Originally Posted by
Ascend Charlie
Oh boy, this is getting tedious. It is called lift.
You cut out and didn’t answer the first question, which was why the rotor is not subject to the forces/behaviors of rotating bodies. It’s only after that, that you can try to substitute some other force in and explain why it’s subject to it as… a non-rotating body? Whatever that might even mean.
You admit that the R22 does not behave in the manner a gyroscope is obliged to perform. It has forces acting upon it. So it is only LIKE a gyroscope, which is the basic premise of the statements by Nick Lappos et al. It is not a straightforward gyroscope. It is LIKE a gyro. That is what helps the Trump-brains understand the wobbles of a rotor head.
No, I don’t admit that. You’re again being obtuse and throwing out every bit of nuance, to set up this false all-or-nothing dichotomy where if the behavior is not exactly like a pure gyroscope, then there is no gyroscopic effect. And that is just not so. There is a gyroscopic effect, among other effects present at the same time.
Can you say what you mean by “LIKE” a gyro? Does the motion only look the same but something different causes it to look like that? Is there some part of the force arrangement that makes a gyro behave like a gyro, that is lacking in a rotor? What is the force that is lacking?