Anti-Gravity Wheel Explained

[@SueMead]

This. This is how you get kids interested in science, engineering, mathematics. Something that you hear some kids say is that maths or science isn't relevant to them. Or, worse still, they've heard their parents say that it's useless for getting them a job. It is real world demonstrations such as this that inspire and arouse interest. Good stuff.

[@computer5272]

+Sue Mead Well they're not wrong, it is useless in getting a job.

[@xxxBradTxxx]

+Computer Engineering is a job...

[@topraksen7111]

+Brad exactly lol thats what he means

[@joeeeee256]

+Sue Mead I agree.

[@Hurricane50]

I think intelligence isn't purely decided by who you are when you are born, but also by the environment you are brought up in. Of course how you are born does affect your intelligence, for example if you have a better memory then you will likely do better in tests, but your parents can greatly influence your intelligence. Inspiration can act like a parent does, and lead to someone becoming a more intelligent individual, therefore I think videos like this are fundamental in creating an intelligent person who lacks parents who could do it instead.

[@FlightChops]

Love this experiment. As a pilot I have really needed to wrap my head around gyroscopic precession as related to my instruments, but this illustration gives a new and simpler context to the same phenomenon.

[@oliverlane9716]

Yeah same here I am a merchant Seaman so need a very good understanding of Gyroscopic properties and that this is certainly a far more interesting way of demonstrating.

[@DerPilotMann]

From one pilot to another, I feel your pain! Excellent explanation in this video, it certainly does help explain gyroscopes.

[@DerPilotMann]

***** Yup, all the chemtrails. /sarcasm

[@peterellison2220]

Nice to see you here! Love Veritasium

[@davidfisher3684]

Really? Most pilots do not even know why their aircraft fly. The Bernoulli explanation is known to be unphysical nonsense.

[@dansanger5340]

The reason it's easier is because he's in Australia and therefore hanging upside-down by his feet. Also, they use the metric system, and everyone knows that 19 is less than 42. Not to mention that 42 is the answer to the ultimate question about life, the universe, and everything.

[@John-pp6xy]

Well 9-2=7 42 divided by 7 = 6. 6-3=3. 3 is how many sides are on a triangle. illuminati confirmed

[@mickelodiansurname9578]

lol.... I also seen him sneak tinkerbell under his shirt.... now she can't lift a grown adult man....but she can lift him a little.... Since J.M. Barries death many of his fictional characters have had to find work where they can.... its very sad.

[@liammcmillen-meyers2113]

Hmmmm, okay seems legit

[@PH5221]

In relation to the Universe, we're neither upside-down or the right way around. There is no frame of reference in space.

[@ogenmatic]

They don't even know that it's winter in January down in Australia. 42? Are you sure? I always thought it was 107...

[@freddyrosenberg9288]

I want to see this experiment done with one flywheel on each end. Spin them in the same direction and spin them in opposite directions. That would be nice to see.

[@hugorodriguez1585]

I want to see this experiment done with one flywheel on each end. Spin them in the same direction and spin them in opposite directions. That would be nice to see.hat would be nice to see. Thanks maxbored

[@LetsMars]

Yes. Make two of those, and then attach the axle of both wheel sets to a rigid body. Flying Car

[@OfMoachAndMayhem]

There's a video on YT of a guy who does that, and it turns out the gyro forces cancel out and it behaves like there are no spinning parts

[@dialecticalmonist3405]

Imagine twirling a string and then spinning in a circle, just like they are doing here. Does the string fall? No. It just creates a swirling pattern as you spin around. Understanding why, is very similar to understanding why the wheel doesn't fall. This "swirling action" is at high rpm and takes place within the molecules of the steel bar, so it seems invisible.

[@korlumchukhu5483]

know i get it...thor`s hammer has built in gyroscope and finger print scanner in its handles ...so it activates the gyroscope when thor holds it ,....

[@SimonKelk]

korlum chukhu I was thinking the same thing. A drill in the handle and a huge wheel inside the hammer. :)

[@korlumchukhu5483]

Simon Kelk haahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahha yes

[@Flavian1]

korlum chukhu damn it, I thought the exact same thing the second he held up the damn gyroscop

[@simeon91ruse]

korlum chukhu though the same when i was watching this :D

[@korlumchukhu5483]

got to ask thors fathers blacksmith ..whats exactly in there ...lol

[@RedDevil2557]

Feels satisfied that you have chosen the right one

[@Stormsolid]

RedDevilus I choose the right one but I tested what happen when pressing the other buttons... they all end up on this video :D

[@RedHairdo]

RedDevilus But for the right reasons?

[@bradley5819]

Gina??

[@kolinevans9127]

I feel like I’ve chosen all of them.

[@FMN-Music]

wow, I totally thought, it would show lighter, because the scale to my knowledge does not weigh mass, it measures force instead. The mass had to stay the same, but the force down to earth could ´ve changed... Obviously I was wrong.

[@captb6197]

Pure magic, I can even see Hogwarts in the background

[@lebenstraum666]

@@jack_woodman Sydney Uni? Hogwarts! Much the same really.

[@prateekpanwar646]

Someone would be chanting wingardium leviosa

[@discreet_boson]

@@jack_woodman r/wooosh

[@discreet_boson]

@@jack_woodman oh OK thanks then

[@sharmarkp2899]

Same here

[@Epenser1]

What if you try to move the other way (that would be...counter-clockwise) with the wheel spinning the same way. Would it feel the same ? heavier ? Would it be virtually impossible ?

[@Darkness251]

So if you turn like in the video the torque will get to 0 but if you're going against it then it should be twice as heavy, hmmm good question

[@Epenser1]

Darkness251 It's actually answered in the video @ 2:53

[@Darkness251]

e-penser ah yeah I see, thanks

[@2DHouse]

really loved this one!, thanks!

[@OHMyResistance]

so basically put another wheel on the other end of the bar and spin that as well and break the universe

[@cristiansandica1410]

If the other wheel spins the opposite way the angular momentum of the system is =0, so the system would 'feel' as heavy as if there were no wheels spinning. That is, if you hold it from the center of the pole. If you hold it from any other point, it will probably start spinning as shown in the video.

[@paracite187]

Cristian Sandica But what would happen if you were turn 2 wheels at the same end of the rod? I mean 2 wheels would rotate in the opposite way?

[@paracite187]

Paranoia And what would happen if you were turn 2 wheels not at the same end of the rod, the second is mounted on an axle on the first wheel?

[@qasw1234]

Paranoia if you put two wheels of equal mass rotating at equal speeds going opposite directions then they would simply cancel each other out. Think of those toy helicopters with the two sets of blades.] I dont understand what you mean by the second one.

[@kriptonis]

***** the 2 sets of blades in the helicopter (toy or real) are exactly used to cancel the rotation so that the helicopter is easy to fly. Another mechanism to do just the same is the tail rotor in traditional helicopters or using 2 separate blades rotating in opposite directions like the Chinook heli.

[@Knobulon]

Veritasium, providing answers to questions I never knew existed

[@AlanKey86]

Another superb video Derek that really got me thinking! I'm showing this to my physics students at college!

[@Viktormajstor]

This is relatively simple given that you're a professor at a college...

[@shindoutube]

the beauty is in the simplicity

[@ksarnek]

Darkill Vix Fully (and quantitatively) describing the physics of a gyroscope is not trivial at all. As a university physics student I can assure you it's one of the most complicated and (at first) counterintuitive problems you face in a classical mechanics course, so showing this video to students could be very helpful, especially if the class doesn't have access to a gyroscope to perform a demontration.

[@shindoutube]

This video is great not necessarily because it gives facts and teaches university students, but it's job is to incite wander and curiosity for those students having them be more interested in what they are learning.

[@mireyajones810]

Dear Alan, you need to show the original Laithwaite 1974 video. The spinning gyro negates forces pushing toward the center of the earth. Hence, he hung a stand weighing about 8kg off the edge of a table, but it would not fall off - so long as the gyro was spinning.

[@fastberry1162]

I'll just pretend that I understand this.

[@TonboIV]

***** I never understood gyroscopic precession, then I played Kerbal Space Program and tried to change my orbital inclination... oh, that makes sense.

