# Demo of "anti-gravity" using a gyroscope



## qubit (Jan 11, 2015)

Don't worry, this isn't some psuedo science BS, but a demonstration of how a spinning mass - a gyroscope - can feel a lot lighter than when it's not. Note the lack of attention to health and safety in the videos!

The first video demonstrates it and the second one explains it, but I didn't quite get that explanation though. The physics of gyroscopes are rather tricky to explain and surprisingly not all physicists seem to agree on it, either.


----------



## Asylum (Jan 11, 2015)

That is probably one of the most dangerous scientific videos I have ever seen.

With this concept shouldn't you be able to design a anti-gravity vehicle?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 11, 2015)

Newton's First Law of Motion: "When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force."

It's not antigravity, just an unwillingness for a mass to change direction.




Asylum said:


> With this concept shouldn't you be able to design a anti-gravity vehicle?


No, because of Newton's third law: "When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."  You need to exert a force exceeding the rotational force of the mass to make it change direction.  Gravity is expressed as acceleration so it always wins that fight.

Not to mention, to make a gyroscope work in a zero gravity environment, you have to have perfectly balanced counter-rotating masses.  Even the slightest difference will cause it to lose stability.


The video proves both of these points at 1 minute.  It moves the way it moves because that's the way its mass is moving.  If he let go of it, it would quickly hit the ground and violently roll away.


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 11, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Newton's First Law of Motion: "When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force."
> 
> It's not antigravity, just an unwillingness for a mass to change direction.
> 
> ...



This gets complicated when considering the conservation of angular momentum.  If had two weights at each end of the bar spinning in opposite directions, and a force that spun the shaft at it's mid point in the direction it would naturally go... you might just be able to make it "hover".  It wouldn't last too long, as the spinning weights would quickly lose energy, and if you tried to add energy to the spinning weights, it would theoretically push it back down.

It sure would be a fun one to try out


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 12, 2015)

Gravity would still pull it down because it needs a force of -9.807 m/s² to counter gravity and angular momentum does not provide that.  It would like accelerate slower due to angular momentum but it wouldn't stop the acceleration caused by gravity which is fundamentally what anti-gravity means.


----------



## stinger608 (Jan 18, 2015)

My theory behind gyroscopes is to propel vehicles at a much cheaper and more efficient pace. 
It would take a lot of energy to get the gyro spinning, but once the gyro is up to speed it would pretty much be minimal energy to keep it up to speed. 

Now imagine the gyro on its axis standing straight up and down. The vehicle would be at a stand still. As the "driver" begins to push the "accelerator" pedal down in the forward gear, the gyro would start to tilt. This would propel the vehicle forward. The further the pedal is pushed the more the gyro tilts making the vehicle move much more rapidly. 
Now the driver releases the accelerator pedal and the gyro comes back to the straight up and down position. 

Theoretically it really wouldn't take a very big gyro to create this motion in a vehicle. Weight of the gyro would have more bearing on the scenario vs size I believe.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 18, 2015)

All this momentum malarkey was utulised in the fly wheels of steam traction engines and other primitive yet brilliant machines.

Man understood its uses waaaaay before he understood the sciemce behind it.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 18, 2015)

Reciprocating engines have fly wheels too to smooth out the power delivery and prevent it from stalling.



stinger608 said:


> My theory behind gyroscopes is to propel vehicles at a much cheaper and more efficient pace.
> It would take a lot of energy to get the gyro spinning, but once the gyro is up to speed it would pretty much be minimal energy to keep it up to speed.
> 
> Now imagine the gyro on its axis standing straight up and down. The vehicle would be at a stand still. As the "driver" begins to push the "accelerator" pedal down in the forward gear, the gyro would start to tilt. This would propel the vehicle forward. The further the pedal is pushed the more the gyro tilts making the vehicle move much more rapidly.
> ...


Would that work in space?  My guess is it would take no less than four gyros to counter rotation on two axis. I'm still not confident it could generate forward/reverse momentum.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 18, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Reciprocating engines have fly wheels too to smooth out the power delivery and prevent it from stalling.
> 
> 
> Would that work in space?  My guess is it would take no less than four gyros to counter rotation on two axis. I'm still not confident it could generate forward/reverse momentum.





I know they use gyroscopes on the ISS.

Surely a gyroscope spinning in space would be unaffected by air resistance and gravity ?

HOLY SHIT    FordGT90Concept   youve just invented                A *Perpetual Motion* machine. 



Please may i have a 1% share of all the money you are going to make.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 18, 2015)

ISS is very light and the gyroscopes effectively give it more mass (First Law of Motion) which makes the station's motion more predictable and stable.  Gyroscopes aren't very good for accelerating a mass larger than itself.

Fighter jets use gyroscopes for the same reason.  They are in cage that, no matter the orientation of the aircraft, the gyroscopes stay facing the same direction because of their resistance to motion.  This is how the computers in the aircraft know the aircraft is upside down.


----------



## Depth (Jan 20, 2015)

stinger608 said:


> My theory behind gyroscopes is to propel vehicles at a much cheaper and more efficient pace.
> It would take a lot of energy to get the gyro spinning, but once the gyro is up to speed it would pretty much be minimal energy to keep it up to speed.
> 
> Now imagine the gyro on its axis standing straight up and down. The vehicle would be at a stand still. As the "driver" begins to push the "accelerator" pedal down in the forward gear, the gyro would start to tilt. This would propel the vehicle forward. The further the pedal is pushed the more the gyro tilts making the vehicle move much more rapidly.
> ...


Flywheels create torque, nothing else. You need to either push or pull something to create linear thrust, something even a fancy gyroscope can't do.


----------



## xvi (Jan 20, 2015)

qubit said:


> Don't worry, this isn't some psuedo science BS, but a demonstration of how a spinning mass - a gyroscope - can feel a lot lighter than when it's not. Note the lack of attention to health and safety in the videos!
> 
> The first video demonstrates it and the second one explains it, but I didn't quite get that explanation though. The physics of gyroscopes are rather tricky to explain and surprisingly not all physicists seem to agree on it, either.


I love me some Veritasium. Also, Vsauce, Periodic Videos, Numberphile, Computerphile, Sixty Symbols, and Lil Bub.


CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> I know they use gyroscopes on the ISS.





Depth said:


> Flywheels create torque, nothing else. You need to either push or pull something to create linear thrust, something even a fancy gyroscope can't do.


I think this is basically what they use them for. If they need to rotate, they spin up a flywheel/gyro to initiate the roll momentum, then stop it to cancel the roll.
I'm no rocket scientist though.
Edit: FordGT is smarter than me.


----------



## BiggieShady (Jan 20, 2015)

Depth said:


> You need to either push or pull something to create linear thrust



Yes if you want to escape gravity and you are submersed in a fluid (atmosphere) ... I believe they are talking about about zero gravity environments where it all can make any sense


----------



## Vario (Jan 20, 2015)

Man this guy is going to get a nasty rotator cuff strain if he keeps making these videos.


----------



## Depth (Jan 20, 2015)

BiggieShady said:


> Yes if you want to escape gravity and you are submersed in a fluid (atmosphere) ... I believe they are talking about about zero gravity environments where it all can make any sense


Doesn't matter where you are, you cannot move using torque alone. The only thing you can do is rotate in place. To _move_ you need _thrust_.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Jan 20, 2015)

stinger608 said:


> My theory behind gyroscopes is to propel vehicles at a much cheaper and more efficient pace.
> It would take a lot of energy to get the gyro spinning, but once the gyro is up to speed it would pretty much be minimal energy to keep it up to speed.
> 
> Now imagine the gyro on its axis standing straight up and down. The vehicle would be at a stand still. As the "driver" begins to push the "accelerator" pedal down in the forward gear, the gyro would start to tilt. This would propel the vehicle forward. The further the pedal is pushed the more the gyro tilts making the vehicle move much more rapidly.
> ...



Congratulations you just recreated a Segway.


----------



## qubit (Jan 20, 2015)

Depth said:


> Doesn't matter where you are, you cannot move using torque alone. The only thing you can do is rotate in place. To _move_ you need _thrust_.


Or put another way, to move forward, you need to chuck something out the back.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 21, 2015)

xvi said:


> I think this is basically what they use them for. If they need to rotate, they spin up a flywheel/gyro to initiate the roll momentum, then stop it to cancel the roll.


In space,  that doesn't work so well because the force to start the rotation should be almost equal to the force to stop the rotation.  Usually they use retrorockets to change facing.  It requires far less energy to accomplish the same thing.


----------



## Depth (Jan 21, 2015)

qubit said:


> Or put another way, to move forward, you need to chuck something out the back.


Like a bloody gyroscope


----------



## OneMoar (Jan 21, 2015)

wow look at how uneducated and gullible have people gotten


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Jan 21, 2015)

This conversation is starting to sound like this looks


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 21, 2015)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> This conversation is starting to sound like this looksView attachment 61946




  I said it involved perpetual motion.


----------



## BiggieShady (Jan 22, 2015)

Depth said:


> Doesn't matter where you are, you cannot move using torque alone. The only thing you can do is rotate in place. To _move_ you need _thrust_.



LoL, I derpty derp derped back there ... somehow I doubt it'll teach me to actually read the thread I'm replying to


----------



## Steevo (Jan 22, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> ISS is very light and the gyroscopes effectively give it more mass (First Law of Motion) which makes the station's motion more predictable and stable.  Gyroscopes aren't very good for accelerating a mass larger than itself.
> 
> Fighter jets use gyroscopes for the same reason.  They are in cage that, no matter the orientation of the aircraft, the gyroscopes stay facing the same direction because of their resistance to motion.  This is how the computers in the aircraft know the aircraft is upside down.


Split beam interferometer.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 22, 2015)

Sigh.

Engineering 101 here.  Torque is a force, applied about an axis, which tends to force an object to rotate.  Your vehicle generates torque via a combustion engine.  The video generates torque via an electric motor.  You generate torque on a door knob by muscular contractions.  While energy forms and and usage methods will vary, the underlying mechanics do not.

Angular momentum is the measurement of the amount of rotation something does about a fixed axis. This value is functionally a factor of the applied torque, mass of the object, and frictional resistances.


Now, it's hard to picture this, but what we are looking at in the video is functionally a mechanical battery.  If you have trouble visualizing this replace that metal disc with a wooden one, and have it bound to a fixed point on the opposite end with a rubber band.  Force is applied to the rotating mass.  It is stored as kinetic energy, and slowly dissipates into fricative heating.  While that energy is being stored, you've got a bunch of interesting physical properties.

Gyroscopes use a weight with immense angular momentum, because of the aforementioned laws of motion.  They resist changes to orientation due to this.  This is why a gyroscope is used in navigational arrays.  Up will tend to remain up, so no matter your path you will always know which way the ground is.  As demonstrated, the rotational force is being used to counteract the force of gravity.  The mass of the system doesn't change, despite "feeling" lighter.  What we actually feel is not mass, but force.  The same 20 pound iron ball would be light on the moon, but heavy on the Earth.  Likewise, you can counter gravitational forces by unbalancing a torsional force, such that energy is dissipated in the opposite direction of gravitational forces.  Put mathematically, G=-9.8m/s^2 (where a negative number represents down).  Assuming that I have a 10 kg mass, my gravitational force (Fg) can be represented as Fg = G*m = -9.8*10 - -98 kg*m/s^2.  If my disc applies an unbalanced rotational force (Fr) of 98 kg*m/s^2 upward, the observed weight of the disc will be F= (Fg+Fr) = -98+98 = 0.  This doesn't negate mass, it isn't anti-gravity, and it isn't even a perpetual energy source.  Friction will slowly decrease the rotational force of my spinning disc, until there is no energy left.  Once Fr decreases, the observed force of the disc will return.  In human terms, we'll start to feel the rotating disc get heavier.


As far as perpetual motion, that is just moronic. Like any other battery, you are dissipating energy via heat constantly. Even a pair of 100% efficient, friction free, bearings would dissipate rotational energy as heat due to fluid resistances.  Just because a human cannot detect a 0.05% loss of energy per rotation doesn't mean that it isn't happening.  If this sort of logic were true a power plant would only have to get the turbines to turn over once, and they'd have enough "perpetual" energy to turn turbines forever.  I can assure you that's not happening.  Likewise, unbalancing an object in torque doesn't generate a moment that can be harnessed. It's an unbalanced force, which may be used to create motion, but that motion dissipates stored energy from the system.

Put another way, let's do a thought experiment.  You start with a disc which has a fixed mass, but variable radius.  Initially, the linear force you apply to the small radius disc is expressed as a large torque value; as the disc rapidly accelerates about the axis.  Next, you double the radius.  This time the same input force yields a much smaller rotational velocity, with a much higher linear component.  After a few doublings of the radius, the curvature of the disc starts to disappear, and your rotational force can basically just be expressed as a linear force.  If rotational force forces can be equated to linear forces so easily, then they must follow the same laws.  If you can't picture this, look around you.  The Earth rotates about its axis, and around the gravity well of the Sun.  Despite this, we observe these giant scale torques as a linear force.


----------



## xvi (Jan 24, 2015)

When I was grabbing a video for the WCG Daily Numbers thread, the next video in the series was this one which talks about what NASA actually uses. (The first video was how a cat is able to land on its feet without violating the conservation of angular momentum)


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 30, 2015)

A very good, simplified  demonstration of gravity which may or may not help you understand antigravity.















*Water in Zero G











*


----------

