Home : Gallery : History : Uses : Behaviour : Maths : Forum : Propulsion : Links : Glossary
Main Forum Page

The Gyroscope Forum

21 February 2019 15:03

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.

Search the forum:  


Asked by: Ryan Eisele
Subject: Do you think this may be what's happening in gyroscopic propulsion?
Question: I have analyzed the following diagram of a unidirectional force machine, and it's amazing:


I understand the "mechanical" version, i.e. the version using only gyroscopes. Apparently there is a magnetic version but that's beyond my current conceptualization ability.

Here is my understanding: There is a principle underlying Newton's laws of motion that makes Gyroscropic Propulsion all possible. It's so obvious we rarely state it. It's what makes "equal and opposite" reactions possible in the first place. It is simply the principle that matter would prefer not to pass through other matter. It's the true basis behind rocket propulsion. If the propellent could pass down right through the earth and right up through the top of the rocket, Newton's laws would be obeyed, but the underlying (obvious, and often unstated) principle behind rocket propulsion is that the propellent would prefer not to pass through the top of the rocket or the earth below. THAT is the true, fundamental property of matter underlying rocket propulsion. The 3rd law is meaningless if the propellent can pass through solid objects. The "equal and opposite reaction" could arguably NOT be fundamental, bur rather derived from the princple I have stated, with one clarification, being that the propellent would rather not pass through the top of the rocket, the earth below, NOR ITSELF. From this clarification, Newton's third law becomes non-fundamental. It can be derived from this axiom, that matter would prefer not to pass through ANY OTHER MATTER, including other parts of the same "object" (in this case other gas particles in the propellent).

So, now if we take Newton's 3rd law to be not an axiom of the universe, but a rather a "good rule of thumb" that predicts about 99.99% of the trajectories we observe, let us see how we might find a situation where the underlying principle I mentioned (matter not wanting to pass through matter) does NOT add credence to our "rule of thumb" which is Newton's third law of motion. The underlying principle usually adds credence to our rule of thumb, so it's easy to mistake one for the other. Let's try to avoid this, and separate the rule of thumb of Newton's 3rd law from the matter-doesn't-want-to-pass-through-other-matter axiom I have mentioned.

Gyroscropic Propuslion systems are situations that separate our rule of thumb of Newton's 3rd law, from the axiom from which it arises. When a rocket goes up, we think that Newton's 3rd law makes it possible. Wrong! Newton's 3rd law and the ascent of the rocket both arise from the axiom I have mentioned.

Whenever there is a force which asks matter to pass through other matter, matter refuses by accelerating. This can be seen in the case of the rocket, where the explosion compresses the propellent such that the explosion is asking it to pass through the top of the rocket and through the earth below. Matter refuses by accelerating the rocket "up" and the earth "down.".

In conclusion, the Gyroscopic Propulsion system "works" because two opposing gyroscopic torques are asking matter to pass through other matter. I.e. the forces are asking the metal in the encasing to compress into itself. Nature resists this by producing whatever acceleration would prevent this from happening. If the gyroscopes must precess while they are pushed linearly, there will be an acceleration AGAINST the linear push as nature is trying to find some way to not experience the compression of matter that the gyroscopic forces are producing. For example, if your mechanicsm forces the gyroscopes to precess with, whenever you push them DOWN, but through a rachet mechanism allows you to push the gyroscopes UP withOUT precession, nature, through the principle that UNDERLIES Newton's 3rd law, will create a unidirection upward force. Newton's 3rd "law" (really just a rule of thumb) is violated because you've hacked into the universal axiom that gives rise to it.

Now what to call this underlying principle.... The Zeroeth law of motion?

Date: 27 December 2010
report abuse

Answers (Ordered by Date)

Answer: Xaustein - 17/01/2011 17:38:00
 Bruce de Palma, define un nuevo concepto:

Nod = K * w^2 * (dw/dt)^2 + 1

el cual derivado

d/dt(Nod) = d/dt (K * w^2 * (dw/dt)^2) = K * w^2 * 2 * dw/dt * d/dt(dw/

multiplicado por la masa "m", y luego multiplicado por la velocidad
lineal "v_r"

nos expresa el equivalente a la fuerza lineal de Newton "F".

F = d/dt(Nod) * v_r

y por tanto capaz de producir un impulso lineal "J" al igual que la
fuerza de Newton, o primera fuerza del Catacroc "F".
J = [integral] F * dt

En mis cálculos he usado impulso lineal "J" para no confundirlo con el
momento de inercia "I" (Bruce de Palma usa el impulso lineal como "I"
ya que usa el momento de inercia como "K * m").

Al buscar una equivalencia dentro de la segunda fuerza del catacroc

dE/dt = F * v_r + I * w * dw/dt

que siendo dE/dt = 0

F * v_r + I * w * (dw/dt) = 0

F * v_r = - I * w * dw/dt

F = - (1/v_r) * I * w * dw/dt

En fin, el parecido es ínfimo, ya que en mis cálculos no aparece para
nada el término


que sí surge en los cálculos de Bruce de Palma

y además la velocidad lineal "v_r" en lugar de positiva es negativa y
no multiplica sino que divide "v_r".

- (1/v_r)

además de un factor "2" que no aparece en mis cálculos.

Posdata: Es evidente que para Bruce de Palma hay algún comportamiento
extraño (no Newtoniano) en su máquina de fuerza lineal, pero su
interpretación no se parece nada a la propuesta de la segunda fuerza
del Catacroc.


Report Abuse
Answer: Xaustein - 17/01/2011 17:41:10
 Bruce de Palma, defines a new concept:

Nod = K * w ^ 2 * (dw / dt) ^ 2 + 1

which derived

d / dt (Nod) = d / dt (K * w ^ 2 * (dw / dt) ^ 2) = K * w ^ 2 * 2 * dw / dt * d / dt (dw /

multiplied by the mass "m" and then multiplied by the speed
linear "v_r"

we express the equivalent of Newton's linear force "F".

F = d / dt (Nod) * v_r

and thus capable of producing a linear momentum J as the
Newton force, or first Catacroc force "F".
J = [integral] F * dt

In my calculations I used linear momentum "J" to avoid confusion with the
moment of inertia "I" (Bruce de Palma uses the linear impulse "I"
because it uses the moment of inertia as "K * m").

To find an equivalence in the second force catacroc
we have:

dE / dt = F * v_r + I * w * dw / dt

that while dE / dt = 0

V_r + F * I * w * (dw / dt) = 0

F * v_r = - I * w * dw / dt

F = - (1/v_r) * I * w * dw / dt

In short, the resemblance is minimal, because in my estimation does not appear to
no term

d / dt (dw / dt)

that does emerge in the calculations of Bruce de Palma

and also the linear velocity "v_r" is positive rather than negative
does not multiply but divide "v_r."

- (1/v_r)

and a factor "2" does not appear in my calculations.

PS: It is obvious that Bruce de Palma is a behavior
foreign (non-Newtonian) in linear force machine, but
interpretation does not look like the proposal of the second force
the Catacroc.


Report Abuse
Add an Answer >>
Website. Copyright © 2019 Glenn Turner. All rights reserved. site info
Do not copy without prior permission. Click here for gyroscope products