Re: [Vo]:A simple example of Mechanical Over-Unity

[John Shop]

Sorry - it seems I got the polarity of the reaction torque wrong.  The reaction 
torque from the orbiting motors acts to increase the rotation rate of the 
central rotor so that the total angular momentum as seen from the central 
bearing (which produces no torque as its motor is free-wheeling) remains 
constant.  Looking at your simulation it seems you have included this reaction 
torque as your central rotation rate does in fact double.

However I think now that what you have not counted is the energy that has to be 
provided to the orbiting motors in order to provide this change in rotation 
rate of the central rotor while "stopping" the orbiting rotors (with respect to 
absolute space).  From the point of view of the orbital motors, their 
rotor/stator pairs are stationary before this action and their rotors have to 
be accelerated with respect to their stator to a speed of twice the original 
rotation rate.  I suspect that this action takes exactly the 8J that gets added 
to the system giving a total of 16 after this action.  Moving the orbiting 
masses to their respective orbiting centres requires no net energy.

On 5/02/2019 11:03 am, John Shop wrote:
Hi Vibrator,

Since you NEED to know, I will point out where the fallacy lies.  When the 
orbiting motors activate to stop the orbiting rotors from rotating, you have 
neglected the reaction torque of these motors.  The reaction torque acts back 
on the central rotor, also stopping its rotation.

In fact while the orbiting motors are slowing and stopping the rotation of the 
orbiting rotors, they are absorbing energy from the system and acting as 
generators producing electrical energy back into the power supply.  Once they 
have brought the orbiting rotors to a stop, then their reaction torque will 
also have slowed and stopped the central rotor so that the complete system is 
stationary at that point in time.

So the 8 joules pumped in by the central motor, is sucked back out by the 
orbiting motors slowing the system down leaving no energy in the system and no 
motion at the completion of that operation.

This is just what my well educated intuition suggests will happen.  However I 
did not do any maths and so I might have got something wrong.  But at least 
these ideas should give you enough of a clue to unravel the mystery yourself.

On 1/02/2019 6:34 am, Vibrator ! wrote:
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..

Re: [Vo]:A simple example of Mechanical Over-Unity

[John Shop]

Hi Vibrator,

Since you NEED to know, I will point out where the fallacy lies.  When the 
orbiting motors activate to stop the orbiting rotors from rotating, you have 
neglected the reaction torque of these motors.  The reaction torque acts back 
on the central rotor, also stopping its rotation.

In fact while the orbiting motors are slowing and stopping the rotation of the 
orbiting rotors, they are absorbing energy from the system and acting as 
generators producing electrical energy back into the power supply.  Once they 
have brought the orbiting rotors to a stop, then their reaction torque will 
also have slowed and stopped the central rotor so that the complete system is 
stationary at that point in time.

So the 8 joules pumped in by the central motor, is sucked back out by the 
orbiting motors slowing the system down leaving no energy in the system and no 
motion at the completion of that operation.

This is just what my well educated intuition suggests will happen.  However I 
did not do any maths and so I might have got something wrong.  But at least 
these ideas should give you enough of a clue to unravel the mystery yourself.

On 1/02/2019 6:34 am, Vibrator ! wrote:
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..

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[John Shop]

On 5/06/2018 1:51 PM, John Berry wrote:
Actually, I have another one...

Take a large loop apply a current, we see that each side of the loop 
experiences a pushing outwards.

Now, we remove one side, from the loop and replace it with capacitor plates.

No we energize a current through our broken loop and each side feels a force 
pushing away from the center.
But, we only have 3 sides now, the 4th side is a displacement current, and 
while the displacement current creates a magnetic field, on what is the force 
placed?

It would seem that where the circuit completed through the electric permitivity 
of space, it would be space that is the charge carrier, maybe it is virtual 
particles being polarized?

The point is that while this circuit will only produce thrust for a moment 
before we need to reverse our connections, we can do so and the directions all 
reverse except the direction of thrust which is the same.

This is interesting as if you can put a current, if space can be polarized, 
then it can also be thrust against!
Indeed I also thought about this situation at great length a long time ago, and 
even built a device which might have worked.  However at the time I did not 
have an RF generator so tried to drive it by exciting the circuit with 
sparking.  I did not see any effect and doing some calculations suggested that 
any effect that may be obtained with reasonable componentry will be negligibly 
small.  How do you get even a fraction of an amp to flow through a capacitor 
with large spacing between the plates!?  Only by using very high frequencies!  
And then you need the same very high frequency magnetic field to be generated 
90 degrees out of phase with the displacement current passing through the 
capacitor to produce some force.  A very difficult experiment that *might* 
achieve a negligibly small effect!

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[John Shop]

On 5/06/2018 4:32 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
LOL have i not just clearly delineated the terms of their equivalence?

Allow me to put it more tangibly:

 - Apply a 9.81 N force vertically between two 1 kg masses, the moment both are 
dropped into freefall.

 - We observe a kind of inverted 'slinky drop' effect - the upper mass hovers 
stationary in mid-air, whilst the lower one plummets at 2 G.

 - We've thus input momentum to the system, by applying a force between two 
masses, but which has nonetheless only accelerated one of them.

 - Without the upper mass to push against, we couldn't've applied any further 
acceleration to the lower one, beyond that from gravity.

 - So the lower mass will reach a speed of 19.62 m/s in a one second drop time.

 - 1 kg @ 19.62 m/s = 19.62 kg-m/s.

 - Half this momentum came from gravity.

 - The other half came from the internally-applied 9.81 N force.

 - So we've definitely raised some 'reactionless momentum' here - with certain 
caveats of course.
I don't think so.  The earth has experienced an unbalanced attraction to 2 Kg 
masses in free-fall near its surface - so it will have accelerated upwards 
slightly to meet these masses (just as it accelerates upwards to meet the moon 
when the moon is overhead).

 - Now let's get rid of the lower mass, and replace it with an angular inertia, 
rotating about a fixed axis.

 - We can apply the 'downwards' end of the linear force to the rim, or else the 
axle of the rotor, such as via a ripcord or whatever.  Forget about the mass of 
the 'actuator' for now, just consider the raw distributions of momentum from 
the applied forces.

 - If we choose an MoI of '1', then as before, the upper 1 kg mass will hover 
stationary, experiencing equal 9.81 m/s accelerations in each direction, up as 
down, whilst the rotor spins up at the rate of 9.81 kg-m^2-rad/sec.
(I imagine you intended 19.62 kg-m^2-rad/sec^2 here?)

 - That MoI of '1' could be comprised of 1 kg at 1 meter radius...

 - ...or equally, 4 kg at 500 mm radius...

 - ...or 250 grams at 2 meter radius..

 - Or indeed any arbitrary distribution of mass and radius within practical 
limits.
Agreed but you haven't specified at what radius the ripcord is being applied 
to?  The moment of inertia is one thing (and it seems you are trying to keep it 
constant), but the radius at which you apply the force (via a ripcord or 
whatever) to produce torque, and spin-up the wheel is a separate parameter that 
you haven't discussed?

 - However, since 'radians' are a function of diameter of the rotor, the actual 
angular momentum we measure IN those units is by definition speed-dependent 
(kg-m^2-rad per second).  It's a relative measure - and a very useful one at 
that - but it also has an objective magnitude, a scalar quantity independent of 
its actual spatial dimensions!

We have proven this, since changing the MoI whilst maintaining the 
internally-applied 9.81 N force will break this balancing act, and the 
'suspended' 1 kg weight will instead rise or fall.
If you change the moment of inertia of something that is already spinning then 
its spin-rate and stored energy changes.  This is the well known effect that 
occurs when a spinning skater pulls in her arms.  Her moment of inertia 
decreases which means that spin rate must increase (to keep angular momentum 
the same), and likewise the energy stored in the spin must increase (she 
supplied this energy by pulling her arms in against centrifugal force).

Thus the equality of the magnitude of absolute inertia - independent of its 
time-dependent measurement dimensions - has been empirically proven.  You've 
just disproven anyone who tries to tell you it's conceptually 'impossible' to 
convert, much less compare, between them.
Sorry but I don't see your argument.  I am not sure what you mean by "absolute" 
inertia?  Are you speaking of inertia (=mass) or moment of inertia (=mass x 
radius^2) or maybe momentum (m v) or maybe angular momentum (m r^2 rad/s)?  
They are all very different quantities with different units and different 
dimensions and cannot be added or compared in magnitude.

