> Vano,
>
> If it an object is rotating at a pretty good speed and the moment of interial
> is the axis where the object is spun, then the resulting forces F_a and F_b
> will be equal such that F_a - F_b is zero. Please explain further why they
> are not equal. The masses are the same? and the rotational speed the
> same? and distance r?
>
> *Now we try to relate the two centrifugal forces which affect our
> masses in our example:
> ( F_net is net total force )
>
> F_net = F_a - F_b
>
> F_net = F_a - F_b = m_a r_a w^2 - m_b r_b w^2
>
> -simplifying it :
>
> F_net = F_a - F_b = ( m_a r_a - m_b r_b ) w^2
r_a and r_b are the distances between the center of rotation and masses A and B. What I want to do is to create an imbalanced
rotation, in such a way that always F_a will be stronger than F_b. This can be done either by varying the mass of the spinning
masses in phase and with the same frequency as the rotation in such a way that during rotation, in a certain direction we will
always experiment more mass than the opposite direction. (I haven't seen a practical case of this system yet, although I have
one in mind) Or we can keep the masses constant and vary the length ( in my example, implemented in designs around the net,
such as the GIT in http://www.open.org/davidc ( although my opinion about the GIT is mixed ), a superconducting one:
http://www.supersymmetry.com ). Also ofcourse we can keep the length and masses constant and vary the angular velocity, which
I think is harder to design practically, but apparently this is the method used in the Lorrey Drive:
http://homepages.together.net/~retroman. Whatever the system the main idea is what is explained in the Lorrey drive's
excellent page. I recommend people to read that page to understand the concept, although I still have to figure out the
problem with the reaction force, which apparently Lorrey has solved. It's a shame that he is keeping it all secret. It's
people like him who darken the future of humanity.