Tesla was right, classic electromagnetic theory is wrong.

[Electrodynamic]

You cited gyroscopic stabilisation for ships, and the Cubli, as evidence that Laithwaite was "on to something". The first example goes back to before Laithwaite's time and was comprehensively understood already; the second example seemingly doesn't even make use of gyroscopic forces in its operation.

So I'm afraid that no, you haven't shown that Laithwaite was "on to something".

I could have been more clear, what I believe Laithwaite was onto is that most mechanical controls or constraints could be replaced with inertial ones. Similar to cubli and ship gyros.

For example, most believe a vertical oscillating wing for wind power must rotate about a point attached to the ground. It moves left to right at the top and is stationary at the bottom. However I designed and tested an oscillating wing which moves at the bottom and the top is stationary. It makes sense that we would want the greatest motion at the bottom where the generator is. So I used a computer controlled inertial mass at the top of the vertical air foil to hold it stationary while the bottom moves. In effect it acts upside down.

One of my first designs for an inertial wave generator was inspired directly from Laithwaite's video. It seemed absurd that many wave generators move up and down on a cable subject to leakage and corrosion. It seemed common sense to seal the buoy water tight and use gyro/reaction wheel inertial forces to move the generator. In effect, a sealed box which generates electricity whenever we move it on any axis in a 3D space. To most this would seem magical but it's just the inertial forces being utilized.

I also built and test this device which is brilliant, https://www.rexresearch.com/constran/constran.htm. George CONSTANTINESCO
Inertial Transmission. Think about that, a continuously variable transmission with no clutch plates, no belts or fluid torque converters or gears developed in the 1920's.

So yes I believe Laithwaite was onto something and utilizing inertial forces versus mechanical constraints have countless practical applications imo.

[SteveThackery]

The inertial transmission looks remarkable and ingenious. One problem is that I can't see where the variable torque multiplication that a standard transmission is offered arises. There is a fixed gearing-down provided by the ratchet system, and thus a fixed torque multiplication at that point. There is also a fixed gearing-up provided by the differential lever. I can see how the transmission would automatically vary the number of teeth "gathered" by the ratchet pawls* depending on the load at the back wheels, but it doesn't seem clear how the torque multiplication can vary.

I'm not talking about the torque varying, I'm talking about the torque multiplication varying. Variable torque multiplication is a fundamental feature of standard automotive transmissions.

I think I might be in for a "Eureka" moment in due course. I'm still processing the idea of a crank on the end of a normal car crankshaft causing a mass to oscillate back and forth, as in this design. The dynamics are interesting. It should be lossless, in theory; I wonder how it would behave in reality.

*I know it doesn't use ratchets in the real design - rather, sprag clutches - but it is convenient to use ratchets in the explanation because they are easier to visualise.  EDIT 1: Even sprag clutches won't provide a smooth rotation of the output shaft - this needs looking into.

EDIT 2: I wonder why the operating principle hasn't been used in any power transmission system, despite being invented a century ago.

[paul cotter]

Not competent to critique this but it looks mechanically complicated. Many ideas are fine in principle but suffer from unanticipated problems when put to continuous use.

[Electrodynamic]

The inertial transmission looks remarkable and ingenious. One problem is that I can't see where the variable torque multiplication that a standard transmission is offered arises. There is a fixed gearing-down provided by the ratchet system, and thus a fixed torque multiplication at that point. There is also a fixed gearing-up provided by the differential lever. I can see how the transmission would automatically vary the number of teeth "gathered" by the ratchet pawls* depending on the load at the back wheels, but it doesn't seem clear how the torque multiplication can vary.

I'm not talking about the torque varying, I'm talking about the torque multiplication varying. Variable torque multiplication is a fundamental feature of standard automotive transmissions.

I think I might be in for a "Eureka" moment in due course. I'm still processing the idea of a crank on the end of a normal car crankshaft causing a mass to oscillate back and forth, as in this design. The dynamics are interesting. It should be lossless, in theory; I wonder how it would behave in reality.

*I know it doesn't use ratchets in the real design - rather, sprag clutches - but it is convenient to use ratchets in the explanation because they are easier to visualise.  EDIT 1: Even sprag clutches won't provide a smooth rotation of the output shaft - this needs looking into.

EDIT 2: I wonder why the operating principle hasn't been used in any power transmission system, despite being invented a century ago.