Now, if i'd just Googled that question, i'd've come to the same conclusion as 
you and everyone else.

But having worked it out from first principles, i do not need to worry what 
anyone else thinks.  Hypothesise, test, rinse and repeat.  Whatever the result, 
it is what it is.  That's the only kinda 'Googling' that really counts.

The upshot of that equivalence, however... is an effective 'reactionless 
acceleration', with no change in GPE.

We've applied gravity to cancel or invert the sign of our counter-momentum.  
There's actually a few different ways of doing this, but the most interesting 
ones are of course those that enable the accumulation of such momentum, thus 
allowing its constant energy cost of production to diverge from its effective 
value as a function of the accumulating V^2 multiplier, via the standard KE 
terms.

Consider the energy 

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[John Shop]

On 5/06/2018 2:40 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
Your view of what is conserved and why is too simple, and essentially 
incomplete.

All force interactions perform work against the vacuum activity manifesting 
that force - the discrete, quantised energy exchanges between the respective 
force carriers in question, traded in units of h-bar - essentially, 'ambient' 
quantum momentum.

When we input mechanical energy to a such field, there is no number scribbled 
down in a book somewhere - rather, it's an emergent calculation determined by 
the application of the relevant F*d integrals being mediated at lightspeed - 
ie, essentially instantaneously, as they pertain to the respective dimensions 
of the given energy terms.

Thus if output and input energy terms are in different respective dimensions, 
any equivalence between net energies as a function of changes in time and space 
is dependent upon further conditions with regards to how each term scales in 
the other's domain.

If both input and output energy terms are in the same fields and domains, then 
their equality is a given.  And yet, it would be a step too far to conclude 
that the Joule we get back out was 'the same' Joule we put it.  When we spend 1 
J lifting a weight, so having performed work against gravity, there isn't a tab 
somewhere saying "gravity owes Bob 1 J".  The fact that we only get 1 J back 
out from the drop is simply an incidental consequence of the invariant input vs 
output conditions.  But it's not manifestly 'the same' Joule you put in - just 
the same amount of energy / work.
I agree with you.  It is not manifestly the same joule.  So depositing money in 
the bank may be a better illustration (or pumping electrical power into the 
electricity grid).  I can deposit $1000 in one city in $20 bills and pull the 
same amount out in another city in $50 bills.  It is not manifestly the same 
cash that I have taken back out, but the bank makes sure that the amounts 
always balance!  So Nature does the same job as the bank tellers and 
accountants.  Whenever you do the calculation correctly, after allowing for 
incomings and outgoings, the overall energy balance sheet always balances 
perfectly - which is almost the same as saying that gravity owes Bob 1 J!

You might wonder who the tellers and accountants are that work for mother 
Nature.  The simple answer is that they are Newton's equations.  When applied 
correctly the spreadsheet always ends up balanced because the equations 
themselves are balanced.  I believe that you can achieve an imbalance, but not 
by operating in accord with Newton's equations.  You have to do something a lot 
more subtle and sneaky and discover an effect that has not been noticed and a 
term that has not been included in the equations.  And it is bound to be a 
small effect (eg < 1% of energy being exchanged) or it would have been noticed 
a long time ago.

With the right change in those determinant conditions, we can get more out, or 
less.  An under-unity, or over-unity result.


Consider the case for so-called 'non-dissipative' loss mechanisms, in which the 
energy in question has NOT simply been radiated away to low-grade heat.  I'm 
talking about 'non-thermodynamic' losses, in the literal sense.  For example:

 - Due to Sv (entropy viscosity - the subject of Rutherford's first paper in 
1886), a small NdFeB magnet will rapidly leap across a small airgap to latch 
onto a lump of 'pig iron', in less time than is required for the iron's 
subsequent induced magnetisation ('B', in Maxwell's terms) to reach its 
corresponding threshold (Bmax, or even saturation density - Bmax - if its 
coercivity is low enough).

So the iron's level of induced B, from the neo, continues increasing long after 
the mechanical action's all over.

We could monitor this changing internal state, using a simple coil and audio 
amplifier, tuning in to the so-called Barkhausen jumps, as progressively 
harder-pinned domains succumb to the growing influence of their 
lower-coercivity neighbors.   After some time, the clicking noise abates, and 
so we know the sample's at Bmax.

