Gravity Control With Gyroscopes?

[russwr]

The lifting / gravity control of mass was already done in the late 1800's , by John W. Keely machinist , inventor and musician in Philadelphia. Lots of documents available. See S V P. Books , and copies of documents. One of 4 different Keely gravity demonstrations was 3 spinning brass flywheels on heavy metal platform as SIRENS . The cup shaped ridges on rims was speed up by forced compressed AIR. When the tones generated was appropriate, Keely slowed down two so as there was an Inharmonic blend of tones in the air on top edges on angle, with certain ratio. The whole unit slowly rose up. The compressor was stopped. The base plate slowly settled down with decreasing RPMS. Why are people not studying the works of Keely? (3 gyroscopes / flywheels are needed not 1 or 2)

[russwr]

Way back, many years ago, there was a US Patent on gravity control mechanism set up. Those of you who had collected technical data on the topic, probably already know this one. Two large diameter spinning brass flywheels about 30,000 RPMS, rotating a distance from each other in opposite directions, with edges in series, each create an electrical field overlapping in both areas. Electrons migrate to the rims. When the fields are sufficient, and up to speed, there is a third field created in between flywheels called "Kinematic".  Objects in this area have no weight.
Professor Searl from England practiced with high voltage rising screens in 1950, which his money investor had called " floating butterfly nets". His later remote controlled flying saucer shape device used a combination of high voltage static field mingled with magnetic field from self rotating magnet motor. He later was able to control direction of ship in the air, that was SILENT, when newspeople came with camera equipment and had caused RF interference with the flying saucer device. He then, figured how to get it better designed with surface hull vanes redistributed to alter the force of the field to get directional control. At certain rpm and high voltage, the noises/motor sounds stop up in the air, due to the high voltage ion wind pushing away the neutral air from around the circumference of the ship. (No air area is the narrow vacuum band around the perimeter where no sound is transferred outward.) He now lectures in US at conventions about his free energy motor with rolling magnets. His shop in England was burned down after he refused to hook up to the local power grid. The motor ran a generator for free power to his shop way back in time.

[broli]

James from The Action Lab has an interesting video on gyroscopes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL9RRLdcSZc&t=15s

And interesting part is how the addition of friction makes a gyroscope GAIN gravitational potential energy. Where did this energy come from? Its angular momentum?

Additionally here is Derek from Veritasium:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeyDf4ooPdo

He tries to lift it above his head without it spinning with great effort. I lift weights sometimes and I can assure you a 40 pounds shoulder press is not easy if you are not trained. Yet when it spins he does this with very little effort. The professor claims its due to the lever action of why it appears to be more heavy when lifted unspun. If the lever action disappears and all the 40 pounds is acting straight down on his hands, wont his body become the lever when he extends his arms like that shifting the center of mass significantly?

It cant be as simple as ACCELERATING the precession of a gyroscope to make it "lift" can it?

[broli]

And one more dusty paper for the data driven people.

https://vixra.org/pdf/2205.0060v1.pdf

[Smudge]

He tries to lift it above his head without it spinning with great effort. I lift weights sometimes and I can assure you a 40 pounds shoulder press is not easy if you are not trained. Yet when it spins he does this with very little effort. The professor claims its due to the lever action of why it appears to be more heavy when lifted unspun. If the lever action disappears and all the 40 pounds is acting straight down on his hands, wont his body become the lever when he extends his arms like that shifting the center of mass significantly?

It cant be as simple as ACCELERATING the precession of a gyroscope to make it "lift" can it?

Of course it can, but it is not linear acceleration, it is angular acceleration.  If you increase the angular precession rate you increase the torque applied to your arm.

Here is a paper I wrote in 2003 you may find interesting.

Smudge

[broli]

Of course it can, but it is not linear acceleration, it is angular acceleration.  If you increase the angular precession rate you increase the torque applied to your arm.

Here is a paper I wrote in 2003 you may find interesting.

Smudge

Wouldn't this mean that there is some kind of configuration where a constant torque would induce a constant precision "up" against gravity. As the forced precession configuration would need us to accelerate the gyroscope around its precession axis to produce "lift". However the act of precision itself was part of a rotating frame then what if we used the act of rotation itself once more to get lift without needing to rely on increasing the overal angular momentum of the system. However even thinking about such configuration hurts my brain. The gyroscope is still two step ahead of me.

However its evident to me that thinking about what is happening to the Aether flow around it would help in solving its mysteries. Conrad has an interesting paper on this mass "extinction" and Aether "deprivation" process due to high angular momentum:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348458472_Law_of_Physics_20th-Century_Scientists_Overlooked_Part_4_Mass_Extinction_by_Aether_Deprivation

[Smudge]

Wouldn't this mean that there is some kind of configuration where a constant torque would induce a constant precision "up" against gravity. As the forced precession configuration would need us to accelerate the gyroscope around its precession axis to produce "lift".

Nope, the weight you have lifted is applied at the cenral base.  If you did the weight lifting experiment (swinging a gyroscope on the end of a rod) while standing on some bathroom scales they would still register your combined wieght.  In fact as you angularly accelerate the rod to accelerate the mass upwards it would record a higher weight).

Smudge

[Paul-R]

I recall some years ago a project with a 3 foot square plywood platform.

On the four edges were mounted electrically driven identical flywheels, spinning in the same direction.

The platform itself was then rotated and the system would lose perceived weight. If the loss of weight exceeded the considerable weight of the system, then presumably it would float or rise up.

[Paul-R]

I recall some years ago a project with a 3 foot square plywood platform.

