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

The Gyroscope Forum

20 April 2019 12:06

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: Blaze
Subject: M Drive video
Question: Something I stumbled across when surfing. It looks similar in concept to something that I think Nitro was working on.



Date: 4 February 2014
report abuse

Answers (Ordered by Date)

Answer: MD - 04/02/2014 06:03:21
 Hey, I'm the inventor of the M Drive. I guess I've pushed up my 'debut' on this site, as I've more or less considered you competitors. But lately I've stopped worrying about that and released a video for all to see. Sure I want to make money, but now I realize that convincing the entire scientific community that one of our basic 'laws' of physics is wrong is one gigantic task, and you need to do that before you convince anyone else.

So yeah, this is the M Drive, a project I started on back in January 2013 after I had a crazy idea that you could 'row in space' using gyroscopes. I basically asked myself what happens with the energy you put into working against gyroscopes, and if that somehow could be translated into propulsion.

I think I was right, as I have some pretty good results so far.

Anyway, nice to meet you all. Hope we'll have some nice, fruitful conversations from now on.

Report Abuse
Answer: Ted Pittman - 04/02/2014 22:29:57
 Hello again M Drive man,
I had given some thought to "rowing" through space. But, it seems that rowing works because of two different density mediums. In the case of a space drive - what might the other medium be? Some kind of esoteric field? The aether? Spacetime? what?

( I suspect one of us might stumble upon the answer by accident. :)

Report Abuse
Answer: Blaze - 05/02/2014 01:20:59
 Hi MD.

From viewing the video I certainly would not call that a "reactionless" drive. There is plenty of reaction going on as can be seen by the jerking and the back and forth movement of the skateboard, drill, rails, etc. and I know that is not what you mean by reactionless.

I seem to be the person on the forum who tends to "rock the boat" by claiming you don't have to break Newton's laws as they are written to get propulsion. I would also have to say that I don't believe that a truly "reactionless" drive is possible. Based on my experiments and mathematical modelling, I have found that the reactions are there, you just have to know where to look for them and more importantly how to use them to get the results you want.

Although I have said that I believe propulsion is possible without breaking Newton's laws, I have said in a previous posting in this forum:

"The ONLY reason that propulsion appears to be possible is because of the discovery that "there are things happening that are not described in Newton’s laws. Those things not described in Newton’s laws DO in fact follow Newton’s laws and those things are unique to spinning mass." Without elaborating further it would be difficult if not impossible to really understand that statement or interpret what the "things happening that are not described in Newton’s laws" actually are and why they are important"."

That statement was based on the experiments and mathematical modeling that I did last year.

In the next few months I should hopefully have my physical model built which will prove (or disprove) propulsion based on my experiments and mathematical modelling. My device is quite different than yours and has to be quite a bit more elaborate to produce propulsion.

One question for you. How level were your rails in this experiment? From the video is is difficult to see if any leveling was done and if your basement floor is anything like mine, it would certainly need leveling. I would think it would only take a slope of a degree or so to ruin the results of the experiment. An easy way to verify movement would be to run your device in one direction and then when it gets the the end of the rails, turn the device around and run it in the other direction back to where you began. If the results are the same you will have a reasonably good indication that your experiment isn't skewed.


Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 05/02/2014 03:03:18
 That is a very good show and I applauded you. Next, you should do everything you can to add smoothness and much greater acceleration.
As to Newton’s law: debating teams often cannot win, because of the inventiveness of the opposing human imaginations. Sometimes there is no possible end to where-fors and what-fors. However, having read the third law slowly, it in it’s simplicity and certainty, would have to be broken.

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 05/02/2014 05:46:11
 Ted> I was just describing the first idea I had. As in, what happens if you literally put gyroscopes on the end of oars and row. Where does the energy you put into working against the gyroscopes go? Because it sure as heck doesn't disappear.

What my machine does is precess the gyroscopes forward by rotating the scaffold/arms, then as you decrease the rotational speed, the springs will try and force them back again as the precession will begin to fade because it doesn't have a source of power. When the springs force them back they're literally working against the gyroscopes, and that energy that's being released has to go somewhere.

Now, if it's actually being converted into propulsion somehow or just being converted into more precession and the machine is propelling itself some other way I'll leave unsaid. I literally don't know, and that's what future experiments are designed to find out.

Blaze> Yeah, plenty of reactions going on. The gyroscopes are somewhat heavy, a couple of pounds each, and they need something to react/push off from in order to actually move back and forth along the X axis (forward/backward). If the skateboard part is too light, the gyroscopes will stay in one place and the skateboard move back and forth, and that stops the machine from working entirely.

I don't mind skeptics, in fact I think they're necessary. But let me ask you, do you believe these unknown aspects of Newtons law, could they be used to move mass through space without ejecting propellant? As for the rails, they're fairly level, and I have attempted and succeeded in turning the machine 180 degrees and having it move forward.

The main question is: Is it the gyroscopes pulling it forward, or is it the bearings that somehow push against the rail, pushing it forward? People tend to want to think the latter, but I really can't see how that's possible, especially in the first clip "March 2013 First successful experiment". There's just 4 wheels, and if the floor isn't slanting... how? Why would the wheels favor the machine going in one direction and not the other?

Oh and I have done this one semi-scientific experiment, mostly to convince myself. I made the gyroscopes go back and forth and rotate around the scaffold Without having them spin, and the result was....... machine didn't move. Turn the gyroscopes back on, it moves again. Oh and it consistently moves only in one direction, never backwards.

Glenn Hawkings> Haha, easier said than done. That's what I've been trying to do for the last year (although I admit I've been pretty lazy when it comes to actually putting down time in this project, so a year for me may be a couple of months for you guys). The clips in the video are literally the best results. The machine is currently being rebuilt, but I plan on trying to prove the propulsion effect seen in the video isn't

Well, that's a lot of text. I'll leave it at that for now. Great meeting like-minded people. :)

Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 05/02/2014 14:01:06
 Evening Blaze, MD and other shed dwellers,
As you know I have very little faith in the integrity of most offerings to YouTube and for this reason I was never been really tempted to participate in it.
However I will I offer congratulations to MD for his inertial drive set up.
There is no doubt in my mind and from my prior experience and good reasons that it is genuine.
Your device is operating in spite of Sir Isaac for reasons which are not at all obvious.
Whether you would class the rest my utterances as fruitful MD we can but see?
What I am about to relate MD is all from personal experience and may in some way help you chose you path forward.
My first and successful device was simply ignored to death so I will not go into the details of that one, but it differed in many ways from your design.
My second device operated on the same principle as yours which was of intermittent system rotation with the gyroscopes like yours probably designed to run at a fixed speed, so I will only relate to this device.
The similarities may not be so obvious to you.
See my American patent No 5,024,112 dated June 18, 1991.
This particular device was subjected to a laboratory test in the Vipac Laboratories, at their premises, the Victorian Technology Centre, Port Melbourne, Australia.
The report was entitled “Measurement of Force Generation of a Prototype Gyroscope Invention” and was numbered report 35244, and dated March 1988.
This 24 page report whilst included in a book called “Beyond 2001” was in fact the property of an Australian manufacturing company who commissioned the test, and while there were no forthcoming negative comments from them, they could have caused problems, so in the interests of caution, was not subsequently made popular knowledge by myself.
The report is pretty conclusive in its findings as the device in question carried out 20 positive consecutive runs out of 20.
A run constituted an untouched and environmentally saturated test designed by the laboratory, controlled by the laboratory and carried out for the period of one minute.

That said the reason that the device did not get developed was because the technical people in Australia could not get it to comply in any way with Newton.
It is amazing how fast interest can disappear if the reasons for the production of inertial thrust are a mystery.
In fairness they tried and tried before they eventually threw in the towel.
At that point I never had a clue either, I just knew if I did certain things with a device unexplained things would happen.
Anyhow when I returned to Scotland I took the report to a professor who I had befriended in the Engineering Department of Edinburgh University, who in turn handed it to a colleague, a physicist in that department.
The physicist glanced at the title on the envelope and threw it on a desk and exclaimed “Rubbish” as he about turned and got smartly got out of that office.
Incidentally that kind of ignorance and arrogance tends to be the norm from so called educated persons.
The professor was somewhat more sympathetic but said “I would like to help you Sandy, but I would also like to return to work on Monday”
Puts it all in a nutshell does it not.
I did not intend to spread doom and gloom but the road is not an easy one.
I have spent the subsequent years trying to find out what actually does happen in gyroscope or flywheel systems and it goes a lot deeper than one would expect.
The type of device you demonstrated is one way of doing the business but you will already have gathered that even if the output is genuine it will never be of an elevated order.
However you have got a great start and you can work on this and develop this device and/or others.
At least you own the device so you can, like I did, find out what makes it tick.
The information is only of use to yourself, or like-minded freaks like we are, as the establishment will not entertain anything that challenges their precious physics.
Anyway I am pretty sure none of this will hold you back.
Congratulations for now.
Sandy Kidd

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 05/02/2014 15:45:02
 Sandy Kidd, it's an honor to finally talk to you.

And yeah, I've already run into that type of physicist. I'm a swede, and one of Swedens most popular physicist happens to live in my town. I approached him with the first clip (March 2013) back in April 2013, and got the cold shoulder. Without the attitude though, so that's at least something. He couldn't actually explain what happened in the video, but quickly came to the conclusion that it was a waste of his time to investigate it further because "We already know everything about gyroscopes".

Personally, I get excited when people show me something I can't explain. I like to understand the world we live in, and think I have a pretty good grasp on most things physical in nature, but the gyroscope still remains a mystery to me.

As for convincing people, I believe I read an old post by you here a while ago. I could be wrong, but I remember looking up the phrase on Google to find out who said it, and I think it was an American physicist I unfortunately can't remember the name of. Paraphrasing it went something like "No matter how beautiful your math is, if the experiments don't work as predicted, you're wrong".

The point is, the evidence will speak for itself. And if scientists refuse to have a look at the M Drive, I have a trick or two up my sleeve.

Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 05/02/2014 19:43:43
 Evening Blaze, Glenn, Ted, MD, and others, with nothing better to do with their time.
My wife thinks my memory is failing, just another one of the rigours of advancing years, I am afraid.
So this is a good test for me to see how bad I am getting, and will apologise in advance if I am boring you all to tears.
Initially I had problems trying to figure out what was going on as I realised that even if I could get close enough to get some interest in my device that was as far as it was going to go.
If by some lucky chance I did attract some interest I would have liked to be able to explain the truth of the situation, and not the specious junk normally expounded.
When I got home from my stay in Australia which I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed by the way, and was very well looked after, I decided to examine my first device much more closely.
After many experiments and tests carried out over a lot of years piece by piece, the whole business eventually became clear to me, even allowing an explanation for devices such as your “rowing through space” device I think Ted called it.
There are fundamentally 3 ways that I know of, that the “thing” can be achieved, your type or should I say that type, being one of them and only requires a reaction from one arm at a time. However with both arms working the output is obviously going to be better.
Unfortunately I discovered around 1990 or thereabouts that this type of machine had severe limitations imposed on it, by way of its intermittent rotation, and the type of braking required to create a reaction, or differential, which limited its rotation speed and the possibility of delivering a lot of power.
The braking on my machine was purely accidental.
My intention was to pull the gyro arms in rapidly and release them even more rapidly, sort of reminiscent of Scott Strachan’s machine, which although unproved was probably the first.
This was achieved by inserting a vicious, high- lift double- ended cam into the middle of the device which did the needful along with a fair bit of help from the tension of a one piece welded 6mm round polyurethane gyroscope drive belt
The device was designed such that the gyroscopes were elevated and released simultaneously.
As the test machine which was installed in a wooden box was suspended by a Kevlar cord during the lab testing the device nearly came to a stop when the gyro arms negotiated the double sided cam, climbed almost vertically upwards until the top face of the cam was reached.
The gyros accelerated across the cam face at a great speed, went down the back-face of the cam and went merrily and rapidly on their way.
The box containing the experiment was driven forward as the gyroscopes reached the cam pretty well holding station until the gyroscopes reached the top face of the cam when the box returned a la Newton from whence it came.
I enjoyed watching this device operate as the very visible lifting pulse seemed to be totally out of sync with the action of the machine.
It must be understood that the device was enclosed in a sealed wooden box and driven by a no loss water cooled engine i.e. internal reservoir tank and catch tank, emptied and filled as required prior to testing.
In other words I had to guess what was going on as I could not see a lot from outside the box.
I built 2 identical devices, one to set up the working parameters and one for test.
That however is a story on its own.
Incidentally when tested on the set up rig later, the device produced nothing which pretty well proved that the oscillation of the device was necessary and was a place to start looking for answers.
I had not utilised radio control on this device which was a pity as I had to set it as best I could and hope for the best. I got lucky.
I think if I had a will I could make a good one of them, but I am a bit limited with the time I have at my disposal, which is probably a good thing.
A point of interest during preliminary testing it was discovered that frigging with the weight of the gyroscopes could make the device deliver negative readings
The lab techs were quite happy with this and wanted me to proceed as it was, as this was equally impossible but Sandy prevailed and the results became positive.

