Sunday, December 16, 2012

Experiments 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4

There are three experiments presented here. The technical settings of the experiments are displayed at the beginning of the experiments, in the videos.

1) Experiment 10.2: We apply sinusoidal torque at 1 Ampere for a few cycles, and then 2 Amperes for most of the 'active' part of the experiment i.e. that part of the experiment where all three sets of motors are working - the wheels are spinning, the subassembly is spinning and the main motor is spinning the cage.

2) Experiment 10.3: We apply sinusoidal torque first at 3 Amperes, then at 4 Amperes and then at 5 Amperes and then finally at 6 Amperes.

3) Experiment 10.4: We apply sinusoidal torque at 1 Ampere and then for 2 Amperes, keeping the wheels at 0 RPM.

The important purpose of Experiment 10.4 is to demonstrate that the cage undergoes ever increasing, gradual increase in rotational speed, making the experiment unsafe after a certain point.

Remember, that is just at 2 Amps for a few seconds. We see that in Experiment 10.3, we are able to apply up to 6 Amperes (fully 300% more), and not run the danger of uncontrolled acceleration! The reason is, I believe, that spinning wheels have this inductive ability to store and manipulate a lot of energy. In fact, they must be able to do more than that.  The spinning wheels in the prototype set up are somehow able to expel energy from the cage (or armature). There might be a connection between this energy expulsion process and the 'pitching' or 'elementary flying action' that the machine frame experiences with increasing intensity as we increase the max. torque of the main motor.

Note also that the entire frame is increasingly 'dynamic' as we increase the max torque.

I am considering continuing the experiments with higher and higher torques in the next week. Note also that the machine continues to spin around for a few rounds even after the sinusoidal pulses cease. This seems to indicate that the machine is operating in a 'free' state, rather than a 'forced' once that ceases as soon as the input ceases.

Clarification regarding my previous post, Experiment 10.1 : During the last few seconds of Experiment 10.1, the prototype (The one with the red tape on its back, to be precise) suffered a partial power outage. So if you look at Experiment 10.1 closely, you will notice that one of the wheel sub-assemblies stops spinning.

This of course renders the 'usable' portion of experiment 10.1 very short (the part where all the three sets of motors are on, the wheel motors, the sub-assembly motors and the main motor.) however, with these new experiments, we have more exposure to that crucial combination of conditions.

Friday, November 23, 2012

Experiment 10.1: A Promising Test

Sequence of events:
At time index 6 seconds, we start the motors that power the wheels.
At time index 40 seconds, we start the motors that rotate the wheel sub-assemblies at a constant angular velocity ( 2 seconds per revolution).
At time index 1 min 8 seconds, we start the main motor that rotates the inner-cage at a small constant torque ( 1 A).

As you can see, the imposed activity is very simple, but the reaction of the machine is anything but!
Amazing start to this new series of experiments!


ఓం ! నమః శివాయ !

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Shed Work Update

Testing starts tomorrow!

The new prototype has had the following upgrades:

1. New, (x 10) higher torque motors for the second order rotation of the wheel sub-assembly.

2. Resized main frame

3. Resized couplings

4. Power source upgrades

5. New motor suspension sub-assemblies

6. New wiring & s-rings

Monday, November 5, 2012

Experiment 9

This experiment proves that the previous experiment (Expt 8B) was flawed and there does not seem to be any strong effect similar to induction. The second wheel oscillates even when the primary wheel isn't spinning. As long the primary wheel sub-assembly is being driven by its high-torque motor, that's sufficient to cause the secondary to react. This proves that the oscillation is only the gyroscopic reation to the rotational torque on the secondary wheel because of the changing weight distribution of the inner-cage holding both wheels and their motors.

Oh well! However I am still hopeful that I might be able to either do something useful with it anyhow, by using the gyroscopic effect of one wheel to turn the other or perhaps discover something by upping the torque of the motors driving the sub-assemblies and also engaging the main motor. Stay tuned!


Thursday, November 1, 2012

The Simpler Experiment 8 B

In this experiment we build on the Addendum to Experiment 8 A by using a motor instead of my hand to impart momentum to just one of the sub-assemblies. We picked (at random) one of the two wheels and only wired that sub-assembly to be driven by a high-torque motor. The experiment clearly demonstrates that like a secondary inductor coil, the second spinning wheel and its sub-assembly pick up energy from the primary sub-assembly. This process of energy pumping will now need to be augmented to enable the secondary to soak up much more energy in order to explore whether this phenomena can lead to a sudden Tesla-coil like discharge of energy to the ground and through such behavior, an equal and opposite inertial movement of the frame upward.

Monday, October 29, 2012

Experiment 8 Part B

In this experiment we tune the wheel-subassemblies to spin at roughly the rate at which they were precessing in Experiment 8.

(Please see the next post. This video has been deleted as the phenomenon is better illustrated by the next video depicting a modified version of this experiment performed Nov 1, 2012.)

mass : angular momentum :: electric charge : magnetic dipole

rotating magnetic field -> Faraday's Law

rotating angular momentum -> analogous Laws of Induction

Resonant coupled angular momenta have high-efficiency in transferring energy from primary to secondary relative to the distance of separation of the two axes.

For identical angular momenta and mass distributions, the two spinning wheels (their angular momenta) share a single resonant frequency. It is their natural frequency in that the energy transfer is maximized at this resonant frequency.

So here in this shed, we are prototyping a machine analogous to a Tesla coil and hope to resonate it so it will ring at its natural frequency and if strong enough will cause a spontaneous disruptive transfer of energy
 The disruption that allows this energy flow to happen will be gravitational in nature. The sudden flow of the mass (the Rel. Machine)  will be due to a break down of the gravitational field in the vicinity of the mass.

Friday, September 28, 2012

Addendum to Exp 8A

If you thought that the reason only one of the wheels comes up in the previous experiment is that there is friction on one side, this addendum is for you: Gyro -> Mechanical Inductor

Qualitative Information: In the experiment, I felt greater resistance when I tried to increase the torque I applied, to turn the wheel sub-assembly horizontal.

This is equivalent to an inductor's behavior - an electrical inductor's voltage response depends on the rate of change of current. I theorized in my blog post ( that the rate of change of current is the equivalent of rate of change of torque. The behavior is consistent with that theory.

(Reference paying special attention to the concept of mutual inductance in the section titled 'coupled inductors')

The analysis of the experiment Addendum to Expt:8A  proceeds as follows:

The two mechanical inductors in the circuit of the RelMachine have a strong coupling and therefore a very high mutual inductance, M. In fact this mutual inductance is almost equal to the inductance of a single wheel, L. So when one wheel is rotated, the mutual inductance causes a rotation of the other. That's why the second wheel moves when the first is rotated.

Interestingly, L(Total)  of the two inductors in the RelMachine = ( L + M(assuming strong coupling, M approaches L))/2 ~ L
i.e. L(Total) ~ L
So the machine only displays half the inductance it contains. Therefore only one wheel is supported in the first part of Experiment 8A.

The situation in the RelMachine at the moment resembles a transformer circuit with a conversion ratio of 1:1. Tuning both sides of this transformer circuit will change the circuit to a band-pass filter of sorts and help refine the RelMachine's frequency-response curve to a sharp high, i.e. allow for resonance when driven by the right power source. The Tesla coil for instance works because of resonance in an  electrical circuit with double inductors, coupled like a transformer.

Monday, August 6, 2012

Experiment 8 Part A


P.H. has already shipped parts for part A of the experiment. Accordingly, I have switched the orientation of the suspension of the wheels w.r.t. the main motor. If you're not sure what's changed, carefully look at the machine in experiment 7.2 and then see this video again and you might notice that the wheels are suspended at 90 degrees to their orientation in experiment 7.2.

