IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?

[nix85]

It's worse than that; I have people who keep telling me they're going to kill me if I do.

Sure, sure. "They" don't let you. Meanwhile i have broken down the whole inertial business to it's basic components so a monkey could understand and build a basic device.

Now YOU discuss why the Principle of Conservation of Momentum FORCES a machine to move if the radius is shortened.

Radius does not have to be shortened at all. See what happens when you don't understand the basic principle, you are confused and confuse others, so let me repeat it..

ANY UNBALANCED MASS
OSCILLATING WITHIN 180° OR LESS
OR SPINNING FULL CIRCLE WITH VARYING SPEED
CONVERTS CENTRIFUGAL FORCE
INTO LINEAR ACCELERATION
OF THE WHOLE SYSTEM

No changing of radius.

Or are you just a troll, delighting in misdirecting the conversation away from one thing after another?

That is exactly what you are doing, asking ridiculous questions, distracting from the subject.

[nix85]

This isn't even your thread.  Yet you jumped in spouting gibberish and claiming that EVERY working system is based on YOUR stated principle, with everything else being irrelevant.  I'm trying to discuss issues related to the opening post, on the first page.  As well as general aspects of mechanical force propulsion.

Never said it's my thread. I'm sure it sounds like gibberish to you cause you don't get it. In fact you are the only one spouting gibberish. It's not my principle i just defined it so anyone can understand. And i am not stopping you from trying to discuss anything.

[nix85]

@nix85:
That's an interesting diagram you posted, of a torus having a smaller diameter on one side.  I mean, it's interesting that you think that a faster flow, with less mass will produce more centrifuge force (not a miss spelling) than appears on the slower side having much more mass.  And your drawing is SO very unsofisticated.  The bottom part contains NONE of the intricate detail of the Mercury Drive.  (Presented as "The Modern Day Workhorse of Inertial Propulsion").

I don't think lesser volume at greater speed produces more force proportionally to ratio of  speed, it is a simple fact cause cent. force is velocity squared, basic math.

Mercury Drive? What does that have to do with anything here, this is water drive.

And haven't you heard that the so-called "Fourth Law of Motion" (surge) is in direct opposition to the Second Law, which holds that it takes just as much energy to accelerate something quickly as to slowly accelerate to the same velocity?  Introducing this factor did not suddenly make the Dean Drive start working.  So why even mention it?  Distraction?

Everyone knows this principle "violates" conservation of momentum and thus conservation of energy (not really in the wider scope of things).

So this principle is OU, it is an example of reactive power doing real work.

[nix85]

Mercury is 13 times denser than water, you should understand energy to propel it is proportionally larger, not to mention Mercury is toxic and totally out of question for system like this.

As for the rest, you are wrong. Like said before due to Venturi Effect, water speeds up in narrower parts and since cent. force is mass velocity squared over radius, force is proportionally larger in narrower part.

[NdaClouDzzz]

HaHa. nix and his overblown ego getting spanked again! Suckit nix, you fukn lame!