The motion appears to be angular still rather than linear. I would think that in space it would move in a large but circular path. The device itself would be rotating around a center. This however can still be useful if you could change the size of the outer rotation.
Wow. This is absolutely, and uttterly amazing. Definitely the 8th wonder of the world. Big scientific breakthrough we have here. Huge fan. Huge fan. I love your work. Truly inspiring.
I am interested in inertial mass propulsion, and as you have no money, but I suggest that you follow a path more "impressive" for your videos, try to build a "balanced" it takes a lot of speed, and then changes its configuration and off balance, "single shot" the effect will be more attractive
As I've said to others, model this in Phun and share please. If it's just exploitation of existing laws of motion then it should work in a simulation.
Typically proponents of IP don't claim a new physical law, just an error in interpreting old ones.
The point is that the marbles are minimizing friction, only the pendulum test is foolproof, but try looking for linear movement while using one of the variable radius slip-stick "plank climbers" you will get no results on marbles.
I have to agree with flowerbower, the pendulum experiment is a sound test to see exactly what forces are generated and in what directions. I would suggest a very long rigid pendulum and perhaps 3 of your devices running 60 degrees out of phase with each other to smooth the output, like multi cylinder motors do. If the device can provide useful unidirectional trust that is one sure way to prove it. Good luck. Any links/plans?
One should avoid a rigid pendulum; vibrations generated, in the support point, by the device could theoretically produce a permanent offset from the vertical and thereby give the impression that some sort of anomalous force was acting horizontally.
If the rigid pendulum uses a single rigid axis for its support only a "anomalous force" would be able to create and maintain an angle other than zero. The alternative is non rigid string... and all I can say is good luck measuring anything in that senario.
You see? That is where a lot of crackpot inventors go wrong. They think that they understand 'simple' physics, but they don't. Any anomaly is then attributed to 'new physics' rather than to their ignorance. Not only can vibration of the support produce a permanent offset, it can even maintain a pendulum in an upside-down ('top heavy') position!
Also, in a ballistic pendulum, it is standard practice to use 2 strings.
Ok then... Use a form of propulsion we both know works and apply it in that exact experiment. Lets say a model airplane engine or jet turbine. I promise you will end up with a spinning tangled mess and not a revolving engine. The difference between our methods is practicality in the real world.
If indeed the net force produced by this device is zero then there is no reason why it should in any way oppose the force of gravity to lift itself and the pendulum.
So use 4 supporting wires (in a rectangular array) instead of 2. These difficulties only go to show that experimentation is more difficult than one expects.
You should hope that there is no apparent force. If there were, you could not assume (it would be contrary to logic) that it was some new phenomenon and you would have to track down every other possible cause. That is when the real work starts.
I have tried to do such in the past with hockey air tables but the possibility of a 'skirt-tipping' air thrust effect ruins such a test. The marbles get all over the place after a few seconds of testing so marble tests are usually pretty short, I just try to pay attention to what happens after three rotations of the hammers to get an idea as to the nature of movement.
The only correct way of testing this type of device is to use a ballistic pendulum. It should then (if genuine) produce a stable offset from vertical. It can oscillate around this offset, but one can accept a 'statistical' offset from the vertical.
If friction were totally eliminated, then movement would be impossible. Directed motion on an 'apparently' frictionless surface has confused many inventors.
No. It is a 'working hypothesis', not a circular argument. In any case: if you are trying to disprove Newton's third law, you are wasting your time. You will only end up by proving it (yet again).
CORRECTION: I meant to write: "one cannot accept a 'statistical' offset from the vertical." (internal motions within the device could change the effective length of the pendulum, and hence the swing amplitude).
The motion appears to be angular still rather than linear. I would think that in space it would move in a large but circular path. The device itself would be rotating around a center. This however can still be useful if you could change the size of the outer rotation.
repatte 1 year ago
float it on water, then see if it moves
msqtube 1 year ago
Wow. This is absolutely, and uttterly amazing. Definitely the 8th wonder of the world. Big scientific breakthrough we have here. Huge fan. Huge fan. I love your work. Truly inspiring.
