IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?

[George1]

To those sceptics, who are still not convinced in the validity of the zigzag principle. (Scepticism is extremely useful, but in a moderate dose. )
=========================
Asking our simple question for the 42nd time.
--------------------------------------------
1) Consider carefully and thoroughly (and many times!) the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY  .
--------------------------------------------
2) Assume that:
a) Ma = 1 kg;
b) Mb = 4 kg; the value of Mb can be either increased or decreased as many times as you want;
c) V1 = 1m/s = const;
d) Ffr. = force of friction inside the zigzag channels = 0.0000001 N; the latter can be further decreased as many times as you want;   
e) N = number of zigzags = 10; the value of N can be either increased or decreased as many times as you want;
f) Shapes of the zigzags = sinusoids; the latter can be replaced by any other curve patterns.
--------------------------------------------
3) It is evident that (always) V2 > 0 m/s and V3 > 0 m/s.
--------------------------------------------
4) It is evident that if V2 = 0.6 m/s and if V3 = 0.1 m/s, then (a) the law of conservation of linear momentum is valid and (b) the law of conservation of mechanical energy is invalid.
--------------------------------------------
5) It is evident that if V2 = 0.8 m/s and if V3 = 0.3 m/s, then (a) the law of conservation of linear momentum is invalid and (b) the law of conservation of mechanical energy is valid.
--------------------------------------------
6) It is evident that if (a) V2 is not equal to 0.6 m/s, and if (b) V2 is not equal to 0.8 m/s, and if (c) V3 is not equal to 0.1 m/s, and if (d) V3 is not equal to 0.3 m/s, then both (e) the law of conservation of linear momentum and (f) the law of conservation of mechanical energy are invalid simultaneously in this special particular zigzag case, which is described in the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY  .
--------------------------------------------
Asking again our simple question for the 42nd time.
--------------------------------------------
QUESTION: Do you have any objections against any of the above items 3-6? Yes or no? (And if yes, then specify exactly which item you do not agree with and why.)
--------------------------------------------
Looking forward to your answer for the 42nd time.
========================
P.S. It is interesting to note a simple interesting experimental fact, which is as follows.
A) A certain number and a certain shape of the zigzags lead to the validity of the above written item 4.
B) Another combination of number and shapes of the zigzags leads to the validity of the above written item 5.
C) And a third combination (and more precisely, a group of combinations) of number and shapes of the zigzags leads to the validity of the above written item 6.

[George1]

To Jerry Volland and to onepower.
=============================
1) A REALLY very interesting experiment is described in the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeyDf4ooPdo   .
----------------------------------------------------
2) But what mathematics and what equations stand behind this REAL anti-gravity phenomenon? Are these equations correct or they are simply some kind of a falsy adjustment? Because a spinning mass and a mass at rest should behave in one and same manner. BUT THEY DO NOT BEHAVE IN ONE AND SAME MANNER! May be some new branch of mathematics has to be developed? Or may the surrounding us physical reality has some unknown mysterious properties, which have not been discovered yet?
----------------------------------------------------
3) How to solve this anti-gravity paradox? I would suggest to discuss and clarify the problem in depth and after that to try to design some real device, which is able to fly as a bird, but without using wings.
----------------------------------------------------
Let us work together and let us push forward together the technology progress! Because enthusiam seems to be basic (not to say the only) motive power of any great achievement and technology feat!
----------------------------------------------------
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
 

[George1]

