Main Forum Page

## The Gyroscope Forum

4 July 2022 01:27

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:

### Question

Subject: Precession drive
Question: Hi to everyone.
I think I have explanation for the propulsion effects that so many people report online. Let me try to explain.

Look at this video:

The reason why it is easier to lift the gyro wile spinning is because it has no inertia. The weight of the gyro is still the same it just has no inertia when he is lifting it wile precessing. That is why it feels lighter...he does not fight against the inertia. You can see this when he is on a scale in the next video. When he lifts the gyro wile standing on a scale the needle of the scale wobbles around one weight, it only massively changes at the end when he returned the gyro down...BUT without a precession, he just put it down. That way it has inertia and it showed on the scale.It is on this video:

So the reason why it feels lighter is only by the fact that the person who lifts the gyroscope doesn't fight against the inertia, it just lifts the weight. If you try to lift the gyro without precession it will feel as heavy as when it is not rotating. Are we clear on that?

This is my centrifugal (precession) propulsion drive. Here is my theory behind it. Gyroscopic precession has no moment of inertia. You can find that in relevant articles about gyroscopes, it is a science fact. This means that when you rotate my device and the arms of the device start to go forward due to precession, this movement forward of the arms has no moment of inertia, or the whole apparatus does not have opposite moment of inertia...This is very important. Now when you stop rotating the gyroscopes (motors at the end of the arms of the device) the precession stops and the centrifugal force returns the arms back. This movement BACK is not induced by precession so it has moment of inertia. This means that arms move in one direction without inertia. The trick is this movement back of the arms to be stopped by precession so it cancels the reaction (third newton law) and you have forward movement. So the movement of the arms in one direction is caused by precession and in the other direction is caused by the power of the centrifugal force, then they are stopped by precession and the cycle repeats itself. This is why the moment of inertia is unilateral. You do not brake the third Newton law. There is not a problem with the physics in it. Simply the movement forward of the arms is caused by the precession of the gyroscopes (the arms) and has no moment of inertia (does not cause reaction) and when you stop the rotation of the arms the precession stops and now this movement of the arms (caused by centrifugal force) has moment of inertia. This way when going forward, the arms of the apparatus does not have moment of inertia and when the gyroscopes are turned off and precession has stopped the centrifugal force returns them back they have a moment of inertia. That is why the whole apparatus will be moving forward. The problem with this device is however that the gyroscopes on the arms are to small and produce small precession

HOWEVER YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THE MOST IMPORTANT THING!
The most important thing is that the precession must stop with precession. What this means. Imagine you re in space, weightless and no air around you. Your arms are spread and you flap them once as a bird and stop. Will you move? No you will not. Why? Because the movement of the arms DOWN will cause opposite reaction by the Newtons law, and when you stop your arms this force will be equal and in the opposite direction so you will not move at all.
Now this is why the movement of the arm must be stopped by precession.
When you rotate the device the arms go forward due to precession and this movement is without inertia. When you stop the gyroscopes rotating action the precesson stops and the arms go back due to centrifugal force. But if you don't stop this movement by another precession (start the rotation of the arms) the force will cancel itself (same as that astronaut). But when you stop the back motion of the arms (caused by the cetrifugal force only) the inertia is cancelled by precession. In this case the astronaut an move forward. That is why you get a forward motion.

I shared all this with M Thruster on youtube. He is reluctant to communicate even though I think he can tweak his device much better. We exchanged a few emails together. Hope he will listen, I'm sure he will.