[@solaaar3]

+Abey Babu hahahaah same thing

[@jonaslangester7334]

So that we can feel smart xD

[@jonathanyang2359]

Its all about internal force. If we define the system to be the man-scale system, we can see that the internal forces balance out because there is not net force acting on the system. However, although the net internal force sums to 0, it doesn't mean that the internal forces are 0. The higher the angular momentum the gyroscope, the less internal force we have to provide ourselves to the system. As a result, the overall weight is the same. However, if we let the gyroscope accelerate upwards/downwards, we will see small changes in the scale reading because there is now a net external force acting on the system. This is why the scale reading fluctuates.

[@christianhim]

Why spinning cancels out the net torque?

[@Stone815]

There's a VR sword/handle glove thing that uses spinning motors to adjust torque to make you feel like you're holding a heavy sword or hammer. You should do a video on that.

[@dpcubing1521]

thats cool

[@jakelodwick]

I would simply buy a real sword, and go around using it. Skip the VR.

[@jennyaguirre5613]

@@jakelodwick wait, what would you use it for in real life :o ?

[@johnyguacamole2878]

@@jennyaguirre5613 real life hay dummy cutting

[@Tayleigh1Fan]

@@jakelodwick using it on people

[@RWBHere]

Just to add to the explanation: The gyroscope only feels lighter, because angular rotation is being converted to precession, and at certain times to vertical movement within the system. The system being the flywheel, the man, potential energy, kinetic energy and the ground. His arm does less work in raising the gyroscope, but he does more work in rotating himself, effectively increasing the rate of precession, and transferring energy to and from the flywheel. His total energy expenditure, plus the energies transferring to and from the flywheel rotation, are exactly the same as the energy used in simply lifting a stationary mass of 19 kg, but _different muscles are being used_ to accomplish the task. As he rotates himself faster, lifting the flywheel, the _total_ rotational speed of the flywheel increases by an amount equal to his rotation about the vertical axis plus the rotational speed of the flywheel. (Edit: To explain the next sentences, in a frictionless system, the flywheel would gain rotational speed in proportion to the man's rotational speed - every turn he makes is one extra turn to the flywheel, and as he slows down, the flywheel slows down by that much. In practice, the flywheel slows all of the time, because of friction but less so as he turns himself faster.) Energy is thus transferred via his work in rotating himself plus the gyroscope. When he lowers the gyroscope, his rotational speed reduces, as does the speed of rotation of the flywheel. Energy is being transferred back from the flywheel. The residual precession, as he holds the gyroscope horizontally, represents the losses through friction, as the flywheel slows down. That's why a fixed gyroscope will gradually lower its shaft's free end to horizontal and below, until it strikes an object, and then transfers its remaining rotational energy to the obstruction, through noise, heat, and the disturbance of the momentum of the object. It sometimes runs away across a surface, or even shatters itself, whilst giving up that energy. The two measured weight displacements on the scale are the peak points during which energies are being transferred. It can be seen from the graph that the increase in measured weight x the area under the curve and the 'neutral point is approximately equal and opposite to the area above the curve x the measured weight. (The discrepancy is mainly due to the man working to adapt to the changing forces between his arms and the gyroscope, and to friction.) Thus no net 'lifting force' results, and the laws momentum / thermodynamics are satisfied. In fact, if anything, the larger increase in measured weight than the measured decrease, proves that, if anything, energy is lost, and no net 'lift' has occurred. Unfortunately, Professor Laithwaite had misunderstood what he was saying. Sadly, he lost his job, after losing credibility because of that error and he died with a somewhat unbalanced mind, in many peoples' estimation. In other respects, the Professor was a brilliant man, and people tend to forget that fact, because mistakes are much easier to sensationalise.

[@dcamron46]

One other thing I think makes it feels lighter which Derek seemed to try to allude to. If you try lift the awkward weight with nothing spinning it’s not as easy as the rotating system, because you don’t need to balance the bar in your hand, you don’t need to apply torque to stop it rocking back and forth, it feels like a balanced weight as long as you move your arm with it. I guess that’s similar to what you said, I realize my comment isn’t concise or technical but I’m saying it’s easier to hold weight which doesn’t need stabilization, the same mass but with a short length is unforgiving to slight shakiness and it feels heavier when it’s not

[@myepraco7741]

@@dcamron46 you just replies to 3y ago comment 😂❤️

[@LanTHruster]

Looks incomplete to me, the machine on the scales at the end of this video contradicts to this analysis

[@justlookingaround9834]

He didn’t die with an unbalanced mind and was, I think, still working when he died on a system to launch objects vertically using the linear motor rails as used in the mag lift trains. He was a very nice chap with a great interest in butterflies.

[@fallenstard]

This is the explanation I needed that was missing from the video. Thank you!

[@dharma_donk170]

I've just began to explore your channel, coming over from Vsauce. Fascinating presentations illuminating new principles and curiosities I haven't encountered before; so thank you for what you do. I'm real glad channels like yours and his exist and are so popular. I still don't feel like I understand Gyroscopic Precession, although I've only just found out about it.

[@TheSecondVersion]

It's kinda telling that this explanation video only has 1/15 the views of the first one.

[@ericli2475]

1/10*

[@fixed1t]

Thats because this video should have been called Part 2 I had to do a search to find it. Whatever it is its still bloody weird to see such an old guy gentle swinging it about his head, I'd love to see this replicated on the space station at zero G that would be informative.

[@joseinfante5054]

@@fixed1t Nothing will happen, this is a gyroscope, a stabilizer, nothing to do with gravity. and gravity does not exist, it is the Aether subatomic particle pushing towards the earth's magnetic

[@error.418]

@@joseinfante5054 There is no "Aether" subatomic particle... Are you trying to talk about the Higgs field and getting confused?

[@joseinfante5054]

@@error.418 I know, I know, you are one of those who have been brainwashed per those damn physicists, well you have 2 options, you stay like this for a lifetime, you are taking some money to brainwash others, how does this accursed doctrine command you, or try something old like Nikola Tesla, Karl Schappeller, Oudin, D'arsonvall, Lakhousky. I bet you didn't see Maria Pereda's video and that you are expressly forbidden to believe in Aether, but then you go and see the patent for Karl Schappeller device, on Google. well, the description and discussion will be a lot of sand for your truck, as usual for those who took the brainwash of the order, so make an equation there to discover the sex of the Angels, it is faster.

[@TRoberti023]

my only question with this is that he struggled to lift the device when he had his hand very near the center of mass. The closer you are to the center of mass, the less torque you have to apply to keep the object upright. When he holds his hand at the base of the shaft right next to the wheel it's little to no torque. So he'd be applying 42 pounds of force to lift the object. Then when it's spinning, he easily lifts it. like it's not even close to 42 pounds. I understand that the spinning causes the object to want to maintain its horizontal orientation, thus negating the guy's need to apply a torque to keep it upright. That is what allows him to hold it at the end of the shaft. which would be impossible for any human being to do. But, shouldn't he still struggle to lift it? he should lift it as if he were lifting it at the base. which was very difficult for him. I think the answer lies with the fact that he threw the device forward and it lifted itself up. But if that's the case, the scale should decrease at that point. Which would make sense to me. But it didn't. Perhaps because the movement, the scale jumped around and made it difficult to see that. Can anyone help me with this?

[@jpuglise1]

I had the same thoughts

[@zhiqiangyan1554]

The explanation may still be what is claimed in the video. When the object spinning, he lifts it without putting any effort to maintain it up his head. Note when the object is above your head, it locates at an unstable equilibrium position, and you make lots of effort to keep it there. This effort is released when the object is spinning.

[@madmax43v3r]

Two things I can add: The scale doesn't have to go down during the lift up, since accelerating the mass upwards would increase the weight on the scale, so the weight loss could cancel out the acceleration. Maybe it only works when he is letting it spin, as when he did drop it we saw the expected up and down on the scale. However the accuracy of the measurement is not good enough to make any conclusions at this point.

