<dkelvey@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:0a626567-eeaf-43d7-b811-a24596fa0161@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mar 6, 2:37 pm, janpa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> On Mar 6, 7:51 pm, "dkel...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <dkel...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> ...> You'd still have to tie the flywheel to something outside
>> > the earth.
>>
>> ...
<snip>
>
> Second, a force applied to tha axis of an otherwise free flywheel
> will case a perpendicular motion ( not power, vectors are at 90
> degrees ). This means your machine will need to restrict the motion
> of the flywheel to some angle like 45 degrees between the force and
> free motion. At this angle, over time, the flywheel will precess
> until
> it is exactly aligned with the polar axis.
>
> Third, at this time, the rotation of the earth will no longer effect
> the flywheel.
> End of game.
>
Whilst I don't agree with any of the OP's junk science, if you arrange the
gyro's shaft so that it is perpendicular to the earth's axis, and the
shaft
is limited to a track that is also perpencidular to the earth's axis (on
the
equator it would be vertical, at other latitudes it would be tilted away
from the pole by the degree of latitude), then as the earth rotates each
day, the gyro's shaft would make one complete revolution around the track.
This revolution of the shaft around the track could be harnessed to draw
some power. But the drawing of power would cause the shaft to try and
precess up/down out of the track so the track must have bearing surfaces
to
constrain the shaft.
If there is no restraining the shaft, the gyro will not precess at all,
but
maintain its shaft aligned (in space) and the shaft will appear to revolve
around the track once every day. If the shaft is locked in the track so
that it cannot revolve around, then a gyroscopic force will be developed
trying to lift one end of the shaft out of the track. Since the track is
enclosed so the shaft cannot lift out, a torque is developed. But of
course
a torque with no motion isn't power (as you point out).
Take for example a flat 1000 kg disc with a diameter of 2m. It has a
moment
of inertia of 500 kg-m^2. Spin this up to 4000 RPM (419 rad/s). If the
thing is mounted perfectly vertical at the equator, the combination of its
moment of momentum and the rotation of the earth (7.27e-5 rad/s) will
generate a torque of 15.2 N-m. And with respect to an observer on the
earth
next to the gyro (say, a mechanical machine), the shaft would revolve at 0
rad/s so no power (0 Watts). If the shaft is allowed to revolve very
slowly
(say, 1/2 the earth's speed), then you get a torque of 7.6 N-m and an
observed speed of 3.64e-5 rad/s for a total power output of 0.000277
Watts.
And of course if you let the shaft revolve around it's track freely, you
get
a torque of 0 N-m and an 'observed speed' of 76.27e-5 rad/s and 0 Watts
again.
I seriously doubt that the losses involved in just spinning a 1000 kg disc
at 4000 RPM are anywhere near as low as 0.000277 Watts, so you could never
get a net power output.
daestrom
> Fourth, there has been nothing ever shown to prove that conservation
> of momentum
> has ever, ever been violated. You need to work with reality. Anyone
> can
> publish a bunch of junk science on the web.
>
> Fifth, Coriolis effect has been completely described with Newtonian
> mechanics
> and does not in any way shape or form violate the laws of conservation
> of
> momentum. It doesn't need any special outside junk like
> dipolar_gravity
> to understand it. Why pull this junk in when it is completely
> predicable with
> known science. Coriolis is simple inertia. Always was and always will
> be.
> I believe the statement, " an object in motion tends to stay in
> motion" is
> enough to show why we have the Coriolis effect. It also explains
> Foucault's
> pendulum.
>
> These have been explained to you several times and all you can use to
> justify that you are right is some junk science that has nothing to do
> with
> real observed effects. This is why I asked you to run some experiments
> with simple setups that don't require things like the entire earth.
> You can
> easily create a rotation frame of reference with simple junk
> parts( swivel
> chair ).
> You can easily create a nice flywheel from an old bicycle wheel. You
> can then easily
> prove to yourself that it won't work. You don't have to depend on
> anything
> from junk web pages. You can use real world experiments!
> I have told you why it won't work and I've proposed experiments you
> can
> run yourself to show you why it doesn't work. I've run similar
> experiments
> many years ago in science class so I know how they work.
> I can see that you really want this to work but I can only show you
> how
> to think, I can't make you actually think. The laws of motion and
> inertia
> haven't changed since man has been looking at things. If someone
> tells you different, they are either liars or mistaken( most seem to
> be liars ).
> Dwight
|
