Inertia Drive project. RFDD.

[tinman]

Those two video's are fantastic,and yes-same basic principle.

Quote Mark:  If you start getting results that look like they defy presently understood physics.
How dose a device that provides it's own thrust defy physics? I think it's more that most dont really understand how to interpret those law's.And to what value would the plumb bob be?.If you are refering to twisting of the box the device is housed in,well that is the very reason for the 3 lines behind the wires above the box,that are marked on the bench.

[MarkE]

Those two video's are fantastic,and yes-same basic principle.

Quote Mark:  If you start getting results that look like they defy presently understood physics.
How dose a device that provides it's own thrust defy physics? I think it's more that most dont really understand how to interpret those law's.And to what value would the plumb bob be?.If you are refering to twisting of the box the device is housed in,well that is the very reason for the 3 lines behind the wires above the box,that are marked on the bench.

The idea of a reactionless drive is one that violates N3.  N3 requires either pushing against something, which is how stiction drives work, or getting a reaction force via N2 by ejecting mass which is how space vehicles that don't have anything to push against work.  A single cable suspension such as in the Italian video can only transmit significant force through its length, IE up and down.  As a consequence, in the Italian video we do not see any displacement in the horizontal plane.

Your set-up varies from that in that it has two suspension cables that form a couple that can transmit torque between the box and the suspending beam about the couple central axis.  Near 5:50 in the video we can see the box twisting about the central axis which transmits force to the beam via the couple.  Since the pointer is not located on the couple central axis the pointer deflects in the horizontal plane.  If you rig with a single suspension cable,  you will eliminate the couple.  The box will still be able to twist around, but it will no longer be able to maintain a static angular displacement.  Now the pointer will oscillate on either side of the rest line.

[tinman]

I am glad you bought up the rockets working in a vacume and N2
When I get home, I will show you why that is not correct.

[MarkE]

I am glad you bought up the rockets working in a vacume and N2
When I get home, I will show you why that is not correct.

NASA, and Elon Musk will be very interested if you have a way to accelerate objects in space without propellant, other than of course just letting them accelerate under the force of gravity.

[tinman]

NASA, and Elon Musk will be very interested if you have a way to accelerate objects in space without propellant, other than of course just letting them accelerate under the force of gravity.

NASA is not so smart,infact they cant even agree on how exactly a rocket engine produces thrust in the vacume of space. Some think it is N3,and some think it is N2.If my design dose indeed produce a thrust via inertial force (which i believe very strongly it dose),then in space,the speed would be infinite. Of course at these small forces,it would take a life time to get to any sort of reasonable speed.

You will have to give me some time on this Mark(in regards to how a rocket produces thrust in a vacume),as i have only just got home from work(now 9.45pm),and my run sheet for the week looks like 15 hour days all week.

But first,lets eliminate the 3rd law-for every force there is an equal and opposite force.
After this is out of the way,we will look at Newtons's 2nd Law : Force = Mass x Acceleration,and of course the conservation of energy.

N3*
A rocket's propellant does not generate force in a vacuum according to the laws of physics and chemistry. And as N3 state's that every force has an equal and opposite force,but a force cannot be produced against the vacume of space,then the 3rd cannot account for the thrust produced by the rocket engine in space. For further information on this,you can look up Free Expansion" or the "Joule-Thomson" effect.

Now N2 needs a lot more explaining,and for this i will need time to get it all in the correct order.
But i want you to think about this,as far as ejecting mass creates thrust. Saturn's moon Enceladus, for example, shoots a jet of water ice 500 KM+ into space. Enceladus has ejected enough material to make up most of saturn's E ring-and yet it hasnt propelled itself through space. A very large mass to move-yes,but also a very large amount of ejected mass over time. There is a lot more to N2,and this will come in time-when i get some.