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: 82008
  • *Latest: jojo500

  • *Total Posts: 493070
  • *Total Topics: 14499
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 5
  • *Guests: 100
  • *Total: 105

Facebook

Author Topic: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me  (Read 47277 times)

Offline lumen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1333
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #60 on: December 12, 2013, 06:18:08 AM »
It also looks like you would have better control and response if you didn't allow the arms to move out so far.
Starting the retract while the arms are still rotating smoothly looks like it could increase the pulling effect.
The same force that is pulling the arms out could work with the angle change of the arms to increase the pull.

Possibly not, but that's how it appears.



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #60 on: December 12, 2013, 06:18:08 AM »

Offline M Drive Inventor

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #61 on: December 12, 2013, 06:23:23 AM »
I literally only control the rotation with the screwdriver button. It's hard to do any kind of smooth motion consistently. The one time I did, I got the best result ever (3rd clip).



Offline conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1553
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #63 on: December 12, 2013, 12:32:05 PM »
@M-Drive:

Please study the patents in the list

http://whyiswaldo.tumblr.com/post/30521292371/free-energy-systems-patents

provided by Wings. Wings made you a very important gift by posting this list, it saves you years of research.

A misconception about gyroscopes:

Gyroscopes do not "cling" to space, they just do not want to loose the orientation in space. Look at the drawing.

Greetings, Conrad


Offline ingyenenergiagep

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #64 on: December 12, 2013, 04:42:36 PM »
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...

Reactionless drive is not overunity. It is simple physic. 2 or more weight accelerating, decelerating to more directions, and the Newton III. against-force moves the body.

I want build reactionless drive to my car/flying saucer, if this type of drive cheaper or better, than the original transmission.
I want build cheaper and faster  travel machines. ;-)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #64 on: December 12, 2013, 04:42:36 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1553
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #65 on: December 12, 2013, 05:58:58 PM »
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...

Reactionless drive is not overunity. It is simple physic. 2 or more weight accelerating, decelerating to more directions, and the Newton III. against-force moves the body.

I want build reactionless drive to my car/flying saucer, if this type of drive cheaper or better, than the original transmission.
I want build cheaper and faster  travel machines. ;-)

If it were just simple physics we all would fly around in saucers driven by a reactionless drive. Do you realy think you are the first one who had this idea? Countless people have tried and failed. All observations of natur so far showed that a reactionless drive is not possible. All the satellites using gyroscopes to rotate themselves show that their centre of mass rests in place, they just just rotate around their centre of mass.

The Dean Drive and the Laithwaite's machine could not be proven convincingly. Still, some people believe they would work. I do not.

Greetings, Conrad

Offline tim123

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 509
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #66 on: December 12, 2013, 06:44:26 PM »
The trouble is all these machines seem to involve throwing around big weights of one sort or another - and that's just difficult to machine. It means that prototypes deliver lumpy power - which is difficult to validate.

Some speculate that Townsend-Brown's effect is due to the electric field causing an imbalance in the centrifugal force of the electrons in the material. If true - that would be a reactionless drive... And it has smooth power delivery...

:)
Tim

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #66 on: December 12, 2013, 06:44:26 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline ingyenenergiagep

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #67 on: December 12, 2013, 07:19:33 PM »
Quote
If it were just simple physics we all would fly around in saucers driven by a reactionless drive. Do you realy think you are the first one who had this idea? Countless people have tried and failed. All observations of natur so far showed that a reactionless drive is not possible. All the satellites using gyroscopes to rotate themselves show that their centre of mass rests in place, they just just rotate around their centre of mass.

We need enough strong and light motors and energy sources to flight. But a weaker motor can push a car on ground...

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13556
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #68 on: December 12, 2013, 11:21:33 PM »
How many days does it take to test the proposition that the machine pushes against the track in order to move forward? I've suggested two variants of a simple test of this, that a dedicated experimenter _interested in the truth_ could perform in an afternoon. Yet what we see coming from this inventor is just more iterations of the same mistaken assumptions concerning bearings and stick-slip friction, and no attempts at all to actually test the proposition that the device pushes against the track and thus is _not_ reactionless.

It would be _trivial_ for this inventor to demonstrate, once and for all, that there is no "push" against the track, or floor... if that were indeed the case. Marbles, a couple of pieces of plate glass, a precise level, some good data gathered and displayed in a video.... trivial to show that the device moves across the top glass without pushing the top glass backwards or in any other direction. Twenty dollars worth of apparatus, an afternoon's work.... and M-drive will have demonstrated something that no other "reactionless" drive builder has ever been able to demonstrate before. Or not, as the case may be.

