RE: [Vo]:A simple example of Mechanical Over-Unity
Can you identify parameters of a Mol. What units (mass velocity length angular momentum etc ) does a Mol have. The Link provided would not allow connection with my computer, A better description of what a Mol is would help. Bob Cook From: Vibrator ! Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 2:34:15 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:A simple example of Mechanical Over-Unity It looks to me like a fait accompli, but i might as well be claiming prince Albert in a can. Yet i NEED to know whether this is real or crass error. Some kind of resolution! It's just basic mechanics - force, mass & motion. I know there's people here with a good grasp of classical physics - and this really IS dead-simple - all i need is anyone confident enough in that knowledge to be prepared to 'call it', one way or the other. I'm on me lonesome here - no academic contacts whatsoever, and with the mother of all absurd claims.. What it is: - Changing MoI, whilst rotating, without performing any work against CF force. Decreasing and increasing MoI this way effectively creates and destroys rotational KE. - MoI is caused to 'flip', instantly, thus causing an instantaneous change in velocity, ie. a binary change in physical velocity, without physically accelerating, or equivalently, via an effectively infinite acceleration. - A series of Working Model sims demonstrating these results, tracking all input and output energy; the latter, calculated via two independent routes in parallel, with perfect agreement and in apparent confirmation of OU. There are two different forms of input work applied: - crude 'motors' - tho not meaningfully 'electrical'; they're simply torque controlled over angle, and so producing a "torque * angle" plot - 'linear actuators' - but again, merely the application of linear force controlled over a displacement, and again plotted accordingly So i've been taking these two integrals - at least, in those cases where's there's any input work at all - as 32,765 data points crunched with a Riemann sum via Excel. Happy to provide those if anyone wants to see 'em. Likewise, if anyone wants to see any variations / sanity checks, i can knock up more sims.. The thing is, in the most basic form of the interaction, there's no input work at all.. yet a 200% KE gain. With only a very trivial modification (gravity brought into play), the gain rises to 800% - partly because the torque * angle integral goes substantially negative.. I've solved it down to 1/10th of a microjoule, so the gain appears to be many orders over noise. Please - anyone - is this for real or have i completely lost it? https://drive.google.com/open?id=1P1tlUn7THSKZ0CjWaFHFzFtOfrYVY6Ls NB: MoI switch-downs greater than factors of two are equally feasible - so we could likewise square or cube rotKE with little more difficulty.. Climbing the walls here..
[Vo]:A simple example of Mechanical Over-Unity
It looks to me like a fait accompli, but i might as well be claiming prince Albert in a can. Yet i NEED to know whether this is real or crass error. Some kind of resolution! It's just basic mechanics - force, mass & motion. I know there's people here with a good grasp of classical physics - and this really IS dead-simple - all i need is anyone confident enough in that knowledge to be prepared to 'call it', one way or the other. I'm on me lonesome here - no academic contacts whatsoever, and with the mother of all absurd claims.. What it is: - Changing MoI, whilst rotating, without performing any work against CF force. Decreasing and increasing MoI this way effectively creates and destroys rotational KE. - MoI is caused to 'flip', instantly, thus causing an instantaneous change in velocity, ie. a binary change in physical velocity, without physically accelerating, or equivalently, via an effectively infinite acceleration. - A series of Working Model sims demonstrating these results, tracking all input and output energy; the latter, calculated via two independent routes in parallel, with perfect agreement and in apparent confirmation of OU. There are two different forms of input work applied: - crude 'motors' - tho not meaningfully 'electrical'; they're simply torque controlled over angle, and so producing a "torque * angle" plot - 'linear actuators' - but again, merely the application of linear force controlled over a displacement, and again plotted accordingly So i've been taking these two integrals - at least, in those cases where's there's any input work at all - as 32,765 data points crunched with a Riemann sum via Excel. Happy to provide those if anyone wants to see 'em. Likewise, if anyone wants to see any variations / sanity checks, i can knock up more sims.. The thing is, in the most basic form of the interaction, there's no input work at all.. yet a 200% KE gain. With only a very trivial modification (gravity brought into play), the gain rises to 800% - partly because the torque * angle integral goes substantially negative.. I've solved it down to 1/10th of a microjoule, so the gain appears to be many orders over noise. Please - anyone - is this for real or have i completely lost it? https://drive.google.com/open?id=1P1tlUn7THSKZ0CjWaFHFzFtOfrYVY6Ls NB: MoI switch-downs greater than factors of two are equally feasible - so we could likewise square or cube rotKE with little more difficulty.. Climbing the walls here..
[Vo]:Slides from Smith, Moore and George
Here is a short set of slides from a recent conference describing the work of Smith & George that has reportedly produced gamma rays and excess heat. There is no sample data in this presentation, but it does show the equipment. Affordable 'Hot and Dry' Reactors For LENR Research https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/7445-reactor-design-and-build-greccio-pdf/
