How Does The Anti-Gravity Wheel Work? 

Then why is it always at - weight. Even if it the scale is taking an average force over time, the average should be around 0, not -6

@@CharlieKellyEsq Let me quote what I wrote an hour ago: "I assume the processor of the display is programmed to display an average over some time interval, probably half a second or so." I estimate that it takes the weight 3 seconds or so from release to the end of its tether. That is *several times longer* than what I gave as a guess for the duration of the averaging window. Whatever the actual duration of the averating window is, clearly it is short enough so that the scale has opportunity to show a readable value of around -6

@@cleon_teunissen I see, you're a nerd

I doubt it. A scale like this isn't really intended to weight things that are bouncing around. You're assuming it uses a relatively complex algorithm to average out a lot of samples taken between updates and tosses out short duration peaks which it would have to do for the display not to increase when the weight bounces (but then what's the point of taking an average if you're going to toss out samples?) when it would be a lot simpler just to take a sample before every update. As long as the thing you're weighing isn't bouncing around, there's not much point in averaging multiple samples.

At 7:57 he talks about the spike of force when it reaches it at the bottom.

Have you realize that gravity doesn't exist?

This is old school science that i already learned when i was 5! Take a bicycle wheel and try to hold it up at one side of the centre axle. You won't be able to hold it upright but as soon you spin the wheel, you can hold it up with only the tip of your finger. The reason why you can hold it then is because the centrafugal force moves in all directions so the wheel wants to move in all directions. there's even a guy that has a large and real heavy metal wheel on an axle and you can't lift that up with one hand, let alone lift it up above your head, but as soon the wheel is spun around, the whole thing weighs almost nothing and then you can swing it with ease above your head.

@@3DPeter, when you were 120 years old? OMG! How old are you?

@@jcmschott1895 ????? where do i say that i'm 120 years old?

@@3DPeter Use of gyroscope action 120yrs ago.

Nice one, dude! I did some calculations here and if I am not wrong, the angular acceleration is, roughly speaking, proportional to the r radius of the rod and inversely proportional to the mass and the square of the disc radius R. So, for a large disc, maybe you can capture the image with a smartphone camera and analyse the footage with a software called Tracker Motion Analysis. It's for free.

That acceleration is an important clue to what's happening. The mass of the wheel is effectively bouncing under partial gravity - not in free-fall like a ball, or a person on a tramp, but with an additional effect (transfers of energy) that reduced the effect of gravity allowing it to 'bounce' at less that 1 g.. . It's a real brain-burner, but pretty cool and really causes / requires serious thinking and a darn good understanding of physics..

is the same thing used in a YOYO

Nope, you're wrong. I checked the math

maybe

Start building a spaceship

Ye guess there is an Gravity spike when the Disk is at the lowest Point. Digital Skale is just to Slow

try 2x speed

It would be cool if it was a faster scale that could output its data into a line graph

no, old scales have too much mass and inertia and would filter out any small spikes in force.

the wheel bouncing at the bottom will kill the kinetic energy n inertia by the friction depended on the surface just like you spin rear wheel of a cycle in air n drop it causing it to stop completely

@@two_number_nines In some cases, an analogue scale will do the job better.

@@two_number_nines Oh, ok... ^^

Just a simple calculation. If the effect of lowering the wheel during 3 seconds is -6 grams; in a bouncing spike of let's 1/10 of a second you would feel a 'weight pulse' of 30*6 = 180 grams. Thats a whole lot It should be visible somehow, but even playing the video in slow motion I don't see any movement(shock) of the balance indicating this

The acceleration I believe would be the same, but I wonder if the friction of the wires around the object is what's really slowing it down instead of air resistance? Hard to say until he tries!

My guess is that it won't be much different. The sound loss is already minimum and so is the air resistance since it's a round object

Little bit more

You would get the almost same result bcoz friction uses most of energy(not air) here but with out friction it wouldn't spin like that due to no friction in btw wheel and string....! And in zero gravity I think it would be different...

Agreed, Mr. Phoenix

And you would think wrong. Which is ok as long as you understand it being wrong.