[@joseinfante5054]

@@madmax43v3r Nothing will happen, this is a gyroscope, a stabilizer, nothing to do with gravity. and gravity does not exist, it is the Aether subatomic particle pushing towards the earth's magnetic

[@Mex_Luigi]

well, the scale is based on weight, and it never stopped being a certain weight. let me give you a weird example. you can't weigh an airplane while it's in flight. but if you tried to knock it out of the way with something, it would still take the same amount of force to move it that it would if it was on the ground. that's because lift and torque don't change weight or mass.

[@tharxis3803]

It's actually funny how this professor's surname is so similar to the word Lightweight.

[@DRIFT4URLIFE]

Derek, this is fascinating to me. I think you should try to conduct the experiment with a weight that is much heavier. A weight that you normally could not lift over your head.

[@richtigmann1]

vsauce made a video on this. it's called spinning

[@TheDarkJohns]

@@richtigmann1 Thank you! I bet I'll probably even end up knowing why "spinning" is even called spinning and not katshibula, or something like that, because... it's Vsause! (and I love it that way xD)

[@kozatas]

He can't lift 19 kgs with that thin arm either.

[@longislandlegoboy]

+coop island it’s really not that hard to lift say 14/15kg as long as there’s no torque making it harder. I’m sure 19 is possible with some work for most men

[@kozatas]

@@longislandlegoboy he/you sure can deadlift 19 kgs. I mean in a position like 0:33 he can't lift. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lever

[@billkipper3264]

I have experienced this effect when I was in the Air Force. We removed one of the gyroscopes from a C-130 immediately after landing. It was contained in a black box with a handle to pull the box out of its mount and carry it. When I slid the box out it stayed in the horizontal position as if defying gravity. It stayed in that position as I carried out of the aircraft and to the truck which I put it in. I was unaware of gyroscopic precession at the time so it was a unique experience.

[@lucaslucas191202]

Lol thought there was some sort of antigravity secret didn’t you?

[@johncuzzourt2118]

I love it when something on KZbin is based on scientifically demonstrable facts and leads to a better understanding of our experiences. Thanks for making this video!

[@trojan88tm]

i'm a big fan of these interactive video's. makes you think without just handing you answers.

[@RobBates]

Great explanation. You broke it down masterfully for easy comprehension. Bravo!

[@majorpan]

haha true! no explanation at all

[@phynos8936]

Julian H. Depends how knowledgeable you are in this area. If you are confused I suggest reading about Newtons Laws of Motion, what Weight is, and Torque. There are many videos online that explain these concepts.

[@syedjafferimam5789]

"It feels lighter without getting lighter" My brain hurts

[@timearl399]

1. The weight is still the same when spinning but you can now lift it, you haven’t explained that. 2. You brought it down again as soon as it reached the top (arm’s length). Fix a swivel to the handle and then see if you can keep it above your head. 3. You’ve said that the spinning causes the torque, but you haven’t explained how. 4. The tendency (for the shaft) to rotate, and the tendency to rise are two different things. They are related, though, you can’t lift the spinning wheel unless you rotate it around yourself. Why? 5. The wheel is uniform in all directions, so why is the turning force directional, and what determines the direction it takes? (If you spin the wheel the other way does it reverse? 6. Attach the shaft to a rig with sensors to measure the size and direction of the forces created.

[@RobertSanz1]

a man of science. asking the next questions 🤟

[@csm8203]

1. Its weight being the same is correct. But since it's spinning, you don't need to have a counterweight at the to balance out the weight the two ends of the pole. This was explained by using gyroscopic precession. It is like dividing the mass of the metal into 2 so that half of its mass is at both ends of the pole cancelling the torque of the pole due to gravity. You can see it if you try to lift a dumbbell with a two 2kg metals at each side or a dumbbell with 4kg only on 1 side. Even if the mass are the same, it is much easier to lift the one with 2 metals at each side than the latter. Also, it can also be explained by inertia. The motion of the metal makes it hard for gravity to act upon it. 2. Your suggestion is very witty and good. You can actually keep it as long as the rotation is enough to prevent it to fall down from your head. But I mean, you literally have a giant metal being hold by a shaft and by rotational motion. Even I wouldn't want to have that thing above my head in case some extraneous variables affect the experiment that would cause me my head. He's in the street and there's not telling what might happen there. 3. That's the definition of torque. It is just a force that cause other objects to rotate. Since it is spinning, it is continuously rotating. But I don't know which torque are you talking about since there is also a torque when metal isn't spinning. The torque is the force that is applied by the mass and gravity to the rod that causes it to tilt since it has an unbalanced weight just like what I said at no. 1. If there are 2 weights at the end, there would be no torque when the metal isn't spinning. And maybe the the thing your asking at no. 1 can be explained by this because even if you spin one end of the metal with two weights at each end, they wouldn't lighter. 4. The shaft is a solid rigid object. The rotation of the object upwards would also be the same downwards. For a second thought, I think this isn't what you mean but the rotation of the object in the horizontal direction and the tendency of the shaft to rise in the vertical direction. Then your answer is justified since it is answered in the video. He actually put a force at the end of the pole near the spinning metal. That is why it look like he was able to lift it with one hand, but he actually used forces from 2 of his hands to lift the shaft. 5. It can also be explained by gyroscopic precession. The rotation cancels out the torque from the one end without the metal just like at no. 1. If you actually have a machine that can lift that thing with or without the spin, just like you have said it would have the same reading. Like at the end of the video where a small gyroscope at an electrical weighing scale. The readings at the start is actually just caused by the acceleration of the gravity applied to the shaft and metal when he fails to properly hold the shaft. That is why I suggested the use of machine in the experiment since a machine would read the same force all throughout the experiment. You know, like how you kick the surface of a weighing scale. It would suddenly increase but then goes back to normal. 6. That is also a good suggestion and I think the assumption that the weight is the same whether it spins or not is true. In the end of the video, it just says that the spins only affects the "apparent" weight of the object and not actually the real weight. It just happen that he cannot maintain a proper posture for the spin and he fixes it by applying a force on the surface of the weighing scale. Remember, the weighing scale at the beginning of the video uses springs. At first, it went down since he doesn't counteract the force of gravity. He let the gravity do the work, since it is easier that way to put down an object. But then he tried to not let it fall and hit the concrete. He used his hand to exert an upward force to the metal. Isaac's 3rd law that opposite forces causes an equal reaction and opposite direction. The metal is also applying a force from the gravity. Hence the second reading after decrease was an increase. He let go of the metal not being read by the weighing scale. Then he tried to grab on to it making the force of gravity acted on the weighing scale.

[@csm8203]

You're question are actually really smart like 6 where using sensors to monitor the force. The experiment was taken by an average man that has an average build. If he were also to support the weight of the shaft while letting it down, there wouldn't be a discrepancy of a sudden down and up trend on the weighing scale.

[@csm8203]

And also, I forgot to say but the direction of the metal spinning doesn't affect the direction of the rotation of the spin. It is the force applied by the guy in the video near the metal here at 2:25. That is why it spins clockwise since he also exerted an extra force of the clockwise direction.

[@KRONIIKOGGaming]

and the little gyroscope at the end is on a static setup so it cant move freely like when he was out on the grass fake as science

[@bretteux]

Great stuff Derek! But actually, I think it literally does weigh less as you twirl the apparatus above your head. That first second or so as you start the rotation, there is a small downward force (which I think accounts for the little blip on the scale at 0:28) but as it spirals up it is losing angular momentum causing a small force in the opposite direction, making it feel slightly lighter. You'll note that if there were no affect the scale should actually register more weight as you push and accelerate something heavy upward over your head. The scale does not show this (unless that is the blip at 0:28, but I doubt it as I don't think you start to actually lift it until after) making me think it must effectively be a tiny bit lighter. The scale with the little gyro shows no change because the gyro is on a balance with a weight and can teeter-totter but the gyro clearly does want to move up and down as you nudge the angular speed of the base (like at 3:39). So, if it were not allowed to teeter-totter (locked in the Z axis) I claim the scale *would* show a change as the rotation rate is nudged one way or the other. So Derek, my guess is that when you first start to whirl the big heavy spinny thing (my technical term), there was a small extra downward force felt in your left hand which was then reversed as as the spiral slowed as it lifted. For sure, the change in how you have to apply the vectors of force (as you point out around 1:52) is the bigger effect you're experiencing but I don't think it's the only one. Many thanks, I'm learning lots from your channel.

