Gyroscopes
Overview
Gyroscopes are a simple toy to many, yet they are poorly understood. This paper derives the
mathematics of gyroscopes.
Gyroscope concepts
A gyroscope has three axes. First, a spin axis, which defines the gyroscope strength
or moment. Let us call the other two the primary axis and the secondary axis. These three axis
are orthogonal to each other.
The spin axis rotates around the vertical line. The primary axis rotates the whole gyroscope in
the plane of the page, and the secondary axis rotates the gyroscope up-and-over into the
page.
The spin axis is the source of the gyroscopic effect. The primary axis is conceptually the input
or driving axis, and the secondary the output. Then if the gyroscope is spun on its spin axis,
and a torque is applied to the primary axis, the secondary axis will precess. The primary axis
appears infinitely stiff to the applied torque and does not give under it. This is the generally
recognised characteristic of gyroscopic behaviour.
It is important not to confuse the concepts of angular momentum and gyroscopic moment.
When a mass ‘m’ moves in a straight line at velocity ‘v’ it exhibits linear momentum (m.v ). It is
trivial to predict that if it is constrained to travel in a radius ‘r’ it will produce an angular
momentum (m.v.r). However with the angular momentum an effect that could not have been
predicted turns up - gyroscopic behaviour. The fact that in the larger world the two effects
occur together and in simple proportion to each other does not mean that this is always the
case - gyroscopic behaviour occurs without angular momentum in electron behaviour, even
though the terms ‘spin’ and ‘spin angular momentum’ are still used for historical reasons, even
though there is no direct evidence that the electron’s mass or charge spins on its own axis. It
may simply be that rotating an object exposes the gyroscopic moments of the elementary
particles that make it up, possibly through the asymmetric relativistic effects created by the
centripetal acceleration; some major experimental work is required in this area.
Angular momentum has the form “kilogram-meters2 per second”. Gyroscopic moment has the
form “Newton-meters per Hertz”, or torque required to produce a precession rate of one Hertz.
For those familiar with dimensional analysis, both have the dimensions ‘L2M/T’, which means
only that they are related by a simple scalar number. However (as far as the author has been
able to determine) the actual value has never been researched; it may be unity, it may not.
Whatever the case, from here on I will ignore angular momentum and consider only the
gyroscopic moment, regardless of how it is generated.
Basic gyroscope equations
The strength of a gyroscopic effect is termed the gyroscopic moment. I use the symbol ‘G’, in
units “Newton-meters/Hertz”. A higher moment requires more torque to precess at the same
frequency, or for the same torque precesses at a lower rate
Where a gyroscope receives torque on the primary axis and precession on the secondary, no
work is being done. The torque ‘TP’ on the primary axis has no precession associated with it,
while the precession rate ‘vS’ on the secondary axis is...
vS = T P / G
...and has no torque associated with it. Since the rate of doing work on each axis is the torque
times the precession on that axis, it follows that in this simple case no energy is involved.
Gyroscopes do not differentiate between primary and secondary axes - this is a purely artificial
definition of my own. A torque on the secondary axis creates precession on the primary axis.
Simultaneous torque on both axis will result in simultaneous precession. In this case each
axes will have both torque (creating precession on the other axis) and precession (created by
torque on the other axis). Then the rate of doing work ‘PP’ on the primary axis is...
PP = TP.vP / G
...and on the secondary...
PS = TS.vS / G
Now by applying the conservation of energy...
PP = - PS
i.e. the work done on one axis must appear on the other.
So far I have dealt purely with behaviour, but to go further we need to look at why it behaves
this way - what mechanism is at work? Let us go through the basic operation where torque on
one axis creates precession on the other (those familiar with electric motor theory will be
familiar with the following ideas).
First apply a forcing torque to the primary axis; at this stage in the argument imagine that the
primary axis presents no stiffness against the forcing torque. The secondary axis would
precess at an infinite frequency, but for a limiting mechanism that comes into play; just as
torque creates precession, so precession creates torque. So as the secondary axis precesses
it creates a reverse torque TPF on the primary axis...
TPF = -vS.G
The precession rate always runs at that point where TPF is exactly equal and opposite to TP. At
this point...
TPF = -vS.G
= - ( TP / G ).G
= - TP
The reverse torque generated by the precession exactly opposes the applied torque so that
the net torque is zero. If it was more the work would be done by the gyroscope. If it was less
the primary axis would give way under the applied torque and work would be done with no
outlet for it. Both conditions violate conservation of energy principles.