Seems reasonable; we know that impacts increase force at the expense of time. A bouncing ball would impact the scale. The sudden change in the wheel's direction looks like an impact. Maybe it is, maybe the rotation modifies it. It would be interesting to find out how the characteristics of the strings affect it too. A chart-recording scale would be really useful.

@@thierryfaquet7405 Would you please elaborate?

@@ivarangquist9184 just watch the video ???

Your thought is exacly right, in the bottom the direction of movement is changing,the whole mass of the flywheel has to be accelerated from downwards motion to upwards motion, the cables get a short peak force they transfer through the contraption, which the scale does not show.

But it's *always* accelerating downwards. Even when it's stopped.

@@Atzanteol1 no, at the very bottom it's accelerating upward.

@@Atzanteol1 NO NO NO..It is always accelerating UP even when it is stopped. Give your head a shake. Accelerating up in a rocket you get more weight right? But before the rocket takes off you already have weight right? RU-vid "Why Gravity is not a Force".

In a project book from the ‘60s was a similar toy, rolling a BB around in a film can. On a ramp. The impact moved the box forward overcoming the box/table friction but the rear movement was absorbed by internal friction.

@@thumper88888 Thank you. I decided to finally release the video i made of it, poor video, but a picture is worth a 1000 words. It is not meant as self-promotion, although i could see it technically be just that. This beeing hidden away deep down a youtube comment section anyway. Something are just difficult to describe with words alone.

In the yoyo style this project looks perfect for simulating perpetual motion.

Those missing grams are collected when the disk is wound and elevated back up to it's starting position lol.

@@ImYourProblem No. The grams are missing both up and down(!) They are in fact collected in a knock at the bottom.

@@eb4661 They would be collected in the knock at the bottom, but that knock at the bottom is in a blindspot of the scale's signal processing capabilities. If you could measure with infinite precision, you'd get an average force of zero in the scale, between equivalent points in the cycle.

so is it the case that: loss of weight in air * time in air = gain in weight at bottom * time spent turning around at the bottom?

You are close to explain it! The rolling of the disk is extrernal energy that he added to the system. The rest I believe are transformatios of energy and momentum/force/mass relations. Its not a miracle, is explainable (but I have to recall my gymnasium physics)

"Due to some undisclosed incidents" 😂

Hey, mate! Is it possible to save it to a file?

I think it would be an infinite weight during an infinitely small amount of time.

@@AlexGeek Not in reality

@@AlexGeek Only in the oversimplified world of introductory physics, where rigid bodies are truly rigid and inextensible strings exist. The truth is, all strings, cords, cables, etc, will have some degree of stretching, and due to this, the spike at the bottom will not have an infinite force, in an infinitesimal time. Ultimately, Hooke's law would govern the behavior of the strings, as if they were springs with a much larger k-constant, and I would expect a sinusoidal profile of the rebound force as a function of time. The frequency would be in kilohertz or megahertz, and we'd only see a a little over half of this sine wave appear on the plot. We'd also see harmonics to this sine wave, that are governed by the natural frequency of the spring-like elements in the scale, be it actual springs or piezoelectrics, and a damping envelope as the sine wave pulse transitions back to the constant -6 gram reading..

Indeed it would be interesting to see the details of this spike, but I don't know what kind of scale would have the time resolution to accurately pick it up. From the impulse-momentum theorem, you can infer that the time-average change from zero in the reading on the scale should equal zero, across a time interval between equivalent points in the cycle. No change in the momentum of the center of mass, should mean no net impulse on the system from the scale, other than the baseline impulse needed to oppose the steady impulse of gravity. The problem is, that there is such an extreme asymmetry between the time when the scale would read -6 grams, and the time of the rebound spike, that the scale doesn't have enough resolution to pick up the rebound spike, and this biases the readout to show the loss of weight, a lot more than the gain of weight. Maybe if you introduced flexible springs at the top of the strings, to slow down the rebound impulse, you could pick it up on the scale.

@@carultch If you change the scale to a pressure sensor and connect it to an oscilloscope you would bei able to see it. The sensors themselves are fast enough, it's only the processing which slows it down.

More like start falling slowly.

I'm going to slowly fall every time I get on the scale. As a matter of fact, I'm going to start slowly falling everywhere I go. Two weeks later.... Me: "I'm trying to weigh less." Psychiatrist: "so the monsters don't get you, right?"

This might be measured if the scale recorded the mass.

Here's the deal with this wheel: The wheel does NOT *weigh less* when it is spinning!. .. It may be more correct to say that it weighs less when it is "bouncing". .. I have a problem with the interpretation of the Laithwaite demo. *Precession does not translate the wheel. It does not lift it.* Precession causes the axis of rotation to change direction. This is a *ROTATION* about the center-of-mass of the wheel. It is not lifting the whole wheel's mass. . Precession does not cause the gyro to *move* (translate) sideways, nor upward in Laithwaite 's case or Veritasium's case. If the vertical spinning gyro had translation, it would slide along the table, but stay vertical. It does not do that. It tips, or rotates at 90 degrees. The fact that the handle is offset and long has significance. If you push the handle in the direction of the precession, that lifts the handle, right?. However the interpretation that the spinning wheel is always accelerating downward even while moving upward, is a very good catch. It took me a few seconds to realize that. My quick initial feeling was that the weight would go positive on the way up. . . The way to think of it is that is is 'partly falling' due to gravity. When you are in free-fall you are completely 'weightless'. The spin and string-shaft arrangement allow it to fall, but not fully, as when you are in free-fall. So, the frame experiences somewhere between the full weight and weightless ness, but more weight during the bounce time. .. *The winding and unwinding of the string causes the up and down motion which is what changes the weight.* .. Stand on a bathroom scale and at a medium speed, move up and down by bending your knees. Try to move faster and faster on the way down and slower and slower on the way up. You will see your weight decrease during those times. .. .. .. If you watch carefully, you see that it is speeding-up as it drops; this is accelerating, but not at the full 'gravity-rate'. Also, it is slowing-down as it rises, again not fully accelerating (decelerating or negative acceleration) due to gravity. .. On a trampoline you are completely weightless from the time your feet leave the trampoline until they touch again and start the bounce. During this time you are constantly in 'total' free-fall. When in contact with the trampoline you are accelerating upward and weigh more than normal. If you can add a small upward force to reduce the acceleration due to gravity, you will weigh less. No surprise there. This is analogous to only "partway" jumping on a trampoline (or your bouncing ball). On a tramp, you are accelerating *downward* when your feet are not in contact with the tramp. The ball is when it is not in contact with the floor. The spinning wheel only "partly" leaves the support strings. It is "partially bouncing". If the tramp accelerated you upward at twice the rate of gravity, your weight would double. Therefore, there is also a slight increase in weight at the bottom bounce. . This would be equivalent to a small jetpack on your back that can't lift you, but only partly reduces your weight. You would be in "Sloe-Fall", not free-fall. .. This would make a wonderful Dean Drive Scam. . . . .. It would be nice to have a real-time force load cell so we can see what happens at the bottom of the wheels travel - the positive weight gain during the short 'bounce' time. .. Also, WHAT HAPPENS to the weight, if the wheel is NOT spinning, but bouncing while being suspended by a *spring,* instead of the winding/unwinding strings? Is that equivalent to this "partial bouncing" effect?

Love this explanation! I always enjoy thinking about how I'm actually accelerating (kind of) upwards at my weight right now haha

Does this mean it changes weight due to the change in acceleration frame of reference?

@@paulbrooks4395 yep

@@rebeuhsin6410 the scale zeros out for a fraction of a second,

@@JebFromWarmDays I do believe you're actually accelerating downwards, as gravity "pulls." Another way to think about this, is that someone in orbit is in a perpetual free fall, but you just keep missing the ground over and over again. As you stand on the ground, it does resist that falling motion, so you feel a force in your feet against the ground resisting the gravitational acceleration and keeping you as stationary relative to the slow moving tectonic plates.

