Could a Gyroscopic inertial thruster ever work?

[Z-Man]

If you want any credibility, run away from him.

You're thinking of a different Alex Jones.

[M Drive]

admitted you don't know much about science

I'm interested in science and physics, and if I may say so myself I'm not stupid, and have no problem understanding how things work, as well as grasping concepts of science and physics like friction, gravity, air resistance etc. In fact I've thought of all the explanations of what it could be that has appeared in this thread and then some.

Friction is easy to understand, though how Newton's third law of action-reaction should work in real life is not something you can just read your way to. It requires a good sense of physics, and foremost, experience. Meaning that everyone's opinion on how Alex Jones' device "should" work is really just an opinion based on that. A professor of physics could actually be wrong and a layman right in that sense, since it comes down to experience and, well, how good you are at simulating reality in your own noggin'. Here's the link to his invention (he passed in 1999):

What I don't have is a formal education, which of course limits me, but isn't exactly crippling. I realize someone will have to do the math and build a theory eventually, but first I'm just going to focus on getting truly unexplainable results.

[DaveofDefeat]

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/overview.html#Non-Viable_Approaches:

A good read from nasa.

"Oscillation Thrusters & Gyroscopic Antigravity:

Mechanical devices are often claimed to produce net external thrust using just the motion of internal components. These devices fall into two categories, oscillation thrusters and gyroscopic devices. Their appearance of creating net thrust is attributable to misinterpretations of normal mechanical effects. The following short explanations were excerpted and edited from a NASA website about commonly submitted erroneous breakthroughs."

[Red Iron Crown]

Here's the link to his invention (he passed in 1999):

I don't find this video convincing in the least. As he lifts the gyroscope into position to release it for another push forward it necessarily pushes in the "backward" direction because of the exact same effect that makes it move forward. Conveniently, his hand always seems to be holding the cart as he "loads" it, so he can hide the equal and opposite force.

That's not even touching on using his hands to manipulate and release it, a process that kills repeatability and introduces error. It's sleight of hand we're seeing here.

[M Drive]

That's the most common theory, and probably the most rational one as well. I've heard it through several boards now.

But remember, we're all using our experience, simulating this thing in our heads, trying to figure out what's making it tick. And I for one don't agree with that theory. Yes, he holds on to it a short while, which would give him time to (consciously or unconsciously) push it off, but what I don't agree with is how far it actually moves.

Have a look at the one at 1:47:

In my opinion, the push he could give in that short frame of time doesn't add up to the machine propelling itself forward almost 120% (1.2x) of it's own length. If it was just a weight moving back and forth at the same speed the base would move back and forth alright, but only a few centimeters, given how heavy the gyro is compared to the rest of the device.

Alex Jones obviously wasn't very scientific, or he wouldn't have made this mistake. I'm assuming this hand holding business is the reason the clip is as unknown as it is. Unfortunately I don't believe this machine exists anymore, nor any replica for that matter. So yeah, if anyone had the time or "drive" (hehe, get it?) to put one together that'd be awesome. I'd supply the gyroscope.

Edited March 20, 2014 by M Drive
speling

[Red Iron Crown]

He's not pushing it to make it move, but he is stopping it from moving in the other direction when he lifts the gyroscope before release. The forces balance, it's just storing the energy in the rotational inertia of the gyroscope.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, as it is pretty clear he doesn't push it forward much if at all in the video.

[M Drive]

I understood you, either way I don't think the restriction of his hand is enough to produce that "stroke" or whatever to call it. Point is, it's going to remain opinions until someone who wants to know the truth recreates the experiment. I'm doing work in this field because I believe we can't afford to be wrong on something like this. The stakes are too high (the potential loss of a technology that was ignored because of preconceived notions, even if those notions were well thought out).

[Red Iron Crown]

Forgive me, but I find it hard to take "I'm doing work in this field" seriously when you clearly haven't studied the physics of how gyroscopes and conservation of momentum work. You're just playing with gyroscopes and noticing they don't behave the way one expects intuitively, then concluding that our incredibly well supported physics are wrong. Seriously, read the NASA link DaveOfDefeat posted on the previous page.

[M Drive]

The NASA "breakthrough propulsion physics" program is riddled with flaws, and by no means an argument for anything. Did you know that they attempted to test inertial propulsion machines under rigorous conditions only to exclude the most promising ones because they "clearly violated Newton's third law of motion" and similar reasons? Why test anything if you can't even have an open mind? The judges were all but professional and a lot of inventors were left disappointed as they simply were forbidden to show their invention.

What the citation refers to is Eric Laithwaite's "big wheel" experiment, recently replicated by Veritasium on Youtube. But that experiment is 30 years old by now, and is hardly relevant.

But yeah, keep insulting people you don't agree with. That'll advance the discussion. If I'm "playing" and falling into the stereotype of being an uninformed hillbilly inventor, you're falling into the stereotype of "typical guy with opinion on the internet", that turns into a jerk behind the veil of anonymity. And I've never claimed Newton was wrong, or anything for that matter. I've made it abundantly clear I have no claims at this moment, and that I'm only exploring something interesting.

Edited March 20, 2014 by M Drive

[Dodgey]

M Drive, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You are claiming that our current understanding of the laws of motion are wrong, and the only evidence you have provided is a video of your contraption thrashing about resulting in motion which could have been caused be a number of different factors. The claim that because Newton could be wrong your proposed drive system should be taken more seriously the it is is just silly. Provide the evidence and you will be taken seriously.

If I have misinterpreted any of your statements then I retract any statements I have made pertaining to them and are sorry.

Also investigate the individual elements first. Such as the forces at work during precession in order to gain a better understanding of what is happening. As people have said, the built the electric engine after they understood electromagnetism.

[Red Iron Crown]

I'm not trying to make this personal or insulting, forgive me if you took my comment as such.

The problem with using a gyroscope to produce reactionless thrust is that it does violate Newton's third law. You may believe that the law is in error, and of course you're entitled to that opinion, but no one is going to take that sort of claim seriously if the claimant doesn't propose an alternate theory with incredibly strong empirical evidence supporting it. There is, of course, no "proof" in science, but there is an almost indescribably tremendous amount of empirical evidence supporting the Third Law that the new theory would have to explain as well or better.

So far, there is no such alternate theory or evidence.

You may think we're skeptics and naysayers, and that's true. The scientific mindset is one of eternal skepticism. We are skeptical of observations that confirm our theories, let alone those that contradict them. Scientists are always, always skeptical of any result, demanding transparency, repeatability, and elimination of as much source of error as possible.

If you really believe Newton and all the scientists standing on his shoulders are wrong, by all means carry on with your experiments. Make them as rigorous as possible. Eliminate as many variables in the experimental conditions as you can, especially human factors. Above all, measure everything you can and document as thoroughly as you can. Adopt the scientific mindset, and ask yourself at each step, "What does the current understanding of gyroscopes predict will happen? Do my results differ?"

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Good luck.

[M Drive]

"Make them as rigorous as possible"

I intend to.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Not really, no. There's no agreement on what constitutes an "extraordinary" claim or extraordinary evidence. So the saying should really be "What some may think is an extraordinary claim requires the same amount of evidence as any other claim". Not as catchy though.

[Vanamonde]

Don't let the discussion degenerate into insults, guys.

[Dodgey]

"Make them as rigorous as possible"

I intend to.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Not really, no. There's no agreement on what constitutes an "extraordinary" claim or extraordinary evidence. So the saying should really be "What some may think is an extraordinary claim requires the same amount of evidence as any other claim". Not as catchy though.

It is just a general rule of thumb. I ask you, does the claim that I personally live on the moon require as much evidence for you to believe it as the claim I have hair.

[Bacterius]

"Make them as rigorous as possible"

I intend to.

Don't just say you will, do it then we'll still be here - probably - when you're done and ready to report your findings in a repeatable way, so that other people can verify your claims and start looking at applications for this new theory.

To be blunt: I can also make a theory of my own. It states that people which come up with inventions defying all laws of physics first arrive on a forum, make a lot of noise, and invariably disappear a few weeks or months later when they fail to make their device work (or rather, fail to convince other people it does), failing to revolutionize physics. Unlike yours, my theory is 100% repeatable, has a large body of evidence to support it, and has not been disproved so far. Do the same with your theory - get some real evidence and show us (scientifically, i.e. not on a faith-based "trust me it works" foundation) that you were right all along and that known physics are completely wrong. Then, and only then, people will pay attention to your theory. Open-mindedness isn't the problem here - it's just that looking at all the evidence, it's far easier to agree with my theory than with yours (as they are mutually exclusive).

Edited March 21, 2014 by Bacterius

[Dust]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Not really, no. There's no agreement on what constitutes an "extraordinary" claim or extraordinary evidence.

Claiming to have disproven Newton's Third Law is just about as extraordinary as claims can possibly get - and I'm sure there is a high degree of agreement on this. The claim that this device you've built - however much effort, sweat, blood and tears you've put into it - exposes a flaw in quite possibly the most fundamental law of motion, is going to require an extraordinarily convincing demonstration, including rigorously and thoroughly isolating the device from all - and there are many - possible sources of momentum transfer.

Until I see such a demonstration that proves your hypothesis, all I see is a device utilizing friction to skooch its way down the rails like a kid skooching his chair towards the dinner table.

[M Drive]

" I ask you, does the claim that I personally live on the moon require as much evidence for you to believe it as the claim I have hair."

If you wanted to prove it to me I'd require exactly as much evidence as needed for both. I wouldn't require "extraordinary" evidence for either, whatever that is.

Anyway, the thread isn't progressing. This is the next experiment:

I'm going to suspend the machine with two fishing wires attached to the front and back of the machine, from the ceiling. On the bottom of the machine there's going to be a laser pointer pointed straight down at a piece of paper. When the machine is off and the dot from the laser pointer is still, I'm going to draw a cross exactly where the dot is.

Now when I turn on the machine the dot will begin to move back and forth, and probably from side to side slightly. If the dot can remain on one side of the cross more than the other (generally, over time) then it is my understanding that the machine has produced propulsion, as it should be impossible to achieve that.

Any objections? I realize air could be a problem to some, even if I don't believe it can produce a false-positive. In that case I'll just enclose the machine in a see-through box of some kind.

...Though I'm sure some people would rather believe I faked the results somehow than believe it's real. It's "more likely", after all.

Edited March 21, 2014 by M Drive

[K^2]

Sounds good to me. If you make good quality video, I can write a small program that tracks the dot from the laser on the frames, and does statistics on this position.

[Brotoro]

You should also mount laser pointers horizontally and track the points of light on the walls in front and behind the device, just to make sure the device isn't twisting "nose up" or "nose down" to cause the downward-pointing beam to deflect (to keep anybody from raising that objection). The horizontal beams should only move a little bit upwards from their rest positions as the pendulum deflects, showing that the device is remaining level.

[Vanamonde]

I'm curious. There is an awful lot of rotating machinery in the world already, and there has been at least since the industrial revolution. During that time, these machines have been built, maintained, studied, and minutely scrutinized by experts trying to squeeze ever-better performance out of them, using precision measuring devices and state-of-the-art physics, chemistry, and other sciences. How do suppose it is that you've managed to discover something they all overlooked?

[DJEN]

Research done by a non-professional is like trying to build a house without the proper knowledge.

The best a man like that can do is making a cardboard cutout of a house and calling it a real house.

Oh well, I give up. Your passion towards research is unstoppable at best. There's no way I can stop you, for my knowledge is also lacking. So, I can only say one thing; good luck.

[Z-Man]

You should also mount laser pointers horizontally and track the points of light on the walls in front and behind the device, just to make sure the device isn't twisting "nose up" or "nose down" to cause the downward-pointing beam to deflect (to keep anybody from raising that objection). The horizontal beams should only move a little bit upwards from their rest positions as the pendulum deflects, showing that the device is remaining level.

That could be useful. And make sure the fishing lines are parallel at the start. If they are not, a simple internal shift in weight can produce a permanent tilt and thus movement of your laser dot. And ideally, mount the device so that in operation, its average center of mass is in the center of the fishing lines, and that the downward laser pointer is also right below the average center of mass. That way, expected rotations about the Z axis influence it the least.

[Red Iron Crown]

Research done by a non-professional is like trying to build a house without the proper knowledge.

Yeah, it's pretty much impossible for, say, a patent clerk to come up with a new theory that demonstrates that Newton's laws are incomplete. We should dismiss any such claims out of hand.

[Kerbart]

Yeah, it's pretty much impossible for, say, a patent clerk to come up with a new theory that demonstrates that Newton's laws are incomplete. We should dismiss any such claims out of hand.

Ouch, there are so many inaccuracies in that statement that it almost hurts.

• Newton's laws are still valid for everyday physics; there's nothing in Einstein's theory that says "You have it 180° wrong regarding everyday physics"
  
• Perpetuum Mobile's and reactionless drives are not "an addition to Newton's laws;" they are a complete denial of Newton's laws and our understanding of thermodynamics. Is it possible that we somehow have missed that in the past 500 years? Sure it is. Just like it's possible that from now on, for the rest of my life, I'm going to win the powerball every week. Possible. Just don't bet on it.
  
• Einstein's theory explains why Newton's model of the solar system is not accurate once you get into the n-th decimal. It's not like it's describing something entirely different. The planets still go around the sun in (near) elliptical paths; with only slight deviations from Newton's model.
  
• The whole "patent clerk" thing is getting kind of stale. Coming out of college Einstein couldn't find a scientific job and did hold a position at a patent office for a few years. But by the time he developed his relativity theory he was already an established scientist who had held teaching positions at various universities. It's like claiming that a Nobel prize winner "is a humble foot soldier" because he or she spent a year in the army as a draftee.
  

As said before: the best way to shut up the cynics (including me): just build the damn machine. Until then you will not find a lot of interest from the scientific community.

[Red Iron Crown]

Ouch, there are so many inaccuracies in that statement that it almost hurts.

• Newton's laws are still valid for everyday physics; there's nothing in Einstein's theory that says "You have it 180° wrong regarding everyday physics"
  
• Perpetuum Mobile's and reactionless drives are not "an addition to Newton's laws;" they are a complete denial of Newton's laws and our understanding of thermodynamics. Is it possible that we somehow have missed that in the past 500 years? Sure it is. Just like it's possible that from now on, for the rest of my life, I'm going to win the powerball every week. Possible. Just don't bet on it.
  
• Einstein's theory explains why Newton's model of the solar system is not accurate once you get into the n-th decimal. It's not like it's describing something entirely different. The planets still go around the sun in (near) elliptical paths; with only slight deviations from Newton's model.
  
• The whole "patent clerk" thing is getting kind of stale. Coming out of college Einstein couldn't find a scientific job and did hold a position at a patent office for a few years. But by the time he developed his relativity theory he was already an established scientist who had held teaching positions at various universities. It's like claiming that a Nobel prize winner "is a humble foot soldier" because he or she spent a year in the army as a draftee.
  

As said before: the best way to shut up the cynics (including me): just build the damn machine. Until then you will not find a lot of interest from the scientific community.

I don't know, relativity defied conservation of energy and conservation of mass, which were supported by about as much empirical evidence as conservation of momentum is. It also introduced the idea that measurements vary depending on where the observer is. It was pretty revolutionary at the time, and many well-trained scientists were very skeptical of it.

Your second and third points are good, and I agree with them. I wasn't aware of the timing of Einstein's change to an academic career, thanks for that.

My point was that dismissing claims based on the education or training level of the claimant is argumentum ad hominem. It's fine to say that something is wrong because it violates well established scientific principles; it's a logical fallacy to say that something is wrong because it wasn't done by a professional.