Lets eliminated two false concepts first. No the earth can not wobbly under a stationary pin to make a mass that is unwinding from, or wrapping around the pin to make it go faster or slower. The Newtonian linear momentum of the mass remains the same.

No there is not a huge amount of friction when a wrapping mass winds up or unwraps from the pin.

An Atwood's or modified Atwood's makes far more momentum than the same distance of free fall for the extra mass.

You can place that extra (all that) momentum into the same extra mass and it will rise 10, 20, 40 times higher than the distance it was dropped. The height increase depends upon the mass ratios used.

The momentum of the Atwood's can be placed into the small extra mass by the 'cylinder and spheres'; which can be found on YouTube.

I assume English is not your first language, because these explanations make little sense.

1 hour ago, Delburt Phend said:

Lets eliminated two false concepts first. No the earth can not wobbly under a stationary pin to make a mass that is unwinding from, or wrapping around the pin to make it go faster or slower. The Newtonian linear momentum of the mass remains the same.

No there is not a huge amount of friction when a wrapping mass winds up or unwraps from the pin.

An Atwood's or modified Atwood's makes far more momentum than the same distance of free fall for the extra mass.

You can place that extra (all that) momentum into the same extra mass and it will rise 10, 20, 40 times higher than the distance it was dropped. The height increase depends upon the mass ratios used.

The momentum of the Atwood's can be placed into the small extra mass by the 'cylinder and spheres'; which can be found on YouTube.

Hoho, you again! It’s been so long, since the satellite tether (was it?). So now it’s Atwood’s machine, eh? Still hoping to show energy is not conserved, I presume.

But as @swansont points out, you will need to able to explain it a lot more clearly. Perhaps a diagram might help.

Last time round I seem to recall you had difficulty with the concept of angular momentum. I wonder if that is where this new attempt will founder.

First of all, the Earth's wobble is well documented and it is not because it (or any object with mass) is "unwinding" from anything with its spin. Every free object in the universe has some amount of "spin" relative to other objects. The only reason you don't spin yourself is because you are attached to the Earth's gravitational field and spin with it. And finally, you do realize that an Atwood machine is an idealized thought experiment, like a Carnot engine, that cannot be achieved in real life but is used to compare the efficiency of anything in real life to what should be the ideal. There are a host of reasons why the ideal can't quite ever be reached but that is a whole other discussion.

Well let's keep it real simple. What happens when angular Momentum is NOT conserved in the lab? Well: The earth is suppose to move it's SHOULDER around so as to accelerate or decelerated the mass that is unwinding or wrapping up around an IMMOVABLE post. The pin is in Kansas not at the North Pole.

I just think the Earth absorbing or giving motion therory is silly on the surface of it. You certainly have no experimenal proof: and you never will have. The world of science presents the theory because it protects their main theory of energy conservation.

Real Angular momentum requires a MASSIVE increase and decrease in linear speed that is provided by gravity. If the satellite did not have an extreme change in speed: Angular momentum conservation would not work. Anything on an air table or in the lab does not have any such change in speed caused by gravity. So forget Angular momentum.

Further: does Newton's Three Law of Motion have an r in F = ma?

Atwood's are not thought experiments: they are very common and very real. MIT has a very good one with 1110 g accelerated by 10 g. This Atwood's is on YouTube and the losses are less than 3%. And the 'cylinder and spheres' produced 1,000 % and more.

Yes: I have proved that energy is NOT a conserved quantity. 'Cylinder and spheres' are on YouTube under Delburt Phend yo-yo despin. There are several.

All the 'cylinder and spheres' has to do is restore the original motion. Because Newtonian Momentum Conservation and collision experiments PROVE that only linear Newtonian Momentum is a conserved quantity.

24 minutes ago, Delburt Phend said:

Well let's keep it real simple. What happens when angular Momentum is NOT conserved in the lab? Well: The earth is suppose to move it's SHOULDER around so as to accelerate or decelerated the mass that is unwinding or wrapping up around an IMMOVABLE post. The pin is in Kansas not at the North Pole.

What is this immovable post you are talking about?

24 minutes ago, Delburt Phend said:

I just think the Earth absorbing or giving motion therory is silly on the surface of it. You certainly have no experimenal proof: and you never will have. The world of science presents the theory because it protects their main theory of energy conservation.

We know the earth’s rotation rate is not constant. Clocks have tracked this for many decades in astronomical observations

24 minutes ago, Delburt Phend said:

Real Angular momentum requires a MASSIVE increase and decrease in linear speed that is provided by gravity. If the satellite did not have an extreme change in speed: Angular momentum conservation would not work. Anything on an air table or in the lab does not have any such change in speed caused by gravity. So forget Angular momentum.

Patently absurd.

24 minutes ago, Delburt Phend said:

Further: does Newton's Three Law of Motion have an r in F = ma?

Depends on what system you investigate. If I describe e.g. circular motion, there’s an r that shows up.

24 minutes ago, Delburt Phend said:

Atwood's are not thought experiments: they are very common and very real. MIT has a very good one with 1110 g accelerated by 10 g. This Atwood's is on YouTube and the losses are less than 3%. And the 'cylinder and spheres' produced 1,000 % and more.

Yes: I have proved that energy is NOT a conserved quantity. 'Cylinder and spheres' are on YouTube under Delburt Phend yo-yo despin. There are several.

This isn’t youtube

24 minutes ago, Delburt Phend said:

All the 'cylinder and spheres' has to do is restore the original motion. Because Newtonian Momentum Conservation and collision experiments PROVE that only linear Newtonian Momentum is a conserved quantity.

Linear momentum is only conserved when there’s no net external force.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

This isn’t youtube

Nice.

It's a shame cranks think YouTube is a reputable scientific journal.
( although there are a few gems )