Monday, December 15, 2014

Ideas for Inertial Drives

Inertial Drive Device Using FHM to Convert Variable
                      Angular Momentum into Linear Momentum





Edward M. Renner
9/1986 
 
Purpose:
         The purpose of this device is to produce differential/off-set angular momentum thru rotary motion and centrifugal force. The centrifugal force is far greater during one-half of the rotation cycle than the other, thus producing a net linear directional force. Even though the masses describe a symmetrical closed loop during rotation, the magnitude of the centrifugal force over time differs significantly during the rotation cycle.

Device Description:
- The device consists of two main platters in a stacked system.

- Each platter is attached to a heavy fixed drive shaft that is attached to the top plate and bottom mounting plate by heavy roller bearings.

- Attached off-set on the main platters are two to four drive gear sub-platters with off-set masses, which makes each of them eccentrically balanced.

- The geared sub-platters are driven by a fixed gear that is mounted to the mounting plate by a flange that allows the drive shaft to pass through it to the mounting plate bearing.

- All gears are the same size and have the same number of teeth so that each sub-platter gear makes one rotation per revolution of the main platter.

- The eccentric weights are configured as in Fig. 4 to produce the desired effects.

- The bottom end of the drive shaft is attached to a conical mitre gear that is one of a set of four (can be expanded to six for two additional right angle sub-platter systems (two plane system).

- The conical mitre gears comprise a differential that produces counter-rotation in the two main platters.

- Two more conical mitre gears can be added for two additional right angle mounted sub-platter systems.

- One or both of the side conical gears are driven by a variable speed motor(s), but if additional sub-platter systems are added, the motors would drive the main drive axle.

- A more advanced device can have the off-set weights in the geared sub-platters able to move via solenoids from the hubs to the rims of the sub-platters, thus producing variable eccentricity in the platter-gears while in motion. In this configuration the device can be brought up to speed in a fully balanced condition, then gradually (and variably) have the eccentric flywheel condition engaged at varying levels of eccentricity (see Fig.4.b).

- It would also be interesting to see if substituting Neodium-Iron Boron magnets for the masses in this device could produce enhanced propulsion effects; i.e., produce rotating magnetic fields, which could  interact with static electromagnetic coils.
 
  
Device:
      Dual counter-rotating platter system with four sub-platters/gears that have an eccentric center-of-gravity and complete one rotation per revolution of the main platters. The following figure is of one platter from a stacked platter configuration:
 
                            Single Platter Top View                 Single Platter Bottom View
Fig.1: Top and Bottom of Main Drive Platter -
Drive axle passes through center of main platter drive gear (see Fig.2) which is attached to lower plate. One to four (or more) sub-platters/gears can be used in this system configuration.

Fig. 2: Platter Drive System on Mounting Plate. All gears are the same size and have same number of teeth to insure one rotation of sub-platter gear per revolution of main platter. Fixed gear is mounted to the mounting plate, while moving gears are attached to main platter.
                          
                                                   Stacked System                   Mitre Differential Gearing
Fig. 3: Side View of Stacked Platter System System is driven by a motor connected to differential mitre linkage gears. Both platters are counter-rotating as are sub-platters/gears. This system can be expanded to include two or more platter subsystems at right angles to each other (3 planes: pitch, roll, yaw)

a.                                              b.
Fig. 4: Sub-Platter/Gear cg Positions / Momentum per Rotation of Main Platter - åmv1 = å mv2, but åma1 >> å ma2. Momentum is proportional to the masses distance from drive axle (Iw ~ r²) . 4a. - immovable /fixed cgs on sub-platters. 4b. - cgs move to center of sub-platters during ¾ of cycle, extend to rim of sub-platter during remainder of cycle. This would enhance the off-set momentum for 1/4 of the cycle while reducing momentum during 3/4 of the cycle. The shape of the mass-position track of this device exactly resembles the track of Tesla’s “Flying Stove” device.

 


 
_________________________________________________________________________________

Magnetohydrodynamically Driven Liquid and
Plasma Inertial Drives
 
                                                                Edward M. Renner
                                                                      Oct. 2010


INTRO:
        Directional inertial drives can be created by forcing conductive liquids (i.e., mercury, magnetic/ metal slurries, ferrofluids, super-fluids) or plasmas to counter-rotate in ovoid tube raceways that are both geometrically shaped and off differing diameter to create differential momentum via the Venturi Principle and varied angular momentum.   Propelling the liquid or plasma in such a device can be done by magneto-hydrodynamics, so that the only moving parts are the conductive liquid or plasma. Total momentum is conserved within such a system, but directionality is not; i.e., action momentum is more-or-less linear and central while reaction momentum is distributed as a series of radial vectors. Multiple paired tube arms are used in such devices. Such a device has a great advantage over a rigid mechanical system (designed for the same purpose) in that angular momentum and gyroscopic action are continuous and flexible (though varying) in such devices, plus there are little or no moving parts to impart friction or mechanically fail (no friction if a super-fluid is used).

OVOID / TOROIDAL DRIVE:
         The following schematic is of a gyroscopic/hydrodynamic device that uses a high velocity circulating conductive fluid to produce net linear directional momentum from cyclic changes in the angular momentum of the fluid. It consists of four (or other even number of) joined closed-loop ovoid /egg-shaped tubes that vary in diameter to produce different fluid velocities. A magneto-hydrodynamic coil drive is used to accelerate the fluid in the centrally conjoined tubes which narrow in diameter along the length of the mag-drive section. The accelerated fluid in each arm is then forced around a tight curve (that is still narrow in diameter) to impart maximum angular momentum to it. The fluid then decelerates as it enters the wider and more gradually curved portion of the tube ovoid and imparts reaction angular momentum radially around the larger curve loop. The fluid is then accelerated in the mag-drive section again, completing one cycle. Tubule bundles can be added to both the acceleration and deceleration sections of the ovoid to impart and maintain a laminar flow in the fluid (see Fig.2).  Bernoulli foils can also be added to the narrow curve section of the tube to further enhance angular momentum at that location.

           

FIGURE 1: Fluid or Plasma Inertial Drive - Note that the geometry of this device resembles a relatively symmetrical magnetic field. Fluid flow is continuous even though velocity varies. 
 

 
                            
FIGURE 2 - Two Arms of a Multi-Ovoid Device. High velocity and momentum occurs at the tops of the tubes due to mag-drive acceleration and a narrower tube; it then drops to lower velocity at the larger loop ends. Tubule bundles are positioned in the acceleration and deceleration parts of the tube to create laminar flow. Counter rotation of the fluid in paired tubes negates precessional forces in their rotation plane.

        Devices that use plasma instead of conductive liquids can also be driven by high gauss Lorenz Force, similar to that used in a Tokamak or particle accelerator . Such devices can exploit the full benefits/effects of the Critical Action Time (CAT) as mag-driven plasmas can be accelerated to high relative velocities in ultra-high energy/flux fields. The net desired effect of such devices is to create a higher dynamic linear effective mass at one end of the device and a lower effective mass at the other end [Critical Action Time µ Angular Momentum differential], thus creating a hypothetical directional field effect.

        The last schematic is of a device that is a geometrically shaped/distorted torus that circulates the conductive fluid or plasma at right angles to the torus (created by rotating Figs.1 or 2 thru 360°). This device is / can be completely surrounded by the magneto hydrodynamic propulsion coils. Such a device would have both properties of electro-magnetic force effects and inertial mass/ momentum.

