|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
3 May 2024 15:05
|
|
Welcome to the gyroscope forum. If you have a question about gyroscopes in general,
want to know how they work, or what they can be used for then you can leave your question here for others to answer.
You may also be able to help others by answering some of the questions on the site.
|
Question |
| Asked by: |
Glenn Hawkins |
| Subject: |
THE THEORY OF EXTERIOR-FORCE ACTING ON CENTRIFUGE |
| Question: |
THE THEORY OF EXTERIOR-FORCE ACTING ON CENTRIFUGE
Centripetal is considered mathematically as a force that pulls rotating matter inward toward the center of rotation. Exterior-force can be theorized as a force originating from the perimeters of rotation that forces rotating matter inward. None of these forces can be visualized, because they are not made of matter, but made of conditions, centrifugal, centripetal and exterior-force. The effects of the condition caused by centrifuge exist all around us and through out the universe and are easy to see, or realize. Centrifuge is produced whenever matter is forced to travel in a curvature. There is no evidence, or reasonable exception to this universal condition consisting of natural reactions. The only perceived, but surely impossible exception in our known universe comes from the singular and confusing study of gyroscopic behavior. This study as of today is incomplete and not fully understood and therefore not all the ideas coming from it, such as the disbelief that centrifuge is occurring during precession can be trusted against the weight of countless examples proven to the contrary. Such a single exception would be astronomically unlikely.
One form of visual exterior-force against centrifuge can be recalled by remembering the bicycle races of France where the racers travel around the inside of a great drum. Of course in precession there is no drum to see, but only a complex condition of self contained deflections at the rim to be imagined.
During precession there are several visual examples of centrifuge occurring, but these are generally ignored, because there is no centripetal connection between the arm of an over hung precessing gyroscope and a fulcrum, therefore it has been reasoned that without an anchored connection to support a centripetal idea, centrifuge cannot be allowed to occur as it would disrupt the precession’s ability to revolve around a disconnect.
Regardless there are plenty of physical evidences in common examples that centrifuge acts during precession. A single example experiment, there have been many, was done by hanging a gyroscope by a single arm to a fourteen foot overhead supported string. The gyroscope eventually revolved in a four-foot radius. In order to do that it had to act as a pendulum rising, producing force against the countering force of gravity, otherwise it should have revolved into a still greater radius’. The visual evidence of centrifuge acting in several different examples is also certain. However in other examples there is no visual evidence centrifuge is acting during precession, but because there is no current mechanical understanding of how this might be possible, centrifuge must be existing in a condition of containment by an outside force, not an inside force, and that force I have temporarily named exterior-force. Again, this force is generated in the perimeter of the area of revolutions where deflected force is redirected inward toward the pivotal area of the fulcrum. In this theory it is not necessary to have a centripetal force to constrain a centrifugal force, but necessary only to have an exterior inward force to act in its place. Centrifuge can then be allowed by all reasoning and observations pertaining to precession. A general understanding of where this exotic force comes from and why it acts can be reasoned.
The reluctance of angular momentum as it is tilted is as a yielding collapse, the same as in a non-elastic collision into an air bag with holes in it, as opposed to a collision depressing into a anchored spring coil where an equal and opposite reaction follows. Each new increment of downward curving movement creates a new reluctance to yield, and energy from this reluctance is transferred from vertical reluctance, to horizontal torque reactions in the direction forward and rearward to precession and these reactions are further transformed into action forces as opposed to their beginnings as reluctant forces. In fact this action force is the result of two right angle forces occurring primarily at the rim of the disk, two acting, one yielding and the result not unlike a collision.
It seems that this torque in the forward quarter of the disk is attempting to twist directly into the fulcrum, while the rearward quarter of the disk is attempting to twist outward from the fulcrum. If the forward twist into the fulcrum is stronger it can in some conditions act to counter centrifuge. This should be expected because angular resistance occurs toward one single direction upward; therefore torque reaction should occur in one single direction horizontally as in precession. These are variable torque reactions. They can act strongly, or weekly depending apparently on both the magnitudes of angular momentum, and the relative magnitude of angular momentum, verses the magnitude of a ninety degrees force acting to tilt it.
The work and discovery of Sandy Kidd has produced proven support of the exterior-force of which I speak. Using electric motor force to revolve his gyros around a common pivot he has found at great speeds great inward force is directed inward toward the pivot. He has explained that these experiments have been done numerous times over the course of years and that the results were always constant and certain without failure. He will not be wrong in this assessment.
In summation it is my studied opinion that centrifuge always acts during precession as it always must when mater is traveling in a curvature, whether it is very detectable in some cases, or hardly detectable in others, and that in all conditions of outward supported revolutions exterior-force of one form or another performs the same function as centripetal performs during rotation.
Glenn,
|
| Date: |
10 March 2007
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 27/03/2007 03:57:44
| | | http://www.gyroscope.com/d.asp?product=GYROTOP#
Click on video one (1.)