Please comment and tell me if this is not a valid explanation. I think that no other device actually work except mine and the M Thruster. Above is the explanation for the principle of work.

best regards
kristijan
Date: 6 January 2019
report abuse

So to be clear again. It is easier to lift the gyroscope with preession than without precession solely because you don't need to fight the inertia, but you still fight the weight. This means that if you lift the gyroscope without precession it will be difficult as same as not rotting at all. Only when you lift it with precession the inertia is cancelled and is much easier to lift it.
This is something that no one seems to talk about. Every one is speaking about some strange phenomenon of losing weight and they falsely try too measure it on a scale.
You can see at the video that when it is on a scale the precession does not cause change in weight, but the weight is the same. Everyone is confused by this. It is only the property of the inertia is changed, the weight of the gyro is the same. But because when you lift with precession you do not need to give extra push to fight inertia it seems lighter.
This movement in one direction can be used for propulsion.
kristijan

Report Abuse
So to be clear again. It is easier to lift the gyroscope with preession than without precession solely because you don't need to fight the inertia, but you still fight the weight. This means that if you lift the gyroscope without precession it will be difficult as same as not rotting at all. Only when you lift it with precession the inertia is cancelled and is much easier to lift it.
This is something that no one seems to talk about. Every one is speaking about some strange phenomenon of losing weight and they falsely try too measure it on a scale.
You can see at the video that when it is on a scale the precession does not cause change in weight, but the weight is the same. Everyone is confused by this. It is only the property of the inertia is changed, the weight of the gyro is the same. But because when you lift with precession you do not need to give extra push to fight inertia it seems lighter.
This movement in one direction can be used for propulsion.
kristijan

Report Abuse
So to be clear again. It is easier to lift the gyroscope with preession than without precession solely because you don't need to fight the inertia, but you still fight the weight. This means that if you lift the gyroscope without precession it will be difficult as same as not rotting at all. Only when you lift it with precession the inertia is cancelled and is much easier to lift it.
This is something that no one seems to talk about. Every one is speaking about some strange phenomenon of losing weight and they falsely try too measure it on a scale.
You can see at the video that when it is on a scale the precession does not cause change in weight, but the weight is the same. Everyone is confused by this. It is only the property of the inertia is changed, the weight of the gyro is the same. But because when you lift with precession you do not need to give extra push to fight inertia it seems lighter.
This movement in one direction can be used for propulsion.
kristijan

Report Abuse
Kristijan,
See my demonstration on YouTube "Antigravity Machine (part 3 )
This was an attempt by me to show that significant changes in angular momentum can be made and large differentials in such can be used to generate inertial thrust.
It was never meant to produce thrust, although many of the readers with sight impairment thought so.

The device demonstrates that variations in gyroscope rotation speed can reduce or increase the amount of angular momentum and or centrifugal force if you want it that way developed

It is obvious that the variations in gyroscope rotation speed affects the weight of the gyroscope itself.
Sandy

Report Abuse
Hi Sandy,
it is a great pleasure to talk to you. The videos from you and the late Eric Laithwaite are engraved deeply in my memory when as a child I watched beyond 2000. This idea has never left my mind.
The forced gyroscopic precession has no moment of inertia. People mistake moment of inertia with weight.
For example look at this young phisicist:

He measures the weight of the precessing gyroscope which is unchanged with elevation, however he is not doing a forced precession upwards but downwards. He is confused and makes a false conclusion.
There a hundreds of videos with forced precession on a scale. The weight of the gyroscope is not changed even though the arm of the gyroscope is accelerated upwards. Take this video for example:

The arm of the gyroscope during a forced precession is going UP but the scale does not change. The arm of the gyroscope is accelerating upwards and this should register on the scale. This is the reason why astronauts feel the acceleration during lift off of the rocket.
Here is another famous video, please go at 2:33 minutes:

It is evident that even though the arm of the precessing gyroscope is going UP the scale is unchanged. It is not important if the arm of the gyro goes UP instantaneously as some like to argue, the fact is that is accelerating UPWARDS on a vertical axis from ZERO to some speed. That acceleration should register on the scale.
This is because FORCED precession of a gyroscope has NO MOMENT OF INERTIA.
Let us be clear however, ONLY GYROSCOPE IN FORCED PRECESSION HAS NO MOMENT OF INERTIA. Precessing gyroscope per se has a moment of inertia. Look at the first video that I shared:

This gyroscope is precessing with a forced precession DOWNWARDS. He does not USE the precession to lift the gyroscope. This is why he does not register any change. On the next 2 videos I shared there is no changes in the weight of the gyro even thought there is upward acceleration BUT they lift the arm of the gyro WITH forced precession.
We can see this more vividly in this video:

This guy is amazed by the fact that je clearly states that it is easier to lift the weight of the gyroscope with forced precession compared to the gyroscope when not precessing. The reason for this is because when he lifts the gyro with forced precession he does not fight the moment of inertia but only the weight of the gyro. The precessing gyroscope has the same weight and mass but has no moment of inertia when is lifted in the direction of the precession. More accurately this guy doesn't wight against the acceleration of the mass of the gyroscope when he lifts it with precession.
On another video he is on a scale:

In here you can see that he is standing on a scale and he lifts the gyro with precession and the scale wobbles around a certain weight. It only changes drastically when he drops the gyro DOWN without using a precession. Then the needle of the scale jumps up and down.
Now imagine if he drops the weight down wile still precessing...then the needle will not jump.
It is because he dropped the gyro without a precession it jumped.
This can be used for propulsion.
Look at this video of M-Thruster:

In this video the arms of the device are rotated around a central axis and the gyroscopes on the end are running. This causes a precession moving upwards without a moment of inertia (because is caused by [recession). When he stops the rotation of the arms the precession stops and the arms are pulled back bu the springs. This movement has a moment of inertia and the machine is moved forward. But notice that he is pressing the button rapidly and does not allow the arms to completely go back...he effectively stops that with another precession. This is the most important thing. Why?
Imagine an astronaut in space, weightless and no air around. His arms are spread outwards and he flap them once down as a bird and stops. Will he move? NO, he will not. Why? Because the movement of the arms DOWN will cause acceleration and reaction by the Newtons law (action and reaction) and when he stops his arms this force he will generate opposite reaction (deceleration) which is equal and in the opposite direction from the acceleration ... so he will not move at all.
Now this is why the movement of the arm must be stopped by forced precession and this forced precession will cancel de moment of inertia when decelerating.
So if the astronaut has 2 gyroscopes in his arms and is rotated around his axis his arms will go up due to forced precession. Now if he stops rotating the precession will stop. If he now starts a flap (move his arms down) he will start moving because this movement is acceleration and causes a moment of inertia. However before he ends his flap he starts rotating again, his arms will start going UP due to forced precession and he will effectivelly cancell the deceleration of the arms and the opposite moment of inertia. This is why you have only one moment of inertia ---the arms go DOWN he goes FORWARD.

I talked to M-thruster and tried to explain this but he does not want to communicate. He does not operate his device and doesn't know what is the principle of its action. For example look at this second video when the device is suspended on a string. He is letting the arms go all the way back and has much less forward movement. He does not stop the returning of the arms with another precession. Here is the video, he does a NULL probe and there is no much difference – go around 17:50 minutes:

You can clearly see that the first video:

is much more effective than the second video (go at 17:50 again):

M-thruster is a good device, but the operator does not what he is doing. Talked to him, hope he will listen.
Look at my device, it uses the same effect. It has a central axis that is rotating and 2 arms with gyroscopes. In my case the axis is rotating constantly and I only engage and disengage the gyroscopes. When the gyro is ON, the arms of the device go FORWARD due to forced precession and this movement has NO MOMENT OF INERTIA. When I stop the motors (gyroscopes) the precession stops and the centrifugal force brings the arms back and this movement has a moment of inertia. But i NEVER allow the arms to go completely back, I stop that with another precession and the whole device goes forward.
My device has much smaller gyroscopes and another problem is that the gyroscopes does not stop immediately. I can build a much better device if I have more money. I use brushless motors and they can brake but U need a programming card to program them to brake. I also may need additional 2 motors (because they are small). However I work as a medical doctor in Macedonia and don't have the best income.
This is why I think you can build a better device.
The best device is probably a symbiosis between the 2 devices. That is why it will be great to share experience with M-thruster to tweak it best. He is not interested though.
But you are a good craftsmen and using this principle you can build a better device.
I will be ecstatic to see my childhood dream working...
Please give me your comment on this idea, about my idea how this device function. I think the logic is clear and easy to understand. We have a tom of experience, videos etc. To prove that. We just need to make more efficient device. A device with 4 or 8 arms will be more efficient etc.
Hope to stay in contact.
Thank you
kristijan

Report Abuse
Kristijan
I should have added that the only occasions I am aware of where a gyroscope or flywheel will appear to magically float and defy gravity is in a gravity accelerated system in what is known as precession:
and in a mechanically accelerated system which has shed all of its angular momentum and centrifugal force if you like.
As there is nothing left to hold it down the gyroscope will proceed to accelerate upwards in an attempt to rotate to a point where its axis of rotation becomes one with the system rotation axis.
.
This so called precession condition would appear to be the only one so far discussed, there is however a far bigger story to be told before the critical point of upward acceleration is reached.

Consider any system of fixed rotation speed.
As soon as the gyroscope or gyroscopes are rotated centrifugal force can be measured and found to be reduced
The amount of centrifugal force will be progressively reduced as the rotation speed of the gyroscope is increased.
I think I managed to demonstrate this fact in my YouTube offering “Antigravity machine Part 3”
.
However, if the gyroscope is rotated fast enough a critical point is reached where there is no angular momentum left in the system the gyroscope begins to climb.
Any further acceleration added to increase centrifugal force is futile the extra input only serving to increase the upward acceleration rate of the gyroscope.
Any increase in the system rotation speed has a similar effect.
This critical point I called the “Saturation Point” after I discovered these affects, and consequently the 90 degree zone swept by the gyroscope(s) the “Saturation Zone”
The gyroscope will demonstrate no angular momentum whilst accelerating upwards through this zone and once started its climb at slightly above the horizontal it will continue to climb to until its axis of rotation is in a vertical position.
The is the point of least action.
I have built a new device which demonstrates all of the above, is suitably fitted with adequate instrumentation including telemetry which proves all of the above.
I have repeatedly claimed for over 36 years what was going on in mechanically accelerated systems.
Sandy

Report Abuse
Dear Sandy,
it will be great to see that new device and I am sure it is working and produces the effects as you described.
However my explanation to why it has an upward force is different.
Countless times I have watched your original device and I believe that the upward force is caused by the imperfection of the movement of the device. Let me explain my self.
Your device has 2 arms and rotating gyros at the end. However due to imperfection of the device, the arms ever slightly vibrate a little up and down. Same as the M-thruster or my device, they go up and down a little and this causes the same effect as in the M-Thruster, my device and your original device and this new one.
I dare you to do a small experiment. Make the arms wobble a little and measure the upward force....I am sure it will be greater. You can do this by adding a small bearing ball (really small) at the base that will hit and elevate the arms ever slightly with every rotation. I bet you on the money the force will be bigger.
kristijan

Report Abuse
Kristijan
For too many years I dabbled with gyroscopes in an effort to find out what they are capable of.
Looking back, I was initially very lucky, when my first machine eventually worked in spite of me.
Not having a clue as to what I had achieved I then spent most of the time chasing moonbeams.
Even after another device of mine passed a VIPAC Lab-Test in Australia, with flying colours, no help was forthcoming from any direction, so I decided I would have to go the rest of the way on my own. Even if I did not understand all the workings of that device, it did at least prove that inertial drive was achievable.

For a variety of reasons, I chose the set up and its geometry as seen in “YouTube” Antigravity Machine Parts 1 & 2
I decided that I would utilise this form of setup which can be seen in nearly all of my devices and use that as a basis for everything else I chose to attempt.
That would be in the form of a twin opposed, vertically offset gyroscope system.
Bit by bit this has worked for me and eventually a fair amount of the yet undisclosed secrets relating to gyroscope behaviour have been revealed.
I no longer attempt to “suck it and see” as this is very wasteful of time etc, I now prefer to design into my devices what I know produces the goods.

FYI. The mechanism producing the cyclic action required to make that device work is lurking behind engine and is virtually hidden (not deliberately) in the area of the front lower driving belt pulley. It is not a mechanical imbalance problem as suggested, but is a deliberate action of the device.

Consider manipulating a system such as one with twin opposed offset gyroscopes
What I do know is this that any gyroscope destined to produce a mechanical advantage and subsequently inertial thrust can only do so during a vertically cyclic motion, the gyroscope (preferably outside of what you call precession) rising upwards to a predetermined position (not so easy) and developing more angular momentum on the way down than it did on the way up.
Far from easy, but far from impossible.
However, in the final analysis it is each to his own and the best of luck to you.
Sandy

Report Abuse
Dear Sandy,
I was reading through some of the forums and found that there are so many people working on this device. We can share ideas, divide in groups of similar ideas maybe and build a project together.
You have 4 decades of experience and machining, others have different insides and their own little secrets. Maybe a small "Manhattan project" for this is the best idea.
One man has very little resources available to do all the work alone, takes to much time and energy.
kristijan

Report Abuse
One thing to do a cooperation is this:
You can suggest an experiment on my device and elaborate why you thin I should to that. I wil do it a post a video of it and comment.
Then I can suggest a experiment on your device and you can film it and post it online and let us all comment on it.
Then m thruster can make a video out of our suggestions and post it (I've already sent him some suggestions to stop the movement with precession and fix the arms like centrifugal governor)
And so on....
This way we can experiment with the different devices we all have. After all the patent for all of these devices are made by Alex Jones and Eric Lathwaite... The worst thing that we can do is to finally conclude that all of this doesn't work.
Even though i'm 100% convinced that the procedure: Up like a gyro, down as a mass, stop as a gyro, and then again up as a gyro, down as a mass, stop as a gyro...works.
kristijan

Report Abuse
For example Sandy,
I'm dying to se your device from Antigravity machine part 3 do this thing:
- instead of a constant rotation make it periodic rotation, meaning it will rotate a certain degree (say 45 degrees) and stop then rotate again and stop in a rapid succession never allowing the arms o the device to fully go down. So you do this...you rotate and stop, rotate stop etc. You do a precession and stop and the arms start falling down and immediately start precessing again etc. It will be similar to m thruster or my device but your device is much better build and vertical which is most important. The rotation dos not need to stop even completely, you can slow down and increase the speed of the rotation at a rapid succession...
Would you do that? It will prove or disprove my claim. It is not a big intervention of the device.
kristijan

Report Abuse
Dear Sandy,
I believe your device is the only one outhere that can achieve vertical flight. You can try it 2 ways:
1. A fix rotation with guros turned on and off rapidly (you can use the braking mode on a brushlesa motor for braking) using the principle pre easion stop, down as a mass stop with precession repeat.
2. Fix rotation of gyros rapidly start and stop centra rotation with same principle as above.
3. Both the central rotation and the guros start and stop rapidly...maybe most efficiant way.
You need good materials to survive the big stress on the metal.
The vertical movement of a precesaion has no inertia....that is the key...
Please try that...you allready have the machine I would build, but I will operae it this way.
Best regards
Kristijan

Report Abuse
Hello Kristijan,
It seems that what you are suggesting was done by Dr. Spartak M. Poliakov.
A photo of his device in on this site at the bottom of the Propulsion tab.
He used 4 heavy gyros and also used braking extensively.

