1

Kicked rotor disturbed - Construction-plan - Angular momentum transport compensates the Self-acceleration -by Frame dragging? - The 1

st. law thermodyna-

mic participates, since by friction the “parametrically created driving torque component” is

exerted onto the system…

Herbert Eckler, Taunus Strasse 24, 53119 Bonn, Germany

E-mail: herbert.eckler@web.de Tel.: 0049-(0)228-60887264 May.20.2012

Contents:

1. “Dynamic of three masses”

- “angular momentum transport” to the universe.(Frame Dragging?)

2. “Thermodynamic implication” (page4)

- The 1st.law thermodynamic process exerts “free driving torque” in J. Joule´s device.

3. “Combined action” (page7)

– creates a “ free acceleration” of the system, indicating… beyond Frame Dragging.

4. Construction-plan for propelling the experiment fig.10 (page8)

5. “Petition” (page12)

Section 1

DYNAMIC OF THREE MASSES (fig.1) The universe, the merry-go-round (fig.4) and the circulating mass of the rotating swing (fig.3)

This here following is a SHORT REVIEW, presented in advance of the construction-

plan on (page 8). Shown here are my papers (www.kicked-rotor.de) , which I could develop

with the help of some expert´s friendly comments.

§1 Angular momentum transport

to the universe by induction in zero-time*

(fig.1), emanating from the parametrically

accelerated Rotating Swing System (fig.1)

(fig.4)(fif.5)(Frame Dragging?), is theore-

tically proved, I ar-gue,

because since 1952 up to today, experts

can not calculate a complete counter torque

against the “parametrically created driving

torque component” **(fig.3), which the

rotating swing creates and exerts onto the

system. Therefore it gains self-accelera-

tion, so discussions with these experts

have shown (rem.1, page 12).

- An other way of proving it, see (§6)

§2 The rotating swing, (fig.2 and fig.3)

“which is a kicked rotor”, (fig. ),

(as pro-fessor Shmuel Fishman,Israel insti-

tute of technology commented)

is the driving part of this

Angular momentum transport, I argue.

(§(remark 1, page 12)

2

§3 This “Angular momentum transport” to the universe must, so I argue, emanate from

the “rotating swing -“marry-go-round”-system” ((fig.4 and 5), which consists of a merry-

go-round, where a rotating swing is mounted on and operated, in its centrifugal field. (On a

fair-ground this device (fig.4)was used so inventively from an unknown boy on a fair-ground

in 1952).

§4 I argue so, because from 1952 on, experts were not able (rem.1, page12) to calculate a

complete compensating counter torque against the said “parametrically** created driving

torque component” (fig.3), which the rotating swing creates and exerts onto the merry-go-

round by a sliding-brake(3) (fig.4).

That missing of “counter torque” causes a “self-acceleration” of this “rotating swing

system”(fig.5)(fig.1), which only can be legalized by this compensating “Angular momen-

tum transport”, which emanates from this system and accelerates the distant masses of the

universe in a counter-direction to that of this rotating swing-system. This transport has to

happen in zero-time *. ( related to frame dragging / Lense and Thirring/ may be), which to

prove, is the purpose of this paper.

3

( * “ Zero-time inductive “angular momentum transport”” has to happen, because

during a transportation-time the conservation law of angular momentum were interrupted, I

argue.

( ** “parametric”: The “parametric driving torque component” is created by the

driver´s work against the centrifugal force of the rotating swing´s circulating mass, when it

passes the low-point (fig.3). Besides of that, also the “tread-mill component” (fig.2) is

created, but not parametrically, since gravity-bound, I point out.

4

§5 Fig.1 The motor case concept (fig.1) - in detail – Fig.1

This concept is the only method for legalizing the above asserted “self-acceleration of the

merry-go- round-system” (fig.5), what is a not contradictable outcome*, because the rotating

swing (fig.3) exerts a “parametrically created driving torque component” onto this system

(fig.5), which can not be compensated by geometrical calculation, as discussions with

experts suggest to assume (remark 1)(page 12).

The merry-go-round-system (fig.4 (fig.10, page 8) is accelerated (or decelerated (rem.2,

page12) therefore by a not compensated torque-component and is identified as a self-

accelerating rotor, which needs the universe to be the motor-case for it, as depicted in (fig.1)

An induction, emanating from this self-accelerating merry-go-round-system, causing the

universe to counter-accelerate, were proved so, if experts keep on to be unable to calculate a

complete counter torque against the rotating swing´s driving torque. Then this “motor-case-

concept” would have to be accepted, I argue.

§6 An other way to look at this need for including the universe is, that this self-acceleration

is parametrically caused by the driver´s work against centrifugal force of the rotating swing´s

circulating mass (fig.3). So - already there, !!! - during acceleration - is the universe

participating in creating driving torque and acceleration! And so it is no wonder, that wow, for

compensating this acceleration, it has to be participating again.

Section 2

THERMODYNAMIC IMPLICATION

§7 This thermodynamic viewpoint shows, that for creating driving torque with a rotating

swing (fig.3), and for exerting this driving torque onto a merry-go-round (fig.5), or onto any

other solid body, no energy input has to be invested.

This driving torque is a free by-product of the 1st.law thermodynamic process which takes

place in operating a rotating swing (fi.3), I point out.

Namely the driver´s energy input into the rotating swing is converted completely to heat in the

sliding rakes (fig.3). – Therefore none of it is left for creating driving torque! !!

The importance of such simple and evident fact is put open in (§10).

§8 Such creation of a “free driving torque”, that is of a torque, which is created for free, is

observable in J. Joule´s measuring device (fig.8). Namely there the driving torque (f), which

is exerted onto the base by the water-container, is a free by-product of the closed thermo-

dynamic process taking place in this device. All of the energy input namely goes into heat.

None of it goes into creating this exerted driving torque, I point out.

5

6

THERMODYNAMIC MORE PRECISE §9 J. Joule´s measuring device (fig.7) evidently creates driving torque (f)(fig.8) and

exerts it onto the base-plate (a) as a free by-product from the closed energy-converting

process, taking place during measurements.

In the rotating swing (Fig.3) this closed energy-converting process takes place also, so is

to be pointed out here:

There, in (fig.3), the driver brings in energy, which is converted to frictional heat completely

by the sliding-brake. The brake-shoes exert this swing´s driving torque onto the base plate

(fig.3), also here as a free by-product, as long as this thermodynamic process is kept on

running, I point out. This torque is created for no energy input. All the energy input goes into

frictional heat. (fig.8,9,10)

That is not something special, namely other motor-systems too, exert torques as a free by-

product (remark 3, page 12). And therefore all these systems resemble Newton´s “rotating

pail of water experiment”, as there a free force is created from a process of rotation, in place

of a torque created for free here, by thermodynamic process. ( Would Newton not wonder

about these free torques, same, as he wondered about his free force?)

– These torques of course seem to be too useless for paying attention to them, but please

consider (§10).

There a combination of section (1) with section(2) demands for building the experiment

(fig.10), I think, since it will prove the said inductive transport of torque or of angular

momentum to the distant masses of the universe in zero time, because of that said apparent

impossibility, to compensate the rotating swing´s driving torque (§4)(§6)(rem.1,page12)

THERMODYNAMIC SURPASSED

§ 9.1 If the heat-creating sliding brake (fig.3)(fig.4) is replaced by a generator and the

current is led back to a pull-creating device for propelling the rotating swing (fig.3)(fig.12),

then, even with such device not being completely friction-less, the thermodynamic process,

which was participating in operating this rotating swing before, is surpassed

HELICOPTER

§ 9.2 For keeping a helicopter at constant elevation, no energy is consumed, I argue.

The force, which keeps it up, is a free by-product of the closed Ist. Law thermodynamic

process which is maintained there. Completely all the energy input is turned to frictional heat,

which warms up the air and the mechanical parts. None of it can go into no elevatinal- or into

no kinetic energy, I point out.

This up-keeping force therefore is created for free, as Newton's "rotating pail of water's force

is for free and amazes him. Same is the driving torque of this here treated Rotating Swing

created for free (§9), which acts accelerative onto the merry-go-round.

7

Section 3

COMBINED ACTION OF

DYNAMIC OF MASSES WITH THERMODYNAMIC § 10 The “self-acceleration” described above in (§4), if it were proved by experiment

(fig.10), were no offence against the conservation laws, because it could be compensated by

inductive “angular momentum transport” or of counter torque” to the universe (fig.1).

That the experiment (fig.10)(page8) will show this “pseudo self-acceleration”, is very likely, I

think, because since 1952 experts were not able to compensate the driving torque of a rotating

swing completely ( remark1, page 12).

Since energy is brought in by the work of the driver, this self acceleration would not abuse the

conservation-laws.

But now the problem is, that not any work has to be brought in for accelerating the merry-go-

round system (fig.3), so thermodynamic has shown in (§7-9).

Namely the rotating swing´s driving torque (fig.3), which gives to this merry-go-round system

the said self acceleration, is for free. It is a free by-product of the thermodynamic process.

It is for free, same as J. Joule´s measuring device creates and exerts driving torque onto the

base (fig.7). Namely this “pseudo self-acceleration” is not created from the driver´s energy-

input into the rotating swing, but only from the said driving torque, which is a by-product of

that closed thermodynamic process, which he, the driver, only keeps on going by his energy-

input, I argue.

So on top of this incredible “pseudo self-acceleration”, it now also shows, that also it is a free

by-product of this 1st. law thermodynamic process. No energy has to be invested for this

“pseudo self acceleration”.

That surmounts any imagination, but as described, it is, that this “pseudo self acceleration is a

strict result from the expert´s inability to calculate geometrically a completely compensating

counter torque against the driving torque of a rotating swing (remark 1, pg.12).

Therefore an inductive angular momentum transport, or of counter torque, emanating from

this “self acceleration”, to beyond any known mass and energy will have to be discovered, if

this inability of experts remains.

Remarkable to that is (remark 2,page 13), where the merry-go-round system becomes

retarded. Loss of angular momentum were the result

With my sketches for a proposed experiment (fig.10) (page 8) I hope to present visually to

experts, what they approximately were dealing with, in the case that they would think about to

speak for building it.

8

Section 4 §11 CONSTRUCTION OF the EXPERIMENT (fig.10)

With these sketches I hope to present visually to experts, what they approximately were

dealing with, in the case that they took into consideration, to speak for building it.

Fig.10 The Merry-go-round experiment Fig.10 (proposed) (relates to fig.3)

This experiment will prove, that the rotating swing, by exerting its driving torque onto the

merry-go-round (relates to fig.4), gives a “self-acceleration” or a “self-deceleration” to this

9

merry-go-round-system (§4)(remark1, page 12). That theoretically, deductively will further

prove the intended goal of this paper, namely the proof of said “inductive transport of counter

angular momentum to the universe in zero time” (§4).(related to Frame Dragging may be)

The rotating swing (15)(fig.10) exerts driving torque onto the merry-go-round by means of

the sliding brake (17), which is coupled to the rotating swing. This will accelerate this system

I argue, because the pertaining counter torque can not be calculated (§4).

10

§ 11 Why must the experiment (fig.7) be of that big size, as my drawings show? – Namely

with a diameter of 2.00m for the rotating swing and 12.00m for the merry-go-round?

Because:

(a) Analogue to the pendulum, it is, that, roughly said, a smaller rotating swing rotates faster,

than a larger one does. ( provided, that the centrifugal field, in which they are operated, stays

the same). 5

The small rotating swing therefore is more expensive to build than a larger rotating swing is, I

argue, for two reasons

1st: Higher speed causes technical and steering problems 6

2nd

Onto the smaller rotating swing´s spoke (fig.7 ( )) the necessary pulling device ( ) is

difficult to place in a way, that its weight will not hamper said “split second acceleration” of

the circulating mass, when it passes the low-point, in that it enlarges the spokes inertia.

Namely much less hampering can this acceleration device be placed, if the spoke of the

rotating swing is longer, because then the heavy weight of this device can be located

proportional close to the axle of the rotating swing. There it acts less hampering.

Consider, that an ideal acceleration of the circulating mass is reached then, if it, like it is in a

sling-shot, were tied to a string, which has no mass. Or, if the spoke (fig.7(16)) had no mass at

all.

11

(b) It is this within only 15° angle happening “split second acceleration” of the circulating

mass, which is hampered by the inertial resistance of the pulling device. This is an

acceleration, which is not comparable with that of other motors, where the acceleration

happens during the whole rotation over 360°. This here described inertia of a kicking device

can take away nearly the entire “split second acceleration” (which happens in a 15° angle),

like the muffler of a car does take away the explosion´s noise, which also happens in a split

second. In a same way were the creation of driving torque weekend in a small sized

experiment, I argue.

(c) If though, this heavy kicking device is placed near the axle of a larger rotating swing

and the spoke is long, then the moment of inertia and this hampering of the creation of driving

totque diminishes.

On a small rotating swing this placing near to the axle is not well possible, because the spoke

is too short.

(d) To make a small rotating swing to exert the same sized driving torque as the larger

rotating swing does, would aggravate this problem even more, because the centrifugal force,

here in a small rotating swing, must be much stronger, because the length of the circulating

masse´s stroke is smaller. Therefore the circulating mass must be much bigger than it is in a

7

larger rotating swing, in order that the small rotating swing meets to create the same size of

driving torque as the larger rotating swing does create. That would enlarge, as said, the

weight of the pulling device and aggravate said critical and hampering the creation of driving

torque …moment of inertia of the spok. 7

§12 The field´s strength : - The rotating swings, which are mounted to, and operated on

the merry, are to be tested, I propose, in centrifugal fields of different strengths. That is

necessary in order to find out the optimal rotational speed of the merry, which is best for the

rotating swing, to create the strongest driving torque . A smal rotating swing then becomes

expensive to build, since then it rotates even more faster. (5.c)

§13 If the radius of the circulating mass exceeds the radius of the rotating swing, or even

before that is reached, a ball-bearing must be installed in midst of this mass, so that it can 6

7

circulate siderically when it orbits around the rotating swing´s axle. Then this circulating mass

must not participate on this said “split second acceleration.

7

These above arguments might give preference to a 2.00m diameter rotating swing, I think, as

shown in (fig.10).

_________________

May I hope still, with 80, and using layman language, that my efforts can bring this

boy´s invention into Physics for further refinements and for building this critical experiment

(fig.10)

12

Section 5

§14 PETITION

“Please give me help”, so I ask Physicists now, since I suspect, that the true value of this

boy´s invention, namely the experiment (Fig.10), which this unknown boy invented on a fair-

ground in 1952 (fig.2), can not be brought over with my way of writing. I suspect that, because I receive no reply on my papers anymore *.

With a construction-drawing (fig.10)(page8) I try to animate Physicists to speak for building

this experiment. - But how can I get Physicists to launch researching the rotating swing first?

– On the basis of discussions with experts, I belief, that this experiment (fig.10) will prove,

that against the driving torque of a rotating swing, no complete counter torque for

compensating it, can be calculated. A “surplus of driving torque” and a “pseudo selfaccele-

ration” of the rotating swing system results ((§4). – Why am I shure? – Because, - please

remark1, page12, the unsuccessful attempts to calculate compensation of the rotating swing´s

driving torque. - The construction-drawings to this experiment (fig.8) serve for

approximating its building costs.

I admit, that the success of my papers in Google-results **, merely results from the eye-

catching title, which I have selected.

But still, at the other hand, I point out, that induced by this boy´s invention, valuable problems

may be were gained in discussions with experts, which were not known before, I think

* Also it is, that, before I had sharpened my arguments 15 years ago, I received

many comments from experts. I have sharpened them by pointing out the rpm-dependency of

the rotating swing´s driving torque for instance (fig.3). From there on I was left alone

** The prior papers, which I wrote on this kicked rotor, appear at the top in the line

of Google-results, when simply “kicked rotor” is entered. That is for over 8 months by now.

*** Please see my paper: (www.kicked-rotor.de) (please open “kicked rotor disturbed” )

Remarks Remark 1 Examples for unsuccessful attempts to calculate such a completely compensating counter

torque against the “parametric created driving torque component” of a rotating swing, are:

Prof. Shmuel Fishman, Israel Institut of Technology, page 1*

Prof. D.Zawischa, Hannover, page 8 and 9*

Prof.Gerald Brown, Stony Brook, NY, page 10 *

- Other attempts (page 12)*

This not compensated driving torque gives the in (§4) asserted “pseudo self-acceleration” to

the rotating swing system, which then claims for the “angular momentum transport, I argue.

* (www.kicked-rotor.de) (please open “kicked rotor disturbed”, there (page 8-11).

Also for other unsuccessful attempts. – Coppied here on page 14 – 20

13

14

15

16

17

sliding-brake-shoes(c) act already onto it - onto this merry-go-round. That would accelerate

the Merry-go-round twice. That carries G. Brown's counter-torque (Pxr) ad absurdum, I

argue.

Another argument against his theory is that, which the circulating mass can be shot into the

inner orbit shortly before it reaches the low-point. Then the repulsion would create a resultant,

which already in (fig.15) accelerates the Earth in addition to the Rotating Swing's accelerating

driving-torque, instead of compensating it, I argue. - If applied to (fig.16) though, the

repulsion will act as compensating. This absurdity shows, that a "Pull", in addition to the

centrifugal force, can not be a reality, I argue.

18

19

b) Thereby I made the discovery, that rpm. collapsed during each of these test-runs sooner or

later after max. 15 revolutions when I applied the measurements. This collapsing also

delivers a proof, I argue, that the driving-torque of a Rotating Swing is rpm-dependent.

c) This rpm-dependency, if it were proved, hinders (§15,page8)(§16,page9) experts in

calculating a compensation of the Rotating Swing's driving-torque. But just this rpm-

dependency, is that, what this collapse of rpm. does prove, confirming my theory

therewith.

d) As said, it started out with the circumstance, which the measurements had to be made

within max. 15 revolutions. After that, or mostly long before, the rpm collapsed down or it

busted out into highest rpm.. (remark 8,pagel8)

e) Then I found out, that it is not possible for the driver, although he had excess energy, to

keep the Swing's rotation (rpm) away from collapsing down to stand-still, or up to break-

out. I experienced, that he could not deliberately choose to put in more, or put in less

energy/ revol..

How the collapse proves rpm-dependency

Simply said:

f) The collapse of rpm. never would kappen, if, as my critics assert strictly, the driving-

torque of a Rotating Swing were rpm-independent.

I argue so, because then the driver would be independent also. (this is a conclusion from (g))

And were he independent, then he could, with his excessive energy resources, refill any

loss of rpm. right at the beginning of the collapse. - But since, as experienced, he can not

refill the loss, in spite of his excessive energy resources, - what else can he be then but

dependent from rpm.? — At the initial rpm. die driver was able to feed the initially adjusted

energy-devouring sliding brake. Now with the rpm. having dropped slightly, not anymore!

The sliding-brake keeps an throttling constantly, demanding more and more energy from

die more aid more helpless driver for a rebuilding the initially set rpm.. That proves, that he is

not independent, I argue

g) The size of the driving-torque is proportional to the driver's energy-input/ revol.. That is

evident. (The objection against from D.Zawischa (fig.12,page9) does not harm that)

h) For making the driving-torque to rise, the driver must enhance his energy-input/ revol.

i) He can not enhance his energv-input/ revol. deliberately, I found out. His energy-Input/

revol. is limited and determined by two factors. Namely:

(1) by the momentary size of die rpm-dependent centrifugal force F (fig.11),

(2) by the length of the stroke (h)(fig.11), which is constant. *

j) The very slightest drop of rpm., which always happens by the driver's failure, therefore

is no more repairable for him, since the centrifugal force (F) drops with that, what then further

causes a drop of his energy-innut/ revol.

k) This dropped energy-input/ revol. namely can no more satisfy the constant and greedy,

energy devouring sliding brake, which had been adjusted at the beginning of this test-

run.

20

1) From then on this deficit keeps on growing and causes the collapse, I argue.

The collapse develops in cycles: (I) loss of rpm.> (ll)Loss of centrifugal force> (11I)Loss of

energy-input/ revol.> (IV)Further loss of rpm.> (V)Loss of centrifugal force>>>

in) As above the slightest mechanical failure leads into collapse, so it also can lead into a

run away to indefinite rpm:

That happened by failure, when the energy —input/ revolution was enhanced slightly by the

driver. The thereby caused rising of rpm caused a higher F, and that again caused a higher

energy-inputi revolution and so on. Then this follows analogue to the steps into collapse, os

described above. •

Also with a most perfect, exact mechanic device built Rotating Swing, the collapse and the

run-away will enter from infinitesimal small failures, 1 argue Finally how the collapse proves the rpm-dependency:

m) Since the driver's energy-input/ revol. is rpm-dependent (c), so is, considering (a), also

the driving-torque rpm-dependent, I argue. **

* The stroke (h) is to be kept constant, in order to avoid 3 variable factors, which were: (1) rpm.. (2) energy-

input or driving-torque (see a). (3) stroke(h).

** The objection from D.Zawischa (fig.12,page9) does not change that, For equations and

paper basket please see remark page 19

Remarks

on page 12