The analogy is moving the fulcrum or center point of a see saw where the input force at the center can be applied to either end simultaneously.

At high load most of the input crank force is applied to the inertia wheel through the differential lever (see saw). The inertia wheel starts spinning and gains inertia but once up to speed the inertial force adds to the input crank force and they push/pull together. This is the torque multiplication by adding the forces. We can also see all the input energy is conserved as inertia until the output shaft moves. So the total force (input + inertia) keeps increasing until the output shaft moves.

Now imagine the output shaft starts moving. Once the output shaft starts moving more of the force acting over a distance ie. work is applied to the output. Now the inertia wheel starts slowing down and the load shaft starts speeding up. This is our velocity multiplication. In effect, at high load the inertia wheel speeds up adding more force and at low load the output shaft speeds up.

The most brilliant part is what is not shown in the diagram. Think about it, at high load an electric motor draws max current and gets hot. At high load an automatic transmission gets hot because of all the fluid slipping in the converter and in a manual transmission the clutch slips and gets hot. However when I built and tested this device it always ran cool at any load. It always runs cool because it can apply a maximum force to the output while conserving the energy input stored in the inertia. In effect, we can apply a maximum force without losing any of the input energy as heat.

I wonder why the operating principle hasn't been used in any power transmission system, despite being invented a century ago.

Indeed, imagine a CVT which always ran cool, the bearings were oil spray lubricated and ran at low RPM. Under these conditions there is almost no wear and it could easily last the lifetime of a vehicle without maintenance. Heat and high velocity is what destroys most mechanical devices. Slow and low temp always wins.

[SteveThackery]

At high load most of the input crank force is applied to the inertia wheel through the differential lever (see saw). The inertia wheel starts spinning and gains inertia but once up to speed the inertial force adds to the input crank force and they push/pull together. This is the torque multiplication by adding the forces. We can also see all the input energy is conserved as inertia until the output shaft moves. So the total force (input + inertia) keeps increasing until the output shaft moves.

This is the bit that doesn't work for me. Firstly, the inertia wheel doesn't start spinning. It is forced to oscillate back and forth, so its stored energy reaches zero (it is stationary) twice per revolution of the input crank.

Secondly, the stored energy in the inertia wheel cannot "add" to the input crank force. Or rather, for each revolution of the input crank, it adds half the time and subtracts half the time, so there is no nett addition.

I'll explain. Begin by assuming the input crank is turning, but the vehicle is stationary, so the drive rods and ratchet are stationary. Therefore the input motion from the input crank moves only the inertia wheel (ie the vehicle is "idling", as described in the article).

Referring to the first diagram in the article, imagine the input crank (driven by the engine crankshaft) starts at the '3' position on a clock face, and turns clockwise:

Positions 3 to 6 of the input crank: the engine accelerates the inertia wheel clockwise. The torque required to do that acts to oppose the torque from the input crank, and thus is subtracted from the torque available to move the car. Energy is added to, and stored in, the inertia wheel.

6 to 9: the inertia wheel is decelerated to a standstill. The torque required to decelerate it acts in the same direction as the torque from the input crank, so is added to the torque available to move the car. Energy is subtracted from the inertia wheel until it reaches zero when the crank reaches '9' and the inertia wheel is stationary.

9 to 12: the input crank accelerates the inertia wheel in the opposite (anticlockwise) direction, storing energy in the inertia wheel. The torque required to accelerate the inertia wheel is subtracted from that available to drive the car.

12 to 3: the inertia wheel is decelerated to a standstill again. The torque required to do that adds to the torque from the input crank.

In summary, the inertia wheel is accelerated from standstill, and then decelerated back to a standstill, twice per revolution of the input crank. When being accelerated it stores energy from the engine; when being decelerated it releases the stored energy. As the input crank (driven by the engine) rotates, the inertia wheel impedes it for 50% of the time, and assists it for 50% of the time.

There is no mechanism by which the inertia wheel can store energy for any longer than half an input crank rotation.

There is no mechanism by which the inertia wheel can provide continuous torque addition to the torque from the input crank (and thus from the engine).

[Electrodynamic]

SteveThackery
Your correct and I was thinking of something else and got off track.

A pendulum would produce oscillations back and forth producing unwanted vibrations. In principal it works but not well in practice. An inertia wheel solves this problem but not the conservation of momentum of the inertia wheel. I seemed to be thinking about a variation of Fig 15 half way down the page and got off track.

[Randy222]

Copilot says, a reaction wheel is directly related to gyroscopes because both rely on the same underlying physics — angular momentum — but they use it in different ways. A reaction wheel creates torque by changing its spin rate, while a gyroscope senses or redirects angular momentum through its stable spinning axis. Both exploit the conservation of angular momentum.

I thought the relationship was obvious, apparently not. So while the reaction wheel is spinning and we tilt the wheel what do you think is going to happen?, it becomes a gyroscope.

But it's not frictionless, nor can it escape all forces, because it exists as a mass.

[Electrodynamic]

Copilot says, a reaction wheel is directly related to gyroscopes because both rely on the same underlying physics — angular momentum — but they use it in different ways. A reaction wheel creates torque by changing its spin rate, while a gyroscope senses or redirects angular momentum through its stable spinning axis. Both exploit the conservation of angular momentum.

I thought the relationship was obvious, apparently not. So while the reaction wheel is spinning and we tilt the wheel what do you think is going to happen?, it becomes a gyroscope.

But it's not frictionless, nor can it escape all forces, because it exists as a mass.

My interest relates more to the fact that an object can move without an external force being applied. In effect, move within itself.

Our intuition tells us that in order for any object to move an external force must be applied. This isn't true and an object can rotate on any axis when something internal experiences a change in momentum like a gyro or reaction wheel. What the object cannot do to our knowledge is start moving through a distance in one direction due to an internal force.

What we do know is that a field can apply a force from a distance like gravity. We know gravity exists and once we figure out what gravity is and how it works the odds are we could probably use the same effect as a propulsive force. However for now a coherent theory of what gravity is remains a mystery and it's still a spooky action at a distance.

[Chet]

Copilot says, a reaction wheel is directly related to gyroscopes because both rely on the same underlying physics — angular momentum — but they use it in different ways. A reaction wheel creates torque by changing its spin rate, while a gyroscope senses or redirects angular momentum through its stable spinning axis. Both exploit the conservation of angular momentum.

I thought the relationship was obvious, apparently not. So while the reaction wheel is spinning and we tilt the wheel what do you think is going to happen?, it becomes a gyroscope.

But it's not frictionless, nor can it escape all forces, because it exists as a mass.

My interest relates more to the fact that an object can move without an external force being applied. In effect, move within itself.

Our intuition tells us that in order for any object to move an external force must be applied. This isn't true and an object can rotate on any axis when something internal experiences a change in momentum like a gyro or reaction wheel. What the object cannot do to our knowledge is start moving through a distance in one direction due to an internal force.

What we do know is that a field can apply a force from a distance like gravity. We know gravity exists and once we figure out what gravity is and how it works the odds are we could probably use the same effect as a propulsive force. However for now a coherent theory of what gravity is remains a mystery and it's still a spooky action at a distance.

If we were to posit the notion that UFO's and planetary bodies are both "space ships" in the sense that their inertial integrity is governed by the exact same composition of synergistic mechanisms, then we'd understand
gravity. But not until then.

[IanB]

This is the bit that doesn't work for me. Firstly, the inertia wheel doesn't start spinning. It is forced to oscillate back and forth, so its stored energy reaches zero (it is stationary) twice per revolution of the input crank.

Without worrying too much about the precise details of the mechanical design, we could think about the electrical analog of a torque converter as a voltage converter. A traditional torque converter ("slipping clutch") is like a linear regulator, it wastes energy as heat. But an electrical switched mode voltage converter can be very efficient because it uses an inductor to store and release energy. In a similar way, a mechanical torque converter might be designed to replace the slipping clutch with a flywheel, thus temporarily storing and releasing energy rather than wasting it.

As to whether this is worthwhile?

Well, a clutch or hydraulic torque converter is only wasting energy for very short periods. Most of the time it is locked out and working with no wasted power. So the overall gains are minimal. Furthermore, modern hybrid electrical systems are more practical and easier to implement than a big heavy flywheel, and make it easer to implement regenerative braking. Electrical and electronic systems always tend to supersede mechanical systems.

[TimFox]

Copilot says, a reaction wheel is directly related to gyroscopes because both rely on the same underlying physics — angular momentum — but they use it in different ways. A reaction wheel creates torque by changing its spin rate, while a gyroscope senses or redirects angular momentum through its stable spinning axis. Both exploit the conservation of angular momentum.

I thought the relationship was obvious, apparently not. So while the reaction wheel is spinning and we tilt the wheel what do you think is going to happen?, it becomes a gyroscope.

But it's not frictionless, nor can it escape all forces, because it exists as a mass.

My interest relates more to the fact that an object can move without an external force being applied. In effect, move within itself.

Our intuition tells us that in order for any object to move an external force must be applied. This isn't true and an object can rotate on any axis when something internal experiences a change in momentum like a gyro or reaction wheel. What the object cannot do to our knowledge is start moving through a distance in one direction due to an internal force.

What we do know is that a field can apply a force from a distance like gravity. We know gravity exists and once we figure out what gravity is and how it works the odds are we could probably use the same effect as a propulsive force. However for now a coherent theory of what gravity is remains a mystery and it's still a spooky action at a distance.

If we were to posit the notion that UFO's and planetary bodies are both "space ships" in the sense that their inertial integrity is governed by the exact same composition of synergistic mechanisms, then we'd understand
gravity. But not until then.

What is "inertial integrity" in English?

[SteveThackery]

A traditional torque converter ("slipping clutch") is like a linear regulator, it wastes energy as heat.

Actually that's not really correct. A traditional (hydraulic) torque converter does indeed provide torque multiplication (and variable multiplication at that). So it's not entirely analogous to a "slipping clutch", although that is the case when the vehicle is stationary.

A so-called "fluid flywheel" (also called fluid coupling or hydraulic coupling) is a better analogy for a slipping clutch.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not saying Constantinesco's mechanical torque converter doesn't work, I'm just saying it doesn't work as Electrodynamic described.

I'm not sure if I have contributed anything useful with this post. 😅😄

[paul cotter]

Gravity is purely attractive, unlike the electromagnetic field which can be attractive or repulsive. Gravity is well described by GR.

[SteveThackery]

What is "inertial integrity" in English?

It doesn't exist in English, Tim. 😄

[TimFox]

What is "inertial integrity" in English?

It doesn't exist in English, Tim. 😄

Alliteration is a common feature in Middle English, e.g. "to sing there for simony for silver is sweet" and "a fair field full of folk found I therebetween" (from "Vision of Piers Plowman")
Recently, I learned (to my surprise) that Wagner's German text for the "Ring" operas is alliterative.

[Chet]

Gravity is purely attractive, unlike the electromagnetic field which can be attractive or repulsive. Gravity is well described by GR.

Between solid objects, that is true. But not all objects are solid...especially planets and stars and UFOs.

[paul cotter]

WTF??

[Xena E]

WTF??

Hey! Don't mock Chets gravitas on gravity Paul! 😁

We should take notice of his intelligence, he's very well acquainted with matters mathematical, and understands equations both simple and quadratical, about binomial theory he's teeming with a lot of news, with many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse, he has a lot of knowledge on materials density, but unfortunately knows nothing of the conservation of energy, though excels in matters animal and mineral, he is the very model of a modern major general...

If you want to be pedantic about what is a solid object then nothing compares with the singularity that existed before time itself, so the density of a planet or Electrodynamics grey brothers inter stellar sled, may be seen as non solid.

I don't think anything compares with the density of some of the alternative science trolls that contribute here though...

[Electrodynamic]

Gravity is purely attractive, unlike the electromagnetic field which can be attractive or repulsive. Gravity is well described by GR.

Between solid objects, that is true. But not all objects are solid...especially planets and stars and UFOs.

In fact no objects are solid and the ratio is close to 1% matter and 99% vacuum full of EM energy. Ordinary matter and outer space are basically 99.9999999% empty space. There is so little difference between them it seems impossible. As such most of what we think we see and understand is an illusion.

Gravity being purely attractive is nonsense imo. Attraction-Repulsion is a primitive perspective based on superficial observations. The rule is that all energy moves from a higher energy state to a lower one. We can break it down to Energy state > force > direction > motion. So when two objects appear to move towards one another it's easy to assume the lower energy state must be between the objects and the higher energy state everywhere else. The general rule is that every force has an equal and opposite reaction force on every level.

Saying gravity is attractive is like saying helium balloons are attracted to outer space. In effect, it doesn't explain anything.

[paul cotter]

Bullshit. (1) You obviously will not object when I hit you on your head with a sledge hammer- both the hammer and your head are just empty space and nothing will happen. (2) A helium balloon rises because the effect of gravity on the surrounding air is greater than on the helium and the falling air displaces the balloon upwards. Gravity is invariably attractive.

[TimFox]

That’s the important difference between gravitational force and electric force.
Electric charge exists in two types, which are treated mathematically as positive and negative, allowing attraction and repulsion corresponding to the mathematical product (i.e., multiplication) of two objects.
Gravitational mass is only one type, treated as positive-definite.  Inertial mass, according to relativity, equates with gravitational mass.
Both of these two elementary forces fall off as inverse-square with distance, and the resulting acceleration depends on the (positive) inertial mass.
Antiparticles (e.g. positrons) have opposite charge but identical mass to the “regular” particle (electron).
That explains why gravitational force extends out to interstellar distances.
Since matter, averaged over macroscopic dimensions, is nearly neutral (equal positive and negative charge), the force in practice falls off dramatically with distance.
The classic experiments on inertial and gravitational mass were done early in the 20th century by Baron Eotvos, and much more sensitive experiments since then agree with the equivalence.

[Chet]

Gravity is purely attractive, unlike the electromagnetic field which can be attractive or repulsive. Gravity is well described by GR.

Between solid objects, that is true. But not all objects are solid...especially planets and stars and UFOs.

In fact no objects are solid and the ratio is close to 1% matter and 99% vacuum full of EM energy. Ordinary matter and outer space are basically 99.9999999% empty space. There is so little difference between them it seems impossible. As such most of what we think we see and understand is an illusion.

Gravity being purely attractive is nonsense imo. Attraction-Repulsion is a primitive perspective based on superficial observations. The rule is that all energy moves from a higher energy state to a lower one. We can break it down to Energy state > force > direction > motion. So when two objects appear to move towards one another it's easy to assume the lower energy state must be between the objects and the higher energy state everywhere else. The general rule is that every force has an equal and opposite reaction force on every level.

Saying gravity is attractive is like saying helium balloons are attracted to outer space. In effect, it doesn't explain anything.

Sounds like you're quoting Tesla's theory of gravity in that two objects are pushed together by forces which are coming from all directions and are exterior to the shadow zone in between any two objects since these forces can't get through them so these forces push these two objects together. One could assume that inertia is what these exterior forces are in that we have misassigned inertia to a property inside of matter when it is actually outside of matter as a property of space.

Thus, space uses its inherent property of inertia to push objects apart (since they're too far away to attract) causing the expansion of the universe. But if they're close enough together, then they get pushed together instead of pushed apart. So, the gravitational constant is an extreme over simplification overlooking how complicated gravity is a complex interaction in which everything in existence has to be calculated into the mere gravitational behavior between any two objects -- along with everything else.

Thanks! I never understood Tesla's theory of gravity. But now, it makes sense.

[Electrodynamic]

Bullshit. (1) You obviously will not object when I hit you on your head with a sledge hammer- both the hammer and your head are just empty space and nothing will happen. (2) A helium balloon rises because the effect of gravity on the surrounding air is greater than on the helium and the falling air displaces the balloon upwards. Gravity is invariably attractive.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.",  Isaac Asimov

[Xena E]

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.",  Isaac Asimov

...and often the only thing that is understood by the stupid."

[Electrodynamic]

Chet

Sounds like you're quoting Tesla's theory of gravity in that two objects are pushed together by forces which are coming from all directions and are exterior to the shadow zone in between any two objects since these forces can't get through them so these forces push these two objects together. One could assume that inertia is what these exterior forces are in that we have misassigned inertia to a property inside of matter when it is actually outside of matter as a property of space.

My thinking is that our interpretation of gravity is severely flawed. Gravity is the only supposed force which is purely attractive and isn't equal and opposite or sum zero. Therefore it should have been considered incomplete or a measurement error. People lose their mind because overunity does not fit in the classic model but neither does gravity. In fact, gravity is something from nothing because it has no apparent source. Which may explain why nobody has a clue what gravity is.

If we were to look at the force of gravity rationally we would see it is a reaction to something not an action which is missing. Something is acting on the objects and the force of attraction is the reaction. This is why all the real scientists are looking for unknown particles or fields as a rational explanation. They are looking for the push which balances and is responsible for the apparent pull. So far as I'm concerned if the forces don't balance or sum zero the theory is probably bs.