THE GYROSCOPIC INERTIAL THRUSTER

*UPDATE 29*

* OLD NEWS * . NEXT UPDATE .* INDEX *. * SiteList *

January 8 1999

On the right is James Bolstad's version of Joao Andrade's swing arm torque test, the one he used to give a physics teacher apoplexy, and with which, demonstrated the basic principle to the Marquette University students and their professor, achieving an "official" class study of inertial propulsion.

If Jim's name and efforts are new to you, see the past updates, he's been a contributor from way back! ;)

While I did receive a copy of the study that the students presented to their class, reproductions of their slides and all, James is intending to use it in a scientific journal submission, and has asked me to keep it unpublished, since that's a common requirement for many of the "stuffy" journals! ;)

Here's Jim's report:

-----Original Message-----
From: Bolstad, James J 
To: davidc@open.org 
Date: Monday, December 14, 1998 2:02 PM
Subject: Marquette University work


     David,

     Good news finally on the M. U. front!

     Under the pressure of having to present their work for the
     semester, the 4 students (2 M.E.'s and 2 E.E's) did succeed in
     mathematically modelling a device similar to Thor (flywheel
     attached to a pivot arm).

     With an input of a sinusoidally varying angular acceleration of the
     flywheel, where its period varied in sync with the rotation of the
     pivot arm, they did obtain a result where the center of mass of the
     device underwent translation (meaning, it did develop thrust) --
     about 7 meters in the Y-direction (the direction of interest), and
     about 6 cm in the X-direction.

     To me, this is a huge step forward, since I believe it represents
     the first correctly approached and relatively complete mathematical
     treatment of an inertial propulsion device, anywhere.

     The students' presentation at Marquette went well.  I do not yet
     have a copy of it in my hands, but I will soon.

     If you want to enter them into your hall of fame, here are their
     names:

     Brian Macke
     John Meikle
     Jason Smith
     Jon Van De Wege

     Will share more details later when I get them.


     Jim B.

While their Professor did find a technical error (they had a constant rotation rate for the arm plugged into the equation, instead of a variable), Professor Nigro did run their Matlab program with the corrected parameters, and still found a positive net displacement!

They are now slated to build their device (a side by side dual armed, counter-rotating Thor variant), to verify their math as a test construction.

I can assure you we'll be hearing more from Marquette University!

Also of note, The GIT is now on it's way to a formal NASA funded research study!

Ok, calm down there, so far, I've "given my blessing", and promise to assist a Mr. Earl Ortner, in his response to a recent call for funding proposals by NASA for "Alternative Propulsion".

Earl would like to keep the info scant for the time being. He has successfully applied for and obtained 3 previous research grants, two for the US Department of Defense, so if anyone can hurtle the red tape and formal dance of that sort of thing, he can do it!

I will forward to you the progress as it proceeds, with sensitive info (patent stuff and all that) held close, until such time as it can be safely released. Cool, baby is growing up! ;)

He reported enough thrust to encourage him to continue with the Thor Improvement, and has said the NASA device will include all known improvements to achieve a solid performer. See his Thor device below! ;)

Ok, more invention stuff:

Shown here are two quick animations to show the SAA (Spider Arm Accelerator, derived from discussions on the failed fixed arm Spider variant), added to a ring mass Thor, and shows how the tangential accelerations can be "tamed" to perform precisely, so we don't wander all over the sky in one of these things! ;)

I need to finish the full cycle animation (actually, just half a cycle is needed for smooth animation), but I've been promising an update so long, I figured I'd better just go with what I have so far, and catch up and make it pretty later!

As shown. a slotted pair of drive disks, similar to Arthur Forge's "ForgePlate" improvement for another version of the GIT, drives linked arms between the spinner arms, and "elbows" that have "pins", whose outside ends run in circular cam slots to derive both a circular with a recipricatory motion, needed to give us (fixed unfortunately) tangential spinner accelerations.

This gives us all the motions of an Original GIT, that problematic, yet multiply proven variant that gives us the original three force profile. With electric motors to run the drive axle ( with the slotted pin drive wheels rigidly attatched), and individual spinners, all we need is variable voltage to give us a wide range of individual forces.

With seperate ring cam end caps for your assembly, various tangential acceleration ratios can be achieved, including none what-so-ever (the arm attatchments and elbows follow the same circular path around the main axle), and with a way to independantly vary main rotation rate, as well as spinner torque additions on each side, this is my recommended commercial test unit, it will allow "seat of the pants" study, and I believe ultimately the most viable version for actual working thrusters.

Along those lines (always improving!), here's a picture of an idea kicked around some time back, but looking even better now, since I'm thinking of integrating the motor means with the wheel mounting means, to cut down on wasted mass, and increase efficiency.

This is a crude 3D sketch, but again, if I waited to pretty it up, you'ld likely not see it for a LONG time!

With drive coils added to the interleaved arms, in the area swept by the stacked ring masses, and coils in the ring mass wheels (likely integrated with the spokes), we can drive the high angular mass wheels with a LOT less "baggage", optimise the mass we DO have to use, and allows for more working mass in a smaller total swept volume.

ANYway, sorry I took so long to get on an update, things ARE happening, been busy, my arm's too long or the paddle's too short, you know, I'm lazy, and had to get pushed into doing SOMEthing at least, so my readership doesn't wander away.

More later, but I need to get this fired off before Rosalie gets home and wants to haul me kicking and screaming away from this one eyed beast and into the "real world" so that's it for now, stay tuned!

DavidC - 4 pm Friday, 8 January 1999

The Thor is a SUCCESS!

Earl Ortner (the man that will be submitting a proposal to NASA's new Alternative Propulsion funding call, and it's nice to know that he's made a couple that worked!), has reported the first working Thor Variant. Dang, caught me napping, so the Thor verification goes to Earl! ;)

Seen here on the right, it is a close reproduction of the machine I was (am) building, door hinges, flat circle brush busses and all!

Without the SAA addition I've been recomending for a while now, it did produce intermittant results because of timing errors in the momentum transfers.

Well here, I'll reprint his report letter to me, to go along with the photos he sent me, reduced and composited to save space:

-----Original Message-----
From: eort@mindspring.com 
To: davidc@open.org 
Date: Saturday, January 09, 1999 6:15 AM
Subject: Wheels in motion, the THOR

EARL

Even though the spinner nearer the nose is traveling faster (I'm assuming the axle support bracket at the top of the device is depicting the nose and the dividing line for electrical reversal), it "should" reach the center line at exactly the same time the decelerating spinner arm is crossing the center line at the tail.

With Earl's report of different motions and different sound produced when the combined motions result in positive thrust, it appears to me that if left to their own "choices", the arm accelerations do not transfer adequately to spin torque (increased/decreased spin momentum of the ring masses "swallowing and regurgitating" negative tangential arm momentum), so I feel that anyone else building this model plan to add the SAA if you want it to be a reliable performer.

I'm hoping Earl will "dink" a bit more with this design, perhaps try to balance the tangential accelerations on each side with voltage (an unequal spin torque total from one side and the other appears to really mess with thrust! ;), and likely a much stronger and reliable thrust can be achieved with this design.

Obviously, it has fewer mechanical parts than a Thor design using the SAA, and if the electronic controls needed to balance the side to side spin accelerations in relation to their positions can be achieved, perhaps this model will be a commercial contender!

Do stay tuned to the site, things are a poppin' and soon we'll be hoppin' to other planets!

2 PM Tuesday, 12 January 1999 - DavidC

Added to this update 19 January 1999

Wow, Joao Andrade of Brazil (on the left), has really earned my respect and admiration with his latest contribution to our collective efforts to get us inexpensively into space!

I'm thrilled to reveal to you (with his permission of course), his simply elegant Inertial Propulsion demonstration device! I believe this one is a "denial buster" for all but the brain-dead!

