2024 Preprint of revised version of the original adopted by SPESIF 2010 and AIP Conference Proceedings.

Free (Reactionless) Torque Generation

– or Free Propulsion Concept

Bojidar Djordjev

Independent Researcher
Varna region, Bulgaria
bojidardj@dir.bg

Abstract. The basic principle in Newtonian Mechanics is founded in equal and opposite forces. Placing the vectors of velocity,
acceleration, force and momentum of interacting objects along a single line satisfies the claim it is a linear or 1D concept.
Classical Mechanics states that there are two main kinds of motion, linear motion and rotation. Similarly placing the vectors of
angular velocity, angular acceleration, torque and angular momentum along a line in the case of rotation in fact brings a plane 2D
interaction to the well known 1D Newtonian concept. This adaptation transforms Classical Mechanics into a 1D concept as well
and presents a conformation that the linear concept is the only possible one. The Laws of Conservation of Momentum and
Angular Momentum are results of the 1D concept. But the geometrical space contains 3 geometrical spatial dimensions. Within
the 3D world there can exist 1D, 2D and 3D kinds of interaction. The question is how to believe that the 3D world can really be
composed of a 1D interaction or interactions made equal to the 1D concept only? Look at a gyroscope – the only one known
mechanical device that is capable of performng 3D behavior. The problem is that the gyroscope cannot perform three permanent
and unidirectional torques that are fixed in space acting about perpendicular axes. This impossibility conforms to a 1D concept.
The idea is to find a solution that can be achieved for the 3D concept.

Keywords-Reactionless motion thrust propulsion rotation torque

PACS: 01.55.+b general physics 07.05.Dz control systems

INTRODUCTION
The Fundamental Natural Laws forbid reaction less force/torque generation predicting that action is always balanced
by its mirror image - an equal and opposite reaction, placed along/forming one single line, declaring this way the
linear (1D) concept. The Laws work in all propulsions built by humans but also in the living or not living nature;
every vehicle every motion every time evidences the Laws and there is no exception. The Third Newtonian Law is
an insuperable obstacle. In fact the precursor of the linear concept is the four centuries old Galileo’s principle of
projective motion that gives classics analysis of a motion along a in plane curved path reducing it to a compound
motion made up of a two perpendicular linear motions in a fixed directions. If the Newtonian Laws have been
recorded originally for linear (1D) motion/interaction dealing with masses, position, velocities, accelerations and
forces only, then they have been extended by the Classical Mechanics ranging over the simplest kind of 2D motion –
rotation - dealing with the corresponding inertia moments, angular position, angular velocities and accelerations and
torques. This way, and also according to the Galilean principle, rotation is reduced to the 1D motion/interaction
confirming the linear (1D) concept as the only possible one. Thus according to the so extended linear concept two
maim kinds of motions/interactions are specified in the range of the mentioned laws: a linear one and a reduced to
the linear one rotation. The Laws of Conservation of Momentum and Angular Momentum confirm the linear
concept as the only possible one too. The 1D concept is generalized for all linear systems by the Superposition
Principle also known as Superposition property stating that the net response at a given place and time caused by two
or more actions are the sum of the responses which would have been caused by each action individually. This way
the system of natural Laws covers all possible interactions, but it is not unconditionally, but under the hidden
condition: If 1D (or/and reduced to 1D) interactions are the possible only! Thus looking from the opposite side the
system of Natural Laws is product of the linear concept. But how to believe that the 3D space is composed of 1D
interaction only or interactions made equal to the 1D concept? Is it supposable that in the 3D world exist 2D and 3D
interactions not reducible to the 1D concept? But the known Laws cover the linear (1D) interactions only! It doesn’t
mean that the 1D concept is not important. It is important because it is not wrong, and at least because practically we
need to propell our vehicles from points A to B i.e. lineary (1D). Thereby if such 2D or 3D interactions really exist,
 2

to be practically usefull, their outgoing inertial effects have to be reduced to the linear concept too. We can assume
that if such 2D/3D spatial inertial interactions reduced to the 1D geometrically linear concept of Free (reactionless)
Motion is possible at all, it can exists in two shapes only: as reactionless linear motion initiated by reactionless force
generated by hypothetical device called Free Force Generator (FFG) and as reactionless rotation initiated by
reactionless torque generated by another hypothetical device called Free Torque Generator (FTG). Nobody yet has
built and tested such class of devices successfully. It is so probably because along with the Physical problem there
are even more important problems as to apply the Scientific Principle, together with problem with the Legal Law,
and few other problems coming from wrong Philosophical point of view, all of them called in short - psychological
problem. Therefore any discussions directed “against” or “violating “or contrary” the well established Natural Laws
are usually accepted like loosing of time and people in discussion risk to be taken as amateurs. More over, the
chosen terms “violation” and “contrary” suggest that somebody is contrary to the Nature, the people and all of the
well established achievements of the Mankind. The chosen terms sounding criminally suggest fear, inspiriting the
idea that the “violation of the well established Natural Laws” is criminal action and respectively people claiming
“violation” is criminals. Here will be discussed technological possibilities of a based on “Forces Generative
Method” [1] Free Torque Generation only, assuming that this is the easiest part of the task.

FREE TORQUE GENERATION

Actually the Third Newtonian Law contains of two important conditions: that the active and reactive forces/torques
are always equal; and that they are always opposite, noting that naturally the number of the vectors placed in line is
always two. Thus there are two ways for breaking the frame: The usual way followed by thousands of known
attempts is in fact against the first statement trying to make the interacting torques/forces even just a little bit not
equal confirming this way the second condition – they have to be always opposite. But what if instead of this we try
to make the interacting forces/torques are not exact opposite against the second condition? That is to say that one of
the force/torque from the couple is not exactly opposite to the other one. We can present it by two mutually
perpendicular projections. If one of them is aligned with the other force/torque from the couple, the other projection
will be perpendicular to the aligned ones. So we come to the idea about interaction between perpendicular vectors. If
perpendicular vectors interact to each other, it wouldn’t be any more important if they are equal. This way the
possible “violation” of the second condition seems to be more thoroughly one because leads to violation of the first
condition too. It appears that on one hand the 3D space allows geometrically interaction between perpendicular
vectors. But on the other hand, from the point of the Third Newtonian Law it looks not possible. More over that in
the Classical Mechanics (the only one well established mechanics of the rigid body we have available) perpendicular
vectors don’t interact each other – they are mutually isolated because cosine projection of every vector on
perpendicular direction is equal zero, because cosine(π/2)=0.

But look at Gyroscope – a one mechanical device able to perform 3D behavior. If in a given moment of time a
rotating about its axis (first axis) flywheel is turned about a fixed to the vehicle perpendicular axis (second axis) a
precession torque is generated about a third fixed to the vehicle axis perpendicular to the first two. Factually the
three mutually perpendicular vectors interact each other, i.e. they are connected in one spatial system, against to,
contrary to, or violating the well established Classical Mechanics stating that perpendicular vectors are mutually
isolated. The fact is not a theory, dream, fantasy, illusion, science fiction, garage-science or other kind of
pseudoscience. Every gyroscope on this planet (and also in the Universe), every gyrocompass demonstrates
experimentally in real time its capability to connect inertial quantities and qualities acting about perpendicular axes
in one system, this way violating the Galileo’s Principle of projections as well Classical Mechanics built on the
presumption that perpendicular directions are isolated. The Mother Nature violates the well established Galileo’s
Principle of projections!? If we apply the well established philosophy it appears that the Mother Nature is the
greatest violator violating heir’s own well established Natural Laws! If the “Violation” is criminal, that is to say that
the Mother Nature is the greatest criminal! No, we don’t believe in such suggestions. Much more likely, there is
something deeply wrong in the well established philosophy, we operate with.

But let’s concentrate our self on the physical character of the gyroscope. If the turning about the second axis is
continued, the projection of the generated precession torque about the third fixed axis decreases to zero. It can be
recovered by continue turning the flywheel about the second axis beyond that point or by turning it backward. But in
the both cases the precession torque is already generated backward. The disadvantage of the “original” gyroscope
equipped with massive flywheel is that it can not generate a permanent and unidirectional precession torque about
fixed to the vehicle axis, in the expends of “invested” unidirectional and permanent rotating and turning torques
 3

acting about another perpendicular and fixed to the vehicle axes. Usually this impossibility is shown as a
conformation of the above mentioned well established principles and laws in the Classical Mechanics, especially the
Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. The problem can be also formulated like this: Gyroscope doesn’t
maintain endless unidirectional 3D spatial behavior about fixed to the vehicle axis simply because the axis of
rotation is not fixed as it turns about the perpendicular axis of turning. This way it inevitably coincides to the fixed
axis of precession (the third one) and the gyros 3D frame of reference transforms unavoidable in 2D. We member
that the axis of the generated torque is always orientated perpendicularly (i.e. connected) to the axis of rotation. The
task is to find a method to maintain endless Gyro’s 3D behavior by endless maintaining of the Gyro’s 3D frame of
reference. If one can somehow make it a system of three permanent and unidirectional acting about perpendiculars
each other fixed to the vehicle axes torques will be achieved - a picture quite different then the linear one. The
followed explanation is divided in few inventive steps. Actually the finding of the unique gyroscopic behavior and
the problem and tasks formulations, based on the changed philosophical point of view, can be calculated like already
done inventive steps. In the end of each step let’s ask the question: “What is wrong with this step?”

Inventive steps three

Traditionally the textbooks explain the Gyro’s behavior as vectors multiplication between the perpendicular vectors
of the angular momentum of the flywheel’s rotation and the flywheel’s turning. The textbooks ratiocination is that
the “natural” result of this is a third vector that appears perpendicular to the first two - the vector of the generated
Precession Angular Momentum. But this is a picture in general. Here is assumed that this the picture in general
doesn’t clear many important details about the precession torque formation: Since every torque is formed by forces,
couple of forces, or a given number of peripherally acting forces, in the general picture is not clear which exactly
forces form the torque and how the appear exactly. Is it result of acting single forces or a field of distributed forces
and if yes how many they are and how exactly are distributed? Is a given force “attached” to a particle of the
rotating body and are they both rotate together? Dues a given force change its direction in cyclic manner or/and
together with this it changes its magnitude too? Is the vector of the “attached” force fluctuates between parallel lines
cyclic changing its magnitude in the same time? Or is the given force stable orientated in the space acting on the
particle of the flywheel staying approach at the moment? … And so on and so forth. Therefore the traditional
explanation is beautiful but probably not exact real. An archetype of such way of thinking can be found in “The
Feynman Lecture on Physics” [2], Figure 20-4, and text from the last 6 rows from page 20-6 to the first 8 rows of
page 20-7. The first sentence is a question: “How can we explain the torque in terms of the real forces and the
accelerations?” But in Feynman the explanation “in terms in the real forces and the accelerations” bellow the
question is an exotic complement to the chiefly and much larger traditionally one given above the mentioned text
and in fact accepted like the real one. The activity of the step four is that such a possible explanation is taken as the
only Real One.
Note: From the point of view of the year 2024 we can add that the exact answer of “in terms in the real forces
and the accelerations” is given in the paper “Reactionless motion explained by the Laws of the Nonlinear
Dynamics leading to a new method to explain and calculate the gyroscopic torque and its possible relation to the
spin of electron” published in 2014. In the revised paper you read originally adopted in 2009, the given answer
sounds is less specifically and more philosophically and practically, but not less important.

Inventive steps four

Let’s rotate the disc shaped flywheel from Figure 1 about axis “O-O” and turn it
about perpendicular fixed axis “Z”. A precession torque appears about a
perpendicular fixed axis “Y”. Even if there is no any an idea how exactly
gyroscope works there can be supposed that precession torque is result of really
acting perpendicular the plane of rotation forces distributed uniformly from the
both sides of the axis of precession “Y”. Probably there are other forces acting on
the flywheel too or the perpendicular forces are projections of other forces. But we
can conclude that only these forces can form the precession torque.
Figure 1. Logics It is clear that the forces act on the elementary pieces of mass from the both sides
of the flywheel divided by the “Y” axis. The forces act in opposite directions on
the both sides of the flywheel otherwise the torque formed by the forces acting on the elementary pieces from the
“left” side (in green) would balance the other one formed by the forces acting on the “right” side (in blue) and the
net precession torque would be zero. But since each elementary mass periodically changes its position from one to
 4

the other side and back again, the elementary forces should change their directions too, otherwise the precession
torque would change its direction every half revolution. As because of the inertia such changes never happen at
ones. The process should be prepared by lightly decreasing of the magnitude of the force followed by a change of
direction and its increasing again but in opposite direction. The other factor of the precession torque – the distance
between the elementary particle and the axis of precession (the arm) – obviously changes similar way: the arm is
maximal when the particle crosses the axis “Z” and is zero they cross the axis “Y”. It is also supposable that the
magnitudes of the both elements of the precession torque – forces and arms - changes symmetrically each other.
Therefore each elementary torque acts with maximal magnitude when the particle crosses the axis “Z” and with
minimal one when the particle crosses the axis “Y”. And finally it is obviously that responsible for those forces are
the moving with acceleration elementary pieces of the flywheel.

Inventive step five

Figure 2. (a) The forces acting on the piece of the flywheel (b) Magnitude and direction of forces Fa1 and Fa2
(c) Precession angular momentums generated by forces Fa1 and Fa2

Let’s take the equal distanced from the centre of rotation particle 1 (in green) and particle 2 (in blue) placed along a
diametrical direction; Figure 2(a). It can be easy proved that each of them same like each other elementary particle
from the flywheel describes 3D trajectories which projections on planes “a” parallel to the plane of turning and on
plane “b” parallel the plane of rotation are 2D arcs. It can be found “… in terms of the real forces and the
accelerations” that centrifugal forces explained by centrifugal accelerations act on the particles in its moving along
the arcs. The summed action of centrifugal forces associating with the precession torque acting on one particle in the
frame of half revolution is represented with their projections Fa1, Fa2, Fb1 and Fb2 on the planes “a” and “b”. The
forces Fa1 and F2 acts parallel the axis “X” same like the forces Fb1 and Fb2 are parallel the axis “Z”. Since the
arcs from each couple are bulged in opposite directions the forces from each couple are directed opposite each other
too. The acting in opposite directions on plane “b” forces Fb1 and Fb2 are equal and in balance (Fb1=Fb2) and that
is way they do not crate net force and also acting through the center of rotation of the flywheel they don’t create net
torque too and thus they will be not commented any more. The acting on plane “a” forces Fa1 and Fa2 are equal too
(Fa1=Fa2) and also don’t create net force but acting in opposite directions distanced from the flywheels center of
rotation they do crate torque about the axis “Y”. This is the torque called “Precession” and these are the forces it is
composed by. The author prefers to call these forces centrifugal in spite of possible opinions that they are Cariolis or
Euler ones. But the important is that Classical Mechanics calls them fictive, fictitious, pseudo or inertial forces also
potential and conservative ones i.e. forces that can not do unidirectional work. Yes, really it seems to be true because
the assertion corresponds with the behavior of the “original” gyroscope: the precession torque about fixed axis is not
unidirectional and permanent.

Obviously the forces Fa act with maximal magnitude when the particles pass the top on the protuberance i.e.
crossing the axis of turning “Z”. Therefore the line connecting both opposite tops (in green and in blue from the
planes “a” (Figure 2 (a)) is called “maximal magnitude line”. The line is parallel the axis of turning “Z”. Since both
arcs from planes “a” are bulged opposite each other the moving particles changes the direction of bulginess
somewhere in the track between both arcs crossings the axis of precession “Y”. This is the places the magnitude of
the forces Fa decreases to zero before changing of directions twice per revolution. Obviously these places form a
line called “zero magnitude & inversion line” placed parallel the axis of precession “Y”. Let’s follow the trajectory
of the particle 1 in the frame of one revolution. During the first quarter the acting on the particle force Fa1 (in green)
increases its magnitude from zero to maximum as shown on Figure 2 (b) (see the left side of the maximal magnitude
 5

line). Then during the second quarter its magnitude decreases to zero (see the lower side of the zero magnitude &
inversion line) where the force Fa1 changes its direction actually replaced by Fa2 (in blue). Actually the particle 1
follows a similar the particle 2’s trajectory but stiffed one because the flywheel is already turned. Then during the
third quarter Fa2 increases its magnitude from zero to maximum in the right side of the maximal magnitude line and
during the last quarter decreases its magnitude to zero in the upper side of the zero magnitude line changing its
direction again. The change of the Fa1 and Fa2 magnitude remind two opposite shifted waves as shown in the
Figure 2(b). The other element of the precession angular momentum - the arm - changes same way: it is maximal
when force Fa is maximal and zero when Fa=0. And more: every time the force Fa1 (or Fa2) changes its orientation
crossing the zero magnitude & inversion line it acts already from the other side of the flywheel relative the axis of
the precession torque “Y”. Therefore the angular momentums generated by the both opposite particles are
unidirectional forming a single wave as shown in blue & green in the Figure 2(c).

Inventive step six

Figure 3. (a) Completely sector rated flywheel. (b) The SDD Flywheel. (c) Opposite sectors precession angular
momentums (d) SDD Flywheel’s angular momentums generating

What about the behavior of the other particles of the flywheel and the forces acting on them? The forces Fa acting
on particles from Figure 3 (a) placed along a given diametrical direction (not shown) change their magnitudes and
directions simultaneously. The forces acting on particles placed along the opposite radial sides of the diametrical
direction are always opposite directed (in blue and green) but they do generate same directed precession angular
momentums as shown in Figure 2 (a), (b) and (c). As closer is a given particle to a given radial direction as closer
the behavior of the force Fa acting on it can be associated with the behavior of the forces Fa acting at the particles
from the radial direction. As closer is a given particle from a given radial direction to the centre of rotation as
smaller is the magnitude of the force Fa acting on it and as smaller is the arm and vice versa. Therefore all particles
from the flywheel can be grouped in sectors which radial directions passing through the mid of the sectors (not
shown) are equal distanced each other. As greater is the number of the sectors the traditional disc or rotor shaped
gyroscopic flywheel is divided as uniform is the behavior of the particles from each sector. In the given on Figure 3
(a) example the flywheel is divided in 12 sectors. The numerous of forces Fa (not shown) acting on the numerous of
elementary particles belonging to each of the sectors are presented by a single summed force Fa marked with the
number of the sector. Each group of two opposite sectors: 1+7, 2+8, 3+9, 4+10, 5+11 and 6+12 generate similar but
shifted with the angle between the sectors waves of precession angular momentums as shown in ‘Figure 3 (c). The
summed action of all waves at a given moment of time gives the transitory magnitude of the precession torque
generated by the flywheel including the all 12 sectors. But as mentioned in the introduction the magnitude of
precession torque about the fixed axis “Y” depends on the changes of the angle between the axis of rotation “O-O”
and axis “Y” – it is maximal when the axes are perpendicular and zero when the axes are parallel. Therefore the
wave’s amplitudes changes between maximum and zero too and actually are amplitude modulated. Anyhow this
aspect is not shown because stays out of the purpose of the paper.

The purpose is to explain that if a flywheel consists of two opposite sectors taken from the “usual” disc shaped one
is somehow composed its gyroscopic behavior will be presented as a single wave from Figure 3 (c). The sectors are
reshaped in something called “work branches” and then connected by connecting elements (Figure 3 (b)). The final
shape of the object called “Sector rated in or along Diametrical Direction” or SDD Flywheel is question of
engineering design. It can simply looks like a bar but the important requirement that the inertia moment about one of
the main axes of inertia J1 must be much smaller then the inertia moments about the other two ones J2 and J3. This
way the work branches same like the couple of opposite sectors generate wavy precession torque (Figure 4 (d)). The
unavoidable influence of the distributed on the other sectors mass of the connecting elements is given as a small and
 6

opposite phased wave with dramatically reduced amplitude. Therefore in the further analysis the influence of the
connecting elements can be ignored and in fact SDD Flywheel can be associated as one consists of particles 1 and 2
from Figure 2 (a) only performing the behavior from Figure 2 (c). Everybody can assure of the waving behavior
itself by doing a simple experiment: You just take a bar balanced about a pivot imitating a SDD Flywheel and
keeping the pivot with a hand put the flywheel in rotation with the other hand simultaneously turning it with the
keeping hand about a perpendicular the pivot axis. You shall feel the pulsating wave.

The wavy workability of the SDD flywheel also means that we have on hand a device able to “switch on” and
“switch off” its 3D behavior lightly. This new property can be also assessed as a “selective workability” because the
workability depends on the moment azimuthally orientations of the work branches. This way the sectors from Figure
3 (a) actually show probability for peak or idle workability. If in the “usual” flywheel all of the probabilities are fact
because all of the sectors are occupied by mass in the same time, in the SDD type flywheel the probabilities are
occupied periodically and consecutively and therefore the peaks and idles effects appear same way. Actually
everything real can be explained many ways but the question is how the new property can be used?

Inventive step seven

Figure 4. (a) Work stroke (b) Recovering stroke

Actually the problem of the “original” gyroscope is that only one of the axes is “originally” fixed to vehicle – the
axis of turning “Z” Figure 3 (a). The axis of rotation “O-O” is always perpendicular the axis “Z” but it is not fixed
since it turns around “Z” together with the flywheel. The precession torque appears with maximal magnitude about
another axis perpendicular the axes “O-O” and “Z”. But since “O-O” turns around “Z” the axis of maximal
magnitude precession torque turns too. Or if the axis of precession is taken as the fixed to vehicle axis “Y” the
precession torque appears with maximal magnitude about “Y” when “O-O” is perpendicular “Y” coinciding with
“X” and making the gyroscopic 3D frame of reference fact. But it decreases to zero when “O-O” coincides with “Y”
transforming this way the 3D frame of reference in 2D. Yes, really the precession torque acts already with maximal
magnitude about axis “X” but we do not need this one: we need a unidirectional and permanent one about the fixed
to vehicle axis “Y”. The question is how the new SDD Flywheel’s property can help to satisfy both conflicting
requirements: to turn the axis of the rotating flywheel “O-O” about the fixed to the vehicle axis “Z” always
permanently and unidirectional and together with this to keep it all the time perpendicular the fixed to the vehicle
axes of precession “Y” and turning “Z” i.e. to fix it to the vehicle too.

Therefore the problem of the “usual” gyroscope is also a problem of retreating of the axis of rotation “O-O” off the
fixed axis “X” and getting closer to the fixed axis “Y”. The idea is to use the notability of a peak orientation to
generate a peak precession angular momentum in one direction “paying” for this with the necessary retreating and
then to use the notability of the followed idle orientation to recover the retreating “paying” for this with generation
of a small precession angular momentum in opposite direction. For this purpose two couples of opposite zones
(sectors) are defined placed between two perpendicular lines “1-1” and “2-2”, see Figure 4 (a) and (b): a maximal
magnitude zones (in green) placed around the maximal magnitude line and a minimal magnitude zones (in blue)
placed around the minimal magnitude & inversion line. This way a two stroke cycle can be easy organized. During
the first one, the so called “Work Stroke” (Figure 4 (a)) the SDD Flywheel is turned about axis “Z” from the end
positioning line “3-3” to the “4-4” one in direction taken as “right” one when its work branches pass through the
maximal magnitude zone generating high magnitude precession angular momentum about axis “Y” in direction
 7

taken as “positive” one. During the second one, the so called “Recovering Stroke”, see Figure 4 (b), the SDD
Flywheel is turned opposite from the end positioning line “4-4” to the “3-3” one when the work branches pass
through the minimal magnitude zone generating low magnitude “negative” angular momentum about axis “Y”.
Maximal effect can be received if the end positioning lines “3-3” and “4-4” are placed symmetrically off the both
sides of the axis “X”. Thus the axis “X” can be taken as a fixed to vehicle axis of the SDD Flywheel’s rotation.

Figure 5. (a) Wavy work of the SDD Flywheel (b) Flowing angle of turning (c)”Active” torque generation
(d) “Rt” torque generation (e) “Rr) torque generation

Actually precession torque generation is possible if three conditions are satisfied: if the flywheel rotates, if it turns
about a perpendicular axis, and if there is a mass (work branch) in the given sectors for the moment. The picture
from Figure 5 (a) shows the waved precession torque generated by the SDD Flywheel if the turning is unidirectional
but the axis of rotation “O-O” is still near axis “X” and the work brunches pass periodically the high magnitude
zones (given as blue vertical strips) the low magnitude zones (green vertical strips). This is the same picture as from
Figure 3 (d) but ignoring the influence of the connecting elements it is reduced to the picture from Figure 2 (c). But
if the unidirectional turning is replaced by a reciprocating turning consists of two strokes reminding shaking as
shown in the Figure 5 (b) it will change the shape of the generated precession torque. During the Work stroke the
SDD Flywheel turns from the end position line “3-3” to the “4-4” one (in blue) when its work brunches pass the
high magnitude zone (the blue strip) generating a big “positive” precession angular momentum about axis “Y”
(Figure 5 (c) in blue). Then during the Recovering stroke the flywheel turns in opposite direction (Figure 5 (b) in
green) from the line “4-4” to the “3-3” one when the work brunches pass the low magnitude zone (the green strip)
generating small “negative” precession angular momentums (Figure 5 (c) in green) recovering this way the work
stroke starting position. By means of high frequently repeating the cycle a permanent and unidirectional torque
called “Active” one is generated about axis “Y” with magnitude equal the “spilled” in the frame of the ∆t period
difference between the “positive” and “negative” angular momentums.

Since the big precession angular momentum demands a strong effort to turn the SDD Flywheel about axis “Z” its
Newtonian reaction is a big (strong) reactive angular momentum in direction taken as “positive” one (Figure 5 (d) in
blue). And vice versa, since the small precession angular momentum demands a weakly “turn” in opposite direction
about axis “Z” its Newtonian reaction is a small reactive angular momentum about the axis of “Z” in direction taken
as “negative” one (Figure 5 (d) in green). Dividing again the small “negative” from the big “positive” ones and then
“spilling” the result in the frame of ∆t period the magnitude of the permanent and unidirectional acting about axis
“Z” torque called “Reactive of the turning” or “Rt” one is received.

However the so described machine has two energy inputs: via SDD Flywheels rotation about axis “O-O” and via
SDD Flywheels turning about axis “Z” and 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
 8

unidirectional angular momentums have to be invested during the both work and recovering strokes. Their
Newtonian reactions should be always unidirectional reactive angular momentums as shown in Figure 5 (e) in blue
and green. “Spilling” them in the frame of ∆t period the magnitude of a permanent acting torque called “Reactive of
the rotation” or “Rr” one is received. Here is explained the principle only the real picture is more complicated.

Inventive step eight

Figure 6. (a) The first successful device 2004 (b) a 3D interaction (concept)

This way the shacking axis of rotation “O-O” is already taken as fixed one coinciding with the fixed axis “X”.
Therefore the unidirectional and permanent “Rr” (in blue) torque acts about the so fixed to vehicle axis of rotation
“X” same as the unidirectional and permanent “Active” (in black) and “Rt” (in green) torques act about the fixed
perpendicular axis “Y” and “Z” Figure 6 (b). Figure 6 (a) shows the first successful device built up 2004. Figure 6
(b) shows a closed system consists of vehicle (also load) and SDD Flywheel (not shown) which axes are placed
parallel to the same name virtual axes of the device from Figure 6 (a) (not shown). The connected to the vehicle
electric motor applies on the SDD Flywheel a rotation drive torque called “Dr” (in red from ‘Figure 6 (b)) about the
axis of rotation “X”. In its turn the SDD Flywheel reacts to the vehicle with equal and opposite reactive the rotation
torque “Rr” (in blue) composing the first in plane Classical Mechanics interaction reduced to Newtonian 1D one.
The same one or another motor applies from vehicle upon the SDD Flywheel a turning drive torque called “Dt” (in
red) about the axis “Y” which in its turn reacts to the vehicle with equal and opposite reactive the turning torque
“Rt” (in green), assembling this way the second one (reduced to) Newtonian 1D interaction. By means of together
work of the both connected perpendicular each other and permanent “Dr” and “Dt” torques a new torque
perpendicular to the first two is generated – the “Active” one (in black) – acting from the SDD Flywheel on vehicle
about the axis “Y”. In its turn the vehicle reacts with equal and opposite torque called “Reactive of the “Active” or
“Ar” (in red) forming this way the third one (reduced to) Newtonian 1D interaction. The three interacting between
them (reduced to) linear interactions obviously presents one whole assembled subject acting in the 3D spatial space
called a 3D interaction – in fact presenting a 3D concept. The core of the 3D interaction consists of “Dr”, “Dt”, and
“Active” torques since the “Active” torque is result of the acting “Dr” and “Dt” ones. From the point of view of the
vehicle the SDD Flywheel acts on it by three permanent and perpendicular each one against the others torques called
“concomitants”: “Active”, “Rr” and “Rt” ones. In its turn the vehicle acts on the SDD Flywheel with three equal and
opposite to the concomitant torques called “anti-concomitants”: “Dr”, “Dt” and “Ra” ones.

Obviously the vector sum of the acting on the vehicle concomitant torques is equal and opposite to the vector sum of
the anti-concomitant torques (both not shown) according the Galileo’s principle of projective motions. This way the
3D interaction is reduced to a ready for use able to propel our vehicles 1D one. Somebody can ask: What is the
different between the received 1D interaction and the “usual” 1D one? For what all of this was if finally the torque
of the vector sum of the concomitant torques (“Active”, “Rr” and “Rt”) is balanced by equal and opposite torque of
the vector sum of the anti-concomitant torques (“Ra”, “Dr” and “Dt”) and this way the Third Newtonian Law (for
rotation) is satisfied again? The answer is: First: The reducing is a necessary property because we need to propel
vehicle (reduced to) linear and therefore the torque applied to a vehicle has to be always equal and opposite the one
vehicle reacts. Second: If the 3D interaction doesn’t exist, on the vehicle would act the vector sum of the Newtonian
equal and opposite reactions Rr and Rt only. But because the 3D interaction is in action, another torque,
perpendicular to the Rr and Rt Newtonian reactions (the “Active” one) is added to the vector sum. With other words,
 9

the 3D interaction provides another vector sum, having different magnitude and direction then the vector sum of the
Newtonian reactions, not predicted by the famous Newtonian Third Law. Third: Another significant change is in the
performance of the flywheel: If the interaction between the SDD Flywheel and vehicle makes one of the interacting
objects – the vehicle –to accelerating i.e. its speed of rotation changes according to the Second Newtonian Law, it is
not because the SDD Flywheel accelerates in opposite direction too (the Second Law) but because it rotates with
changeless speed.
Imagine a virtual example consists of a suspended somehow in airless space over water surface (environment)
vehicle (load) connected with a submerged in the water environment impeller. The vehicle applies on the impeller a
permanent and unidirectional torque that makes it rotate with nominal (changeless) speed because of the friction
with water. In view of the fact that there is no similar friction between the vehicle and airless space the equal and
opposite reactive torque acting on the vehicle makes it accelerate overcoming its inertia. Really the maximal speed
of the vehicle can not exceed the maximal possible speed it can rotate the impeller. But the important is that this
virtual example involves three objects (bodies): vehicle impeller and water environment connected by two linear
interactions: one between vehicle and impeller and second one between impeller and water. But the example from
the Figure 6 involves two objects only: SDD Flywheel and vehicle (load) connected by one 3D interaction. The third
object is missing. Obviously the point is that the complicated 3D interaction between the SDD Flywheel and vehicle
replaces the 1D interaction between the impeller and environment from the virtual example.

Inventive step nine

Since the torque equal the vector sum of the concomitants is generated by a rotating with nominal speed flywheel
and therefore the process is theoretically permanent and uninterruptible there is reason to call the machine from
Figure 6 (a) “a generator” that is to say a Free Torque Generator (FTG). But the “Active”, “Rr” and “Rt” torques
have different nature of generation and therefore different output performance curves. Thus the magnitude but also
direction of the vector sum of the concomitants is function of the speed of rotation of the generator as closed system
(together with the vehicle). That’ way not only the magnitude but also the direction of the axis of the vector sum acts
floats relative vehicle i.e. it is not fixed. For that reason the next task is to obtain single concomitant torque acting
unidirectional and permanent about fixed to the vehicle axis by its freeing (separating, isolating) from the others.
This is: 1. question of the nature of the generation of the concomitant torques; 2. question of internal for the closed
system balancing of the needless concomitant torques with sister ones. Here will be discussed three simple examples
from the second group only.

“Active” torque feeing example:

Figure 7. (a) initial position (b) “Active” freeing position (c) a doubled “Active” is freed

Since the number of devices consists of the closed system is not limited the system can be composed by two (or
more) sisters FTG connected to the vehicle (not shown) and placed in the spatial space in the way the sister axes are
in parallel, Figure 7 (a). Another requirement is that the axes of the sister torques that have to be freed (“Y1” and
“Y2” in this example) have to be placed as closer as it is possible. This way the torques from each of the “Active1”–
“Active2” (in black); “Rr1 –“Rr2”(in blue) and “Rt1”–“Rt2” (in green) couples act in same directions about parallel
 10

axes. The simplest way to change the situation is just to unfix one of the sister FTG, for example the lower one, to
turn it in 180 degrees about the axis “Y2” and to fix it again, Figure 7 (b). This way the “Rr1” torque already
balances the “Rr2” one same like “Rt1” torque balances the “Rt2” one. Thereby a doubled “Active” torque (or both
unidirectional “Active1” and “Active 2” ones) is freed (separated, isolated) from its (their) concomitants “Rr(s)” and
“Rt(s)”, Figure 7 (c). The fried torque same as the ones fried from the other two examples bellow act about fixed to
the vehicle axis but also present a “pure” performance curves of their nature as explained in the “Brief pendulum
tests analyzes” bellow.

“Rr” torque feeing example:

Figure 8. (a) initial position (b) “Rr” freeing position (c) a doubled “Rr” is freed

Similar closed system composed by two (or more) sister FTG is placed in the spatial space in the way the sister axes
are in parallel (see Figure 8 (a)) but the axis of the sister torques have to be freed (“X1” and “X2” in the case) are
placed as closer as it is possible. This way the sister torques from each one of the couples act in same directions
about parallel axes. Then let’s just change the direction of the SDD Flywheel’s turning of one of the sister FTG for
example the lower one ‘Figure 8 (b)’ in the way if for example prior the change the SDD Flywheel turns in
“forward” direction when the work branches cross the maximal magnitude zone (from line “3-3” to “4-4” one in
blue from Figure 5 (b) and in “opposite” direction when they cross the minimal magnitude zone (from line “3-3” to
“4-4” one in green), after the change it turns in “opposite” direction when the work branches cross the maximal
magnitude zone (i.e. from line “4-4” to “3-3”) and in “forward” direction when they cross the minimal magnitude
zone (“3-3” to “4-4”). The action changes the direction of the “Rt2” torque but also changes the direction of the
“Active2” one. This way the “Active1” balances the “Active2” same as the “Rt1” balances the “Rt2” one. Thus a
doubled “Rr” torque is freed (separated, isolated) from the concomitants “Active(s)” and “Rt(s)” ones ‘Figure 8 (c)’.

“Rt” torque feeing example:

Figure 9. (a) initial position (b) “Rt” freeing position (c) a doubled “Rt” is freed
 11

Similar two sister FTG are placed in the spatial space in the way their sister axes in parallel (Figure 9 (a)) but the
axis of the sister torques have to be freed (“Z1” and “Z2) are placed as closer each one to the other one as it is
possible. The sister torques from each one of the three couples act in same directions about parallel axes. Then let’s
just change the direction of the SDD Flywheel’s rotation of one of the sister FTG for example the lower one (Figure
9 (b)). This action changes the direction of the “Rr2” torque but also changes the direction of the “Active2” one.
This way the “Active1” balances the “Active2” one same like the “Rr1” balances the “Rr2” one. Thereby a doubled
“Rt” toque is freed (separated, isolated) from its (their) concomitants “Active(s)” and “Rr(s)” (Figure 9 (c)).

Pendulum Tests

As mentioned above the vector sum of the concomitant torques same as each of the freed torques can be taken as
single permanent and unidirectional reactionless torque acting from the SDD Flywheel to the vehicle if two
conditions are satisfied: First; if both objects – the SDD flywheel and the vehicle - compose a closed system i.e.
there is no interaction with objects out of the closed system. Second; if the torque is able to accelerate vehicle i.e.
able to change the state of motion of the vehicle but in the same time its mirror image is not able to accelerate the
SDD Flywheel i.e. is not able to change the state of motion of the SDD Flywheel. There is also another possibility:
If the rotating with nominal speed SDD Flywheel generates a torque without interaction with object out of the closed
system but in the same time the vehicle rotates with nominal speed too because of friction with object or
environment out of the closed system or because of overcoming a potential resistant torque.

Figure 10. (a) FTG demo device 2006 (b) ”Active” torque test (c) ”Rr” torque test

The main question here is how to test and can we believe the results? The answer is not easy because gravitation
makes contact between objects unavoidable. The other reason is that there is no successful practice in this field since
such class of devices have been rejected only but never accepted. The Author agrees with the statement of [3]
concerning possible mechanical Breakthrough Propulsion assessment that pendulum test is the only one able to
provide genuine result (in gravity condition). Naturally in the case of reactionless torque testing a torsion pendulum
test is discussed. Using of threads or ropes consist of many factory wind rounded elementary lines are not
appropriate because of their natural self unwind tendency, as bigger as heavier is the suspended object. Therefore
mono cord or line is advisable. In some cases the line can be damaged by the testing device twisting it too much.
That’s way for key tests a lines never twisted before are preferable. There are at any rate three reasons to believe that
the suspended object acts as a closed system: 1. Gravy force acting on the object is balanced by the pulling force
from the line the object is hang. 2. Even if the forces are not in balance the resulting force passes through mass
centre of the object and thus can not generate torque. 3. Even if the resulting force does not pass through the mass
centre of the system it can not create torque in horizontal plane because it acts in vertical direction.

Here is shown an examined FTG working model in size of grapefruit and weight of 180 grams having own power
supply and remote controllable (Figure 10 (a)) as required by [3]. The SDD Flywheel is in a foam material cover
giving it the “usual” disc shape reducing friction with air. However friction between the covered flywheel and air
can be excluded at all if the experiments are repeated with FTG in plastic bag. Please note the differences with the
virtual example from above: If in the virtual example the friction between the impeller and water is the factor
driving the vehicle in rotation here the friction between the covered flywheel and the air closed in the plastic bag can
 12

not be a driving factor – it is related to the friction in the bearings and other mechanical looses and should be added
to the mechanical efficiency of the generator; If in the virtual example friction between vehicle and airless
environment does not exist and therefore the driving torque just accelerates rotation of vehicle overcoming its inertia
according the Newtonian Second law here the friction between the connected to the vehicle plastic bag and the air
out of the bag is a factor that can limit the nominal speed of rotation of vehicle in combination with another factors
as for example the resistance of the already twisted line and factors from the nature of the generation. Anyhow main
test procedure consists of four steps:
1. The FTG is hung on a line along the axis of “Y” (Figure 10 (b)). Result: After starting the flywheel’s rotation the
device rotates continuously with speed of 3-10 revolutions/minute because of the action 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 of “X” (Figure 10 (c)). Result: After starting the flywheel’s rotation the
device rotates continuously with speed of 100 or more rev/min because of the action of the “Rr” torque. The
“Active” and “Rt” torques are balanced by the gravitation.
3. The FTG is hung on a line along the axis of “Z” (Figure 11 (a)). Result: After starting the flywheel’s rotation the
device rotates continuously with speed of 3-10 rev/min because of the “Rt” torque. The “Active” and “Rr” torques
are balanced by the gravitation.

Figure 11. (a) “Rt” test (b) ∑T test (c) “Big Load” test

4. The FTG is hung along the probably direction of the vectors sum of the concomitant torques (Figure 11 (b)).
Result: After starting the flywheel’s rotation the device rotates continuously and unidirectional.
5. In additional test the FTG is placed same like in the (Figure 10 (c)) but coupled with 18” steel bicycle wheel
representing the load of the space vehicle (Figure 11 (c)). The inertia moment of the load is approximately 32 000
times bigger then the inertia moment of the SDD Flywheel. Analyze in given in the “Brief pendulum tests analyzes”
bellow.
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 of the discharging of the batteries, the resistance with air and the twisted line. The
rotation stops when the twisted line resists with enough big torque in opposite direction. The results of the tested
device in plastic bag are a little reduced then the opened ones.

An essentials of negative oral and written opinions as grouped here can help the understanding of the problem:
- The rotation of the closed system is caused the work of the SDD Flywheel as a propeller or impeller (hinting the
covered flywheel from “Figure 6 (a)”);
- The rotation is caused by the twisted line the device is hung;
- The rotation is caused by a friction inside the device;
- The rotation is caused by a friction between the flywheel and air (hinting the flywheel from (Figure 10 (a));
And also:
- Actually the device generates one torque (hinting the “Rr” one) but the others (“Active” and “Rt” ones) are its
projections;
-The observed efficiency is too low (hinting the “Active” and “Rt” torques).
The “Written Opinion” [4] of the European Patent Office (EPO) experts consists of statements as for example: “1.4
It appears that the subject matter of the claims, seen in relation with the description, attempts to define the so-called
perpetual motion machines and/or a process of obtaining a perpetual rotating motion.” and then: “1.7 The above
mentioned well-established physical laws which forbid the successful functioning of a perpetuum mobile are the
First and Second Law of Thermodynamics.” The Author is tempted to believe that if it is true the Perpetuum Mobile
 13

is already invented!!! Congratulations!!! …. But unfortunately the obviously chaotic resistance performed by the
opponents leads to the conclusion that the problem is much more psychological then technological.

Brief pendulum tests analyzes

Look at the tests from Figure 10 (b) and Figure 11 (a): The generated “Active” or “Rt” torques rotates the device
about the vertical axes (“Y” or “Z”). But it proves that since the axis of the SDD Flywheel’s rotation “X” is
horizontal and fixed to the device the torque turns the axis “X” together with the flywheel about vertical “Y” or “Z”
i.e. perpendicular the axis of rotation “X”. Therefore a precession torque appears about the third axis (“Z” or “Y”)
perpendicular to the first two i.e. about the other horizontal axis. The case from Figure 10 (b) is shown again in
Figure 12 (a). The generated “Active” torque (in black) turns the rotating about axis “X” flywheel about the vertical
axis “Y” together with the device. It leads to precession torque generation about axis “Z” (in red). In the case from
Figure 11 (a) shown again in Figure 12 (b) the generated “Rt” torque (in green) turns the rotating about axis “X”
flywheel about the vertical axis “Z” together with the device. It leads to precession torque generation about axis “Y”
(in red). In their nature these precession torques are parasitic because their generation deprives energy from the
flywheel’s rotation about axis “X” and from its rotating (turning) about the vertical axis (“Y” or “Z”). That’s way in
the both cases appear a ““Rr” of the precession torque” about axis “X” (in red from Figure 12 (a) and (b)) directed
always in the direction of the “Rr” torque (in blue) and also a ““Rt” of the precession torque” about the vertical axis
(“Y” or “Z”) always opposite the torque that rotates the flywheel about the vertical axis (“Active” or “Rt”). As
bigger is the “Active” or “Rt” torque as faster is the rotation about the vertical axis and as bigger is the generated
parasite precession torque and therefore as bugger is the “Rt of the precession torque” causing it and finally as
bigger is the lessening of the speed of the rotation about the vertical axis. This interdependence makes the output
performance curves of the generated “Active” and “Rt” Torques very steep. Therefore a small and strong defined
speed of rotation about the vertical axis is observed. The reason for that speed can be easy confused with possible
projection of “Rr” torque. Anyhow special tests can easy clear the problem.

Figure 12. (a) Parasite precession driven by “Active” torque (b) Parasite precession driven by “Rt” torque

Much different is the situation demonstrated in the test from Figure 10 (c). Electric motor rotates SDD Flywheel
relative the connected to the vehicle stator with a given speed. It distributes between the absolute (relative observer)
speed of the driven by the rotor flywheel and the opposite directed absolute speed of the driven by the stator vehicle.
Thus the nominal speed of rotation of the vehicle is result of distributed work done by the electric motor between the
work done by the SDD Flywheel generating the “Active” torque (in perpendicular direction) and the work for
vehicle’s rotation. Mechanical looses inside the device, friction with air and getting over the elastic torque of the
twisted line have to be taken in account too. If for example because of increased resistance between the vehicle and
air the speed of rotation of the vehicle decreases it causes redistribution of the speeds i.e. the work done by the
electric motor: the absolute speed of the SDD Flywheel increases increasing the driving the vehicle “Rr” torque
overcoming the resistance and vice versa. The interdependence makes the output performance curves of the “Rr”
torque fairly slant. In additional the “Rr” torque magnitude can be increased if the same electric motor that rotates
the SDD Flywheel is loaded with the turning too – following the technical solutions from Figure 6 (a) and Figure 10
(a). All of this makes the “Rr” torque the most profitable one.

In reality the whole process of the SDD Flywheel’s work can be divided in three periods, see Figure 13: The first
period prolongs from the moment of time the electric motor is switched on to the moment of time the SDD
 14

Flywheels (same vehicle) reaches its nominal speed. During that period the SDD Flywheel works as reaction wheel
(RW) producing a “positive” angular momentum “+RW1” accelerating the vehicle in the desired direction but also it
works as a FTG producing a “positive” reactionless angular momentum “+FGT1”. During the second in theory not
limited long period SDD Flywheel rotates with nominal speed generating not limited “positive” reactionless angular
momentum “+FTG2”. The third period spans from the moment of time the power is switched off to the moment the
speed of the SDD Flywheel relative the closed system stands zero. The flywheel generates a “+FTG3” “positive”
and “–RW3” “negative” angular momentums. The “+FTG1” and “+FTG3” angular momentums are ignorable small.
Thus the next analyses involve “+RW1”, “+FTG2” and “–RW3” ones. Simplified picture includes analysis of three
correlations: 1: the speed the vehicle rotates the flywheel is always equal the sum of the absolute speeds of the
flywheel and vehicle; 2: a relation between the angular momentums of the flywheel and vehicle; and 3: the relation
between the reactionless torque generated during the second period and the resistance vehicle’s rotation torque.
Three specific types of behavior are examined in relation between the inertia moments of the flywheel and load
(vehicle) and the friction between the vehicle and air:

1. If the load’s inertia moment is critical relative the SDD Flywheel’s one (Figure 13 (a)): In the first period the load
(in blue) and flywheel (in green) accelerates in opposite directions because of the “+RW1” angular momentum as it
can be seen here [6]. In the end of the first period the load and flywheel reach their absolutes and nominal speeds
satisfying two conditions: their angular momentums are equal the “+RW1” one and the resistant load’s rotation
torque (function of the load’s speed) is equal the generated “Rr” torque (function the flywheel’s speed). This way
the generated “Rr” torque is invested to balance the torque that resists the vehicle’s rotation. Therefore during the
second period vehicle rotates in theory not limited long time maintaining its nominal speed if there in no another
factors as for example increasing of elastic resistant torque of the twisting line. In the third period switching off the
power the whole closed system stops at place at once looking like its inertia is zero. This is possible because the
angular momentum of the flywheel balances the equal and opposite load’s one completely. The demo device from
Figure 10 (a) is designed to perform the above behavior. The Author tempts to mention that this behavior is in
relation with probable observed behavior of UFOs able sharply to stop or change the direction of their flight. But in
reality if the length of the line is too short or the second period is too long (not shown) the “Rr” torque is invested
also to twist the line more and more overcoming an increasing resistant elastic torque. Naturally in this case
switching off the power the whole system accelerates in opposite direction because of the elastic toque.

Figure 13. Brief “Rr” Torque analyses (a) The angular momentum of the closed system is not changed (b) The
angular momentum of the closed system changes in the direction of the rotation of the flywheel (c) The angular
momentum of the closed system changes in the direction of the rotation of the load

2. If the load’s inertia moment is very small (Figure 13 (b)): In the end of the first period the angular momentums of
the load and flywheel are equal “+RW1” one again. The difference is that since the inertia moment of the load is
smaller then the one from the previous case the load rotates faster causing increasing of the friction between vehicle
and air. But it means also that because of the connected speeds the flywheel rotates with smaller the in the previous
case speed generating smaller magnitude “Rr” torque and can not cover the increased resistance of the load. It
causes redistribution of the speeds in the beginning the second period: the load’s speed decreases causing increasing
of the flywheel’s speed; the process leads to decreasing of the resistant load’s rotation torque and increasing of the
“Rr” torque till they become equal. But this way the angular momentum of the flywheel becomes already bigger
then the one of the load. Therefore after switching off the power the load’s angular momentum can not balance the
flywheel’s angular momentum after the end of the third period the whole system rotates with remaining speed. The
 15

angular momentum of the closed system is changed but in opposite the load’s rotation during the second period
direction.

3. If the load’s inertia moment is big or very big (Big Load) (Figure 13 (c)); this is the same case as from Figure 11
(c): In the end of the first period the angular momentums of the load and flywheel are equal again but the speed of
the load is very small because its inertia moment in 32 000 times bigger then the flywheel’s one. The load’s speed is
much smaller then 1 rev/min that’s way its friction with air is small and therefore the resistant torque is ignorable
small. This way the generated during the second period “Rr” torque increases the speed of the load overcoming its
inertia only. The process leads to increasing of the angular momentum of the load too. As is seen from the
demonstrations [6] in the end of 30 seconds long second period the speed of the load is 2 rev/min approximately.
The redistribution of speeds between the flywheel and vehicle is very small but in the picture is shown a perceptible
big one. In the end of the second period the angular momentum of the load is already much bigger then the
flywheel’s one. That’s way after switching off the power the flywheel’s angular momentum reduces the speed of the
load just a little. After the end of the third period the whole system rotates with remaining speed conserving the
direction of the load. The angular momentum of the closed system is changed.

If in the first two cases the changing of the closed system’s angular momentum is suspicious because of the
participation of friction between the air and load in the last case this argument is excluded same as from the virtual
example from inventive step eight but not because the vehicle is placed in airless environment but because of the
very small speed of rotation of the load. In the same time if in the case from the virtual example in which the friction
between the impeller and water is the factor causing the rotation of the vehicle, in the case of the “Big load” the
friction between the flywheel and the air in a plastic bag is excluded as a driving the vehicle factor. Actually this is
the real applicable in Space vehicle case foreseeing an inertia moment of vehicle millions of times bigger then the
SDD Flywheel’s one.

CONCLUSION
The vehicle applies torques on the SDD Flywheel about two perpendicular fixed to it axes. The result of the
combined work of the both torques is torque acting from the flywheel on the vehicle about a third fixed axis
perpendicular to the first two. The process is permanent and uninterruptible. Each one of the torques is balanced by
an equal and opposite reactions forming this way a (reduced to) 1D interaction in conformity of the Third
Newtonian Law. The reactive torques act on vehicle accompanied by the generated one all of them called
concomitants. In its turn the vehicle acts on the flywheel by three perpendiculars each other anti – concomitant
torques. The Author’s opinion is that the interaction between the three perpendicular each other (reduced to) linear
interactions form a 3D interaction – a subject not predicted in the Classical Mechanics. The 3D concept offers large
number of ways for freeing of a single torque from its concomitants. A Free (reactionless) Torque Generation able to
change the angular momentum of a closed system is achieved.

Obviously the spatial 3D world does not consist of 1D interaction only. The 3D interaction doesn’t “dismiss” the 1D
one. The 1D interaction acts as separated elements about the each of the perpendicular axis participating in the 3D
interaction. 3D interaction has its specifics but does not claim a perpetual motion. If a 1D interaction is in
conformity with the Third Newtonian Law generalized by the Superposition principle in its turn the 3D interaction
can be defined by a announced here “Principle of Deflection” stating the perpendicularity of the respond of
perpendicular interacting Classical Mechanic’s interactions. In some cases the Principle of Deflection (or refraction)
involves acting about perpendicular fixed axis “pure” torques or torques combined with forces. That’s way
(possible) Free Force Generation is a modified Free Torque Generation. Therefore the reason FTG development and
tests is important is because it verifies the methods, principles and philosophy of Free Propulsion Technology (FPT).
FTG development delivers bigger possibilities for experiments and analyzes in gravity and air conditions then
possible FFG development can suggest. FTG is also an important implement for overcoming the psychological
problem. The Principle of Deflection probably stays in the fundament of a new subject that can be called
“Mechanics of Deflection” – a class of mechanics that deals with perpendicularity of 2D and 3D interactions
between rigid bodies, i.e. it is a Spatial Mechanics. The Mechanics of Deflection initiates new understanding about
tens of important statements from the Classical Mechanics. And finally the Mechanics of Deflection is a class of
nonlinear mechanics opening new door for further developments.
 16

References:

[1] Bojidar Djordjev, WO/2008/070938, “Forces Generative Method” Available at:

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2008070938
[2] Richard Feynman, “The Feynman Lectures on Physics” ADDISON-WESLEY Publishing Company 1963
[3] 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
[4] Ellzbieta Sogno-Pabis, Pietro Rini, “Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority” (Separate Sheet)
PCT/BG2007/000022, European Patent Office
”http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2008070938&IA=BG2007000022&DISPLAY=DOCS
[5] Bojidar Djordjev “Free (Reaction less) Torque Generation Fiction of Reality” Control Systems Corfu 2008
WSEAS conference http://www.worldses.org/books/2008/corfu/control_systems.pdf
[6] Bojidar Djordjev Free Propulsion Power/Demonstrations http://www.freepropulsion.com/index.php?id=17

NOMENCLATURE
F = force (newton) J = inertia moment (kg.m2)
T = torque (N.m) t = time (seconds)
angular speed (rad/s) angular momentum (N.m.s)
angle (radians) mass (kg)

ACRONYMS
“Active” – The generated precession torque about axis “Y”
Anti-concomitants – The three perpendiculars torques the vehicle acts on flywheel
“Ar”- The torque reactive the generated precession one (the “Active” one)
Concomitants – The three perpendiculars torques the flywheel acts on vehicle
“Dr”- The torque that rotates the flywheel about axis “X”
“Dt”- The torque that turns the flywheel about axis “Z”
EPO - European Parent Office
FFG – Free (reactionless) Force Generator
FTG – Free (reactionless) Torque Generator
“Rr” – The torque reactive of the flywheel’s rotation about axis “X”
“Rt” – The torque reactive of the flywheel’s turning abour axis “Z”
SDD Flywheel – Sector rated along a diametrical direction flywheel
FPT – Free Propulsion Thechnology