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!

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.

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.

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 (http://relmachine.blogspot.com/2009/06/generalizing-capacitors-and-inductors.html) that the rate of change of current is the equivalent of rate of change of torque. The behavior is consistent with that theory.

(Reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductance 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.

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!

P.H. Takes Over

-Final Drawings handed off

-Material has been procured

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.