Gobbledegook is language which supposedly explains but instead creates more problems that it solves.

Here is an example:

A wheel or disk mounted to spin rapidly about an axis and also free to rotate about one or both of two axes perpendicular to each other and the axis of spin so that a rotation of one of the two mutually perpendicular axes results from application of torque to the other when the wheel is spinning and so that the entire apparatus offers considerable opposition depending on the angular momentum to any torque that would change the direction of the axis of spin - Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, defining `gyroscope'

Now we know about what it does.

Gobbledegook

Coined by Texan, Maury Maverick (link), grandson of the eponymous maverick.

Mayhaps you would prefer the Wikipedia article (link, caveat lector)

quote:

A gyroscope is a device for measuring or maintaining orientation, based on the principles of angular momentum. The device is a spinning wheel or disk whose axle is free to take any orientation. This orientation changes much less in response to a given external torque than it would without the large angular momentum associated with the gyroscope's high rate of spin. Since external torque is minimized by mounting the device in gimbals, its orientation remains nearly fixed, regardless of any motion of the platform on which it is mounted.

I am not sure I'd call it gobbledegook, but some kind of lexicographese.

I'd call them terse but I certainly wouldn't call either of them gobbledegook. There are no euphemisms, no neologisms, no jargon, no strained metaphors. Of course, it helps if you already know what a gyroscope is (also perpendicular axes, torque, gimbals and angular momentum), but Webster's is a dictionary, not an encyclopedia.

Well, I don't know. Here is the OED's definition:

quote:

Official, professional, or pretentious verbiage or jargon.

It sounds close to that to me.

One of the differences between Webster's definition and Wikipedia's is simply that Wikipedia's uses punctuation and is thus easier to follow.

Having said which, Wikipedia's and Webster's definitions are not actually defining the same thing. Webster's definition is that of a gyroscope - any kind of gyroscope. Wikipedia's is the definition of a gyroscope as used in such devices as a gyro-compass (as evidenced by the reference to gimbals, which are not used by all gyroscopes).

quote:

It sounds close to that to me.

OK, how would you accurately and completely define gyroscope in one sentence?

This is how I would change the Webster's definition:

A wheel or disk mounted so it can spin rapidly about an axis and which is also free to rotate about one or both of two axes, perpendicular to each other and to the axis of spin. Thus a rotation of one of the two mutually perpendicular axes will result from any application of torque to the other, when the wheel is spinning. This means that the entire apparatus offers considerable opposition (the amount of which will depend on the angular momentum) to any torque that would change the direction of the axis of spin.

A bit of punctuation works wonders.

Both definitions go beyond simply stating what a gyroscope IS. Is it not simply a spinning wheel or disc with a central perpendicular axle?

In essence, yes - although the axle doesn't need to be perpendicular. It can be in any plane.

quote:

A bit of punctuation works wonders.

Yes, but it is no longer one sentence.

quote:

Is it not simply a spinning wheel or disc with a central perpendicular axle?

Any spinning wheel or disc? As in "I got a flat gyroscope on the way to work today"?
Furthermore, the axis needs to be free to move; a spinning platter bolted to a table wouldn't qualify.

quote:

the axle doesn't need to be perpendicular. It can be in any plane

No it can't. If the mass is not rotationally symmetric about the axle the axle will wobble, defeating the purpose of a gyroscope. An axle through the center of the disc and lying in the plane of the disc would qualify, but that would be a poor use of the disc's mass and require an evacuated chamber to rotate for more than a few seconds.

quote:

No it can't.

Yes it can. It must be rotationally symmetric, as you say, to the spinning disc but it doesn't have to be aligned in any other way. It could be perpendicular, horizontal or at any alignment between.

quote:

Yes it can. It must be rotationally symmetric, as you say, to the spinning disc but it doesn't have to be aligned in any other way.

No it can't. If the disc isn't perpendicular to the axis, it won't be rotationally symmetric.

Easy enough to prove: Build one! Or go to your local tire (tyre) store and ask them why they need to balance them both statically and dynamically. Dynamic imbalance = misalignment about the axis. In your car it results in shimmy; in a free gyroscope, it results in wobble, and a very short spin.

BTW, "gobbledegook" sounds to me like coprophagia.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Asa Lovejoy>,

quote:

No it can't. If the disc isn't perpendicular to the axis, it won't be rotationally symmetric.

That's not what I assumed that Asa meant. I assumed that he meant the the spindle had to be perpendicular in the usual sense that we used the word - upright as related to the Earth - not in the sense of being at 90 degrees to the rotor.

Once the unit is assembled, with the axle at 90 degrees to the rotor, then the whole unit, including its axle, can be at any angle. Most toy gyroscopes are built with a horizontal rotor and a vertical (perpendicular) axle, and that was what I assumed Asa meant.