Gyroscopes In Space, Away From Gravitational Fields, And Spacedrives

[lumen]

@guest1289

Your observations about how gyroscopes respond to gravity can seem to require gravity but it is simply a response to a gravitational input along with a few other factors.

A spinning gyroscope (within the cage) will fall over after continuously tilting under the effects of gravity, however a simple spinning top will stand itself upright only because the rotating tip will wheel itself back under the center of gravity in what appears to be the gyro effect doing this task but it's simply the rotating tip on the top.

The train I have studied myself and understand that the gyro wheels (2) rotated in opposite directions on seperate horizontally positioned shafts with the rotating plane along the direction the train would move.

This causes an effect where if the train turns left then one gyro (depending on the spin direction) causes a tilting effect into the turn like a bycicle while the other gyro has no effect in that turn direction.
So over several turns of different directions the train is always forced into a perfect upright position.

This was unique thinking on the part of the inventor but is still only a response to the gravity input and not directly a requirement of it's operation.

In space they use silicon balls spinning at thousands of RPM to function as a gyro for a directional/positional indicator in space. They can spin for several years without any additional input and function without the need for gravity.

[guest1289]

a simple spinning top will stand itself upright only because the rotating tip will wheel itself back under the center of gravity in what appears to be the gyro effect doing this task but it's simply the rotating tip on the top.

      But to do that,  if would have to overcome the gyroscopic-force of the spinning-top which resists any change in angle.

    The rotating-tip( of the spinning-top ) seeking some symmetry/balance with gravity,  I assume you're right and that's the answer
    -  although gyroscopes on gimbals( pivoted supports ) must have some sort of rotating-tips,  so why don't they become horizontal again,  it makes me wonder if the gimbals restrict some movement( even only very  temporarily),  but causing a permanent change in  angle ),  and alter  the gyroscope behavior
     -  Maybe that could be tested on a gyroscope mounted on gimbals,   by giving it a heavier rotating-tip or something

       Or,  it may be because of surface-friction
          I imagined what would happen if that tip( of the spinning-top ) was a  'sphere'
            -   when the spinning-top spins at an angle  away  from perfect-horizontal,  an entire sub-diameter of that  'sphere'  has to scrape along the table-top surface,   instead  of just the  very tip of the 'sphere'( of the spinning-top ) spinning on the table-top when the  spinning-top is spinning at  perfect-horizontal,   
            So,  maybe  the 'spinning-top'  seeks and finds the point of least  surface-friction
             -  But to do that,  if would have to overcome the gyroscopic-force of the spinning-top which resists any change in angle.

This causes an effect where if the train turns left then one gyro (depending on the spin direction) causes a tilting effect into the turn like a bycicle while the other gyro has no effect in that turn direction.
So over several turns of different directions the train is always forced into a perfect upright position.

      when you typed  "train turns left" :
       -  Do you mean that the  train is very-temporarily falling to the left-side,   
       -  Or,  are you referring to the train turning with a bend in the track(  and the gyroscopic-system is designed to tilt the train when it enters bends in the track,  to keep it from falling off the track
          (  that would explain why I saw a photo of Brennans full-size train  tilting very noticeably away from the  perfect-horizontal ,  it may have been in a bend in the track )

      What About When Brennan's Train Is Only Only A Perfectly Straight-Line Section Of The Track
        -  Imagine you have shrunk the train to fit on a table,  when the train is on a perfectly straight-line section of the track,  if you push the train to tilt to the left or right :
             -  will the train remain at the angle at which you pushed it
             -  or will it right itself to become perfectly-level again

       Yes I see what you mean,  the train relies on bends in the track to maintain a perfectly-horizontal-position

[guest1289]

   I assume( am almost completely sure ) I'm wrong in what I thought about gyroscopes behaving  exactly like  spinning-tops,  I thought gyroscopes would always align to spin perfectly horizontal with the earth's horizontal-plane / horizon,  due to gravity,  but it seems that that is the defining difference between a gyroscope and a spinning-top(  unless anyone can prove otherwise ) .
     Of course I had noticed that difference before, but thought it was due to other reasons( things to do with gimbals )

   Single-Gyroscope Monorail Model Trains
    - I recently noticed there are lots of  gyro-monorail  model  train videos,   and one( maybe more ) only  uses  a  single  gyroscope( a single spinning wheel ),  spinning horizontally,  and has no control-systems or anything else.
        (  I don't know how long this type of single-gyroscope  train can remain level  )
        So I assume if you push one of these types of train,  to the left( or right ) of the track,  that it will remain at the angle you push it( or at least until it falls like a normal gyroscope, due to gravity )  in other words,  I assume the train will not  re-align / return to be level with the earth's horizontal plane,  you'd have to add an active-control-system to achieve that.

    One of the model trains traveled on just one wheel along the track( it may have had 2 gyroscopes, I don't know ).

    If I had any doubts remaining about this difference between gyroscopes and spinning-tops, a useful test would be to fix  a  single gyroscope,   into the  exact center of gravity  of a spherical floating balloon( helium, or something ),  and then see if it aligns itself with gravity in any way.
 

