www.Tesla-Flying-Machine.com
www.TeslaFlyingMachine.com

Tesla's Flying Machine

Tesla's Flying Stove

"The Tesla Space Drive"

* "Not the airplane, the flying machine," responded Dr. Tesla. *

Updated:   01/7/10 12:52 EST

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" though, technically, they are not complete gyroscopes] [ It is unfortunate that we may have no knowledge of what he was refering to when he said "assisted by some devices I am not yet prepared to talk about." Those missing "devices" could be a key to its success. ] 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 Tesla had contracted with both Allis Chalmers and with Westinghouse's railway and lighting division to build a 36,000 rpm turbine to "fly from New York to Colorado Springs in a contrivance which will resemble a gas stove" - July 7th 1912.

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.
Chapter 4 is titled 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

My first observation is that the "machine" is a set of 4 spinning weights arranged on a simple, square, frame: "peculiarly assembled" as Tesla said about his power generator. The symetry of it is interesting and the "eccentrics", weights, 'sticks', are in a sense, successively off-set at a progressive angle of 90 degrees. Very interesting! And, it is so simple (easy & cheap!) to build, why not find out?!

And yes, it does something Phenomenal!

The 4 spinning sticks, weights, "eccentrics", do nothing but spin on their rods. No big deal. But, by the square geometry, we can see that any 2 opposite weights are canceling out their up and down movement. Their "centers of mass" are just going back and forth, horizontally through the center of the apparatus, frame, object, whatever you want to call it. Interesting! Especially, since, regardless of which 2 you pick, the other 2 are, of course, doing the same thing at a right angle to the 1st pair. The net effect of that is a circle! The centers of mass of the 4 spinning weights, combined, is going in a circle; in an orientation that is totally different! While the 4 weights, bolts, whatever, individually maintain their rotation as long as they don't come loose, there is no bolt, no string, nothing, providing centripetal force to keep the entire frame in its orbit. Physics does not even have a theory for this. The physical law is that any centrifigal force must have a countering, equal, centripetal force.

The object, frame, is not spinning nor do any one of the spinning weights match the orbit of the machine and yet, the center of 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, as in electro-magnetism, the author claims it operates by the right hand rule. Because (?) complete molecules are orbiting instead of just electrons? That seems possible. O.K. No problem. Whichever, left or right. To try it the other way, just turn the frame (object) upside-down.


My first drawing made it much easier to "see" what it could look like.



Compare this with the drawing above and the 2 drawings below.

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. Nothing rational about that. - but, later, I found that air motors worked better anyway.

No one seriously interested in a new, cheap, source of propulsion, or, one with such acceleration that it could be used in space (?!), need question or dispute anything, just build it and find out for ourselves. How much can it cost to build a base for some mounting blocks for the rods, get some rods, 2 motors - just strong enough to spin the weights ("eccentrics") - and some right angle gears. ...

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."

No, a failure to visualize what the drawing represents.
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, wood, construction (Photos on the left and right) it became clear to me that building it above the frame was not good enough either.
Because, 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" there must be both a top and a bottom plate for the rods and gears etc. to be mounted between. (see Photo 2 below)

We need 4 vertical struts which we will place in a square arrangement to hold the top and bottom plates. The 4 rods, drive 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. Again, as shown on the original diagram, we will mount 2 motors out on 2 opposite sides - so that the center of mass remains at the center of the device as a whole.

Photo 2: 2nd Tesla Flying Machine design 2nd   "Tesla Space Drive" 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 almost $300 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 there must be some, higher, necessary speed to enable the device to move.

my best drawing, "blueprint", of the Force Field Generator _{- Greg
Confirm for yourself that this much easier to visualize!}

Fig.1 (printed in B&W)

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)

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. However the frame is built, the square array of shafts must be mounted around the center of it. ... at the same distance from the top and from the bottom.

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 a step in the right direction 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:

1. the mass of the entire device
2. the mass of the 4 rotating inertial loads, (4 masses),
3. the radius of those 4 loads (aka 4 eccentrics, 4 masses)
4. and, the force of gravity

1. 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)
2. It is the rotation of the entire system (device) that must get up enough centrifugal acceleration to defeat gravity.
3. Examples of that acceleration are: On a 50 inch radius, something greater than 26.5 rpm (a pendulum).   ( experimentally 27 to 28 rpm spinning )
4. 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 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.

Feb. 1994: the frame is rigid and the motors are very light weight
With the lighter-weight air-motors, the total weight of this 4th model
generator is less than the previous one with its electric motors.
This system, as shown, should require only 1 or 2 hundred rpm but,
the motors were not strong enough to spin it at all.

In March 1994, We tried it with 3, 2, and then only 1 crossbar. With 3 crossbars, 0. With 2 crossbars, it spun at maybe 60+ rpm. 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:
I am no longer in Phoenix. I am in Fort Lauderdale now.
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 here at the Auto Spot, where I am trying it, is not as strong.

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)

Decenber 2007



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. 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. It does not work.

Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009, 9am
Tried it again. The speed, again, was good, more than enough. But, again, it did not go up. That's it. I have not been able to prove that it works.

Footnote:
The hoses to the air motors may be a problem despite the fact that we kept their weight off the system. If so, it is going to require a lot of time and money, which I don't have, for new, different, equipment. 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 can be used to get the motors off the system. Maybe that will work though air hoses did not. If smaller motors have a better power to weight ratio, that can be another advantage - improvement.