Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Antigravity => Other antigravity machines and devices => Topic started by: M Drive Inventor on December 08, 2013, 07:45:09 PM

Title: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on December 08, 2013, 07:45:09 PM
Hey all. Just thought I'd give you a heads up. I just recently released a video of my reactionless drive invention, the M Drive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYliuFLMIHY

Tell me what you think. I'm interested in hearing everyone's opinion.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: TinselKoala on December 09, 2013, 02:37:02 AM
What about your device is new, besides using an old skateboard as a chassis?

Shipov, Thornson, Cox, Dean, Kidd, Firmage, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIt661hfr9c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIt661hfr9c)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9-wdV32hos

Have you ever thought about how an ice skater is able to move on the ice, since the rails of the skates against the ice make a great frictionless track? Your device is moving on its track by the same mechanisms.

To be "reactionless" there must be no pushing on the track, and your device definitely does push on the track, as you could demonstrate by putting the _track_ on another "frictionless" surface like another track or a 2-d system of balls on a flat plate. When your device lurches forward, the track it's on will be lurched backwards, thus demonstrating the reaction force between your device and its track.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on December 09, 2013, 03:19:20 AM
I've replied to your post in the youtube video and I'd appreciate it if you answer me there too. Either way I'll give a slightly different reply here.

I don't know what makes you say it pushes back on the track. The 8 bearings on the M Drive runs along both the ground on the track and the walls of the track. There's no traction to speak of, and if it was, it'd be equal in both directions, so it wouldn't favor any one direction.

As for Shipov and Thornon's devices, neither of them, nor any other reactionless drive I know of, achieves the kind of thrust the M Drive does. In fact, they both seem to come to a complete stop once they're turned off, something that doesn't happen with the M Drive, suggesting it's not a "stick-slip drive".
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: TinselKoala on December 09, 2013, 07:34:22 AM
I've replied to your post in the youtube video and I'd appreciate it if you answer me there too. Either way I'll give a slightly different reply here.

I don't know what makes you say it pushes back on the track.
Because that is the "standard" explanation for the forward motion, and Momentum is Conserved, after all. Until you can actually demonstrate that it doesn't push against the track, you are only assuming that it does not. Since nobody yet has been able to avoid Conservation of Momentum, the smart money says you haven't either, until you can provide evidence that directly speaks to the question.
Quote
The 8 bearings on the M Drive runs along both the ground on the track and the walls of the track. There's no traction to speak of,
That "to speak of" is pretty important in this context of a claim to overcome Conservation of Momentum. It cannot and must not be neglected. In an experiment I currently have running, I am dealing with differences in frictional "traction" or magnetic thrusts that come out to mere microJoules of kinetic energy. This is nothing "to speak of" but it would make the difference between a failure and a self-runner.
Quote
and if it was, it'd be equal in both directions, so it wouldn't favor any one direction.
This is clearly wrong, and I hope I don't have to explain why or how.
Quote

As for Shipov and Thornon's devices, neither of them, nor any other reactionless drive I know of, achieves the kind of thrust the M Drive does. In fact, they both seem to come to a complete stop once they're turned off, something that doesn't happen with the M Drive, suggesting it's not a "stick-slip drive".
What it suggests to me is a couple of things. First, your track might not be perfectly level, and second... once it's in motion on a _really frictionless_ smooth track, why would you expect it to stop at all, even after it's turned off? Your device comes to a complete stop too, eventually, doesn't it? Based on other things relating to structure and stability in your build, as shown in the video, I would suspect the track levelling might be an issue. You  might also be very surprised at how much "push" can be transmitted by the wires, even through wiring that seems pretty limp.

In a comment on the video I described a system that you could use to test the issue of reaction against the track. You can probably think of some as well. A simple test of this kind could be very informative. If your device pushes the track backwards at all ... then it's not reactionless, is it?
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on December 09, 2013, 08:05:40 AM
Quote
This is clearly wrong, and I hope I don't have to explain why or how.
I don't mean to be picky, but seeing how the entire premise of your argument relies on that, I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist.

It just seems to me you're only assuming the bearings somehow "skates" along the tracks because they're unaligned(?). All the bearings are pointed forward and if the wagon tries to move back, it has the freedom to do so, meaning they don't have the ability to push the track backwards.

Besides, the clip shown at 1:55 demonstrates a long lasting acceleration, again suggesting it's not stick-slip.

However, I'll consider giving the track the ability to move back and forth as well. Hadn't thought of that before. As a side-note, look at the first clip again. Those red wood panels on the ground under the (first) M Drive weigh significantly less than the M Drive, and can slide along the floor of my apartment with relative ease, yet they don't move an inch backwards when the M Drive moves forward.

Thanks for all your input so far.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: conradelektro on December 09, 2013, 09:14:19 AM
M-Drive please do not be offended, a reactionless drive is not possible, see this Wikipedia explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionless_drive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionless_drive)

"A reactionless drive (also known by many other names, including as an inertial propulsion engine, a reactionless thruster, a reactionless engine, a bootstrap drive or an inertia drive) is a fictional or theorized method of propulsion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propulsion) wherein thrust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust) is generated without any need for an outside force or net momentum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum) exchange to produce linear motion. The name comes from Newton's Third Law of Motion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_Third_Law_of_Motion), which is usually expressed as, "[f]or every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". Such a drive would necessarily violate the law of conservation of momentum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_momentum), a fundamental principle of all current understandings of physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics). In addition, it can be shown that the law of conservation of energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy) would be violated by a reactionless drive."

There is a long history of people who made the same conceptual error. Your machine is very well built, but without friction (even if it is very little friction) it could not work. Please study what is said in the Wikipedia explanation.

Of course you could try nevertheless, but be aware that you would have to overcome very well established physical laws (conservation of momentum, conservation of energy). One can always doubt these well established "physical laws", but you will have to show a very convincing argument and scientists will not listen to you.

I do not want to debunk you, because you built such a nice setup, but your machine has been tried many times and it always failed. You can of course say, that you do not care and that you will move on with your work anyway. But please realise that you would revolutionise physics, which is very very difficult and physics has advanced so far, that "conservation of momentum" has been proven over and over again, you could say, it is basics of physics.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on December 09, 2013, 09:28:49 AM
One can always doubt these well established "physical laws", but you will have to show a very convincing argument and scientists will not listen to you.

Evidence will speak for it self. And if a scientist doesn't want to look at the experimental evidence because it contradicts his (or her) beliefs, then he is no real scientist.

About Newton's third law of motion though. To the best of my knowledge, it seems to have been established simply because nothing else has ever been observed. If that is the case, I have only this to say: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Not to mention it's kind of stupid to claim we know everything. I think we did that back in the days of Newton, and we all know how well that went.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: LibreEnergia on December 09, 2013, 12:41:55 PM
Evidence will speak for it self. And if a scientist doesn't want to look at the experimental evidence because it contradicts his (or her) beliefs, then he is no real scientist.

About Newton's third law of motion though. To the best of my knowledge, it seems to have been established simply because nothing else has ever been observed. If that is the case, I have only this to say: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Not to mention it's kind of stupid to claim we know everything. I think we did that back in the days of Newton, and we all know how well that went.

However, to suggest that what is shown in the video is in any way a "scientific experiment" that could legitimately provide evidence of a reactionless drive is absurd. You have not shown ANY evidence at all that the movement is not simply due to friction. Why should we believe that the track does in fact provide a frictionless surface?
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on December 09, 2013, 02:25:00 PM
You have not shown ANY evidence at all that the movement is not simply due to friction. Why should we believe that the track does in fact provide a frictionless surface?
Well that's certainly an opinion. If you have any arguments I'd be willing to try and counter them.

I never claimed the track was frictionless. However as stated before, the bearings (wheels) on the M Drive aren't angled or anything like that, so there's not more friction arising when it moves one way or another.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: LibreEnergia on December 09, 2013, 02:36:03 PM
Well that's certainly an opinion. If you have any arguments I'd be willing to try and counter them.

I never claimed the track was frictionless. However as stated before, the bearings (wheels) on the M Drive aren't angled or anything like that, so there's not more friction arising when it moves one way or another.

Obviously you are unaware that there is a difference between the static and dynamic coefficient of friction then. This will easily give rise to the ability to move in one direction using the timing of the thrusts.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on December 09, 2013, 03:02:37 PM
Obviously you are unaware that there is a difference between the static and dynamic coefficient of friction then. This will easily give rise to the ability to move in one direction using the timing of the thrusts.
I'm aware of the stick-slip aspect of friction. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but that requires that the wheels stay perfectly still against the metal track, as the gyros (in this case), move forward slowly, only to rapidly move backward? I don't see neither of those two things.

Bearings are almost constantly moving, never allowing for the "stick" part, and the gyros move back and forth at roughly the same speed.

Edit: I have hours of footage of the M Drive only moving in one direction, only by pressing one button (like in the two longer clips where I'm barefoot). Isn't it unlikely that I've perfectly timed the button presses each and every time?
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: LibreEnergia on December 09, 2013, 03:15:51 PM
I'm aware of the stick-slip aspect of friction. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but that requires that the wheels stay perfectly still against the metal track, as the gyros (in this case), move forward slowly, only to rapidly move backward? I don't see neither of those two things.

Bearings are almost constantly moving, never allowing for the "stick" part, and the gyros move back and forth at roughly the same speed.

Edit: I have hours of footage of the M Drive only moving in one direction, only by pressing one button (like in the two longer clips where I'm barefoot). Isn't it unlikely that I've perfectly timed the button presses each and every time?

Absolute rubbish. The device moves both backward and forwards. This implies it is stationary at some point in the cycle.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: tim123 on December 09, 2013, 06:10:55 PM
Hi M Drive :)
  I think your machine is cool! Awesome engineering skills...

However, I'd have to agree with the other guys that you need to put the track on rollers (or something) - so you can see if there is a reaction there...

It's not the smoothest drive I've ever seen... ;)
Are you up for discussing the mechanism in detail, or is it proprietary?

I think the reactionless drive is possible. The 'Dean Drive' passed all the tests, so I read:
http://www.inertialpropulsion.com/dean_drive.htm

Did you make or buy the gyros? I've been considering doing some experiments... I've been wondering if you could use gyros like the 'sails' of a wind-turbine, to 'catch the gravitational wind'. Because they turn any force on them through 90 degrees - perhaps it could be used to harvest gravity... Just a thought...

Regards
Tim
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on December 09, 2013, 06:18:22 PM
Absolute rubbish. The device moves both backward and forwards. This implies it is stationary at some point in the cycle.
Stationary perhaps, but not perfectly still for any longer periods of time, which is a requirement for stick-slip.

But this does bring up a good point. I should do a video segment where I show the track and wheels (bearings) more in detail. For instance they've been cleaned with a heavy duty degreaser  in order to remove all lubricants, making them spin with as little friction as possible.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on December 09, 2013, 06:35:42 PM
Are you up for discussing the mechanism in detail, or is it proprietary?

Did you make or buy the gyros?
First of all, thanks! I'm considering putting the "track on a track" so to speak, but if you want some anecdotal evidence, just look at the first clip in the video again. The red wooden panels move relatively easily along my apartment floor towards the end of the video when the machine jerks to the side, but they don't so much as budge when the machine moves forward.

I'm willing to discuss the mechanism in detail if you want. Here's a short description of what's going on.

Basically, when the scaffolding the gyros are attached to starts to rotate, the gyros will want to align themselves with the rotation. In this case it means they "pull" forward. So whenever the gyros are spinning around they will want to pull forward.

When you decrease the rotational speed of the scaffold, springs will try to pull the gyros back to their starting position. It's at this point that the center of gravity of the machine shifts and starts to move forward. It's funny that you mention that 90 degree thing. I have a theory that this isn't a true reactionless drive at all, it's just that the reaction isn't completely opposite, as the gyros would change "the angle of the reaction" by 90 degrees. Although, it's not so much a theory as a random thought I had.

In the videos there's a total of 4 gyros. I had the original ones from the March 2013 clip replaced. All of the gyros were custom made. You can't buy this stuff in stores after all.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: tim123 on December 09, 2013, 06:52:54 PM
I'm willing to discuss the mechanism in detail if you want...
Basically, when the scaffolding the gyros are attached to starts to rotate, the gyros will want to align themselves with the rotation. In this case it means they "pull" forward. So whenever the gyros are spinning around they will want to pull forward.

Thanks :)
  Isn't there a back-force on the frame from the gyro's precession forwards?

