Experiments 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4

There are three experiments presented here. The technical settings of the experiments are displayed at the beginning of the experiments, in the videos.

1) Experiment 10.2: We apply sinusoidal torque at 1 Ampere for a few cycles, and then 2 Amperes for most of the 'active' part of the experiment i.e. that part of the experiment where all three sets of motors are working - the wheels are spinning, the subassembly is spinning and the main motor is spinning the cage.

2) Experiment 10.3: We apply sinusoidal torque first at 3 Amperes, then at 4 Amperes and then at 5 Amperes and then finally at 6 Amperes.

3) Experiment 10.4: We apply sinusoidal torque at 1 Ampere and then for 2 Amperes, keeping the wheels at 0 RPM.

The important purpose of Experiment 10.4 is to demonstrate that the cage undergoes ever increasing, gradual increase in rotational speed, making the experiment unsafe after a certain point.

Remember, that is just at 2 Amps for a few seconds. We see that in Experiment 10.3, we are able to apply up to 6 Amperes (fully 300% more), and not run the danger of uncontrolled acceleration! The reason is, I believe, that spinning wheels have this inductive ability to store and manipulate a lot of energy. In fact, they must be able to do more than that.  The spinning wheels in the prototype set up are somehow able to expel energy from the cage (or armature). There might be a connection between this energy expulsion process and the 'pitching' or 'elementary flying action' that the machine frame experiences with increasing intensity as we increase the max. torque of the main motor.

Note also that the entire frame is increasingly 'dynamic' as we increase the max torque.

I am considering continuing the experiments with higher and higher torques in the next week. Note also that the machine continues to spin around for a few rounds even after the sinusoidal pulses cease. This seems to indicate that the machine is operating in a 'free' state, rather than a 'forced' once that ceases as soon as the input ceases.

Clarification regarding my previous post, Experiment 10.1 : During the last few seconds of Experiment 10.1, the prototype (The one with the red tape on its back, to be precise) suffered a partial power outage. So if you look at Experiment 10.1 closely, you will notice that one of the wheel sub-assemblies stops spinning.

This of course renders the 'usable' portion of experiment 10.1 very short (the part where all the three sets of motors are on, the wheel motors, the sub-assembly motors and the main motor.) however, with these new experiments, we have more exposure to that crucial combination of conditions.

Experiment 10.1: A Promising Test

Sequence of events:
At time index 6 seconds, we start the motors that power the wheels.
At time index 40 seconds, we start the motors that rotate the wheel sub-assemblies at a constant angular velocity ( 2 seconds per revolution).
At time index 1 min 8 seconds, we start the main motor that rotates the inner-cage at a small constant torque ( 1 A).

As you can see, the imposed activity is very simple, but the reaction of the machine is anything but!
Amazing start to this new series of experiments!

ఓం ! నమః శివాయ !

Shed Work Update

Testing starts tomorrow!

The new prototype has had the following upgrades:

1. New, (x 10) higher torque motors for the second order rotation of the wheel sub-assembly.

2. Resized main frame

3. Resized couplings

4. Power source upgrades

5. New motor suspension sub-assemblies

6. New wiring & s-rings

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.