To those sceptics, who are still not convinced in the validity of the zigzag principle. (Moderate scepticism is useful and too great scepticism is harmful. It's obvious. Don't you think so? )
=========================
Asking our simple question for the 43rd time.
--------------------------------------------
1) Consider carefully and thoroughly (and many times!) the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY  .
--------------------------------------------
2) Assume that:
a) Ma = 1 kg;
b) Mb = 4 kg; the value of Mb can be either increased or decreased as many times as you want;
c) V1 = 1m/s = const;
d) Ffr. = force of friction inside the zigzag channels = 0.0000001 N; the latter can be further decreased as many times as you want;   
e) N = number of zigzags = 10; the value of N can be either increased or decreased as many times as you want;
f) Shapes of the zigzags = sinusoids; the latter can be replaced by any other curve patterns.
--------------------------------------------
3) It is evident that (always) V2 > 0 m/s and V3 > 0 m/s.
--------------------------------------------
4) It is evident that if V2 = 0.6 m/s and if V3 = 0.1 m/s, then (a) the law of conservation of linear momentum is valid and (b) the law of conservation of mechanical energy is invalid.
--------------------------------------------
5) It is evident that if V2 = 0.8 m/s and if V3 = 0.3 m/s, then (a) the law of conservation of linear momentum is invalid and (b) the law of conservation of mechanical energy is valid.
--------------------------------------------
6) It is evident that if (a) V2 is not equal to 0.6 m/s, and if (b) V2 is not equal to 0.8 m/s, and if (c) V3 is not equal to 0.1 m/s, and if (d) V3 is not equal to 0.3 m/s, then both (e) the law of conservation of linear momentum and (f) the law of conservation of mechanical energy are invalid simultaneously in this special particular zigzag case, which is described in the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY  .
--------------------------------------------
Asking again our simple question for the 43rd time.
--------------------------------------------
QUESTION: Do you have any objections against any of the above items 3-6? Yes or no? (And if yes, then specify exactly which item you do not agree with and why.)
--------------------------------------------
Looking forward to your answer for the 43rd time.
========================
P.S. It is interesting to note a simple interesting experimental fact, which is as follows.
A) A certain number and a certain shape of the zigzags lead to the validity of the above written item 4.
B) Another combination of number and shapes of the zigzags leads to the validity of the above written item 5.
C) And a third combination (and more precisely, a group of combinations) of number and shapes of the zigzags leads to the validity of the above written item 6.

[George1]

To Jerry Volland and to onepower.
=============================
Shall we design our anti-gravity "bird" without wings? Some preliminary data? Length of the fly-wheel axis, diameter of the fly-wheel, thickness and mass/weight of the fly-wheel, its angular velocity and kinetic energy?

[George1]

To those sceptics, who are still not convinced in the validity of the zigzag principle.
=========================
Asking our simple question for the 44th time.
--------------------------------------------
1) Consider carefully and thoroughly (and many times!) the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY  .
--------------------------------------------
2) Assume that:
a) Ma = 1 kg;
b) Mb = 4 kg; the value of Mb can be either increased or decreased as many times as you want;
c) V1 = 1m/s = const;
d) Ffr. = force of friction inside the zigzag channels = 0.0000001 N; the latter can be further decreased as many times as you want;   
e) N = number of zigzags = 10; the value of N can be either increased or decreased as many times as you want;
f) Shapes of the zigzags = sinusoids; the latter can be replaced by any other curve patterns.
--------------------------------------------
3) It is evident that (always) V2 > 0 m/s and V3 > 0 m/s.
--------------------------------------------
4) It is evident that if V2 = 0.6 m/s and if V3 = 0.1 m/s, then (a) the law of conservation of linear momentum is valid and (b) the law of conservation of mechanical energy is invalid.
--------------------------------------------
5) It is evident that if V2 = 0.8 m/s and if V3 = 0.3 m/s, then (a) the law of conservation of linear momentum is invalid and (b) the law of conservation of mechanical energy is valid.
--------------------------------------------
6) It is evident that if (a) V2 is not equal to 0.6 m/s, and if (b) V2 is not equal to 0.8 m/s, and if (c) V3 is not equal to 0.1 m/s, and if (d) V3 is not equal to 0.3 m/s, then both (e) the law of conservation of linear momentum and (f) the law of conservation of mechanical energy are invalid simultaneously in this special particular zigzag case, which is described in the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY  .
--------------------------------------------
Asking again our simple question for the 44th time.
--------------------------------------------
QUESTION: Do you have any objections against any of the above items 3-6? Yes or no? (And if yes, then specify exactly which item you do not agree with and why.)
--------------------------------------------
Looking forward to your answer for the 44th time.
========================
P.S. It is worth to note a simple interesting experimental fact, which is as follows.
A) A certain number and a certain shape of the zigzags lead to the validity of the above written item 4.
B) Another combination of number and shapes of the zigzags leads to the validity of the above written item 5.
C) And a third combination (and more precisely, a group of combinations) of number and shapes of the zigzags leads to the validity of the above written item 6.