This. This is how you get kids interested in science, engineering, mathematics. Something that you hear some kids say is that maths or science isn't relevant to them. Or, worse still, they've heard their parents say that it's useless for getting them a job. It is real world demonstrations such as this that inspire and arouse interest. Good stuff.
I think intelligence isn't purely decided by who you are when you are born, but also by the environment you are brought up in. Of course how you are born does affect your intelligence, for example if you have a better memory then you will likely do better in tests, but your parents can greatly influence your intelligence. Inspiration can act like a parent does, and lead to someone becoming a more intelligent individual, therefore I think videos like this are fundamental in creating an intelligent person who lacks parents who could do it instead.
Love this experiment. As a pilot I have really needed to wrap my head around gyroscopic precession as related to my instruments, but this illustration gives a new and simpler context to the same phenomenon.
Yeah same here I am a merchant Seaman so need a very good understanding of Gyroscopic properties and that this is certainly a far more interesting way of demonstrating.
I want to see this experiment done with one flywheel on each end. Spin them in the same direction and spin them in opposite directions. That would be nice to see.
I want to see this experiment done with one flywheel on each end. Spin them in the same direction and spin them in opposite directions. That would be nice to see.hat would be nice to see. Thanks maxbored
Imagine twirling a string and then spinning in a circle, just like they are doing here. Does the string fall? No. It just creates a swirling pattern as you spin around. Understanding why, is very similar to understanding why the wheel doesn't fall. This "swirling action" is at high rpm and takes place within the molecules of the steel bar, so it seems invisible.
A while back I made a small one and sat it on a digital scale like you guys did here. Zero weight change. And yet placing a playing card on the scale at the same time did show a change. I recall the pleasure I felt seeing that all of the relevant experimental science done in the past held up so beautifully. You gotta love reality's consistency. Kudos for doing this.
You should've tried to shuffle your feet and rotated your body with the flywheel above your head to keep it in the air longer (if you could). Longer airtime would've been more badass!
Nixego ah yes!... rotate or spin your self with the gyroscopic force to make it seem like you could hold it over your head for like 5min or so... would look pretty impressive! great idea
The reason it's easier is because he's in Australia and therefore hanging upside-down by his feet. Also, they use the metric system, and everyone knows that 19 is less than 42. Not to mention that 42 is the answer to the ultimate question about life, the universe, and everything.
lol.... I also seen him sneak tinkerbell under his shirt.... now she can't lift a grown adult man....but she can lift him a little.... Since J.M. Barries death many of his fictional characters have had to find work where they can.... its very sad.
Its all about internal force. If we define the system to be the man-scale system, we can see that the internal forces balance out because there is not net force acting on the system. However, although the net internal force sums to 0, it doesn't mean that the internal forces are 0. The higher the angular momentum the gyroscope, the less internal force we have to provide ourselves to the system. As a result, the overall weight is the same. However, if we let the gyroscope accelerate upwards/downwards, we will see small changes in the scale reading because there is now a net external force acting on the system. This is why the scale reading fluctuates.
Eh, any science related to physics requires the student to do most of the work. I'd say the utility of school when it comes to physics and similar physical sciences is that it sets a study schedule and holds the student accountable to it.
What if you try to move the other way (that would be...counter-clockwise) with the wheel spinning the same way. Would it feel the same ? heavier ? Would it be virtually impossible ?
wow, I totally thought, it would show lighter, because the scale to my knowledge does not weigh mass, it measures force instead. The mass had to stay the same, but the force down to earth could ´ve changed... Obviously I was wrong.
I love it when something on TH-cam is based on scientifically demonstrable facts and leads to a better understanding of our experiences. Thanks for making this video!
Darkill Vix Fully (and quantitatively) describing the physics of a gyroscope is not trivial at all. As a university physics student I can assure you it's one of the most complicated and (at first) counterintuitive problems you face in a classical mechanics course, so showing this video to students could be very helpful, especially if the class doesn't have access to a gyroscope to perform a demontration.
This video is great not necessarily because it gives facts and teaches university students, but it's job is to incite wander and curiosity for those students having them be more interested in what they are learning.
Dear Alan, you need to show the original Laithwaite 1974 video. The spinning gyro negates forces pushing toward the center of the earth. Hence, he hung a stand weighing about 8kg off the edge of a table, but it would not fall off - so long as the gyro was spinning.
I've just began to explore your channel, coming over from Vsauce. Fascinating presentations illuminating new principles and curiosities I haven't encountered before; so thank you for what you do. I'm real glad channels like yours and his exist and are so popular. I still don't feel like I understand Gyroscopic Precession, although I've only just found out about it.
If the other wheel spins the opposite way the angular momentum of the system is =0, so the system would 'feel' as heavy as if there were no wheels spinning. That is, if you hold it from the center of the pole. If you hold it from any other point, it will probably start spinning as shown in the video.
Paranoia if you put two wheels of equal mass rotating at equal speeds going opposite directions then they would simply cancel each other out. Think of those toy helicopters with the two sets of blades.] I dont understand what you mean by the second one.
***** the 2 sets of blades in the helicopter (toy or real) are exactly used to cancel the rotation so that the helicopter is easy to fly. Another mechanism to do just the same is the tail rotor in traditional helicopters or using 2 separate blades rotating in opposite directions like the Chinook heli.
There's a VR sword/handle glove thing that uses spinning motors to adjust torque to make you feel like you're holding a heavy sword or hammer. You should do a video on that.
Julian H. Depends how knowledgeable you are in this area. If you are confused I suggest reading about Newtons Laws of Motion, what Weight is, and Torque. There are many videos online that explain these concepts.
my only question with this is that he struggled to lift the device when he had his hand very near the center of mass. The closer you are to the center of mass, the less torque you have to apply to keep the object upright. When he holds his hand at the base of the shaft right next to the wheel it's little to no torque. So he'd be applying 42 pounds of force to lift the object. Then when it's spinning, he easily lifts it. like it's not even close to 42 pounds. I understand that the spinning causes the object to want to maintain its horizontal orientation, thus negating the guy's need to apply a torque to keep it upright. That is what allows him to hold it at the end of the shaft. which would be impossible for any human being to do. But, shouldn't he still struggle to lift it? he should lift it as if he were lifting it at the base. which was very difficult for him. I think the answer lies with the fact that he threw the device forward and it lifted itself up. But if that's the case, the scale should decrease at that point. Which would make sense to me. But it didn't. Perhaps because the movement, the scale jumped around and made it difficult to see that. Can anyone help me with this?
The explanation may still be what is claimed in the video. When the object spinning, he lifts it without putting any effort to maintain it up his head. Note when the object is above your head, it locates at an unstable equilibrium position, and you make lots of effort to keep it there. This effort is released when the object is spinning.
Two things I can add: The scale doesn't have to go down during the lift up, since accelerating the mass upwards would increase the weight on the scale, so the weight loss could cancel out the acceleration. Maybe it only works when he is letting it spin, as when he did drop it we saw the expected up and down on the scale. However the accuracy of the measurement is not good enough to make any conclusions at this point.
@@madmax43v3r Nothing will happen, this is a gyroscope, a stabilizer, nothing to do with gravity. and gravity does not exist, it is the Aether subatomic particle pushing towards the earth's magnetic
well, the scale is based on weight, and it never stopped being a certain weight. let me give you a weird example. you can't weigh an airplane while it's in flight. but if you tried to knock it out of the way with something, it would still take the same amount of force to move it that it would if it was on the ground. that's because lift and torque don't change weight or mass.
Thats because this video should have been called Part 2 I had to do a search to find it. Whatever it is its still bloody weird to see such an old guy gentle swinging it about his head, I'd love to see this replicated on the space station at zero G that would be informative.
@@fixed1t Nothing will happen, this is a gyroscope, a stabilizer, nothing to do with gravity. and gravity does not exist, it is the Aether subatomic particle pushing towards the earth's magnetic
@@error.418 I know, I know, you are one of those who have been brainwashed per those damn physicists, well you have 2 options, you stay like this for a lifetime, you are taking some money to brainwash others, how does this accursed doctrine command you, or try something old like Nikola Tesla, Karl Schappeller, Oudin, D'arsonvall, Lakhousky. I bet you didn't see Maria Pereda's video and that you are expressly forbidden to believe in Aether, but then you go and see the patent for Karl Schappeller device, on Google. well, the description and discussion will be a lot of sand for your truck, as usual for those who took the brainwash of the order, so make an equation there to discover the sex of the Angels, it is faster.
Just to add to the explanation: The gyroscope only feels lighter, because angular rotation is being converted to precession, and at certain times to vertical movement within the system. The system being the flywheel, the man, potential energy, kinetic energy and the ground. His arm does less work in raising the gyroscope, but he does more work in rotating himself, effectively increasing the rate of precession, and transferring energy to and from the flywheel. His total energy expenditure, plus the energies transferring to and from the flywheel rotation, are exactly the same as the energy used in simply lifting a stationary mass of 19 kg, but _different muscles are being used_ to accomplish the task. As he rotates himself faster, lifting the flywheel, the _total_ rotational speed of the flywheel increases by an amount equal to his rotation about the vertical axis plus the rotational speed of the flywheel. (Edit: To explain the next sentences, in a frictionless system, the flywheel would gain rotational speed in proportion to the man's rotational speed - every turn he makes is one extra turn to the flywheel, and as he slows down, the flywheel slows down by that much. In practice, the flywheel slows all of the time, because of friction but less so as he turns himself faster.) Energy is thus transferred via his work in rotating himself plus the gyroscope. When he lowers the gyroscope, his rotational speed reduces, as does the speed of rotation of the flywheel. Energy is being transferred back from the flywheel. The residual precession, as he holds the gyroscope horizontally, represents the losses through friction, as the flywheel slows down. That's why a fixed gyroscope will gradually lower its shaft's free end to horizontal and below, until it strikes an object, and then transfers its remaining rotational energy to the obstruction, through noise, heat, and the disturbance of the momentum of the object. It sometimes runs away across a surface, or even shatters itself, whilst giving up that energy. The two measured weight displacements on the scale are the peak points during which energies are being transferred. It can be seen from the graph that the increase in measured weight x the area under the curve and the 'neutral point is approximately equal and opposite to the area above the curve x the measured weight. (The discrepancy is mainly due to the man working to adapt to the changing forces between his arms and the gyroscope, and to friction.) Thus no net 'lifting force' results, and the laws momentum / thermodynamics are satisfied. In fact, if anything, the larger increase in measured weight than the measured decrease, proves that, if anything, energy is lost, and no net 'lift' has occurred. Unfortunately, Professor Laithwaite had misunderstood what he was saying. Sadly, he lost his job, after losing credibility because of that error and he died with a somewhat unbalanced mind, in many peoples' estimation. In other respects, the Professor was a brilliant man, and people tend to forget that fact, because mistakes are much easier to sensationalise.
One other thing I think makes it feels lighter which Derek seemed to try to allude to. If you try lift the awkward weight with nothing spinning it’s not as easy as the rotating system, because you don’t need to balance the bar in your hand, you don’t need to apply torque to stop it rocking back and forth, it feels like a balanced weight as long as you move your arm with it. I guess that’s similar to what you said, I realize my comment isn’t concise or technical but I’m saying it’s easier to hold weight which doesn’t need stabilization, the same mass but with a short length is unforgiving to slight shakiness and it feels heavier when it’s not
He didn’t die with an unbalanced mind and was, I think, still working when he died on a system to launch objects vertically using the linear motor rails as used in the mag lift trains. He was a very nice chap with a great interest in butterflies.
Great stuff Derek! But actually, I think it literally does weigh less as you twirl the apparatus above your head. That first second or so as you start the rotation, there is a small downward force (which I think accounts for the little blip on the scale at 0:28) but as it spirals up it is losing angular momentum causing a small force in the opposite direction, making it feel slightly lighter. You'll note that if there were no affect the scale should actually register more weight as you push and accelerate something heavy upward over your head. The scale does not show this (unless that is the blip at 0:28, but I doubt it as I don't think you start to actually lift it until after) making me think it must effectively be a tiny bit lighter. The scale with the little gyro shows no change because the gyro is on a balance with a weight and can teeter-totter but the gyro clearly does want to move up and down as you nudge the angular speed of the base (like at 3:39). So, if it were not allowed to teeter-totter (locked in the Z axis) I claim the scale *would* show a change as the rotation rate is nudged one way or the other. So Derek, my guess is that when you first start to whirl the big heavy spinny thing (my technical term), there was a small extra downward force felt in your left hand which was then reversed as as the spiral slowed as it lifted. For sure, the change in how you have to apply the vectors of force (as you point out around 1:52) is the bigger effect you're experiencing but I don't think it's the only one. Many thanks, I'm learning lots from your channel.
Yes, you get it. You see the dumbfuckery that they are doing. I do also. I have no desire to correct them because they are following the status quo’s narrative.
Your explanation implies that holding the apparatus the end while the wheel is spinning would have it feel no lighter than holding it at its centre of mass while it wasn't spinning, which doesn't look like what you experience in the previous video.
Ideally it would be that way, however there are 3 main limitting conditions: 1: The rod to which the disk/wheel is attached is not spinning. 2: The wheel is only spinning so quickly (gyroscopic precession is an approximation for where the disk is spinning crazy fast and the angular momentum contribution from the rotating of the entire rod-wheel pales in comparison to the wheel's angualr momentum. 3: (as he said) his hand does not apply force at just one point, so when he picks up the thing with just his hand near the center of mass he is still pivoting the rod and the wheel... Also, he added a bit of an extra spin to it, which if you consider that him pushing it working in the same way that gravity pulls down, the gyro-scope almost "wants" to go upward, in the same way that it wants to go in a circle.
I have experienced this effect when I was in the Air Force. We removed one of the gyroscopes from a C-130 immediately after landing. It was contained in a black box with a handle to pull the box out of its mount and carry it. When I slid the box out it stayed in the horizontal position as if defying gravity. It stayed in that position as I carried out of the aircraft and to the truck which I put it in. I was unaware of gyroscopic precession at the time so it was a unique experience.
