RETURN to INDEX
This concept released 4 May 1997 in
Public release document gitworks.htm
by Inventor David Eugene Cowlishaw
davidc/gitplain.htm
Written 5 January 1998 - minor edit 19 April 1999
(removed larger Pipe GIT animation graphic link,
no longer available on site). Write me for a copy via email.
NOTE: A supplementary document has been written, further exploring this idea, more suited for those with a more extensive physics background.
GIT Theory explores the force pairing vectors that result in an exchange of angular acceleration through a partially angular, partially linear force profile, to result in an action reaction pairing between rotary force and linear force, breaking the "barrier" between the two!
Please see GIT Theory Document written in May of 1998
What is inertial propulsion? It is the use of a device that does not react with it's environment in a mass exchange to produce thrust. That is, it doesn't use a jet of matter to push it forward, doesn't grab ahold of something to pull it forward (like a propeller for a plane or boat, or tires on pavement), and in general can be described as any thrust producing device that can be completely enclosed so that no direct matter interactions are possible, and placed free floating in space so vibrations do not propel it, yet still it goes!
Today the "traditional" science understanding makes inertial propulsion "impossible" and many have tried to accomplish this, to little success. Many have tried, indeed, many patents have issued on devices to "produce a unidirectional force", yet none are flying us to the stars yet!
The traditionalist will tell you that's because inertial propulsion is pure fantasy, and that Sir Isaac settled the question long ago, that in order to get something to move or change direction, it MUST be acted on by an outside force, therefore, no external matter interactions, no thrust, "inertial propulsion is impossible" and to short sighted science "authorities", I say HOGWASH! That's a violation of "Clarke's Law"! ;)
At the right is one form of my working inertial propulsion device, one that uses gearing to accomplish the needed spin translations. Why spin translations?
The traditionalist will tell you that "for every action, there is an opposite but equal reaction" and for linear reactions (billiard ball mentality of simple collisions) that is true! HOWEVER, equal is not always OPPOSITE when working with rotary systems and angular energy transfers!
In a nutshell, the GIT works by momentarily unloading some of the reverse forces on the center of mass of our system into the centers of mass of the orbitals (moments of inertia), storing that energy long enough in the cycle to be released in the proper direction.
Let's review (there WILL be a TEST!). Other devices either don't work, or work so poorly that they will likely never leave the ground, and that's because before the GIT, all devices were mostly linear translations that operated around only ONE mass center, the system and attatchments you are using to try to generate thrust.
You can find a very good collection of previous attempts at Roger Cook's Spacedrives Archives, where he has one of the most complete collections of online patent covers for nearly every device that claims unidirectional force, mechanical, electrostatic, electromagnetic, et cetera, and is a good resource for anyone doing research in this area. Tell Roger, Dave said hi!
None to date before have used the spin of the orbitals to share the reverse forces and thus give a net unbalanced centrifugal force for propulsion. Linear thinking achieves linear results! I've been accused of thinking in circles, but for this device, it was the proper direction!
What most folks fail to take into account is the force needed to extend and retract the weights on the whirling arms in a variable radius type (with attendant coriolus forces), or the force needed to accelerate and decelerate the weights in a variable velocity type of system, and when the forces are summed, a net NADA (no, nope, none!) thrust is the result. It whirls, it shimmies, it rattles and shakes, but put it in a frictionless environment, it just makes vibrations without going anywhere!
Of the two, the variable radius type may actually show some thrust, since the closer the weights are to the axle, the greater it's spin (storing some reverse force), and thus the principle that allows my device to work may actually vindicate many variable radius thrusters. They are not near as powerful as my device though!
The GIT is a variable velocity type of thruster (this one works however!), in that the orbitals speed up and slow down about their orbit, and this gives us a split force system, the high speed side of the orbit gives us a greater centrifugal force at that end, while (in previous art) the energy needed to speed up and slow down the orbital weights generates what is refered to as tangential forces, two half circle thrust profiles that will balance or counteract the hoped for gains of the unbalanced centrifugal force.
