M Drive reactionless drive invented by me

[hdeasy]

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).

[conradelektro]

As  ijust posted as well on the youtube video, Just slip and stick - no mechincal thing like that will do it. I know - check out mine: Seems to accelerate: CIMG4183.AVI Even to weigh less when point up: CIMG0154.AVI .
But it was proved to be just slip and stick for movement and the scales were faulty. Easy to make a mistake.

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

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

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

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

Lifters:

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

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

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

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

Greetings, Conrad

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

[e2matrix]

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.   

[M Drive Inventor]

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.

[conradelektro]

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.

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.

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