Could a Gyroscopic inertial thruster ever work?

[K^2]

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.

Take an estimate. It doesn't have to be precise. There is enough on the video to get it within an order of magnitude. Go for it. It will tell you how silly this idea is.

And since you mentioned it, for bonus points, go ahead and calculate the centripetal force required to keep a typical hurricane spinning. You'll find that it's also a rather small number. If you want, you can also try and tackle radial pressure gradients and the way velocity changes. You can actually get a very good approximate model for a hurricane without knowing any hydrodynamics by assuming an inviscid flow.

[M Drive]

So K^2, what was your explanation for the first clip again?

I mean, the skateboard wheels have the same freedom to move back as they have forward. This was also before the rail was created. And I suppose I should mention it moves in the forward direction even if you pick the machine up and spin it 180 degrees.

I just have a very hard picturing what everyone's trying to explain. And it's not like you're all saying the same thing, everyone has a different theory on "What I absolutely know it is"....

[Sillychris]

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.

Instead of an elaborate method that can raise more criticisms, why don't you simply remove contact with the planet as a factor? This is hard to do in practice, but you could approximate it. Here are two simple example:

1) suspend the contraption from a rope. If there is a net force in one direction, the rope's average deflection from vertical will not be zero.

2) Put it on a buoyant object in water. If there is a net force in one direction, the boat will move in that direction.

Both are extremely simple and remove the need for complex argument to try to prove your point. Can't wait to see the results! You could be on the verge of a physics revolution!

Also, try adjusting the orientation of the contraption, and sticking an accelerometer on it. Data and graphs are always helpful for convincing physicists it is not a hoax.

[K^2]

So K^2, what was your explanation for the first clip again?

I mean, the skateboard wheels have the same freedom to move back as they have forward. This was also before the rail was created. And I suppose I should mention it moves in the forward direction even if you pick the machine up and spin it 180 degrees.

I just have a very hard picturing what everyone's trying to explain. And it's not like you're all saying the same thing, everyone has a different theory on "What I absolutely know it is"....

*sigh*

Get on an office chair. Do a sharp move to the side. If you do it right, you can move across the floor. But the wheels roll the same in any direction, don't they?

Well, yes, they do. But it's not just about direction. There are two types of friction, static and kinetic. Static friction is stronger than kinetic. Ever wondered how violin strings work? I suggest you look it up. Strength of the friction force also depends on the normal force. Try to slide a carpet across the floor. Now try it with a person standing on the carpet. See where I'm going with this?

Your rig twists and wobbles. When the board tries to twist in recoil to motion of the weights, rail prevents it from doing so. Same deal with the wheels, though, it's sideways motion that has bigger impact there. Whenever that happens, normal force increases dramatically. So the amount of friction your rig has is time dependent. If you now have something rocking forward and back, as you do, if the forward motion of your weights matches the twist timing, the friction force prevents the whole board from recoiling. But as the weights are drawn back, the normal force is much smaller, allowing the board to accelerate.

This is a very simple effect. I can build a demonstration rig that proves the concept out of Legos. If it gets you to stop claiming silly things, I'll go ahead and build it.

[Faark]

I can build a demonstration rig that proves the concept out of Legos. If it gets you to stop claiming silly things, I'll go ahead and build it.

I would certainly like to see you play with Lego for science

Btw, since this is a thread about repulsion-less propulsion... I always wondered why you can't use earth's magnetic field to accelerate a spaceship.

[jfull]

Btw, since this is a thread about repulsion-less propulsion... I always wondered why you can't use earth's magnetic field to accelerate a spaceship.

In fact, you can!

In my understanding you'd only get thrust on the order of something like an ion engine, and it requires a very long tether.

This is not, however, repulsion-less/reaction-less, in the same way that gravity assists are not reaction-less.

[DaveofDefeat]

I'm beginning to think that m drive guy is related to our good friend VictorEliasEspinozaGUedez.

[K^2]

I would certainly like to see you play with Lego for science

Wouldn't be the first time. It's a good way to build a simple mechanism fast. Only trouble is that all of my Legos stayed in storage at my parents' house. Fortunately, I was planning to drive to visit them tomorrow, anyways, so I'll be able to grab what I need, or just build it right there. I just hope I can get the right gear ratios. I need 2:1 to make this work right.

I'm beginning to think that m drive guy is related to our good friend VictorEliasEspinozaGUedez.

Nah. His English is way, way better, and he doesn't seem anywhere near as crazy.

Edited March 14, 2014 by K^2

[Alchemist]

Every time I see something like this, it's about "which part of the equation did they lose now". Improperly calculated acceleration causes non-zero net force only in KSP because of physics engine imperfection.

Rotation-based thing, which does something if you forget to calculate force at some part of the trajectory.

"Light pressure drive" which forgets light pressure on the conical wall.

Now this M-thing which definitely abuses surface friction (and is not very good at it) - it's not much of it there, but with everything else canceling out a little friction makes notable difference.

Rounding errors will not propel you outside the paper you are calculating on. I can believe in some unusual propulsion systems, but at least give me a decent explanation about what is it based on, not something with obvious miscalculations.

[M Drive]

K^2, okay I think I get it. When the scaffold that holds the gyroscopes spins up, it puts more pressure on at least 2 of the skateboard wheels' bearings, making them "stick" more (like in the mat example) in one direction than the other. This means the mass of the gyroscopes can move forward without an equal opposite reaction, and when they move back, they do get an equal reaction, as the wheels now have equal pressure on them (guy not standing on mat), propelling the machine forward.

Yeah, it's a theory alright. Though, it doesn't explain some results I've seen, like when I maintain the rotation of the scaffold a few seconds, meaning the wagon part (everything but the gyro scaffold) is allowed to stop completely, and I release the button, the gyros will pull back, but instead of the wagon part just moving forward a short amount and coming to a complete stop when the gyro arms have ceased their movements, it continues moving forward after they've stopped moving.... of course suggesting it's actually "pulling itself" forward.

But yeah, I'll consider the rope experiment. It's going to be done at some point in time. I just own a rental apartment and I don't really think my landlord would appreciate me drilling holes in the roof.

Oh, and I've yet to see a good explanation to what's going on with Alex Jones' device. Someone said he's just pushing it forward unconsciously, but I've watched that video hundreds of times, and while he does seem to push it forward early in the video, when Eric Laithwait says "for every action" later in the video, Alex clearly lets go of the gyro arm and machine without pushing it, yet it still manages to move forward, even as the weight if the gyro is moving forward, something I find most extraordinary.

[Z-Man]

Holding, I said, not pushing. The thing is, the contraption does not go through a cyclic motion, it's a one shot movement, then it needs manual resetting. That it moves after being let go proves nothing. Rubber bands do it better if you fire them with your fingers. It's the same here. He moves the arm sideways, then he lets go of the arm. The arm centers and precession of the gyro forces it forward. As it moves forward, he lets go (and probably gives it a push unconsciously, because that's what muscles do, but it does not matter much whether he does or not). At that moment, the total momentum of the machine is non-zero, it's just not equally distributed. The frame is stationary while the arm with the gyroscope is moving forward. The frame starts moving when the momentum redistributes itself internally.

And his left hand is mostly obscured by the device in the take you are describing. No, I did not do a frame-by-frame analysis, but it seems to be impossible to tell when precisely he is letting go. He definitely has to hold the device while he pushes up the arm with the gyroscope.

Yes, gyroscopes can be weird, especially if they are on a off-COM pivot or constrain it so that you block its natural precession movement. Absolutely recommended watch: Laithwaite's lecture. I used to be dressed like the audience members as a kid!

The experiment at the end of part 4 is especially baffling. Edit: I what I recommend it for is the experiments. Not necessarily the lecture.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Z-Man

[theend3r]

What about Woodward effect?

[M Drive]

Z-Man> I don't understand why it would be different if there was a mechanism on the machine that lifts the gyro to the side. If you ask me, when he lets go (and IF he doesn't subconsciously push it), the gyros start moving forward, meaning the wagon should move back... but the opposite happens for whatever unknown (to me) reason. There's no reaction to that forward action. Even if it is a gyroscope it still has weight.

So, if there was a mechanism on that machine that lifts the gyro to its starting position, and the machine itself is able to keep rolling (coasting) after the gyro has reached its end position, you should be able to restart the cycle before it has come to a complete stop and gain even higher speeds.

[Z-Man]

It is enough if he blocks the device from moving backwards as the arm starts moving. You can see a bit what would happen if this were to be converted into a cyclic thing: at around 1:17, when the arm swings up again, the cart rapidly decelerates. It would not gain speed from a cyclic, internally powered process.

[M Drive]

It is enough if he blocks the device from moving backwards as the arm starts moving. You can see a bit what would happen if this were to be converted into a cyclic thing: at around 1:17, when the arm swings up again, the cart rapidly decelerates. It would not gain speed from a cyclic, internally powered process.

I... don't really buy that, sorry. Sure, the wagon part (everything but the gyro arm) should move backwards according to newtons third, but the relatively gently motion forward the gyro does doesn't nearly seem enough to propel the device forward that far. I mean, you're suggesting the forward motion of the gyros are supposed to cause the wagon part to push back, but that backwards motion is being restricted by his hand, and that's how it propels itself, right?

9:05 in this video (same one, I didn't find the exact same clip) suggests nothing of what you're describing.

But hey. That device is super easy to build if you have the time. I have a few gyros roughly that size I could give away, free shipping and all. Say the word (anyone in the thread for that matter),

[K^2]

Yeah, it's a theory alright. Though, it doesn't explain some results I've seen, like when I maintain the rotation of the scaffold a few seconds, meaning the wagon part (everything but the gyro scaffold) is allowed to stop completely, and I release the button, the gyros will pull back, but instead of the wagon part just moving forward a short amount and coming to a complete stop when the gyro arms have ceased their movements, it continues moving forward after they've stopped moving.... of course suggesting it's actually "pulling itself" forward.

That would probably be static vs kinetic friction. Again, similar to violin string. This is a subtler effect, though, so I'm sure amount of motion you get out of that isn't as significant as from normal operation.

[Z-Man]

the gyro does doesn't nearly seem enough to propel the device forward that far.

Distance does not matter here, velocity is all that matters. Like with the rubber band. A long rubber band does not fling itself away faster than a short one.

9:05 in this video (same one, I didn't find the exact same clip) suggests nothing of what you're describing.

The hands are obscured again. Look, Laithwaite was a brilliant engineer. He could not turn this machine into a properly working continuous drive. He would have been, easily, if the strong visible reaction was actually the device pushing itself forward on nothing and not some one-shot effect from the setup. But thanks for a watchable version of the whole documentary.

But hey. That device is super easy to build if you have the time. I have a few gyros roughly that size I could give away, free shipping and all. Say the word (anyone in the thread for that matter),

I'd love to! But unfortunately, I'm more of a theory guy. Plus, my wife would kill me. Our living space is still massively unfinished even though we're living here for 18 months. Wardrobe door missing, cables coming out of the ceiling where a lamp is supposed to go (her fault! She doesn't know what kind of lamp yet.), that kind of stuff. So if I now started building contraptions... My only realistic chance at playing with this stuff comes a bit later when my daughter is old enough so I have an excuse to get a mechanics set of some kind.

[DJEN]

So K^2, what was your explanation for the first clip again?

I mean, the skateboard wheels have the same freedom to move back as they have forward. This was also before the rail was created. And I suppose I should mention it moves in the forward direction even if you pick the machine up and spin it 180 degrees.

I just have a very hard picturing what everyone's trying to explain. And it's not like you're all saying the same thing, everyone has a different theory on "What I absolutely know it is"....

They're merely reciting what they've learned. You can't blame them.

What was your major?

[M Drive]

It seems to me that if the propulsion effect IS done by the gyros ("magically" without a reaction force), even if it's a small effect like in Alex Jones' device, it should be easy to prove.

My major? I'm just an inventor interested in physics. Had a crazy idea one day after asking myself what would happen if you put gyroscopes on the end of oars. Could you "row in space"? I don't know yet, and that intrigues me.

[Brotoro]

K^2 has already pointed out the simple way to test a reactionless drive: Hang it on the end of a long vertical wire with the device's "thrust" axis pointed horizontally. Turn on the device. See if it maintains a non-zero average deflection angle from vertical.

Much cheaper than building a track.

If anybody suggests that your device is pushing against the air or any magnetic or electric fields, you can do a stricter test in a vacuum chamber shielded from EM fields…but you could just enclose the device in a closed metal box when you hang it on the end of the wire. If I see a device causing a constant deflection from vertical under those conditions, then I'll be impressed.

[M Drive]

I've started thinking up ways of doing that, Brotoro. It's in the motions, and I'll report what happens no matter the results.

I can do 2 or 4 wires too if I like, right? If there's 2 wires and the wires are attached at the front and back of the machine, and the wires point straight up (attached at 2 points straight above), it'll align itself even if it wobbles.

Need a laser pointer to attach to it though (gonna point at a white paper on the ground and record the paper)... and some strong fishing wire... and knowledge on knots. Hmm...

[Sillychris]

If I were you, I'd hang it from all four corners of the machine and have all 4 wires go up to a single point.

[Luis]

If I were you, I'd hang it from all four corners of the machine and have all 4 wires go up to a single point.

Problem with that, is it will tend to spin around the horizontal axis, which will make measuring the deflection very difficult. Take the corners on the left up to one wire and the corners on the right up to another, then it can't spin so easily.

[DJEN]

It seems to me that if the propulsion effect IS done by the gyros ("magically" without a reaction force), even if it's a small effect like in Alex Jones' device, it should be easy to prove.

My major? I'm just an inventor interested in physics. Had a crazy idea one day after asking myself what would happen if you put gyroscopes on the end of oars. Could you "row in space"? I don't know yet, and that intrigues me.

I think you're bound to become a pseudo-scientist if you keep doing stuff you don't know.

Please, be aware of what you are.

[M Drive]

At least I haven't completely lost myself in this "psudo-science" yet. Notice I'm not claiming I've discovered something "impossible", and that I've proven newtons third impossible. I'm only claiming I have some weird results, and that I'm interested in a scientific approach to finding out the truth about them.

Also my latest video contains a "placebo trial", where the aim is to get as little propulsion as possible by doing the same thing, but with the gyroscopes off, and yes, the machine does work worse, something that's also a weird result I haven't seen anyone try to explain away yet.