IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?

[nix85]

"mass action points have to have different distances from the center of the orbit"

masses DO have different distances from the center of the orbit, very much so,
as clearly seen in the screenshot.

this approach is unnecessarily complicated and debunked, not worth mentioning anymore.

"You have to pull the mass to the side while it curves upwards."

just no

there are better and simpler approaches, water based one i disclosed just one example
there are even better ones, i am not telling exactly everything, do your research, people

let's for now focus on the basic principle

[nix85]

i'm not arguing with you, i'm just pointing out when you say something not true

over 100 machines you say and yet you don't really have anything to show
but short video in which your device jerked itself bit up and down.

i'm not downplaying your efforts, all honest effort is valuable and commendable!

couple of americans have been flying in a disc with water based inertial drive
in the 1990s (according to report from keelynet.com), same venturi principle
based drive i independently rediscovered and shared here.

and after that i found even better approach that works, it's out there, if
you dig for it. no reaction whatsoever, capable of high rpm..but i'm not disclosing
everything yet.

with no intent to boast, i understand this on bit deeper level.
that much about "mentorship".

also, i recognize the need for people to understand the simple basic principle.
how many people dabble in inertial propulsion and still don't get it, almost
none get it.

hopefully someone builds it, it will either make great news here or be another
failure, if it fails, which i doubt it will, i'll easily find another way to impart
momentum to those counterrotating arms.

[nix85]

speaking of biggest mouth, you might look at your own posts.

i don't have any followers, i'm just another member of the forum

i am a builder. i been building for years and i am building right now.

not gonna show your machines cause they have financial value? ahaam, sure

let me be clear, this is not and cannot be an ego thing. i invested most of
my time in gravity and OU, but i did invest A LOT of time and energy into
inertial propulsion too.

and i have no problem admitting that last principle i referred to in last post,
which is superior to anything i ever seen is totally not my idea and i was like
how in the world did i not figure this myself.

i have suffered the ego/pride enough to know it leads nowhere (hopefully)

also, i am student of art, i don't like to classify myself as an artists but i been
called that, i did write many songs in my life on a guitar mostly, i also work with
design. i don't see what that has to do with anything.

anyone who excels in anything in my book is a master and artist of that particular thing

[nix85]

that is most likely a troll question implying i did not study "art" (physics)
of inertial propulsion and there is a great irony considering he is the one
who did not study it, and if he did, he did not get it.
...
sure there might be money in it, but i do not pursue it for that reason
i didn't ask for last word, you are free to participate as much as you like

[George1]

Isn't there at least one brave member here in this forum who would dare to say that the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY puts the basis of a new technology revolution?