Could a Gyroscopic inertial thruster ever work?

[Spenzor]

What you see can't easily be explained away by known science. A lot of people have gone "Oh it's just stick-slip", and they may be right, but if you study the 2 videos I've published so far there are some pretty hard to explain things going on. Like how it only propels itself in one direction, consistently, instead of a random one. And, while it does manage to propel itself with the gyroscopes off, but in a random direction, it propels itself forward several times better with the gyroscopes on.

The machine is still in its infancy, and I don't have a solid theory behind how it works, as I'm not a physicist. But, I do believe that there are gyroscopic phenomena that's still waiting to be explained by science.

I did watch the videos you provided, and I must say that I'm unconvinced. There's a lot of forces at work on that device, and jumping to the conclusion that it invalidates our understanding of Newton's laws is a bit of a stretch, particularly as you can't explain how it works.

[M Drive]

It weighs roughly 16 pounds though, and has no aerodynamics to speak of, so I think we can exclude at least air as being the reaction force?

As for "is to make a sudden move in one direction, then a slow reset". That doesn't really apply to the first clip. And personally I can't see how ground friction would make the machine go in just one direction over and over again. That, as they say, doesn't make sense.

Remember, all I'm claiming here is that this is more or less unexplainable, even though one can easily jump to the conclusion that it's "something" explainable, and just throw out a couple of things it could be without really specifying why or how. I'm not claiming to have proof Newton's third law of motion is false (or incomplete), but simply that I personally am not convinced "we know everything", which is what saying "reactionless drives are impossible" is really saying.

I say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[SargeRho]

I say absence of evidence contradicting a well established principle of physics is evidence that it is correct. All I see here is basically friction in action.

[TheGatesofLogic]

like what has been said before, reactionless thrusters being impossible aren't the issue, it's the matter of the impossibility of using rotational inertia to do so that's the issue. Some proposed thrusters nowadays are completely reactionless (by reaction-less i of course mean without using any reaction mass if that wasn't clear) including several types of quantum thrusters, photon drives, and at least one relativity based thruster that i've read about.

Also, don't use the M Drive as a commercial title please, a relativistic based resonance propulsion device currently being developed is known as the EMDrive and you may incur some legal issues there.

Edited March 13, 2014 by TheGatesofLogic

[K^2]

Hey everyone. I'm one of those inventors who are currently working on a "gyroscopic inertial thruster". And it just so happens I have some of the most promising results of all the publicly known machines.

What you see can't easily be explained away by known science.

Before making claims like that, it helps to learn a bit of actual science. In this case, about friction and normal forces. Your "frictionless" setup actually has a lot of friction. To test this, I recommend you stand on that board and have someone pull you with a force sensor. Yeah, the thing glides pretty well with no other force applied, but that's the whole point about normal forces. Your setup twists all over the place as it tries to move, which can apply a significant amount of normal force, comparable to that of a person standing on the board, easily. Yet, the amount of force it needs to propel itself is minimal. You add these together.

If you actually want a nearly frictionless setup to test this with, use a long rope to suspend your apparatus. A device capable of generating thrust will be able to maintain a deflection angle. I don't care if it wobbles all over the place, that's fine. But its average position needs to be deflected. And your setup won't do that. It will just shake itself silly.

[M Drive]

I really don't know how people think I said it's "frictionless".

And like I said, this machine is still in its infancy, and there are a lot of important experiments yet to be done. Experiments like the one K^2 suggested, that'll prove that it's actually the gyroscopes "pulling" the machine forward, not the wheels pushing it forward using shaking, friction or what have you.

The first reply in this thread, by SargeRo, said a gyroscopic inertial thruster would only wobble back and forth, but never accelerate. I've shown you a machine that does accelerate. If I were to ask you "What makes this machine move?" the only rational answer at this point would be "I don't know", and that's really my point. It's meant to incite curiosity, not prove gyroscopic propulsion. At this point at least.

Edited March 13, 2014 by M Drive

[Z-Man]

That guy is clearly holding on to his contraption at least during the first half of its movement in every run, while the gyro arm is coming down and moving forward due to the precession. He is applying the forward force during that time. Unconsciously, I am sure. Gyros and muscles are great ingredients for for some compelling psychological trickery, see the Powerball.

That's harder to analyze, but in addition to the usual friction effects one would suspect, he is using a fuel powered model engine with the fuel stored in the device. Not only does the engine produce thrust via intake and exhaust (to his credit, the exhaust seems to be going upwards), it gets lighter over time.

Your own device rattles quite a bit as the wheels jump around. It has plenty of opportunity to give itself a boost when the wheels clash with the rails sideways. At the very least, you need to completely eliminate ground friction; there are various air cushion solutions available, just make sure you don't accidentally turn the air cushion into the propellant and that the cushion never breaks down. And to eliminate the suspicion you are just building the world's most inefficient fan, put all of your moving parts inside a (transparent, if you like) box.

The effect will go away then. People have been trying to build such devices from common hardware components since basically forever. This handy chart applies: https://xkcd.com/808/

[peadar1987]

It looks very similar to an effect called "ooching", when you sit on a chair and jerk it across the floor, for example. The friction will be less, but the principle is the same. You're varying the applied force by waving those arms around, and that changes the frictional force between the wheels and the ground, and inside the bearings of the wheels, producing an unintentional reaction force. Basically you're operating on different points of the friction curve in either direction: (from http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211_fall2002.web.dir/ben_townsend/staticandkineticfriction.htm)

Either that, or there's a slight slope on the floor on which you're operating the thing.

[diomedea]

What you see can't easily be explained away by known science.

...

The machine is still in its infancy, and I don't have a solid theory behind how it works, as I'm not a physicist. But, I do believe that there are gyroscopic phenomena that's still waiting to be explained by science. Here are two important videos:

M drive, I am unable to calculate it, but believe the "propulsion" effect on your machine comes from a coupling between the rotation of its arms and the Earth's own rotation. It could be something similar to what brings to the Coriolis effect, and the same kind of force that keeps gyroscopes oriented in relation to Earth's axis.

If that was right, you should see very different behaviour if the arms rotation is inverted, and possibly no propulsion at all if the machine is oriented 90° from where the coupling is greatest.

[peadar1987]

M drive, I am unable to calculate it, but believe the "propulsion" effect on your machine comes from a coupling between the rotation of its arms and the Earth's own rotation. It could be something similar to what brings to the Coriolis effect, and the same kind of force that keeps gyroscopes oriented in relation to Earth's axis.

If that was right, you should see very different behaviour if the arms rotation is inverted, and possibly no propulsion at all if the machine is oriented 90° from where the coupling is greatest.

I've heard that sort of thing before. I lack the mathematical knowledge to analyse it correctly, but a lot of these "magic gyro" designs supposedly work due to an interaction with the coriolis force. Nifty, and pretty cool, but ultimately useless for propulsion.

[K^2]

The first reply in this thread, by SargeRo, said a gyroscopic inertial thruster would only wobble back and forth, but never accelerate. I've shown you a machine that does accelerate. If I were to ask you "What makes this machine move?" the only explanation a rational answer at this point would be "I don't know", and that's really my point. It's meant to incite curiosity, not prove gyroscopic propulsion. At this point at least.

Friction makes it move. And your experiments only serve to demonstrate that. I've told you how you can convince yourself that it is so. The fact that you haven't done that yet doesn't mean "we don't know." It means that you are confused and you need to get on with un-confusing yourself.

M drive, I am unable to calculate it, but believe the "propulsion" effect on your machine comes from a coupling between the rotation of its arms and the Earth's own rotation.

That's just silly. If you were able to calculate, you'd realize how laughable that amount of force is.

Edited March 13, 2014 by K^2

[diomedea]

That's just silly. If you were able to calculate, you'd realize how laughable that amount of force is.

I am unable to calculate just because of lack of data. If I knew mass of the arms, speed, orientation of the machine and latitude, it would be enough.

That 'laughable' amount of force if the same that develops hurricanes, and the coupling I mentioned is well demonstrated in mechanics. You are just showing to not know about these facts.

[Z-Man]

Relevance of Coriolis forces essentially scales with the size of the system and time. Contrary to popular belief, they are not responsible for which way the vortex in your sink rotates. Likewise, they have no significant impact on the machine in question. It simply is too small and the timescales are too short.

Edit: thinking further, size does not matter directly. But larger systems tend to operate on longer timescales.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Z-Man

[diomedea]

Relevance of Coriolis forces essentially scales with the size of the system and time. Contrary to popular belief, they are not responsible for which way the vortex in your sink rotates. Likewise, they have no significant impact on the machine in question. It simply is too small and the timescales are too short.

Edit: thinking further, size does not matter directly. But larger systems tend to operate on longer timescales.

Please note that I mentioned Coriolis only as a (pretty well known) example of a coupling due to Earth's rotation. I am not meaning that device moves due to Coriolis effect (it doesn't, Coriolis effect works due to different speed of particles in different places on Earth), but that its rotation is coupled to that of Earth. There are notable examples of other devices that do so, my preferred is gyrocompass but the best known is possibly the Foucault pendulum.

Yes, size does not matter. What matters is the angular momentum of both systems (device and Earth), therefore mass and speed, and how they are aligned.

[Z-Man]

The same objection applies. How fast does a gyrocompass' axis rotate relative to a fixed laboratory on earth? How fast does the Foucault pendulum shift its plane? In both cases, the rate of change is linked to the angular rotation speed of the earth. At best, you get one full rotation per day. Unless you design your device to be specifically sensitive to earth's rotation it is very, very unlikely to matter for timescales of a couple of seconds.

[diomedea]

The same objection applies. How fast does a gyrocompass' axis rotate relative to a fixed laboratory on earth? How fast does the Foucault pendulum shift its plane? In both cases, the rate of change is linked to the angular rotation speed of the earth. At best, you get one full rotation per day. Unless you design your device to be specifically sensitive to earth's rotation it is very, very unlikely to matter for timescales of a couple of seconds.

It would take a course on such mechanical systems to explain in full detail. But it seems you have singled out the speed with which the devices change their orientation. That is not the correct parameter to see (that speed is always the same as the Earth's rotational speed). The correct parameter is the force that is exerted on the device. That force may (if conditions were perfect, no attrition) propel that device Mdrive built along a parallel on Earth until the axis of its arms is aligned to the Earth's axis. Please don't think about timescale, it has no relevance here.

[Z-Man]

No, it really could not. Yes, the individual forces in play can be tremendous, but you need a way to transfer them into motion. Loose wheels can't do that. Keep in mind the effects from earth's rotation are not magic; they do not work without mechanical contact. There simply is not enough of it in the setup at hand. With only (idealized, frictionless, unable to receive torque from the device) wheels providing that contact, at best, you can get your fancy device to fall over. Slowly if you only rely on earth's rotation, quickly if you actively tilt your gyroscope (but then it would also fall over on non-rotating bodies).

But let's not argue about that any more. You proposed a relevant test: Align the track in north-south direction and you say it will stay put? Well, I say it won't. M Drive: Please do it You can potentially shut up one critic.

Edit: Well, actually, if you put your device on an absolutely rigid track that perfectly follows Earth's idealized curvature in an east-west direction and you have perfectly frictionless wheels, you can turn any torque gyroscopes may provide into a westward net force by essentially grabbing on to the curvature... but that force is limited by the weight of the device times its length divided by Earth's radius. So a tiny force. To actually make that move, your coefficient of friction of the wheels needs to be lower than the ratio of the device's size by the Earth's radius. Good luck with that! You can improve your odds by rigidly clamping your device to the track with wheels coming from all sides, like roller coasters do; that removes the limit on the forward force, but not on the coefficient of friction. That can be gotten rid of by not letting the track follow Earth's surface, but simply being a regular circular track. Or get rid of the track and mount the device on one end of a long pole, with the other end of the pole on a pivot. Anyway: Clearly not what we are seeing here.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Z-Man

[diomedea]

No, it really could not. Yes, the individual forces in play can be tremendous, but you need a way to transfer them into motion. Loose wheels can't do that. Keep in mind the effects from earth's rotation are not magic; they do not work without mechanical contact. There simply is not enough of it in the setup at hand.