I am now much older than Professor Eric Laithwaite when he passed away, and I did go up to London to attend some of his lectures. I am to write is meant for others to think about and if they have the time and equipment, they can try and confirm it.I did it in my simple manner of home experimentations. 1. Keeping the spinning plane. The mass in the spinning wheel of a gyro acts in the plane of rotation and tries to keep it due to the high angular momentum. 2. Precession at 90 degrees. The plane of the spinning wheel may be looked upon being a lot of individual elemental masses placed on flexible radial spokes and each elemental mass can be treated individually. When the wheel is fast spinning on its axis all the radial masses are spinning with a high circumferential velocity/momentum depending on the radius and the spin rate. If at any moment, the spinning axis of the gyro wheel is tilted, then some mass at the end of the tilting radius will try and move out of the spinning plane while another on the opposite radius will move out of the spinning plane in the opposite direction on a diameter. So having an additional force/torque applied to them the elemental masses will accelerate out of the original spinning plane. As these elemental masses are tied with a constant radius with the axle, then while the tilt of the axis causes the particle to accelerate out of the relative halves of the wheel, their final " integrated circular motion" will be a maximum when the mass particles are in quadrature or 90 degrees to that location where they began to accelerate out of the original plane. Eventually when the tilt of the axis is long enough then all the mass particles on the spinning wheel will take up spinning in another plane at a 90-degree angle with the tilt that accelerated them out of the original plane. That is a 90-degree precession effect. 3. Precession and holding of a gyro on an extended shaft. If a spinning wheel is placed at the end of a long extended shaft where the free end is placed on a vertical stationary mast, and the spinning wheel at a radius R from the support mast, then as the wheel drops vertically, it tries to do this with the acceleration of 32 ft/sec^2 of gravity, which is relatively slow with respect to the velocity of the spinning mass particles. With the vertical drop, hence the tilting of the axle, the mass particles on the upper half of the spinning wheel will be "accelerated out" away from the central supporting mast and those in the lower half will be "accelerated in" towards the support mast. This acceleration one way and the other on the upper and lower half of the spinning wheel will cause the integrated acceleration to change the plane of spinning at 90 degrees to the initial vertical drop, horizontally. The spinning wheel changes its plane at a right angle to the vertical dropping, hence tilting axle. It is important to realize that the particles that accelerate out or in towards the central support mast are spinning much faster than the spinning wheel, as one whole unit, can drop due to slow gravity effects, so the top and bottom masses in the plane of spin, will try and replace each other so fast that they cause a high inertia fluctuation, similar as a big capacitor in a low pass filter objects to an AC fluctuation or "stationary mass inertia" be it electrical or statically and dynamically mechanically. This 90 egress action will try and fling the pivot support point on the central stationary mast in a horizontal direction, but it cannot as the mast is stationary, so the horizontal reaction must bring about the result as the free rotation of the whole spinning wheel about the stationary support mast. So "a tiny vertical drop" tried to precess the wheel in "a horizontal motion" at a related natural rate of change. 4. Precessed rising of the gyro. If the natural rate of change of the horizontal motion is hurried up ( or slowed) then a second precession process will take place and the reaction to it will be a 90-degree reaction where the spinning gyro will now lift, ( or drop) gaining (or losing) potential energy from the eternal input. If for any reason the whole spinning wheel is dropped vertically in a sudden action, then the gyro wheel will wobble along changing KE into a faster horizontal precession which in turn will raise the gyro and this transferred oscillation will proceed till it stabilizes, as it is damped down. There is another interesting reason why the spinning wheel of a gyro when on an extended axle on a central stationary mast may lift up to the vertical till its axle is perfectly vertical. 5. Rising (or dropping) of a gyro while precessing around central stationery must. When the fast-spinning wheel of a gyro spins and at the same time rotates /wobbles around a central stationary mast, and is SPUN AND TRANSLATED, then this spinning and translating effect will result in the spinning stationary circle, being modified into a type of cycloidal motion and what is more, the cycloidal motion of the particles on the spinning wheel will vary as the spinning wheel is tilted and then it rises and drops below the horizontal spinning axis. Any cycloidal trajectory, unlike a perfect circle, it will have a variation in velocity and in acceleration and hence the related generated forces with the varying acceleration as a particle moves along the cycloidal trajectory. If the extended axle of the gyro is about 45 degrees tilt, then the conical cycloidal trajectory of the spinning and precession wheel around the central support mast, the differential accelerations, hence the accompanying differential forces will " throw up" the whole gyro to lift it to try and reach the vertical position ( or the inverted vertical position). Here all the mass particles will be moving in a horizontal circle with constant velocities and constant accelerations and hence stable. In practical experiments, this vertical stable position ( as a spinning top) will be held till the gyro slowing down and the weight due to gravity will take over. It seems that all the internal cycloidal forces on the spinning particles of the gyro wheel are RADIAL to the center of the spinning wheel and hence these cycloidal acceleration forces will not precess the gyro hence the " throw up" and rising of the gyro dictated by the cycloidal differential accelerations. 6. Centrifugal force. If one looks into the differential accelerations that exist withing the tilted, conical, cycloidal trajectory of the mass particles in a spinning gyro and translating wheel, one will notice that the accelerating components of the tilted acceleration vector of the elemental particles do oppose the centrifugal force. Many people declare ( and they are correct) that the centrifugal force in a spinning and precessing gyro " vanishes" and the solution is found in the differential vectorial accelerations contained in the cycloidal trajectory of spinning and translating circulating surface of a conical, tilted, translating and spinning of a balanced wheel. If one looks at the PLAN view of the cycloidal path traveled by each mass particle in spinning and processing gyro one will see CONVEX AND CONCAVE curves traversed by particles navigating the upper-lower halves of the spinning wheel curves with respect to the central pivot and this means that there are TWO CENTRIFUGAL FORCES one acting inward ( on the upper one) and one acting outwards ( on the lower half. The centrifugal force acting inwards has a higher magnitude than the centrifugal force acting outwards. This is due to the fact that the cycloid has a distorted elliptical plan view were the convex and concave curves have a different radius of curvature which the mass particle traverse to generate the inbound and the outbound centrifugal forces acting at different heights to balance out the gravitational torque and the outwards centrifugal force on a floating gyro. There are other dynamics unbalances in a " statically and dynamically balanced wheel" 7. When the external torque on a gyro is removed suddenly, the wheel shows no inertia effect as it is not the whole mass of the wheel that is being translated, but effectively it is the elemental particles that are being displaced out of the spinning plane and hence effectively little inertia is shown when the outside force is reduced unless the whole spinning gyro is shot out and thrown off the muzzle of a gun, where all the mass is being translated. 8. The gyro cannot ever produce any action without any reaction and if one tries to propel a spacecraft with it, and try to spin the wheel in space to get it going, the spacecraft will spin back. If one seeks reactionless actions..........they must look elsewhere but not inside the gyro. 9, Finally here is the equation of a flat gyro operating on a rotating arm to check and approximate to the differential accelerations of the family of complex three-dimensional conical cycloids. I obtained and plotted these differences in accelerations as the cycloidal trajectory is followed and the difference of accelerations on the upper half and lower half of a spinning gyro. It is all very clear, hence the tiny differential repetitive forces give the gyro its elegance and unintuitive perplexing behavior. 10. Location of particle = R1. e^jw1.t + R2.e^jw2,t velocity of particle = R1. jw1.e^jw1.t + R2.jw2. e^jw2,t acceleration of particle=R1. (jw1)^2.e^jw1.t + R2.(jw2)^2. e^jw2,t Would be grateful if any one would to confirm this work. for reference of rising gyro see. th-cam.com/video/FRvrmTLHx_M/w-d-xo.html
Here is some additional information. In the videos showing gyros floating against gravity, normally the spinning gyro has the upper half of the spinning wheel rotating with angular velocity Ws in opposite direction to the precessing angular velocity Wp, while the lower half of the spinning wheel travels in the same direction as Wp. Hence in the upper spinning half, there is velocity subtraction and in the lower spinning half, there is an additive velocity effect of Ws and Wp in relation to their respective radii Rg and Ra. All the characteristic functions of a gyro are due to the accelerations that take place in the thick voluminous three-dimensional cycloidal path that the gyro wheel has to go through even if we regard the gyro as a flat circular plate. Assume the gyro spinning wheel is a perfectly flat circle with a radius of the spinning wheel being Rg while the extension arm from the central supporting pivot is Ra. Taking one mass particle on the peripheral circumference of the gyro then, when Rg is vertical, the mass particle is Ra horizontally away from the vertical line above the supporting pivot. When the mass particle is horizontal, then the distance of the mass particle from the vertical line going through the central support pivot point is the squareroot(Ra^2 + Rg^2). This means that in one spin the mass particle has to move radially out and in along a cycloid path which is ( sqrt( Ra^2 + Rg^2)) - Ra. wide/thick. The diameter of the gyro spinning wheel, 2.Rg fits tangentially to Ra while the two ends of the horizontal diameter touch the larger circle of radius ( sqrt( Ra^2 + Rg^2)) Due to the different velocities with respect to ground, of mass particles traversing in the upper and lower half-circles of the spinning wheel, the particles on the slower upper half will have a curve with its center of curvature outside the footprint made by the circle Ra, while the faster particles on the lower half will have a curve with its center of curvature, just a little behind the support pivot at the center of the footprint made by the circle of radius Ra. This is the magic that diminishes the normal outbound centrifugal force as all the slower mass particles on the upper half of the spinning gyro in the videos shown are traversing trajectories that have their center of curvature outside the footprint made by the circle Ra. This is an inward bound centrifugal force that opposes that inbound centrifugal force which exists on the lower half of the spinning gyro shown in many " floating gyros going around a central pivot point. The vertical distance and horizontal separation X of the inbound and outbound centrifugal forces acting on the upper and lower halves of the spinning gyros also balance the vertical gravity torque due to the weight of the gyro, (m.g.Ra) also the inertia torque which is a property of the spinning gyro (I. Ws.Wp.) Hence (m.g.Ra) = (F1+F2).X= (I.Ws.Wp) while the resulting apparent resulting centrifugal force is (F1- F2). F1 is the inbound centrifugal force while F2 is the outbound conventional when one considers the addition effect of the velocities Ra.Wp + Rg.Ws and the taking into account that the center of the instantaneous radius of the cycloidal trajectories is not Ra as when the gyro is rotated as if it was a lumped mass without its spinning. F1 disappears if the gyro is not spun at all while being rotated at Wp, where the normal conventional centrifugal force appears fully.
this is a more detailed and involved version of a general idea that I had, I'm collecting aluminum cans so I can do some sand casting, maybe I'll work on this first. I was going to make an exoskeleton but this will work as a first project.
Derek, this is fascinating to me. I think you should try to conduct the experiment with a weight that is much heavier. A weight that you normally could not lift over your head.
@@richtigmann1 Thank you! I bet I'll probably even end up knowing why "spinning" is even called spinning and not katshibula, or something like that, because... it's Vsause! (and I love it that way xD)
+coop island it’s really not that hard to lift say 14/15kg as long as there’s no torque making it harder. I’m sure 19 is possible with some work for most men
1. The weight is still the same when spinning but you can now lift it, you haven’t explained that. 2. You brought it down again as soon as it reached the top (arm’s length). Fix a swivel to the handle and then see if you can keep it above your head. 3. You’ve said that the spinning causes the torque, but you haven’t explained how. 4. The tendency (for the shaft) to rotate, and the tendency to rise are two different things. They are related, though, you can’t lift the spinning wheel unless you rotate it around yourself. Why? 5. The wheel is uniform in all directions, so why is the turning force directional, and what determines the direction it takes? (If you spin the wheel the other way does it reverse? 6. Attach the shaft to a rig with sensors to measure the size and direction of the forces created.
1. Its weight being the same is correct. But since it's spinning, you don't need to have a counterweight at the to balance out the weight the two ends of the pole. This was explained by using gyroscopic precession. It is like dividing the mass of the metal into 2 so that half of its mass is at both ends of the pole cancelling the torque of the pole due to gravity. You can see it if you try to lift a dumbbell with a two 2kg metals at each side or a dumbbell with 4kg only on 1 side. Even if the mass are the same, it is much easier to lift the one with 2 metals at each side than the latter. Also, it can also be explained by inertia. The motion of the metal makes it hard for gravity to act upon it. 2. Your suggestion is very witty and good. You can actually keep it as long as the rotation is enough to prevent it to fall down from your head. But I mean, you literally have a giant metal being hold by a shaft and by rotational motion. Even I wouldn't want to have that thing above my head in case some extraneous variables affect the experiment that would cause me my head. He's in the street and there's not telling what might happen there. 3. That's the definition of torque. It is just a force that cause other objects to rotate. Since it is spinning, it is continuously rotating. But I don't know which torque are you talking about since there is also a torque when metal isn't spinning. The torque is the force that is applied by the mass and gravity to the rod that causes it to tilt since it has an unbalanced weight just like what I said at no. 1. If there are 2 weights at the end, there would be no torque when the metal isn't spinning. And maybe the the thing your asking at no. 1 can be explained by this because even if you spin one end of the metal with two weights at each end, they wouldn't lighter. 4. The shaft is a solid rigid object. The rotation of the object upwards would also be the same downwards. For a second thought, I think this isn't what you mean but the rotation of the object in the horizontal direction and the tendency of the shaft to rise in the vertical direction. Then your answer is justified since it is answered in the video. He actually put a force at the end of the pole near the spinning metal. That is why it look like he was able to lift it with one hand, but he actually used forces from 2 of his hands to lift the shaft. 5. It can also be explained by gyroscopic precession. The rotation cancels out the torque from the one end without the metal just like at no. 1. If you actually have a machine that can lift that thing with or without the spin, just like you have said it would have the same reading. Like at the end of the video where a small gyroscope at an electrical weighing scale. The readings at the start is actually just caused by the acceleration of the gravity applied to the shaft and metal when he fails to properly hold the shaft. That is why I suggested the use of machine in the experiment since a machine would read the same force all throughout the experiment. You know, like how you kick the surface of a weighing scale. It would suddenly increase but then goes back to normal. 6. That is also a good suggestion and I think the assumption that the weight is the same whether it spins or not is true. In the end of the video, it just says that the spins only affects the "apparent" weight of the object and not actually the real weight. It just happen that he cannot maintain a proper posture for the spin and he fixes it by applying a force on the surface of the weighing scale. Remember, the weighing scale at the beginning of the video uses springs. At first, it went down since he doesn't counteract the force of gravity. He let the gravity do the work, since it is easier that way to put down an object. But then he tried to not let it fall and hit the concrete. He used his hand to exert an upward force to the metal. Isaac's 3rd law that opposite forces causes an equal reaction and opposite direction. The metal is also applying a force from the gravity. Hence the second reading after decrease was an increase. He let go of the metal not being read by the weighing scale. Then he tried to grab on to it making the force of gravity acted on the weighing scale.
You're question are actually really smart like 6 where using sensors to monitor the force. The experiment was taken by an average man that has an average build. If he were also to support the weight of the shaft while letting it down, there wouldn't be a discrepancy of a sudden down and up trend on the weighing scale.
And also, I forgot to say but the direction of the metal spinning doesn't affect the direction of the rotation of the spin. It is the force applied by the guy in the video near the metal here at 2:25. That is why it spins clockwise since he also exerted an extra force of the clockwise direction.
Refer to the small gyroscope found between 2.34 and 2.46 in the video. Presumably when the fly wheel isn't spinning then the counter weight and flywheel balance and the bar connecting them is horizontal. A question I have is ... when you increase the precession causing the flywheel to rise: 1. What force (assuming there is a force) would be required to stop the flywheel from rising? And ... 2. What force (again, assuming there is a force) is required to increase the precession speed of the gyroscope? And ... 3. Assuming there are the two forces above ... what is the relationship between the two forces? Are they equal? Or is one half the other? Or what?
NO. If that was the case, there would be NO precession when it was let go with gyro spun up. Look at time at time 3:10 to 3:27. It is precessing because the wheel weighs more than the counter weight.
the weight dropped when you lowered it because for a moment the weight was still being centrifuged off the bearings and not contacting anything - in effect the disc was floating free.