To sum up, the gyroscope precesses the right rate on the secondary axis to exactly oppose
the applied torque on the primary axis. This leads directly to an aspect of gyroscopic behaviour
that is seldom experienced in conventional gyroscopes, but is important in the behaviour of
electrons:- If the secondary axis is locked against rotation and the primary axis is driven, no
opposing torque will appear on the primary axis - it is free to rotate without hindrance. No work
is transferred through the gyroscope - there is motion without torque on the primary axis. The
secondary axis has no motion - it is locked - but instead experiences a torque TSF...
TSF = vP.G
This is the identical situation to basic gyroscope operation, but viewed from the other side.
Instead of saying that torque on the primary axis leads to precession on the secondary we say
that precession on the secondary axis leads to torque on the primary axis. It is exactly the
same thing.
Using the equations
Now look at the special case of a gyroscope operating in an external linear field that serves to
invert it through exactly 180 degrees. For example, when a tabletop gyroscope whose bottom
pivot point is fixed starts pointing upwards, the linear vertical gravitational field of the Earth acts
to invert it.
Figure 2
The gyroscope mass ‘m’ acts through the centre of gravity of the gyroscope. The vertical force
is...
m.g.sin(a)
...where ‘g’ is the gravitational constant of 9.81 meters per second. The torque around the
gyroscope pivot point ‘P’ - and hence around the centre of mass - is...
TP = m.g.r.sin(a)
...where ‘r’ is the radius from the pivot point to the centre of mass.
This creates an instantaneous precession FS that in Figure 2 will cause the gyroscope to
precess out of the page at the top of the picture. The instantaneous rate of precession is...
vS = m.g.r.sin(a) / G
Now the reason for emphasising that this is the instantaneous rate, is that TP is not a simple
torque under the external linear field. As the gyroscope precesses out of the page, the angle
the field makes with the gyroscope rotates with the precession. The end result of this is to
cause the gyroscope’s precession to be truncated into a circle whose circumference is normal
to the field. The circumference of this circle is shortened to...
r.sin(a)
...while the full precessional circumference would be simply ‘r’. This means that it takes the
gyroscope less time to trace out the circular path, so the actual foreshortened precession rate
is corrected to...
vS = (m.g.r.sin(a) /G) / (r.sin(a) / r)
= m.g.r / G
= TPmax / G
In other words the revised precession rate is constant.
Now if you experiment with a table gyroscope you will find that it will slowly droop as it
precesses, so that the free end - opposite the pivot point ‘P’ in Figure 2 - will tilt more and more
towards the table surface. It may seem at first that it is simply falling under gravity, but if you
examine the motion you will find that the gravitational energy used up is not being translated
into kinetic energy since the rate of droop remains slow and controlled. So we need to find out
where the energy is going to understand the behaviour.
In fact it is simply precession! What is happening is this:- The torque produced by the
gravitational field on the primary axis causes the precession on the secondary axis. However,
the secondary axis has friction associated with its motion, and this creates a frictional torque
on the secondary axis that in turn causes precession on the primary axis. Energy conservation
tells us that torque times precession on one axis must equal the negative of torque times
precession on the other, so that the sum of the two energy rates is zero.
The work done by the gyroscope in going from the straight-up to the horizontal position may be
found by integrating the torque over this rotation, when it will be found to be numerically equal
to TP, but in joules of energy, rather than the TP Newton-meters of torque that creates the
motion. So in the table gyroscope example, TP joules of energy will have been lost to friction
on the secondary axis when the gyroscope has dropped from the straight-up to the 90-degree
orientation on the primary axis.
Full inversion from straight-up to straight-down involves 2.TP joules. This leads to an important
relationship. For any gyroscope the precession on the secondary axis is...
vS = T P / G
...and the work done in inverting the gyroscope from straight-up to straight-down in an external
field is...
E = 2.TP
...so the ratio of energy to frequency is...
E / vS = 2.TP / (TP / G)
= 2.G
In other words, a given gyroscope moment G will always result in the same ratio of energy to
frequency.
Another example is an electron in an external magnetic field. The electron has a gyroscopic
moment and a magnetic field.
Now the tabletop gyroscope has frictional losses and operates in a linear external gravitational
field that serves to invert it, while an electron has electromagnetic radiative losses and
operates in a linear external magnetic field that serves to invert it. In the former case the
external field acts on the mass, while in the latter case it acts on the magnetic field of the
electron. However, the maths is identical, with the electron’s gyroscopic moment being h/2 (‘h’
being Plank’s constant)...
E / v = 2.G
= 2.(h/2)
=h
...so as you can see Plank’s constant owes nothing to the electromagnetic world - it is a purely
gyroscopic property. The concept that the electron spin is 1/2 is related to its gyroscopic
moment being h/2.
