I found some plans for Tesla's mechanical flying machine a few months ago. They are actually very straightforward. Some guys have built a model of the machine, you can see it at their website at http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/tesla-flying-machine/Tesla-Flying-Stove-motor.php. I also built my own model but neither of them seem to work.
After trying to work out why it didn't work, it seems to me that the machine needs an additional eccentricity rotating perpendicular to the other four to shift the centre of mass of the machine sideways at the right timing. I've shown this extra weight in my own drawing that I've attached.
I built this new design as well, out of aluminium and steel for the weights. It ended up weighing about 6.5 kg though, and wile I estimate I get about 800rpm from the 2 electric motors powering the thing this doesn't seem to be enough power to actually lift the thing, especially as the weights and lever arm lengths I used were smaller than those used by the guys who built the original, unchanged model at the website I linked to.
I could build the machine lighter and use more powerful motors but I'm a bit tired of messing around with this particular design since I've already spent so much time and money on it.
Tesla calls this a simple mechanical method of flying. It has nothing to do with atoms or electrons as the author of the book the plans for this machine appears in suggested. She seemed to think the right-hand rule Tesla mentions had something to do with electromagnetism, but its a very simple high school physics rule for calculating the direction of torque.
All the machine does is shift its centre of mass and push it out and up using centrifugal force to develop an upward thrust. If you work through a full revolution of the weights while looking at Tesla's drawing you can visualize the centre of mass rotating upwards out of the page, in a spiral, thus giving a net upwards force.
(Without the new eccentricity the centre of mass will actually stay at the same level; with the new weight it should move upwards as well).
Diagram from page 31 of Tesla, Man of Mystery © 1992
Chapter 4: "The Tesla Space Drive"
Also from the book (and taken from the website I linked above), Tesla says:
"The first step in developing this system is to cause a counter-clockwise (sense chosen arbitrarily) acceleration of the center of mass of the four eccentrics (refer to diagram) in a circular orbit about the X axis.
"... there is a common point about which the center of mass of the eccentrics and the center of mass of the device as a whole gyrate." pg.32
"The reaction to this angular acceleration is a linear acceleration along the system axis (X) and directed outward from the page. ... this system functions in accordance with the right-hand rule. ... [ It will ] wobble noticeably at low thrust levels. This effect fades out, however, as the thrust is increased." pg.34-35
I think the big problem with the site replication show is the motor, its to big, you need smaller motor that can rotate faster then 800RPM, I bet 10000RPM is the range you will see an effect.
Also you need to put a balance under so you can see if the device mass change.
A fascinating device jandell254.
I wonder if it would be possible to construct it without the need for right angled gears and pillow block bearings using the following method:
Take four brushless 3phase model aircraft motors (an excentric on each motor shaft) and wire them all to the same PWM brushless speed controller, this way phase locking of the rotations could be achieved electrically rather than mechanically.
Just incase phase slip did occur it would be wise to make sure the orbits of the excentrics do not overlap.
Brushless model motors have the advantage of being cheap and very high power to weight ratio and they can be controlled with positional accuracy like a stepper motor.
If this method does work then one could control all four motors using a microcontroller, then the phase relationships could be accurately adjusted in order to maybe achieve solid state control of thrust direction.
Yucca.
I know this is hard to believe--it comes as a shock to me, I assure you--but Tesla was NOT right about everything.
You are looking at one of his worst mistakes.
This device will not fly.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 27, 2008, 07:59:31 PM
I know this is hard to believe--it comes as a shock to me, I assure you--but Tesla was NOT right about everything.
You are looking at one of his worst mistakes.
This device will not fly.
I've noticed that Tesla was wrong about alot of things including this machine. None of his other flying machines were ever built as far as I know, so they probably didn't work either. He's still the greatest scientist who ever lived in my opinion though for the things that he got right.
I don't know if the machine would work with the simple modification I made to it. Its possible that the horizontally spinning eccentricity that I added will keep the machine stable by acting like a gyroscope and prevent it from tilting properly as shown in my diagram. Theres always some flaw in these types of machines that keeps them from working.
"Theres always some flaw in these types of machines that keeps them from working."
Yes, that's right. Unfortunately it is usually the same flaw: These devices, if they worked, would violate the principle of Conservation of Momentum, which, as far as I am aware, has never yet been violated.
It's sort of like squeezing an orange and expecting to get high-octane gasoline out of it. You didn't, you got orange juice. So what do you do? Go squeeze a grapefruit. Still no gasoline? Well, let's squeeze some apples, then.
