Thursday, December 9, 2010

Unclamp it for Milgrom (Clamp it for Euler)

Cambride University's website has the following experiment: Gyroscope hanging over the top of a table.

Please note carefully that there are two versions of the same experiment on the page. The first experiment shows the unclamped gyro staying stable until the 12th line from the right. The third video with the clamped gyro shows the gyro system as being able to maintain balance only until the 9th line.

According to the good engineer's own description of the results "When the gyroscope is clamped so hanging out from the table the couple due to its weight causes the stand to topple....With the pivot point unclamped precession still occurs even when the stand is "upside down"

i.e.: An unclamped gyro behaves differently from a clamped gyro. Why? What's different about the clamped condition as opposed to the unclamped condition?

The extra advantage an unclamped gyro has over a clamped gyro is that it can sustain an infinitesimal net positive acceleration about an X-axis passing through the pivot point (with Y being the vertical axis and Z being the gyro's spin axis) - and its this situation that activates MOND - Modified Newtonian Dynamics. This is something which a clamped gyro is denied because the clamping causes the automatic transmission of even infinitesimal accelerations to the rest of the framework holding the gyro in an infinitesimal time.

Under such conditions, we must use the compound object concepts I have proposed to analyze the behavior of the unit. We can no longer consider the system under study as one object -rather we view it as two objects undergoing sequentially a collision and a decay process with a certain specific frequency we will call the Characteristic Frequency of the system.

Milgrom's boundary condition for MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics): Milgrom noted that Newton's law for gravitational force has been verified only where gravitational acceleration is large, and suggested that for extremely low accelerations the theory may not hold. MOND theory posits that acceleration is not linearly proportional to force at low values.

It maybe possible that MOND theory is applicable to infinitesimal systems with relatively large angular momenta suspended in an inductive state. (What is an inductively suspended angular momentum? That question is addressed in the rest of this Upaya- thought post and a direct definition of inductive suspension of spinning wheels is given in this link to my earlier Upaya from last year.)

The condition of an unclamped gyroscope in precession is analogous to Milgrom's boundary condition for MOND. The unclamped gyro in precession is able to possess an infinitesimal acceleration - something which a clamped gyro is denied. Under such conditions, we must use the compound object concepts I have proposed to analyze the behavior of the unit. This reveals that there is a way to resonate the energy transfer processes to navigate the gravitational field.

In order to properly analyze systems with angular momentum as the dominant player, we must first discover its suspension type to understand the behavior of the system. If the system has only capacitive suspension (the axis of the spinning object is secured firmly to an inertial frame containing the spinning object), then spin effects are minimal - if however the spinning object has some about of inductive suspension then the effects will be different and can be analyzed using the equivalent electrical loaded lines as an analogue.

For the rest of this Upaya-post and the next Upaya-post, I will focus on explaining how to construct an an equivalent electrical lines by first reviewing the development of lattice theory and analogies between electrical loaded lines and mechanical systems.

Background And Issues In Lattice Theory

Newton and Euler were among the original architects of a Lattice Theory of Space. In 1658 in the midst of a very unusually strong storm, Newton measured the velocity of the wind using his very own method involving performing long jumps with the wind on his back - comparing it to how much he could jump on his own power gave him the total force which when divided by the surface area of his body's cross section in the plane perpendicular to the wind velocity gives the pressure of the wind accurately.

Yet Newton also imagined that in the midst of all that turblulence, that air was in fact best modeled by imagining it as a continuous chains of point masses connected to their next nearest neighbors on either side (1-Dimensional model) by elastic springs. Newton adopted that model when he attempted to calculate the speed of sound. Newton assumed that sound was propagated in air in the same manner in which an elastic wave would be propagated along a lattice of point masses. He asssumed the simplest possible such lattice (as luck would have it, it was the only sort for which, he knew how to apply the newly invented calculus)- one where each point mass is connected to its neighbors on either side, along the line of propagation.