[@Anksh0usRacing]

Intriguing. Requires further research

[@chrisjenkins1989]

Yes, you get it. You see the dumbfuckery that they are doing. I do also. I have no desire to correct them because they are following the status quo’s narrative.

[@Silver9k]

It seems like you only barely touched the fact that due to gyroscopic precession the force acts in 90 degrees the direction of rotation. The flywheel feels lighter because the lateral force you impose on it is acting in the vertical plane thus aiding in you lifting the wheel. If you put the drill in reverse you would have to spin in the opposite direction. This is a huge factor with single engine propeller aircraft, and created several accidents with inexperienced pilots. The Sopwith Camel WWI aircraft was perhaps one of the most dangerous as both its propeller and engine both rotated making this effect immense. The rolls of the pitch and yaw controls were essentially reversed at high engine speeds making it very difficult to control.

[@fuckcensorship8809]

Best misunderstanding ever.

[@johnnyllooddte3415]

are you sure.. have you tried swinging it in the opposite direction.. you dont know this for sure.. half is going up and half going down whether the flywheel spun in either direction or spun in either direction.. youre just guessing with ZERO facts..another 1000 worthless comments from the zootsuite band

[@AJPMUSIC_OFFICIAL]

Who ever did the music needs a medal

[@nilssab]

The reason lifting it feels lighter is because between you and it, you only have to increase the angle of the rod in small steps, after which the flywheel auto corrects, so lifting it is essentially no different than holding it. Another way to look at it is that you only need to provide the energy to move it, not to hold it. The rod with the flywheel is basically at a stable potential as it is, so the only extra energy you need to move it is for the movement, kind of like pushing a several tonne boat which is floating. Which we all know feels very light.

[@nilssab]

just to clarify, from the perspective of the lifter, the weight of the flywheel is cancelled by exerting a torque on the lifter. So when lifting it further, save countering that exerted torque, it is like pushing an object in zero g(or boat on water)

[@tegami0102]

I disagree. There's a difference between pushing an object and holding it. You said it yourself " lifting it is essentially no different than holding it" which is true in that case ( although it has to do with the repartition of its mass on the rod). Your example of the boat is rather to explain the work of a force (which is 0J for the its weigh, and only the resistance of ice/water works here).

[@mineking57]

Just to clarify and note my understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong but: It's easier to raise over your head while it's spinning for two reasons 1) The spinning of the wheel causes the whole thing to process rather than fall, removing the need to apply counter torque to keep it horizontal and making it easier to hold in general. 2) In the motion to raise it up the end is pushed in the direction of the procession, increasing its speed and causing it to naturally rise up as well.

[@Debonair.Aristocrat]

Now put a spinning wheel on the other side as well. Now spin them in opposite directions. Now fall into the Black Hole you just made.

[@Micknesss]

Racist!

[@PhucLe-qs7nx]

Can anybody what's going on here, in this comment and replies? I have no faintest idea?

[@TaufikAkbar7]

if you split the weight to 19.5kg each wheel and somehow you managed to hold it right in the middle of the bar then it will feel the same as when it's spinning because again, no torque needed.

[@timothywhite9089]

That's actually very interesting Fletcher. I wonder what WOULD happen?

[@timothywhite9089]

Timothy White I think that if you got both spinning in the SAME direction and had a pivot point halfway between the two and pushed up or down on either wheel, there would be yet another force that would cause the whole assembly to spin

[@FiraRally]

3:00 GASP! IT CHANGED BY 0.1g!!!!!!!

[@MrRandommlol]

+Firal Rally ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED

[@dealerovski82]

+Firal Rally Science

[@rafkos6790]

+Firal Rally 4+3+1+9 = 17 4+3+1+0 = 8 17-8 = 9 9^1/2 = 3 half life 3 confirmed

[@jorislal]

+Rafkos 9^1/2=4.5 9^(1/2)=sqrt(9)=3 You just crushed our hopes and dreams for HL3... I hope you're happy you monster!

[@_tyrannus]

+Rafkos 3/3 = NaN KSP confirmed

[@zombie668]

@ 1:39 "So, two handed, that's as far down the shaft as you can hold it?" I lol'd!

[@jounik8980]

Why

[@zombie668]

@@jounik8980 because. thats as far down on the shaft as he can hold it! :)

[@Mysoi123]

For anyone who is still skeptical, here is a simplified explanation. support the displacement is the weight and it has the value of 3 Here we have two expressions: -10 + 13 = 3 0 + 3 = 3 In the first expression, you need to take 10 steps down and then 13 steps up. Are you tired? Probably yes, but the total displacement is just 3 steps. 2. In the second expression, you only walk 3 steps forward, so you're less tired, even though the displacement is the same. That is the key. The work done by the person holding the object is minimized when the object is precessed while the total weight remains the same as before.

[@BiddieTube]

Thinks you shoulda had on a motorcycle helmet, or hard hat at least because, well you did have a 40lb steel bar above your knoggin. I feel great that I do not think I learned anything here ( I understood and predicted accurately) but I am one who is always studying stuff. Nothing better than learning anything, the more you learn the easier learning becomes. Keep up making cool educational vids :)

[@gueldenerlarry8270]

I think another factor of it feeling lighter is when you spin it faster then its precession, you apply a moment around the z axis in your body which makes it want to change its direction to the z-axis which makes it easier to lift.

[@Jimlll56lllFL]

Aha! So THAT is how the aliens do it.

[@OpTicAlways]

It all makes sense now...

[@RipleySawzen]

I think one factor that makes the wheel feel lighter is that the spinning motion dampens the small forces of imbalance your hand imparts to the shaft. It's like lifting a free weight vs a fixed weight. The fixed weight feels lighter.

[@Lamarth1]

Yep, and it doesn't require stabilizer muscles at all - the force does not have to be controlled or balanced. I expect that even if he didn't cheat by imparting initial precession to cause lift then it would still seem light.

[@whatisthis__95]

Martin Jenkins but then it would be like lifting the unspinning weight from the weighy itself, not from the shaft, which he tried and he almost couldn't...

[@Rulerofwax24]

Federico Ruttkay But even then, I think there is still a significant enough torque on his hands even when close to the center of mass. I imagine that Derek would have no problem lifting a 40 lb. dumbbell or as mentioned above, a fixed weight. I think the weight that he feels while spinning is the same as if it were a fixed weight of equal mass.

[@RipleySawzen]

Federico Ruttkay It's exactly as Martin said, it requires no stabilizer muscles. I can do 40 push-ups easily, but I can't do 40 bench-presses with 165 pounds, which is the equivalent weight of my push-ups. Push-ups leave your hands fixed in position, so they are a bit easier to do. The spinning causes the shaft to become fixed sort of. I also noted that the spinning forces your arm to rotate as well. The only way for your arm to rotate behind your head like that is to life it. So the torque from your hand is actually causing your arm to lift naturally.

[@whatisthis__95]

I'm not sure of anything, I'd have to try it by myself. What I do know is that when you do a push up, you are not making 165 pounds of force, since your center of weight is around your waist... so a push up equals something like a 90 pounds bench press

[@choimdachoim9491]

I'm going to have to put it on a scale and see if that last statement is true. The guy could barely lift the non-spinning weight over his head yet when it's spinning he has no trouble lifting it so I'm not convinced of the accuracy of their explanations.

[@joseinfante5054]

Nothing will happen, this is a gyroscope, a stabilizer, nothing to do with gravity. and gravity does not exist, it is the Aether subatomic particle pushing towards the earth's magnetic. Well there was a war of bloody physicists, between Newton and Einstein trying to explain gravity, without getting anything defined, then another monkey called Verlindo appeared with new Bs but nothing is concluded, otherwise there is no gravity.

[@nazalostizsrbije]

@@joseinfante5054 Form what free energy site did you get that info?

[@joseinfante5054]

@@nazalostizsrbije On google, KARL SCHAPPELLER DEVICE, Aether's force.

