Projects I�d like to see

[ZPDM]

Veljko Milkovic - Two-Stage Mechanical Oscillations Research - YouTube and his homepage Veljko Milkovic - Home Page - Official presentation of the researcher and inventor Veljko MilkovicEric Laithwaite - gyroscopic gravity modification.mov - YouTubeEric Laithwaite

2a) Extra Credit. Build an electret powered toy quadropeter and fly it to the moon, credit given for Youtube videos posted demonstrating mastery of said subject material.

[ZPDM]

I want to return to this and this time just try and instead of saying what I'd like to see try to organize some of what I will try and work on for experiments that I think I might be able to practically accomplish and get answers from in the next say 6 months to a year time frame. This may be a lengthy post and I might break it up into parts. Well first will be to braid some litz wire and get an SSG a bit closer to spec, and return to min2olys shorting a pick-up coil, magneto sort of thing and try a litz wired pick-up coil, plenty of people here know a lot more on all this than I do, but it will be great to continue to learn.

What I also want to look at is circular motion and specifically circular motion with an unbalanced rotor as is seen with say a rock on a string, the earth around the sun, an electron around the nucleus, etc. I'll give my thinking, theory, first then consider some experiments. There are three or four forces that I've heard of that may come into play with circular motion with an unbalanced rotor, they are 1) translational, 2) centrifugal, 3) if the object is spinning, as say a planet or electron, precessional "forces" or effects and 4) sometimes there is a vortex circular motion.

I think number 4 is outside the 6 month time frame, considering first, straight line or translational motion, if one were on say a lightweight railway cart and walked to the other side and stopped the cart would move in the opposite direction to preserve center of mass then stop. If one ran to other side the cart would more quickly move in opposition then stop once one was at the other side. If, and by all means correct me if I am wrong here, one had a spring which pushed a cannonball to other side, the cart would move to preserve the center of mass and despite the inelastic collision of the ball hitting the far end of the cart the cart would not move forward from the collision, otherwise we would have went to Pluto with a spring and a cannonball by now. You could shoot a cannon on a cart and if the cannonball hit the far wall and stopped there would only be preservation of center of mass, it is Newtonian you can't have internal (translational) changes within a system which lead to net motion. One more point on this, the force with which the center of mass is preserved does depend on the velocity of translational motion, that is to say if you had rusty bearings and walked real slow you might get to the other side without the cart having moved and thus have changed the center of mass. Walking faster you would overcome the, what is it called static friction or some such, so the force does increase, there is just never any inertia or momentum developed, it is a sort of strange, the cart is its own little world. How does this "straightline" translational force relate to circular motion, well consider now if instead of walking straight to the other side one first walked at a 45 degree angle touched the side of the cart then went to the far end. The cart can, within reason, only move linearly, so the end result would be the same as walking straight to the other end. Finally consider a pole in the center of the cart and a heavy tether ball on a string, one person bats it from one end and the other person catches it at the far end. What will happen, well the cart should again move to preserve the center of mass as though the tether ball was walked directly across. The tether ball exerted translational forces throughout the semicircle but again the cart can only move in two directions. So from all this I conclude that translational forces exist in circular motion considering say two points 180 degrees opposite, the translational force increases as a function of mass and velocity but it will never generate momentum or inertia.

Next is centrifugal force, this is the force of an object moving in a circle to want to fly away from the center of rotation. It is the force which propelled David's slingshot or a hammer throwers hammer. There is some weirdness around some of the conventional scientific descriptions of this force. From University of Virginia's Phun Physics page on centrifugal force, http://phun.physics.virginia.edu/top...ntrifugal.html "It is important to note that the centrifugal force does not actually exist. ... For instance, a child on a merry-go-round is not experiencing any real force outward, but he/she must exert a force to keep from flying off the merry-go-round." Riiiight, and the scrapped knee if the child is thrown from the merry go round is imaginary, ... good to know that centrifuges can only imaginarily enrich Uranium. ... okay enough, but Geez talk about incoherent. The centrifugal force is quite real and we can also see from this same page that the magnitude has been found to be F = 1/2mv2/r. There are some strange things with centrifugal force, one, just as an aside to start, and it may be nothing, but why isn't a hammer thrower thrown backward when he releases the hammer? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpbgg2TRCuw In any event we know that the centrifugal force of say a tether ball is at all points going outward keeping the rope taught while pulling against the pivot point. We further know that the force that is exerted on the pivot point will be equal to 1/2 the mass times the velocity squared dived by the radius of rotation. If one had a single consistent point on the circle of rotation where radius was less, mass was more or velocity was higher, by definition that point would experience the greatest centrifugal force, In turn this point would exert the largest (though the tether rope) outward force on the center of rotation. Do we ever see in nature a system where there is maximal centrifugal force at a consistent single point, yes, that occurs with a pendulum. Is this force, like the translational, also incapable of generating inertia or momentum from internal changes, is it trapped in its own world, I believe the answer to both is a resounding no!

