Sunday, July 17, 2011
Experiment 4.8:
These results confirm the trend of the previous experiments, as do other experiments I have conducted that are not posted on the blog. The bottom line is this: Once the transient factors vanish, the system displays symmetry in its counter clockwise (CCW) and clockwise (CW) rotations.
The interesting thing about the data, however is the consistently lower number of rotations we obtain for the case where the wheels are spinning(~3) than for the case where the wheels are NOT spinning(4.5).
Monday, July 11, 2011
Experiment 4.4
These two experiments (4.3/4.4) show us that there is a small amount of transient torque in the system that dissipates over 40-50 seconds. The last cycles of torque produce roughly the same amount of rotation in both directions.
Something else that is also interesting and not yet fully explainable is that the same amount of torque produces less rotation of the system if the wheels are spinning, than if they are not. As can be seen from experiment 4.4's data, when the wheels were not spinning, an application of the sinusoidal torque caused 4.3-4.7 revolutions and with the wheels spinning, an application of the same sinusoidal torque caused only 2.6-3.2 revolutions.This parallels what the Inductive Effect experiments I conducted in Jan 2010 revealed.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Friday, July 1, 2011
Tensor Model of Impedances
So what's so special about a flywheel suspended inductively? The key is that if infact gyroscopes show inductive behavior that has certain implications in tensor mathematics. This mathematics might be used to understand how the machine may achieve flight analogous to how certain electrical circuits resonate EM waves at certain frequencies or transform voltages and currents up and down etc. In other words tensor mathematics can be used to analyze the machine even as we are still building it and help us in better designing it.
We must assess the nature of impedance (inductance and capacitance are the two kinds of impedance found in nature) in a mathematical way in relation to other physical entities. Tensors offer a way of understanding impedances that sets them naturally apart from other electrical parameters. As we move forward, I have quoted so extensively from Kron in his book Tensors For Circuits that I have found it expedient to italicize his words to keep my train of thought comprehensible to myself.
Wherever in this entry there is reference to voltage, the reader should be aware that it represents also velocity in the analysis of purely mechanical or electro-mechanical systems and current to angular acceleration. See my entry on the analogy between mechanical and electrical behavioral parameters.
Further, as my entry on Grabriel Kron makes it clear, he himself saw all his analysis as being fully applicable to mechanical machines, indeed all and any machine. Thus, although we are flying through Kron's tensor model of electrical rotating machinery, we are also able to trace in the same model, information regarding our own machine. The flywheels suspended the way they are in the new prototype are the live inductors with a pulsating torque going through them at a certain frequency and the rest of the machine that is spinning under the influence of the Y-axis torque is the capacitor being charged up and their combined impedance is related to the velocity and the acceleration of the overal system as velocity = Z*acceleration (analogously to voltage, e = Z*i in the electrical scenario), where the impedance is a term with time units in the mechanical scenario. A single closed network in the electrical model can be envisioned as the mechanically invariant closed system of components capable of expending energy through torque or other methods in a different kind of machine.
Impedances are mathematically reprensentable as tensors of valence 2. The tensor of valence 2 is a collection of 2-way matrices describing a physical entity. A tensor of valence 1 like voltage e or of current i is called a vector.
Impedances thus form their own class of devices of valence 2 whose tensor laws of transformation require two transformation matrices C1 and C2.
Energy is a tensor of valence 0, i.e. a scalar. A vector of valence 1 is a vector such as a voltage or current and they require only one transformation matrix C, power or energy requires no C's. Because of this "chemical" property of a tensor of attracting a different number of C's the expression "tensor of valence n" originated.
Impedances, being of valence 2, would have transformation tensors with 2 C's, C= C1*C2.
Now, if the variables describing a specific impedance have been changed from i to i' by C1, then from i' to i" by C2 , then again from i" to i"' by C3., the successive transformations may be performed in one step with the aid of one transformation tensor C= C1. C2.C3... This important property of C is called a "group property". (Kron, Tensors for circuits, "WHy tensors")
With the help of a group transformation tensor C, one may model an inductor's behavior as follows.
The fact that power, P is a valence 0 tensor means that it does not undergo transformation and doesn't need a C to transform it from the reference frame of one machine to another. Kron uses this property of tensors to first extract information about the behavior of voltage in such a system.
