[cheeeezy (OP)]

  Some time ago it occurred to me that Eric Laithwaite might have a point in asking everyone to reexamine the "scientific" explanations of the Gyroscopic Effect. All they were saying was that Newtons laws insisted that Conservation of Momentum had to apply to the angular momentum build up in a rotating solid. Of course, anyone whos ever played with a Gyroscope has observed the equal and opposite force law gets thrown under that bus. Simply applying Occam's Razor to this anomaly led me to a much more reasonable explanation. The basic principle that a solid is a form of matter where the electron orbitals are locked together, led me to a simple obvious conclusion. Since almost all the weight of an atom is in the nucleus, wouldn't spinning a solid cause the nuclei to be thrown outward due to centrifugal force? And wouldn't the shifting outward of the nuclei inside the electron shells cause an electromagnetic imbalance in each atom? As I experimented with various flywheels it became obvious that the tangential force was simply answering to the electronic righthand rule. The nuclei were simply "unwinding" due to the mechanical force applied to them. BTW, if the "light" goes on for someone else, I've already got the patent. To those who have written criticisms of my theory, I suggest you go back to school and learn to read. Everything I wrote was meticulously researched and experimentally proven.

[chiralSPO]

Have you spun up any flywheels while sitting in a chair that is free to rotate? You may find that "equal and opposite" (conservation of angular momentum) still applies here.

[alancalverd]

Eric Laithwaite was a hell of a nice guy but sadly didn't understand Newtonian physics. Scientific laws don't "insist" , they describe. And they describe everything we know about gyroscopes even to the point that you can make quantum mechanical predictions from them despite the fact that electrons don't actually orbit the nucleus.

[chiralSPO]

And I have patented dozens of chemical compounds that have never been made (some of which I know cannot be stable, but they're still mine, all mine!) The fact that they are patented doesn't mean that these compounds are "real."

[Bored chemist]

Of course, anyone whos ever played with a Gyroscope has observed the equal and opposite force law gets thrown under that bus.

In what way?

[alancalverd]

What is this "tangential force" you speak of?

[Bored chemist]

I already said: Right Hand Rule = 90degrees

You may well have said that, but it is meaningless.

[Bored chemist]

spin up a flywheel and try to push it sideways - voila!

And it moves in exactly the way that physics says it should.
That's my point.
The laws of physics work just fine for gyroscopes.

So this

Of course, anyone whos ever played with a Gyroscope has observed the equal and opposite force law gets thrown under that bus.

is nonsense

[charles1948]

The "gyroscopic" effect seems difficult to explain.  Like how it's difficult to explain bicycles.

I mean, if you get onto a bicycle when it's stationary, you immediately fall over.  But if you pedal it forwards, and gain a bit of momentum, you don't fall over.  I've seen various explanations of why that is. 

Some of the explanations invoke a "gyroscopic" effect.  Other explanations dismiss that, and appeal to continuous "micro-muscular" movements by the bicycle rider, to maintain a balanced, upright posture.

It's all a bit mysterious. 

Is there some key insight awaiting discovery,  that might  transform our understanding of physics?

[Bored chemist]

Yes the laws of physics, not newtons "rule" of equal and opposite reactions.

That is one of the laws and yes, it's obeyed.

I'll leave how it does it to whomever wants to figure it out.

They figured it out a hundred and odd years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_calculus#:~:text=Vector%20calculus%20was%20developed%20from,their%201901%20book%2C%20Vector%20Analysis.

You could learn it.

I'm REALLY tired of beating a brick wall....

Well, why did you turn up here?
Surely you knew that posting nonsense wasn't going to get very far.

I'm simply trying to explain the fact that the force that causes the gyroscopic effect is a nuclear reaction,

That's not a fact. If you try to pretend it is then you will be banging your head against the wall again.
Why not stop and learn some science instead?
It's going to be more rewarding.

[Bored chemist]

Some of the explanations invoke a "gyroscopic" effect. 

And they are wrong- as has been shown by experiment.

[charles1948]

Some of the explanations invoke a "gyroscopic" effect. 

And they are wrong- as has been shown by experiment.

Yes, but I remember reading, until quite recently, that moving bicycles stay upright because of the gyroscopic effect created by the whirling wheels.

That was the orthodox theory.  Now disproved, or so you claim.

[Bored chemist]

(At the risk of getting Alan involved...)
If you look at just about any textbook that tells you how planes fly, it will give an answer that isn't just false, but obviously false. There's usually some nonsense about the Bernoulli effect and the air having to travel faster over the top of the wing because of the shape (in cross section) of the wing.

Which is fine, until you remember that you can fly a stunt plane upside down indefinitely...

