THE GYROSCOPIC INERTIAL THRUSTER

*UPDATE 30*

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

Welcome back! If this is the first time you've visited my site, be SURE to look up previous updates with the OLD NEWS links for information to be found nowhere else, and welcome to a new world! ;)

I'll start up this update where I left off from the last one, with a discussion of an inertial propulsion demonstration device by Joao Andrade, since it brought me a LOT of email, and as planned, caused thought in this subject!

Happily for us, there ARE those that can think without permission, and we have a winner in the "make it simple enough for physicists to understand" catagory! ;)

From those in the "establishment" kind enough to write me back, I got a lot of the following statements in one form or another: "There is no combination of motions or forces in a closed system that can result in linear thrust without external matter interactions.", and of course, "Learn some physics dummy!" ;)

Of course that first statement is an example of pervasive thought, and some say the very foundation of our current physics understandings, but it's just plain wrong! Getting those with our science budgets in their hands to even LOOK into the evidence, is a monuMENtal task! SO, the group and I are working on ways to break through the arrogance and ignorance that plague this project from establishment science, and like good teachers, we haven't given up on our students, so here's an easier to calculate evidence of inertial propulsion!:

On the lower right is a diagram of motions that WILL result in a linear thrust (impulse) from a closed box, without external matter interactions. It will likely never be a space drive, but it will have utility as a demonstration device for inertial propulsion!

I would like to thank and praise J. Snell for his improvement to help us get through dense heads, that have been clutching to centuries old science dogma like it was holy scripture! He also wanted me to put in a link to his website. SURE J.! It's the least I can do for this education tool! ;)

Most of the negative mail on the Sling Drive (see previous update if that term is new to you), focused on the last half of excentric mass rotation before the release of the counter spin accelerated masses, and though there would be some backwards travel velocity of the frame just prior to release of the masses toward their frame target (in the original excentric rotor Sling Drive), it would NOT be equal to the impact momentum imparted to the frame in the forward direction.

There is STILL a negative impulse on the frame just after release of the balanced Sling Drive, by the first rearward swing of the now excentric rotors (from a rest state beginning), then it will settle into a moving "at rest" vibration with a net rearward velocity (prior to the released mass impact). The balanced rotor version is a whole lot easier to do the math on than the original version, since we have fewer force and motion elements to integrate, and an "at rest" beginning of the examination.

I'd Like to thank Dann McCreary (web site link) for helping me scrape some of the egg off of my face, I really goofed on the first draft of this update, and had to make repairs! If you got a copy of the first draft, BURN IT! (Of course, if I ever get to be "high and mighty" and need some comeuppance, show it to me to bring me back a proper amount of humility! ;)

Here's how it works: Take two counter-rotating axles, and mount on them a balanced set of masses, two that stay on their arms on the axle, and a pair that can be released from their arm attatchments on demand. If both axles are counter-spun at the same rate, there will be NO external movement of the frame with well balanced rotors, not even the back and forth vibration that helped others dismiss the original concept. The "W" frame on the right depicts this phase of the device (for Wind-up).

The "R" frame is for release, the moment when the detatchable throw masses are released from their arms. They could be released at the outside positions as well, but an inside release is shown. The initial reaction on the system will be toward the axles (like a "David and Goliath slingshot", a tension release at a right angle to the trajectory), and the two white arrows show that it will be opposite and equal as far as the frame is concerned, balanced and canceling out, initially, no net external reaction.

The last frame (I - O) is for Impact and Oscillation (and OUTA here! ;). At mass release, the spinning axles, and now unbalanced excentric weights, will settle into a back and forth movement of the frame, resulting in a net zero external movement from their rotation. HOWEVER, the first rearward swing of the masses WILL give a net rearward impulse of 70.7% of their tangential velocity to the frame, but there's more! We now have two masses hurling at high speed toward the wall of the container (traveling on a linear course with their full tangential, turned linear velocity).

If a capture mechanism is used to keep them from ricocheting all around the place, it should now be easier to see that we CAN get a net external movement from an entirely closed system! ;)

The .707 figure (70.7%) is borrowed from AC theory in electronics (I've had some electronics training), which is the figure used to calculate AVERAGE voltage from PEAK voltage in a sine wave, an angular to linear translation. Voltage relates to Velocity, and mass to amperage, and the average voltage figure is a result of the generator's rotor coils cutting the magnetic field in a circular sweep, starting out parallel to the field (no amperage generated), reaching maximum when it's at a right angle to the field (peak voltage or here, the tangential velocity figure analog), tapering off again to zero as it moves into a reversed relationship with the magnetic field.

Because of the rotation of the still attatched masses, a portion of the rearward force on the frame is canceled out side to side, giving us about 30% of our impact mass' momentum NOT canceled out by the first unbalanced rearward rotation of the attatched masses, and a net linear thrust! ;)

The math on the GIT and Thor is complicated enough for others not to want to bother trying to do a proper analysis, and most run into trouble using "standard" math practices of directly canceling opposed but equal torques directly, rather than integrating those spin torques with the tangential torques, resulting from the orbitals speeding up and slowing down in their orbit, a partially linear, partially angular motion profile that is our "cross over" means to pass angular momentum to a linear result in the GIT and Thor machines.

While the Sling Drive is not intended as an actual space drive, the math should be of high school physics difficulty to figure, and thus a means to get across the idea of thrust from a closed system.

There you have it! Ammunition to educate the educated with! Whip out this concept the next time someone tells you that Inertial Propulsion is impossible, and watch them closely, you might have to apply CPR! ;)

An intuitive proof, no math concepts harder than greater than, lesser than, and equal! A Balanced Sling Drive that releases BOTH masses makes it MUCH more visible as a concept! I've written and animated a page just for the Sling Drive! Now you have a proof you can explain on the back of a napkin! ;)
DavidC - 11 am Thursday, 1 April 1999

I'll continue with a recent letter from long time project contributor, Jim Bolstad MCE, riding herd on the inertial propulsion studies at Marquette University! As you'll recall from earlier updates, Jim sponsored the delving into new territory on the motion physics front there.

The students and their professor found a positive linear displacement of a specially torqued rotational expression of forces, specifically, a constant main axle rotation rate with sinusiodally varying orbital side torques from a spin accelerated/decelerated mass, extended on an arm attatched and rotated by the main axle (a one armed Thor Variant). They made their class project come alive mathmatically with a Matlab software program.

NOW, they have also found a positive displacement with ADAMS physical expression and modeling software! They obtained a "cartoon" animation of virtually modeled physical forces (mainly, it propelled! ;). Here's the communication I received from Jim :

-----Original Message-----
From: James J Bolstad (James.J.Bolstad1@jci.com)
To: davidc@open.org (davidc@open.org)
Date: Friday, March 12, 1999 11:49 AM
Subject: New Results from Marquette Eng. students


David:

It's semester break this week at M. U., but I talked to Prof. Nigro just a
little while ago, and he told me that last week right before the students all
took off for semester break, they had a successful modeling of a Thor device.
(Eureka!! :)

This time, they used ADAMS dynamic mechanical modeling software.  They
constructed a "virtual" model of a one-armed device (I believe with the pivot
arm independently powered to rotate with constant angular velocity), and
assigned appropriate mechanical properties and motion inputs (sinusoidally
varying spinner angular velocity I believe).

They were quite excited to observe the result, which was an animation of the
device, "swimming" across the monitor -- it did result in translational
motion.  I witnessed part of it, only back in an earlier stage where Prof.
Nigro had it on his computer but didn't allow the model to run long enough to
get through more than a half-cycle of operation.  What I saw was just a
forward-and-backward oscillation.

However, they later discovered that if you run it a longer time (through
several complete motion cycles) you see that it propels itself -- only it does
oscillate as it moves predominantly in a single direction overall.  But of
course, this should be no surprise, we would expect a single-arm device to have
somewhat unsteady motion.

I don't have many details yet, but stay tuned, our next class meeting takes
place next Thursday.  At that point we have to get into details of building a
physical prototype that has to be operational within about 5 weeks.