[@sassanf4734]

Certainly deserves a better explanation, to my mind. The example with the gyro in the lab has a counter-weight. The example with Derek lifting the weight.... Why does the scale not react to the centre of mass moving up? Hmmm....

[@jimroth7927]

I think there is another aspect to this. With the gyro he is able to move the muscles effecting the lift through a longer distance than the actual vertical distance, producing an advantage similar to that provided by rope and pulleys. Normally (without the gyro) only vertical movement needs to be considered, but with the gyro horizontal movement is translated by the gyro into a vertical force, so horizontal movement can add to the muscular distance providing the pulley-like advantage. Bringing horizontal movement into play also allows the use of the strong muscles of the core and legs. Edit: I went and learned a little about angular momentum. What I called a vertical force from the gyro is actually a change in the angular momentum which tends to rotate the gyro upward about the axis formed by his hand on the bar. So the gyro tends to rotate up, reaching a high point when the bar is vertical, and then continue rotating down and this happens in response to torque applied by sweeping the apparatus in a horizontal direction . So I think my explanation regarding mechanical advantage is basically correct.

[@maxschwenke742]

Gyroscopic precession is such a difficult concept to grasp! 3 years of engineering and i still don't understand it. Granted however, im not a mechanics major..

[@LeoFreemanAUST]

Math is fine, as long as you have a good intuitive understanding of what you're applying the equations to. Unfortunately, gyroscopes are obviously _not_ intuitive, if they can confuse people of Laithwaite's calibre, not to mention math phobics like myself. Therefore, there could still be unexpected phenomena lurking in rotating systems that aren't predicted by classical mechanics.

[@maciejnajlepszy]

Theory not applicable to reality is worthless. It's the reality that verifies every theory, and here we see that scientists always say that one force converts to another, but have not a clue WHY it does that.

[@DimensionDrawer]

What if you put a wheel spinning the same direction (cw - cw or ccw - ccw) on the other side?

[@BrunoPhilipe]

The torque effects would cancel each other out and the effect would disappear. If you put each wheel to spin in different directions, then the shaft will only rotate faster.

[@olivialambert4124]

Prof. Laithwaite was amazing. He did a whole range of demonstrations and talks on a ton of different subjects. He had way to talk about complex phenomenon with detailed explanations yet remained interesting to even people with a poor understanding. I highly suggest searching out some of the lectures he did, I go back to them repeatedly to this day. One could even consider him the Veritasium of his day, but with a professorship.

[@schm147]

Could any type of machinery take advantage of this?

[@Reflexfusion]

That is a good thought.

[@nickyicky4549]

TechReflex think about a few spinning in a primed????

[@netauri123]

the international space station

[@petethewrist]

Our bodys are only bio machines so if this was fittid to a space craft???

[@dannyshacklebolt2461]

Many machines already do

[@Adamantium9001]

Your explanation implies that holding the apparatus the end while the wheel is spinning would have it feel no lighter than holding it at its centre of mass while it wasn't spinning, which doesn't look like what you experience in the previous video.

[@Schlepian]

how does it not look like it in the previous video? The only reason why it was easier to hold while at the center was because he was using both hands.

[@geographymathmaster]

Ideally it would be that way, however there are 3 main limitting conditions: 1: The rod to which the disk/wheel is attached is not spinning. 2: The wheel is only spinning so quickly (gyroscopic precession is an approximation for where the disk is spinning crazy fast and the angular momentum contribution from the rotating of the entire rod-wheel pales in comparison to the wheel's angualr momentum. 3: (as he said) his hand does not apply force at just one point, so when he picks up the thing with just his hand near the center of mass he is still pivoting the rod and the wheel... Also, he added a bit of an extra spin to it, which if you consider that him pushing it working in the same way that gravity pulls down, the gyro-scope almost "wants" to go upward, in the same way that it wants to go in a circle.

[@dr-maybe]

You make great videos, thank you for that

[@bardia8225]

Not having to provide counter torque still explain why the flywheel feels much lighter and easier to lift compared to when he tried to lift the flywheel without spinning "at the base". His explanation only apply to when the flywheel is held from the end of the bar, but in the first video, he struggles to lift the flywheel over his shoulder "even when he is holding it at the very base" where he doesn't need to provide any significant counter torque.

[@bricology]

This was kind of a failure in explaining why the phenomenon happens. So, the *big* factor that's not being addressed here isn't the flywheel's weight, or the shaft, or the rotation, or anything else --it's the *person* . Derek weighs about 70kg, so a 20kg weight is only about 30% of *his* weight. But just as importantly, Derek is standing on the ground. Keep that fact in mind. As he goes to lift the spinning flywheel (always in the direction that it wants to precess), the rotating mass of the flywheel starts to resist being turned at an angle to its axis; this is the "conservation of angular momentum", and it's why a gyroscope resists tilting. It *really* doesn't want to leave that axis! But Derek is *forcing* it to tilt, and it's not happy about that, so it starts pushing back, in the form of transferring some of that energy of the rotating mass, through the handle, into *him* , in the form of torque. Now, bearing in mind that Derek's weight is 3.5 times the weight of the flywheel and handle, he's already pretty well set-up to counteract that torque. And so long as he's gripping the handle firmly (which is easy to do), his arm doesn't have to do much work; all it has to do is to provide an unyielding connection between the handle and the ground, through his body. As he turns while holding the handle, the angular momentum is transferred into the handle in the form of torque, and thereby into his hand. His hand doesn't let the shaft turn, so the momentum keeps getting transferred further and further -- through his arm, his torso, his legs, his feet, and finally to the ground. All of those together easily counteract the flywheel's "objection" to having its angular momentum changed. As long as he keeps turning, the flywheel will keep trying to precess, and trying to remain in the same plane, but he's not letting it do the latter, so that energy is transferred in the form of torque which, when meeting with the resistance of his hand and the mass of his body, and the unyielding ground, takes the flywheel in the only direction left to go: up, until it can return to being in the same plane it wanted to remain in, in the first place. I hope this helps. I'm *not* a scientist, I'm just a layman, but I'm fairly sure that this is what's going on.

[@alaskanalain]

so if I were to lift two counter rotating weights in a gym that is turning at procession speed or more, I could do more work or lift heavier weights and get a fuller body work out?

[@Mockturtlesoup1]

but even when he gripped the shaft right next to the wheel and tried to lift it, he could barely do it. like if he just had a barbell the same weight as the unpinning shaft and wheel, i think it would be practically just as hard to lift. it doesn't seem like the change in torque is the only thing going on here, as he lifted it waaaaay easier when it was spinning. it seems like somehow the work gets spread out over a larger area when he spins his body around, though i don't know how. maybe i'm just not getting it.

[@ericlittle2943]

The force of work, in your words, is counter-attacking the force of gravity in the direction he was spinning. As shown, going the opposite way gives a much downward force, giving a practically impossible situation. The force of work is relative to gravity in the opposite direction it was spinning, thus giving him the chance to spin with the wheel and becoming "superhuman". Your right in the sense spinning around throws the mass of an object to create less work. Im sure you have may have tried spinning a youngling around and by some means, they end up going higher the faster you spin. Covering the object with more space to travel through time ignores one of the greatest known equations E=MC^2. How? M=E/C^2. It may not directly ignore it, but by putting it in this term, it does prove that mass can be accelerated enough to ignore the fastest know substance known to man, gravity/light.

[@liliekanaka7063]

. ' .

[@hughturner1046]

The best i understand it is when the wheel is spinning like it was said it is creating torque, that torque is linear and the faster an object is moving the more difficult is is to change its direction correct? So the wheel is wanting to stay in the same position that it was spun up in! (think moving a stationary baseball vs deflecting a thrown baseball except this motion is circular / orbital). So we now know that the wheel will resist any force applied to it in porportion to how fast it is spinning (this is why he wanted it spinning really fast). So basically when he lifted it still he was still technically lifting the full 40 lbs, when the wheel was spinning with its resistance to the change in orientation it was essentially holding itself up not by "antigravity" but by the counter torque created on the shaft so he ended up only lifting a fraction of that as the torque created was comparable to having someone else helping hold up the other end of the shaft with the weight on it, all he had to do was keep it level! I hope this helped :)

[@DoubleM55]

That electric drill put a lot of kinetic energy into that spinning disc. That energy is used to lift the disc up when the angle of rotation is changed.

