Could a Gyroscopic inertial thruster ever work?

[M Drive]

"I'm not saying it's impossible that some new revelation could occur"

That's all I ever wanted to hear. There are tons of evidence if you're actually interested. Look at Alex Jones (well, the only clip that exists is the one I posted), Roy Thornson, Sandy Kidd and myself of course. I'd say Alex Jones' device is the easiest to reproduce. If anyone wants a free gyroscope with a DC motor to perform propulsion experiment with, say the word. I have 2 extra ones from failed "M Drives" that work perfectly fine, they just don't fit on the steel rods I use on the current M Drive.

And the gyroscope has been known for 150 years. I've been alive for 1/5th (20%) of that time.

My next experiment, whenever I get my butt into gear that is, will be where I suspend it from a rope or wire of some kind.

Edited March 18, 2014 by M Drive

[Red Iron Crown]

Do you have plans you can link for any of the gyro drives?

[Vanamonde]

Before suggesting that you're on to a new physical principle, you need to account for what is called "causes of error." M Drive, your machine moves around so violently and irregularly that there's no way to know if it's propelling itself through some mysterious force, or just bouncing around. It doesn't make sense to challenge established understanding of physics when you haven't eliminated the possibility and/or influence of breezes in your apartment, a slight slope to the floor, about a zillion other things, and first and foremost, that the tolerances of your machine are wide enough to drive a truck through. Scientists spend 1% of their time coming up with new ideas, and 99% of their time trying to eliminate the possibility of screwing up when they test their ideas. It's that other 99% you're not doing before you try to argue that you're on to something new.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Vanamonde

[Alchemist]

The thing about that "M-Drive" is that if you take just some object sitting on the ground and attach something rotating with offset center of mass (like couple swings) and start rotating the rotor fast enough, it will excerpt on the object enough force to make it jump. And don't forget that there will also be oscillating horizontal force of the same magnitude that coupled with varying friction can make the entire system move in some direction (because we get a bit unballanced friction on the oscillations). Add wheels and you'll see the effect at notably less force.

Now, the gyroscopes do make it a bit more interesting, and add some counter-intuitiveness. Maybe they can even alter the phase-shift between vertical and horizontal oscillations, notably magnifying this effect, but it still doesn't change the fact that net horizontal force is produced by friction - it most likely won't work without a surface (on a completely frictionless surface), and for when it works simple powered wheels are much more efficient.

And if something is mathematically proven, it means "as long as this mathematical model is applicable to the real physics within given precision margins". And it's impossible to fully prove a mathematical model (it's possible to prove it's wrong or stops working at some circumstances, but you can't experimentally prove that it always works). However if something is close enough (in margins of experimental data uncertainty) to an existing model, there's no reason to expect something groundbreaking to emerge from that

[Legendary Emu]

I think Isaac Newton would rise out of his grave and take a sledge hammer to beat the crap out of a contraption like this. It sounds like you stand on a table and lift the table to accelerate.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Legendary Emu
2typo4me

[M Drive]

Do you have plans you can link for any of the gyro drives?

Well, patents for Alex Jones and Sandy Kidds machines exists, and are free to look at. If you only want a blueprint for Jones' device I could probably draw something up, though you see pretty easily how it's build in the video, and whatever drawing I make will be based on the video.

Vanamonde> I'm not claiming anything as of yet, which you'd know if you read through the thread. As for properly conducting experiments you can still perform scientifically accurate experiments in the confines of a small apartment. Again, if you'd read through the thread you'd know the next experiment will suspend it from the ceiling, in order to see if it can stay on one side of a line more than the other. Do you have any complaints about such an experiment?

Edited March 18, 2014 by M Drive

[MBobrik]

I'm not claiming anything as of yet, which you'd know if you read through the thread. As for properly conducting experiments you can still perform scientifically accurate experiments in the confines of a small apartment. Again, if you'd read through the thread you'd know the next experiment will suspend it from the ceiling, in order to see if it can stay on one side of a line more than the other. Do you have any complaints about such an experiment?

.

