Re: [Vo]:Mechanical OU update
On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 1:19 AM Vibrator ! wrote: > Thank you - but sorry, what's "MEP"? > Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing. He's busy at the moment doing a computational fluid dynamics analysis for the tunnel ventilation system for Los Angeles Metro; but, he said it looked interesting and would "investigate". Cheers!
Re: [Vo]:Mechanical OU update
Thank you - but sorry, what's "MEP"? Last night i fully resolved the gain principle - it WASN'T caused by the spin and brake cycles sinking counter-momentum to gravity as intended. The basis of the system is an interaction that moves a pair of masses across the diameter of a rotating axis, whilst controlling the distance between them such that the system's moment of inertia is held constant throughout; this accommodated the asynchronous nature of the spin and brake cycles in relation to the GPE cycles sinking their counter-momenta, however it also turned out to be the cause of the energy gains when the spin'n'brake cycles were disabled for a control run.. Over the last week, i established that this constant-MoI radial translation was creating AND destroying energy on every full radial translation; it had been consistently creating slightly more energy than that destroyed, yielding the net gains being measured.. however the other night i finally realised what was going on, and that the destruction phase is entirely optional and unneccesary - we can just perform the gain phase and have done with it! In the high-res sim below, gravity is disabled (nothing whatsoever to do with it!): https://i.ibb.co/XszMzSM/v3.gif Here's the digits for that run: actuator = 0.378631362 solenoid = -0.320586999 motor = 0.499796942 net input = 0.557841305 KE rise = 0.75190 diff = +0.194058695 0.75190 / 0.557841305 = 1.35x unity Again, the inverse, 'destruction' phase is entirely optional and voluntary - there's simply no reason to incur it; the gain there is free and clear. The free energy term is '2nd-derivative centrifugal-PE' from a constant-MoI radial translation under angular acceleration. Normally, an output of centrifugal potential energy causes a proportionate increase in radius and thus MoI, causing angular velocity to decrease to conserve net angular momentum (the 'ice skater effect'); the drop in rotational KE from that angular deceleration being precisely equal to the CF-PE harnessed. So, if we take out 1 J of CF-PE, we expect a 1 J drop in rotational KE of the system.. ..but here, CF-PE is being output WITHOUT causing any MoI change. Hence, no deceleration, no rotKE drop, no inertial torque induced, and no mechanical transference of loads between the output CF work integral and the input motor work driving the angular acceleration - so the motor simply sees a constant 1 kg-m² MoI, being smoothly accelerated up to 1 rad/s, for a cost of ½ J, exactly per the KE equation ½Iw²... the increasing gap between the masses as they cross the diameter has netted an output of PE from the increasing CF force (due to the motor acceleration), even though no change in system MoI has occurred! Clear-cut mechanical OU. 135% in one smooth action.. Basically... Grimer: 1 Everyone else: 0 (incl. me) Nothing to do with gravity. Nothing to do with the efficiency of accumulating reactionless momentum. Apparently, thus, having no discernible adverse effects on the planet's resting momentum state, as feared from the intended scheme (phew, but am i pure evil or what?).. I've taken the day off work, just to try to take all this in... i'm thinking a long soak in the tub with a tall scotch.. but beyond that..? You currently have front row seats on the maddest game in town, guys.. Like i say, safe to read the thread backwards just to get up to speed on the current state of affairs.. only need to read it forwards for context. Any suggestions need to take reasonable account of my circumstances - i still depend on the day job, for now, so have a few hours a night at most, for this.. What next? Try to get funded (how)? Crank email someone - (Royal Society, Puthoff, Tajmar or etc.?) What does one do, generally, upon discovering mech OU? Besides the scotch, and maybe a stale cigar out the fridge? On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 2:11 AM Terry Blanton wrote: > I sent it to a friend and co-worker who is a MEP whiz. I'll post his > response here. >
Re: [Vo]:Mechanical OU update
I sent it to a friend and co-worker who is a MEP whiz. I'll post his response here.
Re: [Vo]:Mechanical OU update
Why no prototype ? Is there a minimum rotor speed necessary to show mechanical gain? This device doesn't seem too hard to prototype unless the reference to 1000 Hz implies a rotor turning at 6 RPM. Vibrator ! wrote: It's a genuine measurement, of a rig specifically designed to accumulate momentum by repeatedly sinking counter-momentum to gravity.
Re: [Vo]:Mechanical OU update
..at a guess, that "if it works then it validates his 'Eratz gravity' theory, although Lord knows what it is actually doing one way or the other.." I don't get the impression that anyone there's able to follow much if anything of what i'm doing, and most probably think it's an attempt at a GPE asymmetry.. only, not as good as the one they've just thought of. The general objective of BWF participants is to try to crack perpetual overbalance - essentially, a GPE asymmetry / 'gravity mill'.. ..hence why i'm reporting my progress here. It's OK, i expect ridicule - it's mechanical OU, goes with the territory - and i apologise for insulting your intelligence with such absurd claims. It's a genuine measurement, of a rig specifically designed to accumulate momentum by repeatedly sinking counter-momentum to gravity. The purpose was to try to consolidate more rotational KE from gravitationally-augmented asymmetric inertial interactions, than the GPE cost of absorbing their counter-momenta.. ..and to that end, it appears to work. As i've explained ad nauseum here and there, however, it's impossible to get a KE gain without altering Earth's resting momentum state - buy a free energy machine, get a free warp drive, not optional.. I'm convinced Bessler's 1717 winter demo caused the 1717 Christmas storm that wrecked the NW European coastline.. since we have the mode of causation, as well as the correlations in location and time.. If i'm wrong, hands up - everyone laugh at the crazy guy, no harm done. If OTOH i'm on to something.. All cards on the table - the whole thing's there in the thread, no secret sauce, just basic mechanics.. doing my best to minimise potential error sources, but the gain's persistent, and now hundreds of Joules above noise.. at what point do seek some kind of peer review from such findings? "Peers" = those able to actually review the work.. Honestly. The lengths Vorts go to in trying to follow what LENR researchers are up to.. mech. OU / reactionless momentum leaves everything else in the dust.. obsolescence. White elephants all round. And it's open research you're being invited to review.. to assist with, even.. On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 6:38 PM Terry Blanton wrote: > What does Grimer think? I believe he's on that list. > > Cheers! > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 6:26 AM Vibrator ! wrote: > >> ..rather than trying to re-summarise the whole thing here, anyone >> interested should review my current thread on the BWF; currently looking >> at 471 Joules in, for 854 Joules out, with an uncertainty of +/- 0.4 >> Joules, from this interaction: >> >> https://i.ibb.co/BPVMtbV/Fully-Active-low-res.gif >> (that's just a low-quality animation of the measured examples) >> >> >> It's basically sinking counter-momenta to gravity and accumulating the >> resulting momentum rise at constant energy cost (evolving linearly WRT >> velocity) for a squaring KE value. >> >> The energy gain is substantially greater than the GPE cost of rendering >> the effective N3 break. >> >> Current efficiency appears to be 181%, across the board - ie. you can put >> in as much as you want by raising the 'target relative speed'.. >> >> >> As ever, caveat emptor - just cos i ain't found the FUBAR yet don't mean >> it ain't there.. >> >> The thread's a meandering night-by-night research log, hypotheses all >> over the place, and so might be more informatively read backwards as >> forwards (you know how these things go): >> >> https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=172273#172273 >> >> Don't wanna waste anyone's time on the one hand, but wanna keep you guys >> in the loop if it's real.. i honestly don't know what more i could do with >> it if it is.. >> >> (i know it's a chore but would appreciate if the thread were checked >> first to see if specific questions are already answered, tho happy to >> oblige either way) >> >> >>
Re: [Vo]:Mechanical OU update
What does Grimer think? I believe he's on that list. Cheers! On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 6:26 AM Vibrator ! wrote: > ..rather than trying to re-summarise the whole thing here, anyone > interested should review my current thread on the BWF; currently looking > at 471 Joules in, for 854 Joules out, with an uncertainty of +/- 0.4 > Joules, from this interaction: > > https://i.ibb.co/BPVMtbV/Fully-Active-low-res.gif > (that's just a low-quality animation of the measured examples) > > > It's basically sinking counter-momenta to gravity and accumulating the > resulting momentum rise at constant energy cost (evolving linearly WRT > velocity) for a squaring KE value. > > The energy gain is substantially greater than the GPE cost of rendering > the effective N3 break. > > Current efficiency appears to be 181%, across the board - ie. you can put > in as much as you want by raising the 'target relative speed'.. > > > As ever, caveat emptor - just cos i ain't found the FUBAR yet don't mean > it ain't there.. > > The thread's a meandering night-by-night research log, hypotheses all over > the place, and so might be more informatively read backwards as forwards > (you know how these things go): > > https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=172273#172273 > > Don't wanna waste anyone's time on the one hand, but wanna keep you guys > in the loop if it's real.. i honestly don't know what more i could do with > it if it is.. > > (i know it's a chore but would appreciate if the thread were checked first > to see if specific questions are already answered, tho happy to oblige > either way) > > >
[Vo]:Mechanical OU update
..rather than trying to re-summarise the whole thing here, anyone interested should review my current thread on the BWF; currently looking at 471 Joules in, for 854 Joules out, with an uncertainty of +/- 0.4 Joules, from this interaction: https://i.ibb.co/BPVMtbV/Fully-Active-low-res.gif (that's just a low-quality animation of the measured examples) It's basically sinking counter-momenta to gravity and accumulating the resulting momentum rise at constant energy cost (evolving linearly WRT velocity) for a squaring KE value. The energy gain is substantially greater than the GPE cost of rendering the effective N3 break. Current efficiency appears to be 181%, across the board - ie. you can put in as much as you want by raising the 'target relative speed'.. As ever, caveat emptor - just cos i ain't found the FUBAR yet don't mean it ain't there.. The thread's a meandering night-by-night research log, hypotheses all over the place, and so might be more informatively read backwards as forwards (you know how these things go): https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=172273#172273 Don't wanna waste anyone's time on the one hand, but wanna keep you guys in the loop if it's real.. i honestly don't know what more i could do with it if it is.. (i know it's a chore but would appreciate if the thread were checked first to see if specific questions are already answered, tho happy to oblige either way)
