PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-10-21, 07:03:11
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature. :)

Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Gyroscopic (Coreolis) forces and the Aether  (Read 27603 times)

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1502
Although in my paper I allude to the possibility of angular acceleration of a magnet (which would actually be angular acceleration of a rotating magnetization vector within a disc of permeable material) creating thrust, the converse is also true.  Linear acceleration of a magnet would cause an angular force to be applied to the magnet.  Now it need not be a disc having coils at right angles to create a the equivalent of a rotating magnet, it could also be a ring core.  If you have bucking coils each wound over half a ring core you will create N and S poles at the gaps where the coils meet.  Then have two more at right angles and drive the two pairs with sine waves that are 90 degree phase shifted and you get poles rotating around the ring.  Now use thin Fe wire for the ring and you get something like the TPU.  With these thin wires as the magnetic core it is obviously possible to set up mechanical vibrations so that parts of the ring are moving back and forth in linear motion, and that would require other coils to set up that vibratory motion.  Now we have the possibility that those vibrations induce a rotation of the N and S poles so that whatever circuit is actually driving that rotation gets some free energy via the earth's static magnetic potential.  Forget SM's kicks and concentrate on sine waves at the mechanical resonant frequency of this ring core.  It all makes sense.  And I read somewhere that SM stated his machine worked in the southern hemisphere but it had to be upside down.  That too fits the bill.

Smudge
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
ROLAND SCHINZINGER's report dispels any explanation that requires a ferrous core and external changing magnetic fields:

SCHINZINGER REPORT
ROLAND SCHINZINGER PhD.
Report on Test of Energy Device
At the request of Mr. Richard Mincherton I was present on October 28th at a test demonstration
of a device that its inventor claims will produce electric power without measurable energy input
except as derived from the earth'’ magnetic and gravitational fields. The test was conducted at
the inventor's home. I was allowed to bring and use measuring instruments, but because the
inventor had to leave after
1 ½ hours, I was not able to conduct independent tests on my own.
Based on my observations, I can attest to the fact that the three models of the device displayed
and tested on that day did indeed light up one, two and six light bulbs (each rated at 100 watt and
120 volt) respectively. This was less then the figures quoted to me before the test, but still
adequate to demonstrate that the devices function in some fashion. The smallest unit produced
140 to 150 volts unloaded and 60 to 90 volts when lighting one 100-watt bulb.
The mid-sized unit produced 250 volts unloaded,
and was observed producing
142 Volts at .5 Ampere after 30 minutes of lighting two bulbs.
The largest unit produced 798 Volts unloaded. With a six-bulb load the voltage dropped to 420
Volts.
It was difficult to determine how many hours the devices may be able to operate because the
inventor ended the demonstration after 1 ½ hours.
I could not detect any time-varying magnetic field that might have provided an external energy input.
After the test the inventor cut the toroidally shaped device into segments (though not the
controller box located at the center of the device). These samples consisted of an array of
circumferentially arranged coils and wires grouped around a core made of a cork like substance.


October 29, 1995 Roland Schinzinger
RESUME ROLAND SCHINZINGER
Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering (UCI)
Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering (UCI)
PhD, Univ. California, Berkeley 1966
MS, “ 1954
BS, “ 1953
Westinghouse Design School / U. of Pittsburgh 1955
Apprenticeship (Technikum), Bosch Co. 1947
High School (Doitsu Gakuin, Tokyo, Abitur) 1945
Academic Appointments:
(UCI) Associate Dean 1979-83, 1985-86
(UCB)Teaching Fellow 1963-65
Robert College Istanbul Turkey:
Associate Professor 1962-63
Associate Professor 1958-62
University of California, energ. & Mgt. (Grad Program) 1991-92
California State Polytechnic University 1978-80
University of Santa Maria, Brazil 1993
University of Kariruhe, Germany-
Power and High Voltage Institute 1986
University of Manchester Inst. Of Science and Tech.-
And Imperial College, London: 1972-73
Honors:
Fellow, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Eng.,(IEEE)
Fellow, Institute for the Advancement of Engineering
Award for Contributions to Professionalism (IEEE)
1983 Centennial Medal (IEEE)
Science Faculty Fellow (Natl. Sc. Foundation) 1964-65
Sangamo Prize Fellowship (Sangamo Electric) 1953
Honor Societies HKN, TBN, Sigma xi
Listed in “Who’s Who, Am. Men & Women in Science and Engineering
Publications:
Over 70 technical papers, plus numerous reports and commentaries.
Also four books: Ethics in Engineering McGraw-Hill
Conformal Mapping P.A.Laura
Emergencies in Water Delivery Davis Pub.
Electrical Laboratory SIMA Ltd.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
Forget SM's kicks and concentrate on sine waves at the mechanical resonant frequency of this ring core.  It all makes sense.  And I read somewhere that SM stated his machine worked in the southern hemisphere but it had to be upside down.  That too fits the bill.

Smudge

The "kicks" are just a hv pulse in a static magnetic field.  Anyone who actually experiments with this will find it very interesting as the hv pulses are able to affect the magnetic field (or appear to).

SM's comments on rotation direction in response to comments from "Norbert":

March 04, 2006
DEAR LINDSAY,
PLEASE POST THIS RESPONCE TO THE QUESTIONS HE HAS ASKED.

Hallo Steve Mark,
i hope that you still read here because this weekend my head was smoking an i would like to ask
you something.
In one of the videos you demonstrate your device which ist connected to a measuring instrument.
When you turn it top down the voltage decrease and you had no explanation for it. Now my
question: did you try your device already on the earth south site?
YES NORBERT, WE DID TRY THEM SOUTH OF THE EQUATER, THEY WORK IN
REVERSE. CAN SOMEONE TELL ME WHY?

I was also thinking about the exploding TV and the wire found in the the wall. The position in the
TV of this wire is NOSW at the CR tube and also the small coils inside at your device. These
small coils are enclosed of a big coil like the primary coil of the tesla transformer. May be the
direction of winding the small coils is also important. Starting the first "kick" comes from the
magnets and the kick is a result of the initial inertia of the free electrons is in the cable. About the
control, sure there are condensators, but i dont know how to build it. It could be so, that the small
coils successively counter clockwise be induced, so that there it a rotating magnetic field.
regards
Norbert Käßner
YES THERE IS A ROTATING FEILD WHICH CAUSES ELECTRONS TO FLOW IN COPER
WIRE AND BE USED TO PROVIDE USEFULL WORK FORSE. THERE ARE MANY WIRES
PERPINDICULAR TO THE MAIN COLECTOR. THIS IS A NECESSARY PART OF THE
DEVICE.
SINCERELY,
SM.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3541
It's turtles all the way down
From G:

Quote
ROLAND SCHINZINGER's report dispels any explanation that requires a ferrous core and external changing magnetic fields:

I would have to disagree, as in my opinion the pickup loop that Dr. Schinzinger used dispelled the claim of power coming from an external field (source of power) which is what he was looking for.
quote:
Quote
I could not detect any time-varying magnetic field that might have provided an external energy input.

Actually a ferrous core or iron wire would concentrate and guide the magnetic flux in a loop, making external leakage flux more difficult to detect.

We do know he used a ferrous wire from the latest unearthed video demonstration.

We may be veering slightly off topic, but I welcome this dialog and input.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
I would have to disagree, as in my opinion the pickup loop that Dr. Schinzinger used dispelled the claim of power coming from an external field (source of power) which is what he was looking for.

That's what I meant.  He did not detect an external source of power.

Ferrous "wire" perhaps, but the Dr. says the "core" was a cork material.

=============================================================

It's curious that no one discusses Dr. SCHINZINGER's mention of "gravitational field"

At the request of Mr. Richard Mincherton I was present on October 28th at a test demonstration
of a device that its inventor claims will produce electric power without measurable energy input
except as derived from the earth'’ magnetic and gravitational fields.


Gravity?  Really?  Gravity influences precession of a spinning top or gyroscope:
http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/gyroscope-physics.html

Later TPU's reportedly did not cease to produce electrical current when flipped over, and they supposedly had an additional set of windings with DC bias applied to them.  

In the later versions of TPU's, does a static magnetic field replace the earth's gravitational field?

If we surmise that it does, then we can also surmise that the energy is not collected from earth's gravitational field in early units.

Electrons spin and precess.  What are electrons doing when moving together as a current?

Edit:
good TPU discussion and details here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=403.0

I have tried to find "John Sanchez" to no avail.
« Last Edit: 2014-07-14, 21:10:21 by Grumpy »
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1443
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
Quote
13. No time varying magnetic fields were observed in the vicinity that could account for the power output (See Schinzinger report#1)

They measured from the outside but what about a wave front expressing inside the dc bias or magnet supplied field? Domain flipping, i believe. Correct?

I posted about the wire core. Sm stuck magnets to it. Did they miss this in looking for transformer cores?
I am heading down this line of thinking in my current build.


---------------------------
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
A little off topic,but it is gyroscopic,and a neat little toy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPxIBkcnjXQ


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3541
It's turtles all the way down
Quote from G:

Quote
ROLAND SCHINZINGER's report dispels any explanation that requires a ferrous core and external changing magnetic fields:


From G:
Quote
That's what I meant.  He did not detect an external source of power.

Ferrous "wire" perhaps, but the Dr. says the "core" was a cork material.

Yes, sorry I was only disputing the "dispels any explanation that requires a ferrous core" part of your original statement.

The ferrous wires may have been sandwiched between the cork layers to allow some vibration motion.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
Quote from: Peterae on 2014-07-13, 19:09:38
Blimey Smudge you've gone from failure to find free Energy to a new form of thrust.
Sounds amazing.

This could be the reason why the TPU winds up and has a gyroscopic rotational / washboard effect.

 

Yes, the TPU of Steven Mark must be looked at firstly from this point of view.

Those not familiar should acquaint themselves with this effect because it was so important Steven very often made a point of demonstrating it in the videos.

By extension, it then becomes clear why all his work was abruptly and forcibly halted in 1997.

1999 and 2006 were the years mentioned, but the 1999 one was to Stephan by "Steven Marks" so this is suspicious.

Throughout the whole messaging time period, SM stated the technology was owned by an "offshore company", UEC (United Energy Corp.), and the US Government.  Considering what Spherics said, I think the US Government seized it.

Also, during some time period that is hard to determine, further development occurred.

   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
Quote from G:


From G:
Yes, sorry I was only disputing the "dispels any explanation that requires a ferrous core" part of your original statement.

The ferrous wires may have been sandwiched between the cork layers to allow some vibration motion.

Notes from "SM" regarding the windings of the TPU (later versions):

About the collector:
It is three separate coils of multi strand copper wire laid one on top of the other, not interleaved. Three is important. You can do many things with three coils. You can run them in parallel, you can run two in series and one in parallel, or etc.

You can run a separate frequency into each coil for better control on large power units if need be.

The control wiring is vertically wound in several segments around each of the horizontal collector coils.

Other control wires are wound around all of the horizontal collector coils together.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3541
It's turtles all the way down
Notes from "SM" regarding the windings of the TPU (later versions):

About the collector:
It is three separate coils of multi strand copper wire laid one on top of the other, not interleaved. Three is important. You can do many things with three coils. You can run them in parallel, you can run two in series and one in parallel, or etc.

You can run a separate frequency into each coil for better control on large power units if need be.

The control wiring is vertically wound in several segments around each of the horizontal collector coils.

Other control wires are wound around all of the horizontal collector coils together.


In the video where the magnet sticks to the wire as he lets go to change hands, it is reasonable to assume this is a ferrous metal wire. There were no vertical over windings visible on that unit They would have hid the clearly seen horizontal loops.

Later 15 and 17" units the  over windings are visible, their use? possibly to orient the dipoles in the copper wire which he now used. No further need for magnetizing iron wire along it's length by swiping a magnet.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
In the video where the magnet sticks to the wire as he lets go to change hands, it is reasonable to assume this is a ferrous metal wire. There were no vertical over windings visible on that unit They would have hid the clearly seen horizontal loops.

Later 15 and 17" units the  over windings are visible, their use? possibly to orient the dipoles in the copper wire which he now used. No further need for magnetizing iron wire along it's length by swiping a magnet.

Was he magnetizing a wire or inducing a small current that was then worked-up to full power by successive iterations?

If he was magnetizing a wire, was it to correct the tuning, or to provide a small magnetic field in the same direction as the field around a copper wire?

If he was just inducing a current, then the device would start with very low output that is fed back into the input and it slowly increases.  This is more or less what SM said.  Investors wanted him to able to state that no batteries were used in the device.

Think more about this, in on video, I recall he waved the magnet all around the ring.  So, his is more akin to magnetizing along the length of a wire.

Would a winding around the core wire create the same magnification direction?

Edit:
regarding the use of magnets in early units:
My Dear friend,
The use of the magnets are not necessary as used in a few of the units. There were different designs. some designs were based on different control and start up systems.
I don't know if my answer helped you or not.
Sincerely,
SM   
 
« Last Edit: 2014-07-15, 23:10:57 by Grumpy »
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1502
OK, I have just updated the figures in my paper dealing with how the aether creates electric forces so here is the revised paper.  For any matter particle there is an outward flow of space particles, but also an inward flow. To establish any net force on matter you must consider both inward and outward flows and the momentum exchange for each.  I have already suggested how the simple feature of an internal time delay between an incoming and an outgoing space particle can yield the property that we recognize as mass inertia.  This paper takes that one step further by giving space particles a spin-like vector where the spin arrows indicate the direction of an electric field.  Enjoy!
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3541
It's turtles all the way down
From G:

Quote
Was he magnetizing a wire or inducing a small current that was then worked-up to full power by successive iterations?

My belief is he was pre-orienting the domains in the magnetic wire. The direction of movement is wrong to induce a current, it should have been up and down movement.

Quote
If he was magnetizing a wire, was it to correct the tuning, or to provide a small magnetic field in the same direction as the field around a copper wire?

My belief: the previous answer

Quote
Think more about this, in on video, I recall he waved the magnet all around the ring.  So, his is more akin to magnetizing along the length of a wire.

My belief also

Quote
Would a winding around the core wire create the same magnification direction?


If you meant magnetization direction, my belief would be yes, depending on the direction of current in the over winding.

My belief: This was the biggest clue and the reason why it was eliminated in later models of large output devices with the over winding.


Smudge: Sorry for the derail but I felt it was necessary to answer G, also it is in the spirit of the last line of your latest paper. (And many thanks for that)

So together, lets find the answer. Any new ideas?


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1502
As a physicist and EM engineer I thought I knew everything about antenna including their near field effects.  However I have just come across this paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.4834v1.pdf.  What the guy points out is that although the electric and magnetic fields propagate at light velocity, only in the far field does the energy also flow at light velocity.  In the near field the energy flows slower.  This simple fact does not appear in any text books on EM radiation and perhaps explains some of the oddities of the near field.  Since we OU heretics usually work with near fields, and mosty with magnetic near fields, perhaps the fact that energy flow from A to B goes much slower than light velocity can be exploited somehow.  When you are pumping energy of value 0.5*L*i^2 into and out of an inductor, the reactive energy associated with the external magnetic field lines goes out and in at low velocity, whereas the magnetic field itself travels at c.  The same can be said of a moving (rotating) magnet.  If that reactive energy is to do some work on another nearby object, then the time delay can be quite significant.  Until now I assumed the time delay was associated with light speed but this new revelation opens the door to some new thinking.  Of course some energy gets radiated but that radiation leaves behind the reactive (stored) energy.  There must be a way we can use this slow moving energy to break the otherwise reciprocity that occurs in non Ou machines.

Smudge
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1443
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
2 things:
The radiation in the near field is just the dissipation of trail left by the higher speed energy exiting.
Helical antennas beam a rotating field.


---------------------------
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 520
When you are pumping energy of value 0.5*L*i^2 into and out of an inductor,
Smudge

@Smudge

I need to ask you a question about the 0.5 in your above formula. Where does this come from? If you can explain this one part and relate it to the rest of the formula, this will surely give you an answer to many of the effects.

This one example needs to be questioned from all possible angles since this same 0.5 appears in many other formulas that everyone seems to consider a given reality but why is it a reality?

Wattsup

PS: This may seem off topic but I can assure you it is not.




---------------------------
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1502
@Smudge

I need to ask you a question about the 0.5 in your above formula. Where does this come from? If you can explain this one part and relate it to the rest of the formula, this will surely give you an answer to many of the effects.

This one example needs to be questioned from all possible angles since this same 0.5 appears in many other formulas that everyone seems to consider a given reality but why is it a reality?

Wattsup

PS: This may seem off topic but I can assure you it is not.

The simple answer is that while the inductor L is being charged with current the current is rising hence the inductor creates a back emf given by V = L*di/dt (I have omitted the usual minus sign because V is back emf.  The minus sign is necessary if your reference point is forward emf in the direction of the current.  Note that the voltage drop associated with a resistor is also back emf if you imagine it is coming back out of the resistor).  The current has to push against this back emf hence there is a power flow P = V*i =L*i*di/dt.  In the small time increment dt the incremental energy E supplied is given by E = P*dt = L*i*di (because the dt's cancel).  The total energy supplied when the inductor is charged to a current value I is found by integrating E from i = 0 to i = I.  That integral evaluates to (1/2)* L*I^2.

While that is mathematically correct it perhaps doesn't really make clear what is really happening.  If you are familiar with B v. H curves you will know that any area having dimensions of B*H represents an energy volume-density in Joules/m^3.  It is instructive to produce something similar that is flux v. current (or rather flux V mmf) where any area represents energy directly in Joules.  Now for linear materials (because the (1/2)* L*I^2 can only apply to linear inductors) you can draw the line from the origin representing the inductor being charged from zero current up to I, and that is of course a straight line.  The energy is then the area of the triangle to the left of that straight line (between the line and the flux axis).  And since the area of a triangle is (1/2)*base* height, that is where the 1/2 comes in.

Hope that helps.

Smudge
   
Group: Guest
Smudge

Great papers. I'm half and half in agreement with you.
There is most definitely an aether (zero point energy, dark energy, dark matter, etc.  People can call it what they will.)  that exerts a force on anything occupying its space. We are in agreement on this point.

But I say that this is separate and distinct from inertia, i.e., the back reaction to gravity.  This back reaction is due to an internal force.  In fact the GFT posits that gravity is strictly due to a magnetic force being applied to a magnetic dipole.  Here's how it works.  According to Newtonian physics a gyroscope precesses due to the pull of gravity on its axis.  The GFT says the converse must be true; that gravity is caused by precession. Let's take an electron.  The electron is composed of 3 quarks (I like to call them quarkternions)  These three quarks are equivalent to ijk. We know that  i=jk.  Two of the quarks, jk, form a GFT up quark.  In so doing it forms a magnetic dipole. When jk or the up quark interacts with the B field of the i quark then the magnetic dipole of the up quark will precess about the lines of the applied B field from the i quark.  The larger the B field of the i quark the more the jk down quark will precess which is equivalent to making the axis of the up quark tilt.  The B field of the i down quark can be increased by accelerating it rectilinear or radially.  This is the mass dilation predicted by Lorentz and  Einstein. The back reaction, or inertia, is given by Ida' Law where F=((mu)B)/r.  Now the forces exerted by the aether (I call it an ijk innerspace) on any particle in its confines is different and is ultimately a function of F=(hc)/r^2. We have 3 states of matter; mass, m, charge, q, and the this changing mass complex that equals rho x eta where rho is a magnetic particle analog to  mass or charge and eta is vorticity.
 
No, Newton's laws are just fine.  In the aether we are just dealing with a different type of matter, the matter that comprises the ijk space,  acting on mass and charge.  These type of aetheric interactions  are described by a different  set of laws.  Even though they are different they still do and must obey Newtonian physics.  

I'm attaching a series of diagrams  from the Sagitta Key to illustrate the formation of and electron from the ijk quarks or quarkternions and the creation of inertia.  According to GFT precepts it may be more apropos to view gravity as being the back reaction.  Indeed, gravity resists Ida's law at it's maximum when the dipole is pointing straight up vertically but as gravity (inertial mass) increases the amount it resists Ida's law becomes less and less until when the dipole is at 90 degrees to the applied force there is no more gravitational affects experienced by the particle.  Result? Velocity can only obtain a maximum speed of c and a mass aggregation can only obtain a finite quantity.  This makes sense otherwise the whole universe would be constantly being sucked into one large uniform ball of mass.

E=muB is the magnetic energy.  See PNG EmB. This energy is the seat of the inertial force. It resists the pull of gravity or more precisely gravity resist E=muB influences to keep the axis of rotation vertical. The greater the inertial mass gain the less that mass is able to resist the effects of E=muB.  Again, gravitational mass is due to the tilt of the magnetic dipole which necessarily resists E=muB.  Inertial mass is due to the radial or rectilinear acceleration of the particle.  This acceleration however increases the B field of the down quark thus increasing gravity or the tilt of the dipole.  Thus gravity and inertia always act in opposition to one another except when the axis is 90 degrees to the  B field of the down quark. Gravitational force goes to zero and the inertial force or inertial mass reaches a maximum because this would be at the speed of light.  We can't go any faster so we can't generate any more inertial mass nor can we generate any more gravitational mass because the B field of the down quark  is now inert relative to the the magnetic dipole.
« Last Edit: 2015-01-14, 17:39:29 by GFT »
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1502
Smudge

Great papers. I'm half and half in agreement with you.
There is most definitely an aether (zero point energy, dark energy, dark matter, etc.  People can call it what they will.)  that exerts a force on anything occupying its space. We are in agreement on this point.

But I say that this is separate and distinct from inertia, i.e., the back reaction to gravity.  This back reaction is due to an internal force.  In fact the GFT posits that gravity is strictly due to a magnetic force being applied to a magnetic dipole.  Here's how it works.  According to Newtonian physics a gyroscope precesses due to the pull of gravity on its axis.

I disagree entirely with that last statement.  Gravity acting on the axis of a gymballed gyroscope will not make it precess.  An applied torque or couple is what makes the gyro precess as it tries to obey conservation of angular momentum.  Gravity can provide that couple if the gyro is held off its axis as the gyro on a pillar demonstrates.  But it doesn't have to be gravity, you could perform the gyro on a pillar experiment in deep space where gravity is zero but use magnetic force to apply the couple (of course this would require a magnet attached to the gyro) and it would still precess.  So IMO your perception of precession is wrong.

And if I may make some further comments about your posts.  I couldn't agree more about dimensional analysis, this is something everyone should do over and over as it sorts out the wheat from the chaff.  So often people use formula to predict performance without realizing they are wrong, especially so in the field of electromagnetism where history has evolved the use of different units like emu, esu, cgs, mks, SI etc not to mention imperial v metric!!  In some the velocity of light is suppressed (c=1) and in others the permeability or permittivity of space is suppressed (mu-nought=1 or epsilon-nought=1) hence their dimensions disappear and this leads to all sorts of problems.  I once had cause to be the systems engineer on a project that took NQR detection of explosives from something being done at a University as a research project to a product that could be used in the field.  And the formula used by the researchers didn't pan out dimensionally, so I had to track it back through the previous 40 years to get to its origin to find the error (which was just that missing mu-nought).

Smudge
   
Group: Guest
I disagree entirely with that last statement.  Gravity acting on the axis of a gymballed gyroscope will not make it precess.  An applied torque or couple is what makes the gyro precess as it tries to obey conservation of angular momentum.  Gravity can provide that couple if the gyro is held off its axis as the gyro on a pillar demonstrates.  But it doesn't have to be gravity, you could perform the gyro on a pillar experiment in deep space where gravity is zero but use magnetic force to apply the couple (of course this would require a magnet attached to the gyro) and it would still precess.  So IMO your perception of precession is wrong.

Smudge


I'm pretty sure I'm right on precession.  We may however be getting caught up in semantics and ignoring the components of torque.   You like gymballed gyroscopes.  I like spinning tops and bicycle wheels.  A classic demonstration of precession is the precessing bicycle wheel. In the classic bicycle experiment one end of the axle has a rope tied to it and is held in the demonstrator hand the other end is just held in his his other hand absent an attached rope. The wheel is set spinning at a high rate of speed. The non-rope end of the axle is released. The demonstrator holds one end of the axle with the rope.  Instead of the wheel just "flopping" over due to the pull of gravity the wheel instead stays "upright" and precesses in a circle. Now you could say an applied torque caused it to precess.  But what is torque? A force applied at right angles to the moment arm which in this case is the axle/angular momentum vector. The wheel precesses because  of the orthogonal interaction of the angular monument vector and the gravitational force, and the law of conservation of angular momentum says it must precess, not "fall".  Gravity is the force component of the torque.  Gravity definitely causes precession in a spinning top and the precessing bicycle wheel.
 
Here is are a few brief paragraphs for Butikov's
"The torque N produced by the force of gravity at any moment of time is directed horizontally at right angle to vector L of the angular momentum, as well as to the axis of the gyroscope. This means that the force of gravity can change only the direction of L, but not its magnitude. The upper end of the axis moves in the direction of torque N rather than in the direction of the force itself. This explains the unusual at first sight and counterintuitive behavior of the gyroscope. As a result, vector L and the axis of the gyroscope together with L are turning uniformly about the vertical line passing through the supporting point. This motion is just the forced precession.

The regular precession of a gyroscope occurs only if the initial conditions are quite definite: in order to observe this regular behavior, we should make the gyroscope spinning around its axis and set to this axis a rotation about the vertical with a certain angular velocity, namely the velocity which is characteristic of the following precession. Only this initial angular velocity of the axis will provide the regular precession. In this sense we can say that the force of gravity that tends to turn down the gyroscope is actually only maintaining, but not causing the precession.

In the general case, i.e., for arbitrary initial conditions, the motion of a gyroscope is a superposition of forced regular precession and nutation. "

http://butikov.faculty.ifmo.ru/Applets/Gyroscope.html  (I can't recommend Butikov's papers enough.  A must read to get a deeper understanding into gyroscopic behavior.)

He makes a distinction between forced precession and regular precession. I'm referring to forced precession when I say it is the interaction of the magnetic force of a quark with the magnetic dipole of another quark that causes gravity or the tilting of the dipole (axis) which is defined as precession.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1502
I'm pretty sure I'm right on precession.  We may however be getting caught up in semantics and ignoring the components of torque.

I think it is more than just semantics.

Quote
You like gymballed gyroscopes.  I like spinning tops and bicycle wheels.

I only mentioned the gymballed gyroscope because that allows one to apply gravity to a gyro wheel which is not offset from its support (i.e. the gymbal system is supported at a central point) in which case the wheel will not precess.  I am totally familiar with offset wheels as in spinning tops and your bicycle wheel.

Quote
The wheel precesses because  of the orthogonal interaction of the angular monument (I think you meant momentum) vector and the gravitational force.

And therein lies the difference we have in our perceptions of precession.  You see some interaction (your word) between gravity and an angular momentum vector whereas I see no such interaction.
 
Quote
Here is are a few brief paragraphs for Butikov's
"The torque N produced by the force of gravity at any moment of time is directed horizontally at right angle to vector L of the angular momentum, as well as to the axis of the gyroscope. This means that the force of gravity can change only the direction of L, but not its magnitude. The upper end of the axis moves in the direction of torque N rather than in the direction of the force itself. This explains the unusual at first sight and counterintuitive behavior of the gyroscope. As a result, vector L and the axis of the gyroscope together with L are turning uniformly about the vertical line passing through the supporting point. This motion is just the forced precession.

Yes gravity produces the torque N but only if the wheel is off-centre to its support.  There is not some gravity-momentum interaction there, the torque N is simply the well known torque mgr for a force mg acting at a radius r.  If we were in a non-gravity environment we could till create a torque by some other force, such as a magnetic one, and we would still get precession.  You further quote Butikov "The regular precession of a gyroscope occurs only if the initial conditions are quite definite: in order to observe this regular behavior, we should make the gyroscope spinning around its axis and set to this axis a rotation about the vertical with a certain angular velocity, namely the velocity which is characteristic of the following precession. Only this initial angular velocity of the axis will provide the regular precession. In this sense we can say that the force of gravity that tends to turn down the gyroscope is actually only maintaining, but not causing the precession."   So even Butikov does not believe in your gravity-momentum interaction as the cause of the precession.

For your bicycle wheel the instant the demonstrator lets go of one end of the axle gravity pulls that end down ever so slightly, and that turning moment (about the horizontal axis) induces (via conservation of angular momentum) the torque about the vertical axis needed to angular accelerate the precession motion from zero which occurs about the vertical axis.  That tiny gain in gravitational (falling) energy supplies the energy for that precession motion.  For the typical heavy gyro wheel the slight fall is imperceptible, but it sets up Borikov's "specific initial conditions".

So to sum up you seem to believe in some sort of gravity-angular momentum interaction whereas I just see gravity providing a linear force mg acting on a radius r then precession simply comes from the angular forces pertaining to conservation of angular momentum.