If you want to conduct a proper experiment you will need to compute/know the expected magnitude of the effect and the precision of the measurement beforehand. Because even if there is literally nothing you will always find a small deviation from the null result due to various measurement errors. so when you measure for example net acceleration of 0.01 m/s^2 you can not know whether it is due to error or your effect without knowing the expected values of the two.

.

But if you really try to compute the acceleration your device produces using newton's laws, you will get exactly zero. all mass inside moves along a closed path ending up where it started, so all contributions have to average to zero and you should get zero net acceleration .In fact, any acceleration you would find above expected error of the measurement, would be a direct falsification of newton's laws.

[Vanamonde]

I have read the whole thread, M Drive, and you're claiming to get anomalous movement out of a device which is so fraught with imprecision that the potential causes of error exceed the magnitude of the motion you're reporting. And since you asked, your proposed suspension test does not eliminate the wobbling of a device which isn't rotating uniformly around its center of mass, nor will the device be isolated from the atmosphere and thereby the possibility that it's generating some thrust by pushing air around, and it might even be generating torque on the suspension you're rigging, depending on how you rig it.

Meanwhile, every post that you've submitted to this forum so far has been in this thread. Do you play KSP, or are you only coming here to try to sell people on your invention?

[M Drive]

What's with the hostile attitude, Vanamonde? I came here to discuss gyroscopic propulsion, not to "sell" my invention.

But okay, you're a serious skeptic. But there's a fine line between being a rational skeptic (believing that the laser pointer dot won't be able to stay more on one side than the other) and being an irrational skeptic (believing that a device with no apparent aerodynamics that weighs 16 pounds or so can produce a false-positive).

But yeah, everyone has an opinion. People apparently also get upset if you try stay on topic and discuss things.

[Guest]

Such drives couldn't work for one simple reason: conservation of momentum. For everything that gains momentum, something must gain the same amount pointed in the opposite direction. Exhaust gases, air around you... something has to move, however little. When you drive a car, your wheels push against the Earth and slow/speed up it's rotation by a slight bit. When you fly a rocket or a jet aircraft, you eject gases at high speed, which also imparts momentum to you. Total dM is always 0, if it isn't, you're just not considering everything that takes part in the event.

[Aghanim]

Well this reactionless thruster thread is longer than VEEG drive thread

[Z-Man]

That would be due to the simple fact that the VEEG guy does not understand how air works.

We humans are pretty good at sensing things after all. Just an anecdote though.

Sensing shapes, yes. Sensing forces, no. We are comically bad at those, especially when judging small forces while simultaneously applying force. Never trust your body on this. Just look at the "lift 40lb flywheel" experiment.

[Alchemist]

Sensing shapes, yes. Sensing forces, no. We are comically bad at those, especially when judging small forces while simultaneously applying force. Never trust your body on this. Just look at the "lift 40lb flywheel" experiment.

When we hold something in our hand, we mostly feel not its weight, but the torque this weight produces on our arm. And if you hold a gyroscope, it's precession can easily alter the torque up to this point. Therefore it doesn't seem so heavy despite the weight being the same.

We sense and perceive properties of objects through some external interactions. And sometimes these interactions can be altered or even nullified or faked relatively easily

[Momentus]

There would have to be a fundamental anisotropy to the space-time. Since that anisotropy would be detectable, there would be a preferred coordinate system. In other words, there would be such a thing as an absolute velocity. ....... If the anisotropy is amorphous, there would be no such thing as momentum conservation at all, and a closed system would be able to propel itself....

An elegant summary. The gyroscope anomaly demonstrates just such an anisotropy (great word that). There is an asymmetry in action which is simple to demonstrate.

A plumb bob on a string can be swung around in a circle. It is a simple pendulum. The period of oscillation of a plumb bob is determined solely by the length of the string.

A gyro on a string swings around in a circle exactly like a pendulum. However the period of oscillation is determined by precession, which in turn depends upon torque and spin not the length of the pendulum string.

When the length of a pendulum is reduced, the period of oscillation is increased, due to the interaction of string tension with the momentum of the mass, and gravity.

This interaction does not occur with the gyro. There is either no mass or no gravity or no momentum in the gyro system. Or Newton missed something.

The M Drive is the latest in a series of devices exploiting this missing element to move itself outside its own dimensions.

If you have a sufficient understanding of dynamics to understand the action of a simple pendulum, then you may apply that to a gyro pendulum and prove to yourself that there is an anomaly. No slip/stick, no racheting, no discrete hands helping things along.

Momentus

[Alchemist]

A plumb bob on a string can be swung around in a circle. It is a simple pendulum. The period of oscillation of a plumb bob is determined solely by the length of the string.

A gyro on a string swings around in a circle exactly like a pendulum. However the period of oscillation is determined by precession, which in turn depends upon torque and spin not the length of the pendulum string.

When the length of a pendulum is reduced, the period of oscillation is increased, due to the interaction of string tension with the momentum of the mass, and gravity.

This interaction does not occur with the gyro. There is either no mass or no gravity or no momentum in the gyro system. Or Newton missed something.

I just think it has center of mass offset from the line of the string, because the gyro axis is deflected from the string - that changes the properties of the equation and some values don't cancel out anymore. Then some variables stabilize so that movement and precession are in resonance. Unless you give experimental data that can't be explained with such considerations, there's no anomaly, just precession.

[Z-Man]

Yeah, something is missing from the picture. A simple mass on a string has two degrees of freedom. A fixed-rotation-speed gyro on a string has four (edit: relevant degrees of freedom in both cases). True, two of them will be driven by precession, but what about the other two? I'd need to see a demonstration on how they either vanish in puffs of logic smoke or are driven by precession, too. They absolutely should still be there and behave like the regular pendulum degrees of freedom.

[Red Iron Crown]

(Paraphrasing) I don't understand how gyroscopes and pendulums work, therefore they must defy commonly accepted physics.

I strongly suspect that Momentus and M Drive are the same person. Same first initial, same crackpot theory, both joined to post in this thread only.

[M Drive]

I strongly suspect that Momentus and M Drive are the same person. Same first initial, same crackpot theory, both joined to post in this thread only.

You can suspect all you want, I'm not after fame or glory. Just... constructive criticism and suggestions on how to improve the experiments or maybe even the machine.

So far I've gotten a few good tips on experiments, so that's a plus.

I know how to improve the "shakiness", but it's a matter of cost. You can either connect the two gyro arms in the middle using gears so that the top one will not be pulled forward faster than the other, which is what's causing the center of gravity of the two gyros to move about, shaking the machine.

Or you can, optimally, construct another identical gyro array and turn one clockwise and the other counter-clockwise, canceling out the reaction on the wagon (if geared). Considering I don't have a metal shop in my apartment, it's hard, unless I spend even more money on something I ultimately don't know is even real.

And you can increase spring strength, try a more powerful drill, experiment with gyro speeds etc. etc. So yeah, lot of experiments left to be done, even though I've been doing them since January 2013.

Edited March 19, 2014 by M Drive

[Red Iron Crown]

Why don't you get a physicist from a local university to help you out? They will be very skeptical, but will have good advice on how to conduct a rigorous experiment.

It would be very, very useful if you could develop a mathematical model of the effect you think you're observing. Anomalous observations are one thing, anomalous observations supporting an alternative theory are another. You will have to be very familiar with how the physics of gyroscopes are currently understood before developing the new theory.

[M Drive]

I did visit the local university to try and get a few opinions, but I got the usual runaround. "We've known about gyroscopes for hundreds of years, nothing new can be found" was one professors reasoning for not wanting to take a closer look at it. One did show some interest in it, and I suppose I could try to get him involved in future experiments. He was "just" a teacher of applied physics though.

Mathematical models? As I said, I don't have that kind of background. I'll just keep doing experiments, and if people keep finding reasons why they don't show what I think they show, it's their loss. I won't give up in the first place though, not until I'm convinced the reason my machine (and others like Alex Jones') keeps moving forward is nothing strange.

Edit: Veritasium just posted the answer to his experiment:

Edited March 20, 2014 by M Drive

[DJEN]

"Gyroscopes aren't some mystical device that we barely understand due to lack of experimentation"

"there is little on them we haven't already know"

Apparently naysayers can see into the future. Fascinating.

