Maybe higher production value, but this made it perfectly clear to me. Somehow, you managed to highlight exactly where I got stuck and provide insight to the solution in the same amount of time that vsauce spent with product placement.
I have never heard anyone use the term "downstream" when describing this phenomenon, but it really makes it easier to visualise! I figured this out on my own, but this explanation makes it so much clearer.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you!!! "...I suspect that this gyroscope funny business might be keeping some of you up late at night like it did me." 2:40 -You have no idea.
@@jesus2621 same, from his explanation I got the reason why the wheel tilts at a point 90 degrees from where he pushed it if the force is parallel to the axis of rotation, but for gravity its perpendicular to the axis of rotation which confuses me.
Those who didn't get it focus more on what he is trying to say word by word from 5:05 to 5:10. "High point is 90 degree down streams from the point where force was applied." We observe same in case of spinning wheel also. When a torque is applied we expect it to rotate in an axis parallel to torque but it rather rotates on a axis 90 degree to the torque. He deduced the outcome for the linearly moving particle scenario when a force is applied upwards momentarily. Similarly try to deduce the outcome of the scenario he explained with a particle rotating in the circle where a force is applied upwards momentarily at a point A but the plane of rotation moves up from a point B 90 degree further. The ball is rotating with a velocity V with constant magnitude/speed S but changing direction. As direction of velocity keeps changing, there is a change in velocity & hence a continuous inward acceleration A of constant magnitude S*S/R but also keeps changing direction. Now when an upward force is given momentarily then an upward acceleration is produced momentarily resulting in an upward velocity component V2 at point A. Now the upward velocity V2, tangential velocity V and continuously inward acceleration A (which keeps changing direction) together results in the plane of rotation move up from a point B 90 degree further. Try the mathematical deduction yourself.
5:13 So I think I got this correct me if I'm wrong. The ball is rotating on a plane parallel to the floor (X axis) so the ball has a certain angular momentum on the x direction and wants to keep it. So when you apply a force in the Y direction (parallel to the walls) you don't cancel the momentum the ball had in the X direction so the ball now goes up (force in the Y direction) but it also rotates around the X axis (parallel to the floor). So the net result of this two component is a tilted wheel. When you look separately at these two components on a tilted wheel it all makes sense if you were to look down from the roof (looking on the x axis on plane) without the perception of depth you would see just a ball rotating, in the same way you looked from the wall(looking at the Y plane) you would just see the ball go up. When you stop applying the force the ball does not go up anymore (there is no force to push it up) so the wheel goes from tilted to parallel to the ground. Also if the wheel and ball were not spinning(no angular momentum) the sistem would just go up.
Your analysis is spot on sir, in finding where we go wrong. A little more elaboration on the real question answer portion would make it easily comprehendible.
That phenomenon happens because the weight of the spinning wheel acting down and suspension point acting up, pushes out the upper particles and pulls in the particles on the upper half and lower half of the wheel. As the particles are spinning this action will continuously change the direction of the horizontal diameter. With the horizontal diameter continuously changing the "thickness" of the voluminous path/channel through which the wheel travels will permit the mass particles to fluctuate laterally in the thicker volume of the cycloidal path in which the mass particles are made to follow. Surprisingly enough the lateral fluctuating accelerations/decelerations will create in INWARD acting centrifugal force on the upper half of the spinning wheel and an OUTWARD acting centrifugal force on the lower half of the spinning wheel. It is these two opposite centrifugal forces that keep the wheel precessing and spinning around the suspension pivot.
This is still unclear. I don't understand how does the correction works? With some external force applied, there must be some change in the angle of rotation.
My question is why the middle of a 3 axis gyroscope needs to spin at all. Why not just put a weight slightly below the gyroscopes center of gravity? Wouldn’t it stabilize in the same way?
I think we agree. That linear thing along the side is what starts it, but take that a step further, because it does not explain why a gyro 'resists' tilting motions. The next step is realizing that that initial reaction is itself a second input effect, but it is 90 degrees later than your initial input. The cool thing is that the second effect has inverted forces compared to the first. That's why a gyro is stable. Any input tilt gets ejected by the second effect. Brace the gyro along a diametrical axis, and it will tilt easily without resistance. Mechanisms are great right? You won't get it published, because it contradicts the math.
Bt y does a stationary wheel fall when we tried to stand it vertical?? Although the vertical forces are balanced (N =MG) , bt still it falls rightwards or leftwards ?? Why ?? And which force is responsible to make it fall?
So the spinning tire moves because the point of contact & applied force is only at 1 instance of its' cycle? Were we to apply equal force to the entirety of the objects' rotation it would move more predictably/conventionally?
I enjoyed how you told us how you came to your conclusions as opposed to just flat telling us the answer. The process of arriving to a conclusion is just as important as the conclusion it's self.
I still don't understand why it 'resists' gravity. Wouldn't there be a net downward force over the whole system? It's not a single force applied to one point "tilting' the system, but should be pulling every particle in the system downward... I should clarify I mean when the wheel is attached to the string. There is no 'counter weight' to offset the wheel, so why does the wheel not 'fall'?
Hi ... Is there a change in the angular velocity of spinning wheel when a torque is applied ? What gives the energy for precession? I mean is the part of spin angular momentum converted into angular momentum of precession when a torque is applied?
+Vachan Rao For linear motion we have Newton's F=m*a equation (force equals mass time acceleration) which I mention in the video. For angular motion we have T = I * alpha (torque equals I times alpha). I is the moment of inertia and alpha is the angular acceleration. hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mi.html
+Vachan Rao Yes. There are only two torques. The frictional torque is in the same direction (opposite actually) as the spin vector and that slows down the spin. The torque due to gravity is perpendicular to the spin vector and that causes the precession.
Basically, it spins really fast, the same was a bicycle stays upright with more speed happens with the gyroscope, I found this video first when looking for a more mechanical explanation so I can't really confirm what or if anything even spins really fast in a gryoscope.
After a lifetime of listening to maths talking heads trying to describe the nature of calculus in overly complicated language obscure metaphors, you nailed it in one paragraph at 4:00. Now I can see that what I thought was Newton’s genius complex mathematical ingenuity was actually Newton’s genius of a simple observation which he understood maths couldn’t describe adequately. Kudos for everyone.
At 5:00 you don't explain the link between invisible Sally and applying a force to the axle, so I still have a naive expectation that is correct for the ball and wrong for the wheel. I'm sure you have an insight but I can't see it from the explanation.
For me his explanation (mostly demonstration) was exactly what i need to get it. For dose who didn't get it, i suspect that the prospective of camera is what makes it hard to notice what he is trying to demonstrate. Practically the reason behind the gyroscopic precision effect(cant spell the word) comes from the law of inertia. Inertia is what should be known as resistance to change, in the context of physics that would be the masses resistance to change of motion. Practically his demonstration shows that when he pushes on a "point of mass" (note "point of mass") there are mainly two things i imagin happen : 1. The "point of mass) he has pushed on has its Inertia( resistance to change), wich couses the particals on that "point of mass" to slightly diflect in the direction pushed, the pushed mass still keeps its perpendicular motion(reletive to push direction) from the orginal spinning motion, This small deflection angle will result most evident 90° from the push. 2. 2nd point is that the orginal pushed 'point of mass' has moved postion with time, meaning that the point I have pushed on before, dose not find itself anymore where my finger has pushed it. Hence a fenomeno of travel and time.
8 ปีที่แล้ว
Hi, I have a question : If two wheels turn at opposite in the same axis / tube, does the force created can stabilise the tube / axis in an custom angle / vector ? Exemple the tube is oriented then the wheel are spin with a motor, does the tube is stabilised ? My question is to avoid precession but keep a stabilised vector along the axis of rotation and have difficulties to change is direction. Thanks, Matt
If you bolt two wheels together on the same axle and spin each wheel in opposite directions then together there won't be any gyroscopic action, they will cancel each other out. If you bolt them together in any arbitrary angle then you end up with something that acts like a single gyroscope which has its spin direction aligned with the sum of the two angular momentum vectors of the two wheels.
