[Vo]:Humanity and the solar system

[H LV]

With mounting evidence of a 9th planet and of a major cosmic impact in the
time of humans (around 12,800 years ago) our understanding of the origins
of civilization and our conception of the solar system
​appears to be
 undergoing a significant change.

http://www.sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2017/03/uofsc_archaeologists_
discover_platinum_at_clovis_sites.php

Platinum Found Confirms Impact Of 12,800 Years Ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50r6287kzPU


New evidence for existence of Planet Nine
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-evidence-planet.html

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Vibrator !]

Sorry if i've been unclear - i've already done it.  It's done.  No New
physics.  No magic.  No possibility of error.  Definitive, conclusive,
indisputable, unambiguous and unequivocal proof positive, it's in the can,
it's a wrap, a done-deal, a fait accompli, an actual physical gain, not an
'implied' one; 37.8 Joules of gravity*mass*height transforms seamlessly
into 72.1 Joules of mechanical energy in one second, leaving 34.3 Joules
free and clear after the weight is re-lifted and the mechanism fully reset
to its initial conditions, thus an efficiency of 90% OU, or 190% of unity,
together with a corresponding 1.4 meter drop in the zero momentum frame.
Buy a free-energy machine, get a free warp drive.  It's here.  Now.  Done
and dusted.  Ready for deployment.  Trivially easy to replicate, and could
probably be validated on the back of an envelope.

There's nothing theoretical or speculative about it, both CoM and CoE
remain inviolable - the results can only be interpreted as evidence of a
quantum-classical system rather than creation ex nihilo (evidence of such
being epistemologically impossible), and arguably we all know classical
systems are inherently quantum-classical anyway;  it is but a question of
thresholds.

It's just a perfectly normal free-energy warp drive using bog-standard
mechanics - force, mass and motion - entirely dependent upon the
immutability of CoM and CoE at every step in the process.

Like i say, there's temporal symmetry to net changes in momentum, and a
spatial one.  Usually they're hard-coupled due to mass constancy, however
this is an epiphenomenal symmetry, not a truly fundamental one, and it can
be broken, and i HAVE broken it, and this spatiotemporal momentum asymmetry
results in a gain in mechanical energy explicitly caused by the
bog-standard V^2 multiplier in 1/2mV^2 and 1/2Lw^2 - the normal mechanical
energy terms.

Starting to think i should maybe bind that explanation to a macro key...


The only new aspect is that traditionally, the 'net thermodynamic energy'
of the universe only takes into account all possible displacements against
all fundamental force fields (the net work done from bang to bust) -
whereas the vacuum energy.. well, just Google "vacuum catastrophe".

The interaction i'm demonstrating pulls momentum from whatever the applied
force field (so gravity, EM, inertial forces (ie. 'G-force'), springs or
whatever), and mechanical energy (KE or PE or some combination of each)
from the Higgs field - not by my or Bessler's design, but the universe's..
so if there's any 'mistake', you're taking it up with the wrong person..

On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 5:20 PM, H LV  wrote:

> Perhaps it is possible to devise a mathematical/conceptual framework for
> mechanics in which Newtonian mechanics would exist as a special case but
> the alternative framework would allow for the construction of a perpetual
> motion machine . It would be like going back in time to the 17th century
> and proposing an alternative science of motion to Newton's mechanics
> without relying on any physics that came after Newton such as EM theory or
> quantum mechanics. It would require the formulation of some new
> concept/principle that doesn't currently exist anywhere in physics.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Vibrator !  wrote:
>
>> ..right, just spammed it to Tajmar.  Who could possibly be more qualified
>> or interested?  Plus he's a Kraut, so there's a good chance he's already
>> aware of the Bessler case..
>>
>> Was really hoping to give UK academia first dibs, but they're apparently
>> far too sensible..
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 4:05 PM, Vibrator !  wrote:
>>
>>> I've only started this thread in the attempt to get independent data.
>>>
>>> It's been just over a week since achieving certainty.  None of the uni's
>>> are responding to my crank emails, for some strange reason.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you could help refine my template?
>>>
>>> "Dear proper physics-talking dudes, please find enclosed evidence of my
>>> free-energy warp-drive doomsday machine, what i've made by waving two
>>> masses around, type stuff.  Note all the weird squiggly lines in the plots,
>>> and the nice pastel colour-scheme.  Do i win £5?"
>>>
>>> The DoE didn't bite, UCL physics won't bite, i tried spamming it to Imp.
>>> College physics last night, no reply yet and not really expecting one...
>>>
>>> So i've tried asking here, and the best suggestions so far are "measure
>>> its efficiency as a function of CoP" (for heat pumps?) and making a
>>> 3D-printable version of a device that's almost certain to destroy us if not
>>> deployed in a sensible manner.
>>>
>>> I haven't come here to impress or gloat, i'm asking for advice on how to
>>> proceed.   Who to approach for independent corroboration?  It's just
>>> rock-bottom basics - force, mass and motion.  Everyone think's the barrel's
>>> long scraped dry, and all the uni's are focused on particle physics, dark
>>> matter and laser spectroscopy etc.
>>>
>>> At 

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[H LV]

Perhaps it is possible to devise a mathematical/conceptual framework for
mechanics in which Newtonian mechanics would exist as a special case but
the alternative framework would allow for the construction of a perpetual
motion machine . It would be like going back in time to the 17th century
and proposing an alternative science of motion to Newton's mechanics
without relying on any physics that came after Newton such as EM theory or
quantum mechanics. It would require the formulation of some new
concept/principle that doesn't currently exist anywhere in physics.



On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Vibrator !  wrote:

> ..right, just spammed it to Tajmar.  Who could possibly be more qualified
> or interested?  Plus he's a Kraut, so there's a good chance he's already
> aware of the Bessler case..
>
> Was really hoping to give UK academia first dibs, but they're apparently
> far too sensible..
>
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 4:05 PM, Vibrator !  wrote:
>
>> I've only started this thread in the attempt to get independent data.
>>
>> It's been just over a week since achieving certainty.  None of the uni's
>> are responding to my crank emails, for some strange reason.
>>
>> Perhaps you could help refine my template?
>>
>> "Dear proper physics-talking dudes, please find enclosed evidence of my
>> free-energy warp-drive doomsday machine, what i've made by waving two
>> masses around, type stuff.  Note all the weird squiggly lines in the plots,
>> and the nice pastel colour-scheme.  Do i win £5?"
>>
>> The DoE didn't bite, UCL physics won't bite, i tried spamming it to Imp.
>> College physics last night, no reply yet and not really expecting one...
>>
>> So i've tried asking here, and the best suggestions so far are "measure
>> its efficiency as a function of CoP" (for heat pumps?) and making a
>> 3D-printable version of a device that's almost certain to destroy us if not
>> deployed in a sensible manner.
>>
>> I haven't come here to impress or gloat, i'm asking for advice on how to
>> proceed.   Who to approach for independent corroboration?  It's just
>> rock-bottom basics - force, mass and motion.  Everyone think's the barrel's
>> long scraped dry, and all the uni's are focused on particle physics, dark
>> matter and laser spectroscopy etc.
>>
>> At least LENR is zeitgeist crank physics, posing new and exciting
>> impossibilities; classical mechanics OTOH - mechanical OU? - seriously?  I
>> seriously think i've found an elephant in the custard of classical
>> physics?  Ha..!  Good luck with that eh..
>>
>> Who should i show it to, who can help move things forwards in some way?
>> A volunteer, a nomination, any reliable person or group anywhere?
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Brian Ahern  wrote:
>>
>>> Here we have all the elements of a fine scam. He is taking the Rossi
>>> play book, page 1.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>1. no independent data
>>>2. no independent experiments
>>>3. claim earlier experiments were wildly positive
>>>4.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *From:* Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com>
>>> *Sent:* Friday, June 1, 2018 5:33 PM
>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
>>>
>>> No, no, no.
>>>
>>> On 1 June 2018 at 21:15, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>>>
>>> Grimes, Damn autocorrect.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:12 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:
>>>
>>> Crimes?
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:11 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 1:42 PM Vibrator !  wrote:
>>>
>>> @Chris - Weird, reminiscent of some kind of frame-dragging effect, or
>>> 'remanence' of the Higgs field?  Sounds pretty whack either way, but hey
>>> who am i to talk..
>>>
>>>
>>> Frank Crimes, is that you inside the Vibrator?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *quae est ista quae progreditur quasi aurora **consurgens *
>>> *pulchra ut luna electa ut sol terribilis ut acies ordinata *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Vibrator !]

What, you mean Rar Energia?  It's junk, nothing to do with me, aside from
actually bothering to pull the data back in 2013:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5591=0=asc=mrvibrating=465

..the torque / angle plots are identical for all three of their supposed
'contingent conditions'.  It was miserable scam, the patent applications
contained abject lies.

Sorry, perhaps we're getting our wires crossed - you said '"he" is taking
the Rossi playbook' - i presumed in reference to moi.

The system i've just validated has no data in three centuries, so you'll
forgive me if i take issue with your excuse for not investigating.. went i
want data, i produce it.

The data i've produced from Bessler's exploit is utterly compelling.  The
only question left is who to show it to?

You up for juggling another hot potato?



On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 4:48 PM, Brian Ahern  wrote:

> How can anyone validate when there is no data from a five year old
> system?What is claimed for the device?  Where is a video of the unit
> running?
>
> --
> *From:* Vibrator ! 
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 3, 2018 11:05 AM
>
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
>
> I've only started this thread in the attempt to get independent data.
>
> It's been just over a week since achieving certainty.  None of the uni's
> are responding to my crank emails, for some strange reason.
>
> Perhaps you could help refine my template?
>
> "Dear proper physics-talking dudes, please find enclosed evidence of my
> free-energy warp-drive doomsday machine, what i've made by waving two
> masses around, type stuff.  Note all the weird squiggly lines in the plots,
> and the nice pastel colour-scheme.  Do i win £5?"
>
> The DoE didn't bite, UCL physics won't bite, i tried spamming it to Imp.
> College physics last night, no reply yet and not really expecting one...
>
> So i've tried asking here, and the best suggestions so far are "measure
> its efficiency as a function of CoP" (for heat pumps?) and making a
> 3D-printable version of a device that's almost certain to destroy us if not
> deployed in a sensible manner.
>
> I haven't come here to impress or gloat, i'm asking for advice on how to
> proceed.   Who to approach for independent corroboration?  It's just
> rock-bottom basics - force, mass and motion.  Everyone think's the barrel's
> long scraped dry, and all the uni's are focused on particle physics, dark
> matter and laser spectroscopy etc.
>
> At least LENR is zeitgeist crank physics, posing new and exciting
> impossibilities; classical mechanics OTOH - mechanical OU? - seriously?  I
> seriously think i've found an elephant in the custard of classical
> physics?  Ha..!  Good luck with that eh..
>
> Who should i show it to, who can help move things forwards in some way?
> A volunteer, a nomination, any reliable person or group anywhere?
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Brian Ahern  wrote:
>
> Here we have all the elements of a fine scam. He is taking the Rossi play
> book, page 1.
>
>
>
>1. no independent data
>2. no independent experiments
>3. claim earlier experiments were wildly positive
>4.
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 1, 2018 5:33 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
>
> No, no, no.
>
> On 1 June 2018 at 21:15, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
> Grimes, Damn autocorrect.
>
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:12 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
> Crimes?
>
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:11 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 1:42 PM Vibrator !  wrote:
>
> @Chris - Weird, reminiscent of some kind of frame-dragging effect, or
> 'remanence' of the Higgs field?  Sounds pretty whack either way, but hey
> who am i to talk..
>
>
> Frank Crimes, is that you inside the Vibrator?
>
>
>
>
> --
> *quae est ista quae progreditur quasi aurora **consurgens *
> *pulchra ut luna electa ut sol terribilis ut acies ordinata *
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Brian Ahern]

How can anyone validate when there is no data from a five year old system?What 
is claimed for the device?  Where is a video of the unit running?


From: Vibrator ! 
Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2018 11:05 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

I've only started this thread in the attempt to get independent data.

It's been just over a week since achieving certainty.  None of the uni's are 
responding to my crank emails, for some strange reason.

