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 22, 2010

## Sunday, February 21, 2010

## 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.

Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)