Although it is difficult to do for the table gyroscope, it is easy to reverse the process for an
electron, to cause it to return from the straight-down (field alignment) position to the straight-up
(field opposition) position. Just as a loss torque on the secondary axis causes the precession
on the primary axis from straight-up to straight-down, so a gain or forcing torque on the
secondary axis will cause precession on the primary axis back to the straight-up position. How
this operates with the electron is beyond the scope of this paper, but it is possible to employ an
electric motor integrated into the secondary axis of sophisticated gyroscopes to overcome and
even reverse frictional losses.
Gyration
An interesting characteristic appears when you put a spring on the secondary axis. As you
drive the primary axis the secondary axis will at first precess and the primary axis will be stiff,
but as the spring winds up you will find the precession slow down and stop, and as a result the
primary axis will give way more and more until it rotates freely. This behaviour is that of an
inertial torque on the primary axis. Equally, if you put an inertial torque on the secondary axis
the primary axis will behave like a spring torque. This behaviour, where inertial torque is
converted into spring torque and vice-versa, is termed gyration.
Compound gyroscopic action
The foregoing discussion presupposes that the primary and secondary axes are massless, so
that when they precess they have no gyroscopic moment. This is never actually true. As soon
as the primary or secondary axis starts to precess its inherent mass creates a gyroscopic
moment on that axis.
When you take a spinning gyroscope and apply torque to the primary axis it causes the
secondary axis to precess. This causes the secondary axis to develop a small gyroscopic
moment of its own. This axis then acts as an alternative spin axis coupling torque on the
primary axis to the original spin axis (acting here as an alternative secondary axis). Because
this gyroscopic moment is normally very low, torque on the alternative primary axis generates
very high precession rates on this alternative secondary axis. The resultant picture is inevitably
difficult to visualise...
The following table shows the relationship of the first alternative axes to the original ones in
this particular example...
Second
Axis
Original
First
Alternative
Alternative
1
Spin
Secondary
/Primary
Primary/
Secondary
2
Primary/
Secondary
Primary/
Secondary
Spin
3
Secondary
/Primary
Spin
Secondary
/Primary
If we accept that there is no real difference between the primary and secondary axes there are
just three gyros, each corresponding to one of the three possible spin axes. Comparing the
original and the first alternative...


Original: The high-rate spin on axis 1 generates a high gyroscopic moment so that
torque on axis 2 generates a low-rate precession on axis 3.
Alternative: The low-rate spin on axis 3 generates a low gyroscopic moment so that
torque on axis 2 generates a high-rate precession on axis 1.
Note that there is no fixed relationship between the spin rates for each viewpoint. In normal
circumstances our viewpoint is locked to the spin axis with the highest gyroscopic moment, but
this does not mean nothing else is going on.
Let us use the notation where the suffix has two characters, the first being either ‘O’ for original
or ‘A’ for first alternative from the above table, and the second being the axis number. Then for
the specific case where the gyroscope mass is a sphere so that the angular inertia is the same
on all axes, the gyroscopic moment is always directly proportional to the spin rate, regardless
of the axes combination. Then...
TO2 = vO3.GO1
TA2 = vO1.GO3
But for a sphere, where the inertial moment is the same for all axis, the gyroscopic moment is
proportional to the spin rate, so...
v01.GO3 = vO3.GO1
...so that for stable precession/spin in this compound case...
TO2 = TA2
That is, the torque supplied to the ‘A’ set must be matched by an identical torque applied to the
‘O’ set. Since this is the same axis you must supply double the expected torque as the sum of
the two.
If the rate of precession vO3 (= the spin rate sA3) is fixed by the frequency that the forcing
torque rotates in the above image, then if TO2 is increased beyond TA2 the spin rate sO1 will
increase, while if it is dropped below TA2 it will fall. Since the spin has angular momentum
energy must be supplied in the former case to spin it up, while in the latter case energy will be
released from the gyroscope as it spins down.
In this manner it is possible to “pump up” the orginal spin axis rate by utilising an alternative
gyroscopic moment that treats it as a secondary (precessing) axis. There is an extremely
effective application of this on the market - the “Power Ball” wrist exerciser. Given the difficulty
of visualising compound motion in three dimensions it may be worth getting hold of one if you
are sufficiently interested.
You can then store flywheel energy in a gyroscope’s original spin axis, charging and
discharging that energy by means of an alternative spin axis. Suppose there are losses on axis
3 rotation so there is torque and precession (and hence work being done). The original gyro
set maps the energy from O3 to O2, which therefore also has precession and torque. The
precession on O2 couples to A2, and from there into A1, so that work lost on the spin axis A3
couples to work supplied on the spin axis O1. During these charge or discharge cycles the
orginal spin axis can be seen turning end-over-end as the alternative spin axis A3 revolves.
