Could a Gyroscopic inertial thruster ever work?

[M Drive]

Uploaded two short clips to Youtube, with a very brief description of the pendulum test.

[M Drive]

Decided to upload all of the videos, which totals over 1 hour.

At the start of the video (about 2 minutes in I think) you can see how it behaves with the gyroscopes off. It utterly loses all ability to stay away from it's starting position.

[FREEFALL1984]

I would modify the design to remove any wobble making the results easier to see and record.

Rebuild the machine but have it radially symmetrical both in weight and in dimensions, so the centre of balance of the device is exactly in the centre of the main shaft. Then point the whole thing at the floor and suspend it from dead centre using a cable and load cell. Then record the data recorded by the load cell onto a laptop. if you wanted to eliminate radial movement you could build two identical devices spinning in opposite directions. Once you have your weight over time data you can then determine whether the machine weighs more or less on average than it does at rest this method has far fewer variables than the est above.

Also you need to consider the air resistance on the "arms" since it could be effecting the end result be performing a slight flapping action. best option would be to perform the whole test in a vacuum.

[M Drive]

Freefall> Yeah I'm not rebuilding the entire machine any time soon. At this point I'm just doing this to satisfy my curiosity. I mean, I don't see you volunteering to build your own version.

I do have an idea of how to fix the twisting. If I connect the two gyro arms in the middle using cogwheels they'll become synchronized. Now they're not, because of gravity, and slightly different spring tension. That's not that big of a cost, probably.

There's still a lot I can do on a tight budget. Some of the wobbling is caused by the slightly stretchy fishing wires used to suspend it from the ceiling. I could probably find some kind of metal wire for that.

And the power cords are too thick and stiff and could influence the results, but I have a solution in mind for this too. Also I want to try and experiment with lighter weights and the original starting position for the gyros.

[SuperFastJellyfish]

Freefall> Yeah I'm not rebuilding the entire machine any time soon. At this point I'm just doing this to satisfy my curiosity. I mean, I don't see you volunteering to build your own version.

I do have an idea of how to fix the twisting. If I connect the two gyro arms in the middle using cogwheels they'll become synchronized. Now they're not, because of gravity, and slightly different spring tension. That's not that big of a cost, probably.

There's still a lot I can do on a tight budget. Some of the wobbling is caused by the slightly stretchy fishing wires used to suspend it from the ceiling. I could probably find some kind of metal wire for that.

And the power cords are too thick and stiff and could influence the results, but I have a solution in mind for this too. Also I want to try and experiment with lighter weights and the original starting position for the gyros.

You might try using a sheet of plywood or something equally heavy and wide as your base. This seems to me to be the easiest solution to fix the twisting of your prototype. The twisting forces will still be there and may or may not still affect the results in some way, but the added weight and width will at least keep the laser pointer semi stable(at least in my mind from watching your videos).

[M Drive]

N_las> Any progress? I'd like to learn how to do it myself, but no one's willing to teach. Got a lot of computer experience, but zero with matlab. E-mail me at [email protected] if you want.

I figure getting the XY positions for the dot each (or every 3rd) frame is the time consuming part.

Edited July 13, 2014 by M Drive

[Z-Man]

You might try using a sheet of plywood or something equally heavy and wide as your base. This seems to me to be the easiest solution to fix the twisting of your prototype. The twisting forces will still be there and may or may not still affect the results in some way, but the added weight and width will at least keep the laser pointer semi stable(at least in my mind from watching your videos).

That's a good general idea. However, something much wider and/or longer than the device itself would be even better, it has a better inertial moment to mass ratio. I'd try the longest curtain rod I could find and, if it's not heavy enough on its own, attach small weights to each end.

[M Drive]

Weight is an issue, so I don't want to 'unnecessarily' make it heavier. I have all the time in the world, so I'm just going to try making it lighter first, and experiment with different configurations some more.

Not that a curtain rod is that heavy... *hmmm...*

And like I mentioned, if I connect the two gyro arms with gears/cogwheels they'll become perfectly synced in their movement. If one arm is forward 37 degrees, the other will be, and this will help reduce the twisting at least a lot.

Edited July 13, 2014 by M Drive

[N_las]

I came around to track the laser. This ist the result:

http://imgur.com/cgWYQMG

Before you start the machine, the dot has its neutral position at zero. But the machine-off-phase at the end shows that the neutral position has shifted significantly. From the Data, there is no way to tell were the neutral position was during the machine-on-phase. So we can't analyze if there was a net deflection during the on-phase.

If we assume the neutral position is what we can see after the machine is turned off, then the deflection from this position during the on-phase is (21.3 ± 2.7). So there would be a deflection of 7.9 ÃÆ’. That is pretty impressive and would proof a net deflection in this experiment.

But why is it that the neutral position before and after the machine-on-phase changes so significantly? Before we haven't figured out how and why the neutral position shifts, we can't make any conclusion from the experiment. I would think the most reasonable explanation is, that you unconsciously pulled on the cable.

[M Drive]

First off, thank you again for doing this. That is interesting news and it motivates me to do further, more rigorous tests.

It's the cables that's interfering I'm afraid. If you look closely at the dot in the off phase, you can see that when the dot moves back (right) and away from the camera, the back-stroke is shortened significantly. This is because the cable isn't allowing it to go all the way because they're being tugged on by the machine. It's not subconscious or anything, it's just that the cables are too thick and stiff. I had them at a 90 degree angle away from the machine, but that obviously didn't matter.

But! This was just a first try and I'm excited about the results. I'm 100% sure I can re-do the experiment in a way that makes the cables a non-issue. Sorry for potentially 'wasting' your time though, N_las.

[N_las]

Will you use remote control? Compared with the ridiculous plans to make a cubesat sample return mission from phobos (or whatever the forum wants to do), this seems pretty reasonable If you take care of the cable issue, I can show you how I do the dot tracking and data analysis over skype screensharing.

[M Drive]

I just thought of something. People all over the internet keep saying "We would've already noticed this if this was real, we've been experimenting with gyroscopes for 100+ years", but I think there's something very wrong with that statement. I assume they mean we would've noticed any... I dunno, weight loss (this is not "anti-gravity") from weighing gyroscopes with ultra precise scales? I know we've attempted that before (weighing precessing gyroscopes).

But that's a weird thing to say to me, because this effect seems to only appear when you have this particular configuration. This means the gyros would move rapidly away from and towards the scale, rendering it virtually impossible to measure any differences.

So unless we've performed pendulum tests on gyroscopes in this particular configuration, or sent various 'gyroscopic propulsion' machines out into space to test them, both which I know we haven't, I'd say that particular statement is false.

N_las> Tried asking about remote controlling on another forum, but it isn't as easy as it seems. People said I had to get some wicked expensive stuff before they stopped posting, so I'm going to try asking some local electricians and RC enthusiasts around town to see if they know more. Apparently you have to figure out some frequencies and stuff from the internal chips in the screwdriver or whatever, and copy that.

[N_las]

http://www.amazon.de/FS-CT6B-Empf%C3%A4nger-Hubschrauber-Flugzeug-Gleitflug/dp/B00E1C6ZS4/ref=pd_cp_toy_2

I think you could get a cheap toy RC for under 50 €. The set contains the RC, and a receiver. You just have to figure out how to connect the receiver to the drilling machine you use as motor.

Why would a gyro only show an anomalous effect in this specific configuration? If you have an effect that appears ONLY in one specific configuration, it seems very likely that there is systematic error in the experiment. Thats why you have to test very rigorously. As long as there are things like a shifting of the neutral position (like in the last experiment) or other elephants, everybody has to conlclude that there is some hidden error in the setup of the experiment.

But imagine your machine is working and everybody can test it in repeatable experiments. Even experiments in space are showing that your machine produces thrust. At least then a search for the underlying physical workings would start. This "workings" should then be traceable back to the gyros. So some anomalous effect should be measurable at the gyros alone.

[M Drive]

I thought it was that easy a couple of days ago too, but people keep telling me otherwise. We're missing something about 'stepping' the motor and that you need to do this exactly as intended in the screwdriver if you're going to remote control it. The electronics in a screwdriver is also pretty small as it's mass produced, meaning it's not meant to be soldered in. But we'll see.

As for the 'specific configuration' I realize it's meaningless to even discuss it and I should just focus on getting repeatable results. But for what it's worth, whenever I alter the configuration too much, the machine stops working. It seems the gyros need to be on arms, which need to be mounted on a central axis, which needs to rotate variably, and that these arms need to be connected to springs, and that the gyros need to react to something, or the propulsion effect never comes. It's just very unlikely that we've tried this before (that is, looked for this), is all I'm saying.

[andrewas]

Normal rc uses servos which are fairly precise. Those guys are talking about stepper motors which are going to set you back maybe £100 or so. Arduino, wireless interface, stepper drivers and the motors themselves. Also, you'd need to write firmware to control it. Whether you need to go to these lengths depends on the machine, what does your remote control have to do to run the test? If you just need a way to turn it on without disturbing it, then you can do it very cheaply.

[M Drive]

"what does your remote control have to do to run the test?"

It's a brushed 18V motor. The button on the controller depresses into 5 or 6 different settings/speeds. When you press the button you send some sort of signal into a... transistor (?), a chip of some kind that I think has 3 legs. The motor only has 2 wires, looks pretty basic.

The only thing I need is to be able to control the motor with 4-5 different speeds, remotely. That's it. Shouldn't be so hard, right? The battery is also 18V by the way.

[Rickenbacker]

Have you tried contacting a specialist RC store? Fullkontroll.se in Örebro are great, I've bought most of my RC plane and helicopter stuff there. They might be able to help you out, as they specialize in electric flight, and know a thing or two about RC, speed controllers and batteries.

[samriti]

Conservation of total momentum is ingrained into it via the third law, even more so than conservation of total energy. Really, your chances of building a perpetual motion machine of the first kind are strictly better.

[M Drive]

samriti> Yet, we still have some pretty funny results from the experiments performed thus far.

N_las here analyzed the clip that can be seen at 1:44 here (not necessary to watch):

This is the graph that shows the laser dot movement of that clip (right click > "View image" for larger version):

Down is the direction the machine wants to go (left in the video). It shows that the laser dots average movement, during the time the machine is on, is deflected, about 5cm to the left. However, due to interference from a cable, the result is invalid and can't be used to draw conclusions.

If we assume for a moment that I'd be able to get the same results without the cable being a problem, then that'd be strong evidence of a working 'reactionless' drive. I'm actually 99% sure I'll be able to do this once I go back. I'm currently working on fixing the cable problem (that's what all the talk about remote controlling is about).

[N_las]

Down is the direction the machine wants to go (left in the video). It shows that the laser dots average movement, during the time the machine is on, is deflected, about 5cm to the left. However, due to interference from a cable, the result is invalid and can't be used to draw conclusions.

The unit on the axis is arbitrary. "50" doesn't mean 50 mm. I didn't know the scale of the paper.

And I don't think the analysation is from the clip you linked. I think you mixed it up.

EDIT: I was mistaken. The video you linked is the right one. I just used the "uncut" version for the analysis.

Edited July 24, 2014 by N_las

[M Drive]

Oh I thought you knew. The distance between the vertical lines is 2cm.

[N_las]

Then "50" of my arbitrary length unit is approximately 1 cm.

EDIT: I think that doesn't seem right. I made an error somewhere. Can you measure at your paper? Are two of the vertical lines really 2 cm appart?

Edited July 24, 2014 by N_las

[M Drive]

Yeah I used the same distance as last time. The first backwards push seems to be about 10-11cm. It's "175" in the graph, meaning the average deflection should be about 2.8cm.

Edit: Just thinking to myself.

So right now I can focus on 4 things.

1:Lengthening the wires.

2:Synchronize the arms using gears in the middle, eliminating twisting.

3:Encasing it in a plastic to eliminate air drag as a source of propulsion.

4:Remote controlling it/hook the gyros up to an on board batter (instead of just putting slack on the power cords).

Number 2 will probably make the propulsion stronger, as it'll be pointed in one direction instead of twisting around. 1 will also make it easier to notice propulsion, as it'll require less force to deflect. As for 3, I'm extremely sure it's not air drag, but I will eventually do this anyway to satisfy the skeptics, and it's easy to do. 4... investigating. It depends on how much money I'll be forced to spend (if any) and how heavy the batteries for powering the gyros will be. Just loosening the cords is such an easy fix, but as with 3 it'll be done eventually no matter what.

Edit: Decided on a name change to "M Thruster". No biggie.

Edited August 13, 2014 by M Drive

[M Drive]

Small update. Stuff starting to come together again. So apparently remote controlling something as energy consuming as a screwdriver is an expensive affair. Hundreds of dollars at least. It will be done eventually, but for now I've decided to go with the solution you see in the image.

Instead of 2 very thick, short and rigid power cords coming out a side of the machine, I have 4 slim, long and flexible cords coming out the middle of it.

I should probably draw this, but these long cords will be connected to a static pole on the side of the machine, allowing the cords to hang in a long arch. This means that however the machine chooses to move, the cords will have a lot of slack allowing for this movement. It'll be able to twist and wobble however it wants, and the cords will interfere minimally compared to before at least. Also, because of the pole, my own hand movements won't be able to interfere with the machine directly. The cords will be attached to the pole 'after' my hand so to speak.

As for the twisting I've started doing work on gearing the 2 gyro arms in the middle, as you can see with the gear in the picture. All I have thus far is a rough blueprint in my mind though, and my usual mechanic is apparently busy fixing a submarine for the Swedish government (crazy I know) until next month. I'm lucky to even know him. Anyway, I could go to a company and do some work there, but those are also very expensive, something like $70-80 an hour, and I'm sure it'll take at least 2-3 hours to do what I want.

Also have plans on trying to extend the wires it hangs from, but this is a small town, and I haven't yet found a suitable place. 17 meters will have to do for now.

And finally I'm going to eventually seal the machine in a plastic case of some kind just to eliminate air drag as a factor. Seeing how many people think the EmDrive (the microwave thruster NASA recently tested) is being propelled by air, it's just a matter of time before someone demands I seal the machine anyway. It's an easy job though.

So what do you think? If the machine deflects this time, would that be good evidence to you? This is of course assuming the analysis shows a solid deflection from the starting point, and that nothing indicates that the cords interfered.

Edited August 20, 2014 by M Drive

[M Drive]

Input plz?