See what I mean? If a thing is clearly impossible from first principles, it does no good to keep trying minor variations of the same thing. But people do, and people have--there are many many designs like this, based on eccentric weights or paddles rotating or swinging or sliding against flexible or rigid stops or cams, in all kinds of different planes and axes, with clockwork or electrical or even rubber-band power. None of them actually work as designed. Sure, some of them move--but always by reaction against a substrate, in full accord with Newton's laws of motion and the Conservation of Momentum.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 28, 2008, 11:49:47 AM
"Theres always some flaw in these types of machines that keeps them from working."
Yes, that's right. Unfortunately it is usually the same flaw: These devices, if they worked, would violate the principle of Conservation of Momentum, which, as far as I am aware, has never yet been violated.
Why, then, did the Royal Society, in 1974, strike from its records the celebrated lecture by Prof
Eric Laithwaite where he showed, amongst other tings, the reduction in weight of a gyroscope
when spun up to speed?
Paul.
Quote from: Paul-R on January 11, 2009, 10:02:17 AM
Why, then, did the Royal Society, in 1974, strike from its records the celebrated lecture by Prof
Eric Laithwaite where he showed, amongst other tings, the reduction in weight of a gyroscope
when spun up to speed?
Paul.
Because they were embarrassed to have been seen to present and endorse a lecture full of logical flaws and inferential errors?
Gyros do not lose weight when spun up to speed; they precess, which means dear Doctor Laithwaite didn't need to LIFT the bicycle wheel during the lecture, he only had to exert a force at right angles, and the gyro would precess upward. The amount of force is the same, of course, and this has been proven by correctly done experiments, time and time again. (How do you think the Hubble Space Telescope makes those incredibly long exposures? It's held precisely on station by precessing gyroscopes, and the engineers that designed that system don't believe in Laithwaite's theory). The dear old professor just was able to exert the force in a much more convenient direction, since he could push outward from his chair or platform, and the spinning gyro would precess and transform this push into a lift.
Navigational gyros are "erected" by this method all the time, and nobody thinks they lose weight. Inertial navigation systems approach GPS in accuracy over the short term; this is done by carefully measuring the precessional forces on sensitive gyroscopes. Have these gyro engineers noticed gyros losing weight? No. Only DePalma, Laithwaite, and some Japanese investigators think (or thought) so, and careful experimentation has always failed to support their contentions.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 11, 2009, 07:36:00 PM
Because they were embarrassed to have been seen to present and endorse a lecture full of logical flaws and inferential errors?
Gyros do not lose weight when spun up to speed; they precess, which means dear Doctor Laithwaite didn't need to LIFT the bicycle wheel during the lecture, he only had to exert a force at right angles, and the gyro would precess upward. The amount of force is the same, of course, and this has been proven by correctly done experiments, time and time again. (How do you think the Hubble Space Telescope makes those incredibly long exposures? It's held precisely on station by precessing gyroscopes, and the engineers that designed that system don't believe in Laithwaite's theory). The dear old professor just was able to exert the force in a much more convenient direction, since he could push outward from his chair or platform, and the spinning gyro would precess and transform this push into a lift.
Navigational gyros are "erected" by this method all the time, and nobody thinks they lose weight. Inertial navigation systems approach GPS in accuracy over the short term; this is done by carefully measuring the precessional forces on sensitive gyroscopes. Have these gyro engineers noticed gyros losing weight? No. Only DePalma, Laithwaite, and some Japanese investigators think (or thought) so, and careful experimentation has always failed to support their contentions.
Hang on to your beliefs, TinselKoala. Don't let anyone get in the way.
Quote from: Paul-R on January 12, 2009, 01:14:59 PM
Hang on to your beliefs, TinselKoala. Don't let anyone get in the way.
If you think I'm wrong, that's certainly your prerogative. But you should be able to PROVE ME WRONG, if that's the case.
Sadly, those who have tried, have failed. That doesn't mean I am correct, of course--but it sure increases the likelihood.
My "beliefs" are the result of much study, experience, and experimentation. Have you, yourself, PaulR, tried to reproduce DePalma's work with launching spinning ball bearings, or timed pendulums with dual coupled gyros? I have. Have you, PaulR, done experiments with dropping gyros spinning in various directions, and timed their fall in sensitive apparatus, like the Japanese researchers? I have. Have you tried Laithwaite's experiment with a swivel stool and a bicycle wheel on a handle? I have.
Based on my study, experience, and experimentation, I say that gyros do NOT lose weight when spinning, nor do they fall faster or more slowly.
So, yes, I will continue to hang on to my "beliefs", because, for me, they have the tenacity of fact.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 12, 2009, 01:34:28 PM
If you think I'm wrong, that's certainly your prerogative. But you should be able to PROVE ME
WRONG, if that's the case....
I can't be bothered.
As for the claims for your work, much depends upon its quality.
It is wrong for you to come on to this thread and pee on other people's ideas and work. You have
done this elsewhere in the forum.
Your all talking about Tesla's work as if it is to be taken as a literal "here is the plans, now you can build" You have to remember that a patent is the decaration of an idea being your own... not the precise step by step on how something works... If you want an example look at his ideas and revisions to his electrical generating devices that have been relitivley unchange since the day he last revised his patents... Since alot of his later patents i have found tend to be missing key components or even the need for other patented ideas to be incorporated in order to work you may be barking in the wrong direction.
Remember Tesla worked with high voltage electricity too on his own motors...
Just a thought...
Excuse me guys but I seem to be missing something here.
What has this design to do with Tesla? Other than someone saying it is a Tesla idea I cannot see any link. The drawing is definitely not one of his, there is no patent I know of that shows this device. This seems to be the same scam as the so called Teslaswitch that has been bandied around for some time.
Some characters seem to delight in putting idiotic devices up and try giving them credibility by ascribing them to Tesla.
Prove me wrong! Show me where the Tesla connection is with this idiotic project.
Hans von Lieven
@Paul-R:
If you want to call it that, that only shows your vulgarity. What I am doing is sharing my hard-earned knowledge, and if I can keep even a single researcher from wasting time and money following, for example, an Archer Quinn or a MACEDONIA CD, I will have done my duty.
What, exactly, do you bring to this forum, Paul-R? I don't see you posting much of your research in the threads I read. You must be putting it somewhere else. I'd like to see it.
Quote from: hansvonlieven on January 12, 2009, 09:46:29 PM
Excuse me guys but I seem to be missing something here.
What has this design to do with Tesla? Other than someone saying it is a Tesla idea I cannot see any link. The drawing is definitely not one of his, there is no patent I know of that shows this device.
There is more to Tesla than his patents.
Does anyone know where, on the net, we can find what is left of his research papers after many were impounded by the military?
He died in 1943. Many of these docs should be available for release by now.
Paul.
Hmm well as far as i remember the Tesla flying machine worked by cancelling gravity with three or more gyroscopic forces.
Also the "ship" looked like a large cigar :)
His dream was to fly it straight out of the window.
But alot of things are still unknown so it's hard to build things like these. :-\
Marco.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 27, 2008, 07:59:31 PM
I know this is hard to believe--it comes as a shock to me, I assure you--but Tesla was NOT right about everything.
You are looking at one of his worst mistakes.
This device will not fly.
this may be true, but maybe like Leonardo da Vinci where he purposely put flaws in his drawings of his devices so they didn't fall into the wrong hands...
my 2 cents..
Hi evry body,
I'm new in this topic and i have an idea to expose here :
Why every body is thinking that this machine is a flying machine ???
just think a bout what tesla said (he was working on a mecanical system ...) how could we make fly a mecanical system ???
also, first he was thiking on a way to transfer electrical energy wirelessly ....
what if his real proplem at that time was how to produce energy ....
SO THINK ABOUT THIS MACHINE AS AN ENERGIE PROVIDER ( based on Coriolis force !!!!!!)
when you make this machine rotate (the weights AND The DISK) in the indicated way, this machine will neutrelize the centric force between weights, and gravity force will have realy little effect on it .... BUT AND THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS : that the rotation of the weights installed on the rotating disk will be solicitated to a Coriolis force that goes on the same way of the disk !!!!!
when the velosity of the disk is highier than a certain level (relatively low) this force will generate an acceleration. this acceleration can be controlled by controlling the weights velocity (regulation) and we can use this acceleration as force that can GENERATE POWER. when the power generated is higher than the one introduced to make all this staf rotate in first place, .... WE PRODUCE POWER WITHOUT INTRODUCING ANY POWER .....FREE ENERGY !!!!!
Houmem
Quote from: jandell254 on December 27, 2008, 08:50:05 AM
I also built my own model but neither of them seem to work.
I am new here. None of you know of me. That is fine. Please do not discount what I write simply because of lack of internet relationship to this place.
Further, I am not in the habit of discounting the work or ideas of others. However I have studied Mr. Tesla's quotes on his flying machine and also have an incite that may not be commonly available.
The flying machine as presented in those drawings is flawed. It is close to what Mr. Tesla has already figured out, but will not fly in the state represented by the drawing or presented in the videos. While very close there are some parts of this that are not being taken into consideration thus preventing the experiments from working successfully.
Allow me to get everyone thinking in the right direction.
I will start with some very basic and easy facts.
1) The force of gravity is a constant not a variable.
2) By using rotational momentum a force can be created that is a variable. (more RPM = more force)
3) When taking into account a steady rotation - the further from the axis of the source of rotation the greater the force created.
4) Force = energy in motion.
It is a very basic fact that more force can be created by rotation of an object than that object is subjected to by gravity. (gravity is a very small force - if it wasn't you couldn't get out of your chair)
Once the force generated (energy) by an object's rotation around an axis can be equal to or greater than the force represented by the pull of gravity against it - and that energy can be directed 180 degrees from the source of the gravity - you will overcome the influence of gravity upon that object.
This machine is very simple to build and not difficult to power.
As Mr. Tesla stated the inherent properties of the engine itself creates stability. The world thought he was speaking of gyros when the engine itself carries the same properties. Mass and weight carry no influence on this rotational flying engine and aerodynamics have more of a negative effect upon the device than a positive.
Everyone is very close - and yet overlooking the obvious.
-Magumbo
Magumbo
Quote;
very close - and yet overlooking the obvious!
------------------------
That seems to happen a lot around here!
Please Shed some light on the less fortunate?
Thanks
Chet
Quote from: ramset link=topic=6409.msg230319#msg230319 A=1267200530
Please Shed some light on the less fortunate?
Chet,
You are most likely not less fortunate than I.
Think basic, not complex. This one truly is easy. Any question is easy if you already hold the answer. And you do.
I will help everyone figure this one out on their own with some basic exercises.
1) Spin a bicycle tire on its axis on the garage floor. For the same amount of RPM (spin) which has a greater force against equal mass?
a) 10 speed tire.
b) wagon tire.
c) Child's bicycle tire.
The answer is a. And in order the force created is a, c, b. The force on any mass is greater the further from the axis it is. Simple. And you have now created force (energy). But that force is horizontal.
What SIMPLE way can you direct that force up equal to the pull of gravity?
Do you see it now?
This one is easy - and we just taught the entire world how to fly.
-Magumbo
Magumbo, Thanks for the hints but I don't yet see it. I have some vague ideas coming up but I don't think it's as simple as you are implying. But that may be because you have already seen it and we have not. So since a picture is worth a thousand words could you draw a pic or a diagram perhaps? Are you saying there is another way to fly besides prop, jet or high voltage ionic wind effect (not really practical for flying since with current tech it can't lift the power supply even)?
Hi folks, Hi Magumbo, my guess is that a wobble like spinning a coin on a table and when it slows it has that wobble and sound it makes. still giving it thought but that was my first thought.
peace love light
Tyson
Interesting discussion, with great insights from incidental posters, now some time ago.
Yes, the wobble in a spinning coin is fascinating. Did one of you ever try to press down the center of it? The coin resists. It seems to me like a long gear against gravity. It is giving in, but taking its time. KE in the coin needs to be transferred into work (friction) before gravity gets a permanent grip.
Of course, if we spin a wheel horizontally on its hub, and then have the axle engage in a screwing manners, we have lift off. But it require a stationary (earth locked) axle. Alternatively, an axle that is extruded, as a thrusted mass. Or, can we keep the mass we are pressing against on board, and take it along? That would violate some yet to be violated laws.
Do inertial engines exist that have been verified? In the forest of Youtube videos of lifters and hoovers, impossible to see what real or fake.
I'm thinking that gyroscopic rotation might be barking up the wrong tree with regards to teslas machine, I just finished reading Pentagon Aliens by William Lyne, in it he describes teslas machine as using "Electropropulsion" using single wire emitters. Basically it's two plates perpendicular to the same axis on opposite sides, one fed by negative high voltage/feq dc pulses and the opposite side by high feq ac. According to Lyne the emission for the negative plate is what genereates the thrust/gravity cancelling effect Initially I just thought it was interesting then I remebered a website where the inventor was doing something similar (http://thruster.groupkos.com/unipolar.html (http://thruster.groupkos.com/unipolar.html)). On the page he describes one derviative of his invention where he uses a corona discharge to provide ac. Look for this on page "The next setup is with a secondary tube, wich is a corona discharger. This tube apply AC component to the end of the insulaten wire on ping-pong ball. This solution works on lower voltage, on only 30kV, 0.1mA. The next video is a smoke-test of this doubled thruster. This thruster always moves toward negative electrode". His emitters are parallel I think if they were opposite he would have replicated the setup in Lynes book??
I played with HV thrusters for about 10 years better known as lifters but there is one design I never tried but was always meaning to do once I pull out my flyback again.
this designed was developed to utilize the return of electrons on the rear to prevent the electrons from canceling forward momentum due to Newtons law.
the thrust return sort of acts like a kick in the pants.
As I do with students and associates the answers are always given first - even if you don't see that they have been. You ALL should get this one. It is basic and very easy.
Can we create a variable force greater than the constant of gravity using momentum and rotation? -yes.
Can we direct that force in a direction opposite that of the gravity that is acting upon the mass? -yes.
It truly is that basic and that simple. I would not be doing anyone here any favors to draw out an example that will utilize this basic law of gravity. (mass and rotation?)
The answers to all of your questions have already been posted above. There are no "what ifs" in this one. It's very basic...
-Magumbo
Okay this is fascinating - partly because I remember many years ago coming across someone I read about who had built a small saucer of sorts - maybe 4 or 5 feet in diameter. If I recall it used 2 or 3 gyroscopic devices -- and I'm very fuzzy on the details here (I may have info saved on another computer) but I believe there may have been offset concentric gyro's - one within another. Anyway supposedly the man got it running one day and it lifted off higher and higher and the last he saw it - it was still going higher never to be seen again.
So I'm trying to wrap my head around what you have said Magumbo but there are so many possibilites I have not yet come up with anything that seems to work in my imagination. I think it may involve 2 or 3 offset gyro's but not nearly as much as the ones in Tesla's drawing. Or maybe one is not offset and another is. Have you built or seen a working model of this?
If it is this simple and also if it is usable I would assume at least our military would have such a device by now. As far as I know it does not (but then what do I know other than Internet rumors and that I haven't even seen one on anything like this).
maybe I am getting a different image about Tesla's Flying Machine, does anybody have a really good image they can post hear, from what I gathered Tesla and T.T Brown were working with Electrical Bi-fields as thrust.
I really don't recall Gyro's in Tesla's work for a flying machine.
Check out Peswiki page on Tesla's Flying machine, some images and links.
I am sorry but it is not a gyroscopic ship, it is an electrokinetic ship, just as a variable of lifter design technology. there are no gyros involved.
There is nothing whatsoever in Tesla's patent to indicate it is a electrokinetic flying ship? Maybe you are thinking of Alien space ships? ??? The patent shows rotating devices and I'm inclined to go with what Magumbo has stated. In fact I think I have figured out what he is saying. I'm not sure I can describe it but may be able to draw it. Or show a video of it - I think it's along this line: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbGHp0Ieh1I&feature=related
This may explain it better - grabbed this from another forum discussing this: "the simple equation of F=M*A is involved.
To demonstrate how it works take 2 quarters and glue 1 of them to a smooth surface. Take a marker and draw a dot on the very edge of the second quarter. Set the second quarter on the smooth surface so that the dot is touching the glued quarter. Now mark the glued quarter where the dot on the second quarter touches it. Now slowly rotate the free quarter around the glued quarter using the rims of the quarters act as gears. As you spin the free quarter mark on the surface where the dot is on the free quarter you will note that your marks will look like a flat tire..round on top(the point furthest from the glued quarter) and flattish on the bottom(the point where the dot touches the quarter).
Now if we assign the dot a weight and do the math something interesting happens...the radius from the center of rotation changes and therefore the effective mass of the dot changes due to the changes of acceleration of the dot.
What this does is to add an arm to quarter #2 and move the dot to the center of the glued quarter and at that point the acceleration of said dot reaches -0- in spite of the fact that the quarter to which it is attached never changes its speed. "
I believe this is supressed tech which most mathematicians and physicists refuse to see. They are teaching that some of the forces in this situation cannot exist.
Hi folks, thanks e2matrix for the clarification. Yes i've studied these types of systems in the past but never built a model. Dean drive is similar and i saw a video of what you describe made from erector set parts i think and it moved along the table, though not sure if it would give this net force in one direction like say hanging from a string. Only way to know is test it. The DUP drive was rather interesting as well.
peace love light
Tyson
Quote from: e2matrix on February 28, 2010, 12:02:07 PM
There is nothing whatsoever in Tesla's patent to indicate it is a electrokinetic flying ship? Maybe you are thinking of Alien space ships? ??? The patent shows rotating devices and I'm inclined to go with what Magumbo has stated. In fact I think I have figured out what he is saying. I'm not sure I can describe it but may be able to draw it. Or show a video of it - I think it's along this line: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbGHp0Ieh1I&feature=related
the problem with inertial drive systems is they need something to kick off of, they wont work in space because the ship will have an equal and opposite inertial reaction causing it to go no where but vibrate back and forth.
Sorry, I was advised strongly to take this back offline.
Hi magumbo, dont let fear advise you, it leads down a dead end street. post anything you have.
peace love light
Tyson
Quote from: SkyWatcher123 link=topic=6409.msg230719#msg230719 A=1267482050
Hi magumbo, dont let fear advise you, it leads down a dead end street. post anything you have.
peace love light
Tyson
Thanks Tyson. I am actually letting the physics professor of a major university here in the U.S. advise me. Evidently we hit the ball a little further out of the park than I had comprehended. After some CYA stuff I will post back to the forum.
Magumbo, Thanks for updating here. Hopefully this is not a case similar to a movie I once saw with Meryl Streep in it - I think it was called Dark Matter. If I recall the student or colleague was more brilliant than the professor and the professor either wanted the credit for what the student/colleague had discovered or was wanting to suppress it so he wouldn't have to deal with the embarrassment of having a student come up with something better than he could.
Just remember to cover yourself as well as any ties you have with others. Hopefully the outcome allows you to post the info here as I'll bet there would be people here willing to try building such a fascinating device. . I've always wanted an anti-gravity platform ;)
@onthecuttingedge2005:
Hi Jerry,
With respect to the drawing in Reply #25:
Wouldn't the electrons impacting the rear part of the thruster cause a thrust-cancelling kinetic energy effect on the whole thing?
If the rear impact part was electrically conductive, would the inevitable electrical resistance cause inefficiencies? Unless the thing was superconductive?
--Lee
Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on March 01, 2010, 10:05:35 PM
@onthecuttingedge2005:
Hi Jerry,
With respect to the drawing in Reply #25:
Wouldn't the electrons impacting the rear part of the thruster cause a thrust-cancelling kinetic energy effect on the whole thing?
If the rear impact part was electrically conductive, would the inevitable electrical resistance cause inefficiencies? Unless the thing was superconductive?
--Lee
thrust only counts as it leaves it highest pressure zone, once a particle separates itself from the main body it becomes a mean free particle and no longer delivers any direct thrusting to the vehicle.
but in this EHD thruster design the electrons will always travel faster than the spaceship, the efficiency can be upped by returning the mean free electron to the rear of the ship so that the electrons kinetic mass gives the ship an additional kick in the aft going in the same direction, not opposed.
you could do a simple experiment.
1. put some nice roller skates on that are well lubed.
2. Take one large Boomerang.
3. Throw the boomerang very hard but make sure it comes back to you. notice you roll back when it is thrown.
4. as the boomerang comes back to your hand and you catch it the Boomerang will redeliver its kinetic energy back to you causing you to roll back further.
simple analogy but I hope you understand.
Jerry ;)
Quote from: e2matrix on March 01, 2010, 07:14:43 PM
Magumbo, Thanks for updating here. Hopefully this is not a case similar to a movie I once saw with Meryl Streep in it - I think it was called Dark Matter. If I recall the student or colleague was more brilliant than the professor and the professor either wanted the credit for what the student/colleague had discovered or was wanting to suppress it so he wouldn't have to deal with the embarrassment of having a student come up with something better than he could.
Just remember to cover yourself as well as any ties you have with others. Hopefully the outcome allows you to post the info here as I'll bet there would be people here willing to try building such a fascinating device. . I've always wanted an anti-gravity platform ;)
No worries. I'm not a student and am just making sure this is documented and handled properly.
@onthecuttingedge2005
With respect to Reply #40,
I see now that I was thinking the thrust I saw as being reversed in my mind. I see your point now.
Something is still concerning me:
After the electrons travel back up the center conductor, they're going in the opposite direction of the thrust, yes? Does this matter in terms of mass direction of travel and kinetic energy?
Is the loss of electrical power by resistance a factor?
One other concept:
Suppose you have a radioactive source that imparts thrust to a ship by its emanating subatomic particles. The point of the concept is to confine the particles to a container filled with an inert gas to slow down the particles for reuse in making more thrust for the ship by electrical recycling, sort of. The slowing down transfers energy to the ship as thrust by the mere action of slowing down.
(It's and old concept I remember from my teenage years. That's what I remember.)
--Lee
I think that Magumbo means that a rotating mass which has linear velocity greater than the linear velocity earth , relative to the point the same device stand still, goes airbone.
By the way i love Grebbennikov too.
QuoteBy the way i love Grebbennikov too
Could've made an awesome movie....
I found his story somewhat incongruous, especially considering his professed love of these, as yet, presumably unidentified insects. How does one then account for his collection of, apparently, a great many of their parts?
We may only surmise that such 'insecticide' was for the greater good....
Who knows, if it's one thing I'm certifiably certain on, it's that Truth is stranger than fiction. And Absolute Truth, absolutely stranger.
(insert Rod Serling theme here)
TS
I find the story incongruent too, first of all he wasn't an engeneer , he was an enthomologist, did he kill thounds of beetles only to build his plantform, wouldn't the wings got rotten after few months ?
Being the fact that he wasn't an engeneer i find it difficult to think he added high voltage or
a frequency generator hidden somewhere, or we are facing a new kind of effect which doesn't use
energy at all, or maybe we are in front of another hoax.
That's the funny thing about subtle forces....sometimes a 'grain' of Truth is really a Mountain of reality which only appears small through the tiny lens of man's understanding.
Even the subtle beat of a butterfly's wings....
TS
Hi, I came across your forum topic after recently coming across the same site http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/tesla-flying-machine/Tesla-Flying-Stove-motor.php. Impressed with the effort gone to, I wondered if anyone who has also tried to recreate it has tried rotating the whole device about the x axis in the diagram ?
