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.

Sincerely

Ravi

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!