Could a Gyroscopic inertial thruster ever work?

[Sillychris]

That' more question of cause and result: the energy in nuclear reactions is released due to rearrangement of protons and neutrons (new bonds form that release energy / work done by nuclear forces), and the total rest mass of the particles is reduced by amount corresponding to this energy. (That might be uncommon attitude for some physicists, but I'm a physical chemist - our rule is considering bonds/forces first and calculate energy later.) The point is that here the amount of energy and change of mass are determined by nuclear forces, not opposite.

Of course, matter+antimatter is a bit different story - it's direct matter-energy conversion. That's the point where there's no more border between mass and energy

Your rule of considering bonds/forces first and calculate energy later works very well for the coulomb force, I'm sure.

When dealing with the strong and weak nuclear forces, it's not so simple. We are kind of lacking good models for the strong and weak force. What we aren't lacking is isotopic rest masses.

I should also point out, all nuclear reactions are not simple rearrangements of neutrons and protons. Sometimes a neutron changes into a proton, and vice versa. In fact, a stray neutron left to its own devices will decay to a proton by emitting [an electron]. The mass of [an electron] and proton are less than that of a neutron. Where did that mass go? It became energy. There was no electron bonded to a neutron before the decay. There was no "energy stored in a bond". This is nuclear physics. It's not chemistry. Particles like to change their identity.

Another example: Muon decaying to an electron. A muon has about 200 times the rest mass of an electron. When a muon decays to an electron, that mass differential is released as energy. There's no "bond" that gets broken to release energy, but the energy gained by the now relativistic electron is quite accurately predicted by e=mc^2

Anyway, if you want to look at energy stored in "strong force bonds": that energy is condensed and has mass. The same is true in chemical bonds, except the energy is on the order of eV as opposed to MeV. The increased mass from energy stored in chemical bonds is very very tiny. It would be unwieldy to do calculations on mass differences to do chemical bond energy, just like it would be unwieldy to do relativistic calculations for the velocity of a steam locomotive.

In general, I have noticed that the non-physics crowd is extremely hostile to accepting that energy and mass are totally equivalent, but they are. The only caveat when switching between them is you have conservation laws to observe (Conservation of charge, lepton number, spin, momentum, etc.)

Edited March 21, 2014 by Sillychris
said positron instead of electron

[DJEN]

Yeah, it's pretty much impossible for, say, a patent clerk to come up with a new theory that demonstrates that Newton's laws are incomplete. We should dismiss any such claims out of hand.

It is more likely to be true anyway.

By the way, are you talking about Einstein?

If so, you should note that Einstein had base knowledge of what he was doing.

So, he made a theory that didn't put up with conventional science, but shed more detail to it.

Also, for my knowledge is limited, I would like more information regarding the matter.

Edited March 21, 2014 by DJEN

[Alchemist]

Your rule of considering bonds/forces first and calculate energy later works very well for the coulomb force, I'm sure.

When dealing with the strong and weak nuclear forces, it's not so simple. We are kind of lacking good models for the strong and weak force. What we aren't lacking is isotopic rest masses.

Well, in chemistry we aren't operating with bond energies most of the time either. In thermodynamics we often have just enthalpy values for compounds in the same ways you have the rest masses of the isotopes (there are known dissociation energies of different bonds, but just for few compounds). It's possibly to calculate separate bonds and precise atom positions in molecules (and it's quite some quantum mechanics, fundamentally not too much different from what's holding a nucleus together), but for larger molecules that requires a supercomputer (still not very good precision) and is done not so often. What I said was more about understanding what forces and interactions stand behind the energy values, than about knowing precise values for each case.

Anyway, if you want to look at energy stored in "strong force bonds": that energy is condensed and has mass. The same is true in chemical bonds, except the energy is on the order of eV as opposed to MeV. The increased mass from energy stored in chemical bonds is very very tiny. It would be unwieldy to do calculations on mass differences to do chemical bond energy, just like it would be unwieldy to do relativistic calculations for the velocity of a steam locomotive.

I think you didn't got this point - bond energy is not actually stored, it's about what is released when bond forms and what is necessary to beak the bond. Also it's the work done by the attraction force when (hypothetically) assembling the particle from its components. For a nucleus the total energy of the nuclear force bonds (minus the electrostatic force energy) is the mass defect.

The trick is that with nuclear reactions some principles of thermodynamics and kinetics are still applicable. There are initial and final states with their energy levels (masses), structures and bonds. There is some kind of rearrangement process (even though at nuclear level it's mostly about tunneling between the states) and its activation energy (energetic barrier) that determines the reaction rates (like half-life of the radioisotopes, also efficient cross-section is depending on it).

On the other hand, that's the smallest level when this works - if you go into elementary particles transformations it really gets into clear considerations about energy and quantum numbers. When you are describing the nucleus, it's protons, neutrons and their interaction creating mass defect of about 1% level. If you are describing quarks in a particle, it's really no use to talk about particles and interactions when the resulting mass is so much different, not to mention even heavier interaction carriers that appear and disappear all the time. (But nobody also describes an electron in a molecule as a classical moving particle - just one more case of quantum effects going completely out of more intuitive frame)

In general, I have noticed that the non-physics crowd is extremely hostile to accepting that energy and mass are totally equivalent, but they are. The only caveat when switching between them is you have conservation laws to observe (Conservation of charge, lepton number, spin, momentum, etc.)

When people think of energy, they imagine levels that can be gotten out by conventional means (completely not comparable to the rest mass). Both having kinetic energy or getting mass defect of fractions of percent already seems a bit too much for them. Show them masses of some quarks and bosons and the reaction will definitely be WTF. That's completely another world.

Sometimes it's interesting to compare different approaches at the point where they met at the edges of their applicability

[Sillychris]

It is more likely to be true anyway.

By the way, are you talking about Einstein?

If so, you should note that Einstein had base knowledge of what he was doing.

So, he made a theory that didn't put up with conventional science, but shed more detail to it.

Also, for my knowledge is limited, I would like more information regarding the matter.

Einstein had a university degree when he deduced relativity... he wasn't exactly a layperson so it pains me when people cite his lack of qualifications in comparison to their own. Einstein also read a lot of scientific papers, so he was informed in his breakthrough. This is not analagous to the tinkerer who claims a breakthrough and is otherwise completely ignorant to physics.

Einstein's work is deductive reasoning at its best. Special relativity was deduced strictly from 2 axioms. Since his logic was strictly deductive, anything he arrived at should be correct provided the axioms are also correct. The two famous axioms are of course:

1) Light is measured as having the same speed by any observer in any reference frame

2) All inertial reference frames are equivalent (ie velocity transformations)

In a nutshell, while everyone else was assuming that an observer with a velocity relative to light should measure a speed other than c, Einstein thought "What if that isn't true?"

In regard to general relativity, he approached it in a strictly deductive sense once again, and the only axiom he used is that there is no way an internal observer can tell the difference between being stationary in a gravitational field or accelerating at a rate equivalent to the gravitational field.

[N_las]

ok, if the reaction doesn't get its energy from the mass differential, then where does it get its energy from?

And in a fission reaction (also fusion reaction), the energy comes strictly from the missing mass. There are often complex methods to induce the reaction to happen, but at the end of the day you are changing mass to energy. As a physicist, I don't see how this is a "half-truth". Engineering details are not important to the cause.

The nuclear reaction gets its energy from the potential energy in the nucleus, just like a chemical reaction gets its energy from the potential energy of the electrons around the nucleus.

The mass differential is not the source of the energy. The decrese in energy of the fission products in comparision to the energy of the original nucleus also means that the mass of the products will be smaller, since mass is a measure of the energy content. So the mass difference is caused by the release of energy, not the other way around.

It seems like there is some resistance to the mass energy equivalence in this forum. I know it seems counter intuitive to say e=mc^2 is a direct conversion like euros to dollars, but that's exactly what it is. The trick is finding a currency exchange.

No, the mass energy equivalence is much more profound than a simple exchange between them.

if a positron meets an electron, they annihilate to pure energy as predicted exactly by e=mc^2, where the mass is twice the mass of an electron.

The don't annihilate into 'pure energy', but into two (sometimes three) photons. The relativistic mass of these photons is the mass of the electron and the proton. So there is no 'missing mass' that is turned into energy. The mass is still there.

Your rule of considering bonds/forces first and calculate energy later works very well for the coulomb force, I'm sure.

I should also point out, all nuclear reactions are not simple rearrangements of neutrons and protons. Sometimes a neutron changes into a proton, and vice versa. In fact, a stray neutron left to its own devices will decay to a proton by emitting [an electron]. The mass of [an electron] and proton are less than that of a neutron. Where did that mass go? It became energy. There was no electron bonded to a neutron before the decay. There was no "energy stored in a bond". This is nuclear physics. It's not chemistry. Particles like to change their identity.

The mass didn't become energy. If the neutron decays, and you consider the relativistic mass of the resulting proton, electron and electron antineutrino, than there is no missing mass. You can close your eyes to relativistic mass, and only consider rest mass, then your interpretation would make sense.

Another example: Muon decaying to an electron. A muon has about 200 times the rest mass of an electron. When a muon decays to an electron, that mass differential is released as energy. There's no "bond" that gets broken to release energy, but the energy gained by the now relativistic electron is quite accurately predicted by e=mc^2

If you consider the relativistic mass of the resulting electron, the myon neutrino and the anti-electron neutrino, then there is no missing mass.

In general, I have noticed that the non-physics crowd is extremely hostile to accepting that energy and mass are totally equivalent, but they are. The only caveat when switching between them is you have conservation laws to observe (Conservation of charge, lepton number, spin, momentum, etc.)

Yes, energy and mass are totally equivalent, but not in the sense that you can switch between them, but that mass is just a scale of the energy content of a system. And i am certanly nobody from the non-physics crowd, I have a degree in physics.

Edited March 22, 2014 by N_las

[Sillychris]

The nuclear reaction gets its energy from the potential energy in the nucleus, just like a chemical reaction gets its energy from the potential energy of the electrons around the nucleus.

The mass differential is not the source of the energy. The decrese in energy of the fission products in comparision to the energy of the original nucleus also means that the mass of the products will be smaller, since mass is a measure of the energy content. So the mass difference is caused by the release of energy, not the other way around.

No, the mass energy equivalence is much more profound than a simple exchange between them.

The don't annihilate into 'pure energy', but into two (sometimes three) photons. The relativistic mass of these photons is the mass of the electron and the proton. So there is no 'missing mass' that is turned into energy. The mass is still there.

Yes, they turn into photons. I think it's fair to consider photons particles of pure energy since they have zero rest mass.

The mass didn't become energy. If the neutron decays, and you consider the relativistic mass of the resulting proton, electron and electron antineutrino, than there is no missing mass. You can close your eyes to relativistic mass, and only consider rest mass, then your interpretation would make sense.

Yes, when you consider their kinetic energy and apply e=mc^2 to it, there is no missing mass. However, when they hit something and spread the kinetic energy around a little, their rest mass remains the same. There are no special strong force bonds holding that kinetic energy. The particles are more massive simply because they are moving

If you consider the relativistic mass of the resulting electron, the myon neutrino and the anti-electron neutrino, then there is no missing mass..

It's true, they have kinetic energy that didn't come from something that is analogous to a chemical bond which is exactly the point I was trying to make.

Yes, energy and mass are totally equivalent, but not in the sense that you can switch between them, but that mass is just a scale of the energy content of a system. And i am certanly nobody from the non-physics crowd, I have a degree in physics.

I don't officially get my physics degree for another 5 weeks, but I think your point is that energy and mass aren't distinct, different, and exchangeable but rather that energy has mass and mass has mass. The real question is, do neutrinos have mass?

[N_las]

Yes, when you consider their kinetic energy and apply e=mc^2 to it, there is no missing mass. However, when they hit something and spread the kinetic energy around a little, their rest mass remains the same. There are no special strong force bonds holding that kinetic energy. The particles are more massive simply because they are moving

When they hit something, the hitted thing will have more energy and thus more mass. The overall mass always stayes the same. Thats my point. It itsn't that one terminates mass and generates energy in the process. Every bit of energy has a corresponding bit of mass glued to it.

I don't officially get my physics degree for another 5 weeks, but I think your point is that energy and mass aren't distinct, different, and exchangeable but rather that energy has mass and mass has mass. The real question is, do neutrinos have mass?

Yes, thats what i mean. Energy and mass aren't distinct, different, and exchangeable but rather that energy has mass. And what do you mean by mass has mass? If i have a particle, and observe the property 'mass', than i can conclude there has to be an intrinsic amount of energy in this particle. The mass of the particle is simply the mass of this intrinsic energy.

The mass of an electron for example comes from the intrinsic energy the electron has because of its interaction with the higgs field. The mass of a Proton comes (mostly) from the intrinsic energy in the bonds between the quarks.

A neutrino has relativistic mass, simply because it is moving. If there is any rest mass, who knows. But the notion, only rest mass is real mass, and relativistic mass shouldn't be considered mass is unsubstantiated.

[Sillychris]

I think I pick up what you're putting down. I like your description of mass vs energy. Why distinguish?

[N_las]

I think I pick up what you're putting down. I like your description of mass vs energy. Why distinguish?

There isn't really a distinticion necessary. On could delete the concept of mass completely and only use energy. Giving the mass of particles in electron Volts is common, but reading my weight on the bathroom scale in Exajoule would need getting used to

[Sillychris]

There isn't really a distinticion necessary. On could delete the concept of mass completely and only use energy. Giving the mass of particles in electron Volts is common, but reading my weight on the bathroom scale in Exajoule would need getting used to

I am definitely switching my bathroom scale to exajoule/c^2 now. I'll ignore g on the scale since it's a constant, anyway.

[Momentus]

You really should read that page carefully until you understand what is being said.

http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh/gyroscopes/icegyro.html where video 5 clearly shows that the heavy gyro is orbiting around the light tower and is clearly not rotating about the centre of mass. As you did read the page carefully until you understood, it says that an object on an air table will rotate about its centre of mass. Not a surprising conclusion, as any other behaviour would be impossible. there is even a helpful diagram which shows what and where the centre of mass is.

The video shows the experiment which should prove this. It does not do so.

Red Iron Crown, you may choose to carry on belittling the efforts of those who are trying to understand this new anomaly, or you can examine the video, and share your conclusions.

The silent majority will no doubt continue to wander off topic.

momentus

[N_las]

http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh/gyroscopes/icegyro.html where video 5 clearly shows that the heavy gyro is orbiting around the light tower and is clearly not rotating about the centre of mass.

For me, it looks like it is rotating around the center of mass. But that is hard to tell, because we don't now the mass of the gyro and the mass of the support structure. But the people who made the site and the experiment also comes to the conclusion, that it is rotation arount its center of mass. So i fail to see your point. How is it 'clearly not rotationg about the centre of mass'?

[Bacterius]

http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh/gyroscopes/icegyro.html where video 5 clearly shows that the heavy gyro is orbiting around the light tower and is clearly not rotating about the centre of mass. As you did read the page carefully until you understood, it says that an object on an air table will rotate about its centre of mass. Not a surprising conclusion, as any other behaviour would be impossible. there is even a helpful diagram which shows what and where the centre of mass is.

I don't think "center of mass" means what you think it does. It's not the center of the "light tower". The center of mass of the support/gyroscope system is somewhere near the support, maybe a tenth of the way towards the gyro (as said above, we don't have the mass of both parts, so can't really calculate it, but it appears to be around there) and the system is clearly rotating around it. It's the same thing with the Earth/Moon system - both the Moon and the Earth actually orbit the center of the mass of the Earth/Moon system, which is about three quarters of the way from the Earth's center (due to the mass of the Moon). I would like to refer you to some physics:

(not that I expect it will convince you, being a part of the "physics conspiracy to hide the truth" and everything) Edited March 22, 2014 by Bacterius

[M Drive]

"For me, it looks like it is rotating around the center of mass."

Yeah same here. It doesn't look like in the drawing though, but that's because the drawing is just an example and not related to the setup in the video.

[K^2]

There is experimental evidence that Newton's third law of motion is incomplete. You will find it at http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh/gyroscopes/icegyro.html where the gyro/tower combination is clearly not rotating about the centre of mass.

It clearly is rotating around center of mass. Please, leave physics to people who actually understand it.

[Red Iron Crown]

Red Iron Crown, you may choose to carry on belittling the efforts of those who are trying to understand this new anomaly, or you can examine the video, and share your conclusions.

I don't see how it's belittling to point out that the page and video show the exact opposite of what you said it did.

I'm not saying anyone shouldn't investigate something they think is anomalous, but that video is not anomalous, it is rotating around the center of mass.

[M Drive]

It clearly is rotating around center of mass. Please, leave physics to people who actually understand it.

Like me. *snicker*

[K^2]

Like me. *snicker*

Honestly, you're on the right track with your methods. You are re-inventing the wheel, so to speak, and it'd be much more useful for you to try and understand core concepts behind momentum conservation, which is basically why gyros work in the first place.

But that aside, your approach is scientific. You've been trying to eliminate the variables as you find them, and your experiments tend towards the critical kind, rather than self-affirming kind.

[M Drive]

Thanks K^2, that means a lot.

I've bought a laser pointer and some sturdy fishing wire, though I'm notoriously lazy, so don't think it means the experiment is close. Apparently only pet stores sell laser pointers these days. Who knew?

Ive also figured out that I need 4 lines coming down from the ceiling in a square pattern in order to stabilize the machine. Optimally the lines need to be as long as possible, so I've played with the thought of getting access to a warehouse or something. We'll see what happens.

In the mean time I dug up this old clip of another inertial propulsion machine, using the 'pendulum test':

Though..... I'm not liking his setup. The wires aren't positioned on the back and front of the device, but on the left and right, meaning as the weights shake around the 'wagon' can jerk around and cause the flashlight to angle itself forward. Not sure if I'd count that as "successfully passing the pendulum test".

It's an interesting machine, and the canoe experiment seems most convincing, but ultimately leaves you sceptical.

[K^2]

It's entirely possible to propel canoe by rocking it forward and back. Water acts as a reaction mass here.

And yes, your best bet for pendulum test is to build a trapezoid out of wires, so that there is no ability to tilt, but only move across. You also want much longer vertical distance, if at all possible.

[Dust]

http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh/gyroscopes/icegyro.html where video 5 clearly shows that the heavy gyro is orbiting around the light tower and is clearly not rotating about the centre of mass. As you did read the page carefully until you understood, it says that an object on an air table will rotate about its centre of mass. Not a surprising conclusion, as any other behaviour would be impossible. there is even a helpful diagram which shows what and where the centre of mass is.

http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh/gyroscopes/images/icegyro3.png

The video shows the experiment which should prove this. It does not do so.

Red Iron Crown, you may choose to carry on belittling the efforts of those who are trying to understand this new anomaly, or you can examine the video, and share your conclusions.

The silent majority will no doubt continue to wander off topic.

momentus

@Momentus, you seem to be assuming that the center of mass is at the tower, which it is not. The device you see is purposely built with the center of mass of the arm holding the gyro to be out away from the tower, so that the gyro is pulled down by gravity. The whole purpose of the device is to demonstrate gyroscopic precession. When gravity pulls down on the gyro, the torque at the arm/tower pivot acting on the gyro gets deflected 90 degrees, applying a torque at the gyro along a vertical axis. But given that the CoM of the arm is out towards the gyro, and the base+tower appears to be symmetrical, the axis of rotation of the whole thing is off the center of the base - at the center of mass.

There is nothing anomalous going on here, and there are plenty of videos and information linked on that site that demonstrates the behavior of gyroscopes - all of which precisely follow established laws of motion. So please, for the sake of civility, try confirming your own assertions before denouncing others' opposing assertions.

[Momentus]

I don't think "center of mass" means what you think it does. It's not the center of the "light tower". The center of mass of the support/gyroscope system is somewhere near the support, maybe a tenth of the way towards the gyro (as said above, we don't have the mass of both parts, so can't really calculate it, but it appears to be around there) and the system is clearly rotating around it. It's the same thing with the Earth/Moon system - both the Moon and the Earth actually orbit the center of the mass of the Earth/Moon system, which is about three quarters of the way from the Earth's center (due to the mass of the Moon). I would like to refer you to some physics:

(not that I expect it will convince you, being a part of the "physics conspiracy to hide the truth" and everything)

This sums up the general tone of your responses.

I know what the centre of mass is, where the mass is considered to be concentrated, a point of balance.This apparatus when the gyro is not spinning should balance at a point "a tenth of the way toward the gyro" indicating that the tower is ten times heavier than the gyro.

