inertial propulsion with gyroscope part 17 the pendulum test attempt
I was asked to attempt a “Nasa’s” pendulum test .
I don’t like those pendulum test with the Fiala’s or rower system with gyroscope because there is a lot of wobling.
As i like to insist on , that kind of device has a BIG ASYMETRY betwen the first and second 180 of rotation if Fiala’s config or between the back and forth swing if rower’s config .
During one part, the gyro spins but a mechanical restrictor prevents him to precess. So no precession = the gyro is almost as a dead mass, and exhibit full inertia, centrifugal force , angular momentum etc..etc…as a dead mass, so action and reaction. A member of the forum “gyroscope .org ” called Nitro name this part the newtonian stroque (NS). And this is during the NS, that the device is motorised and translates .
Than on the other part, the gyro is liberated from the mechanical restrictor and can precess. So believe me or not, it seems to exhibit much less centrifugal force , inertia, and angular momentum. So Nitro name this part the gyrodynamic stroke (GS). During the GS, the gyro can return to starting point almost without counter reaction, as if it partially disapeared from the scene.
So you can understand that the smoother the device is, the most perfect the precession restrictor works. And on suspended wobling system, the wobling induce some oscillations during the NS, so the gyro can slightly precess, and the motorising effect is strongly decreased.
To me so far the best test with this kind of system is the marble test on video part 8. because the device works on a flat stable surface, and we can analyse all the phases in details.
Voila for my ranting. As there is back and forth movement of the pointer on the rim, no clear stable positionning outside the rim (and i wonder if it is only possible with this devices ), i don’t know if this test is of any interest and i let you be judge .
I will stop this testing now and concentrate on the why of the GS.