IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?

[Silvertiger]

You're absolutely right ME. That setup is not reactionless since it requires a static reflector in space...something to push against, and thus it is an entirely different concept proposed than the EM Drive. Laser thrust is of course listed among ion engines and propellant fueled rockets since it does require an exchange of momentum.

In my opinion, (and these are my own ideas on the matter) the only way to create a reactionless EM Drive is to use "reaction moments," whereby the process would be to halt light in a mixture of caesium gas and bose-Einstein condensate so that it temporarily converts to MATTER. The mix is basically converting the energy of the frequency of light into the energy of mass by removing removing nearly all of its heat, and thus also inherently removing its ability to propagate. Once this is done, the converted light can be expelled as propellant through a "bleed feed" that allows it to take on heat, such that once the converted light's temporary mass has gained sufficient MV for thrust, it is finally expelled as...well, "light exhaust" I suppose, and thus you would essentially be temporarily creating actual physical propellant that has mass. And so you build the photonic equivalent of a transistor...as one does lol. And through these "reaction moments" you would have your reactionless drive on a technicality of "time," and N3 would be satisfied.

(An interesting visual for comparison here would be the Klingon Bird of Prey prototype that could fire while cloaked. Well, that was a technicality, since only a portion of it had to de-cloak, and only for the amount of time it took to fire the weapon lol.) ;)

The engine would only "technically" be reactionless as a "pseudo" term in the sense that although momentum is conserved, it would essentially be changing the FORMAT of the exchange itself...which would be cheating, and it would have to be called the "MOSTLY Reactionless Drive" lol. ;P

[George1]

To Silvertiger and ME.
----------------------------
Hi guys,
Thanks a lot for your replies.
1) As if you both do not agree that EmDrive is a reactionless drive machine. Well, may be you are right. I am not qualified enough to evaluate. The EmDrive and our zigzag device are SIMILAR ONLY AS A FINAL RESULT, but they are ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT AS A PRINCIPLE OF OPERATION.
2) Our zigzag conception is published in overunity.com too. Please have a look at https://overunity.com/17817/is-this-a-r ... 40751/#new. Here is an important abstract from this last link's text. "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."
Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against this last claim?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

[George1]

WHY DO YOU FEAR THE TRUTH?
Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections?

[George1]

Any opinions, recommendations and/or positive criticism related to our zigzag mechanical conception?

[George1]

Any opinions, recommendations and/or positive criticism related to our zigzag mechanical conception?

[George1]

Deep silence again?
Tends to be an amazing situation!
I will repeat again: Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against our zigzag mechanical conception?
Is this question so difficult?
George

[silent]

You've been at this since July of 2018 asking the same question over and over. When no one replies, you simply ask it again and again like a broken record which tells me one of two things:

1) You either have an answer and are getting your jollies off by parading around with superior knowledge - watching the idiot minion run around like chickens with their heads cut off, trying to discover what you know and they don't OR

2) You honestly don't know and want someone to tell you the answer.

My suggestion is to be honest. Either say, "I have an idea and I want you to discover it" or tell us that you don't know and are fishing for ideas that you can't come up with yourself.

Keep in mind that this is a Bessler Wheel forum and most people here are geared towards thinking of the mechanical PPM solution. If you are wanting to deal in something other than that, go to overunity.com and indulge them there. I'm sure they'd love to have you. I'm just being honest with you. It gets old going back through a thread and seeing your copy and paste question style:

Any opinions, recommendations and/or positive criticism related to our zigzag mechanical conception?
Any opinions, recommendations and/or positive criticism related to our zigzag mechanical conception?
Any opinions, recommendations and/or positive criticism related to our zigzag mechanical conception?
Any opinions, recommendations and/or positive criticism related to our zigzag mechanical conception?
Any opinions, recommendations and/or positive criticism related to our zigzag mechanical conception?
Any opinions, recommendations and/or positive criticism related to our zigzag mechanical conception?
Any opinions, recommendations and/or positive criticism related to our zigzag mechanical conception?
Any opinions, recommendations and/or positive criticism related to our zigzag mechanical conception?
Any opinions, recommendations and/or positive criticism related to our zigzag mechanical conception?
Any opinions, recommendations and/or positive criticism related to our zigzag mechanical conception?
Any opinions, recommendations and/or positive criticism related to our zigzag mechanical conception?
Any opinions, recommendations and/or positive criticism related to our zigzag mechanical conception?
Any opinions, recommendations and/or positive criticism related to our zigzag mechanical conception?

and one more just for good measure:

Any opinions, recommendations and/or positive criticism related to our zigzag mechanical conception?

You'll make far more progress towards the solution by indulging people with thoughts and ideas instead of perpetually asking the same question over and over and over and....

silent

[George1]

silent,
I am paying special attention to you personally. I am repeating again everything especially for you.
-----------------
Firstly, please consider carefully the two links below:
1) https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/20 ... _01-12.pdf
2) https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/20 ... s01-08.pdf
The first link contains the text, and the second link contains the related Figs.1-6. The two links form one united whole.
----------------------------
After fully understanding the concept, described in the two links above, you have to read carefully and fully understand the concept in the third link, which is a very important addition to the first link and to the second link, and which is given below:
3) https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/20 ... a_look.pdf
----------------------------
And at last you have to answer a simple question: Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against the concept, described in the third link?
-----------------------------
How to explain the things in a simpler and easier manner?
George

[George1]

Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against the concept, described in the third link of our last post?

[silent]

No I don't object. So let's see what you've come up with.

silent

[WaltzCee]

My theoretical objection to reactionless drive is that for every action there is an opposite
and equal reaction. What to do with this opposite and equal reaction? Destroy it? Then my
objection is in line with the 1LoT. You can't destroy energy, for the love of macaroni and
cheese, mixed with Halal ham, sprinkled with kosher bacon, baked at 375 degrees for 12 to
15 minutes, until it becomes an ooie, gooie crusty mess.

1) Please have a look at Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 5A and Fig. 6.
--------------------------------------------------
1A) THERE IS NO FRICTION. (Modern technologies allow to reduce practically as much as
you want the experimental error, related to friction.)
--------------------------------------------------
1B) Let us assume that the black component is fixed motionless somewhere to some obstacle
and is not able to move. In this case it is evident that after entering the zigzag channel section
the blue component will decelerate. And it is also evident that the deceleration d (its absolute
value and its mean value) will be bigger than zero, that is, d > 0.
--------------------------------------------------
1C) It is evident that if the blue component enters the zigzag channel section, then the black
component exerts force Fc on the obstacle, which does not allow the black component's linear
motion. It is evident that the direction of Fc coincides with the direction of Vo. It is also evident
that the force Fc (its absolute value and its mean value) is bigger than zero, that is, Fc > 0.
============================
2) Please have a look at Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 2A and Fig. 3.
--------------------------------------------------
2A) THERE IS FRICTION in the linear channel s-segment section.
--------------------------------------------------
2B) Let us assume that the black component is fixed motionless somewhere to some obstacle
and is not able to move. In this case it is evident that after entering the linear channel s-
segment section the blue component will decelerate. And it is also evident that the
deceleration d' (its absolute value and its mean value) will be bigger than zero, that is, d' > 0.
--------------------------------------------------
2C) It is evident that if the blue component enters the linear channel s-segment section, then
the black component exerts force F'c on the obstacle, which does not allow the black
component's linear motion. It is evident that the direction of F'c coincides with the direction of
Vo. It is also evident that the force F'c (its absolute value and its mean value) is bigger than
zero, that is, F'c > 0.
============================
3) Please compare item 1 with item 2. 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. Therefore it is
evident that zigzags successfully imitate resistance, which is identical to friction, but without
generating heat. And if we use this simple fact in the experiments, described in Figs. 1 - 6,
then we can conclude again that:
a) the law of conservation of linear momentum is not correct;
b) the law of conservation of mechanical energy is not correct;
c) both the law of conservation of linear momentum and the law of conservation of
mechanical energy are not correct simultaneously.
============================
Let us stress upon the fact that IN GENERAL both the law of conservation of mechanical
energy and the law of conservation of linear momentum are absolutely true and correct.
There is no doubt about this. But any rule/law has its exceptions and there is nothing special,
disturbing and tragic in this fact.

What the hell are you talkin about, Georgie Porgie pudding and pie?

[George1]

Hi WaltzCee,
Please don't be nervous, my friend!:) Please excuse me if I have made you angry in some way. Angry and other negative emotions are very harmful for your health.:) Everybody is free to have his/her own opinion and to protect it. It's OK!
But you haven't read our posts and at the same time you claim that they are wrong. This is ridiculous! So please read carefully our posts, understand them fully and entirely, and after that you are welcome for discussion. Otherwise you are playing simply a comedy show!
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

[WaltzCee]

George1, please stop spamming the board with the same post.
Thanks,
Scott

Ok. I am stopping. Please excuse me.
George

George, you said you would stop spamming The Forum. But you're still spamming The
Forum. Why did you lie to us?

[agor95]

Ask yourself when do you think it's time to hit the red dot?

[George1]

Hi everyone,
1) Firstly, it seems to me that agor95 and WaltzCee are either not familiar with theoretical and applied mechanics or they are both professional (and envious) haters. (Please excuse me if I have insulted somebody. I am ready to appologize.) Because their arguments are: "This is impossible because it is impossible and that's all." Аn iron-made argument! Like an unshakable concrete wall! Congratulations!
2) Secondly, about " Ask yourself when do you think it's time to hit the red dot?". Agor95, I appreciate your sense of humour (if this is some kind of joke:)).
3) Thidly, about "George, you said you would stop spamming The Forum. But you're still spamming The Forum. Why did you lie to us?". WaltzCee, I am not spamming and I am not lying! Everything I have posted here is true. But you simply fear the truth! All I am asking about is to answer only a simple question. And I am asking again this simple question below.
-------------------
Please consider carefully the two links below:
1) https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/20 ... _01-12.pdf
2) https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/20 ... s01-08.pdf
The first link contains the text, and the second link contains the related Figs.1-6. The two links form one united whole.
----------------------------
After fully understanding the concept, described in the two links above, you have to read carefully and fully understand the concept in the third link, which is a very important addition to the first link and to the second link, and which is given below:
3) https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/20 ... a_look.pdf
----------------------------
And at last you have to answer a simple question: Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against the concept, described in the third link?
YES OR NO?