The same torques and speeds as in experiment 7.2  are applied again here to two orientations of the machine. Here are the key points from the experiment:

1. During the earlier part of the video above, with the orientation of the main motor vertical, within the first few seconds of starting the wheels up, note that the inner cage starts rotating. This can only be due to the spinning wheels as we are not applying any torque through the main motor at this point - only the wheel motors are spinning.

2. Then, even before there is any torque from the main motor, we notice that one of the wheels works against gravity to turn 90 degrees to the other wheel! This is something I have noticed in other experiments before but this makes it clearer than ever that there is something powerful at work here.

Remember that in Chemistry they teach you that two electrons revolving around an atomic nucleus in the S-orbital for instance cannot share the same spin. In a similar way, the two wheels have the same magnitude and orientation and therefore cannot share the same plane of rotation. One of them HAS to revolve away, even at the expense of working against gravity!

3. Once the main motor starts exerting torque, the inner cage resists the torque and all the torque applied by the large main motor is transferred to the wheels to orient them with their 'tails' (the black motors driving the wheels) pointing towards the main motor. Only after that does the machine allow the torque applied via the main motor to be directed to rotating the inner cage.

NONE of these behaviors are known or analyzed in any existing gyroscope literature. Further this behavior is also similar to our previous experiment 7.2 where I hand-rotated the inner cage. Therefore its nothing one-off - this is the way things work. And so far its all in line with our theory.

We will now proceed to install additional parts to perform part B.

ఓం! భూర్భువ  సువః
తత్ సవితుర్ వరేణ్యం
భర్గో దేవస్య దిమహి
ధియో యొన ప్రచోదయాత్!

Thursday, July 5, 2012

P.H. Takes Over

-Final Drawings handed off
-Material has been procured

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Theorizing Based On The Analysis of the Experiments

Our last experiment Expt 7.2 is in someways the opposite of what we are seeking - which can easily be remedied in the next steps.

The important details of how it is the opposite lie in the where and whats: In experiment 7.2, I am applying a force on the outer frame, as if I am an external frame inertial wrt the outer frame of the machine. (This is the condition that allows the applied force to be directed to the motion of the entire frame in accordance with the Three Laws (of Newton).) However, if the wheels are pointed in the direction opposite to the machine's preference for that direction of applied torque, then the applied force is resisted strongly by the spinning wheel's axis and its energy is aborbed into simply changing the orientation of the spinning wheel's angular momentum vector i.e. we apply force on the outer frame but end up pushing the spinning wheel.

What we seek is the opposite -  We want to push the spinning wheel and end up with a force on the outer frame.

How do we set about engineering a reverse effect? Well, how about doing the opposite of what we were doing? IN experiment 7.2, I am pushing the outer frame.  The opposite would be to twist the spinning wheels instead. We know from experiment 7.1 where we implement that solution that there are no net forces on the outerframe. This 1st order solution to the reverse configuration problem is therefore velocity-limited.

A 2nd order solution involves twisting the spinning wheels while the suspension of the wheels and their motors and frames is itself being twisted. The reason this is a valid duplicate solution is that spinning wheels like electrical machines work according to Generalized Machine Theory, i.e. even as a torque-precession pair (torque about X and precession manifest about Y) exists, so can also a torque-precession pair (torque about Y and precession manifest about X). What happens along one set of axes is independent of what happens along the other set.

Thus there is reason to think that when the 2nd order solution is implemented, the extra suspensions & forces introduced  will cause induced precession in the original torque's plane. This is a situation completely different from the static first case.

We all know that torque can exist without motion. It is a stored torque. Like in a twisted spring in a wind-up watch before it start ticking. In the 1st order solution too, the torque exists but it exists without accompanying motion in the plane of the torque, and the energy remains in a stored form.

