| Bill Ward 2005-10-17, 9:21 pm |
| On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:25:37 -0500, Scott A Crosby
<scrosby@cs.rice.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 20:28:20 GMT, "daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> writes:
>
>
>If we tried this, the gyroscope will precess until it its axis of
>rotation is oriented on a north-south axis. At which time, it will
>remain unaffected by earth's rotation. Also, the gyroscope will be
>slowed down by one rotation per day, aka, $x$ rotations forward per
>day and one rotation backward from earth's rotation. And conservation
>of energy tells me that that one rotation difference/day is where the
>energy it produces comes from.
>
>This situation also fully converges angular momentum from earth's
>rotation, spin the gyro up. extract energy from precessing, spin down
>a slightly slower gyro, and you get back exactly the energy you put
>in, and the earth doesn't change rotation velocity.
>
>Unworkable.
>
>
>But what about the different situation where it is completely
>restrained in the north-south direction to keep this from happening,
>and partially restrained in the east-west direction.
>
>Scott
Or suppose you go to the North pole and install your gyro
with the axis restrained to horizontal, mounted on a geared
lazy susan to allow the earth to rotate beneath it. Now the
gryo will attempt to maintain it's axis relative to the
firmament, while the Earth rotates. Energy can be
continuously extracted from the Earths rotation through the
lazy susan gears. (relative motion between the two
perpendicular axes). No stops and starts needed.
The environmental impact statement would probably take so
long to issue it would prohibit any practical use.
Regards,
Bill Ward
|