PHYSICS QUESTION gyroscope

[lightning r fun]

if you took a gyroscope wheel, and spun it in one direction, then took another wheel, put it around the first, and spun it in the opposite direction, what would happen?

would it cancel out gravity and levitate?

would it just fall over?

would it be more stable?

would it just downright defy gravity and fall up?

untitled is pic of side view
untitled 2 is bottom view

 

[FvM]

What makes you think that a gyroscope (or a combination of two) can "cancel out gravity"? You can actually cancel out the gyroscope effects, if both gyroscope axes and centers of gravity are identical and θ1*ω1 = -θ2*ω2. In other words, it's less stable.

 

[lightning r fun]

i know that if you had a gyro wheel on top of another one, it would cancel out and it would fall over, but the second wheel is around the first, and the axes are not connected in any way.

 

[FvM]

There's effectively no functional difference, except that your designs cancels more perfectly, because the centers of gravity of both gyroscopes are identical.

 

[123jack]

AKA flying saucer power source

This has long been an interesting question that is harder to answer
than it first appears.

There is a known experiment that places a gyro on a scale and when running
appears to indicate "lift" that is in excess of the energy vectors involved.

I've only ever seen partial explanations of this. I think old Prof. Braithwaite (inventer of linear induction motor etc) was particularly enamoured of this experiment. I seem to remember him doing a BBC documentary on the subject
or maybe just mentioning it in one some years ago.

I've never seen a full explanation myself oddly enough.

jack

 

[FvM]

I don't see, that gyro is involving forces in the axis direction. If I understand right, the said TV show was demonstrating some common stuff known from a 2nd years physics lab. I also didn't hear yet about new theories laying the foundations of flying saucers.

 

[123jack]

Hi

The flying saucer comment was off the cuff - it was just what UFO people have said in the past. Perhasp I should have used a smiley.

Braithwaite was saying there is a phenomena he couldn't understand or recognise occuring in the experiment that deserved further investigation.

At that time it certainly wasn't explainable by second year students.
It's just an area of math I've no interest in so I don't know what the state of play on it would be right now. I just thought 'd share.

You could of course be right - it was some time ago. (Braithwaite died ages ago I think) and today it may be 2nd year work.

jack

 

[lightning r fun]

while we're on the subject of ufos.... <------(smiley)
what do you think of antigravity?

 

[123jack]

while we're on the subject of ufos.... <------(smiley)
what do you think of antigravity?

I'm not sure why the two subjects are connected here but ok:

I think of it the same way I think of antielephants
Its a nice word but until it can be demonstrated to exist or
be possible then it belongs in the science fantasy (not fiction) category.
I fear the zoo will not contain that animal for a long time if ever.

Its very easy to ignore the fact that the only clue we have as to what gravity is or what may be causing it relies on a theory that requires our entire
frame of reference to define it.

Whilst you could argue (and put some faith in) the notion that every force
has an equal and opposite action - in the case of gravity it seems to me
that would require so called "antigravity" to "emerge" from outside our frame
of reference.

Until someone comes up with a better notion of what gravity may be
that puts "antigravity" in the realm of fantasy to me.

jack

 

[lightning r fun]

I think of it the same way I think of antielephants
Its a nice word but until it can be demonstrated to exist or
be possible then it belongs in the science fantasy (not fiction) category.

there is an antielephant.
its called c4.

back to fantasy then...
what if there were a way to cancel out the force of gravity on an object?
what if there were a way to simply "turn off" gravity in an entire area?
what if there were a way to actually reverse gravity?

so far the only one of these ideas seems even slightly possible.(the first one)(not the elephant one. the one after that)
there are some very viable ideas out there that will cancel out gravity. one being the gyro thing.
i'm just throwing it out there to think about.

 

[123jack]

there are some very viable ideas out there that will cancel out gravity. one being the gyro thing.
i'm just throwing it out there to think about.

I don't think the "gyro thing" cancels gravity any more than a propellor driven aircraft does (in the implied context)
I dont know of anything that can cancel gravity as such - the gyro mystery may well have been solved or be deemed uninteresting (as previously stated I'm out of date on that) One thing I would say for almost certain is any effect
will be the result of known (if badly understood) forces.

No force or method we currently know of is capable of even being consided
capable of cancelling gravity to the best of my knowledge.

jack

 

[FvM]

I don't think the "gyro thing" cancels gravity any more than a propellor driven aircraft does.

I think, not at all, because unlike a propellor, it can't generate directed forces. It only can redirect rotational moments.

I think, based on the present scientifical knowledge, the chances to create antigravity are rather bad. The relavistic concept of gravity would have to reveal imperfect or wrong before. But if it happens one day, it won't be based on a simple (or double) gyro, I assume.

If someone has an actual link or a publication claiming unknown or badly understood forces related to gyros, please post.

 

[lightning r fun]

i stumbled upon this one day...

YouTube - Apparatus for Gyroscopic Propulsion Explained

 

[FvM]

Unfortunately the video about the said gyroscopic propulsion apparatus is explaining exactly nothing, nor showing an action of the apparatus. But the author has received an US patent application, so you can study his ideas in detail. The document actually changed my view. I recognized, that patent office employes have a sense of humour...

See: espacenet results view

 

[123jack]

Patent applications are easy enough to obtain.
Even obtaining a patent is not so hard. Patent offices these days
have to rely on opinion as to whether a device or method functions
since many "inventions" are beyond reasonable understanding for
non specialists or engineers.

Contrary to what activists will tell you - patents are a very good idea
even for software. Unfortunately the issue of absurd software patents
has done us all a disservice.

Both keeping and making use of a patent is where things get tricky.
(And usually very expensive)

Fortunately patent offices seem well aware of "daft" claims for gyroscopes.

jack

 

[KJ6EAD]

Precession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Angular Momentum and Gyroscopic Precession

 

[FvM]

I assume, that also US patent law would actually require a rejection of the said patent application, as far it claims to act as a propulsion drive, because constructions and processes which are contrary to the laws of nature are not protectable as patents (which is, as far as I see, an international agreed principle).

The quoted precession article presents the known action of a gyroscope, in contrast to the "propulsion" fantasy involved with the said you tube video and patent application. Or as I previously mentioned:

I don't see, that a gyro is involving forces in the axis direction.

 

[lightning r fun]

The quoted precession article presents the known action of a gyroscope, in contrast to the "propulsion" fantasy involved with the said you tube video and patent application. Or as I previously mentioned:

this wasn't meant to propel something on it's own.
this just works as a means of propulsion for something already in the air, like an airship.

 

[FvM]

this wasn't meant to propel something on it's own.
this just works as a means of propulsion for something already in the air, like an airship

I fear, I studied too much physics to see a difference.

 

[123jack]

I fear, I studied too much physics to see a difference.

It's cruel to mock the afflicted :wink:

Often I find it the case that it's not so much that people don't know things
but they don't know how much they don't know. Even school teachers these
days don't seem to understand what a low level of education they are providing.

I had someone explain to me one day (in great detail) how a gyroscope
was driving the bus he took to work. He couldn't see why they needed a smelly
engine at all.

What he actually meant of course was the flywheel under the bus being used
to store energy.

Keep them dumb, anxious, and poor seems to be the political agenda these days.

jack