The second order solution is introducing a velocity into that situation. We all know that dynamically speaking, a torque with both force and velocity  is an entity that is actively moving (and I mean accelerating) an external mass. That certainly is how Newton would see it. And maybe he's right. Maybe it means that the induced velocity will combine with the pre-existing torque's force component to create a conservation principle stipulated movement- since the wheel's energy is already completely determined in the X (the original torque), Y (The Second Torque) and Z (the spin of the wheel is in this dimension) in the space dimensions, the external frame must be what becomes effected by the situation. In order to satisfy the Law of Conservation of Momentum, maybe the external frame flies or is repelled or something, even while the wheels continue to precess strongly in a plane perpendicular to the flight of the outer frame.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Just Playing Around, You Never Know What You Might Find

So these are experiments done with the prototype in a new orientation. I fitted lazy susan bearings on the bottom so that the entire superstructure can rotate freely in keeping with my new idea that there must be full and free precession in order to allow the machine to do its thing, whatever that is.


Experiments 7.1 show that the machine is resisting only initially, when the torque is applied. (I tried it with the torque in one direction and then with the torque reversed and the results are the same). After the initial resistance, it seems the whole arrangement stops resisting and behaves as if the wheels were not spinning at all, with the entire inner cage holding the wheels and their motors speeding up really fast, with the motors flung out in the maximum moment of inertia configuration.


I'm separating the series into experiments 7.1 and 7.2 because I believe 7.2 stands in its own right as a piece of good experimental work. I found by sheer accident that I could understand the behavior of the machine in experiments 7.1 when I did experiment 7.2. It was really not planned that way though. I simply spun up the wheels and tried to position the prototype before putting an automated torque via the large motor, but I noticed the unusual behavior of the prototype.

I started to play around with it this way and found something interesting. Although there is hardly any bearing resistance to motion in either the clockwise or counterclockwise rotation of the superstructure, it seemed at first that there was resistance to rotation of the superstructure in one direction but not in the other.

1. The wheels have a preferential direction depending on the torque applied. Clockwise torques (as seen from the camera) made the wheels want to point their motors up in the air and counterclockwise torques made the wheels want to point their motors directly towards the bottom.

2. The resistance is only if the wheels were not pointed in that preferred direction already. So for instance, if we are turning the assembly clockwise but the wheels are pointing their motors down, then the applied torque (in the horizontal plane to the outer frame) is resisted and the energy transduced into (the vertical plane in the inner cage) turning the wheels so that the motors point up. Similary, if counterclockwise torque is applied but the wheels are pointing up, then the applied torque (in the horizontal plane on the outer frame)  is resisted and the energy transduced into (in the vertical plane in the inner cage) turning the wheels so that the motors point down.

It occurs to me that this is a magnificent way to tell if the applied torque on a superstructure is clockwise or counterclockwise. That is an application in which we just need to observe the movement of an arrangement analogous to the prototype and record its behavior and the direction of the applied torque can be inferred from it! Hurrah! An application! Maybe someday it will be commonplace to use such an arrangement. Although I must admit I have a tough time thinking of where such a sensor would be necessary. Time will tell I suppose. Although I suspect you could do this with just one gyro too. Possibly its been done already... :)

Perhaps in a spaceship, such a sensor would be useful to deduce the direction of torque upon the spaceship due to any residual rotational forces either onboard the ship or due to external fields. Further, a strong pair of gyros can also soak up or sponge that residual energy up and stabilize the ship by doing what the machine is doing in experiments 7.2. It strongly resisted my applied force and used it to change the direction of the wheels rather than allow the prototype to rotate in the direction of my applied torque. Yay!  Another potential application! Maybe this one has not been done yet!

Experiment 6.2

OK, so this experiment is the same the Experiment 6.1 (part 1), except that the two blue wheels are now at 4600 rpm instead of at 3500 rpm. As is obvious from the video, increasing the speed of the wheels allowed them to return to their behavior as observed in experiment 4.60


OK, so time to confess: After this experiment, I tried many different approaches such as raising the torque, using intermittent torque, sinusoidal torque, positively offset torque, negatively offset torque, you name it however I didn't receive any more strikingly report-worthy change in the behavior of the prototype. Based on some intense thought, I decided to return to the roots of my research in order to try to renew my approach.

