THEORETIC AND PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF COUNTER-ROTATION
John D. Romo, MSME
New York, NY, May 5th, 2026
Introduction
Discussion
Atmospheric Pressure
Vacuum leak
The counter-rotation phenomenon
Gears vs. Head bearings
Single motor and the counter-rotation
Proposal
Single Mechanical Unit
Recycling Alternatives
Recurrent flow
Perpetual Motion Dilemma
Linear vs. Circular
Multiple turbines
Formulas
The Prototype Budget
Conclusions
References
Credits
INTRODUCTION
In these writings there is an attempt to clarify some concepts that humanity has eternally ignored. These concepts include those that are essential to its very existence, such as the air, the atmosphere, its chemical composition, its pressure, its density, its force; these concepts have been omnipresent and prevalent to humanity for ever and ever.
Probably during the early Sumerians or maybe the early Greeks was when observers noticed that clouds floating at the mountain's heights wouldn’t go any higher, and the same happened with condors and eagles flying over mountains, they would not fly any higher than the clouds either. Was there a limit then?
Were there any mention of this evidence in philosophers writings? Obviously no, in antiquity, these facts, although observed, have been eternally unreported.
It is only recently, during the past few centuries that humanity has acknowledged the atmospheric pressure or, of its force,. It took centuries to acknowledge factual proof of its existence, and still there were some doubters.
Some would have decided to trust religious explanations for these issues instead, such as in the Galileo Galilei’s controversy during the Middle Ages. (“E pur se move”)
It took scientists a great deal of effort to convince humanity, since then, of the fact of being affected by the Atmospheric Pressure force.
The acceptance of this force's existence is only recent. For some people, it took explaining and schooling to fully grasp the concept of being affected by it, in the numbers that we all are.
Now, the utilization of the Atmospheric Pressure force as a free energy source, is another critical issue all together.
Most people would simply won’t accept that this “free energy” source concept exists. It just does not sound possible, period!!
The Atmospheric pressure force is responsible for the constant weather fluctuations, where precipitations like rain, torrential downpours, strong vendavales and avalanches can occur.
Now, where is that much water coming from?, you may ask, it comes from the atmospheric clouds, (cumulus, stratus and cirrus), holding immense amounts of water vapor which at the right density and temperature, transform themselves into drops of water, and then gravity brings them down as snow flakes or rain drops.
DISCUSSION
There is a simple alternative available as a source of energy, and that source of energy is the Atmospheric Pressure force.
Writings and analyses about the Atmospheric Pressure force have been done, and detailed explanations of its different degrees of its gases composition. temperatures, and densities.
The gases in the earth’s equator belt differ significantly compared to gases in the north and south polar caps.
The air masses over the wooded regions of the Amazon forests for instance, are oxygen rich, the air over the oceans rich in hydrogen, and so on.
Four hundred years ago, in 1644 the scientist and researcher Evangelista Torricelli stated that the Atmospheric Pressure force affected everything on the planet, every living being on the surface of the earth, and that of course, included humans in the amount of 14.7 psi.
Now, what those numbers really mean is that the pressure that we all inescapably withstand is actually a force, and that means that the force is everywhere. Up and down the mountains, in the valleys, everywhere.
As ubiquitous as it is, this force is also prevalent, where there is no escape from it because it is omnipresent, it is always there, always available, no matter where you are, then, there it is, that’s the Atmospheric pressure force.
Its prevalence is so overwhelming that it overrides everything. The Atmospheric Pressure force also, can and will provide the energy ever needed for all humanity for ever and ever, how is this possible? by simply using the ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE FORCE as an energy source.
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE
To begin this study it will be appropriate to show a more extensive explanation regarding the principal subject of this research and provide a clear physical definition of this significant subject.
Atmospheric pressure, known as air pressure or barometric pressure, is also known as the force exerted by the weight of the air masses over the Earth's surface.
Atmospheric pressure It's a fundamental element of weather and climate, constantly changing and influencing wind patterns affecting any and all regions of the earth’s map.
As reference it can be stated that at sea level, the average atmospheric pressure is about 1,013.25 millibars, (equivalent to 14.7 psi).
(Ref) The instrument used to measure atmospheric pressure, called a barometer. There are two main types: mercury barometers and aneroid barometers. Mercury barometers, the older type, use a column of mercury in a sealed tube to measure pressure. Aneroid barometers use a flexible, sealed metal capsule that expands and contracts with pressure changes.
VACUUM LEAK
A vacuum leak,. That's really an unusual term. It is something that I, myself, or anybody else have never heard of.
Taking the air out of the soda bottle causes it to crash, it gets almost flat, it doesn’t come back to its normal form until air gets back in it, and then it's not really back to its original form, (just partially).
Was that a vacuum leak? Who knows. There isn’t a specific description of a vacuum leak. A vacuum leak is just an imaginary concept.
Similar phenomena in nature, like for instance the water flow, the cascades, the water falls (like Niagara water falls) could represent a leak from the massive volumes of water coming down out of the mountains, The atmosphere doesn’t play that game.
What we know so far is that the Atmospheric Pressure force remains untouched and integral for ever and ever until, of course, there is a vacuum leak. What in heaven's name are vacuum leaks?
Vacuum leaks that fill back-in with air instantly?. These leaks don’t remain up for long, not even for a second, or even a microsecond!!!
Atmospheric Pressure force is utterly, constant there are no vacuum leaks none that is known of, that is until there is one, and what made this vacuum leak to appear?
THE COUNTER-ROTATION PHENOMENON
Although, the 2011 Hertfordshire University counter-rotation experiment/demonstration was essentially the same as the research work results of the 1950’s Hamilton Standards, where “when the opposing propeller started to run, the air flow thrust CFM rose over five times from 2.78 to 14.72”
(This statement is now a scientific proven and documented fact).
The Counter Rotation Phenomena is a technique that uses the rotation of a couple of turbines in opposite directions. It results in the production of vacuum. It is a method used in scientific processes to achieve the separation of chemicals, such as amino acids, without the need of solid supports. It actually results in a substance's disassociation.
The disassociation term is used in chemistry to describe the separation of a molecule into its constituent ions when dissolved in a solvent.
This process is fundamental to understanding chemical reactions, but here we are dealing with a physical phenomena where disassociation occurs when two turbine wheels rotate opposite to each other.
To begin handling this phenomena, it would be helpful to understand the physics of rotation which involves complex numbers and that as we know is an extensive chapter of the real number system complex.
A complex number is a point on the complex or ligand plane with the horizontal component as the real part and the vertical component as the imaginary part. Take for example z= 2 + 6i. Here, 2 is the horizontal component and 6 is the vertical component.
(The rotation theorem of the complex theorem is shown here on the Formulas page 16, below)
In conclusion, the complex wording of these explanations are showing how Rotation and Counter-Rotation are essentially two different Physics subjects.
Now, getting back to specific recorded events. The counter-rotation experiment/demonstration, mentioned earlier, that was performed by Tom Stanton back in England in 2011, was similar in essence to the 1950’s Hamilton Standard Windsor Locks, Ct. (the numbers were read from the electronic metering device used then).
There are records of experimental research being done to speed-up the low flying planes used then during the Vietnam conflict.
(Unfortunately once the conflict was over, the research on this subject stopped. (it no longer had the necessary funding).
Said experiments consisted of a pair of counter-rotating propellers installed on the planes. (to make them fly faster)
Subsequent analysis of the experiment results showed that this phenomenon depended principally on three factors as follows:
a) Separation ’S’ between the counterrotating propellers, (a few inches)
b) Propellers turning velocity ‘V’. Average motor speed, (about 1250 rpm)
c) The surface ‘A’ is the area exposed to the counter-rotation motion (propellers blades area).
The experiment demonstrated that as S decreased, the number of vacuum volumes produced, had increased, and as S increased, the opposite happened.
The phenomenon performance would remain the same when the velocity V, remained unchanged.
The third factor, surface A, was directly dependent on the number and size of the propellers blades involved in the experiment.
Where was the energy that powered the experiment's air flow increase coming from? It came from the Atmospheric Pressure force, which was the force moving the air that filled the vacuum created by counter-rotation in a flush, instantly.
GEARS vs. HEAD BEARINGS
As an historic reference, we can recall that during WWII, airplane manufacturers in the bomber category had attempted to use counter-rotating designs for their bomber’s propelling system, particularly on the models designed by English and German manufacturers such as Great Britain's Vickers, Avro, Bristol, and De Havilland, and Germany's Dornier, Messerschmitt and Junkers.