As it stands now, we have only the videos that can and have been easily explained, even though M-drive doesn't want to believe the explanations. Fine, let him perform the definitive experiments that DO show no reaction against the track itself, since that reaction is the "sceptical" explanation for the device's motion. Disprove the sceptics, just show that the track (or top glass surface without track) remains motionless when it is properly tested for reaction.

Stick-slip friction should be symmetrical? Of course this isn't true at all. It's an example of one of M-Drive's mistaken assumptions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHlosB7v__c

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13556
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #69 on: December 12, 2013, 11:27:11 PM »
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.

How convenient that you cannot provide any real data about this claim of yours. My herd of invisible pink unicorns is laughing about it still. (We just got back from showing them to a university professor, who is really impressed, but we can't talk about it due to our NDAs.)

I don't believe this claim, and I know people with _lots_ of money who have been trying to do this very thing for many years (Joe Firmage and Motion Sciences to mention just one very-well-funded group working on "streptation" and gyro antigravity) and they haven't been able to do it. So without any supporting evidence for the claim, I've got to say that either you are mistaken or you have been the victim of a hoax yourself.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #69 on: December 12, 2013, 11:27:11 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline M Drive Inventor

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #70 on: December 13, 2013, 01:28:23 AM »
How many days does it take to test the proposition that the machine pushes against the track in order to move forward? I've suggested two variants of a simple test of this, that a dedicated experimenter _interested in the truth_ could perform in an afternoon.
At first you had my interest, now you have my attention. (And it's not like I ignored you, I'm just very, very lazy. :))

I thought I had to mount wheels along the entire track, and have something hard under those wheels (as my apartment floor is pretty soft, and things will sink down into the plastic floor), which would be pretty cumbersome and somewhat expensive (I figure at least $120 in bearings and materials). Can you tell me more about how marbles and/or glass can be used? I'm all ears here if it only means spending a few "bucks" (I'm Swedish).

Also I'd like your opinion on my other idea to prove it's the gyroscopes responsible for the propulsion. It may not be as good as yours though, but it's free to perform as I already have the materials, so why not, right? Basically, I can set up the gyros so that they can move more or less identically without them spinning (they spin at several thousand RPM). They will jerk backwards and forwards as the scaffold rotates around. The wheels will even 'skip' and the wagon shift about like in the clips.

This will not produce propulsion though. It'll literally stay in one place and simply display normal Newtonian physics.

Then, without making any cuts in the video, I spin up the gyroscopes, move a couple of springs, and start the experiment over. According to physics, this should not affect anything, so if it moves forward this time it should raise some eyebrows, as that simply shouldn't be.

I can do this experiment in conjunction with yours.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13556
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #71 on: December 13, 2013, 03:04:44 AM »
You take a piece of _plate glass_ of suitable size and place it on your floor. You level this plate precisely, using an accurate level like a machinist's level, and shims underneath the plate. Then you strew a handful of marbles or other precise spheres like ball-bearing balls across this first piece of glass. They should be far enough apart so that they don't interfere with each other while rolling. Plate glass, also called "float glass",  is made by a process that produces a very smooth and level surface and sheets of constant thickness. You may be able to find large scraps at your local glass supplier; it is used for tabletops, for example.

You then take a second piece of plate glass, preferably ballasted (use modelling clay or whatever)  so it weighs the same as your Device Under Test (DUT), and lay that down on top of the marbles or balls. This provides a pair of smooth surfaces that are nearly frictionless and that can slide/roll freely with respect to each other.

Then you place your DUT on top of the top plate and turn it on. Using a camera on a tripod, you look at the motion of the DUT and the top plate of glass. A fixed pointer, mounted off the moving parts and looking at a reference mark, is useful to track the actual motions of the parts.

If your device is truly reactionless and does not push against the substrate, the top plate of glass will not move at all and the DUT will travel as it does in your videos. However, if the top plate of glass DOES move, at all, in any direction... then it is being pushed against by the DUT. This of course would mean that the DUT is not reactionless.

What I predict will happen is that the DUT and the top glass plate will move in opposite directions, and the _total_ Center of Mass of the DUT+top plate will remain in the same position, or will oscillate or orbit around that same position, and there will be no net travel of the system.

The reason for ballasting the top plate so that it has the same mass as the DUT should be obvious: Conservation of Momentum predicts that the motions of the DUT and the top plate will be equal in magnitude but opposite in direction in that case. If the glass is much lighter than the DUT it will move farther, and if the plate is much heavier it will move less. And if the plate is fixed to the ground, as your track is... then it won't _appear_ to move at all, but of course momentum is still conserved since you are pushing against the Earth itself, and you won't see that move very much.


As to your second part... again, you are making assumptions and asserting them as if they were fact, when they aren't.
Quote
Then, without making any cuts in the video, I spin up the gyroscopes, move a couple of springs, and start the experiment over. According to physics, this should not affect anything
No, you have changed the geometry, the amount of stored energy, and the distribution of forces in your apparatus. According to the real physics I learned in school and on the bench, this can make a huge difference in the behaviour of any apparatus. The very fact that your manipulation does indeed affect the motion of the apparatus proves that your assumption is wrong, but it does not prove that gyroscopes can produce unidirectional reactionless motion.




Offline M Drive Inventor

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #72 on: December 13, 2013, 03:33:18 AM »
in any direction

If the plate twists slightly (clockwise or counter-clockwise), but does not move backwards it should be satisfactory, right? I can't put it into words exactly, but I believe 'action-reaction' is conserved separately from that phenomenon. We're dealing with gyroscopes after all. They tend to twist stuff around.

Quote
As to your second part... again, you are making assumptions and asserting them as if they were fact, when they aren't. No, you have changed the geometry, the amount of stored energy, and the distribution of forces in your apparatus. According to the real physics I learned in school and on the bench, this can make a huge difference in the behaviour of any apparatus. The very fact that your manipulation does indeed affect the motion of the apparatus proves that your assumption is wrong, but it does not prove that gyroscopes can produce unidirectional reactionless motion.
Oh sure, I'm not denying I've changed a lot of things, just not in relation to the stick-slip phenomenon. What I meant with "According to physics, this should not affect anything" was simply that reactionless drives should be impossible. Spinning up the gyroscopes shouldn't affect anything in terms or propulsion.

Making a certain motion using normal weights on a wagon shouldn't be able to produce propulsion. Spinning up those weights and making a practically identical motion shouldn't change that. It should still just stay in one spot and display normal Newtonian physics.

Your experiment sounds reasonably simple to perform though. I don't know what "plate glass" is called in Swedish, but I'll look it up. I have bearings I can remove the balls from, and I suppose I only need 2 pieces of glass large enough to hold the machine. Should be simple enough.

Offline M Drive Inventor

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #73 on: December 13, 2013, 03:53:26 AM »
Hm.. one thing though. The bearings, even if mounted directly on top of a very flat piece of glass, will still have some friction in them. The machine can't produce propulsion unless the wheels move backwards and forwards. The small amount of friction left in the bearings (I've removed all lubricant from them to minimize this) will possible move the piece of glass. Though, that's true in both directions. The wheels will move back, possibly dragging the glass with it slightly, then move forward, and drag the piece of glass with it again.

So just have that in mind. If the piece of glass ends up having moved more forward instead of backward as you predicted, it shouldn't be a problem.


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13556
Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #74 on: December 13, 2013, 04:43:52 AM »
Hm.. one thing though. The bearings, even if mounted directly on top of a very flat piece of glass, will still have some friction in them. The machine can't produce propulsion unless the wheels move backwards and forwards. The small amount of friction left in the bearings (I've removed all lubricant from them to minimize this) will possible move the piece of glass. Though, that's true in both directions. The wheels will move back, possibly dragging the glass with it slightly, then move forward, and drag the piece of glass with it again.

So just have that in mind. If the piece of glass ends up having moved more forward instead of backward as you predicted, it shouldn't be a problem.

Now it appears that you are arguing that the friction IS sufficient to couple momentum between the substrate and the DUT, which is my point exactly.  However, your predicted motion (both moving in same direction) is clearly opposite from my prediction (both moving in opposite directions). So it should be easy to tell them apart by doing the experiment.

If the top plate moves _at all_ it is moving by reaction from your device. What else could be moving it? Twisting, turning, or linear translation/oscillation is irrelevant, really, since nothing can move the top plate in any direction at all, except by reaction from your device.
You are right that angular momentum and linear momentum are separately conserved, but reaction is reaction, whether it is rotational or linear.

Google tells me "planglas" or "spegelglas" might be Swedish for "plate glass".

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
« Reply #74 on: December 13, 2013, 04:43:52 AM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: