Tesla’s flying machine, 2

updated 08-02-2014

from Tesla’s Flying Machine, page 1

Tesla’s Flying Machine
Page 2

“Tesla’s Flying Stove”

“Not the airplane, the flying machine,” responded Dr. Tesla.

This wood frame etc. was my 1st attempt at building the machine

A few weeks later, I traded these motors for 10,000 rpm 1/5hp motors.

 


see enlargemen

Sept.12th, 1992


Second Tesla Space Drive Design
Since nothing is said about weight being an issue, my second
(all steel) frame was built to be rigid, not light-weight.

it was right after this that I figured out the speed
requirement and the variables that affect it

 

Third model, with 10,000 rpm ele. motors

Tesla parts

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.

The shafts and pillow blocks are also, now, aluminum alloy. This model was fine but, the frame was just a little flimsy.

Note: I used the red/orange (Lovejoy) jaw couplings because they were a cheap easy way to attach weights on a shaft. I just replaced the set-screws with bolts. For a good close-up, click on the photo above (the 3 photos) to see an enlargement.

 

Experimenting out in the back yard, 1993


here I and a friend discovered the frame flexed a little

 

Final design: January 1994
using .090 inch aircraft aluminum ($9)
and 2 22,000rpm air motors ($50)

the frame is rigid and the motors are very light weight

I made the frame taller to accommodate longer arms and, slower speed requirements but, that was not necessary. However, there is an increased strength and reduced stress benefit to the double arms.

 


 

photographed on Fri., March 24th, 2006

 

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. we got maybe 200 rpm but, we need maybe 600 to 800 rpm?   I think the air pump where I am trying it, is not as strong as the one I used in Phoenix.

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.

(we have no way of confirming how fast it was going – I think maybe only 1 or 2,000 rpm)

December 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. It may be that we need 3-4000 rpm but are only getting 1 or 2000.


Testing at an auto body shop, Jan 30th 2008





June 30th 2008

If we got several thousand rpm, 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. If not that, then by getting the weight of the motors off the frame by using couplers to extend the 2 shafts out beyond the frame.

March, 2009

I started getting calls from a TV production co. in Calif. wanting to put my flying machine on a Discovery Channel special.

I stopped at the auto shop, told them about it. They told me that they have gotten a new, stronger, compressor. Now is the time to try again!

Saturday, March 21st, 2009

Saturday was a disappointment. The new compressor provided significantly more power than the old one. The speed was much improved, very impressive, “more than enough”. This time I do think it was up to 3 or 4000 rpm, if not more. However, the weather was bad, raining, and I only did half the test. Still, it did not move. There was plenty of speed in the rotating masses. So, either I had it upside down, 50-50 chance of that being true, since it is totally symmetrical, or there is some stumbling block, some criteria I have not thought of.

Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009, 9am

Tried it again. The speed, again, seemed enough. But, again, I can’t be sure, and it did not go up.

 

unknown tesla drive

2011, Footnote:

A frame is cheap, a person can design and build one around motors they come up with, the smaller the better, perhaps. Smaller motors can generally run at higher speeds. Extension rods, longer rods, can be used to get the motors off the system, and that will reduce the total weight greatly.

Here is one Marcelo B. built. Glad to hear from him.


 

back to Tesla’s Flying Machine, page 1

 

95 thoughts on “Tesla’s flying machine, 2

  • September 27, 2016 at 3:11 am
    Permalink

    It looks apparent you forgot to spin the whole machine in synchronization with the positions of the masses. So the net effect can be a unidirectional force. The vectors have to add at the right time, and cancel elsewhere. Without the spinning ( horizontal plane ) with respect to the ground, the thing will likely just vibrate. Forget all the mumbo jumbo, this is simply vector addition and timing. For a good demo concept have a look at “solid mass centrifugal propulsion” by the ISA on youtube. I also have a channel called centrinamics systems with some videos of my experiments so far. Excellent efforts by the way!

    Reply
  • June 18, 2016 at 11:02 am
    Permalink

    Know ur into tesla but, please think about hydrogen atoms and air intake……within ur spinning motion… U have the hands to build…the atom is answer…please…am not kidding…..use ur skill…it’s been done for longer than u know .

    Reply
    • July 31, 2016 at 7:12 am
      Permalink

      why not spin electro magnetic fields instead of mass

      Reply
      • September 8, 2016 at 6:08 pm
        Permalink

        How about some magnets on the eccentrics?

  • May 30, 2016 at 1:08 pm
    Permalink

    Research also in this way since 1995. I resumed research this year. Sorry for my English. I believe that this machine works on the same principles that I imagine is the balancing of centrifugal force in one direction. How is its prototype, the centrifugal force is in all directions. You doesn’t targeting the centrifugal force. I always speak centrifugal force because i dont believe in the existence of centripetal force. This force is confused with other well known forces such as friction in the tires of a car when it makes a turn.

    Reply
  • April 29, 2016 at 7:05 pm
    Permalink

    The eccentrics need to be strong magnets, in the shape Tesla drew, with the striped part (as seen in the drawing) being the positive end, exactly as he positioned them.

    Reply
  • December 20, 2015 at 3:59 pm
    Permalink

    Lol! You fools! He was trying to get employed after Thomas Edison ripped him off, cheated him, and put a bad word out to keep him from becoming a successful business rival! Westinghouse cheated him also, the man not the company for he cheated him out of millions! He left out important aspects of the equations and plans so that they would have to hire him to make it work! They didn’t bite because Tesla was way too far ahead of his time for the times! His ideas scared people especially business people who were making millions with the current technology and Tesla’s improvements and new innovations would have forced them to have to change, catch up, or put them out of business.

    Reply
  • November 17, 2015 at 1:29 pm
    Permalink

    I think he let Otis t Carr take over on this they were good friends

    Reply
  • November 15, 2015 at 9:06 am
    Permalink

    U.S. Patent 7900874 gives you info on this.

    Reply
  • November 14, 2015 at 10:10 pm
    Permalink

    If any one wants more info of the unit I saw email me I have limited internet.
    ( edhillman62 .at. gmail.com )

    Reply
    • June 17, 2016 at 7:39 am
      Permalink

      Hi, what is your email address?

      Reply
  • November 12, 2015 at 7:26 am
    Permalink

    The unit I saw was metal frame cube power was 2500 rpm 5 lb brass weights pie shaped one engine to power two weights equal one piston of the engine

    Reply
  • November 7, 2015 at 10:38 am
    Permalink

    His idea works I have picture of it flying. Shape is not part of equation any shape any weight it will pick it self up.

    I think I see the problem with your design the one work had the weights at different angles than yours from your pics it looks like they might not do much more than spin around. I will try to put diagram of the one I seen in here along with how it was explained to me .

    Reply
  • August 22, 2015 at 10:29 pm
    Permalink

    Fc= m.r.(ω^2) centrifugal force
    Vt= ω .r tangential speed.
    If increase the mass (m) of pendulums, increase centrifugal force and is bad to frame resistant. If increase the rpm ( ω angular speed) increase Fc in quadratic magnitud and tangential speed rice linear. If increase the radius, Fc not increase, but Vt increase and this parameter is the important. It is possible build the axes in shape of >> two “vees”, don’t straight, the left pendulum overpass spin line of pendulum right.

    Reply
  • August 10, 2015 at 11:23 am
    Permalink

    I believe to make this machine work the eccentrics need to be sliding weights, so that at the top of their strokes they are further away from their rotating axis than at the bottom of their strokes. One way to achieve this would be for the sliding eccentric weights to be permanent magnets ( say N outside and S inside ). At the centre of it’s axis would be another permanent magnet fixed vertically with S at the top and N at the bottom.
    As the shaft rotates, the sliding weight is repelled upwards (S-S) plus the centrifugal force due to rotation. As the eccentric approaches the bottom of it’s stroke, it is still affected by centrifugal force but this would be much less as the sliding weight would have been attracted towards the centre of rotation by the fixed magnet (N-S). This is, of course, assuming that the magnetic attraction is powerful enough to overcome the centrifugal force at the bottom of the stroke.
    Does that make sense?

    Reply
    • November 8, 2015 at 7:45 pm
      Permalink

      Yes you are on the right path but you can do it another way instead of magnets.

      Reply
  • July 31, 2015 at 2:22 pm
    Permalink

    Hi all, just curious if you are still pursuing this project – it is very interesting and I have been following it for some time. Hope that you are still working on it.
    I would note for you that this type of project would likely make for a great Kickstarter campaign or other crowd funding if you are in need of funds – I’d donate.
    Keep up the good work.
    Jeff

    Reply
  • July 22, 2015 at 9:39 pm
    Permalink

    Any further experimentation?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
  moderation: We try to post all (non spam) comments within 1 business day.