|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
20 April 2024 00:46
|
|
Welcome to the gyroscope forum. If you have a question about gyroscopes in general,
want to know how they work, or what they can be used for then you can leave your question here for others to answer.
You may also be able to help others by answering some of the questions on the site.
|
Question |
| Asked by: |
leviterande |
| Subject: |
WHere are patent pictures of Scott strachan patent? |
| Question: |
HI, I am looking for the patent details of the much talked about Scott strachan patent. I am very suprised to find that his patent is almost nowhere to found anywhere on the web. The most I found after lots of searching is the number of patent and very short description without any pictures...
Any help would be very appreciated
Regards
Karl |
| Date: |
28 May 2014
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
John Scott Strachan - 18/07/2014 03:54:33
| | | this for the
Acceleration sensor
WO 1985004722 A1
Rotation rate sensor
EP 0176539 B1
good pictures
The vibration gyro patent that was based several patent micro gyros the piezoelectric with materials in Vibrating gyroscope
EP 0685704 A1 and then using silicon. that made it capable to use
then there is the micro versions that are used back we used to call them "Smart bullets" and secret at that time EP 0685704 A1 then cameras and radio control helicopters but probably real reduction cost was the Wii. My original patent was lapsed as paid develop versions in military but there was enough from the original patent picture that made all micro versions three basic methods that define EP 0176539 B1 that makes all that are made in China and Hong Kong we now have 3mm x 5mm x 1.5mm that has 6axis gyros.
The other patent was the Linear force from rotating system.
http://www.directorypatent.com/GB/2215048-a.html
there are excellent pictures in pdf version.
John Scott Strachan
Scott
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
levi - 14/10/2014 12:04:49
| | | Hi, Dr. Strachan, (if that is you) the mechanism - in Linear force from rotating system- is interesting to say the least.
I have taken a look at your patent. I may be very well very wrong. I want just to make sure of some points. Your device produces a real unidirectional thrust, Now, this is good but unfortunately it is only half the journey. (yes it is perfectly ordinary and possible to have a a real, substantial horizontal, unidirectional propulsive force component without "reaction". But, only on the earth surface UNDER the action of GRAVITY where gravity accelerates the gyro downwards for "free" ) It seems everyone is misled by the Alex Jones device which is a perfect example.
Therefore there are two notes I would wish to illuminate regarding your device and please don't feel offended, (on the contrary I believe you have a price winner):
1-can the device produce this veritable thrust perpendicular to earth surface?
2-Is it possible that the unidirectional force is just simply the result of gravity. i..e where we get "free lunch acceleration" of the gyro by gravity and thus the apparent unidirectional force only appears horizontally to earth surface?
It seems though however, that your system indeed produces a genuine propulsive force upwards against earth and thus all I said above cant apply but I cant be sure. That is why I would like to hear your words.
Regards
Levi
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
levi - 14/10/2014 12:04:51
| | | Hi, Dr. Strachan, (if that is you) the mechanism - in Linear force from rotating system- is interesting to say the least.
I have taken a look at your patent. I may be very well very wrong. I want just to make sure of some points. Your device produces a real unidirectional thrust, Now, this is good but unfortunately it is only half the journey. (yes it is perfectly ordinary and possible to have a a real, substantial horizontal, unidirectional propulsive force component without "reaction". But, only on the earth surface UNDER the action of GRAVITY where gravity accelerates the gyro downwards for "free" ) It seems everyone is misled by the Alex Jones device which is a perfect example.
Therefore there are two notes I would wish to illuminate regarding your device and please don't feel offended, (on the contrary I believe you have a price winner):
1-can the device produce this veritable thrust perpendicular to earth surface?
2-Is it possible that the unidirectional force is just simply the result of gravity. i..e where we get "free lunch acceleration" of the gyro by gravity and thus the apparent unidirectional force only appears horizontally to earth surface?
It seems though however, that your system indeed produces a genuine propulsive force upwards against earth and thus all I said above cant apply but I cant be sure. That is why I would like to hear your words.
Regards
Levi
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy Kidd - 16/10/2014 20:06:10
| | | Hello Levi,
There has been a dire shortage of postings to the propulsion section of the forum of late so here is some old information for you all.
Excuse me Levi, for commenting on your observations and thoughts as I am sure Scott is quite capable of doing the same.
You have obviously had an opportunity to study Scott Strachan’s device which rotates around a vertical axis, and gravity really does not have a lot to do with its operation.
The thrust is intended to be produced vertically.
I fail to see where gravity can help the operation of the device at all.
The term “Free Lunch” is normally applied to specific gyroscopic action rather than a gravitational one.
Also for such devices which have a vertical axis of rotation, gravity, (unlike the Jones machine which sported a horizontal axis of rotation) is more of a pain in the proverbial.
It is not very easy at all, but certainly not impossible to create a one way action with twin horizontally opposed gyroscopes in what would normally be a vertically offset system without the effects of gravity being a requirement, rather than an unwelcome nuisance.
That said a successful device designed to eliminate the successive cyclic imbalance of gravitational effects and move itself horizontally does not have to accommodate these limitations imposed by gravitational effects when travelling in space, well, at least it would be to a much lesser degree.
So we have a rather simple and existing machine design with normally a vertical axis of rotation made very complex in order to create horizontal movement on this planet’s surface the modification becoming an unnecessary and expensive liability as soon as space travel which I am sure is in any inertial drive inventor’s mind is contemplated.
There are a couple of reasonably well known devices (not including the Jones device) I know of which require the effects of gravity to produce horizontal movement, and will probably work (how well I do not know) on the surface of this planet.
Unfortunately there may be no gravity where they are attempting to go so travel in space is out for them, which is really going to limit their use
.
I followed Scott’s idea of forcing some kind of oscillation in the movement of the gyroscopes, the reason being that I could think of no other way in which my first device worked.
It transpired that I was totally wrong with my assumptions but at the time I believed my thinking was reasonable.
Inertial drive devices were very scarce 30 years ago so naively I thought that if Scott’s device and my own one worked it must be for a similar reason.
How wrong can a person be?
Scott used what I would call a vertical movement to his gyroscopes imparted on them by means of his cams.
I utilised horizontal movement of the gyroscopes also by use of cams.
Both set-ups apparently worked, mine’s was some time after Scott’s and that was some 20 plus years ago.
That device was subjected to a rigorous laboratory test by my Australian sponsors.
My design although somewhat different from Scott’s contained many similarities probably as a result of a phone call I had with Scott in the mid 80s.and the information Scott kindly gave me
Scott and I were very annoyed that Eric Laitwaite had omitted to inform me that Scott had demonstrated his device to the professor some considerable time before I did
Water under the bridge, but I would like to put the record straight.
I am sure Scott will correct me if I am wrong but I got the impression that his device was being forced to operate in what we would at the time call precession to produce thrust.
My device would not operate in precession, and was designed to operate just slightly below entry into the precession area.
Hope this helps a bit Levi.
Regards,
Sandy Kidd
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