The clever thing about this approach - as opposed to simply tapping the original spin axis
directly for its flywheel energy - is that the output frequency and torque can be held constant
during the discharge without gearing even though the flywheel is slowing down.
Removing the Gyroscopic Moment
If the equations for angular momentum and gyroscopic moment are truly independent, can we
separate angular moment from gyroscopic moment in a flywheel? The answer is “Yes” - simply
ensure the mass travels in a circular path, but does not rotate. Imagine a flywheel which is
simply a frame that carries two masses which are free to rotate independently on their own
axles...
Then add some gearing (not shown) that makes the two masses counter-rotate slowly in the
opposite sense to the frame’s rotation. This is at a much lower rotation rate than the frame’s
rotation, just enough to offset the small gyroscopic moment of the frame. With the right
gearing the frame’s gyroscopic moment will be annulled by the masses’ counter-moment and
you will have a flywheel with plenty of angular moment, but no gyroscopic moment. Many other
arrangements are possible - two contra-rotating flywheels close to each other on the same axis
will do the trick; the gyroscopic moments cancel out but the angular moments add.
The application of such a device is to engines in high-performance machines. For example the
engines in small aircraft have such a high gyroscopic moment that they can affect the handling
of the aircraft, and longitudinally- mounted engines in racing cars can affect manoeuverability.
Gyroscopic Propulsion
Warning - Gyroscope propulsion is currently just speculative research and is not accepted by the
scientfic community. These propulsion pages should be regarded separate from the rest of the site.
What do these "Propulsion devices" do?
The concept is to produce a gyroscope based device that can produce sufficient amounts of lift/force to
be detectable and useful. In an extreme case this may mean that the machine could lift its own weight
and hence is able to fly or just to push something along. However research is still in its early stages
and I've yet to see one that can create any force under proper test conditions.
The use of the term "Anti-Gravity Device"
The use of the term "Anti-Gravity Device" is sometimes associated with this type of device. This is
misleading and confusing in many ways and I don't believe the term should be used. It is highly
unlikely that these type of devices effect gravity in any way. I believe the forces are independent of
gravity and more related to the gyroscopic forces. From the evidence I’ve seen, if these devices really
do produce force I believe energy is some how converting from rotational energy to a linear thrust.
Then these 'machines' can be put to better use in space with a zero or micro gravity environment.
Are these devices related to zero point energy?
As far as I'm aware none. In fact great amounts of energy has to be put in to get any linear force out
(if any).
Uses for gyroscopic propulsion devices
Gyroscopic propulsion would have a number of uses on land, sea, air and space. What uses the device
can do depends on the amount of force produced and its efficiency to produce that force. It may turn
out that they can only ever produce a force a fractional of the weight of the device e.g. a 10Kg device
give 1% thurst = 100g thurst. The weight to thrust ratio will define whether the technology can be
used on land, sea and in the air.
However in space the devices come into there own and they would be useful even if they could only
produce a small thurst compared to theier mass. Rockets are used almost exclusively as a means of
propelling something in space and although inefficient, it is the best we have at present. Assuming
gyroscopic propulsion does work it provides a means of getting from A to B in space without taking
your fuel up too. The devices could simply be solar powered so the fuel won't run out. Of course the
device still needs a way to get it into space in the first place.
Sandy Kidd and Force Precessed Gyroscopes
A simplified description of force precessed gyroscopes
In the following set of diagrams red arrows are used to show the force applied to the structure.
Provided the gyroscopes themselves are rotating in the correct direction (not shown on diagram) the
gyroscopes will produce a counter-acting force known as precession, as shown in the diagram as two
blue arrows.
Normally this would produce a continuous torque as the whole device is revolving which would cancel
it self out in the form of stress in the structure of the machine. However in Sandy's patent the
gyroscopes are pushed in/out using cams resulting in the following motion (represented by the eight
diagrams). As far as I can understand a number of up-ward pulses are produced due to the two
gyroscopes (in this particular case, more can be used) exerting a force towards the centre of the
structure (axle). This in effect is a vastly simplified version of what is going on. A number of
independent tests have shown results for and against the machine.
SIDE VIEW
TOP VIEW
Jacket photographs: front; Topham Picture Source/Carolyn Jones: back; Fotopress, Dundee
Image: Copyright Grampian Television PLC
While working in the Air Force, Dundee based engineer Sandy Kidd was one day taking a gyroscope
out of an aircraft. Not realising that the gyroscope was still running, he came down the steps of the
aircraft and turned at the base of the steps. At this point the gyroscope almost threw him across the
floor. This stirred his interest in gyroscopes, Sandy spent many years and tens of thousands of pounds
in his garden-shed/garage developing and working on gyroscopic devices. Trying to get a number of
gyroscopes to react against one another to produce lift. In time he developed a device that he claimed
could achieve this. Building other models using that principle and discussing his ideas with others, he
came to conclusions of how it worked. Dundee University was interested in the invention and for a
time worked with him, but long term could not supply the funds or enthusiasm that was needed. He
tried obtaining funds to develop his invention in Scotland, but had to resort to looking for funds
elsewhere. An Australia corporation BWM took the task on to develop a gyroscopic propulsion system
but unfortunately the company went bust. British Aerospace has also been involved in the research
with him but dropped the funding.
A UK/European patent for his invention was applied for (I have a copy of the application). I did try to
find a granted patent for Europe but without success. I ended up phoning the European patent office
to find out if one was granted. I was told that it would have been, but it was withdrawn at the last
moment (funding dropped). I did however find a granted US patent (5024112). The fees for the
patent have stopped being paid for some years ago. Which means anyone is free to copy, sell etc his
invention (At least in the US/Europe).
Sandy is still working on various devices based around gyroscopes and hopefully we will be seeing
more inventive designs from him in the near future.
Image: Copyright Grampian Television PLC
Dr Bill Ferrier of Dundee University talking about Sandy Kidd's machine in 1986:
"..............There is no doubt that the machine does produce vertical lift. Several modifications were
then made at my suggestions in order to disprove other possibilities of lift, particularly aerodynamic
effects.
I am fully satisfied that this device needs further research and development. I have expressed myself
willing to help Mr Kidd whose engineering ability is beyond question, and for whom I now have the
greatest respect. I am currently trying to interest the university in housing the development and also
in finding 'enterprise' money to fund the next stage.
I do not as yet understand why this device works. But it does work! The importance of this is probably
obvious to the reader but, if it is not, let me just say that the technological possibilities of such a
device are enormous. Its commercial exploitation must be worth millions."
Professor Eric Laithwaite
(14th June 1921 - 27th November 1997)
Image: Copyright Grampian Television PLC
Click here for more information about Eric's work
Geoff Russell (Geoffrey C Russell)
July 1999 I got in contact with Geoff Russell (Patent No.2,090,404). He tells me that the machine
based upon his patent has changed quite a lot. Vast improvements have been made over the years
and he now has a device that he says "weighing 22lb, which was able to consistently register weight
loss or vertical lift pulses of 20lb, give or take the odd oz".
He has very kindly given me diagrams and notes on one of the ways that he tests his devices
"Notes on Fig 1 Vertical Lift Weighing Board
Fig 1 is designed to detect and measure any vertical lift being generated by your machine. This is
achieved essentially by providing a stable base on which to test your apparatus. While leaving the
base and apps free to tilt vertically upward, in response to any vertical lift being generated.
Fig 1 consists of a flat rigid wooden board approx. 1" Thick, the overall size of which should be
determined by the size and weight of your own apparatus. The board has two L shape aluminium
sections attached to its underside. With the first positioned at the central pivotal axis and the second
positioned at one end of the board. A contact switch is attached to this aluminium section so that it
operates, lighting an indicator lamp each time the board tilts upward loosing contact with the ground.
A counter weight approx. the same weight as your apparatus is also required to vary the balance of
the board. By varying the position of the board movement of the counter weight towards the central
pivotal axis of the board, would mean that your apparatus would have to generate greater vertical lift
to light the indicator lamp. Moving it away from the control axis has the reserve effect.
To determine how much vertical lift your apparatus is generating, you must use a spring balance to
measure how much upward force is required to raise your apparatus sufficiently to tilt the board
upward, lighting the indicator lamp. The reading you get is the amount of vertical lift your apparatus is
generating. You should make a position on the board at which your apparatus is placed for all tests,
including the measurements you take before each test to determine how much weightless or vertical
lift is required to light the indicator lamp...
...Geoff Russell July 1999"
Geoff Wilson and the Wilson-Fourier Impulse Engine
Website: http://www.sbbg.demon.co.uk/
Geoff Wilson is part of team working which have been experimenting with gyroscopic engines for some
20 years. They now beleave they finally have both the mathematics (copyrighted 1999) and the
principals fully understood. They hope to exploit this new engine commencing Y2k. Hopefully more
details will be released soon.
Dr. Spartak M. Poliakov
Device and an action of
Inertial force deviation propulsion system
Outline
Inertial force deviation propulsion system is the device to get the thrust of relativity
theory effect .
To get thrust we must drive the device at very high speed.
We can convert electricity into thrust directly
by using erectorical motors for driving device.