To the person who made this video: This is a very well demonstrated video! It really cleared a few unclear things I'm my mind! I really appreciate the effort you have taken to make this video! Ignore those few guys there and keep up the good work!:)
Something can make perfect sense, but still be entirely unclear. Every _expert_ agrees relativity makes perfect sense, but the lay person still can't understand why something looks shorter along the direction it's travelling.
+luwn00bz The ball is to represent a piece of the wheel, perhaps a single atom. Don't think of it as spinning but just moving in a straight line. Sally pushes up and it then starts going up retains its sideways motion.
@@shk1035 I'm sure English is his second or third language. You obviously only speak English. Your comment makes you come across ignorant, simple, bratty and sheltered.
This is a very interesting video, and I love your passion for physics. The fact that you spent a day in the library researching a gyroscope is true commitment. I am definitely inspired by you to research more myself.
Why do things that whizz round go faster the nearer they are to the point of the centre of centrifugal force. Like bob weights or governors? Or even ballet ice scaters ?
+kingkongdaddy1 I guess the answer would be conservation of angular momentum. Linear momentum is mass * velocity (m * v). Angular momentum is m * v * r where r is the radial distance from the spin axis. If you decrease r then v must increase so that m * v * r stays the same.
I can see how people find this boring, but I find it fantastic. The author is explaining how standard "explanations" often offer no real explanation at all, and others give explanaitons which are inaccessible to someone without certain skills, and finally, how a deeply insightful REAL understanding is invaluable. For another example, almost all explanaitons of flight are tiresome drivel about how the air "has to go faster" over the wing, and how this "created lower pressure". It's not an explanation at all, it's a trotting out of dogma imparting NO real understanding. WHY does the air have to go faster over the top? Why is faster moving air at a lower pressure? It's just moving the mystery around, not removing it at all. The light on gyroscopes dawned for me with a simple device. A bunch of flexible spokes on a wheel with no rim. Instead of the rim - a bunch of tennis balls. It'll spin like a normal wheel but as you change the rotation axis, the ball try to carry on moving in their old rotational plane (due to Newton's first law) and the spokes flex. That flexing exerts a force on the wheel's axis which resists further deflection of the axis. Bingo. It's all about Newton's first law. Real deep understanding is incredibly rewarding and useful. A gyroscope is just a special case.
But why does it, I mean you can turn a wheel 180 degrees and it's happy again. Why not start it at a 45 degree angle, whoops it suddenly wants to got at right angles.
I don't understand it just as much as I didn't before I saw this video, but now I'm anxious because I now know there is someone who does understand it. Conclusion: I wish I hadn't seen this video.
I like this analogy, think it is reasonable and will probably use it in this simple form. It is ok, but careful analysis shows the limitation. In the linear model, the speed after Sally "pushes", becomes the vector sum of the before speed and after. The speed in the new direction is greater. However, the wheel does not speed up. You must be careful with this aspect of your explanation
I am not some genius physicist and im not here to argue. That being said, does it not speed up? The entire wheel starts rotating in a direction perpendicular to a direction that it was spinning. There is a new SUM ROTATIONAL VELOCITY, just like there is a sum linear velocity in the linear example with the force applied in the Y direction.
+David Tregaskis Hi David, Discus: I had to stop and think about your comment. If I understand you correctly, you have run into the limitation that I mention above. His simple linear model is incomplete as we shall see....At first, it is tempting to think that we can't violate Newton (we cannot) and, therefore, must see some acceleration and net speed increase, just as in the linear motion version. This means we should see a net speed increase in a new direction. Forces and, therefore velocities add vectorially. In the traveling ball, linear case we apply a single force in the Y dorection. This is called translation. The object's center of mass experiences a translation of its center of mass along a new direction. So far so good....But, when his wheel precesses due to gravity, we don't see that anything appears to be speeding up. The wheel spins on the axel at the same RPM and it precesses at a constant rate. SO, where is this new speed? If we are applying some constant force, then we expect to see some constant acceleration and, therefore, a steady speed increase somewhere, right? But we don't see this happen. We see, instead, what appears to be a constrant rate of precession. ... However, the force we have placed on the wheel is not a translational force, but a rotational force - a torque, or a moment. In some places this is called "a couple", meaning a couple of forces. We must apply two forces that act in opposite directions, but on two different parts of the object and not along the same line. They are not co-axiel, or co-linear. One is upward by the string at one axel end and the other is on the whole wheel's center of mass by gravity (at the center of the axel) and there is no resulting translation. The wheel does not fall, nor climb in altitude. Doing this we do not translate the center of mass and have no (linear) velocity change. ...So, now we must improve the "linear model" to include two balls on opposite ends of a diameter. These two accelerations are now equal and in opposite directions, but not co-linear, so there is no acceleration of the wheel's center of mass and we do not violate Newton, at least in the linear way of looking at it.. ...What we see is the characteristic of the gyroscope. A "couple" applied to it causes a constant change in direction of the axel which is at 90 degrees to both the couple and axis of rotation...and it "sort of" makes sense from the linear model....Make sense?-- Cheers
I don't know what you mean by "learn about gyroscopes." You can find equations on the Internet but without knowing some math and physics it won't make any sense (I know from personal experience). Any physics 101 book will probably have a few pages about it. To understand it it helps if you know differential calculus and the stuff in the physics book leading up to the section on gyroscopes. This includes vectors, Newton's laws, angular momentum, etc. This stuff can be learned from the Khan Academy. College textbooks are expensive so buy one used that is a few years old and save a bundle. www.amazon.com/Scientists-Engineers-Extended-Chapters-PhysicsNow/dp/0534408443/
Deng Ting Koay I just mean that a spinning wheel would turn as if you pushed a non-spinning wheel 90° from where you applied the force. For example, looking at the wheel from the side suppose you push at the 12 o'clock position. Then it would turn as if you pushed at the 3 o'clock position or the 9 o'clock position, depending on which way it was spinning.
You can sit and write a few equations using simple trigonometry to calculate the force in one axis given that there's a force in another axis 90 deg apart. The key is to use a tiny increment in your equations so that the squared terms can be ignored. Easier still is to make the rotational speed of one axis constant, then calculate the required force in an orthogonal axis required to keep that constant velocity. Try it! If you know basic (I mean VERY basic) physics like, F=m*A and trigonometry, the equations will be apparent in a few minutes.
Think of the spinning rim as wanting to continue in a straight line (here made a circular rotation), and any deviation from that course (as per Newton) requires a counter force. Pushing up on the axis confronts this spinning force and the compromise between the two forces is the axial rotation. Its like the gyro says, "OK you can do that, but not without me doing this." It only seems magical because the force of the gyro is not obvious.
a = m / s^2 v = m/s a = v x s "Go" is in there, technically. The effect is due to the nature of the gryo, which is that it spins around an axis, meaning it has angular momentum, and the even distribution of weight energy creates a natural equilibrium that turns the kinetic energy into kinetic-potential energy. This makes the object heavier and no only appear to have more mass, but also appear to have a different gravitational signature; meaning, that gravity reads (sees) the energy distribution and not the mass location (matter is just one of the matrices that energy moves through), thus giving the object a different gravitational shape, one that balances. This happens to produce the balance needed to conserve the energy that is in the state of kinetic-potential energy and any threat to this state will be protected by giving up some of the stored energy to maintain the current state by providing an equal and opposite reaction instantaneously. If a top is heavy enough and spinning fast enough, the affect that you have on the top when you touch it and it bounces off would reverse; it would stay still, and you would go flying. This is the energy stored in it and coming into contact creates friction and that friction resists what the energy wants to do, so it transfers some to you causing separation and restoring balance. If you upset the balance, the top will want it back but it may not have the energy to regain a higher level of balance that was closer to perfect, so will then settle at a new balance. Any balance that has motion has an energy leak. So long as energy is inside of the object and the object is a spinning object, it will attempt to conserve energy and the extra energy inside the mass changes its gravity signature. That is my theory any how.
working out why it moves when you push it is the easy part how about figuring out how a gyroscope does what it does after all regardless off the fact its spinning the weight should cause it to fall furthermore how can a heavy spinning wheel be lifted with ease where does the weight go?
So its easier to understand why the gyroscope changes to a particular direction when it's pushed at a right angle to its spin, if you image you are actually on the gyroscope. The direction change is the sum right angle vector (pythagoras), of the gyroscope's angular acceleration force and the additional force applied.
wouldn't this gyroscope phenomenon me easier to explain if you slow down time and think about how the wheel reacts when it loses balance as it rotates? How the rotation offsets the loss of balance and re-establishes what ever the equilibrium should be. Am i getting this right? I don't have much of a post secondary math education.
Something i heard recently is that airplanes have gyroscopes. And if a gyroscope always points in the same direction, how do they travel around a globe with it? If one would travel from Los angeles to Australia the airplane would have pitched toward where gravity comes from. But the gyroscope would still be in the Los angeles position?
The rate gyro has a spinning mass gyro held in place, relative to the plane, by springs. The faster you're turning the larger the force on the spring and this indicates your rate. The directional and attitude gyros have a hanging weight which slowly pulls the gyro to orient with up/down. If you fly in circles for a really long time the attitude gyro will eventually indicate that you're flying level and then when you level off it will show you banking. If you search TH-cam for airplane gyro instruments you will find videos showing how they work, such as this video: th-cam.com/video/0sRrSkSJc7w/w-d-xo.html
it's true, especially of jets as the turbine shaft is a big gyroscope,. But, just as you can push around a toy gyroscope, the aerodynamic forces on the control surfaces of the airplane can overcome the gyros tendency to hold its position. In high performance fighter jets, the gyroscopic rigidity does affect turn radius (for example). Obviously it works so, you can plan your trip to Australia and the airplane can get you there.
i think because gravity is always pulling but in one direction so you're never upside down I think the gyroscope works because of the earth spinning I don't know this is just what I'm guessing someone correct me if I'm wrong
I remember learning this and understanding it but I forgot after a few years. It does have to do with two competing vectors. One from the rotation of the wheel and I believe the other from the weight of the wheel.
I actually like this video. It explains how a failure in communication can lead to misunderstanding. Not because of the explanation being wrong, but because of gaps in our own intelligence. The basic concept behind this video seems to be more about effectively teaching complex concepts to those with less familiarity in the subject. Good communication it essential: just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean you CAN'T understand it, only that it needs to be explained in a different way.
As an engineer, I completely agree with your idea. I have also used ERICCO's inertial navigation products for two years, and they are very high-quality!
What's the big deal? The atoms, molecules, particles in the wheel just want to keep going in the direction they were heading before the axis is tilted so they push that way when it is. Now about that moon following thing you mention...
+1 I agree with your first 2 sentences. As far as orbits go (moon, atoms, etc.), their etiology is a complete mystery ... I'd invoke God, personally ... since orbits never evolve from non-orbits, iirc.
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! You had a pretty big build up and I was thinking to myself 'This guy has been down my road. He sees my light is off and he says he knows how to turn it on!' lol 😆 And boy, did you! Translating it into a linear motion totally eased my mind! "At least," I thought "in the 'pushing a spinning wheel' sense;" I immediately wondered if it explained the (seemingly) levitating wheel when attached to a rope. .. AND IT DID! The 'pushing force' was originally a single blow, to the wheel, that registered 90° later *on the wheel*. Now, this new force, gravity, is a continuous force (rather than a blow); but the force is still registered 90° later (fluid like collisions), so: A pull down (depending on spinning) would produce a turn to the left or the right; therefore a constant pull down (gravity) would produce a constant force to the left or the right! Thank you SO MUCH!! The only thing that confuses me is why it's consistently 90° at nearly any speed. As was said: 'with no spin, the force is exactly where you apply it.' Now imagine spinning it at a speed where it rotates 75° and stops. The force will complete at 75°. Ok, so if it can go under 90°, can it go over or is it just 90°, no matter what, once you hit the minimum speed for it to go that far? This has given me lots of other things to think about too! Thanks!!!!!!!
Nice, I was bothered too. Correct me; Maybe it is the resulting force going along with direction of rotation in reaction to the applied force? Resultant maybe?
If you place a gyroscope that spins indefinitely on an angle would it eventually stand upright after a while because gravity is constantly applying acceleration downward?
Without friction the gyro would spin forever and keep precessing like a top but, without friction, it would keep the same angle, assuming the Earth wasn't spinning.
Thanks, that makes sense. I tried it by making a top go down a slope and I noticed the top tries to stay upright and slides down the slope. Now I am confused, does that mean if the gyro was in a vacuum and the bottom of it had no friction with the surface, over the course of the day we would see it tilt and move from its original position. I would love to see this experiment!
I don't know what would actually happen. There wouldn't be any slipping though. My tilt analogy is flawed in that the gravity would always be perpendicular to the flat surface. Perhaps it would act the same whether the Earth was spinning or not. I would have to think about it more and my brain is too tired right now. :)
The entire reason a gyroscope displays "precession" and "angular momentum" is because of the bearings (or rotation point) of the spinning wheel's axle. I prove it in the video in the link below. The video It's a little long (put it in 1.5 speed if my helium voice isn't more irritating than normal speed...) - but I explain beyond a shadow of a doubt why gyroscopes display angular momentum and precession. The "torque" of centrifugal force the spinning wheel creates is transferred to its bearings (or left & right or front & back) points of contact between the wheel (rotating mass) and its axle (stationary mass). The above is also why when outside torque is applied - the "motion" of the entire gyroscope always makes a 90 degree angle of movement transfer in the direction of rotation of the gyroscope - from the direction the torque is applied (the actual degree of the angle of energy direction transfer is proportionate to speed of rotation (flywheel energy) and amount of side direction torque applied) . Check this out and tell me that I am wrong. th-cam.com/video/cF5fAQcZMvM/w-d-xo.html&lc=z23rvnupezfzvjjbn04t1aokgln1ldx1ctwjatxo0ozxbk0h00410
I enjoyed that video, a well done video, as was yours. Left a comment/ question there, but didn't answer my question. It seems all rotating metal discs on a shaft have a Torque perpendicular to the disc along the axis of the shaft away from the disc but it depends on the CW or CCW rotation, and follows the "right hand rule." Are we talking about a metal disc spinning in the Earth's magnetic field that causes the torque to reverse due to the spin direction, an induced EMF (similar to right hand rule of electricity flowing in a wire)? Thanks
In other words, if I understand this rule, imagine if two people pick up each end of a shaft with a disc spinning in the middle and carry it perpendicular to the disc. Say the travel west and then east. But regardless of which way they travel, it should be slightly easier for them to move it one way vs. the other, depending upon the CW or CCW rotation of the disc?
The right hand rule (aka the screw rule) is best used for understanding the cross product when using vectors in 3D space with a right handed coordinate system. In this video and also Vsause's video we are avoiding using vectors and aim for a more intuitive understanding. Unless you are doing cross products I would not worry too much about the right hand rule. A rotating metal disk on a shaft doesn't have any torque unless you apply a force. Gravity will do that if the shaft is supported on the ground and it is not straight up. It doesn't matter which way it is spinning, the torque is the same. The way the thing precesses depends on the direction it is spinning because it moves 90° away from where the force is applied and that depends on which way it is spinning.
Okay, thanks. I am actually interested in unexplained anomalies in experiments that might help verify the existence of "ether" and see if I can't use them to explain things like gravity and light propagation. This seems to be one that fits well with a theory of gravity that I have been trying to follow. Actually, the fact that there is no noticeable torque until you accelerate the disk, as well as the fact that the torque is one-directional, fits quite well with a particular theory.
I don't think this is quite right. When 'Sally' pushes upwards on the right edge of the rotating wheel (that is, the viewers' right, not the presenter's) the top part of the wheel will tilt towards us and the bottom part away from us. The demo doesn't show that. This can be modelled using your first and second fingers and thumb, a bit like with the 'motor' rule and the 'generator rule' in electromagnetism. The fingers and thumb point along the axes of rotation. Using your right hand, point your thumb upwards. That's the axis of rotation of the wheel. Point your first finger at the screen. That's the axis of rotation of Sally's turning force. Your second finger points right to left. That's the axis of rotation of the resulting twist of the wheel.
hello there! im from brazil, and im planing to do a test, with a 3ft diameter iron wheel, weighting 220 pounds, at 350 rpm. im wondering what will happen if i suddenly stops it (with car brakes). ..how many pounds this "ram" will generate? it will be possible to lift or flip a 1ton object with that? best regards vitor quintella sebode
Too many thumbs down, too many blinds. I had a similar way to make it more intuitive, a train (or many) over a circual railway around a planet. Yours is even easier to understand
im really thank you about your teaching im also one person who searching how gyro works why does it works like that in the late night like you saidi just thank u from korea
It doesn't keep me up. I had a eureka moment running this morning that we might be able to create a cool equivalent to semiconductors by creating a gyroscopic electromagnetic system with electric current and electromagnetism. Instead of pressure or coldness it can create the same conditions using the same system of gyroscopes. No idea how but it could create a gyroscopic equivalent.
VERY interesting; i'll remember things do not always move in the direction you push on them!!! that helps understanding gyros; *THANK YOU* hope you pass the 1 million soon.
The idea is speed = distance over time. Distance must begin from one point, and movement must relative to that point. In respect to all the moving objects in the universe, where is point zero.
You've explained it to your own satisfaction. But abstracting a single element from the periphery, attaching to the 'axis' with a non-rigid (piece of string) framework, predicating it on the special case of angular momentum in a plane at right angles to the force of gravity (quite arbitrary to the discussion, people are going to think the phenomenon has something necessarily to do with the force of gravity), and stuffing it with a preamble about F=ma, a=F/m, etc. omg... Downstream? It's not 'downstream', but off-downstream, with a (velocity) vector of exactly 90 degrees from downstream. Why _90_ degrees 'downstream'? Why not 77.3 degrees, or 89.1 degrees?...
Thank you for this video! I thought I was pretty much alone, in the fact that, I have "gyroscope" problems, myself. I own a Navir SPACE WONDER gyroscope which comes with two, steel washer-type balance wheels, one of which is weighted off-center. This shortens the time that the gyroscope is supposed to spin by about ten minutes! Mine will only spin a total of about 3 minutes; a video I saw on one, of the same model, spun a total of 13.5 minutes! How can I make an adjustment on this one, off-balance, steel disk?
Understanding the mechanics of spinning objects requires an ah ha moment when your understanding of force vectors melds with your intuition of Newtonian stuff. The direction of progression being 90 degrees down stream of where the original force is applied is critical here. Holding the tire by the peg is the original force. Holding the tire by the peg is the same as applying a force to the tire directly, perpendicular to axis of rotation. Hope this helps
for the people who had a hard time understanding what he demonstrated. ill try to draw it. the o is the body in motion. linear motion example. o-> moment of impulse: o-> ^ | the push vector result after the push: ^ / o sorry for the weird arrow but thats how i can draw an angled line useing text. for circular motion: top view lets ignore one particle and only consider the lower one ( ) o-> now lets look from side view: o-> side view looks the same as the linear example. so what happens if i apply a force up to that particle in circular movement? ( ) o-> lets say i push on that particle (at that same moment and position of space) (from underneath it) o-> ^ | resulted vector: ^ / o the particle on the other side would have the opposite effect o / v so together they form ^ / o / v from the side view of both the particles seen together : this is a flat image but: remember that there is “depth” that image is two particles. when we are looking at this from the side view, we see this: the particle in front is covering the one behind. we can see the vectors as if they where on the same vertical plane but they aren't. so thats why he says its the same as for the linear example. o-> ^ | its just harder to imagine the concept in circular motion.
i say particle, but they are actually one solid body(mass) so that means they are jointed together, and thats why pushing one particle(area) of that spinning mass(wheel) it will have effect on all the members of particles of that mass. if they where free particles, the push of one particle would not effect the other particles.
Dear lord... the time before the internet. where you had to read books all the way through and still not find what you're looking for. unlike today where i can type how gyroscopes and land on this video in less than a minute at 3:21 am.
Vsauce did a way better job. Check out this video - Spinning: th-cam.com/video/XHGKIzCcVa0/w-d-xo.html
No he didn’t, u explained it great
No he didn’t- you opened a door. He got ratings.
There’s no comparison.
Don't undermine yourself. You did it just as good. (if not better speaking personally)
Maybe higher production value, but this made it perfectly clear to me. Somehow, you managed to highlight exactly where I got stuck and provide insight to the solution in the same amount of time that vsauce spent with product placement.
I have never heard anyone use the term "downstream" when describing this phenomenon, but it really makes it easier to visualise! I figured this out on my own, but this explanation makes it so much clearer.
Vsauce did a way better job. Check out this video - Spinning: th-cam.com/video/XHGKIzCcVa0/w-d-xo.html
Well, the direction of moving particles changes over time when affected by an applied vector force. The downstream term was totally right here.
He don't know how it works.
He is asking you a question.
.
Haha.. sadly this is true..
Skip to the last 5 seconds... That's the best part!
Hehehehahaha.
+Dude31463 ur a different kind of savage.. lol
Jackass The Movie 2.
So... this is very funy
Dude31463 I really did that when I watched this comment
Thanks for being curious, curious people are always more interesting.
Probably the only person on TH-cam that uses a green screen just to replace it with blue screen
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you!!!
"...I suspect that this gyroscope funny business might be keeping some of you up late at night like it did me." 2:40
-You have no idea.
It's 5:30am... How did he know 😂
XD 🤣
I hate to admit it but i still dont fully understand.
Me tooo
@@jesus2621 same, from his explanation I got the reason why the wheel tilts at a point 90 degrees from where he pushed it if the force is parallel to the axis of rotation, but for gravity its perpendicular to the axis of rotation which confuses me.
Those who didn't get it focus more on what he is trying to say word by word from 5:05 to 5:10. "High point is 90 degree down streams from the point where force was applied." We observe same in case of spinning wheel also. When a torque is applied we expect it to rotate in an axis parallel to torque but it rather rotates on a axis 90 degree to the torque.
He deduced the outcome for the linearly moving particle scenario when a force is applied upwards momentarily. Similarly try to deduce the outcome of the scenario he explained with a particle rotating in the circle where a force is applied upwards momentarily at a point A but the plane of rotation moves up from a point B 90 degree further. The ball is rotating with a velocity V with constant magnitude/speed S but changing direction. As direction of velocity keeps changing, there is a change in velocity & hence a continuous inward acceleration A of constant magnitude S*S/R but also keeps changing direction. Now when an upward force is given momentarily then an upward acceleration is produced momentarily resulting in an upward velocity component V2 at point A. Now the upward velocity V2, tangential velocity V and continuously inward acceleration A (which keeps changing direction) together results in the plane of rotation move up from a point B 90 degree further. Try the mathematical deduction yourself.
So many of us wondering about gyroscopes late at night... it's really real
Vsauce did a way better job. Check out this video - Spinning: th-cam.com/video/XHGKIzCcVa0/w-d-xo.html
3 am
5 min in and this is the best explanation I've ever heard about gyroscopes.
I was actually up late last night bothered by the gyroscope, no joke :)
Zeteticism DotCom same here damn!
Its 1:37am in India and I'm bothered about it right now..
It's 3:34 am for me right now lolololol
You guys will all become Newton 10 years from now :)
The issue is, I understand all this and it's not enough. So I'm fairly doomed to research for a couple extra days.
Its 1:32am in Chicago and Ive been up all night trying to understand this phenomenon visually and intuitively. This is an excellent video. Ty
The wheel at the end got personal 💀
5:13 So I think I got this correct me if I'm wrong. The ball is rotating on a plane parallel to the floor (X axis) so the ball has a certain angular momentum on the x direction and wants to keep it. So when you apply a force in the Y direction (parallel to the walls) you don't cancel the momentum the ball had in the X direction so the ball now goes up (force in the Y direction) but it also rotates around the X axis (parallel to the floor). So the net result of this two component is a tilted wheel. When you look separately at these two components on a tilted wheel it all makes sense if you were to look down from the roof (looking on the x axis on plane) without the perception of depth you would see just a ball rotating, in the same way you looked from the wall(looking at the Y plane) you would just see the ball go up. When you stop applying the force the ball does not go up anymore (there is no force to push it up) so the wheel goes from tilted to parallel to the ground. Also if the wheel and ball were not spinning(no angular momentum) the sistem would just go up.
This video by Vsauce explains it way better. th-cam.com/video/XHGKIzCcVa0/w-d-xo.html
5:59...lol....Gyroburn?...
The last part was funny
Bzzzzp
Ahhh
CZZZZZZZUP
Terrific. Concise and compelling presentation all the way through to a bigger, more challenging question at the end.
lol,got a lil road rash there at the end.He suffers for his craft.
Your analysis is spot on sir, in finding where we go wrong. A little more elaboration on the real question answer portion would make it easily comprehendible.
Vsauce did a way better job. Check out this video - Spinning: th-cam.com/video/XHGKIzCcVa0/w-d-xo.html
That phenomenon happens because the weight of the spinning wheel acting down and suspension point acting up, pushes out the upper particles and pulls in the particles on the upper half and lower half of the wheel. As the particles are spinning this action will continuously change the direction of the horizontal diameter.
With the horizontal diameter continuously changing the "thickness" of the voluminous path/channel through which the wheel travels will permit the mass particles to fluctuate laterally in the thicker volume of the cycloidal path in which the mass particles are made to follow. Surprisingly enough the lateral fluctuating accelerations/decelerations will create in INWARD acting centrifugal force on the upper half of the spinning wheel and an OUTWARD acting centrifugal force on the lower half of the spinning wheel. It is these two opposite centrifugal forces that keep the wheel precessing and spinning around the suspension pivot.
What you said seems to be right, it's best to have a diagram to illustrate it.
This is still unclear. I don't understand how does the correction works? With some external force applied, there must be some change in the angle of rotation.
Vsauce did a way better job of explaining. Check out this video - Spinning: th-cam.com/video/XHGKIzCcVa0/w-d-xo.html
My question is why the middle of a 3 axis gyroscope needs to spin at all. Why not just put a weight slightly below the gyroscopes center of gravity? Wouldn’t it stabilize in the same way?
I think we agree. That linear thing along the side is what starts it, but take that a step further, because it does not explain why a gyro 'resists' tilting motions. The next step is realizing that that initial reaction is itself a second input effect, but it is 90 degrees later than your initial input. The cool thing is that the second effect has inverted forces compared to the first. That's why a gyro is stable. Any input tilt gets ejected by the second effect. Brace the gyro along a diametrical axis, and it will tilt easily without resistance. Mechanisms are great right? You won't get it published, because it contradicts the math.
PERFECT It was so easy to understand, teachers can't explain why it happens, just that it happens.
Bt y does a stationary wheel fall when we tried to stand it vertical?? Although the vertical forces are balanced (N =MG) , bt still it falls rightwards or leftwards ?? Why ?? And which force is responsible to make it fall?
So the spinning tire moves because the point of contact & applied force is only at 1 instance of its' cycle?
Were we to apply equal force to the entirety of the objects' rotation it would move more predictably/conventionally?
Vsauce did a way better job explaining it. Check out this video - Spinning: th-cam.com/video/XHGKIzCcVa0/w-d-xo.html
I enjoyed how you told us how you came to your conclusions as opposed to just flat telling us the answer. The process of arriving to a conclusion is just as important as the conclusion it's self.
I still don't understand why it 'resists' gravity. Wouldn't there be a net downward force over the whole system? It's not a single force applied to one point "tilting' the system, but should be pulling every particle in the system downward...
I should clarify I mean when the wheel is attached to the string. There is no 'counter weight' to offset the wheel, so why does the wheel not 'fall'?
Hi ... Is there a change in the angular velocity of spinning wheel when a torque is applied ? What gives the energy for precession? I mean is the part of spin angular momentum converted into angular momentum of precession when a torque is applied?
+Vachan Rao For linear motion we have Newton's F=m*a equation (force equals mass time acceleration) which I mention in the video. For angular motion we have T = I * alpha (torque equals I times alpha). I is the moment of inertia and alpha is the angular acceleration.
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mi.html
+WarmWeatherGuy The wheel that you show here slows down only due to friction ?
+Vachan Rao Yes. There are only two torques. The frictional torque is in the same direction (opposite actually) as the spin vector and that slows down the spin. The torque due to gravity is perpendicular to the spin vector and that causes the precession.
I'm leaving a comment for the TH-cam algorithm. Guys, this is great content
Vsauce did a way better job. Check out this video - Spinning: th-cam.com/video/XHGKIzCcVa0/w-d-xo.html
Basically, it spins really fast, the same was a bicycle stays upright with more speed happens with the gyroscope, I found this video first when looking for a more mechanical explanation so I can't really confirm what or if anything even spins really fast in a gryoscope.
Vsauce did a way better job. Check out this video - Spinning: th-cam.com/video/XHGKIzCcVa0/w-d-xo.html
@@WarmWeatherGuy thanks :)
After a lifetime of listening to maths talking heads trying to describe the nature of calculus in overly complicated language obscure metaphors, you nailed it in one paragraph at 4:00.
Now I can see that what I thought was Newton’s genius complex mathematical ingenuity was actually Newton’s genius of a simple observation which he understood maths couldn’t describe adequately.
Kudos for everyone.
At 5:00 you don't explain the link between invisible Sally and applying a force to the axle, so I still have a naive expectation that is correct for the ball and wrong for the wheel. I'm sure you have an insight but I can't see it from the explanation.
Vsauce did a better job. Watch his video.
th-cam.com/video/XHGKIzCcVa0/w-d-xo.html
Momentum, inertia, they only exist if disturbed? Does there have to be a second object of consideration to make momentum / inertia real?
For me his explanation (mostly demonstration) was exactly what i need to get it.
For dose who didn't get it, i suspect that the prospective of camera is what makes it hard to notice what he is trying to demonstrate.
Practically the reason behind the gyroscopic precision effect(cant spell the word) comes from the law of inertia.
Inertia is what should be known as resistance to change, in the context of physics that would be the masses resistance to change of motion.
Practically his demonstration shows that when he pushes on a "point of mass" (note "point of mass") there are mainly two things i imagin happen :
1. The "point of mass) he has pushed on has its Inertia( resistance to change), wich couses the particals on that "point of mass" to slightly diflect in the direction pushed, the pushed mass still keeps its perpendicular motion(reletive to push direction) from the orginal spinning motion,
This small deflection angle will result most evident 90° from the push.
2. 2nd point is that the orginal pushed 'point of mass' has moved postion with time, meaning that the point I have pushed on before, dose not find itself anymore where my finger has pushed it. Hence a fenomeno of travel and time.
Hi, I have a question :
If two wheels turn at opposite in the same axis / tube, does the force created can stabilise the tube / axis in an custom angle / vector ? Exemple the tube is oriented then the wheel are spin with a motor, does the tube is stabilised ? My question is to avoid precession but keep a stabilised vector along the axis of rotation and have difficulties to change is direction.
Thanks,
Matt
If you bolt two wheels together on the same axle and spin each wheel in opposite directions then together there won't be any gyroscopic action, they will cancel each other out. If you bolt them together in any arbitrary angle then you end up with something that acts like a single gyroscope which has its spin direction aligned with the sum of the two angular momentum vectors of the two wheels.
Oki, thank you for your answer
To the person who made this video:
This is a very well demonstrated video! It really cleared a few unclear things I'm my mind! I really appreciate the effort you have taken to make this video!
Ignore those few guys there and keep up the good work!:)
There's mistake on the 1:16, it must turn on the left and this point, what happens in the demonstration in the end.
sorry but u made nothing clear
+qualquan What do you mean, it made perfect sense.
Something can make perfect sense, but still be entirely unclear. Every _expert_ agrees relativity makes perfect sense, but the lay person still can't understand why something looks shorter along the direction it's travelling.
Nothing can be explained to a rock.
I think you maybe need to find a more simple video for more simple people such as yourself. I'm no physicists but it made perfect sense to me.
qualquan rn
One needs; some mathematical background, and time to digest this man's idealistic explanation, then it indeed makes perfect sense.
In the end, Sally pushes the spinning ball and it turns just the same way as a non spinning wheel did?
+luwn00bz The ball is to represent a piece of the wheel, perhaps a single atom. Don't think of it as spinning but just moving in a straight line. Sally pushes up and it then starts going up retains its sideways motion.
+WarmWeatherGuy wish you had more video of the ball on the wheel. hard to follow when it cuts in and out so fast
But the tilt would be shifted by an angle of 90 degrees from the point at which the impulse was applied, wouldn't it?
u only told how u learned but didnt told what u learned
Shk bit harsh there, this is a global website not a Facebook group haha least he tried
@@shk1035 I'm sure English is his second or third language. You obviously only speak English. Your comment makes you come across ignorant, simple, bratty and sheltered.
that's good enough. because if he told us what he learnt it would be his own personal opinion
r/ihadastroke
This is a very interesting video, and I love your passion for physics. The fact that you spent a day in the library researching a gyroscope is true commitment. I am definitely inspired by you to research more myself.
"I had to go through a lot of books because none of them would answer my question."
Jeez man, I have no idea what that's like...
sarcasm?
mlg Yes, referring to the eternity he takes to start fucking explaining.
Christopher Hayes You have some issues man.
Christopher Hayes You have some issues man.
Why do things that whizz round go faster the nearer they are to the point of the centre of centrifugal force. Like bob weights or governors? Or even ballet ice scaters ?
+kingkongdaddy1 I guess the answer would be conservation of angular momentum. Linear momentum is mass * velocity (m * v). Angular momentum is m * v * r where r is the radial distance from the spin axis. If you decrease r then v must increase so that m * v * r stays the same.
I can see how people find this boring, but I find it fantastic. The author is explaining how standard "explanations" often offer no real explanation at all, and others give explanaitons which are inaccessible to someone without certain skills, and finally, how a deeply insightful REAL understanding is invaluable.
For another example, almost all explanaitons of flight are tiresome drivel about how the air "has to go faster" over the wing, and how this "created lower pressure". It's not an explanation at all, it's a trotting out of dogma imparting NO real understanding. WHY does the air have to go faster over the top? Why is faster moving air at a lower pressure? It's just moving the mystery around, not removing it at all.
The light on gyroscopes dawned for me with a simple device. A bunch of flexible spokes on a wheel with no rim. Instead of the rim - a bunch of tennis balls. It'll spin like a normal wheel but as you change the rotation axis, the ball try to carry on moving in their old rotational plane (due to Newton's first law) and the spokes flex. That flexing exerts a force on the wheel's axis which resists further deflection of the axis.
Bingo. It's all about Newton's first law.
Real deep understanding is incredibly rewarding and useful. A gyroscope is just a special case.
But why does it, I mean you can turn a wheel 180 degrees and it's happy again. Why not start it at a 45 degree angle, whoops it suddenly wants to got at right angles.
It will try to maintain whatever angle you set.
I don't understand it just as much as I didn't before I saw this video, but now I'm anxious because I now know there is someone who does understand it. Conclusion: I wish I hadn't seen this video.
I still don't get it. Why is the highest point 90 degrees downstream from where the force was applied?
Vsauce did a way better job. Check out this video - Spinning: th-cam.com/video/XHGKIzCcVa0/w-d-xo.html
@@WarmWeatherGuy Thank you! I finally understand it now
I like this analogy, think it is reasonable and will probably use it in this simple form. It is ok, but careful analysis shows the limitation. In the linear model, the speed after Sally "pushes", becomes the vector sum of the before speed and after. The speed in the new direction is greater. However, the wheel does not speed up. You must be careful with this aspect of your explanation
I am not some genius physicist and im not here to argue. That being said, does it not speed up? The entire wheel starts rotating in a direction perpendicular to a direction that it was spinning. There is a new SUM ROTATIONAL VELOCITY, just like there is a sum linear velocity in the linear example with the force applied in the Y direction.
+David Tregaskis Hi David, Discus: I had to stop and think about your comment. If I understand you correctly, you have run into the limitation that I mention above. His simple linear model is incomplete as we shall see....At first, it is tempting to think that we can't violate Newton (we cannot) and, therefore, must see some acceleration and net speed increase, just as in the linear motion version. This means we should see a net speed increase in a new direction. Forces and, therefore velocities add vectorially. In the traveling ball, linear case we apply a single force in the Y dorection. This is called translation. The object's center of mass experiences a translation of its center of mass along a new direction. So far so good....But, when his wheel precesses due to gravity, we don't see that anything appears to be speeding up. The wheel spins on the axel at the same RPM and it precesses at a constant rate. SO, where is this new speed? If we are applying some constant force, then we expect to see some constant acceleration and, therefore, a steady speed increase somewhere, right? But we don't see this happen. We see, instead, what appears to be a constrant rate of precession. ... However, the force we have placed on the wheel is not a translational force, but a rotational force - a torque, or a moment. In some places this is called "a couple", meaning a couple of forces. We must apply two forces that act in opposite directions, but on two different parts of the object and not along the same line. They are not co-axiel, or co-linear. One is upward by the string at one axel end and the other is on the whole wheel's center of mass by gravity (at the center of the axel) and there is no resulting translation. The wheel does not fall, nor climb in altitude. Doing this we do not translate the center of mass and have no (linear) velocity change. ...So, now we must improve the "linear model" to include two balls on opposite ends of a diameter. These two accelerations are now equal and in opposite directions, but not co-linear, so there is no acceleration of the wheel's center of mass and we do not violate Newton, at least in the linear way of looking at it.. ...What we see is the characteristic of the gyroscope. A "couple" applied to it causes a constant change in direction of the axel which is at 90 degrees to both the couple and axis of rotation...and it "sort of" makes sense from the linear model....Make sense?-- Cheers
Best Tim and Erich sketch I've seen so far.
What book would you recommend to buy to learn about gyroscopes?
I don't know what you mean by "learn about gyroscopes." You can find equations on the Internet but without knowing some math and physics it won't make any sense (I know from personal experience). Any physics 101 book will probably have a few pages about it. To understand it it helps if you know differential calculus and the stuff in the physics book leading up to the section on gyroscopes. This includes vectors, Newton's laws, angular momentum, etc. This stuff can be learned from the Khan Academy. College textbooks are expensive so buy one used that is a few years old and save a bundle.
www.amazon.com/Scientists-Engineers-Extended-Chapters-PhysicsNow/dp/0534408443/
WarmWeatherGuy Thankyou! Really helpful.
what do you mean by 90 degree downstream to the applied force?
can you further explain that??
Deng Ting Koay I just mean that a spinning wheel would turn as if you pushed a non-spinning wheel 90° from where you applied the force. For example, looking at the wheel from the side suppose you push at the 12 o'clock position. Then it would turn as if you pushed at the 3 o'clock position or the 9 o'clock position, depending on which way it was spinning.
Watch at the 1:00 mark of the video and his explanation should be clear
You can sit and write a few equations using simple trigonometry to calculate the force in one axis given that there's a force in another axis 90 deg apart. The key is to use a tiny increment in your equations so that the squared terms can be ignored. Easier still is to make the rotational speed of one axis constant, then calculate the required force in an orthogonal axis required to keep that constant velocity. Try it! If you know basic (I mean VERY basic) physics like, F=m*A and trigonometry, the equations will be apparent in a few minutes.
Think of the spinning rim as wanting to continue in a straight line (here made a circular rotation), and any deviation from that course (as per Newton) requires a counter force. Pushing up on the axis confronts this spinning force and the compromise between the two forces is the axial rotation. Its like the gyro says, "OK you can do that, but not without me doing this." It only seems magical because the force of the gyro is not obvious.
Awesome explanation, i've been searching for an hour and this video explains it perfectly
a = m / s^2 v = m/s a = v x s "Go" is in there, technically. The effect is due to the nature of the gryo, which is that it spins around an axis, meaning it has angular momentum, and the even distribution of weight energy creates a natural equilibrium that turns the kinetic energy into kinetic-potential energy. This makes the object heavier and no only appear to have more mass, but also appear to have a different gravitational signature; meaning, that gravity reads (sees) the energy distribution and not the mass location (matter is just one of the matrices that energy moves through), thus giving the object a different gravitational shape, one that balances. This happens to produce the balance needed to conserve the energy that is in the state of kinetic-potential energy and any threat to this state will be protected by giving up some of the stored energy to maintain the current state by providing an equal and opposite reaction instantaneously.