Taking the elastic force constanst to be e, the particles to be of mass m and the distance between the masses to be d, Newton calculated the

velocity of propagation, V to be d*sqrt(e/m) - sqrt(e*d/rho) where rho = density of air.

Newton then attempted to take the (e*d) term and substitute the isothermal bulk modulus of air in its place, possibly arguing that since the maximum displacement possible for the springs is d, the behavior of the arrangement resembles that of elastic material in Hookes Law of Elasticity (Hooke has just proposed his Law of Elasticity just 5 years earlier). History records that it was Laplace in 1822 who substituted the correct value i.e. the adiabatic elastic constant and first correctly computed the speed of sound.

Euler is credited with being one of the first to apply calculus to physics. He carried Newton's work forward with his theories. He constructed his own theory of light and its propagation by analogy with sound. Now, among several theoretical leaps to occur as a result of such an analogy, there was also an issue: The theoretical models implied longitudinal vibrations - obviously contrary to later findings that light and all Electro-Magnetic waves are transverse in nature, but it is nonetheless informative. This important problem tells us that the scientists who originally grappled with the problem of energy propagation intuited energy as transmitted through the perturbation of the lattice's elastic space. The matter points might be viewed as the nodes of a string instrument and the elastically bound fields then vibrate back and forth and the stretched string sets off waves along a line of points of matter connected to their two nearest neighbors by elastic springs.

Might I also remind the science historians, Eulerian theory of colour accounted for clolours by means of a specific resonance excitation;

Euler explains colours in the following way: the ray incident upon a surface or the matter of light hitting the surface, puts the smallest particles of this surface into vibration. The more elastic the particles, the quicker the vibrations proceed are so that the same ray produces a different number of vibrations per second. The number of vibrations per second determines the colour like that of a string determines the tone."

Euler is invoking here, the second law of vibrating strings which states that

Second Law :
When the length ( l ) and the linear density ( m ) are constant , the frequency of vibration ( n ) of a stretched string vibrating in one segment is proportional to the square root of the tension ( T ) in the wire .
i.e n ∝√(T)
or n/√(T) = constant

Euler was thus viewing the distance between each successive particle within the matter of the surface reflecting the light as having the same role as the length of a stretched string on a musical instrument and each set of two nearest neighbors have the same role as the two nodes of the string producing one single wave between them. In this fashion, Euler subscribed implicitly to a lattice theory for all energy generally.

Baden-Powell's treatment of Newton's model and its application to a cubic lattice represents the first successful mathematical analysis of a 1-D elastic wave. He computed the velocity of a wave propagating along one axis of the cubic lattice structure as a function of a which is defined as (1/applied wave length).

The figure below shows the distribution of the wave velocity against a, the inverse of the wavelength of elastic wave. As the figure shows one major factor is d, the distance of the point masses from one another in the lattice. Baden-Powell's equation for the propagation velocity V of the elastic wave is V = Vinfiniti * |sin pi()*d/lambda|/(pi()*d/lambda).

Take Baden-Powell's velocity formula above. Substituting v infiniti/nu = lambda, we get a constant velocity wave i.e. a wave that travels at a constant speed for example a light wave or a sound wave with a medium. All the other waves have a velocity dependent upon the wavelength implying that except for a completely monochromatic source, the wave would become diluted in space quickly due to the different distances covered by non-monochromatic waves, where as a completely monochromatic source is able to proceed as a soliton. It was Kelvin who gave a complete treatment of 1-D elastic waves. Kelvin assumed the same lattice as Newton and Baden-Powell and numbered it as shown in the following diagram.

By the time we go from Baden-Powell in 1841 to Kelvin in 1881, the lattice model has transformed from suffering longitudinal movements to transverse movement. This change was necessitated by experimental evidence of the transverse nature of most waves and which made it possible to include frequency but also in my opinion, brings about the Size Problem. The particles' transverse movement made it possible to sustain an analysis that held the lattice spatially stationary and of constant volume and shape during the wave propagation - a condition which fit the vast majority of wave interactions - while the longitudinal models fit only piezoelectric crystals.

