Could a Gyroscopic inertial thruster ever work?

[Momentus]

In physics terms, "heavy gyro and light tower" mean absolutely nothing, so long as you have enough precision in your measurements. The only thing that matters is that they both have mass. At what point does the gyro become "heavy" and the tower become "light"? When the gyro is 101% of the mass of the tower? 105%? 500%? 10,000%?

In physics the terms heavy and light are accepted, as are stiff, long short. They are taken to mean the the lesser value has no significant impact on the experiment

It is. Changing the relative masses of the components changes the expected position of the CoM, but the same phenomenon apply. A heavy gyro round a light tower is more sensitive than the reverse, thats the only advantage to doing it that way around.

I trust Cambridge to accurately report on whether or not their results are the expected ones or if they show the anomaly Laithwaite predicted.

But no matter, because you've replicated it yourself. Since you are the one making extraordinary claims here, Im sure you realize how important it is to document that experiment in every detail, so when you share the video you will give us the masses of the components, show how effective your frictionless surface is, demonstrate and mark the CoM of the static structure, show us clearly how that CoM is rotating around the effective CoM as the gyros mass drops in accordance with Laithwaite's predictions.

It does not just change the C of G, it reverses it. It renders the experiment meaningless. What point would there be in showing you this same experiment over and over again when you seem unable to grasp the magnitude of the error in the Cambridge experiment.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Vanamonde

[SargeRho]

No, it doesn't "reverse" the center of gravity. It shifts it away from the gyro. Whatever phenomenon you're testing for will be there if it exist, although less noticeable.

[Momentus]

Care to share the data from your experiment?

To what purpose? You do not understand the Cambridge , or the Laithwaite experiments, why would my results make any difference.?

No, it doesn't "reverse" the center of gravity. It shifts it away from the gyro. Whatever phenomenon you're testing for will be there if it exist, although less noticeable.

It reverses position of the C of G.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Vanamonde

[Red Iron Crown]

To what purpose? You do not understand the Cambridge , or the Laithwaite experiments, why would my results make any difference.?

So we can see the anomalous behavior for ourselves? And, if you feel my understanding is inadequate, maybe some of the smarter folks here can explain it to me. But if you withhold your data, no one can say whether it's anomalous or not.

[SargeRho]

How does it reverse the position of the CG? In relation to what? To the tower? Then it shifts it closer to the tower.

It doesn't change the fact that the effect should be measurable regardless.

[Momentus]

So we can see the anomalous behavior for ourselves? And, if you feel my understanding is inadequate, maybe some of the smarter folks here can explain it to me. But if you withhold your data, no one can say whether it's anomalous or not.

Yes you can see the anomalous behaviour for yourself, look at the Cambridge experiment. There you see a heavy gyro orbiting a lighter tower. Just as Laithwaite predicted. I repeat, my experiment, carried out some 10 years ago shows the same thing.

But if you are honest,there is nothing I can say that will make you think for yourself.

Momentus

[Red Iron Crown]

Yes you can see the anomalous behaviour for yourself, look at the Cambridge experiment. There you see a heavy gyro orbiting a lighter tower. Just as Laithwaite predicted. I repeat, my experiment, carried out some 10 years ago shows the same thing.

But if you are honest,there is nothing I can say that will make you think for yourself.

Since we don't know the masses of the tower and gyro in the Cambridge experiment, how can we say? So, do you mind sharing your data? What possible reason could you have for withholding it?

[Momentus]

It is. Changing the relative masses of the components changes the expected position of the CoM, but the same phenomenon apply. A heavy gyro round a light tower is more sensitive than the reverse, thats the only advantage to doing it that way around.

I trust Cambridge to accurately report on whether or not their results are the expected ones or if they show the anomaly Laithwaite predicted.

But no matter, because you've replicated it yourself. Since you are the one making extraordinary claims here, Im sure you realize how important it is to document that experiment in every detail, so when you share the video you will give us the masses of the components, show how effective your frictionless surface is, demonstrate and mark the CoM of the static structure, show us clearly how that CoM is rotating around the effective CoM as the gyros mass drops in accordance with Laithwaite's predictions.

No it is not more sensitive. It is impossible. A heavy object cannot orbit a lighter one There are no circumstances within Newtonian Dynamics where this is possible.. The sun, even Cambridge says so, will not orbit the earth. I make no extraordinary claim. I point you to a simple experiment.

Since we don't know the masses of the tower and gyro in the Cambridge experiment, how can we say? So, do you mind sharing your data? What possible reason could you have for withholding it?

The relative masses are all that is important. My 350 gm brass gyro and 4 gm support, radius 2 gyro diameters add nothing to assist your understanding.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Vanamonde

[Red Iron Crown]

The relative masses are all that is important. My 350 gm brass gyro and 4 gm support, radius 2 gyro diameters add nothing to assist your understanding.

So help me understand then. Do you have video of your experiment? Or measurements taken during it? What did you use for the low friction surface?

[SargeRho]

A heavy object can only not orbit a lighter one when you are talking about gravitational orbits (and there actually, all objects orbit their common barycenter, not one the other). But this isn't gravity, is it?

[KerikBalm]

I can't believe people are actually debating this on KSP forums.

Gyroscopes aren't magical, and can't magically produce thrust with no reaction mass

[N_las]

It reverses position of the C of G.

What are you talking about? Imagine a gyro with a mass of 101g, and a tower with a mass of 100. This would be 'a heavy gyro and a light tower'. The CoM is now nearly at the middle between the gyro and the tower.

If we have a 'light gyro and heavy tower', the tower has a mass of 101g and the gyro of 100g. The CoM is now shifted by a few mm. It doesn't reverses anything. And any weird gyro effect will be seen in both situations.

So the relative masses doesn't matter. If there are unexplained gyro effects, why would they disapper, only because the gyro is lighter than the tower?

Edited March 26, 2014 by N_las

[K^2]

The parameters of the Laithwaite experiment are heavy gyro/light tower. You prove conclusively with your analysis that Cambridge did the exact opposite. You have grasped the importance of the relative size of the masses and how they determine the centre of rotation. From your analysis do you think that the Cambridge experiment is a replication of the original?

If the tower was light in original, it is not a fair replication. But that doesn't mean that the original experiment is reliable. Ice does not necessarily make a good frictionless surface. Air table experiment has the right idea. Somebody just needs to do that with a light tower to show that center of rotation is going to be near the gyro.

In short, you still don't have a claim, and the source you have provided still refutes your claim, albeit, weakly, since it's not a perfect replication.

[Dodgey]

Peer review is one of the most important parts of modern science. Momentus you are claiming that you have done the experiment and gotten a certain set of results. I could make some crazy claims to. What separates them is evidence provided to peers to be reviewed. Provide the evidence and your claim will be respected.

[Momentus]

A heavy object can only not orbit a lighter one when you are talking about gravitational orbits (and there actually, all objects orbit their common barycenter, not one the other). But this isn't gravity, is it?

Which is why the video of a heavy object orbiting a lighter one is so damned important.

What are you talking about? Imagine a gyro with a mass of 101g, and a tower with a mass of 100. This would be 'a heavy gyro and a light tower'. The CoM is now nearly at the middle between the gyro and the tower.

If we have a 'light gyro and heavy tower', the tower has a mass of 101g and the gyro of 100g. The CoM is now shifted by a few mm. It doesn't reverses anything. And any weird gyro effect will be seen in both situations.

So the relative masses doesn't matter. If there are unexplained gyro effects, why would they disapper, only because the gyro is lighter than the tower?

To take your figure of a 100g tower, 101g gyro. If the rotation is "shifted by a few mm" to the tower side of the C of G then you are looking at anomalous effect.

If the tower was light in original, it is not a fair replication. But that doesn't mean that the original experiment is reliable. Ice does not necessarily make a good frictionless surface. Air table experiment has the right idea. Somebody just needs to do that with a light tower to show that center of rotation is going to be near the gyro.

In short, you still don't have a claim, and the source you have provided still refutes your claim, albeit, weakly, since it's not a perfect replication.

Yes you are so right. It is a very simple experiment and somebody, Cambridge, did just that. They produced video 5. It is not my claim, it is not my experiment. The replication is not perfect, but clear enough to prove the point. "To show that center of rotation is going to be near the gyro."

Why the source refutes the claim is for the same reason that you do.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Vanamonde

[M Drive]

Just to... whatever, I just wanted to show a clip that's pretty rare, but is pretty popular among inertial propulsion enthusiasts.

So in 2007 two short clips surfaced from an inventor claiming he'd not only achieved inertial propulsion, but that it was so strong it defied gravity. Of course, the machine was never shown off after that, and the inventor pretty much went underground and removed the videos from what was then Google video. But, this is the internet, and nothing stays buried here.

I myself don't believe it's real simply because it wouldn't make any sense to not make something out of it if it was (among other things). But it's still a fun clip to watch.

[Momentus]

The experiment is the Cambridge experiment. Sufficient evidence is provided on the site for a peer review of their experiment. You may care to apply your rule three

[K^2]

Which is why the video of a heavy object orbiting a lighter one is so damned important.

Which we don't have. We still have a video of two objects moving about a common center of mass, exactly as one expects it to. If you have some other video, or exact numbers for masses of gyro and tower, please, bring them forward. But the video you've linked to demonstrates a light gyro going about a heavy tower.

[Dodgey]

Momentus, you have made a claim about a getting a certain set of results from an experiment you did. Pointing to someone else's experiment and their results and evidence does nothing to validate the claim that you are making, which is in contradiction to the Cambridge experiment by the way.

The parameters of the Laithwaite experiment are different to the Cambridge experiment because his experimental parameters were flawed in the first place. The ice that he uses does not provide a frictionless surface as the legs of the tower can dig into the ice, which is pointed out at on site that you directed us to. N_las already pointed this out to you.

You claim that the experiment that you conducted demonstrates a heavy gyro orbiting around a light tower. When asked for evidence you point us to other experiments.

Provide your first hand evidence and your claim will be respect, continue to refuse to present evidence and you will be discounted as a troll. This is what peer review is.

M Drive how goes the experiments? I'm actually really looking forward to your results, good luck!

Edited March 27, 2014 by Dodgey

[M Drive]

"M Drive how goes the experiments? I'm actually really looking forward to your results, good luck!"

Scoping out places to perform it at the moment. There are some training halls nearby with up to 15 meters of free space (to the ceiling), but I doubt I'll be allowed in there is it's a temporary gym right now. Either way I'm lazy, so there's that. Expect at least 1-2 weeks before anything's been done.

Good news, everyone. I hauled my ass over to the training hall guys again and made an arrangement. On the 7th of April the pendulum experiment will take place.

The roof height of the place was only 5 meters, but it sure beats my apartments ~2 meters. Now I have to learn how to tie knots with fishing wire, construct a... thing, to attach the wires to and I'll probably do some initial tests at home just to make sure nothing breaks.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Vanamonde

[Z-Man]

Nice. Definitely try to run the experiment twice, once at home and once in the hall, the only difference being the line lengths. If you really are producing thrust, the hall experiment should give you a larger linear average displacement.

[K^2]

Larger ceiling also reduces odds of any tangential forces being passed down through supports. But yeah, it doesn't hurt to have two different runs. You can never have too much data. If you'll need help on how to average data from two different runs, I'll be happy to guide you.

[Momentus]

Which we don't have. We still have a video of two objects moving about a common center of mass, exactly as one expects it to. If you have some other video, or exact numbers for masses of gyro and tower, please, bring them forward. But the video you've linked to demonstrates a light gyro going about a heavy tower.

My original post was in support of the M drive which offends the current interpretation of Newtonian Dynamics, as a number of you were keen to point out. I gave two simple mechanisms which also are outside the Newtonian box.

The suspended gyroscope, looks like a pendulum but does not act like a pendulum. That example proved too difficult for this forum, so I gave a link to a classic Gyroscope anomaly, the Prof Laithwaite ice tower.

Given the simplicity and clarity of these two mechanisms, I think that the encouragement offered to the M drive is cynical in the extreme. His video will not convince you that Non Newtonian motion can exist. It simply gives you the opportunity to criticise the experimental techniques.

If the Cambridge replication of Laithwaite's experiment used a light gyro then it was a mockery of the scientific method. There is no practical, theoretical or ethical reason for Cambridge to so grotesquely distort the original.

There is possibly a reason why a young graduate seeking a degree would word her conclusion to get a pass mark.

The M drive has as good a chance as any of the many such devices which use Gyros in new configurations, the proof is the Cambridge Video 5.

[Z-Man]

The suspended gyroscope, looks like a pendulum but does not act like a pendulum. That example proved too difficult for this forum

Did not. I told you. The suspended gyroscope still acts like a regular pendulum if you push it. It differs from the regular pendulum by the two additional relevant degrees of freedom driven mainly by precession (there is interaction between them and the regular pendulum degrees of freedom). Those degrees of freedom are already there in the regular pendulum (take one, rotate the weight about the x axis, release), of course, it's just that they are strongly damped and thus not normally relevant.

There is no practical, theoretical or ethical reason for Cambridge to so grotesquely distort the original.

There are practical reasons. On an air table, a light tower would easily get rotated sideways, causing uneven air flow and unwanted thrust. On the flip side, there is no reason to consider the Cambridge experiment irrelevant. If the claim is that a light tower is not moved by a precessing gyro, surely a heavy tower would budge even less.

[K^2]

Oh, yes. Here it comes again. This is a conspiracy by the scientific community! Duh!

Again, you keep making up stories of possible conspiracy, but you haven't provided any evidence that a machine violating conservation of momentum exists. I'm not saying violating Newtonian Physics, because I personally know plenty of devices that do that. Ever used a GPS? Yeah. That thing takes into account the fact that time on a GPS satellite flows at a different rate than on Earth. Due to both the gravitational field of Earth and relative motion of satellite and receiver. It simply wouldn't work without that correction. Total violation of Newtonian Physics. Except, conservation of momentum is a central result in General Relativity as well. Moreso, momentum is part of the stress-energy tensor, which is a conserved charge of Poincare local symmetry. This isn't even General Relativity, we are talking about general field theory.

I understand that these are all consepts way, way over your head. You are still stuck on freshman mechanics. But you seriously need to start getting through your head that you are going after the concept which is the most fundamental principle in all of physics. Conservation of momentum isn't some observational law, like Newton's Laws. It follows from mathematical theorems based on most fundamental symmetries of space-time structure. Other predictions of these theories are tested to 12 decimal places, both from measurements in GR and Quantum Mechannics. It's something that we know holds true for elementary particles and neutron stars in other gallaxies as a matter of fact.

And you're trying to prove it wrong with third-hand account of a bad experiment with a gyro? I feel bad for you. In all honesty, and with no offense meant. I've given you equations to work with, and if you feel you need to prove it to yourself, you should have everything you need. But if you are still under an illusion that you understand something that some of us don't, you are simply wrong, and nothing you've brought up so far has shown anything other than your ignorance of the subject.