Inertia Drive project. RFDD.

[tinman]

What is the ultimate goal is this ?

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

To show a simple example of a reaction force producing a force that is the same as the force/action that created it-not opposite to.

[MarkE]

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.

That might be interesting to watch on video.  Howeve, down to cases, in order to show that something exerts a force without a reaction force you really need to eliminate vehicles by which reaction force can be transmitted.  I have suggested a couple of means by which the reacting force/torque that can be transmitted can be reduced to very small values and/or the effects of residual force/torque can be reduced to small values.  You already have a result that conflicts with the Italian demonstration that of similar ilk.  I suggest that you should want to be able to show at least to yourself why your results appear different.

[MarkE]

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.[/quote/Then I would tel you that you are mistaken.[quote

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.

The interesting challenge would be how you might attempt to prove such a thing as measuring the force on the air is typically done by measuring the reaction torque.  If the reaction torque doesn't match the air then Houston we have a problem. I am interested in the test set-up that you would propose.

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 am all ears.

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

[tinman]

That might be interesting to watch on video.  Howeve, down to cases, in order to show that something exerts a force without a reaction force you really need to eliminate vehicles by which reaction force can be transmitted.  I have suggested a couple of means by which the reacting force/torque that can be transmitted can be reduced to very small values and/or the effects of residual force/torque can be reduced to small values.  You already have a result that conflicts with the Italian demonstration that of similar ilk.  I suggest that you should want to be able to show at least to yourself why your results appear different.

mark-could you post the link to this italian test,as i must have missed it some where???.

[tinman]

The interesting challenge would be how you might attempt to prove such a thing as measuring the force on the air is typically done by measuring the reaction torque.  If the reaction torque doesn't match the air then Houston we have a problem. I am interested in the test set-up that you would propose.  I am all ears.

Well maybe we could call it an action/reaction paradox? lol.
I will get all the gear together i need,and start making the jig.Im sure when you see it,you will be able to think of one machine that uses this principle straight away.