He applied a rotation force that was converted to the lift force he referred to. You did not apply that force and therefore your result won’t be comparable.
@@bradleyweiss1089 because airplanes have lift and thrust great enough to overcome their weight and drag. This experiment shows how bodies orbit each other in a system, the weight is trying to orbit the professor because of the torque/angular momentum it has, and it's connected to the bar he's holding so his hand became the pivot point that that torque is pushing against making the weight feel light to him (lets him hold it at an angle that would be impossible without the momentum) as it tries to rotate around him - actually you can see his body tense as if it still weighed the full 40lbs which it does.
@Scott Summers sorry words are hard for you to understand. I'm saying lift/drag are NOT the forces at play here. Put it in a vacuum it will behave the same way. Rotation =/= lift or thrust but it does expend energy as angular momentum so the bodies of the system will spin around each other. Good luck m8
One critical thing you missed in your experiment is how Laithwaite didn't just allow the gyro to precess at it's natural rate, but (you can see it in his Christmas Lecture to the Royal Society) he accelerated the gyro in it's precession direction and that is when it got raised up by a spring in the axle. Can you add a feature to speed up the precession of your gyro (after burning the string) and report back? Very interesting work!
Here's a link to a video of my device whereby the torque reaction from the motor, spinning clockwise as seen from above, causes the device as a whole to spin counterclockwise, precessing the gyros. It was difficult to operate the device and video at the same time, also, I propose rebuilding it with two gyros. All forces are 'inside the box'. drive.google.com/file/d/1AyZ3WA1eJNvE3pT7MKu7KqSrSLpeV83R/view?usp=sharing
The video is of 'progress' to date. I'm working on a better method of construction, eliminating the universal joints. The Model shown is vibrating a lot and doesn't lend itself to horizontal operation, re the pendulum test. It vibrated too much on the scales to judge if a lift had occurred. The torque reaction and precession are working mechanically, though.@@gges1605
Here is a link to a still picture and video of the new model without universal joints. The vibration is now much reduced but the device weighs five times as much as the combined weight of the gyros so I'm building one from thin plywood. Eric was possibly barking at the wrong tree by speaking of weight loss. A spinning gyro will be minutely heavier than a stationary one due to E=mc>2. What we are looking for is thrust. There was no thrust in my test so I'll try again with a lighter version. I am struggling to use the device horizontally regarding the pendulum test drive.google.com/drive/folders/1NoWw76xPfhRqcQPczXJh1fVJOpzzdHqs?usp=sharing@@gges1605
I think that the phenomenon that Laithwaite experienced has to do with the "conservation of angular momentum". He wasn't so much *lifting* the weight of the rotor, as much as the energy from the rotor spinning around its own axis was transferred to Laithwaite as he pirouetted in place. As Laithwaite began to tilt the spinning rotor from the horizontal plane, it needed to transfer energy, and as he turned, the energy of the rotor was transferred through the shaft to him, in the form of torque and "pulling" on the horizontal plane. His body's mass largely negated the horizontal "pull", and his grip on the handle negated the torque. I think it would be *much* easier for a 175 lb.(or whatever) man to resist a 40 lb. horizontal pull than to do a 40 lb. lift. It seems to me that this could be empirically tested in at least three ways: 1. Have a person replicate Laithwaite's experiment, but not directly grip the handle; instead have the interface between the shaft and the experimenter's hands be a torque meter. 2. Also, if my hypothesis is correct, the speed at which the experimenter turns in place should be critical, and would be set by the rotor (its mass and speed); the experimenter turning too fast or too slow should affect the ability to successfully replicate it. 3. Measure the loss of speed in the rotor both without being moved from the horizontal plane, and from Laithwaite's experiment. My guess is that in the latter, it will lose considerable speed because of transfer of energy to the experimenter, due to the conservation of angular momentum.
@@guitaraflamenco -- Thanks! Mind you, I don't have any training or background in physics (I never even took a physics class in high school), I was just trying to puzzle it out as best as I could.
the gyro become weightless above certain speeds as it is only making point contact on its bearings and all its weight is being centrifuged outwards. do the experiment but with a rotor made of strings of heavy beads. At rest the beads will all hang downwards but as the rotor is spun the beads will all fling out by centrifugal force until eventually they put no weight on the shaft bearings.
PERPETUAL ROTATING MOTION .....Thats what a gyro does .... simple .. RE-distribution of weight spinning around = live weight its moving .....in a circular motion not dead as rest .....or propelling ,
Just a theory. The atoms are being stretched in time-space thus gravity goes around it though there is no weight but torque and the torque will be exactly equal to its weight or mass.
I notice that people keep saying that Eric Laithwaite did not prove anti-gravity, but there seems to be confusion with free energy here. Laithwaite was not attempting to show a free energy devise. He was merely showing that the force vectors produced by the gyro and the energy his own arms provided changed directions to oppose gravity, just as an aircraft wing opposes gravity with lift... In other words, the rotating mass vectors combine with the swinging arms created a vertical force vector that opposed gravitational force....This, by itself is amazing, because it's a type of lift we are talking about here, but it's not aerodynamic lift. It's lift created by taking the energy of the spinning gyro, and the energy Laithwaite himself provides in spinning around his axis, and changing the force vector directions to vertical, so as to oppose gravity.....He's not cancelling out gravity...He's not CREATING new energy...He's found a way to convert rotational energy to a different direction of those force vectors.... That really is a powerful idea...and is probably the way UFOs are propelled....Now we just have to solve the problem of obtaining the necessary energy....We demonstrate the principal here that the force vectors of a rotating mass can be re-directed. This is powerful stuff.
Yes, and this experiment demonstrated it perfectly. The addition of external active force came from the drill as it lifted the apparatus on the vertical axis in the positive Y direction. As it did, a reactive force should have registered on the graph in opposition (demonstrated a reactive force in the negative Y direction), but didn't. This is clearly a violation of Newton's Third Law of Motion, which is what this whole idea of Laithwaite's was about. There was no increase/decrease in the rate of gyroscopic rotation. There was no increase/decrease in the rate of gyroscopic precession. When the drill lifts the gyroscope, where is the additional reactive force, pulling down on the string?
@@Hutch5321 dude. you got me. I didn't realize why the experiment didn't work. it seemed to perfectly replicate what laithwaite did. no, no. it worked just fine. you understood. I did not. touche... and THANK you... okay. so, it's weight doesn't change because it's inertial mass is unchanged. so what should've been detected? an increase in the speed of precession during lifting? since an upward acceleration would be tantamount to a temporary increase in gravity, which gets "deflected" sideways as precession. so what does this experiment really need then? an upwardly accelerating lift? and now I never sleep...
@@ShinkaHentai The 'million_dollar_question', I think. Where does the force/energy come from? The next step in the experiment would likely be sensors to monitor the rate of angular velocity of the gyroscope, to detect any change. Also, a sensor to monitor any change in the rate of precessional motion. Of the two, my bet would be a change in the rate of precession. 'An upwardly accelerating lift?' It appears that he's already doing that with the drill apparatus. Perhaps an increased acceleration, such as Larry Scott is suggesting? Was the sensor not sensitive enough to detect the additional reactive force on the string?
@@Hutch5321 honestly it's the other simpler one I care about: that one uses gears arranged in a starburst pattern, and the outer gears orbit around a central static gear, they're all the same tooth count, and the outer gears are weighted on one side directly above the central gear. I saw a demo of a propulsion-less drone. and bought a set of plastic toy gears and made a model of this. it's quite real, quite a bit stronger, to the point where turning the thing 6-7 rps makes it fly upwards out of your hands. but it was a toy so it had the tendency to fly apart. i ended up tying thin metal wire around the weak portions. when you make it yourself, you'll kind of understand exactly why it works. but I don't have the background to describe it in words. basically the weights are fully extended when they are reaching the top of their rotation and retracting to near the central gear. one of the other laithwaite videos showed a single imbalanced weight, which was where I got the idea.and then saw the drone and bought the toys straight from there. man I'd love to have a wingless drone toy. I checked, the patents expired, too... it's been 4 years though I never get tired of watching weird and wonderful tech. but it was neat to see someone try to go for the underlying science finally.
I used to deal with aircraft gyros when I was in the navy and happen to know that what I saw done was real. You miss the point dude. The question is whether doing what he did results in energy savings after the energy is spent spinning up the gyro. If it does then the method has practical value.
I’m not a physicist, but my take is pretty simple: The rotational momentum is transferred into upward force, given a little help. Also: Notice that he could only push it up and over in one direction, which follows the spinning direction. If spun in the opposite direction, he would be able to lift it up in the opposite way.
He “lifted” 40lbs like a feather over his head, something he couldn’t have done without the gyroscope in action. Seems like you strayed from the point he was making.
On the contrary. The weight did not change by measurement. Eric L did not weigh the gyro while spinning. What PhD wouldn’t present measured values? Eric L did not claim the weight went to zero, AND DID NOT quantify the change. And the obvious variation that Eric L did not show is the change in weight at different rpm. The point is Eric made an assertion that he did not quantify because it did not exist.
garou108 that's what Eric L wants you to think. notice how he does a bicep curls then press to get it up. pay attention to what muscles he used to lift it.
Bingo. You nailed it. This is the critical flaw in this attempted recreation. Accelerating the flywheel in the direction of the precession beyond the speed at which it would precess on its own causes disproportional lift, i.e. “weightlessness”.
The spinning gyro is not weightless but all the vertical gravity weight and accelerating forces are transferred to the central support pivot. Recently I took a deeper interest in gyros. Having met Professor Eric Laithwaite many years ago and recently following what was done over the years, including the famous lifting machine by Sandy Kidd, and many others trying to use the gyro in an inertial propulsion system, I felt that many do not fully understand the engineering dynamics of the gyro and so I decided to look at it from just an engineering point of view. I treated the gyro as a set of mass particles m(x,y,z,t) distributed over the face of a rotating flat disc being subjected to the distributed accelerations, a(x,y,z,t) of a "cycloidal trajectory" decided upon by the active geometry of the gyro. This is basically a spinning mass in the shape of a flat thick circle of large diameter going around in a circle about a central pivot point. Each mass particle in the spinning gyro flat circular wheel is also being translated as shown in the video and it will in fact be subjected to an acceleration force of the form F= m.a. where a is a vector. The final behavior of the gyro is the massive integral of all those accelerations working on all those particles existing in space and time. If one draws the three-dimensional voluminous cycloidal trajectory moved by one particle, then one has a good ideal of what one would expect of it. Basically, as an engineer, what I did was to use the past experience of mass particles going around curves as in the case of a mass particle going around a circle. This is a case where the speed stays constant and it is the direction that changes in the velocity component of the mass particle. With the mass particles existing in the gyro, then when the thick circle spins, the mass particle in an un-torqued spinning circle will go through the curve of a flat circle with its circumferential constant speed but changing direction all the time, hence generating the conventional centrifugal force acting outwards on a mass particle traversing that particular curve/trajectory of a flat circle. If as shown in the video, the gyro happens to be operating with a horizontal spinning axis then, then as a plan view, the flat disc of a gyro will be no longer flat, but it will take a three-dimensional dept. If the gyro axle is operating at a higher angle with the horizontal, such that when stationary but spinning, the plan view would be an ellipse, and when the gyro is free to precess then the trajectory would be an elliptical cycloid going around the central support pivot. Any curve in the plan view of the trajectory of the cycloid followed by a particle on the spinning wheel of a gyro can easily be drawn using a pair of compasses and a pencil and some paper and the answer would be very illuminating. This is the remarkable conclusions. The conclusion is rather very simple..........since the extended axle of a spinning flat circular disc is acting as an extended radial arm on a central pivot and each radius of the gyro wheel extends in quadrature ( 90 degrees) with the spinning axis, then a voluminous room is required to define the volume through which the gyro fits. The gyro can no longer be treated as a spinning flat disc. It becomes a VOLUMINOUS AFFAIR in which the new volume will permit sideways/lateral accelerations to the particles in the disc of a gyro in addition to the ones in a flat circle. It is these lateral accelerations due to a three-dimensional cycloidal trajectory that gives the gyro all its characteristics. If one draws merely the PLAN view of what the gyro is doing in the video above one will find that the shape of the " disc" is no longer elliptical as when the gyro spins and does not traverse but does not move as a unit with respect to the ground. The shape becomes a distorted ellipse. Now one may consider in the video that the plan view of diameter and flatness of a gyro disc can be fitted in an ellipse when the gyro is torqued at the top and bottom of an instantaneous vertical diameter while the horizontal diameter remains dormant. One may think of this torque action as subjecting the circumference of the top half of the gyro circle to an elliptical lateral acceleration distributed pattern while the lower half would be subjected to the opposite acceleration pattern. There, with that alone one may predict where one mass particle will be when the gyro is torqued and accelerated laterally on the disc, as it spins through traversing the circumference with the angular spinning Ws. Let us assume that the circumferential lateral acceleration in a torqued gyro is not elliptical but simply a constant through half of each circumference then taking the top half of the circumference, lateral acceleration to gyro disc a= k lateral velocity to gyro disc = integral of acceleration a=kdt= k.t lateral distance covered to gyro disc = integral of velocity v= k.t.dt= S= (k.t^2)/2 Just seeing that integral over the top circumferential half a spin will see the mass particle move out and that is PRECESSION. One may proceed to integrate over the lower side where the acceleration is reversed in the other direction. These two simple integrals on the upper and lower circumferential halves of mass particles in a laterally torqued flat spinning disc will indicate a concave curve and a convex curve. All this means is that THE UPPER HALF OF A TORQUED SPINNING GYRO GOING AROUND A CENTRAL PIVOT ON AN EXTENDED ARM ( or without one) IS SUBJECTED TO AN INBOUND CENTRIFUGAL FORCE WHILE THE LOWER HALF IS SUBJECTED TO AN OUTBOUND CENTRIFUGAL FORCE. In the video, this is what holds the weight of the gyro seemingly floating, as it has an inbound centrifugal force action on the top horizontal half of the gyro wheel and another outbound centrifugal force acting out on the lower horizontal half of the spinning wheel. If one had to draw the actual " ellipses" in the plan view of the cycloidal paths one will find that the " translating and spinning ellipses " are distorted on the upper and lower curve with the upper curve having a small radius of curvature while the lower curve have a larger radius of curvature than the normal ellipse expected in an inclined circle. And here is the beauty and elegance of the gyro. Each spinning mass particle will have to traverse a tighter curve when navigating the top half of the spinning gyro wheel and a shallower, less tight curve when going through the lower half of the spinning wheel. This means that the inbound centrifugal force generated by a mass particle when traversing the upper half-circle is higher than when it is traversing the lower half AND WHAT IS MORE THE UPPER ONE HAS AN INBOUND CENTRIFUGAL FORCE WHILE THE LOWER ONE HAS AN OUTER CENTRIFUGAL FORCE. This all happens in the voluminous cycloidal path around the central pivot, and it also happens when any gyro is torqued. The vertical and horizontal torques generated by these two opposite acting centrifugal forces , moving about on each quarter face of the gyro disc depends on Spin Ws, Mass m, Diameter d, extended radius Ra, Wp, etc, and it is what balances the gravitational weight ( m.g.R arm) and the dynamic angular torque ( I, Ws, Wp.) if the gyro is spinning very fast the inbound cancels out the outbound centrifugal force and a gyro operating as shown in the video shows no resultant centrifugal force. If one digs deeper one would find that there is no lateral reaction on the central pivot except the vertical weight of the gyro and any vertical acceleration of the mass of the gyro. It is remarkable how a massive integral of the product F= ma in the form of a distributed force due to a million distributed mass particle operated upon through a double integral on the acceleration only as the mass is constant, or say integrating,...... ( m(x,y,z,t) * a(x,y,z,t)) gives all those beautiful elegant artistic engineering results.
Better use another term than centrifugal force if talking about a force going into the centre,as centrifugal has always referred to flying from the centre!Kis.
but the gyro is weightless while spinning above a certain speed - that depends on the actual gyro and its perfection of balance. The 40 pounds heavy weightlifting weights are cast iron and not very well balanced while the smaller brass ones can be assumed to be much better balanced. as the gyro is weightless it is making only line or even oil film contact with the bearings and all its weight is centrifuged out 360 degrees. Immediately the shaft is moved the bearing/oil film contact increases where the shaft presses on the bearing/oilfilm and the precession takes place. Stop the precession and the gyro centrifuges all its weight off the bearing/oilfilm and stays still.
When I saw this video in the side bar, my first reaction was: "Why would anyone ask such a stupid question in the first place???" After watching the video in the video: I note that he didn't hold the bar and gyro stationary over his head but kept it in motion. He was letting the gyro precess. He was effectively using some of the stored angular momentum to help support the weight of the gyro, but the trick only works if you follow the gyro's lead, so to speak.
My hunch is that he was actually forcing the pace (turning the axle faster than the precession rate) as he raised it, and slowing the pace as he lowered it. This way he would further reduce the upwards force he had to exert to lift it, by exerting a sideways moment which the spinning mass converted into upwards force on its centre of mass. If he had done the same without lifting the inboard end, the outboard end would have risen higher, tiling the axle.
But what I still cannot understand is why this wheel is creating an "upward force" to begin with simply by rotating. Would it create a downward force if he had tried to go with it the other way ? Or what will happen if one try to rotate the wheel the other way ? Would he then have to rotate the other way to make it hover above his head ?
There is no angular momentum in a precessing gyroscope. They didnt show the entire video by Laithewaite which shows there was no centrifugal force or angular momentum forcing his arm in an outward direction.
Good Thinking ! ! ( You get an "E" for effort) The "Non Spinning" Gyro would behave as any "Non moving / spinning" object. I am quite sure the professor considered this to be obvious empirical evidence HOWEVER: you do have a point; in the spirit of "REPLICATING the original experiment" in which the man lifted and weighed the object before it was spinning.
@@haroldwestrich3312 Hes talking about seeing a baseline for comparison. the guy in the video was just looking for a null result, and I think the drill adds too much noise for the sensors.
Sorry to disappoint you guys, but the weight of the None spinning gyro will just be the same as the chart begins. The weight will not magically disappear.
Exactly, Laithwaite's vid showed the apparent change in weight between a spinning gyro and one at rest. He should be weighing the thing at various angular speeds from 0 upwards, both with and without precession.
The correct way to execute this would have been to stand on a scale and weigh yourself. then weigh a 40lb gyro on a shaft. Then stand on the scale and pick up the gyro above your head and see if you gained any weight. I went to community college.
Indeed. The whole experiment was flawed the second he used the mini gyro. Ridiculous. Totally wrong way to go about it. I also went to community college. Smart people have no common sense. Matter of fact smart people say common sense has nothing to do with anything.
This "scientist" is the reason why we don't have nice things yet, as he and many others fails to comprehend the genius of others ....or do any more than basic math!
@73dodgedartsport you can't "human error" the weight a scale will read. You could generate peaks by accelerating weight up and down with jerking movements but an accurate measure should be attainable.
The answer: The prof in the old vid isn't just lifting the gyro, he's spinning on his feet, turning the gyro in the same direction it would precess. That creates torque opposite the torque gravity caused by gravity. If you were to carefully measure the gyro's initial (kinetic energy + gravitational potential energy) + work done by the spinning/lifting professor, the sum would be equal to the gyro's kinetic + gravitational potential at the top of the lift - energy lost to friction. As many, many comments below have states, this kid's experiment was poorly done.
Prof. Laithwaite wasn't lifting the gyro, the gyro was lifting itself because the professor was accelerating its precessional motion . as others have said . please re run the experiment under the same conditions the prof did
You’re saying if he lifted the gyro on the machine he built at an increasing acceleration we would see the weight increases well, right? He doesnt need to replicate the og experiment, just change his approach.
Also, Laithwaite said (34:40) "...make a body APPEAR to be lighter than it is..." He knew the mass had not changed, it was the MOTION, the TORQUE and INERTIA that make it "appear" lighter. No mystery, just something that appears (visually) counter-intuitive.
Now I agree with you. He couldn't lift a 40 pound plate straight up, but when he threw it forward, the forward force actually turned to upward force and helped him lift it up.
The gyro effect allowed him to increase the distance travelled during the lift as he circled it around him he increased the mechanical advatage similar to rolling it up a mild incline over several feet instead of lifting directly opposite gravitation force
I dont think he explained why it doesnt fall though did he lol. And where is the increase in weight you might expect to see when lifted. Doesnt show in the data. And that data looks like a signwave.
1st of all you should learn what a photon is and then you should learn about kinetic energy. Then you should go and peel out in your car until it catches traction. Then maybe you'll understand half of what's actually happening.
I was going to call out your entire experiment for being completely off track from what you were supposed to test....Then after looking at comments I see EVERYONE called you out already. So yeah.
@@frogsoda Attenborough on tv a few weeks ago with giant trilobite 'said it was 400 MYO' . Yet Darwin's meticulous research on worms proves they make topsoil at one inch in five years so if Earth is ancient where is the 80million inches of topsoil?
As an undergraduate, I was fortunate to attend a lecture by Prof Laithwaite. A great showman, he later acknowledged that gyroscopes behave fully in accord with Newtonian mechanics.
Glad to hear he recanted, I always thought he made a damned fool of himself with this gyroscope claim. It takes a good scientist of integrity to correct himself so good for him.
@@phaturtha216 He's saying he came to a better understanding of the physics. That doesn't make him a fraud. In the video he was applying a lateral force that pivoted around his body, that is an applied moment about the axis of his body, with a gyroscope an moment on one axis creates a resultant moment about an orthogonal axis, that is why it rotated upwards, the rotation seems like lift because of the pivot constraint but it is in fact a rotational force (a moment).
If you add weight to a precessing gyroscope, it precessing faster. The really intriguing question (and likely answer to "How did Dr. Laithwaite lift the gyroscope?") is: Does manually increasing the procession speed reduce the measured weight of the gyroscope? I suspect Dr. Laithwaite swung the gyroscope to increase the precession speed thereby simulating the effect of removing weight.
As mentioned below you did not include the weight at rest. Another thing, spin the wheel in the opposite direction but make it rotate the same direction as before
You did not lift it in the same manner that Lithaweight did. You had a fixed point from which the axis was. His was slightly offset from the axis which caused the gyroscope to climb.
"while the experiment was a success but it didn't support Laithwaite claims" Prof. Laithwaite wasn't lifting the gyro, the gyro was lifting itself because the professor was accelerating its precessional motion. The setup of your experiment including position of load cells is quiet wrong. Only one load cell is needed and must be positioned on the gyros arm, between swivelling point and the gyro. Gyro not spinning = full weight Gyro spinning and naturally precessing = zero weight forcing precession speed = negative weight
That is what I failed to explain correctly in my comment. This experiment did not add the energy to the system as the professor had. During acceleration of the precession a negative weight (lift) is produced. Our small balsa wood box did not raise 12 feet into the air because of "magic". lol Our experiment failed because of limitations of the batteries available at the time. And since it relied upon constant positive velocity precession, the batteries just could not hold up very long. We moved on before we attempted any directional control of the "flight". Basically, we created a cube shaped powderless bottle rocket which went skyward until the entire object began to precess. lol Plus, it had to be rebuilt after every attempt. When the gyro and box equalized, the weight of both become added to gravity's pull and the end result was the box and Earth trying to occupy the same space at the same time. lol But you could still see it fighting the fall in a way as it always impacted the ground on the same side of the box. These same effects can be seen in satellites today. I may be incorrect, but I believe all cube-sats utilize gyroscopic control. They can change speed and direction very rapidly.
ink800ify Uh Oh, I smell a flat earther. At least the terminology is similar. Tell you what, as soon as this is either of our videos, we will remove it. Until then, deal with the fact that issues regarding this experiment have been stated.
Holy crap I didn't even think of that! Here I am searching searching the internet for an answer to this mystery and the whole time that guy was ACCELERATING the precession! Still though, it's pretty cool. I'm sure you could find a good use for such a phenomenon. Thank you for this comment.
Claudio Adrian Zanardi, you are wrong. Accelerating the precession does not make the gyro lighter at all. The acceleration of the precession was for maintaining the bar horizontal while lifting it, but all the weight of the gyro was still in the hand of Laithwaite.
@@loligagger85 I agree. Many people in this thread seem to think he did not answer the correct question. This is ridiculous as he answered the question HE proposed which is the point of a scientific experiment. Make a hypothesis, ask questions and then build an experiment to answer just those questions. People seem to think that science should only answer the questions they want answered.
I'm with ANIMAL MOTHER DK. See the Laithwaite lecture where he has a small boy try to lift the heavy weight. He can't. He then sets him in a swivel chair, revs up the weight, has him grab the far end and the boy can slowly twirl the weight up and over his head! This is the mystery. Don't argue guys. Submit experiments that will solve this mystery. Volunteer to try these out. Leave the cute jokes out. Be nice to the uneducated. Work together and men can do anything. (Oops, women too.) The Ithaca physics student's experiment was worthy, but he (and others) should try it himself with a weight too heavy for him to lift without spinning it. I'd be interested in his results then. Cheers.
In one of the experiments performed, Laithwaite had a child of 11 or 12 do the same experiment while tied to a platform free to rotate. the child was unable to lift the mass off the floor, let alone lift it above his head! But with the rotor mass spinning, not only was the child able to lift the mass, he was able to lift it above his head! Of course, the child was rotating due to the gyro precession. The demonstration showed the child was able to use less force to lift the spinning mass, than when the mass was not spinning. If you watch the entire video of the gyros, you will see the secret that Laithwaite wants you to discover! Not many do, even after watching repeatedly!
rigidity and precession is how he did it. He could lift the weight easily if he lifted from the centre of mass, it is the bar that makes it look much harder. With rigidity of the gyro lifting the end is the same as lifting from the centre. precession is the reason it rotates. he is not swinging it, the gyro is swinging him!
@@gnorty _________________Yes actually he is. He swings it (more accurately he "pushes" it) in the same direction as the precession. It's that force that causes it to lift. If he had done the reverse and pushed against the precession the wheel would have been very difficult to move and it would be trying to go toward the ground...and yes, it would feel very, very heavy.
The "ease" with which 40 lbs is lifted can be totally attributed to the stability of the gyroscope. Hold a weight over your head and back up against a wall so the weight is just touching the wall and it will seem a lot easier to hold it there than if there was not a wall to stabilize it. The precessing gyro might seem unstable but it is a predictable motion that your muscle coordination is not trying to combat to keep stabilized.
@Score Mix ______________________In the original film he was using his right hand to push the bar holding the weights in the direction of the precession, making it go faster than it normally would. He wasn't using his right hand as the center.
Short answer....no. It has mass, it has weight. Gyroscopic precession is providing the vertical force. Now, to watch the video. P.S....I had my own unique experience with this phenomenon. I built a small (13" ) RC speedboat with a high RPM outrunner motor (35,000+ rpm range). The motor's rotating outer can and magnets created so much gyroscopic force that precession would drive the bow down underwater turning to port, or lift the bow and force a spin-out turning to starboard. I did not expect this in the least. I had to reduce voltage and run it slower to make the forces manageable, and thus the boat driveable.
I think it's time you or I applied for a job at Ithaca universtiy department of physics. Is this really the state of the nation or are we being trolled?
Well if I understood Laithwaite; he was looking for the explanation as to why it seems that the gyroscope is cancelling the effects of gravity when it is spun up to 2000rpm.
Actually what he said was that the center of mass is shifted. Your experiment proves the weight while precessing shifts to the pivot point. Useful forces.
soon as you showed us a few seconds of the imperial video I think I figured this out. The reason why the 40lb weight on a pole is impossibly heavy is that it is at the end of a pole. If it wasn't on a pole most men could lift it above their head without much difficulty. The spinning gyroscopic effect + the G force of the performer swinging it around them like an Olympic hammer both counter the downward force. They only need to defeat the massive leverage acting on his wrist, they do not need to make the 40lb of true weight disappear.
Just not true though, so u didn't 'figure it out after a few seconds'! That's pretty damn arrogant of you. That man could not of lifted that weight In any fashion with such ease without the gyro! You should of concentrated for more than a 'few seconds and you would of seen how much effort it took him to weigh it using 'both hands!!!
@@BLUEGENE13 actually from watching other videos of Dr. L, my understanding is that the rotation around a central point is called procession and if you inrease the speed of this rotation the gyro rises. This is what Dr. L did by turning around, procession occured in this experiment but no 'lift' because the speed of rotation around the central point (the sensor) remained constant.
@@jasonmanuel6480 jesus how did i know you'd argue with me on this. it has zero percent at all to do with the speed. You aren't a physicist, i'm at least a physics student. it traces the same path, you can see it. "In the original experiment the gyro was not lifted straight up. It rose gradually on an angle as he rotated." That statement is incorrect. And 11 not too bright people agree. You can literally see in the video of "Dr.L" his hand, at one end of the pole, rises in an essentially vertical path. The mere fact you think and said this "and if you inrease the speed of this rotation the gyro rises". Settles once and for all you're knowledge of the laws of physics. edit: to be clear, before you argue with me. It has nothing to with the speed of the bar, not the gyroscope.
@@BLUEGENE13 I never claimed to be a physicist, though I have studied it a number of times. I'm pretty sure this topic isn't covered in any of my texts. I'm not arguing anything, just making an observation.... based on what I have been told by a physicist.
@@jasonmanuel6480 what physicist. You're obviously lying to me, you did not discuss this topic with a physicist. If you HAD discussed the topic with a physicist he would of told you the best understanding of what's going on, which many people believe is mainly involved with torque, not speed whatsoever. edit: ya and my point is, is your observation is wrong.
There's a lot happening here. When a force, the action, is applied sideways to a gyroscope the resultant gyroscopic reaction is 90 degrees from that force. The force being applied here is gravity so the result is the apparent float of the spinning wheel. An equal force to gravity applied at 90 degrees to the force of gravity. In other words, the gyroscope is holding itself up by its own action. As the high rpm wheel spins the force is directed sideways by 90 degrees and there is a precession that occurs as shown by the gyroscope rotating around the experimenter. If precession is increased as in being given a push by the experimenter then the gyroscope will rise due to the added energy from the push. However, if a force is applied against the precession then the gyroscope will fall. What makes the apparatus feel lighter than a feather is the energy added from a push to the precession giving the gyroscope added upward boost it will tend to rise from that added energy. The weight doesn't change it's just that a not so apparent source of energy is used to do the lifting. One experiment to try at home is to get a gyroscope and once spinning give it push and see what happens.
This may be a bit off topic :) but I thought some one might find it interesting. :) I have an idea for a lifting force machine. Step 1: Get hollowed out cube. Step 2: Securely attach magnet to inner bottom of hollowed out cube. Step 3: Place a lever on inside bottom of cube behind the magnet that's securely attached to inside bottom of cube so that one side of the lever is pointing towards you and hanging over the magnet. Step 4: Attach a vertical bar to the top side of the part of the lever that is not hanging over magnet witch is securely attached to inner bottom of cube. Make sure the bar goes all the way up to the inner top of the cube barley touching it. Step 5: Securely attach a magnet to the side of the lever that is hanging over the magnet that is attached to the inner bottom of cube. Note: Magnets need to be facing each other with attracting poles N,S or S,N Note: The lever is going to have to be really close to the magnet on inner bottom of cube because of how close those magnetic fields need to be to interact. But not so close that magnets can touch. The magnet on top connected to lever is pulling the magnet on inner bottom of cube towards it and since the magnet on inner bottom of cube is connected to cube, this pulling force acts as a lifting force. Now at the same time the magnet on inner bottom of cube is pulling the magnet on top downwards BUT the magnet on top is connected to the lever so any downwards pulling force is being converted mechanically by the lever into upwards lifting force. Now if you know anything about magnets you now that there are magnets powerfull enough to lift far more weight then just there own. So essentially this divice is exploiting the powerfull pulling force of magnets by mechanicaly transforming its magnetic pulling force into mechanical lifting force through the clever utilization of a lever, and walla stuff can be made to fly. Imagine if the magnets in this experiment where electro magnets so the ammount of electrical current going into them determined the ammount of lifting force that it would have. Now imagine this system being used as an attachment that could be placed under or ontop of vehicles to counter the weight of the vehicle and any cargo its carying. Now imagine if this was done with powerfull permanent magnets and turned sideways and placed in an electric generator and had enough strength to pass through the magnetic fields as it propelled itself forwards with its own magnetic pulling force. Signed Adam McKenzie Anderson Extra Note: If anyone uses my ideas for none profitable means great I hope it helps but if they are used to gain profit in any way I want 25% of anything that comes out of it please. :) My EMail is starfire7654321@yahoo.com
Adam, you might benefit by learning about a "free body diagram". This consists of something like a "circle" drawn around an object. The "circle" could represent an invisible three-dimensional balloon, or something similar, which simply isolates the object. Drawing vectors that represent all forces acting on the object should then accurately represent/define what the object will do as a result of those forces acting on it. Vectors are not complicated.