At the lower right is a picture of what I'm talking about, note that the orbitals are grouped at the bottom, the low velocity side in this instance, and the lone orbital at the top is the one going flat out (in a circle of course) as our high velocity end at the top.
The two half circle arrow trains represent the acceleration and deceleration forces that the orbitals place on the race, and the unequal rays from the center of the lower half of the picture show the centrifugal force profile, very heavy to the front (the direction you're going toward, UP in this view!), and rather skinny on the backside.
In previous devices (the ones with the dumb weights that don't work so good) these two force profiles exactly cancelled each other over time, and No thrust was the result.
The moving bars animated gifs are just on this page to get you into the mood of thinking in other interactions of moving mass and momentum transfers that don't always "think" right, but exist none-the-less! Watch the interactions to see how "magic" interactions are possible with plain old matter properties (in this universe anyway!).
What do these have to do with the GIT? Uh, well......I rendered them to see the stuff in my head a bit more clearly, and they dress up my website with only a couple of bytes!
Other than that, the angular transfers of relative motion are of great concern in this device.
Starting with ZERO thrust of a variable velocity type of inertial thruster attempt, we look at what we have in that zero, and it's a tug of war that stays balanced (through time) over the mud pit, no one wins!
SO, how about tilting the odds in the favor of one team, taking out a swath of the foot hold of the loosing side? WE can DO that!
With orbitals that can increase and decrease their spin rate, we now have somewhere to put some of one side of the momentum tug of war! While the acceleration energy does in fact react with the race to slow it down (transfered into the race as a thrust wanting to hold you back), in my device, now the spin axis of the orbital shares some of that reverse thrust!
The orbitals are included in your system mass (centroid), but the energy needed to accelerate (in a linear sense) a spinning orbital is darn near equal to that needed to push along a non-spinning one!
Our orbital can gulp up and regurgitate momentum and not get heavier against the race! A bolemic orbital! (uh, .... sorry!)
The race does not absorb the total energy of the decelerating orbital, so the now stronger centrifugal force profile can win our tug of war!
Upon reaching the tail of our race, the orbital has now two momentum components, it's increased spin momentum, and reduced forward momentum.
On it's way back to the nose, the orbital powers itself against the race to accelerate it (relative to the race), however, since the decreasing spin is winding out to accelerate the orbital, now it only needs to accelerate one side, since half of the mass is already traveling in the direction you want it to go, less energy of position (from the center of mass of the system) is needed to motivate it forward in the race.
In one complete orbit, we have three inertial profiles to examine. The centrifugal force profile is easily found by the known race velocity (squared) times it's mass, divided by the radius. That will be constant regardless of orbital spin rate.
The centrifugal profile of, say a two to one difference in nose and tail velocity, is 4 times what it is at the tail. If the difference is 10 (Nose/tail velocity), then the centrifugal force at the nose is 100 times!
There is less total difference than supposed by the last statement, of the actual forces over time, the longer dwell time of the orbital at the tail does cut down the dramatic gain of the centrifugal force, but still, it IS an unbalanced centrifugal force (race velocity SQUARES the radial force, time only adds linearly to the thrust at the reverse positions).
The acceleration and deceleration of the orbital about the race is rather easy too. This is the force that previously held you back, and one more component is factored with that, and that is the spin accelerations.
The energy has to come from somewhere (literally a vectored thrust of magnitude), and both experience, and theory, has that spin thrust coming from the back directed tangential forces.
By having the orbital spin, we now have another dimension in which to store for a convenient time (and direction), part of one side of the tug of war, and now the impossible is not only possible, it's been repeated many times around the world!
Now here is the question. What are we trading for energy of position in space without an outside mass exchange? Is it time? Is it a dimensional "folding" of space on one side and unfolding, (unwinding actually) on the other that makes it operate?