I observed one of Eric Laithwaite's old experiments, the one with the large gyro that wouldn't topple. Here is the link to a page with several of his experiments. The video I refer to is the video # 7 on that page.

After much thought I decided that I had based my approach on a faulty assumption: the assumption that it is possible to obtain amplified output in the precessive plane. There is the input plane, where we put force into the system - in my experiments, its always the horizontal plane i.e. I apply forces using the top motor, so that the two wheels get rotated in the horizontal plane. Then, I receive precessive movement in the vertical plane, i.e., the wheels move the frame about some corner of the base, in the vertical direction. Observe, however the experiment in video # 7 in the link above. Laithwaite received output NOT in the plane where of precession (in his experiment, the plane of precession is horizontal -i.e. the wheel rotates about the central axis in the horizontal plane) but rather in the plane of input of torque - i.e. the input to this experiment comes from gravity's pull downward and the gravity defiance of the gyro happens in the vertical plane, the same as that of the applied torque.

Therefore I decided that I need to change my approach and start orienting the prototype's wheels in a different way. I have accordingly started experimenting with the novel orientation. I will start posting videos of my experiments of this new approach next.

Friday, March 9, 2012

Experiment 6.1 with Three Gyroscopic Wheels

So after several months spent coordinating with my team, I finally managed to run new experiments, this time with a lovely large wheel installed on top, electronics and all.

And this time I found my conviction confirmed! The prototype behaved completed differently from experiment 5.1 thereby vindicating my theory. I was flying blind for 6 months, not sure if perhaps the behavior of the model with the small wheel would be 'it'. So it was a relief to see its behavior fall in line with my theory at last.


Having performed experiment 6.1 I analyzed the video and realized that I could make the model change its behavior yet again by changing one small aspect of the prototype. Can you guess what that is? I will post video of the change and its consequence next.

Think about what this all means too. Why did the behavior of the bottom wheels change when we introduced a large wheel on top? And is it possible to make this prototype fly? The answers are right in front of us!!!

Experiment 5.1 with Three Gyroscopic Wheels

Before I reveal the results of my latest experiments, let me set the record straight by releasing the videos of experiments I did after experiment 4.60, back in September 2011.


So having seen that the results of these experiments were similar to those of experiment 4.60, I thought long and hard. I decided that even though the prototype had not altered its behavior significantly, my proposition that an extra third wheel would alter its behavior was correct and that the third wheel didn't have a sufficiently high angular momentum.

Based on that conviction, I started the process of having a new bigger wheel made. The new wheel would have to be bigger than the small wheel so that any effects I was seeking would  be manifest clearly by it. The new wheel has 2.5 times the radius of the old wheel, weighs twice the old wheel and has a net Moment of Inertia 12 times that of the old wheel!!!

So now we are up to date and ready for the videos of the new experiments!

Saturday, March 3, 2012

New Experiments With Model 6 Have Begun

1) My apologies for the delays. The main reason for the delays is: yup! Funding!  If I could work only on this project for 6 months, I will have it wrapped up. However, until I have more funding, it will drag on for a bit. I am looking to raise funds and I am willing to negotiate a fair contract, so if there are angel investors out there, contact me because this project is a winner.

2) This next modification wouldn't have been possible without the generous contribution of P.H. (Danke vielmals, Peter! Ohne deine hilfe ist das neue Model unbedingt unmoeglich!)  who took charge of the machining aspects of it in spite of the various frustrations that cropped up!

Also thanks are due to M.B. for helping me procure some electronics (Thank you Mike)!

