Inertia Drive project. RFDD.

[CuriousChris]

Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-JF4a6qyDs

Hi Tinman

I watched the above video and your last one with the water deflection.

Sadly from what I can see MarkE is correct.

What you have failed to properly take into consideration and it is a very important consideration, is the torque applied by the spinning motor.

This torque will create both a sideways torque and a rotation about the axis (think precession).

You did argue that you reversed the motor and got the same deflection. But we have not seen this I'd like to see the whole thing run with the motor operating in both directions. Hopefully you prove me wrong.

Also I played with the water (liquid) theory a while back and unfortunately it is a serious dead end. I personally would not spend any time on it. Though you are welcome to if you wish. The video showed in my opinion, zero effect.

The other thing is its not a closed system!

While you are concentrating on the water leaving the nozzle you are ignoring the water flowing through the system. There is no possible way to "close the loop". I know, I have tried . all attempts to return the water to the nozzle (nozzles) results in a cancellation of the effect.

It is most important to note the following. As the water flows around the system anytime it is deflected by the sidewalls of the pipe (around a bend) there is an equal and opposite reaction. Thus taking water from the "collector" to the pump and then back to the nozzles results in zero gain.

Please don't take this as criticism. You are where I was 3 or 4 years ago. lots of learning to do yet. Its the learning that's the fun part.

But this does not mean I don't believe in reaction-less drives. It just so happens I do. In fact the reason I read this thread is because I believe I have cracked this nut. I wanted to see what the state of play is and so far I have not seen anyone either on these forums or through patent searches that has the answer.

Of course MarkE will argue I am wrong, it can't be done. So until I have solid proof I am leaving it as it is. You may recall I am a very big critic of OU. hopefully my previous form will give pause. Either I am losing it or perhaps I am on to something.

In the meant time keep at it. Just remember there is no such thing as a negligible force when dealing with a reaction less drive. Every small reaction must be accounted for, and you mist look in every nook and cranny for it. The most important place to look is whenever a fluid or mass changes direction. The velocity of the mass DOES NOT COUNT. It's the velocity over time that counts. In other words running a weight slower around one portion of a device provides as much force as running the same weight around the other portion but over a shorter time frame. This last one is the basis of many a failed patent.

I think MarkE will attest to that last one. (its a variation of the old energy versus power argument).

A couple more things. Don't use a pendulum test, its deceiving, your device must operate at 90 degrees to the force of gravity otherwise your results may be erroneous. If you use wheels they must be omnidirectional to avoid the "ice skater effect". Bunnies has suitable wheels for just a dollar or two.

Now I have to go and buy some bearings. Too much friction in my test device....

[MarkE]

CuriousChris I go with what the weight of evidence tells us.  At this point in time it tells us that there isn't any known way to propel something without moving something else recognizable the opposite way.  That gives me a very low expectation that a reactionless drive can be devised.  Should someone come up with strong contrary evidence, then the collective we would be remiss to ignore such evidence.

[CuriousChris]

I agree Mark. The weight of evidence is against a reactionless drive. I am pinning my hopes on that being only because not all evidence has been considered.

I believe I have accounted for all arguments and am confident that my theories are correct. my simplistic testing at this point confirms my theory of operation. But as you are aware we can get caught by the unexpected or the dismissed as trivial.

One argument that crops up all the time is such a device would be a perpetual motion machine. If my theory is correct I will prove that it is not a perpetual motion machine and without energy input it cannot move, There is no breaking of newtons laws, not even a sidestepping. The other argument most commonly used is the "closed system" argument. This most commonly used argument does take into account there is no such thing as a closed system, except perhaps the universe itself.

Time will only tell. Sadly work takes precedence and I have to wait for my bearings to come from china, I have not found a local supplier .

If nothing else it will be a learning exercise.

[MarkE]

Ultimately the evidence will tell the story.