@@ethanezrahite1800 So people should be happy to accept the mediocre? Would it be considered ok to conduct science with an attitude of oh the words were close enough so it will do. If someone corrects your spelling or grammar then consider it a learning moment and not an insult. It is indicating the poster did not spend any time double checking their work. If an engineer built a bridge and did not double and triple check their work what do you think the outcome would be? Tech these days makes it almost impossible to accidentally make a spelling or grammar faux pas. Those red lines under words are there for reason.
How is it a myth though? Just because it doesnt weigh less doesnt mean it will feel and act lighter which it obviously did, and was recreated by veritasium.
The myth was that it could not be explained by Newton's laws, but it clearly can. This was a measurement to see if the weight of the gyroscope changed when it was spinning and when it began to precess, which it clearly did not. It was not "light as a feather" -- the weight did not change at all. Only the appearance of the weight. Again, see Veritaserum's video: ua-cam.com/video/tLMpdBjA2SU/v-deo.html&
@@IthacaCollegePhysics It seems that Professor Laithwaite added a torque with the motion of his body, whereas you let your gyro spin freely after burning the string. Can you think of a way to add the Laithwaite-body torque in your experiment? Let me know if you conduct additional tests. Regards, physicist at large.
@@IthacaCollegePhysics I think the point was missed completely. The professor was not literally stating that the device became lighter. He was using that as an analogy. What he was actually saying is that it becomes as easy for him to lift as a feather(an obvious embellishment). Your experiment is measuring the completely wrong force. With the setup you have, you should measure the difference(if any) in torque required to be applied to the threaded rod to lift the gyroscope while stationery, spinning, and spinning while processing. This would tell you if it is actually easier to lift like the professor states.
A related effect can be had much more simply with something like a 2-bladed ceiling fan, where the long blades give a lot of gyroscopic effect, even though the RPM is low. When off (not spinning), you can with equal ease move the bottom of the fan in a circle around the motor axis, either clockwise or counterclockwise. But when the fan is on and spinning, there suddenly becomes a difficulty with circling in one direction, even though it is still easy in the other direction. Reverse the fan motor and the direction with difficulty switches as well. [Ceiling fans with 4 blades can usually have 2 opposing blades removed rather easily.]
Interesting experiment but you didn’t investigate how ladweith managed to lift the weight up over his head single handedly. Do you suggest he is lying.
The answer is simply a part of gyroscopic precession. If you speed up a gyro's precession speed it will try to precess UPWARD, so if you're trying to lift it at the same time it will appear to be much easier. Did you notice, just before the professor lifts, that he gives the bar a LITTLE extra spin speed?
the conclusion supports the fact that eric was tricking the audience, you fucking idiot. it is not easier to lift, that was the point, but it seems everyone in the comment section is dumb as fuck. no wonder trump is president. you got conned!
@@bubbahogg-buga4613 it's you that's dumb because the experiment been done many times with other people on UA-cam who all show it's easyer to lift over your head when spinning
I think what's happening here is that the gyroscope transforms the torque he needs to hold the stick level into a linear force and therefore completely transforms the way the load feels. You would never be able to lift 40 pounds on such a long rod, 40 pounds at no leverage is more realistic (but still a lot). Maybe there is something else to it...
The experiment by Ithaca is not a comparison with Eric Laithwaites experiment. Eric uses forced precession in his experiment. A true comparison would be more scientific.
Ithaca has just plain not reproduced the Laithwaite experiment. It's so obvious. He clearly accelerates the gyro around its axis (and around his body), this is a torque, and it goes up. He then decelerates it (as he turns back to face us) and the gyro falls. This precession is interpreted as anti-gravity -it's not. The angle the gyro makes is a function of the rotational speed (around the Eric axis). It changes this angle during acceleration and deceleration. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. The potential energy increase, because the whole mass is raised, has come from the energy, the torque, put in to accelerate it in a circle (around the Eric axis). If you notice, and this is quite subtle, as he slows himself from rotating so much, a torque in the other direction, the gyro falls, he has to actively pull it back because it's returning this energy now and wanting to carry on. Again no energy is destroyed -it has been returned as torque. The electric drill and it's screw mechanism in your video is completely pointless.
I think a lot of people think that there's something wonderful because the gyro has a rotating mass in it. I think of a gyro as a passive converter. In a steady rotating state (Eric keeps turning and he's getting dizzy) it is merely converting the centrifugal force of pulling the mass in a circular orbit to an upward angular force (ALevel students know this as a moment). It's totally logical if you change the rate of rotation then you will change the upward angular force so the angle changes (either rises above his head or falls). It is merely passively converting one torque to another. If Eric turns the other way it will try to point downwards to the floor. We would interpret that as it getting heavier. It's not. The additional moment is now downwards. Everyone is obsessed with linear motion - none of this is. I suppose it's like many people can't understand that voltage and current in a circuit do not have to be simultaneous (sorry if this sounds wild but power generation companies famously charge big bucks to industrial consumers if they're not). I'm an Electronic Engineer and I understand gyros fully -surely you guys should ?
Tom I didn't bother to read Mr, Goodman comment but I did see yours. a battery there is voltage even it is not connected anywhere. Thus voltage(Potential difference between two points) exists without current(flow of charge with respect to time) but current doesn't exist without voltage
mob slapper Mr goodman made the statement that "voltage and current in a circuit do not need to be simultaneous". By definition a circuit implies current flow. So I asked what he meant in order to understand his comments on torque conversion
Laithwaite didn't claim anti gravity. He used to do this demonstration as part of a wider lecture that was about his work on linear magnetic motors. He was talking about converting forces to allow movement. People use the clips to try and claim anti gravity, but it was all about forces.
It is not the weight that changes man.. In fact it actually remains the same. The reason why it feels lighter and he can lift it is because he no longer has to support the MOMENT OF FORCE produced due to the weight which is being balanced by the precession of the gyroscopic wheel.
Mohit, can you make a vector description of why in the opposite side of the pole the weight is reduce to x% of the weight, I would guest less than 10%. The giro, is creating lift in the opposite site of the pole while is rotating
First of all we have to understand that when we have to lift the setup from an end, we have to counter the moment of that weight(which is quite large) . Now as the wheel starts rotating very fast, that moment gets balanced by precession. Its not that the WEIGHT increases or decreases at the end or rear. This is why the total weight remains the same on a weighing scale. In fact, in our everyday life, we have very little experience of gyroscopic precession and it's effects, so it is a bit hard to imagine only weight without its moment or any other effect.
@PikPobedy why and how are interchangeable in that context you pinecone, Understand the idea before you run your mouth about lessons you dont understand, and of course im a youtube physicist and philosopher, you have added nothing to the discussion and we have both wasted our time entertaining your keyboard dribble, press onward you bag of waste
Yep. Lesbian Dance Theory and Gender Studies are FAAAAAAR more important than actual science these days. We live in a post-fact society where telling the truth gets you banned from social media, fired from your job, and even thrown in jail because the politically correct whackadoodles WILL have you respect feelz over realz - By FORCE if necessary.
If you study what Laithwaite did then I would suggest that what the gyroscopic action does is to move the centre of gravity of the apparatus. To lift a 40lb weight, at the end of a 3 foot pole and keep it horizontal would be massive effort. Clearly when it is spinning and free to precess the centre of gravity must move to the point of suspension and thus changes it to a straight lift which seems very easy in comparison.
The issue is that the gyroscope produces a rotational force not a lifting force. It only looks like a lifting force because the rotational force in concert with the pivot causes a torque force to lift the gyroscope. But the weight never changed.
What happened was, he took advantage of the spin when he pushed the rod in a certain diretion it *felt* weightless along the vertical axis BECAUSE he added energy into the system along a horizontal axis, by pushing it in the horizontal direction, which created a torque 90degrees later with respect to the weight's rotation axis, so ... upward how to replicate : ditch the center lifting axis, mount the gyroscope on a hinge that goes up and down, that is then mounted to a rod that rotates horizontally. on top of the rod, put a servo, which is fixed. place a string onto the gyro and tie it to the support structure. spin the gyro. burn the string then actuate the servo 360 degrees. repeat experiment again, this time switch the direction of rotation of either the servo or the gyro predicted outcome: in one of the 2 cases, the gyro will lift up vertically even though no vertical force was applied to it. thus explaining why if you did this, you'd feel it weightless (not massless, because it would still have inertia). You'd feel it going above your head weightless because you just stored energy into it by giving it a good push along the horizontal axis, that gradually takes effect along the vertical axis as it's slowly spinning above your head
@Kriss Kringle You are using English words, but I don't have any idea what you are saying. What does "rotation gravity and friction of the wheel" mean? How did you measure the weight of the wheel? What is "the gravity well"?
@@sirgoatofcheese it means jack and shit uttered by an uneducated hobo. The gyro simply counteracts the torque, which removes most of the muscle strain required to hold such a thing off its center of mass. You still need to support the 40lb weight force but you don't have additional torque acting on your hand, which makes it dramatically easier to hold.
Laddie, you missed the best part. The 40 lb. gyro was easy to lift not because spinning made it weigh less. The spinning allowed the professor to push it upward along an inclined plane like a screw, instead of a shorter path straight up. He performed the same work, but used less power over a longer time.
Gyroscopes have been in use for years. Used in ships to stabilize the ship. Used in guidance packages, and the effect is what makes motorcycles very stable. The weight never changes, but it's rotational forces wants it to stay in one position.
Yes, it "feels" lighter doesn't mean it has less weight. Sadly it seems a great portion of the population are simply too stupid to understand physics properly.
I met Eric many decades ago and asked him what would happen if he performed this experiment while standing on bathroom scales. His answer wasn't what I expected and made me think about the physics of gyroscopes in a way that I hadn't before. I'm sure he would approve of your experiment.
The point my good fellow, is that the gentle person hoisted such a tremendous weight, with little to no exertion on his part, employing the spinning properties of the wheel alone.
Yes, a lot of thought went into the test apparatus, but the hypothesis wasn't very well developed. Cool machine, though. It also boils down to how you define "weightless". Hint: Notice how the gyroscope and handle stay at the same orientation while being moved upwards. It's not so much that it becomes weightless...
It's an extraordinary claim that needs further explanation beyond the scope of your experiment. Namely, WHY does it APPEAR that rotational energy or force can lessen the perceived weight or gravitational force, of a spinning body. I suspect it could be that rotational energy, because of the upward part of the rotation, could be helping to lift the object so that it takes less applied upward force to lift the spinning body. I would have liked to see your experiment explore that possibility by measuring the necessary force to lift a spinning body vs a body at rest. But all in all this was an interesting and inspired experiment. Thanks for posting this video.
This identical experiment was performed at sydney university in 2001 using the same weight and length bar but with a right angle 15 cm length off the handle, this 15cm right angle handle has a 5cm steel ball welded to it. it fits it the cup of your hand. we used gloves with force meters imbedded and when the experiment was run every time. .......it took only 2kg of force to lift the 15kg spinning wheel. EVERY TIME, we couldnt stop the entire shaft from spinning and the only time the full 15kg force meter maxed out was when the user fought against the gyro spin but if you just let it do its thing while resting in the cup of your hand, there is almost no effort needed to raise the 15kg gyro wheel. because you anchored the string and end of shaft, the gyro has no free movement and it MUST be allowed to gyrate freely to exert no effort to raise the wheel. this is concept of proof in the original experiment as its imossible for the old guy to lift this weight one handed above his head. we had a female in our class, very petite and only maybe 50kg. she was unable to lift the wheel more than ankle height with both hands, but once spun and placed in her gloved hand, she could one handed lift this over her head and hold it there as long as the ball in her hand was allowed to rotate in her hand. as soon as she sqeezed her hand around the ball to stop the shaft from rotating, the entire device became heavy and would fall like a weight untill she released her grip on the ball. the force meter at rest measured 15 kg. when raised from knee height to over head hight in a second, should have registered some G force and made the 15kg device weight 30kg but it didnt register any extra g force to raise the device. the person then held it over her head, and when shaft had rotated past her head, she quickly lowered her hand to knee level which we determined a 15kg weight falling from 1 meter will exhibit a weight of 30kg at the lowest point of the drop, but while holding the gyro device, the girl could drop it it and stop it at any level height with ease and the glove still didnt register anything over 17kg. None of the class was impressed as we thought weight is weight and gravity is gravity and we cant change that.....till we had a go ourselves. its litterally effortless. blind fold tests were done. a similar ball was weighted with 7 kg weight and two class members were blindfolded one had the ball with 7 kg placed in his hand and girl had the spinning device placed in her hand and the goal was to hold your arm out straight.....hold the ball and see who could hold up their device longer.......evey single person was able to hold the device till it slowed enough to lose gyro, while nobody was able to hold the dead 7kg out in the same manner for more than a few seconds with out fatiguing and dropping the weight. so design an experimant to disprove these findings.
Experiment doesn't take the orbital movement of Laithwaite's hand as he pulled the "gyro" around and over his head. He did not pick it straight up, as in your experiment.
@Russ Gallagher Wrong. It's not just torque. The downward force of the object is less because it's own rotational energy is throwing it up into the air when it is spun. People keep saying, "Wow, kudos to him for being able to live 40 pounds straight up!" Uh, no. He can't do that. He doesn't have the physical capacity. Veritasium dude could BARELY do it. This old guy? No way. Again, the wheel's own momentum caused it to be flung upward in a smooth continuous fashion as he spun. It lost momentum, gained elevation, and energy was conserved. Mass did not change. "Weight" may or may not have changed depending on how you define that term.
If you actually watch his royal institution lecture, he concluded after many demonstrations that the weight was transferred to the pivot point. In this instance the pivot point is where his hand is holding the barbell.
The overarching point (and useful information) is that a gyroscope pushes the weight of the spinning wheel in equal directions. This has many useful applications in mechanical stabilization. If you wanted to get a large heavy wheel into space using the maximum efficiency, spinning it would decrease the overall force needed to get that thing into space, as opposed to it's being stationary.
Angular momentum is preserved so spinning provides orientation stability. Spin stabilization is often used during launches. However it does not require more or less energy to lift a spinning object into space than a stationary object. The equipment and fuel necessary to induce the desired spinning might add weight to a payload, additional weight might also be required to stop spin.
@@dorbie - The "weight loss" occurs because of the momentum. Once that thing is pushed in a direction, it will resist a change in that same direction (if the angular momentum is dynamically efficient). This will allow the extra weight of the gyroscope itself to (once lifted) assist in propulsion, as the speed of the gyroscope spinning will potentially be relative to propulsion, if the total mass of the "wheel" spinning is sufficient.
@@hybridamerica As I said elsewhere in the comments, the conservation of angular momentum is the root cause of the 90 degree torque force. However there is no direct lifting force. It is a moment about the pivot point that converts the 90 degree torque to lift and this requires a tethered constraint. If you want to test this, then simply try the experiment without tethering the gyro at the base. You can ensure the gyro pivots about its own CG using a cage. When you try this you get no lift, and no change in weight and minimal work to apply yaw. It is the rotational moment about the constraint that converts torque and demands energy of the system to raise the mass. You know the energy is delivered via yaw forces as these will demand more yaw work the longer the lever arm (axle) is and the greater the required rise in elevation (potential energy required).
Thanks for supporting the establishment, we really, really appreciate all your work. Can't have any pesky inventors making new discovery's in this area- as it would destroy our monopoly on the Truth.
A simpler way of stating the outcome of the experiment at Ithaca College, would be to say that if Laithwaite had been standing on a scale while holding the spinning 40lb gyro with one hand, Laithwaite would registered an additional 40lb on the scale. Many of the comments I've read regarding the Ithaca College experiment have to do with the lack of explanation of why the gyro can transfer the effect of it's mass while in contact with another object.
While spinning a gyroscope is weightless. But any movement of its supporting shaft will be transmitted through the bearing to make contact and cause the weight to act on the shaft and cause precession. But immediately a new stable position of the shaft is found the force will be removed and the gyro will be weightless again. The speed and weight of the gyro are what gives the precession which is why the gyros for tank gun stabilisation are very heavy.
it wasn't easy for him to lift. look at the strain and his hand position as he lefts. The illusion is that we expect there to be a lot of leverage at the lifting point which a gyroscope cancels. I think, hahahahahaha
The reason it seems lighter is because the weight is on one side, the hand closest to the weight has to pull up weight and the furthest hand has to push down to cancel out the moment of the weight to the other hand. Because of the second downwards force it becomes even greater to compensate
Too bad you missed the details of the Laithwaite demonstration and proved once again garbage in equals garbage out. May i suggest finding better professors that can teach critical thinking.
We have become a society that avoids conflict. Conflict is a means of correcting corrupted input. While it is harsh it's become necessary or we just continue degrading our society with sugar coated bullshit.
@@thatoneguy-rp7dh I couldn't disagree with anything more. Critisism and objections can be done in a civil and respectful manner and they also are much more effective this way. Cutting someone down with harsh degrading language only causes people to dig their heels in and refuse to acknowledge their wrong doing even if the evidence presented is indisputable. In other words, an advanced logic minded society doesn't act like an episode of Jerry Springer.
@@gearhead1302 I don't think what he said is as extreme as you make it out to be. And I somewhat agree with what you said. Where I disagree with your statement is that harsh language isnt banter, it's strong negative reinforcement. And when harsh language is banter then it's abusive which is bad in the way you mention it. I don't think society should be taking away negative reinforcement from our speech because someone might get their feathers ruffled(the more extreme the language the more upset a person may get which isn't favorable). For someone to not be ignorant they have to be accepting to all forms of speech because humans naturally find things that go against their ideas and beliefs offensive.
Eric Laithwaite was supporting 40 lbs of force vertically throughout his demonstration, with gravity introducing a torque couple in the vertical plane on the gyro to cause precession in the horizontal plane, just as your lab analysis shows . Point missed was that he also was applying an ever so slight torque couple in the horizontal plane, generating a small value of precession in the vertical plane (gyro travelling upwards), which requires no additional vertically applied force to accomplish. What is witnessed in the Laithwaite film is the summation of the torques in the vertical and horizontal planes resulting in the resultant precessional trajectory with horizontal and vertical components.
As apprentices in shipyard, early teen. We did similar by 1 inch bar 3feet long. and a large heavy ball race on its end . Using a high pressure. Air hose , blew the grease out of the ballrace . Feeling the torque of the high speed spinning weight . You can even feel it with bicycle wheel on it spindle . At high speeds.
Reality check !!! The source experiment showed he could lift the spinning wheel above his head with ease..., but motionless he could not. Why do you deny that ??
He didn't deny it, he tested the claim with a science experiment. The experimental results refuted the claim. Why do you deny the scientific results. Seems to me you are doing exactly what you accuse him of. Simply denying science despite the evidence.
To correct his experiment, he should have added a motor to the apparatus to add acceleration to the shaft in the direction of rotation to simulate the push-off the original video shows. That would answer the question of whether or not the added force in rotation converted to upward lift that actually reduced the weight measured by the scale. It would be interesting to see what difference it made if the motor had a constant energy applied or a quick boost that simulates the professors movements. In the Veritasium video note that when he lifted the weight up over his head there was no change in the scale. If he had not lifted the weight up and just left its movement dictate where it went, would the scale have gone down? If you are holding a 40 lbs weigh and lift it higher, it takes more force from your muscles. In the experiment, it doesn't take more energy from your muscles, just continuing the same force causes the weight to go higher and the scale to remain close to constant.
It would be easy to lift that amount of weight if you were swinging it around by spinning in a circle fast. The motion of the spinning wheel spinning on the end of the bar simulates this same effect by transferring the angular motion through the bar allowing you to lift the same amount of weight without you yourself having to spin as fast. The weight of the bar, (object) therefore remains the same, you’re just able to lift it without spinning as fast as you would be able to otherwise.
If gravity is pulling down on the gyroscope (or simple spinning top) but its centre of gravity is at the base over to the side, then OF A NECESSITY the force that the spinning wheel is generating (or rather how it is transferring the forces of gravity it experiences into other directions) is creating a force identical to what it would be if there were ANOTHER gyroscope on the other side, but both being half as heavy. Adding the forces simulates the wheel being balanced above.
If the old man had tried the same manoeuvre in the opposite direction the wheel would have appeared to weigh more like 80 pounds, and would have hit the ground.
Okay, as a number of people have pointed out, while the technical method might be "correct", it failed to answer the question of why E.L. was able to lift the mass as he did. I would then be wondering if perhaps we should try this with greater and lesser masses to determine if we might be seeing a non-linear effect. For example, angular momentum of a rotating body might not create a linear effect under some circumstances- it might be squared or cubed like some fields. Doubling the mass might produce four times the effect instead of a linear result. So in a really realistic simulation, the mass might be required to be close to what E.L. was using. But the vector composition of the forces is far more likely to be why he could lift the spinning mass- precession produces forces at right angles to the applied torque.
the correct setup for experiment would have been more like this. weight/force sensor attached to the end of the rotor cage to measuring the force and the shaft end mounted to a pivot point that can turn to simulate how he swung it above his head (Sensor) (gyro) ______shaft_________(pivot point ) your setup wasn't even close to what he did.
I would have tested this experiment by using a large heavy wheel like mr Laithwaite whilst standing on a set of bathroom scales to see if my weight changed as I was holding first the stationary wheel and then the spinning wheel, Also, and I'm not sure about this, but maybe this phenomenom could be explained by maths using vectors and centrifugal forces.
Laithwaite was turning the gyroscope against the procession. when he couldn't turn (above his head) it it became heavier. it's much easier to swing a 10kg hammer, than to lift it.
A few issues with this , if you do as he did and “guide” the direction in which it already wants to go you’ll notice the gyro will want to go up, this is what he meant. In the same manner if you go against the desired direction of the gyro it will go down. By not adding energy to the natural mechanism of the gyro it doesn’t do anything interesting but add to what it’s already doing and it will begin to express some funny things. As well if you tie a string on the far end from the gyro on the end of the pole, and spin the string around making the gyro rotate on its axis it also will do something spectacular. I am no physicist and don’t claim to be what I am not is a fool and experimenting with these things in the manner that laithwaite did you will realize these things are trying to tell us something in the simplest language.
I'm no PhD physicist, but when a whole organization literally tries to tell the world they know things, like they know what light is for example, and then you realize by the simplest means, that this mainstream paradigm was proven wrong from where it last left the whole way back to its farce of a founding, then you look deeper and see that the model of the atom we are all still taught, was proven wrong when you were 9...and now your 29 just figuring that out, WHILE remembering school taught you this the year before you graduated at 17, and how your physics teacher yelled at you for questioning it long before it being proven wrong by "experts" dude....seriously. after all that, you realize PhDs don't mean sh*t accept that you swallowed up yesterday's puke to regurgitate it into tomorrow (the proverbial ignorant baby bird who doesnt know how to fly ((US)) eats it and takes it in) so that they can further obfuscate and dilute the truth, and this all happens by their agnosis. This delves into an even deeper subject wich I may as well avoid. But basically, a PhD just means ya got a paper that says you do that, and your a professional at that. Anyone can pretend to be good at physics using math, but nobody can, or will make ANY discoveries wich are wholey true, and beyond our current understanding, by using only math, and without any actual observation of nature itself. They will make sh*t up like einstein did, and steal the sh*t that's not made up (just like einstein did) and use math, (namely peoples general illiteracy of it) to blend the truth into the lies as if they were one, and it worked so well, that here our species is now at a hexagonal crossroads, rather than a mere fork, driving a gas powered bus, and the only correct way to go is upwards. We need to not f**k up and play science like it's a game, or use it for purely selfish gain. It's for everyone to bask in the glory of, weather an individual developed it or not. Only weapons should be kept secret, and such weapons should either only ever be used soley by their creators, or be made not to exist ALONG with their creators AND wrongful users, and after use, the weapons should be recycled regardless, and rebuilt only when needed again. I'm no PhD, but I've been studying this stuff since I was 18, and I'm 29 now. Idgaf what they say anymore man. I didnt just start pretending to know everything after I got my "masters" degree. Thermodynamics is proven wrong on its utmost fundamental level. Their postulation of what the foundation of quantum physics is based on what light itself is, and how it operates, is literally broken on its face as its postulated by einstein. Idk if I've ever seen a prestigious quantum physicist invent anything, let alone invent it for the benefit of the earth or humanity. I've only ever seen them postulate falsehoods hubristically, and push those falsehoods on everything they possibly can. Ive only see them say things are impossible, and that things that are possible are undoable by us. They serve to hold our species back, and aside from those at the top ranks, they dont even realize it. Its literally a religion where math is god and einstein is jesus and imagination is the holy spirit, and everything else is lesser than, and left up to interpretation. They dont see it that way from the inside, but no brainwashed person ever sees their brainwashed situation as being a brainwashed one. They spent years doing math, testing, math, then testing on the math, then testing requiring math, then testing WHO'S answers direct the math towards the postulation's said formulas/expressions, then another test on what those formulas represent, then another test on the math pertaining to said formulas, then math, then testing, then more testing on math, then the formulas and what they mean and who made them and when and what happened around that....then more math...you see where I'm going with this. Brainwashing. Progress has to start with the people, because these rich, famous, celebrities dubbed physicists for their theories and their regurgitateable basic principles of physics wich they STILL explain using particle analogies. We are being severely wronged here, and it was planned a very long time ago to make it be this way. The people at the very top, or at least the scientists/physicists directly under them, know EXACTLY the SAME stuff I've been trying to tell people about, and they know the fact that we are all being taught useless convoluted B.S. is what puts them at the top.
Well thanks for mythbusting and all, but one could expect that the weight wouldn't change (the mass is the same, and we're still on earth right). But that's half of the job. But how come he was able to LIFT it ? Why does it "feel" lighter ? Plus, what is the reason for all these spikes on your graph ? If the weight is constant, there shouldn't be any. Perhaps you should have measured the force required to lift the system (the drill's force in your setup). Because this corresponds better to what the man is doing in the vidéo, it would have been relevant. It's nice to do some videos, but I think you were a bit quick and superficial in your treatment of the problem.
It feels lighter because he doesn't have to apply a counterproductive force with his outer hand. It feels lighter because he only has to apply a single force directly in the up direction.
My comment will probably be lost in the blizzard of replies but here goes nonetheless. Observing the Laithwait video you see that the professor strains to get the device up into position with both hands then once he lets go with his left hand, this allows the apparatus to to undergo precession and it appears to weigh much less than its physical weight. Once the apparatus has made a 360 revolution he must stop to reposition his wrist you then see him momentarily strain forcibly (his foot comes off the ground to counterbalance, otherwise he would fall under the weight of the apparatus). My thoughts are that the junior professor's experiment did not actually replicate the original experiment for it did measure the upward torquing force of the apparatus. It still weighs forty pounds regardless - all you have to do is repeat the experiment with the prof standing on a scale and you'd see that it hasn't decreased in weight. At the same time, this spinning weight is obviously supplying a gravity-counteracting force thus allowing him to handle it with just one hand. The angular force at his wrist is what the experiment should have measured. If Prof JR had set up a simple apparatus with a torque wrench and a bicycle wheel attached to a 3-foot rod then he'd be on the right track. This would be the proper approach, and in the interest of true science, someone needs to perform this just to answer the question - what is actually happening here?
You should instrument the flywheel and the housing that's it's contained in and the shaft/handle and explain where all the forces are to understand what is actually occurring.
He applied a rotation force that was converted to the lift force he referred to. You did not apply that force and therefore your result won’t be comparable.
exactly
An airplane doesn’t change its weight but it flies!
@@bradleyweiss1089 because airplanes have lift and thrust great enough to overcome their weight and drag. This experiment shows how bodies orbit each other in a system, the weight is trying to orbit the professor because of the torque/angular momentum it has, and it's connected to the bar he's holding so his hand became the pivot point that that torque is pushing against making the weight feel light to him (lets him hold it at an angle that would be impossible without the momentum) as it tries to rotate around him - actually you can see his body tense as if it still weighed the full 40lbs which it does.
@Scott Summers sorry words are hard for you to understand. I'm saying lift/drag are NOT the forces at play here. Put it in a vacuum it will behave the same way. Rotation =/= lift or thrust but it does expend energy as angular momentum so the bodies of the system will spin around each other. Good luck m8
@Scott Summers Here you'll be sure to understand this:
t(-.-)t
One critical thing you missed in your experiment is how Laithwaite didn't just allow the gyro to precess at it's natural rate, but (you can see it in his Christmas Lecture to the Royal Society) he accelerated the gyro in it's precession direction and that is when it got raised up by a spring in the axle. Can you add a feature to speed up the precession of your gyro (after burning the string) and report back? Very interesting work!
Yes, that's the point. I'm performing an experiment whereby the forced precession comes from within the device.
Here's a link to a video of my device whereby the torque reaction from the motor, spinning clockwise as seen from above, causes the device as a whole to spin counterclockwise, precessing the gyros. It was difficult to operate the device and video at the same time, also, I propose rebuilding it with two gyros. All forces are 'inside the box'. drive.google.com/file/d/1AyZ3WA1eJNvE3pT7MKu7KqSrSLpeV83R/view?usp=sharing
@@PERF0RMANCEMUSIC And is that actually producing lift with 3 gyros not sure from the clip if its lifting or just becoming unbalanced
The video is of 'progress' to date. I'm working on a better method of construction, eliminating the universal joints. The Model shown is vibrating a lot and doesn't lend itself to horizontal operation, re the pendulum test. It vibrated too much on the scales to judge if a lift had occurred. The torque reaction and precession are working mechanically, though.@@gges1605
Here is a link to a still picture and video of the new model without universal joints. The vibration is now much reduced but the device weighs five times as much as the combined weight of the gyros so I'm building one from thin plywood. Eric was possibly barking at the wrong tree by speaking of weight loss. A spinning gyro will be minutely heavier than a stationary one due to E=mc>2. What we are looking for is thrust. There was no thrust in my test so I'll try again with a lighter version. I am struggling to use the device horizontally regarding the pendulum test drive.google.com/drive/folders/1NoWw76xPfhRqcQPczXJh1fVJOpzzdHqs?usp=sharing@@gges1605
All you had to do was repeat the original experiment standing on a bathroom scale.
it has been done already on YT
I find it far more interesting to prove something by contradiction, than to replicate an experiment almost entirely.
@@BowTie8Bit then disprove it... take a machine with a known lifting limit..and this will cause it to lift twice the weight..case closed
And vertasium
Smart and simple solution.
I think that the phenomenon that Laithwaite experienced has to do with the "conservation of angular momentum". He wasn't so much *lifting* the weight of the rotor, as much as the energy from the rotor spinning around its own axis was transferred to Laithwaite as he pirouetted in place. As Laithwaite began to tilt the spinning rotor from the horizontal plane, it needed to transfer energy, and as he turned, the energy of the rotor was transferred through the shaft to him, in the form of torque and "pulling" on the horizontal plane. His body's mass largely negated the horizontal "pull", and his grip on the handle negated the torque. I think it would be *much* easier for a 175 lb.(or whatever) man to resist a 40 lb. horizontal pull than to do a 40 lb. lift.
It seems to me that this could be empirically tested in at least three ways:
1. Have a person replicate Laithwaite's experiment, but not directly grip the handle; instead have the interface between the shaft and the experimenter's hands be a torque meter.
2. Also, if my hypothesis is correct, the speed at which the experimenter turns in place should be critical, and would be set by the rotor (its mass and speed); the experimenter turning too fast or too slow should affect the ability to successfully replicate it.
3. Measure the loss of speed in the rotor both without being moved from the horizontal plane, and from Laithwaite's experiment. My guess is that in the latter, it will lose considerable speed because of transfer of energy to the experimenter, due to the conservation of angular momentum.
Spot on. Now that is physics. Well done
@@guitaraflamenco -- Thanks! Mind you, I don't have any training or background in physics (I never even took a physics class in high school), I was just trying to puzzle it out as best as I could.
@@bricology then you have amazing logic. Which I find more impressive
the gyro become weightless above certain speeds as it is only making point contact on its bearings and all its weight is being centrifuged outwards.
do the experiment but with a rotor made of strings of heavy beads.
At rest the beads will all hang downwards but as the rotor is spun the beads will all fling out by centrifugal force until eventually they put no weight on the shaft bearings.
Just think, you're smarter than the so called Dr in the video.
The mystery is not "what does it weigh?"
The mystery is "how could he lift it with such relative ease?"
Mystery not explained.
Danielle Strijdhaftig because some rotating energy is transferred to the bar helping to lift it up... a kind of power steering effect...
ua-cam.com/video/GeyDf4ooPdo/v-deo.html
PERPETUAL ROTATING MOTION .....Thats what a gyro does .... simple ..
RE-distribution of weight spinning around = live weight its moving .....in a circular motion
not dead as rest .....or propelling ,
Just a theory. The atoms are being stretched in time-space thus gravity goes around it though there is no weight but torque and the torque will be exactly equal to its weight or mass.
@@causwayspeedway don't be silly
I notice that people keep saying that Eric Laithwaite did not prove anti-gravity, but there seems to be confusion with free energy here. Laithwaite was not attempting to show a free energy devise. He was merely showing that the force vectors produced by the gyro and the energy his own arms provided changed directions to oppose gravity, just as an aircraft wing opposes gravity with lift...
In other words, the rotating mass vectors combine with the swinging arms created a vertical force vector that opposed gravitational force....This, by itself is amazing, because it's a type of lift we are talking about here, but it's not aerodynamic lift. It's lift created by taking the energy of the spinning gyro, and the energy Laithwaite himself provides in spinning around his axis, and changing the force vector directions to vertical, so as to oppose gravity.....He's not cancelling out gravity...He's not CREATING new energy...He's found a way to convert rotational energy to a different direction of those force vectors....
That really is a powerful idea...and is probably the way UFOs are propelled....Now we just have to solve the problem of obtaining the necessary energy....We demonstrate the principal here that the force vectors of a rotating mass can be re-directed. This is powerful stuff.
Yes, and this experiment demonstrated it perfectly.
The addition of external active force came from the drill as it lifted the apparatus on the vertical axis in the positive Y direction. As it did, a reactive force should have registered on the graph in opposition (demonstrated a reactive force in the negative Y direction), but didn't. This is clearly a violation of Newton's Third Law of Motion, which is what this whole idea of Laithwaite's was about. There was no increase/decrease in the rate of gyroscopic rotation. There was no increase/decrease in the rate of gyroscopic precession.
When the drill lifts the gyroscope, where is the additional reactive force, pulling down on the string?
@@Hutch5321 dude. you got me. I didn't realize why the experiment didn't work. it seemed to perfectly replicate what laithwaite did. no, no. it worked just fine. you understood. I did not. touche... and THANK you... okay. so, it's weight doesn't change because it's inertial mass is unchanged. so what should've been detected? an increase in the speed of precession during lifting? since an upward acceleration would be tantamount to a temporary increase in gravity, which gets "deflected" sideways as precession. so what does this experiment really need then? an upwardly accelerating lift?
and now I never sleep...
@@ShinkaHentai The 'million_dollar_question', I think. Where does the force/energy come from? The next step in the experiment would likely be sensors to monitor the rate of angular velocity of the gyroscope, to detect any change. Also, a sensor to monitor any change in the rate of precessional motion. Of the two, my bet would be a change in the rate of precession.
'An upwardly accelerating lift?' It appears that he's already doing that with the drill apparatus. Perhaps an increased acceleration, such as Larry Scott is suggesting? Was the sensor not sensitive enough to detect the additional reactive force on the string?
@@Hutch5321 honestly it's the other simpler one I care about: that one uses gears arranged in a starburst pattern, and the outer gears orbit around a central static gear, they're all the same tooth count, and the outer gears are weighted on one side directly above the central gear.
I saw a demo of a propulsion-less drone. and bought a set of plastic toy gears and made a model of this. it's quite real, quite a bit stronger, to the point where turning the thing 6-7 rps makes it fly upwards out of your hands. but it was a toy so it had the tendency to fly apart. i ended up tying thin metal wire around the weak portions. when you make it yourself, you'll kind of understand exactly why it works. but I don't have the background to describe it in words. basically the weights are fully extended when they are reaching the top of their rotation and retracting to near the central gear. one of the other laithwaite videos showed a single imbalanced weight, which was where I got the idea.and then saw the drone and bought the toys straight from there. man I'd love to have a wingless drone toy. I checked, the patents expired, too... it's been 4 years though I never get tired of watching weird and wonderful tech. but it was neat to see someone try to go for the underlying science finally.
This is way off dude. It wasn't a question of how much it weighed. You didn't address the original dilemma.
I used to deal with aircraft gyros when I was in the navy and happen to know that what I saw done was real.
You miss the point dude.
The question is whether doing what he did results in energy savings after the energy is spent spinning up the gyro. If it does then the method has practical value.
I’m not a physicist, but my take is pretty simple: The rotational momentum is transferred into upward force, given a little help. Also: Notice that he could only push it up and over in one direction, which follows the spinning direction. If spun in the opposite direction, he would be able to lift it up in the opposite way.
He “lifted” 40lbs like a feather over his head, something he couldn’t have done without the gyroscope in action. Seems like you strayed from the point he was making.
like a feather?
On the contrary. The weight did not change by measurement. Eric L did not weigh the gyro while spinning. What PhD wouldn’t present measured values?
Eric L did not claim the weight went to zero, AND DID NOT quantify the change. And the obvious variation that Eric L did not show is the change in weight at different rpm.
The point is Eric made an assertion that he did not quantify because it did not exist.
Some of the spinning force of the gyro is transferred to the rod while lifting the device and therefore helping with the lift...
garou108 that's what Eric L wants you to think. notice how he does a bicep curls then press to get it up. pay attention to what muscles he used to lift it.
Bryce Ring
And he swings it outward, never just holing it still. Laithwaite was internationally masking that its weight didn’t change.
You missed one part I'd the experiment he also pushed the gyroscope in the direction of precession
Bingo. You nailed it. This is the critical flaw in this attempted recreation. Accelerating the flywheel in the direction of the precession beyond the speed at which it would precess on its own causes disproportional lift, i.e. “weightlessness”.
The spinning gyro is not weightless but all the vertical gravity weight and accelerating forces are transferred to the central support pivot.
Recently I took a deeper interest in gyros. Having met Professor Eric Laithwaite many years ago and recently following what was done over the years, including the famous lifting machine by Sandy Kidd, and many others trying to use the gyro in an inertial propulsion system, I felt that many do not fully understand the engineering dynamics of the gyro and so I decided to look at it from just an engineering point of view.
I treated the gyro as a set of mass particles m(x,y,z,t) distributed over the face of a rotating flat disc being subjected to the distributed accelerations, a(x,y,z,t) of a "cycloidal trajectory" decided upon by the active geometry of the gyro. This is basically a spinning mass in the shape of a flat thick circle of large diameter going around in a circle about a central pivot point. Each mass particle in the spinning gyro flat circular wheel is also being translated as shown in the video and it will in fact be subjected to an acceleration force of the form F= m.a. where a is a vector. The final behavior of the gyro is the massive integral of all those accelerations working on all those particles existing in space and time. If one draws the three-dimensional voluminous cycloidal trajectory moved by one particle, then one has a good ideal of what one would expect of it.
Basically, as an engineer, what I did was to use the past experience of mass particles going around curves as in the case of a mass particle going around a circle. This is a case where the speed stays constant and it is the direction that changes in the velocity component of the mass particle. With the mass particles existing in the gyro, then when the thick circle spins, the mass particle in an un-torqued spinning circle will go through the curve of a flat circle with its circumferential constant speed but changing direction all the time, hence generating the conventional centrifugal force acting outwards on a mass particle traversing that particular curve/trajectory of a flat circle. If as shown in the video, the gyro happens to be operating with a horizontal spinning axis then, then as a plan view, the flat disc of a gyro will be no longer flat, but it will take a three-dimensional dept. If the gyro axle is operating at a higher angle with the horizontal, such that when stationary but spinning, the plan view would be an ellipse, and when the gyro is free to precess then the trajectory would be an elliptical cycloid going around the central support pivot.
Any curve in the plan view of the trajectory of the cycloid followed by a particle on the spinning wheel of a gyro can easily be drawn using a pair of compasses and a pencil and some paper and the answer would be very illuminating. This is the remarkable conclusions. The conclusion is rather very simple..........since the extended axle of a spinning flat circular disc is acting as an extended radial arm on a central pivot and each radius of the gyro wheel extends in quadrature ( 90 degrees) with the spinning axis, then a voluminous room is required to define the volume through which the gyro fits. The gyro can no longer be treated as a spinning flat disc. It becomes a VOLUMINOUS AFFAIR in which the new volume will permit sideways/lateral accelerations to the particles in the disc of a gyro in addition to the ones in a flat circle. It is these lateral accelerations due to a three-dimensional cycloidal trajectory that gives the gyro all its characteristics. If one draws merely the PLAN view of what the gyro is doing in the video above one will find that the shape of the " disc" is no longer elliptical as when the gyro spins and does not traverse but does not move as a unit with respect to the ground. The shape becomes a distorted ellipse.
Now one may consider in the video that the plan view of diameter and flatness of a gyro disc can be fitted in an ellipse when the gyro is torqued at the top and bottom of an instantaneous vertical diameter while the horizontal diameter remains dormant. One may think of this torque action as subjecting the circumference of the top half of the gyro circle to an elliptical lateral acceleration distributed pattern while the lower half would be subjected to the opposite acceleration pattern. There, with that alone one may predict where one mass particle will be when the gyro is torqued and accelerated laterally on the disc, as it spins through traversing the circumference with the angular spinning Ws.
Let us assume that the circumferential lateral acceleration in a torqued gyro is not elliptical but simply a constant through half of each circumference then taking the top half of the circumference,
lateral acceleration to gyro disc a= k
lateral velocity to gyro disc = integral of acceleration a=kdt= k.t
lateral distance covered to gyro disc = integral of velocity v= k.t.dt= S= (k.t^2)/2
Just seeing that integral over the top circumferential half a spin will see the mass particle move out and that is PRECESSION. One may proceed to integrate over the lower side where the acceleration is reversed in the other direction.
These two simple integrals on the upper and lower circumferential halves of mass particles in a laterally torqued flat spinning disc will indicate a concave curve and a convex curve.
All this means is that THE UPPER HALF OF A TORQUED SPINNING GYRO GOING AROUND A CENTRAL PIVOT ON AN EXTENDED ARM ( or without one) IS SUBJECTED TO AN INBOUND CENTRIFUGAL FORCE WHILE THE LOWER HALF IS SUBJECTED TO AN OUTBOUND CENTRIFUGAL FORCE.
In the video, this is what holds the weight of the gyro seemingly floating, as it has an inbound centrifugal force action on the top horizontal half of the gyro wheel and another outbound centrifugal force acting out on the lower horizontal half of the spinning wheel. If one had to draw the actual " ellipses" in the plan view of the cycloidal paths one will find that the " translating and spinning ellipses " are distorted on the upper and lower curve with the upper curve having a small radius of curvature while the lower curve have a larger radius of curvature than the normal ellipse expected in an inclined circle. And here is the beauty and elegance of the gyro. Each spinning mass particle will have to traverse a tighter curve when navigating the top half of the spinning gyro wheel and a shallower, less tight curve when going through the lower half of the spinning wheel. This means that the inbound centrifugal force generated by a mass particle when traversing the upper half-circle is higher than when it is traversing the lower half AND WHAT IS MORE THE UPPER ONE HAS AN INBOUND CENTRIFUGAL FORCE WHILE THE LOWER ONE HAS AN OUTER CENTRIFUGAL FORCE. This all happens in the voluminous cycloidal path around the central pivot, and it also happens when any gyro is torqued.
The vertical and horizontal torques generated by these two opposite acting centrifugal forces , moving about on each quarter face of the gyro disc depends on Spin Ws, Mass m, Diameter d, extended radius Ra, Wp, etc, and it is what balances the gravitational weight ( m.g.R arm) and the dynamic angular torque ( I, Ws, Wp.)
if the gyro is spinning very fast the inbound cancels out the outbound centrifugal force and a gyro operating as shown in the video shows no resultant centrifugal force. If one digs deeper one would find that there is no lateral reaction on the central pivot except the vertical weight of the gyro and any vertical acceleration of the mass of the gyro.
It is remarkable how a massive integral of the product F= ma in the form of a distributed force due to a million distributed mass particle operated upon through a double integral on the acceleration only as the mass is constant, or say integrating,...... ( m(x,y,z,t) * a(x,y,z,t)) gives all those beautiful elegant artistic engineering results.
My friend, can you tell all of that in 3 phrases?
Impressive! I don't understand it, but it's impressive nonetheless.
Better use another term than centrifugal force if talking about a force going into the centre,as centrifugal has always referred to flying from the centre!Kis.
Centripetal means towards the centre centrifugal means away from the centre
but the gyro is weightless while spinning above a certain speed - that depends on the actual gyro and its perfection of balance.
The 40 pounds heavy weightlifting weights are cast iron and not very well balanced while the smaller brass ones can be assumed to be much better balanced.
as the gyro is weightless it is making only line or even oil film contact with the bearings and all its weight is centrifuged out 360 degrees.
Immediately the shaft is moved the bearing/oil film contact increases where the shaft presses on the bearing/oilfilm and the precession takes place.
Stop the precession and the gyro centrifuges all its weight off the bearing/oilfilm and stays still.
When I saw this video in the side bar, my first reaction was: "Why would anyone ask such a stupid question in the first place???"
After watching the video in the video: I note that he didn't hold the bar and gyro stationary over his head but kept it in motion. He was letting the gyro precess. He was effectively using some of the stored angular momentum to help support the weight of the gyro, but the trick only works if you follow the gyro's lead, so to speak.
My hunch is that he was actually forcing the pace (turning the axle faster than the precession rate) as he raised it, and slowing the pace as he lowered it. This way he would further reduce the upwards force he had to exert to lift it, by exerting a sideways moment which the spinning mass converted into upwards force on its centre of mass. If he had done the same without lifting the inboard end, the outboard end would have risen higher, tiling the axle.
But what I still cannot understand is why this wheel is creating an "upward force" to begin with
simply by rotating.
Would it create a downward force if he had tried to go with it the other way ?
Or what will happen if one try to rotate the wheel the other way ?
Would he then have to rotate the other way to make it hover above his head ?
There is no angular momentum in a precessing gyroscope. They didnt show the entire video by Laithewaite which shows there was no centrifugal force or angular momentum forcing his arm in an outward direction.
Where is the part of the graph of the sensors for the NON spinning gyro?
Good Thinking ! ! ( You get an "E" for effort) The "Non Spinning" Gyro would behave as any "Non moving / spinning" object. I am quite sure the professor considered this to be obvious empirical evidence HOWEVER: you do have a point; in the spirit of "REPLICATING the original experiment" in which the man lifted and weighed the object before it was spinning.
@@haroldwestrich3312 Hes talking about seeing a baseline for comparison. the guy in the video was just looking for a null result, and I think the drill adds too much noise for the sensors.
Sorry to disappoint you guys, but the weight of the None spinning gyro will just be the same as the chart begins. The weight will not magically disappear.
Exactly, Laithwaite's vid showed the apparent change in weight between a spinning gyro and one at rest. He should be weighing the thing at various angular speeds from 0 upwards, both with and without precession.
That is what he have to do, compare the weight of non spinning gyroscope with spinning gyroscope.
The correct way to execute this would have been to stand on a scale and weigh yourself. then weigh a 40lb gyro on a shaft. Then stand on the scale and pick up the gyro above your head and see if you gained any weight. I went to community college.
Indeed. The whole experiment was flawed the second he used the mini gyro. Ridiculous. Totally wrong way to go about it. I also went to community college. Smart people have no common sense. Matter of fact smart people say common sense has nothing to do with anything.
This "scientist" is the reason why we don't have nice things yet, as he and many others fails to comprehend the genius of others ....or do any more than basic math!
@@Dbass91 well stated
simplicity.
@73dodgedartsport you can't "human error" the weight a scale will read. You could generate peaks by accelerating weight up and down with jerking movements but an accurate measure should be attainable.
The answer:
The prof in the old vid isn't just lifting the gyro, he's spinning on his feet, turning the gyro in the same direction it would precess. That creates torque opposite the torque gravity caused by gravity. If you were to carefully measure the gyro's initial (kinetic energy + gravitational potential energy) + work done by the spinning/lifting professor, the sum would be equal to the gyro's kinetic + gravitational potential at the top of the lift - energy lost to friction.
As many, many comments below have states, this kid's experiment was poorly done.
Prof. Laithwaite wasn't lifting the gyro, the gyro was lifting itself
because the professor was accelerating its precessional motion . as others have said . please re run the experiment under the same conditions the prof did
You’re saying if he lifted the gyro on the machine he built at an increasing acceleration we would see the weight increases well, right? He doesnt need to replicate the og experiment, just change his approach.
exactly!
his experiment was to show that 40pounds effectively disappear - which it did.
Better go read up on Newton's Fizziks again?
Also, Laithwaite said (34:40) "...make a body APPEAR to be lighter than it is..." He knew the mass had not changed, it was the MOTION, the TORQUE and INERTIA that make it "appear" lighter. No mystery, just something that appears (visually) counter-intuitive.
Now I agree with you. He couldn't lift a 40 pound plate straight up, but when he threw it forward, the forward force actually turned to upward force and helped him lift it up.
The gyro effect allowed him to increase the distance travelled during the lift as he circled it around him he increased the mechanical advatage similar to rolling it up a mild incline over several feet instead of lifting directly opposite gravitation force
I see. Professors are getting stronger when a gyroscope is spinning.
I dont think he explained why it doesnt fall though did he lol. And where is the increase in weight you might expect to see when lifted. Doesnt show in the data. And that data looks like a signwave.
Hahahaha! thank you for this excellent comment, made my night
Professors but not Drs. Incomplete explanation.
1st of all you should learn what a photon is and then you should learn about kinetic energy. Then you should go and peel out in your car until it catches traction. Then maybe you'll understand half of what's actually happening.
I was going to call out your entire experiment for being completely off track from what you were supposed to test....Then after looking at comments I see EVERYONE called you out already. So yeah.
Don't you know, he's a scientist and you're not supposed to question scientists, you're just supposed to believe them.
@@rosewhite--- not completely sure they believe it, but they certainly want us to.
@@frogsoda Attenborough on tv a few weeks ago with giant trilobite 'said it was 400 MYO' .
Yet Darwin's meticulous research on worms proves they make topsoil at one inch in five years so if Earth is ancient where is the 80million inches of topsoil?
@@frogsoda Just because YOU don't understand what he did and why does not make him wrong.
@@357Addict okay then, enlighten me. Did he prove Mr. Laithwaite right or wrong?
As an undergraduate, I was fortunate to attend a lecture by Prof Laithwaite. A great showman, he later acknowledged that gyroscopes behave fully in accord with Newtonian mechanics.
I met him when I was at school. Great man, wonderful showman.
Glad to hear he recanted, I always thought he made a damned fool of himself with this gyroscope claim. It takes a good scientist of integrity to correct himself so good for him.
Ok, so you're saying he was a self-confessed fraud. So how did he do it in the vid?
@@phaturtha216 He's saying he came to a better understanding of the physics. That doesn't make him a fraud. In the video he was applying a lateral force that pivoted around his body, that is an applied moment about the axis of his body, with a gyroscope an moment on one axis creates a resultant moment about an orthogonal axis, that is why it rotated upwards, the rotation seems like lift because of the pivot constraint but it is in fact a rotational force (a moment).
@@dorbie Plausible explanation, got proof?
If you add weight to a precessing gyroscope, it precessing faster. The really intriguing question (and likely answer to "How did Dr. Laithwaite lift the gyroscope?") is: Does manually increasing the procession speed reduce the measured weight of the gyroscope? I suspect Dr. Laithwaite swung the gyroscope to increase the precession speed thereby simulating the effect of removing weight.
As mentioned below you did not include the weight at rest.
Another thing, spin the wheel in the opposite direction but make it rotate the same direction as before
That is the most basic peice of information missing. Thank god others are noticing it. These indoctrination camps are getting ridiculous.
You did not lift it in the same manner that Lithaweight did. You had a fixed point from which the axis was. His was slightly offset from the axis which caused the gyroscope to climb.
"while the experiment was a success but it didn't support Laithwaite claims"
Prof. Laithwaite wasn't lifting the gyro, the gyro was lifting itself because the professor was accelerating its precessional motion.
The setup of your experiment including position of load cells is quiet wrong.
Only one load cell is needed and must be positioned on the gyros arm, between swivelling point and the gyro.
Gyro not spinning = full weight
Gyro spinning and naturally precessing = zero weight
forcing precession speed = negative weight
That is what I failed to explain correctly in my comment.
This experiment did not add the energy to the system as the professor had. During acceleration of the precession a negative weight (lift) is produced.
Our small balsa wood box did not raise 12 feet into the air because of "magic". lol
Our experiment failed because of limitations of the batteries available at the time.
And since it relied upon constant positive velocity precession, the batteries just could not hold up very long.
We moved on before we attempted any directional control of the "flight".
Basically, we created a cube shaped powderless bottle rocket which went skyward until the entire object began to precess. lol
Plus, it had to be rebuilt after every attempt. When the gyro and box equalized, the weight of both become added to gravity's pull and the end result was the box and Earth trying to occupy the same space at the same time. lol
But you could still see it fighting the fall in a way as it always impacted the ground on the same side of the box.
These same effects can be seen in satellites today. I may be incorrect, but I believe all cube-sats utilize gyroscopic control. They can change speed and direction very rapidly.
ink800ify
Uh Oh, I smell a flat earther. At least the terminology is similar.
Tell you what, as soon as this is either of our videos, we will remove it.
Until then, deal with the fact that issues regarding this experiment have been stated.
I also saw the mistake immediately. The experiment left out an additional force.
Holy crap I didn't even think of that! Here I am searching searching the internet for an answer to this mystery and the whole time that guy was ACCELERATING the precession! Still though, it's pretty cool. I'm sure you could find a good use for such a phenomenon. Thank you for this comment.
Claudio Adrian Zanardi, you are wrong. Accelerating the precession does not make the gyro lighter at all.
The acceleration of the precession was for maintaining the bar horizontal while lifting it, but all the weight of the gyro was still in the hand of Laithwaite.
FALSE CLAIMS AND FAILED EXPERIMENT. You never answered the question.
@@loligagger85 I agree. Many people in this thread seem to think he did not answer the correct question. This is ridiculous as he answered the question HE proposed which is the point of a scientific experiment. Make a hypothesis, ask questions and then build an experiment to answer just those questions.
People seem to think that science should only answer the questions they want answered.
I'm with ANIMAL MOTHER DK. See the Laithwaite lecture where he has a small boy try to lift the heavy weight. He can't. He then sets him in a swivel chair, revs up the weight, has him grab the far end and the boy can slowly twirl the weight up and over his head! This is the mystery. Don't argue guys. Submit experiments that will solve this mystery. Volunteer to try these out. Leave the cute jokes out. Be nice to the uneducated. Work together and men can do anything. (Oops, women too.) The Ithaca physics student's experiment was worthy, but he (and others) should try it himself with a weight too heavy for him to lift without spinning it. I'd be interested in his results then. Cheers.
In one of the experiments performed, Laithwaite had a child of 11 or 12 do the same experiment while tied to a platform free to rotate. the child was unable to lift the mass off the floor, let alone lift it above his head! But with the rotor mass spinning, not only was the child able to lift the mass, he was able to lift it above his head! Of course, the child was rotating due to the gyro precession.
The demonstration showed the child was able to use less force to lift the spinning mass, than when the mass was not spinning.
If you watch the entire video of the gyros, you will see the secret that Laithwaite wants you to discover! Not many do, even after watching repeatedly!
You did not answer how he lifted the spinning gyroscope with ease. Your data set misses the point junior scientist.
rigidity and precession is how he did it. He could lift the weight easily if he lifted from the centre of mass, it is the bar that makes it look much harder. With rigidity of the gyro lifting the end is the same as lifting from the centre. precession is the reason it rotates. he is not swinging it, the gyro is swinging him!
@@gnorty
_________________Yes actually he is. He swings it (more accurately he "pushes" it) in the same direction as the precession. It's that force that causes it to lift. If he had done the reverse and pushed against the precession the wheel would have been very difficult to move and it would be trying to go toward the ground...and yes, it would feel very, very heavy.
The "ease" with which 40 lbs is lifted can be totally attributed to the stability of the gyroscope.
Hold a weight over your head and back up against a wall so the weight is just touching the wall and it will seem a lot easier to hold it there than if there was not a wall to stabilize it. The precessing gyro might seem unstable but it is a predictable motion that your muscle coordination is not trying to combat to keep stabilized.
@Score Mix
______________________In the original film he was using his right hand to push the bar holding the weights in the direction of the precession, making it go faster than it normally would. He wasn't using his right hand as the center.
The data is just fine and trivial. The gyro only counteracts the torque, which he didn't measure.
Short answer....no. It has mass, it has weight. Gyroscopic precession is providing the vertical force.
Now, to watch the video.
P.S....I had my own unique experience with this phenomenon. I built a small (13" ) RC speedboat with a high RPM outrunner motor (35,000+ rpm range). The motor's rotating outer can and magnets created so much gyroscopic force that precession would drive the bow down underwater turning to port, or lift the bow and force a spin-out turning to starboard. I did not expect this in the least. I had to reduce voltage and run it slower to make the forces manageable, and thus the boat driveable.
I think it's time you or I applied for a job at Ithaca universtiy department of physics. Is this really the state of the nation or are we being trolled?
Thanks for sharing your unique experience! I am wondering the effect of gyro too. What you described fits my observation.
Well if I understood Laithwaite; he was looking for the explanation as to why it seems that the gyroscope is cancelling the effects of gravity when it is spun up to 2000rpm.
Actually what he said was that the center of mass is shifted. Your experiment proves the weight while precessing shifts to the pivot point. Useful forces.
soon as you showed us a few seconds of the imperial video I think I figured this out.
The reason why the 40lb weight on a pole is impossibly heavy is that it is at the end of a pole.
If it wasn't on a pole most men could lift it above their head without much difficulty.
The spinning gyroscopic effect + the G force of the performer swinging it around them like an Olympic hammer both counter the downward force.
They only need to defeat the massive leverage acting on his wrist, they do not need to make the 40lb of true weight disappear.
@woof beast You can't be serious... you're trolling, right?
@woof beast You're right, I can't. It's pretty sad
You got it.
Just not true though, so u didn't 'figure it out after a few seconds'! That's pretty damn arrogant of you. That man could not of lifted that weight In any fashion with such ease without the gyro! You should of concentrated for more than a 'few seconds and you would of seen how much effort it took him to weigh it using 'both hands!!!
Lifting a 40lb weight above your head one handed is really hard… try it.
In the original experiment the gyro was not lifted straight up. It rose gradually on an angle as he rotated.
ya, he did the same thing. As it moves around after the string was removed, it traces the exact same movement
@@BLUEGENE13 actually from watching other videos of Dr. L, my understanding is that the rotation around a central point is called procession and if you inrease the speed of this rotation the gyro rises. This is what Dr. L did by turning around, procession occured in this experiment but no 'lift' because the speed of rotation around the central point (the sensor) remained constant.
@@jasonmanuel6480 jesus how did i know you'd argue with me on this.
it has zero percent at all to do with the speed. You aren't a physicist, i'm at least a physics student.
it traces the same path, you can see it. "In the original experiment the gyro was not lifted straight up. It rose gradually on an angle as he rotated." That statement is incorrect. And 11 not too bright people agree. You can literally see in the video of "Dr.L" his hand, at one end of the pole, rises in an essentially vertical path.
The mere fact you think and said this "and if you inrease the speed of this rotation the gyro rises". Settles once and for all you're knowledge of the laws of physics.
edit: to be clear, before you argue with me. It has nothing to with the speed of the bar, not the gyroscope.
@@BLUEGENE13 I never claimed to be a physicist, though I have studied it a number of times. I'm pretty sure this topic isn't covered in any of my texts. I'm not arguing anything, just making an observation.... based on what I have been told by a physicist.
@@jasonmanuel6480 what physicist. You're obviously lying to me, you did not discuss this topic with a physicist. If you HAD discussed the topic with a physicist he would of told you the best understanding of what's going on, which many people believe is mainly involved with torque, not speed whatsoever.
edit: ya and my point is, is your observation is wrong.
There's a lot happening here. When a force, the action, is applied sideways to a gyroscope the resultant gyroscopic reaction is 90 degrees from that force. The force being applied here is gravity so the result is the apparent float of the spinning wheel. An equal force to gravity applied at 90 degrees to the force of gravity. In other words, the gyroscope is holding itself up by its own action. As the high rpm wheel spins the force is directed sideways by 90 degrees and there is a precession that occurs as shown by the gyroscope rotating around the experimenter. If precession is increased as in being given a push by the experimenter then the gyroscope will rise due to the added energy from the push. However, if a force is applied against the precession then the gyroscope will fall. What makes the apparatus feel lighter than a feather is the energy added from a push to the precession giving the gyroscope added upward boost it will tend to rise from that added energy. The weight doesn't change it's just that a not so apparent source of energy is used to do the lifting. One experiment to try at home is to get a gyroscope and once spinning give it push and see what happens.
This may be a bit off topic :) but I thought some one might find it interesting. :)
I have an idea for a lifting force machine.
Step 1: Get hollowed out cube.
Step 2: Securely attach magnet to inner bottom of hollowed out cube.
Step 3: Place a lever on inside bottom of cube behind the magnet that's securely attached to inside bottom of cube so that one side of the lever is pointing towards you and hanging over the magnet.
Step 4: Attach a vertical bar to the top side of the part of the lever that is not hanging over magnet witch is securely attached to inner bottom of cube. Make sure the bar goes all the way up to the inner top of the cube barley touching it.
Step 5: Securely attach a magnet to the side of the lever that is hanging over the magnet that is attached to the inner bottom of cube.
Note: Magnets need to be facing each other with attracting poles N,S or S,N
Note: The lever is going to have to be really close to the magnet on inner bottom of cube because of how close those magnetic fields need to be to interact. But not so close that magnets can touch.
The magnet on top connected to lever is pulling the magnet on inner bottom of cube towards it and since the magnet on inner bottom of cube is connected to cube, this pulling force acts as a lifting force. Now at the same time the magnet on inner bottom of cube is pulling the magnet on top downwards BUT the magnet on top is connected to the lever so any downwards pulling force is being converted mechanically by the lever into upwards lifting force. Now if you know anything about magnets you now that there are magnets powerfull enough to lift far more weight then just there own. So essentially this divice is exploiting the powerfull pulling force of magnets by mechanicaly transforming its magnetic pulling force into mechanical lifting force through the clever utilization of a lever, and walla stuff can be made to fly. Imagine if the magnets in this experiment where electro magnets so the ammount of electrical current going into them determined the ammount of lifting force that it would have. Now imagine this system being used as an attachment that could be placed under or ontop of vehicles to counter the weight of the vehicle and any cargo its carying. Now imagine if this was done with powerfull permanent magnets and turned sideways and placed in an electric generator and had enough strength to pass through the magnetic fields as it propelled itself forwards with its own magnetic pulling force. Signed Adam McKenzie Anderson
Extra Note: If anyone uses my ideas for none profitable means great I hope it helps but if they are used to gain profit in any way I want 25% of anything that comes out of it please. :) My EMail is starfire7654321@yahoo.com
This is hilarious
Adam, you might benefit by learning about a "free body diagram". This consists of
something like a "circle" drawn around an object. The "circle" could represent an
invisible three-dimensional balloon, or something similar, which simply isolates the object. Drawing vectors that represent all forces acting on the object should then
accurately represent/define what the object will do as a result of those forces
acting on it. Vectors are not complicated.
There was no circular motion in the entire apparatus too mimic Laithwaite exsperement
@Novak Ingood grammar Nazis need to be deported
@@ethanezrahite1800 Speling Nazis like Novak will be heeving a sy of releef
@@ethanezrahite1800 So people should be happy to accept the mediocre? Would it be considered ok to conduct science with an attitude of oh the words were close enough so it will do. If someone corrects your spelling or grammar then consider it a learning moment and not an insult. It is indicating the poster did not spend any time double checking their work. If an engineer built a bridge and did not double and triple check their work what do you think the outcome would be?
Tech these days makes it almost impossible to accidentally make a spelling or grammar faux pas. Those red lines under words are there for reason.
@@VestigialHead no u
@@ethanezrahite1800 Idiocracy in action.
How is it a myth though? Just because it doesnt weigh less doesnt mean it will feel and act lighter which it obviously did, and was recreated by veritasium.
The myth was that it could not be explained by Newton's laws, but it clearly can. This was a measurement to see if the weight of the gyroscope changed when it was spinning and when it began to precess, which it clearly did not. It was not "light as a feather" -- the weight did not change at all. Only the appearance of the weight. Again, see Veritaserum's video: ua-cam.com/video/tLMpdBjA2SU/v-deo.html&
@@IthacaCollegePhysics It seems that Professor Laithwaite added a torque with the motion of his body, whereas you let your gyro spin freely after burning the string. Can you think of a way to add the Laithwaite-body torque in your experiment? Let me know if you conduct additional tests.
Regards, physicist at large.
@@IthacaCollegePhysics I think the point was missed completely. The professor was not literally stating that the device became lighter. He was using that as an analogy. What he was actually saying is that it becomes as easy for him to lift as a feather(an obvious embellishment). Your experiment is measuring the completely wrong force. With the setup you have, you should measure the difference(if any) in torque required to be applied to the threaded rod to lift the gyroscope while stationery, spinning, and spinning while processing. This would tell you if it is actually easier to lift like the professor states.
It never was a myth.
A related effect can be had much more simply with something like a 2-bladed ceiling fan, where the long blades give a lot of gyroscopic effect, even though the RPM is low. When off (not spinning), you can with equal ease move the bottom of the fan in a circle around the motor axis, either clockwise or counterclockwise. But when the fan is on and spinning, there suddenly becomes a difficulty with circling in one direction, even though it is still easy in the other direction. Reverse the fan motor and the direction with difficulty switches as well. [Ceiling fans with 4 blades can usually have 2 opposing blades removed rather easily.]
Interesting experiment but you didn’t investigate how ladweith managed to lift the weight up over his head single handedly. Do you suggest he is lying.
no hes not
The answer is simply a part of gyroscopic precession. If you speed up a gyro's precession speed it will try to precess UPWARD, so if you're trying to lift it at the same time it will appear to be much easier. Did you notice, just before the professor lifts, that he gives the bar a LITTLE extra spin speed?
@@johnnyllooddte3415 yes he did that was his last sentence. Saying it was a myth
This guy is educated beyond his intelligence level.
Best comment this year for me
Now that’s going to my repertoire
Such a clean insult
thats hilarious
Typical young engineer, no common sense, attempting to answer the wrong question.
touche, im sure vonnegut would approve too :D
Failed experiment.....you failed to ask the right question.....still a mystery!
ua-cam.com/video/ldqUV-DXiUg/v-deo.html
anisotropicplus
ahaha wheres the mystery.. theres FORCES acting in an opposite direction to gravity.. what junior college did all of yall flunk put of
the conclusion supports the fact that eric was tricking the audience, you fucking idiot. it is not easier to lift, that was the point, but it seems everyone in the comment section is dumb as fuck. no wonder trump is president. you got conned!
@@bubbahogg-buga4613 it's you that's dumb because the experiment been done many times with other people on UA-cam who all show it's easyer to lift over your head when spinning
Then why does he lift and rotate a 40 lb gyroscope so easily? May you explain that fact?
Experiment: take gyroscope. Hold it out. Let go. Watch it fall to the ground. End of experiment.
I think what's happening here is that the gyroscope transforms the torque he needs to hold the stick level into a linear force and therefore completely transforms the way the load feels.
You would never be able to lift 40 pounds on such a long rod, 40 pounds at no leverage is more realistic (but still a lot).
Maybe there is something else to it...
the gyro is wieghtless above a certain speed.
below that speed it cannot spin perfcetly and so puts som eo fits weight on the bearing and shaft.
The experiment by Ithaca is not a comparison with Eric Laithwaites experiment. Eric uses forced precession in his experiment. A true comparison would be more scientific.
Ithaca has just plain not reproduced the Laithwaite experiment. It's so obvious. He clearly accelerates the gyro around its axis (and around his body), this is a torque, and it goes up. He then decelerates it (as he turns back to face us) and the gyro falls. This precession is interpreted as anti-gravity -it's not. The angle the gyro makes is a function of the rotational speed (around the Eric axis). It changes this angle during acceleration and deceleration. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. The potential energy increase, because the whole mass is raised, has come from the energy, the torque, put in to accelerate it in a circle (around the Eric axis). If you notice, and this is quite subtle, as he slows himself from rotating so much, a torque in the other direction, the gyro falls, he has to actively pull it back because it's returning this energy now and wanting to carry on. Again no energy is destroyed -it has been returned as torque. The electric drill and it's screw mechanism in your video is completely pointless.
I think a lot of people think that there's something wonderful because the gyro has a rotating mass in it. I think of a gyro as a passive converter. In a steady rotating state (Eric keeps turning and he's getting dizzy) it is merely converting the centrifugal force of pulling the mass in a circular orbit to an upward angular force (ALevel students know this as a moment). It's totally logical if you change the rate of rotation then you will change the upward angular force so the angle changes (either rises above his head or falls). It is merely passively converting one torque to another. If Eric turns the other way it will try to point downwards to the floor. We would interpret that as it getting heavier. It's not. The additional moment is now downwards. Everyone is obsessed with linear motion - none of this is. I suppose it's like many people can't understand that voltage and current in a circuit do not have to be simultaneous (sorry if this sounds wild but power generation companies famously charge big bucks to industrial consumers if they're not). I'm an Electronic Engineer and I understand gyros fully -surely you guys should ?
Matt Goodman do you mind explaining what you meant by "can't understand voltage and current in a circuit do not have to be simultaneous"?
Tom I didn't bother to read Mr, Goodman comment but I did see yours. a battery there is voltage even it is not connected anywhere. Thus voltage(Potential difference between two points) exists without current(flow of charge with respect to time) but current doesn't exist without voltage
mob slapper Mr goodman made the statement that "voltage and current in a circuit do not need to be simultaneous". By definition a circuit implies current flow. So I asked what he meant in order to understand his comments on torque conversion
Laithwaite didn't claim anti gravity. He used to do this demonstration as part of a wider lecture that was about his work on linear magnetic motors. He was talking about converting forces to allow movement. People use the clips to try and claim anti gravity, but it was all about forces.
A spinning gyro can store, or has kinetic energy.
Most of you are forgetting this.
It is not the weight that changes man.. In fact it actually remains the same. The reason why it feels lighter and he can lift it is because he no longer has to support the MOMENT OF FORCE produced due to the weight which is being balanced by the precession of the gyroscopic wheel.
By why does the perception of weight change when a spinning mass is in precession
ThisIsSolution Mohar kr chaudhary
Mohit, can you make a vector description of why in the opposite side of the pole the weight is reduce to x% of the weight, I would guest less than 10%. The giro, is creating lift in the opposite site of the pole while is rotating
First of all we have to understand that when we have to lift the setup from an end, we have to counter the moment of that weight(which is quite large) . Now as the wheel starts rotating very fast, that moment gets balanced by precession. Its not that the WEIGHT increases or decreases at the end or rear. This is why the total weight remains the same on a weighing scale.
In fact, in our everyday life, we have very little experience of gyroscopic precession and it's effects, so it is a bit hard to imagine only weight without its moment or any other effect.
@PikPobedy why and how are interchangeable in that context you pinecone,
Understand the idea before you run your mouth about lessons you dont understand, and of course im a youtube physicist and philosopher, you have added nothing to the discussion and we have both wasted our time entertaining your keyboard dribble, press onward you bag of waste
I do have to wonder if the "Humanities" part of your school has taken over too much lately...
ua-cam.com/video/ldqUV-DXiUg/v-deo.html
Yep. Lesbian Dance Theory and Gender Studies are FAAAAAAR more important than actual science these days.
We live in a post-fact society where telling the truth gets you banned from social media, fired from your job, and even thrown in jail because the politically correct whackadoodles WILL have you respect feelz over realz - By FORCE if necessary.
it would hold little relevance
If you study what Laithwaite did then I would suggest that what the gyroscopic action does is to move the centre of gravity of the apparatus. To lift a 40lb weight, at the end of a 3 foot pole and keep it horizontal would be massive effort. Clearly when it is spinning and free to precess the centre of gravity must move to the point of suspension and thus changes it to a straight lift which seems very easy in comparison.
The issue is that the gyroscope produces a rotational force not a lifting force. It only looks like a lifting force because the rotational force in concert with the pivot causes a torque force to lift the gyroscope. But the weight never changed.
What happened was, he took advantage of the spin when he pushed the rod in a certain diretion
it *felt* weightless along the vertical axis BECAUSE he added energy into the system along a horizontal axis, by pushing it in the horizontal direction, which created a torque 90degrees later with respect to the weight's rotation axis, so ... upward
how to replicate : ditch the center lifting axis, mount the gyroscope on a hinge that goes up and down, that is then mounted to a rod that rotates horizontally.
on top of the rod, put a servo, which is fixed.
place a string onto the gyro and tie it to the support structure.
spin the gyro.
burn the string
then actuate the servo 360 degrees.
repeat experiment again, this time switch the direction of rotation of either the servo or the gyro
predicted outcome:
in one of the 2 cases, the gyro will lift up vertically even though no vertical force was applied to it. thus explaining why if you did this, you'd feel it weightless (not massless, because it would still have inertia). You'd feel it going above your head weightless because you just stored energy into it by giving it a good push along the horizontal axis, that gradually takes effect along the vertical axis as it's slowly spinning above your head
I agree with cjoii that old dude cant lift 40 pounds. You are missing something
@Kriss Kringle You are using English words, but I don't have any idea what you are saying. What does "rotation gravity and friction of the wheel" mean? How did you measure the weight of the wheel? What is "the gravity well"?
@@sirgoatofcheese it means jack and shit uttered by an uneducated hobo. The gyro simply counteracts the torque, which removes most of the muscle strain required to hold such a thing off its center of mass. You still need to support the 40lb weight force but you don't have additional torque acting on your hand, which makes it dramatically easier to hold.
Laddie, you missed the best part. The 40 lb. gyro was easy to lift not because spinning made it weigh less. The spinning allowed the professor to push it upward along an inclined plane like a screw, instead of a shorter path straight up. He performed the same work, but used less power over a longer time.
Apply 90 degree change in force realative to gravity. Think right hand rule
Gyroscopes have been in use for years. Used in ships to stabilize the ship. Used in guidance packages, and the effect is what makes motorcycles very stable. The weight never changes, but it's rotational forces wants it to stay in one position.
you replaced the professor with a worm gear and a drill! fail
Archimede: Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world.
PS: that is why he felt it was lighter✔️
Yes, it "feels" lighter doesn't mean it has less weight. Sadly it seems a great portion of the population are simply too stupid to understand physics properly.
I met Eric many decades ago and asked him what would happen if he performed this experiment while standing on bathroom scales. His answer wasn't what I expected and made me think about the physics of gyroscopes in a way that I hadn't before. I'm sure he would approve of your experiment.
His experiment wasn't that good. He didn't repeat it when the gyro was no spinning. Also he needed to apply a perpendicular force to the gyro.
Well what was his answer?
The point my good fellow, is that the gentle person hoisted such a tremendous weight, with little to no exertion on his part, employing the spinning properties of the wheel alone.
Laithwaites claim was that he could lift a 40 pound weight whilst spinning and he did, your video is 6 minutes and 14 seconds too long...
I think this is why Dr. Michael Rogers prescribes him pills...
Yes, a lot of thought went into the test apparatus, but the hypothesis wasn't very well developed. Cool machine, though. It also boils down to how you define "weightless".
Hint: Notice how the gyroscope and handle stay at the same orientation while being moved upwards. It's not so much that it becomes weightless...
It's an extraordinary claim that needs further explanation beyond the scope of your experiment. Namely, WHY does it APPEAR that rotational energy or force can lessen the perceived weight or gravitational force, of a spinning body. I suspect it could be that rotational energy, because of the upward part of the rotation, could be helping to lift the object so that it takes less applied upward force to lift the spinning body. I would have liked to see your experiment explore that possibility by measuring the necessary force to lift a spinning body vs a body at rest. But all in all this was an interesting and inspired experiment. Thanks for posting this video.
This identical experiment was performed at sydney university in 2001 using the same weight and length bar but with a right angle 15 cm length off the handle, this 15cm right angle handle has a 5cm steel ball welded to it. it fits it the cup of your hand. we used gloves with force meters imbedded and when the experiment was run every time. .......it took only 2kg of force to lift the 15kg spinning wheel. EVERY TIME, we couldnt stop the entire shaft from spinning and the only time the full 15kg force meter maxed out was when the user fought against the gyro spin but if you just let it do its thing while resting in the cup of your hand, there is almost no effort needed to raise the 15kg gyro wheel. because you anchored the string and end of shaft, the gyro has no free movement and it MUST be allowed to gyrate freely to exert no effort to raise the wheel. this is concept of proof in the original experiment as its imossible for the old guy to lift this weight one handed above his head. we had a female in our class, very petite and only maybe 50kg. she was unable to lift the wheel more than ankle height with both hands, but once spun and placed in her gloved hand, she could one handed lift this over her head and hold it there as long as the ball in her hand was allowed to rotate in her hand. as soon as she sqeezed her hand around the ball to stop the shaft from rotating, the entire device became heavy and would fall like a weight untill she released her grip on the ball. the force meter at rest measured 15 kg. when raised from knee height to over head hight in a second, should have registered some G force and made the 15kg device weight 30kg but it didnt register any extra g force to raise the device. the person then held it over her head, and when shaft had rotated past her head, she quickly lowered her hand to knee level which we determined a 15kg weight falling from 1 meter will exhibit a weight of 30kg at the lowest point of the drop, but while holding the gyro device, the girl could drop it it and stop it at any level height with ease and the glove still didnt register anything over 17kg. None of the class was impressed as we thought weight is weight and gravity is gravity and we cant change that.....till we had a go ourselves. its litterally effortless. blind fold tests were done. a similar ball was weighted with 7 kg weight and two class members were blindfolded one had the ball with 7 kg placed in his hand and girl had the spinning device placed in her hand and the goal was to hold your arm out straight.....hold the ball and see who could hold up their device longer.......evey single person was able to hold the device till it slowed enough to lose gyro, while nobody was able to hold the dead 7kg out in the same manner for more than a few seconds with out fatiguing and dropping the weight. so design an experimant to disprove these findings.
Experiment doesn't take the orbital movement of Laithwaite's hand as he pulled the "gyro" around and over his head. He did not pick it straight up, as in your experiment.