Jim B.

Michael has invented a neat solution to the transitional forces that ordinarily waste a LOT of energy, in reversing the torque rapidly in a cyclic fashion. If you will recall (see previous updates), Mike is also the inventor of the main axle articulated arms concept, most lately exampled in the Thor Variant's articulated arm means to achieve a linear to angular transfer of momentum and back. The articulated arms provides the spinners with tangential accelerations, and prevents side to side torque cancelations as in the failed SpiderGIT. (See Update 22 for details on that concept.)

CLOCK SPRINGS!

The use of springs to capture and reapply momentum in the opposite angular direction, as a periodically reversing force expression, is a rather old idea, well, at least as old as spring driven escapement clocks, but here is a new application for that tried and true mechanism! ;)

In the Thor variant, we need to apply appropriately, a strong torque from our extended spinner on each side, so as to "lever" ourselves forward in space from a periodic expression of forward directed side "twist". Previous Thor models lacked a means to balance the actual side to side torque expression on the main axle, and thus resulted in erratic force expressions, to upset the experiment, throwing it to one side as the torque was not directed to forward thrust.

The springs (counter-wound spirals on each orbital axle), will reach "the wall" in winding up, steadily increasing torque on it's axle as the mass spends it's motion into spring energy storage. At the moment the ring mass stops turning and starts in the opposite direction (in relationship to it's arm), the torque is STILL being applied in the same direction as happened during it's wind up.

When the ring mass reaches maximum angular velocity, and both springs are in equal tension, there will be no torque applied, which should be at the nose and tail positions of the arm and spinner. The springs will also be an easy way to apply a sinusoidal torque force expression on the sides, reaching maximum on the sides where it's best utilized, and be minimum (zero) as it passes the nose and tail positions (less "nodding" that way! ;).

The torque on the arm on each side, needs to be in the same angular direction for it's nose to tail travel arc (and vice versa), so the motions will be: rotation in one direction for the front half (rapid front sweep) of the orbit, and reversed rotation direction in the (slower) back half of the orbit from the front and back time midline. While the arms will reverse rotation at the "wings back" position of the orbitals, they divide equal segments time-wise, demarking the front sweep of the arm from the back sweep.

With the "washing machine" reversal of the spin masses, a more balanced forward torque results on each side if the spring loaded spin masses are "kicked" at the appropriate times, much like the escapement mechanism powers a watch spring wheel. This results in a MUCH reduced amperage requirement resulting from the "current ping pong" high amperage needs of previous models.

Forward travel of your system, will of course take energy from the torque drive "kicker" motors, and must be resupplied with energy to keep the wheels turning and you accelerating, but with this improvement, a VERY efficient way to do it is now possible! Other than machine friction, power requirements will be directly related to work performed (forward acceleration).

Way to go Michael, and THANKS for letting me give it to the world! ;)

Here is the second Thor variant constuction reported to me by now IIC group member, Mark Swann:

-----Original Message-----
From: Swann, Mark (swannm@littongcs.com)
To: 'David E. Cowlishaw' (davidc@open.org)
Date: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 8:39 AM
Subject: Moderate success

David,

I've demonstrated a small amount of thrust from my Thor. I mounted it on the
largest guage model train rail I could find and powered it through the
rails.  The wobble from the single spinner was too much to mount it above
the rails so I suspended the rails and  hung the Thor below the rails with
the trucks sitting on top to pick up the voltage.

With power removed from the spinner but applied to the pivot arm there was a
back and forth action about a static position. After applying power to the
spinner a noticable drift appeared in the direction of a small upgrade. With
power again removed from the spinner, the rig slowly drifted back to the
original position. I am pleased to finally demonstrate a thrust but am
dissatisfied with the anemic proportions.

I noticed that the point where the voltage on the spinner motor reverses
provides a huge burst of thrust but in the wrong direction, sideways.  The
reversal in the motor is almost immediate not the gradual reduction to zero
angular velocity that I predicted. I was able to get a gradual reduction to
approx. zero by applying a short accross the motor during half the pivot arm
rotation. Doing this, however, results in less thrust.