 

FIGURE 3. - Mag-Drive Torus Showing Distorted Magnetic Field loops


Thursday, December 4, 2014

Relativistic Velocity, Mass, and Wormholes


                Relativistic Velocity, Mass, and Wormholes
                                                           Edward M. Renner
                                                                   1982
 
          According to the Theory of Relativity, when a particle or a spaceship approaches the speed of light (c) it experiences an exponential slowdown of time and a contraction along its’ direction of travel. At (almost) the speed of light, internal clock time slows toward zero and the direction of travel distance would also shrink toward zero; plus it would require an infinite amount of energy to actually achieve c. At c an observer (in the speeding object) would not experience any passage of time, and distances in the universe would appear to be zero; thus they would essentially travel to the end of space-time at the instant c was achieved. The object would have the same velocity constraint as a photon, except it would have an astronomical increase in inertial “mass“,… in fact, an infinite amount of inertial/momentum mass! As this is not possible in the space-time framework of our universe, there must be some upper limit to both mass and inertial/momentum mass.  The following is a modification of a Lorentz transformation for velocity vs relativistic momentum; in it, I set a (hypothetical) limit to relativistic momentum/mass (PW):
   
                
                                                                    Relativistic Mass/Momentum/Energy
                                                                                      (Exponential)
Figure 1 - Velocity and Relativistic Momentum Limits Each graph point is a factor 10 increase in kinetic energy/momentum mass; which increases until the space-time curvature limit and production of a blackhole or worm-hole: PW = 2Gm/(v/c)² = Rc² /2G

         This is where I believe the Theory of Relativity in regards to relative velocity at c possibly breaks down and may not provide a true picture of reality. One problem is with paradoxes that occur at and beyond c (superluminal speeds). However, paradoxes can be seen as just limitations of the descriptive paradigms and not reflections of reality; as reality is what it is independent of the paradigm’s ability to account for or describe it. So does the Theory of Relativity stop working at superluminal velocities, just as Newtonian physics stops working at near relativistic velocities?… perhaps. Another problem is that well before any object of mass could achieve the speed of light, it would come up against the time-space curvature limit for high density masses, i.e., the creation of a black hole IAW the Schwarzschild radius equation:  
                                                               rs = 2Gm/c2
         However, since mass increase is due to the linear velocity approaching c (directional), it would essentially be a vector quantity. Thus time-space curvature should also be a vector quantity in the direction of travel and create a worm-hole rather than a black hole. As the speed of light was more closely approached, distance in the direction of travel would continue to foreshorten/contract rather than the object itself.  The closer to c the object’s velocity was, the greater the contraction of space. Although c would still be any physical object’s velocity limit, distance per unit time (to an outside observer) would have the appearance of being faster than light speed. By attempting to accelerate mass beyond it's relativistic constraint, it should worm holed its way thru space until the excess energy/ relativistic mass was shed as radiative energy in the worm hole (like Cherenkov radiation).
 
                                                             Ñrs = 2Gmb2/c2

                 
 FIGURE 2 - Modified Lorentz Diagram - Momentum/mass increases as a function of velocity (r ) but encounters a limit (Ω) where a worm hole should be created. R (rs)= Schwarzschild radius, γ = Lorentz factor, b = v/c, mΩ = m/4/3 p R3= mass density limit, G=Gravitational constant, M/r = relativistic mass/momentum = mv ( moving mass), mo = rest mass, v = velocity, c = speed of light.




 

Thursday, November 27, 2014

An Alternative Quantum of Time







A Quantum of Time:
                        Limits, Constants, and Thermodynamics

                                                             Edward Renner
                                                                   1984

Limits and Constants
           What are constants and limits? How are they both the same and different? And what is their role in defining reality and the fundamental forces of the universe? By definition, a constant is a discrete number or a set relationship between some variables resulting in a fixed number (comprised of the value’s units of measurement), and is generally used to describe or define some aspect of reality; i.e., p , c, h, e, R, n,… etc. A limit, on the other hand, is a value used to describe an uppermost or lowermost value for some aspect of reality; e.g., ¥ , Absolute Zero (0° K), Speed of Light (c). And yet, some constants can be limits when they contain two or more variables, such as c according to the Special Theory of Relativity. Although the velocity of c can be slower in media of different transparent densities, it can be pushed to higher velocities in those same media (resulting Cerenkov radiation release); however, it’s absolute velocity is still that of in a vacuum, thus it’s limit. So if c can be both a constant and a limit (to v), then one or both of c’s units (d and/or t) may also be constants, limits, or both; i.e., c = d/t = (l ¦ ) = 3.0x1010cm/s (en vacuo).
 
          This paper is a presumption that time, a fundamental dimensional aspect of our universe, is not a unbroken continuum, but rather a series of fixed instants separated by a set interval at our present point in the thermodynamic/entropic evolution of the universe; and exists as a time quantum inherent in all physical systems. Although the very existence of a time quantum is more important than it’s interval, the interval is at least as important as the comparative strengths/values of the four fundamental forces of nature in determining the structure and processes of our universe’s existence.
                                             
 A Time Quantum (tq)
           According to quantum theory, a quantum is a discreet and minimal unit or packet of energy, and all interactions that take place within the universe do so as multiples of those energy quanta. So why should time be any different if all interactions are also time dependent?

          The deterministic treatment of applied force and other revisions in the Laws of Motion by William O. Davis (1961, 1962, 1967) and other physicists, have allowed scientists to calculate the smallest meaningful interval of time for any finite system (6.27x10- 24 s), a value independently arrived at stochastically by Hermann Von Schelling (1963), from physical assumptions made by Gilbert Plass (1961), and from theoretical estimates made by Werner Heisenberg (1956). This value is believed to be a universal constant that determines many other constants in our universe; such as the speed of light (c) and Planck’s Constant (h) - both of which can be derived from this time quanta or vice-versa using Davis Mechanics.

           Alternative theoretical values for a quantum of time, named a chronon by Robert Levi (1927), have been derived from quantum mechanics and General & Special Relativity, and were proposed to create a theory of quantum gravity. One such value proposed by Piero Caldirola (1980) is 6.97x10- 24 s, a value very close to that derived by Davis Mechanics. Max Planck also proposed a minimal unit of time, called Planck time, but his value was 5.39x10- 44 s and was derived to mark the beginning of the universe, not set a continuing time quantum. However, the one thing all such theories have in common is that they all propose some kind of time quanta as a unit of time, inferring that time is not a continuous/undivided dimension, but “granular“; and this granularity would extend into and effect all physical processes that involve matter, energy, and the interaction of fundamental forces.

          The concept of a time quantum rather than a continuum makes sense when you analogously consider quantum physics and the concept of a quantum universe and infinity. Even though the concept of infinity is mathematically sound and provable, its existence is actually confined to the paradigms and symbolic representations of the mathematics, yet has no actual physical manifestation within our universe; i.e., although our universe is finite but unbounded (expanding into the infinite), it is not infinite in itself, but rather confined to the finite space it creates as it expands. Thus a time quanta concept may be very important in accounting for the quantized nature of our universe at all levels.

           By accepting the existence of a time quanta, we can understand why certain constants are constant. For instance, the speed of light (c) is a constant composed of distance per unit time (d/t), meaning that both of these factors or dimensions must vary in synch as a quintessential manifestation of the space-time continuum. A time quantum would mean that time is composed of fixed moments separated by a mathematically infinite (or finite?) number of diverging probabilities, and can be viewed as a half-sine-like wave with 0 probability after one time quantum followed by a growing probability distribution until the next time quanta occurred, thereby “fixing” that particular moment and resetting the probability distribution(s). This process would be governed by the laws of entropy and thermodynamics, meaning that backwards travel along the same time line would be virtually impossible because of the 0 probability time well after a time quantum instant, and/or the necessity to alter the duration of a past time quantum (with a consequential energetic and highly disruptive ripple effect moving up and down the time stream).              
                          
FIGURE 1 - Space-Time via Time Quantum Perspective - 3D (or 2D) Time instants connected by sine-like probability distributions. Each instant is one (retrospectively fixed) time-probability dimension of the multiverse. Between the instants would lie n-number of other probability instants with the potential for other possible realities or time lines. Entropy provides directionality to the ‘arrow of time’ and backwards time travel (re-entering a fixed time instant) would encounter a 0 probability well.

          However, if backwards time travel was possible, then any attempt to enter a time quantum instant that was already “written” (past) would have to create a new time quanta sequence/ time stream at that point; thus creating an alternate and parallel universe. This new universe would diverge from the past time stream the moment you created it, and all changes you might make would have no effect on the sequential series of fixed events in the universe you left (and create no ripple effect up and down the timeline). That is, assuming that present and future events cannot effect or influence events of the past (as some Quantum Theorists have proposed). In this perspective, an overview of Hawking’s feather-of-time would resemble a sequential series of connected probability tufts, with each probability line having the potential to create a new future sequence; although each probability line in the tuft would be limited in how far it could diverge from the past main probability line by the collapse of probabilities when a time quanta became fixed. Attempts at backwards time travel would just create another fractal probability sequence in the probability tuft series (a Multiverse). The following figure is an attempt to diagrammatically show this alternate view.  
                                 
FIGURE 2 -The Arrow/Feather of Time vs. the Tufted Feather and the Fractal Feather of a Multiverse with Backward Time Travel Allowed. Hawking’s feather of time is a linear time line with the present fixing the past and proceeding to one probability or another. In a multiverse view of this perspective, each probability line could result in a different future. The Tufted Feather is the same except it is broken up into a series of probability distributions with fixed moments/time-quanta sandwiching them. The Fractal Feather allows all probabilities to exist as separate time lines in a Multiverse, with backward time travel conditionally allowed by creating alternate time streams.

