M Drive reactionless drive invented by me

[tim123]

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..

Regards
Tim

[M Drive Inventor]

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.

[PiCéd]

You must see the video of Thomas Kim named ping pong ball particle accelerator, it is aproximately the same thing of your trick

[conradelektro]

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

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

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

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

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..

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

[tim123]

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.

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