1. Home
  2. ⚗ Material Sciences
  3. Anomalous movement resistance in a spinning gyroscope

Anomalous movement resistance in a spinning gyroscope

formatting link
A symmetric harnessed gyroscope accelerated to a given spinning frequency takes different time periods to stop, depending on the direction of previous spins. For repeated alternating, anticlockwise and clockwise spinning, the rotation period in both directions significantly increases, which is not the case when the gyroscope is repeatedly rotated in the same direction. Using the measurements it was observed, that the time of gyroscope's rotation was significantly lengthened or shortened, what indicates that it either increased or decreased the movement resistance of the gyroscope. The presented experimental results suggest the existence of anomalous movement resistance and demonstrate that a fixed spinning gyroscope displays unusual history-dependent movement resistance effects. The effect is real, large, reproducible and does not follow from experimental errors.

The manuscript was reviewed thrice, according to the publishing procedure in "Physical Review Letters" within two year. The remarks of all the reviewers were taken into account during its correction. Because the publishing procedure for our manuscript in "Physical Review Letters" finished, we decided to publish it in Journal of Technical Physics, J.Tech. Phys., 46, 2, 107-115, 2005.

Reply to
top9
Loading thread data ...

of course - the gyro is fixed and terrestrially mounted. how have you never bothered find out how a gyro compass works? [rhetorical]

Reply to
jim beam

It's being magnetized by the ambient magnetic field, first in one direction, then in another. How could it NOT show such history-dependent behavior?

Here's how: make the rotor out of a semiconductor- grade purity non-ferromagnetic material. Did they do that?

What does "finished" mean? Final rejection?

Reply to
Mark Thorson

Re: Anomalous ``memory'' effects in a spinning top

By: Mazur,Jerzy et al. LW8007

Dear Dr. Mazur:

We've received an email from Dr. Bartelt in which he wrote that he did consider figures 5-7 in your manuscript but that their content was not important to his decision. He added though that the fact that the paper contains no conclusive interpretation of the data presented in these figures also argued against publication in PRL.

The memo that describes the PRL appeal procedure states, in part:

The author of a paper which has been rejected subsequent to an appeal to a DAE may appeal to the Editor-in-Chief of the American Physical Society. This request should be addressed to the Chair of Divisional Associate Editors, who will forward the entire file to the Editor-in-Chief. Such an appeal must be based on the fairness of the procedures followed, and must not be a request for another scientific review. The question to be answered in this review is: Did the paper receive a fair hearing? The decision of the Editor-in-Chief concludes the consideration of the manuscript by the American Physical Society.

Since the formal scientific review of the manuscript ends with the appeal to the DAE, the additional revision that you indicated in your emails that you're engaged in is not appropriate. You've been given more than enough opportunities to revise this manuscript and/or LN8579 to bring one or the other up to PRL standards, without success. I don't believe that any additional revision on your part will make these articles acceptable. As stated above, the final appeal to the Editor-in-Chief can only be on the basis of the fairness of the procedure followed.

Yours sincerely,

Jerome Malenfant Senior Assistant Editor Physical Review Letters Email: snipped-for-privacy@aps.org Fax: 631-591-4141

formatting link

Reply to
top9

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.