|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
14 October 2025 08:37
|
|
Welcome to the gyroscope forum. If you have a question about gyroscopes in general,
want to know how they work, or what they can be used for then you can leave your question here for others to answer.
You may also be able to help others by answering some of the questions on the site.
|
Question |
| Asked by: |
Octavius Clemens |
| Subject: |
Can You Keep the Faith? (Blueprints, Math, and More) |
| Question: |
Salutations good people of gyroscopes.org !
Today I come with several gifts. For those interested in constructing Artificial Gyroscopic Systems, the designs for 3 distinct models have been made open source for all as of today over here: https://grabcad.com/denny.o-2
Technical details can be found here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394250885_DNO7_Technical_Report_--On_Spatial_Mass_Displacement_Systems_Inertial_Propulsion
and an attempt explaining the science here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394250595_A_Heuristic_for_the_Discretization_of_Classical_Mass_as_Ordinary_Objects_and_Dynamic_Spinors
I've been working on this subject for just under a decade. Gone through lots of reports, and made alot of mistakes.
In short, if gyroscopic propulsion is possible, it would have to be achieved by at least two gyros via Sir Newton's laws. I've not ever come across any such system which could generate lift according to the math and other experiments. Professor Laithwaite realized something like this during his final years.
Now, if you take elements of a mass and make a gyroscope "elastic" then there are, a number of ways to generate paths of motion-energy for your system generate force (or "mass transfer through space" as Laithwaite would say). To make this happen you need at least two masses, (due to the laws of Sir Issac Newton). Do this and you have an "Artificial" or "Virtual" gyroscope. Instead of a continuous disk, you have at least two distinct parts with differing energy states.
Folks who were successful in the past--albeit incredibly inefficient--in achieving such feats were Robert Cook, Tsirigakis-Provatidis, and potentially (surprise) Norman L. Dean--but to a lesser extent (on this not I encourage folks to look at the work of Steven Hampton on YouTube). Henry Bull is another, and his system is quite unique, but I still can't understand for the life of me why he left to work on rockets. To be clear, all of Cook's systems really did provide thrust.
Now the question of lift: if they work why didn't any of these systems generate lift? The simple answer is that the weight of these systems was astronomical in comparison to the force/power they could put out. They are all heavier then air systems, this is true, but the process they used to realize these feats were rarely refined so that they could amplify the principle behind force generation without extra mechanical complications.
I salute all of the legends here (Like Mister Kidd and on). You guys are really all something else. Since my youth, you folks were a sort of anomalous inspiration that made me think there was hope on this matter when big science and institutions of learning told me no.
Anyway I'm new here. Hope someone looks at my stuff. There is still work to be done. Who's still interested in building a system? If you got a good 3D printer (s) the most practical builds are the QELAH\QALAH and MEQAL
Nam qui curat |
| Date: |
3 August 2025
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Sandy - 10/09/2025 10:54:13
| | | Good morning Octavius,
Harry Stine well known examiner of the Dean Drive, on a phone call to me from his home in Phoenix, Arizona, many years ago now, stated that any successful machine would have to be capable of changing itself effectively from one type of device into another and back again repeatedly to provide continuous vertical inertial thrust.
That was about 35 years ago when I was just really getting involved in the weirdness of gyroscope behaviour.
In the final analysis Harry Stine was pretty well correct as my findings later proved
.
You wrote:
In short, if gyroscopic propulsion is possible, it would have to be achieved by at least two gyros via Sir Newton’s laws. I’ve not ever come across any such system which could generate lift according to the math and other experiments. Professor Laithwaite realized something like this in his final years.
Now if you take elements of a mass and make a gyroscope “elastic” then there are a number of ways to generate paths of motion- energy for you system generate force (or”mass transfer through space” as Laithwaite would say)
To make this happen you need at least two masses, (due to the laws of Sir Isaac Newton) Do this and you have an “Artificial”or “Virtual” gyroscope. Instead of a continuous disc you have at least two distinct parts with differing energy states.
.
I do agree you require the utilisation of gyroscopes at least in pairs to produce inertial thrust
They also require considerable manipulation in drive rotation speeds to get any kind of thrust.
The fact that this can be achieved means that Newton did not get it all correct and throws considerable doubt on the validity of his theory of Conservation of Angular Momentum which a rotation disc easily displays.
However I am curious to know how you intend creating this “Artificial” or “ Virtual” gyroscope and its two distinct parts with differing energy states.
