inertial propulsion with gyroscope

[TinselKoala]

Conrad: You are on the verge of discovering something _very_ interesting indeed, and I don't mean stick-slip friction.

Your stepper motor should be capable of driving the gyro in "forced precession", that is, driving around the vertical axis faster than it would normally precess. This will make the gyro climb up in the nod axis. The stepper motor will feel the weight of the gyro as it nods upwards. If you incorporate a travel stop such that the gyro nods up and hits this stop and cannot nod up further.... the stepper motor no longer will feel the weight of the gyro. If you have your stepper motor driver set to a constant speed, the power to drive the motor should go down, as long as the nodding gyro is up against the upper travel stop. If the motor can accelerate here, it will. It is as if the weight of the gyro vanishes, as long as the setup is turning faster than its normal precession speed with gyro nodding downwards.  It's easier to see this effect if there is a one-way clutch bearing where the nod arm connects to the stepper shaft, so that the gyro and arm can coast while the stepper is stopped.

Here's a shot of an apparatus constructed to explore this remarkable effect:

[conradelektro]

Conrad: You are on the verge of discovering something _very_ interesting indeed, and I don't mean stick-slip friction.

Your stepper motor should be capable of driving the gyro in "forced precession", that is, driving around the vertical axis faster than it would normally precess. This will make the gyro climb up in the nod axis. The stepper motor will feel the weight of the gyro as it nods upwards. If you incorporate a travel stop such that the gyro nods up and hits this stop and cannot nod up further.... the stepper motor no longer will feel the weight of the gyro. If you have your stepper motor driver set to a constant speed, the power to drive the motor should go down, as long as the nodding gyro is up against the upper travel stop. If the motor can accelerate here, it will. It is as if the weight of the gyro vanishes, as long as the setup is turning faster than its normal precession speed with gyro nodding downwards.  It's easier to see this effect if there is a one-way clutch bearing where the nod arm connects to the stepper shaft, so that the gyro and arm can coast while the stepper is stopped.

Here's a shot of an apparatus constructed to explore this remarkable effect:

@TinselKoala: Thank you for the information, it helps a lot and will give my future tests some direction. It is always a great help if knowledge or test results are shared. The next experimenter can step on the shoulders of the previous one to avoid the errors of the past. It is also great that Laurent is openly sharing his tests. No one can become rich with a "space drive". Even if something would work, no individual could bear the costs and complexity of development and specially space tests. As the world goes the wrong people will get rich in the end.

Yesterday I played a bit with my set up by spinning up the gyro with a Dremel tool and turning the stepper motor by hand.

Observations:

- As you say, I observed the climbing up and down of the gyro in the nod axis. One has to turn the gyro faster and faster as the gyro spins down to make it climb (nod).

- One has to turn the stepper motor faster than the normal procession speed of the gyro to make it nod up. On the other hand, one has to slow down below the normal procession speed to make the gyro nod down (up and down depends on the spin direction of the gyro).

- A great riddle for me is the "travel stop" issue (and the alleged apparent disappearing or increasing of the weight of the gyro). Imagine that one has the gyro on an arm rigidly fixed to the stepper motor axis (as I did with dead weights some years ago). This would mean "travel stops" on top and below the gyro in your diction, which would keep the gyro from nodding up and down. Fiala says in his patent that the gyro only needs to nod a few degrees. And I guess that this slight nod is only necessary to engage the "track" for propulsion on one half circle (speeding up) and for disengaging the track on the second half circle (breaking).

So, do we need the nodding at all? Can one rigidly fix the gyros to the stepper motors (with a simple arm clamped to the axis of the stepper motor) and do everything by accelerating and decelerating the stepper motors in the right way? That would be great because it simplifies the mechanical set up enormously and one could build a compact "space drive" with four stepper motors (even only with two stepper motors with the axle protruding on both sides) and four gyros.

If the "rowing" (including the rigid mount of the gyros) works, it would further simplify the mechanical set up, because the power lines for the gyros could be implemented without sliding contacts (simply wires which can move a bit). I have to find out how NASA keeps the four gyros or reaction wheels (in the attitude control mechanism) spinning. How do they lead electrical power to the gyros (to their electric motors) on the gimbals? Sliding contacts like brushes in a DC motor?

Well, much to test an to find out. Yesterday I spoke with a friend who studied mechanics and he claimed that he even calculated the precession forces of gyroscopes at university. Once I posed the "rigidly fixed gyros" question, he was surprised and clueless (he never thought of that). There still are riddles in the gyroscopes. Maybe it is my lack of knowledge in this area and I suspect that all space faring nations had explored gyroscopes extensively because a replacement for rockets would be the the door to the heavens. Image a spacecraft with photovoltaic panels driving gyros with electric motors. If such a vehicle could produce forward thrust it could go everywhere in the solar system without fuel (the electricity coming from the sun via the photovoltaic panels). And to go away from the sun to interstellar space one could use an atomic reactor (producing heat) and Peltier elements for electricity production. Well, countless "inventors" have dreamt about this for a hundred years, it is a trivial idea.

Greetings, Conrad

[sm0ky2]

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710022895.pdf


Nod control can be important as well
Achievable through an additional motor
3 dimensions of force
Each integrated into the other two

[sm0ky2]

Using a quantity derived from the vectored moment of inertia, a universal constant,
the vectored gravitational force, and the rate of change in angular velocity:


An equation can be set up such that


Gyration= tilt/precession


When tilt and/or precession are forced in such a way that the gyration side of the equation
decreases in magnitude
The gyro will slow its spin in perfect accordance with the mathematical model.


We see clearly through this analysis, that the precession and tilt forces are decreasing the
rate of gyration (slowing down the gyro)
There is no anomalous energy being created, since both tilt and precession are a direct transfer
of momentum from the gyrating mass.


In many set-ups this is not something you can easily observe, since the rate of change in the gyros
rotation is comparably small. we can however, observe differences in the "run down" time.
By plotting these across a series of tests, we see the proportional relationship above.


With precision control of the 3-axis gimble, we can control the arc path of the axis in 3-d space.


As we decrease the change in the path in a single dimension,
(meaning the arc-circumferential distance of the path that is changing)
while increasing the velocity
along that path, the force becomes increasingly linear.
If we do the same while decreasing the velocity, the vector is reversed.


The opposite is true, when we increase the change in path
increasing the velocity in that path, our would-be linear force becomes an increasing number
of vectored forces, which cancel with the vector of our desired force.
Decreasing the velocity does the same, but in the opposite vector.


From this is derived the second proportional relationship, that says:


Change in path / change in velocity = magnitude of the chance / change in T
(T here being the period of the change in path)


These relationships define the change in direction and velocity of the gyrating mass
in each of the three gimbled axes.
When we know the torque added by the motors
We can split this out, and we see that total momentum of the gyrating mass is conserved.
Not conserved for us, because we have motors that can add more momentum.


Expanding the equations to include the Newtonian force, we can define the transfer of
momentum from one gimbled axis to the other two.
We can further simplify this equation as it pertains to the added torque
(+ or - torque cause by our motors in their respective axis)


to derive a proportional relationship between the change in the
absolute angular velocity of the gyrating mass
and the change in angular velocity in each of the 3 gimbles
as a factor of applied motor torque (increase or decrease)

[woopy]

Hi conrad

Super the montage, i hope it will offer you the max of possibilites to go forward.

As you can see, i have suppressed the video part 11 and replace it by a part 12

The reason is that i have redo the test, but with a much better gyro and a stable cart (no wobling + electric wire very free to move) and on a substrate very smooth. And i cannot detect a difference between the gyro spinning or not. So this device is really tricky and fooling, but you are a very good worker so i don't make too much worry for your results.

The good thing of this is that it seems to confirm that M. Fiala is right when he say that a spinning and rotating gyro if he cannot precess vertically (it is forced to rotate on a planar path), keep all it's inertia. Now why my device is drifting to the right on the marbles stays mystery, perhaps a slightly difference in the ball bearing or else ?

So i made the part 12  on a balance. The gyro is always in constrain precession (forced on a planar path rotation) and we can see that it exhibit a very strong torque able to inverse what should be . Very unintuitiv. Is it only the gyroscopic torque or is it something to do with what M. Laithwaite named "mass transfer" ? I don't know .

https://youtu.be/Qs07aj_ZWj8

Now how can we test if the gyro looses inertia and angular momentum when he can precess freely (after the free fall). Perhaps and hopefully your stepper motors will offer an answer



Hi TK

Very nice build, any video to see it working ?

Laurent