...

There is something that seems to be missing in your interpretation, and I am making efforts at trying to make for that. Now, you wrote those forces don't work without mechanical contact. So, let me try to show where the mechanical contact is (it is often elusive to see that).

That device by Mdrive is actually similar to a gyroscope fixed on a rail. Its axis can't move in relation to the rail. Now, if the rail orientation was to remain fixed in space, we would have no force exerted by the gyroscope (the force is proportional to the mass, the frequency of the gyroscope squared, and the axial angular tilt in time: so when the axis of the gyroscope is aligned with Earth's, or is let free to keep its orientation in space, force is 0). The fact is that the rail changes its orientation with the Earth rotation (think orientation in relation to space = fixed stars, not Earth). And because that device is mounted on that rail, and due to gravity must keep standing on it, its axis has to change orientation. Therefore the gyroscope exerts a force.

It may not seem that large, and generally we don't need large forces with such devices (I would like, but it requires a lot of effort, to show how a gyrocompasss aligns itself - and requires only a matter of minutes to do so - only thanks to that minuscule force). But with a very limited attrition, even a minuscule force will make that device accelerate until attrition equals that force (in the hypothetical case of no attrition, that device will actually move until the force nullifies because of alignment of its gyroscope axis with Earth's). There are actually devices (think e.g. centrifuges to enrich uranium) so massive and fast that would exert a serious force just because of Earth's rotation coupling (so, need to be aligned to minimize force on the bearings).

Hope the above is of help. I know this subject is often very unintuitive, and I am no teacher .

EDIT: actually, a gyroscope would not move around, but only rotate its axis. What makes a difference with Mdrive machine is how unbalanced it is. The reaction force from one arm is different than the reaction force from the other, though they probably average over time. So, it is the net difference in reaction forces to actually make for that 'propulsion' effect.

Edited March 13, 2014 by diomedea

[Sillychris]

It looks to me like your machine produces alternating force by throwing its weight around. There is an upward and left "force" followed by a downward and right "force". They time average to zero. Why it moves in one direction is because the up and left force reduces friction while accelerating it to the left, then the down and right force increases friction while propelling it to the right. There is less friction while the net effect is to the left and thus it accelerates in that direction preferentially.

Your reaction mass is the Earth. Congratulations, you've invented a car. Now hang it from a rope and see if it goes anywhere.

[Kerbart]

The great thing is that you can power it with a perpetuum mobile; similar kind of physics are involved.

[M Drive]

This is the experiment I have in mind to prove it's not the earth that's the reaction force. Also, you might want to check out my other video (

look in the comments for the short version).

Basically, buy two large pieces of panel glass. The thick stuff that you make tables out of. Place them on the ground and place metal bearing balls inbetween them. Place the M Drive on top, using either skateboard wheels or just a miniature version of the rail.

Now if it tries to push itself away from the rail or the top glass panel, the glass panel will shoot out behind it. If however it's the gyroscopes "grabbing onto nothing", the machine will be able to go forward without the glass panel moving. I think it's a good way of eliminating friction even more.

[Z-Man]

diomedea: Yes, I get all of that. Two problems:

1. The device is not fixed on a rail. It loosely sits on the ground/a rail. It has no fixed pivot axis.

2. The total force of any gyroscope will always be zero, you only have torque to work with at first. You need a pivot to convert torque to a force.

