Re: Derive energy from angular KE of earth?

[Brian Whatcott <betwys1@SBCGLOBAL.NET>]

I offer this 'anti-physicist' thought.
No observable effect at all depends on whether a physicist can explain it.

So I will, instead  :-)
If there were a physicist's kind of gyroscope - you know, the one with
frictionless
bearings and zero air resistance and no eddy current losses, then we can
say the
gyro's momentum would remain intact, and the stored momentum of the Earth
changes as electrical power is generated (in Leigh's idealization).

It is this change that is comparable to tidal drag (at least, if the gyro
is in the
 polar regions.) The change of Earth momentum
is countered by the change in Earth Moon momentum as I recall.
 I am tempted to suppose that in lower latitudes, there can be
precessional modes
excited, but I have not thought much about the differences....

If we have to cope with an engineer's gyro, then the enhanced side force on
the gyro's pivots allow that device to spin down and lose momentum too.

Merry Christmas.
Brian W

At 02:57 AM 12/24/2003, you wrote:
> Brian, we agree that the KE of the system decreases, but for the angular
> momentum to decrease we must find an external torque or else show how the
> mass distribution changes to produce a change in the moment of inertia so
> that the angular momentum does not change. (Take a look at Leigh Palmer's
> gedankenapparat (unfortunately described under the subject line "phys-l
> digest")). About the axis of the generator, you first bring the generator
> rotor + gyroscope to rest (seen from a non-rotating frame), and use the
> gyroscope flywheel spinning about a perpendicular axis to keep it there
> while the earth continues to spin. Note that you will have exchanged ang.
> mom. between earth and rotor in the process. Now when you use the generator
> to do work there is an electromagnetic torque between the rotor and the
> earth - angular momentum is again exchanged between these parts of the
> system. This is not the answer, however, since we can go on doing work with
> the generator for as long as we want, it seems to me. I note that there
> must also be a precession caused about the third perpendicular axis when
> you do work with the generator, but this only seems to complicate matters
> as far as ang. mom. conservation is concerned. Mark
>
> At 23:01 23/12/03 -0600, Brian Whatcott wrote:
> >Perhaps I am not fully conscious of the effect you're pondering.
> >I am supposing that you spin up a flywheel, providing complementary m=
> >omenta,
> >then extracting momentum from the disk, with the identical reduction
> >to the complementary agency?
> >
> >Perhaps you are considering the case of generating energy without
> >losing momentum.   A perpetual motion, kinda?
> >
> >Brian W
> >
> >At 08:34 PM 12/23/2003, you wrote:
> > >Well, it is true that spinning up the flywheel will transfer angular
> > >momentum to the earth, but after that, if the bearings are really go=
> >od,
> > >there will be a very small amount of angular momentum transferred be=
> >tween
> > >the wheel and the earth.
> > >
> > >Fred Bucheit
> > >
> > > >From: Brian Whatcott <betwys1@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
> > > >
> > > >How about treating the angular momentum as a storage method.
> > > >Spin up a flywheel, and the Earth takes up a complementary
> > > >   momentum (if you must...)
> > > >
> > > >Brian
> > > >
> > > >At 10:01 PM 12/22/2003, you wrote:
> > > > >[This was brought up on PHYSHARE-L as well, and I still don't ge=
> >t how
> > > > >rotational momentum is conserved. I realize that when I fully un=
> >derstand
> > > > >it, I am going to feel like an idiot, but here goes....]
> > > > >
> > > > >If the energy that is used to light the bulbs, etc., comes from =
> >the
> > > > >earth's rotation, then the earth needs to lose kinetic energy. K=
> >E of a
> > > > >rotating body is KE =3D 1/2 (rotational inertia) (rotational vel=
> >ocity)^2. I
> > > > >presume that the actual shape of the earth doesn't change, so it=
> >s
> > > > >rotational inertia remains constant. That means that rotational =
> >velocity
> > > > >must decrease.
> > > > >
> > > > >On the other hand rotational  momentum =3D rotational inertia x =
> >rotational
> > > > >velocity . If rotational inertia stays the same and rotational v=
> >elocity
> > > > >decreases, then rotational momentum must get smaller. If rotatio=
> >nal
> > > > >momentum of the earth gets smaller, then the L of something else=
> >  must get
> > > > >larger.
> > > > >
> > > > >So, the rotational momentum of what gets larger?
> > > > >
> > > > >Marc "Zeke" Kossover
> > > > >The Hockaday School

Brian Whatcott    Altus OK    Eureka!