[@MaxLohMusic]

I think your observation and concern is correct -- in the previous video he shows he can barely lift it even holding it at the wheel. I also believe I have the answer: When you lift a normal weight, your body needs a lot of muscles to stabilize the weight without making it fall. That's why people will always tell you, if you hit the gym, always lift the FREE weights, not the machines, because the free weights require muscles to stabilize and build real functional strength. If you can lift 200 lbs machine, it might only be 150 pounds on the barbell even when the motion is the same. When the thing is spinning super fast, it's extremely stable so it requires less muscles to stabilize it. So it's like the difference between machine weights and free weights.

[@DidierDubz]

I imagine it's how the " flying saucer " flies without wings. Or at least how how it stays stable whilst in the air.

[@alaskanalain]

It gets lighter at 50000rpm because if you add enough procession the top of the disk moves slower in space time and the bottom faster and so linear momentum is concentrated at the top causing it to move upwards. Try spinning at 1mil rpm and add 500000rpm to the procession.

[@moronlight3230]

This proves that feelings isn't always true :3

[@WarrenPostma]

Or rather that one's effort to lift an object is not entirely and always due only to its overall mass, but also due to what shape it is and what shape your muscles and your bones are, and what position you attempt the task from. Holding a heavy object at the end of a long rod is far more difficult because leverage works against you and you must overcome the difficulty you induced into the task by lifting a weight this way. Imagine we made a 1 meter long rod and had the flywheel in the center of the rod. Would a spinning wheel be easier to lift if you had one hand on either end of the rod, and the wheel was balanced? Both the stationary wheel and the spinning wheel would be equally easy to lift over your head.

[@justpaulo]

Curios fact: - The "Anti-gravity wheel?" video has about 3x more views than this video where the Anti-gravity wheel is explained. Who and why sees the 1st one and does not wants to know the answer/explanation?

[@ZandarKoad]

I think that needs it's own separate explainer video.

[@mat2468xk]

"This is not a conjuring trick, this is a fact of science."

[@neopalm2050]

I think he means it's not magic considering the amount of people who call it that.(by the way, I know that magic is science)

[@AdamEspinosa]

neopalm2050 I think it's funner to think of science as magic. Magic that can be understood and harnessed.

[@mat2468xk]

Guys, I've only quoted him because I thought the way he said it was funny.

[@DenkyManner]

Though not lighter, still could be useful for moving cargo. But only in the direction of precession.

[@masew2012]

I got mind fucked by this lol ^^ Now build a god damn UFO from this

[@masew2012]

***** I was mainly joking mate =)

[@cmsahe]

***** a cluster of ballons (all of them closely tied) can do the trick, release them in the middle of the city and wait for the UFO videos to be uploaded to KZbin. :P

[@Sleepless3]

Weazel News I do believe I have seen this on youtube (What haven't I seen here). In a video they explained how they could use something like this, like a spinning thing in something that flies, making it lighter and therefore making it easier to stop etc. :)

[@masew2012]

lpgomp Would be so great to see what they come up with using this knowledge xD

[@MrPitiboy]

Weazel News Helicopters?

[@TheFifthGreatApe]

Next video: Apparent weight Vs Actual weight?

[@colinli1827]

If you force the wheel to precess faster than its natural rate, yet at the same time force the wheel to stay at its present altitude and not allow it to rise, will the upward energy of the precession be transferred to your body, then decreasing your weight? If in space, could it be used to generate acceleration? (To be clear, I am not talking about centrifugal force based non-inertial propulsion.)

[@furyberserk]

I doubt it. Even stars spin, but takes two to actually move, unless the galaxy doesn't have a force in itself that spins everything as well, but I only took highschool physics.

[@al35mm]

No, the torque will be transferred to your body. If you were standing on a turntable you and the turntable would begin to spin and there would be no weight loss :)

[@cslloyd1]

the length of the shaft affects how light it feels. You get leverage from the longer shaft. It would feel even lighter if the shaft were longer, and heavier if it was shorter.

[@wareflorida]

unbalanced = hard to lift (not heavier)

[@lollob]

But steel is heavier than feathers

[@mayday6880]

unbalanced, same as you're holding unbalanced tennis racket in your hand and spin makes it balanced, that's exactly the point.

[@yikesadept7577]

But steal IS heavier than feathers.

[@error.418]

@@yikesadept7577 Bro, no. Steel is denser, not heavier. One pound of steel and one pound of feathers still weigh one pound.

[@yikesadept7577]

@@error.418 my dude i am quoteing the vid lmao

[@BillyNitro]

Physics be cray.

[@fanirama]

Don't see much scientific explanation but more awe and feeling of wonder and magic

[@toasty4000000]

Step #1: Isolate the system.

[@jeebersjumpincryst]

Derek - you are just soooo pretty!

[@ZVEKOfficial]

You too

[@jeebersjumpincryst]

Ha Haa!!! Very good comment :) I was kinda referring to the new podcast "Hello Internet" with Brady and CGP Grey, and in one episode they both talk about how very "pretty" pretty Derek is. It very funny. I wish I looked like Derek tho - I bet he is a regular chick-magnet!

[@rockdude4life]

QUESTION: What if you started spinning the disk at the end to an extreme speed, then you did the Olympic 'Hammer throw' game with it, would it start flying once you threw it, or better yet, would you started flying in a spinning state once you started rotating fast enough?

[@DigGil3]

It would make it easier to aim upwards, but once let away, the "hammer" would fly as usual without the gyroscope. Remember that the gyroscopic precession only affects torque and not linear motion.

[@phynos8936]

What Dig said. So no, it wouldn't 'fly'. It still experiences the same pull due to gravity and will still fall at the same rate when unsupported. Hence the result of their experiment when using the scale...

[@MaxLohMusic]

The video explains that when it's spinning super fast it feels as if he's bearing the weight of the disc normally. In other words it feels as if he's holding the disc part, instead of the end of the stick.

[@rockdude4life]

Yeah yeah I understand now, I just thought the faster the whole bar rotates, it will just keep rising higher somehow, did't give it much thought myself, but thank you guys.

[@guitarttimman]

The spin of the fly wheel creates a torque that is perpendicular to the spinning wheel. He should've also illustrated how changing the direction of the rotating wheel affects his ability to lift it. A counterclockwise spin creates an inward torque. A clockwise spin creates an outward torque.

[@justinity]

This is common sense. No? Just me? ok..

[@AmateurSci]

None of this is common sense. That's why it took tens of thousands of year for humans to figure it out.

[@georger9]

If you think it's "common sense" then really you don't understand any of the physics behind this..

[@matoatlantis]

Depends what you're referring to. I voted the "equal to" at the end of the video test, which _is, common sense (a.k.a. conservation of mass).

[@imaytag]

***** But a scale measures weight, not mass. It seems unusual to me for his weight to remain the same as he lifts it into the air since as he applies an acceleration to it his weight on the scale should increase accordingly (which is what ends up happening when he catches it again after dropping it). I can't understand why the scale wouldn't increase when he first hefts it to get it going. Or perhaps the acceleration was small enough to not be noticeable.

[@commode7x]

imaytag You're right. The scale didn't register the acceleration of lifting the wheel over his head. This is mostly due to the fact that the scale is a basic commercial scale, so the cheap springs within it are absorbing some of that energy and not transferring it to the needle on the display. The larger accelerations from dropping the wheel into his other hand are big enough to overcome this entropic loss of energy transference to the needle.

[@sofiarivera5669]

2:08 I lost it at this point I'M TOO STUPID XD

[@benjaminbaker7952]

same :'c

[@aslanburnley]

+Sofia Rivera The trick is understanding that kilogram is not a measurement of weight, despite them calling it that in the video. Weight is a unit of force. Mass* Length* Seconds^-2. Weight can be measured in many ways, but primarily it is measured in metric newtons or in imperial lbf/slugf. The mass of the man-flywheel system did not change. The gravity (acceleration) acting on them did not change. Remember F=ma The torque exerted on the man by the flywheel at rest is constant. The torque of the flywheel once it was accelerated and then left at rest is also constant (disregarding the loss in acceleration due to friction). Torque is not a unit of acceleration, therefore it would not effect the weight or force of the man-flywheel system on the scale.

[@Mehrdad995GTa]

I'm curious to know about the poll result :)

[@1000frolly]

When I was a kid in the UK early 1970's magnetic levitation for passenger use vehicles was all the rage. I thought before 2000 these would be common in the UK, instead, they are in China and Japan! Professor Eric Laithwaite was often on TV speaking about his 'magnetic river' discoveries. He was also into this big gyroscopes like this and their properties.

[@marcdraco2189]

Eric Laithwaite was one of my heroes growing up: an amazing guy!

[@ferencrarosi8101]

Sad thing is that he had lectures on a strange field in which he was not really an expert (i.e. gyroscopes). No one can criticize his statements in electromagnetism. And yes he was a real genius in his own field. So we can conclude that it is way better to remain in one's proper sphere. (Sorry for my English I am not a native speaker)

[@sweetbarry]

"I've been going to this high school for seven and a half years! I'm no dummy!" -Charles De Mar 1985

[@Shifticek]

and now the real question: Will it blend?

[@VergilArcanis]

So in essence, the gyroscope action of the flywheel changes the direction of the torque, which appears to be more lateral, rather than vertical, so the apparent weight required to lift it reduces, but you are going to have another direction force moving it in a circle around the point of contact

[@cubedude76]

so should you lift weights with spinning masses so it feels lighter?

[@TheRinzl2r]

Well, no. This only works if the weight is on one side (which creates the torque.) If you had something like a dumbbell, it'd feel exactly the same.

[@TheInimicus]

yay, i was right

[@_brocklaar]

I think it's pretty obvious because the mass doesn't change.

[@tomharrell1954]

what would it weigh if you held it motionless straight above your head.

[@TheAnantaSesa]

Wonder if spinning a gyroscope to increase the procession could produce anti gravity thrust.

[@buggsy5]

The same weight as it does when it is spinning horizontally.

[@buggsy5]

@@TheAnantaSesa No.

[@TheAnantaSesa]

buggsy5; oh. I see that now.

[@rosewhite---]

the weight dropped when you lowered it because for a moment the weight was still being centrifuged off the bearings and not contacting anything - in effect the disc was floating free.

[@TimmacTR]

Got it wrong + still didn't understand why it "feels lighter" without changing the weight on the scale..

[@MGC-XIII]

the momentum forces the wheel to move upwards I guess :)

[@sambony94]

It feels lighter because what you feel as something being heavy is actually how much effort you have to put into holding it stationary. Without it spinning, you have to both keep it from tilting and you have to hold it up, both of which require individual effort. With it spinning though you don't have to prevent it from tilting, only hold it, meaning the only effort is keeping it from falling.

[@AD173]

You can instead ask why it feels heavier when it is not rotating. It feels heavier because of, lets call it, "rotational energy" (torque). Gyroscopic precession removes the torque, and it feels lighter. The scale does not measure the torque. It only measures the downward force.

[@TimmacTR]

Thank you all guys I just understood now! :D Just to make it clear let's use some examples though: so, in theory, the faster the wheel spins, the more the "felt weight" when holding with both arms tends towards the "felt weight" of an object of same total weight but with equally distributed weight on both ends (like a dumbell)? but that still doesn't explain the difference of "felt weight" between him lifting the object vertically without spinning by holding it close to its heavy part and then him lifting the object by holding it by the end, away from the heavy part (seems he had less trouble in the second instance).

[@Biochemguy]

So the gyroscopic stabilization of the wheel causes the torque needed to keep it up to be reduced dramatically to almost zero, but the weight (downward force from gravity) remained the same. Think of this as a lever arm, normally you would have a fulcrum, but in this case he only has his hands, so a fulcrum which would normally supply the normal force to hold up some of the weight of the lever arm must be replaced by an actual force being applied by a human hand. When he pushes down on the other side with his second hand (effort) to lift the flywheel (load) he increases the normal force which the first hand must supply since it is now supporting the weight of the fly wheel and fighting against the downward force of the other hand. When the wheel is spinning the gyroscopic effect counteracts the torque caused by the lever arm. This causes the effort arm to no longer need to push down, and therefore reduces the amount of weight the fulcrum arm is supporting. I hope that made some sense :)

[@DG123z]

I don't know.. When you held it near the weight there is significantly less torque and you still struggled to press it over your head but when i was spinning you seemed to be able to lift it above your head without struggling.. and i doubt that old man could have pressed that much weight over his head even without torque (say a dumbell).

[@user-ep2xn7gh6q]

Hey!Here’s my point of you,hope you can understand the science behind this experiment. i.imgur.com/syq7FeQ.jpg

[@gistfilm]

When the wheel is spinning, the torque causes the "procession" of the object (spinning in a circle rather than falling down). Now, the only force you need to counteract is the actual weight of the object (the 20lbs). Imagine trying to lift another person with your arms completely stretched out from your body. You can't. Too much torque. Strange, however, that Veritasium almost couldn't lift 20lbs DIRECTLY above his body. That's because by swinging the spinning wheel around his body, procession caused the wheel to briefly climb higher.

[@trexpl0s1ve]

I have to disagree, when you lift the non-spinning flywheel, you can barely lift it and you hold it so close to the center of mass that you need to apply virtually no torque. But while it's spinning you can lift it like it's a bag of popcorns, it should have required more effort if the force you needed to apply was equal to the weight of the flywheel.

[@danvermark8232]

YEP

[@13yroldgosu-gosu-sin24]

Did you even get to 2:30?

[@buggsy5]

Look at t he scale experiment. It shows that more than the flywheel weight must be applied to lift it. And this will be true whether or not the flywheel is spinning.

[@guidedmeditation2396]

This experiment reminds me of another gyroscope anomaly. There is a force emitted by a spinning wheel that counters gravity at a 45 degree angle but only during acceleration. This is why models with a gas powered gyroscope mounted on a tall pole can rise up as if it defies gravity. But it soon falls back down to the bottom because it cannot maintain that force. It only emits it when it is accelerating. Videos of this device shows them revving up the gas model engine with all its smoke and the gyro flies up into the air.

[@TheCorintur]

Hahaha, that just drop it and see experiment! Imagine that 19kg metal disc spinning at 11k rpm suddenly gaining traction on the ground! I predict blown minds, arms and legs.

[@TheCorintur]

Are you trying to claim the Master's eye for yourself?

[@ThePersonNetwork]

but if its the same weight, do you still get hardcore ripped doing it?

[@EinstienJr]

It is the same weight..but you are not doing as much work lifting it as explained by the diagram of upward and downward foces.. So you can get ripped fractionally since you are doing work in providing a small amount of rotation..nothing more.

[@TheBhuvan002]

EinstienJr Still it looks badass in slo mo!

[@ShakeebBinRahman]

you only get ripped when the muscle is solely responsible for lifting the heavy wheel, in other words the muscle is under stress, but when the wheel is spinning this isnt the case..

[@__hannibaalbarca__]

The variation of weight is from your movement and not from spining disk And the weight is same but the torque is not same when you spin the disk so it help you to reduse the static torq

[@balancer4203]

Why do I feel like I have felt this before? It's as if I can imagine the feeling from a memory.

[@divadavid07]

***** there might be many like us. if i think about it, it might be the memory of something we here holding, that when we turned around on ourself, the item went up, thus, without forcing. you feel me brah?

[@gethebigpicture]

You guys I think its from doing the spinning wheel on a bike experiment when we were younger! Haha it took me a minute or two to remember that

[@cloudybrains]

I have this, but with alot of other stuff. I just see something and I know how it feels. Of course I have no proof, but I kinda know how it feels to be in an anechoic chamber even though I've never been in one! I guess the human brain is good at simulating sensations.

[@tomuschrysos]

Psychedelic drugs.

[@KakashiOwnage]

True I feel this too. There must have been something we did that made things feel lighter when they were not.

[@RT_MOTO]

So if you want a press heavier weight on a bench press, spin the plates on the ends haha

[@metalfuelandfire]

+RT MOTOVLOGS No actually it doesn't have that effect because it's not a lever that's turning. However, improving your grip strength will improve your bench press because it makes it easier to stop the bar from rotating and moving around in your hands. This is well known in the weightlifting world.

[@mes]

RT MOTO yup exactly.

[@MultiSaffran]

Find it a little weird.. You try to lift it with no spin and you hold it almost at the center so there's not much torque yet you can barley lift it. Then you say it's easy to lift while spinning because you only have to lift the weight of 19Kg and not the torque... but you barley couldn't lift it without the torque before?? Am I getting this wrong?

[@luiscruz149]

he pushes it forward before rising it so the gyro creates an upward force, helping him lift

[@commongrackle]

Holding it at the center wouldn't eliminate the torque because the mass isn't evenly distributed. Most of the mass is on one end, so you'd have to hold it at the heavy end to negate it.

[@closetcolonelgaming]

luis cruz So why didn't the scale read lighter?

[@imbored742]

He demonstrated that he could lift it above his head one handed without it spinning. The only thing that changed then was that he was able to do it by holding on to the end of the rod while it was spinning. Weight is not the issue, he could lift the weight by itself. Centre of gravity is the issue. He could not lift it from a point away from it's centre of gravity as he would have to apply significant torque to counteract the torque caused by gravity. When the disk is spinning gyroscopic precession acts to counteract that torque instead. Speeding up the gyroscopic precession does not cause the system to levitate, it simply increases the amount of torque applied counteracting gravity causing the flywheel end to rotate upwards while the handle end rotates downwards, the net gravitational force exerted remains the same. In effect, all that is happening is that gyroscopic precession is moving the centre of gravity from the flywheel end to the handle end.

[@erisi]

imbored742 In the beginning, he was holding the mechanism very close to the disk, so his hand was approximately in the same distance as the center of gravity (so the torque was small). Then after the spinning of the disk, he just lifted it without problem claiming that this happens because of no torque. (in both situations the torque was approximately zero.)

[@marcomendez7574]

I want to point out an important detail, if the apparatus does not change its weight as you said when moving, how in the world the professor was able to lift it so easily, the problem here is that it is clear as you explained that the torque change when the gyroscope is moving so it is a little bit easier to hold it, but remember the weight is the same, the torque might not be, but again the WEIGHT IS THE SAME, how can you explain that the old professor could lifted 40 lbs so easily, either he got stronger or something is affecting the weight of the apparatus in a way that we dont yet understand. Sorry but this experiment does not clarify this phenomenon.

[@camiemengineer]

I just posted a comment today , (2nd March 2019), .. you may like to look at it. You are right in your suspicions .. his demonstration/experiment proves nothing at all.

[@gistfilm]

When the wheel is spinning, the torque causes the "procession" of the object (spinning in a circle rather than falling down). Now, the only force you need to counteract is the actual weight of the object (the 20lbs). Imagine trying to lift another person with your arms completely stretched out from your body. You can't. Too much torque. Strange, however, that Veritasium almost couldn't lift 20lbs DIRECTLY above his body. That's because by swinging the spinning wheel around his body, procession caused the wheel to briefly climb higher.

[@angrysheepdog9744]

The forward progression translates the downward vertical gravitational force(s) into rotational force(s), yet not escaping, illustrated by the reduction in the holder's upward vertical effort level, yet the overall downward vertical force measured by the scale remains the same. Seems like the holder becomes an integral part of the overall rotational unit's translation energy dynamic while the gross static gravitational weight value of the gyro and holder is transferred to the bottom of the feet.

[@karanyadav8594]

I wanted to see what happens when you attach wheels on both ends and make them spin

[@joseinfante5054]

Nothing will happen, this is a gyroscope, a stabilizer, nothing to do with gravity. and gravity does not exist, it is the Aether subatomic particle pushing towards the earth's magnetic field.

[@jco5254]

It turns into a UFO 🛸 I’m pretty sure

[@joseinfante5054]

@@jco5254 I'm pretty sure that is a gyroscope a stabilizer, invented by Nikola Tesla and used in is US patente 1,655.113. September 1921. nothing to do with gravity TESLAAAAAAAAAA

[@frede1905]

@@joseinfante5054 "...It is the aether subatomic particle pushing towards the earth's magnetic field" Huh?

[@VikasSBhat]

What if you lift it anticlockwise?

[@CamCakes]

he said that it was difficult to rotate the flywheel the opposite dirrection 2:47

[@IceX92]

It will feel heavier and will try go down...

[@joelity]

Kirk: What do you think about this? Spork: Fascinating!

[@vanthursday]

what if you try spinning it in an anticlockwise motion?

[@thetoot9615]

*Counterclockwise*

[@AbuserTube]

+vanthursday It depends on the direction that the flywheel is spinning. If the same as the demonstration, then it will be force downward.

[@frtard]

+THETOOT Same thing, buddy.

[@thetoot9615]

frtard Anti-clockwise is for British people, but it's actually called widdershins, deosil, or sunways

[@otherssingpuree1779]

+THETOOT or counterclockwise

[@rosewhite---]

It's indisputable the shaft and gyro weigh the 40pounds. It's indisputable that it cannot really be lifted with one extended hand. It's indisputable that it can easily be spun up over the head quite easily for a very brief time. It's indisputable that after about one circle above the head the weight once again becomes fully 40pounds. Therefore the spinning gyro for a brief time does appear to lose weight. It might be that the precession of moving the shaft causes instant and unrecognised stiffening Newtonian reactions in the skeleton and muscles. However the ease that the gyro can initially be raised above the head might actually be a demonstration of anti-gravity at a very restricted gyro speed/precession combination that only exists for a very short time - less than one circle of the head? Consider this: At a certain specific rpm the gyro bearings have very little load when the disk is vertical with shaft horizontal. The disk will be trying to fly out in 360 degrees in effect taking almost all contact off the bearings but for a very tiny spot contact with each ball or roller in the bearing - or if a plain bearing is used there will be a minimum thickness oil film of practically zero friction. As the disk is experiencing 360 centrifugal force at full speed it will have little friction and all its weight is pulling away from the shaft in full 360 degrees and in effect be weightless and have anti-gravity! As the speed drops below the critical point the centrifugal force will drop and the disc will begin applying heavy vertical friction on the bearings thanks to Newton's apple! As the weight increases and the disc speed reduces as the circle above the head slows the precession and increased friction will come into effect to make the weight once again appear and make it impossible to hold the shaft horizontally or raise it above the head until the disc is once again spun to maximum speed. To try pander to the deluded souls who think UFOs are alien and might use some sort of gyroscopic antigravity power let's consider the video experiment but with some lightweight power system spinning a gyro disc at immense speed - mercury in a circle a la vimana tales? Spin a very big gyro disc on a horizontal shaft/bearing/magnetic field alignment and maybe the discs anti-gravity might overcome the weight of the UFO fuselage. Add some sort of external directable power such as air jets or magnets and maybe the action of the power on the fuselage might induce some precession in the disc that might enable the UFO to lift off. Logically fine adjustments of the power would allow take off, slowing and steering? We know Earth acts like a big magnet and logically some drive could be made to take advantage of this for use in a UFO that is weightless while its gyro disc is spinning superfast. Introduce Nikola and his multiplying coils to create a gyro with an immensely fast speed and zero friction thanks to magnetic bearing and power source for a UFO is feasible. Add wireless electrical input from Nikola's world grid to keep the UFO's disc spinning and hig speed cheap travel is possible. Then BigBiz steps in and ensures all research is stopped in order to keep the humans paying through the nose for electricity..........and suddenly it's 1905 again and work stops at Wardenclyffe.

[@rosewhite---]

@Tasunke Slamdunk...switch a braincell on and study rotating weights.

[@rosewhite---]

Unsuspected gyroscopic precession is the reason so many stunt riders have lots control of their motorbikes in the middle of jumps as the wheels act as gyros and want to precess once they leave the ramps and are in the air.

[@AnonymityIx]

Yeah my guess was right

[@giuliannogrilli7877]

Mine too!

[@jinacio]

count me on it!