It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Gyroscopic Behaviour refuting notions of Gravity

page: 2
22
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 08:20 PM

originally posted by: Phage
Gyroscopes are fun (and actually very useful). However, they have nothing (at all) to do with gravity.

Ya, I'm pretty sure you are right (have not fully looked into labtech's theory). However, they can be used to replicate the affects of gravity, such as to replicate earth's gravity in the O'Neal Cylinder.

edit on 23-6-2014 by HiMyNameIsCal because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-6-2014 by HiMyNameIsCal because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-6-2014 by HiMyNameIsCal because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 10:39 PM
While artificial "gravity" can be produced on the inside of rotating object, it's not what is generally referred to as gyroscopic action. Nor does it have anything to do with gravitational attraction.

In the usual sense gyroscopic action is considered to be the axial stability observed in a rotating object. A rotating space habitat would indeed exhibit such stability, it would be difficult to move the axis. However, people walking around on the inside of the the cylinder would not notice it.

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 11:16 PM

Nor does it have anything to do with gravitational attraction.

I'm not trying to say it does. The fact that you can create a stable artificial gravity on the inside of a cylinder is kind of what I'm getting at here. hmm, ok imagine one of these robotic cubes, only much more complex and in zero g.

Could you not alter the speed of the gyros separately to produce some sort of directional control?

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 11:27 PM

Could you not alter the speed of the gyros separately to produce some sort of directional control?

Yes. In fact, that is exactly how many satellites control their attitude. That is how satellite based telescopes are aimed, by applying power to wheels on different axes the satellite will rotate around that axis.

You do not however, obtain thrust. You can aim but you can't move.
edit on 6/23/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 11:43 PM
What about if you had a pair of gyros on the same axis, both spinning towards each other. Then put a series of these "dual gyros" in a row, one in front of the other, and then alter the rotational velocity, starting from the front working your way back, in a sort of wave pattern. Could you not tweak suck a device to create thrust in zero gravity?

Ps: Great response! Thanks for the input

edit on 23-6-2014 by HiMyNameIsCal because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 11:44 PM

That said, at speed, a bike is much easier to control which is when the gyroscope affect kicks in.

Forward motion also creates angular momentum. More so than the circular motion of the wheels I would hazard to guess. The faster you move in a given direction, the more stable you become. The more resistant to deviation. Your shoulders want to keep following the line they are following, they don't want to fall to the side.

Try balancing on a board on water. Now propel that board. Easier to stay upright, yes?

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 11:50 PM

No. The angular momentum of each gyro is conserved within each.

Without the application of an outside force, you are, in effect, talking about pulling yourself by your own bootstraps.

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 11:51 PM
Hmm, like blowing your own sail...

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 11:58 PM
Actually, you can do that (sort of) because the sail redirects the flow of air. It's not very efficient though.
csep10.phys.utk.edu...

But you can't pick yourself up by your own bootstraps.

posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 12:18 AM

originally posted by: HiMyNameIsCal

Nor does it have anything to do with gravitational attraction.

I'm not trying to say it does. The fact that you can create a stable artificial gravity on the inside of a cylinder is kind of what I'm getting at here. hmm, ok imagine one of these robotic cubes, only much more complex and in zero g.

Could you not alter the speed of the gyros separately to produce some sort of directional control?

Did you watch the video? This little thing manages to pick itself up by its own gy.. er.. bootstraps just fine! By rapid deceleration and gradual acceleration. That is the sort of transfer of energy you would need not to defy the laws of physics, is it not?

posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 12:28 AM

This little thing manages to pick itself up by its own gy.. er.. bootstraps just fine!

No, it doesn't.
It changes its attitude in the same way a satellite does but it has the advantage of being on a surface. The surface provides an external force. Put it in a zero g environment and all it will do is rotate in the same spot. No propulsion.

edit on 6/24/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 11:43 AM

originally posted by: HiMyNameIsCal
What about if you had a pair of gyros on the same axis, both spinning towards each other. Then put a series of these "dual gyros" in a row, one in front of the other, and then alter the rotational velocity, starting from the front working your way back, in a sort of wave pattern. Could you not tweak suck a device to create thrust in zero gravity?

Ps: Great response! Thanks for the input

The problem with zero gravity is that you don't have anything to push against. Imagine you are a space satellite or the Hubble telescope. The only reference point is your center of gravity - the one place where the weight on each side balances the other. You can use gyroscopes (the reaction wheels) to spin around this point, since moving forward in one part of the satellite is balanced by another part moving backwards. No matter where you put the gyroscope and brakes, it will always spin you around this point.