We now prise them apart again, however because B has risen, so has the 
mechanical force and thus work involved in separating them.

Quite simply, due to the time-dependent change in force, which did not occur 
instantaneously at lightspeed, the system is mechanically under-unity - it 
outputs less energy during the inbound integral, than must be input during the 
outbound integral over the same distance.

So we could input 2 J, but only get 1 J back out.
By my calculation you have got nothing out.  You let the magnet fly and collide 
into the pig-iron so that the 1 J you might have recovered from its kinetic 
energy ended up as heat during the collision.

Following this the permanent magnet slowly magnetises the pig-iron.  To the 
extent that this is slow (due to magnetic viscosity) and occurs in jumps 
(generating Barkhausen noise), this process is lossy and generates 

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[John Shop]

On 5/06/2018 12:30 AM, John Berry wrote:
John, there might be the odd exception.

I can give you an example that seems to break the CoM and CoE, it isn't 
practical.  Now there might be an explanation, MAYBE it produces a photos that 
explains the propulsive effects...  But I doubt it.

Now, the easiest way to explain (though there is a way this can work without 
switching and just use DC electromagnets or even permanent magnets to affect 
Inertial mass positively or negatively)  this is if you have an electromagnet 
establish a field, a large field

And then you have a second electromagnet turn on suddenly, and it is attracted 
or repelled.

Then, before the magnetic field from the second electromagnet can affect the 
first electromagnet, you turn off the first electromagnet.
Standard physics says that the momentary field from the second electromagnet 
will propagate outwards from it at light speed so that it passes completely 
through the first electromagnet and affects it to just the extent that it would 
have affected it if the field propagation was instantaneous.  So after a very 
short time, CoM is restored.  I am confident that if you were to include the 
momentum of the field in the calculation, then CoM would be continuously 
satisfied over all space.  (That is after all how physicists would work out the 
momentum of the field - by *assuming* that the total must always be conserved!)

So now you have gained thrust from one electromagnet, but the other has 
experienced no forces.

As I say, a version without switching can be envisioned where one magnet, or 
both are suddenly accelerated in the same direction so that one moves deeper 
into the field of the other, and the other moves out of the field, so one finds 
the attraction or repulsion between then increased, the other finds it 
decreased as neither sees the "new" or current position for the other magnet.

By doing this you can create without and doubt thrust, break the CoM and 
therefore the CoE...

And the only way it could fail is if you prove that magnetic fields, 
near-fields transfer forces and information INSTANTLY which Einstein would 
consider a blow.

This is not wrong, Unless as I said that a bit fat photon carries all that 
momentum in the opposite direction.

I personally cannot see where there would be a cost of energy though for the 
photon to be coming from.
There is something usually called "radiation damping" which is the mechanical 
effect on moving charge that is the *reaction force* of suddenly accelerating 
or decelerating the charge.  After this sudden acceleration, its effect then 
radiates outward at light speed and can finally cause acceleration of remote 
charges - which finally balance the CoM equations for solid matter (which were 
unbalanced while the radiation was in transit).

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[John Shop]

On 5/06/2018 12:37 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
Consider a 1 kg weight, connected by a pulley cord to another mass that slides 
horizontally without friction.  You may verify that the rate of change of net 
system momentum is a constant, invariant of the ratio of gravitating to 
non-gravitating mass - taking gravity as 9.81 N, it is precisely thus 9.81 
kg-m/s per kg of gravitating mass.

So, the amount of non-gravitating mass could be anything from zero to infinity, 
but regardless of whether the gravitating mass is rising or falling, the rate 
of change of net system momentum is always 9.81 p/s/kg (where p=mV).

This is not, as one might suspect, a consequence of Galileo's principle - that 
gravity defies F=mA - but rather a direct manifestation of it.  Same-same, no 
matter what force we apply.

Now switch out that linear-sliding mass for an angular inertia instead.  If we 
measure its angular inertia in terms of kg/m^2, and given that moment of 
inertia (MoI) is equal to mass times radius squared, we can select a mass of 1 
kg at 1 meter radius for an MoI of '1'.

If we measure its angular velocity in terms of radians per second, then we have 
numerical parity with its linear equivalent for an equal distribution of 
absolute momentum - that is, if we applied a linear to angular force between 
them of 1 Newton for 1 second, we obtain 1 kg-m/s of linear momentum, and also 
1 kg-m^2-rad/sec of angular momentum.

