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.

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.

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!

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?

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