It seems like you only barely touched the fact that due to gyroscopic precession the force acts in 90 degrees the direction of rotation. The flywheel feels lighter because the lateral force you impose on it is acting in the vertical plane thus aiding in you lifting the wheel. If you put the drill in reverse you would have to spin in the opposite direction. This is a huge factor with single engine propeller aircraft, and created several accidents with inexperienced pilots. The Sopwith Camel WWI aircraft was perhaps one of the most dangerous as both its propeller and engine both rotated making this effect immense. The rolls of the pitch and yaw controls were essentially reversed at high engine speeds making it very difficult to control.
are you sure.. have you tried swinging it in the opposite direction.. you dont know this for sure.. half is going up and half going down whether the flywheel spun in either direction or spun in either direction.. youre just guessing with ZERO facts..another 1000 worthless comments from the zootsuite band
The fact remains: he could hold the disk at arm's length when it was spinning and was not strong enough to do the same when it was not spinning. The weight was all there somewhere, but it somehow transferred from the disk to the rest of his body. The readings from a force sensor in the handle would be interesting.
0:54 The question remaining in my mind is not about a lack of lightness but about a lack of heaviness. The scale should indicate greater "weight" as the force accelerating the wheel upwards is added to the pre-existing weight of man plus wheel. Or does a gyroscope somehow redirect a horizontal push into a vertical motion, without incurring a vertical reaction? If I fired a marble horizontally out of some type of gun, and it encountered a curved track that redirected its motion upwards, then that track would experience a downward recoil.
I love this video. Thank you. I think your graph started after you accelerated it upward. When you were doing that the scale should have read higher. I think that the reason it feels lighter has to do with free weight lifting versus weight machine lifting. Free weight lifting requires more control and it’s harder to do. It requires control in all axes (translational and rotational). The precessing one controls the 3 rotational axes a fair amount and maybe some translation. This, from a mere industrial engineer who is 60 y/o :)
I think you hit the nail on the head on the free weight lifting vs stable machine lifting. I was trying to understand why it was so much easier for him to lift it spinning than stationary, and I think this has to be the primary reason. Yes, the faster processional rate as explained in the video would have given him a boost to the "lift", and other circular movements maybe helped out as well, but I think also the stability has to be the main reason. I graduated in mechanical engineering and have done my share of weight lifting also.
Also, when he applies a torque to get it to start to rise, he is using *both hands* not only to apply the torque, but to also apply an upward impulse to the mass and then use momentum until he's in a more advantageous joint position. When he tried to lift it without it spinning, he tried to do a very static lift with one hand. (I just got my BSME and I lift weights as well)
but even when he gripped the shaft right next to the wheel and tried to lift it, he could barely do it. like if he just had a barbell the same weight as the unpinning shaft and wheel, i think it would be practically just as hard to lift. it doesn't seem like the change in torque is the only thing going on here, as he lifted it waaaaay easier when it was spinning. it seems like somehow the work gets spread out over a larger area when he spins his body around, though i don't know how. maybe i'm just not getting it.
The force of work, in your words, is counter-attacking the force of gravity in the direction he was spinning. As shown, going the opposite way gives a much downward force, giving a practically impossible situation. The force of work is relative to gravity in the opposite direction it was spinning, thus giving him the chance to spin with the wheel and becoming "superhuman". Your right in the sense spinning around throws the mass of an object to create less work. Im sure you have may have tried spinning a youngling around and by some means, they end up going higher the faster you spin. Covering the object with more space to travel through time ignores one of the greatest known equations E=MC^2. How? M=E/C^2. It may not directly ignore it, but by putting it in this term, it does prove that mass can be accelerated enough to ignore the fastest know substance known to man, gravity/light.
The best i understand it is when the wheel is spinning like it was said it is creating torque, that torque is linear and the faster an object is moving the more difficult is is to change its direction correct? So the wheel is wanting to stay in the same position that it was spun up in! (think moving a stationary baseball vs deflecting a thrown baseball except this motion is circular / orbital). So we now know that the wheel will resist any force applied to it in porportion to how fast it is spinning (this is why he wanted it spinning really fast). So basically when he lifted it still he was still technically lifting the full 40 lbs, when the wheel was spinning with its resistance to the change in orientation it was essentially holding itself up not by "antigravity" but by the counter torque created on the shaft so he ended up only lifting a fraction of that as the torque created was comparable to having someone else helping hold up the other end of the shaft with the weight on it, all he had to do was keep it level! I hope this helped :)
That electric drill put a lot of kinetic energy into that spinning disc. That energy is used to lift the disc up when the angle of rotation is changed.
I think your observation and concern is correct -- in the previous video he shows he can barely lift it even holding it at the wheel. I also believe I have the answer: When you lift a normal weight, your body needs a lot of muscles to stabilize the weight without making it fall. That's why people will always tell you, if you hit the gym, always lift the FREE weights, not the machines, because the free weights require muscles to stabilize and build real functional strength. If you can lift 200 lbs machine, it might only be 150 pounds on the barbell even when the motion is the same. When the thing is spinning super fast, it's extremely stable so it requires less muscles to stabilize it. So it's like the difference between machine weights and free weights.
Countering torque is much harder for the human body than countering a directional force. This is precisely why karate and grappling works applying torque to disable an opponent's limb(s).
The reason lifting it feels lighter is because between you and it, you only have to increase the angle of the rod in small steps, after which the flywheel auto corrects, so lifting it is essentially no different than holding it. Another way to look at it is that you only need to provide the energy to move it, not to hold it. The rod with the flywheel is basically at a stable potential as it is, so the only extra energy you need to move it is for the movement, kind of like pushing a several tonne boat which is floating. Which we all know feels very light.
just to clarify, from the perspective of the lifter, the weight of the flywheel is cancelled by exerting a torque on the lifter. So when lifting it further, save countering that exerted torque, it is like pushing an object in zero g(or boat on water)
I disagree. There's a difference between pushing an object and holding it. You said it yourself " lifting it is essentially no different than holding it" which is true in that case ( although it has to do with the repartition of its mass on the rod). Your example of the boat is rather to explain the work of a force (which is 0J for the its weigh, and only the resistance of ice/water works here).
I'm going to have to put it on a scale and see if that last statement is true. The guy could barely lift the non-spinning weight over his head yet when it's spinning he has no trouble lifting it so I'm not convinced of the accuracy of their explanations.
Nothing will happen, this is a gyroscope, a stabilizer, nothing to do with gravity. and gravity does not exist, it is the Aether subatomic particle pushing towards the earth's magnetic. Well there was a war of bloody physicists, between Newton and Einstein trying to explain gravity, without getting anything defined, then another monkey called Verlindo appeared with new Bs but nothing is concluded, otherwise there is no gravity.
Certainly deserves a better explanation, to my mind. The example with the gyro in the lab has a counter-weight. The example with Derek lifting the weight.... Why does the scale not react to the centre of mass moving up? Hmmm....
I think one factor that makes the wheel feel lighter is that the spinning motion dampens the small forces of imbalance your hand imparts to the shaft. It's like lifting a free weight vs a fixed weight. The fixed weight feels lighter.
Yep, and it doesn't require stabilizer muscles at all - the force does not have to be controlled or balanced. I expect that even if he didn't cheat by imparting initial precession to cause lift then it would still seem light.
Martin Jenkins but then it would be like lifting the unspinning weight from the weighy itself, not from the shaft, which he tried and he almost couldn't...
Federico Ruttkay But even then, I think there is still a significant enough torque on his hands even when close to the center of mass. I imagine that Derek would have no problem lifting a 40 lb. dumbbell or as mentioned above, a fixed weight. I think the weight that he feels while spinning is the same as if it were a fixed weight of equal mass.
Federico Ruttkay It's exactly as Martin said, it requires no stabilizer muscles. I can do 40 push-ups easily, but I can't do 40 bench-presses with 165 pounds, which is the equivalent weight of my push-ups. Push-ups leave your hands fixed in position, so they are a bit easier to do. The spinning causes the shaft to become fixed sort of. I also noted that the spinning forces your arm to rotate as well. The only way for your arm to rotate behind your head like that is to life it. So the torque from your hand is actually causing your arm to lift naturally.
I'm not sure of anything, I'd have to try it by myself. What I do know is that when you do a push up, you are not making 165 pounds of force, since your center of weight is around your waist... so a push up equals something like a 90 pounds bench press
QUESTION: What if you started spinning the disk at the end to an extreme speed, then you did the Olympic 'Hammer throw' game with it, would it start flying once you threw it, or better yet, would you started flying in a spinning state once you started rotating fast enough?
It would make it easier to aim upwards, but once let away, the "hammer" would fly as usual without the gyroscope. Remember that the gyroscopic precession only affects torque and not linear motion.
What Dig said. So no, it wouldn't 'fly'. It still experiences the same pull due to gravity and will still fall at the same rate when unsupported. Hence the result of their experiment when using the scale...
The video explains that when it's spinning super fast it feels as if he's bearing the weight of the disc normally. In other words it feels as if he's holding the disc part, instead of the end of the stick.
Yeah yeah I understand now, I just thought the faster the whole bar rotates, it will just keep rising higher somehow, did't give it much thought myself, but thank you guys.
If you force the wheel to precess faster than its natural rate, yet at the same time force the wheel to stay at its present altitude and not allow it to rise, will the upward energy of the precession be transferred to your body, then decreasing your weight? If in space, could it be used to generate acceleration? (To be clear, I am not talking about centrifugal force based non-inertial propulsion.)
I doubt it. Even stars spin, but takes two to actually move, unless the galaxy doesn't have a force in itself that spins everything as well, but I only took highschool physics.
No, the torque will be transferred to your body. If you were standing on a turntable you and the turntable would begin to spin and there would be no weight loss :)
The torque effects would cancel each other out and the effect would disappear. If you put each wheel to spin in different directions, then the shaft will only rotate faster.
Or rather that one's effort to lift an object is not entirely and always due only to its overall mass, but also due to what shape it is and what shape your muscles and your bones are, and what position you attempt the task from. Holding a heavy object at the end of a long rod is far more difficult because leverage works against you and you must overcome the difficulty you induced into the task by lifting a weight this way. Imagine we made a 1 meter long rod and had the flywheel in the center of the rod. Would a spinning wheel be easier to lift if you had one hand on either end of the rod, and the wheel was balanced? Both the stationary wheel and the spinning wheel would be equally easy to lift over your head.
Thinks you shoulda had on a motorcycle helmet, or hard hat at least because, well you did have a 40lb steel bar above your knoggin. I feel great that I do not think I learned anything here ( I understood and predicted accurately) but I am one who is always studying stuff. Nothing better than learning anything, the more you learn the easier learning becomes. Keep up making cool educational vids :)
@Veritasium: I am not convinced that the when it was spinnig, the force required to lift it was just the weight of the wheel without the torque. Because when you lifted the same wheel in earlier wheel you struggled to do so. I think the wheel must feel lighter than 19kg when its spinning, i wonder why?
They don't address this at all. Their explanation is actually inadequate. But hey, it is a hard subject. The reason the weight IS ACTUALLY LIGHTER is because the momentum of the flywheel is being used to elevate it. The procession causes the wheel to essentially throw itself upwards a little bit, continuously. Energy is entirely conserved, so don't get too excited. ;)
@@ZandarKoad Watch what he does at 2:32. Then they explain that if you push it in the direction of precession you end up with an upwards force. That makes it easier to lift.
+Sofia Rivera The trick is understanding that kilogram is not a measurement of weight, despite them calling it that in the video. Weight is a unit of force. Mass* Length* Seconds^-2. Weight can be measured in many ways, but primarily it is measured in metric newtons or in imperial lbf/slugf. The mass of the man-flywheel system did not change. The gravity (acceleration) acting on them did not change. Remember F=ma The torque exerted on the man by the flywheel at rest is constant. The torque of the flywheel once it was accelerated and then left at rest is also constant (disregarding the loss in acceleration due to friction). Torque is not a unit of acceleration, therefore it would not effect the weight or force of the man-flywheel system on the scale.
You should really try dropping the gyro when it’s spinning and again when it’s stationary…use a high-speed camera to measure free fall its speed. This will tell you if the inertial mass stays the same.
Math is fine, as long as you have a good intuitive understanding of what you're applying the equations to. Unfortunately, gyroscopes are obviously _not_ intuitive, if they can confuse people of Laithwaite's calibre, not to mention math phobics like myself. Therefore, there could still be unexpected phenomena lurking in rotating systems that aren't predicted by classical mechanics.
Theory not applicable to reality is worthless. It's the reality that verifies every theory, and here we see that scientists always say that one force converts to another, but have not a clue WHY it does that.
Curios fact: - The "Anti-gravity wheel?" video has about 3x more views than this video where the Anti-gravity wheel is explained. Who and why sees the 1st one and does not wants to know the answer/explanation?
Gyroscopic precession is such a difficult concept to grasp! 3 years of engineering and i still don't understand it. Granted however, im not a mechanics major..
This isn’t such a mystery, it’s simpler than you think. E=MC^2. If you increase the energy in an object, it’s mass will decrease proportional to the energy input, thus rebalancing the equation and making it feel lighter. You are measuring the weight, which is NOT mass. I’ve seen numerous videos about this but NO ONE mentions this. Look at it as a formula and the answer is clear.
I feel like I'm growing up. Between the original and this video I only laughed at the word "shaft" 3 or 4 times. Really weird. Was wondering when I'd finally enter adulthood. 27 appears to be the age.
Hey, Veritasium, I got a question for ya.. So, if I stare at my desk from a certain angle it starts to look all static-ey, to the point where it seems like there's actually little particles buzzing around.. What gives? It only happens with my desk.. What do you think could be the cause?
Why would that be? If you read my comment you would see how the static only appears when I look at my desk from a certain angle.. It must be something to do with the lighting on the surface of my desk, or possibly even some sort of radiation off my computer.. There's no reason for it to be my eyes, seeing as it doesn't happen anywhere else, that I know of.
flackenstien The thing with your question is it is unbelievably vague. Could be your desk, could be the lighting, and "static" isn't a very well defined thing. So unless someone happens to know what you are talking about, which doesn't seem quite so likely since I have never heard of it, they can't just tell you why from the information you've given.
flackenstien Could be the 'Blue field entoptic phenomenon'; this is often the case when people see particles buzzing in front of them (actually the particles are white blood cells).
What would happen if you had a gyroscope with two discs, one on top of another, but spinning in opposite directions? Thanks for posting this, it's really interesting .
I think another factor of it feeling lighter is when you spin it faster then its precession, you apply a moment around the z axis in your body which makes it want to change its direction to the z-axis which makes it easier to lift.
***** a cluster of ballons (all of them closely tied) can do the trick, release them in the middle of the city and wait for the UFO videos to be uploaded to TH-cam. :P
Weazel News I do believe I have seen this on youtube (What haven't I seen here). In a video they explained how they could use something like this, like a spinning thing in something that flies, making it lighter and therefore making it easier to stop etc. :)
Came back to this video many years after. Since then I had begun my engineering degree and am almost done. Im pretty proud because while I dont remember my guess last time, I remember I was wrong. But this time I chose equal to without a doubt and fully understand the physics concepts behind it.
Hello my friend and engineer, there is no physical consept in the gyroscope, it was discovered by the French geologist Jean faucault, around the 1850s and improved with the advancement of the technology and today it is used in airplanes, helicopters and Alan Musk use them for landing vertical of the rockets. What's more, this billionaire intends to end the use of pilots and engineers using electric vertical landing and autonomous planes within 5 years. TESLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA FORever
if you split the weight to 19.5kg each wheel and somehow you managed to hold it right in the middle of the bar then it will feel the same as when it's spinning because again, no torque needed.
Timothy White I think that if you got both spinning in the SAME direction and had a pivot point halfway between the two and pushed up or down on either wheel, there would be yet another force that would cause the whole assembly to spin
Find it a little weird.. You try to lift it with no spin and you hold it almost at the center so there's not much torque yet you can barley lift it. Then you say it's easy to lift while spinning because you only have to lift the weight of 19Kg and not the torque... but you barley couldn't lift it without the torque before?? Am I getting this wrong?
Holding it at the center wouldn't eliminate the torque because the mass isn't evenly distributed. Most of the mass is on one end, so you'd have to hold it at the heavy end to negate it.
He demonstrated that he could lift it above his head one handed without it spinning. The only thing that changed then was that he was able to do it by holding on to the end of the rod while it was spinning. Weight is not the issue, he could lift the weight by itself. Centre of gravity is the issue. He could not lift it from a point away from it's centre of gravity as he would have to apply significant torque to counteract the torque caused by gravity. When the disk is spinning gyroscopic precession acts to counteract that torque instead. Speeding up the gyroscopic precession does not cause the system to levitate, it simply increases the amount of torque applied counteracting gravity causing the flywheel end to rotate upwards while the handle end rotates downwards, the net gravitational force exerted remains the same. In effect, all that is happening is that gyroscopic precession is moving the centre of gravity from the flywheel end to the handle end.
imbored742 In the beginning, he was holding the mechanism very close to the disk, so his hand was approximately in the same distance as the center of gravity (so the torque was small). Then after the spinning of the disk, he just lifted it without problem claiming that this happens because of no torque. (in both situations the torque was approximately zero.)
Just to clarify and note my understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong but: It's easier to raise over your head while it's spinning for two reasons 1) The spinning of the wheel causes the whole thing to process rather than fall, removing the need to apply counter torque to keep it horizontal and making it easier to hold in general. 2) In the motion to raise it up the end is pushed in the direction of the procession, increasing its speed and causing it to naturally rise up as well.
If it weights the same that means the gravity is the same. Gravity is defined by the mass of an object. The mass of that thing is barely anything, its own gravity will be negligible
It is the same weight..but you are not doing as much work lifting it as explained by the diagram of upward and downward foces.. So you can get ripped fractionally since you are doing work in providing a small amount of rotation..nothing more.
you only get ripped when the muscle is solely responsible for lifting the heavy wheel, in other words the muscle is under stress, but when the wheel is spinning this isnt the case..
It feels lighter because what you feel as something being heavy is actually how much effort you have to put into holding it stationary. Without it spinning, you have to both keep it from tilting and you have to hold it up, both of which require individual effort. With it spinning though you don't have to prevent it from tilting, only hold it, meaning the only effort is keeping it from falling.
You can instead ask why it feels heavier when it is not rotating. It feels heavier because of, lets call it, "rotational energy" (torque). Gyroscopic precession removes the torque, and it feels lighter. The scale does not measure the torque. It only measures the downward force.
Thank you all guys I just understood now! :D Just to make it clear let's use some examples though: so, in theory, the faster the wheel spins, the more the "felt weight" when holding with both arms tends towards the "felt weight" of an object of same total weight but with equally distributed weight on both ends (like a dumbell)? but that still doesn't explain the difference of "felt weight" between him lifting the object vertically without spinning by holding it close to its heavy part and then him lifting the object by holding it by the end, away from the heavy part (seems he had less trouble in the second instance).
So the gyroscopic stabilization of the wheel causes the torque needed to keep it up to be reduced dramatically to almost zero, but the weight (downward force from gravity) remained the same. Think of this as a lever arm, normally you would have a fulcrum, but in this case he only has his hands, so a fulcrum which would normally supply the normal force to hold up some of the weight of the lever arm must be replaced by an actual force being applied by a human hand. When he pushes down on the other side with his second hand (effort) to lift the flywheel (load) he increases the normal force which the first hand must supply since it is now supporting the weight of the fly wheel and fighting against the downward force of the other hand. When the wheel is spinning the gyroscopic effect counteracts the torque caused by the lever arm. This causes the effort arm to no longer need to push down, and therefore reduces the amount of weight the fulcrum arm is supporting. I hope that made some sense :)
@@jimroth7927 Well, if you look at the scales at the beginning, the weight actually displays 94kg not 91 kg as mentioned by our guinee pig. During the lift off rotation there is an average LOWER value of oscillation around 91 kg. If we want to be precise, than we should be precise. Just saying......
Ha Haa!!! Very good comment :) I was kinda referring to the new podcast "Hello Internet" with Brady and CGP Grey, and in one episode they both talk about how very "pretty" pretty Derek is. It very funny. I wish I looked like Derek tho - I bet he is a regular chick-magnet!
3:30 well, the rotation of the 1st (outer) axel is causing the 2nd (middle) axel to rotate if it's free to do so... So what happens if you add just about as much rotation to the 2nd axel as you do to the 1st axel? Also, what happens if you add rotation to all 3 axels?
I don't know.. When you held it near the weight there is significantly less torque and you still struggled to press it over your head but when i was spinning you seemed to be able to lift it above your head without struggling.. and i doubt that old man could have pressed that much weight over his head even without torque (say a dumbell).
When the wheel is spinning, the torque causes the "procession" of the object (spinning in a circle rather than falling down). Now, the only force you need to counteract is the actual weight of the object (the 20lbs). Imagine trying to lift another person with your arms completely stretched out from your body. You can't. Too much torque. Strange, however, that Veritasium almost couldn't lift 20lbs DIRECTLY above his body. That's because by swinging the spinning wheel around his body, procession caused the wheel to briefly climb higher.
This trades the weight you feel up and down, for weight you feel trying to stop its rotation. Inertia vectors and angular momentum yall. @ 2:49 he uses both arms and leverage of his leg just to stop the rotational inertia. Not magic. The fact that it decreases thrust needed in the Z direction to move that mass, is a much better use of the energy needed to elevate the object - and also points to why many UFO sightings are spinning discs. Planes also use wing angle and aerodynamics to convert thrust forces just in a linear way. Rotational inertia is probably more efficient than linear as you're utilizing all 6 degrees of freedom but I've never seen that tested.
shouldn't the scale drop a lot though when he sends it up? if the down-force of gravity is being transferred forwards instead (which definitely would make sense), shouldn't that mean it's no longer pushing on the scale while it's going around?
@@AshalmawiaThe object is 40lbs, handle included. All the spinning does, is sets the center of mass of the object to the end of the handle. If you tried to pick up the dead weight from the end of the handle you would have leverage factoring against you. Now with the disc spinning, and the center of mass at your hand - the whole object is also in rotation because of the discs rotational inertia. The 40 pound weight is still 40lbs. You are just now picking it up at the center of its mass, and its also rotating which uses a more even distribution of your muscles when you go to lift it. Dead weight always 'feels heavier'.
@@l-o-r-d I think it works like this: if you think of all of the points of the disc, while it's spinning fast, they all have very strong motion vectors, except they're all being mostly cancelled out since it's in a circle. this has a tendency to seem to nullify gravity, because gravity's motion vector is small in comparison. then, if you apply a particular motion vector to it (spin it around above your head), the motion is added to all of the existing motion vectors, giving the object huge amounts of momentum in which ever direction you push it. basically, the spinning hugely magnifies the effects of momentum and inertia, because you have those huge motion vectors to work for you if you push them slightly out of balance.
@@Ashalmawia ehh sort of. Physicists can model this behavior because this is a gyroscope stability observation that uses mass in rotation which produces angular momentum. Since this activity causes immense stability along the axis of rotation (a force in motion, staying in motion), and the handle (although not in rotation) is still bound to the disc perpendicular to the spin axis - it reduces the leverage felt at the end of the connected shaft. What's important to note here, is if the disc to shaft connection were not a fixed set of bearings maintaining co-axiality, but rather a ball-and-socket style bearing - there would be a wobble introduced instead but it would be a 'predictable wobble' path. The feeling of stability is just an angular momentum wobble path so tight tolerance you can't tell its happening. These same people doing this experiment, would be able to lift a 40lb mass above their heads as long as it were centered, and they had proper form. If this stuff interests you, there are free physics lecture recordings on TH-cam from many reputable professors on this topic, and others similar.
@@l-o-r-d I don't think I agree, though to have more insight I would have to perform the experiment myself. they don't even kind of struggle to "lift" the weight, it's more like it lifts itself. it seems to me that it's because the spinning allows storing momentum. all they have to do is push it once with a normal amount of effort, and it stores that momentum and climbs (or at least feels like it becomes much lighter). it's the motion added to the spinning causing the spin to be slightly off balance. not off balance in terms of center, but mathematically. say each vector all around the circle has a magnitude of 50 (whatever unit). when motionless, they all add up to zero. but then you push it 5 units left. that 5 left is added to every vector around the circle, but some of those vectors are 50 left, some are 50 right, some are 50 up, etc. 50 left becomes 55 left. 50 right becomes 45 left. etc.etc. all around the circle. things are no longer cancelling out completely, and instead it all adds together to a huge amount of left movement or momentum, and it stays that way. the same thing is happening with gravity and your hand, where the canceling of gravity that you do by carrying the object is stored as well, so once you are holding it still, it tends to remain still. it's basically a momentum storage mechanism. you can put momentum into it, and it tends to stay there.
This. This is how you get kids interested in science, engineering, mathematics. Something that you hear some kids say is that maths or science isn't relevant to them. Or, worse still, they've heard their parents say that it's useless for getting them a job. It is real world demonstrations such as this that inspire and arouse interest. Good stuff.
+Sue Mead Well they're not wrong, it is useless in getting a job.
+Computer
Engineering is a job...
+Brad exactly lol thats what he means
+Sue Mead I agree.
I think intelligence isn't purely decided by who you are when you are born, but also by the environment you are brought up in. Of course how you are born does affect your intelligence, for example if you have a better memory then you will likely do better in tests, but your parents can greatly influence your intelligence. Inspiration can act like a parent does, and lead to someone becoming a more intelligent individual, therefore I think videos like this are fundamental in creating an intelligent person who lacks parents who could do it instead.
Love this experiment.
As a pilot I have really needed to wrap my head around gyroscopic precession as related to my instruments, but this illustration gives a new and simpler context to the same phenomenon.
Yeah same here I am a merchant Seaman so need a very good understanding of Gyroscopic properties and that this is certainly a far more interesting way of demonstrating.
From one pilot to another, I feel your pain! Excellent explanation in this video, it certainly does help explain gyroscopes.
*****
Yup, all the chemtrails. /sarcasm
Nice to see you here! Love Veritasium
Really? Most pilots do not even know why their aircraft fly. The Bernoulli explanation is known to be unphysical nonsense.
Veritasium, providing answers to questions I never knew existed
I want to see this experiment done with one flywheel on each end. Spin them in the same direction and spin them in opposite directions. That would be nice to see.
I want to see this experiment done with one flywheel on each end. Spin them in the same direction and spin them in opposite directions. That would be nice to see.hat would be nice to see. Thanks maxbored
Yes. Make two of those, and then attach the axle of both wheel sets to a rigid body.
Flying Car
There's a video on YT of a guy who does that, and it turns out the gyro forces cancel out and it behaves like there are no spinning parts
Imagine twirling a string and then spinning in a circle, just like they are doing here.
Does the string fall? No. It just creates a swirling pattern as you spin around. Understanding why, is very similar to understanding why the wheel doesn't fall.
This "swirling action" is at high rpm and takes place within the molecules of the steel bar, so it seems invisible.
A while back I made a small one and sat it on a digital scale like you guys did here. Zero weight change. And yet placing a playing card on the scale at the same time did show a change. I recall the pleasure I felt seeing that all of the relevant experimental science done in the past held up so beautifully. You gotta love reality's consistency. Kudos for doing this.
You should've tried to shuffle your feet and rotated your body with the flywheel above your head to keep it in the air longer (if you could). Longer airtime would've been more badass!
Nixego ah yes!... rotate or spin your self with the gyroscopic force to make it seem like you could hold it over your head for like 5min or so... would look pretty impressive! great idea
untill it slips and gets buried in the camera mans face of course ;-)
@Be Informed Wow, strong argument, you really got him. Great evidence of nothing.
@Be Informed Theism is as far from the truth as you can get.
The reason it's easier is because he's in Australia and therefore hanging upside-down by his feet. Also, they use the metric system, and everyone knows that 19 is less than 42. Not to mention that 42 is the answer to the ultimate question about life, the universe, and everything.
Well 9-2=7 42 divided by 7 = 6. 6-3=3. 3 is how many sides are on a triangle. illuminati confirmed
lol.... I also seen him sneak tinkerbell under his shirt.... now she can't lift a grown adult man....but she can lift him a little.... Since J.M. Barries death many of his fictional characters have had to find work where they can.... its very sad.
Hmmmm, okay seems legit
In relation to the Universe, we're neither upside-down or the right way around. There is no frame of reference in space.
They don't even know that it's winter in January down in Australia.
42? Are you sure? I always thought it was 107...
Feels satisfied that you have chosen the right one
RedDevilus I choose the right one but I tested what happen when pressing the other buttons... they all end up on this video :D
RedDevilus But for the right reasons?
Gina??
I feel like I’ve chosen all of them.
Pure magic, I can even see Hogwarts in the background
@@jack_woodman Sydney Uni? Hogwarts! Much the same really.
Someone would be chanting wingardium leviosa
@@jack_woodman r/wooosh
@@jack_woodman oh OK thanks then
Same here
Really interesting. Thumbs up from us!
know i get it...thor`s hammer has built in gyroscope and finger print scanner in its handles ...so it activates the gyroscope when thor holds it ,....
korlum chukhu I was thinking the same thing. A drill in the handle and a huge wheel inside the hammer. :)
Simon Kelk haahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahha yes
korlum chukhu damn it, I thought the exact same thing the second he held up the damn gyroscop
korlum chukhu though the same when i was watching this :D
got to ask thors fathers blacksmith ..whats exactly in there ...lol
I'll just pretend that I understand this.
***** I never understood gyroscopic precession, then I played Kerbal Space Program and tried to change my orbital inclination...
oh, that makes sense.
+Abey Babu hahahaah same thing
So that we can feel smart xD
Its all about internal force. If we define the system to be the man-scale system, we can see that the internal forces balance out because there is not net force acting on the system. However, although the net internal force sums to 0, it doesn't mean that the internal forces are 0. The higher the angular momentum the gyroscope, the less internal force we have to provide ourselves to the system. As a result, the overall weight is the same. However, if we let the gyroscope accelerate upwards/downwards, we will see small changes in the scale reading because there is now a net external force acting on the system. This is why the scale reading fluctuates.
Why spinning cancels out the net torque?
Watched this about a year ago - I don't know anything. Took an engineering class. Understands most of it. School is actually useful!
Eh, any science related to physics requires the student to do most of the work. I'd say the utility of school when it comes to physics and similar physical sciences is that it sets a study schedule and holds the student accountable to it.
What if you try to move the other way (that would be...counter-clockwise) with the wheel spinning the same way. Would it feel the same ? heavier ? Would it be virtually impossible ?
So if you turn like in the video the torque will get to 0 but if you're going against it then it should be twice as heavy, hmmm good question
Darkness251 It's actually answered in the video @ 2:53
e-penser ah yeah I see, thanks
wow, I totally thought, it would show lighter, because the scale to my knowledge does not weigh mass, it measures force instead. The mass had to stay the same, but the force down to earth could ´ve changed... Obviously I was wrong.
really loved this one!, thanks!
I love it when something on TH-cam is based on scientifically demonstrable facts and leads to a better understanding of our experiences. Thanks for making this video!
Another superb video Derek that really got me thinking!
I'm showing this to my physics students at college!
This is relatively simple given that you're a professor at a college...
the beauty is in the simplicity
Darkill Vix Fully (and quantitatively) describing the physics of a gyroscope is not trivial at all. As a university physics student I can assure you it's one of the most complicated and (at first) counterintuitive problems you face in a classical mechanics course, so showing this video to students could be very helpful, especially if the class doesn't have access to a gyroscope to perform a demontration.
This video is great not necessarily because it gives facts and teaches university students, but it's job is to incite wander and curiosity for those students having them be more interested in what they are learning.
Dear Alan, you need to show the original Laithwaite 1974 video. The spinning gyro negates forces pushing toward the center of the earth. Hence, he hung a stand weighing about 8kg off the edge of a table, but it would not fall off - so long as the gyro was spinning.
I've just began to explore your channel, coming over from Vsauce. Fascinating presentations illuminating new principles and curiosities I haven't encountered before; so thank you for what you do. I'm real glad channels like yours and his exist and are so popular.
I still don't feel like I understand Gyroscopic Precession, although I've only just found out about it.
so basically put another wheel on the other end of the bar and spin that as well and break the universe
If the other wheel spins the opposite way the angular momentum of the system is =0, so the system would 'feel' as heavy as if there were no wheels spinning. That is, if you hold it from the center of the pole. If you hold it from any other point, it will probably start spinning as shown in the video.
Cristian Sandica
But what would happen if you were turn 2 wheels at the same end of the rod? I mean 2 wheels would rotate in the opposite way?
Paranoia And what would happen if you were turn 2 wheels not at the same end of the rod, the second is mounted on an axle on the first wheel?
Paranoia if you put two wheels of equal mass rotating at equal speeds going opposite directions then they would simply cancel each other out. Think of those toy helicopters with the two sets of blades.]
I dont understand what you mean by the second one.
***** the 2 sets of blades in the helicopter (toy or real) are exactly used to cancel the rotation so that the helicopter is easy to fly. Another mechanism to do just the same is the tail rotor in traditional helicopters or using 2 separate blades rotating in opposite directions like the Chinook heli.
There's a VR sword/handle glove thing that uses spinning motors to adjust torque to make you feel like you're holding a heavy sword or hammer. You should do a video on that.
thats cool
I would simply buy a real sword, and go around using it. Skip the VR.
@@jakelodwick wait, what would you use it for in real life :o ?
@@jennyaguirre5613 real life hay dummy cutting
@@jakelodwick using it on people
Great explanation. You broke it down masterfully for easy comprehension. Bravo!
haha true! no explanation at all
Julian H. Depends how knowledgeable you are in this area.
If you are confused I suggest reading about Newtons Laws of Motion, what Weight is, and Torque.
There are many videos online that explain these concepts.
my only question with this is that he struggled to lift the device when he had his hand very near the center of mass. The closer you are to the center of mass, the less torque you have to apply to keep the object upright. When he holds his hand at the base of the shaft right next to the wheel it's little to no torque. So he'd be applying 42 pounds of force to lift the object. Then when it's spinning, he easily lifts it. like it's not even close to 42 pounds. I understand that the spinning causes the object to want to maintain its horizontal orientation, thus negating the guy's need to apply a torque to keep it upright. That is what allows him to hold it at the end of the shaft. which would be impossible for any human being to do. But, shouldn't he still struggle to lift it? he should lift it as if he were lifting it at the base. which was very difficult for him. I think the answer lies with the fact that he threw the device forward and it lifted itself up. But if that's the case, the scale should decrease at that point. Which would make sense to me. But it didn't. Perhaps because the movement, the scale jumped around and made it difficult to see that. Can anyone help me with this?
I had the same thoughts
The explanation may still be what is claimed in the video. When the object spinning, he lifts it without putting any effort to maintain it up his head. Note when the object is above your head, it locates at an unstable equilibrium position, and you make lots of effort to keep it there. This effort is released when the object is spinning.
Two things I can add: The scale doesn't have to go down during the lift up, since accelerating the mass upwards would increase the weight on the scale, so the weight loss could cancel out the acceleration. Maybe it only works when he is letting it spin, as when he did drop it we saw the expected up and down on the scale. However the accuracy of the measurement is not good enough to make any conclusions at this point.
@@madmax43v3r Nothing will happen, this is a gyroscope, a stabilizer, nothing to do with gravity. and gravity does not exist, it is the Aether subatomic particle pushing towards the earth's magnetic
well, the scale is based on weight, and it never stopped being a certain weight.
let me give you a weird example. you can't weigh an airplane while it's in flight. but if you tried to knock it out of the way with something, it would still take the same amount of force to move it that it would if it was on the ground. that's because lift and torque don't change weight or mass.
It's kinda telling that this explanation video only has 1/15 the views of the first one.
1/10*
Thats because this video should have been called Part 2 I had to do a search to find it. Whatever it is its still bloody weird to see such an old guy gentle swinging it about his head, I'd love to see this replicated on the space station at zero G that would be informative.
@@fixed1t Nothing will happen, this is a gyroscope, a stabilizer, nothing to do with gravity. and gravity does not exist, it is the Aether subatomic particle pushing towards the earth's magnetic
@@joseinfante5054 There is no "Aether" subatomic particle... Are you trying to talk about the Higgs field and getting confused?
@@error.418 I know, I know, you are one of those who have been brainwashed per those damn physicists, well you have 2 options, you stay like this for a lifetime, you are taking some money to brainwash others, how does this accursed doctrine command you, or try something old like Nikola Tesla, Karl Schappeller, Oudin, D'arsonvall, Lakhousky.
I bet you didn't see Maria Pereda's video and that you are expressly forbidden to believe in Aether, but then you go and see the patent for Karl Schappeller device, on Google. well, the description and discussion will be a lot of sand for your truck, as usual for those who took the brainwash of the order, so make an equation there to discover the sex of the Angels, it is faster.
Just to add to the explanation: The gyroscope only feels lighter, because angular rotation is being converted to precession, and at certain times to vertical movement within the system. The system being the flywheel, the man, potential energy, kinetic energy and the ground. His arm does less work in raising the gyroscope, but he does more work in rotating himself, effectively increasing the rate of precession, and transferring energy to and from the flywheel. His total energy expenditure, plus the energies transferring to and from the flywheel rotation, are exactly the same as the energy used in simply lifting a stationary mass of 19 kg, but _different muscles are being used_ to accomplish the task.
As he rotates himself faster, lifting the flywheel, the _total_ rotational speed of the flywheel increases by an amount equal to his rotation about the vertical axis plus the rotational speed of the flywheel.
(Edit: To explain the next sentences, in a frictionless system, the flywheel would gain rotational speed in proportion to the man's rotational speed - every turn he makes is one extra turn to the flywheel, and as he slows down, the flywheel slows down by that much. In practice, the flywheel slows all of the time, because of friction but less so as he turns himself faster.)
Energy is thus transferred via his work in rotating himself plus the gyroscope. When he lowers the gyroscope, his rotational speed reduces, as does the speed of rotation of the flywheel. Energy is being transferred back from the flywheel. The residual precession, as he holds the gyroscope horizontally, represents the losses through friction, as the flywheel slows down. That's why a fixed gyroscope will gradually lower its shaft's free end to horizontal and below, until it strikes an object, and then transfers its remaining rotational energy to the obstruction, through noise, heat, and the disturbance of the momentum of the object. It sometimes runs away across a surface, or even shatters itself, whilst giving up that energy.
The two measured weight displacements on the scale are the peak points during which energies are being transferred. It can be seen from the graph that the increase in measured weight x the area under the curve and the 'neutral point is approximately equal and opposite to the area above the curve x the measured weight. (The discrepancy is mainly due to the man working to adapt to the changing forces between his arms and the gyroscope, and to friction.) Thus no net 'lifting force' results, and the laws momentum / thermodynamics are satisfied. In fact, if anything, the larger increase in measured weight than the measured decrease, proves that, if anything, energy is lost, and no net 'lift' has occurred.
Unfortunately, Professor Laithwaite had misunderstood what he was saying. Sadly, he lost his job, after losing credibility because of that error and he died with a somewhat unbalanced mind, in many peoples' estimation. In other respects, the Professor was a brilliant man, and people tend to forget that fact, because mistakes are much easier to sensationalise.
One other thing I think makes it feels lighter which Derek seemed to try to allude to. If you try lift the awkward weight with nothing spinning it’s not as easy as the rotating system, because you don’t need to balance the bar in your hand, you don’t need to apply torque to stop it rocking back and forth, it feels like a balanced weight as long as you move your arm with it. I guess that’s similar to what you said, I realize my comment isn’t concise or technical but I’m saying it’s easier to hold weight which doesn’t need stabilization, the same mass but with a short length is unforgiving to slight shakiness and it feels heavier when it’s not
@@dcamron46 you just replies to 3y ago comment 😂❤️
Looks incomplete to me, the machine on the scales at the end of this video contradicts to this analysis
He didn’t die with an unbalanced mind and was, I think, still working when he died on a system to launch objects vertically using the linear motor rails as used in the mag lift trains. He was a very nice chap with a great interest in butterflies.
This is the explanation I needed that was missing from the video. Thank you!
i'm a big fan of these interactive video's. makes you think without just handing you answers.
Great stuff Derek! But actually, I think it literally does weigh less as you twirl the apparatus above your head. That first second or so as you start the rotation, there is a small downward force (which I think accounts for the little blip on the scale at 0:28) but as it spirals up it is losing angular momentum causing a small force in the opposite direction, making it feel slightly lighter. You'll note that if there were no affect the scale should actually register more weight as you push and accelerate something heavy upward over your head. The scale does not show this (unless that is the blip at 0:28, but I doubt it as I don't think you start to actually lift it until after) making me think it must effectively be a tiny bit lighter.
The scale with the little gyro shows no change because the gyro is on a balance with a weight and can teeter-totter but the gyro clearly does want to move up and down as you nudge the angular speed of the base (like at 3:39). So, if it were not allowed to teeter-totter (locked in the Z axis) I claim the scale *would* show a change as the rotation rate is nudged one way or the other. So Derek, my guess is that when you first start to whirl the big heavy spinny thing (my technical term), there was a small extra downward force felt in your left hand which was then reversed as as the spiral slowed as it lifted. For sure, the change in how you have to apply the vectors of force (as you point out around 1:52) is the bigger effect you're experiencing but I don't think it's the only one.
Many thanks, I'm learning lots from your channel.
Intriguing. Requires further research
Yes, you get it. You see the dumbfuckery that they are doing. I do also.
I have no desire to correct them because they are following the status quo’s narrative.
It's actually funny how this professor's surname is so similar to the word Lightweight.
"It feels lighter without getting lighter"
My brain hurts
Your explanation implies that holding the apparatus the end while the wheel is spinning would have it feel no lighter than holding it at its centre of mass while it wasn't spinning, which doesn't look like what you experience in the previous video.
how does it not look like it in the previous video? The only reason why it was easier to hold while at the center was because he was using both hands.
Ideally it would be that way, however there are 3 main limitting conditions:
1: The rod to which the disk/wheel is attached is not spinning.
2: The wheel is only spinning so quickly (gyroscopic precession is an approximation for where the disk is spinning crazy fast and the angular momentum contribution from the rotating of the entire rod-wheel pales in comparison to the wheel's angualr momentum.
3: (as he said) his hand does not apply force at just one point, so when he picks up the thing with just his hand near the center of mass he is still pivoting the rod and the wheel...
Also, he added a bit of an extra spin to it, which if you consider that him pushing it working in the same way that gravity pulls down, the gyro-scope almost "wants" to go upward, in the same way that it wants to go in a circle.
I have experienced this effect when I was in the Air Force. We removed one of the gyroscopes from a C-130 immediately after landing. It was contained in a black box with a handle to pull the box out of its mount and carry it. When I slid the box out it stayed in the horizontal position as if defying gravity. It stayed in that position as I carried out of the aircraft and to the truck which I put it in. I was unaware of gyroscopic precession at the time so it was a unique experience.
Lol thought there was some sort of antigravity secret didn’t you?
@ 1:39 "So, two handed, that's as far down the shaft as you can hold it?" I lol'd!
Why
@@jounik8980 because. thats as far down on the shaft as he can hold it! :)
I am now much older than Professor Eric Laithwaite when he passed away, and I did go up to London to attend some of his lectures. I am to write is meant for others to think about and if they have the time and equipment, they can try and confirm it.I did it in my simple manner of home experimentations.
1. Keeping the spinning plane. The mass in the spinning wheel of a gyro acts in the plane of rotation and tries to keep it due to the high angular momentum.
2. Precession at 90 degrees. The plane of the spinning wheel may be looked upon being a lot of individual elemental masses placed on flexible radial spokes and each elemental mass can be treated individually. When the wheel is fast spinning on its axis all the radial masses are spinning with a high circumferential velocity/momentum depending on the radius and the spin rate. If at any moment, the spinning axis of the gyro wheel is tilted, then some mass at the end of the tilting radius will try and move out of the spinning plane while another on the opposite radius will move out of the spinning plane in the opposite direction on a diameter. So having an additional force/torque applied to them the elemental masses will accelerate out of the original spinning plane. As these elemental masses are tied with a constant radius with the axle, then while the tilt of the axis causes the particle to accelerate out of the relative halves of the wheel, their final " integrated circular motion" will be a maximum when the mass particles are in quadrature or 90 degrees to that location where they began to accelerate out of the original plane. Eventually when the tilt of the axis is long enough then all the mass particles on the spinning wheel will take up spinning in another plane at a 90-degree angle with the tilt that accelerated them out of the original plane. That is a 90-degree precession effect.
3. Precession and holding of a gyro on an extended shaft. If a spinning wheel is placed at the end of a long extended shaft where the free end is placed on a vertical stationary mast, and the spinning wheel at a radius R from the support mast, then as the wheel drops vertically, it tries to do this with the acceleration of 32 ft/sec^2 of gravity, which is relatively slow with respect to the velocity of the spinning mass particles. With the vertical drop, hence the tilting of the axle, the mass particles on the upper half of the spinning wheel will be "accelerated out" away from the central supporting mast and those in the lower half will be "accelerated in" towards the support mast. This acceleration one way and the other on the upper and lower half of the spinning wheel will cause the integrated acceleration to change the plane of spinning at 90 degrees to the initial vertical drop, horizontally. The spinning wheel changes its plane at a right angle to the vertical dropping, hence tilting axle. It is important to realize that the particles that accelerate out or in towards the central support mast are spinning much faster than the spinning wheel, as one whole unit, can drop due to slow gravity effects, so the top and bottom masses in the plane of spin, will try and replace each other so fast that they cause a high inertia fluctuation, similar as a big capacitor in a low pass filter objects to an AC fluctuation or "stationary mass inertia" be it electrical or statically and dynamically mechanically. This 90 egress action will try and fling the pivot support point on the central stationary mast in a horizontal direction, but it cannot as the mast is stationary, so the horizontal reaction must bring about the result as the free rotation of the whole spinning wheel about the stationary support mast. So "a tiny vertical drop" tried to precess the wheel in "a horizontal motion" at a related natural rate of change.
4. Precessed rising of the gyro. If the natural rate of change of the horizontal motion is hurried up ( or slowed) then a second precession process will take place and the reaction to it will be a 90-degree reaction where the spinning gyro will now lift, ( or drop) gaining (or losing) potential energy from the eternal input. If for any reason the whole spinning wheel is dropped vertically in a sudden action, then the gyro wheel will wobble along changing KE into a faster horizontal precession which in turn will raise the gyro and this transferred oscillation will proceed till it stabilizes, as it is damped down. There is another interesting reason why the spinning wheel of a gyro when on an extended axle on a central stationary mast may lift up to the vertical till its axle is perfectly vertical.
5. Rising (or dropping) of a gyro while precessing around central stationery must. When the fast-spinning wheel of a gyro spins and at the same time rotates /wobbles around a central stationary mast, and is SPUN AND TRANSLATED, then this spinning and translating effect will result in the spinning stationary circle, being modified into a type of cycloidal motion and what is more, the cycloidal motion of the particles on the spinning wheel will vary as the spinning wheel is tilted and then it rises and drops below the horizontal spinning axis. Any cycloidal trajectory, unlike a perfect circle, it will have a variation in velocity and in acceleration and hence the related generated forces with the varying acceleration as a particle moves along the cycloidal trajectory. If the extended axle of the gyro is about 45 degrees tilt, then the conical cycloidal trajectory of the spinning and precession wheel around the central support mast, the differential accelerations, hence the accompanying differential forces will " throw up" the whole gyro to lift it to try and reach the vertical position ( or the inverted vertical position). Here all the mass particles will be moving in a horizontal circle with constant velocities and constant accelerations and hence stable. In practical experiments, this vertical stable position ( as a spinning top) will be held till the gyro slowing down and the weight due to gravity will take over. It seems that all the internal cycloidal forces on the spinning particles of the gyro wheel are RADIAL to the center of the spinning wheel and hence these cycloidal acceleration forces will not precess the gyro hence the " throw up" and rising of the gyro dictated by the cycloidal differential accelerations.
6. Centrifugal force. If one looks into the differential accelerations that exist withing the tilted, conical, cycloidal trajectory of the mass particles in a spinning gyro and translating wheel, one will notice that the accelerating components of the tilted acceleration vector of the elemental particles do oppose the centrifugal force. Many people declare ( and they are correct) that the centrifugal force in a spinning and precessing gyro " vanishes" and the solution is found in the differential vectorial accelerations contained in the cycloidal trajectory of spinning and translating circulating surface of a conical, tilted, translating and spinning of a balanced wheel. If one looks at the PLAN view of the cycloidal path traveled by each mass particle in spinning and processing gyro one will see CONVEX AND CONCAVE curves traversed by particles navigating the upper-lower halves of the spinning wheel curves with respect to the central pivot and this means that there are TWO CENTRIFUGAL FORCES one acting inward ( on the upper one) and one acting outwards ( on the lower half. The centrifugal force acting inwards has a higher magnitude than the centrifugal force acting outwards. This is due to the fact that the cycloid has a distorted elliptical plan view were the convex and concave curves have a different radius of curvature which the mass particle traverse to generate the inbound and the outbound centrifugal forces acting at different heights to balance out the gravitational torque and the outwards centrifugal force on a floating gyro. There are other dynamics unbalances in a " statically and dynamically balanced wheel"
7. When the external torque on a gyro is removed suddenly, the wheel shows no inertia effect as it is not the whole mass of the wheel that is being translated, but effectively it is the elemental particles that are being displaced out of the spinning plane and hence effectively little inertia is shown when the outside force is reduced unless the whole spinning gyro is shot out and thrown off the muzzle of a gun, where all the mass is being translated.
8. The gyro cannot ever produce any action without any reaction and if one tries to propel a spacecraft with it, and try to spin the wheel in space to get it going, the spacecraft will spin back. If one seeks reactionless actions..........they must look elsewhere but not inside the gyro.
9, Finally here is the equation of a flat gyro operating on a rotating arm to check and approximate to the differential accelerations of the family of complex three-dimensional conical cycloids. I obtained and plotted these differences in accelerations as the cycloidal trajectory is followed and the difference of accelerations on the upper half and lower half of a spinning gyro. It is all very clear, hence the tiny differential repetitive forces give the gyro its elegance and unintuitive perplexing behavior.
10. Location of particle = R1. e^jw1.t + R2.e^jw2,t
velocity of particle = R1. jw1.e^jw1.t + R2.jw2. e^jw2,t
acceleration of particle=R1. (jw1)^2.e^jw1.t + R2.(jw2)^2. e^jw2,t
Would be grateful if any one would to confirm this work.
for reference of rising gyro see.
th-cam.com/video/FRvrmTLHx_M/w-d-xo.html
Here is some additional information. In the videos showing gyros floating against gravity, normally the spinning gyro has the upper half of the spinning wheel rotating with angular velocity Ws in opposite direction to the precessing angular velocity Wp, while the lower half of the spinning wheel travels in the same direction as Wp. Hence in the upper spinning half, there is velocity subtraction and in the lower spinning half, there is an additive velocity effect of Ws and Wp in relation to their respective radii Rg and Ra.
All the characteristic functions of a gyro are due to the accelerations that take place in the thick voluminous three-dimensional cycloidal path that the gyro wheel has to go through even if we regard the gyro as a flat circular plate. Assume the gyro spinning wheel is a perfectly flat circle with a radius of the spinning wheel being Rg while the extension arm from the central supporting pivot is Ra.
Taking one mass particle on the peripheral circumference of the gyro then, when Rg is vertical, the mass particle is Ra horizontally away from the vertical line above the supporting pivot. When the mass particle is horizontal, then the distance of the mass particle from the vertical line going through the central support pivot point is the squareroot(Ra^2 + Rg^2). This means that in one spin the mass particle has to move radially out and in along a cycloid path which is ( sqrt( Ra^2 + Rg^2)) - Ra. wide/thick.
The diameter of the gyro spinning wheel, 2.Rg fits tangentially to Ra while the two ends of the horizontal diameter touch the larger circle of radius ( sqrt( Ra^2 + Rg^2))
Due to the different velocities with respect to ground, of mass particles traversing in the upper and lower half-circles of the spinning wheel, the particles on the slower upper half will have a curve with its center of curvature outside the footprint made by the circle Ra, while the faster particles on the lower half will have a curve with its center of curvature, just a little behind the support pivot at the center of the footprint made by the circle of radius Ra.
This is the magic that diminishes the normal outbound centrifugal force as all the slower mass particles on the upper half of the spinning gyro in the videos shown are traversing trajectories that have their center of curvature outside the footprint made by the circle Ra. This is an inward bound centrifugal force that opposes that inbound centrifugal force which exists on the lower half of the spinning gyro shown in many " floating gyros going around a central pivot point.
The vertical distance and horizontal separation X of the inbound and outbound centrifugal forces acting on the upper and lower halves of the spinning gyros also balance the vertical gravity torque due to the weight of the gyro, (m.g.Ra) also the inertia torque which is a property of the spinning gyro (I. Ws.Wp.)
Hence (m.g.Ra) = (F1+F2).X= (I.Ws.Wp) while the resulting apparent resulting centrifugal force is (F1- F2).
F1 is the inbound centrifugal force while F2 is the outbound conventional when one considers the addition effect of the velocities Ra.Wp + Rg.Ws and the taking into account that the center of the instantaneous radius of the cycloidal trajectories is not Ra as when the gyro is rotated as if it was a lumped mass without its spinning. F1 disappears if the gyro is not spun at all while being rotated at Wp, where the normal conventional centrifugal force appears fully.
this is a more detailed and involved version of a general idea that I had, I'm collecting aluminum cans so I can do some sand casting, maybe I'll work on this first. I was going to make an exoskeleton but this will work as a first project.
Derek, this is fascinating to me. I think you should try to conduct the experiment with a weight that is much heavier. A weight that you normally could not lift over your head.
vsauce made a video on this. it's called spinning
@@richtigmann1 Thank you! I bet I'll probably even end up knowing why "spinning" is even called spinning and not katshibula, or something like that, because... it's Vsause! (and I love it that way xD)
He can't lift 19 kgs with that thin arm either.
+coop island it’s really not that hard to lift say 14/15kg as long as there’s no torque making it harder. I’m sure 19 is possible with some work for most men
@@longislandlegoboy he/you sure can deadlift 19 kgs. I mean in a position like 0:33 he can't lift. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lever
1. The weight is still the same when spinning but you can now lift it, you haven’t explained that.
2. You brought it down again as soon as it reached the top (arm’s length). Fix a swivel to the handle and then see if you can keep it above your head.
3. You’ve said that the spinning causes the torque, but you haven’t explained how.
4. The tendency (for the shaft) to rotate, and the tendency to rise are two different things. They are related, though, you can’t lift the spinning wheel unless you rotate it around yourself. Why?
5. The wheel is uniform in all directions, so why is the turning force directional, and what determines the direction it takes? (If you spin the wheel the other way does it reverse?
6. Attach the shaft to a rig with sensors to measure the size and direction of the forces created.
a man of science. asking the next questions 🤟
1. Its weight being the same is correct. But since it's spinning, you don't need to have a counterweight at the to balance out the weight the two ends of the pole. This was explained by using gyroscopic precession. It is like dividing the mass of the metal into 2 so that half of its mass is at both ends of the pole cancelling the torque of the pole due to gravity. You can see it if you try to lift a dumbbell with a two 2kg metals at each side or a dumbbell with 4kg only on 1 side. Even if the mass are the same, it is much easier to lift the one with 2 metals at each side than the latter. Also, it can also be explained by inertia. The motion of the metal makes it hard for gravity to act upon it.
2. Your suggestion is very witty and good. You can actually keep it as long as the rotation is enough to prevent it to fall down from your head. But I mean, you literally have a giant metal being hold by a shaft and by rotational motion. Even I wouldn't want to have that thing above my head in case some extraneous variables affect the experiment that would cause me my head. He's in the street and there's not telling what might happen there.
3. That's the definition of torque. It is just a force that cause other objects to rotate. Since it is spinning, it is continuously rotating. But I don't know which torque are you talking about since there is also a torque when metal isn't spinning. The torque is the force that is applied by the mass and gravity to the rod that causes it to tilt since it has an unbalanced weight just like what I said at no. 1. If there are 2 weights at the end, there would be no torque when the metal isn't spinning. And maybe the the thing your asking at no. 1 can be explained by this because even if you spin one end of the metal with two weights at each end, they wouldn't lighter.
4. The shaft is a solid rigid object. The rotation of the object upwards would also be the same downwards. For a second thought, I think this isn't what you mean but the rotation of the object in the horizontal direction and the tendency of the shaft to rise in the vertical direction. Then your answer is justified since it is answered in the video. He actually put a force at the end of the pole near the spinning metal. That is why it look like he was able to lift it with one hand, but he actually used forces from 2 of his hands to lift the shaft.
5. It can also be explained by gyroscopic precession. The rotation cancels out the torque from the one end without the metal just like at no. 1. If you actually have a machine that can lift that thing with or without the spin, just like you have said it would have the same reading. Like at the end of the video where a small gyroscope at an electrical weighing scale. The readings at the start is actually just caused by the acceleration of the gravity applied to the shaft and metal when he fails to properly hold the shaft. That is why I suggested the use of machine in the experiment since a machine would read the same force all throughout the experiment. You know, like how you kick the surface of a weighing scale. It would suddenly increase but then goes back to normal.
6. That is also a good suggestion and I think the assumption that the weight is the same whether it spins or not is true. In the end of the video, it just says that the spins only affects the "apparent" weight of the object and not actually the real weight. It just happen that he cannot maintain a proper posture for the spin and he fixes it by applying a force on the surface of the weighing scale. Remember, the weighing scale at the beginning of the video uses springs. At first, it went down since he doesn't counteract the force of gravity. He let the gravity do the work, since it is easier that way to put down an object. But then he tried to not let it fall and hit the concrete. He used his hand to exert an upward force to the metal. Isaac's 3rd law that opposite forces causes an equal reaction and opposite direction. The metal is also applying a force from the gravity. Hence the second reading after decrease was an increase. He let go of the metal not being read by the weighing scale. Then he tried to grab on to it making the force of gravity acted on the weighing scale.
You're question are actually really smart like 6 where using sensors to monitor the force. The experiment was taken by an average man that has an average build. If he were also to support the weight of the shaft while letting it down, there wouldn't be a discrepancy of a sudden down and up trend on the weighing scale.
And also, I forgot to say but the direction of the metal spinning doesn't affect the direction of the rotation of the spin. It is the force applied by the guy in the video near the metal here at 2:25. That is why it spins clockwise since he also exerted an extra force of the clockwise direction.
and the little gyroscope at the end is on a static setup so it cant move freely like when he was out on the grass fake as science
Refer to the small gyroscope found between 2.34 and 2.46 in the video. Presumably when the fly wheel isn't spinning then the counter weight and flywheel balance and the bar connecting them is horizontal.
A question I have is ... when you increase the precession causing the flywheel to rise:
1. What force (assuming there is a force) would be required to stop the flywheel from rising? And ...
2. What force (again, assuming there is a force) is required to increase the precession speed of the gyroscope? And ...
3. Assuming there are the two forces above ... what is the relationship between the two forces? Are they equal? Or is one half the other? Or what?
NO. If that was the case, there would be NO precession when it was let go with gyro spun up. Look at time at time 3:10 to 3:27. It is precessing because the wheel weighs more than the counter weight.
the weight dropped when you lowered it because for a moment the weight was still being centrifuged off the bearings and not contacting anything - in effect the disc was floating free.
It seems like you only barely touched the fact that due to gyroscopic precession the force acts in 90 degrees the direction of rotation. The flywheel feels lighter because the lateral force you impose on it is acting in the vertical plane thus aiding in you lifting the wheel. If you put the drill in reverse you would have to spin in the opposite direction. This is a huge factor with single engine propeller aircraft, and created several accidents with inexperienced pilots. The Sopwith Camel WWI aircraft was perhaps one of the most dangerous as both its propeller and engine both rotated making this effect immense. The rolls of the pitch and yaw controls were essentially reversed at high engine speeds making it very difficult to control.
Best misunderstanding ever.
are you sure.. have you tried swinging it in the opposite direction.. you dont know this for sure.. half is going up and half going down whether the flywheel spun in either direction or spun in either direction..
youre just guessing with ZERO facts..another 1000 worthless comments from the zootsuite band
The fact remains: he could hold the disk at arm's length when it was spinning and was not strong enough to do the same when it was not spinning. The weight was all there somewhere, but it somehow transferred from the disk to the rest of his body. The readings from a force sensor in the handle would be interesting.
3:00 GASP! IT CHANGED BY 0.1g!!!!!!!
+Firal Rally ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED
+Firal Rally Science
+Firal Rally 4+3+1+9 = 17 4+3+1+0 = 8 17-8 = 9 9^1/2 = 3 half life 3 confirmed
+Rafkos
9^1/2=4.5
9^(1/2)=sqrt(9)=3
You just crushed our hopes and dreams for HL3...
I hope you're happy you monster!
+Rafkos 3/3 = NaN
KSP confirmed
0:54 The question remaining in my mind is not about a lack of lightness but about a lack of heaviness. The scale should indicate greater "weight" as the force accelerating the wheel upwards is added to the pre-existing weight of man plus wheel. Or does a gyroscope somehow redirect a horizontal push into a vertical motion, without incurring a vertical reaction? If I fired a marble horizontally out of some type of gun, and it encountered a curved track that redirected its motion upwards, then that track would experience a downward recoil.
You make great videos, thank you for that
I love this video. Thank you. I think your graph started after you accelerated it upward. When you were doing that the scale should have read higher. I think that the reason it feels lighter has to do with free weight lifting versus weight machine lifting. Free weight lifting requires more control and it’s harder to do. It requires control in all axes (translational and rotational). The precessing one controls the 3 rotational axes a fair amount and maybe some translation. This, from a mere industrial engineer who is 60 y/o :)
I think you hit the nail on the head on the free weight lifting vs stable machine lifting. I was trying to understand why it was so much easier for him to lift it spinning than stationary, and I think this has to be the primary reason. Yes, the faster processional rate as explained in the video would have given him a boost to the "lift", and other circular movements maybe helped out as well, but I think also the stability has to be the main reason. I graduated in mechanical engineering and have done my share of weight lifting also.
Also, when he applies a torque to get it to start to rise, he is using *both hands* not only to apply the torque, but to also apply an upward impulse to the mass and then use momentum until he's in a more advantageous joint position. When he tried to lift it without it spinning, he tried to do a very static lift with one hand. (I just got my BSME and I lift weights as well)
but even when he gripped the shaft right next to the wheel and tried to lift it, he could barely do it. like if he just had a barbell the same weight as the unpinning shaft and wheel, i think it would be practically just as hard to lift. it doesn't seem like the change in torque is the only thing going on here, as he lifted it waaaaay easier when it was spinning. it seems like somehow the work gets spread out over a larger area when he spins his body around, though i don't know how. maybe i'm just not getting it.
The force of work, in your words, is counter-attacking the force of gravity in the direction he was spinning. As shown, going the opposite way gives a much downward force, giving a practically impossible situation. The force of work is relative to gravity in the opposite direction it was spinning, thus giving him the chance to spin with the wheel and becoming "superhuman". Your right in the sense spinning around throws the mass of an object to create less work. Im sure you have may have tried spinning a youngling around and by some means, they end up going higher the faster you spin. Covering the object with more space to travel through time ignores one of the greatest known equations E=MC^2. How? M=E/C^2. It may not directly ignore it, but by putting it in this term, it does prove that mass can be accelerated enough to ignore the fastest know substance known to man, gravity/light.
. ' .
The best i understand it is when the wheel is spinning like it was said it is creating torque, that torque is linear and the faster an object is moving the more difficult is is to change its direction correct? So the wheel is wanting to stay in the same position that it was spun up in! (think moving a stationary baseball vs deflecting a thrown baseball except this motion is circular / orbital).
So we now know that the wheel will resist any force applied to it in porportion to how fast it is spinning (this is why he wanted it spinning really fast). So basically when he lifted it still he was still technically lifting the full 40 lbs, when the wheel was spinning with its resistance to the change in orientation it was essentially holding itself up not by "antigravity" but by the counter torque created on the shaft so he ended up only lifting a fraction of that as the torque created was comparable to having someone else helping hold up the other end of the shaft with the weight on it, all he had to do was keep it level!
I hope this helped :)
That electric drill put a lot of kinetic energy into that spinning disc. That energy is used to lift the disc up when the angle of rotation is changed.
I think your observation and concern is correct -- in the previous video he shows he can barely lift it even holding it at the wheel. I also believe I have the answer:
When you lift a normal weight, your body needs a lot of muscles to stabilize the weight without making it fall. That's why people will always tell you, if you hit the gym, always lift the FREE weights, not the machines, because the free weights require muscles to stabilize and build real functional strength. If you can lift 200 lbs machine, it might only be 150 pounds on the barbell even when the motion is the same.
When the thing is spinning super fast, it's extremely stable so it requires less muscles to stabilize it. So it's like the difference between machine weights and free weights.
Countering torque is much harder for the human body than countering a directional force. This is precisely why karate and grappling works applying torque to disable an opponent's limb(s).
The reason lifting it feels lighter is because between you and it, you only have to increase the angle of the rod in small steps, after which the flywheel auto corrects, so lifting it is essentially no different than holding it.
Another way to look at it is that you only need to provide the energy to move it, not to hold it. The rod with the flywheel is basically at a stable potential as it is, so the only extra energy you need to move it is for the movement, kind of like pushing a several tonne boat which is floating. Which we all know feels very light.
just to clarify, from the perspective of the lifter, the weight of the flywheel is cancelled by exerting a torque on the lifter. So when lifting it further, save countering that exerted torque, it is like pushing an object in zero g(or boat on water)
I disagree. There's a difference between pushing an object and holding it. You said it yourself " lifting it is essentially no different than holding it" which is true in that case ( although it has to do with the repartition of its mass on the rod). Your example of the boat is rather to explain the work of a force (which is 0J for the its weigh, and only the resistance of ice/water works here).
I'm going to have to put it on a scale and see if that last statement is true. The guy could barely lift the non-spinning weight over his head yet when it's spinning he has no trouble lifting it so I'm not convinced of the accuracy of their explanations.
Nothing will happen, this is a gyroscope, a stabilizer, nothing to do with gravity. and gravity does not exist, it is the Aether subatomic particle pushing towards the earth's magnetic. Well there was a war of bloody physicists, between Newton and Einstein trying to explain gravity, without getting anything defined, then another monkey called Verlindo appeared with new Bs but nothing is concluded, otherwise there is no gravity.
@@joseinfante5054 Form what free energy site did you get that info?
@@nazalostizsrbije On google, KARL SCHAPPELLER DEVICE, Aether's force.
Certainly deserves a better explanation, to my mind. The example with the gyro in the lab has a counter-weight. The example with Derek lifting the weight.... Why does the scale not react to the centre of mass moving up? Hmmm....
I think one factor that makes the wheel feel lighter is that the spinning motion dampens the small forces of imbalance your hand imparts to the shaft. It's like lifting a free weight vs a fixed weight. The fixed weight feels lighter.
Yep, and it doesn't require stabilizer muscles at all - the force does not have to be controlled or balanced. I expect that even if he didn't cheat by imparting initial precession to cause lift then it would still seem light.
Martin Jenkins
but then it would be like lifting the unspinning weight from the weighy itself, not from the shaft, which he tried and he almost couldn't...
Federico Ruttkay But even then, I think there is still a significant enough torque on his hands even when close to the center of mass. I imagine that Derek would have no problem lifting a 40 lb. dumbbell or as mentioned above, a fixed weight. I think the weight that he feels while spinning is the same as if it were a fixed weight of equal mass.
Federico Ruttkay
It's exactly as Martin said, it requires no stabilizer muscles. I can do 40 push-ups easily, but I can't do 40 bench-presses with 165 pounds, which is the equivalent weight of my push-ups. Push-ups leave your hands fixed in position, so they are a bit easier to do. The spinning causes the shaft to become fixed sort of.
I also noted that the spinning forces your arm to rotate as well. The only way for your arm to rotate behind your head like that is to life it. So the torque from your hand is actually causing your arm to lift naturally.
I'm not sure of anything, I'd have to try it by myself. What I do know is that when you do a push up, you are not making 165 pounds of force, since your center of weight is around your waist... so a push up equals something like a 90 pounds bench press
Who ever did the music needs a medal
Could any type of machinery take advantage of this?
That is a good thought.
TechReflex think about a few spinning in a primed????
the international space station
Our bodys are only bio machines so if this was fittid to a space craft???
Many machines already do
QUESTION: What if you started spinning the disk at the end to an extreme speed, then you did the Olympic 'Hammer throw' game with it, would it start flying once you threw it, or better yet, would you started flying in a spinning state once you started rotating fast enough?
It would make it easier to aim upwards, but once let away, the "hammer" would fly as usual without the gyroscope. Remember that the gyroscopic precession only affects torque and not linear motion.
What Dig said.
So no, it wouldn't 'fly'. It still experiences the same pull due to gravity and will still fall at the same rate when unsupported. Hence the result of their experiment when using the scale...
The video explains that when it's spinning super fast it feels as if he's bearing the weight of the disc normally. In other words it feels as if he's holding the disc part, instead of the end of the stick.
Yeah yeah I understand now, I just thought the faster the whole bar rotates, it will just keep rising higher somehow, did't give it much thought myself, but thank you guys.
If you force the wheel to precess faster than its natural rate, yet at the same time force the wheel to stay at its present altitude and not allow it to rise, will the upward energy of the precession be transferred to your body, then decreasing your weight? If in space, could it be used to generate acceleration? (To be clear, I am not talking about centrifugal force based non-inertial propulsion.)
I doubt it. Even stars spin, but takes two to actually move, unless the galaxy doesn't have a force in itself that spins everything as well, but I only took highschool physics.
No, the torque will be transferred to your body. If you were standing on a turntable you and the turntable would begin to spin and there would be no weight loss :)
Не ожидал что будет так интересно, когда я переходил с первого видео. Спасибо за это наглядное пособие.
Aha! So THAT is how the aliens do it.
It all makes sense now...
What if you put a wheel spinning the same direction (cw - cw or ccw - ccw) on the other side?
The torque effects would cancel each other out and the effect would disappear. If you put each wheel to spin in different directions, then the shaft will only rotate faster.
All lies. The answer is magic.
+drz science IS magic :)
+DreahMerDevol Idiot. God is the center of Science.
Amir Ali wtf did you hear that?
Dj Barrington
From me... I'm a professor.
Science, Mathematics, Logic, and Reason, are all but a single apparatus in God's ingenuity.
not science, that's a creation of man based on examinations of god's creations.
You have come far from here... Lots of love.
..keep us Informed... Knowledge is DEVINE
This proves that feelings isn't always true :3
Or rather that one's effort to lift an object is not entirely and always due only to its overall mass, but also due to what shape it is and what shape your muscles and your bones are, and what position you attempt the task from. Holding a heavy object at the end of a long rod is far more difficult because leverage works against you and you must overcome the difficulty you induced into the task by lifting a weight this way.
Imagine we made a 1 meter long rod and had the flywheel in the center of the rod. Would a spinning wheel be easier to lift if you had one hand on either end of the rod, and the wheel was balanced? Both the stationary wheel and the spinning wheel would be equally easy to lift over your head.
so should you lift weights with spinning masses so it feels lighter?
Well, no. This only works if the weight is on one side (which creates the torque.) If you had something like a dumbbell, it'd feel exactly the same.
Thinks you shoulda had on a motorcycle helmet, or hard hat at least because, well you did have a 40lb steel bar above your knoggin. I feel great that I do not think I learned anything here ( I understood and predicted accurately) but I am one who is always studying stuff. Nothing better than learning anything, the more you learn the easier learning becomes. Keep up making cool educational vids :)
Don't see much scientific explanation but more awe and feeling of wonder and magic
@Veritasium: I am not convinced that the when it was spinnig, the force required to lift it was just the weight of the wheel without the torque. Because when you lifted the same wheel in earlier wheel you struggled to do so. I think the wheel must feel lighter than 19kg when its spinning, i wonder why?
They don't address this at all. Their explanation is actually inadequate. But hey, it is a hard subject. The reason the weight IS ACTUALLY LIGHTER is because the momentum of the flywheel is being used to elevate it. The procession causes the wheel to essentially throw itself upwards a little bit, continuously. Energy is entirely conserved, so don't get too excited. ;)
@@ZandarKoad Watch what he does at 2:32. Then they explain that if you push it in the direction of precession you end up with an upwards force. That makes it easier to lift.
Proffesor "Lightweight", I heard. Fitting.
2:08 I lost it at this point I'M TOO STUPID XD
same :'c
+Sofia Rivera The trick is understanding that kilogram is not a measurement of weight, despite them calling it that in the video.
Weight is a unit of force. Mass* Length* Seconds^-2. Weight can be measured in many ways, but primarily it is measured in metric newtons or in imperial lbf/slugf.
The mass of the man-flywheel system did not change. The gravity (acceleration) acting on them did not change.
Remember F=ma
The torque exerted on the man by the flywheel at rest is constant. The torque of the flywheel once it was accelerated and then left at rest is also constant (disregarding the loss in acceleration due to friction).
Torque is not a unit of acceleration, therefore it would not effect the weight or force of the man-flywheel system on the scale.
You should really try dropping the gyro when it’s spinning and again when it’s stationary…use a high-speed camera to measure free fall its speed. This will tell you if the inertial mass stays the same.
I remember being annoyed because I couldn’t understand this, now I do understand it :)
yay!:)
Math is fine, as long as you have a good intuitive understanding of what you're applying the equations to. Unfortunately, gyroscopes are obviously _not_ intuitive, if they can confuse people of Laithwaite's calibre, not to mention math phobics like myself. Therefore, there could still be unexpected phenomena lurking in rotating systems that aren't predicted by classical mechanics.
Theory not applicable to reality is worthless. It's the reality that verifies every theory, and here we see that scientists always say that one force converts to another, but have not a clue WHY it does that.
"This is not a conjuring trick, this is a fact of science."
I think he means it's not magic considering the amount of people who call it that.(by the way, I know that magic is science)
neopalm2050 I think it's funner to think of science as magic. Magic that can be understood and harnessed.
Guys, I've only quoted him because I thought the way he said it was funny.
I really like this professor Rod Cross, he looks like a great human being..
thors hammer has a gyroscope in it
more like a lightning powered motor.
or its made of cardboard and a person shoots what hes attacking
Curios fact:
- The "Anti-gravity wheel?" video has about 3x more views than this video where the Anti-gravity wheel is explained.
Who and why sees the 1st one and does not wants to know the answer/explanation?
I think that needs it's own separate explainer video.
Gyroscopic precession is such a difficult concept to grasp! 3 years of engineering and i still don't understand it. Granted however, im not a mechanics major..
This isn’t such a mystery, it’s simpler than you think. E=MC^2. If you increase the energy in an object, it’s mass will decrease proportional to the energy input, thus rebalancing the equation and making it feel lighter. You are measuring the weight, which is NOT mass. I’ve seen numerous videos about this but NO ONE mentions this. Look at it as a formula and the answer is clear.
I feel like I'm growing up. Between the original and this video I only laughed at the word "shaft" 3 or 4 times.
Really weird. Was wondering when I'd finally enter adulthood. 27 appears to be the age.
Don't do it! Growing up is way too boring. Have fun and stay a kid.
I shall take your advice to heart Stoned Pony .
Shaft.
Heh. Still funny.
Yay! Now you're ready to kiss a girl in a cheek for the first time!
you're now 31 years old wow.
sounds like a guy who likes getting shafted
what would it weigh if you held it motionless straight above your head.
Wonder if spinning a gyroscope to increase the procession could produce anti gravity thrust.
The same weight as it does when it is spinning horizontally.
@@TheAnantaSesa No.
buggsy5; oh. I see that now.
unbalanced = hard to lift (not heavier)
But steel is heavier than feathers
unbalanced, same as you're holding unbalanced tennis racket in your hand and spin makes it balanced, that's exactly the point.
But steal IS heavier than feathers.
@@yikesadept7577 Bro, no. Steel is denser, not heavier. One pound of steel and one pound of feathers still weigh one pound.
@@error.418 my dude i am quoteing the vid lmao
Explanation is really good
Hey, Veritasium, I got a question for ya..
So, if I stare at my desk from a certain angle it starts to look all static-ey, to the point where it seems like there's actually little particles buzzing around..
What gives?
It only happens with my desk..
What do you think could be the cause?
You need glasses
Why would that be? If you read my comment you would see how the static only appears when I look at my desk from a certain angle..
It must be something to do with the lighting on the surface of my desk, or possibly even some sort of radiation off my computer..
There's no reason for it to be my eyes, seeing as it doesn't happen anywhere else, that I know of.
thanks for asking , even i had the same question struck up since a long time.
flackenstien The thing with your question is it is unbelievably vague. Could be your desk, could be the lighting, and "static" isn't a very well defined thing. So unless someone happens to know what you are talking about, which doesn't seem quite so likely since I have never heard of it, they can't just tell you why from the information you've given.
flackenstien Could be the 'Blue field entoptic phenomenon'; this is often the case when people see particles buzzing in front of them (actually the particles are white blood cells).
I imagine it's how the " flying saucer " flies without wings. Or at least how how it stays stable whilst in the air.
What would happen if you had a gyroscope with two discs, one on top of another, but spinning in opposite directions?
Thanks for posting this, it's really interesting .
It'd be a regular gyro
I think another factor of it feeling lighter is when you spin it faster then its precession, you apply a moment around the z axis in your body which makes it want to change its direction to the z-axis which makes it easier to lift.
I got mind fucked by this lol ^^
Now build a god damn UFO from this
***** I was mainly joking mate =)
***** a cluster of ballons (all of them closely tied) can do the trick, release them in the middle of the city and wait for the UFO videos to be uploaded to TH-cam. :P
Weazel News I do believe I have seen this on youtube (What haven't I seen here). In a video they explained how they could use something like this, like a spinning thing in something that flies, making it lighter and therefore making it easier to stop etc. :)
lpgomp Would be so great to see what they come up with using this knowledge xD
Weazel News Helicopters?
I'm curious to know about the poll result :)
Came back to this video many years after. Since then I had begun my engineering degree and am almost done. Im pretty proud because while I dont remember my guess last time, I remember I was wrong. But this time I chose equal to without a doubt and fully understand the physics concepts behind it.
Hello my friend and engineer, there is no physical consept in the gyroscope, it was discovered by the French geologist Jean faucault, around the 1850s and improved with the advancement of the technology and today it is used in airplanes, helicopters and Alan Musk use them for landing vertical of the rockets. What's more, this billionaire intends to end the use of pilots and engineers using electric vertical landing and autonomous planes within 5 years. TESLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA FORever
Force is getting balanced differently but it is same, hence weight remains the same. :)
Nice experiment to observe torque ! Thanks.
I wish I had seen gyroscope that closely when I had a chance in a aeronautics lab back in India.
Now put a spinning wheel on the other side as well.
Now spin them in opposite directions.
Now fall into the Black Hole you just made.
Racist!
Can anybody what's going on here, in this comment and replies? I have no faintest idea?
if you split the weight to 19.5kg each wheel and somehow you managed to hold it right in the middle of the bar then it will feel the same as when it's spinning because again, no torque needed.
That's actually very interesting Fletcher. I wonder what WOULD happen?
Timothy White I think that if you got both spinning in the SAME direction and had a pivot point halfway between the two and pushed up or down on either wheel, there would be yet another force that would cause the whole assembly to spin
Find it a little weird.. You try to lift it with no spin and you hold it almost at the center so there's not much torque yet you can barley lift it. Then you say it's easy to lift while spinning because you only have to lift the weight of 19Kg and not the torque... but you barley couldn't lift it without the torque before?? Am I getting this wrong?
he pushes it forward before rising it so the gyro creates an upward force, helping him lift
Holding it at the center wouldn't eliminate the torque because the mass isn't evenly distributed. Most of the mass is on one end, so you'd have to hold it at the heavy end to negate it.
luis cruz So why didn't the scale read lighter?
He demonstrated that he could lift it above his head one handed without it spinning. The only thing that changed then was that he was able to do it by holding on to the end of the rod while it was spinning. Weight is not the issue, he could lift the weight by itself. Centre of gravity is the issue. He could not lift it from a point away from it's centre of gravity as he would have to apply significant torque to counteract the torque caused by gravity. When the disk is spinning gyroscopic precession acts to counteract that torque instead. Speeding up the gyroscopic precession does not cause the system to levitate, it simply increases the amount of torque applied counteracting gravity causing the flywheel end to rotate upwards while the handle end rotates downwards, the net gravitational force exerted remains the same.
In effect, all that is happening is that gyroscopic precession is moving the centre of gravity from the flywheel end to the handle end.
imbored742 In the beginning, he was holding the mechanism very close to the disk, so his hand was approximately in the same distance as the center of gravity (so the torque was small). Then after the spinning of the disk, he just lifted it without problem claiming that this happens because of no torque. (in both situations the torque was approximately zero.)
what if you try spinning it in an anticlockwise motion?
*Counterclockwise*
+vanthursday It depends on the direction that the flywheel is spinning. If the same as the demonstration, then it will be force downward.
+THETOOT Same thing, buddy.
frtard Anti-clockwise is for British people, but it's actually called widdershins, deosil, or sunways
+THETOOT or counterclockwise
Just to clarify and note my understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong but:
It's easier to raise over your head while it's spinning for two reasons
1) The spinning of the wheel causes the whole thing to process rather than fall, removing the need to apply counter torque to keep it horizontal and making it easier to hold in general.
2) In the motion to raise it up the end is pushed in the direction of the procession, increasing its speed and causing it to naturally rise up as well.
if you spin it fast enough it will defy gravity, but will weigh the same. Already has. It will create it's own gravity.
If it weights the same that means the gravity is the same. Gravity is defined by the mass of an object. The mass of that thing is barely anything, its own gravity will be negligible
but if its the same weight, do you still get hardcore ripped doing it?
It is the same weight..but you are not doing as much work lifting it as explained by the diagram of upward and downward foces..
So you can get ripped fractionally since you are doing work in providing a small amount of rotation..nothing more.
EinstienJr Still it looks badass in slo mo!
you only get ripped when the muscle is solely responsible for lifting the heavy wheel, in other words the muscle is under stress, but when the wheel is spinning this isnt the case..
"I've been going to this high school for seven and a half years! I'm no dummy!"
-Charles De Mar 1985
I hope you followed up by checking the effect of the rate of spin on torque and come up with a reasonable formula for it!
Got it wrong + still didn't understand why it "feels lighter" without changing the weight on the scale..
the momentum forces the wheel to move upwards I guess :)
It feels lighter because what you feel as something being heavy is actually how much effort you have to put into holding it stationary. Without it spinning, you have to both keep it from tilting and you have to hold it up, both of which require individual effort. With it spinning though you don't have to prevent it from tilting, only hold it, meaning the only effort is keeping it from falling.
You can instead ask why it feels heavier when it is not rotating. It feels heavier because of, lets call it, "rotational energy" (torque). Gyroscopic precession removes the torque, and it feels lighter. The scale does not measure the torque. It only measures the downward force.
Thank you all guys I just understood now! :D
Just to make it clear let's use some examples though:
so, in theory, the faster the wheel spins, the more the "felt weight" when holding with both arms tends towards the "felt weight" of an object of same total weight but with equally distributed weight on both ends (like a dumbell)?
but that still doesn't explain the difference of "felt weight" between him lifting the object vertically without spinning by holding it close to its heavy part and then him lifting the object by holding it by the end, away from the heavy part (seems he had less trouble in the second instance).
So the gyroscopic stabilization of the wheel causes the torque needed to keep it up to be reduced dramatically to almost zero, but the weight (downward force from gravity) remained the same. Think of this as a lever arm, normally you would have a fulcrum, but in this case he only has his hands, so a fulcrum which would normally supply the normal force to hold up some of the weight of the lever arm must be replaced by an actual force being applied by a human hand. When he pushes down on the other side with his second hand (effort) to lift the flywheel (load) he increases the normal force which the first hand must supply since it is now supporting the weight of the fly wheel and fighting against the downward force of the other hand. When the wheel is spinning the gyroscopic effect counteracts the torque caused by the lever arm. This causes the effort arm to no longer need to push down, and therefore reduces the amount of weight the fulcrum arm is supporting. I hope that made some sense :)
Prof. Laithwaite is just more buff than you, guy.
The prof was a brilliant guy, but he got this one wrong.
@@jimroth7927 Well, if you look at the scales at the beginning, the weight actually displays 94kg not 91 kg as mentioned by our guinee pig. During the lift off rotation there is an average LOWER value of oscillation around 91 kg. If we want to be precise, than we should be precise. Just saying......
Prof was also often seen at the campus gym doing olympic lifting
Derek - you are just soooo pretty!
You too
Ha Haa!!! Very good comment :) I was kinda referring to the new podcast "Hello Internet" with Brady and CGP Grey, and in one episode they both talk about how very "pretty" pretty Derek is. It very funny. I wish I looked like Derek tho - I bet he is a regular chick-magnet!
3:30 well, the rotation of the 1st (outer) axel is causing the 2nd (middle) axel to rotate if it's free to do so... So what happens if you add just about as much rotation to the 2nd axel as you do to the 1st axel?
Also, what happens if you add rotation to all 3 axels?
Next video: Apparent weight Vs Actual weight?
I don't know.. When you held it near the weight there is significantly less torque and you still struggled to press it over your head but when i was spinning you seemed to be able to lift it above your head without struggling.. and i doubt that old man could have pressed that much weight over his head even without torque (say a dumbell).
Hey!Here’s my point of you,hope you can understand the science behind this experiment.
i.imgur.com/syq7FeQ.jpg
When the wheel is spinning, the torque causes the "procession" of the object (spinning in a circle rather than falling down).
Now, the only force you need to counteract is the actual weight of the object (the 20lbs).
Imagine trying to lift another person with your arms completely stretched out from your body. You can't. Too much torque.
Strange, however, that Veritasium almost couldn't lift 20lbs DIRECTLY above his body.
That's because by swinging the spinning wheel around his body, procession caused the wheel to briefly climb higher.
And you feel that you have explained this?
This trades the weight you feel up and down, for weight you feel trying to stop its rotation. Inertia vectors and angular momentum yall.
@ 2:49 he uses both arms and leverage of his leg just to stop the rotational inertia.
Not magic.
The fact that it decreases thrust needed in the Z direction to move that mass, is a much better use of the energy needed to elevate the object - and also points to why many UFO sightings are spinning discs.
Planes also use wing angle and aerodynamics to convert thrust forces just in a linear way. Rotational inertia is probably more efficient than linear as you're utilizing all 6 degrees of freedom but I've never seen that tested.
shouldn't the scale drop a lot though when he sends it up? if the down-force of gravity is being transferred forwards instead (which definitely would make sense), shouldn't that mean it's no longer pushing on the scale while it's going around?
@@AshalmawiaThe object is 40lbs, handle included. All the spinning does, is sets the center of mass of the object to the end of the handle. If you tried to pick up the dead weight from the end of the handle you would have leverage factoring against you. Now with the disc spinning, and the center of mass at your hand - the whole object is also in rotation because of the discs rotational inertia.
The 40 pound weight is still 40lbs. You are just now picking it up at the center of its mass, and its also rotating which uses a more even distribution of your muscles when you go to lift it.
Dead weight always 'feels heavier'.
@@l-o-r-d I think it works like this: if you think of all of the points of the disc, while it's spinning fast, they all have very strong motion vectors, except they're all being mostly cancelled out since it's in a circle. this has a tendency to seem to nullify gravity, because gravity's motion vector is small in comparison. then, if you apply a particular motion vector to it (spin it around above your head), the motion is added to all of the existing motion vectors, giving the object huge amounts of momentum in which ever direction you push it. basically, the spinning hugely magnifies the effects of momentum and inertia, because you have those huge motion vectors to work for you if you push them slightly out of balance.
@@Ashalmawia ehh sort of. Physicists can model this behavior because this is a gyroscope stability observation that uses mass in rotation which produces angular momentum. Since this activity causes immense stability along the axis of rotation (a force in motion, staying in motion), and the handle (although not in rotation) is still bound to the disc perpendicular to the spin axis - it reduces the leverage felt at the end of the connected shaft. What's important to note here, is if the disc to shaft connection were not a fixed set of bearings maintaining co-axiality, but rather a ball-and-socket style bearing - there would be a wobble introduced instead but it would be a 'predictable wobble' path. The feeling of stability is just an angular momentum wobble path so tight tolerance you can't tell its happening.
These same people doing this experiment, would be able to lift a 40lb mass above their heads as long as it were centered, and they had proper form.
If this stuff interests you, there are free physics lecture recordings on TH-cam from many reputable professors on this topic, and others similar.
@@l-o-r-d I don't think I agree, though to have more insight I would have to perform the experiment myself. they don't even kind of struggle to "lift" the weight, it's more like it lifts itself. it seems to me that it's because the spinning allows storing momentum. all they have to do is push it once with a normal amount of effort, and it stores that momentum and climbs (or at least feels like it becomes much lighter). it's the motion added to the spinning causing the spin to be slightly off balance. not off balance in terms of center, but mathematically. say each vector all around the circle has a magnitude of 50 (whatever unit). when motionless, they all add up to zero. but then you push it 5 units left. that 5 left is added to every vector around the circle, but some of those vectors are 50 left, some are 50 right, some are 50 up, etc. 50 left becomes 55 left. 50 right becomes 45 left. etc.etc. all around the circle. things are no longer cancelling out completely, and instead it all adds together to a huge amount of left movement or momentum, and it stays that way. the same thing is happening with gravity and your hand, where the canceling of gravity that you do by carrying the object is stored as well, so once you are holding it still, it tends to remain still. it's basically a momentum storage mechanism. you can put momentum into it, and it tends to stay there.