M Drive reactionless drive invented by me

[conradelektro]

<sup>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...</sup>

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

[tim123]

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

[ingyenenergiagep]

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...

[TinselKoala]

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

[TinselKoala]

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.