Configuration
This system consists of turn table and gyro.
１．Turn table
The turn table ( blue part in diagram )turns with purple axis.
２．Gyro
The gyro (green part in diagram )turns with light blue axis fixed in turn table.
Four gyros are fixed in turn table in this diagram.
We can chice
the number of gyro as 2 or 3 and more
if gyros are symmetry about the purple axis .
The magnitude of the thrust is proportion to number of gyro.
Action and effect
If we give counterclockwise spin to the turn table, and give clockwise spin to gyros
with high frequency.
(relativity speed)
We can get The thrust from each gyros. (red ↑)
Why this phenomenon occur?
It is why the rate of time on the gyros depend on position .
It is just a relativity effect.
We call this phenomenon
inertial force deviation.
We call the new propulsion system as inertial force deviation propulsion system.
29 April 1995
The Secret of the Force Machine
by Bruce DePalma
In the analysis of Free Energy machines it is shown that spatial distortion
created to elicit electrical power extraction or anti-gravitational effects,
results in the appearance of physical forces in the apparatus. The physical
forces which appear represent the tangible counterpoise of the spatial
distortion.
Anti-gravitational Effects
When a real mechanical object, a flywheel, is rotated, forces appear, the
centripetal forces of rotation within the material of the flywheel. These
forces are the counterpoise to the spatial distortion created by the
centripetal acceleration applied to the mass elements of the rotating wheel.
Although these forces are not available for explicit measurement, their
presence is evidenced when the wheel is rotated at a high enough speed such
that the forces exceed the tensile strength of the flywheel material and an
explosion results. The interesting phenomenon is that no work is required to
maintain these forces at arbitrarily high values.
The gravitational field of the Earth is a spatial distortion occasioned by
the presence of mass. The weight of an object is measured by a scale under a
condition of constraint, i.e. no motion, and represents the degree of spatial
distortion at the point of measurement.
Objects in free fall are not acted on by Newtonian forces, consequently their
rate of "fall" is subordinated to rate of influx of the gravitational flow. A
hydro-electric power station extracts energy from the gravitational energy
flow.
Gravitational energy is a flow not a force which distinguishes it from
Newtonian forces arising from the acceleration of masses. Reasoning by
analogy with electrical Free Energy machines within which forces are
manifested proportionally as a counterpoise to the degree of spatial
distortion required to elicit a certain level of output electrical power, we
can hypothesize that to paddle upstream in the gravitational flow a
mechanical Free Energy machine would also manifest within itself such a force
counterpoise.
Thus to generalize we can say that in the class of machines known as Free
Energy machines the mode of such apparatus, either in the mechanical or
electrical form, is such that the principle of operation is expressible as an
equivalence between the explicitly manifested mechanical force counterpoise
and the power output of the machine whether it be mechanical, electrical, or
other.
The gravitational flow represents mechanical power, because power can only be
extracted from a flow of power. If the mechanical power output of a machine
exceeds the gravitational power flow in the region of its operation then a
force will be developed in the direction opposite to the gravitational flow
and an anti-gravitational effect will be demonstrated.
Actually what is connoted as gravitational power flow and mechanical power
output derived from Free Energy anti-gravitational apparatus is Time-Energy.
This subject is discussed in other of my writings, reference (1).
The archetypal gravitational engine or Free Energy machine is a combination
of two counter-rotating gyroscopes with axles parallel and rotors co-planar.
The original Force Machine was constructed in 1971, figure (1). The total
weight of the apparatus was 276 lbs. The "active" mass at the rim of the
flywheels was 10 lbs. The assembly was suspended from a spring scale and the
gyroscopes driven counter-rotating at 7600 r.p.m. Under these conditions the
support cylinder was driven at 4 r.p.s. to precess the gyros. A consistent
set of experiments repeatably showed 4 - 6 lbs. of weight loss. Although
thousands of pounds of force were developed, expressed as tension and
compression in the walls of the support cylinder, none of this could appear
as torque in the precessional axis due to the geometry of the machine.
Precession more rapid than 4 r.p.s. caused fracture of the tool steel gyro
support axles. It is easy to see how the machine design could be improved by
mounting both gyros on the same axle and supporting the developed
precessional forces by one rotor bearing directly on the other. Other
mechanical improvements would greatly increase the achievable antigravitational effect. Figure (2).
The important observation is that in a Free Energy anti-gravitational Force
Machine, essentially no input mechanical power to the precessional axis is
required in the manifestation of arbitrarily large forces in the walls of the
gyro support cylinder. From the point of view of physics we can say there is
an equivalence between the force explicitly developed in the walls of the
machine and the mechanical, time-energy, power produced. Thus in this machine
we have in operation a Force - Energy equivalence paradigm of great power. In
contrast, the consumptive physics now in vogue can only offer a Work - Energy
paradigm expressed in machines which are said to "convert" raw materials into
energy.
Electrical Force Machines
The N-machine
In the construction of an electrical machine analogous to the mechanical
Force Machine use is made of the phenomenon of the Faraday disc. It is known
that in electrical machines consisting of a conducting disc rotated proximate
and co-axial to the magnetic pole of an axially suspended magnet, figure (3),
no reaction torques are transmitted from the driven or driving disc to the
magnet supplying the exciting field. Attachment of the conducting disc to the
magnet itself and co-rotation of disc and magnet elicit an electrical
potential between the center and outer edge of the conducting disc.
Electrical power at a high degree of efficiency exceeding the electromechanical equivalent of work may be drawn from this apparatus, (N-machine).
When the N-machine was originally disclosed to the public, ref. (2), (3),
careful testing revealed output electrical power exceeding equivalent input
mechanical power by 5 - 7.7:1. Theoretical considerations derived from
experiments with the mechanical Force Machine would lead one to expect that
power could be extracted from such a machine almost free, i.e. electrical
power could be extracted without any drag being reflected on the source of
driving energy. Many other experimenters attempted to "improve" on the
original design. In most cases however while overall efficiency was greater
than unity it rarely exceeded 2:1. What was forgotten was the withdrawal of
electrical energy in itself created a spatial distortion which interfered
with the action of the machine by creating drag.
The high efficiency of the "Sunburst" prototype was due to partial
compensation of field distortion created by current withdrawal. With
reference to figure (4), the magnetic field created in the rotating current
collecting disc was partially cancelled by current flow in the opposite
direction in a fixed conducting plate, situated as close to the rotating disc
as the thickness of the brush assembly would allow. Indicated schematically
in the drawing. An improved machine would position a fixed compensation plate
as close to the rotating disc as physically possible. Thus current withdrawal
would cause the minimum distortion of the exciting magnetic field. In this
case almost totally free power would be obtained.
The double machine of figure (5) shows an almost ideal configuration where
compensation for the spatial distortion of current withdrawal as well as
doubling of voltage output is accomplished by contra-rotating magnetized
rotors supported on a single shaft. There is a striking similarity between
this construction of an N machine space power generator and the suggested
twin counter-rotating gyroscopes mounted on a single shaft as an antigravitational mechanical space power generator. It is suggested that a
mechanical space power generator is converted into an electrical space power
generator simply by magnetization of the gyroscopic rotators.
In terms of the Force - Energy paradigm the constrained repulsive force
generated between the contra-rotating magnets upon the withdrawal of current
represents a measure of the electrical power output of the machine. In the
anti-gravitational space power machine the torques created in the precession
of the counter-rotating gyroscopes, absorbed one upon the other are
representative of the anti-gravitational effect.
Force - Energy
On the basis of the geometry of both the electrical and mechanical force
machines there should be no drag or resistance to precession of the counterrotating gyroscopes or contra-rotation of the magnetic rotors. Force - Energy
equivalence relates to the relationship of internally generated constrained
forces and space power output. What we would call efficiency would relate to
the work input to these machines, i.e. torque x angular velocity compared
with the space power output.
Space power is developed out of distortion of the normally isotropic space,
the amount of distortion being represented by the reflected internally
constrained forces explicitly developed in these machines. As yet there is no
measure of space power expressed mechanically as an anti-gravitational
effect. Electrically developed space power can be measured in watts.
Consequently the efficiency of an electrical space power generator can be
expressed as electrical watts output divided by the electrical equivalent of
mechanical power required to rotate the magnets.
On the basis of present understandings of electrical and mechanical forces,
the geometries of both the mechanical and electrical space power machines
allow of none of the internally constrained forces developed to appear in the
drive axis. Consequently space power should be developed as totally free
mechanical or electrical energy.
Measurements on practical machines however do show drag to be present.
Because one torque is neutralized by an equal and opposite mechanical torque
or a force of electrical repulsion is constrained by an equal and opposite
mechanical force does not mean that the space in which the neutralization
occurs is returned to its original state of isotropicity. I have given a
great deal of consideration to this situation.
Defect of Forces
In the conservative physics of the work-energy paradigm the thermodynamic law
of Equi-partition of energy gives some insight of the energy coupling of
orthogonal modes of mechanically interpreted systems. In the physics of
energies elicited through spatial distortion of the cosmic primordial field a
useful idea is the concept of Defect of Forces which can help us understand
the properties of situations whose neutrality is achieved by the balancing of
equal and opposing similarly derived forces.
The idea is that when a force is manifested as a counterpoise to an
experimentally created spatial distortion, i.e. the forces existing in the
body of a rotating flywheel, mutually constrained precessional torques or the
balancing of electromagnetic distortions by the superposition of equal and
opposite vector fields; the manifested force is not perfect.
A perfect force by definition possesses only magnitude and direction. A real
force manifested as a counterpoise to a condition of spatial distortion has a
magnitude, a direction, and something else. The something else would be a
property of imperfection common to the universal manifestation of what we
know as Reality. The philosophical treatment of the innate imperfection of
Reality is beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say, in a physical
sense, the defect of forces is a real entity and is the property held in
common by all manifested forces, and represents a possible mode of coupling
between them. For example an explanation for the phenomena of inertia can be
developed out of the coupling of atomic and nuclear forces to the balance of
the mass in the Universe through the mechanism of defect of forces.
The defect of forces exists, yet is unquantifiable except in terms of itself
and has no known properties in terms of things that exist. Its existence is
non-existence yet it is held in common with all things that exist. I posit
that defect is connected and is responsible for the phenomenon of inertia.
In terms of this paper I posit the drag which appears in the drive axis of
orthogonal machines is a coupling of the force counterpoise of the created
spatial distortion into the drive axis through the mechanism of connectivity
of defect.
Summary
Force - Energy equivalence is a simple expression that in what I call
orthogonal machines a force is manifested proportional to the degree of
created spatial distortion. The primordial cosmic field is pure energy,
consequently distorting it to obtain a polarization from which power is drawn
can make available an arbitrarily large quantity of energy. The energy
available is limited more by the mechanism of extraction than the cosmic
field.
The idea of efficiency applies to the particular configuration of
mechanically realizable extraction apparatus. Force - Energy is a way of
characterization of the degree of spatial distortion achievable with
mechanical apparatus. Defect of forces is a concept to explain why free
energy machines are not infinitely efficient. It is also proposed as a
mechanism to explain the phenomena of inertia.
The machines we construct are almost infinitely puny in comparison to the
energy released from the cosmic field observed in the super-nova. The ideas
of spatial distortion, Force - Energy equivalence, and defect of forces may
open our eyes somewhat to the latent and omnipresent power and majesty of the
universe.
Addendum
It is constructive to consider the interpretation of familiar phenomena from
the viewpoint of Free Energy. Distortion of the cosmic energy field by the
presence of mass evokes the gravitational flow of time energy. The measure of
the created spatial distortion is the force counterpoise known as weight.
Distortion of the primordial field by a rotating flywheel or gyroscope evokes
the od field of inertial anisotropy. In this case the force counterpoise is
not explicitly available but nonetheless exists centripetally expressed
within the body of the rotating object.
In the interpretation of stellar phenomena the
could result in the liberation of heat. Denser
temperature. The liberation of energy in stars
their mass. As stars became more dense because
gravitational flow into matter
matter would increase in
could result simply because of
of gravitational accretion of
mass more energy would be liberated. Under gravitational pressure matter
itself might have various stages of collapse.
The first stage of collapse could precipitate from the cosmic field energy
sufficient to cause a Nova. A second state of collapse could precipitate a
Super-Nova. A normal stable star would operate in a density range where
matter would retain its identity in terms of the series of known elemental
configurations. The collapsed matter stages of the nova or super-nova can
only be hypothesized and probably would not be available for study under
terrestrial conditions.
The important observation is that the explosion of a star is analogous to the
explosion of a flywheel when rotated at sufficient speed such that its
internal cohesion is neutralized by a superabundance of time energy
precipitated from the cosmic field. In this case the invocation is rotation.
For stars the invocation is mass density and the perceived effect is the
gravitational flow. What the rotating flywheel and the star have in common is
that an explosion can occur when the internal energy exceeds the forces of
material cohesion. A long and useful life results when the density of energy
invoked from the cosmic field is less than that required for the disruption
of the elemental materials from which they are constructed.
References:
1) DePalma, "On the Nature of Electrical Induction", 28 July 1993, Nova
Astronautica, vol. 14, number 59, 1994; Magnets, vol. 7, number 8, August
1993; New Energy News, vol. 1, number 6, October 1993.
2) DePalma, N-machine D.C. Generator, 24 March 1978, drawing available from
B. E. DePalma, Private Bag 11, Papakura, South Auckland, New Zealand.
3) Kincheloe, Homopolar "Free Energy" Generator Test, presented at 1986
meeting of the Society for Scientific Exploration, San Francisco, CA, U.S.A.,
21 June 1986, revised 1 February 1987. Contains references to earlier DePalma
papers re N-machine.
Diagrams 1 - 5: