Inertia Drive project. RFDD.

[Artoj]

Tinman, great work, I suggest 4 ways of checking, 1) put the unit(with batteries included) on a floating platform in a pool of water, 2) place the unit on a friction free flat and very level surface(oil,air, magnetic), 3) on a slight incline plane that is friction free as well, 4) on the end of a balanced beam with the force vector aiming a) circular b) up/down , regards Arto.

[MarkE]

Tinman, great work, I suggest 4 ways of checking, 1) put the unit(with batteries included) on a floating platform in a pool of water, 2) place the unit on a friction free flat and very level surface(oil,air, magnetic), 3) on a slight incline plane that is friction free as well, 4) on the end of a balanced beam with the force vector aiming a) circular b) up/down , regards Arto.

Those are all reasonable suggestions.  Be careful about the air table as the air cushion can develop thrust.

[tinman]

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.

Mark,this is not what is happening. If we use your theory,then reversing the direction of rotation of both the motor,and then of course the pully's and weights would also reverse direction,we should see an opposite deflection of the pointer.After the video,the reverse test was carried out. Very simple of course,we just swap the polarity of the motor around,then the whole rotating masses change direction of spin. This gave the very same result,and same deflection of the pointer.

Soon i will be performing another test,and scale's will be placed between the cables and device,so as we can see if we get a weight gain in one direction of spin,and a weight loss in the other.
But first there is a little some thing else i would like to show,and that is how it is possable to get a reaction force to produce a force in the same direction of the force that created the reaction force in the first place.

[tinman]

This is just a simple little example as to how a reaction force can be made to produce a force that is equal to and also in the same direction as the action/force that created it.If we look at the picture of the motor with a prop attached,we see two actions and reactions that take place. First we apply DC power to the motor,and the motor spins in one direction. Lets say that the first action is the shaft/prop turning,and the reaction is the motor housing wanting to rotate in the opposite direction-this is our equal and opposite forces. The second action/reaction is the face of the prop blades pushing against the air,and the air pushing against the blade faces. So the effect is that air is forced/pushed in one direction,and the motor and prop is pushed in the other. All is good,we have our equal and opposite reactions.

But what if i told you,through a series of mechanisms i could stop the reaction force on the motor housing,but maintain the action/force produced by the prop. Infact,what if we could double the output force in the way of air flow,and have non what so ever reaction force produced by the motor housing.Lets say the motor housing is attached to a torque meter,and that torque meter showed X amount of torque from the motor housing.This would of course be the same amount of torque being placed on the prop.What if we can double the output force of flowing air,but show a 0 reading on the torque meter. The result from this Reaction Force Diversion would be that the reaction force itself,is able to apply a force that is in the same direction as the force that created it.

This is nothing new,and it is used today in some machines. But most just pass it on by,and take no notice of what actually has/is taking place-both an action and reaction force producing a force that is equal but not opposite.

I would expect Mark,and some others to work this out,and know what the hell im talking about.

[ARMCORTEX]

What is the ultimate goal is this ?

Using my yatsenyuk voice, "this is very dangerous".