Smudge

   
Group: Guest

And therein lies the difference we have in our perceptions of precession.  You see some interaction (your word) between gravity and an angular momentum vector whereas I see no such interaction.


I basically see a non electrical right hand rule. Apply two orthogonal forces you get a 3rd, that being precession.  That's why I know gravity can and does create precession and therefore (my theory) precession must induce gravity.
 
So to sum up you seem to believe in some sort of gravity-angular momentum interaction whereas I just see gravity providing a linear force mg acting on a radius r then precession simply comes from the angular forces pertaining to conservation of angular momentum.

I agree -almost- wholeheartedly with this.  If gravity provides a linear force then the force is parallel to the angular momentum vector and no "conventional" precession occurs.   I do however believe in a gravity angular momentum interaction.  Not only do I believe it but know that such an interaction can and must exist since the angular momentum vector can and does lie collinear  with the rotational axis of the top. Gravity is an orthogonal force mg acting on a component (r sin theta) of the radius.  The radius, in this case, is  the angular momentum which is also the axle or rotation axis.  Pull or push L or the axis or the axle at any angle other than zero and the wheel or top precesses.   We can have  radius=L=mg x precession  (equivalent to creating a torque or making the axle spin) or L x mg=precession or gravity =mg=L x precession.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1502
I basically see a non electrical right hand rule. Apply two orthogonal forces you get a 3rd, that being precession.  That's why I know gravity can and does create precession and therefore (my theory) precession must induce gravity.
 
I agree -almost- wholeheartedly with this.  If gravity provides a linear force then the force is parallel to the angular momentum vector and no "conventional" precession occurs.   I do however believe in a gravity angular momentum interaction.  Not only do I believe it but know that such an interaction can and must exist since the angular momentum vector can and does lie collinear  with the rotational axis of the top. Gravity is an orthogonal force mg acting on a component (r sin theta) of the radius.  The radius, in this case, is  the angular momentum which is also the axle or rotation axis.  Pull or push L or the axis or the axle at any angle other than zero and the wheel or top precesses.   We can have  radius=L=mg x precession  (equivalent to creating a torque or making the axle spin) or L x mg=precession or gravity =mg=L x precession.


I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  Your starting point seems to be a spinning top and the math needed to explain precession when that top is disturbed. You see a vector multiplication (right hand rule) in that math and view it like the vector multiplications that occur in electromagnetic field interactions such as E = v X B.  My starting point is the classical offset gyro wheel where the math is the same but I can't relate the vector multiplication to a field interaction.

One of the demonstrations made by Laithwaite is a precessing offset wheel on which he hangs an extra mass.  Immediately the precession speeds up.  Unlike the wheel, that mass does not have spin so you can't invoke a field interaction between its angular momentum and gravity, so what explains the changed precession speed?

Also I can visualize a gedanken experiment where I have a spinning top in outer space where gravity is insignificant.  Attached to that top is an unspinning mass made of soft iron.  The top sits on a permanent magnet so that attraction of the soft iron to the magnet provides the force holding the top to the magnet and also the torque that can topple the top to cause precession.  The top will behave as though it were in a gravity environment, the math is the same involving vector multiplication, but where is your interaction with the field?.

Smudge
   
Group: Guest
I tend to agree with you on this Smudge.  We know the Hubble Space Telescope uses gyros as does the Mir.  It may seem like gravity is the active component, but I highly suspect gravity is also an artifact of the real component causing this effect.  Ken Wheeler has been talking quite a bit lately about "dielectric inertia"; I can only assume this is what we would normally refer to as the Aether.  And being pervasive as it is, would account for this effect happening any place within the universe.

When I think about the Aether, what comes to mind is a humongous sink, something that connects everything, like a master ground bus, or an all-encompassing wall--something everything can push against or use as a fulcrum.  Where I think our confusion comes from is this Aether isn't just around our objects of interest, it is also inside these objects, a gyro being a prime example.  A spinning wheel is in-effect tearing and thrashing the uniformity of the Aether by simply rotating, much like an impeller spinning deep underwater.  We can't see the turbulence it is making, be rest assured nature is trying its damnedest to counter the disruption.
   
Pages: 1 [2] 3
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-10-21, 07:03:11