precession as a different part of the gyro behavior!
Again, momentum cannot be stored in precession, otherwise the precession velocity has to be increased by itself because the tilting torque is caused by gravity acceleration of a mass!
Luis:
“Your answers come from good engineering train, but they tell me that you probably have not spent sufficient time, attention, and in-depth thought on the basic requirements and experiments to find if gyro-propulsion is possible or not.”
Harry:
I see, you knowing me well? You think you know how much time and in-depth thoughts I have spent in the past?
Luis, you should first spend much more time and in-depth thinking about classical physical laws and if you understand that stuff correctly you may start thinking about if gyro-propulsion would be possible or not. That’s only a hint from me. ;-)
Luis:
For example, why it is necessary to use sets of 4 synchronized gyros in order to prevent undesired countermotions when applying artificial torque (with motors or such) to gyros in absence of gravity. The shortcomings, in understanding important factors, indicate that some of the basic challenges have not yet been considered.”
Harry:
Fine, now you have installed a fixed framework in space and you are able to spin your gyros properly. And how do you want to achieve propulsion for that framework? That’s the basic question, Luis. – Or did you assumed I do not understand the purpose of that 4 gyros in space? Is that meant with “in understanding the important factors”? ;-))
Luis:
“I also want you to know that I don’t separate the resulting behavior of gyros into 2 parts as you stated, but I do know that precession can only result 2 causal components are brought together and they are torque and spin (cause vs. effect).”
Harry:
You did this separation two times again! See above. ;-)
Luis:
“Finally, if precession has “torque value” as you state, what is the equation for this torque value of precession?”
Harry:
Nothing easier than this: Sum of precession torque = sum of tilting torque
(sum means in this context the addition of all positve (+T) and negative (-T) torques)
Luis:
“Please be assured that I am aware that precession has no Centripetal-Centrifugal forces; please take the time to read my writings so that you can make accurate statements about what I believe about gyros. I think you may enjoy a lot of what I have written.”
Harry:
Luis, I have no time to read thru all you have posted and I think I have given to you accurate statements as well.
Luis, “you believe” means you don’t know. You should try to transform your “belief” into “well-founded knowledge”. Otherwise I do not see any progress to come closer to your target.
I hope you do not think of my comments as insults, too. Go ahead in learning and don’t believe all guys here, some of them talking nothing than nonsense because of their ignorance! I wish you all the best for the future, Luis. I will come back from time to time to look after you, however, I will not post anymore.
Best regards,
Harry.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 10/03/2007 21:15:00
| | | Dear Harry,
I spend about 12 hours per day on my job and most of the rest with my wife. I get to may personal email once or twice per week for limited time.
I believe I understand why the 4 synchronized gyros configuration is useful to balance out undesired counter-torques and that’s why I mentioned it. I was not sure that you understood it because you dismissed it without explanation in your first response (I know it’s difficult to communicate thoroughly in few words). Please do say a couple of words on what you do know about this 4 gyro configuration so I will know that we are on the same page about it. (I am not saying that 4 gyros will make gyro-propulsion work, but that they provide a necessary stability in absence of gravity and a surface.)
Regarding other items, I confess to have fallen into a fault, for which I often criticize others; that is, mixing up gravity and artificially driven torque. The initial focus of this conversation is on mechanically driven torque, therefore you are correct. A system’s torque-motor delivers the same magnitude of force (despite the mass), thus the net torque is unaffected by the mass of the gyro. We did not discuss how the spin was driven, but assumed same unaffected spin velocity, which gives us a greater spin momentum. The same torque with greater spin momentum gives us slower precession when the mass of the gyro is increased (I concede). You are also correct that there is a compensating proportional balance between greater gyro-mass and slower gyro-spin, to maintain constant precession-velocity (it is a matter of proportion).
The point I am interested in exploring is about increasing the mass of the gyro conservatively, while radically decreasing the gyro-spin-rate to near or below the rate of the motor that applies torque (i.e. not in proportion). I am interested in producing the fastest possible precession with the heaviest possible spinning mass (though I know other factors are involved). I am curious to discuss this point, and find more accurate equations to determine the transfer of momentum, energy, torque (or whatever you determine) being transferred to an obstacle in the path of precession. I know some degree of transfer occurs because simple experiments show it.
You can probably see that I am not a consummate builder of devices but rather an amateur enthusiast about the theory.
I am interested in one, or a family of equations, that will allow me to calculate the maximum impact of precession. I know the need to consider factors that affect precession’s velocity, but I also want to calculate the propensity of the gyro to deflect at 90 degrees Vs the torque/momentum etc that it transfers to the obstacle.
All impacts create a transfer (of something); my goal is to maximize that transfer using precession.
I will respond to your latest email later.
Best Regards, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 14/03/2007 01:52:07
| | | Dear Harry,
Your last posting cleared up a couple of things and raised some new questions in my mind.
I will be away this week and will probably not get to my computer until the following week.
Best Regards, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 23/03/2007 00:07:16
| | | Dear Harry,
I am gradually more convinced about your expert knowledge and skill in classical physics of motion.