The evidence for this is in that most beautiful of experiments by Velko Milkovic of an inclined pendulum on a cart http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuTMYgQDUzs. Milkovic compares the length of travel of a cart from a ball hitting one end of the cart from rolling down a hill (please note per preceding discussion if a leprechaun threw the ball [and cart was level] it wouldn't move, it is transferring from the inelastic collision the outside force of gravity acting on the system) and compared this to the length of travel of dropping the ball as part of a pendulum. He demonstrates the cart moving more than three times as far with the pendulum drop as compared to the inelastic collision. Why? Well in both cases the translational force would have worked only to transfer the cart backwards, in the inelastic collision this force was overcome by the force of gravity imparted to the rolling ball, in the pendulum it was overcome by the consistent, repeated single centrifugal force. I don't think Milkovic is a liar, now there may be a variable he didn't take into account or something else going on, but if this is valid then it says that centrifugal force can impart momentum, can change the center of mass. I built a copy of Milkovic's cart and will say I got similar results, though not quite as dramatic and if there was a grain of sand in the way or a very slight incline the whole thing might start rocking backwards instead, but on the whole the results were very supportive though I can't quite say confirmatory yet. ... Continued

[ZPDM]

From Previous ...

So that is my first experiment. Clear off and polish a nice glass table, use the iphone level app to get it perfectly level, then the big variable in this which I just eyeballed on the first go is how inclined should the pendulum be? I am starting to wonder if you wouldn't see the biggest effect at 45 degrees (unlike the video but I have no idea and there is no textbook for this). So work with the incline, perhaps the mass and radius if need be of the pendulum until I feel comfortable that I have confirmed or denied Milkovic's finding. Next experiment, use a (Bedini style) sensor coil to pulse the pendulum just as you would with an SSG, but only to replace the loses in the pendulum swing. For some reason I first thought to place the coil at the top of the pendulum swing (where it is stopped). This makes no sense, both because the magnet is hardly moving and also is in the wrong place. If you put your coil at bottom dead center and it is say in attraction mode, it will further increase the speed of the pendulum on the downswing, thus increasing the centrifugal force (marginally) right where you would want it. The cart should just putt along forward without any irreversible change in the internal condition of the system. Won't that be something.

Now if I can't do this I may have to say my theory is wrong, maybe apologize for wasting your time. If however, I can, there are "bonus" experiments to do. You just need a way to accelerate a mass at one point on a circle and deaccelerate it at another, it doesn't have to be gravity as with a pendulum. First I'll tell you of my failed experiment and why I think it failed. So I put a rotor on a cart. At first i planned to use Bedini style sensor coils but if you actually go to build this you see why that can't work. So two magnets at 45 degrees apart. Two coils 45 degrees apart, reed switches tell the first coil to pulse the thing forward and the second coil (a little further away, or weaker) to oppose it. Now you have a slightly unbalanced rotor that is going a bit faster for 45 degrees on the circle. The problem I had was the rotor wasn't very unbalanced and likely more important the reed switches all started frying at about 5 volts. At three volts I could almost convince myself it wanted to move in one direction but basically it didn't work though I think I just didn't have enough oomphf. Need to crawl before I walk and the Bedini coil on the Milkovic cart seems the best confirmatory initial experiment. You need an acceleration and deceleration near equivalent to or greater than gravity exerts on Milkovic's pendulum if you are not going to use gravity. It did get me thinking however, is there an easier way (than ordering better than 99 cent reed switches). Well I fiddled a couple months with V-gate and the like magnetic set-ups, that darn, darn, darn sticking spot. Well now, that sticky spot is exactly what you want. The magnets, like gravity, accelerate the mass (faster even than gravity?) then in a single consistent spot decelerate it. Use a small electromagnet to get past the sticking spot and repeat the cycle.

So I could be off on all of this but I will experiment and try to find out, it may also possibly prove valid but there is a 0.01 percent motion that leaves it a novelty. I am glad that I found that equation for force of centrifugal motion F=1/2mv2/r, because in the back of my mind I have to wonder if this isn't a toy store novelty. Again I am way, way, way ahead of myself but if all this is valid consider, lets forget about the rest of the units they will stay constant, a mass going 1 mph at all points on a circle except one point where it is going 2 mph. F= 1/2mv2/r so F= 4 "units" at two mph and 1 and 1 mph a differential of 3 units. Now lets use an electromagnet to speed the thing up. There will still be only a difference of 1 mph between the fast point and rest of the rotation but now it is going 10 mph slow and 11 fast. 121-100 equals a 21 unit difference in centrifugal force. So I think this will be lots of fun to look into. I'll stop here but I want to post at some point about what I want to look at regarding precession and all I'll say is I think the experiments will be maybe even more simple and will focus on where or where did all the inertial mass go? I don't know

Paul

[Tom C]

SG milkovik oscillator

here is a design I have been batting around in my head, just thinking....

[ZPDM]

Hi Tom,

First I am not enjoying, nor is it going quickly, braiding my Litz wire, so if I see some effects from my Litzed coil once I am finished I will be sure to thank you for making Litzed coils more readily available. As regards your diagram, it is a little bit different than what I'm on about but heck yeah, if Milkovic is correct in the videos he shows with this device so easily pumping water then one could apply it to something like you have shown. The only modification I would make, is if I understand you have the generator rotor spinning a little one way then being pulled the other way by the spring. My guess is what one wants is to take the reciprocating motion of the long end of the pendulum and turn it into full rotation of a rotor via a crank shaft. I don't know if your approach will work but it is also how I would approach it for electricity.

[Tom C]

if you think of a rear bike wheel it has a gearset that allows the sprocket to free wheel in one direction, and engage the rim when the sprocket is turned by the cain from the crankset. the power stroke is one way on the milkovik oscillator, you only want work performed in the weights downstroke, so you can freewheel when the non power half of the stroke is occuring and the gear engages during the power stroke. flywheel action on the generator rotor will store inertia between strokes, so getting the flywheel to match the force of the power stroke to store as much in the flywheel as possible wil be neccessary.

let me know if you need a coil....

Tom C

[ZPDM]

if you think of a rear bike wheel it has a gearset that allows the sprocket to free wheel in one direction, and engage the rim when the sprocket is turned by the cain from the crankset. the power stroke is one way on the milkovik oscillator, you only want work performed in the weights downstroke, so you can freewheel when the non power half of the stroke is occuring and the gear engages during the power stroke. flywheel action on the generator rotor will store inertia between strokes, so getting the flywheel to match the force of the power stroke to store as much in the flywheel as possible wil be neccessary.

let me know if you need a coil....

Tom C

Got the idea, thanks. As regards, the left (Bedini) end of the set-up, there would be a slight deformity (elongation) of the pendulum swing from the tilting lever and also for some reason in the videos I've looked at there is at least sometimes I guess, sort of a double giddyup to the way the lever oscillates, one tilt stronger than the other. I would wager, a small amount of money, though that one could quite easily get the thing running as a pulsed pendulum without big problems. The real beauty here is, if you go back at look at EFTV I believe, you see John running a pendulum, a large pendulum which looks pretty heavy, with small batteries and a fairly small coil He doesn't present a spreadsheet but he shows this charging a much larger battery. While with a pendulum all you are doing is replacing frictional losses each swing. In other words, as I'm sure has occurred to you, for someone that knew what they were doing the left side itself might have a high COP. Then, if it works, you have the whole right side and that spinning flywheel which doesn't want to transfer its resistance back to the other side. Outstanding idea and experiment you have, if my assessment doesn't count as a negative.

[ZPDM]

Tom,

Just thought of another, somewhat related question which if you or anyone else wants to chime in on would be appreciated. If you have two running Bedini SSGs can you output the radiant of one machine to the battery of the other while the second machine is running?

[ZPDM]

Few quick thoughts on precession and related experiments.

First off I don't understand precession there are seemingly myriad phenomena related to it and I don't see the commonalities amongst them. By definition we have precession as a torque at right angles to applied torque which occurs with a spinning rotor. Reminiscent of the right hand rule of electromagnetism. I don't even know if precession is solely a torque and haven't yet thought of an experiment for that just to say when I hold a spinning rotor in my hand and move my hand left or right it wants to turn as a torque, move my arm left or right it wants to move up or down, perhaps just tracing a larger arc, I don't know.

There is much more, I should draw diagrams and what not but won't unless there is interest and/or need for clarification. Anyone wanting to see where I am coming from on this should watch Eric Laitwaite's Christmas lecture to children on gyroscopes. I talked a bit about centrifugal force with objects moving in a circle in previous posts, so first off, a precessing spinning rotor shows no centrifugal force. By a precessing spinning rotor I mean a rotor where the axle goes back to a fulcrum, like one of those little plastic hats that they show in such gyroscopic demonstrations. Aside from the fact that the wheel or gyroscope, doesn't fall down, which makes no conventional sense no matter how much one wants to chant "conservation of angular momentum, conservation of angular momentum", the circular motion resulting from precession has no associated centrifugal force. This is about 1/3rd of what Laithwaite was demonstrating in his lecture. So for instance he has a 1/4 kg gyroscope precessing on a 5 gram plastic top and asks why the plastic top doesn't rotate around the heavy object. He then puts the whole thing on ice and repeats it to show it wasn't a matter of friction. I have spun up a gyro, put it on a plastic top then tried to shake it off, it is not that easy it almost feels half glued on, you can do it with enough of a jerk but it isn't what "should" happen when when the precessional circle is supposed to be pulling away from the top.