On the four edges were mounted electrically driven identical flywheels, spinning in the same direction.

The platform itself was then rotated and the system would lose perceived weight. If the loss of weight exceeded the considerable weight of the system, then presumably it would float or rise up.

Can anybody produce an equation out of the following variables?

Weight of flywheels, m
rotational speed of flywheels, w1
length of edge of platform, l
rotational speed of platform, w2
Change of weight of system, F

in the form F = constant . Function (m, w1, l, w2)

[russwr]

Way back many years ago, there was a Youtube video put up for about a month, and then was removed. A  single thermoelectric module was set on sensitive gram digital weigh scales and weight was noted.  The table top scales was glass covered and then wiring from power was connected. The scales registered less weight. The interference pattern waves generated to the earth gravity pull caused part neutralization of mass weight. Similar techniques have been previously known as the work of John Keely from 1890's. He used gold, silver, and platinum thermopiles wires connected to mass lifted, and carrying the resonant and harmonic ratio frequencies.  Also, a French scientist built an open frame dirigible with large sandwich plates of differing metals at each end. When the frequency generator was turned on with wires to both ends, the whole unit would lift upward. He flew it slowly to the next town and back. (translated from French with Bable Fish) A one-cylinder engine mounted with a large fan provided the forward movement of the weightless craft.

[Verpies]

Does anyone know where to find that YouTube video of a gyroscope that is forcefully rotated around 2 axes simultaneously and has its weight altered ?

[lfarrand]

Not sure if this meets your criteria, but it is pretty interesting, if you ask me: Prof Eric Laithwaite Large Gyro Wheel Uncut Footage

[unimmortal]

A simple way to create an effect is to spin a precision gyroscope up to around 10k rpm, orientate the shaft horizontally, place it on digital kitchen scales, and then place a North and South magnet either side of the rotor. Tada! Weight loss! But the interaction between magnets and rotor sees the rotor slow down very quickly as the magnets interact with it. The challenge is to keep it spinning without interfering with the field generated within the gyroscope.

[Allcanadian]

Ifarrand

Not sure if this meets your criteria, but it is pretty interesting, if you ask me: Prof Eric Laithwaite Large Gyro Wheel Uncut Footage

Many would tell us it's just precession which is supposedly well understood but not. However that doesn't change the fact that an elderly man just lifted a four foot long shaft with a 40 lb weight on the opposite with one hand. 

I find this just as impressive...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_6p-1J551Y, he Cubli: a cube that can jump up, balance, and 'walk'

The only relevant question here is "what is inertia" and nobody seems to have a clue. It always ends up as a circular argument where mass and inertia are one and the same when they are not. Similar to how nobody has a clue what the Primary Fields (Electric, Magnetic, Gravic) are in reality. So we understand a lot of stuff just none of all the important stuff which actually matters, lol.

[Smudge]

Ifarrand
Many would tell us it's just precession which is supposedly well understood but not. However that doesn't change the fact that an elderly man just lifted a four foot long shaft with a 40 lb weight on the opposite with one hand.

And if he had been standing on some bathroom scales you would have seen his weight plus that 40 lb apparently increase slightly while the weight rises.  It is all explained by the torque applied at the end of the shaft due to the flywheel precession about the vertical axis.  What isn't explained in the textbooks is "in what frame does the reverse torque appear?"  The textbooks are happy to tell you that for every action there is an equal and opposite one but where is the opposite reaction in this case?  Mach's principle will tell you the answer.

I find this just as impressive...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_6p-1J551Y, he Cubli: a cube that can jump up, balance, and 'walk'

All done with three independantly spun flywheels on the three axes that can pluck torque out of the air.   Torque both from spin-up (or spin down) and from precession.

The only relevant question here is "what is inertia" and nobody seems to have a clue.

I would rephrase that question to "how does mass inherit its inertial property?"  The textbooks tell you inertia is an internal property of mass whereas the above demonstrations clearly indicate it isn't.  And if Mach's principle applies, the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass that has been proved to some large number of decimal places may be just a local effect.  A 1 Kg lump here on earth that exhibits 1 Kg inertial mass could if transposed to far reaches of the unverse exhibit a different value of inertia (although scientists living there would have developed their theories and universal constants to also find equivalence of their inertial and gravitational mass).  The evidence of an expanding universe and the big bang theory could all be wrong.
       

It always ends up as a circular argument where mass and inertia are one and the same when they are not. Similar to how nobody has a clue what the Primary Fields (Electric, Magnetic, Gravic) are in reality. So we understand a lot of stuff just none of all the important stuff which actually matters, lol.

Agreed

Smudge

[Allcanadian]

I was quizzing an AI about gravity and the primary fields last week.

Really interesting and the AI all but agreed Einsteins concept of space-time is bs. In fact, the only reason the ether model was abandoned was because of one flawed experiment by Michelson-Morley in 1887. One experiment changed history turning it into a farce.

Here we could ask what Michelson-Morley actually did.
1)Light is split into two beams.
2)Each beam travels to a mirror and reflects back.
3)The beams are recombined to create an interference pattern.
4)The experiment found no significant difference in the speed of light in the two directions, indicating no detectable ether wind.

Which was more a display of ignorance imo. All they verified was that the speed of light is constant no matter the velocity, direction or where the source comes from. This could also be interpreted to show the speed of light could be the "wave speed" of the vacuum, if the vacuum has deeper structure. Does anyone believe this problem would be as simple as an "ether wind"?, I mean it seems preschool imo.

The fact that after all these years nobody has a clue what the primary fields and inertia are should have been our first clue the present theories are unworkable.