It is a shame that in our altruistic desires to teach others (things that we think we understand better) we manage to appear arrogant (at least in the eyes of others).
Please don’t let the negative encounters affect your good disposition; we can all learn a couple of things from you. Also try not to let others put words in my mouth; the clutter of too many cooks creates confusion as to who said what and which individuals think alike.
Beyond being sociable, I have no interest to please anyone but I do want to impress individuals who have appropriate skills, not with how bright I may be, but with the potential of my design visions; this is not an easy task.
Your design, engineering, and project management skills are impressive and you may well be one of the 4 or 5 most capable individuals in this forum (certainly beyond my level, it appears).
Beyond sharing basic information, the nature of this forum is to present and attempt proving ideas, concepts, and theory models, because we are in a quest and need either more information or capable allies to help complete our goals.
I am less of a specialist and more of a generalist. My experience is in software architecture, engineering, and knowledge management for business and governments. My first language is Spanish and I studied Economics and Political Science in the US. I dabble in physic and design engineering only as a hobby that I enjoy for the challenge (gyro-propulsion is the best challenge at this point in time). My education in classical physics is not as bad as it may appear to those who don’t know me. My intuitive understanding of classical motion is fairly good though I only had high school Physics and only completed through Calculus in college math. I have been fascinated by science from the earliest I can remember.
I don’t agree that the established physical laws can be “broken” per se. I do know that that all laws have exceptions but even these exceptions fit well within the larger overall landscape of science as it evolves. Some current shortcoming of classical physical science make it difficult to present a simplified, coherent technical explanation of gyro behavior (even for those who understand it well); explaining the feasibility of gyro-propulsion is slightly more difficult than explaining gyro behaviors for the time being.
(Your word “genies” may have lost something in the translation.)
It may be best not to accuse others of arrogance, as we don’t notice when we do it ourselves and it’s much more uncomfortable being at the receiving end of the accusations. If we all managed to keep out personal comments and focus on technical conversation, then things are bound to go smoother.
Thank you for stating what your invention is about, that’s all I really needed to know about it (congratulations on your progress).
I’m sorry that you have not found others to share in your way of thinking about gyros. Perhaps you can find like thinkers in organizations that do similar work as yours. There is a lot of frustration in open forums where anyone can make comments, no matter how ridiculous (it’s the nature of the venue).
I’m also sorry to hear that you are leaving the forum because I think you have much technical knowledge to offer.
I will post other questions (about momentum and torque) when I have an opportunity and hope you too will find the time to answer them.
Best Regards, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 27/03/2007 01:17:50
| | | Dear Harry,
Stability by itself is not entirely the purpose of using 4 gyros in a synchronized manner when attempting to generating gyro-propulsion in space (without gravity). 2 gyros are sufficient to provide a stable framework for a conventional space craft. Please allow me to clarify by explaining one of many configurations that yield interesting results; that way I will know we are in the same page.
First, the 4 gyro configuration allows the application of one torque to 2 individual gyro-subsystems simultaneously so that the each gyro-subsystem’s torque is a counter torque to the other subsystem, and visa versa.
Second, each individual subsystem is configured with 2 gyros of its own so that each subsystem moves a pair of internal wing like components in tilting cycles, and each wing component has a gyro mounted on the tip so that the 2 gyros are on opposite lateral ends of the subsystem.
The 2 individual, bird-like subsystems are necessary to provide symmetry to the forces applied to the overall device as a whole, so that precessions (derived from one single torque source) moves both wings (and both gyros) in one direction during one part of the cycle, then separate and different torque-sources force both gyros in the opposite direction (no precession here), back to their starting point of the full cycle.
For brevity, some refer to these cycles as “up-like-a-gyro and down-like-a-weight.” Note that 2 of the subsystems are needed to maintain full “directional control” of the device in outer space where there is no gravity, and no external friction. (Though there are technical issues to consider in the “down-like-a-weight” portion of the cycle, solutions exist that I will not discuss here.) My guess is that you probably knew this already Harry, but I hate to move into more complex discussions without being sure that we are close to the same page.
A number of such tested gyro configurations yield linear motion though none produce lasting propulsion. These devices deliver spurts of net forward motion (despite back and forth vibration) that resembles the motion of an inchworm (“GLUHWORMCHEN”) in that it stops at the conclusion of each cycle.
Despite claims to success, no one has yet proven beyond doubt that their device exceeds the performance of the “inchworm.”
At this point I can’t determine whether your gyro-propulsion experiments reached this level or maybe beyond this level of trivial motion. Should I assume you are aware of this small success that has been achieved in the conversion of angular motion into linear displacement?
My uncertain goal is to expand acceptable theory about this linear motion and then to seek within that theory, to find whether sustainable linear gyro-propulsion is possible. Though normal gyros can not store momentum, I am hopeful that unorthodox gyros in complex configurations may provide a way to transfer a portion of the angular kinetic energy to linear kinetic energy. The fact that the “inchworm” type mechanism can displace mass proves that we can derive linear motion from angular acceleration, even though classical physics appears to exclude this type of conversion.