And how could I forget to thank Damu, my dear friend! దాము, నీ వంటి స్నేహితుడు దొరకటం నా పూర్వ జన్మ సుకృతం! నీకు మళ్లీ, మళ్లీ ధన్యవాదాలు చెప్పాలి!

Last but not least thanks to B.L. for helping me with the cables! Thank you so much for your encouragement and great technical mind even more, Bob!

Here's the photo of the new modified machine! The essential difference is the large flywheel now installed on the top of the model! The first experiments have already yielded results that baffle me yet again! This machine never ceases to surprise me!

OK, so here's a test for you: If I repeated the experiments of Experiment 4.60, with this modification (remember that new flywheel on top is the only change), what do you think the results will be?

Friday, January 20, 2012

Rock On, Eric!

ఓం! అసతోమ సత గమయ!
తమసోమ జ్యోతిర్ గమయ!
మ్రిత్యోర్మ అమ్రితం గమయ!
ఓం శాంతి శాంతి శాంతిహి!

Om! May God lead us from the untruth to the truth! 
From darkness to light! 
From death to immortality! 
Peace, peace, peace be unto all!

(re: Eric Laithwaite's inspiring paper titled "Roll Isaac, Roll!" available for download here)

Dear Eric,

You know that since about 2004 when I read about your experiments and theories, I have been fascinated by the idea of gyroscopes and electrical machines as manifestations of a single underlying process. I have spent innumerable hours building models and gaining firsthand knowledge of the behavior of gyroscopes. I feel however, that I have to send this letter out into the ether as I have some doubts about your theory.

Now, I have studied your paper "Roll Isaac, Roll" and several others in great detail - and given a go at Generalised Machine Theory as laid out by Gabriel Kron- and I believe I have discovered where you might have erred. We all err and I have, I know, erred too often to even blame it on others. Yet the variety of your error might be theoretical and therefore amenable to correction.

I believe your words in your brilliant paper 'Roll Isaac, Roll' were "Now it so happens that a gyro is like an electrical machine. What happens in onepair of axes has no effect on what goes on in the other-Generalised Machine Theory, no less. So at the same time as equation (2) exists, so can equation (3)".

Now I believe you went off-track precisely at this point. You assume the gyro is fully 3-Dimensional like electrical machines, whereas the truth is that it is not. It is only a 2-Dimensional machine. The Hubble Telescope for instance, needs 2 orthogonal gyros in order to determine its 3-Dimensional position and to quote you yourself Eric, "... the magic is not apparant until it is, shall we say, truly 3-dimensional." If the gyro were a truly 3-Dimensional machine, we wouldn't have needed a second gyro to be able to sense its relative orientation.

Therefore, your subsequent derivation in the paper applies not to the case of a single gyro being simultaneously affected about its X and Y axes (as you think), but rather to a set-up that has 2 gyros suspended in gimbals orthogonal to each other in a single rigid frame. The case of a single gyro under simultaneous torque about its X and Y axes is simply a case of 2-Dimensional symmetry, with the gyro responding to the gravitation torque by precessing about the Y axis and also precesing about the X axis. It proves only the invariance of the machine (the skew symmetry of its operational matrix).

Further, two 2-Dimensional planes can still only locate the relative angle of an object to itself during self-rotation. We would need to add yet another, third gyro to add a third 2-Dimensional plane in order to create a truly 3-Dimensional independent reference frame that is capable to executing and sensing true 3-Dimensional movement.

This idea seems to me, to explain why your many brave attempts to create a true transportation machine were confounded. It took me 8 years of experimentation and much blood, sweat and tears to get this far. I am hoping that I got this one right, because frankly I dont have a lot more to give, not without some glimmer of success and by that I mean a viable transporter that succeeds in moving under its own steam.

Theoretically and practically, I feel that the 3-Dimensional model is the most sophisticated the machine can be, without becoming redundant and overcomplicated.

So wherever you are, I would like to thank you for the inspiration and ask for any corrections before its too late for me!

