[monterrey (OP)]

Physically Can Apply Positive/in favor Newton's III Third Law of Motion as a Cycle System in a Motor Engine Device

[Origin]

Physically Can Apply Positive/in favor Newton's III Third Law of Motion as a Cycle System in a Motor Engine Device

This is exactly the same OP as your previous threads OP.  The main problem is the translation is so bad it is impossible to figure out what you are talking about, so posting the same thing isn't helping!

Are you trying to describe a reactionless drive system?

[Colin2B]

Physically Can Apply Positive/in favor Newton's III Third Law of Motion as a Cycle System in a Motor Engine Device

It is not clear what you are asking here.
Please clarify or we will move or delete your post
Thank you

[monterrey (OP)]

Maybe it doesn't have the best translation, but that's something else, that's not the point. But that would in no way be something that could belittle his qualities and technical virtues. And at the end of the day, all the explanations you can have are in the operation of the system. And this could not be easier to appreciate, Summed up in a simple sum. And in this case of 2Two Forces: 1Action + 2Reaction Applied in a single cycle, and this also a single system.

[Origin]

Maybe it doesn't have the best translation, but that's something else, that's not the point.

The point is I don't know what you are trying to say, I assume it is because of the translation.

[monterrey (OP)]

I Try to Say; 2Two Forces in 1One System = 1Action + 2Reaction
That Simple.

[Origin]

I Try to Say; 2Two Forces in 1One System = 1Action + 2Reaction
That Simple

I shoot a gun that puts a force on the bullet and the reaction is force pushing the gun the other way.  Yep that happens and it is simple.  So I guess we are done.

[monterrey (OP)]

In the case that I am presenting, the action/is in favour) and the reaction/is also in favour) of the final force of the system. They add up to each other.

[monterrey (OP)]

It only checks the rotation of the Rotor, against the internal flow of the (same) Rotor, which is contrary, and is in favor of the movement. Rotor and Flow.
And you can see it.

[Origin]

In the case that I am presenting, the action/is in favour) and the reaction/is also in favour) of the final force of the system. They add up to each other.

I don't know what you are trying to say.  I think you are trying to describe a reactionless drive but you haven't confirmed my suspicion.

[Origin]

It only checks the rotation of the Rotor, against the internal flow of the (same) Rotor, which is contrary, and is in favor of the movement. Rotor and Flow.
And you can see it.

I don't know what you are trying to say.  Sorry.  Get a better translator...

[monterrey (OP)]

·A) 1Action VS/+ 2Reaction =
·B) 1DestroGiro VS/+ 2Levogiro =
·C)1Rotary Move VS/+ 2InFlow Way =

Note: ·I use the "VS" Because the dynamic interaction is front to front, that's why.·And is Added force one to the other, that's why I use the Sume/Plus mathematical symbol.·A, B, and C are the same situation with a different word, from a different technical issue.

Other Note: If somebody doesn't understand Cut be because of some reason. Not need to be because my responsibility.
Because It's Like that.

[Bored chemist]

·A) 1Action VS/+ 2Reaction =
·B) 1DestroGiro VS/+ 2Levogiro =
·C)1Rotary Move VS/+ 2InFlow Way =

Note: ·I use the "VS" Because the dynamic interaction is front to front, that's why.·And is Added force one to the other, that's why I use the Sume/Plus mathematical symbol.·A, B, and C are the same situation with a different word, from a different technical issue.

Other Note: If somebody doesn't understand Cut be because of some reason. Not need to be because my responsibility.
Because It's Like that.

None of that makes sense.

[Colin2B]

Other Note: If somebody doesn't understand Cut be because of some reason. Not need to be because my responsibility.

There is some reason and it is your responsibility.
You need to explain clearly what you are trying to say, because as has been pointed out, what you are writing does not make sense.

If you are saying that the action is equal and opposite to the reaction = no net force, that is correct, but we already knew that.
If you are saying that the action and reaction are in the same direction and add, then that is most clearly wrong.

[monterrey (OP)]

Well, that's my Best, that's my Top. I find the best words, written in the best lines, I can present to you.
But just remember, the result of the question/or the answer I make: (Physically Can Apply Positive/in favor Newton's III Third Law of Motion) It's a Huge Paradigm Broken. On the Deep. No only as a concept, But Also a Device.
And yours responds, are know as the Shock then don't understand because is a Something you don't see never before, and you did not expect, and that you could never have imagined it on your own, and that you can not fully understand it all. Because I can be right without you still not understanding it.
Ultimately, the drawings are presented, with their respective signs of the dynamic action of the system.
First Appreciating your simple. And its Rotor Interaction and Internal Flow. Check it out.
And then what is the story, that it remained in a little explanation.
Of something that is already explained. Just follow the Move.
60.000.000 Smokers can be Wrong.
 

[monterrey (OP)]

What happens is that the rules are more important than the nature of the forum.

[Origin]

It's a Huge Paradigm Broken.

What paradigm are you talking about??
 

And yours responds, are know as the Shock then don't understand because is a Something you don't see never before, and you did not expect, and that you could never have imagined it on your own, and that you can not fully understand it all.

That is not the problem.  Your words do not make sense.  Maybe I would disagree with your idea but I don't know what your idea is!!
Try this:  Write what your "huge paradigm break" in Italian and let me translate it to English and see if that helps.

[monterrey (OP)]

The paradigm of an OverPowered Device.

[monterrey (OP)]

But to Me Looks more than a Grammatical Forum or Something. Then an Science Innovation.
The Clue/Key Word, is Disruption.

[Colin2B]

As you are unable or unwilling to explain what you are talking about, and because this topic has been previously published in other forms, this topic is now locked and the original post removed.
Please do not post this again or you will be banned.
Thank you