You just proved your pseudoscientific prowess.

Drat.

[Winter Man]

Could be worse, could be ol' Victor's fan in a box.

[Z-Man]

Well, in that case, good luck. Random dump of advice:

Do get some background. Any decent classical mechanics book should have a chapter on gyroscopes. Read that. If you don't know how precisely we think they should operate, you can't tell what observed behavior is anomalous.

If you can, find out about why it is believed that momentum is conserved. K^2 is correct in that it is a direct consequence of the translation invariance of the laws of physics. However, the proof is not without context. It assumes the Lagrangian framework of theoretical mechanics can be applied. If it can't (*), then translation invariance may hold without conservation of momentum. Every theorem has prerequisites, and those are your potential loopholes.

Instead of building a complete propulsion system from nothing, try finding anomalous behavior in the individual isolated components first. The combustion engine was not built prior to understanding combustion, electric motors were only built after people developed a solid understanding for (electro)magnets. I'd start by trying to replicate Eric Laithwaite experiments on the lack of centrifugal force. The basic one (as seen on the TV lecture) has been falsified, but in his patent application, he writes about gyros with fat rims giving better results. I haven't seen those repeated yet, though I have to admit I haven't really looked much.

Try to understand our objections. If your device rattles and jumps around, people will say it is propelled by friction, and they probably will be right. If you put it in a box to prove it's not propelled by making wind and have it produce lift, people will say it is a hot air balloon. Simple solution there: Turn it around and make it pull down.

When developing new ideas, think a bit about how the effect you expect would influence known systems. The whole Earth in its orbit (for big masses). Electrons in an atom (for high rotation rates). Those work as we expect them to, so if your idea says they should do something different, it's probably wrong and you should look elsewhere first.

For proving that it's not friction against the ground that drives your device, your own suggestion is probably the best: put it on a floor that is itself mobile. You only need to make sure there is less friction between that second floor and the real floor than between your device and the second floor. If you use an air table or rail, you have the problem that any tilt will produce thrust via uneven airflow. The pendulum test can only give good results if the device does not shake too much, and you need to be able to reliably track the center of mass.

(*) and boy would we be in trouble then. Our understanding of Quantum Mechanics relies on that.

[M Drive]

Thanks, I'll take your advice into consideration. And I have to admit I thought we just assumed reactionless propulsion was impossible because every form of propulsion known to man requires it, so absence of evidence would apparently be evidence of absence.

As for building theories, it's really not my forté. If you look back a few pages I did post a theory of my own, but I'll admit it's amateur hour. It basically states that it's an "over-reaction drive". The resistance the gyros provide on their way back to their starting position will be interpreted as increased weight, meaning that as the wagon and gyroscopes move towards one another, the wagon will move further than it did as they were moving away from one another because the gyroscopes now are "heavier" (or at least provide more resistance).

Edit: Would we be in trouble if this was the case, with quantum mechanics and all? If it somehow exploits a "bug" in physics?

So the whole idea behind the M Drive is the have the gyros precess forward as forcably as possible (high rotational speeds on both the gyros and the modified drill that precesses them), then force them back with even more force (decreasing the rotational speed of the drill and have the springs pull them back), working against the gyros as much as possible, hopefully shifting the center of gravity. That's the whole idea behind the M Drive really. I don't think it's enough to call even a theory.

Also, there's a problem with making my machine move vertically, instead of horizontally, that being that the center of gravity always fluctuates. If I were to hang it on a pulley with a counterweight everything would shake violently (going up and down), not to mention the gyros would have problems precessing.

"You just proved your pseudoscientific prowess."

Was merely pointing out that we can't know how much we yet do not know.

Edited March 20, 2014 by M Drive

[rkman]

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

In the video you say it can't be explained by your current understanding of science, and you have admitted you don't know much about science. So the statement in the video is a best a little disingenuous.

(and others like Alex Jones')

If you want any credibility, run away from him.

Was merely pointing out that we can't know how much we yet do not know.

It's still helpful to know what we do know, if you want to expand on the knowledge.