This was incredibly helpful man, thanks man. I watched many other videos and they never explain it intuitively, it’s always vectors and never explained. This video was great!
I've watched some lecture snippets before from professors who absolutely sucked at explaining this. I've come up with my own somewhat intuitive explanation looking at one single point too. I just wasnt sure how solid my own explanation was. Thanks for the wonderful visuals.
This video was good and put some of it together for me but I was still not fully grasping it. I watched the video by Physics Videos by Eugene Kutoryansky and it all made sense. Think about a Beyblade or Dreidel, or some other spin top toy, the fast you spin the thing, the more it wants to stay upright, and the less it is affected by gravity, simple enough right? Now apply the same concept to the spinning bike wheel demo. If spun fast enough, the angular momentum will overpower the torquing force of gravity, until it slows down to the point the gravity overpowers the angular momentum. Hope that helps anyone who might still be confused.
1:30 Why does the satellite hit on the front side not travel up until it reaches the backside where its gets pushed down again? Edit: Ah okay I think the gravitational force holds the satellite in a orbit
It was quite some time ago, I don't really remember 🙂 -- but there's certainly absolutely no chance I was the first person to think about the problem this way.
Look at the layout of control inputs to a main rotor of a helicopter - the swashplate is designed to the offset of control inputs to give the desired directional effect anticipated. Typically, a ninety degree offset to a free rotor assembly but a slightly different angular arrangement for a rigid rotor design.
WOW! ... so happy to find another thinker who chose an intuitive approach to this. I adopted the same 'intuitive' approach to understanding gyroscopic precession 50+ years during my high school physics class. The topic was only skimmed over, but I remember the equations intimidated me. My scenario considered the rim to be comprised of an infinite number of masses forming the disc of the rim but still conceptually independent. When I realized the masses were simply being forced to change their tangential direction by tilting the rim's axis, I was finally able to sleep at night, again. The force (arrows) pushing the balls 'off-course' require an opposite reactive force ... which ends up being the precession.
I just came back to this to help somebody online trying to understand gyroscopes (because this is the best video out there for that!)… but then I saw Dianna at the end and now I’m sad :(
Here's a nice video of an experiment by an astronaut on the International Space Station. Should help to visualize the concepts explained in this video. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xQb-N486mA4.htmlsi=BnfbZvQQ8OdfZXM4
Brilliant. Exactly the explanation I was looking for. I understand the vector explanation but finally a clear intuitive explanation of precession, which also requires some deep thinking to generalize.
Wow this is a good explanation. And to add to it, if you’re unsure why pushing up on the satellite makes the orbit tilt, just add the vectors of the upward push and the original centripetal force, and you’ll get a new centripetal force that when rotated 360 degrees has that tilted trajectory.
I came here from an article about electron spin that tried to explain angular momentum and the precession it causes in a magnetic field. I wanted to understand this better since we briefly touched upon it in our radiology class regarding MRT and it made no f*cking sense there. I think I understand it much better now, thank you.
This is so much better than all the silly right hand rule, etc., explanations. So many people apply the rules and think they understand the phenomenon. If you can't visualize and explain in words what is happening, you don't understand. Good job. But this is not an intuitive explanation. Intuitive means you can predict an outcome without understanding why. The calculated outcomes are intuitive. This is an analytical explanation.
Great and concise explanation! An interesting consequence of this is that applying torque perpendicularly to a vector of angular momentum will result in precession movement perpendicular to both. Also, KSP is truly a great example of how a game can be both entertaining and teach you a lot, at least on the intuition side of things.
That was great! The example you gave was definitely very understandable, but why does the force vector point directly in that direction rather than producing a torque in that direction?
At 2:25, can you explain why the force is away from string at "top" of wheel and towards string at "bottom" of wheel. How does that make the wheel orient vertically on the side at that time sig, rather than the wheel standing to the left side (the rotational velocity/momentum affects how vertically oriented the rotating wheel/disc/orbit competes). In the example of the satellite, what is the example source of the force that results in the angular tilt (right up, left down)? That limits my intuitive understanding, without knowing what force you're using as an example for the satelitte. If that's the same as the precession on the wheel, wouldn't the orbit angle be continually changing it's angle, ie, wouldn't the orbit itself continue to rise on the "right" side and fall on the "left" side, when if viewed from the perspective in the video would make the orbit appear to be rotating counterclockwise?
This video is a godsend. Explanations in the books for physics majors (Kleppner/Kolenkow, Ohanian, Young/Freedman) in my opinion all fail to explain it properly. Walter Lewin simply states it is 'unintuitive'. Shame on them all and many thanks to you!