             Thus time would function as 3 (or 2?) dimensional moments or instants (like frames in a motion picture), where intervening non-moments are outside of our space-time frame of existence; yet the separated instants providing a retrospective illusion of a continuous 4th (and 3rd ?) dimension (as only the time quanta moments constitute our reality). Perhaps a universe with no quantum of time (a continuous unregulated time frame/4th dimension) would run out soon after it came into existence; like a clock without a regulated release of spring energy. This view of space-time can be visualized as a sort-of slinky toy, where an unregulated (continuous time) universe would be like un-stretched coils touching one another, and a linear trace from one end of the slinky to the other would be just a few inches long. However, when time is quantized and stretched out as in our universe, the slinky can be dozens of feet long depending on the distance between the coils. The time quantum would be the distance between coils and space dimensions the coils and path along the coils, while total spring/coil tension might represent the total energy, mass (“coagulated” energy), and temperature of that universe. Thus, our universe’s time quantum may be a fundamental and necessary constant, like the period of a pendulum, torsion balance, or oscillating spring constant for regulating the existence of space-time and the relationships between the fundamental forces; i.e., the reason our universe exists or persists as it does.
          
          If time came into being during the Big Bang, then it should have started at zero and increased in value until the universe (~Higgs Field) cooled enough to let matter come into existence (“congeal“), thus creating a time quanta at a value consistent with inflation until it reached its (approximate) present value. Thus the time quantum may still be slowly changing in keeping with the expansion rate (and cooling) of the universe. Yet, because any knowledge of existence/ reality is confined to the fixed moments of time, there probably is no measurable way of discerning time expansion or contraction directly. However, the background radiation temperature and its history in our universe may give an insight into this question, as EM radiation has a wavelength, frequency and temperature associated with each light quanta, and thus has a time quantum component.

 
Distance Quantum (dq) and Thermodynamic Limits
          If the speed of light is a constant because of a time quantum, then that must mean there is also a smallest meaningful unit of distance based on the unit values of c; which is calculated from this constant as 1.88x10-13 cm (Davis, 1963; Heisenberg, 1956). Using Planck’s proposed absolute time of 5.39x10- 44s, we can also calculate a Planck smallest distance (again using c) of 1.617x10-33cm. The significance of these values (among other things) may be that one or the other (or more) of these distances/lengths could represent the smallest possible wavelength of light thus its highest possible frequency at a particular time in the universe (1/tq = ¦ max):

                       (Davis, et al) c = l ¦ = dq/tq = 1.88x10-13 cm / 6.27x10-24 s = 3.0x1010cm/s
                                                            or
                      (Planck) c = d/t = 1.617x10-33cm / 5.39x10- 44s
                        (1) l min ¦ max (Davis) ® ¦ max = 1 / 6.27x10-24s = 1.595x1023 Hz
                                                             and
                        (2) l min ¦ max (Planck) ® ¦ max = 1 / 5.39x10- 44s = 1.85x1043Hz
                        (3) Wheeler-Planck ¦ max calculation (from l min) = 1.6x1035 Hz
 
          The Davis tq ¦ max is considerably lower than the Wheeler-Planck ¦ max calculation, and even lower than the ¦ max derived from Planck’s proposed absolute time (5.39x10- 44s ® 1.85x1043Hz); yet this may be understandable since each value was derived/ estimated from different calculations and for different reasons. By using the Davis, Wheeler-Planck, and the Planck Absolute hot & ¦ max values, we can calculate four possible corresponding Absolute temperatures (intensity maximums) via Planck’s Law and Wein‘s Approximations (T = ¦ max / 5.88x1010 Hz K-1). These temperatures (as limits) should tell us a great deal about both the early evolution of the universe and the origin of time itself.
                      (1) Davis, et al® Tmax = 1.595x10²³ Hz / 5.88x1010 Hz K-1 = 2.71x1012 K
  (2) Wheeler-Planck ® Twp = 1.6x1035 Hz / 5.88x1010 Hz K-1 = 2.72x1024 K
                       (3) Planck ® Tp = 1.85x1043 Hz / 5.88x1010 Hz K-1 = 3.15x1032 K
                       (4) Planck’s Absolute Hot ® Tmax = 1.417x1032 K
 
The first and second temperatures calculated are much lower than the temperature Planck proposed for Absolute Hot (1.4168x1032 K, a temperature estimated for the universe about 10-42s after the Big Bang); but the third calculation (from Planck‘s ¦ max ), though over twice as high, appears to be in the ball park. If we work backwards from Planck’s Absolute Hot estimate, we can derive a second alternate Planck time; i.e.: ¦max = Tmax · 5.88x1010 Hz K-1 , 1/¦ max = dq ®

                     1.4168x1032 K · 5.88x1010 Hz K-1 = 8.33x1042 Hz ® dq = 1/¦ max = 1.2x10-43s

A value less than the Planck Time of 5.39x10- 44s, but not that much less. Since we can’t ask Planck to elaborate on this discrepancy, we can only speculate on what took place at these various times and temperatures.

          The highest temperature (Planck’s Absolute hot, 1.4168x1032 K) was proposed as the point where all known physics ceases to exist­ or can come into existence¯ . This would mean that if a time quantum came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang, it would have to have grown from zero to 1.2x10-43s in about 10-42s. Further, Planck’s estimated time value of 5.39x10-44s may possibly be when time itself actually came into being as a dimension of physics, thus subsequently allowing the fundamental forces to come into being one by one and begin creating structure in a cooling and expanding universe.

          The intermediate temperature derived from the Wheeler-Planck calculation for maximum frequency (1.6x1035 Hz = 2.72x1024 K ® 6.25x10-36 s) seems to represent the point where the Electroweak epoch began (10-36 s after the Big Bang) and the temperature had dropped enough to allow the strong force to separate from the electroweak force. The electroweak epoch ended when the Inflationary epoch began (~10-32s), a point when the universe had cooled more and was now composed of a quark-gluon plasma. This Inflationary epoch lasted until ~10-24s when the universe had cooled/expanded enough to let various states of matter form as the quark-gluon plasma congealed.

          The lowest calculated temperature (Davis, 2.71x1012 K ® 6.27x10-24s) seems to coincide with a threshold time (~10-24s) and temperature where thermal energy separates protons and neutrons (overcomes the strong nuclear force and decouples matter and radiation), and where the electron-positron flux is in thermal equilibrium with EM radiation and contributes to the black body spectrum. This temperature also coincides with the experimental temperature at which a quark-gluon plasma was formed at Cern: QGP~ 2×1012 K and up to 4.06x1012 K (where the melting point of more stubborn mesons built of heavy quarks could occur). Thus at temperatures/ energies greater than this, physical baryonic matter systems would breakdown into a quark-gluon plasma. Since the Davis, Heisenberg, et al time quantum was derived/proposed as the smallest meaningful time interval for any finite physical system, it would make sense that where the possibility of physical systems breakdown, so would the applicability / co-incidence of a time quantum.

          Based upon the above, the time quantum may have come into existence at ~10-24s (after the Big Bang and as a set time interval) and then gradually expanded to its present value of 6.27x10-24s as the universe continued cooling and expanding. Thus the time quantum may have originated as a manifestation of quantum thermodynamics and the cooling of the Big Bang, both marking the epochs of creation and eventually becoming “frozen” into / inexorably linked to matter and energy at about 10-24s after the Big Bang; i.e.:

                     0 (Big Bang) ® 10-44s (Planck time) ® 10-43s/1032K (Absolute hot) ®
                     10-36s /1024 K (Electroweak epoch) ® 10-32s /1021K (Inflationary epoch) ®
                     10-24s /1012 K (strong nuclear force, matter, time quantum) ® nucleosynthesis
                     ~1018s /2.7 K (Present) ® tq = 6.27x10-24s

          Even though the cooling rate of the universe at the present time is for all intents and purposes negligible, the time quantum may still be able to grow as the universe continues expanding and the cosmic background radiation continues dropping from its present temperature of about 2.7° K. Thus it appears as though time, and the quantum of time as a discreet quantum thermodynamic constant, was created out of the Big Bang as did matter, energy, and the fundamental forces of nature. Since Absolute zero (0° K) appears to be an unreachable limit, time in all probability should not run out for many billions of years.
 
