Inertia Drive project. RFDD.

[MarkE]

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.

It is both.  N2 states that accelerating mass exerts force.  N3 states that an equal and opposite force accelerates the ejecting vehicle in the opposite direction.

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.

That's the idea of any reactionless space drive.  Accelerate, even if at a low rate without having to toss propellant mass behind you.  That way you don't have to carry mostly propellant up with the launch.

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.

Take your time.  I am in no hurry.

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.

Sir Isaac beg to differ and points to his second law.

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.

We know rockets work and we know why they work:  N2 AND N3.

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.

N2 has been tested millions of times.  It really does work.

[MarkE]

Your satellites are going through a constant state of acceleration on one side and deceleration on the other and it is the transition on the close orbit side that makes the funny orbit path,, it is the tension in the wire that is transferring the force of acceleration and deceleration,, so that angle from the wire to the pulleys changes.  There is also the CF within the system that moves the satellites outward.

In my view there is more going on than just spinning some weights,, and that might even suggest that you mount your testbed by the sides as such that you can rotate the testbed to see if there is a direction of greater force than the one straight out in line with the peak of the long orbit.

P.S. I am no brainiac,, but I have played with very similar systems.

Tom the classical physics that conflicts with the idea of a reactionless drive is Newton's Third Law.  Draw a box around a device as Tinman has done or a bag as the Italian demonstration did.  If we want the object in the box or the bag to accelerate, something has to push on it from behind or pull from the front.  N3 tells us that whatever does that pushing or pulling experiences an equal and opposite force.  Within the box each ting that pushes is matched by something that pushes back equally and oppositely.  Ditto anything that pulls in the box.  So the spinning weights, no matter how arranged experience equal and opposite forces within the box (or bag) and there is no net external force.  When the Italian guy hung his bag from one cable, that cabe has almost no leverage against the pivot it hangs from and can't transmit any force to speak of to push the bag pendulum statically against gravity.  Tinman's situation is a little bit different because he uses two suspension cables.  A static torque can be generated between the two cables.  The box can statically twist against the beam.

[ARMCORTEX]

Closed, open... such meaningless words. To claim understanding by the use of these words is simply pathetic.

Its the obervers point, I think Terawatts research are playing this also, via very proprietary material choosing and calculation. non easily done.

They have very stealthy technology, the process itself, I bet you wouldnt notice it if you saw the device.

Beyond that , I believe that Chas Campbell is using eccentric trick and pulleys elasticity as turning this into an "oscillator""

http://www.overunity.com/12464/using-chas-cambel-flywheel-system-for-15-horsepower/135/#.U_qAU010y70

From the sims i did, if we add a small, hidden, eccentric, we can have rocking motion wich is = to rotating frequency, if the frame holding this rotating mass is somewhat loose.

It is my belief, that this switch flywheel is trapped between loose( pulleys) , wich allow it to oscillate by translation just enough to be energized by drive motor and squeeze the the pulley powerfully and fast, avoiding connection of input to ''filter wheels'' if possible When such force of applied tangantially at 1000hz, the lead out theory happens.

The lead out theory... another mystery, dereferencing by eccentrics, now this ? .... We are but postulating on the theories of some, what is really happening ?

I believe that this attempt is quite obvious with chas first video, but that others, are better @ hiding this oscillating tension on the belt.

The Turkish company is a perfect example, you cannot visually notice the rocking. but their assembly indicates to me that their tensionner needs to be tuned.

[tinman]

No-not OU in any way Webby.

MarkE has a firm set of definitions he works by.

So are missing the big picture here,and seem to relate a force to being a physical force,but overlook the fact that there is indeed another outside force being applied to the system.The system is not closed.
Quote: In a closed system (one that does not exchange any matter with the outside and is not acted on by outside forces) the total momentum is constant.

But there is an exchange of matter in my system-that being by way of electrical force supplied via the battery,which is external from the system. Is voltage not described as being a preasure. Where dose it say in N2 & N3 that this force has to be physical?. We already know that an electrical force can be turned into a mechanical force-thus the electric motor.

[MarkE]

No-not OU in any way Webby.

MarkE has a firm set of definitions he works by.

So are missing the big picture here,and seem to relate a force to being a physical force,but overlook the fact that there is indeed another outside force being applied to the system.The system is not closed.
Quote: In a closed system (one that does not exchange any matter with the outside and is not acted on by outside forces) the total momentum is constant.

But there is an exchange of matter in my system-that being by way of electrical force supplied via the battery,which is external from the system. Is voltage not described as being a preasure. Where dose it say in N2 & N3 that this force has to be physical?. We already know that an electrical force can be turned into a mechanical force-thus the electric motor.

Tinman your system exchanges torque with the overhead beam via the couple formed by the two suspension cables.  If you either eliminate the couple by going to a single suspension cable, or monitor deflection at the center of the couple, I submit the small static deflection that you currently see with the pointer that is well off the couple center will go away.