The Size Problem: In Kelvin's models, significant numbers of point masses can rise upward and fall downward about their mean position. The question is how can the entire chain of masses be really continue to stay within their allocated maximum travel distance, d if you assume that a transverse movement takes away longitudinal length. Since each point mass's loss of longitudinal length will add to the rest, the entire chain must exhibit significant, measurable size changes between its vibrating and non-vibrating states. By the laws of probability, in a vibrating crystal or material of any kind with a large number of point masses, far more point masses are in non-equilibrium positions, as opposed to the equilibrium position of which there is only one, If a vast number of pointmasses are in nonequilibrium positions this implies that the crystal should visibly change size (the large the crystal, the greater the net change in the size of the crystal). Piezoelectric crystals for instance show measurable dimensional change. However a vast majority of interaction do not show such dimensional change.

The way we currently view Kelvin's lattice model (and all other newer models in modern lattice theory) is that we assume that the transverse movement of the point masses happens a seperate dimension whose gain will not be the longitudinal dimension's loss, and yet is somehow determined by d, the longitudinal wavelength.

Take this specific problem of how the model used by Kelvin so successfully later on to model all manner of waves, nonetheless throws up this issue: The original longitudinal model has been replaced by a transverse model because it works. However, there doesn't seem to be a reconciliation done of how it is possible that there is no size change in such a model along the longitudinal direction? What happened to it? Its not there, so its ignored. Its the dog that didn't bark.

One can reconcile the Size Problem of the transverse wave model by accepting that a large amount of inductively suspended spin angular momentum would serve as the fundamental unit of a SpaceTime lattice. Like a gyroscopic problem, the mechanism inside will then seem to have somehow orthogonalized the energy input and output channels, thereby allowing for transverse waves. The lattice model survives, but we no longer see the point masses as moving logitudinally because the gyroscopic effect of the Spin units causes the input and output channels to be orthogonal and therefore the absence of longitudinal reaction to the advance of a longitudinal wave is not a show stopper. Conventional physics doesn't really address these issues currently. It may be that the all interactions involving transverse waves are ultimately all mediated through gyroscopic exchanges of energy between nearest neighbhors possessing large quantities of inductively suspended spin angular momentum.

Much of what is in this post is derived from the work of Leon Brillouin's Wave Propagation in Periodic Structures. I am indebted to him for fantastically original works that make the inner workings of nature crystal clear to the student. Another minor source is the book "Discoverer's of Space" by Erich Lessing. *Also cited is a statement of the first law of vibrating strings from and Euler's opinions from Leonhard Euler: Beitraege zu Leben und Werk by Johann Jakob Burkhardt. Also cited is the wikipedia entry on Modified_Newtonian_dynamics .

Saturday, November 6, 2010


Some of you might be familiar with Eric Laithwaite's experiments. The following link reveals that Cambridge University's study project found that gyroscopes behave fully in accordance with Newtons Laws and that contrary to Laithwaite's claims, circular motion does not have some force all of its own.

The link has a series of demos of gyroscopes. It seems to me that they are well put together. However, lets talk Texan for a second - the simplest thing for a spinnin' gyro wheel to do when you remove the support on one end of it, is for it to swing down, with the wheel tumbling along the trajectory of its center of mass as per laws of conservation of momentum, treating the angular momentum of the wheel as something accesible only to the wheel and not susceptible to any net external motion happening to the frame holding the wheel. We see it happen for a non-rotating wheel under similar circumstances. Thats how it must fall if gravity is to be classified as something separate as a concept from spin. Thats what we intuitively expect but do not see.

In other words an object's spin ought to be its own business, but it isn't. To define an object's 'spin charge', it is sufficient to define the object as rotating along a circle about a center of rotation that coincides with the center of mass of the object. So if that is the case, then why does an external system have access to the energy trapped in the spin of the object?

