Talk:Gyro monorail

message: Not as 'sexy' as maglev, yet still sufficient to affront the establishment as a challenge to their monopoly of wisdom and expert status, the gyro monorail has never had a favourable press.  Most assessments reflect the ignorance of the authors, rather than real deficiencies, conclusions appear to be written before the analysis, baselines for comparison are conspicuous by their absence, or ill-defined, Intuition is in evidence where objective analysis and sound scholarship are required.  I thought it high time some facts were introduced to the debate.
Gordon Vigurs 11:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maglev

message: What are you talking about?  This is the English language Wikipedia.  There's nothing stopping you front translating it into the other languages for the other wiki's.SirLamer 15:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: Well, this artice must be one of the most detailed, complicated, technical articles on Wikipedia, all wonderfully illustrated with incomprehensible diagrams and formulae - that tells me absolutely nothing about the most important question - does it work?? Can we have a section on real-life implementations and why they succeeded or failed? Thanks. DWaterson 23:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wow

message: :Gyros work because sulum proprius of orbita quod est simultaneously spinning quod precessing insisto a trajectory per veneratio ut torpeo tractus quod est symmetrical super spin , quod precession axes , tamen asymmetrical super tertius axis , hinc adicio Newton’s Secundus Lex ut sulum proprius , quod consummatio pro universitas rota , illic est casses moment inter tertius axis. That’s it; there is nothing mystical or strange about it.
なるほど as they say in Japanese.
Like the guy who commented before me, I'd like some explanation as to why we're not all riding around in Gyro Monorails. There's a photo with the article, so someone must have built one at some point, but what happened to it? --61.214.155.14 05:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I like this sentence: 

message: There are many technically sound ideas that never caught on, this is one of them.  See Monorail history for what little history there is.  The problem is that the only nations with the technological resources to develop it already had extensive conventional railway networks. It was an idea some 50 to 100 years ahead of its time.  I'm sorry, but the article cannot be dumbed down further.  Gordon Vigurs 17:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem. I hardly think that it is "dumbing down" to provide readers with useful, practical information. Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopaedia, not a technical manual. You wouldn't expect to have, say, a technical article about how televisions work, without then saying what programmes you can watch on them, would you? DWaterson 21:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I would.  The functioning of televisions has nothing whatsoever to do with the plots of soap operas. Also, it is doubtful whether the readership of one would be remotely interested in the other. Gordon Vigurs 23:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well. I find that a rather pretentious and arrogant approach, but clearly you consider it appropriate for this article and I bow to your superior knowledge on the subject matter. Nevertheless, I think you will find that Wikipedia, as an encyclopaedia (not a technical manual) seeks to blend both practical and technical information in a manner that the layman would find useful. Therefore, I do still think that it is appropriate to include a section on the gyro monorail in practice in the article. DWaterson 02:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree, but the article is already very long.  OK, I'll put an extended introduction in to cover history of development, examples etc..  Watch this space. Gordon Vigurs 08:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added a section, which I hope covers the missing information.  By the way, thanks for taking an interest. Gordon Vigurs 20:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you insist 

message: Roller coaster vehicles could be converted to gyro monorail, adding extra novelty to the experience. A wire rope bridge can be included, as done by Louis Brennan. The public would become introduced to the idea of gyro monorail.
At Disneyland Los Angeles, patrons get from one part of the park to another by a slow train which runs round the perimeter of the park. This train could be a gyro monorail vehicle.
58.168.40.76 08:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monorail theme parks 

message: Should the maximum spin rate of a gas turbine engine, given in Gyro_monorail#Maximum_spin_rate, really be 400 rpm? This seems rather low to me, particularly when rates an order of magnitude higher than that are readily available from reciprocating engines.  If I am being ignorant, please do point out my ignorance!
Moreover, is the term 'peripheral speed' used correctly?  I would be glad if someone could define it for me; Googling the term did not seem to help a lot.
Jonabofftalk 23:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was largely the work of Gordon Vigurs, as you'll probably suspect from this talk page. He doesn't seem to have been active on wikipedia lately, but hopefully will see your note. Obviously, anybody with knowledge can respond/edit. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some genius changed 400m/s to 400rpm.  The peripheral speed is the speed of the extremity of the wheel with respect to the centre, hence it is a linear speed.  It is indicative of the centrifugal stress in the disc, so exceeding this sort of value with a steel disc may result in the disc bursting under inertial load. The larger the wheel, the slower it must spin to respect this limitation.  A 0.2m radius gas turbine spool may spin at up to 20000rpm, but a 1m radius gyro would be limited to less than 4000rpm. Gordon Vigurs (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maximum spin rate 

message: Wouldn't two counterrotating gyros result in zero net-force being applied to the vehicle since the forces of the two gyros are exact opposite, canceling out each other? --TiagoTiago (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Refer to Side Loads in Article, para 5. The two contra rotating gyros are on separate axes and forced precession in opposite directions.   DavidJErskine (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterrotating gyros != no gyros at all? 

message: Sorry to hear that Gordon Vigurs has lost interest in his article. Without him there might not have been an article. I have learned from both the article and the conversations with him on the Talk page.  DavidJErskine (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acknowledging Gordon Vigurs 

message: Substituted at 16:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I propose the removal of the detailed discussion about Pyotr Shilovsky's gyrocar from the "Gyro Monorail" article. While Shilovsky's contributions to gyro-stabilized transportation are significant, the specific details about his gyrocar seem off-topic in the context of this article, which primarily focuses on gyro monorails. The gyrocar, being a different type of vehicle, might be more appropriately covered in a separate article or in a section specifically dedicated to Shilovsky's broader work. This change would help maintain the focus and coherence of the article, aligning better with Wikipedia's guidelines for relevant and focused content. 
-- Sleeplessmason (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to Remove Off-topic Section in "Shilovsky's Work"