The Dean System Drive is a self-contained propulsion system not requiring the loss of mass.

Apparatus for Gyroscopic Propulsion Explained

Written By: admin - Dec• 18•15

Solid Mass-Centrifugal Propulsion System (ISA) International Space Agency

Written By: admin - Dec• 18•15

The Apollo Navigation Computer

Written By: admin - Dec• 18•15

Gyroscopic Reaction less Propulsion Demonstrated?

Written By: admin - Dec• 01•15

Remarkable Electromagnetic Gravity Inf from Lockheed-Martin

Written By: admin - Dec• 01•15

Boyd Bushman-

U.S. Patent 7,900,874 Harvey Emanuel Fiala (Downey, CA),

Written By: admin - Nov• 29•11

An anti-gravity device based on inertial propulsion earned U.S. Patent 7,900,874 for inventors Harvey Emanuel Fiala (Downey, CA), John Emil Fiala (Spring, TX) and John-Arthur Fiala (Spring, TX).  The device they say could power flying saucers that would have abilities now attributed to UFOs, as well as cars, amusement park rides, toys and satellites. It could even be used to move comets and asteroids.

According to the inventors, the device employs two separate processes that do not require a propellant and do not produce an equal and opposite reaction against any external form of matter in the Local Inertial Reference Frame and do not violate Newton’s Laws in the Universal Reference Frame. The first process produces horizontal motion, relies on the earth’s gravitational field as an external force, and has been successfully tested. The second process produces vertical motion and relies only on the aether. It has been successfully tested considering the effect of the earth’s gravity.

Due to the law of conservation of angular momentum, the first process is normally considered not possible, but with the proper use of an external field (for example, gravity) and the phenomenon of precession, it becomes possible. A clear distinction is made between a simple rotor and a gyroscope which is a far more complex device.
Horizontal Motion by Mass Transfer (HMT) Embodiment with V-Groove Traction Ring
About 50 patent images can be found here: a Tiff viewer is required and may be obtained for free from links provided by the U.S. Patent Office.A principle object of the invention is to provide for the first time a viable process of inertial propulsion and to slowly do away with brute force rockets with their highly explosive propellants. The principles disclosed may be used for many velocity limited applications including station keeping for space applications; movement of payloads near the Space Station, small planets, asteroids, comets, libration points, geostationary orbits, and in general, any orbit where the centrifugal force cancels the gravitational force.Inertial propulsion is a largely undeveloped field. Inertial propulsion is defined as propelling a vehicle without the use of a propellant such as rocket fuel or ions, or by the application of an obvious external force. In short, inertial propulsion is propellantless propulsion.

After consulting with prominent physicists, based on current definitions, the earth’s gravity is definitely considered an external field (and force). If a one pound object is sitting on a table, the gravitational field causes it to exert a one pound force on the table and to keep the object from falling the table responds by exerting an equal and opposite upward directed force. Contemporary thinking is largely that because the gravitational field is by definition exactly perpendicular to the horizontal, it can not be used to cause an object to move horizontally. This has been true for all the approaches that have been tried in the past, but that does not prove it cannot be done. It just remains for someone creative enough to figure out how to do it, and this patent defines that unique process.

The two processes referenced above are examples of converting the rotary motion of a spinning rotor into unidirectional linear motion.

Gravity causes the phenomenon of natural precession (precession not using a man-made forcing torque). It is common knowledge that a spinning precessing rotor has a reduced level of inertia and angular momentum in the direction of precession while it is precessing, although that process is currently not well understood or agreed upon. Consider a one-foot long axle with one end on a pivot point attached to a base and a spinning rotor on the other end. By removing a support at the rotor end of the axle and relying on gravity to precess or move the spinning mass, for example, and then reinserting the support so that precession stops, the mass of the rotor will have moved a linear distance of exactly one foot (equilateral triangle). The mass will have moved this distance of one foot and it will have done so with a reduced level of inertia and angular momentum and hence with a reduced reaction against the pivot point and hence against the base.

During precession the base will have moved only very slightly in the direction opposite that of the precession; for example one-tenth of an inch for a given table-top device. Then if precession is stopped and the spinning rotor is pushed or reset back to its original position while it exhibits full inertia and angular momentum, their will be a full reaction against the pivot point and hence against the base, and so the base will have moved a significant amount in a direction opposite to the reset direction, but in the same direction as the original precession. The net result will be that there is a net motion of, for example, 1 inch in this example, in the direction of precession, for each cycle of the precession and reset action.The second form of inertial propulsion disclosed produces vertical motion and does not rely upon any internal or external familiar and convenient field except that of the all-pervasive aether. It relies upon a forcing torque to turn precession on and off to produce the states of low and high levels of inertia necessary to result in a net upward movement in the absence of a strong enough gravitational field. The form of inertial propulsion that produces vertical motion is referred to as Vertical Motion by Mass Transfer (VMT).

Inertial propulsion consists of two different levels of performance. The simpler forms of inertial propulsion produce only movement with a velocity limit that cannot be exceeded and is referred to as Horizontal Motion by Mass Transfer (HMT) and VMT. Although the simpler forms produce significant acceleration during the beginning of each cycle, they do not produce sustained acceleration (SA), and as such, are generally not suitable for propulsion to distant stars, although they may be suitable for interplanetary travel, in particular for unmanned vehicles, depending on the level of the development of the technology. However, VMT is clearly suitable for moving manned or unmanned vehicles in outer space applications where little or no significant gravitational fields exist, such as maneuvering near the Space Station, small planets, asteroids, comets, libration points, geostationary orbits, or in general, any orbit where the centrifugal force cancels the gravitational force, and for spacecraft attitude control’.

The more desirable form of inertial propulsion has a higher level of performance and produces sustained acceleration (SA). The essence of this invention deals with sustained acceleration only in a limited sense. Full details relating to sustained acceleration will be disclosed after further research has been completed and a model has been built that can satisfactorily and repeatedly demonstrate sustained acceleration.

It is widely accepted that the inertia of a non-rotating body is proportional to its mass and is an instantaneous function of all the rest of the mass in the whole universe8,9 via the medium of the aether (also called the universal lattice or universal reference frame). It follows directly that an accelerating mass has an interaction with all of the rest of the mass in the aether10. Rotation of a body involves centripetal acceleration, which is a subset of more generalized acceleration. In the specific instances of the devices disclosed in this invention, the accelerating mass is a spinning precessing mass having a reduced level of inertia in the direction of precession, depending on its construction. Since the inertia of a body is a function of its interaction with the aether, the reduction of the inertia of a spinning precessing mass in the direction of precession is also a function of its interaction with the aether. The exact reason for the reduced magnitude of inertia and angular momentum during precession and a calculation of the magnitude of its reduction is not well understood or agreed upon by many present day physicists. The inventor has derived his own formula for the reduced inertia and angular momentum as shown in later paragraphs.

The essence of the two processes for inertial propulsion is that a spinning mass has a reduced value of inertia while it is precessing in one direction and full inertia while it is not precessing and is being pushed or propelled back in the opposite direction to its starting point. While it is precessing with a reduced level of inertia, its center of mass is moving in an absolute reference frame in one direction while the vehicle that contains it will be moving with a lower velocity in the opposite direction. But when the spinning mass stops precessing and has full inertia and is driven back to its reference position within its vehicle, forcing it back has a full reaction on the enclosing vehicle that moves the enclosing vehicle by an amount related to the ratio of the mass of the spinning rotor (while not precessing) to the mass of the rest of the complete vehicle assembly. One cycle of this propulsion consists of precessing forward with a reduced level of inertia and then resetting the spinning mass back to its reference position with full inertia resulting in a net movement forward. The cycle is then repeated continuously for further movement forward.

The terms Inertial Propulsion Unit (IPU) and Inertial Propulsion Device (IPD) are interchangeable, although the term Unit usually has a broader meaning, while the term Device usually refers more to a specific device.

When multiple IPDs are operated in parallel and properly phased, approximately uniform motion can be realized. Each individual IPD, were it the only one, will start and stop during each cycle, but continuous movement is developed by the combination of multiple devices in an assembly. Whatever variations in velocity would exist can be smoothed out with springs and shock absorbers. But because each individual IPD can stop each cycle (were it not for the other devices operating in association with it), when it is required that the vehicle as a whole come to a full stop, this can be done in a single cycle, or a maximum of the number of cycles over which the velocity variations are smoothed out, analogous to a multi-stage electronic filter for reducing voltage ripple. Such a vehicle could literally stop in a distance equal to a few of its overall lengths. On the ground, it could perform all of the maneuvers that have been attributed to airborne UFOs, such as turning square or sharp corners and sudden stopping or acceleration. These maneuvers are all attributes of a vehicle employing the simpler form of inertial propulsion (MMT) described earlier.

The devices employing the earth’s gravitational field can be constructed so simply that inertial propulsion toys are an absolute certainty. A small inertial propulsion toy radio controlled car that moves but does not have drive power to its wheels could easily sell for under $25 to $50 depending on its quality.

Amusement park rides could use inertial propulsion. The rides could stop essentially instantaneously during an emergency. Proper seat belt restraints would be required. Merry-go-rounds, Ferris wheels, and all carousel type rides are examples that could use inertial propulsion.

Aircraft in level flight could use inertial propulsion to save on fuel costs to the extent that generating electrical energy for inertial propulsion would be more efficient than developing thrust using jet engines. Because objects have their normal weight during normal flight, MMT could be used to increase the flight speed during normal flight and reduce the speed during landing. This would be helpful for takeoffs and landings on short runways and to reduce noise to below legal limits during takeoffs and landings where this is critical (for example, the John Wayne Airport in Orange County, California). Dirigibles could be powered by MMT. Submarines could move in total silence with no external moving parts.

An MMT device could propel a glider using only solar power and batteries. No propellant or fuel would be required. The most efficient glider has a glide ratio of over 70:1. A Boeing 767 has a glide ratio of about 12:1. The Space Shuttle has a glide ratio of about 3:1. A glider or aircraft using MMT would use a small part of its forward velocity to develop lift to overcome the glide ratio while most of its velocity would contribute to the aircraft forward velocity.

The use of inertial propulsion units will generate completely new industries and employment opportunities, and as soon as sustained acceleration (SA) is developed, travel to the stars can be realized.

The nearest major star to the earth is Alpha Centauri. At an acceleration of only two g’s, a round trip to Alpha Centauri, even allowing one year in orbit around the star for observations, could be completed in approximately five years. An astronauts spouse and children would still be there and waiting for him/her.

The embodiment employing the use of a gravitational field represents man’s first real and practical exploitation of a gravitational field on earth to accomplish motion in a direction perpendicular to the gravity field. If as much development was put into optimizing an inertial propulsion engine as has been put into automobiles, a “Lamborghini” type of car could be built that might theoretically do zero to 40 mph in less than one second. Such a Lamborghini employing inertial propulsion would have four wheels, but no engine or transmission or differential or gear trains leading to them. The wheels would be used strictly for holding the vehicle off the ground with the front wheels also used for steering.

Patent App relating to new Machine- David A. Smith

Written By: admin - Nov• 20•11

New mechanism for creating thrust.

2011 Application by David A. Smith of Ann Arbor, MI- USA

This invention relates to a mechanism for converting the centrifugal forces produced by rotating masses to produce a single unbalanced propulsive force acting in one direction, so as to provide unidirectional linear motion to a supporting vehicle, and more particularly, to such a mechanism comprising a number of radial arms rotatable about a common axis which arms carry unbalanced weights at their ends which also rotate about axes parallel to the common axis and are aligned when the arms are super-imposed.

The Antikythera Machine

Written By: admin - Nov• 18•11

More than 21 centuries ago, a mechanism of fabulous ingenuity was created in Greece, a device capable of indicating exactly how the sky would look for decades to come — the position of the moon and sun, lunar phases and even eclipses. But this incredible invention would be drowned in the sea and its secret forgotten for two thousand years.

This video is a tribute from Swiss clock-maker Hublot and film-maker Philippe Nicolet to this device, known as the Antikythera Mechanism, or the world’s “first computer”. The fragments of the Mechanism were discovered in 1901 by sponge divers near the island of Antikythera. It is kept since then at the National Archaeological Museum in Athens, Greece.

For more than a century, researchers were trying to understand its functions. Since 2005, a pluridisciplinary research team, the “Antikythera Mechanism Research Project”, is studying the Mechanism with the latest high tech available.

The results of this ongoing research has enabled the construction of many models. Amongst them, the unique mechanism of a watch, designed by Hublot as a tribute to the Mechanism, is incorporating the known functions of this mysterious and fascinating ancient Mechanism.

A model of the Antikythera Mechanism, built by the Aristotle University in Greece, together with the mechanism of the watch and this film in 3D are featuring in an exhibition about the Mechanism that is taking place in Paris, at the Musée des Arts et Métiers.

A new Mechanical Antigravity concept

Written By: admin - Nov• 17•10

A new scientific paper about a novel anti-gravity device needs to be understood and commented.

A recent peer-reviewed paper by Prof.C.Provatidis claims to have developed a new mechanical anti-gravity device capable of producing net impulse (thrust) using rotating masses. It is an open-access paper entitled: C. G. Provatidis, A device that can produce net impulse using rotating masses, Engineering, Vol. 2, Number 8 (Aug. 2010), pp. 648-657, which can be downloded from:

I encourage the members of this site to have a look and probably express their impression and comments.

Moreover, I see that the paper continues previous research, i.e. a patent application in 2008, one Conference paper in 2009, and two Conference presentations in April and July 2010.

A good friend informed me that, as an exception, author’s talk in Nashville (26th July 2010) was fully recorded in a videotape by Conference staff. It is worth-mentioning that the Conference used about 22 parallel sessions, with approx. 20 listeners per session. In this particular talk, there were 70 sitting persons plus over over 20 standing people up to the room door.

The author has also published a peer-reviewed paper in the Russian Journal, which can be downloaded from: Theory of Mechanisms and Machines, 2010, Vol.8, Iss.1, pp. 34-41; direct link:

Advanced Inertial Navigation- The AIRS FLIMBAL

Written By: admin - Sep• 28•10

Advanced Inertial Reference Sphere

Based on the Book:

Inventing Accuracy: An Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance, by Donal Mackenzie; MIT, 1990.

Last updated 22 October 1997

The AIRS (Advanced Inertial Reference Sphere) is the most accurate inertial navigation (INS) system ever developed, and perhaps marks the end of a long process of continuous refinement of INS technology.

This immensely complex and expensive INS unit has “third generation” accuracy as defined by Dr. Charles Stark Draper, the leading force in the development of hyper-accurate inertial guidance. This translates into INS drift rates of less than 1.5 x 10^-5 degrees per hour of operation. This drift rate is so low that the AIRS contributes on the order of only 1% of the Peacekeeper missile’s inaccuracy, and is thus effectively a perfect guidance system (i.e. a zero drift rate would not measurably improve the Peacekeeper’s performance).

Very little of the precision of this guidance system is even exploited during a ballistic missile flight, it is mostly used simply to maintain guidance system alignment on the ground during missile alert without needing an external reference through precision gyrocompassing. Most ICBMs require an external alignment system to keep the INS in synch with the outside world prior to launch. The AIRS is probably as good as any INS for ICBM guidance needs to get.

The penalty for this extreme level of accuracy is tremendous complexity and cost. The AIRS has 19,000 parts. In 1989 a single accelerometer used in the AIRS (there are three) cost $300,000 and took six months to manufacture.

There are very few applications requiring both such precise guidance and independence from external references. In fact, beyond ICBM guidance, none have been identified. If the requirement for complete autonomy is eliminated, extreme guidance accuracy is available at a small fraction of its cost and weight. For example, the advent of satellite positioning systems like GPS (Global Positioning System) and GLONASS, which permit centimeter level accuracy over unlimited periods of operation with only a light inexpensive receiver. NASA spcecraft require extreme guidance precision, but use external navigation cues to obtain it. Even new nuclear weapon guidance programs have shown a willingness to sacrifice autonomy for cost and weight. The proposed BIOS (Bomb Impact Optimization System), a glide-bomb adaptation of the B-61, has proposed using GPS for guidance instead of an INS. Given the competition from advanced external reference based approaches, INS technology has probably reached the end of the line as far as accuracy goes.


The MX (later Peacekeeper) missile began development in February 1972. The military requirements for this missile called for greatly enhanced accuracy, accuracy the AIRS was well positioned to deliver. In May 1975 the AIRS was transferred from the Draper Laboratory to Northrop for advanced development. It proved extremely difficult to transfer the hand-crafted laboratory built design to a production environment. Despite years of work, by July 1987 Northrop Electronics Division had succeeded in delivering only a small number of INS units. MX missiles were beginning to pile up in silos with no guidance system to fly them. By December 1988 AIRS units had been supplied to all 50 MX missiles. Since that time reponsibility for producing AIRS units has been transferred to the Autonetics Division, Rockwell International.

With the planned retirement of the Peacekeeper missile under the terms of the START II treaty (signed 3 January 1993) by 2004, the Minuteman III will be left as the sole U.S. land-based ICBM through the year 2020. Because of this shift in importance, the Minuteman III force is to be upgraded to the same standards of accuracy of the Peacekeeper. Accordingly, between 1998 and 2002, 652 new AIRS guidance units will be purchased and fitted to the existing Minuteman III.


The most novel aspect of the AIRS is that it has no gimbals. Gimbals are pivots that are provided for each of three spatial axes so that the guidance platform can move freely in all directions (and thus maintain its absolute alignment with the outside world). The AIRS consists of a beryllium sphere that floats in a fluorocarbon fluid within an outer shell and can thus rotate in any direction. The importance of this innovation is that it eliminates the possibility of gimbal lock (where the axes of two gimbals line up and destroy the three-dimensional freedom of motion), and is free from arbitrary limits to range of motion found in some gimbal designs.

The temperature of the fluid is controlled with extreme accuracy by transfer of heat from the fluid through “Power shells” to freon-cooled heat exchangers. The alignment of the sphere is controlled by three hydraulic thrust valves directed by the inertial sensors in the sphere.

Like other INS systems, the sphere houses three accelerometers and three gyroscopes. The accelerometer design is called a SFIR (specific force integrating reciever). This is essentially the same approach as the pendulous integrating gyro accelerometer (of PIGA) used in the Minuteman II. The SFIR/PIGA works by measuring the rate of precession (and thus force applied) to a gyroscope at right angles to its axis of rotation. The gyroscope is a floated gas bearing gyroscope design.

AIRS opened to show a gyroscope and accelerometer

AIRS being disassembled

Exploded view of system enclosing the AIRS


The AIRS was in large part an evolutionary development of INS technology. The principle measuring instruments (the accelerometers and gyroscopes) are direct descendants of technologies used in earlier ICBM INS systems like the Minuteman II. These technologies were developed over a period 30 years by the Charles Stark Draper Laboratory (formerly the Instrumentation Laboratory of MIT).

The gimballess floated sphere was conceived at the Instrumentation Laboratory in the late 50s by Philip Bowditch, who dubbed the concept the “flimbal”. It was developed into a deployable system by Kenneth Fertig, under an Air Force program known as SABRE. In 1969 the highly accurate ICBM guidance program was eliminated, but resurrected as the MPMS (missile position measurement system). In this guise it was test flown riding “piggy back” on an Minuteman III in 1976 (i.e. in addition to the actual Minuteman III NS-20 guidance system). The AIRS was so accurate that it could be conveniently used as a benchmark for evaluating other INS systems.