Pivot-point forces ignored? (was Phase three PS)

> >In that case, your calculations appear to ignore the forces applied to the pivot point. When those are included, the net average force might be zero.
> I did count this force.
> 1. Torque IS equal in all directions so cancells.

No, torque is not equal in all directions. The device *greatly* accelerates and decelerates a mass at the end of a *long* lever, while at the same time *minimally* decelerating and accelerating an equivalent mass at the end of a *short* lever. You have reinvented the captive-missile catapult, also known as the captive-bolt gun. You are denying that the fulcrum of your catapult experiences non-zero unidirectional forces while firing and landing the captive missile. Your denial of these non-zero forces on the fulcrum is absurd.

Naturally, your math checks out as showing non-zero directional force. You did not instruct your math-checkers to check the forces on the fulcrum, did you?

> 3. The radial forces CANNOT be transmitted back to the pivot point through the telescopic joint

Yes. Radial force is not what is relevant to non-zero net forces on the fulcrum of the catapult. What we are concerned here with is the torque applied to the arm of the catapult.

Others: please refer to the illustration in the Computer Pilot magazine article in the files section. It is the first WIP article, titled 2009 02 13 Computer pilot WIPing Xplane.doc
Simulating the Walden WIPCraft in X-Plane:
http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/EDylSoiojba6sURW2nQiGQMfBbqzD4R9iOlwEcSVp6WU9k-FDT-hLENEnS1AyPgfA1n7nPsJhPFAR5O-UEpV4j1tJnZz8yc/WIP%20Drive/2009%2002%2013%20Computer%20pilot%20WIPing%20Xplane.doc

> 5. "V" Is higher on ONE side. So is "F"

The reason V and F are higher on one side is because of the equal and opposite forces acting on the fulcrum. Because of those equal and opposite forces acting on the fulcrum, the net forces are zero. You yourself proved on paper, when you admitted that you ignored the net opposite forces on the fulcrum, that your device cannot work as a reactionless drive.

Your reinvention was described in its essence in the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionless_drive

"all oscillation thrusters have the following common components:
...
Conveyor that moves the masses through an asymmetric cycle,
...
A crucial feature is that these internal masses go through some sort of cyclic motion where the motion in one direction is quicker than in the return direction."

That describes your "invention".