To my mind, if you follow the logic of the spinning action - the spinning masses on each of the edges of the square each create their own centrifugal force rotating around each edge (creating a wobble). With the orientation of these spinning masses relative to each other, the sum total of these forces (wobbles) as the motors rotate cancel out vertically (along the x axis) but create a rotating force revolving around the x axis pointing radially outward in the same plane as the square (yz). If you were then to rotate the whole device in the opposite direction to the spinning force about the x axis the resultant centrifugal force would appear to point in just one direction relative to earth. You could then simply direct that force to point in any direction to move in that direction. I must be missing something major as it seems too simple - perhaps someone cleverer on this forum can explain why that wouldn't work.
You are missing the angular momentum conservation, i tried that configuration, the spinning mases slow down, as the main rotor increases the rotational speed, up to the point they completely stop
try and see for yourself .
Hi, I appreciate your reply and that you've gone to the effort of trying that already - you're most likely correct about angular momentum conservation as a reason for it not working.
However, I can't see how your spinning weights would stop. I can see how they would appear to stop relative to earth if you lit it with a strobe. If instead of 2 motors to supply the power you had 2 big cogs and those 2 cogs are then linked to the same fixed cog or circular track (so the whole thing rotates on the fixed cog/track such that 1 rev on the fixed track = 1 rev on each of the drive cogs). You then attach a drive shaft to the frame of the device (along x axis) and rotate that single shaft then the whole device would rotate on the fixed cog which in turn would force the individual weights to rotate via the drive cogs. Was that the kind of setup you had ?
one motor with a shaft where 2 counter rotating motors spun a large inertia momentum discs
i tried to make them rotate counter wise to each other, make them rotate in the same direction both counter and clock wise, modified the attack angle same, 180, 90, 45 to each other.
No way you can trick the angular momentum conservation.
Sorry for my english though
mmm...Are we talking about the same setup here - the one shown on message 1 of this topic ? You mention large rotating discs but theres no rotating discs in the alleged tesla diagram
I used large rotating disc because or grater intertia momentum, small bearings like tesla 's machine cannot produce trust in any direction.
My machine was a proof of concept , but i can be wrong of course,
its not clear from your description where you're using discs but if you're using them instead of the rotating unbalanced masses as described in the diagram, then there would be no unbalanced forces and the whole thing would simply have balanced spinning discs with no unbalanced force to possibly be able to move in any direction. I was just trying to follow the logic of the original diagram.
I just came back across this site again and just wondered if anyone else had an opinion on my previous posts on a possible way to make the device work ?
Thanks for your thoughts. Maybe I'm not being clear enough or understanding properly - its confusing to try and explain. If you consider the photo where the device sits on a black disc. When the motors are added to the device and switched on, then the weights all swing round, and with their peculiar arrangement, produce a horizontal wobble, but not a vertical wobble. The wobble is circular, say for the sake of argument its clockwise. Now, imagine if the black disc were allowed to rotate and you spun the whole device anticlockwise at the same rpm of the wobble, then the unbalanced force that causes the wobble would appear to point in one direction (relative to the floor on which the black disk sits). Now, if the black disc were supported on wheels, would the entire device plus revolving disc not move in the direction the force was pointing?. If so then the big idea then would be turn the whole thing on its side and arrange it so that the force pointed up to lift the whole device off the floor!. Maybe I just need to make it and see !
Quote from: e2matrix on February 27, 2010, 08:21:04 PM
Okay this is fascinating - partly because I remember many years ago coming across someone I read about who had built a small saucer of sorts - maybe 4 or 5 feet in diameter. If I recall it used 2 or 3 gyroscopic devices -- and I'm very fuzzy on the details here (I may have info saved on another computer) but I believe there may have been offset concentric gyro's - one within another. Anyway supposedly the man got it running one day and it lifted off higher and higher and the last he saw it - it was still going higher never to be seen again.
So I'm trying to wrap my head around what you have said Magumbo but there are so many possibilites I have not yet come up with anything that seems to work in my imagination. I think it may involve 2 or 3 offset gyro's but not nearly as much as the ones in Tesla's drawing. Or maybe one is not offset and another is. Have you built or seen a working model of this?
If it is this simple and also if it is usable I would assume at least our military would have such a device by now. As far as I know it does not (but then what do I know other than Internet rumors and that I haven't even seen one on anything like this).
Yes, it has been built - and it works. "I think it may involve 2 or 3 offset gyro's".... You're dead on target. Now think about what those offset (and interconnected) gyros can accomplish when the outer spin of the second gyro furthest from the first gyro's axis has more force than the inner spin of that same second gyro that is located within and offset to the first.
The answer was just given.
-Magumbo
...and the world was taught how to fly.
Now go and build.
Over the time for one complete cycle of the combined gyro and hammer rotations, if you were to sum of all the force vectors at every moment over that time, then the resultant force vector must be a positive value pointing upwards for lift. Can you explain how you see that happening?
Quote from: web on January 12, 2012, 04:19:04 PM
Over the time for one complete cycle of the combined gyro and hammer rotations, if you were to sum of all the force vectors at every moment over that time, then the resultant force vector must be a positive value pointing upwards for lift. Can you explain how you see that happening?
The force against the mass of the hammer is greater on the out-swing (further from the axis - out and up) than on the in-swing (closer to the axis - in and down) due to the force generated by the rotation of the first gyro. The greater the distance from the axis of the gyro the greater the force of inertia on the mass. If the mass lies directly on the axis there is no force upon it at all. At the point the greatest force is applied to the "hammer" (mass) it is rotating and pulling "up".
Tesla stated that "the inherant properties of the engine itself creates stability without aerodynamics, propellers or any other visible forms of propulsion." He also stated that you would not guess that it was a flying machine by its form. This is a very simple redirection of rotationally generated force. When that force (increased/decreased by rotation) is equal to or greater than the force of gravity you have lift.
Quote from: Magumbo on January 12, 2012, 09:39:06 PM
The force against the mass of the hammer is greater on the out-swing (further from the axis - out and up) than on the in-swing (closer to the axis - in and down) due to the force generated by the rotation of the first gyro. The greater the distance from the axis of the gyro the greater the force of inertia on the mass. If the mass lies directly on the axis there is no force upon it at all. At the point the greatest force is applied to the "hammer" (mass) it is rotating and pulling "up".
Tesla stated that "the inherant properties of the engine itself creates stability without aerodynamics, propellers or any other visible forms of propulsion." He also stated that you would not guess that it was a flying machine by its form. This is a very simple redirection of rotationally generated force. When that force (increased/decreased by rotation) is equal to or greater than the force of gravity you have lift.
Hey Magumbo!! Great to hear from you again. I still had your email sitting where it was reminding me to write you again sometime to see how things were going but just kept putting it off hoping you'd pop in here again. Did you continue with your build and if so how did the new motors do? I'm sure some people here would be thrilled to see what you have if it is possible to do a video sometime.
:oI've found it!!! You I mean!! :o
I have drawn loads and loads of designs on this same prinsiple..
I only read of Tesla's idea yesterday, I nearly fainted when I saw his designs.
I started my own forum to talk about these very subjects..
The flying Stove and magnet only motors.
http://pmagnet.freeforums.org/ (http://pmagnet.freeforums.org/)
I'm definately putting a link to this Forum..
You've been going for years now!!
I currantly bulding my magnet motor.. 60% done..
I've also build a trail version of my "inertia" motor..
That's the one that fits into this talk..
It runs on the same priciples but with a diferent design.
Easier to conrol than yhese ones on the site..
But a bit harder for me to build.. Finansialy.
Magumbo >> Do you have some pictures of your model.. or a video of it working ?
I'd like to build it. but why try if you've already succeeded?
Great work sofar.. keep it up!!
Tesla did have the right idea - and it is indeed pretty amazing.
It is being built - but certainly not by me. There are others that are much better candidates for that.
I would rather not say much more other than the building process is indeed moving forward and is being filmed. The gentleman that is doing the building is certainly a perfect match for the project. He "gets it" as well as has a few independent ideas that contribute immeasurably.
For those that have genuine interest in this - just stay tuned. We will post videos and results here as they are available to the public.
I do believe that we may actually be in the cusp of changing flight as it is currently known.
-Magumbo
Magumbo, Glad to see you are still working with this.
........................,,-~*~,,
......................./:.:.:.:.:.|
......................|;.;.;.;.;./
......................|.;.;.;.;.|
............._,,,,,_.).;.;.;.;.|
.........,,-":.:.:.:."~-,;.;.;.|
........(_,,,,---,,_:.:.);.;.;..",,
......,-":.:.:.:.:.""-,,/;.;.;.;.;.",
.....(:.__,,,,,,,,,___);.;.;.;.;.;|
...../"":.:.:.:.:.:.:¯""\;.;.;.;.;.,"
....\",__,,,,,,,,,,,__/;;;;;;;;;/\
.....\.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.);;;;;;;;;/:\
.......\,,,,,---~~~~;;;;;;;;,"::::\
.........."""~~--,,,,,,,,,,-"::::::::::\
...................\::::::::::::::::::::::\
@Magumbo:
Glad you're still on the project! Any idea when your team might release more information and/or a video?
truesearch
Here are some suggested videos for the maiden flight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYXdcR0Xbag (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYXdcR0Xbag)
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lpVjXwAfm0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lpVjXwAfm0)
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAk9gpeGNes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAk9gpeGNes)
Definitely not this one - we're done with this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoPT5Mq1pzQ&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoPT5Mq1pzQ&feature=related)
Bob