Report Abuse
Answer: Ted Pittman - 05/02/2014 21:28:44
 Hello MD,
Here's one of my experiences with an "educated" PhD candidate. The following is from an earlier post "Gamma Report 3". In 1972, an associate and I had built a teststand and control station, etc... ( photo at http://www.monkeybarsoflife.com/photo2.html ).

"We started thinking about getting some official help. Someone who the outside world would listen to and believe we’ve accomplished what we had.
After reading an article in a science magazine, I sent a report and a letter to the U.S. Navy describing Gamma Car 2 and asking their opinion. They said ‘the car merely hop-scotched across the floor’. They didn’t comment on the rest of the report.
We invited a PhD candidate, from the University of Chicago, to witness one of our test. He had already read my report and marked it up repeatedly with ‘This violates Newton’s law’. After examining the teststand and witnessing a test run he simply said, “Now, I’ve seen it and I still don’t believe it” and he left. We never heard from him again!"

It's as if you're trying to prove to a divinity graduate that God doesn't exist.

Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 06/02/2014 00:07:49
 Evening Ted,
Apart from being quite disconcerting it becomes really annoying when you are actually trying to do the academic persons a favour.
During my limited stay in one of the bastions of credibility i.e. Dundee University I had occasion during a “slow” period to demonstrate to the good doctor who was in fact a nice, and very reasonable person, the fact that I could demonstrate the increase or reduction in centrifugal force at will on my device which was at the time under review.
He quietly said something that sounded like “impossible” so I promptly demonstrated the impossible, to which he turned sharply around and walked away, as they do, making no comment, nothing.
In the rest of my presence, or stay on sufferance, the demonstration was never mentioned at all, and I think the good doctor, was terrified in case I did.
I had previously approached the maths department in the same university and asked how much centrifugal force would be present in a twin gyroscope system that was rotating due to gyroscopic action at 45 degrees above the horizontal.
The answer came back quickly that the centrifugal force would be the same as would be calculated assuming the gyroscopes were rotating horizontally but reduced proportionally by the difference in radius of gyration.
To that I said that if the rotating gyroscopes were able to rotate at 45 degrees above the horizontal with their predicted level of centrifugal force, inertial thrust is not a possibility it is an absolute certainty.
To that there was a lot more back turning and walking away.
Unfortunately that is that, there is never a follow up to this Catch 22.
In fairness there are a few who are prepared to at least think about it.
I got a phone call from a professor at another university a head of department who I think initially was trying to see if I was just a nutter. I told him that his behaviour was a bit unconventional to which he replied that he was an unconventional professor.
I invited him to my house and we chatted a bit. He then asked me if I would care to demonstrate my device to a team of his colleagues in his university.
This I duly did which raised a few eyebrows then “Sandy would you please wrap that thing up and get it to hell out of here” which again I duly did.
That amused me a lot.
I could continue for ages but I won’t. Names can be supplied on request
I think I have made my point.

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 06/02/2014 04:06:43
 Sandy> Is this the device you put in a box? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL_Gasok8xw

I'm disappointed in the 'scientists' that you demonstrated your devices to. If I happen to go down the exact same path, I'd probably just record a video of the event and release it to the internet. That way it won't matter what close-minded people think, for every person that says "impossible" there will be someone open-minded to say "interesting".

I just have to get my butt into gear and actually put down some time into this project. I seem to have some kind of "writers block" (nutters block?) at the moment.

Report Abuse
Answer: Ted Pittman - 06/02/2014 12:25:37

Good Luck with the video proving anything.
We have to stop trying to prove anything to anybody but ourselves.
Just do what you do because that's your passion. Enjoy your life and your creativity.

Discussions might have a greater value if we all discussed what to do AFTER someone is successful with inertial propulsion. Who should they go to? Who to contact? Keep it a secret or expose ALL the details on the internet? How to keep from getting killed by the powers that be?

By the way, there is a big cash prize for successful demo of anti-gravity. It's from a European country (Germany?). You can google it. I think the requirement is for a device to remain aloof for some short period of time, unattached to anything. I say, Go for the Money!


Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 06/02/2014 20:46:11
 Hello MD,
The best I can tell, as the gyros are forced to precess in dual rotation and therefore in response curve inward into a cone, the platform during that action goes backwards in keeping with the third law. It seems then the twin gyros in dual rotation are somehow retracted to their starting position, until outward at their widest diameter; (perhaps retracted by weak springs?). Then there seems to be a hesitation of short duration when they are retrieved backwards. It seems this retrieving action makes the platform lunge forward also in keeping with the third law. The difference of course is that the forward lunges are stronger than the reverse lunges.
I have experimented with this ages ago, not nearly so elaborately as you. What I am describing, or trying to does not make sense.
I see it and believe it. All of us either know, or accept the possible positive proposition that there is some strange things in precession that is fought against by our world’s experts.
You write well, Can you tell us more? By the way, congratulations very much.

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 06/02/2014 21:12:52
 Ted> I know of the Goede (spelling?) prize, but I simply don't believe a gyroscopic propulsion machine can be made strong enough to lift its own weight, at least not without decades of research.

Funnily, they have this weird requirement, where you have to prove you're manipulating gravity, which... is just silly, since nobody could prove that even if they did it.

Glenn> "The difference of course is that the forward lunges are stronger than the reverse lunges."

Now think about how stick-slip works when rocking back and forth on an office chair. It's slow forward, fast backward. Yet, the machine does the opposite, and still works fine.

It's not like Newton's laws are out of order, it's more of an "over-reaction drive" than a reactionless one. As you said, there are springs that are pulling the gyros backward, and I know for a fact that there's an equal and opposite reaction to that. But there's also something else going on I can't explain. I probably won't try to explain it outside of analogies (rowing, etc), as that's more of a math problem, and I'm not a math guy.

Oh, someone asked if I believe in the "aether theory". No I do not.

Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 06/02/2014 22:06:07
 Hello .MD
No MD that is not the device, this was done quite a bit later than my lab test device, which I have several photographs in and out of the box
I did not know that anyone else had ever seen that.
I completely forgot about it probably mentally deliberately.
I have it from Fox Television, Australia, Discovery Channel 5 methinks
I was dabbling with that device adapting a braking mechanism that would produce intermittent operation, similar to certain machines I know of, when the squad arrived
totally unannounced at my door.
They had come to see my machine in operation which I though was really cheeky and they would return the next day to interview and film.
I really do not know what they wished to see but this was all I had at the time.
I got 24 hours to set that thing up.
I told the team that I would set it up as I would for test, but would not guarantee any measurable output.
It was delivering about 1 ounce which was not worth getting excited about.
I forgot all about that one of about 300 machines, most built to investigate particular functions.
You will notice that there was no mention of the lab test from the professor.
Other comments I really could not make on this forum.
That is an episode I would much rather forget.

Report Abuse
Answer: Blaze - 07/02/2014 01:29:43
 MD you asked:
"...do you believe these unknown aspects of Newtons law, could they be used to move mass through space without ejecting propellant?"

Yes I believe they can be used to produce propulsion through space without ejecting mass. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be building a device to prove it. It is all about momentum transfer and reset as I explain below.

Ted said:
"It's as if you're trying to prove to a divinity graduate that God doesn't exist."

In a way that is exactly what you are trying to prove. I will give you a quote from another forum that was explains the problem of propulsion without ejecting mass. I don't know the name of the person who said it so I can't give proper credit.

"It's all about conservation of momentum. In order for momentum of your craft to increase, momentum of something else must decrease in the same direction (or increase in opposite direction). That essentially means that in order to accelerate, you have to propel mass. You can eject mass you brought with you, then you have a rocket. You can accelerate mass that's around you, like the propeller does. Or you can push off something really heavy nearby. A car does that."

That statement is essentially correct. Momentum has to be transferred from the moving mass (the gyro) to the craft. THE ONLY WAYS KNOWN to the academics (and pretty much everyone else) to do that are the three ways described in the quote. However transferring momentum in a "one pass" system that then coasts "forever" is actually easy to do but is not known to the academics. Unfortunately this one pass system is essentially useless (except for demonstrating the fallacy of the concept of a "closed system" as it is presently understood) because it only accelerates the system for a very brief period of time and can't be repeated. I have modeled this one pass system and a highly modified version that can be repeated will be part of the overall design I am building. Eventually we will see if that design is correct.

Now for the important part. After the momentum is transferred to the craft, the moving mass that was used to transfer momentum (the gyro) has to be reset back to its original starting position WITHOUT adversely affecting the momentum of the craft that it just transferred its momentum to, which allows the cycle to be repeated and the craft to build up speed. That part is a bit more difficult and whether they know it or not, that is what everyone that is dabbling in this area is struggling with.

The person from the other forum goes on to say:
"But you cannot have a closed system that spontaneously accelerates without interacting with everything. Gyros don't change that."

By everything I believe he means the crafts environment. The reason he says the two sentences above is because of the currently known ways to transfer momentum and none of them use gyros or can be used with the current understanding of a "closed system" because there is presently no known way to do the reset in a closed system. At least not yet.

In other words, no one understands how moving mass around "inside a box" could possibly cause propulsion because they cannot imagine that a reset is possible without affecting the craft as much as the original transfer of momentum did. That is what you are fighting and that is why it is so difficult to get anyone to listen.


Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 07/02/2014 05:19:26
 Sandy> "That is an episode I would much rather forget"

I'm impressed by the video. I mean, a pendulum test is probably very, very difficult to cheat. I'm actually amazed there hasn't been more publicity surrounding these impossible machines, but I guess the internet kind of ruined it. There's thousands of 'free energy' machines out there, and no one has the tenacity to investigate the phenomenon properly. And because inertial propulsion is more or less placed in the same place as free energy machines, it's sort of understandable.

Blaze> "In other words, no one understands how moving mass around "inside a box" could possibly cause propulsion because they cannot imagine that a reset is possible without affecting the craft as much as the original transfer of momentum did."

Exactly, and that's what I believe my design overcomes. Propulsion only occurs when the gyros move backwards. When they move forwards they act "Newtonian", like normal weights. And, as I said, evidence will speak for itself. I don't think it's going to be easy, but at some point there's going to be an overwhelming amount of evidence that no one's been able to explain away. The video I put up is the first step in that direction, as there hasn't really surfaced any "Newtonian" theory that encompasses everything seen in the video.

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 07/02/2014 05:29:33
 Blaze> Forgot one thing.

Because propulsion only occurs in one direction, speed should accumulate over time, but..... oh man, that has been difficult to do. The top speeds are what you see in the video.

I thought it'd be easy to get it up to jogging speed. I've spent probably $100-$150 on pro-grade skateboard bearings, but they're just not cutting it. The machine won't go past a certain speed before some kind of friction or just crappy build quality gets in the way. Because it's certainly not reaching higher speeds because of wind resistance, which is what I thought would limit it.

I suppose something like an air bed (think air hockey table) would be optimal, but I don't feel I have the skills necessary to build a Huge one of those that also has to be completely level.

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 07/02/2014 07:42:39
 Hello everyone, Good to see your posts.
MD, I designed a contraption I named the ‘inch worm’ and wrote about it extensively on this site about half a dozen years ago. The inch-worm would consistently move forward about an inch at a time, but it would stop dead still after each movement and would have to restart from zero velocity. It was forward, stop; forward, stop; forward, stop. In the configuration it was not allowed to coast. I don’t know it ever could have, or could not have. Many times I redesigned employing the same techniques, but in more advantageous ways to allow coasting in an attempt to create constant accelerations building into constantly increasing velocities. I was never able to do it. I wonder can it ever be done. I hope so.

We have a state side saying,” Keep on keeping on.”
I hope it works for you.

Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 07/02/2014 12:14:00
 Hello MD,
I have already stated that I think your device is genuine and can display one way drive tendencies.
I am making these comments aimed at twin or multiple horizontally offset gyro devices.
That said I saw similarities with some of my early vertically operating devices, i.e. and for the sake of clarity the main axis of system rotation is vertical.
Now I know for a fact that machines can deliver thrust with both gyros in operation simultaneously as all my later machines do, but some of the best thrust I have developed has been from alternatively operating devices such as your own.
However one of my early devices with 20% thrust to weight ratio was what I described a default action.
The active gyro did nothing the passive gyro did all the work.
Guess how long that took to figure out?
But it worked consistently for as long as it was tested or demonstrated.
I learned more from that device than any other I have ever had.
There is no doubt your device is operating in defiance of Sir Isaac which gladdens my heart greatly. There was once I believe a sizable monitory award for a device which could travel forward on its own for more than the length of the device.
I think it was Eric Laithwaite who first mentioned it to me, but that may or may not be valid now.
It is a prize I personally did not pursue.
What I really wanted to get to is the fact that whilst there is little doubt your device defies Newton, I do not think it is capable of driving itself in space.
I believe your reaction is created by gravity and the presence of your rubber bands.
So in the context of a space-drive you are a fair bit of the way there, the trouble being that it is hard to take gravity with you.
You can always replace gravity by rotational acceleration and a bit of modification.
Keep up the good work.

Report Abuse
Answer: Ted Pittman - 07/02/2014 13:35:35
 Hey MD,

When I wrote about using oars in two mediums I was thinking about a show from the science channel on TV. The topic was gravity and they said something like " The reason gravity does not appear to be as strong as the other basic forces may be because most of gravity (as we know it) is in another dimension". Sort of like an iceberg.

I often imagine things very literally, so it is easy for me to think about devices in the above context.



Report Abuse
Answer: Blaze - 08/02/2014 00:32:08
 Found an article on Reactionless Drives on Wikipedia that sums up why a "closed system" drive is not accepted by academics.

"A reactionless drive (also known by many other names, including as an inertial propulsion engine, a reactionless thruster, a reactionless engine, a bootstrap drive or an inertia drive) is a fictional or theorized method of propulsion wherein thrust is generated without any need for an outside force or net momentum exchange to produce linear motion. The name comes from Newton's Third Law of Motion, which is usually expressed as, "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". Such a drive would necessarily violate laws of classical physics, the conservation of momentum and the conservation of energy. In spite of their physical impossibility, devices such as the "Dean Drive" are a staple of science fiction, particularly for space propulsion."

The sentence - "Such a drive would necessarily violate laws of classical physics, the conservation of momentum and the conservation of energy." - is the crux of the problem and is what you have to prove incorrect and it won't be easy.

The reason I don't adhere to the "reactionless drive" name is because it isn't reactionless. The reactions are there or it would not move its center of mass. The reaction mass is (usually) the gyro mass. The trick is getting the reset correct.

To prove that a "closed system" drive produces propulsion you would have to prove:
1) it is not a closed system, even though mass is not ejected
2) conservation of momentum is not violated when accelerating (ie: momentum is transferred from the reaction mass to the craft)
3) conservation of momentum is not violated when resetting the reaction mass (ie: the reset does not consume all the momentum that was just imparted to the craft in point number 2)
4) conservation of energy is not violated

Incidentally, I believe that I can prove points 2, 3, and 4 directly and point 1 indirectly with the design I am building. These are exactly the points I did prove to several engineer friends that did take the time to review my design.

Until you can someone to listen to you long enough to prove the 4 points above, you will be forever blocked by academia.


Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 08/02/2014 06:58:31
 "is the crux of the problem and is what you have to prove incorrect and it won't be easy."

Actually, proving the gyros is what causes the acceleration is easy enough. It's getting people to believe it that's going to be hard.

Even the first clip is more or less unexplainable by normal physics unless you assume the floor is slanted. There's just nothing for the wheels to grab on to.

If you do a precise enough experiment that prove the wheels aren't pushing the "floor" backwards as the machine goes forwards, that's essentially all that's needed. You could even do the same pendulum test Roy Thornson did, where you suspend it from the ceiling and attach a light underneath it. If the light stays more on one side than the other... again, how do you explain away that using normal physics?

Stick-slip needs a 'stick' part, where the wagon moves backwards, but not fast enough to overcome the very small amount of friction needed to get the bearings rolling, in order to work, and that's just not happening in the video.

I originally hoped I could get it up to a fast enough speed so that when the gyros precess forward, pushing the wagon back, the wheels wouldn't move backwards relative to the track. But the universe had other plans, and I only got that result a few times (shown in video if you're attentive), meaning it's not consistent and not scientifically relevant.

As for those other points you brought up, Blaze, I'm just not a physicist, but I don't think you can prove a negative in the world of science. Like, you can't say "Prove god doesn't exist". Does that mean you can't say "Prove that conservation of momentum isn't being violated"? The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. All I really need to do is claim "It is the gyroscopes that propel this machine forward" and prove that.

Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 08/02/2014 10:05:11
 Evening Blaze, MD, Ted, Glenn and all.
To me a closed system is an autonomous system and will react on nothing but itself.
It really does not matter too much what goes on inside the box as long as it can move itself and or change its direction as is required.
I think it is pretty fair to assume that we all believe that the reaction mechanism whilst being encased in or internal to the machine will be dynamic in nature.
We can alter mass by acceleration, and we know how to vary that mass at will.
We can we reduce the mass before the arms advance and increase the mass before they return, by controlling the rotation speed of the gyros or the rotation speed of the device itself (or both)
Witness MD’s device.
However, after years of throwing gyroscopes in every conceivable direction, in every conceivable way, in all sorts of devices, I did discover that the dynamics of the gyroscopes must be created such that they move by themselves and must not be assisted from elsewhere.
I do not class a rotation speed change as assistance from elsewhere.
The trick is making the arms move themselves making the action automatic.
The reset mechanism breaks every rule in Newton’s book but is in fact relatively easy to produce when you actually fling the known and accepted laws aside.
The gyros can be persuaded to do it all themselves.
Besides it is not necessary to repeat the action inside one two or ten revolutions of the device.
My latest device rotates normally at around 400rpm (4 flywheels x 0.5kilo each on 150mm radius), but the reaction mechanism only rotates at a fraction of that, and the output pulses are very large
There is your inertial thrust and conversion of angular momentum to linear momentum
If we are going to break the law we may as well break them all.
In a previous post I described its motion as that of a swimming jellyfish or medusa but my device needs no water to operate.
These independent functions have been proved to produce considerable inertial thrust when suitably combined.
It has been a lot of work but I am finally testing my MK 4 machine of this type.
They all worked well up to a point but I have had to adapt gearboxes to suit and was really disappointed in the fact that my much vaunted out-runner brushless motors would not synchronise, throwing my test machine out of balance, hitting me as it came off the counterbalance
The machine was badly damaged, but it was obvious that my 4 motors could not cope with changing speeds and loads and got much too hot.
Have rebuilt it all using old fashioned mechanical engineering, much more involved but positive with 100% synchronisation, and everything works fine.
I am getting too old for the shed in winter, so I am hoping this is my last one which I am due to release very soon, and not on YouTube
Such a device is not easy to build, timing the operating sequence is a bit “suck it and see” but (and you can only take my word for it) can be done and can work well.

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 08/02/2014 20:27:37
 Anyone have any ideas/knowledge on wheels?

Right now I'm using skateboard bearings. They don't roll well. Somewhere a lot of energy is being absorbed, and I don't know how to fix it. If you notice in the video there's a lot of noise, and that noise needs energy to exist.. probably from the momentum the wagon has.

Are smaller bearings preferred? Or ceramic ones? Any help at all would be appreciated.

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 08/02/2014 21:16:06
 MD, “Anyone have any ideas/knowledge on wheels”
Maybe. If you suspended two long rods and placed, say two 125mm wheels, sleeve type with the V cut, on then and suspended your apparatus to them, I don’t see how they could produce any discernible resistance. Too, with the pendulum effect you would be more convincing and I suspect learn things perhaps not yet conceived.

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 08/02/2014 21:16:52
 Good evening Blaze, MD, Ted, Sandy Kidd and all,



Above are two videos that present the same basic action; Nitro’s one shot and MD’s continuous shots. As the gyros precess forward the cradle reacts backwards. However, ultimately more oscillated force will be delivered forward than backwards. I have hypothesized as to why.
Recalling the study of equilibrium, a barrel can be filled with liquid and the pressure on a small cork in a small hole is such, but the pressure on a very large cork is far greater, because the square inch area to receive force is much larger. (Please excuse the ABC physics) With this in mind, let up look at the gyro actions presented.
As the gyros fling themselves forward from a right angle force, they move forward into a cone shape and the force/pressure arrows become magnified closing into a small point of force release. However, the opposite is true when they are retracted to their original provisioning. When the gyros are retracted their force angle arrows point outward, spreading into a greater, widening area of displaced force into space. The angled directions point in a widening, dispersing larger backdrop and perhaps weakening resistance.
This is hypothetical, but it explains the possible means and reasons for the propelled cradles we see, regardless of what other men will not see.


Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 08/02/2014 22:15:43
 Hello Glenn, MD etc.
I think the motion is a bit simpler than you are explaining Glenn.
The rotation speed of the device is not very high so the centrifugal effects will be of a relatively low order.
The gyro travelling over Top Dead Centre is being subjected to gravity driving the weight of the gyro in towards the rotation axis of the device which results in a reduced load on the gyroscope.
This will effectively reduce the load that the gyroscope will experience hence the gyros ability to extend the rubber bands whilst its torque levers it forward.
The gyro travelling past Bottom Dead Centre is not subjected to this reduction which exhibits the full force of gravity on that gyroscope.
This effectively eliminates any possibility of the gyro to overcome the rubber bands as it tries to torque forward.
However consider that as the forward moving gyroscope is returning downwards to pass the BDC position and recover its gravitational load it also has the additional load released by the rubber bands which does all the work and drives it forward.
I said something about storage springs somewhere in a previous posting.
As I said it is genuine but needs gravity to operate.
Still well done MD

Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 08/02/2014 22:37:00
 Hello again MD,
I think for a machine which must run with the machine rotation axis parallel to the ground it would surely be much easier, cheaper and more accurate to arrange for the assembly of an overhead mounted ballistics pendulum test a la B. Harry Stine.
I would use it myself but unfortunately most of my machines are not too happy running horizontally
I think you could be pleasantly surprised by the results.
Just a thought,

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 08/02/2014 22:54:23
 Hi Sandy,
Good to see you and I hope in not so cold there as it has been here.
I disagree you you on this linear drive. I think gravity as nothing to do with it. But, I do think my hypotheses above is worthy of consideration.
Otherwise I am following you with great interest.
Smiles, Glenn

Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 08/02/2014 23:34:07
 Hello Glenn, MD and all others
It really has not been so cold lately but the wind has been blowing pretty consistently and with it usually rain for many months now.
However in the words of the song from the Sound of Music “I am 76 going on 77” a person tends not to expect too much.
The ballistic test was the invention of G. Harry Stine not B. Harry Stine, an elderly moment.
Please accept my apologies people.
Glenn I always respect other persons opinions, everyone is entitle to one, and consequently should be worthy of consideration.
That said I am looking for is a system where there are cyclic changes in forces, for instance MD.s device, but normally when most devices return to the starting position there is no net gain.
However we have an extra component in the inclusion of rubber bands storing energy which the upper gyroscope has been able to load into them and is being released 180 degrees out of phase, creating the net gain.

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 09/02/2014 06:57:58
 I won't pretend I understood everything you said, Sandy, but in my mind gravity is just torque, meaning it can be easily replaced. Sure gravity helps move the gyroscope on the upper half of the machine forward, and the vice versa, but it's not an intrinsic part of the machine. They will do that even without gravity (although more uniform, as is intended).

Nitro's device from 2001 look interesting. Wish I knew more about it, but the conclusion I've come to is that the forward precession my machine does has no affect on the center of gravity. That part is actually the 'reset' part. The center of gravity (probably) only moves when the gyros are forced back to their starting position by the springs.

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 09/02/2014 08:12:47
 Glenn> I didn't quite understand that. Could you link to a site, showing what you mean maybe? Would be highly appreciated, because I believe if I create a system with low enough friction, the machine will simply accelerate to "unbelievable" speeds, meaning jogging speed, or maybe even running.

It'd at least be very hard to blame that on "stick-slip".

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 09/02/2014 08:16:38
 This would be the dream: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ty9QSiVC2g0#t=39

No idea if it's possible to achieve that level of... I think someone used the term 'coasting'? But I know my machine doesn't coast very well, and it needs to.

Report Abuse
Answer: Harry K. - 09/02/2014 10:05:38
 Hello Md, Sandy, Glenn, Blaze and all others

First welcome MD to this forum and congratulations for experimental work!
In my opinion there is less or nothing gyro related propulsion involved in the outcome of your setup for the following reasons:

There are many unknown involved factors such as friction, overlayed vibrations caused by the the 3 motor drives, unblanced rotation movements of the flywheels itself and their orbiting movement.

This kind of directed movement rembers me when I was in my mechanically education (long time ago...) and worked with a slotting machine in the work shop. This slotting machine is a long stroke machine, driven by an excentre drive and removes/cuts a single span per one stroke from a work piece. This machine was an alternative to a milling machine, however with lesser surface quality. The stroke of the machine could be adjusted and has to be adjusted as short as possible after finished work. If someone forgot it, it became very dangerous to the next person who forgot to check it and switched this machine on. In this case the slotting machine began to "walk" thru the workshop in not forseen direktions!
There are also vibration feeder machines for the transport of bulk solids, for example spiral feeders or vibration classifiers. Most of them are driven by unbalanced motor drives.
Sorry for the excursion but I only want to show the important influence of vibrations in a system.

I had a closer look to your videos. When the flywheels moving outwards, the centre of gravity of the complete apparatus is shifted in the same direction of the moving flywheels. Thus the complete apparatus has to move in counter direction to fullfill Newtons laws, and it does. You can notice this pretty well at the beginning of the first video and as well in the other videos. When the flywheels moving back to ther inital position, the centre of gravity of the apparatus is shifted back to its initial position and thus the apparatus moves back to itis origin position. The apparatus does an oscillating back-forward motion. In free space without any influence of friction and gravity, the apparatus would move backward and forward in an oscillating manner, however the centre of gravity of the complete system would ALWAYS remain at its orign position!
The reason why your setup is moving in a directed position has to do with the above mentioned influences caused at the end by gravity.

I hope my statements do not prevent you for doing more experiments to get experiences, because I'm convinced that inertial propulsion could be possible. However, I think the cause to achieve inertial thrust is much more complex and has to do with the transformation of rotation energy to translation energy. And I also think that acceleration / dceleration take an important part to achieve this.

Best regards,

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 09/02/2014 12:51:43
 Hello Harald, and thanks for the welcome.

I don't agree with your conclusion, but it's not some "this is my invention, I *have* to believe in it" deal. It's because it has never really moved backwards, and can move forward consistently, and in such long strokes that blaming it on vibration (stick-slip, literally) is grasping for straws, especially if you know how it works on a microscopic level.

But you bring up a good point. The point that this video is flawed. I realized this days after I posted it and canceled all attempts in trying to market it as I wanted to do new experiments, make a new video, trying to prove that the propulsion is coming from the gyroscopes, not the wheels.

It's been 2 months since I posted the video, and I still haven't gotten the prototype up to working condition. But that's because I just before christmas realized I'd have a very slim chance of making any money off of this invention anytime soon, meaning my motivation took a rather serious hit.

So that's where I am today. I need to do... probably just a few hours of work to get it up and running, then perform certain experiments where the purpose is to show the wheels don't push back on the track in order to propel the machine forward.

If I can do that I sincerely hope you rethink your position on the matter. /MD

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 09/02/2014 15:37:33
 Hi MD,
The combination of these my help you visualize what I was writing about. Let me know if you need a better description.






Have a good day,

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 09/02/2014 15:49:27
How good to see you at it again! I am very pleased. MD, Harold is a fine lead German engineer and supervisor. They seem to be the most capable kind and it is good to have such well written explanations even if we fined them occasionally pessimistic. Still they are excellent, as you see MD my friend. We need that.
Harry, bless you and family,

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 09/02/2014 16:14:29
 Dear Sandy,
I wish I could work like you guys, but my time is stretched too thin; into too many things. If I could do what I most want to do I would get on a plane with my gas heater and you and I could warm up that shed and I would allow you to teach me everything I am capable of understanding. I would not charge you a penny for teaching me. What would we be eating over there; lots of fish, a black Angus or two, eggs and lots of coffee? How much would board and keep cost for a few months of internship and learning? Kidding aside it would be nice for me.
Be good to your wife my friend, these are cold nights to have to sleep alone.
Kind Regards,

Report Abuse
Answer: Harry K. - 09/02/2014 16:46:18
 Good idea Glenn! I would like to participate! ;-)

Report Abuse
Answer: Blaze - 09/02/2014 17:45:04
 Sandy, you said you hope to release a something about your MK 4 machine soon but not on youtube. On what medium would you be releasing information?


Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 09/02/2014 21:03:28
 Evening Blaze, Glenn
With reference to the release of my device, better if you contacted me by email at

I reckon I have just managed to recover the email address you will have for me Glenn, you can see if it still works?

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 12/02/2014 10:08:14
 I just wanted to let you all know that I plan on encouraging people around the world to build replicas of the M Drive if they want to, in order to speed up development.

That of course applies to all of you as well, even though I understand you all have your own projects going.

I've gone slightly into the theory on what makes it move, but there are still some things worth explaining. It's a fairly simple design as you've seen in the video. If anyone wants I can take some close-up shots on what I believe is the easies way of making the arms move the way they are. The springs are just store bought ones from a car repair shop, nothing fancy.

And for whatever reason, here's my e-mail as well: mdrivegeneral@gmail.com

Report Abuse
Answer: Ted Pittman - 13/02/2014 22:18:19
Much earlier you ask about friction of your wheels...

I tried grease and oil to reduce friction that I had with my counter-weight pulley system. When that didn't solve the problem, I made brackets of dual Teflon wheels riding on aluminum angle irons. Alignment of the rails and wheels was very critical. That worked quite well.

You might give some thought to doing a pendulum or counter-weight test. But, keep in mind, your successful testing (when it comes) might only give you the recognition that Sandy has received. That IS significant. But, it doesn't make you rich.

(No disrespect intended toward Sandy.)

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 16/02/2014 13:36:18
 Hello everyone,
I do not think this is inertial propulsion and I am now correcting my position on this. I think Sandy got it right when he said gravity was responsible.
As the disks are rotated one is assisted into gravity, while the other is opposed by gravity. Notice this causes one gyro mounted arm to lunge forward further and faster than the other. This places a horizontally uneven action on the frame; tending to twist the apparatus. When it is on wheels at the beginning of the video notice the orange tracks laid down on the floor. At the second and forth movements forward, the tracks are twisted. Hold that thought.
When the apparatus is mounted on rails the same uneven gyro/arm lunges occur. This places an angular force on the rails. Part of that angular force is absorbed when the frame moves rearward, but part of the force releases sideways on the rails. This explains why the apparatus' rearward movements are shorter than its forward movements.
The apparatus is being shoved forward by sideways angled resistance. I believe this is right.

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 16/02/2014 15:56:19
 Hello MD,
You can prove, or disprove the above, by building the overhead-crane like design on rails and sleeves with long pendulum chains, I advised when you ask.
Good luck in whatever you decide to do,

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 16/02/2014 18:06:21
 Rearward and sideways force is divided; while forward force is full forward.

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 17/02/2014 09:43:51
 It's a theory. Don't really feel it's "common knowledge", but a theory nonetheless.

Report Abuse
Answer: dave brown - 18/02/2014 20:05:19
 Hi, I saw this when I did my new year's reply the other day.

Even if gravity IS helping, we could put one on each side of a comet that needs a constant push for 30 years to keep it from hitting earth.

- when i saw this other day, i was thinking putting another beside it with opposite motions would cancel sideways twist and mirror both of those underneath and that would stop the front-down or front up twist.
-- although, I may not be seeing to what extent you are saying it is helping.


Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 19/02/2014 11:46:10
 Dave> Yeah I have a hard time imagining it too, to be honest. And I'm trying to stay humble here.

Let's say instead of the gyroscopes (everything above the skateboard) is just an ordinary weight moving back and forth (along the X axis), but forward at a slight angle (to the left). The weight would push the skateboard back as it moved forward, and yes, push the rail in the opposite direction slighty. But once it corrects itself and moves to the center (from it's leftmost position), the skateboard would still have all the freedom to move back.

Besides, in the first clip you don't really see what Glenn is describing. Again, if you ask me.

Slight update: I'm slowly getting the machine back in working order. And this is why I kind of want other people to work on it too. Not saying you guys, but someone. I just... suck at being productive.

I'm thinking I'll finish rebuilding the machine (there's a ridiculously small amount left, I'm literally ashamed of myself), do some more experiments where I try to prove it's "pulling" itself forward when the gyros move back (meaning an "over-reaction drive"), and then I'll probably ask people to just... build their own.

Dave's idea of having two opposite constructions to even it out is good, as I've had it myself. But I'm just too damn lazy right now to attempt such a thing.

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 19/02/2014 15:40:50
There is an element of potential inertial propulsion used in this machine. You both, MD and Dave Brown are correct. Truly however; four gyroscopes should be apposing each other, rather that this design in which each gyroscope apposed the floor, rather than each other. I have carefully explained how and why for years here a design, with given mechanical reasoning and I built a unit to test 25 years ago and it worked, but like MD I did not finish what would have been a comparatively tremendously complicated design. I still have it.
So you have some impressive evidence, MD from which to proceed if you can. Good job. Good luck.
MD look again. The orange tracks move three time.

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 23/02/2014 14:06:50
 It's back up!

Not running as well as some of the clips in the video yet, but just for the heck of it I had it go one way, then I picked it up, turned it around 180 degrees and it went equally well the other way, which is great. Never once went backwards either.

Report Abuse
Answer: dave brown - 23/02/2014 18:01:52
 Cool! :) (I've been checking every day here. :) )

Report Abuse
Answer: Nitro - 24/02/2014 16:59:20
 Dear Blaze,

Thank you for putting up the link to a clear video by MD – clarity is so rare in our world where inventor’s paranoia tends to overcome the desire to inform. It’s interesting to note that the desperation for results has driven MD to test in bare feet and what looks like (?) pyjamas on the kitchen floor. Ha! Haven’t we all been there, done that?

My first gyro on “jogglevision” on u-tube finds me in my dressing gown (at about three in the morning). The desperation for results, any results, is strong. It is so strong that machines are flung together that are all too likely to unflung. Luckily MD’s machine, though breaking a gyro scissor arm pivot, managed to keep hold of the gyros – from experience I can tell you how worrying a live gyro pinging around a cluttered “shed” (or kitchen) can be, while you hop about trying to avoid it until it looses its kinetic.

MD, while your version does, at first view, seem to function as desired, there are some concerns. The heavy cables seem to indicate that the motors and solenoid are powered by a low voltage car or motorbike battery with you carrying out actuation switching. The cables seem able to influence the movement of the trolley. Cannot a battery and actuation means be mounted on the trolley (I know that you want to keep the non gyro mass as light as possible) to remove this risk of appearing to have the cables influencing outcome? The rotation of the main shaft to make the gyros precess to their forward scissored position seems slower than the solenoid’s (?) linear stroke returning the gyros to their start position. While there is nothing wrong with that, it does create a “fast forward - slow back” condition that opens the door for “stick slip” to be created - or susspected.

Making sure that anomalies like “stick slip” aren’t involved and making it clear that the cables aren’t influencing outcome are your next tasks. Good luck with it.

Kind regards

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 24/02/2014 18:30:20
 Nitro> Those are my chinos, not some pajamas. :P I only happened to be barefoot at the time I got those results, which coincidentally happened to be some of the best results I've gotten...

As for the cables, they do look suspicious in the first clip, but I assure you they're not heavy enough to the movement. In every clip except the first one I do hold the cable to the side and slightly behind it, at the same time making sure they're... "lax"? Is that the word? Opposite of strung up. That way if the cables do affect the propulsion, it's only in the opposite direction (you're pulling it backwards instead of forwards).

About stick-slip, isn't it the other way around? When you're scooting yourself forward on an office chair, you do the forward motion slow in order to not push back on the wheels so much as to make them spin, then you jolt backwards in order to do that (in order to overcome the friction it takes to get the wheels from standstill to moving).

But yeah, more experiments coming.

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 24/02/2014 21:46:06
 This is basically one of Sandy Kidd's many and early machines moving horizontally instead of vertically and using springs instead of gravity to return the disks to their outstretched setting. The only difference is that the arms move in and out of the influence of gravity. While the disks are rotated toward gravity the effect of gravity lessens. That is like free-falling into gravity. The exact opposite is true when the disk are rotated upward. The force of their upward lift is added to the force of gravity.

It is a pretty neat way to use gravity, and if the arms were very long and the dual rotation of the disks were accelerating at the speed of 32 feet per second and if the disks weighed hundreds of pounds: then the apparatus could be powerful and very fast.

As this would not work in space as this stage of its design; because objects free-fall around gravitational bodies and because; on earth the apparatus would have to compete with far better vehicles powered by more and better traditional means, it purpose would be lost.

Now I will tell the wise how:
Nevertheless, it is a unique presentation. By using magnetic attraction and repulsion between four such methods, or rather four apparatus, it most definitely should accelerate in space. Now I have told you how. If you have a reasonably good imagination and stick-to-it-nests you should win the day! Unless somebody beats you to it. SANDY?

Report Abuse
Answer: Ted Pittman - 24/02/2014 23:52:50
 Something similar has been done. See patent 20090014249 A1
The Levitation and Propulsion Unit (LPU) defies the pull effect of gravity through the transformation of centrifugal force from spinning wheel into internal upward thrust without interaction with its external environment. It transforms the centrifugal force from spinning wheel by exerting balanced pulsating force parallel to the axis of spin, and reinforce by the compression and expansion of magnetic repulsive force, to create the internal upward thrust parallel to the axis of spin. Through systematic rapid succession of thrust, it counteract the pull effect of gravity,

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 25/02/2014 05:36:58
 drawings, words and claims ain't gona get it.

Report Abuse
Answer: dave brown - 25/02/2014 06:09:09
 I googled original number which referenced this, with pics:


Report Abuse
Answer: Ted Pittman - 25/02/2014 13:16:27
 The proof?

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 25/02/2014 14:29:27
 The "LPU" looked promising before. Now it's literally just a jumping washing machine, which is easy to tell if you know what to look for in the video(s).

I recorded the M Drive going back and forth on the rail yesterday. Speak up if you want to see it.

Report Abuse
Answer: Ted Pittman - 25/02/2014 16:45:21
 Granted, it may be pushing off against the ground and then the pulses are not great enough to continue lifting. But It still seems significant that the LPU gives additional upward pulses before it returns to the ground.
Perhaps the inventor should time the device in free-fall along the slides (while it is turned off) and then see if it drops slower when it is running.

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 26/02/2014 16:05:40
 Just posted a new video. It's nothing fancy, nor do I consider it "proof" of gyroscopic propulsion, just evidence.


Report Abuse
Answer: Nitro - 26/02/2014 19:38:16
 Dear MD,

Thanks for putting up your latest on u-tube. However, brace yourself because I am going to be a negative bastard though I have enormous admiration for your drive system and wish I had thought of such an innovative masterpiece. Good god, people tetering on the desperate edge of discovery are always the greatest innovators!

O.K. The negative stuff: - To shift the gyros forward requires torque on the main shaft (by your wonderfully moddied drill. What fantastic innovation!!) which causes a right angled gyroscopic reaction shoving the gyros forward. To return the gyros (I now understand) you are using elastic bands that apply a linear return stroke on the gyros. Here is the problem:- this linear return stroke causes a torsional gyroscopic reaction opposite to the first applied torque. So you see a torsional torque input causes a linier reaction which is exactly cancelled out by the reverse linier input of the return stroke causing a reverse torsional reaction. Right angled equal countered by right angled opposite.

Gyros are an absolute bastard, like me at times, but I still think there is a way and with the innovation you have undoubtedly displayed you could get there – though your family and friends may desert you along with your sanity so be careful.

Kind regards

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 26/02/2014 20:06:20
 Nitro, I don't quite understand what you're saying. But if what you're saying is true, wouldn't it.... not move?

First, lets observe this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1AHzQep1I8

At 0:40 in he says "In one set of pivots the gyroscope flips so that the outer edge of the flywheel follows the direction of the orbit".

This is fancy talk for "the gyroscopes want to align themselves with the torque", which is what happens with my machine. They seem to want to go "forward", but really they only flip to "follow the direction of the orbit". They can't do this without also moving forward because of how the machine is designed. With me so far?

So when the modified screwdriver (let's just call it the screwdriver) turns, the gyroscopes will align themselves and move forward. And when the screwdriver stops, the springs will pull the gyroscopes back. However, it's impossible to get the gyroscopes to move back at the same speed as they moved forward, because when they move back they're moving Away from the angle/position they want to be in (the forwardmost). This premature "forcing the gyros away from it's position" is what I believe is causing the propulsion effect.

As the springs try to force the gyros back again, they'll encounter gyroscopic resistance and as a consequence release the energy that's stored up in the springs to try and overcome that. Where does that energy go? Is it really all being converted into more precession?

Because if I simply pull the gyroscopes forward (leaving the screwdriver off) and release them, they will cause the main axle to rotate (just like when the screwdriver is on and rotating it).

The theory is that the more I keep pushing this kind of system using even more high-powered gyroscopes, larger springs, stronger screwdrivers, the end result is going to be more propulsion. Eventually I'll get it up to speeds that are unexplainable by "stick-slip". But before that I hope to do some other convincing experiments.

Report Abuse
Answer: Nitro - 28/02/2014 21:09:03
 Dear MD

If a force (torque) is applied to alter the axial angle of a perfect gyroscope it will, if it is free to do so, precess that force into a torque ninety degrees round from the applied torque. When you momentarily switch on your drill (screwdriver) the gyros (not perfect, because none can be) having a torque applied to alter their axial angles precess this torque into a ninety degree displaced torque that moves the gyros forward in a scissor movement, effectively creating a linear mass movement. Their forward motion ceases when the elastic bands’ torque opposing their forward motion exactly matches the gyros possible torque. The torque applied by the elastic bands returning the scissor motion to its start position thus applies a torque in the opposite direction to the screwdrivers powered direction.

I know, I can hear you muttering something about grandmothers and vacuuming eggs.

The action and reaction of each movement (forward or backward stroke) is ninety degree displaced but it does not disappear. The forward movement consists of one action (the rotation of the main shaft by the screwdriver – to clarify the gyrodynamic we’ll ignore the reaction torque on the screwdriver housing) producing one ninety degree displaced reaction. The removal of the axial changing torque (by switching off the screwdriver) now allows the elastic bands to apply a torque to change the axial angle of the gyros back towards their start position. This axial change is precessed into a torque acting in the reverse direction that the screwdriver first rotates.

Sadly what this means is that the first ninety degree displaced “action” (moving the gyros forward) is exactly cancelled out by the second ninety degree displaced “reaction” (moving the gyros back).

It is possible to get where you are heading (I believe) by eliminating one of the stages of this process but I am not yet going to put this in the public domain – more than I have already – maybe after some more Glenmorangie.

Forgive me for lecturing and being cagey but the use of “gotten” marks you as American and the Boston affair still smarts.

Good luck with your machines and please prove me wrong.

Kind regards

Report Abuse
Answer: Blaze - 01/03/2014 00:25:00
 Nitro, I believe MD has already stated that he is a Swede.


Report Abuse
Answer: Nitro - 01/03/2014 12:45:51
 Dear Blaze,

Thanks for letting me know I'd missed MD’s Swedishness. These foreigners really are the giddy limit. How am I supposed to maintain a decent level of racism if they sneak along with better English than wot I’ve got (or should that be gotten?).

Kind regards

Report Abuse
Answer: dave brown - 02/03/2014 15:26:11

Report Abuse
Answer: dave brown - 04/03/2014 16:31:04
 Anyway, if gravity is needed, lets say downward, while it is sitting on a solid surface which keeps it from moving downward; the same could be achieved with elastics between the gyroscope's outer side and the skateboard. no?

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 05/03/2014 09:02:25
 Dave> Yes. And that's why saying "It won't work in space because there's no gravity there" is just... wrong, because gravity isn't something special. It's literally just a pull, and a pull can be done with springs or elastic bands as well.

Currently working on lengthening the base of the M Drive so that the center of gravity will be more evenly distributed among all 4 wheels. In the latest video you can clearly see all the weight is on the back 2 wheels. After that I'll perform another shake experiment. The last one wasn't perfect, as it still moved slightly when the gyros were off, even if it didn't move nearly as well as when they were on, and sometimes even moved in reverse.

Eventually gonna start experimenting with flat, superleveled surfaces. Thinking a large plate of glass that has been professionally leveled as to not lean in any direction.

But you know, time, money etc. Just be patient.

Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 05/03/2014 22:25:11
 Good evening MD
You relied to Dave:
Dave> Yes. And that's why saying "It won't work in space because there's no gravity there" is just... wrong, because gravity isn't something special. It's literally just a pull, and a pull can be done with springs or elastic bands as well.

I think gravity is very special, it may be just a pull, but you cannot switch it off.
I should have said it only works because of gravity and will not work as it is for any other reason.
It will not matter how many rubber bands or springs you attach to your device it will not work as it is, in space.
It only operates because gravity is creating a differential between the gyroscopes at the top and bottom of your device as it rotates and that is aided by the springs or bands.
Accelerated mass is minimal, and is a product of your design.
It will require a massive redesign for it to operate in the presence of, and/or outside the influence of gravity.
Apart from artificially creating your own gravity by accelerating the device to useful speeds you then have to figure out a method of creating a differential in the device and then converting that differential to produce useful thrust, that is of course, assuming a suitable reset mechanism of some type, will have been included in the design.
Now the reset mechanism is the tricky bit as most others on this site will testify.
Take my advice and develop what you have.
You are extremely fortunate you have what you have and there are many situations within this planet’s gravitational field where it could be useful.
There and then you could become one of the thousands who have tried and failed to produce a space drive.
Sandy Kidd.

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 06/03/2014 02:23:14
 "and then you could become one of the thousands who have tried and failed to produce a space drive"

You're all so encouraging.

And I'm going to go ahead and note you never explain how gravity is different from other forms of torque, meaning it's just a hunch.

The propulsion effect is probably a result of modified inertia, having something to do with how action-reaction works on a fundamental level. It's not that Newton's third isn't correct, it is, but just like how Newtonian physics were proven incomplete and adjusted by Einstein, Newton's third is incomplete as well. Because there is definitely stuff that hasn't been explained by it. Alex Jones' device being one of them.

As for the "differential" you speak of, I know my newest gyroscopes display that quite rampantly. The top gyroscope will lounge forward more quickly because of gravity. However, my old gyroscopes did not do this, which is shown in the first clip of my first video. I have hours of footage showing the same thing, as I did quite a few experiments with those.

So basically: If you do the same motion in space, there shouldn't be any difference. Of course, the machine would need heavy modifying anyway, because of reasons.

Report Abuse
Answer: Nitro - 06/03/2014 16:10:15
 Dear MD,

I am sorry if we seem a less than encouraging lot, but most of us that have fought against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and the brick wall of the temple of the great god Newton, tend to want to brace newcomers for what is to come. We also would prefer to “get there first” ourselves. Despite this as, clearly, none of us have “got there first” and been recognised as a new Newton, we are (or at least I am) glad to have others keep us company on this lonely path. The path we have chosen is a gold plated bastard because, despite seeming simple if one could just get some peace to get ones head around it, it is like the impossible but seemingly possible problem of getting just three services to join up to just three houses, without the services crossing over.

Many have tried and there are hundreds out there that claim to have the answer but I have only seen a precious few that seem to come close enough for further scrutiny. Sandy’s is one of those few and though his detractors shout “stick slip” there is so much mass involved, in both the machine and in its counterweight, that this reason for its movement would seem, to me at least, unlikely. I cannot understand the function of Sandy’s machine from the descriptions I have found but I hope to get my head around it better in the future. There is also a most unlikely looking device on u-tube that is shown being run up on a snooker table on ping pong balls as the low friction version of a poor man's air table. I shall try and find it again and put up a link for opinions. It seems based on Laithwaite’s last demonstrated machine which I believe is absolutely skirting round Newton’s third law but is so cumbersome and slow in its resetting mechanism (resetting, without loosing all that the first stroke gained, is always a common problem) that I can only see it being of any use as a demonstrator of the principle.

That in itself is quite some achievement but as the suspicious “scientific” community that has seen so many charlatans claiming space drives, perpetual motion, combustible water, time machines etc. etc. they will need to see something that is incontrovertible, and then some, before any of them will put their careers on the line. In the mean time the “scientific community” will concentrate on squandering taxpayers money on safe, if complete bollocks, subjects like global warming (now, because the global isn't, subtly being called "climate change" instead - "Newspeak" from Orwell's 1984 is with us still!) macroeconomics and Psy-ops warfare.

Kind regards

Report Abuse
Answer: dave brown - 06/03/2014 21:15:46
We also would prefer to “get there first” ourselves.

Thank you for coming out of the closet with that, as that is what I feel is wrong with the education system. People who don't know enough to defend themselves will be crushed and there will be no help. That lends to why the older generation is hated. (I'm older and wrongly hated.)

as for this one, sorry mate, I must have something wrong I guess:
It will require a massive redesign for it to operate in the presence of, and/or outside the influence of gravity.

If there are no typos in that, it says it is a piece of junk as it is; for I read that it will not work on his floor, or in the ISS; assuming perhaps that the ISS would have to be much further from the earth...the sun?.... the solar system? anyway. (I must have something wrong cause I saw it crawl across his floor.)

Please feel free to unload, I, me, myself CAN defend ;) :D cheers

Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 06/03/2014 23:30:23
 Evening Dave Brown,
I am probably older than you, but I do not think I am hated because of my age maybe for a host of other reasons but not specifically old age.

I was the first person on this forum to say MD’s machine was genuine.
What is more I stated why.
Did I imply that it was junk?
I think I stated the opposite.
I don’t think I saw any more or less than you did?
I still said it will never work in space, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that, or is there something fundamental that you do not understand.
There is no gravity in our part of space is there?
It does not matter if it runs at 100 miles an hour straight and level on the kitchen floor it will not move in space.
When the gravitational and spring differential can be extensively modified as I intimated then it may have a chance of becoming a space drive.
This could take about 10 years probably a bit longer, if you are awfully lucky, but if MD gets a patent for his current device I think I would stick with what I had.
Currently that is as good as it is going to get.
By the way I am not your mate and there were no typos there.
You did not understand that a space drive must be capable of operating in gravity and propel itself and manoeuvre where there is no gravity (and I will add also no atmosphere).
I thought that was clear enough.
MD’s machine is good at the first bit, but cannot manage the second bit.
Not yet anyway.
Sandy Kidd

Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 06/03/2014 23:40:03
 MD you said
“You're all so encouraging”.
“And I'm going to go ahead and note you never explain how gravity is different from other forms of torque, meaning it's just a hunch”

You then went on:
“The propulsion effect is probably a result of modified inertia, having something to do with how action-reaction works on a fundamental level. It's not that Newton's third isn't correct, it is, but just like how Newtonian physics were proven incomplete and adjusted by Einstein, Newton's third is incomplete as well. Because there is definitely stuff that hasn't been explained by it. Alex Jones' device being one of them”.

Now MD that is a whole bunch of hunches.
Sandy Kidd

Report Abuse
Answer: dave brown - 07/03/2014 05:43:30
 sandy you just keep contradicting yourself.
MD, hang in there; I at least had fun with the limited funds/resources I had and actually accomplished more then I knew.

sandy, example: you say it needs redesign to work with or without gravity's influence. You also say it won't work in space and imply it works now. I'm so lost mate/guy/dude/you there/moderator/...

Report Abuse
Answer: dave brown - 07/03/2014 05:50:39
 sandy, it does not say hated because of old age.

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 07/03/2014 10:25:01
 Enough emotion, guys. No, I don't know what creates the propulsion on my machine, and I, nor anyone on this forum, will be the one to find out. I do however have a good fundamental understanding of physics, and the above explanation is literally just speculation, but it's still my best guess.

Gravity exists everywhere in the universe. It's what holds the galaxy together. So no one of us will ever be anywhere where there's "no gravity".

Here's the deal. If my machine (or others) do create inertial propulsion, then it's just a matter of friction to get a machine that can accelerate indefinitely, that is, until it's going so fast air resistance becomes too high and it can't accelerate anymore.

That's really what I'm working on now. I want it back to it's top condition, where it ran as it does in the first video. Then I'm going to try different solutions for the "wheels". Maybe airbeds. Maybe large flat glass panels with metal bearing balls all over it. I haven't decided yet, but I'm 100% positive I can make the thing "coast" (keep rolling after a cycle) better than it does with the rail.

If one of us manages to perform such an experiment, that's proof. Period. And it won't even matter if it works in space or not, because the whole phenomenon on inertial propulsion will finally gain credibility, and it'll only be a matter of time to figure out how to do it in space.

Again, if you want to copy my design, you're free to. I'll be more than grateful if you do it and outdo me by doing this experiment, instead of mad someone "stole" my design and beat me to it. I won't say I don't care about money, I do, most of us do, but really I just want inertial propulsion to be acknowledged.

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 08/03/2014 14:06:51

It is not necessary that you have the ability to understand simple statements.

It is not necessary that you see concurring agreements as contradictions.

It is not necessary that understand anything at all; even what I am writing.

However it is necessary that you maintain civility toward the nicest, most polite gentleman on here and that you respect your elders; even if your parents were too lacking themselves to teach you common manners.

In plan English, David:
Sandy did not contradict himself. This discussion is way-over you head.
For everyone else allow me to tell you that Sandy Kidd has pictures of many beautiful and magnificent machines he has designed, engineered and built. He does not mention them publicly, but if he allowed you to see them they would amaze you. All of them continue to amaze me. They are so beautiful and stunningly well engineered. They are the real deal. He is the one who dose not releases details of actual working machines he has built; not the other guy with Mac-one or whatever the silly, pointless thing is.
I understand everything about this apparatus discussed here, but if I explained it again: again there’s no one to understand the explanation.


Report Abuse
Answer: dave brown - 08/03/2014 16:40:43
 look up, more proof.

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 17/03/2014 20:39:53

We're currently discussing Alex Jones' device in this thread. Someone that might have seen it with their own eyes, or may have experience in the area is very free to post in it. Hint hint, nudge nudge.

Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 17/03/2014 21:49:24
 Hello MD.
For what its worth you can see what you are looking for in the “Heretic” video on the “Home” page of this sight.
About 7 and a bit minutes in methinks.
Sandy Kidd

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 17/03/2014 22:33:07
 It's too bad, but I recollect from half a dozen years ago that I decided Alex; both held it on it’s back-stroke and also then nudged it forward. If he had kept his hands in his pockets and released the thing with a two foot string, I would have been less skeptical. You must let your own eyes discrete whatever they will. Good luck discerning.

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 18/03/2014 01:48:53
 So a popular "physics guy" have replicated Eric Laithwaite's "big wheel" experiment.


Oh and Sandy, I believe you've seen Alex Jones' device with your own two eyes, right? Did he ever release the gyro arm without holding the machine, like say, with a wire or something?

People in that thread I linked seem to think the backwards stroke of the wagon is restricted by his hand, and that's what's causing the propulsion. An utterly desperate attempt at an explanation if you ask me.

Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 18/03/2014 19:19:48
 Hello MD, and other interested parties.
With respect to the Jones device I think what you are seeing is truthful enough.
I never did actually see that device perform although whilst it only does a half cycle, the other half after all those years still appearing to be impossible, it does not matter very much.

The large wheel rotated by Eric Laithwaite I have been a lot closer to, both winding up the large gyro for the professor by means of an electric drill and manually rotating the device itself.
I have explained many times in the past why the device does in fact lose weight, but in light of the fact I would be wasting your time and my time if I try to explain this again I shall spare you the pain of repeating it.

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 19/03/2014 14:55:48
 Sandy, while I have you, I would be very much interested in watching a video of one of your devices in action. There only seems to be a limited amount of those around.

In fact, the only ones I know of are featured in "Heretic" and that news clip from the 80's I showed you. The reason is that you said that the device in the news clip was one of your worst versions.

So is it possible?

Report Abuse
Answer: Smalley M.D. - 19/03/2014 20:21:24
 Most designs i've seen are copies of tesla's flying stove. People take Tesla’s drawings too literally for starters after Marconi stole his patents to build his trans Atlantic radio Idea before he bothered to build it, he started putting cryptic meaning to his blueprints so that they could not be stolen by someone without the knowledge of his intentions and the physics behind his work, he truly wanted the betterment of mankind and his inventions not to be used for war. They are not complete for that reason. I had designed and worked out the math for this type of propulsion as a teen before I ever knew anything about Tesla's work. It was a surprise to see how close it resembled my constructs; a simple proof of concept is all his flying stove patent is... To clue you in the bars represent wheels. Gyroscopes to be exact, the wheels themselves make the best motors also. To fully function It has to be able to pivot and angle them to control speed and direction as they rotate around the central axis. But like I said "proof of concept only"... a working ship would need several connected in unison or a counter rotating set to stabilize it. Once up to speed it can fix itself in a point in space or accelerate with all the energy you can draw out of the momentum of the gyros. the same modified system can be used to create magnetic vortices ”many applications…” and a donut shaped field that if you add a little plasma too would make a nice deflector... It sure is funny how my comments never seem to stay long after I post them. It still pops up with UFO garbage when you look for it. They have done a wonderful job discrediting and hiding the comments of anyone who pursues the subject and is capable of working out the physics and fractal geometric velocities involved. They want to keep this tech only for war as long as they can...Have you seen the way in which scientists have to disguise the subject matter of their papers? Pathetic isn't it...? Comments or Questions... mikenshea123@gmail.com

Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 19/03/2014 23:03:24
 Hello again MD,
A bit before your time in the early eighties I had occasion to develop a machine which was capable of delivering 16 ounces or 0.5Kilo out of a 5.5 lb. or 2.5 and a bit. Kilo device
A long way below my calculations but it worked every time even with different gyros and at different speeds.
It was inclined to operate within a very narrow rev band at the top end of the gyro rotation speed, but work it did.
It was by the time it really started working, looking like it had seen better days, and is the rather tatty looking machine our webmaster Glenn shows in the “PROPULSION” section of this site.
This device was demonstrated successfully all over the place, and even successfully run by others in my absence.

The smaller one on the cover of the book was the device ( out of its box ) which gained the successful laboratory report, the photograph being taken about 2 a.m. on the seafront at St Kilda, Melbourne.
This would not have made good copy in operation, I had occasion to mention to Luis Gonzalez that a video of a machine (in a wooden box) oscillating gently forward and backward is not very exciting.

The tatty device was part of a 35 minute ITV (Grampian TV in fact) documentary and was filmed as I demonstrated the device to Eric Laithwaite in The Imperial College London.
I am deliberately mentioning at this time that I was congratulated by Eric Laithwaite on film which was later publicly shown by many different ITV Broadcasters.
The video is unfortunately VHS and I have been promising to get it modified to a digital format for some time.
This I must really get this done along with some other stuff I have on old 8mm video non digital tapes.
Quite some time ago Harald, aka our Harry K. kindly offered to do the conversion for me as he was also keen to see the video which was incidentally called:
“The Man Who Wants To Change The World”
I should really have taken up his offer, but as the tape belongs to my daughter (all the others went astray a long time ago) I was a bit scared to send it to Germany in case it got lost.
At this very moment among other things I am rebuilding a similar device in an attempt to improve its output and in an effort to replace the very crude but effective resetting mechanism that it had magically acquired.
The explanation given in the article, as to why the device works, was a wild guess by others, in light of a gesture made by Eric Laithwaite just after the demonstration and in the end was not even close.
MD looks you have forced me to go and get this thing converted.

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 20/03/2014 10:31:25
 There are services available for that kind of thing, Sandy. Here's one of many located in Ireland (or were you from Scotland?).


Simply googled "VHS conversion ireland".

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 20/03/2014 10:45:51
 Smalley M.D.> It seems that most inertial propulsion inventions operate on the same fundamental theory, that energy somehow can be directed, or at least that some motions (often away or towards the direction of travel) need to consume more energy, and that the extra "resistance" isn't just an internal brake (think friction), but a property of the laws of physics, such as centrifugal forces, or gyroscopic ones.

With that said, in my research I've found a surprisingly small amount of inventions to actually be interesting. They're essentially: Mine (of course), Alex Jones'es, Roy Thornson's, Sandy's and MAYBE Mike Marsden's, if we knew anything about it. There are also countless patents of machines that supposedly work but have never surfaced outside the patent, like Harvey Fiala's.

And that's all I've been able to find really. There's countless fakes out there, like Gennady Shipov's. It requires a thick layer of oil on the bed glass table it sits on, which of course gives it tons of traction. Also the "LPU", levitation and propulsion unit by Youtube user Sam Sin seems to be nothing more than a machine that shakes so violently it's able to literally jump.

Just some thoughts. Please feel free to correct me if you (anyone) thinks I'm wrong somewhere.

Report Abuse
Answer: Harry K. - 20/03/2014 11:39:50
 Hello Sandy,

My offer for converting your videos is still valid, assumed it is in PAL format. However I understand your worriedness. Maybe it is a better idea to contact a service provider how MD suggested.


Report Abuse
Answer: Nitro - 20/03/2014 11:54:35
 Good morning Sandy,

Please get that VHS to DVD copy done asap. Some of my early tapes are almost impossible to see now due to "magnetic merging" of successive layers.

The older readers will remember early BBC taped programmes (English spelling before you USAers leap all over my spelling!) where you could hear a loud gunshot moments be the gun went off, caused by this effect.

Look forward to seeing the video.


Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 20/03/2014 22:26:20
 Hello MD, and anyone else interested.
I recently received an email from a Mr Rick R Dobson Jr.
This is apparently his own company
He is responsible for the conception of the Inerter Gigadron if I got that right.
I have not got a clue if this thing actually develops a net driving force, but as a retired toolmaker I suggest that the manufacturing costs would be prohibitive and unless he has a lot of money at his disposal a prototype has not yet been built.
See video below

If you rake about Mr Dobson’s site you will no doubt find a piece relating to Harvey Fiala, who you mentioned and which could be of interest to you as it relates to be the fact that Harvey Fiala, and other Fiala family members have patented or applied for a patent for an inertial drive device which is gravity driven, I will not say like yours because I did not study it enough to find out.
Look in:
See US Patent 7,900 874 Harvey Emanuel Fiala
Interestingly Harvey Fiala now and again asks if I am still alive, but never tries to make contact when offered.

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 21/03/2014 00:00:02
 I studied his patent, which covers a lot of different gyro propulsion machines. One of which unfortunately reminds one of mine, but works inherently different.

The main claim is that when the gyros precess, they'll lose "up to 80% inertia", meaning the gyro flywheels can move with up to an 80% reduction of the reaction, allowing for a seemingly inefficient space drive, as it would "inch" its way forward, never really obtaining a new speed with each impulse.

That's all I really know about his machines. Not if they actually work or not, even though he claims they've performed successful experiments in the patent.

Report Abuse
Answer: Blaze - 21/03/2014 00:09:10
 I saw the video for the first link before. About all it can do is vibrate a lot (jump up and down). It can't produce propulsion because all it is really doing is changing the center of mass of all the bits rotating about a horizontal shaft, as the shaft revolves. However the horizontal shaft if free to move up AND down along with anything it is attached to. That means the device is simply changing the barycenter of all the masses involved, which will lead to some vibration and maybe at best, jumping up and down.


Report Abuse
Answer: Harry K. - 21/03/2014 13:51:41
 Brilliant idea! But I'm afraid this is difficult to manufacture.

Blaze, "changing the barycenter of all masses" (= changing the center of mass) is the goal to achieve propulsion, isn't it? In the animation I see only a "delta" up but not a down thus I cannot follow your arguments.

However, I'm not sure if this theoretical design could work in reality.


Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 21/03/2014 14:13:11
 Hello all,
The last tests I ran deflated me for months afterwards and still partially do.
I was not testing for acceleration, but testing to see if a primary spinning flywheel, itself rotated secondarily like a flipped coin on a table, would torque straight down at its center gravity. It did, and I had been certain it would not. The test method was ingenious enough that seem fool-proof. The flywheel was freed to move through space and I had expected it to presses as it twisted. When it did not, that meant to me that it is the lightest form of friction existed at the pedestal; also the outward angled string. It appears this pedestal to floor friction holds and allows the wheel to circle the pedestal in precession. The tests seemed to prove that mass transfer was not happening. IP seemed impossible.
These new experiments of MD have me interested again. All the other things, videos and patents with the exception of Professor Liftwate’s (sp.) Kidd’s, Nitro’s, Blaze’s and now M.D.s, are total bunk. I will add mine too (perhaps the inch worm).
Ironically this little site, in all the countries, in all the world; in all passed time, is the only place where baffling tests for I. P. have been performed and so far cannot be debunked.

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 21/03/2014 14:13:56
 So, I take it everyone in here believes Alex Jones' device was real?

If so, how come no one has attempted to replicate it? It's such a simple design you'd think one could throw on together within a day or two, if you had a shed (which I don't).

I even have 2 gyros in roughly the same size, with similar DC motors that I could give to anyone who wanted one.

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 21/03/2014 15:37:36
 Alex Jones will not keep his hands off the machine. This should be understood as such obviously, fakery. Why doesn’t everyone SEE that? The two men in the video both knew 100% to keep hands off the experiment. The hands-on, was not because of a lack of foresight in how to perform a test, but to intentionally add trickery and deceit. After years of experimental work, those two were not fools. They purposely destroyed the authority of the experiment even as it was taking place.

Your machine, M.D. using the same principle is allowed to go backward, yet it goes forward further forward than backwards and it coast. I can find no fakery in it.

While we are thinking about fakery,
Or try, Jeffrey Cook on Inertial Propulsion.
This is a prime example, but at least he is doing it for grant money, but who here can see the means of fakery? Who among you ???????

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 21/03/2014 15:53:40
 Oh right, I actually remember you mentioning that before, that it's a sleight of hand.

"Why doesn’t everyone SEE that?"

I see the hands, but I also see an unnaturally large thrust from several of the attempts (each time he releases the gyro arm). Especially 1:47. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5kkoiW3iaY

Even if he does restrict the backwards stroke as the gyro moves forward, my estimate is that the machine moves 4-5 times further than it should because of that.

In the first attempt it does look like he's pushing it off (the hand on the machine's base). As for why he holds on to it it's because if he doesn't, the base wobbles, which can be seen if you have keen eyes on the very last attempt in the video (the change the angle and show him releasing the gyro arm slightly differently, causing the base to wobble to the side).

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 21/03/2014 16:47:20
 Hello M.D.,
Yes, I knew that it very well might have done as you say, for it is the same principle as you use, but the experiment is purposely Fuffffed-up!

They knew better than to do it that that way, so the experiment is useless and phoney. It doesn't do any good to say what might be. They were suppose to show it and not leave us to guess sportive reasons to explain away the simple that they failed to design for and guess what might have been if, if, if. I will never touch the subject of Jones again. Those who would see have already seen.

We have a saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
People will believe what they want to believe and sometimes vocally support it. OK? Fine. No problem. I am not arguing, or finding fault of any kind, as it might seem. What about this below??????

While we are thinking about fakery,
Or try, Jeffrey Cook on Inertial Propulsion.
This is a prime example, but at least he is doing it for grant money, but who here can see the means of fakery? Who among us can realize it as the same as Jones???????

Report Abuse
Answer: Blaze - 21/03/2014 18:22:05
 Hi Harry. Good to hear from you again.

You said "In the animation I see only a "delta" up but not a down"

That is because you are looking at the device from the point of view of the horizontal shaft and assuming the horizontal shaft is stationary. If you look at it from the point of view of the entire mass of the device you will see that the horizontal shaft can move up and down but the actual center of mass of the device remains stationary and therefore the device will not produce any propulsion.


Report Abuse
Answer: Nitro - 21/03/2014 19:17:45
 Spot on Blaze,

If you break it down to rotating just one offset mass it becomes clear that each cycle of rotation, while creating a cyclic vibration, creates nothing greater in one direction than any other. Adding as many offset masses as you like will only progressively smooth out the vibrations but still creates nothing of any use - nice, if pointless, computer graphics though.

FYI Alex Jones lived on a neighbouring island to me and we shared a drinking hole in Alderney for a while. I think I may have kick started his gyro thinking. His device does not need to be pushed it's apparent reactionless movement is genuine and works on a resultant principle:- like a yacht being able to tack into the wind. He never overcame the problem of losing its gain when carrying out the reset stroke. Those amongst us that have made experiments know this is a right bastard (British engineering term).

kind regards

Report Abuse
Answer: Harry K. - 21/03/2014 20:02:55
 Hello Blaze,

Assumed you are right but how can the horizontal shaft move up and down? I cannot find the degree of freedom for the shaft to move vertically up and down in this design. Or do I miss something?

As mentioned before I do not believe that this design could work in reality, however your explanation is not convincing.


Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 21/03/2014 22:43:25
 Evening Nitro and all,
I had previously thought that due to your near geographic locations that you would have come across Mr Jones.
I seemed to remember that beside his name on my copy of his patent application was his address as St Annes, Alderney, (Little Street in fact)
I also remembered that it was a German patent.
I dug it out this evening and proved that my memory is not quite as bad as I thought.
This was acquired from the Science Reference Library, British Library the document is dated.4th June 1975.
I was given it on 10th December 1987.
The document is entitled Offenlegungsshrift 2341 245
I gather from the patent he made provision for a four gyro system but most of his effort seems to be on a twin opposed system.
He inserted a crank and connecting rod drive to his gyro mounting plate, which would no doubt rotate them OK, but I think this has been a bit of wishful thinking.
Although he has a good sketch of his device wielding a pair of arms and gyros I still cannot see how the device resets itself.
There is nothing in the mechanism which allows this as far as I can see, but that is only me.
As with most patent and patent applications and no doubt for a multitude of reasons there is very rarely an accompanying device to prove the whole principle.
However I think our Harald would make a lot more sense of it.
Anyway until someone proves to me otherwise it is very much a half cycle non resetting device but we have to give the man credit for what he introduced.
He must have been one of the very first utilising gyroscopes, certainly in that manner, or were you at it as well Nitro.

Report Abuse
Answer: Blaze - 21/03/2014 22:55:17
 Hi Harry.
You seem to be assuming the horizontal shaft will stay in one place but there is no reason that it should. There is nothing to keep it in one place except what ever it is attached to (the rest of the vehicle which is simply more mass that can oscillate).

Put the device connected to a vehicle in space, free from all gravitational fields. All the moving masses inside the device will try to rotate about their common center, which is NOT where the horizontal shaft is placed, so the horizontal shaft goes up and down. The craft also goes up and down but in an opposite direction to the masses inside the device. When the masses inside the device go up, the rest of the craft goes down, when the masses inside the device go down the rest of the craft goes up. So the whole thing goes nowhere.


Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 21/03/2014 23:02:01
 Nitro and all,
My apologies an other elderly moment.
Please read "oscillate" instead of "rotate" in my posting of Jones device patent
Sorry folks.
I will really have to edit properly before posting.

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 22/03/2014 00:05:12
 See, all this time squabbling over details we could be building a replica and prove it once and for all. Even if it has no reset function, a fully functioning replica that only moved forward would raise some eyebrows.

Really, my main goal is to get gyroscopic (or inertial) propulsion acknowledged, instead of ignored to the extent one can ignore them, because they simply "can't" work.

Dammit Alex. You're my hero, but why did you have to hold on it like that?

Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 22/03/2014 22:52:11
 Hello MD,
With reference to the Fiala machine
I would really not like to try to recall how many times I have stated that in a mechanically rotated system i.e. say a twin opposed system for safety’s sake, if the gyros or more correctly flywheels are accelerated until “precession” (I will not argue about the misuse of this term again, I’m wasting my time) occurs there will be a total loss of inertia, not the 80% you quoted from the Fiala’s.
He must be running his system far too fast, but was still not quite in “precession” to lose that much and it is totally unnecessary.
All he is doing and maybe not even for any good reason is slowing the potential inwards and outwards motion of the flywheel’s down.
I thought the whole idea was to generate as much angular momentum as possible and convert as much of the produced differential as possible.
By that I mean that in a system with a constant rotation speed, the system (a pair of flywheels) gains or loses acceleration without losing rotational speed as the rotation speed of the flywheels change.
As our Glenn would say “go figure”, or better still do the experiment.
In experiments I carried out about 25 years ago I have seen flywheels almost standing still after being released from the proximity of the rotation axis of the device.

I went out of my way to demonstrate this fact to the good doctor on my project in the University of Dundee in the early 80s.
He walked away without comment.
He did not want to know.
None are so blind etc. etc.
What chance did I have?
I hope you do not think of the Jones machine as being state of the art.
It surely did its job in promoting the use of flywheels to produce inertial thrust although his device did not itself do it.
Not too bad really but I think that is as good as it gets.
As Nitro says, the reset mechanism is where its at.

Report Abuse
Answer: Nitro - 23/03/2014 03:13:52
 Sandy and all; Hi,

My belief that some gyroscopic behaviour must disagree with Newton’s third dates way back to my schooldays when I did a mind exercise (a la Einstein) where I visualised a fast spinning gyro in space having a spring-loaded weight at the extremity of its extended axle with the springs release reaction attempting to change the axial angle. When the spring is released the weight is projected away in one direction and the gyro in the opposite direction as per the third – except --------- because at least some of the reaction to the weight accelerating force will have been precessed into rotating the gyros axis ninety degrees round from the weight accelerating force the gyro will move away slightly less fast than it should so that, as I keep saying; there is all of the equal there should be but not all of the opposite. This belief was reinforced when my brother, who then worked at de Havilland’s, procured me a manual on a petrol engined helicopter he was working on.

After much searching through the, thankfully, mechanical control links (if they had been hydraulic or servo controls I would never have fathomed how they worked), I discovered that to go forward the aircraft had to produce more down thrust to one side of the aircraft. It totally stumped me to start with. Later I realised that the fast rotating blades acted like a giant gyroscope that precessed the side force on the blades hub and caused a forward tilt on the hub and the aircraft causing the resultant down thrust to be behind the aircraft pushing it forwards. All the cyclic control movements were ninety degrees round from the desired aircraft movements. I later found out that some helicopters had flap hinges and other devices to correct for different air speeds over the blades when the aircraft is moving but the principle of hub thrust ninety degrees from the desired travel direction remains the same.

If applying a thrust to one side causes its forward tilt and motion with, again, loads of equal but not all the opposite conforms to Newton’s third then I am a Chinaman, is what I thought back then and I have yet to find myself speaking Mandarin.

In answer to your question, Sandy of:- was I working on gyros back in the eighties? For my stupidity:- yes. I was visiting my friend Andy today and he reminded me that he had banned me from his house between thirty and forty years ago when an early prototype of mine “let go” in a rather dramatic way and, after its gyro bounced up and down a few times, like Road Runner’s friend Wyle Coyote waiting to realise that he should be falling, it shot off and imbedded itself in the plaster wall just above his sleeping baby daughter in her carrycot. Happily he has forgiven me for putting his daughter in such danger and we are still friends. The device was similar to the one seen in the video of Alex Jones’ but with a second mirrored gyro and a spring instead of gravity as the actuation force.

Kind regards


Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 23/03/2014 03:48:13
 Actually this device was built by Sandy thirty years ago. In some devices, the twin flywheels rose vertically; then downward, as they say like a rock.
M.D.'s machine does exactly the same thing, but horizontally instead of vertically; that is to say, up instead of forward.
Sandy, my mail system is f-up again. I can't send and receive, but I will have my computer geek on it next week.
Vanity and blessings to all here,

Report Abuse
Answer: Harry K. - 23/03/2014 12:50:03
 Hello @all,

In my opinion neither the design from Alex Jones nor the device from MD may work in absence of gravity environment. Only gravity in connection with friction, the degree of freedom of all involved parts, particularly the fixed rollers or rather track wheels and at least the centre of mass is responsible for a directed straight movement of the device.

The same effect can be achieved much easier by a skater or a person on an office chair by the displacement of its mass with the help of friction and gravity. But this will not be possible in free space without the influence of gravity and friction.

I know some of us do not want to hear or better read that, however, I'm sure that's true.


I will response to your last message later, maybe in a new thread because this design is different to the one which is discussed here.

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 23/03/2014 14:39:30
 Just some random info: Harvey Fiala's machine works like this: The main axle rotates, causing the gyros to precess forward. During the precession he claims the forward motion will not push back on the rest of the machine, meaning it has "decreased inertia", by up to 80%.

When the gyros have reached the forward most position, the main axle stops rotating, and the gyros are reset to their starting position by simply pushing them there, no precession, no propulsion or anything. Straight line.

As for my machine, I know it may seem like a small difference that it has springs, instead of gravity doing the pulling, but the point of the machine was never to have gravity pulling the gyros, but to have the gyros trying to constantly try and precess forward, while overpowering that precession with something else, be it another motor powered machine or springs. That would simply be impossible using only gravity.

The fact that my current machine's main axle (the modified hand drill) fluctuates in speed is a side-effect of my finances. It's the only way to get the springs to overpower the precession, but the idea from the start was to have a constant rotation of the main axle and some kind of mechanism try and force them back.

It looks like I'm doing a pendulum test next. I'm discussing it over here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/72265-Could-a-Gyroscopic-inertial-thruster-ever-work/page7

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 23/03/2014 19:42:27
If any would like to understand: The flywheels are spinning, looking from the inside outward, clockwise. When they are rotated clockwise by the main hub, they resist the rotation as they precess forward from the right angle hub rotation. When they are retrieved by the rubber bands they precess at right angles into the direction of hub rotation.
They must resist hub rotation as they precess forward.
They must assist hub rotation as they are retrieved backward.
This is why hub rotation slows and speeds in the video.
If you push and or, also slow down the precession of a gyro on a pedestal you will see it rise and fall; rise when you push it and force downward when you slow it. It is all about right angle transference and it will always happen.
Explaining why this apparatus exhibits I.P. is too complicated, though I think that I know. On the other hand I would not attempt to argue with Harold. He makes far too much sense.

Report Abuse
Answer: Harry K. - 23/03/2014 20:30:46
 Hi Glenn,

I know about my bad reputation here in this forum. ;-)
My last comments are only my opinion, nothing more.


Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 23/03/2014 21:57:37
 Glenn> "They must resist hub rotation as they precess forward.
They must assist hub rotation as they are retrieved backward."

I don't know if you're talking about the M Drive now, but either way I agree with this. However...

"This is why hub rotation slows and speeds in the video."

This is wrong. The reason "hub rotation" (the entire scaffold holding the gyros) increases and decreases in speed is because I'm controlling it with a button. The modified screwdriver (red) you see in the video is just half a screwdriver. The other half is in my hand the whole time, controlling whether it's on or off.

When I press the button, the "hub" begins rotating, precessing the gyros. When I release it, the hub slows down, allowing the springs (or rubber bands as you call them) to pull them back. Of course, when they're being pulled back they will assist rotation as you say.

Anyway, the pendulum test nears. I've already thought of a good way of doing it with minimized shaking. It'd be optimal if I could find an indoor place with at least 10-20 meters to the roof, but we'll see what happens. I'll potentially start looking for "the place in my town with the highest ceiling" just to make the test as optimal as possible. The longer the strings it's attached to, the less propulsion you need to be able to register thrust after all.

Let's hope it works.

Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 23/03/2014 22:32:07
 Hello again Nitro,
Your comments relating to the escaping gyroscope in its unstoppable ceiling-wards trajectory, reminded me of a not too dissimilar experience when I took my device down to the Imperial College, London, in the hope of impressing the great man.
I had all sorts of bits and pieces with me to set this thing up, assembled mostly by my son in law Rod whilst I set up the engine and machine.
The thing was all built using old fashioned engineering and did not suffer from a lot of sophistication. I had not got around to using radio control so the set up was pretty simple really.
I had run this thing a thousand times with no problems and it worked every time.
It suffered in the real cold by occasionally bursting its one piece drive belt, usually at the bonded joint, and that was about it.
However this was a relatively easy repair, using a razor blade, and Loctite IS 65, I think it was, being the original “superglue” which came with the “O” ring repair kit.
Familiarity and contempt then began to prevail.
I was so damned sure of the indestructability of the machine I ran it up as soon as Eric Laithwaite appeared on the scene.
Why it should pick this particular moment to happen I would really like to know but as the device rotated at a brisk 350rpm and the gyroscopes which I had recently changed to aluminium from bronze and weighing in now at half the original weight were merrily rotating at about 8,000rpm.
One of them broke its bond with its drive shaft and shot over the professor’s left shoulder, inches from his head, and much too close for anyone’s comfort.
I can explain the real meaning of embarrassment.
He asked if I could fix it whilst I was there, and I quickly said I could.
He never even batted an eyelid and said I could demonstrate it again after lunch.
He seemed to be totally unshaken by the experience although I could easily have killed him.
I suppose he wondered what he was going to see next.
I could only guess what was going on in his mind.
However immediately after lunch I proceeded to carry out the second run and I was totally vindicated and he was tickled pink with it.
I did several successful runs after that, the only comment he made was in relation to the fact that the gyroscopes were in aluminium and not the traditional brass.
I replied that my aluminium gyroscopes were around half the weight of brass ones so it was less dead weight to lift, besides I had calculated that I got everything back if I increased the device rotation speed by about 40%.
He hesitated but did agree with my logic.
That said, the episode of the errant gyroscope I will never forget.
PS Nitro I meant to mention that the gyroscope whilst a good reamed fit on the silver steel shaft was held on the shaft by Loctite Bearing Lock, which had never caused a problem but in light of what happened, was changed to heavy duty Araldite epoxy when we got home.
From then on all my devices have had their flywheel drive shafts threaded and fitted with flanges and locknuts in the interests of safety and interchangeability.

Report Abuse
Answer: MD - 23/03/2014 23:03:12
 "I did several successful runs after that"

What entales a successful run? Was it mounted on a pulley like in the news clip and lifted?

Report Abuse
Answer: Sandy Kidd - 24/03/2014 00:01:20
 Hello again MD,
Something similar but the results from that device were considerably more positive.
The device with bronze gyros fitted could lift 16 ounces easily (half a kilo?)
The device could do this consistently on demand.
There was not a lot of room for argument.
The thing was, that it did not do a lot, until the gyros were rotating near maximum rotation speed and it actually jumped up and moved rapidly up the counterbalance.
It could also be held on the throttle at mid-lift and lowered or raised by throttle control, over a range of about 1500rpm at a guess.
The reviewer always inspected the balance mechanism to satisfy himself that there is no cheating and he (or she) controlled the point of balance.
A bucket coupling with a needle thrust bearing supported the device via a steel wire or bronze wire connected to a metal container.
The steel wire ran over “V grooved” pair of brass or aluminium pulleys about 3 feet apart.
The pulleys were mounted on good condition ball bearings, bolted to a solid wood or steel bar cross piece.
I have never had any adverse comments made against the set-up, anywhere, any time.
PS The problem with this “carry on” is that if you travel to demonstrate, which you inevitably will, it’s a load of bulky bits and pieces to drag around, not counting spares, batteries, chargers, etc. etc. but you could always take up stamp collecting.

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 24/03/2014 01:21:50
Hi MD,
Thank you for the additional information. Yes, the pendulum with the longest strings possible would be a great test. I don’t know why you choose to control the hub thrust?? And, yes, let us hope it works.

Hi Herald, you have a horrible reputation of being right most of the time. I’m getting tired of it and my vanity can’t take much more ;-) ‘ Nice to see you working again. This is perhaps a bit below your pay scale, isn’t it?

Report Abuse
Answer: Glenn Hawkins - 24/03/2014 01:34:55
 Hi Sandy,
"I replied that my aluminum gyroscopes were around half the weight of brass ones so it was less dead weight to lift, besides I had calculated that I got everything back if I increased the device rotation speed by about 40%.'
That is excellent, Sandy !
Your balancing bucket containing metal parts as a counter weight in on youtube. Somebody placed it there.
Good Evening friend,

Report Abuse
Answer: Ted Pittman - 24/03/2014 14:21:14

Use chains instead of string with your pendulum experiment. They greatly reduce vibrations.
I prefer the counter-weight test (like Sandy did) because the impulsive nature of devices like yours.

A pendulum test can give misleading results depending on how the weights of different parts of your device shift around. You can test this effect by manually moving the internal parts (before turning them on) and seeing how much the pendulum shifts. That can help determine your zero setting.

Good luck.

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