Eventually I would like to confirm or quantify this, it could be done in the following manner, make the axle two telescoping parts linked by a spring. Leave your rotor non-spinning, spin the apparatus (at a precessional speed from a given rotor speed) and note how far centrifugal force pulls the spring. Spin up your rotor and repeat. This isn't on the top of my list because having held it in my hands I'll say, and this is the first point, there is no to greatly diminished centrifugal force when an object is in precession (along with not falling down from gravity).

I also talked a lot about translational motion previously, the second point, I am slightly less certain on this, though still pretty certain is that a precessing spinning object exerts no translational forces. Laitwaite and DePalma, to my limited knowledge didn't come out and say this they just patented and/or built things based from it. Easy way to test, put the rotating rotor on a cart let it precess and see if the cart rocks back and forth. That I hope to do. Now again, from having just held the spinning thing in my hands, if you push a spinning rotor in a straight line there is the conventional Newtonian reaction force. If instead the rotor were allowed to precess to the far side there is no opposing reaction. This was why when some English "Royalty" visited Laitewaite to ask him what he was up to he replied I am thinking of making a boat where you don't put the oar in the water but can row across the lake. The precession changes the center of mass, when you do the translation movement there is a reactionary movement and you get net, pulsing movement. DePalma may have gone even further as he said he had a way for the motion to not be in pulses, I can't figure out what he was saying at this time, and really using more than one "oar" you could also have smooth motion, the concept is astonishing enough without worrying about dressing it up. How one goes between precessional and translational motion on the two halves of the circle is the engineering part, but that is the idea.

There are a number of other things to precession, one that I don't see any immediate practical value to, but which most has my curiosity is that Laithwate also showed when you stop a precessing object there is no, reactionary force, it shows no inertial mass. Here are some questions and experiments related to that. Has only the rotating rotor lost its inertial mass, my first thought is of course! what kinda damn fool would think inertial mass disappears without rotation! Sheez. However, when more weight is added to a precessing wheel it doesn't fall over, it just precesses faster, or if the rotor was spun faster with the added weight it would precess at the same speed. Before we can even get there though here are the first experiments. 1) Spin a rotor at say 1000 rpms, allow it to precess, note the speed of precession say 30 rpms. 2) Stop the rotor, spin the stopped rotor at 30 rpms, place a force gauge against a flat plate in the path of rotation, note the registered force when the stopped rotor hits it. 3) spin the rotor at 1000 rpms allow it to precess at 30 rpms, place the force gauge, note the registered force. If inertial mass has disappeared or diminished these two values will not be the same, as a bonus you didn't spend ten billion dollars on a cyclotron.

Experiment 2. Reduce the rotor speed to 500 rpms, If I am not mistaken it will now precess at 60 rpms, repeat the other steps and see what one gets, did the inertial impact increase. Experiment 3. Spin the rotor at 1000 rpms, attach a weight to the axle to double the weight, it should now precess at 60 rpms, what happens to the inertial force. Does more weight increase reactionary force? Here is a last one which I keep thinking about, instead of a solid weight put a matchbox with a ball bearing in it to "weigh down" the rotor. First don't spin the rotor and measure the force that the ball bearing hits on the other side, then with the rotor spinning and all else equal measure it again. Does the ball bearing take off like a bat out of heck because of the immediate stoppage of the rotor or does it say, well thanks to the rotor I didn't give a darn about gravity and so I don't give a darn about inertial mass either and I'm going to stay about where I am thank you. There's still more with precession so one more part ....

[ZPDM]

Another interesting thing with precession is that if you "force" precession, i.e. instead of adding more weight as a torque to speed up precession you simply use a motor to increase the rate of rotation, the rotor rises upwards. I've done this, it is not hard to set up, get a toy gyro break off the rotor, attach it to a 6V hobby motor set it up with an axle going back to a bearing that can move vertically. Place the whole thing on a CD that can spin, spin the CD with a second toy motor. I also put it on a scale. The weight doesn't change one iota. Ah the (I won't say skeptics, because I view them as the ones challenging the conventional view) the conventionalists will laugh and laugh, no change in weight, dummy (etc.), but there remains the problem of this rotor (let's just think of it as a pallet of bricks for a moment), that I was making swing all over the place vertically, up and down, up and down with no registered force, no translational force, no force from gravity. It is astonishing, no idea yet how to make use of it, but it is there. It is yet another plane where the mass no longer seems to exist and to not sound funny, but I question when there is no inertial and no gravitational mass in all these planes why do I still observe it? I thought mass was big on whether something is. I don't plan to post much more for awhile, but those are my thoughts at this time on circular motion, whew!