Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Concerning Gyroscopes and Other Spinning Things

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Concerning Gyroscopes and Other Spinning Things

    I intend over the next couple/few/many months to make a few to more than a few videos on this topic. The goal will be that the experiments can all be replicated with very small monetary outlay and/or a trip to the hobby shop. I don’t think I’ve ever said any thing like this on this forum before so I will just say I think this sort of information may be somewhat important or at least interesting to people. Practically speaking, a lot of what Bruce DePalma and Eric Laithwaite spoke of, after percolating in my mind for a year or two, apparently finished brewing and seems to make perfect sense to me. Secondly, there are lots of spinning things, planets, electrons and photons spin or so I am told, etc. A spinning thing if moving in a line will trace out a sine wave and I am also told there are myriad such waves unseen all around us. You can see and hear and feel in your fingers and arms, however, the reactions of a larger spinning thing. A spinning thing will under certain circumstances follow Newton’s laws of motion and under other circumstances will not. The interplay of the different behaviors might be practically applied towards different ends. Also the non-intuitive behavior of spinning things has either a parallel in or maybe is even an expression of the relationship between the unseen forces of electricity and magnetism.

    This post will just be an intro and outline however over time we should be able to explain and demonstrate the concepts behind, though likely not build working models with toy store parts,both DePalma’s and Laithwaite’s successful approaches to massless propulsion. We will show that inertial mass is anything but constant and changes based on rotation, the change in mass however is “anisotrophic”. When I first read DePalma I thought he was just being unnecessarily complicated and perhaps obtuse in using that term, “How can you be so obtuse?” (obscure line from the movie the Shawshank Redemption). However, anisotrophic change in mass perfectly and concisely describes what is going on. Bizarre as it sounds what it appears to me is that approached from one plane, a spinning object has, within the confines of how fast it can rotate and how fast it can precess, an inertial mass approaching infinity, approached from another plane it seems to have zero mass. Regarding the second point, we (I guess I am using the Royal we here unless or until others get on board) will show a mass moving from point A to point B with zero registered force. I did that about a year and half ago and it took nearly just as long for it to sink in what I had actually seen. This also obviates, in such conditions, relativity, not just the fancy-pants 20th century goboldy gook, but the stuff that Galileo was talking about. Unless I am mistaken, it is the equivalent of getting in an elevator, there is no force felt by you when the elevator moves but nonetheless you go up 20 floors. We will also show how precession and “forced precession” are simply the same phenomena, that one just occurred to me a week or so ago as well. Well that’s it until I actually can put some stuff together and make some videos. Safe to say there is no immediate practicality to any of this but it is something sort of at the level of asking what are the physical rules of this creation we are here to enjoy. Don’t know when I’ll get around to the videos hopefully not too long from now, but to maybe whet people’s interest and to get to the heart of the matter a question to ask is the following. If you have a beachball spinning in the air in front of you (say it is a pretty heavy beachball) can you now simultaneously spin it in another axis so it is spinning in two axes at the same time? You can but it doesn’t behave at all the way one might expect and on closer examination shows a lot of other non-intuitive behavior as well. It should be intuitive, I live in this place, but you just don’t encounter it that often day-to-day, hence Newton’s incomplete laws, even though there are very many very large (planets, stars) and very small (photons, protons) spinning things. There is the expression, "no need to reinvent the wheel", it turns out we don't yet understand the wheel and it has mightily held back science.

    Ciao
    Last edited by ZPDM; 08-19-2014, 08:50 PM.

  • #2
    A GOT GIMBAL LOCK READING THAT . JUST KIDDING A GOOD THREAD ;YOU GOT THE BIG BOYS ERIC ,BRUCE GALILEO NEWTON

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by ZPDM View Post
      I intend over the next couple/few/many months to make a few to more than a few videos on this topic. The goal will be that the experiments can all be replicated with very small monetary outlay and/or a trip to the hobby shop. I don’t think I’ve ever said any thing like this on this forum before so I will just say I think this sort of information may be somewhat important or at least interesting to people. Practically speaking, a lot of what Bruce DePalma and Eric Laithwaite spoke of, after percolating in my mind for a year or two, apparently finished brewing and seems to make perfect sense to me. Secondly, there are lots of spinning things, planets, electrons and photons spin or so I am told, etc. A spinning thing if moving in a line will trace out a sine wave and I am also told there are myriad such waves unseen all around us. You can see and hear and feel in your fingers and arms, however, the reactions of a larger spinning thing. A spinning thing will under certain circumstances follow Newton’s laws of motion and under other circumstances will not. The interplay of the different behaviors might be practically applied towards different ends. Also the non-intuitive behavior of spinning things has either a parallel in or maybe is even an expression of the relationship between the unseen forces of electricity and magnetism.