 
REFERENCES


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body_radiation

http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/1010/SESSIONS/13.Light.html
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark%E2%80%93gluon_plasma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum_space

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe




 

 

Monday, November 24, 2014

Inertial and Space Warp Principles

       Translation of Angular Momentum Into Directional Motion:
   Davis Mechanics and Loop Holes in the Third Law of Motion

                                                          Edward M. Renner
                                            Original: 4/1985; Revised: 9/2011, 10/2013, & 1/2014

Introduction

   There are many grey areas in classical Newtonian physics that cannot explain anomalous mechanical behavior or transient phenomena. Yet, from investigation of some of these anomalies have come innovative ideas and new concepts which have expanded the scope of classical physics to include relativistic physics… and the concept of inertial drives. The concept of an inertial drive has been around for many years, from science fiction to dozens of interesting inventions and devices. Most of these inventions usually depend on known scientific phenomena to manifest their apparent violations of the laws` of motion (i.e., slip-stick friction, precession). However, when anomalous phenomena (deviations from theory) consistently occur under specific and controlled experimental conditions, it is probably the mathematical model that is at fault or incomplete, not the results; thus experimentation with inertial effects and other discoveries in the engineering field (when the existing paradigms failed to explain experienced phenomena) have also resulted in a rethinking/reformulation of time honored mathematical theories and classical motion laws. Although the concept itself is simple, its reality appears to violate what we accept as classical laws of motion/ momentum (i.e., 3rd Law); thus has generally been ignored, ridiculed, or explained away by most theoretical scientists. However, there are many examples of special case / apparent violations of motion laws from the annals of engineering and science, and there are many simple proof-of-principle devices that can be, and have been, created to demonstrate these apparent violations and isolate the phenomena of interest. The governing principles of real inertial drives were perhaps best summed up mathematically by William O. Davis in his Fourth Law of Motion (1962, Davis Mechanics); a law that accounts for the various transient and anomalous inertial effects seen in real physical systems (see Discussion).

     This paper is a review of angular momentum translation principles/ experiments, the transient effects seen in forced harmonic driving forces, and the theoretical foundation of inertial drives; plus speculations on the consequences and applications of such drives.

Principles and Devices

Conservation and Conversion of Momentum
    The Conservation of Momentum is a principle that has real applications only at relatively low velocities and under idealized conditions. This is quite apparent when you consider that momentum (mv) is converted in a high velocity impact, via kinetic energy (mv2/2) and friction, into random molecular momentum (heat). Thus the conservation of momentum is a principle with many exceptions in physical reality, and is simply a reflection of the conservation of total energy (SE); i.e.,

          ES 1 = [mv1]~ mv12/2 --->[mv2] ~ mv22/2 + ΔH = ES 2 ; mv2 < mv1, but ES 2 =ES 1

     Therefore, the conversion of angular momentum into linear momentum (a proven principle) without an intermediate factor (i.e., friction, impact) is not a violation of any physical law if total energy is conserved.

                     ES = Iw12/2 -à linear conversion ---® Iw2 2 /2 + mv1 2/2 = ES

     One way this conversion can be demonstrated is by amplifying certain transient effects found in rotating masses undergoing forced harmonic and precessional motion.

The Drive Wheel 
    The simplest form of translation of angular momentum (Iw ) to linear momentum (mv) is demonstrated by the ordinary drive wheel; e.g., the wheel of a car. In order for a car, bicycle, or train to move forward, the angular momentum generated by the engine/driving force and imparted to the wheel must be translated via friction and contact with the frictional contact surface (the road, rail, etc.). This happens by a maximum deceleration of the wheel occurring at the interface of wheel-to-surface and a transfer of energy via friction. Maximum acceleration in the wheel occurs at the opposite side of the wheel’s contact with the frictional surface, thus during a rotation cycle of the wheel, one side is at maximum angular velocity while the other side is at a minimum. The net result is that angular momentum is translated into linear momentum/ motion via the intermediary of friction. The actual changes in acceleration and deceleration are real in frictional contact surfaces that are elastic or semi-elastic, but are likely manifest as virtual changes or stored static stress forces when contact surfaces are inelastic, i.e., a steel train wheel. This is a key concept when looking to reassess the conservation of momentum, for in order to have a rigid/inelastic wheel function, there is probably a decoupling of actual and virtual centers-of-mass (or cg from cm).

              
FIGURE 1 - Angular to Linear Momentum in the Drive Wheel via Friction.

The Pendulum/Swing 
    The pendulum provides an elegant proof of energy conservation and compliance with the basic laws of motion, but it can also be used to demonstrate the effects of a harmonic driving force, translation of one form of energy to another (which the pendulum depends on for its operation), and the amplification and conversion of angular momentum into unidirectional momentum and vice versa.

      A functioning pendulum utilizes gravity (g) to transform potential energy (PE) into kinetic energy (KE)/momentum (mv/Iw ) and then back again as it completes one cycle of oscillation (simple harmonic motion). A pendulum bob in motion gradually loses energy due to air resistance and friction; but can be made to oscillate continuously if a small driving force, such as an impulse from an electro-magnet, is used to replenish the energy lost (a Foucault pendulum uses this method to operate). The pendulum can also be made to oscillate from rest by translation of bob internal energy/momentum into mv/Iw via a harmonic driving force; i.e., if the bob of a pendulum is a hollow sphere which contains a smaller mass which oscillates back-and-forth and provides a harmonic driving force at the fundamental frequency of the pendulum, the pendulum will move from rest and oscillate in increasing amplitude (like a child’s swing when the child shifts its’ center of mass to-and-fro at the fundamental frequency of the swing). Also, if an eccentric rotating flywheel is substituted for the linear oscillating mass inside the pendulum bob, the pendulum will oscillate in an elliptical/circular fashion (a conic pendulum) if the rotation rate of the eccentric flywheel is matched to the fundamental frequency of the pendulum. This type of harmonic driving force will produce oscillations of increasing magnitude (limited by the balance between potential and gravitational forces) which essentially is an angular Iw deflection of the “static” acceleration produced by gravity.

     Further, if the string that holds the sphere in both of the above systems is cut at a point of maximum kinetic energy/angular momentum, the bob will travel in a tangential (straight) line with equivalent linear momentum (just like a child launching himself off a swing). So it would seem that internal oscillatory momentum may be amplified and stored in a pendulum/ swing via gravity and simple-harmonic-motion (SHM) and then released as linear momentum; thus demonstrating the production of angular momentum and its’ conversion to linear momentum from an internal power
source.
                

FIGURE 2 - Pendulum Motion and Momentum Conversion

The Gyroscope

     Another common device which appears to violate the laws of motion is the gyroscope. If a force vector is applied to the axis of rotation of a gyroscope operating at speed, the action becomes translated not to an opposite and equal reaction, but rather to a reaction that manifests itself at right angles (90°) to the direction of applied force; i.e., gyroscopic precessional force. The 90° deflection of the force (q ) appears to be an asymptotic limit for the gyroscope (and one that is apparent in other devices), and higher rotation speeds do not deflect the applied force beyond that value. This is a phenomena that is also seen in flywheels at high rotation rates.

                 
 
FIGURE 3 - Translation of Force vector in a Flywheel/Gyroscope - IAW the right hand rule of gyroscopic precession, applied force (Input / mg) is translated into momentum at right angles to the plane of rotation and force (Output / precession).

Force Precessed Gyroscopic Devices
     If two counter-rotating gyroscopes are linked together so that they form a single system, with the gyroscopes separate but free to either move apart, towards each other, or pivot at angles on their axis’s, and then two opposing forces are applied to move the gyroscopes, i.e., springs, magnets, solenoids, cams…, the dual gyroscope system translates the opposing forces into a unidirectional force at right angles to force application IAW the right-hand rule of gyroscopic precession (as in Kidd‘s Force Precessed Gyroscopes- see Fig. 4 & 5). This phenomena is different than the effect of shifting the cm in a closed system because the cg of this system remains constant (between the gyroscopes) and it is the two opposing forces that are translated into a combined precessional /
directional motion/force.

                  
 
FIGURE 4 - Dual Counter-Rotating Gyroscopes (Phenomena testing) - Springs drawing gyroscopes together/tilting produce unidirectional precessional force; magnets, solenoids, or cams may be used for the same purpose.

     If two 180° opposed counter-rotating steel flywheels are spun on a secondary axis and an electro-magnet is positioned above and between the gyroscopes, opposing magnetic impulses can be delivered to the axis’ of rotation through the masses. This should have the effect of producing linear precessional impulses and a robbing some of the angular momentum for conversion into linear momentum via the magnetic impulses. (see A. Kidd, US Patent 5024112A, 6/18/1991 and Fig. 5.).

                   

FIGURE 5 - Force Precessed Gyroscopes - Simplified schematic of Kidd device but using magnetic Force instead of mechanical). Centrifugal action on the gyroscopes acts as a restoring force countering the magnetic impulses.

 
      The dynamics of even a single gyroscope are quite complex and those of gyroscopic systems, such as those above, can be so complex and potentially confusing that building them may be easier than describing them mathematically. This is where trial-and-error experimentation comes in, and it may be more advisable to explain experimental results after-the-fact and with real data than trying to predict results mathematically; which may appear to violate fundamental concepts of motion and momentum conservation and for which Newtonian mathematical theory may only lead to the null hypothesis.

Rotational to Oscillating Circular and Bidirectional Motion 
      If a rotating flywheel is placed upon a frictionless table and has its center-of-mass (cm) displaced from the axis of rotation, the flywheel is unbalanced and at low speed will oscillate in a circular fashion about the center of gravity (cg); with the rate and magnitude of oscillation corresponding to the rate of flywheel rotation and degree of cm displacement. Therefore, the greater the displacement of the cm, the greater the out-of-balance condition and oscillation. However, in this form of forced harmonic motion, the cg of the system can be seen to lag behind the axial driving force by a phase angle φ. Even at low rotation rates, such an oscillating system can be made to achieve apparent unidirectional motion if the driving force of the system is varied in synch with the fundamental frequency of the system and slip-stick friction factors are considered [as anyone can testify who has slid themselves across the floor on a chair by suddenly shifting their weight]. However, when the rate of rotation of the unbalanced flywheel is increased, the actual oscillation/displacement of the whole system starts to dampen and can virtually be extinguished at very high rotational rates due to the inertia of the system and gyroscopic stabilization; i.e., the system is unable to translate the inherent inertial forces into actual displacement due to the rapidity/rate of change in direction of the forces, thus φ can be seen to grow to a maximum value of 90°. The result of such a dampening effect is that the actual center of gravity of the system appears to decouple from the center-of-mass, and the rotating flywheel tends to center itself around the torque force, while the virtual center-of-gravity (of the system) continues to oscillate.

                

FIGURE 6 - Oscillation in an Eccentric Flywheel -  Note c., angular momentum about the axis has a tendency to center the mass about the rotational axis. φ Iw> mv

    Further, if two counter-rotating eccentric flywheels are linked as a single system where the actual center-of-gravity of the system lies between the cg’s of the two flywheels, the oscillation of the system is transformed into a bidirectional motion that manifests itself tangentially to the masses and through the system cg travel line (Fig. 7). This bidirectional change of cg (forced harmonic motion) resembles the accelerated motion of a loaded oscillating spring (accelerating and decelerating bidirectional motion) and can be described by the inclusion of a spring constant (k) in the motion equations (see Discussion). Further, like the dampened oscillation of the single eccentric flywheel at high rotational rates, the actual (bidirectional moving) cg of the dual-system is also decoupled from the cm and dampened at higher counter-rotational rates, while the virtual cg continues to oscillate bi-
directionally.      
                 
FIGURE 7 - Two Counter-Rotating Eccentric Flywheels - Rotary oscillation is cancelled by counter rotation of masses, and bidirectional oscillation is dampened at high speeds and manifest as stress force at the axles. Counter rotating flywheels may also be stacked one on top of the other.

       Counter-rotating eccentric mass devices, such as the above, usually have very limited application (they tend to shake themselves apart or produce unacceptable vibrations); but when used as mechanical oscillators (called Buehler Drives), the bidirectional impulses they produce can be harnessed to set up truly massive resonant/ harmonic oscillations, and have been used to simulate earthquakes when attached to large structures (if the rotational or oscillation velocity of the device is matched to the fundamental harmonic frequency of the structure).

       Also inherent in this dual counter-rotating mass system is a phenomena that depends upon the direction of the converging counter-rotation of the system and is manifest as a small net transient impulse (surge / precession?) delivered along the line of travel of the cg and in the direction of convergence rotation; and this impulse may be amplified by modifications to the system that enhance the effect.

Rotational to Unidirectional Motion
     Although the effect of forces acting on a balanced rotating flywheel/gyroscope are hard to characterize mathematically, it can be simplified by viewing angular momentum instantaneously and as an infinite series of opposite but equal inertial vectors that are manifest tangentially to the direction of rotation of the spinning flywheel/gyroscope. However, if we consider the unbalanced flywheel with a decoupled virtual and actual cg, and then induce cyclic perturbations in the cg, we find that the stage is set for loopholes in the 3rd law of motion because of the inability of any system to completely absorb or respond to rapid inertial changes. Thus many rotating systems can be made to manifest net unidirectional force/motion in apparent violation of the Third Law of Motion; these apparent violations are, however, just transformations of one form of momentum into another (angular to linear) and re-vectoring/deflections of the reaction to applied forces (as in gyroscopic precession).

Dean Drives - Mechanical Phasing [FHM]
     One way to achieve the above effect is to mechanically link and unlink an eccentric counter-rotating mass-system to a secondary but encompassing subsystem during the cm convergence portion of the rotation cycle, and in such a way that both systems become one during the linked portion of the cycle and separate systems during the unlinked portion. This type of system is rather finicky and operates on purely phased mechanical inertial forces, but has been demonstrated by many patented working models such as the Dean Drive and Hampton’s Inertial Engine (ref. Dean, 1959; Stine, 1969; Harrington, 2011) Upon examination, I believe some of the more obvious net effects that have been demonstrated in these devices may be manifestations of slip-stick friction, although some (the quoted models) seem to truly demonstrate inertial drive effects.

Magnetic Coupling in Buehler-Type Drives [FHM]
     Rotational angular momentum can also be transformed into unidirectional linear momentum by utilizing a dual counter-rotating eccentric mass system that is magnetically coupled and decoupled to the to the non-rotating part of the system during a portion of the flywheel's rotation cycle; so that a net impulse is created in the whole system and in one direction - much like Dean-type devices. At high speeds the opposite reaction impulse can be split and manifest as force vectors at a phase angle (j ) to the net linear impulse, thus producing a net opposite reaction. Optimum coupling/ decoupling to achieve a maximum net impulse can be obtained by experimentation, but probably lies somewhere around 1/2π Rad of the rotation cycle during cg convergence and at the bidirectional cg centerlines. By using non-magnetic plates (e.g., aluminum) with iron plugs or permanent magnets at their periphery to cause the out of balance / eccentric condition, and by minimizing the loss of angular velocity/momentum during the cycle, the magnetic translation effects can be further isolated, amplified, and directed. Such a device can be configured as stacked counter-rotating plates with the same offset cg’s, and can also be setup as a permanent magnet motor using electro-magnets to both rotate and cause variable momenta during the rotation cycle via an adjustable commutator. The weights in the platters can be exchanged for magnets (permanent or electro-) to further enhance the angular momentum and effects.

                   
                                                       
FIGURE 8 - Stacked Eccentric Counter-Rotating Plates - Permanent magnet motor type system. Magnets can be used to both accelerate and decelerate mv at opposite poles to create off-set Iw /mv. Permanent magnet motor can control rotational cycle and perturbations via an adjustable commutator.

Centrifugal Devices

    Another means of translating rotational to unidirectional momentum has been demonstrated by utilizing horizontally mounted counter-rotating platters with free-swing weights attached off-center by eccentric pivot points. If the platters are rotated at a proper speed for the system, the weights are flung outward and then continue swinging and are drawn inwards by the angular momentum of the platters (working in conjunction with the eccentric pivots) towards the platter’s centers. These free-swinging weights are made to undergo one orbital revolution per rotation of the platters (see Figs.9a & 9b). According to the inventor, the counter-rotation of the platters negates all forces except a unidirectional one (Gilbert, 1985). The unidirectional force produced by this device depends upon an offset and increase in momentum during the outward swing; i.e., variable momentum (Iw) over the course of the orbit. Such a system may not work effectively (or at all) at high rotation rates, as the weights would be unable to respond to the rapid inertial changes in their eccentric orbits, thereby limiting high performance applications. However, this device does demonstrate in a simple and elegant manner the principle behind other more complex inertial drives. 

             

FIGURE 9a- Counter-Rotating Platters With Free-Swinging Weights & Eccentric Pivot Points to Control Weight Orbit. 
                              

FIGURE 9b - Centrifugal Time & Momentum Rotational Diagram - This describes the travel path of the rotating mass (displaced cm) over time and in relation to the main drive axle in the centrifual system.

       Fig. 10a is a redesign (Renner) of the above device (and its working principle) to eliminate the need for pure centrifugal force in swinging the weights outward; instead, using forced harmonic motion (FHM). In this device, gearing is used to rotate added eccentric weights/discs in synch with the main platters. Fig. 10b is a time vs. offset mass positional diagram, showing the changes in momentum in one rotation.

                                                     
FIGURE 10a- Counter-rotating Platters w/ Off-set, Rotating Eccentric Sub-platters Used to Take the Place of the Free-swing Weights. Multiple geared sub-platters are used to mimic the centrifugal action of Gilbert device. Although outward throw momentum is reduced, this is Forced Harmonic Motion and not limited to low or specific speeds.  
                           

FIGURE 10b - Orbital Positions of Sub-Platter Masses - Note significant offset of net momentum/mass. One to four+ sub platters can be used with very little re-engineering.


