|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
28 November 2024 22:24
|
|
Welcome to the gyroscope forum. If you have a question about gyroscopes in general,
want to know how they work, or what they can be used for then you can leave your question here for others to answer.
You may also be able to help others by answering some of the questions on the site.
|
Question |
| Asked by: |
MD |
| Subject: |
M Drive guy here, I uploaded a video of an Alex Jones device |
| Question: |
I made this crude prototype in January 2013, but decided to upload it because an Aussie had recently tried to experiment with a version of his own.
Here's my upload: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EtGMdm-71E&feature=youtu.be
Here's the Aussie's: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTmnjJLTkhQ (skip ahead)
PS. My original device, the M Drive, is set for new experiments this winter. I'm putting ice skates on it to see if it can accelerate from a standstill to, say, jogging speed. That should be fairly credible proof. |
| Date: |
23 June 2019
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
MD - 23/06/2019 18:25:02
| | | I read some of Kristijan's answers in the thread below and decided to answer here.
In the end my belief, which is really just speculation, is that spinning gyros 'attach' themselves to the rest of the mass in the universe. What spinning them up does is basically 'increase a certain type of inertia within them'. This causes them to 'attach' to a certain angle, which apparently we know very little of 'why'. They just happen to act that way.
So physicists thus far have 'concluded' that they can only be used to 'attach' themselves to certain angles. Normal gyro stuff that's used today, everywhere. But I'm speculating that gyros can also be used to "impart" momentum on the rest of the universe this way. So Newton's third law would very much still apply, just like it does when we humans are walking. For us to walk, something else has to move the opposite direction. This would be the earth, but it's too faint a phenomenon to measure. Also, if true, it would mean that the universe actually counter-rotates slightly when you try to rotate a spinning gyroscope.
The reasoning is that you need some kind of "imbalance" between two masses going towards and away from a direction that you want these two masses to go (accelerate towards). These two masses would be 1: The gyroscopes 2: The mass of the cart that the gyroscopes are mounted on.
By force-precessing the gyroscopes in the way I do with the M Thruster (M Drive), you create this imbalance. The two gyroscopes move backwards towards their starting position, which is really just a 'double-forced precession'. The first force precession is when you rotate the middle axle, causing the gyros to force precess and move forward, towards the front of the M Thruster. The second force precession is when you allow the springs, now full of energy, to overtake this force precession, and really FORCE (think of using your hands to force the gyros back, it would be hard!) the gyros backwards to their starting position by wasting a lot of energy.
This energy is key here. The energy spent by the springs to force the gyros backwards.
Because no one on this earth can today answer the question: "Where does this energy go?". It doesn't cause more precession. It doesn't cause more heat. It basically just 'vanishes' in a weird force precession phenomenon that humanity doesn't really have a grip on yet.
It's this energy that I believe causes the imbalance. By basically 'wasting' a lot of energy this way, FORCING them back (think of using your hands to force the gyros back, it would be hard!), it's almost like you're begging the universe to do something 'weird' here. Because the universe doesn't like to 'waste' energy. It always picks the path of least resistance. Always.
That means that if it was easier for the universe to move the center of gravity of the entire device forward a bit instead of wasting this huge amount of energy on forcing the gyroscopes back, then the universe would do this, plain and simple. And that's what I'm speculating happens with my device.
And that's basically it.
Of course everything here is just speculation on how I believe the inner workings of inertia works. It could even be that inertia itself is a result of the amount of mass in the universe, which would explain why gyroscopes 'attach' themselves to a certain angle, relative to the universe's mass, when spinning.
Because that's something I always wondered about. What's on the other side of the equal sign, regarding inertia? What happens to the energy you put into, say, moving a bowling ball one way (horisontally, like rolling it)? It's mostly inertia, right? Not friction. Physicists apparently literally don't know, they can "just" calculate and predict it, which is a feat in of itself. So all my machine really does is try to 'coax' the universe into doing something weird with inertia, by doing an experiment that literally hasn't been done before, to 'ask' the universe that question. "Can the center of mass be moved by messing around with inertia?".
Oh, and I guess I should mention why I believe it has to have two masses, instead of one. That's because of the universes' rule on path of least resistance. If you watch enough inertial propulsion videos, and read enough patents, you start to see a pattern of this, where randomly spinning weights (not gyros), like Roy Thornson's drive, or the 'Mac-quan 1', where they seem to try and create an energy imbalance between two masses, of some kind.
The reasoning on this, if you ask me, is because any other way would be too similar to an airplane propeller, where it's literally trying to 'push' something backwards. But space isn't 'something', it's 'nothing', completely devoid of mass. So simply speaking, it's 'too simple' a reasoning, since a 'space propeller' can't propel anything backwards, as space is massless.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 24/06/2019 18:35:49
| | | Dear MD
And; Dear God!
Does nobody read any of my mail detailing how impulse drive, anti gravity, moving a device outside its starting dimension, (pick your own favourite lunatic Sci-fi name) can and already has been achieved?
Yes, you read that right:- "has already been achieved".
Alex Jones (in the video) lived on a neighbouring Channel island to me and I believe I, on a drunken evening with him on a visit to his then home island of Alderney, discussed my ideas on how gyrodynamic impulse drive could be achieved. This I believe triggered his development and led to Eric Laithwaite's disastrous public claims that he had cracked the third law - he had not but he was bloody close.
Close, but no cigar as they now say.
His machine and yours in the YouTube videos show a gyrodynamic stroke that defies Newton's third (and second and first as well - but lets not get ahead of ourselves here) but to get to "the Cigar" you need to achieve repeating strokes with a machine that may (indeed, inevitably will) have opposite reaction but must have more overall action than opposite reaction.
To get "a cigar" and a gold cigar holder as well you need to get continuous acceleration.
None of this is easy but Nitro's laws of gyrodynamics may help.
Kind regards
NM
Nitro MacMad
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 28/06/2019 02:45:30
| | | What what it's worth, science itself doesn't believe they've broken any rules, simply because no one's performed a good enough experiment to exclude any other forces, yet.
I still say what I show on my Youtube channel is More than enough to warrant serious research into the area.... but it's been years now, and I've gotten basically no attention at all, at least from the right people.
But.... that's my goal, really. To actually perform research and get it peer-reviewed by having someone else build their own version and getting the same results. It's a long journey for sure, but the first step would be to get a good enough experiment going. I do however think my pendulum experiments Are good enough for this purpose, buuuut..... there's still a problem with the machine literally only looking so shaky and unreliable.
And we're humans after all. We base a Lot of our perception not on results, but looks.
I wish I had slightly more motivation too. All I got from Youtube comments was hate and ridicule from know-it-all "besserwissers". Like... "Hey. I actually spent this money and got these results, and you're going to insult mee? Well fine, humanity, if that's the way you're going to act, then no space drive for you!".
Not to mention this climate collapse stuff is really getting to me. I've been reading about it for years, and..... it's bad. It's really, really bad. So bad I feel like my invention, even if acknowledged, wouldn't amount to anything due to the fact that the climate crisis will just devastate humanity in the next 40 years.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 28/06/2019 02:46:07
| | | For what it's worth*
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Sandy - 01/07/2019 21:01:51
| | | Hello MD,
You have my sympathies.
The treatment you have received is par for the course.
I am not at all surprised by the treatment you have received.
Very early on I realised that interest would never be acquired from as you call them, the right people.
I have had many successful devices which prove conclusively that inertial drive is achievable, even a Laboratory Test and Report from 1988 which backs me up
No one will even look or listen to something they do not wish to see or hear.
.
Producing a successful machine would not appear to be the answer as no one wants to get involved.
I experienced from day one, at least of my particular quest that most members of the establishment club did not wish to get involved in any aspect of the idea.
I hasten to add that there are members of the establishment who are to varying degrees sympathetic, but in all cases wish to stay employed.
.
It eventually dawned on me that the only way to gain acceptance was to demonstrate experiments on the likes of YouTube which show where Newton got it wrong.
I recently demonstrated the control of centrifugal force or angular momentum if you like it that way in a system of fixed rotation speed but where the rotation speed of the gyroscopes could be controlled.
This was very well received by many of the smarter viewers, unfortunately many not so nice comments came from the usual idiots.
One guy who realised the potential of the device even wanted to manufacture demonstration equipment for universities and schools.
.
I made that thing up in a hurry from spare bits and pieces and probably demonstrated less than half of actions performed by gyroscopes in a system under radial acceleration.
.
To solve this shortcoming
I have built a totally instrumented device, with strategically placed strain gauges, and telemetry on machine rotation speed and gyroscope rotation speeds.
It will show the changes in the amount of centrifugal force generated as the gyroscope rotation speed changes
The main thing is that it will demonstrate what is apparently invisible to the beholder. These changes taking place normally unnoticed will be seen by means of the instrumentation.
Arrangement to have this thing professionally demonstrated is being organised.
It is necessary to prove that physics as presently accepted is in error, and that Newton, smart as he was, assumed just a bit too much
I know you can take a horse to water etc, but if we can manage to achieve just a part of this, I should think that many physicists and mathematicians would have to think again.
Sandy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 04/07/2019 20:54:22
| | | Dear MD and Sandy
Don’t lose heart, MD. Though that is bloody hard to do after years of trying to find a way to get “the establishment” to accept what is bleeding obvious (to use a British idiom) about gyro anomalies. I was going to say “English idiom” but realised that Sandy might shout “bleeding Sassenach” or similar. Hi Sandy. Don’t worry, Sandy, I’m not a Sassenach as I am a Mullouch - Ex Loch Don – near Craignure.
MD, you, I believe, have been using a technique not dissimilar to Sandy’s where, I think, he has been varying the gyros’ and main shaft speed to obtain propulsion while, as I understand it, you have fixed gyro speed and have been varying the main shaft rotation speed in your YouTube video of 2013 where you uniquely use a battery powered drill as the main shaft drive. No drill was ever put to better use.
Sandy’s intention to provide strain-gauge measurements to engage scientific interests is, I fear doomed as they have had more than enough confirmatory information over the years – cynical moi?
Jeez, we should all get Nobel prizes for our unique uses of materials and tools available from the local tool and model shops in our desperate rush to try out our theories. Finding mechanical designs that minimise oscillations that shake our masterpieces (and I don’t mean that in a piss-taking way as we all at some time have had our “masterpieces” shake themselves apart – if not actually try to kill us, in my case). No? You haven’t had that? Just me then.
MD, I think that is is essential that you ease up on your seeming hatred of the human race – which you should have found out by now is not even slightly perfect - I agree that what you put up on YouTube back in 2013 is more than enough to justify scientific interest but, disappointingly as it must be for you, others out there slaving away in their sheds (like me) have got, what they consider to be, and probably is, similar proof of the anomaly in Newton’s third (and first and second laws, but lets not get too complicated just yet).
Saying “ Well fine, humanity, if that's the way you're going to act, then no space drive for you!" is a bit pointless when so many others have trod your painful path and are possibly in front. You have to try to relax, be philosophical and be happy that you understood what was possible before 99.9999999 (chose your figure) per cent of the population of know-it-all scientists and hangers on had the slightest clue of what they had missed in their, alleged, understanding of gyrodynamics. And what is worse; they had probably been instrumental in delaying still further the correction in the errors in a three hundred and thirty odd year old foundation stone of mechanical physics:- Newton’s laws, of course.
And, MD, chill about the climate collapse stuff too. I am always suspicious of science that screams about one thing (global warming) to start with, then shortly after subtly changes to scream something different (climate change) before trying to increase the scare factor still more by changing it yet again (to climate collapse). There is no doubt that changes in human uses of the planet are needed however........
As the greatest global warming gas is not Anthropomorphic CO2 as we are all told by the scare mongers but good old simple water vapour, perhaps we should keep floating tons of plastic bottles on the oceans to reduce evaporation.
Hey, that was a joke, don’t get your knickers in a twist.
Love and laughter
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 08/07/2019 23:24:28
| | | Well Nitro, it's sad to hear you're having problems accepting climate science. I actually run a pro-science, anti-denier (climate change denier) site right now called AntiAnti.se .
Here's a computer translated version: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fantianti.se%2F
But, I guess if you're dealing with fringe science, you also gain somewhat of a skeptical view towards science. "If they can't even get gyros right, what could they be getting wrong?". I in no way doubt science can get things wrong, but "not knowing" something hardly counts as wrong. Because yes, even if we gyro nutters were to prove something extremely weird and counter-intuitive is happening with our devices, I'm sure the eventual explanation won't destroy Newton's legacy, but just like Einstein's theories, simply expand upon them.
I've already started theorizing that gyros, when twisted and you feel a resistance..... that resistance is actually the entire universe counter-rotating. The resistance you're feeling when trying to twist a gyro is actually the gyro 'latching on' to the mass of the universe. It's mysterious, sure, but if there's "an equal and opposite reaction" to everything, then what is science's current explanation to the phenomena you can literally feel when twisting a gyro around? The opposite reaction.. doesn't appear to exist. The energy that goes into twisting it, simply..... "disappears".
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-forgotten-mystery-of-inertia
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 12/07/2019 17:47:28
| | | Hiya MD
You are mistaken. I have no problems accepting climate science. I do, however, have a problem accepting the vast amount of climate bollocks that we are being force fed by “scientists” and their hanger-on journalists who dare not go against the current “Warmist” trend as their very research and journalist incomes depends on following the herd. ‘Twas ever thus!
You may recall a brave scientist who refused to follow the herd and lost everything because of his honesty. Remember Eric Laithwaite? Every scientist remembers him, which is why they won’t touch an investigation into our gyro field with a barge pole.
I worry that there will soon be “Extinction Rebellion” Warmist vigilantes roaming the streets carrying out the modern equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition. They have already selfishly disrupted honest citizens trying to go about their business by blocking the roads and halting the underground train (subways) services in London. They are now, insanely, planning to risk lives and disrupt flights from Heathrow by flying drones on the flight paths. The really worrying thing is that most of them have no clue as to the actual facts of the matter they rant about.
Perhaps, MD, you are different and would like to tell what you believe the most influencing gas in global warming is. And what is its percentage in of all the atmospheric gasses? And while you are at it could you say what percentage of all the atmospheric gasses anthropomorphic (man made) CO2 represents?
If you get those percentages even nearly right you will be almost unique amongst “Warmists”, as none that I have asked have had the slightest bloody clue on those vital percentages.
Moving on to your theorizing on gyros.
First I think you need to read up on Occam’s razor (William of Ockham's razor) before dragging the whole damn universe into explaining gyrodynamics. Oh! God. I’m starting to sound like Prof. Dave Fisher.
There is absolutely no resistance to “force precessing” a gyro. What you are feeling is the gyro transferring the force you are applying to change its axial angle, changing its axial angle 90 degrees displaced from your input.
A simple, though time consuming, test of this is to clamp an old bike frame with everything stripped from it except its front forks and front wheel into a carpenters vice. If the front wheel is then spun up good and fast, you will find that the handle bars can be spun round and round with your little finger with no detectable precessional resistance whatsoever – assuming good head bearings, of course. How is that possible? Where has your precious resistance disappeared to? Where is the magical “latching on” to the mass of the universe. Why am I trying to explain this to you? You won’t listen anyway.
As I keep saying; there is exactly the normal amount of reaction to a force applied to change the axial angle of a gyro – it just AINT OPPOSITE.
When you have actually carried out the “bike test” above I will try to explain to you why it behaves thus – though I have a feeling you will prefer to stick to some latching to the universe explanation and tell me to sod off.
Kind regards
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 12/07/2019 19:28:42
| | | Very good, simple and exacting explanation you give. NM: “There is absolutely no resistance to “force precessing” a gyro. What you are feeling is the gyro transferring the force you are applying to change its axial angle, changing its axial angle 90 degrees displaced from your input.”
Also, most of these gases from coal, cars, plains, and animals are used by trees, grass, and vegetables to convert to oxygen which is returned to be used by animals and decay to produce more gases. Nature keeps readjusting to meet supply and demand. There are no doomsday crises from gas emission.
However, all mammals will perish within 100 years perhaps by nuclear explosions, but more likely by biological inventions of highly contagious viruses that resist all known medicine and will spread throughout the atmosphere of the planet-killing all. I think the invention already exists in an island of New York and in Rusha and maybe China and with the rapid advancement of biotechnology even in 3rd world countries and available to suicidal terrorism from the Middle East and maybe North Korea. If it is not already in existence, it will be soon. Greenhouse gases are not a doomsday problem.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 13/07/2019 00:47:19
| | | Excuse me NM but there is equal and opposite resistance to “forced precession” When you apply force the entire gyroscope would move through space while holding its attitude and alinement, unless there is a countering force opposite to your applied force. If it sets in a gimble ring, the platform of the ring holds the table with equal force. There must be two forces opposed to one another in order to cause the ninety degrees reaction, which YES, that reaction is then an equal force reaction.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Nitro - 13/07/2019 09:50:37
| | | Hi Glen
OK., Mea culpa. But only slightly. I foolishly had assumed that having banged on about the effects of a force applied to change the axial angle of AN OVERHUNG GYRO over and over on this site that it would have been clear to someone versed in the art that that was what I was referring to however...........
What is it with you Yanks? Is paranoia mandatory in America? It seems that if you don’t think that anthropomorphic CO2 will boil you to death, “nuclear explosions, biological inventions of highly contagious viruses that resist all known medicine will spread throughout the atmosphere of the planet-killing all or in an island of New York and in Rusha and maybe China or even in 3rd world countries or suicidal terrorism from the Middle East and maybe North Korea. If it is not already in existence, it will be soon. Greenhouse gases are not a doomsday problem”.
Glad to see you keeping so optimistic and joyful.
NM
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 13/07/2019 17:17:15
| | | Hello NM,
I never think about this doomsday scenario or any others disaster but if someone harps about polution destroying the planet, I can point out that that is the least worry they should have if they want to worry, so why should they get their panties in a wad over it. Pollution can not be stopped anyway.
Thank you for the lovely encouragement and helping me out. Cheers to you
Glenn,
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
MD - 13/07/2019 22:07:01
| | | Bah, climate skepticism.
Won't touch that with a 10 feet pole, so let's just agree to never mention climate again, okay?
Actually, just..... screw you. If you're so bad at science you can't figure out that CO2 is humanity's largest problem, then you won't be of help to me. So please do me a favor and stop talking to me from now on. This thread is reserved for people who know Something about science.
The rest of you can bugger off. I have no tolerance for climate deniers.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/07/2019 18:22:42
| | | You poor driven, angry, dysfunctional man.
Still, you have my love and hopes for contentment and calm and that peace and sanity come to the.
All my Best!
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
