## 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.

Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)

## No comments :

## Post a Comment