Perhaps you could help refine my template?

"Dear proper physics-talking dudes, please find enclosed evidence of my 
free-energy warp-drive doomsday machine, what i've made by waving two masses 
around, type stuff.  Note all the weird squiggly lines in the plots, and the 
nice pastel colour-scheme.  Do i win £5?"

The DoE didn't bite, UCL physics won't bite, i tried spamming it to Imp. 
College physics last night, no reply yet and not really expecting one...

So i've tried asking here, and the best suggestions so far are "measure its 
efficiency as a function of CoP" (for heat pumps?) and making a 3D-printable 
version of a device that's almost certain to destroy us if not deployed in a 
sensible manner.

I haven't come here to impress or gloat, i'm asking for advice on how to 
proceed.   Who to approach for independent corroboration?  It's just 
rock-bottom basics - force, mass and motion.  Everyone think's the barrel's 
long scraped dry, and all the uni's are focused on particle physics, dark 
matter and laser spectroscopy etc.

At least LENR is zeitgeist crank physics, posing new and exciting 
impossibilities; classical mechanics OTOH - mechanical OU? - seriously?  I 
seriously think i've found an elephant in the custard of classical physics?  
Ha..!  Good luck with that eh..

Who should i show it to, who can help move things forwards in some way?   A 
volunteer, a nomination, any reliable person or group anywhere?


On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Brian Ahern 
mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>> wrote:

Here we have all the elements of a fine scam. He is taking the Rossi play book, 
page 1.


  1.
no independent data
  2.
no independent experiments
  3.
claim earlier experiments were wildly positive
  4.




From: Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 5:33 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

No, no, no.

On 1 June 2018 at 21:15, Terry Blanton 
mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Grimes, Damn autocorrect.

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:12 PM Terry Blanton 
mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Crimes?

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:11 PM Terry Blanton 
mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com>> wrote:


On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 1:42 PM Vibrator ! 
mailto:mrvibrat...@gmail.com>> wrote:
@Chris - Weird, reminiscent of some kind of frame-dragging effect, or 
'remanence' of the Higgs field?  Sounds pretty whack either way, but hey who am 
i to talk..

Frank Crimes, is that you inside the Vibrator?



--
quae est ista quae progreditur quasi aurora consurgens
pulchra ut luna electa ut sol terribilis ut acies ordinata

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Vibrator !]

..right, just spammed it to Tajmar.  Who could possibly be more qualified
or interested?  Plus he's a Kraut, so there's a good chance he's already
aware of the Bessler case..

Was really hoping to give UK academia first dibs, but they're apparently
far too sensible..

On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 4:05 PM, Vibrator !  wrote:

> I've only started this thread in the attempt to get independent data.
>
> It's been just over a week since achieving certainty.  None of the uni's
> are responding to my crank emails, for some strange reason.
>
> Perhaps you could help refine my template?
>
> "Dear proper physics-talking dudes, please find enclosed evidence of my
> free-energy warp-drive doomsday machine, what i've made by waving two
> masses around, type stuff.  Note all the weird squiggly lines in the plots,
> and the nice pastel colour-scheme.  Do i win £5?"
>
> The DoE didn't bite, UCL physics won't bite, i tried spamming it to Imp.
> College physics last night, no reply yet and not really expecting one...
>
> So i've tried asking here, and the best suggestions so far are "measure
> its efficiency as a function of CoP" (for heat pumps?) and making a
> 3D-printable version of a device that's almost certain to destroy us if not
> deployed in a sensible manner.
>
> I haven't come here to impress or gloat, i'm asking for advice on how to
> proceed.   Who to approach for independent corroboration?  It's just
> rock-bottom basics - force, mass and motion.  Everyone think's the barrel's
> long scraped dry, and all the uni's are focused on particle physics, dark
> matter and laser spectroscopy etc.
>
> At least LENR is zeitgeist crank physics, posing new and exciting
> impossibilities; classical mechanics OTOH - mechanical OU? - seriously?  I
> seriously think i've found an elephant in the custard of classical
> physics?  Ha..!  Good luck with that eh..
>
> Who should i show it to, who can help move things forwards in some way?
> A volunteer, a nomination, any reliable person or group anywhere?
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Brian Ahern  wrote:
>
>> Here we have all the elements of a fine scam. He is taking the Rossi play
>> book, page 1.
>>
>>
>>
>>1. no independent data
>>2. no independent experiments
>>3. claim earlier experiments were wildly positive
>>4.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Friday, June 1, 2018 5:33 PM
>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
>>
>> No, no, no.
>>
>> On 1 June 2018 at 21:15, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>>
>> Grimes, Damn autocorrect.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:12 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:
>>
>> Crimes?
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:11 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 1:42 PM Vibrator !  wrote:
>>
>> @Chris - Weird, reminiscent of some kind of frame-dragging effect, or
>> 'remanence' of the Higgs field?  Sounds pretty whack either way, but hey
>> who am i to talk..
>>
>>
>> Frank Crimes, is that you inside the Vibrator?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *quae est ista quae progreditur quasi aurora **consurgens *
>> *pulchra ut luna electa ut sol terribilis ut acies ordinata *
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Vibrator !]