The law of transformation of the voltage vector may be found from the physical fact that in going from one reference frame to another the instantaneous power input e*i (a linear form) remains unchanged or "invariant". That is P= P' or e*i = e'*i'. This relation is the physical link that connects all networks together (for any given machine)
Now let the current change from i to i' by i = C*i'
Substituting, e*C*i' = e'*i'
Cancelling i' e*C = e'
Hence e' = Ct*e
and e = Ct(inverse)*e'
It should be noted that though both e and i are vectors, they are transformed to a new reference frame in a different manner. But both being tensors for valence 1, they require C once only.
Kron then follows this up with a brilliant analysis of the impedance tensor itself.
Tensor analysis requires that if the equation of a system in one reference frame is e= Z*i, it should have the same form in every other frame. This property will give the law of transformation of Z. In the old reference frame let e = Z*i
Express i and e along the new reference frame. That is, replace i by C*i' and e by Ct(inverse)*e'.
Ct(inverse)*e' = Z*C*i'
Multiplying both sides by Ct
e' = Ct*Z*C*i'
If the following definition is introduced as the law of transformation of Z
Ct*Z*C= Z'
then the equation in the new reference frame becomes e' = Z'*i'
The equation of the new system is of the same form s that of the old system...
In summary, Kron proved that, if there is at all an impedance in the system, then an analysis of the system at any and all levels must involve an analysis of the impedance, with the invariant form of the law of impedance, e = Z*i (where e is voltage or velocity depending on the machine and similarly, i is current or angular acceleration depending on the machine).
We can see darkly from this statement, for example the answer to the questions: Why could this prototype fly? or Why does a gyroscope precess?
The answer, Kron's discoveries seem to say, is that tensor theory mandates that e = z*i is a permanent invariant law in any system involving an inductor or a capacitor (sources of impedance). So then we may further propose that
a) the purely capacitive impedance condition is addressed in traditional newtonian rotational dynamics,
b) the purely inductive impedance condition is met by gyroscopes. (This was something Eric Laithwaite partly recognized when he stated that the gyroscopes are like inductors. He also said that gyroscopes do not do any work. They rotate without being able to accomplish any energy transfer on a meaning level. It is clearer now that, that is because the system is purely inductive without any significant capacitance. The gyro rotates in a set of gimbals that isolate the flywheel's spin so that there are no levers connecting it to the external frame.)
c) the LC resonance condition is what is being targeted in the new prototype's tests.
Kron also gives certain guidelines for machine analysis. For example when coils, beams, wheels etc are connected into an engineering structure, the constrained reference axes are ignored.
Using his methods and his modeling techniques, I will attempt an analysis of the prototype in the next few entries. One of Kron's models is a good starting point for that analysis and is given below.
Experiment Update: Repairs complete. Testing begins tomorrow.
We must assess the nature of impedance (inductance and capacitance are the two kinds of impedance found in nature) in a mathematical way in relation to other physical entities. Tensors offer a way of understanding impedances that sets them naturally apart from other electrical parameters. As we move forward, I have quoted so extensively from Kron in his book Tensors For Circuits that I have found it expedient to italicize his words to keep my train of thought comprehensible to myself.
Wherever in this entry there is reference to voltage, the reader should be aware that it represents also velocity in the analysis of purely mechanical or electro-mechanical systems and current to angular acceleration. See my entry on the analogy between mechanical and electrical behavioral parameters.
Further, as my entry on Grabriel Kron makes it clear, he himself saw all his analysis as being fully applicable to mechanical machines, indeed all and any machine. Thus, although we are flying through Kron's tensor model of electrical rotating machinery, we are also able to trace in the same model, information regarding our own machine. The flywheels suspended the way they are in the new prototype are the live inductors with a pulsating torque going through them at a certain frequency and the rest of the machine that is spinning under the influence of the Y-axis torque is the capacitor being charged up and their combined impedance is related to the velocity and the acceleration of the overal system as velocity = Z*acceleration (analogously to voltage, e = Z*i in the electrical scenario), where the impedance is a term with time units in the mechanical scenario. A single closed network in the electrical model can be envisioned as the mechanically invariant closed system of components capable of expending energy through torque or other methods in a different kind of machine.
Impedances are mathematically reprensentable as tensors of valence 2. The tensor of valence 2 is a collection of 2-way matrices describing a physical entity. A tensor of valence 1 like voltage e or of current i is called a vector.
Impedances thus form their own class of devices of valence 2 whose tensor laws of transformation require two transformation matrices C1 and C2.
Energy is a tensor of valence 0, i.e. a scalar. A vector of valence 1 is a vector such as a voltage or current and they require only one transformation matrix C, power or energy requires no C's. Because of this "chemical" property of a tensor of attracting a different number of C's the expression "tensor of valence n" originated.
Impedances, being of valence 2, would have transformation tensors with 2 C's, C= C1*C2.
Now, if the variables describing a specific impedance have been changed from i to i' by C1, then from i' to i" by C2 , then again from i" to i"' by C3., the successive transformations may be performed in one step with the aid of one transformation tensor C= C1. C2.C3... This important property of C is called a "group property". (Kron, Tensors for circuits, "WHy tensors")
With the help of a group transformation tensor C, one may model an inductor's behavior as follows.
The fact that power, P is a valence 0 tensor means that it does not undergo transformation and doesn't need a C to transform it from the reference frame of one machine to another. Kron uses this property of tensors to first extract information about the behavior of voltage in such a system.
The law of transformation of the voltage vector may be found from the physical fact that in going from one reference frame to another the instantaneous power input e*i (a linear form) remains unchanged or "invariant". That is P= P' or e*i = e'*i'. This relation is the physical link that connects all networks together (for any given machine)
Now let the current change from i to i' by i = C*i'
Substituting, e*C*i' = e'*i'
Cancelling i' e*C = e'
Hence e' = Ct*e
and e = Ct(inverse)*e'
It should be noted that though both e and i are vectors, they are transformed to a new reference frame in a different manner. But both being tensors for valence 1, they require C once only.
Kron then follows this up with a brilliant analysis of the impedance tensor itself.
Tensor analysis requires that if the equation of a system in one reference frame is e= Z*i, it should have the same form in every other frame. This property will give the law of transformation of Z. In the old reference frame let e = Z*i
Express i and e along the new reference frame. That is, replace i by C*i' and e by Ct(inverse)*e'.
Ct(inverse)*e' = Z*C*i'
Multiplying both sides by Ct
e' = Ct*Z*C*i'
If the following definition is introduced as the law of transformation of Z
Ct*Z*C= Z'
then the equation in the new reference frame becomes e' = Z'*i'
The equation of the new system is of the same form s that of the old system...
In summary, Kron proved that, if there is at all an impedance in the system, then an analysis of the system at any and all levels must involve an analysis of the impedance, with the invariant form of the law of impedance, e = Z*i (where e is voltage or velocity depending on the machine and similarly, i is current or angular acceleration depending on the machine).
We can see darkly from this statement, for example the answer to the questions: Why could this prototype fly? or Why does a gyroscope precess?
The answer, Kron's discoveries seem to say, is that tensor theory mandates that e = z*i is a permanent invariant law in any system involving an inductor or a capacitor (sources of impedance). So then we may further propose that
a) the purely capacitive impedance condition is addressed in traditional newtonian rotational dynamics,
b) the purely inductive impedance condition is met by gyroscopes. (This was something Eric Laithwaite partly recognized when he stated that the gyroscopes are like inductors. He also said that gyroscopes do not do any work. They rotate without being able to accomplish any energy transfer on a meaning level. It is clearer now that, that is because the system is purely inductive without any significant capacitance. The gyro rotates in a set of gimbals that isolate the flywheel's spin so that there are no levers connecting it to the external frame.)
c) the LC resonance condition is what is being targeted in the new prototype's tests.
Kron also gives certain guidelines for machine analysis. For example when coils, beams, wheels etc are connected into an engineering structure, the constrained reference axes are ignored.
Using his methods and his modeling techniques, I will attempt an analysis of the prototype in the next few entries. One of Kron's models is a good starting point for that analysis and is given below.
Experiment Update: Repairs complete. Testing begins tomorrow.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Deduction From Experiment 4.1
Proposition: Inductively suspended wheels, when suspended in symmetric pairs will (when given the freedom to do so) always prefer to orient themselves with their spin vectors anti-parallel to each other, when under the influence of a common centrifugal force about an axis perpendicular to the plane containing their angular momenta vectors.
I am going to represent this notion of antiparallel orientation of pairs of wheels with the following notation
-->
<-- This behavior is analogous to the atomic electrons which also settle in pairs, anti-parallel to each other and I am also proposing that the two phenomena have a common origin in the nature of spin itself. This proposition is based on the results of the experiment I performed on June 3, 2011 (and posted on June 5, 2011 on my blog http://relmachine.blogspot.com/2011/06/experiment-41-contrasting-prototypes.html). Here are the main points I wish to emphasize regarding the experiment of June 3, 2011:
a) The wheels do NOT show any intention whatsoever of orienting themselves in this way when they are not spinning.
b) The wheels do however voluntarily choose the anti-parallel orientation once significant angular momenta is introduced into them.
c) The wheels also seem to prefer the tangential orientation - their angular mometa vectors turn away from the center of rotation and become tangential to the circle that passes through the centers of the wheels and represents the path traced by the centers under the influence of the centrifugal force applied.
SUMMARY
So far my experiments have revealed 3 important facts:
1. Spinning wheels under the influence of a centrifugal force applied about an axis perpendicular to the plane containing the angular momenta vectors will move inwards toward the center of rotation. This I have named the Kidd Effect after Sandy Kidd, who was the first to discover it.
You can see that experiment here: http://relmachine.blogspot.com/2009/09/kidd-effect.html
2. For configurations similar to those needed to observe the Kidd Effect, the higher the centrifugal force, the lower the resulting displacement of the angular momenta vectors. This I have named the Inductive Effect (after the fact that this is analogous to the behavior of inductors).
You can see that experiment here: http://relmachine.blogspot.com/2010/01/experiment-28-inductive-effect.html
3. Inductively suspended wheels, when suspended in symmetric pairs will (when given the freedom to do so) always prefer to orient themselves with their spin vectors anti-parallel to each other, when under the influence of a common centrifugal force about an axis perpendicular to the plane containing their angular momenta vectors.
I am going to represent this notion of antiparallel orientation of pairs of wheels with the following notation
-->
<-- This behavior is analogous to the atomic electrons which also settle in pairs, anti-parallel to each other and I am also proposing that the two phenomena have a common origin in the nature of spin itself. This proposition is based on the results of the experiment I performed on June 3, 2011 (and posted on June 5, 2011 on my blog http://relmachine.blogspot.com/2011/06/experiment-41-contrasting-prototypes.html). Here are the main points I wish to emphasize regarding the experiment of June 3, 2011:
a) The wheels do NOT show any intention whatsoever of orienting themselves in this way when they are not spinning.
b) The wheels do however voluntarily choose the anti-parallel orientation once significant angular momenta is introduced into them.
c) The wheels also seem to prefer the tangential orientation - their angular mometa vectors turn away from the center of rotation and become tangential to the circle that passes through the centers of the wheels and represents the path traced by the centers under the influence of the centrifugal force applied.
SUMMARY
So far my experiments have revealed 3 important facts:
1. Spinning wheels under the influence of a centrifugal force applied about an axis perpendicular to the plane containing the angular momenta vectors will move inwards toward the center of rotation. This I have named the Kidd Effect after Sandy Kidd, who was the first to discover it.
You can see that experiment here: http://relmachine.blogspot.com/2009/09/kidd-effect.html
2. For configurations similar to those needed to observe the Kidd Effect, the higher the centrifugal force, the lower the resulting displacement of the angular momenta vectors. This I have named the Inductive Effect (after the fact that this is analogous to the behavior of inductors).
You can see that experiment here: http://relmachine.blogspot.com/2010/01/experiment-28-inductive-effect.html
3. Inductively suspended wheels, when suspended in symmetric pairs will (when given the freedom to do so) always prefer to orient themselves with their spin vectors anti-parallel to each other, when under the influence of a common centrifugal force about an axis perpendicular to the plane containing their angular momenta vectors.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
experiment 4.1: Contrasting the prototype's behavior @ different levels of angular momenta of the wheels
I have disassembled the right half. It will be 2-3 weeks before I will be able to complete the repairs and restart.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)