Perhaps I am crazy, but hopefully this is not a dead-end.



Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Coffee Notes

Take up one idea. Make that one idea your life - think of it, dream of it, live on that idea. Let the brain, muscles, nerves, every part of your body, be full of that idea, and just leave every other idea alone. This is the way to success.
-Swami Vivekananda

My experiments 4.60 are a series of 3 expts which ride on a theory - the flywheels know and do the most economical thing possible. A sort of Accam's Razor proposition. It also confers a certain self-preservative instinct to the machine.

That is
1)When the rpm = 0, they take up the highest moment of inertia position (i.e. least movement). Remember that in this case, I had to actually turn OFF the experiment with in 20 seconds because the set up was indefinitely accelerating and reaching its mechanical limits. A constant torque (greater than stalling torque) would theoretically result in infinite velocity of rotation unless there was a way to get rid of the energy and once the device is in the maximum moment of inertia position (i.e. fully unfolded with the black motors pointed outward) there is no way to counter the slow increase in velocity. Now this is the only experiment for which I needed to do that. The next 2 experiments were performed at the same torque, but they didn't need to be turned off i.e. they found a way to expend energy. At no time was the device in danger of uncontrollably speeding up in experiments 2 and 3 below.

2)When the rpm = 3500, spins pointing in the same direction, they go tangential because they cancel their spins and cause least amount of frame lifting - but still enough to not need to be turned off - i.e. they are able to expend the incoming energy and preserve their state from becoming out of control -as expt 1 @ 0 rpm did.

3)When the rpm = 3500 and the spins set up to cancel, we think that the gyros have an option that they actually dont seem to have.

We think the easiest thing for them to do is nothing - i.e. essentially become a repeat of the 1st experiment. Afteral, the inner cage is but a black box to the outer cage and if it has plus spin and minus spin of equal amounts, as far as the outside is concerned there might be no spin but they show again, a self-preservation instinct to prevent speeding up of the entire cage, but this time with behavior that is different from expt 2. The f/ws now take turns coming in. This process of coming in, aligns their spins and causes a lifting of the frame  - thereby expending energy that would otherwise cause a speeding up of the cage. They do this by sharing the duty of coming in and out. And they do this just enough to keep the mechanism from falling apart.

What to make of this behavior? It would seem that experiment 3 is a particular illustration of the coriolis force. Its physical manifestation in my experiment however certainly neither intuitively expected nor easily recognizable.

For one thing, the option that we think it has, it doesn't have. It isn't able to just pretend the spins dont exist.  Why?

It might be that what ever other options were available must all involve *more* motion. That is why it chose this option. Because it is the most economical option.

What options involve even more energy expense than frame lifting? um.. frame flying come to mind.

And why are its options what they are? because this is the property of spin. All spin. Which means potentially all movement and force in nature can be explainable, using electron spin as the basis, by lattice style modeling of mechanical structures with the lattice points containing small gyros (representing the nucleus and outer electrons). These spinning units would be converting the incoming forces into motion by invoking mechanisms similar to those in this machine for instance.

So now force and motion are described as wave propagation in lattices rather than simple Newtonian laws. This simpler way of describing force and motion will allow the building of machines which can be 'excited' into motion.

Which is what we would seem to be on the threshold of with this prototype.

When speaking of packets of waves, for example we have the concept of group velocity. When the group velocity of the waves is the same as the velocities of the each of the waves in the packet, then the group shape is preserved in wave propagation. That means such a mechanism might be used to model a wave of force for example which results in the movement of a macro-sized component say, you kick a ball and the ball moves. Yet wave theory tells us that waves also move so that the group velocity is slower than the individual velocity. This can be used to model scenarios for instance where a force results in some outcome than motion, say you kick a wall and hurt your toe.

Thus, wave theory can certainly be used to accurately model the many different ways in which nature manifests force and motion lending credence to the notion that perhaps we really are on to something here!


Blog Archive