If a top is heavy enough and spinning fast enough, the affect that you have on the top when you touch it and it bounces off would reverse; it would stay still, and you would go flying. This is the energy stored in it and coming into contact creates friction and that friction resists what the energy wants to do, so it transfers some to you causing separation and restoring balance. If you upset the balance, the top will want it back but it may not have the energy to regain a higher level of balance that was closer to perfect, so will then settle at a new balance. Any balance that has motion has an energy leak. So long as energy is inside of the object and the object is a spinning object, it will attempt to conserve energy and the extra energy inside the mass changes its gravity signature. That is my theory any how.
The image you just painted in my mind of a person touching a spinning top and then flying off into the stratosphere is fucking hilarious.
working out why it moves when you push it is the easy part how about figuring out how a gyroscope does what it does after all regardless off the fact its spinning the weight should cause it to fall furthermore how can a heavy spinning wheel be lifted with ease where does the weight go?
Jason Leo You might want to watch this video: th-cam.com/video/GeyDf4ooPdo/w-d-xo.html where Veritasium discusses this phenomenon.
WarmWeatherGuy
Can you build an inertia shielding using electromagnetic induction ?
So its easier to understand why the gyroscope changes to a particular direction when it's pushed at a right angle to its spin, if you image you are actually on the gyroscope.
The direction change is the sum right angle vector (pythagoras), of the gyroscope's angular acceleration force and the additional force applied.
One of the best videos on this subject.
wouldn't this gyroscope phenomenon me easier to explain if you slow down time and think about how the wheel reacts when it loses balance as it rotates? How the rotation offsets the loss of balance and re-establishes what ever the equilibrium should be. Am i getting this right? I don't have much of a post secondary math education.
That wheel burning is going to keep you awake at night as well
Something i heard recently is that airplanes have gyroscopes.
And if a gyroscope always points in the same direction, how do they travel around a globe with it?
If one would travel from Los angeles to Australia the airplane would have pitched toward where gravity comes from.
But the gyroscope would still be in the Los angeles position?
The rate gyro has a spinning mass gyro held in place, relative to the plane, by springs. The faster you're turning the larger the force on the spring and this indicates your rate. The directional and attitude gyros have a hanging weight which slowly pulls the gyro to orient with up/down. If you fly in circles for a really long time the attitude gyro will eventually indicate that you're flying level and then when you level off it will show you banking.
If you search TH-cam for airplane gyro instruments you will find videos showing how they work, such as this video:
th-cam.com/video/0sRrSkSJc7w/w-d-xo.html
it's true, especially of jets as the turbine shaft is a big gyroscope,. But, just as you can push around a toy gyroscope, the aerodynamic forces on the control surfaces of the airplane can overcome the gyros tendency to hold its position. In high performance fighter jets, the gyroscopic rigidity does affect turn radius (for example). Obviously it works so, you can plan your trip to Australia and the airplane can get you there.
i think because gravity is always pulling but in one direction so you're never upside down I think the gyroscope works because of the earth spinning I don't know this is just what I'm guessing someone correct me if I'm wrong
I remember learning this and understanding it but I forgot after a few years. It does have to do with two competing vectors. One from the rotation of the wheel and I believe the other from the weight of the wheel.
I actually like this video. It explains how a failure in communication can lead to misunderstanding. Not because of the explanation being wrong, but because of gaps in our own intelligence. The basic concept behind this video seems to be more about effectively teaching complex concepts to those with less familiarity in the subject. Good communication it essential: just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean you CAN'T understand it, only that it needs to be explained in a different way.
Check out this video by Vsause: Spinning th-cam.com/video/XHGKIzCcVa0/w-d-xo.html
@@WarmWeatherGuy Thanks, this was also a good one by Veritasium:
th-cam.com/video/ty9QSiVC2g0/w-d-xo.html
As an engineer, I completely agree with your idea. I have also used ERICCO's inertial navigation products for two years, and they are very high-quality!
and now i am confused.
Vsauce made a much better video called Spinning. Check it out. th-cam.com/video/XHGKIzCcVa0/w-d-xo.html
@@WarmWeatherGuy okay...
What's the big deal? The atoms, molecules, particles in the wheel just want to keep going in the direction they were heading before the axis is tilted so they push that way when it is. Now about that moon following thing you mention...
+1 I agree with your first 2 sentences. As far as orbits go (moon, atoms, etc.), their etiology is a complete mystery ... I'd invoke God, personally ... since orbits never evolve from non-orbits, iirc.
well that makes more sense..
this was super helpful in discerning the basic of it. Thanks so much
You might go to sleep but your mind does not, it was trying to solve, while your body was asleep.
anyway thanks for posting.
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!
You had a pretty big build up and I was thinking to myself 'This guy has been down my road. He sees my light is off and he says he knows how to turn it on!' lol 😆
And boy, did you! Translating it into a linear motion totally eased my mind!
"At least," I thought "in the 'pushing a spinning wheel' sense;" I immediately wondered if it explained the (seemingly) levitating wheel when attached to a rope. ..
AND IT DID!
The 'pushing force' was originally a single blow, to the wheel, that registered 90° later *on the wheel*.
Now, this new force, gravity, is a continuous force (rather than a blow); but the force is still registered 90° later (fluid like collisions), so:
A pull down (depending on spinning) would produce a turn to the left or the right; therefore a constant pull down (gravity) would produce a constant force to the left or the right!
Thank you SO MUCH!!
The only thing that confuses me is why it's consistently 90° at nearly any speed.
As was said: 'with no spin, the force is exactly where you apply it.' Now imagine spinning it at a speed where it rotates 75° and stops. The force will complete at 75°.
Ok, so if it can go under 90°, can it go over or is it just 90°, no matter what, once you hit the minimum speed for it to go that far?
This has given me lots of other things to think about too! Thanks!!!!!!!
Vsauce made a much better video explaining it.
Spinning
th-cam.com/video/XHGKIzCcVa0/w-d-xo.html
Nice, I was bothered too. Correct me; Maybe it is the resulting force going along with direction of rotation in reaction to the applied force? Resultant maybe?
Is gravity a force ? like a wave force ?
The man burns himself with a tire in the name of science! Thank you!
If you place a gyroscope that spins indefinitely on an angle would it eventually stand upright after a while because gravity is constantly applying acceleration downward?
Without friction the gyro would spin forever and keep precessing like a top but, without friction, it would keep the same angle, assuming the Earth wasn't spinning.
Thanks.,
and what would be the effect of the Earth's rotation?
I guess it would be like a top spinning on a tray and you tilt the tray. The direction of gravity changes about 361° per day.
Thanks, that makes sense. I tried it by making a top go down a slope and I noticed the top tries to stay upright and slides down the slope. Now I am confused, does that mean if the gyro was in a vacuum and the bottom of it had no friction with the surface, over the course of the day we would see it tilt and move from its original position. I would love to see this experiment!
I don't know what would actually happen. There wouldn't be any slipping though. My tilt analogy is flawed in that the gravity would always be perpendicular to the flat surface. Perhaps it would act the same whether the Earth was spinning or not. I would have to think about it more and my brain is too tired right now. :)
The entire reason a gyroscope displays "precession" and "angular momentum" is because of the bearings (or rotation point) of the spinning wheel's axle. I prove it in the video in the link below. The video It's a little long (put it in 1.5 speed if my helium voice isn't more irritating than normal speed...) - but I explain beyond a shadow of a doubt why gyroscopes display angular momentum and precession. The "torque" of centrifugal force the spinning wheel creates is transferred to its bearings (or left & right or front & back) points of contact between the wheel (rotating mass) and its axle (stationary mass). The above is also why when outside torque is applied - the "motion" of the entire gyroscope always makes a 90 degree angle of movement transfer in the direction of rotation of the gyroscope - from the direction the torque is applied (the actual degree of the angle of energy direction transfer is proportionate to speed of rotation (flywheel energy) and amount of side direction torque applied) . Check this out and tell me that I am wrong. th-cam.com/video/cF5fAQcZMvM/w-d-xo.html&lc=z23rvnupezfzvjjbn04t1aokgln1ldx1ctwjatxo0ozxbk0h00410
Okay what was your aahhha moment? Explain the right hand rule, please. Why is the precession the other way when spinning the other way?
Watch this video by Vsause - Spinning
th-cam.com/video/XHGKIzCcVa0/w-d-xo.html
Here is the right hand rule.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-hand_rule
I enjoyed that video, a well done video, as was yours. Left a comment/ question there, but didn't answer my question. It seems all rotating metal discs on a shaft have a Torque perpendicular to the disc along the axis of the shaft away from the disc but it depends on the CW or CCW rotation, and follows the "right hand rule." Are we talking about a metal disc spinning in the Earth's magnetic field that causes the torque to reverse due to the spin direction, an induced EMF (similar to right hand rule of electricity flowing in a wire)? Thanks
In other words, if I understand this rule, imagine if two people pick up each end of a shaft with a disc spinning in the middle and carry it perpendicular to the disc. Say the travel west and then east. But regardless of which way they travel, it should be slightly easier for them to move it one way vs. the other, depending upon the CW or CCW rotation of the disc?
The right hand rule (aka the screw rule) is best used for understanding the cross product when using vectors in 3D space with a right handed coordinate system. In this video and also Vsause's video we are avoiding using vectors and aim for a more intuitive understanding. Unless you are doing cross products I would not worry too much about the right hand rule.
A rotating metal disk on a shaft doesn't have any torque unless you apply a force. Gravity will do that if the shaft is supported on the ground and it is not straight up. It doesn't matter which way it is spinning, the torque is the same. The way the thing precesses depends on the direction it is spinning because it moves 90° away from where the force is applied and that depends on which way it is spinning.
Okay, thanks. I am actually interested in unexplained anomalies in experiments that might help verify the existence of "ether" and see if I can't use them to explain things like gravity and light propagation. This seems to be one that fits well with a theory of gravity that I have been trying to follow. Actually, the fact that there is no noticeable torque until you accelerate the disk, as well as the fact that the torque is one-directional, fits quite well with a particular theory.
I don't think this is quite right. When 'Sally' pushes upwards on the right edge of the rotating wheel (that is, the viewers' right, not the presenter's) the top part of the wheel will tilt towards us and the bottom part away from us. The demo doesn't show that. This can be modelled using your first and second fingers and thumb, a bit like with the 'motor' rule and the 'generator rule' in electromagnetism. The fingers and thumb point along the axes of rotation. Using your right hand, point your thumb upwards. That's the axis of rotation of the wheel. Point your first finger at the screen. That's the axis of rotation of Sally's turning force. Your second finger points right to left. That's the axis of rotation of the resulting twist of the wheel.
hello there!
im from brazil, and im planing to do a test, with a 3ft diameter iron wheel, weighting 220 pounds, at 350 rpm.
im wondering what will happen if i suddenly stops it (with car brakes). ..how many pounds this "ram" will generate?
it will be possible to lift or flip a 1ton object with that?
best regards
vitor quintella sebode
Applying brakes will simply put a torque on the brake apparatus. Make sure it is bolted down really good. Practice with small RPMs for safety.
yeah, .. i'll start smaller first, thanks!
Too many thumbs down, too many blinds.
I had a similar way to make it more intuitive, a train (or many) over a circual railway around a planet. Yours is even easier to understand
Very helpful, thank you. When you explained your ah-ha moment, it gave me one.
im really thank you about your teaching im also one person who searching how gyro works why does it works like that in the late night like you saidi just thank u from korea
I came here to understand how How does a gyroscope work?, I understand now I can't understand how does a gyroscope work
Vsauce did a way better job. Check out this video - Spinning: th-cam.com/video/XHGKIzCcVa0/w-d-xo.html
It doesn't keep me up. I had a eureka moment running this morning that we might be able to create a cool equivalent to semiconductors by creating a gyroscopic electromagnetic system with electric current and electromagnetism. Instead of pressure or coldness it can create the same conditions using the same system of gyroscopes. No idea how but it could create a gyroscopic equivalent.
that tire must've rubbed off some of his arm hairs
VERY interesting; i'll remember things do not always move in the direction you push on them!!! that helps understanding gyros; *THANK YOU* hope you pass the 1 million soon.
Its 12:37am. This was keeping me awake! Good explanation.
This was a very clear and consise explanation, I am very thankful to you, great job!
The idea is speed = distance over time. Distance must begin from one point, and movement must relative to that point. In respect to all the moving objects in the universe, where is point zero.
You've explained it to your own satisfaction. But abstracting a single element from the periphery, attaching to the 'axis' with a non-rigid (piece of string) framework, predicating it on the special case of angular momentum in a plane at right angles to the force of gravity (quite arbitrary to the discussion, people are going to think the phenomenon has something necessarily to do with the force of gravity), and stuffing it with a preamble about F=ma, a=F/m, etc. omg...
Downstream? It's not 'downstream', but off-downstream, with a (velocity) vector of exactly 90 degrees from downstream. Why _90_ degrees 'downstream'? Why not 77.3 degrees, or 89.1 degrees?...
WHAT I UNDERSTOOD IS IN A GOOGLE CARDBOARD WHEN I LOOK TO THE RIGHT THE SCREEN OR THE PARONAMA PHOTO ,MOVES TO THE LEFT
Why are you in front of a greenscreen to make the background blue just literally stand in front of a blue wall
Maybe he doesnt have one dumbass
He has got green wall only. :-D
If he did a chromakey over a porn flick, TH-cam would nix his video so, probably better the blue wall.
A green screen that also affects your green tennis ball in your demonstration.
Thank you for this video!
I thought I was pretty much alone, in the fact that, I have "gyroscope" problems, myself.
I own a Navir SPACE WONDER gyroscope which comes with two, steel washer-type balance wheels, one of which is weighted off-center. This shortens the time that the gyroscope is supposed to spin by about ten minutes!
Mine will only spin a total of about 3 minutes; a video I saw on one, of the same model, spun a total of 13.5 minutes!
How can I make an adjustment on this one, off-balance, steel disk?
Understanding the mechanics of spinning objects requires an ah ha moment when your understanding of force vectors melds with your intuition of Newtonian stuff. The direction of progression being 90 degrees down stream of where the original force is applied is critical here. Holding the tire by the peg is the original force. Holding the tire by the peg is the same as applying a force to the tire directly, perpendicular to axis of rotation. Hope this helps
for the people who had a hard time understanding what he demonstrated.
ill try to draw it.
the o is the body in motion.
linear motion example.
o->
moment of impulse:
o->
^
|
the push vector
result after the push:
^
/
o
sorry for the weird arrow but thats how i can draw an angled line useing text.
for circular motion:
top view
lets ignore one particle and only consider the lower one
( )
o->
now lets look from side view:
o->
side view looks the same as the linear example.
so what happens if i apply a force up to that particle in circular movement?
( )
o->
lets say i push on that particle (at that same moment and position of space)
(from underneath it)
o->
^
|
resulted vector:
^
/
o
the particle on the other side would have the opposite effect
o
/
v
so together they form
^
/
o
/
v
from the side view of both the particles seen together :
this is a flat image but:
remember that there is “depth”
that image is two particles.
when we are looking at this
from the side view, we see this:
the particle in front is covering the one behind.
we can see the vectors as if they where on the same vertical plane but they aren't.
so thats why he says its the same as for the linear example.
o->
^
|
its just harder to imagine the concept in circular motion.
i say particle, but they are actually one solid body(mass)
so that means they are jointed together,
and thats why pushing one particle(area) of that spinning mass(wheel)
it will have effect on all the members of particles of that mass.
if they where free particles, the push of one particle would not effect the other particles.
Dear lord... the time before the internet. where you had to read books all the way through and still not find what you're looking for.
unlike today where i can type how gyroscopes and land on this video in less than a minute at 3:21 am.
the question is not keeping me up at night though. i just happen to wonder about it at night time.
"The high point is 90 degrees downstream from where the force was applied", I'm able to visualise this part.
And?
Now, who is Sally in our precession problem?
Finally I understood it. Thank you for sharing this.