M Drive

The laser pointer is mounted exactly under the center of gravity when the gyros are in the starting position. This position is also very close to the middle of the 4 wires (and middle of skateboard), meaning, if it would start twisting from standstill the dot would stay relatively still. I could make a short video where I lift the machine from the point of the laser pointer to show this if you'd like.

N_las> I just had a look again, and 3:00 and forward looks amazing. I don't think I'll find another period of time that's better for analyzing. And thanks a lot for doing this. No hurry.

Just back from performing the experiments. I got some really interesting results, and I'd like your opinions on them. For one, it really does look like it passes the pendulum test. While I couldn't get the dot to stay on one side 100% of the time, it really does look like it spends a lot more time on the left side than the right. There's about 25 videos recorded, but here's a few of them. This is a short intro, showing the setup and how the gyros are positioned: https://mega.co.nz/#!AZxmUDSJ!_LThPqScqb2E73QzvMPjJbvyYlXOl7GMm1VCJW7aDOg 3 good videos, probably the best so far. The numbers after the video number are timestamps where something interesting happens. So "0019-0054" means "check out 00:19-00:54". https://mega.co.nz/#!8ZRxwIjT!a7fUclUDgHn-15bquqHMQLMfZe2oWoRBTE2MaA76cDc https://mega.co.nz/#!5FAXzTAR!xa5Zwau8I5tHlLkMW3Xt-HV_-aXqddLsOgpS5y6v4nQ https://mega.co.nz/#!kEoxSBDZ!d5d0jbH5TWoLm22N6_zgEklYfR7YiUnuAKQIlEWcwZs Edit: I'll just post this again for good measure.

I really don't see how. To me, suggesting that is suggesting the net deflection could be affected, which is literally to say that it produces thrust. But hey, it's an unimportant detail. Even if I'm right I never planned on resting my argument on "It swings better! That's proof!". The goal is to prove net deflection through repeatable experiments, nothing less.

I'm too lazy to take a picture, but it'll become apparent once you see it. The gyros will spin (on) and not spin (off), but move identically through space, and according to NASA this is ideal for a pendulum test as you can compare how the machine behaves. I'm referring to page 5 of this document: http://web.archive.org/web/20111030093616/http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/TM-2006-214390.pdf Figure 4: (Though, it will behave differently with the gyroscopes on, as that can cause the machine to rotate about it's center of gravity (twist from side to side), but theoretically that shouldn't allow the machine to become more efficient at swinging, which I've already tentatively shown. The goal of the experiment isn't to prove it's more efficient at swinging though, but to completely pass the pendulum test by having it 'deflect' to one side.)

Thought I'd give a little update. Yeah I completely lost all drive doing this experiment since summer hit, which is notoriously short here in Sweden. Sorry guys. So yeah, I'm not out of the picture, stuff just got in the way. The machine has been repaired and everything's basically ready to go. I don't remember if I mentioned it, but I "reversed" the direction the machine goes, meaning I can turn off the gyroscopes and do an identical movement this time instead of just "similar". According to NASA, this is great, since any reactionless drive invention suspended from a pendulum should behave exactly the same on and off (and to those of you paying attention, it has already behaved differently). Not promising anything, but the experiment will probably be done within 2 weeks. I promise I'll update this thread and post a YT video no matter the result.

Well, I wouldn't be very scientific if I didn't admit it might. However I've seen several "weird" results from different experiments that suggest, but doesn't prove, that it doesn't. For one, it always moves "forward", no matter how I configure the machine. If you know how the phenomenon you're describing works, I think I should get a random direction every now and then, but so far it's been very consistent. Similar results can be seen in the somewhat flawed pendulum tests I've performed so far. It "moves" forward in the same direction as it does when it's on the floor. It can still be a coincidence, but it's a pretty interesting one.And that's why I'm doing what I'm doing. To find out the truth, not create my own. New experiments will hopefully be performed on Monday or Tuesday next week. Edit: Monday or Tuesday doesn't sound so realistic. Lets say... this week?

I got motivated today and I've already visited my mechanic and had a new part made (at no cost even). Also met with the people in charge of the halls and got some good news. Basically I'd be able to come there almost whenever I feel like it. They did have an event there all next week though (some kinda junior sports event), so no experiments until the week after that. The machine is basically up and running. Now I just gotta fix the camera somehow. Oh and N_las, I got a huuuuge paper for the lines. Visited an architecture firm that gave me it for free. Basically 1x3 meters (though it's kind of beaten up since the machine crashed into it twice, oh well).

The cameras on/off button seems to be glitchy, so for some reason the camera just shuts off randomly whenever it feels like it. I had the same problem last time, but in a lesser extent. I want to describe what I thought I saw the machine doing though, after I fixed it temporarily. So, the extremely long wires meant the pendulum swing was very, very slow. It would swing back and forth very slowly. When I started the machine I thought I could see the machine pushing forward from a standstill almost 25-30cm just from a 2-3 cycles, only to swing back and go past the middle line again because it was too far ahead. Gravity took over. It really looked like it had propulsion. The machine did swing back and go past the middle line again, so it never stayed completely on one side. However, it suggests that if you do cycles less than continuously, but only when it's near the middle line, you could maybe get the dot to stay on one side at all times. If you do cycles continuously the machine will push forward too much, meaning gravity (the pendulum) will force it back and with enough force to move it past the middle line. But, I was only able to run the machine for about 30 seconds before it broke down again. We'll see. I'm definitely going back....... within 2 weeks probably. When I was retrieving the camera from my duffle bag on the way into my apartment, an Newtonmeter stubbornly clinged to it, as if to say "No, I won't let you take that!".

Oh for the love of.... So the machine And the camera broke. It was a lot of time and effort just to hang it from the 4 ~16m (54 feet) wires, only to have one of the points where I attached one break and make the machine crash into the floor. The middle axle broke in half (at a point where it had a hole drilled through it). Tried to fix it temporarily and actually got some pretty interesting results. Only, the camera only recorded 5 seconds before breaking down, so those results are lost in time. Only thing to do is fix the machine and try again. At least now I know what to expect. Still pretty pissed though.

Well, it's Wednesday, but it's also snowing. We were supposed to open up a roof hatchet to lower the wires, but that's not happening today. Maybe next Wednesday. Damn. Really wanted to do this experiment today...

Well I'm only being rigorous so I can either 1: get something out of this damn invention, or 2: finally be able to prove to myself that it's all bunk, so I'll be able to clear my apartment of gyro stuff and continue with my life. Ironically I'm the one who wants to prove it's a fake most of all. Been kind of conflicting, trying to keep up motivation when you have that mindset.

Looks like I'm going back on Wednesday, and I got access to a hall with 15 meters to the roof. I have some questions though. I'm doing some things differently this time around. I'm going to orient the machine right side up, not up-side-down like last time, so I can attach the laser pointer directly beneath the center of gravity this time (when no cycles are being performed). Doing so with the machine hanging up-side-down would be too much work. The gyros are also in the "forward" position this time, meaning, if I turn off the gyros and rotate them (do a cycle), they'll move exactly like when they're on. They'll be pulled out by centrifugal forces, then as the rotation stops, they'll be pulled back by the springs. Now, what type of experiments can/should I do? I'm of course going to try and do continuous cycles, in an effort to make the dot (even when cycles are being performed) remain on one side at all times. That should be "impossible", right? I'm also going to do more control experiments with the gyros off to try and see if there's any difference. Since the masses that are the gyros moves exactly like when they're on, there shouldn't be any differences. I wanted to do more control experiments (gyros off) last time, but the battery to my camera ran out unexpectedly. Suggestions? Larger paper for the dot? Maybe one with a grid drawn out? Stronger laser pointer (won't be able to use the strong one I got to borrow last time, so I have some time to buy a new one)?

You know, the bearings need cleaning or may even need to be replaced, the track is unaligned. It just seems like a lot of work for "if we pretend". There's always this video.

Yeah, on April 7th, in the video you first tried to analyze (00009.mts from April 7). For some reason I didn't do continuous cycles 3 days ago when I went back. Maybe because the results from the first try were so shaky. The idea was to gain access to one of the companys bigger halls, that have up to 15 meters to the ceiling, but instead I got a room with 5 meters. I'm thinking I want to do continuous cycles in a room with at least 10 meters to the ceiling.

"I am convinced such a movement pattern would be impossible to generate" Yet, I kind of already have. There's a difference of about 5cm (50mm) in the most successful "pushes" and "brakes".

First off, thanks for typing all that. I now have a much better understanding of what you were talking about. What I meant was that the bottom "hills" should be generally wider than the top hills. (Drew a picture). The blue spaces should be generally wider than the green spaces. http://i.imgur.com/OOKQXHr.jpg Oh and I got to thinking about how the graph doesn't show any displacement that you can see with the naked eye. What it does show is that the swing motion can gain or lose about 20-30mm for a single cycle. So, if I did cycles like in the following example (laugh all you want ), wouldn't it show a significant displacement to the left (bottom?). http://i.imgur.com/58utqrO.jpg The red squiggly lines are cycles being performed. You'd start off with a fairly big swing, say, 400-500mm, so you could fit a cycle like in the picture. After the dot has passed the middle line, but before the machine changes direction. The first cycle would (hopefully) cause the top hill to shrink by 20-30mm. The second one would cause it to grow by 20-30mm. You keep this up and you have a graph where you can clearly see the top "hills" on the bottom sides are larger than the ones on the top side.

"' There might be a small displacement to the right ' And ' I may have an explanation for the displacment to the right '" All I'm saying is that the dot only measures the center of gravity (which is what we're trying to measure here) when there are no cycles being performed. If you account for the dot when cycles are being performed one will get faulty results. I don't think this is too controversial a statement. "And even if counting the frames would be a viable methode. From the Data you provided a few posts earlier, the dot is 59.8±1.4 frames on the left side, and 55.7±1.8 frames on the right side." I'll admit math isn't my strong subject, and I have no idea where "±1.4" and "±1.8" come from, or even what they mean. I simply calculated how many more frames the dot spent on the left side versus the right one, and the number that came up was 9.3% more. I'd like to know how to calculate... uhm, sigmas, statistics and whatnot, but I don't know how just yet. "And don't you think, that if your machine works, there would be a huge displacement to the left, that would easily overshadow the incorrect movement of the dot in relation to the center of mass?" It is a pretty weak machine, but I also intentionally had it do very small swings so the dot would be easily tracked. I can easily set up an experiment where the swings are large and I fit 2-3 cycles just on the left and right side, trying not to do a cycle just as the dot passes the middle line (meaning it'll be easy to track the center of gravity at that point). "Can you explain why? How does the observation suggest a functioning reactionless drive? Stopping and starting a swing motion doesn't lead to the conclusion of reactionless drives." Well, I don't really agree with your comparison of a crippled kid. If the center of gravity moves identically, then it is my belief that the machine will behave identically, at least when it comes to starting and stopping a swing. In the end, it's just my opinion. Notice that I'm using the word "suggests", meaning I don't really claim it (I would've just said "This proves it's a functioning reactionless drive!"), just that I think it's interesting. *Ahem* Getting back to the subject. You drew some lines on that graph, which wouldn't really be analyzable, but is still interesting for the sake of discussion. No, you don't clearly see a deviation, but you do see that the wave gets bigger after each cycle (push) on the bottom of the graph. This means the backwards stroke will be almost (99%?) as big, meaning it'll be harder to analyze by simply looking at it. The left swings (bottom waves) on the graph should be generally wider than the right swings (top waves), at least when there are cycles being performed. Something you can check?

Didn't you read my reply to you yesterday? Post 342, second post on this page? Counting frames, that is, the amount of time the dot spends on the left side, is a viable method for calculating displacement. Calculating median position of the laser dot isn't, at least not in this version of the M Drive. (Z-man did bring up that it's possible to keep the dot on one side 90% of the time, but I assume it means shifting the center of gravity in a way so as to fool the dot. The dot is static in relation to the center of gravity when there are no cycles being performed on my machine though.) This version of the M Drive requires the wagon part (that the laser pointer is attached to) to move. A hair dryer or fan attached to the wagon wouldn't. If I were to construct another version of the M Drive with 4 gyros, where the other 2 rotate the opposite direction and move back as the other 2 moves forward, and does this in perfect sync, then it'd act like if you attached a hair dryer to the wagon, and the dot from the laser pointer would actually measure the center of gravity. Ironically what this means is that if you can't be sure there's displacement to the right, then it's almost guaranteed to have displacement (of the center of gravity) to the left.

I'm still amazed by video 18 and 21 in the video I posted above. The difference is significant. In video 18 (starts at 25:52) you see the machine has no problem starting a swing, and then stopping a swing, all within a few cycles. Yet, in video 21 (starts at 30:01) when I turn the gyros off this ability is almost completely lost. I'm thinking if I just gain a little height on the wires, I'll be able to keep the center of gravity on one side of the line at all times. The longer the wires, the slower the swing. The dot moves back about 2-4 centimeters each time a cycle is being performed, and gains upwards of 2-3cm in the forward swing (as can be seen in N_las graph). I might be able to squeeze in another cycle if I do cycles continuously. I've also figured out that in video 17 (the one N_las tracked the dot on), while it may have passed the pendulum test, the experiment is skewed to favor the dot being on the right side. First off, I didn't run the gyros at their optimal speed (16 volts instead of 18.4 volts) for some reason, but also, because the laser pointer isn't mounted near the center of gravity (when the gyros are in their starting position), it'll move to the right side of the line prematurely if the machine is wobbling (twisting). I figure I should do at least one "control experiment" with the gyros off for every experiment with them on. I can also have the gyros in the forward position (like in video 21) and have them precess towards the screwdriver, just like they are when the gyros are off. All I really have to do is reverse the rotation direction of the screwdriver, and the gyros will want to precess towards it. This means the center of gravity of the gyros will move in more or less exactly the same way both when the gyros are on and off, meaning it'll be easier to see the differences!

Uploaded them all to Youtube as one big video. Not going to implement it to the forum as the timestamps are only available on Youtube (press "Show more").

Wow, thanks so much N_las! The fact that the median position of the dot is to the right of the line, even if the machine is designed to "thrust" to the left is easily explained and supported by the graph. You can clearly see the wave being 'cut off' as a cycle (push) is being performed in the graph. This is because the dot doesn't track the center of mass, but rather the position of the wagon. The center of mass is static relative to the wagon, but only when no cycles are being performed. As a cycle is being performed the gyros will shift forward, causing the wagon to move back as a reaction. And as the laser pointer is attached to the wagon, of course the laser pointer will move to the right as the gyros move left (generally speaking). The machine obviously gains momentum, as you can see the waves getting bigger and bigger. The question is whether this is due to normal swinging caused by shifting the center of gravity or something else. My argument for it being something else is video 21, where I'm able to mimic the motion the gyros do when they're on, basically moving the center of gravity in the same way. If you look at all the videos, you'll see a pretty noticeable difference from when the gyros are on. What I really need to do is do more runs with the gyros off to have something to compare with. "If anybody is interested, i can upload a table containing all tracked x-pixel and y-pixel values" Sure! The more data I have at hand the better.

About average displacement. In 3 of the videos from today, I only do cycles for a short time, then literally leave it on for 6-14 minutes, just swinging back and forth (no cycles), waiting for it to stop due to air resistance (or whatever resistance the nylon strings would put up). Doesn't this mean the average will be greatly reduced if I account for all that dead time? I mean, given infinite time, the displacement would be literally zero, even if it had a jet engine strapped to it. How do I avoid this?

K^2: Yes, after today I'm even more convinced it's real. The fact that it easily accelerates in only one direction, just like it does on the ground, starting and stopping a swinging motion with ease only motivates me further. Not to mention the fact that this ability almost completely disappears when you turn the gyros off. I wasn't once able to "brake" it with the gyros off, and the way it just wouldn't "do" anything with the gyros off, even though it's supposed to mimic a person swinging on an actual swing... yeah, I don't really see why I should have much of any doubt. I completed counting the frames on video 17 if anyone wants.

The pendulum experiment I've had explained to me simply states that a light (laser or other) attached to the machine and pointed down needs to stay on one side more than the other. That can be determined by simply recording at what frames the light passes the middle line and counting the amount of frames it stays on either side. Anyone else know?