|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
28 August 2025 21:54
|
|
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)
|
| |
No answers yet |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
