The GIT works because matter "has" inertia; in fact, the most common definition of inertia IS mass, as a mathmatic equivalent, and describes the characteristic "reluctance" of mass to be accelerated.
The GIT works because matter "has" inertia; in fact, the most common definition of inertia IS mass, as a mathmatic equivalent, and describes the characteristic "reluctance" of mass to be accelerated.
Reluctance is an electronics term, similar to resistance, except it's a conservative term, in that the energy going into it is saved as an increased velocity, and not burned off as heat. Some of our more colorful researchers like "obstinance" to distinguish it from electronics, and I kinda like that term myself! (it describes my personality! ;)
Mass has two separate inertial characteristics in this universe (that we know of), and that is the forward inertial component, (reluctance to be accelerated forward in space), and the angular inertial component (reluctance to spin accelerations about it's center of mass).
Conservation laws currently state that linear and angular momentum are conservative and, as such, are forever separate, and NOT able to be exchanged, one for the other.
The current motion physics theory is wrong!
Any child knows that a spinning mass can convert the spin into forward movement, and vice versa, given an outside frame of reference to convert one to another (like a spinning ball dropped on a sidewalk).
The general argument against any conversion from one to another is the "closed system" argument, in that, if the sum total of the parts is considered, an angular momentum component would only translate into a larger spin on your system, instead of a linear movement of the entire (closed) system.
That WAS our understanding. I've added a counterpoint to that dusty old liturgical chant! Three hundred-plus years is enough time for old science dogma, I think!
Conservation of angular momentum allows momentum to move from one radius to another: the spinning skater, pulling in or extending arms and legs, makes that skater spin faster or slower. That is the very heart of the angular conservation "law" observations.
Here's where we "violate" current common understandings.
With calculus, it is rather trivial (oh sure, I can't do it, and I say it's trivial, but that's math jargon for we already did it ), to show that the gross motions of an old inertial thruster attempt will not work - the described motions of that attempt are called "variable velocity orbit".
The animation on the right shows this type of motion.
A mass rotated from outside of it's "center of gravity" (I like orbitation), if sped up and slowed down in it's cycle, will create a "split force system" for linear mass movement considerations.
The forces of that mass movement are a greater centrifugal force at the higher velocity side of the orbit, and until the GIT, two half-circle forces in the other direction (the speeding up and slowing down action), add up to completely cancel out the increased centrifugal force, making a goes-nowhere "thruster".
For every action, there is an opposite but equal reaction, like the kick you get from a rifle when the bullet speeds off, and the reason rockets work in space (even if there's no air for it to push against; another old "well known science" fiction of yore ;). We call this "force pairing".
The action-reaction law (Newton's third) holds true for linear inertia, AND for angular inertia, which is the main argument against inertial propulsion, and ironically, that is why the GIT works!
And here's how: In the variable velocity system, we have an increased centrifugal force at what I call the nose, a mostly linear expression of mass in motion; the two half circle thrusts (a more rotational or angular motion that is somewhat linear, in that they point in mostly one direction when examined side by side), cancels the centrifugal, for thrust considerations. I call these (as well as most "real" scientists) the tangential forces, being tangent to a circle.
With that, I throw in one more curve: spin accelerations of the orbitals, one more angular motion! The orbitals increase spin on one side and the other side decrease in spin rate, two reversing torque component forces.
____________________
Joao Andrade in Brazil conceived and ran an experiment that we call the "swing arm torque test", which consists of a motor on a free swinging arm. The motor has a gyroscopic mass that will accelerate in spin when you give power to the motor.
The axis of your spinner, and the central arm pivot are parallel, but separate in space. Joao found that when he applied power to the spinner, the motor, gyro mass, and arm would be moved around the center pivot from AN ANGULAR (spin) ACCELERATION!
Interestingly, the mass that is doing the "action" is the spin inertial component, again separate of that mass' linear inertial component, but none-the-less, a transfer of momentum from a smaller radius to a larger one, only among separate parts working in unison, and where the transfer from angular to (more) linear motion really takes place.
Any "real" physicist will tell you, that's just conservation of angular momentum in action!
With these three motion forces (TORQUE, TANGENTIAL, and CENTRIFUGAL), we have now a way to convert angular momentum to linear momentum!
The "linearly considered" gross motions of the orbital has the split forces of centrifugal and tangential, and they add up to a dual pairing that cancels out their linear AND angular components. The reversing angular motions of the tangential pair side-to-side, canceling out the angular componant (circular orientation), so there is a net zero forward movement, and a net zero angular movement. The tangential crucible is where our new understandings and mobility is being forged!
Note that the graphic on the right shows the "bending moment" force on the arm, which can be a real or virtual arm, through the race and drive wheel connections. The two "resulting thrust components" are the expressed forces on that arm from the two attatchment points.
Given that it's a bending moment, one OR the other will express linearly in space, but not both simultaneously (not a direct forward movement in space). Either the orbital will move forward or the center attachment of the arm will move forward, whichever has the less mass. The important consideration is that the driving mass here (for momentum transfer considerations) is the SPIN or ANGULAR mass of the orbital.
NOTE: In the Original GIT, the orbital would be moving counterclock-wise from it's mechanical attachments and central motor drive in the above graphic, and the "bending moment" force, pushing it in the opposite direction (clockwise), which allows for the spin acceleration of the orbital to "absorb" the linear back tangential force around the orbital's spin axis, and make it "disappear" from linear considerations on the back side, and then "reappear" to the front, another way of looking at what is accomplished in this device. But don't let that confuse you, this thing is confusing enough already!
NOW, we throw in the orbital spin into the previously considered force pairings, and consider that the singly considered angular motions of the tangential forces can be paired with the reversing spin accelerations.
We have momentum moving from a smaller radius to a larger one, and since the spin accelerations pair off with the angular portion of the tangential accelerations (centrifugal and spin competing for the "affections" of the tangential, so to speak), AND, the reversing tangential ANGULAR vector componants pair and cancel, while also, the reversing spin accelerations cancel for stable circular orientation, we have now a LINEAR acceleration expressed by a stronger centrifugal force!
Centrifugal pairs off with the linear portions of the tangential, spin accelerations pair off with the tangential also, in an angular, but also linear expression (considered from the centrifugal force's "point of view"); since the difference, or vector sum of those three major force pairings (and sharings), creates an imbalance for the linearly considered mass motions, we have a net linear thrust!
The GIT conserves linear momentum in the centrifugal and tangential motions, and conserves angular momentum in the spin accelerations that also exchanges, or pairs off with the tangential forces (a larger radius reversing direction pair of half circle thrusts), so the GIT violates none of the known Newtonian laws. We just use motion geometry, and the partially linear, partially angular tangential forces to translate angular accelerations into linear ones!
NOW, let's talk about the "aether" and 80-some years of misdirection in science in understanding our universe! Apparently some "breakthroughs" in understanding can be a plunge into a VERY cold lake!
The rosey path often has thorns, and the most difficult to understand and traverse, the more rewarding in the long run. Occam's razor gets a good work-out from this "dabbler" in physics. I just wasn't satisfied with "impossible"! It's a word that violates "Clarke's Law", one that seems to gain more validity every year we advance!
(Isn't this fun? ;)
David Eugene Cowlishaw - 29 May 1998
Edited, in part, by Rosalie Leibo-Cowlishaw (rlc)
Many thanks to all my friends and challengers over this past year that have helped me refine this theory and get it into terms that are more understandable. Special thanks goes to Robert Jakabosky for prompting this particular (revised and graphics added) writing.
Modified and additional graphics added 31 May 1998