Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 81926
  • *Latest: Strike

  • *Total Posts: 490831
  • *Total Topics: 14443
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 257
  • *Total: 259

Facebook

Author Topic: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me  (Read 46051 times)

Offline hdeasy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #45 on: December 11, 2013, 03:42:31 PM »
By the way - the Biefeld Brown or TTB effect is real - check out http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm . Also Serrano's version in a vacuum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGN65lse5yE .I think I've figured out the mechanism and will soon test a new enhanced lifter (maybe in 2014).

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #45 on: December 11, 2013, 03:42:31 PM »

Offline conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1545
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #46 on: December 11, 2013, 05:23:50 PM »
As  ijust posted as well on the youtube video, Just slip and stick - no mechincal thing like that will do it. I know - check out mine: Seems to accelerate: CIMG4183.AVI Even to weigh less when point up: CIMG0154.AVI .
But it was proved to be just slip and stick for movement and the scales were faulty. Easy to make a mistake.

@hdeasy: I like your thing sliding over the floor. It works realy well without wheels. Thank you for showing it.

I did a lot of experiments with a "chariot" that had four ratchet wheels (wheels that only turn in one direction). This works nicely because the "slip" forward is enormous (it shoots away) and the "stick" is almost solid as long as one uses rubber wheels. With ratchet wheels "slowly" does it, otherwise the "slip" can not run its course. With slowly I mean a low frequency repetition of the unbalanced fast weight movement.

There is a patent about a military vehicle for sliding over mud, I just can not find it at the moment. It has four skis instead of wheels, the front ones could be steered, and it moves just like your little thing. Must be realy comfortable to ride in it  ;) .

This "throwing around a weight" is intriguing but not a "space drive". Many generations of "inventors" got fooled by it.

Lifters:

I experimented a lot with "lifters", they work. I read that it is air ions which get fired away and cause the repulsion. The people who do "lifters" in vacuum do not want to admit that the effect diminished with the increase of vacuum.

I built round lifters (like a tube or cylinder) and one could feel the air rushing away at 45.000 Volt, like a mild jet. My best lifter had a 2 gram thrust, carefully measure with a 2 meter high pendulum.

Strange enough a lifter also works with alternating current because negative air ions are much heavier than positive air ions and therefore one has a push in one direction. Of course it works better with DC. Air ions cluster up to 400 molecules around them becauser they have charge. Negatively charged air ions cluster much more molecules around them which makes them heavier. If I rember correctly it is up to a 100 molecules around a positively charged air ion and up to 400 around a negatively charged air ion.

Many people do not believe that it is a air ion phaenomen, but I saw a lot of evidence for that theory. One sees it easily with tube or cylinder "lifters".

Greetings, Conrad

P.S.: Yes, "lifters" is off topic, sorry.


Offline e2matrix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1771
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #47 on: December 11, 2013, 06:55:55 PM »
Sorry I just can't let that statement go unchallenged or at least clarified. Are you implying that it levitates, or merely allows the support to be offset 90 degrees due to gyroscopic forces. if you mean the former I'd be very suspicious of your powers of observation. The latter is not remarkable at all if you understand how gyroscopes work.
I know how gyro's work as I've had one since I was a young kid.   Yes it levitates and hovers in mid air - no support.   It was taken to show to a university professor.   I have not had contact with the inventor lately so I don't know where it's at but I know he wanted to commercialize it.  I don't want to take this thread off topic and I really don't have any more to add except I know it is possible with the right setup.   

Offline M Drive Inventor

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #48 on: December 11, 2013, 07:16:55 PM »
So, if we can not know how it exactly works, what can we discuss?
Conrad, as I've stated before, if you're so sure it's being propelled by friction somehow, then please provide an argument as to how instead of just saying you don't believe in reactionless drives.

The bearings are perfectly aligned with the horizontal and vertical parts of the track, and they move equally well back and forth. This means that whenever the gyros move forward and the wheels backward, they're allowed to do so, and traction (the 'stick' part of stick-slip) is practically eliminated as a factor.

None of the arguments so far have even tried to explain what happens in the first clip. Just saying "stick-slip" over and over again without providing a detailed explanation of how doesn't explain how the M Drive propels itself.

But.. I guess that's a good thing. If the thread devolves into pure guesswork and opinions as it has it means I'm on to something. I should focus on making the machine work even better instead of trying to please every single person.


Offline conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1545
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #49 on: December 11, 2013, 08:02:21 PM »
Quote
The bearings are perfectly aligned with the horizontal and vertical parts of the track, and they move equally well back and forth.

The bearings might move equally well back and forth when the machine is pushed by hand along the track, but once your machine starts to wobble it is twisted and this twist provides some friction in the rails. Just a thought, one can not tell anything from a video.

But you get it wrong: I do not have to explain your machine to you, you have to explain it to the public if you want to be believed.

Quote
None of the arguments so far have even tried to explain what happens in the first clip.

Again, you have to explain what happens, how can anybody seeing the video explain anything?

What makes your machine different to all the known ones?

What is the exact mechanism you think is unique?

Which principle in your machine is overcoming conservation of momentum.

And I guesse you do not want to disclose your "secret". That is fine, but how can we discuss it, if we are not supposed to know.

By looking at the video one can only say "nice try", what else is there to say.

You make the same error as most "inventors". Nobody has to explain why your machine does not work, specially if no details are disclosed. You have the burden to convince the public by providing conclusive evidence which must be more than a video.

 
Quote
I should focus on making the machine work even better instead of trying to please every single person.

You do not have to please every single person, but you have to provide compelling evidence or at least a compelling explanation besides "it has no friction".

You will have to please all the people who shall believe in your invention. Nobody will be easily convinced that you have overcome "conservation of momentum", you have a heavy burden there. Do not care about me, I will never buy your machine, but just imagine how much explanation and proof you will have to give to people in order to get a substantial amount of money? Nobody gives you money for "it has no friction".

It is always the same with impossible machines: they just have to be made better to work.

If it makes you feel better: I can not explain your machine and I do not know why it can not overcome "conservation of energy" (but I do not have to know why it does not work, you have to explain why it would work). You are the greates inventor, you will save the world, you found the most important principle for a space drive (but I do not know why and why it should work). I can not say anything against it (because I know nothing of your machine).

I am completely unimportant, you do not have to do anything for me, you do not even have to think about what I say, please ignore me. But eventually you will want money for what you do and then you have to be convincing and then you need proof and then you need all the arguments you can get. And you will not be able to demand from the money people that they prove your machine does not work.

Don`t you see how ridiculous it is if someone turns the burden of proof around? Go to a bank and ask for a loan because you have invented a great thing. Will they prove that your thing does not work, and if they can't, will the bank give you a loan? Will they be content with the videos you show just now on YouTube?

But it is always the same story, you turn the burden of proof around. I am tired of it. Sorry that I got involved, I should have known better.

Greetings, Conrad

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #49 on: December 11, 2013, 08:02:21 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tim123

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 509
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #50 on: December 11, 2013, 08:21:32 PM »
My opinion about a reactionless drive:
- It is not possible in the ordinary world we live in...

Hi Conrad,
  thanks for saying so much in previous posts - you saved my fingers :)

I'm interested to know - do you think all the previous inventors of reactionless drives were frauds or misguided?

I thought that the Dean Drive was supposed to work. (http://www.inertialpropulsion.com/dean_drive.htm) and that Laithwaite's machine worked too...

I know they're impossibly difficult to make practical - but that aside...

After all, you're still on his forum. If you believe in OU, then surely this is just another aspect of it. Like anti-gravity...

Basically, we all believe in breaking the law. That's why we're here.. :D

Regards
Tim

Offline M Drive Inventor

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #51 on: December 11, 2013, 08:22:18 PM »
The bearings might move equally well back and forth when the machine is pushed by hand along the track, but once your machine starts to wobble it is twisted and this twist provides some friction in the rails. Just a thought, one can not tell anything from a video.

If it makes you feel better: I can not explain your machine
You claim I'm turning the burden of proof around. I've provided evidence that the machine works, as it moves forward. It accelerates in such a way that shouldn't be possible using friction. If you don't believe that, then I can't help you. How fast does it have to go for you to stop believing it's friction causing the propulsion? Or is there no such speed limit? Would you still claim it's friction if I were running beside a version of the M Drive that only had 4 skateboard wheels (no side wheels)?

As for the 'wobble theory' it doesn't explain the first clip (March 2013). There's no wobble there. The wheels move back and forth in a straight line and there's no track, therefore no 'wall' either. So as it stands, that theory is bust.

If you look back a page or two, I did explain how I think the gyros provide thrust to the user tim123. What happens is that the gyros will want to shift forward (towards the direction of travel) when the scaffold rotates. Then, when you decrease the rotational speed, the springs will force the gyros back from their forward position. It's this motion that causes the propulsion effect. What actually happens is impossible to tell just by looking at it, but everything points to the fact that if you 'fight' against gyros and pull them away from the direction of travel, which is also the direction they want to precess, a propulsion effect will arise.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #51 on: December 11, 2013, 08:22:18 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline PiCéd

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #52 on: December 11, 2013, 08:42:51 PM »
You must see the video of Thomas Kim named ping pong ball particle accelerator, it is aproximately the same thing of your trick

Offline conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1545
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #53 on: December 11, 2013, 08:50:08 PM »

I'm interested to know - do you think all the previous inventors of reactionless drives were frauds or misguided?

I thought that the Dean Drive was supposed to work. (http://www.inertialpropulsion.com/dean_drive.htm) and that Laithwaite's machine worked too...

I know they're impossibly difficult to make practical - but that aside...


As far as I could find out, none of the reactionless drives worked. The inventors were misguided (but most of them were well meaning). But this is what I found out, other people were more easily convinced, which is fine with me.

Quote
After all, you're still on his forum. If you believe in OU, then surely this is just another aspect of it. Like anti-gravity...

Basically, we all believe in breaking the law. That's why we're here.. :D

I belive that there are more "forms of energy" than we know till now, we just can not measure these energies because we have no clue and no instruments. For me the "neutrinos" are a source of hope, but I can not prove anything, just a hunch.

I am in these forums because every now and then I see something nice to replicate. I like to build things (like other people like to paint, make drawings or do poetry). Unfortunately, the realy interesting things I saw in these forums were always a bummer and the self proclaimed OU-inventors are a real pain. Why can't they be just a bit modest and more strict with their measurements?

Yes, I would like to breake a law of physics, but please hit me hard if I forget to provide convincing proof.

And if I want you to prove that I am wrong, please shoot me, it will be a mercy killing, I do not want to live out my live in a loony home.

Yes, I should have stopped writing in this particular thread, excuse me, I try to shut up.

Greetings, Conrad

Offline tim123

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 509
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #54 on: December 11, 2013, 08:52:31 PM »
You claim I'm turning the burden of proof around. I've provided evidence that the machine works, as it moves forward. It accelerates in such a way that shouldn't be possible using friction.

It looks like a classic example of the stick-slip phenomena to me.

Quote
I think the gyros provide thrust.... What happens is that the gyros will want to shift forward (towards the direction of travel) when the scaffold rotates.

Yep, and they push back on the frame when they do that. That's the opposing force. It just happens slower. Hence stick-slip.

Regards
Tim

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #54 on: December 11, 2013, 08:52:31 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline M Drive Inventor

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #55 on: December 11, 2013, 09:00:48 PM »
Yep, and they push back on the frame when they do that. That's the opposing force. It just happens slower. Hence stick-slip.
Nooo, for stick-slip to work you need a faster backwards motion, not slower.

The gyros need to move forward slowly in order to make the wheels stay stationary during the entire process, just like your foot stay stationary against the ground when the other moves forward. When the gyros has managed to move to its most forward position, then you need a rapid backwards motion in order to make the wheels unstick. That's exactly how 'scooting yourself forward on an office chair' works.

Not to mention the bearings never stay still for more than a moment. Not to mention the backwards and forwards motion of the gyros are roughly the same speed all the time.

Not to mention, the machine moves consistently forward. Time after time. If it really was stick-slip it'd be move in a random direction, yet I have hours of footage of the machine consistently moving in only one direction.

Offline lumen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1333
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #56 on: December 12, 2013, 12:58:13 AM »
If the gyros pull themselves ahead when rotated and you gain motion by pulling them back, isn't that a unnecessary step?
 
If something moves ahead and you gain position by jerking it back, isn't the real work done by the something pulling itself ahead?
 
Why not just put the angled gyros on a wheel and rotate it. As it pulls ahead then everything pulls ahead.


Offline M Drive Inventor

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #57 on: December 12, 2013, 01:45:33 AM »
If the gyros pull themselves ahead when rotated and you gain motion by pulling them back, isn't that a unnecessary step?
 
If something moves ahead and you gain position by jerking it back, isn't the real work done by the something pulling itself ahead?
 
Why not just put the angled gyros on a wheel and rotate it. As it pulls ahead then everything pulls ahead.
I'm... not following you. When the gyros move forward in the video (you do this by rotating the scaffold) you're not moving the center of gravity. The gyros only push back on the wagon, forcing the wheels and wagon back slightly.

According to physics, when the gyros are forced back, the wheels should move forward exactly the same length as they moved back. This is what every single physicist in the world will tell you. Gyroscopes shouldn't be able to move the center of gravity like in the video, but, here we are. When the gyros are forced back, something weird happens, and the wheels move forward a lot more than they moved back.

It's as if the gyros latch on to space itself, like they're pulling an invisible rope. Not saying that's what actually happens, it's just an analogy. But the point is, the gyros shouldn't affect the wagon like that.

Offline lumen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1333
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #58 on: December 12, 2013, 03:04:26 AM »
What is the force that pulls the arms ahead? If the gyros are pushing back on the wagon then you need to try the same experiment without the gyros running.
I think the gyros pull themselves ahead in forced precession from rotating the arms, then pulling them back tries to rotate the gyros again from the angle change of the arms going back, which is resisted and pulls the wagon.
 


Offline M Drive Inventor

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #59 on: December 12, 2013, 03:16:53 AM »
I think the gyros pull themselves ahead in forced precession from rotating the arms, then pulling them back tries to rotate the gyros again from the angle change of the arms going back, which is resisted and pulls the wagon.

That's absolutely right. It is resisted, which is a normal already explained part of gyroscope behavior, but the resistance shouldn't pull the wagon. It's a completely unknown, unexplored phenomenon. And to claim that is apparently very controversial, as it proves Newton's third law of motion isn't infallible, which no one has been able to do yet.
Quote
What is the force that pulls the arms ahead? If the gyros are pushing back on the wagon then you need to try the same experiment without the gyros running.
It's the gyroscopes that twist and turn when you precess them that's causing the arms to go forward. The gyroscopes want to align with the rotation to reach the point of minimal potential energy, like in this video (40 seconds in): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1AHzQep1I8

I have of course tried spinning the scaffold around without the gyros running, but nothing happens. The gyros are pulled out by centrifugal forces, but the arms are already in that position, so the gyros/arms don't move back and forth when you rotate the scaffold. The wagon just stays in one place.

I have figured out how to make them move back and forth without the gyros spinning (running, as you said). So, they're coming. That experiment should be convincing evidence that the gyros are in fact responsible for the propulsion, not some hard to spot friction. I'm excited. :)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #59 on: December 12, 2013, 03:16:53 AM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: