Naked Science Forum
General Science => General Science => Topic started by: jerrygg38 on 16/08/2016 15:25:18
-
How does a gyroscope work?
You take a simple children’s toy gyroscope and spin it with a string. The gyroscope wants to maintain its axis of rotation. If you try to bend it you will observe a force fighting the bending. What causes this to occur? From basic physics we have an orbital momentum or moment of inertia. This tends to maintain the axis of rotation. Just as an object in linear motion tends to keep in a straight line, an object in orbital motion tends to maintain the plane of motion unless acted upon by a force perpendicular to that motion. The Earth tends to stay in a plane around the sun yet there are other forces at work as well.
We know that the simple gyroscope is cutting the earth’s gravitational field. From an electrical point of view, the gravitational field is inducing gravitational currents into the gyroscope. This keeps it aligned. When we support the gyroscope with a vertical pencil like support on a table, it tends to maintain the same height above the table but it will spin around the pencil at that same height.
So when the gyroscope cuts the gravitational field perpendicular to the line from the center of the Earth we get vector forces which act like the orbital forces of the earth around the sun. So what does this prove?
First it is apparent that different results occur from the same experiment depending upon the direction of the gravitational field. An object in motion tends to move in a straight line in pure free space but it will behave differently if we are moving in line with a gravitational field or perpendicular to that field.
The gravitational field tends to cause planets to orbit the stars once a slight perpendicular motion occurs. Since the electrical field operates in a similar manner, the same principle causes the electron to orbit the proton. The protons field will induce eddy type currents within the electron itself so that an opposite electrical field will be induced in addition to the gravitational field.
The gyroscope is a very interesting entity. It tells us a lot about the physics of the universe. What do you guys think?
-
gyroscopes also work in the absence of a gravitational field...
-
gyroscopes also work in the absence of a gravitational field...
That would be especially true the ring laser gyro which is an amazing product that I did some electrical work on years ago. However for the toy gyro if we moved it to an area of space between galaxies, we would only have the gravitational field of the gyro itself which is too weak to have any effect. Thus for a basically zero grav. field whichever direction we set it spinning would look like every other direction. I wonder if they conducted any experiments in the space station which has a grav. field but the downward gravity is counterbalanced by the motion of the space station.
-
The attitude (orientation) of the ISS is controlled by a set of gyroscopes.
-
The interaction of a gyroscope with gravitational field is generally an undesirable second-order effect. We use free or tethered spinning mechanical gyroscopes to measure rotation in all planes regardless of gravity.
From an electrical point of view, the gravitational field is inducing gravitational currents into the gyroscope. This keeps it aligned. When we support the gyroscope with a vertical pencil like support on a table, it tends to maintain the same height above the table but it will spin around the pencil at that same height.
This is nonsense. It tends to maintain the same alignment with respect to the universe, and the gravitational couple, which changes as the point of contact between the earth and an ideal gyro rotates in space, causes the gyroscope axis to precess.
It's important to distinguish pedantically between a flywheel (which can be used as the reference axis for a mechanical gyroscope) and a gyroscope, which is any device for measuring the rotation of a vehicle "from within". This includes ring lasers, vibrating forks, stress accelerometers, and the semicircular canals of your ears.
-
The interaction of a gyroscope with gravitational field is generally an undesirable second-order effect. We use free or tethered spinning mechanical gyroscopes to measure rotation in all planes regardless of gravity.
It tends to maintain the same alignment with respect to the universe, and the gravitational couple, which changes as the point of contact between the earth and an ideal gyro rotates in space, causes the gyroscope axis to precess.
It's important to distinguish pedantically between a flywheel (which can be used as the reference axis for a mechanical gyroscope) and a gyroscope, which is any device for measuring the rotation of a vehicle "from within". This includes ring lasers, vibrating forks, stress accelerometers, and the semicircular canals of your ears.
I am just thinking about the gyro now. I have no fixed opinion. What do you mean by the alignment with the universe and the gravitational couple? Does your gyro stay self aligned or spin around in relation to the gravitational field. In pure free space would the gyro mechanism spin around any initial rotation of the entire package even though the internal mechanism was spinning in a different direction. Could an observer within the gyro mechanism know that he was spinning or would he think he was quite stable? This get us back to Einsteins elevator but now the elevator is spinning. And now my head is spinning as well.
-
All that a flywheel does in the case of a gyroscope, is to generate an angular momentum vector along its axis. Everything that happens to that vector is then determined by Newtonian mechanics which, in its most generalised form, says that you need to exert a couple to rotate a vector. So if there's no fixed point of contact and no gravitational field, the vector will continue to point in the same direction.
-
All that a flywheel does in the case of a gyroscope, is to generate an angular momentum vector along its axis. Everything that happens to that vector is then determined by Newtonian mechanics which, in its most generalised form, says that you need to exert a couple to rotate a vector. So if there's no fixed point of contact and no gravitational field, the vector will continue to point in the same direction.
That sounds good to me. When you say couple I assume that it is a pair of forces to rotate the vector as one force would only move it in a straight line. So you have stated a law of rotational motion which is like the linear motion law. An object in rotational motion will continue to point in the same direction unless operated upon by a pair of forces. This makes sense but I wonder why?
The only reason I can think of is is self gravity. This would account for linear motion and rotational motion. Does such a word exist in theory? A mass in free space has its own gravitational field. This field extends far out in space. When it rotates, it rotates with respect to its own field. The field expands at the speed of light C. Thus the field is quite large and interacts with all the other fields in the universe. So the spinning mass keeps spinning in the same axis because it does that in relationship to its own field. the same is true of the mass moving in a straight line. Yet in both cases there is a Doppler effect as the mass spins or moves with respect to its own field. Thus in my opinion the two basic laws of physics is due to self gravity. Has anyone had a theory of self gravity?
-
An object in rotational motion will continue to point in the same direction unless operated upon by a pair of forces. This makes sense but I wonder why?
Think about the phrase "rotate about" or "rotate around". This means that you need two vectors to define the center and direction of rotation. The other key element is that spin defines the axial vector of momentum, and continuous change of either the magnitude or direction of a vector requires a continuous force. As you say, applying one force will move the vector "sideways" (and there's nothing to stop your space flywheel from continuing to move sideways at a constant speed when you remove the force) but can't change its direction in space.
For all of Eric Laithwaite's spectacular demonstrations (and he was an excellent mechanical engineer) he never demonstrated "negative gravity" or "self gravity" - the mass of the flywheel and the earth's gravitational force on it never altered.
-
An object in rotational motion will continue to point in the same direction unless operated upon by a pair of forces. This makes sense but I wonder why?
Think about the phrase "rotate about" or "rotate around". This means that you need two vectors to define the center and direction of rotation. The other key element is that spin defines the axial vector of momentum, and continuous change of either the magnitude or direction of a vector requires a continuous force. As you say, applying one force will move the vector "sideways" (and there's nothing to stop your space flywheel from continuing to move sideways at a constant speed when you remove the force) but can't change its direction in space.
For all of Eric Laithwaite's spectacular demonstrations (and he was an excellent mechanical engineer) he never demonstrated "negative gravity" or "self gravity" - the mass of the flywheel and the earth's gravitational force on it never altered.
One thing great about you science guys is your memory minds. So you can come up with interesting things out of memory. I have a calculating mind and not a good memory mind. On tests I would often have to derive the equations I needed from the basics. I just posted "Why does a mass in motion tend to move in a straight line at constant velocity" in new theories. I use the term self gravity. thus every mass has its own gravitational field. The earth has a gravitational field and a rock on the Earth has a gravitational field. I would appreciate your comments on new theories.
For the flywheel demonstration of Eric, you say he was unable to prove anything. How fast was he able to move the flywheel? If we add Einstein's mass formula we would have to move very fast to have much effect. And then it would fly apart if we went too fast. So we are trying to measure things in the margin of error of the experiment. So it would be hard to increase the mass and measure it. As far as the gravitational field is concerned you have the strong Earth field and the static flywheels field which tend to combine into a more complex Earth/flywheel field. The only difference that could be measured is a differential field with spin velocity. We end up with the same problem that we only have a tiny effect until we reach very high velocities of perhaps 0.01C.
Now self-gravity would be self evident in pure free space. Yet it is part of the basic laws of physics as my new theories post explains.
-
If you are interested in relativistic mass gain, have a look at particle accelerators where we can reach 0.999999c very easily and, to nobody's surprise, Einstein turned out to be right.
-
If you are interested in relativistic mass gain, have a look at particle accelerators where we can reach 0.999999c very easily and, to nobody's surprise, Einstein turned out to be right.
It does not surprise me that Einstein has the best answers since in my opinion he has the geometric mean of simple Doppler mass equations. I am surprised that we can reach 0.999999C without observing that we have both a mass gain as per Einstein's formula and a linear momentum as well. This would give us apples and oranges.
-
My textbooks and the internet are rather silent on the matter of Doppler mass equations. Your explanation wold be most welcome!
-
The Doppler mass studies
The Doppler mass studies in the radar research libraries were performed around 1950 by MIT and several other universities. These were classified secret at the time. The exact equations used Einstein’s mass equations and added Doppler equations to them. Since they were classified I never write the exact equations they used in the studies. In addition as an Engineer I am happy with an approximation such that the geometric mean of the Doppler equations equals Einstein’s equations. This is good enough because the velocities are rather low with respect to the speed of light.
If you look at a mass in pure free space, it will have a gravitational field. If you move the mass to the right, the present field will compress the previous field in the direction of travel. At the same time the gravitational field behind the object will be decompressed. The net effect is that the mass in the forward direction is larger and the mass in the rearward direction is smaller.
Mass Front = MoC/(C-V)
Mass Rear = MoC/(C+V)
M(rms) = Mo/ [1-(V/C)^2]^0.5
The net result is that as the velocity of a mass increases, its mass increases but this is a geometric mean. It has a Doppler component.
I haven’t studied these in years but as I always look for alternative understandings. A different viewpoint is that the moving mass has a Doppler gravitational field but the mass itself is purely Einsteinian. Thus if you are an observer of a mass moving toward you, you will feel that it is a larger mass due to the Doppler. This would be the same as a radar frequency moving toward you.
At work I had over 1000 engineers, mathematicians, and physicists to discuss this with for many years but there was no definite answer. Does mass itself have a Doppler effect or does only the gravitational field of the moving mass have a Doppler effect?
-
Doppler radar is familiar stuff, but doesn't involve mass. The idea of a Doppler effect in a gravitational field is intriguing and since we now know that gravity has a finite propagation speed, it's very plausible.
-
So relativistic gamma should determine the change in energy of the gravitational field due to the doppler effect. Can gamma be used to develop a quantisation method?
-
A gyroscope like a centrifuge uses the principle that objects when moved by force tend to travel in a straight line, unless other forces act upon them. And that objects in motion tend to stay in motion if other forces do not act upon them.
When you spin a gyro it wishes to spin and not have its axis changed because it requires a redirection of all the particles that make up the mass of the spinning gyro. Depending on which way you try to move a gyro you will see that one direction must cause more of a slow down to the particles in the gyro than the other direction. So that when you rotate a gyro, like a satellite around some second axis point, a gyro, who's axis is not bound, will change its axis in one direction if rotated around a fixed point for example in a counter clockwise manner. And then change its axis in the opposite direction if moved around a fixed point in a clockwise manner.
We already have built working gyro propulsion systems. No one is that interested, or they did not have the means or resources to do anything with them. Many successful forms of space travel and propulsion have been built and tested. However like in the days of slavery it was customary to cut off your slaves foot if he tried to leave. So they tend to chop good space travel methods.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
-
Doppler radar is familiar stuff, but doesn't involve mass. The idea of a Doppler effect in a gravitational field is intriguing and since we now know that gravity has a finite propagation speed, it's very plausible.
It has been 23 years since I retired during a large downsizing of Sperry/Unisys Radar research Dept. At that time they had these large and quite expensive vacuum tubes that produced the radar frequencies. Inside them electrons were flowing and resonating. Now if the radar was land based Doppler Radar does not involve mass. However if you put the radar transmitter on a plane that is moving with velocity v, all those electrons are effected. thus you have to use Einstein's formula to account for the slowing of the radiated frequency. The time of the return of the radar pulse depends upon the relative speed of the airplane and the object it hits. The time does not depend upon the transmitter frequency. However this frequency is important to capture the return signal accurately in a situation where there is a lot of noise. A phase lock loop matches the return signal with the transmitted signal to insure that the computer picks up the correct signal.
-
A gyroscope like a centrifuge uses the principle that objects when moved by force tend to travel in a straight line, unless other forces act upon them. And that objects in motion tend to stay in motion if other forces do not act upon them.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
So far everyone seems to relate the centrifugal force to straight line motion and a perpendicular applied force such as gravity or a string. I have not managed to come up with any other possibility yet. That sounds good for the string but somehow in the case of gravity, an equal and opposite force is generated when an object cuts the gravitational field in a tangential manner. Yet a car going around a curve is similar to the string problem in which the roadway takes the place of the string. So back to the "thought" drawing boards.
-
The rotation of the toy gyroscope in a horizontal plain when supported at one end is due to friction in the bearings if would not happen with a professional device with quasi frictionless bearings.
-
The rotation of the toy gyroscope in a horizontal plain when supported at one end is due to friction in the bearings if would not happen with a professional device with quasi frictionless bearings.
Yee gads, you are implying that my great experiments with a toy gyroscope led me to the wrong conclusions.. Of course the Sperry Gyro. Navy gyroscopes had three gyros in them so even if they ran down slightly they would still stay true. From your statement, friction would cause the toy gyroscope to run down and this would cause the toy gyro supported on one end to start to fall. this it did. Yet at the same time as it fell, it spun around. I will have to think about this more.
-
Question to all:
Unfortunately I could not find my toy gyroscope anywhere and will have to buy a new one. If I hold the gyroscope by both ends of the support shaft, and move it with two hands perpendicular to the axis but at the same time keeping the shaft parallel to the original axis, will I find that it resists this motion. This would be similar to a centrifugal force in which the object in motion tends to keep in a straight line but is forced to curve due to a string or gravity. I am taking a beach day tomorrow and hopefully I will not encounter a shark.
-
A gyroscope like a centrifuge uses the principle that objects when moved by force tend to travel in a straight line, unless other forces act upon them. And that objects in motion tend to stay in motion if other forces do not act upon them.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
So far everyone seems to relate the centrifugal force to straight line motion and a perpendicular applied force such as gravity or a string. I have not managed to come up with any other possibility yet. That sounds good for the string but somehow in the case of gravity, an equal and opposite force is generated when an object cuts the gravitational field in a tangential manner. Yet a car going around a curve is similar to the string problem in which the roadway takes the place of the string. So back to the "thought" drawing boards.
You can actually take a BB for a kids BB gun. And fire the BB at a piece of thin metal, that is angled one degree off parallel from the barrel. And you will see that the BB can impart quite a force to the piece of metal. The reason is the BB does not wish to change direction. That is all that is happening in a centrifuge. The stuff in the pump wants to move tangent to the spinning pump. And it does, causing pumping action.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
-
Early radars used cavity magnetrons to generate the transmitted pulse and as these are not partictually frequency stable devices the tuning of the receiver had to be adjusted to follow the transmitted frequency as well as to compensate for any Doppler shift
-
You can actually take a BB for a kids BB gun. And fire the BB at a piece of thin metal, that is angled one degree off parallel from the barrel. And you will see that the BB can impart quite a force to the piece of metal. The reason is the BB does not wish to change direction. That is all that is happening in a centrifuge. The stuff in the pump wants to move tangent to the spinning pump. And it does, causing pumping action.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
Evidently it appears that an object in motion has a gravitational field that must be spinning perpendicular to the motion. this would insure that the BB keeps on a straight path even though the physical BB may not spin. I will post that question soon.
-
Early radars used cavity magnetrons to generate the transmitted pulse and as these are not partictually frequency stable devices the tuning of the receiver had to be adjusted to follow the transmitted frequency as well as to compensate for any Doppler shift
All I remember is that Sperry used to pay $6,000 for each one 40 years ago. And we were not supposed to drop them. Yet if an engineer made a mistake and a $1,000,000 piece of equipment went up in smoke, it was just a sad but funny event. But we were not brain surgeons and equipment has no legal rights.
-
Evidently it appears that an object in motion has a gravitational field that must be spinning perpendicular to the motion. this would insure that the BB keeps on a straight path even though the physical BB may not spin. I will post that question soon.
You will need to post it in new theories
-
Evidently it appears that an object in motion has a gravitational field that must be spinning perpendicular to the motion. this would insure that the BB keeps on a straight path even though the physical BB may not spin. I will post that question soon.
You will need to post it in new theories
Yes I realize that and should have stated that this was a possibility out of many possibilities. I have no conclusions yet which I will post in new theories when I finish. I just posted questions about the spin of the proton in the cyclotron. I want to know what you guys know in that regard. I do not know what happens in the lab.
-
Could an observer within the gyro mechanism know that he was spinning or would he think he was quite stable? This get us back to Einsteins elevator but now the elevator is spinning. And now my head is spinning as well.
Or, one spaceship detects another one nearby spinning. Its propulsion system is off. The living organisms in the spaceships know physics but have very poor sight, and don´t see the distant stars.
How to decide which of the ships are spinning? Or both of them?
If one of the ships can't measure any inertial (centrifugal) force, the conclusion is that the other one is spinning.
-
Could an observer within the gyro mechanism know that he was spinning or would he think he was quite stable? This get us back to Einsteins elevator but now the elevator is spinning. And now my head is spinning as well.
Or, one spaceship detects another one nearby spinning. Its propulsion system is off. The living organisms in the spaceships know physics but have very poor sight, and don´t see the distant stars.
How to decide which of the ships are spinning? Or both of them?
If one of the ships can't measure any inertial (centrifugal) force, the conclusion is that the other one is spinning.
After I posted the question I realized that if we are spinning we get dizzy and can throw up. We are okay if we are moving at a constant linear velocity but we will get quite ill if we spin around. And the distant stars are a good indication.
I built a wooden swing for exercise and tried it at night. Looking up at the stars and swinging made me a little dizzy. Yet I had no problem in the daytime when looking straight ahead.