To move in a particular direction, something has to be pushed against or go in the opposite direction of your centre-of-gravity - like rocket fuel, ion thrusters.

posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 02:19 PM

ok so if in Zero gravity with the gyros they will just spin in the same spot so what if you dont try to push or pull from the outside since there is nothing to push or pull agianst. What if you were able to take that concept of all those gyros in a line and push from the inside to move the momentum? (not just have them rotate in different direction) So insead of having a solid axis point inside the gyro you have one that has the ability to bend or move therefor beable to push one way or the other. So if you have a line of them you would beable to create sort of a serpent pattern the first one jerk left the other right so on and so forth so you could bounce the gravity around...possibly like a snake in water?... I get this idea from hula hooping actually...hear me out so while hooping if you put your hand inside the hoop while its spining around you you can actually have your hand fully open and move it around your body by moving you hand up and down and the hoop will still be spinning... sorta hard to explain the visual but if you use the correct movement or "bump" the hoop at the correct time you can manipulate the hoop and allow it to continue to spin with out it falling or losing its momentum. Dunno if this makes alot of sence would definitely be something to experiment with tho

posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 02:25 PM
What you're describing is shifting the mass of the object in different configurations around the center of mass which could be done, but it doesn't move the center of mass.

posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 03:20 PM

Aw dang I was more hoping that it would create a wave of momentum to move the center of mass that if timed right would make the line move forward...I think it would do fine in gravity but not sure if it would in zero gravity tho... unless there was something at the end of the line that would catch the momentum and stop it forcing the gyros forward...Gravity bubble? lol

posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 06:30 PM

originally posted by: HiMyNameIsCal
I actually just came upon a very interesting patent from Prof. Laithwaite and William Dawson. In the process of trying to wrap my head around this device I happened to notice a familiar name. It kind of made me do a double take.

Laithwaite began working on the motor about six months ago after Edwin Rickman, who works with an electrical engineering firm, came to him with the idea. Rickman had patented it after he said it came to him in recurring dreams. Laithwaite incorporated in the device ideas of another amateur inventor, Alex Jones.

Rex Research
I'm not sure if it is the same Alex Jones but if so can anyone please enlighten me as to what device they are referring to?

As to the patent itself, it seems to make use of the same gyroscopic principles demonstrated in his earlier lectures. Just put into an elaborate layout to create forward thrust. If you did not want to watch the lecture here is a short video by him to demonstrate the basic idea.

I think the Alex Jones you are referring to constructed a device that propelled itself forward when side to side momentum was applied. It was a very makeshift device made of wooden batons and metal fittings for the pivots and gyroscope housing. At the front of the device was a gyroscope on a pivot. As long as the gyroscope was spinning the device moved forward when some side to side momentum was introduced. Alex Jones showed Laithwaite the device. He then took the idea further and built a device (out of meccano) using the same principle to enable movement in space without the need for chemical fuel. I'll see if I can find some references...

posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 01:37 AM
Gyroscopes are merely a parlor trick to those who don't understand that the kinetic energy is being transferred to whatever mass it is touching. Without the leverage it would not 'defy gravity. '

When the circular momentum attaches to another object it adds an additional dimension which alters the most direct path the energy will go to be expended.

This is an easy way to wrap your head around how time expenditure is relevant to one's momentum through space since you add an additional dimension.

The path of least resistance. That is the most fundamental law in physics I can attest to.

posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 04:51 PM

Very astute but if that where the case gyroscopic missile guidence systems would not work as the gyroscope moves to try to spin on a plane to the earth's gravity so allowing a gimbal mechanism to self right and so indicate the plane of fight to the missile as used in the V2 rockets.

posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 05:36 PM

Very astute but if that where the case gyroscopic missile guidence systems would not work as the gyroscope moves to try to spin on a plane to the earth's gravity so allowing a gimbal mechanism to self right and so indicate the plane of fight to the missile as used in the V2 rockets.

No. A gyroscope does not care much about gravity but it does know when something tries to move it and it resists that movement. That resistance is sensed and the movement is corrected. That's why gyroscopes work in space.

edit on 6/25/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 25 2014 @ 08:19 PM

This is getting a habbit corrected twice, Fair enough then his point is accurate therefore and it does make mechanical sense but so does the time/gravity ratio and that is something that deserves to be thought on some more.

new topics

top topics

22