     Because of the large amount of energy stored in high speed flywheels, this type of system may represent the best interim device for demonstrating and creating a functional inertial drive by mechanically low-tech means; that is, until the phenomena can be further amplified by more high-tech means; i.e., plasmas and phased electro-magnetic induction.

Magnetohydrodynamically Driven Liquid and Plasma Inertial Drives
       Directional inertial drives can also be created by forcing conductive liquids (i.e., mercury, superfluid ferrofluids) or plasmas to counter-rotate in tube raceways that are geometrically shaped to create differential momentum via the Venturi Principle. Propelling the liquid or plasma in such a device can be done by magnetohydrodynamics, so that the only moving parts are the conductive liquid or plasma. Total momentum is conserved within such a system, but directionality is not; i.e., action momentum is more-or-less linear and central while reaction momentum is distributed as a series of radial vectors in multiple directions along the larger curve. Multiple tube arms may be used in such a device and other mag-drive coils can be used to steer/alter the action directionality of the device. The following schematic is of a two-arm device:

                     
 FIGURE 11: Liquid Metal or Plasma Inertial Drive -  Note that the geometry of this device resembles an ovoid magnetic field. Ultra high-velocity metal plasmas interacting with electro-magnetic propulsion (Lorentz Force) systems may be the first step towards more advanced inertial or warp drives. Or, perhaps high gauss electro-magnetic fields can be manipulated thru varying strength, directed flux, and pinching to have a similar effect.

DISCUSSION

   Prior to this point I have neglected to include the mathematical principles of the devices I have discussed. This is mainly because most accepted mathematical descriptions are essentially tautological, conforming to accepted laws and principles of motion and momentum; thus useless in describing any new concepts that would violate those principles; i.e., “mathematics will lead you only to the logical conclusions of your basic assumptions” (Stine, 1969). However, there are mathematical transformations of accepted laws (hard won from engineering experience) that can explain the discussed phenomena, and in this section I will discuss these proposed motion law transformations as well as discuss some of the implications of inertial drives when used as impulse engines or possible warp drives.

     The basis of unidirectional impulse from angular rotation (discussed in the previous sections) has best been described by theories invoking the concept of the Critical Action Time; a concept conceived of (directly or indirectly) by many physicists of excellent reputation and credentials; i.e., William O. Davis, Hermann Von Schelling, Henri Coanda, Serge Korff, Gilbert Plass, and several others (including Werner Heisenberg). The development of the theory, however, can be credited directly to W.O. Davis (1962a,b, 1967), who worked out the mathematics of the phenomena based upon real-life engineering experience and modification of the Newtonian equations/laws. The general principle of the critical action time (CAT) is “that the energy of a system cannot be changed in zero time”, or, “that there is a time in which a system as a whole cannot accept energy (input)”. This concept essentially says that whenever the rate of energy input into a system is too great for the system to absorb, the excess energy must either be excluded or leave the system; either by translating the energy to another system and/or changing the form of the input energy so that it may be radiated away (Davis, 1961, 1962,1967). Davis’s revision of the basic Newtonian equation for applied force in one direction opened the door for a theoretical inertial drive effect by: 1) adding a third derivative containing the critical action time (D), 2) including Hook’s spring constant (k) in the starting condition, and 3) including a viscous damping coefficient (V) in the first derivative; the revised force equation and n=3 summation is:
                               
                                     F = kx + V dx/dt + m d2 x/dt2 + Dm d3 x/dt3

     The implications of this Newtonian revision (Davis Mechanics) is that “There is a force proportional to the rate of change of acceleration as well as Newton‘s force proportional to acceleration itself”, (called surge: Davis, 1962); thus in systems with cyclically unbalanced forces and subject to harmonic driving forces, a unidirectional force can manifest itself through induced motion of the axle(s) - ergo, an inertial drive.

Space Drives & Space Warps
      What can we expect if an advanced inertial space-drive system was created and what actual effects would we experience if theoretical velocities of near-light-speed (or beyond) are made possible? To create a true interstellar drive, space itself would have to be warped/foreshortened in the direction of travel without involving the space vehicle or its’ passengers in the consequences of relativity (internal momentum). This may be possible by experimenting with the various manifestations of momentum and the actual effect they have on the fabric of space-time. Cutting to the chase, it may be possible to create a asymmetrical “warp” in the fabric thru forced harmonic motion and perturbations of momentum in high speed angular acceleration.
      In Einstein’s Equivalence Principle, the (apparent) force of gravity (mg) is the same as the force produced by linear acceleration/deceleration (mD v) and angular acceleration (ID w ). But he also believed that gravity was a phenomenon created in the fabric of Space-Time, where mass warped or proportionally distorted this fabric rather than being an actual attractive force mediated by gravitons. Therefore, if the force of gravity creates a 4d warp in space-time, this means that the forces of linear acceleration, deceleration (ma /-ma), and angular acceleration (ID w ) also produce warps in space-time if they are in fact equivalent to g. In the following diagrams, deceleration is viewed as two possibilities; one as a positive warp ahead of the decelerating object, the other as a negative warp behind it (negative acceleration). The conceptual difference between these two possibilities may be quite significant in being able to form a propulsion warp effect.

                

FIGURE 12 - Space Warp Gradients Produced by Mass, Linear Acceleration, and Deceleration/ Negative Acceleration.

      Angular acceleration can be viewed as a unique g warp case, but its attractive Fg effects can be tested for by duplicating Cavendish’s experiment for deriving the Gravitational Constant (G), but using a high speed flywheel rather than a second large mass. With this modified experiment, any significant virtual mass increases could be determined by measuring potential g gradients at different positions around the flywheel.

                     
 
FIGURE 13a - Substitution of a Flywheel for Mass in The Cavendish Experiment


     If there is increased attraction between the flywheel and the torsion mass as the speed of the flywheel is increased, then it may be possible to harness this phenomena (via displaced virtual cgs and offset momentum) to create a warp ahead of a space craft for it to “fall“ into; i.e., directional movement without actual action/reaction propulsion.

     Figure 13b is a diagram of angular momentum/ outward g force as it increases from the axle to the rim of a gyroscope/flywheel at constant angular velocity [F(Iw ) = r /r² ]. In it you see 0 g force at the axle and then an exponential increase in g force to a maximum at the rim. Beyond the rim, g force again drops to zero, but does all the “attractive” g force also drop to zero?; i.e., if g forces create a dimple in the space-time fabric, is there any dimple gradient beyond the rim edge? The above modified Cavendish experiment should be able to test this theory. Perhaps by creating displace cg’s (virtual cg’s) thru variable momentum we can create such a dimple gradient and make a useable warp in space-time.
                 
 
FIGURE 13b - Increase in g from Axle to Rim in a Flywheel at Constant Velocity - r = distance from axle; Iw = angular momentum r(g force). 

     The second figure (14b.) in the following diagram is a space-time warp proposed by the Mach Principle / Woodward Effect and Alcubierre’s theoretical warp engine. However, angular acceleration devices like that proposed in Figs. 10 & 11 could also create this kind of space-time warp.

                
                                               a.                                              b.
Figure 14a&b - Angular Momentum & Proposed Space-Time Warp Effect of Off-Set Momentum Device (see Fig. 10) Note that the g effects drop off as the center of rotation is approached in both effects. Also note that the Woodward Effect warp favors a negative acceleration interpretation of deceleration momentum.

      In Figures 12 & 14, the effects of mass / acceleration on the fabric of space-time (Higgs Field?) act as if space-time were a non-trivial medium that was creating g drag on an accelerating mass and producing an effect like the wake or bow wave of a boat; or, as if the inertial mass was being attracted towards some dimension beneath a space-time interface / the Higgs Field. The effects of deceleration (negative acceleration) on this fabric seem to be the most telling and may demonstrate an actual negative g force / space-time warp effect.

Electromagnetic, Magnetic, and Gravitational Attraction
      If gravity and acceleration warp the fabric of space-time, what about electro- magnetism and magnetism? We know electric charges add to the mass of a particle, and that magnetism as a force behaves similarly to gravitational force and can be alternately described by substituting the strength of two magnets for the masses in Newton’s gravitational equation. However, unlike gravitational force, magnetism and electro-magnetism have a repulsive nature depending on magnetic polarity. So, is it feasible that magnetism and electromagnetism also create a warp in space-time /the Higgs Field via electro-magnetic induction forces (i.e., Lorentz Force)? And, under specific conditions, might gravitational force also have a repulsive nature, perhaps as a property of dark matter or negative acceleration?

        Fg = G m1· m2 / r² ~ F(-a) = G m(-a)· / r² ~ ± F = A ± mmf · ± mmf / r² [mf = N or S]

Faster-Than-Light vs. Wormholes
      Recent experiments have supposedly “accelerated” photons to velocities measured at over 300 times c, demonstrating that the speed of light might not be an upper limit to velocity. However, as photons are supposed to be mass-less, but have momentum, perhaps these photons may have simply had their relativistic “mass” increased by forcing them to exceed their natural top velocity, causing them to worm-hole/foreshorten the distance traveled so they only appear to exceed light speed. Or, perhaps the speed of light is not the ultimate speed limit in the universe, but only the velocity limit of the normal space-time universe. There have been proposed theoretical quantum “particles” that travel beyond the speed of light, i.e., tachyons or neutrinos with tachyon nature; which would have space-like rather than time-like four-momentum. In the tachyon dimension, deceleration theoretically produces acceleration of the particle, almost as if that dimension was a mirror image of our own 4-dimensions. Nonetheless, these photon experiments could be the possible proof of a worm-hole effect if their results are reinterpreted using Davis Mechanics and General relativity, and by seeing if the photons actually did have an increase in relativistic “mass“. Thus, if the speed of light is an absolute constant and unable to be exceeded, then the foreshortening / compression of space-time via a wormhole would be the most logical explanation for apparent faster-than-light travel; (perhaps photons are just wavicles in/of the Higgs Field?).

      According to the Theory of Relativity, when a non-zero mass particle (or a spaceship) approaches the speed of light (c) it experiences an exponential slowdown of time and a contraction along its’ direction of travel. As the speed of light is closely approached, internal clock time in a spaceship would slow to zero and the direction of travel distance would also appear to shrink towards zero; plus it would require an infinite amount of energy to actually achieve c because of the exponential kinetic mass increase. Be that as it may, at c, an observer (in the ship) would not experience any passage of time, and distance in the direction of travel would appear to be zero; so they would essentially travel to the end of space-time at the instant c was reached. Such an object would also experience an exponential increase in momentum energy towards the infinite (that is, according to Lorentz transformations in Relativity theory). This is where I believe the Theory of Relativity may break down, and may not actually represent reality at c or at hypothetically greater (superluminal) velocities. In theory, the warp created in space-time when trying to reach c might actually create a bubble outside of normal space-time, and not be subject to the limitations imposed by relativity theory; i.e., time dilation, continuous and exponential relativistic “mass” increase, or internal g forces.

 Relativity and The Mass-Velocity Barrier
      According to conventional relativity theory, before any non-zero mass object could come close to achieving the speed of light and infinite kinetic mass, it would come up against the space-time curvature limit for massively dense objects; i.e., the creation of a black hole IAW General Relativity via Schwarzschild’s equation for the space-time curvature (Ω - see Fig.14 & 15):

                                              rs = 2Gm/c2 à m = rs c2/2G.

Yet, since the objects’ mass/momentum increase is due to its’ velocity approaching c, it should be a vector quantity. Thus time-space curvature should also be a vector quantity in the direction of travel and create a worm-hole rather than a black hole. As the speed of light was approached, distance and time in the direction of travel would continue to contract. The closer to c the velocity was, the greater the relativistic momentum mass (r r) and contraction of space-time in the direction of travel, until it would approach infinite r , 0 d, and 0 t at c. Even still (acknowledging Relativity Theory), c would be any non-zero mass’s ultimate velocity limit, even though distance traveled per unit time would have the appearance of being faster than light; and this may be (again) an alternative explanation for the experiments where photons were (apparently) pushed to faster than light speed. So, does the Theory of Relativity breakdown at the speed of light and superluminal velocities, just as the laws of physics breakdown beyond the event horizon of a blackhole, or as Newtonian starting assumptions need to be amended at highr velocities even well before relativistic velocities are approached? The following diagram shows how velocity is limited by the speed of light while kinetic mass/energy continues to increase exponentially (with equivalent energy input); that is, until a space-time curvature limit is reached.
                 
                                              Relativistic Mass/Momentum/Energy (exponential) 
 
Figure 15 - Velocity and Relativistic Momentum Limits - Each graph point is a factor 10 increase in kinetic energy/momentum mass; which increases until the space-time curvature limit and production of a blackhole or worm-hole: PW = 2Gm/(v/c)²= Rc²/2G

Wormhole Effect
      Relativity Theory predicts that momentum-mass would grow proportionally to the energy needed to propel the object to near light speed, i.e., m=e/(v/c)2. But what happens when the upper limit for mass/dimensional density is reached? Since the “mass” increase is due to linear acceleration/ relativistic momentum (a vector quantity), would we get a black hole or a worm hole? The following diagram is a modified Lorentz Transformation diagram reflecting the upper limits for mass density or relativistic momentum (ala Schwarzschild radius R):
FIGURE 16 - Modified Lorentz Diagram - Momentum/mass increases as a function of velocity (r) but encounters a limit (Ω) where a worm hole should be created. R= Schwarzschild radius, γ = Lorentz factor,b = v/c, mΩ = m/4/3 pR3= mass density limit, G=Gravitational constant, M/r= relativistic mass/momentum, m = moving mass, mo = rest mass, v = velocity, c = speed of light.

 
 
Lorentz Factor and Blackhole/Wormhole Effect (γ= 1/ Ö1- (v/c)2)
                   Relativistic “Mass” (momentum):
                   mr = m Ö1- (v/c)2 ----> r = mov/ Ö1- (v/c)2

                   Mass limit ® Black-hole or Worm-hole:
                   c = Ö2GM/R ---> vG = ÖGM/r --->vG = c ÖR/r

                   M = Rc2 /2G ---> mo = 2Gm/(v/c)2 ---> v = c Ö2Gr /mo
                        or: vΩ < c ~ Ö2G moΩ ---> moΩ = vΩ 2 / 2G » r W /4/3p R3

     There also seems to be an interesting connection between mass and time within General Relativity and the Equivalence Principle. It would seem that they are inexorably linked as part of the four-dimensionality of space-time. Mass-less or virtually-mass-less particles that travel at (or close to) the speed of light appear to be timeless, that is, the moment of their creation is the same as their moment of extinction. From the perspective of a particle at c, there is no time nor distance/third dimension. Mass, on the other hand, almost always seems to have time and three dimensions associated with it (with the exception of a black-hole?). Thus time appears to be a basic property of mass within the normal space-time universe, describing its‘ interaction with a Higgs Field.

Paradigms, Paradoxes, and Reality 
      One problem I see in interpreting Relativity Theory is with the paradoxes that seem to occur at and beyond c. Paradoxes, however, can actually be seen as just the limitations or descriptive limits of the paradigms, not prohibited realities; as reality is what it is independent of a paradigm’s ability to describe or account for it. Therefore, when we encounter an apparent paradox, we probably need to re-examine and adjust the paradigm, not deny the reality. For instance, the Twins Paradox is not really a paradox if the twin who journeyed close to the speed of light did not return younger than before he left. Even transatlantic jet travelers and astronauts experience a slower passage of time compared to the earthbound and stationary. Relativity paradoxes are then just different comparative realities created in different inertial/mass reference systems.

       Another problem is that of supposed causality violations and hypothetical backwards time travel. However, any particle, no matter how fast it travels, arrives at a distant location after it departed, not before. After all, photons don’t travel backwards in time (unless photon acceleration experiments can actually demonstrate this), and quantum teleportation is instantaneous and yet allowed without violating causality. Analogously, a supersonic jet or rifle bullet arrives ahead of it’s sonic boom or report sound, so who’s to say that a superluminal object can’t physically arrive ahead of its’ light and not violate causality, just appear to do so? After all, the light we see from distant stars and galaxies is what happened thousands, millions, or billions of years ago, not their present position / state of existence; so what we see is not what is, but rather what/when it was. Maybe there actually is some kind of universal reference field in the Universe (Higgs Field / Mach principle?), one created by the interaction vector sum of all mass/energy (M) in the universe acting on the mass/energy at a particular position in space-time (Ñ Fg = G Ñ ò mM/R² ). This could be the equivalent of a space-time ether. Or, perhaps the field is a Higgs Field membrane interface with a dimension of dark matter and energy.

Conclusions
        If we conceptually integrate Davis Mechanics and inertial drive experimental results with Einstein’s Equivalence Principle, the Mach Principle, the Higgs Field concept, and the Woodward /Alcubierre Effect /concept, we can see how virtual faster-than-light travel and warp drives may be possible. By viewing the space-time continuum as a 4 dimensional matrix that can be distorted/warped by mass, electro-magnetism, charge, and the creation of virtual mass (thru acceleration, ma & Iw), and allow for the shunting of space itself, we may find the really big loophole in Newtonian and Einstein’s physical laws that would allow for real-time interstellar travel. As a closing thought to ponder, what if we (hypothetically) consider the described performance and behavior of supposed alien UFO’s that have been seen for centuries… isn’t that exactly the kind of supposedly impossible flight characteristics we would expect from an inertial warp drive that doesn‘t rely on action-reaction propulsion?