MrChachi4607 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am interested in inertial mass propulsion, and as you have no money, but I suggest that you follow a path more "impressive" for your videos, try to build a "balanced" it takes a lot of speed, and then changes its configuration and off balance, "single shot" the effect will be more attractive
exasimpol 2 years ago
As I've said to others, model this in Phun and share please. If it's just exploitation of existing laws of motion then it should work in a simulation.
Typically proponents of IP don't claim a new physical law, just an error in interpreting old ones.
Innomen 2 years ago
A definite proof of any such device would be to hang it in the air and prove that it propels forward.
oystla 2 years ago
I think what we see here is the device spinning the marbles under it and propelling it forward, nothing strange or anomalous.
MyITRcom 2 years ago
The point is that the marbles are minimizing friction, only the pendulum test is foolproof, but try looking for linear movement while using one of the variable radius slip-stick "plank climbers" you will get no results on marbles.
clevelandsavage 2 years ago
I have to agree with flowerbower, the pendulum experiment is a sound test to see exactly what forces are generated and in what directions. I would suggest a very long rigid pendulum and perhaps 3 of your devices running 60 degrees out of phase with each other to smooth the output, like multi cylinder motors do. If the device can provide useful unidirectional trust that is one sure way to prove it. Good luck. Any links/plans?
dingusmungus 4 years ago
One should avoid a rigid pendulum; vibrations generated, in the support point, by the device could theoretically produce a permanent offset from the vertical and thereby give the impression that some sort of anomalous force was acting horizontally.
flowerbower 3 years ago
If the rigid pendulum uses a single rigid axis for its support only a "anomalous force" would be able to create and maintain an angle other than zero. The alternative is non rigid string... and all I can say is good luck measuring anything in that senario.
dingusmungus 3 years ago
You see? That is where a lot of crackpot inventors go wrong. They think that they understand 'simple' physics, but they don't. Any anomaly is then attributed to 'new physics' rather than to their ignorance. Not only can vibration of the support produce a permanent offset, it can even maintain a pendulum in an upside-down ('top heavy') position!
Also, in a ballistic pendulum, it is standard practice to use 2 strings.
flowerbower 3 years ago
Ok then... Use a form of propulsion we both know works and apply it in that exact experiment. Lets say a model airplane engine or jet turbine. I promise you will end up with a spinning tangled mess and not a revolving engine. The difference between our methods is practicality in the real world.
If indeed the net force produced by this device is zero then there is no reason why it should in any way oppose the force of gravity to lift itself and the pendulum.
dingusmungus 3 years ago
So use 4 supporting wires (in a rectangular array) instead of 2. These difficulties only go to show that experimentation is more difficult than one expects.
You should hope that there is no apparent force. If there were, you could not assume (it would be contrary to logic) that it was some new phenomenon and you would have to track down every other possible cause. That is when the real work starts.
flowerbower 3 years ago
Please put it on a boat on water and make
a longer video.
Please post your results at
overunity dot com
in the antigravity section.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
overunitydotcom 4 years ago
It would be interesting to see this model on coasters over a larger area. Nicely made attempt.
sovereign777 5 years ago
I have tried to do such in the past with hockey air tables but the possibility of a 'skirt-tipping' air thrust effect ruins such a test. The marbles get all over the place after a few seconds of testing so marble tests are usually pretty short, I just try to pay attention to what happens after three rotations of the hammers to get an idea as to the nature of movement.
clevelandsavage 5 years ago
The only correct way of testing this type of device is to use a ballistic pendulum. It should then (if genuine) produce a stable offset from vertical. It can oscillate around this offset, but one can accept a 'statistical' offset from the vertical.
flowerbower 4 years ago
If friction were totally eliminated, then movement would be impossible. Directed motion on an 'apparently' frictionless surface has confused many inventors.
flowerbower 4 years ago
Circular argument, here you have already introduced the presuppposition that the device doesn't work.
clevelandsavage 4 years ago
No. It is a 'working hypothesis', not a circular argument. In any case: if you are trying to disprove Newton's third law, you are wasting your time. You will only end up by proving it (yet again).
flowerbower 4 years ago
CORRECTION: I meant to write: "one cannot accept a 'statistical' offset from the vertical." (internal motions within the device could change the effective length of the pendulum, and hence the swing amplitude).
flowerbower 4 years ago