Anomalous movement resistance in a spinning gyroscope
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Free Energy
Next: jar question
From: CWatters on 13 Apr 2006 03:34 "Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs(a)urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message news:h77r321aq44oa0e9dhpu8qm3stffbc121l(a)4ax.com... > > Yes, yours is a bit more technically stated, but my response was > also to the effect that whatever bearings are being used, there would > be a surface reorientation, as you describe that would lend to > rotation in one direction being favored up to the point that opposite > rotational periods lead to a surface reorientation that favors the new > direction. They can eliminate this as a cause by turning over the gyro discbut leaving the shaft and bearings unchanged. That way the bearings allways rotate in the SAME direction - just the rotor alternates direction. The paper claims they did this (Experiment 3 I think) but when I read the paper it seems they didn't do this experiment exactly the same way. It should be a trivial experiment to do so I don't understand why they haven't. They should also repeat the experiment turning the rotor over twice so it goes back on the same way up. Thats in case the act of removing the rotor has an effect on the bearing.
From: top9 on 13 Apr 2006 10:04 Re: Anomalous ``memory'' effects in a spinning top By: Mazur,Jerzy et al. LW8007 Dear Dr. Mazur: We've received an email from Dr. Bartelt in which he wrote that he did consider figures 5-7 in your manuscript but that their content was not important to his decision. He added though that the fact that the paper contains no conclusive interpretation of the data presented in these figures also argued against publication in PRL. The memo that describes the PRL appeal procedure states, in part: The author of a paper which has been rejected subsequent to an appeal to a DAE may appeal to the Editor-in-Chief of the American Physical Society. This request should be addressed to the Chair of Divisional Associate Editors, who will forward the entire file to the Editor-in-Chief. Such an appeal must be based on the fairness of the procedures followed, and must not be a request for another scientific review. The question to be answered in this review is: Did the paper receive a fair hearing? The decision of the Editor-in-Chief concludes the consideration of the manuscript by the American Physical Society. Since the formal scientific review of the manuscript ends with the appeal to the DAE, the additional revision that you indicated in your emails that you're engaged in is not appropriate. You've been given more than enough opportunities to revise this manuscript and/or LN8579 to bring one or the other up to PRL standards, without success. I don't believe that any additional revision on your part will make these articles acceptable. As stated above, the final appeal to the Editor-in-Chief can only be on the basis of the fairness of the procedure followed. Yours sincerely, Jerome Malenfant Senior Assistant Editor Physical Review Letters Email: prl(a)aps.org Fax: 631-591-4141 http://prl.aps.org/
From: Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com on 13 Apr 2006 13:16 shevek4(a)yahoo.com wrote: > realist wrote: > > http://www.oswirus.krakow.pl/cat_14/gyroscope/ > > > > Memory effect in its rotor? > > Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Allow me to quote from the > discussion in the paper: > > "Given the results of the experiments described above, we believe that > although friction > is responsible for the gyroscope ultimately coming to a stop, > frictional e?ects cannot > be responsible for the e?ects observed. First, to a stop, frictional > e?ects cannot be re- > sponsible for the e?ects observed. First, they would depend on the type > of material of > the spinning disk, spindle or bearing. Second, needle bearing wear > would reduce the > rotation times (the spindle's top is being rubbed away which causes > the moment of > friction to rise) and not lengthen them, while surface rearrangement > would not favour > alternate directions of rotation, but would a?ect all the results > equally. " > Cheers - shevek The torque on the bearing due to the rotation of the earth is not discussed. Why? -Tim
From: Roy L. Fuchs on 13 Apr 2006 13:45 On 13 Apr 2006 10:16:04 -0700, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttpppggg(a)yahoo.com> Gave us: >The torque on the bearing due to the rotation of the earth is not >discussed. >Why? Coreolis force. Because the "memory effect" was claimed to occur in both spin directions. If coreolis forces were a factor, it would only show up in one direction.
From: top9 on 13 Apr 2006 15:16
These effects are also on rolling bearing . |