He published an 86 page report titled: "Introduction to Experimental Gravitonics" in 1991.
It has photos, equations, drawings and discusses his theories. You can find a lot of useful information there. It can save you from duplicating work that has already been reported.

Poliakov stopped experimenting with gyros and went to mercury-vortex experiments.
I haven't found any info about his new work - or why he switched.

Nate

Report Abuse
Poliakov video found.

Note gyro device, in corner, at end of video.

Report Abuse
Nate,
can't find any info on Dr. Spartak M. Poliakov's device. Yes i can see the device, there are some sketches and he did publish a book. Also NASA seems to have been interested in his work. No data or any information about the explanation for the device or what is his theory about the device or how he operated the device. It has a long centar shaft so I assume that the gyros can precess up and down bot how he operated the device have no idea. By my theory you must operate the device in a specific pattern, the precession must be stopped with another precession....Cannot find his book online...can you find it and read something about it.
Anyway at the moment don't have time to work on the device, maybe in the future, but I know there are guys overthere that can test this with their device and setup...
I haven't found any device that has been operated in that fashion by now.
Let me give you explanation why it must work:

Look a this video:

The force on the satellite is applied in one direction but the orbit changes in another plane! Imagine that it is not an orbiting satellite but a plane. In order to make that change you need to apply the force in another angle/direction. You fight the inertia to make the satellite move, but his movement is not in the direction where you applied the force AGAINST the inertia. That is the idea. The gyro in forced precession has inertia but the force that causes the prcession is fighting the inertia in the horizontal plane. This force causes movement in the vertical plane (axis). You cannot have 2 inertias for the same object! The vertical movement is caused by fighting the inertia in horizontal plane. That is why the vertical movement is without inertia.
So...you move the arm upwards without inertia and bring the back with inertia BUT you stop with another precession. My bet is that this will cause unilateral force. I may be wrong. But when the arm is going back with applied force (a elastic, metal spring for example) this causes acceleration and force in one direction. When you stop this direction with forced precession is like putting a little weight on a forced precessing arm of the gyro.
Will it cancel that force?
My bet is that when you apply the force by rotating the arm and cause a forced precession you will fight the inertia in the horizontal plane and this will cause movement in the vertical plane, opposite to the force of the elastic, metal spring. This movement we know has no inertia. Will this cancel the deceleration force of the elastic metal spring. That is the question. That is a hypothesis.
When you have a hypothesis you can test it.
It is far better than shooting blanks and hoping for the best...
So is someone has the device... just test the earn thing.
kristijan

Report Abuse
Hello Kristijan,

You can find info about Poliakov here:

(1) Google search: "Gravitonics is Electronics of the XXI Century"

(2) www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message 555026/pg1
Scroll down to posts titled: Russians launch "antigravity" engine into space.
See post dated 05/27/2008 10:34 PM

If you want to order Poliakov's report, I can search through my basement for his publisher's contact info.

Regards,
Nate

Report Abuse
Answer: d brown - 02/04/2019 20:01:15
I think that all we've seen is displacement and smoothing it out and getting a system to be directional is the goal. Yet, isn't that the cat's meow?
A petrol engine already in space won't do you any good once it runs out of air or petrol reserves. And it's called a displacement engine so it's already out of the running.
A jet engine's thrust would be great but, that thing is useless as soon as it hits space.

The only thrust I know of are the Saturn5 engine which they forgot how to make, supposedly, and a pressurized pop bottle with some water in it; both of which will run out of energy sooner rather than later.

Now if you can spin up some gyros from a stationary bicycle and force them in the needed ways from levers(leverage...levers...) and get movement, you've not solved one problem but all of them. Bearings last a long time.
Actually, the only weak part left would be the human. LOL.

And do forgive me if I sound like I'm telling you what is or isn't and not to look further, it's just the Haggar the Horrible way I learned to talk. :) (I'm both dave brown and d brown.)

Report Abuse