2024 Preprint of revised version of the paper originally adopted by WSEAS in 2008

FREE (REACTION LESS) TORQIE GENERATION

FICTION OR REALITY
Bojidar Djordjev
Independent Researcher
Varna region
BULGARIA
bojidardj@dir.bg

Abstract: - The article addresses all conventional objections concerning the based on gyroscopic effects Free
(reaction less) Torque Generation and Pendulum Tests according the requirements of NASA TM-2006-214390
AIAA-2006-4913 [1] Figures 4 and 5, adapted for rotation.

Key-Words: - Reaction less motion, propulsion, rotation, torque, generation, безопорное движение.

1 Introduction here) the axis of rotation “O1-O1” coincides

The Classical Mechanics states that there have two
kinds of main motions only: linear and rotation. If
Free Motion is possible at all it can exists in two
shapes only: like reaction less linear motion
initiated by reaction less force generated by
hypothetical device called here Free Force
Generator (FFG) and like reaction less rotation
initiated by reaction less torque generated by
hypothetical device i.e. Free Torque Generator
(FTG). Nobody yet has built and successfully
demonstrated such kind of devices.
There have two main problems: The first one is
technological because this affair is against
fundamental Natural Laws. The second but not less
important one is psychological, because such kinds
of discussions are accepted like loosing of time and
people in discussion risk to be taken as amateurs.
Here we will talk about technological
possibilities revealed by the “Forces Generative
Method” [2] to generate Free Torque only,
assuming that this is the easiest part of the task.
2 Problem Formulation
There is known gyroscopic effect. If a rotating
about its axis “O1-O1” (coinciding in this moment
with the fixed “X”), flywheel simultaneously is
turned about a perpendicular axis “Z”, a precession
torque is generated about the third axis “Y”
perpendicular to the first two. Say, “X”, “Y” and
“Z” are fixed to the Earth or vehicle. If the turning
of the flywheel about the axis “Z” is continued, the
generated precession torque about the axis “Y”
decreases to zero because (as we understand it
already with the axis of precession “Y” and the
Gyro’s 3D frame of reference transforms in 2D.
The 3D frame of reference can be recovered by
continue turning the flywheel about the axis “Z”
beyond that point or by turning it back, but in both
cases the precession torque will be already
generated oppositely. This Gyro’s behavior is
shown like triumph of the Law of Conservation of
Angular Momentum.
The effect is used in Control Moment Gyros for
spacecrafts attitude control. The disadvantage is
that a time limited torque is possible to be
generated only, actually an angular momentum,
measured in /Newton – meter - second/.
The problem is formulated here like this:
Gyroscope can not maintain end less
unidirectional 3D behavior about fixed axes simply
because its 3D frame of reference transforms
inevitably in 2D.
3 Problem Solution
The task is formulated here like this:
To find method to maintain end less Gyro’s 3D
behavior by end less maintaining of the Gyro’s 3D
frame of reference.
In case that this is possible, we will have on hand
a system of three continuously (end less) acting in
perpendiculars planes torques – a picture quite
different then the predicted by the Third Newtonian
Law consists of two equally and opposite torques.
The followed detailed explanations are divided
in few inventive steps. In the end of each one of
 2

them we must ask the question “What is wrong forces and the accelerations” centrifugal forces will
with this step?” act on the particles when they describe the arcs,
Actually we can take the finding of the unique caused by centrifugal accelerations. The sum of the
gyroscopic behavior to connect perpendicular centrifugal forces acting on each elementary
directions in one system, the problem and the tasks particle from the flywheel in the frame of half
formulations like inventive steps; therefore already revolution can be represented with their projections
we need to ask the question “What is wrong with on the planes Fa1, Fa2, Fb1 and Fb2. The forces
these steps” Fb1=Fb2 act in opposite directions and as they are
in balance, can not crate net force. Acting through
3.1 The Inventive Steps the center of rotation of the flywheel they can not
Inventive steps four: Traditionally the textbooks create net torque also and therefore we will not
explain the gyroscopic torque by the equation of comment them any more. The forces Fa1=Fa2 also
the vector multiplication. Textbooks say that the can not create net force. But acting in opposite
“natural” result of the action of the quantity of directions distanced from the flywheels center of
motion about the axis of rotation times the angular rotation they crate torque about the axis “Y”. In
speed of turning about the perpendicular axis is the fact these are the forces generating the Precession
vector of the generated Precession Angular Torque (Angular Momentum).
Momentum perpendicular to the first two. We can find that the forces Fa1 and Fa2 act with
Here is assumed that many important details can maximal intensity when the particles cross the line
stay hidden behind that explanation, lake for coinciding with the axis “Z”. Therefore the line is
example: are the torques result of acting one, two, called here “Maximal Intensity Line”. But the
three or more forces or of field of distributed forces forces act with zero intensity when the particles
and how exactly they are distributed; are these cross the line coinciding with the axis “Y”,
force act “attached” to each particle of the rotating therefore it is called here “Zero Intensity Line”.
body and therefore they change their direction and This line is also inversion line because crossing it,
magnitude in cyclic manner, or the direction of the the forces Fa1 and Fa2 change its direction.
“attached” force fluctuates between parallel lines
combined with cyclic changing of its intensity, or
the force is stably orientated in the space and acts
on the particle of the flywheel staying approach for
the moment and so on and so forth. Therefore the
traditional explanation can be beautiful but not real.
We can find the archetype of such way of
thinking in “The Feynman Lecture on Physics” [3]
Figure 20-4, and text from the last 6 rows of page
20-6 to the first 8 rows of page 20-7. The first
sentence is a question: “How can we explain the
(gyroscopic) torque in terms of the real forces and
the accelerations?”
The mews is that if the Classical Mechanics
accepts the Vector Multiplication as the Real
explanation, here we accept explanation “in terms
in the real forces and the accelerations” narrated
below as the real one.

Inventive steps five: Let’s have a flywheel in

rotation about O1-O1. Let’s turn it about the
perpendicular axis “Z” (Fig. 1). Let’s take two
opposite distanced particles “1” and “2” from the
flywheel. We can prove geometrically that in the
frame of half revolution of the flywheel the
particles describe 3D trajectories. Their 2D
projections on planes “a” parallel to the plane of
turning and on plane “b” perpendicular to the axis
of rotation O1-O1 are arcs. “In terms in the real

Let’s follow the trajectory of the particle 1 in the
frame of one revolution. During the first quarter of
the revolution the force Fa1 increases its intensity
from zero to maximum, (the left side of the
Maximal Intensity Line Figures 1 and 2). Then
during the second quarter the intensity decreases to
zero (the lower side of the Zero Intensity &
Inversion Line). Crossing the line the force Fa1
changes its direction (actually replaced on the
figure by Fa2). Then during the third quarter Fa2
increases from zero to maximum (the right side of
the Max. Int. Line) and during the last quarter it
decreases to zero (in the upper side of the Zero. Int.
Line). Here the force changes its direction for
second time, recovering the initial direction.
We need to mention that after the force Fa1
(Fa2) changes its orientation (crossing the Zero Int.
Line), in the same time it acts already on the other
side of the flywheel relative the axis of the
Precession Torque “Y”. This way the direction of
the generated Precession Torque is not changed i.e.
it is always unidirectional (Figures 2 and 5).
Inventive Step six: Usually Gyroscopes use rotor or
disk shaped single solid body flywheels.
Theoretically we can assume such flywheel as
consists of many separated sectors. When all of
them are in its places, we have “fully sector-rated
flywheels”. If we take from the flywheel only two
opposite each other sectors (Fig.3 a/) and connect
them in a single solid body, we will receive the so
called here “sector rated in diametrical direction” or
SDD Flywheel (Fig.3 b/). The final shape of the
SDD Flywheel is question of engineering design. It
can simply looks like a piece of bar, but the
important requirement that the Inertia Moment
about one of the main axis of inertia J1 to be much
smaller then the Inertia Moments about the others
two main axis of inertia J2 and J3.
Actually the SDD Flywheel can be accepted like
consists two only opposite particles/masses
connected by weightless connection, numbered 1
and 2.
If
we
3
Let’s put the SDD Flywheel in rotation about one
of the main axis of inertia having big Inertia
Moment J2 or J3. Let’s turn it in same time about
the axis “Z”. We will observe that the SDD
Flywheel generates strong precession angular
momentum when the axis J1 passes through
orientations near the Maximal Intensity Line and
works weakly when the axis J1 passes through
orientations near the Zero Intensity Line. In fact the
SDD Flywheel works pulsating, cycling.
Everybody can assure of this doing a simple
experiment. You just take a piece of bar imitating a
SDD Flywheel and keeping its axis of rotation with
one hand put the flywheel in rotation with the other
hand initiating in same time a turning with the
keeping hand. You will feel the pulsations.
Inventive Step seven: This way we assume the
notability of the Max. Int. and Zero Int. inversion
Lines. We divide the described by the Work
Branches of the SDD Flywheel circle in two
couples of sectors, defining between the lines 1-1
and 2-2. Two oppositely situated zones are formed
(Fig.4): a Maximal Intensity Zone having in its
middle the Maximal Intensity Line and a Minimal
intensity Zone having in its middle the Zero
Intensity & Inversion Line.
We have two properties available: On one hand
every elementary mass from the disc-shaped
flywheel generates Precession Angular Momentum
with cycling intensity, from zero to maximum and
vice versa, depending on the position in the cycle
for the moment (Fig 4 and Fig 5 A/). On the other
hand the SDD Flywheel provides selective
workability, because it generates forces only there
where there is mass, delivered by the work
brunches. Two strokes cycle combining these two
features can be easy organized. During the first
one, the so called “Work Stroke” the SDD
Flywheel is turned in “positive” direction (in green
from Fig.4 A/ and Fig5 B/) when its work brunches
pass through the Maximal Intensity Zone
generating high intensity Precession Angular
Momentum in “Right” direction. During the second