Ask yourself what's the point of this experiment? What hypothesis was being tested? What was in dispute?

It says on the site "In his video Laithwaite places a toy gyroscope on a tower on ice, it is intended that the ice will provide a frictionless surface. It can be seen that precession occurs as before with the gyroscope precessing around the tower". Prof Laitwaites video was remarkable because the gyro was 100 times heavier than the tower and yet the centre of rotation was at the tower.

If Prof Laithwaites Hypothesis was wrong then, using a light tower and a heavy gyro, the result in video 5. would be that the centre of mass would be at or near to the gyro, and rotation would be about that point. I will repeat that so that there is no misunderstanding. To prove Lathwaite wrong, the object of the experiment was to show that a light tower precesses around a heavy gyro - And again - like the light moon around the heavy earth, or the earth around the sun etc.

What you see in video 5 is what you will see if you do the experiment yourself. The heavy gyro orbiting the light tower. Just as Prof Laithwaite's did. Proving?????

A typical gyro as shown in the video weighs around 150 to 200 grams. The tower would therefore have to weigh 1.5 to 2 kilograms to give the results as shown. So using common every day physics with just a dash of common sense, what do you see on a second look?

Momentus

[N_las]

This sums up the general tone of your responses.

I know what the centre of mass is, where the mass is considered to be concentrated, a point of balance.This apparatus when the gyro is not spinning should balance at a point "a tenth of the way toward the gyro" indicating that the tower is ten times heavier than the gyro.

Ask yourself what's the point of this experiment? What hypothesis was being tested? What was in dispute?

It says on the site "In his video Laithwaite places a toy gyroscope on a tower on ice, it is intended that the ice will provide a frictionless surface. It can be seen that precession occurs as before with the gyroscope precessing around the tower". Prof Laitwaites video was remarkable because the gyro was 100 times heavier than the tower and yet the centre of rotation was at the tower.

If Prof Laithwaites Hypothesis was wrong then, using a light tower and a heavy gyro, the result in video 5. would be that the centre of mass would be at or near to the gyro, and rotation would be about that point. I will repeat that so that there is no misunderstanding. To prove Lathwaite wrong, the object of the experiment was to show that a light tower precesses around a heavy gyro - And again - like the light moon around the heavy earth, or the earth around the sun etc.

What you see in video 5 is what you will see if you do the experiment yourself. The heavy gyro orbiting the light tower. Just as Prof Laithwaite's did. Proving?????

A typical gyro as shown in the video weighs around 150 to 200 grams. The tower would therefore have to weigh 1.5 to 2 kilograms to give the results as shown. So using common every day physics with just a dash of common sense, what do you see on a second look?

Momentus

To support your claim, you cite a site that disproves your claim with an experiment.

We have absolutely no info about the mass of the gyro or the mass of the tower. You just assume, that the gyro is heavier. The people who made the experiment in video 5 do come to the conclusion, it is rotation around its center of mass, and one can assume they know what the involving masses were.

And as explanied on the site, placing the tower on ice, like Laithwaite did, doesn't provide a frictionless surface, if the tower has legs.

[K^2]

Prof Laitwaites video was remarkable because the gyro was 100 times heavier than the tower and yet the centre of rotation was at the tower.

I have no idea where you are getting this number from. If it's in reference to the gyro on ice experiment, we don't know sufficient details about it to say that it really was frictionless. If you mean the video from your link, then you simply have no sense of scale. The gyro there is much, much lighter than the base.

A typical gyro as shown in the video weighs around 150 to 200 grams. The tower would therefore have to weigh 1.5 to 2 kilograms to give the results as shown.

Again, the PAGE YOU ARE QUOTING insists that the point of rotation is center of mass. And based on the video, I would agree that it's very likely. The base is a thick metal disc, significantly larger than the gyro. It can easily be up to 10x heavier.

[M Drive]

Quick question before I go to bed.

The center of gravity moves back and forth in my machine. If I only use two wires coming down from the roof, attached to the front and back of the machine, and the lines are perfectly horizontal, the laser dot won't move if the center of gravity moves forward very slowly.

If I however use two wires attached to the front and back of the machine, but attached to the same spot on the roof, the laser dot will move if the center of gravity moves. The machine will tilt slightly.

Which one should I use and why?