      This post will just be an intro and outline however over time we should be able to explain and demonstrate the concepts behind, though likely not build working models with toy store parts,both DePalma’s and Laithwaite’s successful approaches to massless propulsion. We will show that inertial mass is anything but constant and changes based on rotation, the change in mass however is “anisotrophic”. When I first read DePalma I thought he was just being unnecessarily complicated and perhaps obtuse in using that term, “How can you be so obtuse?” (obscure line from the movie the Shawshank Redemption). However, anisotrophic change in mass perfectly and concisely describes what is going on. Bizarre as it sounds what it appears to me is that approached from one plane, a spinning object has, within the confines of how fast it can rotate and how fast it can precess, an inertial mass approaching infinity, approached from another plane it seems to have zero mass. Regarding the second point, we (I guess I am using the Royal we here unless or until others get on board) will show a mass moving from point A to point B with zero registered force. I did that about a year and half ago and it took nearly just as long for it to sink in what I had actually seen. This also obviates, in such conditions, relativity, not just the fancy-pants 20th century goboldy gook, but the stuff that Galileo was talking about. Unless I am mistaken, it is the equivalent of getting in an elevator, there is no force felt by you when the elevator moves but nonetheless you go up 20 floors. We will also show how precession and “forced precession” are simply the same phenomena, that one just occurred to me a week or so ago as well. Well that’s it until I actually can put some stuff together and make some videos. Safe to say there is no immediate practicality to any of this but it is something sort of at the level of asking what are the physical rules of this creation we are here to enjoy. Don’t know when I’ll get around to the videos hopefully not too long from now, but to maybe whet people’s interest and to get to the heart of the matter a question to ask is the following. If you have a beachball spinning in the air in front of you (say it is a pretty heavy beachball) can you now simultaneously spin it in another axis so it is spinning in two axes at the same time? You can but it doesn’t behave at all the way one might expect and on closer examination shows a lot of other non-intuitive behavior as well. It should be intuitive, I live in this place, but you just don’t encounter it that often day-to-day, hence Newton’s incomplete laws, even though there are very many very large (planets, stars) and very small (photons, protons) spinning things. There is the expression, "no need to reinvent the wheel", it turns out we don't yet understand the wheel and it has mightily held back science.

      Ciao
      Hi Cioa,
      I am delighted to read your thread here on Gyroscope and spinning things, its so funny that people here are not able to co-relate this stuff with the Magnetic structure of the Monopole..be it even the Patent No. 6,545,444, they are all lead to focus on the Electrical circuit leaving focus away from the Magnetic Circuit.
      Rgds,
      Faraday88.
      'Wisdom comes from living out of the knowledge.'

      Comment


      • #4
        http://mb-soft.com/public2/earthrot.html


        We will continue this discussion on the traditional approach which the Soviets pursued for more than 20 years and now the Ukraine scientists are continuing to pursue. A little more technical way of describing this functioning is that the rotation of the Earth necessary applies a TORQUE (or Moment) against the gyroscope's axis, trying to change its direction, which would then drive the million-to-one multiplier gear train. The GYROSCOPE'S FIXED AXIS IN SPACE essentially represents a FIXED structure to which the rotating Earth and therefore the gear train could act against to "load" the Earth's rotation, to actually remove energy from the rotation of the Earth! No other "fixed structure" is available for such a use, except for something like a pendulum or gyroscope that is following Newton's Laws in trying to maintain its orientation in space.

        I will mentioned (maximum) several times in the following text. There IS a reason! IF virtually NO loading was put on the geartrain, in other words, NO PRODUCTIVE POWER, then the Earth could rotate easily and smoothly underneath this behemoth. Very little productive power would be gained BY CHOICE. At the other extreme, IF we tried to capture an infinite amount of power from this device, what would happen is that the device would act like one solid lump and the gyroscope would be FORCED to rotate with the Earth, as the gear train would not be able to rotate the massive loading. This would also result in very little productive power, but this time, because of mechanical limitations. When the Euler Differential Equations are solved regarding these matters, it is found that a MAXIMUM amount of PRODUCTIVE POWER can be had at an intermediate situation. Essentially, the giant gyroscope would appear to be SLIPPING, in other words, not actually maintaining its true orientation in space but also now actually being twisted around at a maximum rate. That intermediate speed of operation is shown by the Euler Equations to be the IDEAL operation of the device. In simpler terms, it should NOT be operated with no electrical load at all (as that is wasteful) and it should also not be operated with an excessive electrical load (as that is also wasteful) but at one specific level of electrical loading, it will operate with maximum performance.

        (I realize that this is WAY too complicated for most people! Sorry about that! But there have been SOOO many people who each think THEY understand all this to be able to solve things that 20 years work by thousands of Soviet Researchers could never solve! So I have decided to add in some of the (necessary) more technical stuff, if anyone wanted to get a SUPERFICIAL understanding of what is actually happening.

        We can even (crudely here) calculate how well this would work! We probably can never build a million-ton spinning gyroscope, but we DID launch 2,000 ton Saturn V rockets into space, and we make 150,000 ton oceangoing ships. So we will use the hypothetical example of a million (metric) tonne gyroscope (1,000,000,000 kg), 20 feet (6 meters) in diameter, turning at 2 revolutions per second or 120 rpm (so the outside surfaces would move at around 80 mph.) Some of the "geniuses" who have told me that THEY know how to make it work have shown there ignorance here! TWO revolutions per second is only 120 rpm, true. So those deep thinkers explain to me that they would spin the giant gyro at the speed of a car engine, like 6000 rpm. True, that WOULD create a LOT more electricity than I have described. However, the surface of their spinning gyro would have to be moving at around 4,000 mph in the air, around six times the speed of sound! (in other words, extremely impossible!) And even then, that rate of spin would cause such centrifugal force that the entire SOLID STEEL device would INCREASE in radius by at least a foot, just before it would self-destruct!) There IS a reason that I refer to 2 RPS, because I had actually done the calculations and those calculations SHOWED that 2 RPS was about as fast as such a giant monstrosity could be spun. ANY actual Physicist, and probably any good scientist, would have done those calculations to KNOW such things!

        Once this thing was started (with a motor), if there was no friction it would continue to spin forever, at that constant 120 rpm speed, with no additional energy needed from any motor. NO power would ever be drawn from the rotor spinning. The Rotational Inertia of such a gyroscope would be m * r2 or around 9 billion kilogram-meters2. It's (rotational) Angular Momentum would then be this number times the GYROSCOPE rotational rate of 2 revs/sec (which is called 12.6 radians/sec in science). The Angular Momentum of this giant object would then be 115 billion kg-m2/second or 115 billion newton-meter-seconds


        and
        http://physics.stackexchange.com/que...l-with-magnets

        Comment


        • #5
          Guyzzemf, Faraday88,

          Many thanks for the interest and things to review, please give me about a week or so to get started with videos. I am looking forward to it especially with your comments but have a few other things to works on as well.

          Ciao,

          Z

          Comment


          • #6
            Guyzzemf, Faraday88 et al.,

            I realize until I do some experiments this is just a bit of mental gymnastics but I will mention a couple of the questions I am really interested in resolving. This is very very simple once you see it but may be quite quite difficult to describe in words so I may be making a mistake trying to talk about it before I am actually experimenting but I will give it a go. A precessing gyroscope if placed on a moment arm and allowed to pivot around a fulcrum will not fall against gravity but instead precess at a right angle to gravity. The gravitational mass is still there, as can be measured on a scale, but the downward force is to be honest directed sideways. It gets wierder in that the gravitational force translated into a sideways precession is not proportional. That is to say you can stop a precessing gyroscope around a moment arm "with a feather" it would seem, the inertial mass in that plane and direction is either greatly decreased or absent. I also know this from some experiments I did a year or two ago. This adds yet another bit of complexity, but if you increase or decrease the natural speed (that which it does in response to the downward torque exerted by gravity) of precession (force the precession) of a gyroscope on a moment arm around a fulcrum the gyro will raise or lower itself vertically. I used to think this forced precession was yet another separate phenomena but it in almost all certainty isn't. When the gyroscope is precessing at a set rate it is sort of in equilibrium, in a sense that is its rest state, if you increase that rate of circular movement, that is again viewed as a torque only now the right angle response will be in the vertical plane, hence the gyro will raise or lower itself depending on increased or decreased forced precession. I had this thing with a toy motor spinning a gyro that could rotate in precession and a second toy motor that I could vary that would increase or decrease the forced precession and the whole thing was on a digital kitchen scale. It was only a year or two ago and I think I need to repeat it but now I am wondering how the heck I did it. Anyways the scale never varied one gram when the say 20 gram gyro moved up or down vertically in response to increased or decreased forced precession. At the time I was disappointed that there was no decrease in mass (i.e. antigravity) I think it took about a year and half for it to sink in how weird it is that something could move in space with no associated force. So to get to the point the first question is, what about the moment arm? It was probably a little bit of bass or balsa wood it was maybe too light to register on the scale. So the first experiment is, with this same set-up, what if I take two pennies or quarters and tape them to the end of the moment arm. They might weigh say ten grams, would that now register on the scale when I force precession and cause the gyro (and moment arm) to move up and down vertically. I will tell you something, I am 90-95% certain that what will happen is when I attach the quarters the speed of precession will increase from say 15-20 rpms and when the precession is forced there will again be no change registering on the kitchen scale. If that proves to be the case it says something really strange. You could have a carnival ride size version where people stand on the moment arm, are flung thirty feet up and down in the air from varying amounts of forced precession and instead of flying to their deaths could walk the whole time on the moment arm like it was a garden sidewalk. So I am looking forward to that experiment. As an aside, what it would also possibly imply is that if you could somehow manage to change the position of the fulcrum (from the internal system alone) you just possibly might have not just massless propulsion but "forceless" propulsion, with your 10g UFO style vertical turns.

            The second question is this, Laithwaite makes a good case that in addition to having no or next to no inertial mass in the precessional direction, precessing gyroscopes also show no centrifugal force (no inertial mass directed outwards despite the circular rotation). So David's slingshot or a hammer thrower's hammer when released shoot outward from the centrifugal force. What happens to a precessing gyroscope if it is "cut loose"? I really have absolutely no idea, there is apparently no centrifugal force, but I mean come on the thing is moving in space. Would it just stop dead and drop to the ground, would it shoot off in the tangent direction, would it keep precessing in a circle floating in the air while saying we don't need no stinkin moment arm? I don't know, so far what I've come up to test it, maybe not perfect but perhaps enough to get an idea is two telescoping arms making up the moment arm. As there is no or next to no centrifugal force the overlap of the two arms could be a few millimeters. Once precessing just find a way to nudge the two arms apart and see what zany fun ensues. I am guessing that it proceeds in a tangent but I really don't know.

            Got some work to wrap up then I'll start on things, I am going to start right from the beginning so may be some time till I work up to trying these two experiments. I often think of many questions related to gyros and there is so much "new" with gyros I am happy to go slow. Finally, at some point I may try and replicate DePalma's magnetic version of a linear force machine. Don't really understand it conceptually and looked at it for some time and didn't see it because I thought it had to be complicated, looked again a couple weeks ago and said, "really?"

            Comment


            • #7
              I may try and replicate DePalma's magnetic version of a linear force machine. Don't really understand it conceptually and looked at it for some time and didn't see it because I thought it had to be complicated, looked again a couple weeks ago and said, "really?
              http://projectearth.com/closed-path-homopolar-machine

              http://depalma.pair.com/Tewari/Tpatent.html
              Last edited by guyzzemf; 08-27-2014, 09:02 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Apologize that I haven't tried to build anything yet, howeva, try this one on for size. http://www.defensereview.com/world-e...of-and-silent/
                That is a write-up for the centrifugal gun, "dread weapon system." If you will notice the first line says "no recoil". Just to be clear they are not talking about damped recoil or something else, further down it says, "it’s also recoilless. No recoil. None.". I knew it! ever since I started thinking about Scottish games hammer throwers, well that sounds a bit odd, but think of it, why aren't they thrown backwards, at least off balance, they stand there after throwing the hammer poised on the balls of their feet. There is no recoil. There would be recoil if the hammer hit you, hence a weapon system. Just to be clear, this has nothing, zero to do with gyroscopic precession, it is more simple it is just David's slingshot.

                So now consider two scenarios, 1) first you are standing on a wheeled cart and fire a shotgun, what happens, you recoil backwards and the cart recoils backwards. Next you fire the "Dread" centrifugal gun, there is no recoil and the cart remains in place. 2) At the far end of the cart, say five feet from the gun end you put a wall of sand or ballistic gelatin. Now you fire the shotgun, the cart starts backwards, the shell hits the wall, the cart moves forwards, no change in center of mass, now the centrifugal gun, you fire the shell, the cart is stationary, the shell hits the wall the cart moves forward. When it stops rolling walk over to the other end (no change in center of mass) walk back (ibid) and repeat, massless propulsion.

                I could imagine testing this somewhat like this, get a toycart with a wall at one end, put a toy motor on it and spin a moment arm on a bearing, on the moment arm have a powered electromagnet, attached to the electromagnet a decent sized steel ball. Spin the thing up to reasonable rpms then ( a little fuzzy here some sort of sensor, perhaps hall effect or reed or optical, open to suggestions) connect a wire which has the ball released from the electromagnet to hit the wall on the cart. If the cart changes center of mass, rolls, confirmation.

                Lastly, while I am not saying I understand this, I think I can sort of visualize it, so an attempt at a little bit of theory. Consider again a slingshot that is being whirled, at each point on the circle the centrifugal force is not in the direction that the stone is moving, it is at right angles to it (once again a right hand rule). If this were not so, when David released his stone it would have flown sideways (in the direction the stone had been moving) and hit his elder brothers watching the battle on the sidelines, not good. It didn't, it is intuitive in the sense that I know of course that is what happens, but is a little odd to think about. Suppose for instance to be a wiseass you stuck your hand up to stop a stone swinging in a slingshot, it would hurt, a lot. There is inertia, lots of it in the tangential direction, but David's stone also didn't trace out an arc and hit Goliath's little know cousin Shrek a) I know that because it's obvious to anyone who has reached the age of I don't know maybe six b) there wouldn't be any weapons system if you were trying to compensate for a variable amount of tangential inertia. Where did that inertia go when the stone was released? I don't know. It is as if the centrifugal force at the moment of release immediately and entirely canceled out all inertia in the tangential direction. And just for laughs it made sure not to have a Newtonian opposite reaction from the direction the stone travels (in a straight line).

                As I said I don't think we really fully understand circular motion and I also think it is some of the low hanging fruit of the low hanging fruit in terms of learning about creation. Be really, really surprised if they, at least publicly, develop that weapon system, who knows what people couldn't help but notice. Finally, in the ever expanding game of better ways to stone each other, I can't help it, it would be really cool to have a gun you hold in one hand that fires with more power than a 50 caliber machine gun

                Comment


                • #9
                  Rotor disc acts like a gyro. When a rotor blade pitch change is made,
                  maximum reactions occurs approximately 90 drg. later in the direction of rotation.

                  That is, to tilt the helicopter forward, the difference of lift around the blades should be maximum along the left-right plane, creating a torque that, due to the gyroscopic effect, will tilt the rotor disc forward and not sideways.
                  or phase lag

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Guy,

                    Thanks, I have been thinking that their must be prominent gyroscopic effects with helicopters (hence the tail rotor?) but just didn't know enough about them to say anything. This centrifugal effect I am talking about here is even more simple, it is just a ball (not rotating) being swung in a circle on a string. Again from I what I see and from the reference about the centrifugal "dread" gun, there is no recoil, (i.e. equal and opposite reaction) when you release a ball from a centrifuge. The consequences again would be if you put a hammer thrower on a boat and he releases the hammer throw such that the hammer fell off the boat and in the water the boat would not be pushed backwards, but it "should" per Newton. Conversely if the hammer thrower on the boat released the hammer and it feel on the far end of the boat the boat would move forward, but it really shouldn't do that per Newton's laws. To think about one more, if you had an ion drive spacecraft where the ions weren't accelerated in a straight line but were instead first spun in a cyclotron and then released, you could oddly enough have the ions hit a plate on the far end of the craft and push the craft forward. For this one the whole crux, to my thinking, of the matter is confirming that there in fact is no recoil when you release a sling shot stone, or a marble from a cyclotron. I am still not doing anything experiment wise but I think I have to move some attempt at an experiment to look at that up to the top of the list.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      In a centrifugal effect gun you have a loss of mass nothing like moving a mass from a static point
                      if you had an ion drive spacecraft where the ions weren't accelerated in a straight line but were instead first spun in a cyclotron and then released, you could oddly enough have the ions hit a plate on the far end of the craft and push the craft forward.
                      that reminds me 10000 lbs of birds in a plane if the birds fly the plan wont know there but that is wrong
                      since ion drive is plasma it has mass
                      hammer thrower on a boat and he releases the hammer throw such that the hammer fell off the boat and in the water the boat would not be pushed backwards, but it "should" per Newton
                      i dont see it that way
                      if i sit on a skateboard and throw a hammer i will move/ if i sit in a box on the skateboard throw a hammer at back of box i wont move
                      the loss of recoil is the energy in rotating mass of gun
                      something to think balance
                      more lator
                      Last edited by guyzzemf; 09-08-2014, 12:06 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        "i dont see it that way
                        if i sit on a skateboard and throw a hammer i will move/ if i sit in a box on the skateboard throw a hammer at back of box i wont move
                        the reduction of recoil is the energy in rotating mass of gun
                        something to think balance"


                        Yep that's Newtonian, now if you spun the hammer on a string and let it go (ye olde hammer throwe) the skateboard wouldn't move would it? Of course it wouldn't, but that just seems intuitively obvious that isn't what happens. Just as if a centrifuge full of marbles sprung a leak while on a skateboard the skateboard wouldn't move, the marble aren't pushing against anything they are just flying off. So the "no recoil" observation about a centrifugal gun. Just to be really clear, look at the hammer throws in this video. Look at the first one, you see he ends on the balls of his feet, where did all the reaction force, per Newton, against the thrower go?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpbgg2TRCuw

                        Once released that hammer if it hit you and you were really, really lucky might just knock you flat on your back, why is the thrower standing at the end? At first I tried to tell myself it was something about it just pushing against his arms, but that isn't at all what is seen and the explanation "well it didn't have anything to push against" doesn't make any sense anyways. Nope, there is no opposite reaction with a centrifugally released ball. Finally, as I touched on in the first comment, despite the fact that the ball is hurtling with great and real inertia sideways in front of the hammer throwers face at the moment of release, all that motion is somehow for naught as at the moment of release the ball, at least as far as I can tell, again David was pretty darn accurate with a slingshot, travels in a straight line 180 degrees from the moment of release. Where did the sideways inertia go?? I don't know what else to say, it is there to be seen. If I am not in error and this is actually a real finding then I blame John Bedini for setting me on such a path Circles, the Great Infinity the Great One ... Circles, they're subversive! Just to be clear if this is real I want to honor JB for helping me think correctly, if not, well he has been patient with my previous nonsense. While I am pretty darn certain this is real and not commonly acknowledged at the corner grocer, things are flying so quickly now that, how do I say this, alright nonsensically, it is not at all clear to me that future history will look anything at all like past history. Put another way, yes I think this is correct but what does it matter in the face of eternity.
                        Last edited by ZPDM; 09-08-2014, 04:29 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Why is centrifugal 'force' perpendicular to line of inertia

                          Centripetal force and acceleration intuition

                          http://www.infoplease.com/encycloped...gal-force.html



                          http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy.../Chapter4.html

                          http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy....html#Heading1

                          http://physics.stackexchange.com/que...ine-of-inertia

                          t. The direction of acceleration is the same direction for the propagation of inertia usually!? The fact that its perpendicular really makes it look like its own force! It appears as if inertia in one direction is instantly translated to its perpendicular!

                          Also, (this might be two questions), if every force has an equal and opposite one, then why is centripetal force considered a legitimate force but its opposite (centrifugal) a fictitious force? Centripetal ALSO only occurs in a rotating reference frame right?

                          Everything I've read about these two "forces" over the years is always included the same old catch phrases, but for some reason I can't understand it intuitively. I've seen the pictures of the boy with the ball on the string and the arrows pointing inwards for centripetal and outwards for centrifugal but to me thats just labelling an observed effect that is occurring. It doesn't explain WHYYYYY . I've parroted off the mechanics to people many times with zero intuitive understanding as to why its all happening.

                          Is the explanation related to inertial properties?

                          ================================================== =================
                          3) the proper force balance equation (action equal and opposite) for the shot includes the forces both on the shot and the slinger (careful examination of real slingshot videos show the center of balance of the slinger and the motion of the shot move together- equally and oppositely in harmonic motion)


                          up vote
                          0
                          down vote
                          A particle does not have to move in the direction of the acceleration. Acceleration is change in velocity, so the change in velocity is in the direction of acceleration. Velocity, being a vector, obeys certain Laws of vector addition(see traingle law and parallelogram law of vector addition). For example, if two forces(another vector) of equal magnitude are applied on a body at an angle of 90 degrees the resultant force will be at an angle of 45 degrees to both the original forces. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, but not on the same body, otherwise the body wouldnt move. If you are twirling an object in a circle using a string, one force provides the centripetal acceleration for the object to move in a circle. The reaction force is the object pulling on the string- the tension in the string. If you have too heavy an object and you rotate it really fast the string will break. Consider youre in a car, moving along a circle. Your dashboard is frictionless. You have an object on the dashboard. As you move in a circle, due to lack of friction, the dashboard object moves in a straight line. To you, in the car, it appears as if a force is pushing the object away from the centre of the circle. There is no such force, but because your inertial frame is an accelerating one and you and the object move in different directions you have to make up a pseudo force to explain why the object moves and to fit with Newton"s laws of motion. I saw an animation about the car thing once, I"ll try to find it. The object flies out of the window!

                          http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...wt.html#strmas


                          Image66.gif


                          only Albert E can mess with Newton

                          https://www.khanacademy.org/science/...tion-intuition

                          As the hammer thrower spins he must pull [hold]back with a Centripetal force or he will fall fwd
                          and he lets go will fall back

                          https://strangengines.wordpress.com/...trifugal-guns/

                          Centrifugal Guns are class of weapons that flowered in 19th Century America. The idea was that by using man-power or steam engines one could rotate projectiles and fling them out upon an enemy with sufficient force to be deadly. Though they are called centrifugal guns, the should more properly be called centripedal guns.
                          Last edited by guyzzemf; 09-08-2014, 03:46 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The direction of acceleration is the same direction for the propagation of inertia usually!? The fact that its perpendicular really makes it look like its own force! It appears as if inertia in one direction is instantly translated to its perpendicular!

                            Also, (this might be two questions), if every force has an equal and opposite one, then why is centripetal force considered a legitimate force but its opposite (centrifugal) a fictitious force? Centripetal ALSO only occurs in a rotating reference frame right?



                            Concerning these two points, yes per one's senses, the previous inertia upon release is translated to its perpendicular (as I have said a right hand rule). Concerning point two, what is the inward force, the "center-seeking" (that's a good one if you've ever spun a rock on a string) centripetal force with David's slingshot? There is no gravity or magnetism or electricity or otherwise showing this center seeking force, rather the rock is straining to land between Goliath's eyes. You might want a centripetal force if only to balance Newton's straight motion laws with the "imaginary" quite deadly centrifugal force, but where does this centripetal force ever observationally present itself?? Quite honestly as I can't see, touch, feel or conceive of the centripetal force, it is the centripetal force, the center seeking force in a slingshot or the like that is not an imaginary or fictitious force, it simply does not exist. If it existed the hammer thrower would be thrown backwards. Alternatively, as it seems clear to me the whole model is nonsense, if the outward seeking centrifugal force is "imaginary" and the center seeking centripetal force "real" why wouldn't a hammer released by a hammer thrower smack him or her in the nose. It is embarrassing to say these things.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              with out centripetal force there be no rotation

                              Whenever an object moves in a circular path we know the object is accelerating because the velocity is constantly changing direction. All accelerations are caused by a net force acting on an object. In the case of an object moving in a circular path, the net force is a special force called the centripetal force (not centrifugal!). Centripetal is Latin for "center seeking". So a centripetal force is a center seeking force which means that the force is always directed toward the center of the circle. Without this force, an object will simply continue moving in straight line motion.


                              Centripetal Force - The Real Force

                              http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/p...if/default.htm



                              http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/p...if/centrif.htm

                              Centrifugal Force - The False Force
                              An evil word has worked its way into our daily vocabulary, and with it, an incorrect understanding of the way physics works. "Centrifugal Force" ( Latin for "center fleeing") is often used to describe why mud gets spun off a spinning tire, or water gets pushed out of the clothes during the spin dry cycle of your washer. It is also used to describe why we tend to slide to the outer side of a car going around a curve. It is a common explanation...the only problem is all of it is absolutely wrong!!! Centrifugal force does not exist...there is no such thing...it is a ghost we tend to blame odd behavior on.
                              Last edited by guyzzemf; 09-12-2014, 10:48 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X