On Jun 4, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Sandy Kidd wrote:
I received your email via Jerry Decker, whom I have corresponded with in the past. I was quite interested in the fact that there seems to be an element of belief in my work. I have to say that over the years my machines and laboratory test reports have been treated with contempt. I am 80 years old now but it is amazingly refreshing to find that there are others who at least consider the possibility of inertial drive as it tends to be called.
30 years ago in the University of Dundee where my device was being subjected to their form of analysis I decided to demonstrate the fact that I could control the centrifugal force generated on a rod of fixed length with an attached fixed mass at a fixed rotation speed. I demonstrated to a team of two or three engineering department members which was received without any form of reaction. None are so blind.
I knew I would have problems with my claims from that time onwards. I take it that you are aware that I built a device in Australia in the mid 1980s at the request of an Australian businessman. My device on test at the VIPAC laboratories in Port Melbourne proved without doubt that Inertial Thrust had been achieved in 20 successful runs out of 20.
Unfortunately the engineering team could not make the results comply with Newton so in their opinion it could not be developed. That lab report is available with photo of the device and US Patent application.
That all said, the device shown on YouTube works for a whole set of different reasons, and I have to say that none of them are obvious to the beholder.
I can easily explain Laithwaite’s large flywheel demonstration and that other antigravity flywheel demonstration. Not many people appear to have gone to the trouble of mechanically accelerating gyroscope, or more correctly flywheel systems, as the results are not quite as expected. I do not think Euler was aware of what goes on in such systems.
November 2016 —
On Jun 7, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Sandy Kidd wrote:
I am afraid that I cannot accept that Newton’s Laws are not being broken. In fact, I am of the opinion that they must be broken. I will apologize in advance for the articles I am about to send to you for submission. They are not short, as I have intended to include the whole story of my involvement in this quest. I think you may find that most people suffer from a severe misunderstanding in relation to the operation of gyroscopes and flywheels. Even the understanding of the simple gravity accelerated gyroscope is wrong. I did intend to and will load my latest DVD on to YouTube. I have had this device working well for many months and was going to load it on to YouTube in December, but I have been busy on another project and never got around to filming. I think you will find that the belief in the infallibility of Sir Isaac will be severely tested. Find photo of nearly completed device taken in November 2016.
The following documents contain answers to Laithwaite’s attack on me in the preview of my book made in the “New Scientist”. The first document I put together very recently after I viewed his comments. The other are copies of the complaint Ron Thompson, co author of the book, made to the Press Council in November 1990. I would be obliged if you could insert them immediately after Laithwaite’s review. It is water under the bridge but people should know what brought his negative comments on:
Dr. Bill Ferrier of Dundee University talking about Sandy Kidd’s device in 1986
” There is no doubt that the machine does produce vertical lift. Several modifications were then made at my suggestions in order to disprove other possibilities of lift, particularly aerodynamic effects. I am fully satisfied that this device needs further research and development. I have expressed my willingness to help Mr. Kidd, whose engineering ability is beyond question, and for whom I now have the greatest respect. I am currently trying to find ‘enterprise’ money to fund the next stage. I do not as yet understand why this device works. But it does work! The importance of this is probably obvious to the reader but, if it is not, let me just say that the technological possibilities of such a device are enormous. Its commercial exploitation must be worth billions.”
While working in the Air Force, Dundee based engineer Sandy Kidd was one day taking a gyroscope out of an aircraft. Not realizing that the gyroscope was still running, he came down the steps of the aircraft and turned at the base of the steps. At this point the gyroscope almost threw him across the floor. This stirred his interest in gyroscopes, Sandy spent many years and tens of thousands of pounds in his garage developing and working on gyroscopic devices. Trying to get a number of gyroscopes to react against one another to produce lift. In time he developed a device that he claimed could achieve this. Building other models using that principle and discussing his ideas with others, he came to conclusions of how it worked. Dundee University was interested in the invention and for a time worked with him, but long term could not supply the funds or enthusiasm that was needed. He tried obtaining funds to develop his invention in Scotland, but had to resort to looking for funds elsewhere. An Australia corporation took the task on to develop a gyroscopic propulsion system but unfortunately the company went bankrupt. British Aerospace has also been involved in the research with him but dropped the funding. A UK/European patent for his invention was applied for (I have a copy of the application). I did try to find a granted patent for Europe but without success. I ended up phoning the European patent office to find out if one was granted. I was told that it would have been, but it was withdrawn at the last moment (funding dropped). I did however find a granted US Patent 5024112. The fees for the patent have stopped being paid some years ago, which means anyone is free to copy, sell, etc., his invention.