Likewise, if we employ a 1 kg drop-weight to torque up that MoI, the system 
gains 9.81 p of net momentum per second.

Since they're equal absolute magnitudes of inertia, albeit in their respective 
dimensions, the net system velocity remains equally-distributed between them.

Hence with 9.81 p of net system momentum, we have 4.905 p on each inertia - 1 
kg dropping at 4.905 m/s, and an MoI of '1' rotating at 4.905 rad/s.

However, since the objective distance 1 radian corresponds to is dependent upon 
the dimensions of the circle in question (it's a relative, not absolute, 
quantity), this same point applies to the 'magnitudes' of angular momentum 
we're measuring for any given angular velocity; so for instance if we double 
the mass radius, then per mr^2 we quadruple the MoI,
All looks OK (even if rather strange language) to here.
but also halve the relative (angular?) velocity compared to the linear value 
wherein inertia is a fixed function of rest mass.  Hence, repeating the 1 
second, 1 kg drop, we'd again obtain 4.905 p on the weight, but '9.81' p on the 
MoI - for a 'net' total of '14.715' p
This is numerically correct but dimensionally incorrect (which is maybe why you 
use the quotes).  Angular momentum does not have the same dimensions as linear 
momentum and so they really cannot be added in this fashion (just as you can't 
add 4.905 meters to 9.81 square-meters and obtain a reasonable result as 14.715 
somethings).
... i'm using scare-quotes there to highlight my point; the objective value of 
the absolute magnitudes of momentum and their distribution remains 9.81 p/s for 
the net system, regardless of how the angular component is represented.

.  .  .

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[John Shop]

On 4/06/2018 11:19 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
.  .  .
The only precondition there is that we can apply a force between two inertias, 
which nonetheless only accelerates one of them.
This I suggest is your problem.  If you apply a force between two masses or 
inertias, then one must accelerate in the opposite direction to the other 
(Newton's first law).  If one of them is massive enough (eg make it the earth), 
then only the light one is accelerated by any measurable amount (but the tiny 
acceleration of the heavy one ensures that momentum is conserved).

You could apply a force between two equal inertias so that one accelerates 
forward and the other accelerates backwards, and then bounce one of them off a 
wall fixed to the earth say.  Now you would have them both moving in the same 
direction and with the same speed.  But their total kinetic energy would be 
equal to that put in during the acceleration phase (the bounce being elastic 
and conservative).  So each would contain say 0.5 joules of energy for a total 
of one joule put in by the initial acceleration impulse.  Let's call this 
square one.

At this stage you could then apply the same accelerating impulse as the first 
time between the two inertias (which are now both travelling along together) 
and the speed of one would double, while the other would become stationary.  
Here the kinetic energy of one has gone up by a factor of 4 (due to v^2) to 
become 2 joules while the energy of the other has gone down to zero - the total 
being the 2 joules that have been put in by the two accelerations (so no gain). 
 Call this square two.

Then we inelastically collide them (as by a length of string being pulled 
taut), equalising their velocity, and keep repeating that process, whilst 
monitoring input / output efficiency (how much energy we've spent vs how much 
we have).
As you note, inelastic collisions waste kinetic energy by turning it into heat. 
 So joining the stationary mass to the travelling mass inelastically with a 
piece of string will produce a combined speed which is just the same as the 
speed of both masses before applying the second impulse (from conservation of 
momentum).  So the entire effect of the second impulse will have been undone 
taking us back to square one.

I see no way to progress beyond square two that does not simply take us back to 
square one?

Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU

[John Shop]

On 1/06/2018 5:35 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
.  .  .
The thing is, a real model is inherently suspect - defeating its ostensible 
purpose.  Batteries and motors can be hidden, etc.
If you make it out of clear perspex with the minimum steel parts like bearings, 
springs, etc then there is nowhere to hide batteries.

.  .  .  you've still no idea what the putative gain mechanism is.
Since it requires new physics, this is unavoidable until the new physics 
mechanism that provides the gain can be guessed at.

Now consider that you have the same thing in simulation - except now, the thing 
has its entire guts out.  You can see the values of everything, in every field. 
 Everything is independently metered, using standard formulas that can be 
manually checked by anyone.  So you can independently calculate the input and 
output work integrals, from their respective dependent variables, which are 
also all clearly displayed, and confirm for yourself that everything is being 
presented accurately.  You can immediately replicate the results on the back of 
an envelope, from first principles.
Since all physics calculations and simulations are FOUNDED on conservation of 
energy, such simulations CANNOT produce "overunity".  If they do seem to 
produce it then you know you have a BUG in your code and by checking "the input 
and output work integrals" you can pin down which formula you have entered 
incorrectly, by finding the exact process in which excess energy appears (or 
disappears).  It is only when you get a perfect energy balance throughout (as 
well as CoM, etc) that you know your code is finally working.

On 4/06/2018 1:03 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
.  .  . i've already done it.  .  .  No New physics.
Sorry, if there is "No New physics" then you can't have done it.  You have 
simply made a mistake.  I suggest you find a friend who is good at physics to 
check your equations for the term(s) which you must have neglected or included 
in error.  Even if the person does not understand what you tell them, you can 
often discover the mistake yourself while trying to explain it to someone else 
at a detailed enough level.

If you had built something which you claimed clearly worked (like Bessler did), 
then you could be right and you could have made an amazing (re)discovery that 
would require all the basic physics text books to need correcting with the NEW 
PHYSICS that your working model has demonstrated.  But if it is just maths and 
simulation applied to standard known physics, then everybody who knows this 
stuff KNOWS that you must have made a mistake.  . . .  Sorry to be the bearer 
of bad news.

Consider an illustration that might help.  Supposing you started with a litre 
of water in a flask, and decided to pass it through some very complicated 
transformation processes.  So you might boil it to a vapour, condense it in a 
fractional distillation column, run fractions through filters of various sorts, 
freeze some and grind it to a paste, and so on, ad nauseum.  In the end, no 
matter what you did to it, you will not have managed to increase or decrease 
the number of molecules of water through any of these processes.  The amount of 
water at the end would be just the same as what you started with - and almost 
all well educated people would refuse to believe otherwise.  Without NEW 
CHEMISTRY you cannot ever get an overunity production of water molecules.

Well the same is true of energy.  You can transform it in far more ways than 
you can molecules, but through all these processes, the number of joules (just 
as the number of molecules) remains constant.  Physicists know this and CANNOT 
believe otherwise.  Unless you can propose some NEW PHYSICS to explain how the 
extra joules came to appear within the system, it is simply not possible to 
believe.  All the physics equations that we have are based on the conservation 
of energy because we have never had a system in captivity to study that breaks 
this law.

Re: [Vo]:Fission may be the best fit for future LENR

[John Shop]

As the smoke cleared Brian Ahern mounted the barricade and roared out:

I use outlook for e-mails.How do you block certain senders?


From: Che 
.  .  .


Best to filter all vortex mail to its own folder so that it doesn't get in the 
way of real email and you can delete en-mass when required.


Alternatively if it is only one annoying sender (and if I guess right), then 
you probably just have to mention to our list patron Bill Beatty that it looks 
like our petty-bourgeois grok is back and starting to get up lots of peoples 
noses - and Bill will banish him to vortexB again!

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[John Shop]

On 18/03/2017 2:23 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

The fact is that almost every educated and intelligent person would regard 
telepathy as supernatural . . .

First, I regard it as mythical, not supernatural. There is no solid evidence 
for it. Second, I am sure that if does exist, it is natural, because so many 
other things people used to think are supernatural or inexplicable turned out 
to be explicable.
I am amazed that you have the gall to trot out the usual "there is no evidence" 
right in the face of the very clear evidence that I pointed out and called 
"mind blowing"!  I guess once your mind is made up you really don't want to be 
bothered with evidence.  It is sad that bigotry is so prevalent among people 
that supposedly espouse the scientific method of determining truth.

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[John Shop]

On 17/03/2017 10:04 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> wrote:
I don't think machines will be able to duplicate what a bird brain can do, any 
time, ever.  Machines which we can invent are things that we can understand 
almost completely.
I do not think there is rigorous proof of this. On the contrary, decades ago, 
computers began doing things that  people considered creative, such as 
re-inventing devices that AT patented in the early 20th century, and winning 
at chess and go. So far, every time people have set a goal post and claimed 
"computers will never do this" the people have been wrong. They have responded 
by moving the goal posts and saying, "that is not intelligent after all."
All the advances that have been made are ones which can be imagined and 
achieved with sufficiently advanced technology.  However AFAIK all of our great 
minds have so far failed to come to grips with consciousness and some (eg 
Penrose) have demonstrated that human minds at least can do what no computable 
algorithms can do.  When our best minds can't even imagine how something might 
be done given any imaginable computing ability, and there appears to be proof 
that conciousness can do the non-computable, I suggest that AI (being based on 
computable algorithms) will never achieve it.

In any case in order to achieve the telepathic ability that seems to regularly 
occur between consiousnesses (which was the thrust of my original post), we 
will clearly need some new physics which has not yet been dreamed of.  Indeed 
it is so far from what we imagine possible that most will deny that it is even 
occurring!

  However consciousness, even animal consciousness, is something we will never 
understand sufficiently to create it, because it is a supernatural phenomenon.”

Supernatural phenomena do not exist, by definition. The universe and every 
particle in it is governed by uniform laws of nature. There are no exceptions 
to them. Any phenomenon that occurs in the universe is natural, by definition, 
and explicable in principle.
While you are correct, you cheapen our language by being pedantic about what 
useful adjectives *should* mean.  The fact is that almost every educated and 
intelligent person would regard telepathy as supernatural - even though in the 
end it must be incorporated into our understanding of nature and thus become 
"natural".  One could argue that it is also a physical phenomenon.  However we 
really need an adjective to differentiate between the physical world that we 
can touch and feel and the invisible world of telepathy and disincarnate 
intelligence and conciouness - the super-physical or super-natural.

At least, that is how things appear to be. That is the basis of science. No 
exceptions have been discovered so far, and there is no reason to think that 
brains or intelligence is an exception. A great deal is known about how brains 
work, and there are no pending mysteries that seem to be outside the known laws 
of physics and chemistry.
Only if you walk around with your eyes shut and ears blocked and refuse to 
notice them!  Did you even look at the evidence or read the guys paper?  How do 
you explain telepathy within our known laws of physics and chemistry!?

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[John Shop]

On 17/03/2017 9:43 PM, bobcook39...@gmail.com wrote:
>> "consciousness, . . . is a supernatural phenomenon."
> RIGHT-ON.  Like virtual quarks and spooky action at a distance, and 
> other real phenomena.
I am surprised that you agreed so readily that telepathy between 
consciousnesses is a real phenomenon, and as common and acceptable as 
quantum spooky action-at-a-distance!  (or did you miss the telepathy bit 
of the argument?)

Re: [Vo]:12 years from now

[John Shop]

On 17/03/2017 2:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

. . .
I see no reason why this will not happen sooner or later. Machines are far from 
being able to do this now, because they have brains roughly the size of a 
bird's brain. Birds do not understand human language.
. . .
So I believed until quite recently.  It appears that some birds can not only 
understand what you say but understand what you are *thinking* without you 
giving any visible or audible clue!  They can also compose grammatically 
correct sentences in reply and all this with a brain the size of half a walnut!

Here is a video to tickle your interest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UX4d2nb7yU
Here is the paper reporting all the precautions taken and statistical methods 
used to obtain the result:
http://www.sheldrake.org/research/animal-powers/testing-a-language-using-a-parrot-for-telepathy
Other papers by the same scientist are listed here:
http://www.sheldrake.org/research
You will notice that there are quite a few in very high impact journals 
including a review paper.  (It is very difficult to author a review paper 
because they are almost always by invitation only, and you will only be invited 
after you have become the recognized expert of a particular field).  So this is 
not some backyard ignoramus messing about, but a world-class scientist.

Mind blowing isn't it!  You can also checkout some popular videos with 
information on some other areas of his research:
Dogs knowing when their owner leaves for home:
https://youtu.be/DkrLJhBC3X4
(He gives plenty more dog evidence but this segment was created in response to 
lies by a skeptic)
People knowing who has rung before they answer the phone:
http://youtu.be/_tQe7NXIcnw

I don't think machines will be able to duplicate what a bird brain can do, any 
time, ever.  Machines which we can invent are things that we can understand 
almost completely.  However consciousness, even animal consciousness, is 
something we will never understand sufficiently to create it, because it is a 
supernatural phenomenon.