Less Global Warming
Less Pollution
Extend Life of Energy Reserves
Smaller Fuel tanks and Engines
Roadways & tires last longer
Can take anything that Detroit can come up with (like hybrid gas/electrics) and vastly improve on it
Non-skid on braking or curves so vastly better in snow, mud or ice
Anti rollover
Better helicopters sans exposed rotors and air currents
Momentum builds and speed many fold, used a mixture of inertial force blended with right amount of external assist from pathway or air or space as required from Newton's Laws (like the fire triangle of fuel, air and spark IP Plus has all 3 of the necessary ingredients)
Works by definition and models, not limited by work's force thru distance
All this and More from US 5685196.
We
could best propel most vehicles and crafts by a design so that we utilize the
Inertia of small movable-weights and push against them rather than pushing
against the roadway or water or air. Pushing against weights can give better
control and performance even in mud, snow and ice. Less pollution and more
miles per gallon will be realized. Tires and roadways will give longer optimum
service and our oil reserves will last much longer. Increased efficiency and
faster acceleration can mean smaller engines and smaller fuel tanks will be
needed to give the desired performance.
We
all know from everyday experience that objects tend to resist efforts to move
them. The harder we push, the faster they move and the harder they push back.
Many have tried but now it is a reality that this can be utilized to propel
vehicles. 8 ways to cancel out return-for-reuse reactions are shown in us
5685196.
This simple process merely requires an engine to
power a mechanism that can drive one or move movable-weights back and forth.
The force is exerted between a weight and the vehicle that go apart each
outbound power stroke. With just one or even two reciprocating weights, they
can be returned for reuse by a set of pre tuned stretched coil springs attached
to the front and to the back of the return path for the weight(s) likewise,
these stretched springs are attached to the weight fore and aft. This is a
discovery. A friction wheel in contact with the pathway for the vehicle can
provide an external force to resist the outbound trip of the weight(s) that
unbalances an otherwise balanced system and prevents the momentum of the
outbound weight from ramming the vehicle back to its prior position and thereby
makes it work. See Figure 1a in the patent. Please note that a three-weight
model can utilize an accel and a decel simultaneous Reaction to cancel out to
zero and hence does not require any springs. Both are vastly superior in all
many ways to what we are using now.
Why
“Inertial Propulsion Plus”? To distinguish it from "inertial
propulsion" which has generally been considered a dirty words
heretofore. This was held to be
impossible and not worthy of discussion in polite informed circles. Even so, many maverick inventors have
meanwhile sought to solve this difficult problem. They have built many
ingenious machines but try as they (and I) might, the answer continued to be
elusive. A large number of these
otherwise innovative models, in some variation, involved mechanical movements
where a motor and a weight(s) produced a fast stroke and then a slower stroke
in the other direction.
Many
of the above gave somewhat encouraging results and even some utility for
practical uses. These can be described
as yielding a greater force on the fast stroke enough to propel or move the
machines. Then on the return slower
stroke, the lesser force, aided by friction between the model and its
supporting surface, would allow it to maintain its position. So this process gave one of the criteria
required namely to do something different on one stroke from what is done on
the other stroke.
But as it turns out,
this was still not enough.
This
writer too has built many models most of which did not give any appearance of
working. The question ultimately
becomes “why not”? The answers provided the enabling means toward circumventing
one by one of these obstacles. It was
theorized that separate supporting carriages for both the weight and the craft
might suffice to cause the craft to be propelled on a level surface or slightly
downgrade (less than the angle of repose) although this might tend to be
awkward, so a better way was sought. Therefore, wouldn't a slight external
assist to the craft derived by a friction wheel in contact with the pathway
suffice?
It became apparent over
a period of time that this would tend to add the same force to the weight that
it would to the craft. It became obvious that this would not unbalance this
otherwise balanced system. This
inherent balance thwarted most all attempts to use fully the property of
inertia of another mass to cause this other mass to travel.
Also,
the reaction of returning the mass or weight for reuse merely tended to help
make a model rock back and forth in response to relative movement of the
weight(s). To remedy this required
finding some way to cancel out the return stroke reaction(s) and make it
unidirectional. As a starting point it
was apparent that the return stroke of Foster's U.S. Patent 3653269 gyroscopic
model in effect did cancel the reaction when the gyrostat was returned for
reuse non-tumbling. In contrast, the
outbound trip of the gyrostat moved the model when it was forced out of its
plane of rotation. This meant doing
something different on the inbound stroke as compared to the outbound
stroke. Actually this preceded the
external assist idea in the chronology of the evolution of this concept.
Along
about that time (circa 1975), another way of canceling reactions became
evident. It involved a small
non-spinning weight secured to essentially mid-way of a pre-stretched coil
spring fastened to each end of a free-to-move wheeled board. When the weight was displaced in either
direction including the board vertically, it returned to equilibrium without
moving the board.
Of
course, a different equilibrium point was noted for upgrade due to the apparent
weight of the mass. It was observed
that while the weight was returning to equilibrium, the decreasing tension of
the forward spring was accompanied by increasing tension of the rearward coil
spring. Thus the rearward spring
meanwhile absorbed this reaction produced by the forward spring. Over the years, other ways of canceling out
these reactions became evident to this observer. It was realized that this so called "null phase"
changed the center of gravity of the system.
This is in contrast to the so called "power phase" which has
the function of extending the weight apart from the model. But in itself, this "power
phase"(with which the "null phase" is alternated first one and
then the other) does not change the center of gravity of the system.
The
next step was to build models incorporating these two separate alternating
phases. But while this was
theoretically enough to travel in space in the absence of a gravitational
field, it still would not perform on earth.
It would need something else, to be determined later.
Experiments
done by the late Professor Eric Laithwaite and
W.R.C. Dawson in England
reported in 1993 using weights and coil springs concluded that the "centre
of mass" had not moved at all and thus no travel possible. Unfortunately, they had only half the picture. Namely, what is now called the "power
phase". This writer has found that
it needs a "power phase" alternated with a "null phase" and
much more.
It's
too bad that Professor Laithwaite never got to learn about the total
picture. He was a great and dedicated
scientist. So many of inertial propulsion attempts are regarded as some kind of
perpetual motion. While this is not the
case, it certainly would not seem to be impossible even if it were the case. Consider whatever keeps the suns, planets,
and other bodies of the universe in motion spinning and traveling. If this is not perpetual what is? And what about aneroid clocks wound by
changes in barometric air pressure? But
not to bother, leave that question for others to explore. But, back to the
subject of Inertial Propulsion.
Attempts
to use one unit of mass downgrade to force another usually larger bit of mass
upgrade clearly suggests that some outside force assist is needed to make up
the deficiency. This means using a
combination or hybrid of inertial internal force augmented by external force
assist. But where can this come
from? The most accessible source is
found to be from the pathway, i.e. from the travel medium, of such a craft's
propulsion system.
To
give vertical lift would require an amount of force enough to support
externally the weight or mass. This
assisting force can be from a friction wheel on land or props in water and air
or else air or water jet nozzles. In
other words, the weight must have an amount of assist or support proportional
to the sine of the angle of incline for up grade travel. There is every reason to believe that
initially a small excess of external assist force will yield greater and
greater velocity of the craft. This is
due to having residual momentum i.e. the mv does not drop to zero of the craft
each stroke. Likewise, a craft speeding
up reaches a point as velocity of the craft increases to where the weight is
not going in opposite directions to the craft.
But instead, due to the rate of reciprocation, the weight merely loses
some forward velocity and then, on the return stroke, catches up with the
model. Initially, pulsating velocity of
the craft takes place, which could be smoothed out with external assist. It is also believed that higher velocities
can occur by "revving up" and then "idling" the power
source and repeat.
Newton's
1st Law says (in effect) that a body at rest or in motion tends to remain that
way unless acted on by an external force.
He undoubtedly referred to a unitary i.e. one-component-body. But a two or more component system (weights
plus craft) is a special case to which this law may not seem to apply
directly. However, to work in a
gravitational field, it does usually have the external-assist-to-the weight
force.
It
is believed that most researchers' efforts without an opposing external assist
force to the weight(s) experienced an event wherein the momentum of the weight
on the power stroke rammed the craft back to its prior position. This would make any such demonstration fail. This is even more detrimental in upgrade
travel and lift extremes. The craft is
then harder to lift and the weight less able for the task. The externally supported "down
hill" weight while it moves the craft less each stroke then with
horizontal travel causes any actuator moving the weight to exert an even
greater force on the frame of the craft.
But the inertial force
is wholly applied to the frame of the craft making it go while the assist force
is shunted to the ground. This now
unbalanced-forces-system consequently travels in a calculated manner thus
defeating the nemesis of an otherwise balanced system. This unidirectional system has three
required elements of namely:
1.
Power phase to extend weight(s) and craft apart inversely
proportional to their ratio of relative mass
2.
Cancel return unwanted reactions and
3.
External assist to oppose weight(s) on power stroke. This might be thought of as being analogous
to the fire triangle of fuel, air and spark.
Having
all the necessary ingredients permits a highly efficient, less fuel and less
pollution system. But this writer tends
to agree with Professor Laithwaite in the possibility of gyroscopic propulsion
may be feasible. Gyroscopes can have
the effect and resistance many times that of a non-spinning weight.
Gyroscopic propulsion
may be effective even without any external assist due to the fact that the
force outbound as compared to inbound may be greatly different. Gyrostats forced tumbling outbound constrain
both the "weight" and the craft.
It may be desirable to completely cancel out the reaction of the return
stroke by using an equivalent of a "spring means system" for example.
The
preceding mileposts represent only some of the events experienced by Foster in
his quest to solve this problem. The fact that he was ultimately successful in
this search, the results of which will benefit us all, in no way diminishes the
efforts of many other inventors in this field.
The mathematics of this concept is simple and straightforward and will
be outlined as follows:
U.S.
Patent 5 685 196 was granted November 11,
1997. It is to the credit of Mr. Allan
Herrmann, the primary examiner; Chuck Marmor, supervisor, and others in the
U.S. Patent Office, that this patent on such a controversial subject was
granted. They were able to see beyond
the existing controversy of inertial propulsion and rule on the merits of this
invention. It is believed that when implemented,
this will yield highly efficient and less polluting hybrid systems that will
greatly benefit Humanity. These systems should be applicable for many different
uses including (but not limited to) cars, trucks, vans, motorcycles, rail
vehicles, boats, ships, planes, helicopters, and space vehicles. As we all
know, jets and rockets are also less than 50 percent efficient.
It
appears that they can even make power sources for stationary engines usage much
more efficient and less polluting by placing on turntables or treadmills. It is likely that pistons and cylinders of
reciprocating engines may be aligned so that the engines themselves want to
travel and therefore have inherent thrust.
The explosive nature of internal combustion engines produces force so
that engines can be designed whereby this force can be treated in a similar fashion
to inertial force. The spring means can be strong enough to power the
compression stroke and costs nothing.
The energy to stretch is then recovered or recycled. It is readily apparent that this can add to
the power otherwise obtained from the engines.
Calculating the total power produced may require separate conventional
calculations for this power and add this to the inertial power rendered by the
crankshaft. An additional amount will
be obtained i.e. the inherent displacement power produced by auxiliary weights
and the increasing mv provided by excess of external assist.
Further
development of these concepts will determine the ultimate extent of the total
power produced and calculations thereof.
Certainly there are limits to the maximum values but there also
certainly exists room for improvement.
The late Dr. Percy Miller of L.S.U. had repeated a number of times the
old axiom that "You can't get something for nothing." But if gasoline mileage is drastically
improved, oil companies acting along with the government can adjust the prices
per gallon rate and it will still be relative.
The life of the known reserves worldwide will be increased. The pollution emitted will be much lower and
even the trend toward global warming may subside. Thus every one including generations to follow would benefit.
The
force can be calculated by the old F = ma equation. The m value is the weight (of the weight) divided by the
gravitational constant 32.2 ft sec -2 and expressed in slugs. The value of the acceleration term
"a" is determined from the motion equation for the known
condition. Reversing the process, thus
retracting the center of gravity of the system, instead of advancing it, can do
braking of the craft. Laterally
deployed smaller units can be used to steer the crafts.
Upon
further development to quantify the extent of the role of excess external
assist on ultimate velocity, more concise calculus type mathematical treatment
will be possible. Portions of the
equations for this new technology have certain commonality with more
conventional ones. The first derivative
will still be velocity and the second derivative, acceleration.
Ways
are described in the Patent to recycle the kinetic energy of decelerating
weights, such as with levers and also the grooved cylinder model. This can be done without affecting the
momentum of the system. But, obviously
the momentum of the system can be increased to accelerate or decreased to
decelerate.
Conventional
electric motors and trains react against the earth. However, self-contained antigravity systems have the advantage of
the craft and the weight's reacting upon one another. Ultimately most actions on earth are transmitted to react against
the earth with infinitesimal movement.
This is non-productive but largely inescapable until now. Existing engines inherently have a less than
50% efficiency ceiling.
A
number of questions remain to be answered in these matters that only further
demonstration can solve. This report
may be more narrative than typically technical but hopefully has enough new
material to spark further research and development. Even so, enough is known to enable and warrant the immediate
design and implementation of these concepts.
Figure 1B depicts a six
lb. space model adapted later to provide an external-assist-to-the-weight
model, which enables it to work on earth.
Original space model is
Figure 1A.
Figure 2 shows a sixty-six lb. grooved
cylinder model with three six-lb. weights and 12-inch stroke. Rods, gears, and other components are ready
to soon attach to this model to enable it to go uphill. The next lift model will be built similar to
Figure 6 in the patent.
Richard E. Foster Sr. is
a 83-year-old retired Chemical Engineer who has long been theorizing about
space drives, especially since 1958.
Richard E.Foster,Sr.P.E. (Click link to send email)
13849 Reed Avenue
Baton Rouge, La. 70818
(225) 261-4859