Could a Gyroscopic inertial thruster ever work?

[Dodgey]

C'mon M Drive, you knew that this would happen. How could you not know that messing with physics angers the Kraken? I anycase that's bad news man

[M Drive]

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.

C'mon M Drive, you knew that this would happen. How could you not know that messing with physics angers the Kraken? I anycase that's bad news man

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!".

Edited May 8, 2014 by M Drive

[DJEN]

C'mon M Drive, you knew that this would happen. How could you not know that messing with physics angers the Kraken? I anycase that's bad news man

That sure is a joke alright. You'd better watch your words, though. He's quite a willing individual.

[DJEN]

I sure hope your experiment holds great results, which will indeed open a new era of science.

Although I've been skeptical of you, your eagerness managed to curb my bias and made me see you not as a quack, but a amateur science-doer.

Anyways, good luck to you. Dear friend of science.

[M Drive]

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).

[Dodgey]

That sure is a joke alright. You'd better watch your words, though. He's quite a willing individual.

Considering I mentioned the kraken, yes I'm joking. MDrive I'm really looking forward to your results. KEEP IT UP

[Moar Boosters]

M-drive, doesn't your machine work on the same principle of me lifting my feet up when i'm sitting in an office chair, and then shifting my weight back and forward to create forward motion?

[N_las]

M-drive, doesn't your machine work on the same principle of me lifting my feet up when i'm sitting in an office chair, and then shifting my weight back and forward to create forward motion?

I am pretty sure its something like that.

Mdrive: Big paper is good Nice of the company to give it to you for free.

[M Drive]

M-drive, doesn't your machine work on the same principle of me lifting my feet up when i'm sitting in an office chair, and then shifting my weight back and forward to create forward motion?

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?

Edited May 19, 2014 by M Drive

[M Drive]

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.

[N_las]

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).

What do you mean with "on" and "off". Gyros on and off? Are you sure you understand Nasa correctely? If I put a Kid on a swing, and the Kid is "on" (doing the right movement with its body) it behaves very differently than an "off" Kid (simply sitting there with no movement).

[M Drive]

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

The challenge is to offer an easy-to-construct test that minimizes the chance for false-positive results. A fitting test is to place the device on a level pendulum stand, as illustrated in figure 4, and compare the deflection between the on and off conditions of the device.

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.)

Edited June 25, 2014 by M Drive

[N_las]

From the document: "A fitting test is to (...) compare the deflection between the on and off conditions of the device. A sustained net deflection of the pendulum is indicative of genuine thrust. Alternatively, if the pendulum oscillates around its null position, which is the expected finding, then the device is not creating net thrust. "

You interpret that as: "According to NASA (...) any reactionless drive invention suspended from a pendulum should behave exactly the same on and off."

Your interpretation is flawed. The document doesn't say that the behaviour in both (on and off) cases should be identical. It says that you have to compare the deflection of the machine (in on-mode) with the neutral position (wich can be measured by having the machine in off-mode).

You simply can't say that because your machine behavies differently with gyros-on or gyros-off, that would be evidence that "something" about your machine is working, or your machine would somehow deliver unexplainable results. It could very well be possible for it to swing better with gyros-on. An NASA didn't claim what you said it would.

Edited June 25, 2014 by N_las

[M Drive]

It could very well be possible for it to swing better with gyros-on.

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.

[N_las]

I really don't see how.

If the angle of the gyro-axis is changed, that means that the angular momentum of the gyros was changed (not its amount, but its direction). If there is a change in angular momentum (amount or direction, doesn't matter), that means there has to be a corresponding torque.

If the gyros are off, they have no angular momentum and so a change in the gyro-axis doesn't mean a change in angular momentom (at least not in the same way as before). So there is no corresponding torque (or at least a very different tourqe).

An oscillating torque on the machine can produce a swing motion, as long as the machine is connected through wires with the ceiling. So a different tourqe-situation may case very different swing behaviours.

Thats just one idea. There could be hundreds of reasons why the machine swings differently with gyros-on.

[K^2]

N_las is right. Swinging differently with gyros on/off means absolutely nothing. You have to show net deflection. Time-average of deflection angle is proportional to thrust (for small deflection angles).

[YNM]

Just a slight question : could the effect observed by M Drive is due to Earth's rotation ?

[K^2]

Just a slight question : could the effect observed by M Drive is due to Earth's rotation ?

No. Not at that magnitude. To get an idea of how much of an effect Earth's rotation has on pendulum, take a look at Foucault Pendulum. Gyros could redirect that effect, but not amplify it.

[M Drive]

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.

Edited July 8, 2014 by M Drive

[N_las]

The video behind the third link after the three minute mark looks good for analyzation. If I find time I will track the dot this friday or saturday. Is this ok or would you prefer to have some other footage analyzed instead?

[M Drive]

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.

[Z-Man]

Impressive indeed. I do have to remain skeptical, however, because of two observations:

1. The device turns a lot about its z-Axis

2. The laser pointer is clearly mounted way to the right (from the camera's point of view) of the average center of mass during operation, both the gyros and the drill turning the central axis are to its left

The strict and irrefutable version of the pendulum test requires that you attach one laser pointer to each rope pointing in the direction of the rope, that the ropes are perfectly vertical at the start and that during operation, all laser dots are displaced to the left for an extended period of time simultaneously. Averaging the position is somewhat acceptable in this situation, but only if the device does not twist.

A single laser pointer is also somewhat acceptable, but only if it is in the center of the suspension ropes AND aligned with the average center of mass (ideally, you'll also have the center of mass not wobble around, but it's OK if the center of mass moves back and forth, not sideways, on timescales small compared to the natural pendulum frequency, which is the case for your device).

The reason for these rules is that it is very easy to deliberately cheat without them. Take your exact setup, but instead of the device, I step on the harness. I put my feet close to the two left ropes, facing left myself. I put all of my weight on my left foot and push my right foot forward. The harness will turn (clockwise when seen from above), your laser pointer and the three wires that don't support my weight all move to the left (forward from my point of view). Only the wire next to my left foot is going to move to the right, and far less than the others moved left. I can hold that position for a while, but eventually, the torque from the twisted wires is going to undo the turning. No matter. I shift my weight to my right foot and push the left foot forward. As long as you allow me to push one wire to the right, I can abuse that to push pretty much any reference point to the left (on average).

Having a laser on each wire and demanding they all are displaced to the left continuously would catch me. Forcing me to stand in the center of the harness and not lean to the sides would foil my plan.

Your device is doing something similar without the malicious intent. Its weight is mostly on the wires on the left (and shifting weight from one wire to the other is not required to cheat, it just enhances the effect). If you look at those in 00029 0019-0054 !!!.MTS, they seem to be displaced to the RIGHT on average during operation, and thus they will apply an average force to the left (compensated on average by the forces from the other wires, of course). I think that is the thrust you would like to see.

When it stops raining cats and dogs here, I can try and make a video of me dancing on a swing as described above. Sadly, we have no super-long swings anywhere near, a short one may have to make do.

[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.

[Z-Man]

The staring position is the one shown in the overview video? With the (very heavy, I presume) gyros to the rightmost position? If so, that would mean the average COM would be more to the left.

And horrifyingly, I remembered what else gyros can do (and that drill, too). Their torque can shift the weight between the wires without actually shifting the COM around. So even though you never move the COM forward and backward (camera view), the torque can put the weight of the device to the front and back wire pair. Just like a slowly precessing gyro on a string puts almost its whole weight to the pivot point.

Let me emphasize what I tried to bring across previously, poorly: It's really all about the wires. The deflection of the wires determines the direction of the force in the xy-plane they can apply to your device. And if you want to be strict, only the direction, not the magnitude. The magnitude also depends on how the device throws its weight around. If all wires are deflected to the right simultaneously for significantly longer that the pendulum would take to swing, I'll be forced to shut up and concede (or, more realistically, demand you do the same in a vacuum, without the power cable ).

To achieve that, you probably need to get rid of the rotation around the vertical axis. Which is difficult. Two right ways to reduce it is to

a) build a second device that is an exact mirror image of your first one even in operation so that it produces opposite torques, but thrust in the same direction, and mount both on the same frame and operate them synchronously

Suspend the device from a much, much larger frame, with the wires several meters apart (still perfectly vertical, of course) and weights in the corners to increase the frame's inertial moment so it reacts less to torques

Neither is really feasible, though to really turn the device into a workable space drive, you absolutely will need to do a) or something equivalent. There is no use having a reactionless drive if it makes your craft spin uncontrollably.

Best practical way I can come up with is this:

c) Add a long rod to your device, sticking out two meters left and right (camera point of view). Ideally, that rod would just move along its axis and up and down a little. Constrain it to that motion with two pairs of vertical rods on each end, as far away from the device as you can. Yes, this introduces friction again, like your earlier rail system. However, the friction now is proportional to the force between the rods, which in turn is given by the torque your device produces divided by the distance of the constraining rods from the device. So you have a parameter that controls the amount of friction you get: the distance of the constraining rods. Do different runs with different configurations, make sure the friction is low enough you never get sticky friction, and if the different runs produce similar enough results, friction can be reasonably ruled out as source of thrust. Of course, to have the runs be comparable, you need to keep the device on continuously, or driven automatically and not by a manual switch.

Lastly, nothing I say is meant to discourage you!

[N_las]

Lets just wait for the result of the analysis. If the recent experiment doesn't show an average deflection, it seems really pointless to pour more effort into it.