Here in this video is perfect evidence of centrifuge occurring during the precession of an over-hung gyroscope. To see it you must watch intensely the base of the pedestal as it moves around the polished tabletop. As the gyroscope revolves in a circle the base of the pedestal also revolves in unison, but in a much smaller circle. This is what is happens. Centrifuge pulls the top of the pedestal directly outward during each changing increment of a revolution. Contrary to the first impression we may have had the hub, which is the rounded lob we see at the end of each gyro arm, fits down into a shallow, rounded depression in the top of the pedestal. Torque force, which is equal to the force of gravity upon the entire gyroscope, pressures the hub down into the shallow depression of the top of the gyroscope. The connection then is stronger than our first impression would appear to have had it. It is this connection that allows centrifuge to pull the pedestal outward. As it is being pulled outward it is constantly rotated by the changing increments of precession motion and the visual effect is that the pedestal is of course revolving as it surely is. Never the less it should be obvious that in this case centripetal is playing its part from the friction produced in the base to table top area.
The reason I know precisely what is happening in this video is that I’ve done an experiment, which shows the above action much more pronouncedly. I increased this evidence of centrifuge occurring during precession in a way something like stuffing the inside of a pedestal base with crushed ice so that the ice slides across the table top with little friction and is therefore allowed to curve into a larger circle while trailing the gyroscope. The nearer zero friction of ice, as opposed to more friction created in a plastic pedestal base - to table top contact allows for this. We can forget the professor’s tower to ice experiment and his explanation that the gyro exhibited no centrifuge, because the tower legs dug down into the soft, watery ice and secured the tower from movement. You see in the video for yourself. You see centrifuge acting.
There is the argument that a ‘dead weight’ is the cause for any evidence of centrifuge. I do not refute this idea, still the idea doesn’t prove that a perfect gyroscope, having all its mass in the rim would not also produce centrifuge. Indeed if this were the case, then the theory of an External-Force acting to contain centrifuge would have to answer in place of centripetal. External-Force may in fact be in occurrence to some degree during all representations of precession. To the best of my recollection the good professor did not say there was no centrifuge, but rather he said that some was missing.
We can end with the simple. Matter will always travel in a straight line, unless a force is acting to change its path. Precession cannot operate without a force to keep the gyroscope, or anything else, from traveling in a straight path. Something must bend the path from straight and the force that bends the path is what causes centrifuge, which itself is only a complicated resistance to being curtailed from a straight path travel. It is not possible that anything in motion can be curved without producing centrifuge, as it is a component of equal and opposite and is therefore subject to a Law of motion that it must exist in all such cases.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 04/04/2007 08:35:57
| | | I was correct. Here is the perfect demonstration of centrifuge to settle the question once and for all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgZFtCvwTZQ&mode=related&search=
Click show again. Once the animation begins there is a button in the right lower corner of the pop up screen for wide screen viewing. Click it before the video finishes.
The block of ice and the gyro rotate around an invisible axes and around one another. The centrifuge in the ice block would pull the gyro out of rotation if the centrifuge in the gyro weren’t pulling against the block of ice. There wouldn’t be a rotation. No one can deny this evidence, so the next time you hear an expert on a video clip say there’s no centrifuge, or the next time you see that someone is claiming in print there’s no centrifuge you know they are confused. The purpose of this post, which was to prove precession centrifuge is finished.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dessperate deed - 04/04/2007 08:54:56
| | | Explanation failed. Think over and try again!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 11/04/2007 12:22:19
| | | Dear Glenn,
I am most certainly not confused, and I must dispute your statement:
“I was correct. Here is the perfect demonstration of centrifuge to settle the question once and for all.”
I have not even ventured to look at the site you referred to.
This experiment or a similar one was shown on a BBC program many years ago with the sole purpose of discrediting Eric Laithwaite.
Many postings ago on this site I made comments relating to this experiment.
At that time I stated that it was a cheap, nasty and flawed experiment and that the academics who demonstrated it should have known better. Maybe they did, but Joe Public can be persuaded to believe anything.
If this experiment demonstrates the presence of centrifugal force, why does the rotation radius of the system not increase?
A rubber band fixed somewhere?
The only reason these effects are present are because there is a silly tower between the gyroscope fulcrum point and the ice.
How flat is the base of the tower, and how square is the whole set up?
As we know the load of the gyroscope is transmitted vertically downwards through the tower to act on the base of the tower.
Was the set up checked for mechanical accuracy?
Was the gyroscope’s vertical loading spread evenly across the base of the tower?
If the gyroscope’s vertical loading is not spread absolutely flat on the test surface the results are prone to error. I would certainly not have thought the flatness of a block of ice would have been satisfactory for a test like this.
Remove the tower and try again, or better still do the experiment properly, the way I suggested at that time, and the result will be quite different.
Sandy Kidd.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 11/04/2007 20:59:41
| | | Dear Fellows,
Wonderful to hear from you. There is full momentum during precession too, it is just that most, or all of it is redirected the instant the gyro collides forward into an object. SO you have additional reasons to hang me. I enjoyed you answers very much. How is your work going along? Behave and enjoy yourselves and be sure to keep in touch. I am concerned about Geoff. He was very sick.