Please let me know how far you got in your gyro-propulsion research Harry.
Best Regards, Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 27/03/2007 10:04:53
| | | Dear Luis,
I'll make an exception for you and post again here.
You wrote:
"Second, each individual subsystem is configured with 2 gyros of its own so that each subsystem moves a pair of internal wing like components in tilting cycles, and each wing component has a gyro mounted on the tip so that the 2 gyros are on opposite lateral ends of the subsystem. "
Sorry Luis, but I cannot really imagine your description of that gyro design, maybe I'm too silly for that excellent design... ;-)
I make you a suggestion: make a raw but meaningful hand made sketch (or whatever you prefer) and send it to w.bung_at_gmx.de (replace _at_ accordingly).
Afterwards you will receive back your sketch with my comments on it. I'm pretty sure to prove that your gyro propulsion concept is wrong, assumed you accept standard physical and mathematics laws. Elsewise I'll save my efforts.
Regards,
Harry
P.S. One hint: A worm (glowing or not) can only move (lurch) with the help of friction. Friction, however, is only active if a force is applied (e.g. gravitation force). That means in absence of force/friction a movement of a worm, snail or similar will be impossible!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 31/03/2007 16:49:54
| | | Dear Harry,
Thank you for the response.
The 4 gyro space-drive configuration has a complex structure and even more complex dynamics.
(Let’s be clear that this 4-gyro unit does NOT produce propulsion, and it also does NOT use friction or gravity in any way or form. It only resembles an “inchworm” (not a glowworm, my mistake) because it comes to a full stop at the end of each cycle. If you don’t know inchworms in Germany you can find out how they move through Google.)
There are a number of configurations that accomplish displacement of mass without actually achieving sustained propulsion.
The 4 gyro system is not easy to draw, and even a drawing would not provide sufficient information to form a fair judgment from. I should have known that a simple written explanation would not succeed either!
To convey a full understanding it is best to explaining one of the 2 gyro sets of (wing-like or boat-oars-like) components to grasp the dynamics underlying the “Up-like-a-gyro and Down-like-a-weight” concept.
Please see my comments at the end of the following posting “http://www.gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=486”
I will also forward you an email containing a dynamic Flash image by Ryan Cappell, that conveys the concept better than anything I can draw.
Once we are on the same page about how net displacement of mass is possible, we may delve into why a second set of “boat-oars” or “wings” is necessary to exert and maintain the correct directed force in outer space.
I feel that achieving displacement in space is a significant feat beyond normal expectation, and it has been produced by many gyro-propulsion seekers. Have you discovered this quasi-phenomenon during your gyro-propulsion investigation?
I want to achieve a meeting of the minds on this issue so we can move on to other questions that are still open from our previous postings.
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 04/04/2007 08:03:21
| | | Dear Luis,
Now I could open the animation from Ryan Chappell with my notebook. The reason for the open problems may be MS Internet explorer version 7 which is installed only on my desktop computer.
This is a nice animation which underlines typical physical smattering! I will give you an explanation why such or a similar device would never ever work in space by a separate E-mail.
Best regards,
Harry K.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 08/04/2007 13:40:35
| | | Dear Harry,
In your explanation, please remember that Ryan’s Flash animation represents only one of the two-wing-like components (4 gyros re needed in space).
Though this animation conveys the concept of Up-like-a-gyro and Down-like-a-weight,” it does not show or explain what occurs at the end of the “Down-like-a-weight” portion of the cycle (and immediately before the “Up-like-a-gyro” segment starts).
The Flash animation also does not explain a) the 4-gyro configuration, b) how torque is applied to produce precession simultaneously and in the same direction in all 4 gyros, c) how the gyros are repositioned, d) how the “Down-like-a-weight” thrust is induced, etc.
Finally, the dynamic graphs on the upper left are mislabeled “Speed” and “Acceleration.”
Let’s be sure we are in the same page on these factors before we risk falling into the discomfort of misunderstanding each other.
Best Regards,
Luis
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 09/04/2007 10:32:53
| | | Happy Easter, Luis!
Ryan’s flash animation represents a general principle, or not? The principle states roughly "Down-like-a-weight” and “Up-like-a-gyro”, correct?
Though it doesn't matter how many sets are needed in space and it's less important at this stage whether the flash animation explains:
a) the 4-gyro configuration,
b) how torque is applied to produce precession simultaneously and in the same direction in all 4 gyros,
c) how the gyros are repositioned,
d) how the “Down-like-a-weight” thrust is induced, etc.
Also the correctness of stated dynamic graphs is irrelevant at this stage.
Luis, the principle in general is unusable to achieve propulsion in a frictionless and force-free envirnment. Therefore all following steps are needless at all. I will give you an explanation later via E-Mail.
Best regards,
Harry K.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Harry K. - 09/04/2007 15:05:31
| | | Luis, please check your E-Mail!
Please note, that I will not answer again here in this forum.
Thanks and regards,
Harry K.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