Well, one problem. You don't have what you need. The device could only fall over. (Only escape: see Edit of last post)

I'd very much like to see a proper gyrocompass (with the gyro in a regular bearing; special bearings or active controls can of course accelerate things, anything that reacts and enhances the precession would be cheating here) align itself to Earth's axis within minutes. I've only seen toy demonstrations with Earth replaced by a spinning plate, and there it takes several rotations (so, days) to settle.

[diomedea]

diomedea: Yes, I get all of that. Two problems:

1. The device is not fixed on a rail. It loosely sits on the ground/a rail. It has no fixed pivot axis.

2. The total force of any gyroscope will always be zero, you only have torque to work with at first. You need a pivot to convert torque to a force.

Well, one problem. You don't have what you need. The device could only fall over. (Only escape: see Edit of last post)

I'd very much like to see a proper gyrocompass (with the gyro in a regular bearing; special bearings or active controls can of course accelerate things, anything that reacts and enhances the precession would be cheating here) align itself to Earth's axis within minutes. I've only seen toy demonstrations with Earth replaced by a spinning plate, and there it takes several rotations (so, days) to settle.

Believe you have, by now, seen the last vid from Mdrive. I found that interesting. If I got it correctly, his device moves (by whatever force) when the little gyroscopes on its arms are spinning; doesn't move when they are not. Of course attrition with the rail is the same in both cases, so the force seems to lie elsewhere. About your points:

1. What difference is with the device just sitting on the rail? I already wrote it must remain there because of gravity, so its axis will always keep oriented with the rail. Unlike a free gyroscope (free to orient itself) the arms of that devices are constrained to rotate around an axis moving with the rail.

2. The total force of a gyroscope is 0 if the gyro is perfectly balanced. And Mdrive's device is certainly not. Actually, any rotating mass (like a gyro) has not one, but two pivots (the bearings). And what I believe is happening is, due to the combined spin of the gyroscopes and the arms, the force exerted on one of the bearings is different than the force on the other. To see what happens is rather easy, if you have a spinning gyro and use a force on one of its bearings, it will strongly react (and actually move, if not constrained). So, I have what I need (it is just pretty difficult to show).

The speed with which a gyrocompass aligns is mainly due to the quality of the device. No doubt that a toy hasn't that quality. The torque exerted is there, but attrition may limit the speed (and introduce other phenomena, like precession, that make for alignment errors; but this is really getting too far). Yes certainly, nowadays gyrocompasses use active controls to detect the torque and accelerate alignment. And, the more time is allowed for alignment, the better the result. But gyrocompasses exist from a time when electronics wasn't yet, and they were commonly used.

[Vanamonde]

There's nothing mysterious about whirling masses causing on object to skip around on the ground, and the fact that it's flailing more often in one direction than another is due to a combination of things. Your rotating structure is not on the center of mass, for one thing, and on an arm at that. Notice that each jump of forward motion takes place at the same cycle in the rotation of the masses? The structure is compressing/bending, then pushing itself off the ground while the wobbling happens to be in the forward direction, whereas on the opposite side of the cycle when the wobble might push it backwards, the descent side of the hopping is pressing it against the ground and increasing the friction experienced by the wheels and axles so that it doesn't roll back as far as it rolled forward.

If you built something precise enough to experience no vibration at all, suspended it in some way that it had no frictional contact with stationary objects, and operated it in a vacuum, and it still imposed a motion in a consistent direction each time it was operated, then you'd have something mysterious and contrary to known physics. But the device in your video has so many and such large potential causes of error that I'm afraid it's not proof of anything.

[KASASpace]

I know nothing of this, but would like to mention a rather idiotic myth.

Bear with me here.

Not See Flying Saucers. (really, N*zi is a bad word?)

I know it's stupid, but it "works" by hooking up Hans Koler's free energy machine to a Van De Graaf generator and then add a Marconi vortex dynamo to create powerful magnetic fields.

Maybe if we could harness ZP energy......

Edited March 13, 2014 by KASASpace