Question |
| Asked by: |
John |
| Subject: |
Scott Strachan |
| Question: |
Does anyone know if Scott Strachan is contactable? He doesn't seem to have done much over the past 15 years. |
| Date: |
17 January 2004
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
J S Strachan - 19/01/2004 22:26:59
|
| | Hi there,
I have been working in other fields over the last few years but I am always available to answer questions that are interestsing and my patent can be read at any good patent site.
Scott
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
John - 21/01/2004 20:39:59
|
| | Hi Scott,
Well thanks for making that very easy to find you! I'm glad that you still have an interest in this field, im aware you're a busy man. It seems from Kidd's book that you were ahead of the game back then.
I have done a few small tests on gyroscopes that have shown me they are worth persuing for propulsion. I hoped before I moved onto copying patents, Kidds or Laithwaites or your own, or all of them, to try a more simple proof of principle (im neither well off nor especially money motivated) . The Strachan Machine, using only one gyroscope seemed to offer this, but I am unable to find any information on it. I dont want to reinvent the wheel, and feel this technology should be moved on quickly at this point. What I would like to do is test the simpler Strachan Machine on a trolley, on water then in air (using helium balloons to counter the weight). At that point, on success, some team work would be needed to get a radio controlled version, a twin/quad gyro system etc. Save that patent going to waste.
I dont know if you still have the machine on a trolley, or would be willing to share any information on it? Id be happy to e-mail you privately if you need to know more about me.
Anyway, thanks for letting us know you're still about.
John
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dr D.J.Fisher - 25/05/2004 14:35:49
|
| | Is this the same Scott Strachan who is mentioned on the Gematria site (where a diagram of a permanent magnet is labelled 'solenoid')? If so, he is there credited with some amazing discoveries; ones that would dwarf mere anti-gravity.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
DaveS - 25/05/2004 17:28:20
|
| | What is the Gematria site? Study of Hebrow letters and numbers?
Would like to see this site, what is the web address?
DaveS
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
John - 25/05/2004 19:53:22
|
| | Hi Doc,
Scott has some pretty good patents, I dont think that one, but he has gone into thermovoltaic systems, another very good area of study and many others varied areas. It's not that he's bright alone, but has that tenacity/will to invent which not many do.
Scott is mentioned in the Sandy Kidd book Beyond 2001, the book has the only independant test to verify anti-gravitational properties in any device. The test shows a vertical force was produced by the Kidd device, it was tested by BWM pty (Aussie company), if memory serves. The book is a must read for anyone interested, out of print, the local library is the best place to get it. It's good because when someone says you wont get a vertical force from the Kidd device or the Kidd device was worse than the one they are (pretending) to invent you know they are talking BS. Knowledge defends us from the ignorant as I'm sure you know.
Regards
John
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Dr D.J.Fisher - 26/05/2004 02:33:45
|
| | The web-address is www.gematria.com. It is a crackpot alternative health company. The Strachan thermoelectric work would have been easier to accept if he had not got together with Harold Aspden and hinted at 'over-unity' properties for the device. Aspden, of course, is just one of several patent agents who have patented their own reactionless propulsion devices (who will guard the guards?). The Australian company was BWN (named after the initial letters of the Christian names of the 3 Carroll brothers). Noel Carroll, co-patentee of the Kidd device, is very rich (thanks to some centrifugal oil/water separation patents) and gives large donations to the Church of Scientology.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
J S Strachan - 11/10/2004 03:39:27
|
| | Hi there,
To Dr D,J Fisher,
Yes I am mentioned on the Gematria website relating to an optical patent used to allow laser manupulation of organic crystal formation and other things desrcribed in several related patents. I agree wholeheartedy that the Gematria site blurb is well into the wild eyed cooky realm unfortunately written for the commercial arm of a healthfood company by someone who clearly had too good a time in the sixties! However the processes relating to my patents are entirely consistent with known physics and are supported by many papers published since the original patent some of which are cited in the second patent. Gematria iteself is the only food supplement company to have run independently assessed double blind assessments of any of its products by the way so while the website remains a bit of a laugh and some of the ideas are definately crazy as I often tell them! Never-the-less they do make several products that are genuinely benificial.
