- #1
leviterande
- 106
- 0
Hi all,
First of all, I just want to make it very clear that I am not referring nor meaning toward antigravity , free energy or such nonsense subjects. Eric laithwaite had a lot of misunderstanding about the gyro behavior that can be explained with Newtons laws. I just really want to understand one other point. I am also aware of how gyroscopes behave: all properties can be explained simply and shortly due to the good old conservation of angular momentum.
NOTE: Please, to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings, my question is not referring to the superficially and naively "magical" effect of lifting a gyro from its 3ft shaft end. I understand that, we are dealing with simple torque which is again due tue conservation of angular momentum.
I tried to ask about the following VERY SEEMINGLY SIMPLE OBSERVATION to a lot of people and I couldn't get any answer. You are my only last hope:
Watch Eric Laithwaite´s infamous video:
1-First, at 0:45 The gyro is lifted directly at the Center of Mass with a (springscale or a rope) and is very hard to lift, with both hands, closer to torso (bigger mechanical advantage) and reaching a low height.
2-Secondly, at 2:54 The same gyro is spun and as it is precessed (and of course torqued upwards all obeying the laws), the gyro is lifted (at also essentially the C.o.M too ) with one hand to a much greater height with a far less effort.
What we saw is that the total effort to lifting the gyro in the two cases differed very markedly.
How, why? What is the reason it is that so much easier to lift the gyro in the latter case? That, despite the fact that the gyro was essentially lifted both times, both cases directly at its Center of mass?( i.e.with the spring-scale/rope when not spinning and at fulcrum when it was spinning case)Own Thoughts, possibilities Cause(?):
Just simply gyro spin-induced stabilization. Gyroscopic inherent tendency to stop any torquing of the C.o.M makes it easier to lift up any mass since you won't need to fight any torques otherwise induced when trying to lift a stationary mass where the C.o.M would be constantly free to flip all around over the place?
Objection to this cause(?) Sure, absolutely, gyroscopic/spinning stabilization makes it easier to lift, We all know the free weight dumbbells vs machine at the gym examples...
But, shouldn't the rope/springscale attached to the stationary gyro at 0:45 also automatically and constantly lift this non spinning gyro directly from the C.o.M, stop any torquing of the C.o.M and thus, you also wouldn't need to fight any destabilizing torques? Then why is it much harder lifting from the rope than with the gyro spinning & precessing.
I really tried to be as clear as possible,
I hope you get my point.
Thanks a lot for your time. Again I am here to learn
First of all, I just want to make it very clear that I am not referring nor meaning toward antigravity , free energy or such nonsense subjects. Eric laithwaite had a lot of misunderstanding about the gyro behavior that can be explained with Newtons laws. I just really want to understand one other point. I am also aware of how gyroscopes behave: all properties can be explained simply and shortly due to the good old conservation of angular momentum.
NOTE: Please, to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings, my question is not referring to the superficially and naively "magical" effect of lifting a gyro from its 3ft shaft end. I understand that, we are dealing with simple torque which is again due tue conservation of angular momentum.
I tried to ask about the following VERY SEEMINGLY SIMPLE OBSERVATION to a lot of people and I couldn't get any answer. You are my only last hope:
Watch Eric Laithwaite´s infamous video:
1-First, at 0:45 The gyro is lifted directly at the Center of Mass with a (springscale or a rope) and is very hard to lift, with both hands, closer to torso (bigger mechanical advantage) and reaching a low height.
2-Secondly, at 2:54 The same gyro is spun and as it is precessed (and of course torqued upwards all obeying the laws), the gyro is lifted (at also essentially the C.o.M too ) with one hand to a much greater height with a far less effort.
What we saw is that the total effort to lifting the gyro in the two cases differed very markedly.
How, why? What is the reason it is that so much easier to lift the gyro in the latter case? That, despite the fact that the gyro was essentially lifted both times, both cases directly at its Center of mass?( i.e.with the spring-scale/rope when not spinning and at fulcrum when it was spinning case)Own Thoughts, possibilities Cause(?):
Just simply gyro spin-induced stabilization. Gyroscopic inherent tendency to stop any torquing of the C.o.M makes it easier to lift up any mass since you won't need to fight any torques otherwise induced when trying to lift a stationary mass where the C.o.M would be constantly free to flip all around over the place?
Objection to this cause(?) Sure, absolutely, gyroscopic/spinning stabilization makes it easier to lift, We all know the free weight dumbbells vs machine at the gym examples...
But, shouldn't the rope/springscale attached to the stationary gyro at 0:45 also automatically and constantly lift this non spinning gyro directly from the C.o.M, stop any torquing of the C.o.M and thus, you also wouldn't need to fight any destabilizing torques? Then why is it much harder lifting from the rope than with the gyro spinning & precessing.
I really tried to be as clear as possible,
I hope you get my point.
Thanks a lot for your time. Again I am here to learn
Last edited: