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