EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: GYRO-STABILIZED MONORAIL
SYSTEM
by
Louis E. Swinney, Inventor
From the time of the discovery of the
gyroscope by the French physicist Jean Foucault, in 1832,
many imaginative people have dreamed of creating a railway
system in which the cars are held in perfect balance by a
gyro mechanism that would enable the cars to run on a single
rail. Several entrepreneurs, including an Irish inventor
Louis Brennen, demonstrated a full scale rail car running on
a single rail in 1903. In 1915, a Russian inventor, Peter
Schilovsky, exhibited a similar vehicle. The U.S. Patent
office has issued patents to several other inventors all of
whom hoped that they had discovered the practical design to
fulfill the dream of safe, smooth, fast and economical
passenger rail service.
In each of these previous designs unstabilizing forces
were resisted by the gyros resulting in precessional movement
of the gyros. The precessional movement in turn activated
mechanisms which accelerated the precession causing the cars
to lean in a direction opposite to these forces until the
cars were brought into a balanced condition. The cars
remained in this leaning condition while moving along the
rail. Each time the forces tending to unbalance the car
changed, the leaning position changed. Each of the cars
previously exhibited the center of gravity oscillated through
a line directly above the center of support.
In 1962, a gyro-stabilized car was exhibited in Kansas
City, Kansas, based upon a patent issued to Louis Swinney.
This was the first gyro-stabilized car ever built that does
not lean when subjected to unbalancing forces. It remains
fixed in the exact vertical position. This is accomplished by
the automatic adjustment of the weight distribution by using
a secondary counter weight which moves laterally within the
framework of the car. The car remains in the precise upright
condition, never deviating.
In 1972, a second car was exhibited by the
gyro-dynamics organization. In this vehicle the
gyro-stabilization mechanism is automatically positioned
laterally in the underframe whenever uneven loading occurs.
The gyros prevent any deviation from the exact vertical
orientation of the car. Sensors react to all unbalancing
forces and the mechanisms instantly make the adjustments
necessary to keep the car erect and steady. With the gyro
spinning the car does not deviate from the precise vertical
position while the vehicle is standing still or moving in a
straight line. While watching a demonstration of this car one
observer remarked, " it seems like the car is being held
in a giant invisible vise". When the car moves into a
curve, the same mechanisms cause the car to lean inwardly of
the curve to the exact balanced condition. The degree to
which the vehicle leans inwardly is the mean position between
centrifugal force and gravity. All of the forces are
equalized as occurs when a motorcyclist leans inwardly as a
result of innate equilibrium. The amount of lean is a result
of the radius of the curve and the speed of the car. Cars
stopped on a curved section of rail automatically assume the
vertical position. The orientation of the car is not
dependent on the rails or guideway as is the case with
conventional transit cars.
The test cars are equipped with an auxiliary support
system which engages the guideway to keep the cars upright
when out of service. They automatically retract from the
guideway when the gyros are spinning. Gyro-stabilized rail
cars can be operated on an elevated guideway having a single
rail mounted on top. The guideway can be modified to any
shape or form which can provide maximum strength at a minimum
cost and structure dimensions. The suspension system as
proposed consists of a highly simplified 2 wheel bogey at
each end of the car instead of the 4 wheel bogeys of
conventional design.
Flywheel energy storage systems have been proposed for
many types of transportation including buses and locomotives
as well as transit cars. In these proposals the weight as
well as the cost would be added to the cost and weight of
these cars. Even so the additional cost and weight factors
appear to be justified because of the need to conserve energy
which is now wasted.
Locomotives now use dynamic braking primarily to save
wear on the brake shoes. The energy generated is presently
being dissipated into the atmosphere. In the gyro/flywheel
proposal the cost and weight are defrayed by the lighter and
lower cost running gear, leaving the overall cost and weight
of the cars about the same for the monorail as for
conventional transit cars. Certain estimates indicate that
the dollar value of the energy saved would defray the cost of
the entire vehicle in 5 to 10 years of normal use.
Many physicists who have made extensive studies
regarding the operation of railway cars at very high speeds
have used the term dynamic instability to describe the
ultimate barrier to high speed rail operations.
Conventional railway vehicles have a tendency to
oscillate as the flanges of the wheels guide the cars along
the rails. Lateral clearances between the flanges and the
rail cause the cars to guided alternately by the wheel-rail
contact from one side to the other. The oscillations cause
the rocking effect in which the cushioning of the suspension
system magnifies the intensity of the movement from side to
side causing side-sway to occur. Certain physicists have
concluded this dynamic instability will prevent trains of
conventional design from achieving speeds in excess of 200
m.p.h. regardless of the condition of the wheels and rail.
The factors which create dynamic instability also cause
passenger discomfort.
In the monorail vehicles, flanges on both sides of the
wheels minimize lateral oscillation and the dynamic forces of
the gyros prevent side-sway, thereby counter acting the
barrier to ultra high speed rail operations. The controlled
orientation of the cars enable them to travel around curves
at higher speeds.
In all other rail and fixed guideway systems the
orientation of the cars is controlled by the guideway which
is not adjustable. The cars are in proper balance at only one
speed while moving around curves.
In summation, the benefits to be derived from the
gyro/flywheel concept sets it apart from all other proposals.
It has the potential to meet all the criteria of a rapid
transit system and a high speed rail alternative.
During the past several decades, transportation
officials in many major cities have conducted studies aimed
at the construction of new rapid transit systems and
elaborate plans have been made in attempts to provide these
needed services, only to find that the costs were too high
for the wanted systems and those which were economically
feasible could not meet the criteria for acceptance.
It is reasonable to assume that if the required
technologies were to be found in concepts previously
developed to the stage of full scale demonstrations, the
proposed projects could have been completed It is also
reasonable to assume that, since none of the available
concepts could meet the necessary criteria, new concepts must
be developed to the stage of full scale prototype operation
and fully evaluated until a system is created that meets all
of the criteria necessary to assure an operating system. The
logical approach to achieve this end is to determine in
advance before vast sums are expended, that the proposed
design, when fully developed, will meet the criteria that has
previously been established.
The proposed gyro/flywheel monorail concept should be
fully developed. To this end our organization is seeking
interested parties who would participate in this project.
Anyone interested in more details should contact
James Roberts , Director of Public Relations,
Swinney-Ferreira Gyro Dynamics, Inc., 16119 Cloverdale Lane,
Cerritos, California 90703-1915. Telephone (562)
926-9285.
Last modified: April 15, 1998