This vid shows a test of double-spinning gyros, it's pretty good:
Gyroscope flying saucer precession UFO (RimstarOrg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrAdABFrSlI

Quote
When you decrease the rotational speed of the scaffold, springs will try to pull the gyros back to their starting position. It's at this point that the center of gravity of the machine shifts and starts to move forward.

Agree that this bit would work...

Regards
Tim
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on December 09, 2013, 07:04:11 PM
  Isn't there a back-force on the frame from the gyro's precession forwards?

This vid shows a test of double-spinning gyros, it's pretty good:
Yes. The arms that hold the gyros are quite heavy, I think around 2 kilograms (roughly 4.5 pounds) each. When these arms, along with the gyros, move forward, that's when the wagon part will move back. This is normal Newtonian physics though.

Yeah, that video shows something that's been known for quite a while now, and it's been proven not to produce any propulsion or "weightloss". If I remove the springs from my invention it becomes utterly useless.

(PS. I edited my previous reply to you.)
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: conradelektro on December 09, 2013, 08:19:08 PM
@M Drive Inventor:

Because you write about Gyros, this did not work http://www.rexresearch.com/kidd/kidd.htm

Looking at your video, it seems to be exactly "stick and slip". Making the rails moveable themselves will not show you much. Whatever you do (as long as it is not "free floating in space"), you will have the "slip stick" situation. In space you will end up exactly where you started from.

The only way to get "action" from a weight is to throw it away. Any way trying to catch it (gyros or whatever) will give you the equal "reaction".

You will not want to hear that and you will think that you can overcome this fact or law, but please consider that exactly the gyros have been studied in this respect endlessly without success.

I appriciate research and building strange things, but do not destroy your life by hanging on to a dream which is easily disproven by 200 years of science. If it is only a hobby, fine, but if you are combining great expectations with your ideas, you will be in for a bad surprise. If you have enough money, I would not worry. But if you are taking on big hardships, you should reconsider and scale back your efforts.

I do not want to destroy your efforts but I wish you do not hurt yourself. Study a bit the physics of what you are trying and you will learn a lot.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on December 09, 2013, 08:30:40 PM
@M Drive Inventor:
So to summarize your position, "Please stop, we already know everything"?

I appreciate that you're only trying to look out for me and all, but I think you'll change your tune once I produce a video where I make the M Drive perform roughly the same motions, but without the gyroscopes spinning. Something I only figured out how to do just now.

If I do that, and the M Drive refuses to move like in the Youtube video, it's more or less proof that the gyros at least affect the propulsion in some way, even though, as you say, "we already know that they can't". (Also, I haven't found a single gyroscopic propulsion experiment that did what the M Drive does.)
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: telecom on December 09, 2013, 08:32:58 PM
I've red of a different idea in this respect.

As you have rightly noted, there is always a reaction which acts opposite to a force.

But according to what I've red, the direction of the reaction can be controlled.

For example, there were so called automatic lathes, popular before the advent of NC machinery. In these lathes the travel of the cutting tool was controlled by the cam, and the force was transmitted through the steel balls located side by side  inside of the metal tube. This tube could take any direction in space, and the force would follow this direction.

The same method could be applied to the reaction force by changing its direction, making it instead of the opposite, concurrent...
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: conradelektro on December 09, 2013, 08:40:54 PM
So to summarize your position, "Please stop, we already know everything"?

You know that I do not mean that.

I just want you to stay "cool", do not become obsessed, take it as a hobby, that is all I want to say.

You have given yourself a very big task, which is o.k. as long as it does not hurt you.

A big task can be an enrichment of your life, if you have a life. So, do not throw away your life, enjoy it in many ways, not just in one way.

I am very interested in "strange things" and in "impossible tasks", but I have learned to fear self deception, obsession and illusion, even madness.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: tim123 on December 09, 2013, 08:42:40 PM
Hi M Drive,
  It's interesting to note that Eric Laithwaite did receive a patent on a gyroscopic reactionless drive in 1993:
http://www.rexresearch.com/laithwat/laithw1.htm

So the principle does work. There do seem to be similarities between his work and yours...

It is my understanding that the PTB (Powers That Be) have had proper anti-gravity & free-energy for over 100 years... Keely, Tesla, Townsend-Brown - all had 'flying machines', (Tesla only had designs) I hear... So gyroscopic machines are redundant. That's partly why Eric's work was ridiculed and ignored.

Podkletnov's experiments with superconductors creating gravity waves has now led him into some high-level military work, I read...

I'm impressed with the gyros... I wish I had a couple to play with...

Would you be able to tell me whether you think they convert gravitational acceleration into precessional rotation? I.e. do you think a gyro-gravity-mill is feasible? I suppose the question is - do they precess with a decent amount of force?

I hope you don't mind, I've attached an image of what I have in mind. Do you think it would work - given your experience of gyros?

Regards :)
Tim
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on December 09, 2013, 08:49:29 PM
I'm sorry, tim123. I'm only here to discuss the M Drive, not speculate about other inventions. If you have a question about the M Drive, please ask it.

(Sent you a private message)
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: conradelektro on December 09, 2013, 09:14:38 PM
@M-Drive:

I understand that you want to discuss your invention, but similar things have been done, therefore it might help to study such systems.

I get the impression (but I could be wrong) that what you want to do is similar to Fig. 15, 16, 17 and 18 of  this page:

http://www.rexresearch.com/laithwat/laithw1.htm

My understanding of Eric Laithwat's work is that he more or less tried everything there is with gyroscopes and that it did not work. So, by studying Laithwat's work you will learn a lot and you do not have to duplicate his failures.

I did a bit of research in my life (at universities) and I had to learn the hard way that a good literature search (even doing it for many months) saves a tremendous amount of work. Most ideas have indeed been tried, just consider that we have 200 years of science and technology behind us, give the old people credit, they have done a lot.

There are uncharted territories but they are far out and you have to travel a long way through science to find and to understand the not yet answered questions and areas.

I do not defend science, but please do not underestimate what has been done. It sounds so bad to say, see first what has been tried, but it is the simple truth. Most of the things have already been tried.

Try whatever you want, but be humble, there are scientific giants out there and they are not dumb and you have to be extremely good to beat them. By all means try, but have a look first, it pays.

I will stop preaching now, please excuse me, but I see too much madness in these forums. It makes me anxious whenever I see idle talk about proving science wrong. It is very hard to prove science wrong, so be careful what you say and what you proclaim. Try, by all means, but do not take it lightly. Stay "cool"!

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on December 09, 2013, 09:33:34 PM
there are scientific giants out there and they are not dumb and you have to be extremely good to beat them.

You mean they will have to be extremely good to beat me? ;) (I have studied a lot of gyroscopic propulsion experiments, including the works of Mr. Laithwaite. It was a necessary part of the patent process.)
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: FatBird on December 10, 2013, 01:44:17 PM
I give you an ENORMOUS amount of credit for how much WORK, TIME, & MONEY you put into that.  WOW!

.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on December 10, 2013, 06:35:38 PM
So what do you guys think of my idea to make the M Drive perform a very similar motion?

I'm planning on making the gyros move around on the scaffold and move back and forth, but without the gyros actually spinning. If the M Drive refuses to budge, would you then believe that the gyros are actually what's causing it to move forward?

Right now it seems like there's a lot of confusion about what's causing the propulsion. Is it stick-slip or some other weird friction thing going on, or is it actually the gyros that are somehow responsible, more or less confirming a reactionless drive?

Oh, and thanks, FatBird.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: ingyenenergiagep on December 10, 2013, 11:07:57 PM
Welcome from Hungary!

Build this.
Give me the Nobel prize! :-)
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: conradelektro on December 10, 2013, 11:49:54 PM
Welcome from Hungary!

Build this.
Give me the Nobel prize! :-)

It sounds unbelievable, but I built exactly that in the early 90ies with two stepper motors; three models, from small to bigger. It did not work, just "slip - stick". But I learned how to program microprocessors and how to drive stepper motors. And I learned about conservation of momentum.

It was still the age of paper photos and only text in news groups at the beginning of the internet age.

I went to my cellar and dug out what is left from these experiments. The biggest model (about 0.5 meters) is gone, only a few electronic boards left. I attach photos of the two smaller models (of what is left of them).

The model with the Lego wheels (still complete) has two very good stepper motors and was the final one which showed the conceptual error quite clearly. It was put on a wooden board which floated on water, well it made no progress. Although "on land" it moved forward quite quickly.

The brown model was the first one and was mounted on various "chariots" and had several additional electronic boards. Of course it worked best without wheels (just standing on the table) because the "sticking" was excellent which made the "slip" work well. I should have realised my conceptual error immediately because of that, but I am a bit slow, so I built two more models before I caught on.

I programmed many acceleration and deceleration patterns (linear, sinus-like, steep peak). It works best with a very pronounced peak (at 180° of the start position).

May it be a lesson to the good people who are able to learn. Hungarian antigravity is goulash, but you have to eat a lot of it.

I did not get the Nobel price but you can try again. Put gyros on the "arms" of this contraption and it will not change a thing.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: ingyenenergiagep on December 11, 2013, 12:42:57 AM
I like goulash :-)

Try again.
We need big acceleration, constant speed,  deceleration.
Horizontal line 0 degree.
1. The arm with weight 45 to -45 degree must accelerate strongly, like a shot. The machine moves up. Newton third law.
2. -45 to -135 degree the  weigt arm turn speed is constant.
3. -135 to  -225 degree (aka 135 degree) the arm weight must decelerate strongly, and gives the energy tho the machine. Like a firearm bullet  hit the energy to the target. The mashine moves up again.

Turn the weight arm with constant speed you get Buehler device, it makes up-down moving only.
You must unconstant speed and strong acc/dec to one direction-moving in space.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on December 11, 2013, 03:42:14 AM
Please stay on topic, guys.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: e2matrix on December 11, 2013, 04:39:13 AM
I think you are dealing with some of the hardcore skeptics here on this however in this case I think they are giving you good advice and are correct in their evaluations.   I wouldn't go spending a ton of money on any patents at this point.    A couple questions/things to think about.   Let's assume your device is being shown in the video running North to South.   Can it also run South to North?   As someone who has built houses I can assure you most houses and especially apartments are not perfectly level.   Mine were built to within 1/8" and that is a lot better than most contractors do.   That 1/8" could easily lead to a device like yours moving fine one way but not the other.   However from what I saw in the video it looked more like stick and slip going on.  More weight from down motion at some points causing more friction than other times as you can clearly see it lifting up a little at times. 
All that being said I'll add that I know someone with a setup that has multiple gyros running on 3 different axis and it hovers in mid air with nothing to hold it up except the running gyros.    Gyros are interesting and I think there are some things that can be done with them .... an area of knowledge that has not yet been put to much use ... possible suppression or maybe just plain lack of interest.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on December 11, 2013, 04:47:50 AM
I think you are dealing with some of the hardcore skeptics here on this however in this case I think they are giving you good advice and are correct in their evaluations.   I wouldn't go spending a ton of money on any patents at this point.    A couple questions/things to think about.   Let's assume your device is being shown in the video running North to South.   Can it also run South to North?   As someone who has built houses I can assure you most houses and especially apartments are not perfectly level.   Mine were built to within 1/8" and that is a lot better than most contractors do.   That 1/8" could easily lead to a device like yours moving fine one way but not the other.   However from what I saw in the video it looked more like stick and slip going on.  More weight from down motion at some points causing more friction than other times as you can clearly see it lifting up a little at times. 
All that being said I'll add that I know someone with a setup that has multiple gyros running on 3 different axis and it hovers in mid air with nothing to hold it up except the running gyros.

It runs equally well "south to north". As for stick-slip, do you say that as a "best guess" thing or do you actually have a theory on what's happening? If so, I'd be delighted to hear it.

That multiple gyro business... Ted Pittman and the Gammamax?
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: e2matrix on December 11, 2013, 05:19:46 AM
Mostly a best guess based on observing the device in your video.   
Not Ted Pittman and I'm essentially in an NDA sort of situation on it so can't say a lot more except it's using very high RPM motors in a configuration that uses all 3 axes.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: LibreEnergia on December 11, 2013, 05:21:59 AM

..All that being said I'll add that I know someone with a setup that has multiple gyros running on 3 different axis and it hovers in mid air with nothing to hold it up except the running gyros. 

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.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on December 11, 2013, 06:50:13 AM
I updated the video description with some relevant information.

"The track seen later in the video is really just 2 strips of metal bent to 90 degrees in the middle. There's a total of 8 wheels (bearings) running along the horizontal and vertical part of the track, meaning the wagon part of the M Drive can only move back and forth.

The force to get the cart moving from standstill is also extremely low, a mere 20 grams. This practically eliminates the stick-slip phenomenon, since the cart requires so little force to start moving in either direction. You can literally blow on it and it'll start moving."
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: conradelektro on December 11, 2013, 08:21:15 AM
I got this PM from M Drive Inventor:

Quote
Hey. Those images are pretty big and clutter up the page pretty badly. Could you please edit them out?

Also, you've stated that you don't believe the M Drive generates inertial thrust. Is that only because you believe Newtons third is infallible, or is it because you see something I don't in the track and/or bearings? If it's the latter, please tell me in the thread. If not, please answer me here with a PM.

My images do not clutter the page they make a point about action and reaction.

Everybody discusses in a thread whatever he wants, which might be annoying for some, but everything in this thread was very much on topic. There is a wide field of ideas and "inventions" in this area and all that belongs to the M Drive topic.

I personally have nothing more to say to the M Drive because there is nothing more than pointing to similar things which the M Drive inventor does not want to hear.

Newtons third law is what it is, a pretty good description of nature. And one person seems to think that he is infallible. Newton never was that far gone.

I am gone from this topic. My clutter stays, because it demonstrates a lot.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: conradelektro on December 11, 2013, 08:23:54 AM
I like goulash :-)

Try again.
We need big acceleration, constant speed,  deceleration.
Horizontal line 0 degree.
1. The arm with weight 45 to -45 degree must accelerate strongly, like a shot. The machine moves up. Newton third law.
2. -45 to -135 degree the  weigt arm turn speed is constant.
3. -135 to  -225 degree (aka 135 degree) the arm weight must decelerate strongly, and gives the energy tho the machine. Like a firearm bullet  hit the energy to the target. The mashine moves up again.

Turn the weight arm with constant speed you get Buehler device, it makes up-down moving only.
You must unconstant speed and strong acc/dec to one direction-moving in space.

It is all yours. It is your Nobel price.

(I got that "unconstant speed", that was the whole point of it.)

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: ingyenenergiagep on December 11, 2013, 11:01:33 AM
The right part of turning mass.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: ingyenenergiagep on December 11, 2013, 11:56:37 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuTMYgQDUzs

See the arm position, when the car move. Left-right side, 45 degree.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: ingyenenergiagep on December 11, 2013, 11:58:50 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsAFpVP2vsU

This machine works.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on December 11, 2013, 12:03:12 PM
Ingyen> I'm aware of the LPU and I know there's another thread just 2 posts below this one on the forum.

Please guys, this thread is about the M Drive, and people reading it expect to read about it.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: conradelektro on December 11, 2013, 01:14:33 PM
Please guys, this thread is about the M Drive, and people reading it expect to read about it.

@M Drive:

You can not disclose the fine details of your machine because you want a patent (as I gather from some hints you have given). So, if we can not know how it exactly works, what can we discuss? We can only give you general pointers to known science as you give us only general hints to the workings of your contraption.

(Remark: I do not want the details of your machine, I just want to say that there is nothing to discuss without details because thousands of details have already been tried without success. So, it is only the fine details which could be new and interesting.)

Your videos do not prove that you have a reactionless drive, sorry. Even the slightest friction can give you the impression that it does. Your video does not show anything exceptional. Thousands of such machines with the same overall look like yours have been built.

Because we can not discuss details, people show you what has been done before to make you aware of the thousands of errors inventors have done in this field. But you seem to know everything there is. So, again, nothing to discuss.

You want to hear that we believe from your videos that you have a reactionless drive? Come on, what do you expect from people with an IQ of at least 70?

I do not say that you lie, I say that you have not provided sufficient information to allow a meaningful discussion or to draw a meaningful conclusion.

But even if you provided all there is to know about your invention, only a very good carefully controlled and reviewed experiment could provide proof. Moving a machine along a track is a bad experiment. A pendulum would be better, but the constant deviation of the pendulum must be great to draw any quick conclusion.

Yes, we admire your workmanship, yes, you may doubt any law of physics you want, but what then? Yes, you want to talk about your thing, fine, what else?

Do you want to find investors? This might not be the right forum. You want fans, become a rock star.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: conradelektro on December 11, 2013, 02:45:26 PM
The right part of turning mass.

@ingyen: I know it sounds bad, but I have been there and I have tried hundreds of speed up and down profils and also exactly what you are proposing.

I know, it does not help that I say this, because I could have done it wrong and you could may be do it better. And almost nobody wants to listen to advice. So, do it, but I advise against it, for very good reasons and because of experiments I did (but I am not the brightest person there is).

My opinion about a reactionless drive:

- It is not possible in the ordinary world we live in, definitely not by throwing around weigths (unless you throw the weights away for good).

- It might be possible at the quantum level near absolute zero degrees or near the speed of light, but this can not be carried over to the macro world.

- It might be possible during the forming of an universe in the first seconds where many laws do not yet apply. But we have passed that moment 13 Milliard years ago.

- It might be possible at the level of galaxies because of dark mater or dark energy, but you will not be able to do this experiment in our solar system, it is much too small.

Greetings, Conrad

P.S.: This post is on topic!
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: hdeasy on December 11, 2013, 03:34:59 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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4q5g-dK01g) Even to weigh less when point up: CIMG0154.AVI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMZ9dzOatL4) .
But it was proved to be just slip and stick for movement and the scales were faulty. Easy to make a mistake.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: hdeasy 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).
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: conradelektro 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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4q5g-dK01g) Even to weigh less when point up: CIMG0154.AVI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMZ9dzOatL4) .
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.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: e2matrix 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.   
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor 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.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: conradelektro 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
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: tim123 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
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor 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.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: PiCéd 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
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: conradelektro 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 (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
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: tim123 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
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor 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.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: lumen 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.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor 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.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: lumen 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.
 
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor 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. :)
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: lumen 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.


Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor 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).
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: wings on December 12, 2013, 09:32:27 AM
 :)

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/IPEmain.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/IPEmain.htm)


some patents here


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


some teory


http://www.realautomation.ca/publicationA1.pdf (http://www.realautomation.ca/publicationA1.pdf)

and product
http://www.realautomation.ca/inertial_drive.htm


Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: conradelektro 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 (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
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: ingyenenergiagep 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. ;-)
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: conradelektro 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 (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
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: tim123 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
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: ingyenenergiagep 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...
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: TinselKoala 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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHlosB7v__c)
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor 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.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: TinselKoala 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.


Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor 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.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor 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.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: TinselKoala 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".
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on December 13, 2013, 05:24:09 AM
"Now it appears that you are arguing that the friction IS sufficient to couple momentum between the substrate and the DUT"

The wheels of the machine need to move backwards and forwards for propulsion to occur. They are not completely frictionless, as that's impossible. I was simply pointing out that the little friction that's left in the wheels could possibly pull the plate with it when they start to move, even if reactionless propulsion occurs. Though, the same is true when they move in the opposite direction, so it wont favor the wagon moving in any direction.

Hopefully though, the friction left in the wheels is not large enough and no reaction occurs when they move across the surface.

Edit: Plane glass bought ($30). One of the gyros is broken right now though, so no experiment for a while.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: e2matrix on December 13, 2013, 06:35:53 PM
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.
I'm just saying what seemed a fascinating subject related here and wish I had more info on it myself.   I'm not making this up but will admit it's possible it's not what I was shown.   However in my best judgement this person is intelligent and honest and I checked him out a bit finding he has a successful business of the type where ethics and a honesty are paramount.   Of course there's always one bad apple in any barrel but just saying I found no reason to doubt his work.  I'll make an attempt to get in touch with him again although it's been several years.   
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: tim123 on December 13, 2013, 08:14:46 PM
The wheels of the machine need to move backwards and forwards for propulsion to occur. They are not completely frictionless, as that's impossible.

Could you do away with the skateboard entirely:
 - mount your mechanism on an upper plate of glass
 - lower plate and ball bearings as TK suggested...

Does that solve the problem?
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: lumen on December 13, 2013, 11:23:03 PM
How many cycles of movement or distance moved would be required to show it working?
 Your probably not going to have much time on a glass plate before all the balls fly out from any tilting action.
 It might help to lower the center of gravity as much as possible to gain better support on the glass.
 
 
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on December 14, 2013, 02:25:13 AM
Does that solve the problem?

We're not even sure it is a problem at this point.

How many cycles of movement or distance moved would be required to show it working?

As many as it takes for either the glass plate or the machine to move, which could be as little as one cycle.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: e2matrix on December 14, 2013, 02:25:17 AM
Question for Mdrive :  Considering the amount of energy being expended to get such a device to much a very short distance what use or advantage would this have in the real world?   In other words can you envision any situation this would be useful and energy saving or even money saving?   If not what is the purpose of all your hard work?   If it is only to prove a scientific principle wrong I think you will have a long hard road ahead to convince any serious physicists or scientists.    But if you do see a good use for this then push on and best of luck and don't let the skeptics get you down.   
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on December 14, 2013, 02:37:31 AM
Question for Mdrive :  Considering the amount of energy being expended to get such a device to much a very short distance what use or advantage would this have in the real world?   In other words can you envision any situation this would be useful and energy saving or even money saving?   If not what is the purpose of all your hard work?   If it is only to prove a scientific principle wrong I think you will have a long hard road ahead to convince any serious physicists or scientists.  But if you do see a good use for this then push on and best of luck and don't let the skeptics get you down.
It's impossible to answer any such questions at this point since this is only a proof of concept. At the very least it would be useful for space travel. As long as you have power (electricity), you can accelerate a spacecraft, meaning you could reach speeds that would be literally impossible for a rocket.

And if it turns out that a decade of research and development makes a version that delivers more thrust than the weight of the machine, well then you have an "anti-gravity machine", and I don't think I need to tell you why that would be revolutionary.

As for "serious scientists". Any actually serious one would look at the evidence and make a judgment based on it. If the experiments can be repeated consistently, and consistently produce evidence of a reactionless drive, then, if they're actually serious, they need to consider the possibility of the reactionless drive being possible. In the end, Newtons third law is a theory like any else, and subject to change.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on December 17, 2013, 01:00:30 PM
Minor update: I began replacing all the wood on the M Drive for metal in order to make it more stable. I got pretty far with the help of my mechanic, but it's not finished yet. The broken gyroscope is fixed though (motor/gyro coupling broke in half because of stress).

I'll keep you updated, and I'll probably post again just after christmas. First experiments on the list are the 'shake experiment' I told you about and TinselKoala's 'reaction experiment' with the glass.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: wings on December 18, 2013, 02:45:27 PM
simple gyrocar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jN6InB7Ok6w
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on December 26, 2013, 11:58:54 PM
Minor update: M Drive version 3 is nearing completion.

http://i.imgur.com/M1HxBxd.jpg

Got a new rail which will prevent the wheels from popping up. Replaced all the flexible wood for sturdy, lightweight aluminium. Might actually be a little too light, as the gyroscopes weigh quite a bit and they *need* to move back and forth along the X axis. But yeah, I'll probably just tape a water bottle to the wagon part or something. Whatever works.

Also have further support in form of a new support pillar in the front. So yeah, lot of improvements. I'll be able to push the RPM of the scaffold with the gyros on a lot higher now, hopefully resulting in increased propulsion. Here's hoping.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on January 16, 2014, 03:15:47 AM
Sorry about the delay, although I guess I should be apologizing to myself since I'm only hurting myself.

Anyway, the new version has had a lot of problems which have taken time to iron out. It's more or less up and running now though, just need to fix one last thing.

I have everything needed for the 'glass experiment', which hopefully will convince people it's the actual gyros pulling the machine forward and not the bearings/wheels pushing it forward somehow. I have access to a 'machinist level'. Google translate says they're called "spirit-level"? Anyway, it's one of these:

http://www.hultafors.se/webimages/03-Hultafors/50-Image_pictures/03-Levelling/Levelling-outside-425px.jpg

...just extremely precise.

I'd also like to thank TinselKoala for suggesting that experiment. If it works as intended and actually convinces people, I'll be very grateful.

Edit: I wanted to ask you guys. If I wanted to put my machine on ice, what kind of 'feet' would be preferable for the M Drive? I'd have to replace the wheels with something, but what? Ice cubes seem like they might break. I could probably find 2 pairs of ice skates and modify them. Or would you prefer some kind of concave metal plate at every corner of the machine?
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: tim123 on January 16, 2014, 10:27:08 AM
Hi M,
  I think ice would have too much friction... It also tends to stick to things - by freezing to them.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/friction-coefficients-d_778.html

It probably has to be ball bearings...(?)

Regards, Tim
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: conradelektro on January 16, 2014, 01:16:02 PM
I would like to suggest a simple experiment (which taught me a lot when I tried a "reactionless drive"):

- your machine has a certain direction in which it moves forward, lets call it direction D or forward

- put a stop (e.g. a plank fastened to the floor) which absolutely prohibits any movement in the opposite direction of D (backwards), this restriction has to be solid and no gap between the machine and the plank, one could say the machine rests against this plank before being switched on

- switch the machine on and you will see how it shoots away in direction D (forward) because it pushed itself away from the plank (which proves that it wanted to go a "bit backwards"), the "shooting away" is a large first movement (a large initial step in direction D) which is then reduced to a slower forward movement

Discussion of this experiment:

- without the plank one does not see this "backward movement" which is stopped after a short distance (maybe only some millimetres) by the tiny friction which makes the thing work

- the plank represents "infinite friction in the opposite direction of D", without the plank one has "tiny friction in opposite direction of D"

- the plank causes a "large initial step forward" followed by the "usual steps forward"

- make sure that the plank holds the machine near its centre of mass (the machine should not be able to lean a bit or to bend a bit backwards over the plank, not even a few millimetres or degrees away from the vertical)

- the plank could be a wall which prohibits any backward movement of the machine (again, you probably need some piece of wood at the wall against which the machine abates near its centre of mass)

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on February 26, 2014, 05:06:59 PM
Just posted a new video. It's nothing fancy, nor do I consider it "proof" of gyroscopic propulsion, just evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgCgrMetRsc

The glass experiment is on it's way, and not forgotten.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: conradelektro on February 26, 2014, 06:28:19 PM
Just posted a new video. It's nothing fancy, nor do I consider it "proof" of gyroscopic propulsion, just evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgCgrMetRsc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgCgrMetRsc)

The glass experiment is on it's way, and not forgotten.

I saw your video and can tell that your contraption would do great with this test
http://www.overunity.com/14090/m-drive-reactionless-drive-invented-by-me/msg383341/#msg383341 (http://www.overunity.com/14090/m-drive-reactionless-drive-invented-by-me/msg383341/#msg383341) (see drawing)

Do this very simple test, it will open your eyes and your mind. Try to explain why it behaves like it behaves when doing the simple test I propose. It only costs you a few minutes. You can put a log between your moving wagon and a cross-tie of your rails to block backwards movement, and see what happens. Do not fasten your wagon to a cross-tie, it should only "lean" against a stop which prohibits backward movement.

It is exactly the little backwards movement (clearly visible in the video) which confirms my own experience with such devices.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on February 26, 2014, 06:32:29 PM
I'd do it if I thought it would accomplish anything. As it stands I don't understand the purpose of the experiment.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: conradelektro on February 26, 2014, 07:58:18 PM
I'd do it if I thought it would accomplish anything. As it stands I don't understand the purpose of the experiment.

Doing the very simple experiment I propose will show you:

-------- Your wagon can move forwards or backwards depending in which direction you block the movement. ----------

-------- In one direction it moves better, but the crucial outcome is that it will also move in the other direction (which it should not do). ----------


A complicated way of doing it would be ratchet wheels, and the ratchet would have to be adjustable for forward or backward movement.

There is no need for ratchet wheels, you can block forward or backward movement by holding something rigid against the fore side or back side of your wagon.

Many people have gone where you are right now. Sooner or later they did the crucial experiment and moved on (to something more rewarding).

You do not do the proposed experiment for me, you are doing it for you (and you are not obliged to talk about it or to make it public, just do it and think about it).

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: hdeasy on March 14, 2014, 10:23:53 AM
Can't recall if I posted this already, but I think this M Drive is slip and stick. Very hard to get away from that on a mechanical system. Reminds me of my mover which sadly turned out to be  slip and stick: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWSl7P1iitQ
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on April 10, 2014, 04:36:50 PM
Copy-pasting from another forum I've been posting on. Basically I did the pendulum experiment, which is supposed to be impossible to beat. Yet, I have some very interesting results I think you should have a look at.

"I'm back from performing new experiments. I'm hungry as hell, so I'll make it short. I was able to accelerate the machine in one direction only, the direction of travel (forward), which is the direction it is designed to go. This means it was easy to get it into a swinging motion, as long as you kept doing cycles as it swung forward.

This is the interesting part though. If I did cycles as it swung backwards the swinging would stop, decelerate. I don't think even a kid on a swing could do that.

I did several attempts at passing the pendulum experiment, but it was hard to notice with your naked eye if the dot stayed more on one side than the other.

I recorded everything, and here it is:

https://mega.co.nz/#!MQIhwbCJ!l_4nMFWCw-HHnLOF7SCqI9MWuFIIDqE3qRyPMWWIve8
https://mega.co.nz/#!cAYgXb5J!T_Q4cberuHMGOoN2-O2k8P0jf1bPZ-QaAM9uKXlLG9g
https://mega.co.nz/#!lcIDVShZ!_hNiVzMxwZHmOdXx6uTYSyL5kLd-aFqhrWbD4m7PEEI
https://mega.co.nz/#!JUJE1Y5Q!sw2z0oPuSluyh9h1vsDu0tmACkfy5ZQmKY1gt6IfPPs
https://mega.co.nz/#!QN5wRZxI!VKgp6kcluSbFD7tekyBuWFNFplyOEHanhqvLrI_h2W4
https://mega.co.nz/#!cQQTwZob!x6V4LIisdZqTIsX3_XteGfmEpawlLyf_ZE7QHiPXLQ0
https://mega.co.nz/#!4JZEgJLZ!iABc7watO2BWIYc2SDPM7dgVLgQnPPsbR2tZZOrSrQ8
https://mega.co.nz/#!lZpGnSgD!AJeYBnxdkmo7-aqIJL5rmiZGKP_7CFvZru0l2RaNNdI
https://mega.co.nz/#!gV5FBCJT!S0xAC9A_3Ww2pFGQ8gG0pxP80OO5hIpltclIuZL8XBA
https://mega.co.nz/#!8MgmARyT!zvhwcWf-rJrghQcIwPhWBim2brpSBzbE5lfqqmJHV1Q

(The missing videos are errors in recording, they were only a few seconds long.)"
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: TinselKoala on April 10, 2014, 07:42:53 PM
Quote
This is the interesting part though. If I did cycles as it swung backwards the swinging would stop, decelerate. I don't think even a kid on a swing could do that.

It must be a long time since you've been a kid on a swing. Of course a kid can do that. Any oscillating system will come to a stop if it is "pumped" 180 degrees out-of-phase. How do you think active vibration damper systems or active noise-cancelling headphones work?

Good for you for trying the experiment and reporting it. I don't have time to go through the videos at the moment but I'll check them out later on.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on April 11, 2014, 10:17:32 AM
The subject is being discussed here as well:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/72265-Could-a-Gyroscopic-inertial-thruster-ever-work/page33

The user N_las just posted a graph showing the median position of the dot, which is interesting because you can clearly see that doing cycles is accelerating the machine forward. In video 17 the laser dot spends more time on the left side (the direction the machine is designed to travel towards) than the right as well. By almost 10% nonetheless.

So, it's exciting to say the least. I know I'll have to do more experiments, but... yeah, exciting! :)
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on April 11, 2014, 12:16:06 PM
They're all on Youtube now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNtIiyBmrgs&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: TinselKoala on April 11, 2014, 01:44:39 PM
But it's not the "median position of the dot" that is important, it is the position of the _center of mass_ of the oscillating system.

Many people have been fooled by this. The center of mass of the system shifts a bit, so the pendulum _suspension_ or indicator system shifts also.... but the true center of mass remains directly under the suspension point, or oscillates symmetrically about that position.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on April 11, 2014, 02:02:12 PM
But it's not the "median position of the dot" that is important, it is the position of the _center of mass_ of the oscillating system.

Many people have been fooled by this. The center of mass of the system shifts a bit, so the pendulum _suspension_ or indicator system shifts also.... but the true center of mass remains directly under the suspension point, or oscillates symmetrically about that position.
Unfortunately you can't measure the center of mass at all times in this system. If I had another set of gyros that moved perfectly out of phase with the other two, which would be a tremendously complex machine to build, then you could simply attach a laser pointer to the "frame" and measure the CoG.

The dot _is_ static to the center of gravity when there are no cycles being performed though.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on July 08, 2014, 04:25:32 PM
I just performed a new pendulum experiment, and I have some very interesting results. I'm mainly posting in this thread:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/72265-Could-a-Gyroscopic-inertial-thruster-ever-work/page40

This is a copy of my reply there:

Just back from performing the experiments. I got some really interesting results, and I'd like your opinions on them. For one, it really does look like it passes the pendulum test. While I couldn't get the dot to stay on one side 100% of the time, it really does look like it spends a lot more time on the left side than the right.

There's about 25 videos recorded, but here's a few of them.

This is a short intro, showing the setup and how the gyros are positioned:
https://mega.co.nz/#!AZxmUDSJ!_LThPqScqb2E73QzvMPjJbvyYlXOl7GMm1VCJW7aDOg (https://mega.co.nz/#!AZxmUDSJ!_LThPqScqb2E73QzvMPjJbvyYlXOl7GMm1VCJW7aDOg)

3 good videos, probably the best so far. The numbers after the video number are timestamps where something interesting happens. So "0019-0054" means "check out 00:19-00:54".
https://mega.co.nz/#!8ZRxwIjT!a7fUclUDgHn-15bquqHMQLMfZe2oWoRBTE2MaA76cDc (https://mega.co.nz/#!8ZRxwIjT!a7fUclUDgHn-15bquqHMQLMfZe2oWoRBTE2MaA76cDc)
https://mega.co.nz/#!5FAXzTAR!xa5Zwau8I5tHlLkMW3Xt-HV_-aXqddLsOgpS5y6v4nQ (https://mega.co.nz/#!5FAXzTAR!xa5Zwau8I5tHlLkMW3Xt-HV_-aXqddLsOgpS5y6v4nQ)
https://mega.co.nz/#!kEoxSBDZ!d5d0jbH5TWoLm22N6_zgEklYfR7YiUnuAKQIlEWcwZs (https://mega.co.nz/#!kEoxSBDZ!d5d0jbH5TWoLm22N6_zgEklYfR7YiUnuAKQIlEWcwZs)
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: Paul-R on July 08, 2014, 06:02:52 PM
M Drive: You say in page 2 that you have studied the work of the late Professor Eric Laithwaite. Have you? If you are preparing a patent, then look before you leap else you will waste a lot of money that could go into development.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on July 09, 2014, 06:41:35 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1KtInq4Jo8

Youtube video up. Tell me what you think. Because to me, it looks like it passes the pendulum test... 
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: TinselKoala on July 10, 2014, 12:31:46 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1KtInq4Jo8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1KtInq4Jo8)

Youtube video up. Tell me what you think. Because to me, it looks like it passes the pendulum test...

Nice setup. Now, without changing anything else, move your power supply and feed wires over to the right side, and see if you still think it displaces more to the left.
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on July 10, 2014, 08:50:29 AM
Yeah, I agree the wires are actually a little troublesome out of a scientific perspective. They're kinda thick and stiff now. Thinking of getting 4 thin, flexible wires and having them "exit" the M Drive just by the laser pointer, underneath the skateboard, meaning if they interfere, it'll at least be equal in both directions. It wouldn't favor any one direction.

Or maybe I'll do some other solution where the wires are coming in from the top somehow.

Though the wires were never really a problem in the last pendulum test, where the wires were in the back (I reversed the direction for this experiment).
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: tinman on July 10, 2014, 01:48:00 PM
I am glad this thread didnt die.
There was one group that had something interesting,and was driving a canoe through the water with there setup. I seem to remember a thread(maybe even this one?) that discused that device.I also seem to remember TK(forgive me if im wrong TK),saying it was working in a similar way to that of a skater on skates. I dont think this explination was correct in this case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4LT3GZjlY
Title: Re: M Drive reactionless drive invented by me
Post by: M Drive Inventor on July 10, 2014, 03:20:23 PM
Decided to upload all of the videos, which totals over 1 hour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag2NdViY50Q

At the start of the video (about 2 minutes in I think) you can see how it behaves with the gyroscopes off. It utterly loses all "magical" ability to stay away from it's starting position.

---

Tinman, there's a better version of that video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIt661hfr9c