the mass is falling down and converts a small amount of the potential energy into kinetic (small movement downwards) thats why less force pulls on the upper rod. and when it moves upwards it converts still a small amount into kinetic energy (that gets lost in any resistances like air, "sound", heat) even though it seems like it would pull it downwards like if a human jumps on a libra or pulls itself upwards on this rod - in this cas etha mass would increase/decrease depending on the acceleration but because the flywheel of his machine doesnt generate a force (like we do biochemical) the force could never exeed 0 (positive) because the enegry is convertet into other forms until it comes to a stop. is that right and if not can you tell me my mistkae in this thought - i kept the old one just that you can see where i was coming from, if im stil wrong at some point. maybe its easier to correct a mistake then - like the mathteachers that told us to write any little thing on this damn paper xD first thoughts so keep that in mind, i got a bit closer now: but still its kinda hard to get the upward movement cause if you thin k about yourself hanging at a pipe and slowly let yourself sink it makes sense that not all of your mass or in this case force gets applied to the pipe, because you let yourself sink - if i understand it right you convert your potential energy in kinetic but most of it stays potential or no. if you rest its potential if you move kinetic... oh fuck its late tbh and its not my native language aswell. the point thats hard to imagine is if you convert all your potential energy in kinetic, you are free falling - kinda, lets keep it simple. but to explain what happens there is. does the spinning of the shaft count to potential energy or ist it kinetic because its "on the move"

​@@johannesdatblue4164 Yes, you're right there are 3 forms of energy here. We've got the potential energy which is the height of the object, kinetic energy from falling, and kinetic energy from spinning. When it is riding back up the string gravity is slowing it down 1% more than the kinetic rotational energy is transferring back into the string. So both down and up would show negative on the scale. But the real question is there an impulse at the very bottom when it is switching directions that is just so fast that the scale can't read it? Or does the force of the spinner on the string always stay less than the weight of the spinner?

Yeah i love it too. Its just that sometimes im like: eh? Srs someone didnt know that? Then i notice yeah not everyone is spending their free time on such shit. 💋💋❤️❤️💔💔💗💗💗💗💔💔❤️❤️💋💋

What I always wonder about is how does he come up with the topics for his videos. But whatever the topic it's always something interesting

@@shinronin7312 lmao

@@jimi02468 yup!

"wheel is accelerating downward" - except when it "bounces" at the bottom

Great. I think it's correct explanation

Nope. Both strings will show the same as long as the horizontal distances from string to center-of-mass are equal. .. Here's the deal with this wheel: The wheel does NOT *weigh less* when it is spinning!. .. It may be more correct to say that it weighs less when it is "bouncing". .. I have a problem with the interpretation of the Laithwaite demo. *Precession does not translate the wheel. It does not lift it.* Precession causes the axis of rotation to change direction. This is a *ROTATION* about the center-of-mass of the wheel. It is not lifting the whole wheel's mass. . Precession does not cause the gyro to *move* (translate) sideways, nor upward in Laithwaite 's case or Veritasium's case. If the vertical spinning gyro had translation, it would slide along the table, but stay vertical. It does not do that. It tips, or rotates at 90 degrees. The fact that the handle is offset and long has significance. If you push the handle in the direction of the precession, that lifts the handle, right?. However the interpretation that the spinning wheel is always accelerating downward even while moving upward, is a very good catch. It took me a few seconds to realize that. My quick initial feeling was that the weight would go positive on the way up. . . The way to think of it is that is is 'partly falling' due to gravity. When you are in free-fall you are completely 'weightless'. The spin and string-shaft arrangement allow it to fall, but not fully, as when you are in free-fall. So, the frame experiences somewhere between the full weight and weightless ness, but more weight during the bounce time. .. *The winding and unwinding of the string causes the up and down motion which is what changes the weight.* .. Stand on a bathroom scale and at a medium speed, move up and down by bending your knees. Try to move faster and faster on the way down and slower and slower on the way up. You will see your weight decrease during those times. .. .. .. If you watch carefully, you see that it is speeding-up as it drops; this is accelerating, but not at the full 'gravity-rate'. Also, it is slowing-down as it rises, again not fully accelerating (decelerating or negative acceleration) due to gravity. .. On a trampoline you are completely weightless from the time your feet leave the trampoline until they touch again and start the bounce. During this time you are constantly in 'total' free-fall. When in contact with the trampoline you are accelerating upward and weigh more than normal. If you can add a small upward force to reduce the acceleration due to gravity, you will weigh less. No surprise there. This is analogous to only "partway" jumping on a trampoline (or your bouncing ball). On a tramp, you are accelerating *downward* when your feet are not in contact with the tramp. The ball is when it is not in contact with the floor. The spinning wheel only "partly" leaves the support strings. It is "partially bouncing". If the tramp accelerated you upward at twice the rate of gravity, your weight would double. Therefore, there is also a slight increase in weight at the bottom bounce. . This would be equivalent to a small jetpack on your back that can't lift you, but only partly reduces your weight. You would be in "Sloe-Fall", not free-fall. .. This would make a wonderful Dean Drive Scam. . . . .. It would be nice to have a real-time force load cell so we can see what happens at the bottom of the wheels travel - the positive weight gain during the short 'bounce' time. .. Also, WHAT HAPPENS to the weight, if the wheel is NOT spinning, but bouncing while being suspended by a *spring,* instead of the winding/unwinding strings? Is that equivalent to this "partial bouncing" effect?