Their designs involved gears, which then retarded the system. Limited benefits of using counter-rotation were reported then.
To become the faster flyers in the battle fields, aviation manufacturers resorted to the use of counter-rotation designs for their planes not only during WWII, but recently at Grumman and other aviation manufacturers in East Hartford Ct. USA.
Back then, aviation manufacturers had to deal with the complex mechanisms of two propellers rotating in opposite directions on the same axis.
Was there an easy solution to the challenge?Gears,and more gears were the only alternative to accomplish the task, but history tells us,they weren’t very successful.
So now, the design of a Mechanical Unit presented here, shows that head bearings had been used instead. No gears are involved in its design of the mechanisms, such as those exhibited on most of the aforementioned Reference page, where designers and inventors detailed complex gear arrangements to solve the “axis and tube” dilemma with which aviation designers dealt with, in order to accomplish the difficult task of getting both propeller to counter rotate on the same axis.
SINGLE MOTOR AND THE COUNTER-ROTATION
As previously mentioned, the counter-rotation research work, and patent information (listed at the bottom of this article) doesn’t include many instances where only one of the turbines is moved by a motor.
Here is one of those instances where the blades on one of the turbines, a part of a “turbo-prop” jet engine (made by a GE plant in Erie, Pa), where said turbine, although it was producing air flow thrust in the right direction, it was also moving in the opposite direction to the turbine powered by a motor, hence, increasing their flow thrust CFM (as expected).
Also, early last year, on a television commercial, the “Blower” was announced. The blower is a powerful hand held device used to blow away dry leaves, and or paled snow flakes from the side walks. This device was built using a single motor that turns a main turbine, and that turbine turns opposite to the main turbine causing the blower’s air flow thrust to increase over five times.
The Erie Pa. GE built a turbo-prop jet engine, and the powerful blower could be an indication that a single motor moving only one turbine could produce counter-rotating phenomena for aviation designs.
This will demonstrate that these designs (the single motor & the powering of one turbine) will alleviate the excessive weight that complicates gears arrangements, and would have been added to an aircraft that were installed on old fashion counter-rotating mechanisms.
PROPOSAL
The objective of using Atmospheric Pressure Force as energy source, is to obtain the highest possible numbers of vacuum volumes to bring the air-flow CFM count up to the highest.
Said air-flow then, will be utilized in a mechanical unit conformed as described in the drawing below.
The mechanical unit objective is to produce electricity by ways of having the unit’s resulting flow turning a generator. The mechanical units then will be arranged in a series of working units called Recycler Alternatives (See drawing) that will increasingly generate energy by utilizing the air flow thrust generated by the counter-rotation phenomenon installation.
Although all three factors, as described earlier (S, V and A) are critically important for this proposal, it is the surface A that is the most significant here when it comes to the design of the turbine wheels fitting into a tube-like housing that would be provided for the proposed mechanism.
Both turbine wheels will consist of three concentric circles or annulus, displaying 24 blades in the outermost turbine circle, 18 blades in the middle, and 12 in the innermost circle. Then the full turbine wheel design of 54 blades on each wheel will reduce the designed tube-like housing diameter in which they are going to be contained, by twenty per cent.
The fitting of 54 blades on each turbine wheel will therefore result in producing a higher flow thrust, bringing the air-flow CFM count up considerably higher. (See drawing of Mechanical Unit)
For mathematical formulation simplicity consider a two-level atomic system with ground and excited states.
SINGLE MECHANICAL UNIT
Drawing, not to scale
This unit design shows 3 motors to turn the counter-rotating pairs, but there is also the alternative version of this unit where there is only a single motor powering the turbine couples. Recall the aforementioned paragraph where an increased air flow thrust is produced with a single motor arrangement.
Now, the lineup on this proposed unit shows 3 double axles, small electric motors, where the first motor at 1/4 Hp is turning right, the second motor at 3/4 Hp is turning left, and the third motor, at 1/4 Hp is turning right. These motors are powered by 2 twelve Volt and one twenty-four Volt batteries (charged by solar, and or wind sources}.
Although they are at different Hp, all three motors are set to run at the same rpm. The motors are connected by a “head ball-bearing” type of bearing. The motors turned the counter-rotating turbine wheels, producing larger numbers of vacuum volumes in an increasing sequence.
The installation of said configuration inside a tube-like housing, will then produce a potent air-flow vector of several thousands of CFMs.
RECYCLING ALTERNATIVES
The purpose of "recycling alternatives" is to obtain the highest possible rates of energy out of the arrangement “sub-products” (Engineers can help on these calculations, particularly on the CFM increases)
For instance, amperage and voltage will emerge from the generator/alternator duo that convert the turbine's wheels flow into electricity, reaching high figures on said parameters (amperage and voltage).
Now, the recycler alternatives high results are accomplished by conveying a continuous flow thrust that is expected to grow increasingly.
How are the recycler alternatives arranged then, (see the drawing below), where one mechanical unit is installed to follow the flow of the next mechanical unit, and doubling, tripling, and quadrupling the flow, then turning a generator/alternator duo.
Do the recycler alternatives number sequence stop there? Of course not, . They can continue if so decided, and the settings will increasingly raise the air flow thrust.
The recycler alternatives setting is equipped with a built-in valve to regulate/monitor the resulting unit setting and its air flow thrust.
Consider now a wheel made of unit #1, unit #2, unit #3, and unit #4 that are arranged, where the resulting flow turns a turbine at a generator/alternator in an increasing kinetic energy cycle. As shown below.
RECURRENT FLOW
Several terms, like permanent, consistent, long-lasting, infinite, come to mind when the title “recurrent flow” appears. This title is actually an accurate description of what happens within the four unit circular setting shown above.
Starting with unit number one, where its flow hits unit number two, and so on,then at unit four, the accumulated flow hits unit number one again as the recurrent flow continues on its way, its repetitive way, as we may call it.
Here, the drawing above, depicts the situation of utilizing what an air flow line of four units produces. Where the first unit flow discharges into the next unit and then, into the next, and the next, and there is no stopping at all, is it going to keep moving perpetually.
PERPETUAL MOTION DILEMMA
I am aware of the most famous physical science dilemma, and of the clarification avalanche put out by physics professors and scientists, However, it would be insincere if I would avoid doing a careful analysis of what rally happens with the “recurrent flow”:
Here, when the air flow thrust exits from unit # 4 and obviously lands it into unit #1. That is a fact, happening again, and again, then, what is denying the “recurrent flow” fact from being call it a “basis” or justifying a “perpetual motion”?
The Physics Academia states that a perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an external energy source. This kind of machine is impossible, since its existence would violate the first and/or second laws of thermodynamics.
However, reality in this case demonstrate that the “recurrent flow” continues to run, regardless what is stated on said first and/or second law, now, about the recurrent flow, that starts at the unit #1, and by the time it exits at unit #4, it has risen the flow 625 times (see Formulas) in a linear progression, which is quite different from the “continuous” run of a perpetual motion machine.
Now, (monitored and controlled by instruments), this massive flow rise of over four million CFM, will serve two purposes:
ONE, the portion of the flow that will turn the turbine in front of the generator/alternator duo, and,
TWO, the portion of the flow that will allow the four units arrangement to continue its motion.
LINEAR vs CIRCULAR
The linear setting and the circular settings are considerably different when it comes to utilizing the air flow that they produce when these settings are formed by mechanical units.
The circular setting can utilize their units air flow thrust by simply installing a generator/alternator duo at the circle center.
A linear setting will need an special tube housing modification to capture all its air flow thrust (see sketch below)
A linear setting will then need to be equipped with a similar arrangement, that is, the installation of a generator/alternator.
Where the units 1 through 6, on the sketch are showing how the air flow thrust develops in a linear setting of units. where 5 times 5 times 5. it appears exponential, but no, it's linear, growing, and increasing, but still linear!!!
MULTIPLE TURBINES
The air flow thrust generated by several Mechanical units (see sketch up top) owes its growth to the particular arrangement, where starting at Unit # 1 that dumps its flow on unit #2, and the process continues on, and on.
So, in order to convert said flow thrust into electrical energy without wasting any flow, it will be necessary to have multiple turbine discs, probably as many as the number of units. (see drawing below).
FORMULAS
For a counterclockwise rotation of a point (x,y) about the origin by an angle θ, the new coordinates (x,y)
can be calculated using the equation
xcos(θ)−ysin(θ) y =xsin(θ)+ycos(θ)
For specific angles, such as 90 degrees, the transformation simplifies to (x,y)→(−y,x).