                                                           ADDENDUM

  The Time Quantum
      The deterministic treatment of applied force and other revisions in the Laws of Motion (Davis Mechanics) allows one to calculate the smallest meaningful interval of time for any finite system (6.27x10- 24 s) a value also independently arrived at stochastically by Hermann Von Schelling (1963), from physical assumptions made by Gilbert Plass (1961), and from theoretical estimates by Werner Heisenberg (1956). This value is believed to be a universal constant that determines both the speed of light (c) and Planck’s Constant (h) - both of which can be derived from this time quanta or vice-versa using Davis Mechanics. By accepting the existence of a time quanta, we can now make sense of why certain constants are constant. For instance, the speed of light c (as a velocity) is a constant composed of distance per unit time (d/t), meaning that both of these factors or dimensions must vary in concert as a quintessential manifestation of the space-time continuum. A time quantum would mean that time (based on our concept of space-time) is not a continuous dimension, but rather one of fixed moments / instants separated by a mathematically infinite number of intervening instants or probability distributions. Is this perhaps (conceptually) how the multi-verse works? … Not as a continuum, but as 3 dimensional moments or instants (like frames in a motion picture), and where intervening non-moments are outside of our space-time frame of existence; yet the separated instants providing the retrospective illusion of a continuous 4th dimension.

      The probability distributions between time quanta would likely resemble a sine-like wave, with 0 probability after one time quantum followed by a growing probability distribution until the next time quanta occurred, “fixing” that particular moment. This process would be driven by probability and fixed by entropy, meaning that backwards travel in the same time stream (arrow of time) would be virtually impossible because of the 0 probability time well after a time quanta instant.

FIGURE 17 - Space-Time via Time Quantum Perspective - 3D Time instants connected by sine-like probability distributions. Each instant is one retrospectively fixed, time-probability dimension of the multiverse. Between the instants would lie n-number of other probability instants defining other possible realities. Entropy provides directionality to the ‘arrow of time’ and backwards time travel attempts would be thwarted by the 0 probability time well.
          However, if backwards time travel was possible, then any attempt to enter a time quantum instant that was already “written” (past) would have to create or graft on a new time quanta sequence/ time stream; thus creating an alternate and parallel universe in a Multiverse. This new universe would diverge the moment you entered it, and all changes you might make would have no effect on the sequential series of fixed events in the universe you left. That is, assuming that present and future events cannot effect or influence events of the past (as some Quantum Theorists have proposed). In this perspective, Hawking’s feather-of-time would resemble a series of connected tufts, with attempts at backwards time travel creating another fractal pattern in the tuft series (Multiverse). The following figure is an attempt to show this alternate view.

                           
FIGURE 18 - The Feather-of-Time vs. the Tufted Feather and the Fractal Feather of a Multiverse Allowing Multiple Realities and Backward Time Travel. Hawking’s feather of time is a linear time line with the present fixing the past and proceeding to one probability or another. Backward time travel not allowed (unless a new feather is created at a re-entry point in the past; in which case we would have a conditional multiverse). Tufted Feather is the same except it is broken up into a series of stacked feathers with fixed moments/time-quanta between them. Each probability tuft would collapse when a new time quantum occurred. The Fractal Feather allows all probabilities to exist as separate time lines in a Multiverse, with backward time travel conditionally allowed.


           Alternative theoretical values for a time quantum, named a chronon by Robert Levi (1927), have been derived from quantum mechanics and General & Special Relativity, and were proposed to create a theory of quantum gravity. One such value proposed by Piero Caldirola (1980) is 6.97x10- 24 s, and is a value very close to that derived by Davis Mechanics. Max Planck also proposed a universal quantization of time, called Planck time, but his value was 5.39x10- 44 s. However, the one thing all such theories have in common is that they all propose a time quantum. Perhaps a universe with no quantum of time (a continuous unregulated time frame/ dimension) would come to an end or “run out” soon after it came into existence; like a clock without a regulated release of spring energy. Thus the time quantum may be a necessary and fundamental constant for regulating and maintaining the dimensions of space-time, the dimension of mass-time, and the existence of our universe.

      If the speed of light is a constant because of the time quantum, then that must mean there is also a smallest meaningful unit of distance based on the unit values of c and h (perhaps the real dimensions/diameter of a black hole or an electron?); which is calculated from these constants and Davis Mechanics as 1.88x10-13 cm (Davis, 1963; Heisenberg, 1956).

 
                                                      REFERENCES

Campbell, John W., (1960). The Space Drive Problem. Analog Vol. LXV No. 4, June: 83-106.

Caldirola, P. (1980). "The introduction of the chronon in the electron theory and a charged lepton mass formula". Lett. Nuovo Cim. 27 (8): 225–228.

Davis, William O., (1962). The Fourth Law of Motion. Analog Vol. LXIX No. 3, May: 83-104.

Davis, William O., (1967). The Energy Transfer Delay Time. Annals of the NY Academy of Sciences, Vol. 138, 2: 862-863.

Davis, W.O., (1961) Some Unusual Implications Inherent in the Huyck Dynamic Systems Research Program. Huyck Corporation report, @1961.

Davis, W., Stine, H., Victory, E., & Korff, S., (1962). Some aspects of certain transient mechanical systems. American Phys. Soc., FA10; Spring Meeting. Wash. DC, April 23.

Dean, Norman L. (1959) US Patent # 2,886,976 - System for Converting Rotary Motion into Unidirectional Motion. US Patent Office, Wash. DC.

Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia Vol. 11, (1979). Mechanics of Complex Systems, (Principle of virtual work; Spinning tops and gyroscopes). Ency. Brit. Inc., 15th Edition. William Benton, Pub., Chicago: 777-778.

Gibbs, P (1997) [1996]. "Is The Speed of Light Constant?". In Carlip, S. Usenet Physics FAQ. University of California, Riverside. Archived from the original on 2009-11- 17. Retrieved 2009-11-26.

Gilbert, J. (1985) Harnessing g Forces. Science Digest, Sept. 1985: 14.

Harrington, Craig. http://www.inertiaHarringtonlpropulsion.com/ Inertial Propulsion Engine. A Functional Dean Drive. 12/18/2011.

Hawking, Stephen. A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books, N.Y. 1988.

Heisenberg, Werner (1958). Physics and Philosophy. Harper & Bros., NY.

Hudson, A.& Nelson, R., eds. (1982). Center of gravity/ Center of mass; The gyroscope.

University Physics. Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich, Inc., NY: 215-219; 250-253.

Lévi, Robert (1927). "Théorie de l'action universelle et discontinue". Journal de Physique et le Radium 8 (4): 182–198. doi:10.1051/jphysrad:0192700804018200.

Margenau, Henry (1950). The Nature of Physical Reality. McGraw-Hill.

Plass, Gilbert N., (1961). Classical Electrodynamic Equations with Radiative Reaction. Review of Modern Physics 33: 37-62.

Renner, Edward (2013). “Forced Harmonic Motion in a Counter-Rotating Dual Platter System With Eccentric Rotating Sub-Platters”. Unpublished Design Prototype Paper.

Renner, Edward (1984). "A Quantum of Time: Limits, Constants, and Thermodynamics". Unpublished paper.

Stine, Harry G., (1969). Detesters, Phasers and Dean Drives. Analog Science Fiction / Science Fact Vol. No. : 61-80.

Stine, G.H., "The Rises and Falls of Henri-Marie Coanda", Air & Space Smithsonian, Sept. 1989

Von Schelling, H., (1963). Stochastic Approach to the Laws of Motion. General Electric Co., report No. 63GL106. Advanced Technology Laboratories, July 1, 1963.

Von Schelling, H., (1955) Statistische Modelle als Hilfsmittel der Naturbeschreibung. Mitteilungsblatt fuer Mathematisch Statistik 7: 173-192.

rexresearch.com. Inertial Space Drives. Mechanical Space Drive US Patents.

http://www.halexandria.org/dward136.htm (Gravitation Revisited).

http://www.halexandria.org/dward137.htm (Davis Mechanics).

http://www.halexandria.org/dward124.htm (The Fifth Element)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronon

http://www.gyroscopes.org/propulsion.asp and U.S. Patent #5024112, Alexander (Sandy) Kidd, 6/18/1991.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect

http://www.aerorocket.com/WarpMetrics.html

Jump up ^ Zloshchastiev, Konstantin G. (2011). "Vacuum Cherenkov effect in logarithmic nonlinear quantum theory". Physics Letters A 375 (24): 2305.

arXiv:1003.0657. Bibcode:2011PhLA..375.2305Z. doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2011.05.012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lorentz_factor.svg

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/ltrans.html