@@dilipdas5777 Here's the deal with this wheel: The wheel does NOT *weigh less* when it is spinning!. .. It may be more correct to say that it weighs less when it is "bouncing". .. I have a problem with the interpretation of the Laithwaite demo. *Precession does not translate the wheel. It does not lift it.* Precession causes the axis of rotation to change direction. This is a *ROTATION* about the center-of-mass of the wheel. It is not lifting the whole wheel's mass. . Precession does not cause the gyro to *move* (translate) sideways, nor upward in Laithwaite 's case or Veritasium's case. If the vertical spinning gyro had translation, it would slide along the table, but stay vertical. It does not do that. It tips, or rotates at 90 degrees. The fact that the handle is offset and long has significance. If you push the handle in the direction of the precession, that lifts the handle, right?. However the interpretation that the spinning wheel is always accelerating downward even while moving upward, is a very good catch. It took me a few seconds to realize that. My quick initial feeling was that the weight would go positive on the way up. . . The way to think of it is that is is 'partly falling' due to gravity. When you are in free-fall you are completely 'weightless'. The spin and string-shaft arrangement allow it to fall, but not fully, as when you are in free-fall. So, the frame experiences somewhere between the full weight and weightless ness, but more weight during the bounce time. .. *The winding and unwinding of the string causes the up and down motion which is what changes the weight.* .. Stand on a bathroom scale and at a medium speed, move up and down by bending your knees. Try to move faster and faster on the way down and slower and slower on the way up. You will see your weight decrease during those times. .. .. .. If you watch carefully, you see that it is speeding-up as it drops; this is accelerating, but not at the full 'gravity-rate'. Also, it is slowing-down as it rises, again not fully accelerating (decelerating or negative acceleration) due to gravity. .. On a trampoline you are completely weightless from the time your feet leave the trampoline until they touch again and start the bounce. During this time you are constantly in 'total' free-fall. When in contact with the trampoline you are accelerating upward and weigh more than normal. If you can add a small upward force to reduce the acceleration due to gravity, you will weigh less. No surprise there. This is analogous to only "partway" jumping on a trampoline (or your bouncing ball). On a tramp, you are accelerating *downward* when your feet are not in contact with the tramp. The ball is when it is not in contact with the floor. The spinning wheel only "partly" leaves the support strings. It is "partially bouncing". If the tramp accelerated you upward at twice the rate of gravity, your weight would double. Therefore, there is also a slight increase in weight at the bottom bounce. . This would be equivalent to a small jetpack on your back that can't lift you, but only partly reduces your weight. You would be in "Sloe-Fall", not free-fall. .. This would make a wonderful Dean Drive Scam. . . . .. It would be nice to have a real-time force load cell so we can see what happens at the bottom of the wheels travel - the positive weight gain during the short 'bounce' time. .. Also, WHAT HAPPENS to the weight, if the wheel is NOT spinning, but bouncing while being suspended by a *spring,* instead of the winding/unwinding strings? Is that equivalent to this "partial bouncing" effect?

Hey, mate! I did it taking into account the rotational and linear equations of motion. The weight loss read in the scale is a function of the square of the quotient between the rod radius and the disc radius, if I am not mistaken. You may think of the difference in the scale reading as twice the difference in the tension in the strings and there will be some difference as the disc is put in movement.

No, it's a rotational shock absorber

Maybe that’s how the Egyptians built the pyramids!

@@brads9418 nooooo! Yes! Yes that's it! OMG!

@@johnnycash4034 more likely they used vibrations of some sort.