I've only started this thread in the attempt to get independent data.

It's been just over a week since achieving certainty.  None of the uni's
are responding to my crank emails, for some strange reason.

Perhaps you could help refine my template?

"Dear proper physics-talking dudes, please find enclosed evidence of my
free-energy warp-drive doomsday machine, what i've made by waving two
masses around, type stuff.  Note all the weird squiggly lines in the plots,
and the nice pastel colour-scheme.  Do i win £5?"

The DoE didn't bite, UCL physics won't bite, i tried spamming it to Imp.
College physics last night, no reply yet and not really expecting one...

So i've tried asking here, and the best suggestions so far are "measure its
efficiency as a function of CoP" (for heat pumps?) and making a
3D-printable version of a device that's almost certain to destroy us if not
deployed in a sensible manner.

I haven't come here to impress or gloat, i'm asking for advice on how to
proceed.   Who to approach for independent corroboration?  It's just
rock-bottom basics - force, mass and motion.  Everyone think's the barrel's
long scraped dry, and all the uni's are focused on particle physics, dark
matter and laser spectroscopy etc.

At least LENR is zeitgeist crank physics, posing new and exciting
impossibilities; classical mechanics OTOH - mechanical OU? - seriously?  I
seriously think i've found an elephant in the custard of classical
physics?  Ha..!  Good luck with that eh..

Who should i show it to, who can help move things forwards in some way?   A
volunteer, a nomination, any reliable person or group anywhere?


On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Brian Ahern  wrote:

> Here we have all the elements of a fine scam. He is taking the Rossi play
> book, page 1.
>
>
>
>1. no independent data
>2. no independent experiments
>3. claim earlier experiments were wildly positive
>4.
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 1, 2018 5:33 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
>
> No, no, no.
>
> On 1 June 2018 at 21:15, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
> Grimes, Damn autocorrect.
>
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:12 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
> Crimes?
>
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:11 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 1:42 PM Vibrator !  wrote:
>
> @Chris - Weird, reminiscent of some kind of frame-dragging effect, or
> 'remanence' of the Higgs field?  Sounds pretty whack either way, but hey
> who am i to talk..
>
>
> Frank Crimes, is that you inside the Vibrator?
>
>
>
>
> --
> *quae est ista quae progreditur quasi aurora **consurgens *
> *pulchra ut luna electa ut sol terribilis ut acies ordinata *
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Vibrator !]

I busted Rarenergia within a couple of days.  Went through the patent,
tested the proposed gain principle, found no variation in the force /
displacement integrals for either of the three loading conditions they
claimed asymmetries for - green positive bar, blue positive bar, yellow
neutral bar (in their terminology).  You get exactly the same line integral
for each, except the 'blue' one's inverted with respect to 'green' and
'yellow':



Rar was a plain and unimaginative attempt at a 'gravitational asymmetry' -
that is, essentially attempting to 'drop a weight when it's heavy, & lift
it when it's light'.  All such attempts are fucking retarded.  Closed-loop
trajectories through static fields, by definition, yield zero net energy.
I don't appreciate the comparison, but the fact you'd immediately jump to
it perfectly illustrates what we're up against in trying to roll this thing
forwards..

