Einstein
Timekeeper
Hy Guys
Kind of dead around here. I see Darby was sleeping during his last post.
Several months ago I came across an interesting little toy with some unique physical properties. It's called a Tippe Top.
I found a video on YouTube. The Tippe Top
The center of weight only coincides with the center of rotation at two points of orientation. It appears the the center of weight prefers a point of orientation that is furthest away from the contact surface. Exactly opposite that of an object at rest. The other observation I noted was that the rotational energy or angular momentum is not rigidly connected to the Tippe Top. What I mean is that you can start the top spinning clockwise when viewed from above, and the clockwise motion continues while the top goes through the inverting motion. Almost as if the angular momentum was confined to the two dimensional plane it originated from. Just note that as the top goes through the inversion process, its direction of rotation reverses.
Here is a link with more info: Tippe Top
Also I reasoned that a solid spinning egg shaped object should exhibit similar behavior. I was right. I found a video on YouTube demonstrating a spinning egg shaped object: Spinning Wooden Egg
About a week ago I decided to have another look at an old invention of Tesla's: Tesla's Rotating Egg
My jaw dropped. As the egg spins faster, the expected center of weight orientation along the vertical spin axis occurs. But it was backwards. The center of weight has chosen a point on the spin axis closest to the contact surface. I've long suspected that magnetically rotated objects are rotated with a different type of rotational force than mechanically rotated objects. But here is an observation that actually supports that suspicion. It also parallels a theory I have on gravity. Gravity can only be controlled if the ability to rotate an object in the negative direction can be harnessed. So now it appears through observation that negative rotation really does exist. But that is my interpretation. The observations are the facts. My interpretations are always in question.
Kind of dead around here. I see Darby was sleeping during his last post.
Several months ago I came across an interesting little toy with some unique physical properties. It's called a Tippe Top.
I found a video on YouTube. The Tippe Top
The center of weight only coincides with the center of rotation at two points of orientation. It appears the the center of weight prefers a point of orientation that is furthest away from the contact surface. Exactly opposite that of an object at rest. The other observation I noted was that the rotational energy or angular momentum is not rigidly connected to the Tippe Top. What I mean is that you can start the top spinning clockwise when viewed from above, and the clockwise motion continues while the top goes through the inverting motion. Almost as if the angular momentum was confined to the two dimensional plane it originated from. Just note that as the top goes through the inversion process, its direction of rotation reverses.
Here is a link with more info: Tippe Top
Also I reasoned that a solid spinning egg shaped object should exhibit similar behavior. I was right. I found a video on YouTube demonstrating a spinning egg shaped object: Spinning Wooden Egg
About a week ago I decided to have another look at an old invention of Tesla's: Tesla's Rotating Egg
My jaw dropped. As the egg spins faster, the expected center of weight orientation along the vertical spin axis occurs. But it was backwards. The center of weight has chosen a point on the spin axis closest to the contact surface. I've long suspected that magnetically rotated objects are rotated with a different type of rotational force than mechanically rotated objects. But here is an observation that actually supports that suspicion. It also parallels a theory I have on gravity. Gravity can only be controlled if the ability to rotate an object in the negative direction can be harnessed. So now it appears through observation that negative rotation really does exist. But that is my interpretation. The observations are the facts. My interpretations are always in question.