one, the so called “Recovering Stroke”, the SDD
Flywheel is turned in “negative” direction (in blue
from Fig.4 B/ and Fig5 B/) when the work
brunches pass through the Minimal Intensity Zone
generating low intensity Angular Momentum in
“Opposite” direction. If the purpose of the Work
Stroke is to produce a Big Precession Angular
Momentum in direction taken as “Right” one (the
desired one) (Fig5 C/ in green), the purpose of the
Recovering Stroke is to recover the Work Stroke
starting position in the expends of Small Angular
Momentum produced in “Opposite” direction
(Fig.5C/ in blue). If in the frame of given period we
divide the Small “Opposite” Angular Momentums
from the Bug “Right” ones and “spill” the result in
the frame of ∆t period of time of the cycle, we will
receive the intensity of the permanently acting
Precession Torque about axis “Y” called here
“Active” Torque.
This way the frequency ω2 of the flywheel’s
turning about the axis “Z” is equal the frequency ω1
of its rotation about axis “O1-O1” multiplied by the
number of the work brunches. Obviously Fig. 5
presents the behavior of one particle taken from
one work brunch. The behaviors of the other (not
shown) particles are symmetrical.
One easily understandable analog of the above
principle is the principle of the two stroke internal
combustion engine. If during the expansion (the
work) stroke the engine produces big positive
4
Angular Momentum (in the “Right” direction),
during the compression stroke (the recovering work
stroke starting position) the engine produces small
resistant (negative) Angular Momentum in the
opposite direction. Dividing the small one from the
big one Angular Momentums and “spilling” the
result in the ∆t period of the cycle we receive the
intensity of the permanently generated torque.
Since the Big Precession Angular Momentum
should be result of a strong “turn” about axis “Z”
(Fig 4 A/), the Newtonian equal and opposite
reaction of this “turn” should be a big Reactive
Angular Momentum about the axis of “Z” in
direction taken as “positive” one (Fig. 5 D/ in
green), and vice versa, since the Small Precession
Angular Momentum should be result of a weakly
“turn” in opposite direction about axis “Z” (Fig 4
B/), the reaction of this “turn” should be a small
Reactive Angular Momentum about the axis of “Z”
in direction taken as “negative” one (Fig. 5 D/ in
blue). Dividing the Small “negative” from the Big
“positive” ones and “spilling” the result in the
frame of ∆t period of time we will receive the
intensity of a permanently acting equal and
opposite reaction of the of the Turning Torque
called “Rt”.
We assume the describing machine has two
energy inputs: via SDD Flywheels rotation about
axis O1-O1 and via the turning about “Z”. There is
one energy output: via the generated Active Torque
about axis “Y”. It is naturally to expect that trying
to maintain a nominal speed of rotation of the SDD
Flywheel a series of always unidirectional
momentums about axis of “O1-O1” have to be
invested. Their Newtonian reactions will be always
unidirectional Reactive Angular Momentums.
“Spilling” them in the frame of ∆t period of time
we will receive the intensity of a permanently
acting Reactive torque, equal and opposite to the
Driving Torque called here “Rr” (Fig. 5 E/).
So the axis of rotation O1-O1 of the SDD
Flywheel vibrates about “Z”, having the axis “X”
as mid position, (Fig 5 B/). The axis of rotation O1-
O1 will never coincides with the axis of precession
“Y” and the Gyroscope maintains its 3D frame of
reference permanently.
Inventive Step eight: This way we receive a system
of three permanently acting and perpendicular each
other torques (Fig.6 b/) called here “concomitants”.
The picture is quite different then the predicted by
the Newtonian Third Law one, consists of two
equal and opposite torques (Fig.6 a/).
The next task is how to free (separate, isolate)
only one of them from its concomitants.

This solution can be question of balancing of the
acting vectors in the closed system, or question of
the nature of the generation. Here we will discuss
four choices from the first group only:
Choice one: If we have a system of three
perpendicular torques (one active outgoing and two
reactive, also outgoing, Fig. 6 b/) it is naturally to
expect that their vectors sum ∑T will be a fourth
torque having own direction (Fig.6c). Taking the
generating device together with the vehicle as a
closed system we have right to accept the ∑T
torque like a single one and therefore like a free
(reaction less) torque acting to the vehicle. If the
active torque doesn’t exist, on the vehicle would act
the vector sum of both reactive torques only (Rr
and Rt). The vector sum of the three torques (if the
3D inertial interaction is available), possesses
different direction and magnitude then the vector
sum of the two reactive vectors only (if the 3D
interaction is not available). The vector difference
between both vector sums is another vector (not
shown). Here is the vector acting on the vehicle we
call “Free” or “Reactionless”. Respectively, the
device capable to generate that vector difference is
“Free Torque Generator” (FTG).
But the problem is that since the “Active”, the
“Rr” and the “Rt” torques have different nature of
generation and therefore, different output
performance curves, the intensity but also the
direction of the ∑T torque will be function of the
speed of rotation of the closed system i.e. the vector
doesn’t act stably in the space, it “floats” instead.
Choice two: Since the number of the FTGs
consist the closed system is not limited, we can
compose it by two (or more) sisters FTG, Fig. 7.
We align their axes Y1 and Y2, so that the axes
of the other to couples (X1, X2 and Z1, Z2) are
parallel (Fig.7 a/). That’s way the torques from
each couple act in same direction. Then, we simply
unfix, for example the lower FTG, turn it in 180
degrees about the axis of the “Active 2” (Y2) and
fix it again (Fig.7 b/). This way the torques from
5
each couple act already oppositely each other, and
therefore “Rr1” is already balanced by the “Rr2”
same like the “Rt1” is balanced by “Rt2”.
Therefore, doubled “Active” torque is free
(separated, isolated) from its (their) concomitants
“Rr(s)” and “Rt(s)” (Fig.7 c/). This is the
reactionless torque acting on the vehicle.
Choice three: Similarly we align the X axes of
the FTGs (not shown) on way the torques acting
about their Y and Z axes act in same direction.
Then we unfix one of the FTGs, turn it in 180
degrees about X and fix it again. The sisters torques
acting about the Y and Z axes will be directed
oppositely, balancing each other. This way one
doubled “Rr” is already separated, isolated, from its
concomitants (Rt and the Active torques). This is
the reaction less torque (in this choice) acting on
the vehicle.
Choice four: Using similar method we can free
(separate, isolate) doubled “Rt” torque from its
(their) concomitants “Active(s)” and “Rr(s)”. In
this choice, this is the reactionless torque acting on
the vehicle.
We can generalize in four stages:
1. The discrete character of the forces acting on a
particles from the flywheel.
2. The discrete workability of the SDD Flywheel.
3. The end less cycle combining and synchronizing
the discrete character of the forces and the discrete
workability of the SDD Flywheel.
4. The 3D disposition of the outgoing torques
secures the opportunity to free, separate, isolate one
kind of the sisters torques only by eliminating the
torques from the other two kinds (the unavoidable
concomitants), by mutual balancing of the torques
from each of the two kinds separately.

3.2 Pendulum Tests:
In the NASA’s document concerning possible
mechanical Breakthrough Propulsion assessment
TM-2006-214390 [1], pendulum test is claimed like
the only one able to provide genuine experimental
result for such class of mechanical devices, in
gravity conditions.
Here is examined a FTG
working model in size of
grapefruit in weight of 180
grams having own power
supply and remote
controllable.
Main test procedure consists
of four steps:
1. The FTG is hung on a line
along the axis “Y” (Fig. 8).
Result: After starting the
flywheel’s rotation the whole
FTG rotates continuously with
speed of 3-10 rpm because of
the “Active” torque. The “Rr”
and “Rt” torques are balanced
by the gravitation.
2. The FTG is hung on a line
along the axis “X” (Fig. 9).
Result: After starting the
flywheel’s rotation the whole
FTG rotates oppositely the
flywheel, continuously with
speed of 50-100 or more rpm
because of the “Rr” torque.
The “Active” and “Rt” torques
are balanced by the
gravitation.
Note: Unlike Reaction
Wheels, the SDD flywheel
rotates with nominal (change
less) speed of rotation.
3. The FTG is hung on a
line along the axis “Z” (Fig.
10).
Result: After starting the
flywheel’s rotation the whole
FTG rotates continuously with
speed of 3-10 rpm because of
the “Rt” torque. The “Active”
and “Rr” torques are balanced
by the gravitation.
4. The FTG is hung along
the probable direction of the
vectors sum of the “Active”
“Rr” and “Rt” (Fig 11).
6
Result: After starting the flywheel’s rotation the
whole FTG rotates continuously unidirectional
because of ∑T Torque.
In the all cases a change of the direction of the
flywheel’s rotation causes change of the FTG’s
direction of rotation. The mentioned speeds depend
on the discharging of the batteries. The rotation
stops when the twisted too much line resists with
big enough torque in opposite direction.
5. The FTG is coupled
with 18” steel bicycle
wheel representing the
load of the space vehicle
(Fig. 12). The Inertia
Moment of the wheel is
approximately 32 000
times bigger then the
Inertia Moment of the
SDD Flywheel.
The above tests were demonstrated at IENA
2007 in Nuremberg, Germany, GAMM 2008, 79th
Annual Meeting of the International Association of
Applied Mathematics and Mechanics from 31st of
March to 4th of April 2008 at the University of
Bremen, Bremen, Germany, at the TESD 2008, 14th
International Conference organized by The
Technical University of Varna Bulgaria.
4 Conclusions
4.1 The conclusions of the opponents
Observing the tests the first opponents concluded
that the SDD Flywheel is actually a propeller
causes the rotation of the body of the FTG.
Answer: This “propeller” does not have blades. To
avoid such doubt, later the SDD Flywheel was
covered with light foam material giving the “usual”
shape of massive flywheel (see Figures 8 to 11).
Some opponents from IENA 2007 concluded
that the FTG actually generates one torque only
(obviously hinting the Rr) torque and the other two
are projections of Rr.
Answer: The outgoing torques is really three
mutually perpendicular, other wise gyroscopes
wouldn’t perform 3D behavior. On the other hand
if the torques are one or three (or four or more) is
not so important, the important is that the torqueses
are not two aligned (1D according the prediction of
the Newtonian Third Law.
Observing the test from Fig 12 some scientists
from GAMM 2008 expressed the opinion that the
reason of the rotation of the suspended device is
that:
 7

A/ The suspending line is twisted. [4] Ellzbieta Sogno-Pabis, Pietro Rini, “Written
Answer: But before the start we found the system Opinion of the International Searching Authority”
in relative peace. (Separate Sheet) PCT/BG2007/000022, European
B/ The friction in the system. Patent Office (it must be published in September).
Answer: There in no such kind of friction able to
generate self rotation. If such kind exists, it should
mean that new kind of friction is invented.
C/ The friction between the flywheel and the air.
Answer: To avoid this possibility we place the
FTG in a usual transparent plastic bag. This way
we lock the friction between the flywheel and the
air in the plastic bag. If you doubt you just take one
toy helicopter and put it in a plastic bag. Then you
test, will it fly?
Some scientists from TESD 2008 said that the
observed efficiency is obviously too low and
therefore the device would not be applicable.
Answer: We can’t expect a high effective reaction
less torque comparable with the Newtonian ones.
A sounding like an attractive anecdote
conclusion came from the European Patent Office.
The Experts have wrote in their “Written Opinion”
[4] that PCT Patent grant is refused because the
invention describes Perpetuum Mobile of second
kind and stays against the well established First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics (they obviously
think that the efficiency is more then 100% is
claimed).
Answer: This opinion is result of haughtily
incompetent and irresponsible reading of the
description and the claims. But anyhow, since the
demonstration devices really work, the news is that
the Perpetuum Mobile is already invented!!!
Congratulations!!!

4.2 The conclusion of the author

The chaotic resistance of the opponents leads to the
conclusion that they are not prepared to meet the
challenge. The problem already is much more
psychological then technological.

References:
[1] Marc Millis, Nicholas Thomas, “Responding to
Mechanical Antigravity” NASA TM-2006-214390
AIAA-2006-4913 Available at:
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/Citations.aspx?id=153
[2] Bojidar Djordjev, WO/2008/070938, “Forces
Generative Method” Available at:
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=200
8070938
[3] Richard Feynman, “The Feynman Lectures on
Physics” ADDISON-WESLEY Publishing
Company 1963