Failed experiment. Didnt conclude how/why it appeared lighter.
@Russ Gallagher Wrong. It's not just torque. The downward force of the object is less because it's own rotational energy is throwing it up into the air when it is spun. People keep saying, "Wow, kudos to him for being able to live 40 pounds straight up!" Uh, no. He can't do that. He doesn't have the physical capacity. Veritasium dude could BARELY do it. This old guy? No way. Again, the wheel's own momentum caused it to be flung upward in a smooth continuous fashion as he spun. It lost momentum, gained elevation, and energy was conserved. Mass did not change. "Weight" may or may not have changed depending on how you define that term.
If you actually watch his royal institution lecture, he concluded after many demonstrations that the weight was transferred to the pivot point. In this instance the pivot point is where his hand is holding the barbell.
Someone, please remind me not to send my daughter to his college.
The overarching point (and useful information) is that a gyroscope pushes the weight of the spinning wheel in equal directions.
This has many useful applications in mechanical stabilization. If you wanted to get a large heavy wheel into space using the maximum efficiency, spinning it would decrease the overall force needed to get that thing into space, as opposed to it's being stationary.
Angular momentum is preserved so spinning provides orientation stability. Spin stabilization is often used during launches. However it does not require more or less energy to lift a spinning object into space than a stationary object. The equipment and fuel necessary to induce the desired spinning might add weight to a payload, additional weight might also be required to stop spin.
@@dorbie - The "weight loss" occurs because of the momentum.
Once that thing is pushed in a direction, it will resist a change in that same direction (if the angular momentum is dynamically efficient). This will allow the extra weight of the gyroscope itself to (once lifted) assist in propulsion, as the speed of the gyroscope spinning will potentially be relative to propulsion, if the total mass of the "wheel" spinning is sufficient.
@@hybridamerica As I said elsewhere in the comments, the conservation of angular momentum is the root cause of the 90 degree torque force. However there is no direct lifting force. It is a moment about the pivot point that converts the 90 degree torque to lift and this requires a tethered constraint. If you want to test this, then simply try the experiment without tethering the gyro at the base. You can ensure the gyro pivots about its own CG using a cage. When you try this you get no lift, and no change in weight and minimal work to apply yaw. It is the rotational moment about the constraint that converts torque and demands energy of the system to raise the mass. You know the energy is delivered via yaw forces as these will demand more yaw work the longer the lever arm (axle) is and the greater the required rise in elevation (potential energy required).
@@dorbie I know... I'm just fucking with you. This is a technique I use with my students to get them to think harder about certain principles.
Thanks for supporting the establishment, we really, really appreciate all your work. Can't have any pesky inventors making new discovery's in this area- as it would destroy our monopoly on the Truth.
A simpler way of stating the outcome of the experiment at Ithaca College, would be to say that if Laithwaite had been standing on a scale while holding the spinning 40lb gyro with one hand, Laithwaite would registered an additional 40lb on the scale. Many of the comments I've read regarding the Ithaca College experiment have to do with the lack of explanation of why the gyro can transfer the effect of it's mass while in contact with another object.
While spinning a gyroscope is weightless.
But any movement of its supporting shaft will be transmitted through the bearing to make contact and cause the weight to act on the shaft and cause precession.
But immediately a new stable position of the shaft is found the force will be removed and the gyro will be weightless again.
The speed and weight of the gyro are what gives the precession which is why the gyros for tank gun stabilisation are very heavy.
This experiment is not explaining why a person is able to lift such a weight so easily..
But video "Anti-Gravity Wheel Explained" does.
it wasn't easy for him to lift. look at the strain and his hand position as he lefts. The illusion is that we expect there to be a lot of leverage at the lifting point which a gyroscope cancels. I think, hahahahahaha
THIS is a college education:
Fail.
The reason it seems lighter is because the weight is on one side, the hand closest to the weight has to pull up weight and the furthest hand has to push down to cancel out the moment of the weight to the other hand. Because of the second downwards force it becomes even greater to compensate
I tapped out as soon as I saw 'school of humanities (and sciences)' - reading the comment section I'm glad I saved six and a half minutes of my life.
If anything, I ain't applying to Ithaca college. Thanks for the heads up.
Today is the day i found the true meaning of savage
Too bad you missed the details of the Laithwaite demonstration and proved once again garbage in equals garbage out. May i suggest finding better professors that can teach critical thinking.
Viking
Too bad you didn't try this yourself and make a video to prove your point. It is just conjecture without experimentation.
A little harsh man. It wasn't clear to me at first either that the professor was adding energy to the precession. He didn't state that very clearly.
We have become a society that avoids conflict. Conflict is a means of correcting corrupted input. While it is harsh it's become necessary or we just continue degrading our society with sugar coated bullshit.
@@thatoneguy-rp7dh I couldn't disagree with anything more. Critisism and objections can be done in a civil and respectful manner and they also are much more effective this way. Cutting someone down with harsh degrading language only causes people to dig their heels in and refuse to acknowledge their wrong doing even if the evidence presented is indisputable. In other words, an advanced logic minded society doesn't act like an episode of Jerry Springer.
@@gearhead1302 I don't think what he said is as extreme as you make it out to be. And I somewhat agree with what you said. Where I disagree with your statement is that harsh language isnt banter, it's strong negative reinforcement. And when harsh language is banter then it's abusive which is bad in the way you mention it. I don't think society should be taking away negative reinforcement from our speech because someone might get their feathers ruffled(the more extreme the language the more upset a person may get which isn't favorable). For someone to not be ignorant they have to be accepting to all forms of speech because humans naturally find things that go against their ideas and beliefs offensive.
Eric Laithwaite was supporting 40 lbs of force vertically throughout his demonstration, with gravity introducing a torque couple in the vertical plane on the gyro to cause precession in the horizontal plane, just as your lab analysis shows . Point missed was that he also was applying an ever so slight torque couple in the horizontal plane, generating a small value of precession in the vertical plane (gyro travelling upwards), which requires no additional vertically applied force to accomplish. What is witnessed in the Laithwaite film is the summation of the torques in the vertical and horizontal planes resulting in the resultant precessional trajectory with horizontal and vertical components.
As apprentices in shipyard, early teen. We did similar by 1 inch bar 3feet long. and a large heavy ball race on its end . Using a high pressure. Air hose , blew the grease out of the ballrace . Feeling the torque of the high speed spinning weight . You can even feel it with bicycle wheel on it spindle . At high speeds.
Disappointment for the green-deal movement. I guess we will not fly on gyroscopes to Hawaii 🐣
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!
And I have absolutely no idea why.
In the original experiment, he not just letting the gyroscope precess. He's throwing the wheel.
It’s the mass temporarily being converted into energy. That’s why the gyroscope felt lighter in the video.
Stand on a scale and repeat his EXACT experiment.
That is a best possible way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes yes yes
Reality check !!! The source experiment showed he could lift the spinning wheel above his head with ease..., but motionless he could not. Why do you deny that ??
The weight's the same, but is the torque? It doesn't look like it
He didn't deny it, he tested the claim with a science experiment. The experimental results refuted the claim. Why do you deny the scientific results. Seems to me you are doing exactly what you accuse him of. Simply denying science despite the evidence.
dorbie It doesn’t refute the claim. The video was real, and the experiment didn’t address the science that it illustrated.
To correct his experiment, he should have added a motor to the apparatus to add acceleration to the shaft in the direction of rotation to simulate the push-off the original video shows. That would answer the question of whether or not the added force in rotation converted to upward lift that actually reduced the weight measured by the scale. It would be interesting to see what difference it made if the motor had a constant energy applied or a quick boost that simulates the professors movements. In the Veritasium video note that when he lifted the weight up over his head there was no change in the scale. If he had not lifted the weight up and just left its movement dictate where it went, would the scale have gone down? If you are holding a 40 lbs weigh and lift it higher, it takes more force from your muscles. In the experiment, it doesn't take more energy from your muscles, just continuing the same force causes the weight to go higher and the scale to remain close to constant.
It would be easy to lift that amount of weight if you were swinging it around by spinning in a circle fast. The motion of the spinning wheel spinning on the end of the bar simulates this same effect by transferring the angular motion through the bar allowing you to lift the same amount of weight without you yourself having to spin as fast. The weight of the bar, (object) therefore remains the same, you’re just able to lift it without spinning as fast as you would be able to otherwise.
If gravity is pulling down on the gyroscope (or simple spinning top) but its centre of gravity is at the base over to the side, then OF A NECESSITY the force that the spinning wheel is generating (or rather how it is transferring the forces of gravity it experiences into other directions) is creating a force identical to what it would be if there were ANOTHER gyroscope on the other side, but both being half as heavy. Adding the forces simulates the wheel being balanced above.
If the old man had tried the same manoeuvre in the opposite direction the wheel would have appeared to weigh more like 80 pounds, and would have hit the ground.
Try spinning the gyroscope in the opposite direction that it wants to travel
Down
Okay, as a number of people have pointed out, while the technical method might be "correct", it failed to answer the question of why E.L. was able to lift the mass as he did. I would then be wondering if perhaps we should try this with greater and lesser masses to determine if we might be seeing a non-linear effect. For example, angular momentum of a rotating body might not create a linear effect under some circumstances- it might be squared or cubed like some fields. Doubling the mass might produce four times the effect instead of a linear result. So in a really realistic simulation, the mass might be required to be close to what E.L. was using. But the vector composition of the forces is far more likely to be why he could lift the spinning mass- precession produces forces at right angles to the applied torque.
Don't ask what the gyroscope can do for you. Ask what you can do for your gyroscope.
the correct setup for experiment would have been more like this. weight/force sensor attached to the end of the rotor cage to measuring the force and the shaft end mounted to a pivot point that can turn to simulate how he swung it above his head
(Sensor) (gyro) ______shaft_________(pivot point ) your setup wasn't even close to what he did.
he threw it forward you did not
I would have tested this experiment by using a large heavy wheel like mr Laithwaite whilst standing on a set of bathroom scales to see if my weight changed as I was holding first the stationary wheel and then the spinning wheel, Also, and I'm not sure about this, but maybe this phenomenom could be explained by maths using vectors and centrifugal forces.
Laithwaite was turning the gyroscope against the procession. when he couldn't turn (above his head) it it became heavier.
it's much easier to swing a 10kg hammer, than to lift it.
A few issues with this , if you do as he did and “guide” the direction in which it already wants to go you’ll notice the gyro will want to go up, this is what he meant. In the same manner if you go against the desired direction of the gyro it will go down. By not adding energy to the natural mechanism of the gyro it doesn’t do anything interesting but add to what it’s already doing and it will begin to express some funny things.
As well if you tie a string on the far end from the gyro on the end of the pole, and spin the string around making the gyro rotate on its axis it also will do something spectacular.
I am no physicist and don’t claim to be what I am not is a fool and experimenting with these things in the manner that laithwaite did you will realize these things are trying to tell us something in the simplest language.
I'm no PhD physicist, but when a whole organization literally tries to tell the world they know things, like they know what light is for example, and then you realize by the simplest means, that this mainstream paradigm was proven wrong from where it last left the whole way back to its farce of a founding, then you look deeper and see that the model of the atom we are all still taught, was proven wrong when you were 9...and now your 29 just figuring that out, WHILE remembering school taught you this the year before you graduated at 17, and how your physics teacher yelled at you for questioning it long before it being proven wrong by "experts" dude....seriously. after all that, you realize PhDs don't mean sh*t accept that you swallowed up yesterday's puke to regurgitate it into tomorrow (the proverbial ignorant baby bird who doesnt know how to fly ((US)) eats it and takes it in) so that they can further obfuscate and dilute the truth, and this all happens by their agnosis. This delves into an even deeper subject wich I may as well avoid. But basically, a PhD just means ya got a paper that says you do that, and your a professional at that. Anyone can pretend to be good at physics using math, but nobody can, or will make ANY discoveries wich are wholey true, and beyond our current understanding, by using only math, and without any actual observation of nature itself. They will make sh*t up like einstein did, and steal the sh*t that's not made up (just like einstein did) and use math, (namely peoples general illiteracy of it) to blend the truth into the lies as if they were one, and it worked so well, that here our species is now at a hexagonal crossroads, rather than a mere fork, driving a gas powered bus, and the only correct way to go is upwards. We need to not f**k up and play science like it's a game, or use it for purely selfish gain. It's for everyone to bask in the glory of, weather an individual developed it or not. Only weapons should be kept secret, and such weapons should either only ever be used soley by their creators, or be made not to exist ALONG with their creators AND wrongful users, and after use, the weapons should be recycled regardless, and rebuilt only when needed again. I'm no PhD, but I've been studying this stuff since I was 18, and I'm 29 now. Idgaf what they say anymore man. I didnt just start pretending to know everything after I got my "masters" degree. Thermodynamics is proven wrong on its utmost fundamental level. Their postulation of what the foundation of quantum physics is based on what light itself is, and how it operates, is literally broken on its face as its postulated by einstein. Idk if I've ever seen a prestigious quantum physicist invent anything, let alone invent it for the benefit of the earth or humanity. I've only ever seen them postulate falsehoods hubristically, and push those falsehoods on everything they possibly can. Ive only see them say things are impossible, and that things that are possible are undoable by us. They serve to hold our species back, and aside from those at the top ranks, they dont even realize it. Its literally a religion where math is god and einstein is jesus and imagination is the holy spirit, and everything else is lesser than, and left up to interpretation. They dont see it that way from the inside, but no brainwashed person ever sees their brainwashed situation as being a brainwashed one. They spent years doing math, testing, math, then testing on the math, then testing requiring math, then testing WHO'S answers direct the math towards the postulation's said formulas/expressions, then another test on what those formulas represent, then another test on the math pertaining to said formulas, then math, then testing, then more testing on math, then the formulas and what they mean and who made them and when and what happened around that....then more math...you see where I'm going with this. Brainwashing. Progress has to start with the people, because these rich, famous, celebrities dubbed physicists for their theories and their regurgitateable basic principles of physics wich they STILL explain using particle analogies. We are being severely wronged here, and it was planned a very long time ago to make it be this way. The people at the very top, or at least the scientists/physicists directly under them, know EXACTLY the SAME stuff I've been trying to tell people about, and they know the fact that we are all being taught useless convoluted B.S. is what puts them at the top.
Well thanks for mythbusting and all, but one could expect that the weight wouldn't change (the mass is the same, and we're still on earth right). But that's half of the job.
But how come he was able to LIFT it ? Why does it "feel" lighter ?
Plus, what is the reason for all these spikes on your graph ? If the weight is constant, there shouldn't be any.
Perhaps you should have measured the force required to lift the system (the drill's force in your setup). Because this corresponds better to what the man is doing in the vidéo, it would have been relevant.
It's nice to do some videos, but I think you were a bit quick and superficial in your treatment of the problem.
It feels lighter because he doesn't have to apply a counterproductive force with his outer hand. It feels lighter because he only has to apply a single force directly in the up direction.
My comment will probably be lost in the blizzard of replies but here goes nonetheless. Observing the Laithwait video you see that the professor strains to get the device up into position with both hands then once he lets go with his left hand, this allows the apparatus to to undergo precession and it appears to weigh much less than its physical weight. Once the apparatus has made a 360 revolution he must stop to reposition his wrist you then see him momentarily strain forcibly (his foot comes off the ground to counterbalance, otherwise he would fall under the weight of the apparatus). My thoughts are that the junior professor's experiment did not actually replicate the original experiment for it did measure the upward torquing force of the apparatus. It still weighs forty pounds regardless - all you have to do is repeat the experiment with the prof standing on a scale and you'd see that it hasn't decreased in weight. At the same time, this spinning weight is obviously supplying a gravity-counteracting force thus allowing him to handle it with just one hand. The angular force at his wrist is what the experiment should have measured. If Prof JR had set up a simple apparatus with a torque wrench and a bicycle wheel attached to a 3-foot rod then he'd be on the right track. This would be the proper approach, and in the interest of true science, someone needs to perform this just to answer the question - what is actually happening here?
You should instrument the flywheel and the housing that's it's contained in and the shaft/handle and explain where all the forces are to understand what is actually occurring.