Otis T. Carr

[Dingus]

I think the reason it uses aluminum is because it's non-ferrous. Either that or maybe it's because aluminum's cheaper than steel.

[sorveltaja]

I wonder, how many versions of the "Dimensions of Mystery" exists.

One is available on Ralph Ring's website, (actually at Scribd.com):Otis Carr, OTC - X1 Complete Part 3 - Dimensions Of Mystery / Schematics

Another one, that has a few additional pages(maybe an updated one?), and also higher resolution images on the schematics -section, when compared to previous one, at archive.org: Otis_Carr_OTC - X1_Complete_Part_3 - Dimensions_Of_Mystery_/_Schematics : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Interesting reading, although in form of cipher.

Quotation from the book: "FORGET THREE DIMENSIONAL THINKING. This design can not be understood in the 3rd dimension.", gets me puzzled, as there are schematics, based on the very 3D, mechanical, moving parts.

After reading Carr's interview at Project Camelot | Ralph Ring and Otis Carr, I got even more puzzled.

Scroll down to the half way of that page, where Carr explains, how one of his models was spun at 40000 rpm, and that its relative rotation was at 68000 rpm.

"OTC: This model was spun at 40,000 rpms a minute and when it did it set a pressure pattern of 1,000 tons, the horsepower reading was a little over 700. Six engineers checked this out. Now the relative rotation of this model would be about 68,000 rpms a minute and when it reaches this rotation, it would immediately take off."

My math sucks, but I did some calculations anyway, to get the size of an object, whose relative rotation is 68000 rpm. Object's diameter would be similar to cd-disk. Feel free to correct me, if there is any errors.

But, let's assume, for a minute, that you have a cd-disk in front of you.

Spinning that disk at 68000 rpm could be exciting enough on its own, but how about attaching six Utrons, with trunnions, to it?

It would, in a simple way, explode/disintegrate at that speed. No matter, how well balanced.

My cheap-o-conclusion is, that the part of Carr's interview, that I quoted, is also a part of the cipher, and that the mechanical(parts) movement isn't part of this device at all.

[sorveltaja]

As a reply to Farmhand's latest message, I totally agree, that $500 per piece, for machining two aluminum cones, is way too much.

I have watched only recent(2012) updates at 'Search4TruthReality's Youtube channel, but, thanks to Farmhand's links, I watched earlier ones too.

At first, I got very excited about this project, when I saw, how guys over the globe were participating for sheer humanity. Until my eyes opened.

At this day, it seems, that they are only reproducing Carr's amusement device, with all the bells and whistles, as presented on the very Ralph Ring's website: OTC-X1 Efforts » Blue Star Enterprise – Ralph Ring's Website

Sad I am, but this is the path, that I'm intended to walk.

[Farmhand]

Hi sorveltaja, I agree there are some glaring inconsistencies, I will most certainly
be checking out the info you have presented, thank you very much.

Here's a some thoughts I was pondering, I posted the below text elsewhere
and it is copy/paste. Of course it is only my theory but it explains that "anti-gravity"
would be an effect produced by a "gravity generator" and just one of the effects.

I think there is a difference between gravity generation and anti-gravity.
Because we are on Earth the earths gravity and our mass determins our "weight"
If we think of ourselves as the Mass, and on Earth we weigh 100kgs and in
zero gravity we weigh zero kgs, then the Earths gravity is the cause of the weight
and it's amount. If say for arguments sake a rotating device developed it's
own gravity, it might become buoyant, repulsed or attracted, so it could
exhibit three modes in relation to another body with significant gravity.

1. Null gravity mode ( No weight with respect to other body )
2. Anti-Gravity mode ( Repulsion-Less weight with respect to other body )
3. Gravity mode (More weight with respect to other body )

Attraction- Equilibrium- Repulsion , Sounds like a familiar theme with life in general.

And if the device exhibited a gravitation equal to Earth an "occupant would weigh the same as in Earths gravity".
The device itself would only weigh something in relation to something else,
and so in that given situation it would still weigh the same but in relation to
the occupant not the Earth. Distance would also play a part in this, "within influence"
is a term which comes to mind.

Cheers

P.S. A device which made itself heavier would also have its uses.

So it may well be possible that as the relative rotation is approached the
device becomes less inclined to fly apart just as the Earth does not fly apart.

That is not to say that I think the actual rotating Utrons are necessary for
just producing energy.

If you could imagine with the quoted text that if two scales were placed
one on a hovering device (exhibiting bouyancy in Earths gravity) and the
other on the Earths surface, an individual could step from one scale to the
other and both scales would read the same weight, because the craft would
be generating it's own gravity and free of Earth gravitational pull,
However you and the device weigh nothing with respect to the Earth when
you are in it while it's buoyant, but for you to weigh something in reference
to the device the device must weigh something with reference to you.

Hence a device that is generating it's own gravity does not change mass only
weight relative the Earth.

I have a preliminary sketch for a high speed counter rotating device which
uses regular permanent magnets and "C" shaped field magnets however it is
still in concept form and just an idea. It would require a commutator and
brushes though. The design is fairly simple but it would require quite a bit of
effort to construct for high speed, being that the entire thing would need to
be balanced, including coils wire brushes ect. It is a case of bigger means
slower, slower means easier.

Cheers

[Farmhand]

Here is the sketch attached.

The slip rings provide the power rails for the coils, the switches between the
rotors could be rotary contact switches or optical devices to provide signals
for microprocessor control. This is a cross section of the basic design there could be
two bearings for the center rotor and the outer rotor's bottom bearing housing is upside
down it should be inverted, or the outer part of the bearing held from both
sides.

This is just a basic design of how a counter rotating pulse motor could be built,
the relative rotational speed will be the sum of the two with respect to the
base. So the required "bearing speed" is halved, more or less. Many other
things could be done. I doubt we will see full effects if the device is pushing
against the Earth to rotate. There should be no rotation "frictional" forces
exerted between the device and the Earth. I think.

The brushes could be on the base and the slip rings on the outer rotor.
The drag from the brushes would need to be "countered" somehow. The drag
between the base and outer rotor could be countered actively by a magnetic
brake of some kind between the center rotor and the shaft, and a
commutator or slip rings could be used as well, if the inner rotor had coils
rather than permanent magnets the coils could be put into a series circuit
with the "C" shaped magnets by a commutator, just as in a universal motor.

Cheers

[sorveltaja]

Farmhand, is your design based on two coils, or perhaps more?

What comes to using commutators to supply the coils, or more so, replacing them with modern tech switches, could be the way to operate the device at a much higher speed, if needed.

I bring here an idea, that popped to my mind, while reading your latest replies.

It's about that relative rotation, as it seems to be the 'natural' speed/frequency, at which certain sized devices work at their the best.

Meaning, that any sized devices are naturally seeking for their relative rotation, if allowed. And, if all conditions(technical, mechanical, electrical) are met, something special happens.

Just one of my wild visions, that I can't explain any better, no matter, how much I use the dictionary.

[Farmhand]

hi sorveltaja, The design is multi-coil, there should be twice as many outer "C"
shaped magnets as inner rotor magnets/coils, the capacitor plates plus inner
magnets equals the outer "C" shaped magnets/coils. At this point I'm not
worrying about the capacitor plates just yet.

What modern device can transfer power from a stationary element to a rotating
element ? The slip rings are needed, also if the center rotor had coils then a
commutator would also be necessary as far as I can tell.

If the center rotor has permanent magnets then only the slip rings are needed,
no commutator would be required, the coils could be switched by optical
interrupters or optical switches "photoreflectors" The switches I drew inside
the device between the rotors are symbolic, they could be optical switches.

At this point I'm planning 8 outer coils/magnets and 4 inner for a small device.

I think the coils should be switched in two sets, so only two circuits would be
needed. One set on while the other set is off, as the first set demagnetize
over the capacitor plates the second set is pulsed "on". The energy from the
demagnetizing coils would be recovered, possibly directly to power the "on"
set of coils.

I've ordered some optical switches, bearings and such things as well I am
building a microprocessor controlled "switch board" which has four mosfets,
the board could have four separate channels or they could be paralleled to 2
or 1 set. I will have provision for four separate inputs from the optical devices
and there will be two other input/outputs if needed. The chip I chose is a
picaxe 14M2.

I should only need two channels, but they will be there. Even if I were to use
12 outer magnet/coils and 6 inner there should still be only two sets so only
two phases/channels.

I'm planning a device with an inner rotor about 300mm at this point, so overall
it could end up being aver 500mm total diameter just measuring to outside the
"C" shaped magnets.

I forgot to draw it in the sketch but there should be a loop or hook on the top
end of the shaft so it can be hung up for weighing.

Cheers

P.S. I do have other practical idea's for making the shaft part of the center
rotor so an accumulator can be built into the center. One step at a time.
First I want a counter spinner.

..

[Kali__ma__Amar]

Sorry to bump this thread again.

But I just stumbled again on this topic.

And one question I always had in this relation, and would be interested in anyone's opinion familiar with the OTC-X1.

How the heck were the different parts interconnected???
I mean, we have the central utron. Did it consist of one winding, or two windings for the different sides?
How was it connected to the capacitor plates and how was this stuff connected to the outer Utrons?
Was the antenna connected to the top of the central utron coil?
etc. etc.

What is your opinion?

Some thoughts:

The central utron certainly kinda looks like kind of a conical (double) Tesla coil. So was there a primary around it? There would surely have been some space between it and the capacitor plates.

What were the capacitor plates for? They would be capacities in relation to the outer metal frame. So hardly any very high voltage could be there, maybe at most a few 100kV, before it would arc to the outer magnets or the hull itself.
But it would make sense, to have the oscillator circuit closed capacitively. So the outer shell of the craft would be like the top capacity and the inner capacitor plates act like the ground connection in a normal oscillator circuit.

One could also think that maybe the outer utrons were part of the primary so that they would get power induced by the outer electromagnets and this would at the same time serve as the primary for the oscillator circuit.
But it would be quite hard to get it at the resonance frequency, as the RPM of this thing would have to be exactly in relation to the resonance frequency of the coil.

OR was everything used in a DC condition?
Maybe mainly to get some magnetic field?

I would rather think the former.
But it is interesting that if you look at it from the magnetic field POV, the outer utrons make the field lines from the central core either stretch outward or "press" them closer to the central utron, depending on relative polarity.
I personally would vote on the orientation, so that they stretched the field out to the rim.


BTW: I clearly think the cores of the utrons (central and outer) have to be made of a strongly magnetic material as in a transformer core (ferrite, iron powder or laminated iron) and should not be made of aluminium.
Especially as the solid aluminium would kill any AC in these coils...