The fact that nature finds it simpler to precess the wheel than to swing it down (like it would with a non-spinning object is a reminder that spin and gravity are intertwined concepts and answers that 'explain away' might perchance overlook a deftly hidden passage to a better flying machine for instance. Lets remember too that the breakthrough for Newton i.e. the law of gravitation came when he finally linked circular motion with Keplers 3rd law on the one hand and centripetal force on the other. Thus circular motion has been key to defining gravity's concepts right from the get go and there is merit in the hypothesis that gyroscopic arrangements containing large quantities of angular momentum have yet to yield all their secrets.

For instance, I have already recorded and observed the Kidd Effect in my experiments -a phenomena whereby spinning wheels in certain arrangements appeared to attract one another with a force proportional to (the product of ?) the angular momenta and rate of change of applied torque. I'm reporting authentic experimental evidence from my prototype. A better design to specifically help verify and measure the force is conceivable. I have some design ideas I could one day make. I will however detour through some interesting experimental results I have gotten.

Springing ahead, I will upload more videos of my experiments and the latest design details of the next generation prototype. At present I am making preliminary technical drawings for a radical new, re-designed relativistic machine. In the coming weeks I will upload video recordings of experiments showing the counterintuitive  behavior of the spinning wheels. These critical experiments brought new facts to my attention and led me to my conviction that I have finally uncovered the key to a viable flying machine and thus triggered the radical redesign I'm executing.

"Doubts, schmouts!"
"Full steam ahead then, Captain Danger!?", asked Buber.
"After you, Major Disaster" speedily came Gooboo's wary reply.

Monday, October 11, 2010

On and on and on!

At the end of the last experiment, I was puzzled. My analysis of experiments 3.10-3.13 didn't help me understand what was happening at the moments when the prototype seems to be 'bouncing' in parts of the videos.

Two more repititions of the exact same settings as the experiments 3.10-3.13, experiments 3.14 and 3.15 shown below didn't bring me any closer.

Nonetheless, encouraged by the positive results, I decided to attempt to amplify the effect by increasing the time period. Two experiments duly followed - one at a time period of 30 seconds(ref 0066). Thats the first experiment in the next video. The next experiment at 60 seconds had to be shut down when the cables became entangled with the carriage during the experiment. The second trial is the second experiment in the following video.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Experiment 3.1 (Trial 3)

My experiments are proceeding well. It has been a process of elimination in the chase to amplify any lifting/torquing movement to see if it might generate lift. But already, having investigatively eliminated several possibilities, I am finding that a gradual trend of increasing amplification of the effect is becoming manifest. I hope to upload the videos in short order.

I think it really helped to do the previously series of experiments with the wheel spins (when the machine is viewed with the carriage positioned such that the two wheels appear to be on either side of the central axis of the machine) oriented in the same direction (i.e, both pointing to the left or the right). I have an intuitive feel for the machine and that helps with the experimentation.

So far I have discovered several interesting, counter-intuitive facts through my experimentation.I do not think you will find them in any Physics text book. To summarize the effects I have discovered in my experimentation in simple words:

1. The wheels mounted as they are in the relativistic machine experience an inward force when there of combination of:

a) Their spin: they are spinning (according the convention outlined above) with the spin of the wheel on the left pointing toward the central axis of the machine (or pointing away from the central axis of the machine) and the wheel on the right pointing toward the central axis of the machine (or pointing away from the central axis of the machine).

b) The carriage is also spun: the carriage holding the wheels is itself spun, with a torque that is sinusoidal and in the clockwise direction if the wheel spins are pointing in the outward direction (and in the counterclockwise direction if the wheel spins are pointing in the inward direction).

The force experienced by the wheels depends upon and is directly proportional to the spin angular velocity of the flywheels, their moment of inertia and the max value/time period of the sinuisoidal torque imposed on the carriage.

I have named this the Kidd Effect and it can be seen in this video.

2. When the wheel spins are oriented (according to the convention above) such that they both point right or left and a torque is imposed on the carriage (either clockwise or counter clockwise) such that it is sinusoidal in time (i.e., its amplitude vs time graph is a sinusoid), the higher the max value of the sinusoidal torque imposed, the lower the amount of rotation you will obtain from the wheels (for a given time period of the sinuisoid).

That is, as I increased the rate of change of torque, the resistance of the carriage to movement increased correspondingly - even compared to a situation where we impose constant torque whose amplitude is equal to the maximum value of sinuisoidal the torque.

I have documented the 'rim riding' behavior of such an orientation in the last minute of the Inductive Effect video. Click here to see that.

I have substantial evidence for energy drain both from the spinning wheels and the motor driving the carriage, more than can be justified through more than friction.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Lattice Theory of SpaceTime

SpaceTime can be modeled as the progression of energy flow in an n-Dimensional lattice of angular momentum vector particles with interactions being allowed between all particles.


Quantization of energy is the principle mathematical point of attack in Quantum Physics where the rules of quantization clarify that energy is delivered in discrete units. This discretization of energy is not unlike the discretization that must also be applied to spacetime, in order for Einstein's Theory of Relativity to become reconciled with Quantum Theory in the long run. In this paper, I will argue that a Lattice Model is suitable for this purpose. The advantages of a lattice model are numerous. For one, a lattice model is defined on a lattice, as opposed to a continuum of spacetime and therefore automatically imposes a discrete model on it. For another, lattice models of energy propagation can be solved for exact solutions, making them very suitable for the construction of experimentally verifiable predictions. Thirdly, lattice models allow for the presence of solitons and other wave packets of energy and momentum that could be used to represent matter accurately. In addition, it bears noting that both Quantum Chromo Dynamics (QCD) and Quantum Field Theory have strong links to well defined lattice models.

I will take the stand that the good fit of lattice models generally in describing both mechanical and electromagnetic phenomena indicates a deep theoretical connection between mechanical and electromagnetic events. I will present rudimentary proof that the likely analogue of the spacetime metric as defined in Einstein's Theory of Relativity in such a model is a lattice with equally spaced particles of equal mass with interactions between ALL particles. The elements that make up the lattice are assumed to be spin angular momentum vectors- whether of electrons or the spinning wheels of the relativistic machine they are elements of such a lattice. An electrical line with the same propagation properties as a spacetime lattice will be presented.

The energy flow properties of such a lattice will be analyzed with the assistance of the equivalent electrical line. In such a model, it can be shown that an inductively suspended flywheel is the equivalent of an inductor and that it is possible to envision a new type of flying machine which operates as a resonant LC circuit. I will show that one can analyze the behavior of the relativistic machine by identifying its the equivalent electrical loaded line and building analogies between the observed electromagnetic and mechanical behaviors.

I will present mathematical support for the argument that unlike in classical analogies between electromagnetic and mechanical effects, in which electromagnetic energy is associated with kinetic energy and electrostatic energy is associated with potential energy, the appropriate analogy for the spacetime lattice involves associating (charge with angular momentum IE.) electrostatic energy with kinetic energy and electromagnetic energy with potential energyt. I will demonstrate that such a model is a fully viable alternative to the classical one. I will then present my final argument by analyzing the elements of the Lagrangian of the Lattice involved and use wave theory to describe energy propagation. To summarize, if we can account for all phenomena, from the Newtonian to the relativistic, by defining a discretized lattice appropriate for the problem concerned, in accordance with a fixed set of rules, then such a Lattice Theory is a powerful way forward for the unification of Quantum and Relativistic parameters. (To be continued.)

Experiment Update
I have introduced a new modification to the relativistic machine after studying data from the earlier experiments namely, hinges which allow an additional degree of freedom to the spinning wheels. With the completion of this modification the relativistic machine is set to be engaged in flight mode. Testing will begin in a week.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Regression Analysis of Experimental Results

The equations that best predict the # of revolutions travelled by the carriage for a given Tmax ( maximum value of the imposed harmonic torque) were generated by Regression Analysis of the experimental data (Thanks to my statistically significant other, otherwise known as the stats expert K.H.! Thank You!).

Based on this, the best fit lines were generated for each Tmax (1 A, 2 A, 4 A, 5A). The above graph was generated by plotting the best fit lines together and moving their Y intercept to Zero, in order to make the measurement of the relative angles between them easy to measure.

As you can see from the graphs, as the Tmax increased, the slope steadily went from positive to negative. This clearly highlights the fact that as the maximum torque increased, the number of revolutions came down.

Thus, it has been experimentally demonstrated with a very high degree of correlation that increasing the Tmax of the imposed harmonic torque decreases the number of actual revolutions of the carriage holding the spinning wheels.

The detailed results of the regression analysis are given below.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

What is a Schumann Resonance?

(The following material is taken from a really great little book I have titled "The Astronomy Cafe" 365 Questions and Answers From "Ask the Astronomer" by author Sten Odenwald. Thanks are given to the author for the information reproduced here.)

Believe it or not, Earth behaves like an enormous electric circuit. The atmosphere is actually a weak conductor, and if there were no sources of charge, its existing electric charge would diffuse away in about 10 minutes. There is a cavity defined by the surface of Earth and the inner edge of the ionosphere, 55 km up. At any moment, the total charge residing in this cavity is 500,000 coulombs. There is a vertical current flow between the ground and the ionosphere between 1 to 3 X 10 -12 amperes per square meter. The resistance of the atmosphere is 200 ohms. The voltage potential is 20,000 volts. There are about 1000 lightning storms at any given moment worldwide. Each produces 0.5 to 1 ampere, and these collectively account for the measured current flow in Earth's electromagnetic cavity.

The Schumann resonances were predicted to exist in 1952 and were first detected in 1954. They are resonant electromagnetic waves that exist in this cavity. Like waves on a spring, they are not present all the time but have to be excited to be observed. They are not caused by anything internal to Earth, its crust, or its core. They seem to be related to electrical activity in the atmosphere, particularly during times of intense lightning activity. They occur at several frequencies between 6 and 50 cycles per second, specifically, 7.8, 14, 20, 26, 33, and 45 hertz, with a daily variation of about +/- 0.5 hertz. As long as the properties of Earth's electromagnetic cavity remain about the same, these frequencies remain the same. Presumably there is some change due to the solar sunspot cycle as Earth's ionosphere changes in response to the 11-year cycle of solar activity. Schumann resonances are most easily seen between 20:00 and 22:00 universal time (UT).

Given that Earth's atmosphere carries a charge, a current, and a voltage, it is not surprising to find such electromagnetic waves. Much of the research in the past 20 years has been conducted by the Department of the Navy, which investigates extremely low frequency (ELF) communication with submarines. For more information, see Hans Volland, ed., Handbook of Atmospheric Electrodynamics (CRC Press, 1995). Chapter 11 is on Schumann resonances and was written by Davis Campbell of the Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska. There is also a history of this research and an extensive bibliography.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Latest Experimental Results

The latest results are added to the previous results to generate this graph. New information includes the following:

a) Results for harmonic torques of time periods 30 seconds - 38 seconds have been added for 1 Amp, 2 Amp and 4 Amp amplitude. These results continue the trend we've seen earlier, namely, a falling rate of revolutions (i.e. a falling average speed) with an increase in both the time period of the applied rate of change of torque and the maximum amplitude of the torque.

b) Results for harmonic torques for time periods 9 seconds - 16 seconds at a maximum torque amplitude of 5 Amp have been added. These results continue the same trend as mentioned above. Being of higher amplitude, these harmonic torques  result in the lowest number of revolutions yet  (for example, 3 revolutions in 8 seconds which translates to roughly 3.8 revolutions in 10 seconds - compare that to the case of a constant 1 Amp torque which nets us 8 revolutions in 10 seconds)!

