Could a Gyroscopic inertial thruster ever work?

[Z-Man]

When the gyros are off, they don't resist the rotations you force on them as much. So less force is required. Thus, via reaction forces, the wheels are pushed around less, which results in less friction. Since we consider that the source of your thrust, you get less of it.

[K^2]

Z-Man is, most likely, correct. Gyros being off can also offset the phases at which normal forces on wheels/rails and longitudinal forces peak.

By the way, concept of "gyroscopic oars" can be worked out on paper completely using basic mechanics to show that it a) does behave in some odd ways, but does not produce any net force. If you want to avoid confirmation bias, you really ought to formulate your hypothesis better before jumping into experiment.

[M Drive]

It's like, it really doesn't matter if you can "completely work out" something using basic mechanics if you can't explain how Alex Jones' device works. Even Eric Laithwaite couldn't explain it, and it inspired him to completely change direction in his career and go for gyroscopes.

Sure, you have provided theories. But are they the truth? I admit it's more probable that your explanations are closer to the truth, but in the end only actual experiments will be able to tell (Edit: says the laziest god damn inventor on this planet ).

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard P. Feynman

Edited March 17, 2014 by M Drive

[Z-Man]

Alex Jone's device does not "work" for any meaningful sense of the word. It is as good at providing forward thrust as a wagon with a pendulum on it that you release when the pendulum is at its lowest point.

[M Drive]

Alex Jone's device does not "work" for any meaningful sense of the word. It is as good at providing forward thrust as a wagon with a pendulum on it that you release when the pendulum is at its lowest point.

Okay, so that's what you meant by it's momentum being non-zero. But... I can't bring myself to picture it. I get what you mean by the pendulum. If you have a big pendulum and dropped it while holding down the wagon, and released the wagon as the pendulum was at the bottom-most position, the wagon has a non-zero momentum, and it'll surely push itself out of its own frame, like Jones' device.

But you're saying that because he lifts the gyro to the side by himself and not using some internal mechanism, that somehow makes the machine has non-zero momentum? Does it have non-zero momentum even if he raised the gyro to the side and held it up there using a string which he burned off (or something similar, assuming the string isn't connected to something external)?

No, in my mind it's still unexplained, and that's why I still have some hope in my machine... though I realize I should talk less and do more.

[Brotoro]

A new Veritasium video shows the wonders of gyroscopes, and how gyroscopic effects can be thought by some to result in mysterious forces that are really the result of normal Physics.

[M Drive]

Oh cool, he replicated Eric Laithwaite's big wheel experiment from 1983.

Unfortunately, Eric didn't really achieve or discover anything as far as I know. He (Veritasium) should've replicated Alex Jones' device, as that's what started Eric's gyro interest in the first place, and consequently is the source of my invention as well as the video Veritasium just released. Pretty neat, that.

I believe the explanation for that particular experiment is that it obviously weighs the same, but because of the gyroscopic forces it becomes easier to lift, as it's a lot more stable. Compare lifting a free weight over your body versus lifting a weight that's on a rail. Because you don't have to balance the weight, yes, it becomes easier to lift, but it's not lighter per definition.

Edit: I would like to point out that inventors such as Harvey Fiala will claim the gyro will be lifted with an "up to 80% reduction of reaction force", if you read his patent, which I've been forced to do. This still doesn't mean it'll weigh less, just that it can get from it's lower position (where Veritasium holds it around his hip) to it's higher point (above his head) without pushing down as much on the scale when he does the motion as when the gyro isn't spinning.

Edited March 18, 2014 by M Drive

[K^2]

This still doesn't mean it'll weigh less, just that it can get from it's lower position (where Veritasium holds it around his hip) to it's higher point (above his head) without pushing down as much on the scale when he does the motion as when the gyro isn't spinning.

If you understand something about conservation of momentum and impulse, it's the same thing. Also, impossible. Time average of the net force on supports equals to the total weight of the supported system. Again, it's a consequence of some trully fundamental principles related to local symmetries.

[Z-Man]

But you're saying that because he lifts the gyro to the side by himself and not using some internal mechanism, that somehow makes the machine has non-zero momentum? Does it have non-zero momentum even if he raised the gyro to the side and held it up there using a string which he burned off (or something similar, assuming the string isn't connected to something external)?

It has non-zero momentum at the time the wagon is released. At the time the gyro pendulum is released, it does have zero total momentum. Then, several things happen quickly. First, potential energy is converted into kinetic energy as the pendulum swings down. The sideways momentum required to do so is provided by the wheels which can't move sideways. Then, precession kicks in; the sideways momentum is transformed into forward momentum. The sideways momentum difference is again provided by the wheels, the forward momentum provided by preventing the wagon to move backwards. Then, the wagon is released at a time where it has total forward momentum.

If you were to place the wagon completely free to move forward and backward, with the pendulum held sideways by a string, with ideal wheels completely free of friction even when pushed sideways, and then burn the string, the following would happen (if my explanation above is correct): The wagon would jerk backwards, then forward again, wobble a bit, then stop in the starting position.

The analogy with the simple pendulum wagon was not meant to be complete, just equivalent. To get from the pendulum to Jones' device, you can make the following iterative changes:

1. Replace the pendulum with a ball rolling on a track that follows the same path as the pendulum weight. The ball rolls from the back of the wagon forward, release the wagon as it is at the lowest point of the trajectory.

2. Bend the back part of the track sideways. The ball now rolls sideways first, but then forward. Release the wagon as the ball is moving forward completely.

3. Replace the ball and track with Jones' gyroscope pendulum. Precession forces the gyroscope onto a similar path as the ball.

You never have to time the release. It's enough if you block backwards movement of the wagon. That will automatically release the movement at a suitable point.

[M Drive]

"At the time the gyro pendulum is released, it does have zero total momentum." doesn't*

I understand your explanation completely, I just don't see it as realistic. To me the device shouldn't move that far ahead when he releases it at 1:38 and 1:47. It simply seems to be moving a lot further than if there was a simple action-reaction thing going on, even if the backwards stroke of the wagon was restricted by his hand. The precession that causes the gyro to move forward simply isn't fast enough to cause the wagon to move out of its own frame. It seems so slow that if it was a normal weight the wagon part would move back and forth maybe 1-2 centimeters ('bout an inch).

And I'd also like to point out that there historically has been very, Very little serious experimentation done by the science community regarding gyroscopes. At least regarding propulsion. It's not as if we've even tried. We simply assume we know it's impossible and therefore assume experimentation is a waste of time. Not to mention it's seen as "nutty", and who wants to risk their career? Eh, humans.

K^2: I know. It was just pointless trivia that seemed appropriate.

Edit: Oh yeah. I think Sandy Kidd is one of the few people still alive who has seen Alex Jones' device with his own two eyes. I've asked him to join this discussion, but if you're really interested in hearing what he has to say, just ask him over here: http://gyroscopes.org/forum/questions.asp?id=1645 (forum requires no registration)

Edited March 18, 2014 by M Drive

[peadar1987]

The reason not much experimentation has been done on reactionless gyroscopic propulsion is the same reason we don't try to make the philosopher's stone. It's impossible, and can be proven to be impossible mathematically. It's a waste of time. It's great that you're into technology and experimentation, but you would do a lot more good if you focussed your energy and talents somewhere else.

[Z-Man]

"At the time the gyro pendulum is released, it does have zero total momentum." doesn't*

No, I meant what I wrote. It has no total momentum at the time of the initial pendulum release, when the arm is still raised. I'm not counting the spin, of course, as that does not contribute.

The speed the device moves in the end is about what you would expect if a good chunk of total potential energy from the elevated position of the gyro gets converted into kinetic energy in the form of forward momentum. I think you are underestimating the speed of the gyro's forward jolt.

I was wrong about one thing, though. You can always see what at least one of his hands is doing, the hand that holds and releases the pendulum. He never just releases it. He keeps it on the device for about as long as the forward acceleration lasts. Why does he not simply let go? Why don't they at least use a string to release it? No need to burn the string, just hold it and let go. I know this is just a reenactment for a TV documentary, but it's now entirely unconvincing. No reason to believe even that he is not actively pushing. (Not because he is a fraud; I'd rather suspect the director instructed him to make it a little more convincing for the audience.)

[M Drive]

peadar> So you're saying we already know everything. Got it.

Z-Man> Oh okay, I thought you meant at the time he released the gyro arm with his right hand. But wait, the potential energy? But that potential energy is sideways from the direction of travel. Are you saying that the gyroscopes somehow channel that energy into forward momentum, in essence meaning there's not an equal and opposite reaction, but an equal but sideways reaction? Probably misinterpreting though.

I also want to point out I have several theories on how this might work, but there's no single one I'm dedicated to that I believe in. If the invention is proven to work I won't be the one to explain it. I simply don't have the background. Anyway, one such theory is that inventions such as there "hijacks" some laws of physics. We all know how the universe seems to do things in the most efficient way possible. If I push away an object half my weight while floating in space, the object will gain a higher velocity than me, right? This is normal Newtonian physics. Action, reaction.

The theory is that when the gyroscopes are being pulled by something, be it springs in my invention or gravity in Alex Jones' invention, the resistance that the gyroscopes will exhibit is "counted towards" the reaction part. What this means in Jones'es device is that it's simply easier for the universe to push the wagon forward a short bit (moving the center of gravity of the entire machine), as the wheels allow that, than it is to not move the wagon. This may or may not shorten the trajectory of the gyroscope as well, meaning, if the wheels were locked, the gyro would do a larger swing.

Just speculation though.

Edited March 18, 2014 by M Drive

[peadar1987]

peadar> So you're saying we already know everything. Got it.

No, I'm saying with our current understanding of the universe, such a drive is about as likely as powering a spacecraft using ghosts as a reaction mass. Doesn't mean it's completely and definitively impossible, but it's overwhelmingly likely that it's a waste of time and resources to try harvesting poltergeists on an industrial scale.

[Red Iron Crown]

The common problem with perpetual motion machines (and yes, a gyroscopic inertial thruster falls into that category) is that they're always proposed by people who don't understand the physics of the part that is supposed to make the device possible. Be it gyroscopes, magnets, or what have you. I'm not trying to single anyone out here, nor am I saying that someone proposing such a thing is stupid, just that they haven't studied the physics involved or basic thermodynamics.

The thing is, we understand magnets, gyroscopes and the other putative perpetual motion mechanisms very, very well. Well enough to recognize that the likelihood of us being so very wrong about them approaches zero. While it is true that it is technically possible that our theories are wrong about them, there is a tremendous amount of empirical evidence supporting our understanding of them. So the onus to demonstrate that the theories are wrong falls onto the person claiming the perpetual motion machine works. Scientists are not going to waste time debunking devices that violate some very basic scientific principles that have no other contradicting evidence. Want such a machine taken seriously? Build a working prototype, and publish the plans.

[Z-Man]

Z-Man> Oh okay, I thought you meant at the time he released the gyro arm with his right hand. But wait, the potential energy? But that potential energy is sideways from the direction of travel. Are you saying that the gyroscopes somehow channel that energy into forward momentum, in essence meaning there's not an equal and opposite reaction, but an equal but sideways reaction? Probably misinterpreting though.

Yeah, energy has no direction. The potential energy does get transformed into kinetic energy, which also does not have a direction on its own, but of course it needs momentum to exist. That momentum, at first, is only directed sideways. That direction then gets turned forward with the external help of the wheels blocking sideways motion and Jone's hand. Without the hand, I'm sure the cart would move a bit backwards and then forwards again. I expect that in the original, genuine presentation, that forward movement was indeed bigger than the previous backward movement. The reason I expect that (apart from the obvious one that nobody would have been impressed otherwise) would be friction, of course. As the sideways motion is slowed down, the wheels are pushed sideways and have a bit (how much depends on the quality of the wheels) more friction than later on when the forward moving gyro is slowed down again.

[SargeRho]

Alex Jones as in the nutjob radio-host conspiracy-fanatic Alex Jones? He has no credibility.

Either way, you can't move without having some sort of reaction mass, be it the Earth when you walk, light being reflected by a solar sail, or expanding gas rushing out of a nozzle. The most you can do is alter the location or orientation of parts within your system, but you cannot give it momentum without expelling or repelling something.

[JedTech]

It occurs to me that if we had an incredibly fast spinning gyroscope that we could utilize the spin of the Earth in order to gain momentum. As the Earth turns, the gyroscopic movement of our ultra fast spinning device could resist the turn of the Earth and begin to move away from its initial location relative to the Earth.

[shynung]

It occurs to me that if we had an incredibly fast spinning gyroscope that we could utilize the spin of the Earth in order to gain momentum. As the Earth turns, the gyroscopic movement of our ultra fast spinning device could resist the turn of the Earth and begin to move away from its initial location relative to the Earth.

Which, assuming it could ever work at all, means using the Earth as reaction mass. While possible, I highly doubt that such a mechanism would be possible with today's technology, since ultra-fast gyroscopes require high-tensile-strength materials. Even then, it would probably work a lot like a classic wheel: the side that moves against the Earth being dipped in the outermost layer of the atmosphere, and the other side in the vacuum of space. Still, it uses the atmosphere('s outer layers) as reaction mass, so it would still be possible, though just barely.

[M Drive]

Z-Man> Gotcha. Supposedly increased friction is what makes my machine move forward as well. This probably doesn't count, but I have tried twisting and turning the wagon on the rail while at the same time moving it back and forth, but I couldn't feel any increased resistance in the wheels, even though I reckon I should. We humans are pretty good at sensing things after all. Just an anecdote though.

"Alex Jones as in the nutjob radio-host conspiracy-fanatic Alex Jones?"

Alex Jones in the video died in 1999 I believe. Eric Laithwaite has passed as well.

And to the naysayers> I don't really think you're necessarily the ones who have "science" on your side. I mean, all science is based on a strong foundation of experimentation. I know that our current understanding of physics doesn't allow for this, it says so right at the start of my video. But again, there has been virtually no experimentation done in this field, so as Data in Star Trek said:

The most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom is "I do not know"

[JedTech]

Which, assuming it could ever work at all, means using the Earth as reaction mass. While possible, I highly doubt that such a mechanism would be possible with today's technology, since ultra-fast gyroscopes require high-tensile-strength materials. Even then, it would probably work a lot like a classic wheel: the side that moves against the Earth being dipped in the outermost layer of the atmosphere, and the other side in the vacuum of space. Still, it uses the atmosphere('s outer layers) as reaction mass, so it would still be possible, though just barely.

Definitely not possible with todays technology. But if KSP takes those kind of forces into account, then it may be possible to create something like that in the game.

[Red Iron Crown]

If we have a ton of evidence that gyroscopes follow the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of momentum (both angular and linear), there is no need to go any further. Gyroscopes aren't some mystical device that we barely understand due to lack of experimentation.

[shynung]

...there has been virtually no experimentation done in this field,...

We have enough understanding about the physics and dynamics of gyroscopes to the point that we use them reliably as sensors in inertial navigation systems, and reaction wheels in satellites for attitude control. The science on gyroscopes evolved far earlier than rocketry, and there is little on them we haven't already know.

[M Drive]

"Gyroscopes aren't some mystical device that we barely understand due to lack of experimentation"

"there is little on them we haven't already know"

Apparently naysayers can see into the future. Fascinating.

[Red Iron Crown]

"Gyroscopes aren't some mystical device that we barely understand due to lack of experimentation"

"there is little on them we haven't already know"

Apparently naysayers can see into the future. Fascinating.

Well, all the experimental evidence we have about them (and there's a lot, we've been studying them for hundreds of years) supports our understanding of them. The statement "And I'd also like to point out that there historically has been very, Very little serious experimentation done by the science community regarding gyroscopes." is demonstrably false.

I'm not saying it's impossible that some new revelation could occur, anything is possible even if it's really unlikely. The first step would be finding some experimental observations that contradict our current understanding. Do you know of any repeatable examples?