[allcanadian]

@Guest1289

I have found there are many peculiar aspects to Gyro's and inertia many have not fully considered. Here is one problem, I ask why does a gyro precess 90 degrees and not more or less?. Then people say it is because of this formula and I say how did they get the formula and they say by measuring the precession. However the measure and the formula are not an answer because they do not answer the question... why 90 Degrees specifically and not more or less?.

While reading this thread I also came to understand how a simple gyro could violate the laws of physics. We cannot find the right answers until we start asking the right questions in the right context. My questions were is there some way the reaction force precessing 90 degrees could add to the applied force which caused the reaction force?, could we delay the action/reaction and cause it to act upon itself in some way?.

I have named my new invention/thought experiment the gyro spanker and it works as follows. I am in space and the gyro disk is spinning in the direction indicated. Now when I jump up in direction A it must produce an equal and opposite force B in the opposite direction downward. This force B acts on the mass of the spinning gyro disk through the shaft producing a turning force or rotation clockwise in the direction C-D. I am now moving upwards as the whole gyro apparatus is rotating clockwise and the sloped paddle D comes round and spanks my rear causing me to accelerate faster in the same direction A.

It would seem that my action A has caused the reaction force B, turned 90 degrees causing force C-D which acted again in direction A on me to some degree. Which comes full circle back to my initial question... can a reaction force act in the same direction as the force which caused the reaction force?. Apparently it can in this scenario.

This thought experiment is along the same lines as another I did a few years back concerning the issue of context. We all know about action/reaction as well as the concept of reactive mass. For instance I throw a bowling ball off the back of a boat and the reaction is myself and the boat move forward. A rocket works this same way and the mass/velocity of gasses thrown out the rear equals the mass/velocity the rocket moves forward. However we have one little snag... Let's say I am in a boat on a lake and I throw a tennis ball off the back of the boat very hard and the reaction force propels me and the boat forward in the opposite direction. Now we add the snag...the tennis ball hits a trampoline on shore and bounces back to me on the boat and when I catch it I receive most of the energy I put into it plus the reaction force when I threw it. To my knowledge this violates the action/reaction rules concerning the conservation of momentum. It is not a simple action and equal reaction it is something different.

There are two possibilities,
1)Action/Reaction in the form of a reactive mass do not always conserve momentum and momentum has miraculously disappeared violating the conservation of energy or
2)An action may cause a reaction and the reaction can be an action in itself outside the context of the action which created it.

AC

[allcanadian]

No bites...Hmm, I wish I could say I was surprised.


Okay lets consider how Mr.Newtons supposed third law may apply..."Whenever a body exerts a force on another body, the latter exerts a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction on the former".


Now in my last thought experiment I threw a tennis ball rearward off the back of my boat which produced a reaction force causing the boat to move in the opposite direction of the tennis ball. So following Newtons theory we can say "the tennis ball exerts a force on the boat, the boat exerts a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction on the tennis ball". So all is well and the momentum of the boat and my tennis ball are conserved and both are equal and opposite in direction.


However... then the tennis ball bounces off a trampoline on shore and returns to the boat where it comes to rest and transfers it's momentum to the boat again. This experiment would also work better in space and I could throw my tennis ball from a rocket and the reaction force would cause the rocket to move forward as expected. However... then the tennis ball bounces off the space station and returns back to my rocket and transfers it's momentum to my rocket again.


You see Newtons theory predicted what happened when I threw my ball from the rocket but it never occurred to him or anyone else that the ball might bounce back which is kind of funny when we think about it. So Newtons theory is true so long as we do not consider the hundreds of variables which may occur after the the simple action and reaction. In my case momentum was not conserved in the way we expected, in my case almost all the momentum was imparted to my rocket by the tennis ball as well as the fact that the reactive mass (the tennis ball) returned to the rocket.


I understand to most this is very counter-intuitive that something we generally call a reaction product or reaction mass could turn 180 degrees and literally return to the source which created it with it's momentum and it's mass. Why in a sense we could say that after everything has come to pass the mass (the rocket plus the tennis ball) has not changed and it is equal to the mass prior to the action/reaction. In a sense we could also say momentum was conserved initially until the ball bounced back to the rocket.

Can anyone see the problem and connect all of the dots?. You see after the action/reaction(s) the initial mass has been conserved (tennis ball and rocket) as if there were no reactive mass thrown from the rocket however the rocket and the tennis ball ... are now in motion. Why in a sense we could call this mass-less propulsion because the rocket has lost no mass after the fact and yet it moves. This problem of mass-less propulsion is actually quite easy once we get past all the preconceived notions we have concerning it but I will leave that for another day. I can give you a hint though, it starts with producing a virtual mass of sorts which has some of the properties of mass but no apparent mass in itself and can produce a reaction force on the object to be propelled.


Unfortunately I seem to have a knack for these kinds of problems and hardly a day can pass when I don't find myself thinking... well that isn't right, what were they thinking?. Such is life...


AC