inertial propulsion with gyroscope

[sm0ky2]

In Woopy's device, the momentum is transferred to the shaft at
the center of rotation, through the forced precession caused by
the shape of the track.


The axis of rotation is the gimble
even though the gyro is on an arm
the gimble rotation is constant, and the
pitch, caused by the track is different than the normal
for the speed of the gyro, and rotation of the gimble.


This imparts a force on the axis.
the torque is the change in angular momentum over time.




The torque is= 4(pi^2)*moment of inertia/[1/(rpmgimble*rpmgyro)/60]
The vector a combined angle of the forced precession and the normal
angle of precession.

[sm0ky2]

We can see mathematically that the torque is
tilting the shaft in two directions simultaneously


what happens when we tilt a shaft in both directions?
it moves linearly......


Take it from a guy that spent waay too much time
trying to break Newton.
Even he looks wrong, from the right perspective
he is always right.

You can't think about this from our perspective
you have to be the craft.
then to you, there is a force.


each time the gyro torque is countered by the forced
track motion (because gimble is constant) the combined
torque is perpendicular to the shaft, instead of tilting it,
it "pushes" it in the combined vector.

[sm0ky2]

the counter force is not in the applied vector
it is 180-degrees to each respective tilt.
you can see these oscillations, separate from
the internal linear force.


When we stand on the craft, and push the shaft
it goes nowhere, because the torque is between our feet
and the craft.


With Woopy's device the torque is internal, on the gimble shaft.
it's not pushing back against the craft,
(at least not completely)

[conradelektro]

With Woopy's device the torque is internal, on the gimbal shaft.
it's not pushing back against the craft,
(at least not completely)

"The torque is on the gimbal shaft": This might be true, but the shaft is held by the platform and the platform runs on wheels on the table. And everything is reacting, the platform, the wheels on the table. It is by no means a "closed system".

The so called "inertial drives" (which seem to turn angular momentum into linear momentum) act against friction. Wheels have a very high friction sideways (perpendicular to the rolling direction, and specially on rails) and the "machine" pushes against this high friction. There is also considerable friction if one presses in short bursts against ball bearings perpendicular to the axle. Also twisting an axle in a ball bearing causes high friction (at the instant of the may be very short twist).

Fast spinning "machines" simply act on the air like a propeller. A gyroscope with 12000 rpm causes considerable air displacement near the spinning wheel.

It is almost impossible to create a "closed system" on earth, at least the "machine" is standing on a table or on the floor. And it is always in air. Hanging the "machine" like a pendulum is also not without additional forces like unwinding the filaments of a string or twisting at least two parallel strings. If you hang a table with four strings (each on a corner) from the ceiling it has high resistance to rotation (but swings nicely). And this fools the "inventors". (It also fooled me.) A machine in free fall from very high would be a closed system (during the fall) but it would interact strongly with air. You have to go into earth orbit (if you can afford that).

And if you add gyroscopes it becomes complicated. And with gyroscopes (as you concluded) the forces often act against axles, but the axles are held by something and this something is restricted by friction in the most unexpected directions.

Specially "vibration machines" rely on a higher friction in one direction, contrary to the perception of an onlooker.


If you spin something (e.g. on a string) and then let it fly away tangentially you have done exactly what is meant by "throwing something away to impart linear momentum". But very soon you are running out of things to throw away like a rocket runs out of fuel (which is literally thrown away at high speed through its exhaust).

There are thousands of patents for "space drives" since more than a hundred years. None ever worked. They would be tremendous and hard to suppress (because the inventor is driven by greed and every country would need it for its military or industry). So, we are up against a legion of unsuccessful inventors.

But I can not convince a believer. Believe is resistant to knowledge and learning. If we could turn believe into a real force, we would go faster than light (I believe).


Let's convince each other with good experiments! Talk is idle and cheap.

Greetings, Conrad


P.S.: My efforts are failing when I try to create a fast spinning wheel in my workshop. The problem is balance. What I have created rattles in a frightful way and endangers me (because parts could fly off in my face). I am waiting for the gyroscope mentioned above https://www.gyroscope.com/d.asp?product=SUPER2#. Hopefully the Brits will not leave the EU before sending the thing. They took my money without any problems.

[conradelektro]

May be some of you did not know. The Fiala patent US2011219893 and the sister patent US2009183951 were abandoned in 2015 (fees were not paid in time).

You can look up a patent at https://worldwide.espacenet.com/singleLineSearch?locale=en_EP by inserting the patent numer in the search input field "Smart search". Once you have the patent on screen (by clicking on its title) click at (INPADOC legal status).

Looks like it was not a financial success for the three Fialas mentioned as applicants and inventors. Or the men in black got the Fialas and paid them millions to shut up or something like that (use your imagination freely).

I will put myself in danger by experimenting. I always wanted to know the men in black and I could use some millions. The man most in danger is sm0ky2 because he knows the secret of inertial drives and understands them perfectly well. Laurent is not in danger because his videos are a "defensive publication" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_publication ). It would not help to pay or harm Laurent because many (like me) have seen his videos. And all these viewers would have to be paid or worse. My god, hundreds have watched his videos, what a high cost or massacre that would be.

Is watching YouTube videos dangerous?

Help, somebody is knocking forcefully at my door! Helicopters a hovering over my house! I will go to my underground bunker!

Greetings, Conrad