@@loganthesaint nooooo! Yes! Yes absolutely! That's it!

I was thinking about a crane that used this, but the wheel in this video must weight at least 500g (probably more) and it only loses 6g for a relatively short period and you have to use energy to roll it up. The cases where you'd need to move something that is 1% too heavy are probably no worth the complexity of such a crane.

Or jumping on a scale.

Well put-that’s a great explanation

It does, actually, it introduces the asymmetry between the upward and downward accelerations. Springs don't have that property.

So called weight loss yo-yo effect

I wonder if the same antigravity effect happens with just a spring.

How?

This has nothing to do with how flying saucers work. Flying saucers are all just a big speculation of what an alien spacecraft might look like.

Yes, actually it would be slightly positive because energy has mass. But it would be very close to zero

@@megamaser No. Energy does not have mass. Light is energy and massless. Mass can be converted to energy such as in a nuclear reaction, but that does not mean that energy has mass. In the experiment in the video, the mass never changes. What changes is the downward force on the scale due to the change in rotational speed of the wheel. The overall downward force over time is equal to the weight of the wheel. So, while it is changing speed the downward force is less, but at the point where it comes to the end of the strings, there would be a surge to equal out the loss over the rest of the time. This would be similar to dropping an object on a bungee cord. When it is falling the force on the connection point would be lower than the weight of the falling object. When it hits the bottom there would be a surge, then it would be lower again on the way up. The overall weight times time would be the same as the weight of the object at rest over an equal amount of time.

@@my3dviews Einstein showed that mass and energy are equivalent. Mass is basically a confined form of energy. So yes a free photon has no mass. But if you trap a photon in a box of mirrors then it will add mass to that box. The mass of protons and neutrons primarily comes from the kinetic energy of the quarks, which are confined by the strong force. Adding energy to an object by heating, vibrating, or rotating that object increases its mass.

@@megamaser Quote: "Einstein showed that mass and energy are equivalent." Wrong. E (energy) = m (mass) x c(speed of light) squared. Notice Einstein's equation is not simply E=m. Getting back to your first claim that energy has mass. That is incorrect. Mass can be converted to energy and energy can be converted to mass, but energy itself does not have mass. Your last comment even admits that. It says that a photon trapped in a box of mirrors will add mass. That is converting energy into mass, since the photon no longer exists. That is not the same as saying "energy has mass". (it doesn't).

@@my3dviews Interesting how you're so sure of yourself but obviously not doing any actual research before making these assertions. I'm only stating some indisputed scientific facts that were established 100 years ago. Anyone with even only a bs in physics should know these things. I'll address your points one by one, but you seem pretty hostile to new ways of thinking, so I'm doubtful that it will be very fruitful. Anyway... "Einstein's equation is not simply E=m" Actually, it is, essentially. c is only a constant. It's an arbitrary scaling factor that's only used due to the choice of units. He included it mainly to illustrate the insanely large amount of energy in small amounts of mass. But it can be left out without impacting the equivalence. If you choose some other units, then you don't need the scaling factor. It's actually quite common to use energy units to measure mass, such as electron volts. Trapping the photon in a box of mirrors does not destroy the photon. It continues to exist, reflecting against the mirrors. If you open the box, the photon will escape. It's a commonly used thought experiment to illustrate mass energy equivalence. There are some nice RU-vid videos to visualize this example. Converting mass to energy means you have released confined energy. Converting energy to mass means you have confined energy. For example, endothermic chemical reactions consume energy to bring electrons into a higher energy level. Usually this is thought of as a conversion from kinetic to potential energy. But that potential energy has mass, we know this because endothermic reactions result in products that have greater rest mass than the reactants, so it can also be considered to be a conversion of energy into mass. But if you consider the heat that was absorbed, it was also contributing mass to whatever was hot, so the overall mass of the entire system is unchanged. The energy was always massive, and the mass was always energy. Likewise, exothermic reactions, like fire, can be said to convert mass into energy, because the reactants have greater rest mass than the products. However this lost mass was manifested in the potential energy of electrons, and it actually isn't lost since the thermal energy still contributes mass to the entire system. It is a little weird to say that energy "has" mass. I think it's more accurate to say that mass *is* energy. Mass is an emergent phenomenon that results from the confinement of energy.

This is a really interesting question! I don’t think that “spinning” figures into the weight reduction (its just an energy storage mechanism) but the chain in a chain fountain is definitely accelerating downward as it changes direction from flying up to flying down. And, surprise, surprise, it’s the decelerating portion of the chain that rises! I think you may have discovered the REAL reason for chain fountains!

But chain fountain weighs more, not less, while in operation. Steve Mould had series of videos about the kickback

It either makes no sense or I don't understand what you've wrote. Please rephrase that in terms of a picture / sketch, so I can grasp exactly what you mean by axial / radial flow.

@@vaakdemandante8772 a liquid flywheel that can spin on two axes simultaneously

I wonder if quarks, electrons, create gravity with their spin? Get enough of a mass together, and the spin of all those atoms creates a higher density, and therefore higher gravitational force.

But the flywheel acceleration keeps still. How could the ship zero an external body gravitational acceleration? The flywheel went upward because the downward acceleration winded a wire to roll up. How could a ship ignore a planet gravity and just fly upwards effortlessly, not being winded to anything? ... This is one of those unintuitive talks, like quantum physics/mechanics. I like it, it makes the brain works.

@@tristanbrandt3886 or does the gravity create the quarks and electrons? If there is gravity everywhere there is a quark or electron, what if gravity created them to balance itself or something to that effect. Does the electron or gravity come first or at the same time?

Maybe, but it would be minor because the pendulum lowers its center of mass only my rather small distance. But I think the same principle would work for weight-driven clocks as well.

When the pendulum bob accelerates upward, there is an apparent gain in weight. When the pendulum bob accelerates downward, there is an apparent loss in weight. The centripetal acceleration is from the rod pulling the bob inward, and the tangential acceleration is from the component of gravity that makes it swing. We can calculate when this will happen by finding the net y-component acceleration, and determining the critical angle where it is zero. Given an amplitude angle of A, I derived the following formula for the critical angle theta_crit, where the vertical acceleration switches direction. theta_crit = 2*(arctan(sqrt((2 - sqrt(cos^2(A) + 3))/(cos(A) + 1)))) For small amplitudes, this approaches sqrt(2)/2, or 70.7% of the amplitude angle. For a 30 degree amplitude, it's 69%, or at 20.9 degrees. The critical angle becomes a smaller fraction of the amplitude, the higher the amplitude. The extreme case of a 180 degree amplitude has a divide by zero problem, but we can calculate it for angles arbitrary close to 180 degrees and get that it happens at around 39% of the amplitude. Also for small amplitudes, where you can approximate the pendulum as simple harmonic motion, this occurs at the half way point in time between its release point at the amplitude, and the neutral point where it passes through the middle. This means that it spends half its time weighing less than it does at rest, and half its time weighing more than it does at rest, when weight refers to the vertical component of the scale's support force. a 30 degree amplitude, it's 69%, or at 20.9 degrees. The critical angle becomes a smaller fraction of the amplitude, the higher the amplitude.

You could exemplify this same effect with an old pendulum clock. Not due to the pendulum but the weights that powered the clock. The weights on strings would have a constant acceleration toward earth until such time as the string completely unwound, then it would resume is natural still weight.

@@axle.australian.patriot You'd get that if you took out the escapement mechanism, and put the hanging weights on ideal pulleys, like Atwood's machine.

@@carultch No, just an old pendulum clock (With wind up weights) will produce exactly the same effect :)

It isn't the spinning that cause a decrease in weight though. It is the falling that decreases the weight.

Take it on a roller coaster and perform this experiment at the top of an inverted loop. Then it will appear to lift itself from your point of view.

@@carultch it already appears to lift itself when it is going up from the momentum of the spin.

@@MrT------5743 It isn't really lifting itself. It's just that the center of mass is accelerating downward, so it doesn't need as much support to keep it from sinking through the floor. But no matter what you do in this setup in a stationary environment on this planet, its acceleration will be less than g, and it will still compress the scale. You would have to have its center of mass accelerate downward at a rate greater than g, for it to lose contact with the pan of the scale. One way you could achieve this, is if you spun a heavy ball on a string so fast, tied to the top of that frame, that the tension in the string at the top of its motion exceeded the weight of the stationary framing. You better adhere it to the scale and fasten the scale to the floor, if you don't want it to fly away.

Nothing to do with the rotation of the Earth.

@@rogerphelps9939 Kindly explain.

That's torque reaction. You're supporting the bar and when you give it the beans, the chain spins forward and down, making the bar lift upwards and back due to torque reaction. Same way the front wheel lifts on a motorbike when you give it throttle.

@@admacdo Right, seems you explain it far better than I, LOL. Similar but not the same I guess. :)

It's just bouncing on the scale. If you bounce a ball on a scale, while it's in the air, the scale shows less weight. The rotation of the disc has nothing to do with it. He could as well have used an object on a spring.

@@peterwhitey4992 I don't think that's the same. The scale shows a continuous negative weight, you wont get that from bouncing a ball on a scale.

@@OmegaZZ111 - It is the same. The scale just doesn't update fast enough, to show the force of the bounce.

@@peterwhitey4992 The rotating mass and the precession along another axis creates a measurable loss in weight. This effect is clearly shown in the video with the rotating flywheel with a handle that is easy to lift when the mass is rotating. This is not the same effect as a ball bouncing on a scale. It is not about the scales refresh rate, the rotating wheel is actually loosing weight. While the mass of an object is constant the weight is dependent on many factors.

@@OmegaZZ111 The rotating and precessing mass doesn't create a loss in weight. It is more like a loss in torque that makes it easier to lift, than a loss in weight. If you weigh yourself while lifting that wheel, you will see no weight loss while the wheel rises at a constant speed. Only a weight loss when you slow it down at the top. You will also see a weight gain at the bottom when you initially lift it. The rotating wheel makes it easier to lift, because you only need to lift against its weight, and don't need to lift against the torque due to its weight. You only lose weight in a system in motion, when the center of mass of the system being weighed accelerates downward. Or if you go to another location where the value of g is less.

I know what you mean, but you might need to explain that a bit more.

Do you mean 'cold soldering'? That require extremely low impurity (oxidation)... which is hard to do in ActionLab environment.

Well I've heard that if you somehow break/cut a piece of metal into pieces, you could simply put it back together because in a vacuum the surfaces of the metal pieces (where you cut them) wouldn't oxidise/interact with any gases, which are the reason that you can't put it back together in the atmosphere. So in vacuum, without any gases, wouldn't it be possible to put two metal pieces back together?

@@God_Save_The_King Good question. I assume you mean if a piece of metal was cut/broken in the vacuum also, and assuming no contamination to the ends. The only thing I can think of is the crystalline structure of the metal could be altered by the cut/break as to not allow the molecules to re-bond. On solid metal, I believe temperature is essential to recombine metals. Mercury loves to go back together as long as it is molten, vacuum or no.

Build us a proof of concept please!!

I thought this many years ago but I rather doubt it now. I can’t see how intersecting torsions can produce a translation, but I’m not up to date on physics. A proof of concept wouldn’t be too difficult to make and, if successful, would either get you a Nobel or, possibly, an unfortunate accident on a mountain road.😉

@@q.e.d.9112 🤣

That won't work. You will get the same weight.

0rd!

@@happy_pikmin5540 y'ou'are

No, friction only converts energy to heat, and it doesn't get "more powerful" as temperature increases. If heat isn't allowed to escape, then the mechanism will just keep accumulating heat until it begins to break down. But you may be surprised to learn that heat does escape in a vacuum! All objects steadily lose their heat as electromagnetic radiation, mostly in the far infrared. This can account for around 30% of heat transfer even in a normal atmosphere. So putting this wheel device in a vacuum won't cause it to lose energy faster, but it might be 0.1 of a degree warmer since that heat will dissipate more slowly.

Pipe+magnet mass, basically. Wait... That's actually a way to measure mass while it moves... That might be useful for some application.

Whatever percentage of force the magnetic field opposes gravity should be seen in scale at the bottom as something has to be equal and opposite to the force of gravity to slow down it's fall.

@@johnschewe6358 all of the force opposes it for a long enough pipe, when the falling speed gets constant.

@@VeteranVandal Much like how you only feel weightless on an elevator while it's speeding up.