Monday, February 22, 2010

New Information: Rate of Change of Torque is an important determinant of the behavior of the Angular Momentum of the Rel.Machine

A note regarding units: I've determined that the dynamic friction coefficient for the entire unit is less than 0.1 A. So you have to take that into account in translating the Amperes into a direct measure of the torque. Here's how it would work. If I applied 1 A, that really means I applied 0.9 units of torque.If I applied 4 A that really means I applied 3.9 units of torque. The ratio of the two torques would there be: 3.9/0.9 = 4.333.

Had you not adjusted the units, the ratio would have come out to be 4/1 = 4.

Thus we see that the torque generated by the 4 Amps is in fact 4.33 times larger than that generated by the 1 Amp, making the effect that much more stunning. Think about it! You applied 4.33 times more torque and you actually got an angular velocity that is LOWER than what you got for 1 unit of torque!

And anyone who thinks that its all well and fine and in agreement with current understanding, must explain the key find of my experiments. Namely, what is the reason in your view for the difference in the response of the flywheels' angular momentum to two situations that involved an identical amount of torque - one a constant torque and another a variable torque, and for one (the constant) we get 7.5-8 revolutions in 10 seconds and for the variable torque, we are getting somewhere around 5?

Not only that you can further see how in the case of the constant torque the whole rel.machine stayed relatively inert and didn't move about while for the variable torque case, the rel.machine executed a much more complex pattern of behavior - one that I emphasize includes lifting force. (Try this: Sit on the floor and try to execute the same motion that the rel.machine is executing without an upward lifting force sustaining your posture.) What is the reason for this difference in your view for this complexity of behavior?

Now the fact that the behavior of the rel.machine shows any difference at all between the two otherwise identical scenarios means that by the rules of logical argumentation, by virtue of experimental proof, the difference is assignable to the parameter that was varied: Namely, the Rate of Change of Torque.

The fact that rate of change of torque has an impact on the response of the angular momentum vector is actually a new find. If you disagree, please find me a detailed reference to it.

Now if you saw the video, you already know my theory. These findings are all confirming my theory that the inductively suspended flywheels show a variable reactance, much as a charged coil of wire would.The reactance is a variable quantity, being higher for higher rates of changes of current. This is strikingly similar to the behavior of the rel.machine - at 4.33 units of torque, the response in the applied plane was lower than the response at 1 unit of torque.

Monday, February 8, 2010

Response of The Rel.Machine to Harmonic Torque

The above graph represents the response of the rel.machine to harmonic torques of 1 Amp, 2 Amp and 4 Amp maxima (i.e. sinusoidal waves of torque whose highest value reached said amplitude) for a range of time periods of the harmonic torque. 

The graph indicates that the carriages actually spun around at the lowest velocity for the 4 Amp maxima i.e. by increasing the rate of change of torque (by increasing the numerator, the torque represented directly by the current level here), we have channeled away increasing amounts of energy from the plane of application.

Also, note how each of the three Tmax torque lines droop as they move to the right, thereby indicating that increasing the time period has increased the energy conversion (thereby leaving less energy in the carriage and therefore fewer rotations and thus a lower slope for the line). This indicates that further testing must continue to increase the time period beyond current levels.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Experiment 2.8: The Inductive Effect

Incontrovertible experimental proof is offered here that Faraday's Law of Induction is applicable to inductively suspended flywheels.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Experiments 2.6

Shed dwellers and others,

You can see the results of the jan 14-19 experiments here.
The latest experiments and the experiments of jan 12, 2010 are conducted with the spin orientation of the wheels being (->, ->).

As the specific experiment of jan-7-2010 was conducted in the (->, <-) configuration, no lift was expected and none received. The net angular momentum of that system was zero (the opposite directions cancel out). Thats why it manifests strictly 'internal' events. For instance, the Kidd Effect, where the wheels move inwards with considerable speed and agility. The Kidd Effect is a powerful indicator that the system is producing a real force - one that can be harnessed. Its the sign of a jabberwock in the cage. In order to make this internal force exert itself on the outside, I reversed the direction of spin of one of the wheels. This meant the net angular momentum is adding up. Given my theory about inductively suspended flywheels being analogous to electrical inductors, the situation of expt 2.5 where the wheels are oriented (->, ->) is like having a live inductor with current flowing through it. Therefore whatever other people call the movement (deflection, precession etc), they are all taking about an inductively realized voltage, as far as the theory is concerned, since a voltage (in our case an angular velocity) is the result of a variable current (in out case a variable torque). This inductively realized voltage is obviously following the input pattern of sinusoidal amplitude. This is to be expected.

Further, using the frequency as a kind of controlling measure, I am able to reduce it to determine the characteristics of the upward movement.

For instance, it tells me that
a) Just like output voltage is tied to input rate of change of current in an inductor, the amplitude of the upwards lift momentum generated is determined by the rate of change of torque of the vertical motor. Notice that for the 9 second experiment, I only applied 4 A max torque. But for the 4 second experiment, I was at 8 A max torque. Thus, by reducing the rate of change of torque, I have reduced the output lift momentum. (thus reducing the amount of torquing going on).

b) However, my analogy with inductos also tells me that the output force is tied to the input momentum. Therefore, unless I can get the spinning flywheels -via their carriages to also build up a singnificant angular momentum, I will not be able to generate FORCE in the vertical direction. I can do this by playing with - the FREQUENCY of the oscillation and the max torque. You see how when we went from 4 seconds to 9 seconds, we went from making half circles to 2+ circles for certain torques. (Similar increases occured at all torques applied). So you see that I can build input momentum -within limits since I dont want to tip the machine over. So the idea is to keep amplifying the input momentum until we arrive at a suitable output that consists no just of momentum, but also force - since only force can cancel out gravity and impel the device truly upwards (and not around a center, as a torque would).

Cross-check: Our theory is confirmed by the behavior of a gyro on an Eiffel Tower. There, the precessing gyro has neither any oomph (force) in its precession, nor any momentum downwards (because of gravity). The idea is that the two quantities are related - i.e., In a precessing gyro only as much force is available to apply upon an obstacle encountered in the precession orbit as there is availability of rate of change of momentum about the input torque axis. Since the gyro on the Eiffel Tower has no momentum towards the earth (gravity is cancelled out leaving the tower without any movement downards), therefore it has no force with which to resist obstacles it encounters in its path.

We are going to give the gyro a backbone by working with the harmonics to give it angular momentum about the input axis. This will give the OUTPUT precession velocity of the gyro an additional characteristic - that of ACCELERATION. i.e., force. Theoretically, this can be mathematized by treating the acceleration as being due to the torque arm of the deflecting torque getting longer and longer so that the torque happens about a point further and further out towards the horizon, so that effectively, the torque becomes manifest as a straight force upwards. i.e. a rotation is acheived about distant points near the horizon of the inertial frames involved, converting a torque into a pure force.

You can see already, for example that in going from 4 seconds to 9 seconds alone, it seems as if the point about which the rel.machine is swinging when it tips over, has moved outward. Watch Expt 2.5 part 1 carefully and note what points on the ground the machine appears to try to tip over. Its the points that are almost directly under the wheels. In fact, at 8 seconds ( expt 2.6 part 1), at the higher torques, the entire rel.machine is swinging about points on a circle that coincides almost exactly with the aluminum ring I have installed on the bottom of the machine. Watch that video carefully. That ring is at a considerably larger distance from the central axis of the machine than the wheels are. This is proof that we are on the right track. More to come soon.

Thursday, January 7, 2010

Experiment of Jan 7, 2010

Please note that there is one small omission from the main text at the beginning of the video - there are a total of 11 oscillations in each of the two experiments shown in the video.

2 oscillations at 1 Amp
3 oscillations at 4 Amp
3 oscillations at 6 Amp
3 oscillations at 8 Amp

Also, the wheel spins are orientated in a non-lift configuration and therefore no lifting effects are seen in the video. This is a strictly test experiment before the main experiments next week.


Blog Archive