IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?

[nix85]

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuut

[nix85]

@George

[nix85]

Magnetic dipole forces fall off with square when close to the magnet and transition to cube at greater distances.

[George1]

Ok, ok, let us start from the very beginning and let us follow a step-by-step procedure.
--------------------------------------------
STEP 1.
1) Please consider carefully and thoroughly the animation/simulation and the related explanatory text in PART 1.
2) The left blue T-shaped component falls downward much more slowly than the right blue T-shaped component. Experimentally proved many times. Friction inside the zigzag channels (left device) as well as inside the straight-line channels (right device) is negligible.
-------------------------------------------
STEP 2.
1) Please consider carefully and thoroughly the animation/simulation and the related explanatory text in PART 2.
2) The experiment is just the same as in item 2 of previous STEP 1 with the only difference that in the zone of the segment "s" the straight-line channels' inner surfaces are made rough. And this roughness generates friction. And this friction slows down the free falling of the right blue T-shaped component.
3) The value of friction is chosen in such a manner that the two blue components touch the ground simultaneously. Experimentally proved many times.
--------------------------------------------
STEP 3.
It more than evident from previous STEP 1 and STEP 2 that the zigzags generate mechanical effect, (a) which is absolutely identical and equivalent to friction and (b) which does not generate heat.
--------------------------------------------
IMPORTANT NOTE. The masses of the couples blue rod-blue ball are much smaller (but not equal to zero) than the masses of the T-shaped blue componnets.
--------------------------------------------
Let us stop the explanations for the present. Do you have any questions related to the above STEP 1, STEP 2 and STEP 3? Please ask your questions, if any. I am ready to answer.

[George1]

To Jerry Volland.
----------------------------------
I cannot understand actually what exactly do you want. You asked me at first to start explanations related to the zigzag principle. Ok, my previous post was full of explanations related to this zigzag principle. But now you are obviously neglecting my previous post explanations and you are sending me to some Dr. C.P. Kouropolous. (Who is that guy, how to contact him and WHY ARE YOU SO SURE THAT HE WOULD REJECT OUR ZIGZAG PRINCIPLE?) Because this is not a constructive discussion as you are talking only because of talking itself.