The values expressed in the following equations are: 0.87= Friction index, 0.85 CFS= cubic feet per second,CT= corrugated turbine, #1CT > #2CT = Counter-rotating turbines, 3 annulus = 3.5 factor.
To clarify what happens in the “Single Mechanical Unit” (see drawing up top) during the sequential steps of the process, we can follow it move by move:
It starts with a plane two blade propeller that flows air at 0.85 CFS, which is equivalent to 50.63 CFM,Then its flow goes into the first CT and as it turns, it races the 50.63 CFM into 5 times to 253.15 CFM,. Then the flow goes to the second CT and that races the 253.15 CFM five times to 1,265.75 CFM which flow is then affected by the 3 annulus 3.5 factor to CFM where,
∑= [0.87 [#1CT > #2 CT * 3.5] ]= 4,430.12 CFM
Mech.Unit
It follows that, #1CT >#2 CT *3.5 resulting CFM divided by the 4.8 Hp coefficient, where:
∑= 4,430.12 CFM /4.8 = 922.94 Hp
Mech.Unit
RECYCLING ALTERNATIVES
Now, the following equations here are in relation to “Recycling Alternatives”, as it is shown on the above drawing.
The purpose of a recycling alternative is to be able to utilize the Mechanical unit flow thrust once it exits the unit.
Although, grouping the units as shown, is just one alternative. There are, of course, many other ways to utilize the mechanical unit exit flow thrust, the one shown on the drawing above is just one of them.
Now then, starting with unit #1, on the rough drawing where,
∑= [0.87 [#1CT > #2 CT *3.5] ]= 4,430.12 CFM
Unit #1
It follows that, #1CT >#2 CT *3.5 resulting CFM divided by the 4.8 Hp coefficient, gives out:
∑= 4,430.12 CFM /4.8 = 922.94 Hp
Unit #1
Then the following equation is in relation to Unit #2, where,
∑= {0.87 [#1 > #2 CT * 3,5] 2}= 8,860.24 CFM
Unit #2
Where, CT*3.5 is the unit #2 CFM count divided by the 4.8 Hp coefficient, gives out as follows:
∑= 8,860.24 CFM /4.8 = 1,845.88 Hp
Unit #2
And continuing with the rough sketch units,
∑= [{0.87 [#1 > #2 CT * 3.5] 3}= 13,290.37 CFM
Unit #3
Where, CT*3.5 is the unit #3 CFM count divided by the 4.8 Hp coefficient gives out as follows:
∑= 13,290.37 CFM /4.8 = 2,768.82 Hp
Unit #3
And finally, on the drawing,
∑= [{0.87 [#1 > #2 CT * 3.5] ]4] = 17,720.5 CFM
Unit #4
Where, #1 > #2 CT *3.5 * 4. The CFM count divided by the 4.8 Hp coefficient gives out as follows:
∑= 17,720.5 CFM /4.8 = 3,691.77 Hp
Unit #4
These formulas represents the values of units #1, unit #2, unit #3, and unit #4. (see drawing)
The four units would then, be set along with a generator/alternator placed in the center of the wheel like arrangement, and called a “RECYCLING ALTERNATIVE”
The arrangements of these units, (the linear and the circular), are coming out successfully, and they do so by the installation of a turbine in front of the generator/alternator duo, (which serves as control/monitor of the output), and more importantly, they are producers of electricity.
The equations shown above, brought in some remarkable results:
For instance, the flow equations show large increases such as CFM growing from 4,430.12 to 17,720.5 and the Hp, rising from 922.94 to 3,691.77.
(Ref.) The 747 two jet engines together = 30,000 hp. Electric Air Compressor 1 Hp, Maximum Flow Rate (CFM): 4.8 CFM (136 LPM), 1 Atmosphere (atm) = 760 mmHg = 760 torr = 101.325 kPa = 14.7 psi
(At low altitudes above sea level, the atmospheric pressure decreases by about 1.2 kPa (12 hPa) for every 100 meters. For higher altitudes within the troposphere, the following equation (the barometric formula) relates atmospheric pressure p to altitude.
From the earlier explanations on the complex numbers, the theorem is as follows:
If P(z1) and Q(z2) are two complex numbers such that |z1| = |z2|, then z = (z1+z2)/(z1-z2) may be purely imaginary.