That's over MY head! It works, Whaaat!, you need to know WHY? Me TOO actually, and I've kicked around many ideas, yet I have enough traditional science under my lid that it's difficult to think along "heretical" lines, so I fully understand the difficulty of those well schooled in the physical sciences have in looking into my (and others) claims.
So DISprove it! As long as the spin accelerations are accounted for, (from what vector do they enter and leave the orbital from the race), and an honest attempt is made, I'm confident eyes will open, though opening minds may take a little longer.
Consider this my personal invite to you, to join a growing number of visionaries that want to see the CHEAP SPACE FLIGHT ERA begin as SOON AS POSSIBLE! Many have attempted the math, and those that "don't need to figure in the spin, since we're only considering the interaction of the one mass on the frame", are disqualified by their own words. We need to account for the momentum wrapped around the orbital.
Those that show unidirectional thrust from a sum of the centrifugal and the tangential (energy and vectors needed to slow down and speed up the orbitals) only, are VERY suspect, as those sums should be as close to Zero as your error factor allows, and those that ONLY consider the spin interactions, assuming an initial zero sum for centrifugal and tangential, are a few bricks short of a proof.
I am aware of proofs that haven't reached me yet, and there must be treatments done that I will likely never see from the research labs about the world, but the first to do a good analysis that I recognize as sound (and have checked of course) will likely go into history as the first to do so, AND likely get a lot of job offers shortly thereafter!
The challenge is still unanswered, none have made the finals to date (5 January '98 at this writing), surely in the thousands who read my site there is one so bold as to prove that inertial propulsion by this means is real? Write to me, I'll be happy to assist with whatever further info I can give.
At this writing I am in the process of animating a 5 to one race with gears to derive particulars for a standardized problem, and anotated graphics of the movement and spin particulars, will be posted (soon I hope, been rather busy with mail these days!).
This document will change occasionally to reflect better analogies, more "bite sized" graphic animations to better visualize the parts in action, and even if I just feel like it! Check this document for future updates.
Of course I will accept major contributions! ,'8~)
Don't even offer to buy stock or shares, as I will not be obliged to make you money, and have any future decision, such as a release to public domain compromised.
Assignment of rights or agreement with a company that can do justice to the massive applications these inventions (and improvements not published) entail, will be considered.
Before Copying and distributing these documents, please read GITLEGAL.
I hereby declare that the contained original information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and ability to extrapolate.
5 January 1998 David Eugene Cowlishaw
1 February 1998 Link to Roger Cook's site corrected
Return to INDEX
^ TOP of Page ^ .
Previous mechanical devices to date have all used what I call "dumb weight" orbitals, most of them having mounted weights on arms that whirl around, and either are a variable radius type (the weights move toward and away from the axel in their orbit, trying to achieve an unbalanced centrifugal force, shown on the right),
or the variable orbit velocity type, where each arm speeds up and slows down in it's journey around the axle, again attempting to generate an unbalanced centrifugal force (to little effect).
The orbit can be turning either direction, it doesn't matter once the orbitals are up to a constant average speed. The purple circle here is the contact path (top path superimposed on bottom path line) that forces the orbitals to convert their forward race velocity into spin, the very heart of this concept.
THIS IS WHERE WE BEGIN EXPLORING THE GIT
The bar (red for energy indicator) at a 90 degree angle to the stationary bar (in one time incarnation) when striking the blue bar does not transfer it's entire energy load into it, since it's a "glancing" blow, and by turning about it's own center, retains nearly half of it's initial relative momentum, while, well......., just watch it!
Another gif animation I cobbled together shows another interesting momentum transfer, this one being "sticky", a way to transfer momentum and not bounce or "react" with the transfer in a linear motion sense. Interesting Huh? This one doesn't seem reversible, however, Hmmmmmmmmm.
A good portion of that reverse vector is turned head over tail by the orbital as an increase in spin rate, thus removing some of the reverse force from the center of mass of your total system.
Comments, suggestions, gossip, your analysis of the device, etc. is welcome.
8 April "circumferal" changed to tangential (folks didn't like my new word! )~8