It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Mac-Quan-1 - A gyro/gravity propulsion invention?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 10:39 AM
I just come across this invention on google videos and did a search around and it seems there's no talk or much information other than the official site which i thought was strange.

If its real it seems quite a clever use of gyroscopic force, i always wondered if it could be used this way so hopefully this is for real and won't get suppressed or anything.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 11:15 AM

Originally posted by just theory
If its real it seems quite a clever use of gyroscopic force.

Would you care to explain what do you mean by "gyroscopic force"?

Let's look at the pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo postd on their site:

As the time interval between these states diminishes, so does the distinction between acceleration and deceleration resulting in a scalar fizz (nature’s heat) and produces a vectorial force when work (consumed energy) is allowed to occur with a specific vector (direction). If it sounds a little confusing and complex, well it is, 20 years worth! Those of you with a thermodynamic and/or gyroscopic background are invited to participate in a question and answer session provided on this site.

What can I say? If the scalar fizz is involved, anything's possible. I'll have one on the rocks with Bombay Sapphire. Those of you with gyroscopic background, please stand up. Cheers!

And, research was sponsored by the "Classic Billiards" parlour. Nothing helps harness zero point energy quite like observing billiard balls for 20 years straight.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 11:29 AM
Do you know what a gyroscope is?

I was merely referring to the force or whatever you like to call it that a gyro or flywheel has when spinning, anyway im not really posting to discuss about the technical workings or if its real because all i have seen is what was said in the videos and the text on that site.

I just happen to come across it on google videos and thought the people here might like to see it because it seems like there's not much talk about it around the net.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 11:37 AM
Looks exciting...

I would be naive to think that scientists understand all of the forces surrounding gravity...

This could be a loophole...
I do have trouble beleiving the part about "simulated gravity"
What did they do, put it in a gravatron or something?

I have heard they use a similiar device for the stealth bomber...

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 11:59 AM
I'd really like this to be real, but when the engine stops in the second video we can't see what happens to the unit. Is this because it's suspended in the first place? We don't hear any sound of it falling back on to the pool table either.

I'm not averse to the idea of this but I'd like much better video evidence before I go overboard about it.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 01:08 PM

Originally posted by rich23
I'm not averse to the idea of this but I'd like much better video evidence before I go overboard about it.

No, seriously, how do you feel about that "scalar fizz" that is responsible for moving the device? Doesn't the Classic Billiards web page strike you as containing a bunch of made-up scientific-sounding slang? Does it or does it not?

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 01:26 PM
This looks realy interesting. This would ba a great advancement in science if it were true. the only susspicion i have about the video is that the "teathers" are not taught, you can tell they arnt pulled all the way like you would expect from a 9 lb pull on them. Also, when the scale reads -9 lbs wouldnt the scale lit off the table? Ya i see that the scale is on a piece of wood but that wood cant weigh 9 lbs. and billiard tables are made of slate so it wouldnt be screwed down. I would really love for this to be true. I would be first in line to spend the day on the moon.

well thats my $.02

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 01:59 PM

Originally posted by caspiantiger
Also, when the scale reads -9 lbs wouldnt the scale lit off the table?

The piece of wood to which the scale is (probably) attached can weigh 9 lbs or more. It's a real heavy plywood, as far as I can tell. What's more important, the bathroom scale used in the "experiment" has the dial that has quite a bit of inertia, i.e. once you start quickly apply compressing force (maybe in the form of vibration), the dial would oscillate back and forth and can show all sorts of readings. Try banging on your bathroom scale and see what happens.

So the scale stays put. It's its spring-loaded platform and the dial that keep oscillating.

[edit on 25-4-2006 by Aelita]

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 04:06 PM
doubt it.

They did NOT show us how the wight drops form 32lbs to 0lbs on the scale ..they only showed us the scale when the machine were already running.

EDIT (missed second video):

Second video:

Compare the hight of the machine (best the top of it) before he removes the wood and after!
Looks like the machine lost a hight the moment the wood was removed.


1) why is the background bright white? could this have to do something with to noot see the invisible wires?

2) why didnt they show the drop on the scale from 32lbs to -9lbs?
Wouldn't you show this if you want someone to convice that your machine works?

more suspectios things in second video
- the machine does not lose hight when the engine lose power
- the twins are not craned

doesnt add up for me

oh and not to forget one thing: how you measure -9lbs with a scale like this?
(only possible when eghter the scale was set wrong intentionaly right from the beginning or on a possible resonance, but in second case would have to bounce to over 0 also inbetween what it didnt)(or when it is thightened to the scale..ok maybe they did that just saw the video again..but the rest stays)

-why not showing a take off instead showing the machine already flying in the hight supported on wood. and why makeing the wood as long as the hight it flyins

.. simple that you dont see that it is not capable to fly

I guess the thing is debunked need not to say more.

probabily you even find this on internet debunked somewhere...i have a slight memory i saw this second video already once..

[edit on 25-4-2006 by g210]

[edit on 25-4-2006 by g210]

[edit on 25-4-2006 by g210]

[edit on 25-4-2006 by g210]

[edit on 25-4-2006 by g210]

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 09:12 PM
This isn't the first gyroscopic propulsion scheme... And like everyone else says the videos just don't look right.

I'd love to believe, and love it even more if it were true. But this just is too sketchy.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 09:31 PM

As the time interval between these states diminishes, so does the distinction between acceleration and deceleration

With an engineering background, I can tell you the exact distinction between acceleration and deceleration. Acceleration is positive (like when you press on the gas in your car hard) and deceleration is negative. (like when you slam on the brake) It doesn't take an engineering degree to know that; thirty seconds on should tell you the same thing.

Anyhow, by definition, the distinction between acceleration and deceleration is distinct and unchanging. The only possible way around the definition is if the object in question were moving at zero acceleration. (constant velocity, like when your car is in cruise control mode) When you are at constant velocity, acceleration and deceleration are zero.

If the so-called 'inventor' does not know that, then I wouldn't trust him to make his own breakfast in the morning, much less invent a gravity propulsion device.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 09:41 PM
Its all about the "Scalar fizz" man! You GOTTA have the scalar fiz!

lol. I think I'm going to write a song called Scalar Fizz for fun.

Yeah, the thing with most people who claim to have created a gyroscopic propulsion that they simply havent quite wraped their head aroundhow physics works.

I toyed with a few ideas on shifting weight and trying to propel an object without propellant when I was younger through gyroscopic effects... then I went to school. And my failed attempts, and new found knowlege became all too painfully obvious.

posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 05:34 PM
What is scalar fizz?

posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 12:03 PM
It's been quite a while since i found out and posted about this inventor and his device, i had a look a while back and it appears the official site is dead and everything has gone quiet, well even more so than it was to begin with, now this machine did look quite real from those videos and the guy seemed honest but of course it still could be fake, the thing is i only just happened to find it by chance on google video and it seems it's had next to no real coverage or knowledge by even the most fringe/alternate type sites on the net, instead of letting this die and be completely forgotten I thought the least I could do was bring this subject back to life and see what happens.

Does anyone else think this guy got a visit and told to keep quiet before it even started to get widely known to the community?

If theres even the slightest chance this thing was for real there needs to be an investigation by people who work in these areas, we need more information and to maybe get some of the proper sites covering this, what's going on!?

posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 09:10 PM
i am working on an equation for a similiar device that uses a negating electromagnetic frequency to force thrust i never imagined it could be plausible with a gyroscopic force, i must learn more

posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 09:25 PM

Originally posted by just theory
Does anyone else think this guy got a visit and told to keep quiet before it even started to get widely known to the community?
what's going on!?

Wouldnt suprise me, hes probably dead lol

posted on Jan, 18 2007 @ 11:31 PM
so lets try and build what he did, then we will have a community of people.

posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 06:11 AM
This basic principle has been done on a much smaller scale and works, it uses energy thousands of times more efficiently than say a rocket to get lift but done on a far smaller scale, there was some group who did it to get a boat moving with shifting weights alone, as you know a jet engine or rocket shoots out heated mass as high speeds and pressure, well this device essentially does the same except the mass doesn't change it just moves, comes back and is reused., its the way that its done thats the tricky part, id like to find out more, I know there's been others working on the same idea.

posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 08:48 AM
What's with all the fancy dancy camera work?
If this were the breakthrough that it's claimed to be, it would be much more useful to have the raw test footage rather then the heavily edited PR piece you see above.

posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 09:09 AM
Hm... Smells bogus to me... And you have pretty much already pointed out why. The oscillation of the bathroom weitght proves absolutely nothing. Anything with rotating weights in it would produce that effect, it's not ant-gravity. If it were, you'd see the weight drop and stay there, not oscillate back and forth like this does.

And the 'levitation' video looks fake as well. What's with the camera shaking all over the place? I was thinking 'Okay, this is a magic trick that only works from certain angles.' If they showed a 360 degree pan and also above and below I might take it seriously, but this just looks incredibly dodgy.

As someone pointed out, why the need for the wodden support? Wouldn't the machine be able to lift itself? Even if there were some crazy force working on it that would enable it to hang in mid air, that technology would be useless if it can't actually move the object. Ie. if the force is not greater than gravity pulling on the machine then the best result you could get would be a 'weightless' machine.

But then again, I don't see any strings or other obvious signs of it being held up by something else than the said effect, just looks a bit off IMHO.

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in