The Atmospheric pressure at sea level equation is: P = F/A = (m*g)/A, where:
P = (mg)/A. Here, 'm' is the mass of the air, 'g' is the acceleration due to gravity, and 'A' is the area.
The values in these and other equations are:
Parameter Description and value
h Height above mean sea level m
p0 Sea level standard atmospheric pressure 101,325 Pa
L Temperature lapse rate, = g/cp for dry air ~ 0.00976 K/m
cp Constant-pressure specific heat 1,004.68506 J/(kg-k)
T0 Sea level standard temperature 288.15 K
g Earth-surface gravitational acceleration 9.80665 m/s2
M Molar mass of dry air 0.02896968 kg/mol
R0 Universal gas constant 8.314462618 J/(mol·Kelvin)
THE PROTOTYPE BUDGET
The prototype or proof of concept budget is a two part procedure, the first (part A) consists of setting the preliminaries for building an experimental unit. The second (part B) is the installation and actual fabrication, instrumentation, machinery and the scientific tools needed by operators and experts.
Building and testing the prototype, will carry along a series of items of different nature. Starting with the preliminaries, a) Meetings with people related with the project, such as FAA officials, Academics, Military, Industry.
b) Negotiations with Consultants and their fees, Technicians / Specialists and their salary. Interns / research students. c) Realtor agency, Landlords.
BUDGET A, Personnel and their related needs.
Participants accommodations for meetings to review the project $30,800
Rental garage space, six months $7,200
AutoDesk, AutoCAD program, 2026 version $4,000
AutoCAD operator, six months employment….$458,000
Electrical engineer and electronic testing devices, on consulting bases for six months .$55,000
Mechanical engineer and equipment on consulting bases for six months . $48,050
FAA certified Aviation Mechanic /Technician…$57,607
FAA registered Pilot, consulting bases. $29,170
Transportation and communication $ 78,000
Hangar rental $19,750
Insurance and maintenance.$21,800
Total Budget A..$391,970
BUDGET B, Prototype, materials and equipment
Rental of 1979 CESSNA 172N SKYHAWK $49,000
Five 1/4 HP DC motors, double Axel, designed and built to specifications.$21.000
Two 12 Volts batteries..$1,100
Two mini electrical generator built to specifications.$3,900
Three mechanical adjustable benches $18,000
Furnace…$8,500
Lincoln welding unit and related equipment $499
Drill and drill beet set..$460
Hand held drill…$65
South Bend 10" Toolroom Lathe w/ Metal Cabinet…$5,759
Remote controlled motorized lift $53,000
Adjustable crane built to specifications.$65,500
Grinder..$9,000
Mechanical toolset.$6,100
Total Budget B …$259,423
TOTAL PROTOTYPE BUDGET $651,393
CONCLUSIONS
What we are really dealing with here, is the realization of having encountered an un-researched physical phenomenon, such as the “RECURRENT FLOW” its persistent air flow thrust that is constantly emanated from the setting of circular or linear units, that are capable of generating electricity, and doing so in a robust and abundant way.
The results shown for the single unit formula, above, generates sufficient thrust force for a jet engine, and creates enough wattage to recharge the 2 batteries that started the units in the first place.
However, the recycling alternatives settings arranged with said units, shows that not only the CFM count rises extremely high, but that the Hp does really well too.
The calculation of the annulus factor (3.5), could vary depending on the CT design. For instance, it can grow higher with the design of larger blades, and or larger number of blades.
Obviously, building a proof of concept for the mechanical units, or multiple arrangements of them, requires accurate engineering calculations, coupled with computer assisted design and other expertise to accomplish the task of creating the largest possible amount of free energy.
In conclusion, I think that this research will open the way for the Atmospheric Pressure Force to get the earth’s Climate Crises under control and more importantly, it will generate enough energy for all what human kind will ever need.
Free energy then will be generated simply by setting up materially the configurations described above.
However, the realization of this project will depend on someone energetic and ambitious enough, for him or her, to undertake the challenge.
Also, a decision will have to be made regarding what solution is best, whether the single unit or the multiple arrangement of units to be the right solution.
The consensus to answer that question is that such a decision can only be made once the proof of concept is built, not before.
In sum, all the thoughts expressed in these writings are inviting us to see or to imagine future life images. Where the principal aim was not monetary but community oriented, or simply to reflect the honest human efforts to survive.
In the event of a nuclear catastrophe, solar and wind energy sources won’t survive very well, but the atmospheric pressure force will be there, intact, whether clean or dirty, it still will be there.
REFERENCES
Other than the Hertfordshire University, (England) experiments, and Hamilton Standard (United States) research on the subject of Counter-rotation, here is a collection of researcher’s work and Patents:
Strack, W. C. (NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)
Knip, G. (NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)
Weisbrich, A. L. (Hamilton Standard Windsor Locks, Conn., United States)
Godston, J. (Pratt and Whitney Aircraft East Hartford, Conn., United States
Bradley, E. (Lockheed-Georgia Co. Marietta, Ga., United States)
Brady, G.W and Chillson, C.W. Dual rotation propeller. Dec. 1950. US Patent 2,533,346
Bartlett, W.A. Wind-tunnel tests of a dual-rotating propeller having one component locked or windmilling, Tech Rep L5A13a (War Report), NACA, NASA Langley, 1945.
Betz, A. The theory of contra-vanes applied to the propeller, Tech Rep TN 909, NACA, 1939.
Lesley, E.P. Experiments with a Counter-Propeller, NACA TN-453, 1933.
Biermann, D. and Hartman, E.P. Full-scale tests of 4- and 6-Blade, single- and dual-rotating propellers, NACA Report SR-157, 1940
Strack, W.C., Knip, G., Weisbrich, A.L., Godston, J. and Bradley, E. Technology and benefits of aircraft counter rotation propellers, Tech Rep NASA TM-82983, NASA, 1982.
Fey, T. Contra-rotating propellers, Torque Meter J. Aircraft Engine Hist. Soc., 2008,
Lanchester, F.W. Contra-Props, Flight Mag., 1941
Burton, E. and Glasgow, C. Multiengine contra-rotating propeller drive mechanism, Jan. 1952.
Parzych, D. and Shattuck, C. Noise of the Fairey Gannet counter rotating propeller, 10th Aeroacoustics Conference, Seattle, 1986
GE Aircraft Engines. Full scale technology demonstration of a modern counterrotating inducted fan engine concept, Tech Rep NASA CR-180867, NASA-Lewis Research Center, 1987.
Anderson, R.D. Advanced Propfan Engine Technology (APET) Definition Study, Single and Counter-Rotation Gearbox/Pitch Change Mechanism Design. NASA CR 168115, 1985.
Woodward, R.P. Noise of two high-speed model counter-rotation propellers at takeoff/approach conditions, J. Aircr., 1992,
Mehmed, O. and Kurkov, A.P. Experimental investigation of counter-rotating propfan flutter at cruise conditions, J. Propul. Power, 1994,
Parry, A.B. Theoretical Prediction of Counter-Rotating Propeller Noise, PhD thesis, University of Leeds, 1988.
Shivashankara, B., Johnson, D. and Cuthbertson, R. Installation effects on counter rotating propeller noise, 13th Aeroacoustics Conference, AIAA 1990-4023, 1990.
Ricouard, J., Julliard, E., Omais, M., Regnier, V., Parry, A.B and Baralo, S. Installation effects on contra-rotating open rotor noise, 16th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, 2010.
Woodward, R.P. and Gordon, E.B. Noise of a model counter rotation propeller with reduced Aft rotor diameter and simulated takeoff/approach conditions (F7/A3), 26th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 1988.
Dittmar, J.H. and Stang, D.B. Reduction of the noise of a model counterrotation propeller at cruise by reducing the aft propeller diameter, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 1987
Reynolds, C.N. Advanced Prop-Fan Engine Technology (APET) Single- and counter-rotation gearbox/pitch change mechanism, NASA CR-168114, II, 1985.
Dittmar, J.H. Some Design Philosophy for Reducing the Community Noise of Advanced Counter-Rotation Propellers, NASA TM 87099, 1985.
[140]
Ribarov, L. and Gieras, J. Magnetically coupled contra-rotating propulsion stages, Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation, Hartford, CT, June 3, 2019.
CREDITS
Consulting for these writings with:
Yiannis Andreopoulos, Phd.
Peter Ganatos, Phd.
Zhexuan Wang, Phd.
James Goodgion III, BBA.