I can visualise a pair of gyros of differing diameters (although this would be a path fraught with problems) or differing rotation speeds mounted on the same shaft but assuming you are able to create a cyclic rotation differential in the tandem gyros how do you intend to get the supposed thrust out?
You would at least need a similar pair of tandem gyros working in opposition on the other side of the machine.
Would it not be simpler to utilise a pair of opposed gyros with alternating variable speed input and produce your differential that way?
In the end it is a bit more complicated than that but it’s a start.
Am I guessing close to your own thoughts, or is my thinking miles away?
Regards,
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Octavius Clemens - 19/09/2025 07:27:50
| | | Mister Kidd,
First of all, it is an honorable pleasure to receive your words. You must forgive my untimely. I am happy to see that after all these years you are still active on the subject.
Quickly, I believe I must qualify what I mean when I say “virtual” or “artificial” gyroscope. Allow me to be clear: the closed-looping devices which I’ve worked on are, in no way classical gyroscopes so far as their material constitution goes. A 'classical gyroscope', as most are familiar with, is a continuous mass body (essentially in the likeness of an annular ‘disk’) which is usually spun along a principal axis. While it rotates, it may also be translated freely in space as this principle axis is “torqued” in any number of ways.
The “virtual” or “artificial” gyroscopes to which I speak are themselves individual mass parts of what could be “fused” together in the embodiment of an annular ring (classical gyroscope). But there are not.
Now, here comes the departure of “artificial” or “virtual” gyroscopic methods from conventional gyroscopic propulsive approaches:
Imagine a classical gyroscope (annular mass) which is partitioned into isolated mass segments (If a single mass part were “spun” from a fixed center, its behavior would be akin to a rotating object attached to a string). After this partitioning, each segment is embedded into an effectively massless casing which will individually “convey” these segments along a particular geometric curve which enables the total system of mass parts to change energy states iteratively. As these segments are conveyed, the rotational speed of the casing remains constant throughout each cycle; however, the velocity of an individual mass segment varies with respect to time. (This is to say that a given mass segment is always being both accelerated and decelerated).
The totality of the system is the mass segments, which are each individually being both rotated and translated along some predetermined path so that the benefits of their intrinsic desire to follow a tangent path (or mechanical "moments”) are upheld—without releasing them from their casing. Instead, they are collectively “released” as a composite system of mass parts by Newton’s 3rd law, which requires that in any given system there be at least two masses so that force may be generated through a process of confrontation.
We call such a system “artificial” or “virtual” because together, the mass segments which collectively make up this system express themselves individually in an elastic fashion at any given time t. If they were all 'fused' together, then the benefits of their individual mechanical moments would be completely lost. Approximately, this is something like a flock of flying birds: an individual “bird” is a mass segment, but the artificial gyroscopic system is the “flock.”
Moving on, there is truth in what you say about the device “transitioning” from one form to the next during each cycle. What you are speaking of here is the process of energy transformation—more specifically, mass-energy exchange—which takes place within an open system in spacetime. The open system is the composite system of mass segments.
The “energy state” for a given mass is determined by its potential within the system, very much like a mass attached to a double spring (imagine a cylindrical mass with a spring on either face). In a neutral energy state, each spring is neither compressed nor expanded. In an “unbalanced energy state,” one spring will be more expanded (stretched) while the other more compressed. Depending on where one wishes to determine the potential for the energy well, for a minimal two-body system the exchange state is usually something like such: baseline potential for the total system is nonzero (of some mechanical energy), because while one mass part achieves a peak (high-energy state), the other is at the “baseline” potential energy (low, nonzero energy state). There is even an argument to be made about how operationally these states directly correspond directly to the spin states found in quantum mechanics. Mathematically they can be expressed in the same form/likeness.
Finally, I’ve never had any true problems with Newton, his laws, or conservation. The approach I’ve taken explicitly calculates all things within the world frame such that “fictitious forces” (like the centrifugal) do not “self-generate” and are accounted for through the real process of inertial confrontation. All this process says is that at a fundamental level, the only way "force" can ever be generated is by having a system of at least two bodies whose "motion” states are in "conflict" with one another. This is a necessary “base case,” if you will.
To learn more you may check out my paper which attempts to proffer a scientific heuristic into these matters here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394250595_A_Heuristic_for_the_Discretization_of_Classical_Mass_as_Ordinary_and_Dynamic_Quantum_Objects
or check out my YouTube videos here: https://www.youtube.com/@MillennialZoomer
Hope this helps.
Nam qui curat
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
