A good justification for Billvon's unsupported claim that contra-rotating disks will do nothing is found here:- http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=162887 (My bold)
He gave you the right answer, but you're calling it an "unsupported claim"? Couldn't you have just said "billvon was right"?
Do you dispute that the difference between an unsupported claim and a supported claim is that one is supported with some sort of evidence and the other isn't? Can't really see where you're coming from here.
He gave you truth; it wasn't a claim. He knows what he's talking about, and that's why you came here to ask, and why he's giving you answers. C: "Is the sky green?" D: "The sky is blue." C: "That's an unsupported claim. I looked it up and quoted it, and now I get credit for supporting the 'claim' that the sky is blue." Kinda disingenuous to throw shade on someone who actually gave you the answer and then you take credit for it.
Sorry DaveC426913, I'm not going to waste any more time with your nonsense. For all I can tell both you and billvon you may have climbed the 17 highest peaks on the planet - and good luck to you both. Without any supporting evidence - you're just - well, nothing really.
Right. But if you ask me I will tell you I didn't. I did set some skydiving records. You are free to believe or not believe that, and are free to think that I bagged all the 8000m peaks. Or not. If you don't believe anything anyone says, reading this forum may be frustrating for you.
Guy comes to forum with questions. Members provide answers. Answers are true. First criticizes, then takes credit. Thinks getting answers to his questions is "wasting time" and "nonsense".
I know this forum well enough to have list of people I would tend to believe and neither billvon nor DaveC426913 are on that list nor are they ever likely to be added to it. Claiming billvon supported his answer with any evidence is clearly nonsense - he didn't. In fairness he may not have understood the question - equally fairly he may not have understood his answer. Character flaws aside the the original question remains interesting - what will counter-rotating gyroscopes do? Continuing with the the thread that I thought I gave full and fair credit to for apparently supporting billvon's claim ( http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=162887 ).. Yes the contra-rotating gyros cancel out preccession... and If the flywheels oppose the destabilizing force then I think I can fairly state that "billvon was wrong.". So.. is billvon or spurious-g correct? A skydiver and a total unknown - only one can be correct - which will DaveC426913 vote for?
Yes I think they do. This will be tested when I have time. I was somewhat thrown by billvon's (unsupported) claim that contra-rotating gyros would cancel out which remains unsupported because it is wrong. It is a shame I got caught up with Davething's trolling - my mistake, sorry - I'll know for another time. In fairness even a wrong answer is helpful - I had to find out why it was wrong. Thanks for sharing the ideas - especially RainbowSingularity who at least tried some physics.
Thanks Seattle - Wow!. Stunning result - many thanks. Seattle upvoted. Billvon played 50-50 and won (no change), I played 50-50 and lost (no change). Davething stays on ignore (no change).
I have looked back and wondered "How did that happen?". I think the answer lies in "Appeals from authority" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority ). I (now) see that you guys all accept him [edit billvon] as an authority and supported him as an authority with the result we have seen. From the outside the possibilities are... His answer is correct and I accept it (1) His answer is correct and I don't accept it (0) His answer is false and I accept it (0) His answer is false and I don't accept it (1) Take 1+1 and divide it by 4. Kind'a looks like 50-50 dealing with guys on the internet that don't give any evidence to support their claims.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You came here looking for answers to a stated practical problem. You got answers. They were correct answers. If you wanted to verify them for your own diligence, you're certainly able to. Consider that your homework, instead of being spoon-fed. If, on the other hand, you came here looking for academic debate on the subject, with references, maybe you could have said that was your agenda, instead of waiting for Bill to provide you with correct answers, and then disparaging him for not pro-actively providing enough evidence for you. (You could have simply asked him.) Kind of a bait & switch, and you don't seem to take any responsibility for it. Anyway, it's pointless to keep this up. I don't want to further derail your thread with a side-discussion - I just feel that such ungracious behavior is noteworthy. For myself, since I'm not sure what your agenda actually is, I'll take my sailing experience and step back.
Good! Feel free to disregard anything I say. I don't need to. If you connect two gyroscopes such that their precessive force is cancelled out, then it is cancelled out. That's basic physics. Generate a tremendous force _between_ the two gyroscopes when the assembly's attitude is changed in any axis other than the axis of rotation. That force may cause their frames to fail. If not, then the forces will cancel. You sound like a Youtube sort of guy so check this out:
Why would anyone care if you accept it or not? Do you think it bothers me that some people think the Earth is flat?
That's an effect of precession of the gyroscope. If they rotate at the same speed, the net angular momentum will then be zero, which is equivalent to having a single non-rotating gyroscope installed. --- If you were to mount a gyroscope with its rotational axis horizontal and perpendicular to the direction of motion of the boat, then under action of the wind the boat would tend to yaw (turn left or right) instead of pitching up and down. That might not be any more desirable as an outcome, however.