Glenn,
By the way, it is possible to force the gyro to deliver its full load of momentum into collision if you collide it downward at the same time, or just before you collide it forward. Hope this secret helps somebody.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro MacMad - 13/04/2007 21:31:37
| | | Dear Glen and Sandy
Unlike Sandy I have looked at the “U tube” site. (How any site that sounds like the strange intimate parts of the human anatomy - or to those less psychotic than me, a gas pressure gauge (gage in the US of A) - ever got off the ground, beats me). I digress, as usual.
The web site shows one of Gyroscopes.org’s excellent gyro assemblies rotating precessionally (is that a word?) with its extended axial pivot point on an ice puck. The puck and gyro rotate around a point somewhere between the puck and the gyro assembly. They also slide towards the view point due, presumably, to a slight tilt on the table.
It is unsatisfactory as an arrangement needed for a demonstration of missing centrifugal force in a precessing gyro (it isn’t really missing, as I’m sure you know, it just gets precessed down to the pivot point in a way that is not immediately obvious) as there are too many unbalanced masses. In the “U tube” demonstration these create additional masking precessions that at first glance make it seem that a precessing gyro exhibits, at least some, normal centrifugal effects.
To produce a good demonstration requires the removal of the non spinning mass of the gyro’s assembly (its cage ((probably Cauge in the US of A – joke! No? Oh! All right, not then.)) and the extended axial pivot, in this case) from the mass rotated by precession. This is to remove the centrifugal effects of the rotation of the non gyroscopic mass that is present in the “U tube” (and to a lesser extent Eric Laithwaite’s sadly melting ice) demonstration.
This removal of the effects of the non gyroscopic mass can be done by reverting to an arrangement not dissimilar to the classic “gyro on an Eiffel tower” with some simple modifications.
The mass off the gyro’s frame (not the gyro) must be balanced by a mass on the other side of its pivot point on its tower. This is to remove the non gyroscopic mass providing a centrifugal element that has nothing to do with the gyro. On small scale, comparatively slow, test arrangements there will most likely still be some centrifugal components however there will be far less than that shown in the “strange intimate part of the human anatomy” video.
Kind regards
NM
PS Sandy, the only reason I have easily been able to see the “U tube” web site given by Glen is that the “lovely Irene” has shown me – after years of my laboriously writing out web site addresses in long hand, often being “timed out” or “driven bonkers” as it’s known – that there is a simple, two click, way to copy a web address. Computers! Like all things American, you never know whether to dump ‘em or kiss ‘em! (Please remove Al Gore from the kissing part of the above equation).
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 16/04/2007 04:05:42
| | | Dear Nitro,
Delighted to her from you after so long. Interesting and fun observations about U Tube. What’s wrong with my hero, Al Gore? Be sure to keep in touch.
Kindest Regards,
Glenn
………………………………………………………………………………..
To all the dear souls on board of a similar mind,
The problem here is it is not understood that mass in motion will follow a straight path, unless acted upon by a force to change its path. A gyroscope cannot precess in a curvature, unless it is forced to do so. As it is forced to curve, centrifuge becomes the reaction force against the force that causes curving. Whether it is realized, it will be there.
I could show you so clearly, but I don’t thank it would do you any good. If you can’t see it after so much exposure, my advise to you is to ignore physics all together and be happy in your work. Why not? Sweet talking to you fellows.
You could try rereading the opening post, "THE THEORY OF EXTERIOR-FORCE ACTING ON CENTRIFUGE" Would that be of any use to you?
Kindest Regards,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 03/05/2007 15:13:12
| | | Please excuse me for my comment about ignoring physics. I do not think that at all of any of us and I don’t believe it at all of any of us. I don’t know what I was thinking. Obviously I wasn’t thinking. Otherwise that would be a mean and untrue thing to say. Nothing much is proven anyhow and each of us should believe as we chouse. Any way, I hope my sincere apology to you will be accepted.
Sincerely,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Brain of the forum - 04/05/2007 10:41:01
| | | Too late. We won't accept your apology and thus you will be ignored for ever! Shame on you!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 13/05/2007 09:48:25
| | | For a long time I have observed so many hopes and dreams and schemes for an inertial propulsion device. So many efforts have been made through the years and a lot of interest still exists in those particular efforts made though they were all failures. I find all this appealing, this tenacity, this lasting belief that will not go away, this sense of correctness and wonder in an area of unfinished work. And it is a kind of melancholy for me, a sadness for all the failures with a lovely kind of wistfulness and camaraderie deep in such an elusive and difficult subject. I am proud to be a part of you and you should be proud to be a part of one another. The world it it’s totality has not the dreamer's ability to perceive as you perceive. Inertial propulsion must be possible. One senses it. It is too bad that not a single device has worked. We will keep at it. We will try.
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
