Mart,
Agreed. It is better to keep different subjects on different threads. Plus, a thread does not cost much.
Go for it.
Chiplight & Mart,
I understand and agree 100% with your basic argument that the gyroscopic precession of one gyroscope will be canceled by the opposing gyroscopic precession of the other. This is why
"He [Laithwaite]
also had big problems with the shafts breaking."
However, the gyroscope does not appear to be that simple. It appears that
"only the static mass properties remain" ain't quite true. If only the static mass properties remain then any TEMPORARY moment applied to the static mass will start it rotating and this rotation will continue. It can only be dampened by bearing friction, or aerodynamically in the case of a helicopter.
Again, please note that the web page
http://www.accs.net/users/cefpearson/gyro.htm talks about the Gimballed Gyroscope. It says;
" Gyroscopes, when gimbaled, only resist a tilting change in their axis. The axis does move a certain amount with a given force." These two statements imply the application of a CONSTANT force.
Reading the section
"A more detailed explanation of how a gimbaled gyro functions" appears to logically support the necessity of a CONSTANT moment, if the rotation is to be maintained. This means that a (possibly small) dampening is constantly taking place.
Envision the two counter-rotating gyros replacing the gimbaled gyro and I see no reason why this gimbal activity is not applicable to the two counter-rotating gyros.
Chuck was probably unable to detect this constant damping. Reference the Questions and Answers near the end of this page.
Dave.