As to gyros and "antigravity" I have never claimed antigravity effects. I point simply to an easily repeatable experiment that demonstrates a suprising, potentially useful but odd behaviour under certain conditions of force precessed flywheels.
With repsect to the thermoelectric work I discontinued my asscosciation With H Aspden and strongly disagree that any "over unity" energy or other doublespeak rubbish was ever demonstrated we were simply able to show extremely efficient (for a thermoelectric device) conversion but not anywhere near over unity or over carnot. Some odd results initially appeared rather extreme but I was able to prove that this was an electrochemical reaction related to the nickel / aluminium surfacees and the adhesive used. The basic principle of the device was indepenbdetly verified and built by several other researchers however like me they found it impossible to solve the problem of the eventual deterioration of the thin films. Harold Aspden was convinced that my original protype was over unity or at least thermodynamically over carnot due to its spectacular wattage output from the heat differential of ice to room temperature but on closer examionation i came to the conclusion that the initial results were boosted by an electrochemical effect in essence the metal films and adjesive were acting as a battery. I described that in my work with Mark Oxborrow and Scottish Hydroelectric beut we were still able to achieve thermoelectric efficiency in the 20 percent range which is pretty good and about twice what was then available in Bismuth telluride devices. Now of course work in plastic conductors and other areas have reached this level rendering much of the work moot.
H Aspden is a sincere chap and he has some intersting ideas but I do not agree with him on over unity or aether etc.
Scott
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
chris Blythe - 04/05/2005 02:27:12
|
| | I spoke to Scott some 10 years back and had a very interesting conversation with him after being inspired to know more further to reading Sandy Kidds book. Hi there Scott if you read this!! Scott was at that time growing, or had plans to grow, some form of crystal that would in some way act as solid state gyroscope. I wonder if you get this Scott, would you care to elaborate and tell us the outcome of your experiment. I was delighted after all these years the do a google search on 'Scott Strachan gyroscope' and actually come up with something. The internet is a wonderfull invention. I would be very interested in private emails on this subject or from anyone getting results from forced precessed gyroscopes. Could a magnetic version serve as a propulsion system. Anyone interested in this might be interested in the Blacklightpower.com website and Randal Mills GUT theory. His massive and controversial book contains aspects that pertain to electron spin control and hence a possible gravity drive not to mention, if the theory is corect, a limitless source of clean energy...these are truly interesting times that we live in. Regds Chris Blythe Tel 01752 664091 Plymouth
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
John S Strachan - 15/01/2006 16:55:34
|
| | Hi there,
Yes I am still interested in the potential of a crystal gyro. I have made some useable organic moecule gyros but have not succeeded in controlling them or creating the structure needed to allow forced precession. Ill keep thinking though.
Dor those interested in gyro experiments it is now possible to obtain fantastic tiny motors and create miniature vesrions of my own and others patent designs for forced precession devices at very low cost and little effort so feel free to experiment.
You will still run up against the snag that hits us all though. the things all shake like sumo wrestlers on speed at a rock concert and so accurat measurement of the constants is really difficult. Theslow speed single gyro demo experiment is still the best one to use to get sceptics to scratch their heads.
This experiment involves a single gyro that can be forced precessed through half a revolution and can free precess for the other half. the gyro flywheel must be 90 percent of the total mass. suspend the system on a pendulum with a period at least eaual to or longer than the complete precession cycle and observe the displacement ideally with a video camera. The pendulum will oscilate asymetrically. The only tricky bit is that the pendulam needs to be very long unless the gyros are very small and low speed and they dont work well at low speed. so you need at least a 6 metre long pendulum. the longer the pendulum and consequenctly the faster the cyros can soin and the slower the precession the clearer the result.
Any reasonably competent machanic can build this experiment. It is repeatable and consistent and to date I have never heard a satisfactory expanation of the result.
Scott
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