The pivot arm motor is a weak high speed motor with a gear box to reduce the
rpm's.  It exhibits a very noticable change in speed when the spinner
switches direction, so much so that the spinner spends noticably less time
on one side than the other.  Question: Would the spinner provide more thrust
with a stronger pivot arm motor that doesn't change speed throughout the
rotation?

Mark Swann

I answered him of course, at length as I do these days, but I won't bore you, and just give a summation.

While multiple armed Thor constructions will require the tangential acceleration motion profiles (speeding up and slowing down the orbit rate), a single armed Thor will not have the torque cancelation that the Spider variant had, since the twisting force from the sides can force pair with the center of system mass directly, without the intermediate motion profile, though how efficient the various permutations will be is yet to be found.

These constructions are showing that we need to get the torque and tangential motion profiles to cooperate with better timing, and the maximum torque needs to be best applied at the 90 and 270 degree positions for best performance. The "SuperThor" variant of my own design will do that (elements of which are in the last update), but that variant will be in the NEXT update, this one is getting pretty long, and I want to do a proper animation. ;)

Shown on the right is an image of his original construction, and as you can see, he counter weighted the other end of the arm opposite of the spinner, which balanced the forces around the axle, and canceled out the hoped for thrust.

After he redesigned his construction, this was his report:

-----Original Message-----
From: Liecker, Walter (Walter.Liecker@mkg.com)
To: David E. Cowlishaw (davidc@open.org)
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 1999 7:40 AM
Subject: RE: Thor's Hammer Construction - Thor number three! - Dav

     Dear David,

     I took your suggestions and removed the counterweight from the arm on
     my Thor's Hammer, and moved the motor/flywheel out further.

     Did it work?  Whereas before I got almost no movement out of it in the
     float test, now it sloshes around like crazy!  It did seem to move in
     the predicted direction, but the rocking was so severe that it was
     hard to tell.

     I think I need to make another one, but with 2 opposing arms, and a
     lower center of gravity.

     Tell me what you think of this idea:  instead of having the arm go
     around in one direction only, it would not be too difficult to have it
     swing back and forth instead.  I think it would help even up the force
     from each side, and wouldn't cause the whole thing to spin in a
     circle.  If I can rig it up I will send you a picture.

     Thanks for your help,

     -Walter

Walter had built an "Original GIT" first, before tackling the Thor, which was made of cut PVC pipe race rings and a hard rubber ball, very similar to those constructed earlier on in the project, and found a good thrust on water. His Thor construction was built with power supply on board, so he could rule out any interaction from the power cord.

I now recommend the air table test for detecting thrust, using a large float in relationship to the machine to help eliminate "skirt tipping" as a possible thrust explanation, for the water test obviously wastes a LOT of energy in wave generation. The pendulum test will run into trouble when rear rotation of the orbital syncronizes with the pendulum's natural period (for slow turning rates). The ice test is also a good one (a bed of ice cubes on a wet slick level surface), since it eliminates nearly all of the friction that could produce thrust from "slip-stick" effects of excentric vibration.

Those that get involved in this project are always thinking of better ways to generate thrust, and new variants and suggestions have certainly pushed this project along at a pretty good pace!

Many of them don't pan out, or like with my own first designs, are replaced with better constructions, but through the world shrinking power of the internet, even withOUT millions of dollars and high priced engineers, we ARE getting things accomplished, so once someone with vision (and a lot of money) decides to kick it into high gear, much of what will be needed for the research will already have been accomplished!

There are several new drive variants that are being developed by the group, using different principles, and even the possibility of an entirely solid state drive with specially shaped electromagnetic coils, and they will be revealed in the future once we feel confident in the release.

There is trouble with the NASA grant that can't be properly discussed without some personal ramifications and trouble for others, but we are working on a way to get around "unofficial" actions that are just as real as if they were carved into rulebooks, and serious thoughts on a manufactured GIT are also being discussed, (money being the sticking point of course), and several other things that will come with the next update, Stay tuned!

DavidC - 1:16 pm Friday morning, 27 March 1999

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!

.