New Information: Rate of Change of Torque is an important determinant of the behavior of the Angular Momentum of the Rel.Machine

A note regarding units: I've determined that the dynamic friction coefficient for the entire unit is less than 0.1 A. So you have to take that into account in translating the Amperes into a direct measure of the torque. Here's how it would work. If I applied 1 A, that really means I applied 0.9 units of torque.If I applied 4 A that really means I applied 3.9 units of torque. The ratio of the two torques would there be: 3.9/0.9 = 4.333.

Had you not adjusted the units, the ratio would have come out to be 4/1 = 4.

Thus we see that the torque generated by the 4 Amps is in fact 4.33 times larger than that generated by the 1 Amp, making the effect that much more stunning. Think about it! You applied 4.33 times more torque and you actually got an angular velocity that is LOWER than what you got for 1 unit of torque!

And anyone who thinks that its all well and fine and in agreement with current understanding, must explain the key find of my experiments. Namely, what is the reason in your view for the difference in the response of the flywheels' angular momentum to two situations that involved an identical amount of torque - one a constant torque and another a variable torque, and for one (the constant) we get 7.5-8 revolutions in 10 seconds and for the variable torque, we are getting somewhere around 5?

Not only that you can further see how in the case of the constant torque the whole rel.machine stayed relatively inert and didn't move about while for the variable torque case, the rel.machine executed a much more complex pattern of behavior - one that I emphasize includes lifting force. (Try this: Sit on the floor and try to execute the same motion that the rel.machine is executing without an upward lifting force sustaining your posture.) What is the reason for this difference in your view for this complexity of behavior?

Now the fact that the behavior of the rel.machine shows any difference at all between the two otherwise identical scenarios means that by the rules of logical argumentation, by virtue of experimental proof, the difference is assignable to the parameter that was varied: Namely, the Rate of Change of Torque.

The fact that rate of change of torque has an impact on the response of the angular momentum vector is actually a new find. If you disagree, please find me a detailed reference to it.

Now if you saw the video, you already know my theory. These findings are all confirming my theory that the inductively suspended flywheels show a variable reactance, much as a charged coil of wire would.The reactance is a variable quantity, being higher for higher rates of changes of current. This is strikingly similar to the behavior of the rel.machine - at 4.33 units of torque, the response in the applied plane was lower than the response at 1 unit of torque.

Expts 2.10: Response of The Angular Momentum of The Flywheels to Harmonic Torques of Time Periods up to 30 secs

Keep On Truckin'!

Response of The Rel.Machine to Harmonic Torque

The above graph represents the response of the rel.machine to harmonic torques of 1 Amp, 2 Amp and 4 Amp maxima (i.e. sinusoidal waves of torque whose highest value reached said amplitude) for a range of time periods of the harmonic torque. 

The graph indicates that the carriages actually spun around at the lowest velocity for the 4 Amp maxima i.e. by increasing the rate of change of torque (by increasing the numerator, the torque represented directly by the current level here), we have channeled away increasing amounts of energy from the plane of application.

Also, note how each of the three Tmax torque lines droop as they move to the right, thereby indicating that increasing the time period has increased the energy conversion (thereby leaving less energy in the carriage and therefore fewer rotations and thus a lower slope for the line). This indicates that further testing must continue to increase the time period beyond current levels.

Experiment 2.8: The Inductive Effect

Incontrovertible experimental proof is offered here that Faraday's Law of Induction is applicable to inductively suspended flywheels.

Experiments 2.6

Shed dwellers and others,

You can see the results of the jan 14-19 experiments here.
The latest experiments and the experiments of jan 12, 2010 are conducted with the spin orientation of the wheels being (->, ->).

As the specific experiment of jan-7-2010 was conducted in the (->, <-) configuration, no lift was expected and none received. The net angular momentum of that system was zero (the opposite directions cancel out). Thats why it manifests strictly 'internal' events. For instance, the Kidd Effect, where the wheels move inwards with considerable speed and agility. The Kidd Effect is a powerful indicator that the system is producing a real force - one that can be harnessed. Its the sign of a jabberwock in the cage. In order to make this internal force exert itself on the outside, I reversed the direction of spin of one of the wheels. This meant the net angular momentum is adding up. Given my theory about inductively suspended flywheels being analogous to electrical inductors, the situation of expt 2.5 where the wheels are oriented (->, ->) is like having a live inductor with current flowing through it. Therefore whatever other people call the movement (deflection, precession etc), they are all taking about an inductively realized voltage, as far as the theory is concerned, since a voltage (in our case an angular velocity) is the result of a variable current (in out case a variable torque). This inductively realized voltage is obviously following the input pattern of sinusoidal amplitude. This is to be expected.

Further, using the frequency as a kind of controlling measure, I am able to reduce it to determine the characteristics of the upward movement.

For instance, it tells me that
a) Just like output voltage is tied to input rate of change of current in an inductor, the amplitude of the upwards lift momentum generated is determined by the rate of change of torque of the vertical motor. Notice that for the 9 second experiment, I only applied 4 A max torque. But for the 4 second experiment, I was at 8 A max torque. Thus, by reducing the rate of change of torque, I have reduced the output lift momentum. (thus reducing the amount of torquing going on).

b) However, my analogy with inductos also tells me that the output force is tied to the input momentum. Therefore, unless I can get the spinning flywheels -via their carriages to also build up a singnificant angular momentum, I will not be able to generate FORCE in the vertical direction. I can do this by playing with - the FREQUENCY of the oscillation and the max torque. You see how when we went from 4 seconds to 9 seconds, we went from making half circles to 2+ circles for certain torques. (Similar increases occured at all torques applied). So you see that I can build input momentum -within limits since I dont want to tip the machine over. So the idea is to keep amplifying the input momentum until we arrive at a suitable output that consists no just of momentum, but also force - since only force can cancel out gravity and impel the device truly upwards (and not around a center, as a torque would).

Cross-check: Our theory is confirmed by the behavior of a gyro on an Eiffel Tower. There, the precessing gyro has neither any oomph (force) in its precession, nor any momentum downwards (because of gravity). The idea is that the two quantities are related - i.e., In a precessing gyro only as much force is available to apply upon an obstacle encountered in the precession orbit as there is availability of rate of change of momentum about the input torque axis. Since the gyro on the Eiffel Tower has no momentum towards the earth (gravity is cancelled out leaving the tower without any movement downards), therefore it has no force with which to resist obstacles it encounters in its path.

We are going to give the gyro a backbone by working with the harmonics to give it angular momentum about the input axis. This will give the OUTPUT precession velocity of the gyro an additional characteristic - that of ACCELERATION. i.e., force. Theoretically, this can be mathematized by treating the acceleration as being due to the torque arm of the deflecting torque getting longer and longer so that the torque happens about a point further and further out towards the horizon, so that effectively, the torque becomes manifest as a straight force upwards. i.e. a rotation is acheived about distant points near the horizon of the inertial frames involved, converting a torque into a pure force.

You can see already, for example that in going from 4 seconds to 9 seconds alone, it seems as if the point about which the rel.machine is swinging when it tips over, has moved outward. Watch Expt 2.5 part 1 carefully and note what points on the ground the machine appears to try to tip over. Its the points that are almost directly under the wheels. In fact, at 8 seconds ( expt 2.6 part 1), at the higher torques, the entire rel.machine is swinging about points on a circle that coincides almost exactly with the aluminum ring I have installed on the bottom of the machine. Watch that video carefully. That ring is at a considerably larger distance from the central axis of the machine than the wheels are. This is proof that we are on the right track. More to come soon.

Experiment 2.5: Reducing the frequency of the Harmonic power input to resonate the LC circuit

Experiment of Jan 7, 2010

Please note that there is one small omission from the main text at the beginning of the video - there are a total of 11 oscillations in each of the two experiments shown in the video.

2 oscillations at 1 Amp
3 oscillations at 4 Amp
3 oscillations at 6 Amp
3 oscillations at 8 Amp

Also, the wheel spins are orientated in a non-lift configuration and therefore no lifting effects are seen in the video. This is a strictly test experiment before the main experiments next week.