On the right, this graphic illustrates a very simple way to convert angular (rotary) momentum into linear momentum!

Consisting of two counter-rotating arm attatched masses, both masses are accelerated angularly to achieve a very high momentum, and at the appropriate moment (3....2....1....CLANK! - IT'S OUTA HERE! ;), the tethered masses are released from their constraining arms, to impact against the wall of the frame/container. Of course, during the wind up phase of the masses, there will be no net external linear result other than vibration back and forth.

At impact, there is very little difference between the INternal impact of those masses and their container, and an EXternal impact by the same amount of mass at velocity that strikes and "sticks" to the target mass. Oh yeah, take pains to eliminate elastic recoil and oscillation (such as clay on your target plate).

Consider the "David and Goliath" sling shot. Does the release of the stone from it's whirling wind up "kick back" on the sling in an opposite and equal direction to the stone's trajectory? Of course not, the reaction is at a right angle, in the relaxation of the tension on the strings, and in the "Sling Drive", that reaction is an opposed side to side reaction, and is canceled out as far as external linear considerations are concerned.

For a demonstration device, instantly stopping the rotation as the masses reach mid-center positions, would be a bit less dangerous, and effectively achieve the same in results. Think gears that keep both axles in exact counter-rotation, and a solenoid fired "gear jammer" that will bring them to a halt at the right moment.

Of course, such a device would knock your teeth out and cause severe "whiplash" if attempted as a space drive mechanism (unless of course, you gang up a whole bunch of them in various phase relationships), but it's straight forward, simple, and so easy to understand, our 8th graders will be calculating thrust potentials! ;)

To those that say the "barrier" between angular and linear momentum can't be breached for a "closed system", sketch this one out for them and have them examine each change in operation. Expect an "AHHH HA!", a big grin, OR incoherant babble and anger, depending on the level of intelligence of your student (that may in fact be your teacher), and their ability to be mentally flexible, and graceful, in the face of new (undeniable) information. ;)

How about a "reactionless" cannon? Let the masses fly out from the device, and you have a means to propel mass from a mechanical "cannon" without recoil! Of course, we will be talking toroidal pathways and electromagnetic "arms" to accelerate the masses, but it is also possible to launch high velocity mass in space without a reciprocal "kick" on the launching mechanism. Cool huh? ;)

Thank you SIR Joao!

This is so much fun, "they" will soon be making it illegal! ;)

Hey you NASA guys, think you could convince your bottom-liners that this experiment is worth doing up there in our new International Space Station? Uhmmm, this one might be best as an EVA experiment, but cheap enough to lose as it flies off! The ball is in your court now, please don't drop it!

DavidC - 1:30 PM Tuesday, 19 January 1999

PS: Take that Goliath! (Picture David doing a touchdown dance in the endzone) ( ',8~])

Correction note of 20 January 1999 - I stirred a hornet's nest of thought and email this time! ;)

Given that the machine is vibrating back and forth during rotation, the system WILL be traveling backwards at the point of release, so the "reactionless cannon" idea is false.

Question is, will the centrifugal force of the rearward rotation, that is not canceled out by the forward centrifugal force (that rearward momentum imparted after return to rest state from forward travel) be equal to the kinetic energy of impact, or not?

I'm hearing from a LOT of folks, this device is NOT as simple as first surmised, and I will post the results. Thank you William Reaves! ;)

Classic theory assumes it should go no where, but any math that assumes a net zero for a beginning point of examination should be avoided, and a free body examination (as in the positive result Marquette University Thor study), is strongly suggested.

Stay tuned! ;) - 1 PM Wednesday, 20 January 1999

Goliath groans and opens his eyes, quick, SOMEONE HAND ME A SWORD! (and fresh underwear! ;)

David E. Cowlishaw

New Alphabetic listing of this site will be updated regularly

Use the Old News link to download previous updates, a LOT of good info is to be found there and nowhere else!

.