Conservation of Energy in a Gyroscope Thought Experiment

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a thought experiment involving the conservation of energy in a gyroscope, specifically focusing on the dynamics of a rotor with three axes: swivel, pitch, and roll. When a torque is applied to the swivel axis, the rotor pitches, aligning the roll axis with the swivel axis, which limits further interesting physics. The experiment assumes very stiff springs and high rotor speeds, allowing for energy storage in the springs and kinetic energy in the swiveling motion. It is clarified that while a continuous input of torque is required to maintain a steady state, the force exerted on the gauges does not perform work due to negligible displacement. Ultimately, the system can maintain its motion indefinitely in the absence of external forces like gravity and friction.
jamie_sibley
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Conservation of Energy in a Gyroscope Thought Experiment

I have posted a though experiment at the following address. I would appreciate anyone's thoughts on this.


http://sibleysystems.pro/gyro/gyro.html"

Thanks in advance.

Jamie
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
jamie_sibley said:
I have posted a though experiment at the following address.
http://sibleysystems.pro/gyro/gyro.html"

Let me give labels to the axes.

The outer axis is vertical: swivel axis
The "in between" axis: pitch axis
The inner axis: roll axis

The words "pitch" and "roll" are here used in the same way as in aviation.

As I understand it:
You are starting with only rotation around the roll axis
Then a torque is applied around the swivel axis.
The main visible effect is that the rotor will pitch.

For one thing: as the rotor pitches more and more the roll axis becomes aligned with the swivel axis. Once you have that alignment then the gimbal mounting is pretty much locked up, which is the end of interesting physics taking place.

To prevent the rotor from pitching over completely you need very stiff springs. Since this is a thought experiment we are free to declare our springs as stiff as we need them to be. Also, this being a thought experiment we can declare the rotor velocity as fast as we want.

Assume that the springs are stiff enough. Then applying a torque around the swivel axis will induce swivel. There will be some pitching, and potential energy will be stored in the springs. Other than that the energy inflow will go to kinetic energy of the swiveling motion.

The faster the rotor spins, the stronger the tendency to pitch. So the faster the rotor spins, and the stiffer the springs, the more energy can be stored in the springs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lets choose to replace the springs with force gauges that have negligible compression and therefore store negligible energy due to spring compression. I understand how rotational energy can be store while rotating the device around the vertical axis, but this stored energy should be independent of the rotor spin speed.

If we rotated the vertical swivel axis at a fixed speed, ( 10 rad/sec ) then there would be a corresponding force indicated on the force gauges ( proportional to rotor RPM I believe ). In this steady state, the force gauges would have a small and constant amount of stored potential energy. However, to maintain this steady state force on the force gauges, we would have to maintain the input-swivel RPM, and continuously deliver torque to the swivel axis too.

Am I correct to understand, that this continuous input of energy would be constant?? ( input torque and input RPM would remain constant ). Or would it taper off after a while, if the input torque decreases?

I would very much like to have this explained in theory to save me the time and expense of building it into an actual physical experiment. ( most of my experiments don't turn out well :( )
 
jamie_sibley said:
If we rotated the vertical swivel axis at a fixed speed, ( 10 rad/sec ) then there would be a corresponding force indicated on the force gauges

Yes, there would be a continuous force exerted upon the force gauges.

This force is not doing work. In order for a force to do work there must be displacement in the direction of that force. You have specified that the compression of the force gauges is negligable, hence no work.

You have specified: devoid of gravity, friction, air.
Hence once swiveling motion is started and then left like that it will continue at uniform rate.

Conversely, as long as a torque around the swiveling axis is sustained, rotation rate around the swiveing axis will keep going up.
 
Last edited:
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...

Similar threads

Replies
42
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top