This is NOT a putative 'gravity wheel'.  It has no dependence whatsoever
upon gravity.  It is mechanical over-unity.  As such, ANY force can be
applied for the input integral.

Why did Bessler use gravity?  Because the mythical 'gravity wheel' was what
he'd set his mind to - that was his whole focus, and he considered it among
the great unsolved mysteries of the world, along with the quest to square
the circle or translate hieroglyphics, one that he had personally resolved
to crack, as his lifetime's quest.  His whole raison d'etre.

After years of toil he finally worked out for himself that 'perpetually
overbalancing' wheels were a futile will-o'-the-wisp, and instead turned
his attentions to controlling and entraining momentum - the actual 'vis
viva' itself.   Having then succeeded in generating mechanical OU, what
more practical or accessible force to apply but gravity?  What more
confounding and miraculous an embodiment of his discovery, than what
appeared to be, for all intents and purposes, the fabled gravity wheel?

So while Bessler's wheels depended on vertical orientation and rotation,
and weights were heard falling and landing inside, any conclusion that they
were thus harnessing some kind of gravitational asymmetry is exclusively a
projection of the observer.  Indeed, given the intrinsic impossibility of a
GPE asymmetry, his success can only logically be interpreted as evidence of
SOME OTHER kind of symmetry break... such as a momentum asymmetry..  in
other words, an effective violation of Newton's 3rd law..  perhaps one
dependent upon gravity, or perhaps having no such dependence at all..

On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 8:52 PM, Nigel Dyer  wrote:

> Its already been built and generating copious amounts of energy, or at
> least that is what they claimed it would do...
>
> http://rarenergia.com.br/
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
> On 31/05/2018 18:27, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
>> I've found Bessler's gain principle.  The energy density's obviously
>> 'infinite', and power density's limited only by material constraints.
>>
>> A propulsion application is also implied, but not yet tested.
>>
>> I've put together some WM2D sims, independently metering all component
>> variables of the input / output energy, for cross-referencing consistency -
>> no stone is left unturned, and there are no gaps.  All values have also
>> been checked with manual calcs.  The results are incontrovertible - this is
>> neither mistake, nor psychosis.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's been a week since achieving certainty, yet all i've done in that
>> time is stare in disbelief at the results.
>>
>> Yet it's no 'happy accident' either - i worked out the solution from
>> first principles, then put together a mechanism that does what the maths
>> do, confirming the theory.
>>
>> I'm understandably even more incredulous at the implications of the CoM
>> violation than the CoE one, yet the latter's entirely dependent upon the
>> former.  Both are being empirically measured, in a direct causal
>> relationship.
>>
>>
>> This absolutely demands immediate wider attention.
>>
>>
>> But who in their right mind would even look at it?  How do i bring it to
>> the attentions of the 'right' people - the ones that need to know about it,
>> and who can join in the R - without resorting to futile crank-emails to
>> universities and govt. departments etc.?
>>
>> I've wasted a week, so far.  Too long, already.
>>
>>
>> Pretty much blinded in the headlights here.. i could sorely do with
>> making a few bob off it, but at the same time it's too important to sit on
>> - so how to reconcile these conflicting priorities?
>>
>> I'd like to post up the sims here, or at least provide a link to them,
>> just to share the findings with ANYONE able to comprehend them...  it's
>> just classical mechanics (or at least, the parts that can actually be
>> measured) - force, mass and motion.  The absolute basics.  Simply no room
>> for error or ambiguity. Unequivocal 'free' energy; currently around 190% of
>> unity.  You definitely want to see this, and i desperately want to share it.
>>
>> What should i do though?  

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Vibrator !]

No not me, tho Grimer deserves a nod for first bringing this case to my
attention many years ago...

On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 5:47 AM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> Good to see you're still kicking. How many grand and great grands have you
> now?
>
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 5:33 PM Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No, no, no.
>>
>> On 1 June 2018 at 21:15, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>>
>>> Grimes, Damn autocorrect.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:12 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:
>>>
 Crimes?

 On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:11 PM Terry Blanton  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 1:42 PM Vibrator !  wrote:
>
>> @Chris - Weird, reminiscent of some kind of frame-dragging effect, or
>> 'remanence' of the Higgs field?  Sounds pretty whack either way, but hey
>> who am i to talk..
>>
>
> Frank Crimes, is that you inside the Vibrator?
>

>>
>>
>> --
>> *quae est ista quae progreditur quasi aurora **consurgens *
>> *pulchra ut luna electa ut sol terribilis ut acies ordinata *
>>
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Brian Ahern]

Here we have all the elements of a fine scam. He is taking the Rossi play book, 
page 1.


  1.
no independent data
  2.
no independent experiments
  3.
claim earlier experiments were wildly positive
  4.




From: Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 5:33 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

No, no, no.

On 1 June 2018 at 21:15, Terry Blanton 
mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Grimes, Damn autocorrect.

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:12 PM Terry Blanton 
mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Crimes?

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:11 PM Terry Blanton 
mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com>> wrote:


On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 1:42 PM Vibrator ! 
mailto:mrvibrat...@gmail.com>> wrote:
@Chris - Weird, reminiscent of some kind of frame-dragging effect, or 
'remanence' of the Higgs field?  Sounds pretty whack either way, but hey who am 
i to talk..

Frank Crimes, is that you inside the Vibrator?



--
quae est ista quae progreditur quasi aurora consurgens
pulchra ut luna electa ut sol terribilis ut acies ordinata

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[Brian Ahern]

It looks like $4M spent over about 18 months with no data at all.  Even if it 
worked, 30 kW is far too small. The payback period would be thousands of years!


How could anyone fall for this scam?  I'll bet the small unit in Brazil was 
rigged to produce an effect sufficient to separate an investor from his money.



From: Nigel Dyer 
Sent: Saturday, June 2, 2018 3:52 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

Its already been built and generating copious amounts of energy, or at
least that is what they claimed it would do...

https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frarenergia.com.br%2F=02%7C01%7C%7Cf510c40212644a5820fa08d5c8c273d7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636635659842957503=PbQ1KYVyJ5LPcY9VREw5GO%2FHaSdCfrYLghj%2BKzLY4C8%3D=0

Nigel


On 31/05/2018 18:27, Vibrator ! wrote:
> I've found Bessler's gain principle.  The energy density's obviously
> 'infinite', and power density's limited only by material constraints.
>
> A propulsion application is also implied, but not yet tested.
>
> I've put together some WM2D sims, independently metering all component
> variables of the input / output energy, for cross-referencing
> consistency - no stone is left unturned, and there are no gaps.  All
> values have also been checked with manual calcs.  The results are
> incontrovertible - this is neither mistake, nor psychosis.
>
>
>
> It's been a week since achieving certainty, yet all i've done in that
> time is stare in disbelief at the results.
>
> Yet it's no 'happy accident' either - i worked out the solution from
> first principles, then put together a mechanism that does what the
> maths do, confirming the theory.
>
> I'm understandably even more incredulous at the implications of the
> CoM violation than the CoE one, yet the latter's entirely dependent
> upon the former.  Both are being empirically measured, in a direct
> causal relationship.
>
>
> This absolutely demands immediate wider attention.
>
>
> But who in their right mind would even look at it?  How do i bring it
> to the attentions of the 'right' people - the ones that need to know
> about it, and who can join in the R - without resorting to futile
> crank-emails to universities and govt. departments etc.?
>
> I've wasted a week, so far.  Too long, already.
>
>
> Pretty much blinded in the headlights here.. i could sorely do with
> making a few bob off it, but at the same time it's too important to
> sit on - so how to reconcile these conflicting priorities?
>
> I'd like to post up the sims here, or at least provide a link to them,
> just to share the findings with ANYONE able to comprehend them...
> it's just classical mechanics (or at least, the parts that can
> actually be measured) - force, mass and motion.  The absolute basics.
> Simply no room for error or ambiguity. Unequivocal 'free' energy;
> currently around 190% of unity.  You definitely want to see this, and
> i desperately want to share it.
>
> What should i do though?  How does one proceed, in this kind of situation?