IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?

[George1]

Please don't pay attention to the writings of that old cheater whose name is losiledlighting. The latter has nothing to do with us.
George 1

[Low-Q]

Hi Vidar,
A) Yes, you are right about the words "support'" and "confront" -- I did not use them in the most suitable way.
===================
B) But let us get back to the essence of this discussion. I am sending again the text of one of our last posts.
===================
1) Here is an abstract from our post from May 16, 2019, 09:35:12 AM. "It is evident that we can always choose a suitable combination of (a) magnitude of force of friction, (b) length of segments s and (c) number and shape of zigzags, for which Fc = F'c, Fc > 0, F'c > 0, d = d', d > 0 and d' > 0." ANY OBJECTIONS AGAINST THIS LAST CLAIM?
------------------------------
2) Because the lack of objections inevitably leads to a generation of a violation/exception of the rule/law of conservation of linear momentum. (I will remind again that any rule/law has its exceptions and there is nothing special, tragic and disturbing in this fact.)
------------------------------
3) Previous item 2 inevitably leads on its behalf to a possibility of designing and manufacturing of a reactionless drive.
===================
How to explain the things in a simpler and easier manner?
------------------------------
Do you agree with items 1, 2 and 3?
Looking forward to your answer.
George

I can't agree with item 1, 2 or 3 unless you have experimental results that confirms the hypothetis.
Any idea or hypothetis is often biased, meaning that the idea feels so right, one can't see the error in it.
I do not say there is an error in your hypothetis, but the possibility for an error that you will discover when you tests the hypothetis in pratice, is there.
Besides, the explanation written May 10.th, and repeated May 16.th is not refering to figures that is easily accessable from the page where the explanation is written.
That makes it time consuming to follow.


Make some precise building plans, follow the plans, and build it. Untill then, I cannot comment any further.


Vidar

[George1]

Well, you are a stubborn colleague Norseman!
OK, let us start again. Starting again with item 1.
---------------------------
1) Here is an abstract from our post from May 16, 2019, 09:35:12 AM. "It is evident that we can always choose a suitable combination of (a) magnitude of force of friction, (b) length of segments s and (c) number and shape of zigzags, for which Fc = F'c, Fc > 0, F'c > 0, d = d', d > 0 and d' > 0." ANY OBJECTIONS AGAINST THIS LAST CLAIM?
---------------------------
Looking forward to your answer.
George

[George1]

Here is an abstract from our post from May 16, 2019, 09:35:12 AM. "It is evident that we can always choose a suitable combination of (a) magnitude of force of friction, (b) length of segments s and (c) number and shape of zigzags, for which Fc = F'c, Fc > 0, F'c > 0, d = d', d > 0 and d' > 0." ANY OBJECTIONS AGAINST THIS LAST CLAIM?
---------------------------
Looking forward to your answer.
George

[George1]

Here is an abstract from our post from May 16, 2019, 09:35:12 AM. "It is evident that we can always choose a suitable combination of (a) magnitude of force of friction, (b) length of segments s and (c) number and shape of zigzags, for which Fc = F'c, Fc > 0, F'c > 0, d = d', d > 0 and d' > 0." ANY OBJECTIONS AGAINST THIS LAST CLAIM?
----------------------------
1) As far as we can see there aren't any objections against this last claim. Besides a simple experiment, which was repeated many times, confirmed the validity of Fc = F'c, Fc > 0, F'c > 0, d = d', d > 0 and d' > 0. We developed an entirely new and original technology able to decrease standard sliding friction hundreds (and even thousands) of times thus reducing hundreds (and even thousands) of times experimental error due to friction. (In principle modern technologies allow reducing of friction practically as much as you want thus reducing as much as you want the experimental error due to friction.)
----------------------------
2) Our general intention is to suggest to the audience an electro-mechanical reactionless drive without any pollution.The secret of the principle of operation of the mechanical component of the system has been already revealed ABSOLUTELY FREE in this topic. The electrical component of the system however is not free an we sell it for 10 (ten) million dollars.
And here is our key business proposal. It is evident that most members of this forum are creative persons of non-standard and original way of thinking. (Not a flattery, but a true real fact.) If a certain member of this forum manages to help us to sell the electrical component of the system for 10 (ten) million dollars, then he/she would immediately receive 1 (one) million dollars and an invitation to join our team of inventors (if he/she wants to join us and work with us, of course.)
----------------------------
Looking forward to your answers.
George