Just because an explanation is common, doesn't make it right.

It turns out that what keeps a bike upright is... the rider.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/opinion-how-does-a-bike-stay-upright-surprisingly-its-all-in-the-mind

[Janus]

Here is a simple example of the gyroscope effect.

You have a rotating object with 2 spherical masses on the end of rods and attached to central axis shaft.
The arrows indicate which direction each of the masses' momentum is carrying at a given moment. From this view, one is going up and the other down.


untitled.png (140.27 kB . 672x378 - viewed 2948 times)

Now you grab the axial shaft and suddenly rotate it 90 degrees along the axis joining the sphere.

untitled2.png (141.74 kB . 672x378 - viewed 3062 times)
The spheres themselves are not displaced but neither is the direction of their momenta changed, which remains in an up and down direction.  This is transferred to the axial shaft via the connecting rods, will will try to twist the shaft perpendicular to its own axis.  To you, it will feel like the shaft is trying to rotate 90 degrees to the direction you are trying to rotate it.

If you expand this to a spinning disk, you always have some parts of it which have a momentum that will fight you if you try to change the axis of rotation.

[charles1948]

(At the risk of getting Alan involved...)
If you look at just about any textbook that tells you how planes fly, it will give an answer that isn't just false, but obviously false. There's usually some nonsense about the Bernoulli effect and the air having to travel faster over the top of the wing because of the shape (in cross section) of the wing.

Which is fine, until you remember that you can fly a stunt plane upside down indefinitely...

Just because an explanation is common, doesn't make it right.

It turns out that what keeps a bike upright is... the rider.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/opinion-how-does-a-bike-stay-upright-surprisingly-its-all-in-the-mind

Excellent post BC.  As always.  :

 About the  Bernoulli effect.  Agree with you completely. I never believed that was why aeroplanes fly.  I remember reading, years ago, a book by Len Deighton, which contained a diagram captioned: "The Secret of Flight".

The diagram was of a wing aerofoil section - you know what I mean - under-surface flat, upper-surface curved.

I knew that was bollards. In my youth I built model aeroplanes with wings of flat balsa wood.  Completely flat, top and bottom.  No trace of aerofoil.  Yet my planes flew very well.  I could go on about this.  But it would be too boring!

[evan_au]

That force is created by unwinding the nucleons, and thereby best described as "cold fission".

Have you tried making a gyroscope out of uranium or thorium, and tested whether the radiation level increases when you increase the spin? (eg using a Geiger counter)
- Have you tried to test for new elements created by cold fission?
- Have you used a  gyroscope made out of more conventional materials like iron or aluminium, and seen cold fission occur? Where would the energy come from? (It consumes energy to split the nucleus of elements iron and lighter.)

One of the more common ways of refining uranium is to put it in a centrifuge, made out of the strongest known alloys, and spin it at the highest possible speed. If a gyroscopic effect produced fission, it would have been noticed!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_centrifuge#Separating_uranium-235_from_uranium-238

[Bored chemist]

I'm simply trying to explain the fact that the force that causes the gyroscopic effect is a nuclear reaction,

Quite a lot of gyroscopes are made mainly from iron.  Iron(well, at least one of the isotopes) is near the bottom of the nuclear binding energy curve.
The nuclei are too heavy for fusion to work, and too light for fission to work.

What nuclear reaction is possible?

Also, the world has been spinning for billions of years, why hasn't it finished reacting yet?
Why is there no evidence of products of reaction?

[cheeeezy (OP)]

there are two ways to release nuclear energy: 1- blowing up nuclei (stupid way)  2-  unwinding the nuclei through a method that requires intelligent thought  Too bad people keep choosing a path toward self destruction

    Klatu Barada Nicto

[Bored chemist]

there are two ways to release nuclear energy: 1- blowing up nuclei (stupid way)  2-  unwinding the nuclei through a method that requires intelligent thought  Too bad people keep choosing a path toward self destruction

    Klatu Barada Nicto

Do you understand that this is a science page?

[alancalverd]

Yes, but I remember reading, until quite recently, that moving bicycles stay upright because of the gyroscopic effect created by the whirling wheels.

That was the orthodox theory.  Now disproved, or so you claim.

It never appeared in any physics textbooks that I read. Bicycle wheels are designed to have the minimum moment of inertia consistent with their intended load and terrain. If you try to turn a heavy, spinning wheel, say to the left, it will try to flip you over to the right - not what we want on a bike!

Bicycle stability arises from the angle of the front tube. If you lean slightly to the left, the wheel turns to the left, so the bike starts to turn left and centrifugal force stops the bike from falling over.  You can demonstrate this by making a bike with zero or negative tube angle, the latter being pretty impossible to ride.