www.Tesla-Flying-Machine.com
www.TeslaFlyingMachine.com
Tesla's Flying Machine
Tesla's Flying Stove
* "Not the airplane, the flying machine," responded Dr. Tesla. *
Nikola Tesla
www.TeslaSociety.com
Tesla Memorial Society of N.Y.
a short biography page
Tesla's Autobography on-line
|
"I am now planning aerial machines devoid of sustaining
planes, ailerons, propellers, and other external
attachments, which will be capable of immense speeds"
- Tesla's autobiography
"To a Westinghouse manager, Tesla wrote 'You should not be at
all surprised, if some day you see me fly from New York to
Colorado Springs in a contrivance which will resemble
a gas stove
and weigh as much. ... and could, if necessary enter and
depart through a window.'" (7-7-1912) [ it will be a small
box, not a huge "cigar" ]
pg. 198 Tesla: Man Out of Time by Margaret Cheney
Tesla intended the world to have a free, wireless, source of
power "My power generator will be of the simplest kind -- just
a big mass of steel, copper and aluminum comprising a
stationary and rotating part, peculiarly assembled."
According to museum officials at The Nikola Tesla museum in
Belgrade, "he left sketches of interplanetary ships. This
information, however, has not been made available to western
scholars." pg. 203
|
How Tesla intended to power his flying machine
|
"The flying machine of the future --
my flying machine -- will be heavier than air, but it will not be an
airplane. It will have no wings. It will be substantial, solid, stable.
You cannot have a stable airplane. The gyroscope can never be
successfully applied to the airplane, for it would give a stability
that would result in the machine being torn to pieces by the wind,
just as the unprotected airplane on the ground is torn to pieces by a
high wind. My flying machine will have neither wings nor propellers.
You might see it on the ground and you would never guess that it was a
flying machine. Yet it will be able to move at will through the air in
any direction with perfect safety, at higher speeds than have yet been
reached, regardless of weather and oblivious of 'holes in the air' or
downward currents. It will ascend in such currents if desired. It can
remain absolutely stationary in the air even in a wind for great length
of time. Its lifting power will not depend upon any such delicate
devices as the bird has to employ, but upon positive mechanical action."
[Here it is again: "mechanical"]
"You will get stability through gyroscopes?" I asked."
Through gyroscopic action of my engine,*
assisted by some devices I am not yet prepared to talk about,"
he replied.
*
[notice that 'eccentrics' G,H,J, & K in the drawing below, do
throw their weight around in a "gyroscopic action" not gyroscopes]
Dr. Tesla smiled an inscrutable smile.
"All I have to say on that point is that
my airship will have neither gas bag, wings nor propellers,"
he said.
"It is the child of my dreams, the product of years of intense and
painful toil and research. I am not going to talk about it any
further. But whatever my airship may be, here at least is
an engine that will do things that no other engine ever has done,
and that is something tangible."
from the book
Tesla's Engine -- A New Dimension For Power
|
We know that Tesla invented many things which no one else
has been able to duplicate since.
(And, there is a wealth of information locked up where few
can get to it - in Belgrade, in the FBI, in the US military --
it is hard to know. They have all been very secretive about it.)
Tesla, Man of Mystery is a book that has, along with
general info. on Tesla and a few fables, one diagram and enough
information about it, amid the theories, posturizing, and
misinformation - for us to duplicate the device.
The book called it the "Tesla space Drive" and it appears to be the
heart of what Tesla had said would look like flying on "a gas stove"
and be "peculiarly assembled."
(above)
So, here it is:
|
|
Tesla, Man of Mystery
chapter 4
The Tesla Space Drive
for interplanetary space vehicles
|
The Flying Stove - Flying Machine
The Force Field Generator
page 31
Diagram from page 31 of
Tesla, Man of Mystery © 1992
Chapter 4: "The Tesla Space Drive"
"The first step in developing this system is to cause a
counter-clockwise (sense chosen arbitrarily) acceleration of the
center of mass of the four eccentrics (refer to diagram) in a
circular orbit about the X axis.
"... there is a common point about which the center of mass of the
eccentrics and the center of mass of the device as a whole gyrate."
pg.32
"The reaction to this angular acceleration is a linear
acceleration along the system axis (X) and directed outward from
the page. ... this system functions in accordance with the
right-hand rule.
... [ It will ] wobble
noticeably at low thrust levels. This effect fades out, however,
as the thrust is increased." pg.34-35
( not "thrust", rpm! )
My first observation is that the "machine" is a set of 4 spinning weights arranged
on a simple frame, with no apparent purpose, "peculiarly assembled" as Tesla said
about his power generator.
Interesting! - It is so simple (easy & cheap!) to build,
and yet, it does something Phenomenal! The object is not spinning nor do any one
of the spinning weights match the orbit of the machine and yet, the mass of the
object is in orbit - if the object is centered around the 4 spinning
weights. Like electrons in orbit in a stationary coil - an
area in which Tesla is already famous. Instead of acceleration by the left hand
rule, (electro-magnetism) now it is by the right hand rule (complete molecules
instead of just electrons) according to the author. Even that seems reasonable.
(So, for the moment, lets work from that assumption) No one seriously
interested in a new, cheap, source of propulsion need question or dispute anything,
just build it and find out for ourselves. However, already, we have encountered
the first problem. The 4th line of the key to the drawing says:
"L is the base plate to which the motors, gear boxes, and pillow blocks
(not shown) are fastened."
Photo 1: First Construction
the motor was barely strong enough to spin these, smaller weights at
maybe 60 to 100 rpm and, they would not spin the slightly longer,
heavier, weights at all. I also needed stronger motors.
I traded them in for 1 hp 12 amp motors but was reminded by a friend that
household wiring could not handle 2 12 amp motors, so, I traded them for
smaller, lighter, 1/5th hp 10,000 rpm ele. motors on 1992-09-21.
|
No, not true.
In just thinking about building my first machine, it became obvious
that nothing can be mounted on the base. The weight will spin half-way
around and stop when it hits the base on the other side!
Everything must be mounted above the base plate,
not on it and, after building my first construction (Photo 1)
it became clear to me that building it above the frame was not
good enough either.
On the next page, he says: "... there is a common
point about which the center of mass of the eccentrics and the center
of mass of the device as a whole gyrate."
(pg.32) Meaning: everything below the spinning weights
must have its counterpart above the spinning weights as well - to be
"centered".
I should have realized that we need 2 identical plates,
one for the top and one for the bottom.
We need 4 vertical struts which we will place in a square array symetrically
between the top and bottom plates. The 4 shafts will be mounted around the
center points of the 4 vertical struts with mitre gears
(a.k.a. right angle gears)
at the corners, keeping them "in sync". There will be a matched pair of motors
(A & B in the diagram above) each
extending out from the 2 opposite sides. They must be symetrically mounted so
that the center of mass remains at the center of the device as a whole.
(see Photo 2 below)
Photo 2:
2nd Tesla Flying Machine design
Since nothing is said about weight being an issue, my second
(all steel) frame was built to be rigid, not light-weight.
I estimated the weight to be about 30 lbs plus about 15 lbs
in motors, pillow blocks, steel drive shafts, etc.
After spending over $200 to have this iron frame built
($275 paid on 2-18-1993), I tested it. The new
motors would spin the weights, washers on short bolts, but, one or two often
came loose at start-up. The ele. motors accelerated them too fast. It was
difficult to screw them on tight enough. When they were on tight enough and
they did spin, the frame did not bounce around or even vibrate significantly
but, it did not lift off either.
I realized I would have to figure out the necessary speed to enable the device
to move.
|
my best drawing, "blueprint", of the Force Field Generator - Greg
Fig.1 (printed in B&W)
Fig.1c (original in color)
I admit, I left out the motors in this diagram (see 1st diagram, pg.31, above),
since there is no design specificiation for them. They can be anything
you can get hold of. The only requirement is that they be able to get
your weights up to your needed speed.
However, the book, does not mention a speed requirement
(for the eccentrics) except to say:
[ It will ] wobble noticeably at low thrust (rpm) levels.
This effect fades out, however, as the thrust (rpm) is increased.
KEY to drawing: (Fig.1)
and Fig.1c
1. Four identical Inertial Loads (weights, masses) (labeled 1
through 4) are mounted on 4 identical arms (of length 2R) which,
in turn, are mounted on 4 identical shafts arranged on a square.
The shafts are geared so that they stay synchronized: 1:1 ratio rt. angle
drives ("mitre" gears).
This unique arrangement for the 4 inertial loads is such that, as they
revolve about their axes, their collective center of mass (center of
gravity) takes on a circular orbit where the center of the orbit is
also the center of mass of the rest of the device. This aggregate
circular orbit is the first necessary condition and is labeled ILCoM
(the orbit of the 4 Inertial Loads Center
of Mass). (See note #1 for
detailed exposition) It is the induced orbit in the center of gravity
of the stationary object, the frame, which forces a reaction from the
object, a linear acceleration according to the right-hand-rule.
2.
Whatever collection of materials is used to mount and rotate the shafts,
for an initial point of reference, the center of mass of the frame (the
entire device minus the 4 weights) is at the center of the square array
of shafts (labeled C in the drawing).
3.
If ILCoM is the orbit of the 4 Inertial Loads' (weights) Center of Mass
and if the weight of the entire system (device), the 4 loads included, is
10 times the weight of the 4 loads by themselves, then the radius of orbit
of the System's Center of Mass ( SCoM )
will be 1/20th of ILCoM. (see note #2)
NOTE #1:
In the drawing (Fig.1) the centers of mass (aka gravity) of loads 1 and 2
are each marked with a '+'. As shown, the center of mass for load #1 is
at 'A'. The center of mass for #1 and #2 combined is exactly halfway
between their 2 individual centers, at point 'B'. The center of mass for
#3 and #4 combined is halfway between their 2 individual centers, at
point 'C' (since load 3 is the same distance down (2R) that load 4 is up,
'C' is at the center of the frame with respect to all 3 coordinates).
The center of mass for all 4 combined, is halfway between 'B' and 'C', at
point 'D' and that Radius, from C to D, is labeled R. Since 'B' is the
midpoint between #1 and #2 and is also always at the '2R' distance (the
radius of each individual mass) from the center 'C', 'R' (the radius of
ILCoM) is always 1/2 the radius of the individual weights. (because only
2 out of 4 are shifting in each direction - front to back or side to side)
NOTE #2:
Example: If the total system weight, the 4 inertial loads included, is
10 times the sum of the weight of the 4 inertial loads, by themselves,
then the ratio of the SCoM to ILCoM is 1:10 and the ratio of the SCoM to
the radius of any one of the loads, weights, is 1:20. If the arm, rod,
holding any one of the weights is about 3cm long, then the orbit
of the center of mass is 1/10 of 1/2 of that or, about 0.15cm
GENERAL NOTES
The 4 weights are not the only loads on the system. If the 4 weights
revolve fast enough, the air resistance becomes an additional overhung load.
If the rpm of the weights is doubled, the radial load on
the shafts is quadrupled (mass x radius x rpm x rpm x K = force).
This model was fine but, the frame was just a little flimsy
(the top was removed for the purpose of the photo, Sept. 4th, 1993)
The only expensive parts are the motors,
(aluminum) pillow blocks, and mitre gears.
The pillow blocks, and mitre gears,
combined, totalled $138.44.
About a 2 foot square sheet of
aluminum was less than $10.
The shafts are also aluminum and cheap.
|
Requirements of the
FORCE FIELD GENERATOR / MOTOR
By Greg Smith
This device converts inertial energy into centrifugal acceleration which,
according to the right-hand rule, generates linear acceleration. The
principal is the same for the way that the centrifugal acceleration of
electrons, in a coil, exert linear acceleration on a metal rod placed in
the center of the coil. Here, the acceleration is exerted on the frame.
An electric motor is the result of electrons in orbit; this motor
is the result of entire atoms, the entire device, in orbit.
The rotation (rpm) necessary to generate acceleration depends upon:
- the mass of the entire device
- the mass of the 4 rotating inertial loads, (4 masses),
- the radius of those 4 loads (aka 4 eccentrics, 4 masses)
- and, the force of gravity
- For example, if the mass of the 4 inertial loads totals 1/10th the total
mass of the entire device, then the radius of rotation of the center
of mass of the system (the entire device) is 1/20th that of the radius
of any one of the rotating loads. (not 1/10th. This is just
geometry but, I overlooked it for a time) (only 2 of 4 weights going
left to right and only 2 of 4 going front to back)
- It is the rotation of the entire system (device) that must get up
enough centrifugal acceleration to defeat gravity.
- Examples of that acceleration are:
On a 50 inch radius, something greater than 26.5 rpm
(a pendulum).
( experimentally 27 to 28 rpm spinning )
- Examples of that acceleration are:
On a 25 inch radius, something greater than 37 rpm
(a pendulum).
( experimentally 38+ rpm spinning )
This can be observed with a weight on a string. With a 50" string,
just swinging the weight back and forth like a pendulum,
gives the same rate of oscillation with very little,
almost no, arc as it does with significantly more - about 26.5 cycles
per minute (cpm). Since there is no energy being applied to the
pendulum and it will eventually come to a rest, it is intuitive that if
there is any (constant) energy entered into the system to maintain
spin, it will, be spinning at a rate greater than 26.5 rpm. In my
continued experimenting, I found it took about 27 to 28 rpm
to keep it spinning around, not just back and forth. With a
25" radius, as a pendulum, there were 37 ocilations and, spinning,
I had at least 38 rpm.
Note that if you take the square of 26.5 ocilations (for a 50" radius)
(702) and double it (1404), the square root of that, (37.5) is very
close to our 25" experiment of 37 ocilations and, taking the square of
27 rpm (729) and doubling it (1458), the square root of that, (38.2)
is, essentially, our experimental 38 rpm's.
if a 50" radius requires 27 rpm or more ( & 27x27 = 729 )
and a 25" radius requires at least 38 rpm (38 x 38 = 1444)
then a .25" radus requires at least 380 rpm (6.3 rps) ( 380 x 380 = 144,400 )
and about a 600 rpm minimum at a .1" radus ( 604 X 604 = 365,000 )
and about a 850 rpm minimum at a .05" radus ( 854 X 854 = 729,000 )
and about a 1,200 rpm minimum at a .025" radus ( 1,202 X 1,202 = 1,444,000 )
and about a 1,900 rpm minimum at .01" ( 1,910 X 1,910 = 3,645,000 )
and about a 2,700 rpm minimum at .005" ( 2700 X 2700 = 7,290,000 )
Example system for 2006: The mass of the 8 4.75" bolts totals
about 1.5(8) = 12 oz, and the total mass of the entire device
(including only the spinning bolts) about 8.5 lbs, (136 oz) and
the center of mass of each of the 4 masses is out about 2.37" from
its shaft, and the net radius for the system is
(2.37") x (12oz/2)/136oz = .1045 = .1 and the needed speed is about 600+ rpm.
This example is about what I have with my most recent frame and 1/2 hp
air motors using only the 8 bolts, without extra weights. Question is,
can I find an air motor with enough torque to run at maybe 800 rpm,
(instead of just 600) just to be safe, under this load of the 8 5" bolts
or, would I be more likely to find one that could do 1,500 rpm
with 1/4 that load using 2.5" bolts.
In March 1994, We tried it with 3, 2, and then only 1 crossbar.
With only 1 crossbar,
I think we got 200 to 300 rpm out of the motors. A friend said "Something
is happening here." It started shaking more, not less, when we reduced
the weights (from 2 to 1 on each side) and got it spinning faster.
Instead of shaking less, it did the opposite. Something was happening.
Oct. 20th, 2007:
A few weeks ago +/- I tried it without any crossbars but, the weight
and inertia were still too much for the motors.
Nov. 2007:
I bought 2.5" bolts and 1.5" bolts so I have 2 more options.
If the 2.5" does not reduce the weight and inertia enough to enable
the motors to get up some significant speed, I can try the 1.5" bolts.
Cutting the length and weight in about half (from 4.75" to 2.5" bolts)
reduces our net radius from about .1" to about .025" and our needed
speed from about 600+ rpm to about 1200 rpm. Although it was an
improvement, It just was not enough improvement and we switched to
the 1.5 inchers. (see "December 2007" photo below)
We started it up and the speed finally seemed significantly improved. A
mechanic said it looked like it was going about 5 or 6,000 rpm.
Great! Finally! Still, nothing more happened and we turned it off.
June 30th 2008
So, I wonder. Was it actually going that fase or only maybe 10 to 15
rev's / sec. ( = 600 to 900 rpm ). Close, but not quite.(?)
Dec. 2007:
Afterwards, I realized several potential problems. (1. The force may
have been exerted downward instead of up (we need to try turning it
upside down) and, (2. the 2 air hoses were adding weight to the system,
holding it down. We need to prop the hoses up so that they do not add
weight to the system.
Jan. 30th 2008:
We tried it again, right side up and upside down. We held up the 2 air
hoses. But, no movement, no lift.
June 30th 2008
If we got several thousand rpm,
more than enough, then, it didn't work. If not, then either a further
reduction in the mass and inertia of the rotating weights
and / or a change to stronger motors is needed.
Hopefully, we can get a sufficient speed increase by further reducing
the weights & inertia.
|
To see the motor in motion,
